FrC 16.6 Nausikrates - Nikostratos [1 ed.] 9783949189777, 9783949189753

Citation preview

Fragmenta Comica Nausikrates – Nikostratos

Titelei_VUR P0019927_FrC_16.6_Lamari.qxp_. 17.04.23 18:19 Seite 1

Titelei_VUR P0019927_FrC_16.6_Lamari.qxp_. 17.04.23 18:19 Seite 2

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

Band 16.6 · Nausikrates – Nikostratos

Titelei_VUR P0019927_FrC_16.6_Lamari.qxp_. 17.04.23 18:19 Seite 3

Anna Lamari

Nausicrates – Nicostratus Introduction, Translation and Commentary

Verlag Antike

Titelei_VUR P0019927_FrC_16.6_Lamari.qxp_. 17.04.23 18:19 Seite 4

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

Die Bände der Reihe Fragmenta Comica sind aufgeführt unter: http://www.komfrag.uni-freiburg.de/baende_liste Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. © 2023 Verlag Antike, Robert-Bosch-Breite 10, D-37079 Göttingen, ein Imprint der Brill-Gruppe (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland; Brill Österreich GmbH, Wien, Österreich) Koninklijke Brill NV umfasst die Imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike, V&R unipress und Wageningen Academic. 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 978-3-949189-77-7

To Christos and our girls, Alexia and Konstantina

Content Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Nausicrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

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

11

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

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

16

Play-titles and Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

Ναύκληροι (Nauklēroi) (“Ship-captains”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

Περσίς (Persis) (“Persian woman”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

Incertae fabulae fragmentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

Nicostratus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

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

41

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

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

50

Play-titles and Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

Ἅβρα (Habra) (“Favorite slave”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

Ἀντερῶσα (Anterōsa) (“Rival in love”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

Ἄντυλλος (Antyllos) (“Antyllos”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

Ἀπελαυνόμενος (Apelaunomenos) (“Banished”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85

Βασιλεῖς (Basileis) (“Kings”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

Διάβολος (Diabolos) (“Slanderer”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

Ἑκάτη (Hekatē) (“Hecate”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

Ἡσίοδος (Hesiodos) (“Hesiod”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102

Ἱεροφάντης (Hierophantēs) (“Initiatory priest”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108

Κλίνη (Klinē) (“Couch”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111

Λάκωνες (Lakōnes) (“Laconians”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118

Μάγειρος (Mageiros) (“Cook”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

122

Οἰνοποιός (Oinopoios) (“Wine-producer”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127

Ὀρνιθευτής (Ornitheutēs) (“Bird-catcher”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

130

Πάνδροσος (Pandrosos) (“Pandrosos”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

132

Παρακολυμβῶσα (Parakolymbōsa) (“Girl who swam beside”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

148

Πατριῶται (Patriōtai) (“Men from the same country”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151

Πλοῦτος (Ploutos) (“Wealth”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

156

Ῥήτωρ ?(Rhētōr) (“Orator”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

158

Σύρος (Syros) (“Syrian”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

162

Τοκιστής (Tokistēs) (“Money-lender”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

167

Ψευδοστιγματίας (Pseudostigmatias) (“Falsely tattooed”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173

Ὤτης? (Ōtēs) (“Βustard”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

178

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

211

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

213

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

231

9

Preface My engagement with comic fragments started in 2017, when Bernhard Zimmermann was kind enough to welcome me to the Fragmenta Comica project. His unfailing generosity and trust have facilitated my work in many ways and for this I remain profoundly grateful. During my visits to Freiburg for the Fragmenta Comica workshops, I benefited from discussing my work with the project’s contributors. Christian Orth, Virginia Mastellari, Benjamin Millis and Athina Papachrysostomou have read and commented on big parts of the book; Andreas Bagordo, Anna Novokhatko, Francesco Paolo Bianchi, and Giacomo Mancuso have enlightened me with their remarks during the workshops. I am indebted to all of them for reviewing my work, as well as for warmly welcoming me to the project. Ioannis Konstantakos has read the entire commentary, made many insightful suggestions, and has saved me from countless errors. I find it difficult to adequately express my gratitude to him. Antonios Rengakos has been my greatest supporter since my early PhD years. I have had the good fortune to have him as my supervisor and now as my friend and I will forever be grateful for his concealed kindness and protective affection. Most of the work for this book was completed between 2019 and 2021. During these years, I was granted a six-month leave of absence from my department, as well as digital access to Harvard Library Online, through my participation in the committee for Fellowships in Hellenic Studies of the Center for Hellenic Studies in Greece. This allowed me to access books and articles, even during the trying times of the covid-19 pandemic. The last thanks are saved for my family. My parents, Alexis and Maria are always the first to help me out when any difficulty arises and the happiest to care for my daughters when I am working. It is unlikely that this commentary would have ever been published, were it not for the continuous support of my husband Christos Tsagalis. This book is dedicated to him and to our daughters, the light of our lives.

11

Nausicrates Introduction 1. Name / Identity Nausicrates (PA #10555; PAA #701725, cf. #701722; LGPN II s.v. Ναυσικράτης #23) was a poet of Middle Comedy, the author of the comedies Nauklēroi and Persis (test. 1, 2), who won at least three times in the comic contest of the Lenaea (test. 2). He was the buyer of a town house of Timarchus, which he subsequently sold to Kleainetos for 20 minas (test. 3). The extant testimonia say nothing regarding his family or place of origin. Nausicrates may have also been an actor because his name appears in the Actors’ victory lists of the Lenaea (test. 4?), although this I find less likely (see test. 4 “Interpretation”).1 An actor Nausicrates is mentioned in the Lenaea Victors List IG II2 2325.196 (= 2325F.49 Millis / Olson) (see test. 4 “Citation Context”, “Interpretation”) at around the same time, and is perhaps also mentioned by Aeschines (see test. 3 “Citation Context”, “Interpretation”). Some identify him as the same person with the poet.2 Protagonists however were distinctly separated from the poets from already the end of the fifth century,3 a fact making the possibility of a single Nausicrates being both a poet and an actor weak.4

2. Chronology / Career Nausicrates lived approximately during the second and third quarter of the 4th century BC.5 Dates for his life or career are given directly, via the List of Victors 1

2

3 4 5

When citing Persis, Athenaeus (9.399e) calls him Naucrates (cf. test. 1 “Interpretation”), certainly an error. Smith in DGRBM (s.v. Nausicrates) also encounters the possibility of Naucrates being a shortened form of Nausicrates although this is not likely since the shorter form is produced by eliminating only the second part of the name, not the first. Wilhelm (1906, 150) and Fisher (2001, 236) pace O’Connor (1908, 108 no. 355), who maintains that “there is no reason to identify the actor with the poet”. Stephanis (317) is more reluctant than Wilhelm and Fisher, but both he and Ghiron-Bistagne (344) do entertain the possibility of Nausicrates being both a poet and actor. On the other hand, Millis / Olson (189) note that “the name is not uncommon in 4th-century Athens, and these might in any case be relatives rather than the same man”. Wilson 2008, 106. See also see test. 3, 4 “Citation Context”, “Interpretation”. More secure dates for his floruit cannot be established. During the mid-4th century for Meineke s. v. Nausicrates; doubtfully dated to the same period by Clinton 1834, xlv. See the discussion regarding the dating of Nausicrates’ Lenaean victories below, test. 2.

12

Nausicrates

at the Lenaea (test. 2), as well as indirectly, by a reference in Aeschines’ Against Timarchus (test. 3). Unfortunately, column III of the Lenaea List where Nausicrates’ name appears lacks any fixed dates (IG II2 2325.140–152). Approximate dates can be inferred only with reference to the dates of the City Dionysia victories of some of the poets mentioned in the column, such as 376/375 for Anaxandrides (IG II2 2318.1150) and 348/347 for Alexis (IG II2 2318.1474) (see Millis / Olson, 178–184). As inferred by the dating of poets also featuring in the Lenaean Victories List, Nausicrates’ first Lenean victory should have happened somewhere between 370–350 BC (see below, test. 2 “Citation Context”, “Interpretation”). Aeschines’ speech can provide a terminus ante quem of 346/345, if indeed the Nausicrates mentioned in the speech is our poet (see test. 3 “Interpretation”). Nausicrates was victorious for at least three times (test. 2); he is six places after Anaxandrides (IG II2 2325.142) and two places ahead of Alexis (IG II2 2325.150). It is worth noting that his victory record at the Lenaea equals or surpasses that of other poets, such as Anaxandrides (IG II2 2325.142: 3 victories), Philetaerus (IG II2 2325.143: 2 victories), or Alexis (IG II2 2325.150: 3? victories), making him rather successful. The date of his first Lenean victory should be placed somewhere in the twenty–year span of 370–350 BC (see the discussion below, test. 2 “Interpretation”). 3. Tradition and Reception The testimonia for Nausicrates derive from the Suda (test. 1)6, the Victor List at the Lenaea (test. 2, from IG II2 2325.116–189)7, as well as a reference in Aeschines’ Against Timarchus (test. 3). From Nausicrates’ comic production there survive two play-titles, Nauklēroi and Persis, and three fragments, one from each of the two plays, as well as one incertum. Frr. 1–2 are preserved by Athenaeus in the Deipnosophistae, fr. 3. is preserved by Herodian in the treatise On Indeclinable Words (Περὶ ἀκλίτων ῥημάτων). 4. Themes and Motifs The surviving two play-titles suggest little about broader aspects of Nausicrates’ dramaturgy, but it is safe to assume that they represent two different sorts of titles, 6

7

The Suda is a Byzantine lexicon and encyclopedia of the late 10th cent. AD, listing 30.000 entries deriving from a broad span of sources, such as other lexica, literature, ancient scholia etc. See Hartwig 2019. The so-called Victor List at the Lenaea is part of a large inscription (IG II2 2325) containing the names of the victorious poets and actors in both tragedy and comedy at both the City Dionysia and the Lenaea contests (see Millis 2019, 998–999).

Introduction

13

namely one referring to an eponymous chorus (fr. 1)8 and the other referring to a character’s ethnic provenance and possibly implying a seduction story or the like (fr. 2). Both sorts were fundamental in fourth-century comedy, which had preserved the importance of the chorus9 and had fully incorporated stories involving seduction of girls, a characteristic first introduced by Euripides and then developed in comedy by Aristophanes and also attributed to Anaxandrides.10

5. Kōmōidoumenoi The testimonia show that Nausicrates was active during the second and third quarter of the fourth century BC (test. 2–3), although the surviving fragments provide almost no references to individuals who might have interacted with him in real life (with the exception of Timarchus and Cleaenetus, see test. 3) or featured in his plays. Only fr. 1 contains a reference that could potentially involve an allusion to a specific individual. The passage toys with a double entendre (see fr. 1 “Interpretation”) revolving around the use of the word γλαῦκος, which, apart from the fish of this name,11 may also refer to a person named Glaucus, whether the mythical sea-god (e. g. Eur. Or. 362) or if Glaucus is a person, one of those fifth-/fourth-century individuals appearing in LGPN II s. v. Γλαῦκος (= PA #2993-2994). At last, the title Nauklēroi could be associated with ναύκληρος, the person who collects rents for houses (cf. Sannyrion fr. 6 with Orth 2015, 393–394 with additional references; Diph. fr. 36; Hyper. fr. 189 Jensen; Harp. p. 210.11–14 Dindorf = N 3 Keaney), but the strongly nautical context of fr. 1 makes such an association almost impossible.

6. Language In a total of 16 surviving lines (the 13 of which belong to the same fragment), Nausicrates’ language features eclectic linguistic choices, such as the combination of the adjectives ἁπαλός καὶ καλός (fr. 1.1) to describe the fine and tender potions 8

9 10

11

Cf. e. g. Archippus’ Ichthyes (with Miccolis 2017, 15-16), as well as Anaxandrides’ Agroikoi, Eusebeis, Zōgraphoi (?), Kynēgetai, Thetalloi, Lokrides, and possibly Nērēides (with Millis 2015a, 22), or Alexis’ Thesprōtoi (with Arnott 1996, 244). Webster 1970, 62; Hunter 1979; Rothwell 2005. Sud. α 1982, Ἀναξανδρίδης … καὶ πρῶτος οὗτος ἔρωτας καὶ παρθένων φθορὰς εἰσήγαγεν (=Anaxandr. test. 1). See Nesselrath 1993; Konstantakos 2002; Millis 2015a, 20–22, 26. A fish often mentioned but impossible to identify precisely; see below on fr. 1.5.

14

Nausicrates

of flesh, or the three comic hapaxes (fr. 1.6, ἐκπρεπεῖς, fr. 1.7, ξανθόχρωτες, fr. 1.7, κλύδων). γαλακτόχρως of fr. 1.12 is also rare (only in Philyll. 4.2 with Orth 2015, 152), emphasizing the (culinary?) value of a masculine noun lost in the lacuna of fr. 1.11. Fr. 1 also features tragic vocabulary, like the use of ναυτίλος (fr. 1.2, 1.10), a poetic variant of ναύτης (also in Aeschylus and Sophocles), or a metaphor for the embrace of the sea (πελαγίοις ἐν ἀγκάλαις, fr. 1.3) that also features in Aeschylus (Cho. 587 πόντιαί τ’ ἀγκάλαι) and almost identically in Euripides (Hel. 1436 πελαγίους ἐς ἀγκάλας. Note also the embrace of the air featuring in Eur. fr. 941 ὁρᾶις τὸν ὑψοῦ τόνδ᾽ ἄπειρον αἰθέρα / καὶ γῆν πέριξ ἔχονθ᾽ ὑγραῖς ἐν ἀγκάλαις). In this very fragment, lines 7 and 12 are also of particular interest, since they are identically formulated; they begin with an adjective in –χρως and end with a relative clause (l. 7 αἱ ξανθόχρωτες, ἃς κλύδων Αἰξωνικός / l. 12 γαλακτόχρωτα Σικελὸς ὃν πήγνυσ᾽ ὄχλος). 7. Metre All the surviving fragments are in iambic trimeter. Resolutions (of longa) occur in 5 out of the 16 surviving lines (fr. 1.1, 1.3, 1.12; fr. 2.2, 2.3). In the 10 complete lines, 4 have penthemimeral and 6 hephthemimeral caesura. The meter is tragic and Porson’s law is observed, with the exception of fr. 1.1, where it is violated. 8. Nausicrates and Other Comic Poets Beginning at some point between c. 378/7 and 351/0 BC, Nausicrates competed in the Lenaea, where he won three times.12 He is mentioned in the inscription known as the Victors’ List in the comic contests of the Lenaea,13 winning victories between the other fourth-century comedians Mnesimachos (IG II2 2325.147; PCG VII, 16–26) and Euphanes (IG II2 2325.149; PCG V, 280–281). 9. Literature Editions, Translations, Commentaries: Meineke 1839 I, 494–495; Meineke 1841 IV, 575–578; Meineke 1847 II, 1174–1176; Bothe 1855, 713–714; Kock 1884 II, 295– 296; Edmonds 1959 II, 370–373; PCG VII, 33–35; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 617–618

12 13

IG II2 2325.148 (=2325 E.43 Millis / Olson). See above, “Chronology/Career” and below, test. 2 “Citation Context”, “Interpretation”. IG II2 2325.

Introduction

15

Studies, Dictionaries: DGRBM II, 1145 s. v. Nausicrates; O’Connor 1908, #355; Körte 1935, in RE XVI.2, 2020, s. v. Nausikrates; PAA #701725; Hidber 2002, in NP I s. v. Nausicrates; Sommerstein 2019d, 599

16

Commentary Testimonia test. 1 K.–A. Sud. ν 71 Ναυσικράτης, κωμικός. τῶν δραμάτων αὐτοῦ ἐστι Ναύκληροι, Περσίς 1 κωμικός — 2 Περσίς om. F Nausicrates, a comic playwright. His dramas include Nauklēroi, Persis

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 494–495; DGRBM II, 1145 s. v. Nausicrates; Körte 1935, in RE XVI.2, 2020, s. v. Nausikrates; Edmonds 1959 II, 370; Hidber 2002, in NP I s. v. Nausicrates Citation Context The lemma is one of the 86 biographical entries on Greek comedy poets contained in the Suda.14 Striking similarities in many of these entries (see Arnott 1991, 327–330; Arnott 1996, 4; Orth 2013, 18), as well as entries regarding other genre suggest a common source, generally associated (Wentzel 1898; Leo 1901, 30–31; Wagner 1905, 30–55; Blum 1977, 284–302; Ornaghi 2002, 113–115; Kaldellis 2005, 384–388. Cf. Sud. η 611 Ἡσύχιος Μιλήσιος … ἔγραψεν Ὀνοματολόγον ἢ Πίνακα τῶν ἐν Παιδείαι ὀνομαστῶν, οὗ ἐπιτομή ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ βιβλίον) with an already epitomized version of the Onomatologus of Hesychius of Miletus (first half of 6th century AD. See Kaldellis 2005, 381–384; Kaldellis ad FGrHist 390 [Brill online, The New Jacoby]). In many cases however, information on comedy titles that are included in the Suda derive from Athenaeus. See Wagner 1905, 30–55; Lorenzoni 2012; Orth 2013, 18–20; Orth 2015, 15, with discussions and additional bibliography). Interpretation According to the Suda, Nausicrates was a comic poet. He is referred to three times by Athenaeus (7.296, 325e, 330b) and is undoubtedly the same person as the poet Naucrates (also mentioned by Athenaeus in 9.399e–f), as argued by Gyraldus (1696 II, 409 [original publication in 1545])1829 and Grotius (1626, 879).15

14 15

See above, n. 6. Lobeck (1829 II, 995-996 and nn.) also offers a list of names displaying variations with respect to their ending. The case of Naucrates/Nausicrates is clearly different, since the change does not concern the word’s termination. There is a large group of names with the first element Nau- (e. g. Bechtel 1964, 325–326) and another large group with the first element Nausi- (e. g. Bechtel 1964, 326–327), which are distinct, despite the fact that there is a certain amount of overlap between them.

Testimonia (test. 2)

17

Two plays are attributed to him, the Nauklēroi and the Persis. The same ascription is found in Athenaeus (Nauklēroi: 7.296, 325e, 330b; Persis: 9.399e-f). Meineke (1839 I, 494–495) discusses a different accentuation of the play Persis, on the basis of the relevant lemma of the Suda.16 Although Meineke finally rightly argues for an accent on the ultimate syllable (Περσίς) and not on the penultimate (Πέρσις),17 postulating that the play was named after the word for a Persian woman, his statement about the reading of the Suda is clearly wrong. None of the editors (Kuster / Portus 1705; Gaisford 1834; Adler 1928–1938) of the Suda report the reading Πέρσις.

test. 2 K.–A. IG II2 2325.140–151 (=2325E.35–46 p. 183–184 Millis / Olson) 140 Φίλιπ̣[πος] ΙΙ Χόρηγ[ος ̣ I] Ἀναξα[νδρί]δης ΙΙΙ Φιλέτα[ιρο]ς ΙΙ Εὔβουλος ΠΙ 145 Ἔφιππος Ι [Ἀ]ντιφάνη̣ [ς] ΠΙΙΙ [Μ]νησίμα̣[χος] Ι.1 Ναυσ̣[ικράτ]ης ΙΙΙ Εὐφάνη̣ [ς 150 Ἄλεξις ΙΙ[ [Ἀρ]ι σ̣ τ[οφῶν [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ca. 8 ]ρος Ι Philip[pus] 2 (victories) Choreg[os 1 (victory)] Anaxa[ndri]des 3 (victories) Phileta[iru]s 2 (victories) Eubulus 6 (victories) Ephippus 1 (victory) [A]ntiphane[s] 8 (victories) [M]nesima[chus] 1 (victory) Naus[icrat]es 3 (victories) Euphane[s Alexis 2 (–4) (victories)

16 17

According to Meineke, Πέρσις is the reading of the Suda. Neither Adler nor the previous editors report such reading. See the discussion above. As also in Edmonds 1959 II, 370.

18

Nausicrates [Ar]ist[ophon [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ca. 8 ]rus 1 (victory)

Discussion Wilhelm 1906, 123, 127; Capps 1907, 188; Körte 1935, in RE XVI.2, 2020, s. v. Nausikrates; Webster 1952, 17; Edmonds 1959 II, 370; Arnott 1996, 17; Hidber 2002, in NP I, s. v. Nausicrates; Olson 2007, 407; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 617 Papachrysostomou 2008, 101; Millis / Olson 133–134, 184, 188–189, 198, 201; Mastellari 2020, 293, 339; Orth 2020, 18–19; Papachrysostomou 2021, 22–23. Citation Context IG II2 2325, the so-called Victors List, is an inscription consisting of eight separate lists that record victories of tragic and comic poets and actors at both the City Dionysia and the Lenaea; it is preserved on 43 fragments of marble architrave blocks, most of them found on the south slope of the Acropolis. This testimony is found on the third column of the list. The lists are arranged chronologically, in the order in which each competitor won his first victory. For the complete reconstruction of the inscription and detailed technical features see Millis / Olson 133–140, 178–182. Interpretation IG II2 2325 records that Nausicrates was victorious at the Lenaea three times. Philippus (with two victories), Choregus (with at least one victory), Anaxandrides (with three victories), Philetaerus (with two victories), Eubulus (with six victories), Ephippus (with at least one victory), Antiphanes (with eight victories), and Mnesimachus (with one victory) precede him in the list, while Euphanes (with at least one victory) and Alexis (with at least two victories) follow. Apart from providing us with this information, the list could theoretically help us date Nausicrates’ victories, although unfortunately no exact dates can be secured for a number of reasons (mainly due to following: none of the dates can be determined with accuracy, the chronological distances between the successive poets of the list can seriously vary, and also, many years could have passed before a poet who was otherwise active finally made it to the list. See Orth 2020, 19). We can however define a wider timespan according to the poets that are adjacent to Nausicrates. Papachrysostomou (2021, 23) dates Ephippus’ single Lenaean victory between ca. 378–376 BC. Capps (1900, 54–57) dates Antiphanes’ victory in ca. 367 BC (mostly on the assumption that Antiphanes’ name is situated fairly close to that of Anaxandrides, whose victory must have occurred close to his first Dionysian one18, as well as the fact that spaces between the poets of the list seem even). 18

Anaxandrides’ first Dionysian victory occurred in 376/375 BC (IG II2 2318.1150, Marm. Par. FGrHist 239 A 70).

Testimonia (test. 3)

19

Konstantakos (2000b, 175–176) rejects such a late dating and convincingly dates Antiphanes’ first victory at the Lenaea in ca. 376/375 BC. Mastellari (2020, 339) dates Mnesimachus’ Lenaean victory in the twenty-year span of 370/365–350 BC and Euphanes’ Lenaean victory at around the middle of the fourth century, perhaps a little bit earlier (Mastellari 2020, 293). On the basis of the evaluation of all the sources, Nausicrates’ first Lenaean victory should have taken place somewhere in the years 370–350 BC, a hypothesis strengthened both by the solid dates of the Dionysian victories of the preceding Anaxandrides and subsequent Alexis,19 as well as the terminus ante quem of 346/345 BC provided by the possible reference to Nausicrates made by Aeschines in Against Timarchus (see below, test. 3 “Citation Context”, “Interpretation”).

test. 3 (=3 K.–A.) Aeschin. 1.98 (= Cleaenetus TrGF I 84 test. 2) τὴν μὲν γὰρ οἰκίαν τὴν ἐν ἄστει ἀπέδοθ᾽ οὗτος (sc. Timarchos) Ναυσικράτει τῶι κωμικῶι ποιητῆι, ὕστερον δ᾽ αὐτὴν ἐπρίατο παρὰ τοῦ Ναυσικράτους εἴκοσι μνῶν Κλεαίνετος ὁ χοροδιδάσκαλος ποιητῆι f (cf. IG II2 2325.148)

ὑποκριτῆι β D (cf. IG II2 2325.196)

the city house that he (Timarchus) sold to Nausicrates, the comic poet, and that later Cleaenetus, the chorus master, bought from Nausicrates for twenty minas

Discussion O’Connor 1908, #355; Körte 1935, in RE XVI.2, 2020, s.v. Nausikrates; Edmonds 1959 II, 370; Stephanis #1773; Fisher 2001, 235–236; Hidber 2002, in NP I, s. v. Nausicrates Citation Context The passage belongs to Against Timarchus, a speech written by Aeschines in 346/345 BC as part of his defense against the charge of treason brought against him by Demosthenes sometime after the return of the Athenian embassy (in which both Demosthenes and Aeschines had participated) that was sent to Macedon in 346 BC regarding the Peace of Philocrates. Demosthenes’ charges were supported by Timarchus (PA #13636)20 an active politician (see Dem. 19.286) and a fairly rich man (Aeschin. 1.101), whom Aeschines accused of personal vices of his early life, among other things, an inability to preserve his father’s fortune, part of which (a city residence) he sold to Nausicrates (1.97–98). 19

20

Unfortunately, the relevant portion of the inscription regarding Nausicrates’ victories in the City Dionysia is not extant, nor do we have any other information regarding the total number of Nausicrates’ victories at the Lenaea and City Dionysia (or other) festivals together. See also Fisher 2001, 20–23 for a succinct but thorough account of Timarchus’ career.

20

Nausicrates

Interpretation Aeschines’ speech was written in 346/5 BC and includes a story featuring Nausicrates buying Timarchus’ house and then selling it to the chorus master Cleaenetus. Aeschines might want to make a point by implying that Timarchus sold his property for a very low price, wishing us to suppose that Nausicrates bought it cheaper than Cleaenetus did (Fisher 2001, 235–236). The story says nothing about Nausicrates as a poet but indicates that by the second half of the fourth century BC Nausicrates was in a position to buy a house, although at what price we do not know. Assuming that he had bought the house at approximately the price he sold it (twenty minas), Nausicrates could afford a house of lower to medium value, given that the prices of houses mentioned by ancient writers vary from one to one hundred and twenty minas (Boeckh 1857, 93; Pritchett 1956, 270; Fisher 2001, 234). The varia lectio ὑποκριτῆι provided by some manuscripts agrees with test. 4 (see below), according to which a certain Nausicrates was a victorious actor at the Lenaea (see Olson/Millis 201), and perhaps also connected to the fact that the poet mentioned in test. 2 was also an actor (see above, test. 1 “Interpretation”, test. 2 “Interpretation”). If this reading (and test. 4) is accepted, then Nausicrates was both actor and poet. Since this would be very unusual, if not unparalleled, for this period,21 a better solution is to accept the reading ποιητῆι in Aeschin. 1.98 and to assume that test. dub. 4 refers to a distinct person (possibly a relative of the poet; so already Millis / Olson 189 on 2325E.43, cf. on 2325F.49). The question however remains open, since we have no evidence to prove neither that there were two different persons with the same name in the same professional field, nor that the references of the testimonies all relate to a single person.

test. 4 (dubium) IG II2 2325.196 (=2325F.49 Millis / Olson) (actores Lenaeis victores) N[α]υσικ[ράτης –] Ν[a]usic[rates –]

Discussion Breitenbach 1908, 58; O’Connor 1908, #355; Körte 1935, in RE XVI.2, 2020, s. v. Nausikrates; Edmonds 1959 II, 370; Ghiron-Bistagne 344; Stephanis #1773; Hidber 2002, in NP, I s. v. Nausicrates; Millis / Olson 193–197, 198, 201. Citation Context This inscription is part of the list of the actors who were victorious at the Lenaea (IG II2 2325.190–234=2325F Millis / Olson), being one of the eight lists that comprised the so-called Victors List (IG II2 2325) that recorded the victorious tragic and comic poets and actors at both the City Dionysia and the 21

See Wilson 2008, 106; above (“Name/Identity”); below (test. 4 “Interpretation”).

Testimonia (test. 4)

21

Lenaea (see above, test. 2; Millis / Olson 133–140). The Lenaea festival first hosted comedies around the 440s BC (Millis / Olson 156, 193), and a contest for comic actors at the Lenaea already existed by the mid-300s (Millis / Olson 111, 193). Interpretation IG II2 2325.196 records that an actor named Nausicrates (PAA #701720; O’Connor #355; Stephanis #1773) was victorious at the Lenaea around 350 BC, following the actors Parmenon (Stefanis #2012) and Lycon (Stefanis #1567) and preceding the actors Amphichares (Stefanis #169) and Phormion (Stefanis #2579). The Nausicrates mentioned here is occasionally identified with the poet (Wilhelm 1906, 127; see also the discussion above for test. 1 and test. 3), but it remains dubious if he is indeed the same person as the poet, who is undoubtedly mentioned at IG II2 2325.148 (test. 2). By dismissing the varia lectio ὑποκριτῆι in the reference by Aeschines (see test. 3), test. 4 dub. most probably refers to a distinct person, namely an actor and possibly a relative of the poet (so already Millis / Olson 189 on 2325E.43, cf. on 2325F.49).

22

Play-titles and Fragments Ναύκληροι (Nauklēroi) (“Ship-captains”)

Discussion DGRBM s. v. Nausicrates; Meineke 1839 I, 494–496; Meineke 1841 IV, 575–577; Meineke 1847 II, 1174–1175; Bothe 1855, 713–714; Kock 1884 II, 295–296; Headlam 1899; Körte 1935, in RE XVI.2, 2020, s. v. Nausikrates; Edmonds 1959 II, 370–372; PCG VII, 33–34; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 617–618 Title Menander and Eudoxus both wrote a Nauklēros; Caecilius wrote a Nauclerus and Naevius the Nautae (?). The common meaning of ναύκληρος is “ship-captain” or “ship-owner”, or generally the “commander (sc. of a ship)” (LSJ). The word however according to Harpocration (quoting Hyperides [fr. 189 Jensen]) is also used in order to refer to a “manager of a tenement house and collector of its rents” (translation by Arnott 1996, 416. See ibid. 416–417 for discussion) and is also found in Sannyrion and Diphilus (Harp. p. 210.11–14 Dindorf = N 3 Keaney, ναύκληρος˙ Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῶι περὶ τοῦ ταρίχους [fr. 189 Jensen] οὐ μόνον ὡς ἡ συνήθεια χρῆται τῶι ὀνόματι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μεμισθωμένου ἐπὶ τῶι τὰ ἐνοίκια ἐκλέγειν ἢ οἰκίας ἢ συνοικίας, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς ῥήτωρ δηλοῖ ἐν τῶι πρὸς Ἀριστογείτονα [fr. 37 Jensen] καὶ Σαννυρίων Γέλωτι [fr. 6] καὶ Δίφιλος Ἐμπόρω [fr. 36]. See Orth 2015, 393–394). Cf. Isaeus (6.19 ἀπελευθέρα ἦν ἀυτοῦ … ἣ ἐναυκλήρει συνοικίαν ἐν Πειραιεῖ αὐτοῦ), where subletting of houses is reported also against the will of its owner (cf. Wyse 1904, 504–505); Antiatt. p. 109, 19–20 ναυκληρεῖν˙ ἀντὶ τοῦ οἰκίας δεσπόζειν. Ἄλεξις Λοκροῖς (fr. 142; Phot. ν 37); Poll. 1.74–75 ἄλλως δὲ ὁ δεσπότης τῆς οἰκίας στεγανόμος … ἔνιοι δ᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ναύκληρον ἐκάλεσαν, καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς καταγωγῆς μισθὸν ναῦλον; Lex. Bekk.5 p. 282.12–13 (ναύκληρος) σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τὸν τὰ ἐνοίκια τῆς οἰκίας ἔκλέγοντα; Hsch. ν 120 ναύκληρος˙ ὁ συνοικίας προεστώς. ἢ μεμισθωμένος ὅλην καὶ ἀπομισθῶν κατὰ μέρος καλούμενος σταθμοῦχος. In terms of chronology, our play-title could well correspond to the meaning of ναύκληρος found in the aforementioned orators and comic poets. In terms of the nautical context offered by the one fragment (see below “Content” and “Interpretation”) however, the title is most likely to be translated “ship-captains”. Content The single surviving fragment of the play is a dialogue between two speakers, who are engaged in a riddle-game. Although it allows for limited speculation on the plot, the context (as indicated by the title and by fr. 1), is nautical and perhaps also sympotic (see below, “Interpretation”). An obvious possibility is that the plot concerned events from the life of sailors, also alluded to by the reference to Hecate Triglia (fr. 1. 9) and to the ritual offerings of fish to her, especially by seamen. Given the riddle-structure of fr. 1 as a kind of riddle game, as well as the fact that a common context for riddle-games was the symposium, the play may have included a banquet presented on stage, in which the guests amuse

Ναύκληροι (fr. 1)

23

themselves with riddle-games. Such a sympotic staging could also include sexual connotations, such as those arising from the use of fish names which have an ambiguous meaning, being both the answers to riddles (γλαῦκος, τρίγλη, ῥόμβος), and allusions to humans, some of whom were hetairai (see fr. 1 “Interpretation”). Date

Unknown.

fr. 1 K.–A. (1, 2 K.)

ulw δύο μέν, φασίν, ἁπαλοὶ καὶ καλοί alwl τοῦ ναυτίλοισι πολλάκις

5

10

ἤδη φανέντος πελαγίοις ἐν ἀγκάλαις, ὃν καὶ τὰ θνητῶν φασιν ἀγγέλλειν πάθη. (Β.) Γλαῦκον λέγεις. (Α.) ἔγνωκας ⟨ ⟩ al μετ᾽ αὐτῶν δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἐκπρεπεῖς φύσιν αἱ ξανθόχρωτες, ἃς κλύδων Αἰξωνικὸς πασῶν ἀρίστας ἐντόπους παιδεύεται˙ αἷς καὶ θεὰν τιμῶσι φωσφόρον κόρην, δείπνων ὅταν πέμπωσι δῶρα ναυτίλοι. (Β.) τρίγλας λέγεις ⟨ ⟩ (Α.) γαλακτόχρωτα Σικελὸς ὃν πήγνυσ᾽ ὄχλος (Β.) ῥόμβος

1 φασίν Α : φησίν ed. Aldina et ed. Casauboniana prima. Hoc verbum Athenaeo, non Nausicrati, attribuit Porson : φύσιν Jacobs 2 ⟨ἐπώνυμοι⟩ Porson : ⟨παῖδες θεοῦ⟩ Dobree 5 γλαύκω Edmonds 5–6 ⟨ : : ἄλλο μοι λέγε.  / : : λέξω.⟩ Headlam : ⟨ἀλλὰ καὶ τόδε / γνώσει˙⟩ Edmonds 6 αὐτῶν ACE : αὐτὸν Meineke : μετὰ τούτων Edmonds ἐκπρεπεῖς ACE, sed εὐ supra ἐκ C 7 ξανθοχρῶτες Meineke, Kaibel : ξανθόχρωτες Kock αἰξωνικὸς Ath. 7.325e CE : ἐξωνικὸς Ath. 7.325e A, Ath. 7.330b A : Αἰξωνικοῖς Kock 8 ἐντόπους Ath. 7.330b A : ἐν τόποις Ath. 7.325e AC, Kock 11 om. Ath. 7.325e CE : τρίγλας Ath. 7.325e Α : τρίγλαν Ath. 7.330b Α ⟨ : : ἔγνωκας. : : ἄλλο μοι λέγε. : : ⟩ Headlam: ⟨ : : λέγω γὰρ˙ ἔτι δ᾽ ἔχω τινά. ⟩ Edmonds 12 χαλακτοχρῶτα A : corr. Musurus : γαλακτοχρῶτα Kaibel

5

10

two, they say, tender and nice, of the one who has often appeared already in the sea’s embraces to sailors, and who they say foretells the misfortunes of mortals. (B.) You mean Glaucus. (A.) You’ve got it. ⟨ ⟩ along with them come those of exceptional nature, the fair-skinned, which the sea of Aixone brings up in there, the best of all. With these sailors honor the goddess, the torch-bearing virgin, whenever they send her offerings of food.

24

Nausicrates

(B.) You mean red mullets ⟨ ⟩ (A.) The one with the milk-coloured skin, which the Sicilians curdle / fish with a stick (B.) A turbot [1-5] Ath. 7.296a Ναυσικράτης Ναυκλήροις˙ δύο μέν φασιν ἁπαλοὶ καὶ καλοί … ἔγνωκας. Nausicrates in Nauklēroi: two, they say, tender and nice … You’ve got it. [6-11] Ath. 7. 325e Ναυσικράτης δ᾽ ὁ κωμωιδιοποιὸς ἐπαινεῖ τὰς Αἰξωνικὰς τρίγλας ἐν Ναυκλήροις λέγων οὕτως˙ μετ᾽αὐτῶν δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἐκπρεπεῖς φύσιν … τρίγλας λέγεις. Nausicrates the comic poet praises the red mullets of Aixone in Nauklēroi speaking as follows: along with them come those of exceptional nature … You mean red mullets. [7-13] Ath. 7. 330b (ψῆτται) Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ καλοῦσι τὴν ψῆτταν ῥόμβον, καί ἐστι τὸ ὄνομα Ἑλληνικόν. Ναυσικράτης ἐν Ναυκλήροις˙ προειπὼν δὲ περὶ γλαύκου τοῦ ἰχθύος ἐπιφέρει˙ αἱ ξανθόχρωτες, ἃς κλύδων Αἰξωνικός … ῥόμβος. (Soles) The Romans call the sole (ψήττα) rhombus (=turbot) (ῥόμβον), and this is a Greek name. Nausicrates in Nauklēroi, having spoken in advance about the fish glaukos (see below “Interpretation”), adds: the fair-skinned, which the sea of Aixone … a turbot.

Metre Iambic Τrimeter

alwr llw|r llwl alwl l|lwl wlwl llwl l|rwl wlwl llwl llw|l llwl llwl llw|⟨l alwl⟩ alwl llw|l wlwl llwl w|lwl llwl llwl l|lwl llwl llwl llw|l wlwl llwl llw|l wlwl llwl ⟨alwlalwl⟩ wlwl w|rwl llwl ll⟨wl alwl alwl⟩

Discussion Toup 1790, 477; Schweighäuser 1803 IV, 440; Jacobs 1809, 174; Dobree 1833 II, 315; Meineke 1841 IV, 575–578; Meineke 1847 II, 1147–1176; Kock 1884 II, 295–296; Bothe 1855, 713–714; Blaydes 1890, 190; Headlam 1899; Edmonds 1959 II, 370–371; PCG 1989 VII, 33–34; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 617–618

Ναύκληροι (fr. 1)

25

Citation Context Athenaeus quotes the fragment three times: at 7.296a, 7.325e, 7.330b. Ath. 7.296a quotes the first part of the fragment, while 7.325e and 330b quote the second part, with a slight overlapping. Each citation pertains to the presentation of a particular species of fish. They all fall under a wider discussion of numerous kinds of fish and seafood that begins at 7.277b, where Athenaeus – as an external narrator – calls on Timocrates to report everything that the banqueters said about each of the fishes (ἀπομνημονεύσω δέ σοι ἃ περὶ ἑκάστου ἔλεξαν οἱ δειπνοσοφισταί). Fish names are mostly listed alphabetically as programmatically promised by Athenaeus in 7.277c (κατὰ στοιχεῖον τάξω τὰ ὀνόματα) in a lineup that is interrupted by an excursus on boasting cooks at 7.288c and resumes at 7.293f. 7.296a belongs to the discussion of γλαῦκος, a fish that cannot be identified, which started shortly before, in 7.295b. Before Nausicrates, Athenaeus quotes Epicharmus, Antiphanes, Eubulus, Anaxandrides, Amphis, and Philetaerus. In 7.296a, he cites lines 1–5 of the fragment, while lines 6-11 are quoted in 7.325e, in a detailed discussion of the fish τρίγλη (red mullet), which began in 7.324c. The list of references is long and heterogeneous, encompassing quotations from Aristotle, Epicharmus, Sophron, Diocles (the medical writer from Carystus, 4th cent. BC), Plato Comicus, Apollodorus, Melanthius (the historian, date unknown), Hegesander of Delphi (2nd cent. BC), Charicleides, Terpsicles (author of the book On Sexual Pleasure, 3rd cent. BC), Archestratus (from Gela, 4th cent. BC), and Cratinus. Lines 7–12 of the fragment are quoted in 7.330b, at the end of a discussion of the fish ψῆττα (“sole” or “flounder”). Before Nausicrates, Athenaeus quotes Diocles, Speusippus, Aristotle, Dorion (a zoologist who wrote On Fishes, 1st cent. AD), Epicharmus, Lynceus (comic poet, 4th–3rd cent. BC), and Archestratus. Text The supplements by Porson (ἐπώνυμοι) and Dobree (παῖδες θεοῦ) in line 2, endorsed by Jacobs and Kaibel respectively, are both plausible, but in the absence of additional context no supplement here is certain. Edmonds’ emendation γλαύκω (referring to the fish and not the sea-god) in line 5 may have originated from Porson’s note (1790, 477) “duo glauci” and is based on the fact that otherwise the number of the fishes (two as of l. 1 δύο μέν, φασίν), as indicated in the riddle, would find no correspondence in the solution (unlike what happens in the case of τρίγλας in l. 11). There exist two proposals for the lacuna in lines 5 and 6. Headlam (1899, 6) adds a short stichomythia between the two speakers, comprising the phrase ἄλλο μοι λέγε by speaker B after ἔγνωκας of speaker A (line 5), then followed by the assertion λέξω from speaker A at the beginning of line 6. The supplement is plausible, especially since we can thus trace a riddle game of identical structure also reproduced in lines 11–12. Edmonds does not endorse a change of speaker and adds the phrase ἀλλὰ καὶ τόδε γνώσει after ἔγνωκας of line 5. The key disadvantage of this is that it does not include a stichomythia; moreover, by adding

26

Nausicrates

ἀλλὰ καὶ τόδε / γνώσει in lines 5–6, Edmonds avoids the possibility of a riddle game (as does his supplement in line 11, λέγω γὰρ· ἔτι δ᾽ ἔχω τινά). According to Cobet (1858, 25-26), the lacunae in lines 11 and 13 are due to the fact that Athenaeus excerpted only riddles, citing only the words by which these riddles are solved and omitting everything else in between. In terms of the meter, part of line 12 could fill the gap of line 11, as one complete iambic trimeter line (τρίγλας λέγεις γαλακτόχρωτα Σικελὸς). If l. 12 stands as it is printed in PCG, then either strong (full-stop) or light (comma) punctuation should be introduced after ὄχλος depending on whether ῥόμβος in 13 would be followed by the words of speaker B (full-stop) or interrupted by speaker A (comma). Assuming a riddle structure allows for the possibility that line 11 developed similarly to line 5. If so, τρίγλας λέγεις in line 11 would have been followed by an affirmative answer by speaker B (like ἔγνωκας in line 5), who would then continue with a new riddle, the one about ῥόμβος, which is spelled out in line 12 and is finally answered in line 13. On another note, the riddle structure could also work in favor of the textual cohesion of the fragment, which otherwise could be under question. Athenaeus cites the fragment three times but really brings forth two units, since the quotations found in 7.325e and 7.330b are almost of the same lines (lines 6–11 and 7–13 respectively). Perhaps in this light, Meineke prints two fragments in his edition of 1847 (Meineke 1847 II, 74–75), a possibility also brought forth by Kock (1884 II, 295–296). The repetition of riddles however suggests a type of meaningful coherence that can justify the constitution of the text. Interpretation Fr. 1 is a riddle catalogue made up of three riddles (1–5, 6–11, 12–13)22 and is distributed between two speakers, the first of whom asks all three questions and thus engages in more elaborate language. The first two riddle-scenes exemplify a “riddle-tale”, namely a riddle constructed in the form of a brief story told in the third person (see Konstantakos 2000a, 184–185).23 Riddles have the tendency to accumulate (as in the series of riddles at [Hes.] fr. 266a–c [The Wedding of Ceyx; posed by Hercules] or Antiphanes fr. 194; also see Merkelbach / West 1965, 310) as parts of riddle-games (see Certamen 72–175 Bassino) or in sympotic contexts (see Antiphanes fr. 122, Ath. 10.457c–e). The fragment is structured upon the comic effect of double meanings as “broken allegories”.24 The feature is often found in Old Comedy, when an allegory is

22 23

24

As in Antiph. frr. 55, 192, and Eub. fr. 106. “Riddle-tale” is a type of “riddles proper”, a sort of riddle-narrative offering a description of an object by means of metaphor, paradox, or both (Konstantakos 2000a, 166), as also noted by Aristotle (Poet. 1458a25–31). Kidd 2014, 71.

Ναύκληροι (fr. 1)

27

“broken”25 or “comically confused”26 as soon as it is established.27 “Broken allegories” work on many levels. Their main characteristic is that they interchangeably combine references to two different narrative levels (the signifier and the signified), which are metaleptically28 intertwined, thus creating a dynamic comic effect. A famous example consists of the confusion of narrative levels in the stichomythia between Xanthias and Bdelycleon in the Wasps (836–843), where the double entendres comically exploit the allusions to Labes the dog (signifier) and Laches the general (signified). The fragment begins with a lacuna which makes it difficult to pin down the allegory’s signifier. The adjectives ἁπαλοὶ καὶ καλοί at the end of l. 1 are referring to the missing word(s) of the fragment’s beginning, supplemented as παῖδες θεοῦ (Dobree) or ἐπώνυμοι (Porson). By line 3, a single creature either related (παῖδες θεοῦ: Dobree) or having the same name (ἐπώνυμοι: Porson) with these “tender and nice” creatures of line 1 is said to appear in the sea, and could indeed be a fish, but as of line 4, it is someone who can foretell the fortune of men. Then it must be a seer or a supernatural being, it might even be the sea-god Glaucus, says speaker B, verified by speaker A. By line 7, however, the spectators hear that the allegorical allusion to the mythical prophetic sea-god is leading to another path: that of the sea of Aixone, which breeds the finest fish of this kind, the ones that sailors offer to Hecate; it is the τρίγλη (red mullet), which plays with the epithet τρίγληνος (three-eyed) associated with Hecate. As soon as the audience is immersed in sympotic food-related small-talk, another signifier emerges, unfortunately obscured by another lacuna, which can be either a fish (ῥόμβος) or something that the people of Sicily curdle. Most likely another broken allegory, conflating a fish with something else, perhaps some kind of curdled cheese or dairy food, was again involved. That said, Porson’s ἐπώνυμοι is perhaps better than Dobree’s παῖδες θεοῦ if the symmetrical structure of the examples given is to be pressed (ἁπαλοὶ καὶ καλοί | ⟨ ἐπώνυμοι ⟩ – Γλαῦκον): in lines 7 and 12 the riddle is expressed by adjectives, whereas nouns are used only when the answer is provided (αἱ ξανθόχρωτες – τρίγλας; γαλακτόχρωτα - ῥόμβος). The fragment could also bear sexual connotations, and the possibility that lines 5-13 are a long double entendre could be entertained. τρίγλη (line 11), the answer to the riddle of lines 5-10, is a common metaphor for a hetaira (see below on line 10) and the riddle in line 12 about what the Sicilians curdle could contain an allusion to the Sicilian myth of Galateia and Cyclops (see on line 12) or indeed to the way the Sicilian people fish (hence the different translations). The metaphorical rep25 26 27 28

Süss 1954, 116. MacDowell 1995, 165. Sommerstein (1981, 147) refers to the phenomenon as a “mixture of allegory and allegorized”. A metalepsis is a narratological term, signifying the transgression of boundaries between narrative levels. See Fludernik 2006, 156.

28

Nausicrates

resentation of the courtesan as a fish is common in comedy. In Archippus’ Ichthyes (fr. 19), the ἀφύαι (whitebait) possibly refer to prostitutes, while other figures like Ἀθερίνη (smelt) and Σηπία (cuttlefish) “can be assumed to have been in the sex trade” (Shaw 2014, 574). Σηπία is common in food catalogues (e. g. Mnesim. fr. 4.43 with Mastellari 2020, 385 on the sexual connotations of the fragment; Eub. fr. 109.2), but also appears in Antiphanes’ Halieuomenē (fr. 27), where actual hetairai and their lovers are portrayed as fish in an elaborate metaphor (see Nesselrath 1998, 281) by a female speaker who might be a brothel mistress (Shaw 2014, 574; Henderson 2014, 187). In this very fragment from Halieuomenē, the fish τρίγλη is also mentioned (fr. 27.10), as is here in line 11 (see below, ad loc.). The use of nicknames derived from seafood for courtesans is noted by Apollodorus (FGrH 244 fr. 212), who suggests that σαπέρδιον, the diminutive form of σαπέρδης (a fish of the Nile), was used as a nickname of Phryne, the famous fourth-century hetaira (see Shaw 2014, 574–575). On the sexual connotations of food in comic fragments see Mastellari 2018, 25–27. 1 φασίν when used without a specific subject (signifying “they say”/ “one says”) expresses a general claim. Commonly used in comedy, in various contexts; see e. g. Pherecr. fr. 117.2; Eup. fr. 99.2–3, 99.65; 159.1; Ar. Eq. 1294, 1300, 1303; Nub. 112, 115, 587; Thesm. 584; Ran. 428; Eccl. 555; Plut. 149; fr. 335.2, 466.5; Theopomp. Com. fr. 36.3; Anaxandr. fr. 42.4, 42.30; Antiph. fr. 145.1, 173.1, 200.10, 227.6; Dionys. fr. 4.1; Eriph. fr. 2.7; Apollod. Caryst. fr. 29.1; Diod. Com. fr. 2.37; Adesp. Com. fr. 148.1. Its repetition here (in lines 1 and 4) is tied to the sequence of riddles included in the fragment, that appear to reproduce the common claims reflected in φασίν. ἁπαλοὶ καὶ καλοί ἁπαλός is always a positive adjective when applied to food (e. g. Ar. Lys. 1062, fr. 236; Pherercr. fr. 137.10; Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.37–38; Xen. An. 1.5.2; Diph. fr. 14.2–3; Epaenetus apud Ath. 14662d; cf. fr.37.5–6 n.; Ar. Av. 667–668; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.16). The combination with καλός is rare (aside from two occurrences in the Septuagint (Genesis 18:7, 27:9), only here and Ar. Lys. 1064, where it describes the “fine and tender” portions of a sacrificed piglet) and intensifies the meaning of ἁπαλός. This first line of the passage sets the tone of the basic comic game of double entendre that runs throughout the fragment and involves double references to fish and humans, but also to different types of food (perhaps cheese and fish, see “Interpretation” and ll. 11-13). The intention was apparently to make the spectators assume that the cluster ἁπαλοὶ καὶ καλοί refers to humans (hence the suggested supplements to the beginning of l. 1), a possibility reinforced by the allusion to the prophet Glaucus in line 5, only to make them realize in line 6 that speaker A talks about fish. 2 ναυτίλοισι Mainly (but cf. Hdt. 2.43.3) a poetic form of ναύτης occurring often in tragedy (either as a noun: e. g. Aesch. Ag. 631, 899, 1234, PV 468; Soph. Aj. 1146; Eur. Heracl. 427, fr. 194.3, or as a –differently accented– adjective: e. g. Aesch. Ag. 1442). Also, in combination with Γλαῦκος (e. g. Eur. Or. 362–364, …

Ναύκληροι (fr. 1)

29

ἐκ δὲ κυμάτων / ὁ ναυτίλοισι μάντις ἐξήγγειλέ μοι / Νηρέως προφήτης Γλαῦκος, ἀψευδὴς θεός), but rarely in comedy (elsewhere only l. 10 below, Eup. fr. 260.31 and Ar. Ra. 1207 but quoting Eur. Archelaus fr. 846, on which see Harder 1985, 181; Collard / Cropp / Gibert 2004, 351; Scullion 2006; Lamari 2017, 48–50).29 ναυτίλος is also a kind of mollusc or cephalopod, one of the μαλάκια, possibly resembling the “Argonaut” shell (Paper Nautilus, see Thompson 1947, 172–175). It is thoroughly described in Arist. HA (525a.20–29, 622b.1–19) and is mainly characterized by its ability to move as if spreading sails to the breeze and thus to come up from the depths of the sea to its surface. ναυτίλοισι being the sailors but also alluding to fish is another double entendre adding up to the ambiguous meanings of the fragment. 3 φανέντος φαίνομαι means “appear”, but here the verb perhaps refers to appearance as if emerging from the water, springing up (like ἀναφαίνομαι, e. g. Hdt. 6.76.7, 198, or regarding the emergence of Glaucus from the sea in Aeschylus’ Glaucus Pontius (fr. 26) in Phrynichus’ Praep. Soph. p. 6.1 = Phot. α 1981). The line could encompass a subtle excitement at the sight of the emerging fish, as in Henioch. fr. 3 ὁρῶ δὲ θαῦμ᾽ ἄπιστον, ἰχθύων γένη / περὶ τὴν ἄκραν παίζοντα (with Mastellari 2020, 221). πελαγίοις ἐν ἀγκάλαις the metaphor of the “sea’s embraces” occurs almost identically in Euripides (Hel. 1436 πελαγίους ἐς ἀγκάλας), and more loosely in other tragic texts, such as Aesch. Cho. 587 (πόντιαί τ᾽ ἀγκάλαι) and Eur. Or. 1377–1379 (Ὠκεανὸς … ἀγκάλαις ἑλίσσων). In a comic context, it is found only here and Ar. Ran. 704 κυμάτων ἐν ἀγκάλαις. See also Archil. fr. 23 ψυχὰς ἔχοντες κυμάτων ἐν ἀγκάλαις (cf. Ar. Ran. 704 with Schol. ad loc.). 5 Γλαῦκον λέγεις a formula used to answer the riddle in accord with the pattern of two speakers, as in l. 11, consisting of the key-word (substantive) + λέγεις. The idiomatic response with the use of λέγω in second person singular is very frequent in comedy: it is combined with nouns or adjectives in accusative, often also encompassing the judgement or approval of the speaker regarding the matters in question. See e. g. Ar. Av. 1691 πολλήν γε τενθείαν λέγεις; Ran. 122 πνιγηρὰν λέγεις (sc. ὁδόν); Eccl. 1134 εὐδαιμονικόν γ᾽ ἄνθρωπον εἴρηκας σαφῶς; Ar. Plut. 992 λέγεις ἐρῶντ᾽ ἄνθρωπον ἐκνομιώτατα; Alex. fr. 224.4 συμφορὰν λέγεις ἄκραν, 228.3 ὑδαρῆ λέγεις (sc. οἶνον); Men. Dysk. 116–117 μαινόμενον λέγεις / τελέως γεωργόν, fr. 297.6 πρᾶγμ᾽ ἄμαχον λέγεις. Γλαῦκον Glaucus is the name of at least two sea-gods. The one is identified as the son of Sisyphus, wandering over the waves and foreshadowing an early death to those who saw him, and the other with either a fisherman of Anthedon (in Boeotia) or the son of Poseidon and a naiad, gifted with immortality and prophesizing power (Grimal 2002, 172). The latter appears in tragedy, in Aeschylus’ Γλαῦκος 29

Also in Hdt. 2.43.3.

30

Nausicrates

Πόντιος (see Sommerstein 2008, 24) and Eur. Or. 362–365: … ἐκ δὲ κυμάτων / ὁ ναυτίλοισι μάντις ἐξήγγειλέ μοι / Νηρέως προφήτης Γλαῦκος, ἀψευδὴς θεός, / ὅς μοι τόδ’ εἶπεν ἐμφανῶς κατασταθείς. The striking similarity in diction indicates that Nausicrates may well be “playing” with one or more euripidean texts (Euripides is elsewhere alluded to in later comedy; e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 66 with Millis 2015a, 302; Antiph. fr. 238.3; Eub. fr. 6.2 with Hunter 1983 ad loc.; Alex. fr. 3 with Arnott 1996, 62–63),30 as he also takes advantage of the possible connections between the myth about the wanderings of Glaucus (son of Sisyphus) and lines 3-4 of the fragment. As often in middle comedy, the comic outcome could have been reached by the immersion of tragic parody in a common, everyday context. γλαῦκος is an edible grey-colored fish impossible to identify securely: either a large fish, similar to a shark or dogfish, or a much smaller one from the horse-mackerel family (see Strömberg 1943, 23; Thompson 1947, 48; Olson / Sens 2000, 94; Papachrysostomou 2016, 116), it is pelagic according to Aristotle (HA 598a13) but also frequents rocky or sandy shores according to Oppian An. (Hal. 1.170). It was prized as a delicacy in symposia, especially its head (Archestr. fr. 21 Olson / Sens) and shoulders (Amphis fr. 16). For the consumption of fish as a sign of indulgence and wealth, see Wilkins 2000, 293–304. γλαῦκος is caught by using the κεστρεύς (a type of grey mullet) for bait (Oppian An. Hal. 3.193). The κεστρεύς does not appear in this passage, but it is found in catalogues of fish elsewhere (Anaxandr. fr. 42.47; Philyll. fr. 12.3; Mnesim. fr. 4.45; cf. Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 16.8–11; Olson / Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 43.1). Possibly relevant is Antiph. fr. 192, a dialogue between two persons, probably spoken during a symposium, who use riddles involving different fish (πέρκη [perch], μελάνουρος [black tail], κεστρεύς [grey mullet], πίννη [a shellfish], τρίγλη [red mullet]) that possibly allude to hetairai; in this dialogue, κεστρεύς must be the brothel owner, μελάνουρος a customer, and πίννη and τρίγλη two hetairai (Auhagen 2009, 79-80). On the metaphorical representation of the courtesan as fish, which might be here at works, see “Interpretation” above. ἔγνωκας a vox propria, sometimes paired with δῆτα and λέγειν (e. g. Ar. Eq. 871 ἔγνωκας οὖν δῆτ᾽ αὐτὸν οἷός τ᾽ ἔστιν;, Nub. 1095 ἆρα δῆτ᾽ἔγνωκας ὡς οὐδὲν λέγεις;) or adversative καὶ μὴν (e. g. Antiph. fr. 194.15–16 καὶ μὴν ἀκριβῶς ὠιόμην ἐγνωκέναι / τὸ ῥηθέν, referring to a riddle). 6 ἐκπρεπεῖς used to express preeminence among people (Il. 2.483), animals (Arist. Phgn. 810a8), or with reference to something extraordinary (Aesch. Pers. 184, 442; Eur. Alc. 333). It does not occur elsewhere in comedy. It being a comic hapax further testifies to the linguistic sophistication of speaker A, who asks the questions. 30

For the connection between tragedy and later comedy, see e. g. Sehrt 1912; Webster 1960, 156; Webster 1970, 82–83; Nesselrath 1990, esp. 247–252; Nesselrath 1993; Arnott 1996, 62–63.

Ναύκληροι (fr. 1)

31

7 ξανθόχρωτες “fair-skinned” (possibly with a sexual connotation, since white complexion was considered an element of beauty, as in Ar. Eccl. 878, 1072; see Thomas 2002) or “brown (sc. from frying)” (see LSJ). It is a hapax in this form, occurring as ξανθόχροος in Moschus (2.84) and Nonnus (11.180, etc.). It works towards the coherence of the listed riddles, as it is composed identically to γαλακτόχρωτα of line 12, again a rare adjective. Both riddles are additionally structured upon the same analogy, see the discussion on παιδεύεται (line 8) below. κλύδων common tragic vocabulary (e. g. Aesch. PV 431; Soph. OT 197; OC 1686; Eur. Med. 29; Hipp. 448, 1213; Hec. 701; IT 1379, 1393; Hel. 1209), sometimes metaphorically in the sense “sea of troubles” or “bad luck” (Aesch. Pers. 599; Soph. OT 1527), also in comedy (Adesp. Com. fr. 1063.5). Αἰξωνικός “of the deme of Aixone”. Aixone was a deme of Athens, situated on the south coast of Halimus, neighboring with the deme of Halai Aixonides (Whitehead 1986, 375–376, with a list of all the inscriptions concerning the activity of the deme). Until the 19th century there were remains of an ancient theater building (no longer visible), and performances of comedy were likely to have started there from mid-4th century (Csapo / Wilson 2015, 320–321). Comedy is the only genre attested in Aixone (Csapo / Wilson 2015, 327) and locally-awarded honors are therein proclaimed during the Dionysia celebrations and the comedies that were held (IG II2 1202.15; see Csapo/Wilson 2015, 321, 327). αἰξωνικός modifies κλύδων as in Soph. OT 197, θρήικιον κλύδωνα. κλύδων Αἰξωνικός is part of the riddle describing the τρίγλαι, the answer to which is given in line 10. τρίγλαι from Aixone (mullets from the sea in the area of Aixone) were considered the best, according to Photius (α 606 Theodoridis, Αἰξονίδα τρίγλην· τὴν ἀρίστην φαγεῖν· κάλλισται γὰρ αἱ Αἰξωνικαί) and Pollux, who at 6.63 includes τρίγλαι Αἰξωνικαί in a long list of the best delicacies and seafood. Αἰξωνίς τρίγλη also features in Cratinus (fr. 236.1, οὐδ᾽ Αἰξωνίδ᾽ ἐρυθρόχρων ἐσθίειν ἔτι τρίγλην, also see line 11), where it is characterized as red. 8 ἐντόπους “indigenous, local, in or of a place” (LSJ), found mostly in tragedy (Soph. Phil. 212, 1171; OC 1457; also in Pl. Leg. 848d). παιδεύεται a fairly unusual choice when the subject is fishes. The only similar example is the use of the verb for the taming of animals (Xen. Hipparch. 10.6), but still the wording is rare, and it seems to have been selected in order to strengthen the analogy with the previous riddle: just as in line 3 γλαύκοι appear πελαγίοις ἐν ἀγκάλαις (“in the sea’s embraces”), the τρίγλαι in lines 8–9 are brought up in the sea of Aixone (κλύδων Αἰξωνικός … παιδεύεται). The two riddles are connected through the analogy of the fish as children that are nurtured in the sea. The sexual connotations that might be also at works, are only heightened by the fact that the vocabulary used for humans is here used for fishes. 9 φωσφόρον κόρην The use of φωσφόρος with κόρη here refers to the torch-bearing Hecate, a chthonic goddess worshipped at night, but possibly also

32

Nausicrates

plays on the expression φωσφόροι κόραι (the eyeballs). See Eur. Tr. 323 with Barlow 1986, ad loc.; Hel. 569 ὦ φωσφόρ᾽ Ἑκάτη with Kannicht 1969, ad loc.; Burian 2007, ad loc.; fr. 62h Ἑκάτης ἄγαλμα φωσφόρου κύων ἔσηι with Karamanou 2017, 287–288; Ar. Lys. 443 with Henderson 1987, ad. loc., 738; Thesm. 858 Ἑκάτην τὴν φωσφόρον; fr. 608 Ἑκάτης ἄγαλμα φωσφόρου γενήσομαι). This deliberate wordplay fits with the fact that Hecate was also known as τρίγληνος (“threeeyed”, i.e. the one looking three ways) and is called as such by Athenaeus in the same section (7.325a) of the Deipnosophistae (7.325a, τῆι δὲ Ἑκάτη ἀποδίδοται ἡ τρίγλη διὰ τὴν τῆς ὀνομασίας κοινότητα). She is also invoked as “three-formed” (τρίμορφος) in Lycophron (Alex. 1176; see Hornblower 2015, ad loc.) because of her cult at crossroads, and Charikleides (fr. 1) calls her “of the triple roads, of the triple form, of the triple face, beguiled by mullets” (τρίγλαις κηλευμένα). For Hecate’s traditional connection with crossroads, see Johnston 1991. Hecate was offered a δεῖπνον on the 30th day of each month (see below, δῶρα δείπνων). Hecate’s connection with the fish τρίγλη probably developed from the aural similarity of the epithets attributed to her and the name of the fish (see Ath. 7.325a–d, offering an entire list of examples for the practice of associating an animal or plant with a god on the basis of its verbal or aural similarity with some function of the given deity), but also fits with the fact that τρίγλη is related to the cult of Artemis, who is also called φωσφόρος because she carries a torch when she hunts at night (see Eur. IT 21 with Cropp 2000, ad loc.; Callim. Hymn 3. 204) and is occasionally identified with her cousin Hecate (Hes. Theog. 406–411; Aesch. Supp. 676 Ἄρτεμιν δ᾽ Ἑκάταν with Bowen 2013, ad loc.; Eur. Phoen. 109-110 with Mastronarde 1994, ad loc.; Schol. Ar. Lys. 443 νὴ τὴν Φωσφόρον: τὴν Ἄρτεμιν οὕτως ἐκάλουν, ἐπεὶ δαιδοῦχος. ἡ αὐτὴ γὰρ τῆι Ἑκάτηι. ἢ ἐπεὶ καὶ τῆι σελήνηι ἡ αὐτή; IG I3 383.125-127 and Graf 1985, 228-236, Burkert 1985, 171 and n. 15). See below, line 11 τρίγλας λέγεις for further discussion. 10 δῶρα δείπνων “offerings of food”. δῶρον is here used in the sense “votive gift, offering (sc. to a god)” (e. g. Il. 6.293 δῶρον Ἀθήνηι; Aesch. Ag. 91 βωμοὶ δώροισι φλέγονται) and δεῖπνον in the general sense “food” (e. g. Aesch. Supp. 801 ὄρνισι δεῖπνον). Hecate was celebrated with a particular ritual of offering food, i.e. Ἑκάτης δεῖπνον (“Hecate’s dinner”), a meal offered by the rich to the poor in front of statues of her ἐν τριόδοις on the 30th day of each month (LSJ s. v. Ἑκάτη). See Luc. Dial. mort. 1.1 ἐν τῆι τριόδωι Ἑκάτης δεῖπνον κείμενον, and for when this was exploited Ar. Plut. 594–597 παρὰ τῆς Ἑκάτης ἔξεστιν τοῦτο πυθέσθαι, / εἴτε τὸ πλουτεῖν εἴτε τὸ πεινῆν βέλτιον. φησὶ γὰρ αὑτῆι / τοὺς μὲν ἔχοντας καὶ πλουτοῦντας δεῖπνον προσάγειν κατὰ μῆνα, / τοὺς δὲ πένητας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἁρπάζειν πρὶν καταθεῖναι (cf. Dem. 54.39). ναυτίλοι most probably the sailors; see above on l. 2. 11 τρίγλας λέγεις (line 5).

the same riddle-answering formula as in Γλαῦκον λέγεις

Ναύκληροι (fr. 1)

33

τρίγλας a red mullet (Thomson 1947, s. v. τρίγλη; Davidson 1981, 92–95), a small fish of reddish color that spends the winter in deep water and moves toward the shores in spring (Olson / Sens 2000, 173). It was considered a delicacy (Gal. 6.715 τῶν ἄλλων ὑπερέχουσα τῆι κατὰ τὴν ἐδωδὴν ἡδονῆι) and it is common in banquet catalogues (Epich. fr. 122.5; Sophr. fr. 49; Cratin. frr.236.1, 358; Philyll. fr. 12.3; Ephipp. fr. 12.3; Antiph. frr. 27.10, 130.8; Mnesim. fr. 4.38; Archestr. fr. 42.1, 4; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.11; Matro SH 534.27, 31; cf. Epich. fr. 57; Cratin. fr. 62.4; Henioch. fr. 3.5). The τρίγλη is found in various locations, and its quality varies (Ath. 7.325d–e). Cratin. fr. 236.1 οὐδ᾽ Αἰξωνίδ᾽ ἐρυθρόχρων ἐσθίειν ἔτι τρίγλην warns that mullets from Aixone should not be consumed by those undergoing the purifications for consulting the Trophonius oracle (Edmonds 2013, 223). Because the τρίγλη is reputed to hunt sea-hares (θαλασσίους λαγούς) relentlessly and devour them, fishermen carry τρίγλαι in the procession of the festival of Artemis according to Hegesand. fr. 39, i.e. the huntress-fish is dedicated to the huntress goddess. τρίγλη is also associated with (triple) Hecate, presumably because of its name (see discussion on l. 9 φωσφόρον κόρην). Athenaeus speaks of a place in Athens called Τρίγλα, where there is a shrine dedicated to Hecate Τριγλανθίνη, where τρίγλας used to be offered to Hecate (7.325d; cf. also Apollod. FGrHist 244 fr. 109a). τρίγλη can also bear sexual connotations, which either allude to hetairai (Shaw 2014, 574) or are associated with intercourse. Although one cannot be certain about such a reading, fish and hetairai are correlated and often mentioned together (Dem. 19.229; Aeschin. 1.42; Eup. fr. 174; Eub. fr. 118; Diog. Laert. 2.76, 10.132), especially in a sympotic context. In Antiph. fr. 27.10–11, Τρίγλη is the nickname of one of the hetairai, perhaps Kallisthenes’ mistress (τρίγλας, ἔδεσμα τοῦ καλοῦ Καλλισθένους· / κατεσθίει γοῦν ἐπὶ μιᾶι τὴν οὐσίαν), and in a dexterous double entendre, Antiphanes jokes about Kallisthenes wasting his fortune on a single visit to the fish market (a comic topos, also Alex. frr. 76, 204; Diph. fr. 32; Antiph. frr. 145, 164), but also consuming his property on his mistress Τρίγλη (Konstantakos 2000a, 80–81). The association with Artemis is perhaps responsible for the antiaphrodisiac qualities of τρίγλη, which is said to curb sexual desire in men and fertility in women (Terpsicles Περὶ ἀφροδισίων apud Ath. 7.325d, ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐναποπνιγῆι τρίγλη ζῶσα ἐν οἴνωι καὶ τοῦτο ἀνὴρ πίηι, ἀφροδισιάζειν οὐ δυνήσεται, ὡς Τερψικλῆς ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῶι περὶ Ἀφροδισίων. κἂν γυνὴ δὲ πίηι τοῦ αὐτοῦ οἴνου, οὐ κυΐσκεται; see Spanoudakis 1999; cf. Plato Com. fr. 189.20–21, τρίγλη δ᾽ οὐκ ἐθέλει νεύρων ἐπιήρανος εἶναι· παρθένου Ἀρτέμιδος γὰρ ἔφυ καὶ στύματα μισεῖ; Henderson 1991, 116 n. 23). On the syncretism of Hecate-Selene-Artemis, dated as early as the late classical period, when Hecate was also associated with crossroads, see Hopfner 1939; Faraone 1997. 12 γαλακτόχρωτα “milk-colored”. A rare adjective, also at Philyll. fr. 4.2 (referring to loafs of bread: γαλακτόχρωτας κολλάβους θερμούς); Diosc. 3.47.1 (referring to the flowers of μῶλυ, a kind of plant of the garlic family); Oppian Ap.

