FrC 25.2 Diphilos Frr. 59-85 3911065000, 9783911065009

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Copyright
Table of Contents
Preface
Παραλυόμενος (Paralyomenos) | (“Being Discharged from Service” or “Being Paralysed”)
Παράσιτος (Parasitos) | („The Parasite”)
Πελιάδες (Peliades) | (“The Daughters of Pelias”)
Πήρα (Pēra) | (“The Pouch”)
Πλινθοφόρος (Plinthophoros) | (“The Brick Carrier”)
Πολυπράγμων (Polypragmōn) | (“The Busybody”)
Πύρρα (Pyrrha) | (“Pyrrha”)
Σαπφώ (Sapphō) | (“Sapphο”)
Σικελικός (Sikelikos) | (“The Sicilian”)
Στρατιώτης (Stratiōtēs) | (“The Soldier”)
Συναποθνῄσκοντες (Synapothnēskontes) | (“Dying Together”)
Σύντροφοι (Syntrophoi) | (“Foster-Children”)
Συνωρίς (Synōris) | (“Synōris”)
Σφαττόμενος (Sphattomenos) | (“The Slit-Throat Man”)
Σχεδία (Schedia) | (“The Raft”)
Τελεσίας (Telesias) | (“Telesias”)
Τήθη (Tēthē) | (“Grandmother”)
Τιθραύστης (Tithraustēs) | (“Tithraustes”)
Φιλάδελφος vel Φιλάδελφοι (Philadelphos or Philadelphoi) | (“The Loving Sibling(s)”)
[Φιλά]νθρωποι (Philanthrōpoi) | (“Philanthropes”)
Φρέαρ (Phrear) | (“The Well”)
Χρυσοχόος (Chrysochoos) (“The Goldsmith”)
Bibliographical Abbreviations
Bibliography
Indices

Citation preview

Fragmenta Comica Diphilos Paralyomenos – Chrysochoos

Titelei_VUR P0021551_FrC_25.2_Karamanou.qxp_. 01.12.23 16:08 Seite 1

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Titelei_VUR P0021551_FrC_25.2_Karamanou.qxp_. 01.12.23 16:08 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 25.2 · Diphilos, Paralyomenos – Chrysochoos

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Titelei_VUR P0021551_FrC_25.2_Karamanou.qxp_. 01.12.23 16:08 Seite 3

Ioanna Karamanou

Diphilus Paralyomenos – Chrysochoos (frr. 59–85) Translation and Commentary

Verlag Antike

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Titelei_VUR P0021551_FrC_25.2_Karamanou.qxp_. 01.12.23 16:08 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 https://dnb.de abrufbar. © 2024 Verlag Antike, Robert-Bosch-Breite 10, D-37079 Göttingen, ein Imprint der Brill-Gruppe (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland; Brill Österreich GmbH, Wien, Österreich) Koninklijke Brill NV umfasst die Imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike und V&R unipress. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Umschlaggestaltung: disegno visuelle kommunikation, Wuppertal Druck und Bindung: Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed in the EU Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-911065-01-6

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

For Zoe-Georgia and George-Christos liberis carissimis

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Παραλυόμενος (Paralyomenos) (“Being Discharged from Service” or “Being Paralysed”). . . . . . . . . .

11

Παράσιτος (Parasitos) (“The Parasite”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

Πελιάδες (Peliades) (“The Daughters of Pelias”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

Πήρα (Pēra) (“The Pouch”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

Πλινθοφόρος (Plinthophoros) (“The Brick Carrier”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

Πολυπράγμων (Polypragmōn) (“The Busybody”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

Πύρρα (Pyrrha) (“Pyrrha”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

Σαπφώ (Sapphō) (“Sapphο”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

Σικελικός (Sikelikos) (“The Sicilian”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Στρατιώτης (Stratiōtēs) (“The Soldier”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Συναποθνῄσκοντες (Synapothnēskontes) (“Dying Together”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Σύντροφοι (Syntrophoi) (“Foster-Children”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Συνωρίς (Synōris) (“Synōris”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σφαττόμενος (Sphattomenos) (“The Slit-Throat Man”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Σχεδία (Schedia) (“The Raft”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Τελεσίας (Telesias) (“Telesias”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Τήθη (Tēthē) (“Grandmother”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Τιθραύστης (Tithraustēs) (“Tithraustes”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Φιλάδελφος vel Φιλάδελφοι (Philadelphos or Philadelphoi) (“The Loving Sibling(s)”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 [Φιλά]νθρωποι (Philanthrōpoi) (“Philanthropes”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Φρέαρ (Phrear) (“The Well”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Χρυσοχόος (Chrysochoos) (“The Goldsmith”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Bibliographical Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

9

Preface This volume forms the second part of the three-volume commentary on Diphilus in Fragmenta Comica (25.1–3). During the last decades research on Diphilus has mainly included three unpublished dissertations from the 1980s and 1990s (the monographs of Damen 1985 and Astorga 1990, as well as the commentary of Pérez Asensio 1999), a most recently published thesis investigating selected topics of Diphilan comedy (Maggio 2023) and a volume including a Spanish translation of all fragments of new comedy with short notes at the bottom of the page (Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés 2014, overlapping in the cases of Diphilus, Apollodorus of Carystus and Apollodorus of Gela with the 2012 Catalan translation by Pérez Asensio; therefore, it is the more recent, Spanish edition that is cited). The need for an updated and full-scale commentary on Diphilus that would take into account the thriving research on comic fragments of the last two decades has thus imposed itself. The text follows the standard PCG edition by Rudolf Kassel and Colin Austin. All textual suggestions deviating from the standard edition are reported in the critical apparatus and discussed in the relevant sections on text restoration. For quotations preserved by Athenaeus I have also consulted Douglas Olson’s recent edition, which, as would be expected, aims more at the restoration of the text of Athenaeus rather than of the preserved quotations (these two do not always coincide). I am greatly indebted to Professor Dr Bernhard Zimmermann, the ‘soul’ of the KomFrag project, for entrusting me with the fragments of Diphilus, for his insightful guidance in every step of this process and, most importantly, for creating an admirable, scholarly stimulating environment for all KomFrag members. Sincerest thanks are due to a number of members of the KomFrag team, especially (in an alphabetical order) Francesco Paolo Bianchi, Stelios Chronopoulos, Mattia De Polli, Paul Martin, Virginia Mastellari, Christian Orth, Felice Stama, Maria Cristina Torchio, and Andreas Willi, for valuable feedback. I am also grateful to my dear friend, Dr Dorina Moullou, for significant advice on archaeological matters. Throughout my academic career ever since 2005 I have been fortunate to benefit from the unstinting scholarly support, philological vigour, and ample generosity of Professor Antonios Rengakos, to whom I am immensely grateful. Since early 2019 I feel especially privileged to be a member of the Classics Department of the Faculty of Philology of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, which is an ideal context for high-calibre scholarly interaction; I need to express my warmest thanks to all my colleagues for contributing to making this happen. Lastly, yet importantly, I owe a profound debt to Professor Stavros Tsitsiridis for discussing most of this book with me; my reading of the plays has benefited from his scholarly acumen, insight, and robust criticism. I thank him pectore ab imo for all his support.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

10

Diphilus

As always, the debt to my parents and brother for their unconditional love, motivation, care (especially in hard times), and advice is immeasurable. They have steadfastly stood by me in both emotional and intellectual terms; I could not have been luckier. Even more so, I feel blessed that life has so generously offered me Zoe-Georgia and George-Christos, my pride and joy. It is to these little guys (not so little anymore) that this book is most lovingly dedicated. I.K. Thessaloniki, August 2023

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

11

Παραλυόμενος (Paralyomenos)

(“Being Discharged from Service” or “Being Paralysed”) Discussion Lasserre (1975) 149–50, 156–7; Parsons (1977) 2, 10; PCG V 86; Pérez Asensio (1999) 294–5; Martis (2018) 41–4, 49–55; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 260 and n. 345; Maggio (2023) 236–41; Karamanou (2024) Title It is thanks to the edition of the verso of P. Louvre 7733 by F. Lasserre in 1975 that we were first informed of this Diphilan comedy, which would have otherwise remained completely unknown. The papyrus attests the play’s title and preserves a tattered fragment (for more detail see below, fr. 59: Citation Context and Text). Παραλύομαι denotes ‘to be released from military service’ (LSJ9 s.v. II); cf. Hdt. 5.75.2: παραλυομένου δὲ τούτων τοῦ ἑτέρου καταλείπεσθαι, 6.94.2, 7.38.3, Th. 7.16.1: τὸν μὲν Νικίαν οὐ παρέλυσαν τῆς ἀρχῆς, 8.54.3. It also means ‘to be paralysed’ (LSJ9 s.v. IV); cf. Plb 16.5.7: παραλυόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν τραυμάτων, Gal. De locis affectis 8.256, 3–4 (Kühn): ὥσπερ ἄλλοι τινὲς ἅμα ἄμφω τὰ σκέλη κατὰ βραχὺ παραλυόμενοι, Comm. Hp. Epidem. VI, 17B 50.12 (Kühn), Plu. Pyrrh. 28.7: ὡς ᾔσθετο τραυμάτων πλήθει παραλυόμενον ἑαυτόν. Thus, the play’s title-character might presumably be a soldier who is being discharged from service or someone who is coping with a physical disability. Cf. also PCG V ad loc., Pérez Asensio (1999) 294–5, Maggio (2023) 239. A respectable number of play-titles from new comedy consist of a present participle that refers to an action related to the comic plot (cf. Breitenbach 1908, 172). Diphilus evidently had a particular penchant for titles including a present participle, to judge from Anasōizomenoi/-os, Apoleipousa, Diamartanousa, Egkalountes, Elaiōnēphrourountes, Helleborizomenoi, Enagizontes, Epidikazomenos, Klēroumenoi, Mainomenos, Synapothnēskontes and Sphattomenos (on the latter two see below, the respective discussions under: Title). Arnott (2003, 27) aptly distinguished among comic titles whose participles refer to an action that has taken place at the start of a play (Men. Synaristōsai) or before that (Apollod. Car. Epidikazomenos) or exactly before the opening scene with its immediate consequences emerging in that scene (Men. Perikeiromenē) or in a specific act that crucially determines the development of dramatic action (e.g. the arbitration in Menander’s Epitrepontes and the lot-drawing scene in Diphilus’ Klēroumenoi, to judge from its reception in Plautus’ Casina) or even in several acts of a play (Men. Dis Exapatōn and Misoumenos). Accordingly, the present participle in this title seems to suggest that the act of παραλύεσθαι (‘being released from military service’ or ‘being paralysed’) may have occurred either shortly before the play’s beginning or within the course of the comic plot. Content The use of the present participle in the title is suggestive of a critical situation (discharge from military service or physical disability, see above: Title) occurring within the course of the comic plot (or perhaps shortly before its open-

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

12

Diphilus

ing). As would be expected, the person to whom the participle is referring seems to be a key character, given that the play is named after the position he is in. If the play’s title is taken to refer to someone who is being released from military service, then this character may conceivably be a discharged soldier. This likelihood would be in line with the rich tradition involving the soldier as a stock character especially in middle and new comedy (cf. also Pérez Asensio 1999, 294 and Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés 2014, 260 and n. 345). In such a case, one would expect that this dramatic personage would share the typical features of the comic soldier, such as boastful attitude, hilarious exaggerations about his prowess and inveterate travelling, though even these stock character traits are liable to be represented with a degree of variation in comedy. Some of these elements are likely to have been treated in Diphilus’ Stratiōtēs, which was a revised version of Hairēsiteichēs (‘The Tower-Sacker’) – a title bearing obvious similarities with the name Pyrgopolynices (‘The Great Tower-Sacker’) of Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus (see further below, Stratiōtēs: Content). The release from the army, in particular, might be associated with the comic motif of the travelling soldier or the one who is moving or has just moved into a new lodging, as in Men. Pk. 145–6, Mis. fr. 5 Sandbach, Plaut. MG 13–54, 88–113, Ter. Eun. 125 (cf. Arnott 1996, 188–9 on Alexis’ Eisoikizomenos, which probably reiterates this theme, and Arnott 2010, 325 and n. 204). Alternatively, the title could describe a character suffering from a physical disability. Unlike nowadays, in ancient thought deformity was regarded as a target for mockery and as activating jokes (see Arist. Poet. 1449a 34–7, Cic. De Or. 2.239); the archetypal deformed and lame character subject to mockery and abuse is Thersites (Hom. Il. 2.215–9, 265–77). Bodily impairments occasionally provide the material of a comic plot; what comes to mind, for instance, is the farcical scene in Men. Dysc. 893–958 where Getas and Sikon make fun of Cnemon’s physical helplessness after his injury, as well as the hilarious representation of the limping Lamachus in Ar. Ach. 1174–1227 and the mockery of Euripides’ lame heroes in Ar. Ach. 411, 427–9 and Pax 146–8 (cf. also the abuse of the parasite who is claiming the respect that is due to a wounded veteran in Plaut. Curc. 392–400). In comedy physical impairment may thus activate visual and verbal humour either through parody of the limping heroes of serious poetry or through the disabled character’s involvement in a series of funny situations. Comedies treating similar topics include the Aristophanic Wealth, plays by Antiphanes and Alexis entitled Traumatias, as well as Apokoptomenos/-mene and Apeglaukōmenos by Alexis. The derision of disability also emerges from iconographic sources representing comic actors impersonating crippled characters (see e.g. Garland 1995, pl. 21–22). On this topic cf. Handley (1965) 283–5, Ireland (1995) 163–4, Garland (1995) 76–8, 86 and (2017) 161–4, Olson (2002) 357–8, Rose (2003) 3, 43–4, 48, Rosen (2007) 88–91. In view of these comic parallels, it seems reasonable to suppose that in either case this character’s peculiar position would have got him involved in humorous situations. In fr. 59 the combination of fire, the use of which occurs in climactic

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παραλυόμενος (fr. 59)

13

comic scenes, with an agitated state of mind and an intense disposition or action could be suggestive of a dramatic crisis. But we cannot know whether this critical situation could be associated with the circumstances which the title-character has found himself in. Moreover, considering that the use of fire-kindlers was widespread in military contexts, it is worth raising the question whether this could be in line with the possibility that the title-character may be a soldier (see further fr. 59: Interpretation). But due to the paucity of evidence I would not hazard any further guess. For an interrogation of this evidence see also Karamanou (2024).

Fragments fr. 59 Gramm. ignot. in P. Louvre 7733v 33–35, SH 984.33–35, ed. pr. Lasserre, denuo edd. Parsons et Karamanou

. . . τ̣ω̣π̣οθ . . ω̣ρ̣α .[ ]α̣c γὰρ ἐξεcτηκότα[ . . . . τ . [ ] . . . . . . οντ̣ . . υ . . ρ . [ ] . οc cφόδρα ἐκ̣εῖνο̣ν̣ . . . [. . . .] μ̣ . . . . ο̣ν φ̣έ̣ψαλον 1 fortasse π̣ώ̣π̣οθ’ ἑ̣ώ̣ρακ̣αc (lege: ἑόρακαc) Karamanou ἐξεcτηκότα[ Lasserre vel ἐξεcτηκότα[c Kassel/Austin 3 post ἐκεῖνον ΕΦ vel ΥΦ Karamanou ]μ̣έ̣ν̣η̣ τ̣ὸ̣ν φ̣έ̣ψαλον Lasserre, prob. Parsons

] driven out of his/their mind ] intensely that one […] fire-spark Gramm. ignot. in P. Louvre 7733v 29–39, SH 984.29–39

30

35

θ̣[οίν]η̣ δ̣’ [εἰ]μὶ β̣ροτοῖc̣ιν̣ ἀ̣[φ]έ̣ψ[αλοc· ̣ ___ φέψαλοί εἰcιν ο[ἱ] c̣[ὺν μεγάλωι] ἤ̣ χωι ἀναφερ̣ ̣ [όμενοι cπινθῆρεc· ὑπὸ δέ τιν[ων λ]έγονται οἱ ἐκ τοῦ .[ λακοῦντεc cπινθῆρ̣[ε]c̣. λέγει δὲ καὶ Δ[ί]φιλο[c ἐν τῶι Παραλυομένωι ̣ . . . τ̣ω̣ π̣οθ . . ω̣ ρ̣α . [ ] α̣c γὰρ ἐξεcτηκότα[ ] . . . . τ . [ ] . . . . . . οντ̣ . . υ . . ρ . [ ] . οc cφόδρα ἐκ̣εῖνο̣ν̣ . . . [. . . .] μ̣ . . . . . ο̣ν φέ̣̣ ψαλον ___ Cοφοκλῆc δε̣. . . . .[. . . . .]. . . . .[. . .] τ̣ρόπον τοῦτον βατ. . .[. . . . . . . .]c̣cα̣[. . . .]ω̣ι καπνῶ̣[ι

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

14

Diphilus

θερ. . .ετ. .[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]. ρ̣υ . .[ ο]ὐ̣κ ἔχει cπινθῆρα[ 31–32 ἐκ τοῦ π̣ [υρὸc ἐκ]λακοῦντεc Lasserre: φυ]λακοῦντεc Parsons 36 Cοφοκλῆc δὲ̣ C̣ει̣ c̣ ύ̣ [̣ φωι Lasserre: Ἰ̣νά ̣ χ̣ [ωι Parsons: Ἰ̣ φ ι̣ κ [ ̣ λεῖ Ricciardetto 38 χ ρ υ c̣ ε ̣ vel χρ̣̣ υc̣ο̣ Parsons ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

‘[I am a feast] without any fire-spark for mortal men’. Sparks are the flares which come off with a [great] noise; some call sparks the flares that crackle from […] And Diphilus says in Paralyomenos: […] driven out of his/their mind […] intensely that one […] fire-spark (fr. 59). And Sophocles: […] this way […] with/by smoke […] (fr. inc. 966a R.). […] there is no flare Metre Iambic trimeter 1. [x] l k [l x] l k l l l k l 2. [x l k l x l k l x] l k l 3. k l k [l x l k l] l l k l Discussion Lasserre (1975) 149–50, 156–7, 174–6; Parsons (1977) 2, 10; PCG V 86; Pérez Asensio (1999) 295; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 260; Martis (2018) 41–4, 49–55; Maggio (2023) 236–41; Karamanou (2024) Citation Context Notably, this is the sole papyrus-fragment to preserve otherwise unattested lines from a Diphilan comedy alongside its (otherwise unknown) title. P. Giss. Lit. 3.4 (ed. Kuhlmann 1994, 72–6, cf. Funghi/Martinelli 1994, 139– 43) preserves an anthology of monostich sententiae that include Diph fr. inc. 113, for which, nonetheless, the papyrus is not the sole source, since this fragment is also attested in Stob. 3.37.9. Webster (19702, 172–3) attempted to attribute the comic fragment attested in P. Hib. 6 to Diphilus, relying on the similarity of the situations with Plautus’ Rudens and Vidularia, whose exempla are Diphilan plays, but this remains merely hypothetical. Diphilus’ name appears to be mentioned in P. Berol. 21163.3 and perhaps (though not conclusively) in P. Oxy. 1801, col. ii 18–19 (PCG V, Diph. test. 19), though no quotation has safely been preserved. On the papyrus-evidence for Diphilus see further Maggio (2023) 232–53. The fragment comes from the verso of P. Louvre 7733 (col. ii, 32–5), which preserves a Hellenistic epigram of unknown authorship and its commentary. This papyrus roll formed part of the mid-second century BC archive of two recluses (katochoi) of the Serapeum in Memphis, Ptolemaeus and his younger brother Apollonius, sons of the Macedonian soldier Glaukias. Their archive contained about 130 texts, both documentary (letters, accounts, petitions) and literary. Ptolemaeus and Apollonius were evidently fascinated with classical and Hellenistic literature, to judge from their collection, which comprised, among other texts, an anthology of excerpts from tragedy, new comedy and epigrams of Posidippus (P. Didot), as well as the prologue of Euripides’ Telephus (P. Mil. 15), both copied by

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παραλυόμενος (fr. 59)

15

their own hands. The choice of the literary texts kept at their archive seems to have been conditioned by their own interests. Some of these works treat the predicaments of life (tragedy, new comedy), whilst others bring forward the interaction of Greek with Egyptian culture (see Legras 2011, 193–230, Thompson 1988, 252–65, Del Corso 2014, 299–300, 306–12, Jennes 2019, 473–82). The latter feature emerges from the recto of the present roll that comprises a treatise on optical illusions (ed. pr. Wessely 1891, 312–23) and from the astronomical work The Art of Eudoxus, both of which are suggestive of the cultural interests of Hellenistic Egypt. Likewise, the verso of the present papyrus preserving the Hellenistic epigram could provide a further indication of the siblings’ penchant for Alexandrian poetry alongside Posidippus’ aforementioned epigrams. P. Louvre 7733v is written in an irregular bilinear hand dated by Laserre (1975, 146–8) to the second half of the second century BC (Cavallo’s dating to the end of the first century BC [in Cavallo 2005, 113–4] entails that it would have postdated Ptolemaeus and Apollonius). Its cursive features are suggestive of an informal copy (see Lasserre 1975, 146–8, 174, Parsons 1977, 3–4, Hutchinson 2008, 18). Having inspected the papyrus, I would note that it is a functional and experienced hand, as would be expected of a manuscript preserving a scholarly text, unlike the unformed hands of Apollonius and Ptolemaeus in P. Mil. 15 and P. Didot (see the description of the latter in Turner/Parsons GMAW2, 82). Following the editio princeps of the verso by Lasserre (1975, 149–50, revised in 1989), it was re-edited by Parsons (1977, 1–11). The comic fragment derives from a 53–line commentary (SH fr. adesp. 984) on a six-line epigram (SH fr. adesp. 983). This epigram contains a sympotic riddle, whose answer is ‘an oyster’, and bears the features of a παίγνιον (like Philitas fr. 25 Spanoudakis/CA 10), an elegant jeu d’ esprit that is typical of the refined style of Alexandrian poetry (see further Martis 2013, 117–50 and Kwapisz 2016, 158–62). The epigram has been dated in the first half of the third century BC, whilst its commentary, which offers a wealth of lexical and exegetical material, is estimated to have been written in the late third or early second century BC (cf. Lasserre 1975, 174, Parsons 1977, 12). The latter could be described as an annotated edition (‘edizione commentata’, to quote Montanari 1976, 147–8), in that it includes the literary text on which it comments, and thus needs to be distinguished from the hypomnēmata, which circulated independently from the texts to which they referred. Parallel cases of annotated editions include the commentary on Callimachus’ Aetia preserved in P. Lille 76d+78abc+79+ 82+84, on Aristotle’s Topica in P. Fay. 3 and on Nicander’s Theriaca in P. Oxy. 2221. See further Del Fabbro (1979) 70–1, Messeri-Savorelli/Pintaudi (2002) 46–50, Montanari (2006a) 11–14 and (2006b) 242–4, Vannini (2012) 801–5, Martis (2018) 49–54 with rich relevant bibliography, Maggio (2023) 236–9. The Diphilan fragment is cited under a lēmma comprising the word ἀφέψαλος of the epigram. This part of the epigram runs as follows (SH fr. 983.6–7):

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

16

Diphilus

θ̣[οίν]η̣ δ̣’ [εἰ]μὶ βροτοῖcιν ἀφ[έψ]αλοc, ἡνίκ̣α Δωcοῦc [νυμφί]ο̣c̣ [ἀ]νδιχάcῃ ῥι[νοτ]όρo[ι]c βέλεcιν. ‘I am a feast without any fire-spark (uncooked) for mortal men, when Doso’s bridegroom (Aphrodite’s lover, i.e. Ares, the knife) cleaves me with his hide-piercing weapon’. (Transl. Parsons 1977, 12 with minor adjustments) The epigram abounds in hapax legomena and rarities, which could account for the commentary’s interpretation of ἀφ[έψ]αλοc (‘without a spark of fire’, employed in the epigram in the sense of ‘uncooked’). Lasserre (1975, 156–7, 174) noted that the explanation of this rare word may point to an Atticist lexicon as one of the commentator’s sources; indeed, this is quite likely, given that φέψαλος and ἀφέψαλος are often included in ancient lexica (see below, note ad loc.). Nonetheless, owing to the early date of the commentary and its author’s notable erudition, I would not exclude that the commentator had a first-hand knowledge of Diphilus’ text as well as of Sophocles’ play that is cited directly afterwards (fr. inc. 966a R.) under the same lēmma. The latter play’s title cannot be safely identified. Parsons (1977, 10) argued against Lasserre’s attribution to Sisyphus on palaeographical grounds and instead tentatively proposed Inachus, which is, nonetheless, not without palaeographical difficulties, as he admitted. Ricciardetto (2018, 62, n. 20) recently proposed Iphicles. Apart from the fragments of Diphilus and Sophocles, the commentary also preserves tattered lines from a hexameter or elegiac poem of Theodoridas (SH 743) in ll. 48ff. Text The text comes from the verso of P. Louvre 7733 (col. ii, 32–5) and is written in an irregular bilinear hand dated to the second half of the second century BC (for an even later proposed dating see above, Citation Context). It was first edited by Lasserre (1975, 149–50) and was re-edited by Parsons (1977, 2). For the description of the hand see Lasserre (1975) 146–8 (including a photograph of the papyrus) and Parsons (1977) 3–4. As the papyrus is broken and abraded, only four words are legible, and the rest is subject to conjecture (Lasserre’s supplements are highly conjectural, some of them being unmetrical; cf. Parsons 1977, 10). In l. 1 ἐξεcτηκότα or ἐξεcτηκότα[c are equally possible. Before ἐξεcτηκότα[ I have suggested that π̣ώ̣π̣οθ’ ἑ̣ώ̣ρακ̣αc may tentatively be read (Karamanou 2024). As regards the first Π, there are traces of its horizontal and its right vertical stroke, making it easy to confuse with T, which is similarly wide in this hand. After Θ there is an unclear trace, which, nonetheless, cannot exclude the back of E. The rest of this letter, as well as the left loop of Ω, is missing in the lacuna. ΡΑ is certain. After A there is a clear remnant of an upright, whilst most of this letter is lost in the lacuna. There seems to be space only for one letter in this lacuna, to judge from the line above (where the I from Δ[ί]φιλοc is missing). At the end of the lacuna and exactly before the next A there is a trace of what looks like a descending oblique, which, in conjunction with the aforementioned upright, might be suggestive of K, which is quite wide in this hand.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παραλυόμενος (fr. 59)

17

In such a case, ἑόρακαc should be read for ἑώρακαc, as it is the former (earlier Attic) type that is employed in comedy for metrical reasons (see Arnott 1996, 766). Therefore, the line might be restored as follows: (x) πώποθ’ ἑόρακαc γὰρ ἐξεcτηκότα[. Πώποτε tends to be preceded by negation or to be used in questions often implying a negation (cf. LSJ9 s.v.). A rough translation could be: ‘have you ever seen him/them out of control…?’ or with negation (presumably 〈οὐ〉 πώποθ’) ‘you have never seen him/them out of control…’ This syntax is quite common in comedy; cf. esp. Ar. Nu. 1061–2: ἐπεὶ σὺ διὰ τὸ σωφρονεῖν τῷ πώποτ’ εἶδες ἤδη/ ἀγαθόν τι γενόμενον; Alex. fr. inc. 275.1–2: ἑόρακας ἤδη πώποτ’ ἐσκευασμένον/ ἤνυστρον ἢ σπλῆν’ ὀπτὸν ὠνθυλευμένον…; For πώποτε at this position of the trimeter cf. Diph. fr. 32.1 (Emporos): οὐ πώποτ’ ἰχθῦς οἶδα τιμιωτέρους, Diod. Com. fr. 2.26 (Epiklēros): οὐ πώποτ’ ἀπεκλήρωσεν, οὐδὲ παρέλαβεν/εἰς ταῦτα τοὺς τυχόντας. In l. 3 Lasserre plausibly read ]μ̣έ̣ν̣η̣ τ̣ὸ̣ν φέ̣̣ ψαλον, which would be suggestive of a female agent. Interpretation The preserved evidence could give scope for raising questions and exploring several alternatives; however, the tattered state of the fragment does not allow for safe conclusions. As mentioned above (Content), the title-character’s peculiar position may have got him involved in circumstances producing comic effect. At the same time, this fragment, albeit not sufficiently informative, might provide a few clues to a particular dramatic situation: i. According to its regular comic usage (see below, note ad loc.), the participle ἐξεcτηκότα[ (l. 1) could describe someone being out of control presumably due to a predicament. If the reading that has tentatively been proposed in l. 1 is taken into consideration, then the speaker of this fragment might be expressing bewilderment at this (unprecedently?) unrestrained attitude. ii. The idea of a maddened state of mind might be in line with the adverb cφόδρα (l. 2), which conveys the sense of vehement action or feeling. iii. The combination of fire with an agitated state of mind and an intense disposition or action could be suggestive of a dramatic crisis. If so, it is worth asking whether this critical situation may somehow be related to the circumstances which the title-character has found himself in. Fire does recur in critical situations in comedy, including Menander’s Ἐμπιμπραμένη (‘The Girl who is Set on Fire’) and the threat of building a bonfire around the altar in Ar. Th. 726–49, Men. Perinthia 1–12, and Plaut. Rud. 765–73 (on this pattern see e.g. Gellar-Goad 2018, 177–92). Notably, Sam. 532–56 seems to provide an articulate parallel of a scene combining fire and a character in a state of fury, as appears to be the case in the Diphilan fragment: upon discovering his daughter’s illegitimate motherhood, Niceratus becomes ἐμμανής (534) and seeks to eliminate the baby with fire (553–4, cf. Sommerstein 2013, 260, 270, 272).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

18

Diphilus

Naturally, there are a number of circumstances where a fire-spark could have come off (e.g. from a hearth or a sacrificial fire). At the same time, according to Poll. 10.146 (τούτοις δ’ ἐπακτέον σφενδόνας, λίθους, μολυβδίδας, πελέκεις, σαγάρεις, πυρεῖα, δέρρεις, διφθέρας, σκηνάς, μακέλλας, κάλους, ἱμάντας, ἁλύσεις, γυλιούς, στρωματόδεσμα), fire-kindlers (πυρεῖα) were an indispensable part of military equipment (for camp life, besieging and fire-signaling) alongside weapons, tents, and sacks (on the wide use of fire within military contexts see the collection of sources cited in Sage 1996, 111–6, Humphrey/Oleson/Sherwood 1998, 39–40, 553–4, Campbell 2004, ch. 3 and 4, Krentz 2007, 179). It is thus worth posing the question whether this practice could square with the possibility of the key-figure being a soldier. In turn, such a likelihood in conjunction with the uncontrolled and vehement action described in this fragment might be consistent with the type of the hot-headed soldier, who like Polemon in Perikeiromenē, behaves in an impetuous and uninhibited way. Most of these questions are likely to remain unanswerable, unless more textual evidence appears; nonetheless, a close reading of the available clues in conjunction with the preserved sources for comic practice could give scope for mapping this material onto the dramatic contexts and trends of fourth-century comedy. See also Karamanou (2024). 1 ἐξεcτηκότα[ Due to the lack of sufficient context, the precise meaning of ἐξεcτηκότα in this fragment cannot be recovered. This participle may bear the literal sense of ‘to arise out of ’ (Arist. HA 493b 4, Poll. 4.68), as well as the meanings ‘to stand aside from’ (Isoc. 4.171) and ‘to be driven out of one’s senses’ [Arist.] Phgn. 812a 37, Isoc. 5.18, X. Cyr. 5.2.34, Plb. 32.15.9, D.S. 21.21.3, schol. vet. Eur. Hipp. 935 Cavarzeran). The preserved evidence suggests that in comedy, in particular, it denotes ‘to be driven out of one’s mind’; see Men. Sam. 279: ἐξέστηχ’ ὅλως (‘I am completely out of my mind’, cf. Sommerstein 2013, ad loc.), 620–1: ἐξέστηκα νῦν/ τελέως ἐμαυτοῦ καὶ παρώξυμμαι σφόδρα, Hērōs 70: ἐξέστηκας· οἷα γὰρ λέγεις, adesp. com. fr. 751: ἐξεστηκὼς ὑπὸ γήρως. The participle’s proposed translation in the present case is thus consistent with its usual comic sense. Consequently, one might infer that the character (or characters) mentioned in this line is in a highly excited state, having lost self-control or been driven out of his senses. If the restoration that I have proposed above (see Text) is taken into account, then the line may read as follows: (x) πώποθ’ ἑόρακαc γὰρ ἐξεcτηκότα[. The postponement of γάρ frequently features in comic passages (e.g. Ar. Eq. 32, Av. 342, 1546, Lys. 489, Pl. 146, 1188) and is usual in Diphilus, as in fr. 42.13–14 (Zōgraphos), fr. inc. 102.1; for more detail see below fr. 60.3–4n. (Parasitos). According to this reading, the speaker appears to be asking his/her interlocutor whether the latter has ever witnessed that person being at such a state of frenzy (or, in negation, asserting that the interlocutor has never seen that person at such a state of frenzy). 2 cφόδρα ‘exceedingly’, ‘vehemently’; this adverb intensifies the result of the verb’s action or the features of the adjective to which it is attached. Its function

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παραλυόμενος (fr. 59)

19

is similar to that of πάνυ, though it occurs less often than the latter with a negative. See Dover (1987) 57–9. It is employed by Diphilus also in fr. 37.6 (Enagismata or Enagizontes): καὶ σφόδρ’ εὐτελὲς λέγω, fr. 64.1 (Peliades) and fr. 85.2 (Chrysochoos); cf. also fr. 61.5n. (Parasitos) on σφοδρός. See Ar. Ach. 509: ἐγὼ δὲ μισῶ μὲν Λακεδαιμονίους σφόδρα, Εq. 1288: μὴ σφόδρα βδελύττεται, Pl. 571: σφόδρα βάσκανος, Eup. fr. inc. 384.2: οὕτω σφόδρ’ ἀλγῶ τὴν πολιτείαν ὁρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν, Eub. fr. 22 (Danae): †ἐκεῖνος δ’ ἦν ἰσχυρὸς σφόδρα/ †καὶ ἀτεράμων, ὃς με κλάουσαν τότε/ οὐκ ἠλέησε. If in the present case cφόδρα is in any way associated with ἐξεcτηκότα[ in l. 1, then the closest available parallel could be Men. Sam. 621 (cited in the previous note): παρώξυμμαι σφόδρα. 3 φ̣έ̣ψαλον ‘fire-spark’; a rare Attic noun. Cf. Paus. Att. φ 6 (Erbse): φέψαλοι καὶ φεψάλυγες∙ σπινθῆρες ἀναφερόμενοι ἐκ τῶν καιομένων ξύλων and the Atticistic lexicon of Moeris (φ 31 Hansen): φεψαλοὺς τοὺς σπινθῆρας ’Αττικοί. On its meaning see also Poll. 7.110, Hesych. α 8625 (Cunningham). Cf. Arist. Mete. 367a 5, Lyc. 178, Strab. 11.14.4. As the commentator preserving Diphilus’ fragment notes, φέψαλοι are the fire-sparks that come off with a great noise. Likewise, Ar. V. 226–7 provides an articulate simile between the swarm of wasps that noisily pour out of a nest biting with their hot stings and the intense energy, heat, and noise of fire-sparks (cf. Biles/Olson 2015, 158–9): καὶ κεκραγότες/πηδῶσι καὶ βάλλουσιν ὥσπερ φέψαλοι. This term, albeit rare, is repeatedly used in comedy in both literal and metaphorical terms; cf. Ar. Ach. 667–9: οἷον ἐξ ἀνθράκων πρινίνων φέψαλος ἀν-/ήλατ’ ἐρεθιζόμενος οὐρίᾳ ῥιπίδι,/ἡνίκ’ ἂν ἐπανθρακίδες ὦσι παρακείμεναι. In Ar. Ach. 279 φέψαλος is employed as a collective singular to form part of a proverb referring to the hanging of the shield over the hearth, which entails that during peace the shield will not be used anymore (see Sommerstein 1980, ad loc.): ἡ δ’ ἀσπὶς ἐν τῷ φεψάλῳ κρεμήσεται. Cf. schol. vet. Ar. Ach. 279 (Wilson): ἐν τῷ φεψάλῳ· ἐν τῷ καπνῷ […] διὰ δὲ τὸ μὴ δεῖσθαι ἀσπίδος εἰρήνης γενομένης, ἔφη “ἐν φεψάλῳ κρεμήσεται ἡ ἀσπίς” (on this proverb see also Eust. on Od. 16.288/ II 124.34–7 Stallbaum and Sud. φ 240 Adler). The term is metaphorically used in Ar. Lys. 107 to describe ‘the glitter of a lover’ (ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ μοιχοῦ καταλέλειπται φεψάλυξ); cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 295, Maggio (2023) 240–1. Soph. fr. inc. 966a R., which has been preserved alongside the Diphilan fragment, is similarly tattered. At the end of l. 1 the Sophoclean passage reads καπνῶ̣[ι, which is naturally associated with fire-sparks and could point to a literal use of φέψαλος in this case. The commentator’s explanation of the term under this lēmma focuses on its literal meaning (‘Sparks are the flares which come off with a [great] noise; some call sparks the flares that crackle from […]’). Its literal sense is also presupposed in the interpretation of the epigram, in which fire-spark is employed with reference to cooking (SH fr. 983.6: θ̣[οίν]η̣ δ̣’ [εἰ]μὶ βροτοῖcιν ἀφ[έψ]αλοc). Likewise, there is nothing in the tattered Diphilan fragment to suggest a sense other than the literal meaning of φέψαλος.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

20

Diphilus

If Lasserre’s palaeographically plausible reading ]μ̣έν̣ η ̣ ̣ τ̣ὸν̣ φέ̣̣ ψαλον, which has been accepted by Parsons, is taken into consideration, this could point to a female character involved in the use of the fire-spark (or to sth. of feminine grammatical gender associated with it). According to my own inspection of the papyrus, after ἐκεῖνον there is a faint upper, slightly oblique trace of ink at the right side of the letter, which might be compatible with the upper right part of Ε or perhaps even the right oblique stroke of Y; in any case, a vowel is needed here for metrical reasons, so that the third syllable of the first metre remains short. The next letter is almost certainly Φ. After that and before the lacuna there is a trace of an upright.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

21

Παράσιτος (Parasitos) (“The Parasite”)

Discussion Ribbeck (1883) 27; Marigo (1907) 425–8; Webster (19702) 157, 164– 5; Nesselrath (1985) 92–111 and (1990) 309–17; Damen (1985) 82–91; Astorga (1990) 59–60, 149–57; Pérez Asensio (1999) 298–313; Wilkins (2000a) 71–86; Tylawsky (2002) 101–4; Antonsen-Resch (2004) 15–6; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/ Montañés (2014) 261–3 Title Comedies of the same title were written by Alexis and Antiphanes and in Roman drama by Plautus (the lost Parasitus Medicus and Parasitus Piger). The parasite as a comic character without being named as such (as far as we know) first appears in Epich. frr. 31–33 (from Elpis ē Ploutos, see Wüst 1950, 359–63, Kerkhof 2001, 165–71). The term παράσιτος was originally attached to the priestly dignitaries who received free meals in return for the services that they offered in holy festivals (Ath. 6.234D-235E); cf. Ziehen (1949) 1377–81, Zaidman (1995) 197–202. The available evidence is not conclusive as to when this term was introduced in comedy to describe the obsequious, witty companion feeding himself at the expense of his rich friends. Arnott (1968) and (1996, 542–5) proposed that it was introduced by Alexis, on the basis of the testimony of Carystius of Pergamum (Ath. 6.235E), which is corroborated by fr. 183 of Alexis’ Parasitos (dating to ca. 360–50 BC, according to Webster 1952, 17–8). The rhetoric of this fragment suggests that the name Παράσιτος is introduced to inform the audience of this character’s nickname (καλοῦσι δ’ αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ νεώτεροι/Παράσιτον ὑποκόρισμα). On the other hand, Nesselrath (1985, 102–3, n. 314) argued in favour of Aristophanes’ son Araros, Alexis’ earlier contemporary, relying on Ath. 6.237A (τοῦ δὲ ὀνόματος τοῦ παρασίτου μνημονεύει ’Αραρὼς ἐν ῾Υμεναίῳ διὰ τούτων). Though it is not explicitly reported that Araros was the first to attach the term παράσιτος to this particular character, the context of this passage implies that after Araros this term became very common in more recent poets (πολὺ δ’ ἐστὶ τὸ ὄνομα παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις), among whom Athenaeus includes Alexis; this suggests that Araros could have anticipated Alexis as regards the introduction of the term. Nonetheless, we have no good reason to contest Carystius’ testimony, and Nesselrath (1985, 103, n. 314, cf. Nesselrath 1990, 317) plausibly tries to reconcile both pieces of evidence, by suggesting that Alexis was the first to write a comedy entitled Parasitos, and that this is the essence of Carystius’ reference; this is convincing, in my opinion, if we consider that Carystius in fact consulted the didascalic sources (Ath. 6.235E: τὸν δὲ νῦν λεγόμενον παράσιτον Καρύστιος ὁ Περγαμηνὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ διδασκαλιῶν εὑρεθῆναί φησιν ὑπὸ πρώτου ’Αλέξιδος) and would have thus noticed that Alexis’ play is the first comedy to be named after a parasite. It seems very likely, as Webster (19702, 64–5) pointed out, that the parasite became a stock comic character in fourth-century comedy due to the change of

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

22

Diphilus

dramatic focus from public to domestic life. As regards the conceivable social context giving the incentive for the formation of the comic parasite, Nesselrath (1990, 309) suggested that this comic character could be a development of the social type of the flatterer. At the same time, the comic parasite may well be associated with the gradual emergence of patronage — a minor social phaenomenon in democratic Athens, which augmented in post-democratic conditions (see Millet 1989, 25–37). Accordingly, middle comedy abounds in parasite characters. The homonymous play by Alexis provides an articulate description of the parasite’s edacity (fr. 183), while the fragments preserved from Antiphanes’ comedy of the same title focus on feasting (frr. 180–4), which is the locus of the parasite’s activity par excellence. Cf. also Diodorus (Diphilus’ brother) fr. 2 (from Epiklēros, see Belardinelli 1998, 269–70, 272–87), Arar. fr. 16 (from Hymenaios, cf. Tartaglia 2019, 305–7), Eub. fr. 72 (from Oedipus, cf. Hunter 1983, 162), Timocl. fr. 8 (from Drakontion, see Apostolakis 2019, 82–3), fr. 31 (Pyktēs), Antiph. fr. 80 (Didymoi), fr. 193 (Progonoi), Alex. fr. 259 (Phygas), Aristophon fr. 5 (Iatros), Axionic. fr. 6 (Chalkidikos). See further Ribbeck (1883) esp. 18–31, 61–82, Giese (1908), Nuchelmans (1977) 362–75, Nesselrath (1985) 99–111 and (1990) 309–17 (including rich relevant material), Arnott (1996) 542–7 and (2010) 322–4, Damon (1997) 11–4, 25–36, Olson/Sens (1999) 80, Wilkins (2000a) 71–86, Fisher (2000) 371–8, Tylawsky (2002) 59–91, Bruzzese (2004) 158–61, Antonsen-Resch (2004) 5–19, Corner (2013) 51–76, Bouyssou (2013) 87–105, Olson (2022) 302–3, De Poli (2022) 118–25. Old comedy used the term κόλαξ to refer to the type later named παράσιτος (Phryn. Ecl. 109), to judge from Eup. Kolakes fr. 172 (see Tylawsky 2002, 43–4, Storey 2003, 188–90, Olson 2016, 33–4). In middle comedy, especially in Alexis, the terms κόλαξ and παράσιτος tend to be used interchangeably, as in fr. 262 (Pseudomenos), fr. 121 (from Kybernētēs, involving parasites participating in an agon of flattery) and fr. 233 (from Tokistēs, delivered by someone who bears the features of a parasite, whilst being characterized by Athenaeus as κόλαξ); see Arnott (1996) 336–7, 731 and (2010) 323–4, Nesselrath (1985) 104–5 and (1990) 312, n. 73. Nonetheless, from Menander onwards, as Nesselrath (1985, 106–21) pointed out, the toady seems to be negatively coloured for having sinister aims and a corrupting effect as compared to the rather harmless parasite being obsessed with food. This divergence also emerges from the different comic masks for the parasite and the flatterer, which involve distinctive facial and characterological features (Poll. 4.148: τῷ δὲ παρασίτῳ μᾶλλον κατέαγε τὰ ὦτα, καὶ φαιδρότερός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ ὁ κόλαξ ἀνατέταται κακοηθέστερον τὰς ὀφρῦς). See similarly Athenaeus’ discussion of parasites and toadies in distinct sections citing a remarkable number of comic parallels (6.234C - 248C on parasites and 248C - 262A on flatterers). Cf. nonetheless the skepticism of Brown (1992) 98–107 and Pernerstorfer (2009) 151–66 regarding such a clear-cut comic distinction between the negative delineation of κόλαξ and the innocuous portrayal of παράσιτος. Diphilus is attested to have delineated the character of the parasite in Telesias, as Menander sketched the type of the flatterer in Kolax (see below, Telesias, note

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 60)

23

on test. ii). In addition, there are several Diphilan quotations delivered by or concerning parasites preoccupied with covering their needs for sustenance: fr. 48 (Theseus), fr. 53 (Lēmniai), frr. 74–76 (Synōris, see notes ad loc.). Content The evidence for this comic plot includes four fragments enumerating 25 lines in total, which may provide some clues to key themes and particular stylistic features. Athenaeus’ testimony about the context of fr. 62 refers to an imminent wedding, which entails that the arranged dinner is likely to be the wedding feast. This piece of evidence may thus provide a hint to the dramatic situation, which could seem to involve a wedding feast that is about to be cancelled. Frr. 61–62 are explicitly attributed to the title-character, that is, the parasite, who is also the most obvious speaker of fr. 60; this character is employing varying rhetorical techniques to transform his needs for alimentation into discourse. Fr. 60, for instance, comprises a monologue in which he appeals to the authority of a Euripidean line – as the parasite in Synōris fr. 74.7–9 — thus underscoring his agony to meet the needs of his wretched belly. Apart from the striking comic exaggeration, the parasite brings into play several literary devices, such as anaphora, contrast, paronomasia, polyptōton and an effective ring-composition. In turn, fr. 61 brings forward the comic motif of a parasite’s self-description, which is rhetorically embellished, as it is constructed upon a contrast priamel conjoined with a series of antitheses and cases of amplification. The similarly comic motif of hindering a parasite from having dinner pervades the rhetorically elaborate fr. 62, which features a formulaic opening and an amplification hilariously culminating at a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke. Fr. 63 resumes the description of particular features of parasites and their expected behaviour at the banquet.

Fragments fr. 60 K.-A. (60 K.)

5

10

εὖ γ’ ὁ κατάχρυσος εἶπε πόλλ’ Εὐριπίδης· “νικᾷ δὲ χρεία μ’ ἡ ταλαίπωρός τέ μου γαστήρ.” ταλαιπωρότερον οὐδέν ἐστι γὰρ τῆς γαστρός, εἰς ἣν πρῶτον ἐμβαλεῖς 〈k l〉 ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἕτερον ἀγγεῖον, ἐν πήρᾳ φέροις ἄρτους ἄν, ἀλλ’ οὐ ζωμόν, ἢ διαφθερεῖς. εἰς σπυρίδα μάζας ἐμβαλεῖς, ἀλλ’ οὐ φακῆν∙ οἰνάριον εἰς λάγυνον, ἀλλ’ οὐ κάραβον. εἰς τὴν θεοῖς ἐχθρὰν δὲ ταύτην εἰσφόρει ἅπανθ’ ἑαυτοῖς μηδὲν ὁμολογούμενα. κοὐ προστίθημι τἆλλα, διότι πανταχοῦ διὰ τὴν τάλαιναν πάντα ταύτην γίνεται

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

24

Diphilus

1–2 Εὐριπίδης, νικᾷ δὲ “χρεία Kaibel, prob. Fraenkel 3 οὐδέν ἐστι γὰρ Mus.: γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστι ACE 4 πρῶτον ἐμβαλεῖς A: πάντ’ ἂν ἐμβαλεῖς CE: πρῶτον ἂν πάντ’ ἐμβάλοις Morel (ἐμβάλοις iam Musurus): βρωτὸν ἐμβαλεῖς 〈ἅπαν〉 Meineke: πρῶτα μὲν πάντ’ ἐμβαλεῖς Richards: πάντ’ ἂν ἐμβάλοις 〈ἅμα〉 Herwerden: φόρτον ἐμβάλλεις 〈ἅμ’ ὃν〉 Tucker 4–5 ἐμβαλεῖς / ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἕτερον ACE: ἐμβαλεῖς 〈ὅσ’ ἂν〉 / οὐχ ἕτερον 〈εἰς〉 ἀγγεῖον Wilamowitz (οὐκ 〈εἰς〉 ἕτερον 〈δ’〉 iam Herwerden, οὐκ 〈εἰς〉 ἕτερον Tucker), recepit Kaibel (‘praeterea fort. ἐμβάλλεις’): ἐμβαλεῖς 〈ὅσα〉 / δέχετ’ οὐχ ἕτερον Peppink 5 ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἕτερον ἀγγεῖον ACE: ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἕτερον εἰς ἄγγος Meineke (ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐς ἕτερον ἄγγος Casaubon): ὡς οὐχ ἕτερον ἀγγεῖον Kock 9 εἰσφόρει ACE: εἰσφορεῖς Grotius: εἰσφορεῖν Meineke 10 ἅπανθ’ Jacobs: πάντα ACE: 〈τὰ〉 πάνθ’ Musurus: πάντ’ 〈ἔσθ’〉 Meineke: παντοῖ’ Tucker 11–12 secludendos esse censet Hirschig 12 ταύτην CE (compend.): ταῦτα A: ταὐτὰ Vollgraff: τὰ κακὰ Casaubon, Kock: γίγνεται Morel: πάντα γίγνεται κακά Meineke Anal. Ath.

5

10

Golden Euripides spoke well, indeed, of many things: “Need overpowers me – that and my wretched stomach”. You see, there is nothing more wretched than the stomach, into which you would first throw 〈k l〉. Yet there is no other vessel like that; in a pouch you can carry loaves of bread, but not broth, or you will destroy it. In a basket you will put barley cakes, but not lentil soup; a little wine in a flask, but not crayfish. But into this stomach, hateful to the gods, go throw all things that are wholly incompatible with one another! I do not add the rest, because everywhere everything happens due to this miserable thing

1–12 Ath. 10.422A-B μέγα γὰρ ἀνθρώποις κακὸν ἡ γαστήρ, περὶ ἧς φησιν Ἄλεξις ἐν Συναποθνᾑσκουσι (fr. 215) … Δίφιλος δ’ ἐν Παρασίτῳ (δέ φησιν CE) εὖ — γίνεται For a great evil to people is the stomach, of which Alexis says in Dying together (fr. 215):  — And Diphilus in Parasite: — 1 Eust. in Il. 20.232–5 (IV 396.20–1 van der Valk) Εὐριπίδης δέ, ὃν κατάχρυσον ὁ Δίφιλος εἶπε And Euripides, whom Diphilus named ‘golden’

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. l kk k l k | l k l l l k l 2. l l k l l | l k l l l k l 3. l l k l l kk k | l k l k l 4. l l k l l l k | l k l k l 5. l l k kk l l k | l l l k l

(penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura)

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

25

Παράσιτος (fr. 60)

6. l l k l l l k | l k l k l 7. l kk k l l | l k l l l k l 8. l kk k l k l k |l l l k l 9. l l k l l l k |l l l k l 10. k l k l l | l k kk k l k l 11. l l k l k l k | kk k l k l 12. kk l k l l | l k l l l k l

(hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) V 355–6; Meineke (1839–57) IV 402–4; Hirschig (1849) 28; Kock (1880–88) II 560–1; Vollgraff (1882) 421–2; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 126–9; Fraenkel (1960) 4, n. 1; Webster (19702) 157; PCG V 86–7; Damen (1985) 82–9; Nesselrath (1985) 45, 58, n. 146; Astorga (1990) 59–60, 154–6; Pérez Asensio (1999) 298–304; Rusten (2011) 668–9; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/ Montañés (2014) 261–2; Hanink (2014) 169–71; Maggio (2023) 117–21 Citation Context This fragment derives from the tenth book of Deipnosophistai which includes a whole section on the deprecation of gluttony (411A – 422D). Voraciousness is disdained as against the abstemiousness of philosophers, such as Pythagoras, Plato and Menedemus, and famous generals like Aristeides and Epameinondas. The Diphilan quotation is preceded by Alex. fr. 215 (a passage coming from Synapothnēskontes) similarly describing the plights caused by the belly. This section comprises further poetic parallels on gluttony, of which the closest to this passage are Hom. Od. 7.216–21 (412C – D) and Eur. fr. 282.4–5 Κ. (from Autolycus, cited in Ath. 413C-D), both stressing the misfortune of being victim of one’s belly. The same section preserves fr. 45 of Diph. Heracles (421E) vividly delineating the speaking character’s gross overeating. In Deipnosophistai excessive eating is considered to involve – apart from superficiality and lack of intellectual seriousness – a tendency towards immoderate behaviour, which may lead to moral degradation and even acts of violence and social disorder (cf. Hill 2011, 96–101, Wilkins 2000a, 69–70). Diphilus’ description of Euripides as ‘golden’ is also attested in Eustathius’ commentary on the Iliad in the context of his reference to Ganymede, the most handsome of mortals, who was abducted by the gods to serve as Zeus’ cup-bearer on Olympus and thus dwell among the immortals (Il. 20.234–5: τὸν καὶ ἀνηρείψαντο θεοὶ Διὶ οἰνοχοεύειν/ κάλλεος εἵνεκα οἷο ἵν’ ἀθανάτοισι μετείη). Eustathius then mentions the variant provided by Sappho, who presented Hermes as assuming the role of the wine-pourer on Olympus. According to the same source, Sappho also praises her brother Larichus for being an oinochoos at the Prytaneion of Mitylene (Sapph. T 203 Voigt). The Byzantine scholar subsequently reports that Euripides himself, whom Diphilus names ‘golden’, is said to have poured wine to the dancers in Athens: καὶ Εὐριπίδης δέ, ὃν κατάχρυσον ὁ Δίφιλος εἶπε, λέγεται οἰνοχοεῖν ’Αθήνῃσι τοῖς καλουμένοις ὀρχησταῖς.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

26

Diphilus

This piece of information is attested in more detail by Theophrastus (fr. 576 Fortenbaugh), who specifies that Euripides assumed this role for members of distinguished Athenian families dancing in honour of Delian Apollo in Phlya, the poet’s native deme, where a painting depicting these events has been preserved (TrGF V1, T33b): πυνθάνομαι δ’ ἔγωγε καὶ Εὐριπίδην τὸν ποιητὴν οἰνοχοεῖν ’Αθήνῃσι τοῖς ὀρχησταῖς καλουμένοις· ὠρχοῦντο δ’ οὗτοι περὶ τὸν τοῦ ’Απόλλωνος νεὼν τοῦ Δηλίου τῶν πρώτ〈ων ὄ〉ντες ’Αθηναίων καὶ ἐνεδύοντο ἱμάτια τῶν Θηραϊκῶν. ὁ δὲ ’Απόλλων οὗτός ἐστιν ᾧ τὰ Θαργήλια ἄγουσι, καὶ διασῴζεται Φλυῆσιν ἐν τῷ δαφνηφορείῳ γραφὴ περὶ τούτων (this testimony overlaps with Hieronymus fr. 28 Wehrli). Athenaeus, who cites this passage attributing it to Theophrastus’ treatise on drunkenness (Περὶ Μέθης), makes Ulpian observe that wine-pourers come from the greatest families (Ath. 10.424E-F). The reference to Euripides is thus suggestive both of the significance given to the ceremony of wine-pouring in Athens and of his eminent status; nonetheless, the accuracy of this biographical material cannot be safely established, since we cannot deduce, as Lefkowitz (2001, 65) aptly pointed out, that Theophrastus had in fact consulted the temple records that he mentioned. Cf. also Fortenbaugh (2011) 725, Tyrrell (2020) 14. Text In l. 2 Kaibel ad loc. proposed that the Euripidean quotation could start with χρεία, which would provide the following meaning: ‘das beste aber was er (i.e. Euripides) gesagt hat, ist dies’, to quote Fraenkel (1960, 4, n. 1), who accepted Kaibel’s reading, although he had earlier challenged it (Fraenkel 1924, 365, n. 1). Accordingly, Fraenkel suggested that l. 1 could provide the beginning of the speaker’s monologue signposted with the formulaic opening antithesis between πολλά and the specific element to which the speaker draws attention introduced with νικᾷ δέ. The Euripidean lines (fr. inc. 915 K.), however, are also attested by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 6.2.12.3), according to whom the quotation begins with νικᾷ δέ, which tells against Kaibel’s reading. There is no sound reason to contest the restored form of the Euripidean fragment (on which see ll. 2–3n.), considering also that in several cases νικᾷ is associated by Euripides with abstract, personified ideas, as here; see fr. 97.3 K. (Alcmene): λόγος γὰρ τοὔργον οὐ νικᾷ ποτε, fr. 200.3–4 K. (Antiope): σοφὸν γὰρ ἓν βούλευμα τὰς πολλὰς χέρας/νικᾷ. In l. 4 the transmitted text is unsatisfactory. Morel tried to reconcile and correct the text of codd. A (πρῶτον ἐμβαλεῖς) and CE (πάντ’ ἂν ἐμβαλεῖς), by suggesting εἰς ἣν πρῶτον ἂν πάντ’ ἐμβάλοις. This is presumably the closest one can get to the manuscript tradition to recover a reading that provides an adequate meaning. In this case ἐστί would have to be implied in the first half of l. 5 (on this type of ellipsis see K-G I §354), and the rough meaning would be ‘there is no other vessel like that’, which would juxtapose the stomach with the vessels that follow. In a similar vein Richards (1909, 92) proposed πρῶτα μὲν πάντ’ ἐμβαλεῖς. Wilamowitz (teste Kaibel) attempted to conjoin the meaning of ll. 4 and 5, proposing εἰς ἣν πρῶτον ἐμβαλεῖς 〈ὅσ’ ἂν〉/οὐχ ἕτερον 〈εἰς〉 ἀγγεῖον (‘to which you will first throw what you would not in any other vessel’). This conjecture offers a clear and concrete meaning, but it nonetheless requires a double intervention in the transmitted text, as it

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 60)

27

rejects ἀλλά and inserts the much-needed εἰς (cf. Casaubon and Meineke accommodating ἀλλά and εἰς in the same line by changing ἀγγεῖον to ἄγγος). Kaibel’s present tense ἐμβάλλεις improves upon Wilamowitz’s conjecture, as – unlike the future ἐμβαλεῖς — it stresses the parasite’s habit of throwing anything in his belly. The conjectures made by Herweden (1864, 44: πάντ’ ἂν ἐμβάλοις 〈ἅμα〉), Tucker (1908, 200: φόρτον ἐμβάλλεις 〈ἅμ’ ὃν〉) and Peppink (1936, 61: ἐμβαλεῖς 〈ὅσα〉/ δέχετ’ οὐχ ἕτερον) are remote from the ms. tradition. Meineke’s reading βρωτόν instead of πρῶτον, albeit palaeographically attractive, is unprecedented in comedy. In l. 10 the emendation ἅπανθ’ by Jacobs (1809, 9) involves a minimal intervention to the transmitted reading (πάντα) and conveys the required emphatic meaning (‘all together’). Tucker’s παντοῖ’ is rarely used in comedy and in most of these rare cases it is either attached to a noun (Ar. V. 644–5: δεῖ δέ σε παντοίας πλέκειν/εἰς ἀπόφευξιν παλάμας) or occurs as πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖα (Pseudepich. fr. 244.1, Alex. fr. 131.2–3 [Lebēs]). In ll. 11–12 Hirschig assumed that the two last lines might belong to a comment by Athenaeus, on the grounds that he often uses προστίθημι in several forms in his work. To account for the iambic trimeter, he suggested that it may have resulted from a pastiche in the last line drawing on the end of the fragment of Alexis’ Synapothnēskontes, which is quoted in Deipnosophistai before the present fragment (νῦν δὲ διὰ ταύτην ἅπαντα γίνεται τὰ δυσχερῆ). However, it should be stressed that προστίθημι in the first-person singular is not unprecedented in comedy, which could tell against Hirschig’s view; see e.g. Antiph. fr. 204.6 (Timon) in a passage including this verb in an embedded oratio recta that could not possibly involve Athenaeus’ own words. Moreover, if these lines are deleted, we would miss the possible παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke in l. 12, which results from Vollgraff ’s palaeographically feasible conjecture ταὐτά, on the basis of ταῦτα provided by A; this reading involves a possible defecatory joke (‘through this miserable thing [i.e. the belly] all things come out the same’), which would conclude the passage in a ludicrously subversive way as against the reading ταύτην of C and E, which does not offer anything particular. Meineke’s πάντα γίγνεται κακά (Meineke 1867, 191) is evidently an effort to reproduce the meaning of the aforementioned line of Alexis, but it seems to be mere padding and does not contribute to the meaning. Interpretation These lines derive from a monologue which cannot be delivered by any other than the title-character, namely the parasite, in view of the focus on the speaker’s subservience to the needs of his wretched stomach – an idea that corresponds to frr. 61 and 62 attributed by Athenaeus to the parasite of Diphilus’ play. To dignify his predicament and corroborate his case, the parasite appeals, as often in middle and new comedy, to a Euripidean saying as a piece of traditional wisdom. Several comic characters similarly feature pseudo-literary pretensions, such as the speaker in Antiph. fr. 205.4–10 (Traumatias) and the boastful cook in Antiph. fr. 1 (Agroikos), who, like the parasite in the present fragment, appropriate tragic quotations to serve gastronomic purposes (cf. further fr. 74.10–11n. [Synōris]).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

28

Diphilus

The comic effect of this monologue emerges from the incongruity between the authority of the tragic quotation and the parasite’s bathetic agony to fulfil the needs of his miserable belly. This effect is enhanced by comic techniques, such as the accumulation of varying types of food in a list (ll. 5–8), comic exaggeration (l. 9) and the possible παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke in the last line. The parallelism of culinary terms (ll. 5–8) aims at drawing an effective contrast of vessels meant to carry specific types of food with the stomach as a vessel where anything is thrown. The stylistic elaboration of this monologue emerges from a number of literary figures, such as anaphora (ll. 5–8), successive antitheses (ll. 5–10), paronomasia (ll. 5–6), polyptōton (ll. 11–12), and the ring-composition stressing the wretchedness of the parasite’s stomach (ll. 2, 12). 1–3 Euripides is often quoted as a source of authority in middle and new comedy, as in Men. Epit. 1123–6 (cf. Cusset 2003, 96, 158–62, Furley 2009, 253–4), Philem. fr. inc. 153 (cf. Bruzzese 2011, 44–5, 56), adesp. com. fr. 1048 (attributed to Philemon by Fraenkel 1964, I 516), Philippid. fr. 18 (Philadelphoi) and earlier in Nicostr. fr. inc. 29 (on the possibly hidden irony of that passage see Lamari 2023, ad loc.). Tragic quotations are similarly deployed as respectable precedents in Diph. fr. 29 (Elaiōnēphrourountes), Antiph. fr. 1 (from Agroikos, see Konstantakos 2000, 47–50 and Olson 2023, 42, 45–6), adesp. com. fr. 1062 (cf. Xanthakis-Karamanos 1994, 340–3, Stama 2014, 373–7). By that time Euripides has become a ‘classic’ (thus Knöbl 2008, 54; on his popularity from the fourth century onwards see Green 1994, 50–8, Funke 1965–66, 238–42, Xanthakis–Karamanos 1980, 28–34, Knöbl 2008, passim, Hanink 2014, esp. 31–59, 80–9, 134–43, 159–83, Duncan 2017, 535–45; cf. also comic titles expressing fondness of Euripides such as Axionic. Phileuripides). The audience’s acquaintance with the great tragic poets through reperformances of old dramas, in conjunction with the growth of book production, which was accessible to erudite circles, gave rise to a ‘tragic culture’ (see Farmer 2017, 5 and passim). Fifth-century tragedy was thus highly recognizable, so that the spectators were able to grasp the comic effect of the appropriation of tragic quotations. Euripidean lines, in particular, acquired a gnomic status and served as a point of reference for jokes and wordplays. As in the present passage, tragedy is perceived as part of everyday life, and, in turn, comic characters pose as connoisseurs of poetry; nonetheless, their feigned erudition is occasionally exposed, as in Diph. fr. 74 (from Synōris, see below), Antiph. fr. 205 (Traumatias), Men. Asp. 424–8 (see Gomme/Sandbach 1973, 98, Cusset 2003, 154–7). This wealth of metatheatrical references thus forms a yardstick for the extent of tragedy’s cultural prestige. See further Knöbl (2008) 53–4, 60–4, Wright (2013) esp. 615–22, Hanink (2014) 166–76, Farmer (2017) 59–63, Scardino/Sorrentino (2015) 210–2. On the comic use of tragic style in gastronomic contexts see Arnott (1996) 20–1. 1 εὖ γ’ An eloquent parallel occurs in adesp. com. fr. 1048.1–3 (cited in PCG V 87): νὴ τὸν Δία τὸν μέγιστον, εὖ γ’ Εὐριπίδης/εἴρηκεν 〈εἶναι〉 τὴν γυναικείαν φύσιν/πάντων μέγιστον τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις κακῶν. For similar comic appeals to

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 60)

29

the authority of intellectuals cf. Hegesipp. fr. 2 (Philetairoi): ’Επίκουρος ὁ σοφὸς ἀξιώσαντός τινος/εἰπεῖν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὅ τι ποτ’ ἐστὶ τἀγαθόν,/ὃ διὰ τέλους ζητοῦσιν, εἶπεν ἡδονήν./εὖ γ’, ὦ κράτιστ’ ἄνθρωπε καὶ σοφώτατε·/τοῦ γὰρ μασᾶσθαι κρεῖττον οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ ἓν/ἀγαθόν· πρόσεστιν ἡδονῇ γὰρ τἀγαθόν. κατάχρυσος ‘gilded’. A rare, metaphorical use of the epithet to convey the sense of high worth. Cf. Taillardat (19652) 329 (‘l’ or etant le symbole de la grande valeur’); see Ar. Nu. 912 (with Dover 1968, ad loc.): χρυσῷ πάττων, Pl. 268: ὦ χρυσὸν ἀγγείλας ἐπῶν, Eur. Med. 1255: σᾶς γὰρ χρυσέας ἀπὸ γονᾶς/ἔβλαστεν, Pi. P. 3.73, Pl. Grg. 486d. The line from Ar. Ec. 826 (κεὐθὺς κατεχρύσου πᾶς ἀνὴρ Εὑριππίδην, ‘covered with gold’, i.e. praising him extravagantly) has falsely been paralleled to the present passage (by Maxwell-Stuart 1971, 5 and n. 2), as it does not refer to Euripides the poet, but to the early-fourth century Athenian statesman Heurippides (PAA 444655, see Sommerstein 1998, 210 and below, fr. 74.3n. [Synōris]). The use of this term probably originates in the gilding of statues (see Whitehorne 1975, 111). Euripides is here described as ‘golden from every aspect’, which is an utmost praise and an acknowledgement of his poetic worth (on his popularity in that period see above, ll. 1–3n.). For the use of gold as a means of evaluating one’s worth see also Plaut. Bacch. 640. In the present case, the epithet is employed to express the speaker’s admiration for Euripides probably mingled with ‘gentle ridicule’ (so Arnott 2012, 467), since the quotation aims at producing a hilarious effect. There might be even further nuances. In particular, the golden statue of Gorgias at Delphi, which, according to Cicero (De Or. 3.129), indicated the orator’s worth, gave rise to Plato’s sarcastic remark ἥκει ἡμῖν ὁ καλός τε καὶ χρυσοῦς Γοργίας (Ath. 11.505E). Likewise, the epithet ‘golden’ is articulately associated with rhetorical force in Cic. Acad. Prior. 2.38.119 (flumen orationis aureum), whilst words are also referred to as ‘golden’ in Ar. Pl. 268 mentioned above. From this viewpoint it could be conceivable that this term might similarly allude to Euripides’ skillful rhetoric (εὖ γ’ ὁ κατάχρυσος εἶπε πόλλ’ Εὐριπίδης), not least because the speaker’s appeal to Euripides is congruent with his choice of a rhetorically elaborate structure to make his case. Maxwell-Stuart’s attribution of the epithet ‘gilded’ to Euripides due to his wide use of the imagery of gold is unwarranted, since this is not a distinctive feature of Euripidean technique, being amply represented in Aeschylus and Sophocles as well. 2–3 Eur. fr. inc. 915 K. has been restored in TrGF V 2, 922 as follows: νικᾷ δὲ χρεία μ’ ἡ κακῶς τ’ ὀλουμένη/γαστήρ, ἀφ’ ἧς δὴ πάντα γίγνεται κακά (‘I am subdued by need and by my damnable belly, the source of all miseries’, transl. Collard/Cropp 2008, II 513). Euripides’ reference to γαστήρ comes rather unexpectedly after the speaker’s poignant reflection upon the overpowering need to which he is subject. Diphilus’ parasite appeals to the authority of this tragic distich, which turns bathetic in the comic context through the substitution of the elevated

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

30

Diphilus

ὀλουμένη for the much commoner ταλαίπωρος and the utterance of these lines by this demimonde character. The reference to γαστήρ conveys, as a rule, the idea of gross overeating. The gastēr-motif originates in the epics, where lower-class figures (including Odysseus disguised as a beggar) are presented as driven by the needs of the belly (Od. 7.215–21, 15.344–5, 17.228, 286–9, 470–4, 559, 18.53–4, 364, 366–80; cf. Russo/ Fernández-Galiano/Heubeck 1992, 49–50, 70–1, Pucci 1987, 157–208), Hes. Th. 26 (see West 1966, ad loc.). On the urgings of the belly cf. also Aesch. Ag. 726: γαστρὸς ἀνάγκαις, Soph. fr. 564 R. (Syndeipnoi), fr. inc. 848.2 R., Eur. Cyc. 334–5 with Seaford (1988) and Seidensticker (2020) ad loc., Alex. fr. 25.6 (Asōtodidaskalos) with Arnott (1996) 822, Longus 4.11.2. Subservience to the needs of one’s stomach is a common feature of parasites (see Nicol. Com. fr. inc. 1.7–8, 41–3, Plaut. MG 33–5, Bacaria fr. 1, Ter. Phorm. 988, Plu. Mor. 50D, 54B). Likewise, the parasite Ergasilus in Plaut. Capt. 461–3 is stressing the wretchedness of his situation and his desperate need for sustenance (miser homo est, qui ipse sibi quod edit quaerit et id aegre invenit,/sed ille est miserior, qui et aegre quaerit et nihil invenit;/ille miserrimust, qui cum esse cupit, tum quod edit non habet); cf. esp. Benz (1998) 63–71. The empty stomach is often represented in the proverb νῆστις κεστρεύς (‘fasting mullet’): see Diph. fr. 53 (Lēmniai), as well as Alex. fr. 258 (Phryx), Ameips. fr. 1 (Apokottabizontes), Anaxandr. fr. 35.8 (Odysseus). The parasitus edax is a typical character of the palliata, to judge from Ergasilus in Plautus’ Captivi, Gelasimus in Stichus and Saturio in Persa; cf. also Ter. Eun. 36–8, 459 (and Barsby 1999, 126–7, 171), Heaut. 31–9. See Avezzù (1989) 235–40, Gilula (1995a) 386–99, Damon (1997) 25–6, Benz (1998) 51–81, Wilkins (2000a) 24–8, 71, 83, Fisher (2000) 372–3, Pérez Asensio (1999) 301, Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 261, n. 348. See further below, fr. 61.1–4n. Apart from parasites, slaves are also preoccupied with meeting the basic human need of sustenance, as, for instance, Carion in Ar. Pl. 190–2 (see Sommerstein 2001, ad loc.), 318–21, 627–8, 672–95 (cf. Wilkins/Hill 2006, 266–7), 806–7, 810– 11, 892, 1139–45; cf. also Eur. fr. 49 K. (Alexandros), X. Oec. 13.9 (see Wrenhaven 2012, 15). Excessive eating is regularly criticized in drama and Greek thought as a feature of immoderate and even shameless conduct. See Men. Mon. 137, 425 (Pernigotti) with Liapis (2002) 374, Eur. Supp. 865–6 with Collard (1975) II 326, fr. 201 K. (Antiope) with Kambitsis (1972) 62–5, fr. 413.4 K. (Ino): γαστρὸς κρατεῖν, fr. 282.5 K. (Autolycus); cf. also Archil. fr. 124 W2, Hippon. fr. 129 Dg./118 W2, Thgn. 1.485–6, X. Mem. 2.6.1. For ancient philosophical approaches to this matter, see Hill (2011) 43–62, Wilkins/Hill (2006) 197–8. νικᾷ δὲ χρεία μ’ A personification of need; cf. similarly Eur. Hel. 420: χρεία δὲ τείρει μ’. The literary device of personification is often deployed by Euripides to endow abstractions with human features (on abstract ideas as the subject of νικᾷ see above: Text). The valuation of abstract ideas through the senses relies

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 60)

31

on tangible experiences, which are part of everyday life. On personification as a literary technique see below, fr. 84.1n. (Phrear). ἡ ταλαίπωρός τε μου/γαστήρ On the wretchedness of the belly cf. similarly Hom. Od. 17.473–4: γαστέρος εἵνεκα λυγρῆς,/οὐλομένης, ἣ πολλὰ κάκ’ ἀνθρώποισι δίδωσιν, 17.286–7, 15.344: ἀλλ’ ἕνεκ’ οὐλομένης γαστρὸς κακὰ κήδε’ ἔχουσιν, 18.53–4: ἀλλά με γαστὴρ/ὀτρύνει κακοεργός, 7.216: στυγερῇ ἐπὶ γαστέρι, 18.2: γαστέρι μάργῃ, Plaut. MG 33–4, Persa 321, Capt. 909–10. See also Astorga (1990) 155. 3–4 ταλαιπωρότερον οὐδέν ἐστι γὰρ/τῆς γαστρός As Dover (1985, 338) pointed out, the postponement of γάρ occurs less often in tragedy, but it is widespread in comedy (going back to Ar. Eq. 32, Av. 342, 1546, Lys. 489, Pl. 146, 1188) and seems to have particularly developed in spoken language during the fourth century. As a result, the postponed γάρ acquired the sense of an explanatory particle, which in English is equivalent with the phrase ‘you see’. From the number of comic parallels gathered by Dover (1985, 338–40) I would cite especially Diph. fr. 42.13–14 (from Zōgraphos: οὐθὲν ἡδέως / ποιεῖ γάρ οὗτος) and fr. inc. 102.1 (ἀνδρὸς φίλου καὶ συγγενοῦς γάρ), indicating Diphilus’ penchant for this practice alongside his fellow comedians. 4 ἐμβαλεῖς Regularly employed in comedy within alimentary contexts. Apart from the parallels cited by Pérez Asensio (1999) 302 (Hermipp. fr. 75.2, Philem. Jun. fr. inc. 1.8), see also Ar. V. 331: εἰς ὀξάλμην ἔμβαλε θερμήν, Lys. 1202, Alex. fr. 24 [Asklēpiokleidēs], Men Phasm. 56. On throwing sth. into a vessel see below Synōris fr. 77n. 5–10 The parallelism in ll. 5–8 is made particularly effective through the repetition of adjacent sentences in conjunction with antithesis and anaphora (5: ἀλλ’ οὐχ... 6: ἀλλ’ οὐ ... 7: ἀλλ’ οὐ .... 8: ἀλλ’ οὐ…). On the function of anaphora see Fehling (1969) 187–218, Lanham (19912) 11, Kennedy (1994) 6, 126, Slings (1997) 176–84, Lausberg (1998) 281–3; on antithesis cf. Kemmer (1900) esp. 42–67, Hollingsworth (1915) 21–3, Lloyd (1966) 86–94, Fehling (1969) 296–8, Kennedy (1994) 25–6. This elaborate structure aims at underscoring the key concept that each vessel serves its own purpose, being eloquently opposed to the idea of the stomach as a container where anything is thrown in ll. 9–10. In more specific terms, the items mentioned in ll. 5–7 stress the inappropriateness of putting liquid food, such as soup (ll. 6, 7), in a container serving to transport solid food, such as bread (l. 6) or cakes (l. 7). Line 8 seems to involve a double antithesis, in that it continues the contrast between liquid and solid nutrition, whilst inserting the opposition between wine of modest quality – matching the preceding types of ordinary food – with expensive nutrition, such as crayfish. The latter creates surprise after the enumeration of different types of modest alimentation in a catalogue (ll. 6–8) and is suggestive of the parasite’s yearning for all kinds of food. This seems to provide a good transition to the theme of ll. 9–10 focusing on human stomach as a container of any kind of food.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

32

Diphilus

Comedy abounds in catalogues, that is, sequences of several items of the same kind. Their humorous effect emerges from the incongruity caused by the violation of conventional discourse by means of a list. Comic lists present aspects of the material world, such as food, compressed into a short structure, which serves to convey a sense of abundance. See the food catalogues in Epich. frr. 40–64 (Hēbas Gamos), Telecl. fr. 1.4–13 (Amphiktyones), Pherecr. fr. 50 (Doulodidaskalos), fr. 113 (Metallēs), Hermipp. fr. 63 (Phormophoroi) with Comentale (2017) 257–60, Ar. Ach. 665–75, Lys. 1061–4 with Henderson (1987) ad loc., fr. 333 (Thesmophoriazousai II), Metag. fr. 6 (Thouriopersai) with Pellegrino (1998) 333–8 and Orth (2014) 420, Philyll. fr. inc. 26 with Orth (2015) 254, Nicophon fr. 6 (Encheirogastores) with Pellegrino (2013) 37–8, Antiph. frr. 130, 131 (Cyclops), Alex. fr. 132 (Lebēs), fr. 167.11–16 (Olynthioi), fr. 179 (Pannychis) with Arnott (1996) 383, 533, Anaxandr. fr. 42.37–66 (Protesilaus) with Millis (2015) 209–10, Mnesim. fr. 4.10–49 (Hippotrophos) with Mastellari (2020) 383–4, Eub. fr. 63 (Lakōnes ē Lēda) with Hunter (1983) ad loc., Ephipp. frr. 12, 13 (Cydon) with Papachrysostomou (2020) 127–8, 139–40, Men. fr. 409.3–16 (Pseudo-Heracles). On catalogues and their function see further Meineke (1839) 302–3, Spyropoulos (1974) esp. 87–9, Nesselrath (1990) 271–7, Minchin (1996) 4–5, 9, Wilkins (2000a) esp. 43–7, Gilula (1995b) 143–56 and (2000) 77–84, Olson (2007) 158 and most recently Ruffell (2021) 327–59; cf. below fr. 80.1n. (Telesias) and fr. 81.1n. (Tithraustēs). 5–6 A case of paronomasia (φέροις (ἄν) - διαφθερεῖς) stressing the paradox of putting soup instead of bread in a pouch. The effectiveness of this pun is enhanced by its causally interconnected elements, which are placed at the same position of the trimeter in two successive lines. On this literary device see e.g. Lausberg (1998) 285–8, Fontaine (2010) 28. Cf. also Astorga (1990) 60. 5 ἀλλ’ Expressing opposition, though, as Denniston pointed out, it is left undetermined whether the idea introduced by ἀλλά is incompatible with the idea expressed before this particle. This usage is less frequent than καίτοι in continuous speech and is rather rare in unspoken Greek (Denniston GP 7–8, Drummen 2009, 139–42). πήρᾳ ‘a leather pouch for victuals’ (LSJ9); cf. Sud. π 1535 (Adler). For its use in comic contexts see below, Pēra: Title, as well as Diph. fr. 55.2 (Mainomenos), Ar. Pl. 298, Nu. 923. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 302. 6 ζωμόν Soups could be made of meat or fish or even be meatless. See Telecl. fr. 1.8 (Amphiktyones) with Bagordo (2013) 64–5, Pherecr. fr. 113.3–4 (Metallēs) with Franchini (2020) 109 on the black broth with relevant bibliography, fr. 137.3–5 (Persai), Ar. Eq. 357, 360, Nu. 386, Pax 716, Metag. fr. inc. 18 (and Orth 2014, 480), Nicophon fr. 21.3 (Sirens) with Pellegrino (2013) ad loc., Alex. fr. 168.7 (Homoia), Antiph. fr. 46.4 (Archōn), Nicostr. fr. 16 (Mageiros), Axionic. fr. 8.1 (Chalkidikos), Anaxandr. fr. 35.5 (Odysseus) with Millis (2015) ad loc. and all different kinds of soup mentioned in Anaxandr. fr. 42.40–2 (Protesilaus). Cf. the discussions in Arnott (1996) 425–6, Olson/Sens (1999) on Matro fr. 1.94, Pellegrino (2000) 119, Wilkins (2000a) 149–50, n. 225.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 60)

33

7 σπυρίδα ‘a large basket’, ‘creel’ (LSJ9); here, it is used to transport barley cakes, whilst in adesp. com. fr. 104.5–7 it comprises loaves of bread (like the pouch in l. 5). It is similarly employed as a transport basket in Ar. fr. 427 (Holkades), Antiph. fr. 36 (Anteia), Alex. fr. inc. 275.3, Apollod. Car. fr. 29.3 (Hiereia); cf. Bagordo (2020) on Ar. fr. 557.1 (Triphalēs). On its use as a fishing basket, in particular, see Ar. Pax 1005 (and Olson 1999, 262 with further parallels). μάζας ‘barley cakes’; the grits of barley were kneaded into a cake with water, milk, oil or wine (Hes. Op. 590, Th. 3.49, X. Cyr. 6.2.28, Ath. 3.114E - 115B, Hesych. μ 41 Latte). Barley cakes formed the staple diet of all classes (see e.g. Ar. Ec. 606 and Ussher 1973, 160, Antiph. fr. 133 [Corycus], fr. inc. 225.1, Polioch. fr. inc. 2, cf. Achaeus TrGF I 20 F25 [Cycnus]), though they could also be served in luxurious dinners after having been processed into refined forms. For instance, white barley cakes were highly praised for being made of the finest flour (Telecl. fr. 1.4–6 [Amphiktyones], Pherecr. fr. 137.4 [Persai] with Franchini 2020, ad loc., Alex. fr. 145.7 [Mandragorizomenē]) with Arnott 1996, ad loc., schol. vet. Ar. Eq. 819 Mervyn Jones/Wilson). On the wide use of barley cakes cf. also Bagordo (2013) on Telecl. fr. 1.4 (Amphiktyones), Cratin. fr. 176 (Ploutoi), Ar. Eq. 55, Pax 1 (and Olson 1999, ad loc.), fr. inc. 640, Metag. fr. 6.2 (Thouriopersai), Eub. fr. 111 (Tithai). See the discussion in Moritz (1958) 150, Amouretti (1986) 124–6, Lavrencik (1993) 63–6, Braun (1995) 25–34, Garnsey (1999) 15–21, 119–21, Wilkins (2000a) 16–17, Wilkins/Hill (2006) 52–3, 115–7, 125–6, Donahue (2015) 58–62 (including ancient sources on barley meals). φακῆν ‘lentil soup’; an ordinary and modest meal. For more detail see below, fr. 64.2n. (Peliades). 8 οἰνάριον According to LSJ9, ‘weak or bad wine’ or ‘a little wine’ or simply ‘colloq. for οἶνος’. It is often employed in comedy in the qualitative sense of ‘poor wine’; see Antiph. fr. 132.3–4 (Corycus) with Olson (2022) ad loc.: ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις πίνομεν/οἰνάριον. (B) ἧδος, νὴ Δί’, οἰκίας τρόπον, Apollod. Car. fr. 30.1–2 (Proikizomenē ē Himatiopolis): πλὴν τό γ’ οἰνάριον πάνυ/ἦν ὀξὺ καὶ πονηρόν, ὥστ’ ᾐσχυνόμην, Polioch. fr. inc. 2.7–8: καὶ πιεῖν οἰνάριον ἦν / ἀμφίβολον (see Schweighäuser 1801–05, I 405). Conversely, in Alex. fr. inc. 277 it is probably a colloquialism bearing a neutral meaning, given that it is associated with Lesbian and Thasian wine, which were of the best quality (cf. Arnott 1996, 658–9, 769, Davidson 1997, 42–3, Wilkins 2000a, 214–6 and n. 38 with further bibliography), and the speaking character is described as having been drinking during the whole day (which excludes the quantitative sense of ‘a little wine’). In the present case, the exact sense of οἰνάριον cannot be plausibly determined; there is no hint at its quantitative use, and it may well be that it is employed neutrally, as in the passage of Alexis. Nonetheless, I would not exclude its qualitative sense (‘weak wine’), which would be consistent with the enumeration of types of modest food in ll. 5–7 and would also enhance the subsequent opposition to crayfish, an expensive kind of alimentation. But in any case, the exact sense of this term would have been conveyed in performance through gestures or the tone of the voice. On the

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

34

Diphilus

sympotic drinking of wine see Rösler (1995) 106–11, Davidson (1997) 40–52, Wilkins (2002) 181–9; for comic wine-drinking scenes see Bowie (1995) 113–25, Bowie (1997) 1–21, Wilkins (2000a) 204–18, Olson (2007) 299–320, García Soler (2021) 41–5, 51–5. λάγυνον Masculine (used as feminine in Thessaly, according to Arist. fr. 499 R.3, and in later prose). It is a one-handled flask with a thin neck and a wide bottom, also used as a unit of liquid measure (cf. Stesich. Ger. fr. 22 Finglass/ PMGF S19: τριλάγυνος ‘measuring three flasks’, P. Fay. 104.3) with a capacity of twelve cotylae (see Rotroff 1997, 226). This table vessel is mentioned by Diphilus (cf. Poll. 10.72) in fr. 28 (Hecate), fr. 12 (Anasōizomenoi) and fr. 3.2 (Adelphoi) – in the latter case as λαγύνιον. In Nicostr. fr. 14 (Klinē) this vessel is described as containing low quality wine. Cf. also Nicostr. fr. 10 (Hecate) with Lamari (2023) ad loc. κάραβον A heavy-armed crayfish. It was an expensive dish and a great delicacy, like the conger-eel, the grey and red mullet, the tuna, the glaukos and the sea-bass. The crayfish and other crustaceans traditionally formed part of the Sicilian cuisine. The best quality of κάραβος, identified by Epicharmus (fr. 50 from Hēbas Gamos) as the crustacean having little feet and long claws, was found in the Liparae islands, off the northern coast of Sicily (Ath. 3.105A). According to the physician Mnesitheus, crayfish and the rest of the crustaceans should be broiled rather than stewed, in order to be more digestible (Ath. 3.106D). On the crayfish see further Keller (1909–13) II 491–3, Thompson (1947) 102–3, Campbell (1982) 204–5, Palombi/Santarelli (19864) 374–7, Davidson (1997) 7–8, Wilkins (2000a) 327–31, García Soler (2001) 142–3, Dalby (2003) 106, 192–3, Davidson (20023) 179–80. As would be expected, there are numerous comic references to crayfish in seafood contexts: Ar. fr. 333.7 (Thesmophoriazousai II), fr. 380.1 (Lēmniai), Eup. fr. 174.2 (Kolakes) with Olson (2016) ad loc., Pl. Com. fr. 102.3 (Peisandros), Metag. fr. 6.6 (Thouriopersai), Call. Com. fr. 6.2 (Cyclopes), Philyll. fr. 12.1 (Poleis), Anaxandr. fr. 21.46 (Protesilaus) with Millis (2015) ad loc., Alex. fr. 57.4 (Dorkis ē Poppyzousa) with Arnott (1996) 178, fr. 97.3 (Isostasion), Antiph. fr. 27.5 (Halieuomenē) with Konstantakos (2000) ad loc., fr. 191.3 (Probateus), Timocl. fr. 11.7 (Epichairekakos) with Apostolakis (2019) ad loc., Mnesim. fr. 4.44 (Hippotrophos) with Mastellari (2020) ad loc., Ephipp. fr. 15.5 (Homoioi ē Obeliaphoroi), Posidipp. fr. 15.1 (Lokrides), Theophil. fr. 4.3 (Iatros). Cf. also Matro fr. 1.66–7 (with Olson/Sens 1999, ad loc.). 9 The expression θεοῖς ἐχθράν first occurs in Hes. Th. 766, being attached to the personified Death. It often describes morally repugnant behaviour, as in Soph. OT 1345 (see Finglass 2018, 578), Ph. 1031, Eur. Med. 1323–4, as well as Hippon. fr. 69.7 Dg./70 W2 (cf. Brown 1997, 85–6 and n. 26). In the present case, it is employed as a means of comic exaggeration underscoring the parasite’s detestation of the wretched position in which he has found himself, i.e. his need for sustenance at all costs, as determined by his belly. This phrasing is commonly employed in contexts of comic invective, as in Ar. Ach. 934 (also describing a vessel), Nu. 581,

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 60)

35

Pax 1172, Lys. 371, 397, Ra. 936, Pl. Com. fr. 74.3 (Menelaus), Xenarch. fr. 7.8 (Porphyra), Anaxipp. fr. 6.4 (Kitharōidos). See the numerous passages collected by Veisse (2009) 171–6 and earlier Koenen (1959) 114–5. The postponement of δέ, as well as that of γάρ (on which see above ll. 3–4n.), is notably commoner in comedy than in tragedy. The present instance is cited by Dover (1985, 337) as the case of a postponed δέ that follows a familiar phrase alongside Ar. Pax 1311: εὖ ποιεῖς δέ, Men. Pk. 316: ἀκαρὲς δέω δέ, Eur. Ion 731: ἃ μὴ γένοιτο δέ, IA 1006: ψεύδη λέγων δέ. For a further case of a postponed δέ in Diphilus see below fr. 81.4 (Tithraustēs). For more detail see Dover (1985) 324–5, 337–8. 10 ἅπανθ’ ἑαυτοῖς μηδὲν ὁμολογούμενα The contrast between ἅπανθ’ and μηδέν serves to stress the incongruity of the elements inserted in the stomach and the ensuing paradox. ὁμολογούμενα ‘to be in agreement with’, mostly in prose in the middle and passive voice; one of the rare comic examples is Timocl. fr. 1.2 (Aigyptioi) with Apostolakis (2019) ad loc.: εἰς τοὺς ὁμολογουμένους θεοὺς (‘those who are agreed/ admitted to be gods’). In the active voice it denotes ‘to agree’, ‘to admit’; cf. Eup. fr. 193.3 (Marikas): ἁνὴρ ὁμολογεῖ Νικίαν ἑορακέναι, Men. fr. 9.2 (Adelphoi B). 11–12 These lines resume the opening idea concerning the wretchedness of the belly (ταλαίπωρος - τάλαιναν), thus creating an effective ring-composition that underscores the plight caused by the needs of the parasite’s stomach. πανταχοῡ ... πάντα A polyptōton employed for emphatic purposes. See GygliWyss (1966) passim, Fehling (1969) 221–34, Lausberg (1998) 288–90, Plett (2010) 173–4. 11 κοὐ προστίθημι Pérez Asensio (1999, 304) is right to point out the rhetorical use of the term; see Antiphon 6.17.5: καὶ ἔτι προστίθημι αὐτοῖς ὅτι οὐδὲ παρεγενόμην πίνοντι, D. 18.231: καὶ οὐκέτι προστίθημι, 19.45.5. This phrasing is consistent with the overall rhetorical elaboration of the parasite’s monologue. 12 Damen (1985, 87–8) follows Vollgraff ’s conjecture ταὐτά and accepts a possible scatological innuendo. Such a reading of the passage would involve a hilarious twist of the tragic quotation and would emerge as contrary to the audience’s expectations, since the dissimilarity of the elements inserted in the belly would be humorously and unexpectedly opposed to the similarity of those coming out of it. This παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke (to quote Silk 2000, 137: ‘a “straight” sequence interrupted by a sudden explosive joke’) would ultimately undermine the apparent seriousness of the parasite’s predicament resulting, as often, to the speaker’s self-sarcasm (on this device of verbal humour see in detail Kanellakis 2020, 23–86 with further bibliography). Defecatory jokes are an inherent feature of comic obscenity drawing on the lowliness of hidden aspects of human life regarded as a taboo in proper speech, such as the dependence on bodily urges, and their laughable effect. See Henderson (19912) 187–203, Robson (2006) 70–94, Halliwell (2008) 215–9 Rosen (2015) 77–8, 82–3. This comic technique is consistent with Bakhtin’s concept of ‘degradation’, a key principle of folk humour involving the

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

36

Diphilus

lowering of all that is high and its transfer to the sphere of the body and the material world (Bakhtin 1984, 19–20). For further discussion of textual matters in these lines see above, Text.

fr. 61 K.-A. (61 K.)

