Antiphanes frr. 194–330: Sappho - Chrysis, Fragmenta incertarum fabularum, Fragmenta dubia 3949189009, 9783949189005, 3949189017, 9783949189012

Citation preview

Fragmenta Comica Antiphanes Sappho – Chrysis, Fragmenta incertarum fabularum, Fragmenta dubia

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

Band 19.3 · Antiphanes frr. 194–330

S. Douglas Olson

Antiphanes Sappho – Chrysis, Fragmenta incertarum fabularum, Fragmenta dubia Translation and Commentary

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

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

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

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. © 2021, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Umschlaggestaltung: disegno visuelle kommunikation, Wuppertal

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-949189-01-2

For Rachel (as always)

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Σαπφώ (Sapphô) “Sappho” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Σκληρίαι (Sklêriai) “Hardnesses” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

Σκύθης vel Σκύθαι ἢ Ταῦροι (Skythês or Skythai ê Tauroi) “The Scythian or Scythians or Taurians” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (Stratiôtês ê Tychôn) “The Soldier or Tycho” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

Τίμων (Timôn) “Timon” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

Τραυματίας (Traumatias) “The Wounded Man” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

Τριταγωνιστής (Tritagônistês) “The Man who Ranked Third” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

Τυρρηνός (Tyrrhênos) “The Man from Etruria” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

Ὑδρία (Hydria) “The Water-Jar”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78

Ὕπνος (Hypnos) “Sleep” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82

Φάων (Phaôn) “Phaon” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

Φιλέταιρος (Philetairos) “The Man who was Fond of his Companions” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

Φιλίσκος (Philiskos) “Philiskos” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94

Φιλοθήβαιος (Philothêbaios) “The Man who Loved Thebes” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96

Φιλοκτήτης (Philoktêtês) “Philoktetes” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Φιλομήτωρ (Philomêtôr) “The Man who Loved his Mother” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Φιλοπάτωρ (Philopatôr) “The Man who Loved his Father” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Φιλῶτις (Philôtis) “Philotis” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Φρεάρριος (Phrearrhios) “The Man from Phrearrhioi” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Χρυσίς (Chrysis) “Chrysis” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Fragments of unidentified plays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Fragments designated dubia by Kassel–Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Fragmenta dubia not included in Kassel–Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

9

Preface As the earliest readers of this volume will already be aware, I have followed the pattern of my earlier edition of Eupolis and have begun my work on Antiphanes with the final portion of the corpus, including the fragments without play-title. I have done this for various practical and intellectual reasons. My main motivation, however, is that I believe it makes no sense to write an Introduction to an author before being sure of one’s opinion on every scrap of him that survives. Volumes I and II are already in draft and should follow this one into print in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Much of the work on this commentary was completed at Bilkent University in Ankara, where I have been a Visiting Professor since 2017. I would like to thank Adnan Akay (Provost of the University) and Mustafa Nakeeb (Coordinator of the Bilkent CCI Program) for arranging this appointment. I have also profited from the opportunity to work in libraries at the University of Bari, the University of Freiburg and the Fondation Hardt, as well as the University of Minnesota. Particular thanks are due Ioannis Konstantakos, who read the entire manuscript in draft form in late summer of 2020 and offered many thoughtful suggestions and criticisms. Hans Ernst also read the manuscript at a late state and caught a number of minor errors. The final stages of work on this project were carried out in the trying circumstances of the Covid crisis and the 2020 United States presidential election. I hope most eventual readers of this volume will find these references quaint and obscure, two rapidly fading, happily forgotten items in the rear-view mirror of history. But these have not been easy times to live in, and I am accordingly all the more grateful to my sweet, beautiful wife Rachel for her kindness and care, her sense of humor, her wise sense of perspective — and her kuru fasulye soup with harissa when the Turkish winter snow arrives on the hills overlooking the city. This volume, like all my recent academic work, is dedicated to her. S. Douglas Olson Ankara, 1 December 2020

11

Σαπφώ (Sapphô) “Sappho”

Introduction Discussion Edmonds 1959. 263 n. h; Webster 1970. 39; Wankel 1991a. 36; Konstantakos 2000. 157–61 Title Antiphanes’ Sappho is a historical figure translated to contemporary times (see Content). There are no obvious parallels in the surviving titles, unless some of the poet’s mythical heroines such as Alcestis were handled in a similar fashion; but cf. Alexis’ Aisôpos (fr. 9), in which Solon also appeared as a character, and Alexis’ Archilochos. Whether sexuality was central to the character of Antiphanes’ Sappho or she was simply a literary figure, is likewise impossible to say. Amipsias (fr. 15), Diphilus (frr. 70–1), Ephippus (fr. 20) and Timocles (fr. 32) all wrote comedies entitled Sappho; nothing significant is known about any of them, except that in Diphilus’ play Archilochus and Hipponax were Sappho’s lovers (suggesting that she was represented as a courtesan), while one of Timocles’ characters made reference to a contemporary Athenian. Nor does the fact that Amipsias (a contemporary of Aristophanes) was the first comic poet known to have written a play entitled Sappho allow us to conclude that the idea originated with him. See also Phaon with Introduction; Totaro 1998. 173–4. For the reception of Sappho (late 7th/early 6th century BCE) generally, see Most 1995; Greene 1996a; Greene 1996b; Reynolds 2000; Reynolds 2003; Ferrari 2007; and the essays collected in Tsantsanoglou 2019. Older bibliography is collected at Konstantakos 2000. 157. For her reception in comedy in particular, see the bibliography collected at Traill 2005. 518 n. 2. For Sappho herself, see Kivilo 2010. For the poems, see most recently Neri 2017. For Sappho as an erotic poet in comedy, see Epicr. fr. 4. Content Nothing is known about the play except what can be deduced from fr. 194, which suggests that Antiphanes’ Sappho was a Cleoboulina-like figure who posed puzzles in verse, and that the action was set in contemporary Athens (which provides the background for (B.)’s remarks). Date The reference in fr. 194.8–9 (n.) to revenues extracted from overseas sources by local politicians puts the play in the late 370s BCE or afterward. Webster and Wankel suggest that the reference to the Thracian Chersonnese and the coast of Asia Minor points specifically to the mid-360s BCE. Edmonds argues instead for March 341 BCE, with reference to disputes at that time between Athens and Philip II of Macedon.

Antiphanes

12

Fragments fr. 194 K.–A. (196 K.)

5

10

15

20

(Σα.) ἔστι φύσις θήλεια βρέφη σῴζουσ’ ὑπὸ κόλποις αὑτῆς, ταῦτα δ’ ἄφωνα βοὴν ἵστησι γεγωνὸν καὶ διὰ πόντιον οἶδμα καὶ ἠπείρου διὰ πάσης οἷς ἐθέλει θνητῶν, τοῖς δ’ οὐδὲ παροῦσιν ἀκούειν ἔξεστιν· κωφὴν δ’ ἀκοῆς αἴσθησιν ἔχουσιν *** (Β.) ἡ μὲν φύσις γὰρ ἣν λέγεις ἐστὶν πόλις, βρέφη δ’ ἐν αὑτῇ διατρέφει τοὺς ῥήτορας. οὗτοι κεκραγότες δὲ τὰ διαπόντια τἀκ τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ τἀπὸ Θρᾴκης λήμματα ἕλκουσι δεῦρο. νεμομένων δὲ πλησίον αὐτῶν κάθηται λοιδορουμένων τ’ ἀεὶ ὁ δῆμος οὐθὲν οὔτ’ ἀκούων οὔθ’ ὁρῶν. (Σα.) ⟨x l k l⟩ πῶς γὰρ γένοιτ’ ἄν, ὦ πάτερ, ῥήτωρ ἄφωνος; (Β.) ἢν ἁλῷ τρὶς παρανόμων. ⟨x l k l⟩ καὶ μὴν ἀκριβῶς ᾠόμην ἐγνωκέναι τὸ ῥηθέν. ἀλλὰ δὴ λέγε. (Σα.) θήλεια μέν νυν ἐστὶ φύσις ἐπιστολή, βρέφη δ’ ἐν αὑτῇ περιφέρει τὰ γράμματα· ἄφωνα δ’ ὄντα ⟨ταῦτα⟩ τοῖς πόρρω λαλεῖ οἷς βούλεθ’· ἕτερος δ’ ἂν τύχῃ τις πλησίον ἑστὼς ἀναγιγνώσκοντος, οὐκ ἀκούσεται

1 κόλποις Ath.ACE Eust. : κόλπῳ Blaydes 2 αὑτῆς Morelius : ἀυτῆς Ath.ACE : ἀυτοῖς CsEs CE A Ath. ταῦτα Ath. : ητα Ath. : ὄντα Porson : φύντα Nauck 4 δ’ οὐδὲ παροῦσιν 7 αὑτῇ Morelius : ἀυτῇ Dobree : δὲ οὐδὲ παρεοῦσιν Ath.A : δ’ οὐ παρεοῦσιν Morelius Ath.A 11 ἀεὶ Ath.BMPMus : αἰεὶ Ath.A 12 οὐθὲν scripsi : οὐδὲν Ath.A 13 ⟨οὐδὲν λέγεις⟩ Jacobs : ⟨ληρεῖς ἔχων⟩ Kaibel 14 (Β.) ἢν ἁλῷ Cobet (ἁλῷ iam Casaubon) : ην αλλω Ath.A : ἢν μὴ ἀλλῶ Ath.BPMus 15 ⟨(Σα.) παίζεις ἔχων⟩ Cobet ᾠόμην Scaliger : ᾤμην Ath.A 16 ἀλλὰ δὴ Ath.A : ἀλλ᾿ ἤδη Cobet 17 νυν Erfurdt  : οὖν Ath.ACE : γοῦν Cobet 18 αὑτῇ Morelius : ἀυτῇ Ath.ACE 19 ταῦτα add. Grotius 21 ἀναγιγνώσκοντος Ath.A : ἀναγινώσκοντος Ath.CE ἀκούσεται AthACE : ἀκούεται Kock

5

(Sappho) There is a female creature that preserves children within the folds of her garment; and although they are mute, they raise a resounding cry through both the sea-surge and the entire mainland to whichever mortals they wish, but those who are at hand cannot hear them, and their perception lacks the ability to hear

Σαπφώ (fr. 194)

10

15

20

13

*** (B.) Yes—because the creature you’re describing is a city, and the children she nourishes within herself are the politicians. They shout and haul the overseas revenues from Asia and Thrace to here. And close by them, as they split the money up1 and constantly call each other names, sit the people, seeing and hearing nothing. (Sappho) ⟨x l k l⟩; because how, sir, could a politician lack a voice? (B.) (He could) if he’s convicted three times of making an illegal proposal. ⟨x l k l⟩ And yet I thought I’d figured out exactly what you said. But in any case, tell me (the solution)! (Sappho) The female creature is a writing tablet, and the children she carries around inside her are the letters. Even though they’re mute, they speak to anyone they wish who’s far away;2 but if someone else happens to be standing near to the man who’s reading, he won’t hear (the words)

Ath. 10.450e–1b ἐν δὲ Σαπφοῖ ὁ Ἀντιφάνης αὐτὴν τὴν ποιήτριαν προβάλλουσαν ποιεῖ γρίφους τόνδε τὸν τρόπον, ἀπολυομένου τινὸς οὕτως. ἣ μὲν γάρ φησιν· (vv. 1–5) ——. ταῦτά τις ἐπιλυόμενός φησιν· (vv. 6–16)——. ἔπειτα ποιεῖ τὴν Σαπφὼ διαλυομένην τὸν γρῖφον οὕτως· (vv. 17–21) —— In Sapphô, Antiphanes presents the poetess herself posing riddles in this way, while someone (masc.) tries to solve them as follows. For she says: (vv. 1–5) ——. The man trying to solve them says the following: (vv. 6–16) ——. Then he represents Sappho as offering the correct solution to the riddle as follows: (vv. 17–21): ——

Meter Dactylic hexameter (1–5) and iambic trimeter (6–21).

5

1

2

lkk ll lk|k ll lkk ll ll lkk lk|k ll lkk ll lkk lkk lk|k ll lkk ll lkk ll l|l lkk lkk ll ll ll l|kk ll lkk ll llkl k|lkl llkl

Not “as they graze” (Rusten 2011. 508), as if the participle was middle-passive (LSJ IV.B.2). In 11, ἀεί goes with λοιδορουμένων rather than with κάθηται, as in Rusten 2011. 508 (“the people always sit nearby”). Rusten’s translation also ignores the gap between 5 and 6, and runs 12 and 13 together. Not “they speak from far away to their addressees” (Rusten 2011. 508).

Antiphanes

14

10

15

20

klkl l|rkl llkl llkl klk|r klkl llrl l|lk|l llkl llkl k|rkl klkl llkl l|lkl klkl klkl k|lkl llkl 〈xlkl〉 l|lkl klkl llkl k|lkl lrkl 〈xlkl〉 l|lkl llkl klkl klk|l klkl llkl k|lk|r klkl klkl l|rkl klkl klkl x|〈lk〉|l llkl llkr l|lkl llkl llrl llk|l klkl

For the use of dactylic hexameter for riddles, see fr. 192.1–4, 7–8, 15–19 n. Discussion Morelius 1553. 95; Grotius 1626. 978; Jacobs 1809. 242; Erfurdt 1812. 466; Porson 1812. 122; Dobree 1833. 328; Meineke 1839–1857 III.112–14; Meineke 1847. 547; Cobet 1858. 5–6; Kock 1884 II.95–6; Nauck 1894. 91; Blaydes 1896. 113; Paoli 1930. 374; Turner 1952. 14 n. 4; Pastorino 1955. 44–5; Knox 1968. 432–3; Svenbro 1988. 175–7; Wankel 1991a. 36; Wankel 1991b; Williamson 1995. 15–16; Gavrilov 1997. 68; Konstantakos 2000. 161–79; Martin 2001. 73–4; Rosenmeyer 2001. 96–7; Pütz 2003. 257–9; Olson 2007. 200–3 (E7); Ceccarelli 2013. 244–57 Text κόλπος is normally used in the singular, hence Blaydes’ κόλπῳ for the paradosis κόλποις in 1; but cf. Ar. Av. 694; hDem. 238; E. Hel. 1145; fr. dub. 1132.34. In 2, Morelius’ reflexive αὑτῆς is better than Ath.A’s ἀυτῆς, i. e. αὐτῆς; cf. 7, 18. Manuscripts lack authority in matters of this sort, and this is accordingly best described as a correction rather than an emendation. ἀυτοῖς, i. e. αὐτοῖς (recorded above the line as a variant reading in the Epitome manuscripts), represents an attempt to take the word with κόλποις at the end of 1 (“the very folds of her garment”). Further on in 2, Ath.A offers the corrupt ητα, for which Porson suggested ὄντα (accepted by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin). I print instead the Epitome’s ταῦτα, which makes the sense easier. Nauck’s φύντα is too far from the paradosis to be considered seriously, given the existence of much easier options. In 4, Ath.A offers δὲ οὐδὲ παρεοῦσιν, which is scriptio plena for δ’ οὐδὲ παρεοῦσιν but nonetheless one short syllable too long. Uncontracted Ionic -εοῦσιν sounds Homeric (e. g. Il. 15.325 παρεόντος; cf. Pherecr. fr. 162.2 παρεόντα (mock-Hesiod); Ar. Av. 688 ἐοῦσιν (Homericizing; see Dunbar 1995 ad loc.), hence Morelius’ δ’ οὐ παρεοῦσιν. But οὐδὲ (“not even”) sharpens the point, and Dobree’s

Σαπφώ (fr. 194)

