Menander 'Perikeiromene' or 'The Shorn Head' 1905670591, 9781905670598

Citation preview

MENANDER PERIKEIR OMENE

OR THE SHORN HEAD EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY BY WILLIAM FURLEY

IN S T IT U T E O F C L A S S IC A L S T U D IE S

SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

2015

The cover image shows Menander (right), with Glykera (centre), and Komodia, the Spirit of Comedy, in a Roman Mosaic pavement from the late 3rd century AD. Princeton Art Museum. All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-1-905670-59-8 © 2015 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. The right of William Furley to be identified as the author of the work published here has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and computer typeset by William Furley and at the Institute of Classical Studies. Printed by Short Run Press Limited, Bittern Road, Exeter EX2 7LW.

For Inga, Γλυκέραι έμήι

Acknowledgements Several people have helped my greatly by reading the whole or sections of this book: Rudolf Kassel (Köln), who scrutinized the Greek text and apparatus, Horst-Dieter Blume (Münster), who gave me the benefit of his deep knowledge of the playwright, Mike Edwards (Roehampton), who read the whole typescript with customary eagle eye, Jan Felix (Köln) and Bianca Gartner, who kindly read sections of the book. Jan Felix Gärtner also showed me the manuscript of his Habilitationsschrift on law in ancient comedy, prior to publication. All Alenandreans regret the passing of Eric Handley in 2013, who devoted a scholarly lifetime to editing, explaining and pro­ mulgating Menander; Eric kindly read and commented on an early version of the present edition, and sent me his own preliminary edition of lines 275-91 from the sec­ ond act. For remaining mistakes and idiosyncracies I take full responsibility. Others have helped by giving me access to images of relevant papyri and art works: Kathryn Gutzwiller (Cincinnati), Dirk Obbink (Oxford), the staff of the Princeton Art Mu­ seum, the keeper of manuscripts in Leipzig are among these. For help with production and presentation I am indebted to Richard Simpson of the Institute of Classical Stud­ ies for his expertise. I remain grateful to Michael Scholz (Mannheim) for his ΕΤβΧ makros which have helped set the verse of this edition. Heidelberg/London, February 2015

Contents List of F ig u res................................................................................................

xi

1 Introduction Menander and women ................................................................................. Alkiphron’s letters................................................................................. Other p l a y s .......................................................................................... The legal status of Glykera and Moschion .................................................. T h e ‘rape of the locks’ .................................................................................... Staging .......................................................................................................... M e t r e ................................................................................................... Who is Pataikos? .......................................................................................... The humour of P crikeirom ene.................................................................... Menander’s understated language................................................................. D a t e ................................................................................................................ Sources and T e x t .......................................................................................... List of Editions ....................................................................................

1 1 3 7 9 13 17 22 24 27 32 35 38 39

2

Text The c a s t .......................................................................................................... Act T w o .......................................................................................................... Act T h r e e ....................................................................................................... Act F o u r .......................................................................................................... Act F i v e .......................................................................................................... Miscellaneous unplaced fra g m e n ts..............................................................

43 43 48 54 57 62 66

3

Translation

67

4

Commentary 85 4.1 Act O n e ................................................................................................ 85 4.1.1 Scene One .............................................................................. 85 4.1.2 Scene Two: Prologue.............................................................. 90 4.1.3 Scene T h r e e : ..............................................................................101 4.2 Act T w o ................................................................................................... 106

CONTENTS 4.2.1 Scene One .................................................................................106 4.2.2 Scene T w o .................................................................................123 4.2.3 Scene T h re e .................................................................................132 4.3 Act T h r e e ................................................................................................ 133 4.3.1 Scene One .................................................................................133 4.3.2 Scene T w o .................................................................................137 4.3.3 Scene T h re e .................................................................................143 4.4 Act F o u r................................................................................................... 148 4.4.1 Scene One .................................................................................148 4.4.2 Scene T w o ? .................................................................................148 4.5 Act F iv e ................................................................................................... 165 4.5.1 Scene T w o .................................................................................165 4.5.2 Scene T h ree.................................................................................178 Bibliography...................................................................................................... 191 Index of English w o r d s ....................................................................................193 Index of Greek w o rd s .......................................................................................198 Index of main passages cited .......................................................................... 205

List of Figures 4.1 4.2 4.3

Glykera, Polemon and Sosias. Act one, scene one, of Perikeiromene. Floor mosaic from Daphne, Antioch..................................................... 86 Polemon?, P.Oxy. 2653; from an illustrated manuscript of Menander 88 Agnoia, P.Oxy. 2652; from an illustrated manuscript of Menander . 95

Chapter 1

Introduction Menander and women It is a commonplace of criticism that Menander admired Euripides. Quintilian says that Menander ‘strongly admired Euripides and, as is commonly acknowledged, fol­ lowed him’.1 One element of this affinity to Euripides is particularly important for Perikeiromene: a young woman who suffers unjust treatment at the hands of men is the star of the play. Euripides had loved this theme and made it prominent in a num­ ber of plays. One thinks of both Iphigeneias, of Makaria in Hcrakleidai, Polyxene in Hekabe, of Medea (although her case is somewhat different), Andromache in the play of her name, and the list could be extended considerably to take in lost plays. Although Euripides was accused of hating women and portraying them in a bad light,2 in fact he very often takes the woman's side in a mythical plot and shows how her goodness and innocence contrasts with the corrupt world of powerful men. It is precisely this championing of young women when they come up against their more powerful male relatives that marks out a number of Menander’s plays. In Epitrepontes the young wife Pamphile is portrayed as morally superior to her self-righteous husband and her reactionary father. She takes a firm stand to try to rescue her marriage against the bias of her husband and pressure to divorce from her father. In Sarnia it is Chrysis who is unjustly thrown out of Demeas’ home when she is suspected of infidelity, although she is only acting to cover for Demeas’s son Moschion. In Penkeiromene the motif of the young woman unjustly treated is at the heart of the play. Glykera, the young common-law wife of a mercenary officer Polemon, is seen kissing another man on her door-step while her partner is away. The man is in fact her brother and she knows it, but no one else does at this stage. She is denounced. Polemon has an angry tantrum, cutting off her hair in a brutal manner and going off to drink with his men friends, probably at an inn. The play develops from there. 1 Inst. Or. 10.1.69. Cf. Sehrt (1912), Vogt-Spira (2001), Cusset (2003, 6): Amott (1968a, 9-10). 2 Comically referred to in Aristoph. Thesm. 83-86.

Introduction

Menander has made Glykera’s position particularly vulnerable in order to em­ phasize the injustice she suffers and her moral fibre once the damage has been done. She does not enjoy citizen rights in Corinth so she can only be given to Polemon as his pallake, which we might gloss as ‘common-law wife’, instead of more old fashioned terms such as ‘mistress’ or ‘concubine’, which give the wrong impression now. More­ over, her common-law husband or partner is a military man, making him more prone to violence, as Doris, the maid, says. In the prologue we hear that Glykera has no sur­ viving relatives to protect her except for Moschion, her twin brother who was exposed with her when they were babies, and he is no help as he is unaware of his fraternity. Worse, he takes a fancy to the pretty Glykera living - sometimes alone - next door and wants her for himself. That is what starts the trouble. True, as Agnoia tells us in the prologue, this misfortune is the gateway to the recognitions which will usher in the happy resolution at the end, but we can see how Menander has set up the initial con­ ditions of the play to place Glykera in a particularly exposed position, and therefore deserving of our sympathy: she is young, without citizen rights, kept by a man who is both potentially violent and often absent, and alone in the world. Perhaps Menander has placed his scene in Corinth to exacerbate the feeling that Glykera is alone in an alien environment. An Athenian audience might well have felt that anything could happen in a place like Corinth with its reputation for free-living and licentiousness.3 Moreover, Menander takes care in the prologue to emphasize the political instability of Corinth at that time (124-25). All these factors work to elicit our sympathy for Glykera from the outset. She is the victim of a combination of adverse circumstances for which she is certainly not re­ sponsible. But Glykera is no ‘damsel in distress’ as in fairy tales or courtly romance. In fact she takes matters into her own hands. She leaves Polemon‘s house and moves in with the friendly neighbours next door. It is then Polemon who regrets his impetuous actions and mourns the loss of Glykera. When Pataikos tries to intervene on his be­ half, to talk Glykera into returning to him, Glykera shows an independent mind quite capable of looking after her own interests. Finally it is Polemon who must abjectly ask for her forgiveness and implore her to return to him. In this way Menander elicits our admiration for Glykera’s stalwart heart in the face of all her difficulties.4 First he sets her up as an innocent victim of circumstances, then he shows her confronting the men around her with undaunted esprit. Here again Menander shows affinities with Euripides whose young heroines go bravely and selflessly to their undeserved deaths (Makaria, Iphigeneia [in Aulis], Polyxene). They are not rescued by a knight 3 Note e.g. Plato Rep. 404d5; cf. Gartner (forthcoming); Anderson (1986). 4 Cf. Henry' (1985, 73-84). On page 80 she writes ‘Thus it is clear that the men consider Glykera faithless, scheming, and defiant of social proprieties. In fact, she possesses qualities opposite to these: loyalty', reason, independence, decorum, and unselfishness. Her words and deeds indicate her loyally to her family; Menander also contrasts her actions with those of the other characters in order to further highlight her goodness.’

3 in shining armour but rather confront their fate with courage and resourcefulness.5 Alkiphron’s letters

Repeatedly, then, Menander places an attractive young woman at the heart of his comedies who comes off rather better than the young man interested in her. Ancient tradition had it that Menander himself was ‘quite crazy about women’.6 He was re­ puted to have had a particular fondness for one Glykera, coincidentally (or not) with the same name as the leading lady in Perikeiromene. Athenaios says it*was ‘com­ mon knowledge that Menander had a love affair with Glykera’ (15.594d).7 Literary sources and art works repeatedly name Menander’s pallake Glykera.8 One of the floor mosaics from the House of Menander in Daphne shows Menander in the company of the two ladies in his life, Komodia and Glykera.9 The story finds particular elabo­ ration in the pair of letters composed by the second-century sophist Alkiphron.10 In the first Menander writes to Glykera professing his undying love for her and saying that he will decline an invitation from King Ptolemy to move to Alexandria for her sake. Glykera, who is residing in Athens while Menander is in the Piraeus, replies that she knows Athens and herself mean the world to Menander and that all Egypt’s riches will not induce him to leave his beloved Athens.11 The matter of the two letters may be pure fiction. Only Pliny the Elder (N H 7.111) otherwise mentions a (declined) invitation to Menander from Ptolemy to come to Alexandria. Another question is, however, whether the love-affair between Menan­ der and a real-life Glykera has any basis. Here scholarly opinion has been divided. Some have been persuaded by the unanimity of ancient tradition into believing — why not? —that Menander had a partner in love called Glykera. Others, such as 5 Traill (2008, 138) says: ‘In effect, she (Glykera) plays a comic version of the "sacrificial virgin” of tragedy, the young woman who gives her life for the benefit of her family. ’ 6 Suda s.v. Μένανδρος = Testimonium 1 KA.: καί περί γυναίκας έμμανέστατος. Cf. test. 20 line 7 KA ερωτικός γ ά ρ έστι δαιμονίως (Alkiphron). 7 = test. 17 KA (11 Κ.-Th.); cf. test. 16, 18, 19 KA (= Philostratos Epist. 38 p. 245 Kays.). 8 For a sceptical position see Koerte (1919). 9 A.M. Friend, ‘Menander and Glykera in the Mosaics of Antioch’, in: R. Stillwell (Ed.), Antiochon-the-Orontes, III; The Excavations 1937-1939, Princeton 1941,248-251; D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Princeton 1947, 201-203; F.F. Jones, Antioch Mosaics in Piinceton, Records o f Art M u­ seum, Piinceton University, 40 Nr. 2, 1981, 4 pi. 3- Cf. Gutzwiller & Omer Qlelik (2012, fig. 2); see now Marshall (2012). Note the Glykera depicted in an encaustic painting The Wreath-maker or Florist selling wreaths by Pausias of Sikyon (ca. 360 BC) referred to by Pliny HIV 21.4; 35.124f. 10 Nos. 4.18 and 4.19. 11 This is not all she says, only the beginning. One of Aristainetos’ letters (1.22), From Lukian to Alkiphron, also mentions a Glykera and Polemon but only tangentially; see Anna Tizian Drago, 'Duo esempi di intertestualitä in Aristeneto’, Lexis 15, 1997, 173-187; in this letter the maid Doris makes one Charisios jealous by telling him that Glykera now favours Polemon (του βδελυροΰ Πολέμωνος) over him. The title of the letter is 'the trickery of the match-maker (μαστροπός)’, which as a theme is irrelevant to Penkeiromene. One wonders, of course, whether Aristainetos had a direct source here (a lost play by Menander?), but the letter is so much in the style of Lukian’s Dial. Meretr. that one need not postulate a Menandrean source.

4

Introduction

Koerte and, in his train, Bungarten, dispute that there was ever a lady of this name in Menander’s life.12 This debate is largely immaterial to my argument here. For what it is worth, I find Koerte’s main argument - that Glykera could never have helped Menander with stage properties in the way she describes in her letter (4.19.5) - rather pedantic and unconvincing. And, even if the description of her making masks and putting on costumes for the performances of Menander’s plays is pure invention, that has little bearing on the question whether Menander had a love called Glykera. But the letters are interesting for Penkeiromcne in a number of other ways be­ side the coincidence of the name Glykera. For if Alkiphron believed that the love of Menander’s life was one Glykera, he is likely to have paid particular attention, in composing his letters, to the play of Menander in which Glykera was the central pallake. Alkiphron’s letters - dismissed by Koerte in his Teubner collection of testimonia - do not lose all relevance for Menander’s works simply because the story they tell is invented. On the contrary, aspects of its invention may have been suggested, or influenced, by knowledge of Menander’s works, Perikeiromenc first and foremost. In one passage Alkiphron gives a strong hint that Perikeiromene has pride of place in relation to the ‘true’ love of Menander and Glykera. Towards the end of her letter, Glykera considers the option that Menander should travel to Egypt without her. In that case, she says, he should come to Athens now (from the Piraeus) straight away, so that he can get his plays in the best possible shape to take with him to Egypt. O f his works, she suggests he should take Thais, Misoumenos, Thrasyleon, Epitrepontes, Rhapizomenc, Sikyonios. One wonders what motivates precisely this choice, but the likelihood is that the 'romantic interest’ of these plays suits the picture Glykera wishes Menander to present to Ptolemy of his own romance with Glykera.13 In particular, she goes on, Menander should take with him the ‘play he has written with me it it’. She says that, if she does not accompany him, he will take her with him in writing, as it were, and Ptolemy will see ‘how’ much I mean to you’.14 In short, Glykera wants certain of Menander’s plays, with one sin­ gled out in particular, to act as her ambassador, as it were, showing Ptolemy the love Menander has left behind in Athens. Which play is ‘Glykera’ referring to here? Penkeiromene is the obvious candidate as Glykera is the female lead of the play and comes off well in the end, with her citizen­ ship restored and married to the reformed Polemon.15 But can we be certain there 12 Koerte (1919) and R E X V 712; Bungarten (1967). For a recent discussion of Menander's life-dates see Henri de Marcellus, ‘IG XIV 1184 and the ephebic service of M enander, ZPE 110, 1996, 69-76: 342/1-292/1, dying aged fifty' (in his fifty-first year), with a first victory in 316 (Parian Marble) with Oi'gt, and a first recorded composition when still an ephebe ca. 322/1 BC. 13 Lamagna (1993, 62-63) finds that the list deliberately alternates well-known with obscure titles. 14 4.19.20 π ά ν τω ς δέομαι, Μένανδρε, κάκεΤνο παρασκευάσασθαι τό δράμα έν φ εμέ γέγραψ ας, Γνα καν μή παραγένω μ αι σΰν σοί. διά σοϋ πλεύσω πρός Π τολεμαίον, καί μάλλον αΐ'σθηται ό βασιλεύς όσον Ισχύει καί π α ρ ά σοΐ γεγραμμένους φέρειν εαυτού τούς έρω τας άφεϊς έν άστει τους άληθινούς. 15 Thus, too, Lamagna (1993, 63).

5 was no other play by Menander to which Alkiphron is alluding? Another Glykera seems to have featured in the Misogynes, ‘Misogynist’, but we know nothing of the play’s other characters or action.16 From the same author, Priscian, comes another Menandrean quote in which an unnamed male swears a solemn oath to a woman called Glykera, whom he addresses as φιλτάτη, and who has apparently been cry­ ing. On the strength of this quotation Koerte postulated a lost play called Glykera, for which there is no further evidence.17 Koerte argues that the fragment cannot come from Perikeiromene because Polemon and Glykera do not appear together on stage before the final act and there we have a scene of happy reconciliation in which a cry­ ing Glykera and a Polemon swearing by all that is sacred would be out of place.18 But the situation has changed now that we can see from the Ephesos wall-painting, con­ firmed by the Daphne mosaic, that the couple do indeed appear together in the first scene of the play. Although we cannot reconstruct the precise context of fragment 96 KA (why is Glykera crying? why is Polemon swearing?) there is no longer any a priori reason to exclude this fragment from Perikeiromene. The way Alkiphron has Glyk­ era refer to ‘the play you have written with me in it’, points rather to the conclusion that only one play could be meant. If there was a Glykera as well as Penkeiromene, some clarification would be needed. If that is so we may conclude that .Alkiphron saw in Perikeiromene a particularly clear attestation of Menander’s love for Glykera. His ‘Glykera’ is convinced that the play will represent her interests well if it is presented at Ptolemy’s court in Alexandria. Menander begins his letter to Glykera with a solemn vow to her that he will not leave her and Athens and accept Ptolemy’s invitation to join him in Egypt. ‘By the Eleusinian goddesses, by their Mysteries, by which I have often vowed to you, Glyk­ era, when we were alone...’19 As Bungarten (1967, 164) observes, the form of this oath is similar to the oath spoken by the unnamed man in fr. 96 KA. True, the deities are different but that can be explained by the context of the letter: Menander is writ­ ing to Glykera while she is celebrating a festival of the Eleusinian deities, the Haloa. 16 Fr. 240 KA = Priscian. inst, gramm. XVIII 251): ώ χαΐρε. Γλυκερά. ΓΛ. καί συ π ό λ λ ’. Α. Öocp χρόνορ / όρώ σε. = K-Th 280. To suggest that Aristainetos’ letter (above n. 11) might have had this play as its source would be an entirely unsupported conjecture. On what (little) we know o f Misogynes see Lamagna (1993). 17 Fr. 96 KA = 87 Κ.-Th. For Text and commentary see act one, scene one. Sommerstein (2014c, 3) seems to believe this uncritically. In the alphabetical list of plays in P.Oxy. 2462 there is no Glykera under gamma. This is not absolute proof, as the list has proveable omissions, as ed. pr. (Turner) points out. Blanchard (2014, 244) now lists a play Glykera with a question mark before title, testimonia and fragments. 18 Likewise Lamagna (1993, 63). Lamagna argues that fr. 96 KA may come from Misogynes. Lam­ agna recognizes an objection to this - that Priscian immediately afterwards quotes other lines by ’the same author (i.e. Menander) in the Misogynes' (suggesting that the previous fragment was not from this play) - but finds that Priscian was quoting only from a collection of excerpts and therefore might append the name of the play to the second quoted passage. The argument does not quite overcome the objection to an attribution to Misogynes. 19 Alkiphron 4.18.1: ’Eycb μά τά ς Έλευσινίας θεάς, μά τ ά μυστήρια αυτώ ν, α σοι και εναντίον έκείνων ώ μοσα πολλάκις, Γλυκερά, μόνος μόνη κτλ.

Introduction But the doubling of μά-invocations and the reference to frequent vows in the past arc shared features of the vows in Menander’s letter and fr. 96. If the latter comes from Perikeiromene, as I argue above, the opening of Menander’s letter is a deliberate al­ lusion to an early passage of that play. This device would serve to alert an ancient reader to the connection between this play and the ‘historical’ romance of Menander and Glykera. Further on in his letter ‘Menander’ contrasts the pitfalls of the supposedly luxu­ rious life at the Ptolemaic court in Egypt with the security of his love for Glykera: Is it a great thing to live with Ptolemaios and satraps and such a stir, where neither friendship is lasting nor enmity without danger? But if Glykera is angry with me about something, I simply grab her and kiss her. If she’s still angry, I press her more strongly. And if she is really upset, I break down in tears. And at that, unable to bear my distress, she pleads with me finally, without having any soldiers or spear-bearers or guards.20 The description of this lovers’ tiff bears more than a passing resemblance to the quarrel between Polemon and Glykera in Perikeiromene. Glykera does indeed ‘get angry’ with Polemon and leave him. And he, after his angry and violent outburst (compare έβιασάμηυ in the letter), breaks down in tears at losing her. In the play Glykera is brought around by Polemon’s sincere remorse, as communicated to her by Pataikos and, later, Doris. There may be an allusion to Perikeiromene in the last sentence of the passage, too, in which Menander says that Glykera pleads with him finally21 ‘without having soldiers, spear-bearers and guards’.22 On the one hand this surely marks a contrast with the kind of lifestyle Glykera might expect at Ptolemy’s court, surrounded by an armed guard.23 On the other, it bears a similarity to the structure of Perik. in which Glykera has been besieged by armed men and spearbearers in the early stages of her quarrel with Polemon, in which he, assisted by Sosias, had mounted a (pseudo-) siege campaign to recapture her. In addition, Polemon him­ self has acted like a brutal soldier in cutting off her hair;24 at the end of the play Pole20 4.18.13 ή μέγα τό συμβιοΰν Π τολεμσίω και σατράπαις καί τοιούτοις ψόφοις, ώ ν οϋτε τ ό φιλικόν βέβαιον o u t e τό διεχθρευον άκίνδυνον; εάν δέ διοργισθή τί μοι Γλυκερά, άπαξ αυτήν άρπάσας κατεφίλησα* αν ετι όργίζηται, μάλλον αυτήν έβιασάμην καν βαρυθύμως εχο, δεδάκρυκα- και προς τ α ύ τ ’, ούκέθ' ύπομείνασα τά ς εμάς λύπας, δεΐται λοιπόν οΰτε ο τρ ατιώ τας έχουσα ούτε δορυφόρους οΰτε φύλακας. 21 For λοιπόν in this sense see LSJ s.v. 5. Meineke marks a lacuna after λοιπόν, commenting ’In sequentibus ineptissime verba οΰτε σ τρ α τιώ τα ς — φύλακας iunguntur superioribus. Non dubium est plura excidisse’ (1853, 115). Bungarten ad loc. does not follow suit, nor Kassel-Austin: the latter punctuate with a comma after λοιπόν. 22 For δέομαι, ‘plead with’, in lover's language, cf. Arrian, diss. Epict. 4.1.19 (of Thrasonides' be­ haviour toward Krateia in Aits.): δώ ρα τήι μισούσηι πέμπει καϊ δεΤται και κλαίει. 23 Thus Bungarten (1967) ad loc. 24 Cf. lines 172-3, spoken by Sosias and 186-7, spoken by Doris.