5

ὅταν με καλέσῃ πλούσιος δεῖπνον ποιῶν, οὐ κατανοῶ τὰ τρίγλυφ’ οὐδὲ τὰς στέγας, οὐδὲ δοκιμάζω τοὺς Κορινθίους κάδους, ἀτενὲς δὲ τηρῶ τοῦ μαγείρου τὸν καπνόν. κἂν μὲν σφοδρὸς φερόμενος εἰς ὀρθὸν τρέχῃ, γέγηθα καὶ χαίρω τε καὶ πτερύττομαι· ἂν δὲ πλάγιος καὶ λεπτός, εὐθέως νοῶ ὅτι τοῦτό μοι τὸ δεῖπνον ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ αἷμ’ ἔχει

1 ποιῶν Α: ποῶν CΕ 4 μαγειρείου CE 5 σφοδρός ΑΕ: -ῶς C 6 τε Dobree (qui transp. χαίρω τε καὶ γέγηθα, prob. Nauck): τι Α: om. CE πτερύσσομαι ACE, corr. Dindorf 7 ἂν Grotius: ἐὰν ACE

5

Every time a rich man holding a feast invites me, I do not observe the triglyphs or the dwelling nor do I evaluate the Corinthian vessels, but I look intently at the cook’s smoke. If it comes off vigorously and runs straight up, I am pleased and delighted and flap my wings; but if it is sloping and weak, I realize immediately that this is the dinner for me — why, there is not even blood in it

Ath. 6.236B καὶ ἄλλα δὲ τοιαῦτα ἐπιλέγει ὁ τοῦ Ἐπιχάρμου παράσιτος (fr. 32). ὁ δὲ παρὰ τῷ Διφίλῳ (scil. παράσιτος) τάδε φησίν∙ ὅταν — ἔχει And Epicharmus’ parasite recites similar things (fr. 32). At the same time, the parasite in Diphilus says —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. k l k kk l| l k l l l k l 2. l kk k l l l k |l k l k l 3. l kk k l l | l k l k l k l 4. kk l k l l | l k l l l k l 5. l l k l k kk k| l l l k l 6. k l k l l l k | l k l k l

(penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura)

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

37

Παράσιτος (fr. 61)

7. l l k kk l l k | l k l k l 8. kk l k l k l k |l l l k l

(hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) III 384–5; Dobree (1831–33) II 310; Meineke (1839–57) IV 404–5; Kock (1880–88) II 561; Nauck (1894) 107; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 128–9; PCG V 87–8; Damen (1985) 90–1; Astorga (1990) 149–50; Pérez Asensio (1999) 304–9; Tylawsky (2002) 101–2; Rusten (2011) 669; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 262 Citation Context This fragment derives from the sixth book of Deipnosophistai, which includes a comprehensive chapter on parasites (234D - 248C) followed by one on flatterers (248D – 255A). This passage follows Athenaeus’ quotation of Epich. fr. 32 (Elpis ē Ploutos), which similarly involves a parasite’s self-description. It precedes the citation of the Iliadic passage which introduced in literature the character of the parasite, that is, Podes, Hector’s friendly companion at the feast (Il. 17.575–7). The immediate context of the present fragment comprises a series of passages, including Eup. fr. 172 (Kolakes), Alex. fr. 121 (Kybernētēs), Timocl. fr. 8 (Drakontion), Antiph. fr. 80 (Didymoi), Aristophon fr. 5 (Iatros), fr. 10 (Pythagoristēs), and Antiph. fr. 193 (Progonoi) thematically organized by Athenaeus in such a manner, as to bring forward the self-presentation of parasites (see below, Interpretation). The thematic arrangement of this section adheres to Athenaeus’ ordering principle, which allows the reader to follow a trajectory within a literary collection inscribed in the tradition of symposium literature. On the structural features of Athenaeus’ work see esp. Jacob (2013) 33–7, 39–40, 99–100, Paulas (2012) 410–28, 434–5, Murray (2015) 41–2, Cartlidge (2019) 108–9. Notably, Athenaeus attributes these lines to Diphilus without, however, specifying the play from which they derive (it is for this reason that the fragment is printed with an asterisk in PCG). He does assign the lines, nonetheless, to a well-known parasite of Diphilus, to judge from his phrasing: ὁ δὲ παρὰ τῷ Διφίλῳ (scil. παράσιτος) τάδε φησίν. Considering that Diphilus’ Parasitos is named after this character type, who would have been given particular prominence in this play, the present fragment seems quite likely to originate in Parasitos. Yet, one cannot exclude another Diphilan play that would have delved into the character of the parasite, such as Telesias, unless the latter was another version of Parasitos (for more detail see below, Telesias: Title and note on test. ii). Text Line 6 has been reconstituted thanks to Dobree’s emendation (1831–33, II 310), who substituted τε for τι provided by A. At the same time, Dobree proposed χαίρω τε καὶ γέγηθα, transposing the two verbs evidently with the purpose of enhancing the amplification (on which see below, l. 6n.) through the stylistic escalation from the more common verb χαίρω to the less common γέγηθα and the even less common and less expected πτερύττομαι. This climax would have also been attained in acoustic terms by means of the gradually increasing number of syllables from χαίρω to γέγηθα and πτερύττομαι. His conjecture was accepted by

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

38

Diphilus

Nauck (1894, 107), but it has not been deemed sufficient by subsequent editors to replace the reading of the ms. tradition, which displays certain merits. The latter reasonably has the emphatic τε καί placed between χαίρω and πτερύττομαι to enhance the rather remote connection between the two verbs, as well as reinforcing the αὔξησις (see K-G §522.4), since πτερύττομαι forms the climax of the speaker’s excitement. Interpretation These lines comprise the self-representation of a parasite, who boasts of his ability to guess the kind of meal that he is going to have. The gastronomic knowledge of parasites is outstanding; see, for instance, Nesselrath (1985) 32–6. The self-description of parasites is a comic motif; loci classici— most of which are cited by Athenaeus alongside the present fragment — include Epich. fr. 32 (Elpis ē Ploutos), the chorus’ self-presentation in Eup. frr. 172, 175 (from Kolakes, cf. Storey 2003, 190–2), Antiph. fr. 193 (Progonoi), Alex. fr. 121 (Kybernētēs), Axionic. fr. 6 (Chalkidikos), Aristophon fr. 5 (from Iatros, see Papachrysostomou 2008, 104–12, Orth 2020, 41–4), Timocl. fr. 8 (from Drakontion, cf. Apostolakis 2019, 82–3), Men. Dysc. 57–68 (see Handley 1965, 140–1). On the eulogy of the parasitic art see below, fr. 76 (Synōris): Interpretation. As in fr. 60, here again the parasite’s speech is rhetorically embellished, in that it is articulated by means of a contrast priamel (2–4), an antithesis (5–8) and amplification (6). See further notes ad loc. 1–4 It is because of his wisecracking gluttony that the parasite does not pay heed to proper symposium behaviour; this would include admiring the host’s house first, instead of rushing off to have dinner. In Thphr. Char. 2.12–3 (καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν φῆσαι εὖ ἠρχιτεκτονῆσθαι, cf. Diggle 2004, 197) and Luc. Pr. Im. 20.26–7 (καὶ ἢν οἰκίαν ἐπαινῇ καλὴν καὶ ἄριστα κατεσκευασμένην) it is a feature of the toady par excellence to praise the elegance of the host’s house. Proper symposiastic manners are vividly discussed by Athenaeus (5.179A-B), citing Hom. Od. 4.43–6 (see Heubeck/West/Hainsworth 1988, ad loc.) and Ar. V. 1214–5 (see Biles/Olson 2015, 437–8). Cf. Od. 4.71–5, 7. 81–135. Cf. also Astorga (1990) 150, Pérez Asensio (1999) 305. 1 On the typical phrasing of dinner invitations see Pherecr. fr. 162.4 (Cheiron): ἡμῶν δ’ ἤν τινά τις καλέσῃ θύων ἐπὶ δεῖπνον, Eub. fr. 72.3–4 (from Oedipus, where it is also delivered by a parasite, cf. Hunter 1983, 162): ὅστις δ’ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἢ φίλον τιν’ ἢ ξένον/καλέσας, fr. inc. 117.1–2, 5, Mach. fr. 16.262–3 G. δεῖπνον ποιῶν for this periphrasis see also Dionys. fr. 2.3–4 (Thesmophoros): οἷς μέλλει ποιεῖν/τὸ δεῖπνον ἢ τὸ δεῖπνον ἐγχειρεῖν ποιεῖν. Cf. also Pherecr. fr. inc. 198: ὁ δὲ παῖδα καλεῖ καὶ τευτάζει τούτῳ δεῖπνον παραθεῖναι. 2–4 This is a form of contrast priamel, since the three negative statements (ll. 2–3) serve as foil for the element preoccupying the speaker’s thought (l. 4), which is introduced with the adversative δέ. See the discussion of this fragment in Race (1982) 107, n. 180. For contrast priamels see Schmid (1964) 51–66, Krischer

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 61)

39

(1974) 81–7, Race (1982) 5–17. Cases of comic priamels include Ar. Ach. 1–22 (see Olson 2002, ad loc.), Th. 476–9, 830–5, Pherecr. fr. 155 (Cheiron) with Franchini (2020) 250, the praise of the art of flattery in Antiph. fr. 142 (Lēmniai), Hegesipp. fr. 1 (Adelphoi), Men. frr. inc. 420, 845. Cf. also the priamel collection in Dornseiff (1921) 96–102, Kröhling (1935) 32–4, Friis Johansen (1959) 34–49, Bundy (1962) I esp. 5–10, Race (1982) 31–113. 2 οὐ κατανοῶ The verb here bears the sense of ‘observe well’ (VdLG2: ‘guardare’, ‘osservare’). The most eloquent parallel is Ath. 5.179A: δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸν πρῶτον εἰς ἀλλοτρίαν οἰκίαν ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ δεῖπνον μὴ γαστρισόμενον εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τὸ συμπόσιον χωρεῖν, ἀλλά τι δοῦναι πρότερον τῷ φιλοθεάμονι καὶ κατανοῆσαι τὴν οἰκίαν. Cf. also PCG V, ad loc., Pérez Asensio (1999) 306. τὰ τρίγλυφ’ Triglyphs formed a typical decoration of the friezes of Doric temples (on this architectural feature see e.g. Dinsmoor 19503, 55–7), such as that represented in Eur. IT 113 (see Roux 1961, 52–60 and the notes of Parker 2016 and Kyriakou 2006 on IT 113–4). Their use goes back to Minoan and Mycenaean architecture (as early as Minos’ palace; see Evans 1921–50, IV 222–8). The façade of tragic palaces was often decorated with triglyphs; see Eur. Or. 1370–2 (and Willink 1986, 307): κεδρωτὰ παστάδων ὑπὲρ τέραμνα/Δωρικάς τε τριγλύφους, Ba. 1214 (with Dodds 19602 and Seaford 1996, ad loc.). Given their decorative use in palace architecture, it is likely that the reference to triglyphs in this passage could be suggestive of the affluence of the host’s house. τὰς στέγας When used in the plural, the noun στέγη (‘roof ’, ‘upper storey’) tends to bear the metonymical sense of ‘house’, ‘dwelling’ (e.g. Aesch. Eum. 56, Soph. OT 927, El. 1404, Eur. Andr. 882, HF 430, Mach. fr. 17.385 G.), except for cases such as Eur. Alc. 248, where it conveys a particular nuance (see Parker 2007, 107). It thus seems likelier that the parasite refers to the host’s house as a whole rather than the (presumably elaborate) ceiling. Interestingly, this is the sole preserved case of its plural use in comedy. When in the singular, it is often employed as a poeticism for ‘house’; see Eup. fr. inc. 375 (and Olson 2014, 105): ὅσος δ’ ὁ βρυγμὸς καὶ κοπετὸς ἐν τῇ στέγῃ, Antiph. fr. 55.3 (Aphrodisios), fr. 174.2 (Omphale): πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις εὐγενὴς γεγὼς/ δύναιτ’ ἂν ἐξελθεῖν ποτ’ ἐκ τῆσδε στέγης; Cf. also Anacr. PMG 425.2, Aesch. Ag. 1087, Soph. OT 1164, Eur. Med. 1293. The palaces of Menelaus and Alcinous are described with the epithet ὑψερεφές (‘high-roofed’) in Hom. Od. 4.46 and 7.85. In Ar. V. 1214–5 Philocleon is encouraged to admire the roof of the host’s house (ἔπειτ’ ἐπαίνεσόν τι τῶν χαλκωμάτων,/ ὀροφὴν θέασαι, κρεκάδι’ αὐλῆς θαύμασον). Cf. also the decorated στέγη (albeit in a metaphorical sense) in Alcaeus fr. 140.4–5 Voigt. 3 οὐδὲ δοκιμάζω In this case, it denotes ‘to test the value of sth.’ (e.g. metals, coins or gold; Isoc. 12.39, [Arist.] HA 491a 21). It is more frequent in prose than poetry. For its comic use cf. Archipp. fr. 14 (Ichthyes), Diod. Com. fr. inc. 3, Men. Dysc. 137, 816, Mis. 262.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

40

Diphilus

τοὺς Κορινθίους κάδους Kάδος is a wide-mouthed, handled vessel made of earthenware or metal, whose meaning may range from ‘well-bucket’ (Ussher 1973 on Ar. Ec. 1002–4, Gomme/Sandbach 1973 on Men. Dysc. 190) to ‘voting urn’ (Ar. Av. 1032. 1053, V. 321, 853, 854) or ‘wine jar’ (see the parallels cited below) and is specified according to the context. The latter use also includes type A amphoras (elaborate amphoras recognizable by their flanged handles, often decorated with ivy and two-part foot) bearing the inscription κάδος (see Caskey/Beazley 1963, 1, Sparkes 1975, 127). The speaker’s admiration of Corinthian κάδοι in the context of his description of the rich host’s house indicates the high value of these vases. The term is frequently employed in comic drinking or trade contexts; see Diph. fr. 55.1 (Mainomenos); cf. Epich. fr. 130 (Philoklinēs), Ar. Ach. 549 (and Olson 2002, ad loc.), Pax 1202, fr. 280 (Dramata ē Kentauros), Antiph. fr. 108 (Hippeis), frr. 112, 113.4 (Karinē), fr. 223.5 (Chrysis), Alex. fr. 9.12 (Aisōpos) with Arnott (1996) ad loc., Epig. fr. 6.1 (Mnēmation), Philippid. fr. inc. 28.4, Men. fr. inc. 421. Cf. Amyx (1958) 186–90, Sparkes/Talcott (1970) 201ff., figs. 17, 20, 23, Sparkes (1975) 127–8. The Corinthian vases mentioned in this fragment form indicators of the house’s luxury alongside the triglyphs in l. 2. Corinthian vase-production was celebrated throughout Antiquity. The particular nuance of δοκιμάζω, which involves, among other things, the testing of the value of metals (see previous note), might be suggestive of the renowned bronze vessels of Corinth, the most prominent centre for toreutics from the Archaic age onwards. Apart from their being associated distinctively with Corinth, relief metal vessels were deemed as more luxurious than ceramic vases due to their weight and the value of the metals used, especially in the Hellenistic period (see e.g. Boardman 2001, 268, 276). A telling example is provided by Athenaeus (5.199E), who describes two particularly elegant Corinthian bronze vases on stands decorated with relief figures on the neck and body and with a remarkable fluid capacity. Cf. also Ath. 4.128D, 11.488D-E. For further detail see Kouleimani-Vokotopoulou (1975) 138–47, Pemberton (1981) 101–2, 110–11, Treister (1996) 59–60, 199–201, Mattusch (2003) 219–20, and earlier Göbel (1915) 34 (with a collection of ancient sources). Nonetheless, we cannot safely associate these vessels with the famous ‘Corinthian bronze’, an alloy of copper, gold, and silver of considerable value (see Plin. HN 34.3, Cic. Tusc. 4.32, Plu. Mor. 395B-D); the terminus ante quem for its invention is the middle of the second century BC, but the data for its use as early as the fourth century BC are inconclusive (see Murphy-O’ Connor 1983, 80–93, Jacobson/ Weitzmann 1992, 237–9, 245–6). Likewise, the evidence for the production of Corinthian vases with golden decoration, such as the gilded kantharos described by Edwards (1975, 74), is circumstantial. 4–8 The parasite’s arrival at dinner in great hunger is a comic pattern: see Diph. fr. inc. 95 (perhaps by a parasite); cf. Cratin. fr. 46 (Dionysalexandros) with Bianchi (2016) 281, Antiph. fr. 80.11–12 (Didymoi), Alex. fr. 102 (Isostasion), fr. 183 (Parasitos), fr. 233 (Tokistēs ē Katapseudomenos) with Arnott (1996) 547, 660–1, fr. inc. 263, Anaxil. fr. 25 (Plousioi), fr. 30 (Chrysochoos), Sophil. fr.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 61)

41

7 (Philarchos), Plaut. Capt. 177, Curc. 309–25, Men. 222–3, Persa 59–60, Stich. 575; cf. Luc. Par. 13, Gall. 9. The comic parasite’s voracity often emerges from his coming early to dinner: Alex. fr. 259 (Phygas), Aristophon fr. 5.1–2 (Iatros) with Papachrysostomou (2008) 106–7, Eub. fr. inc. 117 with Hunter (1983) 217, Men. fr. 265 (Orgē), Plaut. Capt. 183, Men. 154–5, Persa 112, 139; cf. Plu. Mor. 50E. On the parasites’ particular dining habits see Nesselrath (1985) esp. 29–32 and n. 55, Damon (1997) 26–7. On their insatiable hunger cf. also above fr. 60.2–3n. 4 It is a common habit of parasites to search for savoury smoke, and it is for this reason that a character’s ludicrous gluttony tends to be expressed with nicknames such as καπνοσφράντης (adesp. com. fr. 214), κνισοτηρητής (adesp. com. fr. 622), κνισολοιχός (Antiph. fr. 65 [Bombylios], Amph. fr. 10.1 [Gynaikomania], Sophil. fr. 8 [Philarchos]), ταγηνοκνισοθήρας (Eup. fr. 190 [Kolakes] with Olson 2016, ad loc.), κνισοκόλαξ (Asius fr. 14.2 W2/ PEG test. 1); see PCG V ad loc., Astorga (1990) 150 and n. 40. The imagery of the smoke from roasted food is similarly employed in Ar. Ach. 1044–6 (see Olson 2002, ad loc.), Pax 1050, Pl. 893–5, Antiph. fr. 216.5–7 (Philothēbaios), Ephipp. fr. 3.3 (Geryones), Hegesipp. fr. 1.22–7 (Adelphoi), adesp. com. fr. 866, Matro fr. 1.82 (cf. Olson/Sens 1999, ad loc.), Hor. Sat. 2.7.37–9, Luc. Tim. 9. On the description of the cook’s ascending smoke, in particular, see Sosip. fr. 1.42–3 (Katapseudomenos): ὁ καπνὸς φερόμενος δεῦρο κἀκεῖ διαφορὰν/εἴωθε τοῖς ὄψοισιν ἐμποιεῖν τινα, Cratin. Jun. fr. 1.1–2 (Gigantes): ἐνθυμεῖσθε τῆς γῆς ὡς γλυκύ/ὄζει, καπνός τ’ ἐξέρχετ’ εὐωδέστερος; Damox. fr. 2.44 (Syntrophoi). Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 307. As Astorga (1990, 150) pointed out, this description may involve a parody of divination from smoke; tragic cases of capnomancy involve Soph. Ant. 1005–11 (with Jebb 1900, ad loc. and Griffith 1999, 299), Eur. IT 16 (see Parker 2016, ad loc.), Ph. 1255–8 (cf. Mastronarde 1994, 496); on the latter topic see esp. Naiden (2013) 39–81, 131–82 (with further bibliography). ἀτενὲς δὲ τηρῶ ‘to watch intently’ (transl. Rusten 2011, 669); a common structure with verbs of seeing: see e.g. Mach. fr. 11.127 G.: δεδορκὼς ἀτενές, Plb. 18.53.9: βλέπων εἰς τὸν Πτολεμαῖον ἀτενές, Ael. NA 2.11: ἀτενὲς ἑώρα, Luc. Musc. Enc.: ἀτενὲς βλέποι, Bis Acc. 27.7. Cf. also Bagordo (2014a) 42–3 proposing φρoυροῦντας ἀτενῶς on Chionid. fr. 1.2 (Hērōes). τοῦ μαγείρου The term tends to be attached to skilled professional cooks undertaking every task that concerns the preparation of the meal, from the sacrifice and butchering of the animals to cooking and serving the dishes. The term μάγειρος first occurs in Epich. fr. 98.118 (Odysseus Automolos) and then in Pherecr. fr. 70.4 (Ipnos ē Pannychis) and Ar. Av. 1637, Ra. 517. The cook became a stock character in middle and new comedy, presumably due to the eventual change of focus from public to domestic affairs, as in the case of the parasite (see above, Parasitos: Title), and as a result of the development of a money economy that enhanced the pursuit of food for pleasure. He tends to be delineated as a boatsful figure, exaggerating his skills and importance (see Ath. 7.290B).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

42

Diphilus

There are comedies named after this stock character, such as Mageiroi by Anaxilas, Mageiros by Nicostratus and Aristophanes’ fourth-century comedy entitled Aiolosikōn (Sikōn being the typical name of a cook). The term μάγειρος is extensively used in middle and new comedy alongside the earlier term ὀψοποιός; see Alex. fr. 103.23 (Isostasion) with Arnott (1996) 281–2, fr. 129.19 (Lebēs), fr. 153.14 (Milēsioi), fr. 216 (Syntrehontes), Antiph. fr. 170.6 (Oenomaus ē Pelops), fr. 216.8 (Philothēbaios), Eub. fr. 60.3 (Lakōnes ē Lēda), Dionys. fr. 2 (Thesmophoros), Men. Dysc. 264, 399 (and Handley 1965, 199–200), 645, 945, Sam. 194, 302, Pk. 996 (with Gomme/Sandbach 1973, ad loc.), Philem. fr. 42 (Mētion ē Zōmion), fr. 82 (Stratiōtēs), fr. inc. 114.1 (for further cases in Philemon see Bruzzese 2011, 192– 221, Gobara 1986, 140–6), Posidipp. fr. 1 (Anablepōn), Damox. fr. 2 (Syntrophoi), Mach. fr. 16.268 G. See Rankin (1907) 12–23, 48–66, 73–92, Giannini (1960) 135–216, Dohm (1964) esp. 67–104, Berthiaume (1982) 71–8, Nesselrath (1990) 297–309, Scodel (1993) 161–76, Krieter-Spiro (1997) 26–34, Von Reden (1998) 262–9, Olson/Sens (1999) on Matro fr. 1.11, Wilkins (2000a) 369–416, Arnott (2010) 319–22, Bruzzese (2011) 183–221, Scafuro (2014) 210–3, Sidwell (2014) 66–7, Scardino/Sorrentino (2015) 221–5, Martin (2021) 67–87, Konstantakos (2023) 18–69. A cook boasting of his art is the speaker in Diphilus’ fr. 17 (Apoleipousa), fr. 42 (Zōgraphos) and fr. inc. 90. In the present fragment the cook is again referred to as a key character, upon whom the parasite’s much desired meal depends. 5–8 An articulate antithesis based on a μέν-δέ construction. The vigour (σφοδρός — λεπτός) and direction of the smoke (εἰς ὀρθόν — πλάγιος, cf. Sittig 1931, 5–12) in each of the two cases is indicative of a luxurious or non-luxurious (i.e. meatless) meal and, in turn, arouses the speaker’s emotions of delight and disappointment respectively. 5 σφοδρός It often describes the wind (Hero Dioptr. 33.9, Ael. NA 16.39, Chariton 3.3.10); in this case, it similarly serves to convey the force of the ascending smoke. Cf. above, fr. 59.2n. (Paralyomenos). 6 The speaker’s escalating delight at the smoke of the roasting meat is articulated by means of a tricolon crescendo (γέγηθα καὶ χαίρω τε καὶ πτερύττομαι). Cf. Ar. Pax 335: ἥδομαι γὰρ καὶ γέγηθα καὶ πέπορδα καὶ γελῶ. On the rhetorical technique of αὔξησις see Arist. Rh. 1368a 21–29 (and Cope/Sandys 1877, I 186), [Long.] 12.1–2, Quint. Inst. 8.5, Cic. De Or. 3.104–8. Cf. also Plöbst (1911), Buchheit (1960) 15–26, Lausberg (199010) 35–7, Kennedy (1994) 142–3. Meineke (1839–57, IV 404) regarded this line as a conscious inversion of Ar. Nu. 1133: δέδοικα καὶ πέφρικα καὶ βδελύττομαι. χαίρω On the joy of eating cf. similarly Alex. fr. 25.4–6 (Asōtodidaskalos): πίνωμεν, ἐμπίνωμεν, ὦ Σίκων, Σίκων,/χαίρωμεν, ἕως ἔνεστι τὴν ψυχὴν τρέφειν./ τύρβαζε, Μάνη. γαστρὸς οὐδὲν ἥδιον. πτερύττομαι LSJ9: ‘to flap the wings’ (of birds: Luc. VH 2.41, Ael. NA 4.30.11, 7.7.31). The verb is here metaphorically employed after γέγηθα and χαίρω to bring forward the climax of the parasite’s joy at the luxurious meal that he is going to

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 62)

43

have. At the same time, as Dr Paul Martin points out to me, wing-flapping could also be associated with seagull imagery, which is deployed in Matr. fr. 1.8–10 Olson/Sens to draw a simile between a parasite’s voracity and a hungry seagull: σχεδόθεν δέ οἱ ἦν παράσιτος/Χαιρεφόων, πεινῶντι λάρῳ ὄρνιθι ἐοικώς,/νήστης, ἀλλοτρίων εὖ εἰδὼς δειπνοσυνάων. The seagull’s appetite was prodigious (cf. Hom. Od. 5.53) and was therefore employed to describe gluttony (cf. Ar. Eq. 956, Nu. 591, Av. 567; see Thompson 1936, 192–3, Olson/Sens 1999, 80–1). The comic effect of the wing imagery seems thus to be twofold: enthusiasm at the prospect of a sumptuous meal, as well as a possible allusion to the seagull’s insatiable appetite. 7 νοῶ It bears a cognitive sense, in that the parasite realizes and comes to terms with the humble dinner that he is getting, as opposed to the verbs expressing his emotions of delight and exultation in the previous line. 8 ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ αἷμ’ ἔχει ‘Why, there is not even blood in it’. The combination of ἀλλά with οὐδέ is a self-correcting trope, in that, as Denniston (GP 24) notes, ‘the speaker makes as though he would mention something of trifling value or importance, but corrects his unspoken thought by saying that even that trifle is too much’. See Ar. Nu. 1396 (with Dover 1968, ad loc.), Eub. fr. inc. 118.4, Men. Sam. 359 (and Sommerstein 2013, ad loc.), 655. Cf. also Denniston GP 23–4, PCG V 88, Pérez Asensio (1999) ad loc. The parasite’s use of this structure conveys an emotional nuance equivalent to that of an exclamation, stressing his dissatisfaction and disappointment at the meatless meal that he is going to be served.

fr. 62 K.-A. (62 K.) ἀγνοεῖς ἐν ταῖς ἀραῖς ὅ τι ἐστίν, εἴ τις μὴ φράσει’ ὀρθῶς ὁδόν ἢ πῦρ ἐναύσει’, ἢ διαφθείρει’ ὕδωρ, ἢ δειπνιεῖν μέλλοντα κωλύσαι τινά; 2 ὅ τι Dindorf: ὅτι ACE, def. Headlam φράσει’ Porson: φρασειἠ A: φράσει ἢ E: φράση. ἢ C 3 ἢ1 ACE: μὴ Grotius ἐναύσει’ ... διαφθείρει’ Porson: -ει ... -ει A: 4 δειπνεῖν ACE, corr. -ει ... -η CE ἢ2 ACE: εἰ Kock (praeeunte Erfurdt qui ἢ εἰ) Erfurdt κωλύσαι Porson: -ῃ A: -ει CE

Don’t you know how much power the curses have, if one does not show the right way or does not give a light or pollutes water or prevents someone intending to offer dinner? Ath. 6.238F Δίφιλος δ’ ἐν Παρασίτῳ μελλόντων γίνεσθαι γάμων τὸν παράσιτον ποιεῖ λέγοντα τάδε (ὁ παρὰ Διφίλῳ φησὶ παράσιτος CE post verba poetae)∙ ἀγνοεῖς—τινά

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

44

Diphilus

And Diphilus in The Parasite presents his parasite saying these lines, while a wedding is about to take place (the parasite in Diphilus says; after the poetic passage in codd. CE) —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. 〈x l k l x〉 | l k l l l k l 2. kk l k l l | l k l l l k l 3. l l k l l | l k l l l k l 4. l l k l l l k | l l l k l

(penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) III 403–4; Porson (1812) 79–80; Erfurdt (1812) 459–60; Meineke (1839–57) IV 405; Kock (1880–88) II 561; Morgan (1890) 18–9; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 128–9; PCG V 88–9; Williams (1962) 396–8; Damen (1985) 89; Astorga (1990) 152–3; Pérez Asensio (1999) 309–11; Wilkins (2000a) 78; Rusten (2011) 669; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 262 Citation Context This fragment derives from the sixth book of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistai and from the same section on parasites (6.234D-248C) as fr. 61. It is preceded by the quotation of Antiph. fr. 193 (Progonoi), which addresses the parasites’ habits discussed in fr. 61 (see above, fr 61: Citation Context). It is followed by Eub. fr. 72 (Oedipus) and Diod. Com. fr. 2 (Epiklēros), which stress, as the present passage, the required respect for parasites. It is from Athenaeus that we learn that the parasite, that is, the title-character of this comedy, is delivering these lines on the occasion of an impending wedding. From this viewpoint, the reference to the dinner planned to be offered could presumably involve the wedding feast. Text In l. 2 Dindorf (1827, ad loc.) read ὅ τι, emending the ms. reading ὅτι, which was, nonetheless, subsequently defended by Headlam (1899, 7); the latter cited as a parallel Ar. Eq. 797–8 (ἔστι γὰρ ἐν τοῖς λογίοισιν / ὡς τοῦτον δεῖ ποτ’ ἐν ’Αρκαδίᾳ πεντωβόλου ἡλιάσασθαι), which is, however, a different case, being a dependent statement introduced by ὡς. Conversely, ἐν ταῖς ἀραῖς / ὅ τι ἐστίν is clearly an open-ended (and not a closed, ‘yes and no’) indirect question clause. Porson (1812, 79–80) emended ll. 2–4, restoring the optative (φράσει’, ἐναύσει’, διαφθείρει’, κωλύσαι), which denotes a remote future condition; it could account for the apodosis in the present indicative, provided that the latter precedes the protasis (K-G §576b, Goodwin §501c). The apodosis is supplied from the clause ἐν ταῖς ἀραῖς / ὅ τι ἐστίν, stressing the power of the curses if the conditions are fulfilled. In l. 3 Grotius (1626, 993) suggested μή instead of ἤ. However, μή is implied on the basis of the previous clause (μὴ φράσει’), whilst the disjunctive ἤ is needed to connect this clause with the previous one and the next one. Kock (1880–88, II 561) proposed that διαφθείρει’ ὕδωρ should be introduced with εἰ instead of ἤ; but this would cause an unnecessary breach in the enumeration of malicious acts, thus reducing the escalating effect of this passage. In l. 4 δειπνιεῖν (‘to offer s.o. dinner’) is Erfurdt’s emendation (1812, 460) of the unmetrical ms. reading δειπνεῖν (‘to have dinner’).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 62)

45

Interpretation The parasite of this play is threatening with ritual curses someone trying to prevent someone else from offering dinner or cancel a planned dinner, to judge from the second-person singular address; considering that according to Athenaeus the context of this passage involves a wedding, then the meal is conceivably the wedding feast. A wedding takes place in Diphilus’ Gamos as well. Preventing a parasite from dining is here comically perceived as an abuse of ritual order against which curses are pronounced, as in typical cases of antisocial behaviour (see ll. 1–3n.). On the initially ritual status of parasites before becoming merely the witty companions of their rich friends, see above, Title. The solemn position of parasites, who are presented as traditionally being protected by Zeus Philios, is similarly brought forward in Diod. Com. fr. 2 (from Epiklēros, cf. Wilkins 2000a, 72–4). Likewise, in Eub. fr. 75.3–5 (Oedipus) a parasite is delivering a curse against hosts asking their guests to contribute to the meal: ὅστις δ’ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἢ φίλον τιν’ ἢ ξένον/καλέσας ἔπειτα συμβολὰς ἐπράξατο,/φυγὰς γένοιτο μηδὲν οἴκοθεν λαβών. The idea that nothing can prevent a parasite from getting a free meal also pervades Eup. fr. 175 (Kolakes): οὐ πῦρ οὐδὲ σίδηρος/οὐδὲ χαλκὸς ἀπείργει/μὴ φοιτᾶν ἐπὶ δεῖπνον (cf. Storey 2003, 191). Cf. Men. fr. 270.2–3 (Orgē): καὶ τί δειπνεῖν κωλύει/τοὺς παρόντας; (a parasite’s typical question). This passage displays a similarly rhetorical style as frr. 60 and 61 (see Interpretation ad loc.). Its opening is formulaic, and the comic effect is attained through αὔξησις (amplification), which results in a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke in the last line. On Diphilus’ use of amplification see further fr. 61.6n. 1–3 The curses mentioned in this passage are the ἀραὶ Βουζύγειοι, which were uttered by the Bouzygai, an old Athenian priestly tribe, during the ritual act of ploughing. They were pronounced against those who refused to share fire or water or to point out the way to those lost or (according to Ael. VH 5.14 and schol. vet. Soph. Ant. 255 Xenis) to those leaving a corpse unburied. See 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, Cic. Οff. 3.54, Clem. Strom. 2.23.139. Cf. Eup. fr. 113 (Dēmoi) with Olson (2017) 414–5: τί κέκραγας ὥσπερ Βουζύγης ἀδικούμενος; Likewise, in Men. Dysc. 639–41 the cook Sikon is gloating for Cnemon’s punishment, as he refused to give his neighbour a cooking pot with water, thus hindering him from offering sacrifice (cf. Williams 1962, 396–8). The gravity of these curses may effectively be perceived from the broader perspective of community life; these ἀραί relied on ordinances of general validity condemning antisocial behaviour that undermined the much-needed co-operation within the polis (on public curses against malevolent attitudes see Din. 2.15–7: πρῶτον μὲν καθ’ ἑκάστην 〈ἐκκλησίαν〉 δημοσίᾳ κατὰ τῶν πονηρῶν ἀρὰς ποιούμενοι, Isoc. 4.157, Plu. Sol. 24, D.S. 13.69.2, Philo Hyp. 7.6–8). The offer of fire, water or of showing the way were widely regarded as gestures of social solidarity, as in Hom. Od. 5.490, Lys. 1.14, X. Mem. 2.2.12, Oec. 2.15, Plu. Cim. 10, Enn. TrRF II fr. inc. 145 Manuwald, Cic. Off. 1.51–2, Plaut. Rud. 766, Aul. 91–4, Petron.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

46

Diphilus

Sat. 136, Ov. A.A. 3.93–6. Cf. Toepffer (1889) 139–40 and (1897) 1094–7, Bernays (1885) I 277–82, Glotz (1904) 568, Schulze (19662) 189–210, Jacoby (1923–58) IIIb.1 400–1 on Philoch. FGrH 328 F96, Borthwick (1969) 309–10, Watson (1991) 38, Parker (1996) 286–7 and (2005) 282, Pérez Asensio (1999) 310 and n. 676. On the hero Bouzyges, the holder of the chief priesthood in this genos, see Toepffer (1897) 1095–7, Deubner (1956) 172–3, Kearns (1989) 68–9. 1 ἀγνοεῖς A formulaic opening of questions often employed in rhetoric; see e.g. D. 19.245: ‘ἀγνοεῖτ’’, ἔφη, ‘ποῖόν τιν’ ἡγεῖσθαι δεῖ;’, 21.116, Aeschin. 1.111. Cf. also Pl. Hp.Ma. 289a 2–6, Luc. D.Mort. 2.3: ἀγνοεῖς, ὦ Χάρων, ὅντινα ἄνδρα διεπόρθμευσας; Vit. Auct. 23.36–7, Cat. 11.19–22. 2 φράσει’ As Lloyd-Jones aptly remarked in his translation of Maas (1962) 74, n. 1, the elision of the third person singular of the optative in -ειε does not appear in Attic Greek before Diphilus (see l. 3: ἐναύσει’, διαφθείρει’ and fr. 74.4 [Synōris]). Cf. also PCG V ad loc., Pérez Asensio (1999) 311. 3 πῦρ ἐναύσει’ ‘to give fire/light to s.o.’; when employed in the middle voice, it denotes lighting a fire for oneself, as in Cratin. fr. inc. 450 (with Olson/ Seaberg 2018, ad loc.): ἐναύεσθαι, Ar. fr. inc. 784 (and Bagordo 2017, ad loc.): αὐόμενος (‘kindling oneself a fire’); cf. Borthwick (1969) 307–8. Fire is a prerequisite for civilized life, as it provides light and warmth and due to its purity predominates in domestic and public ritual. It is the symbolic and ritual axis around which the life of the oikos and the community revolves. See Morgan (1890) 18–9, Burkert (1985) 60–6, Parker (1983) esp. 23, 58, 77, 112, 227–8, 294, Eitrem (1915) 241–50. In turn, not offering light to someone was not only a denial of the essential gift of fire, but also a means of social exclusion, which is suggestive of the gravity of the action mentioned by the parasite (Hdt. 7.231: πάσχων δὲ τοιάδε ἠτίμωτο· οὔτε οἱ πῦρ οὐδεὶς ἔναυε Σπαρτιητέων οὔτε διελέγετο, ὄνειδός τε εἶχε «ὁ τρέσας ’Αριστόδημος» καλεόμενος, Din. 2.9.4, Plb. 9.40.5, Ael. fr. 245; cf. the Latin parallels cited by Morgan 1890, 18). On its social significance cf. also above, ll. 1–3n. with further parallels. διαφθείρει’ ὕδωρ Water is mentioned by Pindar (O. 1.1) side by side with fire owing to their pivotal role in human life. Like fire, water is particularly capable of purity and, in turn, equally liable to ritual pollution (cf. Parker 1983, 58). Apart from miasma, there were several cases of physical pollution, such as water poisoning (on the latter see Th. 2.48.2, Gal. De bonis malisque succis 6.795, Comm. Hp. Epidem. VI, 17B 159, 182 Kühn). For laws against the physical pollution of water see SEG 3.18 (ca. 420 BC), Pl. Lg. 845d–e. Cf. Hughes (1994) 161–4, Michelson (1994) 35–8, Longrigg (2000) 60, Nutton (2000) 65–7, Krasilnikoff (2002) 51–4. The Bouzygean curses were pronounced against those not offering water; a neighbour’s duty to provide water, when needed, goes back to Solonian legislation (Plu. Sol. 23.6; see Leão/Rhodes 2015, 105–6; cf. also Pl. Lg. 844b). In the present case the speaker goes one step further and curses those malicious enough to pollute water. The culminating malevolent acts in ll. 2–3 serve as foil for the parasite’s own plight in l. 4, which forms the climax of the passage.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Παράσιτος (fr. 63)

47

4 A παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke (noted by Gulick 1951–712, III 75 and later by Pérez Asensio 1999, 309, 311), which is placed at the climax of the ritual curses about malevolent behaviour. On this type of explosive joke relying on audience surprise see above fr. 60.12n. δειπνιεῖν As would be expected, the term commonly occurs in comic banquets; cf. Men. fr. 340 (Synaristōsai): ἀστεῖον τὸ μὴ/συνάγειν γυναῖκας μηδὲ δειπνίζειν ὄχλον,/ἀλλ’ οἰκοσίτους τοὺς γάμους πεποιηκέναι (from within a wedding context as well), Pherecr. fr. 162.3 (Cheiron), Alex. fr. 216.3 (Syntrehontes), Lynceus fr. 1.1 (Centaur), Matro fr. 1.2.

fr. 63 K.-A. (63 K.) οὐ δεῖ παρασιτεῖν ὄντα δυσάρεστον σφόδρα παρασιτεῖν ... δυσάρεστον (ϊ supra ε script.) CE: παρασιτεῖν ... δυσάριστον Α: παράσιτον ... δυσαρεστεῖν Kock

One should not be a parasite if one is hard to please Ath. 6.247D κἀν τῷ δὲ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Παρασίτῳ δράματί φησιν (καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ CE)· οὐ — σφόδρα And (Diphilus) says in his drama entitled The Parasite (and elsewhere CE) —

Metre Iambic trimeter

l l k kk l | l k kk l l k l (penthemimeral caesura) Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) II 522–4; Meineke (1839–57) IV 406–7; Kock (1880–88) II 562; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 128–9; PCG V 89; Pérez Asensio (1999) 311–3; Wilkins (2000a) 78–9 and n. 112; Rusten (2011) 669; Pérez Asensio/ Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 262–3 Citation Context This line is cited by Athenaeus in the sixth book of Deipnosophistai and belongs to the same section on parasites (234D - 248C) as frr. 61 and 62. Its immediate context involves passages describing parasites’ reactions, as well as specifying the behaviour expected of them at dinner. It is preceded by comic quotations referring to angry or complaining parasites, as frr. 75 and 76 (Synōris), and some paragraphs above (246F) by a quotation of Timocl. fr. 31 (Pyktēs) presenting wholly submissive and tolerant parasites. The present fragment is similarly followed by a quotation of Men. fr. 270 (Orgē) disapproving of their improper behaviour and then by fr. 1 of Philonid. Kothornoi involving a parasite’s protest against maltreatment.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

48

Diphilus

Text Kock proposed παράσιτον instead of παρασιτεῖν and δυσαρεστεῖν in the place of δυσάρεστον; the verb δυσαρεστέω, however, is attested only in prose, whereas the adjective δυσάρεστος as well as the v. παρασιτέω are often employed in comedy (see below notes ad loc.). Interpretation To ensure a constant place at dinner, the parasite has to be complaisant and congenial, flattering, as well as often entertaining his host or patron. On the amusement that the company of the parasite or flatterer is expected to offer, see Epich. fr. 32.3–6 (Elpis ē Ploutos): τηνεὶ δὲ χαρίεις τ’ εἰμὶ καὶ ποιέω πολὺν/ γέλωτα καὶ τὸν ἱστιῶντ’ ἐπαινέω·/καἴ κα τις ἀντίον 〈τι〉 λῆι τήνωι λέγειν,/τήνωι κυδάζομαί τε κἀπ’ ὦν ἠχθόμαν, Eup. fr. 172.9–16 (Kolakes) with Olson (2016) 87, 91–2, Alex. fr. 188.1–2 (Poiētai) with Arnott (1996) 553–4: πάνυ τοι βούλομαι/ οὕτω γελᾶσθαι καὶ γέλοι’ ἀεὶ λέγειν, Antiph. fr. 80.8–10 (Didymoi): οὐ μάχιμος, οὐ πάροξυς, οὐχὶ βάσκανος,/ὀργὴν ἐνεγκεῖν ἀγαθός· ἂν σκώπτῃς, γελᾷ·/ἐρωτικός, γελοῖος, ἱλαρὸς τῷ τρόπῳ, fr. 142.7–10 (Lēmniai), Anaxandr. fr. 10 (Gerontomania) with Millis (2015) 76, Diod. Com. fr. 2.16–20, 31–42 (Epiklēros), Thphr. Char. 2.4, Plaut. Stich. 171 (cf. Petersmann 1973, ad loc.), 637, Capt. 470, Ter. Eun. 250–3 with Barsby (1999) 130–2, Poll. 6.122 (Bethe), Alciphr. 3.13.3. Cf. Ribbeck (1883) 15–6, Arnott (1972a) 64–7, Nesselrath (1985) 25–9, Damon (1997) 29–33, Fisher (2000) 372–3, Wilkins (2000a) 78–9 and n. 112, Milanezi (2000) 402–3, McClure (2003b) 270–1. Likewise, in fr. 75.1 (Synōris) it is stressed that the parasite cannot afford to get angry (see note ad loc.). From this viewpoint, the parasite may tolerate anything, including insults and humiliation; see Axionic. fr. 6 (Chalkidikos), Timocl. fr. 31 (Pyktēs), Aristophon fr. 5.6 (Iatros), Nicol. Com. fr. inc. 1.29, Plaut. Bacch. 596–6, Capt. 88–9, Curc. 398. παρασιτεῖν As would be expected, παράσιτος and its derivatives are commonly employed in comic contexts; cf. Diod. Com. fr. 2.5 (Epiklēros): τὸ γὰρ παρασιτεῖν εὗρεν ὁ Ζεὺς ὁ φίλιος, Alex. fr. 200.3 (Prōtohoros), fr. 205.1 (Pyraunos), Axonic. fr. 6.1 (Chalkidikos), Nicol. Com. fr. inc. 1.22. δυσάρεστον On its meaning as ‘irritable’, ‘hard to please’, see similarly Ar. Ec. 180: χαλεπὸν μὲν οὖν ἄνδρας δυσαρέστους νουθετεῖν, Amph. fr. 34 (Philadelphoi) with Papachrysostomou (2016) 221: ῎Απολλον, ὡς δυσάρεστόν ἐστ’ ἀνιώμενος/ ἄνθρωπος ἐφ’ ἅπασίν τε δυσχερῶς ἔχει. Cf. Nicostr. fr. 15 (Lakōnes), Men. Asp. 432 (echoing Eur. Or. 232) describing an unpleasant condition. See also Pérez Asensio (1999) 312–3.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

49

Πελιάδες (Peliades)

(“The Daughters of Pelias”) Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) II 522–4; Meineke (1839–57) IV 406–7; Kock (1880–88) II 562; Crusius (1888) 610, 630; Kaibel (1903) 1154; Marigo (1907) 387, 428–9; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 128–31; Nesselrath (1997a) 681; Pérez Asensio (1999) 313–9; Casolari (2003) 181–3; Bruzzese (2011) 41–2; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 263–4; Konstantakos (2014b) 176–7 Title Peliades was the first tragedy to be produced by Euripides (455 BC). Its plot has been preserved in P.Oxy. 2455, fr. 18, col. ii and is largely reflected in Hyg. fab. 24 and Moses Chor. Progymn. 3.4. Pelias’ daughters were persuaded by Medea that their aged father could be rejuvenated if he was dismembered and boiled in a cauldron; to demonstrate her power, Medea cut up a ram, placed its members in a vessel and brought it back to life. But when the daughters of Pelias performed the same operation on their father, he was not revived. Given the gnomological character of most of the fragments, not much of the plot of the Euripidean play can be retrieved. The most informative fragments include a reference to Pelias’ palace as the dramatic locale (fr. 601 K.) and an admonition addressed by Pelias to one of his daughters (perhaps Alcestis, who was the most prominent of them) regarding proper female behaviour (fr. 603 K.). From an Aristotelian viewpoint (Poet. 1453b19–22), it may be reasonable to infer that Pelias’ daughters, after whom the play is named, were brought to the centre of dramatic interest in view of their unwitting act of patricide. Several moralizing fragments concern issues of royal power (frr. 604, 605 K.) and wealth (fr. 607 K.), as well as human actions that are determined by good or bad company (fr. 609 K.) or driven by self-interest (fr. 608 K.), though they cannot be precisely allocated within the plot. Cf. Aélion (1986) 143–5, Pralon (1996) 69–83, Collard/Cropp (2008) II 61–3. It is uncertain whether Sophocles’ Rhizotomoi (‘The Root-Cutters’) treated this part of the myth, as the available evidence (fr. 534 R.) merely describes Medea’s cutting of herbs needed for sorcery (see Lloyd-Jones 1996, 268–9). On this story see also Eur. Med. 9–10, 486–7, 504–5, 734, D.S. 4.52.1–4, [Apollod.] 1.9.27, Paus. 8.11.2–3, Ov. Met. 7.297–321. Medea as the agent of Pelias’ murder is vaguely alluded to even earlier in Pi. P. 4.249–50 and Pherecyd. FGrH 3 F105/fr. 105 Fowler. The available iconographic evidence similarly attests to the popularity of this theme. Vase-paintings depicting Pelias’ daughters with or without their aged father around the cauldron with the ram are dated to as early as 520 BC and throughout the fifth century (LIMC s.v. ‘Peliades’, figg. 4–10, s.v. ‘Pelias’, figg. 10–12). In a few of them dating from 450 to 430 BC (LIMC s.v. ‘Peliades’, figg. 11–13, ‘Pelias’, figg. 17–21) the daughters are represented as contemplating about whether they should proceed with this operation or not by using speaking gestures (cf. esp. Neumann 1965, 128–30, Meyer 1980, 29–34), which in view of their date might point to

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

50

Diphilus

tragic (possibly Euripidean) influence (cf. Vojatzi 1982, 96, Schefold/Jung 1989, 39, Simon 1994a, 273). This story was subsequently reiterated by Aphareus, Isocrates’ adopted son, in his own Peliades (341 BC), featuring the renowned actor Neoptolemus as the protagonist, according to didascalic sources (TrGF I, DID A 2a, 11–14). The preserved evidence is thus suggestive of the continuing appeal of this topic throughout the classical period. In the Augustan era a homonymous Latin tragedy was written by Sempronius Gracchus (TrRF I fr. 2 Schauer). The revival of interest in this subject in Rome also emerges from its representation in frescoes and a sarcophagus (LIMC s.v. ‘Peliades’, figg. 2–3, ‘Pelias’, figg. 15, 22–23). On the myth see Scherling (1937) 308–17, Vojatzi (1982) 94–100, Schefold/Jung (1989) 37–9, Gantz (1993) 365–8, Simon (1994a) 270–3 and (1994b) 274–6; on a thorough analysis of the iconographic sources for this theme, see Meyer (1980). Diphilus’ play is the sole comedy known to bear this title. The continuing appeal of this theme may well be associated with the tremendous popularity of Euripides and the reperformances of his plays from the fourth century onwards (on which see above, fr. 60.1–3n. [Parasitos]). At the same time, the treatments of minor tragedians of that era, such as Aphareus, are suggestive of fourth-century interest in this topic. Moreover, the preposterous aspects of the story of Pelias’ intended rejuvenation could provide suitable material for a mythological comedy. The possibility of a mythological burlesque would be consistent with a respectable number of titles of Diphilan comedies suggestive of mythological themes (see below, Content). Content The title as such points to a play treating a legendary theme, which is a feature suggestive of mythological comedy; several plays of Diphilus bear mythological titles, such as Anagyros (the eponymous hero of the Attic demos Anagyrous; on the title cf. Orth 2017, 215–22), Danaides, Hecate, Heracles, Theseus, Lēmniai (if its subject-matter was indeed mythological, as that of Aristophanes’ Lēmniai, cf. PCG III2 207) and possibly Pyrrha (cf. also Sapphō: Title, similarly bearing features of mythological comedy). Burlesque of myth, which was occasionally employed in old comedy (e.g. Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros, Seriphioi and Nemesis, Aristophanes’ Danaides and Phoinissai), became a sub-genre of fourth-century comedy, drawing on a popular tradition of caricaturing the exalted world of gods and heroes (that goes back to as early as Il. 14.153–351, Od. 8.266–366). This distinctive trend particularly flourished from the early fourth century with the last plays of Aristophanes (Cocalus and Aiolosikōn) and the comedies of his younger contemporaries (Strattis, Plato, Philyllius, Theopompus, Nicophon, Nicochares) and spanned about six decades until the 340s (to judge from the great number of mythological burlesques by Araros, Eubulus, Anaxandrides, Antiphanes, Philetaerus, and Ephippus). The lofty world of myth — especially tragic myth (given that tragedy was the main vehicle through which myth was communicated to audiences from the end of

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πελιάδες

51

the fifth century onwards) — is subjected to comic degradation, in that the solemn tragic situation is brought down to a trivial and laughable level of everyday life. Mythological comedy features the extensive burlesque of tragic plots and episodes, whilst famous tragic personages tend to be reduced to vulgar comic types, such as the parasite (Eub. fr. 72 [Oedipus]), the braggart soldier (Heracles in Ephipp. fr. 2 [Busiris]), and the money-lender (adesp. com. fr. 1062.9–12). On fourth-century mythological travesty see Webster (19702) 82–97, 115, Arnott (1972b) 71–5 and (2010) 294–300, Nesselrath (1990) 188–241, Casolari (2003) 23–5, 127–93, Konstantakos (2014b) 160–8, 171–5, 177 (with rich bibliography, also including earlier studies) and (2015) 173–8. Cf. also Lever (1956) 169–70, Oliva (1968) 61–73, Hunter (1983) 22–30, Mangidis (2003) 24–8. Mythological travesty gradually declined towards the end of the fourth century, becoming an ‘endangered species’ (to quote Arnott 2010, 299), if we consider the limited number of mythological titles of comedies by Menander (Dardanus, Trophonius, Pseudo-Heracles) and Philemon (Myrmidons and Palamedes, the latter’s authenticity being contested; see the discussion in Nesselrath 1990, 202, nn. 61 and 63 and in detail Bruzzese 2011, 42–58, who nonetheless traced certain aspects of mythological parody in sporadic fragments). Notably, Menander does not employ mythological burlesque, but mythological (especially tragic) paradigms to enhance, as a rule, the speaker’s argument by drawing parallels between the comic and the tragic situation, as, for instance, in Sam. 589–98 (the unexpected pregnancy in the comic play is paralleled to Danae’s impregnation by Zeus in tragedy, cf. Sommerstein 2013, 281–3) and Epit. 326–33 (the exposure of Neleus and Pelias in Sophocles’ Tyro is provided as an antecedent to the exposed baby in Menander’s play, cf. Furley 2009, 156–7); on Menander’s distinctive treatment of tragedy see Reinhardt (1974) and Katsouris (1975a) passim, Hunter (1985) 114–36, Iversen (1998), Cusset (2003) 109–213, Omitowoju (2010) 125–45, Fountoulakis (2011), Zanetto (2014) 83–103, Petrides (2014) 49–83, Hurst (2015) 73–103, Martina (2016) III 11–266. Conversely, as noted above, Diphilus’ comic production displays a fair number of mythological titles, which may be suggestive of his predilection for the middle comic trend of mythological comedy. The available evidence for these plays — albeit meagre — may hint at the comic treatment and often the degradation of mythological themes and characters. For instance, the speaker of fr. 45 (Heracles) is a boastful character, who might be Heracles himself or someone imitating him, bragging about his huge appetite and drinking abilities. Likewise, fr. 49 (Theseus) features three girls at the licentious festival of Adonia delivering a sexually nuanced riddle perhaps pointing to an erotic situation, which might be somehow associated with Theseus’ amorous affairs (cf. Casolari 2003, 182). Fr. 24 (Danaides) similarly refers to erotic arousal associated with female homosexuality, which would have been somehow involved in the comic treatment of the myth of Danaus’ daughters. Fr. 27 (Hecate) comprises a reference to a cake ritually offered to Artemis, who is often paired with Hecate, surrounded by lighted torches. The latter formed a con-

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

52

Diphilus

stituent feature of Hecate’s cult (cf. e.g. Sarian 1992, 985–6, Werth 2006, 153–65, Lautwein 2009, ch. 2). It is thus reasonable to infer that the allusion to this deity could be associated with aspects of her ritual conceivably in a mythological context. At the same time, prominent comic types, such as the parasite, are intermingled in Diphilan comedies that treat a mythological subject-matter. Fr. 48 (Theseus) involves a jibe at a parasite beaten for the sake of morcels of bread, whilst in fr. 53 (Lēmniai) a parasite (or a slave) is complaining about being deprived of dinner. On Diphilus’ preference for mythological themes see Kaibel (1903) 1154, Marigo (1907) 387, Nesselrath (1990) 202 and n. 62, Nesselrath (1997a) 681, Casolari (2003) 181–3, Bruzzese (2011) 41–2, Konstantakos (2014b) 176–7. Diphilus’ Peliades is the sole comedy that bears the same title as the Euripidean play. The subject-matter of this tragedy involving the weird attempt of Pelias’ rejuvenation may have given scope for grotesque humour suitable for mythological travesty. Crusius (1888, 610, 630) regarded Antiph. fr. inc. 239 as likely to involve a comic treatment of Peliades, in that it is delivered by someone being boiled in a hot bath, so much so that his/her skin is about to be scraped off (see the recent discussion in Olson 2021, 180). Admittedly, this situation bears a notable resemblance to the process of Pelias’ rejuvenation, but given the loss of the play’s title and context, there is no way of safely associating this fragment with a travesty of the tragic myth. The comic potential of this tragic situation emerges also from Plaut. Pseud. 868–72, where the boastful cook claims that he can ensure the longevity of those who will taste his meals, hilariously referring to Medea’s rejuvenation of Pelias after cooking him up: quia sorbitione faciam ego hodie te mea,/item ut Medea Peliam concoxit senem,/quem medicamento et suis venenis dicitur/fecisse rursus ex sene adulescentulum,/item ego te faciam. Likewise, fr. 64 of the Diphilan play refers to a dinner, though we are not in a position to know in what way it could have been related to a parody of Euripides’ Peliades.

Fragments fr. 64 K.-A. (64 K.)

5

(Α.) τὸ δειπνάριον ἀνθηρὸν ἦν, γλαφυρὸν σφόδρα· φακῆς κατ’ ἄνδρα τρύβλιον μεστὸν μέγα. (Β.) πρώτιστον οὐκ ἀνθηρόν. (Α.) ἐπὶ ταύτῃ φέρων εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐπεχόρευσε σαπέρδης μέγας ὑπό τι δυσώδης οὗτος † ηρος ἀνθίαν, ὃν πολλὰ ταῖς κίχλαις ἤδη λέγει†

1–2 (A.) τὸ δειπνάριον ἀνθηρόν. (Β.) ἦ γλαφυρὸν σφόδρα; (Α.) φακῆς vel (A.) τὸ δειπνάριον τἀνθηρὸν ἦ γλαφυρὸν σφόδρ’ ἦν; (Β.) φακῆς Dobree   1 τὸ om. CE   ἀνθηρὸν ἦν Erfurdt: ἦν ἀνθηρόν ACE: ἀνθηρὸν ἦν; (B.) Kock   3 personas

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

53

Πελιάδες (fr. 64)

dist. Casaubon πρώτιστον οὐκ ἀνθηρόν A: om. CE: πρῶτον τόδ’ οὐκ ἀνθηρόν Kaibel: προοίμιον οὐκ ἀνθηρόν Kock (coll. Alex. fr. 115.3) 4 μέγας ACE: μέλας Papavasileiou 5 post δυσώδης defic. CE (Β.) οὗτος Schweighäuser ὑπό τι δυσώδης οὗτος personae B. trib. Herwerden: (ὑπό τι δυσώδης οὑτοσί) Bothe, (ὑπό τι δυσώδης οὗτος ἦν) Kock, πρὸς ἀνθίαν coniungentes cum ἐπεχόρευσε ηρος ἀνθίαν Α: ἱερὸς ἀνθίας Schweighäuser (coll. [Arist.] HA 620b25): πρὸς ἀνθίαν Villebrune: 〈οὐ〉 πρὸς ἀνθίαν Wil. ms. (in marg. Athenaei Kaibeliani) 6 ὃν πολλὰ ταῖς κίχλαις ἤδη λέγει A: ὡς πολλὰ 〈χαίρειν〉 ... λέγειν Casaubon: ὃς πολλὰ 〈κλαίειν〉 ... λέγει Schweighäuser 5–6 οὗτος.:: ἦ πρὸς ἀνθίαν/ζῶν πολλά 〈χαίρειν〉 ταῖς κίχλαις ἤδη λέγεις; vel οὑτοσὶ πρὸς ἀνθίαν/ζῶν πολλά 〈χαίρειν〉 ταῖς κίχλαις ἤδη λέγει (ζῶν Desrousseaux) fort. Kassel/Austin

5

The little dinner was splendid, exceedingly refined; a large bowl full of lentil soup for each one. (B.) First of all, that isn’t splendid. (A.) After that a large saperdēs danced in, throwing itself into the middle his being rather stinky † anthias which at once says to the wrasses †

Ath. 4.156F ἐμοὶ δὲ κατὰ τὸν κωμικὸν Δίφιλον, φησὶν δ’ οὗτος ἐν Πελιάσι (φησὶν δ’ οὗτος ἐν Πελιάσι om. CE), τὸ — λέγει But for me, to quote the comic poet Diphilus, who says in Peliades —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. k l k kk l l k | l kk l k l 2. k l k l k | l k l l l k l 3. l l k l l l k | kk l l k l 4. l kk k kk k l k | l l l k l 5. k kk k l l l k | † l k l k l 6. l l k 〈l x〉 l k l l l k l †

(hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (corrupt line)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) II 522–4; Meineke (1839–57) IV 406–7; Kock (1880–88) II 562; Marigo (1907) 428–9; Thompson (1947) 14–16, 116–7, 121–5, 226; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 128–31; PCG V 89; Astorga (1990) 61–2; Pérez Asensio (1999) 313–9; Wilkins (2000a) 14; Casolari (2003) 182–3; Rusten (2011) 669; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 263–4 Citation Context This fragment derives from a section where Athenaeus discusses lentils at length (156C-160D), not least because they originate in his homeland, Roman Egypt (158D), and this gives him scope for displaying his erudition on this topic. Owing to their low cost, lentils have been associated with the modest life of philosophers, especially the Cynics (156C-158B). Their consumption in abundance gives rise to the present interjection by Cynulcus following a group of parodied

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

54

Diphilus

tragic lines, into which φακῆ and φακῶν are comically inserted in place of κακή and κακῶν to suggest the humble value of this meal; these are the travesties of Eur. Med. 332 (Ζεῦ, μὴ λάθοι σε τῶνδ’ ὃς αἴτιος φακῶν) and of TrGF II fr. adesp. 92 (φακός σε δαίμων καὶ φακῆ τύχη λάβοι). After a burst of laughter at the present quotation there follow mocking comments delivered by courtesans on the philosophers’ principled preference of lentil soup to elegant dishes, such as fish (157B-C): ὁρῶ γὰρ πολλὴν παρ’ ὑμῖν τῆς φακῆς τὴν σκευήν· εἰς ἣν ἀποβλέπουσα συμβουλεύσαιμ’ ἂν ὑμῖν κατὰ τὸν Σωκρατικὸν ’Αντισθένην ἐξάγειν ἑαυτοὺς τοῦ βίου τοιαῦτα σιτουμένους. Text In the first line Erfurdt (1812, 451) emended the unmetrical ms. reading. In l. 2 τρύβλιον accented on the antepenultimate and typed as such by Meineke and Kock is preferable to τρυβλίον adopted by Kaibel (in his edition of Athenaeus) and then by Kassel/Austin; the latter is attested only in much later sources, as well as medical texts, whereas the former occurs in passages from the classical period to the second sophistic, including all comic texts (see note ad loc. for comic parallels). For this matter see Hdn. GG III 1, p. 1357 (Lentz): τὰ διὰ τοῦ ιον τρισύλλαβα ἔχοντα πρὸ τοῦ ι ρ ἢ λ, μὴ ὄντα ὑποκοριστικὰ μηδὲ ἔχοντα τὸ η ἐν τῇ προπαραληγούσῃ, προπαροξύνεται, ἴκριον τὸ σανίδωμα, ἴτριον, ὄσπριον, ἔριον, μείλιον τὸ δῶρον, τρύβλιον. Interestingly, this fragment of Diphilus is cited as a parallel to Ar. fr. 136 (Gēras) at the critical apparatus of PCG III 2, being there correctly accented as τρύβλιον (which probably suggests that in the present case τρυβλίον could be a misprint of the PCG edition). In l. 4 Papavasileiou (1889, 220) proposed μἐλας (since σαπέρδης is identical with the black fish κορακῖνος) instead of the ms. reading μέγας. There is no reason, however, to change the latter, not least because μέγας occurs at the same position of the trimeter in l. 2 to stress the correspondence between the large bowl of lentil soup and the large saperdēs, thus highlighting the contrast between the large quantity of the meal and its poor quality (see below, note ad loc.). The distribution of lines between speakers A and B needs to be re-considered, so that the comic meaning is effectively conveyed. Unlike the tautology and padding involved in Dobree’s conjecture (Dobree 1831–33, II 306: τὸ δειπνάριον τἀνθηρὸν ἦ γλαφυρὸν σφόδρ’ ἦν;), Kock (1880–88, II 562) aptly proposed an antilabē between speakers (A) and (B) in l. 1 with the first speaker asking if the dinner was splendid and the second answering that it was exceedingly refined, adding that the banqueters were served a large bowl of lentils. In turn, the first speaker would be expected to scornfully reply that a bowl of lentils is not what one would call ‘splendid’ (l. 3). The second speaker would subsequently go on to describe the large saperdēs which was also served (ll. 3–4), again provoking the first speaker’s sneering remark that this fish is stinky (l. 5). Lines 5–6 are corrupt, as ηρος ἀνθίαν at the end of l. 5 does not make sense, whilst l. 6 is unmetrical. Of all the conjectures cited in the critical apparatus the most satisfactory reading is provided by Kassel/Austin, who (adopting the reading ζῶν proposed by Desrousseaux 1942,

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πελιάδες (fr. 64)

55

82) proposed at the end of l. 5 again a change of speaker (following Herwerden 1855, 123) jeering at his interlocutor’s dissatisfaction with saperdēs: ἦ πρὸς ἀνθίαν/ ζῶν πολλά 〈χαίρειν〉 ταῖς κίχλαις ἤδη λέγεις; (‘Is it that living by anthias you bid at once the wrasses 〈farewell〉?’). In such a case, speaker A’s derisive remark about the unpleasant smell of saperdēs (l. 5) would give rise to speaker B’s teasing about his interlocutor’s preference for posh fish, such as anthias, so much so that he despises even wrasses (being significantly more refined than saperdēs, though not as lavish as anthias; see notes ad loc.). Accordingly, the text could read as follows:

5

(Α.) τὸ δειπνάριον ἀνθηρὸν ἦν; (B.) γλαφυρὸν σφόδρα· φακῆς κατ’ ἄνδρα τρύβλιον μεστὸν μέγα. (A.) πρώτιστον οὐκ ἀνθηρόν. (B.) ἐπὶ ταύτῃ φέρων εἰς τὸ μέσον ἐπεχόρευσε σαπέρδης μέγας. (A.) ὑπό τι δυσώδης οὗτος. (B.) ἦ πρὸς ἀνθίαν ζῶν πολλά 〈χαίρειν〉 ταῖς κίχλαις ἤδη λέγεις;

Such a distribution of speakers could provide a fine balance between ll. 1, 3 and 5, which would include lively antilabai at the same position of the trimeter, resulting to jesting exchanges between the two characters. Interpretation This fragment involves a rapid banter that relies on the spirited and playful exchanges between speakers (A) and (B), especially if the restoration proposed above (Text) is taken into account. The comic effect results from the hilarious exaggeration involved in the description of a supposedly ‘refined’ dinner that includes humble dishes, such as lentil soup and a stinky fish of small account, as well as from the contrast between the large quantity of the dishes (conveyed by the adjective μέγας, which is placed at the same position of the trimeter in ll. 2 and 4) and their poor quality. The vitality of the joke is further enhanced by means of the placement of ἀνθηρόν at the same metrical position in ll. 1 and 3 providing a sense of balance that enhances the ensuing antithesis, as well as by the paronomasia between ἀνθηρόν and ἀνθίας (cf. Herwerden 1855, 123, Astorga 1990, 61–2; on this figure see Quint. 9.3.66–7, cf. Lausberg 1998, 285–8, Anderson 2000, 93). This (pseudo-)etymological play creates an interesting range of meaning generated by punning; the dinner was, after all, not ἀνθηρόν (‘splendid’), as it did not include an ἀνθίας (a celebrated fish). Marigo (1907, 428) followed by Pérez Asensio (1999, 316) suggested that the character to whom the humble dinner was served could be a parasite. Though it cannot ultimately be proved, this is an appealing possibility, not least because parasites tend to comment on the meals served to them (see e.g. the eloquent parallels cited in fr. 61.4–8n. for the parasite’s anxiety to figure out what kind of meal he will be offered). The use of the imperfect ἦν seems to suggest that in the present scene the dinner referred to is reported; one cannot know, however, whether this feast had

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

56

Diphilus

previously taken place on stage, being subsequently described here by the speaker who participated. There is also no way of knowing how this modest dinner could be related to the mythical topic of Peliades. 1 δειπνάριον a diminutive of δεῖπνον, rarely used; it is not attested earlier than Diphilus. Cf. Lucil. A.P. 11.10, Epict. Diss. 4.1.155, Clem. Al. Paed. 2.1.4.3–4. ἀνθηρόν literally, ‘flowery’; cf. Ar. Av. 1093, Ra. 352, Chaerem. TrGF I 71 F9 (Io). When employed metaphorically, it may denote ‘new’ (X. Cyr. 1.6.38), ‘brilliant’, ‘bright-coloured’ (Eur. IA 73, Plu. Mor. 54E ) or ‘splendid’, as here (cf. also Ael. NA 6.19.12: βίον... ἀνθηρόν). σφόδρα See fr. 59.2n. (Paralyomenos). γλαφυρόν ‘refined’, ‘dainty’ (LSJ9); for its comic use to describe meals, as in this case, see Alex. fr. 115.19–23 (Crateia ē Pharmakopōlēs) with Arnott (1996) 315 (possibly delivered by a cook): ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ σοφῶς/ταῦτ’ οἰκονομήσω καὶ γλαφυρῶς καὶ ποικίλως/οὕτω, ποιῶ γὰρ τοὔψον αὐτός, ὥστε τοὺς/δειπνοῦντας εἰς τὰ λοπάδι’ ἐμβάλλειν ποιῶ/ἐνίοτε τοὺς ὀδόντας ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς, Anaxipp. fr. 1.35 (Egkalyptomenos): ἐμβαμματίοις γλαφυροῖσι κεχορηγημένα. Cf. also its use in satyr-play, as in Astyd. TrGF I 60 F4 (Heracles Satyricus): ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ δείπνου γλαφυροῦ ποικίλην εὐωχίαν. In comedy it is also employed in the more general sense of ‘polished’, ‘delicate’: cf. Ar. Av. 1272, Dionys. fr. 3.2 (Homōnymoi), Mach. fr. 15.237 G., as well as denoting ‘hollowed’ (e.g. of ships: Hermipp. fr. 63.11 [Phormophoroi]). Cf. also PCG V 90 and Pérez Asensio (1999) ad loc. 2 φακῆς A low-cost legume originating in Egypt and Mesopotamia and associated with the humble status of those who consume it; cf. Ar. V. 811–5, 984, Pl. 192, 1004–5: ἔπειτα πλουτῶν οὐκέθ’ ἥδεται φακῇ·/πρὸ τοῦ δ’ ὑπὸ τῆς πενίας ἅπαντ’ ἐπήσθιεν, fr. 23 (Amphiaraus), Antiph. fr. 185 (Parekdidomenē), Sopater fr. 1 (Bacchis), Anaxipp. fr. 1.41–2 (Egkalyptomenos), where it is ironically mentioned: ἀρτύω φακῆν/καὶ τὸ περίδειπνον τοῦ βίου λαμπρὸν ποιῶ, Demetrius II fr. 1.7 (Areopagitēs). The comic appropriation of lentils articulately emerges from the title Φακῆ (‘Lentil Soup’) of a play by Sopater. Diphilus employs lentils in the food catalogue of fr. 60.7 (Parasitos), on which see above. Lentils, often consumed as soup, were popular among the impoverished and the philosophers, who regarded it as virtuous food. Τhis modest meal is sometimes employed to deflate the grandeur of tragic myths, to judge from Sophil. fr. inc. 10 (τραγικὸν γὰρ ἡ φακῆ ’στιν, Ἀρχάγαθος ἔφη/†πο γεγραφέναι ῥοφοῦντ’ Ὀρέστην τῆς νόσου πεπαυμένον), the hilarious ‘transplantation’ of lentils into the tragic quotations delivered by the philosophers in Parmeniscus’ Symposium of the Cynics (Ath. 4.156E), as well as the present case, if we accept the likelihood of mythological travesty (see above, Content). Lentil soup is described as foul-smelling; cf. Pherecr. fr. 73 (Koriannō), Stratt. fr. 47.2 (Phoinissai) with Orth (2009) ad loc., Sopater fr. 14 (Nekuia): ῎Ιθακος ’Οδυσσεύς, τοὐπὶ τῆι φακῆι μύρον,/πάρεστι· θάρσει, θυμέ, Hegesipp. fr. 1.10–27 (Adelphoi) and the parody of its smell in Hegemon fr. 1.18–20 Brandt: ταῦτά μοι ὁρμαίνοντι παρίστατο Παλλὰς ’Αθήνη/χρυσῆν ῥάβδον ἔχουσα καὶ ἤλασεν εἶπέ

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πελιάδες (fr. 64)

57

τε φωνῇ·/‘δεινὰ παθοῦσα Φακῆ βδελυρή, χώρει ’ς τὸν ἀγῶνα’. Its unpleasant smell would link well with δυσώδης describing saperdēs in l. 5, thus highlighting the poor quality of the dinner served. On lentil meals see Pearson (1963) 176–8, Dalby (1996) 90 and (2003) 194, Wilkins (2000a) 13–16, García Soler (2001) 66–9, Papachrysostomou (2012–3) 50–7, Lovano (2020) I 432–3. τρύβλιον A flattish bowl mostly used for semiliquid meals, such as thick soups (see van Effenterre 1963, 41–6, Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 132–8, pl. 33 and fig. 9, Villard/Blondé 1991, 202–28). It is common in comedy, like other dining utensils; cf. Ar. Eq. 650, Av. 76–7: τοτὲ μὲν ἐρᾷ φαγεῖν ἀφύας Φαληρικάς,/τρέχω ’π’ ἀφύας ἐγὼ λαβὼν τὸ τρύβλιον, Ec. 1176, Crates fr. 11 (Hērōes) with Perrone (2019) 89–90: οὐκοῦν ἔτνους χρὴ δεῦρο τρύβλιον φέρειν/καὶ τῆς ἀθάρης, Alex. fr. 60 (Drōpidēs), fr 146 (Mandragorizomenē) with Arnott (1996) 432–3, Antiph. fr. 143 (Lēmniai), Philippid. fr. 9.6 (Argyriou Aphanismos). It is metaphorically employed in Ar. Ach. 278, Eq. 905. In medical prescriptions τρύβλιον is used as a unit of liquid measure that seems to amount to one κοτύλη or nine liquid ounces; cf. Hp. Affect. 7.21–2 (similarly referring to a τρύβλιον of lentil soup): μετὰ τὴν κάθαρσιν φακῆς τρυβλίον δοῦναι ῥοφῆσαι. μεστόν Cf. similarly Ar. fr. 136 (Gēras): ἀθάρης ἀνακαλύψασα μεστὸν τρύβλιον. For references to full vessels see also Diph. fr. 12 (Anasōizomenoi): λάγυνον ἔχω κενόν, ὦ γραῦ, θύλακον δὲ μεστόν, Nicostr. fr. 10 (Hecate) with Lamari (2023) ad loc.: τὸν μεστὸν ἡμῖν φέρε λάγυνον, Antiph. fr. inc. 234: ἄλλοι δὲ καὶ δὴ βακχίου παλαιγενοῦς/ἀφρῷ σκιασθὲν χρυσοκόλλητον δέπας/μεστόν, κύκλῳ χορεῦον, ἕλκουσι γνάθοις. φέρων The participle φέρων is here employed idiomatically as intransitive in a passive sense, to denote impetuous and impulsive action; for this idiom see LSJ9 s.v. X2b, Pearson (1917) II 24. Cf. Hdt. 8.87, Soph. fr. 350 R. (Creusa): αὐτός τις αὑτῷ τὴν βλάβην προσθῇ φέρων, Aeschin. 3.82: καὶ εἰς τοῦτο φέρων περιέστησε τὰ πράγματα, D. 5.12, Plb. 1.17.8, Luc. Icar. 13: ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἐς τοὺς κρατῆρας ἐμαυτὸν φέρων ἐνέβαλον. εἰς τὸ μέσον Cf. fr. 77 (Synōris) and note ad loc. ἐπεχόρευσε Literally, ‘to come dancing on’ (X. Smp. 9.4) or ‘to add a chorus or choral song’ (Philostr. VA 5.14); see LSJ9 s.v. This line involves a vibrant personification of the fish that comes ‘dancing on’ the middle of the table. The most articulate case of fish personification in comedy is the fish chorus in Archippus’ Ichthyes (see Miccolis 2017, 93–9); cf. also the ‘playing fish’ in Henioch. fr. 3.1–2 (Polypragmōn): ὁρῶ δὲ θαῦμ’ ἄπιστον, ἰχθύων γένη/περὶ τὴν ἄκραν παίζοντα and the discussion in Wilkins (2000b) 346–7 and Mastellari (2020) 220. For more detail about the literary technique of personification and its comic uses see fr. 84.1n. (Phrear). On ‘dancing’ imagery within culinary contexts cf. similarly Diph. fr. 43.1 (Zōgraphos): ἄριστον ἐπεχόρευσεν ἐκλελεγμένον and the bulb dancing forth in adesp. com. fr. 1064.20: βολβὸς ἐπιχορεύ.[ . Lyc. TrGF I, 100 F2.8–10 (ὅ τ’ ἀλιτήριος/καὶ δημόκοινος ἐπεχόρευε δαψιλής/θέρμος, πενήτων καὶ τρικλίνου

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

58

Diphilus

συμπότης) provides an eloquent parallel of ‘plebeian’ lupines that come dancing on in abundance, similarly forming a modest dish like saperdēs. Further references to personified food perceived as ‘entering’ rather than ‘being carried’ occur in Eub. fr. 36.1–2 (Ion): μετὰ ταῦτα θύννων μεγαλόπλουτ’ ἐπεισέπλει/ὑπογάστρι’ ὀπτῶν, Antiph. fr. 183.3 (Parasitos): ἑφθὸς τυρὸς ἐπεδόνει πολύς, and Nicostr. fr. 5.1 (Antyllos): Βυζάντιόν τε τέμαχος ἐπιβακχευσάτω. Cf. Hunter (1983) 128, Pérez Asensio (1999) 318. σαπέρδης A synonym of κορακῖνος, ‘crow-fish’ (Ath. 7.308E, Hesych. σ 183 Hansen, EM s.v. σαπέρδας 1998,40 Gaisford), of which there are many varieties (Ath. 7.312A: πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ τούτων γένη, cf. Thompson 1947, 121–5). Athenaeus devotes a whole section on its features (7.308D-309A). The name σαπέρδης is Egyptian and refers to a fleshy, sweet, and well-flavoured Nile fish. This freshwater fish is of higher quality than the other kind of saperdēs, which is a moderately flavoured marine fish of rapid growth; it mainly comes from the Black Sea (Archestr. fr. 39 Olson/Sens, Ath. 3.117A-B) and might be identified as a tunny or horse-mackerel (Ath. 3.118B). The marine variety of saperdēs tends to be included among ταρίχη, i.e. fish eaten dried or pickled; cf. esp. Mach. fr. 16.274–5 G. (described as a τάριχος substituting salt), Poll. 6.48, EM s.v. σαπέρδας 1998,40 (Gaisford): oἱ δὲ ἀκριβέστεροι σαπέρδην φασὶ τέμαχος τεταριχευμένου ἰχθύος. Therefore, it seems to be the salty variation of saperdēs that bears a low culinary reputation, which is the case here as well. An eloquent parallel connecting this fish with lentil soup as a meal of the poor par excellence occurs in Luc. Sat. 35, involving a curse of the poor against the rich to eat this very meal: ἃ μὲν γὰρ εὔξασθαι καθ’ ὑμῶν ἀπειλοῦσιν (scil. οἱ πένητες), ἀποτρόπαια, μηδὲ γένοιτο εἰς ἀνάγκην αὐτοὺς καταστῆναι τῆς εὐχῆς. ἐπεὶ οὔτε ἀλλάντων γεύσεσθε οὔτε πλακοῦντος ἢ εἴ τι λείψανον τῆς κυνός, ἡ φακῆ δὲ ὑμῖν σαπέρδην ἐντετηκότα ἕξει. This passage indicates that saperdēs, being a dried, salted fish, was dissolved into the lentil soup. Presumably, this is how the meal was consumed in the present fragment as well. Notably, the humbleness of saperdēs is stressed in Mach. fr. 16.269–76 G. with reference to Diphilus and his mistress Gnathaena; the latter is presented as being ashamed of having received this salted fish as a gift by one of her lovers and afraid of being mocked by Diphilus in one of his comedies for this reason. For a similar incident involving the embarrassment of receiving saperdēs as a gift, see D.L. 6.36. Cf. further the disdainful remarks on its poor quality in Archestr. fr. 39 Olson/ Sens, Luc. D. Meretr. 14.3.10, Gall. 21, Hist. Conscr. 56, Persius 134. As would be expected, similar comments are also delivered on its synonym, κορακῖνος; see Ar. Lys. 560, Alex. fr. 18 (Apeglaukōmenos) with Arnott (1996) ad loc., Anaxandr. fr. 28.1 (Lycurgus) with Millis (2015) 137, fr. 34.11 (Odysseus), Amph. fr. 22.1 (Ialemos). Rather neutral references to saperdēs include the fish catalogues in Ar. fr. 430 (Holkades) and Archipp. fr. 26 (Ichthyes); see also Ar. fr. inc. 708 (on the preparation of this fish for a meal), Timocl. fr. 16 (Ikarioi Satyroi), though its humbleness as a τάριχος is implied (cf. Apostolakis 2019, 148). For more detail see

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πελιάδες (fr. 64)

59

Höppener (1931) 41–4, 75–6, Strömberg (1943) 70–8, 114–5, Thompson (1947) 226, Saint-Denis (1948) s.v. ‘coracinus’, Campbell (1982) 284–5, Micha-Lampaki (1984) 90–1, Palombi/Santarelli (19864) 46–7, 50–1, Dumont (1988) 107, Davidson (20023) 98–9. 5–6 On the distribution of speakers and restoration of these corrupt lines see above, Text. Line 5 includes a further humorous contrast between δυσώδης (‘stinky’) that refers to saperdēs and ἀνθίαν (bearing the connotation of ‘flowery’ through its association with ἄνθος). 5 ὑπό τι ‘a little’; Schwyzer (1939–71) II 532: ‘zur Bezeichnung der Annäherung (“ein wenig”)’. Cf. Ar. V. 1290 (see Biles/Olson 2015, ad loc.): ὑπό τι μικρόν ἐπιθήκισα, Xenarch. fr. 2.1 (Didymoi): ὡς ὑπό τι νυστάζειν γε καὐτὸς ἄρχομαι, Pl. Grg. 493c: ὑπό τι ἄτοπα, Phdr. 242d: ὑπό τι ἀσεβῆ. This is a case of meiōsis that euphemistically conveys the qualities of the adjective; in comedy ὑπό τι adds a colloquial nuance to the understatement. Cf. also PCG V ad loc. δυσώδης Athenaeus (3.121C-D) points out that all saltfish need to be rinsed with much water, until their odour goes away: πάντας δὲ χρὴ τοὺς ταρίχους πλύνειν, ἄχρι ἂν τὸ ὕδωρ ἄνοσμον καὶ γλυκὺ γένηται. Δυσώδης is similarly employed to describe fish in Epich. fr. 54 (Hēbas Gamos): πώλυποί τε σηπίαι τε καὶ ποταναὶ τευθίδες/χἀ δυσώδης βολβιτὶς γραῖαί τ’ ἐριθακώδεες. Cf. also Luc. Dips. 1.6 (of water). ἀνθίαν A celebrated, large fish, which is difficult to identify and is probably related to more than one species. In [Arist.] HA 570b19 it is reported that it is the same fish as αὐλωπίας, whilst in Athenaeus (7.282B-C) it is referred to as almost identical with κάλλιχθυς, καλλιώνυμος and ἔλλοψ. Anthias tends to be characterized as sacred, in that its presence is a safe sign to sponge-divers that no dangerous creature is around ([Arist.] HA 620b33–5: ὅπου δ’ ἂν ἀνθίας ὁραθῇ, οὐκ ἔστι θηρίον· ᾧ καὶ σημείῳ χρώμενοι κατακολυμβῶσιν οἱ σπογγεῖς, καὶ καλοῦσιν ἱεροὺς ἰχθῦς τούτους, cf. Ath. 7.282C, Ael. NA 8.28, Plu. Mor. 981D, Plin. HN 9.153). Gastronomically speaking, it is regarded as a delicacy, being at its best during winter; see Epich. fr. 51 (Hēbas Gamos): καὶ σκιφίας χρόμις θ’, 〈ὃς〉 ἐν τῷ ἦρι καττὸν ’Ανάνιον/ἰχθύων πάντων ἄριστος, ἀνθίας δὲ χείματι, Ananius fr. 5 W2: ἔαρι μὲν χρόμιος ἄριστος, ἀνθίας δὲ χειμῶνι, Ath. 7.282D: εἶναι δ’ αὐτὸν χονδρώδη καὶ εὔχυλον καὶ εὐέκκριτον, οὐκ εὐστόμαχον δέ. See further Thompson (1947) 14–16, Micha-Lampaki (1984) 75–6, Palombi/Santarelli (19864) 209, Riedl (1986) 699, Dumont (1988) 102, Dalby (1996) 106–7, Wilkins (2000a) 330–1, García Soler (2001) 194–5. On the extravagance involved in lavish fish-eating see below, fr. 67 (Polypragmōn). 6 ταῖς κίχλαις One of the wrasses from the family of Labridae; gaily-coloured fishes called by bird-names, such as φυκίς, ἰουλίς, κόσσυφος. In comic recipes κίχλη more often refers to the bird (thrush) instead of the fish; see e.g. Diph. fr. 31.25 (Emporos), Pherecr. fr. 108.23 (Metallēs) with Franchini (2020) ad loc., Anaxandr. fr. 42.65 (Protesilaus) and Millis (2015) ad loc., Nicostr. fr. 4.4 (Antyllos)

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

60

Diphilus

with Lamari (2023) ad loc. On the description of this fish see Opp. H. 1.126 (κίχλαι ῥαδιναί), [Arist.] HA 505a16, 607b15, Ael. NA 12.28. Wrasses are included in catalogues of seafood dishes by Sotades in fr. 1.11–13 (Egkleiomenai): τρίγλας καλὰς ἠγόρασα καὶ κίχλας καλάς,/ἔρριψα ταύτας ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνθραχ’ ὡς ἔχει,/ἅλμῃ τε λιπαρᾷ παρατίθημ’ ὀρίγανον and Epicharmus in fr. 53 (Hēbas Gamos): ἔτι δὲ πὸτ τούτοισι βῶκες, σμαρίδες, ἀφύαι, κάμμαροι,/ βαμβραδόνες τε καὶ κίχλαι, λαγοὶ δράκοντές τ’ ἄλκιμοι. They were regarded as a healthy and elegant kind of alimentation by Galen in Alim. Fac. 6.718 (τροφὴ δ’ ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ μόνον εὔπεπτος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑγιεινοτάτη τοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων σώμασίν ἐστιν) and 720 (where they are described as ἁπαλόσαρκοι). See Thompson (1947) 116–7, Micha-Lampaki (1984) 89–90, Dalby (1996) 71–2, Wilkins (2000a) 278–81, 382–3.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

61

Πήρα (Pēra)

(“The Pouch”) Discussion Kock (1880–88) III 751; Schōll (1888) 298; Marx (1928) 80, 183–4; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 130–1; PCG V 90–1; Pérez Asensio (1999) 319–21; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 264–5 Title Πήρα is a (usually leather) pouch for victuals or a wallet; cf. also fr. 60.5n. (Parasitos). According to Poll. 4.119, πήρα was part of the attire of rustic characters in theatre: πήρα βακτηρία διφθέρα ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγροίκων (on its rustic use cf. Antiphil. A.P. 6.95.2). It was also carried by lowly characters, to judge from the description of Telephus’ humble disguise in Ar. Nu. 922–4: Τήλεφος εἶναι Μυσὸς φάσκων/ἐκ πηριδίου/γνώμας τρώγων Πανδελετείους (cf. Sud. 1535 Adler: καὶ πηρίδιον. καὶ ’Αριστοφάνης· Τήλεφος ἐκ πηριδίου. οὗτος πένης ἦν). It similarly forms part of Odysseus’ camouflage as a beggar in Od. 13.437–8: δῶκε δέ οἱ σκῆπτρον καὶ ἀεικέα πήρην,/πυκνὰ ῥωγαλέην. Eustathius on Od. 13.437 (II 55.19–24 Stallbaum) mentions that it was carried by shepherds, which is congruent with Ar. Pl. 298–9 (with reference to the Cyclops herding his flock of sheep): πήραν ἔχοντα λάχανά τ’ ἄγρια δροσερά, κραιπαλῶντα/ἡγούμενον τοῖς προβατίοις, Theocr. 1.49, Long. 1.13.1, 2.3.1, 3.15.3, EM s.v. ‘Πάρις’ 654.36–8 (Gaisford): παρὰ τὴν πήραν, ὃ σημαίνει τὸ μαρσίπιον· ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῇ ποιμαντικῇ πήρᾳ ἀνατραφῆναι. In Diph. fr. 60.5 (Parasitos) the term is employed in its commonest sense as a pouch in which food, such as bread, is placed, whilst in fr. 55.2 (Mainomenos), as well as in Ar. fr. 587 (Hōrai), it occurs in the compound form ἀσκοπήρα. Cf. also σακκοπήρα in Apollod. Car. fr. 1 (Amphiaraus): ἐμβαλόντες, ὦ πονηρὲ σύ,/ εἰς σακκοπήραν αὐτὸν ἐπιθήσουσί που/ἐφ’ ὑποζύγιον) and its Latin equivalent sacciperium in Plaut. Rud. 548. In Ar. fr. 486 (Skēnas Katalambanousai) the diminutive πηρίδιον is used. For relevant literary and archaeological sources see Radici Colace/Gulletta (1992–2005) I 316, Bonati (2016) 312–3; cf. also Marx (1928) on Plaut. Rud. 548, Pérez Asensio (1999) 319–20, Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 264, n. 361, Bagordo (2020) 38, 211. Content Pollux’s testimony for πήρα as part of the costume of ἄγροικοι could be suggestive of the type of character to which it belonged, i.e. someone of rustic provenance or of a humble status in general (see above: Title). If we consider that the play is named after this pouch, it must have somehow been crucial for the development of the plot, that is, for its tying or untying or as a means of recognition, as in Men. Epit. 331: ἔδωκε δ’ αὐτοῖς πηρίδιον γνωρισμάτων. Schöll (1888, 298) argued that Πήρα could have been the exemplar of Plautus’ Rudens, on the basis of the reference to a long-haired man from Samos in fr. 65, which he associated with the physique of the procurer Labrax in the Plautine comedy. Nonetheless, as Marx was right to note (1928, 80), it does not emerge from Plautus’ description that Labrax was in fact long-haired; he is described as

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

62

Diphilus

curly-haired (Rud. 125: crispus) and balding (317: recalvus), which accords with Pollux’s description of the pimp’s mask (Poll. 4.145). Moreover, it is worth stressing, I believe, that the quotation of fr. 65 is a proverb, which Diphilus is reported to have recalled in Πήρα (see further fr. 65: Interpretation). Therefore, one would not actually expect the participation of a long-haired Samian character in the Diphilan play. Against the association of Πήρα with Rudens, Marx (1928, 80, 183–4) also pointed out that vidulus (Rud. 545–6), i.e. the chest that is kept by Labrax and is crucial for the evolution of the plot, as it contains the crepundia for Palaestra’s recognition with her father (in Rud. 1065–1190), is clearly different from πήρα (‘pouch’, ‘wallet’); the latter may only be associated with Charmides’ sacciperium (Rud. 548 with Marx 1928, ad loc.), which, nonetheless, is only passingly mentioned, and is in no way significant for plot-development, so as to have provided the title of the Greek original. However, the difference between vidulus and pouch is not as such a compelling reason for the dissociation of Πήρα from Rudens, as Plautus may have well changed the pouch of the Greek original to a chest in his own play. Still, the available evidence does not suffice to establish Πήρα as an exemplar of Rudens. Cf. also Aragosti (2015) 102, n. 99. At the same time, it is noteworthy that πήρα became a distinctive feature of the Cynics; see Luc. Demon. 48.2–3: ἕνα γοῦν ἰδὼν Κυνικὸν τρίβωνα μὲν καὶ πήραν ἔχοντα, Fug. 20.13–5: μακρὰ χαίρειν φράσαντες τῇ πήρᾳ τῇ Κράτητος καὶ τῷ τρίβωνι τῷ ’Αντισθένους καὶ τῷ πίθῳ τῷ Διογένους, D. Mort. 6.3, Vit. Auct. 9.12–3, Bis Acc. 6.4–5, Plu. Mor. 466E, 499C, 782B, 831F: Κράτης δ’ ὁ Θηβαῖος [..] καὶ τρίβωνα καὶ πήραν ἀναλαβὼν εἰς φιλοσοφίαν καὶ πενίαν κατέφυγεν, D.L. 4.51–2: εἶτ’ ἐπανείλετο τὴν κυνικὴν ἀγωγήν, λαβὼν τρίβωνα καὶ πήραν, 6.22 (of Diogenes): πήραν τ’ ἐκομίσατο ἔνθα αὐτῷ τὰ σιτία ἦν, 6.33: ἀναπήρους ἔλεγεν οὐ τοὺς κωφοὺς καὶ τυφλούς, ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας πήραν. Considering that the Cynics, among other philosophers, provided a favourite comic target, it cannot be excluded that πήρα as a typical element of their mode of life might point to a conceivable comic focus on this group. An articulate parallel is provided in Men. fr. 193 (Hippokomos) that is mocking of the cynic philosopher Monimus, who is presented as carrying a πήρα: 〈Α〉 Μόνιμός τις ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ὦ Φίλων, σοφός,/ ἀδοξότερος μικρῶι δέ./〈Φιλ.〉 ὁ τὴν πήραν ἔχων;/〈Α〉 πήρας μὲν οὖν τρεῖς. ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνος ῥῆμά τι/ ἐφθέγξατ’ οὐδὲν ἐμφερές, μὰ τὸν Δία,/τῶι “γνῶθι σαυτόν”, οὐδὲ τοῖς βοωμένοις/τούτοις, ὑπὲρ δὲ ταῦθ’ ὁ προσαιτῶν καὶ ῥυπῶν·/τὸ γὰρ ὑποληφθὲν τῦφον εἶναι πᾶν ἔφη. Likewise, Philem. fr. inc. 134 is ridiculing Crates (καὶ τοῦ θέρους μὲν εἶχεν ἱμάτιον δασύ,/ἵν’ ἐγκρατὴς ᾖ, τοῦ δὲ χειμῶνος ῥάκος); cf. also the possible mockery of the Cynics in Eub. fr. inc. 137 (with Webster 19702, 53, Hunter 1983, 228–9). For personal mockery in fourth-century comedy see further fr. 78 (Synōris): Interpretation. This would suggest a type of comedy different from a recognition-play, as proposed above, but due to the paucity of evidence for this comic plot all possibilities have to remain open.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πήρα (fr. 65)

63

Fragments fr. 65 K.-A. (68b K.) τὸ̣[ν] ἐ̣ν Σά[μ]ωι κομήτην The long-haired man in Samos Prov. Par. Suppl. 676 (ed. Cohn, CPG Suppl. I 80 nr. 83) τὸ̣[ν] ἐ̣ν Σά[μ]ωι κομήτην· Σάμιόν φασιν πύκτην κομῶντα εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν (Ὀλυμπιάδα cod.) ἀφικόμενον καὶ [νική]σαντα ἐπὶ τῷ θηλυπρεπεῖ πρὸς τῶν ἀνταγωνιστῶν χλευαζόμενον εἰς παροιμία[ν ἐλθεῖν]. Ἐρατοσθένης δὲ (FGrH 241 F11b) κατὰ τὴν μη΄ ὀλυμπιάδα (a. 588) Πυθαγόραν Σάμιον τὸν κομ̣ή̣ [την] νικῆσαι. Δοῦρις δὲ (FGrH 76 F62) ἐκκριθέντα (ἐκκριθέντας cod., corr. Jacoby coll. D.L. 8.47) τοὺς ἄνδρας προκαλεσάμενον (προσκαλεσάμενον cod., corr. Cohn) νικῆσαι, καὶ 〈διὰ add. Cohn〉 πολλῶν τοῦτο παρίστησιν. Ἀριcτείδης δὲ ῥαιδιουργόν τινα ἐπιδημήσαντός τινος Σαμίου ἐμπόρου (ἐμπορίου cod., corr. Cohn) ὠνήσασθαι καὶ διδόντα ὀλίγον ἀρραβῶνα παρα[λαβ]εῖ[ν] τὸ φορτίον καὶ κομίσαντα εἰς οἶκον κείρασθαι τὴν κόμην ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἐπιγνωσθῆναι· τοῦ δὲ ἐμπόρου εὐήθως τὸν κομήτην ἀναζητοῦντος διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἄλλο γνώρισμα, εἰς παροιμίαν ἀχθῆναι. τῆς παροιμίας ταύτης μεμνῆσθαι καὶ Δίφιλον ἐν Πήρᾳ (Πύρρᾳ coni. Kock) καὶ Φιλήμονα ἐν Δακτυλίῳ. Cf. Prov. Bodl. 422 et Zen. Ath. III ρμη΄ (= [Plu.] Prov. 2.8, CPG I 337) τὸν ἐν Σάμῳ κομήτην· Σάμιός τις ἐγένετο πύκτης, ὃς ἐπὶ μαλακίᾳ σκωπτόμενος, ἐπειδὴ κόμας εἶχεν, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνταγωνιστῶν, συμβαλὼν αὐτοὺς ἐνίκησεν. λέγεται ἐπὶ τῶν αἱρουμένων ἀνταγωνιστὰς ἑαυτοῖς κρείττονας ἢ προσεδόκησαν. Cf. autem D.L. 8.47–8. ‘the long-haired man in Samos’; they say that this proverb comes from a Samian boxer with long hair, who arrived at Olympia and won, despite being mocked by his rivals as effeminate. And Erastosthenes mentions that long-haired Pythagoras of Samos won in the 48th Olympiad (before 588 BC). And Duris says that albeit his being excluded he challenged other men and defeated them, and he describes this in detail. But Aristides narrates that when a Samian merchant arrived, a scoundrel gave him a small deposit to buy his merchandise and then took it at home and cut his hair, so that he could not be recognised; and the merchant, who was naively looking for the long-haired man, without having any other token, was led to this proverb. This saying is recalled by Diphilus in Pēra and by Philemon in Daktylios. Cf. Prov. Bodl. 422 and Zen. Ath. III ρμη΄ (= [Plu.] Prov. 2.8): ‘the long-haired man in Samos’; a Samian boxer, who was mocked for effeminacy by his rivals, as he had long hair, competed with them and defeated them. This proverb is said of those choosing opponents who are better than they expected. See also D.L. 8.47–8. Phot. (z) ε 1017 (Theodoridis) ἐν Σάμῳ κομήτης. ἔνιοι Πυθαγόραν τὸν σοφόν φασι τὴν πυκτικὴν ἀσκῆσαι καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν παροιμίαν λέγεσθαι, ἁμαρτάνοντες· ἕτερος γὰρ πύκτης Σάμιος, ὁ Ἡγησάρχου Πυθαγόρας, ἐκόμα. καταφρονηθεὶς δὲ κατὰ τὴν μη΄ ὀλυμπιάδα παραδόξως ἐνίκησε· διὸ ἡ παροιμία ἐλέχθη. τινὲς δὲ τὴν παροιμίαν τάττουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν οὐδὲν χάριεν λεγόντων. Cf. Diogen. 4.58 (= Apost. 7.31) ἐν Σάμῳ κομήτης· ἐπὶ τῶν οὐδὲν χάριεν λεγόντων. oἱ γὰρ οἰκοῦντες ἐκεῖσε πρὸς χοροὺς ἐπιτήδειοι, οὐ πρὸς ἄλλο τι χρήσιμον.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

64

Diphilus

‘a long-haired man in Samos’. Some people say that Pythagoras the wise dealt with boxing, and that it is from this that the proverb emerged, but they are wrong; another boxer from Samos, Pythagoras the son of Hegesarchus, was letting his hair grow long. And despite his being humiliated he unexpectedly won at the 48th Olympiad; it is for this reason that the proverb was said. But some people assign this proverb to those who have nothing graceful to say. Cf. Diogen. 4.58 (= Apost. 7.31): ‘the long-haired man in Samos’; it is said of those who have nothing graceful to say. For those living there are only suitable for dancing and useless at everything else.

Discussion Kock (1880–88) III 751; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 130–1; PCG V 90–1; Pérez Asensio (1999) 321–3; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 264–5 Citation Context It is thanks to Prov. Par. Suppl. 676 that we were informed of the title of this Diphilan comedy, as well as of Philemon’s Daktylios, both of which would have otherwise remained unknown. This is the sole source to attribute the present proverbial quotation to Diphilus’ Pēra. The use of this proverb in the plays of Diphilus and Philemon, as well as in Herod. 2.73 could be suggestive of its popularity during the Hellenistic period. As regards the interpretation of the quoted proverb, this source offers two versions, both stressing one’s unexpected overpowering by an underestimated opponent (see further: Interpretation). The first one, also attested by Erastosthenes and Duris, involves the surprising victory of a long-haired Samian boxer, who was mocked by his opponents for effeminacy. The second version assigned to Aristides concerns the main character’s unforeseen deception by a long-haired rogue. The former story may further be elucidated through a combination of pieces of evidence coming from several compilations of proverbs and by Photius (see below: Interpretation). Its meaning is attested in the third book of the proverb collection by the Hadrianic sophist Zenobius, which, according to Sud. ζ 73 (Adler), is an epitome of the collections of Didymus and Lucillius Tarrhaeus (cf. also Cohn 1961, 81). This testimony coincides with the Alexandrian Proverbs (Περὶ τῶν παρ’ Ἀλεξανδρεῦσι παροιμιῶν), which is an epitome of the original work attributed to Plutarch and is regarded as originating in the homonymous compilation by Seleucus of Alexandria (early 1st century AD). See Rupprecht (1949) 1764, Ziegler (1950) 880, Matthaios (2015) 217 and n. 110. Photius is roughly congruent with Prov. Par. Suppl. 676, in that the Samian boxer is in both cases humiliated by his rivals. At the same time, Photius goes on to mention that the proverb is applicable to those who have nothing graceful to say. The testimony attributed to the Hadrianic grammarian Diogenianus sheds further light on this reference, as it displays the self-indulgent lifestyle led by Samians, who are presented as not being concerned with the development of their intellect and have thus nothing special to say (see below, note on ἐν Σάμῳ). This source derives from a collection of proverbs (Παροιμίαι δημώδεις ἐκ τῆς Διογενιανοῦ συναγωγῆς) of which Diogenianus is the purported author. This compilation was alleged to be an abridgment of the collection made by himself from his lexicon, which possibly originated in that of the first century AD grammarian Pamphilus of Alexandria (Περὶ γλωσσῶν ἤτοι λέξεων) and later formed the basis of Hesychius’ lexicon. The

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πήρα (fr. 65)

65

attribution of the collection of proverbs to Diogenianus conceivably came about from a supposed parallel with Zenobius, his contemporary, whose aforementioned abridgment of the compilations by Didymus and Lucillius Tarrhaeus is nonetheless genuine. Cf. Brachmann (1885), Strengel (1903) 778–83, Rupprecht (1949) 1770, Gärtner (1967) 48–9, Wheeler (1988) 170, n. 50, Dickey (2007) 88–90. Diogenianus’ interpretation of the proverb is verbatim cited by the 15th century scholar Michael Apostolius, who draws extensively on the compilation attributed to the former. The proverb collection of Michael Apostolius, who lived under the patronage of Cardinal Bessarion and subsequently retired to Crete copying manuscripts, was used by Erasmus in his Adagia, though its reliability is occasionally challenged by the Dutch scholar. See Geanakoplos (1962) 100, 265, 270, 448, 451, Talbot (1991) I 140–1. Text Kock (1880–88, III 751) proposed that Πύρρᾳ should be read for Πήρᾳ, on the basis of the assonance of the two titles and the fact that Πήρα is only attested in Prov. Par. Suppl. 676, whereas there is no other comedy bearing this title. On the other hand, it should be noted that πήρα is a recurring word in comedy. It is an everyday (often modest) object, which is also attested to have been part of the theatrical costume of rustic characters, who represent a stock comic type (to judge from the Agroikos plays by Antiphanes, Anaxilas, Philemon and Menander). Πήρα could thus provide an appropriate comic title. Consequently, Kock’s argumentation for the rejection of this title remains inconclusive. Interpretation The present fragment is reported to derive from a proverb about a long-haired man in Samos that was recalled by Diphilus in Πήρα. Therefore, it could be expected that this saying may have been delivered in the light of a particular dramatic situation. The meaning of this proverb might thus provide clues to the rough context to which it belonged. The main interpretation of this saying is associated with the story of a longhaired Samian boxer who won at the Olympiad despite being mocked by his rivals as effeminate. We learn from Photius that this was the Samian boxer Pythagoras, son of Hegesarchus (to whom Eratosthenes also seems to refer); his victory against all odds (Duris adds that albeit initially excluded, he challenged his opponents and defeated them) gave rise to this proverb. An epigram by Theaetetus attested in D.L. 8.48 is dedicated to his victory (App. Anth. 3.16 = HE vi: οὗτος πυκτεύσων ἐς ’Ολύμπια παισὶν ἄνηβος/ἤλυθε Πυθαγόρας ὁ Κράτεω Σάμιος, cf. Gow/Page 1965, II 524–5 and Page FGE [1981] 398–9). [Plu.] Prov. 2.8 mentions the same story and concludes that this saying refers to those who are defeated by rivals better than expected. The proverb seems to be alluded to in Herod. 2.73 (see Headlam 1922, ad loc.). At first glance, Aristides’ alternative version about the merchant who was deceived by the long-haired scoundrel appears to be incongruent with the rest of the sources. It is noteworthy, however, that this version and the earlier, more widespread one seem to share the theme of the unexpected defeat by an underes-

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

66

Diphilus

timated opponent. This common denominator thus points to a proverb equivalent with the English saying ‘to catch a Tartar’ (see Headlam 1922, 95), that is, to be forced to reckon with someone who turns out to be more powerful or troublesome than expected. Interestingly, Photius mentions that this proverb is used of people who have nothing graceful to say. This reference is elucidated in Diogen. 4.58 (= Apost. 7.31) that brings forward the softness of Samians (see further below, the note on ἐν Σάμῳ); being preoccupied with their physical appearance, they are not concerned with developing their mental qualities and are thus regarded as useless. This element could square nicely with the underestimation of the Samian boxer due to his apparent softness. Overall, it could be deduced that the play involved a situation in which a character realizes that he/she bought more than he/she had bargained for, which would have led this dramatic personage to recall the present saying. ἐν Σάμῳ The inhabitants of Samos were notorious for their indulgence in a luxurious and voluptuous lifestyle, which also accounts for the great number of Samian courtesans (for the latter see e.g. Tsantsanoglou 1973, 192–3, Lamagna 1998, 188). The softness of Samian people is attested in Ath. 12.525F-526A (cf. Schweighäuser 1801–5, VI 403–6): περὶ δὲ τῆς Σαμίων τρυφῆς Δοῦρις ἱστορῶν (FGrH 76 F47) παρατίθεται ’Ασίου ποιήματα, ὅτι ἐφόρουν χλιδῶνας περὶ τοῖς βραχίοσιν καὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν ἄγοντες τῶν ῾Ηραίων ἐβάδιζον κατεκτενισμένοι τὰς κόμας ἐπὶ τὸ μετάφρενον καὶ τοὺς ὤμους. […] ῾Ηρακλείδης δ’ ὁ Ποντικὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ ῾Ηδονῆς (fr. 57 Wehrli) Σαμίους φησὶ καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν τρυφήσαντας διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους μικρολογίαν ὥσπερ Συβαρίτας τὴν πόλιν ἀπολέσαι. See Panofka (1822) 80–1, Göbel (1915) 91–3, Perrone (2019) 161. The Samian mode of life could thus be congruent with the vanity involved in the overattention to hairstyle that is associated with the long-haired character (κομήτης) of the present fragment (see next note). Attic comedy features dramatic characters from Samos, such as the Samia plays by Anaxandrides and Menander and earlier, Crates’ Samioi, which was obviously named after a chorus of Samian men. Moreover, Diphilus is reported to have presented in Theseus three Samian girls (probably courtesans) delivering a riddle that contained a sexual double entendre (fr. 49 with Pérez Asensio 1999, 246–7). κομήτην Long hair in men was fashionable among the upper classes (see Dover 1968 on Ar. Nu. 14 and Henderson 1987 on Lys. 561–2), especially the hairstyle called κῆπος (the middle of the head was carefully trimmed, whilst the rest of the hair was kept long, surrounding it like a hedge). But apart from being a sign of luxury, well-kempt long hair was regarded as discouraging manly spirit, being associated with effeminacy as well as deviant sexual behaviour in men; see esp. Ar. Nu. 348–50 (of pederasts): κᾆτ’ ἢν μὲν ἴδωσι κομήτην/ἄγριόν τινα τῶν λασίων τούτων, οἷόνπερ τὸν Ξενοφάντου,/σκώπτουσαι τὴν μανίαν αὐτοῦ κενταύροις ᾔκασαν αὑτάς, 1098–1100 (of dissolute men): πολὺ πλείονας, νὴ τοὺς θεούς,/τοὺς εὐρυπρώκτους. τουτονὶ/γοῦν οἶδ’ ἐγὼ κἀκεινονὶ/καὶ τὸν κομήτην τουτονί. Thus, it is probably in this light that the long-haired Samian of the present

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πήρα (fr. 65)

67

proverb is scorned as effeminate (for the softness of the inhabitants of Samos see previous note), according to the testimonies of Prov. Par. Suppl. 676 and Photius. Cf. similarly Pl. Grg. 465b disparaging overattention to hairstyle as an exercise in vanity by people with suspect intentions. For male hairdressing as being suggestive of an inappropriate lifestyle see Nicolson (1891) 45–6, 50, Gow/Page (1965) II 524, Ehrhardt (1971) 14–19 Scanlon (2002) 268, Kapparis (2018) 82, Harlow (2019a) 2, 9 and (2019b) 108.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

68

Πλινθοφόρος (Plinthophoros) (“The Brick Carrier”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 407; Bergk (1872–87) IV 227 and n. 195; Kock (1880–88) II 562; Marigo (1907) 429; Marx (1928) 75–6; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 130–1; PCG V 91; Pérez Asensio (1999) 323–5; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 265 and n. 364 Title The term πλινθοφόρος (‘carrying bricks’) is attested in Ar. Av. 1133–4 alongside other occupations involving manual labour (οὐδεὶς ἄλλος, οὐκ Αἰγύπτιος/ πλινθοφόρος, οὐ λιθουργός, οὐ τέκτων παρῆν) and in PSI 6.672.5 (a third-century BC documentary text from the Zenon archive, including payment of wages). The verb πλινθοφορέω (‘to carry bricks’) is employed in Ar. Av. 1149 (ἐπλινθοφόρουν), Poll. 7.130 (ἔτι τοίνυν οἱ ἐξ ἀγορᾶς ἢ ἐκ λιμένος κομίζοντες ἀχθοφόροι, ἀμφορεαφόροι, καὶ τὰ ῥήματα ἀχθοφορεῖν καὶ ἀμφορεαφορεῖν, ὑδροφόροι, ξυλοφόροι, σκευοφόροι, ὑληφόροι καὶ ὑληφορεῖν, πλινθοφόροι καὶ πλινθοφορεῖν, πηλοφόροι καὶ πηλοφορεῖν), IG II2 1672.28, Polyaen. 8.24.3. It was regarded as tough manual labour, to judge from schol. vet. Ar. Av. 1133 (Holwerda): oἱ Αἰγύπτιοι ἐκωμῳδοῦντο ὡς ἀχθοφόροι. καὶ ἐν Βατράχοις [1406] οὓς «οὐκ ἂν ἄραιντ’ οὐδ’ ἑκατὸν Αἰγύπτιοι», Sud. αι 75 (Adler). This work seems to have been even humbler than ‘making bricks’ (πλινθεύειν, πλινθουργεῖν), as the latter required a certain technique; cf. Ar. Pl. 513–6: τίς χαλκεύειν ἢ ναυπηγεῖν ἢ ῥάπτειν ἢ τροχοποιεῖν,/ἢ σκυτοτομεῖν ἢ πλινθουργεῖν ἢ πλύνειν ἢ σκυλοδεψεῖν,/ἢ γῆς ἀρότροις ῥήξας δάπεδον καρπὸν Δηοῦς θερίσασθαι,/ἢν ἐξῇ ζῆν ἀργοῖς ὑμῖν τούτων πάντων ἀμελοῦσιν; Plinthophoros is one among many play-titles whose second component is -φόρος (‘carrier’). It may suffice to mention Hermippus’ Phormophoroi, Aristomenes’ Hylophoroi, Alexis’ Spondophoros, Eubulus’ Kalathēphoroi, Anaxandrides’ Kanēphoros and Phialēphoros, Dionysius’ Thesmophoros, Ephippus’ Homoioi ē Obeliaphoroi, Philetaerus’ Lampadēphoroi, Menander’s Arrēphoros ē Aulētris and Kanēphoros, as well as Philemon’s Pyrphoros. See Pérez Asensio (1999) 323, Millis (2015) 115, Comentale (2017) 242, Orth (2020) 298. The play could be named after a character’s occupation, like several Diphilan comedies, such as Aleiptria, Apobatēs, Εmporos, Zōgraphos, Kitharōidos, Stratiōtēs, and Chrysochoos. Play-titles identifying dramatic characters by their profession were evidently a trend in middle and new comedy (see further below, Chrysochoos: Title). At the same time, it is equally possible that the title may have denoted the occasional activity of carrying bricks (e.g. assigned to a slave or another lowly character) rather than a permanent occupation. Bergk (1872–87, IV 227 and n. 195) drew a parallel between the title-character and the slave Sceparnio, who is making tiles in the first act of Rudens, thus proposing that Plinthophoros could have been the exemplum of Plautus’ play, which is acknowledged as the reworking of a Diphilan comedy (Rud. 32). Indeed, in both cases the particularity of this activity, which is not common in comedy (as compared, for

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πλινθοφόρος

69

instance, to that of the farmer in a good number of comedies), is notable. Sceparnio (probably a speaking name originating in σκέπαρνον, ‘axe’, and thus suggestive of this character’s activity, cf. also Marx 1928, 76) is gathering clay, to make tiles with it and repair the damaged roof of his master’s cottage. Moreover, Sceparnio’s labour assigned to him by his master Daemones at the crack of dawn is reminiscent of fr. 66 from Plinthophoros, where the speaker is moaning about being sent out at daybreak presumably to fulfil a task. Francken’s earlier objection to the possibility that Rudens was modelled upon Plinthophoros (Francken 1875, 34), which was subsequently reiterated by Marx (1928, 75–6), stresses the difference between carrying bricks (in Plinthophoros) and making tiles to fix the roof (in Rudens). But this argument is not compelling, as these are closely related activities, being not frequent in comedy, and Plautus may have well refigured his Greek exemplar more freely. More to the point, I think, is the fact that Sceparnio is only a secondary figure, whose role does not determine the plot and is accounted for by means of his interaction with his master and occasionally with other characters; conversely, the brick-carrier in the Diphilan comedy, even if he was not the principal character, must have somehow defined crucially the development of the plot, as the play is named after him. Nonetheless, given the aforementioned particularity of the activities of the Diphilan character and Sceparnio, it is conceivable that Plautus might have drawn on aspects of the former character to shape Sceparnio’s figure; hence, even if Plinthophoros was not Plautus’ main exemplar, a case of contaminatio cannot be excluded (on Plautine contaminatio see in detail Fraenkel 1922, ch. 9). Another interpretation was offered by Pérez Asensio (1999, 324, cf. also Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés 2014, 265, n. 364), who revived a suggestion made by Marigo (1907, 429), according to which the title Πλινθοφόρος could be rendered as ‘Ingot bearer ‘, on the basis of the sense of πλίνθος as ‘ingot’. There are certain sources which refer to ingots of gold, silver, or lead as votive offerings (Hdt. 1.50–51, Luc. Alex. 8.18, Char. 11–12, 24, Icar. 24.28–32, cf. e.g. Rouse 1902, 92, 311). Due to the paucity of evidence, such an interpretation cannot be wholly excluded. Yet it is worth bearing in mind that the terms πλινθοφόρος and πλινθοφορέω as such are only attested to denote ‘carrying bricks’; ‘bearing ingots’ would be an unprecedented – and thus methodologically vulnerable — rendering of πλινθοφόρος. For the sake of completeness, it is worth noting that πλινθοφόρος was also the name of a Rhodian coin, which is first mentioned in a Delian inventory of 169 BC (Inscr. Délos 461, Bb 49). It is estimated to have circulated from ca. 190 BC at the earliest to 84 BC (see esp. Jenkins 1989, Ashton 2001, 89, 93–4 and 2005, 85–9, Meadows 2009, 61–8). Therefore, a reference to this coin in the present play will have to be excluded in temporal terms. Content The title-character is a brick-carrier or someone to whom it has temporarily been assigned to carry bricks (for other, less plausible suggestions see above: Title). The penchant of fourth-century comedy for the association of individual

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

70

Diphilus

character-types with occupations gave scope for caricature, though we cannot know which features (if any) of a brick-carrier could have particular dramatic potential. After all, he does not seem to represent a stock comic profession with certain traits, like that of a farmer or a cook. But given that the play is named after him, he must have determined in a significant way the evolution of the dramatic plot, whether his character as such was of particular interest or not. The sole preserved passage is provided in fr. 66. It is delivered by a male speaker (perhaps the brick-carrier of the title or else a typically complaining character, such as a slave or a cook?), who is moaning about being sent out at daybreak, probably to fulfil an assignment. This statement may be suggestive of the harshness of this activity and perhaps the humbleness of the speaker’s status (see below: Interpretation). But apart from these elements there is no other hint at the dramatic situation.

Fragments fr. 66 K.-A. (65 K.) καὶ νὴ Δί’ ὄντως εὐθὺς ἐξέπεμπέ με ὄρθριον· ἐκόκκυζ’ ἀρτίως ἁλεκτρυών 1 ὄντως Eust.: οὗτος Bothe ἐξέπεμπε Eust.: ἐξέπεμψε Blaydes 2 ὄρθριον· ἐκόκκυζ’ emend. Meineke ed. min.: ὀρθριοκόκκυξ Eust.: ὁ δ’ ὄρθρι’ ἐκόκκυζ’ Kaibel ἁλεκτρυών emend. Meineke: ἀλεκτρυών Eust.

And, moreover, by Zeus, he/she really sent me out immediately at the break of dawn; the cock was just crowing Schol. Eust. ad Od. 4.10/I 142.21–2 (Stallbaum) οὗ δὴ ἀλέκτορος καθὰ καὶ ἀλεκτρυόνος. καὶ παρ’ ἄλλοις µὲν πολλοῖς χρῆσις, καὶ παρὰ Κρατίνῳ δέ, φασιν, ἐν τῷ “κοκκύζειν τὸν ἀλεκτρυόν’ οὐκ ἀνέχονται” (fr. inc. 344). ἤγουν ᾄδειν ὡς αὐτῷ ἔθος. ἐξ οὗ δὴ κοκκύζειν, καὶ ὁ παρ’ Ἡσιόδῳ (Op. 486) κόκκυξ, καὶ ἐπίρρηµα κόκκυ παρὰ τῷ κωµικῷ (Ar. Ra. 1384). ὑποβάλλει δὲ τοιοῦτον νοῦν καὶ Σοφοκλῆς (fr. inc. 791 R.), φασίν, ἐν τῷ “κοκκυβόας (Bothe : κοκκο- Eust.) ὄρνις”. ἐναργέστερον δὲ ∆ίφιλος (fr. 66) ἐν τῷ “καὶ — ἁλεκτρυών”. καὶ Πλάτων δὲ ἐµφανῶς, φασίν, ὁ κωµικὸς (fr. 231) ἐν τῷ “σὲ δὲ κοκκύζων ἀλέκτωρ προκαλεῖται”. Whence indeed the genitives ἀλέκτορος (‘rooster’) and ἀλεκτρυόνος. The latter, they say, is employed in many other authors, and in Cratinus, in his ‘they don’t tolerate a crowing cock’ (fr. inc. 344). At any rate, to sing, as is his habit. Whence indeed κοκκύζειν (‘to crow’), and κόκκυξ (‘cuckoo’) in Hesiod (Op. 486), and the adverb κόκκυ (‘cuckoo’) in the comic poet (Ar. Ra. 1384). And Sophocles (fr. inc. 791 R.) suggests, they say, something of this kind in his ‘a crowing bird’. Diphilus brings this forward with more clarity (fr. 66) in his — . And Plato the comic poet (fr. 231) palpably, they say, in his ‘a cock summons by crowing’.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

71

Πλινθοφόρος (fr. 66) Antiatt. κ 6 (Valente) κοκκύζειν τοὺς ἀλεκτρυόνας· Δίφιλος Πλινθοφόρῳ. The roosters crow; Diphilus in Plinthophoros.

