Eupolis, Testimonia and Aiges – Demoi (frr. 1–146). Introduction, Translation, Commentary 9783946317111

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
Introduction
Testimonia
Αἶγες (Aiges)
Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (Astrateutoi ê Androgynoi)
Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄
Βάπται (Baptai)
Δῆμοι (Dêmoi)
Addenda and Corrections to Vols. II–III
Bibliography
Indices

Citation preview

Fragmenta Comica Eupolis Einleitung, Testimonia und Aiges – Demoi Autolykos I, II Testimonia Baptai Aiges Astrateutoi Demoi vel Androgynoi

VerlagAntike

RZ_Titelei_FrC_Band_8.3_Eupolis_. 13.11.14 18:36 Seite 1

Fragmenta Comica · Band 8.1

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 8.1 · Eupolis, Einleitung, Testimonia und frr. 1–146

RZ_Titelei_FrC_Band_8.3_Eupolis_. 13.11.14 18:36 Seite 3

S. Douglas Olson

Eupolis, Testimonia and Aiges – Demoi (frr. 1–146) Introduction, Translation, 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.

© 2017 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 978-3-946317-11-1

www.verlag-antike.de

For Benjamin W. Millis

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

9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Testimonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Αἶγες (Aiges) (“Goats” or “Nanny-Goats”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91 91 92

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (Astrateutoi ê Androgynoi) (“Draft-evaders or Effeminates”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

154 154 155

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (“Autolykos I and II”) . Testimonia . . . . . Introduction . . . . Fragments . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

180 180 183 187

Βάπται (Baptai) (“Baptizers” or “Dyers”) Testimonia . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . Fragments . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

233 233 239 245

∆ῆµοι (Dêmoi) (“Rural Districts”) . Testimonia . . . Introduction . . Fragments . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

286 286 295 311

Addenda and Corrections to Vols. II–III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

473

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

475

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

509

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

9

Preface Although this is properly the first volume of my study of the literary remains of the Athenian comic playwright Eupolis, it is also the third to appear, Volume  III (containing a text and commentary on the fragments without play-title) having been printed in 2014, Volume II (treating frr. 147–325) in 2016. The advantage of working backwards in this fashion is that I was able to come to grips with the entire corpus before producing the general introduction with which this volume begins. The order in which the books appeared has nonetheless meant that addenda and corrections in Volumes II–III appear at the end of Volume I rather than at the end of Volume III (with corrections of Volumes I–II), where the reader would normally expect them. My apologies to those who find this arrangement confusing. When I came to Freiburg with a Humboldt Research Award in the fall of 2011, I had little understanding of the Heidelberg Academy Komfrag project and no expectation that my life would soon be caught up so wholly within it. The years since then have been enormously enriching both academically and personally, and I am grateful for all the opportunities extended to me. In particular, I would like once again to extend my thanks to Bernhard Zimmermann for his leadership of the Komfrag project, and to Stelios Chronopoulos for guiding these complicated documents through the production process. My own work on Eupolis builds not only on the magisterial Kassel–Austin edition of the fragmentary comic poets, but also on more recent studies by Storey, Telò and Napolitano. Although I frequently disagree with these scholars on matters both large and small, I have learned a great deal from all of them and thus stand to a considerable extent on their shoulders. The majority of the work on this volume was completed during the 2015– 2016 academic year, for most of which I was a Senior Fellow at the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies and a Marie Curie Fellow of the European Union. Final copy was prepared at the Helsinki Collegium, where I was a Core Fellow for the 2016–2017 academic year. I am grateful to the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota for modifying my normal teaching responsibilities to allow me to accept these fellowships. This volume is dedicated to Benjamin Millis, a good friend and the best classical philologist I have ever known. Helsinki, 6 April 2017

11

Introduction 1. Name and Identity Nothing is known of Eupolis (PA 5936; PAA 442535) himself beyond the claim in the Suda (test. 1) that his father was called Sosipolis and that—seemingly like all or almost all comic poets competing at the City Dionysia and Lenaea festivals in his time—he was an Athenian citizen. The name Eupolis is borne by a handful of other men (a dozen additional 5th-/4th-century exx. in LGPN ii s.v.), including a candidate for ostracism and thus an active politician in the 480s BCE (PAA 442630; from the deme Thorai); a Hellenotamias of 410/9 BCE (PA 5941; PAA 422620; from the deme Aphidna); and two members of the 5th-/4th-century liturgical class, Eupolis son of Apollodorus? (PA 5935; PAA 442560; late 5th c.) and Eupolis son of Pronapes of the deme Aixone (PA 5937; PAA 442590; trierarch in 334/3 BCE). Whether the comic poet Eupolis was related to one or more of these men is impossible to say, but he must have had a good education and been free to devote himself to writing when he was young, leaving little doubt that his family was well-to-do. We know of no other member of Eupolis’ family who was a poet, and he died too young (see Chronology and Career below) for his sons—if he had any—to have had the opportunity to learn the business from him, as Aristophanes’ sons for example seemingly did from their own father.

2. Chronology and Career According to the Suda (test. 1), Eupolis staged his first comedy when he was seventeen years old; Anon. de Com. III (test. 2a) puts this performance in 429 BCE, whereas Eusebius (test. 6a) has it in 427 BCE. Taxiarchoi likely belongs to 428 BCE (see the general introduction to that play, Date), so Anon. de Com. is likely right on this count at least, putting Eupolis’ birth in 447/6 BCE and making him a more or less exact contemporary of Aristophanes. The Suda further reports that Eupolis died in the course of the Peloponnesian War in a shipwreck (sc. a naval battle) in the Hellespont. The plays are all plausibly dated to the 420s–late 410s BCE; none of the fragments refers to a person or event that unambiguously belongs after 412 BCE; and the idea that Eupolis died in the second half of the 410s BCE finds some modest support in another—otherwise patently fantastic—story (test. 3 with n.), according to which Alcibiades reacted to the depiction of himself in Baptai by drowning

12

Eupolis

the play’s author on the way to Sicily, i. e. as part of the preliminaries to the Athenian expedition that invaded the island in 415 BCE. The notice in the Suda is thus normally taken to refer to the Battle of Cynosema in 411 BCE, meaning that Eupolis’ career lasted only about seventeen years. That a certain Eupolis appears in a list of battle casualties seemingly from the same period (test. dub. 51) does not prove the thesis regarding the date of the comic poet’s death correct, for the name is not unique (see Name and Identity, above). But neither is it common, and nothing is lost by assuming that this is our Eupolis, just as nothing is gained by denying the possibility.1 The Suda assigns Eupolis a total of seven victories at the City Dionysia and the Lenaea contests, and the Victors List for the Lenaea (test. 12) gives him three triumphs there, meaning that the other four must have come at the City Dionysia. The Lists show that Eupolis was victorious after Aristophanes (so after 426 BCE) at the City Dionysia (test. 11), and before him (so before 425 BCE) at the Lenaea (test. 12). He was thus extremely successful as a very young man, and the other evidence we have regarding the careers of the individuals whose names appear before and after Eupolis in the Victors Lists makes it clear that he and Aristophanes were the two most brilliant stars of a fresh generation of comic poets that burst onto the Athenian dramatic scene in the mid- to late 420s BCE. Beyond this, we know that Noumêniai took third place at the Leneae in 425 BCE, when Aristophanes’ Acharnians took first (test. 13a), and that Kolakes took first place at the City Dionysia in 421 BCE,

1

Thus also Storey 2003. 53. The entry for Eupolis in the print version of PAA largely follows Storey’s occasionally problematic chronology for the individual comedies and contains a number of significant oversights, obscurities and errors. In particular: (1) The potential connection to the war-casualty Eupolis (PAA 442520) is ignored. (2) Eupolis’ first victory at the City Dionysia (test. 11) was not necessarily in 424 BCE, which is merely one possible date (actually 425, 424 or at the latest 421 BCE), while his first victory at the Lenaea (test. 12) did not necessarily come in 426, which is merely the latest possible date. (3) The most important prosopographical reference in Chrysoun genos is to Cleon in power (fr. 316.1). (4) The date of Autolykos II (“reedited and performed a year or later”, sc. than 420 BCE) is in fact obscure. (5) Dêmoi is unlikely to date as early as 418 BCE, just as Taxiarchoi is unlikely to date as late as 415 BCE. (6) The Phormio mentioned in Dêmoi (fr. 138) is not the late 5th-century Athenian general put onstage as a character in Taxiarchoi (thus implicitly PAA, by failing to differentiate between the two figures) but the mid-6th-century Athenian archon. (7) Fr. 41 of Astrateutoi makes no reference to Cleonymus, who is not in fact mentioned in the play. (8) Platonius On the Differentiation of Comedy (test. 35; unhelpfully cited as “Platon 1 3, line 13”)) is irrelevant to the question of the date and place of Eupolis’ death.

Introduction

13

when Aristophanes’ Peace took third (test. 13c). But other evidence leaves little doubt that Eupolis and Aristophanes were active and aggressive rivals (see Section 8, below), and they likely competed against one another repeatedly for as long as Eupolis was alive. The Suda credits Eupolis with seventeen comedies, whereas Anon. de Com. III gives him fourteen. Seventeen titles are known, two of them (Hybristodikai and Lakônes) dubious. The figures offered by the Suda and Anon. de Com. III can be reconciled if Hybristodikai and Lakônes are removed from the count and one assumes that Autolykos I and Autolykos II were not consistently distinguished (as the sources that cite the fragments of those plays make clear was the case). But alternative titles or the like might be the source of the problem instead—Müller-Strübing, for example, believed that Autolykos II and Philoi were the same play—and the question is today beyond solution. Assuming sixteen authentic plays, a death in 411 BCE and seven victories, Eupolis took the prize at one festival or the other on an almost every-other-year basis throughout the course of his career and over 40% of the time when he presented a comedy, more than twice as good as what ought to have been an average record, if five poets competed at every festival, and better than the most distinguished comic playwright of the previous generation, Cratinus (nine victories with twenty-four? plays = 37.5%). Only four of Eupolis’ comedies are securely dated:2 Noumêniai (Lenaea 425 BCE), Marikas (Lenaea 421 BCE), Kolakes (City Dionysia 421 BCE) and one of the Autolykos comedies, probably Autolykos I (420 BCE, festival uncertain). Of the other plays, internal evidence suggests that Taxiarchoi belongs to the early 420s BCE, Chrysoun genos to 422 BCE or earlier and Poleis to the late 420s BCE. Heilotes and Aiges are generally taken to belong to the 420s BCE as well and so to the first half of Eupolis’ career, to which at least nine plays can thus be alloted. Baptai is generally dated to around 416 BCE, Dêmoi to 412 BCE, and Autolykos II to sometime in the 410s BCE and so to the second half of Eupolis’ career, to which at least three plays are thus alloted. Astrateutoi, Philoi and Prospaltioi are best regarded as undated, but need not all be assigned to the 410s BCE simply because this balances out the count offered above; perhaps Eupolis began his career writing very rapidly and then, for reasons we cannot know and need not speculate regarding, abruptly reduced his dramatic output. For Eupolis’ use of a theatrical producer—an ill-documented but probably common practice for late 5th-century comic poets—when he put on one of the Autolykos plays in 420 BCE, see test. 15 with n.

2

For detailed discussion, see Date in the introductions to the individual comedies.

14

Eupolis

3. Transmission and Reception That Eupolis’ comedies were re-staged in local Attic settings after their initial performances in the Theater of Dionysus is a reasonable if unprovable assumption. That some were put on by travelling Athenian actors’ companies in Southern Italy in the mid-4th century BCE, on the other hand, seems clear from a theatrical scene depicted on a Paestan bell-krater dating to around 350 BCE and plausibly interpreted as representing an otherwise unknown scene from Dêmoi (test. *viii = adesp. com. fr. 64). At some point in the early Hellenistic period, copies of as many of the plays as could be found were assembled in the Library at Alexandria. Noumêniai had already been lost by then (test. i), although evidence of its existence was preserved in the didascalic records, against which the Library’s holdings were checked. The vast majority of the fragments of the plays cited by the later scholarly and lexicographic sources discussed below seem to go back to scholarly work carried out at Alexandria and elsewhere in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Much of this work appears to have consisted of mining the texts for historical, literary, linguistic, grammatical and metrical evidence of all sorts. That the individuals involved in producing such research felt much interest e. g. in what Eupolis had to say about Athenian politics or in other larger tendencies, themes or arguments in his comedies is not apparent, at least in the material preserved for us. Papyrus fragments of the texts of Dêmoi (frr. 99–*100) and Prospaltioi (fr. *260) and of commentaries on Aiges (POxy. 5160), Marikas (fr. 192), Prospaltioi (fr. 259, a separate document from the one that preserves portions of the text itself) and Taxiarchoi (fr. 268) show both that Eupolis’ comedies were widely read in Greek-speaking Egypt in the late Roman period and that substantial efforts were made in the Library in Alexandria to render the plays comprehensible to contemporary readers. POxy. 5160 is rich in references to this—now otherwise almost entirely vanished—exegetic tradition (frr. b, f, g), which was consolidated first by Didymus in the 1st century BCE and then by Didymus’ successor Symmachus in the 1st/2nd century CE.3 A similar interest in the comedies seems to be apparent in Rome in the Imperial period, when a number of Latin authors refer to Eupolis as a major literary figure, except that these sources also by and large display little more than commonplace knowledge of the content of the plays themselves (test. 22–6; 33). Indeed, even the Atticizing Greek author Lucian in the 2nd CE does not appear to have more than a vague general sense of what went on in a few of Eupolis’ most

3

See test. 48.

Introduction

15

famous comedies, although his work too betrays a general conviction that a well-read and intellectually sophisticated person ought to be fully informed on such matters. Nor does any preserved scholarly source after the Antiatticist (2nd century CE) obviously cite direct from the text of the plays themselves, as opposed to drawing on and reworking older biographical or lexicographic sources, rhetorical handbooks or the like. The general impression created is thus that Eupolis continued to be regarded and cited as a classic author well after his plays had largely ceased to be read. In addition to the papyri, fragments of Eupolis’ comedies are preserved in over 60 sources, the most important being in order: Photius (101 fragments), the scholia to Aristophanes (64 fragments), Pollux (64 fragments), Athenaeus (42 fragments), the Suda (37 fragments) and the Synagoge (29 fragments). Other significant sources are the Antiatticist (14 fragments), the Etymologicum Genuinum (18 fragments), Eustathius (10 fragments), Harpocration (13 fragments), Herodian (10 fragments) and Hesychius (10 fragments). But the story these figures seem at first glance to tell is misleading, for none of these authors and lexica except perhaps the Antiatticist are likely to have made direct use of the text of the comedies. Instead, what they preserve are echoes—often overlapping and sometimes incoherent, lacunose or confused—of older scholarship, some of it going back in nuce to the Library at Alexandria, other portions or versions of it dating to the Roman period. On occasion, the material that survives can be traced to Hellenistic scholars such as Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus of Samothrace, or to Imperial-period Atticists such as Moeris, Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias (who may themselves often have been dependent on earlier secondary collections of material). More often, we can say only that e. g. Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge all rely on a common source that appears to draw on a lost (Atticist?) lexicographer, traces of whose note on the word or phrase in question can also be seen in epitomized form in Hesychius; or that Pollux and Athenaeus both seem to be adapting a single, thematically organized collection of texts for their own different purposes.4 This earlier work has been pulled out of context by our sources (or by the intermediary sources upon which they in turn depend) and has routinely been supplemented, condensed, reworked, repurposed and/or combined with other material in such a way that little possibility exists today of reconstructing the original scholarly documents. This is even more the case because many of the authors and works that have come down to us have in addition been 4

For such complexity in the surviving sources for the fragments, see Citation context for e. g. frr. 6; 66; 69; 73; 83; 167; 204; 289; 314; 345; 376; 387; 389; 433; 455; 481; 483.

16

Eupolis

epitomized or corrupted in the course of transmission. Despite all this, some of the basic motivations that led individuals in various periods to cite words or passages from Eupolis’ comedies can still be identified. Much of the early work seems to have been straightforwardly philological: collecting and attempting to make sense of rare or unusual words in the comedies or of complicated but interesting social phenomena to which they refer;5 using the plays to explicate other difficult texts; and mining them for grammatical evidence of all sorts,6 rare or problematic metrical phenomena,7 and proverbs and moralizing commonplaces.8 Closely allied to such research is an interest in Attic vocabulary (discussed already by Aristophanes of Byzantium in the early 2nd century BCE, but seemingly of more widespread and systematic interest in the so-called “Second Sophistic” period) and Attic expressions designed to meet the needs of an audience eager to speak fashionably “good”—i. e. self-consciously archaic, colloquial 5th-/4th-century Athenian—Greek. Material of this sort makes up a substantial portion of what is preserved for us of Eupolis’ plays9 and must almost inevitably have the effect of over-emphasizing the local character of his language. A large number of fragments also reflect an interest in 5th-century Athenian prosopography that led to the production of extensive catalogues of kômôidoumenoi. Most of this material has been transmitted to us via the scholia on Aristophanes10 and thus through the lost commentaries of Didymus and Symmachus, and likely exaggerates the extent to which contemporary individuals were referenced in the comedies themselves.

5 6 7 8 9

10

E. g. frr. 175 and 374 (from discussions of flatterers) and fr. 172 (from a discussion of parasites). E. g. frr. 7; 38; 79; 94; 111; 197; 201; 214; 216; 290; 307; 310. E. g. frr. 37; 42; 76; 84; 250; 316. E. g. frr. 108; 114; 286; 288; 304; 315. For citations of the text of Eupolis’ plays embedded in Atticist debates of various sorts, see Citation context for e. g. frr. 3; 7–8; 23–4; 39–40; 45; 47; 73–4; 99.13–14; 125; 141–2; 150; 152; 162; 164; 182; 185; 213; 239–40; 263; 265; 293; 300. Frr. 35; 43–4; 80; 90; 96; 107; 112; 134–5; 138; 195; 220; 222; 224–5; 227; 231–2; 235; 249; 274; 282; 318; 395. Sources other than the scholia on Aristophanes for fragments of Eupolis seemingly drawn from catalogues of kômôidoumenoi: Athenaeus (frr. 148; 171); Diogenes Laertius (fr. 157a); Etymologicum Magnum (fr. 388); scholia on Aristotle (fr. 386); scholia on Plato (frr. 61; 180; 253; 267; 294–5); scholia on Lucian (fr. 252); Plutarch (frr. 110; 115; 193). Most of these sources are either biographical in nature or are other strands of the larger scholia tradition.

Introduction

17

4. Themes and Motifs Eupolis’ comedies might be described either as “lost” or as “preserved only in fragments”. The former term misleadingly suggests that nothing of the text or action of the plays is known. But to refer to the comedies as “preserved in fragments” is even more problematic, for the characterization easily brings with it the notion that they still exist on some level and—the crucial point— might thus be recovered via the application of sufficient critical effort and ingenuity. Only in the case of Dêmoi do we likely have as much as 10% of the original text of one of Eupolis’ plays, while for the other comedies the number is much smaller (an average of about 27 partial lines per play, perhaps 2–3% of the text). Late 5th-century Athenian comedy as a genre appears to have depended on wild flights of fantasy, unexpected plot twists, shifts of identity and setting both abrupt and gradual, and the like, none of which we are in a position to recover when the fragments and testimonia offer no hint of them. At the same time, the text of the individual fragments is routinely insecure and provisional, the sense of the individual words and the syntax that binds them together unclear or disputed, and the transmission context of the material so riddled with difficulties and errors that it is impossible to be certain that any word, line or image assigned by an ancient authority to a particular “lost” comic author or text actually belongs to that author or text rather than to another one via a simple but undetectable scribal error. On a strictly practical level, therefore, grave difficulties stand in the way of effectively reconstructing the action of any comedy by Eupolis or indeed of any fragmentarily preserved late 5th-century Athenian comedy, to say nothing of recovering the larger significance of that action in terms of politics, poetics or the like.11 Much more important, the fact is that Eupolis’ plays conceived as complete, coherent objects are lost, which is to say that we have no access to them even if we have inherited a set of lines or words allegedly drawn from them at some point. As a result, no hypothesis about an individual Eupolidean comedy, or indeed about the comedies as a group, can be falsified,12 because 11

12

For a practical demonstration, see Olson 2015, which collects the quotations of Aristophanes’ complete plays in Athenaeus (our most significant source of fragmentary Athenian comedies of all periods) and demonstrates how misleading a reconstruction of the plays on that basis would be. This includes claims directly contradicted by one or more of the fragments, since one can always argue that the fragments in question are corrupt (as many are, even when they scan properly) or misattributed (demonstrably the case on occasion, and thus always a possibility). To call such a thesis desperate would be to say that it

18

Eupolis

there is nothing to check the reconstruction against except the faulty and insufficient evidence out of which it is built. There is a long modern scholarly history of reconstructing “lost” comedies, and these reconstructions frequently harden in part or whole into interpretative traditions that assign individual fragments consensus positions in relation to what are taken to be established intellectual, ideological and dramatic structures within the action or the society that produced the text as a whole. This work is interesting and valuable to the extent that the unsatisfactory character of the ancient evidence allows modern interests and concerns to be imposed upon it. But we learn nothing real about Eupolis by engaging in the process or with other modern scholarly work that expands upon it. Perhaps better put, there is no way to know if any connection exists between the lost text of one of Eupolis’ comedies and the guesses and intuitions in regard to it in which our predecessors and peers have become invested, regardless of how elaborate and sanctioned by time such arguments are. This is not to say that reconstructions cannot be weighed and evaluated, and one preferred to another. But to the extent that such verdicts involve more than purely sociological factors (“schools” of interpretation, however created and defined), they have mostly to do with methodological considerations—and scholarly methodology of this sort is a matter firmly lodged not in the Theater of Dionysus in late 5th-century Athens but in the modern world, even if its trail can perhaps be traced to Hellenistic Alexandria. The dismal state of preservation of Eupolis’ plays means that the most effective way to make sense of their thematic concerns is to read what survives of them against the eleven complete comedies of Aristophanes, despite the circularity of the approach, which must inevitably elide the most distinctive characteristics of Eupolis’ work. Aristophanes’ complaint that Eupolis plagiarized Knights to produce Marikas (see Section 8, end; fr. 89 n.) strongly suggests that falls outside of generally accepted rules of argumentation—which does not mean that the thesis is wrong; see below. To object that reconstructions of the sort under discussion here are falsifiable because we might someday obtain new information about a lost play, in the same way that a lucky papyrus find occasionally confirms a modern conjecture in an ancient text, is similarly to miss the point. That a papyrus reading coincides with a modern conjecture shows not that the reading is what the poet wrote and is thus “correct”, but only that that reading stood in one ancient copy of the text, which is a different matter. Nor can one insist that a conjecture must be correct because it will eventually be supported by a papyrus, which is to get the epistemological situation backwards. All conjectures, be they about the run of words and letters in a line of poetry or the action in a lost comedy, are by their very nature guesses. That some may be more acutely and carefully argued than others is true but does not affect the case; see again below.

Introduction

19

the latter play too was a symbolic political drama, in which the master of the house stood in for the Athenian people, while the barbarian slave-character represented a contemporary demagogue, in Eupolis’ case Hyperbolos rather than Cleon. Perhaps Baptai attacked Alcibiades in a similarly obvious but oblique manner, although what went on in the play is so obscure that this is really nothing more than speculation. Chrysoun genos might have been similar (an onstage Golden Age that was somehow separate from but also stood for contemporary Athens?), but in this case we have little more than the title to go on. The identities of the choruses in Heilôtes, Lakônes (if authentic) and Poleis leave little doubt that these plays—like the vast majority of Aristophanes’ comedies—addressed public political matters in one fashion or another, as Dêmoi certainly did. If Philoi is taken to mean “Allies”, the same may have been true of that play too, as perhaps also of Astrateutoi. Autolykos I and II and Kolakes, on the other hand, seem from what can be deduced from the titles, fragments and testimonia to have been mostly devoted to mocking the foibles of socially prominent but politically unimportant individuals. That no plays of this sort are preserved among the eleven complete comedies of Aristophanes (although Clouds comes close) may suggest either that Eupolis favored a particular sub-type of comedy that his most significant rival did not or that the limited material at our disposal has misled us in this regard. Plays of the sort commonly termed “mythological comedies”, i. e. extended travesties of well-known myths of a type that appears to become common near the end of the 5th century,13 are notably absent from the corpus of Eupolis to the extent we understand it, unless Autolykos is taken to have been a play of this sort. That Eupolis’ comedies routinely featured a strong central character reminiscent of Whitman’s “Aristophanic hero”, whose wild and improbable, but ultimately more or less successful plan launches and drives the action,14 is unclear from the fragments. The idea nonetheless provides a useful framework within which to read what survives of Dêmoi (Pyronides decides to fetch dead statesmen from the Underworld to rescue contemporary Athens), Taxiarchoi (Dionysus decides to go on hoplite duty) and perhaps Aiges (an old peasant decides to get an education), although the latter two look more like desperately bad ideas than desperately good ones.15 The goat-herd/farmer in Aiges, at any rate, seems to be a stock character reminiscent of the central figures in most Aristophanic comedies of the 420s BCE; if the Pyronides depicted in 13 14 15

See in general Casolari 2003. Whitman 1964. But cf. Strepsiades’ ultimately disastrous last-ditch resort to Socrates and a Phrontisterion education in Aristophanes’ Clouds.

20

Eupolis

a 4th-century vase painting is the character from Dêmoi (test. *viii with n.), he was likely a similar type.16 Dionysus in Taxiarchoi may well have been weak and cowardly, like the Dionysus of Aristophanes’ Frogs and Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros or (a somewhat more distant parallel) the craven Hermes of Aristophanes’ Peace and Wealth. The presence of an Olympian god onstage as an ordinary character interacting with human beings, at any rate, is apparently a normal feature of late 5th-century Athenian comedy.17 If Protagoras appeared onstage in Kolakes, he was likely represented as a greedy charlatan (cf. fr. 157b) reminiscent of Socrates in Aristophanes’ Clouds. The second speaker in fr. 269 seems to be a bomolochos. (E.) in Dêmoi (fr. 99.78–120), finally, is reasonably interpreted as a blocking-figure reminiscent of the type who routinely appear in the second half of Aristophanic comedies to obstruct or take advantage of the hero’s plan, and gets the same abusive treatment that many of those characters do.18 A porter speaks at fr. 291 (cf. Ar. Ra. 12–15, 172–7 for comic porter-scenes), and frr. 147 and 149 belong to Doric-speakers. A slave can be identified as a speaker only at fr. *100.9, 15, and perhaps at fr. 99.37 (n.), but this likely means only that such characters are difficult to recognize in fragmentarly preserved material, not that servile figures were absent from Eupolis’ comedies. Fr. 167 (an order to take a broom and sweep the house) may well be addressed to a slave, while fr. 81 is addressed to a pipe-girl (a mute?). Four parabatic fragments preserve substantial remarks directed to the audience. In two cases, the content is political (frr. 99.23–34, from Dêmoi; 316, from Chrysoun genos), while in the others it has to do with poetry and the dramatic competitions (frr. 89, from Baptai; 392, from an unknown play; cf. fr. 205, from Marikas). Both sorts of remarks are also typical of Aristophanic parabases. The tenor of the political comments in these parabases and elsewhere in the fragments is relentlessly and brutally critical of the functioning of the contemporary Athenian democracy. Politicians and generals—the fact that the generalship was an elective office means that the two cannot really be separated—are scum, the very lowest of the low (frr. 99.23–34; 219.1–2; 384.4–8), who do little more than yap at the people (fr. 200) and ruin the city (frr. 331; 384.7–8). Many active politicians are too young to hold office (frr. 104; 252; 333) or not real citizens (fr. 99.23–5; 262), or are cowards and incompetents (frr. 35; 49; 352; cf. fr. 107 [obscure]) or thieves (frr. *126 [of Themistocles]; 235). Indeed, 16 17 18

Cf. fr. 293 (from Philoi), in which an old man is addressed and told that he has foolishly undertaken an enterprise too difficult for him. See also test. *19 with n. Frr. 84 (from Baptai), 224 (from Poleis) and 263 (from Prospaltioi) may well come from similar scenes, as might also the Phrynis scene in Dêmoi (test. *viii with n.).

Introduction

21

this general vision of politics is fundamental in different ways to the plots of both Dêmoi (matters are so bad that the only way to get a good politician is to haul one up from the Underworld) and Marikas (the people are currently in the thrall of the most debased character possible). Attempts at decent good citizenship, meanwhile, go unrewarded (fr. 129), while innocent non-Athenians are ruined by cynical abusers of the legal and political system (fr. 99.80–98). Cleon in particular is denounced twice in what survives of Eupolis’ comedies (frr. 316.1–2, from Chrysoun genos; 331, from an unidentified play) and was also mentioned after his death, most likely not in a complimentary fashion (fr. 211, from Marikas); Hyperbolos appears to have been the primary target of Marikas (note also fr. 252, from Poleis), just as Alcibiades was at least one major target of Baptai (note also fr. 171, from Kolakes); and Peisander (frr. 35; 99.1–4; cf. fr. 195) and Demostratos (fr. 103) are criticized as well, along with a number of lesser-known figures (the general Aristarchos in fr. 49; an unknown politician at fr. 99.23–34; Laispodias and Damasias in fr. 107; Syrakosios in fr. 220; Cleonymus in fr. 352). The most striking exception to this consistently hostile attitude toward the democratic leadership is Nicias, who in real life was a political adversary of the so-called “radical democrat” Cleon, and who appears to be an enemy of Marikas (i. e. “Hyperbolos”) in Eupolis’ play by that title and has at least the initial sympathy of the semi-chorus of wealthy men (fr. 193). There is so much of this material, and its argumentative tendencies are so consistent, that it is difficult to escape the notion that this aspect of the plays was carefully designed to appeal to the audience in the Theater, who must on this thesis have enjoyed blaming Athens’ leadership (sc. rather than themselves) for whatever political and military setbacks the city experienced. This too is of a piece with Aristophanic comedy and indeed with late 5th-century comedy generally.19 That Eupolis differed occasionally from his contemporaries in his presentation of contemporary political affairs is likely true. But those differences, if they existed, are too fine to be accessible to us today, given how little survives of the plays, and we might do better to think instead of Eupolis as another more or less typical representative of his genre and his time.

19

See in general Olson 2010a, with bibliography.

22

Eupolis

5. Kômôidoumenoi The following historical or quasi-historical individuals are referenced directly in the fragments: – Akestor the tragic poet (PA 474; PAA 116685; TrGF 25): fr. 172.14–16 – Alcaeus the citharode (PAA 120992; Stephanis #131): fr. 303 – Alcibiades (PA 600; PAA 121630) the son of Cleinias: fr. 171.1, and a central figure in Baptai – Alcman of Sparta the lyric poet: fr. 148.1 – Alcmeon (perhaps merely a generic reference to the Alcmeonid family): fr. 192.90/192u – Amphoteros the seer (PAA 126308 add.): fr. 225.2 – Amynias (PA 737; PAA 124575) the son of Pronapes: fr. 222.1 – Antimachus the banker (PA 1107; PAA 134070): fr. 134 – Archedemos (PA 2326; PAA 208855): fr. 80, cf. POxy. 5160 fr. f; fr. 9 – Archestratus (PA 2403; PAA 211047): fr. 298.4 – Aristarchos the general (PA 1663; PAA 164155): fr. 49 – Aristophanes the comic poet (PA 2090; PAA 175685): fr. 62; referred to as “the bald guy” at fr. 89.2 – Asopodorus (PA 2671; PAA 223810): fr. 255 – Aspasia (PAA 222330) the daughter of Axiochos of Miletus: referred to as “the whore” in fr. 110.2, as “Helen” in fr. 267, as “Hera” in fr. 294; cf. fr. 192.167 – Autolykos (PA 2748; PAA 239835) son of Lykon: fr. *64, and the name-character of Autolykos I and II – Callias III (PA 7826; PAA 554500) son of Hipponicus II: frr. 99.12; 174.1, and a central figure in Kolakes and presumably in Autolykos I and/or II as well – Chaerephon of the deme Sphettos (PA 15203; PAA 976060): frr. 180; 253 – Chaireas the alleged foreigner (PA 15091; PAA 971305): fr. 90 – Cimon (PA 8429; PAA 569795) son of Miltiades: the subject of fr. 221 – Cleon (PA 8674; PAA 579130) son of Cleainetus: frr. 211; 316.1; 331; cf. frr. 192.135; 497 – Cleonymus (PA i.580, where for “8880” read “8680”; PAA 579410): fr. 352 – -crates or Crates: fr. 259.122/259m – Damasias (PA 3111; PAA 300930): fr. 107.1 – Damasistratos of Chios the wrestler: fr. 444 – Democritus of Chios the musician (RE Demokritos 9): fr. 91 – Demos (PA 3573; PAA 317910) son of Pyrilampes: fr. 227 – Demostratos (PA 3611; PAA 319245), referred to as “the Bouzygete”: fr. 103.2

Introduction

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

23

Didymias (PAA 323582 add.), referred to as “fox-dung”: fr. 306 Diognetus (PAA 327537 add.), formerly one of the Eleven: fr. 99.114–17 Elpinike (PA 4678; PAA 387165) the sister or half-sister of Cimon: fr. 221.3 Eudamos or Eudemos (PAA 429232): fr. 96 Exekestos (PAA 388245; Stephanis #243): fr. 259.74/259f Gnesippos the poet: fr. 148.2 Hagnon (PA 162 + 171; PAA 107380) son of Nikias: fr. 251 Hierocles the oracle-monger (PA 7473; PAA 532080): fr. 231 Hippocrates (PA 7640; PAA 538615) son of Ariphron and his sons: fr. 112 Hipponicus II (PA 7658; PAA 538910) son of Callias II: fr. 20 Hyperbolos (PA 13910; PAA 902050) son of Antiphanes: fr. 252, and the main target of Marikas Kleokritos (PA 8570; PAA 576825; Stefanis #1441): frr. 136; 177 Laispodias (PA 8963; PAA 600730) son of Andronymis: fr. 107.1 Lampon the sacred exegete (PA 8996; PAA 601665): fr. 319 Leogoras (PA 9075; PAA 605075) the father of Andocides: fr. 50b Lykon (PA 9271; PAA 611820) the father of Autolykos: frr. 61; 232; 295 Marpsias (PAA 635500), a flatterer of Callias: fr. 179 Melanthios the tragic poet (PA 9767; PAA 638275; TrGF 23): frr. 43; 178 Miltiades (PA 10212; PAA 653820) son of Cimon: fr. *104.1, and a character in Dêmoi Niceratus of Acharnae (PAA 710640): fr. 99.15–17 Nicias (PA 10808; PAA 712520) son of Niceratus: POxy. 5160 fr. b; frr. 193; 351 Oineus (a slave-dealer?): fr. 172.16 Opountios (PAA 748440): fr. 282 Orestes, a flatterer of Callias: fr. 179 Pantacles (PAA 764230): fr. 318 Pauson the painter (PAA 770370): fr. 99.5–8 Peisander (PA 11770; PAA 771270) son of Glauketes: frr. 35; 99.1–4; 195 Peisistratus the tyrant (PA 11793; PAA 771760): fr. 137 Pericles (PA 11811; PAA 772645) son of Xanthippus: fr. *104.1, also a character in Dêmoi (cf. fr. 115) and the subject of fr. 102 Pericles II (PA 11812; PAA 772650) the son of Pericles, referred to as Pericles’ bastard: fr. 110.1; see also fr. 192.166 with n. Phaiax (PA 13921; PAA 911410) son of Erasistratus: frr. 2.2; *116 Philinos (PAA 927515): fr. 223 Philoxenos of Diomeia (PA 14707; PAA 941310): fr. 249 Phormio (PA 14958; PAA 963060) son of Asopios: fr. 44, and a central figure in Taxiarchoi

24

Eupolis

– Phormio the 6th-century archon (PA 14948; PAA 962785): fr. 138 – Phrynis (PAA 965030; Stephanis #2583) the musician: apparently a character in Dêmoi (test. *viii) – Phrynondas the notorious villain (PA 15033; PAA 966050): frr. 45; 139 – Pindar the epinician poet: fr. 398 – Protagoras of Abdera the sophist (PAA 790895): frr. 157a; 158 – “Rhodia” the wife of Lykon: referred to obliquely in frr. 58; 232; 295 – Simon the embezzler of public funds (PA 12686; PAA 822065): fr. 235 – Simonides of Ceos the elegiac poet: fr. 148.1 – Socrates (PA 13101; PAA 856500) son of Sophroniscus: frr. 386; 395 – Solon (PA 12806; PAA 827640) son of Exekestides: fr. 99.47, and a character in Dêmoi – Stesichorus of Himera the lyric poet: frr. 148.1; 395.2 – Stilbides the seer and oracle-monger (PAA 835500): fr. 225.2 – Syrakosios (PA 13041; PAA 853435): frr. 220; 259.72/259f – Theogenes or Theagenes (PA 6703; PAA 504040): frr. 99.5–10; 135 – Theramenes (PA 7234; PAA 513930): fr. 251 – Xanthias the iron-worker (PAA 730220 add.): fr. 283 Note also – Adeimantos (PA 202; PAA 107965) son of Leukolophides: the speaker of fr. 224 – Aristides “the Just” (PA 1695; PAA 165170) son of Lysimachos: referenced in fr. *127, and seemingly a central character in Dêmoi This appears to be a typical collection of comic kômôidoumenoi, consisting mostly of politicians alive and deceased, poets and other entertainers, businessmen and well-known men about town.20 While a number of these individuals were still alive after 411 BCE, none need be dated exclusively to that period. The prosopographic evidence is thus consistent with the idea that Eupolis died at the Battle of Cynosema (see Section 2), even if it cannot be taken to prove the thesis correct.

6. Language Anon. de Com. III (= test. 2a) describes Eupolis as “powerful in his diction”; claims that he imitated Cratinus; and asserts that “he exhibits a great deal of abuse and crudity”. Platonius Prolegomena de comoedia II (= test. 34), by 20

See in general Sommerstein 1996b.

Introduction

25

contrast, calls him charming, shrewd in his use of mockery, and graceful and elegant, and places him in polar contrast to Cratinus in these regards, with Aristophanes representing a happy medium between the other two poets. These evaluations—both Byzantine in date—are simultaneously so vague and so contradictory, and likely based on so little hard evidence, that it is better to begin with the fragments of Eupolis themselves. The information at our disposal is limited and is presumably skewed by our sources, which have their own disparate purposes, but are mostly interested in a limited range of curiosities, above all else Atticisms and various rare and problematic words. The papyri (esp. frr. 99; *260) represent random samples of the actual text of the comedies, and thus provide some limited control on this information. As is also the case, however, with Eupolis’ thematic concerns (Section 4) and his metrical practices and formal structuring devices (Section 7), we are largely thrown back here on comparison with the Aristophanic material, which is far richer and accordingly far better understood. Aristophanes’ Greek is marked in the first instance by its colloquial character, which is to say its use of vocabulary items, forms and formation strategies, set phrases and constructions mostly absent from elevated poetry and prose of the same period but common in day-to-day use. The Greek of the Athenian street must have been far cruder, more difficult and more diverse than what we get in comedy, where even farmers and domestic slaves speak clearly, use more or less standard vocabulary, and generally produce complete sentences with coherent syntax. Comedy is nonetheless as close as we are likely ever to get to how average Athenians talked, and Aristophanic language is full not only of words for items tragedy rarely deigns to mention or mentions only via periphrases, but also of casual expressions of all sorts, on the one hand, and banal oaths and rustic crudities, on the other. This colloquial character is one of the most important characteristics that drew Hellenistic and Roman-era scholars to late 5th- and 4th-century comedy, hence the survival of so many fragments of the plays—in contrast to 4th-century tragedy, for example, which seems to have inspired no similar interest in Alexandria and other ancient research centers, and which is accordingly almost entirely lost. But the colloquial conversational style of Aristophanic characters is simultaneously enlivened by a constant sprinkling of clever coinages, unexpected images and verbal flights of fancy, and appeals to high-style registers. These elements stand in contrast to the “normal” language that dominates the plays, and the discontinuity between the two strands is a basic source of verbal interest in the plays. Eupolis’ Greek has a similar character to such an extent that, had we a passage of iambic trimeter poetry that we knew belonged to either him or Aristophanes, it would be difficult to assign it to one man or the other on

26

Eupolis

the basis of language. What appear to be Attic colloquialisms, first of all, are strewn throughout the fragments.21 Simple, bland oaths by Zeus of a sort typical of Aristophanic comedy and likely common in normal conversation are preserved in frr. 99.110; 192.130; 268.31; 270.2 (n.), as is an equally unremarkable oath by Poseidon at fr. 286. Less common oaths appear at frr. 79 (“by the almond tree”) and 192.170 (“by Diocles”) and may represent attempts to characterize the speakers or their situations. The fragments also contain crude sexual and excretory vocabulary of a sort again familiar from Aristophanes: ἀναφλασµός, “make oneself hard” vel sim. at fr. 69; βινέω, “fuck” in fr. 385.2; κινέω, “screw” and cognates in frr. 99.27; 104.2; 247.3; λακκωπρωκτία, “faggotry” 〈 πρωκτός, “asshole” in fr. 385.4; χέζω, “shit” in fr. 240. That there are not more such items, and that those we have are relatively bland and uninventive,22 might have to do with a lack of interest in (or even an active distaste for) such words in our sources, or it might be that Eupolis’ poetry was for some reason slightly less “dirty” than Aristophanes’. Additional but less direct references to sex are preserved in frr. 54; 171.2; 221.2–3; 232. Abusive references to or descriptions of other characters, as well as of real contemporary persons, are common, and many of them are colorful.23 As in Aristophanes, this basic colloquial stratum is enlivened by striking, witty language of all sorts.24 That the ability to produce this style of humor was prized in Athens in the time of Aristophanes and Eupolis is beyond much doubt (cf. Ar. V. 1287–9), so that in this regard as well comic characters likely speak much like clever and amusing real Athenians did, i. e. as more average

21

22

23

24

e. g. frr. 3 deictic -ί; 25 βαλλάντιον; 56 ἀτάρ; 76.1 οὐ γὰρ ἀλλά; 84.2 πολλοῦ used adverbially; 97 καπνοδόκη; 99.24 χθὲς καὶ πρώην, 69 εἰπέ µοι as interjection, 73 αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος, 85 strings of nasty names with σύ, 91 exclamatory ὅσος, 103 τί δέ;, 107 main verb + βαδίζων in sense similar to English “go and …”; *100.15 φέρ’ ἴδω; 143 θηρίον in the sense “animal, non-human creature”; 148.3 νυκτερινός; 152 ἡδύσµατα; 161.1 δή with imperative; 165.1 ἰδού signalling compliance with a request or order; 171.1 ληρέω; 172.3 ἀκόλουθος in sense “slave attendant”; 182 λευκὴ ἡµέρα; 193.2 ἔναγχος; 328.2 ὁτιή; 384.2 σφόδρα as intensifier. The two most striking sexual crudities (βινέω and λακκωπρωκτία) are used by the same character in fr. 385 for abusive purposes. βινέω and κινέω are nonetheless so easily confused in minuscule that a case can be made for printing either at any point in the text. E. g. frr. 9; 20; 35; 43; 49; 60 (an exchange between two characters); 88 (a description of an on-stage character?); 99.114–17; 103; 107; 112; *116–17; *126; 132; 157b; 172.14–16; 175; 195; 220; 222; 227; 232; 249; 253; 262; 295; 305–6; 318; 329; 331; 341.2; 352; 368. E. g. frr. 42.3; 104.3; 120; 187; 190; 205; 220; 246.3; 247.4; 263; 300.2; 343; 379; 384.8.

Introduction

27

people might have aspired to speak, even if they rarely achieved such a high standard of verbal brilliance. The use of over-the-top catalogues is another patently comic touch.25 In addition, Eupolis’ characters, like Aristophanes’, appeal occasionally to high-style poetic language of various sorts,26 although the lack of context generally makes it impossible to identify the intended effect of such passages. Eupolis quotes, echoes or alludes to other poets at frr. 41 (Sophocles); 99.102 (Euripides); 105.2 (Euripides); 106 (Euripides); 148.1 (Stesichorus, Alcman and Simonides); 192.237–42/192uu (Archilochus); 207 (Aeschylus); 260.23–6 (Sophocles); 268.6–7/268b (Sophocles); 392 (Archilochus); 398 (Pindar). There is no evidence of sustained parody of Euripidean tragedy of the sort common in Aristophanes, although whether this reflects the limited nature of our sources or points to a real difference between the two comic poets is again impossible to say.

7. Metrics and Form27 Metrics Iambic Of what are by my count 234 complete, textually sound iambic trimeters in the fragments of Eupolis, 218 (= 93.2%) feature either penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura. There appears to be a strong preference for penthemimeral (129 = 55.1%) over hepthemimeral (89 = 38.1%) caesura,28 although 25 26 27

28

E. g. frr. 12–13; 218; 298; 317; 338. E. g. frr. 16; 36; 99.35–6; 172.12; 200; 219.2–3; 224.2; 231; 249; 303. Correct the scansion of frr. 220.3 to rlkr k|lkl lrkl; 298.6 to lrkl | klkl | 〈xlkl〉; 328.1 klkl l|lk|l llkl; 330.2 to klk|l klkl | klkl; 339.1 to 〈xlkl xl〉k|r klkl; 342 to llkl k|lk|l llkl; 366 to llkl l|lk|r llkl; 369 to klkl l|lkl klkl; 370 to llkl l|lk|l llkl; 366 to llkl l|lk|r llkl; 371 to rlkl l|lk|r llkl; 374 to lrkl l|lk|l llkl So too among what are by my count an additional 95 partially preserved but plausibly restored lines containing penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura, 51 = 53.7% feature penthemimeral caesura, while 44 = 46.3% feature hepthemimeral caesura. These figures are not directly comparable to those for complete lines, since they assume no additional lines with tetrahemimeral or octhemimeral caesura. The general impression nonetheless remains that Eupolis used penthemimeral caesura more often than hepthemimeral caesura. For Anaxandrides (380s/370s–340s BCE), by contrast, Millis 2015. 24 calculates 78% penthemimeral caesura in lines with either penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura. White 1912 offers no overall figures for this aspect of Aristophanes’ metrical practice.

28

Eupolis

the significance of the figure is reduced by the fact that many lines can accommodate both. Of the 15 complete, textually sound iambic trimeters that lack either penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura, 14 (= 6% of the total of 234) feature tetrahemimeral, octhemimeral caesura or both; in 10 of these cases, medial caesura is also possible. The only exception to these rules is frr. 49 ἤδη γὰρ Ἀρίσταρχον στρατηγοῦντ’ ἄχθοµαι (llrl ll|kl l|lkl), which accommodates a personal name. The most important practical implication of these observations is that partially preserved or textually problematic lines of Eupolis should not be restored with medial caesura alone unless a personal name is involved, and even then only as a last resort. That the same is true of the fragments of other late 5th-century comic poets cannot be taken for granted, but is a reasonable prima facie interpretation of the evidence. Comparison with figures for the Aristophanic iambic trimeter calculated by White 1912 reveal basic similarities but also a handful of seeming differences between the metrical practices of the two comic poets. – Aristophanes uses long for short in the arsis of iambic metra (White’s “irrational metra”) in the following proportions (White 1912 § 96, converted to percentages to allow for comparison with Eupolis): i iii v 59.6% 68.2% 60.2% Figures for Eupolis, by contrast, are: i iii v 54.3% 69% 50.7% Eupolis’ lines thus appear to be notably more iambic, particularly in i and v. This impression is supported by closer analysis of the metrical structure of the fragments. Figures for Aristophanic iambic trimeters are as follows (White 1912 § 99, converted to percentages to allow for comparison with Eupolis): i ii iii iv v Iamb 25% 75% 25.4% 77.7% 35% Tribrach 2.35% 10.9% 3.5% 12.5% 0.8% Spondee 54.4% 58.6% 58.4% Dactyl 5.2% 9.6% 1.8% Anapaest 13.1% 13.7% 3.0% 9.8% 4.0% Figures for Eupolis, by contrast, are: i ii iii iv v Iamb 26.8% 80.7% 23.2% 83.6% 42.3% Tribrach 2.9% 9.8% 4.6% 12.9% 0.7% Spondee 48.6% 62.4% 47.6% Dactyl 5.7% 8.8% 3.1% Anapaest 14.6% 8.8% 2.3% 3.5% 6.6%

Introduction

29

In i–ii, iv and v, Eupolis consistently uses more iambs than Aristophanes does, while in iii he uses fewer. In i and iii, meanwhile, he uses fewer spondees, whereas in iii he uses more. Similarly, 2.1% of Aristophanes’ lines contain no iambs (White 1912 § 96, converted to percentages to allow for comparison with Eupolis), whereas only 0.43% of Eupolis’ lines (only one of 234 complete, textually sound iambic trimeters) do the same. – Tribrachs are distributed in very similar proportions in the two poets. For Aristophanes, the figures are (White 1912 § 100, converted to percentages to allow for comparison with Eupolis): i ii iii iv v 2.3% 10.9% 3.5% 12.5% 0.8% Compare the figures for Eupolis: i ii iii iv v 2.9% 9.8% 4.6% 12.9% 0.7% The same is true of the pattern of the use of tribrachs consisting of a single word, although in this case the absolute numbers for Eupolis are much smaller and only general tendencies can be compared. For Aristophanes, the figures are (White 1912 § 101, converted to percentages to allow for comparison with Eupolis): i ii iii iv v 21.8% 30.1% 3.5% 42.4% 2.2% Compare the figures for Eupolis: i ii iii iv v 28% 39% 0% 28% 5.6% Unlike Aristophanes (White § 105), on the other hand, Eupolis scrupulously avoids dividing tribrachs kk|k; the sole exception is in what appears to be a proverbial and thus metrically fixed phrase in fr. 279. – Like Aristophanes (White 1912 § 125), Eupolis avoids the forbidden combinations krrl and lrrl Iambic tetrameter catalectic is preserved in frr. 12; 85; 129; 171; 192a–gg; 203–4; 245; 268e–f; 281; 292; 384–5; 387–8; 390.29 Of the 30 complete, textually sound lines included in this group, 19 (= 63.3%) feature caesura between the second and third foot. Of the 10 remaining complete, textually sound iambic tetrameters catalectic, 5 (= 16.7% of the total of 30, and 50% of those without caesura between the second and third foot) close l | kll. Iambic dimeter is 29

Perhaps add frr. 248; 292; 387; 389.

30

Eupolis

preserved in frr. 99.1–20 (from an abuse-song likely representing the parabasis antepirrhema); 193.5, 7; 386 (another abuse song).30 Fr. 84 is choliambic. Other standard non-lyric meters Anapaestic tetrameter catalectic is preserved in frr. 13; 41; 60; 131; 205–6. These fragments contain a total of 7 complete, textually sound lines, all of which feature caesura between the second and third foot. Frr. 14–15; 66; 192hh–ii; 319; 393 may also be anapaestic. Trochaic tetrameter catalectic is preserved in frr. 40; 86; 99.23–34; 293; 392, which contain a total of 23 lines that are either complete or can be confidently restored. All but one of these lines (fr. 293.1) feature caesura between the second and third foot. Trochaic dimeter is preserved in fr. 88 and perhaps in frr. 99.51–4, 58–63, 69–71; 313 as well. Fr. 87 may also be trochaic. Dactylic hexameter is preserved in frr. 249; 315; 394.31 Two of these lines feature masculine caesura (which tends to dominate in 5th-century texts), while the third features feminine caesura. Lyric meters The fragments preserve a number of aeolo-choriambic or iambo-choriambic 15-syllable lines (generally divided 8 | 7) characterized as a group by West as “comic dicola”. As Parker 1997. 70 observes, “Methods of variation are numerous and nomenclature opulent”. In the case of comedy, the situation is made even more difficult by the fact that many variants are ill-attested, making description easier than analysis; in the aeolo-choriambic group, each colon probably begins properly with an Aeolic base (kl, lk or ll) or half-base. Aeolo-choriambic “comic dicola” (1) oolxlkkl oolxlkl (the so-called “Eupolidean”, for which see test. 45–7 with test 45 n.; frr. 89; 13232 and most likely fr. 396) (2) lkklllxl lllklkl (fr. 42.1–2, cf. Cratin. frr. 361–2) (3) xlkklkkl xlklkll (frr. 148; 250; 317) (4) xlxlkkll xlklkkl (fr. 316) (5) llklklkl lklxlkl (fr. 391)33

30 31 32 33

Perhaps add frr. 83; 193.5, 7; 280 (an abuse song?); 389. For the text of fr. 386, see (in addition to the material cited ad loc.) Alfageme 2008. Perhaps add frr. 150; 319. Perhaps add fr. 174. Mischaracterized in the commentary ad loc. as iambic dimeter + syncopated trochaic dimeter.

Introduction

31

Note also

oolkkll (the so-called “Pherecratean”, aeolic base + abbreviated dodrans; fr. 175) Iambo-choriambic (1) lkkl klkl lkkl kll (alternatively understood as lkklklkl lkklkll; frr. 42.3; 172; 395; cf. Ar. frr. 30–1) (2) lkkl kll (the so-called “Aristophanean”, alternatively understood as a pendent dodrans lkklkll; fr. 176, where followed by lkkl kl, alternatively understood as a single dodrans lkklkl) Other lyric meters Fr. 173 is paeano-cretic, fr. 207 ionic. Prose Eupolis’ occasional use of prose within his plays is attested at fr. 401 (n.).

Form Platonius (test. 34) describes Eupolis as “extremely imaginative in his plot-structures”. The basis for this judgment is uncertain, and it remains a reasonable hypothesis that the major structural components of Aristophanes’ eleven surviving complete comedies—prologue; parodos; various scenes primarily in iambic trimeter and divided by choral songs (including iambic abuse songs), parabasis and on occasion second parabasis; agôn; exodos—were the same as those of Eupolis’ plays.34 The best evidence in this regard is fr. 99 (from Dêmoi), which appears to preserve part of the parabasis antode and the end of the antepirrhema, followed by a scene mostly in iambic trimeter although punctuated by choral(?) interjections in trochees(?). Even here, however, divergence from Aristophanic practice as we know it is apparent, iambic dimeter abuse songs (fr. 99.1–22) not being a component of any of Aristophanes’ preserved parabases. Of the remaining fragments – Frr. 245–7 (iambic tetrameter catalectic; from Poleis) are most economically understood as part of a single scene, reminiscent of Ar. Av. 268–93, in which a series of elaborately costumed figures (specialized dancers?) closely asso-

34

The fundamental discussion is Whittaker 1935.

32

Eupolis

ciated with the chorus enter the scene for the first time. No other fragments more or less certainly from the parodos section of the plays survive.35 – Fr. 13 (anapestic tetrameter catalectic; from Aiges) is a substantial section of choral self-presentation “in character” reminiscent of Ar. V. 1071–90, 1102–21. Fr. 172 (comic dicola; from Kolakes) is similar. Frr. 42.1–2 (comic dicola; from Astrateutoi), 316 (comic dicola; from Chrysoun genos) and 392 (trochaic tetrameter catalectic; from an unidentified play) are direct address of the audience in the Theater and are likewise presumaby drawn from the parabasis. The same must also be true of fr. 205 (anapaestic tetrameter catalectic; from Marikas), which does not address the audience directly but references it. Fr. 89 (Eupolideans; from Baptai), spoken in the person of the poet, is a defense of his art via an attack on his rival Aristophanes. Other possible parabasis material is preserved at frr. 174 (Eupolideans(?); from Kolakes); 175 (Pherecrateans; from Kolakes); 176 (Aristophaneans; from Kolakes); 192.156–7/192hh–ii (anapaestic; from Marikas); 206 (anapaestic tetrameter catalectic; from Marikas); 259 (a prose summary?; from Prospaltioi); 395 (comic dicola; from an unidentified play); 396 (Eupolidean?; from an unidentified play).36 – Fr. 173 (paeano-cretic; from Kolakes) is generally taken to be part of a second parabasis. – Frr. 12 (from Aiges); 129 (from Dêmoi); 192a–gg and 203–4 (from Marikas); 384–5 and 387–90 (from unidentified plays) all appear on the basis of the iambic tetrameter catalectic meter and their content to be drawn from agônes. Frr. 85 (from Baptai); 171 (from Kolakes); 268.16/268e = 281, 268.18–20/268f (from Taxiarchoi) may also come from agônes.37 Although scholars have often tried to assign individual iambic trimeter fragments to prologues in particular (e. g. fr. 48, from Autolykos I or II)38 or to construct various other scenes out of them, such efforts remain purely hypothetical, and no further arguments should be based on them; see Section 4. For uncertain reasons, very few fragments of Eupolis’ non-parabatic choral songs survive (e. g. frr. 16; 280; 314). This cannot necessarily be taken as evidence that such material was less important in his comedies than it is in Aristophanes’, although this might conceivably be the case.

35 36 37 38

For discussion, see Storey 2003. 352–4 with a list of possible candidates (none overly convincing). More extensive discussion in Storey 2003. 356–62. For further discussion, see Gelzer 1960. 277–80; Storey 2003. 353–6. See Storey 2003. 349–50 for a full list of his candidates.

Introduction

33

8. Eupolis and Other Comic Poets Comedy was a deeply competitive business in late 5th-century Athens. Poets had first to get their plays approved by the relevant archon at the beginning of the year for performance via award of a chorus, a stipend and a slot on the program, and then six to nine months later competed against (most likely) four other men at the festival in question. Onstage mockery of rivals combined with aggressive advertisement of the particular excellence of one’s own dramatic product thus unsurprisingly appears to be the norm (cf. fr. 205). The extent to which comic poets also actively cooperated with one another behind the scenes is more difficult to judge, both because there was no obvious benefit to publicly admitting to dependence on another man, and because claims by other parties that one playwright borrowed from or worked for another are not necessarily to be believed. As noted in Section 1, Aristophanes and Eupolis were almost exact contemporaries, and both had brilliant early theatrical careers. At some point in his Pytinê (victorious at the City Dionysia in 423 BCE), Cratinus—seemingly the most important comic poet of the previous generation—charged Aristophanes with using Eupolis’ words (fr. 213). The similarity between fr. 99.34–539 and Ar. Eq. 1288–940 led some ancient scholars to interpret this as a claim that part of the parabasis of Knights (City Dionysia 424 BCE) was in fact composed by Eupolis.41 Precisely what Cratinus meant, including whether he was referring to an already established rivalry between the two younger men rather than merely getting in a hostile dig at Aristophanes, who had mocked him at Eq. 531–6 as an antiquated drunk who needed to retire, is unclear. But Ar. Pax 762–3 (City Dionysia 421 BCE) in any case contains what early commentators took to be a mocking reference to Eupolis, who supposedly boasted in his Autolykos (fr. 65) about the way his status as a dramatic victor improved his odds when he trolled for boys in the city’s wrestling schools. The specific chronology of the interpretation is difficult—Autolykos I likely belongs to 420 BCE, putting it after Peace rather than before it—and whether there is any real connection between the texts is again uncertain, as also in the case of the claim preserved in the scholia that an unflattering reference at Ar. Pax 740 39 40 41

ὅστις οὖν ἄρχειν τοιούτους ἄνδρας α̣[ἱρεῖται k l ] / µήτε πρόβατ’ αὐτῳ τεκνοῖτο µήτε γῆ κ[αρπὸν φέροι] ὅστις οὖν τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα µὴ σφόδρα βδελύττεται, / οὔποτ’ ἐκ ταὐτοῦ µεθ’ ἡµῶν πίεται ποτηρίου For full discussion of all these issues, see Kyriakidi 2006. Vianello 1907. 73–6 offers a review of early discussion of the question in modern scholarship.

34

Eupolis

to other comic poets “making fun of rags” points specifically at Eupolis (fr. 400). Peace, at any rate, took third place behind Eupolis’ Kolakes and Cratinus’ Cheimazomenoi, and in one of his Autolykos plays (probably Autolykos I the next year) Eupolis made a mocking reference to the statue of the goddess in the play. Plato Comicus (fr. 62) did the same, and the obvious implication is that the production of Aristophanes’ play was marred by an ugly staging problem, and that his rivals happily called attention to the incident at a subsequent festival as a way of advertising the superiority of their own poetic product. Aristophanes’ revised Clouds II (early 410s BCE) in turn contains a clear and explicit attack on Eupolis, whose Marikas (Lenaea 421 BCE) is denounced as a clumsy reworking of Knights (Nu. 553–4 = Marikas test. i). Fr. 89 (from Baptai) seemingly responds to the charge—if not necessarily to the specific passage from Clouds II, which was never staged—by claiming that Knights was in fact a collaboration between Aristophanes and Eupolis, who graciously allowed another poet to take credit for his own work (with the idea then realized again in a different form a few years later in Marikas). The passages cited above are only a few surviving traces of what must have been a larger and more complicated conversation involving Aristophanes, Eupolis and other comic poets,42 and how the individual items of evidence should be assessed and connected remains uncertain. There can in any case be little doubt that Aristophanes and Eupolis were open rivals, for only one man took the prize at every festival, and he did so by convincing the judges to vote for his own play rather than for a play by one of his competitors. The more intriguing question is whether Eupolis is telling at least some version of the truth about the origin of the plot or plots of Knights and Marikas, or whether there is a better way to think about the situation. There must have been no more than a few hundred thousand full-blooded Athenian citizens in the mid-420s BCE, and far less than 10% of them are likely to have been both interested in a literary education and able to afford one. That more than fifty individuals were active as comic poets (or aspiring or quondam comic poets) at any one time in this period is difficult to believe; only a handful of those men will have staged comedies consistently year after year; and the two most successful young playwrights of their generation must inevitably have known one another. Aristophanes and Eupolis might thus easily have been friends (or at least friendly) and have talked about the plot of Knights 42

Fr. 99.48 (from Dêmoi) was identified by Wilamowitz as a reworking of Cratin. fr. 71, which might or might not be right; see n. ad loc. Even if the thesis is correct, however, Cratinus had by this point likely been dead for many years, making it more difficult to treat the alleged quotation as another part of this dialogue.

Introduction

35

when the play was in its formative stages. Or perhaps Eupolis really did devote time to the text or staging of Aristophanes’ comedy (because he had no play accepted for a festival that year and needed a professionally rewarding way to pass his time?). If so, something very bad had happened between the two men by the early 410s BCE, given that Aristophanes at Nu. 554 calls the supposed appropriation of his own material “nasty work by a nasty person” (κακὸς κακῶς). But comic poets must in any case have watched one another’s performances closely, and prize-winning plays like Knights were doubtless treated as particularly promising potential partial templates for offerings at upcoming archon’s try-outs and festival competitions. The alternative and arguably simpler hypothesis is accordingly that Eupolis waited a few years, took the basic outline of the plot of Knights, and reworked it for a play of his own with a Hyperbolos-like figure as the central character in place of Aristophanes’ Cleon-like Paphlagonian, while also adding inter alia a drunk old woman standing in somehow for Hyperbolos’ mother (Ar. Nu. 555–6 = Marikas test. i). Aristophanes was clearly stung by the disastrous reception of the original Clouds (see also V. 1016–59), and in the passage of the revised play in which he attacks Eupolis his main purpose is to defend his own poetic bona fides. The description of the composition of Marikas as “turning Knights inside out”, i. e. as a crude act of literary theft rather than an example of a common phenomenon in a dynamic system in which the results in each year’s dramatic competitions were used by individual poets to calibrate their offerings for the next year’s cycle, makes sense as a desperate attempt to tear down a rival. It ought not necessarily to be treated as much more than that.

9. Literature Core bibliography (not included in individual volume bibliographies): Runkel 1829: Martinus Runkelius (ed.), Pherecratis et Eupolidis fragmenta (Leipzig) Raspe 1832: Gust. Carol. Henr. Raspe, De Eupolidis ∆ΗΜΟΙΣ ac ΠΟΛΕΣΙΝ (Leipzig) Bergk 1838: Theodorus Bergk (ed.), Commentationum de reliquiis comoediae atticae antiquae (2 vols.: Leipzig) Meineke 1839: Augustus Meineke (ed.), Fragmenta poetarum comoediae antiquae (5 vols. in 7: Berlin, 1834–1857) Meineke 1847: Augustus Meineke (ed.), Fragmenta comicorum graecorum (2 vols.: Berlin)

36

Eupolis

Kock 1880: Theodorus Kock (ed.), Comicorum atticorum fragmenta (3 vols.: Leipzig, 1880–1888) Schiassi 1944: Giuseppe Schiassi, De Eupolidis comici poetae fragmentis (Accademia delle scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, Classe di scienze morali, Pubblicazioni straordinarie: Bologna) Edmonds 1957: John Maxwell Edmonds (ed. and trans.), The Fragments of Attic Comedy (3 vols. in 4: Leiden, 1957–1961) Kassel–Austin 1986: R. Kassel and C. Austin (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci Vol. V Damoxenus—Magnes (Berlin and New York) 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) Rusten 2011: Jeffrey Rusten et al. (trans.), The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents, and Art from Athenian Comic Competitions, 486–280 (Baltimore) Editions of all fragments known at the time: Runkel 1829. 81–182; Bergk 1838. 332–66; Meineke 1839 II.427–576; Meineke 1847 I.158–228; Kock 1880 I.258–369; Edmonds 1957 I.310–446; Kassel–Austin 1986. 294–539; Storey 2011. 26–267 Comprehensive literary and historical studies: Meineke 1839 I.104–46; Stiévenant 1849; Schiassi 1944; Storey 2003 Major studies of the fragments of individual comedies: Raspe 1832 (Dêmoi, Poleis); Töppel 1846 (Kolakes); Plepelits 1970 (Dêmoi); Delneri 2006 (Baptai); Telò 2007 (Dêmoi); Napolitano 2012 (Kolakes) Selected translations: Rusten 2011. 221–72 Books, articles and commentaries cited throughout are those I judge significant for discussion of the point or text in question. I do not cite unpublished work.

37

Testimonia test. 1 K.-A. (= test. i Storey) Suda ε 3657 Εὔπολις Σωσιπόλιδος, Ἀθηναῖος, κωµικός. ὃς ἑπτακαίδεκα ἔτη γεγονὼς ἤρξατο ἐπιδείκνυσθαι· καὶ ἐδίδαξε µὲν δράµατα ἑπτακαίδεκα, ἐνίκησε δὲ ἑπτάκις. καὶ ἀπέθανε ναυαγήσας κατὰ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον ἐν τῷ πρὸς Λακεδαιµονίους πολέµῳ· καὶ ἐκ τούτου ἐκωλύθη στρατεύεσθαι ποιητήν. τὰ δὲ δράµατα αὐτοῦ Αἶγες, Ἀστράτευτος ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι, καὶ ἄλλα Σωσιπόλιδος Meineke : Σωσίπολις Suda om. SudaGIVM

ὃς SudaA : οὗτος SudaGIVM

µὲν SudaA :

Eupolis son of Sosipolis, an Athenian, a comic poet. He began to put on shows at age seventeen, and he staged seventeen plays and was victorious seven times. And he died when he was shipwrecked in the Hellespont during the war against the Spartans; and from that point on, poets were prevented from taking part in military expeditions. His plays are Aiges, Astrateutos or Androgynoi, and others

Citation context Like test. 10 (discussing Plato Comicus), one of a number of mini-biographies of authors of various genres, including 86 comic poets, preserved in the Suda and apparently drawn in large part from the Ὀνοµατολόγος ἢ Πίναξ τῶν ἐν Παιδείᾳ ὀνοµαστῶν (“Catalogue of Names or List of Individuals Renowned in Learning”) of Hesychius of Miletus (see Suda η 611). Test. 2a is likely to be traced to the same source. Most of Hesychius’ material must have been drawn from Aristotle’s work on the dramatic competitions and thus ultimately from official Athenian state archives and inscriptions. See in general Wagner 1905. 30–55, esp. 33–5; Orth 2013. 18–20. The end of the entry has been abbreviated, and a version of some of the missing material seems to be preserved in test. 14 (n.). Text The name of the poet’s father is wanted as the standard second item in the entry (Wagner element a), hence Meineke’s genitive Σωσιπόλιδος for the paradosis nominative Σωσίπολις.43 The error likely originated in an abbreviated Σωσιπλ vel sim.

43

The problem was already recognized by Kuster, although his suggestion Σωσιπόλεως is an unattested name and thus almost certainly incorrect.

38

Eupolis

The oldest and best manuscript of the Suda is A, whose readings are generally to be preferred when it diverges from the recentiores, as in the other two variants (neither of any interpretative significance) here. Discussion Kaibel 1907 p. 1230.22–36; Körte 1912. 312; Storey 2003. 52–4, 59 Interpretation The entry begins in a typical fashion, with the poet’s name followed by that of his father (Wagner element a), his ethnikon (Wagner element b) and his genre, here without reference to period (Wagner element c); cf. Suda κ 2344 = Cratin. test. 1 Κρατῖνος, Καλλιµήδους, Ἀθηναῖος, κωµικός (“Cratinus, son of Callimedes, an Athenian, a comic poet”); ν 406 = Nicophon test. 1 Νικοφῶν Θήρωνος, Ἀθηναῖος, κωµικός (“Nicophon, son of Theron, an Athenian, a comic poet”); ν 407 = Nicoch. test. 1 Νικοχάρης, Φιλωνίδου τοῦ κωµικοῦ, Ἀθηναῖος, κωµικός (“Nicochares, son of the comic poet Philonides, an Athenian, a comic poet”). The mention of the number of plays and victories (Wagner element e) and the list of titles (Wagner element g) are also standard items; cf. Suda κ 2339 = Crates Com. test. 1 δράµατα δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰσιν ζ΄· Γείτονες, Ἥρωες, Θηρία, Λάµια, Πεδῆται, Σάµιοι (“There are seven plays by him: Geitones, Hêrôes, Thêria, Lamia, Pedêtai, Samioi”); Suda κ 2344 = Cratin. test. 1 ἔγραψε δὲ δράµατα κα΄, ἐνίκησε δὲ θ΄ (“he wrote 21 plays and was victorious nine times”); Suda φ 457 = Philyll. test. 1; Suda π 1708 = Pl. Com. test. 1; Suda σ 1178 = Stratt. test. 1; Suda σ 93 = Sannyrio test. 1; Suda α 1982 = Anaxandr. test. 1 ἔγραψε δὲ δράµατα ξεʹ, ἐνίκησε δὲ ιʹ (“he wrote 65 plays and was victorious ten times”). The list of plays is generally organized alphabetically, and Αἶγες, Ἀστράτευτος ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι—the first two titles of Eupolis’ plays in alphabetical order—must thus be the beginning of a comprehensive catalogue that has been abbreviated by the editors of the Suda; cf. Suda θ 171 = Theopomp. Com. test. 1 ἐδίδαξε δράµατα κδ᾿. … δράµατα δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰσὶ 〈 … 〉 καὶ ἄλλα πολλά (“he presented 24 plays … His plays are 〈 … 〉 and many others”), and see above on Citation context. The references to Eupolis’ age when he staged his first play and to the time and manner of his death frame his agonistic record and convert it into something resembling a brief life history. Wagner 1905. 34 implicitly treats the additional material as serving a primarily chronological function (his element d; more often an Olympiad date or a synchronization with another, better known figure). But the information that follows regarding a supposed prohibition on poets participating in military expeditions after Eupolis’ death embeds his story in the history of the genre as a whole. The obvious source is a more substantial Life like that of Aristophanes (test. 1), although no other firm evidence for this survives. Cf. the material on Cratinus’ death in his test. 2a.6–9 (from the same source as Eup. test. 2a).

Testimonia (test. 2)

39

According to test. 2a (n.), Eupolis’ first comedy dates to 429 BCE. Combining this information with the claim here that he staged his first play at age seventeen puts his birth in 447 or 446 BCE. As for his death, there was fighting in the Hellespont in 412/1 BCE (Th. 8.61–2); none of Eupolis’ plays obviously or necessarily dates after the mid-410s BCE (see test. 3 n.); and Wilamowitz suggested that the poet was perhaps to be identified with the homonymous war-casualty from 412/1? BCE whose name is recorded in test. dub. 51 (n.). Kaibel is dubious of dates offered by both the Suda and Anon. De Com., taking the former to be an echo of similar claims regarding Aristophanes, and the latter to represent an effort to produce a suitable fiction to explain Eupolis’ death when the story about Alcibiades drowning him was discredited by Eratosthenes (see test. 3 with n.). Nothing else is known of the prohibition on poets serving on military expeditions that supposedly followed Eupolis’ death. But κωλύω does not suggest formal legislative action, and it is tempting to suppose that some Hellenistic scholar noted that no poet after Eupolis was known to have died in battle and conjectured that this must have been the result of formal or informal Athenian policy, after which the hypothesis ossified into fact. Alternatively, this may be a bad deduction from e. g. a cutting remark in a parabasis about the lack of military service performed by someone’s poetic rivals. Phrynichus is supposed to have died in Sicily shortly before this (Phryn. Com. test. 2.6), and Pherecrates was perhaps a war-casualty in the same period (Olson 2010b). Eupolis’ father Sosipolis (PAA 863170) is otherwise unknown. The name is relatively rare in Athens (only three other secure 5th-/4th-century examples), Eupolis much less so (about 20 other 5th-/4th-century examples). The shared second element in any case suggests a family onomastic tradition.44 For the number of Eupolis’ plays (said to be fourteen in test. 2a), see Introduction Section 2. For Eupolis’ competitive record, see test. 11–13.

test. 2 K.-A. (test. ii–iii Storey) a. Anon. περὶ Κωµῳδίας (Proleg. de com. III.9–13, 33–5), pp. 7, 9 Koster οἱ µὲν οὖν τῆς ἀρχαίας κωµῳδίας ποιηταὶ οὐχ ὑποθέσεως ἀληθοῦς ἀλλὰ παιδιᾶς εὐτραπέλου γενόµενοι ζηλωταὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐποίουν· καὶ φέρεται αὐτῶν πάντα τὰ δράµατα τξε΄ σὺν τοῖς ψευδεπιγράφοις. τούτων δέ εἰσιν ἀξιολογώτατοι Ἐπίχαρµος (test. 6a), Μάγνης (test. 3), Κρατῖνος (test. 2a), Κράτης (test. 2a), Φερεκράτης (test. 2a), Φρύνιχος (test. 2), Εὔπολις, Ἀριστοφάνης 44

For the phenomenon, see Lambert 2012. 329–30.

40

Eupolis (test. 4) … Εὔπολις Ἀθηναῖος. ἐδίδαξεν ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀπολλοδώρου (430/29 BCE), ἐφ’ οὗ καὶ Φρύνιχος, γεγονὼς δυνατὸς τῇ λέξει καὶ ζηλῶν Κρατῖνον· πολὺ γοῦν λοίδορον καὶ σκαιὸν ἐπιφαίνει. γέγραπται δὲ αὐτῷ δράµατα ιδ΄ The Old Comic poets took part in the contests out of an interest in witty entertainment rather than in offering true advice; a total of 365 of their plays are preserved if one includes the forgeries. The most significant of them are Epicharmus (test. 6a), Magnes (test. 3), Cratinus (test. 2a), Crates (test. 2a), Pherecrates (test. 2a), Phrynichus (test. 2), Eupolis, Aristophanes (test. 4) … Eupolis the Athenian. He staged a play in the archonship of Apollodorus (430/29 BCE), to whose year Phrynichus also belongs, and was powerful in his diction and an imitator of Cratinus; at any rate, he exhibits considerable abuse and crudity. He is the author of 14 plays b. Canones comicorum, tab. M cap. 4 = tab. C cap. 10, pp. 6 = 12 Kroehnert κωµῳδοποιοὶ ἀρχαίας ἑπτά· Ἐπίχαρµος (test. 6b), Κρατῖνος (test. 2b), Εὔπολις, Ἀριστοφάνης (test. 4), Φερεκράτης (test. 2b), Κράτης (test. 2b), Πλάτων (test. 2) Seven Old Comic poets: Epicharmus (test. 6b), Cratinus (test. 2b), Eupolis, Aristophanes (test. 4), Pherecrates (test. 2b), Crates (test. 2b), Plato (test. 2)

Discussion Sarati 1996. 130–2; Storey 2003. 54–6 Citation context Test. 2a is part of a canned Byzantine history of the comic genre, with each poet given separate treatment in the same order as in the initial list of names; the entries include a mix of information about dates, number of plays preserved, stylistic characteristics, various career details and the like. Similar but briefer discussions of “Middle” and “New Comedy” follow. The material on individual poets resembles that in the entries in Hesychius’ Onomatologos (test. 1 n.) and is likely drawn at least in part from that source. The overall count of plays preserved, on the other hand, must go back to the catalogue of a major library, most likely the one in Alexandria; see Interpretation. Test. 2b is part of an unadorned Byzantine catalogue of canonical authors in various literary genres. Kassel–Austin apparently take the material preserved in test. 2b to be closely connected with the list of poets’ names in the first part of test. 2a, although the catalogues overlap only in part. Interpretation The final six (Athenian) names in the first part of test. 2a follow the order of neither the City Dionysia Victors List (Magnes, Cratinus, Crates, Pherecrates, but then Aristophanes, Eupolis, Phrynichus) nor the Lenaea Victors List (Cratinus, Pherecrates, Phrynichus, Eupolis and then presumably Aristophanes, but without Magnes at the head of the list). Probably

Testimonia (test. 2)

41

the results have been combined, giving the names in the order in which the poets took the prize at one festival or the other and adding Epicharmus from the Syracusan tradition. If so, the source of the material in the second part of test. 2a (Hesychius?) used a different system of reckoning, since both Phrynichus and Eupolis are assigned to 429 BCE, although we know they were not both victorious that year.45 If these references are to the poet’s initial appearance at a festival, Clinton’s emendation of Suda φ 763 = Phryn. Com. test. 1.2 putting Phrynichus’ first comedy in Olympiad 432/28 (rather than Olympiad 436/2) must be right. For the remarks about Eupolis’ poetic tendencies, compare what is said just before this about e. g. Cratinus (= his test. 2a.10) γέγονε δὲ ποιητικώτατος, κατασκευάζων εἰς τὸν Αἰσχύλου χαρακτῆρα (“he was extremely poetic, constructing [his plays] in the Aeschylean style”) and Crates (= his test. 2a.6–7) πάνυ γελοῖος καὶ ἱλαρὸς γενόµενος (“being quite funny and amusing”). According to the individual biographical notices preserved in the Suda, a total of 163 plays were assigned to the eight poets listed in test. 2a.46 Another 111 plays are assigned in lists of titles to poets who certainly belong to the so-called “Old Comedy”,47 while an additional 83 titles are known from other late 5th-/early 4th-century poets who can reasonably be thus classified,48 for an overall total of 367 plays. This number is close enough to the one provided by test. 2a—and far enough away from the number of comedies actually performed in Athens between the institution of the contests at the City Dionysia in the early 480s BCE or so and the death of Aristophanes around 388 BCE, which ought to be about 80049—to raise the possibility that we are dealing with 45

46 47

48 49

Both Eupolis and Phrynichus appear after Aristophanes in the City Dionysia list, with initial victories sometime in the second half of the 420s BCE. Regardless of who was victorious at the Lenaea in 429 BCE, therefore, neither man could have taken the prize at the City Dionysia that year. Apollodorus, eponymous archon for 430/29 BCE, is PA 1375; PAA 141805. Epicharmus 40; Magnes 9; Cratinus 21; Crates 6; Pherecrates 16; Phrynichus 11 (in the form of a list of titles); Eupolis 16; Aristophanes 44. Alcaeus Comicus 10; Apollophanes 5; Autocrates 1; Callias* 6; Cantharus* 4; Cephisodorus 4; Chionides 3; Diocles 5; Hermippus 40; Leuco 2; Myrtilus* 2; Nicochares* 9; Nicophon* 4; Philonides 3; Philyllius 10; Teleclides 3. All of these in lists of titles in the relevant Suda entry; * indicates that the specific designation “an Old Comic poet” is not provided. Amipsias 7; Archippus 6; Aristomenes 5; Lysippus 2; Plato Comicus 28; Poliochus 1; Polyzelus 5; Theopompus Comicus 20; Sannyrio 4; Strattis 15. Assuming 5 plays per year for approximately 40 years until the Lenaea contests were added ~ 200 plays, and 10 plays per year thereafter ~ 600 plays.

42

Eupolis

the same corpus, which is to say both that this may represent the number of “Old Comedies” preserved in Alexandria and that virtually all the material we have comes to us through the Library.50

test. 3–5 K.-A. Death and Burial test. 3 K.-A. (= Baptai test. vii Storey) Cic. ad Att. VI.1.18 quis … non dixit Εὔπολιν τὸν τῆς ἀρχαίας ab Alcibiades navigante in Siciliam deiectum esse in mare? redarguit Eratosthenes (fr. 48 Strecker = FGrH 241 F 19); adfert enim quas ille post id tempus fabulas docuerit. num idcirco Duris Samius (FGrH 76 F 73) homo in historia diligens, quod cum multis erravit, irridetur? Who did not claim that “Eupolis the Old Comic poet” was thrown into the sea by Alcibiades as the latter was sailing to Sicily? Eratosthenes (fr. 48 Strecker = FGrH 241 F 19) disproves this; for he cites plays that Eupolis staged after this date. Surely Duris of Samos (FGrH 76 F 73), a conscientious historian, is not laughed at on this account, that he joined many other authorities in error?

Citation context Offered by Cicero as an example of a “common error” that results from following received opinion on a point and that is to be distinguished from more gross and deliberate sorts of ignorance, such as confusion about the achievements of one’s ancestors. The fragment of Eratosthenes is presumably drawn from his On Old Comedy. That Eratosthenes was specifically correcting Duris seems probable; cf. his attack on Callimachus in Marikas test. iii. But Duris’ primary interest was in any case more likely in Alcibiades and his generally outrageous behavior than in Eupolis. Discussion Schwarze 1971. 113–15; Storey 2003. 56–9 Interpretation The reference is to the tradition—widespread in later sources, and according to Cicero in earlier ones as well—that Alcibiades drowned Eupolis on the way to Sicily in 415 BCE as revenge for what had been said about him in Baptai (test. ii–v with nn.). Cicero’s implication is that Duris got the tale from another authority, presumably passing it on in the course of the

50

The numbers for the so-called “Middle Comedy” are not so tractable.

Testimonia (test. 4)

43

discussion of the Peloponnesian War in his Samian Chronicle; see Kebric 1977. 79–80 (although without specific reference to this passage). For the various traditions having to do with Eupolis’ death (including test. 4–5), see in general Storey 1990. 4–7; Storey 2003. 56–60.

test. 4 K.-A. (= test. iv Storey) Paus. 2.7.3 µετὰ δὲ τὸ µνῆµα τοῦ Λύκου διαβεβηκόσιν ἤδη τὸν Ἀσωπόν, ἔστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τὸ Ὀλύµπιον, ὀλίγον δὲ ἔµπροσθεν ἐν ἀριστερᾷ τῆς ὁδοῦ τάφος Εὐπόλιδι Ἀθηναίῳ ποιήσαντι κωµῳδίαν After the tomb of Lycus, after one has already crossed the Asopus, the Olympion is on the right. Just before it, on the left-hand side of the road, is a grave for Eupolis the Athenian, who wrote comedy

Citation context From Pausanias’ description of the sights on the road from Corinth to Sicyon just after one moves into Sicyonian territory. Discussion Kaibel 1907 p. 1230.60–3; Storey 2003. 57 Interpretation Just before this, at 2.7.2, Pausanias says that he has no idea who Lycus was and could find no evidence for a Messenian by the name who was a pentathlete and victorious at Olympia (Moretti #1014). The additional information apparently comes from an inscription on the tomb, just as in the report that follows of Ξενοδίκης µνῆµα … ἀποθανούσης ἐν ὠδῖσι (“a grave commemorating Xenodice, who died in childbirth”). Εὐπόλιδι Ἀθηναίῳ ποιήσαντι κωµῳδίαν is thus most economically explained as drawn from the inscription on the tomb, although it is not impossible that Ἀθηναίῳ ποιήσαντι κωµῳδίαν is a gloss either by Pausanias (who must then have known what he was talking about) or by a scribe (in which case the connection of the name with the Athenian comic poet is likely mistaken). For the name of the genre used in the singular thus, cf. already Ar. V. 1511 τὴν τραγῳδίαν ποεῖ; Pl. Smp. 223d κωµῳδίαν καὶ τραγῳδίαν ἐπίστασθαι ποιεῖν. Why a cenotaph of Eupolis would have been erected outside Sicyon is difficult to say. The location on a border between two states suggests a tutelary function. Among the first sights Pausanias describes in the city itself, on the other hand, are a theater and a temple of Dionysus (2.7.5), and Sicyon did have a rich artistic, literary and musical history. The 4th-century comic poet Sophilos, for example, was from Sicyon, as were Macho and the Neophron whose Medea allegedly provided a model for Euripides’ homonymous tragedy,

44

Eupolis

while tragic choruses were supposedly performed there already in the first half of the 6th century BCE (Hdt. 5.67.1). See Griffin 1982. 158–64, esp. 162–3, and more generally Lolos 2011. For the various traditions having to do with Eupolis’ death (including test. 3; 5), see in general Storey 1990. 4–7; Storey 2003. 56–60.

test. 5 K.-A. (= test. xii Storey) Aelian NA 10.41 Εὐπόλιδι τῷ τῆς κωµῳδίας ποιητῇ δίδωσι δῶρον Αὐγέας ὁ Ἐλευσίνιος σκύλακα ἰδεῖν ὡραῖον, Μολοττὸν τὸ γένος, καὶ καλεῖ τοῦτον ὁ Εὔπολις ὁµωνύµως τῷ δωρησαµένῳ αὐτόν. κολακευθεὶς οὖν ταῖς τροφαῖς καὶ ἐκ τῆς συνηθείας ὑπαχθεὶς τῆς µακροτέρας, ἐφίλει τὸν δεσπότην ὁ Αὐγέας ὁ κύων. καί ποτε ὁµόδουλος αὐτῷ νεανίας, ὄνοµα Ἐφιάλτης, ὑφαιρεῖται δράµατά τινα τοῦ Εὐπόλιδος· ἃ οὐκ ἔλαθε κλέπτων, ἀλλὰ εἶδεν αὐτὸν ὁ κύων, καὶ ἐµπεσὼν ἀφειδέστατα δάκνων ἀπέκτεινε. χρόνῳ δὲ ὕστερον ἐν Αἰγίνῃ τὸν βίον ὁ Εὔπολις κατέστρεψε καὶ ἐτάφη ἐνταῦθα· ὁ δὲ κύων ὠρυόµενός τε καὶ θρηνῶν τὸν τῶν κυνῶν θρῆνον, εἶτα µέντοι λύπῃ καὶ λιµῷ ἑαυτὸν ἐκτήξας ἀπέθανεν, µισήσας τὸν βίον. καὶ ὅ γε τόπος καλεῖται µνήµῃ τοῦ τότε πάθους Κυνὸς Θρῆνος Augeas of Eleusis gave the comic poet Eupolis a nice-looking puppy, Molossian in breed, as a gift, and Eupolis named it after the man who presented it to him. Coaxed by food and led on by their extended intimacy, the dog Augeas came to love his master. At some point a fellow slave of his, a young man named Ephialtes, stole a number of Eupolis’ plays; he did not get away with the theft, but the dog saw him, fell upon him and killed him by biting him mercilessly. Later on, Eupolis died on Aegina and was buried there; and the dog, howling and lamenting in the way dogs do, eventually wasted away from grief and hunger and died, since it hated its life. And in memory of its suffering at that time, the place is called Kynos Thrênos (“Dog’s Lamentation”)

Citation context Similar material about the loyalty of dogs to their masters is preserved in Aelian at NA 1.8; 6.25, 62; 7.10, 29, 38, 40; 11.13; 12.35. Not all this material necessarily comes from the same source. It nonetheless seems more likely that Aelian is drawing on a pre-existing literary miscellany than on local Aeginetan tradition (Kyriakidi 2007. 147). Discussion Kaibel 1889. 40–2; Kaibel 1907 p. 1230.37–57; Storey 2003. 56–7, 87–9; Kyriakidi 2007. 137–49; Grassl 2009 Interpretation Augeas of Eleusis is PA 2695; PAA 229355. The name is otherwise attested in Attica only as that of a comic poet (PA 2694; PAA 229350) said

Testimonia (test. 5)

45

by Suda α 4410 to be a representative of “Middle Comedy” and assigned by Kassel–Austin on that basis to the 4th century BCE. The lack of any fragments is surprising, and Augeas may well be a “ghost”. If he was a real person, however, it is tempting to think that he is either identical with the Augeas mentioned by Aelian (misdated by the Suda—i. e. by Hesychius—on the basis of the titles or content of his plays?) or one of that man’s ancestors. In that case, there may be some connection between Aelian’s story and earlier discussion of Eupolis’ literary heritage, perhaps including the fate of whatever texts he left behind when he died. For Eupolis’ slave Ephialtes (PAA 452918), compare the equally obscure— and even more dubious—report at Photius Bibl. (190, p. 151a5–14; vol. III pp. 64–5 Henry) from Ptolemy Chennos that “the Hybristodikai of Eupolis (were found by the head) of Ephialtes”, sc. when he died, with the general Introduction to Hybristodikai; and the Cephisophon (PAA 569015) repeatedly said by Aristophanes to have helped Euripides compose his tragedies (Ra. 944, 1408, 1452–3; fr. 596) and who was taken by the Peripatetic biographer Satyrus to have been Euripides’ slave. Kaibel 1889. 40–1 associated Aelian’s Ephialtes with the title-character of Phrynichus’ Epialtes or Ephialtes, arguing that Phrynichus’ play was an attempt to intervene in the on-going plagiarism debate between Eupolis and Aristophanes (for which, see test. 16 with n.; Introduction Section 8). Kaibel 1907 tacitly withdrew this interpretation (noting instead the existence of a nightmare-monster with a similar name; see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1037–8), but continued to maintain that Aelian’s source must have been a lost comedy that touched on the question of plagiarism. What survive for us, at any rate, appear to be traces of inventive, figurative arguments and slanders (Eupolis’ “good dog” Augeas51 confronts his “bad, thievish slave” Ephialtes) extracted from the original texts of unknown comedies by Hellenistic scholars interested in biographical details about poets from the classical period, and then reworked by later writers. For Storey’s attempt to connect this testimonium with Aps. Ars. Rhet. 3 to reconstruct the plot of Autolykos I/II, see the introduction to those plays and Kyriakidi 2007. 141–5. The tale of the faithful dog goes back to Od. 17.300–27 and doubtless far before that. But the point of the story as Aelian presents it is etymological, reminiscent of the explanation of the name Kynos Sêma offered at E. Hec. 51

That the dog in Aelian shares the name of the man who gave him to Eupolis is a particularly odd detail. For seemingly more typical dog-names, see the list at X. Cyn. 7.5, and the catalogue at Mentz 1933. 104–29, 181–202, 415–25, with synthetic discussion at 433–42.

46

Eupolis

1271–3. Kynos Thrênos itself is mentioned nowhere else; perhaps it recalls “Cynosema”, where the historical Eupolis likely died (Introduction Section 2). Eupolis is not otherwise associated with Aegina, but Aristophanes is (Ach. 652–4, perhaps implying that the poet’s family had a cleruchy on the island, which was handed over to Athenian settlers in 431 BCE). Grassl suggests that the story of the poet’s watchful dog may have originated from the image on a grave-monument. For Molossian dogs (notoriously fierce), cf. Cratin. fr. 5; Ar. Th. 416–17 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; fr. 958; [Epich.] fr. 247.3. For the various traditions having to do with Eupolis’ death (including test. 3–4), see in general Storey 1990. 4–7; Storey 2003. 56–60.

test. 6–10 K.-A. Chronology test. 6 K.-A. (= test. v Storey) a. Euseb. (Lat.) Ol. 88.1 (a. 428/7) p. 115.6–8 Helm Eupolis et Aristofanes (test. 13a) scriptores comoediarum agnoscuntur Eupolis and Aristophanes (test. 13a) become prominent as comic authors b. Euseb. (Arm.) Ol. 88.2 (a. 427/6) p. 194 Karst (Eupolis und Aristophanes (test. 13b) waren als Liederdichter gekannt) Eupolis and Aristophanes (test. 13b) became prominent as poets

Citation context The original Greek text of Eusebius’ Chronicle (early 4th century CE) is lost, but the work survives in a Latin translation by Jerome and an anonymous Armenian translation (quoted here from the standard modern translation into German) of a Greek redaction of the text that dates to sometime before 600 CE and also provided the basis for the Syriac; see Interpretation and test. 7 n. Eusebius’ immediate sources are obscure and a matter of dispute, the extent of his dependence on Sextus Julius Africanus (early 3rd century CE) being the central point at issue. But the reference to the floruit dates of Eupolis and Aristophanes may ultimately go back to the Chronika of Apollodorus of Athens (2nd century BCE); see Mossbacher 1979. 158–68. Interpretation The dates offered by the Latin and Armenian translations of Eusebius differ by a year, and in such situation the Latin is to be preferred as

Testimonia (test. 7)

47

having been made more or less direct from the original Greek; see WallaceHadrill 1955, esp. 250–1; Mossbacher 1979. 67–73; Christesen 2007. 235–40. In this case, this conclusion is confirmed by the version of the text preserved in Cyril of Alexandria (test. 7), which agrees with the Latin. If Eusebius’ date is correct, the reference must be to the poets’ initial appearances at a festival rather than their initial victories, which date a few years later; see test. 11–12 with nn. For Eusebius’ organization of his chronology by Olympiads, perhaps drawing on Africanus, see Christesen 2007. 228–76. A similar system had been used by Timaeus of Tauromenium (4th/3rd century BCE) and eventually became standard, its fundamental advantage being that it supplied a firm framework within which material from various places and periods could be organized.

test. 7 K.-A. (= test. vi Storey) Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum I.15 ὀγδοηκοστῇ ὀγδόῃ Ὀλυµπιάδι τὸν κωµῳδὸν Ἀριστοφάνην (test. 14), Εὔπολίν τε καὶ Πλάτωνα ([test. 6]) γενέσθαι φασίν They say that the comic author Aristophanes (test. 14) dates to Olympiad 88, and Eupolis and Plato ([test. 6]) as well

Citation context Cyril cites this material in the course of an attempt to show that Moses substantially antedated the greatest Greek thinkers and thus deserves more deference than they do—which was also the fundamental point of Eusebius’ Chronicle, from which Cyril was borrowing; see Interpretation. Interpretation The reference to Plato, said at Euseb. p. 115.13 Helm to have been born in Ol. 88.4 (Plato nascitur), shows that Cyril is drawing direct on the now-lost original Greek of Eusebius’ Chronicle, meaning that this is merely another, somewhat less precise version of test. 6. That Cyril places Eupolis, Aristophanes and Plato all in Olympiad 88, rather than putting Plato in Ol. 89.1, as in the Armenian version (“Plato wurde geboren”), also confirms the greater reliability of the Latin version of the text; see test. 6 n. Finally, comparison with the Chronicle makes it clear that the reference in Cyril is to the 4th-century Athenian philosopher Plato rather than to Plato Comicus (pace Kassel–Austin); cf. Mancuso 2006.

48

Eupolis

test. 8 K.-A. (= test. vii Storey) Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica p. 309.15–16 Mossbacher Ol. 88 (a. 428/7– 425/4) Εὔπολις καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης (test. 16) κωµικοί, Σοφοκλῆς τε ὁ τραγῳδοποιὸς (test. 38c) ἐγνωρίζετο The comic authors Eupolis and Aristophanes (test. 16), and the tragic poet Sophocles (test. 38c) became well-known

Citation context From a chronological “miscellany” (σποράδην) said to be drawn in part from Africanus (probably one of Eusebius’ sources), although the reference to Eupolis and Aristophanes likely comes direct from Eusebius himself.52 Interpretation Georgius Syncellus (late 8th/early 9th century CE) knew Eusebius’ Chronicle (test. 6) via a Syriac translation based on the same exemplar as the Armenian version of the text; see Mosshammer 1979. 77–8. Like test. 7, this is thus merely another, somewhat less precise version of test. 6. The reference to Sophocles (in his 60s in the early 420s BCE) is probably drawn from Euseb. (Lat.) Ol. 85.3 (a. 438/7) p. 114.3–4 Helm Aristofanes (test. 15) clarus habetur et Sofocles (test. 38a) poeta tragicus (“Aristophanes (test. 15) was regarded as distinguished and the tragic poet Sophocles (test. 38a)”), where it is Aristophanes who is out of place.

test. 9 K.-A. (= test. viii Storey) Excerpta barbari, Chronica minora I p. 266.4–14 Frick filosofi autem cognoscebantur temporibus Artaxerxis Sofoclus (test. 38f) … Euripidus cantoconpositor (cf. test. 15b) … Socratus Athineus et Periclus et Eupolus et Aristofanus architector (test. 17). hii omnes cognoscebantur. unde et Africanus sub Artaxerxe rege dinumerat filosofos Moreover philosophers prominent in the time of Artaxerxes were Sophocles (test. 38f) … Euripides the composer of songs (cf. test. 15b) … Socrates of Athens and Pericles and Eupolis and Aristophanes the architect (test. 17). All these were prominent. Africanus accordingly lists philosophers during the reign of King Artaxerxes

52

Syncellus p. 309.10–11 Mossbacher δι’ Ἀσπασίας πόρνας δύο (the causes of the Peloponnesian War) is an unnoted reference to Ar. Ach. 527.

Testimonia (test. 10)

49

Citation context From a chronology of all human history beginning with the creation of Adam by God, organized in this section by the reigns of various Persian kings, with whom other peoples are coordinated, and patently drawing the reference to Eupolis and Aristophanes from Eusebius’ Chronicle (test. 6). See in general Mossbacher 1979. 152–3. Interpretation Although the Excerpta barbari do not refer to Olympiads, the organization and contents of the document are otherwise reminiscent of Eusebius’ Chronicle. This is thus merely another, much inferior version of test. 6. The unexpected description of Aristophanes as an architector53 reflects an original Greek ὁ κωµῳδός mistaken for οἰκοδόµος (thus Wachsmuth).

test. 10–15 K.-A. Competitive Record test. 10 K.-A. (= test. ix Storey) Suda π 1708 Πλάτων (test. 1)· Ἀθηναῖος, κωµικός, γεγονὼς τοῖς χρόνοις κατὰ Ἀριστοφάνην (test. 18a) καὶ Φρύνιχον (test. 4), Εὔπολιν, Φερεκράτην (test. 4) Plato (test. 1): an Athenian, a comic poet, contemporary with Aristophanes (test. 18a) and Phrynichus (test. 4), Eupolis, Pherecrates (test. 4)

Citation context Like test. 1 (n.), probably drawn from Hesychius of Miletus’ Catalogue of Names or List of Individuals Renowned in Learning. The number of Plato’s plays, a list of titles, and a brief comment on his literary character (λαµπρός, “brilliant”) follow. Discussion Luppe 1988. 187–8; Pirrotta 2009. 21–2 Interpretation The entry in the Suda includes Plato’s ethnikon (Wagner element b); the genre in which he worked (Wagner element c); chronological information (Wagner element d), in this case via coordination with what is implicitly taken to be the better-known Aristophanes, and then secondarily with Phrynichus, Eupolis and Pherecrates (see below); the number of his plays (Wagner element e), without mention of the number of his victories; and a list of titles organized alphabetically (Wagner element g). The lack of infor53

Storey translates “dramatist”, which represents neither the Latin nor the Greek it has garbled.

50

Eupolis

mation about his father (Wagner element a) or sons (Wagner element f) here and elsewhere suggests inter alia that Plato—unlike Cratinus, Hermippus and Aristophanes, for example, but like Eupolis—was not from a theatrical family. The list of contemporaries, all of whom took the prize before Plato did (see test. 11–12), serves to place Plato emphatically in the so-called ἀρχαῖα; see in general Pirrotta 2009. 20–1, 50–1 (although note that Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum I.15 = Eup. test. 7 is a false trail; see n.). For the coordination in the first instance with Aristophanes, cf. the Hesychian lives of Theopompus Comicus (test. 1), Nicochares (test. 1) and Nicophon (test. 1). The list of four contemporaries is an unusual feature of the entry,54 and Luppe 1988 suggested that this might be a roster of competitors at an individual dramatic competition at some point during the Peloponnesian War years. If so, he further noted, the most likely date is 420 BCE, when we know that Eupolis competed at an unidentified festival with one of his Autolykos plays, most likely Autolykos I (test. 13b), and probably failed to take the prize (test. 14 n.), and the play by Plato is likely Nikai. Cf. fr. 62 with n.; Neri 1994–1995.

test. 11 K.-A. (= test. x Storey) IG II2 2325.59 = 2325C.25 Millis–Olson [Τηλεκλεί]δης ΙΙΙ [ ca. 9–10 ]ς Ι 20 [ ca. 10–11 ]20 [– – –] Φερ[εκράτης ––– ] Ἕρµ[ιππος ––– ] Ἀρι[στοφάνης –––] 59 = 25 Εὔπ̣[ολις ΙΙΙΙ] Κά[νθαρος ––– ] Φρύ[νιχος ––– ] Ἀµ[ειψίας ––– ] Πλά̣[των ––– ] 30 Φιλ[ – – – ] Λύκ[ις ––– ] Λεύ[κων ––– ] vacat vacat

54

Cf. only Diocles (test. 1), who is called a contemporary of Sannyrion and Philyllius in another Hesychian life from the Suda.

Testimonia (test. 11)

51

Telecleides III [ ca. 9–10 ]s I 20 [ ca. 10–11 ] [ – – – ] Pher[ecrates ––– ] Herm[ippus ––– ] Ari[stophanes ––– ] 59 = 25 Eup[olis IIII] Ca[ntharus ––– ] Phry[nichus ––– ] Am[eipsias ––– ] Pla[to ––– ] 30 Phil[ – – – ] Lyc[is ––– ] Leu[con ––– ]

Discussion Storey 2003. 63–5 Interpretation Test. 11–12 are fragments of the so-called Victors Lists, an inscription (first cut around 280 BCE and updated periodically thereafter) that occupied the interior architrave blocks of a small rectangular building that must have stood somewhere in the sacred precinct of Dionysus on the south slope of the Acropolis. The inscription consisted of eight separate lists (tragic and comic poets and tragic and comic actors, for both the City Dionysia and the Lenaea festivals), with individuals listed in the order of their first victory, followed by their lifetime total number of victories at the festival in question. The columns all have 17 lines (a few lines occasionally left empty at the bottom), making calculation of the approximate relative dates of initial victories straightforward. For full discussion of the monument—erroneously taken by Reisch 1907. 303–5 to be a hexagonal structure on the walls of which the so-called Didascaliae, portions of which survive as IG II2 2319–23, were inscribed—and the inscription itself, see Millis–Olson 2012. 133–40 (with bibliography); Tracy 2015. 553–81. The Victors Lists are summaries stripped of information about individual performances and absolute dates. Like the Aristotelian Dionysiac Victories at the City Dionysia and Lenaea and Didascaliae consulted e. g. by Callimachus (test. 13b), however, they were certainly based on material drawn from the Athenian state archives (for which, see Sickinger 1999, esp. 42–7). Test. 11 is from what must be the second column of the list of comic poets victorious at the City Dionysia; this entire section of the text except lines 18–19 (from the joining frr. f + g) is preserved on the joining frr. d + e, which also preserve portions of the first column of the list. We know from IG II2

52

Eupolis

2318.91 (426 M–O) that Hermippus, whose name appears in the sixth line of Column II, just above Aristophanes, was victorious at the City Dionysia in 435 BCE, which is thus the latest possible date for that entry. Aristophanes’ Daitalês took second place at the City Dionysia in 427 BCE (test. iv–vi); Clouds did worse than that at the City Dionysia in 423 BCE, when Cratinus took the prize (Arg. II.2 Dover); and Acharnians and Knights were both Lenaea plays. In addition, we know that either Hermippus or Cantharus was victorious at the City Dionysia in 422 BCE (IG II2 2318.115 (582 M–O)), as Eupolis was with Kolakes in 421 BCE (see test. 13c). Aristophanes is supposed to have begun his competitive career in the early 420s BCE (see Eup. test. 6 with n.), and the initial victory at the City Dionysia recorded for him in the seventh line of Column II was thus almost certainly with Babylonians in 426 BCE—making him the first new poet in almost a decade or perhaps more to take the prize at the festival. Eupolis’ initial victory at the City Dionysia thus came in 425, 424 or (at the latest) 421 BCE (with Kolakes), since 423 and 422 BCE are excluded for him, as noted above. His total of four City Dionysia victories (restored in the inscription) can be calculated by comparison with the report of seven victories at both festivals combined in the Hesychian life preserved in the Suda (test. 1) and the figure of three Lenaea victories preserved in test. 12. If Eupolis’ first victory at the City Dionysia was in fact with Kolakes in 421 BCE, he was the dominant poet there for the next decade, taking the prize almost every time he entered the competition; but see the general Introduction to this volume.

test. 12 K.-A. (= test. xi Storey) IG II2 2325.126 = 2325E.11 Millis–Olson [Ληναικ]α̣[ὶ πο]η̣τῶν [κωµικ]ῶν [Ξ]ενόφιλος Ι Τηλεκλείδης ΙΙ 120 = 5 Ἀριστοµένης ΙΙ Κρατῖνος ΙΙΙ Φερεκράτης ΙΙ Ἕρµιππος ΙΙΙΙ Φρύνιχος ΙΙ 125 = 10 Μυρτίλος Ι 126 = 11 [Εὔ]πολις ΙΙΙ

Testimonia (test. 13)

53

[Lenai]a[ victories of com[ic] [po]ets Xenophilus I Telecleides II 120 = 5 Aristomenes II Cratinus III Pherecrates II Hermippus IIII Phrynichus II 125 = 10 Myrtilus I 126 = 11 [Eu]polis III

Discussion Storey 2003. 62–3 Interpretation For general discussion of the Victors Lists and their organization, see test. 11 n. Test. 12 is part of the top of the first column of the list of victors at the Lenaea, where the dramatic competitions began sometime in the late 440s BCE; the names that appeared below Eupolis have been lost. See in general Millis–Olson 2012. 178–9. We know that Aristophanes was victorious at the Lenaea in 425 BCE with Acharnians. That his name does not appear in the preserved portion of the list means that Eupolis’ initial victory at the festival came before that, in 426 BCE at the latest, and perhaps as early as 429 BCE (test. 2). Eupolis was thus victorious for the first time either in the same year as Aristophanes or even earlier, although Aristophanes then took the prize at one festival or another three years in a row (City Dionysia 426 BCE with Babylonians; Lenaea 425 BCE with Acharnians; Lenaea 424 BCE with Knights—and for all we know, with another play or even two as well).

test. 13 K.-A.55 a. Arg. I.32–4 (Olson) Ar. Ach. (= test. xiii.a Storey) = Cratin. test. 7a ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Εὐθύνου ἄρχοντος (426/5 BCE) ἐν Ληναίοις … καὶ πρῶτος ἦν. δεύτερος Κρατῖνος Χειµαξοµένοις· οὐ σώζονται. τρίτος Εὔπολις Νουµηνίαις

55

For reasons that are unclear, Storey includes along with the material that follows the notice in the hypothesis to Aristophanes Knights (test. xiii.b Storey) to the effect that that play took first at the Lenaea in 424 BCE, with Cratinus placing second and Aristomenes third.

54

Eupolis οὐ σώζονται post Νουµηνίαις transp. Elmsley : utroque loco ponendum cens. Kaibel [The play] was staged in the archonship of Euthynus (426/5 BCE) at the Lenaia … and took first. Cratinus was second with Cheimazomenoi; the play is not preserved. Eupolis was third with Noumêniai b. ΣENp Ar. Nu. 553 (= Marikas test. iii Storey) Ἐρατοσθένης (fr. 97 Strecker) δέ φησι Καλλίµαχον (fr. 454 Pfeiffer) ἐγκαλεῖν ταῖς ∆ιδασκαλίαις (Arist. fr. 441 Gigon), ὅτι φέρουσιν ὕστερον τρίτῳ ἔτει (421 BCE) 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 Eratosthenes (fr. 97 Strecker) says that Callimachus (fr. 454 Pfeiffer) criticizes the Didaskaliai (Arist. fr. 441 Gigon) for listing Marikas in the third year (421 BCE) after Clouds, although it is made clear there that [Marikas] was staged first. [Callimachus] fails to note, says [Eratosthenes], that [the poet] says nothing of the sort in the version [of Clouds] that was staged, whereas if the remark is made in the later revision, this is not at all unusual; and the Didaskaliai, obviously, list the plays that were staged c. Arg. III.39–41 (Olson) Ar. Pax (Eup. test. xiii.c Storey) ἐνίκησε δὲ (τῷ δράµατι ὁ ποιητὴς codd. : del. Olson) ἐπὶ ἀρχοντος Ἀλκαίου (422/1 BCE) ἐν ἄστει πρῶτος Εὔπολις Κόλαξι· δεύτερος Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ· τρίτος Λεύκων (test. 3b) Φράτορσι (“The poet with the play” codd. : del. Olson) Eupolis took the prize in the archonship of Alcaeus (422/1 BCE) at the City Dionysia with Kolakes; Aristophanes was second with Peace; Leuco (test. 3b) was third with Phratores d. Ath. 5.216d (also Autolykos test. i) ἐπὶ τούτου (Ἀριστίωνος, 421/0 BCE) … Εὔπολις τὸν Αὐτόλυκον (Autolykos test. i) διδάξας διὰ ∆ηµοστράτου χλευάζει τὴν νίκην τοῦ Αὐτολύκου In the archonship of this man (Aristion, 421/0 BCE) … Eupolis in staging his Autolykos (Autolykos test. i), using Demostratos as producer, makes fun of Autolykos’ victory

Citation context Four fragments of Hellenistic scholarship touching on the chronology of Eupolis’ competitive career, all presumably drawing on Aristotle’s Didaskaliai (“Performance Records”, sc. for the Lenaea and City Dionysia festivals in Athens; mentioned explicitly in test. 13b) and through them on official state records, inscribed portions of which are preserved in IG II2 2319–23a, SEG XXVI 203 (Millis–Olson 2012. 59–121). Cf. test. 11–12 with nn.

Testimonia (test. 13)

55

Test. 13a and 13c are the closing portions of Hypotheses that accompany two of Aristophanes’ plays in the manuscript tradition. Similar material, always listing only three competitors even though it is generally agreed that there must have been five poets per festival in this period, is preserved at e. g. Arg. II.20–2 (Wilson) Ar. Eq.; Arg. I.30–2 (Biles–Olson) Ar. V.; Arg. I.8–10 (Dunbar) Ar. Av. Test. 13b is from a learned note on test. 16 (n.), in which Aristophanes attacks Eupolis for modeling Marikas on his own Knights (Lenaea 424 BCE). As Eratosthenes (3rd century BCE) noted, Aristophanes’ reference to Eupolis’ alleged plagiarism is found in the revised (surviving) version of Clouds, which Eratosthenes’ teacher Callimachus apparently confused with the failed first version (City Dionysia 423 BCE; preserved only in fragments), causing him to conclude that the Didaskaliai were in error. The reference to Marikas in the surviving Clouds is more usefully understood as providing the terminus post quem for the latter play; see Dover 1968. lxxx. Test. 13d is from Herodicus of Babylon’s learned demolition of the chronology of events presupposed in Plato’s Symposium (esp. Ath. 5.216f–17a, with more on Aristion) and indeed of the Platonic construction of the historical Socrates generally. One portion of the notice appears also as test. 15. Text No fragments of either Noumêniai or Cratinus’ Cheimazomenoi are preserved, suggesting that neither play made its way to the Library in Alexandria. It is nonetheless unclear whether the individual who added the notice οὐ σώζονται to test. 13a knew only of the loss of Cheimazomenoi or if this is a clumsy parenthetic note intended to refer to both plays, and if so whether the words should be moved to the end of the note (thus Elmsley) or added a second time there (thus Kaibel). Interpretation These testimonia provide the only specific, fixed dates for Eupolis’ career other than his initial appearance at an unknown festival in either 429 (test. 2a) or 427 BCE (test. 6, whence test. 7–9): – Noumêniai at Lenaea 425 BCE56 (3rd place) – Marikas at Lenaea 421 BCE57 – Kolakes at City Dionysia 421 BCE (1st place); and – Autolykos in 421 BCE.

56 57

Euthynus, eponymous archon for 426/5 BCE, is PA 5655; PAA 433917. Aristion, eponymous archon for 421/0 BCE, is PA 1732; PAA 166250.

56

Eupolis

All other dates are either vague (test. 1) or relative (test. 11–12), or must be deduced from references to contemporary events, kômôidoumenoi and the like. See Introduction Section 2.

test. 14 K.-A. (= test. xiv Storey) Suda δ 756 διασκευαζόµενα. Εὔπολις, Ἀθηναῖος, κωµικός, ἔγραψε τόσα καὶ ἄλλα διασκευαζόµενος revised (plays). Eupolis, an Athenian, a comic poet, wrote thus-and-so many (plays), also revising others

Citation context A note on a technical literary-historical term, glossed with what appears to be another fragment of test. 1 and thus presumably also drawn from Hesychius’ Catalogue of Names or List of Individuals Renowned in Learning. The entry in the Suda continues καὶ διασκευάσασθαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ συσκευάσασθαι. ἴσως, for which Photius δ 441—patently drawing on the same source (= Cunningham’s Σ΄΄)—reads διασκευάσασθαι· ἀντὶ τοῦ συσκευάσασθαι. Ἰσαῖος (fr. 76 Sauppe). Interpretation According to Galen, citing Autolykos (test. ii) as an example, “a work rewritten on the basis of a previous draft is said to have been revised (epidieskeuasthai) when it has the same plot and most of the same words, but some parts of the original version have been removed, others added, and others altered”; cf. the description of Aristophanes’ revised Clouds in Arg. I.1, 3–6 (Dover) “This play is the same as the previous one, but has been revised (διεσκεύασται) in matters of detail … to take the play as a whole, correction (διόρθωσις), which has occurred in almost every part 〈 … 〉 some elements have been removed, while others have been worked in and have been given a new form in the arrangement and in the alteration of speaking parts”.58 Aristophanes also produced second versions of Aiolosikôn, Peace, Thesmophoriazusae and Plutus, and Epicharmus’ Mousai is said to have been a diaskeuê of his Hêbas Gamos (test. ii), making it clear that not every revision was assigned the same title as its model, while raising the converse possibility that plays with a common theme or central character might share a title without the second being a revision of the first (cf. Aristophanes’ Dramata 58

The text is corrupt, obscure and likely lacunose; I give the translation of Dover 1968. lxxxii–lxxxiii.

Testimonia (test. 15)

57

or Niobê and Dramata or Kentauros).59 Why and how often 5th-century poets revised plays is unclear, and their motives need not always have been identical. For an overview of the phenomenon (which appears to have accelerated later, although this may be an illusion created by the nature of our sources), see Nervegna 2013. 88–97 (noting Ar. Nu. 546 as perhaps referring to the practice as already well-established in the 410s BCE). But the examples of Clouds and in the 4th century of Anaxandrides (test. 2), who supposedly cut up his comedies for scrap-paper rather than revising them when they failed to take the prize, suggest that one common motivation may have been the failure of the first version. If so, it is a reasonable if unprovable hypothesis that Autolykos I did not take the prize in 420 BCE; cf. test. 10 with n. As Kassel–Austin note, we know of no revisions by Eupolis except Autolykos II. But the list of plays at the end of the more complete version of the Hesychian life in test. 1 has been abbreviated, and καὶ ἄλλα διασκευαζόµενος may well represent a version of some of what has been lost there. If so, other such pairs are almost certainly lurking undetected—and undetectable—among the preserved titles.

test. 15 K.-A. (= Autolykos test. i Storey) Ath. 5.216d διδάξας διὰ ∆ηµοστράτου using Demostratos as producer

Citation context From Herodicus of Babylon’s discussion of the chronology of events presupposed in Plato’s Symposium; see test. 13d Citation context. Interpretation The reference is to the staging of Autolykos I(?) in 420 BCE. Aristophanes is known to have used theatrical producers repeatedly (Callistratus for Daitales, Babylonians, Acharnians, Birds and Lysistrata; Philonides for Wasps, Amphiaraos, Frogs and Plutus); Plato Comicus seemingly did as well (test. 7 ἕως µὲν [ἄλλ]οις ἐδίδου τὰς κωµῳδίας εὐδοκίµει, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ δὲ πρῶτον διδάξας τοὺς Ῥαβδούχους καὶ γενόµενος τέταρτος, “As long as he turned over his comedies to others, he enjoyed a good reputation”—i. e. he placed well in the competitions—“but when he for the first time produced 59

Note also adesp. com. fr. 599 and the claim at Hsch. λ 1352 that (Magnes’) Ludoi “are preserved, but have been revised (διασκευασµένοι δέ εἰσιν)” (cf. Phot. λ 438 = Suda λ 784).

58

Eupolis

Rhabdouchoi by himself, he was fourth”); Anaxandrides employed one at least once near the end of his career (IGUR 218.9 = test. *5.9); and the 4th-century tragic poet Aphareus appears to have used at least three different men for this purpose (TrGF 73 T 2.18–19). Given the paucity of our sources, the implication is that reliance on producers was something approaching normal practice, allowing a specialist to handle staging matters and leaving the poet free to work on improving the text for however many plays he had in production that year and to prepare new material in anticipation of the up-coming season. Ar. Eq. 512–44, esp. 512–13, although a vexed passage, can reasonably be taken to suggest that some members of the public nonetheless felt that a “complete poet” ought to be expected to produce his own plays.60

test. 16–19 K.-A. Rivalry with Aristophanes test. 16 K.-A. (= Marikas test. i Storey) Ar. Nu. 553–4 Εὔπολις µὲν τὸν Μαρικᾶν πρώτιστον παρείλκυσεν ἐκστρέψας τοὺς ἡµετέρους Ἱππέας κακὸς κακῶς Eupolis, first of all, dragged his Marikas onstage by turning our Knights inside out, bad behavior by a bad man

Citation context From the parabasis of the revised Clouds (420–417 BCE), in which the poet defends the novelty of his own devices (esp. 547–8 αἰεὶ καινὰς ἰδέας εἰσφέρων σοφίζοµαι, / οὐδὲν ἀλλήλαισιν ὁµοίας καὶ πάσας δεξιάς), contrasting them first with Eupolis’ appropriation of the plot fundamentals of Knights (424 BCE) to attack Hyperbolos in Marikas (421 BCE), and then with the allegedly endless, dreary series of further copy-cat attacks on Hyperbolos by Hermippus and “all the others”. 60

The further implication of the passage from Clouds is that Aristophanes did not use a didaskalos for Knights, which took the prize. We know nothing about this aspect of the production of the original Clouds, which placed badly in the contest, but for Wasps Aristophanes again employed a producer. Whether the silence of the hypotheses to Peace in this regard tells us anything is impossible to say. But the staging of the entrance of the goddess Peace as an oversize statue was treated as problematic by other poets (Eup. fr. 62 with n.), suggesting that the play was not staged as effectively as it might have been.

Testimonia (test. 17)

59

Interpretation For the relationship between Aristophanes’ Knights and Eupolis’ Marikas, see the general introduction to Marikas. Fr. 89 (from Baptai; mid-410s BCE?) appears to be a response to the charge of plagiarism; see n. ad loc. This suggests either that the revised Clouds circulated widely enough for Eupolis to have felt that a reply to Aristophanes was necessary (or at least that one would be comprehensible to a theatrical audience) or—more likely—that these are isolated fragments of an extensive onstage discussion and debate, as various comic poets traded charges having to do with one another’s literary sources, borrowings, secret or not-so-secret assistance to friends and rivals, and the like. Cf. ΣVEΓΘM Ar. Eq. 531 = Cratin. fr. 213 (of Cratinus’ Pytinê) ἐν ἧ κακῶς λέγει Ἀριστοφάνην ὡς τὰ Εὐπόλιδος λέγοντα (“in which he abuses Aristophanes as using Eupolis’ words”), which ought perhaps to have its own testimonium number, and Introduction Section 8; Kyriakidi 2007. 109–30. ἐκστρέψας For the image (of turning a garment inside out to extend its life; thus ΣRV Ar. Nu. 88), cf. Ar. fr. 58 “making three square robes from my cloak” (taken by Fritzsche 1835. 144 to be another reference to Eupolis’ alleged plundering of Knights and conversion of it into three separate plays); Lysipp. fr. 4 “raising the nap and fumigating other people’s ideas” (from a parabasis, and thus likely a metatheatrical reference to someone’s theft of already worn-out material); adesp. com. fr. 599 (“resoling” and “heeling” as images for literary revision); Taillardat 1965 § 773.

test. 17 K.-A. (= test. xxxii.a Storey) ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 763 αἰνίττεται εἰς ΕὔπολινRVΓ καὶ τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν ὡς παίδων ἐρῶντας καὶ παλαίστρας περιερχοµένουςVΓ This is an oblique reference to EupolisRVΓ and his circle as being sexually attracted to boys and strolling around wrestling schoolsVΓ

Citation context A note on Ar. Pax 762–3 καὶ γὰρ πρότερον πράξας κατὰ νοῦν οὐχὶ παλαίστρας περινοστῶν / παῖδας ἐπείρων (“for in fact before this when I was successful I didn’t wander around wrestling schools and make passes at boys”), from near the end of the “parabasis proper” and reworking material from Wasps, where a related but better-informed note is preserved. See Interpretation. Like many Aristophanic scholia, including test. 18, the note is preserved in R only in truncated form. Discussion Storey 2003. 288–90; Kyriakidi 2007. 120–5

60

Eupolis

Interpretation Cf. Ar. V. 1023–5 ἀρθεὶς δὲ µέγας καὶ τιµηθεὶς ὡς οὐδεὶς πώποτ’ ἐν ὑµῖν, / οὐκ ἐκτελέσαι φησὶν ἐπαρθείς, οὐδ’ ὀγκῶσαι τὸ φρόνηµα, / οὐδὲ παλαίστρας περικωµάζειν πειρῶν (“But after he was exalted to greatness and honored among you as no one ever was before, he denies that he was lifted off the ground or that he went around the wrestling schools making passes”), which ΣVΓ identifies as an allusion to a passage in Autolykos (fr. 65; unmetrical) in which Eupolis is said to have claimed that “he went around the wrestling schools acting proud and displaying himself to the boys on account of his victory”. The chronology the note implies is impossible—both Wasps (422 BCE) and Peace (421 BCE) almost certainly antedate Autolykos I (420 BCE?)—and the fragment probably comes from a different play from the mid-420s BCE, but is in any case to be traced to the parabasis; see fr. 65 n. The more significant point is that a bit of braggadocio by “the poet” tells us nothing about the historical Eupolis beyond the fact that he was willing to characterize his onstage avatar as an aspiring pederast. This likely shocked no one, even if Aristophanes seized the opportunity to respond that he himself spent all his time fighting hard for the city, whereas his rival was a self-centered preener. For wrestling schools as a locus for pederastic activity, Scanlon 2002. 87–92, 216–19.

test. 18 K.-A. (= test. xxxii.b Storey) ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 740 ἐς τὰ ῥάκια· ὡς τοιαῦτα εἰσαγόντων τῶν ἄλλων κωµικῶν. RVΓ ῥακοφοροῦντας·VΓ αἰνίττεται δὲRVΓ καὶVΓ εἰς ΕὔπολινRVΓ Εὔπολιν Σ : fort. Εὐριπίδην Against the rags: since the other comic poets brought such matters onstage.RVΓ Wearing rags:VΓ this is an oblique reference to EupolisRVΓ in particularVΓ

Citation context A note on Ar. Pax 739–40 πρῶτον µὲν γὰρ τοὺς ἀντιπάλους µόνος ἀνθρώπων κατέπαυσεν / εἰς τὰ ῥάκια σκώπτοντας ἀεὶ καὶ τοῖς φθειρσὶν πολεµοῦντας (“for first of all he alone of mankind put a stop to his rivals always making mocking attacks against the rags and waging war on fleas”), from the “parabasis proper”, in which the chorus explain why their poet is uniquely deserving of the audience’s praise. Like many Aristophanic scholia, including test. 17, the note is preserved in R only in truncated form. Discussion Kyriakidi 2007. 125–30; Zogg 2014. 245 n. 1433

Testimonia (test. *19)

61

Interpretation See in general [fr. 404] n. (treating the same primary material). Test. *19—assuming that it originally referred to Eupolis rather than Euripides—appears to preserve at least one fragment of information about the comedies that could not simply have been extracted from the text of Peace. The same cannot be said of test. 18, which sounds like scholarly guesswork expanding the thesis put forward in a note on the next verse (hence possibly the inelegant καί, the intended sense being something like “also a riddling reference to Eupolis”), which was itself perhaps inspired by the more firmly grounded original version of test. 17 (n.). There is no other evidence for a plethora of ragged characters in Eupolis’ plays, which does not mean that there were none. But Aristophanes patently intends this as a characterization of his rivals generally and not of Eupolis alone.

test. *19 K.-A. (= test. xxxii.c Storey) ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 741 αἰνίττεται ταῦτα εἰς Εὔπολιν, ὃς ἐποίησε τὸν Ἡρακλέα πεινῶντα καὶ ∆ιόνυσον δειλὸν καὶ ∆ία µοιχὸν καὶ δούλον κλαίοντα. τινές φασι εἰς Κρατῖνον αἰνίττεσθαι ὡς τοιαῦτα ποιοῦντα δράµατα. ἐπεπόλασε δὲ τότε ταῦτα τὰ λήµµατα. καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης ὡς γαστρίµαργον τὸν Ἡρακλέα κωµῳδεῖ καὶ ἐν Ὄρνισι (1583–1605) καὶ ἐν Αἰολοσίκωνι (fr. 11). καὶ ἐν τοῖς Σφηξὶ (59–60) περὶ τούτων φησί, τοῦ τε Ἡρακλέους καὶ τοῦ δούλου· ἐπεπόλαζε γὰρ ὡς ἔοικε τότε ταῦτα, Ἡρακλῆς πεινῶν καὶ ∆ιόνυσος δειλὸς καὶ µοιχὸς Ζεύς, ὥστεVΓ καὶ αὐτοὺς δοκείν ἄχθεσθαι. Κρατῖνος (fr. 346): ὑπὸ δ᾿ Ἡρακλέους πεινῶντος ἄγει (ἀεὶ Bergk) καὶ σκώπτοντος ταῦτα † οὐ βιωτόν ἐστιRVΓ Εὔπολιν Dobree : Εὐριπίδην Σ   fort. καὶ 〈Ἑρµῆν〉 δούλον κλαίοντα This is an oblique reference to Eupolis, who wrote about Heracles as hungry, and Dionysus as a coward, and Zeus as a seducer and a wailing slave. Some say the reference is to Cratinus, as writing plays of this sort. These themes were fashionable at the time. Aristophanes himself in fact mocks Heracles as a glutton both in Birds (1583–1605) and in Aiolosikôn (fr. 11). He also discusses these matters, that is Heracles and the slave, in his Wasps (59–60); for these (themes) were fashionable at the time, so it seems, hungry Heracles, and cowardly Dionysus and Zeus the seducer, with the resultVΓ that they themselves seem oppressed [by them]. Cratinus (fr. 346): but by Heracles hungry he/she/it brings (“perpetually” Bergk) and offering this mockery † it’s unliveableRVΓ

62

Eupolis

Citation context A series of connected and to some extent overlapping notes on Ar. Pax 741–4 τούς θ’ Ἡρακλέας τοὺς µάττοντας κἀεὶ πεινῶντας ἐκείνους / τοὺς φεύγοντας κἀξαπατῶντας καὶ τυπτοµένους ἐπίτηδες / ἐξήλασ’ ἀτιµώσας πρῶτος, καὶ τοὺς δούλους παρέλυσεν / οὓς ἐξῆγον κλάοντας ἀεί (“and he first dishonored and drove off the well-known Heracleis who were kneading cakes and always hungry and in flight and deceptive and deliberately beaten, and he released the slaves they always brought on wailing”; the proper order of the lines is disputed, and they are given here as transmitted), where the chorus continue their account of their poet’s services to the Athenian theatrical scene and thus to the Athenian people generally. The fragment of Cratinus is corrupt and (despite the optimistic presentation in Kassel–Austin) not obviously metrical; see Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc. Whether it refers to Eupolis is unclear. The first section of the note (αἰνίττεται … δούλον κλαίοντα), like many Aristophanic scholia, was taken over as an entry in the Suda (µ 291). Text A reference to Euripides is inappropriate at Ar. Pax 741–4, where the poet’s rivals (739 ἀντίπαλοι), not his dramatic contemporaries generally, are in question; and Euripides and Eupolis are confused often enough in ancient sources (cf. test. 18; frr. 342 n.; 430 n.) to suggest that Dobree was right to restore Eupolis’ name here. Discussion Kyriakidi 2007. 125–30 Interpretation Kassel–Austin print only the first section of this note (or linked series of notes), obscuring its vague and speculative character. Dionysus certainly played a role in Taxiarchoi (cf. fr. 274 with n. and the general introduction to Taxiarchoi); whether he was presented as a coward there is impossible to say, although the juxtaposition of him with the notoriously manly Phormio makes that likely enough. But this may have been the image of Dionysus in comedy generally (cf. Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros and Aristophanes’ Frogs), and there is no trace of a gluttonous Heracles or a lecherous Zeus in the other titles and fragments of Eupolis’ plays. The material in the scholion is thus better understood as drawn from one or more late potted histories of the comic genre constructed out of selected fragments of various plays (including Pax 741–4) and earlier scholarship on them, rather than as reflecting any substantial acquaintance with the original texts themselves. Note that the discussion of “Heracles and the slave” is not repeated in Wasps, although much of the “parabasis proper” in Peace is taken over more or less direct from the earlier play.

Testimonia (test. 21)

63

[test. 20 K.-A.] (= test. xxxii.d Storey) = Cratin. test. 26 ΣThom Ar. Nu. 296 οἱ ἄλλοι κωµικοί· οὗτοι γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ποιήµασιν αὐτῶν ἀνθρώπους εἰσῆγον χέζοντάς τε καὶ ἕτερα αἰσχρὰ ποιοῦντας. λέγει δὲ δι᾿ Εὔπολιν καὶ Κρατῖνον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους the other comic authors: Because these men in their compositions brought people onstage shitting and engaging in other shameful activities. He says this on account of Eupolis and Cratinus and the others

Citation context A 14th-century scholion on Ar. Nu. 295–7 (Στ.) κεἰ θέµις ἐστίν, νυνί γ’ ἤδη, κεἰ µὴ θέµις ἐστί, χεσείω. / (Σω.) οὐ µὴ σκώψει, µηδὲ ποιήσεις ἅπερ οἱ τρυγοδαίµονες οὗτοι; / ἀλλ’ εὐφήµει ((Strepsiades) “Whether it’s permitted or whether it isn’t, right now—I’m going to take a shit.” (Socrates) “Don’t make crude jokes or do what the trygodaimones do! Keep quiet!”), from just before the parodos. οἱ τρυγοδαίµονες is glossed τοὺς ἄλλους κωµικοὺς λέγει (“he is referring to the other comic poets”) by ΣNM; this note by Thomas Magister (taken over by Demetrios Triklinios) expands on that interpretation. Discussion Kyriakidi 2007. 125–30 Interpretation Thomas Magister is far too late to have read the plays of Eupolis or Cratinus himself and is instead merely passing on bits of dubious information culled from other sources, in this case most likely from the anonymous Life of Aristophanes (test. 42 with n.). The testimonium should therefore be excluded as at best evidence of the early Humanist second-hand reception of the 5th-century comic poets.

[test. 21 K.-A.] Aristid. or. 3.43 (p. 306.5–11 Lenz–Behr) πρῶτον µὲν οὖν ὡς οὐ λάλους ἐποίησε µέγιστον, οἶµαι, κἀνταῦθα σηµεῖον τὸ µὴ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐκείνου χρόνων γενέσθαι τῇ πόλει τὴν διαβολὴν ταύτην, ἀλλ’ ὕστερον ἡνίκα τὸν µὲν ἤδη λαµπρῶς ἐπόθουν, τοὺς δὲ παρόντας πλείω λαλοῦντας ἢ φρονοῦντας εὕρισκον καὶ οὐδαµῶς τὸ τοῦ Περικλέους ἀγαθὸν σώζοντας. ὥστ’ ἐξ αὐτῶν ὧν τοὺς ὕστερον ᾐτιάσαντο καὶ ὧν ὑπὸ τῶν µετ’ ἐκεῖνον διεβλήθησαν τά γ’ ἐκείνου σεµνύνεται The first and most substantial evidence, then, I think, that (Pericles) did not make (the Athenians) chatterers, is that this criticism was not applied to the city in his time but later, when they now patently missed him and found that those who were present were chattering more than thinking and were

64

Eupolis in no way preserving what was good about Pericles, the result being that his qualities are honored by the accusations they levied against those who came afterward and by the criticisms of his successors ΣB Aristid. or. 3.43 (III p. 467.23–4 Dindorf) (= test. xxxiii Storey) εἰς τοὺς κωµικοὺς αἰνίττεται· ὧν εἷς ἐστιν ὁ Εὔπολις This is an oblique reference to the comic poets, one of whom is Eupolis

Citation context A note on a speech in which Aristides defends Pericles, Cimon, Miltiades and Themistocles, in that order, against the hostile characterization of them at Grg. 503b–c, in large part by vigorously attacking Plato. Interpretation Aelius Aristides mentions Eupolis by name at or. 3.365 in connection with the resurrection of Miltiades, Aristides, Solon and Pericles in Dêmoi (Dêmoi test. *1; cf. Dêmoi test. *ii ap. Aristid. or. 3.487) and there calls him a comic poet. This scholion thus adds no information not already found in Aristides, and ought to be excluded.

test. 22–33 K.-A. Eupolis in the Roman Period test. 22 K.-A. (= test. xv Storey) Horace, Satires II 3.11 quorsum pertinuit stipare Platona Menandro? Eupolin, Archilochum, comites educere tantos? What was the use of packing up Plato with Menander? Of taking Eupolis and Archilochus, such weighty companions, out of town?

Citation context Damasippus criticizes Horace for failing to produce any poetry during his time in the country, despite having brought books intended to inspire him. Interpretation Why—other than metrical convenience—Horace is supposed to have chosen Eupolis in particular for his reading is unclear. But the basic point is that Horace is reading (or supposed to be reading) ancient comedy because ancient comedy is a fundamental literary model for Roman satire (test. 23 with n.), the pairing with Archilochus perhaps suggesting that Eupolis too is taken to be of interest primarily because of his alleged taste for invective. Given the very limited number of references to Plato Comicus in the Roman

Testimonia (test. 23)

65

period and the lack of any papyri of his plays, the Plato in question is most likely Plato the philosopher (thus also Kassel–Austin on Pl. Com. test. *10).

test. 23 K.-A. (= test. xvi Storey) = Cratin. test. 27 = Ar. test. 62 Horace, Satires I 4.1–6 Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae atque alii, quorum comoedia prisca virorum est, si quis erat dignus describi, quod malus ac fur, quod moechus foret aut sicarius aut alioqui famosus, multa cum libertate notabant. hinc omnis pendet Lucilius Eupolis and Cratinus and Aristophanes and the other poets, the men to whom ancient comedy belongs, if someone deserved to be slated for being a malefactor or a thief, or because he was a seducer or a murderer or was otherwise notorious, they branded him with great frankness. Lucilius is entirely dependent on them

Discussion Ferriss–Hill 2015. 3–14 Citation context In a programmatic poem, Horace claims the “three heavyweights of Athenian Old Comedy” as “a foundation myth for Roman satire” (Gowers 2012. 148). For the Satires and Athenian comedy, see in general Delignon 2006, esp. 6–12. Interpretation For the Peripatetic theory that early comedy functioned as a means of social control, publicly criticizing bad behavior to ensure that it was not repeated—here satire’s program, imposed on the 5th-century Athenian comic poets—cf. test. 24 (another satiric poet); 26; 29; anon. de Com. IV (pp. 11–12 Koster). The social function assumed in test. 35 is different (n.). For Eupolis, Cratinus and Aristophanes as the three canonical “ancient” comic poets in the Roman period, likely reflecting the fact that only their plays and those of Menander were in general circulation so late, at least in the West, cf. test. 24–6; de Com. XXV.1.24–5 (p. 123 Koster) comoediae veteris pater Eupolis cum Cratino Aristophaneque (“Eupolis, the father of ancient comedy, along with Cratinus and Aristophanes”).

66

Eupolis

Horace’s reference implies no knowledge of the comedies themselves on the part of the readers of Satire I 4, and indeed functions better if they have not read the plays and thus lack any substantial understanding of their content.

test. 24 K.-A. (= test. xvii Storey) = Cratin. test. 28 = Ar. test. 63 Persius 1.123–561 audaci quicumque adflate Cratino iratum Eupolidem praegrandi cum sene palles, aspice et haec, si forte aliquid decoctius audis Whoever you are, fired up by bold Cratinus, pale at angry Eupolis along with the powerful old man, gaze at this work as well to perhaps hear something more boiled-down scholion unicuique suum epitheton dedit, audacem Cratinum dicit, iratum Eupolidem, Aristophanem praegrandem, quia nullus eum poeta satirographus antecedit. et hoc dicit: qui afflatus es Cratino et palles legendo Aristophanem et Eupolidem, et mea carmina lege He gave each man his own epithet; he calls Cratinus bold, Eupolis angry and Aristophanes powerful, because no satirical poet outdid him. He also says the following: Whoever is fired up by Cratinus and pale from reading Aristophanes and Eupolis, he should read my poems as well

Discussion Ferriss–Hill 2015. 17–21 Citation context Near the end of a programmatic poem, Persius traces the literary ancestry of his Satires to the three standard representative masters of ancient Athenian comedy. Interpretation For the appropriation of the late 5th-century Athenian comic poets as literary ancestors of Roman satire, cf. test. 23 with n. Despite the scholion, the adjectives attached to the three poets are just as likely to represent an evaluation of the nature of “ancient comedy” as a whole (bold, angry and powerful) than assessments of the specific literary characteristics of each individual author’s work.

61

Miscited as 1.122–4 in Storey 2011.

Testimonia (test. 26)

67

test. 25 K.-A. (= test. xviii Storey) = Cratin. test. 29 = Ar. test. 64 Velleius Paterculus 1.16.3 una (aetas illustravit) priscam illam et veterem sub Cratino Aristophaneque et Eupolide comoediam A single (period gave luster to) the famous ancient and old comedy in the time of Cratinus, Aristophanes and Eupolis

Citation context From a brief excursus near the end of Book I (the vast majority of which has been lost) on what Velleius takes to be the tendency of human genius to cluster in particular times and places. The other examples offered are tragedy in the time of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides; comedy in the time of Menander, Philemon and Diphilus; philosophy in the time of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; and rhetoric in the time of Isocrates and his students. Similar lists concerned with Roman literature appear at 2.9, 2.36.2–3. Interpretation For “Cratinus, Aristophanes and Eupolis” (in whatever order) as the standard representatives in the Roman period of the “old” Athenian comedy, in contrast to the “new” comedy of Menander and his contemporaries, cf. test. 23 n.

test. 26 K.-A. (= test. xix Storey) = Cratin. test. 30 = Ar. test. 65 Quint. Inst. Orat. 10.1.65–6 antiqua comoedia cum sinceram illam sermonis Attici gratiam prope sola retinet, tum facundissimae libertatis, et si est 〈in〉 insectandis vitiis praecipua, plurimum tamen virium etiam in ceteris partibus habet. Nam et grandis et elegans et venusta, et nescio an ulla 〈 … 〉, post Homerum tamen, … aut similior sit oratoribus aut ad oratores faciendos aptior. plures eius auctores, Aristophanes tamen et Eupolis Cratinusque praecipui Old comedy not only almost alone preserves unspoiled the famous elegance of the Attic dialect, but is also characterized by an elegant freedom. And although it is distinguished for inveighing against vice, in other aspects as well it possesses considerable power. For it is lofty, elegant and graceful, and I doubt that any other 〈 … 〉 with the exception of Homer … is either closer to oratory or more appropriate to producing orators. There are numerous authors, although the most distinguished are Aristophanes, Eupolis and Cratinus

68

Eupolis

Citation context From the first section of Book 10, in which Quintillian offers an extended reading list of Greek authors for the aspiring Roman orator; discussion of 5th-century tragedy and Menander follows. Much of this material likely goes back to Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus of Samos (cf. Quint. Inst. Orat. 10.1.53, 54, 59); how much 5th-century comedy Quintilian himself had read is impossible to say. See in general Steinmetz 1964. Interpretation For comedy on the Roman view of things aggressively attacking vice, cf. test. 23 n. For “Old Comedy” in particular as a rich source of Atticist vocabulary, see test. 49 with n. For Aristophanes, Eupolis and Cratinus as the standard representatives in the Roman period of the “old” Athenian comedy, in contrast to the comedy of Menander and his contemporaries, cf. test. 23 n.

test. 27 K.-A. (= test. xx Storey) = Cratin. test. 33 = Ar. test. 66 [Dionysius of Halicarnassus] Ars Rhetorica 8.11 (Vol. VI p. 309.19–22 Usener– Radermacher) ἡ δέ γε κωµῳδία ὅτι πολιτεύεται ἐν τοῖς δράµασι καὶ φιλοσοφεῖ, ἡ τῶν περὶ τὸν Κρατῖνον καὶ Ἀριστοφάνην καὶ Εὔπολιν, τί δεῖ καὶ λέγειν; ἡ γάρ τοι κωµῳδία αὐτὴ τὸ γελοῖον προστησαµένη φιλοσοφεῖ That comedy engages in politics and philosophy in its dramas—that is, the comedy of Cratinus, Aristophanes and Eupolis—why does this even need to be asserted? For comedy itself in fact sets up a pretense of humor and then engages in philosophy

Citation context Part of a discussion of “figured speeches”, i. e. those whose purpose is not what it appears to be, and intended to show that such speeches are found in classical authors. Thus 5th-century comedy—“the comedy of Cratinus, Aristophanes and Eupolis”, in implicit contrast to the later comedy of Menander—for example, appears to be merely seeking laughs, but is in fact engaged in serious political action. Interpretation For this treatise, falsely attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus and probably dating to the 2nd century CE, see Davies 2003, esp. 82–5. Other authors (e. g. Thucydides, Homer and Euripides) are treated at considerably greater length, and nothing in the passage suggests that the author has read the comic poets themselves, as opposed to knowing vaguely about them at second hand.

Testimonia (test. 28)

69

For the use of comedy in rhetorical training in the Roman period, see Nervegna 2013. 201–51.

test. 28 K.-A. (= test. xxi Storey) = Cratin. test. 32 = Pl. Com. test. 12 Plu. Mor. 711f–12b τῶν δὲ κωµῳδιῶν ἡ µὲν ἀρχαία διὰ τὴν ἀνωµαλίαν ἀνάρµοστος ἀνθρώποις πίνουσιν· ἥ τε γὰρ ἐν ταῖς λεγοµέναις παραβάσεσιν αὐτῶν σπουδὴ καὶ παρρησία λίαν ἄκρατός ἐστι καὶ σύντονος, ἥ τε πρὸς τὰ σκώµµατα καὶ βωµολοχίας εὐχέρεια δεινῶς κατάκορος καὶ ἀναπεπταµένη καὶ γέµουσα ῥηµάτων ἀκόσµων καὶ ἀκολάστων ὀνοµάτων· ἔτι δ’ ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεµονικοῖς δείπνοις ἑκάστῳ παρέστηκε τῶν κατακειµένων οἰνοχόος, οὕτω δεήσει γραµµατικὸν ἑκάστῳ τὸ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐξηγεῖσθαι, τίς ὁ Λαισποδίας παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι (fr. 107) καὶ ὁ Κινησίας παρὰ Πλάτωνι (fr. 200) καὶ ὁ Λάµπων παρὰ Κρατίνῳ (frr. 62; 125), καὶ τῶν κωµῳδουµένων ἕκαστος, ὥστε γραµµατοδιδασκαλεῖον ἡµῖν γενέσθαι τὸ συµπόσιον ἢ κωφὰ καὶ ἄσηµα τὰ σκώµµατα διαφέρεσθαι. περὶ δὲ τῆς νέας κωµῳδίας τί 〈ἂν〉 ἀντιλέγοι τις; The Old Comedies are ill-suited for people who are drinking because of their disparate character; for the urgency and outspokenness in their so-called parabases is excessively intemperate and vehement, and their readiness for jokes and buffoonery is quite excessive, brazen and full of unseemly words and licentious vocabulary. And in addition, just as at aristocratic dinner parties a wine-pourer stands next to each guest, so here each man will need a grammarian to offer a detailed explanation of who Laispodias is in Eupolis (fr. 107), Cinesias in Plato (fr. 200), Lampon in Cratinus (frr. 62; 125) and every one of the kômôidoumenoi, turning our symposium into a classroom, or else rendering the jokes obscure and incoherent. But who could raise any objection to the New Comedy?

Citation context From a discussion in the Quaestiones conviviales of which authors and literary genres are appropriate for drinking-party entertainment. Interpretation Plutarch’s hostile attitude toward Aristophanes and his contrasting fondness for Menander are spelled out at length at Mor. 853a–4d, where the objections expressed have to do with buffoonery and crudity rather than obscurity. For the use of comic texts at dinner parties and symposia in the Roman period, see Nervegna 2013. 120–200.

70

Eupolis

test. 29 K.-A. (= test. xxii Storey) = Ar. test. 70 Lucian, Adversus Indoctum 27 ἡδέως δ’ ἂν καὶ ἐροίµην σε, τὰ τοσαῦτα βιβλία ἔχων τί µάλιστα ἀναγιγνώσκεις αὐτῶν; τὰ Πλάτωνος; τὰ Ἀντισθένους; τὰ Ἀρχιλόχου; τὰ Ἱππώνακτος; ἢ τούτων µὲν ὑπερφρονεῖς, ῥήτορες δὲ µάλιστά σοι διὰ χειρός; εἰπέ µοι, καὶ Αἰσχίνου τὸν κατὰ Τιµάρχου λόγον ἀναγιγνώσκεις; ἢ ἐκεῖνά γε πάντα οἶσθα καὶ γιγνώσκεις αὐτῶν ἕκαστον, τὸν δὲ Ἀριστοφάνην καὶ τὸν Εὔπολιν ὑποδέδυκας; ἀνέγνως καὶ τοὺς Βάπτας, τὸ δρᾶµα ὅλον; εἶτ’ οὐδέν σου τἀκεῖ καθίκετο, οὐδ’ ἠρυθρίασας γνωρίσας αὐτά; I’d like to ask you—although you have so many books, which of them do you read the most? Those of Plato? of Antisthenes? of Archilochus? of Hipponax? Or do you despise these, and are the orators in particular in your hand? Tell me—do you actually read Aeschines’ speech against Timarchus? Or do you know all those texts, and are you familiar with each of them, but you dive into Aristophanes and Eupolis? Did you in fact read Baptai, the whole play? Did its contents then have no effect on you, and did you not blush when you understood them?

Citation context From a long, vicious attack on a wealthy book-collector. Interpretation The point of the questions is that the addressee doubtless owns these books but has never read them—for if he had, the contents would embarrass him. Just before this, the addressee has been charged with being an effeminate pathic who buys well-built slaves to service him physically (23, 25). As the speaker says outright, had he read Eupolis’ Baptai, he would see his own image in the text (i. e. in the effeminate religious devotees who seem to have made up the chorus; see the general introduction to the play). But the same point underlies the reference to Aeschines’ Against Timarchus (directed against a man accused of having worked as a male prostitute (e. g. 40, 52, 74–6)), and it is therefore likely present already in the references to Plato and Antisthenes (representatives of the stern Socratic virtues the addressee emphatically does not represent), on the one hand, and to Archilochus and Hipponax (at least taken to be scourges of depraved behavior of all sorts), on the other. In any case, Eupolis here plays his typical Peripatetic role as critic of vice; cf. test. 23 n. At the end of the speech, the fundamental ground of the speaker’s disgusted hatred for the addressee emerges: despite the size of his library, the man plays the proverbial dog in the manger (τὸ τῆς κυνὸς ποιεῖς τῆς ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ κατακειµένης) by refusing to loan his books to others who might actually read them (30).

Testimonia (test. 30)

71

This passage is most naturally taken to suggest that Lucian himself had read Baptai. How many other plays by Eupolis he knew at first hand is impossible to say, but there appear to be no further specific references to the comedies among the hundreds of quotations of or allusions to earlier authors in the corpus, suggesting at the very least that Lucian had no expectation that his audience would recognize such references. See in general Anderson 1976, esp. 64,62 and Anderson 1978, who argues that Lucian’s knowledge of the material he was citing was limited; that many of his literary citations are at second hand; and that in the case of Eupolis in particular “It is … dangerous to assume that he knew much more … than he could have gathered from a rhetorician’s handbook”.

test. 30 K.-A. (= test. xxiii Storey) = Ar. test. 71 Lucian, Bis Accusatus 33 τὸ µὲν τραγικὸν ἐκεῖνο καὶ σωφρονικὸν προσωπεῖον ἀφεῖλέ µου, κωµικὸν δὲ καὶ σατυρικὸν ἄλλο ἐπέθηκέ µοι καὶ µικροῦ δεῖν γελοῖον. εἶτά µοι εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ φέρων συγκαθεῖρξεν τὸ σκῶµµα καὶ τὸν ἴαµβον καὶ κυνισµὸν καὶ τὸν Εὔπολιν καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοφάνη, δεινοὺς ἄνδρας ἐπικερτοµῆσαι τὰ σεµνὰ καὶ χλευάσαι τὰ ὀρθῶς ἔχοντα He took away my respectable tragic mask and put a different mask on me that is comic, satyric and almost laughable. Then he brought together mockery, iambos, Cynicism, Eupolis and Aristophanes, men who are good at making fun of what deserves respect and scoffing at what’s right, and shut them up with me

Citation context Part of Dialogue’s complaint against the Syrian (~ Lucian) for abuse (ὕβρις). The defendant is ultimately acquitted by the unanimous vote of the jurors (35). Interpretation “Eupolis and Aristophanes” stand for “the Old Comedy”, as the Syrian makes clear in his response to the charges (34 τὴν κωµῳδίαν αὐτῷ παρέζευξα, “I paired him and comedy”). Dialogue himself explains what that

62

“All this comes to next to nothing, and we have only to ask: how easy is it for a writer of journalistic disposition to say ‘Eupolis and Aristophanes’ when he means ‘Aristophanes’?” Anderson 68 n. 18 further compares Hor. Sat. I 4.1–5 (= test. 23), “which is scarcely a pledge that either Horace or Lucilius ‘knew’ Cratinus”.

72

Eupolis

signifies: not specific motifs, figures or plot devices borrowed from individual plays, but—hostilely characterized—general licentious mockery of all that is normally regarded as decent and good. For this as a standard Roman-era characterization of what is distinctive (and for satirists in particular, worth emulating) in 5th-century comedy, including Eupolis, see test. 23 n. For Lucian’s (likely limited) direct knowledge of Eupolis, see test. 29 n.

test. 31 K.-A. (= test. xxiv Storey) = Ar. test. 41 Lucian, Piscator 25 φύσει γάρ τι τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ὁ πολὺς λεώς, χαίρουσι τοῖς ἀποσκώπτουσιν καὶ λοιδορουµένοις, καὶ µάλισθ’ ὅταν τὰ σεµνότατα εἶναι δοκοῦντα διασύρηται, ὥσπερ ἀµέλει καὶ πάλαι ἔχαιρον Ἀριστοφάνει καὶ Εὐπόλιδι Σωκράτη τουτονὶ ἐπὶ χλευασίᾳ παράγουσιν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν καὶ κωµῳδοῦσιν ἀλλοκότους τινὰς περὶ αὐτοῦ κωµῳδίας. καίτοι ἐκεῖνοι µὲν καθ’ ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐτόλµων τοιαῦτα, καὶ ἐν ∆ιονυσίοις ἐφειµένον αὐτὸ ἔδρων, καὶ τὸ σκῶµµα ἐδόκει µέρος τι τῆς ἑορτῆς, καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἴσως ἔχαιρε φιλόγελώς τις ὤν. The masses are naturally like this: they take pleasure in people who mock and call names, especially when what is taken to be most respectable is disparaged, just as no doubt also in the past they took pleasure in Aristophanes and Eupolis when they brought the famous Socrates onstage to make fun of him and composed various strange comedies about him. Indeed they ventured such outrages against a single person and did something permitted at the Dionysia, and the mockery was apparently part of the festival, and the god perhaps took pleasure, since he likes a joke

Citation context From Diogenes’ accusation of Parrhêsia (“Frank Speech). Parrhêsia wins his case, convincing not just Philosophy and Virtue but also Diogenes and Plato, who brought the charges against him (38–9), and is ultimately put to work by them exposing the hypocrisy of contemporary thinkers of all stripes. Interpretation As in test. 30 (n.), “Aristophanes and Eupolis” stand in for “the Old Comedy”, and their activity is again characterized from a hostile perspective as mockery of everything generally regarded as respectable. Lucian must have known Clouds (cf. Prom. Es 6), although he never quotes the play. But the failure of the biographical tradition to preserve any traces of a comedy by Eupolis in which Socrates came onstage and was mocked suggests that

Testimonia (test. 32)

73

Parrhêsia’s remark is merely a broad generalization, recalling Aristophanes’ notorious play, on the one hand, and a vague awareness of the existence of passages such as frr. 386 and 395 (in neither of which Socrates actually speaks or appears), on the other. ὁ θεὸς ἴσως κτλ = adesp. com. fr. 237 K. (not printed by Kassel–Austin).

test. 32 K.-A. (= test. xxv Storey) Libanius fr. 50 β 2 (XI p. 644.5–7 Foerster) τί τοῦτον οὐκ ἔχει δρᾶµα; τίς οὐκ Εὔπολις; τίς οὐκ Ἀριστοφάνης; διὰ τοῦτον (Meineke : τούτων codd.) εὐδοκίµησε κωµῳδία. ὅµως δὲ καὶ κωµῳδοὶ κεκµήκασι τὰ τούτου γράφοντες What play does not treat him? What Eupolis does not? What Aristophanes does not? Comedy won its reputation on account of this man (thus Meineke: “these things” codd.). But all the same, even the comic poets have grown tired of writing about his escapades

Citation context From a fragment of a model speech perhaps set sometime in the late classical period. Kolakes test. *viii is preserved just before this. Text The antecedent of the paradosis τούτων would have to be Εὔπολις and Ἀριστοφάνης. But the argument concerns Alcibiades (thus emphatically ὅµως δέ κτλ), hence Meineke’s simple correction to τοῦτον. Interpretation As in test. 30–1, “Eupolis and Aristophanes” functions in the first instance as shorthand for “comedy”, as the summary remark that follows the mention of the two poets’ names makes clear. An awareness that Baptai included an attack on Alcibiades was nonetheless widespread in the Roman period (see test. 3 n.) and might lie behind the initial reference specifically to Eupolis.63 No such easy, obvious link to Aristophanes survives, although note references to Alcibiades at e. g. Ra. 1422–32.

63

Whether Libanius’ comment just before this about Alcibiades’ destruction of Callias’ wealth through his drunkenness is to be taken as an allusion to the plot of Kolakes (= test. *viii, and cf. fr. 171) is unclear; see the general introduction to that play.

74

Eupolis

test. 33 K.-A. (= test. xxvi Storey) Macrobius, Satires 7.5.8 notus est omnibus Eupolis, inter elegantes habendus veteris comoediae poetas Everyone is familiar with Eupolis, who must be regarded as one of the refined poets of old comedy

Citation context A remark added by Macrobius to his quotation of fr. 13 from Plutarch. Interpretation Both assertions serve to add authority to the comment: because Eupolis is well known and an elegans (“refined, tasteful, elegant”) representative of ancient comedy, his remarks deserve attention. For the characterization of Eupolis (i. e. his poetry), presumably dependent on that of some well-read Hellenistic scholar, cf. test. 34.15–16 ἐπίχαρις, χαρίεις, τὸ τῆς ἐπιτρεχούσης χάριτος Εὐπόλιδος with n. Macrobius cites Eupolis on only one other occasion, and the quotation (fr. 158 with n.) is again drawn from Plutarch. Despite the speaker’s reference to the poet as well known, therefore, there is no evidence that Macrobius himself was directly familiar with the comedies.

test. 34–43 K.-A. Eupolis in the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods test. 34 K.-A. (= test. xxviii Storey) = Cratin. test. 17 = Ar. test. 79 Platonius, On the Differentiation of Styles (Proleg. de com. II.8–17), pp. 6–7 Koster Κρατῖνος ὁ τῆς παλαιᾶς κωµῳδίας ποιητής, ἅτε δὴ κατὰ τὰς Ἀρχιλόχου ζηλώσεις αὐστηρὸς µὲν ταῖς λοιδορίαις ἐστίν· οὐ γάρ, ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης, ἐπιτρέχειν τὴν χάριν τοῖς σκώµµασι ποιεῖ τὸ φορτικὸν τῆς ἐπιτιµήσεως διὰ ταύτης ἀναιρῶν, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς κατὰ τὴν παροιµίαν “γυµνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ” τίθησι τὰς βλασφηµίας κατὰ τῶν ἁµαρτανόντων. πολὺς δὲ καὶ ταῖς τροπαῖς τυγχάνει· εὔστοχος δὲ ὢν ἐν ταῖς ἐπιβολαῖς τῶν δραµάτων καὶ διασκευαῖς, εἶτα προϊὼν καὶ διασπῶν τὰς ὑποθέσεις οὐκ ἀκολούθως πληροῖ τὰ δράµατα. Εὔπολις δὲ εὐφάνταστος µὲν εἰς ὑπερβολήν ἐστι κατὰ τὰς ὑποθέσεις· τὰς γὰρ εἰσηγήσεις µεγάλας τῶν δραµάτων ποιεῖται, καὶ ἥνπερ ἐν τῇ παραβάσει φαντασίαν κινοῦσιν οἱ λοιποί, ταύτην ἐκεῖνος ἐν τοῖς δράµασιν, ἀναγαγεῖν ἱκανὸς ὢν ἐξ Ἅιδου νοµοθετῶν πρόσωπα καὶ δι’ αὐτῶν εἰσηγούµενος ἢ περὶ

Testimonia (test. 34)

75

θέσεως νόµων ἢ καταλύσεως. ὥσπερ δέ ἐστιν ὑψηλός, οὕτω καὶ ἐπίχαρις καὶ περὶ τὰ σκώµµατα λίαν εὔστοχος. ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοφάνης τὸν µέσον ἐλήλακε τῶν ἀνδρῶν χαρακτῆρα· οὔτε γὰρ πικρὸς λίαν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ ὁ Κρατῖνος, οὔτε χαρίεις, ὥσπερ ὁ Εὔπολις, ἀλλ’ ἔχει καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἁµαρτάνοντας τὸ σφοδρὸν τοῦ Κρατίνου καὶ τὸ τῆς ἐπιτρεχούσης χάριτος Εὐπόλιδος The old comic poet Cratinus, quite in keeping with his imitation of Archilochus, is harsh in his slanders. For, unlike Aristophanes, he does not allow his elegance to extend into his mockery, using it to remove the crudity of his criticism, but “bare-headed”, as the proverb puts it, he imposes his ugly remarks on those who do wrong. He is stylistically diverse; but despite being shrewd in the conception and construction of his plays, he then goes on and shreds his plots by filling out the plays illogically. Eupolis, on the other hand, is extremely imaginative in his plot-structures; for he makes the introductions to his plays substantial and (includes) in the plays themselves the imaginative material the other (old comic poets) take up in the parabasis, being capable of bringing characters representing lawgivers up from Hades and using them to propose the establishment or dissolution of laws. But just as he is elevated, so too on the other hand is he charming and extremely shrewd in his mockery. Aristophanes takes the middle course between these men; for he is neither extremely bitter, like Cratinus, nor graceful, like Eupolis, but maintains both Cratinus’ vigor in regard to wrong-doers and that of Eupolis’ extended elegance

Discussion Sarati 1996. 129–30 Citation context A comparison of the three great—here, for all one can tell, the only known—poets of Old Comedy, doubtless drawing on some lost older source. Text Kaibel proposed adding 〈αὐτοῖς〉 before τοῖς δράµασιν. But this is unsophisticated writing, and ἐν τοῖς δράµασιν presumably means “in (the remaining portions of) his plays”; cf. τῶν ἀνδρῶν meaning “the other two men” later on in the text. Interpretation The comparison of Cratinus, Eupolis and Aristophanes—with particular attention to the latter, whose character is illustrated via contrast with the other two poets—appears to reflect the judgment of someone who has read numerous plays by all three men and can generalize about them. The only specific reference, however, is what seems to be a description of some of what was said and done in Dêmoi (= test. v with n.) offered in support of the claim that the action in Eupolis’ comedies included what would be parabatic material in the dramas of Cratinus and Aristophanes. Perhaps all or most of Eupolis’ comedies were structured in the way described, with extended introductions to the action and parabatic argument infiltrating other sections of the

76

Eupolis

play. But it might just as well be the case that this portion of the argument of the essay, at least, is based on a combination of a handful of inherited polar verities and a limited acquaintance with the original texts, perhaps restricted to Dêmoi and Cratinus’ Archilochoi. Related difficulties arise in connection with the repeated contrast drawn between Cratinus’ blunt, Archilochean assaults on his targets and Eupolis’ χάρις (for which, cf. test. 33 inter elegantes habendus veteris comoediae poetas). The point of the argument seems to be that Cratinus’ plays were both abusive and witty, but not at the same time; that Eupolis’ plays were witty but not abusive; and that only Aristophanes combined the two styles to produce witty abuse. This is difficult to square with e. g. fr. 99.1–34 (also from Dêmoi), as well as with the claim in test. 2a that Eupolis “was powerful in his diction and imitated Cratinus” and “exhibits a great deal of abuse and crudity”, again making it hard to tell how much the author of this essay has read even of the plays he cites. Platonius himself is undated but probably belongs to the Byzantine period; see in general Nesselrath 1990. 30–4.

test. 35 K.-A. (= test. xxvii Storey) = Cratin. test. 18 = Ar. test. 80 Platonius, On the Differentiation of Comedy (Proleg. de com. I.12–18), p. 3 Koster ἐπὶ τῶν Ἀριστοφάνους καὶ Κρατίνου καὶ Εὐπόλιδος χρόνων τὰ τῆς δηµοκρατίας ἐκράτει παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν σύµπασαν ὁ δῆµος εἶχεν, αὐτὸς αὐτοκράτωρ καὶ κύριος τῶν πολιτικῶν πραγµάτων ὑπάρχων. τῆς ἰσηγορίας οὖν πᾶσιν ὑπαρχούσης ἄδειαν οἱ τὰς κωµῳδίας συγγράφοντες εἶχον τοῦ σκώπτειν καὶ στρατηγοὺς καὶ δικαστὰς τοὺς κακῶς δικάζοντας καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν τινας ἢ φιλαργύρους ἢ συζῶντας ἀσελγείᾳ … ἐπὶ τοίνυν τῆς Ἀριστοφάνους καὶ Κρατίνου καὶ Εὐπόλιδος κωµῳδίας ἀφόρητοί τινες κατὰ τῶν ἁµαρτανόντων ἦσαν οἱ ποιηταί. λοιπὸν δὲ τῆς δηµοκρατίας ὑποχωρούσης ὑπὸ τῶν κατὰ τὰς Ἀθήνας τυραννιώντων καὶ καθισταµένης ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ µεταπιπτούσης τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ δήµου εἰς ὀλίγους τινὰς καὶ κρατυνοµένης τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας ἐνέπιπτε τοῖς ποιηταῖς φόβος· οὐ γὰρ ἦν τινα προφανῶς σκώπτειν, δίκας ἀπαιτούντων τῶν ὑβριζοµένων παρὰ τῶν ποιητῶν In the period of Aristophanes, Cratinus and Eupolis, the Athenians were governed by a democracy and the dêmos had complete power, being itself sovereign and in control of political affairs. Because everyone enjoyed equal rights, therefore, those who composed comedies were free to mock generals and jurors who reached bad decisions and any citizens who were misers

Testimonia (test. 36)

77

or profligates … In the time of the comedy of Aristophanes, Cratinus and Eupolis, accordingly, certain poets were unbearable in their treatment of wrong-doers. So when the democracy receded at the hands of those who exercised tyrannical power over Athens and an oligarchy was established and the power of the dêmos was transferred to a few individuals and the oligarchy was in control, the poets became afraid; for it was impossible to mock someone openly, since those who suffered abuse sued the poets

Citation context From the opening section of a potted history of comedy explaining and justifying the division into “Old”, “Middle” and “New” seemingly first advocated by Aristophanes of Byzantium (Nesselrath 1990. 180–7, esp. 186). Interpretation Test. 36–8 preserve very similar material, all of which must go back to a lost Peripatetic history of the comic genre; see in general Koster 1975. ii–iv. This testimonium contains no information about Eupolis beyond the inclusion of him in the standard list of the three canonical representatives of Athenian “Old Comedy”. Baptai test. v, which follows, is merely another version of the story of Eupolis’ drowning at Alcibiades’ hands already found in Duris of Samos (test. 3 with n.).

test. 36 K.-A. (= test. xxix Storey) = Cratin. test. 20 = Ar. test. 82 Diomedes, Ars Grammatica (Grammatici Latini I pp. 488.23–489.6 = Proleg. de com. XXIV.2.46–55), pp. 120–1 Koster poetae primi comici fuerunt Susarion (test. 5), Mullus (test. 2) et Magnes (test. 8). hi veteris disciplinae iocularia quaedam minus scite ac venuste pronuntiabant, in quibus hi versus fuerunt: (Susar. fr. 1.1, 3–4) ――. secunda aetate fuerunt Aristophanes, Eupolis et Cratinus, qui et principium vitia sectati acerbissimas comoedias composuerunt. tertia aetas fuit Menandri (test. 148), Diphili (test. 15) et Philemonis (test. 28), qui omnem acerbitatem comoediae mitigaverunt atque argumenta multiplicia † graecis † erroribus secuti sunt The earliest comic poets were Susarion (test. 5), Myllus (test. 2) and Magnes (test. 8). These men delivered certain funny remarks characteristic of the old style, although less cleverly and elegantly. These included the following verses: (Susar. fr. 1.1, 3–4) ――. To the second period belonged Aristophanes, Eupolis and Cratinus, who also prosecuted the misdeeds of leading individuals by composing extremely harsh comedies. The third period was that of Menander (test. 148), Diphilus (test. 15) and Philemon (test. 28), who made

78

Eupolis all of comedy’s harshness mellower and pursued complicated plots through † Greek † misunderstandings

Citation context From a brief 4th-century CE introduction to dramatic genres embedded in an extended treatment of (primarily Latin) poetic meter, and presumably drawing on a source closely connected to the one that lies behind test. 35, 37–8. Interpretation See test. 35 n. This testimonium contains no information about Eupolis beyond including him in the standard list of the three canonical representatives of Athenian “Old Comedy” with the typical claim that such plays were harsh indictments of wrongdoing by important people. Nothing suggests that the author has read any of Eupolis’ comedies himself. Whether he knew that there were comic poets other than the nine he names is similarly unclear.

test. 37 K.-A. (= test. xxx.a–b Storey) = Cratin. test. 21 = Ar. test. 83 a. Tzetzes, On the Different Types of Poets 1.78–87 (Proleg. de com. XXIa.78–87), pp. 87–8 Koster τριττὴν νόει πρῶτον δὲ τὴν κωµῳδίαν· πρώτην, µέσην, ἔπειτα καὶ τὴν ὑστέραν. 80 πρώτης µὲν ἦν ἴδιον ἐµφανὴς ψόγος, ἧς ἦν κατάρξας εὑρετὴς Σουσαρίων (test. 8b). τῆς δευτέρας ἦν ὁ ψόγος κεκρυµµένος, ἧς ἦν Κρατῖνος, Εὔπολις, Φερεκράτης (test. 7a), Ἀριστοφάνης Ἕρµιππός (test. 10) τε καὶ Πλάτων (test. 14a). 85 καὶ τῆς τρίτης ἦν ὁ ψόγος κεκρυµµένος πλὴν κατὰ δούλων καὶ ξένων καὶ βαρβάρων, ἧς ἦν Μένανδρος (test. 149a) ἐργάτης καὶ Φιλήµων (test. 30a)

80

85

Understand first of all that comedy is trifold: the first, the middle, then also the last. Overt abuse was typical of the first, whose original inventor was Susarion (test. 8b). The abuse of the second variety was covert; to it belong Cratinus, Eupolis, Pherecrates (test. 7a), Aristophanes and Hermippus (test. 10) and Plato (test. 14a). The abuse of the third variety was also covert except when directed again slaves or foreigners or barbarians. Menander (test. 149a) produced it, and Philemon (test. 30a) too

Testimonia (test. 37)

79

b. Tzetzes, Prolegomenon I.78–88, 97–104 (Proleg. de com. XIa), pp. 26–7 Koster τῆς οὖν κωµῳδίας τῆς καλουµένης πρώτης πρῶτος καὶ εὑρετὴς γέγονεν ὁ Μεγαρεὺς Σουσαρίων (test. 8a) … ἡ πρώτη κωµῳδία τὸ σκῶµµα εἶχεν ἀπαρακάλυπτον· ἐξήρκεσε δὲ τὸ ἀπαρακαλύπτως οὑτωσὶ κωµῳδεῖν µέχρις Εὐπόλιδος. (seq. Baptai test. iv) … ψήφισµα θέντος Ἀλκιβιάδου κωµῳδεῖν ἐσχηµατισµένως καὶ µὴ προδήλως αὐτός τε ὁ Εὔπολις Κρατῖνός τε καὶ Φερεκράτης (test. 7b) καὶ Πλάτων (test. 14b) … Ἀριστοφάνης τε σὺν ἑτέροις τὰ συµβολικὰ µετεχειρίσαντο σκώµµατα, καὶ ἡ δευτέρα κωµῳδία τῇ Ἀττικῇ ἀνεσκίρτησεν. ὡς δ’ ἐπὶ πλέον ἐπεχείρουν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ ἀδικεῖν καὶ οὐδὲ συµβόλοις ἐλέγχεσθαι ἤθελον, ἐψηφίσαντο συµβολικῶς µὲν γίνεσθαι κωµῳδίας, πλὴν κατὰ µόνων δούλων καὶ ξένων· κἀντεῦθεν καὶ ἡ τρίτη κωµῳδία ἐφάνη, ἧς ἦν Φιλήµων (test. 30b) καὶ Μένανδρος (test. 149b) The original example and inventor of what is known as “the first comedy” was Susarion of Megara (test. 8a) … The first comedy included undisguised mockery, and making fun of people in this undisguised fashion was good enough until the time of Eupolis. (Baptai test. iv follows) … When Alcibiades proposed a decree that they were to make fun of people figuratively and not openly, Eupolis himself and Cratinus and Pherecrates (test. 7b) and Plato (test. 14b) and … Aristophanes, along with others, undertook riddling mockery, and the second comedy burst into Attica. But when the residents of Attica undertook to behave even worse and refused to be damned by riddles, they passed a decree that comedies were to be riddling except when they were directed against slaves and foreigners only. Whence the third comedy appeared, to which Philemon (test. 30b) and Menander (test. 149b) belong

Citation context Test. 37b is from the first section of a wandering, superficial history of various aspects of dramatic (especially comic) literature and the associated ancient scholarship. For the anecdote about Eupolis and Alcibiades, creatively put to use here to explain the supposed change from the first to the second period of comedy, see test. 3 with n. The omitted central portion of the testimonium = Baptai test. iv (n.). Prolegomena de comoedia XIc.29–43, p. 44 Koster is virtually identical to test. 37b and may be drawn straight from Tzetzes (thus Kassel–Austin); but see test. 38 n. Test. 37a is a metricized version of some of the same material as in test. 37b (not including the Alcibiades anecdote). Interpretation See test. 35 n. With the exception of the story about Eupolis and Alcibiades (offered in a briefer form also in test. 3 and discussed with Baptai test. iii–vi), test. 37a–b contain no information about Eupolis beyond including him in a list of comic poets active in the 420s BCE. Nothing in these passages suggests that Tzetzes (12th century CE) had any direct knowledge of Eupolis’ comedies, and he must instead be drawing on a source closely related to the one that lies behind test. 35 (n.), 36, 38, 40 and perhaps 39.