34

Nausicrates

Cyneg. 3.478 (referring to animal teeth). The adjective is one of the main clues of the new riddle (the others being Σικελός and πήγνυσ᾽) and perhaps refers to a masculine noun lost in the lacuna of line 11. It could also describe the color of ῥόμβος in line 13; alternatively, it could allude to Sicilian cheese and thus, on a more complex level, to the myth of Cyclops and the beauty of Galateia (literally “the milky one”). Polyphemus is frequently presented as making cheese from the milk produced by his animals (Od. 9.219; Eur. Cyc. 136, 208-209 with O’Sullivan / Collard 2013, 149; Antiph. fr. 131.7-9), and Sicily (directly referred to in Σικελικός ὄχλος) is regularly identified as the Cyclops’ island (Thuc. 6.2.1; Eur. Cyc. 20-22 with O’Sullivan / Collard 2013, 134; Philox. PMG 815-824). In Theocritus, Galateia’s beauty is highlighted by reference to her white skin, “whiter than cheese to look at” (11.20 λευκοτέρα πακτᾶς ποτιδεῖν with Hunter 1999, 229), praise that looks back to Anacreon and Sappho (according to a corrupt notice in a late rhetorician, οἷον τὰ Ἀνακρέοντος (PMG 488), τὰ Σαπφοῦς (fr. 156 Voigt), οἷον γάλακτος λευκοτέρα). The use of γαλακτόχρωτα may thus belong to the long series of double meanings of the fragment, where references to food encompass references to women or female beauty, and certainly lies in analogy with ξανθόχρωτες of line 7. πήγνυσ᾽ “curdle” (of milk), plays on γαλακτόχρωτα (see Diosc. 4.95); also “makes stiff, solid”, “freezes”. The verb is regularly used of liquids (Aesch. Pers. 496 πᾶν ῥέεθρον; Ar. Ach. 139 τοὺς ποταμοὺς). In combination with the preceding γαλακτόχρωτα and succeeding Σικελός ὄχλος, an allusion to the curdling of Sicilian cheese (see below) is possible. πήγνυσ᾽ can also mean “fix, plant firmly”, probably by means of a trident (τριόδους); see Pl. Soph. 220d, where one type of strike-hunting by trident spears and hooks (θήρα πληκτική … ὡς ἐχόντων ἐν ἄκροις ἄγκιστρα καὶ τῶν τριοδόντων) taking place at night under the light of the fire is called “fire-hunting” (θήρα πυρευτική); also Epicr. fr. 7.1–4, where fishing at night with torches and by means of tridents is mentioned (λαβὲ τριόδοντα καὶ λυχνοῦχον … φωσφόρου λύχνου σέλας). Oppian (Hal. 4.639–646) describes fishing by spears at night with “sweeping trident”, ῥιπῆς τε τριόδοντος (639) and ῥιπῆς τριγλώχινος (646); similar is Quint. Smyrn. 7.569-75, where a fishing spear is called τανυγλώχινι τριαίνηι (574). Such a connection however is speculative, since in all those instances references to tridents do not involve πήγνυμι, which only happens in Nonnus (Dion. 8.238) and does not refer to fishing. If indeed such a pun was intended, the previous reference to Hecate as a φωσφόρος κόρη may have allowed him to playfully allude to the torches used by the fishermen when fishing at night (see e. g. Epicr. fr. 7.4 φωσφόρου λύχνου σέλας). All things considered, πήγνυσ᾽ allows for the double meanings (here: “curdle” / “fish with a stick”) that seem to be desiderata for this whole scene, and should thus be considered as a strong interpretative possibility. Σικελός ὄχλος The reference could be to the people of Sicily curdling Sicilian cheese (τυρός Σικελικός), if πήγνυμι is only connected to the “fixation” of liquids,

Ναύκληροι (fr. 1)

35

as in the curdling of milk to produce cheese; but the same people of Sicily may also be imagined “transfixing” fish with a spear, trident, or harpoon. τυρός Σικελικός was a celebrated delicacy, as at Antiph. fr. 233 (in the midst of a list of areas with their best produce: 3–4, ἰχθῦς Σικυῶνος, Αἰγίου δ᾽ αὐλητρίδες, / τυρὸς Σικελικός), esp. in combination with πήγνυσι (on which, see above). At Antiph. fr. 131.9, there is a reference to τυρὸς πηκτός as well as a reference to τρίγλη in another fragment from the same play (fr. 130.8). τυρὸς there is not called Σικελικός, but the play (Cyclops) has Sicilian references nonetheless, possibly echoing Epicharmus’ Cyclops and Nicochares’ Galateia (Hartwig 2014, 224). As seen above, the allusion to Galateia is reinforced by the use of γαλακτόχρωτα, an adjective that could well describe Galateia’s milk-coloured skin, her signature beauty. 13 ῥόμβος “turbot”, a kind of flatfish, perhaps so called from its rhomb-like shape (LSJ); this is also the name the Romans used for the ψῆττα (7.330b). The passage possibly continued with more of the same riddle-game revolving around fishes that were charged with sexual double entendres.

36

Περσίς (Persis)

(“Persian woman”) Discussion DGRBM II, 1145 s. v. Nausicrates; Meineke 1839 I, 494–496; Meineke 1841 IV, 578; Meineke 1847 II, 1175–1176; Bothe 1855, 714; Kock 1884 II, 296; Körte 1935, in RE XVI.2, 2020, s. v. Nausikrates; Edmonds 1959 II, 372; Webster 1970, 78; PCG VII, 33–34; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 617–618 Title Plautus wrote a Persa and Epicharmus (frr. 109–111), Chionides (fr. 3) and ?Pherecrates (frr. 132–141) a Persai. Metagenes composed a Thouriopersai (frr. 6-9) and Theopompus a Medos (frr. 30–32). Many comedy titles are given after the non-Athenian origin of one or more of their characters, like Anaxandrides’ Lokrides, Samia (also by Menander), and Thettaloi, Antiphanes’ Boiotis, Ephesia, Leukadios, and Alexis’ Achaiis, Knidia, Leukadia, Lokroi, Sikyonios, to name just a few (see the discussion in Arnott 2010, 318–319). Ethic comedy titles do also exist, just as Magnes’ Lydoi, Strattis’ Makedones, Antiphanes’ Aigyptioi (also Timocles’) and Skythēs, Xenarchus’ Skythai (see the discussion in Ornaghi 2020, 418–423). For the accentuation (Πέρσις or Περσίς), and the difference in meaning this entails, see Test. 1. Περσίς is also a historical name borne by a woman in 4th century Athens (IG II2 10971).31 Content The surviving three lines tell us little about the plot, but more can be inferred if the plot of Plautus’ Persa is at all similar to Nausicrates’ play (see Webster 1970, 78 who speculated that this play could have been the original for Plautus’ play). In Plautus, a slave (Toxilus) is in love with a girl owned by a leno, a brothel-keeper (Dordalus). Another slave (Sagaristio) provides Toxilus with the money to buy the girl; then Toxilus persuades the parasite (Saturio) to lend him his daughter, who is dressed up as an Arabian captive and is sold to Dordalus by Sagaristio masquerading as a Persian merchant (this is the Persa of the title). Saturio then reclaims his daughter and the play ends with the slaves feasting and the brothel-keeper tricked. Date

31 32

Unknown.32

IG II2 11568 (4th century) also bears the inscription ΠΕΡΣΙΔΟΣ, but referring to a man (ΗΓΗΣΩ ΠΕΡΣΙΔΟΣ). Webster (1970, 78) and Edmonds (1959 II, 372–373) suggest a terminus ante quem of 334 BC and 343 BC respectively, on the basis of the date of Plautus’ Persa. Their proposals however are highly speculative.

Περσίς (fr. 2)

37

fr. 2 K.–A. (3 K.) ἐν τῆι γὰρ Ἀττικῆι τίς εἶδε πώποτε λέοντας ἢ τοιοῦτον ἕτερον θηρίον; οὗ δασύποδ᾽ εὑρεῖν ἐστιν οὐχὶ ῥάιδιον 1 τῆι γὰρ A: om. CE

2 ἢ A: ἤ τι CE

3 οὗ Musurus: οὐ A: οὐδὲ CE

Is there anyone who ever yet saw in Attica lions or any other wild animal of this kind? Here it is not easy to even find a hare Ath. 9.399e–f Ναυσικράτης (ναυκράτης ACE, corr. Gyraldus) δ᾽ ὁ κωμωιδιοποιὸς ἐν Περσίδι σπανίως, φησίν, ἔστιν εὑρεῖν δασύποδα περὶ τὴν Ἀττικήν· λέγει δὲ ὧδε — — Nausicrates the comic poet in the Persis says it is rare to find a hare in Attica; and he speaks as follows — —

Metre Iambic Trimeter

llwl wlw|l wlwl wlwl llw|ww llwl lrwl l|lwl wlwl

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 494–495; Bothe 1855, 714; Haupt 1876, 94–95; Kock 1884 II, 296; Edmonds 1959 II, 371–372; Webster 1970, 78; PCG VII, 34–35; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 618 Citation Context Athenaeus Βook 9 contains catalogues of animals used for food, similar to the list of fish in Book 7 (see fr. 1 Citation Context). Fr. 2 is cited under the heading λαγώς (hare), following the citation of a fragment from Archestratus (fr. 57 Olson / Sens) regarding the preparation and cooking of the hare. Archestratus’ advice is to “eat it greedily” (ἔσθιε λάβρως), even when it is “a bit raw” (μικρὸν ἐνωμότερον), possibly because it is a rare find (as also claimed by Nausicrates in this fragment). Text In line 3, Musurus’ correction is clearly right: an adverb of place is wanted in place of a difficult accumulation of negatives. Interpretation Meineke (1841 IV, 296–297 and 1847 II, 1016) suspected an association between Nausicrates’  Persis  and Men. Epitr. 324, before that line (preserved in the scholia to the Odyssey) was recognized as belonging to the Epitrepontes; Meineke’s misguided guess led to equally wrong-headed speculation by Haupt (1876 II, 94–95). Most of this discussion is no longer worth citing, since

38

Nausicrates

it is based on false premises, but perhaps worth noting is Haupt’s suggestion that some person in the play compared Persia to Attica, the former rich in lions, the latter utterly deprived of them. Some notion of lion hunting as a heroic pursuit (as envisioned by Haupt; cf. Wilamowitz 1935, 266) could underlie this fragment, but that is not a necessary deduction. Webster (1970, 78) considers the possibility that this fragment belonged to a riddling dialogue with a girl in Persian disguise who pretended to have arrived in Attica (see also above, Content). 1

πώποτε “ever yet”; usually accompanied by negative statements (LSJ).

2 λέοντας An allusion to Persian royal lion–hunts is over-speculative for Tuplin (1996, 151). Lions are frequently mentioned in ancient Greek Literature due to their heroic connotations (Londsdale 1990, 39–70; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 38–63), as well as the suggestion that hunting resembles battle and the hunting of the animal resembles the fighting of an opponent (Barringer 2001, 38). “Lion is the θήρ par excellence” (Janko 1992 on Il. 15.586–588) and [Aristotle] describes it as the quintessence of masculine superiority, although his treatise reveals close examination of the Asiatic lion breed (Ph. 809b14–36 with Lewis/ Llewellyn-Jones 2018, 332). Lion bones dating from the Bronze Age have been found in several parts of Greece (Peloponnese, Macedon, Phocis, Aegean islands) and south-eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Turkish Thrace, Ukraine) (see Thomas 2012) and there is a longstanding debate regarding their existence in historical times. Lions were extinct before the classical period in mainland Greece and before the 1st century BC in Northern Greece (Millis 2015a, 307; Lewis / Llewellyn-Jones 2018, 304–305, Sallares 1991, 401–404 for the reasons of their disappearance), a fact that Dio Chrysostomus also testifies to in the 2nd century AD (Dio Chrys. 21.1). Herodotus (7.124–126) reports that lions attacked camels in Xerxes’ army during its march from Acanthus to Therme (Thermaic Gulf) and according to Pausanias (6.5.4–5), the late 5th – early 4th century Olympic victor Polydamas killed a lion on Mount Olympus (with Fox 2011, 10–11; Lewis / Llewellyn-Jones 2018, 331). In the 4th century, Xenophon (Kyn. 11) mentions hunting of lions and other big animals in the mountain range above Anthemous–Galatista (possibly the place where the attack on Xerxes’ camels took place, see Fox 2011, 11). A 3rd-century BC bilingual tomb stele from Attica (IG II2 8388) commemorates a Phoenician who appears to have been killed by a lion, but the existence of wild lions existing in Attica during the Hellenistic period is still considered impossible (Stager 2005; Lewis / Llewellyn-Jones 2018, 332). Lions might have never existed in Attica (see Welcker [1844-1867] 1973, no. 2.199, n. 2.), and in general, “the presence of the lion in classical art and literature belies their scarcity in real life” (Lewis / Llewellyn-Jones 2018, 305). In this context, the reference to the lion underscores the uniqueness of the topic that is being discussed in the fragment and could perhaps allude to the disguise of one of the

Περσίς (fr. 2)

39

actors. Building on the proposal of Webster (see above, “Interpretation”), and if indeed the fragment belongs to a riddling dialogue with a girl in Persian disguise, this Persian disguise could really be that of a lion. 3 δασύποδ᾽ Literally “hairy-foot”, i.e. a hare (LSJ s. v. δασύπους; also e. g. Cratin. fr. 434; Antiph. fr. 131.6; Arist. HA 511a31), also known as λαγώς (cf. Alc. Com. fr. 17 with Orth 2013, 285). Hares were considered clean and delicious but cheap food; cf. Ephipp. fr. 9 δασύπους ἄν τις εἰσέλθηι, φέρε, 15.1–3 ἀλλ᾽ ἀγόρασον εὐτελῶς … μὴ πολυτελῶς, ἀλλὰ καθαρείως (with Papachrysostomou 2021, 167); Nicostr. fr. 4.1–3 τί οὖν ἀγοράζω; φράζε γάρ. / (Β.) μὴ πολυτελῶς, ἀλλὰ καθαρείως, δασύποδα, / ἐὰν περιτύχηις, ἀγόρασον καὶ νηττία. Hares are roasted on spits (Ar. Ach. 1005–1006; Eccl. 843; Archestr. fr. 57.4 Olson / Sens) or are cooked stewed (Ar. Ach. 1105–1106); Aristophanes mentions four pieces of hare as part of a satisfactory menu for one’s guests in a countryside setting (Ar. Pax 1149–1150); on hares as a dish see Chandezon 2015, esp. 138–139. In combination with λέοντας of line 2, the speaker’s alleged incapacity of finding a hare regardless their abundance highlights even more the exquisite presence of the lion, whose rarity is a given. Hares as prey are common in Attic paintings, especially together with foxes, a traditional predator (see Barringer 2001, 108–109, also with examples of inversions of the roles of hunted and hunter that most probably reflect human behavior). If indeed λέοντας of line 2 refers to a girl in lion disguise (certainly an extraordinary sight), then δασύποδ’ of line 3 could refer to the ordinary young females that were not in lion disguise. For further references see Orth 2013, 83; Biles / Olson 2015, 209; Papachrysostomou 2021, 167.

40

Incertae fabulae fragmentum fr. 3 K.–A. (1 Demiańczuk) (a) Hdn. Π. ἀκλίτων ῥημ. p. 30.1 (adn. de ed. Ald.) et 3 (προστακτικὴ ἔγκλισις) τὸ δὲ παρὰ Ναυσικράτει (νηυσὶ κράτης Ald., corr. Nauck) λεγόμενον ε ὕ ρ η κ ε (λέγομεν εὕρηκεν Ald.) ἀπὸ θέματός ἐστι τοῦ εὑρήκω … (accedit cod. Harl. apud An. Ox. IV p. 339.19–21) ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ κέκλυκε (καὶ τὸ κέκλυσε δὲ Harl.) παρ᾽ Ἐπιχάρμωι (fr. 188) ἀπὸ θέματος τοῦ κεκλύκω, καὶ (ὡς?) εὕρηκε ἀπὸ τοῦ εὑρήκω (καὶ εὕρ. ἀ. τ. εὑρ. om. Hilgard) (imperative conjugation) the form ε ὕ ρ η κ ε attested in Nausicrates derives from the [present] stem of the verb εὑρήκω … and even the form κέκλυκε in Epicharmus derives from the stem of the verb κεκλύκω, and (just as?) the form εὕρηκε derives from the verb εὑρήκω (b) Choerob. in Theodos. Can. p. 238.11 λέγει ὁ Ἡρωδιανός, ὅτι … ἀπὸ τοῦ εὕρηκα γίνεται ὁ ἐνεστὼς εὑρήκω, καὶ ἐκ τούτου ὁ παρατατικὸς εὕρηκον εὕρηκες εὕρηκε, καὶ λοιπὸν τὸ προστακτικὸν εὕρηκε σύ Herodianus says that … the present form εὑρήκω is constructed from the verb εὕρηκα, and from that the imperfect εὕρηκον εὕρηκες εὕρηκε, and then the imperative εὕρηκε σύ.

Discussion Nauck 1889; Körte 1935, in RE XVI.2, 2020, s. v. Nausikrates; Demiańczuk 1912, 64; Kassel 1973; Edmonds 1959 II, 372; Hidber 2002, in NP I s. v. Nausicrates Citation Context Hilgard edited Herodianus’ Περὶ ἀκλίτων ῥημάτων (Excerpta ex libris Herodiani Technici, Leipzig 1887), including annotations to the 1496 edition of Aldus Manutius’ Thesaurus cornucopiae et horti Adonidis (text a). Instead of a reference to Nausicrates, Manutius had printed νηυσὶ κράτης, which Nauck (1889, 467) emended to Ναυσικράτει. Herodian’ s note on the imperative εὕρηκε is in accord with the form κέκλυκε, also an imperative in Epicharmus (fr. 188). The latter part of Herodian’s note is also included in cod. Harleianus, published in Anecdota Graeca bibliothecarum oxoniensium (vol. 4, Oxford 1837). This information on the imperative εὕρηκε is also attested in Choeroboscus’ treatment of Theodosius’ participle rules (p. 238, 11) (text b). Interpretation Both sources confirm that Nausicrates used an idiomatic imperative, also used by Epicharmus (and the Syracusans in general), according to which a present tense form is constructed after a perfect tense form, producing present forms like εὑρήκω and κεκλύκω (further examples include ὀλώλω and δεδοίκω, as attested in An. Ox. IV p. 339, 19-21).

41

Nicostratus Introduction 1. Name and Identity The biggest debate regarding Nicostratus (PA #11038; PAA #718525) in Hellenistic scholarship relates to whether he was a son of Aristophanes.33 Apollodorus of Athens (2nd century BC, see Nervegna 2019, 65–66) reports that Nicostratus was Aristophanes’ son, while the circle of Dicaearchus (4th century BC, see Orth 2019a, 262–263; fr. 83 Wehrli 1967 = 103 Fortenbaugh and Schütrumpf 2001) maintains that according to the Arethas scholia on Plato (Apol. 19c [14–15 Cufalo]), the son of Aristophanes whom Apollodurus calls Nicostratus, is really Philetaerus, insisting on the fact that Aristophanes had three sons, not four (FGrHist 244 fr. 75 = Aristophanes testimonium 3.13–16 K.–A. τρεῖς δ᾽ ἔσχεν [Ἀριστοφάνης] υἱούς, Φίλιππον τὸν τοῖς Εὐβούλου δράμασιν ἀγωνισάμενον, καὶ Ἀραρότα ἰδίοις τε καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς δράμασι διηγωνισμένον, καὶ τρίτον ὃν Ἀπολλόδωρος μὲν Νικόστρατον καλεῖ, οἱ δὲ περὶ Δικαίαρχον Φιλέταιρον). Similar information is also given in the Life of Aristophanes attached to mss. V and E (= Test. 1.55–56 [following Apollodorus] καὶ οὕτως μετήλλαξε τὸν βίον παῖδας καταλιπὼν τρεῖς, Φίλιππον ὁμώνυμον τῶι πάππωι καὶ Νικόστρατον καὶ Ἀραρότα, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐδίδαξε τὸν Πλοῦτον), where it is mentioned that some sources only point at two sons perhaps because these are the ones Aristophanes himself (fr. 604) is also acknowledging (τινὲς δὲ δύο φασί, Φίλιππον καὶ Ἀραρότα, ὧν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐμνήσθη˙ τῆν γυναῖκα δ᾽ αἰσχύνομαι τώ τ᾽ οὐ φρονοῦντε παιδίω, ἴσως αὐτοὺς λέγων). Further confusion is being created by the existence of another comic poet in the period of New Comedy with the same name,34 as well as two fourth-century tragic actors,35 a dithyrambic poet,36 and one chorus teacher.37

33

34

35 36 37

According to ancient sources, Aristophanes is attributed with the sons Nicostratus or Philetaerus (PAA #924630), Ararus (PAA #160355), as well as Philippus (PAA #930110 = 930115). See Zimmermann 2014, 132; Henderson 2019, 80. Cf. Körte 1936, in RE XVII.1, 545–546, s. v. Nikostratos 21), Dover in OCD3 1044 s. v. Nicostratus 2. PAA has both poets under the same listing (#717820). Nicostratus II (PA #11038; PAA #717838) took second place at the City Dionysia in 312/311 BC (IG II2 2323a Col. 1.9–10) and took part in a festival on Delos with Philemon and Ameinias in 280 BC (IG XI.2 107.25). In the mid-180s we also come across Nicostratus III (IG II2 2323.279), perhaps also a member of the family. Stephanis #1861 (PAA #717820), #1863 (PAA #717835). Attested in IG I2 769; see Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 49. Stephanis #1862. In general, the name appears to have been common, borne by numerous other men (see the long list in LGPN II s. v.).

42

Nicostratus

We cannot be certain whether Apollodorus or Dicaearchus should be more trustworthy, especially since ancient sources reveal considerable confusion regarding the attribution of the plays Antyllos (Nicostratus frr. 4–6, see below; cf. Ath. 2.65d Νικόστρατος ἢ Φιλέταιρος) and Oinopoios / Oinopion (Nicostratus fr. 17, see below; the Suda α 1703 gives the title as Οἰνοποιῶι, but Meursius [1701, 1585a] emended to Οἰνοπίωνι because Philetaerus also wrote a play with the same title).

2. Chronology / Career We know of three poets under the name Nicostratus. Apart from our Middle Comedy poet (PAA #718525), there was also another Nicostratus (PAA #717838), active during the late fourth and early third centuries BC (Kaibel 1906, 132 and Körte 1936, in RE XVII.1, 546.25, s. v. Nikostratos 21 attribute to him the play Basileis [see fr. 8 below] but no play can be credited to him with certainty) who is mentioned in the victor lists as the Lenaea (Millis / Olson 2325 E.65) and took second place at the City Dionysia in 311 BC (Millis / Olson 2323a col. I.9. See Shaw 2019), as well as a Nicostratus active during the second century BC, who came last in the comic contest of the City Dionysia in 185 BC (Millis / Olson 2323.279). The suspicion regarding Nicostratus’ pedigree, if indeed he was Aristophanes’ son is mostly reinforced by the fact that Antyllos and Oinopoios are titles also attributed to Philetaerus (frr. 13–14, see ad loc.). In terms of chronology, Nicostratus appears in a choragic victory dedication (IG II2 3094; see test. 2 below, with Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 48; Csapo / Wilson 2020, 162–164) recording a performance at the Rural Dionysia in the deme of Ikarion, datable (by letter forms) to 400–375 BC (Csapo / Wilson 2020, 162). There are no other testimonia that can point towards additional chronological information, other than the general fact that if indeed Nicostratus is connected to Aristophanes, he lived during and after Aristophanes’ lifespan (i.e. ca. 446–380 BC). Nicostratus’ possible participation in the Ikarion Dionysia during the first quarter of the fourth century creates no chronological clash with him being Aristophanes’ son, hence born somewhere in the last quarter of the fifth century and being of age during the first quarter of the fourth century. If Nicostratus’ play Antyllos (frr. 4–6, see the discussion below) is connected to Antikles (uncertain; see the discussion below on Antyllos, “Title”, “Content”, “Date”), an athlete who won a σταδιοδρομία in the Olympic games of 340 BC, then the span of his production is relatively wide, covering roughly the first half of the fourth century. Fr. 25 (from the play Syros) could potentially be instructive in terms of chronology since it includes a reference to a planos named Cephisodorus. We possess no other information on this planos however, making this external reference irrelevant (see the discussion in fr. 25 below). Fr. 26 (from the play Tokistēs) could give us some information on chronology through the reference

Introduction

43

to a Chaerephon; Chaerephon could be Socrates’ student, mentioned by Plato and Xenophon and parodied by Aristophanes, confirming Nicostratus’ floruit in the first half of the fourth century, but he could also be the notorious Athenian parasite, dating to the second half of the fourth century (see discussion in fr. 26 below). However, caution is advisable. Not only such a prolonged career is based on a series of assumptions which cannot be firmly corroborated, but also the possibility of such an extended floruit is at odds with the rather limited overall production of approximately 23 plays.38 All testimonies considered, Nicostratus’ career should be placed somewhere during the first half of the fourth century BC; we have no exact dates for any of his comedies.

3. Tradition and Reception From Nicostratus’ dramatic production there survive twenty-three play-titles (two of them perhaps spurious: Rhētōr and Ōtēs) and forty fragments (twelve of which belong to unknown play-titles [frr. 28–39] and one of which might be spurious [fr. 40]). All of Nicostratus’ fragments have been transmitted through the indirect tradition, surviving as quotations in ancient and mediaeval authors. More than half of Nicostratus’ fragments (twenty-four: frr. 1–14, 16, 18–20, 22–23, 25–27, 31) have been preserved by Athenaeus. The complexity of text-transmission and source-finding of Athenaeus makes impossible to reach any safe conclusions regarding his own system of quotation or the authors and works he is quoting;39 it is generally believed though that Athenaeus did not make direct use of the comic texts and that his quotations are mostly derived from older scholarly compilations, anthologies and other secondary works.40 In the case of Nicostratus, nowhere does Athenaeus acknowledge his sources or asserts direct access to the plays. Six of Nicostratus’ fragments (frr. 21, 24, 36–39) are quoted in Photius’ Lexicon (one of the most important Byzantine scholars, Photius was the patriarch of Constantinople, c. 810–c. 893 AD. He is known mainly for the Bibliotheca, but he also composed a Lexicon; see Dickey 2007, 101). The Lexicon, possibly created as an aim to Attic prose composition, generally draws upon earlier sources and compila-

38

39 40

There survive twenty-three play-titles, but Rhētōr and Ōtēs maybe spurious. A list of twenty-three plays seems small for such an extended time-span, in comparison to Aristophanes who in a period of 40 years wrote more than 40 comedies, or other Middle Comedy poets, whose production was vastly bigger (see e. g. Alexis, whose output might have reached about 220 comedies [Arnott 1996, 14]). For a discussion of the status quo see Nesselrath 1990, 65–79. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf 1889 I, 176. See also the discussion in Olson 2017, 15–16; Millis 2015a, 18–19.

44

Nicostratus

tions either indirectly (e. g. from Aelius Dionysius, Pausanias, and Diogenianus) or directly41 (e. g. from the Synagogue42). Although it insists mostly on prose words, it is also a very important source of comic fragments (with the majority of citations coming from Old Comedy; see Orth 2019b). With reference to the quotations of Nicostratus, fr. 21 is the only fragment which can be traced back to the Atticistic lexicon of Aelius Dionysius (1st-2nd century AD), one of the works that Photius had read as testified in his Bibliotheca (see Orth 2019b). Four of the surviving fragments (frr. 15, 28–30) are found in the so called Anthologion of Stobaeus. One of Nicostratus’ fragments appears in book 1 (fr. 15), which generally cites passages of earlier writers on a variety of topics. Frr. 28 and 30 are found in Stobaeus’ book 3 and fr. 29 in book 4. Books 3 and 4 collect passages touching on a plethora of moral, political and social themes. Stobaeus composed his compilation probably in the early 5th century AD, collecting excerpts from both poetry and prose. It is unclear what Stobaeus’ system or preferences of selection of passages were (perhaps “their overall cultural and educational usefulness” Piccione 2019, 906), as it is unclear to what extent does he alter or omit parts of the texts he quotes in order to illustrate specific moral positions more clearly.43 The remaining sources for the fragments are the Suda lexicon (fr. 17),44 the second-century grammarian Harpocration (fr. 35), the second-century theologian and philosopher Clement of Alexandria (fr. 32), Eustathius’ (12th century AD) commentary on the Iliad (fr. 33),45 the Byzantine lexicon of Joannes Zonaras (11th–12th century AD) drawing for this quotation (fr. 34) on the lexicon of Oros of Alexandria (5th century AD), as well as the Scholiast to Eur. Phoenissae (fr. 40). No ancient judgements on Nicostratus have been preserved, but he is clearly considered a poet of comedy (Sud. ν 405 Νικόστρατος, κωμικός; Ptol. Chenn. apud Phot. Bibl. 190 p. 153a 23.34 Νικόστρατον δὲ τὸν κωμικόν) or a poet of Middle Comedy (Ath. 13.587d Νικόστρατος, ὁ τῆς μέσης κωμωιδίας ποιητής).

41

42

43 44 45

Forbes / Browning / Wilson in OCD4, 1141 s. v. Photius; Dickey 2007, 101–102. For additional bibliography and extended discussion of the sources used by Photius, see Theodorides 1982 (vol. 1), lxxii–lxxvi. The Synagogue (Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων) is also known as Lexicon Bachmannianum or Lexicon Bekkeri VI. It was composed in the late 8th or early 9th century AD, with a big part of it being added later. It was based on the lexicon of Cyrillus (see Dickey 2007, 102). See the discussion in Arnott 1996, 43–44; Millis 2015a, 18–19 on the quotations of Anaxandrides. See above, n. 6. See Beta 2019.

Introduction

45

4. Themes and Motifs The Suda attributes to Nicostratus 16 plays (Pandrosos, Antyllos, Hierophant, Klinē, Habra, Hesiodos, Diabolos, Anterōsa, Hecatē, Mageiros, Ōtēs, Ploutos, Syros, Apelaunomenos, Pseudostigmatias, and Tokistēs).46 Nicostratus’ poetry has been preserved exclusively in fragments, the vast majority of which are extremely short (only eight fragments read more than three lines [frr. 4, 5, 9, 13, 18, 19, 20, 27] and eight have no surviving verses at all [frr. 12, 17, 23, 35–40]). On a practical level, this means that one needs to be extremely cautious when attempting to reconstruct the action of any fragmentarily preserved comedy, let alone its position in the wider cultural, poetic, as well as political context.47 The titles of the comedies however can give us significant information regarding Nicostratus’ use of comic themes and motifs. Many of Nicostratus’ plays align with themes and motifs that dominated the fourth-century comic stage, mythological burlesque being one of them.48 During Middle Comedy, there existed two types of comic parodies, one offering straight parodies of the myth and another one dealing with the parody of currently popular tragedies (Arnott 2010, 296–298). Hecatē (fr. 10) and Pandrosos (frr. 18–20) both suggest mythological parody, although both contain fragments with sympotic allusions. Unlike these two, very little can be said on Nicostratus’ Ploutos (fr. 23). Regardless the existence of other comedies with the same or similar titles (cf. Aristophanes’ complete Ploutos II of 388 and the fragmentary preserved Ploutos I of 408 [frr. 458–465], Cratinus’ Ploutoi [frr. 171–179], Epicharmus’ Elpis or Ploutos [frr. 31–37], Archippus’ Ploutos [frr. 37–41]) the absence of any fragment makes any assumptions on the plot unsafe (pace Kock’s hypothesis on the play being a review of Aristophanes’ Ploutos; see discussion below, fr. 23). Another group of Nicostratus’ titles identify a male or female individual character and can be further classified in the following categories: (i) titles that identify a character by his job or activity, such as the Hierophantēs (Initiatory Priest; fr. 12), the Mageiros (Cook; fr. 16),49 the Oinopoios (Wine-producer; fr. 17), the Ornitheutēs (Bird-catcher), the Rhētōr (Orator; fr. 24), the Tokistēs (Money-

46 47 48 49

On the problems regarding the plays Pandrosos, Klinē, and Ōtēs see the discussion on test. 1 below. On the problematics of reconstructing fragmentary texts, see the discussion in Olson 2017, 17–18; Lamari / Montanari / Novokhatko 2020, 3–18. On the fragments of Middle Comedy’s myth burlesques, see Nesselrath 1990, 192–200; Arnott 2010, 294–300; Konstantakos 2014. Of “cooks” as roles that developed in Middle Comedy and became established character-types in New Comedy see Dohm 1964; Giannini 1960; Wilkins 2000, 369–414; Arnott 2010, 319–322.

46

Nicostratus

lender; fr. 26),50 (ii) a title consisting in a nickname that particularly points to the characters’ profession or special characteristic, in this case presumably a slave (Pseudostigmatias [The Falsely Tattooed; fr. 27]),51 (iii) titles denoting the status of one or more of the male or female characters, who may be a slave (Habra, frr. 1–2, see Arnott 2010, 317) or a free person: Basileis (Kings; fr. 8), Patriōtai (Men from the Same Country; fr. 22), (iv) titles that point to the characterization of a major character, such as Anterōsa (Avenging Lover; fr. 3), Apelaunomenos (Banished; fr. 7), or Diabolos (Slanderer; fr. 9), (v) titles that refer to an object of importance to the plot [like Klinē (Couch; frr. 13–14)] or a narratively crucial incident, like Parakolymbōsa (The Girl who swam beside; fr. 21) (vi) titles that refer to characters of non-Athenian origin, namely Lakōnes (Laconians; fr. 15), and Syros (Syrian; fr. 25). The comedy Antyllos (frr. 4–6) is perhaps named after a real person, possibly a fourth-century athlete or a student of Socrates (see discussion below). Lastly, one of Nicostratus’ play-titles is a rare allusion to a literary author; Hesiodos (Hesiod; fr. 11) seems to have belonged to a list of comedies that brought on stage figures of the earlier Greek literary and intellectual tradition (Telecleides’ Hesiodoi, Cratinus’ Archilochoi, Alexis’ Archilochos and Aisōpos, the Sapphō by Antiphanes, Ephippus, Ameipsias, Timocles and Diphilus) or involved a certain amount of literary criticism, such as Aristophanes’ Frogs, Cratinus’ Archilochoi and Didaskaliai, Alexis’ Archilochos, Poiētai and Paratragōdos, Antiphanes’ Poiēsis, as well as Axionicus’ and Philippides’ Phileuripidēs. Lastly, one can notice some patterns that stand out; more than half of the surviving fragments (21/40) are alluding to sympotic or culinary context containing references to cooks or servants listing delicious foods or opulent special dishes (frr. 11, 12, 13, 16, 17) that are about to be served (frr. 1, 2, 7) or purchased (frr. 4, 5), or featuring servants or guests referring to utensils, drinking cups, sympotic toasts, banquet rituals (frr. 3, 8, 10, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 33).

5. Kōmōidoumenoi The title Antyllos (frr. 4–6) appears to be the shortened form of the name Ἀντικλῆς (Körte 1938, in RE XIX.2, 2164.61–65, s. v. Philetairos with Breitenbach 1908, 44–45), more than forty references of which occur in the various demes of Attica between the fifth and third centuries BC (LGPN II s. v. Ἀντικλῆς). A fourth-century Ἀντικλῆς was a student of Isocrates (PAA #1056) and another Ἀντικλῆς was an 50 51

On the connection between this type of play-titles and New Comedy’s standard roles as a development of the dramatic genre see Arnott 2010, 314–315. Of “parasites” as roles that developed in Middle Comedy and became established character-types in New Comedy see Arnott 1968; Nesselrath 1985, esp. 92–111; Tylawsky 2002, esp. 59–77, 93–106; Arnott 2010, 322–324.

Introduction

47

athlete of σταδιοδρομία (PAA #1057). Both possibilities should be treated with caution. Fr. 20 offers a reference to Ocimon (“Basil”), a fourth-century courtesan that was also mentioned by Hyperides in Against Aristagoras (fr. 13 Jensen), as well as in Anaxandr. fr. 9 and Eub. fr. 53. In fr. 25, an unknown speaker refers to a joke set up by Cephisodorus, an Athenian fourth-century practical joker (πλάνος), whose fame seems to have outlived him (cf. Dionys. Com. fr. 4). Fr. 26 mentions a Chaerephon, most possibly the notorious fourth-century parasite (although a weaker identification also stands, see below, Tokistēs “Date”; fr. 26 “Interpretation”), frequenting in many other fourth-century fragments (e. g. Alex. frr. 213, 259; Antiph. fr. 197; Menand. frr. 55, 215, 225, 265; Timocl. fr. 9; Timoth. fr. 1). Fr. 29 contains a reference to Euripides, quoting verbatim Eur. fr. 661.1 (from Stheneboia). The quotation could allude to Aristophanes’ Frogs 1217–1219, or could also suggest acclaim towards the great poet, who through his poetry stays alive and is brought back to life. Nevertheless, this type of Euripidean allusions are frequent in Middle comedy (see Olson 2007, 178–179; Hanink 2014, 169–190; Farmer 2017, 41–111).

6. Language We do not possess any ancient or Byzantine evaluation regarding Nicostratus’ language and given that the surviving fragments are in majority very short (only eight fragments read more than three lines [frr. 4, 5, 9, 13, 18, 19, 20, 27] and eight have no surviving verses at all [frr. 12, 17, 23, 35–40]), the information at our disposal is overall very limited. We can however notice that at least five fragments (frr. 15, 24, 28–30) include elevated language, often in the form of sententiae: regarding time (fr. 15), happiness (fr. 29 [a verbatim quotation of Eur. fr. 661.1]), or freedom of speech (fr. 30). Fr. 24 contains an asyndeton which maximizes the derogatory characteristics of a series of adjectives (fr. 24) and fr. 28 an emphatic array of words that indicate excess (referring to the verb λαλεῖν). With respect to rare linguistic choices, frr. 9 and 31 include two hapaxes in all of Greek Literature.

7. Metre Almost all of Nicostratus’ surviving fragments are in iambic trimeter: out of 32 fragments whose meter can be determined with some certainty, 30 are in iambic

48

Nicostratus

trimeter (frr. 1–5, 7–11, 13–16, 18–22, 24, 26–34), 1 in Aeolic meters (fr. 6: glyconeus and hipponacteus in specific), and 1 in trochaic tetrameter (fr. 25). Of the 70 complete lines, 64 are in iambic trimeter. Of those, penthemimeral caesura is found in 29 lines, hepthemimeral caesura is found in 28 lines, medial caesura is found in 2 lines and 5 lines have no caesura at all. The vast majority of the total of lines in iambic trimeter (the incomplete ones included) contains one or more resolutions (65 of 89 lines). Similarly, out of 64 complete lines in iambic trimeter, only 16 have no resolution at all. Fr. 6 contains a combination of Aeolic meters, two complete lines of glyconius and one incomplete line, possibly of an hipponactean. Fr. 25 is in trochaic tetrameter catalectic, with a caesura (diaeresis) between the second and third foot.

8. Nicostratus and Other Comic Poets Due to lack of any solid information, Nicostratus’ connections to other comic poets is assumed on the basis of his pedigree or play-titles. Apart from the obvious connections to Aristophanes as possibly one of his sons (see above, “1. Name and Identity”), Nicostratus’ Ploutos may be reflecting Aristophanes’ homonymous plays (see below, “Ploutos Title”). Similarly, Nicostratus’ Lakōnes bears a title similarity to Aristophanes’ Babylōnioi, although it could be mostly connected to Plato Comicus’ Lakōnes, as well as the homonymous plays by Cratinus (PCG IV, fr. 102), Eupolis (PCG V, fr. 191), Nicochares (PCG VII, fr. 13) and Eubulus (PCG V, frr. 60–63. See below, “Lakōnes Title”). A possible confusion of Nicostratus with Nicochares regarding the authorship of Lakōnes, could also parallel a possible confusion of Nicostratus with Philetaerus, also one of Aristophanes’ sons regarding the play Oinopoios, seemingly written (perhaps with slight differences in title) by both Nicostratus and Philetaerus (PCG VII, frr. 13–14. See below, “Oinopoios Title”). Similarly, Athenaeus attributes Antyllos to either Nicostratus or Philetaerus (Ath. 3.118e), while the Suda to Philetaerus (Sud. φ 308 . See below, “Antyllos Title”). Additional similarities regarding Nicostratus’ and other poets’ play-titles are also noticed: Crates also wrote Rhētores (PCG IV, fr. 30), Antiphanes an Anterōsa (PCG II, fr. 39), Anaxandrides an Anterōs (PCG II, fr. 7), and Telecleides Hesiodoi (PCG VII, frr. 15–24). A less obvious connection with Nicostratus’ Hesiodos could be that with Cratinus’ Archilochoi (PCG IV, frr. 1–16), Alexis’ Archilochos (or Archilochoi PCG II, frr. 22–23), as well as Antiphanes’ (PCG II, frr. 194–195), Ameipsias’ (PCG II, fr. 15), Ephippus’ (PCG V, fr. 20), and Amphis’ (PCG II, fr. 32) Sapphō. Later than Nicostratus, Clearchus has also written a Pandrosos (PCG IV, fr. 4), Apollodorus Carystius also wrote a Diabolos (PCG II, frr. 6–7), perhaps also

Introduction

49

reflected in Plautus’ Asinaria (see below, “Diabolos Title”), Diphilus also wrote a Hecatē (PCG V, frr. 27–28) and a Sapphō (PCG V, frr. 70–71).

9. Literature Editions, Translations, Commentaries: Meineke 1839 I, 346–349; Meineke 1840 ΙΙΙ, 278–291; Meineke 1847 Ι, 632–640; Bothe 1855, 469–475; Kock 1884 II, 219–230; Blaydes 1896, 136–139; Edmonds 1959 II, 28–43; PCG VII, 74–92; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 620–632; Studies, Dictionaries: DGRBM II, 1201 s. v. Nicostratus literary; PA #11038; Körte 1936, in RE XVII.1, 545–546, s. v. Nikostratos 20–21; Nesselrath 1990, 61–62; PAA #718525; Bäbler 2002, in NP I s. v. Nicostratus 4; Arnott 2010, 288; Rusten 2011, 525–529; Shaw 2019, 611

50

Commentary Testimonia test. 1 K.–A. Sud. ν 405 Νικόστρατος, κωμικός. τούτου μέμνηται Ἀθήναιος ἐν β Δειπνοσοφιστῶν (p. 47e, fr. 31; p. 65d, fr. *4). λέγει δὲ ὅτι δράματα αὐτοῦ ἐστι Πάνδροσος, καὶ Ἄντυλλος ὃς καὶ Φιλεταίρου δοκεῖ εἶναι, καὶ Ἱεροφάντης, καὶ Κλίνη, ἔτι δὲ Ἅβρα καὶ Ἡσίοδος καὶ Διάβολος καὶ Ἀντερῶσα καὶ Ἑκάτη, Μάγειρος Ὤτης Πλοῦτος Σύρος Ἀπελαυνόμενος Ψευδοστιγματίας καῖ Τοκιστής. ταῦτα †ἐν παραθήκηι† εὗρον κείμενα 3 Πάνδροσος Kuster: –δαρος ὃς AV, Gaisford, Adler: –δαρος ὃ GM 4 Κλεινή codd 6 Ὤτης AV: Ὤτις GM: Πατριῶται ex Ath. Gaisford (vid. Wagner Symb. 7 ἐν παραθήκηι codd.: ἐν παρενθ– Bernhardy: μὲν (hoc dubitanter) παρ᾽ 632) Ἀθηναίωι Rohde 1901, 137 Nicostratus, a comic poet. Athenaeus in (book) 2 of Deipnosophists mentions him. He says that his plays are Pandrosos, and Antyllos, which is also thought to be by Philetaerus, and Hierophantēs, and Klinē, plus Habra and Hesiodos and Diabolos and Anterōsa and Hecatē, Mageiros, Ōtēs, Ploutos, Syros, Apelaunomenos, Pseudostigmatias, and Tokistēs. These I found †placed as a citation†

Discussion DGRBM II, 1201 s. v. Nicostratus literary; Meineke 1839 I, 347–349; Meineke 1840 III, 278–291; Flach 1880, 195; Daub 1882, 135–136; Rohde 1901, 137; Wagner 1905, 43 and n. 3–4, 63 and n. 2; Edmonds 1959 II, 28–29; PCG VII, 74; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 620–621; Lorenzoni 2012, 332–336 Citation Context Apart from entries on other authors and genres, the Suda contains 86 biographical entries on Greek comic poets (cf. Arnott 1991, 328–330; Arnott 1996, 4), most generally identified as drawing on an epitomized version of Onomatologos (cf. Wentzel 1898; Leo 1901, 30–31; Wagner 1905, 30–55; Schultz 1913, 1323.29–7.46; Adler 1931, 706.43–9.48; Blum 1977, 284–302; Arnott 1991, 327–330; Ornaghi 2002, 113–115; Kaldellis, 2005, 384–388; Orth 2013, 18–20; Orth 2015, 15; Hartwig 2019), a lexicon-like listing of poets, philosophers, historians, orators, grammarians, doctors and other authors, compiled by 6th cent. AD historian Hesychius of Miletus (cf. Kaldellis 2005, 381–384; Kaldellis ad FGrHist 390 [Brill Online, The New Jacoby]; for a list of the criteria that work towards the assignment of an entry to Hesychius see Orth 2013, 19). This entry however is one of the many cases where information is taken from Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists, because of the indication of the lemma (Ἀθήναιος ἐν β᾽ Δειπνοσοφιστῶν). The wording of the lemma however, using the phrase δράματα αυτοῦ ἐστί (and not τῶν δραμάτων αὐτοῦ ἐστί) is reflecting lists in Hesychius and might show that

Testimonia (test. 1)

51

the compiler of the Suda was using lists of interpolated Athenaeus that were contaminated in Hesychius, therefore giving credit to Athenaeus for the citation, but really using a form of Athenaeus found in Hesychius (Lorenzoni 2012, 327 n. 15). Interpretation The Suda attributes to Nicostratus 16 plays (Pandrosos, Antyllos, Hierophantēs, Klinē, Habra, Hesiodos, Diabolos, Anterōsa, Hecatē, Mageiros, Ōtēs, Ploutos, Syros, Apelaunomenos, Pseudostigmatias, and Tokistēs). Regardless of the reference of the lemma τούτου μέμνηται Ἀθήναιος ἐν β᾽Δειπνοσοφιστῶν, none of these titles appear in book 2 (it is a book preserved only in the Epitome, which normally omits play-titles. See Lorenzoni 2012, 333). Nicostratus’ name appears in the Epitome for the first time in 2.47e, with no reference to any play-title. The fragment cited in 2.47e however (incertarum fabularum fr. 31), is considered by Wagner (1905, 43 n.3) and Lorenzoni (2012. 333; albeit more reluctantly) as belonging to Pandrosos because that is the first play-title of the Suda list. The order of titles that follow reflects the order of the succession of the first occurrence of the plays in Athenaeus, divided in two chunks: the first one including the first occurrences of the plays Pandrosos, Antyllos, Hierophantēs, Klinē, Habra, Hesiodos, Diabolos, Anterōsa, Hecatē, Mageiros, Ōtēs (an interpolation of Patriōtai, see below) and the second one including the first occurrences of the plays Ploutos, Syros, Apelaunomenos, Pseudostigmatias, and Tokistēs.52 The lemma gives rise to four problems, all pertaining to textual tradition. The first problem concerns Πάνδροσος of line 2. The manuscripts split between the readings Πάνδαρος ὃς (A, V, also endorsed by Gaisford and Adler) and Πάνδαρος ὃ (G, M), both rightly emended by Kuster to Πάνδροσος (also in Meineke 1839 I, 348; the only known play with the title Πάνδαρος is by Anaxandrides, fr. 38–39, with Millis 2015a ad loc.), which is also the play title given by Athenaeus (15. 693a). Similarly, Κλίνη of line 4 is the reading found in Athenaeus (3.111c, also adopted by Kuster, Gaisford, Meineke, Bernhardy and Adler), but not the one attested in the manuscripts, which read Κλεινή. The third problem is that of Ὤτης (line 6), a reading found in some manuscripts (A, V), also appearing with the variation Ὤτις in other manuscripts (G, M). This play-title is not attributed to Nicostratus anywhere else, making it especially doubtful, especially since the Suda contains a list of 16 plays, i.e. two less than the references given by Athenaeus (who also includes the plays Πατριῶται and Βασιλεῖς, see Gaisford ad loc.). As rightly observed by Wagner (1905, 63 n. 2), Ὤτης must have intruded into the tradition after a series of interpolations which at the beginning read “Πατριώτης” instead of “Πατριῶται” and then dropped the first (πατρι–) part of the word.

52

Hence Antyllos (2.65d), Hierophantēs (3.110a), Klinē (3.111c), Habra (4.133c), Hesiodos (7.301b), Diabolos (11.474b), Anterōsa (11.487b), Hecatē (11.499b), Mageiros (12.517a), Ōtēs (15.700b in Patriōtai), and then a second list starting with Ploutos (6.247e), and followed by Syros (14.615f), Apelaunomenos (14.664b), Pseudostigmatias (15.685c), and Tokistēs (15.685e). See Lorenzoni 2012, 333–334.

52

Nicostratus

The last sentence of the testimonium (ταῦτα ἐν παραθήκηι εὗρον κείμενα) is also problematic. The manuscripts read ἐν παραθήκηι, Kuster omits the whole sentence in his translation, Portus considered it a marginalium, Bernhardy emended to ἐν παρενθήκηι and Rohde (in dubio) to μὲν παρ᾽ Ἀθηναίωι (1901, 137). LSJ defines παραθήκη as “anything entrusted to one, deposit” and this could only work in the sense of a physical object in which the composer of the Suda found a manuscript with this list of comedies (similarly to δ 52 on Δαμόφιλος, reading ἐξ ὧν ταῦτά μοι εὕρηται ἐπὶ ταῖς τῶν βιβλίων θήκαις, meaning literally, “I found the following works in the bookcases”, Flach 1880, 195; Wagner 1905, 43 n. 4). Daub doubts this meaning, opting rather for an explanation of the phrase which reveals a later addition to the initial text, which the composer of the Suda must have noticed, translating ταῦτα ἐν παραθήκηι εὗρον κείμενα as “dieses habe ich gefunden, indem es zugesetzt war”, i.e. “I have found these after it was added” (1882, 135–136). Lorenzoni’s recent discussion of the problem is very enlightening. According to her, παρατιθέναι should be understood as “citare”, namely “to cite”, hence both Sud. ν 405 (ταῦτα ἐν παραθήκηι εὗρον κείμενα) and Sud. δ 52 (ἐξ ὧν ταῦτά μοι εὕρηται ἐπὶ ταῖς τῶν βιβλίων θήκαις) have no connection with any physical object or shelf. On the contrary, in both cases the compiler of the Suda seems to be referring to information found in citations, which were most probably placed in the margins of manuscripts (Lorenzoni 2012, 334). Lorenzoni’s reading is with no doubt a reasonable possibility. I find however that secure restoration is impossible and the sentence shall thus be treated as locus desperatus.

*test. 2 K.–A. IG II2 3094 (dedicatio in demo Icariensium, 400–375 BC)53 Ἄ]ρχιππος Ἀρχεδέ[κτο ν]ικήσας ἀνέθηκε [τῶι Διονύσωι. Νικόστρατος ἐδίδασ[κε A]rchippus son of Archede[ctus v]ictorious, dedicated this [to Dionysus. Nicostratus was didas[kalos

Discussion Buck 1889a; Buck 1889b; Edmonds 1959 II, 28–29; PickardCambridge 1968, 48–49; PCG VII, 74; LeVen 2014, 36; Csapo / Slater 1995, 126; Rusten 2011, 127, 525; Wilson 2015; Csapo / Wilson 2020, 162–164

53

Dating by letter forms, see Csapo / Wilson 2020, 162–164.

Testimonia (*test. 2)

53

Citation Context The inscription is found on a marble base inserted in a wall of a Byzantine church at Ikarion (Buck 1889a, 27–28; Buck 1889b; Csapo/Wilson 2020, 163).54 ἀνέθηκε of line 2 makes it unlikely for the marble to have been intended to support a tripod, that is an official monument, and most probably belongs to a thank-offering of a private person (Buck 1889a, 21), as a dedication to the god for victory (Csapo / Wilson 2020, 163). Interpretation The inscription refers to the rural Dionysia held in the deme of Ikarion and attests a choregia55 as well as a dramatic contest in which the poet Nicostratus took part (Buck 1889a, 30). Archippus, the choregos is otherwise unknown, although he is possibly an ancestor of the Archippus of Ikarion (the father of the Cleitopolis whose grave monument was found in Peiraeus: IG II2 6282. See Csapo / Wilson 2020, 163). The fact that Archippus appears without demotics suggests that he was a local demesman (Whitehead 1986, 216; on the parallels of the omission of χορηγῶν see Csapo / Wilson 2020, 171–174) and we have to consider the (remote) possibility of one or more missing lines, perhaps reading e. g. χορηγῶν τραγωιδοῖς (Csapo / Wilson 2020, 163). Evidence attests for a local dramatic festival in the deme of Ikarion from ca. 450 BC (IG I3 253–254 with Wilson 2000, 79–80; Wilson 2008, 90–91 and n. 11; Wilson 2015; Csapo / Wilson 2020, 136–144) and archaeological evidence testifies to a theater building from ca. 350 BC (Csapo / Wilson 2015, 321). There is earlier evidence of an Archaic statue of a seated Dionysus (ca. 525 BC) for a sanctuary of Dionysus in Ikarion (Athens NM 3897 + 3073 + 3074 + 3072 [statue]; Marathon Museum Λ 125; Athens NM 4888 [canopy]; Romano 1982; Despinis 2007. The inscription on the statue may survive: IG I3 1015 with Takeuchi 2010–2013, 94 f.), as well as epigraphic evidence for a developed choregic system for tragedy (IG I3 254 with Wilson 2015). The deme’s affluence derived from its industrial and financial connections to the silver mines of Laurion (Csapo / Wilson 2015, 323). There is hesitant consensus that the Nicostratus mentioned on the inscription is our comic poet (Buck 1892, 89; Wilhelm 1906, 133; PCG VII, 74 pace PickardCambridge 1968, 49, who believes that it might have been the dithyrambic poet of IG I2 769 and Csapo / Wilson 2020, 163–164, who are skeptical, mainly because the name Nicostratus is very common in Attica, as well as the fact that there is no certain evidence on formal comic contests in the deme of Ikarion).

54 55

The remains of the church, St. Dionysius, stand in the archaeological site of the deme of Ikarion, today called “Deme of Dionysus”. For the other six Attic demes in which choregia is attested, see Whitehead 1986, 152.

54

Nicostratus

test. 3 K.–A. Ptol. Chenn. (2nd cent. AD) apud Phot. Bibl. 190 p. 153a 23. 34 (VII 11. 13 Chatzis) πολλοὶ … καὶ πολλαὶ ἔρωτι κάμνουσαι ἀπηλλάγησαν τοῦ ἔρωτος ἐπεὶ τῆς (Λευκάδος) πέτρας καθήλαντο … καὶ Νικόστρατον δὲ τὸν κωμικὸν Τεττιγιδαίας (-δίου Chatzis) τῆς Μυριναίας ἐρασθέντα ῥῖψαι Ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπαλλαγῆσαι τοῦ ἔρωτος And many, men … and women, lovesick, were freed from love when they jumped from the (White) rock … and Nicostratus the comic poet being in love with Tettigidaia from Myrina threw himself and was freed from love

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 346; Meineke 1840 III, 278; Kock 1884 II, 219–230; PA #11038; Wilhelm 1906, 132–133; Edmonds 1959 II, 28–29; PCG VII, 74; Nagy 1990, 229–230; Körte 1936, in RE XVII.1, 545–546, s. v. Nikostratos 20–21; Hartley 2014 Citation Context The reference belongs to the little-known work Novel History (Καινὴ Ἱστορία), a miscellany that was written by the second sophistic writer Ptolemy Chennus in the late 1st century AD (Ní Mheallaigh 2014, 117 with n. 31). What has survived is a book-by-book epitome by Photius (Bibliotheca (cod. 190), a work dating to c. 855 AD, Diller 1962, 389) and some quotations from Eustathius of Thessalonike and Ioannes Tzetzes (dating to the 12th cent. AD). The gap between Ptolemy’s original text and what has come down to us in the form of an epitome is thus substantial due to chronological as well as generic limitations. From what we can understand from Photius’ epitome, Ptolemy’s Novel History contained a collection of varied mythical and literary material, facts and problemata, including authentic, but also fabricated sources (Hartley 2014, 9-10), intending to offer entertainment (Cameron 2004), but also paideia (Ní Mheallaigh 2014, esp. 116–126). According to Photius’ epitome, Ptolemy’s Novel History was seven books long (as certified by the end of the summary, although Photius lists six books at the beginning).56 Photius’ summary of the Novel History starts at Bibl. 190 (p. 146a 41). The text above belongs to the last (seventh) book (starting at p. 152b 26), which is almost entirely dedicated to the Rock of Leukas myth (Chatzis 1914, xxxviii–xl). Interpretation Suicide by leaping from the Rock of Leukas to be cured from love draws on a rich mythological substratum. In the Odyssey λευκὰς πέτρη (19.11–12) is used in the description of the passage into the world of the dead of the ghosts of the suitors of Penelope, after Odysseus killed them. Intoxicated lust from which one is freed after leaping off the White Rock is also a theme in Anacreon (PMG fr. 370) and Eur. Cyclops (163–168). In Menander’s Leukadia, Sappho is presented throwing herself from the White Rock of Leukas in pursuit of Phaon (Leukadia

56

See Hartley 2014, 19–20.