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. l l k l l | l k l k l k l 2. l kk k l l | l k l k l k l

(penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 407; Kock (1880–88) II 562; Bergk (1872–87) IV 227 and n. 195; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 130–1; PCG V 91; Pérez Asensio (1999) 325–7; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 265, n. 365 Citation Context This fragment is attributed to Diphilus by Eustathius without any reference to the play from which it derives; we are informed of the play’s title by the Antiatticist. Eustathius cites the Diphilan passage in his comment on Od. 4.10 concerning Alector of Sparta, son of Argeus (Pelops’ son) and Hegesandra (cf. Knaack 1894, 1363, Graf 1996, 449). Following the reference to this character, he goes on to mention the bird named ἀλέκτωρ, i.e. the rooster, providing a paretymology, according to which ἀλέκτωρ is so named, because it rοuses people from the bed (λέκτρον): δῆλον δ’ ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν, ὅτι τοῦ ἀλέκτωρ ὁ ὄρνις ὃς οὕτω λέγεται διὰ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ λέκτρου ἡμᾶς ἐγείρειν. Eustathius then moves on the discuss the by-form ἀλεκτρυών, quoting Cratin. fr. inc. 344, and, in associative terms, the onomatopoeic verb κοκκύζειν (the rooster’s crow); for the elucidation of its use, he cites Hes. Op. 486, Ar. Ra. 1384, Soph. fr. inc. 791 R., the present passage, and Pl. com. fr. inc. 231. Cf. also the discussion in Olson/Seaberg (2018) 125–6. The Antiatticist includes κοκκύζειν in Attic words and attests the title of Diphilus’ play. This author probably derives his entry from Aristophanes of Byzantium, on whose work he draws extensively; see Ar. Byz. fr. 20 (Slater): καὶ κοκκύζειν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀλεκτρυόνος (cf. Slater 1986, 15–6, Valente 2015, 31–3, 188). The use of the term κοκκύζειν by Attic authors is regularly attested, being a point of interest in Atticist lexicography. Cf. also Phryn. PS p. 35.14–15 ᾄδειν ἀλεκτρυόνας· Ἀττικῶς. τὸ δὲ κοκκύζειν κωµικοὶ λέγουσιν, Hesych. α 1763 (= Phot. α 549 ᾄδειν)· ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλεκτρυόνων λέγουσιν Ἀττικοί· κοκκύζειν δὲ οὔ φασιν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν, πλὴν µωκώµενοί τινα ξένον. Text In l. 1 the ms. reading ὄντως is preferable to οὗτος, pace Bothe (1844) 93. Ὄντως poses further emphasis on the speaker’s complaint for being sent out at the crack of dawn, whereas with οὗτος we would have to presuppose that the subject is masculine, for which there is no evidence. Blaydes (1890–96, II 196) suggested that the imperfect ἐξέπεμπε should be changed to the aorist ἐξέπεμψε. Nonethess, the imperfect suits the speaker’s narrative, locating the reported events unambiguously in the past, providing the circumstances under which things happened, as well as raising expectations for

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

72

Diphilus

what will presumably happen next. See esp. Rijksbaron (2019) 66, 68–74, 78 (with relevant bibliography). In l. 2 Meineke (1839–57, IV 407) aptly emended the incomprehensible ms. reading ὀρθριοκόκκυξ and restored the crasis in ἁλεκτρυών. Interpretation The fragment’s male speaker, as it emerges from the masculine ὄρθριον in l. 2, is complaining that he was sent out at the break of dawn. His adjuration of Zeus involves a strong affirmation that aims at stressing his plight. The loss of context does not allow for anything but conjecture. Considering that the rooster is typically perceived as arousing people to their labours (see esp. Pliny’s passage cited below, note ad loc.), then the speaker may conceivably be sent to work as early as daybreak. A likely candidate could be the title-character; brick-carrying was tough (see above: Title), probably requiring starting out early in the morning. Alternatively, these lines might be delivered by a complaining slave; this is a widespread comic motif, to judge, for instance, from the two whining household slaves in Ar. V. 1–28, 38–40, 1299–1325, Trygaeus’ slave in Pax 22–28, Ar. fr. 157 (Gerytadēs), Xanthias in Ar. Ra. 1–34, Getas in Men. Dysc. 402–4, 434–45, 546–51, Syncerastus in Plaut. Poen. 823–44 and the slave in Ps. 767–89; see Hunter (1985) 54, Wrenhaven (2012) 15, 20–21, Konstan (2013) 155, Cox (2013) 166, Forsdyke (2021) 104–7, 127. These two possibilities could be combined, and, in turn, it is feasible that the title-character might be a slave to whom it has been assigned to carry bricks early in the morning, like Sceparnio, who is required to prepare clay and fix the roof tiles at the opening of Rudens (see above: Title). It cannot be excluded, however, that the speaker might be another typically complaining character, such as a cook (sent early in the morning, e.g. to prepare a sacrifice?). Cf. the cook moaning about ashes in his eyes in Pherecr. fr. 66 (Ipnos ē Pannychis), another one complaining about the labour required in Alex. fr. 132 (Lebēs) or about not having the ingredients needed in fr. 179 (Pannychis), Sikon’s complaints about the sheep that he has been carrying in Men. Dysc. 393–9 (with Handley 1965, 199–201) or the cook bewailing his bad luck in Men. Asp. 216–35 (with Gomme/Sandbach 1973, 80–1). On complaining cooks cf. e.g. Wilkins (2000) 375 Ewans (2020) 89. 1 νὴ Δί’ Νή is a particle of strong affirmation, serving to intensify the statement, with acc. of the divinity invoked.  Oaths feature in comic dialogue, and, when it comes to prose, especially in Plato and Xenophon. Dover (1987, 49) reckoned that extant comedy enumerates as many as 850 oaths, the most common invocation being that of Zeus. This adjuration is quite common in Diphilus, to judge from fr. 31.18, 25 (Emporos), 42.28 (Zōgraphos), 57.2 (Paiderastai). Nὴ Δί’ is often introduced with connective καί (‘and, moreover, …’), as in the present case. Cf. e.g. Ar. Eq. 719–20: καὶ νὴ Δί’ ὑπό γε δεξιότητος τῆς ἐμῆς/δύναμαι ποεῖν τὸν δῆμον εὐρὺν καὶ στενόν, Nu. 1227: καὶ νὴ Δί’ ἀποδώσειν γ’ ἐπώμνυς τοὺς θεούς. Th. 552–3: καὶ νὴ Δί’ οὐδέπω γε/εἴρηχ’ ὅσα ξύνοιδ’· ἐπεὶ βούλεσθε πλείον’ εἴπω; Pl. 144–5: καὶ νὴ Δί’ εἴ τί γ’ ἐστὶ λαμπρὸν καὶ καλὸν/ἢ χαρίεν ἀνθρώποισι, διὰ σὲ γίγνεται.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πλινθοφόρος (fr. 66)

73

Elsewhere it is employed as an emphatic answer to a question, as in Ar. Nu. 251, V. 184, Av. 1147–9: ΠΙ. τί δῆτα πόδες ἂν οὐκ ἂν ἐργασαίατο;/ΑΓ. Α´ καὶ νὴ Δί’ αἱ νῆτταί γε περιεζωσμέναι/ἐπλινθοφόρουν, Ra. 3, 6, 69–70: ΗΡ. πότερον εἰς ῞Αιδου κάτω;/ΔΙ. καὶ νὴ Δί’ εἴ τί γ’ ἔστιν ἔτι κατωτέρω, Alex. fr. 100.2–3 (Hippeus). It can also serve as an intensified assertion in continuous utterance, often adding force by way of climax; cf. Ar. Pl. 165–7, Antiph. fr. 120.2–5 (Cleophanes): ἀκολουθεῖν ἔρις/ἐν τῷ Λυκείῳ μετὰ σοφιστῶν, νὴ Δία,/λεπτῶν ἀσίτων συκίνων, λέγονθ’ ὅτι/ τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτ’ οὐκ ἔστιν εἴπερ γίνεται, fr. 157.4,6,7,8–10 (Misoponēros): πολὺ γὰρ αὖ γένος/μιαρώτατον τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία/τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας βούλεταί τις λέγειν, Philetaer. fr. 4.3 (Achilleus), Diph. fr. 31.25 (Emporos), 42.28 (Zōgraphos). See Dover (1987) 48–53, Apostolakis (2019) 194–5, Olson (2022) 210, 335. ἐξέπεμπέ με ‘to send away’ (LSJ9); cf. e.g. S. OT 788–9, Luc. JTr 21.16–7: ἐξέπεμπε τουτονὶ τὸν οἰκέτην αὑτοῦ. It also bears the sense ‘to divorce a wife’ (Hdt. 1.59, Lys. 14.28), which will not do here, as the speaker is male (to judge from ὄρθριον). 2 ὄρθριον ‘at daybreak’, ‘early in the morning’; mostly with verbs of motion (LSJ9); cf. Ar. Lys. 59–60: ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖναί γ’ οἶδ’ ὅτι/ἐπὶ τῶν κελήτων διαβεβήκασ’ ὄρθριαι, Ec. 282–4: ἀλλὰ σπεύσαθ’ ὡς εἴωθ’ ἐκεῖ/τοῖς μὴ παροῦσιν ὀρθρίοις ἐς τὴν πύκνα/ὑπαποτρέχειν ἔχουσι μηδὲ πάτταλον, 526–7 (and Ussher 1973, 148): πῶς οὖν ὄρθριον/ᾤχου σιωπῇ θοἰμάτιον λαβοῦσά μου; Men. Dysc. 70–2: ὄρθριον/ τὸν Πυρρίαν τὸν συγκυνηγὸν οἴκοθεν/ἐγὼ πέπομφα, fr. 265 (Orgē): εἰς ἑστίασιν δωδεκάποδος ὄρθριος/πρὸς τὴν σελήνην ἔτρεχε τὴν σκιὰν ἰδών. Cf. also Ar. Av. 489–90 (of the cock, see Dunbar 1995, ad loc.): ὁπόταν μόνον ὄρθριον ᾄσῃ,/ ἀναπηδῶσιν πάντες ἐπ’ ἔργον. ἐκόκκυζ’ An onomatopoeic verb (from κόκκυ, denoting the production of this sound by roosters and cuckoos), like βαΰζω (‘to go bow-wow!’, cf. Ar. Th. 173 with Austin/Olson 2004, ad loc., Cratin. fr. 6 [Archilochoi] with Bianchi 2016, ad loc.), γρύζω (‘to make a peep’, cf. Ar. Ra. 913, Men. Dysc. 931), λύζω (‘to hiccough’, cf. Ar. Ach. 690 with Olson 2002, 249), ὀτοτύζω (‘to wail in lament’, cf. Ar. Th. 1082), ῥύζω (‘to bark’, cf. Hermipp. fr. 23 [Europe]). On verbs deriving from bird sounds see Poll. 5.89–90: εἴποις δ’ ἂν κλάζειν μὲν ἀετούς, κλαγγάζειν δὲ γεράνους, ἐπ’ ἀμφοῖν δὲ κλαγγήν, ἱέρακας δὲ ῥοίζειν, καὶ ἀλεκτρυόνας ᾄδειν, καὶ κόκκυγας κοκκύζειν—῾Υπερείδης δὲ καὶ Δημοσθένης ἐπ’ ἀλεκτρυόνων τὸ κοκκύζειν εἶπον—καὶ πέρδικας τιττυβίζειν ἢ κακκαβάζειν, καὶ ὄρτυγας τρυλίζειν, καὶ κύκνους ᾄδειν, καὶ τρυγόνας τρύζειν, καὶ περιστερὰς γογγύζειν, καὶ κορώνας κρώζειν, καὶ κολοιοὺς κλώζειν ἢ κολοιᾶν, καὶ κοψίχους σίζειν [...] καὶ ἔποπας πιπίζειν, καὶ γλαῦκας ἰύζειν, καὶ μελεαγρίδας κακκάζειν. The suffixes -ύζω and -ζω tend to be used in onomatopoeic formations; cf. Debrunner (1917) 117, §234, Schwyzer (1939–71) I 716. On onomatopoeic verbs see esp. Perpillou (1982) 238–41, 260–3, Tichy (1983) 256–63 and numerous comic examples gathered in Olson/Seaberg (2018) 126. Apart from being the sound produced by cocks and cuckoos (for the latter cf. Hes. Op. 486: ἦμος κόκκυξ κοκκύζει, Ar. Av. 505: χὠπόθ’ ὁ κόκκυξ εἴποι «κόκκυ»,

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

74

Diphilus

schol. Ar. V. 817 Koster), κόκκυ is also employed as an exclamation denoting ‘now!’, ‘quick!’ (LSJ9 s.v.); cf. Ar. Av. 505, Ra. 1380 (with schol. vet. ad loc.): καὶ μὴ μεθῆσθον, πρὶν ἂν ἐγὼ σφῷν κοκκύσω, 1384, Sud. κ 1918 (Adler): κοκκύζω· φωνῶ. κοκκύσω, σύνθημα δώσω. For the rooster’s cry see Cratin. fr. inc. 344 (with Olson/Seaberg 2018, 126–7): κοκκύζοντα δ’ ἀλεκτρυόν’ οὐκ ἀνέχονται, Pl. Com. fr. inc. 231: σὲ δὲ κοκκύζων ὄρθρι’ ἀλέκτωρ προκαλεῖται, Heraclid. Com. fr. inc. 1.1–3: ’Αλεκτρυόνα τὸν τοῦ Φιλίππου παραλαβὼν/ἀωρὶ κοκκύζοντα καὶ πλανώμενον/κατέκοψεν· οὐ γὰρ εἶχεν οὐδέπω λόφον. Cf. also Soph. fr. inc. 791 R.: κοκκυβόας ὄρνις, Arist. HA 631b 8–10, 15–16, 28–9, Theoc. 7.47, 123–4: ὁ δ’ ὄρθριος ἄλλον ἀλέκτωρ/ κοκκύσδων νάρκαισιν ἀνιαραῖσι διδοίη, Luc. Gall. 14, Alciphr. 4.13.17–19: μισῶ τὸν ἐκ γειτόνων ἀλεκτρυόνα· κοκκύσας ἀφείλετο τὴν παροινίαν. ἁλεκτρυών ‘the cock bird’; this form occurs in Attic Greek until the fourth century BC, whilst in poetry outside Attica and in later Greek ἀλέκτωρ is widely employed. It derives from ἀλέξω (see Chantraine s.v.), ‘to ward off ’, probably in view of the rooster’s fighting habits (see also Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 483–4). The earliest reference to this bird in Greek literature is in Thgn. 1.864. It seems to have arrived from Persia (probably not earlier than the seventh century BC), as it emerges from Cratin. fr. 279 (Hōrai): ὥσπερ ὁ Περσικὸς ὥραν πᾶσαν καναχῶν ὁλόφωνος ἀλέκτωρ, Ar. Av. 485, Sud. α 1114 (Adler). On roosters in comedy see extensively Ath. 9.373E-374D. On their particular features cf. Keller (1909–13) II 131–45, Thompson (1936) 33–44, Pollard (1948) 353–76 and (1977) 88–9, Arnott (2007) 9–11 (with rich further bibliography), Capponi (1979) 248–57 and (1985) 197–9, 218–20. The cock’s crowing at daybreak is attributed to his affinity to the sun and his rejoicing in heat and light (Heliodor. 1.18.3, Paus. 5.25.9, schol. vet. Ar. Av. 835 Holwerda, Cic. Div. 2.26). His wake-up call is a literary topos; for comedy see Cratin. fr. 279 (Hōrai), Ar. V. 100–1, Nu. 4: καὶ μὴν πάλαι γ’ ἀλεκτρυόνος ἤκουσ’ ἐγώ, Ec. 390–1: οὐδ’ εἰ μὰ Δία τότ’ ἦλθες ὅτε τὸ δεύτερον/ἁλεκτρυὼν ἐφθέγγετ’, Pl. Com. fr. inc. 231, Men. fr. 132.1 (Epiklēros): ἀλεκτρυών τις ἐκεκράγει µέγα. Cf. also Thgn. 1.863–4: ἑσπερίη τ’ ἔξειμι καὶ ὀρθρίη αὖθις ἔσειμι,/ ἦμος ἀλεκτρυόνων φθόγγος ἐγειρομένων, Soph. El. 17, Pl. Smp. 223c 2: ἐξεγρέσθαι δὲ πρὸς ἡμέραν ἤδη ἀλεκτρυόνων ᾀδόντων, Theocr. 7.123–4, 18.57, 24.63, Lyc. TrGF I 100 F4 (Menedemus), Antipat. A.P. 5.3.1–2: ὄρθρος ἔβη, Χρύσιλλα, πάλαι δ’ ἠῷος ἀλέκτωρ/κηρύσσων φθονερὴν ’Ηριγένειαν ἄγει, Anyte A.P. 7.202, Batr. 191–2: ἐγὼ δ’ ἄϋπνος κατεκείμην·/τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀλγοῦσαν, ἕως ἐβόησεν ἀλέκτωρ, Verg. Aen. 8.456, Plin. HN 10.24: quos excitandis in opera mortalibus rumpendoque somno natura genuit. […] cum sole eunt cubitum quartaque castrensi vigilia ad curas laboremque revocant, Juv. 9.107, Mart. 14.223, Ael. VH 4.29, Alciphr. 3.10, Aristaen. 1.24.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

75

Πολυπράγμων (Polypragmōn) (“The Busybody”)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) IIΙ 290–2; Meineke (1839–57) IV 407–8; Kock (1880–88) II 562–3; Marigo (1907) 391, 429–30; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 130–3; Pérez Asensio (1999) 327–9; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 265 and n. 366; Zimmermann (2022) 34 Title Comedies of the same title were produced by Timocles and Heniochus (see Apostolakis 2019, 211–3 and Mastellari 2020, 217 respectively; cf. Zimmermann 2022, 34 and earlier Marigo 1907, 391). A comedy bearing the almost synonymous title Philopragmōn was written by Criton. Πολυπράγμων (‘busybody’) tends to be negatively nuanced. This epithet describes the character meddling in other people’s business; cf. Ar. Ach. 833, Pax 1058: πολλὰ πράττεις, Ra. 749 (and Dover 1993 on Ra. 228), Pherecr. fr. 163.2 (Pseudo-Heracles): μὴ πολυπραγμόνει, Eup. fr. 238 (Poleis) with Olson (2014) 279, Men. Epit. 573–6, Pk. 374: ἀλλὰ τί πολυπραγμονεῖς; Men. Mon. 653 (Pernigotti), Plaut. Stich. 198–208. Cf. similarly Lys. 1.16 with Todd (2007) ad loc., 24.24: ἀλλ’ ὅτι πολυπράγμων εἰμὶ καὶ θρασὺς καὶ φιλαπεχθήμων; Plu. Mor. 513B-523B (involving curiosity for the misfortune of others). See also Pérez Asensio (1999) 327–9. Moreover, polypragmosynē is closely associated with sycophancy and litigiousness; see Ar. Ach. 381: μολυνοπραγμονούμενος (probably an Aristophanic coinage to describe Cleon’s slander, ‘getting mixed up in filth’, see Olson 2002, 174), Pax 191, Av. 1423–4, Pl. 907–23, Lys. 7.1, Isoc. 15.237; cf. Christ (1998) 49–59. It also entailed a good knowledge of the law, which could be suspect for blackmail (Men. fr. inc. 768). On the features of polypragmosynē see Ehrenberg (1947) 46–62, Mette (1962) 398–406, Kleve (1964) 83–8, Dover (1974) 188–90, Adkins (1976) 304–18, Harding (1981) 41–50, Carter (1986) 8–38, Leigh (2013) 17–53 (and 30–33 with a particular focus on comedy), Zimmermann (2022) 34. In Thucydides, nonetheless, this notion is interwoven with love for the polis as the basis of Athenian imperialism under Pericles’ leadership (Th. 2.40.2: μόνοι γὰρ τόν τε μηδὲν τῶνδε μετέχοντα οὐκ ἀπράγμονα, ἀλλ’ ἀχρεῖον νομίζομεν, 2.43.1, 2.63.2–3, 2.64.4, cf. Gomme/Andrewes/Dover 1945–81, I 232, Carter 1986, 26–8, Hornblower 1991–2008, I 77–8). Ar. Av. 471 also provides one of the rare cases where πολυπράγμων is employed in a positive (or at least neutral) sense by Aristophanes (as ‘energetic’, ‘well informed on everything’, cf. Dunbar 1995, 325). Political activity, however, became unrestrained under Pericles’ successors (Th. 6.87.3), often being associated with πλεονεξία (Th. 5.85–6, 6.16, cf. Isoc. 13.20, [X.] Ath. Pol. 2.18). In turn, meddlesome business ended up being opposed to cardinal moral virtues, such as justice and sōphrosynē (see Pl. R. 433a and Chrm. 161e respectively; cf. also R. 434a-c, 444a-b, 549c and Adkins 1976, 325–7, Carter 1986, 18–20, Leigh 2013, 16–22).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

76

Diphilus

Consequently, from late fifth century onwards, the moral implications of polypragmosynē, which is sometimes identified with philopragmosynē (D. 1.14, 4.42, 21.137, 39.1, Is. 4.30, Lyc. 1.3), gave rise to a reaction against the corruption of city life as a result of radical democracy and litigiousness. This reaction involved quietism and the idealist conception of a vita contemplativa. This trend is most eloquently articulated in the famous debate between Zethus and Amphion in Euripides’ Antiope (frr. 184–94, 200–02 K.). Amphion’s shunning public affairs involves the defiance of the uneducated mob in a period of radical democracy (cf. also Eur. Ion 598–9, 634–7). In comedy quietism is markedly upheld in Ar. Nu. 43–55, Pax 191 (cf. the interpretation of Harding 1981, 45–6), Av. 44 (see Zimmermann 1991, 78–9 and 20062, 163–4), Pl. 921–2, fr. 402 (Nēsoi), as well as in Phrynichus’ Monotropos (cf. Stama 2014, 133–4, n. 138); see esp. Carter (1986) 81–8, 119–23 and earlier Nestle (1926) 129–40, Dienelt (1953) 94–104. The mask of πολυπράγμων is described in Poll. 4.145: ὁ δὲ Λυκομήδειος οὐλόκομος, μακρογένειος, ἀνατείνει τὴν ἑτέραν ὀφρύν, πολυπραγμοσύνην παρενδείκνυται. The features of περίεργος (‘overzealous’) set out in Thphr. Char. 13 could only partly be related to meddlesomeness (‘what he does he overdoes, and when this affects others, he may be called meddlesome’; see Diggle 2004, 327). Content The play’s title is suggestive of Diphilus’ penchant for writing comedies named after character types (on this practice see further note on Telesias, test. ii). The present play, like Diphilus’ Aplēstos and Parasitos and like Menander’s Dyskolos, Kolax, Apistos, Misogynēs, Psophodeēs, and Deisidaimōn, Agroikos by both Menander and Philemon, Agyrtēs, Paroinos, Androphonos, Apolis, Moichos, and Ptōchē by Philemon (to cite distinctive parallels from the triad of New Comedy), focuses on a specific character flaw (on the negative colouring of πολυπράγμων see above: Title) and its possible implications for the development of the comic plot. To judge from Menander’s Dyskolos, it would be expected that the present character’s busybodiness would have affected his actions, motives, and interactions with those surrounding him. From this viewpoint, Polypragmōn seems to bear the features of a comedy of the dominant idea (on this term see Webster 19602, 110–11), which could have added complexity and depth to the comic plot. At the same time, the key character’s polypragmosynē is likely to have given scope for a comprehensive character sketching, if we consider that Diphilus similarly delineated the parasite’s character in Telesias (see note on Telesias, test. ii). Nonetheless, it is not possible to define which of the features of polypragmosynē (set out above, see Title) may have been the target of this play. We know that Timocles’ comedy of the same title ridiculed the Philomacedonian politician Callimedon, whose character may have represented some of the traits of the busybody (see Apostolakis 2019, 212–3). In the present case, however, there is no concrete evidence. The sole clue that might conceivably be associated with polypragmosynē is given in fr. 67, which disparages the fraudulence of fishmongers at the marketplace. To

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πολυπράγμων

77

quote Carter (1986, 87), πολυπράγμων is the character dealing with ‘a nexus of activities clustering around the assembly, the lawcourts and the market square’. The latter provides a location for πολυπραγμονεῖν, being a place of action for sycophants, demagogues, and political climbers that gives opportunities for busybodying, meddling and prying. For instance, Aristotle in Pol. 1319a 24–30 asserts that the worst kind of democracy is where there is a large amount of participation by market people loitering around the marketplace: ὁ γὰρ βίος φαῦλος, καὶ οὐθὲν ἔργον μετ’ ἀρετῆς ὧν μεταχειρίζεται τὸ πλῆθος τό τε τῶν βαναύσων καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀγοραίων ἀνθρώπων καὶ τὸ θητικόν, ἔτι δὲ διὰ τὸ περὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν καὶ τὸ ἄστυ κυλίεσθαι πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος ὡς εἰπεῖν ῥᾳδίως ἐκκλησιάζει. Fr. 67 might suggest that at least a scene of the play concerned or even took place at the market; in turn, it is conceivable that the title-character may be a frequenter of the marketplace, which could account for his polypragmosynē. On the basis of this fragment, Rimedio (in Canforra [ed.] 2001, 643) opted for the translation of πολυπράγμων as ‘trafficone’ (‘wheeler-dealer’), so as to underscore this character’s engaging in commercial or political scheming. The possible involvement of the character representing the busybody in the market has also been favoured by Pérez Asensio (1999, 329). I would point out that this likelihood could be enhanced by a considerable number of comic parallels. In more specific terms, the market is perceived as a locus of busybodiness in Ar. Ach. 833 (Dicaeopolis describing the Megarian trader’s artifice as πολυπραγμοσύνη), Eq. 1375–81 (political climbers chattering at the market), V. 488–99 (political babbling at the fish-market), Pax 999–1015 (the market associated with τυρβάζεσθαι, that is, becoming part of a jostling mob). Moreover, the fish-market imagery is deployed to connote attributes of polypragmosynē, such as expense and pleasure, as against the simplicity and frugality attached to apragmosynē in Ar. fr. 402 (Nēsoi): ὦ μῶρε, μῶρε, ταῦτα πάντ’ ἐν τῇδ’ ἔνι·/οἰκεῖν μὲν ἐν ἀγρῷ τοῦτον ἐν τῷ γηδίῳ/ἀπαλλαγέντα τῶν κατ’ ἀγορὰν πραγμάτων,/κεκτημένον ζευγάριον οἰκεῖον βοοῖν,/ἔπειτ’ ἀκούειν προβατίων βληχωμένων/τρυγός τε φωνὴν εἰς λεκάνην ἠθουμένης,/ὄψῳ δὲ χρῆσθαι σπινιδίοις τε καὶ κίχλαις,/καὶ μὴ περιμένειν ἐξ ἀγορᾶς ἰχθύδια/τριταῖα, πολυτίμητα, βεβασανισμένα/ἐπ’ ἰχθυοπώλου χειρὶ παρανομωτάτῃ (cf. Carter 1986, 84–5, 95–6 and Torchio 2021, 65–7). Furthermore, Mach. fr. 16.300–7 G. describes a dialogue between the famous courtesan Gnathaena, Diphilus’ mistress, and fishmongers on the price of fish as an instance of meddlesomeness: εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν λέγουσιν αὐτὴν ἐξίναι/καὶ τοὔψον ἐφορᾶν καὶ πολυπραγμονεῖν πόσου/πωλεῖθ’ ἕκαστον. The latter passages may provide an articulate parallel to fr. 67, in that they define as polypragmosynē the habit of immoderately spending time at the market. Fr. 68 is less informative, since the sole piece of evidence that it offers involves the speaker’s surprise at a man’s raging onstage entry. The emerging tension might be associated with a dramatic crisis, though there is no clue as to what may have caused it.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

78

Diphilus

Fragments fr. 67 K.-A. (66 K.)

5

10

ᾤμην ἐγὼ τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας τὸ πρότερον εἶναι πονηροὺς τοὺς ’Αθήνησιν μόνους. τόδε δ’, ὡς ἔοικε, τὸ γένος ὥσπερ θηρίων ἐπίβουλόν ἐστι τῇ φύσει καὶ πανταχοῦ. ἐνταῦθα γοῦν ἔστιν τις ὑπερηκοντικώς, κόμην τρέφων μὲν πρῶτον ἱερὰν τοῦ θεοῦ, ὥς φησιν· οὐ διὰ τοῦτό γ’, ἀλλ’ ἐστιγμένος πρὸ τοῦ μετώπου παραπέτασμ’ αὐτὴν ἔχει. οὗτος ἀποκρίνετ’, ἂν ἐρωτήσῃς “πόσου ὁ λάβραξ”, “δέκ’ ὀβολῶν”, οὐχὶ προσθεὶς ὁποδαπῶν. ἔπειτ’ ἐὰν τἀργύριον αὐτῷ καταβάλῃς, ἐπράξατ’ Αἰγιναῖον· ἂν δ’ αὐτὸν δέῃ κέρματ’ ἀποδοῦναι, προσαπέδωκεν ’Αττικά. κατ’ ἀμφότερα δὲ τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἔχει

1 τὸ πρότερον om. CE 2 Ἀθήνησιν Dindorf: Ἀθήνῃσιν Α: Ἀθήνησι CE 3 τόδε δ’ Schweighäuser: τὸ δ’ ACE θηρίων Wakefield: θηρίον ACE 3–4 τὸ γένος ἐστὶ τῇ φύσει/ἐπίβουλον ὥσπερ θηρίων ἁπανταχοῦ Kock 5 ἔστι ACE 6 μὲν πρῶτον om. CE 7 ὡς φησὶν A: ὅς φασιν CE%%10 προσθεὶς ὁποδαπῶν Toup: προσθήσοι ποδαπῶν A: προσθείς σοι ποταπῶν CE%%11 ἐὰν Porson: ἂν ACE: ὅταν Cobet ms.%%12 αἰγιναῖον CE: αιγινεον A, defic. CE%%13 προσαπέδωκεν A: πως, ἀπέδωκεν Bothe: τότ’ ἀπέδωκεν Kaibel%%Ἀττικά Grotius: Ἀττικάς A: Ἀττικούς Schweighäuser (scil. ὀβολούς)

5

10

I once thought that fishmongers were rascals only in Athens. But, as it seems, this species, like that of the wild beasts, is by nature and everywhere devious. Here, for instance, is one who has outdone everyone else, first by growing his hair, dedicated to the god, as he says; it is not really for this reason, but since he is stigmatized on the front of his forehead, he has his hair as a cover. He replies, if you ask him ‘How much is the sea-bass?’, ‘Ten obols’, without adding in what currency. Then, if you give him the money, he exacts the Aeginetan standard; and if you need to be given change, he gives back Attic coins. In either case he benefits from the exchange

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

79

Πολυπράγμων (fr. 67)

Ath. 6.224C οἱ γὰρ ἐν τῇ ῾Ρώμῃ ἰχθυοπῶλαι οὐδ’ ὀλίγον ἀποδέουσι τῶν κατὰ τὴν ’Αττικήν ποτε κωμῳδηθέντων […] 225A Δίφιλος Πολυπράγμονι (titulum om. CE) ᾤμην — ἔχει For the fish-sellers in Rome are very little different from those who were ridiculed by the comic poets in Attica […] Diphilus in Busybody —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. l l k l l | kk k l l kk k l 2. l l k l l | l k l l l k l 3. kk l k l k kk k | l k l k l 4. kk l k l k | l k l l l k l 5. l l k l l l k | kk l l k l 6. k l k l l l k | kk l l k l 7. l l k l kk l k | l l l k l 8. k l k l l | kk k l l l k l 9. l kk k l k | l k l l l k l 10. kk l k kk l | l k l l kk k l 11. k l k l l kk k | l l kk k l 12. k l k l l l k | l l l k l 13. l kk k l l | kk k l k l k l 14. k l k kk k | l k l k l k l

(penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) IIΙ 290–2; Meineke (1839–57) IV 407–8; Kock (1880–88) II 562–3; Rouse (1902) 242; Marigo (1907) 429; Coppola (1924) 191; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 130–3; PCG V 92–3; Damen (1985) 75–6; Pérez Asensio (1999) 329–36; Wilkins (2000a) 296–9; Rusten (2011) 669–70; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 265–7; Zimmermann (2022) 34 Citation Context Extensive references to fish eating, especially ὀψοφαγία (‘love of fish’, often associated with gluttony and extravagance), occur in the third, sixth, seventh and eighth book of Deipnosophistai. Athenaeus is self-described as ὀψολόγος in 7.284E (ἐκ ταύτης ἡμῶν τῆς ὀψολογίας), that is, as an authority showing his gastronomic erudition in the culinary use of fish, which is an essential component of the lavish lifestyle represented in Deipnosophistai (cf. further Marchiori 2000, 327–38, Wilkins 2000c, 525–35). Indeed, in the sixth book it is a sumptuous dinner comprising large quantities of fish that brings about the discussion about the fraudulence of fish-sellers in Rome, whose practices resemble those ridiculed in Attic comedy (224B-C). Their greed forms a usual comic target that is playfully transplanted into Athenaeus’ work (cf. Wilkins 2000c, 528–30). From 6.224C to 227B the latter provides a rich collection of comic passages disparaging fishmongers, who tend to be described as the foulest breed of merchants, as they charge outrageous prices, for

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

80

Diphilus

the control of which laws need to be established. Τhe citation of the Diphilan fragment is preceded by Antiph. fr. 164 (Neaniskoi), Amph. fr. 30 (Planos), Alex. fr. 16 (Apeglaukōmenos). There follow Xenarch. fr. 7 (Porphyra), Antiph. fr. 159 (Moichoi), fr. 217 (Philothēbaios), Alex. fr. 204 (Pylaia), frr. 130–1 (Lebēs), Antiph. fr. 159 (Misoponēros), Diph. fr. 32 (Emporos), Alex. fr. 76 (Hellēnis), Archipp. fr. 26 (Ichthyes). From 227B to 228B the discussion turns to fishermen and to those shopping extravagantly at the fish-market. Text In l. 2 Dindorf restored the Attic form Ἀθήνησιν (instead of Ἀθήνῃσιν, which is quite common in cod. A of Athenaeus), as in Amph. fr. 14.4 (Dithyrambos) and Mach. fr. 15.232 G. Τhe form Ἀθήνησι preserved in codd. C and E will not do, as the final -ν is needed for metrical purposes. In l. 3 Wakefield’s θηρίων (Wakefield 1789–95, III 91) is an emendation of the manuscript reading θηρίον, as the intended comparison occurs between two breeds, that of fishmongers and that of wild beasts (and not between the breed of fish-sellers and a wild animal, as transmitted). Γένος needs a modifier in genitive (e.g. Ar. Th. 960: γένος Ὀλυμπίων θεῶν, Hom. Il. 2.852: ἡμιόνων, βοῶν γένος), unless it is modified by an adjective (e.g. S. Ant. 342: ἱππείῳ γένει, Hom. Il. 6.180: θεῖον γένος), which is not the case here. Kock’s suggestion (1880–88, II 563) τὸ γένος ἐστὶ τῇ φύσει/ἐπίβουλον ὥσπερ θηρίων ἁπανταχοῦ unjustifiably weakens the comparison by isolating γένος from θηρίων. At the end of l. 10 Toup (1790, II 564–5) aptly emended the unintelligible manuscript readings by offering the much-needed, palaeographically plausible reference to currency (οὐχὶ προσθεὶς ὁποδαπῶν). In the next line Porson’s ἐάν has replaced the unmetrical reading ἄν and is preferable to Cobet’s ὅταν (teste Peppink 1936, 36), in that it corresponds to the conditional clauses of ll. 9 and 12, thus creating anaphora. In l. 13 cod. A rightly reads προσαπέδωκεν, which conveys the required sense of ‘giving back change’ (on the verb’s comically ironic nuance see l. 13n.), therefore, it does not have to be changed to Kaibel’s τότ’ ἀπέδωκεν. Interpretation Fish is the centerpiece of lavish meals and a quintessential commodity. In turn, fondness of fish consumption (ὀψοφαγία) is frequently represented in comedy, to judge, for instance, from the extensive catalogues of ὀψοφάγοι in Alex. fr. 57 (Dorkis ē Poppyzousa), fr. 149 (Mandragorizomenē), fr. 198 (Pontikos), fr. 249 (Phaedon), Antiph. fr. 27 (Halieuomenē), fr. 77 (Gorgythos), fr. 188 (Plousioi), Eub. fr. 8 (Anasōizomenoi), Timocl. fr. 17 (Ikarioi Satyroi). Cf. Keller (1909–13) II 323–36, Micha-Lampaki (1984) 66–136 (for the wide variety of fish mentioned in comedy), Dumont (1988) 99–104, Davidson (1993) 53–5 and (1997) esp. 3–11, Dalby (1996) 66–76, Wilkins (2000a) 293–5, García Soler (2001) 147–50. Literary sources tend to associate the fish-market with class divisions, given that buying fish was mainly an elitist activity (though cheaper fish was evidently accessible to non-elite, as well; cf. Micha-Lampaki 1984, 67–8, Wilkins 2000a, 301–2). Consequently, in comedy fish-consumption came to represent wealth, status, and power (on the metaphor of political voracity, in particular, see Taillardat

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πολυπράγμων (fr. 67)

81

19652, 411–4). In Diph. fr. 31 (Emporos), for instance, the speaker is stressing that people unable to afford fish should be kept away from the fish-stalls. As a result, fish-loving gluttony became a feature of extravagant and even degenerate lifestyle, being opposed to moderation, to judge from Ar. Ach. 1156–61 (cf. Olson 2002, 350), V. 353–5, 928–30, 1030–4, Ra. 1065–8, Antiph. fr. 77 (Gorgythos), Alex. fr. 78 (Epiklēros), fr. 249 (Phaedon), Timocl. fr. 11 (Epichairekakos), D. 19.229, Aeschin. 1.42 (where fish-eating is at the top of the list of the most shameful pleasures: ἀλλ’ ἔπραξε ταῦτα δουλεύων ταῖς αἰσχίσταις ἡδοναῖς, ὀψοφαγίᾳ καὶ πολυτελείᾳ δείπνων καὶ αὐλητρίσι καὶ ἑταίραις καὶ κύβοις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑφ’ ὧν οὐδενὸς χρὴ κρατεῖσθαι τὸν γενναῖον καὶ ἐλεύθερον), 65, 95, Ath. 13.592F-593A; on its seductive effect (going as far as fish-names given to courtesans in Archipp. fr. 26 [Ichthyes], Antiph. fr. 27 [Halieuomenē]), cf. Ar. Ach. 885, 894, Pax 1013–4, Eub. fr. 34 (Ēchō), fr. 36 (Ion). The extravagance in fish-consumption thus gave rise to the reproach of public figures or even their ridicule in comedy. Cf. Davidson (1993) 57–66, Wilkins (2000a) 169–70, 293–6. Fish-consumption played a pivotal role in the trade-economy (see the sources collected in Mylona 2008, 13–14, 28–30, 83–4, 99–100, 113–5, Boeckh 18863, 129; on the cost of fish-eating, cf. also Gallant 1985, 39–40). The market represents the locus of money economy and, in turn, of extracting profit in a commercial exchange (for the representation of market practices in comedy, see esp. Crane 1997, 207–9, Wilkins 1997, 252–5). It is thus to the urban environment of tricksy merchants that fishmongers belonged (on a collection of comic references to the extravagant prices that they charged, see below, ll. 9–10n.). The necessity of controlling the high cost of fish emerges from an inscription from Acraephia in Boeotia (SEG XXXII 450, ca. 225–175 BC), which could yield insight into the market conditions not only in Boeotia but, overall, in Hellenistic Greece. It is a decree ordaining ‘those selling seafood to sell with certified weights’ (Block A, 3–7). Accordingly, the inscription comprises a list of 65 to 70 saltwater and at least six freshwater fish and the maximum prices to be paid per mina’s weight (see the thorough analysis in Lytle 2010, 268–77, 283–97 with earlier bibliography). At the same time, several literary sources stress the necessity of taking measures to protect the consumers from abuse. Plato (Lg. 917B-C), for instance, proposed that whoever sells anything in the market will not name two prices for the goods he sells, but will name a single price, and if he does not obtain it, he will have to take back his wares. A similar law is mentioned in Alex. fr. 130 (Lebēs) to have been established by the politician Aristonicus against fishmongers, in particular. Fr. 131 refers to a further law authored by the same politician, according to which fish-sellers should stand up the whole time probably as a means of stopping bargaining (on these measures see Hōppener [1931, 136–9], though Arnott [1996, 381] regarded the law described in fr. 131 as a grotesque fancy of Alexis). Likewise, the speaker in Sophil. fr. 2 (Androcles) suggests that two or three fish-market inspectors ought to be appointed by the council in Athens, though there is no evidence that this actually happened.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

82

Diphilus

The caricaturing of profiteering fishmongers is a comic topos. In Diph. fr. 32 (Emporos) the speaker is complaining that he had to pay for an eel with his weight in silver, like Priam’s ransoming Hector (adding that Poseidon would have been the richest god, had he received a small percentage of the transactions): οὐ πώποτ’ ἰχθῦς οἶδα τιμιωτέρους/ἰδών [….]/γόγγρον μέν, ὥσπερ ὁ Πρίαμος τὸν ῞Εκτορα,/ ὅσον εἵλκυσεν, τοσοῦτο καταθεὶς ἐπριάμην. In Archipp. fr. 23 (Ichthyes) fish are given voice to complain about their maltreatment by fishmongers: Αἰγύπτιος μιαρώτατος τῶν ἰχθύων κάπηλος,/῞Ερμαιος, ὃς βίᾳ δέρων ῥίνας γαλεούς τε πωλεῖ/ καὶ τοὺς λάβρακας ἐντερεύων, ὡς λέγουσιν ἡμῖν. Antiph. fr. 27 (Halieuomenē) presents the fish-seller on stage as a comic character who is concerned about how to properly display his fish for sale, as well as providing an effective double entendre about the extravagance of the rich in fish and courtesans (see esp. Konstantakos 2000, 69–71). Cf. also Ar. fr. 402.8–10 (Nēsoi): καὶ μὴ περιμένειν ἐξ ἀγορᾶς ἰχθύδια/τριταῖα, πολυτίμητα, βεβασανισμένα/ἐπ’ ἰχθυοπώλου χειρὶ παρανομωτάτῃ, the interpretation of MacDowell (1971) on Ar. V. 495, Eup. fr. 160 (Kolakes), Antiph. fr. 157.8–12 (Misoponēros): πολὺ γὰρ αὖ γένος/μιαρώτατον τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία/τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας βούλεταί τις λέγειν,/… μετά γε τοὺς τραπεζίτας· ἔθνος/τούτου γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐξωλέστερον, fr. 159.4–9 (Moichoi): παραδοθέντες ἄθλιοι/τοῖς ἰχθυοπώλαις τοῖς κακῶς ἀπολουμένοις/ σήπονθ’, ἕωλοι κείμενοι δύ’ ἡμέρας/ἢ τρεῖς· μόλις δ’ ἐάν ποτ’ ὠνητὴν τυφλὸν/λάβωσιν, ἔδοσαν τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν/τούτῳ (on the abuse of fish by their sellers), fr. 164.3–7 (Neaniskoi): ἐμβλέπων γὰρ αὐτόθι/τοῖς ἰχθυοπώλαις, λίθινος εὐθὺς γίνομαι,/ὥστ’ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔστ’ ἀποστραφέντι μοι/λαλεῖν πρὸς αὐτούς· ἂν ἴδω γὰρ ἡλίκον/ἰχθὺν ὅσου τιμῶσι, πήγνυμαι σαφῶς, fr. 204 (Timon), fr. 217 (Philothēbaios), Alex. fr. 16 (Apeglaukōmenos) with Arnott (1996) 98, fr. 204 (Pylaia): νὴ τὴν ’Αθηνᾶν, ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ τεθαύμακα/τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας, πῶς ποτ’ οὐχὶ πλούσιοι/ἅπαντές εἰσι λαμβάνοντες βασιλικοὺς/φόρους· μόνον οὐχὶ δεκατεύουσι γὰρ/τὰς οὐσίας ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν καθήμενοι,/ὅλας δ’ ἀφαιροῦνται καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, Amph. fr. 30 (Planos) with Papachrysostomou (2016) 194–6, Xenarch. fr. 7 (Porphyra). Cf. Höppener (1931) 133–41, Damen (1985) 62–79, Nesselrath (1990) 291–6 and (1997b) 277–83, Davidson (1993) 54–7 and (1997) 18–20, Pérez Asensio (1999) 330–1, Wilkins (2000a) 168–9, 170–1, 296–300. The present monologue provides the account of a market-scene, as in Ar. V. 785–92 (αἴσχιστα γάρ τοί μ’ ἠργάσατο Λυσίστρατος/ὁ σκωπτόλης. δραχμὴν μετ’ ἐμοῦ πρώην λαβὼν/ἐλθὼν διεκερματίζετ’ ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσιν,/κἄπειτ’ ἐνέθηκε τρεῖς λοπίδας μοι κεστρέων,/κἀγὼ ’νέκαψ’· ὀβολοὺς γὰρ ᾠόμην λαβεῖν./κᾆτα βδελυχθεὶς ὀσφρόμενος ἐξέπτυσα), Eq. 675–82, Pax 999–1015, Pherecr. fr. 70 (Ipnos ē Pannychis), Strattis fr. 45 (Philoctetes), Antiph. fr. 188 (Plousioi), Alex. fr. 47.5–8 (Demetrius ē Philetairos), Timocl. fr. 11 (Epichairekakos). In other cases, comedy could provide onstage market scenes, as in Ar. Ach. 729–835, 860–958, Pax 1210–64, probably also Eub. fr. 104 (Stephanopōlides), Antiph. fr. 36 (Anteia). Cf. also Konstantakos (2000) 69–70.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πολυπράγμων (fr. 67)

83

As Pérez Asensio (1999, 331) reasonably pointed out, this fragment could be assigned to a cook or a slave, as it is mainly these two characters who tend to describe market-scenes in comedy (cf. similarly the discussion of Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 160, which also comments on an expensive shopping expedition). Alternatively, given that there are several comic passages describing as polypragmosynē the habit of frequenting the marketplace (see above: Content), it is conceivable that the speaker reporting this market-scene might have been the busybody after whom the play is named. The speaker employs a conventional rhetorical opening to stress the inherently and universally treacherous features of the breed of fishmongers (ll. 1–4). This syllogism is further developed by means of an articulate example referring to a fish-seller who surpasses everyone else in fraudulence and whose roguish appearance serves as a manifestation of his inner ethical qualities (ll. 5–8). In stylistic terms, the use of incorporated oratio recta (ll. 9–10) conveys the liveliness of the market dialogue between buyer and seller. 1–4 The use of ᾤμην as first word is conventional in oratory, in that it is employed to open a syllogism usually by expressing surprise: the speaker mentions what he thought that was valid until now and then uses a δέ-clause to modify his thought, having realized that the present situation is different. Cf. Lys. 31.1–2 (with Carey 1989, 184): ᾤμην μέν, ὦ βουλή, οὐκ ἄν ποτ’ εἰς τοῦτο τόλμης Φίλωνα ἀφικέσθαι, ὥστε ἐθελῆσαι ὡς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν δοκιμασθησόμενον· ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐχ ἕν τι μόνον ἀλλὰ πολλὰ τολμηρός ἐστιν, ἐγὼ δὲ ὀμόσας εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον τὰ βέλτιστα βουλεύσειν τῇ πόλει, [Lys.] 8.11, Isoc. 4.187: τότε μὲν γὰρ ᾤμην ἀξίως δυνήσεσθαι τῶν πραγμάτων εἰπεῖν· νῦν δ’ οὐκ ἐφικνοῦμαι τοῦ μεγέθους αὐτῶν, 15.59, X. Mem. 1.6.2 (delivered by Antiphon): ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐγὼ μὲν ᾤμην τοὺς φιλοσοφοῦντας εὐδαιμονεστέρους χρῆναι γίγνεσθαι· σὺ δέ μοι δοκεῖς τἀναντία τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἀπολελαυκέναι, Lib. Ep. 432.1, 567.1, 800.1, 818.1. This rhetorical device is often appropriated by comic poets as a means of posing emphasis on the speakers’ unexpected realization that things are different from what they had imagined. See Ar. Nu. 372–3 (in reverse order): νὴ τὸν ’Απόλλω, τοῦτό γε τοι τῷ νυνὶ λόγῳ εὖ προσέφυσας./καίτοι πρότερον τὸν Δί’ ἀληθῶς ᾤμην διὰ κοσκίνου οὐρεῖν, Pl. 834–7: κἀγὼ μὲν ᾤμην οὓς τέως/εὐεργέτησα δεομένους ἕξειν φίλους/ὄντως βεβαίους, εἰ δεηθείην ποτέ·/οἱ δ’ ἐξετρέποντο κοὐκ ἐδόκουν ὁρᾶν μ’ ἔτι, Antiph. fr. 122–1–8 (Knoithideus ē Gastrōn), fr. 164.1–3 (Neaniskoi): ἐγὼ τέως μὲν ᾠόμην τὰς Γοργόνας/εἶναί τι λογοποίημα, πρὸς ἀγορὰν δ’ ὅταν/ ἔλθω, πεπίστευκ’, Men. Aspis 4–18, fr. 1 Sandbach (Kitharistēs): ᾤμην ἐγὼ τοὺς πλουσίους, ὦ Φανία,/οἷς μὴ τὸ δανείζεσθαι πρόσεστιν, οὐ στένειν/τὰς νύκτας οὐδὲ στρεφομένους ἄνω κάτω/“οἴμοι” λέγειν, ἡδὺν δὲ καὶ πρᾶιόν τινα/ὕπνον καθεύδειν, ἀλλὰ τῶν πτωχῶν τινα./νυνὶ δὲ καὶ τοὺς μακαρίους καλουμένους/ὑμᾶς ὁρῶ πονοῦντας ἡμῖν ἐμφερῆ, Philem. fr. inc. 98: νὴ τὸν Δία τὸν μέγιστον ᾤμην, Σωσία,/ἐγὼ πρότερον μὲν τοὺς πένητας ζῆν μόνους/ὀδυνωμένους, τῶν πλουσίων δὲ τὸν βίον/ἱλαρόν τιν’ εἶναι καὶ φέρειν εὐθυμίαν·/νυνὶ δὲ διαφέροντα τοῖς καθ’

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

84

Diphilus

ἡμέραν/δαπανήμασιν δὴ τὸν βίον ὁρῶ μόνον,/λύπας δ’ ἔχοντας μείζονας τοὺς μείζονας. In this case, an articulate contrast is drawn between the speaker’s earlier impression (τὸ πρότερον) and present realization regarding the breed of fish-sellers (τόδε δὲ τὸ γένος). At the same time, there is a further antithesis between the local (Ἀθήνησιν) and universal (πανταχοῦ) dimension of the phenomenon described (i.e. the dishonesty of fishmongers). 2 πονηρούς Several derogatory epithets are attached to fish-sellers; cf. Ar. fr. 402.10 (Nēsoi): ἐπ’ ἰχθυοπώλου χειρὶ παρανομωτάτῃ, Archipp. fr. 23.1 (Ichthyes): μιαρώτατος, Antiph. fr. 159.5 (Moichoi): τοῖς ἰχθυοπώλαις τοῖς κακῶς ἀπολουμένοις (cf. similarly Alex. fr. 16), fr. 204.5–6 (Timon): τὸν τοιχωρύχον,/τὸν ἰχθυοπώλην, Amph. fr. 30.4 (Planos): τοὺς καταράτους ἰχθυοπώλας, 30.8: ἅπαντες ἀνδροφόνοι. See Höppener (1931) 134–5; cf. also ll. 3–4n. on γένος ἐπίβουλον. 3–4 The speaker moves from the local and the particular (ll. 1–2) to generalize the phenomenon of the fishmongers’ fraudulence, which is given universal validity by means of the reference to fish-sellers as a breed (γένος) similar to that of wild beasts, acting treacherously by nature (τῇ φύσει) and everywhere (πανταχοῦ). 3 τὸ γένος LSJ9: ‘race’, ‘breed’, ‘class’. The term is employed of a group sharing distinctive features. For instance, in tragedy it is mainly attached to the race of women (τὸ γυναικεῖον γένος in Eur. Hipp. 1252, IT 1298, Ph. 356, fr. 111 K. [Alope], τὸ θῆλυ γένος in Med. 574, 909, Hec. 1184, fr. 401 [Ino], fr. inc. 1061 K.) and slaves (Eur. Or. 1115, fr. 49 Κ. [Alexandros] with Karamanou 2017, 272–3, fr. 218 K. [Antiope]: τὸ δοῦλον γένος). On the description of fish-sellers as a γένος see similarly Antiph. fr. 157.8– 12 (Misoponēros): γένος/μιαρώτατον [….] ἔθνος/τούτου γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐξωλέστερον, Xenarch. fr. 7 (Porphyra): τῶν δ’ ἰχθυοπωλῶν φιλοσοφώτερον γένος/οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν οὐδὲ μᾶλλον ἀνόσιον. Γένος similarly describes the race of merchants in Diph. fr. 42.9 (Zōgraphos): τὸ κατὰ τοὐμπόριον γένος. Cf. also the class of courtesans in Anaxil. fr. 22.1–2 (Neottis) and of parasites in Alex. fr. 121 (Kybernētēs) with Arnott (1996) 338, Timocl. fr. 8.1–3 (Drakontion) with Apostolakis (2019) 84, Nicol. Com. fr. inc. 1.1. For further uses of γένος in the sense of a unique group, cf. Pl. R. 501e: τὸ φιλόσοφον γένος, Tim. 17c, 24b: τὸ τῶν γεωργῶν γένος, 19e: τὸ τῶν σοφιστῶν γένος. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 332. ὤσπερ θηρίων Fish-sellers are perceived as a unique breed of creatures comparable to that of wild beasts. Likewise, a comparison between beasts and a human breed, that of women, occurs in Ar. Lys. 1014 (οὐδέν ἐστι θηρίον γυναικὸς ἀμαχώτερον) and in Alex. fr. inc. 291 (οὐκ ἔστ’ ἀναισχυντότερον οὐθὲν θηρίον/ γυναικός). Similarly, in Ar. V. 223–4 (cf. Biles/Olson 2015, ad loc.) the race of old men is likened to a swarm of wasps. On the breed of wild animals see also Philem. fr. inc. 89.2–3: τοῖς μὲν θηρίοις/ἔδωχ’ ἑκάστῳ κατὰ γένος μίαν φύσιν and Eur. Cyc. 117: θηρῶν γένος. For further animal species cf. Eur. Cyc. 265: ἰχθύων τε πᾶν γένος, Antiph. fr. 173 (Homopatrioi): ὀρνίθων γένος, [Arist.] HA 487b17: τὸ τῶν καρκίνων γένος, 488a4: τὸ τῶν περιστερῶν γένος, X. Cyn. 3.1: τὰ γένη τῶν κυνῶν.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πολυπράγμων (fr. 67)

85

4 ἐπίβουλον Here ‘treacherous’. The closest parallel (cited in PCG V 92) is probably Pl. Lg. 808d: ἐπίβουλον καὶ [...] ὑβριστότατον θηρίων γίγνεται. On this sense of ἑπίβουλον cf. Eub. fr. 114.4 (Charites): ἐπίβουλον κακόν, Mach. fr. 11.117 G., as well as Aesch. Supp. 586–7: τίς γὰρ ἂν κατέπαυσεν ῞Η-/ρας νόσους ἐπιβούλους; Lys. fr. 279.2 (Carey): δεινὸς καὶ ἐπίβουλος, [D.] 2.34: ἐπίβουλος καὶ κακοῦργος, Pl. Theaet. 174d: ζῷα ἐπίβουλα, [Arist.] HA 488b16, 18, Poll. 4.37: ὕπουλος, δολερός, ἐπίβουλος, κακοήθης, ἀπατεών, 5.119. τῇ φύσει The breed of fishmongers is presented as being inherently devious, that is, by natural disposition. Physis involves a man’s true character, encompassing innate, immutable, and universal features. Accordingly, one’s deeds follow one’s nature. This idea is brought forward with particular force in tragedy (e.g. Eur. El. 368, 941–4, Soph. Ph. 79–80, 902, 1310–11). Cf. also the comic passages in Ar. Nu. 877: θυμόσοφός ἐστιν φύσει, Lys. 1037: ὡς ἐστὲ θωπικαὶ φύσει, Th. 531: τῶν ἀναισχύντων φύσει γυναικῶν, Pl. 118: ἅνθρωπος οὗτός ἐστιν ἄθλιος φύσει, 279: ὡς μόθων εἶ καὶ φύσει κόβαλος, Antiph. fr. inc. 235: οὕτως ἐσμὲν ἀχάριστοι φύσει, Timocl. fr. 6 (Dionysiazousai): ἄνθρωπός ἐστι ζῷον ἐπίπονον φύσει, Men. Asp. 338–9: φύσει δέ σ’ ὄντα πικρὸν εὖ οἶδα καὶ/μελαγχολικόν, fr. 452 (Synaristōsai), Philem. fr. inc. 93.6: ἡ μὲν εἴρων τῇ φύσει. For further dramatic parallels conveying the sense of ‘one’s nature’, ‘character’, see Hajistephanou (1975) 38–48, Ostwald (1986) 264. On the inherent, unchangeable qualities involved in physis see Heinimann (1945) 98–109, Guthrie (1962–81) III 55–8, 113–4, Dodds (1973) 94–9, Hajistephanou (1975) 2–8, 30–52, 97–118, Nussbaum (1976–77) 43–9, Kerferd (1981) ch. 10, Ostwald (1986) 263–8, Egli (2003) 208–11. 5–14 This fishmonger’s dishonesty is presented as emerging from his actions in conjunction with his appearance; he is using his long hair to pass as religious in his effort to hide the criminal tattoo on his forehead, and, in turn, as would be expected, he cheats his customers by currency-switching. Appearance as a manifestation of inner ethical proclivities is congruent with philosophical and artistic principles pertaining to physiognomics, that is, gauging a person’s moral character on the basis of certain physical features. The earliest example of an ugly appearance associated with an insolent character is naturally Thersites in Hom. Il. 2.216 (cf. also Semonides’ invective against women in fr. 7 W2). Physiognomy seems to have been introduced by Hippocrates (Gal. Anim. Mor. Corp. Term. 7), but it is especially thanks to the Peripatetic tradition (to which the authorship of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognōmonica belongs) that the field of physiognomics obtained its theoretical underpinnings (cf. the sources assembled in Foerster 1893). On the definition of physiognomising as the discipline exploring the physical representation of the workings of the mind see [Arist.] Phgn. 806a22–4: ἡ μὲν οὖν φυσιογνωμονία ἐστί, καθάπερ καὶ τοὔνομα αὐτῆς λέγει, περὶ τὰ φυσικὰ παθήματα τῶν ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ. The notion of social decorum pertaining to physiognomising was largely conditioned by polis culture, thus forming a facet of civic behaviour. This idea could yield insight into the socio-political implications of the stigmatized seller’s fraudulent, socially abusive

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

86

Diphilus

attitude in the present passage. On physiognomics see esp. Armstrong (1958) 52–6, Evans (1969), Garland (1995) 87–104, Gleason (1995) 55–8, 60–2, Petrides (2014) 141–8 and n. 138 (with rich bibliography). 5 ὑπερηκοντικώς An agonistic term literally denoting ‘to overshoot’; it is employed here in the metaphorical sense ‘to outdo’. For this meaning cf. Ar. Av. 363: ὑπερακοντίζεις σύ γ’ ἤδη Νικίαν ταῖς μηχαναῖς and schol. vet. ad loc. (Holwerda 1991): νικᾷς. ἐκ μεταφορᾶς τῶν τοῖς ἀκοντίοις ἀγωνιζομένων. In Ar. Pl. 666 the term similarly describes the extent of a rascal’s deceit: κλέπτων δὲ τοὺς βλέποντας ὑπερηκόντικεν. See also Ath. 4.168D: ἐπὶ ἀσωτίᾳ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὑπερηκοντικέναι, schol. Tzetz. Ar. Pl. 178 (Chantry): ὑπερηκοντικότα σκαιότητι. 6 κόμην τρέφων … ἱερὰν τοῦ θεοῦ ‘Growing hair for the god’ occurs in varying occasions, such as for initiation and participation in mystery cults; Kassel/ Austin ad loc. aptly cite Eur. Ba. 494 (see Seaford 1996, 189): ἱερὸς ὁ πλόκαμος· τῷ θεῷ δ’ αὐτὸν τρέφω; see also Call. A.P. 6.310.6 (referring to a tragic mask of Dionysus, cf. Gow/Page 1965 II, 182–3): ἱερὸς ὁ πλόκαμος, τοὐμὸν ὄνειαρ ἐμοί, Verg. Aen. 7.391 (with Horsfall 2000, ad loc.): sacrum tibi pascere crinem. Hair was also grown for participation in ritual processions (cf. LSS 45.43: τὰν κόμαν τρέφειν, Ath. 5.25F). To quote Dodds (19602, 139), ‘the hair was felt as a detachable and therefore conveniently dedicable extension of its owner’s personality’. This ritual hair-growth was an ongoing process that crossed the boundaries between sacred and prophane space, in that the person involved in this act participated at the same time in his normal daily activities. Grown hair was also purposed to be cut as dedication to a god for protection in times of peril or cure or for the fulfillment of a particular vow; see e.g. Agamemnon offering hair to Zeus in Il. 10.15, Achilles growing his hair for the river Spercheus in Il. 23.142 (cf. Richardson 1993 on Il. 23.127–53), the lock dedicated by Berenice for her husband’s safe return in Call. Aet. fr. 110.7–8 Pf. with Harder (2012) ΙΙ 805–7 (τὸν Βερενίκης/βόστρυχον ὃν κείνη πᾶσιν ἔθηκε θεοῖς) and those offered to the cult-statue of Hygieia, as attested in Paus. 2.11.6. Hair-growing was similarly an essential part of rites of passage, such as adulthood and wedding (cf. e.g. Leitao 2003, esp. 111–8, Seaford 1994, 168–9). See Rouse (1902) 240–5, Draycott (2017) 82–6, Harlow/Lovén (2019) 15–24. In the present case, however, ritual hair-growth involves a paradox that activates the comic effect, in that the fishmonger’s (allegedly ritual) long hair is not only inconsistent with his non-religious character, but, far more than that, it serves to conceal his being a stigmatized criminal. 7 ἐστιγμένος Stigma involved body-marking for punitive, religious, decorative and property purposes (in the latter case with regard to slaves). In Greece, nonetheless, branding seems to have been restricted to animals (unlike the Near East, where human branding was also practised), whilst human body-marking involved ink tattooing with needles or other sharp implements on the head, forehead, hands, or arms for penal purposes; it was imposed on criminals, as in this case, prisoners of war or runaway slaves as a mark of disgrace and exclusion.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πολυπράγμων (fr. 67)

87

The punitive use of tattooing came to the Greeks from the Persians and, subsequently, to the Romans from the Greeks; Asius of Samos (ca. 6th century BC) includes the earliest reference to penal body-marking in Greece in fr. 14.1 W2/PEG test. 1 (χωλός, στιγµατίης, πολυγήραος, ἶσος ἀλήτῃ), and Samos could have been one of the first Hellenic towns to adopt this Persian custom. In Herod. 5.26–8, 63–8, 77–9 the tattooer (στίκτης) is ordered to come bringing needles and ink to brand the delinquent slave’s forehead. On the method of ancient tattooing cf. Aet. 8.12 (Olivieri). The term ἐστιγμένος similarly refers to penal tattooing in Ar. Av. 760–1 (with Dunbar 1995, ad loc.): εἰ δὲ τυγχάνει τις ὑμῶν δραπέτης ἐστιγμένος,/ἀτταγᾶς οὗτος παρ’ ἡμῖν ποικίλος κεκλήσεται, Aeschin. 2.79: αὐτὸς ὢν ἀνδραποδώδης καὶ μόνον οὐκ ἐστιγμένος αὐτόμολος and schol. vet. ad loc. (Dilts): ἐστιγμένος αὐτόμολος· ἐπειδὴ οἱ φυγάδες τῶν δούλων ἐστίζοντο τὸ μέτωπον, ὅ ἐστιν ἐπεγράφοντο, κάτεχέ με· φεύγω. ἢ ὅτι ἐστίζοντο οἱ αὐτόμολοι, ἵνα γνωρίζοιντο καὶ μὴ ἀδικοῖντο παρὰ τῶν πολεμίων. ἢ ἐπειδὴ Ξέρξης Θηβαίους αὐτομολήσαντας ἔστιζεν, Pl. Lg. 854d, App. BC 4.6.43: διὰ δὲ μοχθηρίαν ὕστερον ἐστιγμένος. The same sense is also conveyed by στιγματίας (‘tattooed’) in Cratin. fr. 81 (from Thraittai, where Callias is mocked as στιγματίας, being marked by his creditors), Ar. Lys. 330–1: δούλαισιν ὠστιζομένη/στιγματίαις θ’, (cf. schol. vet. Lys. 330 Hangard/ Henderson 1987, ad loc.), Eup. fr. 172.14–6 (Kolakes) with Olson (2016) 94, fr. 298 (Chrysoun Genos), Hermipp. fr. 63.19 (Phormophoroi) with Comentale (2017) ad loc.: δούλους καὶ στιγματίας, Luc. Cat. 24.6–9: ποῦ γὰρ ἐγὼ στιγματίας ἐγενόμην; - ὁπόσα ἄν τις ὑμῶν πονηρὰ ἐργάσηται παρὰ τὸν βίον, καθ’ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἀφανῆ στίγματα ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς περιφέρει, Tim. 17.12: ὥσπερ στιγματίας δραπέτης πεπεδημένος, Poll. 3.79: οἱ δὲ στιζόμενοι στιγματίαι καὶ στίγωνες. On punitive body-marking cf. also Ar. Ra. 1511–4, Eup. fr. 277 (Taxiarchoi), Pl. Com. fr. inc. 203 (of Hyperbolus’ body-marking, cf. Olson 2007, 218), Men. Sam. 323, 654–7 (though interpreted by Sommerstein 2013, 201–2 as severe beating instead of tattooing). See the relevant discussion in Jones (1984) 139–44, 146–50 and (2000) 1–10, as well as Patterson (1982) 58–9, Hunter (1994) 170–1, 238, n. 16, 243–4, n. 54, Tyler (2020) 34–43. 8 πρὸ τοῦ μετώπου According to [Arist.] Phgn. 813a1–2, the growth of hair on the forehead down by the nose indicates niggardliness: οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς προσπεφυκυίας ἔχοντες τὰς τρίχας ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου κατὰ τὴν ῥῖνα ἀνελεύθεροι (ἀνελεύθερος is similarly employed by Aristotle in the sense of ‘niggard’ in EN 1107b13: ὁ δ’ ἀνελεύθερος ἐν μὲν λήψει ὑπερβάλλει ἐν δὲ προέσει ἐλλείπει); cf. Lee (2015) 75–6. This physical feature could thus be congruent with the description of this fishmonger’s meanness, whilst at the same time underscoring his fraudulence, in that it serves to hide the criminal tattoo on his forehead. παραπέτασμ’ Literally, ‘that which is spread before a thing’, ‘curtain’ (LSJ9); here in the sense of ‘cover’. In comedy it is also used metaphorically, as in Alex. fr. dub. 341 (with Arnott 1996, ad loc.): ψυχὴν ἔχειν δεῖ πλουσίαν· τὰ δὲ χρήματα/ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ὄψις, παραπέτασμα τοῦ βίου, Men. fr. 299.9 (Plokion): εἶχεν δὲ παραπέτασμα τὴν ἐρημίαν.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

88

Diphilus

9–10 The reported conversation is conveyed in embedded direct speech that reflects a real market dialogue. In the swift flow of the comic performance, the switch from a character’s own words to the quoted material needs to be specifically signaled. In the present case, the oratio recta is signposted by means of its introduction with explicit quotatives, such as verba dicendi (οὗτος ἀποκρίνετ’, ἂν ἐρωτήσῃς); cf. similarly Ar. Lys. 518: εἶτ’ ἠρόμεθ’ ἄν· “πῶς ταῦτ’, ὦνερ, διαπράττεσθ’ ὧδ’ ἀνοήτως;”. For the stylistic distinctiveness of the incorporated direct speech in comedy see esp. Bers (1997) 115–28. The closest parallel to the present passage is Alex. fr. 16.8–10 (Apeglaukōmenos), being suggestive of an even more lively market dispute (cf. Arnott 1996, 101): ἐὰν δ’ ἐρωτήσῃς “πόσου τοὺς κεστρέας/πωλεῖς δύ’ ὄντας;” “δέκ’ ὀβολῶν” φησίν. “βαρύ·/ὀκτὼ λάβοις ἄν;” “εἴπερ ὠνεῖ τὸν ἕτερον” (a single mullet is bought for ten obols or for eight obols if the customer buys two of them). For similar exchanges between buyers and fishmongers about the price of fish cf. Timocl. fr. 11.5–9 (Epichairekakos) with Apostolakis (2019) 108–10: ἦν δὲ τὸ πάθος γελοῖον, οἴμοι, τέτταρας/χαλκοῦς ἔχων ἅνθρωπος, ἐγχέλεις ὁρῶν,/θύννεια, νάρκας, καράβους ᾑμωδία./καὶ ταῦτα πάντα μὲν περιελθὼν ἤρετο/ὁπόσου, πυθόμενος δ’ ἀπέτρεχ’ εἰς τὰς μεμβράδας, Amph. fr. 30.10–13 (Planos): ἔκρουσε πουλύπουν τιν’ […]/ συλλαϐὴν ἀφελὼν “τάρων/βολῶν γένοιτ’ ἄν·” “ἡ δὲ κέστρα;” “κτὼ βολῶν”, Archestr. fr. 35.4 Olson–Sens: ὀψωνεῖν ἃ πρέπει ταχέως καὶ μὴ περὶ τιμῆς, Mach. fr. 16.302 G.: καὶ τoὔψον ἐφορᾶν καὶ πολυπραγμονεῖν πόσου/πωλεῖθ’ ἕκαστον (with reference to the questions asked by the courtesan Gnathaena about the price of every fish). Further specific references to the high price of fish at the market are preserved in Eup. fr. 160 (Kolakes): δραχµῶν ἑκατὸν ἰχθῦς ἐώνηµαι µόνον,/ ὀκτὼ λάβρακας, χρυσόφρυς δὲ δώδεκα (just eight sea-bass and a dozen giltheads amounting to as much as 100 drachmas) and Antiph. fr. 145.5–6 (Lykōn): τούτων δὲ δραχμὰς τοὐλάχιστον δώδεκα/ἢ πλέον ἀναλώσασιν ὀσφρέσθαι μόνον (twelve drachmas are required just to catch a whiff of an eel). In a similar vein, the outraging price of an eel is exaggeratively reported in Diph. fr. 32.7–8 (Emporos): γόγγρον μέν, ὥσπερ ὁ Πρίαμος τὸν ῞Εκτορα,/ὅσον εἵλκυσεν, τοσοῦτο καταθεὶς ἐπριάμην (see further above: Interpretation). Cf. also the penny-pinching procurer in Eub. fr. 88.3 (Pornoboskos): ὀψοφάγος, ὀψωνῶν δὲ μέχρι τριωβόλου and the analogous scene with skinflint Euclio arriving empty-handed from the expensive fish-market in Plaut. Aul. 373–85 (see Maclennan/Stockert 2016, 147–8). See Olson–Sens (1999) 141, Konstantakos (2000) 69–70, Olson (2002) on Ar. Ach. 962. According to [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 62.2, the fourth-century daily remuneration for ekklesiasts participating in the (principal) Assembly was nine obols, whilst three obols were paid to dikasts and five obols to bouleutai (see also Loomis 1998, 25–7). This indicative sample of Athenian salaries makes it clear that the fish prices in the above passages — unless comically exaggerated — supersede the daily income even of prestigious posts, such as those of public officeholders. πόσου/ὁ λάβραξ For the genetivus pretii πόσου, ὁπόσου and ὅσου in market transactions cf. Alex. fr. 16.8 (Apeglaukōmenos), Mach. fr. 16.302 G. (both cited in

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πολυπράγμων (fr. 67)

89

the previous note), Antiph. fr. 164.6–7 (Neaniskoi): ἂν ἴδω γὰρ ἡλίκον ἰχθὺν ὅσου τιμῶσι, πήγνυμαι σαφῶς. Λάβραξ (‘sea-bass’) is a large fish that frequents the mouths of rivers, entering them from the sea ([Arist.] HA 543b4, Opp. H. 1.114–20, Varr. 3.3.9). It is a carnivorous fish, its name originating in λάβρος (Boisacq s.v. λάβρος: ‘vorace’, ‘avide’, λάβραξ :‘loup de mer’), which is suggestive of its voracity (cf. [Arist.] HA 591a11, Ael. NA 1.30: ἰχθύων ὀψοφαγίστατος). Its diminutive λαβράκιον is employed in Antiph. fr. 221.2 (Philōtis) and Amph. fr. 35.2 (Philetairos) and is referred to as λάβριχος in the aforementioned Acraephia inscription (Block B, 24, though λάβραξ is also mentioned in Block A, col. ii, 10). In Ar. fr. inc. 612 it is regarded as the cleverest of all fish, because, as Ath. 7.310F explains, it cunningly contrives its escape (cf. Opp. H. 3.121–5, 128–31, Plu. SA 977B, 977F). Its culinary qualities are described in Ath. 7.310E-311E. It is not very nourishing, but well-flavoured (λάβρακες εὔχυλοί εἰσι καὶ οὐ πολύτροποι), being rated first in excellence of taste (εὐστομίᾳ δὲ πρῶτοι κρίνονται, cf. Sotad. fr. 1 [Egklēiomenai]), which accounts for its high cost (Eup. fr. 160 [Kolakes]). Archestr. fr. 46.1–9 (see Olson-Sens 2000, 181–5) describes it as θεόπαιδα λάβρακα, mentioning that it is at its best in Miletus (cf. also Ar. Eq. 361 with Leeuwen 1900, 70). Its head is regarded as a delicacy in Ar. fr. 380 (Lēmniai), Eub. fr. 109 (Tithai) and Eriph. fr. 3 (Meliboia): ταῦτα γὰρ οἱ πένητες οὐκ ἔχοντες ἀγοράσαι/ὑπογάστριον θύννακος, οὐδὲ κρανίον/λάβρακος, οὐδὲ γόγγρον, οὐδὲ σηπίας,/ἃς οὐδὲ μάκαρας ὑπερορᾶν οἶμαι θεούς. The sea-bass was very popular in Rome as well; see e.g. Plin. HN 9.61, 169 (being excellent between the bridges of Tiber), Mart. 9.27.6, 10.30.21, 11.50.9, Macrob. Sat. 3.16. See further Strömberg (1943) 34–5, Thompson (1957) 140–2, Micha-Lampaki (1984) 92–4, Pérez Asensio (1999) 334, García Soler (2001) 176–7. 11 τἀργύριον ‘Silver’, here ‘money’, as coins in Athens were commonly made of silver at least until the final, difficult years of the Peloponnesian War, when emergency bronze coinage was introduced (see e.g. Seltman 1955, 177–9, Kraay 1976, 55–70). The use of the term ἀργύριον tends to be associated with deceit; cf. Ar. Νu. 98–9: οὗτοι διδάσκουσ’, ἀργύριον ἤν τις διδῷ,/λέγοντα νικᾶν καὶ δίκαια κἄδικα, 756, 1249, 1278, Th. 937, Ra. 148, Ec. 186, Pl. 141, 156, Metag. fr. 10.2 (Homēros ē Askētai), Antiph. fr. 122.14 (Knoithideus ē Gastrōn): τἀργύριον μὴ κατατιθέντες, Epicr. fr. 3.21 (Antilais): τἀργύριον ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς ἤδη λαμβάνει, Men. Sic. 345–6: λαβεῖν ἂν παρά τινος/ἀργύριον, ἀδίκου πράγματος. Cf. also Orth (2014) 447 citing D. 19.110: ἀλλὰ µισθώσας αὑτὸν καὶ λαβὼν ἀργύριον ταῦτ’ εἶπε, καὶ προὔδωκεν ἐκεῖνῳ and 19.245: ὅτι ἀργύριον εἴληφ’ οὗτος. 12 ἐπράξατ’ Αἰγιναῖον The Aeginetan weight standard, relying on the silver stater of 12.2 g in the late archaic and early classical period, was relatively reduced in the Hellenistic period and continued to be applied in Central Greece, the Peloponnese, and Crete. Even in its reduced value, however, the Aeginetan standard (ranging between 11.50 and 10.00 g) was significantly higher than the Attic one (between 8.65 and 8.4); on its value in the Hellenistic period see Mørkholm (1991) esp. 8–9. According to Poll. 9.76, the Aeginetan drachma, being heavier than the

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

90

Diphilus

Attic drachma, was named ‘thick drachma’ (ἀλλὰ μὴν τὴν μὲν Αἰγιναίαν δραχμὴν μείζω τῆς ’Αττικῆς οὖσαν […]’Αθηναῖοι παχεῖαν δραχμὴν ἐκάλουν). The island’s coinage has a long tradition. The silver coins of Aegina, which was a leading commercial power in the Mediterranean especially from the sixth to mid-fifth century BC, were known to be the first to circulate in Greece (see Ephor. FGrH 70 F176) beyond Asia Minor (it has been deduced that the Aeginetans started minting coins shortly after the production of the first known silver coins by Croesus in mid-sixth century BC, according to Hdt. 1.64). Aeginetan staters – deriving their silver probably from the island of Siphnos —were known as χελῶνες, as they originally depicted a marine turtle and from mid-fifth century onwards a land tortoise. Their status as a widely recognized medium of exchange also emerges from the identification of the ‘turtle’ as Peloponnesian coinage; see Eup. fr. 150 (Heilōtes): ὀβολὸν τὸν καλλιχέλωνον (cf. Olson 2017, 21), Poll. 9.74: καὶ μὴν τὸ Πελοποννησίων νόμισμα χελώνην τινὲς ἠξίουν καλεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ τυπώματος, Hesych. χ 343 (Hansen/Cunningham): χελώνη […] καὶ 〈νόμισμα〉 Πελοποννησιακόν. On Aeginetan coinage cf. Hultsch (1905) 1615–6, Kraay (1976) 41–9, 313–6, 329, Figueira (1981) 80–144, Kroll/Waggoner (1984) 335–9, Carradice/Price (1988) 54–6. Mørkholm (1991) 8–9, 84–5, 88, 149, 153–4, 165, Sheedy (2012) 106–9, Kallet/Kroll (2020) 64–7, 75–7, 91–4, 148–50. 13 προσαπέδωκεν ’Αττικά Marigo (1908) 429 is right to point out that προσαποδίδωμι is in this case ironically nuanced, as this fishmonger applies the Aeginetan weight standard when receiving money and instead returns the change according to the coins’ Attic value (on the higher value of the Aeginetan coins see above l. 12n.); therefore, the exact meaning of προσαποδίδωμι (‘pay as a debt besides’) is here comically exaggerated. The Attic weight standard, albeit of lesser value than the Aeginetan, was known far and wide, being the dominant weight standard for international trade coinages. It was adopted by Philip and Alexander and by most of the Diadochi down to the end of the dynastic history, though its weight was gradually reduced within the course of the Hellenistic period. For the Attic standard in Hellenistic times see Hultsch (1905) 1617–9, Mørkholm (1991) 8–10, 64–8, 81–6, 91–4, 142–3, 150–65, Howgego (1995) 47–55, von Reden (2010) 84, 88, 149–50, Ashton (2012) 191–9, Thonemann (2015) 117–27. 14 τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἔχει Generally ‘exchange’ (in Ar. Av. 1587–8 it bears the sense of change from enmity to friendship: πρεσβεύοντες ἡμεῖς ἥκομεν/παρὰ τῶν θεῶν περὶ πολέμου καταλλαγῆς). Here it is employed in the sense of ‘money-changer’s profit’ (LSJ9). Pérez Asensio (1999) 336 aptly cites as a parallel Euphro fr. 3.3–4 (Apodidousa): ὥσπερ χρυσίου/φωνῆς ἀπότισον, Πυργόθεμι, καταλλαγήν.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πολυπράγμων (fr. 68)

91

fr. 68 K.-A. (67 Κ.) τί ποτ’ ἐστίν; ὡς ῥαγδαῖος ἐξελήλυθεν What on earth is going on? He has come out furious Phot. ρ 16 (Theodoridis) = Sud. ρ 8 (Adler) ῥαγδαίους· κατὰ μεταφορὰν ἀπὸ τῶν ὄμβρων· τοὺς κεκινημένους καὶ σφοδροὺς καὶ βιαίους· ’Αντιφάνης ’Αγροίκοις (fr. 7)· Δίφιλος Πολυπράγμονι· τί —ἐξελήλυθεν· ἔστι καὶ ἐν Πρυτάνεσι Τηλεκλείδου τὸ ὄνομα (fr. 32) καὶ ἐν Δαιταλεῦσιν ’Αριστοφάνους (fr. 254). ‘stormy’: a metaphor from thunderstorms; those who are disturbed, vehement, and violent; Antiphanes in Agroikoi (fr. 7); Diphilus in Polypragmōn; this word also occurs in Telecleides’ Prytaneis (fr. 32) and in Aristophanes’ Daitalēs (fr. 254).

Metre Iambic trimeter

kk l k l l l k | l k l k l (hephthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 408; Kock (1880–88) II 563; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 132–3; PCG V 93; Pérez Asensio (1999) 336–8; Pérez Asensio/ Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 267 Citation Context This passage is cited by Photius and the Suda under the entry ῥαγδαίους. It is preceded by a quotation of Antiph. fr. 7 ([Agroikoi]: ῥαγδαῖος, ἄμαχος, πρᾶγμα μεῖζον ἢ δοκεῖς) and is followed by Telecl. fr. 32 ([Prytaneis], cf. Bagordo 2013, 160–1) and Ar. fr. 254 (Daitalēs); in the two latter cases, it is cited as a single word without any context. According to these lexicographical sources, ῥαγδαῖος is a meteorological metaphor, which is employed in the cited comic passages to denote rage, vehemence, and violence (on the senses of ῥαγδαῖος see below, note ad loc.). This metaphorical sense is lexicographically attested in Hesych. ρ 12 (Hansen) as well: ῥαγδαῖον· τὸ ὀξύ, ὁρµῆς µεστόν, ἢ ἄθρουν, σφοδρόν, ἰσχυρόν, φοβερόν, σκληρόν. On Photius as a rich source for comic fragments see further fr. 80: Citation Context. Interpretation The speaker is expressing his/her surprise at the sight of a male character’s onstage entry (probably from the skēnē-door; see below on ἐξελήλυθεν) at a state of fury. This tension is suggestive of a possible dramatic crisis, as the speaker is wondering what might have happened to cause that man’s rage. Pérez Asensio (1999, 337) is right to draw a parallel with the cook’s astonishment at Demeas’ fury in Men. Sam. 360–8. I would point out that this possible analogy of situations is stylistically conveyed as well (see below, the following note). τί ποτ’ ἐστιν; Πότε is employed in questions with intensive force (LSJ9, s.v. III 3) and often conveys surprise at an unexpected event (‘What in the world…?’). Likewise, the cook in Men. Sam. 360–2 is expressing his bewilderment in a similar manner: ῾Ηράκλεις. τί τοῦτο, παῖ;/μαινόμενος εἰσδεδράμηκεν εἴσω τις γέρων·/ἢ

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

92

Diphilus

τί τὸ κακόν ποτ’ ἐστί; τί δέ μοι τοῦτο, παῖ; Cf. also Ar. Av. 1207: τί ποτ’ ἐστὶ τουτὶ τὸ κακόν; Ra. 1385: τί ποτ’ ἐστὶ ταἴτιον; Pl. 641. ῥαγδαῖος ‘furious’, of rain-storms ; cf. Arist. Mete. 349a6, Aud. 803a5, Luc. Tim. 3.7: ὑετοί τε ῥαγδαῖοι καὶ βίαιοι, Plu. Dio 25.6: ῥαγδαῖον ὄμβρον. The weather metaphor is here transplanted into human attitude to denote ‘raging’, ‘vehement’. Most comic passages conveying this sense are cited in the lexicographical sources preserving this fragment (see above: Citation Context). Cf. also Men. Asp. 400–3 (cited in PCG V, ad loc.): οὐκ ἂν ᾠήθην ποτὲ/ἄνθρωπον εἰς τοσοῦτον οὑτωσὶ ταχὺ/πάθος ἐμπεσεῖν. σκηπτός τις εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν/ῥαγδαῖος ἐμπέπτωκε. Taillardat (19652, 364) provides several comic passages in which storm serves as a martial metaphor (Ar. Ach. 528, Eq. 644: ὁ πόλεμος κατερράγη). (Kατα)ῥήγνυσθαι as a cognate of ῥαγδαῖος (from ῥάγδην: LSJ9 s.v.) ‘se dit proprement de la tempête, de l’ orage, de la pluie’ (op.cit. 364, n. 4). Cf. similarly the use of ῥαγδαῖος conveying vehemence within military contexts in Plu. Tim. 3.7: ῥαγδαῖον ἐν ταῖς στρατείαις καὶ φιλοκίνδυνον, Ages. 2.1: φιλονεικότατος γὰρ ὢν καὶ θυμοειδέστατος ἐν τοῖς νέοις καὶ πάντα πρωτεύειν βουλόμενος, καὶ τὸ σφοδρὸν ἔχων καὶ ῥαγδαῖον ἄμαχον καὶ δυσεκβίαστον, Pel. 1.3.4–5: οὐκέτ’ ἦν φιλοκίνδυνος οὐδὲ ῥαγδαῖος ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσιν, Alex. 4.8, Mor. 447A, 456C. Cf. also Bagordo (2013) 161 and earlier Leeuwen (1900) on Ar. Eq. 430. ἐξελήλυθεν In drama ἐξέρχομαι is often employed as a quasi-technical term to refer to a character coming out from the stage-building (LSJ9 s.v.: ‘of an actor, come out on the stage’); see Ar. Ach. 240 (Dicaeopolis entering from the stage door, cf. Olson 2002, 141), Eq. 234, Th. 36, 70, 95: Ἁγάθων ἐξέρχεται, Lys. 707 (with Henderson 1987, 163): τί μοι σκυθρωπὸς ἐξελήλυθας δόμων; 1107, Pl. 964–5: φέρε νυν, ἐγὼ τῶν ἔνδοθεν καλέσω τινά./- μὴ δῆτ’· ἐγὼ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐξελήλυθα, Men. Dysc. 782–3: οὐκ ἐξέρχομαι/ ἔνδοθεν, 821: ἐξιὼν πρὸς τῇ θύρᾳ (cf. Handley 1965, 267, 275), adesp. com. 1014.4–5: τί γὰρ πλέον τ̣ό̣[δ’ ἐ]ψ̣ όφ̣ηκεν ἡ θύρα;/ἐξέρχεταί τι ϲ̣ .̣ For the equally technical reverse term εἰσέρχομαι, ‘to enter the skēnē-building’, cf. Karamanou (2006) 162–3.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

93

Πύρρα (Pyrrha) (“Pyrrha”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 408; Kock (1880–88) II 563–4; Marigo (1907) 430; Breitenbach (1908) 167; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 132–3; PCG V 94; Pérez Asensio (1999) 338–9; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 267 and n. 373; Maggio (2023) 100–1 Title The best-known mythological character bearing this name is the daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora, according to the most widespread version, and wife of Deucalion. Cf. [Apollod.] 1.46, schol. vet. Hes. Op. 158a (Pertusi), schol. vet. Pi. O. 9.68b, 79c (Drachmann), schol. vet. PI. Tim. 22a (Greene), Ov. Met. 1.390, Hyg. fab. 142, 155. See in detail the number of sources gathered and assessed by Weizsäcker in Roscher (1897–1909) III 3352–5, Gantz (1993) 164–6, Fowler (2000–13) II 113–21. A comedy entitled Pyrrha kai Promatheus was written by Epicharmus. Fr. 113, fr. 1 (a+b), which is the best-preserved fragment coming from this play, seems to include a conversation between Pyrrha and Deucalion about the making of the chest and what needs to be included in it. In ll. 12–14 there is a clear reference to the collaboration of Prometheus in this effort. This piece of evidence is in line with the account of [Apollod.] 1.46, according to which it was by the advice of Prometheus that Deucalion constructed the chest and having stored it with provisions embarked in it with Pyrrha. Notably, Epicharmus is the earliest source to report the myth of the Great Flood alongside Pi. O. 9.49–51. Subsequently, fr. 120 of the same play refers to the birth of the new race of people from the stones thrown by Deucalion and Pyrrha, following an oracle of Themis. See West (1985) 50–6, Caduff (1986) 92 and n. 1, 93–7, West (1994) 132–4, Bremmer (1998) 39–55, Kerkhof (2001) 136–40. Plays named after Deucalion were written by Eubulus and Antiphanes, whilst nothing survives from Ophelion’s comedy of this title. Fr. 23 of Eubulus’ play comprises a food list (cf. Hunter 1983, 115–6), while frr. 78 and 79 of Antiphanes’ Deucalion similarly refer to staple food, such as pickled fish, and to delicacies, like honeyed cakes, respectively. However, there is no way of knowing how these fragments could have fitted into the comic plot (on this play see Olson 2023, 294). The second mythologically attested ‘Pyrrha’ is the false name that was given to tawny-haired Achilles when hiding among Lycomedes’ daughters in Scyros. Achilles’ transvestism could have provided an attractive topic for mythological burlesque. There is no evidence for the topic of the Achilles comedies by Anaxandrides and Philetaerus, though fr. 8 of the former play might provide a possible clue to the hero’s education in his youth (cf. Millis 2015, 65). Yet, the name Pyrrha given to Achilles is reported in sources that are either much later than Diphilus (Hyg. fabb. 96, 97) or undatable, such as Aristonicus of Tarentum (FGrH 57 F1) cited by Ptolemy Chennus (1st century AD), the latter being a source of Phot.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

94

Diphilus

Bibl. 147a18–21. Hence, we are not on safe ground as to whether this name was associated with Achilles as early as the fourth century BC. Pyrrha was also the name of Deidamia (Heliod. A.P. 9.485.8), mother of Achilles’ son Neoptolemus, who was also named Pyrrhus. See Weizsäcker in Roscher (1897–1909) III 3355, Geisau (1963) 78, Zimmermann (2008) 269. This name was also given to lesser mythological figures (cf. Geisau 1963, 78, nr. 4–7). On the other hand, Kock suggested that Pyrrha could be a woman named after her hair-colour (1880–88, II 563: ‘mulieris nomen esse videtur’). On such names see Blümner (1892) 106–7, 179, Bechtel (1902) 32, 46. In turn, Breitenbach (1908, 167) opted for a red-haired courtesan, on the basis of Hor. Carm. 1.5 that presents tawny-haired Pyrrha as the target of erotic focus (cf. also Schuster 1963, 79). Likewise, a courtesan named Pyrrha features in two epigrams of Marcus Argentarius in A.P. 9. 161 (῾Ησιόδου ποτὲ βύβλον ἐμαῖς ὑπὸ χερσὶν ἑλίσσων/Πύρρην ἐξαπίνης εἶδον ἐπερχομένην·/βύβλον δὲ ῥίψας ἐπὶ γῆν χερί, τοῦτ’ ἐβόησα/“ἔργα τί μοι παρέχεις, ὦ γέρον ῾Ησίοδε;”) and 9.286.1–2 (ὄρνι, τί μοι φίλον ὕπνον ἀφήρπασας; ἡδὺ δὲ Πύρρης/εἴδωλον κοίτης ᾤχετ’ ἀποπτάμενον). This possibility may further be enhanced by the fact that courtesans tended to bear speaking names (for more detail see Synōris: Title). Pyrrha is also the name of several towns (in Lesbos, in Ionia, in Phthiotis, in Magnesia, in Euboea, in Phocis; see Meyer 1963, 80, Ziegler 1963, 80, Lohmann 2008, 269–70), which are, however, unlikely to have provided material for a comic play. On this play-title cf. also Marigo (1907) 430, Pérez Asensio (1999) 338–9; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 267, n. 373, Maggio (2023) 100–1. Content If the play was named after the famous mythical Pyrrha, it may well be a case of mythological travesty. The legend of Pyrrha and Deucalion was evidently quite popular in comedy as early as Epicharmus and then in middle comedy in the plays of Antiphanes, Eubulus, and Ophelion (see above: Title). It is thus likely to have formed the topic of the present play as well, which would be congruent with Diphilus’ trend of producing mythological comedies, as it emerges from a good number of mythological play-titles preserved from his production (for more detail see Peliades: Content). The comic degradation of these characters and of the otherwise critical situation in which they are involved according to the myth might have provided a fascinating topic. But, unlike Epicharmus’ Pyrrha kai Promatheus, there is no clue as to what the specific subject-matter of this conceivable mythological burlesque could have been. The cross-dressing of Achilles named ‘Pyrrha’ might have provided another attractive topic for burlesque, though, unlike Deucalion and Pyrrha, there is no safe evidence that it formed the subject-matter of any other comedy. Moreover, this false name of Achilles is reported in sources notably later than Diphilus (see above: Title).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

95

Πύρρα (fr. 69)

Alternatively, the title-character might not be a mythological personage, but simply a red-haired woman, presumably a courtesan (for the relevant passages see Title); in such a case, the play-title could be paralleled to Synōris, which is similarly named after a hetaira (cf. also Marigo 1907, 430). This possibility could entail that this comedy may have comprised dramatic situations in which courtesans tend to get involved, such as banquets (on this possibility see fr. 69: Interpretation) and several facets of urban life in general.

Fragments fr. 69 K.-A. (68 K.) δῶρον δ’ ἐμαυτῇ παρὰ θεῶν εὑρημένη ἐμαυτὴν ‘Eren.’ εὑρημένη Symeonis synag. ap. Nickau (coni. Scaliger): εὑρημένην ‘Eren.’: εὑρημένον γ

Having found for myself a gift from the gods Ammon. Adfin. vocab. diff. 200 Nickau (hyparchet. γ, ‘Eren.’ Phil. 72) εὑρεῖν καὶ εὑρέσθαι διαφέρει. εὑρεῖν μὲν γὰρ τὸ καὶ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ, εὑρέσθαι δὲ οἱονεὶ τὸ ἐκπορίσασθαι. Μένανδρος Δυσκόλῳ· (489) — Δίφιλος (δίφυλος γ) ἐν Πύρρᾳ · δῶρον — εὑρημένη Eὑρεῑν differs from εὑρέσθαι. For εὑρεῑν is the customary usage, whilst εὑρέσθαι is like ἐκπορίσασθαι (‘to provide for oneself ’). Menander in Dyskolos (489) — ; Diphilus in Pyrrha —

Metre Iambic trimeter

l l k l l | kk k l l l k l

(penthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 408; Kock (1880–88) II 563–4; Marigo (1907) 430; Breitenbach (1908) 167; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 132–3; PCG V 94; Pérez Asensio (1999) 340; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 267. Citation Context This line is cited in the synonymic lexicon Περὶ ὁμοίων καὶ διαφόρων λέξεων transmitted in later manuscripts under the name of Ammonius; yet, none of the known grammarians of this name (Ammonius of Alexandria, pupil of Aristarchus, and the Alexandrian Neoplatonists Ammonius Saccas and Ammonius, son of Hermeias) can safely be identified with the author of the lexicon, which is considered to derive from a synonymic lexicon composed by Herennius Philo (early 2nd century BC). It contains pairs of words that display either a formal or semantic similarity and provides clarifications as to how they differ. Literary quotations tend to be employed to exemplify the subtle differences

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

96

Diphilus

between the words cited; examples derive from classical literature, Alexandrian and Imperial scholarship, whilst comic quotations, in particular, mainly originate in the canon, i.e. Aristophanes and Menander. Cf. Dickey (2007) 94–6, Tosi (2015) 635, Tribulato (2019a) 42. In the present case, the entry clarifies the semantic difference between εὑρεῑν, which is the common term denoting ‘to find’, and εὑρέσθαι, which is identified with ἐκπορίσασθαι. To demonstrate this distinction, the lexicographer cites Men. Dysc. 489 as an example of the active form and the Diphilan passage as an instance of the middle one. Text The reading ἐμαυτῇ […] εὑρημένη is Scaliger’s emendation of ἐμαυτὴν […] εὑρημένην, which does not make any sense. The latter is transmitted in the epitome of the lexicon by Herennius Philo (‘Eren.’, on the original lexicon see Citation Context), which has been preserved in the 14th century cod. Paris. Suppl. Gr. 1238 (see Nickau 1966, xl-xli). Interpretation The speaker is a female character (to judge from ἐμαυτῇ and εὑρημένη) referring to a god-sent gift (δῶρον...παρὰ θεῶν), which she has found for herself. There can be no certainty as to whether δῶρον, which is the predicate of the missing object, is literally or metaphorically used (though the former seems likelier). If the title-character is the well-known Pyrrha, daughter of Pandora, it may be tempting to associate the god-sent gift with Pandora’s fatal jar and suppose that the play might have comprised a burlesque of this famous myth; but then again, it would not be clear what ἐμαυτῇ εὑρημένη (‘having provided for myself ’) would mean in this case. There are further alternatives. Prof. Stavros Tsitsiridis aptly draws my attention to Panyasis PEG 19.1 (ὡς οἶνος θνητοῖσι θεῶν πάρα δῶρον ἄριστον), describing wine as θεῶν πάρα δῶρον. Notably, the phrasing is identical with that of the present line and, in conjunction with the widespread perception of wine as a gift of the gods (especially Dionysus, of course, cf. e.g. Hes. Op. 613–4: ἕκτῳ δ’ εἰς ἄγγε’ ἀφύσσαι/δῶρα Διωνύσου πολυγηθέος, Eur. Ba. 278–85, 423, 772–4), makes it possible that wine could be the god-given present of the Diphilan passage. This likelihood may be suggestive of a sympotic context. Moreover, given wine’s quality to inspire amorous desire, as it also emerges from the aforementioned fragment of Panyasis (19.3: πᾶσαι δ’ ἐραταὶ φιλότητες), it is conceivable that the female speaker of this line may be a courtesan (e.g. the red-haired Pyrrha, according to the alternative interpretation of the title?) participating in a banquet. An eloquent parallel is provided in the staged symposium of fr. 74 (Synōris), involving a courtesan engaging in a dice-game. On sympotic episodes in Diphilan comedy see further fr. 70 (Sapphō) and fr. 80 (Telesias): Interpretation. δῶρον […] παρὰ θεῶν On god-sent presents cf. similarly Eur. IA 180–1: Πάρις ὁ βουκόλος ἃν ἔλαβε/δῶρον τᾶς ’Αφροδίτας, Soph. OC 709: δῶρον τοῦ μεγάλου δαίμονος, fr. inc. 964 R.: θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον τοῦτο· χρὴ δ’ ὅσ’ ἂν θεοὶ/διδῶσι,

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Πύρρα (fr. 69)

97

φεύγειν μηδέν, ὦ τέκνον, ποτέ. It is also metaphorically used, as in Men. Mon. 334 (Pernigotti): θεοῦ πέφυκε δῶρον εὐγνώμων τρόπος, 351: θεοῦ τὸ δῶρόν ἐστιν εὐτυχεῖν βροτούς. The opposite, that is, δῶρα given to the gods, occurs in Ar. Pax 424 (a libation-bowl offered to Hermes by Trygaeus), Av. 937 (a fur offered as a gift to the Muses), Pl. 849: χαρίεντά γ’ ἤκεις δῶρα τῷ θεῷ φέρων. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 340. εὑρημένη In the middle voice it may denote ‘to devise’, ‘to invent’ (LSJ9 s.v. III), ‘to find or get for oneself ’ (ibid. IV). In the present case, it seems to be employed in the latter sense. For its comic usages cf. Archipp. fr. 38 (Ploutos): ἔστιν δέ μοι πρόφασις καλῶς ηὑρημένη·/τὸν γὰρ γέροντα διαβαλοῦμαι τήμερον, Alex. fr. 9.1–2 (Aisōpos): κομψόν γε τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν παρ’ ὑμῖν, ὦ Σόλων,/ἐν ταῖς ’Αθήναις, δεξιῶς θ’ εὑρημένον, Men. fr. 188.5–7 (Hiereia): ἀλλ’ ἔστι τόλμης καὶ βίας ταῦτ’ ὄργανα/εὑρημέν’ ἀνθρώποις ἀναιδέσιν, ῾Ρόδη,/εἰς καταγέλωτα τῷ βίῳ πεπλασμένα, Anaxipp. fr. 1.27 (Egkalyptomenos): γεύσω δ’, ἐὰν βούλῃ, σὲ τῶν εὑρημένων.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

98

Σαπφώ (Sapphō) (“Sapphο”)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) VI 215–9, VII 257–8; Meineke (1839–57) IV 409; Kock (1880–88) II 564; Marigo (1907) 387, 430; Coppola (1929) 185–7; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 132–3; PCG V 94; Brown (1997) 82–3; Pérez Asensio (1999) 341–8; Degani (20022) 33–4; Olson (2007) 303–4; Yatromanolakis (2007) 298; Giannikou (2010) 268–78; Ceccarelli (2013) 244–57; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/ Montañés (2014) 268 and n. 374; Konstantakos (2015a) 162–3; Stephens (2021) 322–4; Maggio (2023) 102–10 Title The famous poetess features as the title character of no less than six comedies, including Diphilus’ play. The earliest and sole Sapphō play in old comedy is by Ameipsias, whose activity extends into the early fourth century. There follow middle comic treatments, such as those of Antiphanes, Timocles, Amphis and Ephippus, which are suggestive of Sappho’s immense popularity in fourth-century comedy. Unlike the plays by Ameipsias (see Totaro 1998, 173–4, Orth 2013, 268–70) and Amphis (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016, 207–8), from which only oneword fragments have been preserved, the other ‘Sapphic’ comedies could provide clues to particular scenes. More specifically, in Antiph. fr. 194 Sappho is presented as delivering to her companions a sophisticated riddle touching on gender polarities perhaps during a symposium (see Konstantakos 2000, 157–61, Olson 2007, 201 and 2021, 11, 16–7 and the evidence for the performance of riddles in symposia gathered by Yatromanolakis 2007, 301). The fragmentary evidence for the plays of Timocles and Ephippus points to contexts of male homosexuality; Timocl. fr. 32 includes a reference to the notorious pederast Misgolas rejecting a woman (Sappho?) or another man in favour of young boys (cf. Apostolakis 2019, 226–30), whilst Ephipp. fr. 20 mentions a male prostitute paying in trade for his meal (cf. Papachrysostomou 2021, 193–4). The banquet vocabulary employed in the latter is similarly suggestive of a sympotic scene. These ‘Sapphic’ plays could be described as ‘pseudo-historical travesties’ (so Konstantakos 2015a, 162–3), being generically affiliated with mythological comedies, in that Sappho’s legendary poetic persona is transplanted into the world of burlesque and fantasy and placed alongside characters from different periods and places in an imaginative way (cf. also Casolari 2003, 193–5 and see further below: Content). On a larger scale, plays named after poets seem to have been a trend, especially in old and middle comedy; these include Cratinus’ Archilochoi and Cleoboulinai, Homeros by Metagenes, Telecleides’ Hesiodoi, Strattis’ Cinesias, Alexis’ Archilochos and Cleobouline, Antiphanes’ Orpheus and Nicostratus’ Hesiodos. Some further comedies might have treated a Sappho-related theme: there are plays entitled Phaon (after the Lesbian ferryman, with whom Sappho is alleged to

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σαπφώ

99

have been madly in love) by Plato (probably a sexually nuanced play, see Pirrotta 2009, 338–40) and Antiphanes (see Olson 2022, 89), as well as Amphis’ Leucas (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016, 164–5); cf. also the reference to Sappho’s suicide due to her unrequited amorous passion for Phaon in Men. Leucadia fr. 1 Arnott/258 Körte and Turpilius’ homonymous comedy probably based on Menander’s (see Manuwald 2011, 260). On the close association of Sappho with eros see below, fr. 71: Interpretation. On the poetess’s comic portrayal see esp. Dörrie (1975) 14–8 und 29, Brivitello (1998) 179–205, Konstantakos (2000) 157–61, Yatromanolakis (2007) 293–312, Olson (2007) 303–4, Giannikou (2010) 11–327, Neri (2021) 61–5, Maggio (2023) 102–10. On her fascinating Nachleben in antiquity, see Brandt (1905) 4–6, 9–11, 179–226, Wilamowitz (1913) 17–42, Robinson (1924) 26–43, 119–33, Rüdiger (1933) 4–7, Fernandez-Galiano (1958) 32–48, 75–6, 84–7, Mora (1966) 77–150, Williamson (1995) 1–33, Greene (ed.) (1996), Pérez Asensio (1999) 341–3, Yatromanolakis (2007), Stephens (2012) 319–40, Lefkowitz (20122) 41–4, DuBois (2015) 81–112, Thorsen/Harrison (eds) (2019), Neri (2021) 47–73, Coo (2021) 263–76. Content As the title suggests, this play seems to be a pseudo-historical burlesque sharing features with mythological comedies (see above: Title; on Diphilus’ mythological comedies see further Peliades: Content). The legendary figure of Sappho is reconfigured in a fictitious way, presented as being erotically associated with Archilochus and Hipponax (fr. 71). This interplay of personages from different periods and cultural milieus also seems to emerge from fr. 70, which comes from the end of a banquet in which Archilochus participates. Sappho’s persona is similarly subjected to travesty in Timocles’ homonymous comedy that provides an incongruous muddle of characters, in that she features alongside the fourth-century voluptuary Misgolas, whose unscrupulousness is attested in Aeschin. 1.41–53. Likewise, in Ephipp. fr. 20 coming from the comedy of the same title, the poetess is placed next to other vulgar characters, such as a male prostitute seeking for a free meal in return for sexual services. Diphilus thus draws on a rich and popular fourth-century comic tradition of deforming the exalted state of heroes and renowned personalities of the past and, as in this case, trivializing the lofty world of high-rank poetry. Diphilus’ choice of Archilochus and Hipponax as rivals for the heart of Sappho cannot be random. Firstly, the identity of both poets as fierce iambographers would aptly suit the inherent iambic features of the comic genre. Hipponax, in particular, was regarded as the inventor of parody (Ath. 15.698B: εὑρετὴν μὲν οὖν τοῦ γένους ῾Ιππώνακτα φατέον τὸν ἰαμβοποιόν). The two poets may have conceivably been brought on stage as competing practitioners of iambos, in a similar way in which Aristophanes antithetically presents the poetic personae of Aeschylus and Euripides in Frogs (for this interpretation see Brown 1997, 82, Degani 20022, 33–4). At the same time, their ferocious, often obscene, poetics may well be articulately

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

100

Diphilus

contrasted to Sappho’s elegant love poetry; this distinction is brought forward in [Dem.] Eloc. 132: τὰ μὲν οὖν εἴδη τῶν χαρίτων τοσάδε καὶ τοιάδε. εἰσὶν δὲ αἱ μὲν ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι χάριτες, οἷον νυμφαῖοι κῆποι, ὑμέναιοι, ἔρωτες, ὅλη ἡ Σαπφοῦς ποίησις. τὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτα, κἂν ὑπὸ ῾Ιππώνακτος λέγηται, χαρίεντά ἐστι, καὶ αὐτὸ ἱλαρὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἂν ὑμέναιον ᾄδοι ὀργιζόμενος οὐδὲ τὸν ῎Ερωτα ’Εριννὺν ποιήσειεν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ ἢ γίγαντα, οὐδὲ τὸ γελᾶν κλαίειν. Moreover, both Archilochus and Hipponax, as their poetry suggests, were involved in situations of erotic rivalry; notoriously enough, Archilochus with the daughters of Lycambes (frr. 30–40, 118, 172–81, 195, 197, 208 W2), and Hipponax in a triangular relationship with Arete, the mistress of his opponent, Bupalus (frr. 18 Dg./15W2, 20 Dg./12 W2, 22 Dg./14 W2, 23 Dg./16 W2, 24 Dg./17 W2). Sexuality (often conveyed in unrestrained erotic narratives) and vituperation pervades their poetry, as well as the intention of degrading their opponent, all of which seem to square very nicely with Diphilus’ idea of presenting them as erotic rivals. For these features of the poetics of Archilochus and Hipponax, see West (1974) 25–30, Brown (1997) 82–8, Kantzios (2005) 54–6, 69–70, Giannikou (2010) 269–74, Ormand (2015) 56–9; cf. most recently the discussion in Maggio (2023) 102–4. Hence, this comic rivalry may have well been two-levelled, both erotic and poetological. The competition of the two most prominent and fierce iambographers including the possible invective that it may have involved in conjunction with Sappho as the erotic target is suggestive of a fascinating play. On the poetess’s eroticism see fr. 71: Interpretation. Fr. 70 involves a staged symposium, which formed a favourite spectacle in fourth-century comedy. The staging of these banquets could have taken place either in front of the skēnē-building or perhaps on the ekkyklēma as indoor scenes that were brought out before the audience. On staged banquets see further below, fr. 70: Interpretation and fr. 80 (Telesias): Interpretation. Parallel sympotic scenes probably took place in other Sapphō comedies, as in Antiph. fr. 194 and Ephipp. fr. 20 (see above: Title), being gathered by Athenaeus, who regularly places Sappho within sympotic contexts (see esp. Yatromanolakis 2007, 352–62, Caciagli 2020, 324–39, Schlesier 2020, 342–56). This could also be in line with the possible performance of her songs in banquets from the fifth century BC onwards (see Most 1996, 32–3, Walker 2000, 232). Overall, as Yatromanolakis (2007, 299) pointed out, ‘Sapphic’ plays could have brought forward ‘specific marked webs of signification’; the poetess is perceived as bearing stock features that are comically employed, deformed or banalized. These traits seem to include her amorous disposition, her poetics of eros and gender, as well as the expression of sophisticated thought often in sympotic contexts. Date There is no concrete evidence for the date of Diphilus’ Sapphō. Considering, nonetheless, that the figure of the poetess provided a notably popular subject-matter for fourth-century comedies, it may be worth briefly going through the rough dates of the other ‘Sapphic’ plays, in an attempt of detecting a possible timespan

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σαπφώ (fr. 70)

101

in their production. Antiphanes’ play is dated between 370 and 365 BC (for all relevant views see Olson 2021, 11), whilst the homonymous comedies by Timocles and Ephippus may echo the notorious trial in which Aeschines’ speech against Timarchus was delivered and could thus be dated in ca. 345 BC or soon after (cf. the discussion in Apostolakis 2019, 227 and Papachrysostomou 2021, 194 respectively; on the dates of these plays see also Maggio 2023, 102, n. 94). Menander’s Leucadia was tentatively associated by Webster (19602, 106 and 19702, 154) with the success of Leucas in resisting Cassander’s attacks in 314 BC, which might suggest a date soon after then. It can thus be deduced that there was a trend in producing ‘Sapphic’ comedies from 370 till the last decade of the fourth century. In turn, it might be reasonable to infer that Diphilus’ play may have been produced some time from the start of his career (presumably in the archonship of Philocles 322/21 BC, that is, at the same time as Menander, if Proleg. de com. III 61 Koster can be trusted, cf. most recently Hartwig 2022, 64) until the end of the fourth century, according to this trend. Even the earliest Sapphō by Ameipsias is placed late in his career, namely in late fifth or early fourth century (see Orth 2013, 270), which would also be congruent with the immense appeal of this theme in fourth-century comedy.