80

Eupolis

Tzetzes also mentions Plato and Pherecrates (sc. in addition to the standard triad Aristophanes, Cratinus and Eupolis) in test. 39, and Pherecrates in test. 40 (where Cratinus is omitted). For supposed legal restrictions on comedy’s right of free speech—all best understood as inventions by Hellenistic scholars attempting to explain changes in the content of the genre, as in test. 37b—see also ΣREΓ Ar. Ach. 67 (Morychides’ Decree, 440–437 BCE); ΣVEΓ Ar. Av. 1297, citing fr. 220 (n.) and Phryn. Com. fr. 27 (Syrakosios’ Decree, 415/14 BCE); Halliwell 1991. 54–66, esp. 63–4. Additional discussion at Halliwell 1984. 86–7; Sommerstein 1986; Atkinson 1992.

test. 38 K.-A. = Cratin. test. 22 = Ar. test. 84 a. Σ Dionysius Thrax, Grammatici Graeci III pp. 19.24–20.6 (Proleg. de com. XVIIIa.37–44), pp. 71–2 Koster τρεῖς διαφορὰς ἔδοξεν ἔχειν ἡ κωµῳδία· καὶ ἡ µὲν καλεῖται παλαιὰ ἡ ἐξ ἀρχῆς φανερῶς ἐλέγχουσα· ἡ δὲ µέση ἡ αἰνιγµατωδῶς, ἡ δὲ νέα ἡ µηδ᾿ ὅλως τοῦτο ποιοῦσα πλὴν ἐπὶ δούλων ἢ ξένων. καὶ τῆς µὲν παλαιᾶς πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν, ἐπίσηµος δὲ Κρατῖνος ὁ καὶ πραττόµενος· µετέσχον δέ τινος χρόνου τῆς παλαιᾶς κωµῳδίας Εὔπολίς τε καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης. τῆς δὲ µέσης καὶ αὐτῆς µὲν πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν, ἐπίσηµος δὲ Πλάτων (test. 16) τις … τῆς δὲ νέας ὁµοίως πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν, ἐπίσηµος δὲ ὁ Μένανδρος (test. 151) Comedy appeared to have three varieties: the variety called “Old” that offered open criticism from the beginning; the Middle variety that (criticized) in a riddling fashion, and the New variety that did not do this at all except when against slaves or foreigners. There are many representatives of the Old variety, but Cratinus is noteworthy and is also an object of study. Eupolis and Aristophanes were also involved in a certain period of the Old Comedy. There are many representatives of the Middle Comedy as well, but a certain Plato (test. 16) is noteworthy … There are similarly many representatives of the New Comedy, but Menander is noteworthy (test. 151) b. Anon. περὶ Κωµῳδίας (Proleg. de com. IV.11–17), pp. 11–12 Koster ἐπεὶ δὲ ἡ κακία προέκοπτεν, οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες µὴ βουλόµενοι κωµῳδεῖσθαι τὸ µὲν φανερῶς κωµῳδεῖν ἐκώλυσαν, ἐκέλευσαν δὲ αἰνιγµατωδῶς. εἶτα δὴ καὶ τοῦτο ἐκώλυσαν, καὶ εἰς ξένους µὲν καὶ πτωχοὺς ἔσκωπτον, εἰς δὲ πλουσίους καὶ ἐνδόξους οὐκέτι. γέγονε δὲ τῆς µὲν πρώτης κωµῳδίας ἄριστος τεχνίτης οὗτος ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης καὶ Εὔπολις, τῆς δὲ δευτέρας Πλάτων, τῆς δὲ τρίτης Μένανδρος

Testimonia (test. 39)

81

But when evil-doing advanced, the wealthy and the office-holders, being unwilling to be made fun of in comedy, prevented this from happening openly and ordered (that it be done) in a riddling fashion. And then in fact they actually prevented this, and (the poets) began to direct their mockery against foreigners and beggars, and no longer against the rich and well-known. The best craftsman of the first (variety of) comedy is the Aristophanes mentioned earlier, along with Eupolis; of the second Plato; and of the third Menander c. Anon. περὶ Κωµῳδίας (An. Par. Cramer I p. 4.12–18 = Proleg. de com. XIIb.33–8, p. 40 Koster) τρεῖς διαφορὰς ἔδοξεν ἔχειν ἡ κωµῳδία· ἡ µὲν γὰρ καλεῖται παλαιὰ ἡ ἐξ ἀρχῆς φανερῶς ἐλέγχουσα· ἡ δὲ µέση ἡ αἰνιγµατωδῶς· ἡ δὲ νέα ἡ ἐπὶ ξένων ἢ δούλων ἢ πτωχῶν, ὡς εἴρηται. γέγονε δὲ τῆς µὲν πρώτης κωµῳδίας ἄριστος τεχνίτης οὗτός τε ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης καὶ Εὔπολις καὶ Κρατῖνος· τῆς δὲ δευτέρας Πλάτων· τῆς δὲ νέας Μένανδρος Comedy apparently had three varieties, for there is one variety called “Old” that offered open criticism from the beginning; and the Middle variety that (criticized) in a riddling fashion; and the New variety that was directed against foreigners, slaves or beggars, as has been noted. The best craftsman of the first (variety of) comedy is the Aristophanes mentioned earlier, along with Eupolis and Cratinus; of the second, Plato; and of the New, Menander

Citation context Portions of three different histories of the comic genre—the second far and away the shortest—offering overlapping versions of the same material as reworked by different Byzantine scholars. Interpretation See test. 35 n. None of these passages suggest direct knowledge of Eupolis’ comedies.

test. 39 K.-A. (= test. xxx.c Storey) = Cratin. test. 23 = Ar. test. 85 Tzetzes, Scholia on Lycophron, Prolegomenon 66–9 (p. 3.8–11 Scheer = Proleg. de com. XXIIb.39–41, p. 113 Koster) κωµωδοὶ πραττόµενοί εἰσιν οὗτοι οἷοι Ἀριστοφάνης, Κρατῖνος, Πλάτων (test. 15), Εὔπολις, Φερεκράτης (test. 8) καὶ ἕτεροι, νέοι Μένανδρος (test. 150), Φιλήµων (test. 31), Φιλιστίων καὶ πλῆθος πολύ Comic poets who are the object of study are these: e. g. Aristophanes, Cratinus, Plato (test. 15), Eupolis, Pherecrates (test. 8) and others; New poets Menander (test. 150), Philemon (test. 31), Philistion and an enormous host (of others)

82

Eupolis

Citation context Part of a fast, superficial history of Greek poetry that serves to introduce Tzetzes’ commentary on Lycophron’s Alexandra; cf. test. 40. Interpretation For this use of πράττω, cf. test. 38a.4 Κρατῖνος ὁ καὶ πραττόµενος; Suda α 3932 = Ar. test. 2b.11–12 ἅπερ 〈δὲ〉 πεπράχαµεν … δράµατα ταῦτα (“but the plays we have studied are the following”; followed by a list of the extant plays, distinguished from those known only by title); Σ Nic. Th. 12a (p. 39.11–12 Crugnola) οὐδαµοῦ … τοῦτο εἶπεν ἐν τοῖς πραττοµένοις (“he said this nowhere in the poems that are studied”); Σ Dion. Thrax, Grammatici Graeci III p. 21.17 γεγόνασι δὲ λυρικοὶ οἱ καὶ πραττόµενοι ἐννέα (“the lyric poets who are studied are nine”). For the commentary tradition on Eupolis, see test. 48. It is impossible to believe that Tzetzes still had access to all these texts, and this must instead be a characterization taken over from some older source. The Philistion in question is presumably the one to whom the Σύγκρισις Μενάνδρου καὶ Φιλιστίωνος is attributed (otherwise obscure). For the mention of Plato and Pherecrates, cf. test. 37a–b with n.

test. 40 K.-A. (= test. xxx.d Storey) = Ar. test. 86 Tzetzes, Scholia on Hesiod, Prolegomenon 62–3, 67–8 (pp. 35–6 Colonna) τῶν ποιητῶν οἱ µέν εἰσι λυρικοί, οἱ δὲ µονῳδοί, οἱ δὲ κωµικοί, καὶ ἕτεροι τραγικοί … κωµικῶν δὲ (γνώρισµα) ὁ γέλως µετὰ χορευτῶν καὶ προσώπων, οἷος Ἀριστοφάνης, Εὔπολις, Φερεκράτης (test. 9) Some of the poets write lyric, some monodies, some comedy, and others tragedy … The (hallmark) of the comic poets is laughter involving choral dancers and characters, for example Aristophanes, Eupolis, Pherecrates (test. 9)

Citation context Part of a fast, superficial history of Greek poetry that serves to introduce Tzetzes’ commentary on Hesiod; cf. test. 39. Interpretation See test. 35 n.; 37 n. Nothing in this passage suggests that Tzetzes had direct knowledge of Eupolis’ plays. For the mention of Pherecrates, cf. test. 37a–b; 39.

Testimonia (test. 41)

83

test. 41 K.-A. (= test. xxxiv Storey = fr. 452 K.) = Cratin. test. 24 = Ar. test. 87 ΣABFMGc2 Thucydides 1.30.1 (p. 32.19–21 Hude) τροπαῖον ἡ παλαιὰ Ἀτθίς, ἧς ἐστιν Εὔπολις, Κρατῖνος, Ἀριστοφάνης, Θουκυδίδης· τρόπαιον ἡ νέα Ἀτθίς, ἧς ἐστιν Μένανδρος (test. 156) καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι tropaíon is the old Attic dialect, to which belong Eupolis, Cratinus, Aristophanes, Thucydides; trópaion is the new Attic dialect, to which belong Menander (test. 156) and the others

Citation context A note on the accent of the word τροπαῖον in Thucydides’ description of the aftermath of the naval battle between the Corcyreans and the Corinthians at Leucimne, οἱ Κερκυραῖοι τροπαῖον στήσαντες (“after the Corcyreans erected a trophy”). Thucydides’ name is added after those of Eupolis, Cratinus and Aristophanes to make it clear that his work too represents the “old Attic” dialect. Related material is preserved at – Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 369.9–10 τρόπαιον καὶ τροπαῖον Ἀττικῶς (“trópaion and tropaíon in the Attic style”) – ΣRVMEΘMatrBarbRsV57 Ar. Pl. 453 τροπαῖον· οἱ παλαιοὶ Ἀττικοὶ προπερισπῶσιν, οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι προπαροξύνουσιν (“tropaíon: the old Attic authors put a circumflex accent on the penult, whereas the more recent authors put an acute accent on the antepenult”; combined with the Thucydides scholion at Suda τ 1049) – ΣR Ar. Th. 697 τροπαῖον προπερισπωµένως ἀναγνωστέον παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει καὶ παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ, τρόπαιον δὲ προπαροξυτόνως παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις ποιηταῖς (“tropaíon with a circumflex accent on the penult should be read in Aristophanes and in Thucydides, but trópaion with an acute accent on the antepenult in the more recent poets”) – Σ Dionysius Thrax, Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 131.18–19 ἡµεῖς µὲν … τρόπαιον λέγοµεν, … ὁ δὲ Θουκυδίδης τροπαῖον Ἀττικῶς (“we say trópaion, … whereas Thucydides says tropaíon in the Attic style”) Interpretation According to Herodian and the scholia to Dionysius Thrax (both quoted under Citation context), τροπαῖον was the Attic form of the word, τρόπαιον the common form. Modern texts of 4th-century Athenian authors vary more or less randomly between the two, depending on the preference of individual editors. Meineke, followed by Kock, took the scholion to Thucydides to preserve fragments of both Eupolis and Cratinus (fr. dub. 514), and Aristophanes does in fact use τροπαῖον repeatedly (e. g. V. 711; Lys. 285; Th. 697). But Eupolis,

84

Eupolis

Cratinus and Aristophanes are merely offered here as representatives of the “old Attic dialect”, and no specific claim is advanced about their individual vocabulary or accentuation choices.

test. 42 K.-A. (= test. xxxi Storey) = Cratin. test. 25 Anon. Life of Aristophanes = Ar. test. 1.1–4 Ἀριστοφάνης … πρῶτος δοκεῖ τὴν κωµῳδίαν ἔτι πλανωµένην τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ ἀγωγῇ ἐπὶ τὸ χρησιµώτερον καὶ σεµνότερον µεταγαγεῖν, πικρότερόν τε καὶ αἰσχρότερον Κρατίνου καὶ Εὐπόλιδος βλασφηµούντων ἢ ἔδει Aristophanes seems to have been the first to change the direction of comedy, which was still adrift in its ancient course, toward what is more useful and nobler, since Cratinus and Eupolis were offering more bitter and ugly abuse than was necessary

Citation context From the opening section of a Byzantine biography of Aristophanes, much of the material for which is drawn from the plays themselves. [Test. 20] is likely dependent on this passage. Interpretation Cratinus and Eupolis serve here only as foils for Aristophanes, and the author of the Life does not obviously know anything more about them than that they were other contemporary comic playwrights; contrast the seemingly better informed test. 34. The analysis is rooted in Peripatetic theories regarding the vital role played by abuse (referred to here as βλασφηµία rather than σκῶµµα, ἔλεγχος, ψόγος or the like) in the history of the comic genre (cf. test. 23 n.; 35 n.), with Aristophanes serving as the key figure driving the alleged move to a less openly abusive style (cf. Ar. test. 1.46–51).

test. 43 K.-A. (= test. xxxv Storey) = Ar. test. 54 ΣVOΩ∆ Luc. JTr. 1 (p. 58.6–12 Rabe) τὸ δραµατουργεῖν τοῦ ὑποδραµατουργεῖν ταύτῃ διαφέρει· δραµατουργεῖ µὲν γὰρ ὁ ποιητὴς καὶ τῆς ὑποθέσεως ὅλης καὶ τῶν ἐπῶν, ὡς Εὐριπίδης, Εὔπολις, Ἀριστοφάνης καὶ εἴ τις τοιοῦτος· ὑποδραµατουργεῖ δὲ ὁ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν δραµατουργῶν τούτων εἰρηµένα λαµβάνων κατὰ καιρὸν καὶ τοῖς οἰκείοις αὐτὰ πάθεσιν ἐναρµόττων ἅτε τοῖς ἤδη πεπραγµένοις ἀφοµοιούµενα

Testimonia (test. 44)

85

Dramatourgein is different from hypodramatourgein in the following way: dramatourgein is used of the poet responsible for the plot as a whole and the verses, for example Euripides, Eupolis, Aristophanes and anyone else of this sort, whereas hypodramatourgein is used of the man who takes what has been said by these composers at some point and fits the material to his own situation, as if they were assimilated to events that have only now occurred

Citation context A gloss on ὑποδραµατουργεῖν (v.l. ὑποτραγῳδεῖν, “play a subsidiary role in tragedy” or perhaps “paratragedize”) at Luc. JTr. 1, where Hera declares herself unable to speak in the mock-tragic/comic iambic trimeters that Hermes, Athena and Hera have used throughout most of the opening portion of the dialogue. Interpretation Eupolis serves here only as a convenient example of a potentially quotable or adaptable dramatic poet. Nothing suggests that the author of the note has any direct knowledge of the comedies themselves.

test. 44–7 K.-A. Metrical Practice test. 44 K.-A. (= test. xxxvi Storey) = Cratin. test. 36 = Ar. test. 98 Rufinus of Antioch, Commentary on Terentian Meters (Grammatici Latini VI p. 564.7–12; cf. VI pp. 78.19–24, 556.22–557.4) Firmianus ad Probum de metris comoediarum sic dicit: “nam quod de metris comoediarum requisisti, et ego scio plurimos existimare Terentianas vel maxime fabulas metrum non habere comoediae graecae, id est Menandri (test. 144) Philemonos (test. 29) Diphili (test. 16) et ceterorum, quae trimetris versibus constat. nostri enim veteris comoediae scriptores in modulandis fabulis sequi maluerunt, Eupolin Cratinum Aristophanem” Firmianus says the following to Probus on the subject of comic meters: “For as for your question regarding comic meters, I too am aware that most people consider that Terentian plays in particular do not display the meter typical of Greek comedy, that is the comedy of Menander (test. 144), Philemon (test. 29), Diphilus (test. 16) and the others, which is made up out of trimeter verses. For in the versification of their plays our authors preferred to follow the authors of the Old Comedy, Eupolis, Cratinus and Aristophanes”

86

Eupolis

Citation context A 5th-century CE excerpt from an earlier commentary; Firmianus goes on to explain that the variety to which he is referring consists in the use of tetrameters and catalectic tetrameters as well as trimeters. Interpretation This note goes back to a source with first-hand knowledge of the metrical diversity of late 5th-century comic texts and thus perhaps to someone with access to a number of complete plays by the three great “Old Comic” playwrights. It nonetheless preserves no substantial information about Eupolis in particular.

test. 45 K.-A. (= test. xxxvii Storey) Heph. Ench. 16.5 (pp. 57.18–58.4 Consbruch) καὶ τὸ Εὐπολίδειον καλούµενον ἐπιχοριαµβικὸν πολυσχηµάτιστόν ἐστιν, ἐν ᾧ τὰς τροχαϊκὰς παρὰ τάξιν ποιοῦσι δέχεσθαι τὸν σπονδεῖον· ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἀντισπαστικὸν καθαρὸν ποιοῦσιν. οἷον· (adesp. com. fr. 246; Ar. Nu. 529) ―― The so-called Eupolidean as well is an epichoriambic polyschematist, in which they cause the trochaic (syzygies) to accept the spondee where it does not belong. But sometimes they also produce a pure antispastic, for example: (adesp. com. fr. 246; Ar. Nu. 529) ――

Citation context From the section on polyschematists (i. e. cola that assume varying forms) in the surviving, abridged version of a metrical handbook originally composed in the 2nd century CE. The reference to spondees and antispasts has to do with the beginning of the first foot of the colon (oolx), which can in practice be both llll and kllk. Interpretation A Eupolidean is oolxlkkl oolxlkl and is one example of a diverse group of 15-syllable Aeolic comic dicola; see Introduction Section 7. Roughly 60% of the preserved examples of the second colon consist of a lecythion (tklxlkl), in which form the meter is attested already in Cratinus in the late 430s BCE (fr. 75, from Thraittai) and perhaps earlier as well (frr. 105, from Malthakoi; 357, from an unknown play). Parker 1988. 117 suggests that the meter came to be called after Eupolis because he invented a new variant by converting tk into an Aeolic base (i. e. by restricting it to ll, lk or kl). For Eupolideans, cf. test. 46–7; frr. 89; 132; 396; and see in general Poultney 1979; Parker 1988. 115–17; Storey 2003. 387–90.

Testimonia (test. 47)

87

test. 46 K.-A. (= test. xxxviii Storey) Marius Plotius Sacerdotus, Artes Grammaticae III.7 (Grammatici Latini VI p. 536.10–13) choriambicum eupolidium tetrametrum catalecticum fit primo pede ditrochaeo, secundo choriambo, tertio ditrochaeo, quarto, id est novissimo, amphimacro: di boni servate sacerdotem vos colentem vos A choriambic Eupolidean tetrameter catalectic is made up out of a ditrochaic first foot, a choriambic second foot, a ditrochaic third foot, and an innovative cretic fourth foot: Good gods, keep safe the priest who serves you!

Citation context From a discussion of choriambic meters in a late 3rd-century CE grammatical treatise. Interpretation The metrical scheme in question is analyzed here as lkll lkkl lklk lkl (cf. test. 47 with n.), which represents a misunderstanding of the Greek Eupolidean (oolxlkkl oolxlkl; see test. 45 with n.).

test. 47 K.-A. (= test. xxxix Storey) Marius Victorinus, Artes Grammaticae III.1 (Grammatici Latini VI p. 144.6–8 = p. 145.35–7) trochaicum tetrametrum catalecticum quartum iambum habens, quod eupolidion vocatur: Iuppiter vocatus adest, di favete ceteri A trochaic tetrameter catalectic with an iambic fourth foot, which is called a Eupolidean: Jupiter has been summoned and is present, may you other gods show favor

Citation context From a discussion of trochaic meters in a 4th-century CE grammatical treatise. Interpretation See test. 46 n. In this case, the meter is analyzed as lkkl lkl klkl.

lkll

88

Eupolis

test. 48 K.-A. Under this number Kassel–Austin collect the references to work on Eupolis by the 1st-century BCE Alexandrian scholar Didymus (frr. 83; 221; 303; see also test. 49 n.) and the evidence for commentaries on individual plays by unknown authors (Marikas fr. 192; Prospaltioi fr. 259; Taxiarchoi fr. 268; Chrysoun genos fr. 321; add *POxy. 5160 on Aiges). POxy. 5160 adds considerably to our general knowledge of this aspect of the reception of Eupolis’ work, adding references to commentaries by Aristophanes of Byzantium (col. ii.24–5), Callistratus (col. ii.27–8), Aristarchus (col. ii.29–30), Dionysius (col. ii.11–12), Seleucus (col. ii.7) and Symmachus (col. ii.8). For Didymus and Symmachus and their knowledge of Eupolis’ commentaries, see also notes on frr. 89; 132; 135–6; 177; 219–20; 255; 282; 306; 387; Schmidt 1854. 308–10.

test. 49 K.-A. (= test. xl Storey) = Cratin. test. 43 = Ar. test. 125 Galen, On His Own Books 17 (vol. II p. 124.7–14 Müller = vol. I p. 173 BoudonMillot) τῶν παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς συγγραφεῦσιν ὀνοµάτων τεσσαράκοντα ὀκτώ· τῶν παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι πολιτικῶν ὀνοµάτων τρία· τῶν παρ’ Ἀριστοφάνει πολιτικῶν ὀνοµάτων πέντε· τῶν παρὰ Κρατίνῳ πολιτικῶν ὀνοµάτων δύο· τῶν ἰδίων κωµικῶν ὀνοµάτων παραδείγµατα, ἕν· ‘εἰ χρήσιµον ἀνάγνωσµα τοῖς παιδευοµένοις ἡ παλαιὰ κωµῳδία’ Of vocabulary in Attic prose-authors, forty-eight books. Of vocabulary appropriate for public discourse in Eupolis, three books. Of vocabulary appropriate for public discourse in Aristophanes, five books. Of vocabulary appropriate for public discourse in Cratinus, two books. Examples of idiosyncratic comic vocabulary, one book. Whether old comedy is useful reading for individuals getting an education.

Citation context From the very end of Galen’s catalogue of his personal library. Interpretation The books in question were not simply owned by Galen but were produced by him as a massive two-part guide to proper Attic style; cf. On the Order of His Own Books V.4–5 (vol. 1 pp. 101–2 Boudon-Millot). The point of the distinction between πολιτικὰ ὀνόµατα and ἴδια ὀνόµατα is that the latter are found in comedy but ought nonetheless not to be used by someone attempting to make a good public impression with his Greek; cf.

Testimonia (test. dub. 51)

89

fr. 131 (second set of witnesses to the text). The work on comic vocabulary perished in the great fire in Rome in 192 CE (Peri Alypias 20, 23b, 28 (vol. IV pp. 8–10 Boudon-Millot) with Boudon-Millot 2007. 233–4; Tucci 2008 (with attention mostly to topographic matters); Jones 2009 (with particular concern for Galen’s references to books, copyists, editors and the like); Boudon-Millot and Jouanna 2010. 75–9, 80–2, 92–5). Galen apparently had both a very large personal collection of books and access to major imperial libraries on the Palatine and elsewhere; see in general Nicholls 2011. The combination of his claim at Peri Alypias 23b to have drawn on τῆς παλαιᾶς κωµῳδίας ὅλης (“all of old comedy”) in his work on colloquial Attic vocabulary and the fact that in On His Own Books 17 he names only Eupolis, Aristophanes and Cratinus as sources thus suggests that already by this time no other complete 5th-century comedies were available in Rome. Galen does nonetheless report that he had access to a work by Didymus in fifty books on contemporary (i. e. colloquial) vocabulary and rare words in old comedy, and that he excerpted it in 6000 lines (= two books or so).

test. 50 K.-A. Under this number Kassel–Austin collect references to Eupolis not by name but as ὁ κωµικός (fr. 102.3, 5 (dubious), 7; *116; *127; 331; 345), ὁ κωµῳδός (fr. 1) and τις τῶν κωµικῶν vel sim. (fr. 60; Dêmoi test. *i).

test. dub. 51 IG I3 1190.52 Εὔπολις Eupolis

Citation context From a list of Athenian war-dead dated by Lewis and Jeffrey to ca. 411 BCE. This section of the list includes several trierarchs (3, 42), so these must be naval casualties. Discussion Körte 1912. 312 n. 1; Halliwell 1991. 55 n. 32; Lewis and Jeffrey 1993. 778; Olson 2010b. 49 Interpretation The man whose death is recorded here is PA 5934; PAA 442520. For Eupolis’ supposed death at sea in the war, cf. test. 1 (the Hellespont); 3 (on

90

Eupolis

the way to Sicily) with n. Lewis and Jeffrey are dubious of the identification (“nomen vulgare fuit et alii alia de Eupolidis morte rettulerunt”), which Körte traces to Wilamowitz.

91

Αἶγες (Aiges) (“Goats” or “Nanny-Goats”)

Introduction Discussion Bergk 1838. 332–9; Meineke 1839 I.115–16; Stiévenant 1849. 124–5; Kock 1880 I.258; Zielinski 1885. 31–3, 65–6; Kaibel 1907 p. 1234.44–50; Schiassi 1944. 51–7; Schmid 1946. 117–18; Chiavarino 1995. 17–18; Dover 2000. xvii; Wilkins 2000. 348; Storey 2003. 69–71, 74; Rothwell 2007. 103, 106, 130–2; Olson 2007. 98 (B30); Storey 2011. 54–5; Zimmermann 2011. 749 Title The play must be called after its chorus, as their discussion of their diet in fr. 13 (from the parabasis) confirms (and cf. fr. *22).64 αἴξ is normally feminine, but can also be masculine. If we could be certain that fr. *24 belonged to Aiges, it might be taken to show that the chorus was made up specifically of nanny-goats. But the assignment is merely a guess by Runkel; even if the word is from Aiges, there is no reason to believe that it refers specifically to the chorus; and Eupolis might easily have mentioned nanny-goats leaping about in another play in any case. For animal choruses, cf. Magnes’ Batrachoi (“Frogs”), Ornithes (“Birds”) and Psênes (“Fig-flies”); Crates’ Thêria (“Wild Animals” or perhaps simply “Animals”; cf. fr. 143 n.); Callias’ Batrachoi (“Frogs”); Aristophanes’ Birds, Frogs (only a subsidiary chorus) and Pelargoi (“Storks”); Archippus’ Ichthyoi (“Fish”); Diocles’ Melittai (“Bees”); Plato Comicus’ Myrmekes (“Ants”); Cantharus’ Aedones (“Nightingales”) and Myrmekes (“Ants”); and see in general Sifakis 1971. 76–7; Rothwell 2007. Content As Dover notes, we know almost nothing about the action in Aiges except that it included a scene in which someone tried to teach a rustic character to perform “the Athena step”. Frr. 2, 4, 11 and 12 might be assigned to the rustic and fr. 8 to the teacher, who is generally taken to be the Prodamos mentioned in fr. 17; frr. 6, 10 and 14 might suggest a symposium scene or the like; and Storey (expanding on suggestions by Bergk, Meineke and Kock) developed an elaborate hypothesis according to which the play foreshadowed some of the themes of Aristophanes’ Clouds and perhaps even contributed to its failure. But this is all speculation based on a standard comic trope and no other substantial evidence, and Dover’s deliberately provocative questions regarding the content of the comedy are worth quoting at length: “A chorus 64

Schiassi 1944. 54, on no substantial grounds, imagines a divided chorus of slow, stupid, urbanized sheep, on the one hand, and clever, agile, simple rustic goats, on the other.

92

Eupolis

of female goats and the education of rustics can plainly be brought together somehow in the same play, but how exactly were they brought together by Eupolis? What was the ‘plot’ of the play? What character was the protagonist? Was it the ‘teacher’? Did the goats ‘take over’ rural Attica and try to improve their quality of life by having their boorish herdsmen educated?” The only appropriate answer to each of these questions is “We do not know and cannot know”, and there is little point in pretending otherwise; see Introduction Section 4. POxy. 5160 is tentatively identified by the original editors as part of a commentary on Aiges, but clarifies none of the issues touched on above and in fact complicates matters further by suggesting a sexual intrigue between the goatherd and the innkeeper-woman mentioned in fr. 9, and by perhaps adding a shepherd to the list of characters (see POxy. 5160 frr. d–e with nn.). The following have also been assigned to Aiges: frr. 326 (Bergk); 367 (Storey); 388 (Bergk); 392 (Storey); 395 (Storey); 459 K. = E. fr. 13 (Valckenaer). Date Fr. 20 is said to be a reference to Hipponicus, presumably meaning Hipponicus II son of Callias II, who is supposed to have died shortly before the staging of Kolakes in 421 BCE (test. ii). Perhaps Hipponicus was mentioned posthumously, but the standard modern assumption is that Aiges was staged before he passed. The reference to Nicias son of Niceratus in POxy. 5160 fr. b (if properly assigned to this play) is of no help in further narrowing the possible dates of performance. For discussion, see Meineke 1839 II.435; Wilamowitz 1870. 35; Kaibel 1907 p. 1234.50–63; Geissler 1925. 29; Schiassi 1944. 50–1; Storey 1990. 15; Storey 2003. 67; Kyriakidi 2007. 18–20.

Fragments *POxy. 5160 (not in Kassel–Austin) POxy. 5160 consists of substantial portions of two columns of text and a single letter from a third column, and is dated by Henry and Trojahn, the original editors, to the 2nd or 3rd century CE. The papyrus is the remains of a learned commentary on a comedy that refers to Nicias as if he were alive and thus likely belongs to the mid-420s to mid-410s BCE. References to an αἰπολός (goatherd) and a πανδοκεύτρια (innkeeper-woman) as characters led Henry and Trojahn to identify the play in question as Eupolis’ Aiges. Col. ii contains 40 lines and its bottom margin is preserved, making it clear that seven lines have been lost from the bottom of col. i. The top margin of the

Αἶγες (*POxy. 5160)

93

columns is not preserved, and the gap between the bottom of col. i and the top of col. ii may thus be larger than this, although probably not much larger. The back of the papyrus is blank. Henry and Trojahn 2013. 111 comment: “The text is written in a medium-sized upright ‘severe’ hand comparable to those of XXXVII 2804 (Sophocles?, later II) and XVII 2098 (Herodotus, II/III) …, [and] has on its back a land survey assigned to the reign of Gallienus”. There are occasional corrections, perhaps by a second hand. Fully preserved lines of text contain 16–20 letters, with most having 17–18. Discussion Trojahn 2002. 205; Henry and Trojahn 2013 (editio princeps); Luppe 2013 Interpretation Glosses in POxy. 5160 col. i.14–15, 31–2 show that an innkeeper-woman and a goatherd are onstage. If col. i.21–3 are correctly restored, a third party is also present; col. i.17, although problematic, suggests that he is a shepherd. Culinary activity within is mentioned in col. i.14–29, and the stagehouse is most economically taken to represent the innkeeper-woman’s place of business. The Agora is a point of interest, but is located elsewhere (col. i.13). Although the badly damaged POxy. 5160 col. i.19–21 = fr. e (addressed to the innkeeper-woman) nominally refers to cooking, the commentator argues that what is really being discussed is how the goatherd had sex with the woman inside the house. A few lemmata later comes a remark that (according to the commentator) questions someone’s masculinity (col. ii.17–19, glossing fr. g). The target of the attack might be the third party, with either the innkeeper-woman or the goatherd now replying to his insinuations. But there is no obvious trace of a comment noting a change of speaker in col. ii.8–10 (contrast col. i.14–15, 31–2), and it is easier to assume that the third party has the floor throughout what little is preserved of the text and that he mocks both the innkeeper-woman and the goatherd in succession (“he stirred you; or perhaps you stirred him?” vel sim.). What connection Nicias (fr. b) has to the action is uncertain, and he may be mentioned merely for the sake of a passing, punning reference to his tribe, whose name recalls the word “goat” (thus seemingly ed. pr.); cf. fr. 20 n. POxy. 5160 frr. d and f both have paratragic coloring. fr. a = POxy. 5160 col. i.2–3 ἀναλα[βεῖν] τοὺς βουλοµένους those (acc.) who want to take up/recover

94

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈x〉rkl

l|lrl 〈xlkl〉.

Context POxy. 5160 col. i.2–3 . . . . . . . ] π̣ ρὸς ̣ τ̣ὸ ἀναλα[βεῖν] τοὺς ̣ βουλοµένους 2–3 ἀναλα[βεῖν] ed. pr. : fort. ἀναλά[βετε] vel ἀναλά[βε δὲ] . . . . . . . ] in reference to the phrase “those (masc.) who wish to take up”

Interpretation The end of a note and probably a reference back to a portion of the text of the play with which the now-lost lemma is said to be connected. ἀναλα[ . . . . ] must almost inevitably represent some form of ἀναλαµβάνω, the compounds ἀναλαγχάνω, ἀναλανθάνω and ἀναλαλέω being unattested. Col. i.14–15 (on POxy. 5160 fr. c) is an indication of change of speaker and thus suggests that POxy. 5160 frr. a–b are addressed to someone other than the goatherd. fr. b = POxy. 5160 col. i.4 [Νικ]ηΐδος τ᾿ Αἰγηίδος ἐστιν suppl. ed. pr.

and Nikias is of Aigêis Meter Identified by ed. pr. as trochaic tetrameter (e. g. lkll lklk 〈lklx lkl〉), but better understood—like all the other fragments—as iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈x〉lkl llk|l k〈lkl〉 Context POxy. 5160 col. i.5–13 5

10

τῆ]ς̣ γὰρ Αἰγηίδ[ος φυλῆς ἦν] Νικίας ὁ Νικῃ[ρά]τ̣ [ου. ̣ ὁ δὲ Σ]έλευκος δι̣α̣πορ̣[ε]ῖ̣ . . . . ]τοι Σύµµ̣α̣χ̣ο̣ ς̣ . [ . . . . ]ωρ̣[ . . ] . εξαµεν̣ος . . . . ]α̣ . . . . [ . ] . . . . . . . . . ] . . ι̣ν . . . . [ . ] . [ . ] . . . . ] . ι̣σ̣µο̣ . . . . ρ . . . η . . . . ] . λεται εἰς ἀγοράν

5 [τῆ]ς ̣ ed. pr.   5–6 [φυλῆς / ἦν] Luppe   8 Σύµµ̣α̣χ̣ο̣ς ̣ Luppe : σύµµ̣α̣χ̣ο̣ς̣ ed. pr. 9 [∆ιοδ]ώρ[ου] δεξάµενος Luppe   13 [βο]ύλεται Luppe 5

because Nicias son of Niceratus was] from the tribe Aigêis

Αἶγες (*POxy. 5160)

10

95

But Seleucus expresses doubt . . . . ]τοι Symmachus . [ . . . . ]ωρ̣[ . . ] . εξαµεν̣ος . . . . ]α̣ . . . . [ . ] . . . . . . . . . ] . . ι̣ν . . . . [ . ] . [ . ] . . . . ] . ι̣σ̣µο̣ . . . . ρ . . . η . . . . ] . λεται to the Agora

Interpretation For the addressee, see fr. a n. For Nicias (PA 10808; PAA 712520) son of Niceratus—here apparently only one example of someone nominally goat-like, hence connective τ᾿—see fr. 351 n. His deme Cydantidae did in fact belong to the tribe Aigêis. 7 [ὁ … Σ]έλευκος is taken by Luppe 2013a. 50 as a reference to Seleucus of Alexandria (RE Seleukos 44), who seems to have been used by the commentator Didymus (1st c. BCE), from whom Symmachus (1st/2nd c. CE) in turn presumably got both Seleucus’ opinion and whatever information from other sources was offered in the badly damaged lines that follow. On Luppe’s supplementation of the text, Symmachus drew on the work of Diodorus, i. e. Diodorus the student of Aristophanes of Byzantium (RE Diodoros 51; early 1st century BCE). 13 . λεται εἰς ἀγοράν is presumably the end of a note (explaining the intentions of the goatherd after the romantic interlude alluded to in what follows), given the hiatus and the fact that the first two words preserved in 14 are patently a gloss (= POxy. 5160 fr. c). fr. c = POxy. 5160 col. i.14 δ̣εῦρ᾿ εἰσιών going (masc. nom. sing.) in here Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl〉

l|lkl 〈xlkl〉

Context POxy. 5160 col. i.14–15 15

. . . ] δ̣εῦρ᾿ εἰσιὼν πρὸς τὴν πα]νδοκεύτριαν

15 suppl. ed. pr. 15

. . . . ] “going (masc. nom. sing.) in here”: addressed to the innkeeper-woman

96

Eupolis

Interpretation δ̣εῦρ᾿ εἰσιών i. e. into the stage-house, with a gesture or something said onstage previously lending the deictic specific content.65 The participle merely sets the stage for a main action, which may take place after the individual in question emerges from the house again, as at Ar. Ach. 202 ἄξω τὰ κατ’ ἀγροὺς εἰσιὼν ∆ιονύσια (“I’m going to go inside and [then after I emerge again] I’ll celebrate the Rural Dionysia”).66 But here behavior inside the inn appears to be in question (cf. POxy. 5160 fr. e Context).

65

66

For δεῦρο/δευρί meaning not “hither” or “here” (as in LSJ s. v.) but “in that direction” or “there”, with the place in question either indicated via a gesture or apparent from something said or done previously onstage, e. g. Ar. Eq. 162 δευρὶ βλέπε (“Look there!”; one of the slaves asks the Sausage-seller to consider the audience); Nu. 91 δεῦρό νυν ἀπόβλεπε (“Now look over there!”; Strepsiades directs Pheidippides’ attention to the Phrontisterion, i. e. the stage house in front of which the two of them are sleeping), 323 βλέπε νυν δευρὶ πρὸς τὴν Πάρνηθ’ (“Now look there, toward Parnes!”; Socrates assists Strepsiades in catching sight of the chorus as they enter along the Theater eisodos), 694 κατακλινεὶς δευρο (“after you lie down there”; Socrates in reference to the sleeping pallet Strepsiades has just hauled onstage); V. 1341 ἀνάβαινε δεῦρο (“Get up there!”; Philocleon orders the pipe-girl he has stolen from the symposium up onto the raised stage, after which she in turn is to haul him up by grabbing hold of his phallus); Av. 202 δευρὶ … ἐµβὰς … εἰς τὴν λόχµην (“after entering the thicket there”; the Hoopoe indicates his nest, i. e. the stage house), 646 δεῦρο … εἴσιτον (“The two of you go in there!”; the Hoopoe directs Peisetairos and Euelpides into the thicket/stage house); Lys. 738 χώρει πάλιν δεῦρ’ (“Go back there!”; Lysistrata orders one of the women occupying the Acropolis fortifications, i. e. the stage house, back inside when she tries to desert the sex-strike); Ra. 652 and 658 δεῦρο πάλιν βαδιστέον (“I have to go back there!”; Aiakos, getting no results from torturing Dionysus and Xanthias, acknowledges that he must return to the other man he is interrogating); Ec. 124 δεῦρ’ … σκέψαι (“Look there!”; one of the women points to the beards worn by the other women, as the plurals in 126–7 show), 496–7 δεῦρ’ ἐπὶ σκιᾶς / ἐλθοῦσα πρὸς τὸ τειχίον (“going there toward the shade in the direction of the wall”; the chorus offer advice for how to avoid being seen as they change costume), 1106 δεῦρ’ εἰσπλέων (“when I sail in there”; the Young Man in reference to the Hags’ house, which he is desperately trying to avoid); and cf. frr. 3 n. on ἐνθαδί; 38 n. on οὑτοσί; 122 n. on ἐνταῦθα. Note that at Men. Sam. 464 ἀποτρέχειν αὐτῇ φράσον δεῦρ’ εἰσιών, Νικήρατε, the adverb is to be taken not with εἰσιών but with ἀποτρέχειν.

Αἶγες (*POxy. 5160)

97

fr. d = POxy. 5160 col. i.16 ]η συντυχία fort. ἡ συντυχία

circumstance/mischance (nom.) Meter The words scan llrl and are thus compatible with iambic trimeter. Context POxy. 5160 col. i.16–18 16

. . . . . ]η συντυχία· ἐν . . . . . π]οιµὴν αἰπόλωι̣ . . . . ] . ων µιµεῖτα̣ ι ̣

17 [π]οιµὴν αἰπόλωι̣ ed. pr. : οἴµην αἰπόλων Luppe 16

. . . . . ]ν circumstance/mischance (nom.)· ἐν . . . . sh]epherd (nom.) goatherd (dat.) . . . . ] . ων he/she/it imitates

Interpretation συντυχία is primarily poetic vocabulary (e. g. Sol. fr. 13.70; Thgn. 590; Pi. P. 1.36; E. HF 766 (lyric); Ar. Av. 543–4; in Herodotus at e. g. 1.68.2; in Attic prose only at Pl. Phdr. 248c) and must be the end of a gloss, given the half-stop that follows. Perhaps sarcastic, given what appears to be the aggressively rude character of fr. e (n.). µιµεῖται in col. i.18, by contrast, is common in glosses. µιµεῖται ought to take an accusative, hence Luppe’s οἴµην αἰπόλων̣ (“he imitates a goatherds’ song”) in col. i.17 for ed. pr.’s [π]οιµὴν αἰπόλωι̣ (“shepherd (nom.) goatherd (dat.)”; printed here). But οἴµη is rare, exclusively poetic vocabulary and thus out of place in a late, prosaic gloss, and Luppe offers no suggestion as to how the word συντυχία and the idea of a goatherds’ song might be connected. [π]οιµήν is almost the only other supplement possible.67 But how the dative (if correct) is to be integrated into the syntax is unclear. fr. e = POxy. 5160 col. i.19–21 . ικους ἕψων [ . . . . ] . ἀρτί̣ως τατ̣ε̣ . [. . . . ] . [ . ] . ἐ̣κ̣{ε̣}ί̣ν̣η̣σ̣εν σ̣ ε̣ ἀρτί̣ως scripsi : fort. ἄρτι̣ ὡς 67

]οιµην might also be the end of a first-person singular optative verb (another word from the text), but this only makes the text more difficult to understand, while still leaving us without an object for µιµεῖται.

98

Eupolis

. ικους (masc. acc. pl.) stewing (masc. nom. sing.) [. . . . ] . just now τατ̣ε̣ . [ . . . . ] . [ . ] . he stirred you Meter The words (portions of several lines) scan klll [ . . . . ] . lklkk . [. . . . ] . [ . ] . klllk and are compatible with iambic trimeter. Context POxy. 5160 col. i.19–29 20

25

. . . . . ] . ικους ἕψων . . . . ] . ἀρτί̣ως τατ̣ε̣ . . . . . ] . [ . ] . ἐ̣κ{̣ ε̣}ί̣ν̣η̣σ̣εν σ̣ε̣ . ] . . . α̣ἰν̣ ̣ίτ̣ ̣τ̣εται ὅτι ὁ αἰπό]λ̣ο̣ς̣ µέ[µ]ε̣ικ̣ ται τῆι̣ πα]νδοκευτρίαι· καλεῖ µιγῆν]α̣ι ̣ κ{ε}ινῆσαι . . . . . . . . ]δ̣ . . . ο̣δετου . . . . . . ] . τ[ . ] . . ειατο . . . ] . . α . ἐν τῶι ἔργωι . . . . . . . ] . . . . τε̣ι ̣ χύτρας

21–5 suppl. Luppe 20

25

. ικους (masc acc. pl.) stewing (masc. nom. sing.) [. . . . ] . just now τατ̣ε̣ . . . . . ] . [ . ] . he stirred you . ] . . . he implies that the goatherd has had sex with the innkeeper-woman; he says “to have sex” as “to stir” . . . . . . . . ]δ̣ . . . ο̣δετου . . . . . . ] . τ[ . ] . . ειατο . . . ] . . α . in the work . . . . . . . ] . . . . τε̣ι ̣ cookpots (acc.)

Interpretation The comments in col. i.22–9 make it clear that the speaker describes what the goatherd did with the innkeeper-woman inside with a series of leering double-entendres, as if the goatherd were merely working in her kitchen. Cf. e. g. the sexual/culinary puns at Ar. Pax 891–3. -ικους is patently an adjective (cf. fr. 350 n.) and likely modifies the object of ἕψων. ἕψων For the verb, used of wet cooking of all sorts (e. g. boiling and stewing), see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 238–9. ἀρτίως is rare before the mid-5th c. (earlier at Sapph. frr. 98a. 10; 123), when it comes to serve as a metrically convenient alternative for ἄρτι. Either word would do here.

Αἶγες (*POxy. 5160)

fr. f = POxy. 5160 col. i.30 [ἀνα]ρ̣σ̣ίο̣ ̣ις τύχαις suppl. ex col. ii.7 ed. pr.

hostile fortunes (dat.) Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl

xl〉kl klkl

Context  POxy. 5160 col. i.30–ii.15 30

. . . ἀνα]ρ̣σ̣ίο̣ ̣ις τύχαις . . . . . . ] . πρὸς τὸν αἰπόλον . . . . ] . ων Ἀτρέα . . . . . . . . ]ν̣η αυτου [desunt linea 7+]

col. ii

5

10

15

].[ . . . . . ] . . νε̣[ . . . . . . . . πρὸς οὐδεν[ ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἀρισ[τ παρ[ τει δόµω̣ ν [ ἀναρσίοις τύχ̣[αις Εὐριπίδε[ι]ό̣ν (fr. nov.) ἐστι̣[ . πε . . νη̣ . . . ε̣ . . [ τ̣ο̣υτ̣έστιν γ . [ αἰπόλου ὥ̣ ς̣ φη̣[σι ∆ιονύσιος τὴν Ἀρχε[ λακην ουκο̣[ τ̣ραπται οὐδε[ πος· τάχα δ᾿ [

col. i.31–2 suppl. ed. pr.   col. ii.3 ἐν addidi   4–8, 10–11 suppl. ed. pr. 30

. . . hostile fortunes (dat.) . . . . . . ] . to the goatherd . . . . ] . ων̣ Atreus (acc.) . . . . . . . . ]νη αυτου [at least 7 lines of text have been lost]

col. ii

5

].[ . . . . . ] . . νε̣[ . . . . . . . . to nothing/no-one[ but in those of Aris[t παρ[ τει “of houses” [

99

100

Eupolis

10

15

“hostile fortunes” is from Euripides (fr. nov.) [ . πε . . νη̣ . . . ε̣ . . [ that is to say γ . [ of a/the goatherd, according to Dionysius. the … lakê of Arche- … is not τ̣ραπται or even πος; but perhaps

Interpretation Euripidean paratragedy (thus col. ii.8), adapting a line from an unidentified play. δόµων in col. ii.6 may be part of the original (thus e. g. 〈xl〉 δόµων 〈xl〉 ἀναρσίοις τύχ̣αις), although there is no room for it in the papyrus at the beginning of col. i.30. The reference to Atreus (father of the mythical Greek kings Agamemnon and Menelaus) is perhaps to be connected with the paratragedy, especially since the name is in the same case as αἰπό[λον]. Cf. POxy. 5160 fr. d συντυχία (also high-style vocabulary). Ed. pr. notes that in col. ii.4 τοῖς Ἀρισ[ταρχείοις] (“in Aristarchus’ commentary”) is supported by col. ii.29–30 and matches the line-length better than does τοῖς Ἀρισ[τοφανείοις] (“in Aristophanes’ commentary”). The views in question are in any case apparently contrasted with those of someone else, which were spelled out in the missing section of the text, hence δέ. The material in col. ii.9–15 is at least in part commentary (esp. col. ii.11–12), although e. g. col. ii.9 might be a lemma. Henry and Trojahn 2012. 117 suggest that the Dionysius mentioned in col. ii.11–12 (arguing that these words belong to the goatherd rather than the third party?) may be the Dionysius Zôpyros referenced at ΣVEΓ Ar. Av. 1297–9 (drawing on Symmachus); cf. ΣVMEθBarb Pl. 322, where a scholar called simply Dionysius appears to have cited fr. 331. For various ancient scholars by the name, almost any of whom could be in question here, see RE Dionysios 134–42. Ed. pr. notes extra space in col. ii.12 between the end of the name [Diony]sius and τὴν Ἀρχε[ and suggests that this is to be taken as punctuation, i. e. as marking what follows as the beginning of a new construction. There is room at the end of 12 for 5–7 letters, and ]λακην at the beginning of 13 likely represents [φυ]λακήν, [παλ]λακήν or [ὑ]λακήν. Ed. pr. notes that if Ἀρχε[ is the beginning of the personal name of an individual mentioned in the play, Ἀρχε[στράτου] (cf. fr. 298.4 with n.) is too long for the space available in any case, but Ἀρχε[δήµου] (cf. frr. 9 with n.; 80 with n.) would fit, although not with [παλ]λακήν. Alternatively, this might be an adjective, e. g. ἀρχεκακήν.

Αἶγες (*POxy. 5160)

101

fr. g = POxy. 5160 col. ii.16–17 . ] τι ὑ . [ . ] . . . . πα[ . . .6–8 . . . .]π̣ολελειµµ[έν . . vel 〈ἀ〉π̣ολελειµµ[έν vel 〈ὑ〉π̣ολελειµµ[έν ed. pr.

. ] τι ὑ . [ . ] . . . . πα[ . . .6–8 . . . .]having been left out/over Meter Not all of 16 need necessarily be part of the lemma, but 〈ἀ〉π̣ο- or 〈ὑ〉π̣ολελειµµ[έν would be compatible with iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl xlk|〉r klk〈l〉. Context POxy. 5160 col. ii.16–40

20

25

30

35

40

. ] τι ὑ . [ . ] . . . . πα[ .]π̣ ολελειµµ[έν . . · κωµ]ωιδεῖ δ᾿ αὐτ̣ο . [ . . . ]ς εἰς µα̣λ̣α̣[κίαν . ] . . . . [ . ]την̣[ . . ]δ̣[ . . ] . . [ . . . . . ] . . . . τε̣[ κτα . . η . [ . . ] . υ[ καὶ ἀστρατ̣ . [ ἐν τοῖς Ἀριστοφαν̣[είοις· λέγουσι γὰρ περ̣[ὶ · ἐν δὲ τοῖς Καλλι̣[στ]ρ̣[α τεί̣[ο]ι̣ς̣· . . ἐ̣σ̣τιν τὴν̣ συν̣τ̣ό̣µω̣ ν. ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἀρισταρχείοις· ἀντὶ τοῦ̣ πε̣[ρ]ὶ αὑτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν οὐχ ὑπὲρ ἄλλο̣υ̣. Ἀρισ[τοµ]ένους ∆ιονύσου ἀσκητοῦ (fr. nov.)· τουτὶ τοὐγκώµιον, ὦ [Σ]άτυρο[ι], περὶ κονδύλ[ο]υ ἢ περ[ὶ] αὑτῶν. ὄτι τῶι αὑτ̣οῦ χρῶνται [ἀ]ντὶ το̣[ῦ] σαυτοῦ. Αἰσχύλου ∆[α]ναί̣δων (fr. nov.)· στυγῆι δὲ τοιο̣υτο̣[

17–19 suppl. ed. pr.   24 καὶ ἀστρα[τε-] Biles   [ἐν] supplevi   25–8, 31–2, 35–6, 38–9 suppl. ed. pr. . ] τι ὑ . [ . ] . . . . πα[ having been left out/over . . : He/she mocks him/it/them . [ . . . ]ς for effeminacy

102

Eupolis 20

25

30

35

40

. ] . . . . [ . ]την̣[ . . ]δ̣[ . . ] . . [ . . . . . ] . . . . τε̣[ κτα . . η . [ . . ] . υ[ and lack of military service . [ in those (dat.) of Aristophanes (Ar. Byz. fr. nov.); for they say regarding[ ; but in those of Callistratus: . . is the (fem. acc.) of brief ones. But in those of Aristarchus: in place of “about himself”, i. e. “not on behalf of another”. From Aristomenes Dionysos askêtês (fr. nov.): “This song of praise, Satyrs, is on behalf of your knuckle(s) rather than yourselves”. Note that that they use “himself” in place of “yourself”. From Aeschylus Danaids (fr. nov.): “But you are hated such[

Interpretation For µαλακία (col. ii.19), see fr. 18 n., and cf. καὶ ἀστρατ̣ . [ in col. ii.24. 25–40 summarize various Alexandrian commentators’ treatments of the use of αὑτοῦ (properly “himself”) where σαυτοῦ (“yourself”) might be expected. Either αὑτοῦ was part of the now badly damaged gloss in 16–17, therefore, or the note that begins at 17–18 κω[µ]ωιδεῖ δ᾿ αὐτ̣ο . [ ends somewhere after 19 and a new lemma is concealed in 20–4. Aristophanes of Byzantium dates to the second half of the 3rd c. BCE and the beginning of the 2nd; Callistratus and Aristarchus were his students. For Aristomenes’ Dionysos askêtês, see Orth 2014. 71–3. This fragment can reasonably be taken to suggest that the chorus of the play was made up of satyrs who engaged in various athletic activities, here boxing or pankration-fighting. For the fragment of Aeschylus, see Luppe 2013b, who suggests restoring στυγῇ δὲ τοιο̣ύτο̣〈οισι περὶ αὑτοῦ λέγων〉, “you will be hated by such people when/because you speak about yourself”.

Αἶγες (fr. 1)

103

fr. 1 K.-A. (1 K.) † ὡς ἡ ποτ’ αὐτὸν ἢν κάµῃ τις, εὐθέως ἐρεῖ πρὸς αὐτόν· “πρίω µοι σελάχιον” τί δὲ ἢν λύκον † κεκράξεται φράσει τε πρὸς τὸν αἰπόλον 1 αὐτὸν Erot. : αὐτῶν Herwerden   ἡ πρὸς αὐτόν, ἢν κάµῃ τις Meineke : ἤν ποτ’ αὐτῶν δὴ κάµῃ τις Austin   2 πρὸς αὐτόν del. Meineke   σελάχιον τί δὲ ἢν Erot. : σελάχι᾿· ἤν τ᾿ ἴδῃ Kock   3 φράσει τε Meineke : φράσεται Erot.

† so/that whichever (fem.) him (acc.), if one is sick, immediately she’ll say to him:68 “Buy me a little ray!” but what if a wolf (acc.) † she’ll shriek and tell the goatherd Erot. σ 55 σελαχίοισι· τοῖς µικροῖς ἰχθυδίοις ἢ τοῖς ὀστρακοδέρµοις, οἷον καράβοις, καρκίνοις, κήρυξι. µέµνηται τῆς λέξεως καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Αἰξὶ λέγων· ―― selachia: small fish or shellfish, for example crayfish, crabs, whelks. Eupolis too mentions the word in Aiges when he says: ―― [Hdn.] Philet. 72 ἐπριάµην ἐπρίω ἐπρίατο, καὶ πρίω τὸ προστακτικόν· Εὔπολις “πρίω µοι σελάχιον” φησί epriamên epriô epriato, and the imperative form priô: Eupolis says ““Buy me a little ray!” Epimer. Hom. A 992 “πρίω µοι”, φησὶν ὁ κωµῳδός, “σελάχιον”, ἐκ τοῦ πριῶ πριάσω πεπρίακα “Buy me a little ray!”, says the comedian, from the verb priô priasô pepriaka

Meter Iambic trimeter. † llkl k|lkl

klkl klkl l|kllkkklkklkl † klkl klk|l klkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.428–9; Herwerden 1855. 21–2; Cobet 1858. 161; Kock 1880 I.258; Srebrny 1922. 82–4; Schiassi 1944. 55–6; Srebrny 1948–1949. 55–7; Storey 2003. 68

68

Not “he says to them”, as at Storey 2011. 55.

104

Eupolis

Citation context The interests of Erotian (or Erotian’s source) are ichthyological; the form σελαχίοισι does not appear in the preserved Hippocratic treatises, but note σελάχια at Int. 12 = 7.198.15 Littré, and ἰχθύσι σελάχεσι at e. g. Morb. II 48 = 7.74.12–13 Littré. The other two citations are drawn from lexicographic attempts to catalogue and make sense of forms of the problematic verb *πρίαµαι, in the first case as an apparent Atticism, in the second as part of a gloss on Homeric ἀπριάτην (“without purchase money”; Il. 1.99; Od. 14.317). Text 1 is metrical but nonsensical, the fundamental problem being the loss of whatever preceded. Austin, incorporating Cobet’s αὐτῶν for Erotian’s αὐτόν, suggested emending to ἤν ποτ’ αὐτῶν δὴ κάµῃ τις, “if one of them is ever sick”. Βut the point of emphasizing αὐτῶν via δή is difficult to see, and Meineke’s ἡ πρὸς αὐτόν, ἢν κάµῃ τις (“that she [will say] to him, if someone’s sick”), with πρός from 2 replacing Erotian’s ποτ’ (see below on 2), is closer to the paradosis. 2 is hypermetrical, and if πρὸς αὐτόν is removed (thus Meineke, taking the words to be an intrusive variant for ποτ’ αὐτὸν in 1) and Kock’s σελάχι᾿· ἤν τ᾿ ἴδῃ is printed for Erotian’s σελάχιον τί δὲ ἢν, the line reads “he’ll/she’ll say: ‘Buy me some little rays!’ But if he/she sees a wolf”; klkl l|rkl klkl. σελάχιον might easily be an error for σελάχι᾿, the mark of elision having been mistaken for the standard ligature for -ον, and while considerable emendation is involved, one might combine all these corrections and print the first two lines of the fragment as follows: ὡς ἡ πρὸς αὐτόν, ἢν κάµῃ τις, εὐθέως ἐρεῖ· “πρίω µοι σελάχι᾿”· ἤν τ᾿ ἴδῃ λύκον, Kassel–Austin opt instead to give 1–2 as Erotian transmits them but placed within cruces. In 3, Erotian’s unmetrical φράσεται has been assimilated to the form of κεκράξεται immediately before it, and Meineke corrected to φράσει τε. Storey 2001. 55 (although not in the Greek text on 54) divides the lines between two speakers, with (B.) given 2 † τί δὲ ἢν λύκον † (translated “What if 〈he spots〉 a wolf?”). Interpretation Although 1–2 are corrupt, these seem to be two future more vivid conditions, describing and contrasting dangerous situations that might occur at some point: if someone is tired or sick, the subject (female) will request seafood (1–2 σελάχιον), whereas if a wolf is in question, she/it will shriek and tell the goatherd something presumably specified in the next line or lines (2 τί–3). Kock argued that the fish requested in 2 was intended to serve as medicine, and that what is described is the reliance of an individual goat on her herdsman, to whom she turns in any sort of emergency. The

Αἶγες (fr. 1)

105

specification πρὸς τὸν αἰπόλον only in 3 is odd on that hypothesis, and the individual asked to fetch a ray in 1–2 is perhaps someone else, the competence or responsibility of the herdsman being confined to rural matters, in contrast to visiting the marketplace; Storey suggests that αὐτόν in 1 might be the ram at the head of the flock, although asking another goat for fish seems odd. Nor is it immediately believable that nanny-goats were offered fish to eat when they were sick or tired, although this might be part of the humor, with the goat in question acting like a combination of a pampered human being and a normal herd-animal. Or perhaps an ordinary woman (the innkeeper-woman?) rather than a goat is the subject of the verb, and the goat-herd is brought into the narrative only because a wolf (with which he is professionally qualified to deal) has somehow entered the picture. Srebrny took these verses to come from the prologue, where in an Aristophanic comedy the background situation is often sketched out for the audience, and hypothesized that the speaker was the individual accused in fr. *3 of “nanny-goating”. But such a remark might be made at any point in the play in reaction to a new plan, proposal or plot-development, and even if fr. *3 is from Aiges (which is dubious; see n.), there is no reason to associate it with these lines. That “the goatherd” is to be identified with the agroikos who speaks fr. 12 and performs the Athena-dance badly in fr. 18 is a similarly reasonable but unprovable assumption. Kock suggested that the same speaker might be assigned frr. 11–12, although any character might in fact be given those lines. 1 κάµῃ might alternatively be translated “is tired”; cf. Ar. fr. 333, where someone is criticized for failing to bring various delicacies, including seafood, as assistance for “wearied women” (γυναιξὶ κοπιώσαισιν). εὐθέως serves a function similar to κεκράξεται in 3, adding emotional urgency to the description of the order that follows. The form is first attested in the second half of the 5th century (e. g. fr. 172.13; Crates Com. fr. 17.6; Ar. Nu. 490; S. Ai. 31; Hp. Aer. 4 = 2.20.12 Littré; Th. 7.33.3; Antipho 1.20)—which does not mean that no one used it before that. 2 πρίω µοι Cf. Hegemon fr. 1.1 (conjectural); Cephisod. fr. 3.1, 3 (to a slave). For the verb, see fr. 385.1 n. on πριαίµην. On Meineke’s version of the text, µοι must be an ethical dative (~ “please!”; cf. fr. 273.1–2 n.) rather than a dative of interest (“for me”), which counts against the words being addressed to a slave. σελάχιον Despite Erotian, σελάχη is a generic term for sharks and rays of all sorts; see Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 47.1. For the diminutive, cf. Amips. fr. 8; Pl. Com. fr. 57.2.

106

Eupolis

λύκον For the natural hostility between wolves, on the one hand, and sheep and goats, on the other (with the presence of a wolf here presumably prompting the scream and whatever order or request was issued to the goatherd in what followed), cf. Ar. Pax 1075–6b with Olson 1998 ad loc. Hicesius ap. Ath. 7.282c–d also mentions a fish by the name λύκος (said to be gristly, productive of good chulê and easily excreted, but hard on the stomach), so alternatively the point concealed by the corruption might be a contrast with the σελάχιον, with the mention of the goatherd—appropriate for dealing with a wolf, and thus logically by extension with a wolf-fish—thrown in as a sort of punch-line. 3 κεκράξεται is future perfect for future (e. g. Ar. Eq. 285; Ra. 265; fr. 81; Men. Sam. 549), like perfect κέκραγας for present in fr. 113 (n.). κέκραγα (originally onomatopoeic) refers in the first instance to the production of a harsh, shrill, inarticulate sound (“shriek, scream”); cf. e. g. Ar. Pax 314 παφλάζων καὶ κεκραγώς (“blustering and shrieking”); Pl. 722 κεκραγὼς καὶ βοῶν (“shrieking and shouting”); [A.] PV 743 κέκραγας κἀναµυχθίζῃ (“you shriek and moan loudly”); X. An. 7.8.15 κεκραγότων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ πυρσευόντων (“when they screamed and raised fire signals”); Lys. 3.15 βοῶντα καὶ κεκραγότα καὶ µαρτυρόµενον (“shouting and screaming and calling for witnesses”). When the point is that a message is communicated in a loud voice, ἀνακράζω (“scream that …”) is generally used instead (e. g. Ar. Ach. 182; Eq. 642; V. 1311; Ec. 821; Sannyrio fr. 8.4; And. 1.43). It is nonetheless unclear whether κεκράξεται φράσει τε refers to two separate, sequential actions—shrieking, sc. in response to (the sight of?) a wolf, and then issuing an order to the goatherd—or if this is a hendiadys, as at Ar. Ra. 982–3 κέκραγε πρὸς τοὺς οἰκέτας / ζητεῖ τε· “ποῦ ’στιν ἡ χύτρα;” (“he shrieks at his slaves and asks them, ‘Where’s the cookpot?’”, i. e. “he bellows a question at his slaves”). φράζω is “tell, describe, indicate”, not simply “speak” (λέγω; for the contrast, e. g. Ar. V. 334b/5 λέξον· πρὸς εὔνους γὰρ φράσεις (“Speak! For you’ll be telling your story to a sympathetic audience”); Ra. 1442 (Ευ.) ἐγὼ µὲν οἶδα καὶ θέλω φράζειν. (∆ι.) λέγε (“(Euripides) I know and I’m willing to tell you. (Dionysus) Speak up!”). The verb is used with πρός + accusative also at e. g. Ar. Nu. 359; Hdt. 1.68.5; E. Ion 1520; Pl. Lg. 963b. For single connective τε, see Denniston 1950. 497.

Αἶγες (fr. 2)

107

fr. 2 K.-A. (7 K.) πλὴν ἅπαξ ποτ’ ἐν Φαίακος ἔφαγον καρίδας except one single time in Phaiax’ house I ate shrimp Ath. 3.106b συνεσταλµένως δ᾿ εἴρηκεν Εὔπολις ἐν Αἰξὶν οὕτως· ――. καὶ ἐν ∆ήµοις (fr. 120)· ―― But Eupolis uses (karis) with a short iota in Aiges as follows: ――. Also in Dêmoi (fr. 120): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xlkl xlkl

xlk〉l klkl llk|r llkl

Discussion Bergk 1838. 337–9; Storey 2003. 73 Citation context From a long discussion of crustaceans at Ath. 3.104c–6e reminiscent of the catalogue of seafood in Book 7 (although without the alphabetical organization imposed by Pamphilus) and thus perhaps similarly drawn directly or indirectly from Dorion’s On Fish. Further speculation about the significance of the variation between long and short iota in the word follows. Interpretation A qualification of some previous assertion, e. g. that the speaker had never tasted seafood. Part of the joke may be that it is difficult to think of anything much smaller; the exception proves the rule, and the speaker has led a genuinely unprivileged life. Cf. frr. 10 with n.; 156 with n.; Ar. V. 1188–9; Antiph. fr. 69 (where the rustic Philoumenon, when promised a feast, is unable to imagine any fish more delicious than some sprats that were once brought out to the country, and expresses wary concern about larger fish, which he characterizes as “man-eaters”). Phaiax son of Erasistratus of the deme Acharnae (PA 13921; PAA 911410), a member of an old and wealthy family—some of his 4th-century descendants performed liturgies, and he therefore likely did as well—was sufficiently prominent to serve as an ambassador to Sicily in 422 BCE (Th. 5.4–5) and to be among the candidates for ostracism in the mid-410s BCE, in the year when Hyperbolos was sent into exile instead (Plu. Alc. 13, citing fr. *116; for ostraka bearing his name, see Lang 1990 #653–6). The only other mention of him in the classical period is at Ar. Eq. 1377–80 (424 BCE), where he is an orator much admired by intellectually fashionable young men; ΣVEΓΘM claims that he

108

Eupolis

was a sufficiently clever speaker ὡς καὶ ἀποφυγεῖν θανάτου ἐπ᾿ αὐτοφώρῳ κρινόµενος (“to escape conviction on a capital charge despite being caught red-handed”), which does not mean that a defense speech in an actual trial of that sort is being referred to in Knights.69 For what is known of Phaiax and his family, see Davies 1971. 521–4; Vanotti 1995. How or why the speaker is supposed to have been a guest in his house is unclear (deme-level personal network-building by a wealthy man eager to have support in the Assembly and the law-courts?). Perhaps Phaiax is simply mentioned as the sort of man who might be expected to have fancy dinner parties; or perhaps the joke is more complex than that, and Phaiax was a notoriously stingy host. 2 The combination ἅπαξ ποτ(έ) appears to be attested elsewhere before the Roman period only at Lycurg. or. 6 fr. 9. ἐν Φαίακος For this colloquial use of the genitive (also common with εἰς, “to (the house) of X”), e. g. Crates Com. fr. 37.2; Antiph. fr. 278; Men. Dysc. 25; cf. Poultney 1936. 6; Stevens 1976. 27–8 (both with numerous examples in addition to those from Aristophanes cited by Kassel–Austin ad loc.). καρίδας For shrimp, included in catalogues of seafood and the like at e. g. Ar. fr. 333.2; Cratin. Jun. fr. 13; Ephipp. fr. 12.6; Antiph. fr. 130.8, see Thompson 1957. 103–4; Davidson 1981. 170–6; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 26.2. The iota is short also at Semon. fr. 15; Anan. fr. 5.2; Cratin. fr. 314; Ar. V. 1521–2; fr. 333.2; the alpha is always long. Beekes 2010 s. v. takes the variation in the length of the iota as evidence of the pre-Greek origin of the word. But the two forms are not contemporary—the iota is always short in 5th-century poets, always long thereafter—and more likely the pronunciation changed for some reason around 400 BCE.

fr. *3 K.-A. (2 K.) σὺ δ’ αἰγιάζεις ἐνθαδὶ καθήµενος But you sit here/there and aigiazeis

69

The speaker of [And.] 4 (Against Alcibiades) has been identified with Phaiax since at least Plutarch’s time (Alc. 13.2; note the apparent echo of ΣVEΓΘM Ar. Eq. 1377 at [And.] 4.36 (the speaker was once acquitted on a capital charge), and of Th. 5.4–5 at [And.] 4.41 (the speaker once served as an ambassador inter alia to Sicily and Italy)). But the speech seems likely to be an ancient forgery by an author using some of the same sources we have, meaning that it cannot be taken as independent evidence supporting or contextualizing what they report.

Αἶγες (fr. 2)

109

Phot. α 506 = Suda αι 37 = Synag. B α 487 αἰγιάζειν· ἀντὶ τοῦ περιάγων (sic Phot. = Synag. B : om. Suda : περὶ αἰγῶν Bast) λαλεῖς (Synag. B : λαλεῖν Phot. : om. Suda). Εὔπολις (sic Phot. : ἀντὶ τοῦ … Εὔπολις om. Suda : post καθήµενος praeb., et Εὔπολις om. Synag. B)· ―― aigiazein: in place of “you talk (thus Synag. B : “to talk” Phot. : om. Suda) circuitously” (thus Phot. = Synag. B : omitted by Suda : “about goats” Bast). Eupolis (thus Phot. : “in place of … Eupolis” om. Suda : included after the quotation, but with the poet’s name omitted, in Synag. B): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkl klkl Discussion Meineke 1839 I.116, II.430–1; Schiassi 1944. 55; Srebrny 1948–9. 55–7 Citation context Drawn from the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge B generally referred to as Σ´, which must in turn have been dependent on a lost Atticist lexicographer. The words ἀντὶ τοῦ περιάγων λαλεῖς. Εὔπολις fell out of the text of Σ´ and were added in the margin. Photius restored them to their proper place; the Suda ignored them; and the Synagoge B added them out of place at the end of the line, omitting the name of the poet. Kassel–Austin follow Kock in printing Bast’s περὶ αἰγῶν in place of the paradosis περιάγων (Phot. Synag. B), but the latter likely represents the actual sense of the word being glossed; see Interpretation. Interpretation αἰγιάζω should presumably mean “talk about goats” (thus Storey 2011. 57) or “say ‘aiges ’”; cf. βακίζω (“talk about Bakis”; Ar. Pax 1072), δηµίζω (“invoke the people”; Ar. V. 699), καρδαµίζω (“talk about cress”; Ar. Th. 617); Peppler 1921. 156–7. But verbs in -ιάζω normally mean “produce a …” (e. g. ἀρτιάζω, “make even [or odd]”, i. e. “bet on odds or evens” (Ar. Pl. 816); ῥοθιάζω, “produce a ῥόθιον” (e. g. Hermipp. fr. 54.2); στασιάζω, “produce a στάσις” (e. g. Cratin. fr. 59)) or “play a/the …” (e. g. αἰγυπτιάζω (“play the Egyptian”; Cratin. fr. 406); ἐγκρυφιάζω, “make oneself hidden” (Ar. Eq. 822); λακεδαιµονιάζω, “play the Spartan” (Ar. fr. 97); πλησιάζω, “bring oneself near” (e. g. Amphis fr. 4.2)). αἰγιάζω (a nonce-word; cf. Sarati 1996. 117) ought accordingly to mean “play the goat”, i. e. “wander about” (in the case of the animal, looking for food) and thus, as the lexicographers—if left unemended— would have it, “talk circuitously, talk in circles, jabber”. Cf. Ar. V. 140 µυσπολεῖ with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc. The fragment was assigned to Aiges by Meineke, followed by Kock and Kassel–Austin, in the conviction that (1) the addressee is being charged with speaking “about goats” and (apparently) (2) the verse could be confidently

110

Eupolis

assigned on that basis to a play called after such animals. This is a highly speculative conclusion, especially given that the first point appears to be wrong, and the line would better have been treated as a fragment without play-title. Srebrny associated it with fr. 1 and took it to be similarly drawn from the prologue. Meineke thought the individual addressed might be the speaker of fr. 12. σὺ δ’ suggests a contrast with someone else who does not merely talk in circles; cf. fr. 339.1 n. and below. ἐνθαδί (i. e. ἐνθάδε + the colloquial Attic deictic suffix -ί) is confined before the Roman period to comedy (e. g. Ar. Ach. 126; Ra. 200; Archipp. fr. 49 φέρε καθίζωµ’ ἐνθαδί; Men. Dysc. 24), with the exception of D. 19.226 (but in only one branch of the tradition) and the dubious Hecat. FGrH 1 F 361 (where Dyck prints instead ἐνθάδ᾽, i. e. ἐνθάδε). Cf. POxy. 5160 fr. c δεῦρο with n.; frr. 107.1 ταδί with n.; 384.7 νυνί with n.; Willi 2003a. 244–5, and the very similar distribution of δευρί (in comedy at e. g. Ar. Nu. 506; Mnesim. fr. 4.23; Men. fr. 129.2; in oratory at e. g. And. 2.10; D. 18.232; Aeschin. 2.68; absent from other prose authors and elevated poetry). καθήµενος The verb can have a weak sense “(just) sit” that approaches “do nothing” (e. g. fr. 260.17; Ar. Ach. 543 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; A. Ch. 919 µὴ ἔλεγχε τὸν πονοῦντ’ ἔσω καθηµένη; E. fr. 727c.44–5 ῥήσεις θ’ ἕκαστος µυρίας καθήµενος / λέγει, τὸ δ’ ἔργον [ο]ὐ̣δαµοῦ περαίνεται; Headlam 1922 on Herod. 1.37); cf. the colloquial English “just sit there and …”, the point of which is that the individual in question is e. g. merely criticizing someone else, while doing nothing him/herself). But here the adverb suggests that the participle has a more concrete significance: “You sit in this spot and talk”, sc. “while (some unknown person) is out and about accomplishing things”.

fr. 4 K.-A. (3 K.) καὶ ζῆν µαθόντι µηδὲ τάγυρι µουσικῆς and to live knowing not even a particle of mousikê Phot. τ 5 = Suda τ 14 = Et.Gen. AB τάγυρι· τὸ βραχύτατον καὶ ἐλάχιστον οἷον ψιλὰ λέγουσιν. Εὔπολις Αἰξίν· ―― tagyri: what is briefest and smallest, just as they say “nothings”. Eupolis in Aiges: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl k|lk|r klkl

Αἶγες (fr. 4)

111

Discussion Bergk 1838. 334; Meineke 1839 I.431 Citation context Drawn from the common source of Photius and the Suda (here joined by the Et.Gen.) generally referred to as Σ´´, which must in turn be dependent on a lost Atticist lexicographer. Hsch. τ 22 ταγύρια· τὰ ἐλάχιστα, τὰ τυχόντα appears to be part of the same tradition and, given the rarity of the word, might even (despite the plural) be another reference to this fragment (thus Hansen-Cunningham). Interpretation Perhaps part of a reproach of a man (note masculine µαθόντι)—the speaker himself?—who expects or is prepared to live in precisely this way. Alternatively, this might be belligerent praise by someone who has no use for µουσική and everything it represents (for which, see fr. 17 n.). The dative is dependent on an earlier construction, and there is no point in multiplying difficulties by attempting to treat it as anything other than the subject of the infinitive. Comic discussions of “how to live” often have a crudely hedonistic orientation (e. g. Ar. Nu. 1073–4 (“boys, women, drinking games, food, drink, laughs”; the Unjust Argument); Alex. fr. 177.4–6 (food served at the right temperature) with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Antiph. fr. 228 (drinking); Philetaer. fr. 7.1–2 (pleasure generally); Bato fr. 5.5 (drinking in the morning)). Here more sophisticated tastes are in question. µεµαθότι (of an action completed in the past but with implications for the present) would have done just as well metrically as µαθόντι. But the perfect participle of µανθάνω is rare before the 4th century, and the aorist participle is regularly used instead to express the equivalent of English “having learned, knowing” (e. g. S. OT 704 αὐτὸς ξυνειδώς, ἢ µαθὼν ἄλλου πάρα;; Ar. Nu. 792 ἀπὸ γὰρ ὀλοῦµαι µὴ µαθὼν γλωττοστροφεῖν, 823 καί σοι φράσω τι πρᾶγµ’, ὃ µαθὼν ἀνὴρ ἔσει; V. 1238–9 Ἀδµήτου λόγον, ὦταῖρε, µαθὼν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς φίλει; X. Mem. 3.1.4 στρατηγεῖν µαθών, κιθαρίζειν µαθών, µαθὼν ἰᾶσθαι; cf. the colloquial τί µαθών; at e. g. Ar. Pl. 908). For “learning mousikê”, cf. Cratin. fr. 338 µουσικήν τε µανθάνει; Theophil. fr. 5.2–3. τάγυρι The word is known only from this fragment and the lexicographers. Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 354.4–9 classes it—doubtless correctly— along with e. g. κόµµι, κιννάβαρι, πέπερι and σέσιλι as a borrowing from an unknown language. Cf. also Hsch. σ 37 σαγύριον· ἄρτου κλάσµα (“sagurion: a morsel of bread). For other, mostly figurative terms for exiguity, see fr. 360 n.

112

Eupolis

fr. 5 K.-A. (5 K.) καὶ τῆς λοπάδος· ἔνεισι δ’ ἑψητοί τινες ἔνεισι δ’ Phot. : ἔνεισιν Meineke

and of the casserole;70 some hespêtoi are inside Phot. ε 2513 ἑψητοί· πληθυντικῶς τὰ ἰχθύδια, ὡς ἀφύαι καὶ µεµβράδες. Εὔπολις Αἰξί· ―― hepsêtoi: Used in the plural of tiny fish, like aphyai or membrades. Eupolis in Aiges: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr klk|l llkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.433, 439 Citation context An isolated lexicographic note. Ath. 7.301b πληθυντικῶς δὲ λέγουσιν ἑψητοὺς κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον (“They generally use the word in the plural, hepsêtoi”) is similar. Text Meineke’s ἔνεισιν was intended to unify the syntax by making τῆς λοπάδος dependent on the verb. But ἔνι at S. Ph. 648, which he cites as a parallel, is generally emended to ἔπι (Auratus), which makes better sense with the genitive, and the first foot must accordingly be left syntactically separated from the rest of the line. Interpretation On the simplest reading of the evidence, the genitive was originally dependent on a verb e. g. of caring, remembering or controlling; cf. Poultney 1936. 90–3. Poll. 6.51 describes a casserole of hepsêtoi as εὐτελές τι βρωµάτιον (“an inexpensive little dish”), so fine dining is not obviously in question. τῆς λοπάδος A λοπάς (〈 λέπω, “peel”; presumably connected to the hollow, shell-like shape of the vessel; see fr. 275.2 n.) is a low, open pan used for boiling, braising and stewing, especially of seafood; e. g. fr. 60.2; Ar. frr. 56 οὐχ ἑψητῶν λοπάς ἐστιν (“It’s not a casserole of hepsêtoi”); 292 οὐδὲν µὰ ∆ί’ ἐρῶ λοπάδος ἑψητῶν (“I’ve got no fondness, by Zeus, for a casserole of hepsêtoi”); Pl. Com. fr. 189.12 (distinguished from a τάγηνον, “skillet”, for which see fr. 374 n.); Antiph. fr. 180.1–5 (identified with a κάκκαβος); Axionic. 70

The sense is not easy (see Interpretation), but scarcely “on the plate” (Storey 2011. 57).

Αἶγες (fr. 6)

113

fr. 7.1 (diminutive λοπάδιον); Ephipp. fr. 5.4; Sparkes 1962. 130–1; Sparkes and Talcott 1970. 227–8 and pl. 95; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 115.21–3; Olson–Sens 2000. 108 on Archestr. fr. 24.7. ἑψητοί “stewers”, tiny fish cooked together in a casserole; cf. fr. 16 and the numerous other comic fragments collected at Ath. 7.301a–c (from Dorion); Ar. V. 679 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc. For membrades/bembrades (to which Photius compares hepsêtoi), see fr. 31 n. For aphyai (Photius’ other point of comparison), see Olson 2002. 238–9.

fr. 6 K.-A. (8 K.) ∆ιόνυσε χαῖρε· µή τι πέντε καὶ δύο; Greetings, Dionysus! Perhaps five-to-two? Ael.Dion. τ 23 ap. Eust. p. 1624.43–5 = i.335.22–6 ~ Phot. τ 434 ἐν δὲ ῥητορικῷ λεξικῷ εὕρηται περὶ κραµάτων οἰνηρῶν καὶ ταῦτα· τρία καὶ δύο. Ἀριστοφάνης (Eq. 1187)· ――. Ἡσίοδος (Op. 596) δὲ τρὶς ὕδατος φησὶ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Εὔπολις δέ· ――. τοιοῦτον καὶ τὸ παροιµιῶδες (adesp. com. fr. *732)· πέντε πίνειν ἢ τρία ἢ µὴ τέτταρα. τὸ µὲν γὰρ πέντ’ ἐστὶ τρία καὶ δύο, τὸ δὲ τρία ἥµισυ καὶ διπλάσιον, ἤγουν ἓν καὶ δύο, τὸ δὲ τέτταρα ἶσον ἴσῳ And in the Rhetorical Lexicon the following is found regarding mixtures of wine: Three and two. Aristophanes (Eq. 1187): ――. And Hesiod (Op. 596) says “Three parts of water” etc. And Eupolis: ――. The proverbial saying (adesp. com. fr. *732) is along these lines: “To drink five or three, but in any case not four”. For five is three-to-two, and three is 50% and twice that much, i. e. one-to-two, but four is an equal mixture Ath. 10.426e οἳ δ’ ἐπιτεταµένως χρώµενοι τῷ ποτῷ δύο οἴνου ἔπινον πρὸς πέντε ὕδατος. Νικοχάρης γοῦν ἐν Ἀµυµώνῃ (fr. 2) πρὸς τοὔνοµα παίζων ἔφη· ――. τὰ παραπλήσια εἴρηκε καὶ ἐν Ληµνίαις (fr. 16). Ἀµειψίας δ’ ἐν Ἀποκοτταβίζουσιν (fr. 4)· ――. Εὔπολις Αἰξί· ―― People who were drinking hard, on the other hand, used to consume two parts of wine to five of water. Nicochares in Amymônê (fr. 2), for example, played on the name and said: ――. He says something similar in Lêmniai (fr. 16) as well. Amipsias in Apokottabizontes (fr. 4): ――. Eupolis in Aiges: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl k|lk|l klkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.433

114

Eupolis

Citation context Eustathius attributes this material (also preserved by Photius, but with no mention of the source) to Aelius Dionysius. As Athenaeus also quotes Hes. Op. 596 (at 10.426c) and adesp. com. fr. *732 (at 10.426d) in his discussion of mixing proportions at 10.426b–7a, he too may be drawing on Aelius, or both Athenaeus and Aelius may taking over material from an earlier work of Hellenistic scholarship. Plu. Mor. 657b–c (also quoting adesp. com. fr. *732), Hsch. τ 1335 (also quoting Hes. Op. 596, and taken by Hansen– Cunningham to be referring to this fragment of Eupolis) and ΣAZBTQLR Hes. Op. 591–6 (i.191.19–192.1 Pertusi, also quoting adesp. com. fr. *732) are all part of the same tradition. Interpretation The speaker is perhaps either assessing the strength of something he has just consumed (thus Kaibel; sc. ἐστί) or offering a proposal for something he would like to consume in the future (thus Kassel–Austin, comparing Pherecr. fr. 76; sc. ἔσται). In either case, there is little reason to think that the god himself is onstage, for wine is metonymically “Dionysus”; cf. Cratinus fr. 347 with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc.; Amips. fr. 4 ἐγὼ δὲ ∆ιόνυσος πᾶσιν ὑµῖν εἰµι πέντε καὶ δύο (“I’m Dionysus for all of you, five-to-two”; quoted by Athenaeus just before this fragment); Xenarch. fr. 9 µὰ τὸν ∆ιόνυσον, ὃν σὺ λάπτεις ἴσον ἴσῳ (“By Dionysus, whom you lap up one-to-one”); Alex. fr. 225 with Arnott 1996. 646; E. Ba. 284–5; Olson 1988 (on wine as Dionysus in Euripides’ Cyclops). Nicoch. fr. 2 (where the name of the addressee puns on οἶνος, “wine”; also quoted in this section by Athenaeus) is similar: Οἰνόµαος οὗτος, χαῖρε, πέντε καὶ δύο, / κἀγώ τε καὶ σὺ συµπόται γενοίµεθα (“Hey Oenomaus—greetings! Five-to-two, and you and me should become drinking buddies!”). For Dionysus actually onstage in one of Eupolis’ comedies, see Taxiarchoi with introductory n. For χαῖρε or χαίρετε as an initial greeting, see fr. 331.2 n. For a form of the word used specifically in an address to a god, e. g. Cratin. fr. 359 with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc.; Ecphantid. fr. 4; Ar. Th. 111; Il. 10.462. µή + indic. (here to be supplied) indicates “cautious assertion or suspicion” (Goodwin 1889 § 269); cf. Ar. Th. 1114; E. Hipp. 799; Hec. 1272; [A.] PV 247, 959 (all similarly with adverbial τι). πέντε καὶ δύο I. e. five parts water to two parts wine (yielding something with an alcohol content approximating that of beer today, i. e. 4–5%?); regarded as a relatively strong mixture, as Athenaeus’ comments make clear. For the proportion, cf. Amips. fr. 4; Nicoch. fr. 2 (both quoted above); Hermipp. fr. 24.4 (also preserved in this section of Athenaeus). See in general Arnott 1996. 650–1 (with further examples and arguing that “the most temperate drinkers seem to have opted for 1 measure of wine to 3 of water”); Pütz 2003. 203–8.

Αἶγες (fr. 7)

115

fr. 7 K.-A. (10 K.) προσένεγκέ µοὐγγὺς τὸ στόµ’ ὀσφρέσθαι τὸ σόν µοὐγγὺς] µοι ἐγγὺς Prisc.   ὀσφρέσθαι Elmsley : ὀσφραίνεσθαι Prisc.

Bring your mouth close to me, please, so I can smell it! Priscian, Inst. Gramm. 18.252 (Grammatici Latini III p. 334.15–17) ὀσφρᾶται τοῦδε καὶ τόδε. Εὔπολις (ΕΥΙΤΟΛΙΣ codd.) Αἰξίν· ――. nos quoque “olfacio illam rem” He smells this (gen.) and this (acc.). Eupolis in Aiges: ――. We too say “I smell that thing (acc.)”

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl l|lk|l llkl Discussion Elmsley 1830. 28 (on Ar. Ach. 179); Kaibel ap. K.-A. Citation context Priscian—i. e. Priscian’s source—is citing Eupolis to show that ὀσφραίνεσθαι (transitive “to smell”; for the proper form of the verb, see Text) could properly take not just a genitive but an accusative as well, as it did in the Roman period. This represents a misunderstanding of the syntax of the line: accusative τὸ στόµ’ … τὸ σόν is the object of προσένεγκε, and a genitive is generated from it to suit ὀσφραίνεσθαι/ὀσφρέσθαι. See fr. 10 n. for similar constructions, and cf. fr. 67 n. Most of the other material in this section of Priscian is specifically Atticist in orientation, and this note presumably goes back to an Atticist lexicographer as well. Text The paradosis µοι ἐγγὺς is equivalent to µοὐγγὺς fully written out without the crasis; see fr. 343 n. Priscian’s present middle-passive infinitive ὀσφραίνεσθαι is unmetrical, hence Elmsley’s proposal to read the aorist middle infinitive ὀσφρέσθαι (also guaranteed at Antiph. fr. 145.6). Interpretation Kassel–Austin compare Pherecr. fr. 30 ὥσπερ τῶν αἰγιδίων ὄζειν ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος µελικήρας (“to have one’s mouth smell of honeycake(?), like (the mouths) of kids”), and Ael. NA 6.42 tells the story of a Sybarite goatherd who fell in love with one of his she-goats and gave her κύτισος (fr. 13.3 n.), µῖλαξ (fr. 13.3 n.) and σχῖνος (fr. 13.4 n.) to render her mouth fragrant

116

Eupolis

(εὐῶδες; cf. fr. 13.3) so that he could kiss her.71 Note also Hdt. 3.112, who refers to goats’ beards as the worst-smelling thing imaginable. For foul breath, see also Pherecr. fr. 73.5 (allegedly a consequence of eating lentils). But στόµα can also be used of the “mouth” of a wine-jar (e. g. Hermipp. fr. 77.7; Ar. fr. 598.2) (somehow represented as mute character onstage? or a real vessel hailed in a good-natured manner by the speaker, who would like to “kiss”, i. e. drink from it?; cf. E. Cyc. 553). The µοι in µοὐγγύς (see Text) might either be an ethical dative (“please”; very common with imperatives) or be dependent on προσένεγκε … ἐγγύς. The sense is clear in any case. ὀσφρέσθαι Infinitive of purpose (Goodwin 1889 § 770, 772).

fr. 8 K.-A. (11 K.) ταύτην ἐγὼ ᾿ζήτουν πάλαι τὴν ἁρµογήν ταύτην ἐγὼ ἐζήτουν πάλαι Phot. ~ Suda : ταύτην γ᾿ ἐζήτουν πάλαι Poll.F : ἐγὼ πάλαι ζητῶν Poll.A   ἁρµογήν Phot. ~ Suda : ἁρµογὴν ἐγώ Poll.F : ἁρµονίαν Poll.A

I’ve been searching for this harmogê for a long time Phot. α 2839 ~ Suda α 3974 ἁρµογή· ὡς ἡµεῖς (ὡς ἡµεῖς om. Phot.)· Εὔπολις Αἰξί· ―― harmogê: (Used) just as we (use it) (“just as we” omitted by Phot.); Eupolis in Aiges: ―― Poll. 4.57 τὴν δ’ ἁρµονίαν ἁρµογὴν Εὔπολις εἴρηκεν· ―― Eupolis uses harmogê to mean harmonia: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl | llkl | llkl Discussion Bergk 1838. 334; Kock 1880 I.260 Citation context Drawn from Atticist material preserved in the common source for Photius and the Suda commonly referred to as Σ´´, in this case perhaps drawn specifically from Phrynichus; cf. PS pp. 24.16–25.1 ἁρµογή· 71

The man came to a bad end, due to the jealousy of the flock’s ram. He did, however, become the father of the rural deity Pan.

Αἶγες (fr. 8)

117

µουσικὸν τοὔνοµα, τιθέµενον ἐπὶ τῶν ἁρµόσεων, ἃς ποιοῦνται οἱ µουσικοί, ἐπειδὰν ἐξ ἁρµονίας εἰς ἑτέραν ἁρµονίαν µετίωσι, φέρε ἐκ ∆ωρίων εἰς Ὑποδώρια ἢ ἐκ Φρυγίων εἰς Ὑπερµιξολύδια ἢ ὅλως ἔκ τινος τόνου εἰς ἕτερον τόνον (“harmogê: a musical term used for the linking sections musicians produce when they move from one scale to another, for example from the Dorian scale to the Hypodorian, or from the Phrygian to the Hypermixolydian, or generally from one tuning to another tuning”). That Pollux also preserves the verse (in a collection of words having to do with music; a brief list of cognates follows), however, makes it clear that he and Phrynichus(?) were both drawing on an older source.72 Related material is preserved at Hsch. α 7311 ἁρµογή· ἦχος τόνου καὶ φωνῆς (“harmogê: the sound of a tuning and a voice”) and Antiatt. α 145 ἁρµογή· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἁρµονία (“harmogê: in place of harmonia”). Text ἐγώ must have dropped out of the text in Pollux; been added in the margin; and then been inserted in the wrong place in both Poll.F (ταύτην γ᾿ ἐζήτουν πάλαι τὴν ἁρµογὴν ἐγώ) and Poll.A (ἐγὼ πάλαι ζητῶν τὴν ἁρµονίαν, also scrambling the word order and incorporating the gloss in place of the controversial word). The original—unmetrical—reading in Pollux may thus have been ταύτην ἔγωγ᾿ ἐζήτουν πάλαι τὴν ἁρµογήν, with -γ᾿ perhaps having been added in an attempt to eliminate hiatus, although what was really wanted was elision. Kock, unaware that the verse was also preserved in Photius ~ Suda, opted for the present participle ζητῶν from Poll.A. The latter is a slender reed to lean on, and Kock’s choice (driven by no other necessity) has the unhappy effect of eliminating the syntax. Interpretation A ἁρµογή (〈 ἁρµόζω) is literally a “fitting together, juncture”. The word is attested nowhere else before the Hellenistic period and then not with this meaning, making it a reasonable if unprovable assumption that Phrynichus got it from Eupolis, and thus that it has a musical sense here. Perhaps a professional musician has just discovered or been taught a new device; cf. fr. 4; Kock “fortasse sophistae sunt verba”. But this might also be a response by someone who has just been introduced (hence ταύτην) to a harmogê with an interesting name, and who responds with cloddishly clever joy, in the same way that Strepsiades mishandles Socrates’ attempts to teach him metrics at Ar. Nu. 642–5 (earning the response ὡς ἄγροικος εἶ καὶ δυσµαθής, “What an uneducated bumpkin you are!”, in 646), 650–4 (earning the response ἀγρεῖος εἶ καὶ σκαιός, “You’re a rube and a fool!”, in 655). Present or imperfect with πάλαι has a sense equivalent to a combination of perfect and present (or, when the action is set in the past, pluperfect and 72

Thus perhaps read in Phot. ~ Suda ἁρµογή· ὡς ἡµεῖς 〈ἁρµονία〉· Εὔπολις Αἰξί

118

Eupolis

imperfect): e. g. fr. 110.1 (contrary to fact); A. Pers. 290; Hdt. 2.162.4; Cratin. fr. 326; Ar. Eq. 314; Av. 465; Lys. 8.1; X. HG 5.1.36; Mem. 2.3.14; Pl. Cr. 43b; Goodwin 1889 § 26.

fr. 9 K.-A. (9 K.) τὴν πανδοκεύτριαν γὰρ ὁ † τλήµων ἔχει ὁ τλήµων ἀνὴρ ΣV : ἀνὴρ ὁ γλήµων ΣΓ : ἀνὴρ del. Porson : γλάµων pro γλήµων/τλήµων Dindorf : ὅδε τλήµων Millis

for the miserable fellow is married to the innkeeper-woman ΣVΓ Ar. V. 902 τὸ πλῆρες “ποῦ δὲ ὁ διώκων”. ἐκτείνουσι µέντοι καὶ τὸ ὁ (ου ΣΓ) ἄρθρον. Εὔπολις Αἰξίν· ―― The majority reading is “pou de ho diôkôn”. They do nevertheless lengthen the definite article ho (ou ΣΓ) as well. Eupolis in Aiges: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter?

llkl klk|k † llkl Discussion Bergk 1838. 336–7; Kock 1880 I.260; Schiassi 1944. 51–3; Koster 1973; Tammaro 1973–1974. 180–2; Storey 2003. 73–4 Citation context A note on Ar. V. 902, where the manuscripts offer the unmetrical ποῦ δ’ ὁ διώκων, ὁ Κυδαθηναιεὺς κύων;. The lemma for the scholion, on the other hand, is ποῦ δ᾿ οὑ διώκων, while manuscript V also preserves a variant ποῦ δ᾿ ὡ διώκων, with both readings representing failed efforts to mend the text. The proposal put forward in the scholion—to arbitrarily treat ὁ as long, on the basis of the fragment of Eupolis—is a third attempt. Modern editors generally supplement the line instead. Text The fundamental problem with the line from Eupolis—and the reason the scholion to Wasps cites it—is that neither γλ nor τλ ought to make position. ἀνήρ looks like a superlinear note wrongly inserted at two different points in the text, and the word was accordingly expelled by Porson. If it is retained, one must either assume that the line is not iambic trimeter and has suffered additional losses or disruptions; treat it as portions of two trimeters (e. g. Dindorf’s τὴν πανδοκεύτριαν γὰρ ἁνὴρ ὁ γλάµων / ἔχει or Koster’s even less likely τὴν πανδοκεύτριαν γὰρ ὁ / τλήµων ἀνὴρ ἔχει) rather than one; or

Αἶγες (fr. 9)

119

expel a different word (the problematic γλήµων/τλήµων being the obvious candidate, although removing it does not yield any easy, obvious solution to the problem). Kassel–Austin expel ἀνήρ and are apparently prepared to regard the verse as metrically exceptional, despite the fact that Ar. V. 902—the one bit of evidence to support this interpretation—is universally regarded as corrupt. Supplementing with a short syllable after ὁ (allowing for hepthemimeral caesura) is made more difficult by the fact that an additional particle is not wanted after γάρ; Millis suggests ὅδε τλήµων. The argument advanced by the scholion seems in any case to be based on a faulty text. Dindorf’s γλάµων (printed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) assumes two separate errors: first γλήµων for γλάµων in the common ancestor of ΣVΓ (unmotivated, since γλήµων is nonsense), and then τλήµων for γλήµων in ΣV or its source via confusion of Γ and Τ. It is easier to assume a single error: γλήµων for τλήµων in ΣΓ or its source. See Interpretation. Interpretation An explanation of something said just before this (γάρ); if ὁ is sound, the definite articles show that both the man and his wife have been referenced previously. Dindorf’s γλάµων (“bleary-eyed”) allowed him to identify the subject of the verb as the Athenian politician Archedemοs (PA 2326; PAA 208855), who is supposedly attacked as a non-Athenian in fr. 80 (n.) and is mentioned by name at Ar. Ra. 417, 588 (called ὁ γλάµων); X. HG 1.7.2 (identified as ὁ προστατὴς τοῦ δήµου in 406 BCE, i. e. at the time of Frogs); Mem. 2.9 (a story set at a time when Archedemοs was still poor and without substantial political or social connections); Lys. 14.25 (395 BCE or later). But Archedemοs’ floruit appears to be about 20 years after the most likely date of Aiges (cf. fr. 20 n. and the general introduction to the play), which is to say that Dindorf’s desire to give the fragment a firm historical point of reference drove him into a dubious textual decision (see Text). Schiassi posited a connection to Ar. V. 31–6, where a group of πρόβατα (“sheep/goats”, standing in for stupid, gullible Athenians in the Assembly) are harangued by φάλαινα πανδοκεύτρια (literally “an innkeeper-woman whale”, standing in for Cleon), and suggested that Aristophanes may have drawn the image from the plot of Aiges. See also fr. 99.23–34 n. τὴν πανδοκεύτριαν A disreputable occupation associated elsewhere in comedy with loud, angry verbal abuse; cf. Ar. V. 35 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Ra. 549–78; Pl. 426–8; Pl. Lg. 918d; Thphr. Char. 6.5; Poll. 6.128; Brock 1994. 341. τλήµων Poetic vocabulary (e. g. Il. 5.670; Thgn. 196; A. Ch. 384; S. Ant. 229; E. HF 1013; Ar. Ach. 1154–5 (lyric); Th. 1072 (parody of tragedy)), first in prose in Xenophon (rare and always in direct speech, e. g. Mem. 1.3.11; Oec. 7.40; absent from Plato, the orators and 4th-century comedy).

120

Eupolis

ἔχει For the verb in this sense, see LSJ s. v. A.I.4.

fr. 10 K.-A. (12 K.) τοῦδε νῦν γεῦσαι λαβών νῦν] νυν Bothe

Take this now and have a taste! Ath. 9.380e περὶ δὲ τῶν γευµάτων ἃ σαυτῷ προὔπιες ὥρα σοι λέγειν, Οὐλπιανέ. τὸ γὰρ γεῦσαι ἔχοµεν ἐν Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Αἰξί· ―― But now it is time for you to discuss these snacks (geumata) of yours that you mentioned in your toast (9.380d), Ulpian. For we have the verb geusai (“to taste”) in Eupolis in Aiges: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl x〉|lk|l llkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.433 Citation context This passage is immediately preceded by a brief discussion of the verb παραφέρω (“serve (food)”) and cognates, and all this material is thus apparently to be traced to a collection of vocabulary having to do with feasting. Cf. the treatment of various forms of πίνω at Ath. 10.445f–6f. Ulpian (the symposiarch, and notorious for his refusal to use unattested vocabulary) responds to the challenge by quoting Ephipp. fr. 18 (unmetrical) and Antiph. fr. 83 (the verb οἰνογευστέω, not the cognate noun γεῦµα). γεῦµα is also attested in the classical period at e. g. Ar. Ach. 187; E. Cyc. 150; Hp. Epid. III 2.6 = 3.50.3 Littré. Poll. 2.110 collects a handful of other cognates. Text Enclitic νυν (with a short upsilon) is arguably to be understand as a particle adding emphasis and thus distinguished from temporal νῦν (with a long upsilon); cf. fr. 195.1, where van Leeuwen advocated for νυν; Ruijgh 1957. 64–7. In this case, the quantity of the upsilon cannot be determined, and for simplicity’s sake I follow Kassel–Austin in printing νῦν. Interpretation The individual addressed is not told to drink (as at e. g. Od. 9.347 πῖε οἶνον; Cratin. fr. 145 τῆ νῦν τόδε πῖθι λαβὼν ἤδη) but to taste, as if the quality of the item in question—presumably wine—were a matter of

Αἶγες (fr. 11)

121

concern, or as if he had never experienced it or anything as good as it before. Cf. fr. 2 with n.; E. Cyc. 155 (Odysseus allows Silenus a taste of his Maronian wine) γεῦσαί νυν; Anaxandr. fr. 1 (from Agroikoi), where speaker (A.) seems baffled about how to have a drinking party. Kassel–Austin also note the close verbal parallel at Ar. Ach. 188, 191 γεῦσαι λαβών (Dicaeopolis samples the peace-treaties/libations brought from Sparta by Amphitheos; see in general fr. 200 n.). Meineke suggested that the fragment came from a symposium scene, with which he also associated frr. 5–6; 14; 16; 34. τοῦδε supplies the object of both γεῦσαι (partitive genitive, as at e. g. Ar. fr. 478.1 ἐγευσάµην χορδῆς) and λαβών (but with the noun now understood to be in the accusative); cf. Ar. Av. 56 λίθῳ κόψον λαβών, “take a stone and knock with it”; Th. 212 ἐµοὶ δ’ ὅ τι βούλει χρῶ λαβών, “take me and do whatever you want with me”. E. g. Ar. Ach. 191 τασδὶ τὰς δεκέτεις γεῦσαι λαβών, 1068 ἵν’ οἶνον ἐγχέω λαβών function the other way around; and cf. frr. 7 with n.; 67 with n. For λαβών + imperative, cf. also fr. 167 with n. νῦν (or νυν) is common with imperatives (e. g. frr. 163; 195.1; 250; Crates fr. 45; Hermipp. fr. 63.1; A. Pers. 435; Hdt. 1.124.1) and the like (e. g. fr. 131.1, a hortatory subjunctive).

fr. 11 K.-A. (4 K.) ἐγὼ τελῶ τὸν µισθὸν ὅντιν’ ἂν χρῇ ἄν 〈µε〉 χρῇ Valckenaer

I’ll pay the/his wage, whatever might be necessary Phot. (z) inedit. = Suda χ 471 χρή· ὀξυτόνως 〈τὸ〉 (addidi) δεῖ· χρῇ δὲ περισπωµένως, τὸ ὑποτακτικόν, σηµαίνει τὸ δέῃ. Εὔπολις Αἰξίν· ―― chrê: With an acute accent, (it means) dei; whereas chrêi with a circumflex accent, the subjunctive, means deêi. Eupolis in Aiges: ――

Meter Probably iambic tetrameter catalectic, but see Text. 〈xlkl〉 klkl llkl kll Discussion Bergk 1838. 333; Meineke 1839 II.431–2; Kock 1880 II.259; Schiassi 1944. 55

122

Eupolis

Citation context The first part of a long note on χρή (“it is necessary”) and related vocabulary that also cites three other comic fragments and a passage from Plato’s Euthyphro. Related material is preserved at EM p. 814.48–57. Text Valckenaer’s ἄν 〈µε〉 χρῇ converts the line into iambic trimeter (klkl llkl kl〈k〉l), a far more common meter. Interpretation An offer by someone either rich or desperate; Bergk thought the speaker was a father hiring a sophist to teach his son, Meineke the rustic student himself.73 In any case, the talents possessed by the individual being paid must be unusual and thus expensive, unlike those described in fr. 12 (also in iambic tetrameter catalectic and thus perhaps from the same scene). ἐγώ is most naturally taken as marking an emphatic contrast with someone else (the potential employee? the individual who will supervise or benefit from the work?). τελῶ τὸν µισθόν Cf. µισθοῦ …, τὸν … οὐκ ἐτέλεσσε (“the wage, which he didn’t pay”) already at Il. 21.457. For µισθός, see fr. 470 n. χρῇ The difference between χρή (also frr. 99.12; 260.19) and δεῖ (frr. 55; 172.12; 196.1; 260.21) seems to be in the first instance a matter of focalization: the former refers to an obligation imposed from without or at least represented in that way (“have to”), the latter to an obligation imposed from within or represented in that way (“need to”). Whether this distinction was rigorously observed is unclear, although Eupolis routinely uses χρή where δεῖ could stand just as well in the line, and vice versa. χρῇ and δέῃ (not attested in Eupolis), on the other hand, have different metrical values, and only χρῇ will work here.

fr. 12 K.-A. (13 K.) ἐπίσταµαι γὰρ αἰπολεῖν, σκάπτειν, νεᾶν, φυτεύειν for I know how to tend goats, dig, break fallow land and plant Phot. ν 68 νεᾶν, οὐ νεοῦν, τὴν γῆν· καὶ νεατὸν Ξενοφῶν (Oec. 7.20), οὐ νέωσιν. Εὔπολις Αἰξίν· ―― nean (“to plow”), not neoun, the earth; and Xenophon (Oec. 7.20) (uses) neatos (“plowing”), not neôsis. Eupolis in Aiges: ―― 73

Kock adds the further hypothesis that the rustic has been encouraged by his friends to get an education (“ab amicis tandem permotus ut litteris musicaeque studeat”), although where the idea originates is unclear.

Αἶγες (fr. 12)

123

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic.

klkl klkl | llkl kll Citation context An isolated lexicographic note, tentatively traced by Theodoridis to Aelius Dionysius. νεάω is attested already at Hes. Op. 462, so the point is not that this is proper Attic usage or the like, but simply that the verb ought to be distinguished from the superficially similar νεόω (“renew”) (but see Interpretation). Related material is preserved at Hsch. ν 177 νεᾶν· νεάσαι γῆν (“nean: to plow earth”; traced by Latte to Diogenianus). Discussion Meineke 1839 I.116, II.430–1; Kock 1880 II.261; Perusino 1968. 109 Interpretation A summary description of the basic work-skills of an ἄγροικος, offered in explanation (γάρ) of something, e. g. why he is a typical countryman and thus unfit for or untrained in any other activity. Cf. Strepsiades’ excuse for his initial cloddishness at Nu. 138 “Forgive me; for I live far off in the country”; Av. 1432 (a young sycophant who has been told to abandon his trade) “What’s to become of me? For I don’t know how to dig (σκάπτειν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταµαι)”; fr. 232 “I’m someone who’s spent his time playing pipes and lyres—and you tell me to dig (σκάπτειν)?”; E. fr. 188.4 σκάπτων, ἀρῶν γῆν, ποιµνίοις ἐπιστατῶν (“digging, plowing land, supervising flock-animals”; a summary description of rural life). Skills 2–4 (listed in the second half of the verse) all have to do with agricultural work rather than animal husbandry and thus form a group in contrast to Skill 1. Meineke (followed in a less detailed fashion by Kock) took the speaker to be the individual to whom he thought frr. *3 and 4 were addressed, and argued that this person must have played a substantial part in the action. But this is merely guesswork designed to unify the scanty fragments of the play in the most efficient fashion possible. The meter may suggest an agôn. αἰπολεῖν The verb is attested first at A. Eu. 196 (also Lys. fr. 76 καθίστησιν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰς αἶγας, καὶ ᾐπόλει αὐταῖς, “he puts him in charge of the goats, and he was taking care of them”; Theoc. 8.85), but cognate nouns are found already in Homer (e. g. Il. 2.474 ὥς τ’ αἰπόλια πλατέ’ αἰγῶν αἰπόλοι ἄνδρες), and cf. βουκολέω (properly “tend cows”, although see fr. 19 n.), which similarly appears in early epic and is also 〈 πέλοµαι. σκάπτειν For digging (sc. to plant vines or trees, or to work the soil or produce irrigation ditches) as a basic part of a farmer’s life, e. g. hHerm. 90; Hippon. fr. 36.4–5; Ar. Pax 570 τριαινοῦν τῇ δικέλλῃ … τὸ γῄδιον (“to turn over my little plot of land with my mattock”) with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Pl. 525 ἀροῦν ἐπαναγκασθεὶς καὶ σκάπτειν τἄλλα τε µοχθεῖν (“compelled to plow and dig and perform other labor”); frr. 111.3 σκάψαι κἀποκλάσαι (“to dig and to tend vines(?)”); 232 (what a skilled musician does not do); Philem. fr. 74.6 ἐν ἀγρῷ

124

Eupolis

διατρίβων τήν τε γῆν σκάπτων (“spending time in the country and digging up the earth”); Men. Dysc. 31, 416–17 (using a δίκελλα); adesp. com. fr. 895.3 σκάπτω γὰρ … ἐπιµελῶς σπείρω τ’ ἀεί (“for I always carefully dig and sow”); X. Oec. 19; Cyr. 8.3.38 σκάπτων καὶ σπείρων καὶ µάλα µικρὸν γῄδιον (“digging up and sowing a rather tiny plot of land”); Thphr. CP 3.20.1; [Pl.] Just. 375b τίς δ’ ἐν τῷ δέοντι σκάπτειν καὶ ἀροῦν καὶ φυτεύειν οἷός τε; —ὁ γεωργός. —ὅτι ἐπίσταται, ἢ ὅτι οὔ; —ὅτι ἐπίσταται (“Who’s capable of digging, plowing and planting, if need be?” —“The farmer.” —“Because he knows what’s he’s doing, or because he doesn’t?” —“Because he knows what he’s doing”). νεᾶν The root sense of the verb (for which, see Citation context; Hofinger 1967. 17–19; also attested at Ar. Nu. 1117 νεᾶν … ἐν ὥρᾳ τοὺς ἀγρούς, “to break your fields in spring”; Pratin. PMG 712a.4 = TrGF 4 F 6.4, and cf. νέασις, “plowing of fallow land” at Thphr. CP 3.20.7) seems to be “break fallow land”, hence the occasional connection with νέος (“new”); cf. Poll. 1.221 νεοποιοὶ ἢ νεοῦντες ἢ νεάζοντες ἢ νεοποιοῦντες (all words for “plowmen”); Latin novale (“fallow land”). φυτεύειν Also used of planting trees, vines or the like at e. g. Od. 9.108; Hes. Op. 22 ἀρόµεναι ἠδὲ φυτεύειν (“to plow and to plant”); Tyrt. fr. 5.3 ἀγαθὸν µὲν ἀροῦν, ἀγαθὸν δὲ φυτεύειν (“good to plow, and good to plant”; of land); Hdt. 2.138.3; Ar. Pax 558, 629; fr. 110.1; Eriph. fr. 2.7).

fr. 13 K.-A. (14 K.) βοσκόµεθ’ ὕλης ἀπὸ παντοδαπῆς, ἐλάτης πρίνου κοµάρου τε πτόρθους ἁπαλοὺς ἀποτρώγουσαι, καὶ πρὸς τούτοισιν ἔτ᾿ † αννοην † κύτισόν τ’ ἠδὲ σφάκον εὐώδη καὶ σµίλακα τὴν πολύφυλλον, κότινον, σχῖνον, µελίαν, πεύκην, ἀρίαν, δρῦν, κιττόν, ἐρίκην, πρόµαλον, ῥάµνον, φλόµον, ἀνθέρικον, φηγόν, κισθόν, θύµα, θύµβραν 2 πτόρθους Stephanus : πόρθους Plu. : ΤΟΡΟΟΥΣ Macrob.   ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣΙΝΕΤΑΝΝΟΗΝ Macrob. : τούτοισιν ἔτ᾿ [..3–4..] Plu. : τούτοισιν ἔτ᾿ ἄνθην Schmidt : πρὸς τούτοισί γε θαλλόν Meineke : fort. τούτοις ἔτ᾿ ἄνηθον   3 σφάκον Bodaeus : ΦΑΣΚΟΝ Macrob. : φα[..5–8..] Plu.   4 ΣΧΙΝΟΝ Macrob.P : ἐχῖνον Plu. : ΣΘΝΟΝ Macrob.F   ΠΕΥΚΗΝ Macrob. : λεύκην Kock : om. Plu. ἀρίαν Lobeck : ΑΛΙΑΝ Macrob. : om. Plu. ΕΡΙΚΗΝ Macrob.P : ΕΡΥΚΗΝ Macrob.F : µυρίκην Plu.   5 κισθόν Plu. : ΚΙΣΣΟΝ Macrob.

We feed off of every sort of tree, nibbling the tender shoots of silver fir, holm oak and strawberry tree, and furthermore in addition to them † annoên †,

Αἶγες (fr. 13)

125

kytisos and fragrant wild sage and the leafy yew, wild olive, mastic, manna-ash, pine, aria-oak, deciduous oak, ivy, heather, promalos, thorn-bush, mullein, asphodel, rock-rose, phêgos-oak, thyme, savory Plu. Mor. 662d δοκεῖς µοι διεψεῦσθαι, τὰ θηρία τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἁπλουστέραις τροφαῖς χρῆσθαι καὶ µᾶλλον ὑγιαίνειν ὑποτιθέµενος. οὐδέτερον γὰρ ἀληθές ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ τῷ µὲν αἱ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδος αἶγες ἀντιµαρτυροῦσιν, ὑµνοῦσαι τὴν τροφὴν ὡς παµµιγῆ καὶ ποικίλην οὖσαν, οὕτως πως λέγουσαι· ――. τὰ γὰρ κατηριθµηµένα µυρίας δήπου διαφορὰς ἔχει χυµῶν καὶ ὀδµῶν καὶ δυνάµεων· πλείονα δὲ τῶν εἰρηµένων παραλέλειπται You seem to me to be mistaken in maintaining that animals make use of simpler foods than human beings do and are healthier. For neither point is true. Eupolis’ goats contradict the first point when they commend what they eat as diverse and various, saying something along these lines: ――. For the items listed have countless differences in flavor, smell and effect; and there are more (such items) in addition to those that have been named Macrobius, Satires 7.5.8 nam neque simplex est animalibus mutis alimonia nec ab illis quam a nobis morbi remotiores. testatur unum varietas pratorum quae depascuntur, quibus herbae sunt amarae pariter et dulces, aliae sucum calidum, aliae frigidum nutrientes, ut nulla culina possit tam diversa condire quam in herbis natura variavit. notus est omnibus Eupolis, inter elegantes habendus veteris comoediae poetas. is in fabula quae inscribitur Aeges inducit capras de cibi sui copia in haec se verba iactantes: ――. videturne vobis ciborum ista simplicitas, ubi tot enumerantur vel arbusta vel frutices non minus suco diversa quam nomine? For neither is the diet of mute animals simple nor are diseases more foreign to them than they are to us. Testimony to the first point is the variety of pasturage on which they feed, made up of an equal mix of bitter and sweet grasses, some of which supply a warm humour, others a cold one, such that no kitchen could be as diverse in its offerings as nature is in its grasses. Everyone is familiar with Eupolis, who must be regarded as one of the refined poets of old comedy. In a play entitled Aeges, he brings onstage she-goats who boast about the variety of their fodder in the following words: ――. Does that seem to you a simple diet, when so many trees and shrubs are listed, as diverse in humour as in name? Erot. π 63 πρόµαλον φώξας· πρόµαλόν ἐστιν εἶδος φυτοῦ, οὗ µέµνηται καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Αἰξί (v. 5) after roasting promalon: promalon is a type of plant, which Eupolis too mentions in Aiges (v. 5)

126

Eupolis

Meter Anapestic tetrameter catalectic.

lrll llrl rlll rlll rlll

rlrl | rlll rll rlll | llll r†lkl† rlll | llrl rll rlll | rlll rll rlrl | llll rll

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.426–8; Kock 1880 I.261–2; Whittaker 1935. 189; Schiassi 1944. 53–4; Rackham 2000; Rothwell 2007. 130–1 Citation context The speaker in Plutarch is responding to an assertion made at 661b and is arguing for a positive connection between pleasure (including a varied diet) and health. Macrobius, whose characters are discussing the dangers and advantages of a varied diet, has taken the passage of Eupolis— and much of what surrounds it—straight from Plutarch; the claim to which the response is being offered appears at 7.4.4. Macrobius’ characterization of Eupolis as elegans = test. 33 (where see n.). The note in Erotian is in origin a gloss on Hp. Mul. 192 = 8.374.6–7 Littré (part of a recipe for supposed antidotes to bleeding). Cf. Paus.Gr. ε 62 ἐρείκη· εἶδος φυτοῦ (“heather: a type of plant”; originally a gloss on v. 4?). Text The Greek embedded in Macrobius was copied out by scribes who did not know the language and who therefore introduced numerous simple errors. The text of Plutarch, meanwhile, at some point suffered physical damage to 2–3 (and perhaps to 4), and was corrupted in other ways as well. As a consequence, Macrobius is now in some instances a better witness to what Plutarch (and Eupolis) wrote than the text of Plutarch itself is. In 2, Stephanus’ πτόρθους is an easy correction of Plutarch’s πόρθους, Τ (or τ) having been lost after Π (or π). The version of the text in Macrobius features the opposite error (Π lost before Τ), as well as Ο for Θ. At the end of 2, Kassel–Austin print Schmidt’s τούτοισιν ἔτ᾿ ἄνθην for Macrobius’ ΤΟΥΤΟΙΣΙΝΕΤΑΝΝΟΗΝ, citing Aitchison 1963 in support of their proposal to take the word as meaning “frondes” (i. e. “foliage” vel sim.). But this sense of ἄνθη (normally “full bloom”) is attested nowhere else, and Aitchison 1963. 278 actually notes that the hypothesized root-sense “growth, plant” of ἄνθος was forgotten long before the 5th century and was thus not available for Eupolis; and “foliage” is in any case very weak sense, since what is wanted is the name of a specific plant. Meineke’s θαλλόν faces the latter objection as well. E. g. ἄνηθον (“dill”) is better in this regard; τούτοισιν must then be changed to τούτοις to accommodate a three-syllable word at the end of the line, but the extended form is not obviously wanted in any case.

Αἶγες (fr. 13)

127

In 3, Macrobius’ φάσκον (“moss”) is metrically impossible, but seems also to have been the reading in Plutarch and must therefore be an early error, two similar plant-names having been confused via a simple transposition of letters. Further on in 3, the alternative form µίλακα (e. g. Ar. Av. 216; E. Ba. 703) would do just as well as the paradosis σµίλακα, and Eupolis might have written either; see Interpretation. In 4, Plutarch’s ἐχῖνον is a majuscule error, Σ having been mistaken for Ε. Also in 4, Kock’s λεύκην (“white poplar”; printed by Kassel–Austin) for the paradosis πεύκην (“pine”) reflects Meineke’s observation that goats do not eat the latter. This may be true but is an insufficient basis for emendation, since the poet shows only a limited interest in such matters; see Interpretation. Macrobius’ ἀλίαν (however accented) further on in 4 is nonsense. For Lobeck’s ἀρίαν, cf. fr. 491 with n. ἐρίκη is spelled with iota also in the first attestation of the word at A. Ag. 293 by the first hand in M (the most important manuscript of Aeschylus), but in the 4th century and later is consistently written ἐρείκη (e. g. Thphr. HP 1.14.2; Theoc. 5.64; Call. fr. 355.1). The word has no etymology (probably substrate vocabulary, like many plant-names), and the correct 5th-century spelling is impossible to determine. Plutarch’s µυρίκην (“tamarisk”) is metrically impossible. In 5, Macrobius’ κισσόν is impossible after κιττόν (the proper Attic form of the word) in 4, and Plutarch’s κισθόν (a difference of a single letter) must be right. φηγόν in the middle of 5 seems odd at a point where the list has moved generally away from trees to scrub-growth of various sorts, but no obvious, easy alternative presents itself. Interpretation From the parabasis proper, as the chorus introduce themselves and their habits to the audience; cf. frr. 42 (also from the parabasis proper); 172, and Ar. V. 1070–90, 1102–21, where the chorus’ wasp-identity is not only explained but interpreted (the old jurors “sting” their enemies), raising the possibility that the omnivorous flexibility of Eupolis’ goats was similarly made to serve a larger argumentative point obscured by Plutarch. The pace of the description gradually accelerates, with the general idea “we feed on everything” in 1 expanded first via the participial clause in 1–2; then via a list of additions to the goats’ menu in 2–3 that includes two ornamental adjectives; and finally via the long, undifferentiated catalogue of further twoto three-syllable items (almost all small plants, in contrast to the larger trees in 1 in particular) in 4–5. Whether Plutarch at Mor. 662d means that the list was originally even longer than this, or simply that he himself can think of other items that might have been included but were not, is unclear.

128

Eupolis

Strict aegiological accuracy is not observed, the poet being seemingly mostly concerned with filling out his lines in a superficially plausible way. Cf. Rackham 2000. 349: “Goats are choosey feeders, and … Eupolis seems to be quite indifferent to their actual attitude to different plants. His list includes plants right across the range, from those they are specially fond of … to those … which they refuse”; and the similarly absurd but evocative modern meme of a barnyard goat chewing on a tin can. Asterisks at the end of individual notes below are drawn from Rackham and indicate whether the plant in question (as he identifies it; variants noted) is a favorite of goats (maximum five asterisks) or is shunned by them (“not eaten”). For general cautions about the extent to which ancient plant-names can be identified with more scientifically identified modern species, see Dawkins 1936. 1–2 βοσκόµεθ(α) Used in the passive of animals grazing or the like already in early epic (e. g. Il. 5.162 (cows); 15.691 (wild birds); 20.223 (horses); Od. 14.104 (goats); elsewhere in comedy at e. g. Ar. Av. 1099 (birds)); cf. the active at e. g. Od. 9.124 βόσκει δέ τε µηκάδας αἶγας (“he grazes bleating she-goats”; of the Cyclops); Stratt. fr. 28.2 (peacocks); and the cognates βοτήρ (“herdsman”) and χηνοβοσκός (“goose-keeper”; Cratin. fr. 49). For the verb with ἀπό + gen. of the source of the nourishment thus extracted, cf. Ar. Ec. 599 ἀπὸ τούτων κοινῶν ὄντων ἡµεῖς βοσκήσοµεν ὑµᾶς (“from these goods held in common we will feed you”); Poultney 1936. 150–1. Ηere, however, the idea is that the goats do not eat the plants they graze on whole, but merely tear new growth (πτόρθους ἁπαλούς) off of them, and the preposition is accordingly picked up as a prefix in ἀποτρώγουσαι. 1 ὕλης … παντοδαπῆς The identity of the trees in question is clarified at the beginning of the relative clause that follows, with the range of reference of the noun then gradually expanded in 2–5 καὶ πρὸς τούτοισιν κτλ to refer to plants of every sort. παντοδαπός is first attested at Sapph. fr. 152 and hDem. 402; the source of the suffix (cf. τηλεδαπός, ποδαπός, ἡµεδαπός) is obscure. ἐλάτης Translated “silver fir, Abies cephalonica”, by LSJ s. v.; the tree grows to well over 100 feet high and its enormous height is mentioned repeatedly in ancient sources (e. g. Il. 5.560; 14.287; Od. 5.239; E. Ba. 1061; Thphr. HP 1.9.1); see in general Meiggs 1982. 43. Theophrastus (e. g. HP 1.6.1, 5) regularly distinguishes it from the πίτυς (“fir”), πεύκη (“pine”; see 4 n.) and κυπάριττος (“cypress, juniper”).74 ****

74

Among other, less immediately recognizable differences, firs have needles borne singly on the branch; pines have needles borne in bunches of two, three or five; and cypress have bunches of 15 or more needles borne on short shoots.

Αἶγες (fr. 13)

129

πρίνου Translated “holm oak” (Quercus ilex, a medium-sized evergreen tree; cf. Thphr. HP 3.16.1) or “kermes oak” (Quercus coccifera, an evergreen shrub) by LSJ s. v., which for no obvious reason takes the latter to be the plant referred to here and in Amphis fr. 38.2 (also juxtaposed with κόµαρος). Theophrastus (e. g. HP 3.16.3; 4.15.3; also X. Cyn. 9.13) regularly treats the πρῖνος and the δρῦς (4 with n.) together but separately, the fundamental distinction perhaps being that the latter is deciduous. See in general Meiggs 1982. 44–5. **** (kermes oak) κοµάρου Arbutus andrachne, an evergreen shrub or small tree that bears an edible fruit called µιµαίκυλον (e. g. Ar. fr. 698; Amphis fr. 38.2; Thphr. HP 3.16.4–5). On the name, see Strömberg 1940. 58. **** 2 ἀποτρώγουσαι The compound is first attested here; subsequently in comedy at Ar. Ra. 367 and Men. fr. 220.1 (both of “nibbling away” at a wage). For the simplex, see fr. 335.2 n. καὶ πρὸς τούτοισιν Colloquial; cf. Ar. V. 686 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc. πρὸς τούτοισιν ἔτ(ι) For similar combinations, e. g. Ar. Nu. 720 πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι τοῖσι κακοῖς; Hdt. 1.99.1 πρός τε τούτοισι ἔτι; 3.65.7 πρὸς ἔτι τούτοισι; S. Ph. 1339 πρὸς τοῖσδ’ ἔτι; Antipho 6.31 καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις; X. Mem. 2.4.4 ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις; Pl. Plt. 286e ἔτι δ’ αὖ πρὸς τούτοις; Isoc. 14.13 ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις, and cf. Homeric πρὸς δ’ ἔτι (e. g. Od. 16.291). 2–3 The second list of plants consumed by the goats “rises” gradually from an unadorned two-syllable (perhaps three-syllable; see Text) item († αννοην †), to an unadorned three-syllable item (κύτισον), to a two-syllable item accompanied by a three-syllable adjective (σφάκον εὐώδη), and concludes with a three-syllable item accompanied by a four-syllable adjective and a definite article (σµίλακα τὴν πολύφυλλον). 3 κύτισον “Tree-medick” (Medicago arborea), a yellow-flowering evergreen shrub mentioned also at e. g. Cratin. frr. 105.8 (material for garlands); 363.2 (in a catalogue of wild plants sent up spontaneously by the earth, along with σφάκος, φλόµος and ἀνθέρικος); Thphr. HP 4.4.6. Described as a favorite food of goats at Theoc. 5.128; 10.30; Call. SH 257.27 = fr. 54b.27 Harder with Harder 2012 ad loc.; Ael. NA 6.42 (along with µίλαξ and σχῖνος); 16.32; Verg. Ecl. 1.77–8. See in general Atchley 1938. 14–15; Brun 1997. 404–5. ***? τ’ ἠδέ is poetic (e. g. Il. 1.400; Od. 11.259; hAp. 44; Thgn. 723; A. Pers. 972 (lyric)); absent from prose and attested elsewhere in comedy only at Alex. fr. 138.6 (with Arnott 1996 ad loc.). See Denniston 1950. 287–8. σφάκον Also mentioned at e. g. Cratin. fr. 363.1 (in a catalogue of wild plants; see above on κύτισον); Ar. Th. 486; Alex. fr. 132.8 (a culinary spice); Men. Dysc. 605 (mentioned along with θύµα (5) as a typical plant of the

130

Eupolis

rocky Attic countryside); Thphr. HP 6.1.4, 2.5 (specifically distinguished from ἐλελίσφακος, which is described as the uncultivated variety). See in general Andrews 1956. * εὐώδη A primarily poetic ornamental adjective (e. g. Od. 5.64 εὐώδης κυπάρισσος; Cypr. fr. 5.2, p. 48 Bernabé εὐώδεας … ποίης; hDem. 401 ἄνθεσι … εὐώδε[σιν]; Pi. N. 11.41 ἄνθος εὐῶδες; A. Pers. 617 ἐλαίας καρπὸς εὐώδης; Ar. Av. 1067 (lyric); in 5th-century prose at Hdt. 3.112; see in general fr. 36 n.; Willi 2003b. 44 (on the poetic character of formations of this sort generally)), and in any case quite appropriate here. σµίλακα The 5th- and 4th-century sources describe σµῖλαξ/µῖλαξ as sweet-smelling (Ar. Nu. 1007 µίλακος ὄζων, seemingly referring to a garland-flower, although the language is allusive; Thphr. HP 3.18.11; cf. Pl. R. 372b, where rustic beds are to be strewn with µῖλαξ and myrtle); as having attractive red fruit (E. Ba. 108 µίλακι καλλικάρπῳ; Thphr. HP 3.18.12), a flower (E. Ba. 703 µίλακός τ’ ἀνθεσφόρου; Thphr. HP 3.18.11 (described as λευκός); 6.8.3) and numerous spiny leaves (Thphr. HP 1.10.5–6; cf. Eupolis’ πολύφυλλον); and as using its stem to climb in the same way ivy does (Thphr. HP 7.8.1).75 See also Plin. Nat. 16.153–4. All this suggests Smilax aspera (rough bindweed or sarsaparille), a species of flowering vine with fragrant yellow/green flowers and bright red (eventually black) fruit. See in general Atchley 1938. 48–9. At Poll. 6.106 (citing Cratin. fr. 105, where the word is generally added as a supplement), the manuscripts are divided between σµίλου/σµίλακος (Poll.A) and µίλου/µίλακος (Poll.FS); this fragment (where Plutarch and Macrobius agree on σµ-) is otherwise the earliest secure attestation of the word; and neither σµ- nor µ- is metrically guaranteed anywhere in the poetic sources. Despite LSJ s. v. σµῖλαξ, therefore, there is no reason to believe that µῖλαξ is the old Attic form of the word, and these must instead be two variant forms of a pre-Greek vocabulary item; cf. σµικρός/µικρός and µύραινα/σµύραινα. ***** (“but supposedly poisonous”) Although similar πολύ-compounds are common in poetry (e. g. πολυάνθεµος, πολυδένδρεος, πολυστάφυλος), πολύφυλλος is first attested here and is subsequently found repeatedly in Theophrastus (e. g. HP 1.10.8; 3.14.4; in Hellenistic poetry at Nic. fr. 85.2). 4 κότινον Distinguished from ἐλάα (“cultivated olive”) at e. g. Arist. GA 755b11; Thphr. HP 1.4.1, 8.1–2, 14.4; 2.3.1; said to grow in the mountains at Ar. Av. 240; and used to fatten sheep and goats at Arist. HA 596a24–5 (cf. Theoc. 5.100). ***** 75

The reference at X. Cyn. 9.12 is clearly to a different plant, which has bark and is generally taken to be yew.

Αἶγες (fr. 13)

131

σχῖνον An evergreen shrub or small tree (Pistacia lentiscus); its gum (µαστίχη) was collected and chewed. Cf. adesp. com. fr. *136; Thphr. HP 9.1.2. To be distinguished from squill, for which the same name was sometimes used (e. g. Cratin. fr. 250.2; Ar. Pl. 720; Amips. fr. 24; Hdt. 4.177).76 * µελίαν A medium-sized tree (Fraxinus ornus) also mentioned at e. g. Hes. Op. 145; S. fr. 759; Ar. Av. 742; Thphr. HP 4.8.2 (said to grow in moist environments). Its common name supposedly derives from the resemblance between the syrup made from its sap and Biblical manna. ***** πεύκην Used for shipbuilding (e. g. Ar. Eq. 1310) and torches (e. g. Ar. Nu. 604), and pointedly distinguished from the πίτυς (“fir”) at Pl. Lg. 705c; Thphr. HP 3.9.4–5, inter alia as being far more resinous and thus better suited to the purposes mentioned above. Cf. 1 n. on ἐλάτης. * ἀρίαν See fr. dub. 491 n. **** δρῦν Often a generic term (cf. Ar. Nu. 402 τὰς δρῦς τὰς µεγάλας, which may mean nothing more than “the tallest trees”), but here seemingly referring specifically to a deciduous oak; see 1 n. **** κιττόν Hedera helix, for which see in general Thphr. HP 3.18.6–10; Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 535. ***** ἐρίκην A low-growing perennial shrub (Calluna vulgaris) gathered (presumably for fuel) at Theoc. 5.64–5. See Dsc. 1.88. **** 5 πρόµαλον Obscure, but seemingly equated with willow at Theopomp. Coloph. SH 765.2 οἰσύϊνον, προµάλοιο τετυγµένον αἰζήεντος (“made of wicker, constructed out of vigorous promalos”; of a lyre-like instrument) and said to grow alongside it at A.R. 3.201. (no ranking) ῥάµνον A thorny, fruit-bearing shrub (hence the modern translation “buckthorn”). Thphr. HP 3.18.2 identifies two varieties, “white” and “black”; see also Sophr. fr. 165; Euph. fr. 137, p. 53 Powell = fr. 138 van Groningen (both preserved at Σ Nic. Th. 861); Dsc. 1.90. (no ranking) φλόµον A genus of biennial or perennial plants with a tall flowering stem (Verbascum); mullein contains rotenone, a powerful piscicide, and was accordingly used to catch fish (Arist. HA 602b31–3a2). See in general Atchley 1938. 32. Mentioned also at Cratin. fr. 363.3 (in a catalogue of wild plants; see 3 n. on κύτισον); Dsc. 4.103. Also called πλόµος and φλόνος, the variations in the form of the word serving to identify it as substrate vocabulary. (not eaten) ἀνθέρικον A hardy, herbaceous perennial plant (Asphodelus spp.) with a tall flower-spike, also mentioned at Cratin. fr. 363.2 (in a catalogue of wild 76

Beekes 2010 s. v. describes the word as “denoting a tree and a marine organism”, having apparently been misled by the name “sea squill”, which refers to the fact that squill commonly grows in rough coastal habitats.

132

Eupolis

plants; see 3 n. on κύτισον); Atchley 1938. 49–50; Verpoorten 1962. 118–19. At least in modern Greece, domination by asphodel plants (= the presence of “asphodel deserts”) tends to mark “the last degradation stage” of a local environment and to be the result of overgrazing; see in general Pantis and Stamou 1991. The root is not ἄνθος (“flower”) but ἀθήρ, ἀθέρινος (“barb, spine”; substrate vocabulary); cf. Homeric ἀνθερεών (“chin”). (not eaten) φηγόν Derived from an Indo-European word that originally meant “beech” (cf. Latin fagus), but used in Greece—where beech trees are absent—for the Valonia oak (Quercus aegilops; e. g. Il. 16.767; S. Tr. 171; routinely of the oaks of Dodona) or its fruit (e. g. Ar. Pax 1137; Pl. R. 372c; Eub. fr. 135). See in general Lacaita 1920; Meiggs 1982. 45. **** κισθόν An evergreen, bushy shrub with showy pink or white flowers (Cistaceae) mentioned also at Mnesim. fr. 4.63; Thphr. HP 6.1.4–2.1; Theoc. 5.131; Dsc. 1.97; cf. in general Atchley 1938. 8–9. * θύµα Plural, as at Antiph. fr. 177.4, although here less appropriately so (all other items in the catalogue being singular) for the sake of the meter. For thyme, cf. Ar. fr. 831 θυµάγροικος (where the quantity of the upsilon is uncertain, meaning that the word may be derived instead from θῦµος, “a natural rustic, a rustic at heart”); Men. Dysc. 605 (see 3 n.); Atchley 1938. 36; Andrews 1958. 150–2, 155–6. ** θύµβραν A sharp-tasting herb resembling thyme (Satureia thymbra); cf. Ar. Ach. 254 βλέπουσα θυµβροφάγον (“giving a savoury-eating look”, i. e. “offering a nasty facial expression”); Nu. 421 θυµβρεπιδείπνου (“dining on savoury”, i. e. “living on nothing”); Thphr. HP 1.12.1; CP 3.1.4; Atchley 1938. 35–6; Andrews 1958. 152–3. (not eaten).

fr. 14 K.-A. (15 K.) αὐτοῦ τὴν χέρνιβα παύσεις you’ll stop his hand-washing Ath. 9.409a–b παρὰ µέντοι τοῖς τραγικοῖς καὶ τοῖς κωµικοῖς παροξυτόνως ἀνέγνωσται χερνίβα· παρ’ Εὐριπίδῃ ἐν Ἡρακλεῖ (929)· … ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Αἰξίν· ―― Again, in the tragic and comic poets cherniba is read with an acute on the penultimate syllable. In Euripides’ Heracles (929): … And also in Eupolis in Aiges: ――

Αἶγες (fr. 15)

133

Meter Anapaestic and most easily taken to be a paroemiac (i. e. a catalectic anapaestic dimeter), like fr. 15 (from the parabasis?).

llll rll Discussion Meineke 1839 II.433 Citation context An abrupt, grammatically oriented intrusion into a discussion nominally devoted to the practice of hand-washing before and after meals and related vocabulary. ΣV Ar. Pax 956 appears to be a condensed version of the same material. Text Whatever authority is being cited here insists that χερνίβα is correct, χέρνιβα by implication incorrect, but that view is abruptly rejected in what follows (“The word should in fact be accented with an acute on the antepenult”), apparently drawing on a different source responding to the first. Editors routinely accept the dictate here but not at E. HF 929 or elsewhere, and there is no obvious reason to take it seriously. Interpretation Three parties are involved: the speaker, the addressee, and a man with whom the addressee will somehow interact. χέρνιψ (〈 χείρ, “hand” + νίζω, “wash”) is often the water in which participants in a sacrifice dipped their hands before taking part in the rite, as well as the ritual torch in the course of the proceedings (e. g. Ar. Pax 956–7 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Av. 850; Men. Dysc. 440; see in general van Straten 1995. 31–43), but can also refer to simple washing-water used in preparation for dining or the like (e. g. Il. 24.304; Thgn. 1001; Th. 4.97.3; see in general Slater 1989, and cf. frr. 129; 169 with n.). The word seems to be used here in any case in an extended sense (“hand-washing”). Perhaps the goats are imagining (and praising) the addressee’s anticipated restraint of someone else particularly devoted to animal sacrifice. παύω elsewhere always takes an accusative of the person restrained and a genitive (of “separation”) of that from which he or she is hindered (i. e. “you’ll stop him from washing his hands”; LSJ s. v. I.2).

fr. 15 K.-A. (16 K.) σφυράδων πολλῶν ἀναµέστη full (fem. nom. sing.) of many droppings ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 790–1 σφυράδες δέ εἰσι τὰ τῶν αἰγῶν καὶ προβάτων ἀποπατήµατα. Εὔπολις Αἰξί· ――

134

Eupolis

And sphyrades are the droppings of goats and sheep. Eupolis in Aiges: ――

Meter Anapaestic and most easily taken to be a paroemiac (i. e. a catalectic anapaestic dimeter), like fr. 14.

rlll rll Citation context A marginal note on Ar. Pax 790–1 σφυράδων ἀποκνίσµατα (“snippets of droppings”; a metaphorical description of the tiny, unlovable sons of the tragic poet Carcinus). Galen XIX.144.13 Kühn σπυράδες· τὰ τῶν αἰγῶν καὶ προβάτων ἀποπατήµατα and Hsch. σ 2936 σφυράδες· τὰ διαχωρήµατα τῶν αἰγῶν καὶ προβάτων. οἱ δὲ σπυράδας (~ σ 1558) appear to be condensed versions of the same note, which perhaps goes back to Phryn. PS p. 98.7–9 οἰσπώτη· τὸ τῶν προβάτων ἀποπάτηµα. τὸ δὲ τῶν αἰγῶν σφυράδες, ἐπεὶ ὥσπερ σφυρά ἐστιν συµπεπλεγµένα (“oispôtê: sheep-droppings. Goatdroppings are sphyrades, since they stick together like sphyra (foothills)”). Interpretation A description of some unidentifiable feminine object, perhaps a goat-pen or the like, in which case this might be from the parabasis section discussing the life of the chorus partially preserved in fr. 13 (n.); cf. Od. 9.329–30 (the Cyclops’ cave, where he keeps his animals, is full of dung) and the extended use of κόπρος (“dung”) to mean “cow-yard” at e. g. Il. 18.575; Od. 10.411. Despite the wild etymological conjecture preserved by Phrynichus, σφυράδες/σπυράδες/σφυράθοι is not cognate with σφυρόν, but is more likely—as the variation in the form of the word suggests—substrate vocabulary; Arist. HA 586b9 implies that it is a generic term for excrement. Cf. the more complete catalogue of terms for excrement of all sorts at Poll. 5.91, distinguishing on the basis of easy but mostly false etymologies between e. g. οἰσπώτη (“sheepshit”; cf. Cratin. fr. 43; Ar. Lys. 575; not actually from ὄις), σφυράς/σφυραθία/ σπύρδαρα (“goat-shit”), βόλιτον (“cow-shit”; cf. Cratin. fr. 43; Ar. Ach. 1026; not actually from βοῦς), ὀνίς and ὄνθος (“donkey-shit”; not actually from ὄνος) and ὑσπέλεθος (“pig-shit”); and see in general fr. 306 n. πολλῶν is in one sense unnecessary—“full of many droppings” conveys no more information than “full of droppings” does—but adds vividness and thus has an essentially adverbial function (“really full of droppings”); cf. [fr. 191] with n.; Ar. Eq. 124 πολλῷ γ’ ὁ Βάκις ἐχρῆτο τῷ ποτηρίῳ (“Bakis certainly used the cup!”); fr. 468.1 τὸ γὰρ φοβεῖσθαι τὸν θάνατον λῆρος πολύς (lit. “because to fear death is much nonsense”, meaning “to fear death is really nonsense, total nonsense”). ἀναµέστη The compound form of the adjective is first attested here and at Ar. Nu. 984; subsequently in the classical period at Mnesim. fr. 4.65; D. 25.32 (always with a genitive).

Αἶγες (fr. 16)

135

fr. 16 K.-A. (6 K.) ὦ Χάριτες αἷσι µέλουσιν ἑψητοί αἷσι Ath.ACE : αἷς Meineke

O Graces who watch over hepsêtoi Ath. 7.301a ἑψητός· ἐπὶ τῶν λεπτῶν ἰχθυδίων … Εὔπολις Αἰξίν· ―― hepsêtos: referring to tiny, insubstantial fish … Eupolis in Aiges: ――

Meter Seemingly regarded by Kassel–Austin (following Kaibel) as lyric of some sort; but see Text.

lkkklkklklll Discussion Meineke 1839 II.430, 433; Kock 1880 II.259; Hoffmann 1910. 8; Kaibel ap. K.-A. Citation context From the alphabetically organized discussion of fish that occupies most of Book 7 of Athenaeus and is apparently drawn in large part from Dorion’s On Fish; see fr. 31 Citation context. Ar. fr. 56 and Archipp. fr. 19 are cited just before this, while Eub. fr. 92 and Alex. frr. 17–18 follow immediately afterward. Text Meineke’s αἷς is the normal Attic form of the relative pronoun and allows the words to be scanned as the remains of an iambic trimeter (lrkl klk|l ll〈kl〉; thus Kock), although the elevated style of ὦ Χάριτες counts somewhat against this (see Interpretation). Interpretation The invocation of the Graces is a high-style gesture (also in lyric sections in comedy at Pherecr. fr. 205; Ar. Eq. 589; Pax 796–9; Av. 781–2, 1100–1; Lys. 1279; Th. 122; Ra. 334–5; Ec. 973; fr. 348.2), which immediately descends into bathos with the reference to the supposed object of the goddesses’ concern (ἑψητοί, i. e. tiny stewing-fish, for which see frr. 5 with n.; 31). Cf. the summons at Ar. Ach. 665–75 (also lyric) of the fiery Acharnian Muse, who is to come as vigorous and rough as … men roasting small-fry and kneading barley-cakes in preparation for a dinner-party. For the Graces themselves (a by-word for elegance and beauty), cf. fr. 176.1, and add to the bibliography cited there Gantz 1993. 54. For the use of µέλω to refer to a sphere of divine interest, cf. Hes. Th. 216; hHerm. 451; hHom. 11.2; Ar. Pax 781 (lyric). For αἷσι, cf. the use of οἷσι in comic lyric at Ar. Ach. 226.

136

Eupolis

fr. 17 K.-A. (17 K.) Quint. Inst. Orat. 1.10.17–18 grammatice quondam ac musice iunctae fuerunt … eosdem utriusque rei praeceptores fuisse cum Sophron (fr. 153) ostendit … tum Eupolis, apud quem Prodamus (Prodicus Bergk : Pronomus Horstig) et musicen et litteras docet et Maricas (fr. 208) … nihil se ex musice scire nisi litteras confitetur At one time grammar and music were combined … Sophron (fr. 153) shows that the same individuals were instructors in both subjects … as does Eupolis, in whom Prodamus (“Prodicus” Bergk : “Pronomus” Horstig) teaches both music and reading and Marikas (fr. 208) … admits that he knows nothing of music except his letters ΣAE Dionysius Thrax, Grammatici Graeci III p. 490.24–7 ὅτι δὲ ποιητικοῦ τινος ἀνδρὸς καὶ µουσικοῦ ἡ τῶν στοιχείων εὕρεσις, σηµεῖον τὸ πάλαι τοὺς αὐτοὺς γραµµατικῆς καὶ µουσικῆς εἶναι διδασκάλους, ὡς Εὔπολις εἰσάγει ἐν Αἰξὶ καὶ Ἰσοκράτης ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς ἀντιδόσεως (15.267) Evidence of the fact that letters were invented by someone interested in poetry and mousikê is that long ago the same individuals were teachers of grammar and mousikê, as Eupolis shows in Aiges and Isocrates in his On the Antidosis (15.267)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 335; Meineke 1839 I.114–15, II.431; Schiassi 1944. 54–5; Storey 2003. 72 Citation context Quintilian is discussing the various subjects his ideal orator ought to have studied in addition to the obvious one, grammatice (i. e. language, writing, reading, speaking and the like), and is arguing that musical training has always been fundamental to the idea of a comprehensive education and rightly so. Immediately after this, he cites Aristophanes (cf. Nu. 966–72; Ra. 729) and Men. fr. 387. For the sentiment, cf. fr. 483. The remark about Eupolis and Isocrates in the scholiast to Dionysius Thrax comes near the end of a brief discussion of the history of writing that attempts to show that the alphabet is a relatively recent invention, belonging to post-Trojan War times. Another version of the same material is preserved at [Theodos.Gr.], p. 11.18–22 Göttling (slightly corrupt at this point and adding nothing). The preservation of this detail from Eupolis’ play in two very different sources suggests that it is a bit of commonplace knowledge rather than evidence that either author knew the comedy at first hand. It is accordingly worth noting that Quintilian’s account of what Marikas is supposed to have said (fr. 208) overlaps neatly enough with the Sausage-seller’s self-description at Ar. Eq. 188–9 οὐδὲ µουσικὴν ἐπίσταµαι / πλὴν γραµµάτων to raise the possibility

Αἶγες (fr. 18)

137

that the latter is actually the text in question. So too in the case of the scholion on Dionysius Thrax, Isocrates notes that boys were educated in γραµµατική and µουσική, but does not in fact assert that they were taught both subjects by the same person. For εἰσάγει in the scholion, see fr. 137 n. Interpretation Because no trace of the original text is preserved here but only some evidence about the identity and general behavior of one of Eupolis’ characters, these passages would have been better treated as a testimonium to Aiges than as a fragment. Prodamos—or whatever the character was called; see below—is presumably to be identified with the teacher mentioned in fr. 18 (n.). Quintilian is discussing what we would call “music” and in particular the ability to play musical instruments, and the passages he cites from Eupolis (or Eupolis and Aristophanes; see above) show not that music thus defined and reading were once taught by the same instructor, but that Quintilian’s musice is different from Greek µουσική, a broader term that includes and emphasizes what would today be referred to as “literature”; cf. frr. 4; 366 n. Eupolis’ Prodamos—like the person or persons referred to by Sophron—may well have taught reading, writing and poetry, therefore, but probably not how to play the lyre. The scholion on Dionysius Thrax, on the other hand, is drawing a contrast with individuals who are ἀπαίδευτοι and ἀγράµµατοι, and thus appears to understand µουσική correctly. Prodamos is not an ordinary Greek name—Kassel–Austin note one instance from Melos (IG XII,3 1170)—hence the conjectures of Bergk and Horstig recorded within the text of Quintilian. But this might just as easily be the poet’s invention (cf. Eupolis’ Pyronides and Aristophanes’ Strepsiades, Trygaios and Peisetairos), in which case both its “pro-demotic” character and the Doric alpha would suggest something about the character’s nominal political and social orientation, on the one hand, and his personal origins, on the other. Storey suggests an allusion to the musician Damon son of Damonides of the deme Oa (PA 3143; PAA 301540; see Raubitschek 1955; Lord 1978; Nails 2002. 121–2; Wallace 2004), who is supposed to have taught Pericles.

fr. 18 K.-A. (CGFPR 237) POxy. 2738 col. ii.1–11 πυρριχίζων, ἐν δὲ Αἰξὶν Εὐπόλ[ιδος] τ ὸ µ α λ α κ ὴ ν κ ε [ λ ] ε ύ ε ι ν τ ὴ ν Ἀ θ η ν ᾶ ν π ο ε ῖ ν . σ κ λ η [ ρ ] ῶ̣ ς ̣ π ο ι̣ ο ῦ ν τ ο [ ς ] τ ο ῦ ἀ γ ρ ο ί κ ο υ τ ὸ σχῆµα τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ὁ διδ[ά]σκαλος ἐκέλευσεν µαλακῶς αὐτὸ π ο ι ε ῖ ν. ὡς οὖν ὁ Ἀρ[ισ]τ[ο]φ[ά]νη[ς] (Nu. 989) τῷ Τριτογένεια[] µ̣ό̣ν̣ῳ ἐπιθέτῳ ἠρ-

138

Eupolis

κέσθη καὶ ὁ Κρατ[ῖ]νος (fr. 433) τῷ Γοργο ρ ̣ α ̣ κ ̣ ον ο ̣ δοκα [̣ ] ἠρκέσθη τ[ὸ] αὐτὸ δηλοῦντι πρᾶγµα ὅτι ἀποκλιν ̣[ τ]ῇ κεφαλῆ[ι] τ̣ὸ̣ τ̣[ῆς] θε[ο]ῦ σχῆµα κτλ dancing the pyrrhichê, and in Eupolis’ Aiges t h e c o m m a n d t o m a k e t h e Athena languid. When the Rustic performs the Athena-step a w k w a r d l y , h i s t e a c h e r o r d e r e d h i m t o p e r f o r m i t l a n g u i d l y. Just as, then, Aristophanes (Nu. 989) was satisfied with Tritogeneia on its own as an epithet, and Cratinus (fr. 433) was satisfied with Gorgo·rakon·odoka, which illustrates the same thing, namely that turning away … with the head the goddess’ step etc.

Discussion Lobel 1968 (editio princeps); Borthwick 1970. 330–1; Luppe 1971a. 118; Austin 1973. 236–7; Luppe 1975. 193; Perrone 2009. 30–8 Citation context A fragment of a 2nd-century CE commentary on an unidentified comedy (thus ed. pr.). The reference to Eupolis is apparently offered in partial support of a point—now lost—that the commentator has made regarding a male figure doing a pyrrhic dance (πυρριχίζων). The passage from Aiges is cited first in a summary fashion (τὸ µαλακὴν κε[λ]εύ[ειν] τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν ποεῖν) and then in a more expanded style (σκλη[ρ]ῶ̣ ς̣ κτλ) that situates the order in its dramatic context before rephrasing it (ἐκέλευσεν µαλακῶς αὐτὸ ποιεῖν ~ µαλακὴν κε[λ]εύ[ειν] τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν ποεῖν). What follows is intended to explain the use of “the Athena” (τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν) to mean “the Athena-step”: Aristophanes did the same with the word Tritogeneia (another epithet of the goddess) at Nu. 989, as did Cratinus (fr. 433) with Gorgo[d?]rakon[t?] odox (obscure, but patently an epithet referring somehow to the goddess’ gorgon-faced breastplate). Interpretation The scene in question involves a dancing-master, presumably to be identified with the Prodamus of fr. 17 (n.), and a rustic who might easily be the speaker of frr. 2 and 12 and one of the figures onstage in the passage under discussion in *POxy. 5160. Bergk 1838. 334–5 suggested that fr. 326 might be part of the same scene. The action is easily taken as reminiscent of Ar. V. 1122–1249, where the sophisticated Bdelycleon tries to teach the crude Philocleon proper symposium manners, including at V. 1210–13 how to “pour himself” gracefully onto a couch. It is nonetheless unclear that an “Athena-step” ought to be executed µαλακῶς (lit. “softly”), raising the possibility that the dancing-teacher is a culturally more dubious figure even than Bdelycleon; cf. the use of µαλακός and cognates at e. g. *POxy. 5160 col. ii.19; Hermipp. fr. 57.3 (of an expeditionary force; corrupt and obscure, but patently not praise); Ar. Pl. 488 (cowardice); Il. 22.373 (the dead Hector is mocked as µαλακώτερος now than when he burned the Greek ships); Hdt. 6.11.2 (the Ionian sailors at Lade are warned against giving in to µαλακίη and ἀταξίη, which will cost them their freedom); Th. 2.18.3 (the Spartan king Archidamos criticized for being µαλακός

Αἶγες (fr. 19)

139

in his conduct of the war); X. HG 3.4.19 (pale-skinned, µαλακοί, lazy soldiers compared to women). Whether Eupolis’ “Athena”, Aristophanes’ “Tritogeneia” and Cratinus’ “Gorgo[d?]rakon[t?]odoka” are all the same dance is unclear, although Occam’s Razor suggests that they should be. In that case, they are also presumably to be identified with the pyrrhic dance, which Athena was said to have executed after defeating the Giants (D.H. 7.72.7) and which was performed in Athens by choruses of armed men, “beardless youths” (ageneioi) and boys leaping and waving shields about in competitions at the Panathenaic festival (Lys. 21.1, 4; cf. Ar. Ra. 153; Is. 5.36). For the Pyrrhic dance, see also Ar. Av. 1169 πυρρίχην βλέπειν (~ “to look daggers”); E. Andr. 1135–41; X. An. 6.1.12; Pl. Lg. 815a (claiming that the movements imitated how a soldier would attempt to avoid missiles and blows from weapons); Ath. 14.630d, 631b–c, citing Aristox. fr. 108 Wehrli; Downes 1904; Latte 1913. 32–40, 56–63; Borthwick 1967; Poursat 1968. 566–83; Borthwick 1969; Borthwick 1970. 318–30; Ceccarelli 1998, esp. 27–89; Ceccarelli 2004. On dance generally, see fr. 447 n.

fr. 19 K.-A. (18 K.) Antiatt. β 11 β ο υ κ ο λ ε ῖ σ θ α ι α ἶ γ α ς· Εὔπολις Αἰξίν. ἱπποβουκόλοι· Εὐριπίδης Φοινίσσαις (28) t o c o w h e r d g o a t s: Eupolis in Aiges. Horse-cowherds: Euripides in Phoenissae (28)

Citation context The note (now heavily condensed) was perhaps originally intended to defend seemingly anomalous uses of βουκολέω against claims that the verb could only be used in reference to cows. Hsch. ι 814 ἱπποβουκόλους· τοὺς ἵππους νέµοντας and Eust. p. 160.5–13 = I.247.4–13 (also citing E. Ph. 28) may be other fragments of the same scholarly tradition. Text The hiatus makes it clear either that something is missing between the words or that the verb was conjugated in the original passage of Eupolis. Interpretation Already in Homer and routinely thereafter, βουκόλος and its cognates refer not just to cowherding but to herding animals generally: Il. 20.221 τοῦ τρισχίλιαι ἵπποι ἕλος κάτα βουκολέοντο (“3000 of his horses were cowherded in the marshland”); hHerm. 288 βουκολίοισι καὶ εἰροπόκοις ὀΐεσσιν (“cowherds and (their) wooly sheep”); A. Supp. 304 οἰοβουκόλον (“sheep-cowherd”); S. Ai. 54 (βουκόλοι = herdsmen generally, including shepherds); fr. 659.2 (βουκόλοι = herdsmen handling horses); fr. dub. 1149a ἱπποβουκόλοι (“horse-cowherds”); cf. the extended sense “take care of (persons)” at hHerm.

140

Eupolis

167; ἐβουκολοῦµεν meaning “felt concern for” at A. Ag. 669; ἀβουκόλητον meaning “uncared for” at A. Supp. 929; βουκολεῖς Σαβάζιον Ar. V. 10 and βουκολεῖν τὸν δήµιον at Ec. 81; and the similarly extended Ar. Pl. 819–20 βουθυτεῖ / ὗν καὶ τράγον καὶ κριόν (“he cow-sacrifices a pig, a billy-goat and a ram”; noted by Eustathius along with other anomalous expressions).77 Eupolis’ βουκολεῖσθαι αἶγας is thus in fact unexceptional usage. αἶγας might be either the object of the infinitive (~ “to tend one’s goats”; thus apparently LSJ s. v. βουκολέω) or the subject (~ “goats graze”; cf. Ar. Pax 153 βουκολήσεται (of the dung-beetle)).

fr. 20 K.-A. (19 K.) Hsch. ι 292 ἱ ε ρ ε ὺ ς ∆ ι ο ν ύ σ ο υ· Εὔπολις Αἰξὶν Ἱππόνικον, σκώπτων ὡς ἐρυθρὸν τῇ ὄψει p r i e s t o f D i o n y s u s: Eupolis in Aiges in reference to Hipponicus, mocking him for being red in appearance ΣVEθ Ar. Ra. 308 ὑπερεπυρρίασε] Εὔπολις τὸν τοῦ ∆ιονύσου ἱερέα † νοµίζεθ᾿ † (sic ΣV : νοµίζετ᾿ Σθ : νοµίζεσθαι ΣE : ὀνοµάζει Hemsterhuys : fort. νοµίζει) α ἰ γ ί π υ ρ ρ ο ν ἀντὶ τοῦ πυρρόν. τὸ γὰρ ἄνθος ἔχειν φησὶ ∆ηµήτριος ἱκανῶς ἐρυθρόν turned yellowish-red on (your) behalf] Eupolis † is considered † (thus ΣV : “consider! (pl.)” Σθ : “to be considered” ΣE : “names” Hemsterhuys : perhaps “considers”) the priest of Dionysus a i g i p y r r h o s rather than pyrrhos. Demetrius says this is because he had quite a ruddy complexion

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.433–4; Fritzsche 1845. 167; Riess 1946. 111; Sarati 1996. 116; Storey 2003. 72–3; Telò 2006b

77

The sense “cheat, deceive” (LSJ s. v. II) repeatedly noted by Hesychius (e. g. β 428, 902, 908) appears to be attested for βουκολέω in the classical period only at Men. Sam. 530, 596, but is common in the Roman period, when it may have passed as an Atticism (e. g. Luc. Podagra 29; Alciphr. 3.2.3). LSJ cites in addition A. Ag. 669 and Ar. Ec. 81, but the first reference is withdrawn in the Supplement, and the second passage is obscure but in any case does not require this sense. Gomme–Sandbach 1973. 612 on Men. Sam. 596 point to E. Hipp. 153 “Does someone ποιµαίνει your husband in her house?” (the chorus speculate that Phaedra has lost Theseus to another woman); but once again the verb seems to mean something more like “tend” there. See also Gow 1950 on Theoc. 11.80; and cf. adesp. com. fr. 1007.35

Αἶγες (fr. 20)

141

Citation context Two badly battered but obviously related fragments of ancient scholarship. The entry in Hesychius is traced by Latte to Diogenianus. Τhe scholion on Frogs—where Xanthias tells Dionysus that although he claims to have gone pale with terror at the sight of Empousa, something or someone (ὁδί) turned a different color on his behalf—on the other hand, suggests that at least part of the note ultimately goes back to the work of Demetrius Ixion (RE Demetrius (101)) on Aristophanes (fr. 34 Staesche). ΣRVMEθBarb ὁδί] ὁ τοῦ ∆ιονύσου ἱερεύς· πυρρὸς γὰρ ἦν κατὰ φύσιν (“this one] the priest of Dionysus; because he was naturally reddish-brown”) is seemingly part of the same discussion. Note also Hsch. σ 1156, preserving Cratin. fr. 492. Chantry, comparing the entry in Hesychius, added 〈Ἱππόνικον〉 before τὸν τοῦ ∆ιονύσου ἱερέα in the scholion on Frogs, which merely confuses matters further; see Interpretation. Chantry also prints Hemsterhuys’ ὀνοµάζει for the confused paradosis νοµίζεθ᾿/νοµίζετ᾿/νοµίζεσθαι in the scholion, which might be right; cf. Plu. Thes. 33.3 (quoted in fr. 57 n.) and Ath. 3.89f (= citation context for fr. 68). νοµίζει would be much closer to the transmitted text, but the sense required would seem to be ~ “refers to”. Kassel–Austin opt for νοµίζετ᾿ αἰγίπυρρον (“Consider (him) aigipyrrhos!”; presumably to be understood as addressed to the audience in the Theater). Interpretation The Hipponicus in question must be the extraordinarily wealthy Hipponicus II (PA 7658; PAA 538910) son of Callias II of the deme Alopeke, who may also have been mocked in Kolakes (fr. 156 n.); the renegade politician and general Alcibiades eventually married his daughter. Hipponicus was secretary of the Boule at some point in the mid-440s BCE (IG I3 455.5) and was the Athenian general at the battle of Tanagra in 426/5 BCE (Th. 3.91.4); for reasons noted below, this passage cannot be taken to show that he also served as priest of Dionysus. He died shortly before the performance of Kolakes (test. ii with n.). See the general introduction to Aiges Date. The combination of the information preserved by Hesychius and the scholion to Frogs shows that Eupolis (1) called Hipponicus “priest of Dionysus” and (2) called the priest of Dionysus αἰγίπυρρος (rather than the expected πυρρός). Since Cratinus (fr. 492) referred to Hipponicus as Σκυθικός (“Scythian”) “because he was πυρρός (reddish-blond)” (thus Hsch. σ 1156, citing the fragment), this most likely amounts to a confused report of the fact that Eupolis called Hipponicus both “priest of Dionysus” and αἰγίπυρρος. Why Demetrius Ixion thought that being referred to as “priest of Dionysus” suggested a ruddy appearance is unclear; Fritzsche noted Paus. 2.2.6 (archaic statues of Dionysus at Corinth with their faces painted red) and suggested that the priest may have had his face rouged for ritual occasions, while Meineke argued that the reference to the priesthood is a joke and Eupolis’ point is simply that Hipponicus

142

Eupolis

drank enormous amounts of alcohol and had a ruddy face to prove it. But Demetrius’ suggestion is just as likely a wild guess—as the comment on the complexion of either the historical priest or Hipponicus certainly is—which has obscured the point of Eupolis’ remark, which might alternatively be that the priest of Dionysus wore a yellowish-red (πυρρός) garment, allowing him to be mockingly assimilated to Hipponicus, who had yellowish-red (πυρρός) hair, with the joke further complicated by calling Hipponicus not πυρρός but αἰγίπυρρος (literally “goat-πυρρός”; see below) to fit the theme of the play; cf. *POxy. 5160 fr. b. Telò 2006b argues that Eupolis referred to Callias as goat-food (“cibo per capre”) because his son consumed him—i. e. wasted his property—on sexual adventures (i. e. goat-like behavior), which is far too elaborate and tentative a thesis to carry any conviction. See also fr. 120 with n. (for insulting, witty comments on the appearance of another individual’s face). ἱερεὺς ∆ιονύσου The priest of Dionysus Eleuthereus had a seat in the middle of the front row in the Theater and is addressed by the actor playing the god himself at Ar. Ra. 297. Note also Ar. Eq. 536, where Elmsley’s τῷ ∆ιονύσου for the paradosis τῷ ∆ιονύσῳ must be right. For what little is known of the historical priesthood, see Garland 1984. 104–5. For priestly dress (of which we once again know very little), see Miller 1989. 319–23; Lee 2015. 216–18. αἰγίπυρρος plays not only on πυρρός but also on αἰγίπυρος, a plant grazed on by goats (Paus.Gr. α 39, whence Phot. α 511 = Synag. B α 604; cf. Theoc. 4.25).

fr. 21 K.-A. (20 K.) Poll. 10.102 καὶ ν ε ό κ ο π ο ν µὲν κ ά ρ δ ο π ο ν Εὔπολις ἐν Αἰξὶν εἴρηκεν, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Σφηξὶ (648) νεόκοπτον µύλην· Μένανδρος δὲ ἐν ∆ηµιουργῷ (fr. 113) ληνὸν εἴρηκε τὴν κάρδοπον And Eupolis in Aiges says “a f r e s h - c u t k n e a d i n g t r o u g h”, just as Aristophanes in Wasps (648) (says) “a fresh-cut mill-stone”; but Menander in Dêmiourgos (fr. 113) calls a kneading trough a lênos Poll. 7.22 ὁ δὲ µάττων τὰ ἄλφιτα µαγεύς, καὶ τὸ ἀγγεῖον µαγὶς καὶ µάκτρα καὶ σκάφη καὶ παρὰ Μενάνδρῳ (fr. 113) ληνός. ν ε ό κ ο π ο ν δὲ κ ά ρ δ ο π ο ν εἴρηκεν Εὔπολις τὴν νεωστὶ κεκοµµένην The man who kneads barley groats is a mageus, and the vessel (used) is a magis, a maktra, a skaphê and in Menander (fr. 113) a lênos. But Eupolis calls a recently cut (kneading trough) “a f r e s h - c u t k n e a d i n g t r o u g h”

Αἶγες (fr. 21)

143

Meter νεόκοπον κάρδοπον scans kkkllkx; probably iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xl〉kr l|lkl 〈cxlkl〉. Citation context Two reworkings of the same original material, the first embedded in a collection of words having to do with bread-making as part of a larger discussion of cooks’ utensils that also includes fr. 155, the second in a treatment of items used by cooks. Interpretation A κάρδοπος (substrate vocabulary) is a “kneading trough”; cf. frr. 172.12 with n. (on mazai, “barley cakes”); 218.1 with n.; Ar. Nu. 669–80, 1248–51, 1258 (playing throughout on the feminine gender of the noun); Ra. 1159 (equivalent to µάκτρα, cognate with µάττω and µᾶζα); Pl. Phd. 99b; IG I3 422.4, 11, 272 (from the Attic Stelae; specifically said to be made of stone, as opposed to others made of terracotta); Phot. µ 56 (tentatively traced by Theodoridis to Ael.Dion.); Amyx 1958. 239–41; Sparkes 1962. 126–7, 135 with pl. 7.3–4. For µάκτραι made of various hard materials, see also Hermipp. fr. 56 (stone); Phot. µ 55 (stone, pottery and wood). νεόκοπος A fresh-cut millstone (as at Ar. V. 648, where the word appears in the form νεόκοπτος) is one whose teeth are sharp, allowing it to grind efficiently. In the case of a kneading trough, the point must be instead that it has recently been chiselled out of a virgin stone or a piece of wood (thus LSJ s. v.), or perhaps this is a para prosdokian joke whose point we can no longer appreciate. Cf. Crates Com. fr. 8 καρδοπογλύφος (“carving kneading troughs”, which might refer to working either stone or wood). Neither form of the adjective is attested elsewhere.

fr. *22 K.-A. (14 K.) ΣAbT Il. 16.353 µήλων· προβάτων καὶ αἰγῶν … πρόβατα γὰρ πάντα ἐκάλουν τὰ θρέµµατα οἱ παλαιοί· καὶ Εὔπολις π ρ ο β α τ ι κ ὸ ν χ ο ρ ό ν φησι τὸν ἐξ αἰγῶν mêlôn: sheep (probata) and goats … Because the ancients referred to all domestic animals as probata. And Eupolis uses the term p r o b a t i k o n c h o r o n for the chorus of goats Eust. p. 1063.43–4 = III.861.1, 3 οἱ δὲ παλαιοὶ πάντα µῆλα καλοῦσι τὰ θρέµµατα … καὶ Εὔπολις δὲ π ρ ο β α τ ι κ ὸ ν . . . χ ο ρ ὸ ν λέγει τὸν ἐξ αἰγῶν But the ancients refer to all domestic animals as mêla … And Eupolis too calls the chorus of goats a p r o b a t i k o n c h o r o n

144

Eupolis

Meter Uncertain; the words scan kkklkx. Discussion Srebrny 1948–1949. 55 n. 28 Citation context A note on a Homeric image in which wolves snatch “lambs and kids” out from under their mothers, referred to collectively as µῆλα. Two points are garbled together in the various versions of the note: (1) that µῆλα is used of both sheep and goats, and (2) that πρόβατα is as well. The latter observation is supported by the reference to Eupolis, in which goats are called πρόβατα. The note is taken by van Thiel 2014 III.56–7 to come from Aristarchus, who was in turn drawing on Aristophanes of Byzantium (frr. 118–19 Slater). Related material is preserved at ΣbT Il. 4.476; ΣA Il. 10.485; ΣAT Il. 14.124; see in general Schmidt 1979. Interpretation Kassel–Austin assign this fragment unambiguously to Aiges. But Eupolis might e. g. have referred to his chorus of goats in the parabasis of a subsequent comedy in the course of defending his own work from an attack by a rival, and the fragment would better have been treated as simultaneously a testimonium to Aiges and a fragment of an unidentified play. As Srebrny saw, a metatheatrical comment of this sort likely comes from a parabasis (the chorus refer to the role they are playing now or that was played by a predecessor chorus). But his assertion that a tribrach (kkk) is inadmissable in anapests, suggesting that the fragment must belong to an epirrhema or antepirrhema, is overly restrictive; cf. Ar. V. 1015 with MacDowell 1971 on 397. προβατικός is not attested elsewhere before the Roman period, but the -ικός formation is of a typical late 5th-century sort; cf. frr. 66; 99.13–14; 199; 222.2; 261.2; 293.2; 385.6; 390; 426; Chantraine 1956. 97–171; Willi 2003a. 139–45; Labiano Ilundain 2004. For πρόβατα, see fr. 163 n.

fr. 23 K.-A. (21 K.) Moer. α 148 ἀ ν α κ έ ς ὀξυτόνως Ἀττικοί 〈ὡς〉 (add. Bekker) καὶ Εὔπολις Αἰξίν· ἀθεράπευτον Ἕλληνες Attic authors (use) a n a k e s (“incurable”) with an acute accent on the final syllable, as (“as” added by Bekker) also Eupolis in Aiges; Greeks generally (use) atherapeuton

Citation context An Atticist note, drawn from a source such as Phrynichus or Aelius Dionysius and apparently intended as an appendix to Moeris α 147 Ἄνακες καὶ Ἀνάκιον Ἀττικοί· ∆ιόσκοροι καὶ ∆ιοσκορεῖον Ἕλληνες (“Attic

Αἶγες (fr. 23)

145

authors (use) Anakes and Anakion; Greeks generally (use) Dioskoroi and Dioskoreion”). Interpretation ἀνακής is not attested elsewhere, suggesting that—despite Moeris or his source—this is not a normal Attic word but a metrically convenient nonce-form alternative for ἀνήκεστος (e. g. Il. 15.217; A. Ch. 516; E. Med. 283; Hdt. 1.137.1; Th. 3.39.7; Men. Dysc. 514); cf. δυσακές at A. Eu. 145. ἀθεράπευτος is first attested at X. Mem. 2.4.3; Hp. Fist. 3 = 6.448.22 Littré; Aeschin.Socr. SSR V A 83.3 in the sense “uncared for” (LSJ s. v. I), and appears in the sense “untreatable, incurable” (LSJ s. v. II) only in the Roman period.

fr. *24 K.-A. (22 K.) Phryn. PS p. 26.2–3 ἀ ν ε σ κ ι ρ τ η µ έ ν α ς· Εὔπολις ἐπὶ τῶν αἰγῶν εἶπε τὴν λέξιν a n e s k i r t ê m e n a s: Eupolis used the word in reference to the goats Phot. α 1877 ἀ ν ε σ κ ι ρ τ η µ έ ν α ι· Εὔπολις ἐπὶ τῶν αἰγῶν εἴρηκεν a n e s k i r t ê m e n a i: Eupolis uses (this) in reference to the goats

Meter Probably iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl xl〉kl llkl Discussion Runkel 1829. 179; Meineke 1839 II.435 Citation context An Atticist note, taken over from Phrynichus by Photius, who converted the accusative form of the lemma—presumably what Eupolis wrote—into the more generic nominative. Interpretation Assigned to Aiges by Runkel on the basis of the reference to “the goats”. σκιρτάω is “skip about, leap, dance” (of animals or of human beings leaping about like animals, as at e. g. Anacr. PMG 417.5; Ar. V. 1305; E. Ph. 1125; Ephipp. fr. 26.1); poetic vocabulary, first secure in prose in Plato (e. g. Phdr. 254a). The middle-passive form is otherwise unattested—hence Phrynichus’ interest in it—and ἀνεσκιρτηµέναι likely means “having been made to leap up” by someone or something inspiring joy, fear or the like. That the reference is to the chorus of Aiges (hence the definite article, “the goats”, not just “goats”) and that, if it is, the chorus consisted of she-goats (hence the feminine forms)

146

Eupolis

rather than of billy-goats, are obvious, easy conclusions, which does not necessarily make them true; see the general introduction to the play.

fr. 25 K.-A. (23 K.) Poll. 10.151 καὶ µιξάµενοι δ’ ἂν εἴποιµεν σκεύη βαλλάντια καὶ β α λ λ α ν τ ί δ ι α (Meineke : βαλάντια καὶ βαλαντίδια Poll.), ὡς ἐν Αἰξὶν (Αἰξὶν Poll.BCL : Ἐξὶν Poll.F : Γυναιξὶν Poll.S : om. Poll.A) Εὔπολις. καὶ θυλάκιον δὲ καὶ θυλακίσκον· Ἀριστοφάνης γοῦν ἐν Τριφάλητι τοῦτο ὑποδηλοῖ, ὅταν φῇ (fr. 557)· ―― And abandoning an organized presentation of implements, we would say ballantia and b a l l a n t i d i a (thus Meineke : balantia and balantidia Poll.), as Eupolis (does) in Aiges (thus Poll.BCL : Eges Poll.F : Gynaikes, “Women” Poll.S : om. Poll.A). And also thylakion and thylakiskon; Aristophanes in Triphalês, for example, implies this when he says (fr. 557): ――

Meter The word scans llkkk; probably iambic trimeter, with βαλλαντίδια representing llkr. Discussion Meineke 1839 II.434 Citation context The beginning of an appendix to a long discussion of σκεύη (“implements”) of various sorts organized by craft, introducing an additional set of words that do not fall easily into such categories. Ar. fr. 557 is apparently cited in part because it uses both θυλακίσκον (“little sack” for shopping; cf. Ar. V. 314–15 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.) and βαλλάντιον. Text The spelling in -λλ- (Meineke) is metrically guaranteed at Ar. Ra. 772 (where some manuscripts have a form of the word with a single lambda, as in Pollux here and elsewhere); [Simon.] AP 5.159.3 = HE 3302 = FGE 930 (Hellenistic). Interpretation βαλλάντιον (“purse”; etymology uncertain, but probably preGreek) is common colloquial vocabulary (e. g. Telecl. fr. 44.2; Ar. Eq. 707, 1197; Lys. 1054; Pl. Smp. 190e; cf. βαλλαντιοτόµος “cut-purse” at e. g. X. Mem. 1.2.62; Pl. R. 552d). Eupolis’ βαλλαντίδιον (attested elsewhere before the Byzantine period only at Hld. 2.30.3) is properly a diminutive (cf. fr. 220.2 κυνιδίοισι), but so is βαλλάντιον, and whether any difference in sense was felt between the two is unclear, given the lack of any non-diminutive primitive; cf. ἱµάτιον = ἱµατίδιον; Petersen 1910. 210–11. For purses (needed because Greek clothing lacked pockets; the alternative was to carry one’s money in one’s mouth), see Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 130–1; Lee 2015. 169–70.

Αἶγες (fr. 27)

147

fr. 26 K.-A. (24 K.) Antiatt. β 1 β ί ο ς· ἐπὶ οὐσίας (sic Kassel–Austin : ἐπὶ συνουσίας cod. : ἐπὶ τῆς οὐσίας Valente). Ἡρόδοτος (e. g. 7.28.3), Μένανδρος ∆ηµιουργῷ (fr. 112), Εὔπολις Αἰξίν, ὁ ποιητὴς πολλάκις b i o s: referring to property (thus Kassel–Austin : “referring to company” cod. : “referring to one’s property” Valente). Herodotus (e. g. 7.28.3), Menander in Dêmiourgos (fr. 112), Eupolis in Aiges, the poet (i. e. Homer) frequently

Citation context Another fragment of the same original note—drastically epitomized in the form in which it has come down to us in the Antiatticist — appears to be preserved at Phot. β 143 βίον· ἐπὶ τῆς οὐσίας. Μένανδρος Παλλακῇ (fr. 284) (“bion: referring to one’s property. Menander in Pallakê (fr. 284)”). Note also Hsch. ο 1875 οὐσία· … πλοῦτος … βίος. κτῆσις; Suda β 293 βίος· ποτὲ µὲν ἡ οὐσία τῶν κτηµάτων. Interpretation For βίος (properly “life”) in the sense “livelihood” (LSJ s. v. II), e. g. Semon. fr. 7.85; Thgn. 228; Epich. fr. 31.4; Th. 1.5.1; E. fr. 198.1; Ar. Eq. 1101. Homer actually uses βίοτος (e. g. Il. 5.544; Od. 1.160, 377; cf. Hes. Th. 605), but cf. βίος meaning “livelihood” in early epic at e. g. Hes. Op. 31, 42.

fr. 27 K.-A. (25 K.) Antiatt. ε 15 ἐ λ ε ι ν ό ν· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐλεεινόν. Εὔπολις Αἰξίν e l e i n o n: in place of eleeinon (“pitiful”). Eupolis in Aiges

Citation context Cf. Phot. ε 581 ἐλεεινὰ καὶ ἐλεινά· διχῶς τοῦτο λέγουσιν (“eleeina and eleina: they use both forms of the word”). The short form of the adjective is so widely dispersed (see Interpretation) that it is difficult to believe that this was a controversial claim. But perhaps someone insisted that ἐλεεινός was to be restored everywhere, and the Antiatticist cited a passage from Eupolis to prove that it could not be. Interpretation ἐλεινός is the standard Attic form of the adjective (e. g. S. OT 672; E. Hel. 992; [A.] PV 246; Ar. Th. 1063 ἐλεινῶς; Pl. Phd. 59a; D. 19.65; Men. Sam. 371) and is metrically guaranteed at Ar. Ra. 1063 (Bentley’s correction of the impossible paradosis ἐλεεινοί; noted by Kassel–Austin) and S. Ph. 1130.