7 mon promises to behave like a soldier no more if Glykera will have him back.25 Glykera’s remark in Menander’s letter, then, falls into place when we understand her to be alluding to ‘her’ play. In the end (after a quarrel) she wants Polemon back (δεϊται), but without all the Sosiases and other military trappings of Polemon.26 It seems that, in composing Menander’s letter here, Alkiphron had Perikeiromene clearly in mind. If that is so, fr. 96 KA should be restored to the status of a book fragment of the play (coming, probably, in the very first scene), and the letters should return to the roster of testimonia to this play.27

O ther plays

There were probably other plays of Menander which thematized the dramatic sub­ ject of a maltreated, or otherwise afflicted, young woman. RJiapizomene looks as if it refers to a ‘woman hit in the face’, perhaps by her male lover.28 Empimpramene, ‘Woman burned’, might refer to another sort of maltreatment.29 The meagre surviv­ ing fragments do not permit a reconstruction of these plays. Theophoroumene has as it3 subject a young woman possessed by Kybele who exhibits strange Korybantic behaviour.30 Here the girl does not seem to suffer as a result of male oppression, but the female psyche under stress seems again to be the focus of attention. These are the plays whose titles, like that of Perikeiromene, consist of a passive participle describ­ ing something happening to a woman.31 Other titles are women’s names, feminine forms or ethnic names probably belonging to the female ‘lead’, such as Thais, Samia, Andria, Perinthia among others.32 But of course many, if not most, of Menander’s plays dramatized relations between the sexes with one, or two, male-female relation­ ships holding the actions together. The plays which can be largely reconstructed show a marked interest in, and sympathy for, the young female lead. Pamphile in Epitre­ pontes has already been mentioned; Kratcia in Alisoumenos and Chrysis in Samia are other good examples. Even in a play which does not have a leading female character, such as Dyskolos, the action still centres on Knemon’s daughter as the focus of both young lover’s and father’s attention. This picture Menander draws of fascinating young women and somewhat ab25 Lines 1016-7 τό λοιπόν επιλαθοΰ στρατιώ τη ς [ών, ϊνα] / προπετές ποήσηις μηδέ εν [γνναΐκα σήν] (my emphasis). 26 By an inadvertent haplography Bungarten omits ούτε δορυφόρους in his text but comments on the word in his commentary. He sees only a comparison with the guards surrounding Ptolemy, and no allusion to Perikeiromene. But the mention of δορυφόροι fits well with my suggestion that overt reference is being made to Perikeiromene because we hear of ‘men holding spears’ (i.e. δορυφόροι) among Sosias’ ‘troops’ in 527: λ ό γχ α ς εχοντες. 27 As indeed they have in Kassel-Austin vol. VI 2 (test. 20). 28 Cf. Koerte ad fr. 358 K.-Th. (= 321 KA). 29 Cf. Webster (I960, 18). 30 Alkiphron alludes to Theophoroumene at the end of Glykera’s letter (21). 31 Anadthemene may be identical with Messenia, see frr. 31-33 KA. 32 For a full list see K.-Th. vol. II 296-8.

Introduction

surd, or chastened, male lovers represents a new direction in Greek literature. As we have seen, Euripides also places brave young women at the forefront of a signif­ icant percentage of his dramas, and sometimes the men surrounding them are de­ spicable or ridiculous, such as Menelaos in Andromache or Polymestor in Hekabe. But Euripides’ brave young women are victims of male oppression; many go to their deaths because of male machinations. Menander, on the other hand, portrays civic relations in which marriageable, or newly married, women are the magnetic poles to which men are attracted, an attraction which subjugates them rather than the women. True, rapes and unwanted pregnancies are the order of the day in New Comedy, but more often than not the victims turn the tables on the rapists or assailants (as in Pcrikeiromene) in a manner which points in the direction of emancipation. O f course, we may psychologize Menander’s interest in young women, as the ancient biograph­ ical tradition seems to have done: Menander was simply ‘crazy about women’. One might compare his work with Eric Romer’s films, for example, which are usually pan­ egyrics to young women, with men hanging on their words with rapt attention. But beyond the erotic appeal of Menander’s young women there seems to be something like a political statement as well. Disadvantaged by the law, sometimes maltreated by men, Menander’s heroines stand up for themselves, and generally win through. They achieve their ends not by appealing to men’s protective instincts but by strength of mind and vigorous speech. In Penkeiromene Glykera’s major speech in self-defence to Pataikos must, like Pamphile’s similar speech to her father in Epitrepontes,33 be seen as a corner-stone of the play. She musters her arguments with good rhetorical sense, does not give an inch, and, if anything, has Pataikos on the defensive. True, women with fighting spirit precur in tragedy, but there is no doubt that Menander’s plays represent a reversal of roles compared to the old heroic code. One sees this particularly clearly in the ‘soldier plays’. The soldiers concerned - Thrasonides in Misoumenos, Polemon in Penkeiromene - are the ones outflanked by their young loves. Even soldierly violence, as employed by Polemon, fails to achieve its goal: the victim is not cowed but rather spurred into retaliatory action. One hesitates to politi­ cize Menander’s plots still further by saying that they represent a subversion of the major power structures operative in his day (i.e. Macedonian dominion), but, at a certain level, such speculation may have its place.34 A writer has his personal incli­ nations and he lives in his times. Although Menander reduces the scope of his drama to one seemingly timeless street in which two families reside side by side, even this microcosm has implications for the wider political scene and, indeed, social history in a broad sense.

33 New finds of text permit further reconstruction of this speech now. See Römer (2012), Furley (2013a). 34 Cf. Lape (2004), see below p. 32.

9

The legal status of Glykera and Moschion Let us consider Glykera’s legal status more closely in order to see where exactly she stands in relation to Polemon, her common-law husband. A first problem concerns the setting of the play. For Menander appears to set the drama in Corinth rather than Athens.35 Glykera’s early history is told in the prologue against the background of ‘troubles in Corinth’ (125-6); Polemon is said to be a ‘Corinthian by birth’ (129). These pieces of information would seem a mere distraction if the audience is to imag­ ine the play taking place in Athens.36 Accordingly, if the setting is Corinth, but the play was performed in Athens before an Athenian audience, one wonders whether Athenian law was thought to be applicable to the situation of the characters, or in­ deed whether Corinthian law differed from Athenian in the matter of a pallakes rights or the adoption of children. On the whole it seems best to assume that Athenian law is relevant for the play as far as we can reconstruct that, but one should not forget this initial caveat.37 In the prologue Agnoia tells us that Glykera and her twin brother had been ex­ posed as babies but saved from death by a woman. This woman gave the boy to a rich woman living next door who was childless, but brought up the girl herself. Possibly we are to imagine that the rich neighbour (Myrrhine) paid for the baby boy. When the girl reached marriageable age and times grew hard in Corinth, the unnamed foster-mother decided to give her ‘as her own daughter’ (ώς θυγατέρα αυτή 9 ) to an interested suitor ‘to have’ (εχειν).38 The transaction may well have had a monetary component to it. A passage of Isaios tells us that those who transferred girls in their family into pallakria agreed beforehand on how much money should be paid to the girl.39 The old woman had fallen on hard times (126 άπορουμένη 35 As Diphilos did his Emporos-, Symaiistosai seems to have played in Sikyon. 36 Cf. Konstan (1987, 122). 37 Traill (2001, 279 n. 2): ‘The play’s “Corinthian” laws have been taken as identical to Athens', or very similar, but it may be better simply to recognize a dramatic fiction whereby the “law” is always Attic law by generic convention’, with further literature. Lamagna (1994, 169): ’la legge, ateniese ma ehe Menandro doveva considerare valida anche altrove per convenzione scenica, e riportata da [Dem.] 59.16.’ Gärtner (forthcoming) argues differently, that Glykera’s behaviour is so different from what one would expect realistically in a kept woman in Athens that the Corinthian setting seems to be an excuse for introducing un-Athenian behaviour. On p. 178 he remarks: 1.. .verlegt der Dichter die turbulenteren und mit attischem Recht nur bedingt konformen Komödien Perikeiromene und Synaristosai bewusst an Orte, die außerhalb des Geltungsbereichs des attischen Rechts liegen und deren Rechtswesen und Rechtspraxis in Athen einen zweifelhaften Ruf genießen.’ Below I argue that the difference between her show of independence compared to the normal dependence of free and unfrec women on their kyrios or employer is Menander’s characterization of Glykera, or rather, of her relation to Polemon, rather than a reflection of a strangely ‘other’ Corinthian society. 35 On the expression cf. Sommerstein (2014a, 2 and 6-7). 39 3.39, where reference is made to the financial settlement made when a girl is given into pallakia: Ναι μά Δία, ώ ς eycoy' οΐμαι, έπει και οΐ έτπ παλλακίςι διδόντες τάς εαυτώ ν πάντε$ πρότερον διομολογ·οϋνται ττερι τώ ν δοθησομένων τά ϊς τταλλακαΐ^; with Harrison (1998, 14-15). Sommer­ stein (2014a, 3) says that the relationship of paJJakia was non-commercial - ‘But while the relationship

Introduction

σφόδρα). The economic climate in Corinth had taken a downturn (125-6 καί τω ν Κορινθιακών κακών / αυξανόμενων). The old woman saw the best chance for Glykera and for herself, no doubt, in making the girl over to the man. The relation­ ship between Glykera and Polemon was, then, that of pallake, a lasting relationship but one which could not produce citizen children.40 I suggested above that a possible modem equivalent might be 'common-law wife/husband’, meaning that the rela­ tionship had some permanence but lacked official sanction through the appropriate rituals and legal requirements.41 The precise status of their relationship is at issue later in the play when Pataikos confronts the desperate Polemon and tries to explain to him that his decision to remove Glykera from her ‘asylum’ in Myrrhine’s house by force is not permissible by law.42 He points out to Polemon (487) that Glykera is not his wife (γαμέτην γυναίκα). Polemon expostulates that he had considered her such. Pataikos asks him: ‘well, who gave her to you?’ referring to the usual έγγύη, or official betrothal of a bride to the groom by her kyrios. Polemon splutters, ‘Who?-she did!’ which amounts to an admission that a kyrios had been missing. She had acted of her own free will.43 Pataikos continues that Glykera may have liked him then (when she agreed to be his girl) but now that he has mistreated her she has taken against him. This cuts Polemon, who obviously rues his fit of temper. Pataikos explains then more carefully that Polemon’s action now is unjustified as Glykera is ‘her own mistress’ (497 έαυτήξ έστ’ εκείνη κυρία). The only course open to Polemon is to use persuasion, not force. This exchange serves in the first instance to protect Glykera from further violence by Polemon. First he cut off her hair brutally, and she left him. Now he is trying to lasted, the woman was not paid: she was maintained, exactly as a wife would be, and was expected to carry out the normal duties of a wife, including control of the household stores and slaves’ —but that does not rule out some kind of monetär)' settlement equivalent to the dowry in marriage at the outset. 40 Cf. Sommerstein (2014a, 3): ‘I define a pallake for this purpose as a woman cohabiting with a free man in a relationship which is not a marriage but which has no fixed expiry date’; Henry (1985); Konstan (1987), Traill (2001, 284-5 with notes); Lamagna (1994, 169); Gärtner (forthcoming) calls her a metoikos in status, but that seems misleading as Glykera has not come from anywhere. Her status is perhaps comparable to that o f Chrysis in Sarnia; certainly she is not the property of Polemon as Krateia is of Thrasonides in Mis.. Sommerstein (2014a, 10): ‘If one were to seek a single short phrase that best describes the Menandrian pallake, it would be “unmarried wife” \ 41 Note that modem distinctions between ‘wife’ and ‘girl-friend’, 'partner', ‘significant other’ etc. do not depend on the civic status or nationality of the woman (or man) but do still entail legal distinctions, for example in taxation, pension and inheritance. Davies (1977-78, 114) comments on the importance of the theme of citizenship in Menander: ‘Since so much depends on citizenship, while for fifteen years οΓ Menandros' adult lifetime Athens was powerless to determine her own citizenship criteria, his obsession with the theme is understandable’. 42 For a discussion of the whole episode see Traill (2001); R. Hunter in Fantuzzi & Hunter (2004, 410-12). 43 Cf. Konstan (1987, 130): ‘Glykera’s ability to leave Polemon explodes his pretensions to a legal mar­ riage. That he had construed his relationship with her in such a manner contributes to the tension and pathos of the scene, no doubt, but, more than that, it structures the opposition between Glykera’s per­ sonal independence as a παλλακή and the dependent condition of a legally wedded Athenian woman.’ For details of the ‘giving away’ of a girl in marriage see Sommerstein (2014a. 2).

11 retake her using force of arms (pitiful though Sosias and his ‘troops’ are). Pataikos’ arguments serve to bolster Glykera’s position by showing that Polemon has no legal hold over her.44 But this ‘independence’, the fact that she is mistress of her own fate, is also her weakness. It meant, in normal Greek society, that she had no protector. True, she was free to go and no one could hold her by force, but this very freedom was usually construed as vulnerability in a woman. We see here, then, that Menan­ der is turning what was usually perceived as a disadvantage in a non-citizen woman’s position into an unexpected source of strength.45 It is Polemon who wails that he has no way of forcing Glykera back, whilst she, rather smugly, in line 749 says that ‘she knows best what’s in her interest’. If we compare this scene, in which the tables are turned on Polemon, with Andromache’s situation as Neoptolemos’ concubine in A n­ dromache, we see what a difference there is. There Andromache cringes on the altar, seeking asylum, threatened with the death of her child by Hermione and Menelaos. There is absolutely no question of Andromache claiming to be ‘her own mistress’.46 Polemon then clutches at the straw that perhaps he can claim redress from the man who has ‘wronged him during his absence’ (499-500). Pataikos agrees that this man (Moschion) has wronged him but only to the extent that Polemon can ‘accuse him’(eyKaXsTv) of this in conversation; he cannot use force against his rival (εκβιάσει) as that would make him liable to prosecution before the law. Again we see in this exchange that Glykera was not Polemon’s property and hence he could not prosecute Moschion for taking her from him. She is ‘her own mistress’ (497 έαυτης έστ’ εκείνη κυρία) in the sense that she has no male kyrios lording it over her 47 Gärtner concludes in his treatment of the legal background of Menander’s plays that the dramatist assumes Athenian legal institutions as common knowledge in his audience but that he is vague in his terminology and more interested in the ethical issues at stake in his plot situations than fine points of the law. The conclusion is borne out by significant cases, for example, the relevance of the epikJeros law for Aspfs, as Ireland (2011) has argued in his recent edition. The social institution is certainly important for our understanding of the play, but there are discrepancies and vagaries in the detail which show that it was not Menander’s first priority to depict a legally cogent situation, in the manner of a court hearing, but rather to use the well44 Traill and Gartner both point out that he would only have a legal hold over her if they were properly married, but then, if Polemon’s accusation that Moschion had committed adultery with her were true, he would be forced by law to disown her rather than bring her back home. 45 Cf. Konstan (1987, 130): ‘I am suggesting that Menander portrayed Glykera’s independence pre­ cisely in contrast with the kind of free status that legal marriage would have represented, under which Polemon would have had the right at law to claim Glykera back from a neighbor who had given her refuge.’ 46 O f course Andromache is a captive of war, but we should not forget that Glykera was a foundling. In ΛIis. Krateia is a captive of war and she manages to force Thrasonides into a position of abject miseiy like Glykera here. 47 Cf. Konstan (1987, 130): ‘It is not that she has the free status of a citizen, as Sosias had implied: that is a freedom which, for a woman, depends upon the authority of another. Glykera’s freedom is rather the reverse of this status notion: it is the capacity to act independently and without obstance.'

Introduction

known legal institution as significant background for the plot, which highlights the psychology and ethics of the characters. This is the case in Pcrikeiromenc as well. It is indeed significant that Glykera is not married to Polemon. Her status (initially) as a foundling given to a soldier as pallake enables her to move like a loose cannon between Polemon’s house and Myrrhine’s, which would be impossible if she was Polemon’s wife. This same ambiguity in her status allows Moschion to approach her in an amator)' way (again, initially).48 It is this (pseudo-)rivalry between the men for Glykera’s favours which holds the drama together. It is also clear that Glykera is not the hetaira of Polemon, as that would again give him incontestable rights over her: he would have paid for her services for a given period and she would be in breach of contract if she walked off. One notes that Moschion and Daos, on the other hand, consider her as a potential hetaira for hire.49 These questions of status underlie the action of the play but they are not made explicit, or a point at issue, by Menander. Polemon does not care whether Glykera was officially married to him or not: he loved her like a wife. The possibility of taking legal action against the alleged ‘adulterer’ Moschion is also raised but is quickly dropped again when Pataikos points out the lack of a legal basis for a suit against Moschion. As Gärtner says, the law lurks in the background of the play but the action and dialogue unfold purely on the psychological and ethical, rather than forensic, level.50 Konstan, on the other hand, sees the ambivalent status of Glykera as the central issue of the play. At first she is Polemon’s pallake who is free to leave him when he mistreats her. At the end of the play she has become a marriageable bride because her citizen status has been restored by the recognition that the citizen Pataikos is her father. Konstan points out that the two lines of action of the play - the quarrel and reconciliation between Glykera and Polemon, and the recognition of Glykera and Moschion as Pataikos’ children - are not intrinsically linked. Why should Glykera be reconciled with Polemon just because Pataikos is identified as her father? That has no effect on the original quarrel, which was caused by Polemon’s physical abuse of her.51

48 Gf. Konstan (1987). 49 See lines 303, 343-4, 711, where this possibility emerges. 50 Lape (2004, 176) is quite off track, I think, when she writes: ‘While the victim or concerned citizen could prosecute a man as a moikhos, it was up to the legal institutions of the state, rather than the victim himself, to determine tile alleged offender's guilt or innocence, the punishment to be inflicted, and the damages (if any) that were due. In shearing off Glykera's hair, Polemon usurped the state’s punitive power and seized its authority to determine what counts as an injury.' 51 For more detailed discussion of the point see commentary on the final scene of the play.

13

The ‘rape of the locks’52 It is clear that Polemon’s main injury to Glykcra is the cutting off of her hair. The title says as much and Sosias refers explicitly to this latest exploit of his warlike su­ perior (173). Both surviving wall-pictures showing a scene from act one of the play concentrate on this key dramatic moment, the denunciation which led Polemon to ‘lose it’ and vent his anger on Glykera’s hair. It is unlikely, but conceivable, that the actual shearing was shown on stage. How should we interpret this mutilation of his common-law wife by Polemon? As Traill says, everyone in the play criticizes the act and acknowledges that Polemon was in the wrong. By the standards of New Comedy, in which rapes, exposures and the beating of slaves are the order of the day, the of­ fence may not seem so serious.53 Some have suggested that the shearing, or plucking out, of hair, was a traditional punishment for adultery.54 True, a number of passages in Aristophanes play on the forcible epilation of an adulterer, but their relevance to Perikeiromcne is doubtful.55 In most cases, the reference is to the punishment of a male adulterer; moreover, it is his pubic hair which is painfully plucked out, or singed with hot ash, in Aristophanic comedy. One passage in Lysistrata refers to the pun­ ishment of a woman by shaving her pubic hair. But all these references seem alien to the situation in Perikeiromcne, where it is the woman’s head hair which is violated by her lover in jealous rage.56 Others have suggested that a short hair-cut might be typical of slave status and that Polemon’s violent act w7as intended to reduce Glykera’s status to that of a slave, or pornö, by cutting off her (perhaps abundant) hair.57 Whilst the equivalence of cropped hair on a woman and slave status is debatable, Traill suggests that Polcmon’s act of violence aligned him with slave-owners who treated their slaves’ bodies as they willed. She interprets the offence to Glykera’s person as hybris, that is, the assump­ tion of superior powers by an individual to humiliate or cow another free person: ‘what Glykera resents is Polemon’s hybris in asserting over her the kind of authority 52 Thus Murray (1942. Reprint 1956) entitled his translation and reconstruction of the play. 53 Traill (2008, 146-7). 54 Lamagna (1994, 180): 'il taglio dei capelli, oltre a dare formalmente alia donna l’aspetto della schiava, implicava il sospetto di infedeltk’, citing Aristoph. Ach. 849 and Thesm. 838; Tac. Germ. 19.1. Lape (2004, 175): ‘Accordingly, by cutting o(T Glykera’s hair, Polemon inflicts on her the symbolic analog of the punishment usually reserved for the man caught in the act (sc. adultery).’ 55 Clouds 1083 with Dover ad loc; Plut. 168 and Ach. 849. 56 Henry (1985, 83-4), also rejects the ‘punishment for adultery’ suggestion; she suggests that the haircut seems to symbolize a kind of death for Glykera, to be reborn again in the fourth act, recognized as a citizen daughter and married at the end of the play. She says that Glykera’s departure from Polcmon’s house after the shearing emphasizes this caesura in her career, to return ‘born again’. 57 C apps(1910,133) refers to the σκάφιον style of hair-cut imposed on slaves (Aristoph. Thesm. 836f. with schol.), a short cut. One notes Pollux’ description of a slave’s mask in comedy ττερίκουροζ (Onom. 4.151, from περικείρω, cut short all round. Cf. Sommerstein (2014a, 9): ‘Polemon can assault and humiliate Glykera, cropping her hair as if she were a common slave’; on the evidence from vase-painting: Peschel (1987, 358).