Fragments fr. 70 K.-A. (69 K.) ’Αρχίλοχε, δέξαι τήνδε τὴν μετανιπτρίδα μεστὴν Διὸς σωτῆρος, Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος Archilochus, accept this after-dinner cup full of Zeus the Saviour, the Good Divinity Ath. 11.486F μετάνιπτρον ἡ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον ἐπὴν ἀπονίψωνται διδομένη κύλιξ. ’Αντιφάνης Λαμπάδι (fr. 135) — Δίφιλος Σαπφοῖ — ἔνιοι δὲ τὴν μετὰ τὸ νίψασθαι πόσιν, ὡς Σέλευκος ἐν Γλώσσαις. Καλλίας δ’ ἐν Κύκλωψι (fr. 9) — Φιλέταιρος ’Ασκληπιῷ (fr. 1) — · Φιλόξενος δ’ ὁ διθυραμβοποιὸς ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Δείπνῳ μετὰ τὸ ἀπονίψασθαι τὰς χεῖρας προπίνων τινί φησι (PMG 836c/fr. 3 Sutton) — · ’Αντιφάνης Λαμπάδι (fr. 135) — · Νικόστρατος ’Αντερώσῃ (fr. 3) — Metaniptron (‘the cup drunk after hand-washing’) is the cup offered after dinner, when they have washed their hands. Antiphanes in Lampas (fr. 135) — , Diphilus in Sapphō — . But some (explain it as) the drink after hand-washing, like Seleucus in Glōssai (fr. 59 Müller). Callias in Cyclopes (fr. 9) —, Philetaerus in Asclepius (fr. 1) — And Philoxenus the dithyrambic poet in his poem entitled Deipnon pledging someone after hand-washing says (PMG 836c/fr. 3 Sutton) — Antiphanes in Lampas (fr. 135)— Nicostratus in Anterōsa (fr. 3) —

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

102

Diphilus

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. l kk k l l | l k l kk l k l (penthemimeral caesura) 2. l l k l l l k | kk l l k l (hephthemimeral caesura) Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) VI 217; Meineke (1839–57) IV 409; Kock (1880–88) II 564; Marigo (1907) 430; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 132–3; PCG V 94; Brown (1997) 82–3; Pérez Asensio (1999) 344–6; Konstantakos (2005a) 188–90; Olson (2007) 303–4; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 268; Maggio (2023) 102–5 Citation Context This fragment comes from the discussion of μετάνιπτρον or μετανιπτρίς (486F–487B) in the extensive alphabetic catalogue of drinking cups and related vessels (466E-503F) in the eleventh book of Deipnosophistai. It is preceded by the quotation of Antiph. fr. 135 (Lampas), which interestingly recurs at the end of this section (probably as the result of Athenaeus’ clumsy fusion of two sources, cf. Olson 2022, 140), and followed by Call. Com. fr. 9 (Cyclopes), Philetaer. fr. 1 (Asclepius), PMG 836c/fr. 3 Sutton from Philox. Deipnon and Nicostr. fr. 3 (Anterōsa). According to these comic passages, μετάνιπτρον is the cup offered after the hand-washing that takes place at the end of the dinner. But it can also be perceived as the drink following the end of the meal, to judge from Seleucus’ Glōssai (fr. 59 Müller). Interpretation This fragment comes from a symposium in which Archilochus participates. The address to Archilochus to receive the after-dinner cup of wine indicates that the banquet was enacted on stage, as in fr. 74 (Synōris) and possibly in fr. 80 (Telesias). This likelihood is also enhanced by means of the use of sympotic terminology, such as the reference to the cup named μετανιπτρίς, which the banqueters drank after the hand-washing at the end of the dinner, and the toasts to Zeus the Saviour and Agathos Daimon that formed part of the sympotic practice. Staged symposia often take place towards the end of comic plays, as, for instance, in Ar. Ach. 1085ff., V. 1299ff., Ec. 1112ff., Men. Dysc. 847ff., Sam. 673ff. (cf. Konstantakos 2005a, 198–9 citing a great number of such examples and earlier Süss 1910, 450–60, Kunst 1919, 8, 13–5, 33–5, 38–42, 51–2, 54–5). Accordingly, this feast may have conceivably been enacted towards the end of the comic plot. The offer of a cup to a co-banqueter is a comic motif in staged symposia. It similarly occurs in Diph. fr. 20.2 (Balaneion), as well as in Pherecr. 73.3, 75.2 (Koriannō), Theopomp. fr. 33.9–11 (Nemea), Call. Com. fr. 99 (Cyclopes), Ameips. fr. inc. 21.3, Antiph. fr. 4.1 (Agroikos), 85 (Diplasioi), 147 (Melaniōn), 161.1, 163.1–2 (Mystis), Alex. fr. 55 (Didymoi), 228 (Tithē ē Tithai), 234.5 (Tokistēs ē Katapseudomenos), Nicostr. fr. 18.3 (Pandrosos), Xenarch. fr. 3.1 (Didymoi), Men. Her. fr. 4 Sandbach, fr. 281 (Pallakē), Plaut. Per. 775–6, St. 710, 715–8, 758, 762–3. For more detail on the features of staged banquets in comedy, see Konstantakos (2005a) 187–94; cf. also below, fr. 80 (Telesias): Interpretation. Marigo (1907, 430) and Wehrli (1957, 80), followed by Giannikou (2010, 274), suggested that

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σαπφώ (fr. 70)

103

the speaker addressing Archilochus at this symposium may be Sappho, but the evidence remains inconclusive. Archilochus seems to feature as a comic character in Cratinus’ Archilochoi, whose plural title could be suggestive of an Archilochean school of iambic, blame poetry; there are clues pointing to a possible literary agon of Archilochus and his followers against epic poets. The play’s subject-matter could thus be poetological and presumably a means of acknowledging comedy’s generic affiliation to the iambic idea (cf. Barchiesi 2001, 150, Zanetto 2001, 73, Bakola 2010, 70–9, Bianchi 2016, 15–17). Alexis also wrote an Archilochus, which may have well been a historical travesty, according to the trends of middle comedy (Arnott 1996, 113–4). On Archilochus in comedy see earlier Blumenthal (1922) 3–4, 8–10; cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 344–5. 1 δέξαι a ritual formula commonly employed for the divine acceptance of offerings and sacrifice; cf. Ar. V. 875–6: ὦ δέσποτ’ ἄναξ γεῖτον ’Αγυιεῦ, τοῦ ’μοῦ προθύρου προπύλαιε,/δέξαι τελετὴν καινήν, ὦ ’ναξ, ἣν τῷ πατρὶ καινοτομοῦμεν, Pax 974–7: ὦ σεμνοτάτη βασίλεια θεά,/πότνι’ Εἰρήνη,/δέσποινα χορῶν, δέσποινα γάμων,/δέξαι θυσίαν τὴν ἡμετέραν, Nu. 274, Lys. 203–4: δέσποινα Πειθοῖ καὶ κύλιξ φιλοτησία,/τὰ σφάγια δέξαι ταῖς γυναιξὶν εὐμενής, 603. This formulaic appeal is very frequent in Euripides (cf. Langholf 1971, 49–60); see Hipp. 82–3: ἀλλ’, ὦ φίλη δέσποινα, χρυσέας κόμης/ἀνάδημα δέξαι χειρὸς εὐσεβοῦς ἄπο, Hec. 535, El. 882, IT 464, fr. inc. 912.3–5 K.: σὺ δέ μοι/θυσίαν ἄπυρον παγκαρπείας/δέξαι πλήρη προχυταίαν. On this formula cf. also Kleinknecht (1937) 49–50, Casabona (1968) 155–8, Henderson (1987) on Ar. Lys. 203–4, Pérez Asensio (1999) 346, Biles/Olson (2015) 345. In the present case, it seems to add solemnity to the situation, in conjunction with the reference to the divinities involved in l. 2. Cf. similarly Theopomp. fr. 33.9–11 (Nemea): φιλοτησίαν δὲ τήνδε σοι προπίομαι·/ δέξαι, πιοῦσα δ’ ὁπόσον ἄν σοι θυμὸς ᾖ,/παράδος τὸ πρῶτον. τὴν μετανιπτρίδα Most of the passages concerning this vessel come from Athenaeus (see above, Citation Context). According to these quotations, μετάνιπτρον or μετανιπτρίς is the cup or the drink offered following post-dinner hand-washing. On the term μετανιπτρίς deriving from the order in which it was offered at the symposium (μετά+νίπτω, ‘after hand-washing’), see Poll. 6.100: ἡ δὲ μετανιπτρὶς κύλιξ ἐστὶν ἣν μετὰ τὸ ἀπονίψασθαι ἐλάμβανον· τὸ δ’ ὄνομα οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἔκπωμα σχήματος ἀλλὰ τῆς τάξεως. Its ensuing sense as ‘drink’ is attested in Seleuc. Glōssai fr. 59 Müller (ἔνιοι δὲ τὴν μετὰ τὸ νίψασθαι πόσιν), whilst Poll. 6.31 mentions both senses (καὶ πότος μεταδόρπιος, καὶ κύλιξ μετανιπτρὶς ἡ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν· εἴποις δ’ ἂν τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐπινιπτρίδα). At the same time, Hesych. μ 1033 (Latte) further specifies it as ‘the last drink’ (μετάνιπτρον ἢ μετανιπτρίς· ἡ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον, ἐπὰν νίψωνται, διδομένη κύλιξ· οἱ δὲ τὴν ὑστάτην πόσιν). The closest parallel to the present line is Call. Com. fr. 9 (Cyclopes): καὶ δέξαι τηνδὶ μετανιπτρίδα τῆς Ὑγιείας. The offering of this cup tends to be linked with Hygieia; cf. also Antiph. fr. 147.1 (Melaniōn): τοῦτον ἐγὼ κρίνω μετανιπτρίδα τῆς ῾Υγιείας/πίνειν ζωροτέρῳ χρώμενον οἰνοχόῳ, Philetaer. fr. 1 (Asclepius): ἐνέσεισε

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

104

Diphilus

μεστὴν ἴσον ἴσῳ μετανιπτρίδα/μεγάλην, ἐπειπὼν τῆς Ὑγιείας τοὔνομα, Nicostr. fr. 3 (Anterōsa) = fr. 18.2 (Pandrosos): μετανιπτρίδ’ αὐτῷ τῆς Ὑγιείας ἔγχεον and Poll. 6.100: ἦν δὲ (scil. μετανιπτρὶς) Ὑγιείας ἱερά. The reference to Hygieia associates it with the beneficial effects of Zeus the Saviour (for more detail see next note). Cf. Bagordo (2014a) 158–60, Olson (2022) 140–1, Maggio (2023) 105, Lamari (2023) on Nicostr. fr. 3 (Anterōsa). 2 μεστὴν Διὸς σωτῆρος, Ἀγαθοῦ Δαἰμονος In the present fragment the μετανιπτρίς is presented as being full of ‘Zeus the Saviour’, ‘Agathos Daimon’. This sympotic practice is lucidly described in Ath. 15.675B-C: διὰ τοῦθ’ οἱ ῞Ελληνες τῷ μὲν παρὰ δεῖπνον ἀκράτῳ προσδιδομένῳ τὸν ’Αγαθὸν ἐπιφωνοῦσι Δαίμονα, τιμῶντες τὸν εὑρόντα [δαίμονα]· ἦν δ’ οὗτος ὁ Διόνυσος. τῷ δὲ μετὰ δεῖπνον κεκραμένῳ πρώτῳ διδομένῳ ποτηρίῳ Δία Σωτῆρα ἐπιλέγουσι, τῆς ἐκ τοῦ μίγματος ἀλύπου κράσεως τὸν καὶ τῶν ὄμβρων ἀρχηγὸν αἴτιον ὑπολαβόντες. According to this testimony, the toast to Zeus the Saviour involved drinking wine mixed with water to reduce the destructive effects of pure wine, whilst that to Agathos Daimon, who in these circumstances was identified with Dionysus (responsible for the existence of wine itself), included unmixed wine (cf. also Schweighäuser 1801–5, VI 217). Hence, μεστὴν Διὸς σωτῆρος, Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος is a case of asyndeton, not of apposition (cf. also Cook 1914–40, II 2, 1129, Olson 2021, 140). We also learn from Thphr. fr. 2 Fortenbaugh that the banqueters appealed to Agathos Daimon after satiety, so that they would take only a little sip of wine, presumably as something rare and refined. Cf. Arist. EE 1233b (ἀγαθοδαιμονεῖσθαι, ‘those drinking at very small amounts’), Philoch. FGrH 328 F5a-b, D.S. 4.3.4–5, Poll. 6.100, Sud. s.v. Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος (α 122 Adler). Cf. similarly Dionysus’ particular association (conceivably as Agathos Daimon) with the μετανιπτρίς in Philox. PMG 836c/fr. 3 Sutton: σὺ δὲ τάνδ’ † ἐκβακχια †/εὔδροσον πλήρη μετανιπτρίδα δέξαι./πραΰ τί τοι Βρόμιος/γάνος τόδε δοὺς ἐπὶ τέρ-/ψιν πάντας ἄγει. On Agathos Daimon within sympotic contexts see further Cook (1914–40) II 2, 1129, Tolles (1943) 77–90, Ogden (2013) 298–9. At the same time, the beneficial role of Zeus the Saviour in dulling the harmful effects of wine is evidently linked to Hygieia, to whom this vessel is reported to be sacred in Call. Com. fr. 9, Nicostr. fr. 3, Antiph. fr. 147, and Philetaer. fr. 1 (see previous note). These toasts are often re-enacted in comedy; see Ar. Eq. 85 ἄκρατον οἶνον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος, 106 σπεῖσον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος, V. 525 (cf. schol. vet. ad loc. ed. Koster): μηδέποτε πίοιμ’ ἄκρατον μισθὸν ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, Pax 300 (with Olson 1998, ad loc.): νῦν γὰρ ἡμῖν ἁρπάσαι πάρεστιν ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος and schol. vet. ad loc. (ed. Holwerda): φασὶ γάρ, ὅτι δειπνήσαντες μὲν ἐπερρόφουν ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, ἀπαλλάττεσθαι δὲ μέλλοντες ἔπινον Διὸς σωτῆρος, Theopomp. fr. 41 (Pamphile) with Farmer (2022) 140: σπόγγος, λεκάνη, πτερόν, λεπαστὴ πάνυ πυκνή,/ἣν ἐκπιοῦσ’ ἄκρατον ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος/τέττιξ κελαδεῖ, Eriph. fr. 4.1 (Meliboia): ἐκπεπήδηκας πρὶν ἀγαθοῦ πρῶτα δαίμονος λαβεῖν,/πρὶν Διὸς σωτῆρος, Xenarch. fr. 1.2–5 (Didymoi): ἡ τἀγαθοῦ γὰρ δαίμονος συνέσεισέ με/ ἄκρατος ἐκποθεῖσα φιάλη παντελῶς,/ἡ τοῦ δὲ σωτῆρος Διὸς τάχιστά γε/ ἀπώλεσε

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σαπφώ (fr. 71)

105

ναύτην καὶ κατεπόντωσέν μ’ ὁρᾷς, Nicostr. fr. 20 (Pandrosos) with Lamari (2023) ad loc.: ἀλλ’ ἐγχέασα θᾶττον ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος/ἀπενεγκάτω μοι τὴν τράπεζαν ἐκποδών·/ἱκανῶς κεχόρτασμαι γάρ. Β. ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος./Α. δέχομαι. λαβοῦσ’ ἀπένεγκε ταύτην ἐκποδών. Accordingly, a fragment of an Attic vase from the Acropolis (published by Richards 1894, 382–4 and included by Beazley in ARV2 330.5) illustrates a bearded man stretching out in his right hand a cup and invoking Zeus the Saviour, whilst vis-à-vis to him there are remains of a hand holding a kantharos and libating to Agathos Daimon, as it emerges from the inscription [σπ] ένδω τῷ δαίμονι τῷ ἀγαθ[ῷ].

fr. 71 K.-A. (70 K.) καὶ γὰρ Δίφιλος ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς πεποίηκεν ἐν Σαπφοῖ δράματι Σαπφοῦς ἐραστὰς ’Αρχίλοχον καὶ ῾Ιππώνακτα. ἐν Σαπφοῖ δράματι A: ἔν τινι δράματι αὐτοῦ CE

Moreover, Diphilus the comic poet in his play entitled Sapphō made Archilochus and Hipponax Sappho’s lovers. Ath. 13.599D ἐγὼ δὲ ἡγοῦμαι παίζειν τὸν ῾Ερμησιάνακτα περὶ τούτου τοῦ ἔρωτος (scil. de Sappho et Anacreonte). καὶ γὰρ Δίφιλος ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς πεποίηκεν ἐν Σαπφοῖ δράματι Σαπφοῦς ἐραστὰς ’Αρχίλοχον καὶ ῾Ιππώνακτα. Anyway, I think that Hermesianax was joking about this love affair. Moreover, Diphilus the comic poet in his play entitled Sapphō made Archilochus and Hipponax Sappho’s lovers.

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) VII 258; Meineke (1839–57) IV 409; Kock (1880–88) II 564; Marigo (1907) 387, 430; Blumenthal (1922) 8–9; Coppola (1929) 185–7; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 132–3; Davies (1981) 123–4; PCG V 94; Brown (1997) 82–3; Pérez Asensio (1999) 347–8; Degani (20022) 33–4; Olson (2007) 303–4; Yatromanolakis (2007) 298; Ceccarelli (2013) 244–57; Pérez Asensio/ Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 268; Maggio (2023) 102–4 Citation Context Athenaeus’ reference to Archilochus and Hipponax as rivals for Sappho’s heart in the Diphilan play is embedded in a long discourse about eros (with a particular focus on courtesans), which is inherently linked with the sympotic genre and occupies the thirteenth book of Deipnosophistai (on the structure and the key themes of this book, see esp. McClure 2003, 46–58, 179–82). From 597B till 599D Myrtilus refers to Sappho’s love affairs – alongside other famous love stories — by citing Hermesianax’s Leontion (597B-599C), which presents Alcaeus and Anacreon as competing for Sappho; he then cites a pair of relevant poems

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

106

Diphilus

(599C-D), including one by Anacreon, which Chamaeleon regarded as alluding to Sappho (PMG 358), and the latter’s purported response to him (adesp. PMG 953). The reference to the two competing poets in Diphilus’ Sapphō closes this part of the discussion, which then turns to the quotation of love passages from tragedy. Interpretation Among its varying nuances, πεποίηκεν tends to be employed as a technical term to refer to poetic invention (LSJ9 s.v. A 3d). In this case, it describes Diphilus’ invented love triangle of Sappho with Archilochus and Hipponax. For an overall interpretation of the possible implications of the interplay among the poetess and the two poets in this comedy, see above: Content. The ancient biographical tradition on Sappho stresses her association with eros (see Lefkowitz 20122, 42–4), which is sometimes perceived as lasciviousness presumably due to her love-centred poetry, as well as the alleged sexual proclivity of the women of Lesbos; see Epicr. fr. 4 (Antilais): τἀρωτίκ’ ἐκμεμάθηκα ταῦτα παντελῶς/Σαπφοῦς, Μελήτου, Κλεομένους, Λαμυνθίου, Pl. Phdr. 235c, Clearch. fr. 33 Wehrli, Dioscorid. A.P. 7.407, [Dem.] Eloc. 132, Hor. Carm. 4.9.10–12, Plu. Mor. 406a: τί δ’ ἀπολείπει τοῦ λέγοντος ἐρωτικὴν μόνην γεγονέναι Σαπφὼ γυναικῶν, Paus. 1.25.1, 9.27.3, [Longin.] 10.1.3: οἷον ἡ Σαπφὼ τὰ συμβαίνοντα ταῖς ἐρωτικαῖς μανίαις παθήματα ἐκ τῶν παρεπομένων καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτῆς ἑκάστοτε λαμβάνει. As Schlesier (2020, 342–72) noted, in book 13 of Deipnosophistai focusing on courtesans, Sappho is attributed with eroticism and verbal ingenuity that tend to be associated with banquets, being also congruent with features of hetairai (though the evidence for the literary reception of Sappho’s persona as that of a quasi courtesan is inconclusive). On Sappho’s eroticism potentially enhanced within sympotic contexts, see Yatromanolakis 2007, 317–34, 362–81, 389–429, 514–21; on her description as an erotic poetess cf. most recently Loscalzo (2019) 89–113 and Coo (2021) 266–70 and n. 12 with relevant bibliography. The most popular fiction regarding the erotic Sappho was her purported infatuation with Phaon, which allegedly led her to commit suicide by throwing herself off a cliff on the island of Leucas (Men. Leucad. fr. 1 Arnott, Plaut. MG 1246–7, the subject-matter of Ov. Her. 15, cf. also Palaeph. 48, Strab. 10.2.9, Luc. D.Mort. 19.2, Ael. VH 12.18–19). This amorous disposition attributed to Sappho gave further rise to alleged love affairs between her and other prominent poets, such as Alcaeus (Arist. Rh. 1367a7–15, cf. Richter 1965, I 71 for the kalathos-psyktēr representing them together and Trendall 19672, nr. 19 for their comic representation in a phlyax vase) and Anacreon (Chamael. fr. 26 Wehrli), whilst both of them are presented as erotic rivals for the poetess’s heart in Hermesian. CA fr. 3.47–52: Λέσβιος ’Αλκαῖος δὲ πόσους ἀνεδέξατο κώμους/Σαπφοῦς φορμίζων ἱμερόεντα πόθον,/γιγνώσκεις· ὁ δ’ ἀοιδὸς ἀηδόνος ἠράσαθ’, ὕμνων/Τήϊον ἀλγύνων ἄνδρα πολυφραδίῃ./καὶ γὰρ τὴν ὁ μελιχρὸς ἐφημίλλητ’ ’Ανακρείων/στελλομένην πολλαῖς ἄμμιγα Λεσβιάσιν. Yet, as pointed out in Ath. 13.599C, Hermesianax was wrong to present Sappho as being involved with Anacreon, since she was a generation older than him (ἐν τούτοις ὁ ῾Ερμεσιάναξ σφάλλεται συγχρονεῖν οἰόμενος Σαπφὼ καὶ ’Ανακρέοντα, τὸν

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σαπφώ (fr. 71)

107

μὲν κατὰ Κῦρον καὶ Πολυκράτην γενόμενον, τὴν δὲ κατ’ ’Αλυάττην τὸν Κροίσου πατέρα). In fact, they were temporally separated by about half a century, which proves the fictionality of Hermesianax’s reference. In Diphilus’ play three prominent personages, Sappho, Archilochus, and Hipponax, are fictitiously brought together from different places; in this case too, the scenario is chronologically twisted, given that Archilochus was a generation older than Sappho, while Hipponax was a couple of generations younger. Likewise, in other Sapphō comedies, the poetess is anachronistically represented to co-exist on stage with much later (fourth-century) figures, historical or anonymous; in Timocles’ homonymous comedy with the pederast Misgolas (fr. 32), whilst in Ephippus’ play (fr. 20) with demi-monde characters. This is a typical feature of fourth-century mythological comedies involving the humorous degradation of exalted figures, who like Sappho, Archilochus, and Hipponax, were shrouded in mythical mists. As pointed out above (see Content), the comic rivalry of Archilochus and Hipponax may have been multifaceted; their erotic competition for Sappho’s heart could be congruent with the invective over sexual matters that permeates their poetics, whilst in poetological terms an eloquent antithesis could be drawn between their ferocious iambic lampoons and Sappho’s refined poetry. Cf. the relevant discussion in Davies (1981) 123–4 and n. 5 and (1982) 15–6, Brown (1997) 82, Degani (20022) 33–4, Maggio (2023) 102–4.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

108

Σικελικός (Sikelikos) (“The Sicilian”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 26, 409–10; Kock (1880–88) II 564; Marigo (1907) 430–1; Göbel (1915) 119–22; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 132–3; PCG V 94–5; Pérez Asensio (1999) 348–51; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 268–9 Title A homonymous comedy was written by Philemon. A Sikelia play was composed by Demetrius, whilst Alexis similarly wrote a Syrakosios. In his discussion of the Sicilian coin λίτρα Pollux notes that it was mentioned in Philemon’s Sikelikos in 4.175 (ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ’Αθήνησι κωμῳδούντων τῶν νέων, οἷον Φιλήμων ἐν Σικελικῷ καὶ Ποσείδιππος ἐν Γαλάτῃ λίτρας μνημονεύουσιν), whilst in 9.81 he similarly refers to this coin, this time quoting fr. 72 of Diphilus’ Sikelikos (ὅτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κωμῳδῶν τινες τῆς λίτρας μνημονεύουσιν, ἐν τοῖς περὶ στατικῆς προείρηται· οὐ γὰρ οἱ Δωριεῖς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ’Αττικῶν τινες, ὡς Δίφιλος ἐν Σικελικῷ). This seeming incongruity prompted Meineke (1839–57, IV 26) to suggest that in the latter passage Diphilus’ name should be replaced by Philemon’s and, consequently, that there should be only one Sikelikos play, namely that of Philemon. His argument is not compelling (and was rightly rejected by Marigo 1907, 431; PCG V 94: ‘recte obloquitur Marigo’), firstly because one may well argue that the correction could be made vice versa (i.e. that Diphilus’ name may substitute Philemon’s in Poll. 4.175), since in the first passage Philemon is mentioned only passingly by Pollux, whilst in the second the Diphilan lines are actually quoted. Moreover, Diphilus’ reference to λίτρα is also confirmed by Photius (λ 359 Theodoridis: λίτρα· ἦν μὲν καὶ νόμισμά τι, ὡς Δίφιλος). On balance, given that λίτρα was a quite common Sicilian coin and weight measure, it is feasible that it may have well been mentioned by both comic poets in their Sicilian themed plays. It is for the latter reason that Kock’s assumption (1880–88, II 564), according to which Diphilus’ play was a reworking of Philemon’s, cannot be substantiated either. Only few fragments have been preserved from Philemon’s play. Apart from fr. 81 attested to include the aforementioned reference to litras, fr. 79 displays elements indicative of Sicilian lavishness and consumption, such as fine cheese and cloaks. Fr. 80 recalls a proverb said ἐπὶ τῶν εὐτελεστάτων (cf. schol. vet. Pl. Tht. 209b Greene), whilst the gnomological fr. 78 pointing out that it is easier for one to console someone else than suffering might point to a dramatic crisis. In old comedy Demetrius’ Sikelia was produced between 404 and the early 380s, in a period of Athenian efforts to win over tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse, with the purpose of ensuring his alliance against Sparta. The play’s socio-historical context in conjunction with the preserved fragments (frr. 1–3) could therefore suggest that it possibly mirrored the Athenian hope of winning over the support of Sicily and regaining lost power (see Orth 2014, 162–7 with all relevant sources). In middle comedy Alexis’ Syrakosios comprises one fragment, whose speaker is

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σικελικός

109

prompting someone to show moderation and not to struggle against troubles, so as to be able to deal with them more easily (see Arnott 1996, 623–4). Βίος Σικελικός was associated with luxury, self-indulgence, voluptuousness, and softness, seeking to project a larger-than-life image (e.g. Pl. Ep. 7.336d, Plaut. Rud. 54: in Siciliam: ibi esse homines voluptarios, Sud. σ 390 Adler). Accordingly, the local cuisine was famous for its lavishness (see Göbel 1915, 120–1, 122 including rich material, Wilkins 2000, ch. 7 and esp. 341–50 for comedy). The extravagance as well as the deviousness of Sicilian people was proverbial (Macar. 6.52: ὁ Σικελὸς ὡς ἔοικε τὴν ἐξωμίδα: παρόσον οἱ Σικελοὶ κωμῳδοῦνται ὡς κλέπται, Phot. σ 199 Theodoridis: σικελίζεις· τὸ ἀτηρεύεσθαι παρὰ ’Επιχάρμῳ· οἱ δὲ πονηρεύεσθαι). Several professions were associated with this island, such as mercenary soldiers (cf. Zenob. 5.89, Macar. 7.65, Hesych. σ 613 Hansen) and cooks, both of whom would have made appealing comic characters. On Sicilian tryphē see further Göbel (1915) 119–22, Collin Bouffier (2000) 195–208, Wilkins/Hill (2006) 45–8, 155–60, 200–7, Walsh (2013) 229–46, Gorman/Gorman (2014) 203–4, 206, 211–2, 221–2, De Angelis (2016) 222–318. Cf. also the discussion in Pérez Asensio (1999) 349–51. Several of these features, such as sumptuousness and consumption, are represented in the aforementioned plays, which would have naturally displayed distinctive aspects of Sicilian mentality and lifestyle somehow affecting the dramatic characters. In any case, it becomes clear that Sicily was not a ‘neutral’ place of origin in comedy. In Rudens Charmides from Agrigentum is a rascal (Rud. 49–50: scelestus), a traitor of his country, being preoccupied with making profit at all costs; the Sicilian slave Stalagmus in Menaechmi is similarly a criminal figure, whilst in Poen. 897 the girls and their nurse are stolen by a scoundrel from Sicily (cf. Richlin 2017, 373–5). Sicilian vices, such as flashy self-indulgence and recklessness, also seem to emerge from the sole preserved fragment of the Diphilan play (see below, fr. 72: Interpretation). Play-titles referring to a person of foreign origin (being perhaps suggestive of ethnic stereotypes) or non-Athenian citizenship (bearing implications on the position of these characters in another city, in most cases, Athens) formed a trend in middle and new comedy (see, for instance, Arnott 2010, 318–9, citing a relevant list). Diphilus similarly wrote a Boiōtios (a Boiōtios or Boiōtia was also written by Antiphanes and a Boiōtia by Theophilus and Menander), Leukadia (homonymous plays were written by Alexis, Amphis and Menander, as well as a Leukadios by Antiphanes), and Lēmniai. Of the many further parallels it may suffice to mention Karchedonios, Knidia and Lokroi by Alexis and Menander, Samia by Anaxandrides and Menander, Andria, Perinthia, Sikyōnios/-ioi, Thettalē and Imbrioi by Menander, Aitōlos, Babylōnios, Thēbaioi and Korinthia by Philemon, Ephesia by Antiphanes and Ephesios by Menander. Content The title-character is evidently a Sicilian, who – even if he was not the protagonist — would be expected to affect in a crucial way the development of the plot. He would also be expected to display one or more typical elements of Sicilian

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

110

Diphilus

mentality (e.g. deviousness, voluptuousness, self-indulgence, licentiousness, for which see above: Title). Some of these features form the target of mockery in fr. 72 (see further below, fr. 72: Interpretation). Kaibel suggested that fr. inc. 118, referring to someone who is obese, stuffed with Sicilian fat, could derive from Sikelikos. It can reasonably be inferred that this character is either Sicilian or is enjoying the famous Sicilian cuisine. But we would go too far as to assume that Sikelikos was the sole Diphilan play with a character related to Sicily.

Fragments fr. 72 K.-A. (71 K.) οἷον ἀγοράζειν πάντα, μηδὲ ἓν δ’ ἔχειν, εἰ μὴ κικίννους ἀξίους λίτραιν δυοῖν 1 πάντα CL: παστά FS Bergk

2 κικίννους Sylburg: κυκ- FS: κικίνους C: κικίνας L: κικίρρους

such as buying everything, but having nothing, apart from hair-ringlets worth two litras Poll. 9.81 ὅτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κωμῳδῶν τινες τῆς λίτρας μνημονεύουσιν, ἐν τοῖς περὶ στατικῆς προείρηται (4.173–5)· οὐ γὰρ οἱ Δωριεῖς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ’Αττικῶν τινες, ὡς Δίφιλος ἐν Σικελικῷ — Some of the comic poets refer to litra, as mentioned before, in the section about weighing measures (4.173–5); for this is not peculiar to Doric poets, but also occurs in some of the Attic, as Diphilus in The Sicilian —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. l kk k l l l k | l k l k l 2. l l k l l | l k l l l k l

(hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 26, 409–10; Kock (1880–88) II 564; Marx (1905) 423; Marigo (1907) 430–1; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 132–3; PCG V 94–5; Lejeune (1993) 5; Pérez Asensio (1999) 352–3; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 268–9 and n. 379 Citation Context In the context of his discussion of Sicilian coins Pollux refers to litra, which he mentions as being equivalent to one obol and one tenth of the Corinthian stater. As he points out, the use of litra is not restricted to Doric poets, but it occurs in Attic as well. To prove his point, he cites the Diphilan passage and then quotes frr. 9 and 10 of Epicharmus’ Harpagai. The latter comprises references

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σικελικός (fr. 72)

111

to a range of Sicilian coins, such as λίτρα, ὀγκία (one twelfth of a litra, and from Hellenistic times onwards οὐγκία under the influence of the Latin term uncia), their subdivisions and multiples (e.g. ἡμιλίτριον, πεντόγκιον). All these terms naturally derive from Syracusan Doric, and Pollux commends familiarity with them as a sign of good taste (φιλόκαλον). Overall, Pollux tends to acknowledge the wide variety of his contemporary Greek, which is influenced by ancient dialects, foreign vocabulary, and glōssai deriving from different groups of speakers (e.g. Dorians, Aeolians etc). Cf. also Mauduit/Moretti (2010) 523–4, 532–3, Cassio (2012) 254–6, Tribulato (2019b) 740. Text In l. 2 κικίννους is Sylburg’s emendation of the corrupt ms. readings (Sylburg ap. Seber 1706, 126). Bergk (1884–6, II 274, n. 5) proposed instead κικίρρους, which is the Sicilian word for ‘rooster’ (‘credo corrigendum esse κικίρρους, ita Siculi gallos gallinaceos videntur vocitavisse’); in Greek it is only attested in Hesych. κ 2647 (Latte); cf. Hor. Sat. 1.5.52. Yet, if κικίρρους (‘roosters’) is preferred over κικίννους (‘hair-ringlets’), the joke will be missed, as the comic target is evidently the mocked character’s voluptuousness. Interpretation Kaibel (ms.) reasonably assumed that the speaker should be a Sicilian (perhaps the title-character?) using the local dialect, to judge from the reference to the Sicilian coin of λίτρα. The interpretation of the fragment depends up to a degree on the use of οἷον, which may introduce either an exclamation or an example or a jeering reference to a character’s reckless lifestyle; but the lost context leaves all possibilities open (see further below, note ad loc.). It also depends on how μηδὲ ἓν δ’ ἔχειν is understood. According to Kaibel, the speaker condescendingly refers to a youngster (to judge from κικίννους, which was a youthful feature) who buys everything whilst having nothing except for hair-ringlets of insignificant value; that is, he manages to make a living thanks to his physical appearance (‘de iuvene qui praeter aetatis florem quamquam nihil habebat alieno tamen aere omnem vitae adparatum sibi pararet’). This reading would insinuate that he manages to pay off his debts to his benefactors in other ways and would thus involve a jibe at his promiscuity. Likewise, youngsters living lavishly on their benefactors’ expenses in return for sexual gratification are mentioned in Ephipp. fr. 20 (Sapphō) with Papachrysostomou (2021) 196–7: ὅταν γὰρ ὢν νέος/ἀλλότριον ἐλθὼν ὄψον ἐσθίειν μάθῃ/ἀσύμβολόν τε χεῖρα προσβάλῃ βορᾷ,/διδόναι νόμιζ’ αὐτὸν σὺ τῆς νυκτὸς λόγον and Anaxandr. fr. 34.11 (Odysseus) with Millis (2015) 164–5: ὡραῖον δὲ µειρακύλλιον/ποίαις ἐπῳδαῖς ἢ λόγοις ἁλίσκεται/τίσιν, φράσον γάρ, ἄν τις ἀφέλῃ τὴν τέχνην/〈τὴν〉 τῶν ἁλιέων; ἥδε γὰρ δαµάζεται,/ἑφθοῖς προσώποις ἰχθύων χειρουµένη,/†ἄγουσ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὰ σώµατ᾽ ἀρίστου πύλας,†/ἀσύµβολον κλίνειν τ᾽ ἀναγκάζει φύσιν. Cf. also Ar. Pl. 153–9 with Sommerstein (2001) 143–4: καὶ τούς γε παῖδάς φασι ταὐτὸ τοῦτο δρᾶν/οὐ τῶν ἐραστῶν, ἀλλὰ τἀργυρίου χάριν. In Aesch. 1.75 Timarchus is similarly presented as a conspicuously handsome young man enjoying an extravagant life without paying anything. Cf. X. Mem. 1.6.13, Plb.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

112

Diphilus

12.15, Luc. Adv. Indoct. 25. On male prostitution see Dover (1978) esp. 19–22, 81–96, Fisher (2001) 25–53, 211–3, Kapparis (2018) 187–209 (with rich bibliography). On comedy’s (often sneering) treatment of male homosexuality see Dover (1978) 135–53, Henderson (19912) 208–9, Stama (2014) 264–5 on Phryn. fr. 49 (Satyroi), Arnott (1996) 685 on Alex. fr. 244 (Hypnos). The sarcastic comment of the present fragment would be in line with Sicilian lasciviousness, which tended to give rise to acerbic jokes, as in Plaut. Pers. 394, Cic. Orat. 2.17, Verr. 2.4.95, Quint. 6.3.41: Siculi quidem, ut sunt lascivi et dicaces (see Göbel 1915, 120). Kaibel’s reading is plausible, although in strict terms one would expect a concessive participle (e.g. μηδὲ ἓν δ’ ἔχοντα) instead of an infinitive; but then again, a loose comic structure cannot be excluded. Alternatively, μηδὲ ἓν δ’ ἔχειν could mean ‘having nothing’, i.e. ‘being left with nothing’ (after having spent everything). This interpretation would be consistent with the extravagantly consuming culture of Sicily (see above: Title). The reference to the hair-ringlets is indicative of the youngster’s fastidiousness. Nonetheless, his locks are mentioned to be worth two litras only; this genitive of value only makes sense if we infer that hair-ringlets were being sold (see below, note ad loc.). At the same time, the reference to two litras may not be taken literally; it is like saying that his locks are worth two dimes, thus stressing their poor value. In such a case, the youngster would be preposterously presented as spending exceedingly and being left only with his poor ringlets; this comic exaggeration serves to display his tryphē and profligacy, which are typical Sicilian features, thus making it likely that the young man ridiculed in this fragment is of Sicilian origin (though it is unknown whether this youth or the speaker of the fragment could be the title-character). Overall, both interpretations seem to indicate that distinctive features of an extravagant lifestyle, consistent with βίος σικελικός, formed the comic target in either case. 1 An articulate antithesis (πάντα - μηδὲ ἕν) stressing the paradox of buying everything but having nothing. The second line only seemingly provides an exception, in that it refers to hair-ringlets of poor value, thus actually enhancing the paradox of the first line. Cf. Alex. fr. 78.1–2 (Epiklēros): ὅστις ἀγοράζει πτωχὸς ὢν ὄψον πολύ,/ἀπορούμενoς τε τἄλλα πρὸς τοῦτ’ εὐπορεῖ. Likewise, in Diph. fr. 31.10–17 (Emporos) buying excessively at the market whilst being poor is taken to be a sign of unscrupulousness (cf. Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés 2014, 269, n. 379). οἷον It could introduce an exclamation (Meineke 1839–57, IV 410: ‘quam miserum est’, cf. K-G II 439), an example (Kock 1880–88, II 564: ‘veluti’), it could refer to s.o. liable to do sth (LSJ9 s.v. III) or follow a demonstrative (which would need to be implied in the lost context, cf. K-G II 510) corresponding to οἷον. All possibilities will have to remain open due to the lack of context, though an exclamation seems perhaps less likely, as it does not usually extend to more than one line. In any case, these lines evidently criticize a character’s recklessness.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σικελικός (fr. 72)

113

It may be worth noting that the preserved instances of the Diphilan usage of οἷον mainly come from examples; see fr. 17.4–9 (Apoleipousa): τῆς τέχνης/ ἡγεμονία τίς ἐστιν αὐτῆς, ὦ πάτερ,/τὸ τῶν ἐδομένων τὰ στόματα προειδέναι./οἷον ῾Ροδίους κέκληκας· εἰσιοῦσι δὸς/εὐθὺς ἀπὸ θερμοῦ τὴν μεγάλην αὐτοῖς σπάσαι/ […] μυρίνην προσεγχέας, fr. 42.7–12 (Zōgraphos): ἔστιν δ’ ἁπάντων τῶν γενῶν μοι διαγραφή,/εἰς ποῖα μισθοῦν ἢ φυλάττεσθαί με δεῖ./οἷον τὸ κατὰ τοὐμπόριον, εἰ βούλει, γένος./ναύκληρος ἀποθύει τις εὐχήν […] ὑπέραντλος γενόμενος. Cf. also Men. fr. inc. 761: μειράκιον, οὔ μοι κατανοεῖν δοκεῖς ὅτι/ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἕκαστα κακίας σήπεται,/[…] oἷον ὁ μὲν ἰὸς τὸν σίδηρον, ἂν σκοπῆις,/τὸ δ’ ἱμάτιον οἱ σῆτες, ὁ δὲ θρὶψ τὸ ξύλον, Philem. fr. inc. 94.1–4. 2 κικίννους ‘hair-ringlets’ (see Poll. 2.28 citing a number of comic passages), probably from a pre-Greek root (Beekes 2009, s.v.). Ringlets were a distinctive element of the fastidious appearance of young men, often giving rise to jibes at their sexuality and licentiousness (cf. also fr. 65 [Pēra], note on κομήτην). Cf. Ar. V. 1067–70 (with Biles/Olson 2015, ad loc.): ὡς ἐγὼ τοὐμὸν νομίζω/γῆρας εἶναι κρεῖττον ἢ πολλῶν κικίννους/νεανιῶν καὶ σχῆμα κεὐρυπρωκτίαν and schol. vet. ad 1068 (Koster): κικίννους δὲ ἔλεγον τὰς περιεστεμμένας καὶ τετημελημένας τρίχας, fr. 229 (Daitalēs): καὶ λεῖος ὥσπερ ἔγχελυς, χρυσοῦς ἔχων κικίννους, Plaut. Capt. 647–8, MG 923–4: magnidicum, cincinnatum,/moechum unguentatum, Truc. 287–8, 609–10: moechum malacum, cincinnatum,/umbraticulum, tympanotribam amas, hominem non nauci? Cf. also Meleager A.P. 5.197.1: ναὶ μὰ τὸν εὐπλοκάμου Τιμοῦς φιλέρωτα κίκιννον, Theoc. 11.10, 14.4, Juv. 6.492, Apul. Met. 8.24. Hairlocks were similarly associated with softness and effeminacy; cf. Eur. Ba. 455, Straton A.P. 12.192: oὐ τέρπουσι κόμαι με περισσότεροί τε κίκιννοι,/τέχνης, οὐ φύσεως ἔργα διδασκόμενοι·/ἀλλὰ παλαιστρίτου παιδὸς ῥύπος ὁ ψαφαρίτης/καὶ χροιὴ μελέων σαρκὶ λιπαινομένη./ἡδὺς ἀκαλλώπιστος ἐμὸς πόθος· ἡ δὲ γοῆτις/ μορφὴ θηλυτέρης ἔργον ἔχει Παφίης. See further Olson (2014) on Eup. fr. inc. 457. In the present fragment the character is mocked for his ringlets which are of poor value. Likewise, in Cratin. fr. inc. 399 the ringlets are likened to warp-threads due to their thinness: στημονίας κικίννους (cf. Olson/Seaberg 2018 ad loc.). Marx (1904–5, II 423) similarly cited Petr. 58.5 referring to pretty hair of small value: longe tibi sit comula ista basalis. Mart. 12.23 (cited by Meineke 1839–57, IV 409) includes a jibe at a woman’s bought hair: dentibus atque comis –nec te pudet— uteris emptis./quid facies oculo, Laelia? non emitur. Accordingly, in this fragment the reference to the value of the mocked character’s ringlets suggests that they were either natural locks, which he could potentially sell at a low price, or that he had bought them — the latter being an indication of Sicilian fastidiousness. ἀξίους λίτραιν δυοῖν Litra was a Sicilian weight measure and a coin of small value (Poll. 4.173: καὶ μὴν οἵ γε Δωριεῖς ποιηταὶ τὴν λίτραν ποτὲ μὲν νόμισμά τι λεπτὸν λέγουσιν); see Lejeune (1993) 3: ‘la λίτρα […] est la richesse du pauvre’. It was equivalent to an Aeginetan obol and one fifth of a drachma (Arist. fr. 476 R.3, Hesych. λ 1151 Latte: λίτρα· ὀβολός. οἱ δὲ νόμισμα παρὰ Σικελοῖς. οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ σταθμοῦ. οἱ δὲ ῾Ρωμαῖοι διὰ τοῦ β λίβρα). On litra and its equivalence see in detail

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

114

Diphilus

Poll. 4.173–5, 9.80–1. Phot. λ 359 (Theodoridis) distinguishes between litra the coin in Diphilus and litra the weight measure in Epicharmus (fr. 37 from Elpis ē Ploutos) and Sophron (fr. inc. 146). Cf. further Regling (1926) 784–6, Lejeune (1993) esp. 1–5, Cutroni Tusa (1993) 254, 266–7, Rutter (1997) 157–8, Puglisi (2005) 286–7, Simkin (2012) 170–6, De Angelis (2016) 315. In Sophr. fr. inc. 71 two litras are similarly referred to as being of modest value, as in the present passage: σῶσαι δ’ οὐδὲ τὰς δύο λίτρας δύναμαι. Cf. also Epich. fr. 9 (Harpagai): ὡσπεραὶ πονηραὶ μάντιες,/αἵ θ’ ὑπονέμονται γυναῖκας μωρὰς ἂμ πεντόγκιον/ἀργύριον, ἄλλαι δὲ λίτραν, ταὶ δ’ ἀν’ ἡμιλίτριον/δεχόμεναι, Sophr. fr. inc. 36: ὁ μισθὸς δεκάλιτρον.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

115

Στρατιώτης (Stratiōtēs) (“The Soldier”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 377–8; Kock (1880–88) II 542–3; Marigo (1907) 398–400; Breitenbach (1908) 80–2; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 100–1; Webster (19702) 182–3; PCG V 54–5; Nesselrath (1990) 328; Pérez Asensio (1999) 45–9; Lape (2004) 62; Rusten (2011) 662; Nesselrath (2012) 443; Nervegna (2013) 96; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 230–1 and n. 212; Konstantakos (2015b) 46 Title Stratiōtēs or Eunouchos is attested by Athenaeus (11.496F) to be a revised version of Hairēsiteichēs. This is consistent with the testimony of IG II/III2 2363 (a catalogue of book rolls kept at the Library of a Gymnasium in Piraeus, on which see further Telesias test. i) including Hairēsiteichēs and Stratiōtēs as distinct titles of Diphilan comedies owned by the Library, which indicates that they were separate plays, the latter being a revision of the former. Likewise, Epicharmus’ Hēbas Gamos was restyled Mousai for a later production (Ath. 3.110B), Alexis’ Dēmētrios is reported to have been a revision of his Philetairos (Ath. 14.663C), which might also hold true of his Crateia ē Pharmakopōlēs (for these cases see the discussion in Arnott 1996, 155–6, 309–10), whilst Antiphanes’ Agroikos is attested to have been revised as Boutaliōn (Ath. 8.358D, cf. Konstantakos 2000, 12–15). On plays revised under different titles from the original see Bender (1904) 7–55 (a catalogue of plays with double titles, including certain cases of revision), Kann (1909) 7–9, 58–9, Capovilla (1912) 372–81, Hunter (1983) 146–7, Pérez Asensio (1999) 45–6, Konstantakos (2000) 11–12, Nesselrath (2010) 441–5, Nervegna (2013) 95–7. On the revision of comedies that have kept the same title as the earlier play, see below fr. 75: Interpretation (Synōris). Comedies entitled Stratiōtēs were written by Alexis, Xenarchus and Philemon, a Stratiōtēs ē Tychōn is assigned to Antiphanes, whilst Menander produced Stratiōtai; the latter title might conceivably belong to a comedy by Telecleides as well, though the supplement to the inscriptional reading ]ιώταιc is highly conjectural (see Bagordo 2013, 39–40). Stratiōtai or its feminine form Stratiōtides was the title of an earlier comedy by Hermippus (possibly named after the chorus), whilst the latter title also belonged to a late-fifth or early fourth-century comedy by Theopompus. The type of the soldier seems thus to have become so popular as to feature as the title-character especially in fourth-century comedies. Accordingly, in the case of this Diphilan play it is conceivable that Eunouchos may have been introduced as an alternative title for Stratiōtēs as a way of distinguishing it from several other comedies of the latter title. This was a common practice of grammarians, on which see Taplin (1975) 185–6, Hunter (1983) 146–7, Arnott (1996) 515–6 and Konstantakos (2000) 211 (the latter with reference to the second title Tychōn given to Antiphanes’ Stratiōtēs).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

116

Diphilus

Hermippus’ Stratiōtai or Stratiōtides comprises dialogues concerning military life (frr. 54, 56). Fr. 51 involves physical violence perhaps coming from the narrative of a battle or being merely slapstick humour. Frr. 57 and 58 ridicule effeminacy and softness, especially with regard to soldiers from Abydos (fr. 57), which might conceivably account for the use of female gender in the title. Fr. 52 belongs to a character’s dialogue with a slave-merchant (Comentale 2017, 213 regards it as possible that the slaves mentioned may have been defeated soldiers). See the relevant discussion in Comentale (2017) 207–8, 209–10, 220–1, 226–7, 233–4, 237–8. The use of the female gender also in the title of Theopompus’ Stratiōtides could either refer to soldier women, thus involving an inversion of gender roles, as in Aristophanes’ Ekklēsiazousai, or to effeminate soldiers. Fr. 55 spoken by a woman adopting the behaviour of a soldier at the military camp and fr. 56 suggesting that a woman could also earn a wage by serving in the army like her husband may tell in favour of the former possibility. This could be consistent with fr. 57 as well, referring to a group commanded by a woman. Cf. Farmer (2022) 165, 166–7, 168, 170–1. In Antiphanes’ Stratiōtēs ē Tychōn the comic type of the braggart soldier seems to be represented, to judge from fr. 200, which comes from a conversation with a soldier boasting about his wealthy social circle. Fr. 202 may be delivered by a parasite reflecting on the frailty of human fortune and arguing that the sole secure possession in life is having ensured the pleasure of food on a day-to-day basis (see Konstantakos 2000, 217–8, 233–4, Olson 2021, 34, 38–9, 46). The sole fragment preserved from Alexis’ Stratiōtēs (fr. 212) involves a quarrel about the legal ownership of a baby (cf. Arnott 1996, 605–7), from which it does not become clear how the soldier theme could fit in. Likewise, no clue to the dramatic situation is given in fr. 13 of Xenarchus’ Stratiōtēs referring to a linden-plaited garland that probably belongs to a youth. Fr. 82 of Philemon’s homonymous play features a long monologue delivered by a boastful cook taking pride in his skills, whereas only gnomological, non informative fragments have been preserved from Menander’s Stratiōtai. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 47–8. Content Given that Stratiōtēs was a revision of Hairēsiteichēs, which is a speaking name (‘The Wall-Capturer’) that could be paralleled to Plautus’ Pyrgopolynices (‘The Great Tower-Sacker’) in Miles Gloriosus, it would be expected that the play involved the type of the braggart soldier (cf. Marigo 1907, 399, Breitenbach 1908, 80–1). This stock character bears distinctive features, such as boastful and self-important behaviour, a tendency to bluster about his military exploits and combative virtues, though merely pretending to possess courage, thus conforming to the broader ethological type of the alazōn (on the latter see Arist. EN 1108a19–22, 1115b29–33, 1127a20–22, 1127b9–22, EE 1221a24–25, 1234a1–2). On the features of the comic soldier see Ribbeck (1882) 26–42, Wysk (1921), Parke (1933) 234–5, Wehrli (1936) 101–13, Webster (19702) 6, 64, MacCary (1972) 281–98, Wartenberg (1973) 9–61, Nesselrath (1990) 325–9, Blume (2001) 175–95, Kerkhof (2001) 162–

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Στρατιώτης

117

5, Lape (2004) 62–7, Arnott (2010) 324–5, Papaioannou (2010) 163–74, Petrides (2014) 202–45, Ruffell (2014) 153–6, Konstantakos (2015b) 42–8 (with rich further bibliography) and (2016) 114–36, Major (2020) 215–22. Webster (19702, 183) and subsequently Lape (2004, 62) and Konstantakos (2015b, 46) suggested that the epithet Hairēsiteichēs could parody Demetrius’ sobriquet ‘Poliorkētēs’ (‘The Besieger’). Τhere is a notable number of comic references and allusions to Demetrius (Alex. fr. 99 [Hippeus], fr. 116 [Crateia ē Pharmakopōlēs], cf. Plu. Demetr. 27.2 and the examples cited in Lape 2004, 61–2), which makes it an attractive, albeit ultimately unprovable idea, in view of the meagre available evidence for this play. If that was the case, nonetheless, it would be expected that the terminus post quem of the production of Hairēsiteichēs should have been the siege of Rhodes in 306/5 BC, which earned Demetrius this very sobriquet (according to D.S. 20.92.2). This possibility would entail that Hairēsiteichēs and its revision, Stratiōtēs ē Eunouchos, belonged to Diphilus’ later production. Like Hairēsiteichēs, comic soldiers tend to bear speaking names, such as Thrasonides (in Menander’s Misoumenos), Thraso (in Terence’s Eunuchus, conceivably also Thrason in Alexis’ homonymous play), Thrasyleon (in Menander’s comedy of this title), Polemon (in Perikeiromenē), Stratophanes (in Sikyōnioi), Bias (in Kolax) and, of course, Lamachus in Acharnians, evidently the comic archetype of the braggart soldier. On these significant names cf. Ribbeck (1882) 34–5, Duckworth (1952) 349–50, Boughner (1954) 53–5, Hanson (1965) 55–6, Webster (19702) 13, MacCary (1972) 281–2, Hofmann/Wartenberg (1973) 45, 95, 99–101, 131, 146, Arnott (1996) 249–50, Pérez Asensio (1999) 48, Konstantakos (2000) 213 and (2015b) 46–7, Willi (2002) 3–5 (with further relevant bibliography), Kanavou (2011) 24, 28–9. Frr. 5–9 have been gathered by Kassel/Austin (PCG V 54–5) under Hairēsiteichēs including its revised version (fr. 6 is ascribed by Athenaeus to Stratiōtēs and fr. 5 both to Hairēsiteichēs in 11.496E and to its revision in the next paragraph) and will thus be fully discussed and commented upon in vol. 25.1. Fr. 5 is the most informative and is evidently coming from a sympotic scene, in which someone is urged to pour more wine from an unspecified vessel that makes it possible for one to drink more briskly than from Rhodian drinking cups or rhyta. The torch mentioned in fr. 6 was – among its many other uses – part of standard military equipment, to judge from Poll. 10.146 (see fr. 59 [Paralyomenos]: Interpretation). The single-word quotation in fr. 7 (ἐκφυγγάνω) is suggestive of one’s effort to escape and might (or might not) be related to the play’s military topic. But none of these fragments can shed any light on the title-character’s features apart from the aforementioned connotations of the epithet Hairēsiteichēs as such. Nor can we know what the role of the eunuch (after whom the revised version’s alternative title has been named) may have involved. Eunuchs in drama tend to live in female premises, like the one in Menander’s (and Terence’s) Eunuch or his counterpart from Helen’s retinue in Euripides’ Orestes, which might be the case here as well. But the rest is mere speculation.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

118

Συναποθνῄσκοντες (Synapothnēskontes) (“Dying Together”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) I 402, 456; Coppola (1924) 200–1; Drexler (1934) 38–40; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 98–9, 134–5; Wesbter (19602) 87–8 and (19702) 160–1; Ludwig (1968) 171–2; PCG V 50, 95; Damen (1985) 127–88; Goldberg (1986) 104–5, 121–2; Arnott (1996) 608–9; Pérez Asensio (1999) 354–7; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 269, n. 381 Title The title refers to two or more characters finding death together. As it has reasonably been pointed out (Katsouris 1976, 30, Arnott 1996, 609), the available evidence for Greek and Roman comedy indicates that no actual death occurs in a comic plot; in turn, this would suggest either a fake or an attempted death as part of an intrigue or due to a misunderstanding (see further below: Content). As often in Diphilan comedy, the play’s title consists of a present participle referring to an action that tends to be significant for the development of the plot (for more detail see above, Paralyomenos: Title, cf. also Sphattomenos: Title). Following Arnott’s taxonomy of participles in comic titles (Arnott 2003, 27), the supposed or near death in this case may have either occurred at the beginning of the play or even before that or during a specific act. For an exploration of possibilities see below (Content). Homonymous comedies were written by Alexis (dated between 325–310 BC in view of the reference to the parasite Chaerephon, cf. Webster 1952, 22) and Philemon. In fr. 213 of Alexis’ play the speaker is jeering at Chaerephon’s delight in eating at the expense of others, whilst fr. 215 reflects upon the misfortune of being victim of one’s belly, which may similarly be suggestive of the parasite’s plight. The speaker of fr. 214 is stressing the dangers of seafaring, by going as far as attributing this decision to folly, poverty, or a death-wish. This suggests that someone is planning a journey, though we cannot know whether this voyage is somehow related to the play’s title (leading to a supposed death?). Cf. Arnott (1996) 608–15, Pérez Asensio (1999) 355. The sole fragment coming from Philemon’s play (fr. 83) comprises the proverbial saying νῆστις κεστρεύς, which refers to hungry people (Sud. κ 1432 Αdler, Phot. κ 624 Theodoridis, Hesych. κ 2384 Latte), especially parasites. For numerous comic parallels, including Diph. fr. 53 (Lēmniai), see Ath. 7.307C-308B. The Diphilan play was reworked by Plautus in Commorientes, from which only one line survives, whilst a whole scene was transplanted by Terence in the second act of Adelphoe (see further below: Content). Content In the prologue of Adelphoe (6–14), which is a reworking of Menander’s Adelphoi B, Terence affirms that he has derived from Diphilus’ Synapothnēskontes a whole scene, which was left out by Plautus in his adaptation of the Diphilan play under the title Commorientes. This is the first scene of the second act (Ad. 155–96) and involves a young man abducting a courtesan from her procurer; though it

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συναποθνῄσκοντες

119

had been passed over in neglect in Plautus’ treatment, it was restored to notice by Terence, as he himself asserts (Ad. 13–4: locum/reprehensum qui praeteritus negligentia est), and was transplanted word for word (Ad. 11: verbum de verbo expressum) into his adaptation of the Menandrian original. Given that our knowledge of Commorientes is very scanty, indeed Terence rescued this Diphilan scene for posterity, as it is the sole concrete piece of evidence for Synapothnēskontes. In more specific terms, Terence’s word for word insertion of this scene could provide a glimpse into a specific dramatic event and some of the characters of the Diphilan play, thus giving certain clues to aspects of its plot. A young man (named Aeschinus in Terence’s play) is carrying off a courtesan from the house of her procurer (Sannio). The girl is mute and so is the youth’s slave (Parmeno) executing his master’s orders. This scene begins with the pimp’s call to the bystanders for help. The young man is assuring the girl that she is not in danger and is ordering the slave to drive the pimp off with violence. The slave strikes him twice and then takes the girl indoors into the youth’s house. The procurer is protesting that he is a free man, but the youth is threatening to have him dragged in and lashed to death with whips. Subsequently, the young man is offering to give the procurer 20 minae cost-price for the girl, threatening that if he does not accept his offer, he will assert her free birth, and then the pimp should prepare his case. Left alone, the procurer bemoans the five hundred blows that he has suffered, being willing to receive the promised amount of money, whilst fearing that if he does agree to the price, the young man will use it as evidence that the girl was sold, and he will ultimately lose the money. Marx (1920, 293–6) drew a parallel between this scene and Daemones’ dispute with the procurer Labrax for the girls’ freedom in the third act of Rudens, which also originates in a Diphilan play. The most significant of these shared features, which could tell in favour of a pattern followed by Diphilus in thug episodes, include the pimp’s threat to recover the abducted courtesans, the appeal to his rights, his opponent’s order to a slave to strike the procurer, the latter’s protest at his unfair treatment and reference to the amount of money that he has spent for the girls. These elements may reveal Diphilus’ penchant for knockabout scenes, to judge additionally from Plaut. Cas. 404–8, 930–1, which was a reworking of the former’s Klēroumenoi. The evidence emerging from Terence’s transplantation of Synapothnēskontes into his Adelphoe suggests that the pimp’s house, from where the girl is abducted by Aeschinus, was visible on stage in both the Diphilan and the Terentian play; conversely, in the Menandrian original, the brothel is not represented, as the abduction is reported as an offstage event. On this matter see also Fantham (1968) 201–2. It thus becomes evident that the scene which can be recovered from Synapothnēskontes involved an episode of slapstick humour featuring stock comic characters, such as the greedy procurer, a young man pursuing a girl and an assisting slave. Although in the third scene of this act of Terence’s play, following Menander’s Adelphoi, it will be revealed that she is his brother’s love interest, this

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

120

Diphilus

should not entail that the same had happened in Diphilus’ play, as the present scene as such would seem to suggest that the young man who is abducting her is the one romantically interested in her. In turn, Diphilus’ play may be expected to have featured, among other possible themes, a romance (between the young man and the abducted courtesan?) conjoined — as often — with intrigue, to judge from the figure of the sly pimp and the effort to have him outwitted. As proposed above (‘Title’), the title per se might suggest scheming (a feigned death?), which could be in line with the clues to an intrigue (or the need for one) implied in this scene. Hence, the typical comic pattern involving the lover, the girl, the hindrance (the procurer), and the helper (the slave) seems to be represented in the Diphilan scene that Terence preserved for us. On the popularity of this pattern in middle and new comedy see e.g. Webster (19702) 74–7, Dieterle (1980) passim (including the palliata), Anderson (1984) 124–34, Brown (1993) 89–205, Scafuro (1997) 337–79, Ireland (2010) 372–81, 385–8. Remarkably enough, this is a distinctive case of Terentian contaminatio, as unlike Eunuchus and Andria, which drew on two plays of the same poet (i.e. Menander’s Eunuchus and Kolax in the former case and his Andria and Perinthia in the latter), the Roman dramatist here declares that he is proud of his skillful contaminatio involving the insertion of the Diphilan scene into his adaptation of the Menandrian original. Through this circumscribed contamination he succeeds in enlivening his play in performative terms with an onstage knockabout scene. At the same time, he surprises his audience through the revelation that the abducted courtesan is not the amica of Aeschinus but of Ctesipho (Ad. 252–3). Aeschinus’ impetuousness in this scene contributes to his overall character-sketching in the play, as well as mirroring his foster-father’s, Micio, lenience and indulgent way in which he has reared him and, in turn, the clashing practices applied by the two brothers, Demeas and Micio, for the upbringing of Ctesipho and Aeschinus respectively. On the function of Terence’s transplantation of this Diphilan scene, see Drexler (1934) 38–40, Ludwig (1968) 171–2, Goldberg (1986) 104–5, 121–2, Barsby (2002) 255. See further the discussion of this scene in Coppola (1924) 200–1, Drexler (1934) 1–40, Webster (19602) 87–8, Rieth (1964) 52–9 with the appendix by Gaiser (esp. 135–41), Fantham (1968) 196–205, Lloyd-Jones (1973) 279–81, Martin (1976) 99–102, 126, 133, Damen (1985) 173–88, Goldberg (1986) 91–4, 97–8, 104–5, 121–2, Pérez Asensio (1999) 356, Gratwick (1999) 34–6, Barsby (2002) 251–5, Gowers (2004) 161–3, McGill (2012) 136–40, Telò (2019) 62–3. As observed above (Title), the irreversible act of death suggested by the play’s title is alien to comic plots; the fake death must have thus occurred either shortly before the beginning of the play or during its course. The near-death motif is amply represented in Greek and Roman comedy and may either involve false news of someone’s death (as of Cleostratus in Menander’s Aspis and of Crateia’s brother in Misoumenos) or may be part of an intrigue (as the fake death of Chaerestratus in Men. Asp. 381, perhaps Alexis’ Mandragorizomenē drugging herself to become unconscious conceivably as a way of faking death and presumably also Menander’s

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συναποθνῄσκοντες

121

Kōneiazomenai) or a threat of committing suicide. Such threats are never carried out in comic plots and are usually delivered by desperate lovers, such as Polemon in Men. Pk. 504–5, 977–8, Thrasonides in Mis. 309–10, 394, Alcesimarchus in Plaut. Cist. 522–5, 639, Glycerium in Ter. Andr. 129–40, Phaedria in Eun. 66, Antipho and Phaedria in Phorm. 201–2, 483, 552. Further suicide threats may occur in comedy for various reasons (e.g. unbearable or shameful life), such as those by Gelasimus in Plaut. Stich. 639–40, Ampelisca and Palaestra in Rud. 220–8, 674–5, 684–6, Gripus in Rud. 1189–90, 1415–6, Lycus in Poen. 769–70, 794–5, 1340–54, Chalinus in Cas. 111–2, 424–7, Parmeno in Ter. Andr. 605. See Hirzel (1908) 100–1, Arnott (1970) 54–6, (1972) 73–4 and (1996) 419–21, Katsouris (1976) 24–33, 35–6, Gomme/Sandbach (1973) 61–3, 93–4, 438–42, 526–7, Van Hooff (1990) 145–9, Basaglia (1991) 278–89, Dutsch (2008) 134–8 and (2012) 187–98, Furley (2015) 165, 171–5 and (2021) 11–15, 197–213. In all these cases, the near-death motif is intrinsically intertwined with dramatic circumstances and characterization. More specifically, in cases of fake death, the reversal generates plot-development, thus creating a powerful dramatic effect. At the same time, the flawed similarity of the ‘suicidal’ comic character’s distress, including his humorous shortcomings, with that of a tragic hero produces a grotesque and hilarious outcome. Near deaths in comedy are profoundly amusing, not least because they threaten to undermine the comic machinery, but they always fail, in that they are ultimately not carried out. It could thus be expected that in Synapothnēskontes a similar pattern may have been represented. The possible romance theme implied in the scene transplanted by Terence, as pointed out above, might square nicely with the near death/suicide motif, which tends to be associated with desperate comic lovers. The sole piece of evidence coming from Plautus’ reworking of the play in his Commorientes is a single line preserved by Priscian (Gramm. II 280.19): saliam in puteum praecipes (fr. I Monda). The speaker is threatening (?) to jump into a well head first. Comedy features several cases of characters falling into a well (due to an accident or attempted suicide), the best-known of which is Cnemon in Dyskolos (for more detail see below, Phrear: Title). The phrasing of this fragment, especially praecipes, suggests that the speaker is conceivably at such a state of despair, so as to be about to jump into the well headlong; this sounds like a threat of suicide, which would be in line with the aforementioned comic parallels and may somehow (or may not) be related to the play’s title.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

122

Σύντροφοι (Syntrophoi) (“Foster-Children”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 410; Kock (1880–88) II 565; Marigo (1907) 431; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 134–5; PCG V 96; Astorga (1990) 100–2; Arnott (1996) 620–1; Pérez Asensio (1999) 358–62; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 269–70 Title The term συντροφέω (‘to be reared together’) tends to refer to someone brought up in a man’s home alongside his natural children, albeit being of different parentage. Cf. Ar. Ach. 989 (metaphorically), Men. Asp. 128–9: σύντροφοι/ αὗται θ’ ἑαυταῖς εἰσιν ἐκτεθραμμέναι, as well as Hdt. 1.99, Arist. EN 1162a 11–14: ὅσῳ οἰκειότεροι καὶ ἐκ γενετῆς ὑπάρχουσι στέργοντες ἀλλήλους, καὶ ὅσῳ ὁμοηθέστεροι οἱ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν καὶ σύντροφοι καὶ παιδευθέντες ὁμοίως, Plb. 5.9.4–5 (with Walbank 1957, ad loc.), 15.33.11, 32.15.10, PSI 584.5, P.Oxy. 1034.2, Plu. Cat. Ma. 20.5: αὐτὴ γὰρ ἔτρεφεν ἰδίῳ γάλακτι· πολλάκις δὲ καὶ τὰ τῶν δούλων παιδάρια τῷ μαστῷ προσιεμένη, κατεσκεύαζεν εὔνοιαν ἐκ τῆς συντροφίας πρὸς τὸν υἱόν. ἐπεὶ δ’ ἤρξατο συνιέναι, παραλαβὼν αὐτὸς ἐδίδασκε γράμματα. Cf. also Brescia (1960) 123. Homonymous comedies were written by Alexis, Damoxenus and Posidippus, whilst Philemon wrote Synephēbos. Marigo (1907, 431) stressed the dramatic potential of this theme: ‘la convivenza continua e l’ educazione comune alimentavano talora forti amicizie, che diedero materia ad intrecci svariati di drammi’. Likewise, Arnott (1996, 620) reasonably pointed out that the prominence of this title in comedy in conjunction with the fourth-century dramatic trend of the discovery of long-lost children could be suggestive of recognition plays (see further below: Content). Sadly, only few fragments have been preserved from these three plays. In fr. 219 of Alexis’ Syntrophoi the speaker is leaving a banquet by defending the merits of temperance in food and drink taught by the Athenian physician and expert dietician Mnesitheus, who might have been fashionable by that time (cf. Arnott 1996, 620–3). Fr. 2 of Damoxenus’ play is a 68–line fragment, in fact preserving the longest speech by a cook in fragmentary Greek comedy; this is a ‘philosophising’ cook, hilariously declaring himself a pupil of Epicurus and Democritus and, in turn, arguing that nature should be the principle of every art, including culinary art. He boasts of having mastered the art of successful cookery by knowing how to choose what sort of seafood is appropriate for cooking in every season and concludes by expounding in a quasi-Epicurean manner the merits of culinary materialism (see Wilkins 2000a, 403–6, Belardinelli 2008, 77–9, 81–5, 89–91, 101–2, Konstantakos 2023, 19–23; cf. earlier Dohm 1964, 166–87). Posidipp. fr. 25 includes someone’s dialogue with a slave cook working at the marketplace, whilst fr. 26 comprises a reference to sprouts. These fragments indicate a banquet that has just finished (Alex. fr. 219) or possible preparations for dinner (Damox. fr. 2, Posidipp. fr. 25),

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σύντροφοι (fr. 73)

123

but there is no clue as to how they could be related to the play-titles. Yet, as it will be suggested below (Content), fr. 73 of Diphilus’ Syntrophoi might provide a hint at the play’s possible subject-matter. Content Arnott (1996, 620) proposed that the title as such could be suggestive of a recognition play (see above: Title). As suggested below, this possibility could be enhanced by means of fr. 73, which refers to a baby’s swaddling clothes (a standard recognition token) as providing a sign through which something has been proved; in turn, this element may in a way be related to a recognition scene (for more detail see fr. 73: Interpretation). Anagnōrisis between long separated kin is a distinctive feature of fourth-century comedy (on the evidence for this plot-pattern provided by middle comedy see e.g. Webster 19702, 74–7, Arnott 2010, 328–9, Henderson 2014, 193–5); as regards new comedy, in particular, it may suffice to mention Menander’s Epitrepontes (the recognition of Charisius and Pamphile with their lost baby, cf. Furley 2009, esp. 161–7), Hērōs (the anagnōrisis of the twins, Gorgias and Plangon, with their parents, Laches and Myrrhine, cf. Gomme/Sandbach 1973, 385–6), Misoumenos (that of Crateia with her father Demeas, op. cit. 438–41), Perikeiromenē (that among the twins Moschion and Glycera and their father Pataecus, cf. Lamagna 1994, 51–2, 272–85, Furley 2015, 148–65), Sikyōnioi (that of Philoumene with her father Kichesias, cf. Belardinelli 1994, 205–19); notably, Plautus’ Cistellaria is a recognition play, which similarly involves two syntrophoi, Silenium and Gymnasium. See further Guzzo (1978) 165–74, Dworacki (1978) 52–4, Zagagi (1994) 23–6, Arnott (1996) 620, Omitowoju (2002) 169–229, Munteanu (2002) 111–26, Furley (2014) 107–15, De Poli (2019) 47–69. Diphilus evidently wrote recognition plays, as it emerges from Plautus’ Casina (modelled upon Diphilus’ Klēroumenoi) and Rudens (similarly based on a Diphilan original). Hence, a possible recognition in Syntrophoi would suit Diphilus’ own dramatic predilections as well as being embedded in fourth-century comic tradition. On his recognition plots see Webster (19702) 162–7, Fraenkel (1922) 292–313, MacCary/Willcock (1976) 8–9, 36–7, 97, 103, 109, Sharrock (2009) 37–8, Barbiero (2020) 68–9 and nn. 46–47.

Fragments fr. 73 K.-A. (72 K.) ἀγαθὸς βαφεὺς ἔνεστιν ἐν τῷ παιδίῳ· ταυτὶ γὰρ ἡμῖν δευσοποιὰ παντελῶς τὰ σπάργαν’ ἀποδέδειχεν

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

124

Diphilus

1 om. N: ἔστιν Q πεδίῳ QPKM, corr. codd. rec. 2 ταύτη QKMN: ταύτῃ P, corr. codd. rec.%% 3 τὰ σπάργανα ἀποδεδείχθω QPKM: τὰ σπάργα Ν, ν vel να supra γα script., corr. codd. rec.

There is a skilled dyer in this child; these deep-dyed swaddling-clothes here have absolutely proved it for us Harp. δ 24 (Keaney) δευσοποιός· κυρίως μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς πορφύρας λέγεται τοὔνομα τῆς ἔμμονον καὶ ἀνέκπλυτον ἐχούσης τὸ ἄνθος τῆς βαφῆς· ἐκ μεταφορᾶς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων τῶν ἐχόντων τὸ χρῶμα ἔμμονον καὶ πολυχρόνιον τὸ δευσοποιὸν λέγεται παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς, ὡς καὶ Πλάτων διασαφεῖ ἐν δ´ Πολιτείας. Δίφιλος Συντρόφοις— ‘deep-dyed’: this term is mainly used of purple, as that dye is persistent and indelible; but being extended to all dyes whose colours are persistent and long-lasting, it is used by the old authors, as Plato explains in the fourth book of the Republic. Diphilus in Foster-Children —

Metre Iambic trimeter (hephthemimeral caesura) 1. kk l k l k l k | l l l k l (penthemimeral caesura) 2. l l k l l | l k l k l k l 3. l l k kk k l k | [l x l k l ] (hephthemimeral caesura) Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 410; Kock (1880–88) II 565; Blümner (1891) 148; Fraenkel (1922) 101–3; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 134–5; PCG V 96; Astorga (1990) 100–2; Pérez Asensio (1999) 361–2; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 269–70 Citation Context This passage is cited in Harpocration’s Lexicon of the ten orators (probably second half of the second century AD), whose epitome is quoted in the lexica of Photius and the Suda. The extent of neatly arranged terminology provided in Harpocration’s lexicon is valuable for the insight that it offers into the forensic and cultural history of Athens. See further fr. 77: Citation Context. Accordingly, this quotation deriving from the lēmma that elucidates the technical term δευσοποιός (‘deep-dyed’) provides cultural information about the art of dyeing. Harpocration explains that indelible dye was mainly associated with πορφύρα (‘purple dye’), but then, as the passage from Pl. R. 429e attests, it came to be associated with other types of non-removable dye, as well. His reference to the use of the term παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς suggests that it is an Attic word, which is similarly confirmed in Moeris’ Atticist lexicon (δ 12 Hansen: δευσοποιοί ’Αττικοί, βαφεῖς κοινόν. δευσοποιὸν δὲ τὸ δυσέκπλυτον). Interpretation The speaker is referring to a baby’s soiled swaddling clothes; as it emerges from the deictic pronoun ταυτί, the act of looking at the diapers would need to occur on stage instead of being reported. The speaker is employing a personification, with the purpose of avoiding an explicit scatological reference:

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σύντροφοι (fr. 73)

125

the infant’s anus is personified as a skilled dyer, having indelibly dyed its diapers. On personification see further fr. 84.1n. (Phrear). This is a case of euphemism to avoid obscenity which would be rare in new comedy (Astorga 1990, 101 and n. 61 cites some debatable – as he himself admits — examples). The comic result is here activated by means of the hilarious incongruity between the vulgarity of the occasion (a baby’s defecation) and the use of elevated style (imbued with a paratragic nuance, according to Fraenkel 1922, 102) to describe it. Cf. the discussion in Fraenkel (1922) 101–3 and Astorga (1990) 100–2. For another possible (oblique) defecatory allusion and relevant bibliography on comic obscenity see above fr. 60.12n. (Parasitos). Astorga (1990, 100–2) and earlier Edmonds (1957–61, IIIA, 135) attributed these lines to a nurse commenting on a baby’s swaddling clothes. Astorga (1990, 100) went as far as to assume that the baby’s diapers were changed onstage. The very use of metaphorical language, however, aims at avoiding a defecatory reference, thus telling against such a scene. Pérez Asensio (1999, 360–1) suggested a situation like those in Samia and Epitrepontes, involving a baby begotten after a maiden’s seduction. A close reading of this passage could, I think, provide some clues as to the possible dramatic circumstances. The speaker acknowledges that the child, like a good dyer, has ‘coloured’ its swaddling clothes indelibly. The perfect ἀποδέδειχεν (describing a past action whose effects continue onto the present) in conjunction with the term δευσοποιά (whose meaning is elucidated by Harpocration as referring to a colour that is longlasting and persistent in time) seem to indicate that the swaddling clothes were soiled by the baby some time ago (we cannot know how long ago, of course), and that the stains have remained since then. Added to this, the term ἀποδέδειχεν combined with ταυτί seems to indicate that the swaddling clothes provide a token through which something has been proved. Hence, taking into account that σπάργανα is a typical recognition token (see below, note ad loc.) and that the title as such might be suggestive of a recognition play (see above: Title), I would regard it as likely that this fragment could be somehow associated with an anagnōrisis, conceivably of a long-lost child. Such a likelihood might account for the elevated diction of this passage, to judge, for instance, from the lofty style of the recognition scene in Men. Pk. 749–827 (on which see esp. Katsouris 1975a, 128–30, Goldberg 1980, 53–55, Furley 2015, 155). High (often tragic) diction is regularly employed by Menander to signpost a scene as crucial for the development of the plot (see e.g. Wesbter 19602, 155–6, 160, Zagagi 1994, 55–6, Hurst 2015, 75–83). But since we have lesser evidence for Diphilus’ practice in such cases, this possibility will have to remain open. ἀγαθὸς βαφεύς On ἀγαθός as ‘capable’, ‘skilled’, see e.g. Ar. Ra. 84: ἀγαθὸς ποιητής, Xenoph. DK 21 B2.15: πύκτης ἀγαθός, Pl. Prt. 323a 8: ἀγαθὸς αὐλητής. For the art of dyeing see Hammer-Jensen (1918) 461–70 and further below, note on δευσοποιά. Notably, metaphors from crafts are not that frequent due to the less known technical details involved in craftmanship; cf. Ar. Ach. 112 (a

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

126

Diphilus

metaphor for blood, cf. Olson 2002, ad loc.): ἵνα μή σε βάψω βάμμα Σαρδιανικόν, 856 (‘deep-dyed in misery’): ὁ περιαλουργὸς τοῖς κακοῖς, Eq. 397–8: ὡς δὲ πρὸς πᾶν ἀναιδεύεται κοὐ μεθί-/στησι τοῦ χρώματος τοῦ παρεστηκότος, Nu. 515–6: νεωτέροις τὴν φύσιν αὑ-/τοῦ πράγμασιν χρωτίζεται. In tragedy the dyeing metaphor usually alludes to blood (e.g. Aesch. Ch. 1013, PV 863). See further Blümner (1891) 147–8, Taillardat (19652) 303–4. ἔνεστιν ἐν τῷ παιδίῳ If the use of ἐν alongside ἔνεστιν is taken literally, it serves to stress the existence of a ‘capable dyer’ inside the child, that is, the baby’s anus. This is an effective double entendre, as it refers not only to the child’s qualities, but to this part of its body as well. On the penchant of comedy for the representation of child behaviour see below fr. 75.3n. (Synōris). δευσοποιά This is probably a technical term from the dyeing trade and refers to something that is deeply and, in turn, indelibly dyed. Cf. Pl. R. 429e1–3: καὶ ὃ μὲν ἂν τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ βαφῇ, δευσοποιὸν γίγνεται τὸ βαφέν, καὶ ἡ πλύσις οὔτ’ ἄνευ ῥυμμάτων οὔτε μετὰ ῥυμμάτων δύναται αὐτῶν τὸ ἄνθος ἀφαιρεῖσθαι with Tim. Lex. Plat. s.v. δευσοποιόν (Ruhnken), Plu. Mor. 270F, 990B, Luc. Im. 16.14–16, Moeris δ 12 (Hansen): δευσοποιοί ’Αττικοί, βαφεῖς κοινόν. δευσοποιὸν δὲ τὸ δυσέκπλυτον, Poll. 1.44. According to Harpocration’s testimony, this term primarily refers to purple dye (πορφύρα), and its use could well extend to other dyes (on purple dye cf. e.g. Dedekind 1898–1911, I 16–191 and more recently Lowe 2004, 46–9, Koren 2018, 37–9 with further bibliography); see Poll. 1.49: ἔπειτα κοψάμενοι τὸ ὄστρακον ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ τὴν σάρκα καὶ ταριχεύσαντες φυλάττουσιν εἰς δευσοποιίαν, Ael. NA 16.1, Sud. δ 291 (Adler): δευσοποιός· κυρίως μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς πορφύρας λέγεται τὸ ὄνομα, τῆς ἔμμονον καὶ ἀνέκπλυτον ἐχούσης τὸ ἄνθος τῆς βαφῆς, ἐκ μεταφορᾶς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων, τῶν ἐχόντων τὸ χρῶμα ἔμμονόν τε καὶ πολυχρόνιον, Hesych. δ 735 (Cunningham). On the art of dyeing see further Ruhnken (18282) 75–8, n. 2, Blümner (19122) I 230–2, Hammer-Jensen (1918) 461–2, 465–70, Brunello (1973) 91–8, Welters (2006) 692–3. Apart from this Diphilan fragment, in comedy the term is also employed in Alex. fr. 145.9 (Mandragorizomenē): τὸ καλὸν δὲ χρῶμα δευσοποιῷ χρῴζομεν (cf. Arnott 1996, ad loc.). Besides, Δευσοποιός is the title of a comedy by Apollodorus of Gela, from which, however, no fragment has been preserved (cf. Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés 2014, 171, n. 100). Cf. also TrGF II adesp. fr. 441: τοῖς δευσοποιοῖς φαρμάκοις ξανθίζεται. The imagery of the indelible dye is also employed in metaphorical terms to describe an everlasting idea; see notably Pl. R. 430a2–6: ὅπως ἡμῖν ὅτι κάλλιστα τοὺς νόμους πεισθέντες δέξοιντο ὥσπερ βαφήν, ἵνα δευσοποιὸς αὐτῶν ἡ δόξα γίγνοιτο καὶ περὶ δεινῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων διὰ τὸ τήν τε φύσιν καὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἐπιτηδείαν ἐσχηκέναι, καὶ μὴ αὐτῶν ἐκπλύναι τὴν βαφὴν τὰ ῥύμματα ταῦτα, Din. 2.4, Plu. Mor. 488B, 779C, Alex. 74, Phot. δ 221 Theodoridis (s.v. δευσοποιός πονηρία = Sud. δ 291 Adler).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σύντροφοι (fr. 73)

127

τὰ σπάργαν’ On baby swaddling see e.g. Golden (2003) 14–5, Pratt (2013) 230, 239, Lee (2015) 199 with relevant sources; cf. the swaddled baby Hermes in the hydria reflecting h.Hom.Herm. 268 (Louvre E706) and for further pictorial evidence see Oakley (2013) 163–4, Sommer/Sommer (2015) 75–7. Σπάργανα are typical recognition-tokens in drama and beyond; cf. Eur. Ion 1351: ἐνθάδε κέκρυπται σπάργαν’ οἷς ἐνῆσθα σύ, 1489–91: παρθένια δ’ †ἐμᾶς ματέρος†/σπάργαν’ ἀμφίβολά σοι τάδ’ ἀνῆψα κερ-/κίδος ἐμᾶς πλάνους, Eur. Alope (its plot being reflected in Hyg. fab. 187: ille autem qui infantem donatum acceperat, repetere insignia coepit, quae cum allata essent, et agnosceret Cercyon ea esse ex veste scissa filiae suae), Men. Pk. 755–73: ἐξένεγκέ μοι/τὴν κιστίδ’] ἔξω, Δωρί, τὴν τὰ ποικίλα/ἔχουσαν·/[…] τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς ἐμῆς/ποικίλ]ματ’ ἐστὶ ταῦτα καὶ μάλ’ ἀθλίας, 822: διαφανές τε χλανίδιον, Donat. ad Ter. Eun. 753 (Wessner): ex his monimentis fieret postero tempore cognitio. Cf. also Long. 1.5.3, 4.21.1–2: ἀπῄει μὲν Μυρτάλη κομίσουσα πάντα φυλαττόμενα ἐν πήρᾳ παλαιᾷ· κομισθέντα δὲ πρῶτος Διονυσοφάνης ἐπέβλεπε, καὶ ἰδὼν χλανίδιον ἁλουργές […] ἡ δὲ ἰδοῦσα μέγα καὶ αὐτὴ βοᾷ· «φίλαι Μοῖραι· οὐ ταῦτα ἡμεῖς συνεξεθήκαμεν ἰδίῳ παιδί; See esp. Hähnle (1929) esp. 141–2, Dworacki (1978) 50, 52–4, Bathrellou (2019) 807–8. In Ar. Ach. 431 the reference to Telephus’ σπάργανα does not describe his swaddling clothes, of course, but his rags; see schol. vet ad loc. (Wilson): τὰ σπάργανα] τὰ ἱμάτια. κυρίως δὲ τὰ ῥάκη. ὡς ἐπὶ βιβλίων τινῶν. ἀποδέδειχεν The speaker refers to the deeply-dyed σπάργανα as providing proof of the child’s ‘dyeing skill’ and, in turn, presumably of a situation related to this child (e.g. a discovery or recognition? cf. Interpretation). Ἀπόδειξις is employed in oratory as a technical term defining demonstrative proof by syllogism that leads to necessary conclusions; see Arist. Rh. 1355a3–8 (with Cope/Sandys 1877, I 19): ἐπεὶ δὲ φανερόν ἐστιν ὅτι ἡ μὲν ἔντεχνος μέθοδος περὶ τὰς πίστεις ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ πίστις ἀπόδειξίς τις (τότε γὰρ πιστεύομεν μάλιστα ὅταν ἀποδεδεῖχθαι ὑπολάβωμεν), ἔστι δ’ ἀπόδειξις ῥητορικὴ ἐνθύμημα, καὶ ἔστι τοῦτο ὡς εἰπεῖν ἁπλῶς κυριώτατον τῶν πίστεων. Cf. Lys. 3.40, 13.51: οἴομαι δ’ οὐδ’ ἂν τοῦτο αὐτὸν ἐπιχειρῆσαι ἀποδεικνύναι, 13.83, D. 14.39: ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἱκανῶς ἀποδεδεῖχθαι νομίζω, Isoc. 19.16, Is. 10.15, Aeschin. 1.9, And. 1.33: τοῦτο ὑμῖν ἀποδείκνυμι σαφῶς.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

128

Συνωρίς (Synōris) (“Synōris”)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) III 459–61, VII 642–3; Meineke (1839–57) IV 411–3; Kock (1880–88) II 565–7; Ribbeck (1883) 27; Marigo (1907) 431–2; Breitenbach (1908) 138–9; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 134–7; Hauschild (1933) 22–3; Damen (1985) 37, 80–1, 85–6; Henry (1985) 45; Astorga (1990) 62–3; Pérez Asensio (1999) 363–81; Auhagen (2009) 130; Rusten (2011) 670–1; Bruzzese (2011) 93 and n. 197; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 270–2, Maggio (2023) 110–11, 120–3 , 130–3 Title The play’s title is reported in IG II/III2 2363.37 (on this inscription see note on Telesias test. i). The title-heroine was evidently a real character. According to Athenaeus (13.583E), Synōris was a hetaira also nicknamed Lychnos. Most of the nicknames given to courtesans are speaking names; their multiple nicknames could be suggestive of their status as commodities. Synōris (‘Pair of horses’) is a suitable name for a courtesan, as it seems to allude to the figurative image of love’s chariot (cf. Varro Sat. Men. 87: Veneris tenere bigas) or to equestrian metaphors for intercourse. Lychnos (‘Lamp’) is also erotically nuanced, due to the use of lamp in amorous contexts. See Bechtel (1902) 122, 128–9, Schneider (1912) 1358–72, McClure (2003) 7, 71–4, 77–8. The ending in –ίς, in particular, is often employed in comedies named after courtesans, such as Agōnis, Dorkis, Meropis and Chorēgis by Alexis, Antiphanes’ Chrysis, the Antilais (deriving from the name of the hetaira Lais) plays by Cephisodorus and Epicrates, as well as Menander’s Thais and Hymnis. Cf. Breitenbach 130–70, Maggio (2023) 110–11. Courtesans (hetairai) socialized with the elite, being maintained by one or two patrons in exchange for sexual access and were thus distinguished from pornai (‘prostitutes’), namely brothel slaves, by the number and anonymity of the latter’s partners. Nonetheless, despite this semantic distinction, the terms hetaira and pornē were occasionally used interchangeably (e.g. Diph. fr. 42.38–40 [Zōgraphos]: οὗ δὲ νῦν σ’ ἄγω,/πορνεῖόν ἐστι, πολυτελῶς ’Αδώνια/ἄγουσ’ ἑταίρα μεθ’ ἑτέρων πορνῶν). See Davidson (1997) 109–20, Kurke (1997) esp. 107–11, 145–6 and (1999) 175–99, McClure (2003) 11–18, Lape (2004) 77–83 (on the ‘elitist’ as against the ‘democratised’ access to courtesans and prostitutes respectively), 159–65, Corner (2011) 69–78, Kennedy (2015) esp. 61–4, 71–3; cf. also Licht (1932) 297–325, Halperin (1990) 111–2, Pomeroy (1995) 139–41, Hartmann (2002) 133–80, Brulé (2003) 186–220. As is the case with parasites, the pervasive association of courtesans with urban life and the symposia made them stock comic characters, who also assumed crucial roles in romantic intrigue plots, especially from early fourth century onwards. Before then, comedies by Pherecrates, such as Koriannō, Petalē, Thalatta, were named after hetairai, followed by plays coming from the last generation of old comic poets and produced in the period of transition from old to middle comedy,

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς

129

such as Diocles’ Thalatta, Alcaeus’ Palaistra and Anteia by Eunicus and Philyllius; see Wehrli (1936) 28–9, Webster (19702) 22–3, Nesselrath (1990) 318–21 and n. 97, Konstantakos (2002) 151–4, Henderson (2014) 191–3. Some of the comic courtesans were fictional, but some were real-life characters, such as the title-heroines in Neaira by Timocles and Philemon, Alexis’ Agōnis and Opōra, Eubulus’ Klepsydra, Nannion and Chrysilla, as well as Menander’s Phanion and Thais (see Schneider 1912, 1336–7, Webster 19702, 63–4, McClure 2003, 39–40). A considerable number of courtesans feature in Diph. fr. 20 (Balaneion), fr. 42.38–41 (Zōgraphos), fr. 49 (Theseus), frr. inc. 87, 101, as well as Pallakis and perhaps Pyrrha (see above, Pyrrha: Title). Moreover, hetairai were also involved in his Synapothnēskontes (see above, Synapothnēskontes: Content), as well as in the Diphilan comedy, which formed the exemplum of Plautus’ Rudens (see Auhagen 2009, 129–34). The prominence of hetairai in Diphilus’ plays might be associated with his purported amorous liaison with Gnathaena, a sophisticated and quick-witted courtesan (PCG V, test. 7–8). Cf. also Bruzzese (2004) 54–7, Maggio (2023) 37–46. New comedy provides an ample source for courtesans alongside Machon 168– 462 G., on whom Athenaeus largely draws in his description of hetairai in Book 13 (for which see esp. Hawley 1993, 73–89), Lucian’s Dialogues of the Courtesans and Alciphron’s Letters of the Courtesans. On the hetairai of new comedy see the fundamental studies by Henry (1985) 40–111 and Auhagen (2009) 80–135, as well as Wiles (1989) 31–48, Konstan (1995) 9–10, 120–2, 140, Krieter-Spiro (1997) 55–76, Rosivach (1998) 107–9, 136–9, Trail (2008) 3–10, 34–46, 86–92, 99–110, 128–9, 156–69, 228–30, 233–6, 241–2, Marshall (2013) 174–9. On comic courtesans cf. also Wehrli (1936) 39–45, Nesselrath (1990) 318–25, McClure (2006) 3–8. Cohen (2015) 15–18, 139–43, 148–9, Kapparis (2018) 47–53, 80–5, 223–6, 228–32, 277–83, 306–13. Content According to Athenaeus’ testimony that preserves fr. 75, there were two versions of Synōris. Frr. 75 and 76 are reported to derive from the revision of the play. Athenaeus, who also quotes frr. 74 and 78, does not clarify whether these fragments belong to the first or the second version. The fact that they are not specified to belong to the revision of the play, as is the case with frr. 75 and 76, might tacitly suggest – if Athenaeus’ consistency can be trusted (see fr. 75: Citation Context)— that they derive from the first version, though this is by no means a safe conclusion. On the revision of comedies that have kept the same title as the earlier play, like Synōris, see below on fr. 75: Interpretation. For plays revised under a different title, cf. above on Stratiōtēs: Title. The available fragments preserve a dicing scene between a parasite and a courtesan presumably in a symposium (fr. 74). The hetaira makes an ingenious pun on Euripides’ name, associating it with the good throw of the dice, whilst the parasite resorts to a pastiche of Euripidean lines to serve his own purpose (see further notes on fr. 74.3–5, 4–6, 7–9). The female interlocutor displays the typical

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

130

Diphilus

features of the cunning and witty hetaira, who challenges the self-serving parasite’s pseudo-literary claims. Fr. 77 contains a reference to dice-throwing, thus making it likely that it could derive from the same scene as fr. 74. The dialogic frr. 75 and 76 come from the play’s revised version and seem to belong to a scene involving the parasite’s quarrel with one or more banqueters. In fr. 75 the epiphora and the double emphatic question in conjunction with the bile imagery underscore the paradox of the parasite’s wrath; as stressed in fr. 63 from Parasitos (see note ad loc.), a parasite cannot afford to get angry or unpleasant. In fr. 76 the parasite is responding to a scornful remark, by drawing an agonistic metaphor between his art and the highly rewarded art of the citharode through the use of colloquialisms (in l. 1), a question (ll. 2–3) and a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke (l. 3). This group of fragments thus brings forward the character of the complaining parasite (frr. 75, 76), who is at the same time boastful of his art (frr. 74, 76). Fr. 78 comprises a case of ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν, which is quite rare in new comedy. An aulos-player is mocked for a lapse which is frequent among the pupils of the famous aulete Timotheus. The performance of the aulos may either suit a sympotic context, as that of frr. 74–77, or perhaps a sacrifice, as in other cases in comedy. All the same, it cannot be excluded that this playful comment could be addressed to the official pipe-player of the comic performance (see further fr. 78: Interpretation). Date Fr. 78 refers to a constant lapse made by the pupils of Timotheus the aulos-player. This reference led Breitenbach (1908, 139, cf. also Wilamowitz 1925, 166, n. 1, Webster 19702, 152–3) to argue that Synōris could not be dated much later than 320 BC, considering that the last piece of available evidence for Timotheus’ career dates in 324 BC (on Timotheus see further fr. 78.1–2n.). However, this fragment, albeit informative up to a certain degree, cannot provide conclusive evidence for the date of Synōris. Firstly, we may only assume that it derives from the first version of Synōris, as it is not reported to originate in its second version, like frr. 75–76, but this is not a safe inference. Moreover, the fragment does not refer to Timotheus’ activity but to that of his pupils. This entails that even if we accept 324 BC as the latest temporal limit for Timotheus’ floruit, which is by no means certain (given that the absence of evidence cannot exclude his activity after that date), his pupils may have well been active for some time later, perhaps for a decade or two. It may thus be reasonable to regard the end of the fourth century as a terminus ante quem for (the first version of?) Synōris. In any case, caution is required, as fr. 78 offers only a clue to the rough temporal period of the play’s production, which cannot, nonetheless, be dated on safe grounds.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 74)

131

Fragments fr. 74 K.-A. (73 K.)