15

δ’ οὐδὲ παροῦσιν (printed by all editors) is to be preferred, with the paradosis to be explained as the imposition of a bit of unhelpful dialectal learning on the text. For ἀεὶ (thus an anonymous 15th-century editor, with the change taken over by Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus, and the standard form of the word in Antiphanes’ time) in 11 in place of Ath.A’s αἰεὶ, see fr. 132.1 Text. For οὐθὲν in 12 in place of Ath.A’s οὐδὲν, see fr. 281 Text. 13–16 are lacunose, and where the gaps ought to be located in the text is unclear. In addition, 14 is corrupt: the A-scribe was baffled by what he found in his exemplar, and left ην αλλω unaccented; an anonymous 15th-century editor (followed by Musurus in the Aldine) corrected ην to ἢν and added 〈μὴ〉 after it; and Casaubon emended αλλω to ἁλῷ, producing ἢν μὴ ἁλῷ (“unless he is convicted”). Ath.A’s ᾤμην in 15 is also metrically problematic, but represents a common error (see fr. 59.6–7 n.) and is easily emended to ᾠόμην (Scaliger). Meineke prints3 (Σα.) πῶς γὰρ γένοιτ’ ἂν ὦ πάτερ ῥήτωρ 〈k l〉 ἄφωνος, ἢν 〈μὴ〉 ἁλῷ τρὶς παρανόμων; 〈k l〉 15 (Β.) καὶ μὴν ἀκριβῶς ᾠόμην ἐγνωκέναι  τὸ ῥηθέν· ἀλλὰ δὴ λέγε 〈x l k l〉 while Kock prints (Σα.) πῶς γὰρ γένοιτ’ ἄν, ὦ πάτερ ⟨x l k l⟩ ῥήτωρ ἄφωνος, ἢν ⟨μὴ⟩ † ἁλῷ4 τρὶς παρανόμων; 15 (Β.) καὶ μὴν ἀκριβῶς ᾠόμην ἐγνωκέναι τὸ ῥηθέν ⟨l x l k⟩ ἀλλὰ δὴ λέγε. As Cobet—followed by Kassel–Austin, whose version of the text is adopted here— saw, however, there is no need to supplement the text, provided one assumes a change of speaker before ἢν. Precisely where the various lacunae belong nonetheless remains unclear. Jacobs’ οὐδὲν λέγεις to fill what Kassel–Austin treat as a lacuna at the beginning of 13 recalls e. g. fr. 192.6 (where see Text), while Kaibel’s ληρεῖς ἔχων (“You keep talking nonsense”) recalls Cratin. fr. 208.1; Ar. Lys. 945; Ra. 512. Cobet’s (Σα.) παίζεις ἔχων at the beginning of 15 would suggest that (B.)’s interpretation of Sappho’s riddle is not intended seriously; cf. Interpretation. In 16, Ath.A’s ἀλλὰ δὴ is attested nowhere else in comedy. But the combination is very common in 4th-century prose, and there is accordingly no need for Cobet’s ἀλλ’ ἤδη (with an imperative at Ar. Ra. 663 ἀλλ’ ἤδη πάρεχε τὴν γαστέρα, although there the sense seems to be “but now …”, which will not do here). In 17, a consonant is needed at the beginning of the word that follows μέν, to lengthen the epsilon, hence Erfurdt’s anodyne νυν (printed e. g. by Kassel–Austin) for the paradosis οὖν. But Konstantakos 2000. 177 points out that the combination

3 4

Specific indications of lacunae added here and in Kock’s version of the text below. Kock omits the obel, but observes in his notes “scribendum est πρὶν ἂν ἁλῷ”.

16

Antiphanes

μέν νυν is attested nowhere in Attic comedy and that νυν itself is very rare there, and advocates instead for Cobet’s μέν γοῦν (as at Alex. fr. 264.5). 19 is lacunose, and Grotius’ 〈ταῦτα〉 (printed by all editors) is an easy solution to the problem; probably omitted when a scribe’s eye leapt from one ΤΑΤ to the next in the sequence ΟΝΤΑΤΑΥΤΑΤΟΙΣ. For Ath.A’s ἀναγιγνώσκοντος (correct for this period) in 21 vs. the Epitome’s ἀναγινώσκοντος, see fr. 30.2 Text. A comma (printed by Kock, but omitted by Kassel–Austin) is needed in the middle of 21 to separate the protasis and the apodosis, and to make it clear that ἀναγιγνώσκοντος goes with πλησίον in 20 and is not the object of ἀκούσεται: the point is not that the bystander does not hear the reader, but that he does not hear the message the letter is communicating (sc. because it is being read silently). At the end of 21, Kock’s passive ἀκούεται for Athenaeus’ deponent future ἀκούσεται converts the subject of the verb from the bystander to the letters. Without an explicit change of subject, this is impossibly awkward. Citation context One of a series of long passages from comedy involving what Athenaeus calls γρῖφοι (“riddles”) offered by Larensius, who has been drawing just before this at least in part on Clearchus’ On Riddles. Frr. 122; 55; Alex. fr. 242; Eub. fr. 106; Antiph. fr. 192, in that order, are cited immediately before this, Diph. fr. 49 immediately after this. Frr. 51 and 75 are preserved later on in the same discussion. Interpretation Part of a conversation between the title-character of the play (thus Athenaeus) and a man (thus again Athenaeus, confirmed by 13 ὦ πάτερ) who wants to interpret her riddle as political in character (6–12), whereas she intends it as more personal in nature. Cf. Eub. fr. 106.1–6, where the second character similarly takes a riddle to have a specific contemporary reference and is corrected by the individual who posed it. (B.)’s characterization of the situation in Athens in 8–12 is reminiscent of the sort of thing said routinely in Aristophanic comedy about politicians whose main interest is in misappropriating state revenues, while the people remain incapable of recognizing what is being done in their name. Whether (B.)’s explanation of the riddle is offered in earnest is unclear, which is to say that 15–16 καὶ μὴν ἀκριβῶς ᾠόμην / ἐγνωκέναι τὸ ῥηθέν might easily be tongue-in-cheek. Cf. Text on 15. From an onstage symposium-scene, in which riddles would be appropriate (fr. 122 n.)? For the epistolary tradition, see Rosenmeyer 2001, esp. 19–35; Ceccarelli 2013 (whose extended, occasionally fanciful discussion of this fragment yields no substantial results). Pastorino suggests that Antiphanes’ comedy was known to the Roman comic playwright Turpilius and that this fragment lies behind his fr. 213 R3 sola res quae homines absentes praesentes facit, which is cited with the comment Quid enim est … tam praesens inter absentes quam per epistolas et alloqui et audire suos diligas?

Σαπφώ (fr. 194)

17

Constantinus Manasses fr. 142 Mazal (12th century CE, and thus a contemporary of Eustathius) is patently adapted from the first five lines of this fragment, which he must have known from a copy of the Epitome of Athenaeus:5 ἔστι τις φύσις θήλεια, φωνήεσσα καὶ λάλος, καὶ βρέφη περικόλπια σώζει καὶ περικρύπτει. ἄγλωσσα δὲ καὶ λαλιᾶς ἀδίδακτα τὰ βρέφη· ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως ἔντρανον αὐτοῖς καὶ γεγωνὸν τὸ φθέγμα καὶ τοῖς ποντίοις ὕδασιν οἷς θέλουσι λαλοῦσι, καὶ τοὺς ἐν νήσοις φθάνουσι καὶ τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἠπείροις. πολλοῖς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῶν ἀκούειν καὶ παροῦσι· τῆς δ᾿ ἀκοῆς τὴν αἴσθησιν κωφὴν ἔχει τὰ βρέφη There is a female creature, endowed with speech and talkative, and she preserves and conceals children in her bosom. The children lack tongues and are uninstructed in talk, but nonetheless their voice is clear and resounding, and they speak to whom they wish even in the sea’s waters, and they reach both those on the islands and those on the mainland. But it is impossible even for many who are at hand to hear them; and the children have a perception that lacks the ability to hear. 1–5 The riddle mixes a metaphor (the object in question is like a mother and her babies) with a series of paradoxes that threaten to baffle any simple interpretation (the babies are mute but cry out, those who are far away can hear them but simultaeously cannot understand). Kassel–Austin compare Philem. fr. 10 (praise of γράμματα as a means of communication at a distance, a bulwark against forgetfulness, and balm for the soul); E. IT 763 φράσει σιγῶσα τἀγγεγραμμένα (a letter “will speak silently what has been written in it”); fr. 578.1–5 τὰ τῆς γε λήθης φάρμακ’ ὀρθώσας μόνος, / ἄφωνα φωνήεντα συλλαβὰς τιθεὶς / ἐξηῦρον ἀνθρώποισι γράμματ’ εἰδέναι, / ὥστ’ οὐ παρόντα ποντίας ὑπὲρ πλακὸς / τἀκεῖ κατ’ οἴκους πάντ’ ἐπίστασθαι καλῶς (“I who alone constructed a cure for forgetfulness, and by placing eloquent objects that do not speak into combinations/syllables invented the knowledge of letters for human beings, so that someone in his house could have full knowledge of what happened beyond the plain of the sea, even if he was not present”; spoken by Palamedes). [A.] PV 460–1 and Pl. Phdr. 275d–e use similar language and touch on similar themes. 1 Cf. the beginning of other dactylic hexameter riddles at fr. 192.7 ἔστι τις ὃς κτλ; Eub. fr. 106.1 ἔστι λαλῶν ἄγλωσσος, ὁμώνυμος ἄρρενι θῆλυς (cited by Kassel–Austin, and preserved in this same section of Athenaeus), as well as the beginning of the riddling oracle at Ar. Eq. 1059 ἔστι Πύλος πρὸ Πύλοιο.

5

In Byzantine codices, this version of the riddle is also attributed to the largely obscure Basileios Megalomytes; see Beta 2016.

18

Antiphanes

For φύσις in the sense “creature”, see LSJ s. v. V. A poetic usage taken over into 4th-century prose?; cf. Ar. Ra. 1451, where Euripides is addressed by Dionysus as ὦ Παλάμηδες, ὦ σοφωτάτη φύσις (“Palamedes, you brilliant physis”); S. Ant. 345. βρέφος is attested a handful of times in 5th/4th-century prose (e. g. Hdt. 3.153.1; X. Mem. 2.2.5), but appears to be primarily poetic (e. g. Ephipp. fr. 21.3, the only other attestation of the word in comedy; Il. 23.266; Pi. O. 6.33; A. Ag. 1096; E. Andr. 300). κόλπος used thus (LSJ s. v. I–II) appears to be a poeticism and is in any case a standard place for sheltering a child—here a group of children, as if the creature in question were e. g. a bitch with her litter—in dactylic hexameter poetry (Il. 6.467; Il.Parv. fr. 21.3, p. 81 Bernabé; hDem. 187 παῖδ’ ὑπὸ κόλπῳ ἔχουσα νέον θάλος, 231, 238, 286; hDionys. 4; Call. h. 1.15). Konstantakos 2000. 167 suggests that the idea is that the children are actually hidden within their mother’s robe, in the same way that the letters are concealed within the δέλτος (18 n.). 2 ὄντα δ’ ἄφωνα βοὴν ἵστησι γεγωνόν is a paradox οf a sort common in riddles; cf. 4–5 τοῖς δ’ οὐδὲ παροῦσιν ἀκούειν / ἔξεστιν; fr. 122.4 ὅ τι φέρων τις μὴ φέρει with n.; Eub. fr. 106.1 λαλῶν ἄγλωσσος; Alex. fr. 242.1–5. βοὴν ἵστησι is a 5th/4th-century poeticism; cf. Ar. Th. 696–7 with Austin– Olson 2004 ad loc.; A. Ch. 885; fr. 46a**.17; S. Ph. 1263; E. Heracl. 73–4, 128, 656; ΙΤ 1307; Or. 1529 στῆσαι … κραυγήν; Theoc. 17.99 with Gow 1952 ad loc.; Barrett 1964 on E. Hipp. 903–4. γεγωνός (a two-termination adjective) is attested before this only at A. Th. 443 γεγωνὰ … ἔπη and—like the somewhat more common cognate verb γέγωνα— is apparently poetic. 3 is not needed for the sense (although it does help set up (B.)’s misinterpretation of this portion of the riddle in 8–10) and is instead a polar decorative flourish, like e. g. Od. 5.45–6 ἠμὲν ἐφ’ ὑγρὴν / ἠδ’ ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν (noted by Kassel–Austin); [Simon.] AP 7.296.4 ἔργον ἐν ἠπείρῳ καὶ κατὰ πόντον ἅμα. πόντιον οἶδμα is a poeticism (Ar. Av. 250 (lyric) with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; E. Hel. 400, 1396; IA 704; Mosch. 154; cf. S. Ant. 586–7 ποντίας ἁλὸς / οἶδμα and οἶδμα alone in similar phrases at e. g. hDem. 14 ἁλμυρὸν οἶδμα θαλάσσης; hAp. 417 οἶδμ’ ἅλιον πολυΐχθυον; E. Hec. 26 οἶδμ’ ἁλός, 633 ἅλιον ἐπ’ οἶδμα). The same is true of the use of διά + genitive in the sense “through (a space)”; contrast the more common use of the preposition with the genitive in the second half of the verse. πόντιος is likewise elevated poetic vocabulary (e. g. Ar. Th. 322 (lyric), 872 (Euripides speaking in mock-tragic style); Ra. 1341 (mock-Aeschylean lyric); Anaxil. fr. 22.4; Anacr. PMG 427.1; A. Pers. 449; Pi. P. 11.2; Bacch. Dith. 3.35; S. Ph. 269; E. Hipp. 1211). 5 κωφός can mean either “dumb” (LSJ s. v. II.2.a) or “deaf ” (LSJ s. v. II.2.b), hence the addition of ἀκοῆς. αἴσθησις is learned late 5th/4th-century prosaic vocabulary (attested elsewhere in poetry only at Philem. fr. 118.2; E. El. 290). For such forms, see in general Handley 1953; Willi 2003. 134–6.

Σαπφώ (fr. 194)

19

6–12 (B.) attempts to make sense of Sappho’s riddle, beginning with suggestions for the identity of the key figures, the φύσις θήλεια and the βρέφη of 1, followed by an analysis of the supposed actions of the latter (2–4) and their audience (4–5). But the interpretation gradually drifts away from what Sappho said, as (B.) focuses more and more on contemporary Athens and its supposed problems; note in particular the slide from the generic πόλις (“a city”) in 6 to δεῦρο (“here”) in 10. ἡ … φύσις is glossed πόλις; βρέφη is glossed τοὺς ῥήτορας; ἐν αὑτῇ διατρέφει = a more prosaic version of 1–2 σῴζουσ’ ὑπὸ κόλποις / αὑτῆς; κεκραγότες = a more prosaic version of 2 βοὴν ἵστησι γεγωνόν; τὰ διαπόντια echoes 3 διὰ πόντιον οἶδμα, while τἀκ τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ τἀπὸ Θρᾴκης λήμματα seemingly tries to explain 3 ἠπείρου διὰ πάσης, although the contrast between land and sea that is basic to the point there is ignored; and πλησίον / … κάθηται … / ὁ δῆμος οὐδὲν οὔτ’ ἀκούων οὔθ’ ὁρῶν represents a clumsy effort to take on 4–5 τοῖς δ’ οὐδέ κτλ in light of what has been argued up to this point. But (B.)’s νεμομένων δὲ πλησίον / αὐτῶν … λοιδορουμένων τ’ ἀεί has no obvious basis in what Sappho said, other than as an expansion of 2 βοὴν ἵστησι γεγωνόν; he ignores both 4 οἷς ἐθέλει θνητῶν and 2 ὄντα δ’ ἄφωνα; and the latter omission sparks Sappho’s objection in 13–14, which—despite (B.)’s riposte in the second half of 14—he seems to acknowledge is fatal to the case he has put forward (15–16). Note (B.)’s addition of organizing μὲν … δέ (not in the original riddle), as also in Sappho’s explanation (17–18). 6 γάρ seems to mark this as a response to or justification of something that has been lost between 5 and 6. 7 διατρέφω is 4th-century prosaic vocabulary (first attested at Th. 4.39.2; elsewhere in comedy at Men. Dysc. 25). τοὺς ῥήτορας Any citizen who voluntarily addressed a public decision-making body could be referred to as a ῥήτωρ (cognate with ἐρῶ, “speak”) (e. g. Ar. Th. 382; see Hansen 1987a. 50–1). By the 4th century, however, the Assembly in particular was clearly dominated by a number of established “speakers” whom we would refer to today as “politicians”. 8–9 κέκραγα (5th/4th-century vocabulary; originally onomatopoeic) refers in the first instance to the production of a harsh, shrill, inarticulate sound (“shriek, scream”): e. g. frr. 123.2 (the bellowing of fishmongers in the marketplace) with n.; 216.12 (the sound produced by a sizzling fish on a grill or in a pan); Eup. fr. 113 τί κέκραγας ὥσπερ Βουζύγης ἀδικούμενος; (“Why are you shrieking like a Bouzygês being done wrong?”); Ar. Nu. 1386 βοῶντα καὶ κεκραγόθ’ (“shouting and screaming”); V. 226–7 κεκραγότες / πηδῶσι καὶ βάλλουσιν (“they scream and jump about and throw stones”); Pax 314 παφλάζων καὶ κεκραγώς (“blustering and shrieking”); Pl. 722 κεκραγὼς καὶ βοῶν (“shrieking and shouting”); [A.] PV 743 κέκραγας κἀναμυχθίζῃ (“you shriek and moan loudly”); Lys. 3.15 βοῶντα καὶ κεκραγότα καὶ μαρτυρόμενον (“shouting and screaming and calling for witnesses”); X. An. 7.8.15 κεκραγότων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ πυρσευόντων (“when they screamed and raised fire signals”). Used of politicians’ loud, angry rhetoric at e. g. Ar. Ach.