Introduction

a master held over a slave.. .In her view, the haircut was a kind of atimia, and it is the humiliation - not the shearing - that she could expect to see repeated “in future” ’.58 This is perhaps too formalistic. We do not need to identify Polemon’s behaviour as a specific offence on the Athenian (or Corinthian) statute books. The point is that he resorted to violence in love through jealousy.59 He broke the lovers’ code, not the law-code of any city state. As Pataikos tells him in act three: he has abused her love. The ancient reception of Polemon's offence in Perik. bears this out. First, an epigram by Agathias in the Greek Anthology shows how a later case of wife-beating could be seen in terms of Polemon’s mistreatment of Glykera: Τόν σοβαρόν Πολέμωνα, τόν ευ θυμέλησι Μενάνδρου κείραντα Γλυκέρας της άλόχου πλοκάμους, όπλότερος Πολέμων μιμήσατο, καί τ ά 'Ροδάνθης βόστρυχα παντόλμοις χερσΐν έληίσατο, καί τραγικοϊς άχέεσσι τό κωμικόν έργον άμείψας, μάστιξεν ραδινής αψεα θηλυτέρης. ζηλομανές τό κόλασμα. τί y a p τόσον ήλιτε κούρη, εϊ με κατοικτείρειν ήθελε τειρόμενον; σχέτλιος· άμφοτέρους δέ διέτμαγε, μέχρι και αύτοϋ βλέμματος ένστήσας α’ίθοπα βασκανίην. ά λλ ’ έμπης τελεθεί “ Μισούμενος”· αΰταρ έγω χε "Δύσκολος”, οϋχ όρόων τήν “Περικειρομένην”.60 That violent Polemon who in Menander’s play cut off the hair of Glykera, his wife, was imitated by a latter-day Polemon, who despoiled the locks of Rhodanthe with his brutal hands, and added a tragic dimension to the comic plot by whipping the limbs of her tender body. A crazy act of jealousy. What did she do so wrong if she only pitied me in my distress? Despicable man! He sundered us two, even on seeing each other his burning jealousy intervened. But truly he is 'The Hated One', and I 58 Traill (2008, 147), who also cites a good parallel from a description of slave life in the Southern states of America: ‘When Harriet Jacobs’ master and frustrated lover cut off her hair, she understood that he meant to humiliate her and remind her of his authority.’ H. Jacobs, Incidents in the Life o f a Slave Girl, London 2000 (originally 1861). Handley (2011, 144) cites a case reported in the Times (18 January 2006) of a man who (for undisclosed motives) ‘cut off his ex-girlfriend’s ponytail with the kitchen scissors’ and was sued by her for bodily harm. Capps (1910, 132 n. 1): ‘The poet seems not to have attached any special significance to the act, as some scholars have thought: it was merely a wanton outrage upon a woman’s beauty, an άτιμία.’ 59 Capps(I910, 133) suggests that the play could have been subtitled 6 ζηλότυπος. 60 Book 5, cp. 218.

15 the 'Grouch', deprived of my 'Shorn Woman’. Whether ‘true’ or not, the poet tells the story of another Polemon, who cut off the hair, and beat, his wife for showing affection to the T of the poem. The poet wittily aligns this Polemon’s behaviour with the Polemon in Menander’s play who similarly disfigured his alochos (wife, note). But the later Polemon went further, transgress­ ing the comic action of (merely) cutting his partner’s hair by beating her and doing her real bodily harm. He interprets Polemon’s violence as a form of punishment (κόλασμα) inflicted on the girl from ‘crazed jealousy’ (ζηλομανές. σχέτλιος). This matches Polemon’s own admission in the play that jealousy had driven him to the un­ controlled outburst (line 986-7 ό δ’ ά λά στω ρ έγ ώ / και ζηλότυπος άνθρωπος). Likewise, Agathias laments that the girl’s guilt was slight, out of all proportion to the atrocity of the attack on her. Here, too, the parallel with Perikeiromene points to the relative innocence of Glykera, who only kissed her brother. The epigrammatist concludes his mini-drama wittily by assigning the three characters in it to plays of Menander. The brutal lover has become Thrasonides; the T has become Knemon (bad-tempered, presumably because of his frustration) and the girl is, of course, Glyk­ era. The epigram makes abundantly clear how its author read Perikeiromene: as a comic love drama arising from jealous anger. Here there is no recourse to legal terms, no framing of the drama in any other terms than those of erotic epigram. The of­ fence to the girl is the same as that to Glykera, the cutting off of her hair, combined in this ‘real life’ story with a savage beating. There can be little doubt that the hair­ cut is seen here as a milder version of the beating. The former can still be comic (τό κωμικόν έργον) whilst the latter takes on tragic proportions (τραγικοΐς άχέεσσι). Likewise, we see that Glykera’s status in the play is irrelevant to Agathias. She is simply Polemon’s alochos, ‘wife’, or ‘partner’. The severance of their relationship through Polemon’s violent outburst has no bearing on her possibly inferior social sta­ tus, whether as foundling or as (mere) pallake; nor even is his military background of any importance. This drama can take place at any time between any two partners, the epigram implies, regardless of city or status or law-code. It is the drama of love gone awry through insane jealousy. This is borne out by another ancient author’s allusion to Perikeiromene. In Lukian, Dial. mcr. 8.1, we read the rhetorical question: οστις δέ, ώ Χρυσί, μήτε ζηλότυπε! μήτε οργίζεται μήτε έρράπισέ ποτέ ή περιέκειρεν ή τά ίμάτια περιέσχισεν, ετι εραστής έκεϊνός έστιν; ‘But whoever, Chrysis, suffers no jealousy, neither rages nor ever lashes out with a hand, or violates the hair or tears the garments, can he still be described as a lover?’61 In περιέκειρεν we have a clear allusion to Perikeiromene; έρράπισέ is likely to be an allusion to another (lost) play on the theme of jealous love, Rhapixomene, ‘The Girl Struck in the Face’.62 The passage describes the typical 61 = Lamagna (1994, test. 6). 62 Cf. Fantham (1986, 56 n. 35). See below p. 154 for a possible connection between τά ίμάτια περιέσχισεν and Perikeiromene.

Introduction

ranting and raging of the jealous lover: he feels jealousy, rages, strikes out, cuts off the hair (sc. of his lover), rends clothing. If a man is incapable of such behaviour, Lukian says mockingly, can he be called a proper lover? Here, then, we find confirmation of ancient appreciation of Pcdkeiromcne as a drama about the extremes of behaviour to which lovers can be driven by jealousy.63 Status and statutes of the law are irrelevant, or, at least, secondary. And a final parallel from literature. In H erodas’ fifth Mimiambus entitled Zelo­ typos, ‘Thejealous Lover’, Bittina orders her slave Pyrrhias to conduct Gastron, her slave and lover, to Hermon for punishment by branding for infidelity.64 Gastron is taken to the zetreion, a place for torturing and punishing slaves, is bound and is about to be branded (with the στίγμα used for runaway slaves) when Kydilla intervenes on his behalf and secures a reprieve. This literary incident shows how a jealous person (the Zelotypos of the title) inflicts vindictive punishment on a lover of inferior status who is perceived to have been unfaithful. Here it is a woman who wishes to pun­ ish her male slave lover, but the dynamic is the same as in Pedkeiromene.65 We can see how Glykera was probably particularly offended by being treated as if she was a mere sex object by Polemon, his to take pleasure from at will and punish if she ap­ peared to have misbehaved. The act was a (relatively minor) physical offence but a deep offence to her dignity and self-esteem.66 We are probably to imagine Glykera as a young beauty. Agnoia tells us she is ευπρεπής, ‘attractive’, in line 143, which is the same adjective as Habrotonon uses to describe the pretty young Pamphile when Charisios violated her in Epitrepontes (line 484). Moschion clearly found her attrac­ tive, and Polemon extolls her beauty in lines 519-22. Gomme-Sandbach (p. 471) are probably right to guess her age as around eighteen, as her twin brother Moschion can hardly be much younger than that if he is to pose a serious threat to Polemon as rival. Corinth was famous, or notorious, for its fabulously attractive, and expensive heta/rai.67 A —no doubt fictional —letter from Menander’s Glykera to one Bakchis of Corinth by Alkiphron (IV 2) has Menander himself travelling to Corinth to attend 63 Cf. Fantham (1986, 56). Similarly in Tibullus 1.10 we find a reference to cutting off a girl's hair as a typical expression of jealous anger. The Roman elegist suggests that only those should be sent off to serve in the army who have maltreated their girl-friends, made them cry, for example by cutting off their hair. The passage is probably a reminiscence of Menander. 64 Cf. Fantham (1986, 52). 65 Note how Polemon concedes in line 987 that he had been jealous and vindictive: ά λάστω ρ και ζηλότυπος άνθρωπος. 66 And let us not forget Shakespeare’s Othello, undone by jealous violence. As a modern parallel, one might recall the singer Rihanna and her boy-friend Chris Brown, who apparently beat her up when he suspected her of infidelity. One reads (on http://www.examiner.com): ‘Even though Rihanna suffered multiple facial injuries during a brutal beating from Chris Broun which stemmed from suspicions and accusations of infidelity, two of her relatives want to see Rihanna and Chris reconcile.’ 67 See Aristophanes Pi. 149 with Sommerstein’s note (2001): Plato Rep. 404d6 equates ‘Corinthian girl' with depraved luxury: Ψέγεις άρα και Κορινθίαν κόρην φίλην είναι άνδράσιν μέλλουσιν εύ σώ ματος εξειν. Lais, the famous courtesan of Old and Middle Comedy, was Corinthian: Anaxandrides fr. 9 K-A, Eriphos fr. 6.1 K-A, Strattis fr. 27.3 K-A, all refer to the lady.

17 the Isthmian Games and - as Glykera fears - the pleasures of Bakchis, too.68 This background may highlight the intended reception of the stage Glykera: beautiful and desirable by nature, the cutting of her hair will have seemed a particularly offensive defacement.69 The ancient reception of Polemon’s offence tells against a recent interpretation of the hair-cutting in Perikeiromene. May (2005) has suggested there is evidence that the cutting off of hair was a typical rite for women (particularly in Sparta) before marriage. In this way, the cutting of Glykera’s hair in Penkeiromene might be taken in the second instance as a pointer forward to the marriage which will conclude the play.70 May does not wish to discount the primary significance of the hair-cutting as an act of violence against Glykera performed by Polemon from jealous rage, but she advocates an ironical sense, or ambivalence, working against this initial shock.7' The hair-cut in fact points forward to reconciliation and imminent marriage. If the evidence for hair-shearing among women (by men!) before marriage was stronger and more widespread, one might be inclined to admit a dramatic irony to this initial act of violence, but in fact the practice seems to have been far from customary as a marriage-rite: and if brides had a haircut before their wedding, it was certainly not a violent shearing by their betrothed!

Staging As is normal in Menander’s plays, the action takes place around and between two households portrayed as standing close to each other, or next door, (usually) in an Athenian street, here in Corinth.72 In the prologue Agnoia points out that Polemon has recently bought the house which used to belong to Glykera’s foster-mother,73 68 = test. 20 KA. 69 Cf. Capps (1910, 132-3 with n. 1), quoting Philostratos Ep. 61.nd before we condemn Polemon out of hand it might be worth pointing to modem theories of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), commonly suffered by soldiers who have seen action. The BBC (website bbc.co.uk/news; 15.03.2013) earned an interview with a serviceman Lewis McKay who had served in Iraq in 2008 and Afghanistan in 2010: ‘After each tour, his wife, Emma, noticed a change in his behaviour’. McKay was easily angered, even by small things, and became aggressive. He said he felt like lashing out and punching her, and had to restrain himself physically, or leave the room, to avoid striking her. When Doris in lines 186-7 of our play says that ‘all soldiers are brutes’, the remark may reflect awareness of this propensity of soldiers to violence, even when they have left the battlefield. 70 She is supported in this contention by Gutzwiller (2012, 590): ‘as a result, the hooded Glykera at the beginning would function as a visual foreshadowing of the veiled (apparently mute) bride in the fifth act.’ 71 An idea mentioned also by Petrides (2010, 80). However, he sees in the hair-cutting a ‘symbolic rape’: ‘As a falsification of a prenuptial ritual, it crashes (sic: ‘crushes’?) any illusions of legitimacy or empowerment in concubinage’. 72 Cf. Konstan (1987, 123 with n. 7). 73 This does not strictly follow from line 145, but is a reasonable conclusion. If Glykera had not grown up in the house next door to Myrrhine’s there was little reason to fear that Moschion might see her and fall in love with her (lines 142-43); nor would Pataikos have got to know her so well, as is implied by

Introduction

and which stands ‘in the neighborhood’ of Myrrhine’s house, in which Moschion was raised (147 έν γειτόνων). Assuming Agnoia is standing centre-stage, we might imag­ ine her pointing to Polemon’s house on her one hand and Myrrhine’s on the other.74 Now, if P.Oxy. 2658 is correctly assigned to our play (see text and commentary on lines 938ff.), an inn with an inn-keeper, or inn-keeper’s boy, seems to be mentioned by Polemon. Webster (1973, 134) supports the attribution of the fragment to Penk. and argues that there must have been an inn visible on stage in this play. He suggests that the central door of the skene (normally used for the palace door in tragedy) might have been used by Menander in this play as the door of an inn, which would then have stood between the two private houses. It was to this inn, he suggests, that Polemon repaired after maltreating Glykera and in which he tried to drown his sorrows with drinking friends; likewise Webster suggests that the armed foray in act three to re­ capture Glykera will have departed from this inn, where Polemon collected a group of drunken supporters, including Sosias. He seeks a parallel for such an inn in the scene of Thcophoroumene and, possibly, Misoumenos. A concomitant of this theory is that there cannot have been yet another door on stage representing Pataikos’ house. Webster believes Pataikos is a friend of Polemon, not resident in either of the two op­ erative households. I argue below that Pataikos is, in fact, the husband of Myrrhine, so we do not need to posit a separate house for him anyway,75 The attribution of P.Oxy. 2658 to Peak., however, and Webster’s suggestion of an inn visible on stage, is not, however, proven. In all events, the two side doors used by comedy represented the two private households which provide the parameters for the action. The play opened, presum­ ably, with entrances by Polemon and Sosias from the ‘harbour’ side. Both Moschion and Pataikos make their first entry from offstage, the former probably from the town, the latter from the country. Otherwise the action focuses on the comings and goings between the two (possibly three, if the central doorway was an inn) visible doorways. There is a fair amount of indoor action reported or to be imagined by the audience. Presumably Glykera had her hair chopped offby Polemon offstage in his house. After the prologue Sosias tells us how Polemon is pining in the company of friends, trying to drown his sorrows with wine and bonhomie, but not succeeding. In act two we see Daos going in and out of Myrrhine’s house and reporting to Moschion on the goings on there. In act three we see Polemon and Pataikos disappearing off into the former’s house to have a look at Glykera’s wardrobe. In act four there is a sustained episode of eaves-dropping by Moschion who must lurk somewhere onstage to over­ hear the conversation between Pataikos and Glykera without being seen himself. In the fifth act we hear how Glykera is dressing inside Myrrhine’s house in preparation for meeting Polemon again. But Menander’s comedy unfolds in the interstices belines 508-9. 74 Polemon’s on the spectators’ left side; Myrrhine's on their right; cf. Blanchard (2013,231). 75 Accordingly, Webster changes his mind about the identification of the third door from Webster (1960, 5 n. 3) (Pataikos’ house) to Webster (1973) (an inn).

19 tween the serious action indoors. The audience is privy only to encounters of people coming and going between the houses. They only witness indoor action indirectly by report.76 True, Greece is quite an outdoor country with a warm climate, and peo­ ple did probably talk a lot in the street, but domestic scenes played out indoors then as now.77 Menander’s stagecraft involves a kind of inside-out presentation. That is, the dramaturgy must make domestic interiors visible to the outside world by report. This makes the appreciation of a Menandrcan comedy curiously indirect. We never witness the real drama - the scene between Polemon and Glykera at the beginning, Glykcra commiserating with Myrrhine indoors - but must picture these scenes from reports and musings by the characters. When real action does happen outdoors, for example in the recognition scene, this is somewhat artificial. Doris has to step outside and announce something which has happened indoors before the recognition between Pataikos and Glykera in act four can get under way. For this reason Menander must employ a multitude of techniques for bridging the inside-outside gap. Monologues in which characters report on recent occurrences, or muse on what is going on in­ doors, characters talking back into a house as they go outside, speech-within-speech, are among the ways Menander ties the goings on inside a house with the visible world outside. Where Hitchcock used a telescope to show one character what was going on in the building opposite,78 Menander can only use conversation in the street as the lense through which domestic drama is seen. This makes exits and entries of crucial importance for developing the action.79 Usually Menander gives a more-or-less plausible motive for an entry’; Sosias is sent to spy out the lie of the land, for example, in acts one and two. Or Doris is called outside in act four to fetch Glykera’s box of valuables. Likewise, exits are usually motivated by some matter to be attended to indoors or offstage. Daos is sent indoors repeatedly by Moschion in act two to see what the women are up to; Polemon goes off to sacrifice indoors in act five. Menander preserves the illusion of people attending to their business in a semi-realistic way. O f course, unreality intrudes often enough; a goddess appears from nowhere to speak the prologue to the audience. Characters speak out loud to themselves, where it is obvious that the remarks are intended for the audience’s ears. Key scenes, such as the recognition scene happen in the street, which is intrinsically unlikely. But the illusion of ‘real life’ in an Athenian (or Corinthian) street is preserved to a degree sufficient for the audience to identify with the lives of these people. Menander’s characters do not wander about aimlessly; their interac76 There is only one scene in extant Menander - Knemon’s appearance in Dysk. after falling down the well - which might have used the ekkyklema, or stage trolley to show indoor action. Gutzwillcr (2012) postulates a far greater use of the ekkykJema to show interior action, for example in Synaristosai, but 1 think wrongly. 77 As we can see, for example, in Lysias' first speech, Against Eratosthenes, or Antiphon's first speech Against the Step-\Iother. 78 Famously in Rear Window, 1954, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, written byJohn Michael Hayes and based on Cornell Woolrich’s 1942 short story "It Had to Be Murder".

79 Cf. Frost (1988).

Introduction

tions in the street are orchestrated such that a unified praxis, to use Aristotle’s term, can be constructed from the artfully spliced fragments heard on the street. When we consider that tragedy usually played before a royal palace as skene, or a temple, one might suggest that, in New Comedy, the undistinguished private house has replaced the palace or temple as the building whose interior provides the mysterious focus for the outside action. Not royalty, or divinity, occupies the stage building, but private people, whose interior lives have become the source of fascination, and amusement. Assuming, with most authorities on Menander, that the three actor rule - that is, that a comic playwright had three main actors only at his disposal - generally applied, one can suggest a distribution of parts.80 As in Epitrepontes (Furley, 2009, 12-17), I find that Menander’s acts fall easily into three sections, or ‘scenes’ (without implying a change of scene), as follows. This suggested distribution of parts allows the parts of Pataikos, Polemon and Glykera to be spoken respectively by a single actor, and assigns all female voices to one actor. Whether these considerations played any role in reality, is impossible to say. The scheme at least demonstrates that three actors would be sufficient to stage the play.

act one

act two

act three

act four

act five

scene one scene two scene three scene one scene two scene three scene one scene two scene three scene one scene two scene three scene one scene two scene three

actor a Polemon

actor b Sosias

Daos Daos Daos

Sosias

Polemon Polemon

Moschion ?? Polemon Polemon

Sosias Sosias Pataikos Pataikos

actor c Glykera Agnoia Doris Moschion Doris Sosias

Pataikos Pataikos

Moschion Glykera Glykera

inn-keeper(?) Pataikos

Sosias(?) Doris Glykera

On the basis of the pictorial representations of act one, and the figures as they 80 Cf. Marshall (1994); Sandbach (1975); Scafuro (2014, 223); it is presumably no coincidence that the majority of mosaics depicting scenes from Menander show a maximum of three main figures present on stage. There are, however, indications that a fourth actor may, on occasion have been used. One notes P.Berol. 21119 (com. adesp. 1118) and P.Vindob. 29811 (com. adesp. 1081), in both of which a marginal delta may point to the assumption of a fourth actor for these scripts. Sommerstein (2014c, intro, section 10) comes up with the plausible formulation: ‘If this was so, dramatists would normally write their plays so that they could be performed by three actors, but would use a fourth when the opportunity arose.’ On reflections of acting in the mosaics cf. Csapo (1999); Csapo (1993).

21 emerge in the play, one may make some guesses which masks on Pollux’ list repre­ sented the prosöpa tou dramatos?1 Glykera: Gutzwiller (2012, 584) suggests that she is likely to have worn the mask of the second pseudokore (Pollux Onom. 4.152, mask no. 35) ‘which has a white complexion and an undivided hairstyle’. In the mosaic Glykera has pulled her himation over her head in shame, or modesty. Her facial expression is dis­ traught. Webster (M IN C 1961) writes of the False Maiden: ‘[She] is a maiden because her parents will be discovered before the end of the play, but she is a false-maiden because she has already lived with the man whom she wall marry’. This applies to Glykera. Polemon: Gutzwiller (ibid. p. 586) suggests for Polemon in the Antioch mosaic ‘a late version of the second έττίσειστος (mask no. 16 ‘wavy’-haired), said by Pollux (Onom. 4.147) to be a fair-haired, more delicate version of the first έττίσειστος, who is a braggart soldier, dark in hair and complexion’ (loc. cit. 586). Webster derived this type from Middle Comedy Mask O, the ‘worried lover’, which suits Polemon’s role.8182 Sosias: mask of a free man, with small mouth and dark complexion. His mask and costume clearly mark him as a free man, i.e. an adjutant of Polemon, not his slave. Pataikos: clearly had a presbutes mask. In the play he is not (yet) a pappos so prob­ ably did not have a pappos-mask. Perhaps he wore the mask of the ‘leading old man’ (no. 3) which the authors of Webster (1995, 9) describe, on the basis of the archaeological record, as ‘the overall shape squarish and broad, a tight roll of hair, raised brows, furrowed forehead, relatively small nose, full squarebottomed beard’. Moschion: might have worn the mask of the ‘curly-haired youth’ (ουλος νεανίσκος Pollux no. 12), described as ‘rather young’, but he might also have qualified as the ‘admirable young man’ (no. 10 πάγχρηστος) although his role in the play is risible. He is, after all, the legitimate son of Pataikos. Webster (1949, 102) suggests Pollux no. 16 for Moschion, but if this was already taken by Polemon (see above), that is impossible. Daos: is the only male slave in the play. From the banter of act two one might think him youngish; in that case, and assuming he is not prematurely bald, one might 81 For translation and notes on the relevant sections of Pollux Onomastikon see Webster (1995, vol. I, 9-51). Pollux’ list is not compatible with the archaeological record one to one, but appears to be based on a reliable Hellenistic source. Cf. Poe (1996), Furley (2009, 17-18). On Menander’s masks generally see MacCary (1970): Webster (1949). 82 See further MacCary (1969).

Introduction

assign him the mask either of the ‘leading slave’ (22 ήγεμών θεράπων) or ‘wavy-haired leading slave’ (27 έπίσειστοζ ήγεμών). All the other slave masks described by Pollux are balding to various degrees or otherwise ineligible. Doris: Glykera’s maid is young and pretty, according to Sosias’ appraisal in line 182, so she must have worn a young woman’s mask, perhaps that of the ‘slender cropped-haired girl’ (43 αβρα περίκουροζ) or the ‘smooth-haired servant-girl’ (44 παράψηστον θεραπαινίδων), but the latter is said to have ‘served hetairai’, which Glykera is not, although Moschion sees her in that light.