Testimonia (test. 3)

55

fr. 1 K.–A.).57 The passage is mentioned by Strabo when describing Cape Leukas, a prominent white rock popping out of the sea somewhere between the island of Leukas and the island of Kephallenia (10.2.9). The lack of any physical tomb or hero-cult however,58 indicates that the death leap was a narrative which intruded in the tradition in accordance with the pattern by which poets die in peculiar circumstances. It actually seems to echo parallels from Sappho’s own poetry (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1913, 33–37), especially since according to PseudoPalaephatus Sappho often sung about Phaon, albeit without specific references to poems (Pseudo-Palaeph. Incredib. 48 [fr. 211a]. See also Hunter 2016; Kivilo 2021, 15–16). According to Ptolemy Chennus, the first to have jumped off the cliffs of the White Rock was no other than Aphrodite herself, having been instructed by Apollo, in order to find relief from her love for a dead Adonis (apud Phot. Bibl. 190 p. 153a 11–25). Ptolemy later launches on a list of other figures who have followed the love remedy of Apollo, Nicostratus being one of them, but nowhere does he mention Sappho or Phaon, allowing us to plausibly assume that the myth of Aphrodite and Phaon is independent of Sappho’s poetry, which appears to not have been the inspiration for the lovers’ leaps at Cape Leukas (Nagy 1990, 229). On the contrary, an ancient practice of casting victims from Cape Leukas (as described by Strabo 10.2.9) might have inspired lovers’ leaps, as well as the imaginary literary theme as found in Anacreon and Euripides (Nagy 1990, 229–230). Given the above, the information on Nicostratus’ leap is more imaginary than real (with Kirchner 1901–1903 apud PA #11038), following a developed religious and literary motif, especially since we also know of other places associated with myths about lovelorn people diving from a rock (see Nagy 1990, 230–231 for a list and analysis), the most characteristic of which being the Θορίκιος πέτρος (Soph. OC 1595), the “Thorician rock”, a wordplay with θορικός, an adjective signifying the homonymous attic deme, but also semen (by means of the noun θορός) (Nagy 1990, 231–232). Nicostatus’ lover, Tettigidaia, might have been imaginary as well. The Lexicon of Greek Personal Names has no lemma for Tettigidaia, who appears to be an orthopteron, not a human. Orthoptera is an order of insects that comprises the grasshoppers, locusts and crickets. Orthoptera also contain isophyae, a genus of bush crickets, a subtype of which is isophya lemnotica, a cricket inhabiting the island of Lemnos (Harz 1969, 45). Τεττιγιδαία Μυριναία is thus most probably a cricket who was known to inhabit Lemnos, Myrina in specific, and could have been used as a nickname for an imaginary lover. On the other hand, τεττιγιδαία could

57 58

Also in Plin. HN 22.20; Ael. VH 12.18; Auson. Cup. Cruc. 22–25; Sud. φ 89. References to Saphho’s tomb found in the Palatine Anthology (7.14, 7.16, 7.17) must be entirely literary (Platt 2018, 37–38; Kivilo 2021, 16 n. 36).

56

Nicostratus

have been used as a nickname for a girlfriend or a hetaira, even if Nicostratus’ final leap is entirely fictional.59 Ptolemy’s claims on Nicostratus were perhaps inspired by one of Nicostratus’ plays (at least one of which we know, Ὀρνιθευτής [the “Bird-Catcher”] involved animals, or animal-metaphors referring to humans) and may have been intended as satire (especially given the passage’s satiric innuendoes evident in Ptolemy’s report that the otherwise unknown Maces of Buthrotium was a “serial jumper”, having jumped from the rock and survived four times, Phot. Bibl. 190 p. 153a 36–39; see also Hartley 2014, 144). Ptolemy’s story is unrealistic also because it develops around a carefully created word play with τεττίγιον, a diminutive of τέττιξ, as well as Μύρινα, the name of the main town of Lemnos, but also an Amazon’s name, which in the Iliad is characterized as πολυσκάρθμοιο, probably related to σκαίρω (meaning “leap, dance”; cf. Il. 2. 814 with Kirk 1985, ad loc.), a movement certainly resembling that of insects.

59

There were many fish-names given to the hetairai by their lovers (Lamari 2021) but also names of other animals, plants, or pets (see Licht 1932, 408–410). Cf. also the hetaira Κερκώπη (perhaps named after a cicada species, since the noun κερκώπη designates the μικρὸν τεττίγιον τὸ καλαμαῖον λεγόμενον, Hsch. κ 2342. cf. Speusipp. fr. 10), mentioned by Philetaerus in fr. 9.1. See Papachrysostomou 2008, 230.

57

Play-titles and Fragments Ἅβρα (Habra)

(“Favorite slave”) Discussion DGRBM II, 1201 s. v. Nicostratus, literary; Meineke 1839 I, 346; Meineke 1840 III, 278–279; Breitenbach 1908, 167; Bothe 1855, 469; Kock 1884 II, 219–220; Edmonds 1959 II, 28–29; Körte 1936, in RE XVII.1, 545–546, s. v. Nikostratos 20–21; PCG VII, 75; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 621 Title LSJ defines ἅβρα as the “favourite slave”. Ancient lexica give more information, defining ἅβρα (or ἄβρα in Photius, Suda and Lexicon Bachmannianum) as a young slave who is not simply a servant but is an honored woman who works in the house, whether she has been born and bred there or not (οὔτε ἁπλῶς ἡ θεράπαινα … ἀλλ᾽ ἡ οἰκότριψ γυναικὸς κόρη καὶ ἔντιμος, εἴτε οἰκογενὴς εἴτε μή, Phot. α 50 = Sud. a 68 = Lex. Bachm. p. 4, 21–22). Aelius Dionysius refers to ἅβρα as a partner and honored servant (a 6, ἡ σύντροφος καὶ ἔντιμος καὶ παρὰ χεῖρα θεράπαινα) and Pollux describes the female comic masks for ἅβραι as masks for female slaves that are shorn all around and combined with a simple white garment (Poll. 4.151). Ἅβρα is also a personal name from the 1st cent. BC to the 2nd cent. AD (Plut. Vit. Cic. 28.3; Vit. Caes. 10.3; IG XII 1 nr. 412; CIL2 1.2, 3 nr. 2708 (as Habra); IG II2 7743). Due to lack of relevant evidence from the 4th century BC, where the play was composed, it is unlikely that ἅβρα of the title corresponds to a personal name, and not to a typical comic character, for whom there were also designated comic masks. Although we do not know of any other comedy with this title, an ἅβρα she-slave is mentioned in Menander’s Apistos (Ἄπιστος, fr. 63.3), Sikyōnioi (Σικυώνιος, fr. 1.1 with Belardinelli 1994, 234; Arnott 1997, 101–102), and Pseuderaklēs (Ψευδηρακλῆς, fr. 411.3), in all cases designating a slave who is also a man’s mistress. Content The context of frr. 1 and 2 is sympotic, both of them belonging to monologues or dialogues involving food. Other than that, both fragments allow for limited speculation on the play’s full content. An obvious possibility would involve a large-scale symposium (as inferred by fr. 1.1 where it is implied that there were many trays of food waiting to be served), with the expected enumeration of food in lists (as showed by both fragments, see frr. 1, 2 “Interpretation”), perhaps in the house where the ἅβρα of the plot was working. Date Unknown.

58

Nicostratus

fr. 1 K.–A. (1 K.) πίναξ ὁ πρῶτος τῶν μεγάλων ἡγήσεται, ἔχων ἐχῖνον, ὠμοτάριχον, κάππαριν, θρυμματίδα, τέμαχος, βολβὸν ἐν ὑποτρίμματι 1 ὁ A: δὲ Herwerden

2 fort. ἐχίνων Kaibel

The first tray will lead among the big ones, featuring sea-urchin, preserved tunny, caper, crumble-cake, slices of fish, bulbs (of grape-hyacinth) trimmed in a dipping-sauce Ath. 4.133a–c ἐχρῶντο γὰρ οἱ παλαιοὶ καὶ τοῖς εἰς ἀναστόμωσιν βρώμασιν ὥσπερ ταῖς ἁλμάσιν ἐλάαις, ἃς κολυμβάδας καλοῦσιν. Ἀριστοφάνης γοῦν ἐν Γήραι φησίν˙ … Φιλήμων δ᾽ ἐν Μετιόντι ἢ Ζωμίωι˙ … ἤσθιον δὲ καὶ τέττιγας καὶ κερκώπας ἀναστομώσεως χάριν. Ἀριστοφάνης Ἀναγύρωι˙ … ἐστὶν δ᾽ ἡ κερκώπη ζῶιον ὅμοιον τέττιγι καὶ τιτιγονίωι, ὡς Σπεύσιππος παρίστησιν ἐν τετάρτωι Ὁμοίων. μνημονεύει αὐτῶν Ἐπίλυκος ἐν Κωραλίσκωι. Ἄλεξις ἐν Θράσωνί φησι˙ … Νικόστρατος δ᾽ ἐν Ἅβραι˙ πίναξ ὁ πρῶτος —— ἐν ὑποτρίμματι For the ancients used to eat foods intended to whet their appetites, such as brined olives, which they refer to as kolumbades (“swimmers”). Aristophanes, for example, says in Gēras (fr. 148); … Philemon in Metiōn or Zōmion (fr. 42); … They also ate cicadas (tettiges) and kerkōpai to whet their appetites. Aristophanes in Anagyros (fr. 53); … The kerkōpē is a creature that resembles the cicada (tettix) and the titigonion, as Speusippus establishes in Book IV of Similar Things (fr. 10 Tarán). Epilycus mentions them in Kōraliskos (fr. 5). Alexis says in Thrasōn (fr. 96); … Nicostratus in the Habra: The first platter —— in a dipping-sauce60

Metre Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lol llkl klkl k|lkr llkl lrkr l|lkr klkl

Discussion Herwerden 1893, 159; Edmonds 1959 I, 28–29; Meineke 1840 III, 278–279; Meineke 1847 1, 632; Bothe 1855, 469; Kock 1884 II, 219–220; PCG VII, 75; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 621 Citation Context The fragment is quoted as part of a digression within Athenaeus’ discussion of the various dishes that appear in the symposia. The short excursus (Ath. 4.133a–f) includes references to dishes that are offered at the beginning of the meal in order to whet the guests’ appetite (see 4.133a εἰς ἀναστόμωσιν, 133b ἀναστομώσεως χάριν, διὰ ἀναστόμωσιν) as προοίμιον δείπνου (4.132c). These 60

Translation by Olson 2006, adapted.

Ἅβρα (fr. 1)

59

dishes could consist of τέττιξ, “cicada” and κερκώπη, a type of cicada (4.133b ἡ κερκώπη ζῶιον ὅμοιον τέττιγι καὶ τιτιγονίωι), but also of seafood or vegetables (see the dishes mentioned in this fragment) cooked in some sauce (ἐν ὑποτρίμματι). Before Nicostratus, Athenaeus quotes Aristophanes’ Gēras (fr. 148), Philemon’s Metiōn (fr. 42), Aristophanes’ Anagyrus (fr. 53), as well as Epilycus’ Koraliskos (fr. 5) and Alexis’ Thrasōn (fr. 96). Following Nicostratus, Athenaeus reports the instructions of cooking turnips as explained by Nicander in book II of the Georgics (fr. 70.4–18 Schneider), as well as a reference to a type of this introductory amuse bouche dish in Diphilus’ Apoleipousa (fr. 18). Text Herwerden (1893, 159) opts for πίναξ δὲ πρῶτος (line 1), in order to designate the procession of dishes that is just starting. In lack of what follows however, we cannot know the syntactic style of enumeration and shall leave the text as it stands in the mss. Kaibel suggests ἐχίνων (line 2), but such a change of the manuscripts’ reading would make the syntax unnecessarily strained. What is more, τῶν μεγάλων is much more likely to correspond to πίναξ, than to ἐχῖνον, since big trays (μεγάλοι πίνακες) of cold appetizers like sea-urchins were expected to be served (see Lync. fr. 1.17–19 … (Α.) πίνακά μοι / τούτων παραθήσεις αὐτὸν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ μέγαν. / ἔχεις ἔχίνους; (Β.) ἕτερος ἔσται σοι πίναξ). Interpretation A speaker, whose identity is unknown,61 is enumerating a series of appetizers. The future ἡγήσεται makes us assume that the speaker is referring to a meal which has not taken place yet or is about to begin. Ancient Greek symposia started with a series of cold entrées which were consumed while the hot dishes were being prepared (Olson / Sens 1999, 84). The beginning of the food list given in this fragment seems to belong to that category. Typical appetizers included silphium stalks (καυλοί, cf. Archestr. fr. 8 Olson / Sens = SH 137; Mnesim. fr. 4.30), garlic (Mnesim. fr. 4.30; Lync. fr. 1.7), olives (Archestr. fr. 8 Olson / Sens = SH 138; Mnesim. fr. 4.29) and types of wraps like θρῖα (soft foods wrapped in fig-leaves, cf. Ar. Ach. 1102; Ar. fr. 128.1; Mnesim. fr. 4.31; Nicostr. fr. 16.2 see discussion in “Interpretation” ad loc.), many of them appearing together in comic food lists. Cf. Dalby 1989, 56–57; 1996, 189–190; Arnott 1996, 528; Olson / Sens 1999, 86–88; Olson / Sens 2000, 44–48; Mastellari 2020, 383–384, 400, 413–414, with additional bibliography. 1 πίναξ the “serving platter” (Od. 1.141), made of various materials like silver (Philippid. fr. 9.3–4) or copper (Ath. 4.128d). In banquets, cold and hot dishes were served in succession, in combination of several πίνακες of various sizes and materials (Lync. fr. 1.5–6, … παρέθηκε πίνακα γὰρ μέγαν, / ἔχοντα μικροὺς πέντε πινακίσκους ἄνω).

61

A cook according to Kock 1884 II, 219.

60

Nicostratus

ὁ πρῶτος τῶν μεγάλων ἡγήσεται τῶν μεγάλων (understood πινάκων) is a partitive genitive referring to ὁ πρῶτος, which corresponds to πίναξ, the subject of ἡγήσεται (with an active meaning and gen. rei, signifying “to lead”, as in Ar. Vesp. 268–269 ἀλλὰ πρῶτος ἡμῶν / ἡγεῖτ᾽ ἂν ἄιδων Φρυνίχου; Pind. Nem. 5.25, ἁγεῖτο παντοίων νόμων and esp. Hermipp. fr. 46.2 καὶ βατὶς αὐτῶν ἡγεῖτ᾽ ὀπτὴ μεγάλη καὶ πλευρὸν ὕειον with Comentale 2017, 178. For similar references to foods that are presented as performing “human” actions see Pellegrino 2000, 38–39 on Nicophon fr. 21.4; cf. also Telecl. fr. 1.4–5). The verse reflects the typical sympotic image of the procession of serving-platters loaded with served dishes, as in Matro fr. 1.46–47 Olson / Sens (=SH534.46–47) πολλὰ δ᾽ ἄναντα κάταντα κατὰ στίχας ἦλθ᾽ ὁ μάγειρος, / σείων ὀψοφόρους πίνακας κατὰ δεξιὸν ὦμον. 2 ἐχῖνον here the “sea-urchin” (and not the “hedgehog”) as in banquet foodlists (Archipp. fr. 24; Alex. frr. 15.6 [also featuring ὠμοτάριχον as in this fragment], 115.3; Posidipp. fr. 15.2; Matro fr. 1.18 Olson / Sens (=SH 534.18); Lync. fr. 1.7, 19). ἐχῖνος has very little flesh (Arist. Hist. an. 528a.6; Part. an. 679b.33) and was mostly eaten for its eggs (cf. Ar. fr. 425 διαλείχοντά μου / τὸν κάτω σπατάγγην for a sexual pun within culinary context, with Shaw 2014, 558). There are many species of sea-urchins in the Mediterranean, Paracentrotus lividus seems to have been the most commonly consumed (Thompson 1947, 72; Campbell 1982, 238), being a popular food in the ancient world (Arist. Hist. an. 4.530a.32–531a.7; Part. an. 680a.5–681a.9; Ath. 3.91a–e; Apic. 9.8.1–5). Cf. André 1981, 106; Saint-Denis 1947 s. v. echinus; Thompson 1947, 70–73. ὠμοτάριχον Dioscorides (2.31) defines it as σάρξ θύννου (tunny) τεταριχευμένου (in food or cooking contexts, τάριχος is a fish that has been preserved by smoking, salting, or both; see Olson / Sens 2000, 164 and Antiph. frr. 140.4; 181.3; Anaxandr. fr. 51; Alex. frr. 15.13; 178.8; Men. fr. 409.11; Matro fr. 39.2 Olson / Sens [= SH 169.2]); It perhaps is the same with ἡμιτάριχος (Archestr. fr. 39.7 Olson / Sens [=SH 169.7] with Olson / Sens ad loc.), namely a fish that has been brined for a short period and is only partially cooked. Tunny’s cookery is described in detail in Apic. 9.9. Its etymology is uncertain, deriving either from ὦμος (“shoulder”) or ὠμός (“raw”), the former as in Pliny (9.48 hi membratim caesi cervice et abdomine commendantur) and Xenocrates of Aphrodisias (4.35 αὐχὴν γὰρ αὐτῶν γίνεται ὠμοτάριχος), the latter in accordance with CGL 2.100.18 (cetum crudum: ὠμοτάριχος). Uncertain here (as also in Matron fr. 1.17 Olson / Sens[=SH 534.17]) if it is masculine (–ος as in Alex. fr. 15.4; Diosc. 2.31) or neuter (–ον as in Diphilus apud Ath. 3.121b). Processed fish were a large-scale trade in the 5th and 4th centuries; Chairephillos, a wealthy businessman (Davies 1971, 566–568), was involved in the import of τάριχος to Athens and owned slaves (ταριχοπῶλαι) that sold the imported τάριχος in the market. His sons are alluded to in Antiphanes’ Halieuomenē (fr. 27.22) as the lovers of hetaira Pythionike (Konstantakos 2000a, 89). Excavations in Corinth have revealed remains of salted fish chunks dating to

Ἅβρα (fr. 1)

61

the 5th cent. BC (Williams 1979, 117–118 and pl. 46). Cf. Thompson 1947, 88–89; Curtis 1991, 6–26; Arnott 1996, 89; Olson / Sens 1999, 87–88. κάππαριν Capparis spinosa, the caper bush, a perennial plant that bears rounded edible flower buds. It was normally served as appetizer (Dalby 1996, 83), and it seems to be served as such in this context as well. Cf. Hippoc. Fist. 10 (v.l. καπαρ–); Arist. [Pr.] 924a.1; Antiph. fr. 63; Timocl. fr. 25.2; Alex. fr. 132.6; Theophr. HP 3.2.1. Capers were found in field crops, together with other plants such as asparagi and thistles, and were altogether greatly valued, used in Apicius’ recipes (7.274–275) and served in affluent households (Amigues 2004; Ciaraldi 2007, 115; Kron 2015, 163). 3 θρυμματίδα from θρύμμα (“broken in pieces, crumble”), θρυμματίδα was a crumble cake made of wheat flour, tallow and meat (Olson / Sens 1999, 84). In Lynceus (fr. 1.9), θρυμματίς is served in a big platter (πίνακα μέγαν) of appetizers, containing, as in this fragment, a selection of cold entrées: garlic, sea-urchin, lentils, and sturgeon preserved fish. τέμαχος from τέμνω, a slice or slab of the flesh of any type of fish (e. g. swordfish: Archestr. fr. 41.1 Olson / Sens (= SH 171.10); perch: Cratin. fr. 154; eel: Stratt. fr. 45.3; tuna: Ephipp. fr. 12.1–2; ray: Ephipp. fr. 22.2; monkfish: Anaxandr. fr. 42.53. It is common in food-lists (Epich. fr. 101; Ar. Ec. 606; 842; Archestr. fr. 18.5 [=SH 168.5]; Pherecr. fr. 113.10–11; Metag. fr. 6.9; Alex. fr. 191.8; Dionys. Com. fr. 3.10). Cf. Olson / Sens 2000, 161. βολβόν in gastronomic contexts it generally refers to the bulbs of the grape hyacinth (also purse-tassel hyacinth, Muscari comosum). Muscari bulbs are layered like onions (Theophr. Hist. pl. 1.6.7; 7.9.4) and were found in the wild (Ar. Nub. 187–190) or were cultivated (Philem. fr. 113.4; Theophr. Hist. pl. 7.13.8). They were consumed as a simple peasant food (Antiph. fr. 225.3; Alex. fr. 167.13; Theocr. 14.7 with Gow 1950 ad loc.), or as an appetizer or relish, often in combination with sauces and condiments (Plato Com. fr. 189.9; Philem. fr. 113.1–3). Plato refers to βολβοί and λάχανα as the most commonly cooked vegetables in agrarian diets (Pl. Resp. 372c). The bulbs were also a food in classical Rome (André 1981, 20–21) and are still served as an appetizer in Greece, especially in Crete (called βολβοί. See Kremezi 2000, 18). βολβός was considered an aphrodisiac by both the Greeks (Ar. Eccl. 1089–1092; Plato Com. frr. 109.9–10, 188.12; Xenarch. fr. 1.4–6; Alex. frr. 175.3, 281.2 “pinnae, crayfish, bulbs … who έρῶν ἑταίρας would find other drugs of greater use than these?”; Heracleides Tarentinus et Diphilus Siphnius apud Ath. 2.64ab; Archestr. fr. 9.1 Olson / Sens) and the Romans (Varro apud Apic. 7.307; Ov. Ars am. 2.421–424; Columella, Rust. 3.15; Plin. HN 6.63) (see Dalby 1996, 234–235; Dalby 2003, 63–64; Buccini 2009). Muscari comosum is now also used therapeutically, even in the treatment of cancer, with its bulbs having strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory action (see e. g. Larocca / Di Marsico / Riccio / Rossano 2018), a usage also noted in a Byzantine scholion on

62

Nicostratus

Dioscorides (Materia Medica 2.170.2), according to which βολβός boiled with barley and pig’s fat when consumed makes οἰδήματα and φύματα (diseased growths, tumours) to suppurate and break up (see Riddle 1984, 100). ἐν ὑποτρίμματι an ὑπότριμμα could be any dish that consisted of various ingredients “grated and pounded up together” (LSJ. Cf. Hippoc. Vict. 2. 56; 3.80; Gal. MedG 6.650). Grated ingredients could either correspond to spices and seasonings (Apic. 1.33) added during cooking (Alex. fr. 193.3; Axionic. fr. 4.–11; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.4, 17) or to sauces, dips and soups (Ar. Eccl. 292). The meaning here must be the latter, similarly to Archestr. frr. 24.6 Olson / Sens (= SH 154.6), 34.3 Olson / Sens (= SH 164.3), where τριμμάτιον and τρῖμμα respectively signify dipping-sauces to be used by diners individually. Dipping of individual bites in dips and pastes of salt, vinegar, brine or other sauces was common. Cf. Olson / Sens 2000, 102. fr. 2 K.–A. (2 K.) ταῦτ᾽ ἀξιῶ· † εἰ τ᾽ ὀρνιθάριον † τὸ περιστέριον, τὸ γαστρίον 1 ἀξιῶ Α: ἀξιοῖ Dindorf: ἄξι᾽ ἦν Dobree 2 εἰ τ᾽ ὀρνιθάριον Α: τοὐρνιθ– Dindorf, Dobree (εἰ deleverat Schweighäuser): εἶτ᾽ ὀρνιθάριον Kock περιστέριον sine accentu A

this is what I value: † either the little bird † the little pigeon, the tripe Ath. 14.654b περιστέριον οὕτως ἔστιν εὑρεῖν εἰρημένον παρὰ Μενάνδρωι ἐν Παλλακῆι μικρόν ἐπιμείνας προστρέχει, “ἠγόρακά σοι περιστέρια ⟨ταδί⟩” λέγων (fr. 280). ὁμοίως Νικόστρατος Ἅβραι· ταῦτ᾽ ἀξιῶ — — το γαστρίον peristerion (“little pidgeon”) may be found used by Menander in Pallakē (fr. 280): after he waits a little while he runs up saying “I have bought those pigeons for you”. Similarly, Nicostratus in Habra: this is what I want — — the tripe

Metre Possibly iambic trimeter. ⟨xlkl xlkl ⟩ llkl

† lllkr† rlkr klkl

Discussion Schweighäuser 1805 VII, 617–618; Dindorf 1827 III, 1456; Dobree 1833, 349; Meineke 1840 III, 279; Meineke 1847 I, 632; Bothe 1855, 469; Kock 1884 II, 220; Edmonds 1959 1, 28–29; PCG VII, 75; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 621 Citation Context Having just spoken of various kinds of fruit as food accompaniments like pomegranates (ῥοίδια, 14.650e–651b), dates (φοίνικες, 14.651b–652b), figs (ἰσχάδες, 14.652b–653b), and grapes (σταφυλαί, βότρυες, 14.652b–654a), Athenaeus goes back to the discussion of meat and birds of book IX, adding infor-

Ἅβρα (fr. 2)

63

mation on birds. He starts with little pigeons (περιστέρια, 14.654b) and then moves to pheasants (φασιανοί, 14.654b–d) and peacocks (ταοί, 14.655a). Anaxandr. fr. 7 (περιστέρια γὰρ εἰσάγων καὶ στρουθία), and Phryn. fr. 53 (περιστέριον δ᾽ αὐτῶι τι λαβὲ τριωβόλου) are cited immediately after this. Text Dindorf (1827 III, 1456) and Dobree (1833, 349) have hesitantly emended ἀξιῶ to ἀξιοῖ and ἄξι᾽ ἦν respectively. Given the complete lack of context, we shall adopt ἀξιῶ of the mss. In line 2, the transmitted εἰ τ᾽ ὀρνιθάριον is unmetrical and has been emended by Schweighäuser (1805 VII, 617–618), Dindorf (1827 III, 1456), Dobree (1833, 349), and Kock (1884 II, 220). All solutions attempt to restore the meter by creating a smooth sequence of two long syllables for the beginning of the iambic meter, like in τοὐρνιθάριον (sine εἰ, Schweighäuser), εἰ τοὐρνιθάριον (Dindorf, Dobree), or εἶτ᾽ ὀρνιθάριον (Kock). The line is further problematical however because if indeed the last word of the locus desperatus is ὀρνιθάριον (as in the manuscripts), then the line is again unmetrical since the last syllable (-ον) becomes long by position as followed by the two consonants ν and τ (of τὸ). -ον being necessarily long makes any secure emendation of the line impossible, since it prohibits us from analyzing the last long syllable of the meter in the two short vowels -ιον of ὀρνιθάριον. Interpretation Kock (1884 II, 220) maintains that the line is spoken by someone who is teaching a servant how to talk elegantly using diminutives. We are perhaps allowed to entertain such a possibility in analogy to a passage from the Clouds, where Aristophanes builds a joke with Socrates trying to teach Strepsiades how to coin new names for female animals (Ar. Nub. 666). If we interpret the passage in this way, then ἀξιῶ would most probably have the meaning of “think fit, expect” (as in LSJ II.2) and εἰ τ᾽ should perhaps be emended to εἶτ᾽ (with Kock 1884 II, 220), denoting consequence (“and so, therefore, accordingly”, cf. LSJ II). This possibility however would have required a syntax different from the one we have (see the discussion below, 1 ἀξιῶ). A similar situation seems to be at works in a fragment from Mnesimachus, where a speaker asks his interlocutor to use diminutives when naming different foods (fr. 3.5–7 σύντεμνε καὶ / ἐπεξαπάτα με. τοὺς μὲν ἰχθῦς μοι κάλει/ ἰχθύδι᾽˙ὄψον δ᾽ ἂν λέγηις ἕτερον, κάλει / ὀψάριον). As has been rightly maintained (Mastellari 2020, 363, 368–369) the diminutives used in Mnesimachus are “diminutives of modesty” (“diminutivi di modestia”, Mastellari 2020, 363) used most probably in order to downplay the vastness of the foods’ cost. With such a big part of the text lacking however, these are only a couple out of many interpretative possibilities, that could have entailed the enumeration of those three dishes (little bird, little pigeon, sausage), spoken by a servant or any other interlocutor. Regardless of their specific possible connotations, the diminutives here might fall under the general category of “meiotic diminutives” (Peppler 1902, 9–10), used frequently in comedy, in order to minimize the size of requests

64

Nicostratus

and treat them as something easy and common, only in order to actually amplify their scale (analogously in Latin, Plaut. Mil. 750 with Pascucci 1965, 238; Rud. 133–134. Cf. also Ephipp. fr. 15, Eub. frr. 109, 120. See the discussion in Mastellari 2020, 363–364). What is more, they could also be considered as “diminutives of affection/adoration”, used by characters like gluttons for the foods they really love (as in Crob. fr. 8.3 καὶ τὸν λάρυγγ᾽ ἥδιστα πυριῶ τεμαχίοις, where τεμαχίοις is used with affective value in order to indicate a much-adored delicacy. See Mastellari 2020, 180 “Qui sembra impiegato con valore affettivo, trattandosi di una battuta pronunciata da un ghiottone, per indicare non tanto una cosa piccola, quanto una leccornia”), especially in combination with the verb ἀξιῶ of line 1 (see below). On this use of the diminutive, see Peppler 1902, 22–23, López Eire 1996, 138–145. Cf. also Petersen 1910, 172; Olson 2007, 139 ad loc. 1 άξιῶ ἀξιόω has a vast range of meanings and its translation here depends much on our general interpretation of the fragment. When combined with an accusative, ἀξιόω means “esteem, honor” or “value” (of persons or things, as in Aesch. Ag. 903; Soph. Aj. 1114; Eur. Heracl. 918 and Philodemus P. Herc. 1251.12.3–4, ἀξιοῦμεν ὑπολήψεις). This meaning accents the possibility that the lines belong to a character who enumerates dishes he desires to eat or serve. Kock’s interpretation on the other hand would point towards the direction of understanding ἀξιόω as “require, expect”, although in such a case we would expect the syntax to be different and ἀξιόω to have been combined with accusative of person and infinitive (Hdt. 2.162.4 ὅμως δὲ αὐτὸν ἀξιοῦν τὸν Πατάρβημιν βασιλέος μεταπεμπομένου ἰέναι πρὸς αὐτόν; Thuc. 2.89.1 οὐκ ἀξιῶν τὰ μὴ δεινὰ ἐν ὀρρωδίαι ἔχειν, 3.44.4 οὐκ ἀξιῶ ὑμᾶς τῶι εὐπρεπεῖ τοῦ ἐκείνου λόγου τὸ χρήσιμον τοῦ ἐμοῦ ἀπώσασθαι; Ar. Plut. 931 σὺ γὰρ ἀξιοῖς τἀλλότρια πράττων ἐσθίειν; Hegesipp. fr. 2.1–2 Ἐπίκουρος ὁ σοφὸς ἀξιώσαντός τινος / εἰπεῖν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὅ τι ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ τἀγαθόν). 2 ὀρνιθάριον a diminutive of ὄρνις, ὀρνιθάριον designates a bird that is young or small in size (cf. Anaxandr. fr. 42.62–63 καὶ πρὸς τούτοις / ὀρνιθαρίων ἄφατον πλῆθος). ὄρνις (–ιθος) is one of the common words for “bird” with no reference to a particular species or size, but used no earlier than the fifth century (cf. Soph. El. 18; Ar. Vesp. 815). Roasted birds (cf. Archestr. fr. 60.9 Olson / Sens [=SH 192.9] ὀρνίθων τ᾽ ὀπτῶν ἁπαλῶν γένος) were often part of the δεύτεραι τράπεζαι, the “second tables” (cf. Pind. Ol. 1.50; Philoxenus Leucadius PMG 836(e).3; Antiph. fr. 172.5; Nicostr. fr. 27.2 (see below); Dicaearch. Hist. fr. 19 Wehrli), the second round of foodstuffs that was served after the banquet was over and the tables were emptied and cleaned in order to be consumed as an accompaniment to wine (cf. Arist. Ran. 509–511 … ἐπεί τοι καὶ κρέα / ἀνέβραττεν ὀρνίθεια, καὶ τραγήματα / ἔφρυγε, κὦινον ἀνεκεράννυ γλυκύτατον; Alexis fr. 190; Amphis fr. 9; Mnesim. fr. 7.4; Alciphron 3.39, 4.14.3). Meat and birds were there combined with τραγήματα (as a derivation from τρώγω, -έτραγον) namely foods for nibbling, either raw or cooked, savory or sweet, e. g. fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts, eggs, cakes and meats in small portions (Arnott 1996, 494). This makes the diminutive of ὀρνιθάριον

Ἅβρα (fr. 2)

65

correspond to size (perhaps even bite-size cut) and not to linguistic style, hence making Kock’s interpretation even less probable. περιστέριον appears also to be one of the τραγήματα, especially since in addition to the foods mentioned above (cf. ὀρνιθάριον), catalogues of τραγήματα also include thrushes and other small birds (like κίχλαι, cf. Alex. fr. 168.5 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Archestr. fr. 58 Olson / Sens [= SH 189] with Olson / Sens on l. 1; Men. fr. 409.13, 16). Male and female pigeons are referred to through various morphological and dialectic variations (περιστερά, -ριδεύς, -ριον, -ρίδιον, -ριν, -ρίς, -ρός). The female περιστερά is the most common, designating animals of both sexes, in various dialects from the fifth century BC onwards. The rest of the variations fall under three categories: 1. the solicistic masculine form περιστερός which Alexis uses at fr. 217.1 with Arnott 1996, 181, 618–619), 2. the diminutives περιστέριον and περιστερίδιον, and 3. a term for a juvenile περιστεριδεύς (see Arnott 2007, 257). During the Roman and Byzantine period, domestic pigeons were raised commercially in order to be used as human food (cf. Cato, Agr. 90; Varro, Rust. 3.7; Columella, Rust. 8.8.6; Geoponica 14.1–7, describing a strict diet of vegetables, legumes and grains). On the differences between wild and domestic pigeons, as well as their physiology and mythical sanctity see Thompson 1895, 139–146; Arnott 2006, 628–619; Arnott 2007, 256–260, with additional bibliography. γαστρίον a diminutive of γαστήρ (“paunch”), but also, by means of synecdoche, “tripe”, which seems to be the meaning here.62 Similarly, in Athenion fr. 1.28 μετὰ ταῦτα γαστρίον τις ὤνθυλευμένον, γαστρίον ὠνθυλευμένον signifies stuffed paunch, perhaps with chopped animal innards, as in Scottish “haggis”. This is also the meaning of γαστρίον in an adespoton fragment (Adesp. Com. fr. 125), where it stands next to ματτύη (a flavorful dish possibly of Macedonian or Thessalian origin made of hashed meat and herbs and served cold as a dessert). Athenaeus also mentions ματτύη when referring to another fragment of Nicostratus (fr. 7, see below) as part of a cook’s third serving of food (Ath. 14.664b τρίτης … παραθέσεως). This puts ματτύη in the category of the τραγήματα served after the main dishes. The fact that in fr. 125 ματτύη is in the same list with γαστρίον reinforces the interpretation that γαστρίον is also a τράγημα, belonging to the list that starts in line 2 of the fragment (fr. 2).

62

The equivalent modern Greek food would be “πατσάς”, named after a similar procedure of synecdoche, with “πατσάς” ( τουτὶ, see Weiland 1841, §30), so in the case of ἐὰν the line would be forced to a resolution of the second short syllable. πύθωμαι ὅ τι of manuscript A is unintelligible and corrected to πύθωμ᾽ ἐγώ by Jacobs in 1805 (65) and then to πύθωμ᾽ ἔτι in 1809 (257). In line 3, manuscript A reads περιανω, a non-existent form, correctly emended to περανῶ by Jacobs (1805, 65). Dindorf rightly deletes line 4, maintaining that it is the interpretation of a grammarian, which brings nothing useful to the text (1827 III, 1061: “seclusi interpretationem grammatici ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τούτων κεκεραμευμένος, qua nihil addi poterat inutilius: adeo plana et aperta est vis vocabuli κυκνοκάνθαρος”). Dobree (1833, 332) maintains that if the verse is not completely deleted, it should read τι κεκεραμευμένον. κεκεραμευμένος or κεκεραμευμένον is a passive voice participle of κεραμεύω, generally to “make pottery / be a potter” (LSJ, s. v. κεραμεύω 1, 2. Also e. g. in Phryn. fr. 15 [in act.]; Pherecr. fr. 143.1. [in pass. ἐκεραμεύσαντο τοῖς μὲν ἀνδράσιν ποτήρια “they had the glasses made by the men”]; Ar. Ecc. 253 [in act. τα τρύβλια κακῶς κεραμεύειν, where the demagogue Cephalus, owner of a ceramic factory is described as a potter unable to make his pots]). Although the participle κεκεραμευμένος could perhaps direct the meaning from the sea- to the drinking vessels (see the discussion below, “Interpretation”, κύκνος, κάνθαρος), line 4 altogether looks very much like an explanation of a grammarian that has intruded the text. I thus follow Dindorf, who is deleting the line, as do all later editors. Interpretation A dialogue between two speakers, seemingly regarding ships (ναῦς, εἰκόσορος, κύκνος, κάνθαρος, κυκνοκάνθαρος?), but possibly also encompassing a number of double entendres that also signify animals (κύκνος [“swan”], κάνθαρος [“beetle”]) and different types of drinking cups (κάνθαρος, κυκνοκάνθαρος?. See the discussion below, under εἰκόσορος, κύκνος, κάνθαρος, κυκνοκάνθαρος). It is impossible to know how the two speakers could be connected to the plot or the play’s title. The joke of the scene however seems clearer: speaker A lists three ships (εἰκόσορος, κύκνος, κάνθαρος), two of which are also animals or cups (κύκνος, κάνθαρος), and which allegedly could designate the

96

Nicostratus

boat under discussion (ναῦς). His inability to decide on the exact type of ship highlights the difficulty of the endeavor, which is then rapidly and easily surpassed by speaker B, who, without second thoughts, comes up with a novel type of ship (or cup, or even animal), a hapax (κυκνοκάνθαρος), that conveys both meanings, as well as both names. Nicostratus is possibly toying with the multiple meanings of the words, signifying not only ships, but also cups and animals. The result is comic because of both the bizarre unions (of e. g. a swan and a beetle), and the variety of meanings. 1 εἰκόσορος “twenty-oared”, with root *ἐρε– in the second element; cf. ἐρέτης, ἐρέσσω (Chantraine, s. v. ἐρέτης). Also, as an adj. in Od. 9.322–323 (used in the iconic simile for the stake Odysseus used in order to blind the Cyclops [“like the mast of some black ship of twenty oars, a broad-bottomed merchantman such as makes long sea-voyages”]72: ὅσσον θ᾽ ἱστὸν νηὸς ἐεικοσόροιο μελαίνης / φορτίδος εὐρείης, ἥ τ᾽ ἐκπεράαι μέγα λαῖτμα), but also elsewhere, e. g. Dem. 35.18; Mel. EG 4351 = AP 5.204.10 (γραὸς ἐπ᾽ εἰκοσόρωι, about a former mistress, in her prime looking like a κέλης, but growing old like an eikosoros); Theodorid. EG 3107 = AP 6.222 (βουφόρτων … εἰκοσόρων, cattle-carrying eikosoroi). It is the oldest term for a specific type of ship in the Greek literary tradition and it has been much scholarly discussion as to whether it signifies a merchant-man or warship (see the detailed presentation in Wallinga 1993, 41–45). κύκνος here “a kind of ship, probably from its prow being curved like a swan’s neck” (LSJ, s. v. κύκνος ΙΙ; Montanari, s. v. κύκνος). A hapax with this meaning. 2 κάνθαρος Apart from a dung-beetle, κάνθαρος was also a small naval vessel (as in Sosicr. fr. 2.3, Ar. Pax 143 Ναξιουργής κάνθαρος “a Naxian-made light boat”. See Casson 1971, 343; Olson 1998, 95–96), and a deep drinking cup (as in Phryn. fr. 15; Eub. fr. 80.5–9; Epig. fr. 4; Axionic. fr. 7.2) of open shape, with a high foot and two loops surmounting the hem (see Richter / Milne 1935, 25–26, with figs. 167–169; Sparkes / Talcott I, 113–124 and II, figs. 27–28). In addition to κάνθαρος, a number of other drinking vessels also had names of boats: ἄκατος (Antiph. fr. 3.2; Theopomp. fr. 4.2 λαβοῦσα πλήρη χρυσέαν μεσόμφαλον / φιάλην˙ Τελέστης δ᾽ ἄκατον ὠνόμαζέ νιν), ὁλκάς (Pherect. fr. 152.4 σφίσι δε ⟨γ᾽⟩ αὐταῖσιν βαθείας κύλικας ὥσπερ ὁλκάδας), τριήρης (Antiph. fr. 223.4). It is very possible that a double (more accurately triple) entendre is here intended, just as the triple meaning of κάνθαρος seems to be purposely incorporated in Ar. Pax 143 τὸ δὲ πλοῖον ἔσται Ναξιουργὴς κάνθαρος: “my ship will be a dung-beetle / light boat / wine-bowl” (Olson 1998, 96; cf. also van Leeuwen 1906, 30). In this very tempting scenario, Nicostratus toys with all three meanings of κάνθαρος (beetle / small boat / drinking cup) raising ambiguity, just before using the neologism of κυκνοκάνθαρος in the following line.

72

Translation by Rieu 2003 ad loc.

Διάβολος (fr. 9)

97

2-3 ἂν πύθωμ᾽ ἔτι … περανῶ τὰ πάντ᾽. Conditional sentence, expressing future more vividly (Smyth §2297, 2323, 2326). The certainty of the conditional of speaker A is further reinforced by the reassuring answer of speaker B, which starts with ἀμέλει (see below, “Interpretation”). The comic irony lies in the easy answer (note “ἀμέλει”) given by speaker B regarding the union of a κύκνος and a κάνθαρος (a κυκνοκάνθαρος), which in fact is nonexistent (see below, “Interpretation”). 3 περανῶ περαίνω in the sense of “accomplish”, as in Aesch. Cho. 830 (καὶ πέραιν᾽ ἀνεπίμομφον ἄταν). It is found in this exact form in Ar. Plut. 563 (περανῶ σφῶιν κἀναδιδάξω), although there in the sense of demonstrating an argument. The initial meaning here has to do with the difficulty of the speaker to specify the exact type of a vessel (ναῦς) which could be either an εἰκόσορος or a κύκνος or a κάνθαρος. Apart from the fact that the last two vessels can also signify drinking cups and animals, the joke here also lies on the easiness (note ἀμέλει) with which speaker B will overcome the difficulty of speaker A, coming up with a ship / animal / cup / word that is really non-existent (κυκνοκάνθαρος). ἀμέλει properly an imperative of ἀμελέω (“have no care for”), but used colloquially (López Eire 1996, 184–186) as an adverb to express certainty (e. g. in Ar. Nub. 488; Ach. 368, with Olson 2002, 171; Pl. Phd. 82a; Xen. Mem. 1.4.7), resignation (Ar. Ran. 532, with Dover 1993, 260), or to simply introduce a subject (e. g. Theophr. Char. 13.1). Its use here ironically enhances certainty for something that does not really exist, a κυκνοκάνθαρος (see κυκνοκάνθαρος, “Interpretation” below). κυκνοκάνθαρος a hapax. A kind of ship between a κύκνος (see above) and a κάνθαρος (see above). If its shape had to combine both types, then it could possibly signify a small ship with a curved prow. Nicostratus plays with the fact that both components can designate sea vessels or animals, but κάνθαρος can also designate a drinking cup (see above, “Interpretation” and the discussion of κύκνος, κάνθαρος). Cf. the similar compounds βατραχοκύκνων (Ar. Ran. 207), ἱπποκάνθαρος (Ar. Pax 182).

98

Ἑκάτη (Hekatē) (“Hecate”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 283; Meineke 1847 I, 635; Bothe 1855, 471; Kock 1884 II, 223; Trenkner 1958, 120; Edmonds 1959 IΙ, 32–33; PCG VII, 80; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 623–624 Title Diphilus has also written a Hecatē, according to Athenaeus (Ath. 14.645a = fr. 27) and Pollux (10.72 = fr. 28). Athenaeus reports that Diphilus mentions in Hecatē (fr. 27) a characteristic sacrificial cake decorated with lit miniature torches that was dedicated to Artemis (perhaps Artemis Hecate; also in Soph. fr. 734. See OCD 650; LIMC “Hekate” no. 47) and Pollux reports that in the same play, Diphilus uses the word λάγυνος (fr. 28) and in the play Adelphoi, he uses the word λαγύνιον (fr. 3) (Poll. 10.72 λάγυνος καὶ λαγύνιον. Δίφιλος δ᾽ ἄμφω λέγει, τὸ μὲν ἐν τῆι Ἑκάτηι πολλάκις. τὸ δὲ λαγύνιον ἐν Ἀδελφοῖς). Those similarities have made Meineke (1840 III, 283; 1847 I, 635) maintain that Diphilus might have written the play by Nicostratus anew (“nisi forte Diphilus Nicostrati Hecaten denuo edidit”), a hypothesis that has not found further support. Content The title suggests a mythological parody, although all that can be inferred from the only surviving fragment is that the play involved a drinking party where wine was bottled to smaller vessels (fr. 10 κατεσταμνισμένων … λαγύνων). The content of Diphilus’ Hecate is also uncertain, so any number of plots involving Hecate can be imagined. In general, Middle Comedy’s mythological burlesques involved either a direct travesty of myth where noble characters would acquire vulgar comic characteristics, or a parody of popular tragedies (Arnott 2010, 296–300). Since we know of no extant tragedy based on the myth of Hecate, the former scenario seems more probable, but perhaps we shall also encounter the possibility of a plot with any kind of contemporary allusions that simply begun with a monologue of the deity Hecate (as in e. g. Menander’s Herōs, Orgē, or Eubulus’ Orthannēs). Date Unknown. fr. 10 K.–A. (11, 12 K.) τῶν κατεσταμνισμένων ἡμῖν λαγύνων πηλίκοι τινές; (Β) τρίχους τὸν μεστὸν ἡμῖν φέρε λάγυνον 2 post πηλίκοι verba ἀρσενικῶς δὲ εἴρηκε τὸν λάγυνον repetit A: corr. Schweighäuser

How large are the lagynoi we transferred from the wine-jars? (B) They hold three choes. Bring us the full lagynos!

Ἑκάτη (fr. 10)

99

Ath. 11.499b λάγυνον δὲ μέτρου λέγουσιν εἶναι ὄνομα παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ὡς χοὸς καὶ κοτύλης. χωρεῖν δ᾽ αὐτὸ κοτύλας Ἀττικὰς δώδεκα. καὶ ἐν Πάτραις δέ φασι τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὸ μέτρον τὴν λάγυνον. ἀρσενικῶς δὲ εἴρηκε τὸν λάγυνον Νικόστρατος μὲν ἐν Ἑκάτηι˙τῶν κατεσταμνισμένων ἡμῖν λαγύνων πηλίκοι τινές; — λάγυνον They say that a lagynos is the name of a unit of a Greek unit of measure, like a chous and a kotyle. And it can hold twelve Attic kotylai. They also say that this unit, the lagynos (fem.), is used in Patras. But Nicostratus in Hecate has the word lagynos as masculine: how large are the lagynoi we transferred from the wine-jars? – lagynos

Meter Iambic Trimeter ⟨xlwl x⟩lwl

llwl llwl l|lwl wlwl llwl l|rwl l⟨lwl⟩

Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 283; Meineke 1847 I, 635; Bothe 1855, 471; Kock 1884 II, 223; Edmonds 1959 IΙ, 32–33; PCG VII, 80; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 623–624 Citation Context The fragment is found in the Deipnosophists’ large section of discussions regarding drinking cups (book 11) and is part of the discussion of the skyphos that begun in 11.498a–500c. The catalogue of references is inconsistently structured and some of the remarks seem to be out of place. In this light, the discussion about the gender of σκύφος turns into a presentation of σκύφιον δέπας (11.499a–b), the capacity of which (τριλάγυνος) leads to a refence to λάγυνος as a metrical unit (11.499b) and consequently to a discussion regarding its gender, where our fragment is also cited (11.499c). Following Nicostratus, the presentation of λάγυνος includes quotations of Diphilus (frr. 3, 12), Lynceus (fr. 6 Dalby), and Rhianus (fr. 75 Powell= HE 3246–9), all of them referring to the drinking cup, then leading to references to skyphos that complete the section (Stesich. Ger. fr. 22a Finglass = S19 PMGF; Eratosth. fr. 82, p. 54 Strecker; Od. 9.222–223; Hieronymus of Rhodes fr. 27 Wehrli; Bacch. fr. 21; Ephorus FGrH 70 fr. 71). Text The sentence ἀρσενικῶς δὲ εἴρηκε τὸν λάγυνον that is found after πηλίκοι (line 2) in ms. A is an obvious verbatim intrusion in the fragment of the text of Athenaeus and is rightly corrected by Schweighäuser (vol. 6, 1804). Since τρίχους (line 2) is nominative singular and the verb φέρε is second person imperative it is clear that at least one verse is missing after τρίχους, making τρίχους the beginning of a new sentence. Interpretation There are clearly two speakers in this fragment, in addition to the person who is addressed by the imperative φέρε of line 3 and is probably a servant. Given that we are unaware of how many verses are missing between line 2 and line 3 (see above, “Text”), we have to be very cautious in our interpretation, but the language of the command suggests that the third person is not simply handing the object (λάγυνον) to speaker B, but bringing it to him, probably from some

100

Nicostratus

distance away; there may be a number of sitting areas on stage as expected in a banqueting / symposium scene (see Konstantakos 2005), or that third person may even be offstage; another scenario would have the servant (third person) onstage, but after the order of speaker B, the servant would go offstage (in the skene) to fetch the lagynos and then back onstage to hand it to the speaker (cf. the scene between Lamachus-Dicaeopolis in Ach. 1097–1104, where the two speakers give orders to the servants to bring onstage what they need and use the recurring φέρε and δεῦρο, while the servants rush on and off-stage). κατεσταμνισμένων κατασταμνίζω signifies “drawing off wine into a smaller vessel (στάμνος)” (LSJ s. v. κατασταμνίζω), probably to intensify its aroma (Theophr. Caus. pl. 2.18.4 ὁ οἶνος δεινὸς ἑλκύσαι τὰς ἐκ τῶν προκειμένων ὀσμὰς καὶ μᾶλλον καὶ θᾶττον ὁ κατεσταμνισμένος). It must have been a common sympotic practice and Pollux (7.162) testifies to its frequent use in Middle Comedy (ὅθεν εἴρηται ἐν τῆι μέσηι κωμωιδίαι κατασταμνίζειν τὸν οἶνον τὸ κατερᾶν). Its use in the fragment allows us to imagine the dialogue taking place at a symposium / banquet, where the speakers discuss the size of the cups holding the “bottled” wine and ask a servant for bigger ones. λαγύνων A “flask” (LSJ s. v. λάγυνος) with a wide bottom and very narrow neck, resembling a modern wine carafe. As especially clarified by Athenaeus, Nicostratus uses the masculine form (ὁ λάγυνος), but the feminine also occurs (Ath. 11.499b; Eratosth. apud Ath. 7.276b). Diphilus uses both λάγυνος and λαγύνιον (Poll. 10.72), in the Hekatē (fr. 28) and Adelphoi (in the diminutive λαγύνιον fr. 3) respectively; λάγυνος is also attested in later prose (see e. g. Plut. De garr. 14 as feminine). The fragment makes reference to κατεσταμνισμένοι λάγυνοι of smaller and larger size (lines 2–3, τρίχους … μεστόν); λάγυνος is also used as a measuring unit (OWilck. 43, 150; PFay. 104.3), perhaps equivalent to κνίδιον (LSJ s. v. λάγυνος 2). πηλίκοι πηλίκος is a correlative of the interrogatory τηλίκος / ἡλίκος, meaning “how great / how large?” (also Smyth §330). Its connection to λάγυνος points towards its use here as a drink container and not as a measuring unit. Dramatically, the discussion about the size of the λάγυνοι points towards the sympotic characteristics of the fragment and perhaps presupposes the existence of a third person who might be the addressee of the direction to bring out a bigger λάγυνος (line 3. See “Interpretation”, above). τρίχους a nominative singular of the adjective τρίχους (contracted form of τρίχοος), meaning “holding three χόες” (LSJ s. v. τρίχους). The fact that the answer to πηλίκοι is a nominative singular (τρίχους) points to the possibility that at least one line is missing after line 2. τρίχους must be the beginning of a sentence about the λάγυνοι inquired about in lines 1 and 2. μεστόν being in accusative should refer to a λάγυνος that is different from the nominative τρίχους of line 2. The line refers to a flask that is different from the ones described in lines 1 and 2 and is possibly connected to a description mentioned in

Ἑκάτη (fr. 10)

101

missing line(s) between lines 2 and 3. The meaning of μεστός, which is to be “full of ”, is important for the restoration of the fragment, since it expresses the speakers’ need for a λάγυνος that holds more wine than a τρίχους and is possibly addressed to another speaker or mute servant who is supposed to bring a fuller flask to the table. Cf. also Ar. Eq. 814 ὃς ἐποίησεν τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν μεστὴν εὑρὼν ἐπιχειλῆ; Alex. fr. 59 τρεῖς φιλοτησίας ἐγὼ / μεστὰς προπίνω ⟨γ’⟩ ἴσον ἴσω κεκραμένας.

102

Ἡσίοδος (Hesiodos) (“Hesiod”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 283; Meineke 1847 I, 635; Bothe 1855, 471; Kock 1884 II, 223; Edmonds 1959 II, 32–33; PCG VII, 80–81; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 624 Title Play-titles given after literary authors are rare. Notwithstanding, Telecleides has written Hesiodoi (PCG VII, 674–677, frr. 15–24 with Bagordo 2013, 117–138), Cratinus has written Archilochoi (PCG IV, 122–130, frr. 1–16 with Bianchi 2016, 13–113), Alexis Archilochos (or Archilochoi – on the title see Arnott 1996, 112; PCG II, 36, frr. 22–23 with Arnott 1996, 112–115), and Antiphanes (PCG II, 424–426, frr. 194–195 with Olson 2021, 11–24), Ameipsias (PCG II, 204–205, fr. 15 with Orth 2013, 268–270), Ephippus (PCG V, 148, fr. 20 with Papachrysostomou 2021, 193–200), Amphis (PCG II, 228, fr. 32 with Papachrysostomou 2016, 207–209), and Diphilus (PCG V, 94, frr. 70–71) have written a Sapphō. Titles of this sort belong with mythological comedies: poets of the past like Hesiod, or even Sappho and Archilochos could be treated as mythical heroes (Konstantakos 2000a, 160). Such plays possibly involve the appearance of the poet of the title as a plot-character,73 or/and allude to the followers / successor(s) of the poets;74 when in plural, this type of play-title might also allude to the identity of the chorus, especially if the play belongs to the Old Comedy, as in Cratinus’ Archilochoi and Telecleides’ Hesiodoi (Bagordo 2013, 117–118).75 Since the information on Nicostratus’ Hesiodos is extremely limited, discussion here will focus on Telecleides’ Hesiodoi and how this earlier play could have set the tone for Nicostratus’ homonymous comedy. Telecleides’ Hesiodoi more likely refer to Hesiod’s followers than to Hesiodoi who came back from the dead (Bing 2008, 65). It is not clear however whether the Hesiodoi contain traces of a literary comparison between Hesiod and his followers with the tragic poet mentioned in frr. 15 and 17, although this could be a possibility, especially since the new generation of tragic poets embodied ideas which were in sharp contrast to the moral and didactic ideal that Hesiod was thought to symbolize in the 5th and 4th centuries 73

74 75

e. g. in Antiphanes’ Sapphō, Sappho herself appeared on stage posing riddles: Ath. 10.450e–451b, Anthiph. fr. 194 with Konstantakos 2000a, 163–166; in Cratinus’ Archolochoi, the speaker of fr. 6 is referring to Archilochus the plot-character who had just spoken some lines (εἶδες τὴν Θασίαν ἅλμην, οἷ᾽ ἄττα βαΰζει; with Bianchi 2016, 65–66); in Alexis’ Archilochus, the speaker of fr. 22.1 uses second person singular to address Archilochus himself (ὦ τὴν εὐτειχῆ ναίων Πάρον, ὄλβιε πρέσβυ), who would have been onstage to listen to the words of the speaker (see Arnott 1996, 112–114). as in Cratinus’ Archolochoi or Telecleides’ Hesiodoi. See Kock 1880 I, 213; Kaibel in PCG VII, 674; Arnott 1996, 112. This is not the case for Middle and New Comedy (see Arnott 1996, 112; Bagordo 2013, 117–118).

Ἡσίοδος

103

BC.76 Telecleides’ Hesiodoi could have also encompassed political overtones, which are equally traceable to allusions to Pericles and his beloved Chrysilla (Telecl. inc. fab. frr. 45 and 47) and may have been reflecting the marked opposition between corrupted politicians and the honest world of times past of which Hesiod had become an emblem.77 But these are only some of the possible reconstructions of Telecleides’ Hesiodoi. If the analogy with Cratinus’ Archilochoi is also taken into consideration (and we envisage either an agon between Archilochus and Homer [frr. 6-7], in which Archilochus would rise victorious, or a contrast between Archilochus’ poetry and poets expressing a new trend, like Gnesippus),78 then we may also entertain the thought that Telecleides’ Hesiodoi may have contained a contrast between Hesiod and poets of his level against second-rate poetasters. All said and done, the case of Telecleides’ Hesiodoi is itself based on too many “ifs” to be used as a working analogy for Nicostratus’ Hesiodos for which we are also faced with the fact that we only have a single fragment referring to three different types of fish. The only thing we can say with a fair degree of certainty is that Nicostratus’ play could have belonged to a long list of comedies with a tinge for literary criticism, spanning from Aristophanes’ Frogs, Phrynichus’ Mousai and Tragōdoi, and Cratinus’ Archilochoi and Didaskaliai to Alexis’ Archilochos, Poiētai, and Paratragōdos to Antiphanes’ Poiēsis to Axionicus’ and Philippides’ Phileuripidēs.79 Content Although the content of Nicostratus’ present play cannot be recovered (the one surviving fragment consists of three names of fish), it is still worth pondering upon a number of plot possibilities that are developed with reference to other plays named after a literary composer, as well as Hesiod’ s reception in ancient Greek literature. Cratinus’ Archilochoi plays upon the iambic tradition of ψόγος and blame-poetry,80 perhaps featuring Hesiod as one of the characters as well as possibly evoking the legendary competition between Homer and Hesiod81 (Stamatopoulou 2017, 180). Telecleides’ Hesiodoi may also have incorporated the idea of Hesiod as the poet whose work benefits the polis, and whom the rest of the

76

77 78 79 80 81

See Ar. Thesm. 168-170, in which, when the tragic poet Agathon expresses his theory that one’s poetry should reflect his nature, Euripides’ Kinsman replies: ταῦτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὁ Φιλοκλέης αἰσχρὸς ὢν αἰσχρῶς ποεῖ (= TrGF I 24 test. 8a) / ὁ δὲ Ξενοκλέης ὢν κακὸς κακῶς ποεῖ (=TrGF I 33 test. 4a) / ὁ δ᾽ αὖ Θέογνις ψυχρὸς ὢν ψυχρῶς ποεῖ (= TrGF I 28 test. 3). On this theme, see Conti Bizzarro 1999, 21. See Ornaghi 2012, 398–399. See Kugelmeier 1996, 184–185. See Egger 1886, 37–89; Gudeman 1909, 16–17. See Pieters 1946, 133–135; Rosen 1988, 37–58; Conti Bizzarro 1999, 47; Biles 2002, 175–176; Bakola 2008, 70–80. For the fictional narrative of the contest between Homer and Hesiod and its connection with the Works and Days, as well as the Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi and the Mouseion of Alcidamas, see Stamatopoulou 2017, 181–182, with additional bibliography.

104

Nicostratus

poets cannot live up to (Stamatopoulou 2017, 185). A Hesiodic resonance could be also heard e. g. in the house-managing instructions given by Euripides in Ran. 976–978, thus aligning Euripides with Hesiod and completing the play’s ongoing correspondence between Aeschylus and Homer (Rosen 2004, 306). The possible analogies are numerous (see the extensive discussion in Stamatopoulou 2017, 179–224) and Old Comedy appears to have done a very good job in toying with the didactic, authoritative characteristics of Hesiodic poetry which were possibly brought onto the comic stage also through Hesiod as a comic character. The fact that Nicostratus is a poet of Middle Comedy however, allows us to entertain a plot possibility that does not include an Old-Comedy-style literary battle in which Hesiod might have featured. Instead, let us encounter plot possibilities that are similar to Diphilus’ Sappho, where in the manner of a “historical travesty” (Arnott 1996, 113) that disregards any chronological caveats, Archilochus appears as Sappho’s lover (fr. 71. See Ath. 13.599d Δίφιλος ὁ κωμωιδοποιὸς πεποίηκεν ἐν Σαπφοῖ δράματι Σαπφοῦς ἐραστὰς Ἀρχίλοχον καὶ Ἱππώνακτα. On other love stories and anecdotes featuring Sappho, see Papachrysostomou 2016, 207–208), or Amphis’ Sappho, where the plot might have “evolved around certain fictitious love adventures of the Lesbian poetess” (Papachrysostomou 2016, 208), or Alexis’ Archilochos where the lyric poet might have been presented as encountering the Muses, loving Sappho, or being rescued by a dolphin (Arnott 1996, 113). In this light, it is not unreasonable to assume that Nicostratus’ play evolved around the poetic and personal life of Hesiod, who would have been a stage character. This is even more probable, considering the fact that although Hesiod is an archaic poet, we do happen to know a surprising amount of (fictious or real) details about his personal life, the tumultuous relationship with his brother Perses being the most infamous.82 The opposing characters of pious Hesiod and nefarious Perses who struggle to divide their inheritance could be just one of the many possibilities of the plot, especially since the clash of siblings of different character is a comic topos (cf. Aristophanes’ Daitalēs, Alexis’ fr. 113 with Arnott 1996, 299–300, Menander’s Adelphoi, Terence’s Adelphoi); this of course is a strictly hypothetical example that cannot be backed up by any direct or indirect information. What was the plot of Nicostratus’ Hesiodos is therefore impossible to say. Date

82

Unknown.

For the relation of Hesiod and Perses, see Clay 2009, 74–76 with additional bibliography, esp. 74 with n. 14.