148

Eupolis

The standard epic form is ἐλεεινός (e. g. Il. 2.314; hDem. 284; note ἐλεός (guaranteed) at Hes. Op. 205), which is metrically less tractable, especially for tragic poets, who accordingly use the local variant of the word. On the emotion itself, see Konstan 2001; Sternberg 2005.

fr. 28 K.-A. (26 K.) Antiatt. ε 7 ἐ λ ε λ ή θ ε ι σ α ν· µετὰ τῆς ει (Lobeck : θᾶ Antiatt. : δφ, i. e. διφθόγγου Mehler). Εὔπολις Αἰξίν e l e l ê t h e i s a n (“they had escaped notice”): with ei (thus Lobeck : tha Antiatt. : dph, i. e. “diphthong” Mehler). Eupolis in Aiges

Discussion Lobeck 1820. 150; Meineke 1839 I.113; Cobet 1876. 449; Kock 1880 I.264 Citation context The strict Atticist Phrynichus is aware that forms like these exist, but condemns them (Ecl. 119 ἡκηκόεσαν, ἐγεγράφεσαν, ἐπεποιήκεσαν, ἐνενοήκεσαν ἐρεῖς· ἀλλ’ οὐ σὺν τῷ ι, ἡκηκόεισαν, “You are to say êkêkoesan, egegraphesan, epepoiêkesan, enenoêkesan, but not with the iota, êkêkoeisan”), and the more lenient Antiatticist’s note is perhaps to be read as a response to this censure attempting to show that such forms are in fact legitimate. Text After ἐλελήθεισαν, the manuscript’s θᾶ (as if ἐλεληθᾶσαν had been written; printed by Kassel–Austin) makes no sense, and either Lobeck’s ει or Cobet’s δ(ι)φ(θόγγου) might be right. Interpretation The expected 3rd-person plural pluperfect active indicative of λανθάνω is ἐλελήθεσαν (Th. 8.33.2; for similar forms, e. g. Ar. Eq. 651 ἐκεχήνεσαν, 674 ἐκεκράγεσαν; Pl. 744 ἐγρηγόρεσαν; Th. 1.89.3 ἐπεπτώκεσαν; Men. Asp. 26 ἐπεφεύγεσαν). Kock suggested that the advantage of the form in -εισαν was that it transformed the metrical value of the word (kkllx rather than kklkx), allowing it to be used e. g. in anapests (thus Kock). If that is the case—i. e. if an audience in the Theater could be expected to regard this as an acceptable, easily comprehensible metrical license—it is surprising that no other examples are found in the poets, and Meineke suggested that the Antiatticist was misled by a defective manuscript; cf. ἐγεγόνεισαν for the correct ἐγεγόνεσαν at Hellanic. FGrH 4 F 71a.5 (from a scholion on Homer).

Αἶγες (fr. 30)

149

fr. 29 K.-A. (27 K.) Phot. ε 2452 ἔ φ ι π π ο ν· Εὔπολις Αἰξίν o n h o r s e b a c k: Eupolis in Aiges

Citation context Parallel material is preserved at Antiatt. ε 125 ἔφιππος· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἱππότης ἢ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἵπποις (“ephippos: in place of ‘horseman’ or ‘mounted on horses’”); Phot. ι 184 = Suda ι 581 ἱππότης· ἱππεύς, ἔφιππος (“horseman: knight, ephippos”; from the common source conventionally referred to as Σ´´, and thus to be traced to some lost Hellenistic or Roman-era lexicographer). Interpretation The adjective ἔφιππος is also attested in the classical period at S. El. 733 (“a horse-mounted surge” of wrecked chariots in a race); X. Cyr. 4.6.1 (“cavalrymen”); cf. A. fr. dub. 451c.34 ἐφιππ.[; Lys. 14.10 (v.l.); and the personal name Ephippus (four classical examples, including the mid-4th-century comic poet). For the cognate ἐφίππιος (“of a horseman, of the cavalry”), e. g. Antiph. fr. 108.1 (from Hippeis, “Knights”). According to Phryn. PS p. 69.4, at Cratin. fr. 389 ἐφιππάσασθαι λόγοις the verb means “to run down” (καταδραµεῖν), as a cavalry soldier chases down stragglers after a battle, meaning that λόγοις is likely a dative of means (“with words”) and the prefix governs a different object (the person or thing being pursued).

fr. 30 K.-A. (422 K.) Poll. 2.17 ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν θηλειῶν τὰ µὲν πρῶτα ταὐτὰ µέχρι τοῦ παιδάριον—καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο κοινὸν ἀµφοῖν, θηλειῶν τε καὶ ἀρρένων—τὰ δ’ ἐφεξῆς παιδίσκη, κ ό ρ ι ο ν παρὰ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Αἰξίν, κόρη, κορίσκη, κορίσκιον. τὸ γὰρ κοράσιον εἴρηται µέν, ἀλλὰ εὐτελές, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ κορίδιον In reference to females, the first set (of names) is the same as far as paidarion—because this is used for both sexes, both female and male—whereas those that come after this are paidiskê, k o r i o n in Eupolis in Aiges, korê, koriskê, koriskion. Because korasion is used, but has negative overtones, as does koridion

Citation context The beginning of a list of age-terms for women, which extends through 2.18 and appears to be drawn in large part from Aristophanes of Byzantium’s On Terminology for Ages (cf. fr. 73 Slater). Very similar material is preserved at Phryn. Ecl. 50 κόριον ἢ κορίδιον ἢ κορίσκη λέγουσιν,

150

Eupolis

τὸ δὲ κοράσιον παράλογον (“they say korion or koridion or koriskê, whereas korasion is peculiar”), and cf. – Hsch. κ 3631 ~ Phot. κ 970 = Suda κ 2093 κόριον· µικρὸν κοράσιον (sic Hsch. : κοράσιον µικρόν Phot. = Suda) (“korion: a little korasion”; thus Hsch : word order in the definition reversed in Phot. = Suda) – Hsch. π 65 παιδισκάριον· τὸ κοράσιον. Ἀττικοὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἡλικίας (“paidiskarion: korasion. Attic-speakers (use the word) in reference to a person’s age”) – Phot. π 26 παιδισκάριον· κοράσιον δὲ οὐ λέγεται· ἀλλὰ καὶ κεκωµῴδηκεν Φιλιππίδης (fr. 37) ὡς ξενικόν (“paidiskarion: korasion is not used, and Philippides (fr. 37) in fact makes fun of it as typical of a foreigner”) (Ael. Dion. π 2) Interpretation The “first set (of names)” are the terms for infants and small children catalogued at 2.8–9 and concluding παιδίον, παιδάριον (at which point Pollux at 2.17 claims that the gender-neutral terms end), παιδίσκος, παῖς, κόρος, ᾔθεος, although pais and êitheos are in fact both used of females (the former routinely; for the latter, cf. fr. 362, from Aelius Dionysius). korê is a feminine equivalent of masculine koros, while korion (like koridion and koriskê) is a diminutive (“little girl”). κόριον is attested elsewhere in the classical period only at Lys. fr. 1.49 (mockingly, of a toothless woman allegedly 70 years old); subsequently at Theoc. 11.60 (hypocoristic).

fr. 31 K.-A. (28 K.) Ath. 7.287d–e (βεµβράδες) ἐν δὲ ταῖς Εὐπόλιδος Αἰξὶν ἔστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦ µ γραφόµενον (bembrades) But in Eupolis’ Aiges one can also find the word written with a mu

Citation context Much of Athenaeus Book 7 consists of an alphabetical catalogue of fish apparently drawn in large part from an earlier source, which Wellmann 1888 takes to be Pamphilus (mid-1st century CE), who was himself drawing on Dorion’s On Fish (1st century BCE). Dorion is in fact cited immediately before this, at 7.287c, specifically in regard to how the βεµβράς should be prepared (de-headed, if large; then washed in saltwater and stewed). Antiph. fr. 123 and Alex. fr. 260 are quoted immediately after this as other examples of the spelling µεµβράδες. βεµβράδας is transmitted in Alex. fr. 200.3 (which follows), although Dindorf proposed reading µεµβ- there as well. Cf. Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1.9, 17, where Ath.A has βεµβ- but the Epitome manuscripts offer µεµβ-.

Αἶγες (fr. 31)

151

Interpretation A βεµβράς/µεµβράς is a “smelt”, “sprat” or “anchovy”, i. e. a tiny, inexpensive fish; cf., in addition to the fragments mentioned in Citation context, frr. 5 with n.; 156.2 n. (on τριχίδες); Ar. V. 493–4 (also spelled with mu) with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Nicopho fr. 10.1 (µεµβράδες-vendors); Nicostr. Com. fr. 11 βεµβράδ’, ἀφύην, ἑψητόν; Timocl. fr. 11.9; Arist. HA 569b24–7; Macho 35; Alciphr. 3.17.1 χύτραν µεµβράδας ἔχουσαν καὶ ἀφύας Μεγαρικάς (“a cookpot containing membrades and Megarian small-fry”; a bit of Attic color); Thompson 1957. 32. Beekes 2010 s. v. takes the variations in the name—not only βεµβράς and µεµβράς, but also βαµβραδών in Epicharmus (fr. 53.2)78—to suggest a substrate (pre-Greek) origin, and compares for the form ἀνθρηδών ~ πεµφρηδών ~ τενθρηδών (some sort of wasp or bee) and τερηδών (a wood-eating worm). Similar formations are collected at Schwyzer 1953 i.529–30.

fr. *32 K.-A. (29 K.) Phot. ν 73 = Suda ν 113 ν ε α ν ι σ κ ε ύ ε τ α ι· Ἄµφις Ἐρίθοις (Phot. : Ῥείθρας Suda) (fr. 19)· Ποσείδιππος ∆ηµόταις (fr. 10)· Εὔπολις Αἰξίν (Meineke : Σφιγξίν Phot. = Suda). ἰδίως ἐσχηµάτικεν τὸ νεανισκεύειν ἐν ∆ήµοις (fr. 109)· ―― n e a n i s k e u e t a i: Amphis in Erithoi (thus Phot. : “Rheithras” Suda) (fr. 19); Posidippos in Dêmotai (fr. 10); Eupolis in Aiges (thus Meineke : “Sphinxes” Phot. = Suda). neaniskeuein takes a peculiar form in Dêmoi (fr. 109): ――

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.115 Citation context Drawn from the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ´´; de Borries traced the material to Phrynichus (= PS fr. 338*). Fr. 109 (n.) follows. Text Eupolis is not otherwise known to have staged a Sphinxes, and Meineke’s correction of the play’s title should be accepted, although an asterisk before the number (omitted in Kassel–Austin) is required. Interpretation With the exception of the passages from comedy cited by Photius = Suda, νεανισκεύοµαι (properly “be a νεανίσκος, young man”; see fr. 367 with n.) is attested before the Roman period only at X. Cyr. 1.2.15 ἔξεστιν αὐτοῖς ἐν τοῖς ἐφήβοις νεανισκεύεσθαι (“they are allowed to participate as neaniskoi among the ephebes”, i. e. “in the ephêbeia”), which is cited at Poll. 78

The paradosis βαµβράς in Nicostr. Com. fr. 11 ap. Ath. 7.301b is generally treated as an error, but might simply be another variant form of the word.

152

Eupolis

2.20; subsequently at Plu. Mor. 12b (presumably as an Atticism). Pollux further distinguishes νεανισκεύοµαι from νεανιεύοµαι (“be a νεανίας”, another term for a young man; cf. fr. 192.100), which he claims means “to act rashly” (τολµᾶν), citing Ar. fr. 859 and Lys. fr. 501 (although neither with any more of the text provided). Related material appears at Hsch. ν 181, all seemingly drawn originally from Phrynichus; cf. the now-epitomised PS p. 90.4. But Pollux’ definition is patently an extended meaning of νεανιεύοµαι, young men in all times and places being notoriously hotheaded, and it is difficult to believe that νεανισκεύοµαι could not be used in the same way if the speaker were so inclined.

fr. 33 K.-A. (17b K.) ΣKGLUEAT Theoc. 5.141b (p. 186.1–4 Wendel) φριµάσσεο· οὐ κυρίως τῇ λέξει κέχρηται· φριµαγµὸς µὲν γάρ ἐστι κυρίως ἡ τῶν ἵππων 〈φωνή〉 (add. Valckenaer), βληχὴ δὲ αἰγῶν καὶ προβάτων. τῷ αὐτῷ ἁµαρτήµατι περιπέπτωκε καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Αἰξίν phrimasseo: He has not used the word in its proper sense, for a phrimagmos is properly

〈the sound〉 (“the sound” added by Valckenaer) produced by horses, whereas a blêxê is the one produced by goats and sheep. Eupolis in Aiges also committed the same error

Citation context A note on Theoc. 5.141–2 φριµάσσεο, πᾶσα τραγίσκων / νῦν ἀγέλα (“Snort now, all my flock of goats!”; Komotas asks his animals to give independent expression to his joy in triumphing in the singing contest over his rival Lakon) that represents a minority opinion in the ancient discussion of the meaning of the word, for which see Interpretation. Interpretation The meaning and proper application of φριµάττοµαι and its cognates (always in reference to animals) was a matter of dispute among ancient grammarians. Some lexicographic sources take the verb to mean “leap about” vel sim. (e. g. Hsch. φ 889 φριµάσσεται· σκιρτᾷ. ἐπεγείρεται, “phrimassetai: he/she/it leaps, sets himself/herself/itself in motion”; traced by Hansen– Cunningham to Diogenianus); Phot. φ 300 ~ Suda φ 715 φριµασσοµένη· χρεµετίζουσα, ἀγριουµένη· ἢ ἀτάκτως πηδῶσα, “phrimassomenê: whinnying (fem.), acting wild; or leaping about in a disorderly way”; traced by Cunningham to Cyril, with the Suda adding material from a lost historian). But φριµάττοµαι usually appears to refer to production of a sound that [Ammon.] Diff. 503 describes as resembling a sneeze, i. e. a “snort”, and—assuming that the first set of glosses are not merely bad deductions regarding the sense of an ob-

Αἶγες (fr. 34)

153

scure rare word—“leap about” must be an extended sense referring to what animals excited enough to snort often do. Hdt. 3.87 applies the verb to a horse (φριµάξασθαί τε καὶ χρεµετίσαι, “it both snorted and whinnied”); cf. Lyc. 244 ἵππων φριµαγµόν (“phrimagmos of horses”); Ael. NA 6.10; Poll. 1.216; 5.87. Pindar, on the other hand, uses it of a goat (fr. 332 αἲξ φριµάσσεται), as do Eupolis, Theocritus and Longus (1.12.1, 32.3 αἱ δὲ αἶγες ἐσκίρτων φριµασσόµεναι), and Herennius Philo seems to have regarded this as the proper sense of the word (Ptolem. Gramm. de diff. vocab. p. 410.7–8; [Ammon.] Diff. 503; cf. D.H. Comp. 16.94–5; Poll. 5.88). Despite the scholion to Theocritus, therefore, Eupolis’ use of the verb seems to have been conventional. Kassel–Austin print φριµάσσεο with extended spacing. But this is the lemma from Theocritus, and all we learn about Eupolis from the scholion is that he used the verb in one form or another, or perhaps the cognate noun. For βληχή/βληχάοµαι (“bleat”; onomatopoeic) as the sound produced by sheep and goats, e. g. Od. 12.266; Ar. Pax 535; Pl. 293, 297; fr. 402.5; Autocr. fr. 3; Men. Hêrôs 73; Theoc. 16.92, and cf. fr. 112.2 βληχητὰ τέκνα with n. µηκάοµαι is also used (e. g. Il. 4.435), more often specifically of goats (sometimes called simply µηκάδες). Words for other animal noises are catalogued at Poll. 5.86–90.

fr. 34 K.-A. (30 K.) Ath. 3.94f χ ο ρ δ ῶ ν τε µέµνηται … καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Αἰξίν Eupolis in Aiges also … mentions s a u s a g e s

Citation context From a discussion of various boiled meats, including jaws, heads, feet and tripe (3.94c), sausages being included because intestines and tripe were used for their casings. Interpretation The basic sense of χορδή (an Indo-European word) is “gut”. For the extended sense “sausage” (i. e. meat, fat, seasonings, and often presumably various fillers, all stuffed into guts and then either dried or cooked fresh), e. g. Cratin. fr. 205; Pherecr. fr. 137.9; Ar. Ach. 1040–1 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Eq. 214–16 (a mock recipe); fr. 702; Axionic. fr. 8.4; Crit. 88 B 67 D.–K. (a chordê-vendor); and see Frost 1999, esp. 246–9; Dalby 2003. 294–5. The word is also used to refer to the strings of musical instruments, which were made of dried and twisted gut (e. g. Od. 21.407; hHerm. 51; Pherecr. fr. 155.5, 16).

154

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (Astrateutoi ê Androgynoi) (“Draft-evaders or Effeminates”)

Introduction Discussion d’Arnaud 1728. 148–9; Bergk 1838. 340; Stiévenant 1849. 125; Wilamowitz 1870. 51 n. 37; Brandes 1886. 37–9; Kaibel 1907 pp. 1234.63–1235.6; Srebrny 1922. 85; Schiassi 1944. 65–6, 70; Schmid 1946. 116–17; Bowie 1988. 185; Storey 2003. 80–1; Christ 2004. 34 ~ Christ 2006. 48; Storey 2011. 62–5; Zimmermann 2011. 748; Torello 2012. 196 Title The alternative title Ἀνδρόγυνοι is attested only in the Hesychian biography partially preserved in the Suda (test. 1), which cites the play as Ἀστράτευτος ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι, as if the central figure were named Astrateutos and the chorus were made up of effeminates. Elsewhere the title is always Ἀστράτευτοι, presumably in reference to the identity of the chorus. ἀστρατεία is an attempt to avoid one’s military obligations and is properly to be distinguished from λιποστράτιον (“desertion”, i. e. running away from the fighting after one is already in the ranks); cf. *POxy. 5160 col. ii.24; Lys. 14.7, with discussion in Hamel 1998, esp. 362–85; Christ 2004; Christ 2006. 45–87; Torello 2012. For ἀνδρόγυνος, see fr. 46 n. Despite Storey 2003. 77, the alternative title for the play does not necessarily mean that the chorus of draft-evaders were dressed as women (like the chorus in Baptai perhaps), but only that they were presented as generally unmanly figures. For draft-evaders as effeminate, cf. Ar. Nu. 691–2 (Σω.) ὁρᾷς; γυναῖκα τὴν Ἀµυνίαν καλεῖς. / (Στρ.) οὔκουν δικαίως, ἥτις οὐ στρατεύεται; (“(Socrates) Do you see? You’re calling Amynias a woman. (Strepsiades) Isn’t that right, since she avoids military service?”; cited by Storey 2003. 76). For the title of the play, cf. Cratinus’ Malthakoi (“Soft Men”, i. e. “Effeminates”); Pherecrates’ Automoloi (“Deserters”); and perhaps Theopompus’ Stratiôtides (“Female Soldiers”) and Plato Comicus’ Presbeis (since ambassadors would have been exempt from military service while on their missions; cf. Ar. Ach. 68–72). Contrast Taxiarchoi with introductory note. Content Nothing is known of the content of Astrateutoi beyond what can be deduced regarding the identity of the chorus (see Title). The following have also been assigned to Astrateutoi: frr. 376 (Gaisford); 416 (Wilamowitz 1870. 51 n. 38). In addition, Runkel 1829. 93 proposed that the remains of two iambic lines preceded by what seems to be a corrupt indication of source and poet preserved at ΣT Il. 13.289–91 † ἀνδρογύης καὶ ἐτ’ ὀλίγα †

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 35)

155

τραύµατ’ ἐξόπισθ’ ἔχων, / τῆς δειλίας σηµεῖα κοὐχὶ τοῦ θράσους (= adesp. tr. fr. 450) might be drawn from Eupolis’ play. Date Astrateutoi is dated only by the references to the fighting at Spartolus (thus Hanow for the paradosis “Paktolus”) in fr. 35.1 and at Minôia in fr. 38, although neither is of substantial assistance in settling the question. See discussion at Meineke 1839 I.116; Geissler 1925. 36; Luppe 1972a. 75 n. 91; Storey 1990. 15–17; Storey 2003. 74–6; Kyriakidi 2007. 18.

Fragments fr. 35 K.-A. (31 K.) Πείσανδρος εἰς Πακτωλὸν ἐστρατεύετο κἀνταῦθα † τῆς στρατιᾶς κάκιστος ἦν ἀνήρ 1 Πακτωλὸν Σ : Σπαρτωλὸν (mel. Σπάρτωλον) Hanow   ἐστρατεύετο ΣRΓEM : ἐστράτευε ΣV : ἐστρατεύσατο Blaydes   2 om. ΣM   τῆς στρατιᾶς Porson : τῆς στρατείας ΣRV : τῆς σῆς στρατείας ΣΓE : τῆς 〈ὁλ〉ῆς στρατιᾶς / ἀνήρ d’Arnaud : τῆς 〈πά〉σης στρατιᾶς / ἀνήρ vel 〈πά〉σης τῆς στρατιᾶς / ἀνήρ Toup : 〈πά〉σης τῆς στρατείας [ἀνήρ] Cobet   κάκιστος ΣRΓE : κάκλιστος ΣV : ἄριστος Müller-Strübing

Peisander took part in the expedition to Paktôlos, and while there † he was the worst man in the force ΣRVΓEM Ar. Av. 1556 οὗτος δειλὸς ἦν. ἦλθεν οὖν ψυχὴν ἰδεῖν θέλων, ἐπεὶ οὐκ εἶχεν, ὡς Εὔπολις ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις· ―― This man was a coward. He therefore came out of a desire to see his soul, since he lacked one, as Eupolis (says) in Astrateutoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llk|l klkl llk|l † rlkl k|lkl Discussion d’Arnaud 1728. 149; Toup 1790 II.67–9; Hanow 1830. 80–1; Meineke 1839 I.177, II.435–6; Cobet 1840. 127; Kock 1880 I.264–5; MüllerStrübing 1884. 83 n. 1; Schiassi 1944. 67–8; Kaibel ap. K.-A. Citation context 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. The

156

Eupolis

scholion includes a number of other comic fragments, including fr. 195 (n.), 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 a coward and physically large, and was called onokindios”, also in reference to Peisander) are heavily condensed versions of the same material. Text If Πακτωλόν in 1 is sound, this must be a joke we cannot fully understand (see Interpretation), and Hanow conjectured Σπαρτωλόν (better accented Σπάρτωλον), which would convert the lines into a reference to a disastrous Athenian expedition to the north-east in summer 429 BCE that resulted in a rout outside the walls of Spartôlos (IACP #612)79 and the loss of 330 men, including all the generals present (Th. 2.79). Kassel–Austin compare Πάκτωλον written in error for Σπάρτωλον in the manuscripts at D.S. 12.47.3 (a condensed version of Thucydides’ version of the fighting there, meaning that the emendation is certain), but nonetheless decline to adopt the conjecture here, which improves the text at the price of rendering it less interesting. At the end of 1, Blaydes proposed aorist ἐστρατεύσατο in place of the metrically indifferent paradosis ἐστρατεύετο (ΣRΓEM : ἐστράτευε ΣV). But 2 makes it clear that the emphasis is not on the simple fact of Peisander’s participation in the expedition but on the nature of his conduct during it, making the imperfect better. In 2, the paradosis (τῆς στρατείας ΣRV : τῆς σῆς στρατείας ΣΓE : vers. om. M Σ ) is unmetrical, and στρατεία appears to be the wrong word; see fr. 402 n. Porson emended to τῆς στρατιᾶς, which yields medial caesura but is nonetheless adopted faute de mieux by all editors. The supplements of d’Arnaud and Toup are designed to make sense of the presence of the possessive adjective in ΣΓE, which offers τῆς σῆς στρατείας. Both similarly yield medial caesura, and ἀνήρ is weak in enjambed position at the beginning of the next line, hence Cobet’s proposal that the latter word be deleted. In the second half of 2, Müller-Strübing’s ἄριστος (“best”) for the paradosis κάκιστος (ΣRΓE) converts this into praise of Peisander rather than a typical comic attack, which seems inherently unlikely. κάκλιστος (ΣV) probably represents a superlinear lambda (signaling a proposed variant reading κάλλιστος (unmetrical)) that has been brought down into the text and is an older version of the same editorial impulse. Interpretation For the Athenian politician Peisander (PA 11770; PAA 771270), see frr. 99.1–4; [101.7]; 195 with n. Peisander is also attacked as a coward at 79

For the location of Spartôlos, see Meritt 1923. The place remained hostile to Athens until at least 421 BCE (Th. 5.18.5; cf. Meritt 1925).

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 35)

157

X. Smp. 2.14 and is accused of trying to avoid military service at Ar. Pax 395 (421 BCE). Πακτωλός is the name of a Lydian river that ran through the city of Sardis (Hdt. 5.101.2) and was famous for the gold it brought down from Mount Tmolos (Bacch. 3.44–5; S. Ph. 394; Antim. SH 79 = fr. 93 Matthews = Call. fr. dub. 814; Lyc. 1352; Str. 13.591; cf. E. Ba. 154). Sardis was deep in Persian territory, and the Athenians had not been involved in fighting there since the Ionian Revolt in the mid-490s BCE, when they burnt the city and its temples, sparking the Persian invasions of the Greek mainland that followed a few years later. Assuming that the word is sound (see Text), this must accordingly be a joke involving Peisander’s greed or cowardice (Schiassi compared Ar. Pax 1175–8, where a cowardly taxiarch has his robe dyed yellow, sc. when he shits himself in terror before battle begins), or the geography must be fantastic in some other way. Kaibel suggested that the verses came from the prologue, but they might in fact be from anywhere in the play. 1 ἐστρατεύετο LSJ s. v. στρατεύω Ι.1 (“advance with an army or fleet, wage war, of rulers, officers, or men … so in Med.”) is misleading, in that the middle voice of the verb is used routinely in comedy and oratory (and thus presumably in ordinary speech) in the sense “serve as a soldier” (= LSJ s. v. I.2, with a handful of late references) rather than “serve as a leader/general” (e. g. fr. 384.8; Ar. Ach. 1052; Nu. 692; Av. 1367; Th. 232; Lys. 9.4; Is. 2.6; 4.27).80 2 τῆς στρατιᾶς κάκιστος ἦν ἀνήρ alludes to and plays upon what appear to have been occasional spontaneous decisions by field commanders and other public authorities to award an ἀριστεῖον (“prize for excellence”, with “excellence” normally meaning “valor in combat”, although at Hdt. 8.124 the Spartans honor Themistocles with a similar prize for his wisdom and cleverness81) to the outstanding man or unit in a battle or campaign (e. g. Hdt. 8.11.2, 123–4; X. HG 1.2.10; Isoc. 16.29–30; Pl. Smp. 220d; IG II2 456b.6); for such awards, see in general Pritchett 1974. 276–90. Peisandros similarly distinguished himself—but as the worst man in the expedition.

80 81

The verb is handled more effectively at Montanari s. v. See [fr. *126] with n.; Jordan 1988. 547–51, although his insistence on the restricted, formal nature of the criteria for the award arguably makes the story more complicated than it needs to be.

158

Eupolis

fr. 36 K.-A. (32 K.) ἐν εὐσκίοις δρόµοισιν Ἑκαδήµου θεοῦ on the well-shaded sportsfields of the god Hekadêmos D.L. 3.7–8 ἐπανελθὼν δὲ εἰς Ἀθήνας διέτριβεν ἐν Ἀκαδηµείᾳ. τὸ δ’ ἐστὶ γυµνάσιον προάστειον ἀλσῶδες ἀπό τινος ἥρωος ὀνοµασθὲν Ἑκαδήµου, καθὰ καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις φησίν· ――. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Τίµων εἰς τὸν Πλάτωνα λέγων φησί (SH 804)· ――. πρότερον γὰρ διὰ τοῦ ε Ἑκαδηµία ἐκαλεῖτο And after returning to Athens, he spent his time in the Academy. This is a wrestling school located in a grove outside the city walls that gets its name from a certain hero, Hekadêmos, just as Eupolis in fact says in Astrateutoi: ――. But Timon as well says in reference to Plato (SH 804): ――. Because previously it was called the Hekadêmia with an epsilon

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl klk|r llkl Discussion d’Arnaud 1728. 150; Meineke 1839 II.437; Hoffmann 1910. 9 Citation context From the end of Diogenes’ fantastic account of Plato’s supposed early wanderings, which culminate in visits to the prophets of Egypt and the Magi of Asia Minor, before the philosopher finally returns to Athens. Suda α 774 is taken direct from this passage. Parallel material regarding the origin of the name of the Academy (some of it corrupt) is preserved at – Hsch. ε 7592 Ἐχεδηµία· ἡ νῦν Ἀκαδηµία καλουµένη (“Echedêmia: what is now called the Akadêmia”) – St.Byz. α 147 Ἀκαδήµεια· γυµνάσιον Ἀθήνησιν, οὗ οἱ Ἀκαδηµαϊκοὶ φιλόσοφοι. κέκληται ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀκαδήµου. γράφεται καὶ διὰ τοῦ ε Ἐκαδήµεια, περὶ οὗ ἐν τῷ ε λέξοµεν. διὸ καὶ ἡ πλείων χρῆσις οὕτως (“Akadêmeia, a wrestling school in Athens, where the Academic philosophers are found. It gets its name from Akadêmos. It is also written Ekadêmeia with an epsilon, a point we will discuss in Book 5. Wherefore the majority usage is thus”) – St.Byz. ε 23 Ἐκαδήµεια ἢ Ἀκαδήµεια· ἀπὸ Ἀκαδήµου … ὁ ἥρως δὲ διὰ τοῦ ε γράφεται. οἱ δ’ ὅτι Ἔχεµος ὁ Ἀρκὰς συστρατεύσας τοῖς ∆ιοσκούροις ὑποχείριον ἔσχε τὴν Ἀττικήν, ἐξ οὗ Ἐχεµήδειόν φασιν. µὴ βουλόµενοι δὲ σώζεσθαι τὸ ὄνοµα Ἀκαδήµειαν ἔφασαν (“Ekadêmeia or Akadêmeia: from Akadêmos … But the hero’s name is written with an epsilon. Although some authorities (claim) that when Echemos the Arcadian participated in an expedition along with the Dioskouroi, he got control of Attica, and

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 36)

159

from him they say Echemêdêion. But because they did not want his name to be preserved, they said Akadêmeia”) – Et.Gen. α 287 Ἀκαδήµεον· γυµνάσιον· ἔστι τόπος πρὸ τοῦ ἄστεος ἀπὸ Ἀκαδήµου ὠνοµασµένος, διὸ καὶ [Ἀκαδηµία] τότε ἐκαλεῖτο. διττὴ δὲ ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ ὀνόµατος· οἱ µὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ α τὸν Ἀκάδηµον, οἱ δὲ [ἀπὸ τοῦ ε] τὸν Ἑκάδηµον. οὕτως Ὦρος (“Akadêmeon: a wrestling school. This is a spot outside the city that gets its name from Akadêmos, as a consequence of which it was also called [the Akadêmia]. The name has a double origin; some authorities have it as Akadêmos with an alpha, others as Hekadêmos [with an epsilon]. Thus Orus”) – Phot. α 699 = Suda α 775 = Synag. B α 652 Ἀκαδηµία … ἐκλήθη δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ καθιερώσαντος αὐτὸ Ἀκαδήµου (“Akadêmia … it got its name from Akadêmos, who dedicated it”; from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄) See in general Dorandi 1988. Interpretation Cf. Ar. Nu. 1005 ἀλλ’ εἰς Ἀκαδήµειαν κατιὼν ὑπὸ ταῖς µορίαις ἀποθρέξει (“you will go down to the Academy and run off under the sacred olive trees”) with Dover 1968 ad loc.; Plu. Cim. 13.7 τὴν δ’ Ἀκαδήµειαν ἐξ ἀνύδρου καὶ αὐχµηρᾶς κατάρρυτον ἀποδείξας ἄλσος, ἠσκηµένον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ δρόµοις καθαροῖς καὶ συσκίοις περιπάτοις (“and transforming the Academy from a dry and dusty place into a grove adorned by him with open dromoi and shaded walkways”; one of Cimon’s benefactions); Heraclid. Crit. Geographi Graeci Minores I p. 98.13–14 γυµνάσια τρία, Ἀκαδηµία, Λύκειον, Κυνόσαργες, πάντα κατάδενδρά τε καὶ τοῖς ἐδάφεσι ποώδη (“three wrestling schools, the Academy, the Lyceum and Cynosarges, all of them covered with trees and overgrown with grass”) (all cited by Kassel–Austin); Sull. 12.3 τὴν … Ἀκαδήµειαν … δενδροφορωτάτην προαστείων οὖσαν (“the Academy, the most thickly wooded of the areas outside the city walls”; referring to the Roman period). For the hero Hekadêmos (associated by Stavropoullos 1965 with an early cult-building in the area of the Academy, a suggestion seemingly confirmed by the discovery of an in situ late 6th-century boundary stone reading [h]όρος τ῀ες hεκαδεµείας = IG I3 1091), see Weber 1925. 142–8; Beazley 1954. 187; Stavropoullos 1965; Coldstream 1976. 16; Threatte 1980. 128; Kearns 1989. 157; and on hero-cult generally, Ekroth 2002. For the physical remains of the area, see Travlos 1971. 42–51; Caruso 2013, and cf. fr. 65 n. on gymnasia generally. For the Academy in the 4th century BCE as the site of Plato’s school, cf. Antiph. fr. 35.5; Ephipp. fr. 14.2; Epicr. fr. 10.11.

160

Eupolis

εὔσκιος is poetic vocabulary (Pi. P. 11.21; S. OC 1707; E. fr. 495.36; Theoc. 7.8; attested in 4th-century prose at X. Oec. 9.4). For other poetic εὐ-compounds (very common), e. g. frr. 13.3 εὐώδης with n.; 452 εὔζωρος; Cratin. frr. 70.2 εὐπάλαµος; 94 εὔτριξ; 181 εὔερος; Ar. Nu. 276 εὐάγητος, 300 εὔανδρος, 308 εὐστέφανος. LSJ s. v. II.3 (followed by Montanari s. v.) takes δρόµοισιν here to mean “public walks”, i. e. “walkways, promenades”, citing in support of the interpretation “IG II2 1126.36, etc.” (by which is apparently meant “IG II2 1126.36, 42”) and comparing ὁ ἔξω δρόµος (glossed “colonnade”) at Pl. Tht. 144c; κατάστεγος δρόµος (glossed “cloister”) at Pl. Euthd. 273a; and δρόµος ξυστός (left unglossed) at Aristias TrGF 9 F 5. The inscription in question is a sacred law having to do with cultic arrangments at Delphi and includes the δρόµος in a catalogue of local facilities the Amphictyonic hiaromnamones are to take charge of, the other items in the list being “the temple of Pythian Apollo, the courtyard, the temple of Athena Pronaia … and the spring in the plain”. No further details are offered regarding the Pythian dromos, but there is no obvious reason to give the word the eccentric sense LSJ suggests rather than the more obvious “race-course” (LSJ s. v. II.2), as at Pi. P. 1.32 Πυθιάδος δ’ ἐν δρόµῳ.82 Pl. Tht. 144c and Euthd. 273a are both seemingly set in gymnasia, and the fact that one can walk laps on a dromos (as in Euthydemus; cf. Pl. Phdr. 227a) does not show that that is the primary intended purpose of the facility. Elsewhere, dromoi are routinely associated with gymnasia and paired with wrestling pits (Hdt. 6.126.3 δρόµον καὶ παλαίστρην, “a dromos and a wrestling pit”; E. Andr. 599 δρόµους παλαίστρας τ’, “dromoi and wrestling pits”; Tr. 833–4 τὰ δὲ σὰ δροσόεντα λουτρὰ / γυµνασίων τε δρόµοι (“your dewy bathing facilities and wrestling school dromoi”; Aristias TrGF 9 F 5 ἦν µοι παλαίστρα καὶ δρόµος ξυστὸς πέλας, “I had a wrestling pit and a smoothed dromos nearby”; X. HG 2.4.27 κατὰ τὸν ἐκ Λυκείου δρόµον, “along the dromos that leads from the Lyceum”; 7.4.29; Eq.Mag. 3.6, in the Lyceum; cf. Theoc. 18.39 with Paus. 3.14.6 and Gow 1952 ad loc.). Most of LSJ s. v. δρόµος II.3 should thus be

82

For δρόµος in the inscription, see Rougemont 1977 ad loc. (pp. 116–17); Aupert 1979. 150–1. For the word in the sense “race-course”, note also e. g. Anacr. PMG 417.4; Pi. O. 3.33. The language of the inscription is not Attic Greek in any case, meaning that even if it is taken to be using the word in a specialized sense, it cannot be regarded as having much significance for interpreting Eupolis. Why LSJ s. v. II.1 takes δρόµος at Od. 4.605 to mean “runs for cattle” is unclear, since horses and land appropriate to accommodating them are in question there. To LSJ’s meanings for the word, add also “lap” (S. El. 713) and “course, path” (Ar. Nu. 25 with Crowther 1993 = Crowther 2004. 241–4).

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 37)

161

combined with II.2. That these are “running-tracks” in the modern sense is not clear, however, and Xenophon instead twice treats dromoi as large open areas that can be used to marshal and drill foot-soldiers and cavalry (X. Cyr. 2.3.22; Eq.Mag. 3.6), suggesting that they more closely resembled a modern playground or sportsfield, the crucial point being that the area was smoothed in some rudimentary fashion and thus safe and convenient to run on, be it for horses or human beings. Ἑκαδήµου θεοῦ Eitrem 1912 p. 1139.3–22 (cited by Kassel–Austin) offers a short list of heroes treated or referred to as gods, including Colonus at S. OC 65 and Tlapolemos at Pi. O. 7.77–9.

fr. 37 K.-A. (35 K.) Ἀθηναίων εἰ βούλεταί τις ἐγγράφειν if any Athenian wants to register a name Choerob. ad Heph. ench. 1.6 (p. 194.16–19 Consbruch) τὸ αὐτὸ δέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς αι διφθόγγου, ὡς Εὔπολις ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις φησίν· ―― The same phenomenon occurs in the case of the diphthong ai, as Eupolis says in Astrateutoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkl klkl Citation context From Georgius Choeroboscus’ (8th/9th c. CE) commentary on the metrical handbook of Hephaestion (2nd c. CE), which survives only in a radically epitomized version; Hense 1870. vii argues that Choeroboscus is drawing on Heliodorus (ca. 100 CE). The general topic under discussion is the shortening in poetry of what would normally be expected to be long syllables. Interpretation A conditional clause, perhaps originally setting the terms for a threat (cf. Ar. Th. 248) or an order (cf. Ar. V. 1498), or as part of an official public announcement (cf. Ar. Ach. 1000–2). For the internal correption in Ἀθηναίων, cf. Pherecr. fr. 39; Polyzel. fr. 12.3 (both cited by Kassel–Austin); Bacch. 17.92; and see in general Sjölund 1938. 36–7; West 1966 on Hes. Th. 15. The position of the word at the head of the line lends it emphasis (“if any Athenian”). ἐγγράφω can mean “inscribe” (e. g. Ar. Ra. 933; Hdt. 8.82.1; E. Supp. 1202) or “write out, copy out” (e. g. Ar. V. 961; Av. 982), but in an Athenian public

162

Eupolis

context the sense is most often “add to a list of names, enrol” (LSJ s. v. II.1, 3).83 Official registries were maintained of e. g. men liable to the performance of liturgies (Ar. Eq. 926), deme members (Aeschin. 1.18; D. 18.261; 57.46), ephebes ([Arist.] Ath. 53.4), public debtors (And. 1.77 with MacDowell 1962 ad loc.; Aeschin. 1.35), and individuals guilty of various wrongs against the state (Lys. 26.10). In a play entitled Astrateutoi, however, the obvious, easy assumption—not necessarily right on that account—is that the reference is to inclusion on the tribal rolls of men who might be drafted for hoplite service (for which, see Taxiarchoi introductory n.; Ar. Eq. 1370–1; Pax 1179–81 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Christ 2001). fr. 3884 K.-A. (1 Dem.) ὡς ἦρξε περὶ Μίνῳαν αὐτὸς οὑτοσί ὡς ἦρξεν αὐτὸς περὶ Μινῴαν οὑτοσί Kaibel

how/that/when this man here himself was in charge around Minôia Orus, On Orthography (Lex. Mess. fol. 280v1–9 ap. Rabe 1892. 405) Μινῷος σὺν τῷ ι, καὶ Μίνῳα τὸ παρεσχηµατισµένον, ᾧ συνεξέδραµε καὶ τὸ µονογενὲς ὄνοµα Μίνῳα ἡ νῆσσος, κτητικοῦ γὰρ τύπου. σηµειωτέον δὲ ὅτι προπαροξύνεσθαι αἰτεῖ ἡ συστολὴ τοῦ α. Εὔπολις Ἀστρατεύτοις· ――. καὶ Ἀλκαῖος Πασιφάῃ (fr. 28)· ――. τῇ γὰρ συστολῇ ταύτῃ ἀκολουθήσει καὶ τὸ προπαροξύνεσθαι Minôios with the iota, and the derived form Minôia, with which the undeclinable name Minôia, the island, is identical, because it is genitive case. And it should be noted that the shortening of the alpha requires an acute on the antepenult. Eupolis in Astrateutoi: ――. Also Alcaeus in Pasiphaê (fr. 28): ――. For the acute on the antepenult will be a consequence of this shortening

Meter Iambic trimeter. llkr klk|l klkl Citation context From Orus’ discussion of iota subscript, probably taken over more or less direct from Apollonius Dyscolus. 83

84

LSJ s. v. II.2 “indict” cites only Ar. Pax 1180 (where the verb actually means “add to the list [of hoplites eligible for service]”) and D. 37.24 (actually “include in a written document”, as at e. g. Aeschin. 3.238; Lys. 20.27), and the sub-definition should seemingly be struck. Misnumbered as fr. 39 in Rusten 2011. 223.

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 37)

163

Text Kaibel, doubting that Orus (or his source) was right that the alpha in Μίνῳαν was short, rewrote the verse to allow it to be long. But Alc. Com. fr. 28 Μίνῳαν; ἀλλ’ οἴµωζε σαυτὸν περιθέων (also quoted by Orus) is not so tractable, and the traditional order of the words should be retained. Interpretation A dependent clause describing someone previously identified and accordingly referred to via deictic οὑτοσί although without necessarily being visible onstage; cf. *POxy. 5160 fr. c (Aiges) n.; Pherecr. fr. 155.20–1 οὑτοσὶ / ὁ Τιµόθεος (“this Timotheus to whom you are referring”); Ar. Eq. 131 εἷς οὑτοσὶ πώλης (“this man you just mentioned is one ‘seller’”), 1063–4 οὑτοσὶ … / ὁ χρησµός “(“this oracle we’re discussing”); Nu. 1403 οὑτοσὶ … αὐτός (in reference to Socrates, who is at this point offstage); Pl. Com. 46.9 (“this [contest] you’re describing”); Men. Asp. 139–40 οὑτοσὶ … / ὁ πονηρός (“the bastard I’m discussing”). Th. 3.51 reports that in summer 427 BCE an Athenian expedition led by Nicias son of Niceratus (fr. 193 n.) captured the island of Minôia, located opposite Nisaea, the port of the city of Megara, and converted what had been a Megarian garrison with a guard-tower there into an Athenian base intended to close the Megarian harbor. Additional fighting involving Minôia took place in summer 424 BCE, when the Athenian generals Hippokrates son of Ariphron (PA 7640; PAA 538615; see fr. 112 n.) and Demosthenes son of Alkisthenes (PA 3585; PAA 318425) used the place as a springboard to capture Nisaea (Th. 4.66–9, esp. 67.1).85 Kassel–Austin suggest that this line is more easily understood as a reference to the latter set of events (“commodius intellegetur Hippocrates, Thuc. IV 66,3 (a. 424)”), but there is in fact no way to decide the question or to exclude the possibility that a different expedition unnoted by Thucydides and led by some other commander is in question; cf. fr. 44 for a reference to the Athenian general Phormio in Astrateutoi. ἦρξε For the verb used absolutely in the specific sense “serve as general” (not noted in LSJ or Montanari s. v.), e. g. frr. 99.33; *104.2 with n.; Ar. Ra. 1072; Ec. 304 with Ussher 1973 ad loc.; Th. 6.105.2. For αὐτὸς οὑτοσί, cf. Ar. Nu. 1403 (quoted above); Ec. 951; Men. Dysc. 143–4; Epitr. 302; Euphro fr. 9.15–16; Antipho 6.40; D. 19.73; and ὁδὶ … αὐτός at e. g. Ar. Av. 1718; Ec. 934; Alc. Com. fr. 22.1.

85

For the topography—complicated by the fact that no island matching Thucydides’ description of Minôia exists today—see Laird 1934; Beattie 1960; Legon 1981. 27–32.

164

Eupolis

fr. 39 K.-A. (2 Dem.) ὅµοιον ᾄδειν· οὐ γὰρ ἔστ’ ἄλλως ἔχον ἔχον Wilamowitz : ἔχων Phot. : ἔχειν Reitzenstein

Sing the same song!86 For it’s not otherwise Phot. α 551 ᾄδειν ὅµοιον· καινοτάτη ἡ σύνταξις καὶ Ἀττικῶς, εἰ καί τις ἄλλη, εἰρηµένη. σηµαίνει δὲ τὸ µάτην λέγειν, ὡς εἰ καὶ ἄλλως ᾄδειν ἐθέλοι τις ἐν οὐδενὶ πράγµατι ἀνυσίµῳ. Εὔπολις ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις· ――. Ἀριστοφάνης δὲ ἐν Γεωργοῖς ἐξηγούµενος τὸ ᾄδεις, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ µάτην λέγεις τίθεται, παροιµιῶδες αὐτὸ ποιεῖ (fr. 101)· ――. 〈ἐν〉 συνουσίᾳ χρῶ κατὰ Φρύνιχον (PS p. 20.1–2) to sing the same song: The construction is quite novel and distinctively Attic. It means “to speak in vain”, as if one wanted to say “to sing pointlessly to no useful purpose”. Eupolis in Astrateutoi: ――. And Aristophanes in Georgoi, explaining “you sing”, which he uses to mean “you speak in vain”, treats it as proverbial (fr. 101): ――. You should use it in company, according to Phrynichus (PS p. 20.1–2)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lk|l llkl Citation context Traced by Photius to the Atticist lexicographer Phrynichus, the preserved version of whose note (PS p. 20.1–2) reads ᾄδειν ὅµοιον σηµαίνει τὸ µάτην λέγειν. τὸ γὰρ ᾄδειν ἐπὶ τοῦ µάτην λέγειν (“‘to sing the same song’ means to speak in vain; for ‘to sing’ is used in reference to speaking in vain”). For the recommendation ἐν συνουσίᾳ χρῶ in Phrynichus, cf. PS p. 2.10. Cf. Hsch. α 1766 ᾄδεις † ἔσον †· ἴσον τῷ µάτην λέγεις καὶ ληρεῖς (“you singing † eson †: equivalent to ‘you speak in vain’ or ‘you talk nonsense’”). Text Photius’ ἄλλως ἔχων would be a very odd expression, and Wilamowitz’ ἄλλως ἔχον is an easier and more idiomatic correction than Reitzenstein’s ἄλλως ἔχειν (“it can’t be otherwise”). Interpretation ᾄδειν is most economically understood as a jussive infinitive (for which, see Bers 1984. 180–1), with the second half of the verse somehow explaining the first (hence γάρ). Τhe addressee is to talk the same nonsense (sc. as someone else), and either there is no way of getting around the need to do so or the nonsense is inevitably such. The alternative is to assume that the first half of the line is simply syntactically incomplete. 86

Not “Sing all you want” (Storey 2011. 65).

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 40)

165

For the sense of ᾄδω (literally “sing”), which is ignored by LSJ and Montanari s. v. ἀείδω, cf. Ar. fr. 101 (quoted immediately after the line from Eupolis by Photius) (Α.) καὶ τὰς δίκας οὖν ἔλεγον ᾄδοντες τότε; / (Β.) νὴ ∆ία, φράσω δ’ ἐγὼ µέγα σοι τεκµήριον. / ἔτι γὰρ λέγουσ᾿ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καθήµενοι, / ὅταν κακῶς τις ἀπολογῆται τὴν δίκην, / ᾄδεις (“(A.) Did they therefore sing at that time when they argued their law-cases? (B.) Yes, by Zeus, and I’ll offer you a substantial bit of evidence. For even today the old men sitting there say, when someone makes a bad defense speech in response to a charge, ‘You’re singing!’”) and most likely Ar. Av. 40–1 Ἀθηναῖοι δ’ ἀεὶ / ἐπὶ τῶν δικῶν ᾄδουσι πάντα τὸν βίον (“the Athenians always spend their entire life singing at their trials”, i. e. “talking nonsense”) with Dunbar 1995 ad loc. οὐ γὰρ ἔστ’ ἄλλως ἔχον A more emphatic way of expressing ἔστι γὰρ οὕτως ἔχον (“for that’s how it is”), for which cf. e. g. Ar. Nu. 829 ἴσθι τοῦθ’ οὕτως ἔχον; Hdt. 2.125.7 εἰ δ᾿ ἔστι οὕτως ἔχοντα ταῦτα; X. Mem. 3.5.5 αἰσθάνοµαι … ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχοντα; Pl. Phd. 91e τούτου οὕτως ἔχοντος; Isoc. 12.205 τούτων οὕτως ἐχόντων (genitive absolute). For the litotes (negation of the contrary for rhetorical effect), cf. οὐκ ἄλλως λέγω vel sim. (“I don’t deny it”, i. e. “I do indeed!”) at e. g. Ar. Ra. 1140; Men. Georg. fr. 5.1.

fr. 40 K.-A. (33 K.) οἳ πεπείρους ἀχράδας ἐσθίουσιν πεπείρους Phot. Synag. B : πεπείρας Schmidt   ἐσθίουσιν Phot. : πρὸς τῇ συκίδι † προσετως † Synag. B

who (masc.) eat ripe wild pears Phot. α 3453 ~ Synag. B α 2617 ἀχράδας· τὰς ἀχέρδους λέγουσιν. Εὔπολις Ἀστρατεύτοισιν· ―― (sic Phot. : καὶ ἀχράδων Φερεκράτης add. Synag. B). ἴσως δ’ ὁ µὲν καρπὸς ἀχράς, τὸ δένδρον δὲ ἄχερδος. Φερεκράτης (fr. 174)· ἢ τῆς ἀχέρδου τῆς ἀκραχολωτάτης. Μένανδρος Ἥρῳ (fr. 1 Sandbach = fr. 8 Körte)· νῦν δὲ τοῖς ἐξ ἄστεως κυνηγέταις ἥκουσι περιηγήσοµαι τὰς ἀχράδας achrades: This is how they refer to wild pears (acherdoi). Eupolis in Astrateutoi: ―― (thus Phot. : Synag. B adds “of achrades as well Pherecrates”). But perhaps the fruit is an achras, but the tree an acherdos. Pherecrates (fr. 174): or of the most irrascible acherdos. Menander in Herôs (fr. 1 Sandbach = fr. 8 Körte): but now I’ll describe the achrades for the hunters who have come from the city

166

Eupolis

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic, e. g.

lkll rklk lk〈lx lkx〉 Discussion Runkel 1829. 92; Meineke 1839 II.439; Unger 1839. 457; Kock 1880 I.265 Citation context From the common source of Photius and the Synagoge generally referred to as Σ΄΄΄, which must in turn have been drawing on a lost Atticist lexicographer. Text LSJ s. v. (followed by Montanari s. v.) treats πέπειρος (〈 πέττω, “ripen” and thus “prepare, cook”) as a two-termination adjective and distinguishes it from πέπων, which it also treats as two-termination, while nonetheless noting (under a separate lemma) the existence of a rare feminine form πέπειρα (Anacr. PMG 432 = fr. 5 West2; Archil. fr. 196.26; S. Tr. 728; Ar. Ec. 896, where the manuscripts are divided between ἐν ταῖς πεπείροις and ἐν ταῖς πεπείραις); cf. πίων with separate feminine form πίειρα (cited by LSJ); Fraenkel 1910. 216–18. Schmidt accordingly conjectured πεπείρας here (to agree with feminine ἀχράδας) in place of the paradosis πεπείρους. But the latter is the lectio difficilior and should be retained. In place of Photius’ ἐσθίουσιν, the Synagoge offers πρὸς τῇ συκίδι † προσετως † καὶ ἀχράδων Φερεκράτης. Runkel—who knew the text only as it is preserved in the Synagoge—took πρὸς τῇ συκίδι † προσετως † to continue the quote from Eupolis, and Meineke on that basis conjectured ἵν᾿ ἂν πέπειρον ἀχράδα πρὸς τῇ συκίδι / προσέχωσι (“in order that they might apply an old wild pear to the fig-slip”; presumably to be understood as a reference to grafting, for which see Interpretation). Kock, on the other hand, followed Unger in comparing Dsc. I.116 (I p. 109.21–2 Wellmann) κἂν συνεψήσῃ τις ἀχράδας µύκησιν, ἀβλαβεῖς αὐτοὺς γίνεσθαι (“If one stews wild pears together with mushrooms, the latter become harmless”) and proposed instead ἀεὶ / ἀχράδας πεπείρους τοῖς µύκησι προσφέρων (“always adding ripe wild pears to mushrooms”). Neither conjecture is particularly close to the paradosis, and καὶ ἀχράδων Φερεκράτης (~ “Pherecrates also (mentions) achrades”) might be understood as a separate, garbled version of the material that follows, including Pherecr. fr. 174.87 If so, πρὸς τῇ συκίδι † προσετως † is likely from the second source as well, although what it is supposed to mean is unclear. Interpretation A relative clause describing a number of previously mentioned persons or creatures by reference to their diet. Hp. Salubr. 2.55 = 87

Meineke, by contrast, emended καὶ ἀχράδων Φερεκράτης to καὶ ἀχράδων πρόσφερε· Κράτης (“also ‘offer some of the wild pears!’: Crates”) = Crates Com. fr. 53 K.

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 41)

167

6.562.11–12 Littré claims that ἀχράδες χειµέριοι πέπειροι διαχωρέουσι καὶ τῆς κοιλίης καθαρτικαί (“ripe winter achrades go right through a person and clean out the belly”), adding αἱ δὲ ὠµαὶ στάσιµοι (“whereas unripe ones stall the digestion”; cf. Blepyrus’ dilemma at Ar. Ec. 354–5; Dsc. I.116 (I p. 109.18–19 Wellmann) on the use of the fruit to arrest diarrhea). ἀχράδας Wild pears—generally referred to as Pyrus pyraster, and mentioned in comedy also at Telecl. fr. 34 (disparaged); Ar. Ec. 355; Alex. fr. 167.13 (in a list of foods generally consumed by paupers); Anaxandr. fr. 42.55; Men. Dysc. 101 (seemingly the tree), 121 (the fruit)—appear to have been found throughout Attica and are inter-fertile with the domesticated variety (ἄπιοι, Pyrus communis), thus constantly producing spontaneous crosses. They were also used as grafting stock (for which technique, see in general Pease 1933; White 1970. 248, 257–8). The fruit is generally small with a gritty texture, and the branches of the tree itself are covered in spines, which must be the point of the mention here of Pherecr. fr. 174, i. e. as referring to the tree rather than the fruit. See in general Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 167.13; Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012. 138–40. For the wild pear’s spines, note also Od. 14.10; Arist. Mirab. 845a15–16. ἄχερδος is simply another form of the word; etymology uncertain (substrate vocabulary?).

fr. 41 K.-A. (36 K.) µή ποτε θρέψω παρὰ Φερσεφόνῃ τοιόνδε ταὧν, ὃς τοὺς εὕδοντας ἐγείρει 1 〈οὐ〉 µὴ Blaydes   θρέψω Ath. : θρέψῃ Bothe   2 Φερσεφόνῃ Ath. : Περσεφόνῃ Meineke   ταὼν Ath.

Might I never raise in Persephone’s house a peacock like this, that rouses those who are asleep! Ath. 9.397b–c, d–e, 398a Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις φησὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ οὕτως· ―― … ταὧς δὲ λέγουσιν Ἀθηναῖοι, ὥς φησι Τρύφων (fr. 5 Velsen), τὴν τελευταίαν συλλαβὴν περισπῶντες καὶ δασύνοντες. καὶ ἀναγιγνώσκουσι µὲν οὕτως παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις—πρόκειται δὲ τὸ µαρτύριον—καὶ ἐν Ὄρνισιν Ἀριστοφάνους (102, 269, 884) … Σέλευκος δ’ ἐν τῷ πέµπτῳ περὶ Ἑλληνισµοῦ (fr. 70 Müller)· “ταώς· παραλόγως δ’ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ καὶ δασύνουσι καὶ περισπῶσι”

168

Eupolis

And Eupolis in Astrateutoi says the following about (the peacock): ―― … Athenians say tahôs, according to Trypho (fr. 5 Velsen), putting a circumflex accent and a rough breathing on the final syllable. And this is what they read in Eupolis in Astrateutoi—the passage is cited above—and in Aristophanes’ Birds (102, 269, 884) … And Seleucus in Book 5 of On Greek Style (fr. 70 Müller): “taôs: contrary to the normal rule, Atticspeakers put a rough breathing and a circumflex accent on the word”

Meter Anapaestic tetrameter catalectic, e. g. 〈tyty tyty 〈tyt〉l

rll

rlrl llrl | llll rll Discussion d’Arnaud 1728. 149–50; Meineke 1839. 437; Wilamowitz 1870. 51–2; Kock 1880. 266; Brandes 1886. 37–8; Blaydes 1896. 36; Schiassi 1944. 68–9; Gelzer 1960. 279; Sarati 1996. 127 Citation context From a heterogeneous treatment of peacocks (9.397a–8b) within a larger discussion of exotic banquet delicacies. The material in the first part of the section (9.397b–d) is ornithological, that in the second part (9.397d–8b) grammatical. Although Eupolis is cited in both, therefore, this might be largely coincidental—meaning that Athenaeus may have combined two separate sources, even if both drew on the same pre-assembled set of materials for their own particular purposes. Text In 1, Blaydes’ 〈οὐ〉 µὴ (with 1st-person subjunctive also at e. g. S. Tr. 1190; Pl. Ap. 29d) would add emphasis but is unnecessary. At the end of 1, Bothe’s 3rd-person θρέψῃ for the first-person paradosis θρέψω has the effect of transforming the remark into something approaching a curse (“May he die and never raise …!”). Περσεφόνεια/Περσεφόνη is generally taken to be attested already in Homer (e. g. Od. 10.491 εἰς Ἀΐδαο δόµους καὶ ἐπαινῆς Περσεφονείης) and the Hymns (e. g. hDem. 56), while Φερσεφόνεια/Φερσεφόνη is found in Hesiod (fr. 185.4; 280.12 [both papyri]) and epinician (see Interpretation). Both forms are attested in 5th-century drama, with no obvious distinction—at least as the texts have come down to us—between e. g. lyric and iambic dialogue, and the evidence for the Homeric form is far more ambiguous than it appears to be, Φερ- being normal in papyri (Andorlini and Lundon 2000. 6). Although Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin all print Περσεφόνῃ in 2 for Athenaeus’ Φερσεφόνῃ, therefore, there is no obvious reason to do so. In Attica, the goddess’ name is properly Φερρέφαττα (see Ar. Th. 287 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; Threatte 1980. 450–1), which cannot be accommodated in anapaests.

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 41)

169

Further on in 2, for the rough breathing within ταὧς—missing from the manuscripts of Athenaeus (which have no authority in such matters) but clearly intended by the author—see Interpretation. Interpretation Gelzer took the meter to mean that these lines come from the anapaestic epirrhema of an agôn, and suggested that they might be spoken by a bomolochos character. Wilamowitz thought the speaker was Pyrilampes son of Antiphon, who did in fact keep peacocks (see below) and was supposed to have been wounded at Delium (Plu. Mor. 581d–e), and whom Wilamowitz imagined grieving about the fact that he would soon be forced to leave his beloved birds behind. But the Greek seems to express a negative wish rather than simple regret. ὃς τοὺς εὕδοντας ἐγείρει at the end of 2—a reference in the first instance to the peacock’s harsh, jarring cry—appears to quote S. fr. 890 κερκίδος ὕµνους, / ἣ τοὺς εὕδοντας ἐγείρει (“songs of the weaver’s shuttle, which rouses those who are asleep”; from an unidentified play); other echoes of the same line are preserved at Ar. Pl. 541 στιβάδα σχοίνων … µεστήν, ἣ τοὺς εὕδοντας ἐγείρει (“a camp-bed full of rushes, which rouses those who are asleep”) and perhaps Ar. fr. 427 κωρυκίς, ἣ καὶ τοὺς µάττοντας ἐγείρει (“a little leather sack, which rouses those who are kneading”).88 If sleep is here presented as homologous to death, the speaker’s point is that after he has passed he does not wish to own a peacock that could “wake” the residents of the Underworld, i. e. that cries loud and harshly enough to do so; or the speaker may simply imagine that life in the Underworld is in most respects like that the one we are experiencing now, i. e. people sleep there as well. Alternatively, the thought may be ill-expressed, and what is meant is “I wouldn’t want to own a peacock like this; if you had one in the Underworld, its screams would raise the dead”. Athenaeus (or his source) clearly takes the reference to be to a real bird. As Kock noted, however, it might instead be an image e. g. of a beautifully costumed human being with a loud and offensive voice (perhaps the character in the play with whom the speaker is arguing, if the lines are in fact from an agôn); cf. Ar. Ach. 62–3. 1 θρέψω For the verb, see fr. 226 n. 2 παρὰ Φερσεφόνῃ i. e. in the Underworld; similar periphrases without reference to Persephone’s husband Hades at Thgn. 1296 δώµατα Περσεφόνης; Pi. O. 14.20–1 µελαντειχέα … δόµον / Φερσεφόνας; P. 12.2 Φερσεφόνας ἕδος; I. 8.55 δῶµα Φερσεφόνας; Bacch. 5.59 δώµατα Φερσεφόνας τανισφύρου; E. Hec. 136 παρὰ Φερσεφόνῃ (anapaests); Supp. 271 ἱερῶν δαπέδων ἄπο 88

For other echoes or possible echoes of Sophocles in comedy, cf. frr. 266 n.; 268b n.

170

Eupolis

Περσεφονείας, 1022 Φερσεφόνας … θαλάµους (lyric); Ion 1442 χθονίων µέτα Περσεφόνας τ’. For the goddess herself, see Gantz 1993. 64–8; Günter, LIMC VIII.1 pp. 956–7, 976–8. For her name, see Text. ταὧς is a loan-word from some unidentified Eastern language, hence the odd interior aspiration, which must reflect an attempt to imitate the original pronunciation; the bird itself is native to India. Pyrilampes son of Antiphon (PA 12493; PAA 795965) had a collection of peacocks he apparently acquired in the 440s BCE (as a gift from the Persian king?) and that were regarded as sufficiently sensational in Athens that he was able to make money by charging admission to see them on the first day of every month (Antipho fr. 57; adesp. com. fr. 702 ap. Plu. Per. 13.15; Davies 1971. 329–30). There were also peacocks to be seen in Hera’s sanctuary on Samos (Antiph. fr. 173.3–5; Menodot. FGrH 541 F 2), and Pyrilampes may have got them from there instead when the island was captured by Pericles sometime around 440 BCE. For domesticated peacocks, see also Stratt. fr. 28 (raised for their feathers, for which see Sharma 1974); Alex. fr. 128 (prohibitively expensive to eat) with Arnott 1996 on fr. 115.14; Eub. fr. 113 (rare); Anaxandr. fr. 29 (extremely expensive) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Anaxil. fr. 24 (seemingly a reference to their screaming); Thompson 1936. 277–81; Cartledge 1990. 52–4; Dunbar 1996 on Ar. Av. 102; Miller 1997. 189–92; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 62–3; Arnott 2007. 235–8 (with extensive secondary bibliography).

fr. 42 K.-A. (37–8 K.) ἄνδρες ἑταῖροι, δεῦρο δὴ τὴν γνώµην προσίσχετε, εἰ δυνατόν, καὶ µή τι µεῖζον πράττουσα τυγχάνει καὶ ξυνεγιγνόµην ἀεὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς φάγροισιν 1 δεῦρο δὴ Hermann : δεῦρ᾿ ἤδη Heph. Σ   προσίσχετε Hermann : προίσχετε Heph. Σ   3 ξυνεγιγνόµην Hermann : ξυνεγινόµην Heph.A Σ : ξυνεγενόµην Heph.I

Comrades, pay attention here in fact, if possible, and if your attention isn’t doing something more important89 and I was always together with the good sea-bream 89

Storey 2011. 67 fails to see that γνώµη is to be supplied as the subject of πράττουσα τυγχάνει and accordingly offers the garbled “and unless 〈 〉 happens to be doing something more important”.

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 42)

171

Heph. Ench. 15.22 (pp. 54.19–55.6 Consbruch) τὸ µὲν οὖν καθαρὸν Κρατίνειον τοιοῦτόν ἐστι· πολυσχηµάτιστον δὲ αὐτὸ πεποιήκασιν οἱ κωµικοί. τοὺς γὰρ σπονδείους τοὺς ἐµπίπτοντας ἐν τοῖς ἰαµβικοῖς καὶ τοῖς τροχαϊκοῖς παρὰ τάξιν παραλαµβάνουσιν ἐν ταῖς µέσαις συζυγίαις, τῇ τροχαϊκῇ καὶ τῇ ἰαµβικῇ. Εὔπολις δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἀστρατεύτοις καὶ ἀτακτοτάτως συνέθηκε τὸ εἶδος· πῆ µὲν γὰρ τοιαῦτα ποιεῖ (1–2), ――. πῆ δὲ τοιαῦτα (3)· ――, ὥσθ’ ὅλον αὐτὸ χοριαµβικὸν ἐπίµικτον γενέσθαι, ὅµοιον Ἀνακρεοντείῳ τῷδε (PMG 386)· ――, πῆ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοις ἐχρήσατο λίαν ἀτάκτοις σχήµασι The pure Cratineian, then, is of this sort, but the comic poets have made it polyschematic. For they use the spondees that occur in the iambs and the trochees in an irregular manner in the central syzygies, i. e. the trochaic and iambic ones. And Eupolis in his Astrateutoi composed the form in an extremely irregular manner. Because in one place he writes lines like these (1–2): ――; but in another place like these (3): ――, so that the whole thing is a choriambic mélange, like this line from Anacreon (PMG 386): ――; and elsewhere he used other highly irregular forms ΣA p. 160.18–25 Consbruch ἄνδρες ἑταῖροι: ἐν τῷ ἰαµβικῷ σπονδεῖον εἰς τὴν ἀρτίαν, λέγω δὴ τὴν τετάρτην, ἥ ἐστιν ἥδε ηδη· καὶ ἐν τῇ τροχαϊκῇ εἰς τὴν περιττήν, λέγω δὲ τὴν πέµπτην, ἥ ἐστι την γνω. καὶ ξυνεγιγνόµην: τοῦτο καὶ τὸ ἑξῆς Ἀνακρεόντειον ἔχουσι τὸν µὲν πρῶτον χορίαµβον, εἶτα δύο ἰάµβους, καὶ πάλιν χορίαµβον καὶ ἴαµβον (Pauw : τροχαῖον codd.) καὶ συλλαβήν andres hetairoi: In the iambic foot there is a spondee extending into the even-numbered portion, by which I mean the fourth, which is this êdê. Also in the trochaic foot (there is a spondee) extending into the odd-numbered portion, by which I mean the fifth, which is tên gnô. kai xunegignomên: this line and the Anacreonteion that follow have the initial choriamb, then two iambs, and again a choriamb, an iamb (Pauw : “trochee” codd.) and a final syllable Heph. Ench. 16.6 (p. 58.5–8 Consbruch) καὶ τὸ Κρατίνειον δὲ τὸ ἀσυνάρτητον ἐκ χοριαµβικοῦ καὶ τροχαϊκοῦ πολυσχηµάτιστόν ἐστιν. ἀρκέσει τοῦτο δεῖξαι ἡ παράβασις ἡ ἐν τοῖς Ἀστρατεύτοις Εὐπόλιδος πᾶσα And the Cratinean is a polyschematist compounded out of choriambic and trochaic units. The entire parabasis in Eupolis’ Astrateutoi will suffice to show this ΣA p. 165.6–20 Consbruch ἐν ταῖς ἰαµβικαῖς τοίνυν καὶ ταῖς τροχαϊκαῖς παρὰ τάξιν τιθέντες τοὺς σπονδείους πολυσχηµάτιστον αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν, οἵα ἐστὶν ἡ παράβασις ἥδε (1)· ――. ἡ πρώτη χοριαµβικὴ ανδρες εται. ἡ δευτέρα ἰαµβικὴ οὖσα ἐν 〈τῇ〉 ἀρτίῳ ἔσχε τὸν σπονδεῖον ροι δευρ ηδη. ἡ τρίτη τροχαϊκὴ οὖσα ἐν τῇ περιττῇ ἔσχε τὸν σπονδεῖον την γνωµην προ. καὶ λοιπὸν ἡ κατακλεὶς τροχαϊκὴ ισχετε. (2) ――· ὁ πρῶτος χορίαµβος ει δυνατον. ὁ δεύτερος ἐν ἰαµβικῇ γνησίῳ και µη τι µει. ἡ τρίτη τροχαϊκὴ οὖσα ἐν τῇ περιττῇ ἔχει τὸν σπονδεῖον ζον πραττουσα. ἡ κατακλεὶς πάλιν τροχαϊκὴ τυγχανει

172

Eupolis

By placing the spondees out of order in the iambic and trochaic feet, they make it into a polyschematist, like the following parabasis (1): ―― The first foot, choriambic, andres etai. The second foot, despite being iambic, had the spondee in 〈the〉 even-numbered portion, roi deur êdê. The third foot, despite being trochaic, had the spondee in the odd-numbered foot, tên gnômên pro. And finally the closing portion, trochaic, ischete. (2) ――: The first foot, choriambic, ei dynaton. The second foot, in a legitimate iambic, kai mê ti mei. The third foot, despite being trochaic, has the spondee in the odd-numbered portion, zon prattousa. The closing portion, again trochaic, tynchanei

Meter Two different forms of comic dicolon; see Introduction, Section 7; and in general West 1982. 95–6. Hephaestion and the commentators on his text are clearly baffled by the meter, which they misanalyze as an eccentric mix of choriambs and trochees.

lkkl llll | lllklkk lkkl llkl l|llklkl lkkl klkl | lkklklk Discussion d’Arnaud 1728. 150; Hermann 1816. 583–4; Bergk 1838. 339–40; Meineke 1839 II.438; Whittaker 1935. 189; Schiassi 1944. 66–7 Citation context From a discussion of “compound” metres, i. e. those supposedly made up out of elements of different sorts, in the surviving, abridged version of a metrical handbook originally composed in the 2nd century CE most likely drawing on Heliodorus. Text In 1, Hermann’s δεῦρο δὴ is necessary for the meter in place of the paradosis δεῦρ᾿ ἤδη (retained by Kassel–Austin), a very simple error already present in the text when it was being commented on. At the end of 1, the idiom requires a form of προσέχω rather than προέχω; see Interpretation. In 3, γίγνοµαι rather than γίνοµαι appears to be the standard form in Attic until the very end of the 4th century BCE (Threatte 1980. 562). Heph.I has converted imperfect ξυνεγινόµην into aorist ξυνεγενόµην, which will not do metrically. Interpretation From the parabasis. 1–2 are likely from the very beginning of the parabasis proper (thus already Bergk). Hephaestion is clear about the fact that 3 is not continuous with 1–2, and most likely it is not even from the same section of the parabasis, given that the meter is different. The line would thus better have been assigned a separate number (as in Kock). Bergk suggested that 3 came from the epirrheme or antepirrheme, like fr. 172 (n.). The tone in 1–2 is ingratiating and almost apologetic (see below), perhaps

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 42)

173

reflecting the apparently effeminate nature of the chorus (for which, see the general introduction to the play). 1 Cf. Ar. Nu. 575 ὦ σοφώτατοι θεαταί, δεῦρο τὸν νοῦν προσέχετε (“Exceptionally wise spectators, pay attention here!”; from the beginning of the parabasis epirrhema). Here the use of ἑταῖροι represents a different strategy of persuasion, not flattering the audience directly but instead suggesting the existence of an easy intimacy that both allows a man to speak freely and ensures that his words will get the best reception possible; cf. below on the tone in 2. For friendship, see the general introduction to Philoi, and add to the bibliography cited there Penniston 1990/1991. For the audience addressed as ἄνδρες, cf. frr. 201 with n.; 239 (on the seemingly pleonastic use of the word). δεῦρο i. e. “to our words, to what we intend to say”. τὴν γνώµην προσίσχετε For the expression, cf. Ar. Ec. 600; Th. 2.11.2; 5.26.5; 7.15.2, 23.1; Aeschin. 1.116. προσέχω τὸν νοῦν is the more common idiom (e. g. Cratin. fr. 315; Pherecr. fr. 84.1 ἄνδρες, προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν; Ar. Nu. 1010, 1122; Pax 983; Antiph. fr. 57.2; And. 1.30; X. HG 7.1.41). 2 εἰ δυνατόν marks this as an exceedingly polite, deferential request (cf. Pi. N. 9.28; X. HG 5.4.30; Cyr. 5.5.13, and εἰ βούλει at e. g. X. An. 3.4.41; Pl. Smp. 214d; Timocl. fr. 6.8), with the idea unpacked at greater length in the rest of the verse: this gift of attention will be possible only if the addressees’ minds are not already occupied with other, doubtless more significant subjects. γνώµη is to be supplied as the subject of τυγχάνει from 1. 3 ξυνεγιγνόµην d’Arnaud compared the use of the verb in the extended sense “eat” at Telecl. fr. 40.1, to which Bergk added the use of σύνειµι at Pherecr. fr. 62.1, and Kock added fr. 99.43 and στεµφύλῳ εἰς λόγον ἔλθῃ at Ar. Eq. 806. τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς φάγροισιν For the φάγρος (“sea-bream”), which is often included in banquet catalogues and the like (e. g. Metag. fr. 6.6; Stratt. fr. 26; Antiph. fr. 191.3) and was—rightly—regarded as a delicacy, see Thompson 1957. 273–4; Davidson 1981. 74–89; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 27.1. Here the fact that the word stands at the end of the line suggests that it comes as a surprise after the ambiguous ξυνεγιγνόµην: the speaker “was together” with good … bream, not because they were friends, but because he ate them for dinner. Cf. in general fr. 315 n. (on the proverbial idea of “good” individuals dining with the similarly “good”, and variants thereof), and note the echo of the idea of friendship and companionship in 1 (regardless of where the two verses stood in the original parabasis). The adjective is not commonly applied to food, but cf. Ar. Nu. 339; Antiph. fr. 36.2; Philem. fr. 42.5; Archestr. frr. 36.12; 37.7; 42.6.

174

Eupolis

fr. 43 K.-A. (41 K.) ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 808 ὅτι γὰρ ὁ Μελάνθιος ὀψοφάγος, προείρηται. καὶ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις For that Melanthios was a glutton has been said above. Also in Eupolis in Astrateutoi

Discussion Meineke 1939 I.116, 177, II.436; Geissler 1925. 36 n. 2 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Pax 809–10 (referring to Melanthios and his brother, who may or may not be Aeschylus’ grand-nephew Morsimos) Γοργόνες ὀψοφάγοι, βατιδοσκόποι Ἅρπυιαι (“gluttonous Gorgons, skatespying Harpies”). The cross-reference is to ΣRVΓ Pax 803 ὁ δὲ Μελάνθιος κωµῳδεῖται εἰς µαλακίαν καὶ ὀψοφαγίαν (“Melanthios is mocked in comedy for effeminacy and gluttony”), drawing on some Hellenistic or Roman-era list of kômôidoumenoi and citing fr. 178 and Ar. Av. 150–1. It is generally assumed today that a full stop should be placed after προείρηται. This was still an open question in the time of Meineke, who in his first volume followed Clinton in taking the scholion to mean that Astrateutoi antedated Peace (City Dionysia 421 BCE); Meineke explicitly retracts this view at II.436. Geissler nonetheless judges the proposed punctuation impossible and argues for acceptance of Meineke’s (i. e. Clinton’s) original position. Interpretation Melanthios (PA 9767; PAA 638275; TrGF 23) was a tragic poet also mocked in fr. 178 (as a sexual pervert and a flatterer; see n.). His alleged gluttony was notorious enough to have been referred to also at Pherecr. fr. 148; Leuco fr. 3; and in Archippus’ Ichthyes, where he was bound and delivered to the Fish to be eaten by them in return (fr. 28). According to Clearchus fr. 55 Wehrli (ap. Ath. 1.6c; cf. Ath. 12.549a), doubtless drawing directly or indirectly on another comic poet, Melanthios (TrGF 23 T 7a) once prayed to have the neck of a crane or a similar bird, so that he could get the most pleasure possible out of the process of swallowing his food. He is also mentioned at Ar. Av. 150–1; Pl. Com. fr. 140 (a chatterer); Call. Com. fr. 14; see Storey 1988. 380–1. This scholion is his T 3c. On the broad cultural significance of opsophagia, see Davidson 1995. For comic attacks on theatrical figures of all sort, as prominent in the public sphere, see Sommerstein 1996b. 329–30, 348–50. Ar. Pax 1013–14 is supposed to be parody of a passage from Melanthios’ Medea (TrGF 23 T 4), but nothing else from his tragedies survives. Whether he is to be identified with the Melanthios (PAA 638279) who composed elegiac lines addressed to Cimon (thus Ath. 8.343c, followed by PA) is unclear; the name is not rare (almost 20 additional 5th-/4th-century examples in LGPN II), making this far from a safe assumption. See Dihle 1976. 144–8.

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 44)

175

fr. 44 K.-A. (40 K.) ΣV Ar. Pax 348 (= 348e Holwerda) αὐτοῦ µέµνηται ὁ κωµικὸς ἐν Ἱππεῦσι (562) καὶ Νεφέλαις (fr. 397) καὶ Βαβυλωνίοις (fr. 88), Εὔπολις Ἀστρατεύτοις The comic poet mentions (Phormio) in Knights (562) and Clouds (fr. 397) and Babylônioi (fr. 88), (as does) Eupolis in Astrateutoi

Citation context A gloss on Ar. Pax 346–7b πολλὰ γὰρ ἀνεσχόµην / πράγµατά τε καὶ στιβάδας, / ἃς ἔλαχε Φορµίων (“For I endured much trouble and pallet-beds, which Phormio got as his lot”; an unhappy reminiscence of military duty), presumably drawn from a Hellenistic or Roman-era list of kômôidoumenoi. Fr. 274 is preserved near the beginning of the note, while fr. 138 is preserved at the end. Interpretation Phormio son of Asopios of the deme Paianea (PA 1498; PAA 963060)—one of the central characters in Taxiarchoi (see the general introduction to that play)—served as general in 440/39 BCE against the Samians (Th. 1.117.2; IG I3 48.42–3 (restored)) and perhaps earlier as well (Th. 2.68.7 with Gomme 1956. 416; Hornblower 1991. 353–4). He was also elected to the post several times at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War (e. g. Th. 1.64.2; 2.29.6), his greatest success during it being two successive defeats of much larger Peloponnesian fleets in the Corinthian Gulf in summer 429 BCE (Th. 2.68.7). Thucydides’ final mention of Phormio is in spring 428 BCE (2.103), when he returned to Athens from Acarnania, and the Acarnanians’ request that summer that the Athenians send them his son or kinsman (Th. 3.7.1) might reasonably be taken to suggest that he was dead by then, despite the cluster of references to him (collected in the scholion on Peace) in Aristophanes in the mid- to late 420s BCE. Certainly Phormio was deceased by 411 BCE, when he is described admiringly in retrospect at Ar. Lys. 801–4 as having been “rough and black-assed to all his/our enemies, like Myronides”. Androtion FGrH 324 F 8 reports that at some point Phormio failed the audit (euthynai) that followed a term in office and refused to serve again as general until the Athenians paid the fine for him, making it clear that not all the contemporary references were necessarily laudatory. For various memorials to Phormio, see Paus. 1.29.3 (his tomb by the Academy Road just outside the Athenian city walls, next to those of Pericles and Chabrias); 10.11.6 (an epigram in his honor inscribed on the Stoa of the Athenians in Delphi); and cf. Lech 2009.

176

Eupolis

fr. 45 K.-A. (39 K.) ΣBCVΦΩ Luc. Alex. 4 (p. 181.12–16 Rabe) ὁ Φρυνώνδας ἐπὶ πονηρίᾳ βοᾶταιBCVΦΩ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις, ∆ήµοις (fr. 139), Ἀριστοφάνει δὲ Προάγωνι (fr. 484), Ἀµφιαράῳ (fr. 26), Θεσµοφοριαζούσαις (861)BΦΩ Phrynondas is celebrated for wickednessBCVΦΩ by Eupolis in Astrateutoi, Dêmoi (fr. 139), and by Aristophanes in Proagôn (fr. 484), Amphiaraos (fr. 26), Thesmophoriazusae (861)BΦΩ

Citation context Apparently drawn from Phrynichus, the surviving epitomized version of whose note (PS p. 124.9–10) reads: Φρυνώνδειον· οἷον πανοῦργον. Φρυνώνδας γὰρ ἐπὶ πονηρίᾳ διεβεβόητο (“Phrynondian: goodfor-nothing, as it were. Because Phrynondas was celebrated for wickedness”). Another version of the same note, in this case lacking the reference to Eupolis, is preserved at Phot. (ined.) = Suda φ 770 Φρυνώνδας· τῶν ἐπὶ πονηρίᾳ διαβεβοηµένων. ὃς ξένος ὢν κατὰ τὰ Πελοποννησιακὰ διέτριβεν Ἀθήνησιν. Ἀριστοφάνης Ἀµφιάρεῳ (fr. 26)· ――. ἐκ τούτου τοὺς πονηροὺς Φρυνώνδας καλοῦσι (“Phrynondas: one of those celebrated for wickedness. He was a foreigner who during the Peloponnesian War years spent time in Athens. Aristophanes in Amphiaraos (fr. 26): ――. By reference to him they call wicked people Phrynondas”; from the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ΄΄). Cf. Harp. p. 303.10–11 = Φ 30 Keaney Φρυνώνδας· Αἰσχίνης κατὰ Κτησιφῶντος (3.137). ἦν δὲ Ἀθηναίοις περιβόητος ἐπὶ πονηρίᾳ, οὐδὲν ἧττον Εὐρυβάτου (“Phrynondas: Aeschines Against Ctesiphon (3.137). He was notorious in Athens for wickedness, no less so than Eurybatus”); Suetonius, περὶ βλασφηµίας 4.20 Φρυνώνδας· ἐπὶ πανουργίᾳ καὶ κακοηθείᾳ περιβόητος (“Phrynondas: notorious for worthlessness and nastiness”); Hsch. φ 938 Φρυνώνδας· πονηρούς (“Phrynondas: wicked people”); Synag. φ 211 Φρυνώνδας· τοὺς πονηρούς, ἀπὸ Φρυνώνδα τινός (“Phrynondas: wicked people, from a certain Phrynondas”). Interpretation The name Phrynondas appears on a mid-5th-c. ostrakon (Agora 25 no. 660; see SEG XLI 16(i) with further bibliography) Φρυνονδ[ --- ] Κρατεσ[---] / Ἀθµο[νεύς] (PAA 966060), but is otherwise unknown in Athens. Perhaps this Phrynondas (a citizen) lent his name to the notorious villain (PA 15033; PAA 966050) mentioned by Eupolis, Aristophanes and a scattering of 4th-century sources (Isoc. 18.57; Pl. Prt. 327d; Aeschin. 3.137) echoed by Lucian in the passage glossed in the source-text here; or perhaps the ostrakon is allusive, the real identity of the individual in question being made clear by his patronymic and deme. If the identification of the villainous Phrynondas

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 46)

177

as a foreigner in Photius = Suda has any substantial textual basis, at any rate, it may be in a comic slander (cf. fr. 61 n.) taken literally by a Hellenistic or Roman-era scholar. The Suda entry continues with what appears to be a second note drawn from an Atticist lexicon compiled by Eudemus of Argos (RE Eudemos 15): κακοήθης ὁ Φρυνώνδας οὗτος καὶ πανοῦργος, µισθοῦ τινας µηχανὰς πραγµάτων ἐπὶ κακοῖς ῥᾳδίως συντιθείς, ὥς φησιν Εὔδηµος. καὶ αὖθις· ἀλλ’ οἶµαι οὔτε Φρυνώνδας οὔτ’ Εὐρύβατος οὐδ’ ἄλλος πώποτε τῶν πάλαι πονηρῶν τοιοῦτος µάγος καὶ γόης (“This Phrynondas was nasty and a good-for-nothing, who for a price easily put certain schemes together for evil purposes, as Eudemus says. And again: ‘But I think that neither Phrynondas nor Eurybatus nor any other ancient villain was such an impostor and cheat’”). For Eurybatus, cf. Ar. fr. 198; D. 18.24; Ephor. FGrH 70 F 58a (identifying him as an Ephesian sent by Croesus to raise an army against Cyrus, but who then turned the money over to Cyrus; “and from this ponêroi are called ‘Eurybatus’”); Phillips 1990. 129–31.

fr. 46 K.-A. (3 Dem. = adesp. com. fr. 839 K.) Phot. α 1764 ἀ ν δ ρ ό γ υ ν ο ν ἄ θ υ ρ µ α· Εὔπολις ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις. ἀνδρογύνους δὲ ἔλεγον τοὺς ἄνδρας µὲν τὸ σῶµα φύντας, εἰς γυναῖκας δὲ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἀφέντας καὶ τὰς τούτων ἐπιτηδεύσεις ἐπιτηδεύοντας ἀνδρόγυνον Phot. : ἀνδρογύνων Wilamowitz a n a n d r o g y n o u s b a u b l e: Eupolis in Astrateutoi. They used the term androgynoi for men who were physically male, but who made themselves into women and adopted their practices

Meter Probably iambic trimeter, e. g. 〈xlkl x〉|lkr klk〈l〉 Discussion Wilamowitz 1962 (1907). 531–2; Srebrny 1922. 84–5 Citation context Drawn from Phrynichus, the preserved (epitomized) version of whose note (PS p. 17.13–14) reads simply ἀνδρόγυνον ἄθυρµα· εἰ θέλοις γύννιν τινὰ σκῶψαι, χρήσαιο ἄν (“an androgynous bauble: if you would like to mock someone as a pansy, you could use [this term]”). Similar material is preserved at Hsch. α 4745 ἀνδρόγυνος· ὁ ἑρµαφρόδιτος καὶ ὁ ἀσθενής (“androgynos: a hermaphrodite and a weakling”); Phot. α 1763 = Suda α 2177 = Synag. α 560 ἀνδρογύνων· ἀσθενῶν, γυναικῶν καρδίας ἐχόντων

178

Eupolis

(“androgynoi: weak men, with the hearts of women”; from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄). The Suda entry adds before this: ἀνδρόγυνος· ὁ ∆ιόνυσος, ὡς καὶ τὰ ἀνδρῶν ποιῶν καὶ τὰ γυναικῶν πάσχων. ἢ ἄνανδρος, καὶ ἑρµαφρόδιτος (“androgynos: Dionysus, as both doing what men do and enduring what women endure (sc. sexually). Or someone who is no man, and a hermaphrodite”). Cf. also Ael.Dion. α 177. Text Wilamowitz, comparing the entry in Photius = Suda = Synagoge, proposed ἀνδρογύνων “to mend the quantity of the omicron”. But no change is necessary. Interpretation A disparaging description of someone “unmanly” but simultaneously—i. e. on that account—attractive; cf. fr. 368 with n. ἀνδρόγυνον First attested here and at Hdt. 4.67.2, and explicitly treated as abusive at Pl. Smp. 189e νῦν δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλλ’ ἢ ἐν ὀνείδει ὄνοµα κείµενον (“But now it is a name used only in reproach”; from the speech of “Aristophanes”), as also at Aeschin. 2.127 ὁµολόγησον ἀνδρόγυνος εἶναι καὶ µὴ ἐλεύθερος (“Admit that you’re an androgynos and not a free man!”); Men. Asp. 242; Sam. 69; cf. Kapparis 2011. 244–5. ἄθυρµα (“plaything, bauble, trinket”; 〈 ἀθύρω, “play”) is something trivial in which a person nonetheless takes delight. Exclusively poetic vocabulary (e. g. Il. 15.363; hDem. 16; Sapph. fr. 44.9; Pi. P. 5.23; E. fr. 272; Cratin. fr. 152; Crates Com. fr. 23 ἀφροδισίοις ἀθύρµασιν); see Komornicka 1981. 68.

fr. 47 K.-A. Phot. ε 563 ἐ λ ά φ ε ι α· τὰς ἐλαφείους ἀστραγάλους. οὕτως Εὔπολις (Tsantsanoglou : ἄπολις Phot.) Ἀστρατεύτοις e l a p h e i a: knucklebones from deer (elaphoi). Thus Eupolis (thus Tsantsanoglou : apolis Phot.) in Astrateutoi

Discussion Tsantsanoglou 1984. 118 Citation context The title of the play puts Tsantsanoglou’s correction of the paradosis ἄπολις to Εὔπολις beyond any reasonable doubt. Hsch. ε 1909 ἐλαφίαι· οἱ τῶν ἐλάφων ἀστράγαλοι (“elaphiai: deer knucklebones”) must be drawn from the same source, presumably an Atticist lexicographer. Interpretation As Tsantsanoglou notes, the use of knucklebones from deer is otherwise unknown, although there are numerous references to knucklebones

Ἀστράτευτοι ἢ Ἀνδρόγυνοι (fr. 47)

179

from δορκάδες (roe-deer or gazelles; e. g. Thphr. Char. 5.9; Plb. 26.1.8), which were larger and showier than regular knucklebones (from sheep or goats); cf. Diggle 2004. 241 with additional primary and secondary references. But the elaphos was also a symbol of a readiness to run from danger (Ar. Nu. 353–4), and an ἐλάφειος ἀνήρ was a coward (Phot. ε 565 = EM p. 326.10–11), so in a play about men who refused to fight (astrateutoi), this may have been the point: elapheia are the type of knucklebones cowards play with. For artistic depictions of warriors shooting dice or playing knucklebones, Paus. 10.31.1; Woodford 1982, esp. 175–7. For the game of knucklebones—which had four scoring sides, valued 1, 3, 4 and 6, which were easily distinguishable and thus required no inscribed numbers, unlike dice (for which, see fr. 372 n., and add to the bibliography cited there Fittà 1997. 110–20)—e. g. Il. 23.88; Hdt. 1.94.3; Ar. V. 295–6 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Pl. Lys. 206e; Alc. I 110b; cf. fr. 209 n.; and see in general Mau 1896; Schmidt 1971. 55–7; Laser 1987. 117–22; Neils 1992. 231–4; Fittà 1997. 120–2; Kurke 1999. 287–97; Bar-Oz 2001. For deer, see Kitchell 2014. 44–6.

180

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (“Autolykos I and II”)

Testimonia test. i Ath. 5.216c–d πάντ’ οὖν ψεύδονται οἱ φιλόσοφοι καὶ πολλὰ παρὰ τοὺς χρόνους γράφοντες οὐκ αἰσθάνονται, καθάπερ οὐδ’ ὁ καλὸς Ξενοφῶν, ὃς ἐν τῷ Συµποσίῳ (1.2) ὑποτίθεται Καλλίαν τὸν Ἱππονίκου Αὐτολύκου τοῦ Λύκωνος ἐρῶντα καὶ νενικηκότος αὐτοῦ παγκράτιον ἑστίασιν ποιούµενον καὶ σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις δαιτυµόσι παρόντα 〈αὑτὸν〉 τὸν ἴσως µηδὲ γεννηθέντα ἢ περὶ τὴν παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν ὑπάρχοντα. ἐστὶν δὲ οὗτος ὁ καιρὸς καθ’ ὃν Ἀριστίων ἄρχων ἦν (421/0 BCE). ἐπὶ τούτου γὰρ Εὔπολις τὸν Αὐτόλυκον διδάξας διὰ ∆ηµοστράτου χλευάζει τὴν νίκην τοῦ Αὐτολύκου The philosophers thus lie about everything and fail to realize that much of what they write is full of anachronisms. The noble Xenophon is unaware of this, for example, in his Symposium (1.2), where he represents Callias the son of Hipponicus as in love with Autolykos the son of Lykon and as giving a feast for him after he won the pankration, and represents 〈himself〉 as present along with the other dinner-guests, although he may well not have been born yet or was only a boy. This is the period when Aristion was eponymous archon (421/0 BCE); because it was in the archonship of this man that Eupolis in staging his Autolykos, using Demostratos as producer, makes fun of Autolykos’ victory

Context Apparently drawn from Herodicus of Babylon’s To the Man Who Likes Socrates (Duering p. 20; late 2nd century BCE), a brutal and highly efficient demonstration of the weakness and self-contradictory nature of the supposed historical underpinnings of Plato’s presentation of Socrates in particular. The chronological information is likely drawn from official city records through Aristotle’s Didaskaliai, to which Herodicus must have had access in the Library in Pergamum, presumably along with the text of Eupolis’ play itself. Interpretation Portions of this testimonium to Autolykos are also presented as test. 13d; 15, and as [fr. 63]. The only substantial information about Eupolis’ play offered by Herodicus, other than the didaskalic details, is that it mocked Autolykos’ victory, a point for which we have no other certain evidence in the fragments.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (test. ii)

181

Demostratos (PAA 319190) is otherwise unknown; the name is common (over 30 other 5th- and 4th-century examples in LGPN II). For the use of theatrical producers, see test. 15 n.

test. ii Galen in Hp. Acut. I.4 (XV p. 424.5–11 Kühn = CMG V 9.1 p. 120.5–10) ἐπιδιεσκευάσθαι λέγεται βιβλίον ἐπὶ τῷ προτέρῳ γεγραµµένῳ τὸ δεύτερον γραφέν, ὅταν τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ἔχον τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ τὰς πλείστας τῶν ῥήσεων τὰς αὐτὰς τινὰ µὲν ἀφῃρηµένα τῶν ἐκ τοῦ προτέρου συγγράµµατος ἔχῃ, τινὰ δὲ προσκείµενα, τινὰ δ’ ὑπηλλαγµένα· παράδειγµα δ’ εἰ βούλει τούτου σαφηνείας ἕνεκα, τὸν δεύτερον Αὐτόλυκον Εὐπόλιδος ἔχεις ἐκ τοῦ προτέρου διεσκευασµένον A book that is rewritten is said to be a revision of the first draft when, although it has the same central idea and most of the words are the same, some portions of the previous composition have been removed, other items have been added, and various changes have been made. If you wish to have an example of this for clarity’s sake, you have Eupolis’ second Autolykos, which is a revision of the first

Context A comment on the word ἐπιδιασκευάσαντες at Hp. Acut. 1 = 2.226.8 Littré, of authors who have “revised” the Κνίδιαι γνῶµαι. Interpretation The testimonium tells us nothing about the contents of either Autolykos play, only that there were two of them (also clear from the citation context of frr. 61; 67; 75) and that the second represented a reworking of the first. See further in the general discussion of the plays below. For similarly vague comments about the differences between the original and revised versions of a text, cf. Hyp. I.1–6 Ar. Nu. on the relationship of Clouds II to the now-lost Clouds I: τοῦτο ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ προτέρῳ, διεσκεύασται δὲ ἐπὶ µέρους … καθόλου µὲν οὖν σχεδὸν παρὰ πᾶν µέρος γεγενηµένη 〈ἡ〉 διόρθωσις … τὰ µὲν γὰρ περιῄρηται, τὰ δὲ παραπέπλεκται καὶ ἐν τῇ τάξει καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν προσώπων διαλλαγῇ µετεσχηµάτισται (“This play is the same as the first, but has been partially revised … The corrections that have been made then generally in almost every part … some portions have been removed, others have been combined, and changes have been made in the structure and in the interaction of the characters”). For Eupolis’ other revisions (no details offered, but referred to in the plural), see test. 14. For revisions of plays generally, see Stemplinger 1912. 215–16.

182

Eupolis

test. dub. iii Valerius Apsines, Ars rhetorica 1.85 Dilts–Kennedy = 1.87 Patillon ἐν ταῖς προσαγγελίαις ἁρµόσει σοι ἐκεῖνο τὸ θεώρηµα, ὅταν ὃ βούλει ὡς ἀναιρῶν τιθῇς. οἷον ὡς ἐπ’ ἐκείνης τῆς ὑποθέσεως· Εὔπολις ἁλοὺς ξενίας δηµοσίᾳ ἐπράθη· πριάµενος αὐτὸν ὁ Λύκων ἐγχειρίζει τὸν παῖδα (codd. : τῷ παιδί Meineke), ὁ δὲ ἑαυτὸν προσαγγέλλει. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς τοιούτοις τῷ θεωρήµατι τούτῳ χρηστέον ᾧ προειρήκαµεν, οὕτω λέγοντα· “οὔτε ἐλευθερίαν πράξων ἐµαυτῷ, οὔθ’ ὅπως ἂν ἀπαλλαγείην τῆς παρούσης ταύτης δουλείας, ὥς τις ἴσως τῶν ἀκουόντων ὑµῶν ὑπολαµβάνει, παρελήλυθα, ἀλλὰ θανάτου δεόµενος” In your self-denunciations, the following scheme will be useful for you, when you put forward what you want as if you were renouncing it. As in the following case: Eupolis was convicted on a charge of falsely claiming Athenian citizenship and was sold. Lykon buys him and turns over his child (codd. : “to his child” Meineke) (to him), and (Eupolis) denounces himself. For in such situations, one must make use of this scheme we described previously, putting it thus: “I am here neither to gain freedom for myself, nor with an eye to getting myself released from my current condition of slavery, as some of you who are listening might suspect, but requesting death”

Discussion Kaibel 1889. 41–2; Storey 2003. 86–8; Totaro 2007. 579 Context From a rhetorical handbook by—or at least attributed to—the 3rdcentury CE orator Apsines of Gadara; for the various problems of authorship, interpolation and the like, see Dilts and Kennedy 1997. xv–xix; Heath 1998a; Kennedy 2004. 306–7. Apsines’ point is that the petitioner in his imaginary, Eupolis-like speech does not actually want to die; what he wants is instead to be released from slavery, but he claims that he desires death in order to make his desperation clear and thus inspire pity. For a more complete account of the rhetorical strategy of self-denunciation (not simply “denunciation”, sc. of others, as in the translations of Storey 2011. 73 and Rusten 2011. 224), see Apsines Ars rhet. 10.35 with Russell 1983. 35–7. Text As the manuscripts have it, Eupolis is given Autolykos, sc. to tutor, as if the comic poet were a typical well-educated Greek slave and Lykon a typical wealthy Roman father determined to get his son an education. Meineke emended the paradosis τὸν παῖδα to τῷ παιδί (“entrusted (him) to his son”), allowing for the assumption that Eupolis made the speech he did because he was cruelly handled by Autolykos, sc. out of revenge for the content of his comedy or comedies. But this is to twist the text to make it say what we think it should, and what Eupolis complains about is in fact not how he is treated but simply the fact that he is a slave.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (Introduction)

183

Interpretation A ludicrous story, which tells us little except that a tradition of hostility between Eupolis, on the one hand, and Lykon and Autolykos, on the other hand, most naturally traced to a vague, general recollection of the plot of the Autolykos plays (cf. test. i χλευάζει τὴν νίκην τοῦ Αὐτολύκου, “(Eupolis) makes fun of Autolykos’ victory”), persisted into the Imperial period. Cf. the equally ridiculous tale about the supposed conflict between Alcibiades and Eupolis over Baptai (test. iii–vi). For the charge of ξενία (in this case followed by conviction and sale, the penalty in such cases), cf. the similarly spurious account of Cleon’s attack on Aristophanes in the aftermath of the staging of Babylonians in the anonymous Life (Ar. test. 1.19) ~ ΣREΓ Ar. Ach. 378.

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1826 I.41–2; Runkel 1829. 94–5; Bergk 1838. 342–7; Meineke 1839 I.116–18; Stiévenant 1849. 125–6; Wilamowitz 1870. 41–9; Wilamowitz 1873. 145–6; Kock 1880 I.267–8; Brandes 1886. 39–40; MüllerStrübing 1890. 545–6; Zelle 1892. 47–8; Kaibel 1907 p. 1233.29–44; Breitenbach 1908. 15–19; Geissler 1925. 42–3; Emonds 1941. 341; Schiassi 1944. 95–9; Schmid 1946. 122–3; Storey 1990. 28–9; Chiavarino 1995. 18; Fisher 2000. 375; Storey 2003. 81–94; Nesselrath 2005; Kyriakidi 2007. 141–5; Storey 2011. 68–9; Zimmermann 2011. 748–9; Marshall 2012. 58–9 Title The plays are most naturally taken to be named after Autolykos the son of Lykon (see Content),90 seemingly confirming Herodicus’ claim (test. i) that he was their major target (or at least among their targets). All of Eupolis’ other comedies except Marikas and Chrysoun genos have titles in the plural, presumably reflecting the identity of their choruses, and Chrysoun genos may well mean “Members of the Golden Race”, leaving Marikas as the only other exception to the rule. In the latter case, the play’s divided chorus perhaps made the standard naming strategy too cumbersome to adopt. Whether this was also true of the Autolykos plays is impossible to say, since we have no hints as to the chorus’ identity. Müller-Strübing thought that Autolykos I might be identical with Kolakes, Autolykos II identical with Philoi. As Breitenbach and Geissler note, in that case one would expect occasional ancient references to the plays by a double-title (cf. Aristophanes’ Dramata ê Niobos, Dramata ê Kentauros; Philyllios’ Nausikaa ê Plyntriai), which we do not have. 90

Not to be confused with the hero Autolykos of Sinope (one of the Argonauts), as in Firicel-Dana 2007. 517 n. 18.

184

Eupolis

Late 5th-/early 4th-century comedies named after real contemporary individuals (i. e. rather than mythological figures) are rare, although cf. Phrynichus’ and Ameipsias’ Konnos; Pherecrates’ Koriannô; Plato Comicus’ Kleophôn, Hyperbolos and Peisandros; and Strattis’ Kinêsias. Personal names shared by real historical individuals and mythological characters are also extremely uncommon in this period. It is thus worth considering the possibility (mooted at Storey 2003. 85–6) that the title-character of Eupolis’ play was—superficially, at least—not Autolykos the son of Lykon but Autolykos the father of Odysseus and arch-liar and -thief (Od. 19.394–7; for stories associated with Autolykos, see in general Gantz 1993. 109–10; Mangidis 2003. 71–107). It is accordingly intriguing that the most substantial surviving fragment of Euripides’ satyr-play Autolykos—of which there are also supposed to have been two versions, neither dated—is specifically an attack on athletes (fr. 282). Euripides and Eupolis are sometimes confused in the manuscript tradition (see fr. 430 n.), and the disturbing possibility emerges that some of the fragments treated here might belong to the tragic poet and/or vice versa.91 Content The victory of Autolykos son of Lykon of the deme Thorikos (PA 2748; PAA 239835) in the boy’s pankration at the Panathenaic festival probably in 422 BCE92 (cf. Ath. 5.187f) is the occasion for the—clearly at least partially fictionalized—dinner party described in Xenophon’s Symposium, for which Autolykos’ lover Callias III son of Hipponicus II (see introductory note to Kolakes, Content) served as host. Xenophon (Smp. 1.8) calls Autolykos beautiful and modest, and the first point at least may well be accurate. Nothing else is known of his life until he became embroiled in a very public quarrel with Eteonicus of Sparta (Poralla #283)93 over a bit of real estate when 91

92 93

Were the other three fragments of Euripides’ Autolykos-plays assigned by the manuscripts of the authorities that transmit them to Eupolis instead, it seems unlikely that any questions would be raised about their authorship: frr. 282a (ap. Phot. α 1760) µηδὲν τῷ πατρί / µέµφεσθ’ ἄωρον ἀποκαλοῦντες ἀνδρίον (“find no fault with your father by denouncing him as a out-of-date little man!”); 283 (ap. Poll. 10.111) τοὺς ὄνους τοὺς λαρκαγωγοὺς ἐξ ὄρους οἴσειν ξύλα (“the donkeys fitted with charcoal-baskets will bring wood from the mountain”); 284 (ap. Poll. 10.178) † σχοινίνας γὰρ ἵπποισι φλοΐνας ἡνίας πλέκει † (“† for he/she is weaving reins made of phloos-reeds for horses †”). The claim that there were two versions of Euripides’ satyr play may well also represent confusion with Eupolis’ comedy. Not 421 BCE (Rusten 2011. 224), when the festival—held only every fourth year— was not celebrated. Poralla omits mention of this incident. Eteonicus had apparently been nauarch in 406/5 BCE and was therefore ineligible to serve again in 405/4 BCE, making him subordinate to Lysander. Whether he was partially responsible for Autolykos’

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (Introduction)

185

the Spartan nauarch Lysander was still in Athens in 404 BCE, after Athens had been defeated in the Peloponnesian War; when Eteonicus lost the case in court, made further trouble and finally appealed to Lysander, Lysander unexpectedly sided with Autolykos (Paus. 9.32.8). Plu. Lys. 15.5 reports that Autolykos was executed in 404 BCE by the Thirty Tyrants “as a favor to Kallibios” the Spartan harmost (Poralla #405), in connection with which event D.S. 14.5.7 calls Autolykos ἀνὴρ παρρησιαστής, “an outspoken individual”. Autolykos’ victory in the pankration was commemorated by a statue by the important mid-4th-century sculptor Leochares that stood in the Prytaneion in Athens (Paus. 1.18.3; 9.32.8; Plin. Nat. 34.79).94 As Lippold 1925. 1994–5 saw, the commissioning of the statue by a prominent artist fifty years or so after the subject’s death, along with the placement of it in the administrative center of the city rather than on the Acropolis, where statues of victorious athletes normally were erected, suggests that this was not a simple victory monument set up by a later generation of the family as a way of proclaiming their own significance, but a retrospective public recognition of Autolykos’ status as a hero of the Athenian democratic resistance to tyranny and something approaching an apology for how he had been treated. For Autolykos’ father Lykon (PA 9271; PAA 611820), see fr. 61 n. For his mother, see also frr. 232; 295 with n. Herodicus—drawing on what sources, we do not know, although it is a reasonable assumption that he had a copy of one of the plays—claims that Autolykos I targeted the title-character’s Panathenaic victory. Beyond that, we know next to nothing of the plot of either version of the comedy,95 although fr. 48, especially if it comes from the prologue, makes it a reasonable guess that it/they involved the interlocked affairs of three different households; cf. the seemingly explicit echo of fr. 52 in fr. 53, which might be taken to support the

94 95

execution later in 404, after Lysander had left the city, is impossible to say, although Diodorus Siculus seems to imply that Autolykos became a general thorn in the Spartans’ side, and Kallibios may have wanted to be rid of him on that account alone. Vatin’s claim to have inscriptional evidence for the presence of a copy of this statue at Delphi is probably not to be taken seriously; see SEG XXIV 380. Despite Schiassi, who imagines a bitter, ugly satire of the alleged degeneracy of Autolykos and his family (although without much comment on what actually went on onstage), and Fisher, whose arguments mostly have to do in one way or another with how Callias was presented in the play—despite the fact that we have no evidence that he was a character or even mentioned in the course of it.

186

Eupolis

notion that there was parallel action in two different settings.96 Wilamowitz took the three residences/doors to represent brothels run by each of the three members of Lykon’s family, which can only be described as a reckless and unlikely guess, even if a number of the fragments of the plays do touch on sex in one way or another (frr. 54; 64 with n.; 65; 69; 75). Date A play entitled Autolykos by Eupolis is firmly dated by Herodicus (test. i) to 420 BCE (festival unknown), and the information finds further support in fr. 62, which shows that it was staged after—most likely very shortly after—Aristophanes’ Peace (City Dionysia 421 BCE). Autolykos’ victory at the Panathenaea is dated only by reference to Eupolis’ play, and Meineke 1826 I.42 suggests that this might mean that his triumph came in 426 BCE and that the play for which Herodicus supplies a date is Autolykos II. This would put Autolykos I before Aristophanes’ Wasps rather than after it, and would allow the remarks at Ar. V. 1024–5 (422 BCE) to refer to something Eupolis said in that play (fr. 65 with n.), perhaps specifically about the beautiful and desirable Autolykos in particular. But Xenophon appears to think that Callias was in charge of the house at the time of Autolykos’ victory, meaning that his father Hipponicus II must have been dead, putting the story in the second half of the 420s BCE (see introductory note to Kolakes, Content) and making it far more likely that the play staged in 420 BCE was Autolykos I. Autolykos II can be placed precisely in 411 BCE if one assumes both that fr. 49 (n.) belongs to the revised version of the play rather than the original and that Aristarchus had never been general before that year. The latter in particular is not a safe assumption, and if Autolykos I failed to take the prize and the failure motivated the partial rewrite (as is generally assumed), one would expect Autolykos II to date only a few years after the original. Otherwise, the play can only be dated sometime between the performance of Autolykos I and Eupolis’ death likely in the late 410s BCE—assuming that it was actually performed, as Clouds II notoriously was not. For further discussion of the date of the Autolykos plays, 96

Storey 2003. 86–9 generates an elaborate theory about the content of the Autolykos, hypothesizing that it involved a trial between two slaves standing in for the comic poets Aristophanes and Eupolis and featuring inter alia a talking dog. This is a clever and occasionally amusing fantasy, but should not be taken seriously or used as a basis for further such constructions; see Introduction Section 4 on the problem of reconstructing lost comedies, and cf. the judgments of Nesselrath 2005 “This is admittedly an ingenious construction, but one may well ask whether it is adequately supported by the evidence available to us”; Kyriakidi 2007. 145 “Die Interpretation Storeys ist also eine ingeniöse Idee, die aber Eupolis anscheinend nicht hatte”.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 48)

187

see Geissler 1925. 42–3; Storey 1990. 28–9; Storey 2003. 81–4; Kyriakidi 2007. 21–2. The following have also been associated with Autolykos: frr. 388 (Patzer 1994. 74–5); 392 (Storey).

Fragments fr. 48 K.-A. (42 K.) οἰκοῦσι δ’ ἐνθάδ’ ἐν τρισὶν καλιδίοις, οἴκηµ’ ἔχων ἕκαστος And they live here in three little shanties, each person having a residence Poll. 10.160–1 καὶ καλιὰ δὲ καὶ καλιὸς ὁ τοιοῦτος οἰκίσκος, ὡς Κρατῖνος Θρᾴτταις (fr. 74)· ――. ἤδη δὲ καὶ τὸν πρὸς οἰκήσεις ἐπιτήδειον οὕτω λέγουσιν, ὡς ἐν Ἐλπίδι Ἐπιχάρµου εἴρηται (fr. 36)· ――. ἐν δὲ Εὐπόλιδος Αὐτολύκῳ· ―― Both kalia and kalios are used for a small house of this sort,97 as Cratinus (says) in Thraittai (fr. 74): ――. But they actually also refer thus to (a little house) appropriate for living in, as is said in Epicharmus’ Elpis (fr. 36): ――. And in Eupolis’ Autolykos: ――

97

I. e. something like a κύρτη, which Pollux describes as ἀγγεῖόν τι, οἷον οἰκίσκος ὀρνίθειος (“a vessel of some sort, like a bird-house”; the manuscripts offer σιδηρᾶ ἀγγεῖόν, “an iron vessel of some sort”, but σιδηρᾶ appears to be intrusive from above and was deleted by Reitzenstein). What Pollux means by this is clearly “a cage”, as is shown by the reference to Hdt. 1.191.5 (if the Babylonians had known what Cyrus was planning when he attacked their city, they would have let the Persian troops move inside the walls along the bed of the Euphrates and then have trapped them between it and the high river-walls on either side of it, since by so doing ἔλαβον ἄν σφεας ὡς ἐν κύρτῃ, “they would have caught them as if in a kurtê”) that follows, as well as by what must be other glosses on the Cratinus fragment at Hsch. κ 452 and Phot. κ 117 (quoted in Citation context). LSJ s. v. κύρτη 1 “weel, lobster pot” depends on the notion that what Herodotus means is that the water would have come up again and the Persians would have been stranded in it, which is not what Herodotus says; Montanari s. v. κύρτη “trap, used by a fisherman, Archil. 273 (or cage, for birds), Hdt. 1.191.5” merely jumbles the various texts and definitions together. LSJ s. v. κύρτη 2 “bird-cage, Archil[ochus]” (= fr. 273 West2, drawn from the same section of Pollux, immediately after the citation of

188

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl k|lkl klkl llkl klk|〈l xlkl〉 Discussion Wilamowitz 1870. 50; Wilamowitz 1873. 145; Pickard-Cambridge 1946. 59; Storey 2003. 93–4 Citation context From a discussion of words for bird-houses, pig-pens and the like, in the course of the long catalogue of σκεύη (“gear, equipment” vel sim.) of various sorts that makes up Pollux Book 10. Related material, seemingly offering a different interpretation of Cratin. fr. 74, is preserved at Hsch. κ 452 καλιός· τὸ δεσµωτήριον. καὶ ξύλον, ᾧ ἐδέοντο. καὶ οἱ µικροὶ οἶκοι καλιαὶ καὶ καλίδια (“kalios: a prison. And stocks are the means by which they were restrained. And kaliai and kalidia are small houses”); Phot. κ 117 καλιός· ξύλινον δεσµωτήριον (“kalios: a wooden prison”). Given that καλίδιον is attested nowhere else outside of the lexicographers (see Interpretation), Phot. κ 116 καλίδιον· µικρὸν οἴκηµα is likely another reference to this verse. Text Kassel–Austin place no comma at the end of 1, which makes the shift from plural (1) to singular (2) unnecessarily difficult. Interpretation A description of three previously identified individuals, perhaps from a prologue speech in which the speaker explains the setting (i. e. the significance of the three doors in the scaenae frons) to the audience in the Theater. If so, the three individuals in question must have been important characters in the action. Wilamowitz thought of Lykon, Lykon’s wife (cf. fr. 58) and their son Autolykos, each of whom, he suggested, was running a personal brothel (οἴκηµα; cf. below). It is easier to believe that Lykon’s entire family lives in a single shanty, although who lives in the other two is unclear; one obvious candidate is Callias, although the fragments make no obvious mention of him. The characterization of the residences as καλίδια (“shanties, shacks, huts” or the like), at any rate, marks these accommodations as extremely down-market. 2 is essentially a clarification of or gloss on 1 rather than new information: the individuals in question live in three καλίδια (1)—not altogether, however,

Herodotus) thus gets the the word wrong by mistaking Pollux’ “like a bird-house” for a definition. At Nic. Al. 625 (miscited at Montanari s. v. κύρτη as “Nic. Al. 546”), a σχοινίδι κύρτῃ is a strainer made of reeds ~ a colander. See in general Olson 2017. For Cratin. fr. 74, see n. 101.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 48)

189

but each in his or her own residence (suggesting that this is somehow contrary to expectation?). 1 καλίδιον (attested nowhere else except in the lexicographic notes cited in Citation context98) is 〈 καλιά (etymology uncertain), a word found in Hesiod four times referring to a granary (Op. 301, 307, 374, 411) and once to something slaves will need to have in the winter, apparently a shelter in which they can huddle together to keep warm at night (Op. 503; cf. West 1978 ad loc.). The Hellenistic poets pick καλιά up as an epicism, but mostly use it to mean the “nest” of a bird or other wild creature (Theoc. 29.12: Lyc. 602; Call. h. 3.96), which is what the word means in 4th-century prose (Ctes. FGrH 688 F 45h.15; Arist. fr. 346 Rose ~ fr. 256 Gigon) as well as in Aesop (e. g. fab. 1.15 Hausrath–Hunger). Apollonius Rhodius, on the other hand, has it in its Hesiodic sense at 1.170 (a storage space of some sort, where an object can be concealed) and 4.1095 (specifically a granary, but used to imprison a person), while Callimachus in Hecale uses it for a hut (fr. 263.3 Pfeiffer = 80.4 Hollis). The latter must be something like the sense of the word in Epich. fr. 36 τὸν τοῦ γείτονος καλιόν (“the neighbor’s kalios”), at least as Pollux would have it, and of the diminutive form in Eupolis; cf. Hsch. κ 450 καλιοί· τὰ εὐτελῆ οἰκήµατα (“kalioi: cheap little rooms/houses”). The basic meaning of καλιά is clearly a shelter roughly constructed by weaving together sticks and other, softer material, thus both “nest” and “shanty”; cf. Phot. κ 112 = Suda κ 211 = Synag. κ 49 καλιά· νεοσσιά (sic Synag. : νοσσιἀ Suda et Phot.). ἢ οἶκος ξύλινος κυρίως· κᾶλα γὰρ τὰ ξύλα (“kalia: brooding-nests. Or properly a house made of wood; because kâla are pieces of wood”;99 from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄) ~ Hsch. κ 438; καλιάς as a word for a small storage unit at IG II2 1424a.354 (containing a libation vessel); 1533.4–5 (containing a πρόσωπον µικρόν, “small bust”);100 and καλιός seemingly meaning “bird-cage” in Cratin. fr. 74 (also quoted by Pollux) ἐς τὸν καλιόν, ἢν τύχῃ, καθείργνυται (“it has been shut up in the kalios, perhaps”101). 98

99 100 101

LSJ s. v. cites the word as a likely reading (“prob.”) also at adesp. com. fr. 1335 K. = Poll. 8.121 τὸ Μητίχου κάλλιον emended to τὸ Μητίχου καλιόν. Kassel–Austin ignore Kock’s proposal at adesp. com. fr. *741, not without reason. The initial alpha in καλιά is short, making the proposed etymology impossible. Cf. Hsch. κ 438 καὶ ξύλινά τινα 〈…〉 περιέχοντα ἀγάλµατα εἰδώλων (“Also certain wooden 〈…〉 containing statues of idols”). In contrast to Pollux, Hesychius ~ Photius (cited in Citation context), apparently referring to the same line, gloss καλιός as meaning “a prison” (i. e. a prison cell or prison cage; cf. Storey 2011 I.309 “He has been shut up in prison, if it should happen”, the first half of which, at least, is on this thesis close to correct). Pollux may thus have misunderstood his source; or perhaps he is right and Hesychius

190

Eupolis

2 An οἴκηµ(α) is simply “that in which one lives” (〈 οἰκέω; for nouns in -µα generally, see fr. 167 n.; Long 1968. 18–21), and thus a “room” (as at Men. Sam. 234, the only other attestation in comedy) or a “residence”. But the word can also have the specific (euphemistic) sense “brothel”, i. e. “house (of ill repute), (whore-)house” (LSJ s. v. II.1); see the general introduction to the play for Wilamowitz’s imaginative thesis according to which Lykon, Autolykos and Lykon’s wife “Rhodia” were all actively involved in the sex-trade. For ἕκαστος with a plural verb, e. g. Ar. frr. 67.1 ἀνέχασκον εἷς ἕκαστος; 522 λαµβάνετε κόλλαβον ἕκαστος, and see in general fr. 118 n.

fr. 49 K.-A. (43 K.) ἤδη γὰρ Ἀρίσταρχον στρατηγοῦντ’ ἄχθοµαι for I’m really upset about Aristarchos serving as general ΣbT Il. 13.353 λείπει τὸ ὁρῶν.bT ἔστι δὲ τὸ τῆς φράσεως ἀρχαῖον. Εὔπολις ἐν Αὐτολύκοις· ――T The word “seeing” (nom.) is missing.bT But the manner of expression is an old one. Eupolis in Autolykos: ――T

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llrl llkl l|lkl Citation context A note on Il. 13.351–3 Ἀργείους δὲ Ποσειδάων ὀρόθυνε µετελθών / …· ἤχθετο γάρ ῥα / Τρωσὶν δαµναµένους (“But Poseidon followed the Argives and roused them on …; for he was upset at them being overcome by the Trojans”); only the T-scholion preserves the reference to Eupolis. There is similar material in the A-scholion on Il. 13.351–3, and van Thiel 2014 ad loc. traces the note to the 2nd-century BCE Homeric scholar Aristarchus of Samothrace. Text The line lacks a normal caesura, presumably as a consequence of the need to accommodate the personal name; cf. fr. 76 n. (discussing metrically even more problematic situations); Introduction Section 7.

and Photius are wrong. “He is locked up in a cabin, if he succeeds” (Rusten 2011. 187) is in any case incorrect on all counts.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 49)

191

Interpretation An explanation of some preceding remark (hence γάρ). A man named Aristarchos (PA 1663; PAA 164155) was general in 411 BCE and is described by Thucydides as an extreme oligarch (8.90.1; cf. X. HG 1.7.28); Aristophanes mentions him in fr. 564 (from Triphalês), apparently in reference to events of the same year. As Eupolis was almost certainly dead by then, the generalship referred to here must have come earlier, as a consequence of which it is impossible to know whether the fragment is from Autolykos I or Autolykos II, and it is of no help in dating the latter in particular; see the general introduction to the play, Date. Aristarchos was executed by the people probably in 406 BCE and denied burial in Attica (Lycurg. Leoc. 115). Davies 1971. 48 speculates that he might be identified with the Aristarchos of the deme Dekeleia (PA 1663; PAA 164295) who is mentioned at IG II2 2318.589 Millis–Olson as the victorious chorêgos for boy’s dithyramb at the City Dionysia in 421 BCE. For generals and the generalship—an elective office, meaning that what the speaker must really be upset about is that the Athenian people have chosen someone like this to serve (cf. fr. 219)—see fr. 384 n. (Vol. III p. 119). ἤδη serves as a colloquial intensifier (see fr. *60 n.) and here must go with the final verbal element in the line102, as at Ar. fr. 480.2 ἤδη γὰρ αὐτοὺς οἴοµαι δεδειπνάναι (“for I think they’re quite done with dinner”). ἄχθοµαι generally takes the dative of the person or object with which the subject of the verb is displeased (e. g. Od. 14.366; Pherecr. fr. 162.9–10; Hdt. 6.35.3; Ar. Ach. 1100; Nu. 865; E. Hipp. 1402; Th. 8.87.1), but is occasionally supplemented by a form of ὁράω + accusative (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 162.2; S. Ph. 671; E. Alc. 815), as the authorities to whom Aristarchus is implicitly responding must have noted. fr. 50a K.-A. (44 K.) ὁτιὴ τὰ πατρῷα πρὸς σὲ καταδιέφθορα ὁτιὴ Bergk : ὅτι ἢ Zon.L : ὅτι Zon.cett.

that I’ve utterly and completely wasted my inheritance on you

102

Cf. Storey 2011. 73 “I already hate Aristarchus as general”, although he misses the sense of the adverb.

192

Eupolis

Zonaras p. 548.3–9 διέφθορεν. οὐ τὸ διέφθαρται δηλοῖ παρὰ Ἀττικοῖς ἀλλὰ τὸ διέφθαρκεν. Εὔπολις (fr. 367)· ――. καὶ ἐν Αὐτολύκῳ· ――. ὅµοιον γάρ ἐστι τὸ διέφθορε τῷ κατέσπορε καὶ ἀπέκτονεν diephthoren. In Attic authors this means not diephthartai (“has been corrupted”) but diephtharken (“has corrupted”). Eupolis (fr. 367): ――. And in Autolykos: ――. Because diephthore is like katespore and apektonen

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl k|lk|r klkl Discussion Runkel 1829. 96; Bergk 1838. 344; Storey 2003. 92 Citation context See fr. 367 Citation context for full discussion. The comparison to κατέσπορε and ἀπέκτονεν has to do not with the sense of the verbs but with the way the perfect actives are formed (from κατασπείρω and ἀποκτείνω, respectively). Alpers traces the note to Orus (A 29). Text ὅτι τὰ (the reading in all but one manuscript of Zonaras) is metrically unproblematic in and of itself (White 1912 § 105.i), but in divided tribrachs of this sort the two words generally go closely together (White 1912 § 106), as they do not in this case; cf. fr. 55 Text. It is difficult to believe that L’s ὅτι ἢ τὰ conceals a legitimate variant (as opposed to a casual mistake), given that all other manuscripts of Zonaras agree against it. I nonetheless follow Kassel–Austin in printing Bergk’s ὁτιὴ τὰ on the theory that ὁτιή might easily have been driven out by the far more common ὅτι here, as it certainly was elsewhere (e. g. Ephipp. fr. 21.4). Interpretation A hostile remark—or at least a complaint—directed at another character.103 As this is a dependent clause, the charge may not come from the speaker himself, but might be a report of what someone else says or believes, in which case the speaker may actually feel that his money was well spent. Given fr. 50b and the parallels for the use of τὰ πατρῷα cited below, the addressee might easily be imagined to be a courtesan, prostitute or boyfriend (hence Storey’s suggestion that the speaker is Callias addressing e. g. an overly demanding Autolykos). Runkel associated fr. 50a with the mention of Leogoras and Myrrhina in fr. 50b, and the two have been printed together under a single number ever since. 103

Or perhaps—admittedly a less likely possibility—a personified object, as at Ar. Nu. 1473–4, where the ruined Strepsiades addresses a δῖνος (drinking cup): ὤµοι δείλαιος, / ὅτε καὶ σὲ χυτρεοῦν ὄντα θεὸν ἡγησάµην (“Wretched me, when I considered you a god although you’re made of clay!”).

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 49)

193

But Runkel’s hypothesis is nothing more than that, and these ought instead to be treated as two separate fragments of Eupolis’ play (thus rightly Storey). For ὁτιή (a short-lived colloquialism), see fr. 328.2 n. τὰ πατρῷα … καταδιέφθορα For wasting one’s inheritance as a comic trope, cf. the plot of Kolakes, and for more specific verbal parallels to this line Ar. Th. 819–20; Anaxandr. fr. 46.2; Antiph. fr. 236.1–3 (with reference to spending the money on buying a prostitute out of slavery); Alex. frr. 110; 248.2–4; Anaxipp. fr. 1.31–2 (connected with having a girlfriend); Diph. fr. 42.26–7 (connected with being in love); Men. fr. 247.3–4. Both καταφθείρω and διαφθείρω are well-attested, but the compound with the double prefix is found elsewhere only at Luc. Tim. 44 (an echo of this passage?)104 and is most likely an over-the-top nonce form. For the contrast between the old traditional adjective πατρῷος and the new late 5th-century form πατρικός, see Cratin. fr. 306 with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc. πρὸς σέ would seem obviously to mean “on you”, i. e. “in your direction” = “with you as object and beneficiary of the expenditures”, and is thus rendered by translators (including above). It is nonetheless difficult to identify parallels for this use of the preposition, and it is tempting to think that the words originally and properly went with something that followed.

fr. 50b K.-A. (44 K.) Suda φ 125 = ΣAld. Ar. Nu. 109 ὁ δὲ Λεωγόρας τρυφερός τις, ὁ Ἀνδοκίδου πατήρ (ὁ Ἀνδοκίδου πατήρ om. Suda). Πλάτων Περιαλγεῖ (Σ : λέγει Suda) (fr. 114)· ――. Εὔπολις ἐν Αὐτολύκῳ β΄ (β΄ om. Suda) ὡς (e. g. 〈κατωφερῆ διαβάλλει αὐτὸν〉 suppl. Holderda) καὶ διὰ Μυρρίναν (Σ et SudaGFB : Μυρρίνην SudaVM) ἑταίραν τὰ χρήµατα ἀποβεβληκότα (Suda : ἀποβέβληκέ φησιν Σ : e. g. ἀποβεβληκότα 〈αὐτὸν κωµῳδεῖ〉 suppl. Koster) Leogoras was a dainty person, the father of Andocides (“the father of Andocides” omitted by the Suda). Plato in Perialgês (thus Σ : “Plato says” Suda) (fr. 114): ――. Eupolis in Autolykos II (“II” omitted by the Suda) as (Holwerda supplements e. g. “〈slanders him〉 as 〈prone to vice〉 and”) also having thrown away his money with the assistance of the courtesan Myrrhina (Suda : “says he has thrown away” Σ : Koster supplements e. g. “〈makes fun of him for〉 having thrown away”)

104

LSJ s. v. describes καταδιαφθειρόµενον in Lucian as a variant reading (thus also Montanari s. v., which offers the even more judgmental assessment “dub.”). In fact, the double compound is attested in all the old manuscripts, and is replaced by διαφθειρόµενον only in one subfamily of recentiores (t).

194

Eupolis

Discussion Runkel 1829. 96; Bergk 1838. 343 Citation context A note on Pheidippides’ mention of “the pheasants Leogoras is raising” at Ar. Nu. 109, presumably drawn by Marcus Musurus (the Aldine editor) from a scholion in some lost manuscript of the play, and preserved independently in slightly reduced and altered form in a long note in the Suda similarly drawn from the Aristophanic scholia. Text Kassel–Austin print Μυρρίνην (SudaVM), which is the Attic form of the name. But we know nothing more about the woman in any case, and there is no advantage in taking away her one distinctive quality (i. e. that she advertised herself as a foreigner). Interpretation See fr. 50a n. Leogoras of the deme Kydathenaion (PA 9075; PAA 605075), the father of the orator Andocides, was a member of a prominent Athenian family whose wealth and political power can be traced back well into the 6th century BCE (esp. And. 2.26; cf. IG I3 510.4; Davies 1971. 27–32, esp. 30). He was related to Pericles’ son Xanthippos (frr. 110 n.; 192jj n.) by marriage, and was eventually charged with participation in the profanation of the Mysteries of 415 BCE, although he escaped punishment (And. 1.17–22 with MacDowell 1962. 1–2). That this Leogoras is to be identified with the homonymous individual (PA 9072; PAA 605040) who participated in an Athenian embassy to Macedon in 426 BCE (IG I3 61.51) is a reasonable conclusion, given Andocides’ claim (2.11) to have ancestral connections to the Macedonian royal house. In addition to Ar. Nu. 109 and fragments cited in the scholion there, Leogoras is mentioned as supposedly impoverished in an abuse song from the second parabasis at Ar. V. 1268b–70b, which means little more than that he was socially prominent and ought to have had money. The courtesan Myrrhina (PAA 662195) is otherwise unknown. The Doric form of the name is not attested elsewhere in Attica, but this looks in any case to be a generic courtesan name (cf. Timocl. fr. 27.3), here slightly modified (sc. to add commercial interest?; see on Text). For prostitutes named after plants (a relatively common phenomenon), see Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 9.6.

fr. 51 K.-A. (45 K.) ἆρα σφόδρ’ ἐνεούρησεν οὑξώλης γέρων; ἐνεούρησεν Meineke : ἀνεούρησεν cod.   οὑξώλης Herwerden : ἐξούλης cod.

Did the nasty old man really piss all over himself?

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 51)

195

Epimer. Hom. alphab. ω 21 πλεονασµὸς δὲ φωνήεντος … ὤνηµαι ἐώνηµαι καὶ ἐωνούµην … ὤθουν ἐώθουν … ἐνούρησεν ἐνεούρησεν Ἀττικῶς· Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ· ―― and vowel redundancy … ônêmai (“I have purchased”) eônêmai and eônoumên … ôthoun (“I thrust”) eôthoun … enourêsen (“he/she pissed himself/herself”) eneourêsen in Attic; Eupolis in Autolykos: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr llk|l llkl Discussion Meineke 1839 I.118, II.444; Herwerden 1855. 22;105 Cobet 1856. 109; Wilamowitz 1873. 145–6; Lautensach 1899. 16–17; Srebrny 1922. 85–6 Citation context For the complex history of the Homeric Epimerismoi (“Divisions (of verses) into Parts”, i. e. “Notes on Individual Words (drawn from Homeric lines)”), see Dyck 1983. 3–42, esp. 5–16; Dyck 1995. 23–6, who tentatively traces the work to Choeroboscus and suggests that it was intended primarily for instruction in schools. Here the matter under discussion is the inclusion or exclusion of epsilon-augments in verb-forms that have already been augmented by lengthening a vowel. Text ἀνουρέω is not attested elsewhere, and the immediately preceding ἐνούρησεν ἐνεούρησεν makes clear that the paradosis ἀνεούρησεν must be emended to Meineke’s ἐνεούρησεν. The error likely reflects the influence of the discussion of ἀνῷγον/ἀνέῳγον immediately before this. The paradosis ἐξούλης is a legitimate Greek word (cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 44 with Stamma 2014 ad loc.), but is inappropriate here, and Herwerden’s οὑξώλης (= ὁ ἐξώλης) must be right. Interpretation A hostile question, as the adjective in the second half of the line makes clear; the speaker does not doubt that the old man pissed himself, but merely wonders how thorough a job he did. Fr. 52 could easily be part of a response to the question—which does not mean that it is or that anything further should be built upon the hypothesis. Meineke took the old man in question to be Lykon, which might or just as easily might not be right. For drunk old men pissing themselves, cf. Ar. Eq. 400 (Cratinus), and see in general Brown 1994. For ἆρα implicitly raising doubts, and thus here perhaps expressing incredulity, in regard to the matter under discussion, see fr. 227.1 n. 105

Not Herwerden 1855. 122, as in Kassel–Austin (one of the very few typographical errors in a work of generally extraordinary editorial quality).

196

Eupolis

For ἐνουρέω used absolutely to mean “piss oneself, piss one’s bed” vel sim., cf. Hermipp. fr. 77.1–2 ἐνουροῦσι καὶ † θεοὶ αὐτοὶ  / στρώµασιν ἐν µαλακοῖς (“even the gods themselves † piss themselves † in soft beds”, sc. after drinking enough excellent wine); Ar. Lys. 401–2 ὥστε θαἰµατίδια / σείειν πάρεστιν ὥσπερ ἐνεουρηκότας (“so that it’s time to shake our robes like men who’ve pissed themselves”); [Arist.] Prob. 876a15–16 διὰ τί νέοι ὄντες ἐνουροῦσι µᾶλλον, ὅταν µεθυσθῶσιν, ἢ πρεσβύτεροι (“Why do young men piss themselves more, when they get drunk, than old men do?”); Thphr. fr. 362A.8 Fortenbaugh.106 For the double augmentation (here simply metri gratia, as Lautensach observes), cf. fr. 197 ἐωνούµην with n. For σφόδρ(α) as a colloquial intensifier, see fr. 384.2 n. ἐξώλης Properly “utterly ruined” (cf. ἐξώλης ἀπόλοιο ~ “Damn you straight to hell!” at e. g. Ar. Pax 1072; Men. Sam. 367; Hdt. 7.9.2β.1), but also “utterly ruinous”, i. e. “abominable” (e. g. Ar. Ec. 1053, 1070; Pl. 443; A. Supp. 741 with Johansen–Whittle 1980 ad loc.).

fr. 52 K.-A. (4 Dem.) τί δῆτ’ ἄν, εἰ µὴ τὴν ἁµίδα καθεῦδ’ ἔχων; What would have happened, if he hadn’t fallen asleep holding his piss-pot? Phot. α 1197 ἁµίδα· δασέως· ――. Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ hamis (“piss-pot”; acc.): with a rough breathing; ――. Eupolis in Autolykos

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkr klkl Discussion Wilamowitz 1873. 145–6; Srebrny 1922. 85–6 Citation context An isolated lexicographic note concerned with words that Attic-speakers (sc. in contrast to others) pronounce with a rough breathing; Ar. fr. 653 follows, and Men. fr. 252 is cited shortly thereafter. Traced by Erbse to Aelius Dionysius (α 98). 106

Thus not “Has that cursed old man pissed in it?” (Storey 2011. 75) or “Did the old lecher really piss right into it?” (Rusten 2011. 225).

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 53)

197

Interpretation Like fr. 53, formally a question regarding some third party (a man, hence ἔχων), but actually exclamatory: “How much worse matters would have been, if …!” Perhaps a bomolochic remark, but in any case an—amusing, because coarse?—reaction to something another party has said rather than a comment actually intended to advance the conversation. See fr. 51 n. Although frr. 52 and 53 come from different sources, the echo is so pointed and specific that it tempting to believe that they are supposed to be read against one another.107 The individual in question here has apparently drunk himself into a stupor and passed out, piss-pot in hand. If fr. 53 represents a parallel situation, however, the point is less likely that, were matters otherwise, he would have pissed all over himself (sc. while still asleep), than that he would have awoken and found himself with no appropriate container into which to urinate. Cf. Ar. fr. 280, where someone resorts to using a wine-jar for the same purpose. Alternatively, this might be evidence of the sort of revision Galen describes in test. ii, the gender of the inebriated person having been altered in the second version of the play. For the colloquial elliptical use of τί in τί δῆτ’ ἄν;, cf. fr. 226.2; Call. Com. fr. 14.1; Pherecr. fr. 98.1; E. Hel. 1043; Stevens 1976. 30–1; Collard 2005. 362, and cf. Dale 1967 on E. Hel. 91 τλήµων ἂν εἴης. For the ἁµίς, see fr. 385.5 n. For a catalogue of vase-names used by 5thcentury authors with brief commentary and bibliography, see Brommer 1987.

fr. 53 K.-A. (46 K.) τί δῆτ’ ἄν, εἰ µὴ τὸ σκάφιον αὐτῇ παρῆν; τί δῆτ’ ἄν Poll.CL : τί δ᾿ ἦν ἄν Poll.AB

What would have happened, if she hadn’t had her skaphion? Poll. 10.44–5 τῷ µὲν ἀνδρὶ καὶ λάσανα ἀναγκαῖα καὶ ἁµίς … τῇ δὲ γυναικὶ σκάφιον,ABCFLS ὡς ἐν Αὐτολύκῳ Εὔπολις· ――.ABCL ἄµφω δὲ παράλληλα ἐν Πολυίδῳ Ἀριστοφάνης (Th. 633)· σκάφιον Ξένυλλ’ ᾔτησεν· οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἁµίςABCFL

107

Despite Storey 2003. 93, however, the fact that the subject in fr. 52 might be taken to be an old man on the basis of fr. 51 does not mean that the subject of fr. 53 must be an old woman.

198

Eupolis

A man needs a toilet-stool and a pisspot … whereas a woman needs a skaphion,ABCFLS as Eupolis (says) in Autylokos: ――.ABCL But Aristophanes in Polyidos (uses) both terms side by side (Th. 633): Xenylla asked for a skaphion; because there wasn’t a pisspotABCFL

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkr llkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.441–2; Kock 1880 I.269 Citation context From a discussion of words describing objects that masters need, i. e. that are to be supplied to them by slaves, in the course of the long catalogue of σκεύη (“gear, equipment” vel sim.) of various sorts that makes up Pollux Book 10. Manuscripts FS of Pollux omit the reference to and fragment of Eupolis, and have other minor errors (e. g. Πολύδῳ for the correct Πολυίδῳ in ABCL) in common here as well. The fragment of Aristophanes’ Polyidos likely began with the word σκάφιον and was omitted by the copyist responsible for the common exemplar of all surviving manuscripts of Pollux via a saut du même au même. For the λάσανα (“toilet-stool”), see fr. 240 n. Text τί δῆτ’ ἄν (Poll.CL) is common in this sedes (e. g. fr. 52; Ar. Nu. 154; Ec. 348; S. Ant. 218; E. Andr. 645; [E.] Rh. 577), but has been driven out in Poll.AB by the seemingly easier but in fact non-colloquial τί δ᾿ ἦν ἄν. Interpretation Like fr. 52 (n.), formally a question regarding some third party (in this case a woman) but actually exclamatory: “How much worse matters would have been, if …!” Meineke thought the subject of the verb was Autolykos’ mother “Rhodia”, which is merely a wild guess based on what has traditionally been taken to be a reference to her in fr. 58. τί δῆτ’ ἄν; See fr. 52 n. A σκάφιον is properly a “bowl” vel sim. (Amyx 1958. 231–2; Sparkes 1975. 133). For the use of a vessel of this sort as a woman’s equivalent of a man’s piss-pot (ἁµίς), cf. Ar. Th. 633 (also quoted here by Pollux), where the disguised Inlaw’s confused use of the words seemingly contributes to unmasking him to the “other women”, with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc., and the similar use of the Latin scaphium (Juvenal 6.264;108 Mart. 11.11.6; cf. Plaut. Bacch. 70).

108

Courtney 1980 ad loc. is confused (“SCAPHIUM Used only by women, while the lasanum belonged to men”); better handled in Kay 1985 ad loc. and Watson and Watson 2014 ad loc., although how the notion that such vessels were boat-shaped— outside of the fact that σφάφος (diminutive σκάφιον) can also be used for the hull of a boat—has infiltrated the literature is unclear.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 54)

199

fr. 54 K.-A. (47 K.) σκέλη δὲ καὶ κωλῆνες εὐθὺ τοὐρόφου τοὐρόφου C.F.Hermann : τοῦ ῥόφου Ath.A

legs and leg-bones straight to the roof109 Ath. 9.368d καὶ κωλῆνα δὲ λέγουσι καὶ κωλῆν. Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ· ―― They say both kôlêna and kôlên (sc. as the accusative form of the word). Eupolis in Autolykos: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl llk|l klkl Discussion Hermann 1844/1845. 7 n. 13; Kock 1880 I.269 Citation context From the very beginning of the grammarian Zoilus’ brief discussion of the Attic declension of κωλῆ (feminine), responding to 9.366a–b, where Ulpian had claimed that in other dialects the word was sometimes masculine. Text The scribe producing Ath.A (the only witness to this verse) must have been puzzled by the crasis τοὐρόφου for τοῦ ὀρόφου, and responded by writing the nonsensical τοῦ ῥόφου (corrected by Hermann). Interpretation Hermann compared Ar. Lys. 229 = 230 οὐ πρὸς τὸν ὄροφον ἀνατενῶ τὰ Περσικά (“I shall not stretch my Persian slippers up to the roof”; part of the abstinence pledge sworn by the city’s women as they launch their sex-strike) and suggested that the reference here as well was to taking the passive role in intercourse. Note similar language at Ar. Pax 889–90 ἄραντας … τὼ σκέλει / ταύτης µετεώρω (“raising up this woman’s two legs into the air”, sc. in preparation for having intercourse with her); Av. 1253–5 τῆς διακόνου / … ἀνατείνας τὼ σκέλει διαµηριῶ / τὴν Ἶριν αὐτήν (“I’ll stretch the two legs of this servant up and penetrate the thighs of Iris herself”); Ec. 265 εἰθισµέναι γάρ ἐσµεν αἴρειν τὼ σκέλει (“because we’re accustomed to raising our two legs”; an explanation by one of the women as to why they may find it difficult to remember to raise their hands in the Assembly). Kock suggested that the person described might be “Rhodia”, i. e. Autolykos’ mother; but it might be 109

Not “legs and hams hanging from the roof” (Olson 2008. 195) or “Legs and buttocks hanging straight to the roof” (Storey 2011. 75).

200

Eupolis

anyone. Whether the references to raising one’s σκέλος/σκέλη at frr. 57; 88.4 also have sexual overtones is impossible to say, although this seems less likely when only one leg is involved, as in fr. 57. σκέλος (cognate with Latin scelus and etymologically “something crooked, curved”; cf. the adjective σκόλιος and English “ham”, which has a similar etymology) is an Indo-European word—attested in Greek already in Mycenean, of tripod cauldron legs, at PY 236 in the form ke-re-a2—for a leg or something that resembles one, including a table leg at Cratin. fr. 334.2. The word is not generally used of portions of animals to be consumed for food, but cf. Antiph. fr. 183.2. κωλῆ / κωλήν, by contrast, is a much rarer term, defined at Arist. HA 516a35–b1 as meaning “leg-bones” and specifically contrasted with σκέλη at Arist. HA 516b26–7, but clearly used colloquially by extension to refer to leg-bones and the meat that covers them (e. g. Ar. Pl. 1128; X. Cyn. 5.30 κωλῆν σαρκώδη, “a kôlê with considerable flesh”, of a dog’s leg; Matro fr. 1.89 Olson–Sens, of a ham; Solmsen 1909. 124); also of a human leg at Ar. Nu. 989. Why both words are used together here (simply emphatic?) is unclear. For εὐθύ + gen. meaning “straight to/toward”, see fr. 196.1 n.

fr. 55 K.-A. (48 K.) ἐλλιµένιον δοῦναι πρὶν εἰσβῆναί σε δεῖ δοῦναι Seber : ὁδοῦναι Poll. : ὃ δοῦναι Meineke

you need to hand a harbor-tax over before you go in Poll. 9.30 τὸ δὲ τέλος ἐλλιµένιον, ὡς Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ· ―― An ellimenion is a tax, as Eupolis (says) in Autolykos: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

lrkl llk|l llkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.441; Kock 1880 I.269; Zagagi 1980. 125 n. 72; Chankowski 2007. 316–17 Citation context From a collection of words having to do with taxes, as part of a larger discussion of vocabulary connected with cities. Parallel material is preserved at Poll. 8.132.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 55)

201

Text Pollux’ garbled ὁδοῦναι is most naturally taken to represent Meineke’s ὃ δοῦναι (“a harbor-tax which you need to hand over before you go in”). This is possible, but produces an oddly divided tribrach (cf. fr. 50a Text), and Kock and Kassel–Austin accordingly adopt Seber’s δοῦναι (also printed here) instead. Interpretation Actual entry into a harbor might be in question, as Pollux seems to think, although Kock took the language to be figurative in reference to a cover-charge required to enter a brothel, for which Kassel–Austin compare Philem. fr. 3.12–13 ἡ θύρα ’στ’ ἀνεῳγµένη. / εἷς ὀβολός· εἰσπήδησον (“The door’s open; one obol; jump in!”) and Plaut. Asin. 159 ego pol istum portitorem privabo portorio (“By Pollux, I’ll deprive that harbor-master of her harbor-taxes”; said by a man deciding to make no further use of a lena’s services). Kock’s thesis is overly specific, since the toll being charged might e. g. be a contribution required in advance in order to attend a dinner or drinking party; cf. Ath. 14.640f–1a, which cites earlier authorities and plays on the ideas of harbor-taxes ~ dinner contributions; and Zagagi, rejecting the parallel with Plautus on the grounds that the speaker might actually be referring to a real harbor and that what he means is in any case uncertain.110 If Kock’s general figurative take on the fragment is correct, however, some sort of shake-down is in question: the person being addressed must pay part of what he has in his pockets to get past whoever is in control of the entrance (and who is not necessarily to be identified with the speaker). δοῦναι LSJ s. v. stresses the voluntary nature of actions thus described, which can be the case even when the object transferred from one partner in the exchange to the other is money (e. g. fr. 99.87 (conjectural); Telecl. fr. 44.1, 3; Hermipp. fr. 45.2). But the verb also means “hand over” in a more straightforward sense ~ “pay”111 at e. g. Ar. Ach. 896 ἀγορᾶς τέλος ταύτην γέ που δώσεις ἐµοί (“you’ll hand over/pay this [eel], at any rate, to me as a market tax, I suppose”); V. 671 δώσετε τὸν φόρον (“You’ll hand over/pay your tribute!”), 684 σοὶ δ’ ἤν τις δῷ τοὺς τρεῖς ὀβολούς (“if someone pays you your three obols”); Th. 1195 δώσεις οὖν δραχµήν; (“So you’ll pay a drachma?”); Phryn. Com. fr. 61.5 µήνυτρα δοῦναι (“to pay reward-money”), as seemingly here. ἐλλιµένιον For harbor-taxes, cf. Ar. V. 659 (λιµένες112 as a significant source of state income); fr. 472 ἐλλιµενίζεις ἢ δεκατεύεις (“do you charge a 110

111 112

Rusten 2011. 226 “you’ve got to pay the customs fee before you enter this port” implicitly favors the metaphorical interpretation by adding the demonstrative, which is absent from the Greek. Left unmentioned in the extended treatments of the verb at LSJ and Montanari s. v. A sense of the word ignored by LSJ and Montanari s. v.; cf. ἀγοραί in the sense “marketplace taxes” (also ignored by LSJ and Montanari s. v.) in the same line of

202

Eupolis

harbor-tax or a 10% fee?”); [X.] Ath. 1.17 (“a 1% tax in the Piraeus”, clearly on goods brought into the harbor by merchants for sale); X. Vect. 4.40 (treated as parallel to market-taxes, αἱ ἀγοραί, and as a potentially substantial source of public income) with Gauthier 1976 ad loc.; D. 1.22 (the Thessalians refuse to surrender τοὺς λιµένας καὶ τὰς ἀγοράς to Philip any longer, and insist that the money be used instead for their own purposes); Aen. Tact. 29.5 (suggesting that the tax paid was directly related to the declared value of the goods imported, thus presumably distinguishing it from the flat-rate ἐνόρµιον, “anchorage fee”); Arist. Oec. 1350a16–22 (reference to the tax being farmed out in some places; cf. I.Miletos 55.68 τὴν̣ π̣ρ̣ᾶ̣σιν τοῦ ἐνλιµενίου, 223/2 BCE);113 CID 4.2 (exemption from harbor-tax; 400–375 BCE?); D. 34.34 (again making it clear that goods were inspected upon entry and a taxable value declared at that point); Hsch. α 583; ε 3173; Pleket 1958. 129–33 (arguing that an ellimenion is properly a flat-tax levied for use of a harbor and was not connected to the value of the goods imported); Gofas 1969. 344–5 (with reference to this fragment); Chankowski 2007. 313–19; Carrara 2014; Fawcett 2016. 159–62. Elsewhere in comedy, σε δεῖ often appears to describe theoretical possibilities (“you ought to”) rather than obligation stricto sensu (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 76.5; Ar. Eq. 1064; Th. 544; Men. Asp. 331).

fr. 56 K.-A. (49 K.) ἀτὰρ ἤγαγες καινόν 〈τι〉 φῖτυ τῶν βοῶν ἀτὰρ ἤγαγες Phot. SudaM Σ (1–2) : αὐτὰρ ἤγαγες SudaGV : παρήγαγες Σ (3) : ἀτὰρ ἤγαγε SudaA : ἤγαγε EM   〈τι〉 Elmsley : 〈τὸ〉 Blomfield et Porson : 〈γε〉 Bergk   τῶν βοῶν Phot. Suda Σ (1–3) : om. EM : βοιδίων Blaydes

but you brought114 a novel crop of the cows

113

114

Aristophanes and again at X. Vect. 4.40 and D. 1.22. For taxes of various sorts farmed out (i. e. sold for collection to the highest bidder) in Athens, see And. 1.133–4; Aeschin. 1.119 with Fisher 2001 ad loc.; [Arist.] Ath. 47.2 with Rhodes 1981 ad loc.; Langdon 1994, esp. 260; Fawcett 2016. 174–6. Given the lack of almost any permanent city administrative staff, it seems inevitable that the harbor-tax was handled in the same way. Not “you took” (Rusten 2011. 226).

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 56)

203

Phot. φ 214 = Suda φ 474 φιτῦσαι· γεννῆσαι· ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς τίθησιν· ἐπὶ δὲ µητρὸς οὐκέτι, ἀλλὰ γεννῆσαι· καὶ φιτύοντος ὁµοίως τοῦ γεννῶντος· λέγεται δὲ καὶ τὸ γέννηµα φῖτυ. Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ· ―― phitysai: to beget (gennêsai). He uses it in reference to the father, but no longer in reference to the mother, but gennêsai instead. And phityontos likewise (means) gennôntos (“begetting”). phity is also used to mean gennêma (“offspring”). Eupolis in Autolykos: ―― EM p. 795.29–33 φιτύσαι, τὸ γεννῆσαι, ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς τίθεται· ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς µητρὸς οὐκέτι, ἀλλὰ γεννῆσαι. καὶ φιτύοντος µὲν τοῦ γεννῶντος· λέγεται δὲ καὶ τὸ γέννηµα φίτυ. Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ· ἤγαγε … φῖτυ phitysai, meaning to beget (gennêsai), is used in reference to the father, but no longer in reference to the mother, but gennêsai instead. And phityontos (means) gennôntos (“begetting”), whereas phity is also used to mean gennêma (“offspring”). Eupolis in Autolykos: brought … crop Σ (1) Pl. R. 461a (p. 229 Greene) φιτύοντος. γεννῶντος, ὅπερ ἐπὶ πατρὸς τίθεται, οὐ µὴν ἐπὶ µητρός, ἀλλὰ γεννώσης. λέγεται δὲ καὶ τὸ γέννηµα φίτυ, ὡς Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ· ―― phityontos: gennôntos (“begetting”), which word is applied to a father, not in fact to a mother, but gennôsês instead. phity is also used to mean gennêma (“offspring”), as Eupolis (does) in Autolykos: ―― Σ (2) Pl. Criti. 116c (p. 293 Greene) ἐφίτυσαν. φιτῦσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρός· γεννῆσαι ἐπὶ µητρός. καὶ τὸ γέννηµα φῖτυ. Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ· ―― ephitysan: phitysai (is used) in reference to the father, gennêsai in reference to a mother. And phity (means) gennêma (“offspring”). Eupolis in Autolykos: ―― Σ (3) Pl. Lg. 879c (p. 351 Greene) φιτῦσαι. φιτῦσαι ἐπὶ πατρὸς µὲν τοῦτο· ἐπὶ δὲ µητρὸς γεννῆσαι. καὶ φιτύων ὁ γεννῶν, καὶ τὸ γέννηµα φῖτυ, ὡς Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ· ―― phitysai: This word, phitysai, is used in reference to a father, whereas gennêsai (is used) in reference to a mother. And phityôn (is used) for gennôn (“begetting”; masc. nom. sing.), and phity for gennêma (“offspring”), as Eupolis (does) in Autolykos: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl llk|l klkl Discussion Bergk 1838. 343, 345; Blaydes 1896. 37

204

Eupolis

Citation context A set of three closely related notes on Plato, taken over from the scholia there by the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ΄΄. The same source has been used by the EM as well. Text ἀτὰρ ἤγαγες (Phot. SudaM Σ (1–2)) is needed for the meter, and the variants in the other witnesses are trivial errors of various sorts (the less common ἀτάρ driven out by the more common αὐτάρ in the SudaGV; a majuscule error involving ΑΠΑΡ miscorrected to παρήγαγες in Σ (3); replacement of second-person singular ἤγαγες by the more common third-person singular ἤγαγε in SudaA and EM, with all but the most important words also trimmed from the text in the latter case). A single short syllable beginning with a consonant is wanted after καινόν, and Elmsley’s 〈τι〉 is idiomatic (e. g. Ar. Nu. 967 τηλέπορόν τι βόαµα (a quotation of lyric poetry); Av. 1473–4 δένδρον … / ἔκτοπόν τι (an iambic song); Ec. 277–8 µέλος / πρεσβυτικόν τι; Pl. Com. fr. 71.14 µέλος Ἰωνικόν τι) and is accordingly more appealing than Bergk’s mechanical 〈γε〉. 〈τὸ〉 (Blomfield and Porson) would also do, in which case the sense is ~ “the crop of cows you brought is novel”. Blaydes’ βοιδίων for the paradosis τῶν βοῶν is intended to eliminate the apparent awkwardness of the definite article by emending it away, which is dubious procedure. Interpretation A remark addressed to another person—identified by Bergk, comparing Ar. Nu. 109, with Leogoras (fr. 50b with n.)—featuring a striking mix of colloquial and high-style registers (below). καινός, evoking “a salient quality of created novelty” (D’Angour 2011. 73), is not an unambiguously positive word in comedy (cf. fr. 60.1 with n.), so perhaps this peculiarity reflects the fact that the remark is sarcastic, raising the possibility that these are not cows at all but something or someone referred to this way. The definite article (not “cows” but “the cows”) suggests that a particular group of animals (or “animals”) is in question. φῖτυ is attested only in poetry (also S. fr. 889, seemingly in reference to a crop; Pherecr. fr. 278, glossed φύτευµα; Ar. Pax 1163/4; fr. 307, glossed φυτὸν ἢ φύτευµα and probably paratragic); cf. φιτύω (Hes. Th. 986; A. Supp. 313; S. Ai. 1296; Ant. 645; Tr. 311; E. Alc. 294, 1137; [A.] PV 233; picked up by Plato in the passages glossed by the scholia that cite this verse, but otherwise absent from prose); φίτυµα (attested in the classical period only at A. Ag. 1281; subsequently at Lyc. 453). “It would appear that in post-Homeric Greek, at any rate in Attic, ἀτάρ”— also attested in Eupolis at fr. 260.19—“was felt to be colloquial in tone, and was consequently avoided in formal language. Hence its frequency in Aristophanes,

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 57)

205

in Euripides (who aimed at realistic expression), and in those prose-writers whose style approximates most closely to every-day conversation” (Denniston 1950. 51; see also Stevens 1976. 44–5; López Eire 1996. 131). “In particular, Attic writers employ ἀτάρ to express a break-off, a sudden change of topic” (Denniston 1950. 52). τῶν βοῶν For cattle, see fr. 163 n.

fr. 57 K.-A. (50 K.) ἀνεκάς τ’ ἐπαίρω † καὶ βδελυρὸς σὺ τὸ σκέλος ἀνεκάς τ’ Suda : ἑκαστ᾿ Synag. B : ἀνεκάς τ’ Schneidewin : ἀνεκάς σ’ Bernhardy : ἀνεκάς γ’ Kock   ἐπαίρω Suda Synag. B : ἐπήρω Portus : fort. ἐπαίρου   βδελυρὸς σὺ Suda Synag. B : βδελυρῶς σὺ Porson : βδελυρᾶς σὺ Bernhardy : βδελυρός σου Iacobi

and Ι raise up high † and you, you loathsome man, your leg Phot. α 1797 ~ Suda α 2234 = Synag. B α 1254 ἀνεκάς· ψιλῶς· τὸ ἄνω λέγουσι, καὶ ἀνέκαθεν τὸ ἄνωθεν. Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ· ―― anekas: with a smooth breathing; they use this to mean anô (“above”), and (they use) anekathen to mean anôthen (“from above”). Eupolis in Autolykos: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl l†lrl klkl Citation context From the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge B generally referred to as Σ΄. References to Crates Com. fr. 12 τὸν αὐχέν’ ἐκ γῆς ἀνεκὰς εἰς αὐτοὺς βλέπων and Cratin. fr. 287 follow in Synagoge B, while the Suda offers the Crates fragment but not the Cratinus. Photius includes the references to Eupolis’ Autolykos as well to Crates (but with no text) and Cratinus, although only in manuscript b. Synagoge B α 1276 offers a very similar gloss but with none of the poetic citations. Phryn. PS p. 32.11 ἀνεκάς· Ἀττικῶς. καὶ σηµαίνει τὸ ἄνω (“anekas: in Attic dialect. And it means anô (“above”)”) and Plu. Thes. 33.3 τὸ γὰρ ἄνω τοὺς Ἀττικοὺς ἀνέκας ὀνοµάζειν, καὶ ἀνέκαθεν τὸ ἄνωθεν (“because Attic-speakers use the term anekas to mean anô, and anekathen to mean anôthen”) likely come from a source similar to the one upon which Σ΄ is drawing. Text The text is extremely difficult, hence the † (not inserted by Kassel– Austin).

206

Eupolis

The Suda’s τ’ (cf. Synagoge B) is most naturally taken to be coordinating ἀνεκάς and βδελυρός, which will not do, and many of the conjectures recorded in the apparatus represent attempts to remove the problem either by emending away the particle (Bernhardy’s ἀνεκάς σ’ and Kock’s ἀνεκάς γ’) or by converting βδελυρός into an adverb (Porson’s βδελυρῶς). The alternative— tacitly opted for by Kock and Kassel–Austin—is to assume that the order given here is only one part of a two-part command or the like. Bernhardy’s βδελυρᾶς σὺ and Iacobi’s βδελυρός σου, meanwhile, appear to reflect discomfort with the combination of σύ and the adjective, for which there is no obvious parallel outside of straightforward vocative expressions such as fr. 99.85 ὦ πανοῦργε καὶ κυβευτὰ σύ. Most of the other conjectures represent attempts to make sense of ἐπαίρω (which must be first-person singular) either by altering the form of the verb to conform with σύ later in the line (Portus’ ἐπήρω, “you raised”; printed by Meineke)115 or by eliminating the nominative form (Iacobi’s βδελυρός σου). Interpretation For raising one’s legs, cf. fr. 54 with n., where sexual submission seems to be the point; here dancing might be in question instead, as perhaps also at fr. 88.4 (n.). ἀνεκάς is first attested at Pi. O. 2.22 and is found thereafter only in comedy (also Pherecr. fr. 180; Ar. V. 18; fr. 192.2 (corrupt, but ἀνεκάς is probably sound)) and Hippocrates (e. g. Epid. V 1.2 = 5.204.13 Littré; Mul. 143.8 = 8.316.8 Littré), while ἀνέκαθεν is attested at A. Ch. 427 (lyric; cf. ἀνάκαθεν also in lyric at A. Eu. 373, where this is however a conjecture) and is common in Herodotus (e. g. 1.170.3). This is enough to show that the word is not specifically Attic (despite Phrynichus and Plutarch; see Citation context) but is good 5th-century vocabulary. The point of the comment about the breathing in Photius = Suda = Synagoge B is apparently that the second element in the word is not ἑκάς, despite Erot. α 24 σύγκειται … ἐκ τοῦ ἄνω καὶ τοῦ ἑκάς (“it is composed of anô and hekas”; cf. ΣV Ar. V. 18 ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄνω καὶ πάνυ ἑκάς, “in place of anô and quite hekas”) and Nicander’s ἀφεκάς or ἀφ᾿ ἑκάς (in either case suggesting ἀπ(ό) + rough breathing; Th. 674). Cf. Schneidewin 1848a. 118. βδελυρός (cognate with βδελλύσσοµαι, “feel loathing, feel disgust”) is a general term of colloquial abuse (e. g. Ar. Ach. 287–8 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Ra. 465 “bdelyros, shameless and bold”; D. 19.175 “bdelyros and shameless”; 21.2 “rash, bdelyros and unbearable”, 98 “outrageous and bdelyros”; Men. Sic.

115

Thus also Storey 2011. 75, although he prints the paradosis ἐπαίρω. Rustin 2011. 226, nominally rendering the Kassel–Austin text, translates “lift” (seemingly intended as a timeless “gnomic” aorist).

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 58)

207

209); cf. Parker 1983. 4–5 “miaros and its near synonym bdeluros are among the commonest and strongest terms of abuse … but only in a minority of their uses do they concern what is felt to be repugnant physically … The essence of disgustingness … seems to be deficiency in shame; ‘disgusting and shameless/brazen/bold’ are constant conjunctions”; Dickey 1996. 171 (classed as a “low-register insult”). For σκέλος, see fr. 54 n.

fr. 58 K.-A. Ῥοδίαν γυναῖκα βακκάριδι µεµιγµένην µεµιγµένην Phot. (2)116 : κεχρισµένην Erbse : µεµαγµένην Degani : λελουµένην Austin

a Rhodian woman (acc.) combined with bakkaris Phot. (1) β 12 βάκκαρις (Tsantsanoglou : βαβάκκαρις cod.)· µύρον τι. Ῥοδίαν γυναῖκα bakkaris (thus Tsantsanoglou : babakkaris cod.): a type of perfume. A Rhodian woman (acc.) Phot. (2) β 27 βακκάριδι (Tsantsanoglou : βαβακκαρίδα cod.) µεµιγµένην. οὕτως 〈Εὔπολις〉 Αὐτολύκῳ (Tsantsanoglou : Αὐτόλυκος cod.) mixed with bakkaris (dat.) (thus Tsantsanoglou : babakkarida (acc.) cod.): Thus 〈Eupolis〉 in Autolykos (thus Tsantsanoglou : “Thus Autolykos” cod.)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl k|lkr klkl Discussion Tsantsanoglou 1984. 119 Citation context Neither entry in Photius makes sense on its own, and both offer the non-word βαβάκκαρις in place of the correct βάκκαρις. Tsantsanoglou accordingly suggested that this is actually a single note mistakenly divided into two: βαβάκκαρις· µύρον τι. Ῥοδίαν γυναῖκα βαβακκαρίδα µεµιγµένην. οὕτως Αὐτόλυκος, which he corrected to βάκκαρις· µύρον τι. Ῥοδίαν γυναῖκα βακκάριδι µεµιγµένην. οὕτως 〈Εὔπολις〉 Αὐτολύκῳ (“bakkaris: a type of per116

Thus Theodoridis; Tsantsanoglou reports µεµειγµένην.

208

Eupolis

fume. A Rhodian woman (acc.) combined with bakkaris; thus 〈Eupolis〉 in Autolykos”). Text βαβάκκαρις and βαβακκαρίδα in the manuscript are the product of confusion about the spelling of a rare word. At some point, dative βαβακκάριδι was attracted into the case of the other words in the line. µεµιγµένην seems an odd choice of word, and various emendations—none convincing117—have been proposed. It seems better to concede that the meaning of the text as it has been passed down to us is problematic; perhaps there is some play on the use of the verb in the passive to mean “have sex” (LSJ s. v. B.4, and see Interpretation on βάκκαρις). The verb is not attested in inscriptions from the classical period (Threatte 1996. 623–4), but µεµιγ- rather than µεµειγ- appears to be correct in the perfect and is adopted universally by Kassel–Austin (Stratt. fr. 60.3 µεµιγ- cod., µεµειγ- Kaibel; Pl. Com. fr. 188.9; Nicostr. Com. fr. 13.4 µεµιγ- codd., µεµειγ- Nauck; Damox. fr. 2.41 µεµιγ- codd., µεµειγ- Kock). Interpretation Assuming that Tsantsanoglou’s correction and supplementation of the text of Photius is correct, the reference must be to the woman who was Lykon’s wife and Autolykos’ mother, and who was mocked for her alleged promiscuity in Poleis (fr. 232 with n.) and mentioned in a hostile manner in Philoi (fr. 295 with n.). Here the point might simply be that she is addicted to luxury, but it is more economical to think that the reference is again specifically to sex, with which perfume is routinely associated; cf. Stepsiades’ pampered, wealthy, randy wife, who lay down beside him in their marriage bed smelling “of perfume, saffron, French kisses, expense, gluttony” and various goddesses involved in sexuality (Ar. Nu. 51–2). The description of Lykon’s wife as being from Rhodes—which, were it true (as it certainly was not), would have meant that Autylokos was not a Athenian citizen—is likely behind the confused claim at ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 270 (citing fr. 232) that her personal name was actually Rhodia. 117

Erbse’s κεχρισµένην (“anointed”; cf. Magn. fr. 3 βακκάριδι κεχριµένον; Achae. TrGF 20 F 10.1 βακκάρει χρισθέντα) and Austin’ λελουµένην (“washed”; cf. Ephipp. fr. 26.2–3; Eub. fr. 100; Antiph. fr. 105) are unconvincing on paleographic grounds and amount to rewriting the text to make it say what modern readers believe it should. Degani’s µεµαγµένην (“kneaded up with bakkaris”) is no easier than the paradosis; note that the definition “thick unguent” offered at LSJ s. v. µάγµα for the appearance of the word at Plin. Nat. 13.19 is withdrawn in the Supplement; that X. Cyr. 6.2.28 (cited by Kassel–Austin) refers to a barley-cake and is thus irrelevant; and that µεµαγµένην is in any case a peculiar way to express the idea “covered with µάγµα”.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 59)

209

βάκκαρις or βάκχαρις—a loan-word traced by some authorities to Lydia (see below) and taken over into Latin as baccar/baccaris—is a sort of perfume or the like mentioned already at Semon. fr. 16.2 and Hippon. fr. 107.21; subsequently referred to e. g. in tragedy or satyr play at A. fr. 14; S. fr. 1032; Ion TrGF 19 F 24.1, and in comedy at Ar. fr. 336.3; Cephisod. fr. 3.3 with Orth 2014 ad loc.; Epilyc. fr. 1, and eventually picked up by an over-the-top Atticist at Luc. Lex. 8 ἐχριόµεθα βακχάριδι (cf. Plu. Mor. 647d). Cf. Plin. Nat. 12.45 baccaris vocatur nardum rusticum (“baccaris is the name of a rustic nard”); Ath. 15.690a–d (quoting most of the fragments cited above); Erot. β 14 βάκχαρις· εἶδος βοτάνης καὶ µύρου (“bakcharis: a variety of plant and of perfume”); Hsch. β 107 βάκκαρις· µύρον ποιὸν ἀπὸ βοτάνης ὁµωνύµως· ἔνιοι δὲ ἀπὸ µυρσίνης· ἄλλοι δὲ µύρον Λυδόν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ξηρὸν διάπασµα τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς ῥίζης (“bakkaris: some sort of perfume, made from a plant by the same name; and some authorities say it is made from myrtle, while others say it is a Lydian perfume. There is also a dry dusting-powder made from the root”); Σ A. Pers. 41 τὴν βάκκαριν δὲ ἔνιοι Λυδῶν µύρον ἔφασαν (“some authorities claimed that bakkaris was a Lydian perfume”); Greenewalt 2010. 201–4; Hawkins 2013. 156–7.

fr. 59 K.-A. (51 K.) καπνοὺς ἀποφαίνει καὶ σκιάς ἀποφαίνει καὶ σκιάς ΣAld : καὶ σκιὰς ἀποφαίνει ΣBarb

he/she proclaims smoke and shadows ΣRMBarb Ar. Nu. 252 τὰ γὰρ µηδενὸς ἄξια καπνοὺς καὶ σκιὰς καὶ νεφέλας ὠνόµαζον (sic R : ὀνοµάζοµεν Barb : om. M),RMBarb ὡς Εὔπολις ἐν Αὐτολύκῳ (Musurus : ἔµπολις ἐν ναυτολύκῳ Barb) Barb

Because they used to refer (thus R : “we call” Barb : om. M) to things that were valueless as smoke (pl.) and shadows and clouds,RMBarb as Eupolis (does) in Autolykos (thus Musurus : “Empolis in Nautolykos” Barb)Barb

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

210

Eupolis

Citation context A gloss on Socrates’ question at Ar. Nu. 252–3, where he asks his aspiring student Strepsiades καὶ συγγενέσθαι ταῖς Νεφέλαισιν εἰς λόγους, / ταῖς ἡµετέραισι δαίµοσιν; (“And (do you wish) to come into conversation with our deities, the Clouds?”). Cf. ΣR Ar. V. 325 τοὺς ἀλαζόνας, οὓς καὶ καπνοὺς † λέγουσιν † (“bullshitters, whom they also † say † ‘smoke’ (pl.)”). Whether the readings of Marcus Musurus (the Aldine editor) are drawn from a now-lost manuscript related to Vaticanus Barberinianus 126 (= Barb), which is otherwise the only witness to the fragment of Eupolis, or—more likely—are merely his own corrections of the text is unclear. Text καπνοὺς καὶ σκιὰς ἀποφαίνει in ΣBarb does not scan, making Musurus’ καπνοὺς ἀποφαίνει καὶ σκιάς necessary regardless of the source of the reading (for which, see Citation context). The version of the text in ΣBarb represents simplified word-order, an unreflective desire for which probably led to the error. Interpretation A disparaging description of some third party who talks deceptive nonsense. In comedy, at least, ἀποφαίνω is consistently used in the active (LSJ s. v. A.II “make known, declare”) rather than the middle (LSJ s. v. B.II.1 “declare one’s opinion” et sim.), leaving little doubt that the verb is here third-person rather than second-person. καπνός serves as an image of something insubstantial already at Il. 23.100 (of a soul vanishing into the Underworld; cf. Emped. 31 B 2.4 D.–K.; A. Supp. 779–80; Ar. V. 323b/4; E. Tr. 1298), but in the late 5th and 4th centuries BCE is used a number of times specifically of empty words (Ar. Nu. 320; E. Hipp. 954; Pl. R. 581d); cf. fr. 135 (a man known as “Smoke” as a consequence of his bragging); Ar. V. 325–6 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Aristopho fr. 5.7; Taillardat 1965 § 519. σκιά similarly appears repeatedly in elevated poetry of the 5th century BCE in the metaphorical sense “nothing”118 (Pi. P. 8.95; A. Ag. 1328; fr. 154a.9; S. Ai. 126; frr. 13; 945.2; E. Med. 1224; Andr. 745; frr. 509; 532.2); cf. Philem. fr. 178.15; σχιαµάχεω (“shadow-box”, i. e. “box with nothing”) at Cratin. fr. 19.1–2; and the proverb περὶ ὄνου σκιᾶς (“about a donkey’s shadow”, i. e. “about nothing”) at Ar. V. 191; fr. 199.2; S. fr. 331; Pl. Phdr. 260c (also the title of a play by Archippus). The word does not appear to be attested elsewhere in the specific sense “a remark as insubstantial as a shadow”. For the two images combined to produce an even more emphatic expression (“a shadow of smoke”), A. fr. 399; S. Ant. 1170; Ph. 946.

118

Unhelpfully run together with a variety of other extended meanings in LSJ s. v. I.3.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 59)

211

fr. *60 K.-A. (52 K.) (Α.) ἐπὶ καινοτέρας ἰδέας ἀσεβῆ βίον, ὦ µοχθηρός, ἔτριβες. (Β.) πῶς, ὦ πολλῶν ἤδη λοπάδων τοὺς ἄµβωνας περιλείξας; 1 ἀσεβῆ βίον Hermann : ἀσέβιον codd. : ἀσεβῶν βίον Meineke   ὦ µοχθηρός Bergk : ὁ µοχθηρὸς codd.   2 πῶς ὦ Dindorf : πόσω Erot. : ἀλλ᾽ ὦ Phot. : ὁ Apollon. : om. Eust. Et.Gen.   ἤδη om. Erot. Apollon.   περιλείξας Eust. EM : περιλήξας pc ac Erot. Phot. Sz : περιλίξας Phot. Sz b : περιλείψας Apollon.