Metre The metre of Perik. is the comic iambic trimeter, as is standard for ancient comedy, except for the first scene of act two between Moschion and Daos, which is composed in trochaic tetrameters catalectic (lines 267-353). T h e com ic trimeter

One might say that the comic trimeter is a bastardized version of the tragic trimeter and it is surely no coincidence that comedy defines itself with rhythms which derive from tragedy but exhibit much greater freedom and variety.83 This greater freedom allows the comic trimeter to dance and skip whilst the tragic trimeter proceeds in measured stride with few rhythmic bumps. The main difference between the comic and the tragic trimeter lies in the fact that in the former every position can be replaced by a double short except for the last two. When the anceps or the short of a metron is replaced in this way by a double short one gets an anapaestic rhythm. This can happen in two successive iambs, resulting in an anapaestic metron. When the long positions of an iambic metron are replaced (‘resolved’) by a double short, one gets a kind of dactyl (after a long anceps) and a tribrach after a short. The pattern can be expressed theoretically as: 's ~ |h

This freedom with double shorts is restricted in a number of significant ways, however. Consecutive positions are not usually replaced by double shorts. Four suc­ cessive short syllables (‘proceleusmaticus’) can occur as result of the resolution of a long with short syllable before and after, but not as the result of consecutive replace­ ment (which could, theoretically, result in five or more consecutive shorts). When replacement does occur, there is a strong tendency by the poet to ‘bridge’ the double short internally and, in the case of an anapaest, with the long after it by avoiding word break. That is, the elements of an anapaestic group or the double short of a dactylic 83 See esp. Handley (1965, 56-73), Gomme-Sandbach 36-39; more specialized studies: White (1909); Rubenbauer (1912).

23 group should belong together as one word or as words forming a closely connected word group. The article, for example, or a preposition preceding a noun, are small words which arc easily treated as belonging with the noun as a word group. The re­ luctance to split an anapaest or a dactyl by word break ('caesura’) is an important, but not absolute, constraint on the poet’s (and editor’s) freedom to write (or supplement) double shorts.84 If we take Sosias’first speech as an example (lines 172-80), we can see how Menan­ der avoids monotony in the trimeter through variation of rhythm. There are regular lines in this speech, for example 173 and 175: w— — j — v_/— I t_/—

ό τάς γυναίκας οΰκ έών εχειν τρίχας άριστον αΰτοίς άρτι, και συνηγμένοι whilst the first line (172) catches the attention with two resolved longs:

ό σοβαρός ήμΐυ άρτίω ς καί πολεμικό; and 174 contains an anapaest and dactyl: —— —j —V_»/T\ κλάει κατακλιυείς. κατέλιπου ποούμευου The last two lines (179-80) each contain two double-shorts (in ίμάτιου and εξεπ­ ίτηδες; δεόμενος and περιπατεΐν) ensuring that Sosias does not sound overly pom­ pous. The comic trimeter does not fall so conspicuously into two halves, divided by a strong caesura after the fifth or the seventh position, as does the tragic trimeter. Frequently there is, technically, caesura in fifth or seventh position, but sometimes not.85 Trochaic tetrameter catalectic

This metre is found in lines 267-353 in the first scene of act two in which Moschion engages in excited banter with Daos preparatory to entering Myrrhine’s house in the hope of finding a receptive Glykera.86 The metre seems to match the material in the sense that there is quick-fire riposte between the young master and his slave, and 84 See in particular the detailed treatment in Handley (1965). 85 See Handley (1965, 57). 86 Cf. Rubenbauer (1913) Dedoussi (1961); Handley (1965, 59-60); F. Perusino, ‘Tecnica e stile nel tetrametro trocaico di Menandro’, RC C M 4, 1962,45-64.

24

Introduction

several quick exits and entries, with Daos popping inside to check out the lie of the land with regard to the two women inside.87 A trochaic measure consists of —^—o and the stichic verse is composed of four such metra with the last one missing its final anceps (catalectic). The pattern is, then, basically: —

— x | — c — x 11 — v — x | —

whereby all long positions (except the last) may be resolved as double shorts, and there is a strong tendency for the line to fall into two halves with word break at the end of the second measure (‘median dihaeresis’88): u tju w u x

Iw w w v v x ||

υ υ υ υ

x

jυ υ υ η

By way of example, let us consider a short speech by Moschion in this scene: I A I U ----j -------- W -----w j | -----KJ-----

>_/ J

-----KJ-----

π ερίπατω ν δέ προσμ[εν]ω σε, , πρόσθε τώ υ Ουρών.

- --- I KJ

---- II-

KJ

KJ

V _/I

— kj

ά λ λ ’ εδειξεν μέν τι τοιοΟΘ’ ώξ προσηλθον έ[σπ]έρα5·

I

----W ---------- ί Λ ^ ί ι

C^j ---- 117

προσδραμόντ’ ούκ εφυγεν, άλλα περιβαλοΰσ’ έ[πήινε]σε. ούκ άηδή$ cos εοι[κε]ν ει'μ’ ίδεΤν ούδ’ έντ[υχεΐν,

— ^ υ

II —u-------|yyw—

οϊομαι, μά τήν Αθήναν, ά λ λ ’ έταίρ[αΐ5 έπιχαρή5·

— I-'■'—H I — I τήν 5 ’ Αδράστειαυ μάλιστα νυν άρ’ [εϊη λανθάνει]ν.

Interestingly, a late papyrus (P.Oxy. 3705) shows one line of Perikeiromene (796) was set to music; this appears to reflect spoken, rather than sung, melody (see note on this line in the commentary).

Who is Pataikos? Who is Pataikos in all this? I side with those who have in the past argued that Pataikos starts the play as Moschion’s foster-father, or at least as husband of his foster-mother, to be revealed as his natural father in the recognition scene.89 Others have taken Pataikos as an extraneous figure, a friend of Polemon’s living in a third house, who en­ ters the action in support of Polemon’s cause to seek forgiveness from Glykera.90 The 87 Lamagna (1994, 189): ‘L'csame delle cinque scene menandree a noi tramandate conferma in parte I’ipotesi ehe al tetrametro sia associata im ’idea di movimento, fisico o emozionalc, dei personaggi’. 88 Handley (1965, 60). 89 Cf. Schmidt (1909, 425-30); Capps (1910, 141-2). Blanchard (2013, 231) comments that the ‘ma­ jority of recent commentators’ have taken Pataikos for the husband of Myrrhine. discussion see Gomme-Sandbach pp. 501-2.

90For

25 first indication that Moschion’s ‘father’ should appear in the play comes in line 364-5, where Daos concedes that the situation in Myrrhine’s house is now exceedingly tricky, with Glykera having taken up residence there, Sosias barking at the door to render her up, and Moschion within keen to become intimate with her. He says ‘And the last straw will be when the master of the house returns from the country. What an unholy uproar he’ll make!’91 No one else appears in the play who answers to this expectation. Pataikos appears suddenly in the middle of act three, when Sosias and Polemon are preparing to take Glykera by force from Myrrhine’s house.92 Sosias comments that Pataikos ‘comes from there, having taken bribes, believe you me. He’s betraying you and your campaign’.93 A reasonable interpretation of ‘from there’ would be ’from Myrrhine’s house’, as Sosias, in pseudo-military language, is insinuating that Pataikos is an emissary from the enemy camp coming to arrange a ‘deal’ which would thwart their campaign to recapture Glykera. As the scene develops, Pataikos manages to persuade Polemon to dismiss his ab­ surd ‘troops’ and to discuss the matter of Glykera’s leaving Polemon more calmly. Scholars have tended to conclude both from the general tenor of this conversation and from one particular detail that Pataikos is a friend of Polemon and not a member of Myrrhine’s household.94 The passage in question is 507-9, immediately follow­ ing Polemon’s howl of despair ‘Glykera has left me, she’s left me, has Glykera!’ He turns to Pataikos and says ‘Go and talk to her on my behalf, for you were always a friend and you often spoke to her in the past’ (συνήθης ήσθα y a p και πολλάκις / λελάληκας αυτήι πρότερον). Most have taken this remark to imply that Pataikos was Polemon’s friend; in fact, it means that Pataikos was well acquainted with Glyk­ era having often spoken to her in the past.95 This situation fits with the assumption that Pataikos was the despotes in Myrrhine’s household and had often spoken to his young neighbour Glykera next door. It does not exclude the possibility that Pataikos enjoyed friendly relations with Polemon, too (that is more than likely), but Polemon’s words emphasise the friendly relationship between Pataikos and Glykera. If this posi­ tion is right, it means that Pataikos was married to Myrrhine or at least living with her.

91 363-5: και το κεφάλαιον οΰδεπω λο γίζο μ αι,/ τον δεσπότην, αν εξ ά γρού θδ ττο ν π[άλιν / ελθηι, ταρ αχή ν οι'αν ποήσει παρά[φορον. 92 The scene of men trying to take a girl from a house by force is something of a topos in the world of the kömos and brothels. In Kol. 111-121 the pornoboskos imagines the forces one lover will muster against him if he hires out one particular girl to a rival suitor —an army to match that which Odysseus led against Troy, he ruminates. Hcrodas’ second Mimiambos is on this subject: here the pimp Battaros accuses Thales of breaking and entering his establishment with a view to removing one of his girls. Terence’s Eunuch contains a similar scene to the Menandrcan one here, with Thraso, a miles gloriosus, raiding another house to abduct a girl; cf. Goldberg (1980, 48). 93 467-8: έκίεϊθεν ήκει χρ ή μ α τ’ εϊληφώξ, έμο’ι / πίστευε· προδίδω σίν σε και τ ό στρατόπεδον. 94 E.g. Gommc-Sandbach ρ. 501 ‘All that is certain is that he is a friend of Polemon’s’. Webster (1973, 134): ‘one of the associates (sc. of Polemon) is Pataikos’; Lape (2004, 180): ‘Pataikos, an old family friend (sc. of Polemon)’. Webster (1973, 134) believes the ‘like-minded friend’ of fr. 1 refers to Pataikos (from Polemon's point of view). 95 Cf. Schmidt (1909, 425).

Introduction Since Moschion till now has been unaware he is only the adoptive child of Myrrhine, he must take her for his mother and Pataikos for his father or step-father (depending on how much he knew of their past).96 Now, in the recognition scene in act four, Glykera makes some remarks to Pataikos at the beginning which have been taken as evidence that he cannot be Myrrhine's husband or Moschion’s (supposed) father. She is making an impassioned speech to Pataikos to persuade him that she cannot possibly have left Polemon and moved in with Myrrhine in order to take up with Moschion:

Glyk.

but what could I have intended, my friend, by running to his mother? Think about it. That he’d marry' me? H e’s quite compatible with me, I don’t think. To be his mistress, then? Wouldn’t I have tried to escape their attention, and he too indeed? Or did he so recklessly introduce me to his father, and I so foolishly agree to cause resentment of me at home and make you suspect me of immorality for ever more? Don’t you think I ’d be ashamed, Pataikos? Did you really come believing this? You thought I ’d become such a one?

710

715

A number of details in this speech appear difficult if Glykera is talking to the master of the house. Who does she mean by ‘them’ (τούτους) in line 712? One assumes she is referring to Moschion’s parents, an odd expression if she is talking to one of them, Pataikos. Then she refers to Moschion’s ‘father’s house’ (εις τα ύτό τώ ι π α τρ ί 713-4); again, one might expect the second person ‘your house’, if Pataikos was supposed to be the despotes of this house. In 718-9 she asks ‘And did you really come...?’ (και σύ ήλθες...;), as if Pataikos did not live at this address. These points were enough to persuade Gomme-Sandbach that Pataikos could not be Myrrhine’s husband.97 And, indeed, there seems to be some disjuncture between Glykera's references to Moschion’s parents on the one hand and Pataikos, to whom she is talking, on the other. But we should not forget that Glykera knows that neither Myrrhine nor Pataikos is Moschion’s natural parent. She wishes to maintain the fic­ tion that Moschion is their legitimate son for his sake, so that he does not lose status, 96 Lamagna (1994, 21) suggests that Philinos (mentioned at the end of the play as prospective fatherin-law of Moschion) is Myrrhine’s husband. This would mean that Moschion had grown up with a daughter of Philinos, whom he was now to many. Having rescued Moschion from a truly incestuous relation, Menander would have thrown him into a new marriage relation which emotionally surely amounted to incest! There is no evidence for any of this, and the gain in economy claimed by Lamagna is negligible. Cf. Webster (1960, 9 n. 2). 97 With doubts (p. 502): ‘vet on consideration it [sc. that he is her husband] is not impossible'.

27 but she is fully aware that he is her foundling brother.98 This may account to some extent for the discrepancy one senses in her references. The remark about Pataikos’ coming to town is easy to explain as Pataikos’ move from country (residence) to town, having got wind of trouble at home, just as Daos feared in lines 364-5. If the words ά λλ ’ άπιθι μηδέν ή ττον in line 722 are spoken by Glykera, as many editors have thought, we again run into a difficulty: how can Glykera tell Pataikos to ‘go away’, if she is standing in front of what is in fact his front-door? The difficulty is removed if we give the expression to Pataikos with the sense ‘But, anyway, go home now!’, as Blanchard most recently has (see text and commentary').99 On the positive side, K.F.VV. Schmidt pointed out that, at the end of the play, Pataikos is arranging Moschion’s marriage to the daughter of one Philinos (10256).100 O f course, by now it has been established that he is Vloschion’s natural father. But if Moschion had been adopted by Myrrhine’s husband (some other person, not Pataikos) then this step could not follow so unproblematically. Gomme-Sandbach resort to the expedient of saying that Moschion had not been officially adopted by Myrrhine’s husband (p. 502), but this is a weak solution. It is much neater, and I think, creates a nice irony in the structure of the play, if the man whom Moschion takes to be his father in the earlier part of the play (but whom the audience know is not) turns out in fact to be his natural father.101 Assuming that Pataikos is Myrrhine’s husband in the play we avoid all necessity of postulating a third private house in addi­ tion to those of Polemon and Myrrhine, and can concentrate on the elegant economy of Menander’s ‘binomial’ staging.

The Humour of Perikeiromene There is humour at every turn of Perikeiromene but it is not the robust humour which makes one burst out laughing. It is more the kind which brings a wry smile, if not to one’s lips, then at least to one’s mind.102 From the visible beginning (to us) all the 98 We are told all this explicitly in the prologue, spoken by Agnoia. 99 Webster (1946, 375) also objects that ‘Ignorance [sc. in the missing part of the prologue] must have mentioned Pataikos as the father of the cliildren; if Pataikos later married Myrrhine, Ignorance could not have referred to her in 1.2 simply as “a rich woman who lives in that house”. This is not quite cogent as Agnoia might have mentioned the fact that Pataikos later married Myrrhine: the present expression ‘a rich woman who needed a child’ might refer to precisely this second wife, in apposition. 100 Philologische Wochenschrift 4 \ , 1921,718: ‘wenn Pataikos nur der leibliche Vater Moschions ist, so hat er nicht das Recht, diesen, seinen natürlichen Sohn, der doch vor dem Gesetze Myrrhines und ihres Gatten Sohn ist, so selbständig zu verheiraten, wie er es vs. 447 tut. Die Schwierigkeit fällt fort, wenn leiblicher Vater und rechtlicher Vater eine und dieselbe Person, d.h. Pataikos Myrrhines Gatte ist.’ 101 Similarly in Sikyonioi Kichesias turns out really to beKichesias, father of Philoumenc, after Theron has tried to persuade him by a bribe to play the part of the girl’s father (thanks to A. Sommerstein for the reminder). 102 Cf. Arnott (1970. 8), who writes that ‘Menander is an important comic writer, but - like Molierc, for instance or Jane Austen - his genius lurks half-hidden beneath the surface of his everyday language.

Introduction characters are vaguely laughable. The prologue goddess is no one distinguished like Athena or even Tyche but rather Agnoia, misunderstanding personified. She is re­ sponsible for launching the plot: without a basic misunderstanding of the situation Moschion would never have kissed Glykera, nor Polemon lost his temper. Sosias is a laughably rude subaltern to Polemon, making fun of his commander’s woe, launching a farcical ‘attack’ on Myrrhine’s house and indulging in lewd double-entendres with Habrotonon. Doris and Daos are relatively neutral as servants, acting as ball-bearings to keep the action moving, and as foils to their owners (Glykera and Moschion re­ spectively).'05 Polemon is distinctly laughable in his abject woe at losing Glykera and in the way Pataikos can easily deflect his aggression. True, it is a woe with which many members of the audience may have (and readers still may) sympathize, but he is slightly absurd in his crestfallen misery, in a boat, perhaps, with the Cyclops nurs­ ing his hopeless love for Galatea. Moschion is purely ridiculous, first in his misplaced ardour for Glykera (his sister) and his absurd cockiness when approaching the house in which Glykera has sought refuge. He is the foolish lover, whose delusions make him a figure of ridicule. Even Glykera, surely the heroine of the play, is made to look ridiculous by losing her hair. We may sympathise with that, but it is bound to have affected her appearance in an unflattering way.103104 Pataikos is also relatively neutral, a well-meaning middle-aged man who suddenly discovers that the catastrophe in his earlier life can be redeemed. Even at the end Polemon makes us smile, as he runs in­ doors when Pataikos and Glykera are about to appear, apparently from bashfulness. As has been amply demonstrated by earlier writers, Menander plays with tragic patterns in order to tease an audience with a divided response.105 Nowhere is this clearer than in the recognition scene. Here Menander lays on the tragic tone thick. When Pataikos and Glykera engage in stichomythia to discover the secret of her ex­ posure by him as an infant, the style, as was already recognized by the first editor of the Leipzig parchment, is pure (spoof) tragedy. Language, metre, content, even verbatim quotations, suggest similar recognition scenes in tragedy.106 But this is a comedy, and, lest we forget that, Menander places a witness on the scene, Moschion, who eavesdrops on the tragic recognition scene, making surprised asides as he listens and realizes what he is witnessing. This device makes Moschion almost a surrogate of the audience: as they, the audience of a comedy, witness this spoof tragic scene, so Moschion, the fool of the piece, similarly witnesses the scene and interprets it for He is an acquired taste, and those who read him too fast and too superficially will never acquire that taste. As Groucho Marx might have put it, if Menander is the kind of comedy you like, then you will like this kind of comedy.’ 103 On slaves in Menander generally see Krietcr-Spiro (1997); MacCary (1969). 104 Compare Bonnie’s shaved head in the TV scries Friends (Season 3 Episode 25). 105 For my views on this subject see Furley (2009,2-8); Gusset (2003). 106 In particular Euripides/7 ’, cf. Blanchard (2008) andid. (2013,144-150). Blanchard’s identification of the figures in the Ephesos wall-painting of Perik. - Glykera, Polemon and Moschion —needs revision, however, in view of the clearer depiction of the three figures in the new Antioch mosaic: Glykera, Pole­ mon and Sosias.

29 the audience. This ensures a divided response in the audience: their familiarity with tragedy evokes the emotions appropriate to a tragic recognition (pathos, relief), whilst Moschion, like a clown in the background, disturbs the illusion by reminding the au­ dience of his silly predicament (he chased the wrong woman).107 Halliwell (2007) has emphasized that the Menandrean aesthetic leads us into sympathy with a dire situation, only to draw back on the brink with light relief. I would suggest that the ex­ perience is more a simultaneous sympathy with the characters’ misfortunes combined with a wry smile. For the audience’s view of a Menandrean plot is always ironic.108 They know what the basic misunderstanding causing the plot’s entanglement is and therefore have the advantage over the figures. Their laughter and wry’ smiles are almost like the Olympian laughter in Homer reflecting the gods’ imperturbable supe­ riority over the suffering humans. It is not only tragedy which lurks in the background as a literary foil to Polemon’s story. His anger in the first scene which precipitates the entire action might be com­ pared to the menis theme of the Iliad. There, too, a warrior is deprived of his girl, becomes enraged, threatens violence and then withdraws from the company com­ mand and finds solace among close friends. The Iliad begins with a bang, as it were, a crisis in the leadership of the Greek forces. Similarly Penk. begins with a violent ex­ change between Polemon and Glykera, triggered by Sosias’ denunciation of Glykera for having kissed another man on her doorstep. Polemon falls into a rage and shears off her hair; he then leaves home and seeks solace among friends in an inn next door (as I propose). The scene described by Sosias in which Polemon languishes among a group of friends trying to drown his sorrows by drinking and dining bears more than a passing resemblance to the description of Achilles mourning the loss of Patroklos, surrounded by friends preparing the ariston (II. 24.123-25, see commentary on lines 174-5 of the play). One can go further. The perceived ‘seduction’ of Glykera happened when a ri­ val suitor (Moschion) came to her door and tried to seduce her while Polemon was away.109 Unfortunately, the ‘pass’ at Glykera was noticed by Sosias who reported it to Polemon when he returned from military service. Similarly Paris availed himself of an absence of Menelaos from Sparta to insinuate himself into Helen’s favour and abduct her. The action of Penk. following this initial upset also has Iliadic overtones. Polemon’s ‘forces’ tiy to recapture Glykera from the house next door (Myrrhine’s) to which she has fled following the hair-shearing. Needless to say, the Trojan War has a similar goal, to recover Helen.110 There are two ‘waves’ of combat in Penk.: in the second act when Sosias accompanied by some thugs confronts Daos in front of 107 Cf.Scafuro (2014, 225). 108 Cf. Lamagna (1994, 166); Ireland (2011, introduction to Aspis). 109 499-500 (Polemon speaking): ό δέ διεφθσρκώζ έμοΟ άπόντο$ αυτήν. 110 If one applies the Polemon-Achilles model strictly, the war should be about the recovery’ of Briseis; but this asymmetry does not affect the point I ’m making here which concerns general literary’ paradigms rather than mathematical equations.