20

Antiphanes

711; Eq. 256, 863; Pax 314 (quoted above); outside of comedy at e. g. D. 18.132, 199; Aeschin. 3.218. τὰ διαπόντια / τἀκ τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ τἀπὸ Θρᾴκης λήμματα6 must be a reference to the syntaxeis (“assigned contributions”) made by individual states belonging to the Second Athenian League, which lasted from 378 to 338 BCE; Aeschin. 2.70 claims that there were ultimately 75 members, while D.S. 15.30.2 says there were 70. See in general Cargill 1981; Kallet-Marx 1985; Seager 1994. 166–76. Little is known about how these contributions were assessed or spent: [D.] 49.49 suggests that they were levied already in the 370s BCE; Aeschin. 2.71 reports that they amounted to 60 talents/year in the early to mid-340s BCE; D. 18.234 puts the figure at 45 talents/year in the early 330s BCE; and Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 98 can be taken to suggest that they might be regarded as merely tribute under a different name. For discussion, see Cargill 1981. 126–7; Seager 1994. 171–2, and 10 n. on ἕλκουσι. Here the focus is specifically on the Thracian Chersonnese and the coast of Asia Minor, i. e. the edges of the Persian empire, where military operations were perhaps underway at this time. διαπόντιος is here “fetched from overseas” or “acquired overseas”, as also at Hermipp. fr. 57.1 (with Comentale 2017 ad loc.). Rare 5th/4th-century vocabulary, first attested at A. Ch. 352 (lyric) in the sense “on the other side of the sea” (as also at Th. 1.141.3; X. HG 6.2.16, the only two other examples of the adjective in the classical period). λήμματα are something received (< λαμβάνω) and thus “revenues, income”; see in general Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 27. The word (a typical 5th/4th-century formation) is first attested at S. Ant. 313, but is otherwise prosaic. 10 ἕλκουσι The choice of verb suggests that the syntaxis payments (8–9 n.) are made unenthusiastically and must in fact be extracted from the allies—perhaps because they know what is likely to happen to the money. In context, δεῦρο would seem to suggest that the play was set in Athens, or in some other place (such as Sappho’s Lesbos) that was assimilated to 4th-century Athens by being assigned similar institutions and problems. 11 κάθηται is used not just to suggest the people’s passivity, in contrast to the vigorous thieving and arguing of the politicians, but also because ordinary members of the Assembly sat during its sessions (e. g. Ar. Ach. 28–9 ἐγὼ δ’ ἀεὶ πρώτιστος εἰς ἐκκλησίαν / νοστῶν κάθημαι, “I’m always the very first to make my way to the Assembly and have a seat”, with Olson 2002 on 25; Eq. 749–50). λοιδορέω (etymology uncertain) is first attested at Pi. O. 9.37; A. Eu. 206 (both active, although the middle is used elsewhere with what appears to be the same sense, as here). The activity in question—λοιδορία (first attested at Ar. Nu. 934 and absent from elevated poetry)—is not just “argument, quarrelling” but

6

Despite Rusten 2011. 508 (“These shout across the seas, and attract to Athens booty from Asia and from Thrace”), this is all to be taken together.

Σαπφώ (fr. 194)

21

“verbal abuse” (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 152.9, an aggressively hostile response by women accused of drinking too much; Ar. Eq. 1274, something πόνηροι deserve; Pax 57 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Alex. fr. 160.5, the last stage in a quarrel before punches are thrown; Philem. fr. 23, ugly behavior that requires one—if one can—to keep one’s cool), here presumably as the politicians accuse one another of various crimes against the people, who however ignore everything that is said. 12 ὁ δῆμος οὐθὲν οὔτ’ ἀκούων οὔθ’ ὁρῶν cf. the description of the personified Demos as “half-deaf ” (ὑπόκωφος) at Ar. Eq. 43. 13 Regardless of precisely what words have been lost in the first part of the verse or wherever the lacuna is located (see Text), Sappho clearly rejects (B.)’s interpretation of her riddle as inadequate, and γάρ marks her question as a ground for doing so: it is in the nature of politicians to talk. For ὦ πάτερ (not indicative of a familial relationship between Sappho and (B.)), fr. 42.2 n. 14 ἄφωνος echoes 2 ἄφωνα (ignored by (B.) in 6–12). Wankel 1976. 903 (cited by Kassel–Austin) suggests that the adjective was used in particular in reference to individuals one would normally have expected to speak. ἢν ἁλῷ τρὶς παρανόμων is a reference to the graphê paranomôn (“indictment on a charge of proposing a decree contrary to an existing law”) and in particular to a provision that a man found guilty three times on such a charge suffered a form of partial atimia that barred him from further participation in Assembly debates (esp. D.S. 18.18.2; cf. Hyp. 4.11; D. 51.12). For the graphê paranomôn (first attested at And. 1.17, in connection with the religious scandals of 415 BCE), see in general [Arist.] Ath. 45.4 with Rhodes 1981 ad loc.; Wolff 1970; Hansen 1974. 28–65; MacDowell 1978. 50–2; Hansen 1987b; Yunis 1988; Schwartzberg 2013; Lenfant 2014. 263–7; Atkinson 2015. The late 5th/4th-century politician Aristophon (PA 2108; PAA 176170) claimed to have survived 75 such prosecutions (Aeschin. 3.194), and even if the number is an exaggeration, it leaves no doubt that this was a normal bit of political and legislative business. 15 For adversative καὶ μήν (contrast the “progressive” use at fr. 27.17 with n.), see Denniston 1954. 357–8. 16 ἐγνωκέναι For the verb used thus, cf. fr. 75.8; Anaxil. fr. 22.27; Nausicr. fr. 1.5 ἔγνωκας (“you’ve figured it out”, in response to someone who has just solved a riddle; cited by Kassel–Austin). δή reinforces the adversative sense of ἀλλά after what the speaker acknowledges has been a digression (Denniston 1954. 241). 17–21 Sappho glosses her riddle in a clearer and more systematic fashion than (B.) did in 6–12. Like him, she repeatedly replaces poeticisms and elaborate circumlocutions with more straightforward terms: θήλεια … φύσις ἐπιστολή (cf. 1 φύσις θήλεια) = ἐπιστολή; βρέφη (cf. 1 βρέφη) = τὰ γράμματα (cf. (B.)’s similar addition of the definite article in 7 τοὺς ῥήτορας); ἐν αὑτῇ περιφέρει = a more prosaic version of 1–2 σῴζουσ’ ὑπὸ κόλποις / αὑτῆς (cf. (B.)’s similarly prosaic ἐν αὑτῇ διατρέφει in 7); ἄφωνα δ’ ὄντα (ignored by (B.)) repeats the same words in

Antiphanes

22

2, but the paradox has been resolved by the explanations offered in 17–18; τοῖς πόρρω λαλεῖ = a much briefer and more pedestrian version of 2–3 βοὴν ἵστησι γεγωνὸν / καὶ διὰ πόντιον οἶδμα καὶ ἠπείρου διὰ πάσης; οἷς βούλεθ’ = a more pedestrian version of 4 οἷς ἐθέλει θνητῶν (see below on the difference between the two verbs); and ἕτερος δ’ ἂν τύχῃ τις πλησίον / ἑστὼς ἀναγιγνώσκοντος decodes the mantic 5 κωφὴν δ’ ἀκοῆς αἴσθησιν ἔχουσιν. In general, Sappho’s explanations are more compact than her original riddle; only the final point requires extended explication. For the addition of the μὲν … δέ opposition, cf. 6–7 with 6–12 n. 18 ἐν αὑτῇ περιφέρει suggests that what Sappho is referring to as a “letter” is actually a pair of wax-covered writing tablets, on which the text was inscribed and which were then folded together and tied closed to protect it in transit, i. e. a δέλτος. See Turner 1987 #4; Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 778–80. That the metaphorical “female creature” moves about (and thus carries her children with her) is not said in 1–2, but is not inconsistent with the details offered there: Sappho has added the detail as part of her explanation of the riddle. 20–1 Forms of βούλομαι are favored over ἐθέλω in comedy (702 examples vs. 323), Herodotus (259 vs. 189), Thucydides (375 vs. 70), 5th/4th-century oratory (1853 vs. 543) and Plato (1853 vs. 543), whereas the opposite is true of Homer and the Hymns (64 vs. 316), lyric poetry (9 vs. 96) and tragedy (281 vs. 574). The former was thus apparently seen as the more colloquial verb, hence Sappho’s substitution of βούλεθ’ here for ἐθέλει in 4. ἀναγιγνώσκω is first attested in the sense “read” at Pi. O. 10.1, but builds on the old idea of “recognizing signs” (Od. 19.250 = 23.206 ~ 24.346 σήματ’ ἀναγνούσῃ/ἀναγνόντος. The implication of these verses is that by the middle of the 4th century, most people read silently rather than aloud; cf. Knox 1968; Burnyeat 1997; Gavrilov 1997; Johnson 2000, esp. 594–600; Vatri 2012.

fr. 195 K.–A. (197 K.) Poll. 7.211 βιβλιαγράφον δὲ παρὰ Κρατίνῳ ἐν Χείροσιν (fr. 267)· β ι β λ ι ο γ ρ ά φ ο ς (Poll.A : βιβλίον γράφων δὲ Poll.FS) παρὰ Ἀντιφάνει ἐν Σαπφοῖ (You will find) bibliagraphos in Cratinus in Cheirônes (fr. 267); b i b l i o g r a p h o s (thus Poll.A : biblion graphôn de, “but ‘writing a book’” Poll.FS) (appears) in Antiphanes in Sapphô

Meter

Unknown, but the word is easily accommodated in iambic trimeter.

Discussion Lobeck 1820. 655 Text βιβλιογράφος is preserved only in Poll.A, having been converted to βιβλίον γράφων δὲ—much too uninteresting a phrase to have been collected and commented on by Pollux—in Poll.FS. Phryn. ecl. 59 βιβλιαγράφος· οὕτω λέγουσιν ἐν

Σαπφώ (fr. 195)

23

πέντε συλλαβαῖς καὶ διὰ τοῦ α, οὐχὶ τετρασυλλάβως διὰ τοῦ ο (“bibliagraphos: this is how they say it, with five syllables and an alpha, not tetrasyllabically with an omicron”) and Orus fr. A 20 βιβλογράφος, οὐχὶ βιβλιαγράφος (“biblographos, not bibliagraphos”) show that there was an ancient scholarly dispute about the proper classical spelling/pronunciation of the word. Perhaps βιβλιογράφος is a legitimate 4th-century variant of βιβλιαγράφος; or Pollux originally wrote βιβλογράφος and the iota was added by a scribe under the influence of βιβλιαγράφος a few words earlier; or perhaps Pollux he wrote βιβλιογράφος, but was unknowingly merely reporting an error in the manuscript tradition of Antiphanes. Citation context From a brief collection of words (7.210–11) having to do with books. Ar. fr. 795; Pl. Com. fr. 218; Hdt. 1.125.2; Aristomen. fr. 9, in that order, are cited immediately before this, Cratin. Jun. fr. 11; Antiph. fr. 160; Hdt. 5.58.3, in that order, immediately after this. Interpretation A βιβλιογράφος is not an “author” but a “scribe”, i. e. a copyist working in the Athenian book-market (for which, cf. Eup. fr. 327.1; Ar. Av. 1288; Aristomen. fr. 9 with Orth 2014 ad loc.; Nicopho fr. 10.4 with Pellegrino 2013 ad loc.; Theopomp. Com. fr. 79; Cratin. Jun. fr. 11; Kleberg 1969. 5–9; Hartwig 2014. 216–18; and perhaps Pl. Ap. 26d–e (the teachings of Anaxagoras for sale “for a drachma, if the price is high, from the orchestra”, although whether the reference is in fact to books containing Anaxagoras’ writings is unclear)).

24

Σκληρίαι (Sklêriai) “Hardnesses”

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.312, III.114; Bothe 1855. 396 Title The meaning of the title—attested only once—is obscure. Meineke suggested that it ought actually to be singular Σκληρία (“Hardness”; not much of an improvement) or Σκυρίαι (“Women of Skyros”, the title of lost tragedies by Sophocles and Euripides), while Bothe proposed Σκληραί (“Hard Women”) or Σκληροί (“Hard Men”). Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 196 K.–A. (198 K.) ἔστιν παρ’ αὐτὴν τὴν δίφορον συκῆν κάτω ἔστιν παρ’ Porson : ἔστιν γὰρ παρ’ Ath.A : ἔστι δὲ παρ’ Brunck : ἔστι γε παρ’ Clinton : ἔστη παρ’ Jacobs

It’s right beside the double-bearing fig tree down below Ath. 3.77d διφόρου δὲ συκῆς μνημονεύει καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Ἐκκλησιαζούσαις (707–8)· ——· καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Σκληρίαις· —— Aristophanes mentions a double-bearing fig tree in Ecclesiazusae (707–8): ——; also Antiphanes in Sklêriai: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lkr llkl

Discussion Brunck ap. Schweighäuser 1801–1805 II.29; Jacobs 1809. 57; Porson 1812. 59; Clinton 1832. 592; Kock 1884 II.96 Text Ath.A’s ἔστιν γὰρ παρ’ is hypermetrical and looks like it originated in a majuscule dittography (ΓΑΡΠΑΡ), hence Porson’s expulsion of the particle. Brunck’s ἔστι δὲ παρ’ (cf. Clinton’s ἔστι γε παρ’) is a more difficult emendation of a type that can only be considered when it improves the sense, as this one does not. Jacobs’ ἔστη παρ’ (“he/she/it stood beside”) spoils the joke (for which, see Interpretation).

Σκληρίαι (fr. 196)

25

Citation context From the middle of a long, wandering discussion of figs at 3.74c–80—here with specific attention to the fruiting habits of different varieties of the tree—that also preserves fr. 177.1–4. Interpretation Athenaeus takes both these passages as straightforward references to a fig-tree variety that bore two crops per year. In Ecclesiazusae, however, the “double-bearing fig tree” is patently an obscene double-entendre—the two “figs” are the testicles, and the “fig tree” is the penis shaft—and κάτω carefully appended at the end of the Antiphanes fragment suggests that the same is true here as well. If so, what is “down below right next to it” is perhaps an anus. Pherecr. fr. 103 (“double-bearing figs” mentioned in Krapataloi) may be another example of the same joke, but is not obviously anything other than a simple botanical reference, as at Thphr. CP 1.6.10 ὁ τῶν διφόρων συκῶν λεγομένων καρπός (“the fruit of the so-called double-bearing figs”). See Henderson 1991 § 31. For figs, fr. 177.3 n.