(A.) You spent your impious life on overly novel forms, you miserable creature. (B.) What do you mean, you licker of the rims of so many, many stewing pans? Erot. α 103 Βακχείῳ συγκατατιθέµεθα, ὃς ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ φησὶν ἄµβην καλεῖσθαι τὴν ὀφρυώδη ἐπανάστασιν. καὶ γὰρ οἱ Ῥόδιοι ἄµβωνας καλοῦσι τὰς ὀφρυώδεις τῶν ὀρῶν ἀναβάσεις. µέµνηται τῆς λέξεως καὶ Αἰσχύλος (frr. 103; 231) καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης ὁ γραµµατικὸς ἐν ταῖς Ἀττικαῖς λέξεσι (fr. 337). Ἐπιθέρσης δ’ ἐν β΄ τῶν Λέξεων ἄµβωνά φησι 〈τὸ〉 (addidi) χεῖλος εἶναι σκεύους καὶ τῆς ἀσπίδος τὸ πρὸς αὐτῇ τῇ ἴτυι. Ἀριστοφάνης δὲ ὁ κωµικὸς ἐν Αὐτολύκῳ φησίν· ――, τουτέστι τὰ περὶ τοὺς ἄµβωνας χείλη We share the opinion of Baccheius, who in his Book III says that ambê is the term for the highest point to which an object projects; for the Rhodians in fact refer to projecting mountain peaks as ambônes. Aeschylus (frr. 103; 231) mentions the word, as does the grammarian Aristophanes in his Attic Vocabulary (fr. 337 Slater). But Epitherses in Book II of his Vocabulary says that an ambôn is 〈the〉 (my addition) rim of a vessel and, in the case of a shield, the section directly at the edge. And the comic poet Aristophanes in Autolykos says: ――, meaning that the parts around the ambônes are rims Apollon. Cit. de artic. (pp. 6.37–7.3 = CMG XI 1.1 p. 28.2–11 Kollesch-Kudlien) ὁ Βακχεῖος τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ µοχλοειδοῦς ξύλου λεγοµένην ἄµβην ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῶν Ἱπποκρατείων λέξεων οὕτως ἐξηγεῖται † ον † (del. Schoene : ὅτι Diels)· ἐν ταῖς Λέξεσιν ἀναγέγραπται, ὡς Ῥόδιοι (corr. Schoene ex Erot. : ὡς ὅτι cod.) ἄµβωνας καλοῦσιν τοὺς τῶν ὀρῶν λόφους καὶ καθόλου τὰς προσαναβάσεις. καὶ διὰ τούτων φησὶν πάλιν· ἀναγέγραπται δὲ καὶ ὡς ὁ ∆ηµόκριτος (68 B 29 D.–K.) εἴη καλῶν τῆς ἴτυος τὴν τῷ κοίλῳ περικειµένην ὀφρὺν ἄµβην. ἔχει δὲ παρ’ αὐτῷ καὶ οὕτως· ἀναγέγραπται δὲ ὁµοίως ἄµβων τῆς λοπάδος τὸ περικείµενον χεῖλος. Ἀριστοφάνης (v. 2)· ὁ πολλῶν λοπάδων τοὺς ἄµβωνας περιλείξας. ταῦτα 〈τὰ〉 (add. Kollesch-Kudlien) κοµιζόµενα µαρτύρια παντελῶς ἐστιν εὐήθη κεχωρισµένα τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν συµβαινόντων χρείας Baccheius in his On Hippocratic Vocabulary explains the so-called ambên on the lever-like piece of wood as follows † ον † (deleted by Schoene : “that” Diels): It is recorded in the Vocabulary that the Rhodians (corrected by Schoene from Erotian :

212

Eupolis

“that that” cod.) use the term ambônes for the crests of mountains and for upward projections generally. And he says again in the following passage: It is also recorded that Democritus (68 B 29 D.–K.) refers to the outermost edge of a shield that runs around the hollow part as an ambên. The following is also found in his work: It is likewise recorded that the encircling lip of a pan is an ambôn. Aristophanes (v. 2): “he who licked around the ambônes of many pans”. The testimonia offered here are utterly ridiculous, since they have nothing to do with the relevant usage Galen in Hp. de artic. (XVIII.A p. 340.13–17 Kühn) τοιαύτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ ὀφρύς, οἵη κατὰ τῶν λοπάδων πέρας τὸ ἄνω γίνεται πρὸς τὴν ἐντὸς ἐστραµµένην κοιλότητα· καί τις τῶν κωµικῶν ἐπεῖπεν ἐπισκώπτων τινὰ δὴ τῶν λοπάδων τοὺς ἄµβωνας περιλείχειν The ophrys is something like what the upper edge is in the case of pans, in contrast to the inward-turned hollow portion; and one of the comic poets used the term, mockingly asserting that someone was in fact licking around the ambônes of pans Phot. α 1173 ἄµβωνες· τὰ χείλη τῶν λοπάδων, καὶ οἱ λόφοι τῶν ὀρῶν, καὶ ἡ ἴτυς πᾶσα καὶ οἷον ὀφρὺς καὶ ὑπεροχή. Ἀριστοφάνης ὁ κωµικός (v. 2)· ―― ambônes: rims of pans, and mountain crests, and the entire edge of a shield and a projection, as it were, and a prominence. The comic poet Aristophanes (v. 2): ―― Eust. p. 1636.49–53 = i.353.2–6 ἄκριες, λόφοι ὀρῶν οἱ καὶ ἄµβωνες, ὧν πολλὴ ἡ χρῆσις. φησὶ γοῦν Αἴλιος ∆ιονύσιος (α 96)· ἄµβωνες, λόφοι ὀρῶν, καὶ ἴτυς πᾶσα καὶ οἷον ὀφρὺς καὶ ὑπεροχή. καὶ χείλη δὲ λοπάδων, οἷον (v. 2)· πολλῶν … περιλείξας. ἐρρέθη δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ µορίου γυναικείου ὁ ἄµβων. φέρεται δὲ καὶ ὅτι ἄµβων λοπάς. καὶ ἡ τῆς λοπάδος ἐνδοτάτω ὀφρύς. καὶ τὰ χείλη. καὶ ὀρῶν λόφοι, προσαναβάσεις, ὑπεροχαί. καὶ αἱ τοῖς κοιλώµασι περικείµεναι ὀφρῦς akries, mountain crests, which are also called ambônes, a term used in many ways. Aelius Dionysius (α 96), at any rate, says: ambônes, mountain crests, and the entire edge of a shield and a projection, as it were, and a prominence. But also rims of pans, as in (v. 2): you who licked … pans. ambôn is also used to refer to the female genitals. It is also reported that ambôn (means) pan. Also the part of a pan that projects furthest inward. Also the lips. Also mountain crests, outward projections, prominences. Also the outer edges that encircle hollow objects Et.Gen. AB (= EM p. 81.8–10, etc.) ἄµβων· κυρίως τὸ χεῖλος τῆς λοπάδος· παρὰ τὸ ἐν ἀναβάσει εἶναι, οἷον (v. 2)· πολλῶν … περιλείξας ambôn: properly the rim of a pan, alluding to the fact that it is raised, as in (v. 2): you who licked … pans

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 59)

213

Meter Anapaestic tetrameter catalectic.

rlrl rlrl | rlll rll llll llrl | llll rll Discussion Bergk 1838. 347; Meineke 1839 II.440–1; Kock 1880 I.270–1; Storey 2003. 88–9; Corbel-Morana 2007. 15 Citation context Erotian and Apollonius Citiensis both trace their knowledge of this fragment to Baccheius of Tanagra’s On Hippocratic Vocabulary, which must be Galen’s source as well. Baccheius (after 200 BCE) was drawing on Aristophanes of Byzantium, who was likely discussing ἂµ βωµοῖσι at Il. 8.441, where ἀµβώνεσσι had been conjectured at some point by a certain Diogenes; Aristophanes of Byzantium must be responsible for the references to Aeschylus, Democritus and Eupolis (or Aristophanes). Photius, Eustathius and the Etymologica, meanwhile, appear to be drawing on Aelius Dionysius (2nd century CE; explicitly cited by Eustathius), who was in turn similarly dependent on Aristophanes of Byzantium.119 Erotian and Apollonius (drawing on Baccheius), on the one hand, and Photius (drawing on Aelius Dionysius), on the other hand, all assign this fragment to Aristophanes. If that is wrong and the verses are actually from Eupolis’ Autolykos, the error must go back to Aristophanes of Byzantium, who should have known better. It might thus alternatively be the case that the problem is with the play-title offered by Erotian and this is in fact a fragment of Aristophanes. See in general Slater 1986. 113. Baccheius, along with the medical authors who cite him, was glossing Hp. Art. 7 = 4.88.19 Littré, where ἄµβην δὲ ἐχέτω (“and let it have an ambê”) is one of the details in a description of a device used to reduce dislocated joints. Apollonius was a fierce critic of Baccheius’ views, hence the hostile remark at the end of his citation. Text Kassel–Austin set off 1 ὦ µοχθηρός with commas, as is generally their practice in such cases, but fail to do the same with 2 ὦ πολλῶν. This only obscures the sense, regardless of how 2 πῶς is understood (see Interpretation). In 1, the paradosis ἀσέβιον is a non-word, and Hermann proposed ἀσεβῆ βίον (cf. Ar. Pax 588–9 γεωργικὸν βίον ἐτρίβοµεν), βῆ having been omitted before βί (paleographically similar and also pronounced identically).

119

Phot. α 1174 ἄµβωνες· οἱ ὀρεινοὶ τόποι καὶ αἱ προσαναβάσεις καὶ πᾶσα ἡ ὑπεροχή (“ambônes: mountainous spots and outward projections and an entire prominence (sic)”) is drawn from the same source.

214

Eupolis

Further on in 1, the paradosis ὁ µοχθηρός is unmetrical, and Bergk’s ὦ µοχθηρός (nominative for vocative metri gratia (cf. fr. 268n n.), with the error to be analyzed as a misguided correction of ὦ to the nominative definite article) is an easy fix. The first word in 2 must have been garbled early on (πόσω Erot.; corrected to πῶς ὦ by Dindorf), hence the attempts at correction in Apollonius (ὁ) and Photius (ἀλλ᾽ ὦ), and the decision to drop the letters in Eustathius and the Et.Gen. Baccheius must have omitted ἤδη in 2, hence its absence from Erotian and Apollonius (Galen merely paraphrases), on the one hand, and its presence in the witnesses who have got the verse from Aelius Dionysius, on the other. περιλείξας proved too difficult a word for the copyists, with only Eustathius and the EM (through Aelius Dionysius) getting it right. For the full range of errors (which tell us nothing about what Eupolis wrote), see the apparatus in Kassel–Austin. Interpretation For the problematic assignment of the fragment (just as likely from Aristophanes as from Eupolis), see Citation context. The two charges leveled in 1—of a devotion to novel forms and of leading an ἀσεβής life—are most naturally taken as related, meaning that whatever ugly innovations (B.) is accused of favoring, they offend the gods,120 as opposed to the shameless gluttony for which (B.) denounces (A.) in 2, which bothers other human beings. Eustathius’ comment immediately after he quotes these verses raises the possibility that (B.)’s reference to licking the rims of ambônes in 2 has a sexual significance; cf. the denunciation of Ariphrades at Ar. Eq. 1283–6 for his inventive fondness for cunnilingus in brothels; Henderson 1991 § 167. There is no particular reason to read the line this way, however, and it is simpler to assume that (A.) is being charged with a relentless greed that puts the lie to the high-minded posture he adopts in 1; cf. the confrontation between the hero Trygaios and the chresmologue Hierocles at Ar. Pax 1045–1126, where Hierocles repeatedly denounces Trygaios’ sacrifice to Peace and Trygaios accuses him of being a greedy fraud who merely wants a share of the meat. 1 ἐπὶ καινοτέρας ἰδέας The adjective has a clear negative sense here; cf. fr. 56 n., and contrast Ar. Nu. 547 αἰεὶ καινὰς ἰδέας εἰσφέρων σοφίζοµαι (“I always have clever things to say, introducing new forms”) with D’Angour

120

E. g. Thgn. 1179–80 Κύρνε, θεοὺς αἰδοῦ καὶ δείδιθι· τοῦτο γὰρ ἄνδρα / εἴργει µήθ’ ἕρδειν µήτε λέγειν ἀσεβῆ (“Show respect to the gods, Cyrnus, and fear them; for this is what keeps a man from doing or saying anything asebês”); Arist. VV 1251a31–3.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 59)

215

2011. 190–202. An ἰδέα (〈 ἰδεῖν) is a “form” in the sense of an “outward appearance, that which is seen” (e. g. fr. 316.5; Ar. Nu. 289; Ra. 384 ἑτέραν ὕµνων ἰδέαν, “a new form of hymns”). ὦ µοχθηρός is a “low-register insult” (Dickie 1996. 168), as at e. g. fr. 278.2; Ar. Ach. 165 ὦ µοχθηρὲ σύ with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Pl. 391; Th. 8.73.3 µοχθηρὸν ἄνθρωπον (Thucydides’ own characterization of Hyperbolos); Pl. Phdr. 268e ὦ µοχθηρέ (introducing a hypothetical crude, aggressive comment). 5th-century vocabulary (〈 µόχθος, “labor, difficulty, distress, misery”) first attested at A. Th. 257. For βίον τρίβω in the sense “wear away”, i. e. “spend one’s life, live one’s life”, cf. Ar. Pax 588–9 γεωργικὸν βίον ἐτρίβοµεν; Eub. fr. 68.2; S. El. 602 with Finglass 2007 ad loc.; E. Heracl. 84; Fraenkel 1950 on A. Ag. 465 “disparagingly used of a dragging life which is wearisome, miserable, purposeless, etc.”; LSJ s. v. τρίβω II.2. 2 is a hostile response to the nasty attack in 1, with πολλῶν … λοπάδων τοὺς ἄµβωνας περιλείξας characterizing (A.) as shamelessly greedy for food but also by implication for anything else he can get his hands on; cf. the Sausage-seller’s mock-oracle at Ar. Eq. 1033–4, which warns Demos that the treacherous Cleon/Cerberus εἰσφοιτῶν τ’ εἰς τοὐπτάνιον λήσει σε κυνηδὸν / νύκτωρ τὰς λοπάδας καὶ τὰς νήσους διαλείχων (“will visit the kitchen at night, when you’re not watching, and like a dog will lick the pans and the islands clean”). For the λοπάς (“stewing pan”), see frr. 5 n.; 275.2 n. For περιλείχω, cf. Ar. Pl. 736; fr. 598.2 ὥσπερ καδίσκου περιέλειχε τὸ στόµα (someone “licked around” the honeyed mouth of Sophocles “just as around the mouth of a jar”); attested nowhere else before Aristotle. If the fragment has been quoted in syntactically complete form, πῶς; likely means “How (can what you say be true)?”, i. e. “What are you talking about?” vel sim. (cf. Ar. Pax 283 πῶς, ὦ πανοῦργ’;), and (B.) is rejecting the charges advanced by (A.) in 1. Alternatively, (B.)’s reply might have continued in the next line with a finite verb (e. g. “How (can you …)”), as is normally the case with πῶς; (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 76.3 πῶς, ὦ κατάρατε, δ’ ἐνέχεας;; Ar. Nu. 398–9 καὶ πῶς, ὦ µῶρε σὺ καὶ Κρονίων ὄζων καὶ βεκκεσέληνε, / εἴπερ βάλλει κτλ; Pax 1076b καὶ πῶς, ὦ κατάρατε, λύκος ποτ’ ἂν οἶν ὑµεναιοῖ;). ἤδη serves to reinforce the word that precedes it, as at e. g. Ar. Ach. 315 δεινὸν ἤδη (“really awful”); Eq. 430 λαµπρὸς ἤδη (“quite sharp”); Th. 385 πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον (“for quite a while”); Antiph. fr. 202.13 ἐντὸς ἤδη τῶν ὀδόντων (“fully inside your teeth”); Epicr. fr. 3.17 πανταχόσ’ ἤδη (“absolutely everywhere”); E. Alc. 747 πολλοὺς µὲν ἤδη (“in enormous numbers”). See also fr. 49 n.

216

Eupolis

Most of the evidence for the meaning of ἄµβων / ἄµβη—etymology unknown, despite the naive ancient attempts to derive it from ἀναβαίνω; the connection with Latin umbo, “shield boss”, is uncertain—comes from the sources for this fragment cited above. But note also Ephipp. fr. 5.16 (once again the rims (sic) of a λοπάς); Call. Aet. fr. 75.34 Harder with Harder 2012 ad loc. (although without reference to the comic evidence); and see Ross 1971.

fr. 61 K.-A. (53 K.) ΣAreth. Pl. Ap. 23e (p. 422 Greene) Λύκων µέντοι πατὴρ ἦν Αὐτολύκου, Ἴων (Ἰωνίδης Meier) γένος, δῆµον (scripsi : δήµων cod.) Θορίκιος, πένης, ὡς Κρατῖνος Πυτίνῃ (fr. 214), Ἀριστοφάνης Σφηξίν (1301), Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν Φίλοις (fr. 295) καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ Ῥοδίᾳ κωµῳδεῖ αὐτόν, ἐν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ Αὐτολύκῳ εἰς ξένον, Μεταγένης δ’ Ὁµήρῳ (fr. 10) εἰς προδότην· ―― Lykon in fact was the father of Autolykos, an Ionian by descent, from the deme Thorikos, and a pauper, as Cratinus (asserts) in Pytinê (fr. 214) and Aristophanes in Wasps (1301), while Eupolis in Philoi (fr. 295) also mocks him in connection with his wife Rhodia, and in Autolykos I as a foreigner, while Metagenes in Homêros (fr. 10) (mocks him) as a traitor: ――

Discussion Storey 1985. 322–3; Storey 2003. 89–90 Citation context A gloss on Pl. Ap. 23e, where Socrates lists the three men who have brought the indictment against him, characterizing Meletos as acting on behalf of the poets, Anytos on behalf of the craftsmen and the citizens, and Lykon “on behalf of those who speak at public meetings” (οἱ ῥήτορες), i. e. the politicians. Presumably culled from a Hellenistic or Roman-era catalogue of kômôidoumenoi and drawn by Arethas (10th century BCE) from a source similar to the one that preserved frr. 386; 395. ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 270 (preserving fr. 232) may go back to the same source. The references to Cratinus, Aristophanes and Eupolis are likely in error, this being a different Lykon; see Interpretation. In addition, although Ar. V. 1301 lists Lykon among the guests at the dinner party and symposium attended by Philocleon and Bdelycleon, nothing is said or implied there about him being impoverished. Although the information contained in this note must originally have been drawn from the texts of the comedies themselves, therefore, it appears here at second- or third-hand and has become confused in a number of now mostly untraceable ways in the course of transmission.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 61)

217

Interpretation Little is known about Lykon of the deme Thorikos (PA 9271; PAA 611820) beyond the fact that he was the father of Autolykos, the title-character of Eupolis’ plays, and was repeatedly attacked in the late 420s and 410s BCE for the allegedly shameless behavior of his wife (for which, see frr. 232 with n.; 295 with n.). Cratinus is supposed to have called Lykon a πένης (“pauper”) in Pytinê (fr. 214; 423 BCE), and the fact that it was funny to pretend that he had no money suggests that in fact he had quite a bit, as is also implied by his son’s status as an athlete and the lover of Callias, as well as the inclusion of him in the guest-list for a fancy dinner party at Ar. V. 1301 (see Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.). Note also fr. 50 with n. Lykon the father of Autolykos was likely in his late 40s or early 50s at least at the time of his son’s victory, and it is thus unlikely that he is the same man as the Lykon who was among the prosecutors of Socrates over 20 years later (Pl. Ap. 23e, 36a), although Metag. fr. 10.3 ἀγορᾶς ἄγαλµα ξενικόν (“a foreign ornament of the marketplace”; post-400 BCE) does similarly charge someone by this name with non-Athenian origins.121 See Storey 1985. 322–4 (positing that two or perhaps three individuals are in question); Nails 2002. 188–9 (accepting the identification of the father of Autolykos with the accuser of Socrates, but acknowledging the chronological difficulties). For similar slanders of foreign birth directed against prominent individuals, e. g. frr. 80; 90; 99.24–5; 262 with n.; Cratin. fr. 32; Ar. Ach. 704–5 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Av. 10–11 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Ra. 417–18, 730; Pl. Com. frr. 182.4 with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; 185; Polyzel. fr. 5 (from the same source as Pl. Com. fr. 185, probably drawing on a larger collection of such material); Wankel 1974. 87–92; and see fr. *64 and the general introduction to Marikas. For the use of εἰς in the sense “as a”, Kassel–Austin compare Ar. fr. 552 ἐν δὲ Τελµισσεῦσιν εἰς συκοφάντην ἀποσκώπτει, to which add e. g. Cratin. fr. 215 εἰς αὐχµηρὸν καὶ πένητα (both of Chaerephon) and Archipp. fr. 31 εἰς σκυτέα αὐτὸν σκώπτει (of Anytos) (both from other sections of ΣAreth. Pl. Ap.), and see the additional examples collected at Lorenzoni 1983. 85–7. Despite Storey 2003. 89, the fact that Lykon was mentioned in Autolykos tells us nothing about whether he was a character in the play.122

121

122

That Metagenes charges this man with betraying Naupactus suggests he is a general, which is difficult to reconcile with what we know of Autolykos’ father, who must at this point have been 70 or older. The arbitrary nature of the claim is apparent in Storey’s converse willingness (2003. 91) to entertain the notion that “Rhodia”, although referenced in fr. 58, may not have appeared onstage.

218

Eupolis

fr. 62 K.-A. (54 K.) ΣAreth. Pl. Ap. 19c = Ar. test. 3.17–18 (p. 421 Greene) (Aristophanes) κωµῳδεῖται δὲ καὶ 〈ὅτι〉 τὸ τῆς εἰρήνης κολοσσικὸν ἐξῇρεν ἄγαλµα. Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ, Πλάτων Νίκαις (fr. 86) (Aristophanes) He is also mocked 〈for the fact that〉 he brought the statue of Peace onstage. Eupolis in Autolykos, Plato in Nikai (fr. 86)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 342; Kyriakidi 2007. 150–4 Citation context The final portion of a biographical note glossing the mention of Aristophanes in the Apology, where Socrates cites Clouds as one of the original sources of the widespread prejudice against him. The note cites several other comedies in which Aristophanes was made fun of by contemporary rivals, as well as Cratin. fr. 342 (which ends with the nonce-word εὐριπιδαριστοφανίζων, “a Euripidaristophanizer”) and a scattering of later prose authors, including Apollodorus of Athens FGrH 244 F 75 (2nd century BCE), regarding his family, and must be drawing on a well-informed Hellenistic or Roman-era source. Interpretation Aristophanes’ Peace was staged at the City Dionysia in 421 BCE and placed second; Eupolis took the prize with Kolakes. One of the play’s central scenes involves the rescue of the eponymous goddess, who has been imprisoned by the monstrous War in a cave concealed by rocks (221–6) and who is hauled out to safety and thus restored to the Greek world by the Panhellenic chorus of farmers (esp. 508–22). That two rivals separately mocked the staging—certainly at the next festival in Eupolis’ case; for Plato Comicus, cf. test. 10 n.—leaves little doubt that something went wrong in the course of the performance. But what the problem was we cannot say; see Taplin 2014 with further bibliography. The most likely location for such remarks is in any case a parabasis.

[fr. 63 K.-A. (55 K.)] Ath. 5.216d Εὔπολις τὸν Αὐτόλυκον διδάξας διὰ ∆ηµοστράτου χλευάζει τὴν νίκην τοῦ Αὐτολύκου Eupolis in his staging of Autolykos in the archonship of Demostratos mocks Autolykos’ victory

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. *64)

219

Citation context From Herodicus’ discussion of the misleading chronology of events presupposed in Plato’s Symposium (~ test. 13d). Interpretation This passage preserves no trace of Eupolis’ words. It is therefore appropriately treated as a testimonium to the play (test. i), but ought not to have been identified separately as a fragment of the text.

fr. *64 K.-A. (56 K.) Phot. ε 2356 = Et.Gen. AB (EM p. 399.17–18) Εὐτρήσιος· παρὰ τὸ τετρῆσθαι. τὸν Αὐτόλυκον ὁ Εὔπολις σκώπτει· Εὔτρησις δὲ πόλις Ἀρκαδική Εutrêsian: from tetrêsthai (“to have been bored, pierced”). Eupolis mocks Autolykos (thus). And Eutrêsis is an Arcadian city

Discussion Meineke 1826 I.41–2; Meineke 1839 I.117; Henderson 1991 § 157; Storey 2003. 90 Citation context Related material, but with no mention of Eupolis, all of it probably ultimately going back to a note on Il. 2.502 (from the Catalogue of Ships), is preserved at – Str. 9.411 ὁ δὲ ποιητὴς ἐφεξῆς ταῖς Κώπαις Εὔτρησιν τίθησι κωµίον Θεσπιέων· ἐνταῦθά φασι Ζῆθον καὶ Ἀµφίονα οἰκῆσαι πρὶν βασιλεῦσαι Θηβῶν (“Following Kôpai the poet puts Eutrêsis, a small Thespian village. They say that Zethus and Amphion lived there before they ruled Thebes”) – Hsch. ε 7250 Εὔτρη· πόλις Ἀρκαδίας (“Eutrê: an Arcadian city”; traced by Latte to Diogenianus) – Hsch. ε 7251 Εὐτρηϊους· τοὺς ἀπὸ Εὔτρης, τῆς πόλεως τῆς Ἀρκαδίας. ∆ωρικῶς δὲ εἴρηκε Τηλεκλείδης (fr. 63)· θέλει γὰρ εἰπεῖν Εὐτρησίους (“Eutrêhioi: the people from Eutrê, the Arcadian city. Teleclides (fr. 63) has the word in the Doric form; for he means to say ‘Eutrêsioi’”; traced by Latte to Diogenianus) – St.Byz. ε 174 Εὔτρησις· κώµη 〈Βοιωτίας〉 (add. Meineke). Ὅµηρος (Il. 2.502)· Κώπας Εὔτρησίν τε. κεῖται δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ἐκ Θεσπιῶν εἰς Πλαταιὰς ἀπάγουσαν, ἣν ἐτείχισε Ζῆθος καὶ Ἀµφίων. ἐκλήθη δὲ Εὔτρησις διὰ τὸ πολλαῖς αὐτὴν πρότερον τετρῆσθαι ῥύµαις, ὡς Ἐπαφρόδιτος (fr. 19 Braswell / Billerbeck = fr. 20 Lünzer). ὁ κωµήτης Εὐτρησίτης, ἀφ’ οὗ Ἀπόλλων Εὐτρησίτης· καὶ ἱερὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ µαντεῖον ἐνδοξότατον. τὸ γὰρ Εὐτρήσιοι πόλις Ἀρκαδίας καὶ οὐκ ἐθνικόν (“Eutrêsis: a 〈Boeotian〉 (added by Meineke) village. Homer (Il. 2.502): Kôpai and Eutrêsis. It is located along the road that leads from Thespiae to Plataea, which Zethus

220

Eupolis

and Amphion equipped with walls. It was called Eutrêsis because of the fact that it was previously pierced (tetrêsthai) by many lanes, according to Epaphroditus (fr. 19 Braswell/Billerbeck = fr. 20 Lünzer). An inhabitant of the village is an Eutrêsitês, whence Apollo Eutrêsitês; both his temple and oracular shrine are held in great honor. For Eutrêsioi refers to an Arcadian city and is not an ethnic”) Interpretation This fragment is not actually assigned to Autolykos by Photius = Et.Gen., although that seems the likeliest place for it, and the number therefore requires a prefixed * (omitted by Kassel–Austin). A two-pronged attack on Autolykos (PA 2748; PAA 239835; see the general introduction to the play): he is not an Athenian but a Eutrêsian (cf. fr. 61 n.), and the mocking further implication of the latter title is that he has been “well-pierced” (i. e. aggressively sodomized), sc. by Kallias and perhaps others (thus already Meineke). Kassel–Austin compare Ar. fr. 497 ὥσπερ αἰρότατον τέτρηται (“he/she/it has been pierced like a sieve”), where Mueller 1974. 264–5 n. 1181 suggested an obscene sense (thus also Henderson 1991 § 157, although note that Ar. Lys. 680 is irrelevant to the point; that at Ar. Th. 1124 actual drilling through a piece of wood is in question; and that Autolykos rather than Eutresios is the title of Eupolis’ play) and the much more obviously obscene use of τρυπάω at e. g. Theoc. 5.42; Call. fr. 689 with the apparatus in Pfeiffer 1949 (and see fr. 192.48 with n.). Boeotian Eutresis is IACP #205. The Arcadian city mentioned by Hesychius and Stephanus of Byzantium must actually be Eutaia (IACP #270).

fr. 65 K.-A. (57 K.) ΣVΓ Ar. V. 1025 δι’ Εὔπολιν· ἐν Αὐτολύκῳ δὲ τοιαῦτά φησινVΓ… ὅτιV π ε ρ ι ῄ ε ι τ ὰ ς π α Γλ α ί σ τ ρ α ς σεµνυνόµενος καὶ τοῖς παισὶν ἑαυτὸν δῆλον ποιῶν τῆς ν ί κ η ς ἕ ν ε κ α VΓ On account of Eupolis: In Autolykos he makes remarks of this sortVΓ … thatV h e w e n t a r o u n d t h e w r e Γs t l i n g s c h o o l s h a u g h t i l y s h o w i n g h i m s e l f o f f t o t h e b o y s b e c a u s e o f h i s v i c t o r y VΓ

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.445; Wilamowitz 1870. 44–8; Kock 1880 I.271; van Leeuwen 1909. 162; Koster 1978. 163; Fisher 2000. 377; Storey 2003. 288–90 Citation context A note on Ar. V. 1023–5 ἀρθεὶς δὲ µέγας καὶ τιµηθεὶς ὡς οὐδεὶς πώποτ’ ἐν ὑµῖν, / οὐκ ἐκτελέσαι φησὶν ἐπαρθείς, οὐδ’ ὀγκῶσαι τὸ

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 65)

221

φρόνηµα, / οὐδὲ παλαίστρας περικωµάζειν πειρῶν (“But after he was exalted to greatness and honored among you as no one ever was before, he denies that he was lifted off the ground or got big-headed, or that he went around the wrestling schools making passes”; the chorus in the parabasis, speaking of their poet). ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 763 (= test. 17) is similar, and ΣΓ alludes to that passage in a portion of the scholion omitted above (τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἐν Εἰρήνῃ οὕτως, “this is also in Peace thus”). Text Wilamowitz suggested that the Eupolidean original might be restored τὰς 〈δὲ〉 παλαίστρας σεµνυνόµενος περιῄει / καὶ τοῖς παισὶν δῆλον ἑαυτὸν τῆς νίκης οὕνεκ᾿ ἐποίει, while Koster proposed e. g. περιῄει 〈γὰρ〉 / τάς 〈τε〉 παλαίστρας σεµνυνόµενος / καὶ τοῖς παισὶν δῆλον ἑαυτὸν / ποιῶν νίκης οὕνεκα 〈ταύτης〉. But there is no way of knowing how close the paraphrase in the scholion is to what Eupolis supposedly wrote and thus little point in trying to reconstruct the precise language of the latter. Interpretation If the lines from Wasps (422 BCE) are in fact a response to a passage from Eupolis, the conventional dating of Autolykos I to 420 BCE is wrong; see the general introduction to the play, Date. Perhaps the problem is instead with the scholion (Wilamowitz thought that the reference ought to have been to Philoi); or Eupolis repeated lines from an earlier comedy in one of his Autolykos plays, much as this entire section of the Wasps parabasis is recycled in Peace; or Eupolis was responding to Aristophanes rather than the other way around (thus Kock).123 But the dating problem means that this must in any case be treated as only a dubious fragment of Autolykos I or II even if it belongs to Eupolis. If the passage in question is from an Autolykos play, and if Autolykos’ relationship with Kallias was a theme in Eupolis’ comedy (cf. fr. *64 n.), the theme of pederastic love in an athletic context would be appropriate. For wrestling schools as an opportunity for designing lovers to watch or come into physical contact with boys, e. g. Av. 139–42; Pl. Smp. 217c; Euthd. 273a; cf. Dover 1978. 54–5, 138; Hubbard 2003. For general discussion of Athens’ gymnasia in this period, Travlos 1971. 42–51 (Academy), 340–1 (Cynosarges), 345–7 (Lyceum); Humphreys 1974. 90–1. For the role of gymnasia in Greek civic life more broadly defined, Forbes 1945. 32–42; Kah and Scholz 2004 (Hellenistic period), and see fr. 36 n. (on the Academy). For περίειµι, cf. fr. 327.2 περιῆλθον with n. For σεµνός and cognates, see fr. 99.26 n. 123

van Leeuwen suggested that after Autolykos I was performed, Aristophanes inserted the lines responding to Eupolis into the text of Wasps, but fails to explain why he would have chosen to do so.

222

Eupolis

fr. 66 K.-A. (58 K.) δίφρος Θετταλικὸς τετράπους a Thessalian stool with four feet Poll. 10.47 δίφροι Θετταλικοί, ὡς ἐν Αὐτολύκῳ Εὐπόλιδος· ―― Thessalian stools, as in Eupolis’ Autolykos: ――

Meter Anapaestic; the words scan

kllrlrl Discussion Storey 2003. 93 Citation context From a short collection of words for benches, stools and the like. Related material (but without reference to Eupolis) is preserved at Poll. 7.112 κάλλιστοι δὲ οἱ Θετταλικοὶ δίφροι, διὸ καὶ ἡ Πυθία ἔφη· Θετταλὲ ποικιλόδιφρε (“Thessalian diphroi are extremely attractive, which is why the Pythia said: ‘Thessalian of the elaborate diphros’”); Ael.Dion. θ 11 Θετταλικοὶ δίφροι· διάφοροι, τουτέστι διαφέροντες 〈τῷ κάλλει〉 πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους (“Thessalian diphroi: exceptional ones, i. e. distinguished 〈for their beauty〉 in comparison to the others”, ap. Hsch. θ 423; Phot. θ 142; Eust. p. 331.17 = I.517.5–6); Hsch. θ 685; Tim. Lex. p. 1002.28–9; Erot. ε 36 (quoted in Interpretation). Interpretation Storey suggests that “in the light of Kn. 1384–6” (where the Sausage-seller tells Demos that he can use an attractive young male slave as an ὀκλαδία, “folding stool”) these words “could have pederastic overtones”, which is true but represents an enormous and unnecessary leap of the imagination. A δίφρος (literally “two-bearer”, 〈 δίς + φέρω) is both (1) a chariot seat and by extension a chariot (LSJ s. v. I), and (2) a couch or stool (LSJ s. v. II), as here and at e. g. Ar. Eq. 1164; Men. fr. 461 ἐκάθηντ’ ἐπὶ δίφρου µήτηρ τε καὶ / παρθένος (“the mother and the girl were sitting on a diphros”). According to Erot. ε 36 πᾶς … δίφρος ἀνακλισµὸν ἔχων Θεσσαλικὸς παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς λέγεται (“the ancients refer to any diphros that has a back as Thessalian”), and Pollux and Aelius Dionysius (quoted in Citation context) both assert that Thessalian diphroi were particularly attractive—although in neither case is it

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 67)

223

clear that the original reference was to stools rather than to chariots.124 For chairs and stools in general, see fr. 218.3 n. Θετταλικός For adjectives in -ικός used in reference to a place or people, cf. frr. 199 Γαδειρικός; 261.2 Μεγαρικός; 334.2 Κρητικός; Chantraine 1956. 122–3 (an extensive collection of examples from Herodotus), and see in general fr. *22 n. τετράπους is probably intended to add to the magnificence of the description, three feet being enough for a simpler stool.

fr. 67 K.-A. (59 K.) ΣR Ar. Th. 942 ὅτι τὸ ἑ σ τ ι ᾶ ν καὶ δοτικῇ συντάσσουσιν, ὡς καὶ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδί ἐστιν ἐν Αὐτολύκῳ θατέρῳ, ὥστ’ οὔτ’ ἐκεῖ οὔτ’ ἐνθάδε δεῖ ξενίζεσθαι οὔτ’ … οὔτ’ Bekker : οὐδὲ … οὐδὲ R They also combine h e s t i a n with the dative, as in fact in Eupolis in Autolykos II, so that neither in that passage nor here is there any need to be surprised

Discussion Bergk 1838. 346; Meineke 1839 II.444–5; Kock 1880 I.272 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Th. 942 γέλωτα παρέχω τοῖς κόραξιν ἑστιῶν (“I give the ravens a laugh as I feast them”, sc. “on my flesh”) in R (the only manuscript in which the play is preserved), taken over in abbreviated form at Suda ε 3215. Probably drawn from Phrynichus, the relevant portion of the surviving epitomized version of whose note (PS p. 66.7–9) reads ἑστιᾶν τῷδε· οὐ µόνον τόνδε κατὰ αἰτιατικήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ 〈κατὰ〉 δοτικήν. Ὅµηρος (Il. 9.70)· δαίνυ δαῖτα γέρουσιν (“to host this man (dat.): not only tonde in the accusative, but also 〈in〉 the dative. Homer (Il. 9.70): prepare a meal for the elders (dat.)”)—followed by an acknowledgement that the alleged parallel is disputed and involves a different verb. Text ὥστ’ οὔτ’ ἐκεῖ οὔτ’ ἐνθάδε δεῖ ξενίζεσθαι (thus Bekker for R’s scriptio plena οὐδὲ … οὐδὲ) scans as an iambic trimeter with hepthemimeral caesura (llkl llr|l klkl) and was set off as such by Dübner 1877.

124

Cf. LSJ s. v. ποικιλόδιφρος “with chariot (or perhaps throne) richly dight”, the final word in the definition being an archaism meaning “prepared” or “adorned”; e. g. Il. 10.501 ποικίλου ἐκ δίφροιο (of a chariot).

224

Eupolis

Interpretation ἑστιάω routinely takes the accusative (e. g. Ar. Lys. 1058; Antiph. fr. 69.1–2; X. Smp. 1.4; 2.2; Pl. Smp. 175b; Phdr. 227b; Is. 3.80; Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 92; D. 21.156),125 and in the line from Aristophanes τοῖς κόραξιν is in the dative only because it is in the first instance the indirect object of παρέχω, after which it is taken with ἑστιῶν apo koinou (“that I might give the ravens a laugh by offering them hospitality”). The passage from Eupolis likely involved another similarly odd syntactic situation; for similar confusion, cf. frr. 7; 10. The verb is first attested in the second half of the 5th century (e. g. Ar. Pax 343–4; Hdt. 2.100.3; E. HF 483; Antipho 1.16).

fr. 68 K.-A. (60 K.) Ath. 3.89f τὰς δὲ κνίδας ὁ Εὔπολις ἐν Αὐτολύκῳ ἀ κ α λ ή φ α ς ὀνοµάζει But Eupolis in Autolykos refers to sea-anemones126 as a k a l ê p h a i

Citation context From the long discussion of different types of shellfish at Ath. 3.85c–94b. Ar. fr. 572; V. 884; and Pherecr. 29.2 are cited immediately after this, in that order, although all three passages actually refer to nettles (also called akalêphai) rather than sea-anemones. Phot. α 705 = Suda α 788 = Synag. B α 779 (drawing on the common source conventionally designated Σ΄, and beginning ἀκαλήφη· κνίδη, καὶ ἡ χερσαία καὶ ἡ θαλαττία, ἥτις ἐστὶ κογχυλίδιόν τι, “akalêphê: a knidê, both the land- and the sea-variety, which is a type of small mollusc”) also cite Ar. fr. 572 and Pherecr. fr. 29 (complete), as well as Arist. HA 487a25 and Thphr. HP 7.7.2, and most likely represent another version of the material preserved in Athenaeus. Note also Moer. α 133 ἀκαλήφη Ἀττικοί· κνίδη Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers (say) akalêphê, Greeks generally (say) knidê”); Hsch. α 2246 ἀκαλῆφαι· κνίδαι (“akalêphai: knidai”); κ 3121 κνίδαι· ἀκαλῆφαι. καὶ πόα τις (“knidai: akalêphai. Also a type of grass”).

125

126

At D. 40.59 µαρτυρεῖ µὲν δεκάτην ἑστιᾶσαι τούτῳ τὸν ἐµὸν πατέρα (“he attests that my father gave a tenth-day feast for this man”), the point is not that Boeotus was invited to the feast but that it was in his honor (dative of advantage); cf. D. 40.28, where the same idea is expressed as φησὶ τὸν πατέρα µου δεκάτην ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ ἑστιᾶσαι (“he says that my father gave a tenth-day feast on his behalf”). Not “nettles” (Storey 2011. 79).

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 69)

225

Interpretation The sea-anemone is a polyp that attaches itself to the sea-bed by means of an adhesive foot and feeds on small crustaceans, worms, fish and the like. Cf. Ar. Lys. 549; Philippid. fr. 4 (a banquet catalogue); Archestr. fr. 11.7 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; Arist. HA 531a31–b17, 590a27–32; Thompson 1957. 5–6; Davidson 1981. 218. Moeris α 133 (quoted in Citation context) shows that Eupolis was simply using the normal Attic name (etymology unknown) for the creature. fr. 69 K.-A. (61 K.) Phot. α 1716 = Suda α 2122 ἀ ν α φ λ α σ µ ό ν· τὰ Ἀφροδίσια. Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ. καὶ ἀναφλᾶν ἔλεγον (om. Phot.) τὸ µαλάττειν τὸ αἰδοῖον µαλάττειν Phot. Suda : melius ἀναµαλάττειν (cf. Hsch. α 4498 = Phot. α 1593; Phot. φ 217 ~ EM p. 795.36–7) vel µάττειν a n a p h l a s m o n: sex. Eupolis in Autolykos. They also used (“They used” omitted by Photius) anaphlan to refer to making one’s penis soft

Discussion Kaibel ap. K.-A. Citation context From the common source of Photius and the Suda conventionally referred to as Σ΄΄, drawing on a lost lexicographer. Related material, some of it overlapping and thus likely going back to the same source or set of sources, is preserved at – Poll. 2.176 τὸ δ’ ἐπεγείρειν αὐτὸ τοῖν χεροῖν ἀναφλᾶν καὶ ἀνακνᾶν Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Ἀµφιαράῳ (fr. 37) λέγει. ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ τύλος τὸ αἰδοῖον, ὅθεν καὶ Φερεκράτης (fr. 227) τὸ γυµνοῦν αὐτὸ τῇ χειρὶ ἀποτυλοῦν εἶπεν (“Aristophanes in Amphiaraos (fr. 37) uses anaphlan and anaknan to mean ‘to excite (one’s penis) with one’s hands’. A penis is also called a tylos, and Pherecrates (fr. 227) accordingly used apotyloun to refer to laying it bare”—i. e. causing the head to emerge from the foreskin—“with one’s hand”) – Hsch. α 4498 = Phot. α 1593 ἀναπεφλασµένον· ἀνατεταµένον ἔχων τὸ αἰδοῖον. ἀναφλᾶν γὰρ λέγουσιν Ἀττικοὶ τὸ ἀναµαλάσσειν τὰ αἰδοῖα (“anapephlasmenon: having an erect penis. Because Attic-speakers use anaphlan to refer to softening up their penises”) (traced by Theodoridis to Diogenianus)

226

Eupolis

– Hsch. α 4667 ἀναφλᾶν· χειροτριβεῖν αἰδοῖον. οἱ δὲ στύειν ἢ µαλάττειν (“anaphlan: to rub a penis with one’s hand. Others (gloss the word) styein (to have an erection) or malattein (to soften)”) – Phot. φ 217 ~ EM p. 795.36–7 φλᾶν· µαλάττειν· καὶ 〈ἀναφλᾶν〉 τὸ ἀναµαλάττειν. Ἀριστοφάνης (fr. 37) (“phlan: to soften. And 〈anaphlan〉 is to soften up. Aristophanes (fr. 37)”) – EM p. 100.15 ἀναφλᾶν· χειροτρίβειν τὸ αἰδοῖον. οἱ δὲ στύειν (“anaphlan: to rub a penis with one’s hand. Others (gloss the word) styein (to have an erection)”) – ΣRVMEΘBarb Ar. Ra. 427 (Ἀναφλύστιος) ἀναφλᾶν γὰρ ἔλεγον τὸ µαλάσσειν τό αἰδοῖον (“(Anaphlystian) because they used anaphlan to mean to soften a penis”). That anaphlan / phlan means “soften up / soften” seems counter-intuitive, the expected sense being “make hard” (hence Kaibel’s “interpretatio parum accurata”). But δέφοµαι (“masturbate”) has the same root-sense. Interpretation φλάω is properly “bruise, crush”. How the compound comes to mean “excite sexually” is unclear, but cf. Ar. Lys. 1099 ἀµπεφλασµένως (“with erections”; nominally Spartan dialect); fr. 37 (quoted in Citation context); the punning name Σεβῖνος Ἁναφλύστιος (“Phuckus of Woodbury”) at Ar. Ra. 427; Ec. 979–80; and see in general Pl. Com. fr. 60 ἐψάθαλλε λεῖος ὤν (“being smooth-skinned”—i. e. a pretty young man; see fr. 368 n.—“he began to rub his dick”); Henderson 1991 § 489–90. For nouns in -ασµός as tasteless vocabulary, see fr. 72 n.

fr. 70 K.-A. (62 K.) Antiatt. α 139 ἀ π ρ α σ ία· Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ f a i l u r e t o s e l l: Eupolis in Autolykos

Meter The second alpha in ἀπρασία is long, and the word thus fits easily in iambic trimeter. Citation context An isolated lexicographic note. Interpretation ἀπρασία (〈 πέρνηµι, “sell”; cf. fr. 229.2 πρᾶσιν; Chantraine 1940. 11–17) is attested three times in Demosthenes (27.21; 34.8, 22), always of the situation of goods that fail to move on the market, and is thus presumably ordinary commercial language. The citation in the Antiatticist is most easily

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 72)

227

taken to suggest that the word’s status as proper Attic vocabulary had been called into question, although no obvious candidate for a “more appropriate” alternative term presents itself. But perhaps Eupolis used it instead in an unusual way, as he seems to have done with ἀνωφέλητος in fr. 409 (n.).

fr. 71 K.-A. (63 K.) Phot. α 2882 = Synag. Β α 2153 ἀ ρ ρ ω σ τ ή µ ω ν· Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ ἀρρωστήµων Synag. Β : ἀρρωστηµένον Phot. i n f i r m: Eupolis in Autolykos

Meter If Eupolis used the word in the nominative (llll), the meter was likely anapaestic or dactylic. But it may simply have been lemmatized this way, and the oblique forms (lllkk or lllkl) could easily be accommodated in iambic trimeter. Citation context From the common source of Photius and the Synagoge B commonly designated Σ΄΄΄, presumably drawing on a lost Hellenistic or Roman-era lexicographer. Text Photius’ ἀρρωστηµένον is a non-form and likely represents a misunderstood ligature (ἀρρωστήµν vel sim.). Interpretation ἀρρωστήµων is a hapax alternative to the common prosaic ἄρρωστος (e. g. Hp. Aer. 6 = 2.24.19 Littré; Th. 8.83.2; X. Oec. 4.2). For similar formations—probably a mark of elevated style (cf. Pi. fr. *124.a.b.8 ἀχρήµων; A. Th. 917 αὐτοπήµων; Ag. 180 µνησιπήµων, 1060 ἀξυνήµων; Eu. 938 δενδροπήµων) or mock-elevated style—cf. Eub. fr. 44.2 φιλοτραγήµων; Nicoch. fr. 26 ἀνηλεήµων; and see in general Risch 1937. 44–5; Schwyzer 1953 i.522.

fr. 72 K.-A. (64 K.) Antiatt. β 12 β ι α σ µ ό ς· Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ b i a s m o s: Eupolis in Autolykos

Discussion Lobeck 1837. 511–12

228

Eupolis

Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry; but see Interpretation for a possible Atticist context. Interpretation βιασµός (“violence”; 〈 βιάζω) is attested in the classical period also at Aen. Tact. 24.15; Men. Epitr. 453 βιασµὸν … παρθένου (“violence to an unmarried girl”, i. e. “rape”; cf. Satyr. Vita Eur. fr. 39.7 8–10 β̣[ια]σµοὺς παρθ[έ]νων). The formation is unexceptional; cf. θερισµόν (fr. 215 with n., citing numerous parallels; also from the Antiatticist), and from elsewhere in comedy e. g. Ἀδωνιασµός (“mourning for Adonis”; Ar. Lys. 389); ἀναφλασµός (fr. 69 with n.); γωνιασµός (“squaring off”; Ar. Ra. 956); ὀψωνιασµός (“grocery-shopping”; Men. fr. 624); συβαριασµός (“Sybarizing”; Phryn. Com. fr. 67); τηγανισµός (“frying in a pan”; Men. fr. 195). But Ἀδωνιασµός is said with profound distaste; ἀναφλασµός is a crude sexual term; γωνιασµός comes from the Aristophanic Euripides’ description of the wonders of his own dubious poetry; and Pollux deeply disapproves of both ὀψωνιασµός (6.38 παµπόνηρον δ’ ὁ Μενάνδρου ὀψωνιασµός) and τηγανισµός (10.98 ὑπόφαυλοι γὰρ οἱ ἐν Ἱπποκόµῳ Μενάνδρου τηγανισµοί), and the implication is that all such words were somehow suspect, hence the Antiatticist’s need to defend βιασµός as a legitimate alternative to common βία. Cf. Antiatt. ε 36 ἐθισµός· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔθος. Ποσείδιππος Φιλοπάτορι (fr. 27) (“ethismos: in place of ethos. Posidippus in Philopatôr (fr. 27)”); κ 9 κραυγασµός· ἀντὶ τοῦ κραυγή. ∆ίφιλος Ἀποβάτῃ (fr. 16) (“kraugasmos: in place of kraugê; Diphilus in Apobatês (fr. 16)”); Sandbach 1970. 134–5; and elsewhere in comedy e. g. ἀκκισµός (“prudishness”; Philem. fr. 3.14); βαλλισµός (“jumping about, dancing”; Alex. fr. 112.5); βασανισµός (“torturing”; Alex. fr. 292.2); γαργαλισµός (“tickling”; Ar. fr. 181); κορδακισµός (“kordax-dancing”; Nicopho fr. 26); νουθετησµός (Men. fr. 629; cf. fr. 74 n.); πιθηκισµός (“playing monkey-tricks”; Ar. Eq. 887); ῥοπαλισµός (“having a hard-on”; Ar. Lys. 553); τερετισµός (“buzzing”, of music; see fr. 121 n.); τυµπανισµός (“beating of drums”; Ar. Lys. 388); χαρακισµός (“fencing”; Pherecr. fr. 137.2); ψιθυρισµός (“whispering”; Men. Mis. 140); ὠθισµός (“shoving”; Anaxandr. fr. 34.7).

fr. 73 K.-A. (65 K.) Harp. p. 122.10–11 = Ε 90 Keaney ἐπιδέκατον· τὸ δέκατον Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ κατ’ Ἐλπαγόρου. καὶ ἐ π ί π ε µ π τ ο ν εἰώθασι λέγειν τὸ πέµπτον, ὡς καὶ Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 73)

229

epidekaton: Isaeus in his Against Elpagoras (fr. 41 Sauppe) uses this to mean “one-tenth”. They were also accustomed to use e p i p e m p t o n to mean “one-fifth”, as Eupolis in fact (does) in Autolykos

Citation context Four additional overlapping portions of what must originally have been a single note in an Atticist author are preserved at – Poll. 8.53 ὁ Θεόφραστος (fr. 636A) τοὺς µὲν ἄλλας γραφὰς γραψαµένους χιλίας τ’ ὀφλισκάνειν, εἰ τὸ πέµπτον τῶν ψήφων µὴ καταλάβοιεν, καὶ προσατιµοῦσθαι, τοὺς δὲ εἰσαγγέλλοντας µὴ ἀτιµοῦσθαι µέν, ὀφλεῖν δὲ τὰς χιλίας (“Theophrastus (fr. 636A) says that those who file other indictments owe 1000 drachmas if they fail to get one-fifth of the ballots, and that they are also disenfranchised; whereas those who file an eisangelia are not disenfranchised but do owe the 1000 drachmas”) – Harp. p. 102.10–13 = Ε 1 Keaney ἐάν τις γραψάµενος µὴ µεταλάβῃ τὸ ε΄ µέρος τῶν ψήφων, ὀφλισκάνει χιλίας καὶ πρόσεστιν ἀτιµία τις. Λυσίας ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ τῶν ῥητόρων νόµου (fr. 97). διείλεκται περὶ τούτων καὶ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῶν νόµων (fr. 636A) (“If someone brings an indictment but fails to get one-fifth of the ballots, he owes 1000 drachmas, and a form of disenfranchisement is involved. Lysias in his Concerning the Law Regarding the Orators (fr. 97). Theophrastus in his On the Laws (cf. fr. 636A) has also discussed these matters”) – Harp. p. 128.5–7 = Ε 108 Keaney ἐπίπεµπτον· Λυσίας (fr. 203) ἐν τῷ πρὸς Κριτόδηµον καὶ Πλάτων (Pl. Com. fr. 271) ἀντὶ ἁπλοῦ τοῦ πέµπτου. Ἀριστοφάνης ∆αιταλεῦσιν (fr. 212)· (Α.) οὐ µὴ µεταλάβῃ τοὐπίπεµπτον. (Β.) κλαέτω (“epipempton: Lysias (fr. 203) in his On Behalf of Critodemus and Plato (Pl. Com. fr. 271), in place of the simple pempton. Aristophanes in Daitalês (fr. 212): ‘(A.) He won’t get his epipempton. (B.) To hell with him’”) – Phot. τ 403 = EM p. 763.21–2 τοὐπίπεµπτον· οἱ γὰρ µὴ µεταλαβόντες τὸ ε΄ µέρος τῶν ψήφων ἄτιµοι ἦσαν· οὕτως Ἀριστοφάνης (fr. 212) (“the epipempton: because those who failed to get one-fifth of the ballots were disenfranchised; thus Aristophanes (fr. 212)”). An abbreviated version of Harp. p. 122.10–11 = Ε 90 Keaney also appears at Phot. ε 1520 = Suda ε 2286 ἐπιδέκατον· τὸ δέκατον· καὶ ἐπίπεµπτον· τὸ πέµπτον λέγειν εἰώθασιν (from the Epitome of Harpocration), and the note as a whole is taken over as Lex. Vindob. ε 45. Interpretation τὸ ἐπιδέκατον is used repeatedly in the classical period to refer to the 10% of various fines that was dedicated to Athena (lex ap. And. 1.96; X. HG 1.7.10, 20; lex ap. D. 43.71; thus presumably also Isaeus). Eupolis might have used ἐπίπεµπτον to mean “one-fifth” of anything. But the evidence

230

Eupolis

of the other lexicographic passages quoted in Citation context and Ar. fr. 212 suggests that in the late 5th century the word was normally used in reference to the obligation of prosecutors in Athenian courts to get at least 20% of the votes cast in most cases or face a fine of 1000 drachmas and disenfranchisement until it was paid (e. g. And. 1.33; lex ap. D. 21.47; 22.3 with ΣA 13a–b Dilts, citing the passage of Theophrastus referenced by Harp. p. 102.12–13 = Ε 1 Keaney; see Bonner and Smith 1938 II.56–60; Harrison 1971. 83, both with further primary references), sc. as a means of discouraging frivolous lawsuits.127 For the formation, in which the second element indicates the number by which the sum or item in question is to be divided, cf. LSJ s. v. ἐπίτριτος 4; Strömberg 1946. 84.

fr. 74 K.-A. (66 K.) Antiatt. ν 5 ν ο υ θ έ τ η σ ι ν· Εὔπολις Αὐτολύκῳ n o u t h e t ê s i s (acc.) (“admonition”): Eupolis in Autolykos

Meter The word scans lklx (compatible with iambic trimeter). Discussion Lobeck 1837. 512–13 Citation context Moer. ν 15 νουθέτησις Ἀττικοί· νουθεσία Ἕλληνες (“Atticspeakers (use) nouthetêsis, Greeks generally (use) nouthesia”) shows that the word was of interest to Atticist lexicographers, hence presumably the Antiatticist’s citation of it from Eupolis in an attempt to establish that it represented acceptable early usage. A small section of similar material is preserved at Poll. 9.139. Interpretation νουθετέω (〈 νοῦς + τίθηµι; 5th-century vocabulary) is to make someone think, i. e. to discourage him or her from an unwise or inappropriate course of action, and thus by extension to offer good advice (e. g. E. fr. 1042 ἅπαντές ἐσµεν εἰς τὸ νουθετεῖν σοφοί, / αὐτοὶ δ’ ἁµαρτάνοντες οὐ γιγνώσκοµεν, “we’re all clever at nouthetein, but when we are ourselves in the wrong, we don’t realize it”; [A.] PV 264–5 παραινεῖν νουθετεῖν τε τοὺς κακῶς / πράσσοντας, “to advise and nouthetein those who behave badly”; Ar. Ec. 180 χαλεπὸν µὲν οὖν ἄνδρας δυσαρέστους νουθετεῖν, “it’s difficult, 127

“interest at a fifth” (Storey 2011. 79), i. e. “at 20%”, is thus possible but unlikely to be correct.

Αὐτόλυκος α΄ β΄ (fr. 75)

231

then, nouthetein men who are hard to please”). νουθέτησις (first attested here and at E. HF 1256; subsequently at Pl. Prt. 326a; Lg. 700c, 701b, 822d; Arist. EN 1102b34) is properly the act of offering such admonishment or advice (cf. Pl. Def. 416a), νουθέτηµα the admonishment or advice itself. Moeris’ koinê alternative νουθεσία is attested already at Ar. Ra. 1009 and becomes common in the Roman period. Cf. Menander’s eccentric νουθετησµός (fr. 629, quoted at Poll. 9.139 τὰ δὲ πράγµατα νουθεσία καὶ ὡς Πλάτων νουθετεία128· φαῦλος γὰρ ὁ Μενάνδρου νουθετισµός [sic]; cf. fr. 72 n.); Phot. ν 272 νουθετίαν καὶ νουθετησµὸν λέγουσι; Handley 1953 (arguing that nouns in -σις tend to have an intellectual or poetic coloring); Long 1968. 14–18 (tracing the flourishing of such forms to Ionia in the late Archaic period).

fr. 75 K.-A. (67 K.) Poll. 7.202 τὸ δὲ π ο ρ ν ε ύ ε σ θ α ι ῥῆµα ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Εὐπόλιδος Αὐτολύκῳ And the word p o r n e u e s t h a i (“to prostitute oneself”) (is found) in Eupolis’ Autolykos I

Citation context From near the end of a brief collection of words having to do with prostitutes and prostitution. Hermipp. fr. 9 and Ar. fr. 494 are cited immediately before this, Pl. Com. fr. 174 (likewise only a verb in the infinitive, πορνοκοπῆσαι), Aeschin. 3.214 and Phryn. Com. fr. 34 immediately afterward. Interpretation Middle πορνεύεσθαι (“to prostitute oneself”, the allegedly voluntary nature of the action being crucial to the sense) appears to be the standard form of the verb in the classical period129 and can be used of both women (e. g. Hdt. 1.93.4; Lys. fr. 208; D. 22.61; [D.] 59.107; Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 227) and men (Aeschin. 1.29, citing an Athenian law listing individuals forbidden to speak in the Assembly). The middle is mostly replaced by the active in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods, hence perhaps Pollux’ interest in the word. That the reference was to Autolykos’ behavior in regard to Callias is possible but only a guess; cf. the Just Argument’s sneering refer128 129

Neither νουθετεία nor νουθετία is found anywhere in the philosopher Plato, so most likely the reference is to Plato Comicus (not in Kassel–Austin). The active becomes common later on; cf. Hdt. 1.93.4 τοῦ γὰρ δὴ Λυδῶν δήµου αἱ θυγατέρες πορνεύονται πᾶσαι as reworked at Str. 11.533 τοιοῦτον δέ τι καὶ Ἡρόδοτος λέγει τὸ περὶ τὰς Λυδάς· πορνεύειν γὰρ ἁπάσας.

232

Eupolis

ence to the depraved modern boy who “pimps himself out to his lover” (πρὸς τὸν ἐραστὴν / αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν προαγωγεύων) at Ar. Nu. 979–80. For prostitutes and prostitution, see frr. 99.26–7 n., 27 n.; 110.2 n.; 174.3 n.; 184 n.; 247.3–4 n.; Xenarch. fr. 4; Timocl. fr. 24; Alex. fr. 103; cf. Davidson 1997. 78–91; Souto Delibes 2002 (with particular attention to comedy); Olson 2007. 339–44; the essays collected in Faraone and McClure 2006 and Glazebrook and Henry 2011; Cohen 2015 (all with further bibliography).

233

Βάπται (Baptai) (“Baptizers” or “Dyers”)

Testimonia test. i Lucian, Adversus Indoctum 27 ἀνέγνως καὶ τοὺς Βάπτας, τὸ δρᾶµα ὅλον; εἶτ’ οὐδέν σου τἀκεῖ καθίκετο, οὐδ’ ἠρυθρίασας γνωρίσας αὐτά; Did you in fact read Baptai, the whole play? Did its contents then have no effect on you, and did you not blush when you understood them? = test. 29, where see n.

test. ii Juvenal 2.91–2 talia secreta coluerunt taeda Cecropiam soliti Baptae lassare Cotyto The Baptae, accustomed to disgust Cecropian Cotyto, practiced torch-lit secret rites such as these Σπ 2.92 (p. 24 Wessner) Baptae titulus libri, quo inpudici describuntur ab Eupolide, qui inducit viros ad imitationem feminarum saltantes. Baptae autem molles: quo titulo Eupolis comoediam scripsit, ob quam ab Alcibiade, quem praecipue perstrinxerat, necatus est. ad exemplum Cotyti dicitur Isiaca sacra celebrari Baptae is the title of a book in which shameless individuals are described by Eupolis, who brings onstage men dancing to imitate women. Baptae however are emasculated individuals; Eupolis wrote a comedy by this title, as a consequence of which he was killed by Alcibiades, whom he had criticized with particular vigor. The mysteries of Isis are said to be celebrated on the model of Cotyto ΣZ 2.92 (p. 24 Wessner) Baptae quo titulo scripsit Eupolis comoediam, in quo inducit viros Athenienses ad imitationem feminarum lassare 〈p〉saltriam Baptae: Eupolis wrote a comedy by this title, in which he induced Athenian men in imitation of women to disgust a harp-girl

234

Eupolis Σφ 2.92 (p. 24 Wessner) Baptae dicuntur molles et effeminati, quo titulo Eupolis et Aristophanes comoediam scripserunt, in qua inducunt Ath. viros ad imit. fem. colere Cotyton, id est psaltriam deam Atheniensium, quam effeminati colebant Baptae is a term for emasculated and effeminate persons; Eupolis and Aristophanes wrote comedies by this title, in which they induced Ath(enian) men in imit(ation) of wom(en) to worship Cotyto, that is a harp-playing Athenian goddess whom effeminates worshipped “Probus” (Valla) 2.92 (p. 24 Wessner, with additional material furnished by Kassel–Austin) (Probus) Baptae comoedia, inquit, fuit in qua Eupolis inducit viros Athenienses ad imitationem feminarum saltantes lassare psaltriam Cotyton. Cotytos apud Athenienses psaltria, quam effeminati colunt noctu illam adeuntes. Baptae titulus libri, quo impudici describuntur, ob quam Alcibiades, quem praecipue perstrinxerat, necuit ipsum in mare praecipitando, dicens “ut tu me in theatris madefecisti, nunc ego te in mari madefaciam” (Probus) says that Baptae was a comedy in which Eupolis induced Athenian men in imitation of women to disgust Cotytos, a harp-girl. In Athens Cotytos is a harp-girl, whom effeminates worship, approaching her by night. Baptae is the title of a book in which shameless persons are described, as a consequence of which Alcibiades, whom he had criticized with particular vigor, killed him by throwing him into the sea, saying “Just as you got me wet in the theaters, now I will get you wet in the sea!”

Discussion Srebrny 1930–1931; Wüst 1933 Context Juvenal Satire 2 is a long and wandering attack on Stoic philosophers as depraved hypocrites; these lines are from an imaginary scene in which transvestite male celebrants worship the Bona Dea. “Probus” (referring to M. Valerius Probus; 1st century CE) is the name Giorgio Valla assigned to the anonymous author of a set of scholia he published in his 1486 edition of Juvenal; see Wessner 1931. xx–xxiii; Anderson 1965, esp. 383, 402–8, 418–20. Interpretation Juvenal and the associated scholia must all be referring to the chorus of Eupolis’ play, although how much any of them knew about the matter is unclear; see the general introduction to the play. The implication of Juvenal’s Cecropiam … Cotyto is that Baptai was set in Athens, although Juvenal may well not have read the text and may merely be taking this detail for granted on the basis of the apparent involvement of Alcibiades. The scholia appear to have no information about Eupolis’ play that could not be extracted from the text of Juvenal itself, although Σπ and “Probus” are aware of the tradition about Alcibiades taking revenge on Eupolis for the

Βάπται (test. iii)

235

play preserved in test. iii (n.). The remark attributed to Alcibiades by “Probus” is a paraphrase of the elegiac couplet offered there. For the goddess Kotytô, see the general introduction to the action of the play below. Nothing else is known of the Aristophanic Baptai mentioned by Σφ 2.92 (presumably in error).

test. iii ΣBD Aristid. or. 3.8 (III.444.22–9 Dindorf) κατηγορήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Κλέωνος Ἀριστοφάνους (test. 26) ὕβρεως, ἐτέθη νόµος µηκέτι ἐξεῖναι κωµῳδεῖν ὀνοµαστί. ἄλλοι δὲ λέγουσιν ὅτι ἐκωµῴδουν ὀνοµαστὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας µέχρις Εὐπόλιδος. περιεῖλε δὲ τοῦτο Ἀλκιβιάδης ὁ στρατηγὸς καὶ ῥήτωρ. κωµῳδηθεὶς γὰρ παρὰ Εὐπόλιδος ἔρριψεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ θαλάττῃ ἐν Σικελίᾳ συστρατευόµενον εἰπών· βάπτε µε ἐν θυµέλῃσιν· ἐγὼ δέ σε κύµασι πόντου βαπτίζων ὀλέσω νάµασι πικροτάτοις After Cleon brought charges of hybris against Aristophanes (test. 26), a law was passed making it no longer possible to mock a person in comedy by name. But other authorities say that they continued to mock men by name until (the time of) Eupolis. The general and politician Alcibiades put an end to this; for after he was mocked by Eupolis in a comedy, he threw the man, who was serving as a soldier along with him in Sicily, into the sea with the words: Give me a bath on stage! But I’ll be the death of you by dipping you in the waves of the sea, a very bitter stream

Context A note on a passing comment at Aelius Aristides or. 3.8 (In Defense of the Four) as to supposed restrictions on the poets’ freedom ὀνοµαστὶ κωµῳδεῖν (for which, see test. 37 n.). The chronology is confused, the author of the note seemingly being unaware that Eupolis and Aristophanes were exact contemporaries. Interpretation The story of Alcibiades drowning Eupolis in Sicily is patently absurd (for the chronology, see the general introduction to the play below), but it does depend on it being widely known—and thus most likely true— that Baptai insulted Alcibiades. West 1992b II.29 suggests that the story may have been born out of the elegiac couplet, which he treats as genuinely by Alcibiades, although this merely explains obscurum per obscurius.130 130

As Page 1981. 133 (responding to the same comment in the 1972 original of West 1992) observes, “it is hard to imagine what story but this”—i. e. the story about

236

Eupolis

The scholion gives the beginning of the first line of the couplet as printed above, but βάπτε µ(ε) ἐν θυµέλῃσιν is unmetrical, as is Tzetzes’ βάπτε µε σύ θυµέλῃσιν (test. iv), hence Meineke’s βάπτες µ᾿ ἐν θυµέλῃσιν (“You gave me a bath onstage”) and βάπτε σύ µ᾿ ἐν θυµέλῃσιν (“You bathe me onstage!”), which incorporate in various ways the word σύ in Tzetzes’ version of the text (test. iv). Cf. “Probus”’ ut tu me in theatris madefecisti, nunc ego te in mari madefaciam in test. ii, which is intended as a Latin translation of the remark and would seem to support emendation to a second-person indicative form of the verb. Phryn. PS p. 74.9–10 describes Tzetzes’ θυµέλη in the sense “stage” as contemporary (i. e. Roman-era) usage, and goes on to note that Pherecrates (fr. 247) used the word, but as a term for a sacrificial cake. Regardless of what is printed, the couplet plays on the title of Eupolis’ play (βάπτε … / βαπτίζων). But βάπτε (or βάπτες) in 1 also alludes to the use of πλύνω (literally “wash”) in the colloquial sense “abuse, disparage” (LSJ s. v. II; cf. Ar. Ach. 381 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Taillardat 1965 § 590).

test. iv Tzetzes, Prolegomenon I.87–97 (Proleg. de com. XIa), p. 27 Koster ἐξήρκεσε δὲ τὸ ἀπαρακαλύπτως οὑτωσὶ κωµῳδεῖν µέχρις Εὐπόλιδος. ἐπεὶ δ’ οὗτος εἰς Ἀλκιβιάδην τὸν στρατηγὸν ἀπέρριψε σκῶµµα καὶ φανερῶς τὴν τραυλότητα τούτου διελοιδόρησεν—ἔτυχον δὲ τότε καὶ ταῖς τριήρεσιν ὄντες ὡς ναυµαχίας προσδοκωµένης—κελεύει τοῖς στρατιώταις, καὶ ἢ ἅπαξ ἐκβράττουσιν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν θάλατταν καὶ ἀπώλετο, ἢ σχοίνῳ δεδεµένον ἀνάγοντες καὶ κατάγοντες ἦσαν εἰς θάλατταν καὶ τέλος περιέσωσαν τοῦτον τοῦ Ἀλκιβιάδου εἰπόντος αὐτῷ· “βάπτε µε σὺ θυµέλαις, ἐγὼ δέ σε κατακλύσω ὕδασιν ἁλµυρωτάτοις”. καὶ ἢ οὕτως ἢ παντελῶς διεφθαρµένος τοῖς κύµασι τῆς τε φανερᾶς καὶ τῆς συµβολικῆς κωµῳδίας ἐπαύθη, ἢ τοῦ τοιούτου θανάτου περισωθεὶς οὐκέτι κωµῳδίαν µετῆλθεν ἀπαρακάλυπτον It sufficed for comedy to be practiced thus openly until the time of Eupolis. But when he launched a joke at the general Alcibiades and openly made crude fun of his lisp—they happened to be onboard triremes at that point, since a naval battle was imminent—(Alcibiades) issues (sic) orders to his soldiers, and they either throw (sic) him overboard into the sea a single time and he died, or they tied him up with a rope and dunked him up and down, but ultimately let him live when Alcibiades said to him: “You give me a bath with a stage! But I will drown you with very salty water!” And having died in the waves

Alcibiades throwing Eupolis into the sea—“these lines could possibly have suited”.

Βάπται (test. iv)

237

either in this way or outright,131 (Eupolis) was made to abandon open and metaphorical comedy; or else he was rescued from such a death and no longer pursued open comedy

Discussion Telò 2014. 115–16 Context From the wandering, superficial history of comedy additional portions of which are presented here as test. 37b (where see n.). Tzetzes in turn seems to be the source of An.Par. i p. 7.6–17 = Proleg. de com. XIc.29–38 (p. 44 Koster) ἔτι ἰστέον, ὅτι ἡ πρώτη κωµῳδία, ἧς τὰ σκώµµατα φανερὰ κατὰ πάντων ἦσαν τῶν πολιτῶν, µέχρις Εὐπόλιδος διήρκεσεν. ἐπεὶ δὲ αὐτὸς εἰς Ἀλκιβιάδην ὕβρισεν ὄντα τότε στρατηγὸν καὶ διελοιδορήσατο αὐτῷ, ὢν τότε Ἀλκιβιάδης ἐµπαράσκευος πρὸς πόλεµον ὡς ναυµαχίας προσδοκωµένης, κελεύει τοῖς στρατιώταις συλλαβεῖν αὐτόν· οἱ δὲ συλλαβόντες αὐτόν, ὡς µέν τινές φασιν, παντελῶς ἀπέπνιξαν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ὡς δ’ ἄλλοι, δεδεµένον αὐτὸν σχοίνῳ ἀνῆγόν τε καὶ κατῆγον εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, οὐ µέντοι καὶ ἀπέπνιξαν παντελῶς τοῦ Ἀλκιβιάδου λέγοντος· “βάπτε µε σὺ θυµέλαις, ἐγὼ δέ σε ἁλµυροῖς ὕδασι κατακλύσω”. καὶ οὕτω δὴ ἢ διαφθαρέντος τοῖς κύµασι παντελῶς ἢ καὶ περισωθέντος κτλ (“One ought to be aware, furthermore, that the original comedy, whose jokes were made openly against all citizens, sufficed until the time of Eupolis. But when he acted outrageously toward Alcibiades, who was a general at that point, and made crude fun of him, Alcibiades, who was at that point prepared for war, since a naval battle was imminent, issued orders to his soldiers to arrest him. And after they arrested (Eupolis), according to some authorities, they drowned him outright in the sea, or as other authorities (have it), they tied him up with a rope and dunked him up and down in the sea, but did not however drown him outright, since Alcibiades said: “You give me a bath with a stage! But I will drown you with salt-water!” And after (Eupolis) either died outright in the waves in this way or was in fact rescued etc.”). Interpretation Tzetzes appears to be embroidering freely on the usual anecdote about Eupolis and Alcibiades (cf. test. 3; Baptai test. ii “Probus”; iii; v–vi), ignoring the supposed connection to the plot of Baptai and substituting for it as the cause of the quarrel a cutting personal joke having to do with Alcibiades’ notorious lisp (Ar. V. 44–5 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.), while simultaneously adding explanatory material and color to the narrative 131

I. e. either after repeated dunkings and a few choice words from Alcibiades, or simply having been thrown overboard with nothing said; the logic of the argument falls apart somewhat at this point.

238

Eupolis

and expressing caution about its reliability. βάπτε µε σὺ θυµέλαις, ἐγὼ δέ σε κατακλύσω ὕδασιν ἁλµυρωτάτοις (“You give me a bath with a stage! But I will drown you with very salty water!”) is a non-metrical reworking of the elegiac couplet quoted in test. iii, which substitutes the prosaic ὕδασιν ἁλµυρωτάτοις for the high-style νάµασι πικροτάτοις, and which by replacing βαπτίζων ὀλέσω with κατακλύσω removes the emphatic re-use of the βαπτroot that recalls the title of Eupolis’ play.

test. v Platonius, On the Differentiation of Comedy (Proleg. de com. I.13–20), pp. 3–4 Koster λοιπὸν δὲ τῆς δηµοκρατίας ὑποχωρούσης ὑπὸ τῶν κατὰ τὰς Ἀθήνας τυραννιώντων καὶ καθισταµένης ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ µεταπιπτούσης τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ δήµου εἰς ὀλίγους τινὰς καὶ κρατυνοµένης τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας ἐνέπιπτε τοῖς ποιηταῖς φόβος. οὐ γὰρ ἦν τινα προφανῶς σκώπτειν, δίκας ἀπαιτούντων τῶν ὑβριζοµένων παρὰ τῶν ποιητῶν· ἴσµεν γοῦν τὸν Εὔπολιν ἐπὶ τῷ διδάξαι τοὺς Βάπτας ἀποπνιγέντα εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν ὑπ’ ἐκείνου εἰς ὃν καθῆκε τοὺς Βάπτας. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὀκνηρότεροι πρὸς τὰ σκώµµατα ἐγένοντο καὶ ἐπέλιπον οἱ χορηγοί And furthermore, when the democracy receded because of those who aspired to a tyranny over Athens, and an oligarchy was established, and the power belonging to the people was taken over by a small number of individuals, and an oligarchy took charge, the poets became afraid. Because no one could mock a person openly, since those who were abused demanded legal satisfaction from the poets. We know, for example, that Eupolis was drowned in the sea when he staged Baptai by the man against whom he directed Baptai. And on this account the poets became more hesitant as regards their mockery, and the chorêgoi were insufficient (sc. in number)

Context More of the potted history of comedy the preceding portions of which are presented here as test. 35 (where see n.). Interpretation Another version of the common tale about Alcibiades’ reaction to Baptai (cf. test. 3 with n.; Baptai test. ii–iv; vi), here drastically abbreviated and with explicit reference to Alcibiades replaced by the awkward gloss ἐκείνου εἰς ὃν καθῆκε τοὺς Βάπτας (“the man against whom he directed Baptai”). Nothing suggests that “Platonius” has read the comedy itself or has any independent information regarding it.

Βάπται (Introduction)

239

test. vi Themist. or. 8 (p. 110a–b Harduin) ὀργὴν ἀπεµνηµόνευσας οὐδενί … Ἀλκιβιάδης δὲ ὁ Κλεινίου, καὶ ταῦτα στρατηγὸς ὢν αἱρετός, οὐχ οὕτως 〈ἀλλ᾿〉 (add. Kassel) ἀπεµνηµόνευσεν Εὐπόλιδι τῷ κωµῳδοδιδασκάλῳ τοὺς Βάπτας, καίτοι τῆς τέχνης αὐτῷ διδούσης τοῦ σκώπτειν τὴν ἄδειαν ἐκ τῶν νόµων You did not nurse a grudge against anyone … But Alcibiades the son of Kleinias, a man who had been elected general at that, did not (behave) thus, but (“but” added by Kassel) held the comic poet Eupolis’ Baptai against him, even though (Eupolis’) craft granted him legal permission to engage in mockery

Context From a speech directed to the Eastern Roman emperor Valens (reigned 364–78 CE). Interpretation Another version—here moralizing—of the common tale about Alcibiades’ reaction to Baptai (cf. test. 3 with n.; Baptai test. ii–v). Nothing suggests that Themistius has read the comedy itself or has any independent information regarding it.

Introduction Discussion Buttmann 1829 II.159–67; Lobeck 1829. 1007–39; Fritzsche 1835. 196–238; Meineke 1839 I.119–26; Stiévenant 1849. 126; Kock 1880 I.273; Brandes 1886. 27–9; Rapp 1890–1897. 1401–2; Zelle 1892. 44–5; Kern 1896; Kaibel 1907 p. 1233.44–60; Geissler 1925. 52; Norwood 1931. 188–90; Srebrny 1930–1931; Wüst 1933; Hatzfeld 1940. 179–80; Schiassi 1944. 99–107; Schmid 1946. 123–4; Edmonds 1957. 330–1 n. c; Ginouvès 1962. 398; Velardi 1982–1983; Parker 1983. 306 n. 125; Long 1986. 34; Kopff 1990. 319–21; Storey 1990. 20–2; Storey 1993. 75; Storey 1995–1996. 147–8; Furley 1996. 131–3; Lozanova 1996. 31–2; Bowie 2000. 328–9; Storey 2003. 94–111; Nesselrath 2005; Delneri 2006. 267–77; Rusten 2011. 227; Storey 2011. 78–81; Zimmermann 2011. 746; Telò 2014. 117 Title Baptai is presumably named after its chorus, although what the word means in this context, and how it is to be connected with what little else

240

Eupolis

we know about Eupolis’ comedy, is unclear.132 Hemsterhuis (followed by Fritzsche) thought that the chorus was made up of men who worked in the dyeing industry, which is the obvious sense of βάπτης but is difficult to square with the clear implication in test. i–ii that an important role was taken in the play by effeminate transvestite men associated with the cult of Kotytô, except that such celebrants might have worn elaborately dyed garments. Casaubon and Gesner thought that βάπται meant instead “baptizers”, i. e. “those who dip [a person in water]”, the reference being to rites of purification associated hypothetically but not unreasonably with Kotytô’s cult, to which the chorus must then have belonged. This is not a standard meaning of βάπτω, and the evidence for rites of purification via immersion in water (to be distinguished from bathing and washing of various sorts) in the classical period appears to be thin or non-existent.133 In any case, the objection that, were the thesis right, the play should have been called Βαφθέντες (“the Baptized”) falters on the fact that the emphasis might well have been on their missionary efforts, i. e. the chorus’ eagerness to initiate others into their cult via baptism rather than the fact that they themselves had once been baptised. Meineke, finally, suggested that the chorus might have dyed their hair or beards in an effort to make themselves more attractive, although in this case one would in fact expect a noun with a middle or passive sense rather than an active one.134 For choruses made up of religious celebrants and/or effeminate men, cf. Cratinus’ Thraittai and Malthakoi, Phrynichus’ Mystai, Aristophanes’ Daitalês, Aristomenes’ Bakchai (also the title of plays by Lysippus and Antiphanes), Autocrates’ Tympanistai and Philippides’ Adôniazusai. For choruses made up 132

133

134

Storey 2003. 94 notes that βάπτης is attested only in reference to Eupolis’ play and suggests that he may have coined the word. But men had certainly worked in the dyeing industry well before the 410s BCE, and they must have been called something. This is thus much less likely evidence of linguistic innovation than of the degree to which certain classes of words are under-represented in the material that has come down to us. Cf. frr. 192kk n.; 434 βάπτρια with n. See Ginouvès 1962. 397–8. Initiates at Eleusis apparently entered the sea there, sc. to bathe. But this seems to be a self-administered rite of preliminary purification rather than cultic immersion carried out by an official functionary of the sort known to the modern Western reader above all else from Christianity. For the verb itself, see Dale 1867. xi–xxii; Chadwick 1996. 59–62. Storey 2003. 98 suggests in addition that “we might suspect a sensus obscenus in ‘Baptai’, ‘dippers’ meaning those practicing active anal intercourse’”. But (1) the word and its cognates have this sense nowhere else, including at Ar. fr. 237 (seemingly cited by Storey in defense of his thesis); and (2) test. ii leaves no doubt that Kotytô’s celebrants were represented as sexually passive, not sexually active.

Βάπται (Introduction)

241

of individuals engaged in a particular urban trade, cf. Hermippus’ Artopôlides and Phormophoroi, Theopompus’ Kapêlides and Plato’s Xantai and (as more distant parallels) Pherecrates’ Metallês, on the one hand, and Cratinus’ Boukoloi, Phrynichus’ Poastriai and Aristophanes’ Geôrgoi, on the other. Content We have only two substantial bits of information about the action of Baptai. The first (from test. i–ii) is that the play featured a group of transvestite male devotees of the goddess Kotytô, who are generally taken to represent the chorus;135 see above for attempts to integrate this thesis with the title of the play. The second (from test. iii–vi) is that Alcibiades is supposed to have been greatly offended by the action, which—whether true or not—suggests that he was among its satirical targets. Strabo 10.470 describes Kotytô as a Thracian goddess (cf. the Thracian royal name Kotys at e. g. D. 23.118), and much of what is known of her worship in mainland Greece in this period comes from Baptai and A. fr. 57, from Êdônoi (“Edonians”), which begins σεµνᾶς Κοτυτοῦς ὄργι’ ἔχοντες (“carrying out the rites of sacred Kotytô”) and continues with what Strabo calls a description of Dionysiac cult: ὁ µὲν ἐν χερσὶν / βόµβυκας ἔχων, τόρνου κάµατον, / δακτυλόδικτον πίµπλησι µέλος, / µανίας ἐπαγωγὸν ὁµοκλάν, / ὁ δὲ χαλκοδέτοις κοτύλαις ὀτοβεῖ / … / ψαλµὸς δ’ ἀλαλάζει· / ταυρόφθογγοι δ’ ὑποµυκῶνταί / ποθεν ἐξ ἀφανοῦς φοβεροὶ µῖµοι, / τυπάνου δ’ εἰκών, ὥσθ’ ὑπογαίου / βροντῆς, φέρεται βαρυταρβής (“one man, holding bass pipes in his hands, the work of a lathe, makes full the song thrown forth by the fingers,136 a summons that incites to madness, while another man produces an uproar with bronze-bound cymbals … string-music raises its voice; frightening imitations of the bellowing of bulls137 low in response from out of nowhere; and a deeply terrifying sound as of a hand-drum, like subterranean thunder, goes forth”). This thus appears to be a typical exotic 5th-/4th-century “mystery cult” like those of e. g. Bendis, Sabazios and Cybele/the Great Mother. But we also know that a goddess named Kotytô was worshipped in Corinth (cf. fr. *93 with n.) and Magna Graecia, seemingly in a more subdued manner, and what is unclear is the connection between the two cults or—better put—the extent to which 135

136

137

Storey 2003. 95, 98 identifies the men who made up the chorus as Athenians, but all we know is that Juvenal 2.92 (for what that evidence is worth) seems to set the action of the play in Athens. For another comedy involving “immigrant gods”, cf. Aristophanes’ Hôrai. LSJ s. v. δακτυλόδικτος “thrown from the fingers, … of the humming of a top” is wrong, as was already noted by Jones 1928. 106. Montanari s. v. “launched with the finger, of the hum of a spinning top” perpetuates the error. Presumably a reference to the use of a bull-roarer (for which, see fr. 83 n.).

242

Eupolis

the Kotytô cult described by Aeschylus and Eupolis is anything more than an imaginative confection of the exotic name of a goddess worshipped elsewhere in Greece although not in Athens, and a set of common tropes regarding the worship of mystery deities. See in general Schwenn 1922; Srebrny 1936; Courtney 1980. 136–7; Jameson, Jordan and Kotansky 1993. 23–6. Buttmann 1829 II.164 associated the action in Baptai with the charges of profaning the Eleusinian Mysteries that drove Alcibiades into exile in 415 BCE, and Meineke 1839 I.120, Kock and Schiassi all argued explicitly that the chorus were Alcibiades’ followers. As Storey 2003. 105 points out, we cannot be certain that “Alcibiades” played a major role in Baptai, only that whatever role he played was scathingly memorable; perhaps he merely appeared in an abusive exemplary scene in the second half of the play, like e. g. Meton in the second half of Aristophanes’ Birds. Even if “Alcibiades”—or a character who served to represent Alcibiades, in the way that Marikas served to represent Hyperbolos in Marikas—did have a major part in the action, moreover, there is no ancient evidence to show that he was the chorus’ leader and thus their advocate.138 Indeed, given that the only other known dramatic chorus made up of exotic devotees of Kotytô is that in Aeschylus’ Edonians (cf. above), it might just as well have been the case that “Alcibiades” opposed Kotytô’s celebrants and ultimately got his come-uppance from them or their god, just as Lycurgus apparently did in Aeschylus’ tragedy, and as Pentheus did under similar circumstances in Euripides’ Bacchae a few years later. As for alleged connections of the action in Baptai with the religious scandals of 415 BCE, any play staged at the festivals that year would have to have been approved by the relevant archon in mid-summer 416 BCE. Unless one is willing to argue that Alcibiades’ activities were already well-known by then, at least in certain circles, and that Eupolis conceived the idea of “outing” him on the comic stage well before the public scandal broke—both difficult and unlikely assumptions—this means that no comedy that made the scandals of 415 BCE its central dramatic focus could have been staged before the Lenaia of 414 BCE, by which time Alcibiades was long gone from the Athenian political scene. Rather than forcing the historical and literary evidence together, therefore, it seems better to confess that we know neither exactly when Eupolis’ play was staged, nor what went on in it outside of a few small and sketchy details (see below), nor what it had to say about Alcibiades except that it cast him in a bad light. 138

Despite Furley 1996. 133, whose claim that “the play clearly satirized Alkibiades for staging mock initiation ceremonies in a private setting” is merely an assertion of a hypothesis with no actual evidence behind it.

Βάπται (Introduction)

243

The suggestion at Meineke 1839 I.121 that Kotytô herself appeared onstage in Baptai is based on a combination of Juvenal’s characterization of the play (test. ii), the description by the scholia there of the goddess as a harp-player (psaltria), and Hesychius’ comment (fr. *93) that Eupolis διατίθεται her as a debased deity. The source of the scholia’s claim that Kotytô played the harp is unclear; Srebrny 1930–1931. 515–17 thought that she was in fact originally characterized as a saltria (“dancer”), an idea more easily extracted from the text of Satire 2. But Juvenal is unlikely in any case to have known much about Eupolis’ play except that it featured transvestite men celebrating the goddess’ rites, and Hesychius’ verb more likely means “presents” than “brings onstage”, all of which is to say that Meineke’s thesis has little solid support in the evidence.139 Beyond this, all we know of the action of Baptai is that dancing and music-making seemingly reminiscent of that of Kotytô’s celebrants performed by a male character was sarcastically praised by another person (fr. 88); that a pipe-girl was given orders to strike up a song (fr. 81) and a character told to move forward (fr. 87); that complaints were twice registered about the bad treatment an individual was receiving, in one case eliciting a hostile, mocking response (frr. 79; 84); and that there was a parabasis (fr. 89). Date The most secure indication of the date of Baptai is a terminus post quem, the reference to Aristophanes’ Knights (Lenaia 424 BCE) in fr. 89 (where see n.). If Eupolis is there responding to the charge of plagiarism involving Marikas preserved in the revised Clouds (553–4), Baptai belongs in the mid410s or later. But this might just as well be an independent attack on the

139

Storey 2003. 101 nonetheless pushes further on in the same direction, positing a plot in which “Kotyto comes to Athens, disguised as a flute-girl (as Dionysus to Thrace or Thebes in a tragedy) to investigate whether her rites are being practised there, and is received by a crowd of rowdy transvestites, perhaps involving Alcibiades. For revealing or perverting her rites Kotyto may, like the Clouds, have inflicted some punishment or humiliation on the Baptai or Alkibiades. Fr. 84 might be part of such a retribution.” (Cf. Storey 2011. 79, where the “flute-girl” ”—seemingly a product of accidentally running the scholia together with fr. 81—has been replaced by a “lyre player”.) As Meineke 1839 I.122 comments in regard to Fritzsche’s equally fabulous reconstruction of the play’s action, “Sed tales coniecturas quamquam non damno equidem, non ita tamen iis utendum censeo ut deperditarum fabularum argumenta iis superstruantur”. Delneri 2006. 342 characterizes the thesis that Kotytô appeared onstage in Baptai “se non certa, decisamente interessante”. But “non certa” in such a context means “only a guess”, and Meineke’s cautions apply once again.

244

Eupolis

originality of one of Eupolis’ most important rivals,140 and all the reference in Knights makes certain is that Baptai dates to City Dionysia 424 BCE or later. That the play actually dates to 416 BCE or so is suggested by the fact that it mounted a fierce attack of some sort on Alcibiades, who was criticized already in Aristophanes’ Daitalês (frr. 205.5–6; 244) in 427 BCE as a clever speaker and a sexual pervert, and who supposedly served as general in 420/19 BCE (Plu. Alc. 15.1), but who seems to have been particularly influential in Athenian politics in 416 and early 415 BCE, after the ostracism of Hyperbolos but before he himself went into exile shortly after the Sicilian Expedition was launched. Further support for this date comes from the anecdote about Alcibiades drowning Eupolis on the way to Sicily in reaction to the play (test. 3; Baptai test. iii–vi), even if the story itself appears fanciful.141 Storey 2003. 109 adds as an argument against a date later than this that “one wonders how well the humour aimed at a man no longer in Athens, a declared anathema, and now residing with the enemy would have gone over”. The question does not answer itself quite as easily as posing it thus implies, since one can assume that Alcibiades remained very much on the Athenians’ minds, particularly once he began to offer the Spartans and the Persians effective advice about how to conduct the war, and it is not difficult to imagine a comic plot in which e. g. he returned to Athens to further disrupt (or save?) the city. On balance, however, Storey is right that ca. 416 seems the most likely date for Baptai. By 407 BCE, at any rate, when Alcibiades really did return to Athens, Eupolis had likely been dead for several years. The other kômôidoumenoi (frr. 80; 90–1) are of no help in establishing a date. For further discussion of the date of Baptai, see Geissler 1925. 52; Storey 1990. 20–2; Storey 2003. 108–10; Kyriakidi 2007. 22–4. The following have also been assigned to Baptai: frr. 363 (Hemsterhuis); 367 (Fritzsche); 368 (Fritzsche); 385 (Wilamowitz); 399 (Runkel); 434 (Fritzsche); 447 (Delneri); 464 (anonymous).

140 141

Storey 1990. 20 suggests (following Fritzsche 1835. 144) that the Aristophanic play in question was actually Anagyros (cf. Ar. fr. 58). Storey 2003. 108–10 thus tentatively puts Baptai at the Lenaia of 415 BCE.

245

Fragments fr. 76 K.-A. (73 K.) ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ δυνατόν ἐστιν· οὐ γὰρ ἀλλὰ προβούλευµα βαστάζουσι τῆς πόλεως µέγα 1 ἀλλ(ὰ) Bentley : ἄλλο Heph.   1–2 προβούλευµα Heph. : πρω-/βούλευµα Bergk : πρῲ / βούλευµα Meineke   2 τῆς πόλεως Heph. : τῆς βουλῆς Kaibel

But it’s impossible; because they’re really weighing a major Council motion involving the city Heph. Ench. 4.6 (pp. 14.22–15.13 Consbruch) πᾶν µέτρον εἰς τελείαν περατοῦται λέξιν· ὅθεν ἐπίληπτά ἐστι τὰ τοιαῦτα Σιµωνίδου ἐκ τῶν ἐπιγραµµάτων (FGE 684–5): ――, καὶ πάλιν Νικοµάχου τοῦ τὴν περὶ τῶν ζωγράφων ἐλεγείαν πεποιηκότος (Bergk, PLG II.316)· ――. ταῦτα µὲν οὖν ἐγένετο διὰ τὴν τῶν ὀνοµάτων ἀνάγκην—οὐ γὰρ ἐνεχώρει—ἔνια δὲ καὶ παίζουσιν οἱ κωµικοί, ὡς Εὔπολις Βάπταις· ―― Every meter ends with a complete word; as a consequence of which, lines such as these by Simonides from the Epigrams ought to be censured (FGE 684–5): ――, and again (these) by the Nicomachus who wrote the elegy about the painters (Bergk, PLG II.316): ――. So these then were (written thus) because of the necessity imposed by the names—because they did not fit (the meter)—whereas the comic poets also offer some as jokes, as Eupolis (does) in Baptai: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr k|lk|l klkl llkl llk|l rlkl Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 237–8; Bergk 1838. 296; Meineke 1839 II.448–9; Bothe 1855. 159; Wilamowitz 1876. 297; van Leeuwen 1904. 113 (on Ar. Pl. 752); Schiassi 1944. 105–6; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Delneri 2006. 279–83 Citation context From near the end of a section on how metrical patterns end, in the surviving, abridged version of a metrical handbook originally composed in the 2nd century CE most likely drawing on Heliodorus. Cf. Marius Victorinus/Aphthonius art. gramm. I.14 (Grammatici Latini VI p. 56.2–5) omnis autem versus ab integra parte orationis incipit et in integram desinit exceptis his, quae in comoediis ioculariter dicta corrupta aut semiplena efferentur, aut quae raro apud epicos metri necessitate dividuntur (“every verse, however, begins with a complete part of speech and ends with a complete one, with the

246

Eupolis

exception of those that are jokingly pronounced in comedies and shown to be either corrupt or half-complete, or those that are occasionally divided in epic poetry out of metrical necessity”), seemingly paraphrasing Hephaestion, Heliodorus or some intermediary source. Text In 1, the manuscripts have expanded ἀλλ᾿ to scriptio plena ἄλλο to agree with δυνατόν. Bentley’s ἀλλ(ὰ) is a more natural expression. In 1–2, Bergk’s πρω-/βούλευµα is a product of a conviction that the final position in the line cannot be short without word break, while Meineke’s πρῲ / βούλευµα (“early in the morning they’re weighing”) reflects an unwillingness to believe that Eupolis actually divided a word in the way Hephaestion insists he did. For Kaibel’s τῆς βουλῆς in place of the paradosis τῆς πόλεως in 2, see Interpretation. Interpretation An objection to an idea put forward or a plan posed by another party, most economically taken to be the addressee. “They” must be the members of either a city Βουλή (Council)—perhaps but not necessarily the Athenian Βουλή—considering what sort of a προβούλευµα to put forward to the Ἐκκλησία (Assembly), or more likely the members of an Ἐκκλησία— once again, perhaps but not necessarily the Athenian Ἐκκλησία—considering how to handle a major προβούλευµα that has come to them for a decision. Apparently the other party has suggested interfering with this body’s work, has offered a disparaging comment about the seriousness of their administrative efforts, or the like. προβούλευµα is found in the inscriptional record already at IG I3 64 (430–420 BCE), where it is however entirely restored; cf. IG II2 243.9 (337/6 BCE, partially restored). The cognate verb, on the other hand, is attested already at IG I3 34 (448/7 BCE) and then sporadically throughout the rest of the 5th c. The word (kllk) is not particularly difficult to fit into an iambic trimeter line, particularly since it can be elided to προβούλευµ᾿ (kll). Hephaestion (echoed by Marius Victorinus/Aphthonius) seems to believe the division between two lines is a joke, but what is funny about it is difficult to say. The problem is compounded by the fact that τῆς πόλεως in 2 seems pointless if it modifies προβούλευµα, hence Kaibel’s baffled marginal note “τῆς βουλῆς?”. van Leeuwen, comparing ὑπὸ / Εὐριπίδου at Ar. Th. 386–7, took the idea to be that προ at the end of 1 initially appears to be the preposition πρό, whose object can be expected to follow at the beginning of 2 but does not.142 Delneri 2006. 282 takes up van Leeuwen’s proposal and suggests that πρό is in fact not 142

For prepositives at line-end generally, see Maas 1962 § 136.

Βάπται (fr. 76)

247

only to be taken along with βούλευµα, but also governs τῆς πόλεως (thus “on behalf of the city, for the good of the city”). Alternatively, the division might be intended to mockingly capture the way words are routinely split between lines in inscribed decrees, and τῆς πόλεως might be added for emphasis as part of the response to whatever was said earlier: “a major motion involving the city” (or “their city”, if somewhere other than Athens is in question). The division of a single word between two lines is extremely rare in any case, and as Hephaestion and Marius Victorinus/Aphthonius both note, normally represents a way of dealing with metrically intractable personal names (Ἀριστο-/ γείτων in the “Simonides” epigram, Ἀπολλό/δωρος in the otherwise obscure Nicomachus and in Euph. fr. 5, p. 30 Powell = fr. 8 van Groningen). See in general Leutsch 1856. 750–63; Kassel 1975 (without reference to this fragment). 1 ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ δυνατόν ἐστιν Cf. fr. 260.28 / ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ δυνατ(ά) with n.; Willi 2003b. 45. οὐ γὰρ ἀλλά is literally “for (it’s) not (otherwise), but”, i. e. “for it’s actually the fact that”. A colloquialism, attested elsewhere in the 5th century at Ar. Eq. 1205; Nu. 232; Ra. 58, 498; E. Supp. 570 with Collard 1975 ad loc.; IT 1005; Ba. 785; cf. Denniston 1950. 31; Stevens 1976. 47. 1–2 In Athens, and seemingly in other democratically governed cities as well, decisions by the Ἐκκλησία were normally preceded by a προβούλευµα, a preliminary determination by the Βουλή that might consist either of a specific recommendation for action or an invitation to the Assembly to make up its own mind on the matter in question. What is less clear in the Athenian case is exactly where the power lay in this period, i. e. whether the Assembly was normally content to stamp for approval decisions already reached in the Council, or whether the Council’s primary responsibility was to lay the groundwork for a more substantial and significant debate in the Assembly. Cf. Rhodes 1972. 52–81; de Laix 1973. 25–9; Rhodes 1974 (a review of de Laix); Rhodes 1981 on [Arist.] Ath. 45.4; Hansen 1987. 35–7. 2 βαστάζουσι For the verb, see fr. 326.4 n. For µέγα in the sense “major” (LSJ s. v. A.II.4), e. g. Ar. V. 534 σοι µέγας ἔστ’ ἀγών (“you face a major contest”), 590 ἡ βουλὴ χὠ δῆµος, ὅταν κρῖναι µέγα πρᾶγµ’ ἀπορήσῃ (“the Council and the People, whenever it’s impossible to reach a decision on a major matter”); Lys. 511 βουλευσαµένους µέγα πρᾶγµα (“reaching a decision on a major matter”); Ra. 759 πρᾶγµα πρᾶγµα µέγα κεκίνηται µέγα (“a major, major disturbance is underway”), 1099.

248

Eupolis

fr. 77 K.-A. (68 K.) ἀναρίστητος ὢν κοὐδὲν βεβρωκώς, ἀλλὰ γὰρ στέφανον ἔχων 2 καὶ οὐδὲν Synag. : καὶ οὐ Phot.   βεβρωκώς] πεπωκώς Kock

having had no lunch and with an empty stomach, but nonetheless wearing a garland Phot. α 989 = Suda α 1052 = Synag. B α 882 ἀλλὰ γάρ· ἀντὶ τοῦ δέ. Εὔπολις Βάπταις· ―― alla gar: in place of de (“but”). Eupolis in Baptai: ―― Ath. 2.47e ἀναρίστητον (v. 1) δ’ εἴρηκεν Εὔπολις And Eupolis uses anaristêtos (v. 1)

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xlkl xlk〉|r

llkl llkl l|lk|l krkl

Discussion Fritzsche 1832. 7; Winckelmann 1833. xli; Fritzsche 1835. 207–9; Kock 1880 I.273–4; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 105; Delneri 2006. 284–5 Citation context The note in Photius = Suda = Synagoge B is drawn from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄. The Suda omits the play-title and the text of the fragment of Eupolis, the scribe’s eye having somehow leapt from the poet’s name to the beginning of the proverb that follows the line from Baptai. Athenaeus cites ἀναρίστητος as part of a collection of rare compounds having to do with eating, including ἀπόσιτος (“abstaining from food”; Philonid. fr. 1), αὐτόσιτος (Crobyl. fr. 1.1), ἀναγκόσιτος (“force-fed”; Crates Com. fr. 50) and ἀριστόδειπνον (literally “lunch-dinner”; Alex. fr. 296). This portion of the Deipnosophists is preserved only in the Epitome, and some of the other fragments referred to here are cited more fully elsewhere, where the full version of the text is available, raising the possibility that the passage of Eupolis quoted by Σ΄ was actually quoted by Athenaeus as well. Intriguingly, the fragment is not referenced in the large collection of examples of ἀναρίστητος at Suda α 2048 (cf. Phot. α 1632), which cites (in order) Ar. fr. 470; Alex. fr. 235; Antiph. fr. 139; Timocl. fr. 26.

Βάπται (fr. 77)

249

Text Fritzsche 1835 proposed combining this fragment with Ar. fr 470 (quoted in Interpretation) so as to fill out 1. It is easier to assume that both poets independently used the simple phrase ἀναρίστητος ὤν in the same sedes. Kock proposed dealing with the tautologous ἀναρίστητος ὢν / κοὐδὲν βεβρωκώς by writing πεπωκώς for βεβρωκώς; but see Interpretation. The Synagoge B has scriptio plena καὶ οὐδὲν for κοὐδὲν in 2. Photius offers the syntactically simpler but metrically impossible καὶ οὐ (i. e. κοὐ). Interpretation A description of an individual man. ἀλλὰ γάρ qualifies what precedes it as irrelevant to the matter at hand (Denniston 1950. 101–2),143 and the point is thus not that the person in question spent the night at a drinking party (hence his garland; cf. Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 60.1, 3) and is only now on his way home, at a time of day when everyone else has already had lunch.144 Instead, the idea must be that anyone wearing a garland could be expected to have had lunch and thus to have eaten, sc. because garlands are worn at such events, whereas this man has not been so lucky. Why he is wearing a garland nonetheless is obscure; Winckelmann took the reference to be to the musician Connas (PAA 581457; #1477 Stephanis), whom Cratinus (fr. 349) and Aristophanes (Eq. 534) both mock for wearing garlands (sc. in recognition of artistic victories in the past) but nonetheless being hungry (Cratinus) and thirsty (Aristophanes), sc. in the present. For the phrasing, cf. in general Ar. fr. 470 διὰ τῆς ἀγορᾶς τρέχων, ἀναρίστητος ὤν (“running (masc. sing.) through the Agora, despite having had no lunch”). 1–2 βιβρώσκω does not appear to be used alone to mean “eat (dinner)”, sc. “(in contrast to lunch)”, and ἀναρίστητος ὢν / κοὐδὲν βεβρωκώς is accordingly better understood as a hendiadys, with the first term concentrating on the social aspect of the situation (the subject has missed a meal), the second on its practical significance (he has therefore eaten nothing). 1 ἀναρίστητος is confined to 5th- and early 4th-century comedy (see Citation context); other authors, including Xenophon (e. g. HG 4.5.8; Smp. 1.11), Hippocrates (e. g. Acut. 9 = 2.290.9 Littré) and Menander (fr. 521) use ἀνάριστος. Cf. fr. 347 ἄδειπνος. For ἄριστον (literally “early meal” and thus “lunch” vel sim.), see frr. 99.2, 13–14; 269.1–2; 374 n.

143

144

Delneri 2006. 285 dismisses Denniston’s interpretation of the words as “non del tutto appropriata nel nostro caso”, but fails to explain why this might be so or to argue for an alternative interpretation. Cf. Storey: “Fr. 77 might refer to [Alcibiades] rather the worse for wear the morning after”.

250

Eupolis

2 στέφανον ἔχων For ἔχω in the sense “wear”, see fr. 298.6 n. and cf. Ar. Ach. 992 ἔχων στέφανον; Eq. 534 στέφανον … ἔχων; Archipp. fr. 42.2 στέφανον ἔχων; E. Ph. 856 τόνδε χρυσοῦν στέφανον … ἔχω. fr. 78 K.-A. (69 K.) ὅτι οὐκ ἀτρύφερος οὐδ’ ἄωρός ἐστ’ ἀνήρ οὐδ’ Synag. B : οὔτ’ Phot. Suda

because/that he’s not an un-dainty or unattractive man Phot. α 3123 = Suda α 4396 = Synag. B α 2368 ἀτρύφερος· ἔστιν (ἔστιν om. Suda) ἡ λέξις ἐν Βάπταις Εὐπόλιδος· ―― atrypheros: the word occurs (the Suda omits “occurs”) in Eupolis’ Baptai: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl r|lkl klkl Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 237; Kock 1880 I.274; Herwerden 1903. 23; Storey 2003. 105; Delneri 2006. 286 Citation context A lexicographic note from the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge B generally referred to as Σ΄. Text ἀτρύφερος and ἄωρος are not mutually opposed alternatives (not “neither un-dainty nor unattractive”), and οὐδ’ (Synagoge) rather than οὔτ’ (Phot. Suda) must thus be right. Interpretation A dependent clause, offering an explanation of a previous statement, a specification of someone’s opinion or observation, or the like. The litotes adds force to the description (~ “he’s quite dainty and attractive”). Fritzsche thought the reference was to Alcibiades, who is supposed to have been mocked in Baptai (test. iii–vi). As Kock noted, this is merely a guess (“sine idonea causa”).145 τρυφερός is common late 5th-/4th-c. Attic vocabulary (e. g. Call. Com. fr. 8; Ar. V. 551, 1169; Arar. fr. 9; Antiph. fr. 172.3; Critias fr B 2.5 West2; Th. 1.6.3; E. Ba. 150). Negative forms of adjectives of this sort, however, do not normally retain -ερ-; cf. γοερός but ἄγοος (not ἀγόερος); κρατερός but ἀκρατής (not ἀκράτερος); µιαρός but ἀµίαντος (not ἀµίαρος); νοερός but ἄνοος (not 145

Thus also Storey: “This is certainly reasonable but again not proven”.

Βάπται (fr. 79)

251

ἀνόερος); νοσερός but ἄνοσος (not ἀνόσερος); σκιερός but ἄσκιος (not ἀσκίερος); σφαλερός but ἀσφαλής (not ἀσφάλερος); τροµερός but ἀτρεµής (not ἀτρόµερος); φθονερός but ἄφθονος (not ἀφθόνερος); φοβερός but ἄφοβος (not ἀφόβερος); χλιερός but ἄχλοος (not ἀχλιερός). As Herwerden saw, therefore, ἀτρύφερος is unexpected146 and is perhaps a nonce-form intended to add emphasis to the litotes. The word is attested a handful of times in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Bion fr. 17.10 Kindstrand; [Ceb.] 20.2; Orib. 2.58.40), perhaps having been legitimized by the lexicographic source that picked it up out of Eupolis. τρυφή is 〈 θρύπτω (“break in pieces, weaken, enfeeble”), and the word and its cognates are often used in a moralizing fashion to refer to “bad” luxury or daintiness of the sort that distorts values and thus ruins those who become enmeshed in it (e. g. Ar. Lys. 387; Ra. 21; X. HG 6.2.6; Pl. Grg. 492c); cf. Garvie 2009 on A. Pers. 41 ἁβροδιαίτων. ἄωρος is properly “out of season, untimely” (e. g. Nicom. Com. fr. 1.21), but occasionally “no longer at its peak” and thus “old (and unattractive)”, as also at E. fr. 282a.2; X. Mem. 1.3.14; Smp. 8.21; Pl. R. 574c (in the latter two cases explicitly contrasted with ὥραιος, “young (and lovely”)).147 For the seemingly pleonastic use of ἀνήρ after the adjectives, e. g. Ar. Lys. 661 ἐνόρχης ἔστ’ ἀνήρ /; Men. fr. 298.2 ἀλόγιστός ἐστ’ ἀνήρ /; S. Ai. 1375 µῶρός ἐστ’ ἀνήρ /; E. Med. 452 κάκιστός ἐστ’ ἀνήρ /.

fr. 79 K.-A. (70 K.) ἀλλ’ ἐξολεῖς µε ναὶ µὰ τὴν ἀµυγδαλῆν ἀλλ’ ἐξολεῖς Bloch : ἀλλεξοµέλεις Hdn. : ἀπολεῖς Ath. : ἀλλ’ ἐξαπολεῖς Dindorf

but you’ll be the death of me, by the almond tree!

146 147

Delneri misses the point of Herwerden’s remark, which she seemingly believes is refuted by noting (correctly) that τρυφερός is well-attested. Montanari s. v. ἄωρος 1 omits not only the use of the word in Euripides (absent from LSJ) but the fragment of Eupolis (which LSJ cites) as well, and thus tacitly misrepresents its history and stylistic level. At Od. 12.89, Scylla’s twelve feet are described as ἄωροι, which some ancient scholars took to mean “fore-feet”, hence the use of the word in Philem. fr. 133.1 (an allusion to a Homeric glôssa), the only other example of this sense offered in LSJ s. v. ἄωρος (B) (garbled in Montanari s. v. ἄωρος 2 “only ἄωροι πόδες, front feet, tentacles”). The Homeric word is unexplained, but is perhaps simply the earliest attestation of ἄωρος (A) and thus means “that appear when one does not want them to, unwelcome”.

252

Eupolis

Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 911.10–16 τὰ εἰς η λήγοντα θηλυκὰ ὀνόµατα ἐπ’ εὐθείας περισπώµενα κατὰ τὴν συνήθειαν καὶ τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν χρῆσιν ἀεὶ θέλει ὑπὲρ µίαν συλλαβὴν εἶναι ἔχειν τε καὶ ἐντελέστερα προυποκείµενα … παγῆ, γαλῆ, µυγαλῆ, ἀµυγδαλῆ. Εὔπολις ἐν Βάπταις· ―― Feminine nouns ending in êta that have a circumflex accent on the final syllable by convention and ancient practice always want to be more than one syllable long and to have less consolidated antecedent forms … pagê, galê, mygalê, amydalê. Eupolis in Baptai: ―― Ath. 2.53a Εὔπολις· ―― Eupolis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl k|lk|l klkl Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 226–7; Schneidewin 1848b. 258–9; Bothe 1855. 159; Leutsch 1855. 707–8; Delneri 2006. 287–9 Citation context Herodian cites this verse in a treatise on unusual words, his point being that the ending of ἀµυγδαλῆ and similar words represents a contraction of -έα. Athenaeus quotes the line in the course of a discussion of almonds (part of a longer treatment of nuts generally), the specific topic being various grammarians’ views on the accentuation of the word and whether it was different for the tree and its fruit. Text Herodian offers the corrupt ἀλλεξοµέλεις µε, which appears to represent ἀλλ᾿ ἐξολεῖς (thus Bloch) with an intrusive µε that must originally have been a superlinear note signaling a variant ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ µ᾿ ὀλεῖς. The Epitome of Athenaeus—the only witness to the text at this point—has an abbreviated version of the line that begins with the metrically impossible ἀπολεῖς µε. Dindorf combined the two readings to produce ἀλλ’ ἐξαπολεῖς µε (“You’ll be the utter death of me!” ~ “Damn you to hell!”; printed by Kassel–Austin). But ἐξαπόλλυµι is not attested in comedy, and it is better to follow Meineke and Kock in adopting Bloch’s text and to understand the version of the line in Athenaeus as an example of a more common form of a verb driving out a less common one. Interpretation An exasperated response to the behavior of the addressee, drawing a contrast with some previously expressed idea (hence ἀλλ(ά)). For ἐξολεῖς µε, cf. fr. 260.26 n.; Ar. Pax 318 ἐξολεῖτέ µ’, ὦνδρες (“You’ll be the death of me, gentlemen!”).

Βάπται (fr. 80)

253

ναὶ µὰ τὴν ἀµυγδαλῆν No one swears by an almond tree elsewhere, and Schneidewin, comparing what Pausanias (7.17.11) calls a local Achaian cult-legend and a previously unedited Greek hymn (in Attinem XLIV 2.12–13 Heitsch) that refers to Attis as 〈τ〉ὸν πολύκαρπος ἔτικτεν ἀµύγδαλος ἀνέρα συρικτάν (“the Pan-pipe-player whom a fruitful almond tree bore”), suggested that the speaker here—presumably a devotee of an Eastern mystery cult—was swearing by the god’s sacred tree. If so, this would be far and away the oldest reference to the cult of Attis in the Greek world (subsequently at Theopomp. Com. fr. 28 (probably a human being called Attis because he was someone’s delicate lover); D. 18.260 (the youthful Aeschines as a cult-devotee of Attis); IG II2 4671 (a dedication to the god and his female companion from the Piraeus; 4th/3rd c. BCE); Neanth. FGrH 84 F 37); cf. Bremmer 2004. 540–57, esp. 540–2. Other odd, non-standard oaths include ναὶ µὰ τὰς κράµβας (“by the cabbages”; fr. 84.2 with n.); νὴ τὸν κύνα (“by the dog”; Ar. V. 83; Pl. Ap. 22a; Grg. 482b with Dodds 1959 ad loc.); νὴ τὸν χῆνα (“by the goose”; Ar. Av. 707); ναὶ ναὶ µὰ µήκωνος χλόην (“by the poppy’s foliage”; adesp. iamb. fr. 57); νὴ τὴν κάππαριν (“by the caper”; used by Zeno, according to Ath. 9.370c); and µὰ τὰ λάχανα (“no, by the vegetables”; Suda µ 277). Such oaths are described collectively by later sources as the “oath of Rhadamanthys”, i. e. swearing not by the gods but “by the goose or the dog or the plane tree or the ram” (ΣTW Pl. Ap. 22α, p. 5 Greene = ΣA Pl. R. 399e, p. 213 Greene = Phot. ρ 17 = Suda ρ 13, citing Cratin. fr. 249, which is corrupt but seemingly refers to oaths “by the dog” and “by the goose”; all = Ael.Dion. ρ 1). For almonds, see fr. 271.1 n. For ναὶ µά oaths generally, cf. frr. 84; 270.2 n.

fr. 80 K.-A. (71 K.) ἐπιχώριος δ’ ἔστ’ ἢ ξένης ἀπὸ χθονός; ἐπιχώριος ΣRE : ἐπιχωριου ΣV : ἐπιχωρίης ΣΘ   δ’ ἔστ’ ἢ Dindorf : δε εστι ἢ ΣR : δέ ἐστιν ἡ ΣV : δέ ἐστι καὶ ΣE : δὲ ἢ ΣΘ : δ’ ἔσθ’ ἡ Fritzsche

Is he a native or from a foreign land? ΣRVEΘ Ar. Ra. 417 Ἀρχέδηµος· οὗτος ὡς ξένος κωµῳδεῖται. καὶ Εὔπολις Βάπταις· ―― Archedemos: This man is mocked in comedy as a foreigner. Also Eupolis in Baptai: ――

254

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl l|lkl klkl Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 234; Fritzsche 1845. 197; Bothe 1855. 160–1; Herwerden 1855. 22; Hoffmann 1910. 9; Delneri 2006. 290–1 Citation context A note on Ar. Ra. 417–18 Ἀρχέδηµον, / ὃς ἑπτέτης ὢν οὐκ ἔφυσε φράτερας (“Archedemos, who when he was seven years old had no adult teeth”, but punningly “no phratry brothers”); presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text First punctuated as a question by Dindorf in his edition of the Aristophanic scholia (followed by Kock and Kassel–Austin). The first word was likely abbreviated ἐπιχώρι or the like in the common ancestor of all these notes, leaving the individual scribes to guess at the proper case. δ’ ἔστ’ ἢ is Dindorf’s version of scriptio plena δε εστι ἢ in ΣR. (Moveable nu was added to the verb in ΣV to avoid what looked to be hiatus.) Fritzsche, comparing Ar. Nu. 692 οὔκουν δικαίως, ἥτις οὐ στρατεύεται; (of Amynias, mockingly treated as feminine because of his supposed failure to do hoplite service) opted for ἡ from ΣV rather than ἢ from ΣR—the manuscripts have in any case no authority in such matters—and read δ’ ἔσθ’ ἡ. But “Is the woman from a foreign land a native?” is far more difficult sense, and Dindorf’s interpretation is to be preferred. ΣE mistook ἢ for an abbreviated κ(αὶ), while ΣΘ omitted what may have seemed like an unnecessary word. Interpretation This reads like a legitimate question, as if the speaker were simply confused about the origins of the individual in question, whom he or she has never met or heard of before; cf. Ar. Th. 136 ποδαπὸς ὁ γύννις; τίς πάτρα; τίς ἡ στολή; (“Where is the sissy from? What is his fatherland? What is he wearing?”; Inlaw mockingly to and of Agathon) = A. fr. 61 (presumably Lycurgus to and/or of the captive Dionysus). The line was nonetheless clearly read by later commentators—presumably relying on the larger, nowlost dramatic context—as hinting at or setting up an attack on the subject’s citizenship-status; cf. fr. 61 n. For the Athenian politician Archedemos (PA 2326; PAA 208855), see fr. 9 n. If Dindorf’s emendation is rejected there, this is the earliest reference to the man in our sources except for the undated anecdote at X. Mem. 2.9 that describes him, seemingly in his youth, as rhetorically gifted but poor and thus in need of a wealthy patron. Even here, we have it only on the authority of the scholion, drawing in turn on some older source, that Archedemos—next mentioned at Ar. Ra. 417, in 405 BCE (although see fr. 99.23–34 n.)—is the individual under discussion. If he is, the characterizations in Aristophanes

Βάπται (fr. 81)

255

and Xenophon suggest that the underlying point is that his family was neither wealthy nor distinguished. Fritzsche suggested that the point was that Archedemos was one of the Baptai. ἐπιχώριος is first attested at A. Supp. 661 (lyric) and Emped. 31 B 62.8 D.–K., and is common in Pindar (e. g. P. 4.118; N. 3.66; conjectural at Bacch. 13.92–3), but is subsequently restricted to comedy (e. g. Ar. Ach. 832; Nu. 601; Antiph. fr. 171.2) and prose (e. g. Hp. Aer. 1 = 2.12.7 Littré; Hdt. 7.197.1; Th. 5.47.8; X. Cyr. 8.8.20; Pl. Phd. 59b). For the formation, see Strömberg 1946. 80. χθών is poetic vocabulary and is restricted in comedy to elevated contexts (Ar. Nu. 282 (lyric), 300 (lyric); Av. 1752 (lyric); fr. 112.2 (lyric); Ephipp. fr. 14.13 (a pseudo-sophisticated, paratragic invocation at the beginning of a speech); Men. Sam. 325 = E. fr. 554b.1),148 suggesting that ξένης ἀπὸ χθονός is paratragic (thus Hoffmann), as the echo at S. OC 1256 ξένης ἐπὶ χθονός*149 would seem to confirm.

fr. 81 K.-A. (5 Dem.) αὔλησον αὕτη κύκλιον ἀναβολήν τινα αὕτη Wilamowitz : αὐτὴν Phot. : αὐτῇ Reitzenstein

You (fem. sing.)! Pipe a dithyrambic prelude! Phot. α 1413 ἀναβολή· προοίµιον διθυραµβικοῦ ᾄσµατος. Εὔπολις Βάπταις· ―― anabolê: a prelude of a dithyrambic song. Eupolis in Baptai: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|rk|r klkl Discussion Wilamowitz 1907. 9 = 1962. 536–7; Schiassi 1944. 106; Velardi 1982–1983. 69–73; Taplin 1993. 108; Storey 2003. 106; Delneri 2006. 292–6; Egan 2006. 65 148

149

The same is true of the cognate adjective χθόνιος, attested in comedy at Ar. Av. 1745 (anapaests), 1750 (dactyls in hymnic style); Th. 101 (paratragic lyric); Ra. 1126 = 1138 = A. Ch. 1 (echoed again at Ra. 1145, 1148); fr. 515.1 (anapaests). Cf. E. fr. 448a.29 ἔκδηµο[ς] ὢν τῆσ̣[δ᾿ ἢ ᾿πιχ]ώριος χθ̣[ονός] (both parallels cited by Kassel–Austin).

256

Eupolis

Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry, although cf. – ΣRV Ar. Pax 830 ἀναβολάςRV· τὰςR ἀρχὰς τῶν ᾀσµάτων.RV Ὅµηρος (Od. 1.155 ≈ 8.266)· ἤτοι  ὁ  φορµίζων  ἀνεβάλλετο καλὸν  ἀείδειν (sic V : ἤτοι ὁ φορµίζων ἀνεβάλλετο φησὶν Ὅµηρος R) (“anabolai:RV theR beginnings of the songs.RV Homer (Od. 1.155 ≈ 8.266): ‘he in fact playing his lyre struck up to sing a beautiful song’” (thus V: “Homer says: ‘he in fact playing his lyre struck up’” R) – ΣRV Ar. Av. 1385 ἀναβολάς· προοίµια (“anabolai: preludes”) – Suda α 1810 ἀναβολάς· τὰ προοίµια. καινὰς ἀναβολὰς θέλω λαβεῖν (~ Ar. Av. 1383–5). ἢ τὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν ᾀσµάτων. Ὅµηρος (Od. 1.155 ≈ 8.266)· ἤτοι ὁ φορµίζων ἀνεβάλλετο καλὸν ἀείδειν. καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης (Pax 830–1)· ξυνελέγοντ’ ἀναβολὰς ποτώµεναι, περὶ ψυχῶν λέγων διθυραµβοδιδασκάλων (“anabolai: preludes. ‘I want to get new anabolai’ (~ Ar. Av. 1383–5). Or the beginnings of the songs. Homer (Od. 1.155 ≈ 8.266): ‘he in fact playing his lyre struck up to sing a beautiful song’. Also Aristophanes (Pax 830–1): ‘they were flying around collecting anabolai ’, discussing the souls of dithyrambic poets”). Text Photius’ αὐτήν has been attracted into the case of ἀναβολήν, but makes no sense with τινα. Reitzenstein’ αὐτῇ (“for her”, i. e. presumably for a female dancer or singer to perform to) would also do, but is both less pointed and dramatically more complicated than Wilamowitz’ αὕτη. Interpretation An order most easily understood as addressed to an αὐλητρίς (“pipe-girl”) of the sort who regularly provided entertainment at symposia (e. g. Ar. Ach. 551 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; V. 1219 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Amphis fr. 9.4; Antiph. fr. 224.1–2; Nicostr. Com. fr. 27.4; Philem. fr. 45.1; cf. frr. 174.3 n.; 184 n.). Probably she is a mute, like Dardanis at Ar. V. 1341–81 (thus Taplin). Cf. Ar. Th. 1186 αὔλει σὺ θᾶττον; Ec. 890–2 σὺ δέ, / φιλοττάριον αὐλητά, τοὺς αὐλοὺς λαβὼν / ἄξιον ἐµοῦ καὶ σοῦ προσαύλησον µέλος; Amips. fr. 21.1 αὔλει µοι µέλος (with a second character ordered to sing along to the music), 3 αὔλει σύ; Men. Theophor. fr. dub. 17 Sandbach = Men. CGFPR fr. 145.17 αὔλει δὴ σύ µοι. For the pipe (αὐλός), a reed instrument with a cylindrical bore resembling a modern clarinet, cf. fr. 289 n.; West 1982. 81–107; Olson on Ar. Pax 531 (with further bibliography); Wilson 1999; Hagel 2010. 327–51; Psadoudakes 2013. For the abrupt, peremptory form of address οὗτος / αὕτη, see. fr. 192aa n. ἀναβολή (“prelude”) is 〈 ἀναβάλλοµαι in the sense “strike up (a song)” (Ar. Pax 1269; Od. 1.155 = 8.266; Pi. P. 1.4 ἀµβολάς; N. 7.77; Theoc. 6.20; 8.71; 10.22); see West 1981. 122–3; West 1992. 205; Egan 2006. 61–2. For such preludes as typical of κύκλιος (i. e. dithyrambic) poetry, cf. Ar. Pax 830 (Trygaios

Βάπται (fr. 82)

257

reports that in the course of his journey through the sky he saw dithyrambic poets ξυνελέγοντ’ ἀναβολάς, “collecting preludes”; Av. 1383–5 (the dithyrambic poet Cinesias wants wings so that he can soar up into the sky and λαβεῖν / … ἀναβολάς, “get preludes”) with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Arist. Rh. 1409a25 αἱ ἐν τοῖς διθυράµβοις ἀναβολαί, “the preludes in the dithyrambs”). For κύκλιος used in this sense, in reference to the circular dancing that accompanied the performance of dithyrambic songs, cf. Pi. Dith. 2.4–5 = fr. 70b.4–5 (conjectural); Ar. Nu. 333 κυκλίων … χορῶν (“dithyrambic choruses”); Av. 917–18 µέλη … / κύκλια (“dithyrambic songs”), 1403 κυκλιοδιδάσκαλος (“dithyrambic poet”); Ra. 366 κυκλίοισι χοροῖσιν (“dithyrambic choruses”); fr. 156.10 (Cinesias as one of οἱ κύκλιοι (“the dithyrambic poets”); X. Oec. 8.20, Lys. 21.2 and Aeschin. 1.10 and 3.232, all κύκλιος χορός (“dithyrambic chorus”). For dithyramb, supposedly invented by the semi-legendary Arion in the late 7th/early 6th century BCE, and one of the main events at the City Dionysia festival in Athens, where tribal choruses of both men and boys competed, see Pickard-Cambridge 1962. 31–55; Hamilton 1990 (on Pindaric dithyramb in particular); Zimmermann 1992; Ieranò 1997.

fr. 82 K.-A. (6 Dem.) οὐκ ἀνέχοµ’ αὐτόν· ἀντιπράττει παρὰ µέλος ἀνέχοµ’ Demianczuk : ἀνέχοµαι Phot.

I don’t put up with him; he works against (me? us?) inappropriately Phot. α 1901 ἀνέχεσθαι τοῦτον, οὐχὶ τούτου. Εὔπολις Βάπταις· ――. οὕτως Μένανδρος (Asp. 173–4) καὶ ∆ηµοσθένης (18.160) to put up with this person, in the accusative rather than the genitive. Eupolis in Baptai: ――. Thus Menander (Asp. 173–4) and Demosthenes (18.160)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

lrkl k|lkl lrkl Discussion Schiassi 1944. 106; Velardi 1982–1983. 73–4; Storey 2003. 106; Delneri 2006. 297–8 Citation context Eustathius twice identifies the use of the accusative with ἀνέχοµαι as an Atticism (pp. 725.53–4 = II.624.5–6 Ἀττικοὶ γοῦν τὸ ὑπερορᾶν

258

Eupolis

αἰτιατικῇ ἀσυνήθως συντάσσουσιν, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀνέχεσθαι, “Attic authors, for example, construe hyperoraô in an unusual way, with the accusative, as they also do with anechesthai”; 1853.59 = ii.188.18 τὸ δὲ ἀνέξοµαι ἀεργὸν τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἀτθίδος. οἱ γὰρ ὕστερον γενικῇ συντάσσουσι τὸ ἀνέξοµαι, “the expression ‘I’ll put up with a lazy man (acc.)’ (Od. 19.27) is typical of ancient Attic; for those who come later construe anexomai with the genitive”), as does ΣBQ Od. 19.27 Ἀττικὴ ἡ σύνταξίς ἐστιν ἀνέχοµαί σε, αἰτιατικὴ ἀντὶ γενικῆς (“The construction ‘I put up with you (acc.)’ is Attic, accusative in place of genitive”), suggesting that all this material goes back to a lost lexicographer, perhaps the same one that Photius or Photius’ source is relying on (Aelius Dionysius?). Text The manuscripts of Photius offer scriptio plena ἀνέχοµαι, corrected to ἀνέχοµ’ by Demianczuk. Interpretation A denunciation of a previously identified third party (here called simply αὐτόν), with the second clause serving to explain the first. Who or what this individual resists is not specified in what survives of the remark. But the speaker is concerned to offer a reasonable ground for his own resentment by insisting that he objects not to the obstruction itself—the other man has a right to act that way if he wishes—but to the fact that the obstruction is inappropriate, i. e. that his opponent refuses to play by the implicit rules of the game (city politics on some level?). Storey takes the individual in question to actually be a musician (cf. Storey 2011. 89 “he plays against the tune”, seemingly adapting Edmonds 1957. 335 “he goes against the tune”). But παρὰ µέλος is most likely metaphorical; see below. οὐκ ἀνέχοµ’ αὐτόν Despite Eustathius and the scholion on the Odyssey (see Citation context), the use of ἀνέχοµαι + acc. (LSJ s. v. ἀνέχω C.II.2; elsewhere in comedy at e. g. Cratin. fr. 344; Ar. Eq. 537; Philonid. fr. 1) is also attested at e. g. Il. 5.104 ἀνσχήσεσθαι κρατερὸν βέλος; Od. 7.32 οὐ γὰρ ξείνους οἵ γε µάλ’ ἀνθρώπους ἀνέχονται; Hdt. 1.169.1 τὴν δουλοσύνην οὐκ ἀνεχόµενοι; 7.87.1 ἵππων οὔτι ἀνεχοµένων τὰς καµήλους, and is thus not restricted to Attic. Nor does the construction with the genitive appear to be attested in the classical period.150

150

A number of apparent exceptions are merely examples of a main verb accompanied by a genitive absolute (E. Andr. 340; X. An. 2.2.1; Pl. Ap. 31b; Grg. 491a), including one of LSJ’s two candidates, D. 19.16 τῶν τὰ τρόπαια καὶ τὰς ναυµαχίας λεγόντων ἀνέχεσθαι. It is accordingly tempting to think that λέγοντος vel sim. has been lost from the text of LSJ’s other candidate, Pl. Prt. 323a ἅπαντος ἀνδρὸς ἀνέχονται.

Βάπται (fr. 83)

259

ἀντιπράττει The compound (first attested at Hdt. 1.92.4, of a man who attempted to block Croesus’ accession to the kingship in favor of another candidate) is otherwise restricted to 4th-century prose authors (e. g. Lys. 8.11; X. Hier. 2.17; Pl. R. 440b; Hyp. fr. 76; Aeschin. 3.167) and comedy (Alex. fr. 266.8; Men. Sic. 255), apparently being judged too undignified for tragedy or lyric poetry. Cf. fr. 238 πολυπράγµων with n. παρὰ µέλος is literally “contrary to (the) tune”, but is normally used figuratively in the sense “inappropriately, in the wrong style”. The expression is attested already at Pi. N. 7.69 in the form πὰρ µέλος (of speech); subsequently in Plato (Phlb. 28b; Crit. 106b; Lg. 696d, in all three cases of speech) and Aristotle (EN 1123a22, of ostentatious public behavior; EE 1233a39, of spending money), and in later Atticizing authors (e. g. Plu. Mor. 631f, of making jokes; Gal. VI.11.9 Kühn, of action; Luc. Eun. 2, of speech).

fr. 83 K.-A. (72 K.) ὦ ῥύµβε µαστίξας ἐµέ ῥύµβε Σ : ῥύµβοισι Meineke

O bull-roarer that whips/whipped me!151 m

ΣL (P) A.R. 4.143–4 (p. 269.14–16 Wendel) τὸ κινούµενον τροχίσκιον ὑπὸ τῶν φαρµακίδων ῥυµβίον καλεῖται. καὶ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι· ―― The miniature disk that witches set in motion is called a rhymbion. Also in Eupolis: ―― ΣP A.R. 1.1134–9 (p. 103.3–5 Wendel) ῥόµβος τροχίσκος, ὃν στρέφουσιν ἱµᾶσι τύπτοντες, καὶ οὕτως κτύπον ἀποτελοῦσι. τινὲς δὲ ῥύµβον αὐτὸν καλοῦσιν, ὡς καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Βάπταις καὶ ∆ίδυµος (Λέξις κωµική fr. 33, p. 69 Schmidt) A rhombos is a disk, which they cause to rotate by striking it with straps, and in this way they produce a noise. But some authorities refer to it as a rhymbos, for example Eupolis in Baptai and Didymus (Comic Vocabulary fr. 33, p. 69 Schmidt) Phot. ρ 154 ῥόµβος· ὃ ἔχουσιν οἱ ἐπιθειάζοντες ὡς τύµπανον· οὕτως Εὔπολις rhombos: what those who invoke a god hold, like a drum (tympanon); thus Eupolis 151

Not “that has whipped me” (Storey 2011. 89), as if the participle were perfect tense.

260

Eupolis

Epitome of Athenaeus 12.525e ἐν δὲ τῷ σχολίῳ τοῦ βιβλίου ὅθεν αἱ παρεκβολαὶ τάδε ἦσαν περὶ τοῦ ἄνω γεγραµµένου ῥόµβου· ῥόµβος ἐστὶ τροχίσκος, ὃν τύπτοντες ἱµᾶσι καὶ στρέφοντες ποιοῦσι περιδινεῖσθαι καὶ ψόφον ἀποτελεῖν· ῥύµβον δὲ αὐτὸν Εὔπολις εἶπε· καλεῖται δὲ καὶ βρυτήρ The following regarding the above-mentioned rhombos was found in the scholion of the book whence the notes: A rhombos is a wheel, which they cause to rotate and to produce a noise by striking it with straps and making it turn; Eupolis referred to it as a rhymbos, but it is also called a brytêr

Meter Probably iambic dimeter.

llkl llkl But trimeter is possible as well, e. g. llkl llr|〈l xlkl〉 Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 214; Meineke 1839 II.452–3; Kock 1880 I.275; Rutherford 1881. 11; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Delneri 2006. 299–303 Citation context Glosses on A.R. 4.143–4 (the snake guarding the golden fleece ἀπειρεσίας ἐλέλιξεν / ῥυµβόνας, “rolled its countless coils”) and 1.1139 (“the Phrygians propitiate Rhea with rhombos and drum152”), in the latter case with explicit reference to the Alexandrian scholar Didymus (1st century BCE/1st century CE) and thus presumably to his Comic Vocabulary, although Didymus himself was only compiling material from older sources. Vollgraf 1940. 181–5 (esp. 182–3) takes the reference to come through Pamphilus. The reference in Photius likely goes back to the same source, as does the note in the Epitome of Athenaeus (not from the main text). Note also Hsch. ρ 433, 488; Et.Gen. AB s. v. ῥύµβῳ; Σ Clem.Al. Protr. p. 302.28–32 Stahlin–Treu (tracing the information to Diogenianus); ΣKUEA Theoc. 2.30 (p. 277.3–4 Wendel), none of whom mention Eupolis. Nothing in the full text of Athenaeus matches the note in the Epitome, which has been brought in from elsewhere. Text Meineke believed that the scholion read ῥύµβοις, and he therefore emended metri gratia to ῥύµβοισι. Interpretation The notes that preserve or mention this fragment, along with the other ancient material cited in Citation context, appear to be confused and are actually referring to two separate objects, both mentioned in Theocritus Idyll 2: (1) a magical wheel, usually referred to as an ἴυγξ, which was made to spin backward and forward by means of a string that ran through two holes 152

Typanon, i. e. tympanon; see fr. 88.1 n.

Βάπται (fr. 83)

261

near its center (Theoc. 2.17; cf. Pi. P. 4.213–19; anon. AP 5.205 = HE 3798–3803; Johnston 1995. 178–84; Fernández Fernández 2015),153 and (2) a bull-roarer or thunderstick, called a ῥόµβος or ῥύµβος, i. e. a kite-shaped (“rhomboid”) piece of wood attached to a cord and spun around to produce a roaring noise, including as a part of mystic ceremonies (Theoc. 2.30–1 [transposed to after 43 by Gow, following the papyrus and K]; Archyt. 47 B 1 D.–K.; A. fr. 57.8–9 (quoted in the general introduction to Baptai) with Else 1958. 74–5; E. Hel. 1362–3 with Kannicht 1969 ad loc.; Diog.Ath. TrGF 45 F 1.3; West 1983. 157; West 1992a. 122).154 See in general Gow 1934; Pettazzoni 1997. 21–44. Here a bull-roarer is in question and is said to be “whipping” the speaker, which likely means “driving” him or her “into a [cultic] frenzy”. For the figurative use of µαστίζω (recognized by neither LSJ nor Montanari s. v.), cf. LSJ s. v. µάστιξ II. Meineke took the goddess Kotytô herself to be speaking, while Kaibel (less venturously) thought that this must be one of her celebrants. Cf. Ar. fr. 315 ἴθι δὴ λαβὼν τὸν ῥόµβον ἀνακωδώνισον (“Come on! Take the rhombos and let it ring!”; from Hêroes), where Meineke’s ῥύµβον ought probably to be printed (cf. below) and where Kaibel hypothesized that heroes were being summoned (or driven away). Kock (who proposed emending the participle to µαλθάξας on the ground that µαστίζω is not Attic; see below) suggested that the speaker might be someone who had been cheated by magical means. ῥύµβος/ῥόµβος is 〈 ῥέµβοµαι (“roam, wander”; e. g. Men. fr. 871.8). For ῥύµβος (the Attic form of the word, according to ΣKUEA Theoc. 2.30), cf. Crit. TrGF 43 F 4.2; Pl. Cra. 426e ῥυµβεῖν. µαστίξας The ordinary verb meaning “whip” is µαστιγόω (e. g. Ar. Eq. 64; S. fr. 820.2; Hdt. 3.154.2; X. HG 3.3.11), and µαστίζω is instead an epic form (e. g. Il. 8.45 = Od. 3.494). It thus presumably adds a elevated tone here, as also at Alex. fr. 138.5, where a cook is speaking.155 If this is iambic trimeter (see Meter), the emphatic form ἐµέ is unnecessary—unmarked µε would do just as well—and a contrast must have been

153 154

155

Cf. Rusten 2011. 229 “Oh magic wheel”. Montanari s. v. perpetuates the misunderstanding, glossing ῥόµβος at Theoc. 2.30 “magic wheel, disc, for spells … (unc[ertain] signif[ication]”). What the magical rhombus referred to in Roman sources (Ov. Am. 1.8.7; Mart. 9.29.9; 12.57.17; Prop. 2.28.35), as well as at Luc. DMeretr. 4.5, is, is less clear; the OLD takes it to be a bull-roarer rather than a ἴυγξ, but the proper sense of the Greek word may already have been unclear at this point. ΣP A.R. 1.1134–9 muddies the waters further by adding a reference to whipping, as if this were a top. Cf. Arnott 1996. 401, whose alternative and less convincing hypothesis is that µαστίζω is not an epicism but simply an ill-attested colloquial by-form of the verb.

262

Eupolis

drawn between what the rhymbos was doing to the speaker and what it had done or could be expected to do to someone else.

fr. 84 K.-A. (74 K.) (Α.) ἀνόσια πάσχω ταῦτα ναὶ µὰ τὰς Νύµφας. (Β.) πολλοῦ µὲν οὖν δίκαια ναὶ µὰ τὰς κράµβας duos versus in unum confudit Prisc.R ΑΝΟΣΙΑΠΑΕΧΤΑΙΤΑ. ΝΑΙΤΛΙΒΑΣΑ    1 ταῦτα] ΤΑΙΤΑ Prisc.A   Νύµφας] ΝΙΝΦΑΣ Prisc.A   2 ΠΟΛΛΟΥ Prisc.V : ΠΩΛΛΟΙ Prisc.A µὲν] ΝΕΝ Prisc.V   µὰ Ath. : ΝΑ Prisc.   τὰς κράµβας Prisc. : τὴν κράµβην Ath.

(A.) These things I’m suffering are unholy, by the Nymphs! (B.) To the contrary—utterly deserved,156 by the cabbages! Priscian, de metr. Ter. 23 (Grammatici Latini III p. 427.22–6) Eupolis Βάπταις (baptaes RV, baptes AB), cum in aliis iambis eiusdem fabulae recta est observatione metrorum usus, hos tamen posuit in fine habentes spondeos, ―― Although in the other iambs of the same play he paid proper attention to the use of meters, Eupolis nonetheless placed these verses in Baptai (baptaes RV, baptes A) that have spondees at the end: ―― Ath. 9.370b Εὔπολις Βάπταις (v. 2)· ναὶ µὰ τὴν κράµβην Eupolis in Baptai (v. 2): by the cabbage!

Meter Choliambic.

lrkl l|lk|l klll llkl klk|l klll Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 218, 225–7; Meineke 1839 II.451; Leutsch 1855. 706–8; Naber 1880. 36; Taplin 1993. 51 n. 7; Storey 2003. 105; Delneri 2006. 304–8 Citation context Priscian, seemingly drawing on Heliodorus, quotes these verses in the course of a brief but well-informed discussion of iambic meters in Greek authors. 156

Not “long deserved” (Storey 2011. 89).

Βάπται (fr. 84)

263

Athenaeus quotes the final portion of 2 as part of a long discussion of the cabbage, at least some of it drawn from Eudemus of Athens’ On Vegetables. Similar oaths “by the cabbage” or “by the cabbages” at Anan. fr. 4 (sing.); Telecl. fr. 29 (pl.); and Epich. fr. 22 (sing.) are quoted immediately before this, and a brief discussion of other odd oaths (“by the dog” and “by the caper”) follows. 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. The eye of the R-scribe apparently leapt from ΝΑΙ in 1 to the same word in 2, causing him to omit the end of the first verse and the beginning of the second. In 2, either Priscian’s plural τὰς κράµβας or Athenaeus’ singular τὴν κράµβην would do, but the former echoes plural τὰς Νύµφας in 1 and is thus to be preferred. Interpretation An exchange between two persons, one of whom expresses outrage at the treatment he is receiving, causing the other to mockingly echo his words in response. Despite Priscian, Eupolis has not made a mistake, and these are instead choliambs (“limping” iambs, skazones), which were associated with Hipponax and Ananius in particular; see in general West 1982. 41–2. (A.)’s unusual choice of meter—promptly imitated by (B.)—thus appeals to an old tradition of abusive, mocking verse, and (B.) accordingly responds by echoing Ananius (see Citation context) or perhaps Hipponax (fr. 107.47–8), as likely did Telecleides before him. (A.)’s oath by the Nymphs is unusual and thus presumably significant, and is most naturally taken as connected with his claim that what is being done to him is not just wrong but “unholy, displeasing to the gods, ritually unacceptable” (ἀνόσια). Storey tentatively suggests that this “might be Alkibiades protesting at ill treatment”. 1 An indignant protest similar to frr. 99.106 δίκα[ι]α δῆτα ταῦτα πάσχειν ἦν ἐµέ;; 224.1 οὐκ ἀργαλέα δῆτ’ ἐστὶ πάσχειν τοῦτ’ ἐµέ;; Ar. Av. 328 προδεδόµεθ’ ἀνόσιά τ’ ἐπάθοµεν. ἀνόσια . . . ταῦτα is an internal accusative with πάσχω; cf. frr. 224.1; 229; Ar. Ach. 678 δεινὰ πάσχοµεν; Lys. 608 εἶτ’ οὐχὶ δεινὸν ταῦτα πάσχειν ἔστ’ ἐµέ;. For the sense of the adjective, see van der Valk 1942; Jeanmaire 1945; van der Valk 1951; Dover 1974. 248, 252–3; Chadwick 1996. 221–6; Willi 2008 (a complicated and unlikely argument). ναὶ µὰ τὰς Νύµφας Nymphs are minor female nature-divinities associated with rocks, trees, caves, springs and the like, and are referred to

264

Eupolis

elsewhere in late 5th-/early 4th-century comedy only in elevated contexts (Ar. Nu. 271 (prayer); Pax 1070–1 (a source of inspired prophesy); Av. 1098 (lyric); Th. 325–6 (lyric), 978 (lyric), 992/3 (lyric); Eub. fr. 34.1 (a riddling high-style hexameter); note also Alexis’ Philokalos ê Nymphai (contents obscure) and the cave-cult of the Nymphs that forms an important part of the religious and social background of Menander’s Dyscolus). See in general Larson 2001, esp. 126–38 (on the Nymphs in Attica); Halm–Tisserant and Siebert, LIMC VIII.1 p. 891–2. For ναὶ µά oaths generally, cf. fr. 270.2 n. 2 For the adverbial use of πολλοῦ (colloquial), see fr. 192c n. For adversative µὲν οὖν in dialogue, e. g. Pherecr. fr. 76.2; Ar. Eq. 13; Archipp. fr. 37.2; Anaxandr. fr. 3.3; and see Denniston 1950. 475. ναὶ µὰ τὰς κράµβας Cf. frr. 79 ναὶ µὰ τὴν ἀµυγδαλῆν / with n.; 270.2 ναὶ µὰ τὸν ∆ία / with n. κράµβη (etymology uncertain; the word is also used at e. g. Polyzel. fr. 10; Hp. Epid. VI 2.19 = 5.288.3 Littré) is more often referred to as ῥάφανος (e. g. Call. Com. fr. 26; Crates Com. fr. 19.1; Ar. fr. 111.4; Alc. Com. fr. 24 with Orth 2013 ad loc.). The descriptions of the plant in Theophrastus (HP 7.4.4) and the other early authorities quoted at Ath. 9.369e–f make it clear that heading varieties of the vegetable are not in question and that Greek cabbage more closely resembled modern kale; see de Saint-Denis 1980 (concentrating on the Roman evidence); Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012. 158–9.

fr. 85 K.-A. (75 K.) ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἕξεις ἀγαθὰ πολλὰ δὴ πρῴ ἕξεις Dindorf : ἑξης Σ

for there you’ll have lots and lots of good things early157 2

ΣRVEΓ M Ar. Av. 129 2 (πρῴ) οὕτω µονοσυλλάβως λέγουσι.RVEΓ M Εὔπολις Βάπταις· ――R 2

(prôi) They say it thus monosyllabically.RVEΓ M Eupolis in Baptai: ――R

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic. 〈xlkl〉 klkl lrkl kll

157

Not “tomorrow” (Storey 2011. 89), seemingly adapting Edmonds’ “first thing tomorrow” (1957. 335).

Βάπται (fr. 86)

265

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.453; Schiassi 1944. 106; Delneri 2006. 309–10 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Av. 129 ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν µου πρῴ τις ἐλθὼν τῶν φίλων (“one of my friends, coming to my door early”); only ΣR preserves the fragment of Eupolis. Cf. Suda π 2939 (taken over from the Aristophanic scholia, and thus not to be regarded as an independent witness). Text ΣR has ἑξης, as if Eupolis had written ἑξῆς (“in a row, one after the other”, e. g. Ar. Ec. 638), which is metrical but makes no sense. Dindorf restored 2nd-person singular future active indicative ἕξεις (〈 ἔχω). Interpretation An explanation (hence γάρ) of a preceding remark in which the location in question—here simply ἐκεῖ, “there”—must have been specified. The vague ἀγαθὰ πολλά was perhaps expanded on in what followed, as at Ar. Ach. 633–5 (“our poet says he’s responsible for many good things that have come to you, by …”). But πρῴ at the end of the line suggests that a substantial contrast was drawn between the many good things the addressee would have early in the day at the spot in question and other things (not necessarily so good) that he or she would get later on there, meaning that this was not necessarily encouragement to go and stay at the place under discussion, but might have been the opening section of a warning against doing so instead. Delneri hypothesizes that the reference is to life in the Underworld, where Kotytô’s celebrants will enjoy a happy existence after death, which is merely a guess. For δή used to add emphasis to πολλά, e. g. Ar. V. 1248; Av. 860; Ra. 697; A. Pers. 236; Hdt. 7.5.2; X. HG 2.3.15; and see in general Denniston 1950. 205–6. For monosyllabic Attic πρῴ (contrast bisyllabic πρῶϊ at e. g. Il. 18.277), see fr. 385.3 n. Here the meaning is “early (in the day)”, with no further specification of the time, as also at e. g. Ar. V. 104; Av. 132.

fr. 86 K.-A. (76 K.) ἀλλὰ τὰς κοίτας γ’ ἔχουσι πλουσίως σεσαγµένας ἀλλὰ Poll.CL : ἀλλὰ καὶ Poll.FS : καὶ Poll.AB   κοίτας γ’ Poll.CL : κοίτας οὐχ Poll.AB : (σ)κοπὰς Poll.FS : κίστας γ’ Kock   ἔχουσι πλουσίως Poll. ABCL : ἔχουσιν ὡς Poll.FS

But as for their storage vessels, they have them richly stuffed

266

Eupolis

Poll. 10.91 καὶ κανοῦν δὲ ἀρτοφόρον. εἴποις ἂν καὶ κίστην ὀψοφόρον, ὅθεν καί (Od. 6.76)· ――. καί που καὶ κοίτην, ὡς ἔν τε τοῖς Βάπταις Εὐπόλιδος· ――, καὶ ἐν Φερεκράτους Μυρµηκανθρώποις (fr. 127)· ―― Also a basket (kanoun) for transporting bread. You could also say a hamper (kistê) for transporting food, whence in fact (Od. 6.76): ――. And also perhaps a koitê, as in Eupolis’ Baptai: ――, and in Pherecrates’ Myrmêkanthrôpoi (fr. 127): ――

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lkll lklk | lklk lkl Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 216; Kock 1875. 414–15; Herwerden 1903. 23; Schiassi 1944. 106; Delneri 2006. 311–14 Citation context From a brief discussion of baskets and other objects used for carrying food in the course of the long catalogue of σκεύη (“gear, equipment” vel sim.) of various sorts that makes up Pollux Book 10. Poll. 6.32 (from a discussion of words having to do with ἄρτος “bread”) also preserves the phrase κανοῦν ἀρτοφόρον, which is attested nowhere else. Hsch. κ 3274 ~ Phot. κ 864 (both quoted in Text) may be drawing on the same source. Text ἀλλά and καί must have been preserved as variant readings in the common ancestor of all six manuscripts of Pollux. The common exemplar of CL adopted ἀλλά; the common exemplar of AB adopted the unmetrical καί; and the common exemplar of FS accepted both words into the text. (σ)κοπὰς in Poll.FS is in origin a majuscule error, ΚΟΙΤ having been read ΚΟΠ. κοίτας οὐχ in Poll.AB represents a misinterpretation of γ as a ligature commonly used to write ου, with χ then having been added to avoid hiatus. κοίτη normally means “bed” (e. g. Ar. V. 1040; Od. 20.138; Hdt. 1.10.1), and Kock accordingly took Pollux to be in error here and argued that what Eupolis wrote was κίστας (“hampers”, presumably first written κίτας in error and then misguidedly corrected to κοίτας). But inscriptional evidence supports the notion that κοίτη could also be used of a storage box or the like (LSJ s. v. VI; e. g. IG I3 387.15 (from the accounts of the Eleusinian epistatai, 407/6 BCE); 421.184, 186 (from the lists of the household goods sold at public auction of the men caught up in the religious scandals of 415 BCE; the price of less than 5 drachmas leaves little doubt that these are storage containers rather than beds158); II2 120.37–40 (40 bronze κοῖται, one lacking a lid; from a decree and inventory of the Chalcotheke, 362/1 BCE); 1408.14–15 (30 empty bronze κοῖται, one

158

Thus Pritchett in Pritchett and Pippin 1956. 225–6.

Βάπται (fr. 86)

267

lacking a lid; from the accounts of the treasurers of Athena, shortly after 385/4 BCE); Hesperia 7 (1938) 272 #7.4 (from an inventory of the Opisthodomus, late 5th century BCE), as probably also at Men. Dysc. 448 (with Handley 1965 ad loc.);159 Epitr. 381 (used to store birth-tokens) with Furley 2009 ad loc.; cf. D. 18.260 κοιτοφόρος160 (“koitê-bearer”; one of the titles supposedly enjoyed by Aeschines as a participant in his mother’s celebrations of mystery cults when he was a boy); Hsch. κ 3274 κοίτη· κίστη, ἐν ᾗ τὰ βρώµατα ἔφερον (“koitê: a hamper in which they transported food”, likely from the same source as the one Pollux is drawing on) ~ Phot. κ 864 (which calls this a πλεκτὴ κίστη, i. e. something made of wickerwork rather than wood or metal, and specifies that it was used for storage rather than transport; and in general Brümmer 1985. 16–22. ἔχουσιν ὡς in Poll.FS (for ἔχουσι πλουσίως) is an example of haplography, the scribe’s eye having leapt from one ουσι to the next, omitting everything in between; nu was then added to avoid hiatus. Interpretation A contrasting element drawn from a description of some group of individuals, who have a large amount of money or valuable property, even if perhaps nothing else in their favor. The enormous number of κοῖται dedicated to Athenian goddesses in IG II2 120.37–40 and 1408.14–15 (see Text)161 suggests that such objects had a ritual purpose, and a connection to mystery cult is confirmed by D. 18.260 (assuming that κοιτοφόρος is the proper reading there) and Plu. Phoc. 28.2 τὰς µυστικὰς κοίτας (“the mystic koitai”; thus codd. : κίστας Ziegler). The obvious conclusion would seem to be that the individuals in question here are the celebrants (or leaders?) of a cult—if not the Kotytô cult (thus Schiassi) then perhaps that of a rival.

159

160

161

Handley suggests as an alternative possibility that κοίτη in this passage might mean “bed-frame”, as if the word were equivalent in meaning to κλίνη, whereas in fact it means “a place in which one lies down”. One would not in any case expect beds to be hauled out into the countryside for a rustic sacrifice, for which temporary στιβάδες (see fr. 274 n.) were used instead. The manuscripts have κιττοφόρος, although Harpocration (p. 178.10–11 = Κ 62 Keaney) reports a variant reading κιστοφόρος (printed by e. g. Butcher). But cf. ΣF2 ὁ φέρων τὰς κοίτας (“the man who carries the koitai”), where κοίτας was emended to κίστας by Riemann (followed by Dilts), but which is better taken to show that the correct reading in the text of Demosthenes is κοιτοφόρος. Note also the κοίτε ℎυπόχσυλος κατάχρυσος (“gilded koitê with wood beneath”) that appears repeatedly in the Parthenon accounts (e. g. IG I3 343.10) and that again seems more likely to be a container than a bed-frame. No kistai, by contrast, appear to be dedicated to Athenian goddesses.

268

Eupolis

“Determinative γε is most commonly found after connecting particles. Whether these express disjunction, opposition, progression, or inference, γε serves to define more sharply the new idea introduced: ‘this, and nothing else’” (Denniston 1950. 119). σεσαγµένας The verb normally takes a genitive of that with which the object in question is stuffed full (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 172; Ar. Ec. 840; Pl. Com. fr. 104; X. Oec. 8.8), for which πλουσίως (literally “in a wealthy fashion”, i. e. “as κοῖται distinguished by wealth are” ~ “as κοῖται full of valuable objects are”) here stands in. For the adverb, cf. Ar. V. 1168–9 πλουσίως / … τρυφερόν τι διασαλακώνισον (“put on a snobbish show of refinement, as wealthy people do!”); E. Alc. 56 πλουσίως ταφήσεται (“she will be buried richly”, i. e. “with the pomp and funeral goods appropriate to a wealthy woman”).

fr. 87 K.-A. (79 K.) σὺ δ’ ὕπαγ᾿ εἰς τοὔµπροσθεν But you move on forward!162 [Ammon.] Diff. 488, p. 127.8–11 = De impropr. 7, pp. 143.1–4 Nickau οὕτως οὖν καὶ ὑπάγειν λέγοµεν ἀντὶ τοῦ προάγειν, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν εἰς τοὔµπροσθεν πορεύεσθαι. κέχρηται τῇ λέξει Εὔπολις ἐν Βάπταις· ―― In this way, then, we also say hypagein in place of proagein, i. e. “to travel forward”. Eupolis uses the word in Baptai: ――

Meter Probably trochaic (thus Meineke), rkll lk〈lx〉 hence Kassel–Austin’s decision to place the fragment here rather than with frr. 76–83. But it might instead be iambic trimeter (Kock), e. g. 〈llkl x〉|rk|l llk〈l〉 Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 238; Meineke 1839 II.447; Kock 1880 I.277; Delneri 2006. 315–16 Citation context From the end of a discussion of the difference between the verbs ὑπάγω and πορεύοµαι, seemingly conceding that the distinction between the latter (properly “walk, go”) and the former (properly “hitch [a draft animal] beneath [a cart or wagon]”) drawn at the beginning of the note 162

Not “in front” (Edmonds 1957. 335; Storey 2011. 89).

Βάπται (fr. 88)

269

was not maintained in practice. Ar. fr. 669 (corrupt as transmitted, but taken by Kassel–Austin, following Valckenaer, to be a form of ὑπεῖπον rather than of ὑπάγω) is cited immediately before this. The same material (with minor variations) is preserved at Et.Gud. p. 541.7–15 Sturz, Thom. Mag. p. 369.2–7 (both citing also Ar. Ra. 174 ὑπάγεθ’ ὑµεῖς τῆς ὁδοῦ) and An.Bachm. II p. 375.18–25), and is perhaps to be traced to Herennius Philo (early 2nd century CE). Interpretation The use of σὺ δ(έ) to introduce the order suggests that a contrast is being drawn with the actions either of the speaker or of another character (who has perhaps been issued different instructions); cf. fr. 339 σὺ δὲ τὰ καλῴδια / ταῦθ’ ἁρκυώρει with n. For ὑπάγω used intransitively in the sense “move on, move forward” (LSJ s. v. B.I–II.1),163 cf. (in addition to the passages cited in LSJ) Ar. Nu. 1298; V. 290; Ra. 174 (quoted in Citation context); Antiph. fr. 180.4; Men. Dysc. 144, 378; Th. 5.10.3; Pl. Euthphr. 14c; Arist. HA 613b32. εἰς τοὔµπροσθεν is prosaic (e. g. Hp. Fract. 42 = 3.550.4 Littré; Isoc. 8.12; Pl. Lg. 783b; Arist. PA 668b23–4; attested elsewhere in comedy at Dionys. Com. fr. *10 (corrupt); Men. Sam. 233); cf. εἰς τοὔπισθεν (“backward”; Ar. Pl. 1209; in tragedy at E. Hipp. 1222; Ph. 1410, but otherwise similarly confined to prose).

fr. 88 K.-A. (77 K.) ὃς καλῶς µὲν τυµπανίζεις καὶ διαψάλλεις τριγώνοις κἀπικινεῖ ταῖς κοχώναις καὶ † πείθεις † ἄνω σκέλη 1 ὃς Ath. : οἷς Erot. : ὡς Srebrny   τυµπανίζεις Erot. : τυµπανίζει Ath.    2 διαψάλλεις Dübner : διαψάλλει Ath.   τριγώνοις Ath. : τριγώνῳ Blaydes    3 κἀπικινεῖ Cobet : καὶ ἐπικινεῖς Erot.   4 κἀνατείνεις τὼ σκέλη Fritzsche : κἀπισείεις τὼ σκέλει Kaibel   πείθεις Erot. : τίθεις Schneidewin : τιθεῖς Goettling

You who play the drum nicely and produce notes on the strings of trigôna and move in time to (the music) with your ass-cheeks164 and † persuade † legs upward 163

164

LSJ s. v. (followed by Montanari s. v.) attempts to discriminate between two separate senses, B.I “go away, withdraw, retire” and B.II.1 “go forwards, draw on”, which is over-fine. I. e. “shake your booty”.

270

Eupolis

Ath. 4.183e–f µνηµονεύει δὲ τοῦ τριγώνου τούτου καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἐν µὲν Μυσοῖς (fr. 412) οὕτως· ――, καὶ ἐν Θαµύρᾳ (fr. 239). Ἀριστοφάνης δ’ ἐν ∆αιταλεῦσι (fr. 255) καὶ Θεόποµπος ἐν Πηνελόπῃ (fr. 50), Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν Βάπταις φησίν (vv. 1–2)· ―― Sophocles also mentions this trigônon in Mysoi (fr. 412) as follows: ――, and in Thamyra (fr. 239). Also Aristophanes in Daitalês (fr. 255) and Theopompus in Pênelopê (fr. 50); and Eupolis says in Baptai (vv. 1–2): ―― H

ΣR Hp. Epid. V 7 = 5.208.2–3 Littré (Erot. fr. 17, pp. 103.22–104.6) καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Κόλαξιν (vv. 1, 3–4)· ――. καὶ ἐν Βάπταις (fr. 159)· ―― Also Eupolis in Kolakes (vv. 1, 3–4): ――. And in Baptai (fr. 159): ――

Meter Trochaic dimeter (v. 4 catalectic?).

lkll | lkll lkll l|kll lkll | lkll l†ll†k lkl Discussion Lobeck 1829. 1016; Fritzsche 1835. 213–14; Schneidewin 1852. 425–6; Cobet 1854. 220–1; Fritzsche 1857/58. 5–6; Goettling 1869. 274; Schiassi 1944. 105; Storey 2003. 106; Delneri 2006. 317–23; Olson 2007. 374–5 (J19) Citation context The first two verses of the fragment are quoted by Athenaeus in the course of a richly informed discussion of harps and lyres of all sorts. Similar material perhaps drawn from the same source is preserved at 14.634f–5c, where S. fr. 412 is quoted once again. The quotation of vv. 1, 3–4 in a scholion on Hippocrates drawing on Erotian comes 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. Text This is a reasonable arrangement of the verses of the fragment, which assumes a gap in the version of the text offered by Erotian into which the second verse from Athenaeus is inserted, keeping the references to music together in 1–2 and the references to the musician’s body together in 3–4, while placing the corrupt portion of the text conveniently at the end. One might just as easily assume a gap in Athenaeus’ version and restore ὃς καλῶς µὲν τυµπανίζεις / κἀπικινεῖ ταῖς κοχώναις / καὶ † πείθεις † ἄνω σκέλη / καὶ διαψάλλει τριγώνοις.

Βάπται (fr. 88)

271

At the beginning of 1, Erotian’s οἷς might be dependent on a noun such as τύµπανα originally found in the preceding verse or verses, with further information about the addressee’s use of this object expected in what follows (“with which you A and B”), or might instead be a dative of advantage, “in whose honor” vel sim. Athenaeus’ ὅς (introducing a catalogue of actions for which the addressee is responsible) is much easier. Srebrny’s ὡς, which is to be taken with καλῶς and makes what follows more pointedly sarcastic (“How well you …!”), is possible but unnecessary. Athenaeus takes 1 ὅς to mean “he who” and writes third-person singular τυµπανίζει in 1 and διαψάλλει in 2. Erotian, by contrast, offers second-person singular τυµπανίζεις in 1, ἐπικινεῖς in 3 and πείθεις in 4. ἐπικινέω is rare but seemingly deponent,165 hence ταῖς κοχώναις rather than the metrically equivalent τὰς κοχώνας (as a direct object) at the end of 3, and Dübner’s ἐπικινεῖ rather than the paradosis ἐπικινεῖς must accordingly be right. Although Erotian has got the form wrong, having assimilated it to the present active forms of the two other verbs, there can thus be no doubt that the second-person is to be read throughout.166 At the end of 2, Blaydes suggested τριγώνῳ for the paradosis τριγώνοις, but this is likely a generalizing plural. 4 makes no sense and is in any case unmetrical, since lklx rather than lllk is needed in the first metron. A finite verb to match those in 1–3 would seem to be wanted rather than a participle, making Schneidewin’s τίθεις (“you place your two legs up”, i. e. “you do wild balletic kicks”; cf. fr. 447; Ar. V. 1492–3 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Pax 332) preferable to Goettling’s τιθεῖς (“placing”). But this seems flat, hence Fritzsche’s κἀνατείνεις τὼ σκέλη (“and you stretch your two legs up”, sc. not just as a dancer but as a passive homosexual would; cf. fr. 54 n.) and Kaibel’s κἀπισείεις τὼ σκέλει (“and you shake your two legs in time”). Neither of these, however, is close enough to what has been transmitted to inspire confidence.

165

166

LSJ s. v. treats the verb as exclusively passive, but misses this fragment (the earliest attestation of the compound), as does Montanari s. v. (who lemmatizes under ἐπικινέοµαι, but whose “get worked up” should be struck as unsupported by the passages of Epictetus and Lucian cited and is instead a figurative use equivalent to the gloss that follows, “to become emotional”). The corruption in Athenaeus is perhaps to be traced to a similar error: in whatever version of the passage 1–2 have been extracted from, τυµπανίζεις and διαψάλλεις had already been altered to τυµπανίζει and διαψάλλει to match what was taken to be the third-person form in 3.

272

Eupolis

Interpretation A nominally appreciative but actually quite hostile description of the male musician and dancer to whom the remark is addressed, and who is most economically taken to be one of Kotytô’s celebrants (thus Edmonds 1957. 335 n. b, specifically identifying the addressee as the coryphaeus). Cf. fr. 148.3–4 (adulterers playing Gnesippus’ music on harps to entice women out into the street), and for the structure of the remark, frr. 176 ὃς Χαρίτων µὲν ὄζει, / καλλαβίδας δὲ βαίνει, / σησαµίδας δὲ χέζει, / µῆλα δὲ χρέµπτεται (“who smells of Graces, walks an ass-grab step, shits sesame-cakes, and hawks and spits apples”) with n.; 204 ἔχοντα τὴν σφραγῖδα καὶ ψάγδαν ἐρυγγάνοντα (“wearing his/the signet ring and belching psagdan”). Lobeck compared the reference at Demetr. Eloc. 97 to “tympana and other instruments played by effeminates (µαλθακοί)”, and Kassel–Austin add Hdt. 1.155.4, where Croesus advises Cyrus to render the Lydians unfit for war inter alia by encouraging them to ψάλλειν, “and soon, your majesty, you will see that they have turned from men into women”. µέν in 1 suggests that this is only the first part of at least a two-part attack: playing depraved music and dancing about is what the addressee is good at. 1 For sarcastic καλῶς, e. g. Pherecr. fr. 21 ὦ Ζεῦ, καλῶς γ’ ἀνταποδίδως µοι τὴν χάριν (“Zeus, how well you repay my favor!”); Ar. Eq. 344; E. Med. 504; Cyc. 694. τυµπανίζεις The τύµπανον and τύµπανον-playing are routinely associated in 5th- and 4th-century sources with ecstatic cults of all sorts (e. g. Ar. V. 119; Lys. 1–3, 387–9; E. Cyc. 204–5; Ba. 155–6; Pi. Dith. 2.8–9 = fr. 70b.8–9; Hdt. 4.76.3–4; D. 18.284 with reference to the description of Aeschines’ alleged participation in mystery rites at 259–60; Orth 2014. 134–6 on Autocrates’ Tympanistai). Cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 9 “The man is dancing and the sacrifices to the god are good. Do you want me to run after Diopeithes and drums?” (obscure). For the instrument itself, see West 1992a. 124 (“not a kettledrum, as lexica and commentators often state, but a shallow frame drum or tambour of modest size”); both sides of the frame were apparently covered with skin, so that a τύµπανον resembled a modern tambourine with two drumheads and no jingles (“zils”). 2 ψάλλω is “pluck (a string vel sim.)” and is used of both bows (e. g. Merop. fr. 1.2, p. 133 Bernabé; E. Ba. 784; fr. 494.2) and musical instruments (e. g. Magnes test. 7 ap. ΣVEΓΘM Ar. Eq. 522; Ar. Av. 218 ἀντιψάλλων; Anacr. PMG 373.3; Hdt. 1.155.4; Ion fr. 32.3 West2), as here. The compound διαψάλλω is attested elsewhere only at Him. or. 63.22 (of a citharode with a lyre; 4th century

Βάπται (fr. 89)

273

CE), where the context shows that it means “carefully practice”; here more likely “pluck all the strings”, i. e. “produce elaborate music”.167 For the τρίγωνος (a type of harp), see fr. 148.4 n. 3 For ἐπικινέω, see Text. For ταῖς κοχώναις, see fr. 159.2 n., and note Theopomp. Com. fr. 80 (“a wine-loving old woman, a drunk, lusty from wine, a kochônê”), where the word appears to function as a sexually charged term of abuse. 4 “Sticking one’s legs/feet up” is a euphemism for submitting to sexual penetration (frr. 54 with n.; 57), which may or may not be part of the point here; see on Text.

fr. 89 K.-A. (78 K.) † κἀκεῖνος † τοὺς Ἱππέας ξυνεποίησα τῷ φαλακρῷ 〈 l

x 〉 κἀδωρησάµην

1 κἀκεῖνος Σ Nu. 554 : κἀκείνους Hermann : κἀκείνῳ Kaibel   2 ξυνεποίησα Σ Eq. 1291 : συνεποίησα Σ Nu. 554: ἐποίησα Σ Nu. 540   〈τούτῳ〉 Hermann : 〈προῖκα〉 Kirchhoff

† and that man † his Knights I helped the bald guy compose 〈 l

x 〉 and I made him a gift of it

ΣE Ar. Nu. 554 Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς Βάπταις τοὐναντίον φησίν, ὅτι συνεποίησεν Ἀριστοφάνει τοὺς Ἱππεῖς. λέγει δὲ τὴν τελευταίαν παράβασιν. φησὶ δέ· ―― Eupolis in his Baptai says the opposite, that he helped Aristophanes compose his Knights; he is referring to the final parabasis. But he says: ―― ΣE Ar. Nu. 540 (οὐδ’ ἔσκωψε τοὺς φαλακρούς) Εὔπολις (v. 2)· ―― (and made no fun of bald guys) Eupolis (v. 2): ――

167

LSJ s. v. merely offers “strength(ene)d for ψάλλω, abs.”, without attempting to interpret the precise sense in either Eupolis or Himerius. Montanari s. v. offers “to pluck, sound (a stringed instrum(ent)) Eup. 88.2”, which does not explain the prefix and fails to see that the verb is in fact used absolutely here.

274

Eupolis 3

ΣVEΓ Ar. Eq. 1291 ἐκ τοῦ “ὅστις οὖν τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα” (Eq. 1288) φασί τινες Εὐπόλιδος εἶναι τὴν παράβασιν, εἴ γέ φησιν Εὔπολις· ξυνεποίησα τῷ φαλακρῷ On the basis of the phrase “whoever then a man like this” (Eq. 1288), some authorities claim that the parabasis is by Eupolis, given that Eupolis says: “I helped the bald guy compose”

Meter Eupolideans (for which, see test. 45–7 with test. 45 n.). 〈oolxlkkl〉 | †lll†llkl rkllklkkl 〈lx〉lllkl Discussion Hermann 1830. 298 n. **; Fritzsche 1835. 227–32; Kirchhoff 1878. 288–9 n. 2; Whittaker 1935. 189; Colonna 1952; Pohlenz 1952. 120–2; Sommerstein 1980. 51–3; Sommerstein 1981. 207 (on Ar. Eq. 1225); Halliwell 1989. 519; Hubbard 1991. 85–6; Storey 1993. 73–4; Totaro 2000. 197–207; Delneri 2006. 324–30; Kyriakidi 2007. 163–71; Olson 2007. 111 (B42); Telò 2007. 393–5 Citation context  Three echoes of an ancient scholarly tradition—presumably passed on by Didymus—that fancifully sought to make better sense of the hostile reference to Eupolis at Ar. Nu. 553–4 (= Marikas test. i, where see n.) by using the similarity between fr. 99.34–5 ὅστις οὖν ἄρχειν τοιούτους ἄνδρας α̣[ἱρεῖται k l ] / µήτε πρόβατ’ αὐτῳ τεκνοῖτο µήτε γῆ κ[αρπὸν φέροι] and Ar. Eq. 1288–9 ὅστις οὖν τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα µὴ σφόδρα βδελύττεται, / οὔποτ’ ἐκ ταὐτοῦ µεθ’ ἡµῶν πίεται ποτηρίου to argue that Eupolis actually composed the latter. Text κἀκεῖνος would do metrically standing directly before τοὺς Ἱππέας, but makes no sense. The simplest solution is to convert the word to a different case, hence Hermann’s κἀκείνους (“and his well-known Knights”) and Kaibel’s κἀκείνῳ (“and the well-known bald guy”168). ξυν- appears to be yielding to συν- in the final quarter of the 5th century BCE (Threatte 1980. 553–4), but the former is far less likely in the period to which the sources for the fragment belong, suggesting that it is original in 2. As Kassel–Austin note, the lacuna in 2 might just as well stand at the end of the line. The supplements proposed by Hermann (“with the bald guy here”) and Kirchhoff (“for free”) should be regarded as exempli gratia. Interpretation A hostile reference to Aristophanes, referred to in a mocking, oblique fashion as ὁ φαλακρός, “the bald guy”; cf. Ar. Eq. 548–50; Pax 767–74, which leave little doubt that this was an important part of Aristophanes’ 168

Seemingly the version of the text translated at Rusten 2011. 230 (“ol’ baldy there”).

Βάπται (fr. 89)

275

informal public identity. Given the meter and the first-person address by the poet, the verses are almost certainly from a parabasis. The reference is to Aristophanes’ Knights, which took the prize at the Lenaia festival in 424 BCE, and recalls the claim at Ar. Nu. 553–4 that Eupolis stole the basic plot of Marikas from Aristophanes. If that remark comes from the original version of the play (City Dionysia 423 BCE), or if Aristophanes said something similar in another comedy that was actually staged169 (as opposed to the unstaged rewrite of Clouds that has come down to us), these lines of Eupolis might represent a riposte to Aristophanes’ charge of plagiarism: it was actually Eupolis who was responsible for (what was best in) Knights, meaning that he merely reused his own material later on in Marikas. But there is no positive reason to think that Eupolis is responding to Aristophanes rather than launching a fresh pre-emptive attack of his own, meaning that all that can be said about the remark is that it dates to City Dionysia 424 BCE or later and attests to an extended public rivalry between the two poets. In any case, (ἐ)δωρησάµην has a note of dismissive condescension and thus contempt to it: the collaboration with Aristophanes meant little or nothing to Eupolis, who could afford to do his (implicitly less talented) rival favors when they both were young—and who will obviously never do so again, given how shabbily he has been treated. Cratinus apparently made a similar charge (fr. 213 “Aristophanes uses Eupolis’ words”, from Pytinê in 423 BCE), raising the possibility that there really was some friendly cooperation between the two men early in their careers); cf. Halliwell 1989, discussing a wide range of apparent ancient references to similar practices (in the case of comedy, most notably Cratin. fr. 502; Hermipp. fr. 64; Ar. V. 1018–20; Pl. Com. frr. 106–7). 2 Cf. Ar. Eq. 1225 ἐγὼ δέ τυ ἐστεφάνιξα κἠδωρησάµαν (“but I garlanded you and made you gifts”), although there the second verb refers to a separate action from the first, whereas here the two must be taken closely together (~ “I collaborated with him on Knights—and for free!”). ξυνεποίησα For the verb referring specifically to poetic collaboration (LSJ s. v. II), cf. Ar. Th. 158; frr. 596; 958. (ἐ)δωρησάµην i. e. “I requested”—or “claimed”—“no credit when the play was staged”. Sommerstein 1980 calls this a “semi-Doric form” (52 n. 32) and suggests that the fact that Aristophanes has the word at the end of the line at 169

Ar. frr. 58 ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἐµῆς χλανίδος τρεῖς ἁπληγίδας ποιῶν (“and making three simple garments from my robe”, i. e. three weak plays from a single good one of mine?; from Anagyros); 590. 6–10, are perhaps another part of the same discussion or at least a similar one. See Hofmann 1970. 5–7; Luppe 1971b. 97–8 (expressing doubts about Hofmann’s thesis).