Introduction Myrrhine's house and demands Glykera be returned; otherwise his boys will 'storm this miserable hut by force’ (388-9). In this exchange Moschion is called ‘the adul­ terer’ (μοιχός 390), which is of course how the Greeks saw Trojan Paris. In the third act Polemon accompanied by Sosias111 and the same motley band of ruffians attempts to storm the house to recapture Glykera. Here he is thwarted in his purpose by the intervention of Pataikos. Similarly in the Iliad there is a first phase of combat without Achilles, then a second, after the death of Patroklos, in which Achilles himself rages against the Trojans and kills Hektor. Menander does not point up this structural similarity between his comedy and the great epic which everyone knew.112 He is not making fun of the Iliad. The purpose of the foil, which is almost subliminally present throughout the play, is to make the military dimension of the play more comical. If we consciously or unconsciously com­ pare Polemon with Achilles, the comic character of the former is enhanced. Where Achilles sulks in his tent in haughty grandeur, Polemon grovels on his bed, crying for the girl he has lost, and ready to submit to any humiliation to get her back. Would Achilles have pathetically shown Briseis’ lovely clothes to Nestor, say, regretting her loss, as Polemon does to Pataikos in the third act?113 Would Achilles have jumped like a rabbit as Polemon does in act five when he is about to meet Glykera and her father face to face? Would Achilles have forsworn all further ‘macho’ behaviour as Polemon does in lines 1016-20? Similarly, the character of Moschion gains comic depth if he is tacitly compared with Paris in the Iliad. In the eyes of Sosias (representing Polemon’s army) he is simply 'the adulterer’ (μοιχός 390). Glykera has gone off ‘to her darling’ (404 τό μελημα). And in lines 302-3 Moschion preens himself on his attractiveness to women (again in 308-9). In act three he confronts Sosias’ ‘troops’ with comic bravado, commenting on how they scatter at his approach (526-29), rather as Paris arms himself in Book Six of the Iliad and marches from his bedroom, where he had been dallying with Helen, onto the battlefield in a show of valour. Glykera, too, gains from the comparison. In the play we learn only that she is ‘attractive’ (ευπρεπής 143), tall (521-22), and presumably that she had beautiful long hair before Polemon cut it off. She gains in stature, however, if she is the Helen-figure of the play, desired by all men and fought over. I repeat: Penk. is not parody of the Iliad or any specific mythical tragedy. The great paradigm of the Iliad, however, serves to throw the military posturing in the play into comic relief. This is borne out by the fine texture of the play's language, which is character­ ized by militaristic expressions. When Sosias appears in act one to fetch a coat for Polemon, he says Polemon has ‘dispatched him’, έκπέπομφέ με, which is military m In the II. Patroklos is Achilles’ θεράπω ν e.g. 11. 16.244. 112 In a similar komastic scene in Kolax in which armed men storm a house to retrieve a desirable hetaira, an explicit comparison is made with the army Odysseus led against Troy (lines 111-121). 113 But note Menelaos’ dream in Aeschylus Ag. 420-28 in which a phantom of Helen (φάσμα line 415) is said to ‘rule the house’ after her departure.

31 language for the sending out of a spy or envoy.114 In the long burlesque scene at the beginning of act two between Moscliion and Daos there are a number of similar kalachrestic uses of military language. In line 279 Moschion says he wishes to elevate Daos to the position of ‘commander general’ of Greek forces, if he arranges the liaison with Glykera effectively. In 292-3 Moschion says it is now ‘his turn to laugh at the god-damned, feather-plumed commander of a thousand’ (Polemon). In 295 he dis­ patches Daos into the house ‘to spy out the lie of the land’ (τώυ όλω ν κατάσκοπος π ρ α γμ ά τω ν γευου), as if the spying mission of a slave in his own house was equiva­ lent to military intelligence. Myrrhine, on hearing from Daos that Moschion is at the door and hungering for Glykera comments ά λ λ [ή] π ά ν τ ’ [άυ]ήρπαστ’ έκ μέσου; ‘is everything snatched from the middle?’ (323). ά να ρπ άζω is usually used o f‘sack­ ing’ and ‘plundering’ a city. When Daos reports back to Moschion he says that Glyk­ era does not favour a ‘rushed’ approach έξ επιδρομής (338), an expression usually used for sudden, unexpected, attack. We have already seen how acts two and three are dominated by military action in which first Sosias, then Polemon together with Sosias, plan to ‘take out’ Myrrhine’s house in order to recapture Glykera. Sosias at one point tells Polemon that he is ‘conducting the campaign badly’ when he sees him softening his resolve when confronted by Pataikos.115 The joking comparison be­ tween the mission to regain a loved one and a military siege reaches its high point in Sosias’ lewd innuendo to the flute-girl Habrotonon among their number. When he sees their attack being deflected by Pataikos he says: And indeed, Habrotonon, you’re well equipped for laying siege. You ‘mount’ well and can ‘encircle’. What, bashful, whore? You turn your face? W hat’s it to you?116 In this way, Perikeiromene has as its overall theme and in the fine texture of its language the consistent debunking of Polemon’s sphere of operations, the battlefield. By peacable means Glykera forces him into submission. Pataikos, who turns out to be her father, gets him to abjure all violence of manner. One might say that the simple message of the play is ‘make love, not war’. Nevertheless the play should not be imag­ ined as having been written, or performed, in a political vacuum. Menander himself takes care to contextualize the drama in the ‘war and troubles’ which have recently afflicted Corinth (125). Likewise Moschion at one point says that Greece is experi­ encing a ‘bumper crop’ of unhappiness at present (533 φορά καλή). One is tempted to extrapolate from the small-scale domestic drama to the larger political sphere of 114 Line 178 with Lamagna’s note. 115 576-77: κακώς διοικείς, το ν πόλεμον διαλύσεται, εξόν λαβεΤν κατά κράτος. It is interesting that L has an interlinear variant for διοικείς in γε πολεμεϊς; see text and commentary. Both are military or strategic terms. 116 482-5: καί γά ρ , Ά βρότονον,/ Ιχεις τι προς πολιορκίαν σν χρήσιμον / δύνασαί τ ’ άναβαίνειν, περικαθήσθαι. ποΤ στρέφει,/ λαικάστρι’; ήισχύνθης; μέλει το ύ τω ν τί σοι: For Dixon’s reading of this passage in terms of political allegory see below p. 36.

32

Introduction

the times. Susan Lape, for example, sees in the story of Glykera’s victory over Polemon’s martial behaviour in love an allegory of the Athenian democracy’s victory over the Macedonian overlords: 'By recasting the conflict between kingdom and city as a romantic conflict, these plays [sc. Perik., Mis.] use the romantic relationship as a site for negotiating the play of power between unequals’ (2004, 172). And further on: ’.. .his profession [sc. Polemon’s] as a mercenary allows the conflict between Polemon and Glykera to stand in for the overarching conflicts between the Hellenistic military kingdoms and the increasingly nonmilitarized Greek cities as well as those between mercenaries and Greek citizens’ (ibid, page 177).11' But the equation of Glykera with the polis and Polemon with the Macedonian conquerors is too simplistic. For one thing, Polemon is a citizen of his polis, Corinth; he has only been fighting for a Macedonian commander as a mercenary. As discussed below, the attempt by Dixon to equate Polemon with Demetrios Poliorketes who laid siege to Corinth in 303 BC runs into difficulties when examined more closely.117118 Moreover, Glykera is not a citi­ zen of Corinth, at least until she recognizes her father and regains her citizenship at the end of the play. Some, contrary to Lape, have detected a pro-Macedonian stance in Menander’s life and work.1'9 I hesitate, therefore, to see in Perik. any kind of political allegory relating directly to contemporary power-structures. Nevertheless, the Iliadic overtones of the plot and language serve to place the drama in a larger literary con­ text. The construction of humour by Menander in this play depends to a degree on the heroic and tragic foils we have identified. Like the depths of a cave, these literary antecedents give sonority to the playful tones of the comedy.

Menander’s understated language The striking thing about Menander’s New Comedy, however, is its contemporary, ‘re­ alistic’ stage. Aristotle’s theory of mimesis (‘art imitates life’) will not have passed him by. Whilst tragedy (for which the theory was developed) ‘imitates’ a remote action in mythical time, and middle comedy went through a period of deriving amusement from parodies of these mythical plots,120 Menander’s new comedy hones mimesis to a new refinement by imitating distinctly everyday praxeis. What could be more ‘life­ like’ than that a mercenary soldier on home leave should discover, or suspect, that his ‘wife’ had gone with another man in his absence, and jealous tension arise? Such stories recur time over, then and now.121 On the one hand, this is the banality which some modem critics have held against Menander.122 Repetitive and shallow plots, they say; routine character types; predictable endings; drama lacking real bite. But it 117 For a sceptical response cf. Brown (2004, 14 n. 66). 118 See p. 36. 119 See Major (1997). 120 Cf. Nesselrath (1990). 121 One has only to think of the (distinctly un-humorous) recent American TV series Homeland. 122 See e.g. Green (1990, 65-79).

33 was clearly in the subtle characterization of everyday people that Menander excelled. Plutarch praises the quality of his language in that it runs evenly in the main, but is capable of rising to sudden heights of expressiveness suited to a dramatic moment, before being modulated back to a normal pitch again. A second quality, according to Plutarch, is the skill with which Menander’s language manages to encompass all types, with their different idioms, in a medium which does not fragment or jar.123 I have argued above that the apparent ‘plainness’ of Menander’s style gains resonance from the literary and dramatic foils before which it unfolds. Echoes of tragedy and epic, set now in a thoroughly ‘bourgeois’ milieu, set up an interesting tension between the great literary7forbears and the ‘strutting and fretting’ of Menander’s little people tied up in their everyday cares and concerns. The scale of his drama is small, but the depths beneath its surface are considerable.124 By analogy, Menander’s language itself is characterized by understatement. This understatement has to be re-inflated back to life size, as it were, if we are not to miss many points. It is almost as if Menander has taken Plato’s criticism of poets in the Re­ public (Book 3) to heart and adapted his style accordingly. In that philosophical work Plato criticized poets for appealing to the base instincts of their listeners, of addressing their works to precisely the disturbing emotions which Plato wants to banish from his ideally harmonious state. They should not depict gods fighting, heroes crying, any­ one behaving in a base way, for fear the audience will become accustomed to such behaviour and think it normal. Rather, poetry should be exemplary, showing only behaviour and speech which is worthy of emulation. The poets’ language should, for that reason, be moderate, restrained, temperate and decent, for it to be admitted to the republic. Now, most of us silently scream when we read these chapters and think Plato has missed the point: poetry, as a form of art, achieves emotional release pre­ cisely by speaking to the undercurrents of emotion, the irrationalities, the dark side of human nature.125 There is a danger, if we eliminate all disturbing elements from art, that it becomes flat and boring. That, indeed, is what many have regretted in Menan­ der. Critics say that he has ‘eliminated all elements of human wickedness’ from his plays, that is, the spice of evil which livens up so much gripping art.126 They point to the ‘relentlessly low-key colloquial dialogue’, the ‘formula dressed out in platitudes’ typifying Menander’s repetitive plots of rapes, exposed babies and recognitions.127 And indeed, when we compare Menander with Aristophanes, it is as if the spice has been taken out of comedy. Where Aristophanes delights and excels in linguistic and dramatic fireworks, Menander coolly reduces the temperature of comedy to drawing-

123 For a more detailed discussion of these points see Furlcy (2009, 19-23). The passage in question is Plutarch, Compar. Aristophanis et Menandri compendium 853D10-F10. 124 See above η. 102. 125 See especially Rep. 395-98. In 397d-e Plato admits that ‘children, paidagogoi and the general pub­ lic’ prefer the dramatic, emotional style. In other words, he realizes he is legislating against the common preference in dramatic art.

126 Blume (1998, 44-45).

127 Green (1990. 65-79).

Introduction room respectability. Possibly Menander has really taken on board Plato’s strictures in the Republic through the intermediary of the Lyceum’s ‘golden mean’.128 That is, perhaps Plato’s huge authority is indirectly, and partly, responsible for the modera­ tion of tone in New Comedy. To appreciate Menander we have to become sensitive to the germ of meaning in his rather dry style, let his words soak overnight, as it were, before they become palatable. Examples abound. The trait is a universal feature of his language, not restricted to individual passages or expressions. It is the job of the commentary to bring out the sense of individual expressions in a more comprehensive way. Let a few exam­ ples here suffice. When Agnoia says in line 126 that the old lady was, in view of the increasing difficulties in Corinth, άπορουμένη σφόδρα, 'in great embarrassment’, we think first that she was upset by the adverse times, troubled by Corinth’s difficul­ ties. When we combine this description, however, with the next statement that, in these circumstances, she gave the nubile Glykera to Polemon ‘as if she were her own daughter’, we can read between the lines: there was a material side to the transaction. Probably the old woman could no longer afford to keep Glykera. Perhaps she even se­ cured a financial recompense for herself through the deal.129 Behind the neutral term άττορουμένη there lurks the connotation of poverty with all its hardships.130 Aristo­ phanes might have joked that Glykera fetched a talent or two. Not so Menander: he speaks as if Glykera entered upon a kind of marriage with Polemon. Staying with the prologue, in lines 140-41 we find an interesting combination of understatement. The old lady told Glykera who her brother was (Moschion next door) because she was pretty and he was forward, and she did not want ‘anything untoward’ happening between them: i.e. incest. But the euphemism does not stop there. Agnoia, speaking the prologue, says the old woman wanted to take care that nothing untoward happened between them, ‘because of me, Agnoia’. Here the god­ dess Agnoia casually refers to herself in the mouth of the humble old lady with the literal meaning of her name: ‘Misapprehension’ or ‘Ignorance’. Could a goddess be less presuming about her role and dignity? She makes a joke of herself with an irony like in Lukian’s Dialogues o f the Gods. In line 150 Glykera is said not to want to reveal Moschion’s true status (as a foundling child) so that ‘he should benefit from the gifts of Fortune’ (δνασθαι 5’ ώ ν δέδωκεν ή τύχη). This is an understated way of saying that he should be al­ lowed to enjoy the material wealth which adoption by Myrrhine has given him. It is particularly in the areas of sex and money that Menander uses restrained, almost coy language. When the forward Moschion propositions Glykera, he says he would like 128 Cf. Nervegna (2013, 46-54). One reads the remarkably bold statement ibid. p. 17: ‘A student of Theophrastus and a friend of Demetrius of Phaleron, Menander was an oligarchic, pro-Macedonian intellectual who invariably staged the kind of comedy promoted by Aristotle, Theophrastus and Plato before them. His comedy appealed to oligarchic regimes and responded well to Peripatetic theories on comedy and the comic.’ 129 See n. 39 above. 130 Cf. Lape (2004, 173).

35 to ‘meet with her at leisure’ (159-60), where ‘meet with’ (ίδεΤυ τι; see commentary) is as euphemistic as English ‘is she seeing anyone?’ Even if we take the uncouth Sosias as our example, we find his language similarly understated. He refers to the forcible cutting of Glykera’s hair by a reference to his master’s ‘not letting women keep their hair’ (173). The effect is similar to litotes, in which denial of the negative emphasizes the positive (‘no mean achievement’). Not only did Polemon not ‘let Glykera keep her hair’, he cut it off savagely with his sword! Then Sosias says that Polemon is surrounded by his friends ‘so that he may bear the matter more lightly’ (176-77); what he means is that Polemon wishes to drown his sorrows with his friends. When Sosias catches sight of Doris, the maid, and admires the stature she has developed since he last saw her, we might expect a wolf whistle; in­ stead Menander has him say ‘How she’s grown! How well developed! These women lead a life, it seems to me!’ These appreciative words might be considerably more explicit and vulgar in the mouth of a soldier’s lackey. Similarly Daos, the servant of Moschion. When commenting on Glykera’s arrival in their house, he says he is full of praise for Myrrhine (the mother) who has taken Glykera in. ‘Now there’s a mother!’ he says. It takes several steps of deduction to realize that the remark is a sexual innuendo; he insinuates that Myrrhine is really looking after her son well by bringing in the girl from next door for his needs. In fact nothing of the sort lies behind either Glykera’s or Myrrhine’s motives. Nevertheless, Daos’ remark is full of unstated implications which bring a nod-and-a-wink even to this unimportant passage. At every step, then, we have to be prepared to reflate Menander’s understated lan­ guage to catch its true significance. O f course we cannot tell whether he favoured a similarly restrained acting style or whether the players brought out hints through em­ phasis, pauses or tone of voice.131 The anecdote which has Menander saying to fellow poet Philemon, after the latter had defeated him at the dramatic contest: ‘Aren’t you ashamed whenever they pick you over me?’132 might point to such a discrepancy be­ tween Menander’s subtlety and his popularity. Quintilian recognized that posterity judged Menander more favorably than his contemporaries.133 Perhaps Menander was ahead of his time with his linguistic subtlety. His contemporary audience was perhaps still more attuned to coarser comedy.

Date Menander’s creative period extended over the last two decades of the fourth century and the first of the third. There is no external evidence for the dating of Perik. as 131 Cf. Ciesko (2005); Handley (2002); Csapo (1993). 132 Aulus Gellius Ν Α 17.4.1; cf. Apul. Flor. 16 = test. 71 KA; cf. test. 101.15-16 KA. 133 Inst. Or. 3.7.18 = test. 99 KA.

36

Introduction

there is for Orge, Dyskolos. Heniochos, imbrioi.134 As for internal evidence, the play begins with a resounding historical reference to ‘war and troubles’ in Corinth, which one seeks to pinpoint in that city’s contemporary history. However, as Arnott (1996b, 372) says, Corinth suffered repeated attacks by Macedonians and their successors from 315/14 to 303, any or all of which suit Agnoia’s generalization about ‘war and increasing adversity in Corinth’ (του πολέμου και τω ν Κορινθιακών κακών / αυξανόμενων 125-6).135 A possible handhold on more precise dating was proposed by Schwartz (1929) in lines 279-81, in which Moschion suggests to Daos in jocu­ lar fashion that he will be made ‘leader of Hellenic affairs and master of the camps’ (προστάτην π ρ α γ μ ά τω ν Ελληνικών και διοικητήν στρατοπέδω ν 279-80) as reward for his good services to Moschion. Daos’ response is damaged textually but he seems to decline, saying that leaders who are caught embezzling something are promptly executed. Schwartz saw in the exchange an allusion to the fate of Alexan­ der, son of Polyperchon, who was murdered in 314/3 by Alexion of Sikyon and others shortly after he had been appointed ‘general of the Peloponnese’.136 The suggestion has met with favour from e.g. Arnott and now Blanchard (2013, 155). But there are difficulties. For one thing there is no mention of trickery or embezzlement on Alexander’s part corresponding to Daos’ κλέψαντά τι (281). Next, as Dixon (2005) points out, Kassandros promised the ‘command’ (στρατηγία) of the Peloponnese when persuading him to rebel against Antipater whereas Moschion mentions the po­ sition of ‘commander-in-chief (προστάτης) of ‘Hellenic forces’. In short there are a number of discrepancies in detail which weaken Schwartz’ assertion that we have a clear historical allusion to the events of 314/13 here. In the paper already cited, Dixon argues for a much more basic historical parallel to the play. He suggests that Polemon’s siege attack on Myrrhine’s house to recap­ ture Glykera in act three would inevitably have reminded an Athenian audience of the besieging of Corinth by none other than Demetrios Poliorketes in the year 303 BC. He points to Sosias’ reference to ‘siege warfare’ (πολιορκία) in line 483 com­ bined with Habrotonon’s other talents useful for assault and battery (άναβαίνειν, περικαθήσθαι). If accepted, we obtain a much later terminus post quem for Perikeiromene's performance, right at the end of the fourth century. However, Dixon’s bold allegorizing is also open to question. Polemon was a Corinthian, we recall, returning to his home and paliake in the play, and no foreign general making an attempt on Glykera’s virtue. The remark about ‘siege tactics’ is made by Sosias rather than Pole­ mon and in the context of a lewd joke about Habrotonon’s charms. If we are meant to think of Demetrios Poliorketes’ attack on Corinth at this point, the innuendo is certainly a distraction. Finally, one wonders whether such comprehensive allegory 134 a. 321 (test. ii KA), Lenaia 316 (IG II2 2325, 160), Dionysia 312 (IG II2 2323a, 36), 301 (test, i KA) respectively. 135 See further Blanchard (2013, 154-155). 136 Diod. 19.64.3: σ τρ ατη γίαν δώσειν εφησε πόσης Πελοπόννησον καί δυνάμεως άποδείξειν κύριον, έτι δε κ ατ’ άξίαν τιμήσειν. The murder: ibid. 19.67.1.

37 is appropriate to Menander’s art. Certainly there are no other plays or passages we know about in which an equation of stage characters with historical personages is re­ quired or even suggested.137 In short, I fear the search for specific topical allusions as usual draws a blank, or only raises faint possibilities, in this play as in others. De­ spite this, I find Dixon’s general position (going back to Capps (1910, 145-6)) that the ‘Corinthian troubles’ are best located in the years 304/3 more persuasive than Schwartz’ thesis about Alexander son of Cassander. Internal aesthetic arguments are equally elusive. In the aforementioned study Schwartz (1929,4) argued that Perikeiromcne is a relatively early work, with Menan­ der’s art still developing. In the recognition scene, according to Schwartz, he lays on the tragic tone too thick (‘zu dick aufgetragen’). ‘The intention to show the vicis­ situdes of life, and the attempt to show in the military officer and his concubine an ethos at variance with the dramatic norm —note the programmatic lines 44ff. —do not harmonize satisfactorily with the farcical scenes’ (‘Das Streben, die Wechselfälle des ß(o$ darzustellen, der Ehrgeiz, in dem Militär und seiner Konkubine ein vom Typ­ ischen abweichendes Ethos zu formen —man beachte die Ankündigung im Prolog 44ff. - sind mit den possenhaften Szenen nicht recht ausgeglichen’).138 But others’ opinions on these points may differ. One may counter the first point by saying that the tragic colouring of the recognition scene is deliberately blatant to point up the irony of a tragic set piece within comedy. On the question of character portrayal one can hardly claim that either Polemon or Glykera lose credibility through artifice or hyperbole. Polemon’s woes as a spurned lover are thoroughly credible, as is Glykera’s instinct for self-preservation. True, the play contains a fair admixture of farce in the two pseudo-military confrontations, but Menander exercises his usual restraint and sense of proportion even in these. The play seems to have been one of the more popular in antiquity. We have al­ ready looked at a number of ancient texts which reflect the play’s influence. Two other criteria point in the same direction. A fair number of papyri with sections or fragments of the text have been found reflecting quite wide circulation of the play in Roman Egypt.139 Secondly, the pictorial evidence from Ephesos and now Anti­ och must reflect the play’s popularity in some sense. The fact that a Glykera is the heroine of the play combined with the biographical or pseudo-biographical tradition about Menander and his love Glykera will have given some piquancy to the story. Alkiphron will have based his two fictional letters from Menander and Glykera to each other, with their references to Perikeiromene (as I argued above), on the expec137 Elderkin (1934), however, makes a strong case that a colleague of Menander, Philippides, wrote a comedy in 303/2 which satirized Demctrios Poliorketes and his mistress Lamia. This comedy, accord­ ing to Elderkin, was the prototype of Plautus’ Curculio. Actually, Elderkin’s arguments show what a difference there was between the Greek author of Curculio’s prototype and Menander in the matter of sending up public figures. Menander was either much more careful, much more discrete, or simply was not interested in political satire. 138 Cf. Lamagna (1994, 43ff.). 139 At least seven, possibly eight, if P.Oxy. 2658 is correctly attributed to the play.

Introduction tation that his readers were familiar with the play. These pointers, taken together, seem rather to indicate that the play was one of Menander’s more successful, rather than a beginner’s attempt, as Schwartz seems to be saying. I think we would do well to date the play to a mature phase in Menander’s dramatic art. The historical difficulties in Corinth around 303 are at least compatible with Agnoia’s introductory remarks. Penkeiromene may have been first produced around the turn of (our) fourth century BC.