Ἡσίοδος (fr. 11)

105

fr. 11 K.–A. (13 K.) βεμβράδ᾽, ἀφύην, ἑψητόν βαμβρά δ Α: corr. Mus.

a sprat, a small-fry, a stew-fish Ath. 7.301a–b ἑψητός. ἐπὶ τῶν λεπτῶν ἰχθυδίων. …πληθυντικῶς δὲ λέγουσιν ἑψητοὺς κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον … ἑνικῶς δὲ Νικόστρατος ἐν Ἡσιόδωι — ἑψητόν hepsētos (“stew-fish”); used for tiny, insubstantial fish. … they mostly use hepsētous in plural … but Nicostratus uses it in the singular in Hesiodos — a hepsētos

Meter Iambic Trimeter? lrwl llw|⟨l

llwl⟩

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 II.2, 721–722; Meineke 1840 III, 283; Meineke 1847 I, 635; Bothe 1855, 471; Kock 1884 II, 223; Edmonds 1959 II, 32–33; PCG VII, 80–81; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 624 Citation Context The fragment belongs to the section of hepsētos (Ath. 7.301a– c). Discussion begins with the explanation of hepsētos, signifying in small, insubstantial fish (ἐπὶ τῶν λεπτῶν ἰχθυδίων). This is followed by a series of comic passages (Ar. fr. 56, Archipp. fr. 19, Eup. fr. 16, Eub. fr. 92, Alex. frr. 17–18) where ἑψητός occurs both in singular and in plural. Athenaeus then goes on noticing that hepsētos is mostly used in plural (7.301b πληθυντικῶς δὲ λέγουσιν ἑψητοὺς κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον, giving references to Ar. fr. 292, Men. Perinth. fr. 2), only to conclude his discussion by pinning down examples of its use in singular, in Nicostratus (this fragment) and Posidippus (fr. 3). Interpretation both ἀφύη and βεμβράς were common, cheap fish that were consumed in big quantities. ἑψητός corresponds to a variety of fishes that are cooked altogether by wet cooking (see discussion below, ἑψητός). The paratactic juxtaposition of three fish names that are all small, cheap and could be cooked together can point towards a food-list, although no further assumption can be made regarding the speaker, or the plot in which this food-list could belong. βεμβράδ᾽ a variant of μεμβράς, designating a “small kind of sprat (Sprattus sprattus) or anchovy (Engraulis encrasiolus)” (LSJ s. v. μεμβράς; cf. Thompson 1947, 32). The variation in spelling, also noted by Athenaeus (7.287e ἐν δὲ ταῖς Εὐπόλιδος Αἰξὶν ἔστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦ μ γραφόμενον [Eup. fr. 31]. Ἀντιφάνης δ᾽ ἐν Κνοιθιδεῖ [Antiph. fr. 123.3, 6] … μεμβράδας φάσκων ἔχειν … τοὺς μελιτοπώλας … λέγειν ὅτι πωλοῦσι τὸ μέλι σαπρότερον τῶν μεμβράδων. καὶ Ἄλεξις δ᾽ ἐν Χορηγίδι [Alex. fr. 260] διὰ τοῦ μ εἴρηκεν. ὃς τοῖς τετραδισταῖς μὲν παρέθηκεν

106

Nicostratus

ἐσθίειν πρώην λέκιθον καὶ μεβράδας καὶ στέμφυλα. ἐν δὲ Πρωτοχόρωι [Alex. fr. 200.3] … μεμβράδας μοι κρεῖττον ἦν ἔχειν), may be connected to the word’s foreign origin and makes a definitively correct spelling impossible (Arnott 1997, 578. cf. Chantraine s. v. βεμβράς). βεμβράδες / μεμβράδες were considered cheap fish (Aristom. fr. 7 βεμβράδας φέρων ὀβολοῦ) for poor people (Ar. Vesp. 493–495; Alex. 200.3–4; Alex. 260.2, where μεμβράδες is mentioned together with λέκιθος and στέμφυλα, “the fare of Athens’ poor” Arnott 1996, 729; Timocl. fr. 11.6–9, where a man is craving eels, tuna, rays and crayfish, but when he finds out their price finally buys μεμβράδες). βεμβράδες / μεμβράδες were cooked in little salt and water, with head cut off, boiled similarly to the red mullets (Dorion, On Fishes apud Ath. 7.287c). Possibly because they both fall under the category of small, cheap fish, βεμβράς is here positioned before ἀφύη, a juxtaposition also found in Ar. Vesp. 493–495, and Aristonym. fr. 2, where a new compound (βεμβραφύη) is also created (ὅ γε τοι Σικελὸς ταῖς βεμβραφύαις προσέκοιεν ὁ καρκινοβήτης / ὥστ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἀφύη νῦν ἔστ᾽ ἔθ᾽ ἁπλῶς οὔτ᾽ αὖ βεμβρὰς κακοδαίμων, “that Sicilian, the one who walks like a crab, resembles a dish of βεμβραφύαι, so that there is now no plain ἀφύη or miserable βεμβράς”). See Arnott 1996, 578; Orth 2014, 65–67, 116–117; Apostolakis 2019, 110. ἀφύην small fish (“small-fry”) of a variety of species, “small-fry”, which were caught in seine-nets (Oppian An. Hal. 4.491–506) and were frequently included in banquet catalogues (see Arnott 1996, 227, “ἀφύαι is not a species name but rather the popular/commercial one for the fry of many kinds of fish”. Also, in Epich. fr. 122.1; Metag. fr. 6.8; Ephipp. fr. 12.8; Mnesim. fr. 4.44; Alex. fr. 84.1; Anaxandr. fr. 42.41; Archestr. fr. 11 with Olson / Sens 2000, 54; Matro fr. 1.22 Olson / Sens). Hesychius maintains that in Attica it is used in the plural form (α 8804; and in Sud. α 4660, 16-17 πληθυντικῶς δὲ λέγεται, σπανιώτατα δὲ ἀφύην. See also Arnott 1996, 227 “always in the plural in good Attic: ‘whitebait’”), but there are numerous examples of its use in (collective) singular (e. g. Hermipp. fr. 14 – also with negation –; Call. com. fr. 10 – personified –; Ar. fr. 520.1 – in a variation of a proverb –; Archipp. fr. 19; Anaxandr. fr. 42.41; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.30; Euphr. frr. 8, 10.4, 14; Archestr. fr. 11.1 Olson / Sens; Matr. fr. 1.22 Olson / Sens; Mach. 36 Gow). See also Millis 2015a, 222; Miccolis 2017, 139–140. ἀφύαι were very common in Athens (Ar. Ach. 900–901) and hence also very cheap (Ar. Eq. 644–645; Chrysipp. apud Ath. 7.285d; cf. Hermipp. fr. 14; Arist. HA 569b9–27). Nonetheless, Athenian ἀφύαι were considered the best (while the rest should be dismissed with disgust: Archestr. fr. 11 τὴν ἀφύην μίνθου πᾶσαν πλὴν τὴν ἐν Ἀθήναις, with Olson / Sens 2000, 54; see also Chrysipp. apud Ath. 7.285d). ἀφύαι were cooked seasoned with herbs and fried in olive oil (Archestr. frr. 11 Olson / Sens (=fr. 9 Brand=SH 140), dub. 61 Olson / Sens (=fr. 10 Brand=SH 141)= Clearch. fr. 81 Wehrli, apud Ath. 7.285c–d) and served dripping with it (thus Hsch. α 8804).

Ἡσίοδος (fr. 11)

107

On another note, ἀφύη was the nickname of 4th century hetairai (Ath. 13.586b ἑταιρῶν ἐπωνυμίαι αἱ ἀφύαι). Apollodorus (FGrHist 244 fr. 210 apud Ath. 13.568b) reports that the hetairai Stagonion (PAA #832170 with add. vol. 19.539) and Anthis (PAA #130290 with add. vol. 19.76) were called ἀφύαι because they were thin, with white skin and big eyes (Σταγόνιον καὶ Ἄνθις ἀδελφαί˙ αὗται Ἀφύαι ἐκαλούντο, ὅτι λευκαὶ καὶ λεπταὶ οὖσαι τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς μεγάλους εἶχον). Antiphanes the Younger (FGrHist 349 fr. 1 apud Ath. 13.568b) conveys that the hetaira Nikostratis was also called Ἀφύη for the same reason. See also Synag. Β α 2574 (= Phot. α 3409), Henry 1992, 255–260, 267 n. 18. A double entendre with sexual connotation is very possibly played upon Matro fr. 1.22 Olson / Sens (Olson / Sens 1999, 90) and Antiph. fr. 27.24 (with Konstantakos 2000a, 92), but in this fragment by Nicostratus, we do not have enough information for such a hypothesis, especially since the fish names are given the one after the other without any other comic comments (as in e. g. Antiph. fr. 27). ἑψητόν ἕψω is used for wet cooking, e. g. poaching, braising, stewing, boiling (contrary to ὀπτάω which is used for dry cooking, like roasting, frying or baking. See Olson / Sens 1999, 133). ἑψητοί are “tiny, insubstantial fish” (λεπτά ἰχθύδια, Ath. 7.301a) of various types, that are cooked altogether by wet cooking (see also Phot. ε 2513 ἑψητοί˙ πληθυντικῶς τὰ ἰχθύδια, ὡς ἀφύαι καὶ μεμβράδες). Similarly, ἐπανθρακίδες (Ar. Ach. 670 with Olson 2002, 244) is not a specific type of fish, but a variety of fishes that are roasted on coals (cf. ἐπανθρακίζω) and φρυκτοί (Alex. fr. 159.3 with Arnott 1996, 468) are a variety of fishes that are generally roasted (cf. φρύγω). Dorion in Περὶ Ἰχθύων (apud Ath. 7.300f) names as ἑψητούς small fish that ought to be stewed, such as anchovies, sand-smelt, gobies, as well as several cuttlefish (ἑψητοὺς εἶναι μὲν δεῖ ἐγκρασιχόλους ἢ ἴωπας ἢ ἀθερίνας ἢ κωβιοὺς ἢ τριγλίδας μικρὰς σηπίδιά τε καὶ τευθίδια καὶ καρκίνια, “fish that ought to be stewed are anchovies, iōpes, sand-smelt, gobies, and small triglides, as well as little cuttlefish, squid, and crabs”83). Athenaeus testifies that in his native city of Naucratis, the term ἑψητοί designates the little fishes that were left behind in the ditches of the Nile when its level of water dropped (Ath. 7.301c ἐν δὲ τῆι ἐμῆι Ναυκράτει ἑψητοὺς καλοῦσιν ἰχθύδια ὑπολειπόμενα ἐν ταῖς διώρυξιν, ὅταν ὁ Νεῖλος ὑποπαύηται τῆς πληρώσεως). The singular form is collective, as in Nicostratus’ fragment here, as well as Archipp. fr. 19, Storad. fr. 1.18, Posidipp. fr. 3 (note also the preceding singulars βεμβράδ᾽, ἀφύην). A singular form signifying a single fish seems to be only Eub. fr. 92, where the speaker is trying to emphasize the lack of fish that are available (ἀγαπῶν τε κἂν ἑψητὸν ἐν τεύτλοις ἕνα / διὰ δωδεκάτης ἑψόμενον ἡμέρας ἴδηι, “pleased if he sees even a single hepsētos / being stewed in beets every 11 days”84). See Miccolis 2017, 141. 83 84

Translation by Olson 2008. Translation by Olson 2008.

108

Ἱεροφάντης (Hierophantēs) (“Initiatory priest”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 283; Meineke 1847 I, 635; Bothe 1855, 471; Kock 1884 II, 223; Edmonds 1959 II, 32–33; PCG VII, 81; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 624 Title We do not know of any other plays with this title, but Antiphanes, Philemo, and Phillipides have written a Mustis. Literally, ἱεροφάντης is “the one who shows sacred things”. Hierophantai were the chief priests in the ceremonies of the Eleusinian mysteries, chosen for life from the hieratic clan of the Eumolpidae (because Eumolpus was considered the first Hierophantēs). They wore a distinguishing headband (στρόφιον), a myrtle wreath, a purple robe and they also carried a scepter (Clinton 1974, 10–47; OCD s. v. Hierophantēs). Their names were secret and the initiates were forbidden to mention them before the profane (Nuttall 1840, 169–170, s. v. Hierophantēs). The chief priest of the Mysteries was assisted by two other Hierophantidai and a Dadouchos (Clinton 1974, 47–68) and at a climactic point, the Hierophantēs emerged from the gate of the Anaktoron amidst a flood of light (cf. IG II2 3661, 3709. Hierophantidai were responsible for the initiates’ witnessing of the “great light” [μέγα φῶς], Plut. De prof. virt. 81e; see also Clinton 2004, 85). From the 2nd century BC, Hierophantēs practiced “hieronymy” upon entering office, replacing his own name with “Hierophantēs” (see Clinton 1974, 9–10). Content Allusions to city festivals are much more common in Middle and New Comedy than they were in Old Comedy (cf. e. g. Timocles’ Dionysiazusai, Ephippus’ Obeliaphoroi, Dionysius’ Thesmophoros, Eubulus’ Kalathēphoroi, Anaxandrides’ Phialēphoroi and Kanēphoros, Philetaerus’ Lampadēphoroi, Menander’s Kanēphoros). The plot of Nicostratus’ Hierophantēs may have been connected to the Eleusinian Mysteries (perhaps similarly to Antiphanes’, Philemo’s, and Phillipides’ Mustis; see Arnott 2010, 163), but almost nothing can be said regarding the play’s exact content on the basis of the only surviving fragment, which literally testifies to the use of a single word (ἐγκρυφίας). According to the obvious assumptions, the play could have featured a travesty of an Hierophantēs, perhaps accompanied by a Dadouchos, who might have also been a stage character, in a parody of the Mysteries or some sort of sacred ritual. The play could have also included a banquet, in which the reference to the ἐγκρυφίαν may have been made, unless the use of this type of bread was somehow connected to an enacted parody of a ritual. Date

Unknown.

Ἱεροφάντης (fr. 12)

109

fr. 12 K.–A. (14 K.) Ath. 3.110a ἐγκρυφίαν. τούτου μνημονεύει Νικόστρατος ἐν Ἱεροφάντηι καὶ ὁ ὀψοδαίδαλος Ἀρχέστρατος, οὗ κατὰ καιρὸν τὸ μαρτύριον παραθήσομαι. enkruphias (“hidden [bread]”, i.e. bread baked within the coals); Nicostratus mentions this in his Hierophantēs, as does the glutton Archestratus (fr. 5.15 Olson / Sens = SH 135.15), whose evidence I will cite at the appropriate moment.

Metre Unknown. Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 283; Meineke 1847 I, 635; Bothe 1855, 471; Kock 1884 II, 223; Edmonds 1959 II, 32–33; PCG VII, 81; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 624 Citation Context The fragment occurs in a section that is dedicated to different types of bread (Ath. 3.109b ἡμεῖς οὖν εἴπωμέν τι καὶ περὶ ἄρτων). Before describing ἐγκρυφίας, Athenaeus lists the types of bread mentioned in the treatise On Plants by Tryphon of Alexandria (fr. 117 Velsen apud Ath. 3.109c ζυμίτης, ἄζυμος, σεμιδαλίτης, χονδρίτης, συγκομιστός, ἐξ ὀλυρῶν, ἐκ τιφῶν, ἐκ μελινῶν, “yeast bread”, “unleavened bread”, “durum wheat bread”, “groat bread”, “bread made of unsieved flour”, “bread made of emmer”, “bread made of einkorn”, “bread made of millet”) and subsequently the types of bread occurring in Timocles (fr. 35 ἰπνίτης, “oven bread”), Antidotus (fr. 3 ἐσχαρίτης, “brazier bread”), Crobylus (fr. 2 ἐσχαρίτης, “brazier bread”), Lynceus (fr. 14 Dalby [regarding bread in Athens] σεμνυνομένων παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις τῶν ἀγοραίων ἄρτων, ἀρχομένου μὲν τοῦ δείπνου καὶ μεσοῦντος οὐθὲν λειπομένους ἐπιφέρουσιν. ἀπειρηκότων δὲ καὶ πεπληρωμένων ἡδίστην ἐπεισάγουσι διατριβὴν τὸν διάχριστον ἐσχαρίτην καλούμενον, “since the bread sold in the market in their country is magnificent, they serve it in enormous quantities at the beginning of the meal and the middle. But once the guests are full and refuse it, they bring in next, as a delicious bit of fun, what is called “anointed brazier bread”85), Sopater (fr. 9 ἀταβυρίτης, “ataburitēs bread”), Semus (FGrHist 396 fr. 14 ἀχαΐνας, “achainas bread”), and Aristophanes (fr. 129 κριβανίτης, “baking-shell bread”). Following Nicostratus and the reference to ἐγκρυφίας, the list of other types of bread is very long and continues until Ath. 3.116a. Interpretation The one-word fragment leaves no room for possible interpretations of its context or function in the plot. As also discussed above (“Content”), the reference to this specific type of bread (ἐγκρυφίας ἄρτος) may have been made in a sympotic context or in a parody of a sacred ritual.

85

Translation by Olson 2006.

110

Nicostratus

ἐγκρυφίαν ἐγκρυφίας (ἄρτος) is an “ash bread” (Blümner 1875 I, 84; Pfeiffer 1949, 242 on Call. fr. 251.2; Olson / Sens 2000, 34–35), meaning a loaf of bread that is literally “hidden”, i.e. baked within, or on top of the coals, or in the ashes. See also Ath. 3.110b ἡ δ᾽ ἀπανθρακίς ἐστι τῶν λαγάνων ἁπαλωτέρα. ἔοικε δὲ καὶ οὗτος ἐπ᾽ ἀνθράκων γίνεσθαι, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ παρ᾽ Ἀττικοῖς ἐγκρυφίας (“the apanthrakis is more delicate than wafer bread. This type too is probably produced on top of coals, like what Attic authors refer to as an enkryphia”), as well as Hippoc. Vict. 6.540.12–13; Philistion of Locris apud Ath. 3.115e; Luc. Dial. mort. 6.4 Macleod; in the Old Testament: Ex. 12.39, Ho. 7.8, Gen. 18.6, Nu. 11.9, Ez. 4.12, Kings 19.6. ἐγκρυφίας ἄρτος is perhaps same to the σποδίτης ἄρτος (Diph. fr. 25).

111

Κλίνη (Klinē) (“Couch”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 284; Meineke 1847 I, 635636; Bothe 1855, 471–472; Kock 1884 II, 223; Edmonds 1959 II, 32–33; PCG VII, 81–81; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 625 Title We know of no other plays with the same title, although the category of titles referring to an object that must have been important to the plot is not uncommon (see Arnott 2010, 317–318), as for example Daktulios (“Ring” by Alexis, Amphis, Timocles, Menander), Encheiridion (“Dagger” by Philemon, Sophilus, Menander), or Hippiscus (“Head Ornament”) by Alexis, and Pterugion (“Wing”) by Philemon. The importance that the κλίνη must have had to the plot is further reinforced by the highly sympotic characteristics of its two surviving fragments (frr. 13, 14). Besides, κλίνη is a term for both “bed” used for sleeping, and “couch” on which the banqueters reclined and enjoyed the food, eating off light, low tables (called τράπεζαι; e. g. Ar. Eccl. 838–840; Pax 769–770; Plato Com. fr. 230; Eub. fr. 119; Diod. Com. frr. 2.9–11, 14–15. See Olson 1998, 224; Olson 2002, 335; For couches and symposium furniture see Ransom 1905, 24–28, 39–54, 66–71; Pritchett 1956, 226–233, 244–250, 253–254; Richter 1966, 52–72, 117–119; Boardman 1990). Content The two fragments alone are unable to provide us with secure information, not even for a basic reconstruction of the plot. Both fragments have sympotic references, one pointing at food (fr. 13) and the other one pointing at wine (albeit of bad quality, fr. 14). The play could have thus incorporated a banquet, even an unsuccessful one, where the wine was bad and maybe some of the food was also missing, if indeed the speaker of fr. 13 succumbed to the irresistible smell of the hot loaf of bread and finally ate it (see below, “Interpretation”). Date

Unknown.

fr. 13 K.–A. (15 K.)

5

ναστὸς τὸ μέγεθος τηλικοῦτος, δέσποτα, λευκός˙ τὸ γὰρ πάχος ὑπερέκυπτε τοῦ κανοῦ. ὀσμὴ δὲ, τοὐπίβλημ᾽ ἐπεὶ περιηιρέθη, ἄνω ᾽βάδιζε καὶ μέλιτι μεμιγμένη ἀτμίς τις εἰς τὰς ῥῖνας˙ ἔτι γὰρ θερμὸς ἦν

2 γὰρ πάχος ACE, Holzinger (cf. Newiger) : πάχος γὰρ Porson : δὲ πάχος Hanow 4 ἄνω ᾽βάδιζε … μεμιγμένη Meineke  : ἐβάδιζ᾽ ἄνω … μεμιγμένη ACE  : ἐβάδιζ᾽ ἄνω … συμμεμιγμένη Brunck apud Scwheighäeuser : συμμεμιγμένη aut διαμεμιγμένη Meineke : προσμεμιγμένη Herwerden : μεμειγμένη 5 ἀτμίς τις ACE : ἤτμιζεν Blaydes

112

Nicostratus

A nastos as large as this, master, and white; for it was so big around that it peeked up out of the sacrificial basket. The smell of it, when the cover was removed, rose straight to my nostrils, along with a sort of steam mixed with honey; for it was still hot86 Ath. 3.111c ναστὸς ἄρτος ζυμίτης καλεῖται μέγας, ὥς φησι Πολέμαρχος καὶ Ἀρτεμίδωρος, Ἡρακλέων δὲ πλακοῦντος εἶδος. Νικόστρατος δ᾽ ἐν Κλίνηι˙ναστὸς τὸ μέγεθος τηλικοῦτος — ἔτι γὰρ θερμὸς ἦν nastos is the term for a large load of leavened bread, according to Polemarchus and Artemidorus; but Heracleon (p. 6 Berndt) says that it is a type of flatcake. Nicostratus in the Klinē: a nastos as large as this — because it was still warm

Meter Iambic trimeter. llwr l|lwl llwl llwl r|rwl wlwl

llwl llwl rlwl wlwl w|lwr wlwl llwl llw|r llwl

Discussion Schweighäuser 1802, 278–279; Porson 1812, 242; Meineke 1839 I, 348; Hanow 1830, 150; Meineke 1840 III, 284; Meineke 1847 I, 635–636; Bothe 1855, 471–472; Bothe 1855, 471–472; Kock 1884 II, 223; Herwerden 1868, 30; Nauck 1894, 67; Blaydes 1896, 137; Holzinger 1940, 277; Edmonds 1959 II, 32–33; Newiger 1961, 182–183; PCG VII, 81–81; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 625; Rusten 2011, 527 Citation Context The fragment is found in the long discussion of the different types of bread that begins in 3.109b (ἡμεῖς οὖν εἴπωμέν τι καὶ περὶ ἄρτων; see above, fr. 12, “Citation Context”). Following the reference to Nicostratus fr. 12 in Ath. 3.110a, discussion includes a number of shorter or longer descriptions of various types of bread, such as λάγανος (3.110b, “wafer bread”), ἀπανθρακίς (3.110b, “bread baked on/in coals”), κριβανίτης/κρίβανος/κλιβανίτας/κλίβανος (3.110b, “baking-shell bread”), ὅμωρος (3.110b, “homōros”), σταιτίτης (3.110b, “spelt bread”), ἐγκρίς (3.110b, “honey-and-oil-cake”), ἀλειφατίτης (3.110b, “oil-bread”), ἡμιάρτιος (3.110b, “half-loaf ”), πλακίτας (3.110c, “plakitas”), τυρόεις (3.110c, “cheese-bread”), δάρατος (3.110d, “daratos”), Κιλίκιος (3.110d, “Cilician”), ἀγελαῖος (3.110e, “agelaios”), αὐτόπυρος  / αὐτοπυρίτης (3.110e, “whole-wheat”), ὄρινδος (3.110e, “orindos”), κόλλαβος (3.110f, “wheat-roll”), 86

Translation by Olson 2006.

Κλίνη (fr. 13)

113

μακωνίς/μακωνίας (3.111a, “poppy-seed”), κολλύρα (3.111a, “kollura”), ὀβελίας (3.111b, “obelias-bread”), ἐτνίτας (3.111b, “etnitas”), and πανός (3.111c, “panos”). After the quotation of fr. 13 in 13.111c, the long list of bread types continues until Ath. 3.116a. Text In line 2, γὰρ πάχος is the reading of the mss. In order to avoid the proceleusmatic structure of four short syllables in the first two positions of the second meter (πάχος ὑπερέκ-), Porson (1812, 242; endorsed by Newiger 1961, 182–183) had rearranged the order of words into πάχος γάρ and Hanow (1830, 150) had subsequently traded γάρ for δέ. According to this line of thought, the proceleusmatic would be avoided and the misplacement of γάρ (see Kühner / Gerth II.2, 330 [§545]) would be treated as a very obvious mistake, even more so since Athenaeus often gives metrically inverted quotations. However, when the four short syllables of the proceleusmatic are contained either within a single word or are divided in two disyllabic elements by the word boundaries (as in here), then the structure is more acceptable, especially in comedy where the rules of the trimeter are more relaxed (see Stephens 1988, esp. 125). The writing of the manuscripts can thus stand as is. In line 4, the manuscripts read ἐβάδιζ᾽ ἄνω καὶ μέλιτι μεμιγμένη. The line cannot stand for metrical reasons, since it lacks the anceps at the beginning of the second meter. Several emendations have been proposed regarding both the beginning and the end of the verse. Against the simpler μεμιγμένη, Schweighäuser (1802, 279) prefers συμμεμιγμένη (following Brunck apud Schweighäuser 1802, 279), which solves the metrical problems by adding a long syllable in the second meter (ἐβάδιζ᾽ ἄνω καὶ μέλιτι συμμεμιγμένη: wwlwl lrwl wlwl). Kassel and Austin follow the emendation of Meineke (in his edition minor: 1847, 635) reading ἄνω ᾽βάδιζε, against ἐβάδιζ᾽ ἄνω of the mss. The selection of the order ἄνω ᾽βάδιζε or ἐβάδιζ᾽ ἄνω is inextricably connected to the addition of προσ– or συμ– at the beginning of μεμιγμένη. If ἐβάδιζ᾽ ἄνω of the mss. is kept, then the addition of a preposition (προσ– is more probably to have been left out as a palaeographical mistake, so it is a more trustworthy emendation according to Herwerden 1868, 30) is mandatory in order to fix the lacking syllable of the line. However, apart from the accumulation of four short syllables in the middle of the line with μέλιτι με–, the simple inversion of the word order provided by the manuscripts at the beginning of the line (and kept by Kassel and Austin) make the line metrically sound with minimum editorial invasion. Besides, an identical accumulation of short syllables with the exact same words, at the exact same position of the line also occurs elsewhere (e. g. Plato Com. fr. 188.9 ἑκκαίδεχ᾽ ὁλόκληροι μέλιτι μεμιγμέναι). In line 5, Blaydes (1896, 137) reads ἤτμιζεν instead of ἀτμίς τις of the mss. Interpretation In this fragment, a speaker describes the size and smell of a ναστός, a large loaf of bread, which was freshly baked, still hot (ἔτι γὰρ θερμὸς ἦν) and was kept in a sacrificial basket (κανοῦν) with a cover (ἐπίβλημα). The

114

Nicostratus

speaker is astonished by the honey smell (μέλιτι μεμιγμένη ἀτμίς) that rose from the basket when it was opened. The fragment makes direct references to food and the ναστός bread in specific (see below, line 1), but a sacrificial context (especially because of the combination of ναστός with the sacrificial basket –κανοῦν– and honey, as in Ar. Av. 567, see below, line 1) should also be taken into consideration. Although the context is unknown and secure assumptions are thus impossible, we could entertain the possibility of the lines being spoken by a slave (cf. δέσποτα of line 1), who perhaps could have given in to the irresistible smell of warm bread and could have eaten the ναστός. This seems even more probable if we imagine that the lines were spoken by the slave while on his way from the market to his master’s house (as for example a mageiros in the typical scenes in Antiph. fr. 55; Alex. frr. 129, 138; Dionys. frr. 2, 3; see Arnott 2010, 320), describing his inability to resist to the bread, or even addressed to his master, explaining why finally he has brought no bread with him. Another possibility would involve the speaker (slave?) giving a hyperbolic description of a ναστός that he saw somewhere else (at a sacrifice?) and impressed him. 1 ναστός the adjective ναστός means “firm, close-pressed” (LSJ s. v. ναστός), originating from νάσσω (“to press”). A substantival adjective here, qualifying either a “loaf ” (ἄρτος), or a “flat cake” (πλαξ, πλακοῦς), which is well-kneaded and leavened. See Pherecr. fr. 113.5 καὶ ναστῶν τρύφη, 137.7 (diminutive ναστίσκων); Ar. Av. 567 ναστοὺς μελιτοῦντας, Pl. 1142 (perhaps as offering to gods, see Dunbar 1995, 261–262); Metag. 6.3; Plato Com. fr. 277 ναστοκόος; Diph. fr. 45.3 ναστὸν μείζονα. Athenaeus (3.111c) informs us that Polemarchus (c. 1st century AD, a grammarian) and Artemidorus (1st century BC, a member of Aristophanes of Byzantium’s school who compiled a collection of culinary terms, ὀψαρτυτικὰς λέξεις συνήγαγε. See Ath. 1.5b, 4.171b, 9.387d, 11.485e, 14.662d, 14.663c–d, with Olson 2006 ad 1.5b with n. 53) describe the bread as “large” (μέγας) and “leavened” (ζυμίτης), but Heracleaon (1st BC–1st AD, a grammarian, p. 6 Berndt) as a type of flatcake (πλακοῦντος). The correspondences to the ναστός referred to in Aristophanes (Av. 567 ναστοὺς θύειν μελιτοῦντας) are many, not only because here as well it might be a sacrificial offer, but also because it might also be made with honey: in line 2 of this fragment, ναστός is described as protruding of the κάνεον (“the sacrificial basket”), from where there was also a smell of honey (μέλιτι μεμιγμένη ἀτμίς) coming out. Quite similarly, the meaning of the line in Aristophanes seems to be that “the greedy Gull should receive a suitably large and tasty offering [sc. a ναστός], which the Olympian who is to come second to the Gull, the greedy Herakles, would love to have himself ” (Dunbar 1995, 381). Dunbar also notices that offerings with honey are widely attested, either to gods or to chthonic powers in general (e. g. guarding snakes [Ar. Nub. 507; Hdt. 8.41.2], or Cerberus(?) [Ar. Lys. 601], see Dunbar 1995, 380–383). Notably, among the references to the ingredients of the ναστός, only the one in this fragment contains honey (see e.g. Poll. 6.78 where ναστός contains “pounded raisins and almonds”, or

Κλίνη (fr. 13)

115

Ath. 14.646e where ναστός is described as a type of flatbread [πλακοῦντος εἶδος], stuffed with a mixture of blood and spices [ἔχων ἔνδον καρυκείας; on καρύκη, a spicy, blood-based Lydian sauce see Ath. 4.160b, 4.172b, 4.173b, 12.516c); this makes the connection to the Aristophanic passage even stronger, whether or not a sacrificial context was also at works (see the discussion in Dunbar 1995, 380–383). The lines of the fragment are very few to securely reveal its context; regardless of its connection to god offerings however, the similarities to the Aristophanic passage still stand. 2 λευκός here referring to the color (here of food) and not the brightness, as in Il. 4.434 γάλα λευκόν; 5.196, 8.564 κρῖ λευκόν; 18.560 λεύκ᾽ ἄλφιτα. ὑπερέκυπτε ὑπερκύπτω has the meaning of “pop out, emerge”, and is accompanied by genitive (as in here, see also Luc. De luctu 16; Diosc. 4.100) or accusative, also in the sense of “surpass” (as in Antiph. PA 6.250.2). κανοῦ a contracted form of κάνειον, τὸ κανοῦν is a bread-basket of reed or cane (e. g. Il. 9.217; Od. 17.343), that was also used for holding the sacrificial barley-bread, crown, and knife of the sacrificial proceedings (e. g. Eur. El. 800, 810–811, 1142; Eur. IA 1470, 1565–1566; Aesch. 3.120; Ar. Ach. 242, 244; Ar. Pax 948; Plato Com. fr. 15; Diph. fr. 89; Men. Perik. 997, Sam. 22, Epitr. 222. For an outline of the proceedings see Denniston 1979, 147). In vase-paintings, the κανοῦν is depicted as having a flat bottom and a vertical rim that ended into three handles (Schelp 1975; van Straten 1995, 10–11, 162–164). See Denniston 1979, 147; Olson 1998, 251–252; Sommerstein 2013, 174. 3 τοὐπίβλημ᾽ ἐπίβλημα, from ἐπιβάλλω (to “throw on”) is the “covering, that which is thrown on something”, be it the cover of the basket, as in here, or a coverlet (Gal. 14.638), a tapestry (Plut. Cat. Mai. 4; Arr. Anab. 6.29.5), or a head-covering (Gal. UP 11.12 [2.152.1]). Cf. also Hegesipp. fr. 1.13 τοὐπίθημα τῆς χύτρας, for the lid of the pan. περιηιρέθη περιαιροῦμαι, “to be taken off ”, like here τὸ ἐπίβλημα, or e. g. τὴν κυανέην (Hdt. 2.151.2), τὰς ταινίας (Pl. Symp. 213a). 4 μέλιτι honey here seems to have been used as a sauce or an ingredient mixed in the dough of the ναστός (see Ar. Av. 567 ναστοὺς μελιττοῦντας and “Interpretation” above). In the Acharnians, it is poured over a sausage as a roasting sauce (1040 κατάχει σὺ τῆς χορδῆς τὸ μέλι), or over a cake when it is still hot from the fire (1130 κατάχει σὺ τὸ μέλι), a practice also referred to here, as shown by ἀτμίς and θερμός that follow in line 5 (also used as a sauce for cheese [Pherecr. fr. 50.6–7], or added to a μυττωτός, a garlic-paste salad [Ar. Pax 252]). μέλι is occasionally included in symposiastic catalogues of food (Stesich. fr. 179(i).2; Xenoph. fr. B1.9–10; Ar. Vesp. 676; Anaxandr. fr. 42.44; Antiph. fr. 273.2, 295.1; Men. fr. 224.5; Athenion fr. 1.33; Adesp. Com. fr. 1073.13; Archestr. fr. 60.17 Olson / Sens [=62.17 Brandt, SH 192.17]). See Olson / Sens 2000, 235.

116

Nicostratus

5 ἀτμίς meaning “steam”, signifies that the cake was still hot (also inferred from ἔτι γὰρ θερμὸς ἦν below) and the fact that it also had a smell of honey (μέλιτι μεμιγμένη) shows that ναστός either had a honey filling or a honey sauce poured over it. ῥῖνας signifying “nostrils” in plural (as opposed to “nose” in singular), see e. g. Il. 14.467, Od. 5.456; Soph. Aj. 918; Epich. fr. 18. θερμὸς the gastronomic pleasure of serving and consuming hot food is frequently highlighted in comedy (e. g. Ach. 975–976 τά δ᾽ αὖ πρέπει / χλιαρὰ κατεσθίειν, 1156–1157 ἡ δ᾽ ὠπτημένη / σίζουσα πάραλoς ἐπὶ τραπέζηι κειμένη, Eq. 354 θύννεια θερμὰ καταφαγών, Av. 536 κἄπειτα κατσκέδασαν θερμόν; Alcaeus fr. 2.1 διπύρους τε θερμούς; Alex. frr. 145.11 τὸ δ᾽ ὄψον ἂν μὴ θερμὸν ἦι, διασύρομεν, 194.2–3 ὀπτὸν… καὶ θερμόν, 177.1–6 where a cook is astonished by his patron’s reluctance to have his food served hot) and elsewhere (e. g. Archestr. frr. 14.6 κρίβανον ἐς θερμὸν κρέμασον, 37.4 εὐμεγέθη θερμόν, 38.5 θερμὰ τεμάχη, 57.2–5). See Dunbar 1995, 253; Arnott 1996, 426–427; Olson 2002, 312, 350). fr. 14 K.–A. (16 K.) καὶ δυσχερὴς λάγυνος οὗτος πλησίον ὄξους This lagynos (masc.) full of cheap wine that’ s nearby is also repulsive Ath. 11.499b–c λάγυνον δὲ μέτρου λέγουσιν εἶναι ὄνομα παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ὡς χοὸς καὶ κοτύλης. χωρεῖν δ᾽ αὐτὸ κοτύλας Ἀττικὰς δώδεκα. καὶ ἐν Πάτραις δέ φασι τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὸ μέτρον τὴν λάγυνον. ἀρσενικῶς δὲ εἴρηκε τὸν λάγυνον Νικόστρατος μὲν ἐν Ἑκάτηι˙(Α.) τῶν κατεσταμνισμένων ἡμῖν λαγύνων πηλίκοι τινές; (Β.) τρίχους. καὶ πάλιν˙ τὸν μεστὸν ἡμῖν φέρε λάγυνον. καὶ ἐν τῆι ἐπιγραφομένηι Κλίνηι˙ καὶ δυσχερὴς — ὄξους they say that a lagynos is the name of a Greek unit of measure, like a chous and a kotylē. And it can hold twelve Attic kotylai. They also say that this unit, the lagynos (fem.), is used in Patras. But Nicostratus in Hekatē [fr. 10, encompassing both quotations] has the word lagynos as masculine: how large are the lagynoi we transferred from the wine-jars? (B) They hold three choes. And again: Bring us the full lagynos (masc.)! And in his play entitled Klinē [fr. 14]: is also repulsive — cheap wine

Meter Iambic Trimeter

llwl wlw|l llwl ll⟨wl xlwl xlwl⟩

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 284; Meineke 1847 I, 636; Bothe 1855, 471–472; Kock 1884 II, 224; Blaydes 1896, 137; Edmonds 1959 II, 34–35; PCG VII, 82; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 625

Κλίνη (fr. 14)

117

Citation Context The fragment is found in the large section of discussions regarding drinking cups (book 11). Although it contains a reference to a measuring unit (lagynos), it belongs in the discussion of the skyphos that begun in 11.498a–500c. Following Nicostratus, the presentation of λάγυνος includes references to Diphilus (frr. 3, 12), Lynceus (fr. 6 Dalby), Aristotle (Const. Thess. fr. 503), and Rhianus (fr. 75 Powell= HE 3246–9), then leading to references to skyphos that complete the section (Stesich. Ger. fr. 22a Finglass = S19 PMGF; Eratosth. fr. 82, p. 54 Strecker; Od. 9.222–223; Hieronymus of Rhodes fr. 27 Wehrli; Bacch. fr. 21; Ephorus FGrH 70 fr. 71). See the detailed discussion in the “Citation Context” of fr. 10 above. Interpretation In this fragment, a speaker refers to a cup (λάγυνος) which is placed somewhere nearby and possibly because of the fact that it is full of vinegar or bad-quality-wine, it is considered disgusting. The speaker’s repulsion makes the latter more probable (see ὄξους and relevant discussion below). δυσχερής literally, “hard to take in hand/manage” (⟨δυσ–, χείρ, LSJ s.v. δυσχερής) and subsequently, “annoying, disagreeable, repulsive” (e. g. [Aesch.] PV 802 ἄκουσον δυσχερῆ θεωρίαν; Soph. Ant. 254 πᾶσι θαῦμα δυσχερὲς παρῆν). Blaydes (1896, 137) considers δυσπινής a possible synonym, entailing the meaning of “miserable”. What makes the λάγυνος appalling must be that it contains vinegar instead of wine (especially since a λάγυνος could hold large quantities of wine, as in fr. 10 above). λάγυνος both here and in fr. 10, Nicostratus uses λάγυνος in the masculine form. See the discussion in fr. 10 above. ὄξους “ὄξος is strictly wine-vinegar [see Archestr. fr. 24.8 Olson / Sens οἴνινον ὄξος], i.e. impure acetic acid made from wine under the action of the fungus Mycoderma aceti and characterized by a strong sour taste, commonly mentioned in recipes and medical treatments” and included in the catalogues of seasonings (Arnott 1996, 783; Olson / Sens 2000, 103). It was used alone, or in combination with other seasonings (as in Archestr. fr. 23.5–6; Cratin. fr. 150.3–4), or as a dip or sauce (Archestr. frr. 24.8, 37.4 with Olson / Sens 2000 ad loc.). Colloquially apart from vinegar (e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 42.58; Antiph. fr. 140.3; Alex. fr. 179.4; Anaxipp. fr. 1.7; Men. frr. 218.4), it also signifies cheap wine, or wine that has gone sour (Hunter 1983, 150; see Eup. fr. 355 οἴνου παρόντος ὄξος ἠράσθη πιεῖν as a description of the behavior of someone with bizarre taste [see Olson 2014, 73]; Theopomp. com. fr. 66.2; Eub. fr. 65.3–4 ὁ μὲν οἶνος ὄξος αὑτὸν εἶναι γνήσιον, / το δ᾽ ὄξος οἶνον αὑτὸ μᾶλλον θατέρου, 136.1–3; Antiph. fr. 250 σφόδρ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡμῶν ὁ βίος οἴνωι προσφερής˙/ ὅταν ἦι τὸ λοιπὸν μικρόν, ὄξος γίγνεται; Diph. fr. 83 ὀξίνην οἶνον). In colloquial modern Greek, cheap wine is still called ξύδι (“vinegar”). Although in this fragment the context is uncertain, the fact that the speaker is disgusted points more to a λάγυνος full of cheap wine than a λάγυνος full of vinegar, which would probably have been served in a different vessel.

118

Λάκωνες (Lakōnes) (“Laconians”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 284; Meineke 1847 I, 635– 636; Kock 1884 II, 223; Edmonds 1959 II, 32–33; PCG VII, 82; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 625; Rusten 2011, 527 Title Plato Comicus has also written a play called Λάκωνες ἢ Ποιηταί (PCG VII, frr. 69–75) which is perhaps referred to by Aristophanes in Pax 700–701 (ΕΡΜ.) τί δαὶ Κρατῖνος ὁ σοφός; ἔστιν; / (ΤΡΥΓ.) ἀπέθανεν, ὅθ᾽ οἱ Λάκωνες ἐνέβαλον (according to Cobet; see the discussion in Olson 1998, 211–212), although with both the date and content of the play unknown, any assumptions are insecure. Homonymous plays have also been written by Cratinus (PCG IV, fr. 102), Eupolis (PCG V, fr. 191), Nicochares (PCG VII, fr. 13; Sud. v 407 Λάκωνες; Arg. IV Ar. Plut. p. 323b 19 Duebn. ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀντιπάτρου, ἀνταγωνιζομένου αὐτῶι Νικοχάρους μὲν Λάκωσιν, Ἀριστομένους δὲ Ἀδμήτωι, Νικοφῶντος δὲ Ἀδωνίδι, Ἀλκαίου δὲ Πασιφάηι) and Eubulus (PCG V, frr. 60–63). In general, all the Λάκωνες titles are only attested once and are thus somewhat uncertain and for the case of Nicostratus in specific we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of a title mix-up with Nicochares’ play (with Λάκωνες being absent from Nicostratus’ Suda catalogue [see Test. 1] (Orth 2015, 78 n. 90). The only known tragedy with similar title is Sophocles’ Lakainai (frr. 367–369a TrGF). In the 5th and 4th cent. BC, comedy titles with names of peoples or inhabitants of cities are used often (e. g. Aigyptioi [Antiphanes, Timocles], Babylōnioi [Aristophanes], Thettaloi [Anaxandrides], Thēbaioi [Alexis, Philemon], Imbrioi [Menander], Kares [Antiphanes], Kaunioi [Timocles, Alexis], Korinthioi [Clearchus], Krētes [Apollophanes, Nicochares], Lokroi [Alexis, Menander], Lydoi [Magnes], Makedones [Strattis], Mysoi [Eubulus], Persai [Epicharmus, Chionides, Pherecrates], Samioi [Crates], Skythai [Xenarchus, ?Antiphanes], Tarantinoi [Cratinus II, Alexis], Trōes [Epicharmus]). Λάκων is a hypocoristic form to Λακεδαιμόνιος (Dittenberger 1906, 196; Frisk s. v. Λάκων), attested in comedy more often than Λακεδαιμόνιος,87 whereas they seem to be a preferable comic topic perhaps due to their dialectical characteristics (e. g. Ar. Lys., Eup. frr. 147, 149 [from the play Heilōtes], Epil. fr. 4 [from the play Kōraliskos], Adesp. Com. fr. 1035.10–23; see Colvin 1999, 270–273). The title Λάκωνες does not necessarily presuppose a connection with Athenian politics, just as Eubulus’ Λήδα for example is probably a play with a mythical not political/historical plot (Hunter 1983, 146). Besides, the verb λακωνίζειν designates “imitating Lacedaemonian manners”, or παιδεραστέω (see e. g. Ar. fr. 358; Eup.

87

In singular: Ar. Ach. 338; in plural: Hermipp. fr. 63.7, Eup. fr. 192.122, Ar. Ach. 52, 131, 356, 369, 482, 509, 536, 541, 647, 652, Ar. Eq. 467, 1008, 1053, Ar. Pax 282, Demetr. fr. 2.1.

Λάκωνες (fr. 15)

119

fr. 385.1), so consequently, the noun Λάκωνες could entail plotlines analogous to the verb’s meanings. Content The content of Nicostratus’ Lakōnes is unknown. Since the only surviving fragment only transmits a gnomē on time, the most logical assumption on the plot would be based on the play’s title. The comedy would perhaps entail references to a chorus of contemporary Spartans, perhaps in connection to the war of 388 BC,88 or to the negotiations leading to the Peace of Antalcidas in 386 BC. There are examples of reflections of Athenian foreign policy of the 390s and 380s in Plato Com. Hellas ē Nēsoi, or Presbeis, or even in Demetrius’ Sikelia and Philyllius’ Poleis. A mythical plot however remains a stronger alternative (especially since Nicostratus’ play titles do not show any preferences on political plotlines), perhaps analogously to other plays that incorporated mythical plots that took place in Sparta (as in e. g. Eubulus’ Lakōnes, see Hunter 1983, 145–150). Another possibility would entail a comic plot where the Laconians of the chorus could have been Athenians with the habit of λακωνίζειν, i.e. imitating the Laconian manners in clothing, hairstyle and lifestyle (analogously to a similar plot possibility in Plato’s Lakōnes; see Pirrotta 2009, 164; Zimmermann 2011, 754–755), or where two plot-characters visit Athens from Sparta and engage in a type of comic narrative (as in e. g. Menander’s Sikyōnioi). Date Unknown.

fr. 15 K.–A. (31 K.) οὐκ ἔστι δυσαρεστότερον οὐδὲ ἓν χρόνου˙ οὐδέποτ᾽ ἀρέσκει ταὐτὰ τούτωι τῶι θεῶι 1 δυσαρεστότερον Heeren: –τατον F: δυσάρεστον P

2 ταὐτὰ Heeren: ταῦτα FP

there’s not one thing harder to please than Time; the same things never please this god Stob. 1.8.13 (περὶ χρόνου οὐσίας καὶ μερῶν καὶ πόσων εἴη αἴτιος), p. 95 Wachsmuth / Hense. Νικοστράτου Λακώνων. Οὐκ ἔστι δυσαρεστότερον — τούτωι τῶι θεῶι Stob. 1.8.13 (οn the nature of time and its parts, and how many things it is responsible for), p. 95 Wachsmuth / Hense. Nicostratus in Lakones: there’s not one thing harder to please — this god

88

For the political upheaval of the years 394–386 BC, see Hammond 1986, 457–465.

120

Nicostratus

Meter Iambic Trimeter

llwr lrw|l wlwl lrwl llw|l llwl

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 284; Meineke 1847 I, 635– 636; Kock 1884 II, 223; Edmonds 1959 II, 32–33; PCG VII, 82; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 625; Rusten 2011, 527 Citation Context From Stobaeus’ section περί τε χρόνου οὐσίας καὶ μερῶν καὶ πόσων εἴη αἴτιος (“On the nature of time and its parts, and how many things it is responsible for”). The context refers to the concept and characteristics of time, with adages from Sophocles, Xenophanes, Philemon, Chaeremon, Antiphanes, Theodectes, Agathon, Menander, Critias before (Stob. 1.8.1–12, pp. 94–95 Wachsmuth / Hense) and Agathon, Simonides, Sophocles, Euripides, Philemon, Chaeremon, Menander after (Stob. 1.8.14–32, pp. 96–98 Wachsmuth / Hense) the quotation of Nicostratus. This is one of the only four fragments of Nicostratus preserved by Stobaeus (the others being the unplaced frr. 28, 29 30), contrary to a plethora of quotations from Euripides, Sophocles and Menander. The same happens for most 5th– or early to mid-4th–century comic poets (see Olson 2014, 116–117). Text The fragment is quoted in the lemma Νικοστράτου Λακώνων. Stobaeus’ manuscript P reads νικοστράτ λακώνων at line 12, but manuscript F reads Νικοστράτου at the margin of line 11 and Λακώνων at the margin of line 12. This has led to the wrong attribution of Λακώνων to Agathon, the poet mentioned in the following lemma, in line 13 (see TrGF I Agathon test. 27 and fr. 19). P’s δυσάρεστον in 2 is clearly wrong as it seriously damages meter, lacking the proper number of syllables; Heeren’s δυσαρεστότερον for δυσαρεστότατον (of manuscript F) is a safe emendation which restores the syntactical need for a comparative form (because of οὐδὲ ἕν). Heeren’s ταὐτά in 2 also repairs the meaning, according to which the god of Time is not easily pleased (see comments on δυσαρεστότερον, line 1 below). Interpretation The fragment provides an adage on time, with tragic overtones. The reference is to Time as a personified divinity, as commonly found in drama (see below). 1 δυσαρεστότερον the usual sense of δυσάρεστος is “hard to appease, implacable” (LSJ s. v. δυσάρεστος). It is a characteristic of divinities in Aeschylus (Eum. 928–929 δυσαρέστους δαίμονας), generally describing someone who is ill to please (e. g. Eur. Or. 232 δυσάρεστον οἱ νοσοῦντες, Diph. fr. 63 οὐ δεῖ παρασιτεῖν ὄντα δυσάρεστον σφόδρα).

Λάκωνες (fr. 15)

121

οὐδὲ ἓν the emphatics οὐδὲ εἷς / ἕν and μηδὲ εἷς / ἕν instead of οὐδείς / οὐδέν and μηδείς / μηδέν are mostly used in prose and in comedy.89 Of a total of 125 occurrences of this emphatic structure in comedy, 99 read οὐδέ, 26 read μηδέ, 48 εἷς, and 77 ἕν (according to the statistics of Orth 2015, 275). See Moorhoouse 1962, 245–246 and especially Orth 2015, 275–276 for very detailed statistics. 2 χρόνου time is here personified, as in many other instances in Greek drama (see de Romilly 1968, 33–58); In Sophocles, Time is also a god (El. 178 χρόνος εὐμαρὴς θεός) and is generally considered all-seeing and all-hearing (Soph. OT 1213 ὁ πάνθ᾽ ὁρῶν χρόνος, TrGF IV fr. 301 πρὸς ταῦτα κρύπτε μηδέν˙ ὡς ὁ πάνθ᾽ ὁρῶν / καὶ πάντ᾽ ἀκούων πάντ᾽ ἀναπτύσσει χρόνος [also picked up by Gaetulicus ad Anth. Pal. 7.245 Ὦ Χρόνε, παντοίων θνητοῖς πανεπίσκοπε δαῖμον]). He is the father of days, centuries, and practically everything (Eur. Suppl. 787–788 Χρόνος παλαιὸς πατὴρ … ἁμερᾶν; Eur. Heracl. 900 Αἰών τε Χρόνου παῖς; Pind. Ol. 2.17 ὁ πάντων πατήρ). Time is credited with revealing everything and thus bringing justice (Eur. El. 952–953 ἐφευρεθεὶς χρόνωι / δίκην δέδωκας) but also with imposing lawlessness (Eur. HF 777–778 Χρόνου γὰρ οὔτις τὸ πάλιν εἰσορᾶν ἔτλα˙/ νόμον παρέμενος, ἀνομίαι χάριν διδούς). His malevolence is put forth through his tendency to make everything worse in Diphilus (fr. 84 πολιὸς τεχνίτης ἐστὶν ὁ χρόνος …. χαίρει μεταπλάττων πάντας ἐπὶ τὰ χείρονα). 3 οὐδέποτ᾽ ἀρέσκει ταὐτὰ τούτωι τῶι θεῶι the θεός that is here mentioned should be Time, similarly to Soph. El. 178 (see above, χρόνου, line 2). Although eternal and self-grown, Time is also ever changing, a concept alluded to here (by the reference to his dislike of similar things: οὐδέποτ᾽ ἀρέσκει ταὐτὰ) and in tragedy, as e. g. in Critias fr. 4 TrGF I ἀκάμας τε χρόνος περί τ᾽ ἀενάωι / ῥεύματι πλήρης φοιτᾶι τίκτων / αὐτὸς ἑαυτόν (on the debate regarding the paternity of Peirithous, in which the fragment belongs, see most recently Cropp 2020), where Time is attributed the perpetual movement of an ever-flowing stream, simultaneously encapsulating stability, but also, change (see de Romilly 1968, 38–40).

89

There are only two cases with οὐδέ and εἷς in tragedy (two insecure fragments with hiatus, Dionys. fr. 7 TrGF I = Dionys. Com. fr. *7; Trag. adesp. fr. 477 TrGF II [“nisi comicum” Kannicht / Snell in app.]). In the rest of the cases, the form is οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς (Soph. Trach. 1072, Ant. 884, OT 281, OC 1656, fr. 680.1 TrGF IV; Eur. fr. 1064.6 TrGF V 2; Trag. adesp. fr. *348b, 626.10 TrGF II).

122

Μάγειρος (Mageiros) (“Cook”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 284; Meineke 1847 I, 636; Bothe 1855, 472; Kock 1884 II, 224; Edmonds 1959 II, 34–35; PCG VII, 82–83; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626; Rusten 2011, 527 Title Anaxilas has written Μαγείρους (“Cooks”, PCG II, fr. 19) using the same title in plural form. μάγειρος signified more than a “cook” does today. The μάγειρος was “the professional butcher and meat cook who could be hired –in Middle Comedy times, always as a freeman– in the marketplaces of Athens and other Greek cities in order to officiate at special meals such as the wedding breakfasts that were often a ceremonial part of the happy endings of later comedy plots” (Arnott 2010, 320). The figure of μάγειρος, known to us mostly from its representation in Menander and the rest of New as well as Roman Comedy has developed in the years between 370–350 BC, i.e. at the heart of Middle Comedy (Arnott 2010, 230 and n. 182 with detailed bibliography). Content The play of Anaxilas must have included the motif of the pompous cook as well as a scene of dialogue of the cook with a client. The content of Nicostratus’ play is unknown, and little can be inferred from the three surviving lines, other than a cook or someone else is referring to somebody’s lack of knowledge both of simple and elaborate dishes. The lines’ expressed contempt towards someone who has not mastered the art of cooking is indeed in tune with one of the most typical characteristics of the cook scenes, which is that of a tone of disapproval towards the cook’s inferiors; in a very characteristic fragment by Dionysius (fr. 2), a μάγειρος is lecturing someone (Simias) who has just hired him, about the true qualities of a mageiros, that make him superior from any given opsopoios (fr. 2.5–10). The scene is typical in containing a dialogue with an arrogant cook (see Giannini 1960, 162–163; Dohm 1964, 95, 154–155; Nesselrath 1990, 305–306; Arnott 2010, 320–322) and could indeed be an example of the scene Nicostratus’ fragment could belong to. If Nicostratus’ lines are spoken by a mageiros, then he could have been mentioning with contempt all those dishes that another, unskilled cook did not know how to make. As a typical possibility for this kind of scene, the speaker could have been on his way from the market to his hirer’s house, bragging about his own skills as opposed to someone else’s lack of them (for the likeliest examples see Antiph. fr. 55; Alex. frr. 129, 138; Dionys. frr. 2, 3). Date

Unknown.

Μάγειρος (fr. 16)

123

fr. 16 K.–A. (17 K.) ὃς μέλανα ποιεῖν ζωμὸν οὐκ ἠπίστατο, θρῖον δὲ καὶ κάνδαυλον ἢ τούτων τι τῶν εἰς ματτύην οὐδέτερον εἶδε πώποτε 2 κάνδαυλον ACE: –δυλον A 3 οὐδέτερον Α: οὐδ᾽ ἕτερον Meineke : οὐδέτερος Wilamowitz apud Kaibel: οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ ἔτ᾽ vel οὐ δέρτρον Crusius

one who didn’t know how to make black broth, and as for a stuffed fig-leaf and a kandaulos, or any of these that go into a mattuē, he’s never seen either [1–2] Ath. 12. 516d–517a καὶ κάνδαυλον δέ τινα ἔλεγον οἱ Λυδοί, οὐχ ἕνα ἀλλὰ τρεῖς˙ οὕτως ἐξήσκηντο πρὸς τὰς ἡδυπαθείας. γίνεσθαι δ᾽ αὐτόν φησιν ὁ Ταραντῖνος Ἡγήσιππος ἐξ ἑφθοῦ κρέως καὶ κνηστοῦ ἄρτου καὶ Φρυγίου τυροῦ ἀνήθου τε καὶ ζωμοῦ πίονος. μνημονεύει δ᾽ αὐτοῦ Ἄλεξις ἐν Παννυχίδι ἢ Ἐρίθοις˙ … μνημονεύει τοῦ κανδαύλου καὶ Φιλήμων ἐν Παρεισιόντι οὕτως˙ … καὶ Νικόστρατος ἐν Μαγείρωι˙ ὃς μέλανα ποιεῖν ζωμὸν οὐκ ἠπίστατο — καὶ κάνδαυλον The Lydians also described something known as kandaulos, of which there was not one type but three; this is how sophisticated they were when it came to living luxuriously. According to Hegesippus of Tarentum, kandaulos is made of bits of stewed meat, bread crumbs, Phrygian cheese, anise, and catty broth. Alexis mentions it in Pannychis or Erithoi (fr. 178); … Philemon in Pareisiōn (fr. 63) also mentions kandaulos, as follows: … Also, Nicostratus in Mageiros (fr. 16.1–2): one who didn’t know how to make black broth — and a kandaulos90 [2–3] Ath. 14.664b-c ὅτι δὲ ὕστατον καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν εἰσεφέρετο Νικόστρατός φησιν ἐν Ἀπελαυνομένωι. μάγειρος δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὁ διηγούμενος ὡς λαμπρὰν καὶ εὔτακτον παρεσκεύασεν εὐωχίαν˙ προδιηγησάμενός τε οἷον ἦν τὸ ἄριστον καὶ τὸ δεῖπνον καὶ τρίτης μνησθεὶς παραθέσεως ἐπιφέρει˙… καὶ ἐν Μαγείρωι˙ θρῖον δὲ καὶ κάνδαυλον — οὐδέτερον εἶδε πώποτε that it (the mattuē) was brought out last and in addition to all the dishes Nicostratus says in the Apelaunomenos (fr. 7). The narrator is a cook describing what a splendid and orderly banquet he had arranged. First he described what was for lunch and dinner, and then mentioning the third course, he adds: … And in Mageiros; but as for a fig-leaf pastry and a kandaulos — he’s never seen either

Meter Iambic Trimeter

lrwl llw|l llwl llwl llw|l llwl llwl lrw|l wlwl

90

Translation by Olson 2010, slightly altered.

124

Nicostratus

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 284; Meineke 1847 I, 636; Bothe 1855, 472; Kock 1884 II, 224; Crusius 1887, 614; Herwerden 1893, 159–160; Blaydes 1896, 137; Edmonds 1959 II, 34–35; PCG VII, 82–83; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626; Rusten 2011, 527 Citation Context Athenaeus quotes the fragment twice, at 12.517a and 14.664c. On the first occasion, the fragment is given as part of the extended discussion on truphē and pleasure, the main themes of book 12. After some references to the Persians’ addiction to luxury (see 12.513f διαβόητοι δὲ ἐπὶ τρυφῆι ἐγένοντο πρῶτοι πάντων ἀνθρώπων Πέρσαι), Athenaeus turns his attention to the Lydians, whose culinary indulgences also entailed the use of karukē, a rich sauce composed of blood and spices (cf. Pherecr. fr. 195; Plut. Quaest. conv. 4.1) and kandaulos, a Lydian food with three variations that reflected the Lydians’ love of luxury (καὶ κάνδαυλον δέ τινα ἔλεγον οἱ Λυδοί, οὐχ ἕνα ἀλλὰ τρεῖς˙ οὕτως ἐξήσκηντο πρὸς τὰς ἡδυπαθείας). The first type of κάνδαυλος is mentioned by Hegesippus of Tarentum (Ath. 12.516d) and after that Athenaeus quotes Alexis (fr. 178). Then follows Philemon (fr. 63) and then the first two lines of the fragment of Nicostratus. The second occasion is part of a thorough presentation of ἁλίπαστα (“foods sprinkled with salt”, Ath. 14.658a), which leads to a discussion of cheese (περὶ τυρῶν, Ath. 14.658a–b), and then to references to exquisite cooks (σοφιστῶν μαγείρων) and the art of cooking (μαγειρικῆς τέχνης, Ath. 14.658e ff.). ματτύη is an opulent dish served after the banquet is over that was invented by the Thessalians (14.662f Θετταλῶν φησιν εἶναι εὕρημα). Quotation of fr. 16.2–3 comes after the quotation of Nicostratus fr. 7 (from Apelaunomenē), where a cook is describing what a brilliant feast he has prepared (Ath. 14.664b προδιηγησάμενός τε οἷον ἦν τὸ ἄριστον καὶ τὸ δεῖπνον). In both cases, ματτύη is indicating lavishness, as does κάνδαυλος, under the discussion of which the first two lines of the fragment were quoted in Ath. 12.517. See also the discussion in fr. 7 (“Citation Context”, “Interpretation”). Text As seen above, Athenaeus cites the fragment in two segments (lines 1–2 in 12.517a and lines 2–3 in 14.664c), which were put together by Meineke (1840, 284). Manuscript A of Athenaeus reads κάνδυλον the second time it transmits the fragment’s second line (14.664c), but κάνδαυλον is preferable since this form is commoner in Middle Comedy (see below, l.2 κάνδαυλον). In line 3, manuscript A reads οὐδέτερον (also endorsed by Kock 1884 II, 224; Crusius 1887, 614; Blaydes 1896, 137), emended to οὐδέτερος by Wilamowitz (apud Kaibel) and οὐδ᾽ ἕτερον by Meineke (1840, 1847; also Herwerden 1893, 159–160). Kock (1884 II, 224) keeps the manuscripts’ reading οὐδέτερον on the grounds that a negatively expressed gradatio is needed after οὐκ ἠπίστατο so as to have after it the two groups of words (a: θρῖον δὲ καὶ κάνδαυλον, b: ἢ τούτων τι), but he also proposes the emendation οὐδ᾽ ἴκταρ. Other emendations including oὐδ᾽ ὄναρ or οὐ δέρτρον (Crusius 1887, 614) are not convincing regardless of the parallels (e. g. Aesch. Ag. 117, Eum. 988).

Μάγειρος (fr. 16)

125

Interpretation The listing of θρῖον and μέλας ζωμός occurs in Euphron fr. 1.7–8 (θρῖον τὸ λευκὸν οὑξ Ἀθηνῶν Χαριάδης. / ζωμὸς μέλας ἐγένετο πρώτωι Λαμπρίαι), where a well-educated cook mentions the ones who preceded him, as well as each one’s particular talent : Chariades of Athens was responsible for λευκὸν θρῖον and Lamprias for ζωμὸς μέλας. θρῖον occurs together with κάνδαυλον in Philemon (fr. 63), where a boasting cook calls on witnesses that he is the only one who makes sausage, kandaulon, eggs, and thrion (Philem. fr. 63.1–3 τοὺς ἐν τῆι πόλει / μάρτυρας ἔχω γὰρ ὅτι μόνος φύσκην ποιῶ, / κάνδαυλον, ὠιά, θρῖον…) perhaps comically bragging on being the only one producing dishes that are though very common. In both Euphron and Philemon, the speakers allude to the importance of knowledge of the art of cooking, with Euphron presenting how an educated cook pays tribute to the ones who preceded him and Philemon showing how a cook can brag (even comically) on his knowledge of cooking a fine dish. The lines of Nicostratus’ fragment here certainly also allude to knowledge, but not to its possession; the speaker refers to another person, perhaps in a sort of gossip, who is lacking knowledge of both basic (μέλανα ζωμόν) and the more elaborate (θρῖον δὲ καὶ κάνδαυλον) dishes. This other person the speaker is referring to, could perhaps be an antagonist, an incapable cook that the patron has hired or was thinking of hiring, one of the mageiros’ assistants, or even an earlier mageiros, one of the predecessors in the technē, whom the speaker disparages as incompetent and ignorant. The speaker of the lines could thus be the μάγειρος of the title himself, expressing his disdain about inferior colleagues, as is typically expected from the scene (see “Content”, above). 1 μέλανα ζωμόν ζωμός designates meat-broth, and μέλας ζωμός is the term for “black broth” (see e. g. Ar. fr. 606 τὴν χύτραν / ἐν ἧι τὰ κρεάδι᾽ ἕψετ᾽ ἐζωμευμένα, where ζωμεύεσθαι signifies the procedure of producing broth), a blood-based soup or sauce, which was also called αἱματία (see Matro fr. 1.94 Olson / Sens; Poll. 6.57; Suda ζ 136. Cf. also Olson / Sens 1999, 129 pace Arnott 1996, 425–426 on Alex. fr. 145.8, maintaining that the black color came from a black variety of ἐρέβινθος [chickpea] that were included in the soup). μελας ζωμός is referred to as a Spartan specialty (eaten with bread in Plut. Cleom. 13.3) in Antiph. fr. 46.1–4; Plut. Lyc. 12.6–7; Plut. Alc. 23.3; Poll. 6.57), but also as an Athenian dish, especially by the end of the 5th century onwards (Pherecr. frr. 113.3, 137.4; Alex. fr. 145.8 [served with bread]; Euphro fr. 1.8). 2 θρῖον “fig-leaf ” (Ar. Eccl. 707; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.27) and “leaf, petal” in general (Nic. Alex. 55, 407). Here and elsewhere, it signifies a type of food made by fig-leaves wrapped around a variation of food and mixtures (like fish, eggs, milk, lard, flour, honey, cheese) that were to be baked in coals in order to prevent drying or burning or, via synecdoche, a pastry prepared this way (Olson 2002, 339); see Ar. Ach. 1101, Ran. 134 (leaves wrapped around brain of beef –also with a pun on the leaf-like hemispheres of the brain), Eq. 954 (leaves wrapped around beef lard); Dionys. Com. fr. 2.39; Men. fr. 409.11. Sotades (fr. 1.26–29) and Archestratus

126

Nicostratus

(fr. 36.6–9) give identical instructions on how to use fig leaves in order to cook ἀμία (“bonito”, a type of θύννος “tunny”) on coal. In both cases you season it with oregano, tie it up in fig leaves (Sotad. Com. fr. 1.27 θρίοισι; Archestr. fr. 36.6 ἐν συκῆς φύλλοις) and shove it down in the ashes. κάνδαυλον κάνδαυλος is a Lydian dish, of which Athenaeus lists at least three variations (12.516c–d see “Citation Context” above). One was a sweet cake, with numerous ingredients, such as milk and honey (Et. Gen. AB s. v. κάνδυλος [κάνδυλ compend. AB]˙ βρῶμά ἐστι διὰ γάλατος καὶ μέλιτος κατασκευαζόμενον, ὡς καὶ †αὐτὰ ἀπὸ εροικον† [ἀβυρτάκη ἐρύκων Suda fort. recte] βρῶμα, from where Et. Magn. 488.53 and Etymologicum Gudianum 297.22; Suda κ 303 κάνδυλος˙ βρῶμα διὰ μέλιτος καὶ γάλακτος σκευαζόμενον˙ ὡς καὶ ἀβυρτάκη ἐρύκων βρῶμα), or milk, fat and honey (Phot. μ 148 κάνδυλος [κάνδυτος g z: corr. G. Dindorf]˙ σκευασία ὀψοποιϊκή, μετὰ γάλακτος καὶ στέατος καὶ μέλιτος˙ ἔνιοι δὲ διὰ κρέως καὶ ἄρτου καὶ τυροῦ. οὕτως Ἀριστοφάνης [fr. 947]), milk, honey, flour and cheese (Poll. 6.69 εἴη δ᾽ ἂν προσῆκον τοῖς ἡδύσμασι καὶ ὁ κάνδυλος ἐξ ἀμύλου καὶ τυροῦ καὶ γάλακτος καὶ μέλιτος). Another κάνδαυλος was made with boiled meat, breadcrumbs, cheese, dill and ζωμός, perhaps like a pilaf (Hegesippus of Tarentum apud Ath. 12.516d; see also below the discussion of ζωμός) and a third variation must have been a sweeter version of pilaf with cheese, milk, honey and hare (Hsch. κ 646 κάνδυλος˙ διὰ λαγώων καὶ γάλακτος καὶ τυροῦ καὶ μέλιτος πέμμα ἐδώδιμον. See Arnott 1996, 525). Chantraine tentatively associates it with Κανδαύλης (1.491 s. v. κάνδαυλος), the Lydian name of Hermes, and also the Lydian king (Hdt. 1.7.1 ff.). Apart from κάνδαυλος, the word also occurs in the forms of κανδύλη (Et. Magn. 488.53) and κάνδυλος (Men. fr. 409.6–9 [Pseudhēraklēs] οὐκ ἔστι κανδύλους ποιεῖν, οὐδ᾽ οἷα σὺ / εἴωθας εἰς ταὐτὸν καρυκεύειν μέλι, / σεμίδαλιν, ὠιά. πάντα γὰρ τἀναντία / νῦν ἐστιν; Euang. fr. 1.9 [Anakalyptomenē] κάνδυλον, ὠιά τ᾽ ἀμύλιον [where κάνδυλος together with eggs and flour would bake a cake; see Bagordo 2018, 155], Etymologicum Gudianum 297.22; Hsch. κ 646; Photius μ 148: ms. –τος, corr. Dindorf, Suda κ 303) (see Durham 1913, 68). Also in Alex. fr. 178.1–2 ὅτι δέ σοι παρὰ τοῦτο κάνδαυλόν τινα / παραθήσομεν; Philem. fr. 63.3 κάνδαυλον, ὠιά, θρῖον; Men. fr. 351.11; Ar. fr. 947 [= Phot. μ 148] (with Bagordo 2018, 154–155). A pun on κάνδυλος is also made in Ar. Pax 123 κολλύραν μεγάλην καὶ κόνδυλον ὄψον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆι (an emendation of κόνδυλον to κάνδυλον has been made by a certain Demetrius, a student of Zenodotus, according to Σv; see Olson 1998, 92). The two different types of food under the same name (a sweet cake on the one hand and a dish with meat and cheese on the other) make us assume that there were either a sweet and a savory version of the dish, or that κάνδαυλος came to be a generic name for a number of dishes of lydian origin. 3 ματτύην

a rich-flavor dish made of hashed meat and herbs; see fr. 7.