26

Σκύθης vel Σκύθαι ἢ Ταῦροι (Skythês or Skythai ê Tauroi) “The Scythian or Scythians or Taurians”

Introduction Discussion Kock 1884 II.96; Crusius 1895. 29–30 = 1961 IIIb.29–30; Edmonds 1959. 265 n. b Title The play is referred to twice by Athenaeus as Σκύθης; once by Pollux as Σκύθαι; and once by Pollux as Σκύθαι ἢ Ταῦροι. Kock, followed by Crusius, suggested that the title might actually have been Σκύθαι Ταῦροι (“Scythians from Tauris”) or (comparing Plin. Nat. 1.85 iugum ipsum Scythotauri tenent, “the Scythotaurians occupy the ridge itself ”; discussing the ethnic populations of the Crimea) Σκυθόταυροι (“Scythotaurians”). But the evidence of Athenaeus in particular suggests that Antiphanes’ play was simply called Σκύθης or Σκύθαι (for this type of title, cf. Τυρρηνός Introduction), and that someone at some point felt the need to add ἢ Ταῦροι to distinguish it from a homonymous comedy by a different poet (e. g. the one by Xenarchus), or because the character or characters in question were in fact specifically Taurians, or the like. For Scythians, fr. 58.2–3 n. On Tauris (i. e. the ancient Crimea) and the Taurians, cf. Hdt. 4.103. Content

Unknown.

Date Unknown. Edmonds puts the play in 338 BCE, with reference to fr. 157 and Philip II’s invasion of Scythian territory in that year.

Fragments fr. dub. 197 K.–A. (199 K.) (Α.) ἐπὶ κῶμον δοκεῖ ἴωμεν ὥσπερ ἔχομεν. (Β.) οὐκοῦν δᾷδα καὶ στεφάνους λαβόντες. (Α.) Χαιρεφῶν οὕτως ⟨k μεμάθηκε κωμάζειν ἄδειπνος

l⟩

1 δοκεῖ Ath.A : εἰ δοκεῖ Musurus 2 δᾷδα καὶ Meineke : καὶ δᾷδα καὶ Ath.A 3 (Α.) Χαιρεφῶν Kock ⟨γε πῶς⟩ Edmonds 4 μεμάθηκε κωμάζειν ἄδειπνος Casaubon, duce Dalechamp : μεμάθηκ᾿ ἐγκωμάζειν ἄδειπνος Ath.A : fort. μεμάθηκεν ἄδειπνος ⟨l k⟩ κωμάζειν vel μεμάθηκ᾿ ἄδειπνος ⟨l k⟩ κωμάζειν

(A.) It’s agreed that we should go off on a revel just as we are. (B.) Alright—after we get a torch and garlands. (Α.) Chaerephon’s learned to celebrate this way when he hasn’t had dinner

Σκύθης vel Σκύθαι ἢ Ταῦροι (fr. dub. 197)

27

Ath. 6.243c Ἀντιφάνης δ᾿ ἐν Σκύθῃ· —— Antiphanes in Skythês: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xlkl xlk〉|r

llkl klkl k|rk|l llkl rlkl l|lkl ll〈kl〉 e. g. rlkl llkl x〈lkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1818. 34–5; Dobree 1833. 311; Meineke 1839–1857 III.114– 15; Kock 1884 III.96; Edmonds 1961. 264 Text In 1, the paradosis δοκεῖ is odd, and Musurus’ εἰ δοκεῖ (adopted by Meineke) might be right; cf. Ar. Nu. 11 ἀλλ’ εἰ δοκεῖ, ῥέγκωμεν; Av. 665 ἀλλ’ εἰ δοκεῖ σφῷν, ταῦτα χρὴ δρᾶν; Th. 234; Theopomp. Com. fr. 77 ἀλλ’ εἰ δοκεῖ, χρὴ ταῦτα δρᾶν. In 2, Ath.A’s καὶ δᾷδα καὶ (“both a torch and …”) is unmetrical. Meineke expelled the first καὶ. This is the most economical way of representing 3–4 and requires adopting Casaubon’s μεμάθηκε κωμάζειν in place of the paradosis μεμάθηκ᾿ ἐγκωμάζειν. This leaves 4 without a caesura, which is unappealing (although not impossible) and suggests deeper problems in the text. Χαιρεφῶν 〈x l k l〉 / οὕτως μεμάθηκ᾿ ἄδειπνος | 〈l x l k l〉 yields a hepthemimeral caesura, but leaves ἐγκωμάζειν (intrusive?) stranded. Either μεμάθηκεν ἄδειπνος 〈l k〉 κωμάζειν or μεμάθηκ᾿ ἄδειπνος 〈l k〉 κωμάζειν would also do, although both require more aggressive reworking of the paradosis. Edmond’s 〈γε πῶς〉 is merely an exempli gratia suggestion for how to fill the end of 3 as conventionally printed and adds no substantial content in any case. The point of Χαιρεφῶν κτλ in 3–4 would seem to be that the ever-resourceful Chaerephon has learned to go out into the streets ὥσπερ ἔχομεν (2), i. e. with none of the normal kômos-accessories suggested by (B.). I accordingly adopt Kock’s suggestion that another change of speaker is needed before this. Citation context From a collection of texts at Ath. 6.242f–4a that mention the notorious late 4th-century BCE parasite Chaerephon (see Interpretation) probably drawn in the first instance from a Hellenistic or Roman-era catalogue of kômôidoumenoi, but here only one in a series of such collections within a much larger synthetic discussion of the phenomenon of parasitism generally (6.234c–48c). Men. frr. 215; 265; 225; 55; Timocl. fr. 9, in that order, are preserved immediately before this, Tim. Com. fr. 1; Apollod. Car. frr. 29; 31; Macho 10–24; Call. fr. 434 (a mention in the Pinakes of what was supposed to be a long letter from Chaerephon to another parasite describing a dinner party), in that order, immediately after this. Fr. 208 is preserved somewhat earlier than this (at Ath. 6.240f).

28

Antiphanes

Interpretation A conversation most likely in the aftermath of a symposium; for the division of the lines, see Text on 3–4. The contrast between (A.)’s “it’s agreed” in 1 and the objection (B.) raises in 2–3 suggests that the group is larger than the two of them. The parasite Chaerephon (PA 15189; PAA 975770), famous for his supposed ability to infiltrate parties to which he had not been invited, is mentioned at Alex. frr. 213; 259; Nicostr. Com. fr. 26.3 (apparently a character in the comedy); Lync. fr. 24 Dalby ap. Ath. 13.584e–f; Matro fr. 1.9–10, 98–101, as well as in the texts preserved in this section of Athenaeus (see Citation context). Arnott 1996. 610 (on Alex. fr. 213.1)—ignoring this fragment—argues that everything we know of Chaerephon puts him in the final third of the 4th-century BCE, with most of the references falling ca. 325–ca. 310 BCE. If this were a very early mention of the man, it might be marginally possible for Antiphanes, given what we know of his dates (see Introduction § 2). But this is probably better treated as a dubious fragment that belongs either to a second Antiphanes or to another poet altogether, e. g. Xenarchus, who also wrote a Skythês (see Σκύθης vel Σκύθαι ἢ Ταῦροι Introduction) as well as a Boutaliôn taken by Breitenbach 1908. 77 to be modeled on Antiphanes’ play by the same name. 1–3 A κῶμος is a “revelling band”; see in general Adrados 1963. 257–66; Headlam 1966 on Herod. 2.34–7; Ghiron-Bistagne 1974. 207–97. But here the reference is specifically to a group of drinkers wandering the streets at night looking for trouble, fun or a combination of the two. Cf. Ar. Ach. 551 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Th. 1176 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; Ec. 691–2 μεθυσθεὶς αὐτῷ στεφάνῳ / πᾶς τις ἄπεισιν τὴν δᾷδα λαβών (“everyone will go off drunk, garland and all, carrying his torch”, sc. at the end of the great communal dinner); Pl. 1040–1 (Γρ.) ἔοικε δ’ ἐπὶ κῶμον βαδίζειν. (Χρ.) φαίνεται· / στεφάνους γέ τοι καὶ δᾷδ’ ἔχων πορεύεται (“(Old woman) He seems to be going to a kômos. (Chremes) Apparently; he’s making his way with garlands, at any rate, and a torch”); Pütz 2003. 156–97. 1 The parenthetic use of δοκεῖ looks colloquial; Kassel–Austin compare [Pl.] Epin. 980b ἦ δοκεῖ τοὺς θεοὺς ὑμνοῦντες σφόδρα τιμῶμεν; (“Is it agreed that we should honor the gods aggressively with hymns?”). But see Text. 2 For ὥσπερ ἔχομεν, Kassel–Austin compare Pherecr. fr. 113.21 ὡς ἔχετ(ε), where they cite as additional comparanda Ar. Eq. 488; Lys. 376, 610; Ec. 533 (see Ussher 1973 ad loc.); Pl. 1089; and see Headlam 1966 on Herod. 7.8 (with numerous additional parallels). 2–3 δᾷδα καὶ / στεφάνους For these items, fr. 269.2 n., 1–2 n. (with further cross-references), respectively. 4 ἄδειπνος is colloquial 5th/4th-century vocabulary, first attested at Eup. fr. 347 (see Olson 2014 ad loc.) and Ar. Ach. 1152.

Σκύθης vel Σκύθαι ἢ Ταῦροι (fr. 198)

29

fr. 198 K.–A. (200 K.) ταχὺ γὰρ γίγνεται ἐκκλησιαστὴς οἰκόσιτος 1 ταχὺ Ath.A : γλυκὺ Kaibel γίγνεται Porson : γίνεται Ath.A 2 ἐκκλησιαστὴς A Ath.  : κἀκκλησιαστὴς Meineke οἰκόσιτος Ath.A : ᾡκόσιτος Bothe fin. ὢν πρὸ τοῦ add. Porson

because he rapidly becomes a self-supporting member of the Assembly Ath. 6.247f καλεῖται δ’ οἰκόσιτος ὁ μὴ μισθοῦ, ἀλλὰ προῖκα τῇ πόλει ὑπηρετῶν. Ἀντιφάνης Σκύθῃ· —— Someone who serves his city for free, without receiving a wage, is referred to as an oikositos. Antiphanes in Skythês: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter. 〈xlkl xlk〉|r

llkl llkl l|lkr 〈xlkl〉

Discussion Porson 1812. 85; Meineke 1839–1857 III.115; Cobet 1854. 345–6; Bothe 1855. 396; Kock 1884 II.97; Kaibel ap. Kassel–Austin Text In place of ταχὺ at the beginning of the preserved portion of 1, Kaibel suggested γλυκὺ (“happily”). This improves the sense somewhat, but is simultaneously an arbitrary change that ought accordingly not to be adopted. At the end of 1, Porson’s γίγνεται rather than the paradosis γίνεται is the standard spelling of the word in this period (Threatte 1980. 562). See fr. 30.2 Text for similar errors in various forms of γιγνώσκω and γίγνομαι. The sense of the fragment is problematic (see Interpretation), and the emendations in 2 listed in the apparatus represent attempts to make it clearer. Meineke (followed by Kock) prints κἀκκλησιαστὴς in place of the manuscript’s ἐκκλησιαστὴς, and Kock glosses the revised version of the text as meaning that members of the Assembly will soon be reduced to working for no pay, in a fashion similar to how wealthier members of the society are already required to make nominally voluntary financial contributions to the state. Bothe’s similarly easy ᾡκόσιτος (= ὁ οἰκόσιτος) for the manuscript’s οἰκόσιτος converts the meaning to “the man who supports himself rapidly becomes a member of the Assembly”, sc. because he needs the money. Porson’s addition of ὢν πρὸ τοῦ to fill out the end of 2 allows the sense to be “he becomes a member of the Assembly 〈having previously been〉 self-supporting”; but this is supplementation rather than emendation of the text. Citation context From a collection of -σιτος-compounds at Ath. 6.247e–8c appended to a long discussion of the παράσιτος (“parasite, dependent”; see Parasitos

30

Antiphanes

introductory n.). Anaxandr. fr. 25 is cited immediately before this, Men. fr. 98; Cith. fr. 6 Körte–Thierfelder, immediately after this (all for οἰκόσιτος). Ath. 6.246f–7a (discussing ἐπίσιτος and citing Timocl. fr. 31; Pherecr. fr. 37; Ar. fr. 452; Eub. fr. 20, in that order) may well be drawn from the same source. Many of the same adjectives are cited at Poll. 6.34, 36 (treating words formed from σῖτος and cognates). αὐτόσιτος was in any case clearly of interest to the Atticist lexicographers and their intellectual heirs; cf. – Ael. Dion. ο 8 (= Suda ο 77 ~ Hsch. ο 265) οἰκόσιτος· ὁ ἑαυτὸν τρέφων μισθωτός (“oikositos: an employee who provides his own food”) – Phryn. ecl. 174 αὐτότροφος μὴ λέγε, ἀλλ’ οἰκόσιτος, ὡς Ἀθηναῖοι (“do not say autotrophos, but oikositos, as the Athenians do”) – Phot. ο 98 οἰκόσιτος· ὁ τὰ οἴκοθεν καὶ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ἐσθίων, οὐχὶ τὰ τῶν πέλας (“oikositos: someone who eats what comes from his own house and his own goods, not the goods of his neighbors”).7 Interpretation An explanation or response to a previous remark, hence γάρ in 1. The fragment is too brief, and the meaning of οἰκόσιτος too obscure, for either sense or syntax to be clear. Athenaeus or his source seems to take it to mean “he rapidly becomes a member of the Assembly who draws no pay”, making this a paradox of sorts, since Assembly-service was compensated. Alternatively (and consistent with 4th-century usage), the idea might be that the individual in question is paid for Assembly-service and uses his wages to buy his own food (see below), or the text might be tweaked in various ways (see Text). 1 For adverbial ταχύ, e. g. fr. 225.10; Pherecr. fr. 51; Eup. fr. 334.1; Ar. Ach. 1085; Alex. fr. 153.12. 2 ἐκκλησιαστής is surprisingly rare, being attested elsewhere in the classical period only at Pl. Ap. 25a οἱ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οἱ ἐκκλησιασταί (“the individuals in the Assembly, the Assembly-men”); Euthd. 290a; Grg. 452e, and a number of times in Aristotle, who routinely coordinates it with δικαστής, on the one hand, and/or βουλευτής, on the other (e. g. Plt. 1282a34). Despite Athenaeus (followed by the generally unhelpful LSJ s. v. I), οἰκόσιτος here likely means not “living at his own expense, unpaid” but “getting a wage out of which he pays his own expenses”, as at IG II2 1672.29, 32, 33 etc. (= I.Eleusis 177) and IG II2 1673a.5, 32, 35 etc. (= I.Eleusis 150) (both late 4th century), of slaves who are hired by the state but whose master undertakes to provide their food, and Thphr. Char. 22.4 with Diggle 2004 ad loc., where the tight-fisted man hires οἰκόσιτοι to serve at a wedding banquet, i. e. he does not allow them to share the food. Thus Aelius Dionysius (quoted in Citation context); see in general Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 25 (“a son who’s oikositos is a nice thing”—an unlikely way of referring to a lack of compensated employment). The adjective is first attested

7

Note also Phot. α 3251 = Synag. α 2453 αὐτόσιτος· ὁ οἰκόσιτος (“autositos: someone who is oikositos”).