Sources and Text The following ancient manuscripts contain parts of Perikeiromene·.• 121-190, 261-406, 480-550, 708-725, 742-760: P. Cairensis 43227 (C). AD v. Ed. pr. Lefebvre (1907).140 • 162-79 P. Heidelberg G 219 (H) Ed. pr. Gerhard (1911, 4. Abh.): lines 182191 Salewski (2000). • 467-527, 768-827 Membranae Lipsienses (L). Ed. pr. Koerte (1908). • ‘frontispiece’ P.Oxy. 2652 and 2653 (sketch drawings of Agnoia and Pole­ moni?)). Ed. pr. E.G. Turner, ‘An illustrated papyrus of Menander?’ Atti XICIP, 1966, 591 = P.Oxy. vol. 32,1967. • 473-492 (and a few letters from the preceding column) P. Oxy. 2830 (015). Ed. pr. E.G. Turner (vol. 38). • 511(?), 540-41 and -569-70 P.Oxy. 5200. Ed. pr. W.B. Henry • 796 P.Oxy. 3705. Ed. pr. M.W. Haslam (vol. 53). • 938-966 (with barely legible line endings from the preceding column) P. Oxy. 2658. Ed. pr. E.G. Turner (vol. 33). The attribution of this fragment to Penkeiromene is somewhat conjectural. • 976-1026 P. Oxy. 211. Edd. pr. Grenfell & Hunt, reexamined and edited by Browne (1974). Several art works illustrate certainly or possibly the first scene of Penkeiromene: • Wall painting of Menander’s Penkeiromene, north wall of SR 6, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos.141 140 Blanchard (2014,251) suggests that Misoumenos and possibly Thrasyleon may have followed Penk. in the Cairensis, thus constituting a triad in which the ‘common theme is the suffering man’. 141 Charitonidis et al. (1970, p. 100, plate 27). Jobst (1972, 235-245), who identified the figures as Glykera, Pataikos, and Doris, and the scene as the recognition (755ff.). Gf. Amott (1988).

39 • Mosaic panel illustrating Menander’s Periieiromene, Daphne (Ö. Qelik).142 • Wall painting of a comic scene, possibly Perikdromenc, S.62.8, Metope b, House of the Comedians, Delos.143 For this edition I have used the photographs given by Lefebvre and Koenen (1978) to check the readings of C where possible. The librarians in Leipzig kindly supplied me with a high-resolution new scan of the Leipzig parchment fragments, which has assisted greatly in reexamining readings of this section of the text. Likewise Dirk Obbink kindly sent me a new scan of P.Oxy. 2658 for re-examination. For the other fragments I have relied on the digital images made available by the Department of Papyrology in Heidelberg and by Oxyrhynchus online. The editions principally cited in the apparatus and commentary are the following (unless otherwise stated): Allinson = Allinson (1921. Revised and reprinted 1930, 1959) Amott = Amott (1995), Blanchard = Blanchard (2013) Bodin-Mazon = Bodin & Mazon (1908) Browne = Browne (1974) Capps = Capps (1910) Cobet = Cobet (1876) Coppola = Coppola (1st edition 1927, 2nd 1938) Croenert = Croenert (1907, 1908), Croenert (1911) Croiset = Croiset (1908) Del Corno = Como (1966) Eitrem = Eitrem (1908) Furley = this edition Gerhard = Gerhard (1911,4. Abh.) G-H —Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt in the relevant volumes of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri G.-S. = Gomme & Sandbach (1973) Gueraud = Gueraud (1927) Headlam = Headlam (1908) Herwerden = van Herwerden (1908) Housman = Housman (1908) Hunt = Hunt (1914) Jensen =Jensen (1927)144 142 See Gutzwiller & Omer Qelik (2012). 143 On west wall of Room N; Bruneau (1970, 169-70, 177-79, fig. 110, pis. 21.4, 22.8, 23.1, 23.2, 23.4-7); Bruno (1985,24-6, pis. 3-7); Webster (1995, 1:90, fig. XZ 19), who accepts it asascenefrom the Perikeiromene, though possibly a different moment than the one depicted in the Ephesos painting. 144 With ‘Dc Menandri codice Cairensi, lectiones novae el coniectanea’, R hM 65,1910, 539; ‘Zu dem Menanderpapyrus in Kairo’, Hermes 49, 1914, 382.

40

Introduction

Karnezis = Karnezis (1979) Koenen = Koenen (1974) Koerte = Koerte (1908) K.-Th. = Koerte & Thierfelder (Third edition 1953-1955) Kretschmar = Kretschmar (1906) Kuiper = Kuiper (1930) Lamagna = Lamagna (1994) and Lamagna (1991) Lefebvre = Lefebvre (1907) or Lefebvre (1911) Legrand = Legrand (1907, 1908) Leeuwen = van LeeuwenJ.F. (1908), van LeeuwenJ.F. (1918) Leo = Leo (1907), Leo (1908) Lloyd-Jones = Lloyd-Jones (1974) Lowe = Lowe (1973) Meister = C. Meister, cited per epist. ap. Koerte & Thierfelder (Third edition 1953-1955) Murray = Murray (1942. Reprint 1956) Post = Post (1941) Rea = Rea (1975) Reinach = Reinach (1909) Robert = Robert (1909), Robert (1908) Salewski = Salewski (2000) Sandbach = Sandbach(1990) Schmidt = Schmidt (1909) Schwartz = Schwartz (1929) Sudhaus = Sudhaus (1914)145 Turner = see the volumes of Papyri Oxyrhynchi referred to in the commentary von Arnim = von Arnim (1907)146 Wilamowitz = von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1907), von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff( 1908)147 Much of what I said in Furley (2009, 32-34) applies to this edition of Perikeiromene, too. With the present play, however, the overlap and multiplicity of manu­ script fragments is not so great, so I have decided not to include a chapter ‘Composite Readings’ here. Variant readings in the sources are given in the app. crit. Likewise I have been more sparing with the grey print, to indicate longer, particularly uncertain supplements of missing text. I thought the light grey made for more difficult read­ ing and perhaps distracted from, rather than aiding, appreciation of the text. In this 145 Generally. See further: ‘Die Perikeiromene’, Rh.M . 63, 1908, 283; ‘Der Kampr um die Perikeiromene’, ibid. 64, 1909, 412: Berl. Philol. Woch. 1908, 321; ‘Die Szene der Perikeiromene’ 164-216, Hermes 46, 1911, 144. 146 See further: ‘Zu Menanders Perikeiromene’, Zeifsc/i. fur ösretr. Gymn. 1909. 1. 147 See further: Hermes 62, 1927, 294-95: for the last scene of the play see also id. Gott. Gel. Anz. 1900, 30.

41 edition, then, the reader must observe the square brackets closely, as is traditional. In particular at the beginning of act two the readings of C are very insecure owing to the damaged surface of the papyrus leaves. Here, one has to be guided principally by the early generation of scholars who examined the manuscript. In his last major, posthumous, publication Austin (2012, xi) commented in the preface that Menan­ der’s text was often treated by editors like an ‘intensive care patient still dependent on a life-support machine’, that is, it came with a battery of under-dotted letters and brackets (and, in my case, grey print for doubtful restorations). This was presumably a negative comment. Austin meant to say that the vigour and clarity of Menander’s writing was somehow compromised by all these editorial trappings. But it remains the case that the state of our preserved text, not Menander’s original writing, is of­ ten deplorable. It is simply an illusion if we print modern texts without the necessary cautions about supplements and conjectures. The image which comes to my mind when trying to reconstruct as viable a text as possible is that of a shattered vase which one painstakingly tries to reassemble into something of its former beauty, rather than a hospitalized patient. Our guesses for gaps are only that. Whenever new text is discov­ ered, helping to fill in some of the holes in our knowledge, we are usually surprised by what Menander wrote, rather than confirmed in our earlier guesses.148 These caveats apply in large measure to Perikeiromene. In my translation I have used a free verse form which I hope conveys something of the rhythm and pace of Menander’s verse forms. Prose may offer greater accuracy as a medium of modern translation but there are deficits when one loses all sense of the movement of thought across lines and the formality of stichic metre. I have allowed myself some modernity of expression where the use of a direct equivalent to an ancient word sounds too archaic.

148 A very good case is the new material from Epitrepontes published by C. Römer in ZPE 182 and 183.

Chapter 2

Text The cast In order of appearance: Polemon, the mercenary soldier (chiliarchos) Glykera, his pallake the goddess Agnoia, speaker of the prologue Sosias, Polemon’s lieutenant Doris, Polemon’s servant acting as Glykera’s maid Daos, Moschion’s servant Moschion, (adoptive) son of Myrrhine Pataikos, (?)Myrrhine’s husband1

Other characters named in the text who do not have speaking parts (at least in the surviving text) are: Myrrhine, Moschion’s foster-mother; Habrotonon, an hetaira in Sosias’ retinue: no doubt a number of other servants and attendants of Polemon and/or Sosias who join their commanders in the assault scenes of acts two and three; 1 The miniature masks of Polemon, Glykera and Sosias are taken from the Antioch mosaic. Sosias’ face is unfortunately damaged in the mosaic. Agnoia comes from P.Oxy. 2652 (ink drawing of Agnoia): Doris and Moschion are selected from the Lipari masks: Pataikos’ mask I owe to Chris Vervain.

Text possibly a cook (mentioned by Polemon in line 996); one Philinos mentioned as the father of a girl who might marry Moschion by Pataikos in line 1027. The scene is a street in Corinth. Two front doors belonging to Polemon and Myrrhine respectively flank the central stage door which represents the door of an inn.“ The date of the first performance may tentatively be placed soon after 304-3 BC (see pp. 35ff. in the introduction).

According to the conjectural inclusion of P.Oxy. 2658 in the play. See notes there.

Act One

45

Act One fr. 96 KA

ΠΟΛΕΜωΝ Γλυκερά, τί κλάεις; ομνύω σοι τόν Δία τόν Όλυμπιον καί τήν Αθήναν, φιλτάτη, όμωμοκώς καί πρότερον ήδη πολλάκις. [-gap of about 117 lines-] Prologue (ΑΓΝΟΙΑ) τό μέν] προθυμηθεϊσα θήλυ, τό δ’ έτερον γυναικί] δούναι πλουσίαι τήν οικίαν ταύτην] κατοικούσηι, δε[ο]μένηι παιδιού. ήρεσ]ε δέ τ α [ϋ τ’. έκτε]ταμ[έ]νων δ’ ετώ ν τινων καί τ]οΰ πολέμου καί τω ν Κορινθιακών κακών αύ]ξανομένων ή γραΰς άπορουμένη σφόδρα, τεθραμμένης τής παιδός, ήν νύν εϊδετε ύμεϊς, έραστοϋ γενομένου τε τού σφοδρού τούτου νεανίσκου γένει Κορινθίου οντος, δίδωσι τήν κόρην ώς θυγατέρα αυτής έχειν ήδη δ’ άπειρηκυΐα καί προορωμένη τού ζην καταστροφήν τινα αύτήι παρούσαν ούκ έ'κρυψε τήν τύχην, λέγει δέ προς τήν μείραχ’ ώς άνείλετο αυτήν, έν οΤς τε σπαργάνοΐζ δίδω σ’ αμα, τόν άγνοούμενόν τ ’ αδελφόν τήι φύσει φράζει, προνοουμένη τι τώ ν ανθρωπίνων, εϊ ποτέ δεηθείη βοηθεία$ τίνος, όρώσα τούτον ό ντ’ άναγκαΤον μόνον αύτήι, φυλακήν τε λαμβάνουσα μή ποτέ δΓ έμέ τι τήν Ά γνοιαν αύτοΤς συμπέσηι

125

130

135

140

121 τό μέν Leo: αυτή Sudhaus 124 ήρεσε Furley: γέγονε Weißmann: ελαθε Schwartz, Lamagna: έλαχε δε ταρρεν Sudhaus εκτεταμένων Furley, Blanchard: εκτεινόμενων Lamagna: ένισταμένωνJensen: έγγενο]μένων Leo: 135 διδοϋσ’ Croenert, van Henverden

46

Text άκούσιον, πλουτούντα καί μεθύοντ’ άεί όρώσ' εκείνον, ευπρεπή [8έ] κ[αί] νέαν ταύχην, βέβαιον δ’ ούθέν ώι κ[ατ]ελε[ί]πετο. αϋτη μέν οΰν άπέθανεν, ό δέ τήν οικίαν έπρίατο ταύτην ό στρατιώ της ού πάλαι· έν γειτόνω ν δ’ οίκοΰσα τ[άδ]ελφοΰ τό μέν π ρ ά γ μ ’ ού μεμήνυκ’ οΰδ' εκείνον βούλεται είναι δοκοϋντα λαμπρόν εις μεταλλαγήν άγαγεΤν, όνασθαι δ’ ώ ν δέδωκεν ή τύχη. ά π ό ταύτομάτου δ’ όφθεϊσ’ ύπ ’ αύτοΰ θρασυτέρου ώσπερ προείρηκ’ δντος έπιμελώς τ ’ άει φοιτώντος έπί τήν οικίαν, έτυχ’ εσπέρας π[έ]μπουσά ποι θεράπαιναν, ώς δ’ έπί ταϊς θύραις α[ύ]τήν γενομένην είδεν, εύθύ προσδραμών έφίλει, περιέβαλλ’, ή δέ τώ ι προειδέ[ναι αδελφόν ό ντ’ ούκ έφυγε· προσιώ ν δ ’ [ό θεράπων όράι. τ ά λοιπά δ’ αύτός εϊρηχ', δν τρόπ[ον ό μέν ώ ιχ ε τ’, είπώ[ν] δτι κατά σχολήν ίδ[εΤν αύτήν τι βούλεθ’, [ή δ'] έδάκρυ’ έστώσα καί ώδύρεθ’ δτι τ α ΰ τ ’ ούκ έλευθέρως ποεΤν έξεστιν αύτηι. π ά ντα δ’ έξεκάετο ταΰθ’ ένεκα τού μέλλοντος, εις οργήν θ' ϊνα ούτος άφίκητ’— έγ ώ γά ρ ήγον ού φύσει τοιοΰτον δντα τούτον, άρχήν δ’ ϊνα λάβηι μηνύσεως τά λοιπά-τούς θ’ αύτώ ν ποτέ εΰροιεν ώ σ τ ’ εί το ΰ τ’ έδυσχέρανέ τις άτιμίαν τ ' ένόμισε, μεταθέσθω πάλιν. διά γά ρ θεού καί τό κακόν εις άγαθόν ρέπει γινόμενον, έρρωσθ’ εύμενείς τε γενόμενοι ήμϊν, θεαταί, καί τά λοιπά σώιζετε.

145

150

155

160

165

170

(ΣΟΟΣΙΑΣ) ό σοβαρός ήμϊν άρτίω ς καί πολεμικός, ό τά ς γυναίκας ούκ έών έχειν τρίχας, 144 θ’ουθεν C, corr. Leeuwen 148 μεμενηκεν C, corr. Diels 151 ύπ’ αύτοΰ Sud­ haus: υπάτου C test. Sudhaus, Jensen, υποτου Gueraud 154 -μποισα C, corr. Lefebvre 157 ό θεράπων post Kuiper (1930) Arnott (1995): πάρεδρος possis: ατερος Wilamowitz: ό Πολέμων Lefebvre: ό ξένος Sudhaus (id. olim σφοδρός vel σοβαρός), Lamagna: ούτοσί post Mastromarco Blanchard (qui ούτοσί scr.) 158 εϊρηχ' post Leo (εϊρηκ')Jensen, Gueraud 160 τι C: έτι anon. Berol. ap. Koerte 164 αφικετ’ C, corr. Koerte, Legrand 167 Η: έδυσχέραινε C 169 θεούς Eitrem (1908, col. 365). 171 σώζετε C: σώσατε H: ακούσατε cj. Rea 1975

Act One κλάει κατακλινείς. κατέλιπον ποούμενον άριστον αύτοΤς άρτι, καί συνηγμένοι εις ταύτόν είσιν οί συνήθεις, τοϋ φέρειν αυτόν τό π[ρ]δγμ α ραιον. ούκ έχων δ’ όπως τά ντα ΰθ’ άκο[ύσ]ηι γινόμεν’ έκπέπομφέ με ίμάτιον οϊσοντ’ εξεπίτηδες, ουδέ εν δεόμενος άλλ' ή περιπατεϊν με βούλεται.

47

175

±Η

(ΔωΡΙΣ) (Σω)

(Δω)

έγ ώ προ[ελ]θο[ύ]σ’ όψομαι, κεκτημένη. ή Δωρίς. οϊα γέγονεν, ώς δ ’ έρρωμένη. ζώσιν τρόπον τιν ’, ώς έμοι καταφαίνεται, αΰται. πορεύσομαι δέ. κόψω τήν θύραν· ούδείς γ δ ρ αυτώ ν έστιν έξω. δυστυχής, ήτις στρατιώ την έλαβεν δνδρα. παράνομοι δπαντες, ούδέν πιστόν, ώ κεκτημένη, ώ ς άδικα πάσχεις, παίδες. εύφρανθήσεται κλάουσαν αυτήν πυθόμενος νυν τούτο γά ρ έβούλετ’ αυτός, παιδίον, κέλευε μοι [-gap of about 70 lines-]

ΔΑΟΣ παϊδες· μεθύοντα μειράκια προσέρχεται π[ά]μ πολλ’. επαινώ διαφόρως κεκτημένην· εΐσω πρός ήμας ε’ισάγει τήν μείρακα. το ΰ τ’ έστι μήτηρ. ό [τρ]όφιμος ζητητέοςή]κει[ν] γ ά ρ αυτόν τ[ήν τ]αχίστην ενθάδε εύκαιρον είναι φαίνεθ’, ώ ς έμοι δοκεϊ.

ΧΟΡΟΥ

174 C: κατέλαβον Η 175 σγαρτι Η 178 γενόμενα potius quam γινόμενα Η teste Sandbach 180 Capps, Sandbach: αλλ'η C: άλλ’ fl incip. cum nota interr. post Meister Arnott (1995) 181 Jensen 188 παιδε$: C. εύφρανθήσεται - - αύτός Sos. attr. edd. al. 265 ηκεινJensen

9

Text

Act Two

(ΜΟΣΧίωΝ) Δάε, π[ολλ]άκι; μέυ ήδη πρ ό ; μ’ ά πήγγελκα ; λόγου; ο]ύκ άληθεΐ;, ά λ λ ’ ά λα ζώ ν καί θεοίσιυ εχθρό; εί. ε’ι δέ καί [υυ]υί π λα υα ι; με— (ΔΑΟΣ) κρεμάσου ευθύ;, εί [πλαυώ. (Μο) ήμερου λέγει; τι. (Δα) χρήσαι πολεμίου τοίυυυ [τρόπου. δ]υ δ’ άληθέ; ήι κ[ατα]λάβηι; τ ’ έυδου αύτήυ έυ[θά]δε, ό δεδιωικ[η]κ[ώ; έγώ] σ[ο]ι τα ΰτα π[ά]ντα, Μοσχίωυ, και πεπεικ[ώ;] τή[υ] μέυ έλθεϊ[υ] δεϋρ’ άυαλώ σα; λόγου; μυρίου;, τήυ σ[ήυ δέ] μητέρ’ [ύποδέχ]εσθαι καί ποε[ϊυ πάυθ’ ά σο[ι] δοκεϊ, τ ί; έσομ[αι; (Μο) τί;] βίο; μάλισθ’, ό[ρα, Δάε, τώ υ πάυτω υ άρέσκει; [τοΰ]τ’ έπιβλέψ[α; λέγε. (Δα) δρα τό μυλωθρεΤυ κράτιστου; (Μο) εί; μυλώυ’ [άπελθέτω ούτοσί φερόμευο; ήμΐυ. (Δα) μηδαμ[ώ;] τέχυ[ηυ τίθει. (Μο) βούλομαι δέ προστάτηυ σε π ρ α γμ ά τω υ Έλλη[υι]κ[ώυ κα]ί διοικητ[ή]υ στρατοπέδω υ— (Δα) [έυ τ]έλει [δέ πάυτα δή ο[υτ'] άποσφά[τ]τουσιυ εύθύ;, δ[υ τύ]χηι, [κ]λέ[ψαυτά τι. (Μο) ά λλ ’ όυήσει γ ’ εκδότη; · έκδόσει [λήσ]ει λαβώ[υ έπτό [τώυ όκτ]ώ τάλαυτα. (Δα) παυτοπω λεΐυ [βούλομαι, 268 άλλ’-- εχθρό; ZAristoph. Ran. 280 269 πλαυώ Koerte 270 edd.pl.: δίκηυ Koerte: μέρει Sudhaus: τροχώι Austin (2010) 271 in. Reinach, cett. Leo 272 suppl. Sudhaus, πάυτα Leo 273 πεπεικώ; Sudhaus, τήυ Schmidt, λόγου; Leo 274 vel άυαδεχεσθαι Koerte: e,o,a[potius quam u Gueraud 275 απαυθ’ C, corr. Crocnert έσομαι; τί; Leo 276 τοϋτ’ potius quam πάυτ’ Gueraud: τοϋτ’ - - λέγε Sandbach: πάυτ’...έπιβλέψα; έρώ vel έπιβλέψω. (Μο) καλώ; Sudhaus 277 μυλώυα leg. Gueraud: μυλών’ Sudhaus άπελθέτω Furley: άφίξεται Lowe: εί; μυλώυα φαίνεται post Koerte Lamagna (tum ήξειν in v. 278): γ ’ έμπέσοι Sandbach in comm. 278 ήμΐυ Gueraud, Sudhaus, Jensen: ήξειυ olimJensen: (Δα) ήήυ. Handley per litt. τίθει Furley: λέγε edd. 280 Furley: ού μέλει ξένων έμοί Sudhaus; ~ ξενυδρίωυ Handley per litt. 281 οντ’ Furley: οϊ μ’ Sudhaus, αυ τύχηι Schwartz, κλέψαυτά τι Jensen 282 όυήσει leg. et suppl. Handley per litt.: άλλα κλέψει; Sudhaus, qui cett. suppi. 283 τώυ οκτώ Sudhaus

270

275

280

Act Two

(Mo)

(Δα) (Mo) (Δα) (Mo)

(Δα) (Mo)

(Δα) (Mo)

(Δα) (Mo) (Δα)

49

Μοσχίων, fj [τυρ]9 π[ω]λεΐν έ[ν ά]γοράι καθήμε[νος. ομνύω μ[ηδέν μέλειν μοι πλου]σίωι καθεσ[τάναι. κατ' έμέ τα ΰ τ', έ[μοί τ ’ άρέσκει] μάλλον. α ’ι[νετόν γέ που· ε’ι δ’ έκεϊνο μή γένο[ι]θ’ δ μελ[ιτόπ]ωλις εϋ[χεται ΥραΟζ. τό γαστρίζεοθ’ άρέ[σ]κεΜ, γεγ[ονέναι δέ γ ' άξιος φήμ’ έφ’ οίς εϊρηκα τούτοις. μα[ ήσθας· άλλα τυροπώλει καί τό λ[ο]ι[πόν ευτυχεί, τα ύτα μέν δή, φασίν, εϋχθω- δ[εύρο δ’ ήκων του πατρός ο]ίκίαν άνοι[γε.] τρόφιμε. δεΤ μ[ έ[μέ δέ] παραμυθεΤσθ' [έκεί]ν[ην νΰν προσήκει καί γελάν έπί θεοΤς έχθρώι πτεροφόραι χιλιάρχω ι. καί μάλα. είσιών δέ μοι σύ, Δάε, τω ν δλω ν κατάσκοπος π ρ α γ μ ά τω ν γενοΰ, τί ποιεΤ, π[ο]0 'στιν ή μήτηρ, έμέ εις τό προσδοκάν έ'χουσι πώς· τό τοιουτί μέρος οΰκ άκριβώς δει φρά[σαι] σοι· κομψός εΤ. πορεύσ[ο]μαι. περίπατω ν δέ προσμ[εν]ώ σε, , πρόσθε τώ ν θυρών. ά λλ ’ έ'δειξεν μέν τι τοιοΰθ’ ώς προσήλθον έ[σπ]έρας· προσδραμόντ’ ούκ έφυγεν, άλλα περιβαλοΰσ’ έ[πήγα]γε. ούκ άηδής ώς έοι[κε]ν εϊμ’ ίδεΐν ούδ’ έντ[υχεΐν, ο’ιομαι, μά τήν Αθηνάν, ά λ λ ’ έταίρ[αις έπιχαρής. τήν δ ’ Αδράστειαν μάλιστα νυν αρ’ [εϊη λανθάνει] ν. Μοσχίων, ή μέν λέλουται καί κάθηται. φιλτάτη. ή δέ μήτηρ σου διοικεί περιπα[τοϋ]σ’ οΰκ οΤδ’ δπ[ως. εύτρεπές δ ’ άριστόν έστ, έκ δέ τώ ν ποουμένω[ν περιμένειν δοκοϋσί μ[οί σ]ε.