127

Οἰνοποιός (Oinopoios) (“Wine-producer”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 285; Meineke 1847 I, 636; Bothe 1855, 472; Kock 1884 II, 224; Blaydes 1896, 137; PA #11038; Wilhelm 1906, 133; Edmonds 1959 II, 34–35; PCG VII, 83; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626 Title The title of the play is debated; Kassel–Austin read Οἰνοποιός (“wine-producer”) following the title given by the Suda, whereas Meineke (1839, 348; 1840, 284; 1847, 636) Kock (1884 II, 224) and Kirchner (PA #11038) prefer Οἰνοπίων, a conjecture proposed by Meursius because Philetaerus, also one of Aristophanes’ sons (see Philet. test. 1; Ar. test. 1.56, 3.15), wrote a play Οἰνοπίων (frr. 13–14). οἰνοποιός, the “wine-producer”, is a professional maker of wine, as attested in SIG3 414, where the Athenian Timocrates, an οἰνοποιός is awarded proxenia by Delphi. The debate against the reading οἰνοποιός is rejected by Pomtow, with references to similar professional titles attested in inscriptions, such as κιθαρωιδός, ποιητὴς ἐπῶν, ποιητὴς μελῶν etc. (Pomtow ad SIG3 414). Οἰνοπίων, the “wine-drinker”, was the son of Dionysus and Ariadne (see Hes. fr. 238 M–W; Schol. Arat. 636 p. 249.18 Mart. [Anacr. fr. nov.]; Theop. 115 fr. 276 Jac.). He introduced red wine to the island of Chios, where he was a ruler. One of the incidents of the life of Oenopion was his objection to marry his daughter Merope with Orion. In order to prevent the marriage or after Orion raped Merope, Oenopion made him drunk and then blinded him (see Hes. fr. 128a; [Apollod.] Bibl. 1.4.3; Gantz 1993, 116, 269; Grimal 2002, 326; Millis / Olson, 121). Both titles could correspond to a Middle Comedy plot (see “Content”, below) and could potentially be correct. Since the reading of the manuscripts however is Οἰνοποιός, I see no reason of emending it to Οἰνοπίων only on the basis of similarity to a play by Philetaerus. Content Because of the great debate on the topic, I will address both possible titles and discuss how each one could reflect a different content. Οἰνοποιός would mean that the play would certainly include a male wine-producer, placing the play under the category of play-titles identifying a character by his profession or activity (see Arnott 2010, 311–314 for a list of examples). Οἰνοπίων would be a mythological burlesque (like many other examples of middle comedy titles [see evidence gathered by Nesselrath 1990, 192–200; Arnott 2010, 295–300]) 91 or a parody of a tragic play (see Arnott 2010, 298–300). In the first case, the play would have contained a comic travesty of a noble mythical hero, a descendant of Dionysus and Ariadne, that could have been presented as a vulgar male character

91

These titles are more common during the later years of Old Comedy and the years between Old and Middle Comedy. See Nesselrath 1990, 203, 234; Nesselrath 1995, 1–9, Taplin 1993, 82–83, 115.

128

Nicostratus

(for similar examples see Arnott 2010, 296–298), even a drunkard (as in Alex. fr. 113.1–4 where Oenopion is mentioned in the context of a catalogue of infamous drunkards, as an archetype for the speaker’s son: ὁ μὲν οὖν ἐμὸς υἱός, οἷον ὑμεῖς ἀρτίως /εἴδετε, τοιοῦτος γέγονεν, Οἰνοπίων τις ἢ / Μάρων τις ἢ Κάπηλος ἢ ⟨καὶ⟩ Τιμοκλῆς. / μεθύει γάρ, οὐδὲν ἕτερον). In the second case, the play would have exploited a tragedy or tragic episode. We know of no popular tragedies under this title, but a fourth-century didascaliae inscription commemorating the victorious actors at the Lenaea contest refers to the victory of an actor with the play Oinopion92 when Timocrates was archon, i.e. in 364/363 BC (SEG XXVI 203 col. II 8 with Millis / Olson, 120–121). As also explained above (see “Title” above), both plot scenarios are possible. Since Οἰνοποιός is the reading of the manuscripts however, I believe that a play about a wine-producer is indeed more probable, even though the play’s only fragment (just one word: ἀμφίας) only suggests a reference to mediocre wine and gives no clues about the play-title or any content. Date Unknown.

fr. 17 K.–A. (18 K.) Sud. α 1703 ἀμφίας˙μέτριος οἶνος. Νικόστρατος Οἰνοποιῶι καὶ Σωσικράτης Οἰνοποιῶι mss. : Οἰνοπίωνι Meursius p. 1585 A amphias; mediocre wine. (mentioned by) Nicostratus in the play Oinopoios and Sosicrates

Metre Unknown. Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 285; Meineke 1847 I, 636; Bothe 1855, 472; Kock 1884 II, 224; Blaydes 1896, 137; Edmonds 1959 II, 34–35; PCG VII, 83; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626 Citation Context A lexicographical notice explaining the word ἀμφίας as wine of low quality as attested in Nicostr. fr. 17 and Sosicr. fr. 4. Text on the emendation of Οἰνοποιῶι to Οἰνοπίωνι see the discussion above (in “Title”, “Content”). Interpretation The fragment only testifies to a word describing wine of low quality used by Nicostratus and Sosicrates (fr. 4). Athenaeus gives a similar reference in 1.31e (ἀμφίας δ᾽ οἶνος ὁ φαῦλος καλεῖται παρὰ Σωσικράτει) referring only to

92

A satyr-drama for Sutton 1987, 32–34.

Οἰνοποιός (fr. 17)

129

Sosicrates. The fragment is minimal and allows for no further assumptions on the content of the play or context of the use of the word ἀμφίας. ἀμφίας a type of wine (Hsch. α 3945 ἀμφίας˙ γένος οἴνου) of bad quality (Ath. 1.31e ἀμφίας δ᾽ οἶνος ὁ φαῦλος καλεῖται παρὰ Σωσικράτει; Suda α 1703 ἀμφίας˙μέτριος οἶνος. Νικόστρατος Οἰνοποιῶι καὶ Σωσικράτης) attested in Nicostratus (fr. 17) and Sosicrates (fr. 4). ἀμφίας οἶνος perhaps has the same meaning with ἀμφίβολος οἶνος (Polioch. fr. 2.7–8 … καὶ πιεῖν οἰνάριον ἦν / ἀμφίβολον), which takes its name either because it contains too much water, or because it already tastes like vinegar, so it is unclear whether it is really a wine (see Orth 2015, 284–285). Οἰνοποιῶι

see discussion above (“Title”, “Content”)

Σωσικράτης a comic poet (third? cent. BC, PCG VII, 600–602). See Meineke 1839 I, 498 ff.; 1841 IV, 591 ff.; Kock 1888 III, 391 ff.; Körte 1927, in RE III.A.1, 1160, s. v. “Sosikrates 2”.

130

Ὀρνιθευτής (Ornitheutēs) (“Bird-catcher”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 346; Kock 1884 II, 224; Edmonds 1959 II, 35; Edmonds 1961 III, 182–183; PCG VII, 83; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626 Title ὀρνιθευτής means “bird-catcher”, also explained by ὀρνιθοθηρευτής in the Scholia in Ar. Av. 526. According to Harpocration, a certain Nicostratus has written a play Ὀρνιθευτής. The word is also attested in Deinarchus (Against Proxenus apud Harp. p. 225.17 Dindorf = O 33 Keaney), as well as in Plato’s or Cantharus’ Συμμαχία (Plato Com. fr. 172. See also Harp. p. 225.17 Dindorf ὀρνιθευτής˙ ὁ ὀρνιθοθήρας. Δείναρχος κατὰ Προξένου [xlii fr. 6 S.], Πλάτων ἢ Κάνθαρος Συμμαχίαι. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν τῆι νέαι κωμωιδίαι δρᾶμα Ὀρνιθευτὴς Νικοστράτου). Kassel–Austin (1989 VII, 83) and Kock (1884 II, 224) attribute the play to Nicostratus, while Meineke (1839 I, 346) maintains that the Nicostratus Harpocration is referring to is a poet of New Comedy (also in Edmonds 1961 III, 182–183), on the basis that it would have been unlikely for Middle Comedy Nicostratus to construct a play with the characteristics of New Comedy. Wilhelm (1906, 132) however argues that Meineke’s argumentation is incorrect since there are other plays in the Suda list (see test. 1) that also reflect characteristics of New Comedy (such as the “miles gloriosus”) but are still considered written by Nicostratus. Kaibel (apud Wilhelm 1906, 133) on the other hand is concerned because in some cases (like for example with the plays Antyllos and Oinopion [note the preference to Oinopion; see the discussion in fr. 17]) we cannot be sure of the authorship. Kirchner (PA #11038) attributes Ornitheutes and Basileis to a later Nicostratus who wins a prize in the Didascaliae of 312/311 (IG II2 2325.165), identified as Nicostratus II by Kassel–Austin 1989VII, 94. The information is puzzling indeed, especially since there were three comic poets with the name Nicostratus, perhaps all belonging to the same family (see Millis 2015b, 250 with nn. 39–40); Nicostratus I was active in the first half of the fourth century, Nicostratus II took an unknown number of victories at the Lenaea and competed at the City Dionysia of 312/311 where he won second place (Lenaea: IG II2 2325.165 = 2325E.65 Millis / Olson; City Dionysia: IG II2 2323a.42 = 2323a col. I.9 Millis / Olson), and Nicostratus III was active in the 180s. Given the fact that the beginning of New Comedy is usually placed around the date of Menander’s début, Nicostratus II seems to expand to the new era, belonging to New rather than Middle Comedy. This however does not imply that some of the plays attributed to Nicostratus I should be attributed to Nicostratus II on the basis of their plot (especially since the plays are preserved in fragments hence the plots are mostly reconstructed upon assumptions). Besides, “Middle Comedy is primarily a chronological conception, not a generic one” (Konstantakos 2015, 160). The period between 400–320 is certainly different from both the Old Comedy that preceded it and the New Comedy that followed, but it does exhibit a vast range

Ὀρνιθευτής

131

of traits, with a distinctive diversity of themes and material (Konstantakos 2015, 161–162). Under this light, Nicostratus I could have composed plays with titles such as Basileis, Antyllos, or Ornitheutēs and the List of Nicostratus’ plays given in the Suda should not be addressed with extreme suspicion, especially since this type of double categorization has also affected other poets, such as e. g. Philemon (see Nesselarth 1990, 61–62) or Plato Comicus (see Nesselrath 1990, 58 n. 71). Content The title might suggest a plot identifying the basic male character of the play by his typical activity, which, in this case is the “bird-catcher” (this however is not mandatory, since occasionally the character after whom the play is named is not a central one; see Arnott 1996, 240, 335 n. 1; 2010, 315). Date Unknown.

132

Πάνδροσος (Pandrosos) (“Pandrosos”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 347–348; Meineke 1840 III, 285–286; Meineke 1847 I, 637; Bothe 1855, 472–473; Kock 1884 II, 224–225; Crusius 1887, 614; Blaydes 1896, 137; Weinreich 1931, 124–125; Edmonds 1959 ΙΙ, 34–36; PCG VII, 83–85; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626; Rusten 2011, 527 Title Clearchus has also written a Pandrosos (PCG IV, fr. 4; the fragment consists only of 3 lines that host a dialogue regarding culinary preparations, perhaps before a banquet). Pandrosos is one of the daughters of Cecrops, the first king of Athens. Athena gave Pandrosos and her sisters (Aglauros, Herse) a kistē and forbade them to open it. Pandrosos was the only one who followed Athena’s orders and did not die out of terror at the site of Erichthonios (the son of Hephaistus) and one or two snakes that were also in the basket. Pandrosos remained free of guilt. Her sanctuary is found in front of the Erechtheion, where also stood a carefully tended sacred olive tree (Burkert 1985, 85, 229). Pandrosos lay with Hermes and bore Keryx, the ancestor of the Eleusinian Kerykes (see West 2005, 105). See Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.6.4; Paus. 1.2.7, 1.27.64; Hyg. Fab. 166. In the lemma of the Suda (ν 405) that contains the list of Nicostratus’ plays (see test. 1), the manuscripts read Πάνδαρος (also endorsed by Gaisford and Adler), rightly emended by Kuster to Πάνδροσος, which is also the play title given by Athenaeus in the citation of fr. 18 (Ath. 15.693a; also in Meineke 1839 I, 348. The only known play with the title Πάνδαρος is by Anaxandrides (fr. 38–39 with Millis 2015a ad loc.). Weinreich (1931, 124–125) attributes fr. 18 to Nicostratus II, a poet of New Comedy, on the basis of the similarity of frr. 18, 29 (see also fr. 29 “Citation Context”) with Euripides. Weinreich maintains that the references to πρόνοια and τύχη contained in fr. 18 reflect a praise to Euripides which would have been odd to be made by Nicostratus I, a son of Aristophanes, since Aristophanes parodied Euripides in the Frogs. Weinreich also highlights the similarity of frr. 18, 29 to fragments of New Comedy, noting that gnomic expressions of this kind are absent from Middle Comedy. Both arguments can be overruled. First, because the allusion to Euripides in fr. 18 is only through a reference to τύχη and could thus be an allusion to a large number of other dramatic texts, secondly because the irony included in fr. 29 could have been well produced by Nicostratus I, and thirdly because the sententiae included in the lines should not be excluded from Middle Comedy only because they are present in New Comedy poets (see also the discussion in fr. 19, “Citation Context”), especially since the are many references to Euripides in Middle Comedy plays (see Olson 2007, 178–179; Hanink 2014, 169–190; Farmer 2017, 41–111). Content Both Clearchus’ and Nicostratus’ comedies is possible to have touched upon Athens’ mythological past, given the civic nature of the festivals in which they were performed, a characteristic absent from Old Comedy, which “seems to have

Πάνδροσος (fr. 18)

133

preferred to use internationally known myths” (Bowie 2010, 149). As with other Middle and New Comedy plots,93 Clearchus and Nicostratus in the Pandrosos might have presented a plot about Pandrosos, filling in the gap of Old Comedy, from where Cecrops and his daughters were absent. Following the new rules, Nicostratus would have probably rationalized the fantastic aspects of the myth, replacing them with every-day-life features, reducing divine characters to ordinary people (as noted by Nesselrath 1990, 236–240; Bowie 2010, 153–157). Since all three surviving fragments (frr. 18, 19, 20) reproduce a sympotic context, the play must have involved a dinner party in which one or more female characters also took part (as shown in the female forms of address in all three surviving fragments of the play. See below the discussion of frr. 18–20). Since the assimilation of myth to traditional comic patterns was a frequent dramatic strategy (see Konstantakos 2014, 171–175), it is possible to assume that this symposium would have reproduced all contemporary customs and formalities (note the toasts to Hygieia and Agathos Daimon), while also reflecting the mythical world (cf. e. g. Eub. fr. 72, where the speaker –perhaps Oedipus himself– praises dining at someone else’s expense, constructing a comic distortion of his mythical parallel, or Anaxandr. fr. 42, where a household slave describes the lavish feast for the wedding of Protesilaus and Laodameia). If we are right in our assumptions, Pandrosos might have featured a sympotic gathering of Pandrosos and other mythical figures, in which they would follow current sympotic manners and perhaps even refer to contemporary fourth-century socialites (note the reference to the hetairai Aerope and Ocimon in fr. 20, the name of the first of which also bears strong mythical allusions. See comments in fr. 20 below). Date

Unknown

fr. 18 K.–A. (19 K.)

5

κἀγώ, φιλτάτη˙ μετανιπτρίδ᾽ αὐτῶι τῆς Ὑγιείας ἔγχεον. (Β.) λαβὲ τῆς Ὑγιείας δὴ σύ. (Α.) φέρε, τύχἀγαθῆι. τύχη τὰ θνητῶν πράγμαθ᾽, ⟨ἡ⟩ πρόνοια δὲ τυφλόν τι κἀσύντακτόν ἐστιν, ὦ πάτερ

1 κἀγὼ Α (si recte, post φιλτάτη sic interpungendum ut fecimus cum Schweighäuser) : κἆιτ᾽ ὦ Jacobs : ἄγ᾽ ὦ Meineke : καὶ σύ Κock 2 μετανιπριάδ᾽ A 3 (Γ) φέρε Kock

93

Erechtheus and his daughters, Pandion, and Triptolemus are also absent from Old Comedy. On the contrary, Anaxandrides and Diphilus wrote Thēseus, Aristophon Peirithous, Alexis Scirōn, Eubulus’ Ion and Xuthus, Antiphanes Melaniōn. See Bowie 2010, 149–150.

134

Nicostratus

τυχα αγαθη Α : τύχἀγαθῆι Dindorf : τύχηι ᾽γαθῆι Schweighäuser πράγματα A

5

4 πράγμαθ᾽ ἡ Jacobs :

me too, my dearest; fill up the cup of “Health” with this. (B.) “Health” to you too! (A.) Alright! here’s to good luck! Mortal affairs is just luck, and forethought is something blind and disordered, father

Ath. 15.692f–693a καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πλείστων τῶν μὲν Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος αἰτούντων ποτήριον, τῶν δὲ Διὸς Σωτῆρος, ἄλλων δὲ Ὑγείας, καὶ ἑτέρων ἑτέρου ἐπιλεγόντων, τοὺς τούτων τῶν κράσεων μεμνημένους τῶν ποιητῶν ἔδοξεν παρατίθεσθαι, ὧν καὶ αὐτῶν μνησθήσομαι. … Νικόστρατος Πανδρόσωι˙ κἀγώ, φιλτάτη˙— ὦ πάτερ and afterwards, the majority of the guests asked for a cup dedicated to the Good Divinity, and some others (asked for a cup dedicated) to Zeus the Savior, others to Hygieia (“Health”), and others chose other (god). It accordingly seemed good to cite the poets who refer to these combinations (sc. of wine and water), and to whom I will refer now. … Nicostratus in Pandrosos: me too, my dearest — father94

Meter Iambic Trimeter ⟨xlwl xlw⟩l

5

llwl rlwl l|lol llwl rlol llw|r wlwl wlwl llw|l wlwl llwl llw|l wlwl

Discussion Schweighäuser 1805, 238; Jacobs 1809, 364; Meineke 1839 I, 347– 348; Meineke 1840 III, 285–286; Meineke 1847 I, 637; Bothe 1855, 472–473; Kock 1884 II, 224–225; Blaydes 1896, 137; Weinreich 1931; Edmonds 1959 II, 34–36; PCG VII, 84; Konstantakos 2005, 188; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626; Rusten 2011, 527 Citation Context In a discussion of after-dinner toasts to various deities that begins in 15.692f, Athenaeus reports that he will cite poets who refer to those combinations of wine and water and to the deities to whom the offers were dedicated (τοὺς τούτων τῶν κράσεων μεμνημένους τῶν ποιητῶν ἔδοξεν παρατίθεσθαι, ὧν καὶ αὐτῶν μνησθήσομαι). First Athenaeus mentions Antiphanes (fr. 3), and then Alexis (fr. 234), and after that the two fragments of Nicostratus (frr. 18 and 19), with a small intervention in between them, in order to clarify that Nicostratus in Pandrosos also refers to the toasts to Good Divinity, as does almost every poet of

94

Translation is by Olson 2012, adapted.

Πάνδροσος (fr. 18)

135

ancient comedy (fr. 19). The section ends in 15.693f, after a series of references to comic dedications to Ἀγαθός Δαίμων, Ζεύς Σωτήρ, and Ἀγαθός Θεός. Text In line 1, manuscript Α reads κἀγώ, which necessitates punctuation after φιλτάτη at the end of the line (Schweighäuser 1805, 238). Jacobs (1809, 364) emends to κἆιτ᾽ ὦ, Meineke (1847, 637) to ἄγ᾽ ὦ and Kock (fortasse) to καὶ σύ (1884, 225) but none of these is necessary. μετανιπριάδ᾽of line 2 is emended to μετανιπτρίδ᾽ (Schweighäuser 1805, 238; Jacobs 1809, 364; Meineke 1840 III, 285–286; Meineke 1847 I, 637; Kock 1884 II, 225; Crusius 1887, 614) according to the identical line of Nicostratus’ fr. 3 (from Anterōsa) μετανιπτρίδ᾽αὐτῶι τῆς Ὑγιείας ἔγχεον, which is the correct reading. In line 3, Kock adds a third speaker before φέρε, who is different than the speaker of lines 1 and 2 (1884 II, 225). τυχααγαθη is the reading of manuscript A, emended to τύχἀγαθῆι by Dindorf, and τύχηι ᾽γαθῆι by Schweighäuser (1805, 238). τύχἀγαθῆι is preferable as a conventional “verbal obeisance to good fortune” (Dover 1980, 89; cf. Ar. Av. 435, 675, Eccl. 131), but also as serving the meter, since without the crasis, ἀγαθῆι would begin with a short syllable and would be metrically unfit (see also “Interpretation” below). Jacobs (1809, 364) corrects to πράγμαθ᾽ ⟨ἡ⟩ instead of πράγματα of manuscript A in line 4. This correction solves the metrical problem caused by πράγματα of the ms., namely a short syllable at the last syllable of the second meter. Without disrupting the meaning, the addition of ἡ and the subsequent elision of the last short syllable (–τα) creates a smooth trimeter (also Meineke 1840 III, 286; Meineke 1847 I, 637; Kock 1884 II, 225). Interpretation The fragment is a scene of a staged symposium (Konstantakos 2005, 188) consisting of a dialogue between two persons in this context. Speaker A (possibly the host) replies to a female person using the affectionate term φιλτάτη (line 1) and instructs this female person (perhaps a slave) to fill up the after-dinner cup of another participant in the symposium (μετανιπτρίδ᾽ αὐτῶι ἔγχεον). This other participant is speaker B (perhaps the father of speaker A, cf. ὦ πάτερ of line 5), who, after his cup is filled, possibly raises it and makes a toast, speaking to speaker A, wishing him good health (λαβὲ τῆς Ὑγιείας δὴ σύ). Speaker B’s toast is reciprocated by speaker A, who also wishes good luck (φέρε, τύχἀγαθῆι) and then embarks in some proverbial statements about the importance of luck in human life (lines 4–5). There is also another possibility in the distribution of the speakers (as in Kock 1884 II, 224–225) that is worth discussing: it would involve three speakers and a change in translation. According to this possibility, speaker A (lines 1–2) tells a woman (hetaira?) to give to another person (which will be speaker C), the “cup of Health”. Then that woman, who is speaker B, addresses speaker C saying “take this cup dedicated to Health, you” (λαβὲ τῆς Ὑγιείας δὴ σύ), literally offering the “cup of Health” to speaker C. Speaker C then replies by taking the cup (φέρε, “bring it”), and then makes a toast (τύχἀγαθῆι) and some statements on human life. Both

136

Nicostratus

possibilities can stand, but the former is perhaps more probable since three-person dialogues in Middle Comedy are rare. The fact that the toast to health leads to a reference to luck as omnipotent ties well with the sympotic context as it only acts as a further excuse to fun and pleasure and touches upon the idea of living only once [present also elsewhere in drama: see e. g. Eur. Alc. 418 ὡς πᾶσιν ἡμῖν κατθανεῖν ὀφείλεται (with Men. Sent. 110 Pernigotti βροτοῖς ἅπασιν ἀποθανεῖν ὀφείλεται); 788–789 εὔφραινε σαυτόν, πῖνε, τὸν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν / βίον λογίζου σόν, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα τῆς τύχης]. 1 φιλτάτη a superlative of φίλη, more common in poetry than prose (see Il. 6.91; Pind. Pyth. 9.98; Aesch. Sept. 16; Ar. Ach. 885 ὦ φιλτάτη σὺ καὶ πάλαι ποθουμένη). φίλε is the most frequent friendship term and one of the most common singular addresses. Although it expresses genuine affection in Homer and Sophocles, its power is weakened in Euripides, comedy and late Greek. The superlative φίλτατε (“dearest”) is regularly combined with other vocatives, usually names like φίλε, and not with partitive genitives as is the case with other superlatives. In Aristophanes, it is frequently employed by women and it has been maintained that women may have used these forms of address more than men in classical Athens (Sommerstein 1995, 72); however, in Attic literature in general, these vocatives are normally used by men. In Plato and Menander φίλτατε expresses genuine affection; see Dickey (1996, 135–138). φιλτάτη here is telling, also with reference to the identity of the person who is addressed as such. The serving of wine would have been a task normally performed by a slave, but the affection expressed in the address makes that less possible. On the contrary, it can imply that φιλτάτη is a hetaira, who can pour the wine in a symposium and also be named as such. 2 μετανιπτρίδ᾽ αὐτῶι τῆς Ὑγιείας ἔγχεον the line is identical to fr. 3, a single-line fragment, only transmitting a sympotic toast to the personified Health. The similarity of wording between frr. 3 and 18, as well as Callias fr. 9 (καὶ δέξαι τηνδὶ μετανιπτρίδα τῆς Ὑγιείας) has given rise to suspicions of corruption (by Kock 1884 II and Crusius 1887), which however do not stand since verbal likeness seems to derive from the likeness of context (see fr. 3, “Citation Context”, “Interpretation”), as e. g. in Antiph. fr. 147 τοῦτον ἐγὼ κρίνω μετανιπτρίδα τῆς Ὑγιείας / πίνειν ζωροτέρωι χρώμενον οἰνοχόωι. μετανιπτρίδ᾽ see fr. 3 “Interpretation”, above. αὐτῶι see fr. 3 “Interpretation”, above. Ὑγιείας

see fr. 3 “Interpretation”, above.

ἔγχεον see fr. 3 “Interpretation”, above. 3 τύχἀγαθῆι the result of the crasis of the words τύχη and ἀγαθῆι (also e. g. in Ar. Eccl. 131 περίθου δὴ τὸν στέφανον τύχἀγαθῆι; Av. 434–436 ἄγε δὴ σὺ καὶ σὺ τὴν πανοπλίαν μὲν πάλιν / ταύτην λαβόντε κρεμάσατον τύχἀγαθῆι / ἐς τὸν ἱπνὸν

Πάνδροσος (fr. 18)

137

εἴσω πλησίον τοὐπιστάτου). Formed after the crasis, it holds a long second syllable and thus serves the meter (which would not be the case without a crasis, since ἀγαθός holds a short beginning –α). τύχη ἀγαθή is a conventional expression, a “verbal obeisance to good fortune” (Dover 1980, 85), occurring in formal texts like treaties and decrees (e. g. IG ΙI2 44.12 ὅ[τι] δο|[κεῖ τῆ]ι βουλῆι δέχεσθαι τὴν συμμαχία[ν] π|[αρὰ τῶν] Χαλκιδ[έω]ν τύχηι ἀγαθῆι), but also in drama (Aesch. Ag. 755 ἐκ δ᾽ ἀγαθᾶς τύχας γένει; Ar. Pax 360 εἵλετ᾽ ἀγαθή τις ἡμῖν τύχη; Men. Epitr. 223), or as part of prayers and well-wishes (e. g. Sol. 31.2; GDI 1930 θεός τύχαν ἀγαθάν “may god grant you good luck”; IG IV2 1.47.1 θεός, τύχα ἀγαθά “god, may I be granted good luck”; IG IV2 1.103.119 ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι “with good luck”. See also And. 1.120; Pl. Symp. 177a; Pl. Leg. 625c and the expressions ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῆι τύχηι [Ar. Vesp. 869; Men. Sam. 445], μετ᾽ ἀγαθῆς τύχης [Pl. Leg. 732d], τύχηι ἀμείνονι [Pl. Leg. 856e], εὔπομπος τύχη [Aesch. Eum. 93]). 4 τύχη “τύχη is not ‘random luck’, but whatever is not readily identified with a knowable purpose” (Mastronarde 1994, 483). References to the power of τύχη are common in ancient Greek literature (see e. g. Eur. Ion 1512–1514; Adesp. Tr. fr. 717; Archil. fr. 16 IEG; Theogn. 129–130) and are not in opposition to divine authority (cf. Aesch. Ag. 661–664; Eur. El. 890–891, Phoen. 1202 τὰ τῶν θεῶν καὶ τὰ τῆς τύχης, IA 1403, Diagoras fr. 738.4–5 PMG κατὰ δαίμονα καὶ τύχαν / τὰ πάντα βροτοῖσιν ἐκτελεῖται). τύχη τὰ θνητῶν πράγμαθ᾽ The expression is found verbatim in the play Achilleus Thersitoktonos by Chaeremon, an early fourth-century tragedian (TrGF I, 71) of considerable interest, cited twice by Aristotle for unusual features of his poetry (Arist. Poet. 1447b20–22, 1459b32–1460a2; Rh. 1413b12. See Collard 1970, with detailed bibliography). Chaeremon’s fr. 2 (τύχη τὰ θνητῶν πράγμαθ᾽, οὐκ εὐβουλία) is quoted in Stobaeus (1.6.7 [1.85W]), and just as the other 21 fragments quoted in Stobaeus, fr. 2 is gnomic. In a setting of a tragedy-like situation that needs to be highlighted by tragic-sounding lines, the fragment is also alluded to in Menander (Aspis 411), thus highlighting how comic poetry made use of tragic gnomic expressions, namely how Chaeremon’s reference to wisdom (possibly of Odysseus, see Snell TrGF I, 71 fr. 2), which is less important than luck, has given comic material to both Middle and New Comedy poets (see also Nervegna 2013, 211). For possible resonances of Chaeremon’s fragment, see also Plut. Mor. 97c; Lib. Or. 25.11; Pl. Leg. 709b; Dem. 2.22. πρόνοια the meaning of πρόνοια encompasses the insight of predicting or controlling the future (see Aesch. Ag. 684 προνοίασι τοῦ πεπρωμένου) which is considered impossible. The antithesis between τύχη and πρόνοια also occurs in Soph. OT 977–978 τί δ᾽ ἄν φοβοῖτ᾽ ἄνθρωπος, ὧι τὰ τῆς τύχης / κρατεῖ, πρόνοια δ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐδενὸς σαφής;, Men. fr. 372.1–6 οὐδὲν γὰρ πλέον / ἀνθρώπινος νοῦς ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ τῆς Τύχης / … / τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ κυβερνῶν 〈ἅπαντα〉 … ἡ πρόνοια δ᾽ ἡ θνητὴ καπνὸς / καὶ φλήναφος (cf. also Theophr. fr. 493 Fortenbaugh et al. = Cic. Tusc. 5.25 “vitam regit fortuna non sapientia”).

138

Nicostratus

5 τυφλόν τυφλός is often used metaphorically, either with reference to the future, or other general concepts. E. g. Xen. Symp. 4.12 τυφλόν ἐστι τοῦ μέλλοντος ἄνθρωπος; Soph. fr. 593.6 τὸ δ᾽ ἐς αὔριον αἰεὶ τυφλὸν ἕρπει; Pl. Resp. 506c αἱ ἄνευ ἐπιστήμης δόξαι τυφλαί; Plut. De lib. 2b ἡ φύσις ἄνευ μαθήσεως τυφλόν. κἀσύντακτον ἀσύντακτος is commonly used for expressing lack of order or discipline in civic or war contexts. See Xen. Cyr. 7.5.21; Dem. 13.15; Aen.Tact. 3.1; Thuc. 6.72. πρόνοια δὲ τυφλόν τι κἀσύντακτόν ἐστι The belief that humans cannot control the future, since forethought is blind and unordered, was commonplace. See Eur. Alc. 788–789 εὔφραινε σαυτόν, πῖνε, τὸν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν / βίον λογίζου σόν, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα τῆς τύχης; Pind. Ol. 12.7–9 σύμβολον δ᾽ οὔ πώ τις ἐπιχθονίων / πιστὸν ἀμφὶ πράξιος ἐσσομένας εὗρεν θεόθεν, / τῶν δὲ μελλόντων τετύφλωνται φραδαί; Thuc. 4.62.4 τὸ δὲ ἀστάθμητον τοῦ μέλλοντος ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον κρατεῖ. ὦ πάτερ the reference might be to speaker B (line 3), whose cup is filled and who makes the toast to Hygieia (see above).

fr. 19 K.–A. (20 K.) ἀλλ᾽ ἐγχέασα θᾶττον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος ἀπενεγκάτω μοι τὴν τράπεζαν ἐκποδών. ἱκανῶς κεχόρτασμαι γάρ. Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος δέχομαι. λαβοῦσ᾽ ἀπένεγκε ταύτην ἐκποδών 1 ἄλλ᾽ Kaibel ἐνχέασα Α Δαίμονος (Α.) δέχομαι Kock

2 ἐκ ποδων Α, corr. Meineke 4 ἐκποδῶν Α, corr. Meineke

3–4 (Β.) Ἀγαθοῦ

but once she has quickly poured out the cup for Good Divinity let her carry the table out of my way. Because I’m nicely stuffed. I accept the cup for Good Divinity. Take this (table) and get it out of the way Ath. 15.692f–693b καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πλείστων τῶν μὲν Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος αἰτούντων ποτήριον, τῶν δὲ Διὸς Σωτῆρος, ἄλλων δὲ Ὑγείας, καὶ ἑτέρων ἑτέρου ἐπιλεγόντων, τοὺς τούτων τῶν κράσεων μεμνημένους τῶν ποιητῶν ἔδοξεν παρατίθεσθαι, ὧν καὶ αὐτῶν μνησθήσομαι. … Νικόστρατος Πανδρόσωι˙ κἀγώ, φιλτάτη˙… (fr. 18). ἐν δὲ τῶι αὐτῶι δράματι καὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος κράσεως μνημονεύει, ἧς καὶ σχεδὸν πάντες οἱ τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμωιδίας ποιηταί. ἀλλ᾽ ὅ γε Νικόστρατος οὕτως φησίν˙ ἀλλ᾽ ἐγχέασα θᾶττον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος — ἀπένεγκε ταύτην ἐκποδών and afterwards, the majority of the guests asked for a cup dedicated to the Good Divinity, and some others (asked for a cup dedicated) to Zeus the Savior, others to Hygieia (“Health”),

Πάνδροσος (fr. 19)

139

and others chose other (god). It accordingly seemed good to cite the poets who refer to these combinations (sc. of wine and water), and to whom I will refer now. … Nicostratus in Pandrosos: me too, my dearest … (fr. 18). In the same play he also refers to the bowl mixed in honor of the Good Divinity, as do nearly all the poets of ancient comedy. Nicostratus, at any rate, says the following: but once she has quickly poured out the cup for Good Divinity — get it out of the way95

Meter Ιambic Trimeter

llwl wlw|r llwl rlwl l|lwl wlwl rlwl llw|r llwl rlwl rlw|l llwl

Discussion Schweighäuser 1805, 238; Jacobs 1809, 364; Meineke 1839 I, 347–348; Meineke 1840 III, 285–286; Meineke 1847 I, 637; Bothe 1855, 472–473; Meineke 1867, 338; Kock 1884 II, 225; Blaydes 1896, 137; Weinreich 1931, 124–125; Edmonds 1959 ΙΙ, 34–36; PCG VII, 84; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626; Rusten 2011, 527 Citation Context The fragment is quoted in the section containing the discussion of cups dedicated to divinities starting in 15.692f (see fr. 18, “Citation Context”). The quotation of fr. 19 follows that of fr. 18 almost immediately, with the intervention of only a small comment, according to which Nicostratus’ references to the cups of the Good Divinity resemble analogous references of the rest of the poets of ancient comedy (15.693b). Text In line 1, only Kaibel emends ἀλλ᾽ to ἄλλ᾽, but the meaning makes ἀλλ᾽ more favorable. ἐνχεασα of manuscript Α is rightly emended to ἐγχέασα by every editor. ἐκποδών of lines 2 and 4 was transmitted as ἐκ ποδων and ἐκποδῶν in manuscript A. It was corrected by Meineke (1867, 338) to ἐκποδών and rightly endorsed by all later editors, since as an adverb, it clearly serves the syntactical needs of the lines. In line 3, Kock (1884 II, 225) maintains that the expression Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος is delivered by another speaker; the dialogue that is formulated seems absurd, especially since it would have to begin with δέχομαι of line 4. Kock’s emendation has not been endorsed by later editors. Interpretation The fragment reflects a specific phase of ancient Greek dinner parties. After the banqueters were full from the main course, the tables on which the food was served were being taken away and before the beginning of the drinking-party, the guests were offered unmixed wine accompanied by a libation dedicated to Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων. In this fragment, the speaker gives instructions to another female character, or a mute person who is probably a servant, to pour him 95

Translation is by Olson 2012, adapted.

140

Nicostratus

wine dedicated to the Ἀγαθός Δαίμων and take away the table on which the food was served, because he is full already. Staged symposia were a favorite comic topos, part of the comic repertoire of comic poets, enacted either on the ekkyklema or simple onstage, in front of the skene (see Konstantakos 2005). 1 ἐγχέασα ἐγχέω means “fill by pouring in”, especially when it is combined with accusative of a cup (LSJ s. v. ἐγχέω ΙΙ; cf. also Soph. Syndeipnoi [fr. 563.1–2] ἐγχείτω βαθὺν κρατῆρ᾽; Xen. Symp. 2.23 ἐγχεάτω μοι τὴν μεγάλην φιάλην; Alex. fr. 234.1–2 ἔγχεον / αὐτῶι Διός γε τήνδε σωτῆρος). There is no accusative in the text here, but we have to understand κύλικα, or an accusative of any other type of cup. See also fr. 3, “Interpretation”, ἔγχεον. Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος The “Good Divinity”, “Good Spirit”. The Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων was a multifaced deity of Greek but also ancient Mediterranean religion, commonly depicted as a serpent, deriving from the concept of the household god. Good Divinity was honored in both Greek and Roman religions, as a bringer of good luck among the Greeks and as a serpent on shrines and lararia among the Romans. In Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, Good Divinity became associated with the Egyptian creator gods, Shi and Kematef (also depicted as serpents), as well as the solar gods Prê and Helios. “The frequency of Agathos Daimon’s appearances on the coins and intaglios and in the papyri of the Roman Egypt, and … on the walls of Pompeii is testimony to the pervasive and highly visible presence of this god in the pagan world into which Christianity emerged” (Ogden 2013, 309). Syntactically, this is a “genitive of the toast”, namely a genitive signifying the person or deity in whose honor the toast is made (see Neil 1901, 20–21; Hunter 1983, 54; Arnott 1996, 182). The genitive can refer to a convivial god or hero (e. g. Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος: also in Ar. Eq. 85 ἄκρατον οἶνον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος, 106 λαβὲ δὴ καὶ σπεῖσον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος, Ar. Pax 300 νῦν γὰρ ἡμῖν ἑλκύσαι πάρεστιν Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος, Antiph. fr. 135 Δαίμονος Ἀγαθοῦ μετάνιπτρον, Xenarch. fr. 2.2–3 ἡ τἀγαθοῦ ⟨γὰρ⟩ Δαίμονος συνέσεισέ με / ἄκρατος ἐκποθεῖσα φιάλη παντελῶς, and the inscription on a fragmentary cup [ARV2 330.5 [σπ]ένδω τῶι δαίμονι τῶι ἀγαθ[ῶι], i.e. Dionysus [Philoch. FGrH 328 fr. 5b], Diod. Sic. 4.3.4; Διὸς σωτῆρος: Alex. fr. 234.2, 272.5, Eub. 56.7; Dionysus: Ar. Eq. 107; Heracles: Luc. Symp. 16), a worshipped celebrity (e. g. Alex. fr. 116.4–6, 246.1–2; Antiph. fr. 81.5) or an ordinary person (Callimachus epigr. 29 Pfeiffer = Anth. Pal. 12.51; Theoc. 14.18f.; Meleager epigr. 42, 43 Gow-Page = Anth. Pal. 5.136, 137), or abstract concepts like φιλία (Alex. fr. 116.2, Clearch. fr. 1.3), ὑγιεία (Antiph. fr. 147; Eub. fr. 93.2; Callias fr. 8; Nicostr. frr. 3, 18.2–3, Philet. fr. 1.2), or ὁμόνοια (Alex. fr. 246.5. See also Arnott 1996, 181–183; on the difficulty of distinction between an abstract concept and a personified concept/deity see Webster 1956, 38 ff.). Dedications of this sort included the genitives: Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος, Ἀφροδίτης, Διονύσου, Ἔρωτος, Ὑγιείας, as well as Διὸς Σωτῆρος (for a detailed collection see Rouse 1902, 279 n. 12; Picard 1910, 104 ff.; Wolters 1913. See also Thompson 1934, 339; Benoit 1961,

Πάνδροσος (fr. 19)

141

78); in Eriphus fr. 4 two of them are also put together (ἐκπεπήδηκας πρὶν Ἀγαθοῦ πρῶτα Δαίμονος λαβεῖν, / πρὶν Διὸς σωτῆρος). “After the meal, but before the symposium began, guests at a Greek dinner party were offered a small portion of unmixed (ἄκρατον) wine dedicated to the Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων who had discovered it” (Biles / Olson 2015, 249). See Tolles 1943, 77–90. As wine was otherwise κεκραμένος (namely mixed with water), the libation with unmixed wine involved a very small sip and served as something treasured (cf. Aristotle’s use of the term ἀγαθοδαιμονισταί to refer to those who drink small amounts: Eth. Eud. 1233b with Ogden 2013, 298 n. 142). Silver or ceramic cups that could have been used for this purpose, bearing inscriptions in relief in honor of gods have also been preserved (for silver cups see Courby 1922, 189; Strong 1966, 19ff., 80, 108–109; for ceramic cups see Sparkes–Talcott 1970, 20 ff.). 2 ἀπενεγκάτω μοι τὴν τράπεζαν ἐκποδών After quoting fr. 19, Athenaeus refers to an anecdote involving Dionysus I, tyrant of Syracuse from the late 400s to 367 BC (see also a similar anecdote at Ael. VH 1.20), revealing the practice of removing the tables after the wine mixed in honor of the Good Divinity had been distributed: ὅτι δὲ δοθείσης τῆς τοῦ Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος κράσεως ἔθος ἦν βαστάζεσθαι τὰς τραπέζας ἔδειξεν διὰ τῆς αὑτοῦ ἀσεβείας ὁ Σικελιώτης Διονύσιος. Τῶι γὰρ Ἀσκληπιῶι ἐν ταῖς Συρακούσαις ἀνακειμένης τραπέζης χρυσῆς προπιὼν αὐτῶι ἄκρατον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος ἐκέλευσεν βασταχθῆναι τὴν τράπεζαν (Ath. 15.693e). The reference to this practice alludes to the phase of the banquet this fragment also is supposed to take place in, that of the cleaning of tables after the end of the meal and the libation to the Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων. The two basic parts of the banquet were a) the meal itself, also metonymically called τράπεζα after the low tables on which it was served (e. g. Ar. Pax 769–770, Ran. 518; Eub. fr. 111), that were removed once the meal was over (e. g. Plato Com. fr. 71.1–2; Philyll. fr. 3.1–2) and were then cleaned (Ar. Pax 1193 ἀποκάθαιρε τὰς τραπέζας ταυτηιΐ) and reused, loaded with dainties like eggs, cakes, nuts, as well as thrushes and hares (Ar. Pax 771–772 κἀπὶ τραπέζηι καὶ ξυμποσίοις / “φέρε … δός … τῶν τρωγαλίων”) for the second part of the banquet, namely b) the drinking party (Olson 1998, 224). In this very fragment, the speaker refers to the completion of his meal (ἱκανῶς κεχόρτασμαι γάρ) and for this reason asks for the removal of the table (ἀπενεγκάτω μοι τὴν τράπεζαν) after he has made the libation to the Good Divinity (ἐγχέασα Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος). ἀπενεγκάτω is a third person imperative. Herwerden (1872, 73) however has noted that in attic comedy, such imperatives could be also understood as second person (e. g. in Damoxen. fr. 2.49–50 ἐπίτεινον. τὸ πῦρ ὁμαλιζέτω τοῖς τάχεσιν); in this case, the speaker of the fragment would be simply addressing his or her interlocutor, who would also be the one to move the table the speaker is referring to (ἀπενεγκάτω μοι τὴν τράπεζαν). The meaning however is still plausible if we understand ἀπενεγκάτω as third person, implying the presence of another female person (the subject of ἐγχέασα), possibly a servant (Kock 1884 II, 225), even if the

142

Nicostratus

distribution of speakers stays as is and we assume that all four lines of the fragment are spoken by a single person. ἐκποδών an adverb, literally meaning away from the feet (ἐκ ποδῶν), generally signifying out of the way, away. See Ar. Vesp. 1340 οὐκ ἄπει; ποῦ ᾽στ᾽ ἡλιαστής; ἐκποδών, Ran. 853 ἄναγε σεαυτὸν ἐκποδών, Lys. 848 οὐκ ἄπει δῆτ᾽ ἐκποδών;, fr. 686 οὐ φθερῆι, κάθαρμα, κἀκποδὼν ἡμῖν ἄπει; Xen. Hell. 6.5.38 ἐκποδὼν γενέσθαι. 3 κεχόρτασμαι of χορτάζω, whose various forms are used in comedy in order to signify “stuffing oneself with food” (e.g. Eub. fr. 29 ἐγὼ κεχόρτασμαι μέν, ἄνδρες, οὐ κακῶς, / ἀλλ᾽εἰμὶ πλήρης, ὥστε καὶ μόλις πάνυ / ὑπεδησάμην ἅπαντα δρῶν τὰς ἐμβάδας), or comically, with “monodies” in Ar. fr. 162 θεράπευε καὶ χόρταζε τῶν μονωιδιῶν. See Ath. 3.99e–100b, Taillardat 1965 §779, Handley 1965, 323. The verb was originally used for animals (Pl. Resp. 9.586a) and has developed similarly to the word βορά (Hunter 1983, 91–92). 4 λαβοῦσ᾽ similarly to ἐγχέασα above, the female participle here alludes to a female person, possibly a servant, that must have been onstage serving the unmixed wine and taking away the tables. She is the person the speaker of the fragment is referring to with the imperative ἀπενεγκάτω of line 2.

fr. 20 K.–A. (21 K.) ἔπειτα τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ πρὸς Ἀερόπην ἐλθοῦσα πέμψαι στρώματα αὐτὴν κέλευε, φησί, καὶ παρ᾽ Ὤκιμον χαλκώματα 1 ἔπειτα Musurus : ἐπὶ τὰ Α Ὠκίμου Cobet

3 κέλευε, φησί Dobree : κέλευ᾽ ἔφη Α

Ὤκιμον A :

then, on the same trip go to Aerope’s (s)he says, and bid her to send bedding, and to Ocimon’s (and bid her to send) bronze vessels Ath. 13.587c–d καὶ Ὠκίμου δὲ τῆς ἐμῆς, ὡς σὺ φής, Κύνουλκε, καὶ Ὑπερείδης μέμνηται ἐν τῶι Κατὰ Ἀρισταγόρας δευτέρωι λέγων οὕτως˙ ὥστε Λαῒς μὲν ἡ δοκοῦσα τῶν πώποτε διενηνοχέναι τὴν ὄψιν καὶ Ὤκιμον καὶ Μετάνειρα. Νικόστρατος δὲ ὁ τῆς μέσης κωμωιδίας ποιητὴς ἐν Πανδρόσωι οὑτωσὶ λέγων˙ ἔπειτα τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ — χαλκώματα Hyperides, in his second speech Against Aristagoras (fr. 13 Jensen) also mentions “my” Ocimon, as you refer to her (13.567c), Cynulcus, saying the following: so that Lais, who had a reputation for being the best-looking woman ever, and Ocimon and Metaneira.

Πάνδροσος (fr. 20)

143

Nicostatus, the poet of Middle Comedy says the following in Pandrosos: then, on the same trip — bronze vessels96

Meter Iambic Trimeter ⟨xlwl⟩ wlw|l

llwl wlwl llw|l llwl llwl wlw|l wlwl llwl ⟨xlwl xlwl⟩

Discussion Dobree 1833, 345; Meineke 1839 I, 347–348; Meineke 1840 III, 285; Meineke 1847 I, 636; Bothe 1855, 472–473; Cobet 1858, 140; Kock 1884 II, 225; Blaydes 1891, 2; Blaydes 1896, 137–138; Weinreich 1931, 124–125; Edmonds 1959 ΙΙ, 36–37; PCG VII, 85; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626; Rusten 2011, 528; Henry 2019 Citation Context Book 13 is the only section of the Deipnosophistae that bears the special title Περὶ Γυναικῶν. Having referred to the stories of famous men that had affairs with hetairai or were themselves the offsprings of hetairai in 13.576c–577c, Athenaeus embarks on enlisting the references to hetairai made by comic poets, Attic orators, as well as historians such as Phylarchus and Theopompus (13.577d–585f). This section belongs in the broader defense of the “real” hetairai (τῶν ὄντως ἑταιρῶν), who are indeed capable of “honest love” (φιλίαν ἄδολον, 13.571b). Those references to hetairai have been considered as signaling a transition to the erotic discourse of a philosophical banquet and in this sense, as initiating a metasymposium (Pellizer 1990, 181; Milanezi 2000, 401; McClure 2003, 261. Depictions of hetairai in sympotic scenes on vases serve a similar function, see Neils 2000, 208). The quotation of fr. 20 occurs in a section where Athenaeus lists some of the nicknames of hetairai he knows, even more so since usually politicians refer to them either in a negative or positive fashion (Ath. 13.585f ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν οἶδά τινας μνημονεύοντας αὐτῶν ἢ κατηγοροῦντας ἢ ἀπολογουμένους, μνησθήσομαι καὶ τούτων). The quotation of Nicostratus serves as a reference to Ocimon (“Basil”), a courtesan that was also referred to by Hyperides in Against Aristagoras (fr. 13 Jensen). Before Ocimon, Athenaeus lists references to Sinope, Phanostrate, Stagonion, Anthis, Nicostratis, Glycera, Lais, Philyra, Scione, Hippaphesis, Theocleia, Psamathe, Lagisca, Antheia, Nais, Oia, Eirenis, Nannion, and Corone (Ath. 13.585f–587b). Text In line 3, manuscript A reads κέλευ᾽ ἔφη. κέλευε, φησί is the emendation by Dobree (1833, 345), endorsed by all later editors, since κέλευ᾽ ἔφη results in a missing second breve. At the end of the line, Cobet (1858, 140) corrects Ὤκιμον of manuscript A to Ὠκίμου, according to analogous use of παρά with genitive, as in Anaxandr. fr. 41.1 (μύρωι δὲ παρὰ Πέρωνος), Cratin. fr. 105.8 (καὶ ⟨a⟩ κύτισος αὐτόματος παρὰ Μέδοντος ἔρχεται), Cratin. iun. fr. 14 (παρ᾽ Ἀρχεφῶντος 96

Translation is by Olson 2012, adapted.

144

Nicostratus

ἡδυποτίδας δώδεκα), and especially Theophrastus Char. 4.14 (τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ παριὼν κομίσασθαι παρ᾽ Ἀρχίου τοὺς ταρίχους with Blaydes 1891, 2) where the wording is strikingly similar. Cobet is followed by Blaydes (1896, 137–138), who maintains that apart from the emendation of Ὤκιμον to Ὠκίμου, an imperative like κόμισαι should be also added after χαλκώματα of line 4. Nicostratus however has already used a preposition that shows direction to a place in line 2, in order to show movement towards the place of Aerope (πρὸς Ἀερόπην), so the preservation of an analogous syntactical structure that denotes movement towards a place, hence παρά with accusative and not παρά with genitive (designating origin) is more preferable; this would also mean that καί of line 3 connects the two prepositional phrases πρὸς Ἀερόπην and παρ᾽ Ὤκιμον and not the infinitive πέμψαι with another infinitive that might have followed. Perhaps the name of other hetairai followed after χαλκώματα, joined with more καί and prepositional phrases (i.e. εἰς, ἐπί), indicating the places where the addressee is asked to go. Moreover, Kassel-Austin also note that παρά with genitive applies mostly to merchants and not to hetairai. Interpretation The fragment includes a complex series of instructions, where a speaker passes on to someone the directions that another person had given. Specifically, the speaker of the fragment addresses a female person (ἐλθοῦσα), telling her the instructions given by another person (φησί). That other person says (φησί) that the female person to which the speaker is talking to should go to the place of the hetaira Aerope and ask her to send some bedding (πέμψαι στρώματα αὐτὴν κέλευε) and then go to the place of the hetaira Ocimon and ask her to send some bronze vessels (καὶ παρ᾽ Ὤκιμον χαλκώματα. Cf. also Ar. Pax 1149–1158 where someone is asked to gather things and bring them to somebody else). Both στρώματα and χαλκώματα are symposium props, so it is safe to assume that a banquet is being prepared; a female character or servant has visited Aerope and Ocimon gathering what was needed, possibly on her way to the dinner-party. The speaker of the fragment, who is different that this female person is perhaps upset if the στρώματα and χαλκώματα that were supposed to be sent by Aerope and Ocimon have not arrived or if any other kind of inconvenience has occurred. 1 τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ “while on the same trip”, a genitive of time (van Leeuwen 1906, 173), as in Ar. Pax 1155 καὶ ἅμα τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ Χαρινάδην τις βωσάτω. For ὁδός designating the “route, journey”, see also Soph. OT 1478–1479 καί σε τῆσδε τῆς ὁδοῦ / δαίμων ἄμεινον ἢ ᾽μὲ φρουρήσας τύχοι (with Finglass 2018, 606 highlighting the concept of “closure”, with ὁδός denoting “‘coming’: that is a road completed”), OC 1165 αἰτεῖν ἀπελθεῖν ⟨τ᾽⟩ ἀσφαλῶς τῆς δεῦρ᾽ ὁδοῦ. The expression is analogous to the dative μιᾶι ὁδῶι, meaning “at the same time, at one job” (Eur. Hel. 765 ἦ πόλλ᾽ ἀνήρου μ᾽ ἑνὶ λόγωι μιᾶι θ᾽ ὁδῶι with Stevens 1976, 49 for its colloquial tone; Herod. Mimiamb. 5.66–67 μιῆι δεῖ σε / ὁδῶι γενέσθαι ποικίλον with Nairn 1904, 65).

Πάνδροσος (fr. 20)

145

2 Ἀερόπην In tragedy Aerope bears Agamemnon and Menelaus to Atreus (Eur. Hel. 390–392, Or. 16–18). In Euripides’ Krēssai, the father of Aerope’s children may have been Pleisthenes (Eur. Krēssai test. iiia, iiic), but Atreus also seems to have been part of the plot (test. v, fr. 465; see Collard 2005, 52–57; Collard / Cropp 2008, 516–519). Aerope was daughter of Catreus, king of Crete (Eur. Krēssai test. iiic, v). According to the narrative of the Krēssai, Catreus discovered that his daughter had been seduced by a servant and gave her up to Nauplius to be drowned; Nauplius did not obey to Catreus’ commands (cf. perhaps fr. 466) and married her to Pleisthenes. Apollodorus however, gives a different account of the story (3.2.1–2 and 5 [= test. *iiic]), with no sexual wrongdoing, and with no reference to Euripides; according to Apollodorus, Catreus gave both his daughters (Aerope and Clymene) to Nauplius to sell into slavery, because of an oracle that he was going to be killed by one of his children. Nevertheless, Pleisthenes marries Aerope and she bears him Menelaus and Atreus. Aerope is also presented as committing adultery with Thyestes (Aesch. Ag. 1191–1193; Eur. El. 720–723, Or. 1009–1010). In Eur. Electra, Aerope’s adultery is associated to Thyestes’ theft of a golden lamb, an element also found in the epic Alcmeonis, where the adultery might have also featured, suiting the poem’s subject, i.e. the punishment of the adulterous Eriphyle (fr. 6 GEF; see also Pher. Ath. fr. 133 EGM, Eur. IT 195–197, 811–813, Or. 812–813, 998–999). Aeschylus has also written a play named Krēssai (frr. 116–120 TrGF III), but it appears to have handled a different myth (Sommerstein 2008, 122–123). The myth featured in two plays called Aerope by Agathon (fr. 1 TrGF I) and Carcinus II (fr. 1 TrGF I) is unknown. References to Aerope are also made in Soph. Aj. 1293–1297 (see Finglass 2011, 497–498 with a thorough discussion). Aerope’s sexual misconduct as presented in Euripides has received attention from the scholiast of Ar. Ran. 849 (ὦ Κρητικὰς μὲν συλλέγων μονωιδίας, / γάμους δ᾽ ἀνοσίους εἰσφέρων εἰς τὴν τέχνην), who describes her behavior “like a whore’s” (Eur. Krēssai test. iiib Ἀπολλώνιος δε, ὅτι δύναται καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἀερόπην τὴν ἐν ταῖς Κρήσσαις εἰρῆσθαι, ἣν εἰσήγαγεν πορνεύουσαν); since Aristophanes (Ran. 1043 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μὰ Δί᾽ οὐ Φαίδρας ἐποίουν πόρνας οὐδὲ Σθενεβοίας) uses the word “whore” of Phaedra (with reference to Hippolytos Kalyptomenos) and Steneboea (with reference to Stheneboia), Aerope looks like a significant character (see Collard / Cropp 2008, 516). Aerope (PAA #108227) is listed as a hetaira in Athenaeus (13.587d) and with this role she is probably mentioned in Nicostratus’ play. In addition to contemporary society allusions however, the use of a mythical figure who was characterized by sexual mischiefs and after whom a hetaira was also named would have certainly been welcome by Nicostratus, giving him the opportunity to present her comically (cf. Storey 2010, “Euripides had been producing his plays about ‘bad women’ in the 430s, and comedy could easily have picked up on some of this theme”). In a play which certainly bore significant mythological allusions that were placed in a contemporary comic context (see the discussion in

146

Nicostratus

“Content” above), Nicostratus’ reference to a hetaira who happened to have the name of a famous mythical femme fatale was certainly a successful narrative choice. στρώματα στρῶμα is “anything spread or laid out for lying or sitting upon, mattress, bed” (LSJ s. v. στρῶμα). In plural, it denotes the “bedclothes, coverings of a dinner-couch”, suggesting comfort and luxury (Biles / Olson 2015, 437). It is thus used here and similarly e. g. in Ar. Ach. 1090 κλῖναι τράπεζαι προσκεφάλαια στρώματα; Nub. 37 δάκνει με τις δήμαρχος ἐκ τῶν στρωμάτων, 1069 οὐδ᾽ ἡδὺς ἐν τοῖς στρώμασιν τὴν νύκτα παννυχίζειν; Ran. 339 ἀλλ᾽ ἢ Διὸς Κόρινθος ἐν τοῖς στρώμασιν;. During the symposia, the guests rested surrounded by pillows (προσκεφάλαια / κνέφαλλα), on wooden couches (κλῖναι), which were covered with especially made beddings (στρώματα) and carpets (δάπιδες) and ate off low tables (τράπεζαι; e. g. Ar. Eccl. 838–840; Plato Com. fr. 231; Eub. fr. 11; Diod. Com. fr. 2.9–11, 14–15). See Olson 1998, 224; Olson 2002, 335. For symposium furniture see Richter 1966, 52–72, 117–119; Boardman 1990, 122–131. For couches, couch-bedding and pillows see Ransom 1905, 24–28, 39–54, 66–71; Pritchett 1956, 226–233, 241–250, 253–254. 3 φησί a parenthetical phrase, whose subject is the person giving the instructions to the subject of ἐλθοῦσα κέλευε, and whose instructions are transmitted by the speaker of the fragment. Ὤκιμον ὤκιμον (neutral) designates “basil” (Stratt. 71.5; Eub. fr. 53; Theophr. Hist. pl. 1.6.6; Diosc. 2.141; Gal. 6.640, 12.158) and a female name (Eub. fr. 53). Here it corresponds to a fourth-century hetaira (see Henry 2019), who was nicknamed after the plant, following a common practice (see McClure 2013, 62). Ocimon is being mentioned by Hypereides (Against Aristag. fr. 13 Jensen apud Ath. 13.587c–d), together with two other well-known courtesans, Metaneira and Lais, thus placing the life of Ocimon to the first half of the fourth century. Ocimon is also referred to in Anaxandrides’ Gerontomania (fr. 9.6 6 apud Ath. 13.570e with Millis 2015a, 71), by a character who makes a throw-back to the time when Ocimon first showed that she would become utterly beautiful (ὑπέφαιν᾽ ἐσομένη δ᾽ Ὤκιμον λαμπρὰ πάνυ).97 In Eubulus (fr. 53) a male speaker describes how Ocimon ruined him financially when he visited Corinth (with Hunter 1983, 140–141). For courtesans nicknamed after plants, see Pherecr. Koriannō; Petalē; Alex. Dorkis / Poppyzousa (with Arnott 1996, 176–178). 4 χαλκώματα “anything made of bronze or copper”, be it a vessel, an instrument, armor or the pegs for display on the walls of wealthy homes (Alc. fr. 140.2– 13; Soph. fr. 29; Xen. An. 4.1.8; Lys. 19.27). 97

“This will presumably have been in the 380s or the early 370s; we cannot however use that passage in more than a general way to date Anaxandrides’ play, as there is no reason why his old men should have shorter memories than Aristophanic old men, who are notoriously long-lived” (Hunter 1983, 140).