276

Eupolis

Eq. 1225 (where the preceding verb-form, ἐστεφάνιξα, is indeed apparently Doric) marks the re-use here as a subtle, witty element in the response to the charge of plagiarism (“tu quoque”). Like most such claims, this one cannot be disproven, but the joke seems too complicated and obscure to be funny.

fr. 90 K.-A. (80 K.) ΣVΓ Ar. V. 687 Χαιρέου υἱός· οἷον οὐδὲ γνήσιος πολίτης. τὸν γὰρ Χαιρέαν Εὔπολις ἐν Βάπταις ὡς ξένον κωµῳδεῖ “the son of Chaireas”: as if he were not even a legitimate citizen. For Eupolis in Baptai ridicules Chaireas as a foreigner

Discussion Wilamowitz 1893. 68 n. 40; Delneri 2006. 331 Citation context A gloss on part of Bdelycleon’s hostile description of a high-handed, effeminate young prosecutor, probably drawing on a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Interpretation Chaireas was a popular name in all periods (20+ additional 5th-/4th-century examples from Athens in LGPN II), and whether the man Eupolis referred to (PAA 971305) and the one mentioned in Aristophanes (PAA 971300) were the same person (= PA 15091) is—despite the scholion and the earlier scholarship on which it was drawing—impossible to say. For charges of foreign birth as a staple of Athenian political and social invective, see fr. 61 n. That effeminacy seems to have been basic to the characterization of Kotytô’s celebrants in Baptai (test. i–ii), as also to the characterization of Chaireas’ son in Wasps, may have something to do with the mention of Chaireas by Eupolis, but the evidence of the scholion does not actually show as much.

fr. 91 K.-A. (81 K.) Hsch. β 311 Β α σ τ ᾶ ς ὁ Χ ῖ ο ς (Kassel–Austin : Βάστας ὁ Χῖος Musurus : Βαστα * οχειος Hsch.)· ∆ηµοκρίτου ἐπώνυµον, καθὰ καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν Βάπταις. ἔστι δὲ ἱστοριογράφος B a s t a s o f C h i o s (Kassel–Austin : thus but with a different accent Musurus : Basta * ocheios Hsch.): a nickname of Democritus, as Eupolis also (attests) in Baptai. And there is a historiographer

Βάπται (fr. *92)

277

Meter In the nominative, the words can be accommodated in iambs (e. g.

llkl u〈lkl〉) and might thus be drawn from an abuse song like fr. 99.1–22. Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 232–4; Storey 2003. 106–7; Delneri 2006. 332–4 Citation context Probably extracted from a catalogue of men named Democritus; see Interpretation. Text Musurus corrected the defective paradosis and accented the proper name Βάστας, as in a 3rd-century decree from Chios; see Robert 1969. 1092 #4. Kassel–Austin substitute the perispomenon form; see Masson 1986. 177 = Masson 1990. 501, citing in n. 20 another example of the name in I.Erythrai 334. Interpretation “The well-known Bastas of Chios” (τὸν Χῖον ἐκεῖνον Βαστᾶν) is also mentioned at Luc. Pseudol. 3, where he is said to be “wise in the same matters” as Ariphrades, whom Aristophanes denounces at Eq. 1281–6 for devoting himself to cunnilingus in brothels. The Democritus in question must be the musician Democritus of Chios (RE Demokritos 9), who is also mentioned by Aristophanes (fr. 930; cf. Arist. Rh. 1409b26–7; D.L. 9.49; Poll. 4.65) and who seems to have been an advocate of the “New Music” (for which, see fr. 366 n.). As D.L. 9.49 mentions another Democritus who wrote about the temple of Artemis in Ephesus and Samothrace (RE Demokritus 5; FGrH 267), the latter is probably the historiographer mentioned by Hesychius rather than another man who bore the rare name Bastas.170 The original source of this material is thus most likely a list of homonyms of the atomist philosopher Democritus of Abdera. As we know nothing more of how Bastas was depicted or referred to in Baptai, there is little point in speculating (with Delneri) about whether he was one of Kotytô’s followers and, if so, how this might be connected with the fact that he hailed from Chios.

fr. *92 K.-A. (82 K.) Harp. p. 72.3–5 = Β 8 Keaney ~ Phot. β 91 Βάταλος· Αἰσχίνης ἐν τῷ περὶ Παραπρεσβείας (2.99). κεκωµῴδηται δὲ ἐπὶ µαλακίᾳ. Εὔπολις δὲ τὸν πρωκτὸν βάταλον λέγει. µήποτε οὖν ἔνθεν τοὺς κιναίδους βατάλους καλοῦσι

170

The one example at Athens seems to be a non-citizen (of unknown origin). The other examples suggest that the name was used exclusively to the east and northeast.

278

Eupolis

Batalos: Aeschines in his On the False Embassy (2.99); he is mocked for effeminacy. But Eupolis refers to an asshole as a batalos, so perhaps this is why they refer to sexual perverts as bataloi ΣVxLS Aeschin. 1.126 (275 Dilts) Βάταλον] “Βάταλον” καταπύγωνα καὶ µαλακόν. … καὶ ∆ηµοσθένη διὰ µαλακίαν οὕτως ὀνοµασθῆναι … δοκεῖ δέ µοι λελέχθαι Βάταλος παρὰ τὸ Εὐπόλιδος σκῶµµα· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ † (πεποίηκε add. Sauppe) ὑπὸ τῶν βαπτῶν ὀνόµατα (sic ΣVS : om. ΣxL : τὸ τῶν Βατάλων ὄνοµα Meineke) † κεῖσθαι τοῖς αἰσχροῖς καὶ 〈τὸν〉 πρωκτὸν (sic Sauppe ex Harp. : Τιγράνην ΣamgsLS) βάταλον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν (αὐτοῦ Meineke) καλεῖσθαι Batalos] “Batalos” (means) a pathic and an effeminate. … Demosthenes too was called by this name on account of effeminacy … He seems to me to have been called Batalos in accord with Eupolis’ joke; because the latter † (“has caused” added by Sauppe) names by the baptai (thus ΣVS : omitted by ΣxL : “the name of the Bataloi” Meineke) † to be applied to shameful persons and an asshole (thus Sauppe from Harpocration : “Tigranes” ΣamgsLS) to be called a batalos by them (“by him” Meineke)

Citation context Two closely related notes on an odd word in Aeschines; the text of the scholion on Aeschines is corrupt and problematic. Similar material is preserved at e. g. Clem.Al. Paid. III 3.23 (I p. 250.4–5 Stählin); ΣmgVxLSi Aeschin. 2.99 (218 Dilts); Hsch. β 317; Phot. β 97; Suda β 177–8, and see the later sources collected at Stefanis 1988. 110–11. Text Kassel–Austin collect various other conjectures intended to make sense of the scholion on Aeschines; Dilts prints Meineke’s version of the text with Sauppe’s supplement. Discussion Lambin 1982. 254; Delneri 2006. 335–40 Interpretation Eupolis certainly used the word βάταλος (thus both Harpocration and the scholion to Aeschines). But the portion of the scholion that refers to Baptai is difficult to emend convincingly, and the word is perhaps best understood as a misguided correction of a form of βάταλος by someone familiar with the title of Eupolis’ most famous comedy. If so, this would need to be treated as a fragment without play-title rather than assigned specifically to Baptai. As the scholion to Aeschines would have it, Demosthenes was called Batalos (D. 18.180; Aeschin. 1.126; 2.99) by reference to Bat(t)alos of Ephesus (#519 Stephanis), a pipe-player accused of various sorts of sexual and artistic depravity who according to Plu. Dem. 4.4 was mocked in a play by Antiphanes (cf. Kassel–Austin on his Αὐλητής) and who thus most likely belongs to the 4th rather than the 5th century BCE. The attestation in Eupolis, however, shows that the word βάταλος is older than that, and Furneé 1972. 154, 179 (followed

Βάπται (fr. *93)

279

by Beekes 2010 s. v.) associates it with σπαταλός (“lascivious”) and takes the variation in the form to mark it as substrate (i. e. pre-Greek) vocabulary. Further discussion of the word and its cognates at Holst 1926. 12–15; Masson 1970; Wankel 1976. 888–91; Lambin 1982; Delneri 2006. 335–8. For a personal name allegedly used in a similarly abusive fashion, cf. Cratin. fr. 160 and Ar. fr. 242 (both from a scholion on Lucian, which claims that “Aristodemos was utterly debased and a passive homosexual, as a consequence of which ‘Aristodemos’ was a word for an asshole”) with Kassel–Austin ad loc.; adesp. com. frr. 337 and 351 (the names Exekestos and Theodoros used in the same way) with Tammaro 1975–1977b. 287–8.

fr. *93 K.-A. (83 K.) Hsch. κ 3820 Κοτυτώ· ὁ µὲν Εὔπολις κατ’ ἔχθος τὸ πρὸς τοὺς Κορινθίους φορτικόν τινα δαίµονα διατίθεται Kotytô: Eupolis, on the one hand, on account of his hatred of the Corinthians presents (her as) a vulgar deity

Discussion Buttmann 1828 II.163; Delneri 2006. 341–3 Citation context The absence of a balancing δέ-clause makes it clear that this is only a fragment of what was originally a longer note on the goddess. Interpretation Assigned to Baptai on the basis of the reference to Kotytô (for whom, see the general introduction to the play); the entry in Hesychius does not preserve any specific traces of Eupolis’ language and might better have been treated as a testimonium. That Eupolis deliberately targeted the Corinthians is possible. Alternatively, this may simply be a deduction by Hesychius’ source, which knew that Kotytô was worshipped in Corinth (cf. ΣK Theoc. 6.40; Suda κ 2171; Steiner 1992. 387 (pushing the evidence to its limits and arguably beyond)) and drew further conclusions on the basis of what was taken to be the hostile depiction of the cult (or at least its celebrants) in Baptai (esp. test. ii). Nor does the entry in Hesychius offer a solid basis for believing that Kotytô herself appeared onstage in the course of the play; cf. the general introduction to the comedy (Content). For the goddess’ name (a hypocoristic form), cf. ∆εξώ (Cratin. fr. 435) with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc., ∆ωρώ (Cratin. fr. 70.1), Ἐµβλώ (Cratin. fr. dub. 510), Ἰασώ (Ar. Pl. 701) and Κερδώ (Ar. Eq. 1068), as well as the Muses Ἐρατώ and Κλείω and Seasons and Graces such as Αὐξώ, Θαλλώ, Καρπώ and Πειθώ. For the proper spelling (two

280

Eupolis

taus or three?), see Delneri 2006. 341. For φορτικός (literally “burdensome”), see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 66. For the use of διατίθεται, e. g. Str. 14.642; ΣbT Il. 18.356; 24.85; ΣBD Pi. N. 4.148.

fr. 94 K.-A. (84 K.) Jo.Alex. De accent. p. 36.12–17 Dindorf τὰ σχετλιαστικὰ τῶν εἰς οι καὶ αι ἄλογον ἔχει τὸν τόνον. ἃ µὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν περισπᾶται, ὡς … τὸ σ α β α ῖ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Βάπταις. τὸ δὲ εὐαί παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ὀξύνεται, εὐαὶ σαβαῖ εὐαὶ σαβαῖ Jo.Alex. : εὐοῖ σαβοῖ Lobeck Exclamations ending in oi and ai have an irrational accent; for some of them take a circumflex on the final syllable, like … s a b a i in Eupolis in Baptai, whereas euai in the same author has an acute accent, e u a i s a b a i

Meter Although εὐαὶ σαβαῖ could easily be made to fit in iambic trimeter (e. g. llkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉), elsewhere in drama εὐοῖ and εὐαί are attested only in lyric passages. Discussion Lobeck 1829. 1030–1 n. 39; Fritzsche 1835. 211–12; Schiassi 1944. 105; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Delneri 2006. 344–6 Citation context From Johannes Philoponus’ epitome of Herodian, De prosodia catholica (Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 502.18–22; cf. Arc. pp. 208.16–209.1, but without reference to Eupolis), which itself doubtless drew on now-lost Alexandrian sources. Text Lobeck suggested εὐοῖ σαβοῖ in place of the paradosis εὐαὶ σαβαῖ. But the existence of εὐαί directly alongside εὐοῖ at Ar. Lys. 1294; Ec. 1180–3 makes it likely that σαβαῖ (not attested elsewhere) was a legitimate variant of σαβοῖ. Interpretation Only σαβαῖ is explicitly attributed to Baptai, and these ought probably to have been treated as two separate fragments of Eupolis, with εὐαὶ σαβαῖ classified as an incertum. εὐοῖ / εὐαί (attested elsewhere at Ar. Lys. 1294; Th. 994a; Ec. 1180–3; S. Tr. 219; E. Tr. 326; Ba. 141; see Labiano Ilundain 2000. 175–6; Nordgren 2015. 222–3) and σαβοῖ / σαβαῖ are ecstatic ritual cries (no etymology, although the latter is sometimes connected with the divine name Sabazios), used together in the worship of an unidentified mystic deity at D. 18.260 καὶ βοῶν “εὐοῖ σαβοῖ” (“and shouting ‘euoi saboi’”; cf. Men. fr. 610; Phot. ε 2267 = Suda ε 3787

Βάπται (fr. 95)

281

µυστικὰ µέν ἐστιν ἐπιφθέγµατα … ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ ὁ Σαβάζιος ∆ιόνυσος, “these are cries associated with mystery cult … whence Dionysus is called Sabazios”, originally glossing D. 18.260), while the former is associated with the cult of Dionysus at Ar. Th. 994a; S. Tr. 219; E. Ba. 141 (cf. Harp. p. 141.6–7 = Ε 163 Keaney, glossing D. 18.260). Cf. Taillardat 1997. 212. Kaibel noted that Sabazios was originally a Thracian deity, like Kotytô (see the general introduction to Baptai), so perhaps the same cries were used in the cults of both—or at least in literary imaginings of them.

fr. 95 K.-A. (86 K.) χαλκῷ παρὰ κοττάβῳ χαλκῶ περὶ κοττάβω Fritzsche   παρὰ Meineke : περὶ Σ   fort. κοτταβείῳ

beside a bronze kottabos vessel ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 1244 κότταβος δὲ ἐκαλεῖτο καὶ τὸ τιθέµενον ἆθλον τοῖς νικῶσιν ἐν τῷ πότῳ καὶ τὸ ἄγγος εἰς ὃ ἐνέβαλλον τὰς λάταγας, ὡς Κρατῖνος ἐν Νεµέσει (fr. 124) δείκνυσιν. ὅτι δὲ καὶ χαλκοῦν ἦν, Εὔπολις Βάπταις λέγει· ――. Πλάτων δὲ ἐν ∆ιὶ κακουµένῳ (fr. 46) παιδιᾶς εἶδος παροίνιον τὸν κότταβον εἶναι ἀποδίδωσιν, ἐν ᾗ ἐξίσταντο καὶ τῶν σκευαρίων οἱ δυσκυβεύοντες (sic Ath. 15.666d : διακυβεύοντες Σ) Kottabos was the name for both the prize that was set for the winners in the drinking and the vessel into which they tried to throw their lees, as Cratinus shows in Nemesis (fr. 124). Eupolis in Baptai says that it was actually made of bronze: ――. And Plato in Zeus kakoumenos (fr. 46) proves that kottabos was a drunken type of game, in which those who threw unsuccessfully (thus Ath. 15.666d : “threw with one another” Σ) in fact lost their property

Meter Perhaps iambic trimeter, e. g. llrl kl〈kl xlkl〉 although the word-order suggests elevated style and thus lyric of some sort. See also Text. Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 216; Meineke 1839 II.454; Delneri 2006. 347–8 Citation context A scholion on Ar. Pax 1244 γενήσεταί σοι τῶν κατακτῶν κοττάβων (“it will be one of the sinking kottaboi for you”, i. e. “you can use it as a sinking kottabos”) almost word-for-word identical with Ath. 15.666b–d, 667b–c, d–e, 668a–c, except that the scholion includes the reference to Eupolis,

282

Eupolis

which Kaibel accordingly added to the text of Athenaeus at 15.666d. Athenaeus’ source for all this material may be Dicaearchus of Messana’s On Alcaeus, which is cited repeatedly in the section (where fr. 399 is also preserved). Text Kassel–Austin treat this as a paraphrase, although the words as transmitted scan as part of e. g. an iambic trimeter and are no more obscure than many other poetic fragments. If κοτταβείῳ (“kottabos-stand”; cf. Ar. fr. 231 (quoted under Interpretation); Eub. fr. 15.2 with Hunter 1983 ad loc.) is printed, either there is a lacuna (ll〈kl〉 r|lkl l〈lkl〉) or this is not iambic trimeter. The paradosis χαλκῷ περὶ κοττάβῳ would have to mean “impaled upon a bronze kottabos [stand]” vel sim. (e. g. Ar. Ach. 1180 περὶ λίθῳ with Olson 2002 ad loc.; poetic), which is odd although not impossible. Meineke accordingly emended to παρά, with the error presumably to be traced to a misexpansion of the ligature πε, which can stand for both περί and παρά. Fritzsche emended instead to genitive χαλκῶ περὶ κοττάβω, but the use of a Doric form makes this a more difficult correction. Interpretation Kottabos was a drinking-game that involved tossing one’s wine-lees at a target consisting of either (1) a plate (the πλάστιγξ) that was balanced on top of a pole-stand, and that—if struck—fell and hit a bronze vessel called the µάνης, producing a loud noise (= κότταβος ἐν λεκάνῃ or κατακτός); or (2) small vessels (ὀξύβαφα) floating in a basin (λεκάνη) filled with water, which one attempted to sink (= κότταβος δι᾿ ὀξυβάφων). Which variety of the game Eupolis was referring to is uncertain, although there is no obvious reason why (2) would require equipment made of bronze, whereas (1) does. Cratin. fr. 124 (quoted at Ath. 15.667f along with Ar. fr. 231 † ἔγνωκ᾿ ἐγὼ δὲ χαλκίον (τοῦτ᾿ ἐστὶν κοττάβειον) ἱστάναι καὶ µυρρίνας † (“† and I know how to set up a piece of bronze, i. e. a kottabeion, and myrtle branches †”)), on the other hand, is discussing the latter. Delneri 2006. 348 suggests that the reference may be not to the apparatus with which the game was played but to the prize awarded the winner. But according to Ath. 15.667d (citing a number of comic fragments, including fr. 399 and Antiph. fr. 57.2–3), kottabos was played for trivial items such as eggs and cakes, as one would expect of a party-game. For kottabos, see in general fr. 399 n.; Poll. 6.109–11; Hayley 1894; Schneider 1922; Sparkes 1960; Csapo and Miller 1991; Schäfer 1997. 48–9; Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 343/4 (with additional bibliography and primary references); Campagner 2002; Putz 2003. 221–41. For the unexpected word order, hinting at elevated style, see Orth 2013 on Alc. Com. fr. dub. 35 (p. 144), with further examples of the phenomenon.

Βάπται (fr. 96)

283

fr. 96 K.-A. (87 K.) ΣRVEΘMBarb Ar. Pl. 883 (Εὐδάµου) Εὔπολις Βάπταις µέµνηταιVEΘMBarb καὶ Ἀµειψίας (fr. 26)RVEΘMBarb (Eudamos) Eupolis mentions him in Baptai,VEΘMNBarb as does Ameipsias (fr. 26)RVEΘMNBarb

Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 214–16; Delneri 2006. 349–40 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Pl. 883–4 φορῶ γὰρ πριάµενος / τὸν δακτύλιον τονδὶ παρ’ Εὐδάµου δραχµῆς (“for I bought this little ring here from Eudamos for a drachma and am wearing it”; the Just Man explains to the Sycophant why he is unafraid of him, after which Cario responds by making it clear that such rings were typically supposed to protect against the bites of venomous creatures); presumably drawing on a now-lost catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Text This is one in a series of ill-divided individual scholia on these verses, and I print the text as it appears in Chantry 1994, as a prosopographical note. Kassel–Austin follow Dübner 1887 (the only edition available at the time of their edition) and print instead δακτύλιον δὲ τὸν λεγόµενον φαρµακίτην. Εὔπολις Βάπταις µέµνηται (“But (he uses the term) daktylion (“little ring”) for the so-called pharmakitês.171 Eupolis mentions (this) in Baptai”). Interpretation Eudamos or Eudemos (PAA 429232) is also mentioned at Pl. Com. fr. 214 (restored by Wilamowitz to include a reference to φαρµακίται, although that seems an unlikely object for the verb τρέφειν), as well at Thphr. HP 9.17.2, where he is described as Εὔδηµος … ὁ φαρµακοπώλης εὐδοκιµῶν σφόδρα κατὰ τὴν τέχνην (“Eudemos the drug-vendor, who had a very good reputation in his trade”). Whether Cratin. fr. 302 (obscure and corrupt; = PAA 429235) is another reference to the same man is unclear. For φαρµακοπῶλαι, who dealt in a wide range of magical objects, cf. Ar. Nu. 766 (a burning-glass); fr. 28 (snakes in a chest); Theopomp. Com. fr. 3.2 (a Megarian φαρµακοπώλης typically has a chest full of something); D. 48.12–14 (slaves called φαρµακοτρίβαι (“drug-grinders”), presumably producing goods for sale by a φαρµακοπώλης); Arist. HA 594a21–4 (venomous spiders and snakes); Thphr. HP 6.2.5 (use of a particular herb); 9.8.5 (a synopsis of some of their prescriptions); Ael. NA 9.62 (a φαρµακοτρίβης, literally “drug-grinder”, but using snakes); Arnott 1996. 312–13. For magical rings with medicinal properties, note also Antiph. fr. 175.5; and see Olson–Seaberg 2018 on Cratin. fr. 373 (on amulets). 171

Not “a ring of protection” (Storey 2011. 93).

284

Eupolis

fr. 97 K.-A. (88 K.) Poll. 7.123 κ ά π ν η ν δὲ καὶ καπνοδόκην Εὔπολις τὸ µὲν εἴρηκεν ἐν Βάπταις, τὸ δὲ ἐν ∆ήµοις (fr. 144) As for k a p n ê and kapnodokê, Eupolis uses the former in Baptai, the latter in Dêmoi (fr. 144)

Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 237; Delneri 2006. 352 Citation context From a long section on words having to do with parts of houses and construction. There are no attestations of καπνοδόκη in what we have of Aristophanes, so Eust. p. 130.42–3 = I.201.7–8 πανδοκεύτριαν … ὁ κωµικός φησι καὶ ξυροδόκην, καπνοδόκην καὶ τοιαῦτά τινα (“The comic poet says pandokeutria (V. 35; Ra. 114; Pl. 426) and xyrodokê (Th. 220), kapnodokê and various such things”) may well be a garbled reference to this passage or its source. Interpretation κάπνη and καπνοδόκη (cognate with καπνός, “smoke”, the latter with the second element 〈 δέχοµαι) both refer to a vent-hole in a roof that allowed smoke from a fire within to escape; Ar. V. 143–8 shows that such a hole might be fitted with a lid, sc. to keep out rain when necessary.172 Cf. Diph. fr. 85 (a “(roof)-tile with a hole”) ap. Phot. ο 388 (drawing on an Atticist lexicographer); Moer. ο 48 (identifying καπνία as the common, non-Attic term); Poll. 2.54; Wikander 1983, esp. 81–2; Tsakirgis 2007. 230–1. κάπνη is attested also at Ar. V. 143; Alex. fr. 177.13–14. καπνοδόκη is attested elsewhere in comedy at Pherecr. fr. 150.3, as well as in Herodotus (4.103.3; 8.137.4), and must have been recognized as a 5th-century colloquialism, hence its presence at Luc. Icar. 13.

fr. 98 K.-A. (89 K.) Harp. p. 231.7–16 = Π 3 Keaney παλιναίρετος· ∆είναρχος ἐν τῇ κατὰ Πολυεύκτου ἐκφυλλοφορηθέντος ἐνδείξει (or. 2 fr. 4 Sauppe). µήποτε παλιναίρετον λέγει ὁ ῥήτωρ τὸν Πολύευκτον … ὅτι συκοφάντης ἁλοὺς ἐζηµιοῦτο, καὶ διὰ τοῦτ’ ἐκωλύετο λέγειν πρὶν ἀποτῖσαι τὴν ζηµίαν ἣν ὦφλεν, ἔπειτα ἀποτίσας τὴν ζηµίαν πάλιν ἔλεγεν, ὡς δηλοῦται καὶ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ λόγῳ. ὅτι 172

ΣV Ar. V. 143—most likely anachronistically, although followed by Storey 2011. 95—imagines something more like a chimney (σωληνοειδές, “pipe-shaped”).

Βάπται (fr. 98)

285

γὰρ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐκάλουν π α λ ι ν α ι ρ έ τ ο υ ς, καὶ τοὺς ἀποχειροτονηθέντας τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ πάλιν χειροτονηθέντας, Εὔπολίς τε ἐν Βάπταις δηλοῖ καὶ Ἄρχιππος ἐν τοῖς Ἰχθύσι λέγων (fr. 14)· ―― palinairetos: Dinarchus in his Writ of Indictment against Polyeuktos after he was Expelled (or. 2 fr. 4 Sauppe). Perhaps the orator refers173 to Polyeuktos as palinairetos … because he was convicted as a sycophant and fined, and on that account was not permitted to speak (in the Assembly) until he paid off the fine he owed; and then after he paid off the fine, he spoke again (in the Assembly), as is also apparent in the speech. For that they referred to such individuals as p a l i n a i r e t o i, as also to those who were voted out of office and then elected again, Eupolis makes clear in Baptai, as does Archippus in Ichthyes when he says (fr. 14): ――

Discussion Fritzsche 1835. 238; Delneri 2006. 353 Citation context A gloss on an obscure Athenian legal or administrative term, probably drawing on a lost Hellenistic source or sources. Interpretation Harpocration or his source is patently guessing about the meaning of παλιναίρετος (literally “taken again”), which Dinarchus (late 4th/early 3rd c. BCE) must have used of Polyeuktos (PA 11928; PAA 778035) without explanation as having an obvious meaning for his original audience. An ἔνδειξις was a type of public suit brought against an individual who was barred from some place or activity but visited or participated in it nonetheless (Harp. p. 112.12–15 = Ε 48 Keaney), and another reference to the same speech at Harp. p. 109.1–4 = Ε 30 Keaney shows that ἐκφυλλοφόρησις was the voting procedure by which the Athenian Council decided whether one of its members should be allowed to continue to serve. Although Archipp. fr. 14 is lacunose, the first line refers to the rejection of αἱρουµένους … πραγµάτων ἐπιστάτας (“selected overseers of affairs”) and the fourth line to the danger of ἁπαξάπαντας γενοµένους παλιναιρέτους (“every single one of them being palinairetos”), seemingly confirming Harpocration’s claim that this was a term for someone removed from a magistracy but then selected for it again. The adjective is first attested at Pi. fr. 84 (also preserved by Harpocration, who claims that it was used there of buildings that were pulled down (καθαιρεθέντων) and then reconstructed), and appears also at Nicostr. Com. fr. 24 ἐξωρµενικότες, δυσχερεῖς, παλιναίρετοι (“shot forth, difficult, palinairetoi”; perhaps from a play called Rhêtôr, “The Orator”).

173

Not “The politician never speaks” (Rusten 2011. 230).

286

∆ῆµοι (Dêmoi) (“Rural Districts”)

Testimonia test. *i.a (= Dêmoi test. 1 Telò) Aristid. or. 3.365 (p. 418.17–19 Lenz–Behr) τῶν κωµικῶν τις ἐποίησε τέτταρας τῶν προστατῶν ἀνεστῶτας, ἐν οἷς δύο τούτων ἔνεισιν One of the comic poets represented four leaders as risen from the dead, including two of these

test. *i.b (= Dêmoi test. 1 Telò) ΣRQT Aristid. or. 3.365 (III p. 672.5–11 Dindorf) Εὔπολις ἐποίησεν ἀναστάντα τὸν Μιλτιάδην καὶ Ἀριστείδην καὶ Σόλωνα καὶ Περικλέα (sic Valckenaer : Γέλωνα καὶ Περικλέα ΣR : Περικλέα καὶ Γέλωνα ΣQ : Κλέωνα καὶ Περικλέα ΣT : Κίµωνα καὶ Περικλέα Elmsley). ἐν τούτοις οὖν ἔνεισι δύο, φησί, Περικλῆς καὶ Μιλτιάδης. λέγει δὲ Εὔπολις οὕτως (fr. *104)· ―― Eupolis represented Miltiades as rising (from the dead) along with Aristides, Solon and Pericles (thus Valckenaer : “Gelon and Pericles” ΣR : “Pericles and Gelon” ΣQ : “Cleon and Pericles” ΣT : “Cimon and Pericles” Elmsley). Among these men, then, he says, two are included, Pericles and Miltiades. And Eupolis says the following (fr. *104): ――

Context A passing remark in Aristides’ extended defense of Miltiades, Themistocles, Pericles and Cimon against Socrates’ disparaging remarks at Pl. Grg. 503b–c, 515d–17a regarding their failure to improve the Athenians when they were the leading men in the state, as the orator prepares to allow Pericles and Themistocles to speak for themselves against their accuser. Aristides appears to cite two passages from Dêmoi (frr. 102–3, neither cited by title) at or. 3.51, but there is no reason to believe that he knew the play at first hand, as opposed to having some basic sense of the broad outlines of its action drawn from a rhetorical handbook or the like; see also fr. 205 Citation context.

∆ῆµοι ([test. iii])

287

test. *ii (= Dêmoi test. 2 Telò) Aristid. or. 3.487 (p. 459.14–16 Lenz–Behr) οὐδεὶς ἦν ὅστις οὐκ ἂν εὔξαιτο ἀναστῆναι, ὥστε κἀν τοῖς δράµασιν ὡς ἀνεστῶτα ὁρῶντες εὐφραίνοντο There was no one who would not have prayed that (Pericles) return to life, with the result that they used to enjoy seeing him revived in plays

Context Offered as evidence of Pericles’ superiority to Cleon, despite a legal defeat Pericles suffered at Cleon’s hands near the end of his career: the Athenians longed for Pericles after he died, and would gladly have traded Cleon for him. Interpretation The imperfect εὐφραίνοντο and the plural (ἐ)ν τοῖς δράµασιν seem to hint that a revived Pericles appeared more than once on the Athenian stage, but this is most likely merely another reference to Dêmoi; cf. test. *i.a. For Cleon, see frr. 331 with n.; 497 (where add a reference to Moore 2015).

[test. iii] (= Dêmoi test. 3 Telò) Aphthon. prog. 11 (p. 34.10–13 Rabe) εἰδωλοποιία δὲ ἡ πρόσωπον µὲν ἔχουσα γνώριµον, τεθνεὸς δὲ καὶ τοῦ λέγειν παυσάµενον, ὡς ἐν ∆ήµοις Εὔπολις ἔπλασε καὶ Ἀριστείδης ἐν τῷ Ὑπὲρ τῶν τεσσάρων (or. 3) eidôlopoiia (is the type of êthopoiia (“character creation”)) that involves a known person, but one who has died and stopped speaking, as Eupolis in Dêmoi and Aristides in his In Defense of the Four (or. 3) formed characters

Context From a late classical (4th-/5th-century CE) rhetorical handbook. Interpretation The reference to Aristid. or. 3 makes it clear that Aphthonius does not know Eupolis’ play at first hand but only through test. *ii and the scholion to or. 3.51 (quoted at fr. 102), which gives the title of the play. Like [test. iv], this passage thus preserves no original evidence about Dêmoi and should not have been assigned a separate testimonium number.

288

Eupolis

[test. iv] (= Dêmoi test. 4 Telò) Ioannes Doxapatres in Aphthon. (p. 142.16–18 Rabe) ἐν τῷ Ὑπὲρ τῶν τεσσάρων (or. 3) τὸν Ἀριστείδην ποιῆσαι εἰδωλοποιίαν καὶ τὸν Εὔπολιν ἐν ∆ήµοις ποιῆσαι προσωποποιίαν In his In Defense of the Four (or. 3), Aristides engaged in eidôlopoiia, while Eupolis in Dêmoi engaged in prosôpopoiia

Context From a discussion of [test. iii], where prosôpopoiia is defined as when an author creates both the person and the character assigned to him (ὅταν ἅπαντα πλάττηται, καὶ ἦθος καὶ πρόσωπον) and this sort of procedure is said to be typical of Menander.174 Interpretation Doxapatres is merely glossing [test. iii] (n.), which is itself reliant on test. *ii and Σ Aristid. or. 3.51. The passage thus preserves no original evidence about Dêmoi and should not have been assigned a separate testimonium number.

test. *v (= test. 34.10–12) (= Dêmoi test. 6 Telò) Platonius, On the Differentiation of Styles (Proleg. de com. II.11–12), p. 6 Koster (Εὔπολις) ἀναγαγεῖν ἱκανὸς ὢν ἐξ Ἅιδου νοµοθετῶν πρόσωπα καὶ δι’ αὐτῶν εἰσηγούµενος ἢ περὶ θέσεως νόµων ἢ καταλύσεως (Eupolis) being capable of bringing characters representing lawgivers up from Hades and using them to propose the establishment or dissolution of laws

Discussion Telò 2007. 46–9 Context From an opinionated late Roman or Byzantine comparison of Eupolis, Aristophanes and Cratinus. Interpretation If Platonius’ claim that proposals for the establishment and dissolution of laws were discussed in Dêmoi in scenes involving the four statesmen is correct—and we have no ground for doubting it—this must have occurred after the scene partially preserved in fr. 99.60–77.

174

Not included in the Kassel–Austin testimonia for Menander, although cf. test. 108 (from Aelius Theon).

∆ῆµοι (test. dub. vii)

289

[test. *vi] (= Dêmoi test. 7 Telò) Arg. S. OC p. 2.1–5 de Marco (S. test. 41.1–5 Radt) τὸν ἐπὶ Κολωνῷ Οἰδίπουν ἐπὶ τετελευτηκότι τῷ πάππῳ Σοφοκλῆς ὁ ὑιδοῦς ἐδίδαξεν … ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Μίκωνος, ὅς ἐστι τέταρτος ἀπὸ Καλλίου, ἐφ᾿ οὗ φασιν οἱ πλείους τὸν Σοφοκλέα τελευτῆσαι. σαφὲς δὲ τοῦτ᾿ ἐστὶν ἐξ ὧν ὁ µὲν Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν τοῖς Βατράχοις ἐπὶ Καλλίου ἀνάγει τοὺς στρατηγοὺς (cod. : τοὺς τραγικοὺς Clinton) ὑπὲρ γῆς His grandson Sophocles staged the Oedipus at Colonus after his grandfather was deceased in the archonship of Mikon, who is the fourth (archon) after Callias, in whose year the majority of authorities claim that Sophocles died. This is clear from the fact that Aristophanes, on the one hand, in his Frogs in the archonship of Callias brings the generals (thus the ms. : “the tragedians” Clinton) up above ground

Context From a hypothesis to Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, attempting to show that the play must have been staged posthumously, Sophocles having died in 406/5 BCE, before Aristophanes’ Frogs was put on at the Lenaea festival in mid-winter. Phryn. Com. fr. 32 (from Mousai) is offered in what follows as additional evidence for the date of Sophocles’ death. Interpretation Elmsley 1823. 84 took this to be a confused reference to the plot of Dêmoi, since Frogs involves an attempt to rescue not dead generals but dead tragic poets from the Underworld. Cf. test. dub. vii n. But both Aristophanes and Phrynichus are cited because they refer to Sophocles as dead (cf. Ar. Ra. 76–7, 786–90, 1515–19), which he was not at the time Dêmoi was staged sometime in the 410s BCE (see the general introduction to the play, Date). A reference to Eupolis’ play would therefore have been irrelevant here, and the paradosis τοὺς στρατηγούς must be an error (hence Clinton’s τοὺς τραγικούς, which editors generally accept). The most that can be posited is that this error somehow reflects a scribe’s awareness of one basic element of the plot of Dêmoi—which is very weak ground for treating this as a testimonium to the play.

test. dub. vii (= Dêmoi test. 8 Telò) Val. Max. 7.2 ext. 7 Aristophanis quoque altioris est prudentiae praeceptum, qui in comoedia introduxit remissum ab inferis † Atheniensium (ducem Atheniensium cod. Γ : Atheniensium principem Kapp : Atheniensium populo Gertz) Periclen

290

Eupolis vaticentem non oportere in urbe nutri leonem, sin autem sit altus, obsequi ei convenire Profoundly shrewd is the advice of Aristophanes, who placed Pericles returned from the dead † of the Athenians (“the leader of the Athenians” cod. Γ : “the first man of the Athenians” Kapp : “for the Athenian people” Gertz) in a comedy and had him prophesy that a lion ought not to be raised in a city, but that if one is brought up there, it is best to follow its orders

Context One in a series of wise sayings by non-Romans, most of them preserved in other sources as well and all clearly drawn from a preexisting set of rhetorical commonplaces. Interpretation The primary reference is to Ar. Ra. 1431a–2, where Aeschylus, when asked to offer advice in regard to Alcibiades, responds οὐ χρὴ λέοντος σκύµνον ἐν πόλει τρέφειν· / ἢν δ’ ἐκτραφῇ τις, τοῖς τρόποις ὑπηρετεῖν (“One shouldn’t raise a lion-cub in a city; but if someone brings one up, he should adapt himself to its ways”; cf. A. Ag. 717–36). But Frommel 1826. 176–7 and Süvern 1826. 47–53 took the mention of Pericles and a return from the dead to suggest contamination from the plot of Dêmoi rather than a simple slip of the pen on Valerius’ part. This is once again very weak evidence, but somewhat stronger than the case for the relevance of [test. *vi] (n.).

test. *viii = adesp. com. fr. 64 (= Dêmoi test. 9 Telò) Discussion Trendall 1959. 3 (A7); Sestieri 1960. 156–9 with pll. XL–XLII; Trendall and Webster 1971. 140; Taplin 1993. 42 and pl. 16.16; Storey 1995– 1996. 139–41; Storey 2003. 169–70, 364–5; Telò 2003. 13–25; Revermann 2006. 318–19; Telò 2007. 28–33; Csapo 2010. 61–3 with fig. 2.5 Interpretation A Paestan bell krater attributed to Asteas by Trendall and dated by Trendall and Webster to ca. 350 BCE; first associated with Dêmoi by Taplin. On its main side, the vase depicts two figures, both dressed in skin-tight actors’ costumes that extend to their wrists and ankles. A small dog located at the bottom left is likely nothing more than decoration intended to fill empty space. The first figure (to the left) is a beardless youth labeled ΦΡΥΝΙΣ, who has a prominent, typically comic belly, buttocks and breasts. He is nude except for a cloak, which is fastened at his neck with a brooch and which billows out behind him; wears a pair of elaborate shoes; and has a victor’s olive crown on his head. A comic phallus is visible. Phrynis holds a lyre drawn up beside him in his left hand and a plektrum in his right hand, which hangs down and

∆ῆµοι (test. *viii)

291

back. Ribbons are tied around and trail from the lyre, presumably as another symbol of agonistic victory. Phrynis’ body is rigid and leans exaggeratedly backward, as he digs in his heels in an attempt to keep himself from being pulled to the right. The index finger of his left hand is raised, as if he is making a point of some sort to the other character, at whom he stares directly. The second character (to the right) is a bearded old man labeled ΠΥΡΩΝΙ∆ΕΣ, who wears a chiton (specifically an exomis, suspended from his left shoulder alone and marking him as a simple, poor character; see Stone 1981. 175–6; Lee 2015. 112) and over that a himation; no phallus is visible. He holds a walking stick (appropriate for an old man or a peasant; see Stone 1981. 246–7) in his left hand and is barefoot. Pyronides is striding vigorously to his left while looking back at Phrynis, on whose left wrist his own right hand maintains a firm grip. His mouth is open, as if he were speaking. There is no other evidence that Phrynis (for whom, see below) was a character in Dêmoi, and Taplin’s association of the scene on this pot with the action in Eupolis’ play depends on the rare, most likely invented name Pyronides (for which, see the general introduction to the play, Content). Aristophanes is not known to have recycled the names of his central characters, and it is thus a reasonable hypothesis that Eupolis adopted a similar practice, meaning that any onstage Pyronides can be taken prima facie to be a character in Dêmoi. It is nonetheless worth noting that there are many other overlaps in the identities of the central figures in Aristophanes’ early comedies—basically one disgruntled and perversely ambitious old countryman after another—to the extent that one might reasonably ask whether audiences could be expected or at least tempted to detect continuities among them and to read them all together (“Here he is again; I wonder what the poet has called him this year?”). If so, it might also be the case that not every comic poet changed the name of his central character in each new play, allowing for the possibility of e. g. a multi-festival series of “Adventures of Pyronides”—and thus for the possibility that the Asteas pot “quotes” a scene of Eupolis but not from Dêmoi. Much of what is known of the citharode Phrynis (PAA 965030; Stephanis #2583) comes from Pherecr. fr. 155 (ap. Plu. Mor. 1141d–2a), where the personified Music describes the abuse she suffered from a series of lovers/musicians, in order Melanippides, Cinesias, Phrynis and Timotheus, and from a scholion on Aristophanes’ Clouds preserved in a slightly different form in the Suda. In the course of a long rant on the degraded modern style of education, the Just Argument declares (Ar. Nu. 969, 971)175 that in his day beatings were dispensed 175

Ar. Nu. 970 = fr. 930, which was inserted into the text of Clouds by Brunck at the suggestion of Valkenaer, but is omitted (appropriately) by modern editors.

292

Eupolis

εἰ δέ τις αὐτῶν … κάµψειέν τινα καµπήν, / οἵας οἱ νῦν, τὰς κατὰ Φρῦνιν ταύτας τὰς δυσκολοκάµπτους (“if any of [the students] twisted a line like people do now, these difficult-twisting verses à la Phrynis”). ΣEAM comments: Φρῦνις, κιθαρῳδὸς Μιτυληναῖος. οὗτος δὲ δοκεῖ πρῶτος παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις κιθαρῳδικῇ νικῆσαι ΠαναθήναιαEMA ἐπὶ Καλλίου ἄρχοντος (= 456/5 BCE : Καλλι〈µάχ〉ου ἄρχοντος = 446/5 BCE Meier).EA ἦν δὲ Ἀριστοκλείτου µαθητής. ὁ δὲ Ἀριστόκλειτος τὸ γένος ἦν ἀπὸ Τερπάνδρου· ἤκµασε δὲ ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι κατὰ τὰ Μηδικά. παραλαβὼν δὲ τὸν Φρῦνιν αὐλῳδοῦντα κιθαρίζειν ἐδίδαξεν. ὁ δὲ Ἴστρος (FGrH 334 F 56) Ἱέρωνος αὐτόν φησι µάγειρον ὄντα σὺν ἄλλοις δοθῆναι τῷ Ἀριστοκλείτῳ. ταῦτα δὲ σχεδιάσαι ἔοικεν· εἰ γὰρ ἦν γεγονὼς δοῦλος καὶ µάγειρος Ἱέρωνος, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέκρυψαν οἱ κωµικοὶ πολλάκις αὐτοῦ µεµνηµένοι ἐφ’ οἷς ἐκαινούργησε, κλάσας τὴν ᾠδὴν παρὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἔθος, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης φησὶ καὶ Ἀριστοκράτης (FGrH 591 F 5)E (“Phrynis, a Mitylenean citharode. He was apparently the first person to take a Panathenaic victory in Athens in kitharôidia,EAM in the archonship of Callias (= 456/5 BCE : “in the archonship of Callimachus” = 446/5 BCE Meier).EA He was a student of Aristocleitus. Aristocleitus was a descendent of Terpander and had his floruit in Greece in the Persian War years. He recruited Phrynis when Phrynis was an aulôidês and taught him to play the kithara. Istros (FGrH 334 F 56), on the other hand, claims that (Phrynis) was a cook belonging to Hieron who was given to Aristocleitus along with some others. But this appears to be an invention; for if Phrynis had been a slave and a cook belonging to Hieron, the comic poets would not have kept (the fact) hidden, since they repeatedly make mention of him on account of his innovations, since he shattered song contrary to the ancient custom, as Aristophanes176 and Aristocrates (FGrH 591 F 5) sayE”);177 cf. Suda φ 761 Φρῦνις, κιθαρῳδὸς Μιτυληναῖος· ὃς ἐδόκει πρῶτος κιθαρίσαι παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις καὶ νικῆσαι Παναθήναια ἐπὶ Καλλίου ἄρχοντος (= 456/5 BCE : Καλλι〈µάχ〉ου ἄρχοντος = 446/5 BCE Meier). ἦν δὲ Ἀριστοκλείδου µαθητής. ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοκλείδης τὸ γένος ἦν ἀπὸ Τερπάνδρου· ἤκµασε δὲ ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι κατὰ τὰ Μηδικά, εὐδόκιµος κιθαριστής. παραλαβὼν δὲ τὸν Φρῦνιν αὐλῳδοῦντα κιθαρίζειν ἐδίδαξεν. Ἴστρος δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγραφοµένοις Μελοποιοῖς (FGrH 334 F 56) τὸν Φρῦνιν Λέσβιόν φησι, Κάνωπος υἱόν· τοῦτον δὲ Ἱέρωνος τοῦ τυράννου µάγειρον ὄντα δοθῆναι σὺν ἄλλοις πολλοῖς Ἀριστοκλείδῃ. ταῦτα δὲ σχεδίοις ἔοικεν· εἰ γὰρ ἦν γεγονὼς δοῦλος καὶ µάγειρος Ἱέρωνος, οὐκ ἂν ἐσιώπων οἱ κωµικοί, πολλάκις αὐτοῦ µεµνηµένοι ἐφ’ οἷς ἐκαινούργησε, 176

177

Presumably a reference to Aristophanes of Byzantium, who seems to have discussed this portion of the Just Argument’s speech (Ar. Byz. fr. 379 Slater ap. ΣRVENp5 Nu. 967). Also preserved in condensed form as ΣRV Ar. Nu. 971.

∆ῆµοι (test. *viii)

293

κατακλάσας τὴν ᾠδὴν παρὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον (“Phrynis, a Mitylenean kitharode. He was apparently the first person to play the kithara in Athens and to take a Panathenaic victory, in the archonship of Callias (= 456/5 BCE : “in the archonship of Callimachus” = 446/5 BCE Meier). He was a student of Aristocleides. Aristocleides was a descendent of Terpander and had his floruit in Greece in the Persian War years; a well-known kitharistês. He recruited Phrynis when Phrynis was an aulôidês and taught him to play the kithara. Istros, on the other hand, in his work entitled Lyric Poets (FGrH 334 F 56), says that Phrynis was from Lesbos and the son of Kanops, and that he was a cook belonging to the tyrant Hieron and was given to Aristocleides along with many other men. But this information appears to be invented; for if Phrynis had actually been a slave and a cook belonging to Hieron, the comic poets would not have kept quiet (about this), since they often refer to his innovations, because he thoroughly shattered song contrary to the ancient style”). Hieron ruled Syracuse 478–467 BCE, and this more or less agrees with the “Persian War” date assigned to Aristocleitus/Aristocleides in ΣEAM Ar. Nu. 971 ~ Suda φ 761, which patently go back to a common source. Even if Istros’ story about Phrynis originally being Hieron’s slave is untrue, therefore, it does accord with the other material preserved here in suggesting that the birth of Aristocleitus/Aristocleides belongs in the final decades of the 6th c. BCE. If this is right, it is difficult to believe that he could have trained Phrynis much after 450 BCE, meaning that Phrynis himself must have been born in the early 460s BCE at the very latest and probably earlier than that. The Panathenaic games appear to have been celebrated only every fourth year, and 456/5 BCE does not fit what we know of the schedule. Meier accordingly emended the date of Phrynis’ initial victory in Athens from “in the archonship of Callias” to “in the archonship of Callimachus” = 446/5 BCE, roughly matching the claim at Plu. Per. 13.9 that musical contests at the festival were initiated by Pericles around the time the Odeion was constructed.178 Arist. Metaph. 993b15–16 suggests 178

Davison 1958. 36–41 argues that pot-painting evidence leaves little doubt that there were musical contests at the festival already in the 6th century BCE, and suggests that they had for some reason been allowed to lapse and were revived by Pericles. What matters is that Hellenistic and Roman-era scholars apparently thought the contests began only in the 440s or early 430s BCE. The other obvious possibility for emending ἐπὶ Καλλίου (i. e. ΚΑΛΛΙΟΥ) ἄρχοντος is to ἐπὶ Ἀλκαίου (i. e. ΑΛΚΑΙΟΥ) ἄρχοντος, which yields another year in which Panathenaic games were held (422/1 BCE) but means that Plutarch’s date for the (re)establishment of the contests must be abandoned. The citharode Exekestides (PAA 388087; Stephanis #842) is also supposed to have been a Panathenaic victor, in his case twice (thus ΣVEΓΓ3 Ar. Av. 11). Note also the (comic?) satyr chorus of Panathenaic kitharodes on a vase by

294

Eupolis

that Phrynis shaped Timotheus’ style, and Timotheus himself boasts at one point (PMG 802) of having defeated Phrynis in a contest.179 Neither source makes reference to Phrynis’ age, but in each case it is easy to believe that the underlying idea is that he was the older of the two men.180 This is a flimsy chain of argument but the best that can be done with the limited material at our disposal, and taken together would seem to put Phrynis in his mid-50s at a minimum when Clouds II was composed, and in his 60s or older at the time Dêmoi was staged. Telò takes it for granted that Phrynis must have been dead by the time Dêmoi was staged, and uses this as proof that the play included an Underworld scene, since Pyronides could not have encountered Phrynis in the upper world. As the evidence reviewed above makes clear, the situation is more complex and ambiguous than this, and Phrynis might well have been alive in 412 BCE. Be all that as it may, he must have been represented in the original production as an old man, since the audience will have known who he was and thus how he should be portrayed, be it dead or alive. Whoever staged the mid-4th-century revival of Dêmoi in Southern Italy that Asteas’ vase-painting recalls, on the other hand, likely knew little or nothing about Phrynis except perhaps that he was an exponent of the “New Music” (cf. Ar. Nu. 969, 971 [quoted above];

179

180

Polion (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 25.78.66) dated to 430–420 BCE and discussed by Kárpáti 2012. For IG II2 2311 (the inscriptional evidence for the events; ca. 380 BCE), see Rotstein 2012. 102–6. Timotheus refers to Phrynis in this fragment (preserved ap. Plu. Mor. 539c) as τὸν Κάρβωνος (“the son of Karbôn”; thus codd.), which recalls Istros’ Κάνωπος υἱόν (“the son of Kanops”), on the one hand, and Poll. 4.66 Φρῦνιν δὲ τὸν Κάµωνος (“Phrynis the son of Kamôn”, with a reference to the description of his poetry in Ar. Nu. 971), on the other. It is tempting to think that all this material ultimately goes back to the same source (or one of the same sources) as ΣEAM Ar. Nu. 971 ~ Suda φ 761. Of the other men mentioned by Pherecrates’ Music, the floruit of Melanippides was at the very beginning of the 5th c. BCE. Cinesias (PA 8438; PAA 569985; Stephanis #1406), on the other hand, is an onstage character in Birds (415 BCE) and was still active in the 390s BCE, suggesting that he was born in mid-century or a bit earlier, while Timotheus died in 366/5 BCE at the age of 90, according to Marm.Par. FGrH 239 A 76, putting his birth around 455 BCE. Cinesias and Timotheus were thus contemporaries, and—despite Dover 1968 on Ar. Nu. 971, who has got the order of the names in Pherecrates wrong—Music is not presenting her lovers in simple chronological order, although she makes it clear that Melanippides was older than the others (Pherecr. fr. 155.6–7).

∆ῆµοι (Introduction)

295

Pherecr. fr. 155.14–18).181 This knowledge in turn might have led to a naïve conclusion that “new music” suggests a youthful musician, or the part may have been miscast simply because nothing in the text specified Phrynis’ age. The confusion will in any case have been easier if the Phrynis-scene in Dêmoi took place in the upper world, since if the musician encountered Pyronides in the Underworld, the obvious default assumption would be that he was an old man who had died a natural death. It thus seems more likely—if this pot in fact recalls a scene from Dêmoi—that Phrynis is being expelled by Pyronides in the second half of the play as an unwanted intruder, like e. g. Cinesias and the unidentified Poet in Aristophanes’ Birds (thus Storey 2003. 170), than that he was discovered in the Underworld and for some perverse reason resisted being brought back to life.

Introduction Discussion Raspe 1832. 7–16; Meineke 1839 II.455–6; Stiévenant 1849. 126– 32; Kock 1880. 279; Wilamowitz 1893 I.179 n. 84; Thieme 1908. 47–69; Keil 1912. 247–55; van Leeuwen 1912. 129–31; Ugolini 1923; Norwood 1931. 179–88; Schmid 1938; Page 1941. 203–5; Schmid 1946. 124–32; Ehrenberg 1951. 60–1; Weinreich 1953 II.421–42; Edmonds 1957 I.978–94; Plepelits 1970; Schwarze 1971. 125–35; Heath 1990. 154–6; Storey 1990. 24–7; Henry 1995. 23–4; Storey 1995–1996. 137–43, 148–50; Furley 1996. 133–6; Rosen 1998. 150–1; Braun 2000; Ruffell 2000. 488–90; Storey 2000; Telò and Porciani 2002; Banfi 2003. 27–30; Storey 2003. 111–74; Telò 2003; Bertelli 2005. 78–83; Revermann 2006. 311–19; Telò 2007; Torello 2008a; Torello 2008b; Storey 2011. 94–9; Napolitano 2012. 47–8 Title “Demes” were formal Athenian political units found in both the city and the countryside; see in general Traill 1975; Whitehead 1986. But the word is also used occasionally in 5th- and 4th-century sources in the sense “country district” (LSJ s. v. IV, and add to the references collected there Hdt. 1.170.3; 9.73.2; Lys. 31.18; [Pl.] Hipparch. 228d),182 and given the emphatically rural identity the chorus appear to claim for themselves in fr. 99.12–14, this is likely the sense intended here. 181

182

For the “New Music” generally, see fr. 366 with n. For Phrynis’ music in particular, see also Phaenias of Eresos fr. 10 Wehrli ap. Ath. 14.638b–c (associating him with Terpander). A full collection of passages using the word in Storey 2003. 391–4.

296

Eupolis

We know of no other comedies entitled Dêmoi. For other plays in which the chorus represent generic political or geographic units, see the general introduction to Poleis (Title). Content Although almost fifty fragments of Dêmoi (including the long fr. 99, discussed in detail below) are preserved, the most important general information about what went on in the play comes from a scholion on Aelius Aristides (test. *i.b), which reports that four leaders, sc. of the city of Athens—seemingly Solon, Aristides “the Just”, Miltiades and Pericles—were brought back from the Dead. Platonius (test. v) adds that the mission of these individuals was or at least included the establishment and abolishment of laws. Eupolis’ hero—or one of his heroes—was called Pyronides, which is not attested as the name of any historical person in Athens or elsewhere and is instead most likely significant (referring to the character’s “fiery” nature?), like e. g. those of Aristophanes’ Dikaiopolis (who yearns for a city that does what is right), Philocleon (who supports Cleon no matter what the demagogue says or does), Trygaios (an advocate for the countryside and thus the grape harvest) and Lysistrata (who puts a stop to military operations). Whether Pyronides had a partner who e. g. accompanied him on the descent to the Underworld, as Euelpides accompanies Peisetairos on the expedition to find Tereus in Aristophanes’ Birds, is impossible to say (but cf. fr. *105 n.). Beyond this, what little can be said of the specific action of the comedy (discussed here on pp. 8–9) comes mostly from fr. 99. Chorus and characters in fr. 99.1–77 As is argued in more detail in the Introduction, Section 4, attempts to reconstruct lost 5th-century comedies are in most respects wasted effort, and the very different conclusions reached by Storey 2003 and Telò 2007 (both working with the same set of fragments and secondary bibliography) in regard to Dêmoi nicely illustrate the problematic nature of the process.183 Any attempt to make sense of the fragments of the play must in any case confront two basic, closely related problems that arise from the first two codex leaves of fr. 99—the order of which within the play can only be established from the content of the lines they preserve (see below)—and that have to do with the relationship between the chorus and the characters at what appears to be the 183

Cf. Wilamowitz’s comment on the play: “Leider weiss ich sehr viel weniger jetzt von den Demen als ich vor 20 jahren wähnte, und ich kann ihr verständnis wesentlich nur dadurch fördern, dass ich scheinwissen zerstöre und schwierigkeiten aufzeige”.

∆ῆµοι (Introduction)

297

moment when the two groups first encounter one another. Fr. 99.1–34 (from PCair. 43227 fr. 1) represent the final portion of a choral section that consists of an iambic abuse song (fr. 99.1–22, with additional lines lost at the end) followed by trochaic tetrameters catalectic (fr. 99.23–34, with additional lines lost at the beginning). Since Körte 1912, this has generally been understood to represent the antode and antepirrhema of the parabasis.184 Immediately after this choral section, a character enters and hails the land (fr. 99.35–6), from which he has seemingly been long absent; on the basis of a problematic marginal note and the content of his words, this character is normally taken to be Aristides returning to Athens from the Underworld. Fr. 99.41–59 (from PCair. 43227 fr. 2) preserve portions of a conversation in which a group of individuals are promised that they will meet “the demes/Demes” and will have an opportunity to assess the difference between their condition now and how matters stood “when you and Solon were in office” (fr. 99.45–7, with a plural verb in 45 but a dual in 47). Fr. 99.60–77 (also from PCair. 43227 fr. 2) seem to represent the promised meeting between the chorus and another character (?), on the one hand, and the dead statesmen and Pyronides, on the other. The dead thus arrive in Athens, are promised an interview with the demes, and receive it; and on this basis PCair. 43227 fr. 1 is taken to precede PCair. 43227 fr. 2, and fr. 99.41–59 are taken to represent the recto of PCair. 43227 fr. 2, fr. 99.60–77 the verso (with a gap of 10–12 lines between Kassel–Austin’s continuously numbered fr. 99.59 and fr. 99.60). This otherwise convincing reconstruction poses a serious problem of interpretation. If fr. 99.1–34 comes from the parabasis, which in Eupolis’ contemporary Aristophanes is always located at least a third of the way into the play and often much further on than that,185 it is difficult to explain why the chorus has not already met Pyronides and the dead statesmen. Keil 1912. 247–9 dealt with this issue by postulating that the chorus of Dêmoi had different identities in the two halves of the play, being dead in the first half (which was set in the Underworld) but alive and perhaps differently costumed in the second (which was set in the upper world). Keil’s suggestion was taken for granted in most early discussion of the material, but is today generally dismissed on the ground that it is difficult to understand how demes can be dead. Of the two most recent attempts to come to terms with the issue, Storey proposes that fr. 99.1–34 represents the end not of the parabasis but of the parodos. To make this reconstruction more plausible, Storey also shortens the prologue 184 185

For parabasis abuse songs, cf. Ar. Pax 775–818; Ra. 674–85, 706–818. Cf. test. 34.8–9 τὰς γὰρ εἰσηγήσεις µεγάλας τῶν δραµάτων ποιεῖται, perhaps referring specifically to Dêmoi and putting the parabasis relatively late in the action.

298

Eupolis

scene by hypothesizing that Pyronides did not descend to the Underworld but engaged instead in an act of necromancy (thus already Heath), summoning up the dead in the same way that e. g. Darius is summoned up in Aeschylus’ Persians. Telò for his part imagines an initial scene in the Underworld; a parodos set in the upper world, followed by an intermediary scene located there that illustrates the contemporary city’s problems and covers the homeward journey of Pyronides and the statesmen; and then the parabasis (the end of which is, on this version of things, preserved in fr. 99). Both arguments pose difficulties. Iambic abuse songs and trochaic tetrameters catalectic are both found in Aristophanic parabases, but are absent from Aristophanic parodoi, to which objection Storey responds that we are dealing in fr. 99 with a different poet whose compositional practices may have differed in this regard. This is a reasonable argument, as far as it goes, although the parabasis in particular seems to have had something like a standard traditional structure, making it a reasonable assumption that any partially preserved choral structure that resembles a parabasis in fact is one. Storey’s attempt to limit the length of the opening action by converting it into an invocation scene, meanwhile, must confront the even less easily evaded objection that Eupolis’ dead are not insubstantial, temporary apparitions like the shades in Odyssey 11 or Darius in Persians. Instead, they not only make their way about the city, but ask to eat (fr. 99.43) and perhaps wrestle physically with other characters (esp. fr. 99.103–6), and on a common interpretation of fr. 131 ultimately take up permanent residence in Athens.186 As for Telò’s thesis, the parodos is used to establish a new dramatic location in Aristophanes’ Acharnians, where the place shifts with their entrance from the Pnyx to Dikaiopolis’ house in the country, and Telò’s hypothetical post-parodos intermediary scene finds an approximate parallel at Ar. Ec. 311–77, where Blepyros’ buffoonish encounters with his Neighbor and Chremys cover Praxagora’s offstage Assembly scene. Although Telò routinely bases his arguments on Aristophanic analogy, the lack of better or more numerous parallels is not enough to falsify his proposal regarding the structure of Dêmoi, given that—to build on the point Storey makes in support of his own interpretation of the parodos/parabasis—Eupolis must have been free to shape most aspects of his plays as he wanted and cannot be taken to have been limited to the set of standard practices adopted

186

For what is known of Greek necromancy, see Ogden 2001. 95–112. For the distinction between a φάσµα of the sort a psychagôgos might summon temporarily from the Underworld and an individual genuinely brought back from the dead, see E. Alc. 1123–8.

∆ῆµοι (Introduction)

299

by one of his rivals.187 That observation in turn, however, suggests that we might do just as well or better to base our hypotheses on the limits of our knowledge of late 5th-century stage-practice rather than on the inherently unlikely thesis that we understand them fully. If fr. 99.1–34 represent the end of the parabasis—the most economical explanation of the evidence, if not necessarily correct on that account—the chorus have at this point in the play not yet been introduced to Pyronides or the dead statesmen. Storey and Telò take it for granted that the chorus has a single, more or less stable identity throughout the action, so that it cannot have been present during the initial encounter between Pyronides and the dead (wherever that was set), hence the hypotheses discussed above. The most obvious counter-example is the chorus in Aristophanes’ Frogs, which is in fact two entirely separate choruses, the first of Frogs (Ra. 209–67), the second of Eleusinian Initiates (Ra. 316–459 and following).188 Nor is this a unique case, for there is also an initial chorus of huntsmen in Euripides’ Hippolytus (61–71) who vanish and are replaced by a chorus of local women; and we know of divided choruses (as in Eupolis’ Marikas, Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and on the Chorêgoi vase [adesp. com. fr. 59]) and subsidiary choruses (as in Aristophanes’ Wasps) as well. Regardless of what one thinks of Keil’s specific proposal for the identity of the chorus in the first half of Dêmoi, therefore, there is no reason to reject his basic insight, which is that choral identity need not be fixed or simple in 5th-century Athenian drama, and in particular that it may have changed in the course of Eupolis’ play in such a way that one chorus was present during an Underworld scene or scenes in the first half of the action, but a different chorus was onstage when the hero and the dead statesmen finally returned to Athens after the parabasis. The Rest of the Action Fr. 99.78–120 (from PCair. 43227 fr. 3, with a gap of 10–12 verses between Kassel–Austin’s continuously numbered fr. 99.99 and fr. 99.100) contains two portions of what is patently a single scene in which a just man (fr. 99.80) confronts another individual (often referred to as “the Sycophant”) who specializes 187 188

Cf. Keil 1912. 248, who points out how little we really know of the range of compositional practices among the late 5th-century comic poets. As Dover 1993. 56–7 observes, there is no particular reason to accept the traditional theory (see ΣVMEΘBarb Ra. 209) that the Frog-chorus is heard but not seen. But even if one believes this, the vital point is that the chorus still has two completely separate identities in the play and adopts the second only after it sheds the first.

300

Eupolis

in false accusations and the blackmail of foreigners. The just man is generally taken to be Aristides, and as he is now operating openly in Athens, the scene seems to come from later in the action than fr. 99.1–77. When “Aristides” and his slaves and/or allies turn on and bind “the Sycophant”, the latter protests that he has been summoned (fr. 99.104). The remark “I would have liked to have caught Diognetus as well” at fr. 99.114 (spoken by “Aristides”? or by a character allied with him?) leaves little doubt that a trap has been sprung, although whether “the Sycophant” has come to complain (sc. that he has not received the money his victim or victims were supposed to pay?; cf. fr. 99.94) or to boast and justify himself is unclear. In any case, the action is reminiscent of the exemplary scenes that routinely fill much of the second half of Aristophanic comedies, and the moralizing address to the world at large (i. e. the audience) at fr. 99.118–19 suggests that “Aristides” is in the process of carrying out the project for which Pyronides recruited him and the other dead statesmen from the Underworld. That all four statesmen had similar scenes is possible, or perhaps one or more of them remained mostly in the background (a less schematic and thus potentially more interesting arrangement—which once again does not mean that this is how Eupolis structured his comedy). Fr. 131 is generally taken to come from very near the end of the play and to show that the dead statesmen were ultimately settled in Athens as tutelary heroes or the like. There also appears to have been an agôn, in which one speaker (Pyronides?) complained that good citizenship was not appreciated and rewarded as it should be (fr. 129). Whether the agôn took place in the first part of the play and thus most likely in the Underworld (in which case there was perhaps a dispute reminiscent of the second half of Frogs about who ought to be fetched back to Athens from the land of the Dead) or the argument took place in the upper world (in which case Pyronides must have faced active local resistance, with the Demes asked to decide between the two parties) is impossible to say. Beyond this, we know that someone (perhaps in the Underworld) offered an assessment of Pericles’ abilities as an orator and compared him to contemporary politicians (frr. 102–3); that Aristides spoke and told part of his own story (fr. *105); that Pericles spoke (fr. 110); and that Miltiades most likely did as well (fr. *106). The Four Statesmen and the Larger Implications of the Plot Our ability to understand why Eupolis (or Pyronides) chose to fetch specifically Solon, Aristides, Miltiades and Pericles back from the Underworld is hindered in the first instance by the fact that we do not know why any of the Dead were fetched at all. That Pyronides’ goal was to rescue and restore his

∆ῆµοι (Introduction)

301

city seems an obvious conclusion, even if we risk being misled here by taking implicitly into account the argument of Aristophanes’ superficially similar (and fully preserved) Frogs. But to rescue Athens from what?—popular misgovernment? demagogic tyranny? incompetent military leadership? general moral and social corruption? or a toxic brew of two or more of the above? Nor do we know whether the rescuers turned out to be uniformly well-chosen (perhaps Solon and Aristides were precisely the tonic contemporary Athens needed, for example, whereas Miltiades and Pericles were not) or the extent to which Pyronides’ mission ultimately raised as many questions as it answered (like Peisetairos’ capture of the tyranny of Cloudcuckooland and seemingly of the entire universe at the end of Aristophanes’ Birds in 414 BCE). If Dêmoi was staged in early 412 BCE (see below, Date), at any rate, it must have been conceived before mid-summer of the previous year, since poets presented proposals at that point to the relevant incoming archons in the hope of being awarded a chorus (cf. [Arist.] Ath. 56.3; Cratin. fr. 17). Although Eupolis’ play was accordingly performed after news of the final disaster in Sicily reached Athens late that summer and ten probouloi were appointed to run the city as part of a package of emergency measures (Th. 8.1.3), the general outline of the plot must have been not a reaction to those events but an anticipation of them. It is thus all the more striking that Pyronides’s response to what appears to be presented at fr. 99.45–8 as a moment of enormous social and political need is to recruit a group of old and widely respected (even if dead) Athenians to guide the state, punish wrongdoers (cf. fr. 99.104–5, 112, 114–17) and propose and dissolve legislation (test. v). Part of Storey’s argument against seeing an echo of the witch-hunt that followed the supposed defamation of the Mysteries in 415 BCE in fr. 99.78–120, esp. 81–90, is that “we assume too readily the earnestness of Eupolis … We do well to remember that [late 5th-century comedy] was essentially fun and games, intended to make people laugh and to win the prize”.189 The final point in particular is far from self-evident, for the most basic means by which a poet attracted votes from the judges seems in fact to have been to recognize what some significant portion of the audience was thinking in regard to an important public matter and to put an outrageous and amusing spin on those longings or opinions.190 More specifically put, the basic plot of Dêmoi suggests that the idea of an emergency board of venerable older men chosen to serve as πρόβουλοι, although abruptly presented by Thucydides 189 190

Storey 2003. 114. The classic statement of the thesis is Henderson 1992. For the history of the discussion of the political aspects of late 5th-century Athenian comedy and the genre’s relationship to its public, see Olson 2010a (with extensive bibliography).

302

Eupolis

in his History, was not a novelty in Athens in late summer 412 BCE. Instead, proposals of this sort must already have been making their way around the city, presented as a clever if bold way to deal with a deteriorating political and military situation that normal democratic institutions were incapable of handling. The comic poets appear to have been fond of presenting themselves as wise counselors of the Athenian people (e. g. Ar. Ach. 633–58, esp. 633, 656), a claim there is little reason to accept except in the most general terms. The appointment of the πρόβουλοι in late summer 413 BCE, at any rate, had no very happy outcome, even if the verdict on their service might still have appeared open in the first few months of 412 BCE, when Dêmoi was staged. By the time of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata one year later, at any rate, they could be presented as officious bumblers incapable of taking the decisive steps needed to rescue the situation. More disturbing precisely because these actions suggest that the πρόβουλοι were not unwilling to act when their duty as they understood it called them to do so, they appear to have been directly involved in the formal overthrow of the democracy later that year (Th. 8.67.1 with Hornblower 2008 on 8.1.3; Rhodes 1981 on [Arist.] Ath. 29.2). Eupolis was not directly responsible for any of this unhappy story, and one might even imagine (as noted above) that his play was designed to point out in advance how bad an idea turning Athens over to the πρόβουλοι or another group like them really was. But that is a highly generous and optimistic reading of the play, and one that seems contrary to the traces of an at least partially happy ending perhaps preserved in fr. 131. To the limited extent that a political ideology can be recovered from what remains of the text, therefore, Dêmoi should more likely be read as a faithful if fantastic illustration of the blind and wishful popular thinking that in short order turned control of democratic Athens over to a small group of violent, anti-democratic conspirators.191 Of the four men Pyronides brings back from the Underworld, Solon son of Exekestides (PA 12806; PAA 827640), born in 625 BCE or a little earlier, was chosen as archon for 594/3 BCE and given power to reform Athens’ laws (esp. Isoc. 7.16; 15.231–2; [Arist.] Ath. 5.2); he was remembered in particular for putting an end to the enslavement of Athenian citizens for debt (e. g. [Arist.] Ath. 6.1; 9.1; 12.4). Solon supposedly opposed the first tyranny of Pisistratos, to whom he was somehow related, and denounced the Athenians as either fools or cowards for failing to speak out against him ([Arist.] Ath. 14.2). He died shortly thereafter and was eventually honored with a statue in the Agora (D. 19.251). Comedy refers to Solon almost exclusively as a lawgiver; cf. Cratin. frr. 191

For related discussion of the relationship between the political agendas latent in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and the oligarchic coup later that year, see Olson 2012.

∆ῆµοι (Introduction)

303

134–5 (which Bergk took to indicate that he appeared as a character in Nomoi); 300 (a reference to the kyrbeis on which his laws and those of Draco were recorded, now supposedly converted into firewood) with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc.; Ar. Nu. 1187 (Solon and by extension his laws as deeply democratic); Av. 1660–6 (quotation of a law on the legal status of bastards); Eub. fr. 57.6 (“Solon” as the name of a specific throw of the dice; from Kybeutai); Alex. frr. 9 (a character in a play entitled Aisôpos); 131 (invoked in passing as the greatest lawgiver of all time) with Arnott 1996 ad loc., offering further references in 4thcentury prose; Philem. fr. 3.1, 4 (allegedly responsible for the introduction of organized brothel prostitution in Athens as a way of keeping the city’s young men out of trouble). See in general Davies 1971. 322–4; Oliva 1973; Rhodes 1981. 118–20; the essays collected in Blok and Lardinois 2006; Hendrickson 2013 (focussing on the complicated relationship between the poems and the biographical information in the pseudo-Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia). For Solon’s laws in particular, see Leão and Rhodes 2015. For his poetry, substantial fragments of which survive, see also Irwin 2005; Noussia-Fantuzzi 2010. Miltiades (PA 10212; PAA 653820) son of Cimon was a member of the wealthy, powerful Philiad genos, which came to be closely associated with the Pisistratid tyranny, on the one hand, and with something like despotic control of the Chersonese, on the other. He himself was archon under the Pisistradid tyrants in 524/3 BCE (IG I3 1031.19). Sometime in the mid-510s BCE, Hippias sent Miltiades to the Chersonese to take power there (Hdt. 6.39.1). When he was driven out in 493 BCE in the aftermath of the Ionian Revolt (which he appears to have joined), he returned to Athens, where he was tried for having ruled tyrannically but was acquitted (Hdt. 6.41.4, 104). Miltiades was one of the Athenian generals at Marathon (see fr. *106 n.), and was wounded in 489 BCE in the course of a botched expedition against Paros. The Athenians responded to the failure by putting him on trial for deceiving the people (i. e. by promising them a great victory), finding him guilty, and assessing him a fine of 50 talents; he died before he could pay it (Hdt. 6.132–6; [D.] 26.6). Cimon (PA 8429; PAA 569795) was his son, Elpinike (PA 4678; PAA 387165) his daughter; see fr. 221.2–3 (nasty claims of an incestuous relationship between the two children) with n. For Miltiades and the Philiads in general, see Hdt. 6.103; Hammond 1956; Wade-Gery 1971; Davies 1971. 293–312, esp. 301–3; Austin 1990. 303–4; Sears 2013. 59–74, esp. 64–70. Aristides (PA 1695; PAA 165170) son of Lysimachos of the deme Alopeke, likely born into a wealthy family192 by 520 BCE, was eponymous archon in 489/8 BCE (Plu. Arist. 5.7; Marm.Par. FGrH 239 A 49). Ostracized in 482 BCE 192

Plu. Arist. 25.6 makes him a cousin of Callias.

304

Eupolis

(Hdt. 8.79.1; [Arist.] Ath. 22.7; Plu. Arist. 7.2; for ostraka bearing his name, see Lang 1990. 35–40 (#21–88); Brenne 2002. 49, 81–3),193 he was recalled in 481/0 BCE on the eve of the Persian invasion of the Greek mainland along with the other exiles (Hdt. 8.79.1; D. 26.6; [Arist.] Ath. 22.8; Plu. Arist. 8.1; Them. 11.1) and served as the Athenian commander at Salamis (Hdt. 8.95; Plu. Arist. 9.1–3) and then at Plataia (Hdt. 9.28.6; Plu. Arist. 11.1). [Arist.] Ath. 23.3 refers to him and his political arch-rival Themistocles (PA 6669; PAA 502610) as προστάται τοῦ δήµου in the early 470s BCE and says that Aristides’ role was primarily political rather than military. Inter alia, Aristides seems to have been responsible along with Themistocles for the reconstruction of the city’s walls after the Persians withdrew ([Arist.] Ath. 23.4) and for the initial imposition of tribute on the individual states that made up the Delian League (Th. 5.18.5; [And.] 4.11; D. 23.209; Aeschin. 3.258; [Arist.] Ath. 23.5; see Rosivach 2011 for the connections apparently drawn between this act and the provision of financial support for individual Athenians via state pay of all sorts). He died in the early 460s BCE; the claims that he had to be buried at public expense because he left behind too little money to cover the cost (D. 23.209; Ael. VH 11.9), sc. because he had stolen nothing when he had charge of Athens’ finances, and that the city was further forced to provide a suitable dowry for his daughters (Aeschin. 3.258), likely represent later embroideries on his story designed to underline his reputation for personal probity. For Aristides’ life and family, see in general Davies 1971. 48–52; Rhodes 1981. 280–1; and cf. fr. *105 n. (on his reputation for unquestionable justice and propriety). Pericles son of Xanthippus of the deme Cholargus (PA 11811; PAA 772645) was the dominant political figure in Athens from the late 440s BCE until his death in 429 BCE. See frr. 110 with n. (on his son Pericles II); 267 n. (on his relationship with Aspasia of Miletus). For the image of Pericles in comedy— generally hostile before this, and perhaps in Dêmoi as well (see above)—see in general Schwarze 1971; Banfi 2003. 2–43, esp. 9–43 (on the presentation of him in comedy). Date Dêmoi must date to between 417 BCE (the year after the Battle of Mantineia, referenced at fr. 99.30–2) and Eupolis’ death, which on the basis of test. 1 (n.) is generally associated with the Battle of Cynosema in 411 BCE (although see below). Even without access to P.Cair. 43227, Meineke 1839

193

Rhodes 1981. 280 observes in this connection: “Although it is a commonplace of modern books that Themistocles’ shipbuilding proposal was the issue which led to Aristides’ ostracism (first suggested by Beloch …), it is stated in no ancient text and should not be regarded as certain”.

∆ῆµοι (Introduction)

305

II.455 had already assigned the play to 412 BCE, and that date—which puts the performance after the failure of the Sicilian Expedition and the Spartan occupation of Deceleia in 413 BCE, but before the oligarchic coup of 411 BCE— remained the scholarly communis opinio for almost two centuries. The dating has been challenged, however, in the two most significant recent treatments of the issue, by Ian Storey (who argues that Dêmoi belongs in 417 or perhaps 416 BCE, before the ostracism of Hyperbolos in 416 BCE or so, the flight of Alcibiades into exile in 415 BCE, and the Sicilian Expedition) and by Mario Telò and Leone Porciani194 (who put the play in 410 BCE, after the overthrow of the democracy in 411 BCE and in a period when the so-called Five Thousand were in control of the city’s government). The discussion that follows is intended to show that the arguments in favor of these alternative dates are either unconvincing or flatly contradicted by other information about Eupolis and his play, and that Dêmoi is best kept in 412 BCE. As Storey 2003. 112 notes, the two most substantial bits of evidence traditionally offered in support of a date of 412 BCE for Dêmoi—aside from a circular insistence that the comedy must have been written and staged in the aftermath of the disaster in Sicily because only such a disaster could justify the writing and staging of such a comedy—are (1) the reference to individuals living within the Long Walls at fr. 99.12–14 (generally taken to mean that Dêmoi belongs after the occupation of Deceleia, since Thucydides 7.27.4–5 leaves little doubt that the rural population of Attica was drawn within the city’s walls again at that point) and (2) the seeming allusion at fr. 99.81–9 to the wild charges of impiety associated with the Eleusinian Mysteries that tore Athenian society apart in 415 BCE.195 Storey 2003. 113 counters the first point by observing that Andocides 1.45196 makes it clear that a substantial number of people, including Athenians of hoplite status, were resident within the 194 195

196

Telò and Porciani 2002, followed in essentials but with less detailed argument by Telò 2007. 16–24. Prosopographic considerations are of no assistance in this regard (evidence reviewed at Storey 2003. 112), although see below on Demostratos in fr. 103. Other criteria for dating the play (including the supposed appearance of a πρόβουλος as a character and what Beta 1994 takes to be a reference to a proposal by Peisander in 415 BCE allowing the torture of Athenian citizens) have been advanced, but lack any probative value; see Storey 2003. 112–13. ἀνακαλέσαντες δὲ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς ἀνειπεῖν ἐκέλευσαν Ἀθηναίων τοὺς µὲν ἐν ἄστει οἰκοῦντας ἰέναι εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν τὰ ὅπλα λαβόντας, τοὺς δ’ ἐν µακρῷ τείχει εἰς τὸ Θησεῖον, τοὺς δ’ ἐν Πειραιεῖ εἰς τὴν Ἱπποδαµείαν ἀγοράν (“they summoned the generals and ordered them to tell the Athenians who were resident in the walled city to get their hoplite equipment and go to the Agora; those inside the

306

Eupolis

Long Walls in 415 BCE, having presumably settled there fifteen years earlier, during the first wave of Spartan invasions of the Attic countryside (which ended in 425 BCE), and having decided for personal or economic reasons to remain in place rather than move back to their farms on a permanent basis.197 The same conclusion can be drawn from Ar. Eq. 792–3 καὶ πῶς σὺ φιλεῖς, ὃς τοῦτον ὁρῶν οἰκοῦντ’ ἐν ταῖς φιδάκναισι / καὶ γυπαρίοις καὶ πυργιδίοις ἔτος ὄγδοον οὐκ ἐλεαίρεις; (“and how do you care for him, you who feel no pity, although you see him now in the eighth year living in casks and crannies and little towers?”; in reference to Demos, the personified Athenian people), which dates to 424 BCE. The complaint at fr. 99.12–14 is that the Long Wall residents get more food—what is actually said is that they are ἀριστητικώτεροι, “lunchier”—than the chorus, although the precise significance of the grievance is obscure, due in part to the fragmentary character of the verses that follow. It is nonetheless easy to believe that access to markets, and to imported grain in particular, was easier inside the walls than outside of them throughout the Peloponnesian War years, regardless of whether Spartan forces were in the country. Storey thus appears to be right to insist that fr. 99.12–14 does not prove that Dêmoi dates to 412 BCE, although the verses simultaneously offer no positive evidence to put the play earlier. As for the second significant item of evidence traditionally offered to date Eupolis’ play, at fr. 99.81–9 the fact that a foreigner has his moustache full of barley-groats after drinking kykeon is used by the anonymous character usually referred to as “the Sycophant” to extort money from him, apparently via a threat of legal action.198 The consumption of kykeon was an important part of the Eleusinian Mysteries, and the passage is often understood as a critical allusion to the impiety trials of 415 BCE, where many of the charges were just as bogus as the Sycophant’s attack on the stranger in Dêmoi appears to be. Storey 2003. 113, however, observes that “it is unclear what is going on at fr. 99. 78–120; the accusation of sacrilege is not at all obvious”; that “Not all references to the Mysteries must post-date the scandal of 415”; and that “Comedy seems to have avoided any direct mention of the scandals of 415 or of those mentioned in them”. If these claims are correct, the date of Dêmoi is open within the parameters noted at the beginning of this section, and Storey

197

198

Long Wall to go to the Theseion; and those in the Piraeus to go to the Hippodameian Agora”). Cf. Ar. V. 448–51 (422 BCE), where the relatively well-to-do Philocleon and Bdelycleon are abruptly revealed to own not just a city house but also a farm in the countryside, where their domestic slaves are sometimes put to work. For the same character’s vicious and gratuitous litigiousness, cf. fr. 99.103–11.

∆ῆµοι (Introduction)

307

2003. 114 proposes that the play might better be assigned to 417 (or perhaps 416) BCE, “principally because [this dating] allows the demagogue of fr. 99. 23–34 to be Hyperbolos … and the reference to Mantineia to be an allusion to something recent and topical, rather than an event over five years in the past”. In addition, Storey notes that on his hypothesis fr. *104 can be taken to point to Alcibiades, who by 412 BCE, by contrast, had been absent from Athens for years and was quite unlikely—at least as far as anyone could tell at the time—to be a candidate for future generalships. Storey thus effectively eliminates the reference to the Long Walls residents in fr. 99.12–14 as a dating criterion for Dêmoi. The rest of his case is less convincing. It is circular argument, first of all, to put Eupolis’ play in 417 or 416 BCE on the ground that this allows fr. 99.23–34 (n.) to refer to Hyperbolos and fr. *104 to refer to Alcibiades, for if the comedy is later than this, numerous other candidates for the anonymous individuals referenced in the passages present themselves. This does not mean that Dêmoi cannot date to 417 or 416 BCE, only that Storey has offered no reason to believe that it does. Second, as Telò–Porciani 2002. 26–7 point out, what the chorus do at fr. 99.30–2 is reproach the audience for seemingly forgetting (οὐ µέµ[νησθ᾿;], “don’t you remember?”) the unidentified politician’s behavior in the debate regarding Mantinea. What is wanted here is thus seemingly not Storey’s immediate relevance but a few years’ distance between the assembly and the subsequent battle, on the one hand, and the staging of Dêmoi, on the other—which argues for putting the play later in the war rather than earlier. Above all else, the question of topicality emerges again and again in connection with Storey’s interpretations of the historical and social background to the action in fr. 99 in particular. Storey observes that comedy—or at least what survives of the genre from this period—does not refer expressly to the alleged defamation of the Mysteries in 415 BCE or the associated legal processes, and he takes this to be a reason for believing that Dêmoi as well ought not to allude to such events in fr. 99.81–9. But comedy does twice refer directly to the closely associated incident of the mutilation of the Herms (Ar. Lys. 1093–4; Phryn. Com. fr. 61) and repeatedly mentions Alcibiades, the most important social and political figure targeted in the investigations; and fr. 99.81–9 is not in any case a direct mention of the events of 415 BCE, but merely plays with the idea that similarly malicious prosecutions remain possible (or even the norm) in contemporary Athens. And although the defamation of the Mysteries and the associated accusations and trials need not lie behind the Sycophant’s nasty story of his abuse of the foreigner at fr. 99.81–9, that remains the easiest and most obvious context in which to set his tale. So too in the case of the inhabitants of the Long Wall area: fr. 99.12–14 suggests a stark and unhappy contrast between the

308

Eupolis

situation of the people living there and the eponymous Demes, which makes more sense after the occupation of Deceleia in 413 BCE (when conditions in the countryside must have deteriorated enormously) than before it. As Storey 2003. 114 himself notes, certainty is impossible in matters of this sort. There is nonetheless no positive reason (other than a bit of wishful thinking in regard to Hyperbolos and Alcibiades) to put Dêmoi as early as Storey would like to have it, and considerable reason to put it later. Telò– Porciani 2002, by contrast, attempt to move the date of the play in the opposite direction, setting it in 410 BCE on the basis of their reading of fr. 99.12–14. At And. 1.45, Telò–Porciani argue, ἐν µακρῷ τείχει (literally “in [the] long wall”) is a collective singular that refers via synecdoche to the entire area enclosed by the Piraeus wall and the Phaleron wall. Fr. 99.12–13 ἐν µακροῖν / τειχοῖν, on the other hand, uses a dual and is thus not synecdoche, and Telò–Porciani reject the notion that the preposition can in this case mean “contained within”, suggesting that the phrase ought instead to be taken to refer to “una permanenza sulle Lunghe Mura” (“a permanent location on the Long Walls”). According to Th. 8.71, they note, at some point in June 411 BCE the Spartan king Agis attacked Athens’ walls, and the Athenians responded by sending out τοὺς δὲ ἱππέας … καὶ µέρος τι τῶν ὁπλιτῶν καὶ ψιλῶν καὶ τοξοτῶν ἄνδρας (“the knights … and a certain portion of the hoplites and light-armed troops and bowmen”), who drove the Peloponnesian forces off. Telò–Porciani suggest that the other hoplites—those not sent out by the Athenians to confront Agis’ troops—were stationed on the city’s walls, if only briefly, and that these are the individuals referred to at fr. 99.12–13 as τοὺς ἐν µακροῖν / τειχοῖν. If the Four Hundred (still in power at that point) also offered these men grain-rations that were unavailable to other citizens, while simultaneously cutting off traditional deme-based payments such as wages for service on the Boule (cf. Th. 8.65.3 [a measure said to have been proposed when the Four Hundred were still in power in the city, but toward the end of their reign]; [Arist.] Ath. 33.1 [the policy assigned instead to the Five Thousand]), this might have produced the sort of complaints articulated by Eupolis’ chorus. Dêmoi can thus be placed in 410 BCE, at one of the first two festivals that followed Agis’ attack and the Athenian defensive measures that accompanied it, rather than two years earlier, as is generally believed. This thesis—which means that Eupolis’ comedy must have been conceived during the oligarchic terror of 411 BCE and staged in the late winter or spring of the next year, before the democracy had been restored—faces two basic sets of objections. First, Thucydides’ notice that in June 411 BCE some of the city’s hoplites were sent out to confront Agis’ men tells us nothing about a new set of guards posted on the Long Walls at the same time. Telò–Porciani have

∆ῆµοι (Introduction)

309

invented this unit, as well as the provisioning controversy that supposedly accompanied it, on the basis of fr. 99.12–14. But the same style of argument could be used to put any group anywhere at any time in order to explain a difficult text—which is to say that the thesis offers no positive reason to place Dêmoi in 410 BCE. This is even more the case because Telò–Porciani themselves maintain that the hypothetical posting of special units on the Long Walls in 411 BCE was likely a short-lived measure, making it difficult to understand why Eupolis’ chorus would treat the situation as a matter of contemporary interest (even using the present tense εἰσιν) at a dramatic festival in the first half of the next year. Second, the Greek of fr. 99.12–14 appears to render the proposed interpretation of the text impossible. The nature of Telò–Porciani’s objection to taking fr. 99.12–13 ἐν µακροῖν / τειχοῖν (literally “in [the] two long walls”) to mean “in the area enclosed by the two Long Walls” is unclear, especially given their apparent willingness to accept And. 1.45 ἐν µακρῷ τείχει in the sense “in the area enclosed by the Long Wall (conceived as a collective whole)”. More important, while ἐν + dative can mean “upon” in reference to a surface used for drawing, carving, painting or the like (e. g. Ar. Ach. 144 ἐν τοῖσι τοίχοις ἔγραφ’ “Ἀθηναῖοι καλοί”; Av. 450 προγράφωµεν ἐν τοῖς πινακίοις; Lys. 513 ἐν τῇ στήλῃ παραγράψαι; Ra. 933 σηµεῖον ἐν ταῖς ναυσὶν … ἐνεγέγραπτο), it cannot mean “on top of”—which is presumably why (as Telò–Porciani themselves note) no one has previously suggested translating the preposition in Eupolis that way. The individuals to whom the chorus of Dêmoi refer are thus not located on top of the walls (as guards might be) but within them (like refugees, as on the standard reading of the passage).199 In addition, the Telò–Porciani interpretation of fr. 99.12–14 as evidence for placing Dêmoi in 410 BCE contradicts some of the most basic information we have regarding Eupolis’ biography. According to Suda ε 3657 (= test. 1), the poet “died in a shipwreck in the Hellespont during the war against the Peloponnesians”, which is most naturally taken to suggest that he was killed in a naval battle. Although the evidence is less complete than we would like, none of Eupolis’ dated comedies belongs after 412 BCE (see the general introduction to this volume), and not one of the almost 500 individual fragments refers to a person known to have been active exclusively after that date or refers to an event that took place then. Eupolis’ death is therefore usually connected with the loss of fifteen Athenian ships at the Battle of Cynosema in 411 BCE, which would mean that he was killed a bit more than a year after the generally accepted date for Dêmoi and (more to the point) close to a year before the 199

Cf. Tuci 2014. 22–3, who notes most of the same weaknesses in the thesis advanced in Telò–Porciani 2002, but treats the question in a more summary fashion.

310

Eupolis

date Telo–Porciani propose for the comedy. Telò–Porciani acknowledge this difficulty only in a footnote, in which they suggest that the battle in which Eupolis died might have been not Cynosema but Aegospotamoi in 406 BCE, and Telò in his full edition of the play adds as a further possibility the Battle of Arginusae in 405 BCE.200 But Aegospotamoi is near Lesbos rather than in the Hellespont, and although Arginusae resulted in the destruction of much of the Athenian fleet, the battle was fought not at sea but on the shore. The Suda might simply be misinformed. But this is a desperate argument of a sort that ought to be deployed only when no other option is available, and here the more economical conclusion is that on this count as well the Telò–Porciani hypothesis should be rejected. There is thus no positive reason to follow Storey in pushing the date for Dêmoi back to 417 or 416 BCE and considerable incentive to resist his arguments, while the attempt by Telò–Porciani to put the play in 410 BCE fails on multiple counts. Instead, Dêmoi seems to belong where it has traditionally been placed, in 412 BCE, in the immediate aftermath of the Sicilian disaster but before the overthrow of the democracy, with Mantineia (cf. fr. 99.30–2) and the legal proceedings associated with the supposed defamation of the Eleusinian Mysteries (cf. fr. 99.81–9) in the past and Deceleia occupied (cf. fr. 99.12–14). This conclusion finds a bit of further support in the reference in fr. 103 (n.) to Demostratos (PA 3611; PAA 319245) as ἁλιτήριος, an extremely hostile term that would be timely and appropriate if Dêmoi was written and performed not long after news of the Sicilian Expedition’s final failure reached Athens. For the date of Dêmoi, see also Geissler 1925. 54–5 + 1969. xvi; Storey 1990. 24–7; Beta 1994; Chiavarino 1995. 19–20; Storey 2000. 173–5; Bertelli 2005. 78–9; Nesselrath 2005; Kyriakidi 2007. 25–9; Torello 2008b (pointing out additional weaknesses in the hypothesis of Telò–Porciani 2002); Storey 2011. 97; Tuci 2012. 246–8; Tuci 2014. 19–24. The following have also been assigned to Dêmoi: frr. 326 (Storey); 328 (Edmonds); 331 (Storey); 333 (Meineke; = Dêmoi fr. *49 Telò); 334 (Edmonds); 336 (Edmonds; = Dêmoi fr. *50 Telò); 340 (Edmonds); 342 (Runkel); 367 (Storey); 384 (Walpole); 389 (Telò = his Dêmoi fr. *52); 397 (Telò = his Dêmoi fr. *51); 424 (Edmonds); and adesp. com. frr. 154 (Meineke); 1105 (Luppe); 1151 (Storey, following Kassel–Austin, who merely give it to Eupolis); POxy. 2743 fr. 11.5–7 (Luppe 1971a. 121).

200

Telò–Porciani 2002. 39 n. 63; Telò 2007. 23–4 n. 49.

311

Fragments fr. 99 K.-A. (CGFPR 92 = frr. 7–12 Dem. = Dêmoi fr. 17 Telò; vv. 13–14 = fr. 130 K., vv. 41–3 = fr. 108 K.)

5

10

15

20 22

καὶ δὴ δὲ Πείσανδρ[ο]ν̣ διεστράφθαι χθὲς ἀριστῶντά φα σ’ † ἐπιξενοιν τιν’ οντ’ αυτου † 〈x〉 οὐκ ἔφασκε θρέψειν. Παύσων δὲ προσστὰς Θεογένει δειπνοῦντι πρὸς τὴν καρδίαν τῶν ὁλκάδων τιν’ αὑτοῦ λ̣έψας ἅπαξ διέστρεφεν· λ]υτὸς δ’ ἔκειθ’ ὁ Θεογέ̣νης τ]ὴ̣ν νύχθ’ ὅλην πεπορδώς. δια]σ̣τρέφειν οὖν πρῶτα µὲν χρὴ Καλλίαν | τοὺς ἐν µακροῖν τειχοῖν θ’ ἅµ’, ἀ|[ρ]ιστητικώτεροι γάρ εἰσιν ἡµῶν, Ν̣ικήρατόν τ’ Ἀχαρνέα 〈 x 〉].ι̣ν διδόντα χοίνικας 〈 x l k 〉] ̣ ̣ ν ἑκάστῳ 〈 x l k l x l 〉] . ιη τῶν χρηµάτων | [〈 x l k l 〉] οὐ]δ̣’ ἂ̣ν̣ τ̣ρ̣ι̣χὸς πριαίµην. ]ν ].ος

desunt versus 12

25

30

〈 l k l x l k l 〉]ι κἀξιοῖ δηµηγορεῖν, χθὲς δὲ καὶ πρώην παρ’ ἡµῖν φρατέρων ἔρηµ̣[ος ὤν· κοὐδ’ ἂν ἠττίκιζεν, εἰ µὴ τοὺς φίλους ᾐσχύν[ετο, τῶν ἀπραγµόνων γε πόρνων κοὐχὶ τῶν σ[ε]µνῶν [ k l ἀλλ’ ἔδει νεύσαντα χωρεῖν εἰς τὸ κινητή̣ρ̣[ιον· τῆς ἑταιρείας δὲ τούτων τοὺς φίλους ἐσκ[ l k l ταῖς στρατηγίαις δ’ ὑφέρπει καὶ τρυγῳδο̣[ l k l εἰς δὲ Μαντίνειαν ὑµᾶς οὗτος οὐ µέµ[νησθ’ ὅτι

312

Eupolis

τοῦ θεοῦ βροντῶντος ὑµῖν οὐκ ἐῶν[τας ἐµβαλεῖν εἶπε δήσειν τοὺς στρατηγοὺς πρὸς βίαν [ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ; ὅστις οὖν ἄρχειν τοιούτους ἄνδρας α̣[ἱρεῖται k l µήτε πρόβατ’ αὐτῳ τεκνοῖτο µήτε γῆ κ[αρπὸν φέροι. 35

40

(Α.) ὦ γῆ πατρῴα χαῖρε· σὲ γὰρ 〈 x l k l 〉 πασῶν πόλεων ἐκπαγλο̣[τατ 〈 l x l k l 〉 (Β.) τόδε πρᾶγµα τί ἐστι; 〈 l k l x l k l 〉 (Α.) χαίρειν δέ φη̣[µι 〈 l k l x l k l 〉 πάντα ̣ ̣ ̣ [〈 k l x l k l x l k l 〉 προ̣[〈 l k l x l k l x l k l 〉

quot versus desint non constat 41

45

50 52 53 53/54 54 55

58 58/59 59

(Γ.) 〈 x l k l x l k l 〉 ⸤τὸ χαλκίον⸥ ⸤θέρµαινέ θ’ ἡµῖν καὶ θύη⸥ πέττειν τι⸤νὰ⸥ ⸤κέλευ’, ἵνα σπλάγχνοισι⸥ συγγενώµεθα. (∆.) 〈 x l k l 〉]ι̣ τ̣αῦτα καὶ πεπράξεται. 〈 x l k l 〉 γν]ώ̣σεσθε τοὺς δήµους ὅσῳ 〈 x l k l x〉 εἰ]σ̣ι νῦν διακείµενοι 〈 x l k 〉 ἡνί]κ̣’ ἤρχετον σὺ καὶ Σόλων ⸤ἥβης τ’ ἐκείνης ν⸥ο̣ῦ τ’ ἐκείνου καὶ φρενῶν. 〈 x l k l x l k〉 ]α̣ν̣[ .]ηδ〈 l 〉µ̣ατων 〈 x l k l x l k l 〉]οι[ . . ]α̣ συχνή 〈 x l k l x l k l x l 〉]χεται 〈 x l k l x l k l x l 〉]τονη 〈 l k l x l k l x 〉 〈 l k 〉 π]ρόσθεν 〈 x l k l 〉 〈 l k l x 〉] µὴ προδῷς 〈 x l k l x l k l 〉]ν̣ προθυµίαν 〈 x l k l x l k l 〉 Π]υρωνίδην 〈 x l k l x l k 〉] ο̣ὓς ἀνήγαγεν 〈 x l k l x l k l 〉 ] ἀ̣σπάσασθαι 〈 x k l l 〉 〈 x k l 〉 κ]α̣[ραδ]οκῶ

desunt versus fere 10–12 60/61 61/62

(Χο.) 〈 l k 〉] . τος γὰρ ωσ . [〈 k 〉] | ἅνδρες, ὧν κ̣[ιχόν]|τ̣ες ἐν τοίαισιν

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99) 62/63 65

69/70 70/71

75 76/77

ἡ|δοναῖσι κείµεθα. (Ε.) 〈 x 〉].ι δοκ̣ῶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἤδη τού[σδ’] ἰ[δεῖν καθ]ηµένους, οὕς φασιν ἥκειν παρ[ὰ νεκρῶν 〈 x l 〉].α µὲν δὴ τῶν φίλων προστ.[〈 l k l 〉 ὡ̣ς ὀρθὸς ἑστηκὼ[ς] 〈 k l 〉 σ· τ· ’ αὐτῶν .[〈 k l 〉 Π̣υρωνίδης, ἐρώµεθ’ [α]ὐτὸ[ν 〈 l k l 〉 (Χο.) εἰπέ µοι, ὦ[〈 l k 〉 ἔ]|µολε̣ς ετ[〈 k l x 〉 | πρὸς πολιτῶ[ν 〈 l 〉 | φράσον, τί κ[〈 l k x 〉 (Πυ.) ὅ]δ’ αὐτός εἰµ’ ἐκεῖνος ὃν σ[ὺ 〈 l k l 〉 ὃ]ς τὰς Ἀθήνας πόλλ’ ἔτη [〈 x l k l 〉 〈 x 〉].αστ[’ ἀ]ν̣ά̣ν̣δρους ἄνδρ[ας 〈 l x l k l 〉 (Ε.) ἦ καὶ σαφῶς οἵδ̣᾽ ἧµιν εξ̣[.]η̣ι̣τ̣ρ̣[〈 l k l 〉

quot versus desint non constat 78 80

85

90

95

]ι̣ν̣[….]ν̣τε προσ.[.]..[ (Ζ.) 〈 x l k l 〉]νυν αὐτ[ί]χ’ ἁγνός εἰµ’ ἐγώ. (Η.) 〈 x l 〉 δί]καιός εἰµ’ ἀνήρ. λέγ’ ὅ τι λέγεις. (Ζ.) 〈 x l k 〉].ος ποτ’ εἰς ἀγο[ρὰ]ν κυκεῶ πιὼν 〈 x l k 〉 κρ]ίµνων τὴ[ν] ὑπήνην ἀνάπλεως 〈 x l k 〉]ων τοῦτ’ ἐννοοῦµαί πως ἐγώ. ἐλ]θὼν δὲ ταχέως οἴκαδ’ εὐθὺ τοῦ ξένου — (Η.) τί] ἔδρασας, ὦ πανοῦργε καὶ κυβευτὰ σύ; (Ζ.) ἔφ]ην κελεύειν τὸν ξένον µοι χρυσίου δοῦν]αι στατ[ῆ]ρας ἑκατόν· ἦν γὰρ πλούσιος. 〈 x l k 〉]ι̣ον ἐκ[έ]λευσέ µ’ εἰπεῖν ὅτι πιὼν 〈 x l k l 〉]ν̣[〈 x 〉] κᾆτ’ ἔλαβον τὸ χρυσίον. (Η.) 〈 x l k 〉 ποι]είτω τις ὅ τι ποτὲ βούλεται. 〈 x l k l x 〉] τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὅση. (Ζ.) 〈 x l k 〉]η̣τ ̣η̣ν οὔτε πω διαστολὰς 〈 x l k 〉]ων ἔπραξεν οὑπιδαύριος 〈 x l k l 〉]ρ̣φρ.νων ἀπεκλεισ 〈 x 〉 ἐκποδών. (Η.) 〈 x l k 〉]ρ̣αν κατέλυσας ἡττηθεὶς πολύ. (Ζ.) 〈 x l 〉 ἐπρ]αξάµην δὲ χρήµατ’, οὐ λέγω 〈 x l 〉]θανόντων. (Ε.) ταῦτα χάριτος ἄξια 〈 x l k 〉 µᾶ]λ̣λ̣ο̣ν, εἰ σαφῶς τις ἀποθάνοι 〈 x l k l x l k l 〉]υ· σ· π· ουτ̣[〈 k l 〉

313

314

Eupolis

desunt versus fere 10–12 100

105

110

115

120

]σ· ι̣[..]ι̣[.]α̣ ι τ̣ ωχει̣.[…]ι̣ι ̣ […]σι̣[ 〈 x l 〉]µ̣εδ’ ἢ ταῦτ’ ἂν 〈 k 〉 .π̣οι̣σ· . 〈 x 〉 χρηµ . α[〈 l 〉 (Η.) ⸤τί⸥ τοὺς θανόντας ο⸤ὐ⸥κ ἐᾷς τεθνηκέν⸤αι;⸥ (Ζ.) µ]αρτύροµαι. τί δ’; ο̣[ὐ]κ̣ ἀγωνι[ο]ύµ[εθα; κα]λέσας µε συνδεῖς κἀδικε[ῖ]ς. (Η.) ἀλλ’ οὐ[κ ἐγὼ ξυνέδησά σ’, ἀλλ’ ὁ ξένος ὁ τὸν κυκεῶ πιώ[ν. (Ζ.) δίκα[ι]α δῆτα ταῦτα πάσχειν ἦν ἐµέ; (Η.) ἐροῦ βαδίζων ἱερέα τὸν τοῦ ∆ιός. (Ζ.) ὕβριζε, ταῦτα δ’ † ἔτ’ ὀφλήσεις ἐµοί. (Η.) ἔ̣τ̣[ι] γὰρ σὺ τοὐφείλειν λέγεις οὕτως ἔ[χ]ων; (Ζ.) καὶ ναὶ µὰ ∆ία κλάοντα καθέσω σ’ [.] . . . . [ (Η.) καὶ τοῦτό µου τὸ χρέος καταψευδ[〈 l k l 〉 〈 x l 〉]α̣γ̣ε̣τ̣’ αὐτὸν καὶ παράδοτ’ ο.[〈 l k l 〉 〈 x l 〉]αρεστιν τῶν τοιούτων δ[〈 l k l〉 ἐ̣β̣ο[̣ υλ]όµην δ’ ἂν καὶ ∆ιόγνητον λαβ̣[εῖν τὸν ἱερόσυλον, ὅς ποτ’ ἦν τῶν ἕνδεκ[α, ὃ̣ς τῶν πανούργων ἐ[σ]τὶ τῶν νεωτ[έρων · πολλῷ κράτιστος, ὁπόταν εὖ τὸ σῶµ’ ἔχ[ῃ. ἐγὼ δὲ πάσῃ προαγορεύω τῇ πόλ[ει εἶναι δικαίους, ὡς ὃς ἂν δίκαιος ᾖ ]λ̣σ· ι̣κ̣ο̣ν· η̣ µ· [ . . . ]χ̣ων

1 δὴ δὲ] δῆθε Maas : δῆτα Hartman   Πείσανδρ[ο]ν Jensen   3 ἐπεί τιν᾽ ὄνθ᾽ αὑτοῦ ξένων Luppe   ἐπιξενοιν pap. : ἐπ〈ε〉ὶ ξένον Hartman   τιν’ οντ’ αυτου pap. : τιν’ ὄντ’ ἄσι|τον van Leeuwen   5 προσστάς Körte, van Leeuwen : προστάς pap.   Θεογένει ed. pr. : Θεογονει pap.   8 λ̣έψας Jensen : [κ]λ̣έψας ed. pr.   9 [λ]υτὸς Maas : [α]ὐτὸς ed. pr.   10 [τ]ὴν ed. pr.   11 [διασ]τρέφειν Croiset   13 ἀ[ρ]ιστητικώ- van Leeuwen ex Antiatt. ἀριστητικός : α|[ρ]ι̣στικώpap.   20 οὐ]δ̣’ Körte, van Leeuwen   24 ἡµῖν pap. : fort. ὑµῖν   ἔρηµ̣[ος ὤν scripsi : ἔρηµ[ος ἦν Körte   25 εἰ Körte, van Leeuwen : η pap.   ᾐσχύν[ετο] Körte, van Leeuwen   26 γε van Leeuwen, Wilamowitz : τε pap.   27 κινητήρ[ιον] “complures” Kassel–Austin : βινητήρ[ιον] van Leeuwen   28 ἑταιρείας Demianczuk : ἑταιρίας pap.   ἐσκ[ὠψαµεν] Mayer : ἔσκ[ωπτ᾽ ἀεί] van Leeuwen : ἐσκ[εύακεν] Körte   29 τρυγῳδο̣[ῖς µέµφεται] van Leeuwen : τρυγῳδο̣[ὺς ζηµιοῖ] Jensen : τρυγῳδο̣[ὺς λοιδορεῖ] Luppe   30 Μαντίνειαν ed. pr. : Μαντίνεαν pap.   µέµ[νησθ’ ὅτι] Wilamowitz   31 ἐῶντ[ας] Edmonds : ἐῶντ[ος] van Leeuwen   [ἐµβαλεῖν] Wilamowitz   32 δήσειν τοὺς Wilamowitz : δησ᾽ ετους (ι supra τ script.) pap.    33 α̣[ἱρεῖταί ποτε] Wilamowitz   34 προβατατεκν, supra τεκν script. αυτω   κ[αρπὸν φέροι] Wilamowitz : κ[αρποὺς φέροι] van Leeuwen   35 ΑΡ(?) vel ΑΡΜ(?) in marg. pap., Ἁρµ(όδιος) Edmonds γὰρ ἰ̣δε̣ῖ̣[ν Luppe   36 ἐκπαγλ[οτατ ed. pr. : ἐκπαγκλ[ pap. : ἐκπαγλ[οτάτη καὶ

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

315

φιλτάτην] Körte   37 . Μ in marg. leg. ed. pr. : ΠΡ/ pro Πρ(όβουλος) Jensen : ΕΠ pro ἐπ(ιστάτης τῶν πρυτάνειων) Edmonds   38 φη[µι] Körte    41 χαλκίον Casaubon : χαλκεῖον Ath.   42 πέττειν τι[ pap. : πέττειν τινὰ Casaubon : τινὰ πέττειν Ath.   44 [ἐµοὶ µελήσε]ι̣ Schoene   45 [γν]ώσεσθε Keil   46 [εἰ]σι Körte   47 [ἡνί]κ’ Körte   48 suppl. Wilamowitz ex Cratin. fr. 71 ἥβης ἐκείνης, νοῦ δὲ τοῦδε καὶ φρενῶν   49 ἡδ〈υσ〉µάτων Luppe : [δωρη]µάτων Jensen   51 [οἴ]χεται vel [προσέρ]χεται Körte 53 [π]ρόσθεν Körte   55 [τὴ]ν Körte   56 [Π]υρωνίδην “complures” Kassel–Austin    59 [κ]α̣[ραδ]οκῶ Körte   61 κ̣[ιχόν]τες Jensen   64 [κἀµο]ὶ δοκ̣ῶ Edmonds   τού[σδ’] Wilamowitz   ἰ[δεῖν] Page   65 [καθ]ηµένους Körte, Wilamowitz   παρ[ὰ νεκρῶν] Wilamowitz   67 ἑστηκὼ[ς] Körte, Wilamowitz   68 [α]ὐτὸ[ν] Körte, Wilamowitz   69/70 [ἔ]µολε̣ς Schoene   70/71 πολιτῶ[ν] Jensen   72 fort. κ[ερδανεῖς]   73 [ὅ]δ’ van Leeuwen, Wilamowitz   σ[ὺ] Wilamowitz    74 [ὃ]ς Jensen   75 [’ ἀ]ν̣ά̣ν̣δρους Körte   ἄνδρ[ας] Körte, van Leeuwen    79 αὐτ[ί]χ’ Jensen : αὐτ[ί]κ’ ed. pr. : αὐτ[ὸ]ς̣ Luppe   80 [δί]καιός “complures” Kassel–Austin    81 [ἦλθε ξέν]ος Körte : [Ἐπιδαύρι]ος Jensen   ἀγο[ρὰ]ν Körte, van Leeuwen   82 init. [ἐξῆλθε] Jensen   [κρ]ίµνων “complures” Kassel–Austin    τὴ[ν] Körte   84 [ἐλ]θὼν Körte   85 [τί] ἔδρασας Körte   86 [ἔφ]ην Körte : [ἔτλ]ην Kraus : [ἐξ]ῆν Tammaro   κελεύειν] κελεύων Körte   87 [δοῦν]αι Körte, van Leeuwen   στατ[ῆ]ρας Körte   88 ἐκ[έ]λευσέ van Leeuwen   90 [διδοὐς δὲ ποι]είτω Körte   93 ]ων ἔπραξεν Körte : ]ωνπραξεν pap.   94 φρενων ed. pr. : φρχνων, i. e. Φρύνων Jensen   ἀπέκλεισ[έ µ᾽] vel ἀπεκλεισ[έν Jensen    96 [ἐπρ]αξάµην Wilamowitz   οὐ λέγω ed. pr. : οὐδ̣᾿ ἐγὼ Luppe   98 [µᾶ]λ̣λ̣ο̣ν Jensen   102 suppl. van Leeuwen ex E. fr. 507.1   103 [µ]αρτύροµαι Wilamowitz, van Leeuwen : [µ]αρτύροµαισ᾿ pap.   ο̣[ὐ]κ̣ Jensen   ἀγωνι[ο]ύµ[εθα Wilamowitz    104–5 suppl. Körte, van Leeuwen   106 δίκα[ι]α Körte   108 ταῦτα δ’ † ἔτ’] ταυταδ’ οντ, ετ supra οντ script. pap. : ταῦτα 〈πάντα〉 δ’ ἔτ’ van Leeuwen : ταῦτα δ’ 〈οὖν〉 ἔτ’ Jensen   109 ἔ̣τ̣[ι] Jensen : τ̣[ί] Luppe   ἔ[χ]ων van Leeuwen   110 [ἐ]ν̣ ν̣ε̣κ̣[ροις] Luppe   111 µου] µοι Edmonds   112 [ἀλλ᾽ ἀπ]ά̣γ̣ε̣τ̣’ Jensen    Οἰ[νεῖ ταχύ] Körte   113 [γ]άρ ἐστιν van Leeuwen : [π]άρεστιν Schmid    δ[εσπότης] Körte : δ[ηµοτῶν] Schmid   114–15 suppl. Jensen   116 ἐ[σ]τὶ van Leeuwen   νεωτ[έρων] Körte, van Leeuwen   117 ἔχ[ῃ] Körte, van Leeuwen    118 προαγορεύω Kassel : προσαγορεύω pap.   πόλ[ει] van Leeuwen

5

10

And they say that Peisander actually got twisted while he was eating lunch yesterday, † [corrupt] † he denied he would feed. And Pauson, standing next to Theogenes as Theogenes was dining to his heart’s content on one of his own cargo-ships, struck him once and tried to twist him. And Theogenes lay unconscious there all night long farting.

316

Eupolis

15

20 22

First of all, then, one ought to twist Callias, and the people in the Long Walls at the same time, since they are lunchier than us, and Niceratus of Acharnae … offering bushels … to each man … ].ιη of his money … and I wouldn’t pay a penny ]ν ].ος

12 verses are missing from the text

25

30

and he thinks it appropriate to be a political leader, even though yesterday or the day before he had no phratry-brothers among us; and he wouldn’t even speak Attic, if he weren’t embarrassed in front of his friends. Of the apolitical whores, at any rate, and not the haughty ones … But he should have nodded his head and entered the brothel; but … his friends … of their club … and he sneaks up on the generalships, and … the comic … Don’t you recall that at Mantineia, when the god thundered at you and the generals wouldn’t let you attack, he said that he would bind them in the stocks, like it or not? Anyone who elects men like this to office … may his flocks be infertile and his land bear no crops. (A.) Greeting, fatherland! For you (acc.) … most stunning of all cities … (B.) What’s going on here? … (A.) And I greet … all πρ̣ο̣[ προ̣[

35

40

A minimum of 10–12 verses are missing from the text 41

(Γ.)

Heat up the cauldron for us, and order someone to bake

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

45

50

53/54 55

58 58/59 59

317

sacrificial cakes, so that we can be associated with entrails. (∆.) … these things and they will be done. … you (pl.) will learn to what extent the demes … are now in a condition … when you and Solon ruled over that famous youth and that famous sense and intelligence. ]α̣ν̣.ηδ〈 l 〉µατων ]ο̣ι[..]α̣ συχνή ]χεται ]τονη … before … … that you not betray eagerness Pyronides (acc.) whom (masc. pl.) he brought up … … to greet … I’m waiting to see

Approximately 10–12 lines have been lost 60/61 61/62 62/63 65

69/70 70/71

75 76/77

(Chorus) ]. τος… for ωσ .[ … the men, whom we are so pleased to have encountered. (Ε.) … I think that I now see these men sitting, whom they say have come from the dead. …].α on the one hand, in fact, of his friends προστ.[ as standing (masc. nom. sing.) upright … is of them Pyronides (nom.), let us ask him … (Chorus) Tell me, O … did you go ετ[… from/by citizens κ[… … Tell me, why/what … ? (Pyr.) I here am the very man whom you (sing.) … who (masc. nom. sing.) Athens (acc.) for many years … … 〉].αστ[’ unmanly men (acc.) … (Ε.) Quite clearly, in fact, these men to/for us …

An unknown number of verses are missing from the text, and the assignment of what follows to Dêmoi cannot in any case be regarded as secure 78

]ι̣ν̣[….]ν̣τε προσ.[.]..[

318

Eupolis

80

85

90

95

(Ζ.) … I’m ritually pure, for starters. (Η.) … I’m a just man. Say what you have to say! (Ζ.) … ].ος once to the Agora, after he drank some kykeon … with his moustache full of barley groats. … ]ων this I noticed somehow. And quickly going straight to the foreigner’s house— (Η.) What did you do, you shameless, reckless man? (Ζ.) I said that I encouraged the stranger to give me 100 gold staters; because he was rich. … ]ι̣ον he urged me to say that after he drank … ]ν̣[ … and then I got the gold. (Η.) … let a man do whatever he wants. … ]τῆς how great (fem.) of justice! (Ζ.) … ]η̣τ̣η̣ν nor any divisions (?; acc.) at all … ]ων the Epidaurian (nom.) accomplished … ]ρ̣φρ.νων I/he locked out outside. (Η.) … ]ρ̣αν you resolved to your considerable disadvantage. (Ζ.) … and I charged money, I’m not saying … of the dead. (G.) This is deserving of gratitude … rather if someone is patently dead. ]υ· σ· π̣ ουτ̣[

10–12 verses are missing from the text 100

105

110

]σ· ι̣ [..]ι̣ [.]α̣ι ̣ τωχει̣ .[…]ι̣ ι ̣ […]σι̣ [ ]µ̣εδ’ ἢ ταῦτ’ ἂν 〈…〉 .π̣οισ. 〈…〉 χρηµ . α[ (Η.) Why don’t you let the dead be dead? (Ζ.) I declare you all witnesses! What? Let’s take this to court! After summoning me, you’re tying me up and acting unjustly. (Η.) It’s not I who tied you up, but the foreigner who drank the kykeon. (Ζ.) Was it just that this be done to me? (Η.) Go and ask the priest of Zeus! (Ζ.) Keep up your insolence! † You’ll owe me for this as well. (Η.) What? Are you still using the word “owe” in your condition? (Ζ.) By Zeus, I’ll make you regret … (Η.) This is another matter in which you falsely accuse me … … take him and turn him over ο.[… ! … 〉]αρεστιν of men like these δ[ … I would have liked to have caught Diognetus as well,

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99) 115

120

319

the temple-robber, who was one of the Eleven at one point, and who is far and away the most powerful of the younger villains—when he’s physically healthy. But I for my part issue a public order to the entire city that they should be good men; since anyone who’s good ]λ̣σι̣κ̣ο̣νη̣µ[ . . . ]χ̣ων

Antiatt. α 63 ἀριστητικός· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔθος ἔχων ἀριστᾷν. Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις (vv. 13–14) aristêtikos: in place of “accustomed to have lunch”. Eupolis in Dêmoi (vv. 13–14) Ath. 3.123a ὅτι … οἴδασι θερµὸν ὕδωρ Εὔπολις µὲν ἐν ∆ήµοις παρίστησι (vv. 41–3)· ―― Eupolis in Dêmoi establishes that (the ancients) know about hot water (vv. 41–3): ―― Poll. 9.69 ἐγὼ δὲ τὸ ἐν ταῖς Θεσµοφοριαζούσαις Ἀριστοφάνους (fr. 345) εἰρηµένον “τὸ χαλκίον θερµαίνεται” οὕτω πως ἤκουον ὡς εἰς πότον εὐτρεπιζοµένων τῶν γυναικῶν. ταὐτὸν δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν τοῖς Εὐπόλιδος ∆ήµοις ἔστιν εἰρηµένον But I take the phrase “the cauldron is being heated” in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae (fr. 345) somehow in this way, that the women are making preparations for drinking. This same expression is used in Eupolis’ Dêmoi (vv. 41–2) as well Hsch. θ 817 θύα· ἀρτύµατα. Κύπριοι. ἔνιοι τὰ ἀρώµατα. Καλλίµαχος (fr. 564). Εὔπολις (v. 42) τὰ πέµµατα thya: seasonings; (thus the) Cyprians. But some (use the word to mean) spices; Callimachus (fr. 564). Eupolis (v. 42) (uses it to mean) cakes

Meter 1–20 are a pair of matching iambic dimeter strophes (4 ~ 14, 7 ~ 17, and 10 ~ 20 catalectic), and 21–2 are likely iambic dimeter as well; see Interpretation. 23–34 are trochaic tetrameter catalectic. 35–52, 64–8, 73–120 are likely all iambic trimeter. 53 and 58 cannot be iambic trimeter and are instead probably trochaic, like 60–3 and 69–72. If so, the verses that follow are likely trochaic as well, and in each case these are the remains not of two lines (as in the Kassel–Austin numbering of the text) but of three trochaic dimeters, the last of which is catalectic. 60–3 and 69–72 are trochaic dimeter.

320

Eupolis

5

10

15

20 23

25

30

35

llkl llkl llkl llkl † klklklll † 〈x〉lkl kll llkl lrkl llkl llkl llkl kll llkl klkl klkl krkl llkl kll klkl llkl llkl llkl llkl llkl klkl kll llkl klkl 〈x〉lkl klkl 〈xlkl〉 kll 〈xlkl xl〉kl llkl 〈xlkl〉 llkl kll 〈lklx lkl〉k | lkll lkl lkll lkll | lklk l〈kl〉 lklk lkll | lkll l〈kl〉 lklk lkll | lkll l〈kl〉 lkll lkll | lkll l〈kl〉 lkll lkll | lkll 〈lkl〉 lklk lkll | lklx 〈lkl〉 lklk lkll | lkll 〈lkl〉 lkll lkll | lkl〈k lkl〉 lkll lkll | lkl〈l lkl〉 lkll lkll | lk〈ll lkl〉 lkrl lklk | lkl〈l lkl〉 llkl k|lk|r 〈xlkl〉 llrl | lr〈kl xlkl〉 rlrl x|〈lkl xlkl〉 llkl 〈x|lkl xlkl〉

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

40

45

50

52 53 53/54 54 55

60/61 61/62 62/63

65

69/70 70/71

ll〈kl xlkl xlkl〉 x〈lkl xlkl xlkl〉 〈xlkl xlkl〉 klkl llkl l|lkl llkl klkl llk|l klkl 〈xlkl〉 k|lk|l klkl 〈xlkl〉 llk|l llkl 〈xlkl xl〉k|l rlkl 〈xlkl k〉|lkl klkl llkl l|lkl llkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉 llkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉 llkl 〈xlkl xlkl xl〉kl 〈xlkl xlkl xl〉kl 〈lklx lklx〉 〈lk〉lx 〈lklx〉 〈lklx〉 lkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉 klkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉 llkl 〈xlkl xlk|〉l klkl 〈lklx lklx〉 lkll 〈lklx〉 〈lkl〉k lkl 〈lk〉lk l〈kl〉k

l〈k〉lk lklk lklk lkl 〈x〉lkl l|lk|l llk〈l〉 〈k〉lkl l|lk|l lk〈kkl〉 〈xl〉kl l|lkl l〈lkl〉 llkl ll〈kl〉 ll〈kl〉 llkl klk|l x〈lkl〉 lkll 〈lk〉rk l〈klx〉 lkll 〈l〉klk 〈lkl〉 〈k〉lkl klk|l x〈lkl〉

321

322

Eupolis

75 76/77 79 80

85

90

95

98 101

105

110

〈l〉lkl l|lkl 〈xlkl〉 〈x〉l〈k〉l l|l〈kl xlkl〉 llkl llk|l l〈lkl〉 〈xlkl〉 ll〈k〉|l klkl 〈xlk〉l k|lkl krkl 〈xlk〉l k|lrl rlkl 〈xlk〉l l|lkl lrkl 〈xlk〉l l|lkl llkl 〈l〉lkr l|lk|l klkl 〈k〉klkl klk|l klkl 〈k〉lkl l|lkl llkl 〈l〉lkl k|rk|l llkl 〈xlk〉r rlk|l lrkl 〈xlkl x〉|lrl klkl 〈xlk〉l llk|r rlkl 〈xlkl x〉|lkl rlkl 〈xlk〉l l|lk|l klkl 〈xlk〉l klk|l klkl 〈xlkl〉 xlrl 〈x〉lkl 〈xlk〉l krk|l llkl 〈xlk〉l klk|l klkl 〈xl〉kl l|lk|r klkl 〈xlk〉l k|lkl krkl 〈xl〉kl l|l〈k〉l 〈x〉lk〈l〉

klkl k|lkl klkl llkl k|lkl klkl krkl l|lkl llkl rlkl l|rk|l rlkl klkl k|lk|l llkl klkl l|rkl llkl klkl k|†kk llkl k〈k〉lkl llkl | llkl llkr klk|r l〈lkl〉 llkl k|rkl l〈lkl〉 〈xl〉rl l|lkr x〈lkl〉 〈xl〉kl l|lkl l〈lkl〉

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

115

119

323

klkl l|lkl llk〈l〉 krkl k|lk|l llk〈l〉 llkl l|lk|l kl〈kl〉 llkl k|rk|l klk〈l〉 klkl l|rkl llk〈l〉 llkl l|lk|l klkl

Discussion Lefebvre 1911. 23–8; Keil 1912. 247–51; Körte 1912; Maas 1912; Mayer 1912; Pohlenz 1912. 317; van Leeuwen 1912. 131–6, 207–8; Bignone 1912–1913; Jensen 1916; Robert 1918. 168–79, 320; Körte 1919. 1–12, 13–28; Wilamowitz 1919. 69 = 1962. 307–8; Müller 1926; Olivieri 1929–1930; Schmid 1938. 413–26; Edmonds 1939; Ehrenberg 1947. 55–6; Eitrem 1948. 171–3; Eitrem 1949; Fraenkel 1962. 201–4; Plepelits 1970. 34–169; Austin 1973. 84–92; Sartori 1975; Koenen 1978 pll. xlix–liv; Carrière 1979. 242–51; Tammaro 1979; Luppe 1982; Beta 1994; Zimmermann 2000. 276–9; Telò and Porciani 2002; Storey 2003. 126–8, 142–69; Telò 2003. 26–37; Revermann 2006. 316–18; Telò 2007. 41–5, 312–458, 462–533; Torello 2008a. 47–54 Citation context For PCair. 43227, see Interpretation. The Antiatticist is most likely citing 13–14 ἀριστητικός (attested nowhere else) in order to defend the use of the word against an attack from another scholar. EM p. 143.21 offers the same gloss, but without the reference to Eupolis. The reference to 41–2 at Poll. 9.69 comes from an extended discussion of whether the ancients used warm water, and if so for what purposes, that may well be from the same source as Ath. 3.123a (where not only 41–3 but also Antiph. fr. 175 are quoted). Cf. Antiatt. θ 12 θερµαίνεσθαι· οὐ µόνον τὸ ὕδωρ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ λεβήτιον ἢ χαλκίον. Little can be said about the origin of the lexicographic note that preserves the reference to 43 θύη in Hesychius, which has come down to us in a highly condensed form. Cf. EM p. 457.6–7 θυία· ἐφ’ ἧς τὰ θύα, ὃ ἐστὶ τὰ θυµιάµατα· καταχρηστικῶς δὲ καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ θυίαι. 48 is quoted by Jul. Misop. 4.12 p. 339 ἀναµιµνήσκεσθε νῦν ἥβης ἐκείνης νοῦ τε ἐκείνου καὶ φρενῶν and Synes. Ep. 130.33 καὶ στένοµεν µεµνηµένοι ἥβης τ’ ἐκείνης νοῦ τ’ ἐκείνου καὶ φρενῶν, both probably drawing on a collection of commonplaces and in any case without reference to Eupolis or Dêmoi. Text Since the original publication of PCair. 43227, scholars have invested enormous effort in attempting to restore its lost or damaged portions. All this work is speculative, some of it aggressively so, and little interpretative

324

Eupolis

weight can be placed on any of it.201 Readers interested in a more complete report of the conjectures and further extensions of them are referred to Telò 2007 in particular. In 1, the papyrus’ καὶ δὴ δέ is a unique combination of particles and difficult to explain, hence Maas’ καὶ δῆθε, with δῆθε (generally with a nu at the end, but cf. E. El. 268) taken to be expressing contempt or indignation (Denniston 1950. 264–6). As Plepelits 1970. 43 notes, however, the paradosis καί merely indicates that the catalogue of individuals to be abused continues from the now-lost verses preceding this one; δὴ δέ finds parallels at Ar. Lys. 523; Ec. 195, 315, 827 (all ὅτε δὴ δ’, on which see Denniston 1950. 220) and adesp. com. fr. 1105.44 (νῦν δὴ δ’); and neither δῆθε nor δῆθεν is attested elsewhere in comedy, all of which suggests that the text as the papyrus presents it ought to be retained. Hartman’s καὶ δῆτα (“and in fact”; see Denniston 1950. 278 “not uncommon in colloquial Greek”) would do, but is further from the paradosis, and no obvious reason for the alleged corruption presents itself. 3 is too corrupt to be convincingly restored, but patently conceals an object for θρέψειν in 2 that agrees with ἀριστῶντα in 2, and refers somehow to a foreigner or the like. In 5, the papyrus’ προστάς is unmetrical, and προσστάς (Körte, van Leeuwen) is an easy fix. The same error occurs at Ar. Pax 1183, and cf. 118. Further on in 5, the papyrus’ Θεογονει is not an Athenian name, hence ed. pr.’s Θεογένει. In 8, Jensen’s λ̣έψας better fits the amount of space available on the papyrus than does ed. pr.’s [κ]λ̣έψας. In 9, ed. pr.’s [α]ὐτὸς is flat, and Maas’ [λ]υτὸς provides exactly the sense that is wanted. In 13–14, van Leeuwen’s ἀ[ρ]ιστητικώτεροι is supported by the authority of the Antiatticist (with specific reference to Dêmoi); the word in question is so rare and the papyrus’ α[ρ]ιστικωτεροι so unlikely that there can be no doubt that the correction should be accepted. For the implications for the structure of the song from which 1–22 come, and for the number of lines of text per page and thus the size of the gaps between e. g. 22 and 23 and 40 and 41, see Interpretation. In 24, Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 490.4–7 claims that πρῴην rather than πρώην is the correct form of the word.

201

Cf. Jensen 1916. 354 “Vermutungen, die in der Überlieferung keine feste Stütze haben, lasse ich lieber beiseite, denn sie pflegen der Erkenntnis der Wahrheit mehr zu schaden als zu nützen”.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

325

Further on in 24, forms of ὑµεῖς and ἡµεῖς are routinely confused with one another in transmission. Here ὑµῖν would match ὑµᾶς and oὐ µέµ[νησθ(ε);] in 30 and ὑµῖν in 31. At the end of 24, I print ἔρηµ̣[ος ὤν] in place of Körte’s ἔρηµ[ος ἦν], tying 23 and 24 more closely together. In 26, the papyrus’ ΓΕ is a simple majuscule error for ΤΕ. In 27, van Leeuwen’s βινητήρ[ιον] is apparently a somewhat uglier term than the traditional κινητήρ[ιον]. Either might be right, but there is no reason to emend. For the spelling of ἑταιρείας (thus Demianczuk : ἑταιρίας pap.) in 28, see Finglass 2011 on S. Ai. 682–3. In 30, Μαντίνειαν (ed. pr.) for the papyrus’ Μαντίνεαν is a matter of metrical necessity. The same is true of Casaubon’s χαλκίον for Athenaeus’ χαλκεῖον in 41. In 31, Edmonds’ ἐῶντ[ας] refers to the generals (who were trying to prevent the Athenians from joining battle), whereas van Leeuwen’s ἐῶντ[ος] would refer to the god. Only the former make sense of the threat in 32. At the end of 42, Athenaeus has got the words in the wrong order (corrected already by Casaubon). Wilamowitz restored 48 on the basis of Cratin. fr. 71 (from Euneidai); see Interpretation. For Edmonds’ [κἀµο]ὶ δοκ̣ῶ (“I also think”) in 64, cf. ἐµοὶ δοκῶ at Antiph. fr. 186.2 (conjectural) and unemphatic µοι δοκῶ at e. g. Chionid. fr. 2.1; Ar. Eq. 620; Pax 61; Clearch. Com. fr. 5.2. 61–3 are trochaic dimeter (63 catalectic), but have been misdivided in the papyrus, which presents them as 4 lines (the last three containing 13, 14 and 14 letters, respectively).202 69–72 are likewise presented in the papyrus as four lines (printed and numbered thus by Kassel–Austin, without comment), the surviving portions of which contain 8, 6, 10 and 7 letters, respectively. These lines are metrically chaotic, but they too can be converted into three trochaic dimeters (the last catalectic) in such a way that the necessary metrical supplements allow the four lines in the papyrus to seemingly more or less match the figure of 13–14 letters per line in the papyrus’ version of 61–3 (8 + lk, 6 + klx, 10 + l, 7 + lkl). The disadvantage of this division is that it requires a large amount of information to be packed into a very small space in 69–72, if 69/70 ὦ[ is followed by a vocative and the chorus asks Pyronides whether he is the man who went to the Underworld (see Interpretation).

202

| in the text marks points at which the papyrus’ line-divisions fall, as also in 69–72.

326

Eupolis

76–7 appear in the papyrus as two metrically chaotic lines (printed and numbered thus by Kassel–Austin, without comment), the first containing twelve letters. ἡµῖν occasionally appears in the form ἧµιν (sc. with the second syllable short) when followed by a vowel (see Stamma 2014. 227–8 on Phryn. Com. fr. 38). If the word is printed thus, the two lines can be combined to produce a partial trimeter; see on 61–3 for the papyrus’ mishandling of other portions of text split up into artificial units of similar length. If so, (Γ.) rather than the coryphaeus is likely the speaker. οιδ̣[ might represent either οἵδε (in reference to the [ἀ]ν̣άν̣ δ̣ ρους ἄνδρ[ας] mentioned in 75) or more likely οἶδ(α) (cf. Ar. Nu. 250 εἰδέναι σαφῶς, 343 οὐκ οἶδα σαφῶς; Pax 337 οὐ γὰρ ἴστε πω σαφῶς, 1302 εὖ γὰρ οἶδ’ ἐγὼ σαφῶς; Av. 83 οἶδα µὲν σαφῶς; Ra. 322 ὡς ἂν εἰδῶµεν σαφῶς; Pl. 360 οἶδα γὰρ σαφῶς). 90 is normally assigned to (Z.) rather than to (H.). But 89, by echoing 85–6, is rhetorically appropriate as the self-satisfied conclusion to the first section of (Z.)’s narrative. As he has already had four lines of text (matching 81–5), I take this to be the set-up for (H.)’s sarcastic characterization of (Z.)’s enormous commitment to justice in 91. ἀπεκλεισ in 94 ought properly to be ἀπεκλῃσ; see Barrett 1964 on E. Hipp. 498–9; Threatte 1980. 370. The change of speaker in the middle of 97 is indicated on the papyrus by means of a dicolon added by a second hand. At the beginning of 103, Luppe 1982. 23 advocates for the papyrus’ [µ]αρτύροµαι σ(ε). But the verb does not take the accusative in the sense “I call for witnesses against you”, a fact that likely escaped the copyist, who thought that a direct object needed to be supplied. The end of 103 is normally punctuated τί δ’ ο̣[ὐ]κ̣ ἀγωνι[ο]ύµ[εθα;, literally “Why shall we not go to court?”, i. e. “Give me one reason not to sue you!” But there seem to be no parallels for the alleged use of τί + οὐ + future, and I take τί δ’ to be instead a colloquial interjection (see Interpretation) and what follows to be a pseudo-question equivalent to a threat. Luppe 1982. 24–5 assigns 107 and 109 to (Θ.), a third character who only enters the preserved portion of the conversation in this scene after (Ζ.) has been bound and reduced to spluttering threats, and 110 to (Η.). But 108 (n.) seems to follow up on 106 and ought therefore to be addressed to the same person, and the threat in 110 is fully in character for (Ζ.) but too coarse for the generally elevated attitude adopted by (Η.) up to this point. If a third character is involved, he might nonetheless be assigned 115–17. Kassel–Austin place an obel at the beginning of 108, but the problem appears to lie in the middle of the line, where a word has fallen out of the text.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

327

In 111, Kassel–Austin tacitly correct the papyrus’ µου (dependent on καταψευδ[,; cf. Ar. Pax 533 ταύτης καταψευδόµενος) to Edmonds’ ethical µοι (“in my eyes, as far as I’m concerned”). For Körte’s Οἰ· [νεῖ ταχύ in 112, cf. fr. 172.15–16 εἶτ’ αὐτὸν ὁ παῖς θύραζε / ἐξαγαγὼν ἔχοντα κλῳὸν παρέδωκεν Οἰνεῖ (“and then the slave dragged him outside with a collar around his neck and handed him over to Oineus”) with nn. 115 is necessary for neither the sense nor the syntax, and the words might well represent a fortuitously metrical gloss that made its way into the text. In 118, the paradosis προσαγορεύω ought to mean “I address” + accusative, and Kassel (comparing Ar. Lys. 1214) emended to προαγορεύω, which often takes the dative (e. g. Hdt. 3.62.4; Antipho 6.35) and better fits the sense. Interpretation The portions of PCair. 43227 (from Aphroditopolis in Egypt) that preserve these lines consist of the badly damaged fragments of three folios from a papyrus codex, which accordingly have writing on both sides. Although Lefebvre published the Eupolis fragments along with the remains of the Cario Menander codex, the hands are different, as is the number of lines per page—30–32 here (see below on PCair. 43227 fr. 1), 35–37 in the Menander codex—and the folios are therefore most easily taken to be part of a different book. That all three fragments are in the same hand supports the notion that they belong together. That they all come from the same comedy, on the other hand, must be regarded as to some extent a matter of faith—the Menander codex, for example, contained at least five plays—and is dependent above all else on the repeated, seemingly significant references to the dead in 97–8 and especially 102. Körte dated the hand of the fragments to the 4th or 5th century CE. A second hand has added indications of change of speaker and a correction. Van Leeuwen was the first to note the overlap of 41–3 with a passage quoted from Eupolis’ Dêmoi by Athenaeus and thus to identify the play in question, at least in PCair. 43227 fr. 2,203 while Körte was the first to produce something like a full critical edition of the text. Jensen is responsible for the idea (generally accepted today) that PCair. 43227 fr. 2 is from the folio that immediately followed PCair. 43227 fr. 1, and for placing 41–59 before 60–77 (i. e. for identifying a recto and a verso for that fragment). Jensen also produced the first careful, integrated discussion of the fragments as a whole, not just with attention to the readings in individual verses but with full appreciation of matters of

203

If van Leeuwen’s correction of 13 is correct, the connection is seemingly confirmed for PCair. 43227 fr. 1 as well.

328

Eupolis

staging and the like. Photographic reproductions of the fragments are printed in Edmonds 1939 and Koenen 1978. PCair. 43227 fr. 1 recto 1–20 (from the top of the recto) are a pair of matching iambic dimeter strophes (4 ~ 14, 7 ~ 17, and 10 ~ 20 catalectic). But 1 continues a preceding thought and thus cannot be the beginning of the song, while 21–2 (at the bottom of the recto), although almost entirely lost, appear to be short lines like 1–20 rather than longer lines like 23–34 (from the top of the verso). 21–2 must accordingly be part of another iambic strophe matching 1–10 ~ 11–20. The latter occupy 10 and 8 lines of the papyrus text, respectively, and this in turn allows for the conclusion that the song must originally have been at least four strophes long, with another strophe entirely lost at the beginning and the final strophe occupying an additional 6–8 lines of text after 22. This thesis finds partial support in the observation of Luppe 1982. 17 that 11 is set three letters to the left of the lines above and below it, but that 1 is not written in the same way, suggesting that 11–20 in fact correspond not to 1–10 but to ten other lines that once stood above 1 in the text, with the initial line there similarly set to the left. If one assumes with Körte and Jensen that the trochaic section that follows in 23–34 was originally 16 lines long, as is the rule in most such sections in Aristophanes, four trochaic lines must also have lost in the gap between the bottom of the recto and the top of the verso. On this analysis, a total of 12 verses, occupying 10–12 lines of text, have been lost between 22 and 23, and each page of the codex contained 30–32 lines of text.204 Luppe himself preferred to leave 13–14 unemended, the consequence of which, when combined with his observation regarding the ekthesis of 11, is that 1–10 must respond not to 11–12 as (at least) the second and third in a series of (at least) four matching strophes, but to a series of verses that began at 21 or later and that represent the final portion of the strophe and antistrophe partially preserved in 1–10 (end of the strophe) and 11–20 (beginning of the 204

My calculations here largely follow those of Jensen 1916. 334–5, except that he argues for a figure of 27–30 lines per page, on grounds I do not understand. The calculations offered above are in any case the only evidence for the number of lines per page in the Dêmoi codex. The basis for the assertion at Storey 2003. 143 that “There is room for fourteen lines after line 20 on the recto” (repeated verbatim on p. 144, in neither case accompanied by discussion), showing that text equal in length to 1–10 plus four lost trochaic tetrameters would fill the gap and verify some of Luppe’s calculations, is unclear. Perhaps this is simply circular argument (since the size of the gap as specified in Kassel–Austin was determined by assuming that precisely this amount of material had been lost).

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

329

antistrophe). On this thesis, the minimum size of the gap between 22 and 23 remains the same. But because the strophe and the antistrophe might each have been not 20 but e. g. 23 or 26 lines long—which is to say that the central portion (size uncertain) of both the strophe and the antistrophe might be lost— the maximum size of the gap becomes impossible to determine. Fortunately, van Leeuwen’s correction of 13–14 appears to be secure; see Text. For the question of whether 1–34 are from the parodos or the parabasis of Dêmoi, see the general introduction to the play (Content). 1–20 The two central sections of a four-strophe iambic abuse-song reminiscent of those at fr. 386; Ar. Ach. 836–59 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Ra. 416–30 (the parodos); see Zimmermann 2000. 278–9 (who finds little to admire here in comparison to similar passages from Aristophanes, but acknowledges that the limited amount of information at our disposal means that we ought not to rush to judgment about who was the more talented poet). As expected in the genre, the identifiable targets are politically or socially prominent men; see in general Sommerstein 1996. The attacks have to do with the individual’s eating habits, including in some cases their unwillingness to share. The idea of “twisting” (διαστρέφω) or being twisted, sc. as a punishment of some sort (see 1–2 n.), is in evidence throughout until the text deteriorates in 15–20. 1–10 are a history of the “twisting” that went on “yesterday”, first at lunch-time (1–4) and then at dinner (5–8), with the consequences of the latter act continuing throughout the night (9–10). 11–20, by contrast, treat prospective targets, men who have not yet been “twisted” but deserve to be. 1–4 For Peisander (PA 11770; PAA 771270), see frr. [101.7]; 195 n.; Tuci 2012. 248–50. His alleged gluttony is referred to also in adesp. com. fr. 119.205 1 For καὶ δὴ δέ, see Text. 1–2 διεστράφθαι Cf. fr. 298.3 διεστραµµένος (“cross-eyed” vel sim.) with n., and add to the bibliography cited there Ceschi 2009. 114–17. 11–14 show that to be “twisted” is something one wishes on one’s enemies, and 8–10 make it seem that “twisting” a man knocks him down and out temporarily but not necessarily forever. The verb has been taken to have a colloquial sense equivalent to “rape anally” (see Mayer 1912. 830; Henderson 1991 § 364a, with older bibliography; Storey 2003. 144–5, also with bibliography and discussion; cf. LSJ s. v. III (the only example of the alleged use offered); “screwed” at Rusten

205

Pace Telò 2007. 324, there is no reason to take Peisander’s supposed gluttony to be the point of the reference to him as µέγας and a donkey-driver in fr. 195.2 (n.) or to follow Meineke in believing that Pl. Com. fr. 102 refers to him even if the fragment comes from a play entitled Peisandros.

330

Eupolis

2011. 233), which seems to be little more than a guess,206 or to mean “torture” (thus Wüst 1936; cf. adesp. com. fr. *450 τῇ κλίµακι / διαστρέφονται κατὰ µέλη στρεβλούµενοι, “they are twisted with ‘the ladder’, wrenched apart limb by limb”, although in this case the idea of torture depends on the other words used along with the verb, which in and of itself has no such color; Plepelits 1970. 36–7, noting that the fact that torture could not be applied to Athenian citizens would seem to make this interpretation unlikely; Beta 1994; Telò 2007. 328–31) or “wring (someone’s) neck” (Körte 1919. 27). The prefix is presumably an intensifier (LSJ s. v. διά D.IV–V) and the simplex can mean “torment” (LSJ s. v. Α.III.2, citing e. g. Antiph. fr. 175.4, of an upset stomach). But it is best to concede that we do not know the precise sense of the compound intended in this song, except that what was done to Peisander and Theogenes (8) and is wished for Callias and “those in the Long Walls” (11–12) is nothing good.

206

Mayer 1912. 830 compares Hsch. σ 1992 στρέφει· κάµπτει. λυγίζει. ἀποσείεται. διώκει. ψιλοῖ (“strephei: he bends, writhes, shakes off, pursues, strips”) and Poll. 4.101 µακτρισµὸς δὲ καὶ ἀπόκινος καὶ ἀπόσεισις καὶ ἴγδις ἀσελγῆ εἴδη ὀρχήσεων ἐν τῇ τῆς ὀσφύος περιφορᾷ (“But maktrismos and apokinos and aposeisis and igdis are lewd types of dances in which one wiggles one’s butt”), arguing that this information combined suggests that διαστρέφειν means “penitus in culum irrumpere”; thus also independently Maas. Henderson cites in support of an obscene interpretation of the verb Ar. Eq. 263 εἶτ’ ἀποστρέψας τὸν ὦµον αὐτὸν ἐνεκολήβασας (“then you twist his shoulder around and swallow him down”), which he characterizes in § 364 as “a metaphor from wrestling” that simultaneously “has a secondary meaning in the context, namely Cleon turning his victims around and twisting them into positions for enforced buggery”. There is no support for the latter point in the text itself, and even if there were, ἀποστρέψας would refer to turning the victim around so as to make the rape possible, not to the rape itself. Henderson also cites the “unquestionably obscene meaning” of the simplex στρἐφω, discussed in § 338. But of the comic passages he cites there in support of the meaning “to turn about (in coitus)”, at Ar. Lys. 839 this is precisely what Myrrhine is told not to do (she is merely to tantalize Cinesias, as part of which process she is to “roast and turn” him); at Pherecr. fr. 155.15 κάµπτων µε καὶ στρέφων (“bending and twisting me”; the personified Music is speaking about how various musicians/lovers abused her), “having sex with me” is only a secondary sense; and at Amphis fr. 20.4 the verb in the middle means “roll about (in bed)” but specifically without being able to achieve an erection. Henderson’s only other support for his obscene interpretation of the simplex is Anacr. PMG 417.4 ἡνίας δ’ ἔχων στρέφοιµί / σ’ ἀµφὶ τέρµατα δρόµου (“I would hold the reins and turn you about the race-course turning-points”), where the metaphor (woman as horse) is patently sexual but the verb belongs in the first instance to the vehicle.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

331

Aristophanes uses both χθές (e. g. Nu. 353; Ra. 726; also in Eupolis in 24) and ἐχθές (e. g. Nu. 175; Pax 72) metri gratia. Rutherford 1881. 370–2 takes the former to be an Ionic form, the latter the normal Attic. But both are in fact widely distributed outside of tragedy and other elevated genres, the word apparently being regarded as too undignified to be employed there. 2 ἀριστῶντα For ἄριστον (“brunch” or “lunch”), see 13–14 with n.; frr. 77.1; 269.1–2 n.; 374 n.; Heath 1998b, and contrast the reference to dinner in 6 and the night that followed in 10. 2–3 φασ᾽ Cf. φασιν in the iambic abuse song at Ar. Ra. 428; the similarly insinuating use of the word at e. g. Ar. Eq. 987, 1294; Pl. 149; and ἀκούω (“I hear”) serving the same purpose earlier in the same abuse song at Ar. Ra. 422. 4 In comedy, at least, imperfect ἔφασκε (〈 φάσκω) generally functions as merely a metri gratia alternative to aorist ἔφη (〈 φηµί); note e. g. Ar. Nu. 159–60 and V. 793–4, where questions about what someone said (εἶπε), in reference to a single, specific incident in the past, are answered with ἔφασκε. θρέψειν For the verb, here apparently referring to feeding a guest or dependent (cf. the corrupt 3 ἐπιξενοιν τιν’)—something Peisander declined to do, hence the punishment described in 1–2?—see fr. 226.1 n., and cf. similar uses in references to keeping/feeding parasites and the like at e. g. Arar. fr. 16.1; Eub. fr. 114.1; Alex. fr. 205.6; Timocl. fr. 8.8. 5–10 Aristophanes characterizes the painter Pauson (PAA 770370) as hungry at Th. 949–52 (abuse poetry; see Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.) and Pl. 602,207 and as a mocker at Ach. 854 (also an abuse song), all of which suggests that he “twists” Theogenes here (8) because Theogenes has dinner (6–7) but Pauson does not. For Theogenes/Theagenes, see fr. 135 n. The man in question is obviously well-to-do, even if he may have had less money than he pretended. That the secondary point of the attack, however, is that he—supposedly like Callias in 11–12—is wasting his estate on gluttony, and that this somehow justifies his punishment (thus Telò 2007. 342–3), is not obvious from the text itself. 6–7 δειπνοῦντι … / τῶν ὁλκάδων τιν’ αὑτοῦ A ὁλκάς was a broad, heavy merchant- or transport-ship used to move grain, wine and other commodities (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 152.4–5 ὁλκάδας / οἰναγωγούς, “holkades transporting wine”; Th. 6.22 σῖτον ἐν ὁλκάσι … ἄγειν, “to transport grain in holkades”; 207

Whether this man is to be identified with the Pauson (PAA 770375) referenced in Henioch. fr. 4 is, as Hunter 1979. 35 n. 61 (followed by Telò 2007. 338 n. 367) observes, impossible to say. But the name is very rare (only one other 5th-/4th-century example from Athens, a war-casualty from 409 BCE) and the Suda’s designation of Heniochus (test. 1) as a “Middle Comic” poet does not obviously mean much more than that he was first active (or first victorious?) only after Aristophanes’ death.

332

Eupolis

X. HG 5.1.23 ὁλκάδας γεµούσας τὰς µέν τινας σίτου, τὰς δὲ καὶ ἐµπολῆς, “holkades, some of them full of grain, others of merchandise”). Although Theogenes is said to be eating the ship itself, what he is actually doing is consuming its contents.208 πρὸς τὴν καρδίαν Literally “to suit his heart/mind”, i. e. “to his heart’s content”, the point being that Theogenes had as much food in his ship (7) as he could possibly want. Plepelits 1970. 49 compared πίνοντας πρὸς ἡδονήν at Pl. Smp. 176e. For the καρδία as the emotional and personal center of a person, cf. Ar. Ach. 1 with Olson 2002 ad loc. For the καρδία specifically as a center of desire, e. g. Ar. Eq. 1269 ἑκούσῃ καρδίᾳ; Th. 869; Ra. 54. 8 λέπω ought to mean “peel, shell” (cf. fr. 465 n.), but Timocl. fr. 31.3–4 ἑαυτοὺς ἀντὶ κωρύκων λέπειν / παρέχοντες ἀθληταῖσι (“they make themselves available to athletes in place of punching-bags to lepô”); Apollod. Car. fr. 5.10–11 λεποµένους ὁρᾶν / αὐτοὺς ὑφ’ αὑτῶν καὶ καταπίπτοντας νεκρούς (“to see them beating themselves up (lepomenous) and falling down dead”); Antiatt. λ 21 λέπει· ἀντὶ τοῦ τύπτε. Πλάτων Ἀφιεροῦντι (fr. 12)· λέπε τραχεῖαν ἔχων (“lepei: in place of ‘Strike!’. Plato in Aphierous (fr. 12): ‘Get a thick (whip) and lepe!’”) and Phryn. PS p. 87.17 λέπειν· τὸ ἐκδέρειν µαστιγοῦντα (“lepein: to flay by whipping”) (all cited by Kassel–Austin) suggest that the verb could also be used in an extended sense to refer to striking a person hard enough that if he were a nut, for example, his hull would be shattered. The point is thus apparently that Pauson delivered a single hard blow to Theogenes, which—in combination with the subsequent “twisting” (διέστρεφεν)—was enough to put him on the ground for hours (9–10). Regardless of whether ἅπαξ is taken with λέψας or διέστρεφεν, it ought to mean “a single time” (LSJ s. v. I), the point being that no second blow or “twisting” was required, rather than “just, simply” (LSJ s. v. II “after conditional and temporal Particles”). The word thus meshes better with the aorist participle than with the imperfect main verb. 9–10 Jensen 1939. 7 n. 2 (followed by Plepelits 1970. 52–3 and Kassel– Austin), quoting Od. 18.241–2 (Telemachus’ description of the beggar Iros

208

.

Kassel–Austin compare Mnesim. fr. 7.2 τὰ ξίφη δειπνοῦµεν ἠκονηµένα (“we dine on sharpened swords”). But the point there is that the speaker and his circle are so extraordinarily bellicose that they actually consume munitions, whereas in Eupolis the ship stands via a—doubtless colloquial (thus Plepelits 1970. 48)—synecdoche for its contents. For the idea, cf. Pherecr. fr. 1.3–4 κατεσθίεις / τῆς ἡµέρας µακρᾶς τριήρους σιτία (“in the course of the day you consume enough rations for a long ship”).

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

333

staggered by a blow from the disguised Odysseus), reasonably suggested that Maas’ [λ]υτός (literally “loosed”; not attested elsewhere before the 4th century BCE) refers to someone οὐδ’ ὀρθὸς στῆναι δύναται … / ἐπεὶ φίλα γυῖα λέλυνται (“unable to stand up, since his limbs have been set loose”). Cf. A. Pers. 913 λέλυται γὰρ ἐµοὶ γυίων ῥώµη (“the force of my limbs has been loosed”) with Garvie 2009 ad loc. [τ]ὴν νύχθ’ ὅλην Cf. fr. 247.4 ὅλην τὴν ἡµέραν with n. πεπορδώς is a ludicrous note and is accordingly reserved for the end of the line. Comic characters sometimes fart when they sleep, although elsewhere this is a sign of relaxation and comfort (Ar. Eq. 115; Nu. 9; cf. Ar. Ec. 464). If Theogenes is unconscious as a result of the blow Pauson fetched him, perhaps he is simply working through his dinner (cf. 6–7); Telò 2007. 346 suggests a (slightly off-topic) reference to his “swinishness” (fr. 135 n.). Perfect with present sense; cf. Ar. Nu. 392; Pax 335, and pluperfect with imperfect sense at Ar. V. 1305. For the more common present πέρδοµαι, e. g. Pherecr. fr. 93; Ar. Ach. 30. The verb is attested before the Roman period only in comedy; at Sophr. fr. *136; and in fr. mimorum papyr. 6.22 Cunningham, but goes back to an Indo-European root; cognate with English “fart”. 11–20 The subject is now not individuals who have already been “twisted”, as in 1–10, but others who should be. 11 οὖν marks the proposal that follows as somehow the logical consequence of what was said in 1–10 or perhaps what came before that (now lost). If something balanced πρῶτα µέν, it has not been preserved, and more likely no particular antithesis is intended (Denniston 1950. 382). 12–14 For the extraordinarily wealthy Callias III (PA 7826; PAA 554500) son of Hipponicus II of the deme Alopeke, see Kolakes introductory note (Content), and add to the bibliography cited there Cox 1989. There is no reason to think that the family fortune had collapsed by the time Dêmoi was composed, despite the general insistence to the contrary at Telò 2007. 348–50. The Long Walls were built in several phases in the 450s and 440s BCE to link the Themistoclean wall that surrounded the city of Athens itself (for which, see in general Theocharaki 2011; Athens was walled much earlier, but little is known of the archaic fortifications) with the harbors at Phaleron and Piraeus, where the fleet was. The dual serves to make it clear that the area in question is that between the Piraeus Long Walls, on the one hand, and the Phaleron Long Walls, on the other, each individual wall or set of walls being treated as a single structure, as commonly (MacDowell 1962 on And. 1.45). Thucydides notes expressly that the Long Walls were used as shelter during the invasions of Attica at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, when the rural population was pulled in from the countryside and there was insufficient space in the

334

Eupolis

city itself for them (2.17.3). Ar. Eq. 792–3 (424 BCE) and And. 1.45 (referring to events in 415 BCE), however, show that not everyone moved back to the land immediately when the invasions ceased after 425 BCE, suggesting that a semi-permanent refugee community was located inside the Long Walls until at least the end of the war (cf. X. HG 2.2.3, referring to events in 405 BCE). For the Long Walls themselves, see Cratin. fr. 326; Ar. fr. 569 ap. Harp. p. 92.7–10 = ∆ 44 Keaney; IG I3 440.127 (a reference to funds allotted for wall-building in 443/2 BCE); Th. 1.107.1, 108.3; 2.13.7; Pl. Grg. 455e; Aeschin. 2.172–3; Garland 1987. 167–9; Conwell 2008. 37–105 (putting the initial construction program in the 460s BCE, earlier than most other scholars would accept). The refugees’ living situation up against the Walls and cut off from their land, their local communities and their normal sources of livelihood cannot have been easy, and the fact that they are said to eat better than the chorus, and are indeed associated by them with Callias, must reflect the fact that the eponymous Demes are trapped outside the city, where the situation is even more desperate; cf. 45–7 with n. τοὺς ἐν µακροῖν τειχοῖν is treated as a single unit, hence the delayed position of θ’, which coordinates the words with Καλλίαν, on the one hand, and with 15 Νικήρατόν τ’ Ἀχαρνέα, on the other. ἀριστητικός (“lunchy”, i. e. able to eat a good lunch;209 see 3 n.) is attested only here and is likely a nonce-word. For the form of the adjective, see fr. *22 n., and cf. δειπνητικός at Ar. Ach. 1015–17 (adv.); Anaxipp. fr. 1.36. 15–17 Niceratus of Acharnae (PAA 710640) is otherwise unknown; see Storey 2003. 149 for other men from the same period bearing the same name. Acharnae (for which in general, see Kellogg 2013) was a rural deme; cf. 12–14 n. 16 For διδόντα meaning “offering” rather than “giving”, see fr. 271.1 n. A χοῖνιξ (mentioned as a grain-measure already at Od. 19.27–8; etymology uncertain, and probably substrate vocabulary) is a standard measure equal to four dry κοτύλαι or slightly less than 1.1 litres; cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 35 (wheat flour); Ar. Ach. 814 (salt); V. 718 (barley); Pax 1144 (beans), 1217 (figs); Ec. 45 (chickpeas); fr. 481 (barley meal); and see Broneer 1938. 222–4; Crosby 1949; Lang in Lang and Crosby 1964. 39–48. At Hdt. 7.187.2, a Persian soldier gets a minimum of one choinix of wheat per day; according to Th. 4.16.1, the Spartans trapped on Pylos in 425 BCE got two choinikes of barley-groats, plus some wine and meat, while the helots who accompanied them got half as much; at Ar. Ec. 422–6, the notion that the barley-groat-dealers might be required to supply everyone with three choinikes for dinner is treated as a 209

Telò 2007. 351 inexplicably argues instead for the sense “amanti dei pranzi più di noi”, which makes no sense in context.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

335

nice addition to a utopian fantasy;210 and at Men. Herôs 16–17, two choinikes (grain unspecified) is treated as more than sufficient for a slave (all passages cited by Plepelits). Cf. Jardé 1925. 128–36 (arguing for a standard equivalence of one choinix of wheat = two choinikes of wheat for military provisioning purposes); Foxhall-Forbes 1982, esp. 51–62 (offering experimental evidence to reject Jardé’s figures); O’Connor 2013 (identifying serious deficiencies in the Foxhall-Forbes calculations and arguing that Jardé was right). While we do not know the identities of the individuals to whom Niceratus was offering food, therefore, his crime is likely over-generosity rather than the opposite, with the complaint here being that none of this food makes its way to the chorus. For grain-doles to the population generally in the second half of the 5th century and associated complaints, see Ar. V. 715–18 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc. 20 [οὐ]δ̣’ ἂ̣ν̣ τριχὸς πριαίµην An emphatic rejection of someone or something, e. g. the men mentioned in 11–16 or their possessions, which the speaker unexpectedly declares worthless. For the image, cf. Ar. Ra. 613–14 “May I die if I stole anything belonging to you worth even a hair!” and perhaps Alc. fr. 39a.10 οὐδὲ τρίχ[, and for similar metaphorical expressions of exiguity, see frr. 4 µηδὲ τάγυρι with n.; 360 οὐδ’ ἔγκαφος (“not even a mouthful” vel sim.) with n.; Plaut. Cas. 347 non ego istuc verbum empsim tittibilicio; Miles 316 non ego tuam empsim vitam vitiosa nuce. PCair. 43227 fr. 1 verso 23–34 A full iambic strophe and four trochaic tetrameters have apparently been lost before these verses; see initial n. Direct address of the audience in the Theater, beginning with a bitter personal attack on a contemporary politician for his allegedly non-Athenian origins (esp. 24–5) and reckless and destructive behavior in the past (esp. 30–2), with this attack then converted into a reproach for the public’s seeming forgetfulness of the man’s past and a closing curse, if this is the sort of individual they intend to elect to office (33–4). The abuse is largely generic, and that which is not is obscure, so that very little concrete can be gleaned about the person in question beyond the fact that he was not a general in 418 BCE, when the Battle of Mantineia was fought (30–2 with n.). 23 does not mean that he had only recently entered politics, only that he was active at the time Dêmoi was performed. There is thus no possibility of identifying the man referred to here with the limited information at our disposal, despite numerous inconclusive attempts to do so: – Körte 1912. 299–300 thought of Syrakosios (for whom, see fr. 220 n.; mentioned in Poleis and in two plays from 414 BCE) 210

Neither this passage nor Ar. V. 440 refers to slave-rations (despite Telò 2007. 353).

336

Eupolis

– Bignone 1912–1913. 355–6 (followed by Schmid 1939. 415–17 and Chiavarino 1995. 19–20) suggested Hyperbolos (for whom, see the general introduction to Marikas, in which he was presented as a barbarian); but he was ostracized around 416 BCE, making an extended attack on him in Dêmoi unlikely (see the general introduction to the play, Date) – Jensen 1939, Plepelits 1970. 88–91, Kyriakidi 2007. 29 and Telò 2007. 400–1 all argue for Cleophon (PA 8638; PAA 578250), who was prominent after the ostracism of Hyperbolos and is attacked as a Thracian, i. e. a non-Athenian, at Ar. Ra. 678–82; Pl. Com. fr. 61 (full discussion of what is known of his career in Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 805) – Edmonds suggested Androcles (PA 870; PAA 128255), who is known to have been involved in the prosecution of Alcibiades in connection with the religious scandals of 415 BCE (And. 1.27) and was assassinated in 411 BCE (Th. 8.65.2) (see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1186–7) – Sartori 1975. 91–3, 96–8 made the case for but did not endorse Archedemos (for whom, see 9 n.), who is said to lack phratry-brothers at Ar. Ra. 417–18 (quoted in 24–6 n.); Demostratos (for whom, see fr. 103 n.), although he is supposed to have been from an old and prominent family and would thus be difficult to characterize as a non-Athenian; and Dieitrephes (PA 3755; PAA 323750; cautiously endorsed by Tuci 2014. 28–32), who is known to have been active in political and military affairs in the late 410s BCE (Ar. Av. 798–800 with Dunbar 1996 on 798; Th. 7.29; 8.64.1) and is attacked as “barely Attic” at Pl. Com. fr. 30 (see Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.) – Storey 2003. 158–9 adds as a long-shot Philinos son of Kleippides of the deme Acharnae (PAA 928030), who is named in an ostrakon from the vote in which Hyperbolos was ostracized around 416 BCE (Lang 1990 #659) and who Raubitschek 1954 took to be a brother of Kleophon (but see in general fr. 223 n.). See in general Sartori 1975. 87–98; Tammaro 1979. 421–2 (both adding the obvious but necessary caution that the individual in question might easily be someone of whom we hear little or nothing elsewhere); Storey 2003. 149–60, esp. 155–60; Kyriakidi 2007. 27–8; Telò 2007. 397–401. Alcibiades (for whom, see fr. 171 n.) was at Mantineia (Th. 5.61.2) and might easily have been involved in public disputes about how the campaign or the battle was to be conducted (32). But charges of non-Athenian origins (24–5) seem unlikely in his case even in comedy. 23 ἀξιοῖ δηµηγορεῖν Telò 2007. 360 compares [Lys.] 6.48 ἀξιοῖ νυνὶ µετέχειν τῆς πόλεως, ἀσεβῶν ἐν αὐτῇ (“he now thinks it right to have a share of the city, although he behaves impiously in it”). δηµηγορέω is colloquial 5th-/4th-century Athenian vocabulary; the verb is first attested at Ar. Eq. 956,

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

337

but the cognate noun or adjective δηµηγόρος is found already at A. Supp. 623 (text disputed; elsewhere in tragedy only at E. Hec. 254–5 δηµηγόρους / … τιµάς). Unlike δηµαγωγέω, which implies a dominant position in city politics, δηµηγορέω simply refers to participation in public debate; cf. Ar. Eq. 956 (a seagull representing Cleonymus); V. 35 (a whale representing Cleon); Ec. 111, 400, 429 (of various speakers in the Assembly). 29–32 make it clear that the individual in question has in fact been politically active in Athens for a number of years. 24–6 offer a series of reasons for why the man in question has no right to play a role in Athenian politics, whatever he may think (23). Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Ra. 418–19 ὃς ἑπτέτης ὢν οὐκ ἔφυσε φράτερας, νυνὶ δὲ δηµαγωγεῖ (“who when he was seven had grown no second-teeth”—punningly “had no phratry-brothers”—“but now is a political leader”; of Archedemos). 24 χθὲς … καὶ πρώην i. e. “just the other day, recently”. A colloquial set-phrase also attested at Ar. Ra. 726; Hdt. 2.53.1 πρώην τε καὶ χθὲς ὡς εἰπεῖν λόγῳ (“the day before yesterday and yesterday, as it were”); Antipho fr. 57 Thalheim; Isoc. 6.27; Pl. Grg. 470d; Lg. 677d ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν χθὲς καὶ πρῴην (“yesterday and the day before yesterday, so to speak”); D. 18.130 with Wankel 1976 ad loc. (p. 708), comparing Il. 2.303 χθιζά τε καὶ πρωΐζ(α); 44.42.211 For παρ’ ἡµῖν, see fr. 384.2 n. and on 30–2 below. φρατέρων ἔρηµ[ος ὤν] i. e. he had never been admitted to a phratry and thus—the crucial point—was not an Athenian citizen at that point, having somehow surreptitiously managed to get himself onto the rolls in the very recent past. For phratries and phratry admission processes, and their direct connection to Athenian citizenship in this period, see fr. 130 n.; Ar. Av. 764–5, 1669–70; Ra. 416–18; Lambert 1993. 25–57, esp. 31–43. Balanced by a reference to “friends”, the average man’s other basic set of peers, in 25 (n.). 25 Cf. Ar. Ra. 678–82 (Cleophon talks like a barbarian Thracian); Pl. Com. fr. 183.1 οὐ γὰρ ἠττίκιζεν (“for he didn’t speak Attic”, followed by a description of a pair of supposed pronunciation errors; conventionally taken to refer to Hyperbolos). Here, on the other hand, it is acknowledged that the man in question can speak Attic, even if he does not do so of his own free will. On evidence for non-standard Attic generally, Colvin 2000. 281–7 (283–4 on this fragment). άττικίζω is properly “act like someone from Attica” and thus secondarily “speak Attic”; cf. λακωνίζω (“act like a Spartan”) at fr. 385.1 with n., and e. g. ἀργολίζω (“take the Argive side”; X. HG 4.8.34), βαρβαρίζω (“behave/ 211

Storey 2003. 155 claims that the phrase “belongs to the iambic tradition”, but offers no evidence in support of the thesis.

338

Eupolis

speak like a barbarian”; e. g. Hdt. 2.57.2), δωρίζω (“speak Doric”; Theoc. 15.93), ἑλληνίζω (“speak Greek”; e. g. Pl. Chrm. 159a), λεσβίζω (“act like a Lesbian”, i. e. “give a blow-job”; Ar. V. 1346), λυδίζω (“act like a Lydian”; Ar. Eq. 523), µηδίζω (“side with the Medes”, i. e. the Persians; e. g. Hdt. 7.138.2), περσίζω (“speak Persian”; X. An. 4.5.34), σκυθίζω (“act like a Skythian”, i. e. “shave a head”; E. El. 241); and more generally ἀλωπεκίζω (“play the fox”; Ar. V. 1241) and εὐριπιδαριστοφανίζω (“act/talk like a combination of Euripides and Aristophanes”; Cratin. fr. 342.2). εἰ µὴ τοὺς φίλους ᾐσχύν[ετο] For αἰσχύνοµαι + acc. of the person before whom one feels shame, e. g. Pherecr. fr. 28.6; Ar. Th. 903; fr. 604; Alex. fr. 48.1–3; Diph. fr. 92; Isoc. 1.16 τοὺς δὲ φίλους αἰσχύνου. The point of the emotion is to spare one’s own feelings, in an awareness that the other person will not approve of what one does (thus “to keep from embarrassing himself in front of his friends”), not to spare the other person’s feelings, out of concern that a third party will take him to be infected with one’s own indecency (“to prevent him from embarrassing his friends”). For friends and a man’s relationship to them, see Philoi introductory n. 26–7 Language of politics and prostitution is jumbled together in the reference to “apolitical male whores” (26) and in the assertion that the demagogue in question should have entered a brothel (sc. rather than public service? or to seek his friends?) (27). ἀλλ’ ἔδει at the beginning of 27 is a strong break, and however 26 is supplemented, the line must be taken with 25. Whether the genitives in 26 describe the groups to which the demagogue’s friends do and do not belong (as with Wilamowitz’s 〈τινας〉, referring back to 25 τοὺς φίλους) or the groups to which the demagogue himself does and does not belong (as with van Leeuwen’s 〈τις ὤν〉) is impossible to say. Βut the man is in any case closely associated with the ἀπράγµονες, which means that he has no place in the public sphere (see fr. 238 n.; Ehrenberg 1947. 55–6; Sartori 1975. 38–54), setting up the ugly dismissal in 27. Both ἀπράγµονες and σεµνοί sound like references to the city’s socio-economic upper strata—for the tendency toward political quietism in this period among wealthy men who felt no connection to the democracy, see in general Carter 1986—raising the possibility that this attack reflects emerging legal and cultural standards having to do with past involvement in pederastic relations and/or prostitution (not always easy to tell apart; cf. Ar. Pl. 153–6) and the right to participate in the public political life of the city; cf. Ar. Eq. 877–80 (recent sexual legislation of some sort involving “men who are fucked”); Aeschin. 1.19–20 (the graphê hetairêsis, banning anyone who had worked as a male prostitute from speaking in the Boule or Assembly and from holding public office), 28–32 (the dokimasia rhêtorôn, used to disqualify Assembly speakers for past behavior, including

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

339

work as a male prostitute); Tammaro 1979. 422–3; Lanni 2010, esp. 55–64. For σεµνός and cognates, see Imperio 1998. 226–8. 27 appears to pick up the argumentative thread from 23 after the debunking evidence put forward in 24–6: the man in question thinks he deserves to be a political leader, which is ridiculous, and where he actually belongs is in a brothel. See below on νεύσαντα. For ἔδει used to refer to an unfulfilled obligation, see fr. 316.3 n. νεύσαντα i. e. as a way of signalling his agreement (cf. Ar. Pax 883 ἐκεινοσὶ νεύει, “That guy over there is nodding his head” with Olson 1998 ad loc.) to carry out the action described in the second part of the verse? (Telò 2007. 374–6 connects the gesture with the man’s alleged inability to speak Attic Greek referred to in 25.) If this is what is meant, the order to which the nod responds is taken for granted and perhaps refers to something that stood in the lost lines before 23 κἀξιοῖ δηµηγορεῖν. Alternatively, the action might be understood as evidence of shame, i. e. hanging one’s head (Körte 1912. 298 followed by most critics, although the verb does not seem to be used this way elsewhere) or might be a gesture intended to attract clients (Bignone 1912–1913. 355). κινητήρ[ιον] is not attested as a noun elsewhere except at ΣVEΓM Ar. Av. 78 (quoting fr. 486), where it means “stirring implement”.212 Here the sense is apparently “place to have sex” (〈 κινέω ~ βινέω; cf. frr. 247.3 with n.; 385.2 n.) and thus “whorehouse, brothel”; Telò 2007. 374 suggests that it functions as an aprosdokêton for βουλευτήριον. For the formation, cf. from comedy alone e. g. βασανιστήριον (“place to torture”; Theopomp. Com. fr. 64.2); βουλευτήριον (“place to take counsel”; e. g. Ar. Ach. 379); δικαστήριον (“place to pass judgment”; e. g. Ar. V. 304); ἐργαστήριον (“place to do work”, sometimes euphemistic for “brothel”; e. g. Ar. Eq. 744); πυριατήριον (“place to take a steam bath”; fr. 140); φροντιστήριον (“place to think”; e. g. Ar. Nu. 94); and see in general Chantraine 1933. 63. For brothel prostitution, see frr. 75 n.; 247.3–4 n.; Glazebrook 2011, and for male brothel prostitutes in particular, Aeschin. 1.74, 120; Din. 1.13; cf. Cratin. fr. 438; Kapparis 2011. 243–51 (terminology). 28–9 seem to be a list of reprehensible actions by the man in question, including in 29 attempting to influence the elections for the generalship and doing something—clearly something bad—to comic poets. δέ in 28 must thus be a strong adversative (“but instead” of doing what is described in 27; cf. Denniston 1950. 166–7), and ἐσκ[ is likely the beginning of another third-person singular verb (cf. ὑφέρπει in 29), with τοὺς φίλους as its object. If τούτων was meant to modify the accusative, the poet could have written τοὺς τούτων 212

Note also adjectival κινητήριος meaning “setting in motion” at A. Supp. 307, 448.