5

10

ἄριστ’ ἀπαλλάττεις ἐπὶ τούτου τοῦ κύβου. (Β.) ἀστεῖος εἶ. δραχμὴν ὑπόθες. (Α.) κεῖται πάλαι. (Β.) πῶς ἂν βάλοιμ’ Εὐριπίδην; (Α.) οὐκ ἄν ποτε Εὐριπίδης γυναῖκα σώσει’. οὐχ ὁρᾷς ἐν ταῖς τραγωιδίαισιν αὐτὰς ὡς στυγεῖ; τοὺς δὲ παρασίτους ἠγάπα. λέγει γέ τοι∙ “ἀνὴρ γὰρ ὅστις εὖ βίον κεκτημένος μὴ τοὐλάχιστον τρεῖς ἀσυμβόλους τρέφει, ὄλοιτο, νόστου μή ποτ’ εἰς πάτραν τυχών.” (B.) πόθεν ἐστὶ ταῦτα, πρὸς θεῶν; (Α.) τί δέ σοι μέλει; οὐ γὰρ τὸ δρᾶμα, τὸν δὲ νοῦν σκοπούμεθα

1–2 om. CE 1 ἐπὶ A: ἀπὸ Blaydes 2–3 personas distrib. Canter ms. ACE 4 σώσειεν ACE, corr. Porson 5 τραγωδίαισιν CE: -αις ϊν’ A ὄλοιτο defic. CE τυχών cod. Eur.: μολεῖ Α 10 σοι Α: μοι Meineke

5

10

3 ποτ’ 9 post

You are coming out magnificently on this throw. (B.) You are a smart one; put down a drachma. (A.) I put it down long ago. (B.) How can I throw a Euripides? (A.) Euripides could never save a woman. Don’t you see how he loathes them in his tragedies? But he loved parasites. He says at some point: “If a man, albeit prosperous, does not support at least three non-contributors, may he perish, never having achieved return to his homeland”. (B.) Where is that from, in the gods’ name? (A.) Why do you care? It is not the drama, but the thought that we are considering

Ath. 6.247Α Δίφιλος δ’ ἐν Συνωρίδι (ἑταίρας δ’ ὄνομα ἡ Συνωρὶς) Εὐριπίδου μνησθεὶς (κύβος δέ τις οὕτως καλεῖται Εὐριπίδης) παίζων καὶ πρὸς τὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ ὄνομα ἅμα καὶ περὶ παρασίτων, τάδε λέγει∙ ἄριστα — σκοπούμεθα Diphilus in Synōris (Synōris was the name of a courtesan) recalling Euripides (a particular throw of the dice is named Euripides) and joking on both the poet’s name and parasites says the following —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. l l k l l l | k k l l l k l (medial caesura) 2. l l k l l l | k kk l l k l (medial caesura)

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

132

Diphilus

3. l l k l l l k l l l k l 4. l l k l k l k | l l l k l 5. l l k l k l k | l l l k l 6. l kk k l l | l k l k l k l 7. k l k l k | l k l l l k l 8. l l k l l | l k l k l k l 9. k l k l l | l k l l l k l 10. kk l k l l | l k l kk l k l 11. l l k l k | l k l k l kl

(no caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) III 459–60; Meineke (1839–57) IV 411–2; Kock (1880–88) II 565–6; Roemer (1901) 65–6; Marigo (1907) 431–2; Breitenbach (1908) 138; Coppola (1924) 191–2; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 134–5; Damen (1985) 37, 81, 85–6; PCG V 96–7; Nesselrath (1990) 320–1; Astorga (1990) 62–3; Pérez Asensio (1999) 365–72; Wilkins (2000a) 84; Tylawsky (2002) 102–3; Konstantakos (2005a) 190 with n. 22 and (2014a) 35; Olson (2007) 179–81; Knöbl (2008) 61–3; Rusten (2011) 670; Wright (2013) 616–7; Scafuro (2014) 214; Pérez Asensio/ Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 270–1; Hanink (2014) 167–8; Farmer (2017) 61–2; Maggio (2023) 120–5 Citation Context This fragment, as is the case with frr. 61–63 from Parasitos, derives from the extensive section on parasites (234D-248C) of the sixth book of Deipnosophistai. More specifically, these lines are cited alongside frr. 75 and 76 and fr. 63 (Parasitos); all four passages describe parasites’ reactions (see further fr. 63: Citation Context). Text In l. 1 the ms. reading ἐπί is preferable to ἀπό proposed by Blaydes (1890–96, II 196); see LSJ9 ἐπί + Gen. A.III.3: ‘of occasions, circumstances and conditions’. In l. 4 σώσει’ is Porson’s emendation (Porson 1812, 84) of the unmetrical ms. reading σώσειεν; the elision of the third person singular of the optative in –ειε first appears in Diphilus (see further fr. 62.2n.) In l. 10 the ms. reading σοι adopted by Kassel/Austin ad loc. seems to be more suitable than Meineke’s μοι (Meineke 1867, 108), as it provides a direct answer to the interlocutor’s question (‘Why do you care from which play these lines derive?’). The use of the second person also serves to connect this line to the next one, in which the first-person plural is employed to include both the speaker and his interlocutor. Interpretation This fragment involves a parasite (A) playing dice with a woman (B), who could be no other than a courtesan, presumably Synōris, the title-character (so Marigo 1907, 431, Breitenbach 1908, 138, Webster 19702, 157, PCG V 97, Maggio 2023, 120). The interaction of a parasite with a hetaira is suggestive of a sympotic context. Parasites and courtesans are both ‘kept’ by their sponsors; their subsistence by their patrons in return for their services is suggestive of their

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 74)

133

status as commodities (see Davidson 1997, 270–5, Wilkins 2000a, 82–3, McClure 2003b, 271). The dice game of the present fragment seems to derive from the same context as fr. 77, which comprises a reference to the dice-box. Sympotic games tend to bear erotic connotations, which in this fragment are conveyed by the participation of the courtesan (although there is no hint at flirting in these lines). A comic forerunner of a sympotic game (kottabos) enacted onstage with the involvement of a courtesan, to whom Heracles is attracted, occurs in Pl. Com. frr. 46–47 (Zeus Kakoumenos); on this play see Casolari (2003) 267–8, Olson (2007) 313–4, Pirrotta (2009) 124–40, Konstantakos (2014a) 31–6, (2014b) 167–8 and (2020) 383–7. Cf. also the erotically charged play of kottabos in Antiph. fr. 57 (Aphroditēs Gonai) according to Nesselrath (1995) 20–2 (for a different interpretation cf. Konstantakos 2005b, 16–7; see also Olson 2007, 311–3). On the erotic nuances of sympotic games see further Lissarague (1980) 83–6, Scaife (1992) 27–30, 35, Campagner (2002) 117–21, Pütz (20072) 184–92, Konstantakos (2014a) 32–5 and n. 15 (with rich bibliography). For the iconographic representation of courtesans in sympotic games see Jahn (1867) 221–6, 230, 233, 235–6, 238, Heydemann (1868) 221–2, 229, Csapo/Miller (1991) 373–5, 377–80, Jacquet-Rimassa (1995) 132, 140–2, 144, 152, 160, 162–3 and (2008) 70, 74–6 and for further bibliography Konstantakos (2014a) 32, n. 13. Dice games (on which see below 1n.) relied on random fortune (Paus. 2.20.3) and were associated with the damaging effects of gambling (see Ar. V. 75 with Biles/Olson 2015, 109, Ec. 672, Eup. fr. 99.85 [Dēmoi] with Olson 2017, ad loc., Philem. fr. inc. 175, cf. Lys. 14.27, 16.11, Aeschin. 1.53, 95, X. Mem. 1.2.57). On the relation of dice games to prostitution as decadent pleasures see Ar. Pl. 243, Arist. EN 1121b31–1122a11, Isoc. 7.48, 15.286–7, Aeschin. 1.42, 75, X. Oec. 1.19–20, Thphr. Char. 6.5.6 (with Diggle 2004, 256), Theopomp. FGrH 115 F49 and earlier Hdt. 1.94 (cf. Kurke 1999a, 283–6 with further sources and Campagner 2005, 84–5). Dice-casting is thus an activity that tends to be practised by demi-monde characters, such as the self-serving parasite and the courtesan of this fragment. Likewise, the parasite in Plaut. Curc. 350ff. engages in a game of dice (cf. also Pérez Asensio 1999, 367). This Diphilan episode similarly anticipates the dice-casting scenes in Plaut. Asin. 904–6 and Most. 305–9, which are also set in sympotic contexts (on the former see Süss 1910, 458, Webster 19702, 257 and on the latter cf. Pérez Asensio 1999, 368). Added to these, Damen (1985, 37) was right to point out the correspondence of these lines to the lot-casting scene in Plaut. Cas. 353–423, which was an adaptation of Diph. Klēroumenoi (PCG test. 10), in terms of the liveliness of the two episodes and the pivotal role of fortune in them. 1 ἀπαλλάττεις ‘cavarsela, andare a finire’ (VdLG2); it shows the outcome of the dice throw. Kassel and Austin aptly cite the eloquent parallel in Men. Epit. 416 (οὐδὲ νῦν κακῶς ἀπήλλαχα), which similarly describes the result of a process involving a test (i.e. the arbitration, cf. Gomme/Sandbach 1973, 324–5), as well as Plaut. Rud. 837 (see Sonnenschein 1891 and Marx 1928, ad loc.). Cf. also Plaut. Men. 964, Stich. 398, Truc. 516.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

134

Diphilus

ἐπὶ τούτου τοῦ κύβου Cubical dice (κύβοι) had six sides, whilst knucklebones (ἀστράγαλοι), which were also thrown, had four sides. According to Soph. fr. 479 R. (Palamedes), dicing was invented by Palamedes as a pleasant cure of idleness (cf. Alcid. Od. 22). Dice-shooting was a comic topos, and there were comedies by Eubulus, Alexis, Antiphanes, and Amphis entitled Κybeutai (see Arnott 1996, 347, Hunter 1983, 142, Papachrysostomou 2016, 160). Apart from the aforementioned scenes (see above, Interpretation), cf. the references to dice-casting in Cratin. fr. 208 (Pytinē), Pherecr. fr. 129 (Myrmēkanthropoi), Hermipp. fr. 27 (Theoi) with Comentale (2017) 121, Ar. Ra. 969–70 (the pun on a throw of dice ridiculing Theramenes, cf. Dover 1993, ad loc.), fr. inc. 929. Cf. Soph. fr. 429 R. (Nauplios), Eur. fr. inc. 888 K. (parodied in Eup. fr. inc. 372), Pl. Phdr. 274c5–d2, Phld. A.P. 5.25. For dice games and their variations (dice used in association with board games or independently) see Lamer (1938) 1933–76, Austin (1940) 257–71, Fraenkel (1950) on Aesch. Ag. 33, Fittà (1998) 110–22, Kurke (1999a) 248–54, 261–7, 271–4 and (1999b) 247–53, 257, 263–5, Campagner (2005) 83, 85–6, Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 270, n. 385. On dice imagery (often alluding to the unpredictability and fragility of fortune, cf. esp. Kokolakis 1965, 26–52, 86–92) see Alex. fr. 35 (Brettia) with Arnott (1996) 137–8, as well as Aesch. Sept. 414 (and Hutchinson 1985, ad loc.), Soph. fr. inc. 895 R., Eur. Supp. 330 (cf. Collard 1975, II 195), [Eur.] Rh. 177, 183, 446 (with Liapis 2012, 114, 190–1, Fries 2014, 186, 287 and Fantuzzi 2020, 225, 238–9), Page GLP 122. 2 ἀστεῖος Literally, ‘of the town’, thus ‘refined’ (on the range of its meanings see Dover 1974, 112–4). In comedy the epithet is mostly used in the sense of ‘elegant’, ‘witty’: Ar. Ach. 811, Eq. 539, V. 1258 (with Biles / Olson 2015, 448), Nu. 204 (and Dover 1968, ad loc.), Ra. 5, 901, Men. Sam. 657, Asp. 375, Mach. fr. 15.237 G.; see Taillardat (19652) 13 and n. 2. It also describes elegant dishes, as in Antiph. fr. 6 (Agroikos) with Konstantakos (2000) 58–9, fr. 183.2 (Parasitos), Alex. fr. 194.1 (Ponēra). In the present case, the term is ironically employed (as in Ar. Nu. 1064, Men. Dysc. 568–9, Sam. 364; on its ironic use cf. also LSJ9 and Des Places s.v. ἀστεῖος, Sommerstein 2013, 215–6). Instead of being flattered by the parasite’s compliment on her throw (l. 1), the courtesan jeers at his smartness, to make sure that he will not get away without betting a drachma. Cf. Olson’s interpretation (2007, 180). Ἀστεῖος is the opposite of ἄγροικος (‘the rustic man’), whose features encompass crudeness of mind and manners, maladroitness of speech and, overall, inexperience in city-practices and laws. See Thphr. Char. 4, SVF 3 fr. 677, Men. fr. 5 Sandbach (Geōrgos): εἰμὶ μὲν ἄγροικος [...] καὶ τῶν κατ’ ἄστυ πραγμάτων οὐ παντελῶς/ ἔμπειρος; cf. Ribbeck (1888) 1–68, Legrand (1910) 72–80, Ehrenberg (19512) 73–94, Ussher (19932) 55–62, Diggle (2004) 207–21 (with many parallels), Konstantakos (2000) 18–24, (2004) 23–5 and (2005b) 1–26, Jones (2004) 173–9, 217–25, Rosen (2006a) 219–21, 30–8, Cullyer (2006) 181–96. The ἄγροικος, as often seen through the eyes of the townsman, is a prominent comic figure, to judge from the Agroikos plays by Antiphanes, Anaxilas, Augeas and Philemon, Menander’s Agroikos or

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 74)

135

Hypobolimaios, Anaxandrides’ Agroikoi, Plautus’ Agroecus and Pomponius’ Rusticus. For further comic sources see Konstantakos (2005b) esp. 1–4. δραχμήν Betting a drachma was not of negligible value, considering that towards the end of the fourth century one drachma per day was the wage of wellpaid elected officials, such as the governor of Salamis, the amphictyons to Delos and sophronistai, whilst ecclesiasts and prytaneis received the same amount only on the days that they were sitting; see further Loomis (1998) 24–8 and n. 56. But one drachma is also the exaggerated amount that transvestite Euripides is about to receive by the Archer for the dancing-girl’s sexual services in Ar. Th. 1195 (on the evidence for the payment of prostitutes see Loomis 1998, 166–85). In the present case, the high bet is suggestive of gambling, which was widely disparaged (see above, Interpretation). ὑπόθες – κεῖται A compound verb tends to be reiterated in its simple form, whilst maintaining the force of the compound. For comic instances cf. Ar. V. 1334–5 (with MacDowell 1971, ad loc. and Biles/Olson 2015, 470–1): προσκαλούμενοι – καλούμενοι, Eq. 253–4: ’κφύγηι – ἔφευγεν, 365–6, Νu. 1072–4: ἀποστερεῖσθαι – στερηθῇς, Lys. 850–1: ἐκκάλεσον – καλέσω, Ra. 306, 960–1: ἐξηλεγχόμην - ἤλεγχον, Men. fr. 334 (Stratiōtai): ἐξαμαρτάνων - ἁμαρτάνει. On this practice see K-G II 568, Clausen (1955) 49, Fraenkel (1964) I 440–2 (with further instances), Diggle (1973) 265 and n. 64 and (1981) 18, Renehan (1976) 11–12, 15. 3 πῶς ἂν βάλοιμ’ Εὐριπίδην; ‘Euripides’ was an excellent throw of the astragaloi totaling 40 (see Poll. 10.101, schol. Areth. Pl. Lys. 206e Greene, Eust. on Il. 23.88/IV 691,4–7 van der Valk) and probably of the dice as well, to judge from the present fragment. This question seems to comprise a double entendre, involving a pun on εὖ ῥίπτειν (Lamer 1927, 1949, Astorga 1990, 62, Olson 2007, 180) in conjunction with the name of Euripides, to whom the discussion turns from the next line onwards. This double meaning would be consistent with Diphilus’ penchant for puns on names; cf. fr. 32.7–8 (Emporos): Πρίαμος – ἐπριάμην and fr. 45.3 (Heracles): ναστὸν Ἀστερίωνος, where the paronomasia is suggestive of the speaker’s drunkenness (see Astorga 1990, 62 and n. 36). Aristophanic comedy abounds in puns: e.g. Nu. 1356 (on the Aeginetan wrestler Krios, cf. Dover 1968, ad loc.), Ra. 184: χαῖρ’, ὦ Χάρων; for further such cases, cf. Olson (1992) 307–16 and Kanavou (2011) 24–188. I agree with Lamer (loc. cit.) that the interpretation offered by later sources, such as the aforementioned passages of Pollux, Arethas and Eustathius, associating this dice throw with the early fourth-century Athenian statesman Heurippides (in view of his collaboration with the forty judges or his introduction of the tax of ‘one-fortieth’, cf. Wilamowitz 1935–72, IV 88–9, 430, Maggio 2023, 121–2 with further bibliography) is implausible (on Heurippides see also above, fr. 60.1n. from Parasitos); Euripides’ tremendous popularity in Diphilus’ era could aptly account for a successful dice shooting, considering also that other throws were similarly named after famous poets, such as Stesichorus and Solon. Furthermore, from l. 4 onwards the focus of the passage is clearly on Euripides the dramatist.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

136

Diphilus

3–5 Euripides’ alleged misogynism is a topos in the biographical tradition and originates to a great extent in Aristophanic lampoons (this idea pervades Thesmophoriazousai; see also Lys. 283: τασδὶ δὲ τὰς Εὐριπίδῃ θεοῖς τε πᾶσιν ἐχθρὰς, 368–9 and schol. ad Lys. 283 Hangard). Cf. adesp. com. fr. 1048: νὴ τὸν Δία τὸν μέγιστον, εὖ γ’ Εὐριπίδης/εἴρηκεν 〈εἶναι〉 τὴν γυναικείαν φύσιν/πάντων μέγιστον τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις κακῶν·/ἂν μὲν γὰρ ἐπιτύχηι τις, εὐτυχεῖ βίωι/μόχθων 〈 〉 καὶ πόνων ταύτην ἔχων,/ἂν δ’ εἰς κακήν τε καὶ πονηρὰν ἐμπέσηι,/χειμάζεθ’ ἅπαντα διὰ τέλους τε τὸν βίον, Vita Eur. II (TrGF V 1, A IB) iv 1–2, Satyr. Vita Eur. F6, fr. 39, coll. x Schorn, Aul. Gel. N.A. 15.20.6, Sud. ε 3695 (Adler). On Euripides’ reputation as a misogynist resulting from Aristophanes’ comic distortion see Assael (1985) 91–6, Loraux (1993) 235–42, Finnegan (1995) 54–65, Rosen (2006b) 44–5 and n. 21, Maggio (2023) 123. On the anecdotological nature of ancient poets’ biographies see Fairweather (1974) 232–66, Lefkowitz (1978) 464–7, 469 and (20122) 2–5, esp. 96–7, 101, Roselli (2005) 2–7, Knöbl (2008) 31–6, 280–3, 294, 301–2 and n. 80, Hanink (2014) 168. 4–6 An articulate antithesis arising from the juxtaposition of powerful verbs (στυγεῖ - ἠγάπα). On the one hand Euripides is presented as a woman-hater and on the other as a propagator of parasitism. Euripides’ fondness of parasites is nowhere else attested. The poet’s association with this character type in the present fragment may have emerged from a combination of factors. There seem to have been certain jokes circulating in comedy, as, for instance, that preserved in Theopomp. fr. 35 (Odysseus), which asserts that Euripides’ best line describes as happiness dining on others’ food: Εὐριπίδου τἄρ’ ἐστὶν οὐ κακῶς ἔχον,/τἀλλότρια δειπνεῖν τὸν καλῶς εὐδαίμονα (cf. Knöbl 2008, 59, Pérez Asensio 1999, 370, Farmer 2022, 123–4). This is in line with several Euripidean fragments that comment on the necessity of filling one’s gastēr (a distinctive feature of parasitism), as that cited in Diph. fr. 60.2–3 (Parasitos); for further parallels and discussion see note ad loc. Another interpretation has been offered by Hanink (2014, 168–70), who aptly notes the Lucianic passage that presents Euripides as a parasite upon his patron, king Archelaus of Macedon, and might originate in an anecdotological tradition (Par. 35: Εὐριπίδης μὲν γὰρ ὅτι ’Αρχελάῳ μέχρι μὲν τοῦ θανάτου παρεσίτει, cf. Nesselrath 1985, 386). Cf. [Eur.] Ep. 5.1 (the epistle’s author impersonating Euripides is complaining that Archelaus feasts him more lavishly than he would like; see Hanink 2010a, 554–5): ὅτι εἱστία (scil. ’Αρχέλαος) με λαμπρότερον ἢ ἐμοὶ φίλον ἦν ἑκάστης ἡμέρας. On the lavish banquets offered to Euripides by Archelaus see also Ael. VH 13.4. Knöbl (2008, 59), on the other hand, suggested that Euripides’ association with parasitism may be related to the biographical tradition presenting him as dependent on the help of others (e.g. Socrates) in the making of his plays; this interpretation, nonetheless, does not involve the key feature of parasitism, which is the need for sustenance. 6 γέ τοι A colloquialism conveying vividness; it tends to be employed when one needs to provide a reason for accepting a suggestion or an idea (see Denniston GP 550, Collard/Stevens 2018, 150). It is common in comedy, especially

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 74)

137

Aristophanes (Eq. 787, Nu. 878, Th. 775, Ec. 76, Pl. 147, 424, 1041); cf. also Antiph. fr. 218 (Philoctetes) with Olson (2021) 115. It similarly occurs at the end of the trimeter in Ar. V. 934: ὦ ’λεκτρυών; νὴ τὸν Δί’ ἐπιμύει γέ τοι, 1146–7: αὕτη γέ τοι/ ἐρίων τάλαντον καταπέπωκε ῥᾳδίως (both passages are cited in PCG V ad loc.), Pax 821–2: ἔμοιγέ τοι/ἀπὸ τοὐρανοῦ ’φαίνεσθε κακοήθεις πάνυ, Av. 308–9: oἴμοι, κεχήνασίν γέ τοι/καὶ βλέπουσιν εἰς σὲ κἀμέ. 7–9 To enhance his argument, the parasite employs a pastiche of Euripidean verses. Line 7 derives from fr. 187.1 (Antiope), which is spoken by Zethus urging Amphion to forsake music, in order to ensure the good management of his oikos, including his daily subsistence (to judge from fr. 188 K., which similarly belongs to Zethus’ argumentation; cf. Collard/Cropp/Gibert 2004, 302–4). This idea is comically equivalent to the parasite’s preoccupation with meeting his needs for alimentation. Line 9 comes from IT 535 and involves a powerful curse delivered by Iphigenia against Odysseus, whom she regards as responsible for her near sacrifice at Aulis. However, l. 8, which encapsulates the speaker’s point, is clearly not Euripidean, to judge from the reference to ἀσύμβολος, which is strikingly non-tragic (see below, 8n.). The insertion of the contrived line into this tragic pastiche generates a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke (on this technique see above fr. 60.12n.) arising from the unexpected incongruity between the tragic style of ll. 7 and 9 and the comic theme of feeding parasites in l. 8. In a metatheatrical manner the parasite thus appeals to the authority of the tragic forerunner, whilst adapting the quotation to serve his own purpose. Comically ‘revised’ quotations are employed in Men. Sam. 326 (cf. Sommerstein 2013, ad loc.), Sik. 182, Aspis 424–5, 432, Philem. fr. 82 (Stratiōtēs). Cf. esp. Katsouris (1975b) 131–4, Hunter (1985) 135–6, Pérez Asensio (1999) 371–2, Hanink (2010b) 43–5, Scafuro (2014) 214, Farmer (2017) 62. 7 εὖ βίον κεκτημένος Cf. Ar. Pl. 755: οὐκ ἐκ δικαίου τὸν βίον κεκτημένοι, Eur. HF 1302: βίον γ’ ἀχρεῖον ἀνόσιον κεκτημένοι, fr. 198 K. (Antiope): εἰ δ’εὐτυχῶν τις καὶ βίον κεκτημένος. 8 ἀσυμβόλους LSJ9: ‘not contributing (to a feast)’. Δεῖπνα ἀπὸ συμβολῶν were feasts organized by an individual on behalf of a group, whose members were expected to pay their shares for the meal’s expenses; such dinner-parties seem to have been quite popular among Athenian bachelors. On this dining practice see Mau (1901a) 1202, Müri (1931) 1090, Gow (1965) on Mach. fr. 5.44–5 and fr. 16.315, Arnott (1996) intr. to Alex. fr. 15 (Apeglaukōmenos), Belardinelli (1998) 280, Olson (2002) 361. Conversely, ἀσύμβολος is the person participating in a dinner-party without contributing; the term is most frequently employed in comedy to describe parasites. See Phryn. fr. 60 (Tragōidoi ē Apeleutheroi) with Stama (2014) 294: ἡδὺ δ’ ἀποτηγανίζειν ἄνευ συμβολῶν, Timocl. fr. 8.10 (Drakontion): δείπνων ἡδοναῖς ἀσυμβόλοις and 18–19 (with Apostolakis 2019, 87), fr. 10.4 (Epistolai), Alex. fr. 259.2 (Phygas) with Arnott (1996) ad loc., Eub. fr. 20 (Daidalos), fr. 72.3–5 (Oedipus), Anaxandr. fr. 10 (Gerontomania), fr. 34.18 (Odysseus), Dromon fr. 1–2 (Psaltria): ὑπερῃσχυνόμην/μέλλων ἀσύμβολος πάλιν δειπνεῖν, Nicol. Com. fr. inc. 1.15–16: τοὺς ἀσυμβόλους/τἀλλότρια δειπνεῖν ἑλομένους ἄνευ πόνου, Amph. fr.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

138

Diphilus

inc. 39, Ephipp. fr. 20.3 (from Sapphō; dining without contribution being suggestive of offering erotic services in return, cf. Papachrysostomou 2021, 199–200), Diod. Com. fr. 2.13 (Epiklēros), Ter. Phorm. 339. Cf. also Luc. Dial. Meretr. 12.1. On ἀσυμβόλους τρέφειν cf. esp. Men. Sam. 603: ὃν τρέφουσ’ ἀσύμβολον. 9 A stereotyped formula of cursing (ὅστις... ὄλοιτο...); see Eur. Hipp. 407–9 (with Barrett 1964, ad loc.): ὡς ὄλοιτο παγκάκως/ἥτις πρὸς ἄνδρας ἤρξατ’ αἰσχύνειν λέχη/πρώτη θυραίους, Ion 702–8 (and Martin 2018, 321): μέλεος, ὃς θυραῖος ἐλθὼν δόμους/μέγαν ἐς ὄλβον οὐκ ἴσωσεν τύχας./ ὄλοιτ’ ὄλοιτο πότνιαν ἐξαπαφὼν ἐμάν,/καὶ θεοῖσιν μὴ τύχοι/καλλίφλογα πελανὸν ἐπὶ πυρὶ καθαγνίσας. On this curse cf. also Aesch. fr. 47a.800 R. (Diktyoulkoi), Eur. Hel. 162–3: κακῶς ὄλοιτο μηδ’ ἐπ’ Εὐρώτα ῥοὰς/ἔλθοι, 1215, Ph. 350, [Eur.] Rh. 720, 906–7. See especially the parasite’s curse in Eub. fr. 72.3–5 (Oedipus): ὅστις δ’ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἢ φίλον τιν’ ἢ ξένον/καλέσας ἔπειτα συμβολὰς ἐπράξατο,/φυγὰς γένοιτο μηδὲν οἴκοθεν λαβών. Cf. Hunter (1983, 162) pointing out that the phrasing imitates public curses (similarly introduced by ὅστις clauses), such as those of Teos (ML 30). These public imprecations were pronounced by the magistrates against those who endangered the prosperity of the community (see Tod GHI 29, no. 23). Hence, this is a case of comic exaggeration, in that the parasite of this fragment delivers the curse not against those undermining collective prosperity but his own personal benefit. Cf. also the parasite’s curse in Diph. fr. 62 (Parasitos). νόστου τυχών A distinctively poetic periphrasis, mostly employed by Euripides, who is the author of the present line. Cf. Eur. Hec. 541: νόστου τυχόντας πάντας ἐς πάτραν μολεῖν, IT 1003: σὺ δ’ ἂν τὸ σαυτοῦ θέμενος εὖ νόστου τύχοις, IA 1603, also Pi. P. 1.35: καὶ τελευτᾷ φερτέρου νόστου τυχεῖν. 10–11 The parasite has twisted the Euripidean lines to serve his own purpose. But his attempt to pose as a connoisseur of tragic poetry backfires, humorously revealing his superficial knowledge. On comic characters’ pseudo-literary appeal to tragic lines see similarly Antiph. fr. 205.4–10 (Traumatias) with Olson (2021) 61–2: παραδίδου δ’ ἑξῆς ἐμοὶ/τὸν ἀρκεσίγυιον, ὡς ἔφασκ’ Εὐριπίδης./Α. Εὐριπίδης γὰρ τοῦτ’ ἔφασκεν; Β. ἀλλὰ τίς;/Α. Φιλόξενος δήπουθεν. Β. οὐθὲν διαφέρει,/ὦ τᾶν· ἐλέγχεις μ’ ἕνεκα συλλαβῆς μιᾶς. As in the Diphilan passage, the interlocutor is challenging the accuracy of the other speaker’s quotation, thus disclosing the latter’s feigned erudition. Likewise, Antiph. fr. 1 (Agroikos) features a boastful cook’s literary pretensions (see Konstantakos 2004, 29): καὶ πρῶτα μὲν/ αἴρω ποθεινὴν μᾶζαν, ἣν φερέσβιος/Δηὼ βροτοῖσι χάρμα δωρεῖται φίλον·/ἔπειτα πνικτὰ τακερὰ μηκάδων μέλη,/χλόην καταμπέχοντα, σάρκα νεογενῆ./Β. τί λέγεις; Α. τραγῳδίαν περαίνω Σοφοκλέους. In all these cases the tragic quotations are banalized, being transplanted into everyday (e.g. gastronomic) contexts. At the same time, the misappropriation of the tragic sources does not concern the poet cited, but the character quoting, thus being suggestive of his ridiculous pretensions. For further discussion about the pseudo-literary appropriation of the tragic canon in fourth-century comedy see Slater (1985) 103–5, Nesselrath (1990) 246–8, Amouroux (1999) 109–10, Wright (2013) 616–7, Hanink (2014) 171–6, Farmer

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 74)

139

(2017) 62, n. 125. On tragic, especially Euripidean quotations in middle and new comedy see further above, fr. 60.1–3n. (Parasitos). 10 The courtesan challenges the parasite’s pseudo-literary pastiche and wants to know the exact source of the quoted lines. This reaction is consistent with the tendency of hetairai to display witticism by means of quips, sophisticated rejoinders, literary allusions and double entendres; see Ath. 13.583F: καὶ ἄλλαι δὲ ἑταῖραι μέγα ἐφρόνουν ἐφ’ αὑταῖς, παιδείας ἀντεχόμεναι καὶ τοῖς μαθήμασι χρόνον ἀπομερίζουσαι· διόπερ καὶ εὔθικτοι πρὸς τὰς ἀπαντήσεις ἦσαν. The type of the adept and sophisticated courtesan is often perceived as a purveyor of literary culture; on their tragic rejoinders and allusions see Anaxil. fr. 22.22–6 (Neottis), Mach. fr. 12.168–73, fr. 15.226–30, fr. 17.376–86, fr. 18.405–10 G., Ath. 13.584D. Likewise, Philaenium in Plaut. Asin. 525 delivers dicta docta. Moreover, the interaction between the courtesan and the parasite is suggestive of the status of both as sympotic performers and imbues the subversive comic discourse with elements of social and literary parody. Altercations and lively rejoinders between courtesans and other lowly characters, such as parasites and craftsmen, are common; see Mach. fr. 15.218–25, 231–51, 252–7, fr. 16.285–94, fr. 16.300–32, fr. 17.333–75, 387–401, fr. 18.411–21 G., Philippid. fr. 5 (Ananeousa), Ath. 4.157AB, 13.577D-585F, Alciphr. 4.13.2–3. Cf. Hawley (1993) esp. 77, McClure (2003a) 79–100 and (2003b) 267–87, Konstantakos (2006) 150–8. πρὸς θεῶν When it is included in questions, it tends to express surprise or urgency; cf. Ar. Eq. 1390, Nu. 200, 481, V. 1218: πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, ἐνύπνιον ἑστιώμεθα; Av. 69: ἀτὰρ σὺ τί θηρίον ποτ’ εἶ, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν; 996–7: πρὸς τῶν θεῶν,/σὺ δ’ εἶ τίς ἀνδρῶν; Th. 172 (with Austin/Olson 2004, ad loc.), Pl. 842, 1176, Strattis fr. inc. 63.1: γαλῆν ὁρῶ. Β. ποῖ, πρὸς θεῶν, ποῖ ποῖ γαλῆν; Alex. fr. inc. 266.6 (and Arnott 1996, 242), Aristophon fr. 9.1 (Pythagoristēs), Damox. fr.1.2 (Hauton Penthōn): τί δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πρὸς θεῶν; Apollod. Car. fr. 5.3 (Grammateidiopoios). In Antiph. fr. 57.12–3 ([Aphroditēs Gonai]: ἔσται πάνυ πολύς. Β. πρὸς θεῶν, τῷ κοττάβῳ/ πρόσεστι καὶ μάνης τις ὥσπερ οἰκέτης;) it occurs at the same position of the trimeter as in the present line. It is also employed in entreaties (Ar. Ach. 95, Nu. 1103, V. 484, Lys. 850, Men. Dysc. 956); see Barrett (1964) on Eur. Hipp. 219 and Olson (2002) 103. τί δέ σοι μέλει; It often follows a question that expresses surprise, as in the present case. Cf. similarly Men. Phasma 28: τί δ’ ἐμοὶ μέλει τοῦτο; adesp. com. fr. 1062: ‘τί οὖν ἐμοὶ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ σ[ῶν μέ]λει;’ φαίη τις ἂν/ὑμῶν, as well as Ar. Th. 228 (with Austin/Olson 2004, 129): ὀλίγον μέλει μοι, Lys. 248, Ra. 655 (regularly employed by Aristophanes to convey ostentatious indifference to a question or warning). This expression also occurs without a preceding question but in a similar sense in Men. Epit. 226 (involving a strong dramatic irony; cf. Furley 2009, ad loc.): τί οὖν ἐμοὶ μέλει; Georg. 33–4: τί δ’ ἡμῖν, εἰπέ μοι,/〈τούτου〉 μέλει; καλόν γ’ ἂν εἴη, νὴ Δία. Kassel and Austin ad loc. aptly draw a parallel with Diph. fr. 31.18 (Emporos): ἀλλὰ δὴ τί τοῦτ’ ἐμοί; and Plaut. Rud. 178 (with Marx 1928, ad loc.): quid id refert tua? The parasite is annoyed by the courtesan’s question, which discredits his literary

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

140

Diphilus

pretensions. He has adopted the tragic quotations to his own ends; in turn, his purpose is to make clear his point about the necessity of feeding a parasite and not to clarify the provenance of the quotation. 11 τὸν δὲ νοῦν ‘sense, meaning’ (LSJ9 s.v. νόος III); for this particular sense cf. Ar. Ra. 580: οἶδ’ οἶδα τὸν νοῦν· παῦε παῦε τοῦ λόγου, 1439: νοῦν δ’ ἔχει τίνα; Pl. 1080. σκοπούμεθα ‘to look into, consider, examine’, involving a deliberate consideration (LSJ9 s.v. II); cf. adesp. com. fr. 890.1–2: περὶ μεγάλων 〈 x 〉 πραγμάτων σκοπουμένοις/εὐνουστάτη σύμβουλος ἡ παρρησία, Eur. fr. 262.1 K. (Archelaus): πάλαι σκοποῦμαι τὰς τύχας τῶν βροτῶν, Pl. Lg. 627d, Arist. MM 1.34.7: τἀληθὲς ὡς ἔχει σκοπούμεθα, Isoc. 6.18, X. Mem. 2.5.2.

fr. 75 K.-A. (74 K.) (Α.) ὀργίζεται; παράσιτος ὢν ὀργίζεται; (Β.) οὐκ ἀλλ’ ἀλείψας τὴν τράπεζαν τῇ χολῇ ὥσπερ τὰ παιδί’ αὑτὸν ἀπογαλακτιεῖ 3 αὑτὸν Grotius: αὐτὸν ACE

ἀπογαλακτιεῖ AC: -ϊει Ε: -ίζει Eust.

(Α.) He is angry? Albeit a parasite he is angry? (Β.) Not at all, but he has anointed the table with bile and will wean himself just like children Ath. 6.247C (post fr. 74) ἐν δὲ τῇ διασκευῇ αὐτοῦ τοῦ (τοῦ αὐτοῦ Schweighäuser, τούτου τοῦ Meineke) δράματος περὶ ὀργιζομένου παρασίτου λέγων φησίν (ὁ αὐτὸς Δίφ. ἀλλαχοῦ περὶ παρασίτου φησίν CE)· ὀργίζεται — ἀπογαλακτιεῖ (defic. CE). καὶ ἑξῆς· (fr. 76) And in the revised version of thise play referring to an angry parasite he (i.e. Diphilus) says — Eust. in Od. 17.484 (ΙΙ 157.38–40 Stallbaum) Διφίλου τοῦ κωμικοῦ τὸ ἀλλ’ ἀλείψας τῇ χολῇ ἀπογαλακτίζει τὸν δεῖνα ὥσπερ τὰ παιδία The passage of Diphilus the comic poet saying that by applying bile he is weaning someone just like children.

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. l l k l k kk k | l l l k l 2. l l k l l | l k l l l k l 3. l l k l k | l k kk k l k l

(hephthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura) (penthemimeral caesura)

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 75)

141

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) III 460–1; Meineke (1839–57) IV 412; Ribbeck (1883) 27; Kock (1880–88) II 566; Marigo (1907) 432–3; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 136–7; PCG V 97–8; Pérez Asensio (1999) 373–5; Wilkins (2000a) 78–9 and n. 112; Rusten (2011) 670 and n. 8; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 271 Citation Context This quotation is preserved in the section on parasites (234D – 248C) of the sixth book of Deipnosophistai. It follows the citation of fr. 74 and precedes that of fr. 76 of this play and of fr. 63 (Parasitos). All these quotations delineate distinctive aspects of parasites’ behaviour in sympotic contexts (for more detail see above, fr. 63: Citation Context). Athenaeus mentions that this fragment, including the ensuing fr. 76, comes from the revised version (διασκευή) of Synōris, according to his tendency towards reporting whether he draws on the first or second version of a play. Cf. e.g. 10.429E and 14.663C with regard to his citation of the διασκευαί of Alexis’ Phrygios and Dēmētrios respectively. See further Jacob (2013) 63 and n. 24. Text In l. 3 Grotius’ emendation αὑτόν (Grotius 1626, 795) instead of the ms. reading αὐτόν indicates that the parasite will wean himself from sympotic dining as a means of expressing his discontent. In the same line ἀπογαλακτιεῖ of A and C is clearly the correct reading as against the unmetrical ἀπογαλακτίζει of Eustathius’ paraphrase. Interpretation Athenaeus attests that this fragment, as well as the ensuing fr. 76, derive from the revised version (διασκευή) of Synōris. According to Galen (In Hp. De victu acutorum comm. 15.424 Kühn), a revision features the same outline as the earlier work and keeps most of its speeches unchanged, though some elements may have been added, omitted, or modified: 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. To specify what he means by διασκευή, Galen cites Eupolis’ second Autolycus, which has kept the title of the earlier play unchanged, like Diphilus’ Synōris. Comedy abounds in ‘double’ plays by the same poet; see Aristophanes’ Clouds, Thesmophoriazousai, Peace, Wealth and Aiolosikōn, Magnes’ Dionysus, Telecleides’ Sterroi, Archippus’ Amphitryon, Diocles’ Thyestes, Alexis’ Phryx (or Phrygios), and Menander’s Epiklēros. Cf. Arnott (1996) 720–1, Olson (1998) xlviii-li, Sommerstein (2001) 28–33, Austin/Olson (2004) lxxvii-lxxxix, Miccolis (2017) 36–7. Nonetheless, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether the second play of the same title was a revision of the earlier homonymous drama or a distinct composition (as in the case of Menander’s two Adelphoi). The effort to distinguish between a revised play and a new one bearing the same title as the earlier drama goes back

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

142

Diphilus

to as early as Eratosthenes; see Arg. Ar. Pax 2.2–4 (Holwerda): ἄδηλον οὖν, φησὶν ’Ερατοσθένης, πότερον τὴν αὐτὴν ἀνεδίδαξεν ἢ ἑτέραν καθῆκεν ἥτις οὐ σῴζεται. Revising plays was quite a common practice (Ar. Nu. 546–7 with schol. vet. ad 546 Holwerda, Ath. 9.374A-B, Sud. δ 756 Adler) and was often due to the failure of the first production, as with Clouds (Arg. A6–A7 Ar. Nu. Holwerda). On the revision of comedies that have kept the same title as the earlier play, see Capovilla (1912) 364–81, Körte (1921) 1232–3, 1265–6, 1274–5, Dittmer (1923) 36–7, Emonds (1941) ch. 1 and 339–59, Pickard-Cambridge (19682) 99–101, Geissler (19692) 44, Konstantakos (2000) 11, 14–18 and (2004) esp. 13–14, Butrica (2001) 54–62, Revermann (2006) 330–1, Sommerstein (2010) 14–15 and n. 10, Marshall (2012) 66–8, Orth (2014) 36, n. 54. For reworkings of comedies under a different title, see above on Stratiōtēs: Title. These lines comprise part of a dialogue probably concerning a quarrel in which a parasite was involved (presumably a parasite equivalent to that of fr. 74 of the play’s earlier version and the same as the one of fr. 76 from its revised version). Speaker A is expressing surprise at the parasite’s angry reaction, which deviates from the cardinal rules of parasite behaviour that impose imperturbability, whilst speaker B mocks the parasite’s embitterment by jeeringly drawing a weaning metaphor to refer to the latter’s purpose of refraining from food as a sign of strong complaint. This unusual breach of the rules of parasite behaviour may be paralleled to the anger of the parasite Peniculus in Plaut. Men. 520–1 (omnes in te istaec recident contumeliae./faxo haud inultus prandium comederis). The expected imperturbability of parasites emerges from Lucil. 658 (facile deridemur. scimus capital esse irascier), which seems to include a parasite’s grievance on the mockery that these characters endure without affording to lose their temper (cited by Marx 1904–5, II 240). Cf. similarly the parasites in Antiph. fr. 80.8–10 (Didymoi): οὐ μάχιμος, οὐ πάροξυς, οὐχὶ βάσκανος,/ὀργὴν ἐνεγκεῖν ἀγαθός, Poll. 6.123 (Bethe): πᾶν ἂν εἰπὼν καὶ πᾶν ἂν παθών, Ter. Eun. 251–2: quidquid dicunt laudo; id rursum si negant, laudo id quoque;/negat quis: nego; ait: aio, Plaut. Capt. 470. For this attitude see also Arist. Rh. 1370b13–15: οὐθεὶς γὰρ ὀργίζεται τῷ ἀδυνάτῳ φαινομένῳ τιμωρίας τυχεῖν, τοῖς δὲ πολὺ ὑπὲρ αὑτοὺς τῇ δυνάμει ἢ οὐκ ὀργίζονται ἢ ἧττον, TrRF II Enn. fr. 125 Manuwald (Telephus): palam muttire plebeio piaculum est. On ἀταραξία as a distinctive feature of parasites see Nesselrath (1985) 46–9. On the parasite’s expected complaisance at dinner, cf. also above, fr. 63: Interpretation (Parasitos). 1 A case of epiphora featuring the repetition of a word (ὀργίζεται) at the end of successive clauses (on this figure cf. Lausberg 1998, 283–4). As a type of repetition epiphora contributes to the reinforcement of the passage’s key idea and relies on the equivalence of the repeated word. The double emphatic question stresses the paradox of the parasite’s anger, as well as the speaker’s surprise at this reaction. ὀργίζεται It is often employed in comedy to enhance dramatic tension. On one’s anger at being insulted see Ar. Eccl. 202–3 (and Ussher 1973, ad loc.): ἀλλ’ ὀργίζεται/Θρασύβουλος αὐτὸς οὐχὶ παρακαλούμενος, Men. fr. inc. 844.9–10: λυπούμεθ’ ἂν πτάρῃ τις· ἂν εἴπῃ κακῶς,/ὀργιζόμεθ’, fr. inc. 513: κακῶς ἀκούων

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 75)

143

ὅστις οὐκ ὀργίζεται,/πονηρίας πλείστης τεκμήριον φέρει. Cf. also Timocl. fr. 12.4 (Hērōes) with Apostolakis (2019) ad loc., Men. fr. inc. 739: (A) ἐπίσχες ὀργιζόμενος. (Β) ἀλλὰ βούλομαι./(Α) οὐδεὶς γὰρ ὀργῆς χάριν ἀπείληφεν, πάτερ, Pk. 368, Dis Ex. 99. In Mach. fr. 17.379 G. and Luc. D.Mer. 8.1.1–3 and 8.1.22 the verb is similarly employed in contexts concerning demi-monde characters. παράσιτος On this character type see above, Parasitos (Title). 2 οὐκ ἀλλ’ ‘A regular line-opening formula in corrective replies’ (Biles/ Olson 2015, 81). The conjunction of οὐκ with ἀλλά serves to correct the previous question or statement in an emphatic manner. See Ar. Ach. 108, Eq. 176, Nu. 258–9: οὔκ, ἀλλὰ πάντας ταῦτα τοὺς τελουμένους/ἡμεῖς ποιοῦμεν, V. 8–9: Ξα. ἀλλ’ ἦ παραφρονεῖς ἐτεὸν ἢ κορυβαντιᾷς;/Σω. οὔκ, ἀλλ’ ὕπνος μ’ ἔχει τις ἐκ Σαβαζίου, 250, 634, 946, Pl. 701, 866, 1035. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 375. In the present case the use of οὐκ ἀλλά does not merely correct the previous question (that is, the parasite is not just angry), but it goes one step further by introducing the bile metaphor to stress the parasite’s embitterment (see below, note on τῇ χολῇ). ἀλείψας ‘to anoint’; used of liquids and semifluid substances, especially oil or fat. The human body is anointed with (often perfumed) oil after bathing, before wrestling or at the symposia (Ar. Ach. 999, Eq. 490, V. 608 with Biles/Olson 2015, 277, Cephisod. fr. 3.1 [Trophonius], Anaxandr. fr. 41 [Protesilaus], Eub. fr. 89.5–6 [Procris] with Hunter 1983, 182, Antiph. fr. 146.6 [Malthakē], fr. 152 [Mēnagyrtēs/ Mētragyrtēs], Amph. fr. 27 [Odysseus], Ophelion fr. inc. 5; in Ar. Ec. 63 the anointed skin is regarded as a manly feature par excellence). At the same time, several items are referred to as being anointed, such as fish in a grilled fish recipe in Crates fr. 16.10 ([Thēria] with Perrone 2019, ad loc.) and material objects like walls in Amph. fr. 27 (Odysseus), statues (Artem. 2.33), rings (Thphr. Char. 21.10) and in the present case the table, whose anointment with bile, nonetheless, is metaphorical. τὴν τράπεζαν Τhe table (a low one) set with all that is necessary for the feast is a key physical detail of the symposium and a symbol of commensal fellowship (see Richter 1966, 52–72, Boardman 1990, 125, Schmitt-Pantel 1990, 17–8, 27–30, Wilkins 2000a, 35–6, 264–7, Topper 2012, esp. 17–22, 33–4, 47, Hobden 2013, 138–9); cf. Telecl. fr. 1.7 (Amphiktyones), Pherecr. fr. 73 (Koriannō), Ar. Ach. 1090–3 (and Olson 2002, 335), Pax 770 (with Olson 1999, 224), fr. 225 (Daitalēs), Pl. Com. fr. 71.2 (Lakōnes ē Poiētai), Call. Com. fr. 8 (Cyclopes), Alex. fr. 89 (Hesione): ὡς εἶδε τὴν τράπεζαν ἀνθρώπους δύο/φέροντας εἴσω ποικίλων παροψίδων/κόσμου βρύουσαν, οὐκέτ’ εἰς ἐμὲ βλέπων, fr. 176 (Pamphile), fr. inc. 263, Diod. Com. fr. 2.10–11 (Epiklēros): παρακειμένην τε τὴν τράπεζαν πάνθ’ ἃ δεῖ/ἔχουσαν, 14–15: ἐπὰν κλίνας ἴδω/ἐστρωμένας καὶ τὰς τραπέζας εὐτρεπεῖς, Ephipp. fr. 15.6 (Homoioi ē Obeliaphoroi), Eriph. fr. 6 (Peltastēs), Clearch. fr. 4.2–3 (Pandrosos), Men. Sam. 287–9, fr. 335 (Synaristōsai). In Nicol. Com. fr. inc. 1.6 Tantalus, who is perceived as the archetypal parasite, is similarly presented as leaving the table, like the parasite of the present fragment: ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης ἐξαπίνης ἀπεστράφη. τῇ χολῇ Literally: ‘bile’, ‘gall’. It is also used metaphorically in the sense of ‘bitter anger’, ‘wrath’, ‘fury’ (VdLG2: ‘rabbia’, ‘collera’); cf. Cratin. fr. 104 (Malthakoi),

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

144

Diphilus

Ar. V. 403, Pax 66 (and Olson 1999, ad loc.), Lys. 464–5, Th. 468 (with Austin/ Olson 2004, 196–7): ἐπιζεῖν τὴν χολήν, Ra. 4 (describing intense annoyance), Alex. fr. 16.12 (Apeglaukōmenos), fr. 150.5 (Manteis): πικράν γε καὶ μεστὴν γυναικείας χολῆς, Eub. fr. 93.9 (Semele ē Dionysus) with Hunter (1983) 188–9, Men. Asp. 422–3 with Gomme/Sandbach (1973) 98: χολή, λύπη τις, ἔκστασις φρενῶν,/ πνιγμός, Anaxipp. fr. 2.1–2 (Epidikazomenos). This meaning seems to derive from medical descriptions attributing uncontrolled anger or even madness to the condition of the bile (Hp. Morb. Sacr. 6.388.14–16); cf. Taillardat (19652) 269, Flashar (1966) 21–32, Simon (1978) 231–4, Walshe (2016) 29–30. See esp. Pherecr. fr. 75.5 (Koriannō): κινεῖται γὰρ εὐθύς μοι χολή, Men. Epit. 1126–7, Bato fr. inc. 7.3 conveying revulsion or disgust. The idea of revulsion is part of the practice of weaning, as the child needs to feel disgust for the unpalatable substance anointed on its mother’s nipples (see below, l. 3n.). The bile imagery activates here an effective double entendre. On the one hand, it underscores the extent of the parasite’s wrath, whilst on the other it adheres to the weaning metaphor in l. 3. Likewise, in Nicol. Com. fr. inc. 1.38–9 (σιωπῇ τοῦτον ὑπομυκτηρίσας/εἰς τὴν τράπεζαν καὶ σὺ τὴν χολὴν ἄφες) the character’s anger is expressed through bile imagery and in a sympotic context. 3 ὥσπερ τὰ παιδί’ A simile drawn between the parasite’s refusal to dine and child-weaning. Comedy displays a vivid interest in child behaviour, play and education (see esp. Golden 20152, 5, Griffiths 2020, 261–2). For similes deriving from child behaviour cf. e.g. Pl. Euthd. 291b: ἀλλ’ ἦμεν πάνυ γελοῖοι· ὥσπερ τὰ παιδία τὰ τοὺς κορύδους διώκοντα, ἀεὶ ᾠόμεθα ἑκάστην τῶν ἐπιστημῶν αὐτίκα λήψεσθαι, αἱ δ’ ἀεὶ ὑπεξέφευγον, Luc. Philops. 28: εἰς τὰς πυγὰς ὥσπερ τὰ παιδία παίεσθαι. Cf. also Ar. Rh. 1407a2–4: καὶ ἡ Περικλέους εἰς Σαμίους, ἐοικέναι αὐτοὺς τοῖς παιδίοις ἃ τὸν ψωμὸν δέχεται μέν, κλαίοντα δέ. Ar. Av. 1149–51 (ἄνω δὲ τὸν ὑπαγωγέα/ἐπέτοντ’ ἔχουσαι κατόπιν ὥσπερ παιδία,/τὸν πηλὸν ἐν τοῖς στόμασιν αἱ χελιδόνες) is an obscure passage and thus not a safe parallel (for more detail see Dunbar 1995, 604–5). Apart from the key idea of weaning (see below, note on ἀπογαλακτιεῖ), the child imagery seems to be employed here in a pejorative sense, in that the reference to child behaviour could be suggestive of the parasite’s lack of seriousness and sound judgment. On the immaturity, lack of practical wisdom and mindlessness attributed to children see [Aesch.] PV 986–7, Soph. OT 1511–2, Pl. R. 441a7–b1, Lg. 808d3–e4, Arist. EN 1111b8, Phys. 247b19, X. Cyr. 1.3.10; cf. Sifakis (1979) 72–3, Golden (20152) 2–6. ἀπογαλακτιεῖ ‘to wean from the mother’s milk’; cf. Arist. GA 788b23–4, Hp. Dent. 16.1, Sor. 2.47.2: τὸ γὰρ πικροῖς τισι καὶ δυσώδεσι περιχρίειν τὰς θηλὰς καὶ ἀθρόως ἀπογαλακτίζειν αὐτὸ βλαβερὸν διὰ τὸ τὸν ἐν τῇ ἀθρόᾳ μεταβολῇ ξενισμὸν ἐμποιεῖν καὶ διὰ τὸ κακούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν φαρμάκων τὸν στόμαχόν ποτε πάσχειν. The weaning metaphor of this passage was elucidated by Kock (1880–88) II 566: ‘nutrices ut infantes ablactent mammas felle inungunt; ita parasitus bile

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 76)

145

in mensam hospitalem effusa se ipse a convivio excludet’. Cf. also Schweighäuser (1801–5) III 460–1 and Rusten (2011) 670, n. 8. As mothers or nurses apply a bitter substance on their nipples to wean children, the parasite is so embittered that he is perceived as applying bile on the dining table, in order to be repulsed by food and thus not to return to the host’s feast. The use of χολή is particularly suitable and effective, as it denotes both ‘bile’ and ‘wrath’ (see above, l. 2n.), thus providing a literal and a metaphorical reading of this passage. The paradox emerges from the parasite’s surprising refusal to eat.

fr. 76 K.-A. (75 K.) τότε φάγοις, παράσιθ’. (Β.) ὅρα ὡς διασέσυρκε τὴν τέχνην. οὐκ οἶσθ’ ὅτι μετὰ τὸν κιθαρῳδὸν ὁ παράσιτος κρίνεται; 1 personas dist. Jacobs

η 2 διασέσύρεκε Α: corr. B

(A.) Then you may eat, parasite. (B.) See how he has disparaged my art! Don’t you know that after the citharode it is the parasite who is deemed worthy of awards? Ath. 6.247D (post fr. 75) καὶ ἑξῆς· τότε — κρίνεται. sequitur fr. 63. And then: —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. 〈xl k l x〉 | kk k l k kk k – (penthemimeral caesura) 2. l kk k l k | l k l l l k l (penthemimeral caesura) 3. kk l k l l kk| k kk l l k l (medial caesura) Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) III 461; Meineke (1839–57) IV 412; Kock (1880–88) II 566; Marigo (1907) 432–3; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 136–7; PCG V 98; Pérez Asensio (1999) 376–8; Rusten (2011) 671; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/ Montañés (2014) 271 Citation Context These lines are quoted in the section on parasites (234D–248C) of the sixth book of Deipnosophistai. The quotation follows fr. 75 and precedes fr. 63 (Parasitos). All three fragments concern the attitude of parasites in feasts (for more detail see fr. 63: Citation Context). Athenaeus’ καὶ ἑξῆς (denoting ‘thereafter’, ‘next’) suggests that the present fragment comes from the revised version of Synōris, as fr. 75, and that it was located in Diphilus’ play after the quotation of fr.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

146

Diphilus

75. It is for this reason that Kock (II 566) and Meineke (IV 412) edited frr. 75 and 76 together as a single fragment. Nonetheless, Athenaeus’ testimony as such does not entail that fr. 76 was located directly after fr. 75. Firstly, it is debatable whether Athenaeus’ literary knowledge relied on the original texts or on intermediary sources, which makes it difficult to gain insight into the exact context of the quotations. Moreover, his selection of quotations is conditioned by his own interests and the needs of his work and cannot thus be safely employed for the reconstruction of the works cited (on Athenaeus as a source for lost literature, esp. comedy, see Nesselrath 1990, 65–79, Jacob 2000, 85–110 and 2013, 60–9, Murray 2015, 34–6, Cartlidge 2019, 109). Furthermore, there is no tight coherence between frr. 75 and 76. The former comprises a dialogue between two speakers jeering at the anger of the parasite, who does not intend to return to dinner; but in the present lines someone is dictating to the parasite when to eat, which arouses the latter’s indignation (on the speakers’ identity see below, Interpretation). Hence, a reasonable way of reconciling these difficulties is to infer that at least several lines should have intervened between fr. 75 and fr. 76 (Kock and Meineke ad loc. sensibly used intervening dots between the two quotations). Both fragments are likely to derive from the same scene of the revised version of Synōris that involved the parasite’s quarrel with one or more banqueters. Interpretation Speaker A is scornfully addressing the parasite (l. 1); this arouses the exasperation of speaker B, who presents the parasite’s art as respectable and comparable to that of the citharode (ll. 1–3). On the distribution of speakers see Jacobs (1809) 153. It is reasonable to infer that speaker B, who is fervently defending the parasite’s position, could be no other than the parasite himself. The parasite’s lively rejoinder includes colloquialisms (ὅρα in l. 1), a question (ll. 2–3) and a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke (l. 3). He is boastfully drawing an agonistic metaphor between his art and the highly acclaimed and rewarded art of the citharode; this playful parallelism does not only involve a defence of the parasite’s status, but also an effort of capitalizing his services through comparison with the enormous chrematitic prizes awarded to the citharodes. 1 Speaker A’s contemptuous address to the parasite gives rise to the latter’s indignation. On the humiliation that parasites endure for a meal, see above, fr. 63 (Parasitos): Interpretation. φάγοις Naturally enough, the verb is mostly employed in comedy and usually in sympotic and culinary contexts. Cf. Chionid. fr. 5 (Ptōchoi): ἆρ’ ἂν φάγοιτ’ ἂν καὶ ταρίχους, ὦ θεοί; Pherecr. fr. 113.32 (Metallēs) with Franchini (2020) 116, Ar. Eq. 706–7, V. 510–11, Eup. fr. 274 (Taxiarchoi), Antiph. fr. 45 (Archestratē), fr. 69.6 (Boutaliōn): ἰχθὺν τίν’ ἡδέως φάγοις ἄν; […] 9–10: εἶτα καὶ νῦν, εἰπέ μοι,/ τούτων φάγοις ἄν; fr. 186 (Paroimiai ē Paroimiazomenos), Amph. fr. 202. (Ialemos) Axionic. fr. 4.12–3 (Phileuripides): ἔφα τις ὡς ἐν ἅλμῃ θερμῇ/τοῦτο φάγοι γ’ ἑφθὸν ἀνὴρ Μοσχίων φίλαυλος.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 76)

147

παράσιθ’ On this typical comic character see above, Parasitos: Title. ὅρα ‘Look!’, ‘See here!’; a colloquialism enhancing the expressiveness of the speaker’s feelings. To convey this sense the verb is always employed in the imperative and is often followed by a dependent clause introduced with ὅπως, ὡς or μή (this particular construction bears the meaning of ‘beware’). For this structure (ὅρα ὡς...) cf. similarly Ar. V. 799: ὅρα τὸ χρῆμα, τὰ λόγι’ ὡς περαίνεται, Av. 651: ὅρα νῦν, ὡς ἐν Αἰσώπου λόγοις ἐστὶν λεγόμενον δή τι, Lys. 1020: ὅρα γὰρ ὡς καταγέλαστος εἶ. For this colloquial expression see Collard/Stevens (2018) 147, earlier López Eire (1996) 106. On comic colloquialisms cf. further Dover (1987) 232, Willi (2003) 175–8, 181, 233, 243, (2010) 480–8 and (2014) 172–3 and n. 6, Robson (2006) 111. 2 διασέσυρκε ‘to disparage’, ‘to ridicule’; cf. Alex. fr. 145.11 (Mandragorizomenē): τὸ δ’ ὄψον ἂν μὴ θερμὸν ᾖ διασύρομεν, fr. 239.2 (Trophōnius) with Arnott (1996) ad loc.: νῦν δ’ ἵνα μὴ παντελῶς Βοιώτιοι / φαίνησθ’ εἶναι τοῖς διασύρειν ὑμᾶς εἰθισμένοις, D.S. 9.26.5, Luc. Pisc. 27: ἢ τί γὰρ ἂν εἰπεῖν ἔχοι τὰ σεμνότατα διασύρας ἐπὶ τοσούτων μαρτύρων; Plu. Mor. 57C. Its sense as ‘ridicule’ permeates the ancient hypomnēmata on Aristophanes: schol. vet. Ach. 342, 443 (Wilson), schol. vet. Eq. 680c (Mervyn Jones), schol. vet. Nu. 31c, 145b (Holwerda): δῆλον δέ, ὅτι διασῦραι βουλόμενος τὰ τῶν φιλοσόφων ζητήματα ὡς ἰσχνὰ καὶ λόγου μηδαμῶς ἐχόμενα, schol. vet. Av. 15 (Holwerda). The term is also typical of Demosthenes’ invective against Aeschines: see Wankel (1976) on D. 18.27 and Yunis (2001) 22–3. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 377. τὴν τέχνην The parasite is self-importantly eulogizing his own art, which he presents as dignified and respectable, deemed second only to that of the citharode. The honourable status that the parasite expects to enjoy is similarly brought forward in Diod. Com. fr. 2.1–6 (Epiklēros), where it is argued that the parasite – presented as a profiteer in comedy – is sanctioned by his sacred forerunner: βούλομαι δεῖξαι σαφῶς/ὡς σεμνόν ἐστι τοῦτο καὶ νενομισμένον/καὶ τῶν θεῶν εὕρημα, τὰς δ’ ἄλλας τέχνας/οὐδεὶς θεῶν κατέδειξεν, ἀλλ’ ἄνδρες σοφοί./τὸ γὰρ παρασιτεῖν εὗρεν ὁ Ζεὺς ὁ φίλιος,/ὁ τῶν θεῶν μέγιστος ὁμολογουμένως (cf. Zaidman 1995, 201–2, Belardinelli 1998, 272–3 and for the earlier use of the term παράσιτος to describe a priestly dignitary entitled to a free meal see above, Parasitos: Title). On the praise of the parasitic art see also Antid. fr. 2.2–5 (Prōtochoros): περὶ τοῦ παρασιτεῖν εἴ τις ἐμπέσοι λόγος,/τὸ τεχνίον ἀεὶ τοῦτό μοι κατεπίνετο,/καὶ παιδομαθὴς πρὸς αὐτὸ τὴν διάνοιαν ἦν. Likewise, in Timocl. fr. 8 (Drakontion) the speaker protests against the disparagement of parasites, advertising their occupation as most useful and honourable; see esp. fr. 8.1–3 (and Apostolakis 2019, 83–4): ἔπειτ’ ἐγὼ παράσιτον ἐπιτρέψω τινὶ/κακῶς λέγειν; ἥκιστά γ’· οὐδέν ἐστι γὰρ/ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις χρησιμώτερον γένος. Lucian’s Parasite features a thorough defence of the parasite’s art, playfully subverting the age-long war between rhetoric and philosophy by presenting the parasitic art as liable to rival and even supersede these well-established disciplines; see esp. Nesselrath (1985) 22–36, 123–239.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

148

Diphilus

Parasites had to exert themselves to retain their place at the feast and to capitalize the entertainment that they offered. Their ‘professionalism’ also emerges from passages that include self-references describing their skills and ‘technique’; see Eup. fr. 172.1–2 (Kolakes): ἀλλὰ δίαιταν ἣν ἔχουσ’οἱ κόλακες πρὸς ὑμᾶς/λέξομεν, fr. 173, Alex. fr. 121 (Kybernētēs): τούτων ἑκατέρου τῶν γενῶν ὁ μὲν τύπος/τῆς ἐργασίας εἷς ἐστι, κολακείας ἀγών, Antiph. fr. 142.6–7 (Lēmniai): ἡμῖν δὲ μετὰ γέλωτος ὁ βίος καὶ τρυφῆς·/οὗ γὰρ τὸ μέγιστον ἔργον ἐστὶ παιδιά, fr. 193.1 (Progonoi): τὸν τρόπον μὲν οἶσθά μου/ὅτι τῦφος οὐκ ἔνεστιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς φίλοις/τοιουτοσί τίς εἰμι, Aristophon fr. 5.1 (Iatros) with Papachrysostomou (2008) 104–5: βούλομαι δ’ αὐτῷ προειπεῖν οἷός εἰμι τοὺς τρόπους, Axionic. fr. 6.16 (Chalkidikos): τοιοῦτος ὁ τρόπος ἐστὶν ἡ φύσις τέ μου, Men. Dysc. 57–68, Plaut. Capt. 75–87, Men. 78–105, Per. 53–64, Stich. 174–92, Ter. Eun. 232–64. Cf. on the other hand the criticism of the parasite’s art in Nicol. Com. fr. inc. 1 and its predicaments in Plaut. Capt. 469 (ilicet parasiticae arti maximam malam crucem). The bragging parasite shares features with the boastful cook, in that they both eulogize their arts, which translate ‘bodily needs for material fuel into social and sympotic discourse’ (see Wilkins 2000a, 84). On the self-eulogy of parasites see Ribbeck (1883) 61–7, Giese (1908) 24–30, Nesselrath (1985) 54–5, 62–3, 164–239 and (1990) 311–4, Guastella (1988) 82–7, Damon (1997) 29–33. For more detail on their self-presentation, see Parasitos fr. 61: Interpretation. 3 μετὰ τὸν κιθαρῳδόν ‘a singer to the cithara’. Τhe cithara (‘box lyre’) had a more substantial sound-chest than ‘bowl lyres’ (lyra and barbitos) and produced, in turn, a more powerful sound, being more elaborately crafted and more expensive. It was a professional virtuoso’s instrument, requiring skill and masterly technique. Aristotle in Pol. 1341a18–19 describes it as an ὄργανον τεχνικόν (cf. Tib. 2.5.3, Plu. Mor. 827B, Quint. Inst. 1.12.3, Aristaen. Epist. 2.5.1–2; see Power 2010, §15–16). The cithara accompanied epic recitations and lyric songs, as well as being played in public performances and musical contests, among which the most prestigious were the Pythian, Carneian and Panathenaic contests of citharodes. The art of the citharode involved the unified combination of vocal and instrumental music and enjoyed the greatest prestige of all solo performance genres. The performer’s high status emerged also in visual terms by means of his costume ensemble, which included his crown or wreath, his splendid attire, and the elaborate cithara accessories. The archetypal citharode was Apollo (h.Hom.Ap. 201–3; for dramatic evidence see Ar. Th. 122–8, Eur. Alc. 583–4, HF 349–50, Ion 881–2, 905, IT 1234–7 and for more detail cf. Power 2010, §4); famous citharodes included Arion, Terpander and Phrynis of Lesbos, Timotheus of Miletus and Nicocles of Tarentum, to mention but a few (for further evidence see Aspiotes 2006, 433–7 listing 256 names of citharodes). On the pre-eminence of the citharode’s prestige, see West (1992) 49–56, 329–30, 338–9, 347–8, Anderson (1994) 161–2, 193, Matthiessen (1999) 258–70, Wilson (2004) 281–5, Bundrick (2005) 172–4, Power (2010) §4, §15–16 and (2020) 194–6, LeVen (2014) 23–30.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 76)

149

Comic references to citharodes are often placed in sympotic contexts; see Ar. Nu. 1357 (and Dover 1968, ad loc.), Pl. Com. fr. 10 (Hai aph’ hierōn) with Pirrotta (2009) 78: δότω τὴν κιθάραν τις ἔνδοθεν/καὶ τοὐπιπόρπαμα, Anaxil. fr. 15 (Lyropoios): ἐγὼ δὲ βαρβίτους, τριχόρδους, πηκτίδας,/κιθάρας, λύρας, σκινδαψὸν ἐξηρτυόμαν, Antiph. fr. 139 (Leukadios): ἐνταῦθ’ ἀναρίστητος εὐθὺς κιθαριεῖ, Anaxandr. fr. 42.17–9 (Protesilaus) with Millis (2015) 215; cf. also Phryn. fr. 2 (Ephialtēs) with Stama (2014) 62–3. The comic popularity of the citharode and his art also emerges from a considerable number of plays entitled Κιθαρῳδός; apart from Diphilus’ comedy of this title (on which see Pérez Asensio 1999, 250–3), homonymous plays were produced by Alexis (see Arnott 1996, 291–2), Antiphanes, Sophilus, Clearchus, Theophilus, Apollodorus, Anaxippus and Nicon. Notably, the correspondence that the parasite purports to bear to the citharode is not limited to the playful parallelism of their arts (on the parasite’s art see the previous note), but also encompasses the commodification of their occupations. Closely adhering to their prestige and rich attire is the fact that citharodes earned great chrematitic prizes in musical contests (for more detail see below, note on κρίνεται), whilst parasites similarly benefitted in material terms from the services that they offered. The phrase μετὰ τὸν κιθαρῳδόν forms a humorous reworking of the expression μετὰ Λέσβιον ᾠδόν (‘after the Lesbian singer’) attested in Cratin. fr. 263 (Cheirōnes) with PCG V ad loc. The latter is a proverb applied to those who take second place behind an undisputed master (Zenob. vulg. 5.9: παροιμία ταττομένη ἐπὶ τοῖς τὰ δεύτερα φερομένοις). It originated in the privilege granted to prestigious Lesbian citharodes, according to which they would sing first at the Carneian musical contests. Aristotle (fr. 545 R.3) interpreted it as referring to Terpander, the most acclaimed citharode of his time. See Gostoli (1990) 40–4, 122–3, West (1992) 347–8, Power (2010) 150. Given the proverbial character of this expression, its playful modification by the speaker generates a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke (for more detail on this comic technique see above, fr. 60.12n.). κρίνεται An agonistic metaphor; cf. Pi. N. 7.7: ἀρετᾷ κριθείς, Ι. 5.11: κρίνεται δ’ ἀλκὰ διὰ δαίμονας ἀνδρῶν, Bacch. Ep. 7.6–7, 11.6–7. Citharodes were professionals who participated in chrematitic contests and received considerable prizes in cash and valuables, far out-earning their fellow musicians. For instance, as recorded in the fourth-century prize inscription IG II2 2311, the awards for the citharodes of a Panathenaic competition were enormous. On these high chrematitic prizes for citharodes see Davison (1958) 37–8, Kotsidu (1991) esp. 100–1, Slater (2007) 38–40, Power (2010) §3.1–3.2 and (2020) 189–91, Perrot (2020) 90–2, 97–8. In the Hellenistic age musical contests expanded even further, capitalizing on the popularity of musical festivals. The agonistic qualities of citharodes also emerge from iconographic evidence, in which they tend to be represented in the company of judges (see Matthiessen 1999, 260–1, figg. 43–4, Bundrick 2005, 18–20, 164–8). This significant investment in citharodic culture is interrelated with the commodification of musical performance. The latter feature in a way corresponds to

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

150

Diphilus

the parasite’s own status as commodity, as noted above (see previous note). But in this passage the parasite goes even further by presenting himself as worthy of distinction in a contest, in that he deems himself second after the highly renowned citharode. The parasite thus employs agonistic rhetoric to argue for the high status of his art in comparison to that of the citharode and, in turn, for the high ‘prizes’ that he deserves to be awarded for his services.

fr. 77 K.-A. (76 K.) ἕλκ’ ἐς μέσον τὸν φιμὸν ὡς ἂν ἐμβάλῃ ἕλκ’ ἐς Phot., Sud.: θές Blaydes: ἑλκἐċ Harp. epit. (D): ἕλκεις Harp. plen. μέσον τὸν Harp. epit., Phot., Sud.: με Harp. plen. ἐμβάλῃ Harp., Sud. (praeter V qui ἐμαίλη): -ῇ Phot.: -ῃς Bernhardy ad Sud. loc.cit.: -ω Blaydes

Pull the dice-box between us, so that you/he can throw Harp. s.v. φιμοί (φ 22 Keaney) φιμοί∙ Αἰσχίνης κατὰ Τιμάρχου (1.59) “καὶ φιμοὺς καὶ κυβευτικὰ ἕτερα ὄργανα.” φιμός ἐστιν ὁ καλούμενος κημός, εἰς ὃν ἐνεβάλλοντο 〈οἱ κύβοι〉 (add. Meineke, recte prob. Kassel/ Austin), καθά φασιν οἱ γλωσσογράφοι. Δίφιλος Συνωρίδι — fab. nom. om. epit., unde Phot. φ 210 (Τheodoridis) = Sud. φ 465 (Adler) Dice-boxes: Aeschines in his speech against Timarchus (1.59) ‘and dice-boxes and other dice-gaming utensils’. Dice-box is the name of the vessel where the dices were thrown, as the glossographers attest. Diphilus in Synōris —

Metre Iambic trimeter

l l k l l l k | l l l k l (hephthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 413; Kock (1880–88) II 566–7; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 136–7; PCG V 98; Pérez Asensio (1999) 378–9; Pérez Asensio/ Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 272 Citation Context This line is attested in Harpocration’s Lexicon of the ten orators probably dating to the second half of the second century AD. His main sources are Alexandrian scholarship, such as Didymus, Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus, and logographers, such as Hecataeus and Hellanicus. An epitome of his lexicon dating to the early ninth century is quoted in the lexica of Photius and the Suda. Harpocration’s lexicon is a valuable source for rhetorical language and terminology, as well as for the forensic and cultural history of Athens. For more detail see Montana LGGA s.v. ‘Valerius [3] Harpocration’, Theodoridis (1982–2012) II, xli-xlvi, Alpers (2001) 197, Dickey (2007) 94 (with further bibliography), Matthaios (2015) 284.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 77)

151

The entry φιμοί derives from an Aeschinean passage referring to dice-gaming items, such as astragaloi (‘knucklebones’, see fr. 74.1n.), dice-boxes and further utensils of this kind (1.59: πρῶτον μὲν συνέτριβον τὰ σκευάρια καὶ διερρίπτουν εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν, ἀστραγάλους τέ τινας διασείστους καὶ φιμοὺς καὶ κυβευτικὰ ἕτερα ὄργανα). Harpocration attributes the explanation of the term to the glossographers. Glōssa is a difficult or rare word in need of explanation, whether because it is poetic or obsolete or foreign or dialectal (cf. Arist. Rh. 1410b12). The glossographers mentioned in Harpocration’s lēmma are not the interpreters of Homeric glōssai strongly criticized by Aristarchus (see e.g. recently Schironi 2018, 247–52), but authors of collections of rare Attic words (on this clarification see Dyck 1987, 120–1). Glossaries concerned with dialectological matters were written by prominent Alexandrian scholars, such as Philitas of Cos (Ἄτακτοι Γλῶσσαι) and Aristophanes of Byzantium (Λέξεις). At the same time, there were several Hellenistic lexica of the Attic dialect, like those of Philemon of Aixone (Περὶ ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων ἢ γλωσσῶν), Istros of Paphos, Nicander of Thyateira, Heracleon of Ephesus, Theodorus, Demetrius Ixion, and Crates of Athens; cf. Pfeiffer (1968) 89–93, Tosi (1994) 155–62, 173–8 and (2015) 632, Spanoudakis (2002) 384–92, Dickey (2007) 92–3, 98–9 and (2015) 467–8. Given that Harpocration compiles the vocabulary of Attic oratory, it is quite reasonable that he could have drawn on compilations of Atticist words. Text In grammatical terms, the reading ἐμβάλῃ, which is attested in the manuscript tradition and has been adopted by Kassel/Austin, could be either the third-person singular of the active voice or the second-person singular of the middle voice. In the former case, one would have to presuppose that someone is being asked to bring the dice-box in the middle, so that one of the players of fr. 74 (i.e. either the parasite or the courtesan, see below, Interpretation) can throw the dice. In the latter case, the speaker would address his or her interlocutor, who is about to play. Nonetheless, the use of the middle voice does not seem to be adequately justified. One of its main qualities is subject-affectedness, as it serves to express that the subject undergoes an effect of the action conveyed by the verb (see esp. Allan 2003, ch. 1–2). In this case, however, it is not clear how the subject is affected by the verb’s action. [D.] 49.65 (ἐμβαλομένου γὰρ ἐμοῦ ὅρκον εἰς τὸν ἐχῖνον) cited by Edmonds (1957–61, IIIA 136) as a parallel to this line conveys the sense ‘to throw in what is one’s own’ (i.e. one’s oath), which does not apply in the present case. Conversely, one would expect the use of the active voice; an eloquent parallel is D. 57.13: οἱ δὲ λαμβάνοντες δύο καὶ τρεῖς ψήφους ἕκαστος παρὰ τούτου ἐνέβαλλον εἰς τὸν καδίσκον. There are further conjectures, such as Bernhardy’s ἐμβάλῃς and ἐμβάλω by Blaydes (1890–96, II 197), which are palaeographically feasible; however, owing to the loss of context, which would have clarified the person of the verb, we are not in a position to prefer one of these conjectures over the manuscript reading.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

152

Diphilus

Interpretation This line contains a reference to dice-throwing, which makes it likely that it could derive from the dice gaming scene of fr. 74 (cf. also Pérez Asensio 1999, 378). If so, the participating characters would be the parasite and the courtesan of fr. 74. If ἐμβάλῃ is taken to be the second-person singular of the middle voice (though its use is not without problems, see Text), then one of the two characters would prompt the other to bring the dice-box in the middle, so that the latter can throw. If, on the other hand, the verb is used in the third-person singular of the active voice, then a dramatic personage (either one of the players or someone else) is asked to place the dice-box at the middle, so that one of the two players can throw the dice. Similar prompts to the contestants within gaming contexts occur in Pl. Com. fr. 46.3–5 (Zeus Kakoumenos): ἀλλ’ ἄγγος ἔστ’; Α. ἀλλ’ εἰς θυΐαν παιστέον./ΗΡ. φέρε τὴν θυΐαν, αἶρ’ ὕδωρ, τὰ ποτήρια/παράθετε, fr. 47: ἀγκυλοῦντα δεῖ σφόδρα/ τὴν χεῖρα πέμπειν εὐρύθμως τὸν κότταβον, Antiph. fr. 57 (Aphroditēs Gonai), Plaut. Asin. 904: iace, pater, talos, ut porro nos iaciamus and Most. 308–9: cedo aquam manibus, puere, appone hic mensulam./vide, tali ubi sint. Cf. also the prompts during the word-weighing contest in Ar. Ra. 1378–84 (see esp. 1378: ἴθι δὴ παρίστασθον παρὰ τὼ πλάστιγγ’). ἕλκ’ ‘to pull’, ‘to draw’. Here it is used in its literal meaning; cf. similarly Ar. Av. 365: ἕλκε, τίλλε, παῖε, δεῖρε· κόπτε πρώτην τὴν χύτραν, Men. Dysc. 680. It is often employed in a metaphorical sense (‘to drag’, ‘to attract’); cf. Ar. Nu. 233–4: οὐ γὰρ ἀλλ’ ἡ γῆ βίᾳ/ἕλκει πρὸς αὑτὴν τὴν ἰκμάδα τῆς φροντίδος, Call. Com. fr. 1 (Atalante): ἕλκε μοιχὸν ἐς μυχόν, Men. fr. inc. 188.2–3. ἐς μέσον Literally ‘in the middle’. Cf. similarly Diph. fr. 64.4 (Peliades) and fr. inc. 90.2 (see Pérez Asensio 1999, 379). It is also employed metaphorically to denote a contest; cf. S. Tr. 514: ἴσαν ἐς μέσον ἱέμενοι λεχέων and Easterling (1982) on S. Tr. 514–6, Theocr. 22.183: ὁ δ’ εἰς μέσον ἤλυθε Λυγκεύς. In the present case too, apart from its literal use, this expression might well suit the context of the competition involved in the dice game. τὸν φιμόν ‘A kind of cup used as a dice-box’ (LSJ9 s.v. III). It is attested by Harpocration as an Atticist term (see further above, Citation context). Cf. Aeschin. 1.59 with schol. vet. (Dilts) ad loc. (φιμοὶ οἱ καλούμενοι κημοί, εἰς οὓς ἐνεβάλλοντο οἱ ἀστράγαλοι), Poll. 7.203, 10.150 (both passages referring to dicing utensils). Harpocration mentions φιμός as a synonym of κημός, which is the wicker funnel placed at the opening of the voting urn (Sud. κ 1520 Adler: πλέγμα κωνοειδές, δι’ οὗ καθιᾶσιν οἱ δικασταὶ τὴν ψῆφον εἰς τὸν κάδον); cf. Ar. Eq. 1150 with schol. vet. ad loc. (Mervyn Jones), V. 99 (with Biles/Olson 2015, 118) and schol. vet. ad V. 98 (Koster), V. 755–6: κἀπισταίην ἐπὶ τοῖς κημοῖς/ψηφιζομένων ὁ τελευταῖος, 1339. The most common use of both φιμός and κημός denotes ‘muzzle’ (cf. Aesch. Sept. 463, Luc. Vit. Auct. 22, Sud. κ 1519 Adler). ὡς ἂν ἐμβάλῃ The verb is here employed in its literal sense (‘to throw in’). The active voice is preferable to the middle in this case (see above, Text). On the idea of throwing something into a vessel cf. Mach. fr. 16.259–61 G. (a jibe at Diphilus):

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

153

Συνωρίς (fr. 78)

ψυχρόν γ’, ἔφη, τἀγγεῖον, ὦ Γνάθαιν’, ἔχεις./τῶν σῶν γάρ, εἶπεν, ἐπιμελῶς, ὦ Δίφιλε, / εἰς αὐτό γ’ αἰεὶ δραμάτων ἐμβάλλομεν. For the image of throwing conveyed by the verb see also Ar. Eq. 1083, Nu. 1450, Lys. 1212, Ra. 574: ἐγὼ δέ γ’ εἰς τὸ βάραθρον ἐμβάλοιμί σε, Pl. 1109. For its frequent use in comic dining contexts see above fr. 60.4n. (Parasitos).

fr. 78 K.-A. (77 K.) ἐχηνίασας∙ ποιοῦσι τοῦτο πάντες οἱ παρὰ Τιμοθέῳ 1 ἐχηνίασας Α, prob. Lautensach: ἐχήνισας Stephanus Τιμοθέου Kock: περὶ Τιμόθεον Blaydes

2 παρὰ Τιμοθέῳ A: παρὰ

You cackled; that is what all fellows of Timotheus do Ath. 14.657E χηνιάζειν (recte Kaibel pro χηνίζειν, si in v. 1 ἐχηνίασας retineatur) δὲ εἴρηται ἐπὶ τῶν 〈κακῶς〉 (add. Peppink Obs. p. 88) αὐλούντων. Δίφιλος Συνωρίδι — The verb χηνιάζειν (‘to cackle’) refers to bad aulos-players. Diphilus in Synōris—

Metre Iambic trimeter k l k k l|l l k l k l k l

(penthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) VII 642–3; Meineke (1839–57) IV 413; Kock (1880–88) II 567; Breitenbach (1908) 138–9; Berve (1926) §749; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 136–7; PCG V 98–9; Stephanes (1988) §2417; Astorga (1990) 3; Pérez Asensio (1999) 379–81; Bélis (2002) 116–7; Aspiotes (2006) §2090; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 272 and n. 393; Maggio (2023) 130–3 Citation Context Book 14 of Deipnosophistai concludes with a large section on food. It starts with desserts (640C-643E) being followed by delicacies, such as cakes (643E-648C), fruits (650B-654A) and poultry (654B-655E). The present fragment derives from the ensuing discussion about the meat of poultry alongside that of pork, boar, and hare (655F-658A). Athenaeus passingly mentions that the verb χηνιάζειν (‘to make the sound of a goose’) is employed to describe the odd sound produced by unskilled pipe-players and cites the Diphilan fragment for this purpose. He then goes on to describe types of cheese (658A-E) and closes this book with an extensive reference to chefs and the art of cooking (658E-664F). Aulos-playing from the end of the fifth until the end of the fourth century BC has been discussed by Athenaeus in a section on music earlier in book 14 (616E-617F). His discussion reflects the debate concerning the growing impor-

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

154

Diphilus

tance of aulos in lyric performance; this instrument held an ambivalent position in Greek thought, being regarded as opposed to logos and as threatening self-control through its emotional and exciting influence (see e.g. Pl. R. 399d-e, Arist. Pol. 1341a-b). Athenaeus fashions a ‘sociology of aulos playing’, which is suggestive of the ‘divided’ musical culture involving supporters and opponents of aulos. See further LeVen (2010) 35–47. Text ln l. 1 Kassel/Austin rightly accept ἐχηνίασας, which is transmitted in ms. A and has been supported by Lautensach (1911, 191) as against Stephanus’ ἐχήνισας (ThesLG IV 338G). Lautensach aptly noted parallels in favour of χηνιάζειν instead of χηνίζειν, such as διακαυνιάσαι (Ar. Pax 1081) and ἀνακογχυλιάζων (Ar. V. 589). In l. 2 ms. A reads παρὰ Τιμοθέῳ, which has been adopted by Kassel /Austin. This reading literally denotes ‘those by the side of Timotheus’, thus referring to pipe-players of his circle or his pupils (cf. also below, note ad loc.). Kock had earlier proposed παρὰ Τιμοθέου, which denotes ‘motion from the side of ’ and ‘issuing from a person’ (LSJ9 s.v. II, 1–2); this usage, however, describes a literal movement from s.o. towards a direction or may be employed to refer to the origin of abstract ideas and thus will not do in this case. Blaydes’ conjecture περὶ Τιμόθεον (Blaydes 1890–96, I 176) denotes ‘those around Timotheus’. This periphrasis is frequently employed in narrative hypotheses and Euripidean scholia (hyp. Andr. 9, hyp. Alex. P.Oxy. 3650, col. i, 23, [Eur.] Rh. 6, 13, schol. vet. Eur. Hipp. 1062 and Andr. 414 [Cavarzeran], schol. vet. Tr. 31, Ph. 204, 868 [Schwartz]) to describe a character’s attendants (for a discussion of this meaning see Huys 1986, 13–15 and Collard/ Cropp/Gibert 2004, 71). What is needed here, nonetheless, is not merely the reference to attendants but to persons attached to and involved in the same activity as Timotheus, which is effectively conveyed by παρά + dative. Interpretation In this fragment an aulos-player is mocked by another character for having played falsely, like Timotheus’ pupils (on this type of lapse when playing in a high register, see below, l. 1n.). The context of this jibe cannot be safely restored due to the brevity of information provided in this short fragment. This entails that several possibilities need to be explored, not least because aulos-playing as such is not suggestive of a specific context, since it permeated all collective activities of Athenian life, including choral performances in festivals, sacrifice, banquets, weddings, funerals, as well as warfare. The aulos-performance mentioned in this fragment is likely to have taken place on stage, as in many other comic cases. This situation might involve a sacrificial context, as for instance in Men. Dysc. 432–4, where an attendant is asked to play the pipe during the sacrifice for Pan. At the same time, the powerful emotional effect of the aulos (on which see Poll. 4.72, 73), in conjunction with its exotic sensualism, made it particularly suitable for the symposium, where it accompanied the prayers introducing the banquet and the wine-drinking process (on the pipe’s sympotic function see Wilson 1999, 82–5, Lissarague 1990, 123–30, Csapo 2004, 210–40, Hobden 2013, 39–43, 199–200, Caire 2015, 58–9, 66). It is thus conceivable that

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 78)

155

this fragment could derive from a banquet, as frr. 74, 75 and 76. This possibility is supported by a considerable number of pipe-scenes in comic symposia, as in Ar. Ach. 551, V. 1216–22, Th. 1175–8, Ra. 513–5, Pl. Com. fr. 71.5–6, 12–3 (Lakōnes ē Poiētai), Metag. fr. 4 (Aurai ē Mammakythos) with Orth (2014) 401–2, Amph. fr. 9 (Gynaikomania), Antiph. fr. inc. 233, Philem. fr. 45.1–2 (Moichos); cf. Olson/ Sens (1999) 142–3. All the same, there are several cases in which the official piper of the comic performance, whose natural place is in the orchestra, is addressed (on this matter see in detail Taplin 1993, 105–10). This type of metatheatrical address is quite natural in old comedy, which tends to break the dramatic illusion. Such (often jeering) addresses to the pipe-player occur in Ar. Av. 859–61, Ec. 890–2 (cf. Ussher 1973, 198) and possibly in Av. 676–84 and Lys. 1242–6. Nonetheless, Men. Dysc. 880, where the official piper is amusingly rebuked, constitutes an eloquent case in which this figure is addressed and taunted in new comedy as well (cf. Handley 1965, 283, 285–6). Further addresses to the official aulos-player associated with new comedy involve Plaut. Stich. 715–25, 768 (perhaps originating in the finale of its model, Menander’s Adelphoi A) and Pseud. 573a. In the light of these instances, it cannot thus be excluded that this witty remark could refer to the pipe-player of the comic performance. For aulos-scenes in comedy, see further Marshall (2006) 234–6 (focusing on the palliata), Hughes (2011) 97–9, Moore (2012) 30–5. The sneering reference to the lapse often made by Timotheus’ pupils constitutes a case of ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν, which, by definition, involves satire, personal mockery (for an investigation of ancient scholarship and sources on ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν and κωμῳδoύμενοι, see esp. Halliwell 1984, 83–8 and Sommerstein 1996, 328–37). Although Timotheus was a renowned aulos-player, his pupils evidently failed to measure up to their mentor’s skill, thus giving rise to this jeering remark. Personal mockery features in old comedy par excellence, but it is still employed from time to time in middle and even less in new comedy alongside allegory and allusion to reflect aspects of Athenian life. At the same time, in fourth-century comedy it is often the private vices of the well-known figures ridiculed that tend to provide the comic target rather than their public activities, as in old comedy. The final downfall of democracy after the Lamian War in 323/2 BC, the establishment of a government ruled by Macedonia and the abolition of the choregic system in 317 BC enfeebled the power of the polis, which, in conjunction with the cosmopolitan character of fourth-century drama, paved the way for an often ‘dehistoricized’ and ‘deactualized’ representation of Athens in new comedy (see esp. Nesselrath 1997b, 285). Nonetheless, after the restoration of democracy in 307 BC personal invective becomes more frequent than in the earlier phase of new comedy, to judge from Philippid. frr. inc. 25, 26 (rebuking the corrupt politician Stratocles), Arched. fr. inc. 4 (mocking Demosthenes’ nephew, Demochares) and Demetrius II fr. 1.7–9 ([Areopagitēs], reproaching the tyrant Lachares). For further cases of personal mockery in new comedy cf. Philem. fr. inc. 132 (mocking the illiteracy of the Macedonian general Maga), fr. 43 ([Mētion ē Zōmion], satirizing

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

156

Diphilus

the pro-Macedonian politician Callimedon), Men. Samia 603 (see Sommerstein 2013, ad loc.), fr. 225 (Methē) and fr. 265 ([Orgē], all three passages ridiculing the known parasite Chaerephon). Philosophers also form a comic target, as in Philem. fr. 88 (Philosophoi) and Damox. fr. 2 (Syntrophoi), both poets mocking Epicureans; cf. also the ridicule of Stoics in fr. 2.64–7 of Damoxenus’ play, Philem. fr. inc. 134 (mockery of Crates), Men. fr. 193 ([Hippokomos], ridiculing the cynic philosopher Monimus). On personal mockery in fourth-century comedy, cf. Webster (19702) 100–10, 152–3, Philipp (1973) 505–9, Nesselrath (1997b) 271–85 and 287, n. 54, Habicht (1997) 101–2, O’ Sullivan (2009) 308–9, Arnott (2010) 301–8, Bruzzese (2011) 74–9, Gelli (2014) 63–79, Henderson (2014) 184–90, Scafuro (2014) 202–5, Rosenbloom (2014) 300–1, 307–12, Di Giuseppe (2014) 94–108, Maggio (2023) 83–93. Diphilus provides a clear case of personal invective in fr. 37 (Enagizontes ē Enagismata), in which he rebukes the reckless self-indulgence of Ctesippus, son of Chabrias, who is also ridiculed in Men. fr. 264 (Orgē). In fr. 74 of Synōris the comic reference to Euripides both as a woman-hater and as a supporter of parasites along with the pun associating his name with successful dice-shooting and the pseudo-literary pastiche of his lines result from a playful intention, which, nonetheless, does not seem to go as far as involving ridicule. One must discern, I believe, between cases where the references to public figures aim at mockery and other instances where the characters mentioned are given the status of authority, as Euripides again in fr. 60.1–3 ([Parasitos], see above, note ad loc.). Cases such as the latter do not involve ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν, as their purpose is not to scorn the figures mentioned. Likewise, the scanty evidence for Diphilus’ Sapphō, presenting the legendary poetess as being romantically associated with Archilochus and Hipponax, does not preserve any hint at personal satire (see above, Sapphō: Title, Content). The scattered material for Diphilan plays named after historical figures, such as Amastris, perhaps Tithraustēs and conceivably Telesias, is not conclusive as to the use of personal invective. See below, notes on the titles Telesias and Tithraustēs. 1 ἐχηνίασας ‘To cackle like a goose’ (here of the sound produced by the aulos); as Lautensach (1911, 191) pointed out, χηνιάζω is preferable to χηνίζω (see above, Text). It is a hapax legomenon in Diphilus. Another verb deriving from the sounds of geese is χηνῆσαι attested by Hesych. χ 400 (Hansen/Cunningham) as a rare synonym of καταμωκήσασθαι (‘to laugh mockingly’). Verbs originating in the sounds made by birds also include κοκκύζειν (‘to crow’, see above, fr. 66.2n. [Plinthophoros]), ὀρνιθιάζειν (‘to talk bird-language’, attributed to Didymus in schol. Ar. Av. 1678 Holwerda), στρουθίζειν (‘to sing badly’, Ar. fr. dub. 973); on the latter see Eust. on Il. 2.311 (I 347.28–9 van der Valk): ὅτι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στρουθοῦ καὶ στρουθίζειν τὸ εὐτελῶς πως ᾅδειν, δηλοῖ καὶ ὁ κωμικός (cf. Eust. on Od. 1.203/Ι 50.3–4 Stallbaum). Cf. also Meineke (1839–57) IV 413, PCG V 99, Pérez Asensio (1999) 380, Maggio (2023) 130–1. The aulos consisted of a pair of pipes and was played with the assistance of a halter (φορβειά). Playing the aulos was a challenging task, in that finding the

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Συνωρίς (fr. 78)

157

pitch of each note required much practice (Pl. Phlb. 56a), virtuosity and skilful operation, otherwise the proper intonation was missed (Aristox. Harm. 2.42–3). Τhe quality of the sound was conditioned by the tuning of the aulos through the adjustment of the reeds. Moreover, the volubility characterizing this instrument was associated with factors variable in each performance, such as the fingering, the pressure of the piper’s breath and the tension of his lips on the mouthpiece. On these technical matters see further Barker (1987) 106–7, Landels (1999) 24–46, Csapo (2004) 219–20, Hagel (2009) 327–43. Consequently, ‘squawking like geese’ or ‘screeching’ was the unskilled production of sound associated with high notes (Hesych. κ 4097 Latte: κρίζει· ὀξὺ αὐλεῖ). According to Festus (De Verb. Sign. p. 95 Müller), the term gingrire describes the sound of geese; it is for this reason that a type of pipes is named gingrinae. Conversely, playing in a low register was often likened to the buzzing of wasps (Ar. Ach. 864–6, Eq. 10, Pl. Cr. 54d); Hesychius (σ 2886 Hansen) reports that the term to describe this effect was σφηκισμός. Cf. West (1992) 105, Bélis (1992) 497–500 and (2002) 116–7, Landels (1999) 32, Martin (2003) 166–7. 1–2 πάντες οἱ/παρὰ Τιμοθέῳ The position of the prepositive at the end of the line is quite remarkable, in that it creates an enjambment and a bold line break. It seems to aim at enhancing the flexibility of the iambic trimeter. For similar cases of the article’s particular position at line-end, cf. Ar. V. 504–5: τῶν/ὀρθροφοιτοσυκοφαντοδικοταλαιπώρων τρόπων, Alex. fr. 20.4–5 (Apokoptomenos): τοὺς/γραφεῖς, fr. 257.3–4 (Phryx): τὴν/ τιμωρίαν, Antiph. fr. 85.4–5 (Diplasioi): μηδὲ τὸν/Παιῶνα, Amph. fr. 30.5–6 (Planos): τῶν/παρακειμένων, Ephipp. fr. 7.1 (Empolē) with Papachrysostomou (2020) ad loc., Nicostr. fr. 16 (Mageiros), Men. Asp. 55–6: ἔμπροσθε τῆς/σκηνῆς, 144–5: τοῖς/πάσιν, Dysc. 264, 407, Georg. 26. As it has aptly been noted by Arnott (1996, 111), this structure is more frequent in middle and new comedy than in Aristophanes. For a collection of such cases see Leeuwen (1904) on Ar. Pl. 752 and (1909) 164, n. 3, Maas (1962) 85, Arnott (1996) 111 and for tragic, especially bold Sophoclean enjambments of this type (e.g. Ant. 409–10, El. 879–80, Ph. 263–4: οἱ/δισσοὶ στρατηγοί, OC 351–2), cf. West (1982) 83–4, Dik (2007) 176, 179, n. 20, 210–3. The structure of παρά + dative denotes ‘by the side of a person’ (LSJ9 s.v. II); cf. similarly X. Cyr. 1.2.15: οἳ δ’ ἂν παιδευθῶσι παρὰ τοῖς δημοσίοις διδασκάλοις, Pl. Phd. 64b: τοὺς μὲν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀνθρώπους. In the present case it refers to pipe-players of Timotheus’ circle, probably his pupils (for this structure cf. above, Text). The aulos-player Timotheus of Thebes, son of Oeniades and grandson of the famous aulete Pronomus, appears to have started his career in Athens (to judge from Luc. Harm. 1). He is then reported to have performed at the court of Philip shortly before 354 BC (Did. on D. 12.62). Timotheus became a member of Alexander’s entourage and is mentioned to have inspired the king’s martial spirit through his music (D.Chr. 1.1–2, Sud. α 1122, τ 620 Adler). He is similarly praised for his art in Luc. Ind. 5 and D. Chr. 32.61. The latest piece of evidence for his floruit is his performance during Alexander’s wedding at Susa in 324 BC

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

158

Diphilus

(Chares Mityl. FGrH 125 F4). On Timotheus see Berve (1926) §749, Kumanudes (1979) §1960, Stephanes (1988) §2417, Bélis (2002) 107–23, Aspiotes (2006) §2090, Maggio (2023) 131–3. On his circle and the possible date of the production of Synōris, see the discussion above (Date). In Luc. Harm. 1 Timotheus is presented as teaching how the aulos should be correctly tuned and how gently it should be played, following the rhythm and the characters of modes (cf. Bélis 1999, 32–4). Interestingly, the pipe-players of his circle are reprimanded for playing falsely. This jibe does not obviously aim at Timotheus, who was highly appraised, but at his pupils, who may have attempted unsuccessfully to imitate the virtuosity of their well-established teacher. On the technical factors pertaining to the effective performance of the aulos, see above, l. 1n. As Pérez Asensio (1999, 381) notes, this is the sole preserved reference in comedy to Timotheus the aulos-player, as all other comic mentions concern the famous citharode of the same name (Pherecr. fr. 155.19–23 [Cheiron], Anaxandr. fr. 6.3 [Aischra], Antiph. fr. 110 [Kaineus], Mach. fr. 9.82 G.). Poor performers are usual comic targets. Ar. Ach. 864–6 (and schol. vet. Ach. 866a Wilson) similarly comprises a jibe at the aulete Chairis (for whom cf. Pax 950–3 with Olson 1998, 252 and perhaps also Av. 859–61, if the interpretation of Taplin 1993, 106 is accepted). Several jokes about pipe-players have also been preserved by Plutarch, such as the derision of the unskilled performance of the aulete Ismenias reported in Mor. 334B (ὁ δὲ τῶν Σκυθῶν βασιλεὺς ’Αντέας ’Ισμηνίαν τὸν αὐλητὴν λαβὼν αἰχμάλωτον ἐκέλευσεν αὐλῆσαι παρὰ πότον. θαυμαζόντων δὲ τῶν ἄλλων καὶ κροτούντων, αὐτὸς ὤμοσεν ἀκροᾶσθαι τοῦ ἵππου χρεμετίζοντος ἥδιον). On the criticism of this performer cf. Plu. Per. 1 and for further cases of disparagement of auletes, see Cic. Mur. 13.29, Plu. Pyrrh. 8.7, Mor. 56F. See further Wilson (2002) 50–2, Wallace (2003) 89–90.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

159

Σφαττόμενος (Sphattomenos) (“The Slit-Throat Man”)

Discussion Kock (1880–88) II 567; Hirzel (1908) 100, n. 3; PCG V 99; Pérez Asensio (1999) 381–3; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 168, n. 91; Maggio (2023) 223 Title The play’s title is only reported in IG II/III2 2363.34 (ΣΦΑΤΤΟΜΕΝΟ[Σ according to the edition of Hirschfeld 1874, 106). Τhis inscription (dated in ca. 100 BC) is a catalogue of book rolls possibly donated by epheboi to the Library of a Gymnasium in Piraeus. It attests the titles of ten out of the one hundred plays known to have been written by Diphilus, alongside Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros, Menander’s Dis Exapatōn, Kitharistēs and Daktylios, an otherwise unknown comedy by Crates, one tragedy by Asclepiades and another by Silenus, Achaeus’ Erginus, at least eleven plays of Sophocles and thirty-one titles of Euripidean tragedies. Notably, this inscription attests that Sphattomenos, of which only the title has been preserved, was extant by the first century BC alongside the nine Diphilan comedies kept at the Piraeus Library. For more detail on this inscription see below on Telesias test. i. As often in new comedy, the play-title consists of a present participle that denotes an event that may have occurred either at the beginning of the plot or slightly before that or during a particular act (for more detail and examples see especially Paralyomenos: Title, cf. Synapothnēskontes: Title). Apart from animal sacrifice (Hom. Il. 23.30–1, Arist. A.Po. 73b, Poll. 1.26, Plu. Mor. 642D, 959D and in the active voice in Theopomp. fr. 49 [Penelope], Men. Pk. 998), σφάττομαι is used of the sacrifice of human victims (of Iphigeneia, Polyxena, and Menoeceus in Eur. Ph. 913, Or. 1199, schol. vet. Eur. Hec. 527 Schwartz, Paus. 1.22.6, cf. further Hdt. 5.5. Plu. Mor. 171B). At the same time, it is employed to denote slaughter, a brutal murder (Antipho 2.8, D.C. 77.2.4, Luc. Phal. 1.8, Plu. Cat. Ma. 17.4, Galb. 14.6), or execution (Chrys. SVF fr. 8, Lucil. AP 11.135.4) and is often used with reference to war victims (cf. D. 9.66, D.S. 25.6.1, schol. vet. Aesch. Th. 242–244a Smith, schol. vet. Eur. Tr. 562 Schwartz, Plu. Demetr. 36.12, Lys. 14.1, Sull. 30.2, 31.5, Nic. 27.5, Flam. 21.12, [Plu.] Apophth. Lac. 232E). Notably, however, there is not even one preserved instance in which σφάττομαι occurs in the middle voice denoting ‘to kill oneself ’ and thus indicating a suicide, as proposed by Hirzel (1908, 100, n. 3), followed by Maggio (2023) 223 and Dwyer (2021) 207–8. The title as such may thus refer to the victim of a supposed or near slaughter as often in comedy, though not to an actual death, which never occurs in a comic plot, so far as the available evidence goes (cf. further the similar discussion in Synapothnēskontes: Title). This fake or near killing may have happened either before the beginning of the play or in the course of the dramatic plot, as mentioned above.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

160

Diphilus

Sphattomenos is the only surviving play-title by the third-century comic poet Eumedes. The speaker of the scantily attested fr. 1 – in fact the sole fragment preserved from Eumedes — seems to be prompting someone to lead the way. The reference to lampstands (λυχνοῦχοι, an earlier synonym of φανοί) is suggestive of a scene taking place during the night. See Schöll (1870) 168–70. Likewise, Apollodorus of Carystus wrote a Sphattomenē. Fr. 31 of this play comprises a joke about the well-known parasite Chaerephon, who had the reputation of a banquet-crasher. It parodies the three-deity invocation formula, as the speaker (perhaps a soldier) is invoking Ares, Nike and creates a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke by adding Chaerephon as the final component of this formula; the latter, nonetheless, does not need to be summoned, as he tends to appear uninvited. See Pérez Asensio (1999) 381–2, Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 168–9 and nn. 92–4, Dwyer (2021) 201–5. There is no way of knowing, however, how these fragments could be related to the theme of near or fake slaughter suggested by the play-title in each of these cases. Content According to the title (see above), this play seems to have been named after the male victim of a slaughter. As pointed out above, actual deaths are incongruent with a comic plot, which entails that the play may have involved a near slaughter ultimately averted or a supposed death proven to be fake. But apart from these clues provided by the title, nothing else is known.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

161

Σχεδία (Schedia) (“The Raft”)

Discussion Studemund (1883) and (1889); Marigo (1907) 433–4, 525–9, Coppola (1924) 202; Marx (1928) 272; Trenkner (1958) 95–7; Jachmann (1966) 26–7; Webster (19702) 169; PCG V 99; Pérez Asensio (1999) 383–6; Calderan (20042) 75–95; De Melo (2013) 393–4; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/ Montañés (2014) 272–3, n. 395; Aragosti (2015) 95–8; Youd (2021) 434–5; Maggio (2023) 277–80 Title Diphilus’ Schedia is the sole comedy attested to bear this title. The bestknown raft is certainly that constructed by Odysseus upon his departure from the isle of Calypso (Hom. Od. 5.234–61). Odysseus as the archetypal castaway was the key character of Epicharmus’ Odysseus Nauagos; further comedies involving shipwrecked characters include Aristophanes’ Dionysus Nauagos and the Nauagos plays by Ephippus and Paramonus (see Calderan 20042, 81–2). Shipwreck is a motif that tends to be associated with nostos and reunion as early as Odyssey and subsequently in drama and the novel (see esp. Trenkner 1958, 33–4, 95–7, 142–6, Lowe 2000, 129–56, 188–9, Dunsch 2013, 44–9). If Schedia was indeed the exemplar of Vidularia (see below, Content and test. i), then, according to the plot of this Plautine comedy, the shipwreck would eventually lead to the recognition and final reunion of a young man and a maiden with their long-lost fathers. On shipwreck as a literary topos see further Vermeule (1979) 179–209 (including iconographic representations), Lowe (2000) 129–56, 224–58, Rotolo (2005) 51–71, Hilton (2012) 274–95, Dunsch (2013) 44–50. Content If Schedia was the model of Plautus’ fragmentarily preserved Vidularia (see the discussion under test. i), then its plot-outline may be retrieved up to a certain degree. Although we cannot know how closely Plautus would have clung to his Greek original, there are at least two elements that seem to emerge from Schedia, being also congruent with this Plautine comedy. The first is the shipwreck, which is suggested by the very use of the raft and must have formed the play’s background; in the light of its dramatic function in Vidularia, it seems to have triggered through fortune the double reunion between the young man (Nicodemus), the maiden (Soteris) and their respective fathers (Dinia and Gorgines), as it is merely fortuitously that after the shipwreck the two youths reach the coastal town where their fathers reside. Secondly, the use of fishing terminology in fr. 79 is congruent with the crucial role played by fishermen in Vidularia. This fragment involves a character being anxious possibly not to lose a (considerable) finding, to judge from the hurry to have tightly made fish-traps, in order to keep it safe; one would be tempted to place it in the scene where the vidulus, the traveling bag, is fished up from the sea, but this remains unproven. It would be expected that the exemplar of Vidularia could similarly involve a double recognition between the two fathers and their children by means of the tokens included in the vidulus. In the Plautine comedy the recognition occurs

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

162

Diphilus

towards the end of an arbitration-scene that takes place between two fishermen fighting for the ownership of the items included in the vidulus in front of its real owners, who eventually recognize their lost kin. One cannot help noticing the resemblance with the equivalent scene of Menander’s Epitrepontes and its intertext, Euripides’ Alope; Diphilus may have similarly drawn on the latter given the degree of Euripidean popularity from the fourth century BC onwards (on Alope as a source text of Epitrepontes see esp. Cusset 2003, 168–87, Karamanou 2019a, 34–6, earlier Gomme/Sandbach 1973, 302–17, Hunter 1985, 134–5). In all three cases the dispute and arbitration over a child’s trinkets leads to the anagnōrisis. The available evidence seems thus to be suggestive of a fascinating plot typical of new comedy, involving reversals and skillful recognitions implemented through fortune as a plot-mechanism, which could have also given rise to instances of dramatic irony that have been preserved in Vidularia (e.g. the son unknowingly working as his father’s servant, the fishermen’s dispute over the vidulus before its owners).

Testimonium Test. i Cod. Ambros. rescr. G 82, fol. 498v Sc̣[h]ẹ̣di [̣ a haec] ṿọ[. . . . . . .]g[.]ae[. . . .]c[ [p]ọẹṭạ ḥạ〈nc〉 nọṣṭẹṛ f[ecit] Ṿ[idularia]m ex prologo Vidulariae Plautinae (vv. 6–7) ed. Calderan 1 Schedia dispexit Studemund (ed. pr.), deinde litterarum s, c, e, d, i vestigia recognovit Calderan 1–2 Schedia haec vocatast a Graeco comoedia/poeta hanc noster fecit Vidulariam Studemund: Schedia haec vocatur, ea Graeca est comoedia/poeta Leo: Schaedia haec vocatur a Graecis comoedia/ poeta dubitanter Mariotti ap. Calderan Schedia [this] . . . our poet [made] it [Vidularia]

Vidularia (‘The Tale of a Traveling Bag’) is the most poorly transmitted play of the Varronian canon. Apart from few quotations coming from ancient grammarians (mainly Priscian and Nonius), the play has partly been preserved in the Ambrosian palimpsest (probably dating to the fifth century AD), from which several leaves have been lost. Studemund (1883, 41–2), the palimpsest’s first editor, was able to discern in the play’s prologue the title Schedia (‘Raft’) and accordingly to restore these lines as follows: Sc̣[h]ẹ̣dị[a haec] ṿọ[catast a] G[r]ae[co com]o[edia]/ [p]ọẹṭạ ḥạ〈nc〉 nọṣṭẹṛ f[ecit] Ṿ[idularia]m (‘Schedia is the title of this comedy by the Greeks;/our poet made it Vidularia’). Given that Diphilus’ Schedia is the sole comedy attested to bear this title, it has reasonably been regarded as likely to have formed the exemplar of Vidularia.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σχεδία (Test. i)

163

Apart from the reading Schedia in the palimpsest, the Diphilan title indicates a shipwreck, with which Vidularia opens, and the sole preserved fragment (fr. 79) employs a fishing term (τῶν πόρκων) pointing to a fishing scene, which would be in line with the pivotal role played by fishermen in the Plautine play. In addition, the notable similarities observed by Studemund (1883, 33–42) between the plots of Vidularia and Rudens (the latter being attested to have been a reworking of a Diphilan play) could be suggestive of a common (Diphilan) origin: they both take place by the seashore, they involve a shipwreck, they both are recognition plays featuring a vidulus (‘a traveling bag’) that contains crepundia by means of which the anagnōrisis of long-lost children with their fathers is implemented. It is thus conceivable that Diphilus reiterated this plot-pattern in both comedies (Schedia and the exemplar of Rudens), which were subsequently remodelled by Plautus. Cf. similarly Jachmann (1966) 26–7, Lefèvre (1984) 37–9, Calderan (20042) 80–6 (contra Dér 1987, 433–43 drawing attention to their divergences, whilst Aragosti 2015, 98–104 and Maggio 2023, 277–80 offer a more balanced approach). Marx (1928, 272), on the other hand, had earlier argued against the Diphilan provenance of Vidularia, contesting Studemund’s reading Schedia, which was nonetheless adopted in all subsequent editions (Leo, Calderan, Monda, De Melo, Aragosti); Calderan (20042, 76–7), in particular, argued meticulously in favour of this reading following a careful re-inspection of the palimpsest. Marx had also noted that there is no reference to a raft in the fragments of Vidularia, whilst navis in Vid. fr. 1 Calderan (= fr. 1 Monda, De Melo: eiusdem Bacchae fecerunt nostrum navem Pentheum) cannot denote a raft. But it should be stressed that in that fragment the speaker (i.e. Nicodemus) clearly uses the term navis to refer to his ship, which was shattered at the shipwreck (it is for this reason that he draws a simile between the smashed boat and the dismembered Pentheus); following the shipwreck he would have presumably reached the coast by means of a raft, which would have given the Greek play its title. In such a case, the reference to the raft may have been located either in the missing part of the prologue or of the first act, as it belongs to the προπεπραγμένα. Fr. 1 delivered by Nicodemus, as mentioned above, comes from an account of the shipwreck at the first act, to which the reference to the raft could well belong. Following Marx’s objections, Friedrich (1953, 212) alleged that the title Schedia may have belonged to a homonymous play by another comic poet. Naturally, if we consider how much has been lost from new comedy, the possibility that further plays of the same title were written may need to be left open. Yet, research on fragmentary material tends to benefit from the principle of Occam’s razor, according to which the solution with the fewest assumptions should be preferred. Hence, instead of assuming that there were also other (unattested) plays named Schedia on which Plautus may have supposedly drawn, it is preferable to take into account the available clues and thus cautiously suggest that the sole play reported to bear this title, i.e. Diphilus’ Schedia, stands a better chance of being the model of Vidularia.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

164

Diphilus

Overall, scholarly consensus (with only few exceptions mentioned above, but whose argumentation is debatable) favours the possibility that Diphilus’ Schedia was the source-text of Vidularia; see Marigo (1907) 433–4, 525–9, Coppola (1924) 202, Webster (19702) 169 and recently the exhaustive argumentation of Calderan (20042) 75–95 (commended by Rizzo 1984, 213–4), as well as Pérez Asensio (1999) 383, De Melo (2013) 393–4, Αragosti (2015) 95–8, Youd (2021) 434–5. In turn, if the likelihood that this Plautine comedy could have been a reworking of the Diphilan Schedia is taken into consideration, this could contribute to cautiously recovering the plot-outline of the latter (see further the discussion above: Content).

Fragments fr. 79 K.-A. (78 K.) θᾶττον πλέκειν κέλευε τῶν πόρκων πυκνοτέρους 1 θᾶττον Β, Εt. Magn., Zonar.: θᾶττον δὲ A del. Sylburg ut unus trimeter fiat

2 ‘adde velut τέτταρας’ Kaibel

τῶν

Ask to weave (them) faster, denser than fish-traps Et. Gen. AB (Et. Magn. p. 683,19–31 Gaisford, Zonar. p. 1562 Tittmann) s.v. πόρκος (Orus fr. 136 Alpers) οἱ μὲν πόρκιον δίκτυον ἀπέδωκαν, οὐκ εὖ. ἔστι δὲ σχοίνινον πλέγμα· οἱ δὲ κύρτον· οὐδὲ οὗτοι ὑγιῶς. ὁ γὰρ Πλάτων ἕτερόν φησιν εἶναι τὸν πόρκον τοῦ κύρτου, ἐν Σοφιστῇ λέγων οὕτως· κύρτους δὴ καὶ δίκτυα καὶ βρόχους καὶ πόρκους καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα οὐκ ἄλλο τι πλὴν ἕρκη δεῖ προσαγορεύειν. καὶ Δίφιλος ἐν Σχεδίᾳ μνημονεύει τοῦ πόρκου — καὶ ’Αντιφάνης Κιθαρῳδῷ (fr. 118). ἔλεγον δὲ τὸ πλέγμα πόρκον διὰ τὸ περιλαμβάνειν καὶ ἀμπέχειν τὸν εἰσδύνοντα ἰχθύν. καὶ καθάπαξ τὰ ἐν κύκλῳ πάντα καὶ περιφερῆ οὕτως ἔλεγον οἱ παλαιοὶ πόρκους ἀπὸ τοῦ οἱονεὶ περικεῖσθαι. A fish-trap (πόρκος): Some interpreted it as ‘net’, but this is not right. It is a grid made of rope. Others interpreted it as ‘weel’; they did not interpret it correctly either. But Plato in Sophist mentions that a fish-trap is different from a weel, stating the following (220c) —. And Diphilus in Schedia refers to the fish-trap — . And Antiphanes in Kitharōidos (fr. 118) —. They named the grid fish-trap for including and enwrapping the entering fish. And, once and for all, earlier authors named as such everything that was placed within a circle and was curved, as if it was surrounded.