Πάνδροσος (fr. 20)

147

2–4 στρώματα … χαλκώματα In Ar. Vesp. 1212–1215, Bdelycleon demonstrates the proper technique to lie on the symposium couch: τά γόνατ᾽ ἔκτεινε, καὶ γυμναστικῶς / ὑγρὸν χύτλασον σεαυτὸν ἐν τοῖς στρώμασιν. / ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπαίνεσόν τι τῶν χαλκωμάτων, / ὀροφὴν θέασαι, κρεκάδι᾽ αὐλῆς θαύμασον (“Extend your legs and pour yourself out on the coverlets in a fluid, athletic way. Then praise one of the bronzes, gaze at the ceiling, admire the room’s curtains”98). The coexistence of στρώματα and χαλκώματα also occurs elsewhere, with a combination of στρώματα or χαλκώματα alongside other symposium props, in a catalogue of some type (see Biles / Olson 2015, 438). See e. g. the list in Antiph. fr. 223.1–5 as part of a description of the belongings of a very rich groom: ⟨τῶι⟩ σατραποπλούτωι δ᾽, ὡς λέγουσι, νυμφίωι, / κεκτημένωι τάλαντα, παῖδας, ἐπιτρόπους, / ζεύγη, καμήλους, στρώματ᾽, ἀργυρώματα, / φιάλας, τριήρεις, τραγελάφους, καρχήσια, / γαυλοὺς ὁλοχρύσους (with Wilkins 2000, 238–240), or the sympotic list in Apoll. Gel. fr. 4 ἐφεξῆς στρώματ᾽, ἀργυρώματα, / Θηρίκλειοι ⟨καὶ⟩ τορευτὰ πολυτελῆ ποτήρια / ἕτερα. See also Ar. fr. 451 χαλκώματα προσκεφάλαια.

98

Translation by Henderson 1998.

148

Παρακολυμβῶσα (Parakolymbōsa) (“Girl who swam beside”)

Discussion Heinemann 1910, 102 ff.; Demiańczuk 1912, 66; Trenkner 1958, 110–111 n. 7; Edmonds 1959 II, 36–37; PCG VII, 85; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 627 Title No other play with this title is known. παρακολυμβῶσα is the present participle of παρακολυμβάω, “swim beside”, as in Hero Mechanicus (2nd–1st BC) Automatopoetica 22.5, where the verb is used to describe the dolphins swimming alongside the ships (μετὰ δὲ οὐ πολὺν χρόνον παρέπλεον αἱ νῆες στολοδρομοῦσαι˙καὶ αἱ μὲν ἀπεκρύπτοντο, αἱ δὲ ἐφαίνοντο. πολλάκις δὲ παρεκολύμβων καὶ δελφῖνες, ὁτὲ μὲν εἰς τὴν θάλατταν καταδυόμενοι, ὁτὲ δὲ φαινόμενοι, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀληθείας). The title seems to refer to an incident that was important to the plot (on similar titles see Arnott 2010, 317–318), and in this sense it brings attention to the female character who was swimming beside another person, probably male, whose erotic interest the girl seems to have sparked (see below, “Content”). Content Parakolymbōsa probably develops around a love motif: that of the young man who falls in love with a pretty girl who is swimming beside him. This theme also appears in Nonnus (Dion. 16.5 ff.), as well as in later stories of both western and eastern traditions (Trenkner 1958, 110–111 n. 7; Penzer 1926, 169; Hilka 1913, 81; Contes de la Fontaine, IV 4. Similarly, the Old Testament motif of “Susanna and the Elders”, see Gunkel 1917, 126). Parakolymbōsa may have been the influence behind an epistle of Aristaenetus (1.7), which is possibly (according to Heinemann 1910, 102ff.) not alluding to the very similar epigram from Palatine Anthology (AP 5.209), but to a motif that was common in comedies, with Parakolymbōsa being one of them. Although Heinemann’s theory cannot be proved, it seems probable that Parakolymbōsa exploited a love motif that involved the instantaneous love risen at the sight of a beautiful girl swimming (on the love themes in Middle and New Comedy see Trenkner 1958, 110–120). Date Unknown

fr. 21 K.–A. (1 Demiańczuk) ⟨οὐκ⟩ ἀναβεβήκει πώποτε ἐφ᾽ ἅμαξαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἵππον 1 οὐκ add. Reitzenstein (nisi fuit οὐ γὰρ sim.) aut ἀνεβεβήκει aut ἀναβέβηκε(ν) scribendum esse censet Schmidt πώποτε Schwartz : πώποτ᾽ codd. 2 ἵππον Reitzenstein : ἵππων codd.

(s)he has ⟨never⟩ driven a wagon, but has (ridden) a horse

Παρακολυμβῶσα (fr. 21)

149

Phot. α 1197 (I 125–126 Theodoridis) ἁ μ ί δ α˙ δασέως˙ “τί δῆτ᾽ ἄν, εἰ μὴ τὴν ἁμίδα καθεῦδ᾽ ἔχων;” Eὔπολις Αὐτολύκωι (fr. 52). καὶ ὁ Ἀριστοφάνης (fr. 653)˙ “κατεσκέδασέ μου τὴν ἁμίδα κεχηνότος”. λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ἅμαξαν δασέως καὶ καθημαξευμένα καὶ ὅλως τῆι δασείαι προσωιδίαι χαίρουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοί. καὶ παρὰ Μενάνδρωι {ὡς} λέγεται ἐν τῶι ⟨Νομο⟩θέτηι (fr. 252) διὰ τοῦ θ ἡ συναλιφὴ αὕτη˙ “ἑκκαίδεκα κεῖνθ᾽ ἁμίδες”. καὶ τὸ ἁμάξιον οὕτως λέγουσι θἀμάξιον καὶ “⟨οὐκ⟩ ἀναβεβήκει — ἐφ, ἵππον”. Νικόστρατος ἐν Παρακολυμβώσηι. h a m i d a (“piss-pot”); with aspiration; “what would then happen, if he was sleeping without having a piss-pot?” Eupolis in Autolykos (fr. 52). And Aristophanes (fr. 653): “he poured the piss-pot all over me while I was having my mouth wide open (while I was yawning)”. They also say “wagon” (ἅμαξαν) with an aspirate breathing as well as “worn with wheels” (καθημαξευμένα) and those who speak the Attic dialect (i.e. Attic authors) rejoice fully in [using] the aspirate pronunciation. This coalescing (συναλιφή) by means of θ is also used in Menander’s Nomothetēs (fr. 252): “there were lying sixteen piss-pots”. They also say “and the small wagon” (θἀμάξιον) this way and “(s)he has ⟨never⟩ driven — a horse”. Nicostratus in Parakolymbōsa.

Meter Iambic Trimeter ⟨xlwl⟩ ⟨l⟩|rwl llwl rlwl wlw|⟨l xlwl⟩ Discussion Schwartz 1877; Reitzenstein 1907; Demiańczuk 1912, 66; Edmonds 1959 II, 36–37; PCG VII, 85 Citation Context A lexicographical note which discusses the issue of the Attic initial aspiration of the word ἁμίς (“piss-pot”; also in Ael. Dion. α 98). Eupolis is the first “Attic” author quoted (fr. 52) and Menander comes next (fr. 252), both using the word ἁμίς. Since ἅμαξα is another word with aspirate breathing, Photius engages in another example and quotes this fragment. Photius, as well as other lexicographers like Orus, the Suda, or Eustathius, follow Aelius Dionysius unanimously and openly reproduce Aelius’ citations, setting a clear line of textual tradition. This very quotation is discussed by Tribulato, who rightfully maintains that since Photius cites Menander after the “approved” Attic author Eupolis with no second thoughts, then it is obvious that Photius trusts Aelius entirely (see Tribulato 2014, 205; this line of tradition is also very evident in Men. fr. 553, where Photius cites Aelius Dionysius verbatim as we understand by a scholion of Eustath. in Od. p. 1387.17). Text At the beginning of line 1, Reitzenstein (1907) adds οὐκ to the reading of the codices; the addition of οὐκ or οὐ γάρ or οὐ δ᾽ or similar is necessary because of the following ἀλλ᾽ in line 2. Regarding ἀναβεβήκει that follows, according to the discussion of Schmidt (1968, 74–79) the form should be either ἀνεβεβήκει or ἀναβέβηκε(ν). Since ἀναβεβήκει of the manuscripts creates no metrical or other inconsistency, it can stay as it stands. Lastly, πώποτ᾽ of the codices has been rightly emended to πώποτε by Schwartz (1877) for metrical reasons.

150

Nicostratus

ἵππων of the codices in line 2 has been rightly emended to ἵππον by Reitzenstein in accordance to the combination of ἐπί with accusative that has been already selected at the beginning of the line (ἐφ᾽ ἅμαξαν; on ἐπί with accusative see “Interpretation” below). Otherwise, both cases could stand, with a local meaning (e. g. Xen. Cyr. 4.7.18 ἀνέβαινεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἵππον, but also 4.5.58 ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων ὀχεῖσθαι, 3.3.27 ἀναβάντες ἐφ᾽ ἵππων ἐλάσαι. Cf. Smyth §1689.1, 3 and see also the discussion on ἀναβεβήκει, below). Intrepretation Very little can be said regarding the overall interpretation of the fragment. A speaker is referring to another person, who has never driven a chariot, but has ridden a horse. Although reluctantly, I believe that the reference is meant to comment either upon the other person’s age or the other person’s financial status or both. A member of the cavalry would set a terminus post quem at 18 years old; Young horsemen were over 18, but not much older (cf. Ar. Nub. 119–123, with Pheidippides speaking as though he is already a member of the cavalry; IG II2 6217, a funerary stele about a young cavalryman who was born in 414/413 and killed at Corinth in 394. See also Dover 1968, xxvii), which can also be combined with the fact that the person our fragment is referring to has ridden a horse but not a wagon, assuming that it would cost money to own it. At the same time, we cannot exclude the possibility that the person the speaker is referring to is a woman, given the reference to a woman riding a vagon in Ar. Plut. 1013–1014 in the great procession to the Eleusinian Mysteries (μυστηρίοις δὲ τοῖς μεγάλοις ὀχουμένην / ἐπὶ τῆς ἅμάξης ὅτι πρεσέβλεψέν μέ τις). 1 ἀναβεβήκει ἀναβαίνω generally means “go up, mount” (LSJ s. v. ἀναβαίνω) but it also has many special usages. In this fragment, ἀναβαίνω is followed by the preposition ἐπί and accusative, commonly used to designate “mount”, as e. g. in Xen. Cyr. 4.1.7 ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὸν ἵππον, 6.4.4 παρεσκευάζετο ὡς ἀναβησόμενος ἤδη ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα (ἐπί and genitive, with the same meaning is also applicable: Xen. Cyr. 3.3.27 ἀναβάντες ἐφ᾽ ἵππων ἐλάσαι). ἀναβαίνω can also entail sexual connotations (cf. Ar. fr. 344 ἀναβῆναι τὴν γυναῖκα βούλομαι; Hdt. 1.192.3 ἵπποι … ἀναβαίνοντες τὰς θηλέας), but complete absence of any context here makes any such interpretation problematic. 2 ἐφ᾽ ἅμαξαν … ἐφ᾽ ἵππον the preposition ἐπί is followed by accusative when it has a local meaning; such construction is common concerning the riding of both the chariot and the horse (ἅμαξαν, ἵππον) as also mentioned above (see ἀναβεβήκει). ἅμαξαν (with an aspiration in Attic dialect only) a four-wheeled freight wagon driven by horses or mules (e. g. Il. 24.263 οὐκ ἂν δή μοι ἄμαξαν ἐφοπλίσσαιτε τάχιστα; Od. 6.260–261 σὺν ἀμφιπόλοισι μεθ᾽ ἡμιόνους καὶ ἄμαξαν / καρπαλίμως ἔρχεσθαι).

151

Πατριῶται (Patriōtai)

(“Men from the same country”) Discussion Meineke III 1840, 286–287; Meineke 1847 I, 637; Bothe 1855, 473; Kock 1884 II, 225–226; Edmonds 1959 II, 38–39, 212; PCG VII, 85–86; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626 Title The title Patriōtai is not found in the list of the sixteen play-titles transmitted by the Suda (test. 1). In line 4 of the testimony however, a play-title not attested anywhere else, Ōtēs (Ὤτης also appearing as Ὤτις in other manuscripts), points towards a possible explanation. As rightly maintained by Wagner (1905, 63 n. 2), Ōtēs (Ὤτης) must be a mistaken title that found its way in the tradition after interpolations that first read “Πατριώτης” instead of “Πατριῶται” and then dropped the πατρι–. The word πατριώτης designates the “fellow-countryman” (LSJ s. v. πατριώτης), and since the Greeks had a common polis, while the barbarians a common patris, πατριῶται has come to signify the barbarians or slaves, not the free Greeks (Edmonds 1959 II, 212). For such use see Pherecr. fr. 11, where Lycurgus is being parodied and presented as an Egyptian: οἶμαι δ᾽ αὐτὸν κινδυνεύειν εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον … ἵνα μὴ συνέχηι τοῖσι Λυκούργου πατριώταις (cf. Ar. Av. 1296 Ἶβις Λυκούργωι with Schol. [VE] 1296b ἢ ὡς Αἰγυπτίου ἢ ὡς μακροσκελοῦς. On the implied connection of Lycurgus with Egypt, cf. also Cratin. fr. 32 τούτοισι δ᾽ ὄπισθεν ἴτω δίφρον φέρων Λυκοῦργος, / ἔχων καλάσιριν, with καλάσιρις known from Hdt. 2.81.1 to be the Egyptian word for a tunic; for a detailed discussion see Dunbar 1995, 641–642). Content Considering the meaning of the word πατριῶται (see above, “Title”), the title most probably refers to the non-Greek origin of the chorus or two or more characters of the cast. The number of titles denoting origin / nationality in later Greek comedy is large (cf. e. g. Alexis’ Atthis, Achais, Thesprōtoi, Karchēdonios, Lokroi, Olynthia / Olynthios/-oi; Anaxandrides’ Lokrides, Thettaloi, Samia; Antiphanes’ Boiōtis, Ephesia; Menander’s Achaioi, Ephesios, Karchēdonios, Lokroi, Thettalē, Olynthia, Sikyōnios/-oi, Samia; see Arnott 1996, 120–121, 128–129, 243 –244; Arnott 2010, 318–319) and in most cases they signify the adventures of one or more of their characters in an alien community or city. The single surviving fragment however has the speaker give information on another person (κάπηλος) and can say nothing about the plot. Date

Unknown.

152

Nicostratus

fr. 22 K.–Α. (22 K.) ὁ κάπηλος γὰρ οὑκ τῶν γειτόνων ἄν τ᾽ οἶνον ἄν τε φανὸν ἀποδῶταί τινι ἄν τ᾽ ὄξος, ἀπέπεμψ᾽ ὁ κατάρατος δοὺς ὕδωρ 2 τε φανὸν cod. B : στέφανον Α

3 ἀπέπεμψ᾽ Musurus : ἀπέπεμψεν Α

the bartender from the neighborhood be it wine, or a phanos (“torch”) he sells someone or vinegar, the bastard gives him water and sends him off Ath. 15.699d–700b πολλῶν οὖν ἑκάστοτε τοιούτων λεγομένων, ἐπεί ποτε ἑσπέρα κατελάμβανεν ἡμᾶς, ὁ μέν τις ἔλεγεν, παῖ, λυχνεῖον, ὁ δὲ λυχνέα, ὁ δὲ λοφνίδα, οὕτω καλεῖσθαι φάσκων τὴν ἐκ τοῦ φλοιοῦ λαμπάδα, ὁ δὲ πανόν, ἄλλος δὲ φανόν, ὁ δὲ λυχνοῦχον, ὁ δὲ λύχνον, καὶ δίμυξον δὲ λύχνον ἕτερος, ἄλλος δὲ ἑλάνην, ὁ δέ τις ἑλάνας, τὰς λαμπάδας οὕτω φάσκων καλεῖσθαι παρὰ τὴν ἕλην. … καὶ ἄλλος ὅ τι δή ποτε, ὡς τάραχον γίνεσθαι οὐ τὸν τυχόντα τῶν ἐπὶ τούτοις πίστεων παρὰ πάντων λεγομένων. … Νικόστρατος ἐν Πατριώταις˙ ὁ κάπηλος γὰρ — ὕδωρ We routinely discussed numerous topics similar to these, and when evening began to overtake us, one member of the group said, Slave! (Get me) a lychneion!, while others asked for a lychneus, a lophnis (insisting that this was the term for a torch made of bark), or a panos, while yet others called for a phanos, a lychnouchos, or a lychnos, and someone else demanded a dimyksos lychnos, and yet another person requested a helanē or used the plural helanai (claiming that this was a term for torches derived from helē. … Other members of the group used various other terms, producing extraordinary confusion, as testimonia in support of all the words were cited from authors of all sorts. … Nicostratus in Patriōtai˙ “the neighborhood bartender — water”

Meter Iambic Trimeter ⟨xl⟩wl llw|l

llwl llwl w|lwr llwl llwr l|rwl llwl

Discussion Meineke III 1840, 286–287; Meineke 1847 I, 637; Bothe 1855, 473; Kock 1884 II, 225–226; Blaydes 1896, 138; Edmonds 1959 II, 38–39, 212; PCG VII, 85–86; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626 Citation Context In book 15.699d, the party described by Athenaeus is almost over. Before leaving, the guests engage in a discussion regarding various sources of artificial light (15.699d–701b). Athenaeus alleges the great variety of the existing terms (15.699d λυχνεῖον, λυχνεύς, λοφνίς, λαμπάς, πανός, δανός, λυχνοῦχος, λύχνος, δίμυξος λύχνος, ἑλάνη), noting that what were then called φανοί were once called λυχνοῦχοι (15.699e–f). He then cites several examples first for the use of the word λύχνος (15.699f ) and then for the use of the word φανός (15.700a–c).

Πατριῶται (fr. 22)

153

Nicostr. fr. 22 is preceded by Alex. fr. 91, Anaxandr. fr. 49, and Men. fr. 60 and followed by Philipp. fr. 16, Pherecr. fr. 90, Antiph. fr. 109, Diph. fr. 2, as well as Hermipp. frr. 8, 62. Text In line 2, manuscript Α reads στέφανον, against manuscript B that reads τε φανὸν. Τhe context of the Athenaeus’ quotation however (see above, “Citation Context”) makes the reading στέφανον impossible to stand, since it develops upon the various types of lighting, with φανός being one of them. In line 3, ἀπέπεμψεν of manuscript A has been rightly corrected to ἀπἐπεμψ᾽ by Musurus thus solving the metrical problem of the extra syllable of ἀπέπεμψεν. Interpretation It is very difficult to guess the exact context of this fragment in the play’s plotline. It is clear however, that the speaker of the fragment refers to the local bartender (ὁ κάπηλος οὑκ τῶν γειτόνων), who is so used to “watering” the wine of his clients that he is sending back water with anything one tries to buy from him, be it wine, a torch, or even vinegar (ἄν τ᾽ οἶνον ἄν τε φανόν …. ἄν τ᾽ ὄξος, ἀπέπεμψ᾽ ὁ κατάρατος δοὺς ὕδωρ). The description is highly comic, given not only the routine of the tampering of wine, but also the diversity of the items the bartender is attempting to tamper. Since it is very unlikely that apart from counterfeit wine, a bartender could also sell counterfeit torches (although we know of two cases where a φανός was filled up with water instead of oil; see below in the discussion of φανός), the joke lies on the hyperbole of the description. If the speaker were a woman, the fragment could also encompass the comic topos of women’s fondness of wine (on this see Davidson 1997, 53–61; for its use as a comic motif see Austin / Olson 2004, 231 ad Ar. Thesm. 630 with references and bibliography). 1 κάπηλος οὑκ τῶν γειτόνων κάπηλος is a generic term for a vast category of retailers and merchants (like that of the list in Ar. Pax 296–298 with Olson 1998, 130–131); see e. g. Ar. Pax 447 κεἴ τις δορυξὸς ἢ κάπηλος ἀσπίδων, Pl. Prt. 314a σιτία καὶ ποτὰ πρίασθαι παρὰ τοῦ καπήλου καὶ ἐμπόρου, Pl. Plt. 260c ἡ τῶν καπήλων τέχνη τῆς τῶν αὐτοπωλῶν διώρισται τέχνης. Here however, the term κάπηλος seems to be used specifically of a bartender who regularly cheats his customers, especially since the exact same structure (with an analogous fraction happening for the feminine form of κάπηλος) occurs in Ar. Pl. 435–436 ἆρ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ καπηλὶς ἡκ τῶν γειτόνων, / ἣ ταῖς κοτύλαις ἀεί με διαλυμαίνεται; (“Wait, is she the barmaid from the neighborhood who’ s always cheating me with her kotylai?”), with this same meaning. Similarly in Ar. Thesm. 347–348 κεἴ τις κάπηλος ἢ καπηλὶς τοῦ χοῶς / ἢ τῶν κοτυλῶν τὸ νόμισμα διαλυμαίνεται (with Austin / Olson 2004, 165–166), Luc. Hermot. 59 καὶ οἱ φιλόσοφοι ἀποδίδονται τὰ μαθήματα ὥσπερ οἱ κάπηλοι, κερασάμενοί γε οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ δολώσαντες καὶ κακομετροῦντες. The bars of the neighborhood seem to have been common, as referred to in Ar. Eccl. 154–155 ἐν τοῖς καπηλείοισι λάκκους ἐμποιεῖν / ὕδατος (where the speaker describes “pits” used for wine storage found in the local bars; cf. Xen. An. 4.2.22. See the discussion in Ussher 1973, 96–97), Eub. fr. 80.1–5 (where the speaker narrates

154

Nicostratus

how he was monitoring the τροφός of a girl while waiting in a καινόν καπηλεῖον μέγα, “a new big bar” opposite the house, where he asked the bartender to make him a chous of wine and water: κεράσαι κελεύσας τὸν κάπηλόν μοι χοᾶ ὀβολοῦ). In Antiph. fr. 25.1-3, the speaker is happy to say that the local κάπηλος mixes wine exactly to her taste: γείτων ἐστί τις / κάπηλος˙ οὗτος εὐθὺς ὅταν ἕλθω ποτὲ / διψῶσα, μόνος οἶδ᾽ ὥς γ᾽ ἐμοὶ κεράννυται. 2 φανόν Ancient grammarians (Phrynichus Ecl. s. v. φανός with Fischer 1974, 63; Rutherford 1881, 131f.; Phrynichus Praep. Soph. 87.1 ff. de Borries; cf. Poll. 10.116, Phot. s.v. πανός, Schol. Ar. Lys. 308) have insisted on the difference of φανός (“torch”: Ar. Lys. 308 τῆς ἀμπέλου δ᾽ εἰς τὴν χύτραν τὸν φανὸν ἐγκαθέντες; Alex. fr. 91.3–4 ποῖος γάρ ἐστιν φανός, ὦ πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, / τοιοῦτος οἷος ὁ γλυκύτατος ἥλιος; Diph. fr. 6 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ πανὸς ὕδατος ἐστι μεστός; Men. fr. 60.1 ὁ φανός ἐστι μεστὸς ὕδατος οὑτοσί), from λύχνος (“lamp”. See Millis 2015a, 257; Pritchett 1956, 240–241), and λυχνοῦχος (“lantern”). As is also evident from Athenaeus (see also the discussion above, in “Citation Context”), the different terms were often used interchangeably (cf. Ath. 15.699d ὁ μέν τις ἔλεγεν, παῖ, λυχνεῖον, ὁ δὲ λυχνέα, ὁ δὲ λοφνίδα, οὕτω καλεῖσθαι φάσκων τὴν ἐκ τοῦ φλοιοῦ λαμπάδα, ὁ δὲ πανόν, ἄλλος δὲ φανόν, ὁ δὲ λυχνοῦχον, ὁ δὲ λύχνον, καὶ δίμυξον δὲ λύχνον ἕτερος, ἄλλος δὲ ἑλάνην, ὁ δε τις ἑλάνας, τὰς λαμπάδας οὕτω φάσκων καλεῖσθαι παρὰ τὴν ἕλην. … καὶ ἄλλος ὅ τι δή ποτε); there are many instances however, where the comic fragments themselves bring out the distinctions noticed by the grammarians (see Anaxandr. fr. 49 οὔκουν λαβὼν τὸν φανὸν ἅψεις μοι λύχνον; with Millis 2015a, 256, where φανός is employed to light the λύχνος; Alex. fr. 107.1–2 ὥστ᾽ ἐξελὼν ⟨ἐκ⟩ τοῦ λυχνούχου τὸν λύχνον / μικροῦ κατακαύσας ἔλαθ᾽ ἑαυτόν; Men. fr. 59 εἰσιὼν / πανόν, λύχνον, λυχνοῦχον, ὅ τι πάρεστι˙ φῶς / μόνον πολὺ ποίει). What is particularly interesting is the fact that although φ/πανός is a term designating a torch, there exist two instances where it is clearly filled up with water (Diph. fr. 6 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ πανὸς ὕδατός ἐστι μεστός; Men. fr. 60.1–2 ὁ φανός ἐστι μεστὸς ὕδατος99 οὑτοσί˙ / δεῖ τ᾽ οὐχὶ σείειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποσείειν αὐτόθεν). In these two cases the φ/πανός was apparently filled up with water (instead of oil), perhaps for someone to make profit, since the cost of filling it up with water or a mix of water and oil would be significantly lower than using only oil. The process of filling up a torch with any liquid seems problematic; perhaps in some cases, the term φ/πανός was used to designate a type of λύχνος, which could indeed be filled up. In the context of our fragment, this could also be a possibility: it seems that the κάπηλος the speaker is referring to uses water not only instead of wine or vinegar, but also instead of oil, when he is asked to fill up a type of φ/πανός that uses a burning liquid.

99

μεστός ὕδατος here might also imply that the torch was wet and soggy and could not burn well.

Πατριῶται (fr. 22)

155

φανός, λύχνος, and λυχνοῦχος were a common comic prop for nocturnal travelers (e. g. Alex. fr. 152 ὁ πρῶτος εὑρὼν μετὰ λυχνούχου περιπατεῖν / τῆς νυκτὸς), as well as a hint that the time of the story has reached dusk (see Arnott 1962, 120 ff., Dingel 1967, 74). For the difference of spelling between φανός and πανός see Arnott 1996, 242 n. 1. 3 ὄξος ὄξος is either the “wine-vinegar” or the “cheap wine”. See the detailed discussion in fr. 14. Since here it is juxtaposed to oἶνος, but also to φανός, ὄξος should designate vinegar, thus creating a list of miscellaneous items (wine, torch, vinegar), that you could buy, which were all always “watered” by the local bartender. κατάρατος literally, “accursed”, from καταράομαι, used both for a man and a woman, as a general term of abuse (Ar. Ran. 178 ὡς σεμνὸς ὁ κατάρατος, Lys. 530 σοί γ᾽, ὦ κατάρατε [for Lysistrata]; Pax 33 οἷον δὲ κύψας ὁ κατάρατος ἐσθίει; similarly in Modern Greek καταραμένος, meaning “accursed” but used dismissively, like “fool, wretch”). ὕδωρ the reference is to plain water used to mix wine with. Although this was the way the Greeks drunk their wine (with the exception of libation, see the discussion on Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων on fr. 19), the speaker here highlights the fact that this specific κάπηλος watered wine excessively, in order to have financial profit. For this reason, he was watering not just the wine, but also the vinegar, and perhaps also the burning oil of the φ/πανός.

156

Πλοῦτος (Ploutos) (“Wealth”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 287; Meineke 1847 I, 637; Bothe 1855, 473; Kock 1884 II, 226; Edmonds 1959 II, 38–39; PCG VII, 86; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626 Title Apart from Aristophanes (with Ploutos I and Ploutos II, see below, “Content”) and Nicostratus, Archippus has also written a Ploutos (PCG II, frr. 37–41) and Cratinus Ploutoi (PCG IV, frr. 171–179). Kaibel (1889, 55) has noticed parallels between Aristophanes’ and Archippus’ plays and thus maintains that Aristophanes’ Ploutos of 388 should be considered the terminus post quem for Archippus’ Ploutos. This however cannot stand since we are not in a position to know if Archippus’ play reflects only Aristophanes’ Ploutos II; as it might have well reflected Ploutos I (especially if Ploutos II is a revision and not a new play, see Sommerstein 2001, 30–31), the terminus should be moved much earlier (Storey 2010, 209; see also Sommerstein 2001, 28–33; Sommerstein 2010, 402–403). Similarly, we are not in a position to know if Nicostratus has structured his play upon Aristophanes’ Ploutos I, Ploutos II, or both (pace Kock II 1884, 226. See the discussion in “Content” below) and thus reach further conclusions regarding the play’s possible content. Content Kock (II 1884, 226) maintains that this play is perhaps a revision of Aristophanes’ Ploutos, which Nicostratus composed according to fourth-century dramatic characteristics (“fortasse patris Plutum mutatis temporibus accommodatam tertium edidit”). Aristophanes’ Ploutos was produced in 388, but Hellenistic scholars also possessed a homonymous play, also by Aristophanes, dating in 408 (PCG III.2; test. 2; Ar. Πλοῦτος α test. i–iii; see also above, “Title”). The surviving fragments (PCG III.2, frr. 458–466) cannot show conclusively whether the surviving Ploutos (that of 388) is a revision of Ploutos I (e. g. in the manner of the revision of the Nephelai; See Sommerstein 2001, 28–33), or an entirely new play (Henderson 2002, 415; Henderson 2007, 327). Likewise, we have not enough information to decide on whether Nicostratus’ Ploutos had any similarity or was structured upon Aristophanes’ homonymous play(s). Date

Unknown fr. 23 K.–A. (23 K.)

Ath. 6.247e καὶ Ἄλεξις ἐν Ὀρέστηι (fr. 171) Νικόστρατός τε ἐν Πλούτωι (fr. 23) Μένανδρός τε ἐν Μέθηι (fr. 228) καὶ Νομοθέτηι (fr. 254). Also Alexis in Orestēs (fr. 171), Nicostratus in Ploutos (fr. 23), Menander in Methē (fr. 228) and Nomothetēs (fr. 254).

Πλοῦτος (fr. 23)

157

Meter Unknown. Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 287; Meineke 1847 I, 637; Bothe 1855, 473; Kock 1884 II, 226; Edmonds 1959 II, 38–39; PCG VII, 86; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626 Citation Context Athenaeus cites this fragment as part of a complex discussion of the term παράσιτος (“parasite”, a term literally denoting someone who eats beside another person; on parasites in Middle Comedy in general see Arnott 2010, 322–324) which starts in 6.234d (τὸ δὲ τοῦ παρασίτου ὄνομα πάλαι μὲν ἦν σεμνὸν καὶ ἱερόν) with a quotation of Polemon (fr. 78 Preller) and continues for a very big stretch, until 6.248c, where the discussion shifts to κόλακες (ὡς ὁ Θηβαῖος εἴρηκεν ποιητής, περὶ κολάκων ἐρῶ τι). Nicostratus is quoted after a long fragment of Menander’s Orgē (fr. 270) and before a long fragment of Philonides’ Kothornoi (fr. 1), as part of a short listing of references without the actual fragments (possibly because of the passage’s “careless abbreviation or excision since its original composition”, Arnott 1996, 503) of Alexis’ Orestēs (fr. 171), Nicostratus’ Ploutos, Menander’s Methē (fr. 228) and Nomothetēs (fr. 254). The frivolous compendium of the quotations of those four plays has extinguished even the word the fragments have allegedly shared: as part of the discussion on παράσιτος, it could have been παράσιτος indeed, but given the fact that immediately before this list the quotation of Men. fr. 270 concentrates on the word ἑταῖρος and immediately after this list the quotation of Philonid. fr. 1 on the word ἀπόσιτος, we cannot really be sure. Interpretation As of above (see “Citation Context”), we are not entitled to assume how Nicostratus would have used a parasite in the plot of this play, not even to consider the possibility of the existence of a parasite as certain.

158

Ῥήτωρ ?(Rhētōr) (“Orator”)

Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 289–290; Meineke 1847 I, 639–640; Kock 1884 II, 228; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43, 212; PCG VII, 86–87; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626 Title Rhētōr is not part of the list of plays attributed to Nicostratus in the Suda (PCG VII, Nicostr. test. 1) and the title’s single attestation is found in Photius (see below, “Citation Context” and fr. 24). Crates has also written Rhētores (PCG IV, fr. 30 with Perrone 2019, 157–159); just as with Nicostratus’ Rhētōr, Crates’ Rhētores does not appear in the list of the Suda either (PCG IV, Crates test. 1) and it only has a single reference in Athenaeus (fr. 30 apud Ath. 9.369c). In some cases, the absence of a title from the play-list of the Suda is explained as an error in the transmission of the text (see e. g. Storey 2011 on Crates’ Rhētores), but in the case of Nicostratus’ Rhētōr, the play-titles that precede and follow in the Suda list cannot support such a theory. The play-title is not attributed to the fragment prior to the edition of Kassel–Austin (i.e. Meineke 1840 III, Meineke 1847 I, Kock 1884 II, Edmonds 1959 II), who only do it reluctantly; I follow them. Content The one surviving fragment can only help us in showing that a speaker is referring to a group of people, probably a group of ῥήτορες (word also added in the text by Meineke, Kock and Edmonds, see below, “Interpretation”) in a derogatory manner. This group of people would have been somehow connected to the main character of the plot, who according to the play-title, was probably an orator. It was common for middle comedy play titles, to identify a male or female character by his/her profession or typical activity (cf. also Nicostratus’ Ornitheutēs, Hierophantēs, Tokistēs, Oinopoios; see Arnott 2010, 311–314 for a full list); the only part of the plot we can assume based on the play-title and single fragment is a verbal attack made by a speaker to a group of people, perhaps of ῥήτορες. Date Unknown. fr. 24 K.–A. (34 K.) ἐξωρμενικότες, δυσχερεῖς, παλιναίρετοι ἐξωρμενικότες Porson : εξωρμενηκότες cod.

παλιναίρετοι Meineke : πάλιν αἱρετοί cod.

sprung up, difficult, re-elected Phot. ο 494 (III 104 Theodoridis) ὅρμενα˙ τὰ τῆς κράμβης. Ποσείδιππος Συντρόφοις (fr. 26)˙ “ἔνδοθι προνομεύειν ὄρμενα”. παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς οὐχ εὕρομεν. Νικοστράτωι Ῥήτορι ˙ ἐξωρμενικότες –παλιναίρετοι

Ῥήτωρ ? (fr. 24)

159

sprouts; of cabbage. Posidippus in the play Syntrophoi (fr. 26); “to pluck the sprouts within”. It is not attested in early poets. In Nicostratus’ Rhētōr: sprung up – palinairetoi

Meter Iambic Trimeter

wlwr l|lwl rlwl

Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 289–290; Meineke 1847 I, 639–640; Kock 1884 II, 228; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43, 212; PCG VII, 86–87; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 626 Citation Context Tentatively traced by Theodoridis (2013 ΙΙΙ, 104) to Aelius Dionysius on the grounds of Eust. 1220.59 φησὶ γοῦν τις τῶν παλαιῶν (fort. Aelius Dionysius) ὅτι ἀσφάραγος ἐν τῶι φι τὸ ἐκ τῶν ἀκανθῶν ἀναφυόμενον, τὸ δὲ ἐκ τῆς κράμβης ὄρμενον. Cf. also Ath. 2.62f Δίφιλος δέ φησιν ὡς ὁ τῆς κράμβης ἀσφάραγος λεγόμενος ἰδίως ὄρμενος … Ἀττικοὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶν οἱ λέγοντες ὄρμενον τὸν ἀπὸ της κράμβης ἐξηνθηκότα (hence Eust. 899.15–18). Text ἐξορμενηκότες of the paradosis is grammatically problematical since the verb ἐξορμενίζω can only give a participle in –ικώς (just like e. g. τειχίζω giving the participle τετειχικώς); Porson’s emendation is thus correct. πάλιν αἱρετοί of the codices is rightly read as παλιναίρετοι by Meineke (1840 III, 290) and endorsed by all later editors. Meineke follows the occurrence of παλιναίρετος with a derogatory meaning (analogous to the meaning of the word in this fragment) in Pl. Tim. 82e (with Ruhnken 1789, 204). Interpretation The fragment consists of a string of accumulated adjectives that create an “asyndeton at the comma” (Denniston 1952, 100). The fastness of the change of the words highlights their intensity, maximizing their derogatory characteristics;100 we can assume that the speaker was either addressing a group of people (possibly a group of orators) that were on stage or was referring to them in a description. The fact that they were παλιναίρετοι (see discussion below) adds political connotations, since the group of these people were involved in public office, from which they were removed and to which they were re-elected.101 ἐξωρμενικότες a participle deriving from ἐξορμενίζω (to “sprout, shoot forth”, LSJ s. v. ἐξορμενίζω). It is here used metaphorically (possibly for orators who 100

101

See Willi 2003, 67: “the accumulation of a group of formally similar words, which all refer to one particular technical field, can be used by a comic poet to draw attention to the (perhaps excessive) linguistic systematicity in that field”. Cf. e. g. Eub. fr. 137 οὗτοι ἀνιπτόποδες χαμαιευνάδες ἀερίοικοι, / ἀνόσιοι λάρυγγες, / ἀλλοτρίων κτεάνων παραδειπνίδες, ὦ λοπαδάγχαι / λευκῶν ὑπογαστριδίων (on the mixture of long and short verses as a characteristic of Middle Comedy see Hunter 1983, 228–229). On the asyndeton in general see Lausberg 1987 §328; Knobloch 1986, 193–196; Smyth §2165–2167; Denniston 1952, 99–123; Sarischouli 2000. Crates’ Rhētores also displays political character, though without incorporating specified satire of political figures (Olson 2010, 60–61).

160

Nicostratus

“showed up out of nowhere / after long absence”?) and in a derogatory manner, similarly to the words δυσχερεῖς and παλιναίρετοι that follow. In most cases however, it is used literally; in Praeparatio Sophistica, Phrynichus explains ἐξορμενίζειν as ἐξανθεῖν: 67.16 ἐξορμενίζειν˙ τὸ ἐξανθεῖν, ὅπερ οἱ πολλοὶ ἐκβάλλειν λέγουσιν. ὄρμενα γὰρ καλεῖται ὑπὸ των Ἀττικῶν τὰ τῶν λαχάνων ἐξανθήματα. οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ καὶ ἀμαθεῖς ταῦτα ἀσπαράγους καλοῦσιν (cf. 42.2 sq.). ἐξανθεῖν, which literally signifies “bloom”, it also has the more general meaning of “burst forth from” or “break out”, and in this sense, the cabbage sprouts are called ὄρμενα in Attica (cf. Ath. 2.62f Δίφιλος δέ φησιν ὡς ὁ τῆς κράμβης ἀσφάραγος λεγόμενος ἰδίως ὄρμενος … Ἀττικοὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶν οἱ λέγοντες ὄρμενον τὸν ἀπὸ της κράμβης ἐξηνθηκότα. Σοφοκλῆς Ἰχνευταῖς [fr. 314. 281–282] κἀξορμενίζει κοὐκέτι σχολάζεται / βλάστη). The information on its attic use is additionally provided by Eustathius (again designating the cabbage shoots, because of their characteristic to spring out of the ground: Eust. 899.12–16 ἔτι δὲ καὶ Ὄρμενον, Τρωικὸν καὶ αὐτὸν ἄνδρα, ὁμώνυμον τῆι παθητικῆι μετοχῆι τοῦ ὄρω τὸ διεγείρω. δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τοπικὸν ὄνομα εἶναι τὸ Ὄρμενον, οὗ παράγωγον τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν Ὀρμένιον. ἐλέγετο δέ, φασιν, ὄρμενος καὶ ὁ τῆς κράμβης ἀσφάραγος παρὰ Ἀττικοῖς διὰ τὸ ἐξορούειν καὶ βλαστάνειν, ἤγουν ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς κράμβης ἐξηνθηκώς. ὅθεν καῖ ἐξορμενίζω ῥῆμα), who notes that ἐξορμενίζω derives from ὄρμενος. On ὄρμενος see also Poll. 6.54 (codd. FS, A, BC) καὶ πᾶν δὲ τὸ ὑπερεξηνθηκός (ἐξ– FS), ὅπερ ἐκκεκαυληκὸς καλοῦσιν (Hsch. ε 3949 ἐξορμενίζεις˙ ἐκκεκαύληκας), ὄρμενον ὠνόμαζον, καὶ τὸ ὑπέρωρον γενέσθαι ἐξορμενίσαι. The participle here seems to reflect its subjects’ comeback to political life, especially in connection to the following παλιναίρετοι. παλιναίρετοι here and perhaps also in Eup. fr. 98 and Archipp. fr. 14 meaning “removed from public office and re-elected” (LSJ s. v. παλιναίρετος. See also LSJ s. v. αἱρέω Β.ΙΙ.3 “choose by vote, elect”). παλιναίρετος is first attested in Pindar (fr. 84), used for buildings that were destroyed (καθαιρεθέντων) and rebuilt. Harpocration engages in a discussion on the meaning of παλιναίρετος quoting Dinarchus (late 4th/early 3rd cent. BC), who used this word for Polyeuctus (PA #11928; PAA #778035): Harp. p. 231.7–16 Dindorf = Π 3 Keaney παλιναίρετος˙ Δείναρχος ἐν τῆι κατὰ Πολυεύκτου ἐκφυλλοφορηθέντος ἐνδείξει (Or. 2 fr. 4 Sauppe). μήποτε παλιναίρετον λέγει ὁ ῥήτωρ τὸν Πολύευκτον … ὅτι συκοφάντης ἁλοὺς ἐζημιοῦτο, καὶ διὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἐκωλύετο λέγειν πρὶν ἀποτῖσαι τὴν ζημίαν ἣν ὦφλεν, ἔπειτα ἀποτίσας τὴν ζημίαν πάλιν ἔλεγεν, ὡς δηλοῦται καὶ τοῦτωι ἐν τῶι λόγωι. ὅτι γὰρ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐκάλουν παλιναιρέτους, καὶ τοὺς ἀποχειροτονηθέντας τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ πάλιν χειροτονηθέντας, Εὔπολίς τε ἐν Βάπταις δηλοῖ καὶ Ἄρχιππος ἐν τοῖς Ἰχθύσι λέγων. The word was used without explanation for the audience of Dinarchus, so the meaning was obvious for the original audience of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. Harpocratio maintains that Polyeuctus is referred to as παλιναίρετος because he was convicted and fined, and hence not allowed to speak in the Assembly until he paid off the fine he owed. After Polyeuctus’ fine was paid off, he could speak again

Ῥήτωρ ? (fr. 24)

161

in the Assembly. Harpocration thus claims that παλιναίρετος was someone who was removed from public office but was then re-elected. Archippus’ fr. 14 seems to validate this meaning (Archipp. fr. 14.2–4 ἢν οὖν ποιῶμεν ταῦτα, κίνδυνος λαθεῖν / ἁπαξάπαντας γενομένους παλιναιρέτους) with “re-elected” being certainly one of the fragment’s connotations.102

102

On another potential meaning (“re-fished”) see Micollis 2017, 113.

162

Σύρος (Syros) (“Syrian”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348–349; Meineke 1840 III, 287; Meineke 1847 I, 638; Bothe 1855, 473; Kock 1884 II, 226; Edmonds 1959 II, 38–39; PCG VII, 87; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 628 Title The play’s title is attested both in the Suda entry s. v. Νικόστρατος that offers a list of some of Nicostratus’ plays and in Athenaeus 14.615f. There is no reason to follow Eudocia and take the titles Σύρος and Ἀπελαυνόμενος, which are given in the Suda entry sequentially, as forming the title of a single play, i.e. Σύρος ἀπελαυνόμενος.103 Athenaeus mentions both of them separately in different passages (i.e. 14.615f and 14.664b respectively. So Meineke 1839 I, 348–349). It belongs to a sizable group of plays the titles of which are based on the non-Athenian origin of one or more characters of the plot.104 However, we must distinguish between two further sub-groups, one pertaining to Greek characters and one to foreigners. Among the former, we may mention (e. g.) Achaiis (“Woman of Achaia”) by Alexis, Ephesia (“Woman of Ephesus”) by Antiphanes, Leukadia (“Woman of Leukas”) by Amphis, Alexis, and Diphilus, Thettaloi (“Men of Thessaly”) by Anaxandrides. Among the latter, we know of titles like Persis (“Woman of Persia”) by Nausicrates, Karchēdonios (“Man from Carthage”) by Alexis.105 Within the extant corpus of comedies by Nicostratus, this is one of the two titles pertaining to a character’s ethnic origin (the other being Lakōnes “Men of Laconia”). It therefore stands for a rather underrepresented group within Nicostratus’ production (2 out of 39 titles). The title The Syros could in general be a slave’s name,106 as is probably the case with Antiphanes’ Lydos (frr. 144) 107 and Alexis’ Phryx (frr. 257-258).108

103 104

105 106

107 108

On the untrustworthiness of the work under the name of the byzantine Empress Eudocia (11th c. AD) and its connection to the Suda see Orth 2015, 371–372. See Arnott 2010, 318–319; see also Breitenbach 1908, 107: “potest enim componi [sc. Syros] cum iis comoediis, quae ab incolis regionum urbiumve denominatae permultae in media potissimum exstant comoedia”. A fair number of these and other titles are also used by Menander; see Arnott 2010, 319. Edmonds (1959 II, 38 n. 2) claims that this does not necessarily mean that it was used here for a slave. Cf. Menander’s Karchēdonios (as well as Alexis’, if indeed Plautus’ Poenulus was structured upon it), where the Karchēdonios is a free man visiting Athens. See Breitenbach (1908) 107. The fifth-century comic poet Magnes had written a comedy entitled Lydoi (frr. 3–4) that perhaps made fun of Lydian dancers (Meineke 1839 I, 34). However, there might also be another possibility, albeit extremely slight. L. Pomponius Bononiensis (see Squintu 2006) had written a play under the title Syri of which we have two fragments. According to Munkius (CRF 250 –non vidi–), who refers to the extremely rare word syrus that is etymologized from Greek σύρειν, the title of L. Pomponius Bononiensis’ play could mean Brooms (Munkius does not exclude the possibility that

Σύρος

163

Content Fr. 25 begins with a reference to the planos Cephisodorus (see discussion below), but we do not know whether the play was about him. The existence of a play entitled Planos by Amphis (frr. 30-31 with Papachrysostomou 2016, 190–206) shows that a planos could provide the subject matter for an entire comedy, but this does not mean that the Syros was about Cephisodorus. This objection is further supported by the fact that in the sequential presentation by Athenaeus (14.615e-f-616a) of two planoi (Cephisodorus and Pantaleon) featuring in three different plays by three different authors109 none of the titles of the plays speaks in favor of a plot developed around a planos. The stories about Cephisodorus seem to be part of an inset reference, an example about a vagabond trickster and not the main plotline (note the use of φασὶ(ν) in both of them: Dion. of Sin. fr. 4.1 and Nicostr. fr. 25.2). It is not clear what were the tricks Cephisodorus performed in front of the public. Moreover, we lack any information from indirect tradition as to reconstruct or even guess about the plot of the play. The sole surviving fragment seems to concern the preparatory stage before a performance. An unknown person reports to someone that others say (φασὶν) that Cephisodorus asked some people holding armfuls of stuff to stand in the middle of a narrow street, so that no one can get through. We do not know anything more about these armfuls. If they were armfuls of wood, as in Ar. fr. 432, then they must have been somehow related to Cephisodorus’ tricks. Another alternative would be that Cephisodorus wanted these men to place the stuff of the armfuls in the middle of the alley so as to hinder people from passing through. This may have been conditioned by his desire to secure some free space for his performance. If these armfuls of stuff were brushwood for burning, then a third scenario presents itself, i.e. that a trick to be performed by Cephisodorus involved a “fueling brigade” (for this translation, see Edmonds 1959 II, 39 ad loc.). Date The featuring of planos Cephisodorus (PAA #568060) could have worked as a terminus post quem for dating this play, but it is the floruit of Nicostratus that is used to determine the date of Cephisodorus and not vice versa. What is

109

the title means Syrians and refers to slaves from Syria. Cf. Nonius De Compendiosa Doctrina 46.6 “syrus a Graeco magis tractum est ἀπὸ τοῦ σύρειν. Has non scopas, rustici eo nomine syrus (sc. σύρους) vocant. Varro Marcipore” [fr. 271]). If the second alternative was correct for the Roman play, it may have been also correct for the Greek one by Nicostratus, who has one more title based on an object (Klinē frr. 13-14). A fair number of Middle Comedy titles of plays refer to an object (or incident) that was crucial to the plot (e. g. Argyriou aphanismos by Antiphanes or Epigenes; Daktylios by Alexis, Amphis, and Timocles; Encheiridion by Philemon and Sophilus; Epistolē by Alexis and Epistolai by Timocles; see Arnott 2010, 317–318). This possibility is though undermined by the fact that we know of no Greek passage where σύρος means broom. Athenaeus (14.615a–b) also mentions Chrysippus (On the Good and Pleasure, 5.28 fr. 7, SVF 3.199), who told a story concerning how Pantaleon deceived his sons (notice ἰδίαν τιν᾽… ἀδολεσχίαν [Τheogn. fr. 2.4] – κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἐξηπάτησε [Ath. 14.615b]).

164

Nicostratus

more, literary references of this sort could allude to a person’s outlived fame and not to his/her actual existence during the time of the performance. Analogous observations apply to the references in Timocl. fr. 18.8 (with Apostolakis 2019, 157, 160) and Dionys. fr. 4 (with Orth 2020, 277, 342. See also Sommerstein 2019a and the discussion below).

fr. 25 K.–A. (24 K.)

lwl Κηφισόδωρον οὐ κακῶς μὰ τὸν Δία τὸν πλάνον φασὶ στενωπὸν εἰς μέσον στῆσαί τινας ἀγκαλίδας ἔχοντας, ὥστε μὴ παρελθεῖν μηδένα 2 φασὶ A: φασὶν Nauck

μέσον Kock: στενὸν A

They say that the planos Cephisodorus, by Zeus, nicely placed some people holding armfuls of stuff110 in the middle of a narrow street, so that no one can get through Ath. 14.615e–f ταῦτα τοῦ Οὐλπιανοῦ διεξελθόντος καὶ πάντων ἀνακαγχασάντων ἐπὶ ταῖς Ἀνικίκοις ταύταις θέαις ἐγένοντό τινες λόγοι καὶ περὶ τῶν καλουμένων πλάνων … Διονύσιος μἐν ὁ Σινωπεὺς ὁ τῆς κωμωιδίας ποιητὴς ἐν τῶι ἐπιγραφομένωι Ὁμώνυμοι μνημονεύει Κηφισοδώρου τοῦ πλάνου … μνημονεύει δ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ Νικόστρατος ἐν Σύρωι· Κηφισόδωρον — μηδένα After Ulpian completed these remarks and they all laughed at what Anicius had shown them, they dicussed about the so-called planoi … The comic poet Dionysius of Sinope refers to the planos Cephisodorus in his play Homōnymoi … Nicostratus in the Syros also refers to him: Cephisodorus — no one

Meter Trochaic Tetrameter Catalectic ⟨lwl⟩llwlw|lwlwlww

lwlwlwlw|lwlllww lwrwlwlw|lwlllww

There is diaeresis after the end of the second meter in all three verses. Analysis occurs, as often in trochaic tetrameter catalectic, at the beginning of the line (verse 3, first meter). Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348–349; Meineke 1840 III, 287; Meineke 1847 I, 638; Bothe 1855, 473; Kock 1884 II, 226; Blaydes 1896, 138; Edmonds 1959 II, 38–39; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 628 110

I follow Olson 2011. ἀγκαλίς means “armful”, “bundle” of something, but it is unclear what this “something” is; see below, “Interpretation”.

Σύρος (fr. 25)

165

Citation Context The fragment belongs to a section devoted to the planoi. The term could denote “the aimlessly wandering vagabond, the impostor, the swindler … the wandering juggler, the showman who travels from one town to the next performing tricks, for which he possibly gets paid by the amused passers-by” (Papachrysostomou 2016, 190; see also Olson 2011, 111 n. 21 “[l]iterally ‘wanderers’, i.e. show-men of various sorts who made their way from one town to the next”),111 or (perhaps rather) “the playful-in-the-lead-astray” (“das spielerische In-die-Irre-Führen”, Orth 2020, 364 with further discussion) and “practical joker” (Sommerstein 2019a). Athenaeus has already mentioned the planoi in 1.19d–e, in the context of his reference to the planos Matreas of Alexandria who was highly evaluated both among the Greeks and the Romans. Matreas claimed that he was raising a beast that devoured itself. The identity of this beast, which was a matter of ongoing controversy, remains unknown. Eustathius thinks that Matreas’s saying has originated either from the Homeric expression ὃν θυμὸν κατέδων ἐκ τοῦ πολύποδος ὃς ἐόν ποτε πόδα τένδει (Comm. ad Od. 1382.44–45). Matreas also parodied [Aristotle’s] Problems and read his parodies in public so as to attract attention. From the example mentioned by Athenaeus in 1.19d–e, it can be surmised that Matreas’ parody was based on the antithesis between the metaphorical meaning of certain words in given contexts and their standard literal meaning: “why does the sun sink but does not dive?”, “why do sponges soak up wine but do not get drunk?”, and “how can accounts be reconciled, if they don’t argue with one another?”. In 1.20a Cephisodorus (PAA #568060; Stephanis #1395; PA #8349) and the jungler Pantaleon (PAA #764430; Stephanis #1996) are mentioned as famous planoi (ἔνδοξοι πλάνοι). Cephisodorus features in the first and second quotations by Dionysius of Sinope112 (in The Men who Shared a Name) and Nicostratus of Athens (in The Syrian) in the list of planoi given in 14.615e–f, while Pantaleon features in Theognetus (fr. 2). Text εἰς μέσον is an emendation by Kock (1884 II, 226) of the manuscript reading στενὸν which is probably a visual error committed by a scribe under the influence of the word-initial consonantal cluster στ of the preceding στενωπὸν or the following στῆσαί or of both; see also Blaydes (1896, 138: “vix στενωπὸν [εἰς] στενὸν dixisset poeta”).

111

112

Papachrysostomou also draws attention to busking or street-performance, which encompasses a wide range of activities. Modern street-performers offer to their audience many different forms of entertainment, such as (e. g.) acrobatics, clowning, fire skills, juggling, magic, sword swallowing, ventriloquism. Sometimes instead of money street-performers receive various gratuities such as food, drink or gifts. Dionysius of Sinope is dated to the early second half of the fourth century BC, since he was victorious in the Lenaea between 339 and 332 BC (IRDF 2325E.53).

166

Nicostratus

Interpretation A speaker describes to (an)other person(s) what they say (φασί) that the planos Cephisodorus used to do. He is said to have performed a playful trick by placing some people holding armfuls of stuff in the middle of a narrow street, so that no one can get through. Kock describes these men as “baiuli” (βαστακταί, ἀχθοφόροι). Why Cephisodorus wanted them to block the street is unclear. The stuff is not designated but it may have pertained to Cephisodorus’ performance. According to another possibility, he aimed at creating a free space for his performance. He may have aimed at securing for him one half (εἰς μέσον) of a narrow street (στενωπὸν), so as to perform unobstructed in front of the public. 1 Κηφισόδωρον Cephisodorus, a fourth-century Athenian (PAA #568060) was a dullard (as of Com. Adesp. fr. 239; Timocl. fr. 18.7–8) and joker (as of this fragment) that appears also somehow involved in politics (as of Timocl. fr. 18.7–8). See Sommerstein 2019a and the discussions above, under “Content”, “Citation Context”. οὐ κακῶς The adherescent οὐ, which does not negate but expresses the contrary (Smyth §3032), effectively expresses Cephisodorus’ plan of blocking the passage through the alley. μὰ τὸν Δία “μὰ is affirmation of a denial” (Furley 2009, 181, as in Men. Epitr. 355, 480, 689). It here gives οὐ κακῶς the intensifying tone of “nicely, appropriately, properly”. On μά/νή accusative of a divinity, see commentary above, on Nicostratus fr. 29.2 (νὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν), and below, on fr. 33.1 (νὴ τὴν Ὰφροδίτην). 2 τὸν πλάνον a “practical joker in the lead” (see the discussion above, “Citation Context”, “Interpretation”). στενωπὸν “a narrow street” or “alley”, as in Pherecr. fr. 113.4 (διὰ τῶν στενωπῶν). It is used as early as Homer either as epithet (Il. 7.147, 23.416: στεινωπῷ ἐν ὁδῷ) or as noun (Od. 12.234: στεινωπὸν ἀνεπλέομεν), as here. εἰς μέσον The use is not adverbial (as often, e. g. Hom. Il. 4.79, 6.129; Pind. fr. 42.4; Soph. Trach. 514) but adjectival (εἰς μέσον στενωπὸν) with anastrophe of the preposition. 3 ἀγκαλίδας “armfuls” (< ἀγκάλη “bent arm”, in the plural “arms” ἀγκαλίδαι (GVI 1712.1) = ἀγκάλαι). Edmonds (1959 II, 38–39 n.) hesitantly suggests “brushwood for burning”; see Aristophanes (fr. 432); Phrynichus Praep. Soph. p. 20.3 (ἀγκαλίδες ξύλων· τὸ πλῆθος δηλοῦται, ὅσον ἄν τις ἀγκάλαις περιλάβοι). Olson (2011) translates ἀγκαλίδας as “bundles of stuff ”. ὥστε μὴ παρελθεῖν μηδένα a negative result clause with infinitive, which expresses the outcome of what Cephisodorus did “nicely” (οὐ κακῶς).

167

Τοκιστής (Tokistēs) (“Money-lender”)

Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 287; Meineke 1847 I, 638; Bothe 1855, 473; Kock 1884 II, 226; Edmonds 1959 II, 38-39; PCG VII, 87–88; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 629 Title Τhe title of the play, which designates a usurer or person who lends money to others with interest, has (as expected) negative connotations. It belongs to the richest category of titles identifying a male or female character by means of his/ her profession or standard activity (Arnott 2010, 311–315). The same title has been employed either for a man by Alexis (Tokistēs or Katapseudomenos)113 and Caecilius (Obolostates or Faenerator)114 or for a woman by Plautus (Faeneratrix). Money-lenders also feature in two Plautine plays which do not share this title (Epidicus, Mostellaria; see Duckworth 1952, 261–262, 274–277; Andreau 1968, 511–513; Arnott 1996, 655–656). A money-lender was also called ὀβολοστάτης “a petty usurer” (e. g. Ar. Nub. 1155; Antiph. fr. 166.4; Hyp. fr. 154; Philostr. VA 8.7; Hsch. s. v. ὀβολοστάτης), hence the double title of the play by Caecilius (Obolostates or Faenerator). This term designates someone lending money in small sums (hence the reference to obols. See Billeter 1898, 356; Korver 1934, 113–118; Bühler 1982, 145–146; Millett 1991, 179–188). The picture painted by the majority of our sources with respect to money-lenders was negative, since they were despised and hated (Dem. 37.52–53, 45.70; Lys. fr. 209 Carey; Pl. Alc. 2.149e, [Ax.] 367b; Arist. Pol. 1258b2-8; Theophr. Char. 6.9. See also Korver 1934, 113, 116–18; Millett 1991, 182–183).115 Cf. also Antiphanes’ Neottis, where one of the characters is an ὀβολοστάτης (fr. 166.4 with Konstantakos 2000a, 134–135). Content The play must have featured a story with a money-lender of Egyptian origin (cf. Ath. 15.685c Αἰγύπτιον γὰρ ὑποστησάμενος [Νικόστρατος] τὸν τοκιστήν and the discussion below, “Citation Context”). According to Aristotle, money-lenders are notorious (a) for their greed in making profit by exploiting people in their hour of need (ὑπερβολὴ λήψεως, αἰσχροκέρδεια) and (b) for their ungenerousness in giving them money (ἔλλειψις δόσεως, φειδωλία; Eth. Nic. 1121b12-1122a13. Cf. also Eth. Eud. 1231b29–1232a15; De virt. 1251b4–15, [Mag. Mor.] 1192a8ff.; on characters who are both αίσχροκερδεῖς and φειδωλοί, 113 114 115

For various scenarios about the alternative titles of Alexis’ play, see Arnott 1996, 654–655. These probably were alternative titles of the same play; see Scaliger 1565, 164; Ritschl 1845, 157–158; CRF pp. 64–65. “Money-lenders were loathed … for their dishonesty in 4th-century Athens” (Arnott 1996, 655 n. 1, who cites: Pl. Alc. 149e ὑπὸ δώρων παράγεσθαι οἷον κακὸν τοκιστήν; Arist. Eth. Nic. 1121b32–34 οἷον οἱ τὰς ἀνελευθέρους ἐργασίας ἐργαζόμενοι, πορνοβοσκοὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ τοιοῦτοι, καὶ τοκισταὶ κατὰ μικρὰ καὶ ἐπὶ πολλῶι; Plaut. Mostell. 626 (“danista … genus quod improbissimum est”).

168

Nicostratus

see Eub. fr. 87; Men. Epitr. 254–255 [φειδωλία] and 334–335 [αἰσχροκέρδεια]; Ath. 14.655d; Hor. Sat. 1.1.41.107; see Konstantakos 2000a, 135). Since greed is the standard characteristic of money-lenders in comedy too, there is no reason to think that this would not have been the case in Nicostratus’ play. Aristophanes had already presented in the Clouds a creditor who, though not a τοκιστής, paves the way for the proliferation of this character-type in Middle and New Comedy, as well as in Roman Comedy.116 Nicostratus’ decision to present the money-lender as Egyptian reflects the social stratification in Athens during the fourth century BC. Banking was often conducted by people were of alien origins (see Bogaert 1968, 62–63, 386–387; Millett 1991, 206–207; Konstantakos 2000a, 136) and metics were involved in money-lending. A metic who is designated as τοκιστής is mentioned in IG II2 1554.69 (see Michell 1957, 335–337; Millett 1991, 191–192; Finley 1999, 48; Konstantakos 2000a, 136). Date The date of the play depends on the identity of the Chaerephon mentioned in fr. 26. Most probably he is to be identified with the notorious parasite (PAA #975770) repeatedly referred to in Middle and New Comedy (Olson / Sens 1999, 80–81; Sommerstein 2019c and below, commentary on l. 3), as well as related genres (Machon frr. 3, 4 Gow; Matro fr. 1.9, 98 Olson / Sens = SH 534.9, 98).117 The identification with Socrates’ pupil (PAA 976060; Sommerstein 2019b) is very unlikely for chronological reasons, but also because of the sympotic content of the fragment. All things considered, the reference to Chaerephon creates no chronological inconsistencies with Nicostratus’ floruit, but cannot offer more precise dates.

fr. 26 K.-A (25 K.) καταλαμβάνομεν τὸν πορνοβοσκὸν καὶ δύο ἑτέρους κατὰ χειρὸς ἀρτίως εἰληφότας καὶ στέφανον. εἶἑν· καλὸς ὁ καιρός, Χαιρεφῶν 1 δύο Kaibel : δυ᾽ cod. 3 εἶἑν Kassel-Austin : εἶεν cod. : εἶεν alteri oratori adsignaverunt Kock Meinekius et Edmonds

116

117

See Konstantakos (2000, 135), who righty draws attention to the analogy between the creditor in the Clouds who constantly refers to financial matters (1214–1221) and repeats over and over again the verb ἀποδώσειν/-εις (1241, 1243, 1246, 1252) and Misargyrides in Plautus’ Mostellaria, whose speech is equally marked by the repletion of the word faenus (532–535). In this case, in references from the late fourth century (e. g. Alex. fr. 213.1), Chaerephon functions more as a literary than a historical figure (Olson / Sens 1999, 81).

Τοκιστής (fr. 26)

169

we came across the pimp and two others who had just had water poured over their hands and had received a wreath. Quite so! Nice timing, Chaerephon! Ath. 15.685e τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν ἔθος καὶ παρὰ Αἰγυπτίοις, ὡς Νικόστρατός φησιν ἐν Τοκιστῆι. Αἰγύπτιον γὰρ ὑποστησάμενος τὸν τοκιστήν φησιν· καταλαμβάνομεν — Χαιρεφῶν This was also the custom among the Egyptians, according to Nicostratus in the Tokistēs. For he presents the money-lender as an Egyptian and says: we came across — Chaerephon

Meter Iambic Trimeter

rlrl llwl llwl rlrl w|lwl llwl lrwl l|rwl llwl

Penthemimeral caesura in vv. 2–3. Analysis of the first anceps and first breve in verses 1 and 2, and of the first longum and third longum in verse 3. Porson’s law is violated in v. 3 (l | lwl). Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 287; Meineke 1847 I, 638; Bothe 1855, 473; Kock 1884 II, 226; Edmonds 1959 II, 38-39; PCG VII, 88; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 629 Citation Context Athenaeus’ Book 15 is devoted to the game of the kottabos, garlands and perfumes, Attic skolia and the paean, parodies, and lamps. After the revival of the banqueters’ appetite by wine, a series of sweets and delicacies are served, the so-called “second table”. The garlands and perfumes (15.669c, 676e), which are brought in pave the way for the performance of Attic skolia. After the two main characters Ulpian and Cynulcus are gone, the symposium comes to a close with libations and with the singing of a paean. Nicostratus’ fragment belongs to the two-unit section devoted to garlands and perfumes. The immediate context pertains to the end of the first unit of this section (on garlands), before the focus is turned on perfumes. The examples offered come from Nicostratus’ Pseudostigmatias (fr. 27), Philoxenus’ The Dinner Party (PMG 836a), Eubulus’ Tithai or Tithē (fr. 111), , Alexis’ Didymoi or Didymai (fr. 54), and an unknown play by Antiphanes (fr. 269). With respect to Nicostratus’ Tokistēs, the custom of bringing in garlands before the second table is said to be known and practiced among the Egyptians too, since the money-lender (τοκιστής) is presented as an Egyptian. Text On the aspiration of εἶἑν, which is adopted by Kassel-Austin, see the commentary (below). The attribution of εἶεν (sic) to a different speaker, which is followed by Kock, Meineke, and Edmonds is based on the fact that εἶεν is regularly placed at the beginning of a verse in a handful of examples from both tragedy and comedy (Aesch. Cho. 657; Soph. El. 534; Eur. Med. 386; Ar. Nub. 1075, Pax 663) and at the beginning of a period or colon in prose (Pl. Ap. 19a; Antiphon 4.2.2–3).