340

Eupolis

φίλους instead and made the sense far clearer. The word thus presumably goes with ἑταιρείας, and what is intended is “the friends of the hetaireia consisting of/belonging to these men”, the reference being either to one of the two groups mentioned in 26 or to someone described in the lost verses at the beginning of the section. 28 A ἑταιρεία (literally “comradeship”, as at S. Ai. 683) or συνωµοσία (literally “oath-group” or “conspiracy”) was a small group of men formed for personal or political purposes or a combination of the two, with the members bound to protect and support one another. Such “clubs” must have been a basic part of the social fabric of Athenian life and are generally taken to have been largely upper-class and anti-democratic. But we know relatively little about them—among the most important points at issue being whether the characterization of their political tendencies offered above is accurate—in large part because they were too informal and secretive to produce inscriptions. Cf. Ar. Lys. 577–8 (a coded discussion of such groups with reference to their public political agendas; early 411 BCE); Th. 8.48.3, 54.4 and Lys. 12.43 (descriptions of the role of Athenian hetaireiai in the oligarchic revolution of 411 BCE); Pl. Ap. 36b (called συνωµοσίαι and said to be among the things most people care about but Socrates does not); Calhoun 1913 (the classic study); Griffith 1995. 70–2 (a helpful summary discussion with further bibliography). 29 ὑφέρπει The prefix suggests secrecy (LSJ s. v. ὑπό F.III; cf. A. Ag. 270; Ch. 463; S. OT 786, the only other attestations of the compound before the Roman period) and thus base, ugly political manuevering of the sort a man engages in only because he has no hope of influencing an election in a legitimate fashion.213 τῇ στρατηγίᾳ would have done just as well metrically as ταῖς στρατηγίαις, and the point is perhaps that the scheming involves the entire board of generals rather than one individual candidacy. For the generalship, see frr. 49; *104; 384 with nn. τρυγῳδο̣[ must be a form or cognate of τρυγῳδός, a word that—like its cognate τρυγῳδία and related forms—puns on τραγῳδός/τραγῳδία, on the one hand, and τρύξ (“must, grape-syrup”), on the other, to refer to comedy in its fundamentally Dionysian aspect; attested elsewhere only in Aristophanes, who may have coined it (Ach. 499, 500, 886; V. 650, 1537; frr. 156.9; 347.1). The lack of a definite article (contrast ταῖς στρατηγίαις) suggests that this is not the beginning of a second noun (e. g. “comic poets”) dependent on ὑφέρπει. Nor does Aristophanes ever use τρυγῳδέω transitively, which counts against the suggestion at Plepelits 1970. 87 that the anonymous politician is charged

213

Storey 2003. 152–3 offers a full list of proposed translations.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

341

with mocking the gods (as if the verb were equivalent to κωµῳδέω, for which it would stand in here metri causa), setting up 30–2.214 Presumably a noun, dependent on a verb lost in the lacuna. 30–2 The Battle of Mantineia late in 418 BCE was a disaster for the Athenians, costing them 200 dead (some of the casualties being Aeginetans), including both generals (Th. 5.74.3), Laches and Nicostratus (cf. Th. 5.61.1), and leading to the overthrow of the Argive democracy, which had sided with Athens against Sparta and the Peloponnesian League (Th. 5.76–80). According to the story offered here, thunder produced by “the god” (i. e. Zeus; cf. Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 1141, and see in general fr. 278.1 n.) made it clear that an attack was ill-advised, and the generals responded appropriately, by refusing to allow one (ὑµᾶς … / … οὐκ ἐῶντ[ας ἐµβαλεῖν] / … τοὺς στρατηγούς). The battle would thus never have taken place, were it not for the ill-advised interference of the individual in question, who has in this way displayed his lack of fitness for public office (cf. 33–4); cf. the very similar attack on Demostratos for encouraging the Sicilian Expedition despite obviously unfavorable omens at Ar. Lys. 391–8. The incident of the thunder is not reported in any other source, and the extent to which it has been invented or embroidered is impossible to determine. Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Nu. 579–80 ἢν γὰρ ᾖ τις ἔξοδος / µηδενὶ ξὺν νῷ, τότ’ ἢ βροντῶµεν ἢ ψακάζοµεν (“for if there is an expedition that makes no sense, at that point we either thunder or spit rain”; the Clouds’ explanation of how they benefit Athens, followed by a notice that the Assembly that elected Cleon general should have been cancelled, since clouds gathered, followed by thunder and lightning); note also Aeschin. 3.130–1 (much more general charges; cited by Telò 2007. 390) and see in general Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 169–71 (on weather-signs and the Assembly). Sartori 1975. 72–9 argues that the debate took place not in Athens before the expedition was sent out, but in Mantineia just before the battle itself; for the complicated relationship in the period before fighting began between the army’s seers (who offered authoritative interpretations of signs of all sorts), the general or generals (who were responsible for the final decision about whether to join combat and

214

Telò 2007. 382–3 argues that the point is that the anonymous politician plays up to the generals but attacks the comic poets, and that 30–2 expose his hypocrisy (since the same man attacked the generals before Mantineia). But this would be a very weak critique (why should the audience be warned that generals might be taken in?), particularly since the board of generals will not have been the same in 418/17 BCE and in the year in which Dêmoi was staged, meaning that a man might easily and legitimately denounce and threaten one set, but try to build bridges with another.

342

Eupolis

where) and the army itself (upon whose support and enthusiasm the generals depended, and who might well complain angrily about command decisions of which they disapproved either at the time or later, particularly if things went badly), see Flower 2008. 153–87. Telò 2007. 387 objects that the incident appears to be so widely known among the audience that it is unlikely to have occurred outside the city. But if the argument in question took place in the field just before battle was joined, and the anonymous orator overcame the generals’ objections in the fashion described here, the story would surely have been retailed relentlessly after the survivors returned to the city, given the extent of the disaster. The more significant point is that εἰς … Μαντίνειαν … / … [ἐµβαλεῖν] can scarcely mean anything other than “to invade Mantineia”, so that—assuming the supplement is right—the reference must be to the Assembly that authorized the expedition as a whole. 30–1 Contrast 30 ὑµᾶς and 31 ὑµῖν with 24 ἡµῖν, the earlier passage being intended to evoke agreement from the audience, whereas the speaker’s stance here is more confrontational. Plepelits 1970. 95 observes: “der Chor spricht bei Aristophanes das Publikum immer mit ὑµεῖς an, weil die Verbindung zwischen Chor und Publikum in der Komödie nie so eng war, dass sie sich als Einheit fühlten”. 30 εἰς … Μαντίνειαν and ὑµᾶς are out of place syntactically—they belong with οὐκ ἐῶντ[ας ἐµβαλεῖν] at the end of 31—and as Telò 2007. 387–8 notes, the words have apparently been put here as part of an aggressive effort to establish a new topic of discussion. 31 ὑµῖν is to be taken with τοῦ θεοῦ βροντῶντος, with the audience standing in for the Athenian people generally. 32 For πρὸς βίαν (“per force, violently”) in the sense “against one’s will” (a poeticism) in reference to the will of the individual against whom the action is being taken, who has or will have no choice about the matter, rather than to the will of the one who is acting, e. g. Ar. V. 443 πρὸς βίαν χειροῦσιν, 1080; Ec. 467 ἀναγκάζωσι πρὸς βίαν; Alc. fr. 332.1; A. Ag. 876; S. OT 805; E. Heracl. 885; contrast Ar. Ra. 1457 χρῆται πρὸς βίαν (“it makes use of them because it has to”). δήσειν … [ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ] Cf. Ar. Eq. 166–7 στρατηγοὺς … / δήσεις (“you will bind generals”; among the wonderful opportunities awaiting the Sausageseller, should he enter politics). “The wood” was a restraint-device, seemingly resembling Early Modern stocks, with holes in which the feet or neck of a public prisoner could be locked to await trial or perhaps as a form of punishment in and of itself; cf. Ar. Eq. 367 οἷόν σε δήσω 〈’ν〉 τῷ ξύλῳ, 394 ἐν ξύλῳ δήσας, 705 ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ δήσω σε, 1049 δῆσαί σ’ … ἐν πεντεσυρίγγῳ ξύλῳ; Nu. 592 (where Cleon is to be put); Pax 479 ἔχοντ’ ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ (thus van Leeuwen)

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

343

with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Lys. 680–1; Polyzel. fr. 3.2. Whether κύφων (Cratin. fr. 123; Ar. Pl. 476, 606) is merely another name for the ξύλον is unclear. Contrast the σανίς (lit. “plank”), which was an execution device (Ar. Th. 930–1 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.). 33–4 Cf. the similarly phrased imprecations at or near the end of parabasis epirrhemata at Ar. Eq. 1288–9 (with fr. 89 n.; Ugolini 1923. 153–4); Nu. 560. 33 For ἄρχειν, see fr. *104.2 n. 34 appears to be a version of a traditional punishment brought down by the gods on those whose actions offend them; cf. Ar. Av. 578–84 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Hdt. 3.65.7 ταῦτα µὲν ποιεῦσι ὑµῖν γῆ τε καρπὸν ἐκφέροι καὶ γυναῖκές τε καὶ ποῖµναι τίκτοιεν (“if you do these things, may your land bear fruit and your wives and flocks be fertile”; part of Cambyses’ dying blessing/ curse on the Persians); 6.139.1 οὔτε γῆ καρπὸν ἔφερε οὔτε γυναῖκές τε καὶ ποῖµναι ὁµοίως ἔτικτον καὶ πρὸ τοῦ (“their land bore no fruit, nor were their women and flocks as fertile as they had been previously”; the fate of the Pelasgians after they killed the Athenian women they had abducted and their upstart children); 9.93.3 οὔτε πρόβατά σφι ἔτικτε οὔτε γῆ ἔφερε ὁµοίως καρπόν (“their flocks were not fertile, nor did their land produce fruit as it had”; the fate of the people of Apollonia after they blinded Evenius); S. OT 25–7 (the curse on Thebes as a result of Oedipus’ polluted presence), 269–71 (Oedipus’ own curse on the Thebans, should they ignore his decree); the Amphictyonic oath ap. Aeschin. 3.111; [D.] 25.82; IG II2 13188.5–8; 13189.6–10 (etc.); IC I ix 1.85–90; SEG XLI 741.9–12; Parker 1983. 191. For the term πρόβατον, see fr. 163 n.; Benveniste 1949. 91–100. For the combination “crops and livestock”, see also fr. 163 n. For the question of whether the chorus exits at this point, see 60–77 n. 35–40 Αn obscure mark, traditionally read ΑΡ (i. e. “Ar[istides]”; thus Jensen) or ΑΡΜ (thus ed. pr.; taken by Edmonds to refer to the tyrant-slayer Harmodius, who is not otherwise known to have been a character in Dêmoi),215 stands in the margin of the papyrus at 35, designating the speaker of 35–6 and 38–40 (which are separated from 37 by an interlinear line indicating change of speaker). Another indication of speaker, even more obscurely written and variously interpreted by editors, and thus of no practical assistance in identifying the character in question, stands in the margin at 37. 35–6 (n.) is an extravagant greeting, suggesting an extended absence and an unexpected return, and is therefore better assigned to one of the dead statesmen, who now appear onstage in the world of the living for the first time, than to Pyronides, 215

For more complete discussion of the point, on which no clarity seems possible, see Storey 2003. 160–1.

344

Eupolis

although Pyronides and one or more of the other dead statesmen (played by mutes at this point in the action) may accompany him onstage. (Β.) appears puzzled and surprised at (Α.)’s arrival (37) and must be a third party who emerges from the stage-house as or shortly before he speaks 37; if so, (A.) and his companions likely enter from a wing. (B.) might be the owner of the house, and Jensen took him for a Proboulos, i. e. one of the chief city officials in Athens in the aftermath of the failure of the Sicilian Expedition but before the oligarchic putsch took place. A more economical hypothesis is that the house belongs to Pyronides, who has returned there after fetching the dead statesmen, and that (B.) is one of his slaves; cf. Ar. Pax 819–56 (already noted as a parallel by Storey 2003. 162, followed by Telò 2003. 35–6), where Trygaios is greeted by a slave when he returns from Heaven with Opora in tow. If so, (B.) must re-enter the stage house at some point, and the actor who plays his part—almost certainly the tritagonist—returns as (E.) in the scene partially preserved on PCair. 43227 fr. 2 verso. 35–6 For (A.)’s initial, distinctly high-style address of his native country, cf. Ar. Pl. 771–3 (Wealth’s greeting to Athens after his vision has been restored); fr. 112 ὦ πόλι φίλη Κέκροπος, αὐτοφυὲς Ἀττική, / χαῖρε λιπαρὸν δάπεδον, οὖθαρ ἀγαθῆς χθονός; A. Ag. 508–10, 810–11; S. El. 67–8 ἀλλ᾿ ὦ πατρῴα γῆ θεοί τ᾿ ἐγχώριοι / δέξασθε µ᾿; fr. 911.1 ὦ γῆ Φεραία χαῖρε; E. HF 523 ὦ χαῖρε µέλαθρον πρόπυλά θ’ ἑστίας ἐµῆς, / ὡς ἄσµενός σ’ ἐσεῖδον ἐς φάος µολών; fr. 558.1–2 ὦ γῆς πατρῴας χαῖρε φίλτατον πέδον / Καλυδῶνος with Bignone 1917–1918 (alleging a direct allusion to the Euripidean passage in this verse); Men. Asp. 491 ὦ φιλτάτη γῆ χαῖρ[ε]; fr. 1.1–2 χαῖρ’ ὦ φίλη γῆ· διὰ χρόνου πολλοῦ σ’ ἰδὼν / ἀσπάζοµαι (treated as a trope, although the speaker goes on to say that he is actually referring to his own personal bit of farmland). χαῖρε See fr. 331.2 n. ἐκπαγλ[οτατ and cognates are epic-Ionic vocabulary, attested nowhere else in comedy and only once in Attic prose (X. Hier. 11.3), but found in Herodotus (7.181.3; 8.92.1; 9.48.1) and Hippocrates (Mul. 3 = 8.22.6 Littré, 171 = 8.352.1 Littré (both the adverb)), on the one hand, and in Homer (e. g. Il. 18.170 πάντων ἐκπαγλότατ’ ἀνδρῶν), Pindar (e. g. N. 4.27) and tragedy (e. g. A. Ag. 862; S. El. 204; E. Hec. 1157), on the other. The word thus contributes to the elevated stylistic level of (A.)’s greeting of Athens. Luppe 1982. 18 notes that it almost always has a negative sense (“furchtbar”), and Telò 2007. 410, comparing Ar. Pl. 992 ἐρῶντ’ ἄνθρωπον ἐκνοµιώτατα, suggests that it is here adverbial and that Aristides says something like “how terribly [I missed you]”. This seems odd with πασῶν πόλεων—why should Aristides miss anywhere other than Athens?—but perhaps Aristides’ feelings are distinctly mixed, and in his eyes Athens is both great and awful.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

345

37 For (B.)’s baffled, colloquial τόδε πρᾶγµα τί ἐστι;, e. g. Ar. Ach. 767 and fr. 129.1 τουτὶ τί ἦν τὸ πρᾶγµα;; V. 395 τί τὸ πρᾶγµ’;; Pax 44 τόδε πρᾶγµα τί;; Av. 1171 and Ra. 658 τί τὸ πρᾶγµα τουτί;. 38–40 (A.) takes no notice of (B.) and extends his greeting to someone or something else, perhaps another aspect of the city. Jensen 1916. 345 took the addressee to be the chorus, setting up 45–8 and helping to explain 62–3. But (A.) might also be addressing e. g. the sun or the sky, which a long-dead man will not have seen for many years. δέ is in any case continuative (Denniston 1950. 162–3). πάντα in 39 perhaps performs a function similar to πασῶν in 36 (whatever that may be). PCair. 43227 fr. 2 recto How much text is missing between PCair. 43227 frr. 1 and 2 is impossible to say. If this is the next page in the codex, as Jensen argued, only 10–12 lines have been lost and (Γ.) here is to be identified with (A.) there. 41–59 (the recto) are part of a dialogue between at least two characters: (Γ.), who is one of the dead statesmen and speaks in 41–3 for some or all of the rest of the group (cf. 47–8), and who must be Miltiades, Aristides or Pericles, since 47 makes it clear that he is not Solon; and (∆.), who (Γ.) takes for granted has the power to order servants about (41–3, cf. 44) and who is thus most likely the owner of a house visible onstage. Pyronides is referred to in the accusative in 56 and in the third person in 57, and only certainly enters the conversation in 73 (actually 10–12 lines further along in the action than the continuous Kassel–Austin numbering suggests). But he is seemingly onstage already when the text resumes on the verso (60–77 n.), and if Pyronides is to be identified with (∆.)—far and away the easiest explanation of the evidence—56–7 might be e. g. his own report of what someone else will do or think about him. 41–3 Why (Γ.) calls for a sacrifice is not specified in the preserved portion of the text. As Plepelits 1970. 104 observes, 43 shows that the dead statesmen are hungry, but there are faster and easier ways to get a meal, and the offering must in the first instance have some ritual significance. Körte 1919. 23 suggested that the projected meal serves in addition a practical staging function, in that it will eventually offer an excuse to have the dead statesmen exit the stage into the house (sc. to eat), allowing them to emerge one by one later on in the play, as in the scene seemingly involving Aristides(?) partially preserved in 78–120. The man addressed in 41–3, and who responds in 44, will not actually handle the pot, the fire or the water, which is work for a slave; cf. below on τινὰ / κέλευ(ε). But his slaves are his instruments, and telling him to do something amounts to telling him to have it done, on the understanding that he will receive the credit when the work is complete.

346

Eupolis

41–2 τὸ χαλκίον / θέρµαινε A chalkion is a bronze vessel of any sort, but usually a pot, as at Ar. Lys. 749 (hidden beneath a woman’s robe to make her look pregnant); fr. 231 (used to play kottabos en lekanê). Here the vessel stands via synecdoche for the water it contains, although why hot water is wanted is not said in the preserved portion of the text. Pollux takes this passage and Ar. fr. 345 τὸ χαλκίον θερµαίνεται (“the cauldron is being heated”) as references to heating water for drinking, but goes on to cite Ar. fr. 109 (corrupt at the crucial point) for a chalkion used to warm bathing-water, which is likely its intended purpose at fr. 272.1 (n.) as well. Perhaps Pollux or his source had access to more of the text of Dêmoi than we do and his interpretation of it is correct.216 More likely he is confused, in which case what (Γ.) is requesting might be a bath, after which he and the other statesmen will return to the stage in fresh garments, like Demos at the end of Aristophanes’ Knights or Ploutos after his vision has been restored in the second half of Aristophanes’ Wealth. Alternatively, the water may be intended to stew the meat from the sacrifice implied in 43 and which must in any case have been ordered somewhere in the preceding (now lost) verses. χαλκίον is absent from elevated poetry and is first attested outside of comedy in inscriptions (e. g. IG I3 421.96; 510.1; 1456.14) and in 4th-century prose (X. Oec. 8.19 (basic household items); Pl. Cra. 430a; Prt. 329a). 42 For θύη πέττειν, cf. Ar. Ec. 223b πέττουσι τοὺς πλακοῦντας, 843 πόπανα πέττεται; Eub. fr. 1.1 πέττει τὰ νικητήρια, 3 πέττουσα τὸν χαρίσιον; Men. fr. 381.1 τὸν ἄµητα … πέττειν. θύος is not attested elsewhere as a cakename, but 43 leaves little doubt that it is cognate with θύω and means “a cake eaten along with sacrificial meat”. The verb (whence πόπανα, “sacrificial cake”, at e. g. Ar. Th. 285 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc., and πέµµα, “baked cake”, at e. g. Antiph. fr. 172.6) is from an old Indo-European root and is cognate with Latin coquo.

216

Thus Telò 2003. 31–2 (cf. 2007. 414–16), who goes on to argue that ἵνα σπλάγχνοισι συγγενώµεθα in 43 means “affinché possiamo soccorrere le nostre viscere” (i. e. “reanimate them after a long period of fasting in the Underworld”). This seems unlikely on the face of it (see below on the sense of the verb), and if Aristides meant “our entrails”, he would presumably have said τοῖς σπλάγχνοισι. Telò’s further objection, that it is extremely difficult to discover a “nesso logico tra il secondo ordine … e la prospettiva … di consumare degli σπλάγχνα”, ignores both the extremely fragmentary nature of the text and the fact that “so that we can eat some σπλάγχνα” might easily be understood as a pars pro toto style of saying “so that we can enjoy a sacrificial feast”.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

347

42–3 τινὰ / κέλευ(ε) recalls one of the standard verbal forms by means of which comic masters issue orders to slaves, by ordering “someone” (τις) to do whatever it is that must be done (e. g. fr. 273.2 with n.; Ar. Ach. 805 with Olson 2002 ad loc.). 43 For the gradual displacement of the traditional Attic ὅπως (attested nowhere in the fragments of Eupolis) by ἵνα in this period, see Willi 2003b. 46. σπλάγχνα are the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver and spleen of a sacrificial animal (Arist. PA 667b1–6), which were roasted over the fire on spits and then chopped up and divided among the participants to eat while the rest of the meat was stewing, with one portion reserved for the god (i. e. the priest); cf. Ar. Eq. 410; V. 654; Pax 1039–40 with Olson 1998 ad loc. (with further references); Av. 518–19; Pl. 1130; Mnesim. fr. 4.12; SEG XXI 541.43–4; van Straten 1995. 131–3. συγγενώµεθα is a seemingly colloquial way of saying “let us eat”, as also in fr. 42.3 (n.). 44 must be (∆.)’s positive response to the request or order in 41–3, with ταῦτα referring back to the individual points specified by (Γ.). Cf. Ar. Pl. 1027 φράζε, καὶ πεπράξεται (“Describe it, and it will done”), 1200. But the brevity of the response makes it clear that (∆.) is more interested in the program he outlines in 45–8 (n.). 45–8 See 44 n. The demes in question can scarcely be anyone other than the chorus, and what (∆.) is proposing is to let (or cause) his visitors to discover the difference between their situation now (46) and what it was when (Γ.) and Solon were in power (47–8). ὅσῳ in 45 is thus likely a dative of degree of difference. Although demes were recognized as official components of the Athenian political system only as part of the reforms of Cleisthenes in the late 6th century BCE, they existed as local settlements long before then; see Whitehead 1986. 6–16, and cf. the general introduction to the play, Title. 46 Forms of διακείµενος + adverb refer to the transitory condition a person is in, but in comedy at least the condition in question is always bad (Ar. Pl. 80 ἀθλίως διακείµενος, “in a wretched condition”; Philippid. fr. 2.1 and Men. Pk. 498 κακῶς διακειµένῳ, “in a bad condition”; Men. fr. 80.2 ῥυπαρῶς διακειµένη, “in a filthy condition”), as presumably here as well. The verb is attested at [Hes.] Sc. 20, but is otherwise largely prosaic; in tragedy only at E. Tr. 113. 48 Cf. Cratin. fr. 71 ἥβης ἐκείνης, νοῦ δὲ τοῦδε καὶ φρενῶν (the source of Wilamowitz’s supplement). If Wilamowitz is right—which he might not be—it nonetheless remains unclear whether Eupolis is reworking a well-known line

348

Eupolis

of a poet from an earlier generation;217 whether both men are adapting a preexisting text (from tragedy? note the lack of resolution in both cases); or whether Stobaeus or his source has reworked Cratinus, and Eupolis is in fact quoting Cratinus precisely. The point of the use of these words here in place of the simple τῆς πόλεως vel sim., at any rate, would seem to be that in the time of (Γ.) and Solon (47) Athens was both more vigorous (ἥβης τ’ ἐκείνης) and wiser (νοῦ τ’ ἐκείνου καὶ φρενῶν) than it is now. For ἐκεῖνος (also to be taken with φρενῶν) in the sense “the well-known, the famous”, see fr. 222.1 n. For the pairing νοῦς καὶ φρῆν/φρένες, cf. Ar. Lys. 432; Th. 291; Ra. 534; D. 18.324; 25.33 (all cited by Plepelits 1970. 108). 49–59 Too little is preserved of these lines to allow for any conclusions about how they were distributed or to whom they were addressed, except that 54 (likely spoken by the chorus) is directed to an individual and thus more likely to (∆.) than to (Γ.), since plurals are used for (Γ.) and Solon in 45, 47. In any case, a daring plan is seemingly underway (see 54 n., 55 n.), and the chorus is not entirely confident of the addressee’s willingness or ability to assist in it. 49 If ηδ〈 l 〉µατων represents Luppe’s ἡδ[υσ]µάτων (for which, see fr. 152 n.), as Kassel–Austin seem inclined to believe, the topic might once again be the meal (∆.) is ordered to prepare in 42–3, or the word might be employed in a figurative sense. 54 µὴ προδῷς Cf. Ar. Eq. 241 µὴ προδῷς τὰ πράγµατα (“Don’t betray our undertaking!”; a desperate plea by one of the slaves to the frightened Sausage-seller after the angry Paphlagon appears). 55 προθυµία is an eagerness specifically for a fight or struggle, presumably referring to an upcoming attempt to correct the situation alluded to in 45–8 and prefiguring confrontations like the one that occurs in 78–120. The word is not attested elsewhere in comedy, although cognates are not uncommon (fr. *105.3 προθύµως with n.). 56–8 seem to anticipate the action in 60–77, which involves the dead statesmen (64–5), Pyronides (68–75) and another character who has come with pointed questions. 58 ἀσπάσασθαι appears to have a solemn, elevated tone; see Willi 2003b. 63 n. 139.

217

Cratinus (as preserved) appears to use the particle δέ to contrast two things, “that youth” and “this mind and intelligence” (i. e. that belonging to old age?), whereas in Eupolis’ τε … τε … καί the repetition of ἐκεῖνος transforms this into a single complex concept. Burzacchini 2012. 160 mistakenly traces Synesius’ use of the verse in ep. 130 to Eupolis rather than to Cratinus via Julian.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

349

59 [κ]α̣[ραδ]οκῶ (if right) suggests tense, deeply invested expectation regarding an event whose outcome the subject cannot control. Late 5th-century vocabulary, attested elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Eq. 663, as well as in Euripides (e. g. Med. 1117) and Herodotus (e. g. 7.163.2; always of individuals awaiting the outcome of a battle); cf. Aly 1927. 104–5 (taking the word to be an Atticism picked up by Herodotus). PCair. 43227 fr. 2 verso 60–77 A minimum of 10–12 lines of text and perhaps a slightly larger number of verses are missing between the action here and the conversation in 42–59, and the dead statesmen and Pyronides are still—or yet again—onstage (64–8). 60–3 and 76–7 are trochaic and include first-person plurals (63 κείµεθα, 77 ἡµῖν), and are thus most naturally assigned to the chorus, as are 69–72 (in the same meter), despite the singular µοι in 69 (cf. 73 σ[ύ]). If this is right, the claim at 62–3 that the chorus have already met the statesmen must not mean that the interview anticipated in 45–8 has already taken place but only that some basic initial contact has occurred; cf. 38–40 n. The alternative is to assume (with Keil 1912. 248–9 and Jensen 1916. 345–6) that the chorus exit the stage at 34, but the fact that they appear to be speaking again already in 53 makes this unlikely. These appear to be entrance lines and to go with 66–8. The speaker shares the chorus’ interest in interrogating Pyronides (68) but is most likely a character (Ε.), since he uses ordinary iambic trimeter. As (E.) has only heard about the statesmen and Pyronides by rumor (65), he cannot be identified with (B.) or (∆.) in the previous scenes, who have interacted with them (and who are perhaps both to be identified with Pyronides in any case). Nor are enough of (E.)’s words preserved to offer any hint as to his motivations in wanting to meet and question Pyronides, beyond simple curiosity. Cf. the arrival of Blepsidemos at Ar. Pl. 335–42, who has come in response to widespread rumors that his friend has suddenly grown rich. 60–3 γάρ marks this as an explanation of a preceding remark, and τοίαισιν as well points back to an earlier reference in the text, making it clear that the chorus’ remarks did not begin at 60. In 64–8, (E.) distinguishes τοὺς ἄνδρας … τού[σδ’], who have come from the dead (64–5), from Pyronides (67–8). ἅνδρες in 60/61 thus likely refers to the dead statesmen alone, rather than to the dead statesmen and Pyronides as a group. 62 κιχάνω is elevated poetic vocabulary (e. g. Il. 22.226; Mimn. fr. 6.2; Pi. P. 9.26; E. Hipp. 1444), which is attested nowhere else in comedy and is absent from 5th- and 4th-century prose. The verb normally takes the accusative (e. g.

350

Eupolis

Od. 15.257; hAp. 240; Pi. P. 3.43; S. OT 1257; E. Alc. 22); also with the genitive at S. OC 1487, seemingly on analogy with τυγχάνω. 62–3 ἐν τοίαισιν  / ἡ|δοναῖσι κείµεθα is an elevated way—Jensen 1960. 340 argued for parody of a specific (unidentified) tragic passage—of saying “we are this happy”; cf. Thgn. 555 χαλεποῖσιν ἐν ἄλγεσι κείµενον, 646 κείµενος ἐν µεγάλῃ … ἀµηχανίῃ; S. Ai. 323 ἐν τοιᾷδε κείµενος κακῇ τύχῃ, 1306 τοιοῖσδ’ ἐν πόνοισι κειµένους; Tr. 82 ἐν οὖν ῥοπῇ τοιᾷδε κειµένῳ; E. Andr. 26 ἐν κακοῖσι κειµένην; Hec. 969 ἐν τοιοῖσδε κειµένη κακοῖς; Ph. 1639 ἐν οἵοις κείµεθ’ ἄθλιοι κακοῖς, and see 46 n. on διακείµενος + adverb referring to a transitory, generally unhappy personal condition.218 τοῖος is similarly poetic and is attested elsewhere in Attic comedy only at Ar. Ra. 470 (paratragic); fr. 694.2 (also paratragic?). 64–8 The dead statesmen are seated (65), whereas Pyronides is standing (67) when (E.) enters. Whatever else we are to make of this—is being seated while others stand a sign of honor? or are the dead statesmen merely resting after their long journey from the Underworld?219—it puts the dramatic focus for the moment squarely on Pyronides, who is asked to explain himself in 69–72 and does so in 73–5. That this leaves a third actor available nonetheless raises the possibility that one of the statesmen ((A.) from PCair. 43227 fr. 2?) participates in the action later in the scene. 65 οὕς φασιν κτλ —addressed either to the chorus or to the world at large—covers (E.)’s entrance and at the same time serves the practical purpose of establishing for the audience in the Theater exactly how much (E.) knows about the situation. This appears to be that men have come from the Underworld and that someone named Pyronides is responsible for their arrival, but nothing more, including (depending on how 74–5 are understood) why Pyronides has done what he has done. For the vague “they say”, cf. 2–3. 66 µὲν δή in 66 must come from near the beginning of its colon, meaning that a stop of some sort stood at the end of 65, marking the end of the description of the dead statesmen, and suggesting that all of 66–8 are concerned with Pyronides. The combination of particles calls out for a contrasting idea to follow (cf. Denniston 1950. 258–9), although where the transition to it was located is unclear. 218

219

The alternative is to follow Robert 1918. 171 in taking ἐν τοίαισιν / ἡδοναῖσι with the participle and to understand κείµεθα as meaning “we lie (on the ground)”, sc. “as a consequence of the shock we feel”. But this seems too strained to be worth considering; cf. Plepelits 1970. 133–4. For brief if interesting remarks on the posture that fail, however, to map effectively onto this passage, see Bremmer 1991. 25–6.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

351

The individuals(?) referred to here as τῶν φίλων are generally taken to be the chorus, although Telò 2007. 443 argues that they must be the dead statesmen, on the grounds that (1) the same persons are to be identified with αὐτῶν in 67 and (2) the dead statesmen are φίλοι in the speaker’s eyes because they are φιλοπόλεις. The second point is particularly weak, but the text is too fragmentary to allow for firm conclusions in any case. 67 For the emphatic combination ὀρθὸς ἐστηκώς, cf. Pl. Men. 93d. 69 εἰπέ µοι is literally “Say to me!, Tell me!”, but functions colloquially as something more like an interjection (“Hey! Say!”; cf. López Eire 1996. 100–1) that serves here to attract Pyronides’ attention and to make clear to him that an actual question is coming. 69–70 [ἔ]|µολε̣ς patently refers to a journey Pyronides has made, and thus seemingly supports the notion that he descended to the Underworld rather than magically summoning up the dead; see the general introduction to the play. A poetic form, attested elsewhere in comedy only at Ar. Av. 405 ἐµόλετον (anapaestic); Lys. 984 ἔµολον (Spartan dialect); fr. 717 (anapaestic). 72 In 73, Pyronides identifies himself as the man who has been [referred to vel sim.] here, and he follows this up in 74–5 with an account of his motivations. φράσον, τί κ[ cannot be understood as asking “Who are you?”, and must instead be the query answered indirectly by means of the relative clause in 74–5. If 69–71 contain another, initial question, therefore, it must be “Are you the man who went to Hades?” or the like. For φράσον accompanying a question, e. g. Ar. Nu. 314; Av. 1229; Ec. 710. 73–5 See 69–72 n. Pyronides, not unlike Dicaeopolis in Aristophanes’ Acharnians (esp. 37–9, 596–617), watched Athens’ disastrous internal politics play out for many years (74 πόλλ᾿ ἔτη),220 suggesting that he finally decided to take independent action to alter the situation by fetching the dead statesmen. 73 is unconvincingly assigned to Miltiades by Torello 2008a. 53–4. For αὐτὸς … ἐκεῖνος meaning “the very same person, precisely that person” (colloquial), cf. Cratin. fr. 275; Ar. Th. 1219; Ra. 552; Ec. 327; Pl. 83; Theopomp. Com. fr. 43.1; Od. 24.321 (cited by Telò 2007. 454, but with extravagant conclusions regarding the significance of the alleged intertext); Janko 1985. 24–5. 75 [ἀ]ν̣ά̣ν̣δρους ἄνδρ[ας] i. e. the µειράκια κινούµενα complained about in fr. *104.2. For the paradoxical etymological jingle, cf. Hes. Op. 751 ἀνέρ᾿ ἀνήνορα; S. El. 1154 µήτηρ ἀµήτωρ with Finglass 2007 ad loc.; E. Ph. 220

Storey 2003. 163, 164 suggests that the point is instead that Pyronides has been absent from Athens for many years, which is a more complicated and thus less likely explanation of the line (thus Storey himself at 2003. 164).

352

Eupolis

1757 χάριν ἀχάριτον; Fehling 1969. 287–9; Kassel–Austin on Ar. fr. 586. The adjective and its cognates are 5th-/4th-century vocabulary, used in the sense “unmanly/unmanliness” also at e. g. A. Pers. 755; Th. 3.82.4; E. Med. 466; Philem. fr. 124; adesp. com. fr. 1007.31 (the only other attestations in comedy). Early epic has ἀνήνωρ (also Od. 10.301 = 341). 76/7 The chorus expresses its agreement with Pyronides’ assessment of the situation in Athens as articulated in 74–5. σαφῶς suggests that ἦ is affirmative (Denniston 1950. 280) and that καί adds emphasis to the adverb, as with an adjective at Ar. Lys. 1226 ἦ καὶ χαρίεντες ἦσαν οἱ Λακωνικοί (“The Spartans were indeed quite gracious”).221 For σαφῶς, see 97–8 n. PCair. 43227 fr. 3 recto How much text is missing between PCair. 43227 frr. 2 and 3 is impossible to say. That (Ζ.) has been summoned by (H.) or whoever his main interlocutor is at that point in the text (104), however, suggests that he is not to be identified with (E.) from PCair. 43227 fr. 2, who appears to have come onstage out of curiosity about the rumors he has been hearing, or that if this is (E.), he has already left the stage once and is returning for a second visit and driven by different motivations. 78–120 (Ζ.) extorts money from non-Athenians in particular, apparently by threatening to inform the relevant authorities about their alleged bad behavior and then agreeing to tell a different story once they pay him off (esp. 81–90). (Η.) is appalled by (Ζ.)’s description of his actions (85, 91, 95), and in the second portion of the scene preserved for us (100–20) he or someone aligned with him attacks and ties (Ζ.) up and has him carried off by at least two other people (112), probably slaves. (For the question of whether a third character is onstage at this point, and thus presumably throughout the scene, see 107–20 n.). (Ζ.) has been summoned (104), but seems not to know who (Η.) is, and (Η.)’s order in 80 to “Say what you have to say!” implies that a blanket call has been issued for persons matching some general description and that (Ζ.) is attempting to prove he fits the bill. 85 suggests that this is a deliberate ambush—(Η.) is convinced in advance that an ugly story is to come—and whoever speaks 114–17 is accordingly disappointed that the trap did not also ensnare the villainous Diognetus. (Η.)’s disgusted comment at 91, along with the announcement made to the city as a whole at 118–19, leave no doubt that what interests him is just behavior (δικαιοσύνη), and he

221

Henderson 1987 ad loc. cites Denniston 1950. 285, but the reference there is to the use of the combination ἦ καί in questions.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

353

has accordingly generally been identified as Aristides; cf. fr. 114 with n. But he might just as well be Pyronides. (Ζ.), on the other hand, claims to be not merely δίκαιος but ἁγνός (79), “religiously pure”, and in 107 he is sarcastically informed that he is free to take his complaint about the treatment he has received to the Priest of Zeus if he wishes. (Ζ.) is traditionally identified as a sycophant,222 including in the Kassel–Austin text, and in the second half of what is preserved of this scene he threatens to prosecute (Η.) for assault or the like (103–4, 108). But (Ζ.) nonetheless appears to be repeatedly associated with what we would call religious affiliations and interests, and it is accordingly worth asking whether—in addition to an ugly, “sycophantic” taste for legal threats and extortion—his identity might be connected more specifically with that segment of Athenian society. If so, the substantial question (Η.) (and the playwright) appear to be asking is whether (Ζ.)’s obsessions and the sort of rules he makes his living pretending to enforce have anything to do with justice. Cf. the contrast between ἀνόσια and δίκαια in fr. 84 with nn. 79–80 This appears to represent the initial confrontation of (Ζ.) and (Η.), both of whom introduce themselves. 79 αὐτ[ί](κα) —if correct—can scarcely be temporal (“at once, immediately”) here, and must instead have the colloquial sense “for starters, to begin with” (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 70.4; Ar. V. 1190; Av. 1000; Th. 151 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.), as (Ζ.) offers (Η.) a preliminary description of his qualifications. For ἁγνός (“free of pollution”) used of a ritually pure human being or animal, e. g. A. Pers. 611; Supp. 364; E. Hipp. 317 (“my hands are ἁγναί, although my mind is stained”); Ar. Lys. 912, 1182; Parker 1983. 147–51. 80 [δί]καιος εἰµ’ ἀνήρ is likely a response to 79 ἁγνό̣ς εἰµ’ ἐγώ, hence the conjectures recorded in the apparatus. The adjective is picked up in 91 δικαιοσύνης and then again in 104 ἀδικεῖς, 106 δίκα[ι]α, 119 δικαίους. For ὅ τι λέγεις in the sense “whatever you have to say” or “what you mean”, cf. Ar. Av. 1382; Pl. 648; Men. Epitr. 515 with Furley 2009 ad loc.; Charch. 14. 81–111 The main speaker in 81–95 is (Ζ.), who has two sections of four lines apiece (81–4, 86–9), followed by one of three lines (92–4), and is only interrupted by (Η.) for a line (85, 95) or two (90–1) at a time. The situation shifts abruptly in 96–9, where (Ζ.) has only a line-and-a-half before (Η.) interrupts him for at least two-and-a-half lines. Although we do not know what happened in the gap of 10–12 lines between 99 and 100, in 103–5 both men have a line-and-a-half before the transition to stichomythy at 106–11, as the onstage action reaches its climax. For ξένοι as easy, profitable targets for extortion, 222

For sycophants generally, see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1094–7 (with further bibliography).

354

Eupolis

cf. Ar. Ach. 818–23; Av. 1422–32, and more generally Ar. Av. 1054, where the Decree-monger attempts to intimidate Peisetairos by reminding him of how Peisetairos allegedly shat on a decree-stele in the recent past. 81–98 The casual reference to “the Epidaurian”223 in 93 raises the possibility that he has been mentioned earlier—the word would fit at the beginning of 81 (Jensen)—and thus that he is the foreigner referred to in 84, 86–8. If so, what (Ζ.) describes is not a series of loosely connected acts of extortion but the continuing exploitation of a single vulnerable individual, to whom (Η.) accordingly returns at 105 to explain why (Ζ.) is being punished. 81–2 The subject is the ξένος (cf. 84). εἰς ἀγο[ρά]ν must depend on a verb of motion in the first half of one of these verses. The description of the foreigner’s innocent mistake—distorted into evidence of serious guilt of some sort by (Ζ.)—is generally taken to recall the charges of profaning the Eleusinian Mysteries (in which drinking kykeon played a part; see Richardson 1974. 344–8) that tore Athens apart in 415 BCE. See the general introduction to Dêmoi on Date. If so, the location of the action in the Agora is likely significant only because this was the most heavily-travelled public space in the city and thus the place where a man could expect both to see and to be seen by others; cf. frr. 172.7–8 n.; 193.2; Phryn. Com. fr. 3.4 with Stamma 2014 ad loc. Telò 2007. 474 helpfully compares Ar. Ach. 725 (sycophants forbidden access to Dicaeopolis’ new marketplace), 818–29, 910–58 (two such characters invade the area nonetheless); Diph. fr. 31.16 συκοφαντεῖν κατ’ ἀγοράν (“to make false charges in the marketplace”); [D.] 25.52 πορεύεται διὰ τῆς ἀγορᾶς, ὥσπερ ἔχις ἢ σκορπίος ἠρκὼς τὸ κέντρον (“he makes his way through the marketplace like a serpent or a scorpion with his stinger raised”; of the sycophant Aristogeiton); and cf. in general Ar. fr. 402.3 ἀπαλλαγέντα τῶν κατ’ ἀγορὰν πραγµάτων (“liberated from the troubles associated with the marketplace”; of an ideal existence). Alternatively, one might imagine that the foreigner was threatened with a double charge—defamation of the Mysteries and entering the marketplace despite being a polluted person (cf. D. 24.60 “anyone who enters the marketplace with unclean hands does wrong”; thus seemingly Telò), and it is intriguing in this connection that the correction to the record the victim requests in 88 seems to have to do with what he did after he drank the kykeon rather than with the fact that he drank it. Why the foreigner’s nationality is relevant—assuming that he is actually Epidaurian—is in any case unclear. 223

Eitrem associates the title “Epidaurian” with an otherwise ill-attested stage of Eleusinian initiation, but without attempting to make larger sense of the action in the fragment; Plepelits 1970. 164 takes this to be a personal name instead.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

355

κυκεών (cognate with κυκάω, “stir, mix”) was water or wine mixed with barley groats or barley meal (see below) and sometimes flavored with cheese, herbs, honey or the like; cf. Il. 11.638–41; Od. 10.234–5; hDem. 208–10; Hippon. fr. 48.3–4 ὡς ἂν ἄλφιτον ποιήσωµαι / κυκεῶνα † πίνειν (“so that I could make myself barley meal † to drink † kykeon”) with Rosen 1987; Ar. Pax 712 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Call. fr. 260.46 καὶ κρῖµνον κυκεῶνο̣ς ἀποστάξαντος ἔραζε (“and of kykeôn that dripped milled barley to the ground”); Delatte 1954 (pp. 723–4 on this scene); Nelson 2014. 35–42 (arguing against attempts to identify kykeon as beer). κρίµνα (etymology uncertain) is apparently barley that has been roughly ground but not yet reduced to ἄλφιτα; cf. Ar. Nu. 965 (heavy snowfall described as κριµνώδη); Headlam 1922 on Herod. 6.6. For barley and barley meal/flour generally, see frr. 21 n.; 172.12 n.; 209 n.; 269.3 n.; 324 n.; 370 n.; 380 n. For ὑπήνη (here seemingly “moustache” rather than “facial hair” generally, since normally only one’s moustache bears traces of what one has been drinking),224 see fr. 300.2 n. ἀνάπλεως (cf. ἀναπίµπληµι, “fill up”) is colloquial late 5th-/4th-century vocabulary (also Hdt. 4.31.1; Ar. Ec. 1072; Pl. Phd. 83d; Smp. 211e). 83 Luppe 1982. 21 suggests that the caesura makes it likely that τοῦτ(ο) goes with what precedes rather than what follows. ἐγώ at the end of the line is in any case emphatic, drawing a contrast with the behavior of someone else. τοῦτ(ο) is most naturally taken to refer backward to the situation described in 81–2, rather than forward to the plot put into action in 84, 86–7, particularly since τόδ(ε) could have been written instead if the latter meaning (advocated for by Telò 2007. 478) was intended. See below on πως, which seems out of place if this is being presented as something more than an offhand remark. ἐννοέω is first attested at A. Ag. 1088. Deponent ἐννοέοµαι is considerably rarer and appears to be avoided by authors other than comic poets (also Cratin. fr. 200; Timocl. fr. 6.18) and Euripides (e. g. Med. 47; Hipp. 435), with a few scattered appearances in prose authors (e. g. Hp. Aer. 11 = 2.50.17 Littré (a Doric form of the word); X. HG 4.8.5; An. 3.1.41; Lys. 9.7; Pl. Tim. 61e). All of this suggests that this was a non-standard, colloquial use of the verb. πως marks this as a portion of the narrative that—at least as the speaker would have it—requires no particular explanation, being clear enough as it is (e. g. Ar. V. 1428; Th. 687; Ra. 565; Antiph. fr. 82.3). It thus amounts to a way of 224

Kassel–Austin compare Pherecr. fr. 188 (“his hypênê was stained with fish-sauce”), although there the word more likely means “beard”, the man in question being a sloppy eater.

356

Eupolis

skipping over what is from a different perspective the most significant point, which is that (Ζ.) has been on the watch for exactly an opportunity such as this. 84 οἴκαδ᾿ εὐθύ τοῦ ξένου Kassel–Austin in their textual note on 84 cite a number of examples of εὐθύ + genitive (for which, see fr. 196.1 n.), and Tammaro 1975–1977a. 97 compares Ar. Lys. 1069–70 ἀλλὰ χωρεῖν ἄντικρυς / ὥσπερ οἴκαδ’ εἰς ἑαυτῶν; Lys. 1.22 ἐλθόντες οἴκαδε ὡς ἐµέ; D. 21.119 εἰσελθὼν οἴκαδ’ ὡς ἐκεῖνον. The problem here, however, is not the unremarkable combination of οἴκαδε and the prepositional phrase, but the fact that οἴκαδε only very rarely refers to the house of someone other than the person speaking or making the journey (in addition to D. 21.119, cf. Telecl. fr. 1.6, where fish go οἴκαδ’ to the house of the man who purchased them); presumably a clumsy colloquial usage. 84–6 (Ζ.)’s breathless ταχέως and εὐθύ in 84 are only marginally necessary for his story, and instead serve in the first instance to build anticipation for what will come when he finally describes his confrontation with the foreigner. Giving 85 to (Η.) as an interruption (thus Edmonds), rather than making these (Ζ.)’s first words to the foreigner when he first accosted him, serves the same purpose of building anticipation, while also keeping (Ζ.) from running on too long, maintaining dramatic interest in the dialogue. In addition, if 85 is a critical insertion from (Η.), it proleptically labels the story that follows as an instance of depraved behavior—something that is not apparent from (Ζ.)’s presentation of the situation in 81–4, at least to the extent the text is preserved for us. 85 ὦ πανοῦργε καὶ κυβευτὰ σύ For similar strings of nasty names, many of them including σύ (apparently a familiar, colloquial touch), cf. Ar. Nu. 398 ὦ µῶρε σὺ καὶ Κρονίων ὄζων καὶ βεκκεσέληνε; Pax 182 ὦ µιαρὲ καὶ τόλµηρε κἀναίσχυντε σύ; Ra. 465 ὦ βδελυρὲ κἀναίσχυντε καὶ τολµηρὲ σύ; fr. 26 ὦ µιαρὲ καὶ Φρυνῶνδα καὶ πονηρὲ σύ; Cephisod. fr. 7 ὦ καὶ λέων καὶ µυγαλῆ καὶ σκορπίος; adesp. com. fr. 516 ὦ πρόδοτι καὶ παραγωγὲ καὶ µύραινα σύ; Griffith 1968; and with reference to women (both without σύ) Hermipp. fr. 9 ὦ σαπρὰ καὶ πασιπόρνη καὶ κάπραινα; Phryn. Com. fr. 34 ὦ κάπραινα καὶ περίπολις καὶ δροµάς. A πανοῦργος is literally someone willing to “do anything” and thus utterly shameless (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 166.2; Ar. Ach. 311; A. Ch. 384; S. Ant. 300; E. Med. 583; Cyc. 442; Antipho 5.65 οἱ µὲν γὰρ πανουργοῦντες ἅµα τε πανουργοῦσι καὶ πρόφασιν εὑρίσκουσι τοῦ ἀδικήµατος, “for panourgoi simultaneously behave shamelessly and invent an excuse for their misbehavior”; see Willi 2003b. 65 n. 151). A fondness for shooting dice (for which, see fr. 372 with n.), meanwhile, is regularly presented as a mark of dissolution (e. g. Ar. V. 74–6 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Pl.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

357

243 “whores and dice”), inter alia perhaps because it points to a reckless willingness to take risks for the sake of profit (cf. Arist. EN 1122a7–8, where the κυβευτής is grouped with the mugger and the bandit), so that to be thrown like a die is to be heedlessly put in danger (Ar. fr. 929, and see Kokolakis 1965, esp. 7–15; Arnott 1999 on Alex. fr. 35 on the trope of life as a game of dice). To the extent that the second term colors the first, therefore, it points to an unseemly eagerness to profit from dubious behavior, which is precisely what (Ζ.) goes on to illustrate in the narrative that follows (see 86–90 n.). 86–90 (Ζ.) explains to the foreigner what he “advises” him to do (86–7); the foreigner specifies what he would like (Ζ.) to do in return, i. e. offer a different account of his own behavior (88); and (Ζ.) gets (or is at least promised) his money (89). For the assignment of 90 to (Η.), see Text. If the line is instead given to (Ζ.), as in Kassel–Austin, the speaker sums up by making clear (to the foreigner? or to (Η.) and the audience in the Theater?) his complete lack of interest in the substantial ritual or legal point supposedly at issue. In the description of his conversation with the foreigner in 86–7, (Ζ.) suppresses his threat and cuts direct to the extortion, which only makes his behavior seem more menacing, as if the implicit logic of the situation renders his meaning clear with no need for details. 86–7 For χρυσίου / … στατ[ῆ]ρας (coins of the sort a wealthy foreigner could be expected to have), see fr. 123 n. 87 [δοῦν]αι For the use of the verb, see fr. 55 n. ἦν γὰρ πλούσιος is not dependent on [ἔφ]ην and is thus most likely directed to (Η.) and the audience in the Theater as an explanation of why (Ζ.) demanded such a large amount of money from the foreigner. (How (Η.) is supposed to know that the foreigner is rich is left unspecified; perhaps from the impression created by the house in which he lives (cf. 84), or perhaps it tacitly emerges here that the victim was not chosen at random, as the false-innocent πως in 83 might at first be taken to imply, but was deliberately targeted.) Alternatively, the switch to direct speech may represent a colloquial attempt to describe what (Ζ.) said to his target (~ “For I told him I knew he was rich”; to be taken as a bluff, lending more point to 85 κυβευτά, where see n.?). 88 πιών echoes the end of 81 (n.). 89 (ε)ἶτ(α) probably indicates consequence (LSJ s. v. II) rather than mere temporal sequence (LSJ s. v. I). 90–1 [ποι]είτω τις ὅ τι ποτὲ βούλεται Cf. Pl. Euthd. 285c ὅ τι βούλεται, τοῦτο ποιείτω (“whatever he wants, let him do it!”). Regardless of who the speaker is, what preceded this may have been something like Körte’s διδοὺς δέ (“Provided he offers you/me money, a person can do whatever he wants!”),

358

Eupolis

with 91 mockingly identifying this as a fine example of justice, parallel to other sarcastic comments by (Η.) at 95 and 97–8. 91 ὅση is probably exclamatory (Kühner–Gerth 1898 ii.439). Telò 2007. 491 compares S. Ai. 118 ὁρᾷς, Ὀδυσσεῦ, τὴν θεῶν ἰσχὺν ὅση, E. Ph. 1370 πολλοῖς δ’ ἐπῄει δάκρυα τῆς εὐχῆς ὅση and Damox. fr. 3.7 ἡ δ’ εὐρυθµία τό τ’ ἦθος ἡ τάξις θ’ ὅση and suggests paratragic coloring. But ὅση is not exclamatory in the first two cases, nor (pace Telò) is the fragment of Damoxenus—a description of an attractive young man playing ball—obviously paratragic, and this looks more like a colloquial construction, as at Ar. Nu. 2 ὦ Ζεῦ βασιλεῦ, τὸ χρῆµα τῶν νυκτῶν ὅσον ~ Ra. 1278 ὦ Ζεῦ βασιλεῦ, τὸ χρῆµα τῶν κόπων ὅσον. 92–7 It is unclear whether this is a second anecdote describing a ritual, legal or social misstep by “the Epidaurian”, whoever he may be—the first half of 93 might have contained a personal name—that allowed (Ζ.) to extort money from yet another victim, or a continuation of the story of (Ζ.)’s interaction with the foreigner in 81–9. If the latter, the situation clearly took additional twists and turns after (Ζ.) got his money—or his first tranche of money. If the former, neither (Ζ.) nor (Η.) appears to make any mention of what (Ζ.) did to earn a second pay-off, so this part of the story must have been lost in the lacuna after 98. 92–4 διαστολή (〈 διαστέλλω, “separate, divide”) is first attested here (nowhere else before Aristotle), and the sense of the word is uncertain. If διαστολάς is one of two direct objects of ἔπραξεν (hence οὔτε), this is something the Epidaurian failed to do, and 94 then describes either a consequence of that inaction (e. g. the Epidaurian was barred by (Ζ.) or a third party from a place or thing to which he needed or wanted access) or yet another mistake he commits. 93 The city of Epidauros (IACP #348) was located in the eastern Argolid between Corinth and Argos and was a Spartan ally throughout the Peloponnesian War (Th. 5.57.1) and afterward; an important sanctuary of Asclepius was located there. 94 Adverbial ἐκποδῶν is first attested at A. Ch. 20; Eu. 453, and is widely attested in both prose (e. g. Hdt. 2.86.3; Th. 1.40.4; And. 1.135) and poetry (e. g. Ar. Ach. 240; S. Ant. 1324; E. Med. 561). The distribution of ἐµποδῶν (first attested at A. Th. 429) is similar. 95 Like 90–1, 97–8, a sarcastic comment: (Ζ.) offered his victim a way out of his dilemma (92–4), but required him to pay for the favor (96). For καταλύω in the sense “put an end to [a dispute]”, e. g. Ar. Lys. 112 (a war); Ra. 359 (civil strife); LSJ s. v. I.3.c. πολύ is adverbial with ἡττηθείς.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

359

96–7 For πράττω used in the middle voice in the sense “exact [money] for oneself”, e. g. Ar. Th. 843; Ra. 561 τἀργύριον ἐπραττόµην; Antiph. fr. 208.3 πράξεται … µισθόν; Alex. fr. 265.3 πράττεται τέλος; LSJ s. v. VI. (Ζ.) is utterly shameless and has not yet had the tables turned on him by (Η.), and οὐ λέγω / … 〈 x l 〉]θανόντων is thus most likely a boast. Kassel–Austin compare Arist. Rh. 1383b23–6 καὶ τὸ κερδαίνειν ἀπὸ µικρῶν ἢ αἰσχρῶν ἢ ἀπὸ ἀδυνάτων, οἷον πενήτων ἢ τεθνεώτων, ὅθεν καὶ ἡ παροιµία τὸ ἀπὸ νεκροῦ φέρειν· ἀπὸ αἰσχροκερδείας γὰρ καὶ ἀνελευθερίας (“and to try to make a profit from sources that are small, shameful or impossible, for example from paupers or dead people, whence the proverb ‘to take from a dead man’; for this comes from a shameful devotion to profit and illiberality”).225 If this is in fact the image to which (Ζ.) is appealing, what he means is “I don’t mean a trivial sum” (i. e. more than one might expect to get from the dead, who have nothing). (Η.) then turns the image against (Ζ.) in his response in 97–8, as likely again at 102. The fact that (Η.) is himself probably one of the dead must be lurking behind the dialogue, although whether that is part of (Ζ.)’s point in using the image is unclear. 97–9 ἀποθάνοι in 98 echoes ]θανόντων in 97, suggesting that this is a sarcastic response to (Ζ.)’s boast (and cf. 102). What followed in 99 may have been something like “and you make no effort to extract money from him”. Telò 2007. 501–2 takes the remark to be an aside, but there is no way to know. 97 χάριτος ἄξια Prosaic (e. g. Antipho 6.10; Lys. 27.13; X. Mem. 4.3.3; Isoc. 15.144; Pl. Phdr. 234c). The reference is to gratitude nominally due (Ζ.) not from the Epidaurian but from anyone who might get in (Ζ.)’s way, as τις in 98 makes clear. For the economy of charis, cf. Anaxandr. fr. 69; S. Ai. 521–2; Plaut. Capt. 358; MacLachlan 1993. 73–86; Padilla 2000. 180–5 (with further bibliography). 98 Telò 2007. 502 takes [µᾶ]λ̣λ̣ο̣ν to be corrective (“rather!”), as at e. g. Ar. V. 1486, but this is only a guess. σαφῶς is most often used with verbs of knowing (e. g. 75; Ar. Nu. 250; Th. 7.14.4), seeing (e. g. Xenarch. fr. 4.18; E. Andr. 896; Th. 4.126.6), speaking or answering (e. g. Ar. Ach. 103; Eq. 617–19, 1042; V. 964; Epicr. fr. 10.8; hDem. 149; E. Med. 691) or the like. But it is also attested occasionally with other verbs in the sense “patently, unambiguously” (LSJ s. v. σαφής II.2; e. g. Ar. Ec. 1089–90; Amphis fr. 9.2; Antiph. frr. 122.2; 164.7; A. Ag. 1636; E. El. 617; X. An. 225

Cf. in the paroemiographers e. g. Apostol. 9.41 κἂν ἐπὶ νεκροῦ κερδαίνειν· ἐπὶ τῶν κερδαινόντων ἐκ πενήτων ἢ τεθνεώτων (“to make a profit even over a corpse: in reference to those who make a profit from paupers or dead people”).

360

Eupolis

7.6.43 σαφῶς ἀποθανοῖτο; Cyr. 3.2.15 σαφῶς ἀπολωλέναι), the idea that the phenomenon is known via perception being implicit, as here. PCair. 43227 fr. 3 verso Approximately 10–12 lines are missing between 99 and 100, and nothing significant can be made out of 99 or 100–1. By 102, however, (Η.) or another character sympathetic to him, likely assisted by a pair of mute slaves (112), has assaulted (Ζ.) and begun to tie him up (104–5), much as Dicaeopolis and a mute slave attack and tie up the sycophant Nicarchus at Ar. Ach. 926–52. Cf. Trygaios’ attack on Hierocles at Ar. Pax 1119–26 (which similarly earns the immediate response µαρτύροµαι) and Peisetairos’ attacks on an anonymous oracle-monger, an Inspector and a Decree-monger at Ar. Av. 981–91, 1029–32 (note 1031 µαρτύροµαι τυπτόµενος), 1042–55. 102 = E. fr. 507.1 (from one of the Melanippê plays), where the sense is ~ “Why do you not let sleeping dogs lie?”, whereas here the quotation seems to have been converted into a mocking reference to (Ζ.)’s boast in 96–7. Telò 2006a. 275–94 (cf. Telò 2007. 504–8) unhelpfully attempts to expand the significance of the quotation by reinserting it into its original Euripidean setting; cf. fr. 106 n. 103 [µ]αρτύροµαι is the regular cry of litigious Aristophanic characters—presumably recalling what real Athenians said in similar situations— when abruptly assaulted (Ar. Ach. 926; Nu. 494–6, 1222, 1297; V. 1436; Pax 1119; Av. 1031; Pl. 932), the point being to alert bystanders that they can expect to be summoned as witnesses when and if the case makes its way to court. See in general Todd 1990, esp. 27–31; Spatharas 2008. For incredulous τί δ(έ); (clearly colloquial), e. g. Ar. Nu. 481; Ec. 762 τί δ’; οὐχὶ πειθαρχεῖν µε τοῖς νόµοισι δεῖ; (“What? Don’t I need to obey the laws?”); E. Alc. 1089 τί δ’; οὐ γαµεῖς γὰρ ἀλλὰ χηρεύσῃ λέχος;; Heracl. 685 τί δ’; οὐ θένοιµι κἂν ἐγὼ δι’ ἀσπίδος;; Hipp. 784 τί δ’; οὐ πάρεισι πρόσπολοι νεανίαι; Andr. 241 τί δ’; οὐ γυναιξὶ ταῦτα πρῶτα πανταχοῦ;; Pl. Cri. 54a.226 ο̣[ὐ]κ̣ ἀγωνι[ο]ύµ[εθα; 104 serves to justify the question (actually a threat): not only is (Ζ.) being assaulted, but he was deliberately lured to the spot where the attack has taken place. For the sense of ἀγωνίζοµαι, see LSJ s. v. A.II. 104 Whether [κα]λέσας is used here as a technical judicial term (“called before a court” = LSJ s. v. I.4; thus Plepelits 1970. 162) or simply means “invited,

226

Telò 2007. 510 cites Collard 2005. 368, which is a reference to a different idiom, in which τί δ(έ); points back at something that has just been said and questions the propriety of saying it.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

361

summoned” (LSJ s. v. I.1) is unclear. Nothing in 81–99, however, has suggested a formal interrogation and (Ζ.) instead seems to be, if anything, proud of his accomplishments. συνδεῖς κ(αὶ) ἀδικε[ῖ]ς is a hendiadys, “you do me wrong by tying me up”. συνδέω is used of roping together the hands and/or feet of captives also at e. g. Ar. Eq. 1053; Lys. 442; Ra. 605; outside comedy at e. g. Il. 1.399; Hdt. 9.119.2; E. Cyc. 238; X. Cyr. 1.6.40. 105 ἀλλ’ οὐ[κ ἐγὼ] κτλ recalls an Athenian trope according to which it is “not I, but the law” that punishes a wrongdoer; cf. Ar. Ec. 1055–6 ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐγώ, / ἀλλ’ ὁ νόµος ἕλκει σ’ (“It is not I, but the law who is dragging you off”); Lys. 1.26 οὐκ ἐγώ σε ἀποκτενῶ, ἀλλ’ ὁ τῆς πόλεως νόµος (“It is not I who will kill you, but the law of the city”). ὁ ξένος ὁ τὸν κυκεῶ πιώ[ν] Cf. 81–2 with n. 106 Cf. fr. 84.1 with n. δῆτα “in questions always has a logical connective force” and “denotes that the question springs out of something which another person … has just said” (Denniston 1950. 269), and can have a note of surprise or indignation (Denniston 1950. 272).227 107–20 Luppe 1982. 24–5228 argues that a third character might be involved in the action here, and assigns him 107 and 109. Telò 2007. 464–5 objects that it seems unlikely that someone else would suddenly enter the action unannounced so late in the scene. In fact, Luppe’s third character might easily have been present all along, with some of the earlier lines traditionally given to (Η.) belonging to him instead. This arrangement would not only increase the dramatic complexity and thus the interest of the scene, but would also allow the outspokenly “just” (Η.) to keep his hands clean of violence, if (Ζ.) is assaulted and abused by someone else (Pyronides?). 107 Another sarcastic response, taken by Plepelits 1970. 168 to be semi-proverbial (“eine Redensart … mit der man eine lästige Frage ironisch abschüttelte”). Athens in this period had priests associated with (at a minimum) the cults of Zeus Olympios, Zeus Polieus and in the Piraeus Zeus the Savior (an on-stage character at Ar. Pl. 1171–96); see Plepelits 1970. 168; Garland 1984. 107–8 with further bibliography. Which if any of them is the ἱερέα τὸν τοῦ ∆ιός referred to here is unclear. Perhaps the point of the mention of the god’s officiant is that (Ζ.) is now himself in need of “salvation”, or that at some earlier—now lost—point in the action he represented himself as protecting the god’s interests (cf. 79 n.), or simply that justice (106) is properly the sphere of 227 228

Miscited at Telò 2007. 513 as “Denniston 1950, 112”. Miscited at Telò 2007. 464 as “Luppe 1972”.

362

Eupolis

interest of Zeus in particular (thus Telò 2007. 514). Since 105 (n.) recalls (Ζ.)’s first anecdote (86–9), this remark might recall his second (92–8). For the lack of a definite article with the first word, cf. Ar. Ach. 65 ὡς βασιλέα τὸν µέγαν; Philem. fr. 178.6 εἰς λιµένα τὸν τῆς τέχνης. For the colloquial use of main verb + βαδίζων in a sense similar to English “go and …”, cf. Ar. Pax 1253 πώλει βαδίζων αὐτά (“go and sell them”); Lys. 610 ἐµαυτὸν ἐπιδείξω βαδίζων (“I’m going to go and show myself”); Pl. Com. fr. 71.6 τὸ µύρον ἤδη παραχέω βαδίζων (“I’m going to go now and pour the perfume”); Renehan 1976. 157–8, who compares the use of ἰών at S. OT 603 and Men. Dysc. 688, 781, and argues that this is a common if ill-recognized use of the present participle in particular with verbs of motion (add with ἰών e. g. Ar. Ach. 954; Eq. 154; Amips. fr. 1.1; Anaxil. fr. 28.1), with ἄγω and φέρω and the like (cf. fr. 273.2, where I advocate for ἀγαγών in place of the paradosis ἄγων; Ar. Ach. 948–51 πρόσβαλλ’ ὅποι βούλει φέρων, “take him and throw him wherever you want”), and with verbs of perception such as ὁράω. 108 ὕβριζε is a way of acknowledging that the speaker cannot control the situation at the moment, while also asserting that his addressee’s illicit enjoyment of power is ephemeral and will soon lead to ruin; cf. Ar. V. 1441; S. El. 794; E. Med. 603; HF 261; [A.] PV 82. Telò 2007. 515–16 compares similarly defiant orders at e. g. Ar. Th. 692 κέκραχθι; E. Ion 527 κτεῖνε καὶ πίµπρη; Or. 1597 κτεῖν(ε). ὕβρις is wanton abuse, hostile behavior that serves not so much to injure as to exalt the agent by humiliating his victim, and that accordingly implies an arrogantly misguided sense of one’s own place in the world; in Athens it was a serious, actionable offense, setting up the threat that follows. Cf. lex ap. D. 21.47 with MacDowell 1991 ad loc.; Arist. Rh. 1378b23–30; Harrison 1971. 76–7; MacDowell 1976a; MacDowell 1978. 129–32; Fisher 1992, esp. 36–82; Cairns 1996. This is thus a substantial expansion of (Ζ.)’s initial allegation of simple assault (103–4) on the basis of the exchange in 104–7, although with no attempt to allege wounding (τραῦµα, 〈 τιτρώσκω), which would require bloodshed rather than the mere application of physical force (Phillips 2007). ἔτ(ι) seems more likely intended to reinforce ταῦτα (i. e. in addition to the fine to be paid for the assault itself) than to be a generic element in a threat (Telò 2007. 517, citing the collection of examples in Kamerbeek 1959 on S. Tr. 257, to which add e. g. Ar. Nu. 814; Pax 1187). For ὀφλήσω as the future form of ὀφείλω in the sense “be liable for legal damages”, cf. Ar. Nu. 777; Pax 172; Men. Pk. 502, and see in general fr. 216 n. 109 Telò 2007. 518 compares S. Ai. 386 µηδὲν µέγ’ εἴπῃς· οὐχ ὁρᾷς ἵν’ εἶ κακοῦ; (“Make no grand speeches! Do you not see the trouble you are in?”).

∆ῆµοι (fr. 99)

363

The question with γάρ “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 … Frequently the second speaker echoes, with contempt, indignation, or surprise, a word or words used by the first” (Denniston 1950. 77), in this case ἔ̣τ̣[ι]. οὕτως ἔ[χ]ων i. e. tied up and about to be carried off, presumably for punishment (112 with n.). 110 καί adds emphasis to κλάοντα. For ναὶ µὰ ∆ία (a bland, colloquial oath), see fr. 270.2 n. κλάοντα καθέσω σ(ε) Cf. fr. 222.1 n. (on κλαίω); Cratin. fr. 309 τὴν χεῖρα µὴ ’πίβαλλε, µὴ κλάων καθῇ (“Don’t lay a hand on [him/her/it], lest you sit there wailing!”); X. Mem. 2.1.12; Smp. 3.11; Pl. Ion 535e; LSJ s. v. καθίζω I.5 (“put into a certain condition”). 111 In Aristophanes, χρέος always means “debt” (e. g. Ach. 615; Nu. 30) or “need” (Ach. 454–5), which is also far and away the most common sense of the word generally (LSJ s. v. I.1). If “debt” is meant here, either the speaker is taking (Ζ.) to have threatened him with another fine in 110 (cf. 108) or (Ζ.) lashed out in a wild and unexpected direction at the end of that verse, claiming that the other character had failed to meet financial obligations to the state or the like. With Kassel–Austin’s µοι, the pronoun can be uncoupled from the verb and treated as an ethical dative (“in my opinion”). But this means understanding χρέος as “matter, thing”, a meaning for which LSJ s. v. II.1–2 cites only poetic sources, about half of them from tragic lyric, suggesting that it represents elevated usage, which would not obviously be appropriate here. καταψεύδοµαι is “tell a lie against [someone], slander [someone]”; colloquial 5th-century Athenian vocabulary (in tragedy only at E. Ba. 334). Here τοῦτο τὸ … χρέος is an internal object (“a lie regarding this supposed χρέος”). 112–13 Directed to a pair of slaves,229 who have likely been assisting the speaker in tying (Ζ.) up but are ignored by (Ζ.), who treats his interlocutor as responsible for the actions of any servile characters under his control. Cf. 41–3. (Ζ.) is carried off into a wing, presumably to meet some ugly fate; cf. fr. 172.15–16 εἶτ’ αὐτὸν ὁ παῖς θύραζε / ἐξαγαγὼν ἔχοντα κλῳὸν παρέδωκεν Οἰνεῖ with n. 114 is a new thought, and 113, however restored, appears to be dependent on 112, as an explanation of or expansion on the order given there. 229

Telò 2007. 508–9 hypothesizes that they may instead be archers, suggesting that Aristides is functioning as an Athenian public official. (Pace Telò, Hall 1989. 45 does not make this claim, although it might be deduced from her confused treatment of 23 δηµογορεῖν.)

364

Eupolis

114–17 Whoever Diognetus (PAA 327537 add.) was, he must have been quite socially or politically prominent to have been thought deserving of an onstage attack of this sort. Körte 1912. 311 suggested that Eupolis’ target might be identified with the Diognetus (PA 3850; PAA 327535) who was a member of the board of inquiry charged with investigating the profanation of the Eleusinian Mysteries in 415 BCE. Another Diognetus (PA 3851; PAA 327540) was accused of both defaming the Mysteries and defacing the Herms, and went into exile as a consequence, while Diognetus son of Niceratus (PA 3863; PAA 327820)—the same man?; see Davies 1971. 405—and brother of the famous general Nicias (fr. 193 n.) was a victorious choregos at the City Dionysia in 415 BCE and likewise went into exile shortly thereafter. Pace Telò 2007. 528–9, the charge of being a ἱερόσυλος (“temple-robber”) is likely pure abuse (cf. Ar. Pl. 30 ἱερόσυλοι ῥήτορες, “temple-robbing orators”; Men. Asp. 227; Dysc. 640; Epitr. 935, 952, 1064; Sam. 678, etc.; Willi 2003b. 64–5), as is perhaps the claim that Diognetus was once one of the Eleven (with the vague ποτ(ε) marking this as slander). The πανοῦργοι νεώτεροι of 116 are most easily understood to be contemporary politicians (cf. 85 n.; fr. *104.2 with n.), with Diognetus among their leaders (117). That ὁπόταν εὖ τὸ σῶµ’ ἔχ[ῃ] is saved for the end of 117 (n.) suggests that it is a surprise, mocking Diognetus for a well-known physical disability; cf. fr. 107 with nn. The name is not particularly rare (over 25 additional 5th-/4th-century examples in LGPN II). 115 τῶν ἕνδεκ[α] The Eleven were Athenian state officials appointed by lot to supervise the prison and executions, and had legal jurisdiction in cases involving κακουργοί (i. e. thieves, kidnappers and other serious criminals; see Hansen 1976. 36–53) and their summary punishment by ἀπαγωγή; see in general [Arist.] Ath. 52.1 with Rhodes 1981 ad loc.; Harrison 1971. 17–18; MacDowell 1978. 237–8; Burgess 2005. 117 If the πανοῦργοι νεώτεροι of 116 are contemporary politicians, πολλῷ κράτιστος would initially appear to mean “most powerful (politically/ socially)”, and ὁπόταν εὖ τὸ σῶµ’ ἔχ[ῃ] then turns the comment in a different direction, as if relative degrees of physical fitness were in question. For εὖ τὸ σῶµα ἔχειν (prosaic) meaning “be vigorous, strong”, e. g. X. Mem. 3.12.4, 7; Cyn. 12.5; Pl. Grg. 456d, 464a; Lg. 839e; [Pl.] Am. 133e, 134a; Hp. Art. 8 = 4.94.11–12 Littré τοῖσι µὲν γὰρ εὖ ἔχουσι τὸ γυῖον; D. 21.223; Arist. HA 572b7; GA 787a26. 118–19 For the mix of singular (πάσῃ … τῇ πόλ[ει) and plural (δικαίους) referring to the same group (Athens’ citizen body), see fr. 118 n. ἐγὼ δέ draws an emphatic contrast either between Diognetus’ behavior as allusively described in 116–17 and the announcement/order put forward here (Diognetus encouraged bad behavior among Athens’ citizens, whereas the speaker wants them to act well), or between a third speaker to whom the

∆ῆµοι (fr. 100)

365

preceding lines belong (discussing the contemporary city and its political frailties) and the character who speaks these words (looking to the future and to a potentially new and better state of public affairs). In either case, it is difficult to believe that this is not (Η.) calling for general adherence to the values he claimed for himself in 80, for which (Ζ.)—his bluster about justice and proper action in 104, 106 notwithstanding—has shown nothing but ugly, self-serving contempt. προαγορεύω (routinely + dative; see Text) is prosaic 5th-century vocabulary (attested elsewhere in poetry only at Ar. Lys. 1214) and lends these lines the character of something approaching an official public announcement.

fr. 100 K.-A. (CGFPR 93 = Dêmoi fr. 29 Telò)

4

fr. 1 (Πυρωνίδ[ης]) ἆρ’ οὐχὶ φαν[ερ ἦ που µέγ’ οι[ ζη.[ κόσµος .[ fr. 2 [ἔ]µβαινε π̣α̣ρ[̣ κώµαζ’ ὁπο̣ι̣ω̣[ [ . . . . . . ] . ·ι σ· [

6 8

9 10

fr. 1 ([Ο]ἰ· κ· έτης) [ ]θ̣αι του[

fr. 3 Χο(ρός)

11

15

([Οἰκ]έτη(ς))

ἐγὼ δὲ φιλ̣[ καὶ φιλ..[ καὶ νῦν .[ τ̣ο[̣ φέρ’ ἴδω, π̣λ̣ακ̣[οῦ

fr. 4 17

] ἐξιόντας

1 φαν[ερόν] suppl. Grenfell and Hunt   6 et 15 suppl. Grenfell and Hunt   7 fort. ὁποίῳ   15 π̣λ̣ακ̣[οῦντα] suppl. Wilamowitz

366

Eupolis

fr. 1 (Pyronides)

So isn’t it apparent(ly?) …? [ Surely then great(ly?) οι[ ζη.[ ornament/order (nom.) .[

4

fr. 2 Embark π̣α̣ρ[̣ …! Wander drunk ὁπο̣ι̣ω̣[ …! [ . . . . . . ] . ·ι σ· [

6 8

9 10

fr. 1 (Slave) [ ]θ̣αι του[

fr. 3 Cho(rus)

11

15

(Slave)

But I φιλ̣[ and φιλ..[ and now .[ τ̣ο̣[ Let’s see, cake

fr. 4 ] going forth (masc. acc. pl.) Meter 1–2 and 15 (spoken by Pyronides and the Slave, respectively) are plausibly interpreted as iambic trimeter. Grenfell and Hunt take the indentation of 3–4, 6–8 and 11–14 to be an attempt to indicate that those lines are in a different meter. 3–4 begin l, 6–7 begin llk, and 11–14 (assigned by the papyrus to the Chorus) combine to suggest xlk, which once again looks iambic. 17 is the end of a line and scans lklx (trochaic tetrameter catalectic?). Discussion Grenfell and Hunt 1914. 96, 98–9 (editio princeps); Körte 1919. 13–16; Wilamowitz 1919. 69 = 1962. 307–8; Storey 2003. 126, 170–1; Telò 2007. 600–5 Text Grenfell and Hunt’s φαν[ερόν] in 1 might be right, but e. g. φαν[ερῶς] is just as likely. So too in 15, the partially preserved word may well be a form of πλακοῦς (thus Wilamowitz), but it need not be accusative singular. I omit line 5 in POxy. 1240 fr. 2 and lines 16 and 18 in POxy. 1240 fr. 4, since no text is preserved in either place.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 100)

367

Interpretation POxy. 1240 (dated by Grenfell and Hunt, the original editors, to the first half of the 2nd century CE) consists of four small scraps of papyrus, three of which preserve the beginnings of lines, while the last preserves the end of one. The original editors maintain that “it is quite likely” (reasons unspecified) that POxy. frr. 1 and 3 should be joined, with about nine lines—i. e. four more than the condensed conventional numbering suggests—missing between the two sections of POxy. fr. 1. Grenfell and Hunt further suggest that POxy. fr. 2 might partially fill the gap, although this seems merely to be a guess. The names of the speakers and a note (10; not part of the text) have been added in the margin, apparently by a different hand. The physical relationship of POxy. 1240 fr. 4 to POxy. 1240 frr. 1–3 is unknown. Despite Telò, attempts to restore the missing portions of the lines tell us nothing about what Eupolis wrote and instead amount to a form of circular logic. The fragment was assigned to Dêmoi by Wilamowitz and Körte on the basis of the indication that the speaker of 1 is Pyronides (cf. fr. 99.56, 68 and the general introduction to the play). The other character in POxy. 1240 frr. 1–3 is a slave (9), with whom the coryphaeus seemingly interacts in 11–14, contrasting his own behavior (11 ἐγὼ δέ) with that of someone else (the slave? Pyronides?). Storey 2003. 171, followed by Telò and presumably attempting to make sense of 7 κώµαζ’, along with the mention of a cake and departure in 17, suggests that “A scene of celebration at the end of the comedy would not be an unlikely context”. 1 ἆρ’ οὐχί Cf. line-initial ἆρ’ οὐ at e. g. Ar. V. 575; Av. 722 ἆρ’ οὐ φανερῶς;; Ec. 1102 (all rhetorical questions expecting a positive answer). 2 For affirmative ἦ που, see Denniston 1950. 286 (“the hesitation implied by που imposes a slight check on the certainty implied by ἦ”). Pyronides is likely answering his own question. 6 ἔµβαινε The present (imperfective) imperative of the compound is attested elsewhere in comedy only at Ar. Ra. 188, where it refers to getting into a boat. Here the parallel κώµαζ(ε) in 7 suggests that the addressee is being told “Be on your way!”, as with the aorist form at Ar. Lys. 1303 ἔµβη (Spartan dialect); Ra. 377 ἔµβα; Ec. 478 ἔµβα, χώρει. 7 κώµαζ(ε) For the κῶµος (a drunken party of men, occasionally accompanied by prostitutes playing instruments, wandering the streets and looking for fun, trouble or both), see Headlam 1922 on Herod. 2.34–7; Pütz 2003. 156–91. 15 φέρ’ ἴδω (colloquial) is always followed by a question (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 6.1; Ar. Eq. 119; Nu. 21; [Epich.] fr. 277.3; E. Cyc. 8); see Stevens 1976. 42; López Eire 1996. 98–9.

368

Eupolis

πλακοῦς is a generic name for an unleavened baked cake; mentioned in comedy most often in banquet catalogues and the like (e. g. Telecl. frr. 1.13; 34.1 φιλῶ πλακοῦντα θερµόν, ἀχράδας οὐ φιλῶ; Ar. Ach. 1092; Ra. 507; Theopomp. Com. fr. 12), but also as offerings (Ar. Pl. 1126; Pl. Com. fr. 188.8). See in general Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 60.15. 17 ἐξιόντας sc. from the stage-house?

[fr. 101 K.-A.] (CGFPR *94 = adesp. fr. 40 Dem. = Dêmoi fr. 19 Telò)

5

10

]..[ ]δήµου[…….]ηλυσ· [ ]. τοῖς ἐνερ[τέ]ροις θεοῖς ].κως οὐκ ἂν ἐβίων οὐδ’ ἅπαξ ]η̣µοι τῆς πόλεως πλεῖστον πολύ ]µ[ο]ι· διαφθείρουσι νῦν [Πείσαν]δροί τε καὶ Πάριδες ὁµοῦ ]των ἐνθάδε· ] παρέλειπον πρὸ τ[ο]ῦ ]. εἰς ἀνάκρισιν [ ].ως µαχου.[ ]τ̣αι̣[.(.)]θε̣ν̣[

2 δήµου[ς] Schroeder   Ἠλύσ· [ιον] Sudhaus   3 suppl. Körte   4 [τεθνη]κὼς Schroeder   ἂν ἐβίων Grenfell and Hunt : ἀνεβίων Schroeder   5 ]η µοὶ vel [δ]ῆµοι Schroeder   7 [Πείσαν]δροί Schroeder : [Ἀλέξαν]δροί Grenfell and Hunt   8 τῶν Körte   11 µαχού[µενος] Schroeder (µαχου[µεν ] iam Grenfell and Hunt) : µαχού[µεθα] Schiassi : fort. µαχού[µενοι]

5

10

]..[ ]δήµου[…….]ηλυσ· [ ]. to the gods below ].κως I/they wouldn’t have lived even once ]η̣µοι the great majority of the city ]µ[ο]ι· they ruin now or to them ruining now both Peisanders and Parises alike ]των here· ] I/they passed over previously ]. to an examination [ ].ως fight[ ]τ̣αι̣[.(.)]θε̣ν̣[

∆ῆµοι (fr. 101)

369

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g. 2 〈xlkl〉 ll〈k〉l k〈lkl〉 〈xlkl x〉|lkl klkl 〈xlkl〉 l|lkr llkl 5 〈xlk〉l l|lrl llkl 〈xlkl x〉|lkl llkl 〈xlk[l l]〉lk|l krkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉 llkl 〈xlkl xlk〉|r llkl 10 〈xlkl xlkl〉 lrkl 〈xlkl xlk〉l kl〈kl〉 〈xlkl xlk〉l 〈x〉l〈kl〉 Discussion Grenfell and Hunt 1908. 169, 172 (editio princeps); Schroeder 1915. 65–7; Körte 1919. 12–13; Edmonds 1940. 10; Plepelits 1970. 138–9; Storey 2003. 171; Telò 2004a; Wright 2006; Luppe 2007; Telò 2007. 533–48; Henry 2013 Text In 2, Sudhaus suggested Ἠλύσ[ιον] (“Elysian”; the upsilon is short) for the papyrus’ ]ηλυσ· [, which would be an epicism (cf. 3 τοῖς ἐνερ[τέ]ροις θεοῖς with n.; Od. 4.563 Ἠλύσιον πεδίον). In 4, the syllable before ].κως must be long. Schroeder suggested [τεθνη]κώς (“having died”), but other perfect active participles (e. g. δεδοικώς, δεδρακώς) or adverbs (e. g. ἐπιεικῶς) would also do. Further on in 4, the editio princeps offers οὐκ ἂν ἐβίων, which has the advantage of supplying the modal particle (otherwise generally taken to have stood earlier in the verse) and fits what follows better than ἀνεβίων does: whoever the speaker is describing is not concerned with the possibility of being revived a second time, but with being alive a second time. In 7, Grenfell and Hunt suggested [Ἀλέξαν]δροί τε καὶ Πάριδες, which is tautologous—Alexandros is Paris’ other name; discussion at de Jong 1987; Lloyd 1989; Suter 1991—hence Schroeder’s [Πείσαν]δροί (cf. fr. 195 n.), the only other obvious candidate. The half-stop at the end of 8 may be by the original scribe (thus Grenfell and Hunt). Interpretation POxy. 863 (dated by Grenfell and Hunt to the 3rd century CE) was assigned to Dêmoi by Schroeder on the basis of the references to a return from the dead in 4, the gods of the lower world in 3, and perhaps the Elysian Fields in 2; the mention of the city and its troubles in 5–6; and what might be forms of the word δῆµοι in 2 and 5. The papyrus is in the same hand as POxy. 2806 = adesp. com. fr. 1109, where the speaker appears to be a divine

370

Eupolis

or quasi-divine figure (thus Kassel 1979. 5), in that in col. i he or she tells the addressee about the miraculous children the local women will bear and then in col. ii requests construction of a sanctuary. That both fragments—the only known examples of this hand—are from the same play is a reasonable if unprovable assumption, and the fact that the action in adesp. com. fr. 1109 is not easily accommodated in what we know of Dêmoi does not prove that a different comedy is in question. Given the combination of an apparent mismatch of content and the fact that the assignment of POxy. 863 to Dêmoi is merely a guess, however, this would better have been treated as an adespoton fragment.230 See in general Henry 2013.231 Telò 2004a. 2 argues that 5–7 explain 4, the protasis of which must have been in 3; that the references to “now” in 6 and to “before this” in 9, along with the apparently contrasting reference to the future in 11 µαχού[, combine with this to guarantee the “discursive continuity” (continuità discorsiva) of the entire section, by which he seems to mean that all these verses must be assigned to a single speaker; and that the “implicit deictic function” (implicita funzione deittica) of 11 µαχού[µενος] allows for the exclusion of the possibility that 9 παρέλειπον might be third-person plural rather than first-person singular. None of this is true. 5–7 might just as easily be another speaker reacting to 3–4, and the fact that temporal references are made in both 6 and 9 does not require or even suggest that the same character should be assigned both lines. There is likewise no reason to assume that the subject of 9 παρέλειπον is the same as that of 11 µαχού[, and even if it is, 11 is just as easily restored µαχού[µενοι] as µαχού[µενος],232 allowing παρέλειπον to be third-person plural. Nor does the participle have any “deictic function” except to the extent that, like any verbal form, it “indicates” action of some sort, in this case an 230

231

232

Handley 1982 suggested that POxy. 2806 might be a fragment of Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros, and Wright 2006, reading ed. pr.’s [Ἀλέξαν]δροί in 7, attempted to assign POxy. 863 to the same play, arguing that the reference to “Alexanders and Parises” is to be connected with the complications and confusion surrounding the disguised Dionysus’ identity in the play. As Luppe 2007. 24 notes, this is “wenig sinnvoll”, particularly because the rest of the fragment has nothing obviously to do with what we know of the content of Cratinus’ comedy (for which, see Bianchi 2016. 198–301, esp. 203–7). Telò 2004. 1 n. 1 claims that [fr. 101] ought to be associated with Dêmoi because it features both a concern with political themes and an individual figure with a distinct identity, unlike any other known 5th-century anabasis comedy. But this is circular argument, for only Telò’s tendentious reading of the text yields such a figure (supposedly Solon). Nor, of course, need the form even be nominative.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 101)

371

intention to fight. Telò 2004a. 6–9 goes on to restore 5–6 [ἀλλ᾽ ἔµελε δ]ή µοι τῆς πόλεως πλεῖστον πολύ· / [καίτοι τὰ πράγµατ]α µοι διαφθείρουσι νῦν (“But I in fact felt far more concern for the city; and yet they now ruin its business, as far as I am concerned” vel sim.) and to argue (following Keil 1912. 244) that the speaker must be Solon because some of Solon’s legislation was concerned with women and adultery (frr. 26–31 Ruschenbusch). But this is mere speculation, particularly given that there is no solid reason to think that the fragment comes from Dêmoi. 3 τοῖς ἐνερ[τέ]ροις θεοῖς The title is used at Il. 15.225 to refer to Cronus and the Titans in their prison in Tartarus, but later (with the shortened form of the adjective, νέρτεροι) of Hades and Persephone (e. g. A. Pers. 622; S. Ant. 749; E. Hel. 969 ὦ νέρτερ’ Ἅιδη); attested nowhere else in comedy. 4 ἂν ἐβίων For ἀναβιόω (the verb in the alternative restoration of the text)—identified by Moer. α 38 as an Atticism and much more common in comedy than LSJ s. v. suggests, although often in the sense “revive (from a faint)”233 or “recover (from an illness)”—cf. Crates Com. fr. 52; Ar. Ra. 177; fr. 770; Pl. Com. fr. 139; Sannyr. fr. 12 (most of these passages drawn from Phot. α 1408); E. fr. 1096a. 5 τῆς πόλεως In the absence of any further specification, “the city” in question can probably be assumed to be Athens; cf. fr. 330. For πλεῖστον πολύ, see fr. 173.1–2 n. 6 διαφθείρουσι might be either a masculine/neuter dative plural present active participle or a third-person plural active indicative. 7 [Πείσαν]δροι and Πάριδες must be contemptuous plurals, “(nasty) people like …” (cf. Ar. Ach. 270 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Fraenkel 1950 on A. Ag. 1439). If so, “Peisanders” are leaders who put their own interests ahead of the state’s; cf. frr. 99.1–4; 195 n. “Parises” might be “seducers of women”, but this seems weak as the point of the second element in the pair. The idea is instead thus likely once again that men like this sell out the city for their own pleasure, just as Paris disregarded Troy’s larger interests by seducing and then insisting on holding onto Helen; cf. the reference to Aspasia as “Helen” in fr. 267. For Paris, see Hampe, LIMC I.1.494–7; Gantz 1993. 561–4, 567–76, 625–8, 637–9. 9 If ἄν stood in the first half of the line (cf. 4), the action would be unreal (“I/they would have passed over previously”). For πρὸ τ[ο]ῦ, see fr. 219.1 n. 10 An ἀνάκρισις was a preliminary hearing of the plaintiff and the defendant in a lawsuit held by the magistrate in charge of the court in which 233

Cf. the use of ἀποθνῄσκω (literally “die”) to mean “faint” at e. g. Ar. Ach. 15 with Headlam 1922 on Herod. 1.60.

372

Eupolis

the suit had been filed to determine whether the case could go forward. How much evidence had to be presented at such hearings is unknown and likely varied depending on the type of action and the inclinations of the individual magistrate. But the overall goal was to ensure that the suit was appropriate for presentation or, if not, to reject it or send it off elsewhere. See Harp. p. 32.5–8 = Α 117 Keaney; Bonner and Smith 1938 I.283–93; Dorjahn 1941; Harrison 1971. 94–105; MacDowell 1978. 240–2.

fr. 102 K.-A. (94 K. = Dêmoi fr. 1 Telò)

5

(Α.) κράτιστος οὗτος ἐγένετ’ ἀνθρώπων λέγειν· ὁπότε παρέλθοι 〈δ᾽〉, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ δροµῆς, ἐκ δέκα ποδῶν ᾕρει λέγων τοὺς ῥήτορας. (Β.) ταχὺν λέγεις γε. (Α.) πρὸς δέ 〈γ᾽〉 αὐτοῦ τῷ τάχει Πειθώ τις ἐπεκάθιζεν ἐπὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν. οὕτως ἐκήλει καὶ µόνος τῶν ῥητόρων τὸ κέντρον ἐγκατέλειπε τοῖς ἀκροωµένοις

2 〈δ᾽〉, ὥσπερ Toup : ὥσπερ Σ : χὤσπερ Bentley : γ᾽· ὥσπερ Kaibel   δροµῆς Canter : δροµεῖς Σ   3 ἐκ δέκα Σ Il. (cf. ἀπὸ δέκα Them. Isid.) : ἑκκαίδεκα Aristid. Σ Olympiod.   4 ταχὺν λέγεις Σ : ταχὺν λέγειν Musurus : ταχὺς λέγειν Hertelius γε Σ : µέν Musurus   〈γ᾽〉 add. Musurus

5

(A.) This man was the most effective speaker there was; and whenever he came forward, like good sprinters, with his words he would overtake the other orators from ten feet back. (B.) You’re talking about someone fast. (A.) And in addition to his speed, a sort of goddess of persuasion used to sit upon his lips. In this way he would hold his audience spellbound, and he was the only orator who used to leave his stinger in them

ΣABDOxon. Aristid. or. 3.51 (III p. 472.29–34 Dindorf) Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς ∆ήµοις µεµνηµένος Περικλέους τούτους φησὶ τοὺς ἰάµβους (vv. 1–5)· ―― Eupolis in his Dêmoi, when he mentions Pericles, says the following iambic lines (vv. 1–5): ――

∆ῆµοι (fr. 102)

373

Aristid. or. 3.51–2 (pp. 309.9–310.3 Lenz–Behr) ὁ δὲ δὴ τρίτος ἄντικρυς ὥσπερ οὐδὲ κωµῳδίας οὗτός γε ποιητής, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἂν εἷς τῶν καλῶν κἀγαθῶν, ἀνεπίφθονον αὐτῷ καὶ καθαρὰν τὴν µαρτυρίαν ἀποδέδωκε λέγων ὡς (v. 3) ἑκκαίδεκα µὲν ποδῶν ᾕρει τοὺς ῥήτορας ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, µόνου δὲ (v. 5) Πειθώ τις ἐπεκάθιζεν ἐπὶ τοῖς χείλεσι, πάντα δ’ εἶναι φλυαρίαν πρὸς ἐκεῖνον. φησὶ γοῦν οὑτωσὶ δυσχεραίνων (fr. 103)· ―― … ἆρ’ οὖν ὁ τοσοῦτον αἱρῶν τοὺς ῥήτορας, τὴν Πειθὼ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν χειλῶν ἔχων κτλ The third (witness) has offered ungrudging and pure testimony in (Pericles’) favor in a straightforward fashion, as if this man were not a comic poet, but was a decent, respectable person, saying that (v. 3) he used to catch the (other) orators in his speeches from sixteen feet back, while (v. 5) a sort of Persuasion sat upon his lips alone, and that everything else was nonsense in comparison to him. He says the following, at any rate, in annoyance (fr. 103): ―― … So the man who catches the (other) orators thus, then, who has Persuasion on his lips etc. Isidorus Pelusiota ep. 4.205 πῶς γὰρ Περικλῆς ἑάλω, ὃς (v. 3) ἀπὸ δέκα ποδῶν ᾕρει τοὺς ῥήτορας, καὶ προσέτι γε (v. 5) αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸν κωµικὸν Πειθώ τις ᾤκει ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν; For how could I catch up to Pericles, who (v. 3) used to catch the (other) orators from ten feet back, and (v. 5) upon whose lips, moreover, as the comic poet puts it, a sort of Persuasion used to dwell? Olymp. in Pl. Alc. 29.8 καὶ ὁ κωµικὸς δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ φησὶν ὡς (v. 3) ἑκκαίδεκα ποδῶν ᾕρει λέγων τοὺς ῥήτορας and the comic poet says in regard to him that (v. 3) he used to catch the (other) orators (from) sixteen feet back when he spoke ΣbT Il. 17.463 ᾕρει· κατελάµβανεν·bT ὡς τὸb (v. 3) ――bT he used to catch: he used to overtake;bT as inb (v. 3) ――bT Quint. Inst. Orat. 12.10.65 hanc vim et celeritatem in Pericle miratur Eupolis, hanc fulminibus Aristophanes (Ach. 531) comparat Eupolis admires this (oratorical) power and speed in Pericles, while Aristophanes (Ach. 531) compares it to lightning bolts Plin. ep. 1.20.17–19 nec me praeterit summum oratorem Periclen sic a comico Eupolide laudari: (4–7) πρὸς ――. verum huic ipsi Pericli nec illa Πειθώ nec illud ἐκήλει brevitate vel velocitate vel utraque (differunt enim) sine facultate summa contigisset. nam delectare persuadere copiam dicendi spatiumque desiderat, relinquere vero aculeum in audientium animis is demum potest qui non pungit sed infigit. adde quae de eodem Pericle comicus alter: (Ar. Ach. 531) ――

374

Eupolis

Nor does it escape me that the consummate orator Pericles was praised by the comic poet Eupolis in the following way: (vv. 4–7) “And in addition to ――”. In fact, not even the famous Pericles himself would have had that Πειθώ or that ἐκήλει as a result of his concision or speed or both (since they are not identical), had he lacked extraordinary force. For (an orator) needs time and room to speak, if he is to please or persuade, and a man can actually only leave a sting in his auditors’ souls if he does not merely jab with it but drives it in. Add to this what another comic poet says of the same Pericles: (Ar. Ach. 531) ―― D.S. 12.40.6 Εὔπολις δ’ ὁ ποιητής· (vv. 5–7) ―― And the poet Eupolis: (vv. 5–7) ―― Cic. de orat. 3.138 Pericles … (v. 5) cuius in labris veteres comici, etiam cum illi male dicerent (quod tum Athenis fieri licebat), leporem habitasse dixerunt tantamque in eodem vim fuisse, ut (v. 7) in eorum mentibus, qui audissent, quasi aculeos quosdam relinqueret Pericles, … (v. 5) on whose lips the ancient comic poets—even if they used to speak badly of him (which was allowed in Athens at that time)—said that charm resided, and that his power was so great that (v. 7) he used to leave stingers, as it were, in the minds of those who had heard him Cic. Brut. 38, 59 38 ut memoriam concinnitatis suae, non, quemadmodum de Pericle scripsit Eupolis, cum delectatione (v. 7) aculeos etiam relinqueret in animis eorum, a quibus esset auditus … 59 (v. 5) Πειθὼ …, quam deam in Pericli labris scripsit Eupolis sessitavisse 38

so that (the oratory of Demetrius of Phaleron) left behind a memory of its elegance, but not, as Eupolis says of Pericles, (v. 7) stingers along with the pleasure in the minds of those who had heard it … 59 (v. 5) Peithô …, which goddess, Eupolis wrote, had settled on Pericles’ lips Quint. Inst. Orat. 10.1.82 quod de Pericle veteris comoediae testimonium est … (v. 5) in labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam what an old comedy tells us of Pericles … that (v. 5) a sort of goddess of persuasion sat upon his lips Lucian vit. Demon. 10 ἀεί, τὸ κωµικὸν ἐκεῖνο, (v. 5) τὴν Πειθὼ τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτοῦ ἐπικαθῆσθαι as the famous comic phrase goes, (v. 5) Persuasion always used to sit upon his lips ΣbT Il. 24.85a καὶ (v. 5) τὸ κέντρον ἐγκαταλιπεῖν, ὡς ὁ κωµικός φησι, τοῖς ἀκροωµένοις and (v. 5) to leave the stinger behind, as the comic poet says, in his auditors

∆ῆµοι (fr. 102)

375

Lucian, Nigrinus 7 κατὰ τὸν κωµικὸν ὡς ἀληθῶς (v. 7) ἐγκατέλιπέν τι κέντρον τοῖς ἀκούουσιν as the comic poet put it, he truly (v. 7) left behind a sort of stinger in his auditors

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

klkl l|rk|l llkl krkl l|lk|l rlkl lrkl | llkl | llkl klkl k|lk|l llkl llkr klk|r llkl llkl l|lkl llkl klkl rlk|l rlkl

Discussion Keil 1912. 247; Plepelits 1970. 6–12; Carrière 1979. 240–1; O’Sullivan 1992. 108, 113–14; Camacho Rojo, Fuentes González and López Cruces 1997. 25–6; Storey 2003. 120, 133–4; Olson 2007. 205–6 (E10); Telò 2007. 171–99; Daneloni 2007–2008; Conti Bizzarro 2009. 73–120, esp. 73–83 Citation context Knowledge of this fragment or at least of part of it—attested already in Cicero (drawing on Theopompus, whom he in de orat. and Diodorus Siculus234 both follow just before this in falsely attributing Ar. Ach. 530–1 to Eupolis; see Mesturini 1983)—seems to have been widespread in the Roman period and afterward. Pliny, Quintilian, Aristides and [Luc.] Dem.Enc. 20 all know it as part of a collection of material, perhaps drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi, that also included Ar. Ach. 531 and (at least in the case of the material available to Aristides) Cratin. fr. 324 and perhaps fr. *116 (n.). But most authors who refer to the passage, including Aristides and Quintilian, cite only vv. 3, 5 and/or 7,235 suggesting that what were judged its most important and colorful elements, i. e. its specific evaluation of aspects of Pericles’ speaking style and abilities, were extracted early on from the rest of the text, likely for a rhetorical handbook of some sort. Eventually the images of one orator catching up to another as a faster runner does a slower one (Them. or. 27 p. 339c–d λέγων αἱρήσεις οὐκ ἐκ δέκα µόνον ποδῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ εἴκοσιν ἴσως, τυχὸν δὲ καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ σταδίου τοὺς ῥήτορας τοὺς ἀλλαχόθεν, “When you speak you will catch the orators from elsewhere not only from ten feet 234 235

Traced by Jacoby to Ephor. FGrH 70 F 196. Note also Aristid. or. 27.15 ὥσπερ … οἱ ἀγαθοὶ δροµεῖς ἐκ πολλοῦ προέµενοι ῥᾳδίως αἱροῦσιν (“just as good sprinters, although setting off from far behind, easily catch [their opponents]”), which is patently another echo of 3.

376

Eupolis

back, but perhaps even from twenty back, and possibly even from a whole stade back”), of persuasion sitting on a speaker’s lips (e. g. Jul. or. 1.26.33–4 (p. 33a); Him. or. 39.15 (p. 164.120–1 Colonna)) and of an argument left behind in the audience like a bee’s stinger (e. g. ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 759 with Theodoridis 1990. 45; ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 1204) came to function as free-floating commonplaces with no direct reference to either Eupolis or Pericles.236 Text In 2, a consonant is needed after παρέλθοι to avoid hiatus, and Toup’s 〈δ᾽〉, ὥσπερ allows the first half of the line to be taken with what follows: regardless of when Pericles arrived at the Assembly, he caught up with and passed the other speakers, meaning that he carried his point no matter what had been said previously. Bentley’s χὤσπερ converts what follows into a new topic, so that the first half of 2 must be taken closely together with 1: when Pericles arrived, he was the most powerful speaker in the Assembly. Kaibel’s γ᾽· ὥσπερ does this even more emphatically: when Pericles arrived, at any rate, he was the most powerful speaker in the Assembly. But 1 is too emphatic for this interpretation. At the end of 2, Canter’s δροµῆς rather than Σ’s δροµεῖς appears to be the normal 5th-century nominative plural form of a noun in -ευς (Threatte 1996. 239–41). In 3, the unmetrical ἑκκαίδεκα (“sixteen”) in most witnesses represents an attempt to correct Σ Il.’s difficult ἐκ δέκα. Cf. ἀπὸ δέκα (a different way of dealing with the problem) in Themistius and Isidorus. In 4, Σ’s ταχὺν λέγεις γε makes sense as part of a comment by a second speaker, as Frommel saw. Musurus assumed that (A.) was still speaking, and he accordingly emended to ταχὺν λέγειν µέν (accepted by Plepelits), with µέν intended to balance the δέ that follows. Hertelius improved Musurus’ text to ταχὺς λέγειν µέν, but the line is better left as transmitted in the scholion. Meineke added a second change of speaker, giving πρὸς δέ κτλ once again to (A.). A consonant is needed in 4 between δέ and αὐτοῦ in order to avoid hiatus, and Musurus’ γ᾽ fills the gap. Modern typographic conventions require an unambiguous choice in 5 between Πειθώ and πειθώ (as in Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin). Along with Radermacher and Telò, I print the former, on the ground that the verb implies something more like a person than an object or abstract quality. But in such situations the Greek is always at least somewhat ambiguous.

236

Further examples collected by Kassel–Austin. For the reception of Pericles’ rhetoric in the Roman period, see Nicolai 1996.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 102)

377

Kassel–Austin place a comma at the end of 5, which will not do. Kock punctuated with a half-stop, which implies that 6–7 develop 4–5 only. The lines appear instead to sum up (A.)’s description of Pericles generally, and a period (as in Meineke) is better. Interpretation According to Aristides, this is a description of Pericles (who must already have been mentioned in the conversation, hence the bare οὗτος in 1). The actions described took place in the past, i. e. before Pericles died in 429 BCE, and the vivid terms in which (A.) describes Pericles’ abilities, together with the consistent use of imperfects (3 ᾕρει, 5 ἐπεκάθιζεν, 6 ἐκήλει, 7 ἐγκατέλειπε), leave little doubt that (A.) saw the statesman in action repeatedly in the Athenian assembly and is reporting at first-hand about the effect of his rhetoric on his audience (6–7). (B.), on the other hand, seems to know nothing about any of these matters. Fr. 103 (n.) is supposed to have stood five lines after this, and must thus almost inevitably be understood as part of the same conversation. There (A.) asks about the current political situation, sc. in Athens, regarding which he appears to be uninformed, whereas (B.) is acquainted with the leading figures at the moment and with how to evaluate them. The action is therefore generally taken to be set in the Underworld, with (A.) in both fragments being one of the Dead (thus knowledgeable about the past), (B.) an Athenian visitor (thus knowledgeable about the present). But the assignments of speakers in fr. 103 might just as easily be reversed, allowing one speaker ((A.) here = (B.) there) to continue to supply information about the Athenian political scene past and present to another ((B.) here = (A.) there) who either has never been to the city or—more likely, given what we know of the action of the play—died before Pericles’ time (thus Telò 2007. 171–3, specifically identifying the first speaker here and the second speaker in fr. 103 as Pyronides).237 Plepelits 1970. 11–12 (following Meineke) gives all of 4–7 to (B.), making him equal in his degree of knowledge of the past and present state

237

Telò 2007. 173 goes on to argue that the second speaker in fr. 102 and the first in fr. 103 cannot be Solon, Aristides or Miltiades, because by referring to Pericles thus “Pironide si esporrebbe, infatti, al rischio di svalutare implicitamente le capacità oratorie dell’altrettanto illustre statista”, and suggests that these remarks immediately preceded Pericles’ entry “secondo un ben noto meccanismo drammaturgico”. The first point carries no conviction (Why should the other statesmen have been insulted, if the point was that Pericles was the best speaker of his time, long after they were dead? And what is in any case to exclude the possibility that the addressee was insulted, even if only momentarily?), while the second tells us nothing about what actually went on onstage (since Pericles might just as well not have entered at this point).

378

Eupolis

of Athenian politics with (A.), and similarly argues that the lines come from the first half of the play, but suggests that they are spoken by the hero and his friend or slave as they descend to the Underworld. On the division of lines accepted here and in fr. 103, (B.)’s ignorance fits awkwardly with Plepelits’ thesis. It must nonetheless be conceded that nothing actually shows that (A.) is dead. In any case, there was room between fr. 102 and fr. 103 for only about one exchange of the sort preserved here in 1–3 and 4–7, neither of which necessarily preserves the entire comment. 1 is a general evaluation, fleshed out in 2–5, which describe two crucial aspects of Pericles’ rhetorical technique: his “speed”—i. e. the sheer, overpowering force of his words (see 4 n.)—and his persuasiveness. The first point is focussed on Pericles’ relationship to his opponents, the latter on his relationship to his audience. 6–7 resume the verdict rendered in 1, now with attention exclusively on the audience and the effect of Pericles’ rhetoric rather than on how the rhetoric worked. By the end of 7, Pericles has implicitly vanished from the scene. For all of this as a description of what would later come to be known as the “grand” rhetorical style, see O’Sullivan 1992. 106–29. For Pericles’ reputation as a brilliant speaker, Kassel–Austin compare Th. 1.139.4 Περικλῆς … λέγειν τε καὶ πράσσειν δυνατώτατος (“Pericles … who was the most powerful speaker and the most capable of accomplishing something”); Pl. Phdr. 269e κινδυνεύει … εἰκότως ὁ Περικλῆς πάντων τελεώτατος εἰς τὴν ῥητορικὴν γενέσθαι (“Pericles is quite likely the most accomplished orator there is”); and note also Cratin. frr. 324; 326; Call. Com. fr. 21 (supposedly trained by Aspasia); Ar. Ach. 530–1 (on his rhetorical “lightning and thunder”); Pax 606–11; Hermipp. fr. 47.1–4 (belligerent words allegedly unmatched by actions). 1 κράτιστος (cognate with κράτος) is “best” in the sense “most powerful, most able to get things done”; cf. fr. 99.117; Ar. V. 635 (also of rhetoric); Th. 8.68.1 κράτιστος ἐνθυµηθῆναι γενόµενος καὶ ἃ γνοίη εἰπεῖν (“being the best at conceiving ideas and at expressing what he thought”, of Antiphon; cited by Telò); LSJ s. v. 1. For ἀνθρώπων used to fill out the sense of a superlative, e. g. Ar. Nu. 110 ὦ φίλτατ’ ἀνθρώπων ἐµοί, 463–4 ζηλωτότατον βίον ἀνθρώπων; Pax 736–7 ἄριστος / κωµῳδοδιδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων καὶ κλεινότατος; Ra. 1472 ὦ µιαρώτατ’ ἀνθρώπων. 2–3 Pericles apparently starts the race ten feet behind his opponent or opponents; the measure of his incredible speed (4) is that he nonetheless closes the gap. Perhaps we are to imagine that he has already made his case once and has then been thrown on the defensive by a subsequent speaker. But the image as we have it makes better sense if the image is not of an individual

∆ῆµοι (fr. 102)

379

but of a relay race, i. e. a torch-race (cf. Ar. V. 1204 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Thphr. Char. 27.4 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.; Jüthner 1924, esp. 573–5; Campagner 2001. 208–9; Bentz 2007): Pericles’ “team” is losing when he begins to run/speak, but they are nonetheless ultimately the winners. For a rhetorical contest conceived as a footrace, cf. Ar. Ach. 481–3; V. 548–9 (both cited by Telò); Nu. 429 τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἶναί µε λέγειν ἑκατὸν σταδίοισιν ἄριστον (“that I be the best of the Greeks at speaking by a hundred stades”); and cf. in general Ar. Ra. 91 Εὐριπίδου πλεῖν ἢ σταδίῳ λαλίστερα (“wordier than Euripides by a stade”); Alex. fr. 19.3–4 ἡµέρας δρόµῳ / κρείττων (“better by a day’s run”) with Arnott 1996 ad loc. 2 ὁπότε παρέλθοι sc. to the speakers’ stand in the Pnyx; cf. Ar. Th. 443 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; LSJ s. v. παρέρχοµαι VI. ὥσπερ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ δροµῆς For the vehicle taking a definitive article in comedy when plural, see fr. 368 Text. 3 ἐκ δέκα ποδῶν This is an odd use of the preposition (for which, cf. the passages from Xenophon quoted below and LSJ s. v. ἀπό I.2), hence presumably the attempts to rework the line noted in Text. ᾕρει For the sense of the verb, Plepelits compares X. An. 3.3.15 οὐδ᾿ εἰ ταχὺς εἴη πεζὸς πεζὸν ἂν διώκων καταλαµβάνοι ἐκ τόξου ῥύµατος (“and even if he is fast, one man on foot could not chase down and catch another from a bow-shot back”); HG 4.5.15 ὡς δὲ ἐδίωκον, ᾕρουν τε οὐδένα ἐξ ἀκοντίου βολῆς ὁπλῖται ὄντες πελταστάς (“but when they tried to chase them, they caught no one, since they were hoplites chasing peltasts from a javelin-throw back”). 4 (B.)’s appreciative ταχὺν λέγεις γε serves to break up (A.)’s speech, producing the illusion of something more like real dialogue, while also offering a concrete interpretation of the somewhat extravagant image in 2–3. γε ought to follow ταχύν, but see Denniston 1950. 150 for a short list of passages, including Ar. Pl. 21 στέφανον ἔχοντά γε, in which the more important word comes first and the particle is found at the end rather than in the middle of the phrase. For interjections of this sort, see Michelazzo 2004. 176–82, and cf. Ar. Av. 1691 πολλήν γε τενθείαν λέγεις; Lys. 499 δεινόν 〈γε〉 λέγεις, 529; Ec. 812 δεινά γε λέγεις; Pl. 220 πονήρους γ’ εἶπας ἡµῖν συµµάχους; Alex. frr. 223.11–12 δεσµωτηρίου / λέγεις δίαιταν; 224.4 συµφορὰν λέγεις ἄκραν; 228.3 ὑδαρῆ λέγεις. For “speed” as an evaluative term for rhetoric, see O’Sullivan 1997. 113–14. “In Aristophanic and Platonic dialogue δέ γε often picks up the thread after a remark interpellated by another speaker. It thus connects, whether adversatively or continuatively, the speaker’s words with his own previous words, not with those of the other person: ‘Yes, and …’: ‘Yes, but …’” (Denniston 1950. 154).

380

Eupolis

πρὸς … αὐτοῦ τῷ τάχει picks up (B.)’s ταχύν before (A.) moves on to his next point in 5. 5 For the image, Kassel–Austin compare Alcm. PMG 3.71–2 χ[άρ]ις / [ἐπὶ π]αρσενικᾶν χαίταισιν ἵσδει (“grace sits upon the girls’ hair”); see Davies 1984, and note with different verbs but the same high-style coloring Ar. V. 7 κατὰ ταῖν κόραιν … καταχεῖται γλυκύ with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Sapph. fr. 112.4 ἔρος δ’ ἐπ’ ἰµέρτῳ κέχυται προσώπῳ; and additional passages collected by Telò. The compound ἐπικαθίζω is very rare in this period except in Hippocrates, and Kassel–Austin further compare Ar. fr. 679 κηρὸς ἐπεκαθέζετο (“a honeycomb sat upon …”; quoted in the anonymous Life of Sophocles 22 as a reference to the tragic poet’s “honeyed mouth”, for which note also Ar. fr. 598 with S. test. 110 “the comic poets called him ‘honeybee’”), as well as the mocking Ar. Ra. 678–82. If this idea is in the background, 5 quietly sets up the reference to bee-stingers in 7; see in general Conti Bizzarrο 2009. 99–110. For the goddess Πειθώ (“Persuasion” personified), cf. Hes. Th. 349; Op. 73 (associated with the Graces as an attendant of Aphrodite); Ibyc. PMG 288.3–4; Anacr. PMG 384; A. Supp. 523; Ag. 106, 385; Ch. 726; Eu. 885; fr. 161.4; Pi. P. 4.219 with Braswell 1988 ad loc.; frr. *122.2; *123.14; S. frr. 865; 870; E. Hec. 816; fr. 170.1, quoted at e. g. Ar. Ra. 1391; Hdt. 8.111.2; Ar. Lys. 203 with Henderson 1987 ad loc.; Men. Epitr. 555–6 with Furley 2009 ad loc.; IG II2 4583 (a mid-4th-century dedication to the goddess); 5131 (a Theater seat reserved for the priest of Kourotrophos Demeter Peitho; two separate cults?); Paus. 1.22.3 (a state-cult in common with Aphrodite Pandemos, apparently located on the southwest slope of the Acropolis); Conti Bizzarro 2009. 91–5; Stafford 2000. 111–45. For rhetoric as a fundamentally persuasive art, see e. g. “Gorgias” at Pl. Grg. 453a, 454b. For the riddling use of a form of τις with a proper noun to mean “some sort of X, something resembling an X”, cf. fr. 103.1; Ar. Ach. 1226 λόγχη τις (“a spear of some sort”, actually a vine-stake); V. 1475 δαίµων τις (“a mysterious divinity of some sort”, actually Philocleon); Phryn. Com. fr. 3.2 τι κέντρον (“something like a stinger”); and perhaps Pherecr. fr. 182 δήµαρχός τις (“a deme magistrate of some sort”); Ar. fr. 643 λίθος τις (“a stone of some sort”); Lysipp. fr. 9.1 κύων … τις (“a dog of some sort”), and note Ar. Nu. 1398 πειθώ τινα (“some means of persuasion”; cited by Plepelits). 6 ἐκήλει The verb—assumed already in ἀκήλητος at Od. 10.329 and κηληθµός at Od. 11.334—and its cognates are poetic vocabulary (also e. g. Ibyc. PMG 287.3 κήληµα; Pi. Pa. 8.71 = frr. 52i.71 Κηληδόνες; Dith. 2.22 = fr. 70b.22; S. Tr. 575 κηλητήριον; E. IA 1213; first in prose in the 4th century, e. g. X. Mem. 2.6.31 (of the Sirens); Pl. Phdr. 267d (“Gorgias”)) and refer to the effect

∆ῆµοι (fr. 103)

381

of magical or quasi-magical forces, including music and “charming” words, as here.238 See Conti Bizzarro 2009. 95–7. For the use of forms of µόνος in exaggerated praise or blame, e. g. Ar. Pax 590 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Amphis fr. 17.3; Anaxandr. fr. 34.9; Antiph. fr. 111.4. 7 τὸ κέντρον ἐγκατέλειπε i. e. as honeybees, which have barbed stingers, do (cf. Pl. Phd. 91c ὥσπερ µέλιττα τὸ κέντρον ἐγκαταλιπὼν οἰχήσοµαι, “like a honeybee, I will leave my stinger behind in you and go away”; similarly of someone planting an idea in another person’s mind), but wasps and hornets, which have smooth stingers, do not. 5–6 have suggested a rhetorical style that is beautiful and appealing, but this verse abruptly turns the imagery in a new direction: Pericles’ rhetoric had a bite, and what he said was not easily forgotten. For a κέντρον as a stinger, e. g. Ar. V. 225, etc. (the chorus of wasps); Phryn. Com. fr. 3.2 (quoted in 5 n.); Arist. GA 759b4, 760a14. For the verb used of leaving a weapon behind in one’s victim, also Antipho 5.69 ἐγκαταλιπὼν τὴν µάχαιραν ἐν τῇ σφαγῇ ᾤχετο φεύγων (“he would have left his dagger behind in the man’s throat and run away”). For bees and the presentation of them in literature and art, see Davies and Kathirithamby 1986. 47–72; Roscalla 1998. τοῖς ἀκροωµένοις is reserved for the end of the line as a surprise. For the verb, see fr. 279 n.

fr. 103 K.-A. (96 K. = Dêmoi fr. 2 Telò) (Α.) ῥήτωρ γάρ ἐστι νῦν τις; (Β.) ὧν γ’ ἔστιν λέγειν, ὁ Βουζύγης ἄριστος ἁλιτήριος 1

2

1 2

1 ὧν vel ὢν Aristid.TQ REa(?)U AM : ὃν Aristid.U Q    (B.) hic Blaydes : post λέγειν Meineke   2 ἄριστος. (Α.) ἁλιτήριος Kassel

(A.) But is there any real orator nowadays? (B.) Of those one can apply the term to, the best is the Bouzygete—the filthy bastard Aristid. or. 3.51 (p. 309.13–16 Lenz–Behr) πάντα δ’ εἶναι φλυαρίαν πρὸς ἐκεῖνον. φησὶ γοῦν οὑτωσὶ δυσχεραίνων· ――

238

LSJ s. v. κηλέω “rarely in good sense” thus misses the point; to be charmed is an eerie experience but not necessarily a bad one.

382

Eupolis

and that everything else was nonsense in comparison to (Pericles). He says the following, at any rate, in annoyance: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter. llkl k|lk|l llkl klkl klk|l klkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 27, 56; Meineke 1839 II.460–1; Blaydes 1896. 39; Plepelits 1970. 13–17; Privetti 1982. 250–1; Storey 2003. 120, 135; Telò 2007. 199–207; Conti Bizzarro 2009. 78 Citation context Preserved by Aelius Aristides immediately after fr. 102.3, 5 (where see Citation context), and along with Ar. Ach. 531–3 and fr. 103, as part of an extended defense of Pericles against supposed charges of garrulity and of debasing the Athenian people by encouraging them to rhetorical excess. Text In 1, Kassel–Austin unnecessarily print ἐστιν—the nu is not needed to make position, even if some manuscripts offer it—rather than ἐστι in the first section of (A.)’s question. The ancient commentators struggled with the sense of the fragment and in particular with the relative pronoun in 1: – ΣAOxon (III p. 473.3–10 Dindorf) δυσχεραίνων Εὔπολις πρὸς τοὺς ἐφ’ αὑτοῦ ῥήτοράς φησιν ὡς οἱ ἄλλοι τῶν ῥητόρων οὐδέν εἰσιν. ἔστι γάρ τις ῥήτωρ, ὅν ἐστιν ὀνοµάζειν, ὁ Βουζύγης ἄριστος ἀλιτήριος. εὕρηται δὲ καὶ τὸ ὧν, µέγα, δασυνόµενον καὶ περισπώµενον. ἀποδίδοται δὲ οὕτω· ῥήτωρ γάρ ἐστί τις ὁ Βουζύγης ἀλιτήριος ἐκείνων τῶν ῥητόρων, ὧν ἐστι λέγειν. δέον δὲ εἰπεῖν οὓς πρὸς τὸ λέγειν, ὧν εἶπε πρὸς τὸ ἐκείνων (“Eupolis, annoyed with the politicians of his own time, says that the other politicians amount to nothing. ‘For there is a politician, whom (acc. sing.) one can name, the best filthy Bougyzene bastard.’ The word hôn (‘whom’ gen. pl.) is found [in the manuscript] in large letters [sc. marking it as corrupt?], with a rough breathing and a circumflex accent. It is explained as follows: ‘For the filthy Bouzygete bastard is a politician among those politicians of whom one can speak.’ And although he should have said hous (‘whom’ acc. pl.), connecting it with the word legein (‘speak’), he said hôn (‘whom’ gen. pl.), connecting it with the word ekeinôn (‘those’ gen. pl.)” – ΣBDOxon. (III p. 473.3–10 Dindorf) Βουζύγης ἄριστος· ὁ Εὔπολις τοῦτό φησιν ὑπὲρ Περικλέους· ῥήτωρ γὰρ ἔνι τις, ἀφ’ ὧν ἐστι τὸ λέγειν, ὡς προσῆκον δηλονότι [ἀγαθῷ] ῥήτορι; ὁ Περικλῆς ἐστιν ἄριστος ὁ Βουζύγης ὁ ἀλιτήριος (“The Bouzygete is best: Eupolis says this regarding Pericles; ‘For is there any politician among those from whom speaking comes?’—as

∆ῆµοι (fr. 103)

383

is appropriate to a [good] politician, obviously. Pericles is best, the filthy Bouzygete bastard”). ὧν/ὢν is both the lectio difficilior and gives ἄριστος in 2 a construction, and it must have been deliberately altered to ὃν by a scribe or editor who failed to understand the syntax. Kassel proposed assigning ἁλιτήριος at the end of 2 to (A.) as a scathing response to (B.)’s answer to his question. This requires that (A.) be taken to know something about Demostratos already, and it is easier to take the final word in the line as (B.)’s abrupt and amusing reversal of the seeming praise just offered: “the Bouzygete” is the best speaker in Athens at the moment—and simultaneously an utter villain. Interpretation The fragment, which follows fr. 102.3, 5 in Aristides, is assigned to Dêmoi on the basis of two scholia there (ed. Wilamowitz 1879. 183 = 1962. 19 ~ Keil 1902. 48 n. 1), which first note τὸ δὲ ἄριστος πρὸς ῥήτωρ· ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ ∆ηµόστρατος (“The word aristos (‘best’) is to be taken with rhêtor (‘orator’); his name was Demostratos”) and then add ταῦτα Εὐπόλιδος, εἴρηται δὲ µετὰ πέντε ἰάµβους τῶν ὄπισθεν (sic Marc. 453 : ἔµπροσθεν Marc. 422) (“these lines are from Eupolis and are pronounced five iambic lines after the previous lines” (thus Marc. 453 : “the preceding lines” Marc. 422). If this is right—and the information seems too clear and specific to have been invented—these are almost certainly the same speakers as in fr. 102, where see Interpretation.239 Whoever (A.) may be, he is skeptical of a claim seemingly put forward in the immediately preceding lines (now lost) to the effect that someone in contemporary Athens is worthy of the title “orator”, meaning capable of speaking effectively, in the way Pericles did. Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Pax 680–1, where the goddess Peace, having been rescued from War’s cave after many years of captivity, asks Trygaios who is now in charge of the Pnyx and learns to her disgust that it is Hyperbolos. Telò 2007. 171–2 adds Ar. Ra. 1454–5, where the dead Aeschylus asks about Athenian political leadership in the world above.240

239

240

As elsewhere, this assumes that the source for this information knew the text of Eupolis’ play at first hand. If all this material in fact comes from a rhetorical handbook, we may instead be dealing with a fiction created by ancient scholarship. But there is no longer any way to escape this conundrum, which is merely an extreme example of the degree to which modern scholarship on fragmentary ancient texts is trapped within the intellectual tradition in which it is working. Telò further cites Ar. Ra. 73–97, but the conversation there takes place in the upper world (between Dionysus and Heracles).

384

Eupolis

That the man nominated by (B.) as the city’s best contemporary politician is Demostratos (PA 3611; PAA 319245), described at Plu. Nic. 12.4 as ὁ µάλιστα τῶν δηµαγωγῶν ἐπὶ τὸν πόλεµον παροξύνων τοὺς Ἀθηναίους (“the demagogue who offered the Athenians the most encouragement in regard to the war”), is asserted by ΣMarc., presumably drawing on a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi like the one that contained the information offered at ΣΓ Ar. Lys. 397 (preserving fr. 113, where see n.). Nothing more is known of Demostratos beyond the various reports of his role in the Assembly debate in 415 BCE that authorized the Sicilian Expedition (Ar. Lys. 393–7; Th. 6.25.1 (omitting his name); Plu. Alc. 18.2; Nic. 12.4) and the fact that he offered the motion for a decree honoring a certain Proxenos son of Proxenides of Knidos sometime in the same year (IG I3 91). But if Dêmoi was staged after it was widely recognized that the Expedition had failed or had at least turned into a disastrous quagmire (see on Date), the curse has the same force as the Proboulos’ disgusted, angry comment at Ar. Lys. 397, where Demostratos is referred to as ὁ θεοῖσιν ἐχθρὸς καὶ µιαρὸς Χολοζύγης (“the god-despised and foul Cholozygês”, punning on Bouzygês). For Demostratos, see Piccirilli 1990. 28–31. For the Bouzygete genos, see fr. 113 n.241 Privetti argues unconvincingly that Men. fr. 608 (= fr. 746 Körte; miscited by Privetti as fr. 745 Körte) is directly dependent on this passage. 1 Any citizen who voluntarily addressed a public decision-making body could be referred to as a ῥήτωρ (cognate with ἐρῶ, on the one hand, and with English “orator”, on the other). Already by the 420s BCE, however, debate in the Assembly seems to have been dominated by a group of regular speakers (see Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 635), and the word often means something close to our “politician”. For the use of τις with the noun, see fr. 102.5 n. γάρ marks 1 as an incredulous question “and implies that the speaker throws doubt on the grounds of the previous speaker’s words … Frequently the second speaker echoes, with contempt, indignation, or surprise, a word or words used by the first” (Denniston 1950. 77), in this case likely ῥήτωρ.

241

Telò 2007. 203, 557 (following Ostuni 1982/3) argues that Demostratos was not in fact a Bouzygete and that the name is instead used in fr. 103.2 (“in realtà”) to characterize him as someone who—like a typical Bouzygete (App.Prov. 1.61)—was prone to call down curses on others, as also in fr. 113. This might be true, but there is no positive reason to reject the obvious sense of the words in favor of a more complicated but no more revealing counter-hypothesis, particularly since Ar. Lys. 397 becomes far more difficult for the audience in the Theater to understand if Χολοζύγης plays not on Demostratos’ genos-name but on another word-play of a different sort; see Piccirilli 1990. 30–1.

∆ῆµοι (fr. *104)

385

For ἔστιν rather than ἔξεστι + infinitive, e. g. [Susar.] fr. 1.4; Philonid. Jun. fr. 1.3; Pl. Prt. 337c; Grg. 524c; LSJ s. v. εἰµί A.VI.a. 2 For ἀλιτήριος, a strong, religiously tinged pejorative term, see fr. 157b.1 n., and note Plu. Mor. 297a (on naive ancient attempts to generate an etymology for the word).242

fr. *104 K.-A. (100 K. = Dêmoi fr. 7 Telò) καὶ µηκέτ᾽, ὦναξ Μιλτιάδη καὶ Περίκλεες, ἐάσατ’ ἄρχειν µειράκια κινούµενα, ἐν τοῖν σφυροῖν ἕλκοντα τὴν στρατηγίαν 1 ὦναξ Valckenaer : ἄναξ ΣRQT   ἀντὶ Μιλτιάδου καὶ Περικλέους Elmsley Περίκλεες Valckenaer : Περίκλεις ΣT : Περικλεῖ ΣRQ   2 κινούµενα ΣRQT : βινούµενα Meineke   3 ἐν ΣRQT : ἐπὶ Kaibel   τοῖν σφυροῖν ΣT : τοῖσι σφυροῖς ΣR : τοῖσι σφυροῖσι ΣQ : τοῖς σφυροῖς Valckenaer

And no longer, Lord Miltiades and Pericles, allow buggered young men to hold public office, trailing the generalship between their ankles ΣRQT Aristid. or. 3.365 (III p. 672.5–11 Dindorf) Εὔπολις ἐποίησεν ἀναστάντα τὸν Μιλτιάδην καὶ Ἀριστείδην καὶ Σόλωνα καὶ Περικλέα (sic Valckenaer : Γέλωνα καὶ Περικλέα ΣR : Περικλέα καὶ Γέλωνα ΣQ : Κλέωνα καὶ Περικλέα ΣT). ἐν τούτοις οὖν ἔνεισι δύο, φησί, Περικλῆς καὶ Μιλτιάδης. λέγει δὲ Εὔπολις οὕτως· ―― Eupolis represented Miltiades as risen (from the dead) along with Aristides, Solon and Pericles (thus Valckenaer : “Gelon and Pericles” ΣR : “Pericles and Gelon” ΣQ : “Cleon and Pericles” ΣT). Among whom then two are included, he says, Pericles and Miltiades. And Eupolis says the following: ――

242

Telò 2007. 205 takes the Proboulos’ claim at Ar. Lys. 389–98 that an Adonislamentation was being sung within earshot of the Assembly-place at the time Demostratos made his speech in favor of the Sicilian Expedition as evidence for understanding ἀλιτήριος here in its root sense “unholy, hated by the gods” rather than with the extended significance “wicked” vel sim. That the Proboulos’ speech is to be treated as reliable historical evidence for matters of this sort is unclear, and there is little profit in attempting to press for a particular, limited sense of the word in Eupolis.

386

Eupolis

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lrl lrkl klkl l|lkr klkl llkl llk|l klkl Discussion Valckenaer 1767. 252 n. 1; Elmsley 1818. 146 n. 1; Raspe 1832. 17–21, 31–4; Fritzsche 1845. 211–12; Meineke 1847 I.176; Kock 1880 I.283–4; Weil 1881. 294; Srebrny 1929. 541–3; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Chiavarino 1995. 20; Storey 2003. 136; Telò 2007. 241–57 Citation context A gloss on Aristid. or. 3.365 (p. 418.17–19 Lenz–Behr) ὥσπερ τῶν κωµικῶν τις ἐποίησε τέτταρας τῶν προστατῶν ἀνεστῶτας, ἐν οἷς δύο τούτων ἔνεισιν, part of which is presented here as test. *i.a (where see translation and n.). Text In 1, ΣRQT’s ἄναξ is unmetrical, and Valckenaer’s ὦναξ is an easy, uncontroversial fix. At the end of 1, Περίκλεις (ΣT) and Περικλεῖ (ΣRQ) are both unmetrical and were replaced by Valckenaer with the uncontracted form Περίκλεες. For ΣRQ agreeing on a version of the text slightly inferior to that preserved in ΣT, see on 3. In 2, either the paradosis κινούµενα or Meineke’s βινούµενα might be correct, kappa and beta often being almost indistinguishable in miniscule. See Interpretation for the difference between the two verbs. At the beginning of 3, Kaibel’s ἐπί in place of the paradosis ἐν assumes that ἕλκοντα means “pulling (down)” rather than “dragging behind, allowing to trail”, as the parallels from comedy cited under Interpretation and the use of the present tense (showing that this is not a single, punctual action but a continuing one) both suggest is correct. Further on in 3, the dual τοῖν σφυροῖν (ΣT) is the lectio difficilior, which must have been driven out by the more common plural (τοῖσι σφυροῖς ΣR; written τοῖσι σφυροῖσι [unmetrical] in ΣQ in order to have the endings match, although note e. g. fr. 194.1 ἐν τοῖσι κουρείοις, and then corrected to τοῖς σφυροῖς by Valckenaer, since the extended form is unnecessary). Interpretation A prayer or high-style entreaty (cf. 1 n. on (ἄ)ναξ; Ar. Pax 991–1016) directed to Miltiades and Pericles (for whom, see the general introduction to the play), requesting a general transformation in the way Athens will function in the future, and apparently based on a conviction that the addressees have the power to alter the situation. καί in 1 suggests that this is only one complaint in a series, so perhaps other figures (Aristides and Solon?) were referenced in whatever remarks preceded this one.

∆ῆµοι (fr. *104)

387

In substance, the request is a complaint about the state of contemporary political affairs in the city and in particular about the generalship (cf. frr. 49; 99.29–34; 132 with n.; 133 with n.; 252 n.; 333 with n.; 384 with nn.). The individuals attacked in 2–3 are characterized as too young to assume office (µειράκια), sexually passive (κινούµενα) and unbearably haughty (3 with n.); cf. fr. 99.75; Ar. V. 687–91, where a public prosecutor is described as a µειράκιον … κατάπυγον (“young man who takes it up the ass”), said to swish about physically and accused of bossing about the jurors and imposing rules on them that he declines to apply to himself. Alcibiades (for whom, see fr. 171 n.) must be among the targets of these remarks (cf. Th. 6.12.2 (cited by Kassel–Austin), where Nicias in the debate about the Sicilian Expedition refers to him as νεώτερος ὢν ἔτι ἐς τὸ ἄρχειν, “still being quite young to hold a magistracy”), even if he was long-gone from Athens by the time Dêmoi was staged. This does not mean, however, that Alcibiades must be the only target. Although it is generally believed that the minimum age to hold political office in Athens was 30, the positive evidence for the thesis is thin; see Develin 1985 (p. 152 on this fragment). The fragment is not expressly assigned to Dêmoi by the ancient sources, but there can be little doubt that Σ Ael. Arist. is referring to the play, as Elmsley recognized. Telò hypothesizes Pyronides as the speaker, which might—or just as easily might not—be right. 1 For (ἄ)ναξ, which is generally restricted in comedy to prayers, imprecations and the like, see fr. 231 n. 2 ἄρχειν is a general term applied to all elective offices not of a very short-term nature that involved a scrutiny (δοκιµασία; see in general Feyel 2009. 148–98) before the position could be assumed and an audit (εὔθυναι; cf. fr. 239 n.) after it expired; cf. fr. 99.33, and for a catalogue of such offices in Athens and discussion, Hansen 1980. For the verb used specifically of the generalship, see fr. 38 n. For µειράκια—men who are no longer boys but are still too young to properly be involved in politics—see fr. 333.2 n. For κινέω (“screw” vel sim.) and the more openly offensive βινέω (“fuck”), either of which might have been the verb in question here, cf. frr. 99.27 τὸ κινητή̣ρ̣[ιον] with n.; 385.2 with n.; Komornicka 1981. 70–1. 3 At D. 19.314, the haughty, self-important Aeschines is said to make his way through the Agora θοἰµάτιον καθεὶς ἄχρι τῶν σφυρῶν (“with his robe pulled down all the way to his ankles”), and similar ostentatious pride is apparently in question here. Cf. Ephipp. fr. 19.4 σεµνὸς σεµνῶς χλανίδ’ ἕλκων (“a haughty man haughtily trailing his cloak”); Anaxil. fr. 18.2 χλανίδας θ᾽ ἕλκων (“and trailing cloaks”; from a description of someone who leads a life of

388

Eupolis

ostentatious ease); and for pompous, aloof generals, Amphis fr. 30.1–4; Alex. fr. 16.1–4. Why wearing one’s robe in this fashion creates such an impression is not specified and must accordingly have been obvious to the original audience; perhaps the point is that a show is thus made of being able to afford more fabric than a normal person could and of having the freedom to treat it carelessly, as Agamemnon does when he madly treads on scarlet cloth as he enters his house in the first play of the Oresteia trilogy. Weil, by contrast, thought the point must be that the individuals attacked are not big enough for the command they are trying to “wear”, while Srebrny, comparing Sapph. fr. 57.3 οὐκ ἐπισταµένα τὰ βράκε’ ἔλκην ἐπὶ τὼν σφύρων (“who doesn’t know how to trail her robes about her ankles”, seemingly referring to the subject’s lack of sophisticated elegance), argued that this is how refined women—and allegedly also effeminate men—wore their robes. For the dual τοῖν σφυροῖν, see fr. 218.2 n., and cf. the use of the dual in reference to other body parts at e. g. Phryn. Com. fr. 37 χεροῖν; Ar. Nu. 980 τοῖν ὀφθαλµοῖν; Pax 7 τοῖν ποδοῖν. τὴν στρατηγίαν is reserved for the end of the line as a surprise in place of τὸ ἱµάτιον or the like (cf. above), and abruptly narrows the scope of reference of 2 ἄρχειν (n.).

fr. *105 K.-A. (91 K. = Dêmoi fr. 10 Telò) (Α.) † ητίας ὢν † ἐγένου δίκαιος οὕτω διαπρεπῶς; (Ἀρ.) ἡ µὲν φύσις τὸ µέγιστον 〈ἦν〉, ἔπειτα δὲ κἀγὼ προθύµως τῇ φύσει συνελάµβανον 1 ητίας ὢν cod. : πῇ δ᾽ οὖν Wilamowitz : τί παθὼν Hennicke : τί δρῶν Kalbfleisch οὕτω διαπρεπῶς Hennicke : οὕτω δ᾽ ἀπρεπῶς cod. : οὐκ ἀπρεπῶς Marquandt   2 〈ἦν〉 add. Meineke   3 προθύµως τῇ φύσει Meineke : τὴν φύσιν προθύµως cod.

(A.) † êtias ôn † you became so conspicuously just? (Aristides) My nature 〈was〉 the most important factor, and then I for my own part eagerly tried to assist my nature Galen, affect. dign. 7.10 (V.38.7–12 Kühn = CMG V.4.1.1 p. 26.6–11) ταῦτ’ ἄρα καὶ ὁ Εὔπολις ἐρωτώµενον Ἀριστείδην τὸν δίκαιον ὑπὸ τοῦ † ἠτον· (v. 1) ――, ἀποκρινόµενον ἐποίησεν· (vv. 2–3) ―― This is why Eupolis, in fact, when Aristides the Just was asked by the † ἠτον: (v. 1) ――, represented him as responding: (vv. 2–3) ――

∆ῆµοι (fr. *105)

389

Meter Iambic trimeter. †lkkl†rl klk|l

lrkl llkl rlk|l klkl llkl l|lkl rlkl

Discussion Kind 1938. 776–7; Schmid 1938. 418 n. 19; Plepelits 1970. 28–30; Luppe 1972b; Storey 2003. 120–1; Telò 2007. 264–71 Citation context From a discussion of how the mixture of what we would call inborn characteristics and learned behavior produces an individual personality. For Galen’s intimate familiarity with Attic comedy, making it possible that this passage is drawn from his own reading rather than from a collection of useful commonplaces, see test. 49. Text The beginning of 1 is corrupt, as is the end of Galen’s introduction to the verse; see Interpretation for attempts to recover (A.)’s identity. Wilamowitz’ πῇ δ᾽ οὖν (“And in what way then?, And by what means then?”; for interrogative πῇ, e. g. S. OC 1735; Pl. Phd. 84d) makes some palaeographic sense (ΠΗΙ∆ΟΥΝ for the paradosis ΗΤΙΑΣΩΝ) and puts the emphasis on the underlying cause or process. Hennicke’s τί παθών (adopted by Telò), by contrast, presents Aristides as a passive victim of the situation (cf. fr. 392.3 n.), which seems insulting, while Kalbfleisch’s τί δρῶν marks him as the agent (which he denies in 2–3). If Galen quoted only a single verse, the approximate sense of what has been lost must in any case be “How?” At the end of 1, the nonsensical paradosis οὕτω δ᾽ ἀπρεπῶς (“and thus inappropriately”) was neatly corrected by Hennicke to οὕτω διαπρεπῶς via addition of a single letter. Marquandt’s proposal is to end the quotation of Eupolis at δίκαιος, with what follows to be understood as part of Galen’s introduction of 2–3, “he represented him as responding not inappropriately: ――”, which is a more difficult solution to the problem. 2 lacks a single long syllable after the caesura, and Meineke’s 〈ἦν〉 both mends the meter and makes the sense clearer. In 3, the paradosis τὴν φύσιν προθύµως is unmetrical, and φύσις ought to be the object of συν- rather than of -ελάµβανον in the compound (“I assisted my character”, not “I arrested my character”). Meineke accordingly transposed the words and emended to the dative. Interpretation (A.)’s question is not so much about Aristides’ probity as about the source of it, hence ἐγένου (“you became”) rather than ἦσθα (“you were”) and Galen’s interest in the passage (see Citation context). An individual’s φύσις is his or her essential character (LSJ s. v. II.4), which does not mean that one’s φύσις cannot be altered or overcome, only that this is

390

Eupolis

difficult to achieve (e. g. Ar. Nu. 513–17, an over-optimistic prediction of the likely effect of Strepsiades’ effort to transform himself via an education in the Phrontisterion; V. 1457–61, τρόποι, “manners”, as seemingly more open to manipulation than φύσις; Pl. Phdr. 269e–70a, Pericles had a natural gift for oratory, but then developed it further through study). Aristides’ assessment of his moral development is thus quite modest. He was naturally good and his decision was merely to pursue his natural inclination vigorously; to have been unjust would actually have been more difficult for him. The point might thus have been turned against him, even if we do not know that it was. For Aristides, see the introductory note to Dêmoi. For his reputation for justice, hence the nickname used by Galen, cf. Hdt. 8.79.1 τὸν ἐγὼ νενόµικα, πυνθανόµενος αὐτοῦ τὸν τρόπον, ἄριστον ἄνδρα γενέσθαι ἐν Ἀθήνῃσι καὶ δικαιότατον (“whom I, having made inquiry into his personal manner, consider the best and most just man in Athens”); [And.] 4.11–12; Aeschin. fr. 2.23; [Arist.] Ath. 23.3; Plu. Arist. 4, 6.1–2, 7.7–8. Galen apparently identified (A.), but the text has been garbled in transmission. Keil suggested ὑπὸ 〈τοῦ συκοφάν〉του (“by the sycophant”, i. e. (Z.) in fr. 99.78–120), Schoene ὑπὸ τοῦ 〈γείτονος〉 (“by the/his neighbor”), Luppe ὑπὸ τοῦ Εὐγείτονος (“by Eugeiton”) or ὑπὸ τοῦ Θυγείτονος (“by Thygeiton”) (for τοῦ † ἠτον· η †), and Kind ὑπὸ τοῦ 〈∆ιογν〉ήτου (“by Diognetus”) or ὑπὸ τοῦ 〈ζητ〉ητοῦ (“by the interrogator”). Alternatively, the eta at what is treated here as the beginning of the text of the fragment itself might be the end of a Roman-era genitive of a noun or personal name ending in -ης. None of these suggestions is more than a shot in the dark, although it seems more likely that Galen knew the speaker’s identity than what he was called. As Plepelits 1970. 28–9 notes, the question in 1 seems out of place in the scene partially preserved in fr. 99.78–120, where (H.)’s identity is not obviously known to (Z.), and where (H.)’s status as δίκαιος is in any case taken for granted (fr. 99.80) rather than being treated as a matter of discussion. The lines might thus come from earlier in the play, where Aristides is introduced to another character (and the audience). But they might just as well be from later on instead, as the dead statesman explains the secret of his moral success for anyone interested in imitating it (or eager to discover an excuse for why such imitation is impossible). 1 διαπρεπῶς and its cognates (5th-century vocabulary) are used of anything that stands out against a less striking background, in this case Aristides’ personal behavior against that of the citizen-body of his time as a whole and perhaps that of Themistocles in particular (e. g. hHerm. 351, footprints in dust; A. Pers. 1007, the disaster suffered by the Persian forces in comparison to other troubles; Pi. O. 1.2, gold gleaming in the night; Th. 2.34.5 ἐκείνων δὲ διαπρεπῆ

∆ῆµοι (fr. *106)

391

τὴν ἀρετὴν κρίναντες, “judging their valor to be exceptional”, the Athenian assessment of the Marathon dead). 2–3 For ἡ µέν vel sim. followed by ἔπειτα δέ (here indicating logical rather than temporal sequence), e. g. Ar. Nu. 1363–4; V. 1177–8; Alex. fr. 68; Pi. N. 10.90; S. El. 724; Th. 2.54.5. 2 Cf. E. fr. 810 µέγιστον ἀρ’ ἦν ἡ φύσις· τὸ γὰρ κακὸν / οὐδεὶς τρέφων εὖ χρηστὸν ἂν θείη ποτέ (not obviously more than a generic echo of this line). 3 For κα(ὶ ἐ)γώ used thus, e. g. Ar. Ach. 1220; Eq. 420; frr. 509; 627; Pl. Com. fr. 71.3. συνελάµβανον is 5th-century vocabulary (first attested at Pi. O. 13.73; A. Ch. 812); with a dative of the person or thing assisted at e. g. Ar. Pax 416–17 ξύλλαβε / ἡµῖν προθύµως; Ec. 861; E. Med. 946; fr. 432.2; S. Ph. 282; Isoc. 1.3. προθύµως Unlike one’s φύσις, which is inborn and is subject only to control and perhaps some modest modification (above), προθυµία (for which, see fr. 99.55 n.) is volitional, a matter of how one chooses to act when one might easily decide to behave less aggressively (e. g. Ar. Pax 379, where part of what ought to make the offer of sacrificial meat attractive to Hermes is that it is made προθύµως; Ra. 203, where Charon expects Dionysus not just to row, but to row προθύµως; Antiph. fr. 86.2, the fact is that everyone dies, but no one ever died πρόθυµος ὤν).

fr. *106 K.-A. (90 K. = Dêmoi fr. 8 Telò) οὐ γὰρ µὰ τὴν Μαραθῶνι τὴν ἐµὴν µάχην χαίρων τις αὐτῶν τοὐµὸν ἀλγυνεῖ κέαρ For none of them, by my battle at Marathon, will be happy if he grieves my heart [Longin.] de Subl. 16.3 καίτοι παρὰ τῷ Εὐπόλιδι τοῦ ὅρκου τὸ σπέρµα φασὶν εὑρῆσθαι· ――. ἔστι δ’ οὐ τὸ ὁπωσοῦν τινα ὀµόσαι µέγα, τὸ δὲ ποῦ καὶ πῶς καὶ ἐφ’ ὧν καιρῶν καὶ τίνος ἕνεκα. ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖ µὲν οὐδέν ἐστ’ εἰ µὴ ὅρκος, καὶ πρὸς εὐτυχοῦντας ἔτι καὶ οὐ δεοµένους παρηγορίας τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, ἔτι δ’ οὐχὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἀπαθανατίσας ὁ ποιητὴς ὤµοσεν, ἵνα τῆς ἐκείνων ἀρετῆς τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ἐντέκῃ λόγον ἄξιον, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῶν προκινδυνευσάντων ἐπὶ τὸ ἄψυχον ἀπεπλανήθη, τὴν µάχην. παρὰ δὲ τῷ ∆ηµοσθένει πεπραγµάτευται πρὸς ἡττηµένους ὁ ὅρκος κτλ They say, in fact, that the core of the oath is found in Eupolis: ――. Simply swearing an oath is not sublime, however, but (the crucial point is) the where, how, on what occasion and why. And (in Eupolis), on the one hand, there is nothing except the oath, and

392

Eupolis

directed toward the Athenians when they are still doing well and able to speak their minds; and in addition the poet did not immortalize the men (who fought at Marathon) when he swore the oath, so as to plant a correct evaluation of their excellence in his audience, but strayed from those who risked their lives to an inanimate object, the battle. Whereas in Demosthenes the oath has been designed for an audience that has been defeated etc.

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl rlk|l klkl llkl l|lk|l llkl Discussion Valckenaer 1767. 252–3 n. 1; Elmsley 1818. 146; Meineke 1839 II.457; Wilamowitz 1893 I.181 with n. 87; Storey 2003. 136; Telò 2006a. 267–75; Telò 2007. 257–61; Telò 2014. 118–20 Citation context From a discussion of how Demosthenes at 18.208 (On the Crown, 330 BCE)—quoted here in the form οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἡµάρτετε, µὰ τοὺς ἐν Μαραθῶνι προκινδυνεύσαντας (“there is no way that you were wrong; no, by those who risked their lives at Marathon”), which is considerably condensed from the original243 and has the typical intrusive ἐν before Μαραθῶνι (cf. fr. 233 Text)—used the reference to the famous battle of 490 BCE to inspire and encourage his audience in their confrontation with Macedon. The Demosthenes passage was famous enough to be quoted and played with also at Ath. 9.380c–d. Interpretation A reworking of E. Med. 395, 398 οὐ γὰρ µὰ τὴν δέσποιναν ἣν ἐγὼ σέβω / … χαίρων τις αὐτῶν τοὐµὸν ἀλγυνεῖ κέαρ (“for none of them, by the mistress I revere, will be happy if he grieves my heart”; Medea, swearing by the underworld goddess Hecate, forms her plans to punish Jason, Creon and the princess), assigned to Dêmoi by Valckenaer and specifically to Miltiades by Elmsley, presumably on the ground that no one else could speak of “my battle at Marathon”. This may be right, but one can also imagine a character representing the Athenian people generally (cf. the master in Marikas) using the same language, making the assignment to Dêmoi less certain than it is generally taken to be. The significance of the echo is in any case substantially 243

οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἡµάρτετ’, ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁπάντων ἐλευθερίας καὶ σωτηρίας κίνδυνον ἀράµενοι, µὰ τοὺς Μαραθῶνι προκινδυνεύσαντας τῶν προγόνων, καὶ τοὺς ἐν Πλαταιαῖς παραταξαµένους, καὶ τοὺς ἐν Σαλαµῖνι ναυµαχήσαντας καὶ τοὺς ἐπ’ Ἀρτεµισίῳ, καὶ πολλοὺς ἑτέρους τοὺς ἐν τοῖς δηµοσίοις µνήµασιν κειµένους ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας, οὓς ἅπαντας ὁµοίως ἡ πόλις τῆς αὐτῆς ἀξιώσασα τιµῆς ἔθαψεν κτλ.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 107)

393

overread by Telò 2006a; cf. the sensible comment of Sommerstein 2007 (“This would not be the only comedy in which characters use memorably expressed Euripidean lines that happen to be appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves, and the appropriateness of the sentiments, combined with the incongruity of giving expression to them in tragic language in the midst of a comic drama, is an entirely sufficient explanation for the phenomenon”). For other echoes of Euripides in Dêmoi, see frr. 99.102; *105.2; and cf. Sarati 1996. 124. How the group threatened in 2 can grieve Miltiades’ heart is not specified. But if there is a point to the oath, it ought to be that they potentially threaten the legacy Marathon represents, the obvious conclusion being that they are Athenian generals or politicians of another sort whose actions might undermine the city’s supposedly rightful place as leader of the Greek world (thus Meineke). Miltiades was one of the Athenian generals at Marathon (Hdt. 6.104.1) and—whatever the truth of the story may be—came to be credited by Herodotus’ time, at least, with having convinced the polemarch Callimachus to fight244 and with having been the chief commander on the day of the battle (Hdt. 6.109–10). For the victory over the Persians at Marathon as belonging to him, cf. “Simon.” FGE 700–1; Hdt. 6.132; Pl. Grg. 516d; Aeschin. 3.181; D. 23.196; [D.] 13.21–2; Paus. 1.15.3, 32.4; 2.29.4; 10.10.1; Evans 1993. 283–7, 303–5; Jung 2006. 118–22. For Marathon and how it came to be remembered, see fr. 233 n. (with bibliography, to which add Fromherz 2011). 1–2 οὐ … χαίρων + future is an idiomatic way of saying that someone will regret doing something (e. g. Ar. Ach. 563; S. OT 363; E. Hipp. 1416–22 with Barrett 1964 ad loc.; Pl. Grg. 510d); cf. Moorhouse 1982. 255; Collard 2005. 366–7. 1 For locative Μαραθῶνι, see fr. 233 n.; Main 1894. 37–9.

fr. 107 K.-A. (102 K. = Dêmoi fr. 23 Telò) ταδὶ δὲ τὰ δένδρα Λαισποδίας καὶ ∆αµασίας αὐταῖσι ταῖς κνήµαισιν ἀκολουθοῦσί µοι 1 ταδὶ δὲ ΣRVE : ταδὶ (del. δὲ) Elmsley : ταδεδὶ Blaydes   2 αὐταῖσι ΣRVE : αὔαισι Hermann : λεπταῖσι Bergk   κνήµαισιν ΣR : κνήµαισι ΣV : κνήµαις ΣE

244

Callimachus died in the battle (Hdt. 6.114) and thus never had a chance to pass on his side of the story.

394

Eupolis

and these trees Laispodias and Damasias, shins and all, are following me ΣRVEM Ar. Av. 1569 ~ Suda λ 200 Λαισποδίας εἶ·R Λαισποδίας δὲ καὶ ∆αµασίας ὡς κακόκνηµοι διαβάλλονται.RVEM µνηµονεύει δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις· ――. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν Λαισποδίαν καὶ στρατηγῆσαί φησι Θουκυδίδης ἐν η´ (8.86.9). µέµνηται δὲ αὐτοῦ Φρύνιχος ἐν Κωµασταῖς (fr. 17) ὡς πολεµικοῦ γεγονότος,RVE Φιλύλλιος δὲ ἐν ταῖς Πλυντρίαις (fr. 8) ὡς φιλοδίκου. εἶχε δὲ καὶ περὶ τὰς κνήµας αἰτίας τινάς, ὥς φησι Στράττις ἐν Κινησίᾳ (fr. 19). διὸ καὶ κατὰ σκελῶν ἐφόρει τὸ ἱµάτιον, ὡς Θεόποµπος ἐν Παισίν (fr. 40). ∆ηµήτριος δέ, ὃν πάντες τὸν Ἰξίονα λέγουσιν, ἐν ταῖς Ἀττικαῖς λέξεσιν (fr. 39 Staesche) ὡς γλῶσσαν ἐξηγεῖται ὅτι Λαισποδίας ἐστὶν ὁ ἀκρατὴς περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια, ὥστε καὶ κτήνη σποδεῖνVE “you’re a Laispodias”:R Laispodias and Damasias are slandered for having bad shins. RVEM Eupolis too mentions them in Dêmoi: ――. But Thucydides in Book 8 (8.86.9) says that this Laispodias also served as general. And Phrynichus in Kômastai (fr. 17) refers to him as bellicose,RVE while Philyllius in his Plyntriai (fr. 8) (refers to him) as litigious. He garnered criticism in regard to his shins, according to Strattis in Kinêsias (fr. 19). As a consequence, he used to wear his himation down over his legs, as Theopompus (says) in Paides (fr. 40). And Demetrius, whom everyone refers to as Ixion, explains as a gloss in his Attic Vocabulary (fr. 39 Staesche) that a Laispodias is someone unable to control his sexual desires, to the extent that he has intercourse with farm-animalsVE Plu. Mor. 712a δεήσει γραµµατικὸν ἑκάστῳ τὸ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐξηγεῖσθαι, τίς ὁ Λαισποδίας παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι καὶ ὁ Κινησίας παρὰ Πλάτωνι (fr. 200.2) καὶ ὁ Λάµπων παρὰ Κρατίνῳ (frr. 62; 125) καὶ τῶν κωµῳδουµένων ἕκαστος Each guest will need a grammarian to explain the individual details—who Laispodias is in Eupolis, and Cinesias in Plato (fr. 200.2), and Lampon in Cratinus (frr. 62; 125), and each of the kômôidoumenoi Eunap. VS 16.2.4 (p. 84.6–10 Giangrande) παιδείας δὲ ὑπερβολὴν καὶ ἀναγνώσεώς ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, λέξεσι κατεγλωττισµέναις ἐντυγχάνοντα. τὰ γοῦν Εὐπόλιδος δένδρα Λαισποδίαν καὶ ∆αµασίαν οὐκ ἂν παρῆκεν, εἰ τὰ ὀνόµατα ἔγνω τῶν δένδρων, οἷς νῦν αὐτὰ καλοῦσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι One can discover enormous erudition and reading in his orations, encountering elaborate vocabulary. He would not have passed by Eupolis’ trees Laispodias and Damasias, for example, if he knew the names of the trees by which people today refer to them

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klrl k|lrl lrkl llkl llk|r llkl

∆ῆµοι (fr. 107)

395

Discussion Elmsley 1818. 109; Raspe 1832. 31; Bergk 1838. 347; Kock 1880 I.284; Weil 1881. 295; Taillardat 1965 § 889; Telò 2004b; Telò 2007. 558–68 Citation context The scholion on Aristophanes—taken over more or less direct into the Suda, like many such notes—is a gloss on Poseidon’s criticism at Av. 1569 of the barbarian Triballian, who is unable to drape his robe properly: τί, ὦ κακόδαιµον; Λαισποδίας εἶ τὴν φύσιν; (“What is it, you miserable creature? Are you a Laispodias by nature?”; 414 BCE); likely drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. The other two citations of the passage—the first (from the late 1st/early 2nd century CE) merely a glancing reference as part of an attack on the obscurity of Old Comedy in contrast to Menander, the second (from the late 4th c. CE, with reference to Libanius) close to a paraphrase of 1—make it clear that by the Roman period the fragment was circulating independently as something like a learned riddle or a bit of scholarly trivia. Cf. Hsch. λ 158 Λαισποδίας· ὄνοµα κύριον. ἔνιοι δὲ τὸν Ἀλκµαίωνα (Musurus : Ἀλκµέωνα cod.) ᾠήθησαν λέγεσθαι, οἱ δὲ τὸν δρεπανώδεις πόδας ἔχοντα (adesp. com. fr. 380) (“Laispodias: a proper name. Some authorities thought the reference was to Alcmaeon, while others took it to be a person with sickle-shaped feet” (adesp. com. fr. 380)245). Text In 1, Elmsley’s ταδὶ and Blaydes’ ταδεδὶ (for the latter form, cf. Ar. Av. 18 τηνδεδί with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.) are both driven by a desire to eliminate the seemingly split anapaest in the paradosis ταδὶ δέ. But δέ is for such purposes counted as part of the word that precedes it (White 1912 § 121.3–4) and emendation is unnecessary. In 2, αὐταῖσι ταῖς κνήµαισιν is idiomatic (see Interpretation) and does not require correction. Further on in 2, ΣR’s κνήµαισιν is a matter of metrical necessary, and the readings in the other manuscripts are careless variants by scribes unconcerned with whether the line scanned properly. Interpretation A puzzling jumble of images and allusions, whence at least some of the interest in the fragment in the Roman period (see Citation context). Laispodias and Damasias are trees—because they are so tall? or building in an unexpected manner on a more straightforward reference in the immediately preceding lines?246—but are nonetheless following the speaker 245 246

Taken by Latte (the editor of Hesychius) to be a reference to the fragment of Eupolis, and thus not treated by him as an adespoton. Taillardat 1965 § 239 argues that tall, lanky individuals with small legs were called “trees”, but is able to cite in support of the thesis only Ar. Av. 1473–5 (the worthless Cleonymus-tree, but without mention of Cleonymus’ height or the size of his legs).

396

Eupolis

(2 ἀκολουθοῦσί µοι); Kassel–Austin compare the fantastic shield-shedding “Cleonymus tree” at Ar. Av. 1473–81. If these were actual trees, one would expect them to travel (paradoxically) “roots and all”, and Weil accordingly suggested that Eupolis’ αὐταῖσι ταῖς κνήµαισιν in 2 stands in for something like the Homeric αὐτῇσιν ῥίζῃσι (Il. 9.542); Telò offers an elaborate expansion of the thesis. But at Thphr. HP 9.13.5 καυλοὺς δὲ ἐπὶ γῆν ἵησι λεπτοὺς καὶ κνήµας ἔχει (obscure), κνήµη seems to have a botanical sense (LSJ s. v. I.3),247 so perhaps the humor depends on a play on that instead. The problem with Laispodias’ shins248—also referred to at Stratt. fr. 19— might be that they were badly bowed, like those of the physically unattractive but bold commander at Archil. fr. 114.3–4 ἀλλά µοι σµικρός τις εἴη καὶ περὶ κνήµας ἰδεῖν  / ῥοικός, ἀσφαλέως βεβηκὼς ποσσί, καρδίης πλέως (“but I would rather see a little man, with bowed shins but walking solidly on his feet and full of heart”; the poet’s preferred alternative to a tall, handsome general, for whom he has no use; cf. the description of the crippled but still mobile Hephaestus at Il. 20.37 χωλεύων, ὑπὸ δὲ κνῆµαι ῥώοντο ἀραιαί). But they may have been ugly or disfigured in some other way instead; cf. Ar. Pl. 560 γαστρώδεις καὶ παχύκνηµοι (“pot-bellies and fat-shins”; in a judgmental list of people too rich for their own good); Pl. Com. frr. 65.2–4 (Leagros is a fool “with shins the size of a sterile melon”, whatever that may mean) with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; 200.3 (Cinesias is a skeleton with no ass and legs like cane-stalks); Anaxil. fr. 35 (a man with swollen ankles).

247

248

The manuscripts are badly divided at Harp. pp. 201.16–202.1 = Μ 19 Keaney, whence S. fr. 608 (LSJ’s only other example of this meaning of the word). But most have the ending -ου rather than -η, and Radt prints κνηµοῦ (〈 κνηµός, glossed “projecting limb, shoulder of a mountain” by LSJ s. v.). Montanari s. v. glosses “leg”, which is wrong; cf. the contrast between thighs (µῆροι) and shins (κνῆµαι) at e. g. Od. 8.135; Tyrt. fr. 11.23; Hdt. 6.75.3; X. Cyr. 2.3.18; Poll. 2.190–3 (a careful, comprehensive treatment of the appropriate anatomical terminology); the proverbial ἀπωτέρω ἢ γόνυ κνάµα (“the shin is further away than the knee”) at Theoc. 16.18 (in a slightly different form at Ath. 9.383b; cf. Tosi 1991. 576 #1282); and κνηµίς (“shin-guard, greave”) at e. g. Hermipp. fr. 48.3. Pace Montanari, the word is used not in a botanical but in an anatomical sense at Pl. Com. fr. 65.4. Montanari s. v. κνηµία is also confused and unreliable; in particular, Hesychius does not gloss the word “leg”; neither Poll. 7.116 (omitted) nor Poll. 10.157 offers any ground for taking it to mean “axle” at Lys. fr. 432 Carey ἁρπάσας τὴν κνηµίαν τῆς ἁµάξης (cited as “fr. 95”, supposedly from Sauppe, where this is fr. 273; “95” is the Thalheim number); and Hsch. κ 3111 further describes it as meaning “spoke (of a wheel)”, which is also a sense of κνήµη (Poll. 1.144) and is most economically taken to be how Lysias used the word as well.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 107)

397

The deictic ταδί shows that the trees in question are visible to the characters onstage, which might mean that Laispodias and Damasias are individual members of the audience (thus Kock), perhaps seated in the seats of honor sometimes granted generals near the front of the Theater (cf. Ar. Eq. 573–6; Thphr. Char. 5.7 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.; Pickard-Cambridge 1988. 268–9). Alternatively, the word might be taken to suggest that Laispodias and Damasias appeared as characters in the play (thus Telò, arguing that they were brought on in order to be judged wanting by Miltiades). The repeated attacks on Laispodias (PA 8963; PAA 600730) son of Andronymis in the comic poets (see Citation context) and the fact that Antiphon wrote a speech against him (frr. 21–4 Thalheim)249 leave little doubt that he was an important political figure in Athens in the mid-410s BCE and perhaps earlier. For his apparently distinguished family background, see Theognostus, p. 83.12–13 Alpers; IG I3 755 (a dedication on the Acropolis likely by a homonymous ancestor from the late 6th century); Vanderpool 1949. 400 (an ostrakon cast against another homonymous ancestor, presumably a grandfather or great uncle, in the 480s BCE or so); Develin 1986. Laispodias served as general in 414/3 BCE, when he took part in a campaign against Epidaurus (Th. 6.105.2), and was sent as an ambassador to Sparta by the 400 in 411 BCE (Th. 8.86.9). On the way there, the crew of the state trireme charged with transporting him and the other ambassadors revolted and turned their passengers over to the Argives, who supported the democracy in Athens. Nothing is heard of Laispodias thereafter, and he may well have come to a quick and brutal end immediately after his arrest. Damasias (PA 3111; PAA 300930) is otherwise unknown, and he might or might not be identical with the war-casualty Damasias of the tribe Hippothontis who died ca. 410 BCE (PAA 300950). For a possible descendant, Naucrates son of Damasias of the deme Prasiai (PA 10535; PAA 701255; a liturgist), see Davies 1971. 396. 1 For Demetrius Ixion’s claim (ap. Σ Ar. ~ Suda) that λαισποδίας was a term for someone with an overwhelmingly strong sex-drive—a sense of which there is no obvious trace in Eupolis—cf. Hsch. λ 155 λαίσιτος· κίναιδος. πόρνη (“laisitos: a pervert, a whore”), 156 λαισκάπραν· λαµυράν (“laiskapra (fem.): sluttish”) ~ Suda λ 198 λαίσκαπρος· ὁ λάγνος (“laiskapros (masc.): someone lustful”) ~ Et.Gen. λ 16 λαίσκαπρος· ὁ λάγνος καὶ λάµυρος (“laiskapros (masc.): someone lustful and sluttish”); Suda λ 197 λαίσθη· αἰσχύνη (“laisthê: shame”); 249

Antipho mentioned the city of Galepsos in the speech (fr. 22 Thalheim), raising the possibility—not to be regarded as more than that, and not necessarily involving the text of Dêmoi—of a connection between Laispodias and fr. 439 (n.).

398

Eupolis

Beekes 2010 s. v. λατραβός. For personal names supposedly converted into insults of a sexualized nature, cf. Aristodemos (Ar. fr. 242), Exekestos (adesp. com. fr. 337) and Theodoros (adesp. com. fr. 351), all of which were allegedly used to mean πρωκτός (“asshole”). 2 αὐταῖσι ταῖς κνήµαισιν For the idiom, cf. Ar. V. 170 αὐτοῖσι τοῖς κανθηλίοις (“panniers and all”) with Biles–Olson 2015 on 199–20; Stevens 1976. 52–3.

fr. 108 K.-A. (106 K. = Dêmoi fr. 30 Telò) καὶ τοῦ µὲν 〈ἐν〉 κύκλῳ γε παύσοµαι λόγου, φράσω δέ σοι τὸ πρᾶγµα διὰ τῶν χωρίων 1 〈ἐν〉 add. Grotius   γε παύσοµαι Stob. : πεπαύσοµαι Pierson   2 τῶν χωρίων Stob. : τῶν καιρίων Salmasius : τῶν κυρίων Kock : τοῦ ᾽γχωρίου Bothe

And I’ll stop talking in circles, and I’ll describe the matter to you point by point instead Stob. 3.35.3 Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις· ―― Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llk|l klkl klkl k|lk|r llkl Discussion Grotius 1623. 529; Pierson 1759. 293; Raspe 1832. 29–30, 60–1; Hermann 1834 V.291; Iacobi ap. Meineke 1839 V.1.lxxii; Wilamowitz 1893 I.180 n. 84; Wilamowitz 1927. 194 (on Ar. Lys. 1218); Norwood 1931. 187; Storey 2003. 124–5; Telò 2007. 606–9 Citation context From Stobaeus’ section περὶ βραχυλογίας (“On Brevity of Speech”), but doubtless drawn from some earlier florilegium. For the minimal presence of fragments of Eupolis in Stobaeus, see fr. 384 Citation context. Text In 1, the paradosis is metrically deficient and the sense difficult, and Grotius’ 〈ἐν〉 (presumably omitted via haplography after µέν) mends both problems.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 108)

399

Pierson’s suggestion of πεπαύσοµαι (i. e. ΠΕΠ-) for the paradosis γε παύσοµαι (i. e. ΓΕΠ-) further on in 1 was likely motivated by ill-ease with the separation of καί from γε by four words (although see Denniston 1950. 158 on such separation). γε is better taken as reinforcing µέν (see Denniston 1950. 159–60), and the future perfect is awkward in any case. In 2, the paradosis τῶν χωρίων makes sense only if the word is taken in an unusual sense and not as Stobaeus seems to have understand the passage; see Interpretation. None of the proposed conjectures, however, makes better sense of the line at a reasonable cost. Interpretation Addressed to a single individual (2 σοι) in regard to a matter already identified for both speaker and addressee, hence the oblique reference to it simply as τὸ πρᾶγµα. The initial καί suggests that this is part of a larger offer. The µὲν … δέ structure, with 1 παύσοµαι λόγου balanced by 2 φράσω, leaves no doubt that 1 〈ἐν〉 κύκλῳ stands in contrast to 2 διὰ τῶν χωρίων. The former is literally “in a circle”, i. e. “on every side, in all directions” (e. g. S. Ph. 356; Ar. Eq. 170; Metag. fr. 6.11; Th. 3.74.2), and 1 thus apparently means ~ “I’ll stop beating about the bushes, I’ll stop talking in circles, I’ll stop avoiding the issue” (cf. Arist. Rh. 1415b23–4 οἱ δοῦλοι οὐ τὰ ἐρωτώµενα λέγουσιν ἀλλὰ τὰ κύκλῳ, “Slaves do not respond to the question”, sc. when they lack a reasonable case to make for themselves, “but (say) ta kyklôi”; Phryn. PS p. 28.4–6 αὐθέκαστα 〈λέγειν〉· τὸ τὰ κυριώτατα διὰ βραχέων καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα λέγειν, µὴ κύκλῳ βαδίζοντα καὶ περιτρέχοντα (“〈to say〉 the plain truth: to say what is most appropriate and most necessary in a few words, not going in a circle and evading”); thus Iacobi). If so, 2 must mean “I’ll treat the matter section by section”, i. e. “point by point, in a clear and organized fashion” (LSJ s. v. χωρίον 6).250 Although Stobaeus or his source seemingly took the speaker to be proposing to abbreviate his remarks, therefore, what he is actually offering to do is to treat his material in a different and more straightforward fashion than before, but without reference to the length at which he intends to speak. For the image—speech as perambulation, arguments as places—Wilamowitz compared περίπατος (literally “walk about”; cf. Beta 2004. 129–30) and τόπος (literally “place”); note also e. g. κρηµνοποιός (literally “cliff-maker”; of Aeschylus for his poetic style at Ar. Nu. 1367) and ὑπέρχοµαι (“get under”, and so “insinuate”; cf. Beta 2004. 194–5). Hermann took τῶν χωρίων to refer

250

For the contrast between ἐν κύκλῳ and χωρίον, cf. Ar. Ach. 998 καὶ περὶ τὸ χωρίον ἐλᾷδας ἅπαν ἐν κύκλῳ (“and olive trees about the whole area (chôrion) in a circle (en kyklôi)”.