285 suppl. Sudhaus 286 suppi. Sudhaus, fin. Furley 287 suppi. Sudhaus 288 fin. Sandbach: δέσποτ’, εΐναι 5’ άξιος Sudhaus 290 τό λοιπόν ευτυχεί Jensen: ταλαιπωρεί. (Δα) καλώς Sudhaus 291 fin. e.g. Furley: δεύρο πάραγε την τε σήν Arnott 299 ins. Jensen 301 έπήγΌγε Furley: ε....σε C sec. Jensen, qui έπηινεσε cj. in app. (έμ’ ήινεσε possis): έπέσπασε Leo: έπεσχε με (‘me detinuit’) olim Sudhaus (1914) tum έφίλησέ με vel εμ’ εφθασε 303 έπιχαρής Furley: προσφιλής Sudhaus 304 εϊη λανθάνει Furley: άρ’ ώρα προσκυνεΐν Capps: άραρε ~ Wilamovvitz: - άρέσκοι —προσκυνώ Sudhaus (vel άρέσκει possis): άρεστόν προσκυνεΐν vel άρέστ εΐ προσκυνώ Arnott (1968b, 233L); άρ’ ώρα id. post Capps (1995) 306 fin. Furley: άτι edd. 307 εστ’ C

285

290

9 300

9

Text

50 (Mo) (Δα) (Mo) (Δα) (Mo)

(Δα)

(Mo) (Δα) (Mo)

(Δα)

[Mo]

καί π άλαι γ[άρ είπον]· οϋκ εϊμ’ άηδής. [ε]ΐπας αύ[τ]αΐς [συμπ]αρ[ό]ντα μ’ ένθάδε; μά] Δί[α], νύν τοί[ν]υν [λ]εγ’ έλ[θών.] ώς όράις, αναστρέφω, ή μέν αίσχ[υν]ε[ΐτ’ έ]πειδά[ν] είσίωμεν δηλαδή, παρακαλύψ[εταί τ ’, έ'θο]ς y a p τ[ο]ϋτ[ο]· τήν δέ μητέρα είσιόντ’ εϋθ[ΰς] φιλήσαι δει μ’, άνακτήσασθ’ δλως, εις τό κολακεύειν τραπέσθαι, ζήν τε πρός ταύτην απλώς· ώς y a p οίκείως κέχρηται τώ ι παρόντι πράγματι, άλλα τήν θύραν ψοφεϊ τις έξιών. τί τούτο, παϊ; ώς όκνηρώς μοι προσέρχε[ι], Δάε. ναι μά τόν Δία, πάνυ γά ρ ά τόπω ς. ώς y a p ελθών εΤπα προ; τήν μητέρα δτι πάρει, “μηδέν ετι το ύ τω ν ”, φησ[ί, “π ώ ς δ’ ά]κήκοεν; ή σΰ λελάληκας πρός αύτ[όν], δτι φοβηθεϊσ’ ενθάδε κα]ταπέφευγ’ αϋ[τ]η πρ[ός ημάς; πάνυ] γε. μή ώρασί γ ε ”, φή]σ', “ϊκοι’, ά λλ' [ώς τά χισ τα νΰ]ν βάδιζε, παιδίον, έκ]ποδών [καί oTy’ έ'χ’.] ά λλ ’ [ή] π ά ν τ ’ [άν]ήρπαστ’ εκ μέσου;” ού σφό]δρ’ [ήκ]ουσεν παρόντα σ’ ήδέ[ως]. μαστιγία, κατακέχρη]σαί μοι. γελ ο ΐο ν ή μέν ουν μήτηρ— τί φήις; άπιέναι γ ’ ά]κουσαν αύ[τή]ν, ή τί π ρ ά γ μ ’; οϋχ ένεκ’ έμοϋ; εΤτα πώ ]ς πέπεικας έλθεϊν πρός μ’; εγώ δ ’ εϊρηκά σοι δτι πέπει]κ’ έλθεϊν έκείνην; μά τόν Α πόλλω ’γ ώ μέν οϋ. [ουδέ έν ψε]ΰδο[ς, τρ]όφ[ι]μέ ρού, σου καταψεύδεσθ’ [έτι βούλομ’. ού τήν] μ[ητέρ’ αύτό]ς τα ϋτα συμπε[π]ε[ικ]έναι άρ[τ]ίως έ'φησθα, ταύτην ένθάδ’ ΰποδέξασθ’ έμοϋ ένεκα;

308 καί πάλαι yapjensen: καί πάλαι μένουσ’ έμέ Capps (μένουσί μ’· ούκ/ Sandbach in comm.) είπον· ούκ Robert, qui ούκ ex initio versus sequentis transposuit 309 ιπαις C, corr. Leo συμπαρόντα Jensen: νυν παρόντα Meister 315 o ik e ic o s C: οίκείωι Sud­ haus, Koerte 318 άτοπον cj. Sudhaus, Arnott CQ 1968, 234 320 ηκαισυ C, corr. Croenert 321 αϋτη πρός ημάς· πάνυ Housman ώρασί yE Schwartz: ώρας σύ γε C 322 ώς τάχιστα νΰν Koerte: έκφθάρηθι καί Sudhaus 323 εκποδών et άνήρπαστ Ko­ erte, καί σΐγ’ έχ’. άλλ’ ή Furlcy: ένθένδ’. ” Άπολλον, Arnott 325 κατακέχρησαι Robert 326 άπιέναι y ’ Furley: ού παρεΤν’ vel ούκ έράν ή]κουσαν Post: ή φυγεϊν ακόυσαν Koerte olim: ού φυγεΓυ έκοΟσαν van Leeuwen: ού λαβεΤν έκοϋσαν Amott: al. al. 327 in. Robert 329 ούδέ έ’ν Furley, cett. Sudhaus 330 βούλομαι Furley, al. alia; cetera Sudhaus

310

315

320

325

330

51

Act Two

(Δα) (Mo)

τοϋθ’, όράις, έφην. ναί, μνημονεύω. και δοκεΤν ενεκ’ εμού σοι τ[ο]υτο πράττειν; ουκ έχω τουτ'ι φράσαι,

Δα άλλ’ έγω γ’ έπειθον. Mo Δα Mo. (Δα) (Mo) (Δα)

(Mo) (Δα)

(Mo)

(Δα) (Mo) (Δα) (Mo) (Δα) (Mo) (Δα)

εΤέν δεύρο δή βάδιζε. ποΤ; μή μακράν, εϊσει— τό δείνα, Μοσχίων έγώ τότε—' μ[ικ]ρ[ό]ν ετι μεΤνον. φλυαρείς πρός με. μά τον Ασκληπιόν, ο[ύκ έγ]ω γ’, έάν άκούσηις. τυχόν ϊσως οΰ βούλεται, μανθ]ά[ν]εις, έξ [έ]πιδρομής ταύθ’, ώς ετυχεν, άλλ’ άξιοΤ π[ριν τάδ’] είδέναι σ’, άκοΰσα[ι] τά παρά σου γ[ε], νή Δία. ου γάρ ώς αύ]λ[ητρ]ις ούδ’ ώς πορνίδιον τρισάθλιον ήλθε.] νϋν δοκ]εΤς λέγειν μοι, Δάέ, τι πάλιν. δοκί[μασον* οΐσθας] οΐ[όν έ]στιν, οΤμαι. καταλέλοιπεν οικίαν, οΰ φλυαρ[ώ, τ ’] εραστήν* εί συ τρεϊς ή τέτταρας ήμ]έρας βο[υ]λει, προσέξει σοί τις* άνεκοινοΰτό μοι το]ϋτ’*άκοΰσαι γάρ σ[ε δ]εΐ νϋν. πού σε δήσας κατα[βάλω, Δα]ε; περιπατεΤν [πο]εΐς με περίπ[α]τον π[ο]λυν τινα. άρτίως μεν ου[κ άλ]ηθές, [νύ]ν δε λελά[λη]κας πάλιν, ουκ έάις φρονεΤ[ν μ’ ά]θορυβ[ως* μετα]βαλοϋ τρόπον τινά κοσμίως τ* εϊσω πάρ[ε]λθε. σ[ύ δ’ άποδ]ράσει; και μάλα* έφόδι’ ούχ όράις μ’ εχοντα; π[α]ύ[ε, πά]ραγε, παιδί [ον* είσιών δε κά[ν] τι τούτων συνδιορθώσαις. έκ[ών. ομολογώ νικάν σε. μικρού γ\Ήράκλεις, και νΰ[ν δέει

343 suppl. Körte olim: εραστήν confirm. Jensen, Gueraud: μεταστήν’ Sudhaus, Körte 344 βούλει edd. 345 καταβάλω Furley, Sandbach 1990 in appendice: καταλίπω Leo, Koerte: έκτέμω post Lloyd-Jones, Koenen 1974: βασανιώ Lamagna 348 μεταβαλού Wilamowitz: παρα- post Post Lamagna: άνα- olim Sudhaus: περί-Jensen 350 vel πάνυ γε παιδίον Sudhaus: π.υ....ραγεπαι dispex. Gueraud: παραγοράζειν; οϊομαι Robert fin. καιμα[λα] in παιδι[ον] mutatum est teste Sudhaus 351 in. δ’εισιων C, corr. Sudhaus: fin. έγώ; Sandbach 1990 m appendice 352 fm. Schmidt

335

340

345

52

Texi αύός είμ’· ούκ [ε]στι γά ρ ταΟΘ’, ώ ς τό τ ' ώιμην, εύκρήνή.

(Σω)

(Δα)

Σω (Δα) (Σω)

(Δα) Σω (Δα) (Σω) (Δα) (Σω)

Δα

πάλιν πέπομφε τήν χλαμύδα φέροντά με καί τήν σπάθην, ΐυ’ ίδω τι ποιεί και λ έγω έλθώυ. άκαρής δέω δέ φάσκειν καταλαβεΓν τόν μοιχόν [έ]νδον, Vv' άναπηδήσας τρέχηι— εί μή γε παντ[ά]πασιν αυτόν ήλέουν. κακοδαίμον’ οΐίτω δε[σπ]ότην οΰδ’ ένύπνι[ον ίδών γά ρ οΤδ'. ώ τής π[ικρ]άς έπιδημίας.

355

360

ό ξένος άφΐκται. χα λεπά τα υ τα παντελ[ώ ς τά π ρ ά γ μ α τ’ έστί, νή τόν Ά πόλλω , τα ϋτά [γε. και το κεφάλαιον ούδέπω λογίζομαι, τόν δεσπότην, [ά]ν έξ άγροΰ θδττον π[άλιν έλθηι, ταραχήν οΐαν ποήσει παράφ[ορον. 365 ύμεϊς δ’ άφήκαθ’, ιερόσυλα θηρία, άφή]κατ’ έ'ξω της θύρ[α]ς. [ά]νασ[τρέ]φ[ει άνθ]ρωπος όργιζόμ[εν]ος· [ύπα]πο[στήσομαι. ή δ’ ο’ι'χεθ’ ώ ς τόν γείτο ν’ ευθύς δηλαδή τόν μοιχόν, οίμώζειν φράσασ’ ήμΤν μακρά 370 καί μεγάλα. μάντιν ό στρατιώ της [πε]ρι[άγει τ ο ύ το ν επιτυγχάνει τι. κόψω τήν θύραν. άνθρωπε κακόδαιμον, τί βο[ύ]λει; π ο ΐ φέ[ρ]ει; έντεϋθεν εΤ; τυχόν, άλλά τί [π]ολυπρα[γμ]ο[νεΤς; άπονενόησθε, πρός θεών; [έλ]ευθέραν 375 έχειν γυναΤκα πρός β[ία]ν του κυρί[ου τολμάτε κατακλείσαντες; ώς πο[νηρός εΐ και συκοφάντης, ος [τοιαϋτ’ έπαιτιάι.

353 ευκρινή Wilamowitz: εϋκριτα dub. Sandbach 356 άκαρής Lefebvre: άκαρές leg. Jensen, edd. pi. 360 πίκρας Crönert 361 ταΰτα C: πάντα cj. Lloyd-Jones 1974 362 γε Jensen: δή Sudhaus: τουτονί Leo 364 πάλιν Leo, al. 365 παράφορον Furley: παραφανείς Leo: παραφρονών suspic. Jensen 367 αναστρέφει Sudhaus 368 άνθρωπος et ύπαποστήσομαι Sudhaus, όργιζόμενος Schmidt, Wilamowitz 371 περιάγει vel έπρίατο Sudhaus 374 Jensen 378 έπαιτιάι (pro τοιαϋτ’ fort, τοιώνδ’) Furley: τοιαΰθ’ υπολαμβάνεις Jensen: ος παροξύνεις έμέ Lamagna

Act Two (Σω) (Δα)

(Σω)

(Δα) [Σω]

(Δα) (Σω)

(Δα) (Σω) (Δα) (Σω) (Δα) (Δω) (Σω) (Δω)

53

πάτερα νομίζετ’ ούκ εχειν ή[μά; όπλα ούδ’ άνδρα; είναι; ναι μά Δία, τ[ετρω]βό[λου;. 380 όταν δέ τετράδραχμου; τοιούτ[ου; έπ]ιλά[βτμ, ή ραιδίω; μαχούμεθ’ ύμϊν. [Ήράκλ]ε[ι;, π ρ ά γ μ α το ; [ά]σελγοΰ[;. ό]μολ[ο]γεϊτε δ’, είπε [μοι, εχειν; πρόσ]ελθ’ άν[θρω]φ’ Γό π]αριών—οϊχεται φυ[γώ]ν ο; ί)λ[θ]ε μάρτυ[;]. όμο]λογεϊτ’ εχειν; 385 ούχ [ηϋρετ’ αΰτη]ν εν[δον; δ]ψομαί τινα; υμών [στένον]τα;. πρό; τίν’ οϊεσθ’, είπε μοι. παίζειν; [τίς] ό λήρο;; κατά κράτο; τό δυστυχ[έ]; οίκίδιον τ[ο]ϋτ’ αύτίκ’ έξαιρ[ήσ]ομεν. όπλιζε τόν μοιχόν. πονηρόν, άθλιε390 ώσπερ π α ρ ’ ήμΐν ουσαν έπι[μ]ένει; πάλαι, οι παίδε; ρί τά π ελ τί’ ρυτο| π Ριν πτύσαι διαρπάσονται πά ντα , κάν τετρω βόλου; καλήι;. επαιζον- σκατοφάγ[ο]; γά ρ εΤ. πόλιν οίκοΰντε;— ά λλ ’ ούκ εχομεν. [α]ί[β]οϊ, λήψομαι 395 σάρισαν. ά π α γ ’ έ; κόρακα;· [ώ]; εϊσειμ’ έγώ εω ; εοικα; άν[δρα]πρδισττίι. Σωσία. σΰ] μέν εί πρό[σει μίοι, Δωρί, μέγα τί σοι κακόν δ]ώ σ ω - σΰ τ[ού]τω ν γ έγ ο ν α ; α[ί]τιωτάτη. ο(ί]τω; δναιο, λ έγ ’ δτι πρ ό ; γυναΐκά ποι 400 δεί]σασα κατ[α]πέφευγε.

379 δπλα Furley: χολήν Wilamowitz, edd. pi. 381 έπιλάβηι Furley: τετράδραχμου; τοιούτου; λαμβάνηι Sandbach: τετράδραχμοι; leg. Jensen, Gueraud: τετράδραχμο; τοιούτου; Koerte: τοιούτου; άναλάβηι Arnott 1995 384 πρόσελθ’ Koenen ΖΡΕ 16: πάρελθ’, άπελθ1al. αν[...]π’ C ό παριών Rea ΖΡΕ 16, Bain ΖΡΕ 49: Ίλαρίων van Leeuwen, edd. pi.: άτάρ Ιών Schwartz 385 leg. et suppi. Koenen ΖΡΕ 16: εκείνο; ετυχε Sudhaus,Jensen: ώ ; ούτ]ο; [εσται] μάρτυ[; suppl. Sandbach in comm. 386 Furley: ουχ leg. Gueraud: ούκ εχομεν αυτήν ένδον Jensen: ούκ εχομεν. (Σω.) άλλ’ έστ’ ένδον Arnott 387 στένοντα; van Leeuwen, κραγόντα; vel κλαγόντα; possis 392 ούτοι Gueraud: ευθύ; Schwartz 397 άνδραποδιστηι vel άρπογ’ οϋτω Furley: άπονοήτωι Koerte, Lamagna: αΰθεκάστωι Jensen, Arnott: άπονοεΤσθαι Sudhaus

Text (Σω)

πρός γυυαΐκά ποι δεί',σαοα;

(Δω) (Σω) (Δω) (Σω)

και γ ά ρ οϊχεθ’ ώ ς τήυ Μυρρίυ[η]υ, τήυ] γείτου’, ο ϋ τω μο[ι] γέυοιθ’ α βούλομαι. όραι]ς ΐυ’ οϊχεθ’; ού τό μέλημ’ έστ’, ένθά[δε. ού]δέ[υ π]οεϊ [ujüv [ώ]υ συ βοΰλει, Σ[ωσία. 405 α π |α γ]ε σε[αυτή]υ, ά π [α ]γ ’, [έπεΐ] ψευδή λ[έγεις.

(gap of approximately 60 lines of which 0 15 contains the line endings ,υως / ,λει / ... / .. between verses 53-61 acc. to Amott (1995, 21)) [ΧΟΡΟΥ]

Act Three

TL

T 015

(Σω)

έκ]εϊθευ ήκει χρ ή μ α τ’ είληφώς, έμοί πίστευε- προδίδωσίυ σε και τ ό στρατοπέδου.

(ΠΑΤΑΙΚΟΣ) κάθευδ' άπελθώυ, ώ μακάριε, τάς μάχας ταΰτας έάσας- [ού]χ υγιαίνεις. σο'ι λαλώ , ή]ττου μεθύεις γά ρ. (ΠΟΛΕΜΙΟΝ) ήττου; δς π έπω κ’ϊσως κοτύλην, προειδώς π ά υτα ταϋθ’ ό δυστυχής τηρώ ν τ ’ έμαυτόυ εις τό μέλλον. (Πα) εύ λέγεις, πείσθητί μοι. Πο τί δ ’ έστ'ιν ο κελεύεις έμοί; (Πα) όρθώς μ’ έρωτάις. υύυ έγ ώ δή τά λ λ ’ έρώ. (Σω) Αβρότουου, έπισήμηυου. (Πα) εϊσω τούτου! πρ ώ το υ άπόπεμψου τούς τε παΐδας οϋς άγει.

470

475

405 ούδέυποεΤ OCT: μηδέυ πάει Sudhaus Zcooiajensen 406 ά π α γ ε ...ά π α γ ε ΟΟΤ: άυαγΕ...άναγε...έπε! Sudhaus ψευδή λέγειυ Jensen: λέγεις Amott: έμο! ψευδή λέγεις Sandbach in comm. 472 κοτύλης cj. Koerte 475 μ’ C, om. L υΰυ om. 015 477 fin. άγεις Koerte

55

Act Three (Σω) (Πο)

(Πα) (Σω)

(Πα) (Πο) (Πα) (Πο) (Πα) (Πο) (Πα)

(Πο) (Πα)

(Πο) (Πα)

(Πο) (Πα)

κακώς διοικείς, του πόλεμου διαλύσεται, έξόυ λαβεϊυ κατά κράτος. ούτοσί με γ ά ρ — Πάταικος; έξόλλυσιυ. -ούκ εσθ’ ήγεμώυ. 480 πρός τώ υ θεώυ, άυθρω π', άπελθε. απέρχομαι. — ώι]μηυ σέ ποιήσειυ τι· και γά ρ, Αβρότουου, έχεις τι πρός πολιορκίαυ αύ χρήσιμου δύυασαί τ ’ άυαβαίυειυ, περικαθήσθαι. π ο ϊ στρέψει, λαικάστρι’; ήισχύυθης; μέλει τούτω υ τί σοι; 485 εί μέυ τι το ιο ϋ τ’ ήυ, Πολέμωυ, οΐόυ φάτε ύμεΤς τό γεγουός, και γαμετήυ γυυαΤκά σουοΤου λέγεις, Πάταικε. διαφέρει δέ τι. έγώ γαμετήυ υευόμικα ταύτηυ. μή βόα. τίς δ’ έσθ’ 6 δούς; έμοΐ τίς; αυτή. πάυυ καλώς, ήρεσκες αύτήι τυχόυ ’ίσως, υύυ δ’ ούκέτι· άπελήλυθευ δ ’ ού κατά τρόπου σου χρωμέυου αύτήι. τί φήις; ού κατά τρόπου; τουτί με τώ υ πάυτω υ λελύπηκας μάλιστ’ είπώυ. έράιςτοΟτ’ οΤδ’ ακριβώς· ώ σ θ’ ό μέυ υυυΐ ποεΤς άπόπληκτόυ έστιυ. ποΤ φέρει γάρ; ή τίυα άξωυ; έαυτής έστ’ έκείυη κυρία, λοιπού τό πείθειυ τώ ι κακώς διακειμέυωι έρώυτί τ ’ έστίυ. ό δέ διεφθαρκώς έμοϋ άπόυτος αύτήυ ούκ άδικεϊ με; ώ σ τ ’ έγκαλεΤυ άδικεΤ σ’ έκεΐυος, άυ π ο τ ’ έ'λθηις εις λόγους, εί δ ’ έκβιάσει, δίκηυ όφλήσεις- ούκ έχει τιμωρίαυ γ ά ρ τάδίκημ’, έγκλημα δέ. ούδ’ άρα υΰυ; ούδ’ άρα υΰυ.