170

Nicostratus

Interpretation The passage refers to that phase of the banquet when the dinner has been completed and the symposium proper is about to begin. Tables are being taken out, were cleaned, and the guests are provided with water to wash their hands. The “second tables” are brought in, together with garlands. The speaker sees a pimp and two other men (also pimps?) who have washed their hands and received wreaths. He then turns to the parasite Chaerephon by telling him that this is the perfect timing for him. It is not clear what for is the perfect timing. Perhaps here we see a reference to Chaerephon’s ability to “worm his way into a gathering” by employing flattery (on the παράβυστος, see Ath. 6. 257a; Timocl. fr. 28 with Apostolakis 2019, 209–210). This suggestion would be in tune with Chaerephon’s notoriety of frequenting dinner parties and banquets uninvited (see commentary below on καλὸς ὁ καιρός). 1 τὸν πορνοβοσκὸν There are plays with this title by Eubulus (Pornoboskos), Anaxilas (Pornoboskos?), and Posidippus (Pornoboskos; see also Dioxippus’ Antipornoboskos and Philippides’ Mastropos). Herondas composed a mime with the same title (Πορνοβοσκός) and Pomponius wrote a play entitled Leno. The negative reputation of brothel-keepers or pimps as professionals who perform servile forms of work made Aristotle place them on a par with money-lenders (Eth. Nic. 1121b32–34 οἷον οἱ τὰς ἀνελευθέρους ἐργασίας ἐργαζόμενοι, πορνοβοσκοὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ τοιοῦτοι, καὶ τοκισταὶ κατὰ μικρὰ καὶ ἐπὶ πολλῶι). If brothel-keepers were associated with the dirty houses in which whores offered their sexual services to men, then their presentation in this fragment while pouring water over their hands would be marked; see Dio Chrys. Or. 7.133 περί γε πορνοβοσκῶν καὶ περὶ πορνοβοσκίας … αἰχμάλωτα σώματα γυναικῶν ἢ παίδων ἢ ἄλλως ἀργυρώνητα ἐπ᾽ αἰσχύνη προϊστάντας ἐπ᾽ οἰκημάτων ῥυπαρῶν). Τhe same observation applies to the crowning with garlands (see Aeschin. 3.246 οὐχ αἱ παλαῖστραι οὐδὲ τὰ διδασκαλεῖα οὐδ᾽ ἡ μουσικὴ μόνον παιδεύει τοὺς νέους, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον τὰ δημόσια κηρύγματα. κηρύττεταί τις ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, ὅτι στεφανοῦται ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας καὶ εὐνοίας, ἄνθρωπος ἀσχημονῶν τῷ βίῳ καὶ βδελυρός· ὁ δέ γε νεώτερος ταῦτ᾽ ἰδὼν διεφθάρη. δίκην τις δέδωκε πονηρὸς καὶ πορνοβοσκός, ὥσπερ Κτησιφῶν). The very terms πορνοβοσκεῖον for brothel and πορνοβοσκός for pimp indicates (by means of the use of the root βοσκ- that applies to the feeding of herd animals) the bad “working” conditions (Henry 2011, 30). Prostitutes were often under the control of pimps. The rarity of the word πορνοβοσκός in Old Comedy (Myrtil. 4.2; also πορνοβοσκεῖν in Ar. Pax 849; Plato Com. fr. 174) may suggest that it is a comic invention which became then widespread and adopted in daily life. On its apotropaic use, see [Dem.] 59.30, 68; Aeschin. 1.124, 188, 3.214; Hyp. 1.22. For a list of relevant terms, e. g. ἑταιροτρόφος, μαστρωπός (also in Modern Greek), πορνοτελώνης, πορνοτρόφος, προαγωγός (also in Modern Greek), see Kapparis 2011, 252–253. On πορνοβοσκός in comedy see Gil 1975; Nesselrath 1990, 324–325; Arnold 1998; Hartkamp 2004; Marshall 2013.

Τοκιστής (fr. 26)

171

2 κατὰ χειρὸς Before a meal (here the second table?), water was poured over the hands of the banqueters. Τhis custom is already attested in Homer (Od. 1.136– 138 = 17.91–93 χέρνιβα δ᾽ ἀμφίπολος προχόωι ἐπέχευε φέρουσα / καλῆι χρυσείηι, ὑπὲρ ἀργυρέοιο λέβητος, / νίψασθαι· παρὰ δἐ ξεστὴν ἐτάνυσσε τράπεζαν). For a detailed description of the entire process, see Ath. 9.408b–411b. κατὰ (“down on to”) describes the process of having a slave pour water from a jug over the hands of a diner who held them over a bowl (MacDowell 1971, 288). Τhe need to have one’s hands cleaned before eating was even more pressing, since forks were not used by the Greeks. Drying-towels are mentioned occasionally (Ar. fr. 516.2; Philox. Leuc. PMG 836(b).42–43), as well as scented soaps (Philox. Leuc. PMG 836(b).41); see Olson / Sens 1999, 134–135. In the classical period, the same custom was practiced at the end of the meal and before the beginning of the symposium, the equivalent expression being κατὰ χειρῶν, in the manner of ἀπονίψασθαι (see Arnott 1996, 713–714). The expression had become proverbial (see Pherecr. fr. 156.4–5 ἀλλὰ πάντα μοι / κατὰ χειρὸς ἦν τὰ πράγματ᾽ ἐνθυμουμένωι; Phot. κ 393 = Suda κ 863 κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ … καὶ τὸ ῥᾶιστον πάντων καὶ εὐχερέστατον κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ καλοῦσιν). In Old Comedy, the word ὕδωρ is regularly accompanied by κατὰ χειρὸς (e. g. Ar. Vesp. 1216 ὕδωρ κατὰ χειρὸς, Av. 464 κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ φερέτω, fr. 516 κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ; Alcaeus fr. 16 κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ; Ameipsias fr. 20 κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ; Eup. fr. 320 κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ; Telecl. fr. 1.2. ὕδωρ κατὰ χειρὸς). In Middle Comedy, κατὰ χειρὸς is used on its own, ὕδωρ being basically omitted (e. g. Alex. fr. 263.2 κατὰ χειρὸς ἐδόθη; Archedic. fr. 2.3 κατὰ χειρὸς; Demon. fr. 1.3 κατὰ χειρὸς; Antiph. fr. 280 κατὰ χειρῶν). See Orth 2013, 76; Orth 2015, 149; Olson 2016, 509. Occasionally, this tendency is not observed (see Philyll. fr. 3.3 κατὰ χειρῶν and Clearch. fr. 4 λάβ᾽ ὕδωρ κατὰ χειρὸς). κατὰ χειρῶν appears without ὕδωρ in Menander (fr. 360). Οn handwashing, see Arnott 1996, 713–714, 733–734; Bagordo 2013, 57–59; Slater 1989, 111. 3 εἶἑν Transitional particle used in dialogue and oratory, which denotes a pause and effects the passage to the next point. Ιt can be preceded (Ar. Nub. 1074–1075 καίτοι τί σοι ζῆν ἄξιον, τούτων ἐὰν στερηθῆις; εἶἑν; Antiphon 4.2.2–3 πότερα ἠδίκουν; εἶἑν· ἐρεῖ δέ, …) or followed by a question (Ar. Nub. 176 εἶἑν· τί δῆτα …;) or an imperative (Soph. El. 534 εἶἑν· δίδαξον δή με ⟨τοῦτο⟩). It denotes strong confirmation (Eur. Med. 386 εἶἑν [extra metrum]) or acknowledgement that a certain point has been reached in the discussion (Antiphon 4.2.2–3, see above). It is often placed at the beginning of the iambic trimeter (to the examples above, add Aesch. Cho. 657 εἶἑν, ἀκούω. ποδαπὸς ὁ ξένος; πόθεν; Ar. Pax 663 εἶἑν, ἀκούω. ταῦτ᾽ ἐπικαλεῖς; μανθάνω). καὶ στέφανον On garlands in symposia, see the detailed description in Ath. 15.669c–686c. They were usually made of ivy mixed with various other flowers; see Blech 1982, 63–74; Olson / Sens 1999, 135–136; 2000, 227–228; Cratin. fr. 105; Ar. Eccl. 131–133; Pherecr. fr. 134; Dromo fr. 2.3–4 with Orth 2020, 449; Matro fr. 1.105–106, 107–108 Olson / Sens (= fr. 534 SH); Archestr. fr. 60.2 Olson / Sens (=

172

Nicostratus

fr. 192.2 SH). Here the pimp and two other men are garlanded in a symposium. An Attic red-figure hydria (ca. 460–450 BC) attributed to the Leningrad Painter118 shows a young man with a wreath around his head who has just arrived at a brothel and is warmly received by a young woman who puts her arms around his neck, while another young man and two other young women watch the scene. καλὸς ὁ καιρός Formulaic language expressing gratitude with respect to accepting or declining an invitation to dinner; see e. g. κάλλιστ᾽ ἐπαινῶ (Ar. Ran. 508 with Dover 1993, 258); καλῶς ἔχει (Clearch. fr. 4.1 with Plut. De aud. poet. 6.22f ἐν τῆι συνηθείαι καλῶς φαμεν ἔχειν … ὅταν μὴ δεώμεθα μηδὲ λαμβάνωμεν; Men. Perik. 266–267, 437) or καλῶς ἔχει μοι (Antiph. fr. 163) or καλῶς/κάλλιστα without ἔχει (Ar. Ran. 888); see Quincey 1966. Χαιρεφῶν Sommerstein (2013, 284) maintains that “in Nicostratus fr. 26, which is considerably earlier [sc. than Menander’s Samia], there is no sign that the Chaerephon who is addressed is a parasite”. Edmonds (1959 II, 39) considers the possibility that Chaerephon is the pupil of Socrates (PAA 976060; Sommerstein 2019b). On the other hand, Olson (2006, 144–145 n. 61; 2012, 111 n. 157) argues that he is the notorious Athenian parasite (PAA 977570) who is mentioned by various Middle and New Comedy poets (Alex. frr. 213, 259; Antiph. fr. 197; Timocl. fr. 9; Timoth. fr. 1; Men. Androgynos fr. 55, Methē fr. 225, Kekryphalos fr. 215, Orgē fr. 265; Sam. 603). Callimachus (fr. 434 Pfeiffer) refers in his Pinakes to a letter written by Chaerephon (or by someone using his name), which was dedicated to Cyrebion (Ath. 6.244a, cf. 6.242f; see also Arnott 1996, 511): the epistle contained a short prose work entitled Dinner (Δεῖπνον), which described a lavish dinner party (other references include Machon frr. 3.4 Gow; Matro fr. 1.9, 1. 98 Olson / Sens = SH fr. 534.9, 534.98 with Olson / Sens 1999, 80–81; Lynceus fr. 25 Dalby). In his recent Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Sommerstein identifies Chaerephon as the parasite (2019c, Chaerephon 2), although he suggests that Tokistēs may be attributed to Nicostratus II. The parasite Chaerephon was notorious for being ἀσύμβολος (he showed up uninvited in symposia, so as to avoid paying his share with respect to the organization of the banquet), which was often the case with parasites (see e. g. Ehippus fr. 20; Timocl. frr. 8.10, 10; Diphil. fr. 74.8). On Chaerephon, see Arnott 1996, 610; Dedousi 2006, 255–256; Sommerstein 2013, 284. Apart from Sommerstein (2019c), Kassel-Austin (ad Nicostratus I, fr. 26) refer, without committing themselves, to the possibility that this play should attributed to Nicostratus II (4th–3rd cent. BC). Since there is no certaing chronological conflict with Nicostratus I however, I see no reason to move the date down to a poet later than Nicostratus I.

118

Art Institute of Chicago 1911.456; see the discussion by Glazebrook 2011, 36–37.

173

Ψευδοστιγματίας (Pseudostigmatias) (“Falsely tattooed”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 287–288; Meineke 1847 I, 638; Bothe 1855, 473–474; Kock 1884 II, 227; Edmonds 1959 II, 38–41; PCG VII, 88; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 629 Title The word στιγματίας (“one who bears tattoo marks”; see Hippoc. Epid. 4.2) was frequently applied either to a runaway slave whose forehead was tattooed to deter him from trying to escape anew (Eup. fr. 172.14, 298.2; Ar. Av. 760 with Dunbar 1995, 470, Lys. 331 with Henderson 1987, 110, Ran. 1509–1514 with Dover 1993, 382–383; Hermipp. 63.19; Xen. Hell. 5.3.24; Dio Cass. 47.10; see also Aeschin. 2.79; Ath. 13.612c οἰκέτης στιγματίας) or to a slave who has welts and bruises because of multiple floggings (Vesp. 1296 [στιζόμενος βακτηρίαι] with MacDowell 1971, 301 and Biles / Olson 2015, 459–460; Ar. fr. 99 στίγων with Orth 2017, 537–539). It also metaphorically designated the owner of property that has been marked as mortgaged (Cratin. fr. 81). Many comic titles are connected to the nickname of one of the characters, perhaps underscoring an aspect of his life (cf. e. g. the practice of the attribution of a nickname to parasites that begun with Alexis [fr. 183.1–2], who gave the title Parasitos to a play named after a κόλαξ whose nickname was Παράσιτος [Arnott 2010, 323–324]; cf. also Alexis [frr. 183–185], Antiphanes [frr. 180–184] and Diphilus [frr. 180–184], who have also written Parasitos and Philemo who [might; cf. PCG VII, 247] have written Kolax). Other examples include Σκηπτός (“Thunderbolt”, Antiph. fr. 193.10–11), Κεραυνός (“Thunderbolt”, Anax. fr. 3), Scortum (“Strumpet”, Plaut. Capt. 79–80), Peniculus (“Brush”, Plaut. Men. 79–80). The title Pseudostigmatias (“Falsely Tattooed”), which is difficult to be classified according to Arnott’s taxonomy,119 indicates someone has been pretending that he has been tattooed as a slave. Content The only surviving fragment (fr. 27) incorporates instructions of the speaker to a servant, regarding the second table. Assumptions on the content of the play can be only made after its title; the term στιγματίας applies to a slave who has been punished (cf. other play-titles that refer to slaves’ characteristics e. g. Cratinus’ Drapetides, Alexis’ Drapetai, Philemon’s Thyrōros, Sogenes’, Theognetus’ and Timostratus’ Philodespotos, Antiphanes’ Drapetagōgos. See Nesselrath 1997, 287 with n. 10), but the prefix ψευδο– shows that the play’s plot probably concerned someone who pretends that he is tattooed as a slave or a fugitive, although

119

It is a combination of classes (i) and (iii), the former designating title concerning a person’s “job, profession or typical activity”, the latter pertaining to titles “that take their name from family relationship or the status of mainly free persons”, of which it is an exception, like Nicostratus’ Habra (a young home-born slave); see Arnott 2010, 311 and 316–317.

174

Nicostratus

he is not. Along these lines, we could perhaps make the assumption that the plot made use of the comic effect deriving from the mistaken identity of the slave. Date

Unknown. fr. 27 K.–A. (26 K.) καὶ σὺ μὲν τὴν δευτέραν τράπεζαν εὐτρεπῆ ποίει, κόσμησον αὐτὴν παντοδαποῖς τραγήμασιν, μύρον, στεφάνους, λιβανωτόν, αὐλητρίδα λαβέ

2 εὐπρεπῆ Α: εὐτρεπῆ Hemsterhusius omnibus editoribus assentientibus | ποίει A quem multi editores secuti sunt: ποΐει Edmonds: πόει Olson

And you! Get the second table ready. Arrange all sorts of snacks on it, Get perfume, garlands, frankincense, and a flute-girl Ath. 15.685c ἡ δὲ τῶν στεφάνων καὶ μύρων πρότερον εἴσοδος εἰς τὰ συμπόσια ἡγεῖτο τῆς δευτέρας τραπέζης, ὡς παρίστησι Νικόστρατος ἐν Ψευδοστιγματίαι διὰ τούτων· καὶ – λαβέ The bringing in of garlands and perfumes in the banquets preceded the second table, as Nicostratus presents in Pseudostigmatias by these words: and – get (a flute-girl)

Meter Iambic Trimeter ⟨xlwl xlwl x⟩

lwl llwl wlw|l wlll llwl l|lrl wlwl wlrl rlw|l lrwl

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Meineke 1840 III, 287–288; Meineke 1847 I, 638; Bothe 1855, 473–474; Kock 1884 II, 227; Blaydes 1896, 138; Edmonds 1959 II, 38–41; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 629; Olson 2012, 108 Citation Context The context is the same with that of Nicostratus fr. 26 (see above). It pertains to garlands and perfume that were customarily brought into the dinner party before what was known as the “second table(s)”. This phase of the party involved taking out and cleaning of the tables used for the meal, providing the guests with fresh water and soap so that they could wash their hands, and mixing the wine for the symposium proper that was about to begin. The slaves then brought in the second tables, which were full of garlands, snacks (tragemata), and incense that would be burnt in braziers (Olson / Sens 1999, 26).

Ψευδοστιγματίας (fr. 27)

175

Text Hemsterhusius’s (ad Lucianum, I, p. 316 – non vidi) emendation of the manuscript reading εὐπρεπῆ (l. 2) into εὐτρεπῆ is supported by Antiph. fr. 80.12 (δεῖπνον εὐτρεπές), Anaxipp. 1.13, and Diod. Sic. 3.544 (τραπέζας εὐτρεπεῖς). The emendation has been adopted in all modern editions of Greek comic fragments. In the same verse ποίει is the reading of A (adopted by Meineke, Kock, and KasselAustin). This does not mean that this verse is choliambic (with the second to last syllable occupied by a longum), since the practice of writing always ποι- when the next letter is ο or ω was observed even in cases in which the syllable was short, which means that the same could happen with ποι- followed by ε or η (as in IG I2 826, where the meter requires a breve). It is possible that Athenians could pronounce ποι– as πο–. A significant number of Attic inscriptions (but not all of them) give πο– when the next letter is ε or η but always ποι– when the next letter is ο or ω. Edmonds (1959 II, 38) emends into ποΐει (wwl) and Olson (2012, 108) into πόει (wl). Olson’s emendation is supported by the use of πόει at verse-end in Aristophanes (Eq. 213, 387, Thesm. 751); see also Pax 986 and Thesm. 612 being preceded (in the latter case) by σὺ δ᾽ οὖν as here it is preceded by καὶ σὺ μὲν; on the alternative spellings ποι–/πο–, see Koster 1957, 226–230; MacDowell 1971, 168; Threatte 1980, 326–330, Arnott 2001, 43–51; Austin/Olson 2004, xcviii. Interpretation The speaker orders a servant to get the second table ready by placing all kinds of dainties upon it, by arranging the perfume, wreaths, and frankincense, as well by bringing in a female flute-player. It is virtually impossible to go further. The scene is typical of a dinner-party, pertaining to the beginning of its second stage, the symposium proper. Stylistically, the passage is structured on the basis of a threefold, successively designated command to an addressee, who is probably a slave: ποίει, κόσμησον, λαβέ. The three orders are symmetrically expressed in three verses, each verse being devoted to a different order. The first and second orders, which represent a smaller unit, since they pertain to the second table, have the two verbs juxtaposed at the end of second (ποίει) and beginning of the third verse (κόσμησον), whereas the fourth verse displays a four-member asyndeton (μύρον, στεφάνους, λιβανωτόν, αὐλητρίδα) with the verb at the very end (λαβέ). 1 καὶ σὺ μὲν This cluster may indicate the beginning of a speech or an address to a second person (the first being addressed before), in the manner of σὺ δ᾽ οὖν which (like σύ vel sim.) “is often used in the dialogue of drama … to denote that the speaker waives any objection ... to something being done, or contemplated, by another person” (GP 466–467). Ar. Thesm. 612 σὺ δ᾽ οὖν ποίει τοῦτ᾽ has a contemptuous, hostile tone (Austin / Olson 2004, 227) but Ar. Ran. 240 τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν “a more sympathetic one” (Dover 1993, 240); on this expression, see Fraenkel 1962, 81–89. 2 δευτέραν τράπεζαν See on fr. 26.2 (κατὰ χειρός) in this volume and under “Citation Context” of this fragment. The singular is here employed collectively (“the second tables”), whereas elsewhere the plural is preferred (e. g. Matro fr. 1.111

176

Nicostratus

Olson / Sens = SH fr. 534.111). δευτέραν indicates that these were the same, light, low tables (each for two or three diners) that had been used before in the meal (“first tables”); Pind. Ol. 1.50; Ar. Vesp. 1216 with MacDowell 1971, 288; Philox. Leuc. PMG 836(e).3; Antiph. fr. 172.5; Dicaearch. Hist. fr. 19 Wehrli; Olson / Sens 1999, 26, 84, 138. See also Orth 2015, 148, with further references. 3 κόσμησον “arrange”, as in Matro fr. 1.107–108 (… στεφάνους ἐπὶ δεξιὰ πᾶσιν ἔδωκεν / … διάνδιχα κοσμηθέντες, “distributed garlands to everybody from left to right / … diversely arranged”); on Matro’s use of a Homeric expression at the expense of clarity, see Olson / Sens 1999, 136. τραγήμασιν τραγήματα, τρωγάλια or νώγαλα were dainties or snacks that the banqueters consumed while drinking wine (e. g. Alex. fr. 190 with Arnott 1996, 556–557). In Matro (fr. 1.112–113, 116–117 Olson / Sens = SH 534.112–113, 116–117) these dainties include pears, apples, pomegranates, bunches of grapes, and cakes. In addition to the list of snacks mentioned by Olson / Sens (1999, 138 and 140), i.e. eggs (e. g. Philox. Leuc. PMG 836(e).21; Amphis fr. 9.3; Ephipp. fr. 8.4), nuts, beans (roasted), and chickpeas (e. g. Archestr. fr. 60.13–15 Olson / Sens = SH fr. 192.13–15; Mnesim. fr. 7.4-6; Clearch. fr. 4.3), thrushes and delicate birds (Alex. fr. 168.5; Archestr. frr. 58 Olson / Sens = SH fr. 189; 60.9 Olson / Sens = SH 192.9), dried figs (Archestr. fr. 60.15 Olson / Sens = SH fr. 192.15), hare (e. g. Alex. fr. 168.5; Archestr. fr. 57 Olson / Sens = SH fr. 188), we can add Nicostratus fr. 2.2 (see above, ad loc.), which refers to ὀρνιθάριον, περιστέριον (delicate birds), and γαστρίον (sausage). 4 μύρον, στεφάνους, λιβανωτόν On the same three elements in a symposiastic context, see e. g. Xenoph. fr. 1.1-7 IEG, Plato Com. fr. 71.6-9, Alex. fr. 252.3, and Archestr. fr. 60.4–5 Olson / Sens = SH 192.4-5; on the first two mentioned in the same sequence in banquets, see e. g. Ar. Ach. 1091, Antiph. fr. 238.2, Matro fr. 1.106–107 Olson / Sens = SH fr. 534.106–107 with a long list of examples in Olson / Sens 1999, 135–136; see also Blech 1982, 63–74. μύρον “perfume”. This was scented oil (usually olive, almond, or sesame oil) offered to guests after they had finished eating and washed their hands (e. g. Alex. fr. 252.3; Philyll. fr. 3.3; Xen. Symp. 2.3), so as to anoint their heads (e. g. Ar. Eccl. 1117–1118, Pl. 529; Archestr. fr. 60.3 Olson / Sens = SH fr. 192.3). Its ability to hold a fragrance (after being treated with an astringent and mixed with some aromatic substance) made it particularly suitable for this use. On a description, see Theophr. De Odoribus 14–35; Diosc. 1.42–63. On its high price, see Antiph. fr. 222; Men. fr. 243; Hipparch. fr. 4. There were various kinds of μύρον; Antiph. fr. 105.2–7 mentions the αἰγύπτιον μύρον for the feet and legs (on the αἰγυπτία, see e. g. Gal. 13.643), the palm-unguent for the jaw and the female breasts, the bergamot-mint for the arm, one made of amaracus for the eye-lids and the hair, and one made of tufted thyme for the knee and the neck; on different types of μύρον, see also the discussion in Ath. 15.688e–f, as well as Olson / Sens 1999, 135–136; 2000, 227–228.

Ψευδοστιγματίας (fr. 27)

177

On perfume in general, see Lilja 1972. On perfume at a symposion, see Orth 2015, 149–150. στεφάνους Garlands were worn on a variety of occasions: in the assembly by public speakers (Ar. Eq. 1227, Av. 463), in sacrifices by sacrificial victims (Ar. Nu. 256), and by symposiasts and revelers (Ar. Eccl. 691, 844). Ivy garlands mixed with various flowers were typically worn at banquets; see Archestr. fr. 60.2 Olson / Sens (= SH 192.2) with Olson / Sens 2000, 226; Cratin. fr. 105; Ar. Eccl. 131–133; Pherecr. fr. 134; Dromo fr. 2.3–4 with Orth 2020, 449; Matro fr. 1.107–108 with Olson / Sens 1999, 136. The standard vocabulary for wearing a wreath is κάρα / κάρη / κρᾶτα + πυκάζειν / πυκάζεσθαι (e.g. Eur. Alc. 831–832 κωμάζω κάρα / στεφάνοις πυκασθείς; Cratin. fr. 105.7 τῶι τ᾽ ἀειφρούρωι μελιλώτωι κάρα πυκάζομαι; Men. Sam. 732–733 πύκαζε σὺ / κρᾶτα with Sommerstein 2013, 320 who speaks for the influence of tragic language from Eur. Tr. 353 μῆτερ, πύκαζε κρᾶτ᾽ ἐμὸν νικηφόρον). Wreaths were sold as early as the end of the 5th century in Athens (e. g. Ar. Thesm. 447–448, 457–458; Eccl. 302–303; Pherecr. fr. 2.2; Eub. fr. 104; Antiph. fr. 83). The fact that they were used in various occasions led to the creation of a market for them. In Ar. Th. 446 a war-widow with five children weaves wreaths to gain a living (see Ussher 1973, 191). Cf. Ehrenberg 1951, pl. VIII b. λιβανωτόν “frankincense”, “a bitter aromatic resin exuded as a shiny reddish or yellowish globule” (Arnott 1996, 714). It was imported from southern Arabia and East Africa via Syria to Greece (Eur. Bacch. 144; Hermippus fr. 63.13; Schol. Aesch. Ag. 1312). It was burnt and used in dinner-parties (see Xenoph. fr. 1.7; Alciphron 4.13.5; Plato Com. fr. 71.9; Men. Sam. 158). Nicostratus (like Alex. fr. 252), observes the use of λιβανωτός for the product [λίβανος being employed for the tree, on which see Arnott 1996, 714] and various ritual acts, like prayers (e. g. Ar. Vesp. 860–891, Ran. 871–894; Men. Dysk. 660–661) and sacrifices in which incense was placed and burnt on altars (e. g. Men. Kolax fr. 1); see Sommerstein 2013, 155–156. αὐλητρίδα λαβέ “get a female flute-player” (“emere et conducere”: Kock 1884 II, 227); on female flute-players, see Simon. fr. 178; Ar. Ach. 551; Xen. Hell. 2.2.23; Pl. Prt. 347d; BCH 6.24 (Delos, 2nd century BC); see Alexandros fr. 3.1 λαβεῖν αὐλητρίδα, cf. Posid. fr. 1.1 (μάγειρον ἀναλαβών). Flute-players, both male and female, were popular as titles of Middle-Comedy plays (auletēs: Anaxilas [fr. 3], Antiphanes, [fr. 49] Philemon [fr. 14]; auletris: Alexis [fr. 30], Antiphanes [fr. 50], and Diodorus [fr. 1]). Cf. also Dromon’s Psaltria (with Orth 2020, 437–438) and Οrth 2014, 402–404 on Metag. fr. 4. 1–3 ὑμῖν ὀρχηστρίδας εἶπον ἑταίρας / ὡραίας πρότερον, νῦν αὖθ᾽ ὑμῖν ἀγορεύω / ἄρτι χνοαζούσας αὐλητρίδας.

178

Ὤτης? (Ōtēs) (“Βustard”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I, 348; Wagner 1905, 63 n.2; Edmonds 1959 II, 40–41; PCG VII, 88; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 629 Title The play could have been named after a person called Ὤτης, a nickname formed with accent recession from ὠτίς, -ίδος, the bird “bustard” (Otis tarda), which belongs to the family of the Otididae (subfamily of Otidinae, genus Otis and in particular Otis hellenica); see Alcm. 143 PMGF; Xen. An. 1.5.2; Arist. Hist. an. 509a4 etc.; Ael. NA 5.24; Long. 2.12.4; Oppian Ap. Cyn. 2.407; Gal. 6.703. The οtis is a large terrestrial bird that should not be confused (as Ath. 9.390c–e does) with the otos (“short-eared owl”), which loves to imitate human behavior. Both types of bird are easily caught, the otos by deception, the otis because it flies short distances and is often captured by dogs during the hunt. Athenaeus informs us that the comic poets refer to individuals who are fooled as οtoi (Adesp. Com. fr. 209); see Thompson (1895) 199–200; Pollard 1977, 85. The otis makes very good eating (Xen. Anab. 1.5.3; Synes. Ep. iv. p. 165), is friendly to the horse (NA 2.28) and hostile to the dog (Ael. NA 5.24). The manuscript tradition of the sole testis for this play (test. 1 = Suda ν 405, s. v. Νικόστρατος) diverges between the reading Ὤτης (given by mss AV) and the reading Ὤτις (reported by mss GM). Meineke (1839 I, 348), who takes Ὤτις as the name of woman, mentions the possibility that it is an error from Ὤπις120 and that this title designates the same play as Hekatē, but at the end he opts for a corruption of Ὦπις from Φιλῶτις, which is the title of play by Antiphanes (fr. 221). Kassel-Austin print Ὤτης in test. 1 but hesitantly (hence ?) Ὤτις in the presentation of this play. It is likely however that all this discussion is of no use, since Ōtēs is only attested in the Suda (see test. 1) and not attributed to Nicostratus anywhere else, making very probable the hypothesis of Wagner (1905, n. 3), according whom Ōtēs must have intruded in the tradition as a corrupted form of the play Πατριῶται (see the discussion in Test. 1, above). No extant fragment.

120

Ὦπις is a title of Artemis (Pl. Ax. 371a; Alex. Aet. 4.5) and also the name of maiden from the land of the Hyperboreans at Delos (Hdt. 4.351; Apollod. Bibl. 1.4.5).

179

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta fr. 28 K.–A. (27 K.) εἰ τὸ συνεχῶς καὶ πολλὰ καὶ ταχέως λαλεῖν ἦν τοῦ φρονεῖν παράσημον, αἱ χελιδόνες ἐλέγοντ᾽ ἂν ἡμῶν σωφρονέστεραι πολύ 1 εἰ τὸ S M A : εἰ ἐπὶ τὸ corp. Par. 3 ἐλέγοντ᾽ ἂν S M A : ἐγένοντ᾽ ἂν ? Meineke ἡμῶν S M A : ὑμῶν Bailey σωφρονέστεραι S M A Br corp. Par. : ἐμφρονέστεραι Meineke : φρονιμώτεροι sine πολύ corp. Par.

If talking unceasingly, often, and swiftly was the mark of intelligence, swallows would be considered far more sound-minded than us Stob. 3.36.8 (περὶ ἀδολεσχίας), p. 692 Wachsmuth / Hense. Νικοστράτου· εἰ τὸ συνεχῶς — σωφρονέστεραι πολύ Stob. 3.36.8 (on garrulity), p. 692 Wachsmuth / Hense. Nicostratus: if unceasingly — more sound-minded

Meter Iambic Trimeter

lrwl llw|l rlwl llwl rlw|l wlwl rlwl l|lwl wlwl

Discussion Bailey 1840, 95; Meineke 1840 III, 288; Meineke 1847 I, 638; Bothe 1855, 474; Meineke 1855 II, vi; Meineke 1856, 440; Kock 1884 II, 227; Blaydes 1896, 138; Edmonds 1959 II, 40–41; Dover 1974, 123; PCG VII, 89; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 629; Rusten 2011, 528 Citation context Within Stob. 3.36 (Περὶ ἀδολεσχίας), the fragment is the eighth citation (1894, p. 692 Wachsmuth / Hense). It is preceded by a citation from Homer (Il. 23.478-479) and followed by a citation from Euripides (Bacch. 268-269, though Stobaeus calls the play Pentheus). Text Two of the readings offered by corp. Par. result in verses that do not scan (verse 1: εἰ ἐπὶ τὸ; verse 3: φρονιμώτεροι without πολύ). Meineke’s ἐγένοντ᾽ ἂν for ἐλέγοντ᾽ ἂν (the reading of the tradition) in verse 3 rests on a semantic nuance that is associated with the interpretation of the passage. Would swallows really be more sound-minded than men, if garrulity were a mark of intelligence or would we consider them to be so? Meineke’s emendation ἐγένοντ᾽ ἂν reinforces the apodosis by presenting it as a general, undisputed truth. In contrast, the manuscript reading ἐλέγοντ᾽ ἂν places the statement within the framework of a cultural belief, i.e. we

180

Nicostratus

men would consider them more sounded-minded than ourselves. The matter is one of balance. I am following the tradition (in the wake of Kassel-Austin), since the apodosis may be operating in symmetry with the hypothesis, where another cultural norm is presented. The audience is invited to think whether humans consider garrulity as a mark of intelligence as well as whether the swallows are more sound-minded than men. The use of the noun παράσημον (“characteristic mark or emblem of something”) seems to point to an evaluation of συνεχῶς καὶ πολλὰ καὶ ταχέως λαλεῖν as a form of φρονεῖν, which reinforces the reading ἐλέγοντ᾽ ἂν. See also Theophr. Char. 7.9 [7] (οὐδ᾽ εἰ τῶν χελιδόνων δόξειεν εἶναι λαλίστερος). Bailey’s ὑμῶν (1840, 95) for the manuscript reading ἡμῶν is based on Alex. fr. 96 (σοῦ δ᾽ ἐγὼ λαλιστέραν / οὐπώποτ᾽ εἶδον οὔτε κερκώπην, γύναι, / οὐ κίτταν, οὐκ ἀηδόν᾽, ⟨οὐ χελιδόνα,⟩ / οὐ τρυγόν᾽, οὐ τέττιγα) and Philem. fr. 154 (ἡ μὲν χελιδὼν αὐτὸ τὸ θέρος, ὦ γύναι, / λαλεῖ), in which the addressee of the speech in the second person is indicated. There is no reason to change the transmitted reading ἡμῶν, since both meaning and syntax are impeccable. Moreover, the first person is attested in Philem. fr. 77.1–3, where a similar conditional clause in three verses is deployed (εἰ τὰ δάκρυ᾽ ἡμῖν τῶν κακῶν ἦν φάρμακον, / ἀεὶ θ᾽ ὁ κλαύσας τοῦ πονεῖν ἐπαύετο, / ἠλλατόμεσθ᾽ ἂν δάκρυα δόντες χρυσίον). Meineke’s ἐμφρονέστεραι for σωφρονέστεραι (1855 II, vi), which is reported by the manuscript tradition, is not necessary; see Μüri 1947, 257–260, who draws attention to the relative frequency of σύνεσις in gnomic contexts in Thucydides (also Dover 1974, 123 n. 10); σωφροσύνη is often employed in Athenian fourth-century literature, since it becomes (together with ἀρετή) reappropriated as a new civic concept. Interpretation The fragment hosts a speaker’s comment on garrulity; it might have followed an unpleasant encounter with a gushing interlocutor or it might be addressed to a chatty speaker who has just stopped talking. The twittering of swallows had negative connotations in the classical period, as it was associated with the speech of the barbarians (see below). The use of the contrary-to-fact conditional aims at making a claim by refuting its opposite: garrulity is not a mark of intelligence because if it were, then the swallows would have been more sound-minded than men, which is simply not the case. 1 εἰ … ἦν … ἐλέγοντ᾽ ἂν The use of conditionals for the expression of gnomic statements is a stylistic feature that proliferates in fourth-century BC Athens (see Alex. fr. 257.1–3 εἰ τοῦ μεθύσκεσθαι πρότερον τὸ κραιπαλᾶν / παρεγίγνεθ᾽ ἡμῖν, οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς οἶνόν ποτε / προσίετο πλείω τοῦ μετρίου; Philem. fr. 77.1–3 εἰ τὰ δάκρυ᾽ ἡμῖν τῶν κακῶν ἦν φάρμακον, / ἀεί θ᾽ ὁ κλαύσας τοῦ πονεῖν ἐπαύετο, / ἠλλαττόμεσθ᾽ ἂν δάκρυα δόντες χρυσίον, where contrary-to-fact conditional is also used in order to express a gnomē). Instead of using paratactic syntax, which is in general more widespread than hypotaxis in gnomai, εἰ-clauses designate a framework within which the expression is to be understood (Tsagalis 2008, 32–37, with examples). In particular, the use of a contrary-to-fact conditional reinforces

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 28)

181

the argument that the speaker is making. This is a two-step process. First, the hypothesis invites the audience to judge its value: the conditional “if talking unceasingly, often, and swiftly / was the mark of intelligence” presents the audience with the opportunity to decide whether this statement is true. In this way, even before hearing the apodosis of the conditional clause, any listener would think about the significance, positive or negative, of garrulity. Is it really a mark of mental ability? Since the hypothesis functions like a question, the apodosis operates like an answer. But again, not a straightforward one. The clause “the swallows / would be considered far more sound-minded than us” presents the audience with another statement, the value of which needs to be determined. Are the swallows considered more sound-minded than men? The syntax guides the listeners to the refutation of what is said in the apodosis. The swallows are not considered far more sound-minded than men. Since the second statement (apodosis) has been negated, then the first statement (hypothesis), on which the second rests, must be also false: garrulity does not stand for intelligence. The interpretive advantage of this form of speech within the confines of a gnomic statement can be better appreciated not only when compared to a straightforward main clause (e. g. “garrulity is not a sign of intelligence”) but also when it is contrasted to a parabolic construction, e. g. “as garrulity is not a mark of intelligence, so the garrulous swallows are more sound-minded than men”. The difference between the parabolic construction and the conditional clause is that only in the latter the audience is invited to evaluate the truth of both hypothesis and apodosis. Mental engagement by recourse to the refutation of the opposite statement (contrary-to-fact conditional) is an important interpretive gain. συνεχῶς καὶ πολλὰ καὶ ταχέως λαλεῖν The emphatic array of words coloring λαλεῖν (συνεχῶς καὶ πολλὰ καὶ ταχέως) indicates excess, which is a typical sign for the lack of σωφροσύνη (see below). Τhe chattering of swallows was equated with barbarian, incomprehensible speech (see Aesch. Ag. 1050 χελιδόνος δίκην / ἀγνώτα φωνὴν βάρβαρον κεκτημένη; Ar. Av. 1681 εἰ μὴ βαβάζει γ᾽ ὥσπερ αἱ χελιδόνες; Ar. Ran. 93 χελιδόνων μουσεῖα, glossed by Hsch. χ 327 as ἐπὶ τῶν βάρβαρα καὶ ἀσύνετα ποιούντων; see also Eur. Alcmen. fr. 88 ἀηδόνων μουσεῖον). For this reason, ὁ χελιδών was employed as a synonym of ὁ βάρβαρος (see Ion’s Omphale fr. 36 Leurini apud Schol. on Ar. Av. 1680; Ar. Ran. 680 with Clarke 2007, 209) and had become proverbial for foreigners who should not be allowed to stay under the same roof with house-owners (e. g. Pyth. apud Iambl. Adhort. 21 χελιδόνα ἐν οἰκίαι μὴ δέχεσθαι; Arist. fr. 159 Gigon τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι λάλους ἀνθρώπους καὶ περὶ γλῶτταν ἀκρατεῖς ὁμoροφίους μὴ ποιεῖσθαι); see Thompson 1895, 190. On the use of λαλεῖν and its cognates for the swallow, see Ar. Ran. 678–681 (… ἐφ᾽ οὗ / δὴ χείλεσιν ἀμφιλάλοις / δεινὸν ἐπιβρέμεται Θρῃκία χελιδών); Alex. fr. 96 (σοῦ δ᾽ ἐγὼ λαλιστέραν  / οὐπώποτ᾽ εἶδον οὔτε κερκώπην, γύναι, / οὐ κίτταν, οὐκ ἀηδόν᾽, ⟨οὐ χελιδόνα,⟩ / οὐ τρυγόν᾽, οὐ τέττιγα); Philem. fr. 154 (ἡ μὲν χελιδὼν αὐτὸ τὸ θέρος, ὦ γύναι, / λαλεῖ); Theophr. Char. 7.9 [7] (οὐδ᾽ εἰ τῶν

182

Nicostratus

χελιδόνων δόξειεν εἶναι λαλίστερος); Nonn. 2.134 (λάλος ὄρνις), 3.14 (ὄρθριον ὕπνον ἄμερσε λάλος τρύζουσα χελιδών). On garrulity in Middle Comedy, see e. g. Philem. fr. 99.1-9 (τὸν μὴ λέγοντα τῶν δεόντων μηδὲ ἓν / μακρὸν νόμιζε, κἂν δύ᾽ εἴπῃ συλλαβάς, / τὸν δ᾽ εὖ λέγοντα μὴ νόμιζ᾽ εἶναι μακρόν, / μηδ᾽ ἂν σφόδρ᾽ εἴπηι πολλὰ καὶ πολὺν χρόνον. / τεκμήριον δὲ τοῦδε τὸν Ὅμηρον λαβέ· / οὗτος γὰρ ὴμῖν μυριάδας ἐπῶν γράφει, / ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ εἷς Ὅμηρον εἴρηκεν μακρόν), fr. 110.2 (σὺ λαλεῖς ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὤν;). 2 παράσημον “characteristic mark or emblem of something”: of a cloth or costume (Eunap. VS p. 456b τὸ βασιλικὸν τῆς ἐσθῆτος παράσημον; App. B Civ. 1.16 τῶι παρασήματι τοῦ σχήματος); of a city (Alex. fr. 122 εἰσέβαινον ἰσχάδες / τὸ παράσημον τῶν Ἀθηνῶν, who refers to figs served in a festive meal as the emblem of Athens and Plut. De Pyth. or. 12 οὔτε τι Κορινθίοις βάτραχοι προσήκουσιν, ὥστε σύμβολον ἢ παράσημον εἶναι τῆς πόλεως, who reports that the Corinthians did not employ frogs as the emblem of their city). Παράσημον may also indicate identity, ethnic/civic (Plut. Vit. Caes. 29 ταῦτα τοῦ μὴ Ῥωμαῖον εἶναι παράσημα) or personal (Ptol. Tetr. 122 παράσημα σωματικά). Τhus, the noun is deprived of the negative connotation of the adjective παράσημος, -ον which means “counterfeit” and is used both literally for money (e. g. Dem. 24.213) or metaphorically for men (e. g. Eur. Hipp. 1114 δόξα … παράσημος; Ar. Ach. 518 ἄτιμα καὶ παράσημα καὶ παράξενα [sc. ἀνδράρια] with Olson 2002, 206; Dem. 18.242 παράσημος ῥήτωρ). χελιδόνες As discussed above (line 1) swallows are considered especially talkative (e. g. Theophr. Char. 7.9 τῶν χελιδόνων δόξειεν εἶναι λαλίστερος; Verg. Aen. 12.475 “pabula parua legens nidisque loquoacibus escas”, “gathering small things to eat and food for its talkative nestlings”; G. 9.307 “garrula (quam) tignis nidum suspendat hirundo”, “the chattering swallow builds her nest in the rafters”. Swallows are also associated with the advent of spring. This is a commonplace in ancient Greek literature; see e. g. Hes. Op. 568–569; Stes. fr. 211 PMGF; Sim. 597 PMG; Ar. Av. 714, Eq. 419; Pax 799–800; a Rhodian carmen populare (fr. 848 PMG); cf. Ar. Av. 1417, fr. 617; Cratin. fr. 35; PDuke Inv. 774 c ii 11; Dunbar 1995, 455; Olson 1998, 228. Swallows are also famous for building their nests with mud and breeding in houses or buildings; see Arist. Hist. an. 9.7, 612b; Ael. NA 24, 25; Antig. Mirab. 37 (43); Plin. 10.(33) 44; see Dunbar 1995, 601–602 with further literature. In general, see Thompson 1895, 186–192. 3 σωφρονέστεραι πολύ σωφροσύνη manifests itself in social interaction. Amongst its physical symptoms is any form of controlled response to a given situation. In this respect, keeping quiet is a supreme manifestation of sound-mindedness (see e. g. Eur. Heracl. 476–477; Ar. Lys. 473; Pl. Chrm. 159b; Dem. 45.68). The garrulity characterizing swallows is thus a mark of the lack of σωφροσύνη, hence the use of the contrary-to-fact conditional; on the physical manifestations of σωφροσύνη, see Rademaker 2005, 273–274. The excessive aspect (πολύ) attributed to σωφροσύνη toys with πολλὰ that accompanies λαλεῖν in l. 1: excessive talking does not make swallows far more (πολλὰ) sound-minded than men. On phrase-

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 29)

183

ology highlighting great σωφροσύνη, see “μετέχω + genitive of a certain value + an adverb indicating quantity” (e. g. CEG 480 [σ]ωφροσ[ύνης πλε]ῖ[στον καὶ φιλί] ας μετέχων) or “ἔχω + epithet indicating quantity + μέρος + genitive of a certain value” (e. g. CEG 540 πλεῖστον ἔχ⟨ο⟩υσα μέρ⟨ο⟩ς ⟨Θ⟩ε⟨ό⟩[κλεια σωφροσύνης]); Breuer 1995, 45; Tsagalis 2008, 137–142. On σωφροσύνη in Greek Literature, see e. g. North 1966; Rademaker 2005.

fr. 29 K.–A. (28 K.) “οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ᾽ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ.” νὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν συντόμως γε, φίλτατε Εὐριπίδη, τὸν βίον ἔθηκας εἰς στίχον 1 νὴ SM, A post corr. : μὴ A ante corr. 2 γε, φίλτατε codd. : γ᾽ ὦ φίλτατε Bothe 3 Εὐριπίδη …στίχον SA: Εὐριππίδη … τίχον Μ

“No man is happy in every respect.” By Athena, dearest Euripides, how concisely you put the entire life into (a single) verse Stob. 4.41.48 (ὅτι ἀβέβαιος ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εὐπραξία, μεταπιπτούσης ῥαιδίως τῆς τύχης), p. 941 Wachsmuth / Hense. Νικοστράτου˙ οὐκ — στίχον Stob. 4.41.48 (that humans’ happiness is uncertain, since luck changes easily), p. 941 Wachsmuth / Hense. Nicostratus: no — verse

Meter Iambic Trimeter

llwl l|lwl llwl llwl l|lwl wlwl llwl lr|wl wlwl

Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 288; Meineke 1847 I, 639; Bothe 1855, 474; Kock 1884 II, 227; Blaydes 1896, 138; Edmonds 1959 II, 40–41; PCG VII, 89; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630; Knöbl 2008, 53, 58, 61; Hanink 2010, 183; Rusten 2011, 528–529; Wright 2013, 617, 620 Citation context The passage is cited in Stobaeus’ Florilegium chapt. 41 (4.41.48), which is devoted to the fleeting nature of happiness (ὅτι ἀβέβαιος ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εὐπραξία, μεταπιπτούσης ῥαδίως τῆς τύχης). It includes 63 lemmata, of which 22 either come from or contain material from Euripides. Nicostratus’ present fragment belongs to a category of quotations that fall under the rubric “no man

184

Nicostratus

can be happy in all respects of life” (see commentary below). Weinreich (1931, 124-125) has argued in favor of the attribution of this fragment to Nicostratus II. Weinreich’s claim is based on the following two arguments: first, that it would have been very odd if Nicostratus I had praised Euripides’ maxim which his father (Aristophanes) had ridiculed in his criticism of Euripides’ prologues (see in particular Ran. 1217); second, the same verse is also cited by poets of New Comedy (Philippid. fr. 18.3; Men. Asp. 407). For Weinreich, fr. 18 (from the play Pandrosos) should also be attributed to Nicostratus II, since it contains references to πρόνοια and τύχη. However, none of these two arguments is decisive. As for the first, we are not sure that Nicostratus I praises Euripides’ fragment (there may well be here an ironical comment on the idea of summarizing the entire life in a single verse), but even if this is so Weinreich’s use of Frogs 1217 is misguided, since the negative comment on Euripides’ prologues with the addition of the formula ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσε comes from the character Aeschylus, not Aristophanes himself. That this is so can be clearly seen on the analogy of the criticism raised against the “stuffed”, repetitive, and obscure style of Aeschylus’ prologues by the character Euripides. Concerning Weinreich’s second argument, the use of this Euripidean sententia by New Comedy poets does not necessitate that this maxim should be absent from Middle Comedy. The same gnomic expression is already used by Aristotle (Arist. Rh. 1394b2) and would continue to be used by many more authors well after the Hellenistic period. Moreover, Nicostratus’ text may well be operating as a “window of allusion” to Euripides’ text via his father’s play Frogs where the same line was employed together with an address to Euripides as here (see commentary below). In addition, (a) the fact that we have no surviving fragments of Nicostratus II, whereas we have 40 fragments of Nicostratus I, and (b) that the source for fr. 29, i.e. Stobaeus, quotes three other fragments of Nicostratus I (frr. 15, 28, 30) show that the attribution of fr. 29 to Nicostratus I is (on balance) more secure. Text The emendation by Bothe (1855, 474) of γε given by the manuscript tradition into γ᾽ ὦ is unsound. Although ὦ with the vocative is used with high frequency (80%) in Aristophanes, it falls to 12% in Menander. Therefore, no such argument can be used against the reading of the manuscript tradition. The extant fragments of Nicostratus attest to both uses (which means that the transmitted reading can stand): ὦ + vocative (fr. 5.3 ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί; fr. 18.5 ὦ πάτερ; fr. 33.1 ὦ ξένη), vocative without ὦ (fr. 7.1 ἄνδρες; fr. 13.1 δέσποτα; 18.1 φιλτάτη; fr. 26.3 Χαιρεφῶν). Porson’ law of the final cretic is frequently not observed in the iambic trimeter of comedy, hence γε is metrically sound. Interpretation A speaker quotes Euripides’ Stheneboia (fr. 661.1 TrGF V 2, most probably a line from the prologue, spoken by Bellerophon. See Collard / Cropp / Lee 2015, 92) in the first line and then invokes Athena and makes an address to Euripides, who “put the entire life into (a single) verse”. The quotation is also found verbatim in the Frogs as well as Philippides’ Philadelphoi (Ar. Ran. 1217; Philipp. fr. 18.3. See the discussion below, l. 1). The address to Euripides does not mean

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 29)

185

that Euripides is a character of the play. It is also not clear whether Nicostratus employs the Euripidean maxim οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ᾽ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ seriously or ironically. This is because both practices were common in fourth-century comedy (see White 2013, 613–620). Tragic excerpts were thought to increase the weight of an argument or a specific suggestion made by a given speaker. They also had a therapeutic function, especially in cases in which the tragic passage referred to the sufferings of great mythical heroes of the past or reflected beliefs about the limits of happiness, the constant change of the human condition etc. On the other hand, they could be used ironically, poking fun or undermining tragedy as a source of consolation (Rosen 2012; Wright 2013, 617; Farmer 2017, 59). In this fragment, the Euripidean maxim has either a therapeutic value (provided that there is in the wider context a reference to the impossibility of continuous and complete human happiness) or an ironic hint (if the point is that life is much more complicated to be summarized in a single verse). As for the use of a proverbial expression, it is noteworthy that maxims were particularly prone for excerption because they could be easily accommodated into different contexts. It is possible that they were not always excerpted directly from the actual tragedies but from early collections of proverbial sayings that were available in fourth-century Athens, since they must have been regularly in demand. Interest in gnomic statements was enhanced by their applicability in various social encounters and situations. Moral wisdom was also useful to orators (Perlman 1964, 155–172; Wilson 1996, 310–331; and more generally Scafuro 1997). οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ᾽ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ This is a verbatim quotation of Eur. fr. 661.1 TrGF V 2 (Stheneboia). The tragedy begins with Bellerophon using this maxim, which is analyzed by the successive presentation of three different cases that testify to the fact that no man can be happy in every respect. The first pertains to the man of noble origin who does not have a livelihood, the second to the man who is prosperous (because “he ploughs a rich field”: interpreted literally by the Scholiast on Eur. Hec. 8 [Schwartz 1.13.2] but figuratively by Tzetzes on Ar. Ran. 1219b Koster, who takes πλουσίαν ἀροῖ πλάκα in the sense of “he is married to a rich woman”) but is of low origin, and the third to those men who boast that they have fortune and are of noble birth but are cursed by a mindless wife at home who brings to them disgrace). This proverbial phrase is also quoted verbatim (with or without author’s name and title) by: Ar. Ran. 1217 (together with the next one-and-a-half line from Eur. fr. 661.1-3 TrGF V 2); Philippides fr. 18 (apud Stob. 4.44.10); Aristot. Rh. 21.1394b2 (within a discussion of γνῶμαι); Men. Asp. 407 (where the frenzied Daos utters a series of tragic maxims; see e. g. Hunter 1985, 119–121; Gutzwiller 2000, 122–314, Konstantakos 2003–2004, 40–41; Hannink 2014, 163); [Men.] Monost. 596 Jäkel; Chrysipp. fr. 180.7 v. Arnim (SVF 2.54.7); [Plut.] Cons. ad Apoll. 4; Ioannis Sardianus comm. in Aphthonius’ Progymnasmata 4 p. 59, 20 Rabe.

186

Nicostratus

The kernel of the proverbial phrase οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ᾽ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ may take various forms (all examples are taken from Stob. 4.41, in which our fragment is included): (a) that humans cannot be forever happy (e. g. 41.8, 41.15, 41.18, 41.40); (b) that no man can be happy in all respects of life (41.6, 41.7, 41.10, 41.11, 41.33); (c) that happiness is an entity that comes and goes (41.4, 41.9, 41.11, 41.12, 41.16, 41.17, 41.19, 41.20); (d) that one’s fate can suddenly deteriorate (41.1, 41.5, 41.45, 41.46); (e) that one cannot be considered to be happy until his life ends in happiness (41.2, 41.3, 41.14, 41.21, 41.26, 41.38). This expression of popular wisdom is already attested in Hdt. 1.32.4 (ἄνθρωπος γάρ ἐστι συμφορή), where the idea that one day may bring happiness and another suffering paves the way for its application in the ensuing episode of Atys and Adrastus; see Asheri (2007) 103. In Euripides, since this verse belongs to him, the semantic group of εὐδαιμονία/εὐδαίμων/εὐδαμονῶ mainly denotes “security from adversity”; see McDonald 1978, esp. 178–179. 2 νὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν νὴ is an affirmative particle, regularly followed by the accusative of the god or goddess sworn. It gives to the reference a tone of strong confirmation and assent. The use of the article is regular; see Nicostratus fr. 33.1 (νὴ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην) and fr. 25.1 (μὰ τὸν Δία). The reference to Athena works as a hint to the favor of a daimon (see Mikalson 2002, 250–258), similarly to Ar. Ran. 1222, where a similar reference to Demeter is made after the quotation of the same verse (οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ᾽ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ) in 1217. Divine reference may be here used ironically. The speaker stresses the force of συντόμως, thus preparing for the (rejected) paradox of having the entire life summed up in a single Euripidean verse. See e. g. Diph. fr. 4.4–11 ([A] … οὐχ ὁρᾶις / ἐν ταῖς τραγωδίαισιν αὐτὰς ὡς στυγεῖ [sc. Εὐριπίδης]; / τοὺς δὲ παρασίτους ἠγάπα. λέγει γέ τοι· / “ἀνὴρ γὰρ ὅστις εὖ βίον κεκτημένος / μὴ τοὐλάχιστον τρεῖς ἀσυμβόλους τρέφει, / ὄλοιτο, νόστου μή ποτ᾽ εἰς πάτραν τυχών.” [Β] πόθεν ἐστὶ ταῦτα, πρὸς θεῶν; [Α] τί δέ σοι μέλει; / οὐ γὰρ τὸ δρᾶμα, τὸν δὲ νοῦν σκοπούμεθα), where a character pokes fun at the habit of excerpting lines from tragic plays (again by Euripides); see Wright 2013, 616–617. συντόμως This word introduces a second ironical “play”, this time with the name of Euripides by toying with the antithesis between “brevity” (συντόμως) and “size” (Εὐριπίδης). Τhis irony is based on the antithesis stemming from the idea that Euripides, the “big” poet (by means of folk-etymology from εὐρύς) has expressed a maxim by a brief statement. On puns based on Euripides’ name, see e. g. Ath. 6.247b κύβος δέ τις οὕτως καλεῖται Εὐριπίδης), where the meaning “cube” probably comes from the imagery of throwing the dice (εὖ “well” + ῥίπτω “throw”). If συντόμως is here taken in the sense of both “concisely” and “accurately”, it may allude (ironically or not) to the belief that Euripides as an “intellectual iconoclast who insisted on confronting the darker and more disturbing aspects of everyday reality” (OCD s. v. Euripides; see Ar. Ran. 959) presented men as they really are (Arist. Po. 1460b33ff.).

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 29)

187

2–3 φίλτατε Εὐριπίδη Apart from tragic quotations (e. g. Antiph. fr. 1, Diph. fr. 29, Adesp. Com. fr. 1062), references to Euripides the person are used as a source of authority in middle and new comedy (see e. g. Philipp. fr. 18, Philem. fr. 153; Men. Epitr. 1123–1126; Adesp. Com. fr. 1048) and signify the poet’s popularity from the fourth century onwards (see Green 1994, 50–58; Funke 1965–1966, 238–242; Xanthakis–Karamanos 1980, 28–34; Hanink 2014, 31–59, 80–89, 134–143, 159 –183; Duncan 2017, 535–545). Euripidean lines were recognizable by the audience and served as a “point of reference for jokes and wordplays” (see the discussion on Diph. fr. 60.1–3 in Karamanou forthcoming). The superlative φίλτατε (“dearest”) is regularly combined with other vocatives, usually names like φίλε, and not with partitive genitives as is the case with other superlatives. In Aristophanes it is frequently employed by women, in Plato and Menander it expresses genuine affection; see Dickey (1996, 135–138). On another note, tragic references enhance the “drama’s ability to improve the personal well-being or inner life of the individual” (Wright 2013, 613; the same phenomenon with respect to maxims is observable in fourth-century Attic funerary epigrams where consolation to those who lost a dear one was a high priority; see Tsagalis 2008, 38–39). In this vein, the idea of the therapeutic effect of tragedy on the audience is often conjured up (see e. g. Tim. fr. 6.4–7). The enormous sufferings of famous mythical figures (Telephus, Alcmeon, Philoctetes) are used as backdrop against which the smaller sufferings of ordinary people are evaluated. In this light, phraseology of a proverbial tinge was considered especially suitable for soothing or contemplating about human nature and suffering at large. In fact, the Euripidean maxim οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ᾽ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ must have been quite popular as spin-off diction for highlighting the motif of poetry as therapy. In Philipp. fr. 18, the poet uses the Euripidean line in order to have a slave remind his master, who is suffering, that he is not alone in this unfortunate situation. This time the focus is on Euripides alone, the comparison is between tragedy and real life (not tragedy as a contrast to real life as in Timocles), and the therapeutic aspect of tragedy is monitored by the highlighting of a specific citation (not by watching entire plays as in Timocles); see Wright 2013, 615. The generalizing aspect of maxims, which facilitated their “breaking free”’ from the plays in which they belonged and enjoying an autonomous life, made them particularly suitable for this use. What is also important in this respect is the tagging of Euripides’ name to the maxim. It is in this framework that Nicostratus’ reference to Euripides must be interpreted. First, the use of the epithet φίλτατε expresses (note the superlative) an endearment that suits a close friend; second, the apostrophe to the dead Euripides, “summons” the dead poet to the hic et nunc of the play’s performance suggesting that the great poet is alive through the perennial force of his poetry. Wright (2103, 620) rightly compares Nicostratus’ fr. 29 with an even more pronounced reference (Philem. fr. 118) to the value of Euripides’ poetry, which is equated with the poet himself: εἰς ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν οἱ τεθνηκότες / αἴσθησιν εἶχον, ἄνδρες, ὥς φασίν τινες, / ἀπηγξάμην ἂν ὥστ᾽ ἰδεῖν Εὐριπίδην.