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. 〈x l k l x l k l〉 l l k l 2. k l k l l l | k kk l 〈l k l〉 (medial caesura)

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σχεδία (fr. 79)

165

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 410; Kock (1880–88) II 567; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 136–7; PCG V 100; Astorga (1990) 99; Pérez Asensio (1999) 386–8; Calderan (20042) 79–80; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 273; Aragosti (2015) 96–8; Youd (2021) 433–4; Maggio (2023) 279–80 Citation Context This fragment derives from the Etymologicum Genuinum, the earliest Byzantine etymological lexicon, compiled in the ninth century and forming the basis of several lexica dating from the eleventh century onwards, such as the Etymologicum Magnum (twelfth century). This extensive annotation of πόρκος draws on the early fifth-century Atticist lexicon of Orus (fr. 136 Alpers), many fragments of which, including this one, are similarly collected in the early thirteenth-century lexicon attributed to John Zonaras. On the relation between these lexica see esp. Alpers (1981) 3–11, Dickey (2007) 91, 99, 102. In this entry it is clarified that πόρκος is a fishing tool, more specifically a fish-trap, which is suggestive of a fishing context in the Diphilan play (see below: Interpretation). This interpretation of πόρκος also occurs verbatim in the Platonic lexicon attributed to Timaeus the sophist, though the comic quotations from Diphilus’ Schedia and Antiphanes’ Kitharōidos (fr. 118) are not included (see below, note on πόρκος). Text In l. 1 δέ of cod. A is unmetrical and thus needs to be omitted, as in the rest of the manuscripts. In l. 2 Kaibel’s τέτταρας is cited exempli gratia as a hypothetical modifier of the missing masculine plural object of πλέκειν. It would be reasonable to infer that its object could be something similar to πόρκος, e.g. a kind of net, albeit thicker, but the term is open to conjecture. Sylburg’s deletion of τῶν (adopted by Meineke and Kock) aims at producing a full iambic trimeter, but with no obvious gain, as the object of πλέκειν would still be missing, and the enjambment cannot thus be avoided. Interpretation This fragment is transmitted incomplete, as the masculine plural object of πλέκειν is missing. The following elements can be deduced: 1. The speaker is prompting his/her interlocutor to ask someone else to quickly weave something (probably a fishing device, e.g. a kind of net or something similar) denser than fish-traps. 2. The urge and urgency to have items densely woven (πλέκειν...πυκνοτέρους) suggests that there is a need to keep something from escaping. 3. The use of πόρκος — a term coming exclusively from the fishing jargon — makes it likely that this fragment could derive from an exchange between fishermen. This would be in line with the pivotal role played by fishermen (Gorgines, Cacistus) in Vidularia (see Pérez Asensio 1999, 387, Calderan 20042, 94, Aragosti 2015, 97–9 and n. 87). Groh (1892, 11) proposed (though with several inaccuracies noted by Calderan 20042, 79, n. 8) that this fragment could come from the scene where the vidulus is fished up from the sea. The reference to Cacistus fishing it up by means of a trident (fuscina) in Vid. fr. 7 cannot exclude that in the Greek original another

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

166

Diphilus

fishing device (e.g. nets) was used instead of a trident. But of course, the paucity of evidence leaves open the possibility that it could belong to any other fishing scene. In any case, the hurry and the care to make safe traps that will enwrap the fished item(s) indicate that the finding is certainly worth keeping. Calderan (20042, 79–80) tentatively associated the present fragment with fr. 14 of Vidularia possibly coming from the dispute between Cacistus and Aspasius about the ownership of the traveling-bag (iube hunc in culleo insui/atque in altum deportari, ‘Have him sewn into a sack and taken out into deep sea’, transl. De Melo 2013; on its location in the plot see op.cit. 411). He relied on the equivalence between κέλευε and iube and on the reference to sewing in both cases. But the poena cullei (the practice of sewing parricides into sacks and thrown into the Tiber, cf. De Melo 413, n. 8.), to which that fragment refers, was of Etruscan origin, being introduced in Rome in 201 BC (according to Leo 1894–5, I 6, it provides a terminus post quem for the production of Vidularia); it is thus a Plautine, not a Diphilan invention (interestingly, at 162 Calderan does attribute this element to Plautus, though it implicitly contradicts his aforementioned association of the two fragments). Most recently, Youd (2021, 434–5) conjecturally connected the reference to working in wicker in the present fragment with Vid. 33–4 coming from the dialogue between Dinia and Nicodemus, in which the former hires the latter without knowing that Nicodemus is his own son (though the equivalence between the two passages is rather loose). Stylistically speaking, the comparative adjective (πυκνοτέρους) is linked with the vehicle term/comparans (πόρκων) through alliteration. This recalls the alliteration of proverbial comparisons coming from popular usage, such as κωφότερος κίχλης, λιπαρώτερος ληκυθίου, πραότερος περιστερᾶς. It seems likely that the present instance could derive from an actual popular expression, as often in comedy, though it cannot be excluded that it was deliberately modelled upon a popular idiom. Cf. similarly Ar. fr. 197 (Daedalus): πληγαὶ λέγονται πουλύπου πιλουμένου, Pl. Com. fr. 189.17 (Phaon): πουλύποδος † πλεκτή, Eup. fr. 117 (Dēmoi): πολίτης πουλύπους. See Silk (1974) 224–6, Astorga (1990) 99. 1 θᾶττον In comedy it is often used in commands as a prompt to hurry up. The closest parallel is Ar. Av. 1317: θᾶττον φέρειν κελεύω. Cf. also Cratin. fr. 129 (Nomoi), Ar. V. 180: βάδιζε θᾶττον, 187: ὕφελκε θᾶττον αὐτόν, Pax 727, 1110, Th. 1186, Eub. fr. 98 (Stephanopōlides), Philem. fr. 8 (Androphonos). 2 κέλευε Mostly employed to convey orders. Cf. similarly Ar. Th. 940–1: γυμνὸν ἀποδύσαντά με/κέλευε πρὸς τῇ σανίδι δεῖν τὸν τοξότην, Nicostr. fr. 21 (Pandrosos): ἔπειτα τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ/πρὸς ’Αερόπην ἐλθοῦσα πέμψαι στρώματα/ αὐτὴν κέλευε, φησί, καὶ παρ’ ῎Ωκιμον/χαλκώματα, Men. Sic. 391–2: αὐτήν τ’ ἀπιέναι δεῦρο πρὸς [τὴν μητέρα/κέλευε τὴν ἐμήν. τῶν πόρκων An Atticism attested in the Lexicon of Orus (see Citation Context) as well as in Moeris (π 60 Hansen): πόρκους οἱ ’Αττικοὶ οὓς κύρτους λέγουσιν ῞Ελληνες. In Pl. Sph. 220c πόρκος is placed alongside κύρτοι (‘weels’), δίκτυα (‘nets’) and βρόχοι (‘nooses’) as kinds of ἕρκη (‘toils’): τὸ μέν, ὅτι πᾶν

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Σχεδία (fr. 79)

167

ὅσον ἂν ἕνεκα κωλύσεως εἴργῃ τι περιέχον, ἕρκος εἰκὸς ὀνομάζειν. […] κύρτους δὴ καὶ δίκτυα καὶ βρόχους καὶ πόρκους καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα μῶν ἄλλο τι πλὴν ἕρκη χρὴ προσαγορεύειν; cf. Tim. Soph. Lex. Plat. ad loc.: πόρκος. οἱ μὲν τὸ δίκτυον ἀπέδοσαν, οἱ δὲ σχοινίου πλέγμα, οἱ δὲ κύρτον, οὐδὲ οὗτοι ὑγιῶς. ὁ γὰρ Πλάτων ἕτερόν φησι τὸν πόρκον τοῦ κύρτου. λέγει γὰρ οὕτως· “κύρτους καὶ δίκτυα καὶ βρόχους καὶ πόρκους καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα οὐκ ἄλλο τι πλὴν ἕρκη δεῖ προσαγορεύειν.” It is mentioned among other fishing tools in Poll. 1.97: τὰ δὲ ἐργαλεῖα αὐτῶν (scil. ἁλιέων) κάλαμοι, ῥάβδοι, λίνον, τρίχες ἵππειοι, ἄγκιστρα, ἀκιδωτά, ἀγκυλώματα, δίκτυα, ἀμφίβληστρα, πόρκοι, 7.137: ἁλιεῖς, ἀσπαλιευταί, δικτυεῖς δικτυουλκοί· καὶ δικτυοβόλοι δὲ οὗτοι καλοῦνται, ὡς οἱ τῷ πόρκῳ χρώμενοι πορκεῖς, 10.132: τὰ δὲ ἁλιέως σκεύη φέρνιον, σπυρίς σπυρίδιον σπυρίχνιον, λίνον πάναγρον, δίκτυον, ἀμφίβληστρον […] καὶ ἕρκη δὲ καὶ πόρκοι καὶ κύρτοι καὶ γρῖφοι καὶ γάγγαμον. Cf. Plu. Mor. 730C: οἱ δ’ ’Οδυσσέως ἑταῖροι, τοσαύτην πλέοντες θάλατταν, οὐδαμοῦ καθῆκαν ἄγκιστρον οὐδὲ πόρκον οὐδὲ δίκτυον ἀλφίτων παρόντων, Phot. π 1101 Theodoridis (=Sud. π 2077 Adler): πόρκος· κύρτος θαλάσσιος, ὁ εἰς ἄγραν ἰχθύων. See also Olson (2022) 70 on Antiph. fr. 118 (Kitharōidos) – from the same citation context — where the term is probably metaphorically employed to refer to an unpleasant situation from which there is no escape: εἰσδυόμενος εἰς πόρκον, ὅθεν ἔξω πάλιν/οὐ ῥᾳδίως ἔξειμι τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδόν. Cf. also Maggio (2023) 279–80.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

168

Τελεσίας (Telesias) (“Telesias”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 413–4; Kock (1880–88) II 567–8; Marigo (1907) 434; Breitenbach (1908) 51–2; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 138–9; PCG V 100–1; Pérez Asensio (1999) 388–90; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 273–4; Maggio (2023) 111–3 Title The play’s title bears the proper name Τελεσίας, which was a common name in Athens (see PA 13513–13520, PAA 879195–879330). Fourth-century figures named Telesias include a sculptor (PA 13515), a priest of Asclepius (PA 13520, PAA 879315) and a trierarch (PA 13519). But there were even more prominent characters bearing this name. The first was Telesias, son of Hegesileos (PAA 879215, Riemann 1956, 850, Stephanes 1988, §2389, Sutton 1989, §35, Aspiotes 2006, §1960), who ‘taught’ a winning dithyrambic chorus at the City Dionysia, according to an early fourth-century choregic monument (IG II2 3029, cf. Amandry 1976, 48, Wilson 1997, 175, n. 8). The second one was not Athenian, but a Theban fourth-century aulete and melic poet, a contemporary of Aristoxenus, mentioned in [Plu.] De Mus. 1142BC to have received an excellent education in the finest music, that of Pindar; so much so that even when being enraptured by the allure of the popular ‘new music’ of Philoxenus and Timotheus, he could not succeed in composing in their style owing to the residue of his superb training in the old lyric tropes (see Stephanes 1988, §2388, Aspiotes 2006, §1961, Barker 2007, 102, 247–9, Huffman 2012, 148–51). He was wrongly assumed by Edmonds (1957–61, IIIA 138, n. [a]) to be identical with the inventor of the war-dance called Telesiad, as the latter was Cretan (Poll. 4.99: ἐνόπλιοι ὀρχήσεις πυρρίχη τε καὶ τελεσιάς, ἐπώνυμοι δύο Κρητῶν ὀρχηστῶν, Πυρρίχου τε καὶ Τελεσίου). Cf. Ath. 14.629 D: καὶ τελεσιὰς δ’ ἐστὶν ὄρχησις καλουμένη· στρατιωτικὴ δ’ ἐστὶν αὕτη ἀπό τινος ἀνδρὸς Τελεσίου λαβοῦσα τοὔνομα, μεθ’ ὅπλων τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὴν ἐκείνου ὀρχησαμένου, Hesych. τ 412 (Hansen/Cunningham): ἡ μετὰ ξίφους ὄρχησις, ἀπὸ τοῦ εὑρόντος Τελεσίου. The inventor of this dance was identified by Wilamowitz (1914, 13) with the fifth-century ὀρχηστοδιδάσκαλος Telesis or Telestes, who undertook the training of the chorus in martial movements in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes (Stephanes 1988, §2390). In any case, if the title referred to a known historical figure, the play would be likely to involve ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν (cf. also Marigo 1907, 434, Pérez Asensio 1999, 389, Maggio 2023, 112–3). Diphilan comedy occasionally includes jibes at musicians, as in fr. 78 (from Synōris; for more detail see fr. 78.2–3n.); his Kitharōidos may have also treated musicians in a playful way. Another case of personal invective against a public figure is provided in Diphilus’ fr. 37 (Enagizontes or Enagismata) that ridicules the recklessness of Ctesippus, son of Chabrias. On

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Τελεσίας

169

ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν in New Comedy see the discussion above, fr. 78 (Synōris): Interpretation. On the other hand, Meineke (1839–57, I 457) supposed that Telesias was a parasite’s name, on the grounds that the play is attested to have sketched this stock character (see below, note on test. ii). This idea was challenged by Marigo (1907) 434 and Breitenbach (1908) 51–2; the latter (recently followed by Maggio 2023, 112) reasonably argued that one would expect a name like those that are often given to parasites and denote their qualities, such as Γνάθων, Γάστρων or Στρουθίας. Even if we consider the possibility that Telesias may have been a speaking name, its very meaning (deriving from τελεσιάζω, τελέω ‘to perform rites’) does not seem to provide a fitting name for a comic parasite. Content Telesias along with nine more comedies of Diphilus is cited in the Piraeus catalogue of book rolls kept at a school Library (see below, test. i and note ad loc.). The Diphilan plays are included in this list alongside tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles and, notably, a lesser number of comedies by other poets. Remarkably, this source indicates Diphilus’ appeal in the early first century BC, attesting that his plays were widely accessible and read, being part of the literary canon, to judge from their inclusion in the Library of a Gymnasium. Telesias is reported to have offered a delineation of the character of the parasite comparable with Menander’s character-sketching of the flatterer in Kolax (see test. ii and note ad loc.). This entails that the parasite held a pivotal role, which would have given scope for an in-depth characterization of this stock comic type. The sole fragment deriving from Telesias (fr. 80) is dialogic, comes from a sympotic context and comprises a short catalogue of after-meal snacks (on δεύτεραι τράπεζαι see below, fr. 80: Interpretation). The second speaker’s utter delight at the sound of the delicacies set out by the first speaker could fit the character traits of the parasite attested to be delineated in this play. This exchange may either take place in an onstage sympotic scene or may involve a description of the desserts that are going to be served in an offstage banquet. Fritzsche (ap. Töppel 1846, 31) suggested that the iambic lines quoted in Plu. Mor. 54B (γαστὴρ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, πανταχῆ βλέπων/ὀφθαλμός, ἕρπον τοῖς ὀδοῦσι θηρίον) could derive from a comedy, which is conceivable, but he went as far as to suggest that they could originate in Telesias, on the basis of Athenaeus’ testimony about Diphilus’ sketching of the parasite in this play (test. ii). Obviously, this reference per se is not sufficient to corroborate such a suggestion, not least because this fragment could derive from any play from middle comedy onwards, given the abundance of fragments concerning parasites in fourth-century comedy (see above, Parasitos: Title).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

170

Diphilus

Testimonia Test. i IG II/III2 2363.33–8

35

[ Διφίλου Σφαττόμεν[ος Αἱρησιτείχης Τήθη Ἀπ[οβάτης Ἑκάτη Στρατιώτ[ης πευταὶ Συνω[ρίς Φιλάδελφος Τελεσία{ια}[ς

ed. Kirchner; Piraeus, Catalogus librorum fortasse e bibliotheca gymnasii, fin. s. II vel init. s. Ia 33–8 Catalogum restituit Wilamowitz 36–7 Ἠπερο]πευταί Snell: Θερα]πευταί Koehler 37–8 Φιλάδελ]φος Wilamowitz: Ζωγρά]φος Kock 38 Τελεσία[ς Wilamowitz: Τελεσίαι Α΄[ Luppe

This inscription is dated in ca. 100 BC and comprises a list of the contents of book rolls kept at the Library of a Gymnasium in Piraeus. They seem to have been offered by epheboi, who tended to donate the books that they used at the end of their course (see note on IG II/III2 2363, Marrou 1948, 259, Tod 1957, 139, Zuntz 1965, 251, n. 6, Platthy 1968, 133–6, Scholz 2007, 125–8). Dramatic texts predominate in this catalogue. Ten plays of Diphilus are included: Hairēsiteichēs and its revised version, Stratiōtēs (see above, Stratiōtēs: Title), Apobatēs, Hecate, Synōris, Philadelphos or Zōgraphos, Telesias, a half-preserved play-title (reconstructed as Ἠπερο]πευταί by Snell in TrGF I 57, CAT B 1 36 and as Θερα]πευταί by Koehler in IG II 992) and two otherwise unattested comedies, Sphattomenos and Tēthē. Luppe (2004, 114) proposed that the transmitted reading τελεσιαια[ in l. 38 may be kept (Wilamowitz 1875, 140 had earlier rejected it as a dittography) and, in turn, suggested that Τελεσίαι Α΄ may be read, which would entail that there were two Telesias plays written by Diphilus; in view of the plural (Τελεσίαι instead of Τελεσίας), the catalogue should supposedly have to be supplemented at this point with a B΄ to refer to the second play. However, besides the fact that no second Telesias play is attested, it is worth noting that none of the preserved dramatic catalogues has play-titles cited in the plural. It may suffice to mention that in l. 48 of the present inscription Φρίξος, which we know that was the title of two tragedies of Euripides, is cited in the singular and without any distinction between Φρίξος A΄ and Φρίξος B΄. The same holds true for further catalogues citing plays of the same title; in TrGF V 1, B6 ’Αλκμαίων (col. i, 7), Μελανίππη (col. ii, 6) and Αὐτόλυκος (col. i, 13) are cited in the singular and without any reference to A΄ and Β΄, whilst in TrGF V 1, B8 Φρίξος is twice cited in l. 13 and l. 17 (once

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Τελεσίας (Test. ii)

171

for each of the two homonymous plays) and with no distinction between its first and second version. The titles of the Diphilan comedies are cited in the catalogue after Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros, Menander’s Dis Exapatōn, Kitharistēs and Daktylios, an otherwise unattested play-title by Crates, two unknown tragedies, one by Asclepiades and another by Silenus, Achaeus’ Erginus and at least eleven plays of Sophocles. After Diphilus’ comedies thirty-one titles of Euripidean plays are reported. No reference has been preserved to comedies of Aristophanes and Philemon, though they are likely to have been lost at the missing part of the inscription. The remains of this list preserve the titles of ten out of the one hundred plays attested to have been written by Diphilus, that is, ten per cent of his total production. This book catalogue indicates that these plays were widely read by the first century BC, before being gradually restricted to literary circles (like those alluded to in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistai) and thus given a lesser chance of long-term survival. Telesias, in particular, seems to have been known to Athenaeus, as apart from fr. 80 he also reports the play’s theme (test. ii). Notably, the Piraeus catalogue is the sole source to indicate that plays like Sphattomenos and Tēthē, from which no quotation at all has survived, were accessible to a wider readership by that period. It is also noteworthy that the library has obtained ten plays of Diphilus as against only three plays of Menander, one comedy of Cratinus and another one by Crates. Interestingly, the number of Diphilan comedies significantly surpasses the Menandrian ones and is comparable to the number of Sophoclean tragedies contained in these rolls; as would be expected, Euripides’ plays are by far the most read (on his immense post-mortem popularity see above, fr. 60.1–3n. [Parasitos]). Even if Diphilus’ overshadowing of Menander in this case is circumstantial, the Piraeus catalogue is significant in that it attests to the former’s appeal at the beginning of the first century BC; his plays were part of the literary canon (on which the Roman adaptations of Plautus and Terence had relied) and circulated presumably until the early Imperial period, being employed for educational purposes or read for recreation. Cf. Dobrov (2010) 16, Nesselrath (2011) 119–22, Nervegna (2013) 56–9; on Diphilus as part of the canonical triad of new comedy see PCG V, Diph. test. 13–16.

Test. ii Ath. 6.258E κεχαρακτήρικε δὲ ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ἐπιμελῶς τὸν κόλακα Μένανδρος ἐν τῷ ὁμωνύμῳ δράματι, ὡς καὶ τὸν παράσιτον Δίφιλος ἐν Τελεσίᾳ Menander delineated the character of the toady with the utmost skill in his play that bears this title, just as Diphilus sketched the parasite in Telesias

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

172

Diphilus

It is thanks to Athenaeus that we are informed of Diphilus’ detailed delineation of the parasite in Telesias, in a manner equivalent with Menander’s character-sketching of the flatterer in Kolax. The assumption of Meineke (1839–57, I 457) that Telesias was the parasite’s name cannot be established (see further above, Title). Diphilus’ sketching of the parasite in this play seems to be consistent with his focus on character types, including demi-monde characters (i.e. the parasite in the present case and in Parasitos, the courtesan in Synōris and the concubine in Pallakis), stock comic types determined by their occupation (Stratiōtēs, Emporos, Zōgraphos, Kitharōidos, Aleiptria) or by particular character features (Aplēstos, Polypragmōn). Ribbeck (1883, 27, n. 1) suggested that Diphilus’ Telesias may have been the same play as Parasitos. The latter has been named after this specific character type, which entails that it would have provided an in-depth description of this stock comic character (see above, Parasitos: Title, Content). Unless we accept that Diphilus devoted two utterly different plays to a thorough sketching of this character, it seems to me that a conceivable way of reconciling the available evidence is to suppose that the one play might have been a revised version of the other. Eloquent parallels of revisions of comedies that bear one title comprising a proper name and another title denoting a character’s principal feature (as supposedly with the titles Telesias and Parasitos) are Antiphanes’ Agroikos or Boutaliōn and Alexis’ Dēmētrios or Philetairos (see Arnott 1996, 155–7, Konstantakos 2000, 11–15, Nesselrath 2010, 442–5 and for more detail on revisions of comedies see above, Stratiōtēs: Title). In the present instance, nonetheless, this possibility is ultimately unprovable, since there is no source citing Parasitos together with Telesias, as is the case with the aforementioned plays of Alexis and Antiphanes.

Fragments fr. 80 K.-A. (79 K.) τρωγάλια, μυρτίδες, πλακοῦς, ἀμύγδαλα. (Β.) ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦθ’ ἥδιστά γ’ ἐπιδορπίζομαι 1 τρωγάλια Hdn., Ath. Epit., Phot.: τράγημα Ath. ἀμυγδαλαῖ Ath. A: ἀμυγδαλαί Ath. CE

ἀμύγδαλα Hdn., Ath. Epit., Phot.:

Snacks, myrtle-berries, a flat-cake, almonds. (Β.) I’ ll most gladly have them for dessert 1–2 Ath. 14.640C-D “οὐ πρότερόν γε, ἔφη ὁ Οὐλπιανός, ἀκουσόμεθα περὶ τούτων, ἕως ἂν περὶ ἐπιδορπισμάτων εἴπῃς.” καὶ ὁ Ποντιανός· “τραγήματα […] καὶ Δίφιλος ἐν Τελεσίᾳ — (fab. nom. om. CE)

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

173

Τελεσίας (fr. 80)

“We are not going to listen to these”, Ulpian said, “until you have spoken about desserts”. And Pontianus replied: “Snacks […] and Diphilus says in Telesias — Ath. Epit. 2.52E ὅτι τὰ τραγήματα ἐπιδορπίσματά τινές φασιν. Δίφιλος— Some regard snacks as dessert. Diphilus — 1 Hdn. GG III 1, 321.21–3 (Lentz) τὸ δὲ ἀμυγδαλῆ ἐκ συναιρέσεως […] καὶ οὐδετέρως ἀμύγδαλον λέγεται. Δίφιλος — The form ἀμυγδαλῆ (‘almond tree’) is contracted […]. In the neutral it is called ἀμύγδαλον (‘almond’). Diphilus — Phot. α 1286 (Theodoridis) ἀμύγδαλα δὲ ὡς ἡμεῖς τὸν καρπὸν καὶ ῞Ερμιππος Φορμοφόροις καὶ Φιλήμων ἐν Μύστιδι καὶ Δίφιλος Τελεσίᾳ — The word ἀμύγδαλα (‘almonds’) describing the drupe, like we use it, is employed by Hermippus in Phormophoroi, Philemon in Mystis and Diphilus in Telesias —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. l kk k l k l | k l k l k l 2. k l k l l l k | kk l l k l

(medial caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) I 201–2, VII 502; Meineke (1839–57) IV 413–4; Kock (1880–88) II 567–8; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 138–9; PCG V 100–1; Pérez Asensio (1999) 390–3; Wilkins (2000a) 40 and n. 158, 110, 172, 204–5, 231, 306–9; García Soler (2001) 118, 123–4, 379–80; Konstantakos (2005a) 187–98; Kramer (2008) 115; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 272 and n. 393 Citation Context This quotation derives from several sources. In the fourteenth book of Deipnosophistai Athenaeus discusses desserts (ἐπιδορπίσματα) in a lengthy section from 640B until 654A. To describe them, he cites Eur. fr. 467 K. (from Cressae, referring to cakes drenched with honey), Eub. fr. 74 (from Olbia, a list comprising pudding, myrtle-berries, figs, and grapes), and Crates fr. 112 (from Philargyros, referring to flat-cakes and sesame-seeds). These quotations are followed by the present fragment, which precedes comic passages such as Sophil. fr. 5 (from Parakatathēkē, referring to ματτύη, usually made of hashed meat, herbs and poultry and served cold as a dessert), Philyll. fr. 18 (from Phreōrychos, mentioning nuts and almonds), and Pl. Com. fr. 76 (from Menelaus, describing desserts as ἐπιτραπεζώματα). Athenaeus then goes on to distinguish between ordinary food and the snack one munches on (τράγημα or τρωγάλιον — the term employed in the present passage as well). From 641F until 642F he cites numerous comic passages that involve τραγήματα, including Antiph. fr. 138 (Leptiniskos), fr. 172.5–6 (Homoioi), Amph. fr. 9 (Gynaikomania), Anaxandrid. fr. 2 (Agroikoi), Clearch. fr. 4 (Pandrosos), Eub. fr. 44 (Campylion), Alex. fr. 190 (Polycleia), fr. 168 (Homoia), Ephipp. fr. 8 (Ephēboi), fr. 13 (Cydon), Alex. fr. 252 (Philiscus). Subsequently, from

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

174

Diphilus

643E to 648C a wide variety of cakes is described, which is followed by references to types of nuts from 649A to 649E. The discussion about after-meal snacks concludes with fruits (pears, medlars, pomegranates, lotus fruits, dried figs, and grapes) from 650C to 654A. This fragment is similarly quoted alongside the aforementioned comic passages of Plato, Antiphanes, Amphis, Eubulus, Alexis, and Ephippus in Epit. 2.52E, which summarizes Athenaeus’ section on ἐπιδορπίσματα. In this source, as in Herodian, who only quotes the first line, it is ascribed to Diphilus without any reference to the play from which it derives. Herodian cites it within the context of his discussion about the accentuation of ἀμυγδαλῆ. As he points out, according to Pamphilus and Tryphon, the almond-fruit (occurring in the present fragment in the neutral form ἀμύγδαλον), when encountered in the feminine gender, is paroxytone (ἀμυγδάλη), whilst the almond-tree is περισπώμενον (ἀμυγδαλῆ); conversely, Aristarchus takes both the fruit and the tree to be oxytone, whilst Philoxenus has them both contracted (as in Phryn. fr. inc. 64 with Stama 2014, 310, Ar. fr. inc. 605 with Bagordo 2016, 95, Eup. fr. 79 [Baptai] with Olson 2017, 252; cf. also Ath. 2.52F-53B, Sud. α 1665 Adler). Furthermore, the first line is quoted by Photius, who often cites comic passages in his lexicon that provides a compilation of literary words within the context of Byzantine linguistic training (cf. Dickey 2007, 101–2, Pontani 2015, 332–3). In the lēmma ἀμυγδαλῆ (‘almond tree’) Photius distinguishes between the feminine form ἀμυγδάλη (‘almond’), as used by Eupolis in fr. 230 (Poleis), and the neutral ἀμύγδαλα (‘almonds’), which became common in his own era and had been employed in comedy by Hermippus in fr. 63.20 (Phormophoroi), Philemon in fr. 48 (Mystis) and Diphilus in the present passage. Text In l. 1 the plural τρωγάλια attested in Herodian, Ath. Epit. 2.52E and Photius α 1286 is preferable to the singular τράγημα reported in Ath. 14.640D, as the plural is needed to include a group of snacks, such as μυρτίδες, πλακοῦς and ἀμύγδαλα, all of which are described as τρωγάλια or τραγήματα (‘after-meal snacks’). Interpretation The first line of this fragment includes a short food catalogue (on comic catalogues see above, fr. 60.5–10n. [Parasitos]). The context is sympotic, as l. 1 refers to dainties often being served after the main meal, the so-called δεύτεραι τράπεζαι (‘second tables’), which comprised the snacks one munches on whilst drinking wine (τραγήματα or τρωγάλια). The ‘second tables’ are elaborately described in Philox. Deipnon PMG fr. 836e and Ath. 14.639B-654A; for more detail see below, note on τρωγάλια. Speaker B is most eagerly expressing the desire to savour the dainties mentioned by speaker A. If we take into account that Telesias is reported to have focused on the type of the parasite (see above, test. ii), then the delight expressed by the second speaker at the dessert about to be served seems to square nicely with the reaction expected of a parasite. It is thus feasible that character B could be the parasite delineated in this play. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 391.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Τελεσίας (fr. 80)

175

As regards the dramatic situation, these lines may either involve an onstage sympotic scene, which concludes with the ‘second tables’, or a description of the desserts that are going to be served in an offstage banquet. The latter possibility recalls the reference to the upcoming (offstage) dinner in Ar. Ra. 504–12 and Ec. 1128–43, 1149–50, 1168–79. Several offstage feasts take place in comedy (cf. Ar. Ach. 1203, 1224–9, Pax 1192–6, 1207–9, 1265–6, Men. Dysc. 940–64), and there is a number of comic cases of ‘banquet narratives’ (on which see Fraenkel 1912, 13–33, Handley 1965, 299–300, Webster 19702, 65–6, Hunter 1985, 19–20, Nesselrath 1990, 262 and n. 56, Arnott 1996, 54, 185). At the same time, as Konstantakos (2005a, 183–207) has aptly demonstrated, literary evidence (such as the concrete use of sympotic terms) in conjunction with iconographic sources is suggestive of a respectable number of onstage banquets especially in fourth-century comedy. Diphilan comedy, in particular, features several wine-drinking scenes, which seem to have been enacted on stage, as in frr. 5 (Hairēsiteichēs), 20 (Ballaneion), 56 (Mnēmation), 57 (Paiderastai), 70 (Sapphō, see Interpretation ad loc.) and the sympotic episode of fr. 74 (Synōris, see Interpretation ad loc.). On staged symposia see esp. Alex. frr. 116 (Crateia), 228 (Tithē), 232, 234 (Tokistēs), Antiph. frr. 161, 163 (Mystis), Philem. fr. 8 (Androphonos) and the opening scene of Menander’s Synaristōsai (frr. 335–6). Staged banquet scenes seem occasionally to be enacted in old comedy as well, to judge from Pherecr. fr. 45 (Doulodidaskalos) and frr. 73–76 (Koriannō). A great number of further comic passages indicating staged banquets has been gathered and analysed by Konstantakos (2005a, 187–98); cf. briefly Legrand (1908) 41–4, Kraus (1959) 156, Webster (19602) 112 and n. 1, 153–4, Steidle (1975) 358, n. 66, Arnott (1996) 175, 181, 324–5, 655–7, 661, Totaro (1998) 181–2. Overall, staged symposia, like those later preserved in Plautine drama (esp. Most. 295–406 and the closing banquet scenes of Asinaria, Stichus and Persa), seem to have been a popular spectacle in fourth-century comedy. They are likely to have been enacted at the performance area before the stage-building or alternatively on the ekkyklēma as indoor scenes brought out into view of the spectators. The absence of further evidence for the context of the present fragment cannot lead to conclusive remarks as to whether this banquet was staged or not. As pointed out above, in fourth-century theatre production both possibilities were feasible; therefore, the onstage presentation of the symposium or its offstage description would have been ultimately conditioned by factors pertaining to dramatic economy. 1 τρωγάλια A derivative of τρώγω, denoting the delicacies, savoury or sweet, usually served after the main meal to accompany wine-drinking (usually cakes, fruit-snacks, nuts, and chickpeas or even eggs and small portions of meat); cf. Pi. fr. 124c.1 Sn.-M.: δείπνου δὲ λήγοντος γλυκὺ τρωγάλιον, Poll. 6.79: τὰ δ’ ἐπιδορπίσματα ’Αριστοφάνης μὲν ἐπιφορήματα καλεῖ, ὥστε εἴη ἂν καὶ τὸ ἐπιδορπίζεσθαι ἐπιφορεῖσθαι, ἦν δὲ τρωγάλια, κάρυα, μυρτίδες, μέσπιλα, ἃ καὶ ὄα καλεῖται. Τρωγάλια anticipates the more widespread term τραγήματα, according to Arist. fr. 104 R.3: ’Αριστοτέλης δ’ ἐν τῷ περὶ μέθης τὰ τραγήματά φησι λέγεσθαι

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

176

Diphilus

ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων τρωγάλια· ὡσεὶ γὰρ ἐπιδορπισμὸν εἶναι (cf. also schol. vet. Ar. Pl. 798 Chantry: τρωγάλια· τραγήματα. οὕτω γὰρ τὰ τραγήματα ἐκάλουν οἱ παλαιοί and Kramer 2008, esp. 113). Cf. Clearch. Sol. fr. 87.12–14 (Wehrli) including under τραγήματα various kinds of cakes, fruits, nuts, and eggs: ἄμης πλακοῦς ἔντιλτος ἴτριον ῥόα ᾠὸν ἐρέβινθος σησάμη κοπτὴ βότρυς ἰσχὰς ἄπιος πέρσεια μῆλ’ ἀμύγδαλα. Naturally, sympotic eating is a distinctive feature of comic discourse, and references to τρωγάλια as a constituent element of δεύτεραι τράπεζαι occur in Ar. Pax 772 (cf. Olson 1999, 224) and Pl. 797–9: oὐ γὰρ πρεπῶδές ἐστι τῷ διδασκάλῳ/ ἰσχάδια καὶ τρωγάλια τοῖς θεωμένοις/προβαλόντ’, ἐπὶ τούτοις εἶτ’ ἀναγκάζειν γελᾶν. For the more common, synonymous term τραγήματα see Ar. Ra. 510–11: καὶ τραγήματα/ἔφρυγε, κᾦνον ἀνεκεράννυ γλυκύτατον, Ec. 844, Pl. 996, Eub. fr. 44 (Campylion): τραγημάτων δ’ ἔσθ’ ἡ τράπεζά σοι πλέα./(Β.) οὐ φιλοτραγήμων εἰμί πως ἑκάστοτε, Alex. fr. 168.2 (Homoia) with Arnott (1996) 494, fr. 190 (Polykleia): ὁ πρῶτος εὑρὼν κομψὸς ἦν τραγήματα·/τοῦ συμποσίου γὰρ διατριβὴν ἐξεῦρέ πως/κἀργοὺς ἔχειν μηδέποτε τὰς σιαγόνας, fr. 252 (Philiscus), Mnesim. fr. 7.4–5 (Philippos): ἐντεῦθεν εὐθὺς ἐπιφέρει τραγήματα/ἡμῖν ὁ παῖς μετὰ δεῖπνον (cf. Mastellari 2020, 461), Nicostr. fr. 27 (Pseudostigmatias): καὶ σὺ μὲν/τὴν δευτέραν τράπεζαν εὐτρεπῆ ποίει./κόσμησον αὐτὴν παντοδαποῖς τραγήμασιν,/μύρον, στεφάνους, λιβανωτόν, αὐλητρίδα λαβέ (cf. Lamari 2023 on l. 3), Ephipp. fr. 8.3–4 (Ephēboi), Clearch. fr. 4 (Pandrosos) with Mastellari (2020) 46–7, Crobyl. fr. inc. 9, Men. fr. 194 (Hippokomos), fr. 409.13–4 (Pseudo-Heracles), Mach. fr. 16.267 G., cf. Olson/Sens (1999) on Matr. fr. 1.111. On ‘second tables’ see Mau (1901b) 610–11, Taillardat (19652) 85, Spyropoulos (1974) 88 (on the accumulation of τραγήματα), Micha-Lampaki (1984) 279–311 (on ἐπιδορπίσματα including a rich collection of comic sources), Pérez Asensio (1999) 391–2, Wilkins (2000a) 40 and n. 158, 231, 308–9, Kramer (2008) 113–8, 125–7, 130–1, Lovano (2020) I 371. μυρτίδες Myrtle-berries were a popular type of τράγημα, to judge from Pl. R. 372d: καὶ τραγήματά που παραθήσομεν αὐτοῖς τῶν τε σύκων καὶ ἐρεβίνθων καὶ κυάμων, καὶ μύρτα καὶ φηγοὺς σποδιοῦσιν πρὸς τὸ πῦρ, μετρίως ὑποπίνοντες (cf. schol. vet. ad loc. Greene: τραγήματα· βολβούς, μύρτα, φηγούς) and Poll. 6.79 (quoted in the previous note). They tend to be cited alongside other dainties, mostly in comic catalogues; see Pherecr. fr. 158 (Cheiron): άμυγδάλας καὶ μῆλα καὶ μιμαίκυλα,/καὶ μύρτα καὶ σέλινα κἀξ οἴνου βότρυς,/καὶ μυελόν (along with almonds, as in the present fragment), Ar. fr. 581.5 (Hōrai), Theopomp. fr. inc. 68, Apolloph. fr. 5 (Krētes): πρώτιστα δὲ/τῶν μυρρινῶν ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν βούλομαι,/ ἃς διαμασῶμ’ ὅταν τι βουλεύειν δέῃ, Antiph. fr. 177.4 (Homōnymoi), Eub. fr. 74.5 (Olbia). Cf. Luc. Icar. 27.6–9 (in a similarly sympotic scene): καὶ ἄρτον τε ἡ Δημήτηρ παρεῖχε καὶ ὁ Διόνυσος οἶνον καὶ ὁ ῾Ηρακλῆς κρέα καὶ μύρτα ἡ ’Αφροδίτη καὶ ὁ Ποσειδῶν μαινίδας. According to Arist. Pr. 931a6–8, munching myrtle-berries and oak-nuts makes wine taste sweeter. The preparation of myrtle-berries for consumption is set out in Gp. 7.20.1: μυρτίδας ὀλίγας ὡρίμους συλλέξας ξήρανον καὶ κόψον, καὶ ἔμβαλε ἐν τῷ κακάβῳ τῷ λεγομένῳ χοίνικι, καὶ

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Τελεσίας (fr. 80)

177

ἔασον ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ιʹ· εἶτα ἀνοίξας χρῶ. See Wilkins (2000a) 110, 172, 204–5, GarcÍa Soler (2001) 118. πλακοῦς A very popular cake, to judge from Athenaeus’ extensive description of its variations from 643E to 648C; see also Telecl. fr. 1.13 (Amphiktyones), fr. 34 (Sterroi), Ar. Ra. 507, Pl. 191, Nicophon fr. 21 (Seirēnes) with Pellegrino (2013) 69, Matr. 1.116–8 Olson/Sens: ὡς δὲ ἴδον ξανθόν, γλυκερόν, μέγαν, εὔκυκλον, ἁβρὸν/ Δήμητρος παῖδ’ ὀπτὸν ἐπεισελθόντα πλακοῦντα,/πῶς ἂν ἔπειτα πλακοῦντος ἐγὼ θείου ἀπεχοίμην; Archestr. fr. 60.15–16 Olson/Sens, Poll. 6.78. It was a flat cake, either fried or baked, often being soaked in honey, according to Magn. fr. 2 (Dionysus II) with Bagordo (2014b) 96, Ar. Ach. 1127–30 (cf. Olson 2002 on Ach. 1040), Pl. Com. fr. 188.8–9 (Phaon), Antiph. fr. 55.7–11 (Aphrodisios), fr. 143 (Lēmniai), Crob. fr. inc. 10 (cf. Mastellari 2020, 187–8), Men. fr. 409.16 (Pseudo-Heracles), Archestr. fr. 60.16–18 (cf. Olson/Sens 2000, ad loc.) and Ath. 14.646B-647C (gathering numerous examples). Its Roman equivalent was placenta (Cato Agr. 76, Lucil. 585 Marx, Mart. 5.39). Πλακοῦς was regularly served at the ‘second tables’. It is cited among τραγήματα in Ar. Pl. 995–6: ἐμοῦ γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸν πλακοῦντα τουτονὶ/καὶ τἄλλα τἀπὶ τοῦ πίνακος τραγήματα, Theopomp. fr. 12 (Eirēnē), Alex. fr. 252.4 (Philiscus): τράγημα δοτέον ἔτι, πλακοῦντος ἁπτέον, Anaxandr. fr. 42.54 (Protesilaus): σῦκα, πλακοῦντες, μῆλα, κράνειαι (cf. Millis 2015, ad loc.), Philippid. fr. 20 (Philargyros). Likewise, it accompanies wine in Ar. Pax 1359. For more detail see Orth (1922) 2088–94, Amouretti (1986) 130, 284, Dalby (1996) 91 and (2003) 70, Wilkins (2000a) esp. 306–9, García Soler (2001) esp. 379–80, Donahue (2015) 62, Wilkins/Hill (2016) 127–30, Stama (2016) 456 (with further bibliography). On the erotic connotations of πλακοῦς in several comic passages cf. Henderson (1991) 144 (§177), Sonnino (2012) 79 and Bagordo (2013) 169–70. ἀμύγδαλα On the variants ἀμύγδαλον, ἀμυγδάλη and ἀμυγδαλῆ see above (Citation Context) for Herodian’s discussion. Athenaeus extensively refers to almonds (2.51C-54D), pointing out that the best of them were produced in the islands of Naxos and Cyprus (52B-C). Cf. similarly Phrynich. fr. inc. 73 (with Stama 2014, 336). Almonds, like other τραγήματα, accompanied wine, being consumed so that inebriation could be avoided (Plu. Mor. 624C: τῶν πικρῶν ἀμυγδαλῶν πέντ’ ἢ ἓξ ἑκάστοτε προλαμβάνων ἕνεκα τοῦ μὴ μεθύσκεσθαι); see Eup. fr. 271 (Taxiarchoi): δίδου μασᾶσθαι Ναξίας ἀμυγδάλας/οἶνόν τε πίνειν Ναξίων ἀπ’ ἀμπέλων (cf. Olson 2016, 404), Antiph. fr. 138.2 (Leptiniskos): οἶνον Θάσιον πίνοις ἄν; (Β.) εἴ τις ἐγχέαι./(Α.) πρὸς ἀμυγδάλας δὲ πῶς ἔχεις; (Β.) εἰρηνικῶς./μαλακὰς σφόδρα, δι’ ἃς μέλιτι προσπαίζειν βία./(Α.) μελίπηκτα δ’ εἴ σοι προσφέροι; (Β.) τρώγοιμι καὶ/ ᾠὸν δὲ καταπίνοιμ’ ἄν. (Α.) ἄλλου δεῖ τινος; In Pherecr. fr. 158 (Cheiron) almonds are similarly mentioned alongside myrtle-berries (cf. Franchini 2020, 301–2). They are included in a list of desserts in Philyll. fr. 18 (Phreōrychos): ἀμύγδαλα,/καρύδι’, ἐπιφορήματα and Men. fr. 83 (Heautontimōroumenos). Likewise, almonds are cited in catalogues of goods in Epich. fr. inc. 148, Hermipp. fr. 63.20 (Phormophoroi)

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

178

Diphilus

with Comentale (2017) ad loc., Alex. fr. 179.5 (Pannychis ē Erithoi), Philyll. fr. inc. 24. On almonds see further Hehn (1911) 387–8, 391, 393–5, Wagler (1894) 1990–4, Pritchett (1956) 182, André (19812) 85–6, Watkins (19952) 423–9, Arnott (1996) 534, Wilkins (2000a) 40 and n. 158, García Soler (2001) 123–4, Zohary/ Hopf/Weiss (20124) 147–9. On their medical benefits see Stama (2014, 311) on Phryn. fr. inc. 64. 2 ἥδιστά γ’ It is employed to convey the pleasure of eating in Ar. Eq. 707: ἐπὶ τῷ φάγοις ἥδιστ’ ἄν; V. 510–11: ἀλλ’ ἥδιον ἂν/δικίδιον σμικρὸν φάγοιμ’ ἂν ἐν λοπάδι πεπνιγμένον, Pax 643 (with Olson 1999, ad loc.): ἅττα διαβάλοι τις αὐτῇ, ταῦτ’ ἂν ἥδιστ’ ἤσθιεν, 1281 (an epic pastiche): «ἄριστον προτίθεντο καὶ ἅσσ’ ἥδιστα πάσασθαι», Antiph. fr. 21.1 (Akestria): κρέας δὲ τίνος ἥδιστ’ ἂν ἐσθίοις; ἐπιδορπίζομαι LSJ9: ‘to eat in the second course or for dessert’; in comedy the verb is also encountered in Sophil. fr. 5.3–5 (Parakatathēkē): κωμάσαι/πρὸς τὴν Ταναγρικὴν δεῖ γάρ, ἵν’ ἐκεῖ κατακλιθεὶς / ἐπιδορπίσηται τὰς ὀνείας ματτύας. Cf. similarly ἐπιδόρπισμα in Philippid. fr. 20 (Philargyros): πλακοῦντες, ἐπιδορπίσματ’, ᾠά, σήσαμα. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 393.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

179

Τήθη (Tēthē)

(“Grandmother”) Discussion Kock (1880–88) II 568; PCG V 101; Pérez Asensio (1999) 394–6; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 274, n. 398; Maggio (2023) 224 Title The sole piece of evidence for this play is provided by an inscriptional catalogue of book rolls kept at the Library of a Gymnasium in Piraeus and dated to the early first century BC (IG II/III2 2363.35). It attests that this comedy, of which only the title has now been preserved, was extant by that time alongside the nine Diphilan plays reported in the inscription. For more detail about this inscriptional evidence see especially note on Telesias test. i; cf. also Sphattomenos: Title. The play-title could be paralleled to several titles of fourth-century comedies exploring family relationships, such as Diphilus’ Epiklēros, Philadelphos or Philadelphoi (see below: Title), the Adelphoi plays by Diphilus, Menander, Philemon and earlier by Alexis, Antiphanes’ Adelphai and Didymai, Didymoi by Alexis, Antiphanes, Anaxandrides, Aristophon, and Xenarchus, Menander’s Anepsioi and Homopatrioi, Philemon’s Paidarion and Nothos, as well as Chēra and Hypobolimaios by both Menander and Philemon (cf. also Arnott 2010, 316–7). Interestingly, no other comedy has been named after a grandmother (τήθη), who is a rather unusual dramatic character (cf. only occasional references to grandmothers in Ar. Ach. 49 with Olson 2002, ad loc., Men. fr. inc. 804.4). This fact has led to the false assumption (expressed by Pérez Asensio 1999, 394–6, Pérez Asensio/ Sanchis/Montañés 2014, 274, n. 398, and Maggio 2023, 224) that the term τήθη could also denote ‘nurse’, according to schol. vet. Il. 14.219 (Erbse) and schol. vet. Ar. Lys. 549 (Hangard): τήθας ἐκάλουν τὰς μάμμας, τηθίδας δὲ τὰς θείας, τὰς πατρὸς ἢ μητρὸς (ἀδελφάς). τήθας δὲ καὶ τὰς τροφούς; in these cases, however, τήθη has been confused with the palaeographically similar and almost homophone τίτθη (‘nurse’); for this common type of mistake cf. LSJ9 s.v. τήθη and Arnott (1996) 648, n. 1. Indeed, the nurse is a more common dramatic character (in both tragedy and comedy) than the grandmother, and at least four comedies (by Alexis, Eubulus, Menander, and Caecilius) have been named Titthē. Nurses are often associated with supposititious or long-lost babies and are thus involved in exciting plot-patterns comprising ruse, reversals, and effective recognitions; cf. the unnamed nurse in Men. Sam. 231–61 (with Sommerstein 2013, 177–82), Sophrone in Epit. 1062–75 (with Furley 2009, 243–5), Giddenis in Plaut. Poen. 1120–45, Staphyla in Aul. 40–119, 268–79, 350–62, Canthara in Ter. HT 614–9, as well as Sophrona in Eun. 910–22 (cf. Barsby 1999, 252–4) and Phorm. 728–65. They are stock characters bearing distinctive features, as they tend to be presented as garrulous (Men. Sam. 260–1, fr. 65 [Arrhēphoros ē Aulētris]) and even negligent and bad influence on children (Cratin. fr. 5 [Archilochoi] with Bianchi 2016, 60–2, Ar. Eq. 716–8, Antiph. fr. 157.4 [Misoponēros] with Olson 2022, ad loc., Men. Dysc. 384–7, Sam. 85–6 with

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

180

Diphilus

Sommerstein 2013, 128–9, cf. Arist. Rh. 1407a8–10). On comic nurses see further Oeri (1948) 53–60, Williams (1963) 309–16, 318–22, Webster (1974) 193, Blume (1974) 105, n. 45, Hunter (1983) 209, Rühfel (1988) 44, 53, Arnott (1996) 647–9. Nonetheless, τήθη cannot denote ‘nurse’, as observed above. Although errors in inscriptions are notably rarer than in the manuscript tradition, one cannot exclude an error in the process of inscribing on the basis of a copy of the book-catalogue; in fact, the horizontal bar of the second T of TIΤΘΗ, if placed relatively lower than the preceding I, may have been confused with the crossbar of H, thus producing the reading ΤΗΘΗ. Further errors in this specific inscription include the evident dittography ΤΕΛΕΣΙΑΙΑ[ in l. 38 (for more detail see note on Telesias test. i) and ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥ instead of ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ in l. 32. Hence, although one cannot conclusively argue in favour of τίτθη over τήθη, it is nonetheless worth considering such a possibility on these grounds, not least because the popular character of the nurse could give scope for a typically comic intrigue and recognition plot. Content The clues provided by the title as such are suggestive of a play focusing on family relationships, such as Diphilus’ Adelphoi, Philadelphos or Philadelphoi and further domestic comedies mentioned above (see: Title). If the possibility that Titthē might have been the correct title rather than Tēthē is explored (see: Title), this could tell in favour of a plot comprising the stock comic character of the nurse, who tends to be engaged in exciting storylines involving intrigue and anagnōrisis of supposititious babies, as in Menander’s Samia and Epitrepontes, to mention but a few well-attested plots of this kind. But apart from these elements, nothing else is known or may be recovered.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

181

Τιθραύστης (Tithraustēs) (“Tithraustes”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) I 455–6, IV 414; Kock (1880–88) II 568; Marigo (1907) 434; Breitenbach (1908) 94–5; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 138–9; Webster (19702) 153; PCG V 101–2; Pérez Asensio (1999) 396–8; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/ Montañés (2014) 274–5; Maggio (2023) 113–7 Title The play’s title is a Persian proper name (see Breitenbach 1908, 94–5). Three historical figures are attested to bear the name Tithraustes. The earliest one, an illegitimate son of Xerxes (D.S. 11.60.6), was the commander of the royal fleet of Persia in the battle of Eurymedon in Pamphylia, Asia Minor (469 or 466 BC), which was fought between the Delian League led by Cimon and Persia. Cimon’s victory in the battle of Eurymedon was of great significance, as it demoralised the Persians, who were thus deterred from campaigning to the Aegean for more than a decade to follow (see Ephor. FGrH 70 F192, Plu. Cim. 12.5). Cf. e.g. Dandamaev (1989) 231, Strauss (2004) 56–7. Tithraustes was also the name of a chiliarch of king Artxerxes II, by whom he was commissioned to have Tissaphernes slain and to succeed him in the satrapy of Sardis (X. Hell. 3.4.25, D.S. 14.80.7–8, Polyaen. 7.16.1, Plu. Ages. 10.4–5). He then entered into negotiations with Agesilaus, attempting to bribe him, so that the latter would withdraw the Spartan army from Asia (X. Ages. 4.6). Realizing that Agesilaus had no intention of leaving Asia, Tithraustes is reported to have sent Timocrates of Rhodes to Greece with gold to the value of fifty silver talents, which he was ordered to distribute among Greek leaders (395 BC), so that they would be prompted to wage war against Sparta (X. Hell. 3.5.1–2, Paus. 3.9.7–8, Plu. Art. 20.4–6, cf. the version of Hell.Oxy. FGrH 66 F1, VIII–IX, XIV, XVI/25.244–27.283, 38.529–40.563, 44.645–650 Chambers). Timocrates’ success in this mission gave rise to the notorious statement that ‘a thousand Persian archers had driven Agesilaus out of Asia’, referring to the archer stamped on Persian gold coins (Plu. Art. 20.5: ὅτε δὴ καί φασιν αὐτὸν ἀπιόντα πρὸς τοὺς φίλους εἰπεῖν, ὡς τρισμυρίοις τοξόταις ἐξελαύνοιτο τῆς ’Ασίας ὑπὸ βασιλέως· τὸ γὰρ Περσικὸν νόμισμα τοξότην ἐπίσημον εἶχεν, cf. Mor. 211B). These Persian bribes were, according to Xenophon, the main cause of the Corinthian War (X. Hell. 4.2.1, 4.4.2, 5.2.35), which concluded with the humiliating Peace of Antalcidas (387 BC) that established Persian interference into Greek political affairs. Subsequently, Tithraustes undertook an expedition alongside Pharnabazus and Abrocomas to impose Persian command over Egypt (385–383 BC), but they were defeated by the Greek mercenaries commanded by the Athenian general Chabrias (Isoc. 4.140, D. 20.76, Nep. Chabr. 2.1, Polyaen. 3.11.7, D.S. 15.29.2). See Stauffenberg (1937) 1522–3, Buckler (2004) 397–401, Rung (2004) 413–23, Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 274–5, n. 399. The third Persian bearing this name was satrap of Greater Phrygia during the reign of Artaxerxes III. In 356/5 BC his land was ravaged by the Athenian general

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

182

Diphilus

Chares, who had offered military aid to the satrap Artabazus in his revolt against the Persian king and the satraps (FGrH 105 F4, D.S. 16.22.1–2). Cf. Olmstead (1948) 428, Hornblower (1982) 144, n. 57, Sekunda (2011) 53–5. For an exploration of these possibilities cf. recently Maggio (2023) 114–7. Pace Webster (19702, 153), it seems improbable that Tithraustēs is a historical play (against this historical reading cf. also Meineke 1839–57, I 455–6, Breitenbach 1908, 94); there is no evidence suggesting that Diphilus ever wrote comedies treating historical events. Moreover, if the play involved personal invective of a historical figure, this would presuppose contemporaneity, and none of the three characters named Tithraustes was Diphilus’ contemporary. At the same time, Edmonds’ suggestion (1957–61, IIIA 139) that ‘he probably used, to attack some Athenian politician or Macedonian potentate, the story of the former’s (i.e. Tithraustes’) murder of Tissaphernes’ is highly conjectural. Further hypothetical suggestions were made by Pérez Asensio (1999) 397–8. It seems to me that the most one can say on the strength of the available evidence is that Tithraustes must have been a well-known Persian name, to judge from the (at least) three historical personages attested to have been so named. It is conceivable that the name as such might allude to typically Persian vices like avarice, bribery, and deviousness, which also characterized the historical figures mentioned above (especially the second one). Considering these connotations, the Persian title-character may have been attributed with such unflattering features, corresponding, on a larger scale, to Greek stereotypes about Persian mentality (on which see further below: Content). A number of comic titles involve foreign names, such as Diphilus’ Amastris, which is a similarly Persian name (a niece of Darius III, cf. Breitenbach 1908, 111), Alexis’ Imilkōn (probably the Greek form of a Carthaginian name, cf. Arnott 1996, 255–7), Aristophon’s Babias (a name coming from Asia Minor, cf. Orth 2020, 23), and Posidippus’ Arsinoё (cf. Breitenbach 1908, 112–4). It is evidently due to the archetypal Graeco-Persian adversity that Achaemenid themes were so popular in comedy; it may suffice to mention Persai ē Assyrioi by Chionides (see Bagordo 2014a, 50), Persai by Epicharmus and Pherecrates (cf. Franchini 2020, 176–7), Mēdos by Theopompus (cf. Farmer 2022, 102), and Metagenes’ Thouriopersai (cf. Pellegrino 1998, 303–7, Orth 2014, 408–12). Further ethnic comic titles involve Diphilus’ Sikelikos (see above: Title), as well as Epicharmus’ Trōes, Magnes’ Lydoi, Aristophanes’ Babylōnioi (with Orth 2017, 350–1) and Telemēssēs, Antiphanes’ Kares, Alexis’ Brettia (cf. Arnott 1996, 135), Tyrrhēnos by Antiphanes and Axionicus, Kaunioi by Alexis and Timocles (see Arnott 1996, 288 and Apostolakis 2019, 168 respectively), Aigyptioi by Antiphanes and Timocles, Eubulus’ Mysoi, Xenarchus’ Skythai, Karchedonios by Alexis and Menander and Philemon’s Babylōnios. It is to be expected that particular ethnic stereotypes would have been represented in these plays. The title-character’s name may also involve a paretymological pun; in Greek Τιθραύστης could acoustically point to θραύω (‘to break in pieces’). This aural

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Τιθραύστης (fr. 81)

183

pattern and its resonances might have been deployed in some way to produce a comic effect. Content As noted above (Title), it seems rather unlikely that the subject-matter of Tithraustēs was historical. This name is Persian, which entails that the title-character was Persian as well, being endowed with typical Persian features (e.g. greed, extravagance, and ruse). Accordingly, fr. 81, the sole preserved passage from Tithraustēs, conveys a distinctively Persian ambience. In more specific terms, the hilarious banter between the two characters is an ostentation of Oriental lavishness; the first speaker, probably a Persian (the title-character?) enumerates extravagant drinking vessels of exotic names (the first two typically Achaemenid animal-shaped cups, whilst the third and fourth bearing names of Persian roots), which causes the second speaker’s bewilderement. This sense of opulence, emerging from the first speaker’s stress on the high value of these drinking cups in gold — especially of the last one, the λαβρώνιος – is indicative of Persian sympotic luxury, as well as of its clash with the measure pervading Greek sympotic culture (see further below, fr. 81: Interpretation). It is also in line with main tenets of Greek thought about the Persian way of life, which was perceived as relying on excessive wealth that formed a major component of their olbos (‘happiness in prosperity’, as rendered by Rosenbloom 2006, 50). On Greek beliefs about the unrestrained Persian mode of living see Hall (1989) 80, 101–59, Castriota (2000) 443–73, Briant (2002) 202–7, Rosenbloom (2006) esp. 46–53, Papadodima (2013) ch. 4 and 5 and (2014) 259–65, Gorman/Gorman (2014) 76–145; for the comic reception of ethnic stereotypes see recently Ornaghi (2020) 407–32, esp. 430–1 with regard to Persian extravagance; on this possible ridicule in Tithraustēs see Maggio (2023) 115–7. Comic episodes similarly imbued with a Persian colour include Ar. Th. 1172– 1201, where the dancing girl seduces the Scythian archer to the sound of a Persian tune that conveys sensualism. Moreover, Persian disguise is a key feature of the intrigue in Plautus’ Persa: Sagaristio gets dressed as a Persian and sells Saturio’s daughter, similarly dressed as a Persian captive, to the pimp Dordalus, who loses his money, when it ultimately turns out that she is free. In these instances, too, distinctively Persian features can be discerned, such as hedonism in the first case, greed and deviousness in the second one.

Fragments fr. 81 Κ.-A. (80 K.) πρίστις, τραγέλαφος, βατιάκη, λαβρώνιος. †ἀνδραποδιον† δὴ ταῦθ’, ὁρᾷς, ἥκιστά γε, ἐκπωμάτων δ’ ὀνόματα. (Β.) πρὸς τῆς ῾Εστίας. (Α.) ὁ λαβρώνιος χρυσῶν δέ, παῖδες, εἴκοσι

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

184

Diphilus

1 πρίστις, τραγέλαφος Porson: τραγέλαφος πρίστις Α (CE) 2 ἀνδραποδιον δὴ ταῦθ’ ὁρᾷς A: ἀνδραποδίων δὴ ταῦθ’, ὁρᾷς, Kaibel: (B.) ἀνδραποδίων δὴ ταῦθ’, ὁρᾷς. (A.) Daléchamp: (B.) ἀνδραπόδιον δὴ τoῦθ’, ὁρᾷς; (A.) Edmonds: (B.) ἀνδραπόδι’ ἤδη ταῦθ’, ὁρᾷς; (A.) Dobree: (Β.) τετράποδα δ’ ἤδη ταῦθ’, ὁρᾷς; (A.) Kock: τετράποδα δὴ ταῦτ’ ἔσθ’, ὁρᾷς; Blaydes 3 Ἑστίας; Dobree

A sawfish, a goat-stag, a batiakē, a labrōnios. These are †a little slave†, in fact, you see, not at all, these are names of drinking cups. (B) In the name of Hestia! (A.) And the labrōnios, boys, costs twenty gold coins Ath. 11.484E Δίφιλος Τιθραύστῃ καὶ ἄλλα γένη καταλέγων ποτηρίων φησί — Δίδυμος δ’ ὅμοιον εἶναί φησιν αὐτὸ βομβυλιῷ ἢ βατιακίῳ. Diphilus in Tithraustēs also listing other types of cups says — Didymus (fr. 41 Schmidt) says that it is the same as a bombylion or a batiakion.

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. l l k kk l | kk k l l l k l 2. l kk k l l l | k l l l k l 3. l l k l k kk k | l l l k l 4. kk l k l l l k | l k l k l

(penthemimeral caesura) (medial caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura) (hephthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Schweighäuser (1801–5) VI 189–93; Meineke (1839–57) IV 414; Kock (1880–88) II 568; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 138–9; PCG V 101–2; Pérez Asensio (1999) 399–403; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 274–5; Maggio (2023) 113–5 Citation Context This passage comes from Athenaeus’ discussion of a Persian cup named λαβρώνιος or λαβρώνιον (484C-F) alongside varying types of drinking vessels (ἐκπώματα) in the eleventh book of Deipnosophistai. Most of the content of the eleventh book is delivered by the deipnosophist Plutarch, who launches into an analysis of different varieties of drinking cups. The remarkable extent covered by this topic, as well as the impressive diversity of sympotic ἐκπώματα, indicates, to quote Gagné (2016, 220), the significance of the drinking cup as ‘a deeply resonant conduit for projecting the symposion on the world’. This discussion is introduced at the end of the tenth book (459B) and has been anticipated even earlier by Ulpian (448B). At the opening of the eleventh book the latter flags Plutarch’s speech as a long-awaited demonstration of scholarly memory. Plutarch’s organisation of his sources is skillful, the drinking cups being cited mainly in alphabetical order, including the quotation of passages referring to each vessel. On the structural and thematic organisation of this book see further König (2012) 112–9, Gagné (2016) 219–22.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Τιθραύστης (fr. 81)

185

The discussion of λαβρώνιος opens with two quotations, the first coming from Men. fr. 26 (Halieus ē Halieis) and fr. 395 (Philadelphoi), both of which refer to this cup as an indicator of affluence. The third quotation, also deriving from new comedy, is Hipparch. fr. 3 (Thais), which shares with the Diphilan fragment that follows the interlocutor’s ignorance of what a λαβρώνιος is and the emphasis on its high price. The discussion closes with Didymus’ reference to its resemblance with a βομβυλιός, a Rhodian cup, which enables one to savour the wine (784D), as it drips little by little, or a βατιάκιον (784A-B), which is a Persian cup made of gold, silver, or bronze (on the latter see below, note ad loc.). Text In l. 1 Porson (1812, 128) transposed πρίστις at the beginning of the line, thus emending the unmetrical ms. reading. The second line is corrupt as transmitted, thus posing problems of interpretation. The first speaker’s enumeration of exotic terms in l. 1 is followed by an unclarified utterance in l. 2 and by the explanation at the beginning of l. 3 that the terms mentioned in the first line are names of drinking vessels. This gives rise to the second speaker’s exclamation of surprise (in the second half of l. 3), which is then succeeded by the first speaker’s reference to the high price of the cup named λαβρώνιος (l. 4). Several suggestions have been made to elucidate the meaning of l. 2. The most satisfactory restoration seems to be that of Kaibel: ἀνδραποδίων δὴ ταῦθ’, ὁρᾷς, ἥκιστά γε,/ἐκπωμάτων δ’ ὀνόματα (‘These are not at all names of little slaves, you see, but names of drinking cups’). Considering that names of foreign provenance, such as λαβρώνιος and βατιάκη (see notes ad loc.), tend to be suggestive of slaves in comedy (cf. e.g. Kanavou 2011, 202), the explanation in ll. 2–3 is required to make clear that the terms mentioned in l. 1 are not names of slaves but of cups. The incomprehensibility of such terms similarly emerges from Hipparch. fr. 3 (Thais), where the interlocutor has no idea what a λαβρώνιος is and assumes that it is a kind of bird. It is this explanation that comes as a surprise to the speaker’s interlocutor in the present fragment, causing the ensuing exclamation (‘By Hestia!’) at the end of l. 3. In this case, ὁρᾷς in l. 2 would be parenthetical, as, for instance, in Ar. Th. 556 (ἐπεὶ τάδ’ οὐκ εἴρηχ’, ὁρᾷς, ὡς στλεγγίδας λαβοῦσαι) and Ec. 104 (νυνὶ δ’, ὁρᾷς, πράττει τὰ μέγιστ’ ἐν τῇ πόλει). Daléchamp’s suggestion will not do, as what would be required in the case of an antilabē in l. 2 is a question by the second speaker ([B.] ‘Are these names of little slaves? [A.] Not at all./They are names of drinking cups’) rather than an affirmation. The proposal of Edmonds (1957–61, IIIA 138), which does involve a question (ἀνδραπόδιον δὴ τοῦθ’, ὁρᾷς;), runs into the difficulty of associating the singular ἀνδραπόδιον (conceivably referring to λαβρώνιος wrongly taken to be a slave name) with the plural ἐκπωμάτων δ’ ὀνόματα in l. 3. Kock’s τετράποδα δ΄ ἤδη ταῦθ’, ὁρᾷς; (Kock 1880–88, II 568 with the improvement of Blaydes 1896, 197) could only refer to τραγέλαφος, which is the sole τετράποδον of this line; hence, the plural τετράποδα cannot be accepted.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

186

Diphilus

In l. 3 Dobree (1831–33, II 334) added a question mark after Ἑστίας, on the basis of Ar. Pl. 395, where, however, the appeal to Hestia involves an oath (— λέγεις ἀληθῆ; —φημί./ —πρὸς τῆς ῾Εστίας; —νὴ τὸν Ποσειδῶ), and Anaxandr. fr. 46 (Tereus), which, nonetheless, is part of a question (ὄρνις κεκλήσει. [Β.] διὰ τί, πρὸς τῆς ῾Εστίας;). But l. 4 neither includes an answer to an oath nor a reply to a question. It thus becomes clear that none of these instances forms an exact parallel that could tell in favour of the question mark here. Rather, it seems to be a lucid case of exclamation (‘By Hestia!’). Interpretation This fragment derives from a dialogue concerning extravagant drinking vessels, which are brought forward as a means of displaying lavishness. The reference to varying types of drinking cups might be suggestive of a sympotic scene. It involves a playful banter between two speakers, the second of whom is surprised at the exotic names of cups mentioned by the first, which produces a comic effect. Speaker A’s demonstration of extravagant cups, the first two being typically Persian animal-shaped vessels, whilst the third and fourth being words of Persian origin, tells in favour of the possibility that he is Persian (perhaps the title-character?). This likelihood is enhanced by the speaker’s stress on the excessive value of the last cup (the λαβρώνιος) in gold, which is indicative of Oriental affluence – a distinctive feature of Persian mode of life. The address to παῖδες in l. 4 is likely to refer to servants, who regularly participate in comic symposia (for parallels see below, note ad loc.), though the possibility that it could refer to the speaker’s companions (conceivably young revellers) cannot be wholly excluded (the latter is an alternative proposed by Arnott 1996, 324–5 in terms of the address παῖ in Alex. fr. 116.1, but not without problems, on which see the relevant note below). In the former, likelier, case, speaker A could be addressing the servants, presumably so that they take care when transferring the λαβρώνιος, a highly expensive cup, whilst in the latter he might be addressing his young companions to impress them by stressing the vessel’s value in gold. Yet, the lack of context cannot offer a definite answer. This passage follows a comic pattern, according to which speaker A cites a list of extraordinary elements, of which speaker B is either less informed or may be feigning ignorance, playing the fool and expressing bewilderement. Cf. similarly Antiph. fr. 223 (Chrysis) with Olson (2021) 129–30: τῷ σαπροπλούτῳ δ’, ὡς λέγουσι, νυμφίῳ,/κεκτημένῳ τάλαντα, παῖδας, ἐπιτρόπους,/ζεύγη, καμήλους, στρώματ’, ἀργυρώματα,/φιάλας, τριήρεις, τραγελάφους, καρχήσια,/γαυλοὺς ὁλοχρύσους — (Β.) πλοῖα; (Α.) τοὺς κάδους μὲν οὖν/καλοῦσι γαυλοὺς πάντες οἱ προγάστορες, Damox. fr. 1 (Hauton Penthōn): εἰ δ’ οὐχ ἱκανόν σοι, τὸν ἐλέφανθ’ ἥκει φέρων/ὁ παῖς. (Β.) τί δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πρὸς θεῶν; (Α.) ῥυτὸν/δίκρουνον, ἡλίκον τι τρεῖς χωρεῖν χόας,/῎Αλκωνος ἔργον. προὔπιεν δέ μοί ποτε/ἐν Κυψέλοις ’Αδαῖος, Hipparch. fr. 3 (Thais): ὁ λαβρώνιος δ’ ἔσθ’ οὗτος ὄρνις; (Β.) ῾Ηράκλεις,/ποτήριον χρυσοῦς διακοσίους ἄγον./(Α.) ὢ περιβοήτου, φιλτάτη, λαβρωνίου.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Τιθραύστης (fr. 81)

187

The catalogue of impressive drinking vessels compressed in a single line conveys a sense of profusion, which is typical of comic lists. For catalogues see further the discussion in fr. 60.5–10n. (Parasitos). Cf. similarly the lists of cups in Eup. fr. 218.2 (Poleis) with Olson (2016) 231: κρατῆρας ὀκτώ, δέκα χύτρας, δύο τρυβλίω, Dionys. fr. 5.1–3 (Sōizousa) with Orth (2020) 372–3: ὅσα δ’ ἐστὶν εἴδη Θηρικλείων τῶν καλῶν,/γύναι, δικότυλοι, τρικότυλοι, δεῖνος μέγας/χωρῶν μετρητήν, κυμβίον, σκύφοι, ῥυτά, Epig. fr. 6 (Hēroinē): τὴν Θηρίκλειον δεῦρο καὶ τὰ ῾Ροδιακὰ/κόμισον λαβὼν τοὺς παῖδας. εἰσοίσεις μόνος/ψυκτῆρα, κύαθον, κυμβία, ῥυτὰ τέτταρα,/ ἡδυποτίδας τρεῖς, ἡθμὸν ἀργυροῦν, Axionic. fr. 7.1–2 (Chalkidikos) with Orth (2020) 235: τρύβλια, χύτρα, λοπάδιον, ὀξίς, χοῦς, ἁμίς,/λεκάνη, θυΐα, κάνθαρος, σείσων, λύχνος, Philem. fr. 90 (Chēra): ἱπποτραγέλαφοι, βατιάκια,/σαννάκια, Hipparch. fr. 1.6 (Anasōizomenoi): καὶ κόνδυ καὶ ψυκτῆρα καὶ κυμβίον. Drinking vessels named after animals, like πρίστις and τραγέλαφος in the present passage, also include ἐλέφας mentioned in Damox. fr. 1 (Hauton Penthōn) cited above and Epin. fr. 1.1–7 (Hypoballomenai): καὶ τῶν ῥυτῶν τὰ μέγιστα τῶν ὄντων τρία/πίνειν δεήσει τήμερον πρὸς κλεψύδραν/κρουνιζόμενον. :: ἀμφότερα δ’ οἰωνίζομαι· ::/†ἐστιν δ’ ἐλέφας. :: ἐλέφαντας περιάγει; :: ῥυτὸν/χωροῦντα δύο χόας, ὃν οὐδ’ ἂν ἐλέφας ἐκπίοι./ἐγὼ τοῦτο πέπωκα πολλάκις.†/(Β.) οὐδὲν ἐλέφαντος γὰρ διαφέρεις οὐδὲ σύ. The accumulation of unfamiliar names of drinking vessels and their immense variety is a widely recurring motif producing laughter. At the same time, it is suggestive of the interaction and often the clash between different sympotic traditions. The alterity of Persian sympotic culture emerges from the exotic drinking cups either shaped and named after fabulous creatures, such as τραγέλαφος and πρίστις (the latter being exaggerated into a sea-monster, cf. note ad loc.), or bearing incomprehensible names of foreign roots, such as βατιάκη and λαβρώνιος. These elements are in line with Persian exaggeration and lack of constraint in the demonstration of sympotic luxury (see Miller 1991, 66–72, Topper 2012, 86–104, Gagné 2016, 221). They also imbue the passage with a Persian ambience consisting in the extravagance of Persian cups (l. 1) and their value in gold (l. 4), which are indicative of Oriental ideology and of the significance that it posed on the abundance of material wealth (see above: Content). This sense of Oriental affluence similarly pervades Men. fr. 26 (Halieus ē Halieis), fr. 395 (Philadelphoi), as well as the above cited Hipparch. fr. 3 (Thais) and Antiph. fr. 223 (Chrysis); in the latter case, the bridegroom owning, among other things, silver vessels, τραγέλαφοι and wine-jars of solid gold is described as ‘disgustingly rich’ (Olson’s translation 2021, 128 of σαπρόπλουτος). Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 399–400. 1 πρίστις 〈πρίω (‘to saw’). This term describes the sawfish (belonging to the family of Pristidae). The variant πρῆστις (presumably from πρήθω, ‘to blow’, ‘to sprout’) is less preferable (see Chantraine s.v. πρίω). It is one of the largest fish, having a long and narrow rostrum (Plin. HN 9.4: plurima autem et maxima in Indico mari animalia, e quibus balaenae quaternum iugerum, pristes ducenum cubitorum, Ael. NA 9.49, Nonius 13.3: longi corporis sunt sed angusti, cf. also Opp.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

188

Diphilus

Hal. 1.370, Sud. π 2270 Adler: εἶδος κήτους θαλασσίου. ἡ λεγομένη μάλη· ὃ καὶ δυσανταγώνιστόν ἐστι.). Aristotle describes it as a mammal alongside dophins and whales (HA 566b2–6). It is mentioned in a fish catalogue in Epich. fr. 52 (Hēbas Gamos): ἦν δὲ νάρκαι, βατίδες, ἦν δὲ 〈καὶ〉 ζύγαιναι, πρήστιες,/κἀμίαι τε καὶ βάτοι ῥῖναί τε τραχυδέρμονες. On πρίστις cf. Strömberg (1943) 44, Thompson (1947) 219. It is presumably due to its odd physical appearance that its Latin equivalent, pistrix, came to describe a fabulous sea-monster (cf. Val. Fl. 2.530). It is thus not a coincidence that πρίστις is cited by Diphilus alongside τραγέλαφος as a similarly grotesque creature after which a cup is shaped and named. This vessel is briefly mentioned again by Athenaeus later in this book (495B), though no further quotation is included. On Persian animal-head cups see next note. τραγέλαφος ‘goat-stag’; a bi-formed creature which originates in the imagination of Oriental artists (cf. D.S. 2.51.2, Plin. HN 8.120), being also used by the Greeks as an ornamental motif (D.S. 18.26.5, Plu. Ages. 19.6). Its Persian origin emerges from Ar. Ra. 937–8, where a parallel is drawn with the similarly bi-shaped horse-cock: οὐχ ἱππαλεκτρυόνας μὰ Δί’ οὐδὲ τραγελάφους, ἅπερ σύ,/ἃν τοῖσι παραπετάσμασιν τοῖς Μηδικοῖς γράφουσιν. Its grotesqueness naturally gives rise to satirical exaggeration, as in Luc. Podagr. 164, Prom. Es. 7.11. In Pl. R. 488a Socrates deploys an analogy from image-making to argue how in the case of a hybrid creature, such as a τραγέλαφος, seemingly disparate elements may be fused into one, so that new possibilities can be created. Aristotle refers to it as an example of something which may be significative, but has no truth or falsity, as it is non-existing (Int. 16a 16–17, APr. 49a 24, 92b 7, Ph. 208a 30). Cf. Sillitti (1980) esp. 24–51, Morgan (2017) 179–98. The present passage refers to a goat-stag cup. This type of vessel, shaped after a τραγέλαφος, is discussed in Ath. 11.500E-F, citing Alex. fr. 111 (Koniatēs): κυμβία,/ φιάλαι, τραγέλαφοι, κύλικες (cf. Arnott 1996, 297), Eub. fr. 47 (Katakollōmenos): ἀλλ’ εἰσὶ φιάλαι πέντε,/τραγέλαφοι δύο, Men. fr. 26 (Halieus ē Halieis): τραγέλαφοι, λαβρώνιοι, Antiph. fr. 223.4–5 (Chrysis): φιάλας, τριήρεις, τραγελάφους, καρχήσια,/γαυλοὺς ὁλοχρύσους (see Olson 2021, 131). Cf. the donkey-head vessel in Ar. V. 616–7 (with Macdowell 1971, 216): κἂν οἶνόν μοι μὴ ’γχῇς σὺ πιεῖν, τὸν ὄνον τόνδ’ ἐσκεκόμισμαι/οἴνου μεστόν, κᾆτ’ ἐγχέομαι κλίνας. Furthermore, Philem. fr. 90 (Chēra) features a ἱπποτραγέλαφος (‘horse-goat-stag’) cup. Animal-shaped rhyta were a feature of Achaemenid pottery par excellence. They consisted of animal foreparts joined to a beaker or to a smoothly curved horn and were spread to most regions under Persian rule. They were also shaped after fantastic creatures, as, for instance, the τραγέλαφος of the present passage or winged goats, like the one preserved in a silver Persian rhyton (see e.g. Hoffmann 1961, pl. 11.3). These rhyta are amply represented in Attic pottery after the Persian Wars (when Athens gained access to such spoils) and in late-fourth century South Italian ceramics. Achaemenid animal-shaped vessels were imitated in Attic workshops; in

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Τιθραύστης (fr. 81)

189

turn, famous potters, such as Douris, Brygos, and Sotades, produced rhyta shaped after animals, like rams, donkeys, boars, leaping dogs, lions, and eagles. At the same time, Attic workshops grafted on these rhyta of Persian origin the handle and foot of Athenian kantharoi, presumably aiming at moderate drinking; conversely, the lack of foot in Achaemenid vessels entails that they could not be safely set down until they were emptied – probably a feature of Persian excessive drinking. On animal-head rhyta see Hoffmann (1961) 21–4, (1962) and (1989) 131–66, Tuchelt (1962), Miller (1991) 70, 77–8, nn. 68–73 and (1997) 141–7, 253–4, 258. βατιάκη A Persian cup discussed in Ath. 11.784A-B (Περσικὴ δὲ φιάλη ἡ βατιάκη, cf. Poll. 6.96: Περσικὸν δ’ ἦν τὸ ἔκπωμα), where it is mentioned to be made of gold or bronze (cf. Arist. fr. 263 R.3) or alternatively of silver (Ath. 11.480A: βατιάκιον ἀργυροῦν). In Plaut. Stich. 694 it is described as a cup of the rich. Philemon in fr. 90 (Chēra) cites it alongside other Persian vessels, underscoring the ludicrous aural effect of these cup names: ἱπποτραγέλαφοι, βατιάκια,/ σαννάκια (Ath. 11.497E-F: Φιλήμων δ’ ἐν τῇ Χήρᾳ βατιακῶν μνησθεὶς καὶ τῇ γελοιότητι τοῦ ὀνόματος προσπαίξας). λαβρώνιος In the masculine or in the neutral (λαβρώνιον). It is paretymologized as deriving from λαβρότης, that is, the greed with which people drink from this cup (Ath. 11.484C: ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν τῷ πίνειν λαβρότητος ὠνομασμένον, cf. Eust. on Od. 16.385/III 868.27–869.1 Stallbaum: ἔκπωμα Περσικὸν παρὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ πίνειν λαβρότητα). According to Chantraine (s.v. λαβρώνιον), the root of this term is likely to be Persian. Λαβρώνιος is described as broad and large in its design with big handles (Ath. 11.484C, Phot. λ 9 Theodoridis, Hesych. λ 26 Latte). It is a luxurious drinking vessel, to judge from its high price; in the present passage it is estimated to cost twenty gold coins, in Hipparch. fr. 3 (Thais) it weighs as much as two hundred gold staters, whilst in Men. fr. 26 (Halieus ē Halieis) and fr. 395 (Philadelphoi) it is placed alongside lavish and extravagant objects, being indicative of the owner’s affluence in each case. On this vessel cf. also Maggio (2023) 115. 2 †ἀνδραπoδιον Α pejorative of ἀνδράποδον (the latter’s formation being modelled upon that of τετράποδον, cf. Chantraine s.v. ἀνήρ). A war captive, sold as a slave, whether originally slave or free (LSJ9); see Hdt. 3.125, 129, Hermipp. fr. 63.18 (Phormophoroi) with Comentale (2017) 272: ἀνδράποδ’ ἐκ Φρυγίας, ἀπὸ δ’ ’Αρκαδίας ἐπικούρους, Men. Asp. 23–33, Luc. Fug. 27: εἴ τις εἶδεν ἀνδράποδον Παφλαγονικὸν τῶν ἀπὸ Σινώπης βαρβάρων. Cf. also Ar. Ec. 593: μηδ’ ἀνδραπόδοις τὸν μὲν χρῆσθαι πολλοῖς, τὸν δ’ οὐδ’ ἀκολούθῳ, Alc. fr. 15 (Hieros Gamos): ἀνδράποδα πέντε, πωλικὸν ζεῦγος βοῶν. According to Kaibel’s proposed restoration of the text (ἀνδραποδίων δὴ ταῦθ’, ὁρᾷς, ἥκιστά γε,/ἐκπωμάτων δ’ ὀνόματα), speaker A explains to speaker B that the (foreign, incomprehensible) terms mentioned in the first line are not names of slaves but of drinking cups (see above, Text). ἥκιστά γε This is a figure of litotēs (ἥκιστα, ‘least’, meant to denote ‘not at all’) that aims at posing emphasis on the statement. Cf. Amph. fr. 5.2 (Ampelourgos) with Papachrysostomou (2016) ad loc.: ἥκιστα τούτοις πλησιάζων ἥδεται.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

190

Diphilus

3 ἐκπωμάτων Similarly expensive drinking cups are cited in Ar. Ach. 73–5 (cf. Olson 2002, ad loc.): ξενιζόμενοι δὲ πρὸς βίαν ἐπίνομεν/ἐξ ὑαλίνων ἐκπωμάτων καὶ χρυσίδων/ἄκρατον οἶνον ἡδύν, V. 675–7: τούτοισι δὲ δωροφοροῦσιν/ ὕρχας, οἶνον, δάπιδας, τυρόν, μέλι, σήσαμα, προσκεφάλαια,/φιάλας, χλανίδας, στεφάνους, ὅρμους, ἐκπώματα, πλουθυγιείαν, Ec. 447 (with Ussher 1973, 137–8): ἱμάτια χρυσί’ ἀργύριον ἐκπώματα, Soph. fr. 378 (Larisaioi): πολὺν δ’ ἀγῶνα πάγξενον κηρύσσεται,/χαλκηλάτους λέβητας ἐκτιθεὶς φέρειν/καὶ κοῖλα χρυσόκολλα καὶ πανάργυρα/ἐκπώματ’, εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἑξήκοντα δίς, Eur. Ion 1175: χρυσέων τ’ ἐκπωμάτων. A comedy entitled Ἐκπωματοποιός (‘The Cup-Maker’) was written by Alexis. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 402. πρὸς τῆς Ἑστίας ‘By Hestia!’, ‘In the name of Hestia!’ In this case, it is an exclamation conveying surprise and probably a colloquialism (see Cobet 1880, 60). Cf. similarly the feeling of surprise expressed in Anaxandr. fr. 46 (Tereus), albeit within a question (see Millis 2015, 248): ὄρνις κεκλήσει. (Β.) διὰ τί, πρὸς τῆς ῾Εστίας; Straton fr. 1.26–9 (Phoinikides): ‘῞Ομηρον οὐκ οἶδας λέγοντα;’ ‘καὶ μάλα/ἐξῆν ὃ βούλοιτ’, ὦ μάγειρ’, αὐτῷ λέγειν./ἀλλὰ τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς τοῦτο, πρὸς τῆς ῾Εστίας;’/‘κατ’ ἐκεῖνον ἤδη πρόσεχε καὶ τὰ λοιπά μοι’, adesp. com. fr. 1093.231: ϲ]ὺ δὲ δ̣ὴ τί, πρὸϲ τῆϲ ῾Εϲτίαϲ; Hestia is also invoked in cases of adjuration (see Preuner 1890, 2623), as in Ar. Pl. 395 (— λέγεις ἀληθῆ; —φημί./—πρὸς τῆς ῾Εστίας; —νὴ τὸν Ποσειδῶ), and supplication, as in adesp. com. fr. 1000.39–40 (ὥστε μή με, πρὸς τῆς Ἑστίας,/ἀποστερήσῃς ἀνδρὸς ᾧ συνῴκισας). Cf. also Headlam (1922) on Herond. 7.120, Pérez Asensio (1999) 402. In the present case and in the instances mentioned above (at least those from which some context has been preserved), the passages refer to the oikos or to domestic possessions, which accounts for the invocation of Hestia as goddess of the domestic hearth. For her qualities see esp. Preuner (1890) 2605–53, Sarian (1990) 407–12. 4 χρυσῶν δέ … εἴκοσι On the gold coinage of the Early Hellenistic period see the specialized study of Mørkholm (1991) esp. 4–5, 41–54. In Hipparch. fr. 3 (Thais) coming from the same section in Athenaeus, λαβρώνιος is estimated to weigh two hundred gold staters, which is similarly indicative of its extravagant price: ὁ λαβρώνιος δ’ ἔσθ’ οὗτος ὄρνις; (Β.) ῾Ηράκλεις,/ποτήριον χρυσοῦς διακοσίους ἄγον. On the postponement of δέ, which is common in comedy, see above fr. 60.9n. (Parasitos). παῖδες The term παῖς is used of children and youth, and from mid-fifth century onwards of slaves as well (the earliest instance of the latter usage reported in LSJ9 is Aesch. Ch. 653; on this type of address see Dickey 1996, 65–72, 232–4). Ar. V. 1297–8, 1307 provides a paretymology of παῖς from παίειν (‘to beat’), pointing to the hard reality of slavery (see Finley 1980, 96, Mactoux 1980, 150 and for the multiple uses of παῖς for ‘slave’ in Aristophanes, op.cit. 170–2). At the same time, Golden (1985, esp. 96–104) argued that children and slaves were regarded as sharing certain features, such as lack of proper judgment, intellectual immaturity,

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Τιθραύστης (fr. 81)

191

susceptibility to emotional excess, and the need to be kept under control, thus holding a similar status within social structure; in turn, it is the recognition of this analogy that may have further prompted the use of παῖς for slaves as well as children. Cf. also Wrenhaven (2012) 19–21. Comedy comprises regular addresses to servants to bring the wine cups and serve delicacies often in sympotic contexts. Cf. Alex. fr. 116.1 (Crateia ē Pharmakopōlēs): παῖ, τὴν μεγάλην δός, ὑποχέας/φιλίας κυάθους μὲν τῶν παρόντων τέτταρας (Arnott 1996, 324–5 regards it as equally likely to be an address to a servant or a reveller; however, it is clearly an order for serving that could not plausibly be addressed to any other than a servant), Amph. fr. 18 (Erithoi) with Papachrysostomou (2016) 128: ὁ παῖς σοβείτω τοῖς ποτηρίοις συχνούς, Mnesim. fr. 7.4–5 (Philippos) with Mastellari (2020) 461–2: ἐντεῦθεν εὐθὺς ἐπιφέρει τραγήματα/ἡμῖν ὁ παῖς μετὰ δεῖπνον ἀκίδας Κρητικάς, Clearch. fr. 4 (Pandrosos) with Mastellari (2020) 43: ἡ παῖς, ἐπιτίθει/ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν κάρυα καὶ τραγήματα, Epig. fr. 6.1–2 (Hēroinē): τὴν Θηρίκλειον δεῦρο καὶ τὰ ῾Ροδιακὰ/κόμισον λαβὼν τοὺς παῖδας, the complaining slave in Epicr. fr. 5.1–2 (Dyspratos): τί γὰρ ἔχθιον ἢ ‘παῖ παῖ’ καλεῖσθαι παρὰ πότον, Philem. fr. 54 (Nyx): τὸ κανοῦν δ’ ὁ παῖς περίεισι τηνάλλως ἔχων, Damox. fr. 1.1–2 (Hauton Penthōn): εἰ δ’ οὐχ ἱκανόν σοι, τὸν ἐλέφανθ’ ἥκει φέρων/ὁ παῖς. Cf. also Pl. Smp. 175b5: ἀλλ’ ἡμᾶς, ὦ παῖδες, τοὺς ἄλλους ἑστιᾶτε, 213e: ἀλλὰ φέρε, παῖ, φάναι, τὸν ψυκτῆρα ἐκεῖνον, X. Smp. 2.23: ἐγὼ γοῦν διψῶ· καὶ ὁ παῖς ἐγχεάτω μοι τὴν μεγάλην φιάλην. On servants in comic symposia see further Sells (2013) 94–9 and on their iconographic representation cf. Boardman (1975) pl. 32.1, 76, 253.3.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

192

Φιλάδελφος vel Φιλάδελφοι (Philadelphos or Philadelphoi) (“The Loving Sibling(s)”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) II,1 424, IV 415; Kock (1880–88) II 568; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 138–9; PCG V 102; Pérez Asensio (1999) 403–5; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 275, nn. 404–5 Title The play’s title is attested in the singular (Φιλάδελφος) in fr. 82 and in the plural (Φιλάδελφοι) in fr. 83. The testimony (Φιλάδελ]φος) of IG II/III2 2363.37–8 (a catalogue of book rolls kept at the Library of a Gymnasium in Piraeus, on which see Telesias, note on test. i) is uncertain, Ζωγρά]φος being equally possible, as Kock (1880–88, II 568) reasonably pointed out, given that the alphabetic order is not kept in this inscription, and the available space allows for either reading. Admittedly, it is the plural form that tends to be employed in comedy, to judge from the Philadelphoi plays by Amphis, Menander, Apollodorus of Gela, Philippides, and Sosicrates, though certainty is impossible in the present case. The term φιλάδελφος denotes ‘brotherly’/‘sisterly’ (cf. Alex. fr. inc. 335 with Arnott 1996, 810, X. Mem. 2.3.17, D.S. 33.14.5, Plu. Sol. 27.5, and the latter’s treatise Περὶ φιλαδελφίας in Mor. 478A-492D). It was also attached to king Ptolemy II in view of his incestuous affair with his sister and subsequently his wife, queen Arsinoё (on this matter see e.g. Buraselis 2008, 291–302, Donnelly Carney 2013, 65–105, Acosta Hughes 2021, 13–34). However, the epithet in the latter sense is not attested before the second century BC, when it is first attached to Ptolemy II (Muccioli 1994, 403, n. 6); this would entail that the term φιλάδελφος as such is unlikely to have been employed in new comedy to denote an incestuous relationship between siblings (see further below: Content). Φιλάδελφος – either in the singular or in the plural – may be of either gender, which means that we cannot know the sex and, in the case of the Diphilan play, not even the number of the title-figure(s). The title is suggestive of a play focusing on the notion of brotherly or sisterly love, which is in line with several comedies treating domestic affairs (see above, Tēthē: Title). The sole extant case that could indicate what a play bearing this title may have involved is Plautus’ Stichus, which is an adaptation of Menander’s Adelphoi A held to be the same as his Philadelphoi (see Webster 19602, 112, 139–45 and 1974, 112–14). Two sisters remain lovingly committed to their husbands, who also happen to be brothers and have been away for a long time, despite their father’s pressure on them to remarry. The two pairs of siblings represent the key idea of brotherhood and sisterhood. Hartwig (2022, 189) chose a more complex way of interpreting the title, i.e. ‘Sisters who love Brothers’; although the term φιλάδελφος does not occur in this sense elsewhere, it might point to the intricacy of the situation (a pair of affectionate sisters loving a pair of caring brothers). See also below: Content.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Φιλάδελφος vel Φιλάδελφοι

193

The evidence for the rest of the plays bearing this title is not sufficiently informative. Amphis’ Philadelphoi comprises a eulogy of wine-drinking (fr. 33) that draws a contrast between the spontaneous temperament of drink-lovers and the hesitant attitude of those not drinking, thus implying a potentially impulsive act resulting from inebriety. Fr. 34 commenting on a distressed character’s peevish behaviour seems to be related to certain dramatic events, though there is no hint as to how they could be associated with the play’s topic. Cf. Papachrysostomou (2016) 213–5, 220–1. This theme seems to have constituted a particular trend in new comedy, being represented in no less than five plays (including the Diphilan one). Apart from Menander’s aforementioned comedy, Philippides also wrote Philadelphoi, which comprises a consolation addressed by a slave to his master (fr. 18); the former appeals, as often in fourth-century comedy, to a piece of Euripidean wisdom (cf. similarly above, fr. 60.1–3n. [Parasitos], fr. 74.10–11n. [Synōris]), with the purpose of comforting his master by means of the non tibi hoc soli motif (that is, he is not the first or the last to suffer). Cf. also Hartwig (2022) 191–2. The play entitled Philadelphoi ē Apokarterōn by Apollodorus of Gela comprises a list of luxurious goods, including Thericlean vessels (fr. 3), and a (conceptually related?) moralizing fragment disparaging avarice (fr. 2). None of these fragments, however, reveal any association with the play-title. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 404, Pérez Asensio/ Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 171–2 and n. 104. Lastly, fr. 2 of Sosicrates’ homonymous comedy involves the personification of the blowing wind in a nautical imagery written in paratragic style, which could be suggestive of a boat trip. But apart from this element no further information may be retrieved. Content As observed above, the title indicates a comedy focusing on one or more loving siblings, whose gender and number is unknown. The most concrete piece of evidence as to what such a kind of plot may have comprised is offered by Plautus’ Stichus, whose exemplar seems to have been Menander’s Philadelphoi (see above: Title). The play delves into the characterization of a pair of sisters (Panegyris and her innominate sister) married to a pair of brothers (Epignomus and Pamphilippus respectively) and their reaction at their father’s intention of having them remarried (cf. Arnott 1972a, 54–65 with earlier bibliography, Feltovich 2015, 129–34). Τhe character-sketching of pairs of siblings is a popular topic in fourth-century comedy, as it emerges from Roman adaptations of Greek originals. It may suffice to mention the sisters Adelphasium and Anterastilis in Plautus’ Poenulus (based on Alexis’ Karchēdonios), the Bacchides (an adaptation of Menander’s Dis Exapatōn), the two pairs of brothers (Aeschinus and Ctesipho, Micio and Demeas) in Terence’s Adelphoe (relying on Menander’s Adelphoi B) or even pairs of close friends of the same gender, such as Selenium and Gymnasium in Plautus’ Cistellaria (an adaptation of Menander’s Synaristōsai), Palaestra and Ampelisca in Rudens (whose exemplar was an unidentified Diphilan comedy).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

194

Diphilus

On these grounds, it could be expected that this Diphilan play presumably treated the topic of brotherly or sisterly love, articulated either upon a single episode or a series of events, comprising plot complications and reversals, according to the trends of new comedy. As pointed out above, it seems improbable that the term φιλάδελφος (in the singular or plural) in the title could denote an incestuous or near incestuous relationship between siblings, not least because this particular meaning is not attested before the second century BC, when it was attached to Ptolemy II (see above: Title). Moreover, although subplots involving nearly amorous affairs between siblings averted through recognition do occur in comedy (e.g. Moschion’s infatuation with Glycera, who turns out to be his sister in Menander’s Perikeiromenē, cf. Men. Epit. 341–2: γαμῶν ἀδελφήν τις διὰ γνωρίσματα/ἐπέσχε, and for further parallels see Hartwig 2022, 189–90), it would be odd to expect that a discreditable act, such as (near) incest between siblings, could have given the play its title (pace Hartwig loc. cit.). The textual evidence pertaining to this play is particularly meagre and quite uninformative, consisting of a single word (fr. 82) and a two-word fragment (fr. 83); the former refers to relaxation and the latter to sour wine, which may be used either literally with regard to wine-drinking or figuratively as a simile or a metaphor for someone’s temper. For more detail see below, Interpretation ad loc.

Fragments fr. 82 K.-A. (81 K.) ἀνέψυξα I relaxed Antiatt. α 89 (Valente) ἀνέψυξα· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνεπαυσάμην. Δίφιλος Φιλαδέλφῳ. I relaxed; instead of ‘I rested’. Diphilus in Philadelphos.