Τ C

490 X 015

495

500

•/Ε'[ι[[πολ6μεις

478 διοικείς L: γε.[..].εις 015 διαλύσεται L 479 εξόν 015: δέον dispex. Koerte L 486 ωττολεμωνΟ Tiom. 015 490 S’015: om. C (et L) 492 άπελήλυθ’ou C: άπελήλυθε[ϋα. 3-4]κατά L 494 έραις van Leeuwen: ερεις L, C non liquet: έρεΤς Koerte post Wilamowitz, tum ώς 495

Text

56 (T T o)

ΤΤα Πο (Πα) (Πο)

(Πα) (Πο) (Πα) ΙΠο]

Πα (Πο)

(Πα) (Πο) (Πα)

ούκ οΤδ' δ τι λέγω , μά τήν Δήμητρα, πλήν άπάγξομαι. Γλυκερά με καταλέλοιπε, καταλέλοιπέ με Γλυκερά, Π άταικ’. ά λλ' ε’ίπερ o u tg o σοι δοκεϊ πράττειν— συνήθης ήσθα γ ά ρ και πολλάκις λελάληκας αύτηι πρότερον— έλθών διαλέγου, πρέσβευσον, ικετεύω σε. το ύ το μοι δοκεΐ, όράις, ποεΤυ. δύυασαι δέ δήπουθευ λέγειυ, Πάταικε. μετρίως. άλλα μήυ, Πάταικε, δεϊ. αϋτη ’στιν ή σω τηρία τού πράγματος, έγ ώ γ ά ρ εΐ τι π ώ π ο τ ’ ήδίκηχ’ δλω ς— εί μή διατελώ π ά ντα φιλοτιμούμενος— τόν κόσμον αυτής εί θεωρήσαις— καλώς έχει. θεώρησον, Πάταικε, πρός θεών μάλλον μ’ ελεήσεις. ώ Πόσειδον. [δ]εϋρ’ ΐθι. ένδυμαθ’ οΤ’· ο'ία δέ φαίνεθ' ήνικ’ άν λάβηι τι τ ο ύ τ ω ν ού γ ά ρ έοράκεις 'ίσως. έγω γε. και γ ά ρ το μέγεθος δήπουθεν ήν άξιον ίδεϊν. άλλά τί φέρω νυν εις μέσον τό μέγεθος; εμβρόντητος, υπέρ άλλω ν λαλώ; μά τόν Δί' ούδέν. ού γάρ; άλλά δεϊ γέ σε ίδεΐν. βάδιζε δεύρο. πά ρα γ'· εισέρχομαι.

505

510

515

520

525

514 ολωις C ut vid. 518 ποσιδον L 519 ενδυμαθα οια L 520 εορακεις L 523 μέγεθος; sic interpunxit Sandbach 1990 in append. λαλώ L: λαλώ C (λαλώ teste Gueraud), λαλώ Furley, Sandbach 1990 in append. 524 ed.pr.: ουδενουγαρ CL αλ|..]δειγεσε L; αλλαδειπαταικεσε C: μά τόν Δία. (Πο) ού γάρ; άλλά δεϊ Πάταικε σε edd.pl.: μά Δί' ούδέν. (Πο) ού γάρ; άλλά δει, Πάταικέ, σε Sudhaus

Act Four (Mo)

ούκ είσφθερΕΐσθε θάττον υμείς εκποδών; λ ό γχα ς έχοντες έκπεπηδήκασί μοι. ούκ άν δύναιντο δ’ έξελεϊν νεοττιάν χελιδόνων οΤοι πάρεισ’ οί βάσκανοι. “άλλά ξένους", φήσ’, “εΓχον” ε'ισί δ’ οί ξένοι οί περιβόητοι Σωσίας εις ούτοσί. π ο λλ ώ ν γεγο νό τω ν άθλιων κατά τόν χρόνον τόν νΰν—φορά γ ά ρ γέγονε τούτου νΰν καλή έν άπασι τοϊς 'Έλλησι δι’ ö τι δή ποτέ— ούδένα νομίζω τω ν τοσ ούτω ν άθλιον άνθρω πον ούτως ώ ς έμαυτόν ζην έγώ. ώς γ ά ρ τ ά χ ισ τ ’ είσηλθον, οΰδέν ώ ν άεί εϊωθ’ έποίουν ουδέ πρός την μητέρα είσηλθον, ού τώ ν ένδον έκάλεσ’ ούδένα πρός έμαυτόν. εις οΐκόν τιν ’ έλθών έκποδών ένταΰθα κατεκείμην συνεστηκώς πάνυ, τόν Δ άον είσπέμπω δέ δηλώσονθ’ άτι ήκω, τοσοϋτον αυτό, πρός την μητέρα, ούτος μέν ούν μικρόν τι φροντίσας έμοϋ άριστον αύτοΤς καταλαβώ ν παρακείμενον έγέμιζεν α υ τό ν έν δέ το ύ τω ι τώ ι χρόνωι κατακείμενος πρός έμαυτόν έλεγον· “αύτίκα πρόσεισιν ή μήτηρ ά παγγελοϋσά μοι πα ρά τής έρωμένης έφ’ οΤς άν φησί μοι εις ταύτόν έλθεΤν.” αύτός έμελέτων λόγον (gap of approximately 160 lines in which P.Oxy. 5200 gives one line ending:) ].γ ’ ήμΤν κακών

57

530

535

540

545

550

~569

ΧΟΡΟΥ

Act Four

530 γάρ eia’ Sandbach in comm., γαρειξ leg. Rea 541 (pro άλλ’) ins. Schwartz: P.Oxy. 5200 sis δ’: άλλ’ sis C: τιν’ del. ed. pr., al. 546 παρακείμενον C: προκείμενον post Koerte Sandbach OCT

Text (ΓΛΥΚΕΡΑ) [........ .·] τίσιν αν λ ό γο ι; τήν μ]ητέρ’ αύτου, φί[λτ]ατε, πεΐσαί γε κα]ταφυγοϋσ’ έδυνάμην; ού σκοπεί;; ϊ]να με λ[άβηι] γυναίκα; κατ’ έμέ γά ρ πάνυ 710 γέ]γο ν’ οΰτ[ο;]. ά λ λ ’ ού τοϋθ’, έταίραν δ ’ ίνα μ’ έχηι; εΓτ’ ού λαθεϊν το ύτου; αν έσπευδον, τάλαν, αύτό; [τ’] εκείνο;; ά λ λ ’ ίτα μ ώ ; εί; τα ύτό με τώ ι πα τρί κατέστησ’, είλόμην δ’ ο ϋ τω ; έγ[ώ άφρόνω ; έχειν εχθραν τε προ[σθέσθ’ ο’ι'κοθεν 715 ύμΐν θ’ ύπόνοιαν καταλιπεΐν [ακοσμία; ήν έξαλείψοιτ’ ούκέτ’; ούδ’ αίσχ[ύνομαι, Πάταικε; και σύ τα ϋ τα συμπεπ[εισμένο; ήλθε;, τ[ο]ιαύτην θ’ ύπέλαβέ; [με γεγονέναι; (ΤΤα) μή δή [γ]ένοιτ’, ώ Ζεϋ πολυ[τίμηθ’· α δέ λέγει; 720 δείξαι; άληθώ ; ο ντ’· έ γ ω [γ ’ έβουλόμην. ά λλ ’ άπιθι μηδέν ήττον. (Γλ) εί[; έτέραν τινά ύβριζέτοο το λοιπόν. (Πα) ούχ’ι [σοί μόνον γέγονε τό δεινόν. (Γλ) άνόσι[ον δ’ έπόησέ με ρβόμενο]; αν θεράπαιν[αν αίκίσαι τινά. 725 (gap of about sixteen lines) [Γλ]

[Πα] (Γλ) [Πα]

έγ[ώ δ’ έκεϊν’ έ]λάμβα[νον· γνω ρίσ μα τ’ ήν τούμοϋ π α τρ ό ; καί μητρό;, εί[ώθειν δ’ έχειν άει π α ρ ’ έμαυτήι τα ϋ τα καί τηρ[εϊν. τ]ίούν βούλει; κομίσασθαι [τ]αϋτα. [άπέγν]ω κα; σύ[γάρ745

708 τίσιν αν λόγοι; Furley, τί νοεΐν γάρ ώ ; Sudhaus φίλτατε Jensen 709 πεΤσαί γε Furley καταφυγοϋσ’ Leo 715 προσθέσθ’ οϊκοθεν Furley; πρό; τήν μητέρα Traill ΖΡΕ 159; πρα- vel προ- leg. Gueraud; πράττειν K.F.W. Schmidt, Wilamowitz Μυρρίνηι Meister: Μυρρίνη; Körte; 716 Koerte 717 Furley: εξαλειψαιτ’ C, ούκέτ’ έξαλείψετ’Gomme, Sandbach 721 Furley: έγώ μέν (έγωγε Gerhardt, έγώ δέ Schwartz) πείθομαι Wilamowitz 722 άλλ’- - ήττον Pataeco ded. Sudhaus, Blanchard: Glycerae Ko­ erte, al. εί; έτέραν τινά Sudhaus 723 fin. Furley: ούχ εκούσιον Sudhaus coll. Eur. fr. 265 Nauck (Auges) 724 Furley: άνόσιον δέ χοΤον αν ν. Leeuwcn 725 Furley (vel αίκίζειν pro αίκίσαι): ]σαν C teste Sudhaus: ούδ’ αν, τάλαν, θεράπαιναυ έργάσαιτό τι; ν. Leeuwen 742 in. Sudhaus, έλάμβανον post Koerte Amott γνωρίσματ’ ήν suppi. Leeuwen 743 Wilamowitz: εϊθισμαι Sudhaus 744 τηρεϊν Lefebvre 745 Capps: σύ γε Jensen

Act Four

59

κομιδήι του ανθρώπου; τί βούλει; [Γλ]

φίλτατε, διά σοϋ γευέσθω το ύ το μ[ο]ι.

(Πα)

(Γλ) Πα (Γλ) (Πα)

Δω (Γλ) (Δω) (Γλ)

Πα

[π]ραχθ[ή] σεται τούτο γελοίου, ά λ λ ’ υπέρ πάυτω υ [έ[χρήυ όρα]υ σε. έγώ ιδα τα μ ' άριστα. ούτως έχεις; τίς τώ υ θ]εραπαιυώυ οΤδε ταΰθ’ οπού 'στί σοι; ή Δωρϊ]ς οΤδε. καλεσάτω τήυ Δωρίδα έξω τι]ς. ά λλ ’ όμως, Γλυκερά, πρός τώ υ θεών έως πάρ]ε[σ1τ’, έφ’ οίς λόγοις υυυι λέγω , τώ ι γ άνδρι συγγυώμηυ] δός. ώ κεκτημέυη. τί έστίυ; ο]ΐου τό κακόν. έξέυεγκέ μοι τήυ κιστίδ’] έξω, Δ ωρί, τήυ τά ποικίλα έχουσαυ· οίσθα υ]ή Δί"· ήυ δέδωκά σοι τηρεϊυ· τί κ]λάεις, άθλια; πέπουθά τι, υή του Δία τό]υ Σω τηρα, [θαυμαστόν π]άυυ· [άδύυατου ούυ] π ρ ά γ μ ’ ούδέυ ήκ[ουσ’ έυ βίωι

750

755

760

(gap of approximately 7 lines; at some point Moschion enters un­ seen)

(Γλ)

ον και τ ό ]τ ’ εΓδον. ού π α ρ ’ αυτόν ούτοσι τρά]γος τις ή βου$ ή τοιουτι θηρ[ί]ον ε]στηκεν; ελαφος, φ ίλ τα τ’, έστίν, ού τρ ά γο ς.

770

748 ins. Richards, Sudhaus: γΕ Headlam, Blanchard 753 εως πάρεστ’Sudhaus olim, postea έκεΐν’ άφεΤσ’: [πείσ]θρτ’ leg. et suppi. Rea: δρα τάΐριστ Lamagna (contra metrum) Εφ oi5 νυνι Xoyos χεγω λέγω C testejensen 754 τ ώ ιγ ’ άνδρι Furley: ]δρ5 leg. Sudhaus: λόγοισι συγγνώμην 505jensen: σύγγνωθι, την χάριν Sog Sudhaus 755 τί ποτ’ έστίν; (sic) Amott 1995 756 την κιστίδ’Croiset: κοιτίδ’van Leeuwen: ξυστίδ’Koerte 759 in. Croiset, fin. Klaus 760 άδυνατον et ήκουσ’ εν βίωι Furley: άπιστον ούν et ήκω νυν εγώ Koerte: ή Komg Wilamowitz 768 ουτοσει L 770 ηυ L

Text

60 (Πα)

(Μο)

(Πα) (Γλ) (Πα) (Γλ) (Μο) (Πα) (Γλ) (Μο) (Πα) (Γλ)

(Μο) (Πα) (Γλ) (Πα) (Γλ) (Πα) (Γλ) (Πα) (Γλ) (Πα)

κέρα]τ’ έχει, το ϋ τ' οΤδα. καί το υ τ’ι τρίτου πετ]ειυός 'ίππος. τής γυυαικός της έμής έυδύ]ματ’ έστί τα ϋτα και μάλ’ άθλιας. οΰ τω ν] αδυνάτω ν έστί, τουτί μοι δοκεΤ σκοπούν]τι, τήυ έμήυ τεκοΰσαυ μητέρα συυεκτ!θ]εσθαι θυγατέρ’ αύτηι γευομένην εί δέ γεγένητ]αι το ΰ τ', άδελφή δ’ έστ' έμή αϋτη, κακώς] διάκειμ’ ό δυστυχής εγώ. ώ Ζε]ϋ, τίν’ ήδη τά π ίλ ο ιπα τώ υ έμώυ; πέραι]υ' δ βούλει, τούτο πυυθάυου τ ’ έμοΰ. πόθε]υ λαβούσα τα ϋ τα κέκτησαι φράσου. έυ τ]οϊσδ’ άυηιρέθηυ π ο τ ’ ουσα παιδιού. έπ]άυαγε σαυτόυ μικρόν ώς ροπ[ήι] μ[ιάι ή[κ]ω τύχης εις καιρόν οικείας [έγώ. μόυη δ’ έκεισο; τούτο γ ά ρ σήμαιυέ μο[ι. ού δήτ’, αδελφόν δ ’ έξέθ[ηκ]ε κάμε τις. τουτι μεν εν μοι τω ν π[άλ]αι ζητούμενων. π ώ ς ούν έχωρίσ[θ]ητ' ά π ’ άλλήλω ν δ[ίχα; έχοιμ’ άν ε[ίπε]ϊν π ά ν [τ’] άκηκουϊά σοι· τάμα δ’ άνερώ τα, ρητά [γ]άρ τ α ϋ τ ’ έστί μοκ εκείνα δ’ αύτηι μή φρ[ά]σειν όμώμοκα. κ]αΐ το ύ το μοι σύσσημ[ο]ν εϊρηκεν σαφές· όμώμοκεν τήι μ[ητρί. πο]ΰ π ο τ ’ είμΐ γης; ό δή λαβώ ν σε [καί τρ] έφων τίς ήν ποτέ; γυνή μ’ έθρε[ψεν, ή] τ ό τ ’ είδε κειμένην. τού δή τόπου τί μνημόνευμά σοι λέγει; κρή[νην τίν’ είπε κ]αί τό π ο ν ύπόσκιον. τόν αυτόν δνπερ χ ώ τιθείς ε'ίρηκέ μοι. τίς δ’ ούτός έστιν; εί θέμις κάμοί φράσου. ό μέυ τιθείς παΐς, ό δέ τρέφειυ όκυώυ έγώ. σύ δ' έξέθηκας ώ ν πατήρ; τίνος χάριν; π ό λ λ ’ έστίυ έργ' άπιστα, παιδιού, τύχης, ή μέν τεκοϋσ’ υμάς γ ά ρ έκλείπει βίου εύθύς, μιαι δ ’ έ’μπροσθεν ήμέραι, τέκνοίν—

775

780

785

790

795

800

771 κέρατ’ edd. pi.: κερά y ’ ed. pr. 773 ενδύματ’ Furley: ποικίλματ Dedoussi: ύφάσματ Schwartz: κοσμήματ’ van Leeuvven 776 συνεκτίθεσθαι vel συνεκτΕθεϊσθαι Furley: μετ’ έμοΰ προέσθαι Koerte: λάθρα van Leeuwen: αμ’ έμοι Sandbach αύτηι Arnott 1995: αύτηι al. fin. γενομενή L 778 κακώς διάκειμ’ leg. et suppi. Furley: κάκιστ’ έφθαρμ’ Koerte: πρόρριζος vel κάκιστα y ’ έξεφθαρμ’Arnott 1995: αυτής τ ’ άδελφός ειμ’ Lamagna 779 fin. τωνεμώ L 781 φρασδ L 783 έπάναγε Wilamowitz ροπηι τινι Lamagna, ~ μιαι Furley: ροθίωι Koerte (τινι add. Wilamowitz): ρόθωι τυφλώι van Leeuwen 787 πάλαι Lloyd-Jones 1974, denuo Furley: έμοι ed.pr. 790 δ’ άν- Furley: δ’ερωτα L: δε y ’ Arnim: δε μ’ Robert: δ’ έπερώτα Sudhaus 796 του - - μνη P.Oxy. 3705

Aci Four (Γλ) (Πα) (Γλ) (Πα) (Γλ) (Πα)

(Γλ) (Πα) (Γλ)

(Πα) (Γλ) (Μο) (Πα) (Γλ) (Πα) (Γλ) (Μο) (Γλ) (Πα) Μο

(Πα) (Μο)

61

τί γίνεται π όθ-; ώς τρέμω τά λα ιν’ [έγώ. πένης έγενόμην βίου έχειυ [είθισμέυος. έυ ήμέραι; πώ ς; ώ θεοί, δεινού πό[τμου. ήκουσα την υαΰυ, ή παρεΤχ’ ήμΤυ τροφ[ήυ, άγρ]ιου καλύψαι π έλαγος Αίγαίας άλός. τά λα ιυ’ έγ ω γ ε της τύχης. έφόλκια ήγησ]άμηυ δή π τω [χ]ό ν όντα παιδία τ[ρέφε]ιν ά[βού]λου παντελώ ς άνδρός τρόπ[ον. φράζειν δ’ έχεις τά λοι]πά τώ ν πά ντω ν, τέκ[νον; τό ποΤ[ου; [ών εϋρηκ]ε· μηνυθήσεται. ήν καί δέραια και β[ρ]αχύς τις διάλιθ[ος κόσμος προσώ ν γν[ώ]ρισμα τοϊς έκκειμένοις. έκεϊ[νον] άναθεώ[μεθα.

805

810

815

φ ί]λ τ α τ Ε .

τάμο'ι τέκνωι δοθέντα τ]αύτα [δη]λαδή. ά λ λ ’ έ[στ]ΐν ου[< ca. 10> ά]λλά, θ[ύ]γατερ, εχοις αν είπεΤν ταύτβ; έκ]εΐ ζώνη τις ήν. ήν γάρ. χορός τε παρθέ[νω]ν ένταϋθά τις. οϋκουν συν[ή]κας; δ[ιαφαν]ές τε χλαν[ίδιον χρυσή τε μίτρα, π ά ντα Γκαθ’ ε|ν είρημένα. οΰ[κέ]τι καθέξω. φιλτάτη [παϊ.] μηδ’ έγώ λ[άθω·] τί προσέχεσθ’ έμφυ[όμ]ενο[ι δή μόνοις; πάρειμι τούτον ύποτιθ[ε'ις τόν λόγο]ν έγώ . ώ θεοί, τίς έστιν ουτος; όσ[τις ε’ί]μ’; ό σ[ός [υιός.]

820

825

(gap of between 100 and 200 lines) [ΧΟΡΟΥ] 813 φράζειν Furley, al. Koerte 814 τό ποιου Sudhaus, ών εϋρηκε Furley 818 suppi, e.g. Furley 819 θύγατερ leg. suppi. Furley: πατερ Wilcken (ap. Koerte 1908): πατήρ edd. p). 820 ταυτα leg. et suppl. Furley 824 φιλτστ[η, χαΤρε Sa παΤ. μηδ’ leg. et suppl. Furley: εί B’ έγώ Sandbach 825 τι προσέχεσθε ed. pr.: al. leg. et suppl. Furley: πρόειμι, “τί προσέχεσθ’;” έρώ, “τον διάλογον” Arnott 826 πάρειμι τούτον...εγώ ed. pr.: ύποτιθεϊς τον λόγον leg. et suppl. Furley

_L L

Text

Act Five Before line 925 P.Oxy. 2658 et P.Oxy. 211 cols, i have line endings and traces which can be placed as follows:— 925

lv: Ίμοι ]μοι

] ......

{

] . μενοι ] _αδιεπ[

{

] . e . ous ]ουεγ[

{

[

]

] _φ υ τιλ εγ . ι[ ] λέγει 5

930

] ...... ]ω ν

(gap of eleven lines)

(Σω?)

P.Oxy. 2658 = PCG vol. 8.1103 ϊτ ’ οΰν άνε . L. . ] . . . Γ πράττειν τό με[ ήθοζ φιλάδελφο[υ ή Δοορΐς ένδον [ ή γραΰ$ άπολλΰ[ει αύτή γε νΰν ε[ φασκ...............[ σπιθαμήν τινο[ εύροΰσ’· άπολλΰει, [ είτ’ είσιοϋσαν κα[ ταύτην τοιουτο , [ ήσθημένοζ· ταυ[τ οίμαί τι τώ ν προ[

6 =948 αύτή Furley: κύτη Turner, Austin

8 =950 τινο[ Furley: τινα[ al.

5 (947)

10 (952)

Act Five

(Πο)

ό κάπηλος οϋτοσι οίνου χο ά παιδά[ριον κοτύλην δ’ έ'χων [ λαβείν έχοις αν ίμ[ Πλ[υ]κέρα, συ γε τοϋθ’[ . ] λ[ . ] ι . [. ]