Σκύθης vel Σκύθαι ἢ Ταῦροι (fr. 199)

31

in these passages; in the other fragments cited in this section of Athenaeus (see Citation context); and in Anaxil. fr. 38 and Men. fr. 340.3, and looks like a 4thcentury colloquialism.

fr. 199 K.–A. (201 K.) σαράβαρα καὶ χιτῶνας πάντες ἐνδεδυκότες ⟨καὶ⟩ σαράβαρα Meineke πάντες Poll.(1)FSC : πάντας Poll.(1)A : πάντα Poll.(2) FSC ABCL ἐνδεδυκότες Poll.(1) Poll.(2) : ἐνδεδυκότας Poll.(1)A : ἐνδεδυκότα Poll.(2)FS

all wearing sarabara and tunics Poll.(1) 7.59 τὰς δ’ ἀναξυρίδας καὶ σκελέας καλοῦσιν· τὸ μὲν ὄνομα καὶ παρὰ Κριτίᾳ ἔστιν ἐν ταῖς Πολιτείαις (88 B 38 D.–K.), Ἀντιφάνης δ’ αὐτὸ ἐν Ἀντείᾳ (fr. 38) παρεξηγεῖται· ——. ἐν δὲ τοῖς Σκύθαις Ἀντιφάνης ἔφη· —— They also refer to trousers as skeleai; the word is found in Critias, in his Politeiai (88 B 38 D.–K.), whereas Antiphanes in Anteia (fr. 38) misinterprets it: ——. But in his Skythai Antiphanes said: —— Poll.(2) 10.168 ἐκ δὲ σκευῶν καὶ ἀναξυρίδες καὶ σκελέαι καὶ ποδίδες καὶ Περσικαί, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν ταῖς Νεφέλαις (151) τὰς ἀναξυρίδας ἔοικε καλεῖν, Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Σκύθαις ἢ Ταύροις· —— In the category of implements are also trousers and pants and podides8 and Persikai, a term Aristophanes appears to use for trousers in Clouds (151),9 and Antiphanes in Skythai ê Tauroi: ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lklk lkll | lklk lkl

This analysis assumes that the first and third syllables of σαράβαρα are long. If they are not, a long syllable—Meineke suggested 〈καὶ〉—is missing at the beginning of the line. Discussion Meineke 1939–1857 III.115; Knauer 1954. 108–9

8

9

A hapax, glossed “a kind of shoe” in LSJ s. v., followed by Montanari s. v. (“a type of boot”). But Pollux clearly takes this to be another word for some sort of pants (i. e. those that extend down to one’s feet, πόδες?). Actually a reference to Persian-style shoes (hence perhaps the definition of ποδίδες in LSJ noted in n. 7). Pollux appears to be thinking of Ar. V. 1182, quoted at 7.59.

32

Antiphanes

Text For Meineke’s ⟨καὶ⟩ σαράβαρα—the word is obscure, and the length of the various alphas is accordingly uncertain—see Meter. The common exemplar of both sections of Pollux appears to have offered something like πάντ() ἐνδεδυκότ(), which was expanded ad lib. by individual scribes, yielding πάντες ἐνδεδυκότες in Poll.(1)FSC, πάντας ἐνδεδυκότας in Poll.(1)A, πάντα ἐνδεδυκότα in Poll.(2)FS and πάντα ἐνδεδυκότες in Poll.(2)ABCL. πάντας ἐνδεδυκότες would also have been possible. πάντα will not do in any case, and Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin all rightly opt for πάντες ἐνδεδυκότες. Citation context Pollux (1) comes from the end of a brief discussion of terms for Persian items of clothing that begins at 7.58 and also contains a citation of Ar. V. 1137 οἱ μὲν καλοῦσι Περσίδ’, οἱ δὲ καυνάκην. Pollux (2)—likely drawn at least in part from the same source—is from a short section on clothing within the long catalogue of σκεύη (“implements”) of all sorts that makes up Book 10. Cognate material is preserved at – Hsch. σ 19 σαράβαρ[ι]α· βρακία10 (“sarabar[i]a: trousers”) – Hsch. σ 190 σαράβαρα· τὰ περὶ τὰς κνημῖδας ἐνδύματα (“sarabara: garments that cover one’s leggings/greaves”) – Phot. σ 75 = Suda σ 109 = Synag. σ 22 σαράβαρα· ἐσθὴς Περσική· ἔνιοι δὲ λέγουσι βρακία (“sarabara: Persian clothing; some authorities refer to them as trousers”; from the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge generally referred to as Σ΄). Interpretation A description either of exotic, barbarian Eastern people—perhaps specifically Scythians, given the title of the play—or of other individuals dressed like them, or perhaps only partially dressed like them, if the point is that a Greek garment was combined with a foreign one. σαράβαρα is an Iranian loan-word, attested elsewhere only at LXX Daniel 3:31 (one of the items of clothing Shadrach, Meshach and Abednago were wearing when they were thrown into Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace, along with τιάραι, “tiaras”, and περικνημῖδες, “leggings”), and in Latin in the 1st-century BCE mime poet Publilius Syrus ut quid ergo in ventre tuo Parthi sarabaras suspenderunt? ap. Isid. 19.23.2, who comments: sarabarae sunt fluxa et sinuosa vestimenta. See in general Nyberg 1931. 178–87; Knauer 1954. 110–14; Schmeja 1978. The pairing with χιτῶνας (fr. 151.1 n.) can be taken to support Pollux’ claim that σαράβαρα are trousers or leggings of some sort (cf. Ar. V. 1087 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; E. Cyc. 182–3; Miller 1997. 139, 165–70, 184–5). Alternatively, he or his source may simply be guessing—cf. the mishandling of ποδίδες at 10.168—given that both the Septuagint and Publil. Syr. seem to think of this as an upper garment (i. e. something put on over a tunic, like a Greek himation?).

10

A Germanic word, cognate with English “breech” (as in “breechcloth” or “breech birth”).

Σκύθης vel Σκύθαι ἢ Ταῦροι (fr. 199)

33

For the perfect of ἐνδύω used thus elsewhere in comedy, cf. Men. fr. 327.2 ζῶμ’ ἐνδεδυμένην (despite LSJ s. v., just as easily taken as middle as passive); Apollod. Com. fr. 12 σχιστὸν χιτωνίσκον τιν’ ἐνδέδυκας.

34

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (Stratiôtês ê Tychôn) “The Soldier or Tycho”

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.336–7; Kock 1884 II.97; Breitenbach 1908. 60 n. 148, 67; Edmonds 1959. 266–7 n. c; Webster 1970. 39, 83; Konstantakos 2000. 211–16; Olson 2007. 139 Title The play is cited three times by Athenaeus with the double title (frr. 202–3), twice (once by Athenaeus and once by Pollux) simply as “The Soldier” (frr. 200–1). Konstantakos 2000. 211 suggests that the second title was added at some point in the scholarly tradition to distinguish this Στρατιώτης from others by different poets (see below). Tycho is not a normal Athenian name and is thus perhaps to be understood as a nickname for the soldier (“Lucky” or “He who hits his mark”, < τυγχάνω); cf. Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων, which is easily understood as two different ways of referring to the same character. Or perhaps Τύχων is the daimon by this name associated with Aphrodite and sexuality, and thus seemingly with erotic success (Apolloph. fr. 6; Phot. α 3404, citing Ar. fr. 325), in which case he might be the prologue speaker; cf. Ὕπνος Introduction, and for parallel titles note Eubulus’ Ὀρθάνης, Timocles’ Κονίσαλος and Xenarchos’ Πρίαπος (all cited by Breitenbach 1908. 67). See the more detailed discussion in Konstantakos 2000. 212–14. Other plays by Antiphanes with double titles are Ἄγροικος/Βουταλίων, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ and Σκύθης vel Σκύθαι ἢ Ταῦροι. Alexis (fr. 212, a discussion of a supposititious child), Diphilus (title only), Xenarchus (fr. 13) and Philemon (fr. 82, a long speech by a cook) also staged plays entitled Στρατιώτης. Content Unknown, although it is difficult to believe that the braggart soldier—i. e. (B.) in fr. 200—did not get his comeuppance, e. g. in a romantic adventure, as in Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus; cf. Konstantakos 2000. 211–12. Fr. 202 is most easily understood as implying a setting in Athens. For braggart soldiers in comedy, see in general Konstantakos 2015; Konstantakos 2016. Date Unknown. Fr. 200 mentions a war on Cyprus—or at least a war that took place during the time (B.) was on Cyprus, which is not quite the same thing. There is known to have been fighting on the island at numerous points in the 4th century; there were probably other conflicts there of which we know nothing, but in which mercenaries might easily have taken part; and (B.)’s report is not sober historical reportage in any case. The reference is accordingly of no real help in dating the play. Edmonds—reckless as always—put it specifically in 349 BCE.11 11

Attempts to put the play in the second half of the 4th-century on the ground that no other soldier-figures are known in the comedies of the first half of the century (e. g.

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (fr. 200)

35

Fragments fr. 200 K.–A. (202 K.)

5

10

15

(Α.) ἐν Κύπρῳ, φῄς, εἰπέ μοι, διήγετε πολὺν χρόνον; (Β.) τὸν πάνθ’ ἕως ἦν ὁ πόλεμος. (Α.) ἐν τίνι τόπῳ μάλιστα; λέγε γάρ. (Β.) ἐν Πάφῳ· οὗ πρᾶγμα τρυφερὸν διαφερόντως ἦν ἰδεῖν ἄλλως τ’ ἄπιστον. (Α.) ποῖον; (Β.) ἐρριπίζετο ὑπὸ τῶν περιστερῶν, ὑπ’ ἄλλου δ’ οὐθενός, δειπνῶν ὁ βασιλεύς. (Α.) πῶς; ἐάσας τἄλλα γὰρ ἐρήσομαί σε τοῦθ’. (Β.) ὅπως; ἠλείφετο ἐκ τῆς Συρίας ἥκοντι τοιούτου μύρῳ καρποῦ σύχν’ οἷόν φασι τὰς περιστερὰς τρώγειν. διὰ τὴν ὀσμὴν δὲ τούτου πετόμεναι παρῆσαν οἷαί τ’ ἦσαν ἐπικαθιζάνειν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν· παῖδες δὲ παρακαθήμενοι ἐσόβουν. ἀπαίρουσαι δὲ μικρόν, οὐ πολύ, τὸ μήτ’ ἐκεῖσε μήτε δεῦρο παντελῶς, οὕτως ἀνερρίπιζον, ὥστε σύμμετρον αὐτῷ τὸ πνεῦμα, μὴ περίσκληρον, ποεῖν

1 ἐν Κύπρῳ Ath.ACE : ἐν τῇ Κύπρῳ Morelius : ἀλλ᾿ ἐν Κύπρῳ Kock : εἶτ᾿ ἐν Κύπρῳ 6 οὐθενός scripsi : οὐδενός Ath.ACE 7 τἄλλα Blaydes 5 τ’ Dindorf : γ’ Ath.ACE Ath.DB : τἀμὰ Ath.ACE 8 τοῦθ’. (Β.) ὅπως; Cobet : τοῦτο πῶς Ath.ACE 9 τοιούτου Bothe : τοιούτῳ Ath.ACE 10 σύχν’ οἷόν Porson : συχνοῦ ὃν Ath.ACE : σύχν’ οἵου Kock 14 ἀπαίρουσαι Bothe : ἐπαίρουσαι Ath.ACE 15 τὸ Richards : τοῦ Ath.ACE

5

(A.) Tell me—you (pl.) spent a lot of time, you say, on Cyprus? (B.) Yes, the whole war. (A.) Where in particular? Give me the story! (B.) In Paphos, where you could see something amazingly luxurious, and incredible as well. (A.) What? (B.) When the king was having dinner, he was fanned by pigeons— and pigeons only! (A.) How? I’m going to ignore everything else and just ask you this. (B.) How? He anointed himself with imported Syrian perfume scented

Breitenbach 1908. 60 n. 148; Konstantakos 2000. 216, referring back to Nesselrath 1990. 325–8) rapidly turn into circular arguments. Some comic poet made use of the figure— already visible onstage in nuce in the Lamachos of Aristophanes’ Acharnians—first. If Antiphanes did so e. g. in the 370s BCE (not necessarily with any success), our limited knowledge of the work of his rivals suggests that no one else followed his lead for a few decades; it does not suggest that Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων also belongs to the later period.

Antiphanes

36 10

15

with the kind of fruit, people say, that pigeons often eat. The pigeons were there, flying around, because of the smell of it; they could have roosted on his head, except that slaves sitting beside him kept shooing them off. But they stayed just a bit away from him, so as to be not too far in either direction; and they fanned up the air enough to make the cloud of perfume the same size as he was and not too strong

Ath. 6.257d–f Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς ἐν Στρατιώτῃ τὰ ὅμοια λέγει περὶ τῆς τῶν ἐν Κύπρῳ βασιλέων τρυφῆς. ποιεῖ δέ τινα ἀναπυνθανόμενον στρατιώτου τάδε· —— The comic poet Antiphanes in Stratiôtês makes similar remarks about the luxury enjoyed by the Cyprian kings. He represents someone as asking a soldier the following questions: ——

Meter

5

10

15

Iambic trimeter. 〈x〉lkl l|lk|l

klkl klkl l|kll lrkl lrkl klk|r klkl llkr l|rkl llkl llkl l|lk|l klkl rlkl klk|l llkl llkr l|lkl llkl klkl k|lkl llkl llrl llk|l llkl llkl l|lk|l klkl llrl llk|l lrkl klkl l|lk|r klkl rlrl llk|r klkl rlkl llk|l klkl klkl k|lk|l klkl llkl klk|l klkl llkl k|lkl llkl

For κρ making position in 14, see Introduction, Meter. Discussion Morelius 1553. 94; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 III.525; Porson 1812. 88; Dindorf 1827. 559; Meineke 1839–1857 III.115–16; Engel 1841 I.504–5; Bothe 1855. 397–8; Cobet 1858. 16; Kock 1884 II.97–8; Blaydes 1896. 114; Richards 1909. 78; Nesselrath 1990. 328; Kaibel ap. Kassel–Austin; Konstantakos 2000. 216–31; Olson 2007. 139–40 (C13)

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (fr. 200)

37

Text Morelius’ ἐν τῇ Κύπρῳ (as in fr. 124.3) for Ath.ACE’s ἐν Κύπρῳ neatly fills out the beginning of the line in 1. Kassel–Austin cite parallels (e. g. Ar. Th. 446) to show that the name of the island does not normally take a definite article; but the most important comparison is surely to Antiphanes’ own practice. The suggestions of Kock (ἀλλ᾿ ἐν Κύπρῳ, “but in Cyprus”) and Blaydes (εἶτ᾿ ἐν Κύπρῳ, “then in Cyprus”)—intended in the first instance simply to fill out the line—have a substantial effect on the meaning of the text, by altering the argumentative context in which the lines can be taken to be set (opposition to a preceding point, in the first case; continuing a narrative, in the second), and should accordingly not be printed. As Konstantakos 2000. 221–2 notes, φῄς in 1 is an interjection (as at e. g. Men. Dysc. 456; Mis. 660) and ought therefore to be set off with commas. In 5, Dindorf ’s τ’ is needed to coordinate ἄλλως with διαφερόντως in 4; a majuscule error (Γ mistaken for Τ). For οὐθενός in place of the manuscripts’ οὐδενός in 6, see fr. 281 Text. In 7, τἄλλα is an anonymous 15th-century editor’s correction of Ath.ACE’s obscure τἀμὰ (“my concerns” vel sim.); another majuscule error (ΛΛ mistaken for Μ; cf. above on 5). A change of speaker is needed in 8 after (A.)’s question, and the proper way to respond to a direct question that begins with πῶς; (7) is Cobet’s indirect ὅπως;. Ath.A’s τοῦτο πῶς likely represents scriptio plena τοῦτο; ὅπως;, with the seemingly extraneous omicron on the beginning of the interrogative eventually omitted by a copyist who failed to understand the text. Konstantakos 2000. 224–5 advocates for τοῦτο. πῶς;, followed by a change of speaker, with the repetition of the interrogative expressing (A.)’s “excited curiosity”. But this makes (A.) appear desperate for information rather than merely interested. In 9, Ath.ACE’s τοιούτῳ has been assimilated to the case of ἥκοντι … μύρῳ. Bothe’s τοιούτου (to be taken with καρποῦ in the next line) is needed for the sake of the coordination with 10 οἷόν (or whatever case of the word is printed there). In 10, the first word in Ath.ACE’s συχνοῦ ὃν has been assimilated to the case and number of καρποῦ, producing συχνοῦ ὃν, which is impossible due to the hiatus; perhaps a deliberate attempt at correction, if Porson’s σύχν’ οἷόν was misunderstood as representing συχνοὶ ὃν. τρώγω generally takes an accusative in Antiphanes (frr. 156; 158.2; cf. fr. 138.4) and the other comic poets (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 170; Ar. Ach. 801; Theopomp. Com. fr. 68; Anaxil. fr. 18.3; with a partitive genitive at Pherecr. fr. 85.2), which counts again Kock’s σύχν’ οἵου, as does the fact that his emendation makes the paradosis text more difficult to explain. As Konstantakos 2000. 228 notes, τ(ε) in 12 is most easily understood as connective (sc. rather than as part of the idiomatic expression οἷός τε εἰμί, for which, fr. 120.11 n.). A comma is accordingly not wanted after παρῆσαν (as in Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin), and οἷαι … ἦσαν must stand alone and mean something like “have the potential to” and thus “be ready to”. In 14, Ath.ACE’s ἐπαίρουσαι (“raising (themselves) up” or “stirring (themselves) up”; retained by Meineke) would appear to be the wrong sense—the idea is not