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 415; Kock (1880–88) II 568; Edmonds (1957– 61) IIIA 138–9; PCG V 102; Pérez Asensio (1999) 405; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/ Montañés (2014) 275 Citation Context The present fragment is an entry from the so-called ‘Antiatticist’, an anonymous author who produced a lexicon to demonstrate that many words banned by the Atticists were indeed employed by Attic authors of the classical period. In view of several points of contact with Phrynichus’ Ecloga, the Antiatticist tends to be regarded as a contemporary of the latter, dating to the second century

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Φιλάδελφος vel Φιλάδελφοι (fr. 83)

195

AD. The present state of this lexicon comprising about 841 glōssai is a drastically reduced (probably Byzantine) epitome. The Antiatticist admitted a wider range of authors into the canon than did the strict Atticists like Phrynichus, also including much material from comedy beyond Aristophanes, such as Middle and New Comedy, to defend common Greek features of the imperial age through classical models. This author presumably drew material from earlier collections of terms employed in comedy, significantly contributing to our knowledge of the corpus apart from Aristophanes, as well as attesting to the linguistic variety of the comic genre. For more detail see Cohn (1913) 693–5, Dickey (2007) 96–9, Willi (2010) 474–7, Tribulato (2019c) 57–8. The present entry is quoted almost verbatim by Hesychius (α 5025 Cunningham) – without, however, attributing it to an author – which may suggest that the Antiatticist and Hesychius conceivably derived this term from a common source. Interpretation This single-word fragment is attested as an Attic verb (see above, Citation Context). It is delivered by someone mentioning that he/she relaxed, which may suggest relief from the day’s toil or from a particular plight, to judge from the available parallels for the use of the term (see below, note ad loc.). But apart from this, it does not provide any substantial piece of information about the dramatic situation. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 405. ἀνέψυξα Literally, ‘to cool’, ‘to refresh’; here it is employed in a metaphorical sense as ‘to give relief from toil’ (see LSJ9 s.v.). Cf. Hom. Il. 10.574: ἀνέψυχθεν φίλον ἦτορ, 13.84 with schol. vet. ad loc. (Erbse): ἀνέψυχον· ἀναψῦξαί ἐστι τὸ ἀναπαῦσαι τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐν ἀδείᾳ ἀναπνεῦσαι, Eur. Supp. 615–7: κακῶν δ’ ἀναψυχὰς θεοὶ βροτοῖς νέμουσι, Hel. 1094: δύ᾽ οἰκτρὼ φῶτ᾽ ἀνάψυξον πόνων (see Kannicht 1969, ad loc.: ‘„gib uns Erfrischung“, also „Erleichterung von unseren πόνοι“ ’), Ion 1604–5 (cf. Martin 2018, 542): ἐκ γὰρ τῆσδ’ ἀναψυχῆς πόνων/ εὐδαίμον’ ὑμῖν πότμον ἐξαγγέλλομαι, fr. 146 K. (Andromeda) with Bubel (1991) 151: ό μὲν γάλακτος κίσσινον φέρων σκύφος,/πόνων άναψυκτήρα, Hesych. α 5025 (Cunningham) ἀνέψυξα· ἀνεπαυσάμην, Sud. α 2143 (Adler): ἀναψῦχον· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀναπνοὴν διδοῦν. καὶ ἀναψυχομένη, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀναπαυομένη.

fr. 83 K.-A. (82 K.) ὀξίνην οἶνον sour wine Antiatt. o 7 (Valente) ὀξίνην οἶνον· Δίφιλος Φιλαδέλφοις. Sour wine; Diphilus in Philadelphoi.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

196

Diphilus

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) II,1 424, IV 415; Kock (1880–88) II 568; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 138–9; PCG V 102; Pérez Asensio (1999) 405–6; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 275 Citation Context This fragment is a lexicographical entry from the Antiatticist, who has preserved rich evidence for the language of comedy beyond Aristophanes (for more detail about this source see above, fr. 82: Citation Context). The preservation of όξίνης in the Antiatticist designates it as an Attic term. It occurs in the lexicographical tradition often in entries interpreting wine-related topics; cf. Phot. o 371 (Theodoridis), Sud. ε 1491 (Adler): καὶ ἐντροπίας οἶνος, ὁ ὀξίνης, Hesych. ε 3772 (Cunningham): ἐξεστηκὼς οἶνος· ὁ ὀξίνης, ο 933 (Latte): ὀξαλίς· ἡ ὀξεῖα τρύξ. ἢ ὀξίνης οἶνος, σ 730 (Hansen): σίσανον· τὸν ὀξίνην οἶνον. See also Bagordo (2014) 179–80. Interpretation On the basis of the available parallels (see below, note ad loc.), the reference to sour wine may be literal, and thus suggestive of wine-drinking, a favourite comic topos, and, in turn, of a sympotic context. On comic wine-drinking see further above, fr. 60.8n. (Parasitos). Alternatively, it might function figuratively, alluding, for instance, to someone’s sour temper. But no further clues are given as to the dramatic situation. ὀξίνην οἶνον Ὀξίνης is either attested as an adjective attached to οἶνος, like here (cf. also Thphr. HP 9.13.3., 9.20.4, Plu. Mor. 518F), or as a substantivized adjective, as in Hermipp. fr. inc. 88 (ὀξίνην) and Philonid. fr. 14, both reported in Phot. ο 372 (Theodoridis): ὀξίνην, τὸν οἶνον, οὐκ ὀξίναν καὶ Ἕρμιππος καὶ Φιλωνίδης καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι (cf. similarly Plu. Ant. 59.8, Mor. 469B). It describes sour wine of poor quality, spoiled (σαπρίας), resulting from an alteration due to acetic bacteria and mold. On the other hand, sweet (γλυκεῖς) wines were the most famous in the Greek world (such as Thasian, Maronian, and Chian wines), whereas the Athenians were particularly fond of fragrant wines, smelling of the ‘flower’ (ἀνθοσμίας) and dripping with nectar. Cf. Poll. 1.248: οἶνος γλυκύς, ἡδύς, ἐπαγωγός, πότιμος, ἀνθοσμίας· ὁ δ’ ἄλλος δευτερίας, ἐξεστηκώς, τροπίας, ἐκτροπίας, ὀξίνης, 6.17: ὁ δὲ φαῦλος οἶνος δευτερίας, ἐξεστηκώς, ἐντροπίας, ὀξίνης, ὀξώδης, schol. vet. Hes. Op. 815 (Pertusi): κελεύει τὸν πίθον μὴ ἀνοίγειν ὡς εἰς ὀξίνην μεταβαλλομένου τοῦ οἴνου, Plu. Ant. 59.8: προσέκρουσε δὲ Κλεοπάτρᾳ παρὰ δεῖπνον εἰπών, αὐτοῖς μὲν ὀξίνην ἐγχεῖσθαι, Σάρμεντον δὲ πίνειν ἐν Ῥώμῃ Φαλερῖνον, Mor. 469B: πολὺν καὶ χρηστὸν οἶνον ἑτέροις πιπράσκων ἑαυτῷ πρὸς τὸ ἄριστον ὀξίνην ἐζήτει διαγευόμενος, 518F. See also Kourakou-Dragona (1999) 122–7, Pérez Asensio (1999) 405–6, Wilkins (2000a) 214–20, Bagordo (2014) 180, Boulay (2015) 276–82, Comentale (2017) 333–4. Ὀξίνης is distinguished from ὄξος (‘vinegar’); cf. Plu. Μor. 732B, 1047E: τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τινές, ἃ τῷ τὸν ὀξίνην ἔχοντι συνέβαινε μήθ’ ὡς ὄξος ἀποδόσθαι δυναμένῳ μήθ’ ὡς οἶνον. Aristophanes employs the term ὀξίνης metaphorically to describe someone’s sour character; cf. Ar. Eq. 1304: ἄνδρα μοχθηρὸν πολίτην, ὀξίνην Ὑπέρβολον, V. 1082: θυμὸν ὀξίνην πεπωκότες (‘having drunk some sour

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Φιλάδελφος vel Φιλάδελφοι (fr. 83)

197

spirit’, which made them particularly hostile, see Biles/Olson 2015, 404) with schol. vet. ad loc. (Koster): θυμὸν ὀξίνην· ἀντὶ τοῦ “ὀργὴν δριμεῖαν ἔχοντες”. Taillardat (19652, 197–8), however, does not clarify the difference between ὀξίνης and ὄξος in metaphorical uses (op.cit. 197, n. 5: ‘„il a bu du vinaigre“ […] est le permutant métaphorique de θυμὸν ὀξίνην πίνειν’ and 198 [with reference to ὀξίνην Ὑπέρβολον]: ‘ce piètre citoyen est un excellent…vinaigre’).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

198

[Φιλά]νθρωποι (Philanthrōpoi) (“Philanthropes”)

Discussion Meritt (1938) 116–8; Körte (1938) 123–4; Capps (1942) 325–8; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 126–7, 138–9; Pickard-Cambridge (19682) 123–4; PCG V 48, 102; Pérez Asensio (1999) 281–3; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 258, n. 335 Title The second component of the play’s title ( ]νθρώποις) is attested in an inscriptional fragment (PCG V 48, test. 5) found at the Athenian Agora (first edited as no. 22, fragment A by Meritt 1938, 116–8 with a photograph). This inscription is a record of the actors placed first, second and third in reperformances of comedy, tragedy, and satyr-play either in 263/2 or 259/8 BC in the archonship of Alcibiades (see Meritt’s revised dating of Alcibiades’ archonship in Meritt 1981, 88, 93, 94 instead of his earlier dating to 255/4 BC in Pritchett/Meritt 1940, 97). The part of the text concerning the contest in which Diphilus’ play was presented runs as follows: ἐπὶ Ἀλ]κ̣ιβιάδου ἄρχον(τοc) ἀγων]ο̣θέτηc Νικοκλῆc παλ]α̣ιᾶι κωμωιδίαι Καλ]λίαc ἐνίκα ]νθρώποιc Διφί(λου) The inscription attests that the actor Callias, of whom we know that he won three victories at the Lenaea (see Stephanes 1988, §1323 with all relevant sources), was awarded the first prize for the reperformance of this Diphilan comedy (ll. 21–2). This inscriptional evidence then goes on to report that he was followed by the actor Dioscurides (for whom we have less evidence, cf. Stephanes 1988, §773) in the second place for his interpretation in Menander’s Phasma (ll. 23–4) and another one whose name is lost in the third place for Philemon’s Ptōchē (l. 25). Meritt (1938, 117) suggested that this inscription is likelier to belong to the Lenaea than the City Dionysia, given that at the end of the fourth century (IG II2 2323a) and in the late third (IG II2 2323) only one Old Comedy is reported to be produced at the City Dionysia, whilst the present source records the revival of three comedies, three satyr-plays and three tragedies. But this is an argumentum ex silentio, since the performance of such contests in the Lenaea is not attested by any other piece of evidence (see Pickard-Cambridge 19682, 41, n. 11). The Diphilan title’s first component has been open to speculation. The space that the title’s lost part is estimated to have covered in the inscription allows for four letters, whilst no letter-trace has been preserved from the lacuna. The editio princeps by Meritt (1938, 117) accepted Capps’ supplement Μισα]νθρώποις (also approved by Pickard-Cambridge 19682, 124), which, as Capps later (1942, 325–8) argued, would be in line with the much-loved comic topic of misanthropy. This

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

[Φιλά]νθρωποι

199

idea lies at the core of Pherecrates’ Agrioi, Monotropos by Phrynichus and Anaxilas (the attribution of this title to Ophelion as well seems to be erroneous, cf. PCG VII 97, test. 1), and Menander’s Dyskolos (reported to have circulated also under the title Misanthrōpos, which has raised much speculation as to whether it could result from subsequent revivals or be a later insertion, perhaps by a grammarian or even a bookseller wishing to make the title more appealing, cf. e.g. Handley 1965, 124, Gomme/Sandbach 1973, 129–30, Nervegna 2013, 95). The singularity of the character of the misanthrope would have given scope for an ethological comedy, therefore, one would not readily expect, I suppose, more than one misanthropes in the same play, but rather one such character, as in the plays of Phrynichus, Anaxilas and Menander. This may not tell in favour of the plural Misanthrōpoi, and Pherecrates’ Agrioi cannot be an exact parallel for the use of the plural form, as it refers to the chorus. The sole instance that occurs to me and could give an idea of how two misanthropes may fit into the same dramatic plot is a much later one, that is, Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens featuring besides Timon a further malcontented character, the cynic philosopher Apemantus (appearing in acts I 1, I 2, II 2 and IV 3 and having been described as a misanthrope alongside Timon as early as Aristox. fr. 130 Wehrli and Plu. Ant. 70). The two grouched men engage in a vibrant debate (in act IV 3) about the reasons for and features of misanthropy. For more on this pair of characters see Soellner (1979) 26–7, 89, 92–6, 170, 213, Klein (2001) 12–17, 20–7, 198–201. Körte (1938, 123–4), on the other hand, argued against the reading Μισα] νθρώποις adopted in the editio princeps, favouring Φιλα]νθρώποις (‘man-loving’), on the basis of many parallels (38 in total) from fourth-century comedy involving titles that feature φιλ- as their first compound. As regards play-titles similarly referring to the affection between humans and occurring in the plural form, as in the present case, it may suffice to mention Philadelphoi by Diphilus, Amphis, Menander, Apollodorus of Gela, Philippides, and Sosicrates (see above, Philadelphoi: Title) and Philetairoi by Hegesippus. Although no comic play is attested to bear either of the proposed titles, it is noteworthy that the term φιλάνθρωπος is more frequently attested in what survives from comedy than μισάνθρωπος. The latter only occurs in Phryn. fr. 3 (Ephialtēs) with Stama (2014, 67) stressing its rarity in comedy: ἔστιν δ’ αὐτούς γε φυλάττεσθαι τῶν νῦν χαλεπώτατον ἔργον./ἔχουσι γάρ τι κέντρον ἐν τοῖς δακτύλοις,/μισάνθρωπον ἄνθος ἥβης. On the other hand, φιλάνθρωπος (describing a courteous, beneficent or altruistic attitude towards people) is regularly employed especially in new comedy; cf. Men. Dysc. 105: φιλάνθρωπος σφόδρα, 147: οὐ πάνυ φιλάνθρωπον β[λέπειν μ]οι φαίνεται, Asp. 395–6: πρὸς αὐτὸν ὥστε μὴ φιλανθρώπως ἔτι/ταῦτ’ ἐξετάζειν, ἀλλ’ ἐμαυτῷ συμφόρως, Sam. 35, Sic. 85, fr. 23 (Halieis), fr. 323 (Rhapizomenē). It is similarly attached to gods as benefactors of mankind, such as Hermes in Ar. Pax 392 and Peace in Philem. fr. 74.8 (Pyrrhos); cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 282. Nonetheless, unlike the typical features of misanthropy, it is not sufficiently clear what a comedy entitled Philanthrōpoi may

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

200

Diphilus

have involved and how this theme could have given rise to a comic effect (see the discussion below: Content). Hence, although one can find arguments for and against either possibility, the available evidence is inconclusive as to the title’s lost first component. Content The play’s title has been supplemented as Philanthrōpoi (by Körte 1938, 123–4) and Misanthrōpoi (by Capps ap. Meritt 1938, 117 and Capps 1942, 325–8). One cannot conclusively argue in favour of either reading (see above: Title). Therefore, it would be wise for methodological purposes to investigate any clues that may be given by each of the two titles about the play’s general subject-matter in either case. A comedy bearing the proposed title Misanthrōpoi would be expected to display typical features of an ethological play delving into the character of the misanthrope. The soundest piece of evidence for such a dramatic treatment is Menander’s Dyskolos, the sole extant play of fourth-century comedy that delineates what the title-character’s anti-social attitude encompasses; he is self-isolated (keeping away from public life – a comic theme going back to Pherecrates’ Agrioi, according to Pl. Prt. 327c-d), self-willed, self-sufficient (or so he thinks), wifeless, unapproachable, devoid of laughter and any desire for conversation, as well as quick to anger. These features are similarly articulated in fr. 19 of Phrynichus’ Monotropos, being attributed to Timon, the archetypal misanthrope, upon whom a comic tradition about this topic was formulated (cf. also Stama 2014, 132–4). Timon was the title-character in a comedy by Antiphanes; the sole preserved fragment (fr. 204) is probably a soliloquy delivered by a miser claiming (like the miser Euclio in Plaut. Aul. 371–87) that he has done extravagant shopping at the fish-market for a wedding-feast, whilst in fact he has not bought anything more than inexpensive fish (see Olson 2021, 54, 56–7). It would thus seem reasonable to infer that a play entitled Misanthrōpoi could encompass at least some of the aforementioned character-traits that may have shaped the development of the dramatic plot. On misanthropy in comedy see esp. Photiades (1959) 305–26, Préaux (1959) 327–41, Arnott (1981) 215–27, Konstan (1983) 97–123, Ireland (1995) 14–6, Ceccarelli (2000) 455–8, 461–3, Haegemans (2001) 675–96. As regards the supplemented title Philanthrōpoi, the closest play-titles to such a topic, as mentioned above, would be Diphilus’ Philadelphoi (‘Loving Brothers’, homonymous plays having also been produced by Amphis, Menander, Apollodorus of Gela, Philippides, and Sosicrates) and Philetairoi (by Hegesippus). Unlike the topic of misanthropy, which involves certain typical features enhancing comic complications, it is not self-evident how philanthropy could have produced a comic effect. It may thus be worth briefly exploring the elements of the attitude described as φιλανθρωπία and how these are represented in comedy. Aristotle refers to φιλία in the sense of φιλανθρωπία, being opposed to δυσκολία (‘peevish-

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

[Φιλά]νθρωποι

201

ness’, a component of misanthropy) in EN 1126b19–25, 1155a20–4 (cf. also VV 1250b33, 1251b34–6). Diogenes Laertius (3.98) distinguishes among three types of philanthropy, one through addressing and greeting people, another one through beneficence and helping those in trouble, and a third one through generosity and hospitality. In comedy the most eloquent examples of philanthropy are provided in Menandrean drama. In Dysc. 105 (φιλάνθρωπος σφόδρα) the term occurs in the sense of ‘courteous’ and refers to Pyrrhias greeting Cnemon (cf. Ireland 1995, ad loc.). Some lines below, in Dysc. 147 (οὐ πάνυ φιλάνθρωπον β[λέπειν μ]οι φαίνεται) the use of φιλάνθρωπον in negation is a figure of litotēs stressing Cnemon’s lack of any desire for human contact and conversation. Moreover, Gorgias’ altruistic rescue of Cnemon in the fourth act of the play, albeit not described as such, is an articulate case of philanthropy. In Asp. 395–6 (πρὸς αὐτὸν ὥστε μὴ φιλανθρώπως ἔτι/ταῦτ’ ἐξετάζειν, ἀλλ’ ἐμαυτῷ συμφόρως) the term denotes ‘altruistic’, involving the consideration of the benefit of others as against Smicrines’ self-centered attitude (cf. Gomme/Sandbach 1973 and Ireland 2010, ad loc.). Added to these, in Sam. 35–6 (φ]ιλανθρώπως δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς/Σαμί]α̣ν̣ διέκειθ’ ἡ τῆς κόρης μήτηρ, τά τε/πλεῖστ’ ἦν παρ’ αὐταῖς ἥδε) φιλανθρώπως describes the behaviour of Plangon’s mother, who treats the hetaira Chrysis with kindness and often invites her into her house (cf. Sommerstein 2013, 26, 111). On these grounds, a play entitled Philanthrōpoi would have involved more than one characters, who either through their courtesy, beneficence of others or generosity somehow determine the evolution of the dramatic plot. Needless to say, of course, the absence of any evidence other than the (supplemented) title does not allow for any further guess as to the play’s subject-matter. Date Although the date of the play’s first performance is unknown, there is safe inscriptional evidence for its reperformance either in 263/2 or 259/8 BC, which gave the actor Callias the first prize (see above: Title). Its revival alongside other comedies selected to be reperformed could also be a yardstick of the play’s popularity, at least during the mid-third century BC.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

202

Φρέαρ (Phrear) (“The Well”)

Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 414; Kock (1880–88) II 568–9; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 138–9; PCG V 103; Arnott (1996) 229; Pérez Asensio (1999) 406–8; Arnott (2010) 317–8; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 276 and n. 407 Title Wells – private and public — were the main way of water supply and were located throughout Athens (see e.g. Paus. 1.14.1: φρέατα μὲν γὰρ καὶ διὰ πάσης τῆς πόλεώς ἐστι). For instance, excavations at the Athenian Agora have revealed more than 400 private and public wells with an average depth of ca. 10m. There were varying building techniques, including wells with wooden walls and, mainly from the fourth century BC onwards, wells built of stone and clay in several forms. See Lang (1949) 114–27 and (1968) 5–10, Camp (1977) 175–227 and (1982) 12–13 (the latter concerning a possibly prolonged drought in mid-fourth century, as suggested by the evidence for wells in the Agora), Hodge (2000) 29–34, Buddensiek (2014) 17, n. 23. The well represented a common (mainly domestic) element in comedy. A play similarly entitled Φρέαρ was written by Anaxippus. Alexis wrote Ἡ εἰς τὸ φρέαρ (‘The Woman Gone into the Well’), which indicates that a female character went into a well for some reason. This might be somehow elucidated in the light of the evidence coming from Lysipp. fr. 1 (Bacchae) comprising a scene in which the speaker has been compelled by his/her father (as a means of punishment?) to stay down into the well like the wine that is kept there to remain cold during summer (τί δ’ ἄλλο γ’ ἢ/ὁ πατὴρ ἄνωθεν ἐς τὸ φρέαρ, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ,/ὥσπερ τὸν οἶνον τοῦ θέρους καθεῖκέ με). We cannot know whether these lines were delivered whilst the speaker was inside the well (which could suggest that it was visible on stage) or formed an ensuing report of this event. Fr. 85 of Alexis’ aforementioned play involves a dialogue between a male and a female servant, the former asking the latter for a vessel of wine (which may be kept cold inside the well?). This might give a reason (among several other possible reasons) why the female character (the servant or someone else?) of Alexis’ comedy needed to go into the well. Aristophanes’ Anagyros might have provided the comic treatment of a legend that reproduced the Potiphar’s wife motif, involving an old man’s concubine who threw herself into a well after falsely accusing her stepson of rape; it is to be expected that this sad denouement would have somehow been modified in the comic play, which may have offered a parody of this story (PCG III2 51–2, cf. the relevant discussion in Orth 2017, 218–22, 228–9 setting out the difficulties). Pl. Com. fr. 19 (Hellas ē Nēsoi) involves a character trying to pull another up out of a subterranean pit or a well (βούλει τήνδε σοι πλεκτὴν καθῶ/κἄπειτ’ ἀνελκύσω σε δεῦρο;); it is reasonable to deduce that the well was visible in this case as a stage prop. In Plautus’ Commorientes (fr. I Monda), which was modelled upon Diphilus’ Synapothnēskontes, a character is threatening (?) to jump into the well

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Φρέαρ

203

headlong (for the relevant discussion about a possible suicide threat in this case, see above, Synapothnēskontes: Content). In Antiph. fr. 193.7 (Progonoi) the well is described as a place from which there is no escape (μὴ ’ξελθεῖν φρέαρ, ‘for allowing no escape, a well’, transl. Olson 2022, 367), which recalls Pl. Tht. 165b7–9 (τί γὰρ χρήσῃ ἀφύκτῳ ἐρωτήματι, τὸ λεγόμενον ἐν φρέατι συσχόμενος, cf. also Zenob. vulg. III 45). The sole extant case of a dramatic incident taking place at a well is Menander’s Dyskolos (190–1, 576–83, 620–757). Cnemon’s offstage fall into the well, which makes him change his perspective, has aptly been paralleled by Zimmermann (2014, 53–9) to the anecdote about Thales’ own fall into a well, which is cited by Socrates as proverbial for theoretical thinking instead of keeping one’s mind on the earth (Pl. Tht. 174a4–b1). In both cases, the characters’ error of judgement activates a ‘learning through suffering’ process that leads them to come to terms with grim reality. Menander’s contemporary, Apollodorus of Gela, in Apoleipousa presented a woman trying to hide at a state of despair by loosening the bucket ropes, so that she could go down a well (fr. 1). On the basis of the title (‘A Woman Leaving [her Husband?]’) and this fragment, Meineke (1839–57, IV 438) inferred that it might be a wife trying to protect herself from her husband by hiding inside a well. On the above comic treatments see further Arnott (1996) 229, Pérez Asensio (1999) 406–8, Pirrotta (2009) 90–1, Bagordo (2014b) 47–8, Olson (2022) 373. All in all, the available evidence indicates varying uses of the well in the comic plot; it could be the place of a character’s fall (accident or suicide) or punishment, being generally regarded as allowing no escape, but it could also be employed for protection, as well as for household purposes apart from water supply, e.g. for the maintenance of goods, such as wine. Most of these uses also form Märchen motifs (cf. Schmid 1977, 941–8). The representation of this element throughout the comic genre, from old to middle and new comedy, forms a yardstick of its popularity as a device that promotes the dramatic plot in varying ways. At the same time, ‘falling into a well’ is a literary motif deployed for serious and comic purposes, according to generic requirements (see Hunter 2019, 137–47 citing funerary epigrams, such as Posidipp. A.P. 7.170 and GV 1159/SGO 03/05/04, both on the drowning of young children in wells). Cf. also its satirical use in Lucill. A.P. 11.137. On a larger scale, the well belongs to a group of elements coming from everyday life and providing appealing material for comedy-making. It is similarly worth noting Diphilus’ comedies entitled after everyday elements, such as Balaneion, Mnēmation, Pēra, Schedia and Thesauros (the latter title belongs to plays by Menander and Philemon as well). Arnott (2010, 317–8) has gathered all comic titles referring to everyday objects which were significant for the development of the plot; to mention but a few: Daktylios (by Alexis, Amphis, Timocles, and Menander), Encheiridion (by Sophilus, Philemon, and Menander), Epistolē and Epistolai (by Alexis and Timocles respectively).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

204

Diphilus

Content The fact that the play is named after a well suggests that its dramatic function must have been significant for the development of the action. The pieces of evidence from plays comprising incidents taking place at wells or pits indicate several comic uses of this element; apart from its common household function, the well may be the place of a dramatic character’s fall, shelter, or seclusion as a mode of punishment (for more detail see above, Title). Sadly, the content of fr. 84 cannot elucidate the play’s title. There is no way of knowing whether in this play the well was invisible or visible as a stage prop. In the former case, it could have been part of an interior area, as in Menander’s Dyskolos. As regards the latter possibility, the sole extant case that might serve as a parallel could be the onstage pit where Peace is imprisoned in Ar. Pax 178–728, and which is described in 223–4 as deep, with the goddess being cast down there, at the very bottom (ἄντρον βαθύ/[...] τουτὶ τὸ κάτω, cf. schol. vet. Ar. Pax 224 Holwerda: ἔστι τι καὶ ἄντρον ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς). This entails that the pit was perceived as extending downwards. Olson (1998, xliv-xlvi) was right to reject the raised stage and the Charonian stairs for fifth-century practice, and the same holds true of the Lycurgan theatre built in 330, i.e. a decade before the start of Diphilus’ floruit (the Hellenistic reconstruction of the theatre of Dionysus is estimated to have taken place between the third and the first century BC, see e.g. Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 175ff.). Olson’s discussion of staging is congruent with Mastronarde’s, who argued that Peace was brought up through the central door that represented the pit’s opening (Mastronarde 1990, 285–6 with earlier relevant bibliography). Another conceivable parallel of an onstage well-scene could be Pl. Com. fr. 19 (Hellas ē Nēsoi) presenting someone trying to pull another character up out of a subterranean pit. In this case too, a staging similar to that of Peace will have to be expected (on the other hand, Pirrotta 2009, 90 opted for a two-levelled scene involving the pit located on stage level and the skēnē-roof, from where the one character would have drawn the other character up out of the pit; this staging is nonetheless rejected by Mastronarde loc. cit. for Peace). Fr. 84 is the sole surviving passage from Phrear and derives from a conversation between the speaker and a male character addressed as ξένος (a newcomer, a stranger, or a guest). The speaker employs a formulaic maxim drawing on the personification of time as a grizzled (and expectedly wise) craftsman; this image is reversed by means of a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke (in l. 2) that brings forward the frustrating degeneration attached to old age. Due to the gnomic nature of this fragment, it is not clear whether it is the speaker who is affected by the passing of time, or it is a comment for another character (see below: Interpretation).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Φρέαρ (fr. 84)

205

Fragments fr. 84 K.-A. (83 K.) πολιὸς τεχνίτης ἐστὶν ὁ χρόνος, ὦ ξένε· χαίρει μεταπλάττων πάντας ἐπὶ τὰ χείρονα 1 πολιὸς Stob. SMA: σκολιὸς Grotius: σκαιὸς Meineke: φαῦλος Hirschig: ἄτοπος Haupt: δόλιος Canter

Time is a grizzled craftsman, stranger; he takes pleasure in changing everyone for the worse Stob. 4.50b.67 (ψόγος γήρως) Διφίλου ἐκ Φρέατος ΜΑ (ἐκ Φρέατος om. S)— (censure of old age) From Diphilus’ Phrear —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. k kk k l l l k | kk k l k l (hephthemimeral caesura) 2. l l k l l l | l k kk k l k l (medial caesura) Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 414; Kock (1880–88) II 568–9; Marigo (1907) 435; Fraenkel (1922) 54–5; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 138–9; Kassel (1979) 16–17; PCG V 103; Astorga (1990) 57–8, 77–9; Pérez Asensio (1999) 409–12; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 276 Citation Context This distich is cited in the fifth-century AD anthology by Ioannes Stobaeus in a section entitled ψόγος γήρως. This section also preserves inter alia a considerable number of sententious comic fragments, such as Men. fr. inc. 867, fr. 400 (Chalkeia), Pherecr. fr. 156 (Cheiron), fr. dub. 283, Antiph. fr. 94 (Epiklēros), frr. inc. 236, 251, 255–6, Philem. fr. inc. 117, Alex. fr. 230 (Tithē or Tithai) and Sophr. fr. 54; all these passages precede the quotation of the Diphilan fragment, which is followed by Apollod. fr. 7 (Lakaina). Stobaeus’ florilegium forms a repertory of moralizing and didactic gnomes and maxims of practical wisdom as a means of scouring ancient literary output for educational purposes. There is no evidence to suggest that Stobaeus in fact had access to full versions of the passages that he cited. Rather, he seems to have drawn on earlier (non-extant now) anthologies. On the derivative nature of this compilation, see Hense (1916) 2557–61, Page (1934) 33, Piccione (1994) 281–308, Mansfeld/ Runia (1997) 204–38, Dickey (2007) 106. When dealing with dramatic fragments, it is worth bearing in mind that the generalizing character of gnomic excerpts, such as those cited in Stobaeus’ anthology, entails that the quoted passages are isolated

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

206

Diphilus

from their context and are thus difficult to locate within the plot. Cf. the relevant discussion in Kassel (1991) 245–50, Piccione (2017) 9–19. Text In l. 1 the ms. tradition provides the reading πολιός. Accordingly, time is personified as an old – and, as it would be expected, an experienced — craftsman, who, as it turns out in l. 2, tends however to transform everything into something worse. This paradox triggered several conjectures attributing negative qualities to χρόνος as a ‘craftsman’ that could account for the deformation mentioned in l. 2. Grotius (1623, 560) proposed σκολιός (‘crooked’, ‘unrighteous’), regarding the ms. reading as weak (‘languere mihi videbatur’), Meineke (1839–57, IV 414) opted for σκαιός (‘mischievous’), which is close to Canter’s δόλιος (‘treacherous’, Canter 1616, I 393). Hirschig (1849, 28) proposed φαῦλος (‘inefficient’) on the basis of Poll. 7.7 (τεχνίτης φαυλουργός), whilst ἄτοπος (‘strange’, ‘absurd’) was suggested by Haupt (1875–6, III 606–7) to stress the absurdity involved in the ‘craftsman’s’ delight (χαίρει) in deforming his ‘artefacts’. Nonetheless, there are reasons telling in favour of the ms. reading. The personification of χρόνος as πολιός is a literary topos (see further below, l. 1n.). Moreover, the second line provides a reversal in the tenor of the gnome, thus giving rise to a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke, which would have been missed if any of the aforementioned conjectures was adopted (for more detail see Interpretation). Hence, the ms. reading cannot be contested on serious grounds. Cf. also Marigo (1907) 435. Interpretation The speaker may or may not be of an advanced age; there might be a personal (emotional and bitter) tone underlying these lines that stress the withering effect of time, but the sententious character of this fragment, which is detached from its immediate context (see above, Citation Context), cannot provide a specific clue as to whether this situation affects the speaker or another character. The speaker’s addressee, who is referred to as ξένος, may either be a newcomer, a guest, or an otherwise anonymous character, to judge from parallel cases in which this dramatic address is used (see below, note ad loc.). In any case, this comment on the decaying passing of time seems to emerge from a dramatic situation involving an aged character (either the speaker or someone else to whom the speaker refers) and the predicaments brought by old age. This gnomological fragment is articulated upon a particular structure which comprises a brief generalizing statement in the first line that is clarified in the second one. The old age motif is similarly conveyed by means of this typology in Antiph. fr. inc. 250 (σφόδρ’ ἐστὶν ἡμῶν ὁ βίος οἴνῳ προσφερής·/ὅταν ᾖ τὸ λοιπὸν μικρόν, ὄξος γίνεται) and fr. inc. 255 (τὸ γῆρας ὥσπερ βωμός ἐστι τῶν κακῶν·/ πάντ’ ἔστ’ ἰδεῖν εἰς τοῦτο καταπεφευγότα). This structure is also employed in Diph. fr. inc. 104: πένητος ἀνδρὸς οὐδὲν εὐτυχέστερον·/τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον μεταβολὴν οὐ προσδοκᾷ, Aristophon fr. 1 (Babias) with Orth (2020) 25: σαφὴς ὁ χειμών ἐστι τῆς πενίας λύχνος·/ἅπαντα φαίνει τὰ κακὰ καὶ τὰ δυσχερῆ, fr. 4 (Iatros): αἱ τῶν ἑταιρῶν γὰρ διοπετεῖς οἰκίαι·/γεγόνασιν ἄβατοι τοῖς ἔχουσι μηδὲ ἕν. Cf. also Fraenkel (1922) 54–5, Marx (1928) on Plaut. Rud. 88, PCG V 103, Pérez Asensio (1999) 409.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Φρέαρ (fr. 84)

207

The imagery of time as a τεχνίτης is taken from craftmanship (on this personification see below, l. 1n.). The first line suggests that greyhaired χρόνος is an experienced and wise craftsman; in fact, time is often described as wise (cf. e.g. Thales DK11 A1: σοφώτατον χρόνος). Yet, this statement is reversed in the second line, where it turns out that this craftsman paradoxically deforms his ‘artefacts’. This is a παρὰ προσδοκίαν joke, which creates a complex comic effect. Astorga (1990, 57–8, 77–9) suggested that χρόνος proves to be an old fool deforming his works due to his senility; but this would not plausibly explain χαίρει, which indicates deliberate action that would be incongruent with the idea of cognitive decline. Rather, I would regard as more likely the possibility that the creations of χρόνος are perceived as taking after their maker, namely that aged χρόνος makes his artefacts look old and deformed like him. There are several cases in comedy where the relation between physis and mimēsis is brought forward (on this matter cf. e.g. Chirico 1990, 112–5 and earlier Thimme 1935, 96–9). For instance, in Ar. Ach. 410–3 Euripides is presented as wearing rags and avoiding exercise, which, according to Dicaeopolis, explains why the characters whom he creates also wear rags and are crippled. The same holds true of Agathon in Ar. Th. 148–52, who typically stresses that the creation should reflect the maker’s own nature (167: ὅμοια γὰρ ποιεῖν ἀνάγκη τῇ φύσει). This interpretation would be in line with the generic representation of time as getting old along with the people affected by its passing. As De Romilly (1971, 45) aptly put it, ‘ce vieillissement du temps est très exactement le nôtre’. Cf. e.g. Aesch. Ag. 107 (old men referring to their old age developing with time), Eur. Ba. 201 (referring to old traditions, ὁμήλικας χρόνῳ). 1 πολιὸς τεχνίτης The epithet πολιός is attached to χρόνος in A.P. 9.499: ἀργαλέως φέρεται πολιὸς χρόνος, Nonn. D. 47.452: καὶ δολιχὴν πολιοῖο χρόνου στροφάλιγγα κυλίνδων (the latter being cited in PCG V 103). On the personification of time as an old man see also Aesch. Ag. 983–6: χρόνος ... παρήβησεν, Eum. 286: χρόνος καθαίρει πάντα γηράσκων ὁμοῦ, [Aesch.] PV 981: ὁ γηράσκων χρόνος, Soph. fr. 62 (Acrisius): γῆρας χρόνου, Εur. Supp. 786: χρόνος παλαιὸς πατήρ, TrGF II fr. adesp. 508: μετά τὴν σκιὰν τάχιστα γηράσκει χρόνος, Luc. Am. 12: γέροντος χρόνου. Likewise, πολιὸν γῆρας is associated with χρόνος in Antiph. A.P. 10.100.1–2: ἀνθρώποις ὀλίγος μὲν ὁ πᾶς χρόνος, ὅν ποτε δειλοὶ/ ζῶμεν, κἢν πολιὸν γῆρας ἅπασι μένῃ and Α.P. 11. 168.1–2: ὁ δὲ χρόνος ὡς τόκον οὕτω/καὶ πολιὸν τίκτει γῆρας ἐπερχόμενος. On the passing of time cf. also Pi. Ο. 6.97: χρόνος … ἐφέρπων, Soph. Aj. 600: παλαιὸς χρόνος, Eur. Hipp. 908, IA 419, fr. 441 K. (Hipp.Cal.): χρόνος διέρπων, Plato A.P. 9.51. See Fraenkel (1950) II 445, Fraenkel (1960), Gerber (1962) 30–3, Barrett (1964) 336–7, De Romilly (1971) 42–8, Collard (1975) II 307–8, Kassel (1979) 16–17, Karamanou (2017) 157–8. Time is similarly personified as a craftsman in Crit. TrGF I 43 F19 (Sisyphus): χρόνου καλὸν ποίκιλμα, τέκτονος σοφοῦ and Crat. Theb. SH 366 (the latter also cited in PCG V 103): ὁ γὰρ χρόνος μ’ ἔκαμψε, τέκτων μὲν σοφός,/ἅπαντα δ’ ἐργαζόμενος ἀσθενέστερα. On the metaphor of craftmanship in comedy see Blümner (1891) 141–5 (including many examples).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

208

Diphilus

Through the literary device of personification abstractions are endowed with human features. This valuation of the inanimate environment through the senses clings to the tangible experiences of everyday life. The concept of time, for instance, is more effectively conveyed by images reflecting a familiar reality, such as that of an old craftsman in the present case, rather than by abstract ideas. Time, including the course of human life that instigates fears and anxieties, is transformed into a living being embodying the cause of incidents. On personification as a technique conveying energy and vividness see Arist. Rh. 1411b24–34, Demetr. Eloc. 265, Quint. Inst. 9.2.31; cf. Petersen (1939) 42ff., Webster (1954) 10–21, Paxson (1994) 11–20, Dover (1997) 121–2, Lausberg (1998) 369–72, Stafford (2000) 3–9, Southall (2008) 57–9, Smith (2011) 3–7, 11–19. ὦ ξένε Usually placed at this position of the trimeter for metrical reasons. Cf. similarly Eur. Hcld. 101: εἰκὸς θεῶν ἱκτῆρας αἰδεῖσθαι, ξένε and Men. fr. inc. 874: ἀνθρωπίνως δεῖ τὰς τύχας φέρειν, ξένε (in both cases following a gnome). In drama it is a regular address to newcomers (e.g. Ar. Th. 882, 893, Eur. Cyc. 116, El. 259) or to minor, anonymous characters (S. OT 992, Eur. Supp. 403). 2 The comic effect is enhanced by means of the paronomasia involved in χαίρει – χείρονα. The framing function of the terms at the beginning and end of the line in conjunction with the antithesis emerging from the positive sense of χαίρει and the negative meaning of χείρονα serve to imbue the decaying effect of time with a sardonic nuance. Cf. Astorga (1990) 57–8. On paronomasia cf. also the discussion in fr. 60.5–6n. (Parasitos) and fr. 64 (Peliades): Interpretation. Old age tends to be perceived as being rife with misfortune and suffering, in that it involves physical degeneration, disfigurement and debilitation. In Hes. Th. 211–25 the personification of ‘malignant’ old age (Γῆράς τ’ οὐλόμενον) is mentioned alongside other despicable monstrosities. The withering effect of time bringing about decrepitude, vulnerability and frustration is articulately represented in Minn. frr. 1, 4, 5.5–8 W2: τὸ δ’ ἀργαλέον καὶ ἄμορφον/γῆρας ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς αὐτίχ’ ὑπερκρέμαται,/ἐχθρὸν ὁμῶς καὶ ἄτιμον, ὅ τ’ ἄγνωστον τιθεῖ ἄνδρα,/ βλάπτει δ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ νόον ἀμφιχυθέν, Thgn. 527–8, 1131–2, S. OC 1236–7: ἀκρατὲς ἀπροσόμιλον/γῆρας ἄφιλον, Sophr. fr. 54: τὸ γὰρ ἀπεχθόμενον γῆρας ἁμὲ μαραῖνον ταριχεύει. Most of the relevant passages are included in Stobaeus’ section entitled Ψόγος γήρως (IV 50b), from which the present fragment also derives. Cf. also Van Nortwick (1989) 132–56, Bertman (1989) 159–69, Garland (1990) 252–3 and (20092) 98–102, Faulkner (1995) esp. 108–52, 171–9. For comic treatments of this theme see Ar. V. 441, Pherecr. fr. dub. 283.1–2, Diocl. fr. inc. 14 (with Orth 2014, 238), Antiph. fr. 94.3–4 (Epiklēros), frr. inc. 250, 251 (the latter similarly describing old age through workshop imagery, being presented as haunted by troubles, cf. Olson 2021, 204–5): πρὸς γὰρ τὸ γῆρας ὥσπερ ἐργαστήριον/ἅπαντα τἀνθρώπεια προσφοιτᾷ κακά, Men. fr. inc. 867: ὀχληρὸν ὁ χρόνος ὁ πολύς. ὦ γῆρας βαρύ,/ὡς οὐδὲν ἀγαθόν, δυσχερῆ δὲ πόλλ’ ἔχεις/τοῖς ζῶσι καὶ λυπηρά. Cf. Oeri (1948) passim, Hubbard (1989) 90–113, Brandt (2002) 63–9, 98–101.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Φρέαρ (fr. 84)

209

μεταπλάττων ‘To mould differently’; cf. similarly Pl. Tim. 50a 6–7: μηδὲν μεταπλάττων παύοιτο ἕκαστα εἰς ἅπαντα, App. Anth. Epigr. Irrisoria Hedyl. Ep. 17.5–6: ἥξει γὰρ τοιαῦτα μεταπλασθεὶς τυχὸν ὡς Ζεὺς/χρυσορόης, ἐπὶ τήνδ’ ’Ακρισίου λοπάδα, Luc. Hist. Conscr. 34.11–12, [Luc.] Halc. 4.7. ἐπὶ τὰ χείρονα ἐπί + comparative aims at conveying exaggeration (LSJ9 s.v. C I 3); cf. Pl. Plt. 273e: ἐπὶ τὰ καλλίω, ἐπὶ τὰ αἰσχίονα, R. 381b: ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον καὶ κάλλιον, ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον καὶ τὸ αἴσχιον, Smp. 214e: ἐπὶ τὰ γελοιότερα ἐπαινέσαι. See also Diph. fr. inc. 104.2: τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον μεταβολὴν οὐ προσδοκᾷ, Men. Dysc. 279: τὴν μεταβολὴν τὴν εἰς τὸ χεῖρον λαμβάνει (cited in Pérez Asensio 1999, 412).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

210

Χρυσοχόος (Chrysochoos) (“The Goldsmith”)

Discussion Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 140–1; Trenkner (1958) 128–30; Webster (19702) 155, 156, 176; MacCary (1973) 203; Hunter (1983) 114; PCG V 103–4; Pérez Asensio (1999) 412–3; Konstantakos (2002) 161; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/ Montañés (2014) 276; Tartaglia (2019) 183 Title A homonymous comedy was written by Anaxilas (see Tartaglia 2019, 183–4). The sole preserved fragment (fr. 30) refers to the gluttony of Ctesias, who is presented as bearing features of a parasite. There is no way, nonetheless, to know how this fragment could be related to the play’s subject-matter. The term χρυσοχόος describes a craft known as early as Homer, who refers to the goldsmith Laerces at Nestor’s palace (Od. 3.425–6: εἷς δ’ αὖ χρυσοχόον Λαέρκεα δεῦρο κελέσθω/ἐλθεῖν, ὄφρα βοὸς χρυσὸν κέρασιν περιχεύῃ). A few lines later (Od. 3.432–5), the same character is described as χαλκεύς, which encompassed work with several kinds of metal: ἦλθε δὲ χαλκεὺς/ὅπλ’ ἐν χερσὶν ἔχων χαλκήϊα, πείρατα τέχνης,/ἄκμονά τε σφῦράν τ’ εὐποίητόν τε πυράγρην,/οἷσίν τε χρυσὸν ἐργάζετο. Cf. Eust. on Od. 3.425/I 136.27–9 (Stallbaum), Plu. Mor. 658D: οἱ μὲν γὰρ χρυσοχόοι διὰ τῆς ἀχυρίνης φλογὸς ἐργάζονται τὸν χρυσόν, Hesych. β 186 (Cunningham); see also Forbes (1967) 17–19; Müller (1974) 124–7, 175–8, Eckstein (1974) 26, Williams (ed.) (1998). In comedy the goldsmith (as well as the shoemaker) was sometimes associated with immorality, being involved in cuckold stories, as in Ar. Lys. 408–13 (cf. Henderson 1987, 121). In a similar vein, in Pl. 160–4 (τέχναι δὲ πᾶσαι διὰ σὲ καὶ σοφίσματα/ἐν τοῖσιν ἀνθρώποισίν ἐσθ’ ηὑρημένα./ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν σκυτοτομεῖ καθήμενος,/ἕτερος δὲ χαλκεύει τις, ὁ δὲ τεκταίνεται,/ὁ δὲ χρυσοχοεῖ γε χρυσίον παρὰ σοῦ λαβών) the goldsmith’s craft is related to the unscrupulousness caused by chasing wealth (cf. Sommerstein 2001, 144). Likewise, Pl. R. 450b alludes to a proverb elucidated in CPG II 91, 727 (χρυσοχοήσειν ᾤου σύ) and conveying the sense of ‘getting rich quickly’ (see Müller 1974, 127). Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 412–3 and Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/ Montañés (2014) 276, n. 8. A number of Diphilan comedies, such as Aleiptria, Apobatēs, Εmporos, Zōgraphos, Kitharōidos, Plinthophoros and Stratiōtēs, are similarly named after a character’s profession. On a systematized collection of titles identifying dramatic personages by their jobs in middle and new comedy and attesting to a wide range of occupations, see Arnott (2010) 311–5. For another interpretation of the term χρυσοχόος see below: Content. Content The title-character is a goldsmith, who would be expected to have affected in some way the dramatic action. In comedy goldsmiths tend to be involved in stories of adultery (see above: Title); this element may be somehow associated with fr. 85 delivered by someone who is looking at a beautiful woman from the smoke-hole, which might be suggestive of a love story. Xenarch. fr. 4.10–12

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Χρυσοχόος

211

(Pentathlos) tells in favour of this possibility, in that it refers to sneeking into the girl’s chamber from the hole of the roof as one of the subterfuges to which illicit lovers, such as adulterers, tend to resort: μὴ κλίμακα στησάμενον εἰσβῆναι λάθρᾳ,/μηδὲ δι’ ὀπῆς κάτωθεν εἰσδῦναι στέγης,/μηδ’ ἐν ἀχύροισιν εἰσενεχθῆναι τέχνῃ. An articulate parallel is provided by the proverb ἡ Φάνου θύρα, which emerged from a situation in which Phanus, the husband, is on guard at the door, whilst his wife is letting her lover down from the roof; cf. Diogen. 2.84: ἡ Φάνου θύρα· τὸν Φάνον φασὶν ὡς μοιχευομένης τῆς αὐτοῦ γυναικὸς, ἐπειδὴ ᾔσθετο, θύραν ἐργάσασθαι τοιαύτην, ὡς μὴ ἄνευ ψόφου ἀνοίγεσθαι, τῆς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς στέγης δεχομένης τὸν μοιχόν, χλευάζοντας τοὺς γείτονας λέγειν. ἡ Φάνου θύρα· ἐπὶ τῶν μάτην τῇ φυλακῇ πεποιθότων. Cf. also Apost. 8.74, Sud. η 655 (Adler). Likewise, in Ter. Eun. 584–91 (cf. Barsby 1999, 195–7) a young man has just entered his beloved’s chamber by a trick and is looking at a painting which depicts Zeus sneeking into Danae’s chamber from the roof in the form of golden shower, realizing that it matches his own situation. See the relevant discussion in Trenkner (1958) 128–30. The latter parallel may lead us to explore the interpretation offered by Edmonds (1957–61, IIIA 141), followed by MacCary (1973, 203) and Hunter (1983, 114), who combined the title Χρυσοχόος (apparently interpreting it as ‘pouring in as gold’) with fr. 85 (s.o. peeping at a pretty girl from the smoke-hole) to propose that the play may have involved a burlesque of Zeus’ transformation into a shower of gold to enter the roof of Danae’s chamber. The latter’s seduction by Zeus was a favourite topic in old and middle comedy, to judge from the Danae plays by Sannyrion and Apollophanes in the former case and by Eubulus in the latter, as well as the references to this theme in Men. Sam. 591 (refiguring the plot of Euripides’ Danae, cf. recently Karamanou 2019b, 52–4) and the aforementioned passage from Ter. Eun. 584–91 (on the comic appeal of this theme cf. also Karamanou 2006, 13–15). Sannyr. fr. 8.1 (Danae), in particular, displays a notable similarity with fr. 85, in that the speaker (probably Zeus) is looking through the smoke-hole and wondering in what disguise he could sneak into Danae’s chamber: τίς ἂν γενόμενος εἰς ὀπὴν ἐνδύσομαι; (cf. also Konstantakos 2002, 161). Taking into consideration the remarkable number of comic plays treating Zeus’ love adventures (Europe by Plato and Eubulus, Io by Plato, Sannyrion and Anaxandrides, Lēda as the alternate title of comedies by Eubulus and Sophilus, Callisto by Alcaeus and the Ganymedes plays by Alcaeus, Eubulus and Antiphanes, cf. Konstantakos 2002, 157–67) – one of which being represented on a Paestan bell-crater by Asteas (ca. 350/40 BC, see Trendall/Webster 1971, nr. IV 19) – in conjunction with Diphilus’ trend of producing mythological comedies (for more detail see Peliades: Content), the possibility that Chrysochoos could have involved a comic treatment of Zeus’ seduction of Danae may seem appealing. Nonetheless, it is worth considering that χρυσοχόος is not attested to denote ‘s.o. pouring in as gold’ (Nordheider 2010, 1282: ‘ “Goldgiesser”, “Goldschmelzer” […] nicht “gold-pourer” ’); this makes the association of the term with Zeus’ transformation into a golden shower difficult. At the same time, fr. 85 does not contain

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

212

Diphilus

any clue pointing to Zeus in particular and could thus refer to anyone spying on a pretty girl. On balance, even though the likelihood of a Diphilan treatment of Danae’s seduction seems attractive in view of the comic poets’ predilection for such topics, there is no safe evidence to strongly support such a possibility.

Fragments fr. 85 K.-A. (84 K.) διακύψας ὁρῶ διὰ τῆς ὀπαίας κεραμίδος καλὴν σφόδρα Having stooped, I see through the smoke-hole an exceedingly beautiful woman Phot. o 388 (Theodoridis) ὀπαία κεραμίς· ἡ τὴν κάπνην ἔχουσα. Δίφιλος Χρυσοχόῳ·— ‘Holed tile’; the tile having the smoke-hole. Diphilus in Chrysochoos —

Metre Iambic trimeter 1. 〈x l k l x l k〉 kk l l k l 2. kk l k l l | kk k l k l k l (penthemimeral caesura) Discussion Meineke (1839–57) IV 415; Kock (1880–88) II 569; Edmonds (1957–61) IIIA 140–1; Webster (19702) 155; PCG V 103–4; Pérez Asensio (1999) 414–7; Konstantakos (2002) 161; Pérez Asensio/Sanchis/Montañés (2014) 276 Citation Context This fragment is attested by Photius under the lēmma ὀπαία κεραμίς. The adjective ὀπαία is reported in the lexicon of Moeris to be Atticistic: ὀπαία κεραμὶς δι’ ἧς ὁ καπνὸς ἔξεισιν ’Αττικοί (Moeris o 48 Hansen). Theodoridis (1982–2012, III 93) identified ὀπαία as a glōssa deriving from the Atticists Pausanias or Aelius Dionysius (on the latter as sources of Photius’ lexicon see Dickey 2007, 101), on both of whom Moeris’ Atticistic lexicon has drawn (cf. Hansen 1998, 42–7). On this Atticistic term cf. also Poll. 2.54: ὀπαίαν δὲ οἱ ’Αττικοὶ τὴν κεραμίδα ἐκάλουν, ἣ τὴν ὀπὴν ἔχει. Interpretation These lines are delivered by someone who is peeping at a pretty girl from the smoke-hole. This situation may point to a love plot-pattern, if we consider several comic parallels which involve an illicit lover sneeking into the woman’s chamber from the hole of the roof (for more detail see above: Content). Webster (19702, 155), on the other hand, proposed a snooping slave as a candidate for this role. The spying slave is a comic topos, to judge from the first servant in Ar. Pax 78, Carion in Pl. 713–5, Men. Epit. 883–4, Sceledrus in Plaut. MG Act 2, scenes

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Χρυσοχόος (fr. 85)

213

2 and 4, and Chalinus as an overlooker in the first scene of Casina (cf. Webster 19702, 176, Pérez Asensio 1999, 414, Cox 2013, 167–8). The lack of sufficient evidence makes both scenarios feasible, and the latter may equally well be consistent with a love story (e.g. a slave spying on a girl in the interest of his master). In either case, the speaker is evidently reporting an interior scene. This dramatic situation probably involved an upper-story room, as in Ar. Ec. 884–975 and Pl. Com. fr. 112 (Poiētēs). According to Poll. 4.130, the upper story is used in comedy for spying out, as in the present case, or by women looking down presumably upon their lovers, among other possibilities (ἐν δὲ κωμῳδίᾳ ἀπὸ τῆς διστεγίας πορνοβοσκοί τι κατοπτεύουσιν ἢ γρᾴδια ἢ γύναια καταβλέπει). Cf. the relevant discussion in Mastronarde (1990) 255–8. 1 διακύψας ‘to stoop, so as to peep in’ (LSJ9); it usually involves bending over and trying to thrush one’s head through a smallish space in a furtive way, as in Ar. Pax 78 (with Olson 1998, ad loc.), Men. Epit. 883–4 (with Furley 2009, 228): πρὸς ταῖς θύραις γὰρ ἔνδον ἀρτί[ως πολὺν/χρόνον διακύπτων ἐνδ̣[ιέτριψ’, [Luc.] Asin. 45.22–4: πάντα περίεργος ἐγὼ βουλόμενος μαθεῖν τίνες εἶεν οἱ βοῶντες, διακύπτω ἄνωθεν κάτω διὰ τῆς θυρίδος, 47.18: καὶ διακύψας εἴσω ὁρᾷ. Cf. also Ussher (1973) on Ar. Ec. 930–1, Pérez Asensio (1999) 415. 2 διὰ τῆς ὀπαίας κεραμίδος ‘through the tile with a hole in it’, so that the smoke can escape (see LSJ9). Ὀπαία (‘with a hole’) is an Atticist term (see above: Citation Context). Cf. Hdn. GG III 1, p. 282, 10–11 (Lentz): ὀπαία, κεραμὶς τὴν ὀπὴν ἐπικλείουσα, Eust. on Od. 1.321/I 61.26–8 (Stallbaum): οἱ δέ φασιν ὅτι διέπτατο ἀνόπαια ἤγουν ἀνὰ τὴν ὀπὴν τὴν ἐν μέσῳ τ’ ὀροφῆς, ἣν καὶ κάπνην καὶ καπνοδόκην ἐκάλουν. ἢ διὰ τῆς ὀπαίας φασὶ κεραμίδος. ἔστι δὲ αὕτη, ἡ τὴν κάπνην φασὶν ἔχουσα, Hesych. o 972 (Latte): ὀπαία· κεραμίς, ἡ τὴν κάπνην ἔχουσα. καλήν As it would be expected, the epithet is regularly employed in comedy to describe a woman’s beauty in erotic contexts. See Ar. Pax 1329–31, Lys. 646, Ec. 947–8: εἴθ’, ὦ θεοί, λάβοιμι τὴν καλὴν μόνην,/ἐφ’ ἣν πεπωκὼς ἔρχομαι πάλαι ποθῶν, 1080: φέρε πῶς ἐπ’ ἐκείνην τὴν καλὴν ἀφίξομαι; Eup. fr. 109.1 (Dēmoi) with Olson (2017) 401: γυναῖκ’ ἔχοντα μάλα καλήν τε κἀγαθήν, Canthar. fr. 5 (Tereus) with Bagordo (2014a) 237: γυναῖκ’ ’Αθηναίαν καλήν τε κἀγαθήν, Theophil. fr. 12.5–7 (Philaulos) with Papachrysostomou (2008) 280, Men. Epit. 693, Dis Exapatōn 91–2 with Gomme/Sandbach (1973) ad loc.: κα]ὶ̣ μ̣[ὴν δο]κῶ μοι τὴν καλήν τε κἀγαθὴν ἰδεῖν ἐρωμένην, Bato fr. 3.1 (Androphonos): ἐξὸν γυναῖκ’ ἔχοντα κατακεῖσθαι καλὴν. Cf. also Pérez Asensio (1999) 416. σφόδρα See fr. 59.1n. (Paralyomenos).

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

215

Bibliographical Abbreviations Abbreviations of names of Greek and Latin authors and their works follow LSJ9 (with the exception of Aesch. for Aeschylus, Soph. for Sophocles and Eur. for Euripides thus cited for reasons of clarity) and Lewis & Short respectively. Abbreviations of journals are cited after L’ Année Philologique. Well-known proper names are typed according to their established Latin form (e.g. Oedipus). Greek words and less-known names in play-titles are transliterated (e.g. Pēra, Synōris). The numbering of comic fragments follows K.-A. Alpers ARV 2 Beekes Bethe Blaydes Boisacq Bothe Brandt Canter ms. Carey CA Casaubon Chambers Chantraine CPG I–II CPG Suppl. Des Places Desrousseaux Obs. Dg. DK Dindorf Dobree Adv.

Alpers, K. (1981): Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros, Berlin/New York. Beazley, J.D. (19632): Attic Red-Figure Vase-Paintings, Oxford. Beekes, R. (2009): Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols, Leiden. Bethe, E. (1900–37): Pollucis Onomasticon, 3 vols, Leipzig. Blaydes, F. H. M. (1890–96): Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 2 vols, Halle. Boisacq, E. (1938): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Paris. Bothe, F.H. (1855): Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Paris. Brandt, P. (1888): Corpusculum poesis epicae Graecae ludibundae, Pars  I: Parodorum epicorum Graecorum et Archestrati reliquiae, Teubner. Canter, Th. (1616): Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Oxford (ms. D’ Orville 123) / Paris (Bibl. Nat., suppl. gr. 1013). Carey, C. (2007): Lysiae Orationes cum Fragmentis, Oxford. Powell, J.U. (1925): Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford. Casaubon, I. (1597): Athenaeus: Deipnosophistarum Libri XV, 2 vols, Heidelberg. Chambers, M. (1993): Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, Stuttgart / Leipzig. Chantraine, P. (1968–80): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, 4 vols, Paris. Leutsch, E.L. von / Schneidewin, F.G. (1839–51): Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, 2 vols, Göttingen. Cohn, L./Crusius, O./Jungbut, H. (1961): Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum Supplementum, Hildesheim. Des Places, E. (1964): Lexique de la langue philosophique et religieuse de Platon, Paris. Desrousseaux, A.M. (1942): Observations critiques sur les livres III et IV d’ Athénée, Paris. Degani, E. (19982): Hipponax: Testimonia et Fragmenta, Leipzig. Diels, H. / Kranz, W. (1951–526): Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols, Berlin. Dindorf, W. (1827): Athenaeus, 3 vols, Leipzig. Dobree, P.P. (1831–33): Adversaria (ed. J. Scholefield), 2 vols, Cambridge.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

216 Emperius Opusc. Erfurdt Obs. Finglass Fortenbaugh Fowler FGE FGrH Gaisford G. GHI GLP Goodwin GP Grotius, Exc. GV Hansen Hansen / Cunningham HE Herwerden Obs. ____ Nov.Add. Kaibel Kaibel ms. K. K.-A. / PCG Kock Kühn K-G

Bibliographical Abbreviations Emperius, A. (1847): Opuscula philologica et historica, Göttingen. Erfurdt, C. G. A. (1812): ‘Observationes criticae maxime in Athenaei Deipnosophistas’, Königsberger Archiv für Philosophie, Theologie, Sprachkunde und Geschichte 1, 424–72. Davies, M. / Finglass, P.J. (2014): Stesichorus: The Poems, Cambridge. Fortenbaugh, W.W. (2011): Theophrastus of Eresus: Commentary Volume 6.1. Sources on Ethics (with Contributions on the Arabic Material by D. Gutas), Leiden / Boston. Fowler, R. (2000–13): Early Greek Mythography, 2 vols, Oxford. Page, D.L. (1981): Further Greek Epigrams (rev. by R.D. Dawe / J. Diggle), Cambridge. Jacoby, F. (1923–58): Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, 15 vols, Leiden. Gaisford, T. (1848): Etymologicon Magnum, Oxford. Gow, A. S. F. (1965): Machon: The Fragments, Cambridge. Tod, M.N. (1946–49): A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, 2 vols, Oxford. Page, D.L. (1941): Select Papyri III: Literary Papyri, London. Goodwin, W.W. (1897): Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (repr. 2009), Cambridge. Denniston, J.D. (19542): Greek Particles (rev. by K.J. Dover), Oxford. Grotius, H. (1626): Excerpta ex tragoediis et comoediis Graecis, Paris. Peek, W. (1955): Griechische Vers-Inschriften I: Grab-Epigramme, Berlin. Hansen, D.U. (1998): Das attizistische Lexikon des Moeris, Berlin/ New York. Hansen, P.A./Cunningham, I.C. (2005–): Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, 4 vols, Berlin / Boston. Gow, A. S. F. / Page, D.L. (1965): The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols, Cambridge. Herwerden, H. van (1855): Observationes criticae in fragmenta comicorum Graecorum, Diss. Leiden. Herwerden, H. van (1864): Nova addenda critica ad Meinekii opus, quod inscribitur Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, Leiden. Kaibel, G. (1887–1890): Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, Stuttgart. Kaibel, G.: Schedae ad veteris comoediae fragmenta. (see PCG IV, viii) Kannicht, R. (2004): Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol. V 1–2: Euripides (TrGF V), Göttingen. Kassel, R. / Austin, C. (1983–2022): Poetae Comici Graeci, 9 vols (vol. VI,1 ed. by R. Kassel / S. Schröder), Berlin / New York. Kock, Th. (1880–88): Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, 3 vols, Leipzig. Kühn, C.G. (1821–33): Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia (repr. Hildesheim 1964–5), Leipzig. Kühner, R. / Gerth, B. (19043): Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, Hannover / Leipzig.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliographical Abbreviations Lentz LGGA LIMC LSJ9 LSS Manuwald Meineke _____ Anal. Ath. ML Morel Olivieri PA PAA PEG Pernigotti PMG PMGF Porson Adv. R.

RE Richards R.3 Schauer Schmidt Schol. Aeschin. Schol. Aesch. Schol. Ar. Ach.

217

Lentz, A. (1867–70): Herodiani technici reliquiae, Leipzig. Montanari, F. / Montana, F. / Pagani, L. (eds) (2004– ): Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity, Brill-Online Reference Works. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 8 vols, Zurich/Munich/ Düsseldorf (1981–97). Liddell, H.G. / Scott, R. / Stuart Jones, H. (1940): A Greek English Lexicon (9th edition), Oxford (rev. suppl. by P. G. W. Glare et al. 1996). Sokolowski, F. (1962): Lois sacrées des cités grecques: Supplément (LSS), Paris. Manuwald, G. (2012): Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta (TrRF), Vol. II: Ennius, Göttingen. Meineke, Α. (1839–57): Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, Berlin. Meineke, A. (1867): Analecta critica ad Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Leipzig. Meiggs, R. / Lewis, D.M. (19882): A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, Oxford. Morel, G. (1553): Ex veterum comicorum fabulis, quae integrae non extant, sententiae, Paris. Olivieri, A. (1950): Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, Vol. VIII 2: Aetii Amideni Libri Medicinales V-VIII, Berlin. Kirchner, I. (1901): Prosopographia Attica, 2 vols, Berlin. Traill, J. (1994–2012): Persons of Ancient Athens, 21 vols, Toronto. Bernabé, A. (19962–2007): Poetae Epici Graeci, 2 vols (1st ed. of vol. I in 1987), Stuttgart. Pernigotti, C. (2008): Menandri Sententiae, Florence. Page, D.L. (1962): Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford. Davies, M. (1991): Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. I, Oxford. Porson, R. (1812): Adversaria, Cambridge. Radt, S. (20092): Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol. III: Aeschylus (TrGF III), Göttingen. Radt, S. (19992): Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol. IV: Sophocles (TrGF IV), Göttingen. Pauly, A. / Wissowa, G. (eds.) (1893–1980): Real –Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart / Munich. Richards, H. (1909): Aristophanes and Others, London. Rose, V. (18863): Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, Leipzig. Schauer, M. (2012): Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta (TrRF), Vol. I: Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Tragici Minores, Fragmenta Adespota, Göttingen. Schmidt, M. (1854): Didymi Chalcenteri Grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig. Dilts, M.R. (1992): Scholia in Aeschinem, Leipzig. Smith, O.L. (1982–19932): Scholia Graeca in Aeschylum quae exstant omnia, 2 vols, Leipzig. Wilson, N.G. (1975): Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Acharnenses, Groningen.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

218

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Schol. Ar. Av. Schol. Ar. Eq. Schol. Ar. Lys. Schol. Ar. Nu. Schol. Ar. Pac. Schol. Ar. Pl. Schol. Ar. Th. Schol. Ar. V. Schol. Eur. Schol. Eur. Hipp. Schol. Eur. Andr. Schol. Hes. Op. Schol. Pl. Schol. Soph. Ant. SEG SGO SH SVF Valente Van der Valk VdLG2 Voigt Wehrli W2

Holwerda, D. (1991): Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Aves, Groningen. Mervyn Jones, D. (1969): Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Equites, Groningen. Hangard, J. (1996): Scholia in Aristophanis Lysistratam, Gronin­gen. Holwerda, D. (1977): Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Nubes, Gro­ningen. Holwerda, D. (1982): Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Pacem, Groningen. Chantry, M. (1994): Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Plutum, Groningen. Chantry, M. (1996): Scholia recentiora in Aristophanis Plutum, Gro­ ningen. Regtuit, R.F. (2007): Scholia in Aristophanis Thesmophoriazusas, Groningen. Koster, W. J. W. (1978): Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Vespas, Groningen. Schwartz, E. (1887–1891): Scholia in Euripidem, 2 vols, Berlin. Cavarzeran, J. (2016): Scholia in Euripidis Hippolytum, Berlin / Boston. Cavarzeran, J. (2023): Scholia in Euripidis Andromacham, Berlin/ Boston. Pertusi, A. (1955): Scholia vetera in Hesiodi opera et dies, Milan. Greene, W.C. (1938): Scholia Platonica, Haverford. Xenis, G.A. (2021): Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Antigonam, Berlin/ Boston. Hondius, J. J. E. et al. (1923–71) : Supplementum Epigraphicum Grae­ cum, Leiden. Merkelbach, R. / Stauber, J. (1998–2004): Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, 5 vols, Stuttgart. Lloyd-Jones, H. / Parsons, P. J. (1983): Supplementum Hellenisti­cum, Berlin. Von Arnim, H. (1905–24): Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4  vols, Leipzig. Valente, S. (2015): The Antiatticist, Berlin / Boston. Van der Valk, M. (1971–87): Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalo­ni­ censis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes ad fidem codicis Laurentiani editi, 4 vols, Leiden. Montanari, F. (20042): Vocabolario della lingua Greca, Torino. Voigt, E. M. (1971): Sappho et Alcaeus, Amsterdam. Wehrli, F. (19692): Hieronymos von Rhodos. Kritolaos und seine Schüler (Die Schule des Aristoteles, vol. 10), Basel, 13–23. West, M. L. (1989–922): Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum Cantata, 2 vols, Oxford.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

219

Bibliography Acosta-Hughes, B. (2021): ‘That I be your Plaything: The Cult of Arsinoe-Aphrodite in Image and Text’, in M. A. Harder / J. J. H. Klooster / R. F. Regtuit / G. C. Wakker (eds) Women and Power in Hellenistic Poetry, Leuven, 13–34. Adkins, A. W. H. (1976): ‘Polupragmosune and “Minding One’s Own Business”: A Study in Greek Social and Political Values’, CPh 71, 301–27. Aélion, R. (1986): Quelques grands mythes héroiques dans l’ oeuvre d’ Euripide, Paris. Akrigg, B. / Tordoff, R. (eds) (2013): Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greek Comic Drama, Cambridge. Alfaro, C. / Marcos, C. / Otero, P. (eds) (2005): Actas del III Congreso Internacional de Numismatica (Madrid, 15–19 Septiembre 2003), Madrid. Allan, R. J. (2003): The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy, Amsterdam. Alpers, K. (1981): Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros, Berlin / New York. Alpers, K. (2001): ‘Lexikographie, griechische’, in G. Ueding (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Tübingen, Vol. V, 194–210. Amandry, P. (1976): ‘Trépieds d’ Athènes: I. Dionysies’, BCH 100.1, 15–93. Amouretti, M. C. (1986): Le pain et l’ huile dans la Grèce antique, Paris. Amouroux, I. (1999): Antiphane et les thèmes de la comédie moyenne, Diss. Montpellier. Amyx, D. A. (1958): ‘The Attic Stelai, Part III’, Hesperia 27, 163–310. Anderson, R. D. (2000): Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms Connected to Methods of Argumentation, Figures and Tropes from Anaximenes to Quintilian, Leuven. Anderson, W. D. (1994): Music and Musicians in Ancient Greece, Ithaca / London. Anderson, W. S. (1984): ‘Love Plots in Menander and his Roman Adapters’, Ramus 13.2, 124–34. André, J. (19812): L’ alimentation et la cuisine à Rome, Paris. Antonsen-Resch, A. (2004): Von Gnathon zu Saturio: Die Parasitenfigur und das Verhältnis der römischen Komödie zur griechschen, Berlin / New York. Apostolakis, K. (2019): Fragmenta Comica 21: Timokles, Göttingen. Aragosti, A. (2015): T. Macci Plauti Vidularia, Pisa. Armstrong, A. Mac C. (1958): ‘The Methods of the Greek Physiognomists’, G&R 5.1, 52–6. Arnott, W. G. (1968): ‘Studies in Comedy, I: Alexis and the Parasite’s Name’, GRBS 9, 161–8. Arnott, W. G. (1970): ‘Menander: Discoveries since the Dyskolos’, Arethusa 3.1, 49–70. Arnott, W. G. (1972a): ‘Targets, Techniques and Tradition in Plautus’ Stichus’, BICS 19, 54–79. Arnott, W. G. (1972b): ‘From Aristophanes to Menander’, G&R n. s. 19, 65–80. Arnott, W. G. (1981): ‘Moral Values in Menander’, Philologus 125, 215–27. Arnott, W. G. (1996): Alexis: The Fragments, Cambridge. Arnott, W. G. (2003): ‘Diphilus’ Κληρούμενοι and Plautus’ Casina’, in R. Raffaelli / A. Tontini (eds) Lecturae Plautinae Sarsinates VI: Casina, Urbino, 23–44. Arnott, W. G. (2007): Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z, London / New York. Arnott, W. G. (2010): ‘Middle Comedy’, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.) Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 279–332. Arnott, W. G. (2012): ‘Diphilus’, OCD4 (ed. S. Hornblower / A. Spawforth / E. Eidinow), 467–8. Ascani, K. / Gabrielsen, V. / Kvist, K. / Rasmussen, A. H. (eds) (2002): Ancient History Matters: Studies Presented to J. E. Skydsgaard on his Seventieth Birthday, Rome.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

220

Bibliography

Ashton, R. (2001): ‘The Coinage of Rhodes 408–c.190 BC’, in K. Shipton / A. Meadows (eds), Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford, 79–115. Ashton, R. (2005): ‘Recent Epigraphic Evidence for the Start of the Rhodian and Lykian League Plinthophoroi’, The Numismatic Chronicle 165, 85–9. Ashton, R. (2012): ‘The Hellenistic World: The Cities of Mainland Greece and Asia Minor’, in W. E. Metcalf (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage, Oxford, 191–210. Aspiotes, N. (2006): Prosopographia musica Graeca, Berlin. Assael, J. (1985): ‘Misogynie et féminisme chez Aristophane et chez Euripide’, Pallas 32, 91–103. Astorga, J. A. (1990): The Art of Diphilus: A Study of Verbal Humor in New Comedy, Diss. Berkeley. Auhagen, U. (2009): Die Hetäre in der griechischen und römischen Komödie, Munich. Austin, C. / Olson, S. D. (2004): Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae, Oxford. Austin, R. (1940): ‘Greek Board Games’, Antiquity 14, 257–71. Avezzù, G. / Scattolin, P. (eds) (2006): I classici greci e i loro commentatori: Dai papyri ai marginalia rinascimentali, Rovereto. Avezzù, E. (1989): ‘Il ventre del parassita: identità, spazio e tempo discontinuato’, in O. Longo / P. Scarpi (eds) Homo edens: regimi, miti e pratiche dell’ alimentazione nella civiltà del Mediterraneo, Verona, 235–40. Bagordo, A. (2013): Fragmenta Comica 4: Telekleides, Heidelberg. Bagordo, A. (2014a): Fragmenta Comica 1.1: Alkimenes-Kantharos, Heidelberg. Bagordo, A. (2014b): Fragmenta Comica 1.2: Leukon-Xenophilos, Heidelberg. Bagordo, A. (2016): Fragmenta Comica 10.9: Aristophanes frr. 590–674, Heidelberg. Bagordo, A. (2017): Fragmenta Comica 10.10: Aristophanes frr. 675–820, Heidelberg. Bagordo, A. (2020): Fragmenta Comica 10.8: Aristophanes frr. 487–589, Göttingen. Bakhtin, M. (1984): Rabelais and his World (transl. H. Iswolsky), Bloomington. Bakker, E. J. (ed.) (1997): Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Context, Leiden. Bakker, S. / Wakker, G. (eds) (2009): Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Leiden. Bakola, E. (2010): Cratinus and the Art of Comedy, Oxford. Barbiero, E. (2020): ‘What’s New? The Possibilities of Novelty in Plautus’ Casina’, in S. Papaioannou / C. Demetriou (eds) Plautus’ Erudite Comedy: New Insights into the Work of a Doctus Poeta, Newcastle upon Tyne, 51–72. Barchiesi, A. (2001): ‘Horace and Iambos: The Poet as Literary Historian’, in A. Cavarzere/ A. Aloni / A. Barchiesi (eds) Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to Late Roman Empire, Lanham / New York / Oxford, 141–64. Barker, A. (1987): ‘Text and Sense at Philebus 56a’, CQ 37, 103–9. Barker, A. (2007): The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece, Cambridge. Barrett, W. S. (1964): Euripides: Hippolytos, Oxford. Barsby, J. (1999): Terence: Eunuchus, Cambridge. Barsby, J. (2002): ‘Terence and his Greek Models’, in C. Questa / R. Raffaelli (eds) Due seminari plautini: La tradizione del testo. I modelli, Urbino, 251–77. Basaglia, R. (1991): ‘II suicidio per burla nella comedia plautina’, Studi Urbinati: B3 linguistica, letteratura, arte, Urbino, 277–92. Bastianini, G./Haslam, M./Maehler, H./Montanari, F./Römer, C. (eds) (2006): Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris Reperta, Vol. I, Munich / Leipzig.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

221

Bathrellou, E. (2019): ‘Recognition Tokens’, in A. H. Sommerstein (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Malden / Oxford, II 807–8. Beazley, J. D. (19632): Attic Red-Figure Vase-Paintings (ARV2), Oxford. Bechtel, F. (1902): Die attischen Frauennamen nach ihrem Systeme dargestellt, Göttingen. Bechtel, F. (1917): Die historische Personennamen des griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, Halle. Beekes, R. (2009): Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols, Leiden. Belardinelli, A. M. (1994): Menandro: Sicioni, Bari. Belardinelli, A. M. / Imperio, O. / Mastromarco, G. / Pellegrino, M. / Totaro, P. (eds) (1998): Tessere: Frammenti della commedia greca, Bari. Belardinelli, A. M. (1998): ‘Diodoro’, in A. M. Belardinelli / O. Imperio / G. Mastromarco / M. Pellegrino / P. Totaro (eds) Tessere: Frammenti della commedia greca, Bari, 255–89. Belardinelli, A. M. (2008): ‘Filosofia e scienza nella commedia nuova’, SemRom 11, 77–106. Bélis, A. (1992): ‘L’ aulète et le jeu de l’ oie’, BCH 116, 497–500. Bélis, A. (1999): Les musiciens dans l’ Antiquité, Paris. Bélis, A. (2002): ‘Timothée, l’aulète thébain’, RBPh 80, 107–23. Bender, W. (1904): De Graecae comoediae titulis duplicibus, Diss. Marburg. Benz, L./ Lefèvre, E. (eds) (1998): Maccus Barbarus: Sechs Kapitel zur Originalität der Captivi des Plautus, Tübingen. Benz, L. (1998): ‘Der Parasit in den Captivi’, in L. Benz / E. Lefèvre (eds) Maccus Barbarus: Sechs Kapitel zur Originalität der Captivi des Plautus, Tübingen, 51–100. Bergk, T. (1872–87): Griechische Literaturgeschichte, 4 vols, Berlin. Bergk, T. (1884–6): Kleine philologische Schriften, 2 vols, Halle. Bernabé, A. (1996–2007): Poetae Epici Graeci, 2 vols (1st ed. of vol. I 1987), Stuttgart. Bernays, J. (1885): Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 2 vols, Berlin. Bers, V. (1997): Speech in Speech: Studies in Incorporated Oratio Recta in Drama and Oratory, Lanham. Berthiaume, E. (1982): Les roles du mageiros, Leiden. Bertman, S. (1989): ‘The Ashes and the Flame: Passion and Aging in Classical Poetry’, in T. S. Faulkner/ J. De Luce (eds) Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature, New York, 157–71. Berve, H. (1926): Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols, Munich. Bianchi, F. P. (2016): Fragmenta Comica 3.2: Kratinos (Archilochoi-Empipramenoi), Heidelberg. Biles, Z. / Olson, S. D. (2015): Aristophanes: Wasps, Oxford. Blaydes, F. H. M. (1890–96): Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 2 vols, Halle. Blume, H. D. (1974): Menanders Samia, Darmstadt. Blume, H. D. (2001): ‘Komische Soldaten: Entwicklung und Wandel einer typischen Bühnenfigur in der Antike’, in B. Zimmermann (ed.) Rezeption des antiken Dramas auf der Bühne und in der Literatur, Stuttgart / Weimar, 175–95. Blumenthal, A. von (1922): Die Schätzung des Archilochos im Altertume, Stuttgart. Blümner, H. (1892): Die Farbenbezeichnungen bei den römischen Dichtern, Berl. Stud. f. klass. Philol. u. Archäol. XIII 3. Blümner, H. (19122): Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern (4 vols, 1st ed. 1875–86), Leipzig / Berlin. Boardman, J. (1975): Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period, London. Boardman, J. (1990): ‘Symposion Furniture’, in O. Murray (ed.) Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 122–31. Boardman, J. (2001): The History of Greek Vases: Potters, Painters and Pictures, London. Bodson, L. (ed.) (1988): Anthropozoologica: L’ animal dans l’ alimentation humaine, Paris.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

222

Bibliography

Boeckh, A. (18863): Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener, 2 vols, Berlin. Boisacq, E. (1938): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Paris. Bonati, I. (2016): Il lessico dei vasi e dei contenitori greci nei papiri. Specimina per un repertorio lessicale degli angionimi greci, Berlin / Boston. Borthwick, E. K. (1969): ‘The Verb ΑΥΩ and its Compounds’, CQ 19, 306–13. Bothe, F. H. (1855): Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Paris. Boughner, D. C. (1954): The Braggart in Renaissance Comedy: A Study in Comparative Drama from Aristophanes to Shakespeare, Minneapolis. Boulay, T. (2015): ‘Wine Appreciation in Ancient Greece’, in J. Wilkins / R. Nadeau (eds) A Companion to Food in the Ancient World, Oxford / Malden, 273–82. Bouyssou, G. S. (2013): À la table des rois: Luxe et pouvoir dans l’ oeuvre d’ Athénée, Rennes. Bowie, A. M. (1997): ‘Thinking with Drinking: Wine and the Symposium in Aristophanes’, JHS 117, 1–21. Bowie, E. (1995): ‘Wine in Old Comedy’, in O. Murray / M. Tecusan (eds) In Vino Veritas, London, 113–25. Boyle, A. J. (ed.) (2004): Rethinking Terence, Ramus 33. Brachmann, F. (1885): Quaestiones Pseudo-Diogenianeae, NJbb Suppl. 14, 239–416. Brandt, H. (2002): Wird auch silbern mein Haar: eine Geschichte des Alters in der Antike, Munich. Brandt, P. (1888): Corpusculum poesis epicae Graecae ludibundae, Pars I: Parodorum epicorum Graecorum et Archestrati reliquiae, Teubner. Brandt, P. (1905): Sappho: Ein Lebensbild aus den frühlingstagen altgriechischer Dichtung, Leipzig (republ. Oxford / New York 2018). Braun, T. (1995): ‘Barley Cakes and Emmer Bread’, in J. Wilkins / F. D. Harvey / M. Dobson (eds) Food in Antiquity, Exeter, 25–37. Braund, D. / Wilkins, J. (eds) (2000): Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter. Breitenbach, H. (1908): De genere quodam titulorum comoediae atticae, Diss. Basel. Bremer, J. M. / Handley, E. W. (eds) (1993): Aristophane, Entr. Fond. Hardt 38, Geneva. Bremmer, J. N. (1998): ‘Near Eastern and Native Traditions in Apollodorus’ Account of the Flood’, in F. García-Martinez / G. P. Luttikhuizen (eds) Interpretations of the Flood, Leiden, 39–55. Brescia, C. (1960): ‘Lessico aggettivale del Dyscolos di Menandro’, Menandrea: Miscellanea Philologica, Genova, 113–24. Briant, P. (2002): ‘The Greeks and Persian Decadence’, in T. Harrison (ed.) Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh, 193–210. Brivitello, S. (1998): ‘Saffo sulla scena’, AFLB 41, 179–205. Brown, C. G. (1997): ‘Iambos’, in D. E. Gerber (ed.) A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets, Leiden, 11–88. Brown, P. G. McC. (1992): ‘Menander frr. 745 and 746 K.-T., Kolax, and Parasites and Flatterers in Greek Comedy’, ZPE 92, 91–107. Brown, P. G. McC. (1993): ‘Love and Marriage in Greek New Comedy’, CQ 43.1, 189–205. Bruit Zaidman, L. (1995): ‘Ritual Eating in Archaic Greece: Parasites and Paredroi’, in J. Wilkins / F. D. Harvey / M. Dobson (eds) Food in Antiquity, Exeter, 196–203. Brulé, P. (2003): Women of Ancient Greece, Edinburgh. Brunello, F. (1973): The Art of Dyeing in the History of Mankind (transl. B. Hickey), Vicenza. Bruzzese, L. (2004): ‘Lo schwerathlet, Eracle e il parassita nella commedia greca’, Nikephoros 17, 139–70.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

223

Bruzzese, L. (2011): Studi su Filemone comico, Lecce. Bubel, F. (1991): Euripides: Andromeda, Stuttgart. Buchheit, V. (1960): Untersuchungen zur Theorie des Genos Epideiktikon von Gorgias bis Aristoteles, Munich. Buckler, J. (2004): ‘The Incident at Mt Parnassus, 395 BC’, in C. Tuplin (ed.) Xenophon and his World: Papers from a Conference Held in Liverpool in July 1999, Stuttgart, 397–412. Buddensiek, F. (2014): ‘Thales Down the Well: Perspectives at Work in the Digression in Plato’s Theaetetus’, Rhizomata 2.1, 1–32. Bundrick, S. D. (2005): Music and Image in Classical Athens, Cambridge. Bundy, E. (1962): Studia Pindarica, 2 vols, Berkeley / Los Angeles. Buraselis, K. (2008): ‘The Problem of the Ptolemaic Sibling Marriage: A Case of Dynastic Acculturation?’, in P. McKechnie / P. Guillaume (eds) Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, Leiden / Boston, 291–302. Burkert, W. (1985): Greek Religion (transl. J. Raffan), Cambridge (Mass.). Butrica, J. (2001): ‘The Lost Thesmophoriazusae of Aristophanes’, Phoenix 55, 44–76. Caciagli, S. (2020): ‘Sympotic Sappho? The Recontextualization of Sappho’s Verses in Athenaeus’, in B. Currie / I. Rutherford (eds) The Reception of Ancient Greek Lyric Poetry in the Ancient World: Transmission, Canonization and Paratext, Leiden / Boston, 321–41. Caduff, G. A. (1986): Antike Sintflutsagen, Gottingen. Cadwallader, A. H. / Trainor, M. (eds) (2011): Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City, Göttingen. Caire, E. (2015): ‘Jouer de l’aulos à Athènes était-il politiquement correct?’, Pallas 98, 57–72. Calderan, R. (20042): Plautus: Vidularia, Urbino. Camp, J. M. (1977): The Water Supply of Ancient Athens from 3000 to 86 BC, Diss. Princeton. Camp, J. M. (1982): ‘Drought and Famine in the 4th Century BC’, in Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture and Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson, Hesperia Supp. 20, Princeton, 9–17. Campagner, R. (2002): ‘Il gioco del cottabo nelle commedie di Aristofane’, QUCC n. s. 72, 111–27. Campagner, R. (2005): ‘Giochi d’ azzardo in Aristofane’, QUCC 81.3, 81–9. Campbell, A. C. (1982): The Hamlyn Guide to the Flora and Fauna of the Mediterranean Sea, London. Campbell, B. (2004): Greek and Roman Military Writers: Select Readings, New York. Canfora, L. (ed.) (2001): Ateneo: I deipnosofisti, Vol. II, Rome. Canter, Th. (1616): Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Oxford (ms. D’ Orville 123) / Paris (Bibl. Nat., suppl. gr. 1013). Capovilla, I. (1912): ‘De Graecorum comicorum fabularum titulis duplicibus’, SIFC 19, 360–81. Capponi, F. (1979): Ornithologia Latina, Genova. Capponi, F. (1985): Le fonti del X libro della Naturalis Historia di Plinio, Genova. Capps, E. (1942): ‘Misanthropoi or Philanthropoi’, Hesperia 11.4, 325–8. Carey, C. (1989): Lysias: Selected Speeches, Cambridge. Carey, C. (2007): Lysiae Orationes cum Fragmentis, Oxford. Carradice, I. / Price, M. (1988): Coinage in the Greek World, London. Carter, L. B. (1986): The Quiet Athenian, Oxford. Cartlidge, B. (2019): ‘Athenaeus’, in A. H. Sommerstein (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Malden / Oxford, Vol. I, 108–9. Casabona, J. (1966): Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec, Aix-en-Provence.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

224

Bibliography

Casanova, A. (ed.) (2014): Menandro e l’ evoluzione della commedia greca, Florence. Caskey, L. D. / Beazley, J. D. (1963): Boston Vases III, Boston. Casolari, F. (2003): Die Mythentravestie in der griechischen Komödie, Münster. Cassio, A. C. (2012): ‘Intimations of Koine in Sicilian Doric: The Information provided by the Antiatticist’, in O. Tribulato (ed.) Language and Linguistic Contact in Ancient Sicily, Cambridge, 251–64. Castriota, D. (2000): ‘Justice, Kingship, and Imperialism: Rhetoric and Reality in Fifth-Century BC Representations following the Persian Wars’, in B. Cohen (ed.) Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden / Boston / Cologne, 443–80. Cavallo, G. (ed.) (2005): Il calamo e il papiro: La scrittura greca dall’ età ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio, Florence. Cavallo, G. (2005): ‘La scrittura greca libraria tra i secoli I a. C. – I d. C.: Materiali, tipologie, momenti’, in G. Cavallo (ed.) Il calamo e il papiro: La scrittura greca dall’ età ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio, Florence, 107–22. Cavarzeran, J. (2016): Scholia in Euripidis Hippolytum, Berlin / Boston. Cavarzeran, J. (2023): Scholia in Euripidis Andromacham, Berlin / Boston. Cavarzere, A./ Aloni, A. / Barchiesi, A. (eds) (2001): Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to Late Roman Empire, Lanham / New York / Oxford. Cazzato, V. / Obbink, D. / Prodi, E. E. (eds) (2016): The Cup of Song: Studies on Poetry and the Symposium, Oxford. Ceccarelli, P. (2000): ‘Life among the Savages and Escape from the City’, in D. Harvey / J. Wilkins (eds) The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, Swansea, 453–71. Ceccarelli, P. (2013): Ancient Greek Letter-Writing: A Cultural History (600BC-150 BC), Oxford. Chambers, M. (1993): Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, Stuttgart / Leipzig. Chantraine, P. (1968–80): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, 4 vols, Paris. Chantry, M. (1994): Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Plutum, Groningen. Chantry, M. (1996): Scholia recentiora in Aristophanis Plutum, Groningen. Chirico, M. L. (1990): ‘Per una Poetica di Aristofane’, La Parola del Passato 45, 95–115. Christ, M. R. (1998): The Litigious Athenian, Baltimore. Chronopoulos, S. / Orth, Ch. (eds) (2015): Fragmente einer Geschichte der griechischen Komödie, Mainz. Clausen, W. (1955): ‘Silva Coniecturarum’, AJPh 76.1, 47–62. Cleland, L. / Stears, K. (eds) (2004): Colour in the Ancient Mediterranean World (BAR International Series 1267), Oxford. Cobet, C. G. (1880): ‘Fragmenta inedita poetarum graecorum’, Mnemosyne 8, 56–67. Cohen, B. (ed.) (2000): Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden / Boston / Cologne. Cohen, E. E. (2015): Athenian Prostitution: The Business of Sex, Oxford. Cohn, L. (19134): ‘Griechische Lexikographie’, in K. Brugmann / A. Thumb (eds) Griechische Grammatik, Munich, 679–730. Cohn, L. / Crusius, O. / Jungbut, H. (1961): Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum Supplementum (CPG Suppl.), Hildesheim. Collard, C. (1975): Euripides: Supplices, 2 vols, Groningen. Collard, C. / Cropp, M. J. / Gibert, J. (2004): Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays, Vol. II, Oxford.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

225

Collard, C. / Cropp, M. J. (2008): Euripides: Fragments, 2 vols, Cambridge (Mass.). Collard, C. / Stevens, P. T. (2018): Colloquial Expressions in Greek Tragedy: Revised and Enlarged Edition of P. T. Stevens’ Colloquial Expressions in Euripides, Stuttgart. Collin Bouffier, S. (2000): ‘La cuisine des Grecs d’ Occident, symbole d’ une vie de tryphé?’, Pallas 52, 195–208. Comentale, N. (2017): Fragmenta Comica 6: Hermippos, Heidelberg. Coo, L. (2021): ‘Sappho in Fifth and Fourth-Century Greek Literature’, in P. J. Finglass / A. Kelly (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Sappho, Cambridge, 263–76. Cope, E. M. / Sandys, J. E. (1877): The Rhetoric of Aristotle, 3 vols, Cambridge. Coppola, G. (1924): ‘La commedia di Difilo’, Atene e Roma 5, 185–204. Corner, S. (2011): ‘Bringing the Outside In: The Andrōn as Brothel and the Symposium’s Civic Sexuality’, in A. Glazebrook / M. M. Henry (eds) Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, Madison, 60–85. Corner, S. (2013): ‘The Politics of the Parasite (Part One)’, Phoenix 67, 43–80. Cox, C. (2013): ‘Coping with Punishment: The Social Networking of Slaves in Menander’, in B. Akrigg / R. Tordoff (eds) Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greek Comic Drama, Cambridge, 159–72. Crane, G. (1997): ‘Oikos and Agora: Mapping the Polis in Aristophanes’ Wasps’, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.) The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama, Chapel Hill / London, 198–229. Crusius, O. (1888): ‘Coniectanea’, Philologus 46, 606–31. Csapo, E. / Miller, M. C. (1991): ‘The Kottabos-Toast and an Inscribed Red-Figured Cup’, Hesperia 60, 367–82. Csapo, E. (2004): ‘The Politics of the New Music’, in P. Murray / P. Wilson (eds) Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousikē’ in the Classical Athenian City, Oxford, 207–48. Cullyer, H. (2006): ‘Agroikia and Pleasure in Aristotle’, in R. M. Rosen / I. Sluiter (eds) City, Countryside and the Spatial Organization of Value in Classical Antiquity, Leiden / Boston, 181–218. Currie, B. / Rutherford, I. (eds) (2020): The Reception of Ancient Greek Lyric Poetry in the Ancient World: Transmission, Canonization and Paratext, Leiden / Boston. Cusset, C. (2003): Ménandre ou la comédie tragique, Paris. Cutroni Tusa, A. (1993): ‘La circolazione in Sicilia’, in A. Stazio / M. Taliercio Mensiteri / S. Ceccoli (eds) La monetazione dell’ età dionigiana, Atti dell’ VIII Convegno Internazionale di Studi Numismatici, Rome, 245–69. Dalby, A. (1996): Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece, London / New York. Dalby, A. (2003): Food in the Ancient World from A to Z, London. Damen, M. L. (1985): The Comedy of Diphilus Sinopeus in Plautus, Terence and Athenaeus, Diss. Texas. Damon, C. (1997): The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage, Ann Arbor. Dandamaev, M. A. (1989): A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire (transl. W. J. Vogelsang), Leiden / New York / Cologne. Davidson, A. (20023): Mediterranean Seafood: A Comprehensive Guide with Recipes, Berkeley / Toronto. Davidson, J. N. (1993): ‘Fish, Sex and Revolution in Athens’, CQ 43.1, 53–66. Davidson, J. N. (1997): Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, Chicago.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

226

Bibliography

Davies, M. (1981): ‘Archilochus and Hipponax in a Scholium on Ovid’s Ibis’, Prometheus 7, 123–4. Davies, M. (1982): ‘Derivative and Proverbial Testimonia Concerning Stesichorus’ “Palinode” ’, QUCC 12, 7–16. Davies, M. (1991): Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (PMGF), Vol. I, Oxford. Davies, M. / Finglass, P. J. (2014): Stesichorus: The Poems, Cambridge. Davison, J. A. (1958): ‘Notes on the Panathenaea’, JHS 78, 23–42. De Angelis, F. (ed.) (2013): Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity, Leuven / Paris / Walpole. De Angelis, F. (2016): Archaic and Classical Greek Sicily: A Social and Economic History, Oxford. Debrunner A. (1917): Griechische Wortbildungslehre. Heidelberg. Dedekind, A. (1898–1911): Ein Beitrag zur Purpurkunde, 4 vols, Berlin. Degani, E. (19982): Hipponax: Testimonia et Fragmenta, Leipzig. Degani, E. (20022): Studi su Ipponatte, Hildesheim. Del Corso, L. (2014): ‘I figli di Glaucia e i papyri del Serapeo: tra produzione scritta e identità etnica’, in D. Bianconi (ed.) Storia della scrittura e altre storie, Rome, 285–336. Del Fabbro, M. (1979): ‘Il commentario nella tradizione papiracea’, Studia Papyrologica 18, 69–132. Denniston, G. P. (19542): The Greek Particles (revised by K. J. Dover), Oxford. De Poli, M. (2019): ‘La gioia nelle scene di riconoscimento: tragedia attica e commedia nuova (Menandro)’, in M. De Poli (ed.) Il teatro delle emozioni: la gioia, Padova, 47–67. De Poli, M. (ed.) (2019): Il teatro delle emozioni: la gioia, Padova. De Poli, M. / Rallo, G. E. / Zimmermann, B. (eds) (2022): Sub palliolo sordido: Studi sulla commedia frammentaria greca e latina, Göttingen. De Poli, M. (2022): ‘Between Archaia and Nea. Considerations regarding the Titles of Three of Menander’s Comedies: Trophōnios, Kolax and Hypobolimaios’, in M. De Poli / G. E. Rallo / B. Zimmermann (eds) Sub palliolo sordido: Studi sulla commedia frammentaria greca e latina, Göttingen, 107–36. Dér, K. (1987): ‘Vidularia: Outlines of a Reconstruction’, CQ 37.2, 432–43. De Romilly, J. (1971): Le temps dans la tragédie grecque, Paris. Des Places, E. (1964): Lexique de la langue philosophique et religieuse de Platon, Paris. Desrousseaux, A. M. (1942): Observations critiques sur les livres III et IV d’ Athénée, Paris. Destrée, P. / Edmonds, R. G. III (eds) (2017): Plato and the Power of Images, Leiden / Boston. Deubner, L. (1956): Attische Feste, Berlin. Dickey, E. (1996): Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian, Oxford. Dickey, E. (2007): Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica and Grammatical Treatises from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period, Oxford. Dickey, E. (2015): ‘The Sources of Our Knowledge of Ancient Scholarship’, in F. Montanari/S. Matthaios / A. Rengakos (eds) Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, 2 vols, Leiden, Vol. I, 459–514. Diels, H. / Kranz, W. (1951–526): Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols, Berlin. Dienelt, K. (1953): ‘Ἀπραγμοσύνη’, WS 66, 94–104. Dieterle, A. (1980): Die Strukturelemente der Intrige in der griechisch-römischen Komödie, Amsterdam. Diggle, J. (1973): ‘The Supplices of Euripides’, GRBS 14.3, 241–69. Diggle, J. (1981): Studies on the Text of Euripides, Oxford. Diggle, J. (2004): Theophrastus: Characters, Cambridge.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

227

Di Giuseppe, L. (2014): ‘Tasse, redditometri e evasori in Difilo (frr. 31 e 37 K.-A.)’, Dionysus ex machina 5, 93–113. Dik, H. (2007): Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue, Oxford. Dilts, M. R. (1992): Scholia in Aeschinem, Leipzig. Dindorf, W. (1827): Athenaeus, 3 vols, Leipzig. Dinsmoor, W. B. (19503): The Architecture of Ancient Greece: An Account of its Historical Development, London. Dittmer, W. A. (1923): The Fragments of Athenian Comic Didascaliae found in Rome, Leiden. Dobree, P. P. (1831–33): Adversaria (ed. J. Scholefield), 2 vols, Cambridge. Dobrov, G. W. (ed.) (1995): Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta. Dobrov, G. W. (ed.) (1997): The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama, Chapel Hill / London. Dobrov, G. W. (ed.) (2010): Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston. Dobrov, G. W. (2010): ‘Comedy and Her Critics’, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.) Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 3–33. Dodd, D. B. / Faraone, C. A. (eds) (2003): Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives, New York. Dodds, E. R. (19602): Euripides: Bacchae, Oxford. Dodds, E. R. (1973): The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief, Oxford. Dohm, H. (1964): Mageiros: Die Rolle des Kochs in der griechisch-römischen Komödie, Munich. Donahue, J. F. (2015): Food and Drink in Antiquity: A Sourcebook, London / New York. Donnelly Carney, E. (2013): Arsinoё of Egypt and Macedon: A Royal Life, Oxford. Dorey, T. A. / Dudley, D. R. (eds) (1965): Roman Drama, London. Dornseiff, F. (1921): Pindars Stil, Berlin. Dörrie, H. (1975): P. Ovidius Naso: Der Brief der Sappho an Phaon, München. Dougherty, C. / Kurke, L. (eds) (2003): The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration, Cambridge. Dover, K. J. (1968): Aristophanes: Clouds, Oxford. Dover, K. J. (1974): Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford. Dover, K. J. (1978): Greek Homosexuality, London. Dover, K. J. (1981): ‘The Colloquial Stratum in Classical Attic Prose’, in G. S. Shrimpton / D. J. McCargar (eds) Classical Contributions: Studies in Honour of M. F. McGregor, New York, 15–25 (re-published in K. J. Dover [1987] Greek and the Greeks, Oxford, 16–30). Dover, K. J. (1985): ‘Some Types of Abnormal Word-Order in Attic Comedy’, CQ n. s. 35, 324–43 (re-published in K. J. Dover [1987] Greek and the Greeks, Oxford, 43–66). Dover, K. J. (1987): Greek and the Greeks, Oxford. Dover, K. J. (1993): Aristophanes: Frogs, Oxford. Dover, K. J. (1997): The Evolution of Greek Prose Style, Oxford. Draycott, J. / Graham E.-J. (eds) (2017): Bodies of Evidence: Ancient Anatomical Votives Past, Present and Future, London / New York. Draycott, J. (2017): ‘Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow: The Use of Real, False and Artificial Hair as Votive Offerings’, in J. Draycott / E.-J. Graham (eds) Bodies of Evidence: Ancient Anatomical Votives Past, Present and Future, London / New York, 77–94. Drumen, A. (2009): ‘Discourse Cohesion in Dialogue: Turn-Initial ἀλλά in Greek Drama’, in S. Bakker / G. Wakker (eds) Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Leiden, 135–54.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

228

Bibliography

DuBois, P. (2015): Sappho, London / New York. Duckworth, G. E. (1952): The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment, Princeton. Dumont, J. (1988): ‘Les critères culturels du choix des poissons dans l’ alimentation grecque antique: le cas d’ Athénée de Naucratis’, in L. Bodson (ed.) Anthropozoologica: L’ animal dans l’ alimentation humaine, Paris, 99–113. Dunbar, N. (1995): Aristophanes: Birds, Oxford. Duncan, A. (2017): ‘Euripides in the Fourth Century BCE’, in L. K. McClure (ed.) A Companion to Euripides, Malden / Oxford, 533–45. Dunsch, B. (2013): ‘“Describe nunc tempestatem”: Sea Storm and Shipwreck Type Scenes in Ancient Literature’, in C. Thompson (ed.) Shipwreck in Art and Literature: Images and Interpretations from Antiquity to the Present Day, New York / London, 42–59. Dutsch, D. (2008): Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and Voices, Oxford. Dutsch, D. (2012): ‘Genre, Gender, and Suicide Threats in Roman Comedy’, The Classical World 105.2, 187–98. Dutsch, D. / James, S. L. / Konstan, D. (eds) (2015): Women in Roman Republican Drama, Madison. Dutsch, D. / Suter, A. (eds) (2015): Ancient Obscenities: Their Nature and Use in the Ancient Greek and Roman Worlds, Ann Arbor. Dworacki, S. (1978): ‘Anagnorismos in Greek Drama’, Eos 66, 41–54. Dwyer, J. S. (2021): Apollodorus of Carystus and the Tradition of New Comedy, Diss. Univ. British Columbia. Dyck, A. R. (1987): ‘The Glossographoi’, HSCPh 91, 119–60. Easterling, P. E. (1982): Sophocles: Trachiniae, Cambridge. Easterling, P. E. / Hall, E. (eds) (2002): Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, Cambridge. Eckstein, F. (1974): Handwerk I: Die Aussagen des frühgriechischen Epos, Archaeologia Homerica, Band II 1, Göttingen. Edmonds, J. (1957–61): The Fragments of Attic Comedy, 3 vols, Leiden. Edwards, G. R. (1975): Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery, Vol. VII 3, New Jersey. Egli, F. (2003): Euripides im Kontext zeitgenössischer intellektueller Strömungen, Munich / Leipzig. Ehrenberg, V. (1947): ‘Polypragmosyne: A Study in Greek Politics’, JHS 67, 46–67. Ehrhardt, C. T. H. R. (1971): ‘Hair in Ancient Greece’, Classical Views 15, 14–19. Eitrem, S. (1915): Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Römer. Oslo. Εmonds, H. (1941): Zweite Auflage im Altertum: Kulturgeschichtliche Studien zur Überlieferung der antiken Literatur, Leipzig. Emperius, A. (1847): Opuscula philologica et historica, Göttingen. Erbse, H. (1950): Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika, Berlin. Erfurdt, C. G. A. (1812): ‘Observationes criticae maxime in Athenaei Deipnosophistas’, Königsberger Archiv für Philosophie, Theologie, Sprachkunde und Geschichte 1, 424–72. Evans, A. (1921–50): The Palace of Minos, 5 vols, Cambridge. Evans, E. C. (1969): Physiognomics in the Ancient World, Philadelphia. Evans Grubbs, J. / Parkin, T. / Bell, R. (eds) (2013): The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World, Oxford / New York. Ewans, M. (2020): A Cultural History of Comedy in Antiquity, London / New York. Fairweather, J. (1974): ‘Fiction in the Biographies of Ancient Writers’, Anc.Soc. 5, 231–75.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

229

Fantham, E. (1968): ‘Terence, Diphilus and Menander: A Reexamination of Terence Adelphoe Act II’, Philologus 112, 196–216. Fantuzzi, M. (2020): The Rhesus attributed to Euripides, Cambridge. Fantuzzi, M. / Morales, H. /Whitmarsh, T. (eds) (2021): Reception in the Greco-Roman World: Literary Studies in Theory and Practice, Cambridge. Faraone, C. A. / McClure, L. K. (eds) (2006): Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, Madison. Farmer, M. C. (2017): Tragedy on the Comic Stage, Oxford. Farmer, M. C. (2022): Fragmenta Comica 14: Theopompos, Göttingen. Faulkner, T. S. / De Luce, J. (eds) (1989): Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature, New York. Faulkner, T. S. (1995): The Poetics of Old Age in Greek Epic, Lyric and Tragedy, Norman. Fehling, D. (1969): Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias, Berlin. Feltovich, A. (2015): ‘The Many Shapes of Sisterhood in Roman Comedy’, in D. Dutsch / S. L. James / D. Konstan (eds) Women in Roman Republican Drama, Madison, 128–54. Fera, V. / Ferraù, G. / Rizzo, S. (eds) (2002): Talking to the Text: Marginalia from Papyri to Print, Messina. Fernandez-Galliano, M. (1958): Safo, Madrid. Figueira, T. J. (1981): Aegina: Society and Politics, New York. Finglass, P. J. (2018): Sophocles: Oedipus the King, Cambridge. Finley, M. (1980): Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, London. Finnegan, R. (1995): Women in Aristophanes, Amsterdam. Fisher, N. (2000): ‘Symposiasts, Fish-Eaters and Flatterers: Social Mobility and Moral Concerns’, in D. Harvey / J. Wilkins (eds) The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, Swansea, 355–96. Fisher, N. (2001): Aeschines against Timarchos, Oxford. Fittà, M. (1998): Spiele und Spielzeug in der Antike: Unterhaltung und Vergnügen im Altertum, Stuttgart. Flashar, H. (1966): Melancholie und Melancholiker in den medizinischen Theorien der Antike, Berlin. Foerster, R. (1893): Scriptores Physiognomonici Graeci et Latini, 2 vols, Leipzig. Fontaine, M. (2010): Funny Words in Plautine Comedy, Oxford. Fontaine, M. / Scafuro, A. C. (eds) (2014): The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford. Forbes, R. J. (1967): Bergbau, Steinbruchtätigkeit und Hüttenwesen, Archaeologia Homerica, Band II, Kapitel K, Göttingen. Forsdyke, S. (2021): Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Fortenbaugh, W. W. (2011): Theophrastus of Eresus: Commentary Volume 6.1. Sources on Ethics (with Contributions on the Arabic Material by D. Gutas), Leiden / Boston. Fountoulakis, A. (2011): ‘Δραματικοί αντικατοπτρισμοί: ο Μένανδρος και το κλασικό δράμα στο κατώφλι του ελληνιστικού κόσμου’, in Th. Pappas / A. Markantonatos (eds) Αττική Κωμωδία: Πρόσωπα και Προσεγγίσεις, Athens, 103–93. Fowler, R. (2000–13): Early Greek Mythography, 2 vols, Oxford. Fraenkel, E. (1912): De media et nova comoedia quaestiones selectae, Göttingen. Fraenkel, E. (1922): Plautinisches im Plautus, Berlin. Fraenkel, E. (1924): ‘Fragmente der neuen Komödie’, Hermes 59, 362–8. Fraenkel, E. (1950): Aeschylus: Agamemnon, 3 vols, Oxford. Fraenkel, E. (1960): ‘Eine Anfangsformal attischer Reden’, Glotta 39, 1–5.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

230

Bibliography

Fraenkel, E. (1964): Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 2 vols, Rome. Fraenkel, H. (1960): ‘Die Zeitauffassung in der frühgriechischen Literatur’, Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens, Munich, 1–22. Franchini, E. (2020): Fragmenta Comica 5.3: Ferecrate (frr. 85–163), Göttingen. Friedrich, W. H. (1953): Euripides und Diphilos: Zur Dramaturgie der Spätformen, Munich. Fries, A. (2014): Pseudo-Euripides: Rhesus, Berlin / Boston. Friis Johansen, H. (1959): General Reflection in Tragic Rhesis, Copenhagen. Funghi, M. S. / Martinelli, M. C. (1994): ‘P. Giss. Lit. 3.4 (MS12)’, Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini (CPF), Part II 2: Sentenze di autori noti e ‘chreiai’, Florence, 139–43. Funke, H. (1965–66): ‘Euripides’, REG 8 / 9, 233–79. Furley, W. D. (2009): Menander: Epitrepontes, BICS Suppl. 106, London. Furley, W. D. (2014): ‘Aspects of Recognition in Perikeiromene and Other Plays’, in A. H. Sommerstein (ed.) Menander in Contexts, New York / London, 107–15. Furley, W. D. (2015): Menander: Perikeiromene or The Shorn Head, BICS Suppl. 127, London. Furley, W. D. (2021): Menander: Misoumenos or The Hated Man, BICS Suppl. 143, London. Gagné, R. (2016): ‘The World in a Cup: Ekpomatics In and Out of the Symposium’, in V. Cazzato / D. Obbink / E. E. Prodi (eds) The Cup of Song: Studies on Poetry and the Symposium, Oxford, 207–29. Gaisford, T. (1848): Etymologicon Magnum, Oxford. Gallant, T. (1985): A Fisherman’s Tale, Ghent. Gantz, T. (1993): Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore / London. García-Martinez, F. / Luttikhuizen, G. P. (eds) (1998): Interpretations of the Flood, Leiden. García Soler, M. (2001): El arte de comer en la Antigua Grecia, Madrid. García Soler, M. (2021): ‘El vino griego y los cinco sentidos’, in C. Soarres / A. J. Torres Silveira / B. Laurioux (eds) Mesa dos sentidos y sentidos da mesa, Coimbra, Vol. I, 41–65. Garland, R. (1990): The Greek Way of Life: From Conception to Old Age, London. Garland, R. (1995): The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World, London. Garland, R. (20092): Daily Life of the Ancient Greeks, Westport. Garland, R. (2017): ‘Disabilities in Tragedy and Comedy’‚ in C. Laes (ed.) Disability in Antiquity, London / New York, 154–66. Garnsey, P. (1999): Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge. Gärtner, H. (1967): ‘Diogenianus (2)’, KI.Pauly 2, 48–9. Geanakoplos, D. J. (1962): Byzantium and the Renaissance: Greek Scholars in Venice. Studies in the Dissemination of Greek Learning from Byzantium to Western Europe, Cambridge (Mass.). Geisau, H. von (1963): ‘Pyrrha (nr. 1–8)’, RE XLVII, 78–9. Geissler, P. (19692): Chronologie der altattischen Komödie, Dublin / Zurich. Gellar-Goad, T. H. (2018): ‘Temple Raiders and Smoking Altars: Law, Religion, and the Stage in Menander’, in W. Riess (ed.) Colloquia Attica: Neuere Forschungen zur Archaik, zum athenischen Recht und zur Magie, Stuttgart, 177–92. Gelli, E. (2014): ‘Tracce di onomasti komodein dalla commedia di mezzo a Menandro’, in A. Casonova (ed.) Menandro e l’ evoluzione della commedia greca, Florence, 63–81 Gerber, D. E. (1962): ‘What Time can Do (Pindar, Nemean 1.46–47)’, TAPhA 93, 30–33. Gerber, D. E. (ed.) (1997): A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets, Leiden. Giannikou, M. G. (2010): Η Σαπφώ στην αρχαία ελληνική και στη βυζαντινή λογοτεχνία, Diss. Ioannina.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

231

Giannini, A. (1960): ‘La figura del cuoco nella commedia greca’, Acme 13, 135–216. Giese, A. (1908): De parasiti persona capita selecta, Diss. Kiel. Gill, C. / Postlethwaite, N. / Seaford, R. A. S. (eds) (1998): Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, Oxford. Gilula, D. (1995a): ‘Comic Food and Food for Comedy’, in J. Wilkins / F. D. Harvey / M. Dobson (eds) Food in Antiquity, Exeter, 386–99. Gilula, D. (1995b): ‘Food – an Effective Tool of Amatory Persuasion: A Commentary on Mnesimachus fr. 4’, Athenaeum 83, 143–56. Gilula, D. (2000): ‘Hermippus and his Catalogue of Goods (fr. 63)’, in D. Harvey / J. Wilkins (eds) The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, Swansea, 75–90. Glazebrook, A. / Henry, M. M. (eds) (2011): Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, Madison. Gleason, M. (1995): Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome, Princeton. Glotz, G. (1904): La solidarité de la famille dans le droit criminel en Grèce, Paris. Gobara, M. A. (1986): Ο κωμικός ποιητής Φιλήμων, Diss. Ioannina. Göbel, M. (1915): Ethnica, Diss. Breslau. Goldberg, S. M. (1980): The Making of Menander’s Comedy, Berkeley / Los Angeles. Golden, M. (1985): ‘Pais, Child and Slave’, AC 54, 91–104. Golden, M. (2003): ‘Childhood in Ancient Greece’, in J. Neils / J. H. Oakley (eds) Coming of Age in Ancient Greece, New Haven / London, 13–30. Golden, M. (20152): Children and Childhood in Classical Athens, Baltimore. Goldhill, S. / Osborne, R. (eds) (1999): Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, Cambridge. Gomme, A. W. / Andrewes, A. / Dover, K. J. (1945–81): A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 5 vols, Oxford. Gomme, A. W. / Sandbach, F. H. (1973): Menander: A Commentary, Oxford. Goodwin, W. W. (1897): Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (rewritten and enlarged; repr. 2009), Cambridge. Gorman, R. / Gorman, V. B. (2014): Corrupting Luxury in Ancient Greek Literature, Ann Arbor. Gostoli, A. (1990): Terpander, Rome. Gow, A. S. F. (1965): Machon: The Fragments, Cambridge. Gow, A. S. F. / Page, D. L. (1965): The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (HE), 2 vols, Cambridge. Gowers, E. (2004): ‘The Plot Thickens: Hidden Outlines in Terence’s Prologues’, in A. J. Boyle (ed.) Rethinking Terence, Ramus 33, 150–66. Graf, F. (1996): ‘Alektor’, Der Neue Pauly 1, 449. Gratwick, A. S. (19992): Terence: The Brothers, Warminster. Green, J. R. (1994): Theatre in Ancient Greek Society, London. Greene, E. (ed.) (1996): Re-reading Sappho: Reception and Transmission, Berkeley / Los Angeles. Griffith, M. (1999): Sophocles: Antigone, Cambridge. Griffiths, E. M. (2020): Children in Greek Tragedy: Pathos and Potential, Oxford. Grotius, H. (1623): Dicta poetarum quae apud Ioannem Stobaeum exstant, Paris. Grotius, H. (1626): Excerpta ex tragoediis et comoediis Graecis, Paris. Guastella, G. (1988): La contaminazione e il parassita, Pisa. Gulick, C. B. (1951–712): Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists, 7 vols, London. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1962–81): A History of Greek Philosophy, 6 vols, Cambridge.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

232

Bibliography

Guzzo, A. (1978): ‘Intrecci e riconoscimenti nel teatro antico’, Filosofia 29, 165–74. Gygli-Wyss, B. (1966): Das nominale Polyptoton im älteren Griechisch, Göttingen. Habicht, Ch. (1997): Athens from Alexander to Antony (transl. D. Lucas Schneider), Cambridge (Mass.) / London. Haegemans, K. (2001): ‘Character Drawing in Menander’s Dyskolos: Misanthropy and Philanthropy’, Mnemosyne 54, 675–96. Hagel, S. (2009): Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical History, Cambridge. Hähnle, A. (1929): ΓΝΩΡΙΣΜΑΤΑ, Diss. Tübingen. Hajistephanou, C. E. (1975): The Use of Φύσις and its Cognates in Greek Tragedy with Special Reference to Character Drawing, Nicosia. Hall, E. (1989): Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy, Oxford. Halliwell, S. (1984): ‘Ancient Interpretations of ὀνομαστὶ κωμωιδεῖν in Aristophanes’, CQ 34.1, 83–8. Halliwell, S. (2008): Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity, Cambridge. Halperin, D. M. (ed.) (1990): One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love, New York. Halperin, D. M. (1990): ‘The Democratic Body: Prostitution and Citizenship in Classical Athens’, in D. M. Halperin (ed.) One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love, New York, 88–112. Hammer-Jensen, I. (1918): ‘Färbung’, RE Supp. III, 461–70. Handley, E. W. (1965): Menander’s Dyskolos, London. Hangard, J. (1996): Scholia in Aristophanis Lysistratam, Groningen. Hanink, J. (2010a): ‘The Life of the Author in the Letters of “Euripides”’, GRBS 50, 537–64. Hanink, J. (2010b): ‘The Classical Tragedians, from Athenian Idols to Wandering Poets’, in I. Gildenhard / M. Revermann (eds) Beyond the Fifth Century: Interactions with Greek Tragedy from the Fourth Century BCE to the Middle Ages, Berlin / New York, 39–67. Hanink, J. (2014): Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy, Cambridge. Hansen, D. U. (1998): Das attizistische Lexikon des Moeris, Berlin / New York. Hansen, P. A. / Cunningham, I. C. (2005–): Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, 4 vols, Berlin / Boston. Hanson, J. A. (1965): ‘The Glorious Military’, in T. A. Dorey / D. R. Dudley (eds) Roman Drama, London, 51–85. Harder, M. A. / Hoffmann, H. (eds.) (1991): Fragmenta Dramatica, Göttingen. Harder, M. A. (2012): Callimachus: Aetia, 2 vols, Oxford. Harder, M. A. / Klooster, J. J. H. / Regtuit, R. F. / Wakker, G. C. (eds) (2021): Women and Power in Hellenistic Poetry, Leuven. Harding, P. (1981): ‘In Search of a Polypragmatist’, in G. S. Shrimpton / D. J. McCargar (eds) Classical Contributions: Studies in Honour of Malcolm Francis McGregor, New York, 41–50. Harlow, M. (ed.) (2019): A Cultural History of Hair in Antiquity, London / New York. Harlow, M. (2019a): ‘Introduction’, in M. Harlow (ed.) A  Cultural History of Hair in Antiquity, London / New York, 1–14. Harlow, M. (2019b): ‘Gender and Sexuality’, in M. Harlow (ed.) A Cultural History of Hair in Antiquity, London / New York, 97–110. Harlow, M. / Lovén, L. L. (2019): ‘Religion and Ritualized Belief ’, in M. Harlow (ed.) A Cultural History of Hair in Antiquity, London / New York, 15–30. Harrison, T. (ed.) (2002): Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

233

Hartmann, E. (2002): Heirat, Hetärentum und Konkubinat im klassischen Athen, Frankfurt / New York. Hartwig, A. (2022): Fragmenta Comica 22.2: Nikostratos II - Theaitetos, Göttingen. Harvey, D. / Wilkins, J. (eds) (2000): The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, Swansea. Haupt, M. (1875–6): Opuscula, 3 vols, Cambridge. Hauschild, H. (1933): Die Gestalt der Hetäre in der griechischen Komödie, Diss. Leipzig. Hawley, R. (1993): ‘Pretty, Witty, and Wise: Courtesans in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae Book 13’, International Journal of Moral and Social Studies 8.1, 73–89. Headlam, W. (1899): ‘Critical Notes’, CR 13.1, 3–8. Headlam, W. (1922): Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (ed. A. D. Knox), Cambridge. Hehn, V. (1911): Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere in ihrem Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie in das übrige Europa, Berlin. Heinimann, F. (1945): Nomos und Physis: Herkunft und Bedeutung einer Antithese im griechischen Denken des 5 Jahrhunderts, Basel. Henderson, J. (19912): The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, Oxford / New York. Henderson, J. (2014): ‘Comedy in the Fourth Century II: Politics and Domesticity’, in M. Fontaine / A. C. Scafuro (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, 181–98. Henry, M. M. (1985): Menander’s Courtesans and the Greek Comic Tradition, Frankfurt am Main. Hense, O. (1916): ‘Ioannes Stobaios’, RE IX 2, 2549–86, Stuttgart. Herwerden, H. van (1855): Observationes criticae in fragmenta comicorum Graecorum, Diss. Leiden. Herwerden, H. van (1864): Nova addenda critica ad Meinekii opus, quod inscribitur Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, Leiden. Heydemann, H. (1868): ‘Sopra il giuoco del cottabo’, Annali dell’ instituto di corrispondenza archeologica 40, 217–31. Hill, S. E. (2011): Eating to Excess: The Meaning of Gluttony and the Fat Body in the Ancient World, Santa Barbara / Denver / Oxford. Hilton, J. (2012): ‘The Theme of Shipwreck on (In)hospitable Shores in Ancient Prose Narratives’, Trends in Classics 4, 274–95. Hirschfeld, G. H. (1874): ‘Funde im Piraeus’, Archäologische Zeitung n. s. 6, 105–8. Hirschig, G. A. (1849): Annotationes criticae, Traiect. ad Rhen. Hirzel, R. (1908): ‘Der Selbstmord’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 11, 75–104, 243–84, 417–76 (repr. Darmstadt 1966). Hobden, F. (2013): The Symposion in Ancient Greek Society and Thought, Cambridge. Hodge, A. T. (2000): ‘Wells’, in O. Wikander (ed.) Handbook of Ancient Water Technology, Leiden / Boston / Cologne, 29–34. Hoffmann, H. (1961): ‘The Persian Origin of Attic Rhyta’, AK 4, 21–6. Hoffmann, H. (1962): Attic Red-Figured Rhyta, Mainz. Hoffmann, H. (1989): ‘Rhyta and Kantharoi in Greek Ritual’, Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 4, 131–66. Hollingsworth, J. E. (1915): Antithesis in the Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, Menasha. Holwerda, D. (1977): Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Nubes, Groningen. Holwerda, D. (1982): Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Pacem, Groningen. Holwerda, D. (1991): Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Aves, Groningen.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