400

Eupolis

to the Attic demes, i. e. to the chorus, which is not obvious and does not make the passage easier. 1 For παύσοµαι λόγου as equivalent to παύσοµαι λέγων, cf. E. Andr. 691–2 παύσασθον … / λόγων µαταίων; El. 1123 παῦσαι λόγων τῶνδ’; Ion 650 παῦσαι λόγων τῶνδ’. For the ablatival genitive, see Poultney 1936. 115. µέν … γε “This combination is a natural one, the effect of γε being to concentrate attention momentarily on the µέν clause, with a deliberate temporary exclusion of the δέ clause. (The effect is the same when the particles are separated, but in close proximity)” (Denniston 1950. 159).

fr. 109 K.-A. (109 K. = Dêmoi fr. 20 Telò) γυναῖκ᾽ ἔχοντα µάλα καλήν τε κἀγαθήν· αὕτη νεανικοῦντος ἐπεθύµησέ µου pc

ac

1 γυναῖκ᾽ vel γυναῖκα (scriptio plena) Phot. z Suda : γυναῖκες Phot. gz     2 νεανικοῦντος Phot. : νεανισκεύοντος Suda : νεανισκοῦντος Bothe : νεανισκοὔντος Raspe : νεανίζοντος Naeke

having (masc. acc. sing.) quite a lovely, good wife; she wanted me when I was a wild young man Phot. ν 73 = Suda ν 113 νεανισκεύεται· Ἄµφις Ἐρίθοις (fr. 19)· Ποσείδιππος ∆ηµόταις (fr. 10)· Εὔπολις Αἰξίν (Meineke : Σφιξίν Phot. Suda) (fr. 32). ἰδίως ἐσχηµάτικεν τὸ νεανισκεύειν ἐν ∆ήµοις· ―― neaniskeuetai: Amphis in Erithoi (fr. 19); Posidippos in Dêmotai (fr. 10); Eupolis in Aiges (thus Meineke : “Wasps” Phot. Suda) (fr. 32). neaniskeuein takes a peculiar form in Dêmoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl k|rkl klkl llkl klk|r llkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 37–8; Naeke 1842 I.42; Kock 1880 I.287; Keil 1912. 244; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Telò 2007. 548–52 Citation context Drawn from the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ´´. de Borries traced the material to Phrynichus (=

∆ῆµοι (fr. 109)

401

PS fr. 338*). The title of the play has been garbled in transmission, presumably via confusion with Aristophanes’ Wasps. ac

Text In 1, γυναῖκες (unmetrical and nonsensical) in Photiusgz appears to represent a misinterpretation of the mark of elision on γυναῖκ᾽ as a ligature for -ες. In 2, the Suda’s νεανισκεύοντος is not only unmetrical but represents the standard form of the verb, which is precisely what the lexicographers report that Eupolis did not use. Photius’ νεανικοῦντος (〈 νεανικέω) is not attested elsewhere, but it scans, and the reading should be assumed to be correct unless positive reasons can be put forward for why it cannot be, despite Kock (“vereor ne pravis libris usi sint grammatici”). Interpretation The speaker alludes to a racy story from his own youth apparently involving the seduction of another man’s wife—although (as he tells it, at least) the idea of a liaison originated with her, and it is not impossible that ἔχοντα in 1 refers to the speaker himself. In any case, the praise of the woman at the end of 1 is undercut in 2 in a way that suggests that 1 is how matters look to other people (including the unfortunate husband, if another man is in question), while 2 reveals the truth of the situation. Keil took the speaker to be a man who has seduced a woman and is trying to clear his name with Solon (who legislated about adultery: frr. 26–31 Ruschenbusch); cf. the confrontation between the character generally taken to be Aristides and a villainous contemporary Athenian in fr. 99.78–113. If so, the adulterer is doing a comically bad job of the task he has set himself, and the identity of the speaker and why he is onstage are in fact entirely obscure, as is the content of whatever argument he goes on to make (despite Telò 2007. 549–50). For women taking younger men as lovers, cf. fr. 192z.1–2; Ar. Lys. 414–19; Pl. 975–9; and e. g. the plot of Euripides’ Hippolytus. For adultery in general, see fr. 148.3–4; Totaro 1998. 167–70. 1 For the line as a whole, cf. Canthar. fr. 5 γυναῖκ’ Ἀθηναίαν καλήν τε κἀγαθήν. For µάλα used to intensify an adjective, e. g. fr. 301.2 καὶ µάλα καλήν; Ar. Lys. 465–6 καὶ µάλα / πολλήν γ’; Theopomp. Com. fr. 42.1 λεπαστὴ µάλα συχνή; Epilyc. fr. 4.4; and see in general Thesleff 1954 § 35 and cf. Olson– Seaberg 2018 on Cratin. fr. 299.2 (on µάλιστα modifying an adjective to form a kind of periphrastic superlative). καλήν τε κἀγαθήν The formular expression καλός κἀγαθός (e. g. Hdt. 2.143.4; Th. 4.40.2; 8.48.6; X. HG 6.1.2; Isoc. 13.6) regularly appears in comedy with τε added for metrical reasons, as also at Ar. Eq. 227, 735; Nu. 101 with Dover 1968 ad loc., 797; V. 1256, 1304; Lys. 1059; Ra. 728; Nicostr. Com. fr. 5.4;

402

Eupolis

Alex. fr. 112.2 with Arnott 1996 ad loc. (with further bibliography); Men. Dis ex. 91. See in general Dover 1974. 41–5, who stresses that the phrase does not necessarily refer in all cases to what we today would call a class distinction, even if socio-economically privileged individuals took it for granted that no one outside their own peer-group was “fair and good” and other individuals unwisely bought into that perspective; Bourriot 1995 (a controversial treatment). 2 For iambic trimeter lines consisting of only three words, here with a rising 2/5/6 structure, cf. frr. 303 n.; 330.2 (also with a monosyllabic enclitic as a fourth element). ἐπεθύµησε The verb does not have a specifically sexual meaning, but refers to desire of any sort (e. g. to reach old age at Diocl. Com. fr. 14.1; for wisdom at Ar. Nu. 412; to throttle one’s father and get control of the family property at Ar. Av. 1352; for soup at Ar. Ra. 62; to purchase radishes at Amphis fr. 26.3); of a romantic desire for a person, as here, at e. g. Ar. Ec. 1016, 1018; Alex. fr. 41.2. See Poultney 1936. 89 for a full catalogue of Aristophanic examples; Komornicka 1981. 62. νεανιεύοµαι routinely means “act as a young man proverbially does”, i. e. in a wild and willful fashion (LSJ s. v. II.1; cf. fr. 32 n.), which is likely the sense of Eupolis’ hapax νεανικέω here as well, as Kaibel saw (“iuvenili vigore florens”).

fr. 110 K.-A. (98 K. = Dêmoi fr. 4 Telò) (Πε.) ὁ νόθος δέ µοι ζῇ; (Πυ.) καὶ πάλαι γ’ ἂν ἦν ἀνήρ, εἰ µὴ τὸ τῆς πόρνης ὑπωρρώδει κακόν (Pericles) Is my bastard son alive? (Pyronides) (Yes,) and he would actually have been a man long ago, were he not a bit afraid of the trouble involving your whore Plu. Per. 24.10 δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸν νόθον ἐκ ταύτης τεκνῶσαι, περὶ οὗ πεποίηκεν Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις αὐτὸν µὲν οὕτως ἐρωτῶντα· (v. 1) ――, τὸν δὲ Πυρωνίδην (codd. : Μυρωνίδην Par. 1673) ἀποκρινόµενον· (vv. 1–2) ―― [Pericles] αpparently also produced his bastard from [Aspasia], about whom Eupolis in Dêmoi represents him asking as follows: (v. 1) ――, and Pyronides (codd. : “Myronides” Par. 1673) as responding: (vv. 1–2) ――

∆ῆµοι (fr. 110)

403

ΣTW Pl. Mx. 235e (p. 183 Greene) ἔσχεν δ’ ἐξ αὐτῆς ὁ Περικλῆς νόθον υἱόν, ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ ἐτελεύτα τῶν γνησίων προαποθανόντων, ὡς Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις And Pericles had a bastard son from (Aspasia), during whose lifetime (Pericles) died, after his legitimate sons predeceased him, as Eupolis (says) in Dêmoi Harp. p. 62.7–9 = Α 249 Keaney δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐσχηκέναι ὁ Περικλῆς τὸν ὁµώνυµον αὐτῷ Περικλέα τὸν νόθον, ὡς ἐµφαίνει καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς ∆ήµοις Pericles apparently also got his homonymous bastard Pericles from (Aspasia), as Eupolis reveals in his Dêmoi

Meter Iambic trimeter.

krkl l|lkl klkl klkl | llkl llkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 22; Meineke 1839 II.461–2; Kock 1880 II.282–3; Schmid 1938. 418 n. 19; Flacelière and Chambry 1964. 42 n. 1; Plepelits 1970. 31–3, 122–8 (esp. 122–3); Storey 2003. 137; Telò 2007. 212–23; Cataldi 2011. 48–50 Citation context The reference to the fragment in the scholion to Plato comes from the end of a richly informed biographical note on Aspasia that also preserves fr. 267 and that is presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. The biography is heavily abbreviated in the form in which it has come down to us—the comic fragments in particular have been reduced to little more than citations of poet and play-title—but likely goes back to a collection of material similar to what Plutarch was working with in his Life of Pericles. The entry in Harpocration is very similar, although with a slightly different mix of sources and with less emphasis on evidence from comedy. Interpretation Seemingly from a conversation between Pericles and Pyronides (see fr. *100.1), which might have taken place either shortly after the former has ascended from the Underworld or—depending on how the action is reconstructed—when the two of them are there together in the opening portion of the comedy; cf. the general introduction to the play. Flacelière and Chambry compare Od. 11.492–3, where among Achilleus’ first substantial

404

Eupolis

questions when he spies Odysseus among the Dead is what has become of Neoptolemus;251 cf. Agamemnon’s question about Orestes at Od. 11.457–61. Pericles II (PA 11812; PAA 772650), the son of Pericles and Aspasia of Miletus (for whom, see below and fr. 267 n., and add to the bibliography cited there Bicknell 1982. 243–5; Cataldi 2011. 26–51 (on Aspasia in comedy)), served as Hellenotamias (one of the most significant Athenian financial magistracies) in 410/9 BCE (IG I3 375.8, 11, 13, 18) and as general in 407/6 BCE (X. HG 1.5.16; cf. X. Mem. 3.5.1). He must thus have been born by 440/39 BCE at the latest and may be the grandfather of the Pericles of the deme Cholarges (PAA 772655) who served as trierarch in 354/3 BCE (SEG XLV 147.38–44); see Shear 1995. 214–15. Despite Pyronides’ sneering comments, these were enormously important offices, to which Pericles II was elected at almost the earliest age possible, leaving little doubt that he was regarded as a serious political player from the very first, hence presumably the—proleptic?—attack on him here; cf. 2 n. In the aftermath of the disastrous naval defeat at Arginousai in 406 BCE, Pericles II was recalled to Athens, sentenced to death and executed (X. HG 1.7.16, 21, 34; Plu. Per. 37.5). According to [Arist.] Ath. 26.4, in 451/0 BCE Pericles proposed a law restricting Athenian citizenship to persons born of two citizen parents; Ar. Av. 1649–54 (where the same set of rules is absurdly imagined as in force among the Olympian gods) suggests that the requirement was still in force in the mid-410s BCE. See Rhodes 1981. 331–5, and on the social and political status of Athenian bastards generally, Harrison 1968. 61–8; Humphreys 1974; MacDowell 1976b; Rhodes 1978; Patterson 1990; Ogden 1996. 59–69, 151–88. After Paralos and Xanthippos, his sons by his first marriage (to an Athenian woman), died in 430 BCE, Plu. Per. 37.2–5 reports (cf. Ael. VH 6.10; 13.24), Pericles somehow arranged for the law to be circumvented so as to allow Pericles II to be enrolled in his phratry (cf. fr. 130 n.) and thus become an Athenian citizen—a status he must have enjoyed in order to hold the political offices he did (above); see Carawan 2008 (arguing that the law’s effect was not restricted to Pericles II alone) with older bibliography. The fragment nonetheless leaves no doubt that the original status of Pericles II as a νόθος was remembered and used against him in public discourse; cf. fr. 192jj. Here it gains more impact by being supposedly employed by his father, who ought to know how to describe his son, if anyone would. 1 µοι is an ethical dative that marks Pericles’ deep interest in the question he is asking (~ “please, I beg you”). 251

Flacelière and Chambry specifically identify the scene as a parody of the Odyssey, which goes one additional unnecessary step beyond the evidence.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 110)

405

The effect of καί … γ(ε) is to mark πάλαι … ἂν ἦν ἀνήρ as an emphatic addition (Denniston 1950. 157; cf. frr. 268h with n.; 333 with n.): not only is Pericles II alive (ζῇ), as Pericles had hoped, but he would long ago have been a man—i. e. someone to be reckoned with; see 2 n.—had his personal situation been otherwise. For πάλαι … ἂν ἦν, cf. fr. 8 n.; X. An. 7.6.9 πάλαι ἂν ἦµεν παρ’ ὑµῖν, εἰ µὴ Ξενοφῶν ἡµᾶς δεῦρο πείσας ἀπήγαγεν (“We would have been with you long ago, had not Xenophon persuaded us and led us off to this region”). 2 τὸ τῆς πόρνης … κακόν i. e. presumably the trouble that the fact that his mother was Aspasia—referred to here in the ugliest manner possible (see below)—might cause him, should he call attention to himself and his background by trying to become involved in city politics.252 Pericles II must in fact have been only 30 or a few years older in 412 BCE, meaning that he would have had little if any opportunity to involve himself in Athenian public life before Dêmoi was staged. πόρνη (cognate with πέρνηµι, “sell”, putting the emphasis on the commercial nature of the business; first attested at Archil. fr. 328.1; Alc. fr. 117b.26 (both hostile characterizations); Hippon. fr. 107.34; Anacr. PMG 388.5 ἐθελοπόρνοισιν) is coarse colloquial vocabulary, common in comedy (e. g. frr. 75 πορνεύεσθαι with n.; 99.26; Ar. Eq. 1400; Anaxil. fr. 21.5; Antiph. fr. 293.3) and in 4th-century prose and oratory (e. g. X. Mem. 1.5.4; D. 19.229), but absent from 5th-century lyric poetry, tragedy and Thucydides (πορνεύεσθαι and καταπορνεύεσθαι three times in Herodotus, always disapproving). Aspasia was obviously not a common street- or brothel-prostitute but a high-class hetaira and quite possibly free; referring to her in a demeaning fashion, however, is part of the attack on Pericles II.253 For Aspasia as prostitute, cf. Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 527. For prostitution generally, see frr. 75 n.; 247.3–4 n. 252

253

Telò 2007. 216–20 makes heavy weather of the genitive and seemingly wishes to take τὸ τῆς πόρνης … κακόν to mean “the trouble represented by Aspasia” rather than “the trouble potentially caused by Aspasia”, the idea being that Pericles II was terrified not by what others might say about his mother but by Aspasia herself, who dominated him. This is an unnecessarily difficult interpretation and thus to be rejected. Telò 2007. 221–3 expresses puzzlement about how Aspasia can be described as a whore to Pericles’ face, and attempts to explain Pyronides’ use of the term as embedded in an elaborate larger ideological attempt to contrast the healthy Athens of Pericles’ time with the depraved city of his demagogic successors. No part of Telò’s reconstruction of this aspect of the play finds any solid basis in the text of the fragments themselves, and throw-away insults of this sort—intended in the first instance for the audience in the Theater, and therefore in some sense often

406

Eupolis

ὑπωρρώδει is meiosis (understatement), the speaker’s point being that Pericles II is actually terrified of what might be said of him in connection with his mother “the whore”. The compound is attested only here. For the sense of the prefix, see LSJ s. v. ὑπό F.II “denoting what is in small degree or gradual, somewhat, a little”, and cf. ὑπαισχύνοµαι (LSJ s. v. “be somewhat ashamed”), ὑποδειλιάω (LSJ s. v. “be somewhat cowardly”), ὑποδυσφορέω (LSJ s. v. “be somewhat restless or impatient”), ὑποµαίνοµαι (LSJ s. v. “be somewhat mad”), ὑποταρβέω (LSJ s. v. “be somewhat afraid of”).

fr. 111 K.-A. (99 K. = Dêmoi fr. 5 Telò) οὐ δεινὸν οὖν κριοὺς µὲν ἐκγεννᾶν τέκνα ὄρνις θ’ ὁµοίους τοὺς νεοττοὺς τῷ πατρί 1 µὲν ἐκγεννᾶν Wakefield : µὲ ἐκγεννᾶν Ath.A : ἔµ᾽ ἐκγεννᾶν Valckenaer : µὲν ἔµ᾽ ἐκγεννᾶν Bergk : µὲν ἐµὲ γεννᾶν Kock   2 ὄρνις θ’ ὁµοίους Casaubon : ὄρνεις θ’ ὁµοίως Ath.A : fort. ὅµοια [τοὺς νεοττοὺς]   θ’ Ath.A : δ᾽ Grotius

Isn’t it awful, then, that rams beget offspring and chickens their nestlings resembling their father Ath. 9.373d–e ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πληθυντικοῦ ὄρνις λέγουσι πρόκειται τὸ Μενάνδρειον µαρτύριον (fr. 132.3 ap. Ath. 9.373c)· ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀλκµάν πού φησι (PMG 82)· ――. καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις· ―― The evidence from Menander cited above (fr. 132.3 ap. Ath. 9.373c) shows that they use ornis (“birds”) as a plural; but Alcman as well says somewhere (PMG 82)· ――. Also Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llk|l llkl llkl l|lkl llkl Discussion Meier 1827. 142 n. *; Raspe 1832. 22–3; Westerink 1966; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 137–8; Telò 2007. 223–31

“out of character” for the speaker—are commonplace in 5th-century comedy and are routinely ignored by the other party.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 111)

407

Citation context From an extended, richly documented discussion of the meaning and declension of the noun ὄρνις (Ath. 9.373a–e, 374d), as opposed to άλεκτρυών, ἀλεκτορίς and άλέκτωρ (Ath. 9.373e–4d), presumably drawn from a grammarian; cf. [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 761.10–19, esp. 17–19 οὕτως οὖν καὶ ὄρνις ὄρνιθος καὶ ὄρνιθες ἡ εὐθεῖα τῶν πληθυντικῶν, καὶ κατὰ ἀποβολὴν τοῦ θ καὶ κράσει τοῦ ι καὶ ε εἰς ι µακρὸν ὄρνις (“in the same way, then, ornis, ornithos [gen. sing.], and the nominative plural is ornithes, and by loss of the theta and a combination of iota and epsilon into long iota [it is] ornis”). Text See in general Interpretation. In 1, the paradosis µὲ ἐκγεννᾶν would have to be understood as scriptio plena for µ᾽ ἐκγεννᾶν (“that I beget children who are rams”), which is unmetrical, hence Wakefield’s µὲν ἐκγεννᾶν. The other conjectures attempt to retain an emphatic form of the first-person singular pronoun as subject of the infinitive. Kock’s µὲν ἐµὲ γεννᾶν takes account of the fact that the compound ἐκγεννάω is rare and attested nowhere else this early. But ἐκγίγνοµαι (“be born from”) and ἔκγονος (“born of, sprung from”) are common already in Homer, and analogous ἐκγεννάω is not so obviously troubling as to need to be emended away. In 2, the paradosis spelling ὄρνεις reflects the pronunciation of the Roman era (see Threatte 1980. 195–9) and is specifically ruled out by [Hdn.] (quoted in Citation context). Further on in 2, Grotius proposed δ᾽ for Athenaeus’ θ’, which replaces the contrast in the paradosis between 1–2 and whatever followed with a contrast between the situation described in 1 and that described in 2. Further on in 2, with the paradosis ὁµοίως the text means “that rams beget offspring / and chickens”—i. e. hens—“likewise [beget] their nestlings for [the nestlings’] father”. This is difficult and confused, and it is easier to accept Casaubon’s ὁµοίους. Interpretation This is the text as printed as Kassel–Austin, which—if right or at least close to right—must have been followed by something to the effect of “but that men produce children who are utterly unlike themselves?” (hence Kassel–Austin’s empty third line followed by a question mark); cf. frr. 112 with n.; *127; Od. 2.276–7 παῦροι γάρ τοι παῖδες ὁµοῖοι πατρὶ πέλονται, / οἱ πλέονες κακίους, παῦροι δέ τε πατρὸς ἀρείους (“for certainly few sons are like their father; the majority are worse, and few are better than their father”); Hes. Op. 182 οὐδὲ πατὴρ παίδεσσιν ὁµοίιος οὐδέ τι παῖδες (“and a father does not resemble his children and children do not at all [resemble their father]”; of the Age of Iron), 235 τίκτουσιν δὲ γυναῖκες ἐοικότα τέκνα

408

Eupolis

γονεῦσι (“the women produce offspring who resemble their parents”; among the supposed benefits of living in a just city) with West 1978 ad locc.; E. Heracl. 327–8 ἕνα γὰρ ἐν πολλοῖς ἴσως / εὕροις ἂν ὅστις ἐστὶ µὴ χείρων πατρός (“for among many people you would perhaps find one who is not inferior to his father”); Th. 2.11.2 δίκαιον οὖν ἡµᾶς µήτε τῶν πατέρων χείρους φαίνεσθαι (“it is thus right that we neither appear inferior to our fathers …”); Pl. Prt. 326e διὰ τί οὖν τῶν ἀγαθῶν πατέρων πολλοὶ ὑεῖς φαῦλοι γίγνονται; (“Why then are many sons of good fathers bad people?”) (all passages cited by Telò); and perhaps Amphis fr. 38 ὁ συκάµινος συκαµίν᾿, ὁρᾷς, φέρει,  / ὁ πρῖνος ἀκύλους, ὁ κόµαρος µιµαίκυλα (“The mulberry tree, you see, bears mulberries, the holm-oak acorns, the arbutus tree arbutus-fruit”). Telò rightly objects that the delay in offering ὁµοίους … τῷ πατρί—needed to make sense of the reference to rams in 1—until after the reference to chickens in 2 is extremely awkward, and he accordingly prints instead οὐ δεινὸν οὖν κριοὺς ἔµ᾿ ἐκγεννᾶν τέκνα, / ὄρνις δ’ ὁµοίους τοὺς νεοττοὺς τῷ πατρί; (“Isn’t it awful, then, that I beget children who are rams”—i. e. difficult and ungrateful; cf. the lexicographic and paroemiographic sources collected at LSJ s. v. κριός I.1—“whereas chickens (produce) their nestlings resembling their father?”). The present tense of the infinitive, however, is unsuitable for a reference to a specific historical act of child-bearing (e. g. by Pericles, who on Telò’s hypothesis is complaining about the bad behavior of his sons), and one would expect the terms of the comparison to appear in the opposite order, suggesting that this is the wrong way forward. The definite article in τοὺς νεοττούς in 2 is odd, as is the use of the specific term “nestlings” after the generic τέκνα in 1, and it is tempting to think that τοὺς νεοττούς is an intrusive (fortuitously metrical) gloss, and that what Eupolis wrote was οὐ δεινὸν οὖν κριοὺς µὲν ἐκγεννᾶν τέκνα / ὄρνις θ’ ὅµοια τῷ πατρί. In a question—which this certainly is, no matter what is read—οὖν seems to mean “in that case, granting your premise” (e. g. Ar. Ach. 358, 760; Eq. 13; fr. 68.2; cf. Eup. frr. 225.1; 316.4), meaning that the speaker is replying to and likely summarizing another person’s comment before making his own point. For Westerink’s desire to connect this fragment closely with fr. *127, see n. there. Meier (largely followed by Telò) took the speaker to be Pericles complaining about his son Pericles II (cf. fr. 110 with n.) or Aristides offering a similar comment about the failings of his own children. But these are simply guesses, and anyone in the play might have pronounced the lines, which (at least as printed by Kassel–Austin) are just as easily read as an attack on a third party for the family he has sired as lamentation regarding the speaker’s own situation.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 112)

409

1 The sense of the line is filled out in 2 (“understand ‘offspring resembling their father’” Kaibel). For goats and goat-herding, see the general introduction to Aiges. For οὐ δεινόν + infin., see fr. 287.1 n. For ἐκγεννᾶν, see Text. For τέκνον as a general term for “offspring” not restricted to human children, cf. Il. 2.311 (a sparrow); 11.113 (a deer); 12.170 (bees); Od. 16.217 (hawks); Semon. fr. 7.34 (a dog); A. Th. 292 (a dragon); Hdt. 3.108.4 (a lion), 109.2 (a viper); X. Cyr. 4.1.17 (boars); Pl. Lg. 814b (birds); Arist. HA 522a26 (sheep and goats); EE 1235a35, 1241b3 (wild animals generally); LSJ s. v. 2. 2 ὄρνις Chickens were common domestic birds by this period; cf. Thompson 1936. 20–6; Foster 1984. 76–7 (bone fragments attesting to their use as sacrificial animals in late 5th-century Athens); Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 483–4; Arnott 2007. 9–11. The iota is long in both ὄρνιθας (e. g. Ar. Av. 411) and ὄρνις, and the latter is used here for straightforward metrical reasons, as also at Ar. Av. 717, 1250, 1610; Men. fr. 132.3, 4 (cited by Athenaeus at 9.373c as part of the same discussion). νεοττός (〈 νέος, like νεόττιον in fr. *127) is attested in the sense “nestling” already at Il. 2.311 στρουθοῖο νεοσσοί, νήπια τέκνα. For the word applied metaphorically to human children, e. g. Ar. Nu. 999 ἐνεοττοτροφήθης; A. Ch. 256; E. Heracl. 239; Andr. 441; HF 72 with Bond 1981 ad loc.; Thphr. Char. 2.6 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.

fr. 112 K.-A. (103 K. = Dêmoi fr. 6 Telò) εἴσ᾽ Ἱπποκράτους τε παῖδες ἐµβόλιµοί τινες, βληχητὰ τέκνα κοὐδαµῶς ταὐτοῦ τρόπου 1 εἴσ᾽ Nauck : εἰς ΣV : εἷς Suda (1) : om. alii : τρεῖς Kaibel : ὗς Tammaro   τε om. ΣE (2) Suda (2) Phot. = Suda (3)   παῖδες] πόδας ΣV   ἐµβόλιµοί] ἐκβόλιµοί ΣV 2 βληχητὰ] βληχήµατα Tammaro   ταὐτοῦ scripsi : τοῦ codd. : γε τοῦ Triclinius : τοὐµοῦ Toup : τοῦ σοῦ Fritzsche : τοῦ νῦν Kuster

There are some supposititious children belonging to Hippocrates as well, bleating offspring and not at all of the same style

410

Eupolis

ΣRV Ar. Nu. 1001 = Suda (1) τ 1135 ~ (2) υ 125 ὑώδεις τινὲς καὶ ἀπαίδευτοι κωµῳδοῦνται.RV καὶ τάχα ἂν εἴησαν προκέφαλοί τινες, ὡς ἐν Γεωργοῖς (Ar. fr. 116) καὶ ἐν Τριφάλητι (Ar. fr. 568). καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις· ――.V τὰ δὲ ὀνόµατα αὐτῶν Τελέσιππος, ∆ηµοφῶν, ΠερικλῆςRV swinish people and mocked in comedy as uneducated.RV They might also be persons with bullet-shaped254 heads, as in Geôrgoi (Ar. fr. 116) and Triphalês (Ar. fr. 568). Also Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――.V Their names were Telesippos, Demophon and PericlesRV ΣENM (1) Ar. Nu. 1001 οὗτοί εἰσι Τελέσιππος, ∆ηµοφῶν καὶ Περικλῆς, διαβαλλόµενοι εἰς ὑωδίαν.ENM καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις· ――E The individuals in question are Telesippos, Demophon and Pericles, who are slandered for swinishness.ENM Also Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――E ΣE (2) Ar. Nu. 1001 Ἱπποκράτει τινὶ Ἀθηναίῳ τρεῖς ἦσαν υἱοὶ συώδεις καὶ ἀνόητοι. καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις· ―― A certain Hippocrates of Athens had three sons who were swinish and stupid. Also Eupolis in Dêmoi: ―― Phot. ε 700 = Suda (3) ε 951 ἐµβόλιµος· ἀτελής. (v. 1) ―― embolimos: imperfect. (v. 1) ―― Suda (4) β 336 βληχὴ καὶ βληχήµατα· φωναὶ προβάτων. καὶ βληχώµενοι παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει ἐν Πλούτῳ (293)· ―― … βληχᾶσθαι γὰρ τὸ τὰ προβάτια ποιᾷ κεχρῆσθαι φωνῇ. καὶ αὖθις· (v. 2) ―― bleat and bleatings: the noise produced by sheep. Also bleating (masc. nom. pl. part.) in Aristophanes in Wealth (293): ―― … Because “to bleat” is when sheep make a particular sound. And again: (v. 2) ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llrl k|lk|l rlkl llkl k|lkl llkl

254

LSJ s. v. προκέφαλος offers the antiquated gloss “with a sugar-loaf head”, which refers to the tall, bullet-shaped cones in which refined sugar was sold until the late 19th century.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 112)

411

Discussion Raspe 1832. 24–6; Hermann 1834 V.294; Bergk 1838. 349–50; Meineke 1839 II.477–9; Tammaro 1973–1974. 183–6; Ostuni 1982/3. 124–6; Storey 2003. 138–40; Telò 2007. 231–41 Citation context The scholia are all slightly different versions of a single note on Ar. Nu. 1000–1 εἰ ταῦτ’, ὦ µειράκιον, πείσει τούτῳ, νὴ τὸν ∆ιόνυσον / τοῖς Ἱπποκράτους υἱέσιν εἴξεις, καί σε καλοῦσι βλιτοµάµµαν (“If you accept his guidance in these matters, young man, by Dionysus you’ll resemble the sons of Hippocrates, and people will call you a nitwit”; the Wrong Argument tries to steer Pheidippides away from the Right Argument’s view of life); presumably to be traced to a list of kômôidoumenoi. The Suda routinely incorporates Aristophanic scholia; Suda υ 125 is slightly condensed, omitting the title of the play. Ath. 3.96e–f τῶν Ἱπποκράτους υἱῶν, οὓς εἰς ὑωδίαν κωµῳδουµένους οἶδα (“the sons of Hippocrates, who I know were mocked for swinishness”), Gal. Quod animi mores corporis temperamenta sequantur 4 (IV.784.14–15 Kühn) οἱ δ’ Ἱπποκράτους υἱεῖς, οὓς ἐπὶ µωρίᾳ σκώπτουσιν οἱ κωµικοί (“and the sons of Hippocrates, whom the comic poets mock for their stupidity”), and Phot. σ 845 ὗς τοὺς Ἱπποκράτους υἱοὺς ἔλεγον καὶ τοὺς Παναιτίου καὶ Μέµνονος εἰς ὑηνίαν κωµῳδοῦντες (“they used to refer to the sons of Hippocrates and to those of Panaitios and Memnon as ‘pigs’ as a way of mocking them in comedy for swinishness”) may go back to the same source. None of the latter passages, however, makes explicit mention of Eupolis, and Nauck 1849. 70 observes that plural κωµικοί does not necessarily imply a reference to more than one comic poet (who might be Aristophanes alone). The entries in Phot. = Suda (3) (offering the same gloss—also found at Synag. ε 327 and traced to Cyril by Cunningham—but omitting the second line of Eupolis) and Suda (4) (omitting the first line of Eupolis), on the other hand, are simple lexicographic notes from what must be other sources. For Suda (4), cf. Poll. 5.87 ὀίων δὲ βληχὴ βληχᾶσθαι βληχώµεναι; Hsch. β 726 βληχή· φωνὴ προβάτων, 728 βλήχηµα· µωρός. προβατώδης, 729 βληχήµατα· βοαὶ προβατώδεις, 730 βληχήσασθαι· ὡς πρόβατα βοῆσαι (= most of the same material divided up into a series of separate notes); Phot. β 166 = Synag. β 57 βληχήµατα· φωναὶ προβάτων; ΣKGLUEAT Theoc. 5.141b (p. 186.1–4 Wendel) (citing fr. 33). Text εἰς at the beginning of 1 in ΣV governs πόδας (“and to the feet of Hippocrates as well”; unmetrical), which is itself likely a correction of παῖδες intended to make slightly better sense of the text. The other witnesses dropped the offending word, but Nauck’s rearticulation as εἴσ᾽ is an easy fix. Kaibel’s τρεῖς is modestly more venturesome and leaves the fragment without a verb. Tammaro’s ὗς (“pigs”; perhaps converted first to the non-Attic form ΣΥΣ and then corrupted to ΕΙΣ) fits the repeated claims in the sources that Hippocrates’

412

Eupolis

sons were attacked for their ὑωδία (“swinishness”), but sits awkwardly with the reference to them as sheep in 2. In 2, Kassel–Austin print ΣV’s ἐκβόλιµοι, which ought to mean “outcast” vel sim. But ἐµβόλιµοι (the consensus reading of the other witnesses) can be maintained on the thesis that the point is that Hippocrates’ sons are counted among his family members even though by rights they ought not to be (sc. because they are fools and he was not), and the fact that Phot. = Suda (3) and Suda (4), seemingly from a separate source or pair of sources (see Citation context), agree with ΣE (1–2) on ἐµβόλιµοι makes it clear that ΣV’s ἐκβόλιµοι is merely a random error.255 The paradosis version of the second half of 2 is metrically defective. I print ταὐτοῦ (i. e. τοῦ αὐτοῦ; cf. Ar. Eq. 1289 ἐκ ταὐτοῦ … ποτηρίου) for the transmitted τοῦ and take the intended sense to be “not at all of the same style (as their father)”. Interpretation Hippocrates son of Ariphron of the deme Cholargos (PA 7640; PAA 538615), a nephew of Pericles, was general in 426/5 BCE and again in 424/3 BCE, when he died at the Battle of Delium (Th. 4.101.2; Paus. 9.6.3); see Davies 1971. 456, and cf. fr. 38 n. Nothing else is known of his sons Telesippos (PA 13541; PAA 879655), Demophon (PA 3701; PAA 321750) and Pericles (PA 11810; PAA 772640), except that Aristophanes also mocked them repeatedly from the mid-420s BCE or so (Geôrgoi) to the late 410s BCE (Triphalês). For the theme—children who fail to match the standard set by their fathers—cf. frr. 111; *127. τε in 1 makes clear that this is not the only example of the phenomenon under discussion. -κν- in 2 ought not to make position in comedy (cf. frr. 99.34; 111.1), seemingly marking the verse as paratragic (thus Hermann), like Ar. fr. 602.1; Antiph. fr. 161.6. If so, the use of a form of παῖς + genitive in 1 must be part of the joke, as at e. g. fr. 224.2 with n.; Ar. V. 1466; Th. 1113 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc. Telò assigns the fragment to Pyronides as part of a prologue discussion with Pericles (thus already Storey) in the Underworld, which is merely a guess. 1 ἐµβόλιµος (〈 έµβάλλω) is elsewhere “intercalated”, in reference to months occasionally added to the lunar calendar to make it better conform to the solar year (Hdt. 1.32.3), or “injected”, in reference to choral songs that 255

The fact that we do not know what was said before this, combined with the pointed inconsequentiality of much comic dialogue, makes it unwise to exclude ἐµβόλιµοι on the ground that the adjective is inappropriate for children as opposed to e. g. months. Perhaps the conversation up to this point has been about the calendar and this is a provocative humorous interjection.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 113)

413

lack a connection to the larger action in a tragedy ([Arist.] Po. 1456a29–30). Here the sense must be “supposititious”, of a child foisted on a man by an unscrupulous wife (cf. Ar. Th. 339–40 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.). 2 βληχητά is attested elsewhere only at Ael. NA 2.54 τὰ βληχητά (~ “sheep”), where it has presumably been picked up as an Atticism. LSJ s. v. treats the word (onomatopoeic) as a substantive (lemmatized βληχητά, -ῶν, τά), but Eupolis patently uses it as an adjective. For sheep as an image of stupidity, cf. Ar. Eq. 264; Nu. 1203; V. 31–3 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Taillardat 1965 § 453; and for sheep and herding generally, see frr. 19 n.; 163 n.; Kitchell 2014. 168–70. οὐδαµῶς ταὐτοῦ τρόπου For the expression, cf. Ar. V. 1002 κοὐ τοὐµοῦ τρόπου (“and not after my own style, and not of my own inclination”); Th. 93 σφόδρ’ ἐκ τοῦ σοῦ τρόπου (“very much your style”); Pl. 246 ἐγὼ δὲ τούτου τοῦ τρόπου … εἰµ’ (“the following is my style, is how I operate”); and see fr. 117 n. (on τρόποι).

fr. 113 K.-A. (97 K. = Dêmoi fr. 22 Telò) τί κέκραγας ὥσπερ Βουζύγης ἀδικούµενος; Why are you shrieking like a Bouzygês being done wrong? ΣΓ Ar. Lys. 397 Χολοζύγης· ∆ηµόστρατος Βουζύγης ἐλέγετο, ὃν Χολοζύγην εἶπε διὰ τὸ µελαγχολᾶν. καὶ Εὔπολις δὲ ἐν ∆ήµοις ὡς µανιώδη αὐτὸν λέγει· ――, καὶ ἄλλοι Cholozygês: Demostratos was called Bouzygês, but (Aristophanes) referred to him as Cholozygês because he suffered from melancholy. And Eupolis in Dêmoi also refers to him as insane: ――, as do others

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl l|lkl rlkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 26; Hermann 1834 V.290; Ostuni 1982/3. 121–3; Storey 2003. 135–6; Telò 2007. 554–8 Citation context A gloss on Ar. Lys. 391–7, where the Proboulos describes Demostratos’ role in the Assembly debate in 415 BCE that authorized the Sicilian Expedition and closes the account by describing him as ὁ θεοῖσιν ἐχθρὸς καὶ µιαρὸς Χολοζύγης (“the god-forsaken, foul Cholozygês”, playing on cholos, “bile”, a supposed cause of madness, and Bouzygês, referring to

414

Eupolis

Demostratos’ genos). Presumably drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi (but see Interpretation). Interpretation Addressed to an individual man and less likely a true question than a reproach, like e. g. fr. 223.1; Call. Com. fr. 15.1; Hermipp. fr. *47.1; Ar. Ach. 514; fr. 205.7–8.256 For Demostratos (PA 3611; PAA 319245), to whom the fragment supposedly refers, see fr. 103 n. The scholion takes the point of the remark to be that Demostratos’ inappropriate protest—he has not actually been done wrong— shows that he is crazy,257 as is also suggested in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata. But the deduction on which this interpretation is based appears to be faulty. Ar. Lys. 397 shows that Demostratos belonged to the Bouzygai, literally “the Oxyokers”, an Athenian genos one of whose members performed a sacred plowing ritual every year below the Acropolis, uttering the so-called “Bouzygeian curses” as he did so (App. Prov. 1.61): ὁ γὰρ βουζύγης Ἀθήνησιν ὁ τὸν ἱερὸν ἄροτον ἐπιτελῶν ἄλλα τε πολλὰ ἀρᾶται καὶ τοῖς µὴ κοινωνοῦσι κατὰ τὸν βίον ὕδατος ἢ πυρὸς ἢ µὴ ἀποφαίνουσιν ὁδὸν πλανωµένοις (“for the Bouzygês, as he carries out the sacred plowing in Athens, pronounces numerous curses, including on those who in the course of their life fail to share water or fire or to show the way to persons who are lost”); cf. Diph. fr. 62 (listing some of the bad behaviors that fell under the Bouzygeian curses, with a mocking comic addition at the end); Lasos PMG 705 (Bouzyges as lawgiver); Hsch. β 889; Bernays 1885 I.277–82; Toepffer 1889. 136–49; Robinson 1931 (a vase-painting from circa 430 BCE apparently showing the hero Bouzyges and his ox and plow); Jameson 1951. 54–6, 60–1 (on plowing rituals, with attention to both Bouzyges and the hero Echetlaios, whose name links him to the plow-handle); Bérard, LIMC III.1 pp. 153–4; Kearns 1989. 152 (the hero); Parker 1996. 286–7 (discussion of what little is known of the genos and the ceremony). But that does not make every mention of a Bouzygês a reference to Demostratos, which is to say that the fragment has been misunderstood by an ancient scholar who saw the connection between Βουζύγης and Aristophanes’ mocking Χολοζύγης, but who nonetheless took Βουζύγης to be an individual nickname rather than a genos-name.258 The actual point is thus that the Bouzygeian curses made 256

257 258

ἀδικούµενος might modify not Βουζύγης (as in the translation offered above) but the subject of κέκραγας (“Why are you shrieking like a Bouzygês when being done wrong?”). But this is more difficult sense and produces a less likely question (sc. since shrieking when one is done wrong is not unreasonable behavior). For µελάγχολος and cognates, see Ceschi 2009. 138–9 with older bibliography. “Why do you scream like Bouzyges does?” at Rusten 2011. 239 (with a cross-reference to a prosopographical note on Demostratos at fr. 103) is thus wrong. Storey

∆ῆµοι (fr. 114)

415

it seem as if “any little thing” was a great injustice that required vigorous complaint of the sort the individual addressed has apparently been expressing. κέκραγας is perfect for present, as routinely with this verb (e. g. fr. 1.3 with n.; Ar. Ach. 335 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; V. 103; Antiph. fr. 194.8; Diph. fr. 42.30; S. Ai. 1236 with Finglass 2011 ad loc.; [A.] PV 743). In Aristophanes, κράζω is often used to describe oratorical bellowing (e. g. Ach. 711; Eq. 256, 287; Pax 314), but it need not do so (e. g. Nu. 1386; V. 1287; Pax 310).

fr. 114 K.-A. (92 K. = Dêmoi fr. 31 Telò) τὸ γὰρ δίκαιον πανταχοῦ φυλακτέον for what is right must be safeguarded everywhere Orion, Anthologion 6.5 ἐκ τῶν ∆ήµων Εὐπόλιδος· ―― From the Dêmoi of Eupolis: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkl klkl Discussion Meineke 1839 II.457; Schneidewin 1839. 84 n. 5; Kock 1880 I.280; Hoffmann 1910. 9; Telò 2007. 609–10 Citation context From a section entitled Περὶ δίκης καὶ δικαιοσύνης (“On Justice and Righteousness”) in a florilegium attributed to the 5th-century CE grammarian Orion, but doubtless drawn in any case from an older collection of the same sort. Interpretation An explanation of a preceding remark (hence γάρ). The line is generally taken to be spoken by Aristides, the just man par excellence (thus

2011. 121 translates appropriately, but nonetheless adds “Their best-known member was Demostratus”, which is true only in the sense that we know of no other 5th-century members of the genos, not that Eupolis’ audience would necessarily have regarded the membership of the group as equally obscure. Telò 2007. 556 attempts to salvage the good credit of the scholion by identifying the addressee as Demostratos himself, which in turn requires that Demostratos have been a character in the play but not a Bouzygete (but cf. n. 241 above), and hypothesizes that the speaker is Pericles (the nominal model for the scene being fr. 99.78–120).

416

Eupolis

Schneidewin and Meineke; see the general introduction to the play), or by someone engaged in a conversation with him (thus Kock), which is only a guess; cf. frr. 99.118–19; *105. Hoffmann takes the style to be paratragic. For τὸ … δίκαιον (variously “justice”, “what is right” and “truth”), e. g. Thgn. 200; A. Th. 1073; Supp. 78; Eu. 619; S. El. 466; E. Heracl. 330; fr. 343 θάρσει· τό τοι δίκαιον ἰσχύει µέγα (“Take courage; to dikaion is in fact very strong”); Ar. Ach. 500; Th. 4.61.4; Arist. EN 1131a25. πανταχοῦ is an Attic form first attested in poetry in the second half of the 5th century (e. g. S. Ai. 1241; Pherecr. fr. 150.1; Ar. Eq. 568; E. Andr. 241) and then widespread in late 5th-/4th-century prose (e. g. Th. 1.5.2; Isoc. 1.31; X. HG 2.3.24). Verbal adjectives in -τέον (see below) are often accompanied by a dative specifying who ought to engage in the activity in question, for which πανταχοῦ here stands in, although it takes the idea in a slightly different direction than πᾶσι, “by everyone”, would have. φυλακτέον For other verbal adjectives indicating obligation or necessity in comedy, e. g. fr. 432 ἀποκαρτέον with n.; Cratin. fr. 362 ἀνεκτέον; Pherecr. fr. 248 καθεστέον; Ar. Eq. 35 σκεπτέον, 603 ληπτέον; Nu. 131 ἰτητέον; V. 1262 µαθητέον; Sannyr. fr. 8.2 ζητητέον; Pl. Com. fr. 46.3 παιστέον; Antiph. fr. 46.2 µεθεκτέον; Alex. fr. 191.4 ἡδυντέον; Men. fr. 602.9 οἰστέον; Poultney 1963. 373–6; and see in general Bishop 1899; Willi 2003a. 145–8.

fr. 115 K.-A. (93 K. = Dêmoi fr. 18 Telò) ὅ τί περ κεφάλαιον τῶν κάτωθ᾽ ἀνήγαγες κάτωθ᾽ ἀνήγαγες Millis : κάτωθεν ἤγαγες Plu.

you brought up what is in fact the most significant portion of those below Plu. Per. 3.7 ὁ δ’ Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς ∆ήµοις πυνθανόµενος περὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ἀναβεβηκότων ἐξ Ἅιδου δηµαγωγῶν, ὡς ὁ Περικλῆς ὠνοµάσθη τελευταῖος· ―― Eupolis in his Dêmoi, in the course of inquiring about each of the demagogues who have come up from Hades, when Pericles was named last: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlrl l|lkl klkl

∆ῆµοι (fr. 115)

417

Discussion Cobet 1854. 312–13; Schmid 1938. 419–20; Plepelits 1970. 139–40, 142; Tammaro 1990–1993. 127; Revermann 1997. 199; Storey 2003. 121; Telò 2007. 458–62; Torello 2008a. 54 Citation context From a collection of comic fragments supposedly referring to Pericles’ misshaped head (also Cratin. frr. 118; 258; Telecl. fr. 47, with an allusion to Cratin. fr. 73.1, which is cited in more complete form at Per. 13.9) and all likely drawn from a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Cf. Poll. 2.43 (also referencing the word σχινοκέφαλος in Cratin. fr. 73.1). Text Editors disagree—and are occasionally inconsistent—as to whether an accent should be added to the second word in the combination ὅ τι when an enclitic follows, as here.259 Millis’ κάτωθ᾽ ἀνήγαγες for the paradosis κάτωθεν ἤγαγες brings the text into conformity with ἀναβεβηκότων in the citation context and lends the line considerably more point at the price of altering a single letter. Interpretation Addressed to a single individual, presumably Pyronides. The identity of the speaker is unknown, 260 although the situation is reminiscent of the one fr. 99.64–77 appears to be setting up, with Pyronides offering another character a retrospective account of his adventures in the Underworld and their consequences. κεφάλαιον in the 5th century consistently lacks an article and means “the chief point” vel sim.—despite LSJ s. v. II.3, Men. Pk. 363 (173) is not an exception—and Plutarch takes the term to be used here for the sake of word-play on κεφαλή (“head”) in mocking reference to Pericles’ physical deformity (see Citation context); Cobet compared Ar. Ra. 421 κἀστὶν τὰ πρῶτα τῆς ἐκεῖ µοχθηρίας (“and he’s the most significant aspect of the depravity there” vel sim.; of Archedemos). The basic point of the remark is generally understood to be the contrast between what the speaker takes to be Pericles’ enormous importance and the fact that Pyronides has mentioned him last.261 Tammaro, by contrast, interprets κεφάλαιον as a summary reference to the four dead statesmen as a group, in which case it is difficult to believe in the play on κεφαλή (relevant to Pericles alone)—which is to say that Plutarch’s source has invested the line with a meaning it does not have. 259 260

261

Thus Wilson omits the accent at e. g. Ar. Eq. 1257 ὅ τι σοι, but includes it at Ar. Ec. 515 ὅ τί σοι, 576 ὅ τί περ. Plutarch’s “Eupolis …, in the course of asking” is a careless way of saying “Eupolis (has his character) …, in the course of asking”. Cf. fr. 269; Hermipp. fr. 36; Kassel 1966. 9–10 (all cited by Kassel–Austin). The latter fact does not necessarily show that Pyronides named the dead statesmen in historical order or that they appeared onstage that way.

418

Eupolis

LSJ s. v. describes the intensifying particle περ as “Chiefly Ep(ic) and Lyr(ic); also in Trag(edy) with relat(ive)s and part(iciple)s”. περ is also found in comedy, most often in combination with relative pronouns (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 75.6 ἐξ οὗπερ; Phryn. Com. fr. 70.2 ὅσουπερ; Ar. Ach. 364 ᾗπερ; Av. 928 ὅ τί περ) and conjunctions of various sorts (cf. fr. 102.2 ὥσπερ with n.); see Dover 1993 on Ar. Ra. 815. For ὅ τί περ in particular, also e. g. Ar. Eq. 1107; Pax 1268; Ec. 53. τῶν κάτωθεν For “below” meaning “in the Underworld”, e. g. Ar. Pax 313; A. Pers. 697; S. Ant. 1070; E. Alc. 424. For the form of the adverb, see fr. 159.1–2 n.

fr. *116 K.-A. (95 K. = Dêmoi fr. 3 Telò) λαλεῖν ἄριστος, ἀδυνατώτατος λέγειν best at chattering, most incapable of speaking Plu. Alc. 13.2 ἐντευκτικὸς γὰρ ἰδίᾳ καὶ πιθανὸς ἐδόκει µᾶλλον ἢ φέρειν ἀγῶνας ἐν δήµῳ δυνατός. ἦν γάρ, ὡς Εὔπολίς φησι, ―― For he seemed more affable and persuasive in private than capable of engaging in Assembly debate; because he was, as Eupolis says, ―― Gell. 1.15.12 Eupolidis quoque versus de id genus hominibus consignatissime factus est: ――. quod Sallustius noster imitari volens scribit (Hist. fr. IV 43 Maurenbrecher): loquax, inquit, magis quam facundus There is also a verse of Eupolis quite distinctly written in regard to this type of person: ――. Our fellow-citizen Sallust, wishing to imitate it, writes (Hist. fr. IV 43 Maurenbrecher): wordy (he says) rather than eloquent Galen, puls. diff. 3.3 (VIII.653.4–8 Kühn) τοῦτο δὲ οὐ λέγειν ἀλλὰ λαλεῖν ἐστί. εἰ µὲν οὖν βούλει, κατὰ τὸν κωµικόν, ――, ἕτερος ἂν εἴη λόγος· εἰ δ’ οὐ λαλεῖν ἀλλὰ λέγειν, τί καὶ διδάσκειν ἐθέλεις, δήλωσον ἡµῖν This is not to speak but to chatter. If you wish, therefore, as the comic poet puts it, ――, it would be a different matter. But if (you prefer) not to chatter but to speak, make clear to us what you want to teach us Galen, puls. diff. 4.2 (VIII.943.13–16 Kühn) ἀλλ’ εἰ µὴ κᾀν ταῖς διαλέξεσιν, ἐν γοῦν τοῖς συγγράµµασιν ἐχρῆν αἰδεῖσθαι παθεῖν ὅπερ ὁ κωµικὸς ἔφη, ――

∆ῆµοι (fr. *116)

419

But if not in your lectures, at least in your writings you should have been ashamed to suffer what the comic poet mentioned, ―― Galen, περὶ τῶν ἰατρικῶν ὀνοµάτων (a 9th-century Arabic version by H · ubais, made from a lost Syriac translation by his teacher H unain ibn Iŝh a ¯ q; trans. M. Meyerhof and · · J. Schacht, APAW, philosophisch-historische Klasse (Berlin, 1931 no. 3)) Aber die Leute, welche sich von der Erkenntnis der Tatsachen entfernen, halten, sobald sie zu reden begehren, Reden, die in ein derartiges Gefasel ausarten, dass ich oftmals … mich des Komödiendichters erinnerte und seine Worte bewunderte, wo er von einem Mann sagt, sobald er ihn lächerlich machen will, dass er der fähigste der Menschen zum Verleumden und der unfägiste der Menschen zum (vernünftigen) Reden sei262

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl k|rkl klkl Discussion Runkel 1829. 110; Keil 1902. 48; O’Sullivan 1992. 112–13; Telò 2007. 207–12 Citation context Plutarch, in the course of describing the political background to the ostracism of Hyperbolos, uses this verse to characterize the politician Phaiax (see fr. 2 n.), whose oratorical abilities are said at Ar. Eq. 1377–80 (424 BCE) to be admired by trendy young Athenian men. This does not mean that Eupolis himself was describing Phaiax, for the quotations of the verse in Gellius and Galen, along with the apparent allusion to it at Aristid. or. 3.52, 54263 (immediately after Aristides’ paraphrase of fr. 102.3, 5 and quotation of fr. 103), leave little doubt that it was in circulation in the early 2nd c. CE as a commonplace characterization of individuals who spew wordy nonsense. 262

263

“But the people who lack an understanding of the facts, as soon as they want to speak, they make speeches that degenerate into such nonsense, that I often … recalled the comic poet and admired his words, where he said of a certain man, when he wanted to mock him, that he was the individual most capable of casting aspersions and least capable of sensible speech.” 52 ἅπαντας … κωµῳδούντων ὡς ἀδυνάτους εἰπεῖν, φλυαρίαν τινὰ καὶ λαλιὰν ἐπεδείκνυτο ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, … πόρρω µὲν αὐτὸς ὢν τοῦ ληρεῖν; … 54 ὁ τοίνυν Περικλῆς … λάλος µὲν ἥκιστα, οἶµαι, λέγειν δὲ ἄριστος εἰκότως ἐνοµίζετο (52 “[being praised by those who] mock everyone in their comedies as incapable of speaking, did [Pericles] put on display any nonsense or chattering in the assemblies, … being himself far from chattering? … 54 Pericles, then, in my opinion, … was rightly regarded as scarcely a chatterer, but as the best at speaking”). Telò incautiously argues that this echo proves not only that fr. *116 should be assigned to Dêmoi, but also that it belongs to the prologue of the play shortly after fr. 103 and is spoken by Pyronides.

420

Eupolis

Gellius—who is also aware that the line comes from Eupolis—quotes it as part of an omnibus assemblage of Greek and Latin material entitled “What a tiresome and disgusting vice useless, empty loquacity is, and in how many places it has been rightly condemned by leading authors in both languages” and says that the line is directed at individuals like the Homeric “babbler” Thersites. Galen—who merely assigns the verse to a comic poet—uses it twice in a single treatise to denounce an intellectual opponent he accuses of babbling, i. e. arguing incoherently, and seemingly also in a work preserved only in an Arabic version (thus Wilamowitz 1929. 484 = 1962 IV.502). Interpretation Assigned to Dêmoi by Runkel, for no compelling reason; the verse would better have been treated as a fragment without play-title. A paradoxical description of a man who is full of words but nonetheless has nothing—i. e. nothing sensible or important—to say. Gellius goes on to quote Epich. fr. 184 οὐ λέγειν τύ γ’ ἐσσὶ δεινός, ἀλλὰ σιγῆν ἀδύνατος (“you aren’t clever at talking, but you’re incapable of being silent”), which plays with a similar idea. λαλεῖν ἄριστος Kassel–Austin compare Phryn. PS p. 16.3–5 ἄριστος κλέπτειν· ἀστεία ἡ συµπλοκή. καὶ ἄριστος µοιχεύειν, καὶ τὰ ὅµοια. σαρκασµοῦ τρόπῳ ἐπῄνηται εἰς ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ κακοῦ (“best at stealing: the combination is witty. Also best at seducing and the like. Praise is offered in a sarcastic manner to exaggerate the evil”), which together with PS p. 51.14–15 ἄριστος κλέπτειν καὶ ἄριστος λωπυδυτεῖν (“best at stealing and best at mugging people for their clothes”) = adesp. com. fr. *565. For similar ironic uses of ἄριστος + infinitive, cf. adesp. com. fr. 526 ἄνδρες Ἑλλήνων ἄριστοι καταβαλεῖν παράστασιν (“best of Greeks at paying a court fee”); Eub. fr. 66.2–3 ἀνδρῶν ἀρίστων ἐσθίειν δι’ ἡµέρας / ὅλης τραχήλους (“best men at eating shellfish-necks all day long”; cf. Eub. 33.2); Th. 3.38.5 ἀπατᾶσθαι ἄριστοι (“best at being deceived”); and note in general fr. 386.3–5 (Socrates has thought about other matters, but not about how to feed himself). For λαλέω (onomatopoeic) as a contemptuous way to dismiss allegedly unnecessary or unwanted talk, e. g. Cratin. fr. 6.3; Ar. Ach. 21; Nu. 505; Lys. 356; Dover 1993. 22. Contrast the use of the verb in the less judgmental sense “engage in conversation” at Alex. fr. 200.4 with Arnott 1996 ad loc. ἀδυνατώτατος The form is first attested here (subsequently in late 5thth /4 -century prose, e. g. Th. 1.5.1; X. HG 6.4.11) and seems to be evidence of a colloquial process by which “emphasis … takes hold of morphology” (Willi 2003b. 53). For λέγω in the sense “speak to the point”, cf. Ar. Nu. 1077 ἀπόλωλας· ἀδύνατος γὰρ εἶ λέγειν (“You’ve had it; because you’re incapable of responding”; of the fate of a man caught in adultery who does not know how to

∆ῆµοι (fr. 117)

421

argue his way out of a bad situation); colloquial οὐδὲν/µηδὲν λέγειν (“to talk nonsense”) with Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 442a–b; LSJ s. v. III.6.

fr. 117 K.-A. (101 K. = Dêmoi fr. 12 Telò) ἀνὴρ πολίτης πουλύπους εἰς τοὺς τρόπους πολίτης Ath.A : σοφίστης Meineke : παλαιστὴς anon.   εἰς scripsi : ἐς Ath.A : τις Blaydes

a citizen who’s an octopus in regard to his behavior Ath. 7.316c Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις· ―― Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkl llkl Discussion Meier 1827. 142; Brandes 1886. 24; Blaydes 1890. 34; Schmid 1946. 126 n. 8; Storey 2003. 140; Telò 2007. 279–85 Citation context From a complicated discussion, seemingly drawn from several grammatical sources mixed together, of the various forms of the word for “octopus”, here expanding on the thesis (Ath. 7.316b) that Attic authors used πουλύπους. Text Athenaeus’ πολίτης does not require emendation. Editors retain the paradosis ἐς, but εἰς is expected in everyday Attic and thus in comedy outside of lyric. Interpretation The two halves of the line stand in implicit contrast to one another. Additional material at Ath. 7.316f–18b (cited by Kassel–Austin) regarding the octopus’ behavior makes the point of Eupolis’ image clear: ἱστορεῖται δὲ καὶ ὅτι φεύγων διὰ τὸν φόβον µεταβάλλει τὰς χρόας καὶ ἐξοµοιοῦται τοῖς τόποις ἐν οἷς κρύπτεται, ὡς καὶ ὁ Μεγαρεὺς Θέογνίς φησιν ἐν ταῖς Ἐλεγείαις (215–16)· πουλύπου ὀργὴν ἴσχε πολυπλόκου, ὃς ποτὶ πέτρῃ τῇ προσοµιλήσῃ, τοῖος ἰδεῖν ἐφάνη. ὁµοίως ἱστορεῖ καὶ Κλέαρχος ἐν δευτέρῳ περὶ Παροιµιῶν (fr. 75 Wehrli) παρατιθέµενος τάδε τὰ ἔπη, οὐ δηλῶν ὅτου ἐστί (Theb. fr. 4.1–2, p. 25 Bernabé)·

422

Eupolis

πουλύποδός µοι, τέκνον, ἔχων νόον, Ἀµφίλοχ’ ἥρως, τοῖσιν ἐφαρµόζου (-ειν Antig. Car.) τῶν κεν 〈κατὰ〉 δῆµον ἵκηαι (“And the story goes that when it is in flight, its fear causes it to change color, and it makes itself resemble the places where it hides, as Theognis of Megara as well says in his Elegiacs (215–16): Have the temperament of a wily octopus, which looks like (“to look like” Antig. Car.) the rock to which it clings. Clearchus in Book II of On Proverbs (fr. 75 Wehrli) offers a similar account, citing the following hexameter lines, although without identifying the author (Theb. fr. 4.1–2, p. 25 Bernabé): Please think like a octopus, heroic Amphilochus my child, and adapt your thought to those whose land you visit!”). Theognis goes on to say (217–18) νῦν µὲν τῇδ’ ἐφέπου, τοτὲ δ’ ἀλλοῖος χρόα γίνου. / κρέσσων τοι σοφίη γίνεται ἀτροπίης (“follow now in this direction, at various times take on various complexions; wisdom is assuredly better than inflexibility”), while the Thebaid fragment continues ἄλλοτε δ’ ἀλλοῖος τελέθειν καὶ χώρῳ ἕπεσθαι (“Be various ways at various times and follow the local custom!”). Suggestions as to the identity of the individual referred to include Theramenes (Meier), Alcibiades (Brandes) and Themistocles (Schmid). Almost anyone—or no one in particular—might be in question,264 but disapproval certainly lurks behind the description even if the speaker himself thinks that he is offering praise. For the seemingly superfluous ἀνήρ, see fr. 192kk n. πουλύπους εἰς τοὺς τρόπους For the octopus’ ability to change color to match its environment, allowing it to serve as a symbol for human beings who similarly blend in opportunistically with others in order to protect themselves—the colloquial modern English equivalent is “chameleon-like”—cf. Pi. fr. *43 ὦ τέκνον, ποντίου θηρὸς πετραίου / χρωτὶ µάλιστα νόον / προσφέρων πάσαις πολίεσσιν ὁµίλει· / τῷ παρεόντι δ’ ἐπαινήσαις ἑκὼν / ἄλλοτ’ ἀλλοῖα φρόνει (“Child, make your mind most like to the color of the rock-dwelling sea-creature in all the cities you visit; readily praise whoever is nearby, but have various opinions at various times!”); S. fr. 307 νόει πρὸς ἀνδρὶ χρῶµα πουλύπους ὅπως  / πέτρᾳ τραπέσθαι γνησίου φρονήµατος (“Know how to change the color of your true thought in your relations with your husband, like the octopus with the rock!”); Ion TrGF 19 F 36 καὶ τὸν πετραῖον 264

Storey 2003. 140 specifies that the man in question must be a contemporary of the poet and the audience, but even this is uncertain.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 118)

423

πλεκτάναις ἀναίµοσι / στυγῶ µεταλλακτῆρα πουλύπουν χροός (“and I hate the color-changing, rock-dwelling octopus with its bloodless tentacles”); Arist. HA 622a8–10 θηρεύει τοὺς ἰχθῦς τὸ χρῶµα µεταβάλλων καὶ ποιῶν ὅµοιον οἷς ἂν πλησιάζῃ λίθοις. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ ποιεῖ καὶ φοβηθείς (“It hunts fish by changing its color and making itself resemble the rocks it approaches. And it does the same when it is afraid as well”); Opp. Hal. 232–40; and perhaps Pl. Com. fr. 100 ὥσπερ τοὺς πουλύποδας πρώτιστα σέ (“you, first of all, just like the octopi”); Alc. Com. fr. 1 with Orth 2013 ad loc.; and see Detienne and Vernant 1969. 306–11; Longo in Longo, Ghiretti and Renna 1995. 51–5. For the creature itself, see Keller 1909–1913. 507–13; Thompson 1957. 204–8; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 54.1 (with particular attention to how octopus was caught and cooked); Davidson 2002. 213–15. The etymology of πουλύπους (originally πωλύπος; cf. Latin polypus) is unknown, but the word is connected to neither πολύς (“many”) nor ποῦς (“foot”), despite the popular etymologies that must have produced the Attic form. For the use of εἰς, see LSJ s .v. IV.2. τρόποι are “manners, ways, typical patterns of behavior” (e. g. frr. 112.2; 392.7; Cratin. fr. 115.2; Ar. Eq. 46, 390; Nu. 88).

fr. 118 K.-A. (104 K. = Dêmoi fr. 15 Telò) ἅπασα γὰρ ποθοῦµεν ἡ κλεινὴ πόλις ποθοῦµεν ἡ Meineke : ποθουµἐνη cod.

for we, the entire famous city, are longing Tiberius, de Figuris Demosthenicis 46 καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀλλοιώσεως σχῆµα εἰσάγει ὁ Καικίλιος (fr. 75 Ofenloch) … κατὰ δὲ τοὺς ἀριθµοὺς ἀλλοίωσις, ὡς παρ’ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν ∆ήµοις· ―― Caecilius (fr. 75 Ofenloch) also introduces the figure of variation … and variation as regards numbers, as in Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl klk|l llkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 59–60; Meineke 1838 II.463; Herwerden 1855. 22–3; Storey 2003. 126; Telò 2007. 301–4

424

Eupolis

Citation context The Caecilius in question is Caecilius of Caleacte (1st century CE), who otherwise shows virtually no interest in comedy. The work referred to is presumably his περὶ Σχηµάτων. Text Meineke’s ποθοῦµεν ἡ is merely a redivision of the manuscript’s ποθουµἐνη and is necessary for Caecilius’/Tiberius’ characterization of the line to make sense. Interpretation An explanation of a preceding remark (hence γάρ). Whatever the city in question is—most likely Athens, but see below—“famous” seems a strikingly arch way for the speaker to describe a place from which he himself hails. Perhaps the adjective echoes something said earlier, in which case it might also be marked by irony. For the use of a plural verb to describe the action of a collective singular (what Gildersleeve 1900–11 § 120 calls a “noun of multitude”), Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Eq. 813 ὦ πόλις Ἄργους, κλύεθ’ οἷα λέγει; Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.53 (with numerous examples, mostly from prose), and note fr. 48 with n.; Ar. fr. 99.118–19 “I issue a public order to the entire city that they should be good men”; Ar. fr. 522 λαµβάνετε κόλλαβον ἕκαστος; Stratt. fr. 49.1 ξυνίετ’ οὐδέν, πᾶσα Θηβαίων πόλις (“You (pl.), the entire city of Thebes, understand nothing”). πόθος is a yearning specifically for that which is absent (Pl. Cra. 420a; Komornicka 1981. 64; Weiss 1998. 32–4), and ποθοῦµεν ought to take an object. Herwerden (developing a suggestion by Raspe) suggested that the chorus might be speaking and describing their longing for the happy life they enjoyed while Pericles was still alive, or perhaps for Pericles himself. Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Ra. 1425 ποθεῖ µέν, ἐχθαίρει δέ, βούλεται δ’ ἔχειν (“It longs for him, and simultaneously hates him, and wants to have him”; Athens’ attitude toward Alcibiades). ἡ κλεινὴ πόλις Athens is routinely described as “famous”, especially— and unsurprisingly—in texts intended in the first instance for an Athenian audience (Ar. Pl. 772; Eub. fr. 9.5; A. Pers. 474 κλεινῶν Ἀθηνῶν; Pi. fr. 76.2; S. Ai. 861; fr. 323.2; E. Heracl. 38; Hipp. 422–3, 760–1, 1094; Ion 30, 262, 590, 1038; fr. 481.9; cf. Ar. Eq. 1327–8; Archestr. fr. 5.16), making the hypothesis that this is the city in question a reasonable one if nothing more, as also in fr. 119. For other places described as κλεινός, e. g. Ar. Av. 1277 (the city of Cloudcuckooland); Pi. O. 3.2 (Akragas); 6.6 (Syracuse); E. Tr. 25 (Troy); Ph. 951 (Thebes); Archestr. fr. 39.8 (Byzantium).

∆ῆµοι (fr. 119)

425

fr. 119 K.-A. (105 K. = Dêmoi fr. 14 Telò) ἀµβλυστονῆσαι καὶ χλοῆσαι τὴν πόλιν ἀµβλυστονῆσαι Meineke : ἀναβλυσθωνῆσαι Phot. : ἀναβλυστωνῆσαι Suda : ἅµα βλυσθονῆσαι Et.Gen.   καὶ χλοῆσαι codd. : κἀναχλοῆσαι Kock : κἀγχλοῆσαι Herwerden

that the city gushes forth and sprouts up Et.Gen. AB (= EM p. 200.50, 53–4) βλύω· ὃ καὶ βλύζω λέγεται … καὶ ἐν συνθέσει Εὔπολις· ―― blyô: which is also pronounced blyzô … and in a compound form Eupolis: ―― Phot. α 1414 = Suda α 1808 ἀναβλυσθωνῆσαι· τὸ ἀναβλύσαι. Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις. πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα οἱ κωµικοὶ ποιοῦσι † παρόντες † (παρῳδοῦντες Schwartz : παίζοντες JPearson) anablysthônêsai: anablysai. Eupolis in Dêmoi. The comic poets produce all such (forms?) † being present † (“as parody” Schwartz : “as a joke” JPearson)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lkl llkl Discussion Raspe 1832. 29, 59; Meineke 1839 I.294, II.464; Herwerden 1855. 23; Kock 1880 I.285–6; Telò 2007. 290–301; Fiorentini 2010. 563 Citation context The note in Photius = Suda is drawn from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄΄. Other references to the verse or the scholarly discussion that cited it appear to be preserved at Hsch. α 4204 ἀναβλύζουσα· ἀναβρύουσα (“anablyzousa: anabryousa”), 4219 ἀναβλυστανεῖται … 〈ἀναβλυστονῆσαι〉 (add. Latte ex Phot.)· ἀναβλύσαι (“anablystaneitai … 〈anablystonêsai〉 (added by Latte from Photius): anablysai”); Eust. p. 1095.8 = IV.14.8–9 δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τοῦ ἀναβεβρυχέναι λειότερον τὸ ἀναβλύζειν ἐστίν. αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ ἀναβλυσθονεῖν λέγεται, ὡς ἐν ῥητορικῷ εἴρηται λεξικῷ (“and it is apparent that anablyzein is simpler than anabebrychenai. The same idea is expressed anablysthonein, as it says in the Rhetorical Lexicon”; traced by Erbse to Ael. Dion. α 94). Text βλ makes position, and Meineke’s ἀµβλ- is therefore needed for ἀναβλin Photius = Suda and in Hesychius and Eustathius (cited in Citation context); ἅµα βλ- in the Et.Gen. might be derived from either. Further on in the word,

426

Eupolis

omicron (Phot. = Suda and Eustathius) rather than omega (Et.Gen.) is also a matter of metrical necessity. Meineke noted that a preposition prefixed to one verb can generally be taken with those that follow as well; cf. Renehan 1976. 11–27. Kock’s κἀναχλοῆσαι for the paradosis καὶ χλοῆσαι (κἀγχλοῆσαι Herwerden) is the product of his rejection of that interpretation of the evidence. Interpretation A pair of striking images drawn from the natural world (water sources, on the one hand, and vegetation, on the other) and applied unexpectedly to the political or social sphere; cf. fr. 358 with n. The first image suggests irrepressible vitality, the second fertility and fruitfulness, as if the city were a landscape bursting with life. Both verbs are either innovations or borrowed from some high-style source. That Athens is the place in question is a reasonable hypothesis but nothing more, as also in fr. 118; perhaps a wish or prediction, but in any case dependent on another construction. Telò makes an elaborate and unconvincing attempt to argue that the fragment actually means “che la città zampilli gemiti e diventi verde di paura” (“that the city spews forth groans and is green with fear”; Telò 2007. 649) and is therefore to be understood as addressed to the dead statesmen by Pyronides, who asks them to prevent this from happening. For βλύω/βλύζω, whence ἀµβλυστονέω (or whatever Eupolis wrote), cf. ἀποβλύζω at Il. 9.491; ἐπιβλύξ (“abundantly”) at Pherecr. fr. 137.4; ἀναβλύει (“retches” vel sim.) at Hp. Morb.Sacr. 7 = 6.374.6 Littré; πηγῶν ἀναβλύσεις (“upwellings of springs”) at Arist. Mu. 396a22. χλόη (cognate with both χλωρός, “green”, and χολή, “bile”, as well as with Latin holus, “green vegetable”, English “yellow” and German “gelb”) is the soft, green growth of plants, especially the early growth of grass or grain (e. g. X. Oec. 17.10; cf. fr. 196 n. on the fertility goddess Demeter Chloê). In a culinary context, the word is used of fresh herbs of all kinds (e. g. Antiph. fr. 221.5; Archestr. fr. 19.3 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.). χλοῆσαι (first attested here; not found again before Aristotle) is thus “be green” and by extension “be full of new life”; with the prefix (supplied from the preceding verb; see Text) “turn green, grow full of life” (LSJ s. v. ἀνά F.2).

fr. 120 K.-A. (107 K. = Dêmoi fr. 32 Telò) = Cratin. fr. *314 ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον καρίδος µασθλητίνης having (masc. sing.) the face of a shrimp that’s red as leather

∆ῆµοι (fr. 120)

427

Ath. 3.106b–c συνεσταλµένως δ᾿ εἴρηκεν Εὔπολις ἐν Αἰξὶν οὕτως (fr. 2)· ――. καὶ ἐν ∆ήµοις· ――. ὠνοµάσθησαν δὲ καρῖδες ἀπὸ τοῦ κάρα· τὸ πλεῖστον γὰρ µέρος τοῦ σώµατος ἡ κεφαλὴ ἀπηνέγκατο. καρίδες δὲ βραχέως οἱ Ἀττικοὶ ἀναλόγως· παρὰ γὰρ τὸ κάρη γέγονε διὰ τὸ µείζονι κεχρῆσθαι κεφαλῇ But Eupolis uses (karis) with a short iota in Aiges as follows (fr. 2): ――. Also in Dêmoi: ――. They got the name karides from their head (kara); for the head occupied the largest portion of their body. Attic authors use karides with a short iota for an analogous reason; for (the word) was formed from karê (“head”) because the creature has a particularly large head (kephalê) Et.Gen. AB (= EM p. 491.40–3) καρίς· ὡς παρὰ Κρατίνῳ· ――. ἀντὶ τοῦ δερµατίνης. λέγεται δὲ καρὶς παρὰ τὸ σκαίρω σκαρίς, ἢ παρὰ τὸ κάρα καρίς· καὶ γὰρ ὅλη ἡ καρὶς σχεδὸν κεφαλή ἐστι karis (“shrimp”): as in Cratinus: ――. In place of “made of leather”. It is called a karis by reference to skairô (“skip, dance”), (hence) skaris, or by reference to kara (“head”), (hence) karis; for a shrimp is almost entirely head (kephalê)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klrl l|lkl llkl Discussion Wilamowitz 1893 I.180 n. 84; Bechtel 1898. 42–3; Hamm 1952. 45; Telò 2007. 611–14 Citation context For the quotation of the line in Athenaeus, see fr. 2 n. The Et.Gen. seems to be drawing on a similar source, but assigns the fragment to Cratinus rather than to Eupolis. The fact that Athenaeus offers the title of the play from which the words are drawn inspires some confidence in his assignment, and Κρατίνῳ in the Et.Gen. may simply reflect the influence of καρίς; or perhaps a line such as Cratin. Jun. fr. 13 has fallen out of the text (ὡς παρὰ Κρατίνῳ· 〈καρῖδας ἡ ζὰψ ἐκφέρει κἰχθύδια. καὶ παρὰ Εὐπόλιδι·〉 ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον καρίδος µασθλητίνης). Interpretation It is unclear whether the face of the individual in question is red because of embarrassment, exertion or anger; as a consequence of habitual drunkenness (cf. fr. 20 with n.); or because he has been beaten up. Cf. Telecl. fr. 46 δοθιῆνος ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον (“having the face of a boil”, i. e. “a face as red and inflamed as a boil”); Hermipp. fr. 74 ἐγώ σου τήµερον / τύπτων τὸ πρόσωπον 〈νὴ ∆ί᾽〉 αἱ/µορρυγχιᾶν ποιήσω (“I’ll strike your face today, by Zeus, and make it run with blood”); Alex. fr. 275 ἑόρακας 〈ἤδη〉 πώποτ’ ἐσκευασµένον / ἤνυστρον ἢ σπλῆν’ ὀπτὸν ὠνθυλευµένον / ἢ κοκκυµήλων σπυρίδα πεπόνων; lkl τοιοῦτ’ ἔχει τὸ µέτωπον (“Have you ever seen a cooked cow’s stomach, or a roasted stuffed spleen, or a basket of ripe plums? …

428

Eupolis

That’s what his face looks like”); Anaxandr. fr. 23 ἐρυθρότερον καρῖδος ὀπτῆς σ’ ἀποφανῶ (“I’ll make you look redder than a roasted shrimp”) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; P. Heidelberg 190, esp. 24–7 ap. Siegmann 1956. 27–37 (seemingly a collection of insults regarding the appearance of the interlocutor’s πρόσωπον); Hesk 2007. 131–4 (on the abusive game of eikasmoi). Wilamowitz thought that the individual referred to was Kleokritos, seemingly for no other reason than that Kleokritos is mentioned in fr. 136 (n.). For shrimp and the word καρίς, see fr. 2.2 n. µασθλήτινος is 〈 µάσθλης (etymology uncertain), “leather” (Hp. Morb. 2 59 = 7.92.5 Littré; Ctes. FGrH 688 F 45 (42)) and thus by extension “an item made of leather” (a fancy shoe at Sapph. fr. 39.2, in the form µάσλης; a whip at S. fr. 129; figurative of a shameless rogue at Ar. Eq. 269; Nu. 449). But the combination of this fragment and the parallels cited above; a pair of glosses in Hesychius (δ 1485; µ 332 µάσθλη καὶ µάσθλης· δέρµα, καὶ ὑπόδηµα φοινικοῦν, “masthlê and masthlês: leather, and a dark red shoe”); and Polemon fr. 96 (a type of shoe described as λευκὰς καὶ µασθλητίνας, “white and masthlêtinai”), has led to the word being taken to refer to a particular sort of leather with a reddish cast. See in general Hamm 1952.

fr. 121 K.-A. (110 K. = Dêmoi fr. 13 Telò) τοιαῦτα µέντοι νιγλαρεύων κρούµατα producing (masc. nom. sing.) niglaros-notes, in fact, like these Phot. ν 215 νιγλαρεύων· τερετίζων· καὶ ὁ νίγλαρος κρουµατικῆς διαλέκτου ὄνοµα. Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις· ―― niglareuôn: buzzing; and niglaros is the word for a musical sound. Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lkl llkl Discussion Storey 2003. 332; Telò 2007. 285–90 Citation context An abbreviated version of the same note is preserved at Hsch. ν 559 νιγλαρεύων· τερετίζων (“niglareuôn: buzzing”). Note also

∆ῆµοι (fr. 122)

429

– Poll. 4.83 µέρη δ’ αὐληµάτων κρούµατα, συρίγµατα, τερετισµοί τερετίσµατα, νίγλαροι (“units of pipe-music are kroumata, syrigmata, buzzes buzzings, niglaroi”) – Hsch. ν 560 νίγλαροι· τερετίσµατα, περίεργα κρούσµατα (“niglaroi: buzzings, elaborate musical notes”) – Phot. ν 216 νιγλάρους· τερετισµούς (“niglaroi: buzzings”) – Suda ν 366 νίγλαροι· τὰ τερετίσµατα καὶ περίεργα κρούµατα. κροῦµά ἐστι καὶ µέλος µουσικὸν παρακελευστικὸν ὁ νίγλαρος. ἔοικεν ὠνοµατοπεποιῆσθαι (“niglaroi: buzzings and elaborate notes. A niglaros is a note and a musical song that urges someone into action. It is apparently onomatopoeic”). Interpretation Part of a description of a man (a musician?) or a masculine object (an αὐλός?) that produces something that at least resembles music; Storey (followed by Telò) speculates that the speaker might be Pyronides describing Phrynis. Denniston 1950. 400 notes that µέντοι usually appears with forms of τοιoῦτος and the like “at the opening of an answer”. νιγλαρεύων is 〈 νίγλαρος (etymology obscure), apparently a musical sound at Ar. Ach. 554 αὐλῶν κελευστῶν νιγλάρων συριγµάτων (“pipes, boatswains, niglaroi, whistlings”; part of the bustle as a military fleet prepares to leave port) and Pherecr. fr. 155.27 (the work of a contemporary composer, characterized in a hostile fashion, as perhaps also here).265 A κροῦµα (literally “stroke, blow”) is a note produced on a string-instrument (e. g. Ar. Th. 120 κρούµατά τ’ Ἀσιάδος, “notes stuck on an Asian lyre”; a parody of E. fr. 369; Aristoxen. fr. 76 Wehrli τῶν λυρικῶν … κρουµάτων, “lyre-notes”) or—by extension?—on a pipe (Theopomp. Com. fr. 51 αὐλεῖ γὰρ σαπρὰ / αὕτη γε κρούµαθ’, “for she plays rotten kroumata on her pipe”). Late 5th-/4th-century vocabulary; cf. fr. 167 n.

fr. 122 K.-A. (111 et 437 K. = Dêmoi fr. 26 Telò) ἐνταῦθα τοίνυν ἦν ἐκείνοισιν πιθών Well, their wine-cellar was here/there Poll. 7.163–4 ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν πίθων ὁ πιθών, Φερεκράτους εἰπόντος ἐν Πετάλῃ (fr. 147)· ――. καὶ µέντοι καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς ∆ήµοις ἔφη· ――

265

Conjectural at Phryn. Com. fr. 74.1.

430

Eupolis

Pithôn is derived from píthoi (“storage jars”), given that Pherecrates said in Petalê (fr. 147): ――. And Eupolis too, of course, in his Dêmoi, said: ―― Poll. 6.15 τὰς δ’ ἀποθήκας τοῦ οἴνου Ξενοφῶν (HG 6.2.6) µὲν οἰνῶνας εἴρηκεν, Εὔπολις δὲ πιθῶνας Xenophon (HG 6.2.6), on the one hand, used the term oinônes for storage-facilities for wine, whereas Eupolis (used) p i t h ô n e s Poll. 9.49 ἐκ δὲ τῶν τῆς πόλεως µερῶν καὶ λέσχαι καὶ π ι θ ῶ ν ε ς , ὡς Εὔπολις ὠνόµαζε, καὶ οἰνῶνες, ὡς Ξενοφῶν (HG 6.2.6) Parts of the city also include lounging spots and p i t h ô n e s , as Eupolis referred to them, and oinônes, as Xenophon (HG 6.2.6) (called them)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl k|lkl llkl Discussion Telò 2007. 589–90 Citation context Poll. 6.15 and 9.49 are patently drawn from the same source. Poll. 7.163–4 (which also cites Pherecrates; omits Xenophon; and has a different focus) likely comes from elsewhere. Interpretation As a deictic, ἐνταῦθα can mean either “here” (in which case the speaker means “where we are right now”; e. g. Ar. Ach. 720) or “there” (in which case the speaker means “the place we have just been discussing”, which might be almost anywhere; e. g. Ar. V. 149); cf. *POxy. 5160 fr. c n. (on δεῦρο). The identity of ἐκείνοισιν must also have been clear to the characters onstage and the audience in the Theater, having been specified in the preceding verses. Telò imagines that the storage facilities in question are in the Underworld and that Pyronides has just finished describing to his interlocutor (the speaker of this fragment) the large quantities of wine available at the banquets held there. Kock—breaking with Meineke in this regard—treated the verse from Dêmoi quoted at Poll. 7.164 and containing the singular πιθών, on the one hand, and the citation of the individual word πιθῶνες (pl.) at Poll. 6.15; 9.49, on the other, as separate fragments. As Kassel–Austin saw, this is excessively cautious, given the rarity of the term. τοίνυν marks a transition, although whether the speaker is taking up an invitation to speak, preparing to respond to the previous speaker’s words or moving on to a new point in his own argument is unclear. See in general Denniston 1950. 568–77, who describes the particle as “colloquial … conversational and lively” (p. 569).

∆ῆµοι (fr. 123)

431

As Pollux argued, πιθών appears to be cognate with πίθος (“storage jar”; cf. Ar. Pax 613; Philetaer. fr. 17.5; Amyx 1958. 168–70), and it ought therefore to refer to a place where wine is stored; cf. Pherecr. fr. 147 (also quoted at Poll. 7.163) κἀκ πιθῶνος ἤρυσαν / ἄκρατον (“and they drew unmixed wine from a pithôn”); IG II2 1638.24 συνοικία καὶ πιθών (“a multi-family house and a pithôn”; in a list of leased properties; 359/8 BCE); SEG XLI 555.6 (sold along with a field; 364–357 BCE); IG XII,2 287.168 πιθῶνα τεθυρωµένον (“a pithôn with a door”; from a description of the buildings on a piece of property on Delos; 250 BCE); XII,5 872.52 τοῦ πιθῶνος τοῦ ἐν τῷ πύ[ρ]γῳ (“the pithôn in the tower”; Tenos); D.S. 13.83.3 Πολύκλειτος ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις ἐξηγεῖται περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν πιθεῶνος λέγων … εἶναι δ’ ἐν αὐτῷ τριακοσίους µὲν πίθους ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς πέτρας τετµηµένους, ἕκαστον ἑκατὸν ἀµφορεῖς χωροῦντα· κολυµβήθραν δὲ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχειν κεκονιαµένην, χωροῦσαν ἀµφορεῖς χιλίους, ἐξ ἧς τὴν ῥύσιν εἰς τοὺς πίθους γίνεσθαι (“Polycleitus in his Histories describes the pitheôn in the house, saying … that there were three hundred pithoi cut out of the living rock, each with a capacity of one hundred amphoras, and that there was a plastered cistern next to them, with a capacity of one thousand amphoras, from which the wine flowed into the pithoi”; the ruins of the house of the wealthy Tellias of Acragas). Despite Poll. 9.49 (“parts of cities”), Xenophon’s oinônes are a feature of substantial country estates (µεγαλοπρεπεῖς δὲ οἰκήσεις καὶ οἰνῶνας κατεσκευασµένους ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγρῶν, “magnificent residences and oinônes constructed among the fields”); cf. IG II2 1013.8–11 (standard weights and measures to be established “for those who are selling anything in the Agora or in the workshops or the bars, oinônes or storehouses”; late 2nd c. BCE); Immerwahr 1948; Morris and Papadopoulos 2005. 156; and for the mechanics of the sale of wine in the Agora, fr. 200 n. Pithon was also a personal name (five 5th-/4th-c. examples in LGPN II s. v.), so a pun of some sort cannot be ruled out even if there is no particular evidence pointing to one.

fr. 123 K.-A. (112 K. = Dêmoi fr. 33 Telò) ἔχων στατῆρας χρυσίου τρισχιλίους having / holding (masc. nom. sing.) three thousand statêres of gold money

432

Eupolis

Poll. 9.58 ἔστι µέντοι καὶ νόµισµα στατήρ … Εὔπολις δ’ ἐν µὲν ∆ήµοις τὸ νόµισµα δηλοῖ λέγων· ――. ἐν δὲ Ταξιάρχοις τὴν ῥοπὴν λέγει (fr. 270)· ―― A statêr, of course, is also a coin … But Eupolis in Dêmoi, on the one hand, makes it clear that it is a coin, when he says:――. In Taxiarchoi, on the other hand, he uses it to mean a unit of weight (fr. 270): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lkl llkl Discussion Schmid 1938. 423 n. 39; Telò 2007. 614–15 Citation context Along with fr. 270 (cited immediately after 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 ap. Orion p. 148.25–6; Oros fr. 151. Interpretation στατήρ was a generic term for a gold—i. e. electrum—coin produced by a city other than Athens, which normally minted only silver and bronze;266 see frr. 99.86–7 χρυσίου / … στατ[ῆ]ρας ἑκατόν (extracted from a wealthy non-Athenian); 247.1 n.; 270.2 n.; Kroll 1993 #*866 (a mid5th-c. Cyzicene electrum statêr found in the Athenian agora); Ar. Nu. 1041; Pl. 816; Epicr. fr. 3.12, 18. Regardless of the specific currency in question, three thousand statêres represents a substantial sum of money; at Lys. 12.10–11, for example, Lysias reports that his treasure-chest (κιβωτός; cf. fr. 218.4 with n.) at home—presumably the bulk of his personal fortune—contained three talents of silver coins, 400 Cyzicene statêres, 100 gold darics (Persian gold coins) and 4 silver cups. Schmid accordingly took the individual in question to be the victim of the extortion described in fr. 99.86–7. For χρυσίον (“minted/mintable gold, gold money”), see frr. 162.2 n.; 247.1 n. χρυσός is a Semitic loan-word; see Masson 1967. 37–8.

266

For the exceptional minting of gold coins in 406 BCE, see Hellanic. FGrH 4 F 172.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 124)

433

fr. 124 K.-A. (113 K. = Dêmoi fr. 21 Telò) ἐγὼ δὲ συµψήσασα τἀργυρίδιον συµψήσασα τἀργυρίδιον Suda : συµψήσας ἀργυρίδιον Synag. B

but I (fem.), after scraping together the money Suda α 3789 = Synag. B α 2085 ἀργυρίδιον· ὡς ἡµεῖς Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις· ―― argyridion: Eupolis in Dêmoi (uses the word) as we do: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl llk|l klkl Discussion Petersen 1910. 237; Telò 2007. 553–4 Citation context From the common source of the Suda and the Synagoge B generally referred to as Σ´΄; traced to Phrynichus (PS fr. *257) by de Borries. For related lexicographic material, including Poll. 9.89–90 (citing inter alia Ar. fr. 560 ᾔτουν τι τὰς γυναῖκας ἀργυρίδιον), see fr. 162 Citation context. Text In the Synagoge B, the final syllable in the sequence σασατα has been lost, rendering the version of the text preserved there unmetrical. Interpretation The speaker—a woman (fem. nom. sing. συµψήσασα)—contrasts her behavior with that of someone else (hence emphatic ἐγὼ δέ; cf. frr. 326.3; 347 with n.; Pherecr. fr. 163.2; Stratt. fr. 63.2), perhaps the person who demanded the funds (previously mentioned, hence the definite article τ(ό)). Telò follows the implicit logic of the order of the fragments as presented at Edmonds 1957. 340 by hypothesizing that the speaker is the γυνὴ µάλα καλή τε κἀγαθή of fr. 109, an idea that lacks any positive evidence in its favor. ψάω is “rub, stroke, scrape, wipe” (cf. ψήκτρα, “curry comb” at Ar. fr. 66; ψῆγµα, “dust” at Eub. fr. 19.4), and the compound συµψάω thus refers to gathering many tiny bits and pieces of money together to produce the wanted sum. Cf. Ar. Nu. 975, where the verb is used to describe stirring sand around to erase a mark imprinted upon it, and Hdt. 1.189.1, where the current of a powerful river sweeps a horse underwater (συµψήσας ὑποβρύχιον) and carries it off. Kassel–Austin compare Latin corrado, and Telò notes as parallels from Roman comedy Plaut. Poen. 1363 trecentos Philippos; credo corradi potest (“three hundred Philippics; I believe it can be scraped together”); Ter. Ad. 242 minas decem corradet alicunde (“he’ll scrape together ten minas from somewhere”).

434

Eupolis

At Isoc. 13.4 καὶ λέγουσι µὲν ὡς οὐδὲν δέονται χρηµάτων, ἀργυρίδιον καὶ χρυσίδιον τὸν πλοῦτον ἀποκαλοῦντες (“and they say they have no need of money, disparaging their wealth as argyridion and chrysidion”), ἀργυρίδιον is used as a deteriorative (“a bit of silver”). In comedy, on the other hand, the word nowhere necessarily means anything other than simply “money” (Ar. Av. 1622; Lys. 1051; Pl. 147, 240; fr. 560; cf. Petersen 1910. 231 “referring to a class”).267

fr. 125 K.-A. (114 K. = Dêmoi fr. 34 Telò) λέγ’ ὅ του ’πιθυµεῖς, κοὐδὲν ἀτυχήσεις ἐµοῦ λέγ’ ὅ του Phot. Synag. B : λέγε τοῦ Priscian.   κοὐδὲν Priscian. : οὐ γὰρ Phot. = Synag. B

Tell me what you desire, and you’ll meet with no refusal from me Phot. α 3145 = Synag. B α 2383 ἀτυχεῖν· τὸ µὴ τυγχάνειν τινός, ἀλλὰ διαµαρτάνειν. Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις· ―― atychein: not to get something, but to fail to obtain it. Eupolis in Dêmoi: ―― Priscian, Inst. Gramm. 18.190 (Grammatici Latini III p. 297.18–21) “Impetro illam rem” dicimus, sicut et Attici. Eupolis ἐν ∆ήµοις· ――. Idem Προσπαλτίοις (fr. 265)· ―― We say “I obtain that object (acc.)”, just as Attic authors do. Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――. The same author in Prospaltioi (fr. 265): ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl l|lkr llkl Discussion Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Telò 2007. 615–16 Citation context The note in Photius = Synag. B is drawn from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄΄΄. The verb appears to have been of interest to the lexicographers; cf.

267

Petersen 1910. 237 claims that in fr. 124 the word serves “to give an impression of modesty”, thus “my little bit of money”. This might be true, but there is no positive reason to accept the thesis.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 125)

435

– Hsch. α 8209 ἀτυχήσεις· ἀποτεύξεις (a reference either to this verse or to Ar. Nu. 427 = the lemma for the next parallel) – ΣR Ar. Nu. 427 οὐκ ἀτυχήσεις· ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐκ ἀποτεύξῃ. 〈ἀντὶ τοῦ τεύξῃ〉 ὧν θέλεις (“you won’t get: in place of ‘you won’t encounter’. 〈In place of ‘you’ll encounter〉 what you desire’”) – Dikôn onomata AB I p. 183.17–18 ἀτυχεῖν· οὐκ ἐπὶ µόνου τοῦ δυστυχεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀποτυχεῖν (“atychein: not only in reference to suffering bad luck, but also in reference to failing to get something”) – Lex.Rhet. AB I p. 217.18–20 ἀτυχεῖν· οὐκ ἐπὶ µόνου τοῦ χρῆσθαι δυστυχίᾳ ἔταξαν οἱ ῥήτορες τὸ ἀτυχεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀποτυχεῖν (“atychein: the orators used atychein not only in reference to suffering bad luck, but also in reference to failing to get something”) Parallel material, which helps show that one underlying point of the discussion is that verbs formed from τυχέω and τυγχάνω are not always carefully distinguished, is preserved at – Phot. ε 2358 καὶ τὸ ἀτυχῆσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀτυχεῖν (“also atychêsai meaning atychein”) – Synag. B α 2382 ἀτυχῆσαι· µὴ τυχεῖν (“atychêsai: not tychein”) The citation in Priscian comes from a discussion of case usage comparing Latin and Greek (i. e. Attic) practice, with the Greek material seemingly taken from a now-lost Atticist lexicon; see in general Rosellini 2010; Mazzotti 2014; Sonnino 2014; Ucciardello 2014, all with further bibliography. The relevant verb in fr. 265 is also τυγχάνω, making it likely that Σ΄΄΄ and Priscian are drawing on the same source. Text The indefinitive relative ὅ του (Σ΄΄΄) is wanted (e. g. Crates Com. fr. 36 πρῶτα µὲν ταλαντιαῖος ὅστις ἔστ’ αὐτῶν λέγε; Ar. Nu. 737 αὐτὸς ὅ τι βούλει πρῶτος ἐξευρὼν λέγε; Anaxandr. fr. 12.1 ἄγκυρα, λέµβος, σκεῦος ὅ τι βούλει λέγε), but was too difficult for the scribe who produced the common exemplar of Priscian, who wrote τοῦ instead. λέγε in Priscian is scriptio plena, for which the scribe copying the common source of Photius and the Synagoge B substituted the elided form λέγ’, which conforms to the modern convention for dealing with such situations but is not really any more correct on that account. Both κοὐδέν and οὐ γάρ scan, and either might be right. But Priscian’s point depends on the accusative being present in the text, and οὐ γάρ in Σ΄΄΄ likely represents a deliberate attempt at correction by someone who nonetheless found the construction confusing. Interpretation A single person is addressed and offered assistance by an individual interlocutor. Cf. Ar. Nu. 427 λέγε νυν ἡµῖν ὅ τι σοι δρῶµεν θαρρῶν·

436

Eupolis

ὡς οὐκ ἀτυχήσεις (“Get your courage up now and tell us what we ought to do for you! For you won’t fail to get it”, the Clouds to Strepsiades; cited by Raspe 1832. 60, followed by Kassel–Austin); X. Cyr. 1.3.14 καὶ ἄλλα ὁπόσα ἂν βούλῃ λέγων πρὸς ἐµέ, οὐκ ἀτυχήσεις (“and if you tell me anything else you desire, you will not fail to get it”, Astyages to Cyrus).268 Whoever is speaking is—even if only momentarily—in a position of great, even supernatural authority, and Kaibel suggested that he/she might be one of the dead statesmen. (ἐ)πιθυµεῖς The compound is first attested at Xenoph. 21 B 42 D.–K. (dubious) and A. Ag. 217–18 (note already adjectival ἐπιθύµιος at Ibyc. PMG 282a.11) and is found elsewhere in tragedy at E. Alc. 867. It is otherwise confined, however, to comedy (also e. g. Ar. Ra. 62; fr. 83; Amphis fr. 26.3; adesp. com. fr. 1109.8) and prose (e. g. Hdt. 3.134.5; Th. 4.117.1; X. HG 5.1.29; Pl. Phd. 96a). οὐδὲν ἀτυχήσεις Despite Priscian, this appears to be an internal accusative (“you will have no bad luck” rather than “you will fail to get nothing”), as at e. g. Men. Epitr. 898 ἀτυχούσῃ ταὔτ’ ἐκείνῃ (“she who was in the same bad situation”);269 cf. fr. 265 n. For the verb in this sense, e. g. Antiph. fr. 80.3; fr. dub. 320.1; Philem. fr. 107.3. ἐµοῦ is an ablatival genitive of source, as often with forms of τυγχάνω (LSJ s. v. B.II.2.c).

[fr. *126 K.-A.] (13 Dem. = Dêmoi fr. 11 Telò) σοφὸς γὰρ ἁνήρ, τῆς δὲ χειρὸς οὐ κρατῶν for the man is clever, but he can’t control his hand Plu. Arist. 4.3 τῶν δὲ δηµοσίων αἱρεθεὶς προσόδων ἐπιµελητής, οὐ µόνον τοὺς καθ’ αὑτὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς πρὸ αὑτοῦ γενοµένους ἄρχοντας ἀπεδείκνυε πολλὰ νενοσφισµένους, καὶ µάλιστα τὸν Θεµιστοκλέα· ―― 268

269

Telò 2007. 616 calls λέγ’ ὅ του ’πιθυµεῖς “una chiara variatio del comune ordine comico λέγε ὅτι βούλει (cf. Ar. Nub. 345; 737; Vesp. 761; Thesm. 899)”, which implies that this is something like a fixed verbal formula, and is thus misleading at best. In fact, Ar. Nu. 345 has λέγε νυν ταχέως ὅ τι βούλει (line final); Nu. 737 has αὐτὸς ὅ τι βούλει πρῶτος ἐξευρὼν λέγε; V. 761 has λέγ’ ὅ τι βούλει πλὴν ἑνός (line final); and Th. 899 has ὁπόσα τοι βούλει λέγε (line final). Telò 2007. 615 suggests that ἀτυχέω takes the accusative at X. Cyr. 1.3.14 ὁπόσα ἂν βούλῃ λέγων πρὸς ἐµὲ οὐκ ἀτυχήσεις. But in fact ὁπόσα ἂν βούλῃ is the object of λέγων there, and τούτων is generated from it and supplied with οὐκ ἀτυχήσεις.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 125)

437

When he was elected as superintendent of the public revenues, he revealed that not only contemporary archons but also those who held office before his time had embezzled large sums, and in particular Themistocles: ――

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lk|l klkl Discussion Wilamowitz 1879. 183 = 1962 IV.19; Telò 2007. 271–9 Citation context From Plutarch’s account of how Aristides developed a reputation for strict probity; traced by Jacoby to Idomeneus’ On the Demagogues in Athens (FGrH 338 F 7). The Life otherwise contains no comic material, which counts against the notion that Plutarch (or Idomeneus) was drawing on a full text of Dêmoi as a source. Interpretation An explanation of a preceding remark (hence γάρ). Wilamowitz (followed by Demia´nczuk and Kassel–Austin) identified this as a fragment of Dêmoi in which Aristides explains why his arch-enemy Themistocles was not called up from the dead; cf. Braun 2000. 193–204. The line clearly refers to someone with access to public funds, and Plutarch—relying on what evidence, we do not know—implicitly puts it in Aristides’ mouth. But Wilamowitz’s assignment is merely a guess, and the verse ought to have been treated as an adespoton. Cf. in general fr. 235 with n. For the rhetorical structure of the line, cf. Alex. fr. 249.5 µάχιµος γὰρ ἁνήρ, χρήσιµος δὲ τῇ πόλει. For σοφός used in ironic praise of an unscrupulous politician, cf. Ar. Ra. 968 σοφός γ’ ἀνὴρ καὶ δεινὸς εἰς τὰ πάντα (“the man is wise and clever in all regards”; of Theramenes). For Themistocles in particular as un-ironically σοφός, see fr. 35.2 n. τῆς δὲ χειρὸς οὐ κρατῶν is a witticism: one would expect it to mean “unable to move his hand”, i. e. “paralyzed” (e. g. Hp. Epid. VII 9 = 5.380.3–4 Littré), or by extension “unable to control his temper” (cf. Ar. Lys. 504 τὰς χεῖρας πειρῶ κατέχειν, “I’m trying to control my hands”; [A.] PV 884 γλώσσης ἀκρατής, “unable to control his tongue”; Poll. 8.77 καὶ λόγῳ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὑβριστοῦ, οὐ δυνάµενος κατέχειν παρ’ ἑαυτῷ τὼ χεῖρε, τῶν χειρῶν ἀκρατής, οὐδενὸς φειδόµενος, οὐδενὸς ἀπεχόµενος, “and with reference to someone violent: unable to restrain his two hands, unable to control his hands, sparing nothing, stopping at nothing”). But here the idea is that the hand of the individual in question finds its way of its own accord, as it were, into the public till. Cf. frr. 133 with n.; 264 with n.; Ar. Eq. 826–7 κἀµφοῖν χειροῖν / µυστιλᾶται τῶν δηµοσίων (“and with both hands he scoops up some public funds”); V. 554 τὴν χεῖρ’ ἁπαλὴν τῶν δηµοσίων κεκλοφυῖαν (“his hand soft from stealing some of the public funds”, i. e. as an alternative to doing real work); fr. 402.10

438

Eupolis

ἰχθυοπώλου χειρὶ παρανοµωτάτῃ (“the utterly lawless hand of a fish-vendor”); Phryn. PS p. 51.1 ἀκρατὴς χειρός· ὁ κλέπτης (“lacking hand-control: a thief”) = fr. 126 (ap. Phot. α 839 = Synag. B α 768), which may be a reflex of this verse.

fr. *127 K.-A. (= Dêmoi fr. 9 Telò) δίκαιον οὐδὲν οὐδαµοῦ νεόττιον no proper nestling anywhere Olymp. in Pl. Grg. 50.9, p. 267.19–21 Westerink ὅτι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς οὐκ ἦν εἰς ἄκρον πολιτικός, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ κακῶς ἔπαθεν, καὶ ὅτι ἡ κωµῳδία φησὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐπὶ Ἀριστείδῃ (Westerink : Ἀριστείδου cod.) οὐδὲν (〈δἰκαιον〉 add. Maas) γέγονεν νεόττιον, ubi Σmarg. ―― And that (Aristides) himself was not actually a completely political creature is clear from the fact that bad things happened to him, and that comedy says regarding him that there has been no (〈proper〉 add. Maas) nestling after Aristides (thus Westerink : “in the time of Aristides” cod.), where a scholion in the margin reads: ―― Olymp. in Pl. Alc. 29.8, p. 32.5–6 Westerink καὶ ὁ κωµικὸς δέ φησιν, Ἀριστείδην µόνον ἐπαινῶν ὡς µηδενὸς ἀγαθοῦ γενοµένου µετ’ αὐτόν But the comic poet also says (the same thing), praising Aristides alone on the ground that there was no one good after him

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl k|lkl klkl Discussion Westerink 1966; Storey 2003. 137–8; Telò 2007. 261–4 Citation context The Platonist scholar Olympiodorus (mid 6th-century CE) refers twice to what is clearly the same comic fragment; that he appears not to know the poet’s name considerably increases the likelihood that he has got the information from a secondary source. Where the anonymous scholiast who quotes the line has found it is impossible to say. Interpretation For the Athenian statesman Aristides, see the general introduction to Dêmoi. Westerink assigned this line to the play on the basis of a comparison to fr. 111 (n.), which also uses the image of the nestling (νεόττιον) to refer to the failure of children to measure up to their fathers (cf. also fr. 112 with n.). Westerink accordingly suggested that fr. *127 came a line or so after fr. 111, which goes far beyond what we can actually know. The trope

∆ῆµοι (fr. 128)

439

of the son who fails to live up to his father’s reputation goes back at least as far as Homer (Od. 2.276–7 (quoted in fr. 111 n.) with West 1988 ad loc.) and is probably best thought of as a universal commonplace. δίκαιον The adjective has a broad field of reference (cf. frr. 84.2; 99.80, 106; *105.1 (also of Aristides); 114), but here must mean in the first instance “of the proper sort”, i. e. the sort of successor that—did the world function as it should—Aristides would have (LSJ s. v. B.II). But there is in addition a further joke, since Aristides’ nickname was ὁ ∆ίκαιος (“the Just”; Plu. Arist. 6.2). For the emphatic double negation οὐδὲν οὐδαµοῦ, cf. Ar. Av. 170 οὐδὲν οὐδέποτ’, 1516 οὐδεὶς οὐδέν; Pl. 442–3 οὐδαµοῦ / οὐδέν; Eub. fr. 85 οὐδαµόθεν οὐδείς; Alex. fr. 215.4 οὐδὲν οὐδείς. For νεόττιον (properly “nestling”; 〈 νέος) used figuratively of human offspring, cf. fr. 111.2 νεοττούς with n.; Ar. Av. 767 τοῦ πατρὸς νεόττιον with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Thphr. Char. 2.6 χρηστοῦ πατρὸς νεόττια (“nestlings of a worthy sire!”; a flatterer’s description of children in their father’s presence) with Diggle 2004 ad loc. This rather than Kassel–Austin’s paroxytone νεοττίον appears to be the proper accent on the word; cf. Chandler 1881 § 341 “Common neuter substantives retract the accent”; Petersen 1910. 154.

fr. 128 K.-A. (115 K. = Dêmoi fr. 27 Telò) ὅ τῳ δ’ ἂν οἶνος ᾖ πολύς, πίσει ὅ τῳ Fritzsche : τὼ vel τῶ codd.   ᾖ Hermann : εἴη codd.   πίσει 〈πολύν〉 Herwerden : 〈συχνούς〉 vel 〈καλῶς〉 Kassel–Austin

Whoever has a lot of wine will make someone drink it Et.Gen. AB (~ EM p. 673.20–4) τὸν δὲ πίσω µέλλοντα ὁ τεχνικὸς µὴ εἰρῆσθαι φησί, καὶ ταῦτα εἰρηµένου αὐτοῦ καὶ παρὰ Πινδάρῳ, οἷον (I. 6.74)· ――, καὶ παρὰ Εὐπόλιδι· ――. ἔστι δὲ εἰπεῖν, ὅτι µὴ εἰρῆσθαι εἶπεν ἐν πλάτει The grammarian says that the future form pisô is not to be used, even though he himself observes that it is found both in Pindar, for example (I. 6.74): ――, and in Eupolis: ――. This is to say that he claimed that use of (the form) is not broadly dispersed Eust. p. 1554.44–5 = i.242.30–3 λέγει δὲ πίσεα … τοὺς ὑγροὺς τόπους καὶ δυναµένους πίσαι, τουτέστι ποτίσαι, οὗ ἡ χρῆσις παρὰ Πινδάρῳ (I. 6.74). οἱ δὲ παλαιοὶ … λέγουσιν ὅτι καὶ Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις π ί σ ε ι φησὶν ἀντὶ τοῦ ποτιεῖ

440

Eupolis

(Homer) uses pisea … for places that are well-watered and that can pisai—i. e. potisai (“cause to drink”)—which is used in Pindar (I. 6.74). But the ancients … say that Eupolis in Dêmoi also uses p i s e i in place of potiei (“will cause to drink”)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl k|lkl ll〈kl〉 Alternatively, iambic tetrameter catalectic. klkl klkl | ll〈kl kll〉 Discussion Raspe 1832. 68–9; Fritzsche ap. Hermann 1834 V.291; Herwerden 1855. 23–4; Bernays 1885 I.157 n. 1; Telò 2007. 591–5 Citation context Traced to Herodian by Lentz (Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 784.1–4). Other echoes of the same note, but without reference to Pindar or Eupolis, are preserved at – Choer. An.Ox. II p. 248.1–2 πίσεα· … παρὰ … τὸν πίσω µέλλοντα (“pisea: … connected with … the future tense pisô”) – Eust. p. 1193.19 = IV.358.5–6 πίσεα δὲ ὑγρὸς τόπος καὶ δυνάµενος πίσαι, ὅ ἐστι ποτίσαι (“and pisea are a place that is well-watered and that can pisai, i. e. potisai”) – ΣbT Il. 20.9 πίσεα· πίω πίσω πῖσος Note also Hsch. π 2350 = Phot. π 893 πίσαι· ποτίσαι. Text Fritzsche’s ὅ τῳ fills out the beginning of the line, where the copyists were clearly unsure what to make of the obscure ΤΩ in their exemplar. The paradosis εἴη (optative) is unmetrical, and the subjunctive is wanted with future πίσει in any case, hence Hermann’s ᾖ. At least two syllables (kl) are missing at the end of the line, although what should be supplied there is anyone’s guess. Interpretation The point of the remark—which, as Herwerden saw, likely has a proverbial character—would seem to be that resources often drive agendas, not the other way around, with particular reference to the sphere of hospitality, which does not however mean that Eupolis’ character was actually concerned about drinking. Raspe imagined a connection to the oinistêria offering mentioned in fr. 146, while Edmonds 1957. 357 (incautiously followed by Telò) connected the words with the institution of new laws referred to in test. v. If the fragment is taken to be iambic tetrameter catalectic, it might come from the agôn. For wine-drinking and hospitality discussed together, cf. frr. 158; 165; 218 n.; 219 n. πίσω is the future form of the causal πιπίσκω (“make to drink”; see Bernays 1885 I.57–8), although ancient scholarly sources sometimes connect it

∆ῆµοι (fr. 129)

441

to a supposed verb πίω instead (e. g. ΣbT Il. 20.9 (quoted in Citation context); ΣM [A.] PV 480). The fact that the over-the-top Atticist Lexiphanes uses πιπίσκω at Luc. Lex. 20 suggests that in the Roman period it was regarded by some as recherché enough to be elegant, hence the grammarians’ concern with it. Despite the material collected in Citation context, the etymology of πίσεα (“moist meadows”) is uncertain.

fr. 129 K.-A. (118 K. = Dêmoi fr. 25 Telò) κἄν τις τύχῃ πρῶτος δραµών, εἴληφε χειρόνιπτρον, ἀνὴρ δ’ ὅταν τις ἀγαθὸς ᾖ καὶ χρήσιµος πολίτης νικᾷ τε 〈πάντας〉 χρηστὸς ὤν, οὐκ ἔστι χειρόνιπτρον 1 δραµών Ath. : βαλών Phot. Synag. : παραβαλών Et.Gen.   χειρόνιπτρον Ath. : χερόνιπτρον Poll. : χειρόνιπτρα Phot. Synag. : ποδάνιπτρα Et.Gen.   3 〈πάντας〉 add. Schweighäuser

And if someone happens to run the fastest, he gets a cheironiptron; whereas when someone’s a good man and a productive citizen, and outdoes 〈everyone〉 in worthiness, there’s no cheironiptron Ath. 9.408c–d Ἀττικοὶ δὲ χερνίβιον λέγουσιν, ὡς Λυσίας ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ἀλκιβιάδου λέγων οὕτως ([And.] 4.29)· τοῖς χρυσοῖς χερνιβίοις καὶ θυµιατηρίοις. χειρόνιπτρον δ’ Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις· ―― But Attic authors use chernibion, for example Lysias in his Against Alcibiades, where he says the following ([And.] 4.29): the gold wash-basins (chernibioi) and censers. But Eupolis [uses] cheironiptron in Dêmoi: ―― Phot. (z) inedit. = Synag. χ 49 = Et.Gen. B χειρόνιπτρα· τὸ κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ. (v. 1) ――. Ἀριστοφάνης cheironiptra: the water poured over one’s hand. (v. 1) ――. Aristophanes 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 χερόνιπτρον The vessel in which water is brought is a prochous (“pitcher”), whereas the vessel that receives it is a lebês (“basin”). But you could also refer to a prochous as a prochoidion (“miniature pitcher”), and to the other vessel as a lebêtion (“miniature basin”), and to the two together as a c h e r o n i p t r o n, as Eupolis does

442

Eupolis

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic.

llkl llkl | llkl kll klkl krkl | llkl kll llkl llkl | llkl kll Discussion Raspe 1832. 30–1, 61; Gelzer 1960. 280; Plepelits 1970. 25–7; Storey 2003. 141–2; Telò 2007. 574–88 Citation context In Athenaeus, this is part of an extended discussion (9.408b–10f) of words cognate with χείρ (“hand”) and having to do with washing; frr. 14; 320 are preserved at 9.409b, 408e, respectively. What looks to be another reference to fr. 129 appears at 9.409f ἴσως δὲ καὶ τὴν λεκάνην οὕτως ἔλεγον, ἐν ᾧ τρόπῳ καὶ χειρόνιπτρον (“perhaps they also referred to a basin [as an aponiptron], in the same way [they] also [called it] a cheironiptron”). Poll. 6.92–3 seems to be a condensed version of the same material, more of which is preserved at Poll. 10.90 (citing fr. 169, where see Citation context). The material in Phot. = Synag. = Et.Gen., drawn from the common source generally referred to as Σ΄΄΄, seems to be a heavily condensed version of the same note. If so, the Aristophanes in question may be not the comic poet but Aristophanes of Byzantium, who according to Ath. 9.408f–9a discussed the meaning of the term τὸ κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ (fr. 368 Slater). Alternatively, this might be a confused reference to Ar. fr. 330 χερνίβιον (cited seemingly out of context at Ath. 9.409c). Text In 1, Plepelits (followed by Kassel–Austin) advocated printing βαλών (“first to strike [the target]”; thus Phot. = Synag., i. e. Σ΄΄΄), which would make this a reference to the game of kottabos (for which, see fr. 95 n.; thus already Raspe, and cf. Cratin. fr. 124 for some of the language). Plepelits argued that as memory of kottabos faded, βαλών became obscure and was eventually driven out in one strand of the tradition by the more obvious δραµών offered by Athenaeus, and Kassel–Austin cite Ar. fr. 231 † ἔγνωκ’, ἐγὼ δὲ χαλκίον τοῦτ᾿ ἐστὶν κοτταβεῖον ἱστάναι καὶ µυρρίνας † as a possible example of a bronze vessel used as a kottabos prize. But the fragment of Aristophanes is more easily understood as referring to setting up the equipment for the κατακτὸς κότταβος variant of the game, particularly since kottabos is elsewhere played for trifles—Ath. 15.667d, citing among other witnesses fr. 399, speaks of “eggs, pastries and after-dinner snacks”—; πρῶτος βαλών in reference to kottabos would normally be taken to mean “first to throw [his wine-lees]” (Telò 2007. 581 compares Pi. fr. *128.3 βάλω κότταβον and the problematic Cratin. fr. 124); and Σ΄΄΄ is in other regards an unreliable witness to the text (see below). With δραµών, by contrast, the fragment easily finds a place in a well-established literary tradition that contrasts athletic success (which brings acclaim, but does

∆ῆµοι (fr. 129)

443

no one else any real good) and other sorts of virtue (which tend to be ignored, even if their impact on the commonwealth is greater). See Interpretation, and for the textual question, cf. Napolitano 2012. 222–3. At the end of 1, Phot. = Synag. (= Σ΄΄΄) has taken over plural χειρόνιπτρα from the lemma, and the agreement of Athenaeus and Pollux leaves no doubt that singular χειρόνιπτρον is right both here and at the end of 3. ποδάνιπτρα in the Et.Gen. is a wild, unmetrical error; cf. its παραβαλών for Σ΄΄΄’s βαλών a few words earlier. 3 is metrically deficient, and Schweighäuser’s 〈πάντας〉 is not easily improved upon; cf. Il. 20.410; 23.680, 756; Hes. fr. 204.85–6; Simon. PMG 564.1–2. Interpretation The combination of the meter and the argumentative tone make it likely that these verses are drawn from an agôn (thus Gelzer). Storey 2003. 142 specifies (“It seems quite likely”) that the lines were spoken by Pyronides, which is a reasonable hypothesis, given that this seems like a winning argument and that on the basis of the Aristophanic examples one would expect the hero to advocate for his own cause in this section of the play.270 The initial κ(αί) suggests that this is only one in a series of cognate complaints. According to Pollux, whose discussion of the word is the best we have, a χειρόνιπτρον (〈 χείρ + νίζω) is a bowl-and-pitcher set (sc. for hand-washing before and after a meal; cf. fr. 320 n.), here seemingly a prize awarded to a victor in an athletic contest. Kassel–Austin compare IG II2 2311.77271 (first half of the 4th c. BCE), where the winner of a torch-race at the Panathenaic festival receives a hydria. Note also the prizes at the games in honor of Patroclus in Iliad 23 (e. g. a sword at 23.807–8); Pi. O. 7.83–4 (a bronze shield as an athletic prize in Argos; works of art in Arcadia and Thebes); N. 10.43–8 (silver winecups in Sicyon; woolen cloaks in Pellana; bronze of all sorts in many cities); IG XII,5 647.27–31 (various items of military equipment; Ceos, beginning of the 3rd century BCE); and see in general Pleket 1975. 59–65. For the idea that athletic achievement gets out-sized rewards and acclaim, while the sort of behavior that makes a city a better place to live in is consistently undervalued, cf. Xenoph. fr. B 2; E. fr. 282 (both preserved at Ath. 10.413c–14c); García Soler 2010, and note Tyrt. fr. 12.1–4 (where the polemic, however, is far more wide-ranging). Alternatively, “a bowl-and-pitcher set” might be a metaphori-

270

271

Telò 2007. 578–80, by contrast, assigns the lines to Solon on the basis of fr. 143b Ruschenbusch ap. D.L. 1.55 (Solon preferred to offer support to the sons of men who had died in battle rather than limiting financial honors to victors in the various Panhellenic games). = line 89 in the edition of Shear 2003.

444

Eupolis

cal way of saying “dinner”, in which case the reference would be to the right awarded to e. g. Olympic victors to dine in the Prytaneion. 1 κἄν τις τύχῃ πρῶτος δραµών The use of τύγχανω + participle rather than simple aorist adds a bit of additional derision to the characterization, as if this were the sort of thing that anyone might randomly happen to achieve— only then to be paradoxically awarded a prize for it. Second-place and lower finishes were occasionally noted in competitions of all sorts (see Crowther 1992), but these are exceptional cases and there is generally only one prize, for first place; cf. fr. 102.2–3 (again describing a foot-race) with n. εἴληφε is a “gnomic” perfect used to describe something that happens constantly; cf. Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 494. 2–3 νικᾷ τε 〈πάντας〉 χρηστὸς ὤν in 3 recapitulates the bipartite ἀνὴρ … ἀγαθὸς ᾖ καὶ χρήσιµος πολίτης in 2, lending the description climactic force (not just “a good man and a productive citizen” but someone who is the very best of all) before it is abruptly deflated at the end of 3. But the second image also recasts the situation in competitive terms, making the fit closer to the idea of a winner-take-all race (or kottabos-contest; see Text) in the first line and setting up the echo of 1 εἴληφε χειρόνιπτρον in the same sedes in 3 οὐκ ἔστι χειρόνιπτρον. 3 χρηστός is a very general term of personal and social commendation; of good citizenship at e. g. Ar. Ach. 595 πολίτης χρηστός; Pax 909–10 χρηστὸς ἀνὴρ πολίτης; Th. 832 ἄνδρα χρηστὸν τῇ πόλει; Pl. 900 χρηστὸς ὢν καὶ φιλόπολις; and see in general Dover 1974. 296–9; Dover 1993 on Ar. Ra. 178–9.

fr. 130 K.-A. (116 K. = Dêmoi fr. 24 Telò) Harp. pp. 200.15–201.9 = Μ 16 Keaney µεῖον καὶ µειαγωγός· Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ πρὸς Στρατοκλέα (fr. 124 Sauppe)· παρέστησε µεῖον. θῦµά ἐστιν ὃ τοῖς φράτορσι παρεῖχον οἱ τοὺς παῖδας εἰσάγοντες εἰς τούτους. Ἐρατοσθένης δ’ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ Κωµῳδίας (fr. 91 Strecker) φησὶν οὕτως· νόµου ὄντος µὴ µεῖζον (scripsi : µεῖον codd.) εἰσάγειν ὡρισµένου τινός, ἐπισκώπτοντες µετὰ παιδιᾶς πάντα τὸν εἰσάγοντα µεῖον ἔφασαν εἰσάγειν, ὅθεν τὸ µὲν ἱερεῖον µεῖον προσηγορεύθη, µειαγωγὸς δὲ ὁ εἰσάγων. Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τοῖς Περὶ Θεῶν (FGrH 244 F 108)· οἱ φράτορές, φησιν, ἵνα µείζονας νέµωνται µερίδας, ἐφώνουν ἑστῶτες ἱστάνειν δεῖν, “µεῖον γάρ ἐστι”. περὶ δὲ τοῦ µειαγωγοῦ Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις· τ ο ι γ α ρ ο ῦ ν σ τ ρ α τ η γ ὸ ς ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου οὐδεὶς δύναται ὥσπερ µειαγωγὸς ἑ σ τ ι ῶ ν τ ῆ ς τ ο ῦ δ ε ν ί κ η ς π λ ε ί ο ν α ἑ λ κ ύ σ α ι σ τ α θ µ ό ν. µειαγωγῆσαι δέ ἐστι τὸ ἐπιδοῦναι τοῖς φράτορσι τὸ µεῖον, ὡς Λυσίας ἐν τῷ κατὰ ∆ηµοσθένους ἐπιτροπῆς (fr. 84 Carey)

∆ῆµοι (fr. 130)

445

meion and meiagôgos: Isaeus in his In Response to Stratocles (fr. 124 Sauppe): he introduced a meion. This is a sacrifice that men presenting their sons to the phratry-members used to provide for the latter. Eratosthenes in his On Comedy (fr. 91 Strecker) puts it as follows: Since there was a law that no one was to try to present (a sacrifice) of more (meizon Olson : meion, “less” codd.) than a certain fixed weight, they used to make a playful joke that everyone who tried to present one was trying to present something less (meion), as a consequence of which the sacrifice was called a meion, and the man who did the presenting was a meiagôgos. Apollodorus in his On Gods (FGrH 244 F 108) says: Because the phratry-members wanted to be allotted larger portions, they stood there and said that it was necessary to weigh it, “because it is less (meion)”. Eupolis in Demes regarding the meiagôgos: t h a t ’ s p r e c i s e l y w h y f r o m t h a t t i m e on no general is able, like a meiagôgos offering a feast, to w e i g h m o r e t h a n t h i s m a n ’ s v i c t o r y. meiagôgeô is to turn the meion over to the phratry-members, as Lysias (establishes) in his Against the Guardianship of Demosthenes (fr. 84 Carey)

Meter See Text. Discussion Runkel 1829. 113; Dobree 1831–1833 I.587–8; Raspe 1832. 43–5; Bergk 1838. 348; Meineke 1839 II.456–7; Cobet 1858. 152; Cobet 1878. 179–80; Ostuni 1982/3. 126–8; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Telò 2007. 568–74 Citation context Portions of the same note, but with the reference to Eupolis stripped out, are preserved at Phot. µ 203, 208–9 and Suda µ 849 (presumably drawn from the Epitome of Harpocration and reworked). Very similar material is preserved at – Poll. 3.52–3 τὸ δ’ ἱερὸν τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν µεῖον, καὶ µειαγωγεῖν τὸ εἰσάγειν ἱερεῖον. κέκληται δὲ ἢ ὅτι ἔσκωπτον ὡς µεῖον τοῦ δέοντος, ἢ ὅτι κεκωλυµένον εἰσάγειν, ὡς µὴ ἁµιλλῷντο µηδ’ ἐµπίπτοιεν εἰς ἔριν καὶ ταραχήν, οἱ µὲν οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐφιλοτιµοῦντο, οἱ δ’ ἐπεβόων µεῖον ὡς οὐχ ὑπερβαινόντων αὐτῶν τοῦ νόµου τὸ µέτρον (“And the offering made on behalf of [children being introduced to the phratry-members] was a meion, while to introduce the offering is meiagôgein. It had this name either because they used to joke that it was less (meion) than was necessary, or because although it had been forbidden to introduce [the sacrifice], so as to prevent them from competing and falling into quarreling and disorder, some people nonetheless were eager to contend [in this regard], while the others used to shout ‘meion’, as if they were not exceeding the size established by the law”) – ΣRVEΘBarb Ar. Ra. 798 µεῖον λέγουσι τοὺς ὑπὲρ τῶν υἱῶν εἰς τὰ Ἀπατούρια ὄϊς ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων εἰσφεροµένους, διὰ τὸ ἐπιφωνεῖν τοὺς φράτορας ἐπὶ τοῦ σταθµοῦ τοῦ ἱερείου “µεῖον µεῖον”. ὅτι δὲ ἵσταντο, Ἀριστοφάνης

446

Eupolis

ἐν ∆ράµασι (fr. 299, infra) δεδήλωκε … καὶ ἐπιζήµιόν τι τοῖς ἧττον272 εἰσάγουσιν ἀπεδέδοτο, καθάπερ αὐτός φησιν Ἀριστοφάνης (fr. 299)·RVEΘBarb ἀλλ’ εὔχοµαι ’γωγ’ ἑλκύσαι σε τὸν σταθµόν, ἵνα µή µε προσπράττωσι γραῦν οἱ φράτορες.VEΘBarb µειαγωγὸς δὲ ἐλέγετο ὁ προάγων τὸ ἱερεῖον.RVEΘBarb (“They use the term meion for the sheep offered by the fathers on behalf of their sons at the Apatouria festival, because when the sacrifice was being weighed, the phratry-members called out ‘Less, less!273’ (‘Meion, meion!’). Aristophanes in Dramata (fr. 299, below) makes it clear that they weighed [the offerings] … A fine was paid by those who tried to present something smaller [than the required weight], just as Aristophanes himself says (fr. 299):RVEΘBarb but I for my part beg you to meet the weight, so that my phratry-members don’t assess me an old woman in addition.VEΘBarb The person presenting the offering was referred to as a meiagôgos”RVEΘBarb) – ΣVMEΘBarb Ar. Ra. 798 µεῖον δὲ ἐκλήθη ἀπὸ τοῦ σηµαίνοντος. ἔδει γὰρ αὐτὸ ἔλαττον ἔχειν σταθµοῦ τινος ὡρισµένου διὰ τοὺς φιλοδοξοῦντας. οἱ δὲ φράτορες, ἵνα µείζονας νέµωνται µερίδας, ἐπεφώνουν,VEΘBarb οὐκ ἐῶντες ἱστάναι, διὰ τοῦ (τὸM) µεῖόν ἐστινVMEΘBarb (“It was called a meion from what the word means. For it needed to be less than a certain fixed weight, on account of people who competed for honor. But the phratry members, in order that they could be awarded larger shares, called out,VEΘBarb not allowing them to weigh it, because ‘It’s smaller (meion)!’”VMEΘBarb) – Phot. µ 215 = Suda µ 851 µεῖον· τὸ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐγγραφοµένων παίδων εἰς τοὺς φράτορας θυόµενον ἱερεῖον, οὐ µεῖζον ἀποδεδειγµένον (ἀποδεδειγµένου Suda) τινὸς σταθµοῦ, ᾧ ἐπεφθέγγοντο οἱ φράτορες, εἰ καὶ µεῖζον εἴη, ὅτι µεῖον· καὶ µειαγωγὸς ὁ τοῦτο παρέχων (“meion: the offering made on behalf of the children being enrolled among the phratry members, which was required to be no greater than a certain weight, in regard to which the phratry members said, if it was greater [than the specified weight], that it was less (meion); and the man who furnished this was a meiagôgos”). Note also, all likely from the same source or small cluster of sources – Hsch. µ 581 µειαγωγός· οὕτως ἔλεγον τὸ εἰσαγαγεῖν τὸ ἱερεῖον τὸ λεγόµενον 〈µεῖον〉 ὑπὸ τῶν ἐγγραφοµένων εἰς τοὺς φράτορας (“meiagôgos: this was their term for the presentation of the sacrifice known as a 〈meion〉 by those attempting to enrol someone among their phratry members”) 272 273

I. e. µεῖον, for which a more common synonym has been substituted here. Sc. than wanted or required.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 130)

447

– Suda µ 828 ἐάν τις εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τοὺς φράτορας υἱὸν ἐνήλικα γενόµενον, ἱερεῖον παρίστατο αὐτῷ ἐν ὡρισµένῳ σταθµῷ, πρὸς ὃ ἔδει προσάγειν, καὶ οὐκ ἐξῆν µεῖον παρασχεῖν. ὅτε δὲ ἐντεθείη τὸ ἱερεῖον εἰς τὸν ζυγόν, περιεστῶτες ἐβόων “µεῖον, µεῖον”. τοῦτο δηλονότι “ἔλασσόν” ἐστι … καὶ ὁ τὸ πρόβατον εἰσάγων µειαγωγός. ἐκαλεῖτο κουρεῖον, ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸ ἔλαττον ἴσχειν σταθµοῦ τινος, διὰ τοὺς φιλοδοξοῦντας (“If someone introduced his son to his phratry members when he was full-grown, he made a sacrifice for the boy at a fixed weight, which it was necessary to meet, and it was not possible to supply one that was smaller. And when the sacrificial animal was placed on the scale, they stood around and shouted ‘Less, less!’ (‘Meion, meion!’), which means ‘Smaller’, obviously … And the man who brings the sheep is a meiagôgos. It was called a koureion, and it was necessary that it be less than a certain weight, on account of those who competed for honor”; a gloss on µειαγωγήσουσι τὴν τραγῳδίαν at Ar. Ra. 798) – EM p. 533.35–9 ἱερεῖον τὸ θυόµενον, ἡνίκα ἐγράφοντο οἱ κοῦροι εἰς τοὺς φράτορας. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ µεῖον ἐλέγετο· καὶ µειαγωγὸς ὁ τοῦτο εἰσάγων. ἐκλήθη δὲ ὅτι τὸ ἱερεῖον 〈εἰς τὸν ζυγὸν ἐντιθέντες〉 ἔκραζον “µεῖον µεῖον”, τουτέστιν “ὀλίγον” (“the sacrifice made when boys were being enrolled among the phratry members was also known as a meion; and the man presenting this was a meiagôgos. It got this name because 〈as they were placing〉 the offering 〈on the scale〉, they used to cry out ‘Less, less!’ (‘Meion, meion!’), which is to say ‘Little!’”) – Lex.Rhet. AB I p. 279.8–9 µεῖον· τὸ θυόµενον ἱερεῖον ὅταν εἰς τοὺς φράτορας τοὺς παῖδας εἰσαγάγωσιν (“meion: the sacrifice made when they introduce their sons to their phratry members”). For the ritual in question, see Interpretation. Text Efforts have been made to convert Harpocration’s version of Eupolis’ words into iambic trimeter by Gronovius274 and Cobet,275 and into trochaic tetrameter catalectic by Dobree276 and Meineke277 (details in Kassel–Austin). But the sense itself seems compromised (see Interpretation), meaning that the problem lies deeper than this and is probably beyond solution. 274 275 276 277

τοιγαροῦν / οὐδεὶς στρατηγὸς ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου / δύναιτ’ ἂν ὥσπερ µειαγωγὸς ἑστιῶν / τῆς τοῦδε νίκης πλείον᾽ ἑλκύσαι σταθµόν τοιγαροῦν στρατηγὸς ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου / οὐδείς ποθ᾽, ὥσπερ µειαγωγὸς ἑστιῶν, / τῆς τοῦδε νίκης πλείονα εἵλκυσε σταθµόν 〈lk〉 τοιγαροῦν στρατηγὸς ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου / οὐδὲ εἷς δύναιτ’ ἂν ὥσπερ µειαγωγὸς ἑστιῶν / 〈τὴν πόλιν〉 τῆς τοῦδε νίκης πλείονα ἑλκύσαι σταθµόν τοιγαροῦν οὐδεὶς στρατηγὸς ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου / ἐδύναθ᾽ ὥσπερ µειαγωγὸς ἑστιῶν 〈x lkl 〉 / 〈lkl〉 τῆς τοῦδε νίκης πλείονα ἑλκύσαι σταθµόν

448

Eupolis

Interpretation A reference to some astounding military achievement in the past and the general responsible for it, and to the effects of this victory on those who came after him (thus Raspe, taking the reference to be to Marathon and Miltiades). Runkel thought the speaker was Pyronides, while Kaibel gave the words to the chorus. But anyone might have made these remarks, and since the claim might just as easily be exaggerated as not, the reference could be to almost anyone who had ever served as general. On koureôtis, the third day of the Athenian Apatouria festival, various phratry entrance-rituals were performed, including the presentation of children born that year, accompanied by the µεῖον offering; of boys who were old enough to cut their hair and enter an initial stage of adulthood, accompanied by the κούρειον or “hair-cut” offering; and of girls marrying into the phratry, accompanied by the γαµηλία or “wedding” offering. See fr. 99.23–4 with n.; Ar. Ra. 798 with Dover 1993 ad loc.; And. 1.126; Is. 6.22; 8.19; IG II2 1237 (396/5 BCE); Deubner 1932. 232–4; Labarbe 1953, esp. 358–73; Cole 1984. 233–5; Hedrick 1990. 26–7; Lambert 1993. 161–78, esp. 168–9 (although on p. 164 he unwisely draws the conclusion that “the fact that the ceremony was apparently mentioned in Eupolis’ … Demes suggest[s] it may have been part of deme admission procedures”); and for phratry religion generally, Hedrick 1991; Ogden 1996. 110–17. The lexicographic sources for the µεῖον—all patently struggling with the material—are united in insisting that the sacrificial animal was weighed, but at odds as to whether a maximum or a minimum size was in question. Apollodorus (ap. Harpocration), ΣRVEΘBarb Ar. and Pollux in his first explanation argue for a minimum size, while Pollux in his second explanation, ΣVMEΘBarb Ar. and Phot. µ 215 = Suda µ 851 argue for a maximum size, and the story told by Eratosthenes (ap. Harpocration) only makes sense if it is emended to agree with them, µεῖον having been written for µεῖζον there under the influence of the surrounding material.278 The reports of the behavior of the phratry members at the weigh-in are not to be taken seriously as evidence for the origin of the name, particularly since IG II2 1237.5 shows that it is second declension rather than third. But to the extent that Harpocration’s report of what Eupolis wrote is sound, the fragment argues in favor of a maximum size for the animal and thus for understanding this as a bit of sumptuary legislation; cf. fr. 219 Citation context. Eupolis’ point ought accordingly to be that just as no meiagôgos can bring his phratry brothers an offering larger than the standard one, so too no gen278

The phratry members, anxious to get more meat by causing the weighing process to be cancelled or by having its results ignored, shout out “It’s less [than the maximum]!” when they see the animal.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 131)

449

eral is capable of bringing the city a victory greater than the one the man in question produced (whether in war or in some other context, e. g. drinking, like the victorious Dikaiopolis at the end of Aristophanes’ Acharnians). What the text actually says, on the other hand, is that just as no meiagôgos can bring his phratry brothers an offering larger than the standard one, so too no general is capable of weighing more than this man’s victory. Perhaps this is merely clumsy writing. But the fact that the text does not scan and cannot be made to scan without substantial editorial intervention makes it just as likely that the sense of Eupolis’ words has been irrevocably scrambled in the process of transmission. τοιγαροῦν marks emphatic consequence, “sometimes even convey[ing] the effect that the logical connexion is regarded as more important than the ideas connected” (Denniston 1950. 566; cf. Pl. Com. fr. 202.5; López Eire 1996. 133). Late 5th-century vocabulary, first attested here, at Ar. V. 1098 and in Sophocles (e. g. Ai. 490; absent from Aeschylus and Euripides, as well as from Herodotus, Thucydides and Lysias), and common in 4th-century prose (e. g. X. Mem. 3.5.12; Isoc. 4.136; Pl. Lg. 695d). στρατηγὸς … οὐδείς For the generalship, see fr. 384 n. For ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου, cf. Ar. Av. 1518 ἀπ’ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου / (iambic trimeter). For ἕλκω σταθµόν—literally “pull a weight”, i. e. “balance a certain amount on the opposite side of a scale, weigh (intransitive)”—cf. Hdt. 1.50.2–3, 51.2; Arist. Pol. 1261a27; Thphr. fr. 161 Wimmer = fr. 214C Fortenbaugh; LSJ s. v. ἕλκω II.9.

fr. 131 K.-A. (119 K. = Dêmoi fr. 28 Telò) (Α.) ἀναθῶµεν νῦν χἠµεῖς τούτοις τασδὶ τὰς εἰρεσιώνας καὶ προσαγήλωµεν ἐπελθόντες. χαίρετε πάντες. (Β.) δεχόµεσθα 1 τασδὶ τὰς Porson : τὰς διττὰς codd.   2 προσαγήλωµεν Phot. (1) Suda Synag. B : προσαγήλωµ᾽ Et.Gen. : πρὸς άγήλωµεν Kock   ἐπελθόντες codd. : ἀπελθόντες Sylburg χαίρετε πάντες. δεχόµεσθα Phot. (1) : om. alii

(A.) Now let us as well dedicate to these figures these harvest wreathes here, and let us direct honor to them after we approach. All of you rejoice! (B.) We consent

450

Eupolis

Phot. (1) α 163 = Et.Gen. B α 41 ~ Suda α 217 ἀγῆλαι· τιµῆσαι θεόν, ἀγλαΐσαι. Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις· ――. Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ (396–9)· ――. Ἕρµιππος Ἀρτοπώλισι (fr. 8)· ――. Θεόποµπος Πηνελόπῃ (fr. 48)· ―― agêlai: to honor a god, to glorify (him). Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――. Aristophanes in Peace (396–9)· ――. Hermippus in Artopôlides (fr. 8)· ――. Theopompus in Pênelopê (fr. 48)· ―― Synag. B α 145 ~ Phot. (2) α 164 ἀγῆλαι· τιµῆσαι θεόν, ἀγλαΐσαι. ἔστι δὲ ἡ λέξις τῶν πάνυ Ἀττικῶν. καὶ ἀγήλω (Hermipp. fr. 8.1) καὶ ἀγαλοῦµεν (Ar. Pax 399; Theopomp. Com. fr. 48.2) ἐρεῖς, καὶ ἄγαλλε (Ar. Th. 128) καὶ προσαγαλεῖ τὸν θεὸν ἀντὶ τοῦ εὔξεται καὶ τιµήσει. καὶ ἄγω ἀντὶ τοῦ τιµῶ. τό τε οὖν ἄγειν καὶ τὸ ἀγῆλαι Ἀττικά, ἀλλὰ τὸ µὲν ἄγειν πολιτικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀγῆλαι κωµῳδικὸν καὶ ἐγγὺς γλώττης. φεύγειν µὲν οὖν χρὴ τὸ τῶν γλωττῶν. εἰ δέ γέ σοι εἴη ἀρχαίας φωνῆς σπουδὴ καὶ σεµνότητος λόγων, χρήσαιο τῷ τοιούτῳ χαρακτῆρι τῶν ὀνοµάτων, φησὶν ὁ Φρύνιχος (PS fr. 6a). Εὔπολις δὲ τῷ ἀγῆλαι ἐχρήσατο ἐν ∆ήµοις (vv. 1–2)· ἀναθῶµεν … ἐπελθόντες (Εὔπολις κτλ om. Phot.) agêlai: to honor a god, to glorify (him). The word is one of those that are distinctly Attic. You are also to say agêlô (“let me exalt”; Hermipp. fr. 8.1) and agaloumen (“we will exalt”; Ar. Pax 399; Theopomp. Com. fr. 48.2); and agalle (”exalt!”; Ar. Th. 128) and “prosagalei (“he/she will offer honor to”) the god” in place of “he/she will pray to” or “will honor”. Also agô in place of timô (“I honor”). agein and agêlai are thus Attic, but agein can be used in a public context, whereas agêlai is comic and close to normal speech. Use of the words ought to be avoided. But if you feel interest in ancient vocabulary and in speaking in an elevated manner, you should employ the expressions in this way, says Phrynichus (PS fr. 6a). But Eupolis used agêlai in Dêmoi (vv. 1–2): Now let us … after we approach (“But Eupolis etc.” omitted by Photius) Synag. B α 146 ἀ γ λ α ΐ σ α ι· οὕτως Εὔπολις t o g l o r i f y: thus Eupolis

Meter Anapaestic tetrameter catalectic.

rlll llll | llll rll lrll rlll | lrll rll Discussion Raspe 1832. 69–70; Kock 1880 I.289–90; Whittaker 1935. 190–1; Storey 2003. 142; Revermann 2006. 314–16; Telò 2007. 595–600 Citation context Three versions of the same note, like Hsch. α 481 ἀγῆλαι· σεµνῦναι, ἀναθεῖναι, κοσµῆσαι. καὶ εἰς ἄγασιν ἀγαγεῖν (“agêlai: to show reverence, to dedicate, to ornament. Also to lead to envy”) in origin a gloss on E. Med. 1027 εὐνὰς ἀγῆλαι λαµπάδας τ’ ἀνασχεθεῖν (“to adorn your beds and hold torches high”), the only attestation of the form ἀγῆλαι before the

∆ῆµοι (fr. 131)

451

lexicographers, with most if not all of the material drawn from Phrynichus (who has misunderstood the text; see 2 n.). The first version comes from the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Et.Gen. generally referred to as Σ΄΄, the second from the common source of Photius and the Synagoge generally referred to as Σ΄΄΄ (although the quote from Eupolis has fallen out of Photius here). The close connection between the two versions of the note is confirmed by the fact that they contain the common error τὰς διττὰς for τασδὶ τὰς (Porson) in 1, and that all witnesses except Phot. α 163 have dropped the final three words of the fragment. The third version of the note—radically abbreviated— = [fr. 419], where see n. A separate version of the same material, but without the reference to Eupolis, is preserved at ΣAB E. Med. 1027 εὐνὰς ἀγῆλαι· Φρύνιχος (PS fr. 6b = Phryn. Com. fr. 87 K.) ἀγῆλαι ἀντὶ τοῦ εὔξασθαι. καὶ παρ’ Ἀριστοφάνει (Pax 398–9)· ――. καὶ Ἕρµιππος Ἀρτοπώλισι (fr. 8.1)· ―― (“agêlai beds: Phrynichus (PS fr. 6b = Phryn. Com. fr. 87 K.) (says that) agêlai (is used) in place of ‘to pray’. Also in Aristophanes (Pax 398–9): ――. And Hermippus in Artopôlides (fr. 8.1): ――”). Text In 1, Porson’s simple τασδὶ τὰς greatly improves the sense of the paradosis τὰς διττὰς (“the two-fold harvest wreathes”), which likely represents a deliberate correction by a scribe unable to make sense of the deictic suffix. In 2, the Et.Gen.’s προσαγήλωµ᾽ is an abbreviation of the other witnesses’ προσαγήλωµεν. Kock suggested rearticulating to πρὸς άγήλωµεν, with πρός to be taken as adverbial (“and in addition”). This is not an additional action, however, but a second description of the same one. Sylburg’s ἀπελθόντες for the paradosis ἐπελθόντες, as if the glorification of the divinity was to be carried out in another location later, similarly misinterprets what is being said. See Interpretation. Interpretation (Α.) χαίρετε πάντες. (Β.) δεχόµεσθα in 2 (n.) ought to come at the culmination of a rite or of some significant part of it. 1 at least is therefore best conceived of as a performative utterance: (A.) is not making a suggestion about what the group as whole ought to do at some future point in time, but as the leading figure in the ritual is putting words to the dedication of the wreathes as he or she carries it out; cf. Ar. Th. 311–12, quoted below. The “approach” mentioned in 2 must accordingly be the movement involved in putting the wreathes where they are to go, which should be over a door (see 1 n.), and προσαγήλωµεν is not a separate action but a second way of describing the same one, with the focus in this case on the effect of the dedication rather than the physical mechanics of the operation (as in 1). The first-person plural is used throughout because (A.) represents the group (presumably the

452

Eupolis

chorus, and perhaps others as well); the rest of the group need only consent to the actions, allowing (A.) to serve as their agent. “These figures” (1) to whom the dedications are being made—one wreath apiece?—are normally taken to be the four statesmen summoned up from the dead (see the general introduction to the play), who—despite Photius—are not gods but heroes (although see fr. 36 n.). Raspe (followed by Kock) took the lines to be from the very end of the play, as the heroes return to the Underworld and the chorus prepares to exit the Theater. This need not mean that a formal exodos of the type that usually ends Aristophanic comedies did not follow, only that these verses represent the effective conclusion of the action of the play as a whole. κ(αὶ) ἡµεῖς serves to distinguish “our” behavior from previously referenced action(s) by another individual or group. On the most straightforward reading of the text, the reference would be to τούτοις, hence the juxtaposition of the words: “they” have done something for “us”, and this is what “we” do for them in return. But the point might be instead that “we” are competing with a third party for “their” affections. 1 ἀναθῶµεν is literally “let us set up” and thus by extension “dedicate” (LSJ s. v. A.II.1), as also in comedy at Ar. Pl. 844, 1088–9 τῷ θεῷ γοῦν βούλοµαι / ἐλθὼν ἀναθεῖναι τοὺς στεφάνους τούσδ’ ὡς ἔχω (“I want to go and dedicate these garlands to the god”); Philippid. fr. 9.10; Men. fr. 417. For νῦν, see fr. 10 n. τασδί For the deictic suffix -ί, see frr. 167 n.; 384.7 n. εἰρεσιώναι are olive or laurel branches garlanded with tufts of wool and decorated with seasonal fruit, loaves of bread, small jars of olive oil and honey and the like, and normally hung up over house-doors as offerings to Apollo, most notably as part of the Pyanepsia festival (Ar. Eq. 728–9; V. 398–9; Pl. 1053–4; Timocl. fr. 38 (Α.) σῦκ’, ἔλαιον, ἰσχάδας, µέλι. / (Β.) σὺ µὲν εἰρεσιώνην, οὐ γεωργίαν λέγεις (“(A.) figs, olive oil, dried figs, honey. (B.) You’re describing an eiresiônê, not farming”); Lycurg. 14 fr. 2; Crates FHG IV.369 fr. 1; Plu. Thes. 22.6–7 and Paus.Gr. ε 17 (Phot. ε 254 = Suda ει 184; Phot. ε 255), drawing on the same source and preserving a song supposedly sung in the course of the ceremony (carm. pop. 2 Diehl): εἰρεσιώνη σῦκα φέρει καὶ πίονας ἄρτους / καὶ µέλι ἐν κοτύλῃ καὶ ἔλαιον ἀναψήσασθαι / καὶ κύλικ’ εὐζώροιο, ὅπως µεθύουσα καθεύδῃ (“an eiresiônê brings figs and fat loaves of bread and honey in a cup and olive oil to rub on one’s body and a cup of strong wine, so that she can get drunk and go to sleep”). They are seemingly associated with Eleusinian cult and an offering for the honored dead at IG II2 11674.9–10, although the inscription is from the Imperial period, making its value as evidence for classical times uncertain, and the word may simply be used there as a nominally elevated equivalent of στέµµα, as also at Alciphr.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 132)

453

2.35.1. See in general Robertson 1984. 388–94, and on the Pyanepsia festival Deubner 1932. 198–200; Parke 1977. 75–82; Calame 1990. 150–2. For the word εἰρεσιώνη itself, see Schönberger 1941. 2 προσαγήλωµεν Despite Phrynichus (see Citation context), the simplex—cognate with ἀγλαός (“splendid, shining”) and ἄγαλµα (“honor, ornament, dedication, statue”)—does not mean εὔχοµαι (“pray”) at E. Med. 1027 or elsewhere, but consistently has the sense “show honor to”, sc. with dedications, hymns or the like (in comedy at e. g. Ar. Pax 399; Th. 128; Hermipp. fr. 8.1; Theopomp. Com. fr. 48 καί σε τῇ νουµηνίᾳ / ἀγαλµατίοις ἀγαλοῦµεν ἀεὶ καὶ δάφνῃ, “and on New-moon Day we’ll honor you with dedications and with laurel”). Nor is it restricted to Attic, being found also in Pindar (e. g. O. 1.86b; N. 5.43). The compound is attested only here, and the prefix either indicates the direction in which the honor is directed, “to (them)” (LSJ s. v. πρός E.1), or means “in addition” (LSJ s. v. πρός E.2). χαίρετε πάντες means “All of you rejoice [in the security that what the rite is intended to accomplish shall be done]!”, and δεχόµεσθα means “We accept [your proposal and its implications]”, as at Ar. Th. 311–12 (the conclusion of the prayer at the opening of the women’s assembly) (Κο.) ἰὴ παιὼν ἰὴ παιὼν ἰὴ παιών. χαίρωµεν. / (Χο.) δεχόµεθα (“(Coryphaeus) Iê paiôn iê paiôn iê paiôn. Let us rejoice! (Chorus) We accept”); cf. Ar. Av. 645–6 (Επ.) χαίρετον / ἄµφω. (Πε.) δεχόµεθα (“(Hoopoe) Hail both of you! (Peisetaerus) We accept”); S. El. 666, 668 (Πα.) ὦ χαῖρ’, ἄνασσα … / … /(Κλ.) ἐδεξάµην τὸ ῥηθέν (“(Tutor) Greetings your majesty! … (Clytemnesta) I accept the remark”).

fr. 132 K.-A. (120 K. = Dêmoi fr. 16 Telò) ὃν χρῆν ἔν 〈τε〉 ταῖς τριόδοις κἀν τοῖς ὀξυθυµίοις προστρόπαιον τῆς πόλεως κάεσθαι τετριγότα 1 〈τε〉 add. Porson   τοῖς Harp.B : τοῖσιν Harp.QPMK   2 προστρόπαιον Valesius : πρὸς τὸ τρόπαιον Harp.QPMK   τετριγότα Porson : περιτετριγότα Harp.QPMK

who/which (masc. sing.) ought at both crossroads and oxythymia, as bringing pollution upon the city, to be burnt gibbering Harp. pp. 223.12–224.9 = Ο 25 Keaney ὀξυθύµια· Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ ∆ηµάδου (fr. 79 Jensen) φησί· περὶ οὗ πολλῷ ἂν δικαιότερον ἐν τοῖς ὀξυθυµίοις ἡ στήλη σταθείη ἢ ἐν τοῖς ἡµετέροις ἱεροῖς. ἔνιοι µὲν, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Ἀρίσταρχος, ὀξυθύµια λέγεσθαί φασι τὰ ξύλα ἀφ’ ὧν ἀπάγχονταί τινες, ἀπὸ τοῦ

454

Eupolis

ὀξέως τῷ θυµῷ χρῆσθαι· ταῦτα δ’ ἐκκόπτοντες ἐξορίζουσι καὶ καίουσι. ∆ίδυµος (Λέξις κωµική fr. 15, p. 39 Schmidt) δὲ Ἀντικλείδου λέξιν παραγράψας ἐκ τῶν Ἐξηγητικῶν (FGrH 353 F 2) φησιν· ὀξυθύµια τὰ καθάρµατα λέγεται καὶ ἀπολύµατα· ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰς τριόδους, ὅταν τὰς οἰκίας καθαίρωσιν. ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑποµνήµατι τῷ κατὰ ∆ηµάδου, τὰ ἐν ταῖς τριόδοις, φησίν, Ἑκαταῖα, ὅπου τὰ καθάρσια ἔφερόν τινες, ἃ ὀξυθύµια καλεῖται. Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις· ――. ἔστι τοὔνοµα καὶ παρὰ Πυθέᾳ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ἀδειµάντου (fr. 1 Sauppe) oxythymia: Hyperides in his Against Demades (fr. 79 Jensen) says: concerning whom it would be far more appropriate that a stele be set up in the oxythymia than in our temples. Some authorities, including Aristarchus, say that the lengths of wood from which people hang themselves are called oxythymia, the word being derived from “a sharp (oxeôs) use of anger (thymos)”; they cut these out, set them outside the borders and burn them. But Didymus (Comic Vocabulary fr. 15, p. 39 Schmidt), citing Anticleides’ use of the word from his Exêgêtika (FGrH 353 F 2), says: Oxythymia and apolymata are terms for purificatory offerings; for these are carried out to the crossroads when they purify their houses. And in his commentary on Against Demades he says: the Hecate-shrines at the crossroads, where some people used to carry their purification offerings, which are called oxythymia. Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――. The word is also found in Pytheas in his Against Adeimantos (fr. 1 Sauppe) Phot. ο 379 ὀξυθύµια· τὰ ἀποκαθάρµατα τῶν µυσαρῶν· οἱ δὲ τὰ ἀγχονιµαῖα ξύλα· οἱ δὲ τοὺς τόπους ἐν οἷς τὰ τοιαῦτα κατεκαίετο. Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις oxythymia: cleansings of defiled things; but others (say) lengths of wood people are hanged from; while others (say) places where such objects were burnt. Eupolis in Dêmoi

Meter Eupolideans. lll〈k〉lkkl

| lllklkl lklllkkl | kllklkl

Discussion Raspe 1832. 62; Meineke 1839 II.469–70; Whittaker 1935. 189; Johnston 1991. 222–3; Telò 2007. 304–12 Citation context Seemingly two different versions of the same material (the second radically condensed), most if not all of it drawn from the Roman-era commentator Didymus, from whom the quotation of Eupolis certainly comes. Phot. ο 377–8 = Suda ο 424–5 is another version of the same passage but lacking the reference to Eupolis, and is drawn from the Epitome of Harpocration, like the even more abbreviated Hsch. ο 948. Note also Moer. ο 26 ὀξυθύµια Ἀττικοί· καθάρσια τὰ εἰς τριόδους ἐκβαλλόµενα ἢ τὰ περικείµενα τοῖς ἀγχονιµαίοις νεκροῖς Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers (use) oxythymia; Greeks generally (refer to) the purification offerings dumped at crossroads or the objects that lie around corpses of those who have died by hanging as katharsia”); Poll. 2.231 ὀξυθύµια

∆ῆµοι (fr. 132)

455

τὰ καθάρµατα (“oxythymia (are) purification offerings”); 5.163 (quoted in Interpretation); Lex.Rhet. AB I p. 287.24–5. For attitudes toward suicide, see van Hooff 1990; Garrison 1991, esp. 5–8 (citing as parallels for the destruction of objects associated with the death as polluted LSCG 154 B.33 = IG XII.4 72; Plu. Them. 22.2). Text In 1, Porson’s 〈τε〉 (balancing κ(αί)) is a matter of metrical necessity. τοῖς in Harp.B for the paradosis τοῖσιν is likely nothing more than a casual simplification of the Ionic form, but is nonetheless correct. In 2, the paradosis πρὸς τὸ τρόπαιον is unmetrical, the rare word προστρόπαιον (Valesius) having been corrected to something simpler but nonsensical. The paradosis περιτετριγότα (Harp.QPMK) at the end of 2 is metrically impossible, hence Porson’s τετριγότα; likely a mechanical error, ΠΕΡΙ being e. g. a variant for ΤΕΤΡΙ unwisely brought down into the text. Interpretation Generally taken as a further description of—better put, a curse upon—a man mentioned just before this, probably someone prominent in state affairs (hence τῆς πόλεως in 2), for whom this would be a complete reversal of fortune but one that is deserved, given the damage he has done; cf. fr. 219 with n.; Ar. Nu. 591–4. Kassel–Austin compare Hippon. fr. 27 δεῖ δ’ αὐτὸν ἐς φαρµακὸν † ἐκποιήσασθαι † (“you ought † to make him † into a scapegoat”). The meter suggests that the lines are drawn from the parabasis proper. 1 For the use of χρῆν in imprecations, cf. Ar. Th. 842; E. Andr. 607, 650; Hec. 265; Supp. 1112; HF 211; Tr. 1025; Antipho 5.91; Isoc. 4.176.279 For the form generally, see Lautensach 1899. 152–9. ἔν 〈τε〉 ταῖς τριόδοις κἀν τοῖς ὀξυθυµίοις Crossroads—better described as forks in roads (e. g. Thgn. 911–12; A. fr. 387a)—were sites for offerings of various sorts, many of them eerie (Ar. fr. 209; Pl. Lg. 933b; Thphr. Char. 16.5, 13; Philoch. FGrH 328 F 86b; Plu. Mor. 290d), and were also, according to the authorities quoted in Citation context, a place where ritually unclean materials were dumped. (Note that Anticleides’ Exêgêtika was a ritual handbook of some sort, and cf. Poll. 5.163 (from a list of terms for that which is valueless) τῶν ἐν ταῖς τριόδοις καθαρµάτων ἐκβλητότερος, κοπρίων ἐκβλητότερος, εἰ δεῖ καθ’ Ἡράκλειτον (22 B 96 D.–K.) λέγειν, τῶν ὀξυθυµίων ἀτιµότερος, “more disposable than purificatory offerings at the crossroads, more disposable than dirt, if one is to put it as Heracleitus (22 B 96 D.–K.)280 does, more dishonorable than oxythymia”.) Thus in the ideal state imagined in Plato’s Laws, the bod279 280

Telò 2007. 306 also cites Ar. Ec. 548 (a measure of wheat) ὃν χρῆν ἔµ’ ἐξ ἐκκλησίας εἱληφέναι, which is irrelevant to the point at hand. In reference to corpses.

456

Eupolis

ies of parricides are to be dumped εἰς τεταγµένην τρίοδον (“at a designated crossroads”) as part of the process of purifying the city of their crime (873b). See Johnston 1991; Diggle 2004. 358. Here “crossroads and oxythymia” is best treated as a hendiadys, the point being that only certain crossroads were designated for such purposes (hence the ritual specification at Lg. 873b (above)). 2 προστρόπαιος (〈 προστρέπω) means “suppliant” (e. g. A. Ag. 1587; Eu. 41) and thus by an easy extension of sense—since suppliants routinely require purification—“polluting”, as at e. g. Antipho 2.3.10; 3.4.9; Aeschin. 2.158 τὸ τοιοῦτον αὑτοῦ προστρόπαιον, µὴ γὰρ δὴ τῆς πόλεώς γε (“someone like this, who brings pollution on himself, although not on the city, I trust”); Harp. p. 262.9–10 = Π 109 Keaney (citing Aeschines and offering the gloss ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄγος καὶ τὸ µίασµα, “in place of ‘a curse and impurity’”); cf. Hatch 1908. 180–6, esp. 185. κάεσθαι There seems to be no way to determine whether κά- or καί- is the correct spelling of the verb in this period; see Threatte 1996. 503. τετριγότα is perfect with present sense; cf. Il. 2.314 ὅ γε τοὺς ἐλεεινὰ κατήσθιε τετριγῶτας (“it swallowed them down as they twittered piteously”; of the eight sparrow-chicks and their mother devoured by the snake, according to Calchas symbolizing the number of years the siege of Troy would last); 23.101 ᾤχετο τετριγυῖα (“it went off twittering”; of a soul); Epich. fr. 18.3 ψοφεῖ δ’ ὁ γοµφίος, τέτριγε δ’ ὁ κυνόδων. Telò 2007. 310–11 rightly points out that the verb refers to the production of inarticulate sounds typical not of human beings but of animals, especially birds or bats (thus “gibber, twitter, squeek”), and follows Raspe in taking this to be a closing dig at the inability of the individual in question to speak comprehensibly, proving him a barbarian rather than a real Athenian; cf. fr. 99.25 with n.; Ar. Av. 1681–2 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Ra. 678–82; A. Ag. 1050–1, and note Hdt. 4.183.4 τετρίγασι κατά περ αἱ νυκτερίδες; “they gibber just like bats”, of the Trogolodytes, who speak a strange language like no other; Ael. NA 10.25 φωνῆς δ’ οὖν ἀµοιροῦσι, τρίζουσι δὲ ὀξύ, “they have no voice, but they twitter shrilly”, of the Dogheads; and Hecataeus’ mysterious Τριζοί, who live south of the Istros (FGrH 1 F 171). The nasty underlying point is nonetheless that the noise the victim emits confirms that he is being burned alive.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 133)

457

fr. 133 K.-A. (121 K. = Dêmoi fr. 36 Telò) µὴ παιδὶ τὰ κοινά Don’t (entrust) the public funds to a child! Phot. µ 412 = Suda µ 971 µὴ παιδὶ µάχαιραν· ἐπὶ τῶν εἰκῇ ἐγχειριζόντων. καὶ Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις· ―― Don’t (entrust) a knife to a child!: in reference to those who turn over matters to another person thoughtlessly. Also Eupolis in Dêmoi: ――

Meter Probably iambic trimeter, e. g. llrl k|〈lkl xlkl〉 Discussion Telò 2007. 619 Citation context From the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ΄΄; traced by Erbse to Paus.Gr. µ 16. Interpretation Playing on a proverb attested at Diogen. 6.46 µὴ παιδὶ µάχαιραν (“Don’t entrust a knife to a child!”; glossed µὴ τοῖς ἀπείροις ἐγχειρεῖν µεγάλα πράγµατα, µή πως καθ’ ἑαυτῶν χρήσωνται, “Don’t entrust great affairs to inexperienced people, lest they use them to their own disadvantage!”); Arist. Protrept. fr. 3 Ross = fr. 76.1 Gigon (glossed µὴ τοῖς φαύλοις τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἐγχειρίζειν, “Don’t entrust power to base people!”); Hermipp. Hist. fr. 21 Wehrli; Call. fr. 75.9 Harder with Harder 2012 ad loc.; Posidon. FGrH 87 F 36 (52); Plu. Mor. 714e; fr. 131.3 Sandbach; cf. Hsch. µ 1245 µὴ παιδὶ ξίφος· παροιµία (“Don’t (entrust) a sword to a child!: a proverb”); Strömberg 1954. 39; Tosi 1991. 701–2 (#1573); German “Messer, Gabel, Schere, Licht / sind für kleine Kinder nicht”. Here the reference is presumably to “young men” who push their way into Athenian politics; cf. frr. *104.2 with n.; *126 n.; 192z n.; 333. For the omission of the verb, see fr. 296 Text. For τὰ κοινά in the sense “public funds, public goods”, cf. Ar. Eq. 258; Ec. 656; Pl. 569; Pl. Com. fr. *14.2; LSJ s. v. A.II.2.d. The plural does not seem to be used to mean “the state, the commonwealth” in comedy (contrast the singular in this sense at Ar. Ec. 208).

458

Eupolis

fr. 134 K.-A. (125 K. = Dêmoi fr. 37 Telò) ΣEΜ Ar. Nu. 1022 τέταρτος (Ἀντίµαχος) ὁ τραπεζίτης, οὗ µέµνηται Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις A fourth (Antimachus) is the banker Eupolis mentions in Dêmoi

Discussion Telò 2007. 619–20 Citation context A learned note on Ar. Nu. 1022–3 καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τῆς Ἀντιµάχου / καταπυγοσύνης ἀναπλήσει (“and in addition to this, he’ll infect you with Antimachus’ faggotry”; Right warns Pheidippides of what will happen if he allows himself to be educated by Wrong), patently drawing on a list of kômôidoumenoi. Interpretation The Antimachus in question (PA 1107; PAA 134070) is otherwise unknown and is distinguished in this note—on what basis we do not know—from the Antimachus (PA 1106; PAA 134065) attacked in Clouds (said by ΣEMN Ar. Nu. 1022 to be κίναιδος καὶ εὔµορφος καὶ θηλυµανής, “a sexual pervert and good-looking and crazy about women”); another Antimachus ἐπὶ πονηρίᾳ κωµῳδούµενος (“mocked in comedy for being a wretch”; PAA 134067);281 and the Antimachus “son of Splutter” (PA 1106; PAA 134060) cursed at Ar. Ach. 1150–1 (a lyric poet responsible, according to ΣEΓ ad loc., for a decree forbidding the use of the names of real individuals in comedy). Davies 1971. 428 suggests that Eupolis’ Antimachus may be the homonymous grandfather of the Antimachus (PA 1113; PAA 134125) whose father Archestratus (PA 2405; PAA 211055) is described as a banker at Isoc. 17.43 and D. 36.43. Banker and money-lender (also ὀβολοστάτης or δανειστής) represent the same trade viewed in different ways, since deposits were taken in only to be lent out to others at interest. For banking and formal money-lending and the role they played in Athenian society, Ar. Nu. 16–23, 31–2, 240–1 (very large loans handled in an organized, business-like manner), 756 κατὰ µῆνα τἀργύριον δανείζεται (“money is loaned by the month”); Th. 840–5 (Hyperbolos’ mother runs a money-lending business); Axionic. fr. 10; Antiph. frr. 157.11–12 τοὺς τραπεζίτας· ἔθνος / τούτου γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐξωλέστερον (“the bankers; for there’s no tribe more ruinous than this one”); 166.4–5 ὀβολοστάτης … ἐπρίατο, / ἄνθρωπος ἀνυπέρβλητος εἰς πονηρίαν (“a money-lender bought (us), an unsurpassedly wicked person”); Arist. Pol. 1258b2–3

281

Probably best treated as an adespoton comic fragment, but omitted by Kassel– Austin.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 135)

459

εὐλογώτατα µισεῖται ἡ ὀβολοστατική (“money-lending is rightly despised”); Bogaert 1968; Bogaert 1976 (epigraphic evidence); Cohen 1990; Millett 1991. 179–217; Cohen 1992; Morris 1994. 354–60; Shipton 1997, esp. 412–21.

fr. 135 K.-A. (122 K. . = Dêmoi fr. 38 Telò) 3

ΣVEΓ Ar. Av. 822 λέγεται ὅτι µεγαλέµπορός τις ἐβούλετο εἶναι, † περαΐτης † ἀλαζών, ψευδόπλουτος. ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ Καπνός, ὅτι πολλὰ ὑπισχνούµενος οὐδὲν ἐτέλει. Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις It is said that he wanted to be a large-scale trader, a † peraitês † bullshitter, who pretended to be wealthy. And he was called Smoke, because he promised much but delivered nothing. Eupolis in Dêmoi

Discussion Raspe 1832. 15; Nauck 1849. 546 n. 7; Nauck 1851. 413–14; Jensen 1939. 7; Dornseiff 1940; MacDowell 1961. 230–2; Sommerstein 1977. 273 n. 4; Telò 2007. 339–40, 620–3 Citation context One of a pair of notes on Ar. Av. 821–3 ἆρ’ ἐστὶν αὕτη γ’ ἡ Νεφελοκοκκυγία, / ἵνα καὶ τὰ Θεογένους τὰ πολλὰ χρήµατα / τά τ’ Αἰσχίνου γ’ ἅπαντα; (“So this is Cloudcuckooland, where Theogenes’ fortune also is, and all Aeschines’ money?”), presumably drawing on a catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Related material is preserved at ΣRVEΓM Ar. Av. 1126–7 (quoted in Interpretation). Text The manuscripts of Aristophanes have Θεαγ- in both the text of Birds and the preceding portion of this scholion, but Dindorf corrected to Θεογ- on the ground that this was the classical form of the name (cf. Andrewes and Lewis 1957. 178). That is probably correct in the case of this fragment of Eupolis, since the papyrus offers the form in omicron at fr. 99.5, 9. Θεαγ- is attested inscriptionally, however, already in the 5th century (Hesperia 15 (1946) 161 #17.10, ca. 411/10 BCE, = PAA 501595) and then repeatedly in the 4th (e. g. IG II2 1750.11 = PAA 501570; 2385.32 = PAA 501560; Agora XV 62.94 = PAA 501580), making it clear that paradosis forms in alpha cannot automatically be assumed to be corrupt. The scholion’s περαΐτης has never been convincingly emended (suggestions in Kassel–Austin). But ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 928 reports that the Theagenes/ Theogenes referred to there ἦν δὲ ἐκ Πειραιῶς (“was from Piraeus”), and as the man in question here is supposed to have been a trader, MacDowell 1961. 232 suggested “Πειραιεύς or ἐκ Πειραιῶς or something similar”. The modern

460

Eupolis

ethnic is Πειραιώτης, although whether it was used early enough to appear in a Byzantine note of this sort is unclear. Interpretation The implication of the scholion is that at least some of the information it offers about Theagenes/Theogenes is drawn from Eupolis. But the note clearly has a long redactional history, raising the possibility that the reference to Dêmoi is merely an echo of fr. 99.5, 9, which would make this a “ghost fragment”. Men named Theagenes/Theogenes are also mentioned by Aristophanes at – V. 1183 (said to have had an argument with a dung-collector; ΣRVΓ reports that he was from the deme Acharnae and was mocked for the amount he shat or farted) – Pax 928 (called swinish; ΣVΓ adds that he was from Piraeus and was effeminate, foul-smelling, fat and poor) – Av. 1126–7 (associated with Proxenides “of Bragtown”; ΣRVEΓM reports καπνοὶ ἦσαν καὶ κοµπασταὶ καὶ µόνον ὑπόσχεσις, “they were smoke and braggarts and nothing but a promise”; cf. ΣR and ΣV Ar. V. 325, offering very similar information with a cross-reference to Birds)282 – Av. 1295 (supposedly called “Goose-fox”; ΣRVEΓ quotes Didymus (Hypomnémata Aristophanous fr. 43, p. 255 Schmidt) to the effect that he was birdlike) – Lys. 63 (mention of his wife; ΣR identifies him as “a boaster from Acharnae”). PA 6703 and PAA 504040 treat all these passages283 as references to a single individual, whom they further identify with the Theogenes (deme unspecified) sent to Pylos as an inspector in 425 BCE (Th. 4.27.3) and who swore to the peace treaty with Sparta in 421 BCE (Th. 5.19.2, 24.1); PAA adds that he might also be the Theogenes of Acharnae mentioned in an inscription from 406/5–405/4 BCE (IG II2 1635.7; = PA 6703; PAA 504045). The obvious assumption is that the Theagenes referred to in the note that preserves this fragment, as a boaster allegedly poorer than he claims to be, is the same person as the one mentioned in fr. 99.5, 9, who “farted all night long” after he was “twisted”. The latter detail in turn matches the description offered by ΣRVΓ Ar. V. 1183 of Theogenes/Theagenes of Acharnae and suggests further identifications with the man ΣR Ar. Lys. 63 calls a boaster from Acharnae and the one ΣRVEΓM Av. 1126–7 claims was “smoke”; cf. fr. 59 n. But whether this individual is more than a figment of the ancient (and modern) scholarly 282

283

Raspe 1832 noted in addition the mention of kapnê and kapnodokê in fr. 144 and of the verb “boast” in fr. 145, although nothing suggests that these are anything more than a minor verbal coincidences. PAA adds the reference at fr. 99.5, 9 (not known in Kirchner’s time).

∆ῆµοι (fr. 136)

461

imagination assembled out of bits and pieces of random evidence is unclear, particularly since at least one Theagenes/Theogenes—perhaps to be identified with the man referred to here (see Text)—is said to have been from Piraeus rather than Acharnae (ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 928);284 even if this Theagenes / Theogenes is real, it is likewise uncertain whether he is to be identified with the man or men Aristophanes mentioned, on the one hand, or the historical person in Thucydides, on the other. The name is not rare (over 20 other 5th-/4th-century examples, and others named Theogenes), and the suspicion arises in any case that Didymus and his predecessors and successors were almost as confused as we are about who was who. See also Storey 2003. 147–9.

fr. 136 K.-A. (124 K. = Dêmoi fr. 39 Telò) ΣRVEΓ Ar. Av. 876 (µῆτερ Κλεοκρίτου) Σύµµαχος προείρηκεν ὅτι ξένος καὶ τάχα ὑποκριτής. νῦν δὲ ἐµφαίνεται ὅτι καὶ τὴν ὄψιν στρουθώδης. ὁ δὲ ∆ίδυµος (Ὑποµνήµατα Ἀριστοφάνους fr. 34, p. 254 Schmidt) … ὅτι ὡς γυναικίας καὶ κίναιδος κωµῳδεῖται … καὶ ἴσως ἕτερος ἂν εἴη τοῦ παρ’ Εὐπόλιδος ἐν ∆ήµοις καὶ Κόλαξι (fr. 177) (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 (Commentary on Aristophanes fr. 34, p. 254 Schmidt) (says) … that he is mocked in comedy as an effeminate and a faggot … And perhaps he would be someone other than the man in Eupolis in Dêmoi and Kolakes (fr. 177)

Discussion Raspe 1832. 15; Meineke 1839 II.475; Halliwell 1991. 51; Telò 2007. 623–4 Citation context From a richly informed scholion on Ar. Av. 876 δέσποινα Κυβέλη στρουθέ, µῆτερ Κλεοκρίτου (“Queen Cybele Ostrich, mother of Kleokritos!”), drawing explicitly on Symmachus and—perhaps simply through Symmachus—on Didymus. Interpretation Individuals named Kleokritos known from this period include (1) the man mocked as ostrich-like at Ar. Av. 876; said by Symmachus (ca. 100 CE) to have been “a foreigner and perhaps an actor” and called “effeminate and a faggot” by Didymus (1st c. BCE, and one of Symmachus’ sources)

284

But perhaps simply because the Theogenes mentioned at fr. 99.5–10 is associated with cargo-ships?

462

Eupolis

(2) the man referred to at Ar. Ra. 1437 (“if anyone were to lend wings to Kleokritos with Cinesias”; obscure, although both Dover 1993 ad loc. and Sommerstein 1996a ad loc. take the point to be that he was fat) (3) the man mentioned twice by Eupolis and perhaps distinguished from (1) by Didymus, if that part of the note is to be traced to him (4) the eloquent sacred herald who reconciled the Athenian democrats and the 30 Tyrants in 403 BCE (X. HG 2.4.20) (5) the eponymous archon for 413/2 BCE. The name is rare (only four other 5th-century examples), and (1)–(4) are generally lumped together as a single person (PA 8570; PAA 576825; Stefanis #1441).285 This renders the remarks at Ar. Av. 876 and Ra. 1437 mutually illuminating: Kleokritos cannot fly because he is as large and ungainly as an ostrich. But Symmachus and Didymus are both patently uncertain about how many individuals are in question, and Didymus must have had some reason for potentially dissociating Eupolis’ Kleokritos from Aristophanes’, as a consequence of which it may be better to acknowledge that this is a mystery we are unable to solve. See also fr. 120 n.

fr. 137 K.-A. (123 K. = Dêmoi fr. 40 Telò) ΣEΓ Ar. Ach. 61 διαφορὰ δέ ἐστι πολλὴ βασιλέως καὶ τυράννου … χρῶνται δὲ ἀδιαφόρως ἔνιοι τοῖς ὀνόµασιν· Ἱέρωνα µὲν γὰρ βασιλέα Πίνδαρος (O. 1.23) καλεῖ τὸν Συρακουσίων τύραννον, Εὔπολις δὲ ἐν ∆ήµοις εἰσάγει τὸν Π ε ι σ ί σ τ ρ α τ ο ν β α σ ι λ έ α There is a considerable difference between a basileus (“king”) and a tyrannos (“tyrant”) … But some authors use the words indiscriminately. For Pindar (O. 1.23) calls Hieron the tyrannos of Syracuse a basileus, whereas Eupolis in Dêmoi introduces P e i s i s t r a t u s as a basileus

285

Sommerstein 1996a on Ar. Ra. 1437 ad loc. includes the eponymous archon (PA 8569; PAA 576820) as well, and Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 876 also inclines in that direction (“Ar.’s brief allusions, plus two in Eupolis’ Demes … and Kolakes … suggest a familiar figure”). But the archonship was an allotted rather than an elective office, and Birds was performed the year before a man named Kleokritos filled it; so whoever he was, there is no positive reason to think he was well-known ahead of time.

∆ῆµοι (fr. 137)

463

[Ammon.] Diff. 480, p. 125 Nickau τύραννον οἱ ἀρχαῖοι καὶ ἐπὶ βασιλέως ἔτασσον. Ἡρόδοτος (1.6.1, 26.1) … καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Ληµνίαις (fr. 373)· ――. ἔσθ’ ὅτε καὶ τὸν τύραννον βασιλέα ἔλεγον, ὡς Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις ἐπὶ τοῦ Πεισιστράτου The ancients also employed tyrannos (“tyrant”) to refer to a basileus (“king”). Herodotus (1.6.1, 26.1) … and Aristophanes in Lêmniai (fr. 373): ――. And occasionally they also called a tyrannos a b a s i l e u s, as Eupolis (did) in Dêmoi in reference to Peisistratus

Discussion Raspe 1832. 15; Wilamowitz 1893 I.181; Keil 1912. 242–6; Plepelits 1970. 135–9; McGregor 1974. 20–1; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Storey 2003. 131–2; Telò 2007. 624–6 Citation context The scholion is a comment on the Herald’s announcement/ order οἱ πρέσβεις οἱ παρὰ βασιλέως (“The ambassadors from the King!”, referring to Artaxerxes I of Persia) at Ar. Ach. 61; like many Aristophanic scholia, the note is taken over in a slightly reduced form in the Suda (β 144). [Ammonius] is apparently drawing on the same source, from which may also derive Suda τ 1187 τύραννος· οἱ πρὸ τῶν Τρωϊκῶν ποιηταὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς τυράννους προσηγόρευον, ὀψέ ποτε τοῦδε τοῦ ὀνόµατος εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας διαδοθέντος κατὰ τοὺς Ἀρχιλόχου χρόνους,286 καθάπερ Ἱππίας ὁ σοφιστής φησιν (“tyrannos: The poets before the Trojan War referred to tyrannoi (‘tyrants’) as basileis (‘kings’), with the latter word eventually spreading to the Greeks in the time of Archilochus, as the sophist Hippias says”). Interpretation As often in scholia, εἰσάγει means not “brings onstage” but “refers to” (thus already Raspe, pointing out that the abbreviated version of the scholion preserved at Suda β 144 replaces the word with καλεῖ); note esp. ΣR Ar. Eq. 150 ἀλλαντοπώλην Ἀγοράκριτον εἰσάγει κατὰ παιδιάν (“he refers to the Sausage-seller as Agorakritos as a witticism”); cf. fr. 17; ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 812 ὡς γραοφίλους αὐτοὺς εἰσάγει καὶ περὶ γραῶν ἔρωτας ἐπτοηµένους (“he refers to them as being fond of old woman and as being aflutter about making love to them”); ΣRVMEθBarb Ar. Ra. 551 εἰσάγει δὲ τὸν Ἡρακλέα νῦν βεβρωκότα τι (“[the57 innkeeper] refers to Heracles now as having eaten something”); ΣRVEMatrV Ar. Pl. 290 εἰσάγει τὸν Κύκλωπα κιθαρίζοντα καὶ ἐρεθίζοντα τὴν Γαλάτειαν (“[Philoxenus] refers to the Cyclops as playing the kithara and stirring up Galateia”); ΣVM Ar. Pl. 298 τοιοῦτον γὰρ τὸν Κύκλωπα εἰσάγει, πήραν ἔχοντα καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ λάχανα ἄγρια (“for [Philoxenus] refers to the Cyclops as someone like this, ‘having a beggar’s-bag’ and ‘wild greens’ inside 286

τύραννος is not preserved in what we have of Archilochus, although the cognates τυραννίς (fr. 19.3) and τυραννίη (fr. 23.20, largely restored) are.