38

Antiphanes

that the doves hover barely off the ground, but that they remain a certain distance away from the king—hence Bothe’s ἀπαίρουσαι. In 15, Ath.ACE’s τοῦ (retained by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) is seemingly supposed to be dependent on 14 οὐ πολύ. But the sense is obscure, hence Kaibel’s non intellego; verba fort. mutila (“I don’t understand (what is being said); the text is perhaps damaged”). I print Richards’ τὸ and take the line to be an explanation of 14 μικρόν, οὐ πολύ. Citation context From a long, wandering discussion of luxury and flatterers (6.248c–62a), much of this portion of which is drawn from the late 4th-century Peripatetic philosopher Clearchus. Fr. 142 is preserved at 6.258c–e. Interpretation A conversation between two men. Athenaeus—relying on unknown sources, but not obviously extracting the information from the fragment itself—identifies (B.) as a soldier, who is most easily taken to be the title-character of the play. (B.) was at any rate one of a group of people (note 1 διήγετε) who spent the entire war on the island and then apparently left (2). He allegedly enjoyed access to a wealthy and refined social circle (4–7) and is obviously somewhat full of himself and proud of the stories he has to tell. (A.) for his part is eager to learn—or at least pretends to be eager to learn—about (B.)’s experiences on Cyprus and in particular, once the topic comes up, about the luxury of the king there (esp. 7–8). After his initial query, however, (A.)’s remarks (3, 5, 7–8) are little more than feeds allowing (B.) to continue talking. (A.)’s behavior thus suggests a parasite or someone aspiring to become one. For the fantastic story of the Cyprian king’s luxury, Kassel–Austin compare Alex. fr. 63: οὐ γὰρ ἐμυρίζετ’ ἐξ ἀλαβάστου, πρᾶγμά τι γιγνόμενον ἀεί, κρονικόν, ἀλλὰ τέτταρας περιστερὰς ἀφῆκεν ἀποβεβαμμένας εἰς οὐχὶ ταὐτὸν μὰ Δία τὴν αὐτὴν μύρον, 5 ἰδίῳ δ’ ἑκάστην. πετόμεναι δ’ αὗται κύκλῳ ἔρραινον ἡμῶν θαἰμάτια καὶ στρώματα. μή μοι φθονήσητ’, ἄνδρες Ἑλλήνων ἄκροι· ἠλειφόμην ὑόμενος ἰρίνῳ μύρῳ Because he didn’t get perfume out of a jar, which is the usual procedure and totally old-fashioned. Instead, he released four pigeons that had been dipped— and not all into the same perfume, by Zeus, 5 but each into a different one! They flew around in a circle and sprinkled our robes and our bedding. Do not resent me, foremost men of Greece; I was anointed with a shower of iris-perfume, which was taken by Meineke (comparing this fragment) to be part of a speech made by a soldier (thus also Nesselrath 1990. 327–8 and Arnott 1996 ad loc.)

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (fr. 200)

39

or an ambassador. Konstantakos 2000. 217 compares in addition Ar. Ach. 80–9 (the Athenian ambassadors’ account of their visit to the Great King) and adesp. com. fr. 144 (the extravagant dining habits of a barbarian king), as well as—more distant parallels—fr. 170; Ar. Av. 1470–93, 1694–1705; Men. fr. 25; Plaut. Trin. 928–47. For braggart soldiers, cf. Plaut. Miles 1–78; Poen. 470–87 (also cited by Konstantakos); Nesselrath 1990. 325–9; Arnott 1996. 188–9; Kerkhof 2001. 162–5; Arnott 2010. 324–5. The Cyprian cities were controlled by Hellenized kings ruling under the aegis of the Persian Empire until Alexander’s conquest. See Maier 1994. 312–17, 326–36; Papantoniou 2013. 170–8 (with extensive bibliography) for what little is known of the history of the island in the classical period. On the kingships generally, see Satraki 2013, and cf. Men. Mis. fr. 5 Sandbach ἐκ Κύπρου λαμπρῶς πάνυ / πράττων· ἐκεῖ γὰρ ὑπό τιν’ ἦν τῶν βασιλέων (“from Cyprus doing absolutely brilliantly; because he was a subject there of one of the kings”; cited by Kassel–Austin). Paphos is on the southwest coast of the island and was famous as a cult-center of Aphrodite (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 143.2; Ar. Lys. 833; Od. 8.362–3). Nothing much is known of the 4th-century kings of the place before Nikokles (a contemporary of Alexander who died in 309 BCE; see May 1952 for some of his coinage) other than their names, which we have from the coins they minted: Timocharis, Echetimos and Nikokles’ father Timarchos (or Timaios?; see Babelon 1892). See Markou 2019. 11–13. For the wealth of Cyprian kings generally, cf. Duris FGrH 76 F 4; Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 114; Anaximen. FGrH 72 F 18 (all from Athenaeus, and all cited by Konstantakos 2000. 218). What war is in question in 2 is unclear; it need not have been on Cyprus, and for all we know, (B.) is making all of this up. See also fr. dub. 330.1 (Cyprus as a source of mustard). 1–2 φῄς makes it clear that ἐν Κύπρῳ … διήγετε / πολὺν χρόνον is following up on some previous remark by (B.). For φῄς used as an interjection, see Text. For διήγετε / … χρόνον, cf. fr. 34.3 βίον διάξετε with n.; Ar. V. 1006; Aristopho fr. 10.5 χειμῶνα διάγειν. For εἰπέ μοι as an urgent interjection, see fr. 228.2 n. Cf. 3 λέγε γάρ with n. 3 λέγε γάρ is apparently a condensed way of saying something like “because I want to know (where it was), so tell me!”, but is in any case impatient; cf. frr. 49.1 φράσον γάρ; 192.14 with n.; 194.16; Anaxandr. fr. 34.14 φράσον γάρ; Nicostr. Com. fr. 4.1 φράζε γάρ; Euphro fr. 3.3 σὺ γὰρ εἶπον (the latter two cited as parallels by Kassel–Austin). 4 For τρυφερός, fr. 172a.3 n. This use of διαφερόντως (attested nowhere else in comedy) is typical of 4thcentury prose (e. g. Th. 2.40.3; X. Cyr. 8.2.5) and especially of Plato (e. g. Phd. 59a). See also Thesleff 1954 § 338; Gow–Page 1968 on Philodem. GPh 3244. 5–7 ἐρριπίζετο κτλ The image in the background is of Eastern potentates being fanned by servants; cf. E. Or. 1426–30 (a Phrygian attendant of Helen); Miller 1997. 198–206.

40

Antiphanes

5 For ἄπιστος used in the same sense (LSJ s. v. I.2) in comedy, see Ar. Pax 131 ἄπιστον … μῦθον; Av. 416 ἄπιστα καὶ πέρα κλύειν; Ra. 1443–4; Henioch. fr. 3.1 θαῦμ’ ἄπιστον. “ποῖος, without the article, need not indicate doubt, disbelief or scorn; often it is simply interrogative, only asking for information, e. g. Ar. V. 762; Pax 224 … If ποῖον; here is coloured by any emotion, this must be excited interest and eagerness to know, as in Ar. Nu. 155 …” (Konstantakos 2000. 223). 6 ὑπὸ τῶν περιστερῶν The definite article (again in 10) shows that the reference is not just to doves generically but specifically to the famous doves of Cyprus; cf. fr. 173.2–3 ἡ Κύπρος / ἔχει πελείας διαφόρους with n.; Alex. fr. 217.1 (“I’m a white dove of Aphrodite”); Seltman 1964. 76–8 (Paphian coins from the classical period with doves as a device). ὑπ’ ἄλλου δ’ οὐθενός merely adds emphasis to ὑπὸ τῶν περιστερῶν. 9–11 For Syrian perfume, cf. Theoc. 15.114 with Gow 1965 ad loc. (although most of the specific passages he cites refer to frankincense); Ath. 15.689a. Syria— meaning not just the modern country by that name, but also what is today Lebanon and Israel—is also described elsewhere as the source of frankincense (Hermipp. fr. 63.13; Anaxandr. fr. 42.36–7 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Archestr. fr. 60.4–5 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.) and cassia (Mnesim. fr. 4.58–9). For the spice trade generally, see Miller 1969, esp. 98–109. Syria and Cyprus were both part of the 5th Satrapy of the Persian Empire, but not much else is known of Syrian history in this period. See Klengel 1992. 234–9. τοιούτου … / καρποῦ … οἷόν φασι τὰς περιστερὰς / τρώγειν The precise identity of the fruit/crop/seed in question—taken by Konstantakos 2000. 228 to be fenugreek (τῆλις)—is left obscure, and the vague “they say” that nominally lends authority to the claim in fact attests that this is not common knowledge, at least for Antiphanes’ characters. The detail has thus probably been invented to explain the birds’ mysterious attraction to the king’s head, on which the anecdote depends. For μύρον (perfumed olive oil), fr. 233.5 n. For anointing specifically one’s head with perfume (explaining 12–13 ἐπικαθιζάνειν / ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν), e. g. Ar. Eq. 1094–5; Ec. 524, 1117; Alc. fr. 50.1; Archestr. fr. 60.3; Pl. R. 398a. For συχνός, fr. 97.1 n. Despite the implication of LSJ s. v. B, the adverbial use of the neuter accusative plural seems to be quite rare, at least in Attic authors of the classical period. For τρώγω, fr. 273.1 n. 12 οἷαί τ’ ἦσαν See Text. The point is not that the pigeons were capable of landing on the king’s head, but that they were close enough to do so, had they not been constantly warded off by his slaves (13–14). ἐπικαθιζάνω is attested nowhere else before the late Roman period; the simplex καθιζάνω appears to be originally a metrically useful variant of καθίζω (Pherecr. fr. 183; Od. 5.3; A. Eu. 29) which is taken up occasionally into 4th/3rd-century prose (e. g. Pl. Phdr. 229a; Arist. HA 619b8 (similarly of birds)). For ἐπικαθίζω (also rare), cf. Eup. fr. 102.5.

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (fr. 200)

41

13 παῖδες δὲ παρακαθήμενοι For the conspicuous consumption of slave labor as a hallmark of Eastern luxury, see Miller 1997. 210–12, and cf. 16–17 n. 14 σοβέω (no etymology) is better taken to mean “shoo away”, i. e. by flapping one’s hands, than “scare away” (LSJ s. v. I.1), since the point is that the doves are merely kept a bit away from the king’s head, not that they are really driven off. Seemingly colloquial late 5th/4th-century Attic vocabulary (Ar. V. 211; Av. 34; Pl. Com. fr. 293; Amphis fr. 18, of a slave encouraging a group to drink;12 Men. fr. 132.2, cf. 4; X. Eq. 5.5, how one gets dust out of a horse’s hair; Arist. HA 556b14, of flushing cicadas out of their hiding places, 620a35, of flushing birds from a swamp with a stick; Thphr. Char. 25.5, of shooing flies),13 and therefore picked up insistently by Second Sophistic authors (e. g. Luc. Cat. 3; Ael. NA 15.1). This may nonetheless be an illusion, the verb being the sort of practical and pedestrian vocabulary for which most of the literature preserved for us has little use. 15 For the polar use of μήτ(ε) ἐκεῖσε μήτε δεῦρο, e. g. Ar. Ra. 1076; E. Hel. 1141–2; Ph. 98; Pl. R. 619e; Arist. Ph. 202b18–19 (but none of these with the negations). For παντελῶς, fr. 234.4 n. 16–17 The doves stand in for slave fan-bearers of a typically oriental sort; cf. E. Or. 1426–30; Plaut. Trin. 252a; Ter. Eun. 594–5; Miller 1997. 198–206. ἀνερρίπιζον picks up 5 ἐρριπίζετο. The compound is attested before this only at Pherecr. fr. 27 (metaphorically of a man who is “stirred up” or “awoken”). For σύμμετρον (prosaic), fr. 161.8 n. περίσκληρον The compound is attested before this only in Hippocrates (Epid. 6.1.10.2 = 5.270.10 Littré; Aff. 59.5 = 6.268.5 Littré). Konstantakos 2000. 230–1 suggests that the accumulation of uncommon words serves to underline the extraordinary character of the situation (B.) is describing. But (B.)’s language is also relentlessly prosaic; this is a semi-technical description, not a poetic one.

12

13

ὁ παῖς σοβείτω τοῖς ποτηρίοις συχνούς. Papachrysostomou 2016 ad loc. gives the verb the supposed hapax sense “ply” (i. e. “provide insistently”). But this misses the point: transitive σοβέω consistently means to stir something or someone up into motion, here apparently into drinking more rapidly than the members of the group would otherwise be inclined to do. The verb also has a much rarer transitive sense ~ “bustle about” (D. 21.158; LSJ s. v. III).

Antiphanes

42

fr. 201 K.–A. (203 K.) ἐκ τῶν μαγειρείων βαδίζων, ἐμβαλὼν εἰς τοὔψον 1 ἐμβαλὼν Poll. : ἐμβαλῶ Cobet : ἐνέβαλεν Clinton : ἐνέβαλον Kock

going out of the mageireia, bursting into the fish-market Poll. 9.48 εἴη δ’ ἂν καὶ μαγειρεῖα τῶν πόλεως μερῶν, οὐχ ᾗπερ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ὑπὸ ταῖς τέχναις ἐργαστηρίων, ἀλλ’ ὁ τόπος ὅθεν μισθοῦνται τοὺς μαγείρους, ὡς Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Στρατιώτῃ ὑποδηλοῦν ἔοικεν· —— Mageireia would also be among the parts of a city, not where the other workshops connected to the crafts are, but the place from which the cooks are hired, as Antiphanes in Stratiôtês seems to suggest: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llkl llkl llk〈l xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion Clinton 1832. 594 n. 108; Cobet 1858. 129; Kock 1884 II.98 Text The conjectures recorded in the apparatus all represent attempts to make the fragment syntactically complete (“I’ll burst into” Cobet; “he burst into” Clinton; “I burst into” Kock”), but otherwise have no substantial effect on the sense. Emendation is misguided: this is a fragment cited for the use of a peculiar word, and not obviously anything more than that. Citation context Part of a long discussion of terms for different parts of cities, various structures within them, and the like. Related material, seemingly drawn from an Atticist source, is preserved at Poll. 3.127; 7.8. Eup. fr. 327 is cited just before this; see Olson 2014 ad loc. Text. Interpretation A description of the movements of an individual man (doing his shopping?) in the marketplace. For specific sections in the Agora dedicated to and called after the commodities sold there, fr. 83.2 n. 1 ἐκ τῶν μαγειρείων Cooks (μάγειροι) were hired on a daily basis, and Posidipp. Com. fr. 1 shows that there was a particular place in the city where they could be found assembled, waiting for work; see in general fr. 233.1 n.; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 216.1 (on language of hiring in reference to cooks). Pollux believes—on what basis, we do not know—that this is the place referred to by Antiphanes. In the only two other attestations of the word in the classical period, however, τὰ μαγειρεῖα appear to be ~ “butchers’ stalls” (Arist. HA 629a33–5 λίχνον δ’ ὂν καὶ πρὸς τὰ μαγειρεῖα καὶ τοὺς ἰχθύας καὶ τὴν τοιαύτην ἀπόλαυσιν κατὰ μόνας

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (fr. 202)

43

προσπέταται, the tenthredon—a type of bee —“being greedy, flies individually to the mageireia, the fishstalls, and similar sources of delight”; Thphr. Char. 6.9 οὐκ ἀποδοκιμάζει … ἐφοδεύειν τὰ μαγειρεῖα, τὰ ἰχθυοπώλια, τὰ ταριχοπώλια, the Shameless Man “has no qualms” about serving as leader of a group of market-workers, to whom he lends money, and then “traveling to the mageireia, the fish-stalls, the saltfish-stalls” to collect the interest he is owed) with Diggle 2004 ad loc.14 Pollux may thus very well be wrong here, in which case the man in question is not getting a cook and then some fish for him to prepare, but first meat and then fish. For βαδίζω (colloquial), fr. 46.3 n. Intransitive ἐμβάλλω is a strong verb, generally used elsewhere in comedy only in the sense “attack, invade” (e. g. Ar. Ach. 1077; Pax 701; of putting one’s weight into the oar while rowing at Ar. Eq. 602). 2 τὸ (ὄ)ψον (also Ar. frr. 258.1; 557.1; Alex. fr. 249.2) appears to be an alternative way of expressing τοὺς ἰχθῦς (literally “the fish”) in the sense “the fish-market” (frr. 83.2 n.; 123.1–2 n.). For ὄψον in the sense “fish”, fr. 69 n. For the fish-market and how it functioned, see in general Paulas 2010.

fr. 202 K.–A. (204 K.)