234

Bibliography

Hope, V. M. / Marshall E. (eds) (2000): Death and Disease in the Ancient City, London / New York. Höppener, H. (1931): Halieutika: Bijdrage tot de kennis der Oud-Griekse Visscherij, Amsterdam. Hornblower, S. (1982): Mausolus, Oxford. Hornblower, S. (1991–2008): A Commentary on Thucydides, 3 vols, Oxford. Horsfall, N. (2000): Virgil, Aeneid 7: A Commentary, Leiden / Boston / Cologne. Howgego, C. (1995): Ancient History from Coins, New York. Huffman, C. (2012): Aristoxenus of Tarentum: Texts and Discussion, New Jersey. Hughes, A. (2011): Performing Greek Comedy, Cambridge. Hughes, D. (1994): Pan’s Travail: Environmental Problems of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, New York. Hultsch, F. (1905): ‘Drachme’, RE V, 1613–33. Humphrey, J. W. / Oleson, J. P. / Sherwood, A. N. (1998): Greek and Roman Technology: A Sourcebook, London / New York. Hunter, R. L. (1983): Eubulus: The Fragments, Cambridge. Hunter, R. L. (1985): The New Comedy of Greece and Rome, Cambridge. Hunter, R. L. (2019): ‘Death of a Child: Grief beyond the Literary?’, in  M. Kanellou / I. Petrovic / C. Carey (eds) Greek Epigram from the Hellenistic to the Early Byzantine Era, Oxford, 137–53. Hunter, V. J. (1994): Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420–320 BC, New Jersey. Hurst, A. (2015): ‘Ménandre et la tragédie’, in Dans les marges de Ménandre, Geneva 73–103 (earlier published in E. W. Handley / A. Hurst [eds] 1990: Relire Ménandre, Geneva, 93–122). Ireland, S. (1995): Menander: The Bad-Tempered Man, Warminster. Ireland, S. (2010): ‘New Comedy’, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.) Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 333–96. Iversen, P. A. (1998): Menander and the Subversion of Tragedy, Diss. Ohio. Jachmann, G. (1966): Plautinisches und attisches, Rome. Jacob, C. (2000): ‘Athenaeus the Librarian’, in D. Braund / J. Wilkins (eds) Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 85–110. Jacob, C. (2013): The Web of Athenaeus (transl. A. Papaconstantinou, ed. S. F. Johnson), Cambridge (Mass.) / London. Jacobs, F. (1809): Additamenta animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Jena. Jacobson, D. M. / Weitzmann, M. P. (1992): ‘What Was Corinthian Bronze?’, AJA 96, 237–47. Jacoby, F. (1923–58): Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (FGrH), 15 vols, Leiden. Jacquet-Rimassa, P. (1995): ‘Κότταβος: Recherches iconographiques. Céramique Italiote 440–300 av. J.-C.’, Pallas 42, 129–70. Jacquet-Rimassa, P. (2008): ‘L’ image en jeu ou l’ offrande dionysiaque (le kottabe dix ans après…)’, Pallas 76, 67–80. Jahn, O. (1867): ‘Kottabos auf Vasenbildern’, Philologus 26, 201–40. Jebb, R. C. (1900): Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, Part III: The Antigone, Cambridge. Jenkins, G. K. (1989): ‘Rhodian Plinthophoroi: A Sketch’, in G. Le Rider / G. K. Jenkins / N. Waggoner / U. Westermark (eds)  Kraay – Mørkholm Essays. Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm, Louvain-la-Neuve, 101–19. Jennes, G. (2019): ‘Life Portraits: People in Worship’, in K. Vandorpe (ed.) A Companion to Greco-Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Hoboken, 473–82.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

235

Jockey, P. (ed.) (2018): Les arts de la couleur en Grèce ancienne… et ailleurs: Approches Interdisciplinaires, Athens. Jones, C. P. (1987): ‘Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity’, JRS 77, 139–55. Jones, C. P. (2000): ‘Stigma and Tattoo’, in J. Caplan (ed.) Written on the Body: The Tattoo in European and American History, New Jersey, 1–16. Jones, N. F. (2004): Rural Athens under the Democracy, Philadelphia. Jouanna, J. / Villard, L. (eds) (2002): Vin et Santé en Grèce ancienne, Paris. Kah, D. / Scholz, P. (eds) (2007): Das hellenistische Gymnasion, Berlin. Kaibel, G. (1887–1890): Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, Stuttgart. Kaibel, G. (1903): ‘Diphilos von Sinope’, RE V1, 1153–5. Kallet, L. / Kroll, J. H. (2020): The Athenian Empire: Using Coins as Sources, Cambridge. Kambitsis, J. (1972): L’ Antiope d’ Euripide, Athens. Kanavou, N. (2011): Aristophanes’ Comedy of Names: A Study of Speaking Names in Aristophanes, Berlin / New York. Kanellakis, D. (2020): Aristophanes and the Poetics of Surprise, Berlin / Boston. Kanellou, M. / Petrovic, I. / Carey, C. (eds) (2019): Greek Epigram from the Hellenistic to the Early Byzantine Era, Oxford. Kann, S. (1909): De iteratis apud poetas antiquae et mediae comoediae atticae, Diss. Giessen. Kannicht, R. (1969): Euripides: Helena, 2 vols, Heidelberg. Kantzios, I. (2005): The Trajectory of Archaic Greek Trimeters, Leiden / Boston. Kapparis, K. (2018): Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World, Berlin / Boston. Karamanou, I. (2006): Euripides: Danae and Dictys, Leipzig / Munich. Karamanou, I. (2017): Euripides: Alexandros, Berlin / Boston. Karamanou, I. (2019a): Refiguring Tragedy: Studies in Plays Preserved in Fragments and their Reception, Berlin / Boston. Karamanou, I. (2019b): ‘Notes on the Newly Published Hypotheses of Euripides’ Danae and Dictys (P.Oxy. LXXXI 5283)’, ZPE 212, 47–54. Karamanou, I. (2024): ‘Diphilus’ Paralyomenos (P. Louvre 7733v, col. ii, 32–5): Reading the Evidence’, Mnemosyne 77 (forthcoming). Kassel, R. (1979): ‘Ein neues Philemonfragment’, ZPE 36, 15–21. Kassel, R. / Austin, C. (1983–2022): Poetae Comici Graeci, 9 vols (vol. VI,1 ed. by R. Kassel / S. Schröder), Berlin / NewYork. Kassel, R. (1991): ‘Fragmente und ihre Sammler’, in A. Harder / H. Hoffmann (eds.) Fragmenta Dramatica, Göttingen, 243–53. Katsouris, A. G. (1975a): Tragic Patterns in Menander, Athens. Katsouris, A. G. (1975b): Linguistic and Stylistic Characterization: Tragedy and Menander, Ioannina. Katsouris, A. G. (1976): ‘The Suicide-Motif in Ancient Drama’, Dioniso 47, 5–36. Kazhdan, A. P. (ed.) (1991): The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols, Oxford / New York. Kearns, E. (1989): The Heroes of Attica (BICS Suppl. 57), London. Keller, O. (1909–13): Die antike Tierwelt, 2 vols, Leipzig. Kemmer, E (1900): Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Literatur, Würzburg. Kennedy, G. A. (1994): A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton. Kennedy, R. F. (2015): ‘Elite Citizen Women and the Origins of the Hetaira in Classical Athens’, Helios 42.1, 61–79. Kerferd, G. B. (1981): The Sophistic Movement, Cambridge. Kerkhof, R. (2001): Dorische Posse, Epicharm und attische Komödie, Munich / Leipzig.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

236

Bibliography

Kirchner, I. (1901): Prosopographia Attica (PA), 2 vols, Berlin. Klein, K. (2001): Timon of Athens, Cambridge. Kleinknecht, H. (1937): Die Gebetsparodie in der Antike, Stuttgart / Berlin. Kleve, K. (1964): ‘’Απραγμοσύνη and Πολυπραγμοσύνη: Two Slogans in Athenian Politics’, SO 39, 83–8. Knaack, G. (1894): ‘Alektor’, RE I 1, 1363. Knöbl, R. (2008): Biographical Representations of Euripides: Some Examples of their Development from Classical Antiquity to Byzantium, Diss. Durham. Kock, Th. (1880–88): Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (CAF), 3 vols, Leipzig. Koenen, L. (1959): ‘ΘΕΟΙΣΙΝ ΕΧΘΡΟΣ: Ein einheimischer Gegenkönig in Ägypten (132 / 1a)’, CE 34, 103–19. Kokolakis, M. M. (1965): Μορφολογία τῆς κυβευτικῆς μεταφορᾶς, Athens. König, J. (2012): Saints and Symposiasts: The Literature of Food and the Symposium in GrecoRoman and Early Christian Culture, Cambridge. Konstan, D. (1983): ‘A Dramatic History of Misanthropes’, Comparative Drama 17, 97–123. Konstan, D. (1995): Greek Comedy and Ideology, Oxford / New York. Konstan, D. (2011): ‘Excerpting as a Reading Practice’, in G. Reydams-Schils (ed.) Thinking Through Excerpts. Studies on Stobaeus, Turnhout, 9–22. Konstan, D. (2013): ‘Menander’s Slaves: The Banality of Violence’, in B. Akrigg / R. Tordoff (eds) Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greek Comic Drama, Cambridge, 144–58. Konstantakos, I. M. (2000): A Commentary on the Fragments of Eight Plays of Antiphanes, Diss. Cambridge. Konstantakos, I. M. (2002): ‘Towards a Literary History of Comic Love’, C&M 53, 141–71. Konstantakos, I. M. (2004): ‘Antiphanes’ Agroikos -Plays: An Examination of the Ancient Evidence and Fragments’, RCCM 46, 9–40. Konstantakos, I. M. (2005a): ‘The Drinking Theatre: Staged Symposia in Greek Comedy’, Mnemosyne 58.2, 183–217. Konstantakos, I. M. (2005b): ‘Aspects of the Figure of the ἄγροικος in Ancient Comedy’, RhM 148, 1–26. Konstantakos, I. M. (2006): ‘The Lady and the Loser: Aristodemos and Lynkeus on LoveAffairs of New Comedy Poets’, Hermes 134.2, 150–8. Konstantakos, I. M. (2014a): ‘Zeus on a See-Saw: Additional Remarks on Comic Themes’, Logeion 4, 28–39. Konstantakos, I. M. (2014b): ‘Comedy in the Fourth Century I: Mythological Burlesques’, in M. Fontaine / A. C. Scafuro (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, 160–80. Konstantakos, I. M. (2015a): ‘Tendencies and Variety in Middle Comedy’, in S. Chronopoulos / Ch. Orth (eds) Fragmente einer Geschichte der griechischen Komödie, Mainz, 159–98. Konstantakos, I. (2015b): ‘On the Early History of the Braggart Soldier. Part I: Archilochus and Epicharmus’, Logeion 5, 41–84. Konstantakos, I. (2016): ‘On the Early History of the Braggart Soldier. Part II: Aristophanes’ Lamachus and the Politicization of the Comic Type’, Logeion 6, 112–63. Konstantakos, I. M. (2020): ‘Heracles’ Adventures at the Inn, or How Fragments and Plays Converse’, in A. A. Lamari / F. Montanari / A. Novokhatko (eds) Fragmentation in Ancient Greek Drama, Berlin / New York, 379–406. Konstantakos, I. M. (2023): ‘An Encyclopaedia on Stage: Cooks and Other Professional Types in Hellenistic Comedy’, in F. Rodrigues / R. Guggenberger / B. B. Sebastiani (eds)

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

237

A Produção Dramática no Período Helenístico e sua Influência na Literatura Greco-latina Posterior, Coimbra, 13–84. Koren, Z. C. (2018): ‘Scientific Research on Purple Mollusc Pigmentson Archeological Artefacts’, in P. Jockey (ed.) Les arts de la couleur en Grèce ancienne… et ailleurs: Approches Interdisciplinaires, Athens, 35–47. Körte, A. (1921): ‘Komödie’, RE XI 1, 1207–75. Körte, A. (1938): ‘Bruchstücke einer didaskalischen Inschrift’, Hermes 73.1, 123–7. Koster, W. J. W. (1978): Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Vespas, Groningen. Kotsidu, H. (1990): Die musischen Agone der Panathenäen in archaischer und klassischer Zeit: Eine historisch-archäologische Untersuchung, Munich. Kouleimani-Vokotopoulou, I. (1975): ΧΑΛΚΑΙ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΡΓΕΙΣ ΠΡΟΧΟΙ, Athens. Kourakou-Dragona, S. (1999): Un cratère rempli d’ euphorie, Athens. Kozak, L. / Rich, J. (eds) (2006): Playing around Aristophanes: Essays in Celebration of the Completion of the Comedies of Aristophanes by Alan Sommerstein, Cambridge. Kraay, C. M. (1976): Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, London. Kramer, J. (2008): ‘Tragemata und Dragée’, APF 54.1, 113–31. Krasilnikoff, J. A. (2002): ‘Water and Farming in Classical Greece: Evidence, Method and Perspective’, in K. Ascani/ V. Gabrielsen/ K. Kvist/ A. H. Rasmussen (eds) Ancient History Matters: Studies Presented to J. E. Skydsgaard on his Seventieth Birthday, Rome, 47–62. Kraus, W. (1959): ‘Zum neuen Menander’, RhM 102, 146–56. Krentz, P. (2007): ‘War’, in P. Sabin / H. van Wees / M. Whitby (eds) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Vol. I: The Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome, Cambridge, 147–85. Krieter-Spiro, M. (1997): Sklaven, Köche und Hetären: Das Dienstpersonal bei Menander, Stuttgart. Krischer, T. (1974): ‘Die logischen Formen der Priamel’, GB 2, 79–91. Kröhling, W. (1935): Die Priamel als Stilmittel in der griechisch-römischen Dichtung, Greifswald. Kroll, J. H. / Waggoner, N. M. (1984): ‘Dating the Earliest Coins of Athens, Corinth and Aegina’, AJA 88.3, 325–40. Kuhlmann, P. A. (1994): Die Giessener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse, Giessen. Kühn, C. G. (1821–33): Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia (repr. Hildesheim 1964–5), Leipzig. Kühner, R. / Gerth, B (19043): Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, Hannover / Leipzig. Kumanudes, S. N. (1979): Θηβαϊκή προσωπογραφία, Athens. Kunst, K. (1919): Studien zur griechisch-römischen Komödie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schlußszenen und ihrer Motive, Wien / Leipzig.  Kurke, L. (1997): ‘Inventing the „Hetaira”: Sex, Politics and Discursive Conflict in Archaic Greece’, Cl.Ant. 16.1, 106–50. Kurke, L. (1999a): Coins, Bodies, Games and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece, New Jersey. Kurke, L. (1999b): ‘Ancient Greek Board Games and How to Play Them’, CPh 94.3, 247–67. Kwapisz, J. (2016): ‘When is a Riddle an Epigram?’, in E. Sistakou/ A. Rengakos (eds) Dialect, Diction and Style in Greek Literary and Inscribed Epigram, Berlin / New York, 151–72. Kyriakou, P. (2006): A Commentary on Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris, Berlin. Laemmle, R. / Laemmle, C. S. / Wesselmann, K. (eds) (2021): Lists and Catalogues in Ancient Literature and Beyond, Berlin / Boston.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

238

Bibliography

Laes, C. (ed.) (2017): Disability in Antiquity, London / New York. Lamagna, M. (1994): La fanciulla tosata, Naples. Lamagna, M. (1998): La donna di Samo, Naples. Lamari, A. A. / Montanari, F. / Novokhatko, A. (eds) (2020): Fragmentation in Ancient Greek Drama, Berlin / New York. Lamari, A. A. (2023): Fragmenta Comica 16.6: Nausikrates-Nikostratos, Göttingen. Lamer, H. (1938): ‘Lusoria Tabula’, RE XIII, 1900–2029. Landels, J. G. (1999): Music in Ancient Greece and Rome, New York. Lang, M. (1949): ‘ΙΣΘΜΙΑ ΦΡΕΑΤΩΝ: Well-Heads from the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 18, 114–27. Lang, M. (1968): Waterworks in the Athenian Agora, Excavations of the Athenian Agora Picture Book 11, Connecticut. Langholf, V. (1971): Die Gebete bei Euripides, Göttingen. Lanham, R. A. (19912): A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, Berkeley / Los Angeles / Oxford. Lape, S. (2004): Reproducing Athens: Menander’s Comedy, Democratic Culture and the Hellenistic City, Princeton / Oxford. Lasserre, F. (1975): ‘L’ élégie de l’ huître (P. Louvre 7733v inéd.)’, QUCC 19, 145–76. Lasserre, F. (1989): ‘L’ élégie de l’ huître (P. Louvre 7733v inéd.)’, in Nouveaux chapitres de littérature grecque (1947–86), Geneva, 95–122. Lausberg, H. (199010): Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik, Munich. Lausberg, H. (1998): Handbook of Literary Rhetoric (transl. M. T. Bliss / A. Jansen / D. E. Orton), Leiden. Lautensach, O. (1911): Die Aoriste bei den attischen Tragikern und Komikern, Göttingen. Lautwein, T. (2009): Hekate: Die dunkle Göttin, Rudolstadt. Lavrencik, M. (1993): Spartanische Küche: Das Gemeinschaftsmahl der Männer in Sparta, Vienna / Cologne / Weimar. Leão, D. F. / Rhodes, P. J. (2015): The Laws of Solon, London / New York. Lee, M. M. (2015): Body, Dress and Identity in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Leeuwen, J. van (1900): Aristophanis Equites, Leiden. Leeuwen, J. van (1904): Aristophanis Plutus, Leiden. Leeuwen, J. van (1909): ‘Ad fragmentum comicum nuper editum’, Mnemosyne 37.2, 162–4. Lefèvre, E. (1984): Diphilos und Plautus: Der Rudens und sein Original, Stuttgart. Lefkowitz, M. R. (1978): ‘The Poet as Hero: Fifth-Century Autobiography and Subsequent Biographical Fiction’, CQ 28.2, 459–69. Lefkowitz, M. R. (2001): ‘Myth and History in the Biography of Apollonius’, in T. D. Papanghelis / A. Rengakos (eds.) A Companion to Apollonius Rhodius, Leiden, 51–71. Lefkowitz, M. R. (20122): The Lives of the Greek Poets, Baltimore. Legrand, Ph. E. (1908): ‘Les “Dialogues des courtisanes” comparés avec la comédie’, REG 21, 39–79. Legrand, Ph. E. (1910): Daos: Tableau de la comédie grecque pendant la période dite nouvelle, Lyon / Paris. Legras, B. (2011): Les reclus grecs du Sarapieion de Memphis: Une enquête sur l’ héllenisme égyptien, Louvain. Leigh, M. (2013): From Polypragmon to Curiosus: Ancient Concepts of Curious and Meddlesome, Oxford. Leitao, D. D. (2003): ‘Adolescent Hair-Growing and Hair-Cutting Rituals in Ancient Greece: A Sociological Approach’, in D. B. Dodd / C. A. Faraone (eds) Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives, New York, 109–29.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

239

Lejeune, M. (1993): ‘Le nom de mesure λίτρα: essai lexical’, REG 106, 1–11. Lentz, A. (1867–70): Herodiani technici reliquiae, Leipzig. Leo, F. (1894–5): De Plauti Vidularia commentatio, 2 vols, Göttingen. Le Rider, G. / Jenkins, G. K. / Waggoner, N. / Westermark, U. (eds) (1989): Kraay - Mørkholm Essays. Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm, Louvain-laNeuve. Leutsch, E. L. von / Schneidewin, F. G. (1839–51): Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum (CPG I–II), 2 vols, Göttingen. LeVen, P. A. (2010): ‘New Music and its Myths: Athenaeus’ Reading of the Aulos Revolution (Deipnosophistae 14.616e–617f)’, JHS 130, 35–47. LeVen, P. A. (2014): The Many-Headed Muse: Tradition and Innovation in Late Classical Greek Lyric Poetry, Cambridge. Lever, K. (1956): The Art of Greek Comedy, London. Liapis, V. (2002): Μενάνδρου Γνῶμαι Μονόστιχοι, Athens. Liapis, V. (2012): A Commentary on the Rhesus attributed to Euripides, Oxford. Licht, H. (1932): Sexual Life in Ancient Greece (transl. J. H. Freese, ed. L. H. Dawson), London. Lissarrague, F. (1990): The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine and Ritual, Princeton. Lloyd, G. E. R. (1966): Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought, Bristol. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1973): ‘Terentian Technique in the Adelphi and the Eunuchus’, CQ 23.2, 279–84. Lloyd-Jones, H. / Parsons, P. J. (1983): Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin. Longo, O. / Scarpi, P. (eds) (1989):  Homo edens: Regimi, miti e pratiche dell’ alimentazione nella civiltà del Mediterraneo, Verona. Longrigg, J. (2000): ‘Death and Epidemic Disease in Classical Athens’, in V. M. Hope / E. Marshall (eds) Death and Disease in the Ancient City, London / New York, 55–64. Loomis, W. T. (1998): Wages, Welfare Costs and Inflation in Classical Athens, Ann Arbor. López Eire, A. (1996): La lengua colloquial de la comedia aristofanica, Murcia. Loraux, N. (1993): ‘Aristophane, les femmes d’ Athènes et le théâtre’, in J. M. Bremer / E. W. Handley (eds) Aristophane, Entr. Fond. Hardt 38, Geneva, 203–44. Loscalzo, D. (2019): Saffo, la hetaira, Pisa / Roma. Lovano, M. (2020): The World of Ancient Greece: A Daily Life Encyclopedia, 2 vols, Santa Barbara / Denver. Lowe, B. (2004): ‘The Industrial Exploitation of Murex: Purple Dye Production in the Western Mediterranean’, in L. Cleland / K. Stears (eds) Colour in the Ancient Mediterranean World (BAR International Series 1267), Oxford, 46–9. Lowe, N. J. (2000): The Classical Plot and the Invention of Western Narrative, Cambridge. Ludwig, W. (1968): ‘The Originality of Terence and his Greek Models’, GRBS 9, 169–82. Luppe, W. (2004): ‘Zum Bücher-Katalog IG II / III2 2363’, APF 50.2, 113–5. Lynch, T. A. C. / Rocconi, E. (eds) (2020): A Companion to Ancient Greek and Roman Music, Malden / Oxford. Lytle, E. (2010): ‘Fish Lists in the Wilderness: The Social and Economic History of a Boiotian Price Decree’, Hesperia 79.2, 253–303. Maas, P. (1962): Greek Metre (transl. H. Lloyd-Jones), Oxford. MacCary, W. T. (1972): ‘Menander’s Soldiers: Their Names, Roles and Masks’, AJPh 93, 279–98.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

240

Bibliography

MacCary, W. T. (1973): ‘The Comic Tradition and Comic Structure in Diphilos’ Kleroumenoi’, Hermes 101, 194–208. MacCary, W. T. / Willcock, M. M. (1976): Plautus: Casina, Cambridge. MacDowell, D. M. (1971): Aristophanes: Wasps, Oxford. Maclennan, K. / Stockert, W. (2016): Plautus: Aulularia, Liverpool. Mactoux, M. M. (1980): Douleia: Esclavage et pratique discursives dans l’ Athènes classique, Paris. Maggio, A. (2023): Ricerche su Difilo di Sinope, Trieste. Major, W. E. (2020): ‘The Pre-History of the Miles Gloriosus in Greek Drama’, in H. Marshall / C. W. Marshall (eds) Greek Drama V: Studies in the Theatre of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE, London / New York, 215–24. Mangidis, T. (2003): Antiphanes’ Mythentravestien, Frankfurt am Main. Mansfeld, J. / Runia, D. T. (1997): Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Vol. I: The Sources, Leiden / New York / Cologne. Manuwald, G. (2011): Roman Republican Theatre, Cambridge. Manuwald, G. (2012): Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta (TrRF), Vol. II: Ennius, Göttingen. Marchiori, A. (2000): ‘Between Ithyophagists and Syrians: Features of Fish-eating in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae Books Seven and Eight’, in D. Braund / J. Wilkins (eds) Athenaeus and his World, Exeter, 327–38. Marigo, A. (1907): ‘Difilo comico nei frammenti e nelle imitazioni latine’, SIFC 15, 372–534. Markantonatos, A. (ed.) (2020): Brill’s Companion to Euripides, 2 vols, Leiden / Boston. Marrou, H. I. (1948): Histoire de l‘ éducation dans l’ antiquité, Paris. Marshall, C. W. (2006): The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy, Cambridge. Marshall, C. W. / Kovacs, G. (eds.) (2012): No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy, London. Marshall, C. W. (2013): ‘Sex Slaves in New Comedy’, in B. Akrigg / R. Tordoff (eds) Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greek Comic Drama, Cambridge, 173–96. Marshall, H. R. (2012): ‘Clouds, Eupolis, and Reperformance’, in C. W. Marshall / G. Kovacs (eds.) No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy, London, 55–68. Marshall, H. R. / Marshall, C. W. (eds) (2020): Greek Drama V: Studies in the Theatre of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE, London / New York. Martin, G. (2018): Euripides: Ion, Berlin / Boston. Martin, P. S. (2021): ‘Catering for your Audience: The Comic Mageiros and the Personalized Dining Experience’, in C. Soarres / A. J. Torres Silveira / B. Laurioux (eds) Mesa dos sentidos y sentidos da mesa, Coimbra, Vol. I, 67–89. Martin, R. H. (1976): Terence: Adelphoe, Cambridge. Martin, R. (2003): ‘The Pipes Are Brawling: Conceptualizing Musical Performance in Athens’, in C. Dougherty / L. Kurke (eds) The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration, Cambridge, 153–80. Martina, A. (2016): Menandrea: Elementi e struttura della commedia di Menandro, 3 vols, Pisa / Rome. Martis, C. (2013): ‘L’ enigma del P.Louvre inv. 7733 verso: l’ epigramma dell’ ostrica’, SEP 10, 117–50. Martis, C. (2018): ‘Il commentario del P.Louvre inv. 7733 verso: un esempio di esegesi antica’, in V. Melis (ed.) Ricerche a confronto: Dialoghi di antichità classiche e del vicino Oriente, Zermeghedo, 30–57. Marx, F. (1904–5): C. Lucili Carminum Reliquiae, 2 vols, Leipzig. Marx, F. (1928): Plautus: Rudens (repr. Amsterdam 1959), Berlin.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

241

Mastellari, V. (2020): Fragmenta Comica 16.5: Callaide-Mnesimaco, Göttingen. Mastronarde, D. J. (1990): ‘Actors on High: The Skene Roof, the Crane and the Gods in Attic Drama’, Cl.Ant. 9, 247–94. Mastronarde, D. J. (1994): Euripides: Phoenissae, Cambridge. Matthaios, S. (2015): ‘Greek Scholarship in the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity’, in F. Montanari / S. Matthaios / A. Rengakos (eds) Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, Leiden, Vol. I, 184–296. Matthiessen, T. J. (1999): Apollo’s Lyre: Greek Music and Music Theory in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Lincoln / London. Mattusch, C. C. (2003): ‘Corinthian Bronze: Famous but Elusive’, in C.K Williams II / A. Bookidis (eds) Corinth, The Centenary 1896–1996, Athens, 219–32. Mau, A. (1901a): ‘Convivium’, RE IV, 1201–8. Mau, A. (1901b): ‘Comissatio’, RE IV, 610–19. Mauduit, C. / Moretti, J.Ch. (2010): ‘Pollux, un lexicographe au théâtre’, REG 123.2, 521–41. Maxwell-Stuart, P. G. (1971): ‘Gilden Euripides’, PP 26, 5–13. McClure, L. K. (2003a): Courtesans at Table: Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus, New York. McClure, L. K. (2003b): ‘Subversive Laughter: The Sayings of Courtesans in Book XIII of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae’, AJPh 124.2, 259–94. McClure, L. K. (2006): ‘Introduction’, in L. K. McClure / C. A. Faraone (eds) Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, Madison, 3–18. McClure, L. K. (ed.) (2017): A Companion to Euripides, Malden / Oxford. McGill, S. (2012): Plagiarism in Latin Literature, Cambridge. McInerney, J. (ed.) (2014): A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Malden / Oxford. McKechnie, P. / Guillaume, P. (eds) (2008): Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, Leiden / Boston. Meadows, A. (2009): ‘The Eras of Pamphylia and the Seleucid Invasions of Asia Minor’, AJN 21, 51–88. Meiggs, R. / Lewis, D. M. (19882): A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, Oxford. Meineke, Α. (1839–57): Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum (FCG), 5 vols, Berlin. Meineke, A. (1867): Analecta critica ad Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Leipzig. Melis, V. (ed.) (2018): Ricerche a confronto: Dialoghi di antichità classiche e del vicino Oriente, Zermeghedo. Meritt, B. D. (1938): ‘Greek Inscriptions’, Hesperia 7, 77–160. Meritt, B. D. (1981): ‘Mid-Third-Century Athenian Archons’, Hesperia 50.1, 78–99. Merkelbach, R. / Stauber, J. (1998–2004): Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, 5 vols, Stuttgart. Mervyn Jones, D. / Wilson, N. G. (1969): Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Equites, Groningen. Messeri-Savorelli, G. / Pintaudi, R. (2002): ‘I lettori dei papiri: Dal commento autonomo agli scolii’, in V. Fera / G. Ferraù / S. Rizzo (eds) Talking to the Text: Marginalia from Papyri to Print, Messina, 37–57. Metcalf, W. E. (ed.) (2012): The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage, Oxford. Mette, H.-J. (1962): “Die περιεργία bei Menander”, Gymnasium 69, 398–406. Meyer, E. (1963): ‘Pyrrha (nr. 10–12)’, RE XLVII, 79–80. Meyer, H. (1980): Medeia und die Peliaden: Εine attische Novelle und ihre Entstehung, Rome. Miccolis, E. R. (2017): Fragmenta Comica 12: Archippos, Heidelberg.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

242

Bibliography

Micha-Lampaki, A. (1984): Η διατροφή των αρχαίων Ελλήνων κατά τους αρχαίους κωμωδιογράφους, PhD University of Athens. Michelson, G. (1994): Vattenvård och rått till vatten i forntidens Grekland, Jonsered. Milanezi, S. (2000): ‘Laughter as Dessert: On Athenaeus’ Book Fourteen, 613–616’, in D. Braund / J. Wilkins (eds) Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 400–12. Miller, M. C. (1991): ‘Foreigners at the Greek Symposium?’, in W. J. Slater (ed.) Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor, 59–82. Miller, M. C. (1997): Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity, Cambridge. Millet, P. (1989): ‘Patronage and its Avoidance in Classical Athens’, in A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.) Patronage in Ancient Society, London / New York, 15–48. Millis, B. (2015): Fragmenta Comica 17: Anaxandrides, Heidelberg. Minchin, E. (1996): ‘The Performance of Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece, Leiden / New York / Cologne, 3–20. Monda, S. (2004): Titus Maccius Plautus: Vidularia et Deperditarum Fabularum Fragmenta, Sarsina / Urbino. Montana, F. (2004): ‘Valerius [3] Harpocration’, in F. Montanari / F. Montana / L. Pagani (eds) Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity (LGGA), Brill-Online Reference Works dx.doi.org / 10.1163 / 2451–9278_Valerius_3_Harpocration_it (accessed: 20 / 1 / 2021). Montanari, F. (1976): ‘Un nuovo frammento di Commentario a Callimaco’, Athenaeum 54, 139–51. Montanari, F. / Montana, F. / Pagani, L. (eds) (2004– ): Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity (LGGA), Brill-Online Reference Works. Montanari, F. (2006a): ‘Glossario, parafrasi, “edizione commentata” nei papiri’, in. G. Avezzù / P. Scattolin (eds) I classici greci e i loro commentatori: Dai papiri ai marginalia rinascimentali, Rovereto, 9–16. Montanari, F. (2006b): ‘Aristoteles’, in G. Bastianini /M. Haslam/H. Maehler/F. Montanari/C. Römer (eds) Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris Reperta, Vol. I, Munich / Leipzig, 241–5. Montanari, F. / Matthaios, S. / Rengakos, A. (eds) (2015): Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, 2 vols, Leiden. Moore, T. J. (2012): Music in Roman Comedy, Cambridge. Mora, E. (1966): Sappho: Histoire d’ un poète, Paris. Morgan, K. (2017): ‘Plato’s Goat-Stags and the Uses of Comparison’, in P. Destrée / R. G. Edmonds III (eds) Plato and the Power of Images, Leiden / Boston, 179–98. Morgan, M. H. (1890): ‘De ignis eliciendi modis apud antiquos’, HSCPh 1, 13–64. Moritz, L. A. (1958): Grain Mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity, Oxford. Mørkholm, O. (1991): Early Hellenistic Coinage from the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336–186 B. C.), ed. P. Grierson / U. Westermark, Cambridge. Most, G. W. (1996): ‘Reflecting Sappho’, in E. Greene (ed.) Re-reading Sappho: Reception and Transmission, Berkeley / Los Angeles, 11–35. Muccioli, F. (1994): ‘Considerazioni generali sull’ epiteto ΦιλάδελϕοϚ nelle dinastie ellenistiche e sulla sua applicazione nella titolatura degli ultimi Seleucidi’, Historia 43.4, 402–22. Müller, D. (1974): Handwerk und Sprache, Meisenheim am Glan.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

243

Müller, K. O. (1880): Sexti Pompei Festi De Verborum Significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1965). Munteanu, D. (2002): ‘Types of Anagnorisis: Aristotle and Menander. A Self-Defining Comedy’, WS 115, 111–26. Müri, W. (1931): ‘Symbolon, Symbolē’, RE IV A1, 1088–90. Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1983): ‘Corinthian Bronze’, RBibl 90, 80–93. Murray, O. (ed.) (1990): Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford. Murray, O. / Tecusan, M. (eds) (1995): In Vino Veritas, London. Murray, O. (2015): ‘Athenaeus the Encyclopedist’, in J. Wilkins / R. Nadeau (eds) A Companion to Food in the Ancient World, Malden / Oxford, 30–42. Murray, P. / Wilson, P. (eds) (2004): Music and the Muses: The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City, Oxford. Mylona, D. (2008): Fish-Eating in Greece from the Fifth Century B. C. to the Seventh Century A.D., Oxford. Naiden, F. S. (2013): Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods, Oxford. Nauck, A. (1894): ‘Bemerkungen zu Kock Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta’, Mélanges Gréco-Romains 6, 58–180. Neils, J. / Oakley, J. H. (eds) (2003): Coming of Age in Ancient Greece, New Haven / London. Neri, C. (2021): Saffo: Testimonianze e frammenti, Berlin / Boston. Nervegna, S. (2013): Menander in Antiquity: The Contexts of Reception, Cambridge. Nesselrath, H. G. (1985): Lukians Parasitendialog, Berlin / New York. Nesselrath, H. G. (1990): Die attische mittlere Komödie: Ihre Stellung in der antiken Literaturkritik und Literaturgeschichte. Berlin / New York. Nesselrath, H. G. (1995): ‘Myth, Parody and Comic Plots: The Birth of Gods and Middle Comedy’, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.) Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta, 1–27. Nesselrath, H. G. (1997a): ‘Diphilos aus Sinope’, DNP 3, 680–2. Nesselrath, H. G. (1997b): ‘The Polis of Athens in Middle Comedy’, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.) The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama, Chapel Hill / London, 271–88. Nesselrath, H. G. (2010): ‘Comic Fragments: Transmission and Textual Criticism’, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.) Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 423–53. Nesselrath (2011): ‘Menander and His Rivals: New Light from the Comic Adespota?’, in D. Obbink / I. Rutherford (eds) Culture in Pieces: Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons, Oxford, 119–37. Nestle, W. (1926): ‘Ἀπραγμοσύνη’, Philologus 81, 129–40. Neumann, G. (1965): Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst, Berlin. Nickau, K. (1966): Ammonius: De adfinium vocabulorum differentia, Leipzig. Nicolson, F. W. (1891): ‘Greek and Roman Barbers’, HSCPh 2, 41–56. Nordheider, H. W. (2010): ‘Χρυσοχόος’, LfgrE 4.2, 1282, Göttingen. Nuchelmans, J. (1977): ‘De tafelschuimer in de Griekse komedie’, Lampas 10, 362–75. Nussbaum, M. (1976–77): ‘Consequences and Character in Sophocles’ Philoctetes’, Philosophy and Literature 1, 25–53. Nutton, V. (2000): ‘Medical Thoughts on Urban Pollution’, in V. M. Hope / E. Marshall (eds) Death and Disease in the Ancient City, London / New York, 65–73.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

244

Bibliography

Oakley, J. H. (2013): ‘Children in Archaic and Classical Greek Art: A Survey’, in J. Evans Grubbs / T. Parkin / R. Bell (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World, Oxford / New York, 147–71. Obbink, D. / Rutherford, I. (eds) (2011): Culture in Pieces: Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons, Oxford. Oeri, H. G. (1948): Der Typ der komischen Alten in der griechischen Komödie, seine Nachwirkungen und seine Herkunft, Diss. Basel. Ogden, D. (2013): Drakon: Dragon Myth and Serpent in the Greek and Roman Worlds, Oxford. Oliva, C. (1968): ‘La parodia e la critica letteraria nella commedia post-aristofanea’, Dioniso 42, 25–92. Olivieri, A. (1950): Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, Vol. VIII 2: Aetii Amideni Libri Medicinales V-VIII, Berlin. Olmstead, A. T. (1948): History of the Persian Empire, Chicago / London. Olson, S. D. (1992): ‘Names and Naming in Aristophanic Comedy’, CQ 42.2, 304–19. Olson, S. D. (1999): Aristophanes: Peace, Oxford. Olson, S. D. / Sens, A. (1999): Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE, Atlanta. Olson, S. D. / Sens, A. (2000): Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE, Oxford. Olson, S. D. (2002): Aristophanes: Acharnians, Oxford. Olson, S. D. (2007): Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy, Oxford. Olson, S. D. (2014): Fragmenta Comica 8.3: Eupolis (frr. inc. 326–497), Heidelberg. Olson, S. D. (2016): Fragmenta Comica 8.2: Eupolis (Heilotes-Chrysoun Genos), Heidelberg. Olson, S. D. (2017): Fragmenta Comica 8.1: Eupolis (Einleitung, Testimonia und AigesDemoi), Heidelberg. Olson, S. D. / Seaberg, R. (2018): Fragmenta Comica 3.6: Kratinos (frr. 299–514), Göttingen. Olson, S. D. (2019–23): Athenaeus Naucratites: Deipnosophistae, 5 vols, Berlin / Boston. Olson, S. D. (2021): Fragmenta Comica 19.3: Antiphanes (frr. 194–330), Göttingen. Olson, S. D. (2022): Fragmenta Comica 19.2: Antiphanes (frr. 101–193), Göttingen. Olson, S. D. (2023): Fragmenta Comica 19.1: Antiphanes (Introduction, frr. 1–100), Göttingen. Omitowoju, R. (2002): Rape and the Politics of Consent in Classical Athens, Cambridge. Omitowoju, R. (2010): ‘Performing Traditions: Relations and Relationships in Menander and Tragedy’, in A. K. Petrides / S. Papaioannou (eds) New Perspectives on Postclassical Comedy, Newcastle upon Tyne, 125–45. Ormand, K. (2015): ‘Toward Iambic Obscenity’, in D. Dutsch / A. Suter (eds) Ancient Obscenities: Their Nature and Use in the Ancient Greek and Roman Worlds, Ann Arbor, 44–70. Ornaghi, M. (2020): ‘Ethnic Stereotypes and Ethnic Mockery in Ancient Greek Comedy’, in A. A. Lamari / F. Montanari / A. Novokhatko (eds) Fragmentation in Ancient Greek Drama, Berlin / New York, 407–36. Orth, Ch. (2009): Strattis: Die Fragmente. Ein Kommentar, Berlin. Orth, Ch. (2013): Fragmenta Comica 9.1: Alkaios-Apollophanes, Heidelberg. Orth, Ch. (2014): Fragmenta Comica 9.2: Aristomenes-Metagenes, Heidelberg. Orth, Ch. (2015): Fragmenta Comica 9.3: Nikochares-Xenophon, Heidelberg. Orth, Ch. (2017): Fragmenta Comica 10.3: Aristophanes frr. 1–100, Göttingen. Orth, Ch. (2020): Fragmenta Comica 16.2: Aristophon-Dromon, Göttingen. Orth, F. (1922): ‘Kuchen’, RE XI 2, 2088–99.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

245

Ostwald, M. (1986): From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law, Berkeley / Los Angeles. O’ Sullivan, L. (2009): The Regime of Demetrius of Phalerum in Athens, 317–307 BCE: A Philosopher in Politics, Leiden / Boston. Page, D. L. (1934): Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy, Oxford. Page, D. L. (1962): Poetae Melici Graeci (PMG), Oxford. Page, D. L. (1981): Further Greek Epigrams (FGE), rev. by R. D. Dawe / J. Diggle, Cambridge. Palombi, A. / Santarelli, M. (19864): Gli animali commestibili dei mari d’ Italia, Milan. Panofka, Th. (1822): Res Samiorum, Berlin. Papachrysostomou, A. (2008): Six Comic Poets: A Commentary on Selected Fragments of Middle Comedy, Tübingen. Papachrysostomou, A. (2012–13): ‘Sopater’s Φακῆ (fragments 18, 19): A Play of Self-Satire?’, Classics Ireland 19–20, 50–81. Papachrysostomou, A. (2016): Fragmenta Comica 20: Amphis, Heidelberg. Papachrysostomou, A. (2021): Fragmenta Comica 16.3: Ephippus, Göttingen. Papadodima, E. (2013): Foreigness Negotiated: Conceptual and Ethical Aspects of the GreekBarbarian Distinction in Fifth-Century Literature, Zurich / New York. Papadodima, E. (2014): ‘Ethnicity and the Stage’, in J. McInerney (ed.) A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Malden / Oxford, 256–69. Papaioannou, S. (2010): ‘Postclassical Comedy and the Composition of Roman Comedy’, in A. K. Petrides / S. Papaioannou (eds) New Perspectives on Postclassical Comedy, Newcastle upon Tyne, 146–75. Papanghelis, T. D. / Rengakos, A. (eds.) (2001): A Companion to Apollonius Rhodius, Leiden. Papavasiliou, G. A. (1889): ‘Κριτικαί παρατηρήσεις’, Ἀθηνᾶ 1, 191–234. Parke, H. W. (1933): Greek Mercenary Soldiers from the Earliest Times to the Battle of Ipsus, Oxford. Parker, L. P. E. (2016): Euripides: Iphigenia in Tauris, Oxford. Parker, R. (1983): Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford. Parker, R. (1996): Athenian Religion, Oxford. Parker, R. (2005): Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford. Parsons, P. J. (1977): ‘The Oyster’, ZPE 24, 1–12. Patterson, O. (1982): Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study, Cambridge (Mass.). Paulas, J. (2012): ‘How to Read Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists’, AJPh 133.3, 403–39. Paxson, J. J. (1994): The Poetics of Personification, Cambridge. Pearson, A. C. (1917): The Fragments of Sophocles, 3 vols, Cambridge. Pearson, L. (1963): ‘Perfume on Lentils’, TAPhA 94, 176–84. Peek, W. (1955): Griechische Vers-Inschriften I: Grab-Epigramme, Berlin. Pellegrino, M. (1998): ‘Metagene’, in A. M. Belardinelli / O. Imperio / G. Mastromarco / M. Pellegrino / P. Totaro (eds), Tessere: Frammenti della commedia greca, Bari, 291–339. Pellegrino, M. (2000): Utopie e immagini gastronomiche nei frammenti dell’ archaia, Bologna. Pellegrino, M. (2013): Fragmenta Comica 15: Nikophon, Heidelberg. Pemberton, E. G. (1981): ‘The Attribution of Corinthian Bronzes’, Hesperia 50.2, 101–11. Peppink, S. P. (1936): Observationes in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Leiden. Pérez Asensio, J. (1999): La comedia de Dífilo, Diss. Valencia. Pérez Asensio, J. / Sanchis, J. / Montañés, R. (2014): Fragmentos de la comedia nueva, Madrid. Pernerstorfer, M. J. (2009): Menanders Kolax: Ein Beitrag zu Rekonstruktion und Interpretation der Komödie, Berlin / New York. Pernigotti, C. (2008): Menandri Sententiae, Florence.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

246

Bibliography

Perpillou, J.-L. (1982): ‘Verbes de sonorité à vocalisme expressif en grec ancien’, REG 95, 233–74. Perrone, S. (2019): Fragmenta Comica 2: Cratete, Göttingen. Perrot, S. (2020): ‘Ancient Musical Performance in Context: Places, Settings, and Occasions’, in T. A. C. Lynch / E. Rocconi (eds) A Companion to Ancient Greek and Roman Music, Malden / Oxford, 89–102. Petersen, L. (1939): Zur Geschichte der Personifikation in griechischer Dichtung und bildender Kunst, Würzburg. Petrides, A. K. (2014): Menander, New Comedy and the Visual, Cambridge. Philipp, G. B. (1973): ‘Philippides, ein politischer Komiker in hellenistischer Zeit’, Gymnasium 80, 493–509. Photiades, P. (1959): ‘Le type du misanthrope dans la littérature grecque’, CE 34, 305–26. Piccione, R. M. (1994): ‘Sulle fonti e le metodologie compilative di Stobeo’, Eikasmos 5, 281–317. Piccione, R. M. (2017): ‘Sentenze, antologie gnomiche e gnomologi’, in Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini II.3: Gnomica, Florence, 3–24. Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. (1946): The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, Oxford. Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. (19682): The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (rev. by J. Gould), Oxford. Pirrotta, S. (2009): Plato Comicus: Die fragmentarischen Komödien, Berlin. Plett, H. F. (2010): Literary Rhetoric: Concepts, Structures, Analyses, Leiden / Boston. Plöbst, W. (1911): Die Auxesis (Amplificatio): Studien zur ihrer Entwicklung und Anwendung, Munich. Pollard, J. (1948): ‘The Birds of Aristophanes – a Source Book for Old Beliefs,’ AJPh 69, 353–76. Pollard, J. (1977): Birds in Greek Life and Myth, London. Pomeroy, S. B. (19952): Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York. Pontani, F. (2015): ‘Scholarship in the Byzantine Empire (529–1453)’, in F. Montanari / S. Matthaios / A. Rengakos (eds) Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, Leiden, Vol. I, 297–455. Porson, R. (1812): Adversaria, Cambridge. Powell, J. U. (1925): Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford. Power, T. (2010): The Culture of Kitharoidia, Cambridge (Mass.). Power, T. (2020): ‘Musical Competitors and Competitions in Greece and Rome’, in T. A. C. Lynch / E. Rocconi (eds) A Companion to Ancient Greek and Roman Music, Malden / Oxford, 187–200. Pralon, D. (1996): ‘Les Péliades d’ Euripide’, Pallas 45, 69–83. Pratt, L. (2013): ‘Play, Pathos, and Precocity: The Three P’s of Greek Literary Childhood’, in J. Evans Grubbs / T. Parkin / R. Bell (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World, Oxford / New York, 227–45. Préaux, C. (1959): ‘Réflexions sur la misanthropie au théâtre à propos du Dyscolos de Ménandre’, CE 34, 327–41. Preuner, A. (1890): ‘Hestia’, in W. H. Roscher (ed.) Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, Leipzig, I 2605–53. Pritchett, W. K. / Meritt, B. D. (1940): The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens, Cambridge (Mass.). Pritchett, W. K. (1956): ‘The Attic Stelai: Part II’, Hesperia 25.3, 178–317.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

247

Pucci, P. (1987): Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad, Ithaca. Puglisi, M. (2005): ‘Distribuzione e funzione della moneta bronzea in Sicilia della metà del V sec. A. C. all’ età ellenistica’, in C. Alfaro / C. Marcos / P. Otero (eds) XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismatica (Madrid 15–19 Septiembre 2003), Madrid, 285–94. Pütz, B. (20072): The Symposium and Komos in Aristophanes, Oxford. Questa, C. / Raffaelli, R. (eds) (2002): Due seminari plautini: La tradizione del testo. I modelli, Urbino. Race, W. H. (1982): The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius, Leiden. Radici Colace, P. / Gulletta, M. I. (1992–2005): Lexicon Vasorum Graecorum, 5 vols, Pisa. Raffaelli, R. / Tontini, A. (eds) (2003): Lecturae Plautinae Sarsinates VI: Casina, Urbino. Rankin, E. M. (1907): The Role of the Mageiroi in the Life of the Ancient Greeks, Chicago. Regling, K. (1926): ‘Litra’, RE XIII 1, 784–6. Reinhardt, U. (1974): Mythologische Beispiele in der neuen Komödie (Menander, Plautus, Terenz), Diss. Mainz. Renehan, R. (1976): Studies in Greek Texts: Critical Obervations to Homer, Plato, Euripides, Aristophanes and Other Authors, Göttingen. Revermann, M. (2006): Comic Business: Theatricality, Dramatic Technique and Performance Contexts of Aristophanic Comedy, Oxford. Revermann, M. (ed.) (2014): The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, Cambridge. Reydams-Schils, G. (ed.) (2011): Thinking Through Excerpts. Studies on Stobaeus, Turnhout. Ribbeck, O. (1882): Alazon: Ein Beitrag zur antiken Ethologie und zur Kenntniss der griechisch-römischen Komödie, Leipzig. Ribbeck, O. (1883): Kolax: Eine ethologische Studie, Leipzig. Ribbeck, O. (1888): Agroikos: Eine ethologische Studie, ASG 23, 1–68. Ricciardetto, A. (2018): ‘Commento a Martis’, in V. Melis (ed.) Ricerche a confronto: Dialoghi di antichità classiche e del vicino Oriente, Zermeghedo, 58–68. Richards, G. C. (1894): ‘Selected Vase-Fragments from the Acropolis of Athens’, JHS 14, 381–7. Richards, H. (1909): Aristophanes and Others, London. Richardson, N. (1993): The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. VI: Books 21–24, Cambridge. Richlin, A. (2017): Slave Theater in the Roman Republic: Plautus and Popular Comedy, Cambridge. Richter, G. M. A. (1965): The Portraits of the Greeks, 3 vols, London. Richter, G. M. A. (1966): The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, London. Riedl, R. (1986): Fauna y flora del mar Mediterráneo, Barcelona. Riemann, H. (1956): ‘Telesias’, RE Suppl. VIIII, 850. Riess, W. (ed.) (2018): Colloquia Attica: Neuere Forschungen zur Archaik, zum athenischen Recht und zur Magie, Stuttgart. Rieth, O. (1964): Die Kunst Menanders in den Adelphen des Terenz (ed. K. Gaiser), Hildesheim. Rijksbaron, A. (2019): Form and Function in Greek Grammar: Linguistic Contributions to the Study of Greek Literature (ed. R. J. Allan / E. van Emde Boas / L. Huitink), Leiden / Boston. Robson, J. (2006): Humour, Obscenity and Aristophanes, Tübingen. Rodrigues, F. / Guggenberger, R. / Sebastiani, B. B. (eds) (2023): A Produção Dramática no Período Helenístico e sua Influência na Literatura Greco-latina Posterior, Coimbra. Roemer, A. (1901): ‘Über den litterarisch-aesthetischen Bildungsstand des attischen Theaterpublikums’, Abh. Bayer. Ak. Wiss. 22, 1–95.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

248

Bibliography

Rose, M. L. (2003): The Staff of Oedipus: Transforming Disability in Ancient Greece, Ann Arbor. Rose, V. (18863): Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, Leipzig. Roselli, D. K. (2005): ‘Vegetable-Hawking Mom and Fortunate Son: Euripides, Tragic Style and Reception’, Phoenix 59.1, 1–49. Rosen, R. M. / Sluiter, I. (eds) (2006): City, Countryside and the Spatial Organization of Value in Classical Antiquity, Leiden / Boston. Rosen, R. M. (2006a): ‘Comic Aischrology and the Urbanization of Agroikia’, in R. M. Rosen / I. Sluiter (eds) City, Countryside and the Spatial Organization of Value in Classical Antiquity, Leiden / Boston, 219–38. Rosen, R. M. (2006b): ‘Aristophanes, Fandom and the Classicizing of Greek Tragedy’, in L. Kozak/J. Rich (eds) Playing around Aristophanes: Essays in Celebration of the Completion of the Comedies of Aristophanes by Alan Sommerstein, Cambridge, 27–47. Rosen, R. M. (2007): Making Mockery: The Poetics of Ancient Satire, Oxford. Rosen, R. M. (2015): ‘Aischrology in Old Comedy and the Question of “Ritual Obscenity”’, in D. Dutsch / A. Suter (eds) Ancient Obscenities: Their Nature and Use in the Ancient Greek and Roman Worlds, Ann Arbor, 71–90. Rosenbloom, D. (2006): Aeschylus: Persians, London. Rosenbloom, D. (2014): ‘The Politics of Comic Athens’, in M. Fontaine / A. C. Scafuro (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, 297–320. Rosivach, V. J. (1998): When a Young Man Falls in Love: The Sexual Exploitation of Women in New Comedy, New York. Rösler, W. / Zimmermann, B. (eds) (1991): Carnevale e utopia nella Grecia antica, Bari. Rösler, W. (1995): ‘Wine and Truth in the Greek Symposion’, in O. Murray / M. Tecusan (eds) In Vino Veritas, London, 106–12. Rotolo, C. (2005): ‘Il delirio erotico: Naufragi e lacerazioni dell’ innamorato plautino’, Pan 23, 51–71. Rotroff, S. I. (1997): Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Tableware and Related Material, Part I: Text, New Jersey. Rouse, W. H. D. (1902): Greek Votive Offerings: An Essay in the History of Greek Religion, Cambridge. Roux, J. (1961): ‘À propos du décor dans les tragédies d’ Euripide’, REG 74, 25–60. Rüdiger, H. (1933): Sappho: Ihr Ruf und Ruhm bei der Nachwelt, Leipzig. Ruffell, I. (2014): ‘Character Types’, in M. Revermann (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, Cambridge, 147–67. Ruffell, I. (2021): ‘The Aesthetics of the Comic List’, in R. Laemmle/C.S Laemmle/K. Wesselmann (eds) Lists and Catalogues in Ancient Literature and Beyond, Berlin / Boston, 327–60. Rühfel, H. (1988): ‘Ammen und Kinderfrauen im klassischen Athen’, AW 19, 43–57. Ruhnken, D. (18282): Timaei sophistae lexicon vocum Platonicarum (2nd ed. by G. A. Koch), Leipzig. Rung, E. (2004): ‘Xenophon, the Oxyrhynchus Historian and the Mission of Timocrates to Greece’, in C. Tuplin (ed.) Xenophon and his World: Papers from a Conference Held in Liverpool in July 1999, Stuttgart, 413–26. Rupprecht, K. (1949): ‘Paroimiographoi’, RE XVIII 4, 1707–78. Russo, J. / Fernández-Galiano, M. / Heubeck, A. (1992): A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, Vol. III: Books XVII-XXIV, Oxford.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

249

Rusten, J. (2011): The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents and Art from the Athenian Comic Competitions 486–280, Baltimore. Rutter, N. K. (1997): Greek Coinages of Southern Italy and Sicily, London. Sage, M. M. (1996): Warfare in Ancient Greece: A Sourcebook, London / New York. Saint-Denis, E. de (1948): Le vocabulaire des animaux marins en Latin classique, Paris. Sarian, H. (1990): ‘Hestia’, LIMC V 1, 407–12. Sarian, H. (1992): ‘Hekate’, LIMC VI 1, 983–1018. Scafuro, A. C. (1997): The Forensic Stage: Settling Disputes in Graeco-Roman New Comedy, Cambridge. Scafuro, A. C. (2014): ‘Comedy in the Late Fourth and Early Third Centuries BCE’, in M. Fontaine / A. C. Scafuro (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, 199–217. Scaife, R. (1992): ‘From Kottabos to War in Aristophanes’ Acharnians’, GRBS 33, 25–35. Scanlon, T. F. (2002): Eros and Greek Athletics, Oxford. Scardino, C. / Sorrentino, G. (2015): ‘Menander und die Komödie seiner Zeit: Einige Überlegungen’, in S. Chronopoulos / Ch. Orth (eds) Fragmente einer Geschichte der griechischen Komödie, Mainz, 199–227. Schefold, K. / Jung, F. (1989): Die Sagen von den Argonauten, von Theben und Troia in der klassischen und hellenistischen Kunst, Munich. Scherling, K. (1937): ‘Peliaden’, RE XIX 1, 308–17. Schironi, F. (2018): The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchos of Samothrace on the Iliad, Ann Arbor. Schlesier, R. (2020): ‘A Sophisticated Hetaira at Table: Athenaeus’ Sappho’, in B. Currie / I. Rutherford (eds) The Reception of Ancient Greek Lyric Poetry in the Ancient World: Transmission, Canonization and Paratext, Leiden / Boston, 342–72. Schmid, U. (1964): Die Priamel der Werte im Griechischen von Homer bis Paulus, Wiesbaden. Schmid, W. P. (1977): ‘Brunnen’, Enzyklopedie des Märchens, Vol. I, 941–8. Schmidt, M. (1854): Didymi Chalcenteri Grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig. Schmitt-Pantel, P. (1990): ‘Sacrificial Meal and Symposion: Two Models of Civic Institutions in the Archaic City?’, in O. Murray (ed.) Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 14–33. Schneider, K. (1912): ‘Hetairai’, RE VIII, 1331–72. Schöll, F. (1888): ‘Űber das Original von Plautus’ Rudens nebst einigen weiteren epikritischen Bemerkungen’, RhM 43, 298–302. Schöll, R. (1870): ‘Zu Athenaeus’, Hermes 4.2, 160–73. Scholz, P. (2007): ‘Elementarunterricht und intellektuelle Bildung im hellenistischen Gymnasion’, in D. Kah / P. Scholz (eds) Das hellenistische Gymnasion, Berlin, 103–28. Schorn, S. (2004): Satyros aus Kallatis: Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar, Basel. Schulze, W. (19662): Kleine Schriften, Göttingen. Schuster, M. (1963): ‘Pyrrha (nr. 9)’, RE XLVII, 79. Schwartz, E. (1887–1891): Scholia in Euripidem, 2 vols, Berlin. Schweighäuser, J. (1801–05): Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, 8 vols, Strasbourg. Schwyzer, E. (1939–71): Griechische Grammatik, 4 vols (vol. II completed by A. Debrunner, indexes by D. J. Georgacas), Munich. Scodel, R. (ed.) (1993): Theater and Society in Ancient Greece, Ann Arbor.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

250

Bibliography

Scodel, R. (1993): ‘Tragic Sacrifice and Menandrian Cooking’, in R. Scodel (ed.) Theater and Society in Ancient Greece, Ann Arbor, 161–76. Seaford, R. A. S. (1988): Euripides: Cyclops, Oxford. Seaford, R. A. S. (1994): Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing CityState, Oxford. Seaford, R. A. S. (1996): Euripides: Bacchae, Warminster. Searby, D. M. (2011): ‘The Intertitles in Stobaeus: Condensing Culture’, in G. Reydams-Schils (ed.) Thinking Through Excerpts: Studies on Stobaeus, Turnhout, 23–56. Seber, W. / Jungermann, G. / Kuhn, J. (1706): Julii Pollucis Onomasticum Graece et Latine, Amsterdam. Seidensticker, B. (2020): Euripides: Kyklops, Berlin / Boston. Sekunda, N. (2011): ‘Changing Patterns of Land-holding in the South-Western Border Lands of Greater Phrygia in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic Periods’, in A. H. Cadwallader / M. Trainor (eds) Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City, Göttingen, 48–76. Sells, D. (2013): ‘Slaves in the Fragments of Old Comedy’, in B. Akrigg / R. Tordoff (eds) Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greek Comic Drama, Cambridge, 91–110. Seltman, Ch. (19552): Greek Coins, London. Sharrock, A. (2009): Reading Roman Comedy: Poetics and Playfulness in Plautus and Terence, Cambridge. Sheedy, K. (2012): ‘Aegina, the Cyclades, and Crete’, in W. E. Metcalf (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage, Oxford, 105–27. Shrimpton, G. S. / McCargar, D. J. (eds) (1981): Classical Contributions: Studies in Honour of M. F. McGregor, New York. Sidwell, K. (2014): ‘Fourth-Century Comedy before Menander’, in M. Revermann (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, Cambridge, 60–78. Sifakis, G. M. (1979): ‘Children in Greek Tragedy’, BICS 26, 67–80. Silk, M. S. (1974): Interaction in Poetic Imagery: With Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry, Cambridge. Silk, M. S. (2000): Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy, Oxford. Sillitti, G. (1980): Tragelaphos: storia di una metafora e di un problema, Naples. Simkin, O. (2012): ‘Coins and Language in Ancient Sicily’, in O. Tribulato (ed.) Language and Linguistic Contact in Ancient Sicily, Cambridge, 162–90. Simon, B. (1978): Mind and Madness in Ancient Greece: The Classical Roots of Modern Psychiatry, Ithaca. Simon, E. (1994a): ‘Peliades’, LIMC VII 1, 270–3. Simon, E. (1994b): ‘Pelias’, LIMC VII 1, 273–7. Sistakou, E. / Rengakos, A. (eds) (2016): Dialect, Diction and Style in Greek Literary and Inscribed Epigram, Berlin / New York. Sittig, E. (1931): Das Alter der Anordnung unserer Kasus und der Ursprung ihrer Bezeichnung als “Fälle”, Stuttgart. Slater, N. W. (1985): ‘Play and Playwright References in Middle and New Comedy’, LCM 10, 103–5. Slater, W. J. (1986): Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta, Berlin. Slater, W. J. (ed.) (1991): Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor. Slater, W. J. (2007): ‘Deconstructing Festivals’, in P. Wilson (ed.) The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies, Oxford, 21–47.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

251

Slings, S. R. (1997): ‘Figures of Speech and their Lookalikes: Two Further Exercises in the Pragmatics of the Greek Sentence’, in E. J. Bakker (ed.) Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Context, Leiden, 169–214. Smith, A. C. (2011): Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, Leiden. Smith, O. L. (1982–19932): Scholia Graeca in Aeschylum quae exstant omnia, 2 vols, Leipzig. Soarres, C. / Torres Silveira, A. J. / Laurioux, B. (eds) (2021): Mesa dos sentidos y sentidos da mesa, Vol. I, Coimbra. Soellner, R. (1979): Timon of Athens: Shakespeare’s Pessimistic Tragedy, Ohio. Sokolowski, F. (1962): Lois sacrées des cités grecques: Supplément (LSS), Paris. Sommer, M. / Sommer, D. (2015): Care, Socialization and Play in Ancient Attica: A Developmental Childhood Archaeological Approach, Aarhus. Sommerstein, A. H. (1980): Aristophanes: Acharnians, Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. (1996): ‘How to Avoid Being a Komodoumenos’, CQ 46.2, 327–56. Sommerstein, A. H. (1998): Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae, Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. (2001): Aristophanes: Wealth, Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. (2010): The Tangled Ways of Zeus and Other Studies in and Around Greek Tragedy, Oxford. Sommerstein, A. H. (2013): Menander: Samia, Cambridge. Sommerstein, A. H. (2014) (ed.): Menander in Contexts, New York / London. Sommerstein, A. H. (2019) (ed.): The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, 3 vols, Malden. Sonnenschein, E. A. (1891): T. Macci Plauti Rudens, Oxford. Sonnino, M. (2012): ‘Le fornaie comiche e i pani di Periandro’, Prometheus 38, 67–88. Southall, D. J. (2008): Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans: Personified Dikaiosyne within Metaphoric and Narratorial Settings, Tübingen. Spanoudakis, K. (2002): Philitas of Cos, Leiden / Boston / Cologne. Sparkes, B. A. / Talcott, L. (1970): Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B. C., The Athenian Agora XII, Princeton. Sparkes, B. A. (1975): ‘Illustrating Aristophanes’, JHS 95, 122–35. Spyropoulos, E. S. (1974): L’ accumulation verbale chez Aristophane, Thessaloniki. Stafford, E. (2000): Worshipping Virtues: Personification and the Divine in Ancient Greece, London / Swansea. Stallbaum, J. G. (1825–6): Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam, 2 vols, Leipzig. Stama, F. (2014): Fragmenta Comica 7: Phrynichos, Heidelberg. Stama, F. (2016): Alessi: Testimonianze e frammenti, Castrovillari. Stauffenberg, A. S. (1937): ‘Tithraustes’, RE VI A, 1522–3. Stazio, A. / Taliercio Mensiteri, M. / Ceccoli, S. (eds) (1993): La monetazione dell’ età dionigiana: Atti dell’ VIII Convegno Internazionale di Studi Numismatici, Rome. Steidle, W. (1975): ‘Probleme des Bühnenspiels in der Neuen Komödie’, GB 3, 341–86. Stephanes, I. E. (1988): ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΑΚΟΙ ΤΕΧΝΙΤΑΙ: Συμβολές στην προσωπογραφία του θεάτρου και της μουσικής των αρχαίων Ελλήνων, Heraklion. Stephens, S. A. (2021): ‘Sappho in Pieces’, in M. Fantuzzi / H. Morales / T. Whitmarsh (eds) Reception in the Greco-Roman World: Literary Studies in Theory and Practice, Cambridge, 319–40. Storey, I. C. (2003): Eupolis, Poet of Old Comedy, Oxford. Strauss, B. (2004): The Battle of Salamis: The Naval Encounter that Saved Greece — and Western Civilization, New York / London / Toronto / Sydney. Strengel, P. (1903): ‘Diogenianus (4)’, RE V, 778–83.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

252

Bibliography

Strömberg, R. (1943): Studien zur Etymologie und Bildung der griechischen Fischnamen, Göteborg. Studemund, W. (1883): ‘Uber zwei Parallel – Komödien des Diphilus; Anhang: Die Fragmente der Plautinischen Vidularia’, Verhandlungen der 36en Versammlung Deutscher Philologen in Karlsruhe, Leipzig, 33–65. Studemund, W. (1889): T. Macci Plauti Fabularum Reliquiae Ambrosianae, Berlin. Süss, W. (1910): ‘Zwei Bemerkungen zur Technik der Komödie I: Der terenzische Prolog’, RhM 65, 442–50. Sutton, D. F. (1989): Dithyrambographi Graeci, Hildesheim / Munich / Zurich. Taillardat, J. (1965): Les images d’ Aristophane: Études de langue et de style, Paris. Talbot, A. M. (1991): ‘Apostoles Michael’, in A. P. Kazhdan (ed.) The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford / New York, I 140–1. Taplin, O. (1975): ‘The Title of Prometheus Desmotes’, JHS 95, 184–6. Taplin, O. (1993): Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama through VasePaintings, Oxford. Tartaglia, G. (2019): Fragmenta Comica 16.1: Alkenor-[Asklepiodo]ros, Göttingen. Telò, M. (2019): ‘Roman Comedy and the Poetics of Adaptation’, in M. T. Dinter (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Roman Comedy, Cambridge, 47–65. Theodoridis, Ch. (1982–2012): Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, 3 vols, Berlin / Boston. Thimme, O. (1935): Φύσις, Τρόπος, Ἦθος, Göttingen. Thompson, C. (ed.) (2013): Shipwreck in Art and Literature: Images and Interpretations from Antiquity to the Present Day, New York / London. Thompson, D. J. (1988): Memphis under the Ptolemies (2nd ed. 2012), Princeton. Thompson, D. W. (1936): A Glossary of Greek Birds, London. Thompson, D. W. (1947): A Glossary of Greek Fishes, London. Thonemann, P. (2015): The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources, Cambridge. Thorsen, T. S. / Harrison, S. (eds) (2019): Roman Receptions of Sappho, Oxford. Tichy, E. (1983): Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen, Sb Akad. (Wien) 409.14, Vienna. Tittmann, J. A. H. (1808): Ioannis Zonarae Lexicon, 2 vols, Leipzig. Tod, M. N. (1946–49): A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (GHI), 2 vols, Oxford. Tod, M. N. (1957): ‘Sidelights on Greek Philosophers’, JHS 77, 132–41. Todd, S. C. (2007): A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1–11, Oxford. Toepffer, J. (1889): Attische Genealogie, Berlin. Toepffer, J. (1897): ‘Buzygai’, ‘Buzyges’, RE III 1, 1094–7. Tolles, D. (1943): The Banquet-Libations of the Greeks, Ann Arbor. Töppel, J. (1846): De Eupolidis adulatoribus commentatio, Leipzig. Topper, K. (2012): The Imagery of the Athenian Symposium, Cambridge. Torchio, M. C. (2021): Fragmenta Comica 10.7: Aristophanes fr. 392–486, Göttingen. Tosi, R. (1994): ‘La lessicografia e la paremiografia in età alessandrina ed il loro sviluppo successivo’, in F. Montanari (ed.) La philologie grecque à l’ époque hellénistique et romaine, Entr. Fond, Hardt 40, Geneva, 143–210. Tosi, R. (2015): ‘Typology of Lexicographical Works’, in F. Montanari / S. Matthaios / A. Rengakos (eds) Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, Leiden, Vol. I 622–40. Totaro, P. (1998): ‘Amipsia’, in A. M. Belardinelli / O. Imperio / G. Mastromarco / M. Pellegrino / P. Totaro (eds) Tessere: Frammenti della commedia greca, Bari, 133–94. Traill, A. (2008): Women and the Comic Plot in Menander, Cambridge. Traill, J. (1994 -2012): Persons of Ancient Athens (PAA), 21 vols, Toronto.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

253

Treister, M. Y. (1996): The Role of Metals in Ancient Greek History, Leiden. Trendall, A. D. (19672): Phlyax Vases, London. Trendall, A. D. / Webster, T. B. L. (1971): Illustrations of Greek Drama, London. Trenkner, S. (1958): The Greek Novella in the Classical Period, Cambridge. Tribulato, O. (ed.) (2012): Language and Linguistic Contact in Ancient Sicily, Cambridge. Tribulato, O. (2019a): ‘Ammonius’, in A. H. Sommerstein (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Malden, 42. Tribulato, O. (2019b): ‘Pollux, Julius’, in A. H. Sommerstein (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Malden, 739–40. Tribulato, O. (2019c): ‘Antiatticist’, in A. H. Sommerstein (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Malden, 57–8. Tsantsanoglou, K. (1973): ‘The Memoirs of a Lady from Samos’, ZPE 12, 183–95. Tuchelt, K. (1962): Tiergefäße in Kopf und Protomengestalt, Berlin. Tucker, T. G. (1908): ‘Emendations in Athenaeus’, CQ 2, 184–209. Tuplin, C. (ed.) (2004): Xenophon and his World: Papers from a Conference Held in Liverpool in July 1999, Stuttgart. Turner, E. G. / Parsons, P. J. (19872): Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (GMAW2), BICS Supp. 46, London. Tylawsky, E. I. (2002): Saturio’s Inheritance: The Greek Ancestry of the Roman Comic Parasite, New York / Oxford. Tyler, I. (2020): Stigma: The Machinery of Inequality, London. Tyrrell, W. B. (2020): ‘Life of Euripides’, in A. Markantonatos (ed.) Brill’s Companion to Euripides, Leiden / Boston, Vol. I, 11–28. Ueding, G. (ed.) (1992– ): Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Tübingen. Ussher, R. G. (1973): Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae, Oxford. Ussher, R. G. (19932): The Characters of Theophrastus, London. Valente, S. (2015): The Antiatticist, Berlin / Boston. Van der Valk, M. (1971–87): Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes ad fidem codicis Laurentiani editi, 4 vols, Leiden. Van Effenterre, H. (1963): ‘Trublion’, RPh 37, 41–6. Van Hooff, A. J. L. (1990): From Autothanasia to Suicide: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity, London / New York. Vannini, L. (2012): ‘Papiri con edizioni commentate’, in P. Schubert (ed.) Actes du 26ème Congrès International de Papyrologie, Geneva, 801–5. Van Nortwick, T. (1989): ‘ “Do not Go Gently”: Oedipus at Colonus and the Psychology of Aging’, in T. S. Faulkner / J. De Luce (eds) Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature, New York, 132–56. Van Nuffelen, P. (ed.) (2009): Faces of Hellenism: Studies in the History of the Eastern Mediterranean (4th Century BC – 5th Century AD), Louvain. Veisse, A. (2009): ‘L’ expression “ennemi des dieux” ’, in P. Van Nuffelen (ed.) Faces of Hellenism: Studies in the History of the Eastern Mediterranean (4th Century BC – 5th Century AD), Louvain, 169–77. Vermeule, E. (1979): Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, Los Angeles / London. Villard, L. / Blondé, F. (1991): ‘À propos de deux vases (le trublion et l’ oxybaphe): L’ apport de la “Collection Hippocratique” ’, REG 104, 202–31. Voigt, E. M. (1971): Sappho et Alcaeus, Amsterdam. Vojatzi, M. (1982): Frühe Argonautenbilder, Würzburg. Vollgraff, J. C. (1882): ‘Lanx satura’, Mnemosyne 10, 413–23.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

254

Bibliography

Von Reden, S. (1998): ‘The Commodification of Symbols: Reciprocity and its Perversions in Menander’, in C. Gill / N. Postlethwaite / R. A. S. Seaford (eds) Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 255–78. Von Reden, S. (2010): Money in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge. Wagler, P. (1894): ‘Ἀμυγδαλῆ’, RE I, 1990–5. Wakefield, A. B. (1789–95): Silva Critica, sive in Auctores Sacros Profanosque Commentarius Philologus, 5 parts, 8 vols, Cambridge. Walbank, F. W. (1957): A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols, Oxford. Walker, J. (2000): Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity, Oxford. Wallace, R. W. (2003): ‘An Early Fifth-Century Athenian Revolution in Aulos Music’, HSCPh 101, 73–92. Walsh, J.St. P. (2013): ‘Consumption and Choice in Ancient Sicily’, in F. De Angelis (ed.) Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity, Leuven / Paris / Walpole, 229–46. Walshe, T. M. (2016): Neurological Concepts in Ancient Greek Medicine, Oxford. Wankel, H. (1976): Demosthenes: Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz, Heidelberg. Wartenberg, G. (1973): ‘Der Soldat in der griechisch-hellenistischen Komödie’, in W. Hofmann / G. Wartenberg Der Bramarbas in der antiken Komödie, Berlin, 9–82. Watkins, R. (19952): ‘Cherry, Plum, Peach, Apricot and Almond’, in N. W. Simmonds / J. Smartt (eds) Evolution of Crop Plants, London, 423–9. Watson, L. (1991): Arae: The Curse Poetry of Antiquity, Leeds. Webster, T. B. L. (1952): ‘Chronological Notes on Middle Comedy’, CQ n. s. 2, 13–26. Webster, T. B. L. (1954): ‘Personification as a Mode of Greek Thought’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 17, 10–21. Webster, T. B. L. (19602): Studies in Menander, Manchester. Webster, T. B. L. (19702): Studies in Later Greek Comedy, Manchester. Webster, T. B. L. (1974): An Introduction to Menander, Manchester. Wehrli, F. (1936): Motivstudien zur griechischen Komödie, Zurich. Wehrli, F. (1957): Die Schule des Aristoteles, Vol. IX: Phainias von Eresos, Chamaileon, Praxiphanes, Basel. Wehrli, F. (19672): Die Schule des Aristoteles, Vol. II: Aristoxenos, Basel. Wehrli, F. (19692): Die Schule des Aristoteles, Vol. X: Hieronymos von Rhodos, Kritolaos und seine Schüler, Basel. Welters, L. (2006): ‘Textiles’, in N. Wilson (ed.) Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece, New York, 692–3. Werth, N. (2006): Hekate: Untersuchungen zur dreigestaltigen Göttin, Hamburg. Wessely, K. (1891): ‘Bruchstücke einer optischen Schrift aus dem Altertum’, WS 13, 312–23. Wessner, P. (1902–8): Aeli Donati quod fertur commentum Terenti, 3 vols, Leipzig. West, M. L. (1966): Hesiod: Theogony, Oxford. West, M. L. (1974): Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Berlin / New York. West, M. L. (1982): Greek Metre, Oxford. West, M. L. (1985): The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, Oxford. West, M. L. (1989–922): Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum Cantata, 2 vols, Oxford. West, M. L. (1992): Ancient Greek Music, Oxford. West, S. (1994): ‘Prometheus Orientalized’, MH 51, 129–49. Wheeler, E. (1988): ‘Πολλὰ κενὰ τοῦ πολέμου: The History of a Greek Proverb’, GRBS 29, 153–84.  Whitehorne, J. E. G. (1975): ‘Golden Statues in Greek and Latin Literature’, G&R 22, 109–19. Wikander, O. (ed.) (2000): Handbook of Ancient Water Technology, Leiden/Boston/Cologne.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Bibliography

255

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1913): Sappho und Simonides: Untersuchungen über griechische Lyriker, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1914): Aeschyli tragoediae, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1925): Menander: Das Schiedsgericht (repr. 1958), Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1935–72): Kleine Schriften, 6 vols, Berlin. Wiles, D. (1989): ‘Marriage and Prostitution in Classical New Comedy’, in J. Redmond (ed.) Women in Theatre: Themes in Drama XI, Cambridge, 31–48. Wilkins, J. / Harvey, F. D. / Dobson, M. (eds) (1995): Food in Antiquity, Exeter. Wilkins, J. (1997): ‘Comic Cuisine: Food and Eating in the Comic Polis’, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.) The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama, Chapel Hill / London, 250–70. Wilkins, J. (2000a): The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy, Oxford. Wilkins, J. (2000b): ‘Edible Choruses’, in D. Harvey / J. Wilkins (eds) The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, Swansea, 341–54. Wilkins, J. (2000c): ‘Athenaeus and the Fishes of Archippus’, in D. Braund / J. Wilkins (eds) Athenaeus and his World, Exeter, 523–35. Wilkins, J. (2002): ‘La synthèse d’ Athénée’, in J. Jouanna / L. Villard (eds) Vin et Santé en Grèce ancienne, Paris, 181–9. Wilkins, J. / Hill, S. (2006): Food in the Ancient World, Oxford / Malden / Victoria. Wilkins, J. / Nadeau, R. (eds) (2015): A Companion to Food in the Ancient World, Malden / Oxford. Willi, A. (ed.) (2002): The Language of Greek Comedy, Oxford. Willi, A. (2002): ‘The Language of Greek Comedy: Introduction and Bibliographical Sketch’, in A. Willi (ed.) The Language of Greek Comedy, Oxford, 1–32. Willi, A. (2003): The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek, Oxford. Willi, A. (2010): ‘The Language of Old Comedy’, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.) Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 471–510. Willi, A. (2014): ‘The Language(s) of Comedy’, in in M. Revermann (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, Cambridge, 168–85. Williams, D. (ed.) (1998): The Art of the Greek Goldsmith, London. Williams, T. (1962): ‘The Curses of Bouzyges: New Evidence’, Mnemosyne 15.4, 396–8. Williams, T. (1963): ‘Towards the Recovery of a Prologue from Menander’, Hermes 91.3, 287–333. Williamson, M. (1995): Sappho’s Immortal Daughters, Cambridge (Mass.) / London. Willink, C. W. (1986): Euripides: Orestes, Oxford. Wilson, N. G. (1975): Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Acharnenses, Groningen. Wilson, N. G. (2007): Aristophanis Fabulae, 2 vols, Oxford. Wilson, P. (1997): ‘Amymon of Sikyon: A First Victory in Athens and a First Tragic Khoregic Dedication in the City? (SEG 23, 103b)’, ZPE 118, 174–8. Wilson, P. (1999): ‘The Aulos in Athens’, in S. Goldhill / R. Osborne (eds) Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, Cambridge, 58–95. Wilson, P. (2002): ‘The Musicians among the Actors’, in P. E. Easterling / E. Hall (eds) Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, Cambridge, 39–68. Wilson, P. (2004): ‘Athenian Strings’, in P. Murray / P. Wilson (eds) Music and the Muses: The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City, Oxford, 269–306. Wilson, P. (ed.) (2007): The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies, Oxford.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

256

Bibliography

Worthington, I. (ed.) (1996): Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece, Leiden / New York / Cologne. Wrenhaven, K. L. (2012): Reconstructing the Slave: The Image of the Slave in Ancient Greece, Bristol. Wright, M. (2013): ‘Poets and Poetry in Later Greek Comedy’, CQ 63.2, 603–22. Wüst, E. (1950): ‘Epicharmos und die alte attische Komödie’, RhM 93, 337–64. Wysk, H. (1921): Die Gestalt des Soldaten in der griechisch-römischen Komödie, Diss. Giessen. Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. (1980): Studies in Fourth-Century Tragedy, Athens. Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. (1994): ‘The Comic Fragment in PSI 1175: Commentary and Literary Motifs’, Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrology, Copenhagen, 336–43. Xenis, G. A. (2021): Scholia vetera in Sophoclis Antigonam, Berlin / Boston. Yatromanolakis, D. (2008): Sappho in the Making: The Early Reception, Washington DC. Youd, D. (2021): ‘Getting Bronze in the Sun: Making Sense of the Remains of Plautus’ Vidularia’, CPh 116, 424–35. Yunis, H. (2001): Demosthenes: On the Crown, Cambridge. Zagagi, N. (1994): The Comedy of Menander: Convention, Variation and Originality, London. Zanetto, G. (2001): ‘Iambic Patterns in Aristophanic Comedy’, in A. Cavarzere / A. Aloni / A. Barchiesi (eds) Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to Late Roman Empire, Lanham / New York / Oxford, 65–76. Zanetto, G. (2014): ‘La tragedia in Menandro: dalla paratragedia alla citazione’, in A. Casanova (ed.) Menandro e l’ evoluzione della commedia greca, Florence, 83–103. Ziegler, K. (1950): ‘Plutarchos’, RE XXI 1, 636–962. Ziegler, K. (1963): ‘Pyrrha (nr. 13–16)’, RE XLVII, 80. Ziehen, L. (1949): ‘Παράσιτοι (1)’, RE XVIII 4, 1377–81. Zimmermann, B. (1991): ‘Nephelokokkygia: Riflessioni sull’ utopia comica’, in W. Rösler / B. Zimmermann (eds) Carnevale e utopia nella Grecia antica, Bari, 53–101. Zimmermann, B. (ed.) (2001): Rezeption des antiken Dramas auf der Bühne und in der Literatur, Stuttgart / Weimar. Zimmermann, B. (20062): Die griechische Komödie, Frankfurt am Main. Zimmermann, B. (2014): ‘Knemons Brunnensturz’, in A. Casonova (ed.) Menandro e l’ evoluzione della commedia greca, Florence, 51–61. Zimmermann, B. (2022): ‘Spielfeld der Phantasie? Grenzen und Möglichkeiten der Arbeit mit Komödienfragmenten’, in M. De Poli/ G. E. Rallo/ B. Zimmermann (eds) Sub palliolo sordido: Studi sulla commedia frammentaria greca e latina, Göttingen, 25–38. Zohary, D. / Hopf, M. / Weiss, E. (20124): Domestication of Plants in the Old World, Oxford. Zuntz, G. (1965): An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides, Cambridge.

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

257

Indices Index fontium Ammon. Adfin. vocab. diff. 200: fr. 69 Antiatt. α 89: fr. 82 Antiatt. o 7: fr. 83 Ath. 4.156F: fr. 64 Ath. 6.225A: fr. 67 Ath. 6.236B: fr. 61 Ath. 6.238F: fr. 62 Ath. 6.247A: fr. 74 Ath. 6.247C: fr. 75 Ath. 6.247D: fr. 63, fr. 76 Ath. 6.258E: Telesias test. ii Ath. 10.422A-B: fr. 60 Ath. 11.484E: fr. 81 Ath. 11.486F: fr. 70 Ath. 13.599D: fr. 71 Ath. 14.640C-D: fr. 80 Ath. 14.657E: fr. 78 Cod. Ambros. rescr. G 82, fol. 498v: Sche-

dia test. i Et. Magn. p. 683,19–31 (Gaisford): fr. 79 Eust. in Il. 20.232–5: fr. 60 Eust. in Od. 4.10: fr. 66 Harp. δ 24: fr. 73 Harp. φ 22: fr. 77 IG II2 2363: Stratiōtēs, Synōris, Sphattomenos, Telesias test. i, Tēthē, Philadelphos/ -oi Orus fr. 136: fr. 79 P. Louvre 7733v , 33–35: fr. 59 Phot. o 388: fr. 85 Phot. ρ 16: fr. 68 Poll. 9.81: fr. 72 Prov. Par. Suppl. 676: fr. 65 Stob. 4.50b.67: fr. 84 Sud. ρ 8: fr. 68

Index verborum Graecorum ἀγαθός: 123, 125 ’Αγαθὸς Δαίμων: 101, 104–105 ἀγαπάω: 131, 136 ἀγγεῖον: 23, 27 ἀγνοέω: 43, 46 ἀγοράζω: 110 ’Αθήνησιν: 78, 80 Αἰγιναῖος: 78, 89–90 αἷμα: 36, 43 ἀλείφω: 140, 143 ἀλεκτρυών: 70, 72, 74 ἀμύγδαλον: 172, 174, 177–178 ἀμφότερος: 78 ἀναψύχω: 194, 195 ἀνδραπόδιον: 183, 185, 189 ἀνήρ: 52, 131 ἀνθηρόν: 52, 54, 56 ἀνθίας: 52, 55, 59 ἄξιος: 110, 113 ἀπαλλάττω: 131, 133

ἀπογαλακτίζω: 140, 141, 144–145 ἀποδείκνυμι: 123, 127 ἀποδίδωμι: 78 ἀποκρίνομαι: 78 ἀρά: 43 ἀργύριον: 78, 89 ἄριστα: 131 ἀρτίως: 70 ἄρτος: 23 ’Αρχίλοχος: 101, 105 ἀστεῖος: 131, 134–135 ἀσύμβολος: 131, 137–138 ἀτενές: 36, 41 ’Αττικός: 78, 90 βάλλω: 131, 135 βατιάκη: 183, 187, 189 βαφεύς: 123, 125–126 βίος: 131, 137 γαστήρ: 23, 29–30, 31 γένος: 78, 80, 84

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

258

Indices

γέ τοι: 131, 136–137 γηθέω: 36, 37–38 γίγνομαι: 24, 27 γλαφυρόν: 52, 54, 56 γυνή: 131 δεῖ: 47, 78 δειπνάριον: 52, 54, 56 δειπνίζω: 43, 44, 47 δεῖπνον: 36, 38 δέκα: 78 δευσοποιός: 123, 124, 126 δέχομαι: 101, 103 διακύπτω: 212, 213 διασύρω: 145, 147 διαφθείρω: 23, 32, 43, 46 δοκιμάζω: 36, 39 δρᾶμα: 131 δραχμή: 131, 135 δύο: 110, 113–114 δυσάρεστος: 47, 48 δυσώδης: 52, 59 δῶρον: 95, 96–97 εἴκοσι: 183, 190 εἰμί: 43, 78, 91, 131, 140, 205 εἰσφορέω: 23 ἐκεῖνος: 13 ἐκπέμπω: 70, 71, 73 ἔκπωμα: 183, 184, 190 ἕλκω: 150, 152 ἐμβάλλω: 23, 26, 31, 150, 151, 152–153 ἐναύω: 43, 44 ἔνειμι: 123, 126 ἐνταῦθα: 78 ἐξέρχομαι: 91, 92 ἐξεστηκώς: 13, 18 ἔοικα: 78 ἔπειτα: 78 ἐπίβουλον: 78, 85 ἐπιδορπίζομαι: 172, 178 ἐπιχορεύω: 52, 57–58 ἐρωτάω: 78 ἐσθίω: 145, 146 ἕτερον: 23 εὖ: 23, 29, 131 εὐθέως: 36 εὐθύς: 70 Εὐριπίδης: 23, 131, 135 εὑρίσκομαι: 95, 96, 97

ἐχθρός: 23, 34 ἔχω: 36, 78, 90, 110 Ζεὺς Σωτήρ: 101, 104 ζωμός: 23, 32 ἡδέως: 172, 178 ἥκιστα: 183, 189 θεός: 23, 34, 86, 95, 96, 131, 139 θηρίον: 78, 80, 84 ἱερός: 78, 86 ‘Ιππῶναξ: 105 ἰχθυοπώλης: 78 κάδος: 36, 40 κακός: 205, 208, 209 καλέω: 36 καλός: 212, 213 καπνός: 36 κάραβος: 23, 34 καταβάλλω: 78 καταλλαγή: 78, 90 κατανοέω: 36, 39 κατάχρυσος: 23, 29 κελεύω: 164, 166 κεραμίς: 212 κέρμα: 78 κιθαρῳδός: 145, 148–149 κίκιννος: 110, 111, 113 κίχλη: 52, 55, 59–60 κοκκύζω: 70, 73–74 κόμη: 78, 86 κομήτης: 63, 66–67 Κορίνθιος: 36, 40 κρίνομαι: 145, 149–150 κτάομαι: 131, 137 κύβος: 131, 134 κωλύω: 43, 44 λάβραξ: 78, 88–89 λαβρώνιος: 183, 185, 186, 187, 189 λάγυνος: 23, 34 λέγω: 23, 52, 131 λεπτός: 36 λίτρα: 110, 113–114 μάγειρος: 36, 41–42 μάζα: 23, 33 μέγας: 52, 54 μέλει: 131, 139 μέλλω: 43 μέσον: 52, 57, 150, 152 μεστός: 52, 57, 101, 104

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Index verborum Graecorum μετανιπτρίς: 101, 103–104 μεταπλάττω: 205, 209 μέτωπον: 78, 87 μόνος: 78 μυρτίς: 172, 176–177 νὴ Δία: 70, 72–73 νικάω: 23, 26, 30 νοέω: 36 νόστος: 131, 138 νοῦς: 131, 140 ξένος: 205, 208 ὀβολός: 78 ὁδός: 43 οἶδα: 145 οἰνάριον: 23, 33 οἶνος: 195, 196 οἴομαι: 78, 83 ὄλλυμι: 131, 138 ὁμολογέομαι: 23, 35 ὄνομα: 183 ὄντως: 70, 71 ὀξίνης: 195, 196–197 ὀπαῖος: 212 ὁποδαπός: 78, 80 ὁράω: 131, 145, 147, 183, 185, 212 ὀργίζομαι: 140, 142–143 ὀρθόν: 36 ὄρθριος: 70, 73 ὀρθῶς: 43 οὐκ ἀλλά: 143 παιδίον: 123, 126, 140, 144 παῖς: 183, 186, 190–191 πάλαι: 131 πανταχοῦ: 24, 35, 78 παντελῶς: 123 παραπέτασμα: 78, 87 παρασιτέω: 47, 48 παράσιτος: 131, 140, 143, 145 πάτρα: 131 πήρα: 23, 32, 61–62, 65 πλάγιος: 36 πλακοῦς: 172, 177 πλέκω: 164, 165 πλούσιος: 36 πόθεν: 131 ποιέω: 36, 38, 153 πολιός: 205, 206 πολύ: 23, 52

259

πονηρός: 78, 84 πόρκος: 164, 165, 166–167 πράττομαι: 78, 89 πρίστις: 183, 187–188 προσαποδίδωμι: 78, 80, 90 πρὸς τῆς ῾Εστίας: 183, 186, 190 προστίθημι: 24, 27, 35, 78, 80 πρῶτον: 23, 52, 78, 84 πτερύττομαι: 36, 37–38, 42–43 πυκνός: 164 πῦρ: 43, 46 ῥαγδαῖος: 91, 92 Σάμος: 63, 65–66 σαπέρδης: 52, 54–55, 58 σκοπέομαι: 131, 140 σπάργανον: 123, 127 σπυρίς: 23, 33 στέγη: 36, 39 στίζομαι: 78, 86–87 στυγέω: 131, 136 σφόδρα: 13, 18–19, 47, 52, 56, 212, 213 σφοδρός: 36, 42 σῴζω: 131, 132 τάλας: 24, 35 ταλαίπωρος: 23, 31, 35 ταχέως: 164, 166 τέχνη: 145, 147–148 τεχνίτης: 205, 207–208 τηρέω: 36, 41 τίθεμαι: 131, 135 Τιμόθεος: 153, 154, 157–158 τότε: 145 τοὐλάχιστον: 131 τραγέλαφος: 183, 187, 188–189 τραγῳδία: 131 τράπεζα: 140, 143 τρεῖς: 131 τρέφω: 78, 86, 131 τρέχω: 36 τρίγλυφον: 36, 39 τρύβλιον: 52, 54, 57 τρωγάλιον: 172, 175–176 τυγχάνω: 131, 138 ὕδωρ: 43, 46 ὑπερακοντίζω: 78, 86 ὑπό τι: 52, 59 ὑποτίθημι: 131, 135 φακῆ: 23, 33, 52, 54, 56–57

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

260

Indices

φέρω: 23, 36, 52, 57 φέψαλος: 13, 19–20 φημί: 78 φιμός: 150, 152 φράζω: 43, 44, 46 φύσις: 78, 85 χαίρω: 36, 37–38, 42, 205, 208

χηνιάζω: 153, 154, 156–157 χολή: 140, 143–144 χρεία: 23, 26, 30–31 χρόνος: 205, 206, 207 χρυσοῦς: 183, 190 ὥσπερ: 78, 84, 140, 144

Index rerum et personarum accumulation: 28, 176, 187 Alcaeus (comic poet): Palaistra: 129 Alciphron Letters of the Courtesans: 129 Alexis Adelphoi: 179 Agōnis: 128, 129 Apeglaukōmenos: 80, 88 Archilochus: 103 Chorēgis: 128 Crateia ē Pharmakopōlēs: 115, 117 Daktylios: 203 Dēmētrios: 115, 141 Didymoi: 179 Dorkis ē Poppyzousa: 80, 128 Hē eis to phrear: 202 Hellēnis: 80 Epistolē: 203 Hippeus: 117 Karchēdonios: 193 Kybernētēs: 37, 38, 148 Κybeutai: 134 Lebēs: 72, 80, 81 Mandragorizomenē: 80, 120, 126 Meropis: 128 Opōra: 129 Pannychis: 72 Parasitos: 21–22 Phaedon: 80 Philetairos: 115 Phrygios: 141 Pontikos: 80 Pylaia: 80 Stratiōtēs: 115, 116 Synapothnēskontes: 24, 25, 27, 118

Syntrophoi: 122–123 Syrakosios: 108–109 Titthē: 179 alliteration: 166 Ameipsias Sapphō: 98, 101 Amphis Daktylios: 203 Κybeutai: 134 Leucas: 99 Philadelphoi: 192, 193, 199, 200 Planos: 80, 88 Sapphō: 98 amplification: 23, 37–38, 42, 45 anaphora: 23, 28, 31, 80 annotated edition: 15 Anaxandrides Achilles: 93 Didymoi: 179 Samia: 66 Anaxilas Agroikos: 65, 134 Chrysochoos: 210 Mageiroi: 42 Monotropos: 199 Neottis: 139 Anaxippus Phrear: 202 Antiatticist: 71, 194–195, 196 Antiphanes Adelphai: 179 Agroikos/Agroikoi: 28, 65, 91, 115, 134, 138 Aphroditēs Gonai: 133, 152 Boutaliōn: 115 Chrysis: 128

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Index rerum et personarum Antiphanes [cont.] Deucalion: 93, 94 Didymai: 179 Didymoi: 37, 48, 142, 179 Halieuomenē: 80 Gorgythos: 80 Kitharōidos: 165, 167 Κybeutai: 134 Lampas: 102 Lēmniai: 148 Lykōn: 88 Misoponēros: 80, 82 Moichoi: 80 Neaniskoi: 80 Phaon: 98–99 Philothēbaios: 80 Plousioi: 80 Progonoi: 37, 38, 44, 148, 203 Sapphō: 98, 100 Stratiōtēs ē Tychōn: 115, 116 Traumatias: 27, 138 fr. inc. 239: 52 antithesis/contrast: 23, 28, 31, 38, 42, 55, 84, 107, 112, 136, 208 Aphareus Peliades: 50 Apollodorus of Carystos Sphattomenē: 160 Apollodorus of Gela Apoleipousa: 203 Deusopoios: 126 Philadelphoi ē Apokarterōn: 192, 193, 199, 200 Araros Hymenaios: 21 Archilochus (as a comic character): 99–100, 101, 102–103, 105–107 Archippus Amphitryon: 141 Ichthyes: 57, 80, 82 Aristophanes Acharnians: 77, 102, 117, 127, 158, 207 Aiolosikōn: 42, 50, 141 Anagyros: 202 Clouds: 76, 77, 141, 142 Cocalus: 50 Daitalēs: 91 Danaides: 50

261

Aristophanes [cont.] Dionysos Nauagos: 161 Ekklēsiazousai: 102, 116, 213 Frogs: 99, 152 Knights: 77, 102 Lysistrata: 136 Nēsoi: 76, 77 Peace: 76, 77, 141, 158, 204, 212 Phoinissai: 50 Thesmophoriazousai: 136, 141, 183, 207 Wasps: 77 Wealth: 76, 141, 212 Aristophanes of Byzantium: 71, 150, 151 Aristophon Didymoi: 179 Iatros: 37, 38, 48, 148 Pythagoristēs: 37 Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics: 200–201 Politika: 77, 148 Rhetoric: 127, 142 fr. 545 R.3: 149 Axionicus Chalkidikos: 38, 48, 148 bathetic effect: 28, 29–30 Caecilius Statius Titthē: 179 Callias (comic poet) Cyclopes: 102, 103 catalogue/list: 28, 31–32, 56, 58, 60, 80, 93, 102, 169, 174, 176, 177–178, 186–187, 188 Cephisodorus Antilais: 128 citharode: 130, 145, 146, 147, 148–150, 158 coinage (Aeginetan, Attic, Peloponnesian, Sicilian): 89–90, 113–114 colloquialism: 33, 59, 130, 136–137, 146, 147, 190 comedies (types of) anagnōrisis/recognition: 61, 62, 122–123, 125, 127, 161–162, 163, 179, 180, 194 domestic: 41, 179–180, 192 dominant idea: 76 intrigue: 118, 120, 128, 180, 183 mythological: 50–52, 93–94, 98, 99, 107, 211

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

262

Indices

contaminatio: 69, 120 cook: 27, 36, 41–42, 45, 52, 56, 70, 72, 83, 91, 109, 116, 122, 138, 148, 153 courtesan/hetaira: 54, 66, 77, 81, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 96, 105, 106, 118, 119, 120, 128–129, 130, 131, 132–133, 134, 139, 151, 152, 172 Crates Samioi: 66 Cratinus Archilochoi: 98, 103 Cheirōnes: 149 Dionysalexandros: 50, 159, 171 Nemesis: 50 Seriphioi: 50 fr. inc. 344: 70, 71 fr. inc. 399: 113 Criton Philopragmōn: 75 Damoxenus Syntrophoi: 122–123, 156 degradation: 36, 51, 94, 107 Demetrius Sikelia: 108 Demetrius II Areopagitēs: 155 Demetrius Poliorkētēs: 117 Diocles Thalatta: 129 Thyestes: 141 Diodorus Epiklēros: 17, 22, 44, 45, 48, 138, 143, 147 Diogenianus: 64–65, 66 disability (physical): 11–12 double entendre: 66, 82, 126, 135, 139, 144 Duris: 64, 65 ekkyklēma: 100, 175 ellipsis: 26 enjambment: 157, 165 Epicharmus Elpis ē Ploutos: 21, 37, 38, 48, 114 Harpagai: 110–111, 114 Hēbas Gamos: 115 Mousai: 115 Odysseus Nauagos: 161 Pyrrha kai Promatheus: 93, 94

Epicrates Antilais: 128 epiphora: 130, 142 Ephippus Nauagos: 161 Sapphō: 98, 99, 100, 101, 107, 111 Eratosthenes: 64, 65, 141–142 Eubulus Anasōizomenoi: 80 Chrysilla: 129 Deucalion: 93, 94 Klepsydra: 129 Κybeutai: 134 Nannion: 129 Oedipus: 22, 38, 44, 45, 51, 137, 138 Pornoboskos: 88 Titthē: 179 Eumedes Sphattomenos: 160 Eunicus Anteia: 129 Eupolis Kolakes: 22, 37, 38, 45, 48, 88, 148 Euripides alleged misogynism of: 136, 156 Alope: 162 Antiope: 76, 137 Iphigenia in Tauris: 137, 138 Orestes: 117 Peliades: 49–50, 52 popularity of: 23–30, 135, 162, 169, 170, 171 fr. inc. 915 K.: 26, 29–30 exaggeration: 12, 23, 28, 34, 41, 55, 88, 90, 112, 138, 187, 188, 209 farce: 12 fish-eating: 59, 79–80 fishmongers, caricaturing of: 76–77, 78, 79–83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90 flatterer/toady: 22–23, 37, 38, 39, 48, 169, 171, 172 Gnathaena: 58, 77, 88, 129 glōssa: 101, 102, 103, 111, 151, 195, 212 hapax legomena: 16, 156 Hegesippus Philetairoi: 199, 200 Heniochus Polypragmōn: 75

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Index rerum et personarum Hermippus Phormophoroi: 173, 174 Stratiōtai or Stratiōtides: 115, 116 Hesiod Theogony: 208 Hipparchus Thais: 185 Hipponax (as a comic character): 99–100, 105–107 Homer Odyssey (nostos-pattern): 161 hypomnēmata: 15, 147 imagery: 29, 41, 43, 57–58, 77, 126, 130, 134, 144, 193, 207–208 incongruity: 28, 32, 35, 125, 137 invective (personal)/onomasti komoidein: 117, 130, 155–156, 168–169, 182 litotēs: 189, 201 Lucian Dialogues of the Courtesans: 129 Harmonides: 158 On the Parasite: 136, 147 Lysippus Bacchae: 202 Machon: 58, 77, 88, 129, 152–153 Magnes Dionysus: 141 meiōsis: 59 Menander Adelphoi A: 179, 192 Adelphoi B: 118–119, 179, 193 Agroikos: 65, 76, 134 Andria: 120 Anepsioi: 179 Apistos: 76 Aspis: 72, 120, 137, 201 Chēra: 179 Daktylios: 159, 171, 203 Dardanus: 51 Deisidaimōn: 76 Dis Exapatōn: 159, 171, 193 Dyskolos: 12, 38, 45, 72, 76, 102, 121, 148, 154, 155, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204 Encheiridion: 203 Epiklēros: 141 Epitrepontes: 51, 125, 133, 162, 179, 180, 194, 212 Eunouchos: 117, 120

263

Menander [cont.] Halieus ē Halieis: 185 Hērōs: 123 Hippokomos: 156 Homopatrioi: 179 Hymnis: 128 Hypobolimaios: 179 Kitharistēs: 159, 171 Kolax: 22, 76, 117, 120, 169, 171–172 Kōneiazomenai: 120 Leucadia: 99, 101, 106, 109 Methē: 156 Misogynēs: 76 Misoumenos: 117, 120, 123 Orgē: 47, 156 Perikeiromenē: 18, 117, 123, 125, 194 Perinthia: 120 Phanion: 129 Phasma: 198 Philadelphoi: 185, 192, 193, 199, 200 Pseudo-Heracles: 51 Psophodeēs: 76 Samia: 17, 66, 91, 92, 102, 109, 125, 137, 156, 179, 180, 201, 211 Sikyōnios/-oi: 117, 123, 137 Stratiōtai: 115, 116 Synaristōsai: 193 Thais: 128, 129 Titthē: 179 Trophonius: 51 metaphor: 19, 29, 39, 42–43, 56, 57, 80–81, 86–87, 91, 92, 96, 97, 122, 125–126, 128, 130, 142, 143–144, 145, 146, 149, 152, 167, 194, 195, 196–197, 207 metatheatre: 28, 137, 155 Nicostratus Anterōsa: 102, 104 Mageiros: 42 obscenity: 35–36, 99, 125 oikos/household: 46, 72, 137, 190, 203, 204 Ophelion Deucalion: 93, 94 oratio recta (embedded): 27, 83, 88 P. Berol. 21163.3: 14 P. Giss. Lit. 3.4: 14 P. Hib. 6: 14 P. Louvre 7733: 11, 13–17 P. Oxy. 1801, col. ii, 18–19: 14

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

264

Indices

Panyasis: 96 Paramonus Nauagos: 161 para prosdokian: 23, 27, 28, 35, 45, 47, 130, 137, 146, 149, 160, 204, 206, 207 parasite anger of: 44, 45, 47, 48, 130, 141, 142–145, 146 character-development of: 21–23, 51, 52, 76, 171–172 self-importance of: 129–130, 138–140, 146–150 voracity of: 27–30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40–41, 43, 44, 45, 55, 116, 118, 136, 137, 138, 146, 169 paratragedy: 125, 193 parody/travesty: 12, 41, 51–52, 53–54, 56, 94, 99, 103, 117, 134, 139, 202 paronomasia: 23, 28, 32, 55, 135, 208 participle (present) in play-titles: 11, 118, 159 Persia (in comedy): 74, 181–191 personification: 30–31, 57–58, 124–125, 193, 204, 206, 207–208 Pherecrates Agrioi: 199, 200 Ipnos ē Pannychis: 72 Koriannō: 128 Petalē: 128 Thalatta: 128 Philemon Adelphoi: 179 Agroikos: 65, 76, 134 Agyrtēs: 76 Androphonos: 76 Apolis: 76 Chēra: 179 Daktylios: 63, 64 Deisidaimōn: 76 Encheiridion: 203 Hypobolimaios: 179 Mētion ē Zōmion: 155–156 Moichos: 76 Myrmidons: 51 Mystis: 173, 174 Neaira: 129 Nothos: 179 Paidarion: 179

Philemon [cont.] Palamedes: 51 Paroinos: 76 Philosophoi: 156 Ptōchē: 76, 198 Sikelikos: 108 Stratiōtēs: 115, 116, 137 Synapothnēskontes: 118 Synephēbos: 122 Philetaerus Achilles: 93 Asclepius: 102, 103–104 Philippides Philadelphoi: 192, 193, 199, 200 Philitas of Cos: 15, 151 Philonides Kothornoi: 47 Philoxenus Deipnon: 101, 102, 104, 168, 174 Philyllius Anteia: 129 Phrynichus Monotropos: 76, 199, 200 physiognomics: 85–86 physis: 85, 207 Plato (comic poet) Hellas ē Nēsoi: 202, 204 Phaon: 98–99 Poiētēs: 213 Zeus Kakoumenos: 133, 152 Plautus Aulularia: 88, 179 Asinaria: 133, 139, 152 Bacchides: 193 Casina: 119, 123, 133, 213 Captivi: 30, 48, 142, 148 Cistellaria: 123, 193 Commorientes: 118–119, 121, 202–203 Curculio: 133 Menaechmi: 109, 142, 148 Miles Gloriosus: 12, 106, 116, 212–213 Mostellaria: 133, 152 Parasitus Medicus: 21 Parasitus Piger: 21 Persa: 30, 183 Poenulus: 109, 179, 193 Pseudolus: 52, 155 Rudens: 14, 61–62, 68–69, 72, 109, 119, 123, 163, 193

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

Index rerum et personarum Plautus [cont.] Stichus: 30, 48, 155, 192, 193 Vidularia: 14, 161–167 Pollux: 18, 22, 48, 61, 62, 76, 89–90, 110–111, 117, 213 polis: 45, 75, 85, 155 polypragmosynē: 75–77 polyptōton: 23, 28, 35 Posidippus Syntrophoi: 122–123 postponed γάρ: 18, 31, 35 postponed δέ: 35, 190 priamel: 23, 38–39 punning: 32, 55, 129, 134, 135, 156, 182–183 quotations (tragic): 28, 29–30, 35, 56, 137, 138–139 reperformances/revivals (of old dramas): 28, 50, 198, 199, 201 revision of plays: 12, 115, 116, 117, 129, 130, 140, 141–142, 145, 146, 170, 172 ring-composition: 23, 28, 35 Sappho (as a comic character): 98–107, 156 Serapeum (in Memphis): 14–15 simile: 19, 43, 144, 163, 194 slapstick humour: 116, 119, 120 soldier: 11–13, 18, 51, 109, 115–117, 160 Sophilus Androcles: 81 Encheiridion: 203 Sophocles Palamedes: 134 Rhizotomoi: 49 Tyro: 51 fr. inc. 966a R.: 13–14, 16, 19 Sophron fr. inc. 71: 114 fr. inc. 146: 114 Sosicrates Philadelphoi: 192, 193, 199, 200 stock characters/types: 12, 21–22, 23, 37, 41–42, 51, 52, 61, 65, 69–70, 76–77, 116, 119, 128, 169, 172, 179, 180

265

symposium/banquet: 34, 37, 38, 95, 96, 98, 100, 102–103, 104, 105, 106, 117, 128, 129–130, 132–133, 139, 141, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 154, 155, 169, 174–175, 176, 183, 184, 186–187, 191, 196 Telecleides Prytaneis: 91 Sterroi: 141 Terence Adelphoe: 118–121, 193 Andria: 120 Eunuchus: 117, 120, 142, 148, 179, 211 Heautontimoroumenos: 179 Phormio: 179 Theophrastus Characters: 26, 76 Theopompus Odysseus: 136 Stratiōtides: 115, 116 Thucydides: 75 Timocles Daktylios: 203 Drakontion: 37, 38, 147 Epichairekakos: 88 Epistolai: 203 Ikarioi Satyroi: 80 Neaira: 129 Polypragmōn: 75, 76 Pyktēs: 47, 48 Sapphō: 98, 99, 101, 107 Timotheus (the aulete): 130, 153–158 tricolon crescendo: 42 Turpilius Leucadia: 99 wordplay: 28 Xenarchus Didymoi: 179 Pentathlos: 210–211 Porphyra: 80 Stratiōtēs: 115, 116 Xenophon Hellenica: 181 Zenobius: 64–65

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016

© 2024 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH ISBN Print: 9783911065009 — ISBN E-Book: 9783911065016