464

Eupolis

it”); ΣMNAB E. Hipp. 141 οἵανπερ αὐτὴν εἰσάγει καὶ κυνηγεσίων ἐρῶσαν (“[the speaker] refers to [Phaedra] as someone like this and as being in love with hunting”); Σ Hes. Op. 220 εἰσάγει γὰρ τὴν ∆ικαιοσύνην ἡττωµένην (“for he refers to Justice as defeated”); ΣbT Il. 1.21 τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα πολεµοῦντα αὐτοῖς ὡς ἑκηβόλον εἰσάγει, διὰ τῶν τούτου τόξων ἐκφοβῶν αὐτούς (“[Chryses] refers to Apollo when he wages war on them as hekêbolon, as a way of frightening them by reference to his bow”). Despite Wilamowitz, there is accordingly no reason to think that Peisistratus was a character in Dêmoi. For the mid-6th-century Athenian tyrant Peisistratus (PA 11793; PAA 771760) and his various seizures of power, see Andrewes 1982; Forsdyke 2000. 242–6; Lavelle 2005; Forsdyke 2006. 101–21. This is the only mention of Peisistratus in comedy, where the arch-tyrant is always his son Hippias (Ar. Eq. 449; V. 502; Lys. 618, 1115). For the term τύραννος and cognates, see Archil. frr. 19.3; 23.20 (quoted in n. 286 above); Semon. fr. 7.69; Alc. fr. 348.3; Parker 1998; Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 338–9 (on tyrants in the Athenian popular imagination); Anderson 2005 with further bibliography. Taken by Beekes 2010 s. v. to be substrate vocabulary (“none of the alternative hypotheses is plausible”), but just as likely a loan-word from some Eastern language. Kaibel suggested that it must have been Solon who spoke of Peisistratus, which is merely a guess. The characterization of Peisistratus as a king rather than a tyrant might in any case have been intended to soften his image, by suggesting that his rule was fundamentally legitimate.

fr. 138 K.-A. (126 K. = Dêmoi fr. 41 Telò) ΣV Ar. Pax 348b (= 348e Koster) πέµπτος (Φορµίων) ἀρχαῖος Ἀθηναῖος µετὰ Σόλωνα ἄρξας· Εὔπολις ἐν ∆ήµοις The fifth (Phormio) was an ancient Athenian who served as archon after Solon; Eupolis in Dêmoi

Discussion Wilamowitz 1893 I.179 n. 84; Cadoux 1948. 99; Bradeen 1963. 191–2; McGregor 1974. 20–1; Telò 2007. 626–7 Citation context From a catalogue of men named Phormio at the end of a learned note on Ar. Pax 347b (where the reference is to the late 5th-century Athenian general) that also preserves frr. 44; 274 (where see n.). Presumably drawn from a list of kômôidoumenoi. Interpretation Phormio (PA 14948; PAA 962785) is known only from this passage, although his name has been restored at IG I3 1031.15 Φ̣[ό]ρ̣[ - - -] as

∆ῆµοι (fr. 139)

465

eponymous archon for 546/5 BCE.287 McGregor, following Wilamowitz 1893 I.181 and Edmonds in their conviction that Peisistratus (fr. 137 with n.) was among the dead Athenian political leaders resurrected in Dêmoi, and Bradeen 1963. 192 in his observation that 546/5 BCE may have been the date of the Battle of Pallene, which allowed Peisistratus to seize control of Athens for the third time (Hdt. 1.62–4; see in general Lavelle 2005. 134–54), maintained not only that Phormio must have been mentioned in connection with Peisistratus but also that the reference to Phormio (sc. rather than another archon) showed that Peisistratus’ victory at Pallene belonged to his year. But this is circular argumentation, for we have no idea of the context in which Phormio was mentioned or indeed if other archons were named in the play; and if Phormio was associated with anyone in Dêmoi, the scholion suggests, it was with Solon rather than Peisistratus. Solon (for whom, see the general introduction to Dêmoi) was eponymous archon for 594/3 BCE, and Philostr. VS 1.16.2 identifies the man who succeeded him in office as Dropides II (PA 4573 + 4574; PAA 375780), a member of Critias’ family and thus an ancestor of the philosopher Plato (see Davies 1971. 322–6, esp. 324). Either Philostratus or the scholar whose work is excerpted in the scholion must therefore be confused; or perhaps Eupolis merely put Phormio vaguely “after Solon” and his remark was quoted uncritically. There is in any case no reason to doubt that the coordination of the two men goes back to Eupolis rather than having been introduced by later scholars (cf. Bradeen 1963. 192; pace Cadoux 1948. 99 n. 142).

fr. 139 K.-A. (127 K. = Dêmoi fr. 42 Telò) ΣBCVΦΩ Luc. Alex. 4 (p. 181.12–16 Rabe) ὁ Φ ρ υ ν ώ ν δ α ς ἐπὶ πονηρίᾳ βοᾶταιBCVΦΩ Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Ἀστρατεύτοις (fr. 45), ∆ήµοις, Ἀριστοφάνει δὲ Προάγωνι (fr. 484), Ἀµφιαράῳ (fr. 26), Θεσµοφοριαζούσαις (861)BΦΩ P h r y n o n d a s is celebrated for wickednessBCVΦΩ by Eupolis in Astrateutoi (fr. 45), Dêmoi, and by Aristophanes in Proagôn (fr. 484), Amphiaraos (fr. 26), Thesmophoriazusae (861)BΦΩ

Discussion Telò 2007. 627 See fr. 45 n. 287

The inscription itself dates to ca. 425 BCE.

466

Eupolis

fr. 140 K.-A. (128 K. = Dêmoi fr. 35 Telò) Poll. 9.43 καὶ µὴν οὐκ ἄδοξα πόλεως µέρη γυµνάσια καὶ βαλανεῖα ἴσως δὲ καὶ πυριατήρια, Εὐπόλιδος εἰπόντος ἐν ∆ήµοις ὅτι † τ o ῦ π υ ρ ι α τ η ρ ί ο υ ὅτι τoῦ πυριατηρίου scripsi : ὅτι τoῦ πρυτανίου Poll.FS : ὅπου τὸ πυριατήριον Hemsterhuys : ὅτι; τὸ πυριατήριον Raspe, unde 〈(Α.) τουτὶ τί ἐστιν;〉 (Β.) ὅ τι; τὸ πυριατήριον Kock And in fact conspicuous parts of a city are wrestling-schools and bath houses, and perhaps also pyriatêria, since Eupolis said in Dêmoi that † o f t h e p y r i a t ê r i o n

Discussion Telò 2007. 616–18 Citation context From a section of Pollux’ discussion of words for parts of a city otherwise devoted to athletic facilities, supporting the notion that his τoῦ πρυτανίου is corrupt. Text Pollux is attempting to offer support for the notion that πυριατήρια were a standard part of Greek cities, and the paradosis πρυτανίου likely represents an example of a less familiar word being driven out by a more familiar one. Beyond that, there is little point in trying to correct or supplement the text. Interpretation πυριατήρια—attested elsewhere in the literary record first in the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata (867a30, 869a19, 869b20, 22)—are steambaths or sweat rooms, for which see Ginouvès 1962. 136–7. For words of this type, see fr. 99.27 n. For general discussion of the prytaneion (the word actually transmitted by Pollux), the ceremonial center of a Greek city and thus the site of the state hearth, which was often used as a dining hall to entertain officials and visiting dignitaries, see Miller 1978. For the Athenian prytaneion in particular, see Osborne 1981; Schmalz 2006.

fr. 141 K.-A. (129 K. = Dêmoi fr. 43 Telò) Antiatt. ε 73 ἐγχώριος ἀνήρ, ἐ γ χ ώ ρ ι ο ν π ρ ᾶ γ µ α· Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις a local man, a l o c a l m a t t e r: Eupolis in Dêmoi

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.480; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Telò 2007. 628

∆ῆµοι (fr. 142)

467

Meter Probably iambic trimeter, e. g. llkl ll〈kl xlkl〉 Citation context Cf. Dikôn onomata AB I.187.25–6 = Lex. Rhet., ΑΒ Ι.259.18–19 ἐγχώριος· ἐγχώριός ἐστιν ὁ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ὤν, τουτέστιν ὁ ἐπιδηµῶν, εἴτε ξένος εἴη, εἴτε ἀστός (“egchôrios: an egchôrios is someone who is in the chôra, i. e. who is among the population, be he a foreigner or a citizen”; taken by Wendel to be the source of EM p. 314.5). Kaibel suggested that Hsch. ε 370 ἐγχώριος τόκος· δάνειον (“local interest: a loan”) might represent another version of the same note, and ἐγχώριος τόκος would also fit in iambic trimeter (llkl ku). Interpretation The point of the note in its original, uncondensed form was likely that some strict Atticist maintained that the adjective ἐγχώριος should be applied only to a person, but that a passage in Eupolis’ Dêmoi showed that it could be used of an object as well (thus Meineke, followed by Kaibel). In the 5th century, when the word is first attested, it in fact almost always describes human beings (e. g. Pi. O. 9.56; Pa. 12.19; A. Th. 413; fr. 46a**.19; S. OC 871; E. IT 303) or deities (e. g. A. Supp. 520; Ag. 810; S. El. 67; Th. 2.71.4, 74.2; 4.87.2; Ar. Eq. 577 (the only other attestation in comedy)) and is mostly restricted to elevated genres or contexts.288 For ἐγχώριος applied to objects in non-Attic 5th-century authors, Pi. O. 5.11 ἐγχωρίαν τε λίµναν; Hdt. 2.24.2 τὰ ἐγχώρια ῥεύµατα … τῶν ποταµῶν; 6.35.2 ἐσθῆτα … οὐκ ἐγχωρίην.289

fr. 142 K.-A. (131 K. = Dêmoi fr. 44 Telò) Antiatt. η 13 ἥ σ θ η µ α· τὴν ἡδονήν. Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις ἥσθηµα Antiatt. : αἴσθηµα Kaibel h ê s t h ê m a: pleasure. Eupolis in Dêmoi

Discussion Herwerden 1855. 24; Kaibel ap. K.-A.; Telò 2007. 628–9

288 289

Although note adverbial τὸ ἐγχώριον at Th. 4.78.3. Cf. in the 4th century e. g. Thphr. HP 8.8.7 πνεύµατος ἐγχωρίου; 9.20.3 τὰ βοσκήµατα … τὰ ἐγχώρια. The text at A. Supp. 704–6 is disputed, but Friis Johansen–Whittle 1980 and West 1990 both print θεοὺς … ἐγχωρίους … τιµαῖς in place of the paradosis θεοὺς … ἐγχωρίοις … τιµαῖς.

468

Eupolis

Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry, in its original form probably arguing in favor of a vocabulary item condemned by a strict Atticist. Text Kaibel, glossing E. IA 1243–4 αἴσθηµα … / … τῶν κακῶν (lit. “perception of troubles”) as λύπη (“grief”), suggested that Eupolis might actually have written αἴσθηµα (sc. τῶν καλῶν). If so, the word was already corrupt when the Antiatticist cited it, since he alphabetizes it under êta rather than alpha, and his note has been so radically condensed that the sense has been obscured. But there is no obvious need to reject the paradosis, and Kaibel’s explanation arguably creates as many problems as it solves. Interpretation ἥσθηµα is a hapax and—assuming the text is sound—most likely a nonce-formation (〈 ἥδοµαι, “enjoy oneself, take pleasure”). For -µα nouns formed from the aorist root, cf. fr. 385.6 ἐξεύρηµα (〈 ἐξευρίσκω, aor. ἐξεῦρον) and e. g. ἀνάθηµα (〈 ἀνατίθηµι, aor. ἀνέθηκα), βῆµα (〈 βαίνω, aor. ἔβην), ἐρύθηµα (〈 ἐρυθραίνω, aor. ἐρύθρηνα), µάθηµα (〈 µανθάνω, aor. ἔµαθον), ὀλίσθηµα (〈 ὀλισθάνω, aor. ὠλίσθησα), πάθηµα (〈 πάσχω, aor. ἔπαθον). For -µα nouns generally, see frr. 48.2 n.; 167 n.

fr. 143 K.-A. (132 K. = Dêmoi fr. 45 Telò) Antiatt. θ 18 θ η ρ ί α ἀξιοῦσιν τὰ ἄγρια λέγεσθαι, ἵππον δὲ ἢ ἡµίονον 〈τὰ〉 πολιτικά. Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις πολιτικά Antiatt. : 〈τὰ〉 addidi : πωλικά Bothe : 〈καὶ τὰ ἄλλα〉 πολιτικά 〈οὔ〉 Kaibel They think it right that wild animals be called b e a s t s, but that horses and mules (be called) civilized animals. Eupolis in Dêmoi

Discussion Iacobi ap. Meineke 1857 V.1.37; Telò 2007. 629–30 Citation context Depending on how one understands the Antiatticist’s remark (see Interpretation), this is either a correction or (less likely) another version of the view of the referential range of θηρία articulated at Hsch. θ 524 θηρία· τὰ ζῷα. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων οὕτω λέγουσι (“beasts: living creatures. They also apply the term to horses”). Interpretation Iacobi took the intended sense of this note—heavily condensed in the form in which it has come down to us—to be that, although some Atticists argued that θηρίον (properly a diminutive of θήρ, cognate with Latin ferus) should not be applied to a horse or a mule, since these are domesticated

∆ῆµοι (fr. 144)

469

rather than wild creatures (cf. LSJ s. v. I.1 “wild animal, esp(ecially) of such as are hunted”), Eupolis used the word that way (cf. LSJ s. v. I.2 “generally, animal”) in Dêmoi.290 Cf. Ar. Ach. 808 (Dikaiopolis describes the Megarian’s “piglets” as θηρία); Men. Pk. 769 τράγος τις ἢ βοῦς ἢ τοιουτὶ θηρίον (“a billy-goat or a cow or some such thêrion”); hAphr. 4 (a general word for “animals” as opposed to human beings); Archil. fr. 185.3 (a monkey as one of the θηρία); Hdt. 2.47.1 (a pig as a θηρίον); Isoc. 2.12 (domesticated animals generally as θηρία); Pl. Phd. 81e (“donkeys and θηρία of this sort”). The word is absent from lyric poetry and tragedy (where θήρ is used) and in the 5th and 4th centuries appears to be the common colloquial term for “animal, non-human creature”. Crates’ Thêria is thus just as likely “Animals” (as opposed to human beings) as “Wild Animals” (as opposed to both human beings and domesticated animals); cf. Crates Com. fr. 19.1–2 (spoken by the coryphaeus?). For horses, mules and donkeys, see frr. 164; 246.3; 279; 343; 416; Griffith 2006, esp. 193–241; Gregory 2007; Kitchell 2014. 57–9, 88–91, 126–30.

fr. 144 K.-A. (133 K. = Dêmoi fr. 46 Telò) Poll. 7.123 κάπνην δὲ καὶ κ α π ν ο δ ό κ η ν Εὔπολις τὸ µὲν εἴρηκεν ἐν Βάπταις (fr. 97), τὸ δὲ ἐν ∆ήµοις

290

Telò compares Antiatt. γ 4 γενέθλιον ἡµέραν ἀξιοῦσι ἀεὶ (thus Bekker for the manuscript’s δεῖ, whence Cunningham’s δεῖν, printed by Valente; but cf. γ 8) λέγειν, οὐ γενέθλια, οὐδὲ γενέσια. Εὐριπίδης Ἴωνι, Ἡρόδοτος τετάρτῳ, where the point of the note is that Euripides and Herodotus use the words in the supposedly impossible sense. Note also Antiatt. γ 8 γῆν ἀξιοῦσιν ἀεὶ λέγειν ἑνικῶς, µηδέποτε δὲ πληθυντικῶς. Ἡρόδοτος πρώτῳ, where πρώτῳ (i. e. Α΄) is apparently an error for τετάρτῳ (i. e. ∆΄) and the reference must be to Hdt. 4.198.2 τῇ ἀρίστῃ γέων. LSJ’s attempt to distinguish the separate senses “wild animal” (s. v. θηρίον I.1), “animal” (s. v. θηρίον I.2) and “beast, esp. as hostile and odious to man” (s. v. θηρίον I.3) is in any case over-fine, and s. v. I.3.a—s. v. I.3.b, “poisonous animal” is withdrawn in the Supplement, with the passages cited there to be absorbed into I.1 or I.2. Note that θηρία τε καὶ βοτά at Pl. Mx. 237d means “wild beasts and pastured beasts”, i. e. “wild and domesticated animals”, not specifically “carnivora and gramnivora” (i. e. “animals that might eat a person and those that might not”); that Hdt. 6.44.3 (θηρία carry off shipwrecked men) would fit just as well under s. v. I.1; that S. fr. 314.153 ὦ κάκιστα θηρίων would be better placed under s. v. IV “as a term of reproach, beast, creature” (where this fragment of Eupolis is mistakenly included); and that at Ar. Nu. 184 ~ Av. 93 the word simply means “(apparently non-human) creature”.

470

Eupolis

As for kapnê and k a p n o d o k ê, Eupolis uses the former in Baptai (fr. 97), the latter in Dêmoi

Discussion Raspe 1832. 15; Telò 2007. 630–1 See fr. 97 n. Raspe took the reference to be to Theagenes/Theogenes (fr. 135 with n.), but Telò observes that it might better be used of one of his victims.

fr. 145 K.-A. (134 K. = Dêmoi fr. 47 Telò) Poll. 9.146 αὐχεῖν …· ἐν δ’ Εὐπόλιδος ∆ήµοις ἔστι καὶ τὸ κ α υ χ ή σ α σ θ α ι to boast …: and in Eupolis’ Dêmoi there is also the word k a u c h ê s a s t h a i

Discussion Telò 2007. 631–2 Citation context At the end of a list of about fifteen verbs having to do with pride, boasting and the like. A collection of cognate nouns follows. Text Poll.C has καυχήσεται (printed by Kock), hence LSJ’s treatment of this fragment as an example of the future middle of the verb. But the remaining manuscripts agree on καυχήσασθαι, and the other items in Pollux’s list are all in the infinitive. Interpretation The aorist middle of καυχάοµαι is attested already at Sapph. fr. 15.10 (optative). But this is the only 5th-century Attic example, the next being Arist. Pol. 1311b4, hence perhaps the interest of Pollux (or his source) in Eupolis’ use of the form. All the other verbs listed by Pollux are in the present tense. For καυχάοµαι (etymology uncertain but apparently a reduplication; see Skoda 1982. 54–5), also e. g. Pi. O. 9.38; Cratin. fr. 102.2 (supposedly an echo of Od. 22.412); Hdt. 7.39.2; Epicr. 6.2; and see fr. 135 n. For boasting and bragging, see also frr. 59 n.; 135 n.

fr. 146 K.-A. (135 K. = Dêmoi fr. 48 Telò) Phot. ο 120 ο ἰ ν ι σ τ ή ρ ι α (sic Poll. 3.52; 6.22 et Hsch. ο 325 : οἰνιαστήρια Phot.)· σπονδὴ τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ ἐπιτελουµένη ὑπὸ τῶν ἐφήβων πρὶν ἀποκείρασθαι· Εὔπολις ∆ήµοις o i n i s t ê r i a (thus Poll. 3.52; 6.22 and Hsch. ο 325 : oiniastêria Phot.): a libation carried out for Heracles by the ephebes before they cut their hair; Eupolis in Dêmoi

∆ῆµοι (fr. 146)

471

Discussion Lambert 1993. 164; Telò 2007. 632–3 Citation context An Atticist note traced by Theodoridis to Pausanias. Very similar material, but without reference to Eupolis, is preserved at Hsch. ο 325 οἰνιστήρια· Ἀθήνησιν οἱ µέλλοντες ἐφηβεύειν, πρὶν ἀποκείρασθαι τὸν µαλλόν, εἰσέφερον Ἡρακλεῖ µέτρον οἴνου, καὶ σπείσαντες τοῖς συνελθοῦσιν ἐπεδίδουν πίνειν. ἡ δὲ σπονδὴ ἐκαλεῖτο οἰνιστήρια (“oinistêria: Those who are about to become ephebes in Athens, before they cut their tresses, used to offer a fixed quantity of wine to Heracles, and after they poured a libation, they offered some to their companions to drink. The libation was called an oinistêria”), and is traced back to Pamphilus (fr. 24 Schmidt) at Ath. 11.494f οἱ µέλλοντες ἀποκείρειν τὸν σκόλλυν ἔφηβοι, φησὶ Πάµφιλος, εἰσφέρουσι τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ µέγα ποτήριον πληρώσαντες οἴνου, ὃ καλοῦσιν οἰνιστηρίαν, καὶ σπείσαντες τοῖς συνελθοῦσι διδόασι πιεῖν (“the ephebes who are about to cut off their fringe of hair, says Pamphilus, fill a large cup of wine, which they call an oinistêría, and take it into Heracles’ sanctuary, and after they pour libation they offer it to their companions to drink”). Poll. 3.52 and 6.22 (quoted in Interpretation) may ultimately go back to the same source. Interpretation The ritual in question appears to be a preliminary portion of the Κουρεῶτις (cognate with κείρω, “shear”), which Phot. κ 1031 = Suda κ 2179 defines as “the third festival”—i. e. the third day—“of the Apatouria, when the boys cut their hair and are enrolled in their phratries”. See also Poll. 3.52 ἡ δ’ ὑπὲρ τῶν εἰς τοὺς φράτορας εἰσαγοµένων παίδων οἴνου ἐπίδοσις οἰνιστήρια ἐκαλεῖτο (“the offering of wine on behalf of the boys being introduced into their phratries was called an oinistêria”); 6.22 ἡ δ’ οἰνιστήρια οἴνου δόσις ὑπὲρ τῶν παίδων ἐν τοῖς φράτερσιν (“and the oinistêria is an offering of wine on behalf of the boys in their phratries”); cf. Pl. Tim. 21b; Poll. 8.107; Hsch. α 5842; κ 3843; Phot. γ 26; κ 960, 1028; Deubner 1932. 233–4; Ziehen 1937; Cole 1984. 233–5; Lambert 1993. 161–72; Lawton 2007. 57–9, and see in general on the ephebia Pélékidis 1962. The sanctuary of Heracles in which the offering was made must be the one associated with the gymnasion in Cynosarges (for which, see fr. 65 n.). For οἰνιστήρια (cognate with οἶνος, “wine”), cf. the festival-names Ἀνθεστήρια, Προχαριστήρια, Συγκοµιστήρια.

473

Addenda and Corrections to Vols. II–III fr. 148.2 Uncontracted ἀείδω (contrast normal contracted Attic ᾄδω) is mostly restricted to lyric (Eup. fr. 148.2; Ar. Eq. 1266; Lys. 1243; Th. 115) or to passages with high-style coloring of some sort (Cratin. fr. 338; Men. fr. 163.1). frr. 157a and 158 Protagoras of Abdera is PAA 790895. fr. 179 Marpsias is PAA 635500 (not 635505). fr. 183 For µόλυβδος/µόλιβος (attested already in Mycenean, and apparently borrowed from Lydian), see Melchert 2004. fr. 191 Correct the accent on the penultimate word in the fragment to grave µυττωτὸν. fr. 192.48–9 For the text, see Cartlidge 2016, who suggests οὐδ᾿ ἂν κενὸν τρύπηµά γ᾿ ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ἂν εὗρες. fr. 278 The lines ought to be separated to indicate that these are not to be taken as continuous text; see Interpretation. For ἐνεβρόντησε in 1, cf. also Archil. fr. 120.2 οἴνῳ συγκεραυνωθεὶς φρένας. fr. 279 For the proverb ὄνος λύρας, see also Drago 2007. 301. For the image of the donkey in comedy, see also Blümner 1891. 215–19. Chrysoun genos To Discussion, add Neri 1994–1995, esp. 275–81. fr. 298.4 Archestratus is also PA 2403. fr. 303 Alcaeus the citharode is also PAA 120992. fr. 328.2 ὁτιή is also attested in Alex. fr. 268.3, suggesting that the form had a somewhat longer life than the note suggests. fr. 337.2 For βολβοί, see also Casoria, Menale, Muoio and Botanico 1999. fr. 345 (p. 58) πνῖγος in Pherecr. fr. 191 more likely means “hot weather” than “a pnigos” (i.e. a portion of a parabasis). fr. 352 For Cleonymus and his shield, see also Ornaghi 2008. fr. 355 For discussion of this fragment, see also Battistella 2005. fr. 412 Strike the reference to Millis 2015.

474

Addenda and Corrections to Vols. II–III

fr. 418 Nelson 2000. 81 takes the reference to be to a dildo. fr. 433 In the translation of Phryn. PS p. 20.6–10, read “For the former means to have one’s nails trimmed” fr. 474 For the meaning of περίζυξ and ἄζυξ, see the careful discussion of Tréheux 1958.

475

Bibliography Aitchison 1963: J. M. Aitchison, “Homeric ἄνθος”, Glotta 41: 271–8 Alfageme 2008: Ignacio R. Alfageme, “Éupolis, fr. 386 K.-A.”, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 18: 217–31 Aly 1927: W. Aly, “Herodots Sprache”, Glotta 15: 84–117 Amyx 1958: D. A. Amyx, “The Attic Stelai: Part III. Vases and Other Containers”, Hesperia 27: 163–254 Anderson 1965: William S. Anderson, “Valla, Juvenal, and Probus”, Traditio 21: 383–424 Anderson 1976: Graham Anderson, “Lucian’s Classics: Some Short Cuts to Culture”, BICS 23: 59–68 Anderson 1978: Graham Anderson, “Patterns in Lucian’s Quotations”, BICS 25: 97–100 Anderson 2005: Greg Anderson, “Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History”, CA 24: 173–222 Andorlini and Lundon 2000: Isabella Andorlini and John Lundon, “Frammenti di Omero, Odissea XI 210–29 (PDuk inv. 60 + PPisaLit 23)”, ZPE 133: 1–6 Andreau and Chankowski 2007: Jean Andreau and Véronique Chankowski (eds.), Vocabulaire et expression de l’économie dans le monde antique (Bordeaux) Andrewes 1982: A. Andrewes, “The Tyranny of Pisistratus”, in The Cambridge Ancient History III.3 (Cambridge), pp. 392–416 Andrewes and Lewis 1957: A. Andrewes and D. M. Lewis, “Note on the Peace of Nikias”, JHS 77: 177–80 Andrews 1956: Alfred C. Andrews, “Sage as a Condiment in the Graeco-Roman Era”, Economic Botany 10: 263–6 Andrews 1958: Alfred C. Andrews, “Thyme as a Condiment in the Graeco-Roman Era”, Osiris 13: 150–6 Arnott 1996: W. Geoffrey Arnott, Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 31: Cambridge) Arnott 2007: W. Geoffrey Arnott, Birds in the ancient world from A to Z (London and New York) Atchley 1938: Shirley Clifford Atchley, Wild Flowers of Attica (Oxford) Atkinson 1992: J. E. Atkinson, “Curbing the Comedians: Cleon versus Aristophanes and Syracosius’ Decree”, CQ NS 42: 56–64 Aupert 1979: Pierre Aupert, Fouilles de Delphes Tome II: topographie et architecture. Le stade (Paris) Austin 1973: Colin Austin (ed.), Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta (Berlin and New York) Austin 1990: M. M. Austin, “Greek Tyrants and the Persians, 546–479 B. C.”, CQ NS 40: 289–306 Austin–Olson 2004: Colin Austin and S. Douglas Olson (eds.), Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae (Oxford) Banfi 2003: Antonio Banfi, Il governo della città. Pericle nel pensiero antico (Istituto italiano per gli studi storici 50: Bologna)

476

Bibliography

Bar-Oz 2001: Guy Bar-Oz, “An Inscribed Astragalus with a Dedication to Hermes”, Near Eastern Archaeology 64: 215–17 Barrett 1964: W. S. Barrett (ed.), Euripides: Hippolytus (Oxford) Battistella 2005: Chiara Battistella, “Vino, aceto e avaricia (Hor. Sat. 2,3,115–117; Pers. 4,29–32): una proposta per la contestualizzazione di Eup. fr. 355 K.-A.”, MD 55: 173–83 Beattie 1960: A. J. Beattie, “Nisaea and Minoa”, RhM 103: 21–43 Beazley 1954: John Beazley, “Some Inscriptions on Vases: VI”, AJA 58: 187–90 Bechtel 1898: Friedrich Bechtel, Die einstämmigen männlichen Personnamen des Griechischen, die aus Spitznamen hervorgegangen sind (Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Berlin) Beekes 2010: Robert Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (2 vols.: 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) Bentz 2007: Martin Bentz, “Torch race and vase-painting”, in Palagia and ChoremiSpetsieri 2007, pp. 73–80 Benveniste 1949: Émile Benveniste, “Noms d’animaux en indo-européen”, BSL 45: 74–103 Bergk 1838: Theodorus Bergk, Commentationum de reliquiis comoediae Atticae antiquae libri duo (Leipzig) Bernays 1885: Jacob Bernays, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (2 vols.: Berlin) Bers 1984: Victor Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (Yale Classical Monographs 6: New Haven and London) Bertelli, 2005: Lucio Bertelli, “Commedia e memoria storica: Cratino ed Eupoli”, Quaderni del Dipartimento di filologia linguistica e tradizione classica Augusto Rostagni 4: 49–89 Beta 1994: Simone Beta, “Pisandro e la tortura. Il verbo διαστρέφειν in Eupoli, fr. 99 K.-A.”, ZPE 101: 25–6 Bianchi 2016: Francesco Paolo Bianchi (ed.), Cratino, Archilochoi – Empipramenoi (frr. 1–68) (FrC 3.2: Heidelberg) Bicknell 1982: Peter J. Bicknell, “Axiochus Alkibiadou, Aspasia and Aspasios”, AC 51: 240–50 Bierl and von Möllendorff 1994: Anton Bierl and Peter von Möllendorff (eds.), Orchestra. Drama Mythos Bühne (Festschrift Hellmut Flashar: Stuttgart and Leipzig) Bignone 1912–1913: Ettore Bignone, “Studi critici sui nuovi frammenti dei Demi di Eupoli”, Atti della r. Accademia di Scienze di Torino 48: 345–68 Bignone 1917–1918: Ettore Bignone, “I Demi di Eupoli e l’Eneo di Euripide”, Bolletino di Filologia Classica 24: 168–9 Biles–Olson 2015: Zachary Biles and S. Douglas Olson (eds.), Aristophanes: Wasps (Oxford) Bishop 1899: “The Greek Verbal in –TEO”, AJP 20: 1–21, 121–38, 241–53 Blaydes 1890: Fredericus H. M. Blaydes, Adversaria in comicorum graecorum fragmenta (Halle an der Saale)

Bibliography

477

Blok and Lardinois 2006: Josine H. Blok and André P. M. H. Lardinois (eds.), Solon of Athens: New Historical and Philological Approaches (Mnemosyne Supplement 272: Leiden and Boston) Blümner 1891: Hugo Blümner, Studien zur Geschichte der Metapher im Griechischen Heft 1 Über Gleichniss und Metapher in der attischen Komödie (Leipzig; reprint Stuttgart 1974) Bogaert 1968: Raymond Bogaert, Banques et banquiers dans les cites grecques (Leiden) Bogaert 1976: Raymond Bogaert, Texts on bankers, banking and credit in the Greek world (Leiden) Bond 1981: Godfrey W. Bond (ed.), Euripides: Heracles (Oxford) Bonner and Smith 1938: Robert J. Bonner and Gertrude Smith, The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle (2 vols.: Chicago) Borthwick 1967: E. K. Borthwick, “Trojan Leap and Pyrrhic Dance in Euripides’ Andromache 1129–41”, JHS 87: 18–23 Borthwick 1969: E. K. Borthwick, “Two Notes on Athena as Protectress”, Hermes 97: 385–91 Borthwick 1970: E. K. Borthwick, “P. Oxy. 2738: Athena and the Pyrrhic Dance”, Hermes 98: 318–31 Boudon-Millot 2007: Véronique Boudon-Millot (ed.), Galien Tome I (Collections des Universités de France: Paris) Boudon-Millot and Jouanna 2010: Véronique Boudon-Millot and Jacques Jouanna (eds.), Galien Tome IV (Collections des Universités de France: Paris) Bourriot 1995: Félix Bourriot, Kalos Kagathos – Kalokagathia: D’un terme de propagande de sophistes à une notion sociale et philosophique (Spudasmata 58.1–2: Hildesheim, Zurich and New York) Bowie 1988: E. L. Bowie, “Who is Dicaeopolis?”, JHS 108: 183–5 Bowie 2000: Angus Bowie, “Myth and ritual in the rivals of Aristophanes”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 317–39 Braccesi 1995: Lorenzo Braccesi (ed.), Hespería, 5: Studi sulla grecità di occidente (Rome) Bradeen 1963: Donald W. Bradeen, “The Fifth-Century Archon List”, Hesperia 32: 187–208 Brandes 1886: Ernestus Brandes, Observationes criticae de comoediarum aliquot Atticarum temporibus (Diss. Rostock) Braswell 1988: Bruce Karl Braswell, A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Texte und Kommentare 14: Berlin and New York) Braun 2000: Thomas Braun, “The Choice of Dead Politicians in Eupolis’ Demoi: Themistocles’ exile, hero cult and delayed rehabilitation; Pericles and the origins of the Peloponnesian War”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 191–231 Breitenbach 1908: Hermannus Breitenbach, De genere quodam titulorum comoediae atticae (Basel) Bremmer 1991: Jan Bremmer, “Walking, standing, and sitting in ancient Greek culture”, in Bremmer and Roodenburg 1991, pp 15–35 Bremmer 2004: Jan M. Bremmer, “Attis: A Greek God in Anatolian Pessinous and Catullan Rome”, Mnemosyne 57: 534–73

478

Bibliography

Bremmer and Roodenburg 1991: Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg (eds.), A Cultural History of Gesture: From Antiquity to the Present Day (Cambridge) 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 Brommer 1987: Frank Brommer, “Gefässformen bei Autoren des 5. Jhdts. v. Chr.”, Hermes 115: 1–21 Broneer 1938: Oscar Broneer, “Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis, 1937”, Hesperia 7: 161–263 Brown 1994: Robert D. Brown, “The Bed-Wetters in Lucretius 4.1026”, HSCP 96: 191–6 Brümmer 1985: Elfriede Brümmer, “Griechische Truhenbehälter”, JdI 100: 1–168 Brun 1997: Patrice Brun, “Du fromage de Kythnos au marbre de Paros : la question des appellations contrôllées (?) dans l’antiquité grecque”, REA 99: 401–9 Burgess 2005: Sandra J. Burgess, “The Athenian Eleven: Why Eleven?”, Hermes 133: 328–36 Burzacchini 2012: Gabriele Burzacchini, “Citazioni dotte come espediente retorico nell’ Epistola 130 Garzya-Roques di Sinesio”, in Criscuolo 2012, pp. 157–68 Buttmann 1829: Philipp Buttmann, Mythologus oder gesammelte Abhandlungen über die Sagen des Alterthums (2 vols.: Berlin) Cadoux 1948: T. J. Cadoux, “The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides”, JHS 68: 70–123 Cahill 2010: Nicholas D. Cahill (ed.), Lidyalılar ve Dünyaları / The Lydians and Their World (Istanbul) Cairns 1996: Douglas L. Cairns, “Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big”, JHS 116: 1–32 Calame 1990: Claude Calame, Thésée et l’imaginaire athénien (Lausanne) Calhoun 1913: George Miller Calhoun, Athenian Clubs in Politics and Litigation (Austin; reprinted as Studia Historica 7, Rome 1964) Camacho Rojo, Fuentes González and López Cruces 1997: José María Camacho Rojo, Pedro Pablo Fuentes González and Juan Luis López Cruces, “Las citas en Diodoro de Sicilia. I. Las citas poéticas”, Fortunatae 9: 13–32 Campagner 2001: Roberto Campagner, Lessico agonistico di Aristofane (Lessici 3: Pisa and Rome) Campagner 2002: Roberto Campagner, “Il gioco del cottabo nelle commedie di Aristofane”, QUCC 72: 111–27 Carawan 2008: Edwin Carawan, “Pericles the Younger and the Citizenship Law”, CJ 103: 383–406 Carrara 2014: Aurélie Carrara, “Tax and Trade in Ancient Greece: About the ellimenion and the Harbour Duties”, REA 116: 441–64 Carrière 1979: Jean Claude Carrière, Le Carnaval et la politique : une introduction à la comédie grecque suivie d’un choix de fragments (Centre de Recherches d’histoire ancienne Volume 26, Annales de l’université de Besançon 212: Paris) Carter 1986: L. B. Carter, The Quiet Athenian (Oxford) Cartledge 1990: Paul Cartledge, “Fowl play: a curious lawsuit in classical Athens (Antiphon XVI, frr. 57–9 Thalheim)”, in Cartledge, Millett and Todd 1990, pp. 41–61

Bibliography

479

Cartledge, Millett and Todd 1990: Paul Cartledge, Paul Millett and Stephen Todd (eds.), Nomos: Essays in Athenian law, politics and society (Cambridge) Cartlidge 2016: Ben Cartlidge, “Eupolis, fr. 192.48–9 K.–A.”, ZPE 197: 32 Caruso 2013: A. Caruso, Akademia: archeologia di una scuola filosofica ad Atene da Platone a Proclo (387 a.C.–485 d.C.) (Studi di archeologia e di topografia di Atene e dell’Attica 6: Athens and Paestum) Casolari 2003: Federica Casolari, Die Mythentravestie in der griechischen Komödie (Orbis antiquus 37: Münster) Casoria, Menale, Muoio and Botanico 1999: Paolo Casoria, Bruno Menale, Rosa Muoio and Orto Botanico, “Muscari comosum, Liliaceae, in the Food Habits of South Italy”, Economic Botany 53: 113–15 Cataldi 2011: Silvio Cataldi, “Aspasia donna sophe kai politike in Plutarco”, Historiká 1.2: 11–66 Ceccarelli 1998: Paola Ceccarelli, La pirrica nell’antichità greco-romana. Studi sulla danza armata (Pisa and Rome) Ceccarelli 2004: Paola Ceccarelli, “Dancing the Pyrrhichê in Athens”, in Murray and Wilson 2004, pp. 91–117 Ceschi 2009: Giovanni Ceschi, Il vocabulario medico di Sofocle: Analisi del contatti con il Corpus Hippocraticum nel lessico anatomo-fisiologico, patologico e terapeutico (Memorie del Instituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, Classe di scienze morali, lettere ed arti Vol. CXXXI: Venice) Chadwick 1996: John Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek (Oxford) Chandler 1881: H. W. Chandler, A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation2 (Oxford) Chankowski 2007: Véronique Chankowski, “Les catégories du vocabulaire de la fiscalité dans les cités grecques”, in Andreau and Chankowski 2007, pp. 299–329 Chantraine 1933: Pierre Chantraine, La formation des noms en grec ancien (Paris) Chantraine 1940: Pierre Chantraine, “Conjugaison et histoire des verbes signifiant vendre”, RPh 14: 11–24 Chantraine 1956: Pierre Chantraine, Études sur le vocabulaire grec (Études et commentaires XXIV: Paris) Chantry 1994: M. Chantry (ed.), Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas; Ranas; Ecclesiazusas et Plutum IVa Scholia Vetera in Aristophanes Plutum (Groningen) Chiavarino 1995: Barbara Chiavarino, “Eupoli, commediografo politico”, Storia della civiltà letteraria greca e latina (Quaderni del Dipartimento di filologia, linguistica e tradizione classica, Torino): 9–21 Christ 2001: Matthew R. Christ, “Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens”, CQ NS 51: 398–422 Christ 2004: Matthew R. Christ, “Draft Evasion Onstage and Offstage in Classical Athens”, CQ NS 54: 33–57 Christ 2006: Matthew R. Christ, The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens (Cambridge) Christesen 2007: Paul Christesen, Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History (Cambridge) Chronopoulos and Orth 2015: S. Chronopoulos and C. Orth (eds.), A Fragmentary History of Greek Comedy (Studia Comica: Heidelberg)

480

Bibliography

Cipolla 2006: P. Cipolla (ed.), Studi sul Teatro Greco (Amsterdam) Cobet 1840: Carolus Gabriel Cobet, Observationes criticae in Platonis comici reliquias (Amsterdam) Cobet 1854: C. G. Cobet, Variae lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores graecos (Leiden) 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 1876: C. G. Cobet, “Platonica. Meno”, Mnemosyne II.4: 442–9 Cobet 1878: C. G. Cobet, Collectanea critica quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores Graecos (Leiden) Cohen 1990: Edward E. Cohen, “Commercial Lending by Athenian Banks: Cliometric Fallacies and Forensic Methodology”, CP 85: 177–90 Cohen 1992: Edward E. Cohen, Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective (Princeton) Cohen 2015: Edward E. Cohen, Athenian prostitution: the business of sex (New York) Coldstream 1976: J. N. Coldstream, “Hero-Cults in the Age of Homer”, JHS 96: 8–17 Cole 1984: Susan Guettel Cole, “The Social Function of Rituals of Maturation: The Koureion and the Arkteia”, ZPE 55: 233–44 Collard 1975: Christopher Collard (ed.), Euripides Supplices (2 vols.: Groningen) Collard 2005: Christopher Collard, “Colloquial Language in Tragedy: A Supplement to the Work of P. T. Stevens”, CQ NS 55: 350–86 Collins, Bachvarova and Rutherford 2004: Billie Jean Collins, Mary R. Bachvarova and Ian Rutherford (eds.), Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours: Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-cultural Interaction, September 17–19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA (Oxford) Colonna 1952: Aristide Colonna, “Aristofane ed Eupoli nella seconda parabasi dei ‘Cavalieri’”, Dioniso 15: 32–7 Colvin 2000: Stephen Colvin, Dialect in Aristophanes and the Politics of Language in Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Conti Bizzarro 2009: Ferruccio Conti Bizzarro, Comici entomologi (Alexandria) Conwell 2008: David H. Conwell, Connecting a City to the Sea: The History of the Athenian Long Walls (Mnemosyne Supplement 293: Leiden and Boston) Corbel-Morana 2007: Cécile Corbel-Morana, “Le goût des autres: paratragédie et cuisine chez Aristophane”, REG 120: 1–18 Courtney 1980: E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London) Cox 1989: Cheryl Anne Cox, “Incest, Inheritance and the Political Forum in FifthCentury Athens”, CJ 85: 34–46 Criscuolo 2012: Ugo Criscuolo (ed.), La retorica greca tra tardo antico ed età bizantina: idee e forme (Naples) Crosby 1949: Margaret Crosby, “An Athenian Fruit Measure”, Hesperia 18: 108–13 Crowther 1992: Nigel B. Crowther, “Second-Place Finishes and Lower in Greek Athletics (Including the Pentathlon)”, ZPE 90: 97–102

Bibliography

481

Crowther 1993: Nigel B. Crowther, “More on ‘Drómos’ as a Technical Term in Greek Sport”, Nikephoros 6: 33–7 Crowther 2004: Nigel B. Crowther, Athletika: Studies on the Olympic Games and Greek Athletics (Nikephoros Beihefte Band 11: Hildesheim) Csapo 2010: Eric Csapo, Actors and Icons of the Ancient Theater (Malden Mass. and Oxford) Csapo and Miller 1991: E. Csapo and M. C. Miller, “The ‘Kottabos-Toast’ and an Inscribed Red-Figure Cup”, Hesperia 60: 367–82 Dalby 2003: Andrew Dalby, Food in the Ancient World from A to Z (The Ancient World from A to Z: London and New York) Dale 1867: James W. Dale, Classic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word βαπτίζω (Philadelphia) Dale 1967: A. M. Dale (ed.), Euripides Helen (Oxford) Daneloni 2007–2008: Alessandro Daneloni, “Storia umanistica di un frammento di Eupoli”, Studi medievali e umanistici 5–6: 199–215 D’Angour 2011: Armand D’Angour, The Greeks and the New: Novelty in Ancient Greek Imagination and Experience (Cambridge) Davidson 1981: A. Davidson, Mediterranean Seafood2 (Baton Rouge) Davidson 1995: James N. Davidson, “Opsophagia: Revolutionary Eating at Athens”, in Wilkins, Harvey and Dobson 1995, pp. 204–13 Davidson 1997: James N. Davidson, Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (Chicago) Davidson 2002: Alan Davidson, Mediterranean Seafood: A Comprehensive Guide with Recipes3 (Berkeley and Toronto) Davies 1971: J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. (Oxford) Davies 1984: Malcolm Davies, “Χάρις and the Verb ἐφίζω in Alcman’s Second Partheneion”, Maia 36: 15–16 Davies and Kathirithamby 1986: Malcolm Davies and Jeyaraney Kathirithamby, Greek Insects (London) Davison 1958: J. A. Davison, “Notes on the Panathenaea”, JHS 78: 23–42 Dawkins 1936: R. M. Dawkins, “The Semantics of Greek Names for Plants”, JHS 56: 1–11 de Jong 1987: I. J. F. de Jong, “Paris/Alexandros in the Iliad”, Mnemosyne IV.40: 124–8 de Laix 1973: Roger Alain de Laix, Probouleusis at Athens: A Study of Political DecisionMaking (University of California Publications in History 83: Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) de Saint-Denis 1980: E. de Saint-Denis, “Éloge du chou”, Latomus 39: 838–49 Delatte 1954: Armand Delatte, Le Cycéon, breuvage rituel des mystères d’Eleusis (Académie royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la classes des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, 5e Série, Tome XL), pp. 690–751 (reprint as independent monograph, Collection d’études anciennes: Paris, 1955) Delignon 2006: Bénédicte Delignon, Les Satires d’Horace et la comédie gréco-latine: une poétique de l’ambiguité (Bibliothèque d’études classiques 49: Louvain, Paris and Dudley Mass.) Delneri 2006: Francesa Delneri, I culti misterici stranieri nei frammenti della commedia attica antica (Eikasmos Studi 13: Bologna)

482

Bibliography

Denniston 1950: J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles2 (rev. K. J. Dover: Oxford) Detienne and Vernant 1969: Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant, “La métis du renard et du poulpe”, REG 82: 291–317 Deubner 1932: Ludwig Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin) Develin 1985: R. Develin, “Age Qualifications for Athenian Magistrates”, ZPE 61: 149–59 Develin 1986: R. Develin, “Laispodias Andronymios”, JHS 106: 184 Dickey 1996: Eleanor Dickey, Greek Forms of Address (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Diggle 2004: James Diggle (ed.), Theophrastus: Characters (Cambridge Classical Commentaries 43: Cambridge) Dihle 1976: Albrecht Dihle, “Randbemerkungen zu griechischen Szenikern”, RhM 119: 134–48 Dilts and Kennedy 1997: Mervin R. Dilts and George A. Kennedy, Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire: Introduction, Text, and Translation of the Arts of Rhetoric Attributed to Anonymous Seguerianus and to Apsines of Gadara (Mnemosyne Supplement 168: Leiden, New York and Cologne) Dobree 1831–1833: Peter Paul Dobree, Adversaria (ed. James Scholefield: Cambridge) Dobrov 1998: Gregory W. Dobrov (ed.), The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama (Chapel Hill) Dobrov 2010: Gregory W. Dobrov (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy (Leiden and Boston) Dodds 1959: E. R. Dodds (ed.), Plato: Gorgias (Oxford) Dorandi 1988: Tiziano Dorandi, “Four Testimonia on the Academy”, CQ NS 38: 576–8 Dorjahn 1941: Alfred P. Dorjahn, “On the Athenian Anakrisis”, CP 36: 182–5 Dornseiff 1940: Franz Dornseiff, “Ein Transjordanier in einer Komödie des Eupolis?”, Hermes 75: 229–31 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 1978: K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge Mass.) Dover 1993: K. J. Dover (ed.), Aristophanes: Frogs (Oxford) Dover 2000: Kenneth Dover, “Foreword: Frogments”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. xvii–xix Downes 1904: W. E. D. Downes, “The Offensive Weapon in the Pyrrhic”, CR 18: 101–6 Drago 2007: Anna Tiziana Drago (ed.), Aristeneto : Lettere d’amore (Testi e studi di letteratura antica: Lecce) Dübner 1877: F. Dübner (ed.), Scholia Graeca in Aristophanem (Paris) Dunbar 1995: Nan Dunbar (ed.), Aristophanes: Birds (Oxford) Dyck 1983: Andrew R. Dyck (ed.), Epimerismi Homerici Pars Prior Epimerismos continens qui ad Iliadis librum A pertinent (Sammlung der griechischen und lateinischen Grammatiker Band 5/1: Berlin and New York) Dyck 1995: Andrew R. Dyck (ed.), Epimerismi Homerici Pars Altera Epimerismos continens qui ordine alphabetico traditi sunt. Lexicon ΑΙΜΩ∆ΕΙΝ quod vocatur seu verius ΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΙΑΙ ∆ΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ (Sammlung der griechischen und lateinischen Grammatiker Band 5/2: Berlin and New York)

Bibliography

483

Edmonds 1939: J. M. Edmonds, “The Cairo and Oxyrhynchus fragments of the ∆ΗΜΟΙ of Eupolis”, Mnemosyne III.8: 1–20 Egan 2006: Rory B. Egan, “Ἀναβολή, Ἀναβάλλοµαι etc.: Technical Terms in Music and Poetics”, Glotta 82: 55–69 Ehrenberg 1947: Victor Ehrenberg, “Polypragmosyne: A Study in Greek Politics”, JHS 67: 46–67 Ehrenberg 1951: Victor Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes: A Sociology of Old Attic Comedy (Oxford) Eitrem 1912: S. Eitrem, “Heros”, RE VIII.1 pp. 1111–45 Eitrem 1948: S. Eitrem, “Varia”, SO 26: 167–78 Eitrem 1949: S. Eitrem, “Les Épidauria”, in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à Charles Picard (Paris), pp. 352–9 Ekroth 2002: Gunnel Ekroth, The sacrificial rituals of Greek hero-cults in the Archaic to the early Hellenistic periods (Kernos Supplément 12: Liège) Elmsley 1818: Peter Elmsley (ed.), Euripidis Medea (Oxford) Elmsley 1823: Peter Elmsley (ed.), Sophoclis Oedipus Coloneus (Oxford) Elmsley 1830: Peter Elmsley (ed.), Aristophanis Comoedia Acharnenses (Leipzig) Else 1958: Gerald F. Else, “‘Imitation’ in the Fifth Century”, CP 53: 73–90 Emonds 1941: Hilarius Emonds, Zweite Auflage im Altertum (Klassisch-Philologische Studien 14: Leipzig) 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) Fawcett 2016: Peter Fawcett, “‘When I Squeeze You with Eisphorai’: Taxes and Tax Policy in Classical Athens”, Hesperia 85: 153–99 Fehling 1969: Detlev Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin) Fernández Fernández 2015: Álvaro Fernández Fernández, “La ἴυγξ mediadora: ornitología, magia amorosa, mitología y teología caldaico-neoplatónica”, Cuadernos di Filología Clásica 25: 223–71 Ferriss–Hill 2015: Jennifer L. Ferriss–Hill, Roman Satire and the Old Comic Tradition (New York) Feyel 2009: Christophe Feyel, ∆ΟΚΙΜΑΣΙΑ: La place et le rôle de l’examen préliminaire dans les institutions des cités grecques (Études anciennes 36: Nancy) 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) Fiorentini 2010: Leonardo Fiorentini, review of Telò 2007, in Eikasmos 21: 559–64 Firicel-Dana 2007: Madalina Firicel-Dana, “Traditions de fondation dans l’epigraphie de Sinope”, REG 120: 511–25 Fisher 1992: N. R. E. Fischer, Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (Warminster) Fisher 2000: Nick Fisher, “Symposiasts, fish-eaters and flatterers: social mobility and moral concerns”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 355–96

484

Bibliography

Fisher 2001: Nick Fisher, Aeschines Against Timarchos (Clarendon Ancient History Series: Oxford) Fittà 1997: Marco Fittà, Spiele und Spielzeug in der Antike: Unterhaltung und Vergnügen im Altertum (Stuttgart) Flacelière and Chambry 1964: Robert Flacelière and Émile Chambry (eds.), Plutarque Vies Vol. III (Collection des Universités de France: Paris) Flower 2008: Michael Attyah Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Fontaine and Scafuro 2014: Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy (New York) Forbes 1945: Clarence A. Forbes, “Expanded Uses of the Greek Gymnasium”, CP 40: 32–42 Forsdyke 2000: Sara Forsdyke, “Exile, Ostracism and the Athenian Democracy”, CA 19: 232–63 Forsdyke 2006: Sara Forsdyke, Exile, Ostracism and Democracy: The Politics of Expulsion in Ancient Greece (Princeton and Oxford) Foster 1984: Giraud V. Foster, “The Bones from the Altar West of the Painted Stoa”, Hesperia 53: 73–82 Foxhall and Forbes 1982: L. Foxhall and H. A. Forbes, “Σιτοµετρεία: The Role of Grain as a Staple Food in Classical Antiquity”, Cheiron 12: 41–90 Fraenkel 1910: Ernst Fraenkel, “Beiträge zur griechischen Grammatik”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 43: 193–219 Fraenkel 1950: Eduard Fraenkel (ed.), Aeschylus: Agamemnon (3 vols.: Oxford) Fraenkel 1962: Eduard Fraenkel, Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome) Friis Johansen–Whittle 1980: H. Friis Johansen and Edward W. Whittle, Aeschylus: The Suppliants Vol. I Bibliography, Introduction, Text and Apparatus (Copenhagen) Fritzsche 1832: Franciscus Volkmarus Fritzsche, “Emendationes in Aristophanis fragmenta”, Index lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi (Rostock), pp. 2–10 Fritzsche 1835: Franciscus Volkmarus Fritzsche, Quaestiones Aristophaneae (Leipzig) Fritzsche 1845: Franc. Volcm. Fritzschius (ed.), Aristophanis Ranae (Turici) Fritzsche 1857/58: F. V. Fritzschius, De comoediae graecae fragmentis = Index lectionum in Academia Rostochiensi (Rostock) Fromherz 2011: Peter Fromherz, “The Battlefield of Marathon: The Tropaion, Herodotos, and E. Curtius”, Historia 60: 383–412 Frommel 1826: Guilielmus Frommel (ed.), Scholia in Aelii Aristidis Sophistae Orationes Panathenaicam et Platonicas (Frankfurt) Frost 1999: Frank Frost, “Sausage and meat preservation in antiquity”, GRBS 40: 241–52 Furley 1996: William D. Furley, Andokides and the Herms: A Study of Crisis in fifth-century Athenian Religion (BICS Supplement 65: London) Furley 2009: William D. Furley (ed.), Menander Epitrepontes (BICS Supplement 106: London) Furneé 1972: Edzard J. Furnée, Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen (Janua linguarum, Series Practica 150: The Hague and Paris)

Bibliography

485

Gantz 1993: Timothy Gantz, Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources (Baltimore and London) García Soler 2010: María José García Soler, “Euripides’ Critique of Athletics in Autolykos, fr. 282 N2”, Nikephoros 23: 139–53 Garland 1984: R. S. J. Garland, “Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens”, ABSA 79: 75–123 Garland 1987: Robert Garland, The Piraeus from the fifth to the first century B. C. (London) Garrison 1991: Elise P Garrison, “Attitudes toward Suicide in Ancient Greece”, TAPA 121: 1–34 Garvie 2009: A. F. Garvie (ed.), Aeschylus Persae (Oxford) Gauthier 1976: Philippe Gauthier, Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xénophon (Geneva and Paris) Geissler 1925: Paul Geissler, Chronologie der altattischen Komödie (Berlin; reprint with addenda, Dublin and Zurich, 1969) Gelzer 1960: Thomas Gelzer, Der Epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes: Untersuchungen zur Struktur der attischen alten Komödie (Zetemata Heft 23: Munich) Gildersleeve 1900–11: Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Syntax of classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes (New York) Ginouvès 1962: René Ginouvès, Balaneutikè: Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, fasc. 2000: Paris) Glazebrook 2011: Alison Glazebrook, “Porneion: Prostitution in Athenian Civic Space”, in Glazebrook and Henry 2011, pp. 34–59 Glazebrook and Henry 2011: Alison Glazebrook and Madeleine M. Henry (eds.), Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 bce–200 ce (Wisconsin Studies in Classics: Madison) Goettling 1869: C. G. Goettling, Opuscula academica (Leipzig) Gofas 1969: Dimitri Gofas, “Les carpologues de Thasos”, BCH 93: 337–70 Goldhill and Osborne 1999: Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne (eds.), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy (Cambridge) Gomme 1956: A. W. Gomme, A historical commentary on Thucydides Vol. II (Oxford) Goodwin 1889: W. W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods & Tenses of the Greek Verb8 (London; reprint London, 1998) Gow 1934: A. S. F. Gow, “ΙΥΓΞ, ΡΟΜΒΟΣ, Rhombus, Turbo”, JHS 54: 1–13 Gow 1950: A. S. F. Gow (ed.), Theocritus Vol. II Commentary (Cambridge) Gowers 2012: Emily Gowers (ed.), Horace Satires Book I (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics: Cambridge) Grassl 2009: Herbert Grassl, “Ein Dichter, ein Sklave und ein Hund: äginetische Gedankenspiele”, in Aiakeion: Beiträge zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft zu Ehren von Florens Felten (Vienna), pp. 21–3 Greenewalt 2010: Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., “Lydian Cosmetics”, in Cahill 2010, pp. 201–16 Gregory 2007: Justina Gregory, “Donkeys and the Equine Hierarchy in Archaic Greek Literature”, CJ 102: 193–212

486

Bibliography

Grenfell and Hunt 1908: Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part VI (London) Grenfell and Hunt 1914: Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part X (London) Griffin 1982: Audrey Griffin, Sikyon (Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs: Oxford) Griffith 1968: J. G. Griffith, “A Vocative Expression in Greek Comedy”, CR NS 18: 8–11 Griffith 1995: Mark Griffith, “Brilliant Dynasts: Power and Politics in the Oresteia”, CA 14: 62–129 Griffith 2006: Mark Griffith, “Horsepower and Donkeywork: Equids and the Ancient Greek Imagination”, CP 101: 185–246, 307–58 Grotius 1623: Hugo Grotius, Dicta poetarum quae apud Ioannem Stobaeum exstant (Paris) Hagel 2010: Stefan Hagel, Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical History (Cambridge) Hall 1989: Edith M. Hall, “The Archer Scene in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae”, Philologus 133: 38–54 Halliwell 1984: Stephen Halliwell, “Ancient Interpretations of ὀνοµαστὶ κωµῳδει̑ν in Aristophanes”, CQ NS 34: 83–8 Halliwell 1989: F. S. Halliwell, “Authorial Collaboration in the Athenian Comic Theatre”, GRBS 30: 515–28 Halliwell 1991: Stephen Halliwell, “Comic Satire and Freedom of Speech in Classical Athens”, JHS 111: 48–70 Hamel 1998: Debra Hamel, “Coming to Terms with λιποτάξιον”, GRBS 39: 361–405 Hamilton 1990: Richard Hamilton, “Pindaric Dithyramb”, HSCP 93: 211–22 Hamm 1952: Eva-Maria Hamm, “µάσθλη und µάσθλης”, Glotta 32: 43–5 Hammond 1956: N. G. L. Hammond, “II. The Philaids and the Chersonese”, CQ NS 6: 113–29 Handley 1953: Eric Handley, “-sis Nouns in Aristophanes”, Eranos 51: 129–42 Handley 1965: E. W. Handley (ed.), The Dyskolos of Menander (Cambridge Mass.) Handley 1982: E. W. Handley, “POxy 2806: A fragment of Cratinus?”, BICS 29: 109–17 Hanow 1830: Rudolf Hanow, Exercitationum criticarum in comicos Graecos liber primus (Schwäbisch Hall) Hansen 1976: Mogens Hermann Hansen, Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes (Odense University Classical Studies 8: Odense) Hansen 1980: Mogens Hermann Hansen, “Seven Hundred Archai in Classical Athens”, GRBS 21: 151–73 Hansen 1987: Mogens Herman Hansen, The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes (Blackwell’s Classical Studies: Oxford and New York) Harder 2012: Annette Harder (ed.), Callimachus Aetia (2 vols.: Oxford) Harrison 1968: A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens Vol. I The Family and property (Oxford) Harrison 1971: A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens Vol. II Procedure (Oxford) Harvey and Wilkins 2000: David Harvey and John Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (London)

Bibliography

487

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 Hatzfeld 1940: Jean Hatzfeld, Alcibiade, Étude sur l’histoire d’Athènes à la fin du Ve siècle (Paris) Hawkins 2013: Shane Hawkins, Studies in the Language of Hipponax (Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft Band 14: Bremen) Hayley 1894: Herman W. Hayley, “The κότταβος κατακτός in the Light of Recent Investigations”, HSCP 5: 73–82 Headlam 1922: Walter Headlam (ed.), Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (Cambridge) Heath 1990: Malcolm Heath, “Aristophanes and His Rivals”, G&R 37: 143–58 Heath 1998a: Malcolm Heath, “Apsines and Pseudo-Apsines”, AJP 119: 89–111 Heath 1998b: Malcolm Heath, “Heroic meal-times (Athen. I 11b-f)”, Eikasmos 9: 215–18 Heath 2003: Malcolm Heath, “Pseudo-Dionysius Art of Rhetoric 8–11: Figured Speech, Declamation, and Criticism”, AJP 124: 81–105 Hedrick 1990: Charles W. Hedrick Jr., The Decrees of the Demotionidai (American Classical Studies 22: Atlanta) Hedrick 1991: Charles W. Hedrick Jr., “Phratry Shrines of Attica and Athens”, Hesperia 60: 241–68 Henderson 1987: Jeffrey Henderson (ed.), Aristophanes Lysistrata (Oxford) Henderson 1991: The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy2 (New York) Henderson 1992: Jeffrey Henderson, “The Demos and the Comic Competition”, in Winkler and Zeitlin 1992, pp. 271–313 Hendrickson 2013: Thomas Hendrickson, “Poetry and Biography in the Athênaiôn Politeia: The Case of Solon”, CJ 109: 1–19 Henry 2013: W. B. Henry, “A Papyrus of Old Comedy (P. Oxy. 863 + 2806)”, ZPE 187: 52 Henry and Trojahn 2013: W. B. Henry and S. Trojahn, “5160. Commentary on Eupolis’ Goats (?)”, in Chang et al., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Volume LXXVIII (London), pp. 111–18 and pl. V Hense 1870: Otto Hense, Heliodoreische Untersuchungen (Leipzig) Hermann 1816: Gottfried Hermann, Elementa doctrinae metricae (Leipzig) Hermann 1830: Godofredus Hermannus (ed.), Aristophanis Nubes cum scholiis (Leipzig) Hermann 1834: Gottfried Hermann, Opuscula (8 vols.: Leipzig) Hermann 1844/1845: K. F. Hermann, Disputatio de tempore Convivii Xenophontei pars prior, quae est de Eupolidis Autolyco (Göttingen) Herwerden 1855: Henricus van Herwerden, Observationes criticae in fragmenta comicorum Graecorum (Leiden) Herwerden 1903: Henricus van Herwerden, Collectanea critica, epicritica, exegetica sive Addenda ad Theodori Kockii opus Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (Leiden) Hesk 2007: Jon Hesk, “Combative capping in Aristophanic comedy”, CCJ 53: 124–60 Hoffmann 1910: W. Hoffmann, Ad antiquae Atticae comediae historiam symbolae (Diss. Berlin) Hofinger 1967: Marcel Hofinger, “Hesiodea. Le sens d’ ἄροτος et du verbe νεᾶν. Interprétation des vers 458 à 464 des Travaux”, AC 36: 5-21

488

Bibliography

Hofmann 1970: H. Hofmann, “Ein Kommentar zum ‘Anagyros’ des Aristophanes (P. Oxy. 2737)”, ZPE 5: 1–10 Holst 1926: Hans Holst, “Demosthenes’ Speech-impediment”, SO 4: 11–25 Hornblower 1991: Simon Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides Vol. I (Oxford) Hornblower 2008: Simon Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides Vol. III (Oxford) Hubbard 1991: Thomas K. Hubbard, The Mask of Comedy: Aristophanes and the Intertextual Parabasis (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology Vol. LI: Ithaca and London) Hubbard 2003: Thomas K. Hubbard, “Sex in the Gym: Athletic Trainers and Pedagogical Pederasty”, Intertexts 7: 1–26 Humphreys 1974: S. C. Humphreys, “The Nothoi of Kynosarges”, JHS 94: 88–95 Hunter 1979: R. L. Hunter, “The Comic Chorus in the Fourth Century”, ZPE 36: 23–38 Hunter 1983: R. L. Hunter (ed.), Eubulus: The Fragments (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 24: Cambridge) Ieranò 1997: Giorgio Ieranò, Il ditirambo di Dionisio. Le testimonianze antiche (Pisa) Immerwahr 1948: Henry R. Immerwahr, “An Athenian Wineshop”, TAPA 79: 184–90 Imperio 1998: Olimpia Imperio, “Callia”, in Belardinelli et al. 1998, pp. 195–254 Irwin 2005: Elizabeth Irwin, Solon and Early Greek Poetry (Cambridge Classical Studies: Cambridge) Jameson 1951: M. H. Jameson, “The Hero Echetlaeus”, TAPA 82: 49–61 Jameson, Jordan and Kotansky 1993: Michael H. Jameson, David R. Jordan and Roy D. Kotansky, A Lex Sacra from Selinous (Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monographs 11: Durham NC) Janko 1985: R. Janko, “αὐτός ἐκεῖνος: A Neglected Idiom”, CQ NS 35: 20–30 Jardé 1925: A. Jardé, Les Céréales dan l’Antiquité Grecque (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome fasc. 103: Paris) Jeanmaire 1945: Henri Jeanmaire, “Le substantif hosia et sa signification comme terme religieux”, REG 58: 66–89 Jensen 1916: Christian Jensen, “Zu den Demen des Eupolis”, Hermes 51: 321–54 Jensen 1939: Christian Jensen, “Die Parabase in den Demen des Eupolis”, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Nr. 14, pp. 3–14 Johansen–Whittle 1980: H. Friis Johansen and Edward W. Whittle (eds.), Aeschylus: The Suppliants (Copenhagen) Johnston 1991: S. I. Johnston, “Crossroads”, ZPE 88: 217–24 Johnston 1995: Sarah Iles Johnston, “The Song of the Iynx: Magic and Rhetoric in Pythian 4”, TAPA 125: 177–206 Jones 1928: Horace Leonard Jones (ed. and trans.), The Geography of Strabo Vol. V (Loeb Classical Library 211: Cambridge Mass. and London) Jones 2009: Christopher Jones, “Books and libraries in a newly-discovered treatise of Galen”, JRA 22: 390–7 Jordan 1988: Borimir Jordan, “The Honors for Themistocles after Salamis”, AJP 109: 547–71 Jung 2006: M. Jung, Marathon und Plataiai: Zwei Perserschlachten als »lieux de mémoire« im antiken Griechenland (Hypomnemata Band 164: Göttingen) Jüthner 1924: J. Jüthner, “Λαµπαδηδροµία”, RE XII.1 pp. 569–77

Bibliography

489

Kah and Scholz 2004: D. Kah and P. Scholz (eds.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion (Wissenskultur und gesellschaftlicher Wandel Band 8: Berlin) Kaibel 1889: G. Kaibel, “Zur attischen Komödie”, Hermes 24: 35–66 Kaibel 1907: G. Kaibel, “Eupolis”, RE VI pp. 1230–5 Kamerbeek 1959: J. C. Kamerbeek, The Plays of Sophocles. Commentaries Part II The Trachiniae (Leiden) Kannicht 1969: Richard Kannicht (ed.), Euripides: Helena Band II Kommentar (Heidelberg) Kapparis 2011: Konstantinos K. Kapparis, “The Terminology of Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World”, in Glazebrook and Henry 2011, pp. 222–55 Kárpáti 2012: András Kárpáti, “A Satyr-Chorus with Thracian Kithara: Toward an Iconography of the Fifth-Century New Music Debate”, Phoenix 66: 221–46 Kassel 1966: Rudolf Kassel, “Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten II”, RhM 109: 1–12 Kassel 1975: R. Kassel, “Quod versu dicere non est”, ZPE 19: 211–18 Kassel 1979: R. Kassel, “Lallende Kinder und erwünschte Bärte”, ZPE 35: 1–5 Kay 1985: N. M. Kay, Martial Book XI: A Commentary (London) Kearns 1989: Emily Kearns, The Heroes of Attica (BICS Supplement 57: London) Kebric 1977: Robert B. Kebric, In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos (Historia Einzelschriften 29: Wiesbaden) Keil 1902: Bruno Keil, Anonymus Argentinensis: Fragmente zur Geschichte des perikleischen Athen aus einem strassburger Papyrus (Strassbourg) Keil 1912: Bruno Keil, “Über Eupolis Demen und Aristophanes Ritter”, Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologischhistorische Klasse (Berlin), pp. 237–72 Keller 1909–1913: Otto Keller, Die Antike Tierwelt (2 vols.; Leipzig) Kellogg 2013: Danielle L. Kellogg, Marathon Fighters and Men of Maple: Ancient Acharnai (Oxford) Kennedy 2004: George A. Kennedy, review of M. Patillon (ed.), Apsinès, Art rhétorique. Problèmes à faux-semblant, in Gnomon 76: 306–9 Kern 1896: Otto Kern, “Βάπται”, RE II.2 p. 2850 Kind 1938: F. Ernst Kind, review of Corpus medicorum Graecorum V.4.1.1, Philologische Wochenschrift 58: 772–8 Kirchhoff 1878: A. Kirchhoff, “Zu Aristophanes”, Hermes 13: 287–97 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) Kock 1875: Theodorus Kock, “Comicorum graecorum emendationes”, RhM 30: 414–18 Koenen 1978: L. Koenen, The Cairo Codex of Menander (P. Cair. J. 43227) (London) Kokolakis 1965: Minoos M. Kokolakis, µορφολογια της κυβευτικης µεταφορας (Βιβλιοθηκη της εν Αθηναις φιλεκπαιδευτικης εταιρειας no. 65: Athens) Komornicka 1981: Anna M. Komornicka, “Sur le langage érotique de l’ancienne comédie attique”, QUCC NS 9: 55–83 Konstan 2001: David Konstan, Pity Transformed (London) Kopff 1990: E. Christian Kopff, “The Date of Aristophanes, Nubes II”, AJP 111: 318–29 Körte 1912: Alfred Körte, “Fragmente einer Handschrift der Demen des Eupolis”, Hermes 47: 276–313

490

Bibliography

Körte 1919: Alfred Körte, “Zu neueren Komödienfunden”, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse 71.6: 1–40 Koster 1973: W. J. W. Koster, “De Eupolidis fr. 9 K. et Edm.”, Mnemosyne IV.26: 178–9 Koster 1975: W. J. W. Koster (ed.), Scholia in Aristophanem IA Prolegomena de Comoedia (Groningen) Koster 1978: W. J. W. Koster (ed.), Scholia in Aristophanem II.1 Scholia Vetera et Recentiora in Aristophanis Vespas (Groningen) Kroll 1993: John H. Kroll, The Athenian Agora Vol. XXVI The Greek Coins (with contributions by Alan S. Walker: Princeton) Kühner–Gerth 1898: Raphael Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache3 (rev. Bernhard Gerth) (2 vols.: Hannover) Kurke 1999: Leslie Kurke, Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece (Princeton) Kyriakidi 2007: Natalia Kyriakidi, Aristophanes und Eupolis: Zur Geschichte einer dichterischen Rivalität (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte Band 85: Berlin and New York) Labarbe 1953: Jules Labarbe, “l’Age corréspondant au sacrifice du κούρειον et les données historiques du sixième discours d’Isée”, Bull. Acad. Belg. 39: 358–94 Labiano Ilundain 2000: Juan Miguel Labiano Ilundain, Estudio de las Interjecciones en las Comedias de Aristófanes (Classical and Byzantine Monographs XLVIII: Amsterdam) Labiano Ilundain 2004: Juan Miguel Labiano Ilundain, “Breves notas sobre el sufijo griego –ikós en la Comedia aristofánica”, in Lopez Eire and Ramos Guerreira 2004, pp. 87–101 Lacaita 1920: C. C. Lacaita, “Quercus Aegilops”, Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) 3: 100–5 Laird 1934: A. G. Laird, “Nisaea and Minoa”, CP 29: 89–100 Lambert 1993: S. D. Lambert, The Phratries of Attica2 (Michigan Monographs in Classical Antiquity: Ann Arbor) Lambert 2012: Stephen Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1–322/1 BC: Epigraphical Essays (Brill Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy Volume 2: Leiden and Boston) Lambin 1982: Gérard Lambin, “Le Surnom ΒΑΤΑΛΟΣ”, RPh 56: 249–63 Lang 1990: Mabel L. Lang, The Athenian Agora Vol. XXV Ostraka (Princeton) Lang and Crosby 1964: Mabel Lang and Margaret Crosby, The Athenian Agora Vol. X Weights Measures and Tokens (Princeton) Langdon 1994: Merle Langdon, “Public Auctions in Ancient Athens”, in Osborne and Hornblower 1994, pp. 253–65 Lanni 2010: Adriaan Lanni, “The Expressive Effect of the Athenian Prostitution Laws”, CA 29: 45–67 Larson 2001: Jennifer Larson, Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore (New York) Laser 1987: Siegfried Laser, Sport und Spiel (Archaeologica Homerica Kapitel T: Göttingen) Latte 1913: Kurt Latte, De saltationibus Graecorum (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten XIII.3: Giessen)

Bibliography

491

Lautensach 1899: Otto Lautensach, Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern und Komikern: Augment und Reduplikation (Hannover and Leipzig) Lavelle 2005: B. M. Lavelle, Fame, Power and Money: The Rise of Peisistratus and “Democratic” Tyranny at Athens (Ann Arbor) Lawton 2007: Carol L. Lawton, “Children in Classical Attic Votive Reliefs”, Hesperia Supplement 41: 41–60 Leão and Rhodes 2015: Delfim F. Leao and P. J. Rhodes (eds.), The Laws of Solon (London and New York) Lech 2009: Marcel Lysgaard Lech, “The Knights’ Eleven OARS: In Praise of Phormio? Aristophanes’ Knights 546-7”, CJ 105: 19–26 Lee 2015: Mireille M. Lee, Body, Dress, and Identity in Ancient Greece (Cambridge) Lefebvre 1911: Gustave Lefebvre (ed.), Papyrus de ménandre (Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire, No. 43227: Cairo) Legon 1981: Ronald P. Legon, Megara: The Political History of a Greek City-State to 336 B.C. (Ithaca and London) Leutsch 1855: Ernst von Leutsch, “Hegemon von Thasos”, Philologus 10: 704–9 Leutsch 1856: Ernst von Leutsch, “Metrische Fragmente”, Philologus 11: 715–63 Lippold 1925: Lippold, “Leochares (2)”, RE XII.2 pp. 1992–7 Lloyd 1989: Michael Lloyd, “Paris/Alexandros in Homer and Euripides”, Mnemosyne IV.42: 76–9 Lobeck 1820: Chr. August. Lobeck (ed.), Phrynichi Eclogae Nominum et Verborum Atticorum (Leipzig) Lobeck 1829: Chr. Augustus Lobeck, Aglaophamus sive de theologiae mysticae graecorum causis libri tres (2 vols.: Kaliningrad) Lobeck 1837: Chr. Augustus Lobeck, Paralipomena Grammaticae Graecae, Pars Prior (Leipzig) Lobel 1968: E. Lobel (ed.), “Commentary on an Old Comedy”, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XXXV (London), pp. 46–7 Lolos 2011: Yannis Lolos, Land of Sikyon: Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State (Hesperia Supplement 39: Princeton) Long 1968: A. A. Long, Language and Thought in Sophocles: A study of abstract nouns and poetic technique (London) Long 1986: Timothy Long, Barbarians in Greek Comedy (Carbondale and Edwardsville) Longo, Ghiretti and Renna 1995: Oddone Longo, Francesco Ghiretti and Enrico Renna, Aquatilia: Animali di ambiente acquatico nella storia della scienze da Aristotele ai giorni nostri (Naples) López Eire 1996: Antonio López Eire, La Lengua coloquial de la Comedia aristofánica (Murcia) López Eire and Ramos Guerreira 2004: A. López Eire and A. Ramos Guerreira (eds.), Registros lingüísticos en las lenguas clásicas (Salamanca) Lord 1978: Carnes Lord, “On Damon and Music Education”, Hermes 106: 32–43 Lorenzoni 1983: Alberta Lorenzoni, “Un uso particolare di εἰς (Macho 239 e 322 Gow, etc.)”, Sileno IX: 83–9 Lozanova 1996: Vanya Lozanova, “‘Baptai’ and some Religious Aspects of the Policy of Alcibiades”, in Tsetskhladze 1996, pp. 31–40

492

Bibliography

Luppe 1970: Wolfgang Luppe, “Zur Datierung einiger Dramatiker bei Eusebios”, Philologus 114: 1–8 Luppe 1971a: Wolfgang Luppe, review of Lobel 1968, in Gnomon 43: 113–23 Luppe 1971b: Wolfgang Luppe, “Der ‘Anagyros’-Kommentar Pap. Oxy. 2737”, APF 21: 93–110 Luppe 1972a: Wolfgang Luppe, “Die Zahl der Konkurrenten an den komischen Agonen zur Zeit des peloponnesischen Krieges”, Philologus 116: 53–75 Luppe 1972b: Wolfgang Luppe, “Der Gefâhrte des Pyronides in Eupolis’ ‘Demes’”, Philologus 116: 306–8 Luppe 1975: Wolfgang Luppe, review of Austin 1973, in GGA 227: 179–206 Luppe 1982: Wolfgang Luppe, “Zu den Kairoer ‘Demen’-Papyri”, APF 28: 15–25 Luppe 1988: Wolfgang Luppe, “Ein übersehener Hinweis auf die Fünf-Zahl der Konkurrenten bei den Komiker-Agonen zur Zeit des Peloponnesischen Krieges”, Nikephoros 1: 185–9 Luppe 2007: Wolfgang Luppe, “Überlegungen zum Komiker-Fragment P. Oxy. 863”, ZPE 160: 24–6 Luppe 2013a: Wolfgang Luppe, “Zum Komödien-Kommentar P.Oxy. LXXVIII 5160”, APF 59: 50–4 Luppe 2013b: Wolfgang Luppe, “Ein neues Danaiden-Fragment”, ZPE 186: 76 Maas 1912: Paul Maas, “Zum neuen Eupolis”, Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 32: 861–2 Maas 1962: Paul Maas, Greek Metre (trans. Hugh Lloyd-Jones: Oxford) MacDowell 1961: Douglas MacDowell, “Theagenes of Peiraieus”, RhM 104: 229–36 MacDowell 1962: Douglas MacDowell (ed.), Andokides: On the Mysteries (Oxford) MacDowell 1971: Douglas M. MacDowell (ed.), Aristophanes: Wasps (Oxford) MacDowell 1976a: Douglas M. MacDowell, “‘Hybris’ in Athens”, G&R 23: 14–31 MacDowell 1976b: Douglas M. MacDowell, “Bastards as Athenian Citizens”, CQ NS 26: 88–91 MacDowell 1978: Douglas M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life: London) MacDowell 1991: Douglas M. MacDowell (ed.), Demosthenes: Against Meidias (Oration 21) (Oxford) Main 1894: J. H. T. Main, Locative expressions in the Attic orators (Baltimore) Mancuso 2006: Giacomo Mancuso, “Pl. Com. T 6 K.–A. Delendum?”, in Cipolla 2006, pp. 69–78 Mangidis 2003: Ioannis Mangidis, Euripides’ Satyrspiel Autolykos (Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe XV Klassische Sprachen und Literaturen Band 87: Frankfurt am Main) Marshall 2012: Hallie Rebecca Marshall, “Clouds, Eupolis and Reperformance”, in Marshall and Kovacs 2012, pp. 55–68 Marshall and Kovacs 2012: C. W. Marshall and George Kovacs (eds.), No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy (Festschrift Ian C. Storey: London) Martorelli 2014: Luca Martorelli (ed.), Greco antico nell’occidente carolingio : frammenti di testi attici nell’Ars di Prisciano (Spudasmata 159: Hildesheim, Zurich and New York)

Bibliography

493

Masson 1967: Émilia Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en Grec (Paris) Masson 1970: Olivier Masson, “En Marge du Mime II d’Hérondas : les surnoms ioniens Βάτταρος et Βατταρᾶς”, REG 83: 356–61 Masson 1986: Olivier Masson, “Remarques sur l’onomastique d’Ephèse (a propos de l’Index Ephesos VIII. 2”, ZPE 64: 173–83 Masson 1990: Olivier Masson, Onomastica Graeca Selecta Vol. II (Paris) Mau 1896: Mau, “Ἀστράγαλος”, RE II pp. 1793–5 Mayer 1912: A. Mayer, “Zu den neuen Fragmenten des Eupolis”, Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 32: 830–2 Mazzotti 2014: Eleonora Mazzotti, “Ricorrenze e contesti delle citazioni greche di Prisciano: indizi utili per un’ipotesi sulle fonti”, in Martotelli 2014, pp. 145–59 McGregor 1974: Malcolm F. McGregor, “Phormion and Peisistratos”, Phoenix 28: 18–21 Medda, Mirto and Pattoni 2006: Enrico Medda, Marina Serena Mirto and Marina Pia Pattoni (eds.), Kômôidotragôidia: intersezioni del tragico e del comico nel teatro del V secolo a.C. (Pisa) Meier 1827: M. H. E. Meier, “Sammelrezension von vier altgriechischen Schriften”, Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung Band 2 Numero 123: 137–44 Meiggs 1982: Russell Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford) Meineke 1826: August Meineke, Quaestiones scenicae (3 vols.: Berlin) Melchert 2004: H. Craig Melchert, “Greek mólybdos as a Loanword from Lydian”, in Collins, Bachvarova and Rutherford 2004, pp. 153–8 Mentz 1933: F. Mentz, “Die klassischen Hundenamen”, Philologus 88: 104–29, 181–202, 415–42 Meritt 1923: Benjamin D. Meritt, “Inscriptional and Topographical Evidence for the Site of Spartolus and the Southern Boundary of Bottice”, AJA 27: 334–9 Meritt 1925: Benjamin D. Meritt, “Peace between Athens and Bottice”, AJA 29: 29–31 Mesturini 1983: Anna Maria Mesturini, “Aristofani–Eupoli e Diodoro. A proposito di un citazione ciceroniana”, Maia 35: 195–204 Michelazzo 2004: Francesco Michelazzo, “Un modulo espressivo nel dialogo comico”, in Pretagostini and Dettori 2004, pp. 169–85 Miller 1978: Stephen G. Miller, The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Miller 1989: Margaret C. Miller, “The Ependytes in Classical Athens”, Hesperia 58: 313–29 Miller 1997: M. C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge) Millis 2015: Benjamin W. Millis (ed.), Anaxandrides (FrC 17: Heidelberg) Millis–Olson 2012: Benjamin W. Millis and S. Douglas Olson, Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II2 2318–2325 and Related Texts (Brill’s Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy: Leiden and London) Moore 2015: Christopher Moore, “Promêtheia (‘Forethought’) Until Plato”, AJP 136: 381–420

494

Bibliography

Moorhouse 1982: A. C. Moorhouse, The Syntax of Sophocles (Mnemosyne Supplement 75: Leiden) Morris 1994: Ian Morris, “Review Article: The Athenian Economy Twenty Years after the Ancient Economy”, CP 89: 351–66 Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: Sarah P. Morris and John K. Papadopoulos, “Greek Towers and Slaves: An Archaeology of Exploitation”, AJA 109: 155–225 Mossbacher 1979: Alden A. Mossbacher, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg) Mueller 1974: Dietram Mueller, Handwerk und Sprache. Die sprachlichen Bilder aus dem Bereich des Handwerks in der griechischen Literature bis 400 v.Chr. (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie Heft 51: Meisenheim am Glan) Müller 1926: Caroline Müller, “Die Demen des Eupolis”, Opuscula philologica 1: 26–32 Müller-Strübing 1884: Hermann Müller-Strübing, “Die attische schrift vom staat der Athener”, Philologus Supplementband IV, pp. 1–188 Müller-Strübing 1890: Hermann Müller-Strübing, “Die letzten Aufführungen und das Ende des alten Kratinos”, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedogogik 141: 513–49 Murray and Wilson 2004: Penelope Murray and Peter Wilson (eds.), Music and the Muses: The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City (Oxford) Naber 1880: S. A. Naber, “Ad Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum”, Mnemosyne 8: 21–55 Naeke 1842: August Ferdinand Naeke, Opuscula Philologica (2 vols.: Bonn) Nails 2002: Debra Nails, The People of Plato: a Prosopography of Plato and other Socratics (Indianapolis) Napolitano 2012: Michele Napolitano, I Kolakes di Eupoli (Studia Comica Band 4: Mainz) Nauck 1849: August Nauck, “Zu den fragmenten der griechischen tragiker”, Philologus 4: 533–60 Nauck 1851: August Nauck, “Zu den fragmenten der griechischen komiker”, Philologus 6: 412–26 Neils 1992: Jenifer Neils, “The Morgantina Phormiskos”, AJA 96: 225–35 Nelson 2000: Max Nelson, “A Note on the ὄλισβος”, Glotta 76: 75–82 Nelson 2014: Max Nelson, “Did Ancient Greeks Drink Beer?”, Phoenix 68: 27–46 Neri 1994–1995: Camillo Neri, “Le Dionisie del 424”, AFLB 37–38 (1994-1995) 261–88 Nervegna 2013: Sebastiana Nervegna, Menander in Antiquity: The Contexts of Reception (Cambridge) Nesselrath 1990: Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, Die attische mittlere Komödie: ihre Stellung in der antiken Literaturkritik und Literaturgeschichte (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte Band 36: Berlin and New York) Nesselrath 2005: Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, review of Storey 2003, in BMCR 2005.02.44 Nicholls 2011: Matthew C. Nicholls, “Galen and Libraries in the Peri Alupias”, JRS 101: 123–42 Nicolai 1996: Roberto Nicolai, “L’eloquenza perduta. Tradizioni antiche sulle orazioni di Pericle”, QS 44: 95–113 Nordgren 2015: Lars Nordgren, Greek Interjections (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs Vol. 273: Berlin and Boston) Norwood 1931: Gilbert Norwood, Greek Comedy (London)

Bibliography

495

Noussia-Fantuzzi 2010: Maria Noussia-Fantuzzi, Solon the Athenian, the Poetic Fragments (Mnemosyne Supplement 326: Leiden and Boston) O’Connor 2013: Stephen O’Connor, “The Daily Grain Consumption of Classical Greek Sailors and Soldiers”, Cheiron 43: 327–56 Ogden 1996: Daniel Ogden, Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Ogden 2001: Daniel Ogden, Greek and Roman Necromancy (Princeton) Oliva 1973: Pavel Oliva, “Solon in der Darstellung der Komödie”, Graecolatina et Orientalia 5: 25–33 Olivieri 1929–1930: Alessandro Olivieri, “Una scena dei Demi di Eupoli”, AAN NS 11: 99–110 Olson 1988: S. Douglas Olson, “Dionysus and the Pirates in Euripides’ ‘Cyclops’”, Hermes 116: 502–4 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 2007: S. Douglas Olson (ed.), Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy (Oxford and New York) Olson 2008: S. Douglas Olson (ed. and trans.), Athenaeus The Learned Banqueters Vol. IV (Loeb Classical Library 235: Cambridge Mass. and London) Olson 2010a: S. Douglas Olson, “Comedy, Politics, and Society”, in Dobrov 2010, pp. 35–69 Olson 2010b: S. Douglas Olson, “The comic poet Pherecrates, a war-casualty of the late 410s B.C.E.”, JHS 130: 49–50 Olson 2012: S. Douglas Olson, “Lysistrata and the Politics of 411 BCE”, in Marshall and Kovacs 2012, pp. 69–81 Olson 2014: S. Douglas Olson (ed.), Ancient Comedy and Reception: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Henderson (Berlin and Boston) Olson 2015: S. Douglas Olson, “Athenaeus’ Aristophanes, and the Problem of Reconstructing Lost Comedies,” in Chronopoulos and Orth 2015, pp. 35–65 Olson 2016: S. Douglas Olson, “Cratinus fr. 74 Kassel–Austin and some problematic Greek words (κύρτη and the group καλιά/καλιός/καλίδιον) at Pollux 10.160–1”, Glotta 93: 152–6 Olson–Seaberg 2018: S. Douglas Olson and Ryan Seaberg (eds.), Cratinus fragmenta incerta (FrC 3.6: Heidelberg) Olson–Sens 2000: S. Douglas Olson and Alexander Sens (eds.), Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE (Oxford) Ornaghi 2008: Massimiliano Ornaghi, “Un bersaglio esclusivo? Aristofane, Eupoli e il ῥιψάσπις Cleonimo”, Quaderni del Dipartimento di filologia linguistica e tradizione classica Augusto Rostagni 7: 39–52 Orth 2013: Christian Orth (ed.), Alkaios—Apollophanes: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (FrC 9.1: Heidelberg) Orth 2014: Christian Orth (ed.), Aristomenes—Metagenes: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (FrC 9.2: Heidelberg) Osborne 1981: Michael J. Osborne, “Entertainment in the Prytaneion at Athens”, ZPE 41: 153–70

496

Bibliography

Osborne and Hornblower 1994: Robin Osborne and Simon Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis (Oxford) Ostuni 1982/3: Giuseppe A. Ostuni, “Note ad Eupoli”, Annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia della Università di Bari 25/26: 121–8 O’Sullivan 1992: Neil O’Sullivan, Alcidamas, Aristophanes and the Beginnings of Greek Stylistic Theory (Hermes Einzelschriften 60: Stuttgart) Padilla 2000: Mark Padilla, “Gifts of Humiliation: Charis and Tragic Experience in Alcestis”, AJP 121: 179–211 Page 1941: D. L. Page, Select Papyri Vol. III Literary Papyri, Poetry (Loeb Classical Library 360: Cambridge Mass. and London) Palagia and Choremi-Spetsieri 2007: Olga Palagia and Alkestis Choremi-Spetsieri (eds.), The Panathenaic Games (Oxford) Pantis and Stamou 1991: J. D. Pantis and G. P. Stamou, “Spatial Distribution and Density Dependent Growth and Flowering of Asphodelus aestivus Brot”, Vegetatio 97: 89–96 Parke 1977: H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life: London) Parker 1983: Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion (Oxford) Parker 1988: L. P. E. Parker, “Eupolis the Unruly”, PCPS 34: 115–22 Parker 1996: Robert Parker, Athenian Religion: A History (Oxford) Parker 1997: L. P. E. Parker, The Songs of Aristophanes (Oxford) Parker 1998: Victor Parker, “Τύραννος: The Semantics of a Political Concept from Archilochus to Aristotle”, Hermes 126: 145–72 Patterson 1990: Cynthia Patterson, “Those Athenian Bastards”, CA 9: 40–73 Patzer 1994: Andreas Patzer, “Sokrates in den Fragmenten der Attischen Komödie”, in Bierl and von Möllendorff 1994, pp. 50–81 Pease 1933: Arthur Stanley Pease, “Notes on Ancient Grafting”, TAPA 64: 66–76 Pélékidis 1962: Chrysis Pélékidis, Histoire de l’éphébie attique des origines à 31 avant Jésus-Christ (Travaux et Mémoires de l’École Française d’Athènes Fasc. XIII: Paris) Penniston 1990/1991: Joyce K. Penniston, “Quot homines tot sententiae: Off-stage Acquaintances in Ancient Comedy”, CJ 86: 150–7 Peppler 1921: Charles W. Peppler, “Comic Terminations in Aristophanes Part V”, AJP 42: 152–61 Perrone 2009: Serena Perrone (ed.), Commentaria et Lexica in Papyris Reperta Part II Commentaria in Adespota Vol. 4 Comoedia et Mimus (Berlin) Perusino 1968: Franca Perusino, Il tetrametro giambico catalettico nella comedia graca (Studi di Metrica Classica 5: Rome) Perusino and Colantonio 2012: Franca Perusino and Maria Colantonio, La commedia greca e la storia (testimonianze sulla cultura greca 6: 2012) Petersen 1910: Walter Petersen, Greek Diminutives in -ion: a study in semantics (Weimar) Pettazzoni 1997: Raffaele Pettazzoni, I misteri: saggio di una teoria storico religiosa (Cosenza) Pfeiffer 1949: Rudolfus Pfeiffer (ed.), Callimachus Vol. I Fragmenta (Oxford) Phillips 1990: David Phillips, “Observations on some ostraka from the Athenian Agora”, ZPE 83: 123–48

Bibliography

497

Phillips 2007: David D. Phillips, “Trauma ek pronoias in Athenian Law”, JHS 127: 74–105 Piccirilli 1990: Luigi Piccirilli, “Tucidide, Demostrato, I Siracusani e il marchio del ‘cavallo’”, ZPE 81: 27–32 Pickard-Cambridge 1946: Arthur Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens (Oxford) Pickard-Cambridge 1962: Arthur Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb Tragedy and Comedy2 (rev. T. B. L. Webster: Oxford) Pickard-Cambridge 1988: Arthur Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens3 (rev. John Gould and D. M. Lewis: Oxford) Pierson 1759: Johannes Pierson (ed.), Moeridis Atticistae Lexicon Atticum (Leiden) Pleket 1958: H. W. Pleket, “Note on a Customs-Law from Caunus (with an excursus on the meaning of ἐλλιµένιον)”, Mnemosyne IV.11: 128–35 Pleket 1975: H. W. Pleket, “Games, Prizes, Athletes and Ideology: Some Aspects of the History of Sport in the Greco-Roman World”, Stadion 1: 49–89 Plepelits 1970: Karl Plepelits, Die Fragmente der Demen des Eupolis (Dissertation der Universität Wien 46: Vienna) Pohlenz 1912: Max Pohlenz, “Aristophanes and Eupolis”, Hermes 47: 314–17 Pohlenz 1952: Max Pohlenz, “Aristophanes’ Ritter”, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, pp. 95–128 Poultney 1936: James Wilson Poultney, The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Aristophanes (Baltimore) Poultney 1963: James W. Poultney, “Studies in the Syntax of Attic Comedy”, AJP 84: 359–76 Poultney 1979: J. W. Poultney, “Eupolidean Verse”, AJP 100: 133–44 Poursat 1968: Jean-Claude Poursat, “Danse armée dans la Céramique attique”, BCH 92: 550–615 Pretagostini and Dettori 2004: Roberto Pretagostini and Emanuele Dettori (eds.), La cultura ellenistica: L’opera letteraria e l’esegesi antica (Atti del Convegno COFIN 2001, SemRom Quarderni 8: Rome) Pritchett 1974: W. Kendrick Pritchett, The Greek State at War Part II (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Pritchett and Pippin 1956: W. K. Pritchett and Anne Pippin, “The Attic Stelai: Part II”, Hesperia 25: 178–328 Psaroudakes 2013: Stelios Psaroudakes, “The Daphne Aulos”, Greek and Roman Musical Studies 1: 93–121 Pütz 2003: Babette Pütz, The Symposium and Komos in Aristophanes (Drama Beiheft 22: Stuttgart and Weimar) Rabe 1892: Hugo Rabe, “Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto”, RhM 47: 404–13 Rackham 2000: Oliver Rackham, “Aegological Note on Eupolis fr. 13”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 349–50 Rapp 1890–1897: Rapp, “Kotys”, in W. H. Roscher (ed.), Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Leipzig), pp. 1398–1403 Raubitschek 1954: Antony E. Raubitschek, “Philinos”, Hesperia 23: 68–71 Raubitschek 1955: A. E. Raubitschek, “Damon”, C&M 16: 78–83

498

Bibliography

Reisch 1907: Emil Reisch, “Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen”, Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 58: 289–315 Renehan 1976: Robert Renehan, Studies in Greek Texts: Critical Observations to Homer, Plato, Euripides, Aristophanes and other Authors (Hypomnemata Heft 43: Göttingen) Revermann 1997: Martin Revermann, “Cratinus’ ∆ιονυσαλέξανδρος and the Head of Pericles”, JHS 117: 197–200 Revermann 2006: Martin Revermann, Comic Business: Theatricality, Dramatic Technique, and Performative Contexts of Aristophanic Comedy (Oxford) Rhodes 1972: P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford) Rhodes 1974: P. J. Rhodes, review of de Laix 1973, in JHS 94: 232–3 Rhodes 1978: P. J. Rhodes, “Bastards as Athenian Citizens”, CQ NS 28: 89–92 Rhodes 1981: P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford) Richardson 1974: N. J. Richardson (ed.), The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford) Riess 1946: Ernst Riess, “Hesychiana”, AC 15: 107–15 Risch 1937: Ernst Risch, Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache (Berlin and Leipzig) Rivier 1966: André Rivier, “L’esprit des Dèmes d’Eupolis”, in Mélanges George Bonnard (Geneva), pp. 129–49; reprinted in Études de littérature grecque: théâtre, poésie lyrique, philosophie, médecine (Université de Lausanne, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres XXI: Geneva, 1975), pp. 195–222 Robert 1918: C. Robert, review of Demianczuk, Supplementum comicum, and Schröder, Novae Comoediae fragmenta, in GGA 180: 161–97, 320 Robert 1969: Louis Robert, Opera minora selecta: Épigraphie et antiquités grecques Vol. II (Amsterdam) Robertson 1984: Noel Robertson, “The Ritual Background of the Erysichthon Story”, AJP 105: 369–408 Robinson 1931: David M. Robinson, “Bouzyges and the First Plough on a Krater by the Painter of the Naples Hephaistos”, AJA 35: 152–60 Roscalla 1998: Fabio Roscalla, Presenze simboliche dell’ape nella grecia antica (Pubblicazioni della facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Pavia 86: Florence) Rosellini 2010: Michela Rosellini, “Le costruzioni verbali nel libro XVIII di Prisciano”, Materiali e Discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 65: 69–94 Rosen 1987: Ralph M. Rosen, “Hipponax fr. 48 Dg. and the Eleusinian Kykeon”, AJP 108: 416–26 Rosen 1998: Ralph M. Rosen, “The Gendered Polis in Eupolis’ Cities”, in Dobrov 1998, pp. 149–76 Rosenbloom and Davidson 2012: David Rosenbloom and John Davidson (eds.), Greek Drama IV: Texts, Contexts, Performance (Oxford) Rosivach 2011: Vincent Rosivach, “State Pay as War Relief in Peloponnesian-War Athens”, G&R II.58: 176–83 Ross 1971: Robert C. Ross, “ἄµβων/ἄµβη and Latin umbo”, Glotta 49: 244–59 Rothwell 2007: Kenneth S. Rothwell, Jr., Nature, Culture, and the Origins of Greek Comedy: A Study of Animal Choruses (Cambridge) Rotstein 2012: Andrea Rotstein, “Mousikoi Agones and the Conceptualization of Genre in Ancient Greece”, CA 31: 92–127

Bibliography

499

Rougemont 1977: G. Rougemont, Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes Tome I Lois sacrées et règlements religieux (Paris) 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 Ruijgh 1957: C. J. Ruijgh, L’élement acheen dans la langue epique (Assen) Russell 1983: D. A. Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge) Rutherford 1881: W. Gunion Rutherford, The New Phrynichus, being a Revised Text of the Ecloga of the Grammarian Phrynichus (London) Sandbach 1970: F. H. Sandbach, “Menander’s Manipulation of Language for dramatic Purposes”, in Turner 1970, pp. 113–43 Sarati 1996: Elena Sarati, “In margine al testo di Eupoli: Note di lingua e di stile”, Aevum Antiquum 9: 107–33 Sartori 1975: Franco Sartori, Una pagina di storia ateniese in un frammento dei “Demi” eupolidei (Università degli Studi di Padova, Pubblicazioni dell’Instituo di Storia Antica 12: Padua) Scanlon 2002: Thomas F. Scanlon, Eros and Greek Athletics (Oxford) Schäfer 1997: Alfred Schäfer, Unterhaltung beim griechischen Symposion: Darbietungen, Spiele und Wettkämpfe von homerischer bis in spätklassische Zeit (Mainz) Schmalz 2006: Geoffrey C. R. Schmalz, “The Athenian Prytaneion Discovered?”, Hesperia 75: 33–81 Schmid 1938: W. Schmid, “Zu Eupolis’ ∆ῆµοι”, Philologus 93: 413–29 Schmid 1946: Wilhelm Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur I.4 Die griechische Literatur zur Zeit der attischen Hegemonie nach dem Eingreifen der Sophistik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft VII: Munich) Schmidt 1854: Mauricius Schmidt (ed.), Didymi chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta quae supersunt omnia (Leipzig) Schmidt 1971: Eva Schmidt, Spielzeug und Spiele der Kinder im klassischen Altertum (Südthüringer Forschungen 7/71: Meiningen) Schmidt 1979: M. Schmidt, “Hom. µῆλα und die antiken Erklärungen”, Glotta 57: 174–82 Schneider 1922: K. Schneider, “Kottabos”, RE XI.2 pp. 1528–41 Schneidewin 1839: F. G. Schneidewin, Coniectanea Critica (Göttingen) Schneidewin 1848a: F. W. Schneidewin, “Variae lectiones”, Philologus 3: 106–32 Schneidewin 1848b: F. W. Schneidewin, “Hymnorum in Attin fragmenta inedita”, Philologus 3: 247–66 Schneidewin 1852: F. W. S(chneidewin), review of C. Daremberg, Scolies inédites sur Hippocrate, in GGA (1852) 417–30 Schönberger 1941: J. Karl Schönberger, “Εἰρεσιώνη”, Glotta 29: 85–7 Schroeder 1915: Otto Schroeder, Novae comoediae fragmenta in papyris reperta (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen herausgegeben von Hans Lietzmann 135: Bonn) Schwarze 1971: Joachim Schwarze, Die Beurteilung des Perikles durch die attische Komödie und ihre historische und historiographische Bedeutung (Zetemata Heft 51: Munich) Schwenn 1922: Schwenn, “Kotys”, RE XI.2 pp. 1549–51 Schwyzer 1953: Eduard Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik (3 vols.: Munich)

500

Bibliography

Sears 2013: Matthew A. Sears, Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership (New York) Sestieri 1960: Pellegrino C. Sestieri, “Vase pestani di Pontecagnano”, ArchClass 12: 155–69 Sharma 1974: Indra Kumar Sharma, “Ecological Studies of the Plumes of the Peacock (Pavo cristatus)”, The Condor 76: 344–6 Shear 1995: Julia L. Shear, “Fragments of Naval Inventories from the Athena Agora”, Hesperia 64: 179–224 Shear 2003: Julia L. Shear, “Prizes from Athens: The List of Panathenaic Prizes and the Sacred Oil”, ZPE 142: 87–108 Shipton 1997: Kirsty M. W. Shipton, “The Private Banks in Fourth-Century B. C. Athens: A Reappraisal”, CQ NS 47: 396–422 Sickinger 1999: James Sickinger, Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens (Chapel Hill) Siegmann 1956: Ernst Siegmann, Literarische griechische Texte der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung (Veröffentlichungen aus der Heidelberger Papyrus-Sammlung Neue Folge Nr. 2: Heidelberg) Siewert 2002: Peter Siewert (ed.), Ostrakismos-Testimonien I (Historia Einzelschriften 155: Stuttgart) Sifakis 1971: G. M. Sifakis, Parabasis and Animal Choruses: A Contribution to the History of Attic Comedy (London) Sjölund 1938: Rode Sjölund, Metrische Kürzung im Griechischen (Uppsala) Skoda 1982: François Skoda, Le redoublement expressif : un universal linguistique. Analyse du procédé en grec ancien et en d’autres langues (Société d’études linguistiques et anthropologiques de France 15: Paris) Slater 1986: William J. Slater (ed.), Aristophanis Byzantinii Fragmenta (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 6: Berlin and New York) Slater 1989: W. J. Slater, “Grammarians and Handwashing”, Phoenix 43: 100–11 Solmsen 1909: Felix Solmsen, Beiträge zur griechischen Wortforschung (Strasbourg) Sommerstein 1977: A. H. Sommerstein, “Notes on Aristophanes’ Wasps”, CQ NS 27: 261–77 Sommerstein 1980: A. H. Sommerstein, “Notes on Aristophanes’ Knights”, CQ NS 30: 46–56 Sommerstein 1981: Alan H. Sommerstein (ed.), Knights (The Comedies of Aristophanes Vol. 2: Warminster) Sommerstein 1986: Alan H. Sommerstein, “The Decree of Syrakosios”, CQ NS 36: 101–8 Sommerstein 1996a: Alan H. Sommerstein (ed.), Frogs (The Comedies of Aristophanes Vol. 9: Warminster) Sommerstein 1996b: Alan H. Sommerstein, “How to avoid being a komodoumenos”, CQ NS 46: 327–56 Sommerstein 2007: Alan H. Sommerstein, review of Medda, Mirto and Pattoni 2006, BMCR 2007.03.39 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

Bibliography

501

Souto Delibes 2002: Fernando Souto Delibes, “El rol de la prostituta en la comedia: De Ferécrates a Menandro”, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 12: 173–91 Sparkes 1960: Brian A. Sparkes, “Kottabos: An Athenian After-Dinner Game”, Archaeology 13: 202–7 Sparkes 1962: B. A. Sparkes, “The Greek Kitchen”, JHS 82: 121–37 Sparkes 1975: Brian A. Sparkes, “Illustrating Aristophanes”, JHS 95: 122–35 Sparkes and Talcott 1970: Brian A. Sparkes and Lucy Talcott, Agora XII: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C. (2 vols.: Princeton) Spatharas 2008: Dimos Spatharas, “ταῦτ’ ἐγὼ µαρτύροµαι: Bystanders as Witnesses in Aristophanes”, Mnemosyne IV.61: 177–91 Srebrny 1929: Stephanus Srebrny, “Κωµῳδούµενα”, Eos 32: 535–43 Srebrny 1930–1931: Stephanus Srebrny, “De psaltria Eupolidis Baptarum persona”, Eos 33: 503–17 Srebrny 1936: Stefan Srebrny, “Kult der thrakischen Göttin Kotyto in Korinth und Sicilien”, in Mélanges Franz Cumont (Annuaire de l’institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves Tome IV: Brussels), pp. 423–47 Srebrny 1948–9: Stephanus Srebrny, “Quaestiunculae comicae”, Eos 43: 48–60 Stafford 2000: Emma Stafford, Worshipping Virtues: Personification and the Divine in Ancient Greece (London) Stamma 2014: Felice Stamma (ed.), Frinico: Introduzione, Traduzione et Commento (FrC 7: Heidelberg) Stavropoullos 1965: Phoibos D. Stavropoullos, “Ανασκαφη αρχαιας Ακαδηµειας”, PAE 1958: 5–13 Stefanis 1988: I. E. Stefanis, ∆ιονυσιακοι Τεχνιται (Heracleion) Steiner 1992: Ann Steiner, “Pottery and Cult in Corinth: Oil and Water at the Sacred Spring”, Hesperia 61: 385–408 Steinmetz 1964: Peter Steinmetz, “Gattungen und Epochen der griechischen Literatur in der Sicht Quintilians”, Hermes 92: 454–66 Stemplinger 1912: Eduard Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur (Leipzig and Berlin; reprint Hildesheim, Zurich and New York, 1990) Sternberg 2005: Rachel Hall Sternberg (ed.), Pity and Power in Ancient Athens (Cambridge) Stevens 1976: P. T. Stevens, Colloquial Expressions in Euripides (Hermes Einzelschriften 38: Wiesbaden) Stiévenant 1849: M. Stiévenant, “Etude sur le poëte comique Eupolis”, Mémoires de l’Académie des sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Dijon, pp. 121–39 Stone 1981: Laura M. Stone, Costume in Aristophanic Comedy (Monographs in Classical Studies: New York) Storey 1985: Ian C. Storey, “The Symposium at Wasps 1299 FF.”, Phoenix 39: 317–33 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 1993: Ian C. Storey, “The Dates of Aristophanes’ Clouds II and Eupolis’ Baptai: A Reply to E. C. Kopff”, AJP 114: 71–84 Storey 1995–1996: Ian C. Storey, “Notes on Unassigned Fragments of Eupolis”, MCr 30–1: 137–57

502

Bibliography

Storey 2000: Ian C. Storey, “Some Problems in Eupolis’ Demoi”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 173–190 Storey 2003: Ian C. Storey, Eupolis: Poet of Old Comedy (Oxford) Strömberg 1940: Reinhold Strömberg, Griechische Pflanzennamen (Götesborgs Högskolas Årsskrift XLVI, 1940.1: Göteborg) Strömberg 1946: Reinhold Strömberg, Greek Prefix Studies on the Use of Adjective Particles (Götesborgs Högskolas Årsskrift LII, 1946.3: 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) Suter 1991: Ann Suter, “∆ύσπαρι, εἶδος ἄριστε …”, QUCC 39: 7–30 Süvern 1826: J. W. Süvern, Ueber Aristophanes Wolken (Berlin) Taillardat 1965: Jean Taillardat, Les Images d’Aristophane: Études de Langues et de Style2 (Paris) Taillardat 1997: Jean Taillardat, “Σάβωνις : un autre nom de Sabazios?”, REG 110: 210–13 Tammaro 1973–1974: Vinicio Tammaro, “Note ad Eupoli”, MCr 8/9: 180–90 Tammaro 1975–1977a: Vinicio Tammaro, “Note a frammenti comici papiracei”, MCr 10/12: 95–102 Tammaro 1975–1977b: Vinicio Tammaro, “Hesychiana”, MCr 10/12: 287–91 Tammaro 1979: Vinicio Tammaro, review of Sartori 1975, in Gnomon 51: 421–4 Tammaro 1990–1993: Vinicio Tammaro, “Note Eupolidee”, MCr 25–8: 123–38 Taplin 1993: Oliver Taplin, Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama through Vase-Paintings (Oxford) Taplin 2014: Oliver Taplin, “Epiphany of a Serious Dionysus in a Comedy”, in Olson 2014, pp. 62–8 Telò 2003: Mario Telò, “Due note ai Demi di Eupoli”, Philologus 147: 13–43 Telò 2004a: Mario Telò, “Eupoli, Solone e l’adulterio: Una proposta per la persona loquens di Eup. fr. 101 K.–A. (= P. Oxy. 863)”, ZPE 146: 1–12 Telò 2004b: Mario Telò, “Gli ‘stinchi degli alberi’: epica, commedia e fisiognomica in Eup. fr. 107 K.-A.”, SemRom 7: 31–50 Telò 2006a: Mario Telò, “Milziade, Aristide e il sicofante: personaggi ‘tragici’”, in Medda, Mirto and Pattoni 2006, pp. 263–306 Telò 2006b: Mario Telò, “Αἰγίπυρρος (Eup. fr. 20 K.-A.)”, SemRom 9: 63–7 Telò 2007: Mario Telò (ed.), Eupolidis Demi (Biblioteca Nazionale, Serie dei Classici Greci e Latini XIV: Florence) Telò 2014: Mario Telò, “The Last Laugh: Eupolis, Strattis, and Plato against Aristophanes”, in Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, pp. 113–31 Telò and Porciani 2002: Mario Telò and Leone Porciani, “Un’alternativa per la datazione dei ‘Demi’ di Eupoli’, QUCC NS 72.3: 23–40 Theocharaki 2011: Anna Maria Theocharaki, “The Ancient Circuit Wall of Athens: Its Changing Course and the Phases of Construction”, Hesperia 80: 71–156 Theodoridis 1990: Christos Theodoridis, “Ῥαγολογία”, ZPE 82: 39–46 Thesleff 1954: Holger Thesleff, Studies on Intensification in Early and Classical Greek (Helsinki)

Bibliography

503

Thieme 1908: Gerhard Thieme, Quaestiones comicarum ad Periclem pertinentes capita tria (Diss. Leipzig) Thompson 1936: D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, A glossary of Greek birds (Oxford) Thompson 1957: D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, A glossary of Greek Fishes (London) Threatte 1980: Leslie Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions Vol. I Phonology (Berlin and New York) Threatte 1996: Leslie Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions Vol. II Morphology (Berlin and New York) Todd 1990: Stephen Todd, “The purpose of evidence in Athenian courts”, in Cartledge, Millett and Todd 1990, pp. 19–39 Toepffer 1889: Iohannes Toepffer, Attische Genealogie (Berlin) Torello 2008a: Giulia Torello, “The Resurrection of Aristeides, Miltiades, Solon and Perikles in Eupolis’ Demes”, Antichthon 42: 40–55 Torello 2008b: Giulia Torello, review of Telò 2007, in BMCR 2008.04.21 Torello 2012: Giulia Torello, “Astrateia and Lipostration on the Comic Stage”, in Rosenbloom and Davidson 2012, pp. 190–203 Tosi 1991: Renzo Tosi, Dizionario delle sentenze latine e greche (Milan) Totaro 1998: Piero Totaro, “Amipsia”, in Belardinelli et al. 1998, pp. 133–94 Totaro 2000: Piero Totaro, Le seconde parabasi di Aristofane (Drama Beiheft 3: Stuttgart and Weimar) Totaro 2007: Piero Totaro, review of Storey 2003, in Gnomon 79: 577–81 Toup 1790: Jo(nathan) Toup, Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium et alios lexicographos Graecos (2 vols.: Oxford) Tracy 2015: Stephen V. Tracy, “The Dramatic Festival Inscriptions of Athens: The Inscribers and Phases of Inscribing”, Hesperia 84: 553–81 Traill 1975: John S. Traill, The Political Organization of Attica: A Study of the Demes, Trittyes, and Phylai, and Their Representation in the Athenian Council (Hesperia Supplement 14: Princeton) Travlos 1971: J. Travlos, Bildlexicon zur Topographie des antiken Athen (Tübingen) Tréheux 1958: Jacques Tréheux, “Le sens des adjectifs περίζυξ et περίζυγος”, Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 32: 84–91 Trendall 1959: A. D. Trendall, “Paestan Addenda”, PBSR 1959: 1–37 Trendall and Webster 1971: A. D. Trendall and T. B. L. Webster, Illustrations of Greek Drama (London) Trojahn 2002: Silke Trojahn, Die auf Papyri erhaltenen Kommentare zur Alten Komödie (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 175: Leipzig) Tsakirgis 2007: Barbara Tsakirgis, “Fire and smoke: hearths, braziers and chimneys in the Greek house”, in Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (BSA Studies 15), pp. 225–31 Tsantsanoglou 1984: K. Tsantsanoglou, New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photius (Athens) Tsetskhladze 1996: Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), New Studies on the Black Sea Littoral (Colloquia Pontica 1: Oxford) Tucci 2008: Pier Luigi Tucci, “Galen’s storeroom, Rome’s libraries, and the fire of A.D. 192”, JRA 21: 133–49

504

Bibliography

Tuci 2012: Paolo A. Tuci, “La commedia e la katalysis tou demou del 411: Aristofane e Eupoli”, in Perusino and Colantonio 2012, pp. 235–63 Tuci 2014: Paolo A. Tuci, “Tre osservazioni sui Demi di Eupol (fr. 17 Telò = 99 Kassel – Austin): la datazione della commedia, l’identificazione del demagogo et la figura di Solone”, Aevum 88: 19–35 Turner 1970: Eric G. Turner (ed.), Ménandre: Sept Exposés Suivis de Discussions (Entretiens Hardt XVI: Vandoevres-Geneva) Ucciardello 2014: Giuseppe Ucciardello, “Il lessico sintattico-atticista fonte di Prisciano e la tradizione lessicografica bizantina”, in Martotelli 2014, pp. 33–60 Ugolini 1923: Giuseppe Ugolini, “La polemica tra Aristofane ed Eupoli”, SFIC NS 3: 151–8 Unger 1839: Robert Unger, Thebana paradoxa, sex libris (Halis) Ussher 1973: R. G. Ussher (ed.), Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae (Oxford) Valckenaer 1767: Lud. Casp. Valckenaer, Diatribe in Euripidis perditorum dramatum reliquias (Leiden) van Hooff 1990: Anton J. L. van Hooff, From Autothanasia to Suicide: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity (London and New York) van Leeuwen 1904: J. van Leeuwen (ed.), Aristophanis Plutus cum Prolegomenis et Commentariis (Leiden) van Leeuwen 1909: J. van Leeuwen (ed.), Aristophanis Vespae cum Prolegomenis et Commentariis (Leiden) van Leeuwen 1912: J. van Leeuwen, “De Eupolidis Demorum fragmentis nuper repertis”, Mnemosyne NS 40: 129–36, 207–8 van Straten 1995: F. T. van Straten, Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden, New York and Cologne) van Thiel 2014: Helmut van Thiel, Aristarch, Aristophanes Byzantios, Demetrios Ixion, Zenodot: Fragmente zur Ilias gesammelt, neu herausgegeben und kommentiert (4 vols.: Berlin and Boston) van der Valk 1942: M. H. A. L. H. van der Valk, “Zum Worte hosios”, Mnemosyne 10: 113–40 van der Valk 1951: M. H. A. L. H. van der Valk, “Quelques remarques sur le sens du nom »hosia« ”, REG 64: 417–22 Vanderpool 1949: Eugene Vanderpool, “Some Ostraka from the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia Supplement 8: 394–412, 493–6 Vanotti 1995: Gabriella Vanotti, “La carriera politica di Feace”, in Braccesi 1995, pp. 121–43 Velardi 1982–1983: Anna Maria Velardi, “I Baptai di Eupoli e i nuovi indirizzi musicali della fine del V sec. a.C.”, AION (filol.) 4–5: 65–74 Verpoorten 1962: Jean-Marie Verpoorten, “Les noms grecs et latins de l’asphodèle”, AC 31: 111–29 Vianello 1907: N. Vianello, “Una questione di plagio fra due comici greci”, Rivista di Storia Antica NS 11: 66–80 Vollgraf 1940: Wilhelm Vollgraf, “Observations sur le texte d’Athenée, à propos d’une édition récente”, REG 53: 172–96 Wade-Gery 1971: H. T. Wade-Gery, “Miltiades”, JHS 71: 212–21

Bibliography

505

Wagner 1905: R. T. J. Wagner, Symbolarum ad comicorum Graecorum historiam criticam capita quattuor (Leipzig) Wallace 2004: Robert Wallace, “Damon of Oa: a music theorist ostracized”, in Murray and Wilson 2004, pp. 249–67 Wallace-Hadrill 1955: D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, “The Eusebian Chronicle: The Extent and Date of Composition of its Early Editions”, JTS 6: 248–53 Wankel 1974: Hermann Wankel, “Die Rolle der griechischen und lateinischen Epigraphik bei den Erklärung literarischer Texte”, ZPE 15: 79–97 Wankel 1976: Hermann Wankel (ed.), Demosthenes: Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz (2 vols.: Heidelberg) Watson and Watson 2014: Lindsay Watson and Patricia Watson, Juvenal Satire 6 (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics: Cambridge) Weber 1925: Leo Weber, “Kerameikos-Kulte”, MDAI(A) 50: 139–56 Weil 1881: Henri Weil, review of Kock 1880 I, Révue critique d’histoire et de la littérature 12: 293–6 Weinreich 1953: Otto Weinreich (trans.), Aristophanes, Sämtliche Komödien (2 vols.: Zurich) Weiss 1998: Michael Weiss, “Erotica: On the Prehistory of Greek Desire”, HSCP 98: 31–61 Wellmann 1888: M. Wellmann, “Dorion”, Hermes 23: 179–93 Wessner 1931: Paul Wessner, Scholia in Iuvenalem vetustiora (Leipzig) West 1966: M. L. West (ed.), Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford) West 1978: M. L. West (ed.), Hesiod: Works & Days (Oxford) West 1981: M. L. West, “The Singing of Homer and the Modes of Early Greek Music”, JHS 101: 113–29 West 1982: M. L. West, Greek Metre (Oxford) West 1983: M. L. West, The Orphic Poems (Oxford) West 1988: Stephanie West, in Alfred Heubeck, Stephanie West and J. B. Hainsworth, A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey Vol. I Introduction and Books I–VIII (Oxford) West 1990: Martin L. West (ed.), Aeschylus Tragoediae (Biblioteca Teubneriana: Stuttgart) West 1992a: M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music (Oxford and New York) West 1992b: M. L. West (ed.), Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2 (2 vols.: Oxford) Westerink 1966: L. G. Westerink, “Quotations from Attic Comedy in Olympiodorus”, Mnemosyne IV.19: 175–6 White 1912: John Williams White, The verse of Greek comedy (London) White 1970: K. D. White, Roman Farming (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life: London) Whitehead 1986: David Whitehead, The Demes of Attica 508/7–ca. 250 B.C.: A Political and Social Study (Princeton) Whitman 1964: Cedric H. Whitman, Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Martin Classical Lectures xix: Cambridge Mass.) Whittaker 1935: M. Whittaker, “The Comic Fragments in Their Relation to the Structure of Old Attic Comedy”, CQ 29: 181–91

506

Bibliography

Wikander 1983: Örjan Wikander, “Ὀπαῖα Κεραµίς: Skylight-tiles in the Ancient World,” Opuscula Romana 14: 81–99 Wilamowitz 1870: Udalricus de Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Observationes Criticae in Comoediam Graecam Selectae (Berlin) Wilamowitz 1873: U. de Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Observationes criticae in comoediam atticam”, Hermes 7: 140–58 Wilamowitz 1876: Udalricus de Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Memoriae oblitteratae”, Hermes 11: 291–304 Wilamowitz 1879: Udalricus de Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Parerga”, Hermes 14: 161–86 Wilamowitz 1893: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, Aristoteles und Athen (2 vols.: Berlin) Wilamowitz 1907: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Zum Lexikon des Photios”, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 2–14 Wilamowitz 1919: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Lesefrüchte 152–170”, Hermes 54: 46–74 Wilamowitz 1927: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff (ed.), Aristophanes Lysistrate (Berlin) Wilamowitz 1929: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Lesefrüchte 249–266”, Hermes 64: 458–90 Wilamowitz 1962: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, Kleine Schriften IV Lesefrüchte und Verwandtes (Berlin) Wilkins 2000: John Wilkins, “Edible choruses”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 341–9 Wilkins, Harvey and Dobson 1995: John Wilkins, David Harvey and Mike Dobson (eds.), Food in antiquity (Exeter) Willi 2003a: Andreas Willi, The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Willi 2003b: Andreas Willi, “New language for a New Comedy? A linguistic approach to Aristophanes’ Plutus”, PCPS 49: 40–69 Willi 2008: Andreas Willi, “νόσος and ὁσίη: Etymological and sociocultural observations on the concepts diseas and divine (dis)favour in ancient Greece”, JHS 128: 153–71 Wilson 1999: Peter Wilson, “The Aulos in Athens”, in Goldhill and Osborne 1999, pp. 58–95 Winckelmann 1833: Augustus Guilielmus Winckelmann (ed.), Platonis dialogi selecti Vol. 1 Euthydemus (Leipzig) Winkler and Zeitlin 1992: John J. Winkler and Froma Zeitlin (eds.), Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context (Princeton) Woodford 1982: Susan Woodford, “Ajax and Achilles Playing a Game on an Olpe in Oxford”, JHS 102: 173–85 Wright 2006: Matthew Wright, “POxy. 863: A Fragment of Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros?”, CQ NS 56: 593–5 Wüst 1933: Ernst Wüst, review of Srebrny 1930–1931, Philologische Wochenschrift 53: 145–7 Wüst 1936: Ernst Wüst, “∆ιαστρέφειν in Eupolis”, Philologus 91: 114–15

Bibliography

507

Zagagi 1980: Netta Zagagi, Tradition and Originality in Plautus: Studies of the Amatory Motifs in Plautine Comedy (Hypomnemata Heft 62: Göttingen) Zelle 1892: Hans Zelle, De comoediarum Graecarum saeculo quinto ante christum natum actarum temporibus definiendis (Diss. Halle) Ziehen 1937: L. Ziehen, “Oinisteria”, RE XVII.2 pp. 2229–30 Zielinski 1885: Th. Zielinski, “Die Märchenkomödie in Athen”, in Jahresbericht der St. Annen-Schule (Saint Petersburg), pp. 1–72 Zimmermann 1992: Bernhard Zimmermann, Dithyrambos: Geschichte einer Gattung (Hypomnemata 98: Göttingen) Zimmermann 2000: Bernhard Zimmermann, “Lyric in the Fragments of Old Comedy”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 273–80 Zimmermann 2011: Bernhard Zimmermann (ed.), Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike Band I Die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit (Munich) Zogg 2014: Fabian Zogg, Lust am Lesen: Literarische Anspielung im Frieden des Aristophanes (Zetemata Heft 147: Munich) Zohary, Hopf and Weiss 2012: Daniel Zohary, Maria Hopf and Ehud Weiss, Domestication of Plants in the Old World4 (Oxford)

509

Indices Index fontium Aelian NA 10.41: test. 5 Ael.Dion. τ 23 ap. Eust. p. 1624.43–5 = i.335.22–6: fr. 6 [Ammon.] Diff. 480, p. 125 Nickau: fr. 137 [Ammon.] Diff. 488, p. 127.8–11 = De impropr. 7, pp. 143.1–4 Nickau: fr. 87 Anon. Life of Aristophanes = Ar. test. 1.1–4: test. 42 Anon. περὶ Κωµῳδίας (Proleg. de com. III.9–13, 33–5), pp. 7, 9 Koster: test. 2 Anon. περὶ Κωµῳδίας (Proleg. de com. IV.11–17), pp. 11–12 Koster: test. 38 Anon. περὶ Κωµῳδίας (An. Par. Cramer I p. 4.12–18 = Proleg. de com. XIIb.33–8, p. 40 Koster): test. 38 Antiatt. α 63: fr. 99 Antiatt. α 139: fr. 70 Antiatt. β 1: fr. 26 Antiatt. β 11: fr. 19 Antiatt. β 12: fr. 72 Antiatt. ε 7: fr. 28 Antiatt. ε 15: fr. 27 Antiatt. ε 73: fr. 141 Antiatt. η 13: fr. 142 Antiatt. θ 18: fr. 143 Antiatt. ν 5: fr. 74 Aphthon. prog. 11 (p. 34.10–13 Rabe): Dêmoi [test. iii] Apollon. Cit. de artic. (pp. 6.37–7.3 = CMG XI 1.1 p. 28.2–11 KolleschKudlien): fr. *60 Arg. I.32–4 (Olson) Ar. Ach.: test. 13 Arg. III.39–41 (Olson) Ar. Pax: test. 13 Arg. S. OC p. 2.1–5 de Marco (= S. test. 41.1–5 Radt): Dêmoi [test. *vi] Aristid. or. 3.43 (p. 306.5–11 Lenz– Behr): [test.] 21 Aristid. or. 3.51–2 (pp. 309.9–310.3 Lenz–Behr): fr. 102 Aristid. or. 3.51 (p. 309.13–16 Lenz– Behr): fr. 103

Aristid. or. 3.365 (p. 418.17–19 Lenz– Behr): Dêmoi test. *i.a Aristid. or. 3.487 (p. 459.14–16 Lenz– Behr): Dêmoi test. *ii Ar. Nu. 553–4: test. 16 Ath. 2.47e: fr. 77 Ath. 2.53a: fr. 79 Ath. 3.89f: fr. 68 Ath. 3.94f: fr. 34 Ath. 3.106b: fr. 2 Ath. 3.106b–c: fr. 120 Ath. 3.123a: fr. 99 Ath. 4.183e–f: fr. 88 Ath. 5.216c–d: Autolykos test. i Ath. 5.216d: test. 13, 15; [fr. 63] Ath. 7.287d–e: fr. 31 Ath. 7.301a: fr. 16 Ath. 7.316c: fr. 117 Ath. 9.368d: fr. 54 Ath. 9.370b: fr. 84 Ath. 9.373d–e: fr. 111 Ath. 9.380e: fr. 10 Ath. 9.397b–c, d–e, 398a: fr. 41 Ath. 9.408c–d: fr. 129 Ath. 9.409a–b: fr. 14 Ath. 10.426e: fr. 6 Ath. Epitome 12.525e: fr. 83 Choerob. ad Heph. ench. 1.6 (p. 194.16– 19 Consbruch): fr. 37 Cic. ad Att. VI.1.18: test. 3 Cic. Brut. 38, 59: fr. 102 Cic. de orat. 3.138: fr. 102 Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum I.15: test. 7 D.L. 3.7–8: fr. 36 D.S. 12.40.6: fr. 102 Diomedes, Ars Grammatica (Grammatici Latini I pp. 488.23–489.6 = Proleg. de com. XXIV.2.46–55), pp. 120–1 Koster: test. 36

510

Indices

[Dionysius of Halicarnassus] Ars Rhetorica 8.11 (Vol. VI p. 309.19–22 Usener–Radermacher): test. 27 EM p. 795.29–33: fr. 56 Epimer. Hom. A 992: fr. 1 Epimer. Hom. alphab. ω 21: fr. 51 Erot. α 103: fr. *60 Erot. π 63: fr. 13 Erot. σ 55: fr. 1 Et.Gen. B α 41: fr. 131 Et.Gen. AB s. v. ἄµβων: fr. *60 Et.Gen. AB s. v. βλύω: fr. 119 Et.Gen. AB s. v. Εὐτρήσιος: fr. *64 Et.Gen. AB s. v. καρίς: fr. 120 Et.Gen. AB s. v. πίσα: fr. 128 Et.Gen. AB s. v. τάγυρι: fr. 4 Et.Gen. B s. v. χειρόνιπτρα: fr. 129 Eunap. VS 16.2.4 (p. 84.6–10 Giangrande): fr. 107 Euseb. (Arm.) Ol. 88.2 (a. 427/6) p. 194 Karst: test. 6 Euseb. (Lat.) Ol. 88.1 (a. 428/7) p. 115.6– 8 Helm: test. 6 Eust. p. 1063.43–4 = III.861.1, 3: fr. *22 Eust. p. 1554.44–5 = i.242.30–3: fr. 128 Eust. p. 1636.49–53 = i.353.2–6: fr. *60 Excerpta barbari, Chronica minora I p. 266.4–14 Frick: test. 9 Galen, affect. dign. 7.10 (V.38.7–12 Kühn = CMG V.4.1.1 p. 26.6–11): fr. *105 Galen, puls. diff. 3.3 (VIII.653.4–8 Kühn): fr. *116 Galen, puls. diff. 4.2 (VIII.943.13–16 Kühn): fr. *116 Galen, On His Own Books 17 (vol. II p. 124.7–14 Müller = vol. I p. 173 Boudon-Millot): test. 49 Galen, περὶ τῶν ἰατρικῶν ὀνοµάτων: fr. *116 Galen in Hp. Acut. I.4 (XV.424.5–11 Kühn = CMG V 9.1 p. 120.5–10): Autolykos test. ii Galen in Hp. de artic. (XVIIIA.340.13–17 Kühn): fr. *60 Gell. 1.15.12: fr. *116

Harp. p. 62.7–9 = Α 249 Keaney: fr. 110 Harp. p. 72.3–5 = Β 8 Keaney: fr. *92 Harp. p. 122.10–11 = Ε 90 Keaney: fr. 73 Harp. pp. 200.15–201.9 = Μ 16 Keaney: fr. 130 Harp. pp. 223.12–224.9 = Ο 25 Keaney: fr. 132 Harp. p. 231.7–16 = Π 3 Keaney: fr. 98 Heph. Ench. 4.6 (pp. 14.22–15.13 Consbruch): fr. 76 Heph. Ench. 15.22 (pp. 54.19–55.6 Consbruch): fr. 42 Heph. Ench. 16.5 (pp. 57.18–58.4 Consbruch): test. 45 Heph. Ench. 16.6 (p. 58.5–8 Consbruch): fr. 42 Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 911.10–16: fr. 79 [Hdn.] Philet. 72: fr. 1 Horace, Satires I 4.1–6: test. 23 Horace, Satires II 3.11: test. 22 Hsch. β 311: fr. 91 Hsch. θ 817: fr. 99 Hsch. ι 292: fr. 20 Hsch. κ 3820: fr. *93 IG I3 1190.52: test. dub. 51 IG II2 2325.59 = 2325C.25 Millis–Olson: test. 11 IG II2 2325.126 = 2325E.11 Millis–Olson: test. 12 Ioannes Doxapatres in Aphthon. (p. 142.16–18 Rabe): Dêmoi [test. iv] Isidorus Pelusiota ep. 4.205: fr. 102 Jo.Alex. De accent. p. 36.12–17 Dindorf: fr. 94 Juvenal 2.91–2: Baptai test. ii Libanius fr. 50 β 2 (XI p. 644.5–7 Foerster): test. 32 [Longin.] de Subl. 16.3: fr. *106 Lucian, Adversus Indoctum 27: test. 29; Baptai test. i Lucian, Bis Accusatus 33: test. 30 Lucian, Nigrinus 7: fr. 102 Lucian, Piscator 25: test. 31

Index fontium Macrobius, Satires 7.5.8: test. 33; fr. 13 Marius Plotius Sacerdotus, Artes Grammaticae III.7 (Grammatici Latini VI p. 536.10–13): test. 46 Marius Victorinus, Artes Grammaticae III.1 (Grammatici Latini VI p. 144.6–8 = p. 145.35–7): test. 47 Moer. α 148: fr. 23 Olymp. in Pl. Alc. 29.8, p. 00.00 Westerink: fr. 102 Olymp. in Pl. Alc. 29.8, p. 32.5–6 Westerink: fr. 127 Olymp. in Pl. Grg. 50.9, p. 267.19–21 Westerink: fr. 127 Orion, Anthologion 6.5: fr. 114 Orus, On Orthography (Lex. Mess. fol. 280v1–9 ap. Rabe 1892. 405): fr. 38 Paus. 2.7.3: test. 4 PCair. 43227: fr. 99 Persius 1.123–5: test. 24 Phot. α 163: fr. 131 Phot. α 164: fr. 131 Phot. α 506: fr. *3 Phot. α 551: fr. 39 Phot. α 989: fr. 77 Phot. α 1173: fr. *60 Phot. α 1197: fr. 52 Phot. α 1413: fr. 81 Phot. α 1414: fr. 119 Phot. α 1716: fr. 69 Phot. α 1764: fr. 46 Phot. α 1797: fr. 57 Phot. α 1877: fr. *24 Phot. α 1901: fr. 82 Phot. α 2839: fr. 8 Phot. α 2882: fr. 71 Phot. α 3123: fr. 78 Phot. α 3145: fr. 125 Phot. α 3453: fr. 40 Phot. β 12: fr. 58 Phot. β 27: fr. 58 Phot. β 91: fr. *92 Phot. ε 563: fr. 47 Phot. ε 700: fr. 112 Phot. ε 2356: fr. *64

511

Phot. ε 2452: fr. 29 Phot. ε 2513: fr. 5 Phot. µ 412: fr. 133 Phot. ν 68: fr. 12 Phot. ν 73: fr. *32; 109 Phot. ν 215: fr. 121 Phot. ο 120: fr. 146 Phot. ο 379: fr. 132 Phot. ρ 154: fr. 83 Phot. τ 5: fr. 4 Phot. τ 434: fr. 6 Phot. φ 214: fr. 56 Phot. (z) inedit. s. v. χειρόνιπτρα: fr. 129 Phot. (z) inedit. s. v. χρή: fr. 11 Phryn. PS p. 26.2–3: fr. *24 Platonius, On the Differentiation of Comedy (Proleg. de com. I.12–18), p. 3 Koster: test. 35 Platonius, On the Differentiation of Comedy (Proleg. de com. I.13–20), pp. 3–4 Koster: Baptai test. v Platonius, On the Differentiation of Styles (Proleg. de com. II.8–17), pp. 6–7 Koster: test. 34 Platonius, On the Differentiation of Styles (Proleg. de com. II.11–12), p. 6 Koster: Dêmoi test. *v Plin. ep. 1.20.17–19: fr. 102 Plu. Alc. 13.2: fr. *116 Plu. Arist. 4.3: [fr. *126] Plu. Per. 3.7: fr. 115 Plu. Per. 24.10: fr. 110 Plu. Mor. 662d: fr. 13 Plu. Mor. 711f–12b: test. 28 Plu. Mor. 712a: fr. 107 Poll. 2.17: fr. 30 Poll. 4.57: fr. 8 Poll. 6.15: fr. 122 Poll. 6.92: fr. 129 Poll. 7.22: fr. 21 Poll. 7.123: frr. 97; 144 Poll. 7.163–4: fr. 122 Poll. 7.202: fr. 75 Poll. 9.30: fr. 55 Poll. 9.43: fr. 140

512

Indices

Poll. 9.49: fr. 122 Poll. 9.58: fr. 123 Poll. 9.69: fr. 99 Poll. 9.146: fr. 145 Poll. 10.44–5: fr. 53 Poll. 10.47: fr. 66 Poll. 10.91: fr. 86 Poll. 10.102: fr. 21 Poll. 10.151: fr. 25 Poll. 10.160–1: fr. 48 POxy. 863: [fr. 101] POxy. 1240: fr. 100 POxy. 2738 col. ii.1–11: fr. 18 POxy. 5160: from Aiges (not in Kassel– Austin) Priscian, Inst. Gramm. 18.190 (Grammatici Latini III p. 297.18–21): fr. 125 Priscian, Inst. Gramm. 18.252 (Grammatici Latini III p. 334.15–17): fr. 7 Priscian, de metr. Ter. 23 (Grammatici Latini III p. 427.22–6): fr. 84 “Probus” (Valla) on Juvenal 2.92 (p. 24 Wessner, with additional material furnished by Kassel–Austin): Baptai test. ii Quint. Inst. Orat. 1.10.17–18: fr. 17 Quint. Inst. Orat. 10.1.65–6: test. 26 Quint. Inst. Orat. 12.10.65: fr. 102 Rufinus of Antioch, Commentary on Terentian Meters (Grammatici Latini VI p. 564.7–12; cf. VI pp. 78.19–24, 556.22–557.4): test. 44 ΣVxLS Aeschin. 1.126 (275 Dilts): fr. *92 ΣP A.R. 1.1134–9 (p. 103.3–5 Wendel): fr. 83 ΣLm (P) A.R. 4.143–4 (p. 269.14–16 Wendel): fr. 83 ΣBD Aristid. or. 3.8 (III.444 p. 22–9 Dindorf): Baptai test. iii ΣB Aristid. or. 3.43 (III p. 467.23–4 Dindorf): [test. 21] ΣRQT Aristid. or. 3.365 (III p. 672.5–11 Dindorf): fr. *104 ΣABDOxon. Aristid. or. 3.51 (III p. 472.29–34 Dindorf): fr. 102

ΣRQT Aristid. or. 3.365 (III p. 672.5–11 Dindorf): Dêmoi test. *i.b ΣEΓ Ar. Ach. 61: fr. 137 ΣVEΓ3 Ar. Eq. 1291: fr. 89 ΣAld. Ar. Nu. 109: fr. 50b ΣRMBarb Ar. Nu. 252: fr. 59 ΣThom Ar. Nu. 296: [test. 20] ΣE Ar. Nu. 540: fr. 89 ΣENp Ar. Nu. 553: test. 13 ΣE Ar. Nu. 554: fr. 89 ΣRV Ar. Nu. 1001: fr. 112 ΣENM Ar. Nu. 1001: fr. 112 ΣE Ar. Nu. 1001: fr. 112 ΣEΜ Ar. Nu. 1022: fr. 134 ΣVΓ Ar. V. 902: fr. 9 ΣVΓ Ar. V. 1025: fr. 65 ΣV Ar. Pax 348: frr. 44; 138 ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 740: test. 18 ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 741: test. *19 ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 763: test. 17 ΣRVΓ Ar. Pax 790–1: fr. 15 ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 808: fr. 43 ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 1244: fr. 95 ΣRVEΓ2M Ar. Av. 129: fr. 85 ΣVEΓ3 Ar. Av. 822: fr. 135 ΣRVEΓ Ar. Av. 876: fr. 136 ΣRVΓEM Ar. Av. 1556: fr. 35 ΣRVEM Ar. Av. 1569: fr. 107 ΣΓ Ar. Lys. 397: fr. 113 ΣR Ar. Th. 942: fr. 67 ΣVEθ Ar. Ra. 308: fr. 20 ΣRVEΘ Ar. Ra. 417: fr. 80 ΣRVEΘMBarb Ar. Pl. 883: fr. 96 ΣAE Dionysius Thrax, Grammatici Graeci III p. 490.24–7: fr. 17 Σ Dionysius Thrax, Grammatici Graeci III pp. 19.24–20.6 (Proleg. de com. XVIIIa.37–44), pp. 71–2 Koster: test. 38 ΣA Heph. Ench. p. 160.18–25 Consbruch: fr. 42 ΣA Heph. Ench. p. 165.6–20 Consbruch: fr. 42 ΣRH Hp. Epid. V 7 = 5.208.2–3 Littré (Erot. fr. 17, pp. 103.22–104.6): fr. 88

Index fontium ΣbT Il. 13.353: fr. 49 ΣAbT Il. 16.353: fr. *22 ΣbT Il. 17.463: fr. 102 Σπ Juvenal 2.92 (p. 24 Wessner): Baptai test. ii ΣZ Juvenal 2.92 (p. 24 Wessner): Baptai test. ii Σφ Juvenal 2.92 (p. 24 Wessner): Baptai test. ii ΣBCVΦΩ Luc. Alex. 4 (p. 181.12–16 Rabe): frr. 45; 139 ΣVOΩ∆ Luc. JTr. 1 (p. 58.6–12 Rabe): test. 43 ΣAreth. Pl. Ap. 19c = Ar. test. 3.17–18 (p. 421 Greene): fr. 62 ΣAreth. Pl. Ap. 23e (p. 422 Greene): fr. 61 Σ Pl. Criti. 116c (p. 293 Greene): fr. 56 ΣTW Pl. Mx. 235e (p. 183 Greene): fr. 110 Σ Pl. R. 461a (p. 229 Greene): fr. 56 Σ Pl. Lg. 879c (p. 351 Greene): fr. 56 ΣKGLUEAT Theoc. 5.141b (p. 186.1–4 Wendel): fr. 33 ΣABFMGc2 Thucydides 1.30.1 (p. 32.19–21 Hude): test. 41 Stob. 3.35.3: fr. 108 Suda α 217: fr. 131 Suda α 1052: fr. 77 Suda α 1808: fr. 119 Suda α 2122: fr. 69 Suda α 2234: fr. 57 Suda α 3789: fr. 124 Suda α 3974: fr. 8 Suda α 4396: fr. 78 Suda αι 37: fr. *3 Suda β 336: fr. 112 Suda δ 756: test. 14 Suda ε 951: fr. 112 Suda ε 3657: test. 1 Suda λ 200: fr. 107 Suda µ 971: fr. 133 Suda ν 113: frr. *32; 109 Suda π 1708: test. 10 Suda τ 14: fr. 4 Suda τ 1135: fr. 112 Suda υ 125: fr. 112

513

Suda φ 125: fr. 50b Suda φ 474: fr. 56 Suda χ 471: fr. 11 Synag. χ 49: fr. 129 Synag. B α 145: fr. 131 Synag. B α 146: fr. 131 Synag. B α 487: fr. *3 Synag. B α 882: fr. 77 Synag. B α 1254 : fr. 57 Synag. B α 2085: fr. 124 Synag. Β α 2153: fr. 71 Synag. B α 2368: fr. 78 Synag. B α 2383: fr. 125 Synag. B α 2617: fr. 40 Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica p. 309.15–16 Mossbacher Ol. 88: test. 8 Themist. or. 8 (p. 110a–b Harduin): Baptai test. vi Tiberius, de Figuris Demosthenicis 46: fr. 118 Tzetzes, On the Different Types of Poets 1.78–87 (Proleg. de com. XXIa.78–87), pp. 87–8 Koster: test. 37 Tzetzes, Prolegomenon I.78–88, 97–104 (Proleg. de com. XIa), pp. 26–7 Koster: test. 37 Tzetzes, Prolegomenon I.87–97 (Proleg. de com. XIa), p. 27 Koster: Baptai test. iv Tzetzes, Scholia on Hesiod, Prolegomenon 62–3, 67–8 (pp. 35–6 Colonna): test. 40 Tzetzes, Scholia on Lycophron, Prolegomenon 66–9 (p. 3.8–11 Scheer = Proleg. de com. XXIIb.39–41, p. 113 Koster): test. 39 Valerius Apsines, Ars rhetorica 1.85 Dilts–Kennedy = 1.87 Patillon: Autolykos test. dub. iii Val. Max. 7.2 ext. 7 : Dêmoi test. dub. vii Velleius Paterculus 1.16.3: test. 25 Zonaras p. 548.3–9: fr. 50a

514

Index verborum ἀγαθός: 173 ἀγήλω and cognates: 453 ἁγνός: 353 ἄγροικος, work of: 123 ἀδυνατώτατος: 420–1 ᾄδω/αείδω: 165 ἀείδω/ᾄδω: 473 ἄζυξ: 473 ἄθυρµα: 178 αἰγιάζω: 109 αἰπολέω: 123 αἱρέω: 379 αἰσχύνοµαι + acc.: 338 ἀκαλήφη: 225 ἄµβων/ἄµβη: 216 ἀναβιόω: 371 ἀναβολή: 256–7 ἀνάκρισις: 371–2 ἀνάπλεως: 355 ἀναρίστητος and ἀνάριστος: 249 ἀνδρόγυνος: 178 ἀνεκάς: 206 ἀνέχοµαι + acc.: 258 ἀνήρ, pleonastic use after adjective: 251 ἀνθέρικος: 132 ἀνθρώπων, filling out sense of a superlative: 378 ἀνόσιος: 263 ἀντιπράττω: 259 ἀποτρώγω: 129 ἀποφαίνω: 210 ἀπρασία: 226–7 ἀργυρίδιον: 434 ἀριστεῖον: 157 ἄριστος + infinitive: 420 ἁρµογή: 117 ἄρτι: 98 ἀρτίως: 98 ἄρχω: 163 ἄρχω: 387 -ασµός nouns: 228 ἀστρατεία: 154

ἀτάρ: 204–5 ἀτρύφερος: 250–1 αὐλητρίς: 256 αὐλός: 256 αὐτίκα: 353 αὐτὸς … ἐκεῖνος: 351 αὐτὸς οὑτοσί: 163 ἄχθοµαι: 191 ἀχράς: 167 ἄωρος: 251 βαδίζων + main verb: 362 βάκκαρις/βάκχαρις: 209 βαλλάντιον/βαλλαντίδιον: 146 βάπτης: 240 n. 132 βάταλος: 278–9 βδελυρός: 206–7 βεµβράς/µεµβράς: 150–1 βιασµός: 228 βιβρώσκω: 249 βινέω: 387 βίον τρίβω: 215 βίος: 147 βληχή/βληχάοµαι: 153 βληχητά: 413 βλύω/βλύζω and cognates: 426 βόσκω: 128 βουκόλος and cognates: 139 γαµηλία: 448 γεῦµα and cognates: 120 δακτυλόδικτος: 241 n. 136 δευρί: 110 δεῦρο/δευρί: 96 δηµηγορέω and δηµαγωγέω: 336–7 διακείµενος + adverb: 347 διαπρεπῶς and cognates: 390–1 διασκευάζω: 56 διαστολή: 358 διαστρέφω: 329–30 δἰκαιος: 439 δίφρος: 222 δορκάδες: 179 δρόµος: 160

Index verborum δρῦς: 131 ἐγγράφω: 161–2 ἐγχώριος: 467 εἰπέ µοι: 351 εἰρεσιώναι: 452–3 εἰς: 217 εἰς τοὔµπροσθεν: 269 εἰσάγει: 463–4 ἔκπαγλος: 344 ἐκποδῶν and ἐµποδῶν: 358 ἐκφυλλοφόρησις: 285 ἐλάτη: 128 ἔλαφος: 179 ἐλεινός/ἐλεεινός: 147–8 ἕλκω σταθµόν: 449 ἐλλιµένιον: 201–2 ἐµβόλιµος: 412–13 ἐν + dative: 309 ἐν κύκλῳ: 399 ἔνδειξις: 285 ἐνθαδί: 110 ἐννοέοµαι: 355 ἐνουρέω: 196 ἐνταῦθα: 430 ἐξώλης: 196 ἐπιδέκατον: 229 ἐπιθυµέω and cognates: 436 ἐπιθυµέω: 402 ἐπικαθίζω: 380 ἐπικινέω: 271 n. 165 ἐπιχώριος: 255 ἐρίκη: 131 ἑστιάω: 224 ἔστι rather than ἔξεστι + infinitive: 385 ἑταιρεία: 340 εὐ-compounds: 160 εὐθέως: 105 εὐοῖ/εὐαί: 280–1 εὐώδης: 130 ἔφασκε vs. ἔφη: 331 ἔφιππος: 149 ἐχθές: 331 ἑψητοί: 113 ἕψω: 98 ἤδη: 215

515

ἥσθηµα: 468 ἥσθηµα: 468 θηρίον: 468–9 θύµβρα: 133 θυµέλη: 236 θύµον: 132 θύος: 346 -ί (deictic suffix): 110 -ιάζω: 109 ἰδέα: 215 ἱερόσυλος: 364 -ίζω verbs: 337–8 -ικός, adjectives in: 144 -ικός adjectives, of place or people: 223 ἵνα: 347 -ισµός nouns: 228 ἴυγξ: 260–1 κάθηµαι: 110 καλιόν/καλίδιον: 189 καλὀς κἀγαθός: 401–2 καλῶς (sarcastic): 272 κάπνη and καπνοδόκη: 284 καπνός: 210 καραδοκέω: 349 καρδία: 332 κάρδοπος: 143 καρίς: 108 καταλύω: 358 καταψεύδοµαι: 363 καυχάοµαι: 470 κέντρον: 381 κεφάλαιον: 417 κηλέω: 380–1 κινέω: 387 κισθός: 132 κιχάνω: 349–50 κλαίω: 363 κλεινός: 424 κοινά, τά: 457 κοίτη: 266–7 κόµαρος: 129 κότινος: 130 κότταβος: 281–2 Κοτυτώ: 279–80 κούρειον: 448

516

Indices

κράζω: 106 κράζω: 415 κράµβη: 264 κράτιστος: 378 κρίµνα: 355 κροῦµα: 429 κυκεών: 354, 355 κύρτη: 187–8 n. 97 κύτισος: 129 κωλῆ/κωλήν: 200 κῶµος: 367 λαισποδίας: 397–8 λαλεῖν: 420 λέγω: 422–3 λέπω: 332 λιποστράτιον: 154 λοπάς: 112–13 -µα nouns formed from aorist root: 468 µάλα: 401 µαλακός: 138–9 µανθάνω: 111 µαρτύροµαι: 360 µασθλήτινος and cognates: 428 µαστιγόω/µαστίζω: 261 µέγας: 247 µεῖον: 448 µελία: 131 µέλω: 135 µή + indic.: 114 µιµαίκυλον: 129 µόλυβδος/µόλιβος: 473 µόνος in exaggerated praise or blame: 381 µουσική: 137 µουσική: 111 µοχθηρός: 215 νεανιεύοµαι: 402 νεανισκεύοµαι: 151–2 νεάω: 124 νεόττιον: 439 νεοττός: 409 νεύω: 339 νίγλαρος and cognates: 429 νουθετέω and cognates: 230–1 νῦν with imperative: 121

ξενία: 183 ξύλον: 342–3 ὅ τι λέγεις: 353 οἴκαδε: 356 οἴκηµα: 190 οἴµη: 97 οἰνιστήρια: 440, 471 ὁλκάς: 331–2 ὀξυθύµια: 455–6 ὅπως: 347 ὄρνις: 409 ὁτιή: 473 οὐ … χαίρων + future: 393 οὐ γὰρ ἀλλά: 247 οὐδὲν ούδαµοῦ: 439 οὑτοσί: 163 ὀφείλω: 362 πάλαι with present or imperfect: 117–18 παλιναίρετος: 285 παλιναίρετος: 285 πανδοκεύτρια: 119 πανοῦργος: 356 πανταχοῦ: 416 παντοδαπός: 128 παρὰ µέλος: 259 Πειθώ: 380 πέπειρος, πέπων and πέπειρα: 166 περ: 418 πέρδοµαι: 333 περίζυξ: 473 Περσεφόνεια/Περσεφόνη: 168 πέττω and cognates: 346 πεύκη: 131 πιθών: 431 πιπίσκω and πίσω: 440–1 πλακοῦς: 368 πλουσίως: 268 πλύνω: 236 πνῖγος: 473 πόθος and ποθέω: 424 πορνεύοµαι: 231–2 πόρνη: 405 πουλύπους: 423 πράττω: 82

Index verborum πράττω: 359 πρῖνος: 129 προαγορεύω: 365 πρόβατον: 343 προβούλευµα: 246 πρόβουλοι: 301–2 προθυµία: 348 προθυµία: 391 προκέφαλος: 410 n. 254 πρόµαλος: 131 πρὸς βίαν: 342 προσέχω τὸν νοῦν: 173 προστρόπαιος: 456 πυριατήρια: 466 πῶς: 215 ῥάµνος: 131 ῥήτωρ: 384 ῥόµβος/ῥύµβος: 261 σαβοῖ/σαβαῖ: 280–1 σαφῶς: 359–60 σε δεῖ: 202 σελάχιον/σελάχη: 105 -σις, nouns in: 231 σκάφιον: 198 σκέλος: 200 σκιά: 210 σκιρτάω: 145 σµῖλαξ/µῖλαξ: 130 σοφός: 437 σπλάγχνα: 347 στατήρ: 432 στόµα: 116 στρατεύω: 157 σύ + string of insulting names: 356 συγγίγνοµαι: 173 συλλαµβάνω: 391 συµποιέω: 275 συντυχία: 97 συνωµοσία: 340 σφάκος: 129–30 σφυράδες/σπυράδες/σφυράθοι: 134 σχῖνος: 131 τ’ ἠδέ: 129 τάγυρι: 111 ταὧς: 170

517

τέκνον: 409 -τέον, verbal adjectives in: 416 -τήριον nouns: 339 τις with a proper noun: 380 τί δέ: 360 τλήµων: 119 τὸ δίκαιον: 416 τοιγαροῦν: 449 τοίνυν: 430 τοῖος: 350 τρέφω: 331 τρίζω: 456 τροπαῖον vs. τρόπαιον: 83 τρόποι: 423 τρυγῳδός and cognates: 340–1 τρυφερός: 250 τρυφή: 251 τύµπανον: 272 τύραννος and cognates: 464 ὕβρις: 362 ὑπάγω: 269 ὑπο-: 406 ὑποδραµατουργεῖν: 85 ὑποτραγῳδεῖν: 85 φάγρος: 173 φαρµακοπώλης: 283 φέρ’ ἴδω: 367 Φερσεφόνεια/Φερσεφόνη/Φερρέφαττα: 168 φηγός: 132 φῖτυ: 204 φλάω: 226 φλόµος/πλόµος/φλόνος: 131–2 φράζω: 106 φράσον accompanying a question: 351 φριµάττοµαι: 152–3 φύσις: 391 φυτεύω: 124 χαῖρε or χαίρετε as initial greeting: 114 χαλκίον: 346 χάρις: 359 χειρόνιπτρον: 443–4 χέρνιψ: 134 χθές: 331 χθὲς … καὶ πρώην: 337

518 χθόνιος: 255 n. 148 χθών: 255 χλόη and χλοέω: 426 χοῖνιξ: 334–5 χορδή: 153 χρέος: 363

Indices χρή vs. δεῖ: 122 χρῆν: 455 χρηστός: 444 χρυσός and χρυσίον: 432 ψάλλω and διαψάλλω: 272–3 ψάω and cognates: 433

Index locorum adesp. com. fr. 1109: 369–70 Ael.Dion. α 94: 425 α 98: 196 α 177: 178 θ 11: 222 π 2: 150 Aeschylus Danaids (fr. nov.): 102 An.Bachm. II p. 375.18–25: 269 Antiatt. α 145: 117 ε 125: 149 θ 12: 323 Aphthon. art. gramm. I.14: 245–6 Aristomen. Dionysos askêtês (fr. nov.): 102 Aristophanes frr. 58 and 590.6–10: 275 n. 169 Ar.Byz. fr. 73 Slater: 149 frr. 118–19 Slater: 144 fr. 368 Slater: 442 Aristotle fr. 441 Gigon: 54 Ath. 3.96e–f: 411 7.301b: 112 9.380c–d: 392 10.445f–6f: 120 11.494f: 471 14.634f–5c: 270 15.666b–d: 281–2

Callimachus fr. 454 Pfeiffer: 54 Choer. An.Ox. II p. 248.1–2: 440 Clem.Al. Paid. III 3.23: 278 Demosthenes 18.260: 267 Dikôn onomata AB I p. 183.17–18: 435 AB I p. 187.25–6: 467 Dorion On Fish: 107, 135, 150 EM p. 100.15: 226 p. 143.21: 323 p. 314.5: 467 p. 457.6–7: 323 p. 533.35–9: 447 p. 763.21–2: 229 p. 795.36–7: 226 p. 814.48–57: 122 Eratosthenes fr. 97 Strecker: 54 Erot. ε 36: 222 Et.Gen. α 287: 159 Et.Gud. p. 541.7–15 Sturz: 269 Euripides fr. 507.1: 360 fr. nov.: 99–100 Eust. p. 130.42–3 = I.201.7–8: 284 p. 160.5–13 = I.247.4–13: 139

Index locorum Eust. [cont.} p. 331.17 = I.517.5–6: 222 p. 725.53–4 = II.624.5–6: 257–8 p. 1095.8 = IV.14.8–9: 425 p. 1193.19 = IV.358.5–6: 440 p. 1853.59 = ii.188.18: 258 Gal. IV.784.14–15 K.: 411 XIX.144.13 K.: 134 Harp. p. 102.10–13 = Ε 1 Keaney: 229 p. 128.5–7 = Ε 108 Keaney: 229 p. 303.10–11 = Φ 30 Keaney: 176 [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 761.10–19: 407 Hsch. α 481: 450 α 1766: 164 α 2246: 224 α 4204: 425 α 4219: 425 α 4498: 225 α 4667: 226 α 4745: 177 α 7311: 117 α 8209: 435 β 317: 278 β 726, 728–30: 411 ε 370: 467 ε 1909: 178 ε 7250: 219 ε 7251: 219 ε 7592: 158 θ 524: 468 θ 685: 222 ι 814: 139 κ 452: 188 κ 3121: 224 κ 3274: 266 κ 3631: 150 κ 3886–7: 270 λ 158: 395 µ 581: 446 ν 177: 123

Hsch [cont.] ν 559: 428 ν 560: 429 ο 325: 471 ο 1875: 147 ο 948: 454 π 65: 150 π 2350: 440 σ 1156: 141 σ 2936: 134 τ 22: 111 Lex. Rhet. AB I p. 217.18–20: 435 ΑΒ Ι p. 259.18–19: 467 AB I p. 279.8–9: 447 AB I p. 287.24–5: 455 Lex. Vindob. ε 45: 229 Menander fr. 608: 384 Moer. α 133: 224 ν 15: 230 ο 26: 454 Oros fr. 151: 432 Pamphilus fr. 24 Schmidt: 471 Paus.Gr. ε 62: 126 µ 16: 457 Pherecrates fr. 155: 294 n. 180 Philox. Gramm. fr. *598: 432 Phot. α 699: 159 α 705: 224 α 1593: 225 α 1763: 177–8 β 97: 278 β 143: 147 β 166: 411 δ 441: 56 ε 581: 147

519

520 Phot. [cont.] ε 1520: 229 ε 2358: 435 θ 142: 222 ι 184: 149 κ 116: 188 κ 117: 188 κ 864: 266 κ 970: 150 µ 215: 446 ν 216: 429 ο 377–8: 454 π 26: 150 π 893: 440 σ 506: 432 τ 403: 229 φ 217: 226 Phryn. Ecl. 50: 149–50 Ecl. 119: 148 PS p. 17.13–14: 177 PS p. 20.1–2: 164 PS pp. 24.16–25.1: 116–17 PS p. 32.11: 205 PS p. 66.7–9: 223 PS p. 98.7–9: 134 PS p. 124.9–10: 176 PS fr. *257: 433 PS fr. *338: 151, 400–1 Plu. Mor. 657b–c: 114 Poll. 2.43: 417 2.176: 225 2.231: 454–5 3.52–3: 445 4.83: 429 4.173–5: 432 5.87: 411 6.32: 266 7.112: 222 8.53: 229 8.132: 200 9.89–90: 433 9.139: 230

Indices St.Byz. α 147: 158 ε 23: 158–9 ε 174: 219–20 Str. 9,411: 219 Suda α 774: 158 α 775: 159 α 788: 224 α 1810: 256 α 2177: 177–8 β 144: 463 β 177–8: 278 β 293: 147 ε 2286: 229 ι 581: 149 κ 2093: 150 µ 828: 447 µ 851: 446 ν 366: 429 ο 424–5: 454 π 2939: 265 τ 1187: 463 φ 770: 176 Suet. περὶ βλασφηµίας 4.20: 176 Synag. α 560: 177–8 β 57: 411 ε 327: 411 φ 211: 176 Synag. B α 652: 159 α 779: 224 α 1276: 205 α 2382: 435 [Theodos.Gr.] p. 11.18–22 Göttling: 136 Thom. Mag. p. 369.2–7: 269 Tim. Lex. p. 1002.28–9: 222 ΣmgVxLSi Aeschin. 2.99 (218 Dilts): 278 ΣR Ar. Nu. 427: 435

Index rerum et personarum ΣRV Ar. Pax 395: 156 ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 763: 221 ΣRV Ar. Pax 830: 256 ΣV Ar. Pax 956: 133 ΣRVEΓM Ar. Av. 1126–7: 459 ΣRV Ar. Av. 1385: 256 ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 270: 216 ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 490: 156 ΣRVMEΘBarb Ar. Ra. 427: 226 ΣRVEΘBarb Ar. Ra. 798: 445–6

521

ΣVMEΘBarb Ar. Ra. 798: 446 ΣAB E. Med. 1027: 451 ΣAZBTQLR Hes. Op. 591–6: 114 ΣbT Il. 4.476: 144 ΣA Il. 10.485: 144 ΣAT Il. 14.124: 144 ΣbT Il. 20.9: 440 ΣKGLUEAT Theoc. 5.141b (p. 186.1–4 Wendel): 411

Index rerum et personarum abuse song: 277, 297, 329 Academy: 159 origins of name of: 158–9 adultery: 401 Aegina: 46 Aelian: 44–5 Aelius Dionysius: 15 Africanus: 48 agôn: 169, 300, 440, 443 Agora: 354 Alcaeus (citharode): 473 Alcibiades: 21, 42, 141 Alcibiades: 235, 237, 238, 242, 244, 263, 307, 336, 387 Alexandria Library: 15, 25, 40, 41–2, 55, 88 scholarly work in: 14 almond tree, oath by: 253 Anaxandrides: 57, 58 metrical practices: 27 n. 28 Androcles: 336 Antiatticist: 15 Antimachus: 458 Apatouria: 448, 471 Aphareus (tragic poet): 58 Apollodorus of Athens: 46 Archedemos (politician): 119, 254–5, 336 Archestratus: 473 arguments as places: 399 Aristarchos (general): 191, 194, 201 Aristarchus of Samothrace: 15, 68, 88,

100, 102 Aristides “the Just”: 303–4, 343–4, 353, 389–90, 408, 415–16, 437, 438–9 Aristophanes: 11, 12–13, 18–19, 19–20, 21, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33–5, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58 n. 60, 59, 60, 65, 69, 76, 84, 274–5 Knights: 275 Clouds: 91 Peace, staging of: 218 Frogs: 289 metrical practices: 28–9 Aristophanes of Byzantium: 15, 16, 68, 88, 95, 100, 102, 292 n. 176, 442 Aristophanic hero: 19 Aristotle: 37, 51, 54 Aspasia: 405 asphodel: 131–2 Asteas (pot-painter): 290 Athena: 139 Athenaeus: 15 Athens described as “famous”: 424 athletes: 442–3 athletic prizes: 443, 444 Atreus: 100 Attis: 253 audience, direct address of: 173 Augeas of Eleusis: 44–5 Autolykos son of Lykon of the deme Thorikos: 184–5, 186, 220 Autolykos the father of Odysseus: 184

522

Indices

bankers: 458–9 barley: 355 bastards, legal status in Athens: 404 Bastas of Chios: 277 Bat(t)alos of Ephesus: 278 Battle of Mantineia: 341 bindweed: 130 Bouzygeian curses: 414 Bouzygete genos: 384 and 113 n., 414 bull-roarer: 261 cabbage: 264 Callias III son of Hipponicus II of the deme Alopeke: 184, 186, 333 Callimachus: 51, 55 Callistratus (scholar): 102 cavalry: 149 Chaireas: 276 chicken: 409 chorus of animals: 91 of individuals engaged in a particular urban trade: 241 of religious celebrants and/or effeminate men: 240 varying identities of within a single play: 299 citizenship, Athenian: 404 Cleon: 21, 119, 287 Cleonymus: 473 Cleophon: 336 cloak, style with which worn: 388 coins, gold: 432 colloquialism: 25, 26, 89, 108, 110, 129, 146, 228, 236, 247, 264, 284, 326, 329, 332 n. 208, 336, 337, 347, 351, 353, 355, 356, 357, 358, 360, 362, 363, 367, 393, 405, 421, 430, 469 comedy’s right of free speech, supposed restrictions on: 80 contemptuous plural: 371 cow-herding: 139 Crates Comicus: 41 Thêria: 467 Cratinus Dionysalexandros: 370 n. 230

Cratinus: 13, 33, 41, 65, 76 fr. 71: 347–8 crossroads: 455–6 Cyril of Alexandria: 47 Damasias: 395–7 Damon son of Damonides of the deme Oa: 137 dance: 138–9, 206 deme: 295, 347 democracy, Athenian: 20 Demophon son of Hippocrates: 412 Demosthenes: 278 Demostratos (politician): 21, 336, 384, 413–14 Demostratos (theatrical producer): 181 dice: 179, 356–7 Didymus: 14, 16, 88, 89, 95, 461, 462 Dieitrephes: 336 digging, as fundamental to farmer’s life: 123 Diodorus (scholar): 95 Diognetus: 364 Dionysius (scholar): 88, 100 Dionysius Zôpyros: 100 Dionysus: 62 Eleuthereus: 142 priest of: 141–2 dithyramb: 256–7 divine punishment on sinners: 343 dog: 44, 45 Molossian: 46 Doric forms: 275–6 drum: 272 dual used of body parts: 388 dung, specialized terms for: 134 Duris: 42 Egypt: 14 Eleusinian Mysteries: 306–7, 354, 364, 452 Eleven, the: 364 Ephialtes, slave of Eupolis: 45 Epidauros: 358 Eratosthenes: 42, 55 Eteonicus of Sparta: 184–5

Index rerum et personarum Eudamos or Eudemos, seller of magical devices: 283 Eupolidean: 86, 87 Euripides: 62 Autolykos: 184 Medea 395, 398: 392–3 Eurybatus: 177 Eusebius: 46–7, 48, 49 Eutresis (city in Boeotia): 220 excrement, specialized terms for: 134 excretory vocabulary: 26 exiguity, metaphorical expressions of: 335 farting: 333 figured speeches: 68 friendship: 173 Galen: 56, 88–9 garment as image for play: 59 generals and generalship: 20, 163, 341–2, 387, 397, 448 Georgius Syncellus: 48 gnomic perfect: 444 goats: 115, 144, 145–6 feeding habits of: 128 god onstage in comedy: 20 Graces, invocation of: 135 grafting: 167 gymnasia/wrestling schools: 221 hand-washing: 133 harbor-tax: 201–2 Harmodius: 343 hedonism: 111 Hekadêmos (hero): 159 Heracles: 62 Herodicus of Babylon: 55 Hesychius: 37, 40, 49, 56 Hippias: 464 Hippocrates son of Ariphron of the deme Cholargos: 411–12 Hipponicus II son of Callias II: 92, 141–2 holm oak: 129 honeybees: 381 hoplite catalogues: 162 Horace: 64, 66

523

horseman: 149 Hyperbolos: 307, 336 inheritance, wasting of as comic trope: 193 inn-keeper: 119 invocation of a deity: 135 Kleokritos: 428, 461–2 kneading trough: 143 knucklebones: 178–9 kottabos: 442 Kotytô: 241–2, 243, 261, 267, 272, 279–80 kykeon: 354, 355 Laispodias: 395–7 leather: 428 legal processes: 162, 229–30, 285, 342–3, 360, 371–2, 387 legislative procedure: 247 Leogoras of the deme Kydathenaion: 194 Long Walls: 305–6, 308–9, 333–4 Lucian: 14–15, 71, 72 Lykon of the deme Thorikos: 217 Lysander (Spartan commander): 185 Marathon: 393 Megara: 163 Melanthios (tragic poet): 174 Menander: 69 Miltiades: 303, 351, 386, 393 Minôia: 163 Moeris: 15 money-lenders: 458–9 Moses: 47 music and musician: 272 Myrrhina (courtesan): 194 mystery-cult and mystery deities: 241–2, 261, 267, 272, 280–1 mythological comedies: 19 names of comic heroes: 296 necromancy: 298 n. 186 negative forms of adjectives: 250–1 New Music: 277, 294–5 Niceratus of Acharnae: 334 Nicias: 21, 92, 93, 95, 163, 364, 387 nymphs: 263–4 oath of Rhadamanthys: 253

524

Indices

oaths: 26 non-standard: 253, 263 octopus: 421–3 olive, wild: 130 Paktôlos: 157 Pan: 116 n. 71 Panathenaic games: 293 parabasis, fragments of: 20, 31–2, 131, 144, 172–3 parabasis proper: 127, 455 paratragedy: 93, 100, 344, 348, 350 Paris: 371 parodos: 32, 298 Pausanias (Atticist lexicographer): 15 Pauson: 331 peacock: 169, 170 pear, wild: 167 Peisander: 156–7, 329, 371 Peisistratus: 464, 465 performative utterance: 451 perfume: 209 Pericles: 293 n. 178, 304, 376, 377, 378–9, 386, 403–4, 408, 412, 415 n. 458 Pericles II: 404, 406, 408 Pericles son of Hippocrates: 412 Persephone: 169–70 Persius: 66 personal name used in abusive fashion: 279, 398 Persuasion (personified): 380 Phaiax son of Erasistratus of the deme Acharnae: 107, 419 Pherecrates: 39 Philinos son of Kleippides of the deme Acharnae: 336 Philistion: 82 Phormio son of Asopios of the deme Paianea: 175, 464–5 phratries and phratry admission processes: 337, 448, 471 Phrynichus (comic poet): 39 Epialtes or Ephialtes: 45 Phrynis (citharode): 290–5, 429 Phrynondas: 176–7 pine: 131

pipe and pipe-girl: 256 Pisistratos and Pisistratids: 302, 303 piss-pot: 197, 198 Plato (philosopher): 47, 65 Symposium: 55 Plato Comicus: 34, 47, 49 plural verb used to describe action of a collective singular: 424 Plutarch: 69, 74 politicians, image of in comedy: 20 Pollux: 15 proboulos: 305 n. 195, 344 Prodamus: 137 producers, theatrical: 57 prologue: 32, 188 prostitution: 190, 231–2, 303, 338–9, 405 Protagoras of Abdera: 473 proverb: 361, 440, 457 prytaneion: 185, 444, 466 Ptolemy Chennos: 45 purse: 146 Pyanepsia festival: 452–3 Pyrilampes son of Antiphon: 169 Pyronides: 291, 296, 300–1, 343–4, 345, 350, 351, 353, 361, 366–7, 377, 387, 403–4, 412, 417, 419 n. 263, 426, 429, 430, 443 pyrrhic dance: 139 re-performance: 14 reconstruction of lost comedies: 17–18 revision of plays: 56–7, 181 rhetoric: 378, 380 Rhodia, mother of Autolykos: 208 ring, magical: 283 sacrifice: 133, 346, 347 sausage: 153 sea-anemone: 225 sea-bream: 173 seers: 341–2 Seleucus of Alexandria (scholar): 88, 95 sex: 93, 98, 199–200, 208, 220, 221, 273, 329, 338–9 sexual vocabulary: 26 sheep and goats: 106, 119, 123, 134, 139, 144, 152–3, 179, 413

Index rerum et personarum shrimp: 108 Sicilian Expedition: 305, 310, 384 Sicyon: 43 silver fir: 128 singular and plural referring to same group: 364 slaves and slavery: 20, 25, 45, 105, 182, 186, 283, 292, 298, 302, 335, 344, 345, 347, 352, 360, 363, 366, 367, 378, 399 Socrates: 55, 217 Solon: 302–3, 370 n. 231, 401, 443 n. 270, 464, 465 Sophocles: 48, 289 fr. 890: 169 Spartôlos: 156 speech as perambulation: 399 stocks: 342–3 sumptuary legislation: 448 sycophant: 353 n. 222 Symmachus: 14, 16, 88, 95, 462 Syrakosios: 335 tax-farming: 202 n. 113 Telesippos son of Hippocrates: 412

525

theft of poetic material: 59 Themistocles: 157, 390, 437 Theogenes/Theagenes: 331, 459–61, 470 Thomas Magister: 63 thyme: 132 Timaeus of Tauromenium: 47 Timotheus: 294 titles of comedies: 56–7 of comedies referring to historical individuals: 184 of Eupolis’ comedies: 183 transport-ship: 331–2 tree-medick: 129 Tzetzes: 79 Victors Lists: 51 wine: 120–1, 431 metonymically “Dionysus”: 114 mixing of: 114 wolves: 104–5, 106 word divided across two lines: 246 Zeus, priests of: 361–2