5

10

ὅστις ἄνθρωπος δὲ φὺς ἀσφαλές τι κτῆμ’ ὑπάρχειν τῷ βίῳ λογίζεται, πλεῖστον ἡμάρτηκεν· ἢ γὰρ εἰσφορά τις ἥρπακεν τἄνδοθεν πάντ’, ἢ δίκῃ τις περιπεσὼν ἀπώλετο ἢ στρατηγήσας προσῶφλεν ⟨ἢ⟩ χορηγὸς αἱρεθεὶς ἱμάτια χρυσᾶ παρασχὼν τῷ χορῷ ῥάκος φορεῖ ἢ τριηραρχῶν ἀπήγξατ’ ἢ πλέων ἥλωκέ ποι ἢ βαδίζων ἢ καθεύδων κατακέκοφθ’ ὑπ’ οἰκετῶν. οὐ βέβαιον οὐθέν ἐστι, πλὴν ὅσ’ ἂν καθ’ ἡμέραν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἡδέως τις εἰσαναλίσκων τύχῃ, οὐδὲ ταῦτα σφόδρα τι· καὶ γὰρ τὴν τράπεζαν ἁρπάσαι κειμένην ἄν τις προσελθών. ἀλλ’ ὅταν τὴν ἔνθεσιν ἐντὸς ἤδη τῶν ὀδόντων τυγχάνῃς κατεσπακώς, τοῦτ’ ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ νόμιζε τῶν ὑπαρχόντων μόνον

1 δὲ φὺς Ath.A : φὺς Ath.CE : γεγὼς Valckenaer 3 ἥρπακε(ν) Ath.ACE : ἥρπασεν Hirschig 5 ἢ χορηγὸς Casaubon : χορηγὸς Ath.A : χορηγός θ᾿ Ath.CE 6 χρυσᾶ Grotius : καὶ χρυσί(α) Ath.ACE ῥάκος Ath.CE : ῥάκκος Ath.A : ῥάκη Scaliger 9 οὐθέν 10 εἰσαναλίσκων Stephanus : εἰσαναλίσκειν Ath.A : ἀναλίσκειν scripsi : οὐδέν Ath.ACE 14

LSJ s. v. I also cites [Arist.] Mir. 833a3. But the word there seems to have the late sense “kitchen” vel sim. (Poll. 1.80; Phryn. ecl. 241; Harp. ι 14).

Antiphanes

44

τύχῃ Porson : τύχοι Ath.ACE 11 οὐδὲ Ath.CE : ἡδονῆς τις ἕνεκ᾿ ἀναλίσκων Kaibel ACE CE Ath. : κοὐδὲ Kock 13 τυγχάνῃς Ath. : τυγχάνῃ Ath.A 14 ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ Ath.ACE : ἓν ἀσφαλὲς Hirschig

5

10

Any human being who believes that anything he owns is secure for life is very much in error. Because either a special levy snatches away all he’s accumulated; or he gets involved in a lawsuit and is ruined; or he serves as a general and owes more money; or he’s selected as a chorêgos and provides golden clothing for his chorus, but wears rags himself; or he hangs himself while serving as a trierarch; or he’s captured as he’s sailing somewhere or walking along the road, or his slaves cut him to pieces when he’s fast asleep. Nothing is certain, except whatever a man spends on enjoying himself on a day-to-day basis— and even that’s not peculiarly secure, because someone could come up and steal the table as it’s lying in front of him. So when you’ve got your mouthful past your teeth and swallowed down, you can consider that the only possession you definitely control

Ath. 3.103e–4a καὶ παρ’ Ἀντιφάνει δ’ ἐν Στρατιώτῃ 〈ἢ〉 (add. Casaubon) Τύχωνι παραινέσεις εἰσφέρων ἄνθρωπος τοιοῦτός ἐστιν, ὅς φησιν· ——. τὰ αὐτὰ εἴρηκε καὶ ἐν Ὑδρίᾳ (fr. 211) There is also a person of this type in Antiphanes in Stratiôtês 〈or〉 (add. Casaubon) Tychôn, who offers advice and says: ——. He says the same thing in Hydria as well (fr. 211)

Meter

5

10

Trochaic tetrameter catalectic. 〈lklx lklx〉 | lkll lkl

lklk lkll | lklk lkl lkll lklk | lklk lkl lkll lkll | rklk lkl lkll lklk | lklk lkl rkll lkll | lklk lkl lkll lklk | lkll lkl lkll lkll | rklk lkl lklk lklk | lklk lkl lklk lklk | lkll lkl lklk rkll | lklk lkl lkll lkll | lkll lkl lkll lkll | lklk lkl lklk lklk | lkll lkl

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (fr. 202)

45

For χρ making position in 6, see Introduction, Meter. Discussion Stephanus 1569. 10; Grotius 1626. 978; Valckenaer 1755. 381 (on 1282 = 1276); Porson 1812. 62; Hirschig 1849. 3; Kock 1884 II.98–9; Webster 1970. 64–5; Christ 1990. 153–4; Kaibel ap. Kassel–Austin; Konstantakos 2000. 231–48; Olson 2007. 196–8 (E3) Text φύς in the sense “born”, as in 1, is attested nowhere else in comedy. But there is no problem with the sense (e. g. S. OT 1184; E. Heracl. 325) and thus no need to emend Ath.A’s δὲ φὺς (the Epitome has dropped the particle) to Valckenaer’s γεγὼς. Hirschig emended the paradosis ἥρπακε(ν) in 3 to aorist ἥρπασεν. But this is a gnomic perfect (cf. Goodwin 1875 § 155; Kock “quod rarius quidem est aoristo, sed nequaquam inusitatum”; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 160.5–6; Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 493–4) and is in any case supported by ἥλωκε in 7 and κατακέκοφθ(ε) in 8. Ath.A’s version of 5 is defective in both sense and meter; the Epitome’s χορηγός θ᾿ represents an awkward attempt to address the former problem, while ignoring the latter. Casaubon’s 〈ἢ〉 is patently right; the sequence ΝΗ (easily interpreted as a dittography) perhaps facilitated the error. In 6, Ath.ACE’s unmetrical καὶ χρυσί(α) (“and gold coins”) likely represents an attempt to correct a seemingly incomprehensible text by someone who failed to realize that the second word in the line was a contracted Attic form of the adjective χρύσεος. Grotius’ χρυσᾶ neatly solves the problem. Further on in 7, the Epitome’s ῥάκος is metrically guaranteed at e. g. Ar. Ach. 433; Pl. 540 ἀνθ’ ἱματίου μὲν ἔχειν ῥάκος; the form with two kappas, as in Ath.A, is attested only in the Roman period. Scaliger’s plural ῥάκη might be right but is unnecessary. For οὐθέν in place of the paradosis οὐδέν in 9, fr. 281 Text. In 10, τύχῃ—Porson’s correction of the paradosis τύχοι, since 9–10 are in primary sequence—requires a supplementary participle rather than an infinitive in the classical period. Stephanus accordingly wrote εἰσαναλίσκων for Ath.A’s εἰσαναλίσκειν (abbreviated to ἀναλίσκειν in the Epitome). Kaibel objected to the compound εἰσαναλίσκω (attested nowhere else in the classical period) and suggested emending to εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἡδονῆς τις ἕνεκ᾿ ἀναλίσκων τύχῃ (“someone happens to be spending on himself for the sake of pleasure”), which is much too complicated a solution to what can reasonably be dismissed as a non-problem. Kock’s κοὐδὲ at the beginning of 11 in place of Ath.ACE’s οὐδὲ works better with a full stop at the end of 10 (as in Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin), but is in any case unnecessary. Ath.A’s 3rd-person singular τυγχάνῃ in 13 is metrically possible but awkward, since the subject is most naturally taken to be the anonymous person who steals the table in 11–12, not his victim (last mentioned in 10). The Epitome’s τυγχάνῃς, on the other hand, both avoids this problem and lends more life and interest to the final lines of the fragment by putting the addressee’s (or nominal addressee’s) situation, rather than that of some third party, in the spotlight.

46

Antiphanes

In 14, Hirschig’s ἓν ἀσφαλὲς makes the fragment’s conclusion more closely match its beginning (cf. 2 ἀσφαλές τι κτῆμ’). But the paradosis ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ is very common (e. g. Men. Sam. 240; E. Hec. 981; And. 2.12; Th. 8.39.4; D. 19.152 ἅπαντ’ ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ τὰ πράγμαθ’ ὑμῖν ἔσεσθαι), and there is no compelling reason to emend. Citation context The third in a series of long comic fragments (after Damox. fr. 2 and Bato fr. 5, in that order) that Ulpian represents as articulating an Epicurean—i. e. pleasure-centered—attitude toward life. Interpretation A bit of conventional wisdom (1–3 with n.) expanded via a set of concrete examples (3–8) and then recapped (9) and expanded a second time as an argument in favor of seizing pleasure, specifically in the form of food, in the most immediate fashion possible (9–14). Much of the wit consists in the elaborate, creative description of a whole series of circumstances that might bring about what is in another sense a seemingly inevitable disaster. Nominally addressed to a single person (12–14). The final verse is a bathetic answer to the dilemma posed in 1–3 and then a second time in 11–12: food you have managed to swallow can reasonably be regarded as ἀσφαλές τι κτῆμ(α) (2). For the initial sentiment, cf. in general 9–10 n. (with further parallels); fr. 282; Alex. frr. 154 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; 283; Diph. fr. 4; Philem. fr. 112; Dover 1974. 138–41. The individual speaking at least adopts the perspective of a wealthy and important man who might be subject to special financial levies (3–4), be elected general (5), be forced to serve as a chorêgos or trierarch (5–7) or be captured by pirates while traveling as a merchant (7), and who owns a number of slaves (8). Webster, followed by Konstantakos 2000. 233–4, suggests that he may be a parasite, who must then be imagining what might happen to his patron (and thus indirectly deprive him of his food); cf. fr. 80.1–4. The fundamental message on this level of the speech is in any case that public life brings only loss and trouble, and that one ought to focus on private pleasures to the extent one can. For another tirade in trochaic tetrameters, see fr. 42. 1–3 ἄνθρωπος … φύς marks the comment as gnomic; cf. Timocl. fr. 6.2; Choeril. Ias. SH 335.1. 2 ἀσφαλές τι κτῆμ’ ὑπάρχειν … λογίζεται is echoed in 14 τοῦτ’ ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ νόμιζε τῶν ὑπαρχόντων. For ἀσφαλὲς … τῷ βίῳ, cf. Men. fr. 377.3 ἀσφάλειαν τῷ βίῳ. Alternatively, τῷ βίῳ might be taken to mean “in life”, as at Alex. fr. 35.2. 3–7 For the catalogue of potentially crippling obligations, cf. X. Oec. 2.6, where Socrates expresses mocking sympathy for Critoboulos—whose fortune he has just estimated at at least 5 talents—because, in addition to making lavish sacrifices, hosting elaborate dinner parties for foreign visitors and Athenian friends alike, and chasing expensive boys, τὴν πόλιν αἰσθάνομαι … σοι προστάττουσαν μεγάλα τελεῖν, ἱπποτροφίας τε καὶ χορηγίας καὶ γυμνασιαρχίας καὶ προστατείας, ἂν δὲ δὴ πόλεμος γένηται, οἶδ’ ὅτι καὶ τριηραρχίας καὶ εἰσφορὰς τοσαύτας σοι

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (fr. 202)

47

προστάξουσιν ὅσας σὺ οὐ ῥᾳδίως ὑποίσεις (“I realize that the city is assessing large levies against you for keeping horses and paying for choruses and athletic competitions and presidencies; and if war breaks out, I know they will assign you trierarchies and eisphorai large enough that you won’t easily manage them”). Thematic links among the various disasters described allow each to seem to lead naturally to the next: a tax arbitrarily imposed by the Assembly > a legal decision arbitrarily imposed by a court > a fine imposed by a jury for conduct in an elective office > crippling expenses associated with a different public duty, service as a chorêgos > and with service as a trierarch, managing a warship > a private disaster when captured at sea > a private disaster when captured on land > a private disaster when sleeping peacefully. 3–4 An εἰσφορά was an extraordinary tax on property, of a sort first levied in 428/7 BCE to meet expenses arising from the Peloponnesian War (Th. 3.19.1 with Gomme 1945 ad loc.). Beginning in 378/7 BCE (D. 14.19), such levies were restricted to the 1200 wealthiest individuals in the city, who seem to have controlled average fortunes of well over 3 talents (= 18,000 drachmas, as much as a skilled craftsman might make in his entire life) apiece, with the richest having up to 20 talents. The speaker’s claim that these payments might be so crushing as to force a man to sell his furniture (τὰ (ἔ)νδοθεν πάντ(α)) is thus not to be taken seriously (or at least not awarded any sympathy), despite similar threats and complaints at Ar. Eq. 924 ἰπούμενος ταῖς εἰσφοραῖς (“squeezed by eisphorai”); Lys. 28.3 πιεζόμενοι ταῖς εἰσφοραῖς (“crushed by eisphorai”); X. HG 6.2.1 ἀποκναιόμενοι καὶ χρημάτων εἰσφοραῖς (“worn down by eisphorai on their money”). Cf. fr. 274.1 n., and see in general de Ste Croix 1953. 31–6; Thomsen 1964; Brun 1983. 3–73; Ruschenbusch 1985; Christ 2007; van Wees 2013. 83–97; Fawcett 2016. 153–8. ἥρπακεν See Text. The hyperbolic choice of verb converts taxation into an act of—implicitly illegitimate—brigandage; cf. 11 ἁρπάσαι and Harpazomenê introductory n. τ(ὰ) ἔνδοθεν ought properly to be τὰ (ἔ)νδον, but reflects the influence of the verb that immediately precedes it. Cf. Ar. Pl. 228 τῶν ἔνδοθέν τις εἰσενεγκάτω, 964 τῶν ἔνδοθεν καλέσω τινά; fr. 310.1–2 ἀμφορέα … λαβὼν / τῶν ἔνδοθεν. περιπεσών suggests an essentially accidental event (LSJ s. v. περιπίπτω II.3), as more explicitly at e. g. Men. Asp. 288–9 ἔρωτι περιπεσὼν γὰρ οὐκ αὐθαιρέτῳ / τῆς σῆς ἀδελφῆς (“because when I fell involuntarily in love with your sister”): the victim would never have initiated this sort of thing himself or have done anything to deserve it. 5 στρατηγήσας προσῶφλεν At the end of their term in office, Athenian magistrates of all sorts, including generals, underwent a formal audit (εὔθυναι) of their handling of state funds and general conduct in office. Accounts were submitted in written form to a board charged with examining them, and a period followed during which anyone who wished could bring a complaint about any aspect of the individual’s behavior in office. Complaints regarding public matters, if approved for consideration, were turned over to a court for final adjudication

48

Antiphanes

and could result in massive fines (as in the situation imagined here). See Biles– Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 100–3, with primary references and secondary bibliography. Supervision was even more stringent for generals: at the beginning of each prytany (i. e. ten times per year), the Assembly voted as to whether they were performing their duties satisfactorily; anyone whose service was condemned, could be fined or punished in another way ([Arist.] Ath. 61.2). For the generalship generally, see Fornara 1971 (on the 5th century); Hamel 1998 (with older bibliography). προσοφλισκάνω is 4th-century prosaic vocabulary; the preverb ought to mean “in addition to” something else, e. g. the money the man had already spent out of his own pocket while on campaign. 5–6 For the chorêgia, see in general Wilson 2000, esp. 89–95. The speaker of Lysias 21—a young man who apparently aspired to win glory via great public displays that went well beyond what was necessary15—claims that in the final decade of the 5th century he spent sums ranging from 300 to 5000 drachmas to sponsor choruses of various sorts. He also says that he spent six talents as a trierarch over the course of seven years (i. e. over 5000 drachmas per year) and paid eisphorai (cf. 3–4 n.) of 3000 and 4000 drachmas (Lys. 21.1–5). αἱρεθείς Chorêgoi were in fact “selected” or “appointed” (καθιστάναι, as at e. g. [Arist.] Ath. 54.8) rather than elected; the precise mechanism is unclear. ἱμάτια χρυσᾶ i. e. robes with gold thread worked into the fabric, gold spangles, or the like. But phrasing it this way—not just “robes with some gold in them” but actual “golden robes”—makes the situation more extreme and strengthens the contrast with ῥάκος in the second half of the line. Kassel–Austin compare Poll. 4.116 χλαμὺς διάχρυσος, χρυσόπαστος (“a short cloak with gold woven in, one spangled with gold”; in a list of items of clothing used in tragedy); note also Isoc. 7.54 χορεύοντας … ἐν χρυσοῖς ἱματίοις (“giving choral performances in golden robes”); D. 21.16, 63 (a goldsmith involved in producing costumes for Demosthenes’ chorus, although with specific reference to garlands); [Men.] fr. 1001.4 χρυσᾶς … χλαμύδας (the latter three passages all cited by Konstantakos 2000. 241). 7 For trierarchs (400 men per year from the liturgical class) and the trierarchy, see in general Gabrielsen 1994, esp. 105–69 on the financial burdens involved. For the Athenian fleet in the 4th century (much of the evidence for which is epigraphic), see Cawkwell 1984; Clark 1990; Shear 1995. The man who took over a ship was expected to have it in fighting condition when necessary, regardless of any deficiencies he may have inherited (including e. g. a fundamentally unsound hull, rotten hanging gear, etc.), and to repair any damage to it for which he was

15

The speaker himself claims that he could easily have spent less than a quarter of this amount, by which he seemingly means that he took on at least four times as many liturgies as he needed to, not that for every individual liturgy he spent four times the minimum amount required.

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (fr. 202)

49

found liable. He was also required to recruit the crew of about 200 men, which might involve supplementing the pay provided by the state. ἀπήγξατ(ο) i. e. because he has been bankrupted and thus has nothing left to live for. Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Eq. 912–18, where the Paphlagonian threatens the Sausage-seller by saying ἐγώ σε ποιήσω τριη/ραρχεῖν ἀναλίσκοντα τῶν / σαυτοῦ, παλαιὰν ναῦν ἔχοντ’, / εἰς ἣν ἀναλῶν οὐκ ἐφέ/ξεις οὐδὲ ναυπηγούμενος· / διαμηχανήσομαί θ’ ὅπως / ἂν ἱστίον σαπρὸν λάβῃς (“I’ll make you serve as a trierarch, spending your own funds, with an old ship on which you’ll never stop spending money and doing carpentry work; and I’ll arrange for you to get a rotten sail”). For hanging oneself to escape one’s debts, cf. Ar. Nu. 776–80. As Meineke noted, ποι goes with πλέων rather than with ἥλωκε. This in turn makes it clear that the subject is not imagined as being captured by an enemy ship in the course of his trierarch duties, but as taken by pirates as he sails somewhere with trade goods, and if not killed, then held for ransom. Kassel–Austin compare IG II2 284. 11 = II3,1 390.11 το]ὺς ἁλόντα[ς ὑπ]ὸ τῶν ληιστῶν (“those who were captured by the pirates”). For ἁλίσκομαι used specifically with reference to kidnapping of this sort, see also e. g. D. 53.6; Ducrey 1968. 36–9. For maritime traders, see in general Reed 2003. For pirates, see in general Garlan 1978; McKechnie 1989. 104–41; Pritchett 1991. 312–63; Ferone 1997; de Souza 1999. 8 As Konstantakos 2000. 244 points out, ἢ βαδίζων is better taken with what precedes than with what follows it: the man is captured either by pirates as he sails somewhere, or by robbers when he is on the road. Contrast Rusten 2011. 509 “or is beaten to death by his slaves on a walk or in his sleep”. ἢ καθεύδων i. e. as he lies there defenseless, happily oblivious to the fact that the enslaved persons with whom he has surrounded himself might have had enough (sc. of his nasty, petty cruelties and the like) and have decided that killing him is worth whatever price they will pay—torture and execution (cf. Pl. Lg. 868b–c, 872b–c)—for their actions. This note of pathos suggests that κατακέκοφθε is to be taken not just “cut down”, as often in descriptions of military confrontations, but “hacked to pieces” vel sim. οἰκέται are specifically “household slaves”, adding to the tragic, treacherous misery of the death: the man is killed not by his slaves generally, but by those who are closest to him and most trusted (as it were). For various perspectives on ancient slavery, e. g. Andreau–Descat 2006; Forsdyke 2012; Kamen 2013. 8–18 (all with further bibliography). 9–10 For the sentiment, e. g. Philetaer. fr. 7.1–3 τί δεῖ γὰρ ὄντα θνητόν, ἱκετεύω, ποιεῖν / πλὴν ἡδέως ζῆν τὸν βίον καθ’ ἡμέραν, / ἐὰν ἔχῃ τις ὁπόθεν; (“For what should a mortal person do, I ask you, except live his life in a way that yields pleasure in the course of the day, if he has the wherewithal?”); Alex. fr. dub. 25.11; Amphis frr. 8; 21 ὅστις δὲ θνητὸς γενόμενος μὴ τῷ βίῳ / ζητεῖ τι τερπνὸν προσφέρειν, τὰ δ’ ἄλλ’ ἐᾷ, / μάταιός ἐστιν ἔν γ’ ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς / κριταῖς ἅπασιν ἐκ θεῶν τε δυστυχής (“Any mortal who doesn’t try to add some pleasure to his life and let everything else go is a fool in my eyes and those of wise judges

50

Antiphanes

generally, and the gods have sent him bad luck”); Apollod. Car. fr. 5; A. Pers. 840–2 ὑμεῖς δέ, πρέσβεις, χαίρετ’, ἐν κακοῖς ὅμως / ψυχῇ διδόντες ἡδονὴν καθ’ ἡμέραν, / ὡς τοῖς θανοῦσι πλοῦτος οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ (“But as for you, old sirs, farewell; grant your soul pleasure in the course of the day, even in times of trouble, since wealth does the dead no good”) with Garvie 2009 ad loc.; E. Alc. 788–91; HF 503–12; fr. 196.4–5 (given that neither good fortune nor bad fortune can be expected to endure, “Why then, if we have entered into insecure prosperity, do we not live as pleasantly as possible and avoid grief?”) (most of these passages cited by Kassel– Austin); adesp. tr. fr. 95. 9 οὐ βέβαιον οὐθέν ἐστι For the idea (a commonplace), e. g. 1–2 (more fully expressed, but in different and seemingly less conventional terms); Diph. fr. 109 = [Men.] Monost. 96 Jaekel βέβαιον οὐθέν ἐστιν ἐν θνητῷ βίῳ (“Nothing in mortal life is secure”); Critias 88 B 49 D.–K. βέβαιον μὲν οὐδέν, εἰ μὴ τό τε καταθανεῖν γενομένῳ καὶ ζῶντι μὴ οἷόν τε ἐκτὸς ἄτης βαίνειν (“Nothing is secure, except that anyone who is born dies and while he is alive is unable to avoid making mistakes”); Isoc. 1.41 νόμιζε μηδὲν εἶναι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων βέβαιον (“Consider nothing of human affairs secure!”); Arist. fr. 123.5–7 Rose λέγεται καλῶς τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι βέβαιον τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων (“It is rightly said that a human being is nothing, and that nothing human is secure”); [Arist.] Epist. 1.5–6 Hercher οὐδὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις βέβαιον (“because no human affair is certain”). καθ’ ἡμέραν i. e. without looking forward to the future, where nothing can be taken for granted. 11–12 σφόδρα sc. βέβαιά ἐστι. τι is adverbial. τὴν τράπεζαν ἁρπάσαι κτλ For the idea, cf. 3 and the comic trope “Heracles cheated of his dinner” referenced at e. g. Ar. V. 60. τὴν τράπεζαν For tables (used to serve food at dinner parties and symposia), see in general fr. 112.1 n. For τὴν ἔνθεσιν, fr. 87.1 n. 13 ἐντὸς … τῶν ὀδόντων i. e. past—not merely engaged with—one’s teeth, and thus down one’s throat. τύγχανῃς … / νόμιζε The shift to second-person singular adds vividness to the argument. κατασπάω (literally “pull down”; cf. fr. 86.3) is used in a similar fashion— clearly colloquial—of greedily swallowing food also at Ar. Eq. 718; Ra. 576. Konstantakos 2000. 247 notes that no mention is made of chewing, only of biting a mouthful off and then seemingly immediately swallowing it down. 14 ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ … τῶν ὑπαρχόντων echoes 2 ἀσφαλὲς … ὑπάρχειν. τῶν ὑπαρχόντων is a genitive of the whole with μόνον. Kassel–Austin direct the reader to Barrett 1964 on E. Hipp. 785 ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ βιοῦ (literally “in security of life”, meaning “contributing to a secure life”). But this is a different use of the genitive and thus irrelevant.

Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων (fr. 203)

51

fr. 203 K.–A. (205 K.) τῶν ταὧν μὲν ὡς ἅπαξ τις ζεῦγος ἤγαγ᾿ ἓν μόνον, σπάνιον ὂν τὸ χρῆμα, πλείους εἰσὶ νῦν τῶν ὀρτύγων· χρηστὸν ἄνθρωπον δ’ ἐάν τις ἕνα μόνον ζητῶν ἴδῃ, ὄψετ’ ἐκ τούτου πονηροὺς πέντε παῖδας γεγονότας 1 ἅπαξ τις Ath.(1)ACE Eust. : ἀπάξης Ath.(2)A ἤγαγ᾿ ἓν Hirschig : ἤγαγεν Ath.(1)ACE Eust. A Ath.(2) 2 σπάνιον ἦν Casaubon τὸ Ath.(1)A Ath.(2)A : τι Dobree πλείους Ath. (1)ACE : πλείους δ᾿ Ath.(2)ACE ἄνθρωπον δ’ ἐάν Schweighäuser : ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἂν Ath. ἴδῃ Ath.(1)CE Eust : εἰδη Ath.(1)A (1)A : δὲ ἄνθρωπον ἐάν Ath.(1)CE Eust.

When someone one time imported a single pair of peacocks, although it was a rare thing, nowadays they’re more common than quail; whereas if someone looks for a decent person and spies just one, he’ll see that five bad sons have been born to him Ath.(1) 14.654d–e τοσοῦτον … ἐστι τούτων τῶν ὀρνίθων τὸ πλῆθος ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ, ὡς δοκεῖν προμεμαντευμένον τὸν κωμῳδιοποιὸν Ἀντιφάνην ἐν Στρατιώτῃ ἢ Τύχωνι εἰρηκέναι τάδε· —— The number of these birds in Rome is so large, that the comic poet Antiphanes in Stratiôtês or Tychôn would appear to have had a premonition of the situation when he said the following: —— Ath.(2) 9.397a ταώς. ὅτι σπάνιος οὗτος ὁ ὄρνις δηλοῖ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Στρατιώτῃ ἢ Τύχωνι λέγων οὕτως· (vv. 1–2) —— Antiphanes in Stratiôtês ê Tychôn makes it clear that this bird is rare by saying the following: (vv. 1–2): ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lklk lkll | lklk lkl rklk lkll | lkll lkl lkll lklk | rkll lkl lkll lkll | lkll rkl

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–1805 V.192–3; Dobree 1833. 349; Hirschig 1849. 3; Kock 1884 II.99–100; Konstantakos 2000. 248–52 Text In the middle of 1, Ath.(2)A’s garbled ἀπάξης for Ath.(1)ACE’s ἅπαξ τις likely originated as a majuscule error (a badly written ΤΙ taken for Η). Further on in 1, editors routinely print the manuscripts’ ἤγαγεν. But Hirschig’s ἤγαγ᾿ ἓν—not an emendation, but merely a redivision of the letters in a matter where the manuscripts have no authority—is not only idiomatic (e. g. frr. 245.1; 246.2; Hermipp. fr. 46.4; Ar. V. 769; Pl. 948; Anaxil. fr. 22.10) but also binds 1–2 and 3–4 (where note ἕνα μόνον) more closely together.

52

Antiphanes

At the beginning of 2, Casaubon’s σπάνιον ἦν τὸ χρῆμα (“it was a rare thing”) for the paradosis σπάνιον ὂν τὸ χρῆμα (concessive) follows Athenaeus in missing the sense of what is being said; see Interpretation. The addition of δ᾿ after πλείους in Ath.(2)ACE has a similar effect. Dobree’s τι for the paradosis τὸ converts this into a colloquialism (“although it was a rare creature”; see LSJ s. v. χρῆμα II.3), but is unnecessary. In 3, Schweighäuser’s ἄνθρωπον δ’ ἐάν is an anodyne redivision of Ath.(1)A’s ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἂν, which would have to be written ἄνθρωπον δ’ ἂν and is thus unmetrical. The change finds good support in δὲ ἄνθρωπον ἐάν in Ath.(1)CE Eust., where the Epitomator has moved the particle into a more conventional position in its clause. At the end of 3, Ath.(1)A’s unmetrical non-form εἰδη for the Epitome’s ἴδῃ is the product of a period in which ι and ει had come to be pronounced alike. Citation context The quotation of the entire fragment is from the beginning of a brief treatment of peacocks at 14.654d–5b, as part of a discussion of meat and birds at 14.654a–8b. Alex. fr. 128; Stratt. fr. 28; Anaxandr. fr. 29; Anaxil. fr. 24; Antiph. fr. 173, in that order, are cited immediately after this. The discussion in Book 14 is closely related to a much more extended treatment of the same topic at Ath. 9.373a–403d, where 9.397a–8b (citing inter alia the first two verses of this fragment; Eub. fr. 113; Eup. fr. 41; Ar. Av. 102, 269, in that order) is also devoted to peacocks. Interpretation Despite Athenaeus’ framing of the fragment, the speaker is not interested in peacocks. Instead, he uses them as a part of a traditional argument about the failure of most children to live up to their father’s character and accomplishments (see Olson 2017 on Eup. fr. 111), combined with a general denigration of humanity: one original pair of (implicitly beautiful and valuable) birds produced countless (implicitly equally beautiful and valuable) birds, whereas even if one manages to find a good man, his sons routinely turn out worse than he is. 1 τῶν ταὧν For peacocks and how they were first imported into Athens (sometime early in the second half of the 5th century BCE), fr. 173.5 n. With the birds, the speaker acknowledges the breeding reality that a pair (ζεῦγος) is needed to produce offspring. In the case of human beings, he pays attention only to the father (3–4). For this use of ἄγω, fr. 166.2 n. For ἓν μόνον (cf. 3 ἕνα μόνον), see Text. 2 σπάνιον ὂν τὸ χρῆμα Cf. Eub. fr. 113 καὶ γὰρ ὁ ταὧς διὰ τὸ σπάνιον θαυμάζεται (“for the peacock’s treated like a curiosity because it’s rare”). σπάνιος (