188

Nicostratus

Is it also possible that Nicostratus is toying with the text of his father’s comedy Frogs 1217–1219? At that point in the play, the agon between Aeschylus and Euripides is based on excerpts from the latter’s poetry which are cut short when Aeschylus supplies to the first part of the verse the expression ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσεν. Euripides cites lines from the prologues of his plays claiming (Ran. 1178) that they are deprived of the annoying obscurity (Ran. 1122), repetitiveness (Ran. 1154), and “stuffing” (Ran. 1178) which he observes in Aeschylus’ prologues. After citing Eur. fr. 661.1–2, Aristophanes quotes only the first part (ἢ δυσγενὴς ὢν) of Eur. fr. 661.3 which is spoken by the character Euripides, while Aeschylus completes the rest of the verse with the formulaic ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσεν. Then Dionysus begins the next line with Εὐριπίδη and is capped by Euripides asking τί ἐστιν. The vocative Εὐριπίδη is also used in line-initial position by Nicostratus in fr. 29.3, i.e. in the second line following the Euripidean one. It seems that Nicostratus is playing here not not only with Euripides’ text but also with Aristophanes’ “intermediary” text. The claim of conciseness of Euripidean prologues put forward by the character Euripides in the Underworld in Aristophanes’ Frogs is “picked” up by the speaker of Nicostratus’ fr. 29 who addresses Euripides as if he was alive. 3 τὸν βίον ἔθηκας εἰς στίχον Τhe fact that in Euripides’ Stheneboea fr. 661.1–2 the initial maxim (= Nicostratus fr. 29.1.) is followed by the line ἢ γὰρ πεφυκὼς ἐσθλὸς οὐκ ἔχει βίον allows for a sophisticated play with a different meaning of βίος. Whereas in Euripides’ text βίος means “livelihood”, in Nicostratus’ text it means “life”. The semantical difference paves the way for a further suggestion: Euripides has concisely put in verse the entire βίος (human life), even that of a noble man with no βίος (livelihood). fr. 30 K.–A. (29 K.) † ἆρ᾽ οἶσθ’ ὅτι τῆς πενίας ὅπλον ἐστὶν ἡ παρρησία; ταύτην ἐάν τις ἀπολέσηι, τὴν ἀσπίδ᾽ ἀποβέβληκεν οὗτος τοῦ βίου ἆρ᾽ Br: Ἔρ᾽( Ἔ rubr.) L τῆς πενίας codd. : πενίας Meineke ἐστὶν ἡ codd. : ἐστ᾽ ⟨ἄριστον⟩ ἡ Blaydes : ⟨ποτ᾽⟩ ἐστίν; ἡ Buecheler: ⟨μέγ᾽⟩ ἐστίν; ἡ Hense : alkl ἆρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτι τῆς πενίας ὅπλον Meineke: alk ἆρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτι 〈τὸ〉 τῆς πενίας ὅπλον Hermann Aliubi ita fragmentum rescripsit Meineke (Stob. IV p. xxxii) ἄρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτι / {τῆς} πενίας ὅπλον ⟨μέγιστον⟩ ἡ παρρησία; / ταύτην ἐάν τις ἀπολέσηι, ⟨τί ἄλλο γ᾽ ἢ⟩ / τὴν ἀσπίδ’ ἀποβέβληκεν οὗτος τοῦ βίου; : aliter Herwerden ἄρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτι τῆς πενίας ὅπλον ἡ παρρησία / ἄριστόν ἐστιν; ἣν ἐάν τις ἀπολέσηι, / τὴν ἀσπίδ᾽ ἀποβέβληκεν οὗτος τοῦ βίου

Do you really know that poverty’s armor is freedom of speech? If one loses that, he has thrown away the shield of life

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 30)

189

Stob. 3.13.26 (περὶ παρρησίας), p. 458 Wachsmuth / Hense. Νικοστράτου˙ ἆρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ — τοῦ βίου Stob. 3.13.26 (on freedom of speech), p. 458 Wachsmuth / Hense. By Nicostratus: do you really know — of life

Meter Iambic Trimeter

† llrlrlrlwl llwl ll|wl wrwl llwr wlw|l llwl

The first line does not scan, hence the crux at its beginning. In line 3, there exists violation of the Law of Wilamowitz-Knox (word-end after both the 2nd breve and the 3rd anceps). Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 289; Meineke 1847 I, 639; Bothe 1855, 474; Meineke 1857 IV, xxxii; Kock 1884 II, 227; Blaydes 1896, 138; Edmonds 1959 II, 40–41; PCG VII, 90; Rusten 2011, 529; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630 Citation context The passage is cited in Stobaeus’ Florilegium 3.13.26. Chapter 13, which is devoted to the freedom of speech (περὶ παρρησίας) and it contains 68 lemmata. Nicostratus’ fr. 30 K.–A. is preceded by a comic adespoton and followed by a Sophoclean fragment (928 TrGF IV). Text The problems inherent in the first, unmetrical verse of this passage are numerous. The different suggestions put forward by various scholars can be classified into the following categories: (a) emendations centered on ἐστὶν ἡ without shifting verse-end; (b) emendations based on a missing metrum or part of a metrum before ἆρ᾽ without omission of ἐστὶν ἡ; (c) emendation based on a missing part of line 1 with a change of verse-end; (d) emendation changing the verse-end of line 1 by a omitting the article ἡ at the end of verse 1 (according to the transmitted text) and an addition made at the beginning of verse two. (a) Blaydes (1896, 138) emended the transmitted reading ἐστὶν ἡ into ἐστ᾽ ⟨ἄριστον⟩ ἡ (cf. Ephipp. 7.1 K.–A. with the article ἡ as the last word of the verse and the noun [μουσική] in the next line. Other emendations, which did not change the form of ἐστὶν were proposed by Buecheler (⟨ποτ᾽⟩ ἐστίν; ἡ) and Hense (⟨μέγ᾽⟩ ἐστίν; ἡ). Both of them placed a question-mark after ἐστὶν, making ἡ παρρησία the answer to this question (hence the placement of a semi-colon after παρρησία). (b) Meineke (1840 III, 289; 1847 I, 639; followed by Kock 1884 II, 227 and Edmunds 1959 II, 40–41) conjectured that a whole metrum (alwl) is missing before ἆρ᾽, which means that he considered ἐστὶν ἡ to be an interpolation. Hermann (apud Meineke 1857 V.1, 84) conjectured that the missing part before ἆρ᾽ is alw, which means that ἆρ᾽ represents the last syllable of the first metrum, and supplied τὸ before τῆς. (c) Later on, Meineke (1857 IV, xxxii) rewrote the entire fragment in such a way that it includes four instead of three verses. This approach was based on the

190

Nicostratus

conjecture that the missing metra before ἆρ᾽ οἶσθ’ ὅτι are two and not one (as in [b] above). He also omitted τῆς, emended ἐστὶν into μέγιστον, and moved παρρησία at the end of the second line (ἄρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτι / {τῆς} πενίας ὅπλον ⟨μέγιστον⟩ ἡ παρρησία;). To fill what had become verse three, he added ⟨τί ἄλλο γ᾽ ἢ⟩ after ταύτην ἐάν τις ἀπολέσηι. These are too many emendations to make a legitimate claim on correctness. (d) Herwerden (apud Blaydes 1896, 138) omitted the article ἡ at the end of verse 1 and placed παρρησία at its place (ἄρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτι τῆς πενίας ὅπλον παρρησία). He added ἄριστόν ἐστιν at the beginning of verse 2, treating it as the end of the direct question, and changed ταύτην into ἣν. Kassel-Austin keep the transmitted text by placing a crux at its beginning. Since none of the above emendations seems satisfying to them, they consider the line to be a locus desperatus. Interpretation A speaker touches on poverty and freedom of speech, in a quasi-philosophical way, maintaining that freedom of speech is the weapon against poverty. The argument is generalized and has a philosophical tone, although the speaker makes no specific allusions to any philosophical doctrines. The lines could have been initiated by the comic happenings of the plot, the discussion of which led to extensive moralizing generalizations (on this as a comic trend see Papachrysostomou 2012–2013, esp. 167–168). Freedom of speech levels social and financial differences in a democratic state such as Athens, where access to public office is not determined by wealth but is decided on merit (e. g. Thuc. 2.37.1: μέτεστι δὲ κατὰ μὲν τοὺς νόμους πρὸς τὰ ἴδια διάφορα πᾶσι τὸ ἴσον, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀξίωσιν, ὡς ἕκαστος ἔν τωι εὐδοκιμεῖ, οὐκ ἀπὸ μέρους τὸ πλέον ἐς τὰ κοινὰ ἢ ἀπ᾽ ἀρετῆς προτιμᾶται, οὐδ᾽ αὖ κατὰ πενίαν, ἔχων δέ τι ἀγαθὸν δρᾶσαι τὴν πόλιν, ἀξιώματος ἀφανείαι κεκώλυται). It is exactly this freedom to speak freely both in the strict sense of expressing one’s views and of being listened in the arena of politics that shields the poor versus the rich. Without freedom of speech those with meager means are left unprotected in life, pushed to the social margin, condemned to contempt. It is unclear who the speaker of these lines is but it is likely that he is a male, either a man of low means or addressing someone poor and reminding him the importance of free speech for the deprived and the underprivileged. 1 τῆς πενίας The political and social ramifications of poverty are regularly exploited whenever the term is used. It is designated as “accursed” (Hes. Op. 717: οὐλομένην; Thgn. 1062: οὐλομένηι πενίηι), “grievous, irrepressible evil” (Alc. fr. 364 Voigt ἀργάλεον πενία κάκον ἄσχετον), and “life-destroying” (Thgn. 155–156 πενίην θυμοφθόρον … ἀχρημοσύνην οὐλομένην); it is related to civil strife (Pind. fr. 109.3–4 στάσιν … πενίας δότειραν), to Greece that uses virtue to ward her off (Hdt. 7.102.1 τῆι Ἑλλάδι πενίη μὲν αἰεί κοτε σύντροφός ἐστι, ἀρετὴ δὲ ἐπακτός ἐστι … τῆι διαχρεωμένη ἡ Ἑλλὰς τήν τε πενίην ἀπαμύνεται καὶ τὴν δεσποσύνην), as well as to wisdom (Eur. fr. 641 πενία δὲ σοφίαν ἔλαχε διὰ τὸ συγγενές). In

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 30)

191

Aristophanes, a personified Πενία defends herself and makes the distinction between herself and her sister Πτωχεία (Ar. Plut. 437, 549), arguing that although πτωχεία equals having nothing, πενία equals having neither excess nor shortage (Ar. Plut. 552–554 πτωχοῦ μὲν γὰρ βίος, ὃν σὺ λέγεις, ζῆν ἐστιν μηδὲν ἔχοντα˙ / τοῦ δὲ πένητος ζῆν φειδόμενον καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις προσέχοντα,  / περιγίγνεσθαι δ᾽ αὐτῶι μηδέν, μὴ μέντοι μηδ᾽ ἐπιλείπειν). In Middle and New Comedy, see Aristoph. fr. 1 σαφὴς ὁ χειμών τῆς πενίας λύχνος˙ / ἅπαντα φαίνει τὰ κακὰ καὶ τὰ δυσχερῆ; Timocl. fr. 30 [as a misfortune] with Apostolakis 2019, 219; Antiph. frr. 165 [as something positive, in contrast to πλοῦτος], 322 πενία γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ τρόπων διδάσκαλος; Men. Dysk. 209–211. Cf. also Papachrysostomou 2016, 125. On Πενία as personified entity, see Alc. fr. 364 Voigt (with Ἀμαχανία being her sister), Ar. Plut. 437, 549 (with Πτωχεία as her sister), and Men. Dysk. 209. Plato associates her with Πόρος with whom she has sex in Zeus’ garden and gives birth to Eros (Symp. 203b). Τhe idea that freedom of speech is the “armor” of poverty (τῆς πενίας ὅπλον ἐστὶν ἡ παρρησία) stems from the equality of social standing of citizens with meagre financial resources within the Athenian democratic regime. Irrespective of social ranking, poor citizens saw their ability to speak their mind freely and without fear of consequences “as an important democratic accomplishment” (Landauer 2019, 131). ὅπλον The use of military vocabulary in a figurative manner is as old as Homer. Ajax was called the “tower of the Achaeans” (Od. 11.556: τοῖος γάρ σφιν πύργος ἀπώλεο), he was the “defense of the Achaeans (e. g. Il. 3.229 ἕρκος Ἀχαιῶν; his shield was like a tower: e. g. Il. 7.219). On the metaphorical use of shield in other authors, see also Alc. fr. 112.10 Voigt (ἄνδρες γὰρ πόλιος πύργος ἀρεύιοι), Callinus fr. 1.20 IEG (ὥσπερ γάρ μιν πύργον ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρῶσιν); Soph. Aj. 159 (σφαλερὸν πύργου ῥῆμα πέλονται); Soph. OT 1200 (… θανάτων ἐμᾶι / χώραι πύργος ἀνέστας); Eur. Alc. 311 (καὶ παῖς μὲν ἄρσην πατέρ᾽ ἔχει πύργον μέγαν), Med. 390 (ἢ μέν τις ἡμῖν πύργος ἀσφαλὴς φανῆι); [Men.] Monost. 582 Jäkel (ὅπλον μέγιστόν ἐστιν ἡ ἀρετὴ βροτοῖς). On other metaphorical uses of military vocabulary, see below on v. 3. 2 παρρησία “outspokenness, frankness, freedom of speech”. A buzzword of Athenian political and social discourse regarded as a privilege and achievement of Athenian democracy; see e. g. Eur. Hipp. 421–423 (… ἐλεύθεροι / … θάλλοντες οἰκοῖεν πόλιν / κλεινῶν Ἀθηνῶν), Supp. 438–439 (τοὐλεύθερον δ᾽ ἐκεῖνο· τίς θέλει πόλει / χρηστόν τι βούλευμ᾽ ἐς μέσον φέρειν ἔχων;), Phoen. 391–392 ([ΙΟ.] ἓν μὲν μέγιστον· οὐκ ἔχει παρρησίαν. / [ΠΟ.] δούλου τόδ᾽ εἶπας, μὴ λέγειν ἅ τις φρονεῖ); Ar. Thesm. 541 (οὔσης παρρησίας with Austin/Olson 2004, 213); Pl. Resp. 557b (ἐλευθερίας ἡ πόλις μεστὴ καὶ παρρησίας γίγνεται). On its association with ἰσηγορίη, see Hdt. 5.78.1 (ἡ ἰσηγορίη ὡς ἐστὶ χρῆμα σπουδαῖον); Eup. fr. 316.3 (ἔδει πρῶτον μὲν ὑπάρχειν πάντων ἰσηγορίαν); Polyb. 2.38.6 (παρρησία καὶ ἰσηγορία καὶ δημοκρατία). “Frank speech” pertains to the freedom (up to a

192

Nicostratus

certain point) to express unpopular or unpleasant views in a variety of contexts, of which Old Comedy with its bent to αἰσχρολογία was one of them (Halliwell 2004, 115–144). In Greek tragedy, in which the culture of debate is quintessentially Athenian (Carter 2011, 45-67), παρρησία “depends on the status and respectability of the individual speaker” (Carter 2019, 284; see Eur. Hipp. 419–425, Ion 671–675 with Martin 2018, 310). Conversely, in plays featuring plots taking place outside Athens παρρησία “has to be negotiated or asserted” (Carter 2019, 284). Free speech was more of a characteristic of Athenian citizens than an ideological feature of the democracy (Carter 2004, 215; Saxonhouse 2006, 86–89). For reasons of public interest restrictions, like making citizens stop talking by shouting them down (θόρυβος; see Wallace 2004, 223–226), punishments were imposed (Carter 2004, 207–208). On the institutional aspect and support of παρρησία in comic theater with reference to Nicostratus fr. 30 K.–A., see Landauer 2019, 130–131. ἀπολέσηι The verb ἀπόλλυμι expresses an intensified degree of loss. It often has the nuance of an irrevocable or important injury, like when one loses his father (Od. 2.46 πατέρ᾽ ἐσθλὸν ἀπώλεσα), his day of return home (Od. 1.354 ἀπώλεσε νόστιμον ἦμαρ), or his own life (Il. 16.861 ἀπὸ θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι). It is also employed with abstract nouns, as here (e. g. Il. 24.44 ἔλεον μὲν ἀπώλεσεν; Xen. An. 3.4.11 ἀπώλεσαν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑπὸ Περσῶν οἱ Μῆδοι) but also of things (e. g. Thuc. 7.51 ἵππους τε ἑβδομήκοντα ἀπολλύασι καὶ τῶν ὁπλιτῶν οὐ πολλούς). The word-initial, disyllabic assonance between ἀπολέσηι and ἀποβέβληκεν, the two verbs of vv. 2–3 strengthens their association, which is also syntactically underscore, since they belong to the hypothesis and apodosis of the same condition (ἐάν τις ἀπολέσηι, / … ἀποβέβληκεν). 3 τὴν ἀσπίδ᾽ ἀποβέβληκεν οὗτος τοῦ βίου On the metaphorical use of military diction, see Aesch. Ag. 1437 (οὗτος γὰρ ἡμῖν ἀσπὶς οὐ σμικρὰ θράσους), with Fraenkel 1950, 678. Most expressions of this type pertain to defensive weapons (shield, battlement, defense), on which see v. 1. On the related idea that a city “is” its men, not its buildings, which begins with Alcaeus (see discussion on l. 1 above), see also Aesch. Pers. 349 (ἀνδρῶν γὰρ ὄντων ἕρκος ἐστὶν ἀσφαλές) and Thuc. 7.77.7 (ἄνδρες γὰρ πόλις, καὶ οὐ τείχη οὐδὲ νῆες ἀνδρῶν κεναί); also Finglass 2011, 185. The loss of one’s shield was a sign of cowardice and defeat (for a famous negation of this idea, see Arch. 5.1–4 IEG); see Edmonds 1959 II, 41. The hoplite phalanx was based on the principle of keeping the lines, each hoplite protecting with his shield the right side of the warrior next to him. Casting one’s shield was both inglorious and destructive for the phalanx formation. ἀποβέβληκεν, which builds on this idea, is deftly combined with ἀπολέσηι in an impressive reversal of the military imagery: whereas the hoplite who throws away his shield runs the risk of losing his life, the person who loses his right of free speech throws away his life. The consonantal alliteration of beta (ἀποβέβληκεν οὗτος τοῦ βίου) underscores the novel association described above.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 31)

193

fr. 31 K.–A. (32 K.) μειράκιον ⟨ ⟩ κατὰ τύχην ὑποσκαφιόκαρτόν τι κεχλαμυδωμένον κατάγεις ἀναγκόσιτον 1 post μειράκιον verbum δὲ add. Porson 2 τι Porson : τι καὶ C E ἀναγκόσιτον corr. Porson : κατὰ γῆς ἀναγκοσιτῶ C E

3 κατάγεις

By chance you bring home a forced-fed young boy with his hair sheared close in a bowl cut and dressed in a short cloak. Ath. 2.47e ἀναγκόσιτον δὲ Κράτης. καὶ Νικόστρατος δέ· μειράκιον — ἀναγκόσιτον Crates employs the word anagkositos (“force-fed”), and Nicostratus toο: young boy—forcedfed

Meter Iambic Trimeter

⟨xlwl x⟩lwr ⟨x⟩rwl wlwr llw|r wlwl rlwl wlw⟨l xlwl⟩

Discussion Porson 1815, 234; Meineke 1840 III, 289; Meineke 1847 I, 639; Bothe 1855, 474; Kock 1884 II, 228; Blaydes 1896, 138; Wagner 1905, 43; Edmonds 1959 ΙΙ, 40-41; PCG VII, 90; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630 Citation Context This fragment belongs to the very last part of the first section (35–47e) of book 2 of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae that is devoted to wine and water (other sections of book 2 include the dining room and its furniture, fruit, appetizers and what is eaten together with them). The wider context concerns the terminology employed by various authors with respect to eating and food, while the immediate context pertains to a discussion of compound words ending in -σιτος. The list begins with ἀπόσιτος (Philonid. fr. 1.1) and continues with αὐτόσιτος (Crobyl. fr. 1.1), and ἀναγκόσιτος (Nicostr. fr. 31). Wagner (1905, 43) maintains that our fragment belongs to Pandrosos, since this is the first quotation of Nicostratus in Ath. 2.47e and the list with the plays of Nicostratus that follows right after starts with the play Pandrosos. I follow Kassel-Austin who cannot securely identify the play to which the fragment belonged. Text Porson (1815, 234) has proposed various emendations to the transmitted text, most of which are completely successful. The lacuna between μειράκιον and κατὰ is metrically guaranteed. If not accepted, the second meter would end in lww and that is simply wrong. δὲ is an economical solution, since it gives the missing initial syllable to the third meter, makes the ultimate of μειράκιον long by

194

Nicostratus

position, and satisfactorily completes the part of the second meter after the initial anceps (lrl). Kassel-Austin have not endorsed Porson’s supplement, although they also posit the same lacuna, simply because other monosyllables could do the same job as δέ. In v. 2 the transmitted τι καὶ after ὑποσκαφιόκαρτον is metrically wrong, for only a short syllable is need at this slot, otherwise the ω in κεχλαμυδωμένον would be wrong since a short syllable is needed there. τι on its own is brilliant, since it both solves the metrical problem and dispenses of καὶ, which may have originated at a stage when καὶ and κε (in κεχλαμυδωμένον that immediately follows) were pronounced in the same way (i.e. both as κε). A scribe who was reading silently this verse repeated the same sound. As for κατὰ γῆς ἀναγκοσιτῶ that Porson emended into κατάγεις ἀναγκόσιτον, it has been evaluated as a correctio dubia by Blaydes (1896, 138). On the grounds of Crates fr. 50 (ἀναγκόσιτον δὲ [εἴρηκε] Κράτης: apud Ath. 2.47e), Kock (1884 II, 228) endorsed Porson’s emendation which is further strengthened by the fact that Nicostratus’ quoted text reproduces (post emendationem porsonianam) the epithet employed by Athenaeus himself: ἀναγκόσιτον … καὶ Νικόστρατος δέ. Interpretation In this fragment a speaker tells an addressee about a young boy, probably a slave (cf. the lousy haircut and clothing) that he (the addressee) brought home. He describes the slave with three polysyllabic words that refer to his hair cut, his clothes and his poor condition, since he is forced to eat whatever he can find to sustain himself. It is impossible to reconstruct, on this basis, the wider context within which the fragment was placed. The only thing that may be suggested is that the young slave might have been instrumental to the plot. 1 μειράκιον This colloquial form of μεῖραξ (employed only for girls until Old Testament Macc. 4.14.6 etc.; Heliod. 4.19.4 etc.; later also masc.), starts its literary life towards the end of the 5th century BC. It is first attested in Aristophanes (Eq. 556, 1375; Vesp. 687; Thesm. 410) and Andocides (1.12). In the 4th century it is regularly used in various literary genres, such as comedy, oratory, and philosophy. It was colloquially used to designate youths of eighteen and nineteen years also, but it could also loosely apply to young adolescents in general (between thirteen and twenty years old). See Biles / Olson 2015, 302; Bagordo 2016, 193; Papachrysostomou 2021, 92. μειράκιον belongs to a group of diminutives like μειρακίσκος and μειρακύλλιον (e. g. Ar. Eccl. 696; Cratin. fr. 60; Anaxandr. fr. 34.12; Pl. Ap. 17c, Tht. 142c), also used for political figures (Ar. Ach. 601). In Nicostratus, μειράκιον designates a young slave-boy, who is in such a pressing need of food that he eats whatever he can find (ἀναγκόσιτος). κατὰ τύχην On κατὰ τύχην, see Thuc. 3.49.4; Xen. Hell. 3.4.13; Plut. Alex. 63.3. The unknown person who brings home a force-fed young slave did not plan to do so. This seems to be a matter of chance (κατὰ τύχην) and the same observation applies to the events that stem from it. It is not clear what is the context within which this expression operates. τύχη represents an agency that is completely out

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 31)

195

of control (see Soph. Ant. 1158–1160 τύχη γὰρ ὀρθοῖ καὶ τύχη καταρρέπει / τὸν εὐτυχοῦντα τόν τε δυστυχοῦντ᾽ εί· / καὶ μάντις οὐδεὶς τῶν καθεστώτων βροτοῖς; OT 977–978 τί δ᾽ ἂν φοβοῖτ᾽ ἄνθρωπος ὧι τὰ τῆς τύχης / κρατεῖ, πρόνοια δ᾽ ἐστὶν οὐδενὸς σαφής with Finglass 2018, 465; ΟΤ 1080 ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν παῖδα τῆς Τύχης νέμων with Finglass 2018, 490; Eur. Ion 1512–1514 ὦ μεταβαλοῦσα μυρίους ἤδη βροτῶν / καὶ δυστυχῆσαι καὖθις αὖ πρᾶξαι καλῶς / τύχη; Chaeremon fr. 2 TrGF I τύχη τὰ θνητῶν πράγματ᾽, οὐκ εὐβουλία). It thus stands a step further than “god”, who can be prayed to, asked, appeased, ingratiated through cult (Olson 1998, 249) and was often considered to be in opposition to divine authority (e. g. Aesch. Ag. 661–664; Eur. El. 890–891; Phoen. 1202, IA 1403; Diagoras fr. 738.4–5 PMG and in comedy e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 4; Alex. fr. 121 etc.). 2 ὑποσκαφιόκαρτον “with his hair sheared close in a bowl cut”. The word is a hapax legomenon in Greek literature. It is a triple compound (ὑπό + σκάφιον + κείρω), the second part of which designates a bowl or basin, the σκάφιον (which could be employed to indicate a type of hair-cut; see Ar. fr. 153) or σκαφίς (see Amyx 1958, 231–232; Sparkes 1975, 133; Austin / Olson 2004, 231); see also σκαφιόκουρον (Adesp. Com. fr. 193) with the same meaning. ὑποσκαφιόκαρτον describes a round-shaped haircut that leaves the hair on the top of the head. The word is attested in Ar. Thesm. 838 (σκάφιον ἀποκεκαρμένην) and Av. 806 (σὺ δὲ κοψίχωι γε σκάφιον ἀποτετιλμένωι with Dunbar 1995, 488). This haircut was appropriate for a slave (Schol. [R] οn Thesm. 838) and was anything but flattering as shown by the comparison with a plucked blackbird (κοψίχωι … ἀποτετιλμένωι) in the above passage. A haircut is often exploited in Greek comedy. In Ar. Ach. 849 (ἀποκεκαρμένος μοιχόν) the comic poet Cratinus, in his attempt to look young, is said to have fostered a hair-style which was known as the “adulterer’s cut” that was probably used by fashionable young men (cf. Vesp. 1342–1387; Eccl. 848–849; Plut. 959–1094; also Sommerstein 1980, 199). On other styles of hair-cut and shaving of hair in various parts of the body, see also Soph. fr. 473 TrGF IV (χειρόμακτρον ἐκκεκαρμένος); Pherecr. fr. 113.29 (τὰ ῥόδα κεκαρμέναι); Ar. Ach. 119 (πρωκτὸν ἐξυρημένε), Lys. 151 (δέλτα παρατετιλμέναι), Eccl. 724 (κατωνάκην τὸν χοῖρον ἀποτετιλμένας); Eup. fr. 313.2 (ἐξυρημένος σαβύττους with Olson 2016, 493–494); Hermipp. fr. 13 σύμβολον κεκαρμένος); on women’s shaving of pubic hair, see Bain 1982, 8–9. κεχλαμυδωμένον perf. part. of χλαμυδόομαι. The chlamys was a short cloak or mantle worn by cavalrymen (Xen. An. 7.4.4; Poll. 10.124), infantrymen (Antiph. fr. 17; Men. Asp. 88), heralds (Ar. Lys. 987 with Henderson 1987, 186), and ephebes (e. g. Theodor. PA 6.282.4; Mel. AP 7.468.2). The word was also used for the cloak of the king (e. g. Plut. Dem. 42.5), tragic actors (Luc. Iupp. trag. 41), or regular citizens (e. g. Dio Cass. 60.17.9). ἀναγκόσιτον “eating perforce, getting what one can” (LSJ s. v. ἀναγκόσιτος). Apart from Nicostratus, it is also attested in Crates (fr. 50), though neither the context nor the actual phraseology survives. Athenaeus, who is the source of

196

Nicostratus

both the Crates and the Nicostratus quotations, offers in the same context other compounds in -σιτος, like Philonides’ ἀπόσιτος (fr. 1.1) and Crobylus’ αὐτόσιτος (fr. 1.1). In contrast to ἀναγκόσιτος, ἀπόσιτος is not exclusively used for parasites (see e. g. Hippoc. Epid. 1.26.6; Heliod. 8.7; Luc. Hist. conscr. 21; Gal. 16.654). The text of Crobylus that reads παράσιτον αὐτόσιτον contains a nice jingle by means of the repetition of -σιτος in the two juxtaposed words.

fr. 32 K.–A. (33 K.) ἁλύσεις, καθετῆρας, δακτυλίους, βουβάλι᾽, ὄφεις, περισκελίδας, ἐλλέβορον 2 ἐλλέβορον codd. : ἐλλόβιον Syllburg assentiente Foerster

Chains, necklaces, rings, bracelets, serpent-like armlets, anklets, earring Clem. Alex. Paed. II 123.3 λέγει γοῦν ὁ κωμικὸς Νικόστρατος ἁλύσεις—ἐλλέβορον The comic poet Nicostratus says: chains—hellebore Poll. 5.99–100 περὶ τοῖς ποσὶ περισφύρια … περιπεζίδας … καὶ περισκελίδας· καὶ γὰρ τούτωι τῶι ὀνόματι κέχρηται Μένανδρος καὶ Νικόστρατος οἱ κωμωιδοδιδάσκαλοι Around their feet perisphyria … peripezides … and periskelides (all three words meaning “anklets”); for this is the name used by the comic poets Menander and Nicostratus

Meter Iambic Trimeter

rlrl w|lrl lrwl wlwr lrw⟨l xlwl⟩

Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 289; Meineke 1847 I, 639; Bothe 1855, 475; Kock 1884 II, 228; Blaydes 1896, 138; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43; PCG VII, 90–91; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630 Citation Context The citation comes from a section of Book 2 of Clement’s Paedagogus which is devoted to criticism of excessive fondness for jewels and gold ornaments. Adopting a Christian approach, Clement condemns the love of ornament that is against the fondness of virtue, since the former usurps the human body and downgrades it to something enjoying what is showy, lavish, and effeminate. It is at this point that Clement addresses women, who do not understand that by adorning their bodies with necklaces, rings, chains figuratively “imprison” themselves. To back up this claim, Clement focuses his attention on

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 32)

197

Greek language, mythology, and the literary tradition. He observes that in the Attic dialect the same word is employed for both necklaces and chains and reminds his readers of the story of Aphrodite’s adultery with Ares and the invisible fetters thrown around her. The reference to Nicostratus is anchored to Clement’s comparison of the serpent deceiving Eve to women using as bait the form of the serpent and making lampreys and serpents for decoration. The mention of Nicostratus is immediately followed by a quotation from Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae II (fr. 332.2–14 = Poll. vii. 95 who cites fr. 332.1–15) where an entire series of women’s ornaments and clothing are lavishly presented in catalogue form: “a razor, a mirror, scissors, wax, soap, / a hair-piece, purple stripes for gowns, headband, hair-bindings, / rouge—utter destruction!—white lead, / scented oil, a pumice-stone, a breastband, a hair-net, / a veil, orchil-rouge, necklaces, eyeliner, / an expressive Egyptian garment—medicine for insanity! —a hair-band, / a slip, a shawl, a fancy robe, a bordered robe, a long robe— / the stocks! the pit! —a robe with a purple edge, a curling-iron”).121 Text Sylburg emended the manuscript reading ἐλλέβορον into ἐλλόβιον (non vidi; see Meineke 1840 III, 289). Foerster (1920, 349–351 with examples), who does not refer to Sylburg at all, also argued in favor of ἐλλόβιον on the basis of the fact that in the extant literature ἐλλέβορος very often designates a herb, while it never means “ornament”. Foerster also argues that the use of ἐλλέβορος by Clement and Pollux does not go back directly to the text of Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae II, which neither of the two had read but to an entry in some encyclopedia or lexicon. The error in Clement must have also featured in his source, the παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία of Favorinus. Pollux repeated the mistake. Kassel-Austin adopt the manuscript reading ἐλλέβορον for two reasons: (a) it is unlikely Hesychius knows both the meanings “herb” and “ornament” with respect to ἐλλέβορος (s. v.), which corroborates the use of the word ἐλλέβορος in the sense “ornament” by Aristophanes and Nicostratus; (b) it is possible that the form ἐλλέβορος (which meant “herb”) started to be employed for a kind of earring, which recalled as far as its shape and type are concerned the herb hellebore (Meineke 1840 III, 289). This was common practice for various ornaments and jewels (e. g. βουβάλι(α) and ὄφεις in this fragment). Interpretation The speaker (perhaps a female referring to her own belongings? or a male referring to a female character who wears too many jewels?) enumerates various types of female jewelry. The sequence follows a dynamic spatial description on a vertical basis “top-bottom”, starting with the neck (chains and necklaces), moving downwards to the hands and arms (rings, bracelets, armlets), then further down to the feet (anklets), and finally returning in a sort of descriptive ring-form to the upper part of the body (earring). The list may have been much longer, especially if Nicostratus wanted to allude to Aristophanes’ 32 word-long list followed 121

Translation by Austin/Olson 2004, lxxviii.

198

Nicostratus

by a 20 word-long list of female ornaments and jewelry in Thesmophoriazusae II fr. 332.1–8 and 332.10–14 respectively (see Austin/Olson 2004, lxxviii–lxxix with further bibliography). 1 ἁλύσεις “chains” are a typical women’s ornament (Poll. 10.167 ἡ δὲ ἅλυσις … ἐπὶ τοῦ γυναικείου κόσμου ὀνόμασται παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει); see Ar. fr. 332.6.12; IG II2 1388.85 (σφραγῖδε ὑα[λίνα ποι]- | κίλα :||: περικεχρυσωμέναι ἁλύσες χρυσᾶς ἔχοσαι). καθετῆρας “necklaces’”. The word is used extremely rarely in this sense; see IG XI 287 B 68 from Delos, 3rd century BC (καθετὴρ χρυσοῦς ὃν ἀνέθηκε βασίλισσα Στρατονίκη βασιλέως Δημητρίου θυγάτηρ τῆι Λητοῖ). It is interchangeable with κάθεμα (LXX Is. 3.18–19 ἐν τῆι ἡμέραι ἐκείνηι καὶ ἀφελεῖ Κύριος τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἱματισμοῦ αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς κόσμους αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἐμπλόκια καὶ τοὺς κοσύμβους καὶ τοὺς μηνίσκους καὶ τὸ κάθεμα καὶ τὸν κόσμον τοῦ προσώπου αὐτῶν), written κάθημα in Antiph. fr. 309 (= Poll. 5.98 καὶ ὡς Ἀντιφάνης κ ά θ η μ α· ἐκάλουν δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ καθετῆρα). See also Hsch. κ 125 s. v. κάθεμα· ὁ κατὰ στήθους ὅρμος (also in Ezech. 16.11). δακτυλίους “rings”, “signets”; see Sapph. or Alc. fr. inc. auct. 5a Voigt (†δ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἄν μοι† μεγαλύνεο δακτυλίωι πέρι); Hdt. 2.38.3 (καὶ ἔπειτα γῆν σημαντρίδα ἐπιπλάσας ἐπιβάλλει τὸν δακτύλιον); Ar. Plut. 884 (τὸν δακτύλιον τονδὶ παρ᾽ Εὐδάμου δραχμῆς; a rather expensive ring) and fr. 332.12 (σφραγῖδας, ἁλύσεις, δακτυλίους, καταπλάσματα); Pl. Resp. 359e (περὶ δὲ τῆι χειρὶ χρυσοῦν δακτύλιον ὄν⟨τα⟩ περιελόμενον ἐκβῆναι etc.). βουβάλι᾽ “bracelets”; see Diph. fr. 58 (βουβάλια καρπῶν παρθένου φορήματα); Et. Gen. AB (Et. Magn. p. 206.15; Et. Sym. β 165) s. v. βουβάλιον· κόσμος χρυσοῦς περιτιθέμενος τῶι καρπῶι; Poll. 5.99 (περὶ δὲ τοὺς καρποὺς … βουβάλια); Hsch. β 870 (βουβάλιον· γυναικὸς κοσμάριον). The etymology of this word is obscure. βουβάλιον means “wild cucumber” ([Diosc.] 4.150a and Hipp. apud Hsch. s. v. βουβάλιον) and its formation from the prefix βου- and βάλλω seems like folk-etymologizing. Whatever is the real origin of this word, the sense “bracelet” may have been due to the fact that their shape reminded one of the abovementioned plant (the wild cucumber); on an analogy, see the plant name δακτυλῖτις (based on δάκτυλος) used for the ἀριστολόχεια μακρά because its root resemble a finger ([Diosc.] 3.4). Chantraine (s. v.) draws also attention to βούβαλις (“African antilope”) which according to Robert (1963, 24–30) may be connected to a jewel or a precious object that could have the form of an antelope or an antelope’s bust. Hsch. (β 948) glosses βουπαλίδες with περισκελίδες, which means that the variant βουπάλινα (ID 442, 443, 444, 461) of βουβάλια (bracelets) was transferred to a type of anklets of similar shape. ὄφεις “serpent-like armlet”, used in this sense like δράκων (Luc. Αm. 41 τοὺς περὶ καρποῖς καὶ βραχίοσι δράκοντας); see Men. fr. 292.1–2 (τοὺς ὄφεις καλῶς γε μοι / ἠγόρασας); Philostr. Ep. 22 (καὶ οἱ ἐπικάρπιοι ὄφεις καὶ αἱ χρυσαῖ πέδαι Θαΐδος

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 33)

199

καὶ Λαΐδος καὶ Ἀρισταγόρας φάρμακα). According to Moer. p. 205.26 Bekker 1833 (ὄφεις Ἀττικοὶ τὰ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι ψέλια), ὄφεις is the Attic rendering of what the other Greeks called ψέλια (mostly in the plural), a term employed for both armlets and anklets (e. g. Hdt. 4.168.1 ψέλιον περὶ ἑκατέρηι τῶν κνημέων; Xen. An. 1.2.27 ἵππον χρυσοχάλινον καὶ στρεπτὸν χρυσοῦν καὶ ψέλια καὶ ἀκινάκην χρυσοῦν καὶ στολὴν Περσικήν). See also Poll. 5.99 (καὶ ὄφεις καὶ ψέλια); Hsch. ο 1947 (τὰ δρακοντώδη γινόμενα ψέλλια); Phot. o 703 (ὄφεις· ψέλια δρακοντωτά). 2 περισκελίδας “anklets”; see Men. fr. 618 (= Poll. 2.194: Μένανδρος καὶ περισκελίδας εἴρηκε φορεῖν τὰς κόρας; Poll. 5.99–100 περὶ τοῖς ποσὶ περισφύρια … περιπεζίδας … καὶ περισκελίδας), cf. Adesp. Com. fr. 1084.27 (perhaps by Menander) καὶ περιδέραια καὶ περισκελὶς [μ]ί̣α. According to Μοer. p. 208.19 Bekker, Attic authors used the term πέδη, whereas the rest of the Greeks the word περισκελίς; see also Hor. Epist. 1.17.56 (“saepe periscelidem raptam sibi flentis [meretrices]?”). ἐλλέβορον The word means “hellebore”, either white (ἑλλέβορος λευκός) or black (ἑλλέβορος μέγας) that is the real hellebore, but here it is employed for “earring”, perhaps as a joke (so Chantraine s. v. ἑλλέβορος); see Ar. fr. 332.6 (τρυφοκαλάσιριν, ἐλλέβορον, κεκρύφαλον); Hsch. ε 2147 (ἐλλέβορος· κόσμος γυναικεῖος χρυσοῦς); Phot. ε 641 (ἐλλέβορος· κοσμάριόν τι οὕτω καλεῖται). On its use as a term identical to ἐλλόβιον, see above, “Text”.

fr. 33 K.–A. (35 K.) νὴ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην, ὦ ξένη, βλοσυράν γε τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχεις 2 τὴν ψυχὴν codd. : τὴν τέχνην Cobet

Yea by Aphrodite, o female stranger, you have a burly soul Eust. 677.4 van der Valk οἱ δὲ παλαιοὶ βλοσυρόν φασι καὶ τὸ σεμνόν, παρ᾽ οἷς καὶ χρῆσις Νικοστράτου φέρεται αὕτη· νὴ — ἔχεις What is solemn is burly say the ancients, among whom we find this use (of the word blosyros) by Nicostratus: yea — you have

Meter Iambic Trimeter ⟨xlw⟩l llwl

llwl rlwl llwl ⟨xlwl⟩

200

Nicostratus

Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 290; Meineke 1847 I, 640; Bothe 1855, 475; Cobet 1858, 74; Kock 1884 II, 229; Blaydes 1896, 138; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43; PCG VII, 91; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630–631 Citation Context The fragment is cited in Eustathius’ commentary on the Iliad. It falls within the analysis of the word βλοσυρός, which is discussed by Eustathius in his comment on Il. 7.212 (μειδιόων βλοσυροῖσι προσώπασι). The commentator interprets βλοσυρός as indicating δεινότητα προσώπου (“harshness of face/ look”), like βλοσυρωπός (“grim-looking”). He then refers to ancient poets (οἱ δὲ παλαιοί), who treated βλοσυρός as a synonym of σεμνός (“grave and solemn”). On this interpretation of βλοσυρός, see e. g. Et. Magn. 201.6–8 (βλοσυρός· καταπληκτικός, φοβερός, δεινός· παρὰ τὸ σοβαρῶς καὶ ἐπηρμένως λεύσσειν ἢ βλέπειν. οἱ δὲ λαμπρός, ἢ χαλεπός· ἄλλοι, σεμνός); Suda β 347 (βλοσυρός· ἀξιωματικός, καταπληκτικός, φοβερός, σεμνός). Text Cobet (1858, 74) emended the manuscript reading ψυχὴν into τέχνην. His emendation is based on the common scribal confusion between ψυχή and τύχη (e. g. Men. fr. 687 ἀδύνατον ὡς ἔστιν τι σῶμα τῆς Τύχης and fr. 709.2 τί σαυτὸν ἀδικῶν τὴν Τύχην καταιτιᾶι [in which Τύχης and Tύχην are successful emendations of the transmitted readings ψυχῆς and ψυχήν respectively]; Philem. fr. 137 ὅσα διὰ τοὺς πράττοντας αὐτοὺς γίγνεται, / οὐδενὶ πρόσεστιν οὐδὲ κοινωνεῖ τύχη [τύχη being an emendation by Grotius of the manuscript reading ψυχή]), which is facilitated by the confusion between the letters ψ and τ (see Porson 1829, 51 on Eur. Med. 553 where εὐτυχέστερον instead of the reading εὐψυχέστερον of L is explained), and the less common but existing confusion between τύχη and τέχνη (e.g. Andoc. 4.26 Διομήδης ἦλθε ζεῦγος ἵππων ἄγων Ὀλυμπίαζε … λογιζόμενος τοὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς ἱππικοὺς τύχηι [τέχνηι Schiller, Cobet; τιμῆι Sluiter] τοὺς πλείστους κρινομένους). Such a process, as Cobet himself acknowledges, is grounded on a double error: τέχνη > τύχη > ψυχή. Following on this emendation, Cobet suspects that the ξένη addressed at the end of verse 1 is a female pimp, hence the invocation of Aphrodite (νὴ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην). Kassel-Austin do not endorse Cobet’s emendation and keep the manuscript reading ψυχήν, probably because of the unlikelihood of both the double-error process and the fact that βλοσυρός modifies one’s looks (cf. e. g. Il. 7.212 μειδιόων βλοσυροῖσι προσώπασι, 15.607–608 τὼ δέ οἱ ὄσσε / λαμπέσθην βλοσυρῆισιν ὑπ᾽ ὀφρύσιν; Hom. Hymn 2.52 βλοσυρώτατον ὄμμα; see Rengakos 1992, 34) and in extension a person as a whole (e. g. Pl. Tht. 149 μαίας μάλα γενναίας τε καὶ βλοσυρᾶς, Φαιναρέτης). Differently, Porson (1829,67 [on Eur. Med. 722]), who argues in favor of the emendation of εὐδαιμονίας into εὐψυχίας in Eur. Hel. 961 by means of a double-error process, i.e. involving first a corruption of εὐψυχίας into εὐτυχίας because of the similarity of the letters ψ and τ which are often written in the manuscripts as +, and second by the replacement of εὐτυχίας by εὐδαιμονίας due to the coincidence in meaning. Eustathius, who is the source for this fragment of Nicostratus and testifies to the meaning σεμνός among ancient authors, corroborates the authenticity of the transmitted reading since the

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 33)

201

soul rather than the τέχνη can be σεμνή. Moreover, the reference in Plato (Tht. 149) is further helpful, since it is immediately followed by a reference to τέχνη (ΘΕΑΙ. ἤδη τοῦτό γε ἤκουσα / ΣΩ. ἆρα καὶ ὅτι ἐπιτηδεύω τὴν αὐτὴν τέχνην ἀκήκοας;). This entire passage shows that it is a person who can be βλοσυρός/-ά and not his or hers profession (τέχνη). Interpretation The combination of the invocation of Aphrodite, the address to the female stranger, and the designation of her profession as burly have made Cobet (1858, 74), who reads τέχνην instead of ψυχήν, suggest that the unknown female addressed in this fragment of Nicostratus is a pimp (“lena erat, ut suspicor”). Even if Cobet’s emendation is not accepted, his claim about the identity of the stranger may be correct. Pimps were unknown in Old Comedy but were frequently employed in Middle Comedy (e. g. Philippides’ Mastropos, Dioxippus’ Antipornoboskos and Eubulus’ Pornoboskos) as standard “character-types” (like the soldier, the young lover, the parasite, the cook, the merchant, the rustic, the hetaira etc.); see Nesselrath 1990, 323–325, 329; Arnott 2010, 311–315; Henderson 2014, 193, 201, 208. If so, this fragment contains someone’s address to a female pimp of foreign origin and could have been uttered by a hetaira (analogously to a similar address spoken by a hetaira in Phoenic. fr. 4.1, see below, discussion of l. 1). 1 νὴ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην On νή/μά + accusative of the god or goddess sworn, see the commentary above, on Nicostratus frr. 25.1 (μὰ τὸν Δία) and 29.2 (νὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν). The reference to Aphrodite may have a special bearing, if the female stranger addressed (ὦ ξένη) is a pimp, as argued by Cobet (1858, 74). In Phoenicides (fr. 4.1.), the person who uses the expression μὰ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην is a hetaira (the name of her addressee, Πυθιάς [line 2] designates a hetaira in Asclepiades HE 867; Posidippus HE 3066; Luc. Dial. meret. 12; Aristaen. Epist. 1.12 (cf. 1.19 and 2.2; in Ter. Eun. the name Pythias is employed for a female servant). In this light, the reference to Aphrodite may contain an ironical tinge, since the goddess of love is not associated with “having a burly soul” (βλοσυράν γε τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχεις). For a similar effect, see Men. Epitr. 480, where “a hetaira swears by the goddess of sexual love and protector of hetairai in order to ascertain her virginity. This is quick, witty, and well-calculated humour, at a moment where the suspense is very high” (Bathrellou 2008, 59), 480; see also Men. Perik. 991, where the oath is aptly used in its context, since Doris declares that Glycera is about to return to her love-affair (Furley 2015, 175). On the analogy of Phoenicid. fr. 4.1., the speaker in Nicostratus fr. 33 may be commenting on the female stranger’s masculine soul that reminds one of a male pimp who is concerned with making money by exploiting hetairai. The aforementioned fragment of Phoenicides is a good example of a comical replay of a hetaira’s main concern, i.e. making money, since after abandoning the life of a whore she realizes that no “male friend” can pay for her living. ὦ ξένη ξένε/ξένη (“stranger, guest”) is a form of indefinite address like ἄνθρωπε (“human being”), οὗτος/οὗτοι/αὗται (“this one”), τᾶν (?), μέλε (?). Words belong-

202

Nicostratus

ing to this class of nouns have no precise lexical meaning or no lexical meaning at all (τᾶν and μέλε). Among these terms ξένος/ξένη has the most precise lexical meaning. Although it could be employed as a family term, when it has the meaning of guest-friend, it is not used in this way. It is the most widely employed of all singular addresses catalogued by Dickey (1996, 146), mainly because of Plato, who uses it extremely often in the Laws. As far as their use is concerned, ξένε/ξένη are nearly always (exceptions [used for two people who are both abroad or one of whom is traveling]: Hdt. 9.16.4; Pl. Symp. 204c) employed by a person who is native of the place in which the dialogue occurs to an addressee who is not native of this place but comes from somewhere else. If Dickey’s observations are applied to Greek comedy (where ξένε/ξένη are very rarely attested; see Wendel 1929, 93–95), then it is possible that the speaker in our fragment fr. 33 knew something about the person addressed, perhaps her name too, and had being engaged in dialogue for some time. It is unlikely that this ξένη was well known to the speaker. See Dickey 1996, 145–149 and the relevant table in 283–284. 2 βλοσυράν The word is employed as early as Homer to describe one’s looks (e. g. Il. 7.212, 15.607–608) and this use is also attested in later authors (e. g. Theocr. 24.118 βλοσυρῶι ἐπέκειτο προσώπωι). In the Hesiodic corpus it is used both for divinities (Φόβος: Asp. 147; Κῆρες: Asp. 250) and various animals (lions: Asp. 175; horses: 191). Other authors employ it to modify notions (ἄγος: Aesch. Eum. 167) or objects (κύματα: Antiphanes in AP 9.84.2; Bian. in AP 9.287.6). The meaning “virile”, “burly” which pertains to this fragment of Nicostratus is also attested in Pl. Resp. 535b (γενναίους τε καὶ βλοσυροὺς [sc. ἄνδρας] τὰ ἤθη), Pl. Tht. 149 (ΣΩ. εἶτα, ὦ καταγέλαστε, οὐκ ἀκήκοας ὡς ἐγώ εἰμι ὑὸς μαίας μάλα γενναίας τε καὶ βλοσυρᾶς, Φαιναρέτης; … ΣΩ. ἆρα καὶ ὅτι ἐπιτηδεύω τὴν αὐτὴν τέχνην ἀκήκοας;), Dio Cass. 62.2 (βλοσυρωτάτη τὸ εἶδος). For the meaning “solemn”, “dignified”, see e. g. Ael. VH 12.21 (σεμνὸν καὶ βλοσυρὸν ὁρᾶν), Aristaen. 1.7 (σεμνὴ καὶ βλοσυρά). fr. 34 K.–A. (36 K.) ἐδιακόνεις;

εἰπέ μοι, τίνι

2 ἐδιακόνεις codd. : δεδιακόνηκε Mervyn Jones

Tell me, whose servant were you? Zon. cod. Cahir. 217, nunc Alexandr. 360 (Alpers 1970) et Par. 2669 (An. Par. IV p. 114.9) ex Oro (fr. A 6a Alp.) Θουκυδίδης (7.77.2) δεδιήιτημαι καὶ Δημοσθένης (21.85, 21.96?) καταδεδιηιτημένον τὴν δίκην καὶ Νικόστρατος· εἰπέ — ἐδιακόνεις

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 34)

203

Zon. cod. Cahir. 217, now Alexandr. 360 and Par. 2669 (An. Par. IV p. 114.9) from Orus (fr. A 6a Alp.) Thucydides (7.77.2) “I have spent my life” and Demosthenes (21.85, 21.96?) “having given a judgement against” and Nicostratus: tell — were servant

Meter Iambic Trimeter ⟨xlwl xlw⟩l wrwl ⟨xlwl

wlwl xlwl⟩

Discussion Meineke 1847 I, 640; Bothe 1855, 475; Kock 1884 II, 229; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43; Mervyn Jones 1960, 203; PCG VII, 91; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 631 Citation Context Zonaras is drawing on the Atticist Lexicon of Oros (fr. A 6a Alp.) that offers a fuller version of the context for Nicostratus’ fragment: οὐ μὴν ἐν ἅπασί γε τοῖς συνθέτοις τὰς προθέσεις οἱ Ἀττικοὶ φυλάττουσι, ἀλλά εἰσιν ἀνώμαλοι καὶ ἐν τούτωι. ἐπεὶ οὖν πολλῶν ἀναδιπλοῦσι τὰς προθέσεις, λέγουσι γοῦν καὶ “δεδιακόνηκα” (Dem. 51.7) καὶ “δεδιώικηκα” καὶ ἄλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα. καὶ †τῆς ἄνευ† προθέσεως Θουκυδίδης (7.77.2) “δεδιήιτημαι” καὶ Δημοσθένης (21.96?) “καταδεδιηιτημένον τὴν δίκην” καὶ Νικόστρατος (fr. 34) “εἰπέ μοι, τίνι / ἐδιακόνεις;”. λέγουσι δὲ καὶ “ἠγγύησε” καὶ “κατηγγύησεν” καὶ Εὐριπίδης (fr. 1104 TrGF V 2) “ἐπροξένει” καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης “ἐπροτίμων” (fr. 820) καὶ Ἡρόδοτος “ἐσυνείθικας”. καίτοι οἱ γραμματικοί φασιν “αἱ προθέσεις οὐκ ἀναδιπλοῦνται”. Τhe citation context makes it amply clear that the discussion is about prepositions used in compound words. Attic authors sometimes differ from non-Attic writers with respect to the placement of the augment and the reduplication of the preposition: δεδιακόνηκα and δεδιώικηκα, δεδιήιτημαι and ἐδιακόνεις, κατηγγύησεν and ἐπροξένει. Text Taking issue with the manuscript reading ἐδιακόνεις, Mervyn Jones criticizes Edmonds (and all previous editors) who had failed to notice that the citation context is about reduplication. In this light he emended the transmitted form into δεδιακόνηκε, thus changing not only the tense (imperfect to perfect) but also the person (second to third). Kassel-Austin rightly keep the reading of the tradition because of the following reasons: (a) ἐδιακόνεις and the verb διακονέω are cited by various ancient grammarians and lexicographers in the context of the discussion of the augment and reduplication which Attic authors sometimes placed before the preposition of compound verbs instead of or apart from placing it between the preposition and the simple verb (Choerob. in Theodos. Can. GrGr IV 2 p. 56.9 Hilg. ἰστέον ὅτι παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπὸ προθέσεως ἀρχομένων ἔστιν ὅτε ἔξωθεν γίνεται ἡ κλίσις, οἷον ἀντιδικῶ ἠντιδίκουν, διακονῶ ἐδιακόνουν καὶ δεδιακόνηκα) (b) the form ἐδιακόνουν (i.e. the same tense as in our fragment here) is used by another Middle Comedy poet (Alcaeus fr. 13 in his play Endymion = Antiatt. p. 91.17), thus setting a working analogy for the use of ἐδιακόνεις by Nicostratus (c) the form ἐδιακόνεις with external augment is also attested in another comic fragment quoted by Pap. Colon. 203 (V p. 9) C I 16 (d) compound verbs with external

204

Nicostratus

augment, i.e. placed before the initial preposition, are also attested in Euripides (fr. 1104 TrGF V 2 ἐπροξένει) and Aristophanes (fr. 820 ἐπροτίμων). The perfect δεδιακόνηκα is attested in Arched. III 277 fr. 3.8 (the ms. A of Ath. 7.294c reads δὲ διηκόνηκεν, ms. P gives δὲ διακόνηκεν, while Valckenaer and Meineke emend into δεδιηκόνηκεν and Kock into δεδιακόνηκεν). On a discussion of the augment and reduplication of διακονέω, see Lautensach 1899, 145–146. Interpretation A snippet of a dialogue where an unknown speaker is addressing a servant, male or female, asking him/her about the name of his/her master. The use of the verb διακονέω implies that the speaker’s addressee is either a cook or a slave (see below). In the grounds of a single fragment, it is impossible to argue in favor or against the possibility that the servant addressed here was instrumental to the core of the plot. Slaves have their history in Old Comedy too, since they are either used as mute characters (often anonymous) or addressed by name only to perform a task (e. g. Ar. Ach. 395–402, 432–434, 958–968, 1174–1189; Eq. 1–497; Pax 1–113, 824–1126; Nub. 56–58, 133–221; Av. 60-84; Thesm. 36–70; Ran. 464–478, 650–671, 738–813). With Middle Comedy, slave characters acquire discernible characteristics, paving the way for their regular role in New Comedy; see Arnott 2010, 322–324; Zimmermann 2014, 147–148. ἐδιακόνεις The verb διακονέω is not attested before the fifth century BC. It is more often employed in prose (Hdt. 4.154.3; Pl. Resp. 371d, Plt. 290a; Dem. 19.69, 51.7) than poetry (Soph. Phil. 287; Ar. Ach. 1017, Av. 1323). In Aristophanes it is employed together with ὡς + adverb (Ar. Ach. 1015–1017 ἤκουσας ὡς μαγειρικῶς / κομψῶς τε καὶ δειπνητικῶς / αὐτῶι διακονεῖται; Av. 1323 ὡς βλακικῶς διακονεῖς). It is used with references to servants and cooks (Ar. Av. 1253–1255 τῆς διακόνου / … ἀνατείνας τὼ σκέλει διαμηριῶ / τὴν Ἶριν αὐτήν; Ach. 1015–1017). Its augment is either external (ἐδιακόνουν, ἐδιακονήθην) or internal (διηκόνουν, διηκονούμην). Its reduplication in the perfect and future-perfect is regularly external (δεδιακόνηκα, δεδιακόνημαι, δεδιακονήσομαι).

fr. 35 K.–Α. (37 K.) Harp. p. 10.16 Dindorf = A 33 Keaney (ex epit. Phot. α 385 = Sud. α 524 s. v. Ἀδράστεια, ubi ὡς μὴ διαφέρουσαν legitur [cf. Strab. 13.1.13; Eust. 355.22–26] = Lex. Bachm. p. 28, 15) Ἀδράστειαν˙ οἱ μὲν τὴν αὐτὴν λέγουσι τῆι Νεμέσει, λαβεῖν τε τοὔνομα ἀπὸ Ἀδράστου τινὸς βασιλέως ἢ ἀπὸ Ἀδράστου τοῦ Ταλαοῦ νεμεσηθέντος ἐφ᾽ οἷς τῶν Θηβαίων κατηλαζονεύσατο, ⟨εἶτα⟩ ἔκ τινων μαντειῶν ἱδρυσαμένου ἱερὸν Νεμέσεως, ὃ προσαγορευθῆναι μετὰ ταῦτα Ἀδραστείας, ὡς Ἀντίμαχος (fr. 53Wyss) ἐν τούτοις δηλοῖ˙ … ἔνιοι μέντοι ὡς διαφέρουσαν συγκαταλέγουσιν αὐτὴν τῆι Νεμέσει, ὡς Μένανδρος (fr. 226) καὶ Νικόστρατος. Δημήτριος δὲ ὁ Σκήψιος (fr. 18 Gaede) Ἄρτεμίν φησιν εἶναι τὴν Ἀδράστειαν, ὑπὸ Ἀδράστους τινὸς ἱδρυμένην.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 36)

205

Adrasteia; some writers make her the same as Nemesis, [saying] she has been named either after a king whose name was Adrastus, or after Adrastus [the Argive king] who resented Talaus for bragging against the Thebans and then following some oracles built a temple of Nemesis, who was then called Adrasteia, as is shown by Antimachus in the following; …. some others group her [Adrasteia] in the same list with Nemesis but consider it different, for instance Menander and Nicostratus. Demetrius of Scepsis says Adrasteia is a name for Artemis, a shrine of whom has been built by a certain Adrastus.

Meter Ἀδράστειαν scans llwl which could have been accommodated in iambic trimeter. Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 291; Meineke 1847 I, 640; Kock 1884 II, 229; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43; PCG VII, 91; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630–631 Citation Context From a note on a word found in Antimachus, Menander, Nicostratus, and Demetrius of Scepsis; taken over from the Epitome of Harpocation at Phot. α 385. Intrepretation “Adrasteia” is a Mother-Goddess associated with Phrygia and worshipped by the Greeks from an early age. In the Phoronis, the “Idaean Dactyls” are described as “ingenious servants of Adrasteia of the mountains”122 (εὐπάλαμοι θεράποντες ὀρείης Ἀδρηστείης) (fr. 2.4 GEF ) and in Aeschylus’ Niobe, Tantalus refers to the country of the Berecyntians (a Phrygian tribe), where “the territory of Adrasteia and Mount Ida resound with the lowing and bleating of livestock, and all of the Erechthean plain”123 (fr. 158.2–4 Βερέκυντα χώραν, ἔνθ᾽ Ἀδραστείας ἕδος / Ἴδη τε μυκηθμοῖσι καὶ βληχήμασιν / βρέμουσι μήλων, πᾶν τ᾽ Ἐρέχθειον πέδον). Antimachus identified her with Nemesis, but Nicostratus and Menander did not. In Athens, her cult was established before 429/428 BC, and she was considered a “treasurer of the other gods” (OCD s. v. Adrasteia. See also Parker 1996, 195–197). It is impossible to know the exact way Nicostratus used “Adrasteia” in a play.

fr. 36 K.–A. (38 K.) Phot. ζ 48 (ΙΙ 245 Theodoridis) ζιγγοῦν˙ τὸ ὑποπίνειν Κίλικες. οὕτως Νικόστρατος. ziggoun (“humming”); the Cilicians [use it to denote] to drink little by little; as does Nicostratus.

Meter ζιγγοῦν scans ll which could have been accommodated in any iambic, trochaic, or dactylic meter. The writing ζιγοῦν found in the Antiatt. 98.6 (see below, “Interpretation”) could make Nicostratus’ spelling of the word with two –γ– a 122 123

Translation by Tsagalis 2017, 404. Translation by Sommerstein 2008, 167.

206

Nicostratus

targeted metrical choice (in order to turn the short –ι into long), but this is only an assumption. Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 290; Meineke 1847 I, 640; Bothe 1855, 475; Kock 1884 II, 229; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43; PCG VII, 91; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630–631; Frisk s. v. ζίγγος Interpretation The noun ζίγγος is an echo-mimetic word denoting the sound of the humming bees (ὁ τῶν μελισσῶν ἦχος, ἢ τῶν ὁμοίων, Hsch. s. v. ζίγγος). The verb ζιγγόω, is also echo-mimetic, obviously resembling the sound of someone sipping a liquid in small sips (ὑποπίνειν) while sucking it. According to Blumenthal it is a word of the Macedonian dialect that could be related to the gothic word siggwan, meaning to “sing” (Blumenthal 1892, 179; see also Frisk s. v. ζίγγος). The same information regarding the Cilicians is also given in the Ἀντιαττικιστής (98.6 ζιγοῦν ἀντὶ τοῦ πίνειν Κίλικες λέγουσιν), but there the spelling of the verb is ζιγοῦν, leaving the –ι short, and not forcing it into a long before the double –γγ as it happens with ζιγγοῦν. We have no information in what context Nicostratus used the word. fr. 37 K.–A. (39 K.) Phot. σ 551 (ΙΙΙ 395 Theodoridis) στήριγγα (στήριγμα g z et Poll. 10.157 [codd. ABLFS]; στήριγγα Poll. cod. C recte [apud Phot. coniecerant Alberti, Hesch. c 1830 et Kock 1884, 229]; στήριγ†μ†α Theodoridis)˙ τὸ ὑποτιθέμενον τῆι ἁμάξηι δίκρουν. οὕτως Νικόστρατος stērigga (“fork”); the forked piece that is placed under the wagon. Hence Nicostratus

Meter στήριγγα scans as llw which could belong to any iambic, trochaic, or dactylic meter. Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 290; Meineke 1847 I, 640; Bothe 1855, 475; Kock 1884 II, 229; Blaydes 1896, 138; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43; PCG VII, 92; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630–631 Text The manuscript tradition of Photius as well as some of the codices of Pollux read στήριγμα, while a codex of Pollux reads στήριγγα, leading to the correction of Photius’ text by Kock. στήριγγα is the correct reading not only because it is a lectio difficilior, but also because it is the word corresponding to Photius’ description better than the more common στήριγμα. Interpretation Photius describes στήριγξ as type of δίκρους which is placed under a wagon. δίκρους is a anything fork-shaped / cloven (e. g. Arist. PA 660b6 with reference to a serpent’s tongue; Eur. El. 775 for a road for two carriages). στήριγξ is therefore the “fork with which the shaft or pole of a two-wheeled chariot was propped, until the beasts were yoked to it” (LSJ s. v. στήριγξ ΙΙ). Almost identical

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 39)

207

is the definition given by Hesychius (σ 1830 Hansen στήριγγες˙ ἐρείσματα. οἱ δὲ τὸ δίκρουν, ὅπερ ὑποτιθέασι τῶι τῆς ἁμάξης ζυγῶι. οἱ δὲ βάκτρον), and of similar meaning are the references in Poll. 10.157 (=Lys. fr. 330 S.), Xen. Eq. 1.5. We have no information in what context Nicostratus used the word.

fr. 38 K.–A. (42 K.) Phot. σ 623 (ΙΙΙ 403 Theodoridis) (= Et. Gen. AB [Et. Magn. p. 730.21]) στρηνόν˙ οἱ μὲν τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ ἀνατεταμένον. Νικόστρατος δὲ τὸ τραχὺ καὶ πρόσαντες τῆι ἀκοῆι φθέγμα strēnon (“sharp”); some (say it is) the sharp and stretched out (in the musical scale). Nicostratus (says it is) the voice which is sharp and distasteful to hear

Meter Unknown (lw) Discussion Meineke 1847 I, 640; Bothe 1855, 475; Kock 1884 II, 230; Blaydes 1896, 139; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43; PCG VII, 92; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630–631 Citation Context A reference word drawn from the common source of Photius, also joined by the Et. Gen. and Et. Magn. Interpretation The lemma concerns a word with two meanings, according to the lexicographers. Apart from the meaning of “sharp” used as “sharp to the ear” by Nicostratus (as found in this fragment), Hesychius also communicates the meaning of “rough” (Hsch. σ 2003 στρηνὸν βοᾶν ˙ τὸ σκληρόν. cf. also σ 2000 στρηνές˙ σαφές. ἰσχυρόν. τραχύ. στυγνόν. ὀξύ. ἀνατετα[γ]μένον. στρηνόν; see also AP 7.287.3 στρηνὲς φωνεῦσα [θάλασσα]; AP 6.350.1–3 σάλπιγξ στρηνὲς φθεγξαμένη). There are no compounds with στρηνο–, other than Callias fr. 37 (apud Poll. II 112) στρηνόφωνος παρᾶ Καλλίαι τῶι (καλλίστωι Α) κωμικῶι, most possibly designating an actor with a shrill or rough voice (see Bagordo 2014a, 212–213). On the different aspects of the acoustic/sensory dimension of Greek Comedy see Wille 2001, 347–431. We have no information in what context Nicostratus used the word.

fr. 39 K.–A. (40 K.) Phot. τ 57 (ΙΙΙ 444 Theodoridis) (= Et. Gen. AB [Et. Magn. p. 746.14] = Sud. τ 111) ταραντῖνον˙ λεπτὸν καὶ διαφανὲς ἱμάτιον, οὐ πάντως πορφυροῦν, ὥς τινες (defic. Et. Gen.) ὑπέλαβον (defic. Et. Magn.). οὕτως Νικόστρατος. tarantinon (“light garment”); a thin and diaphanous garment, not necessarily, as some have taken it, purple. So Nicostratus.

208

Nicostratus

Meter Unknown. Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 290–291; Meineke 1847 I, 640; Bothe 1855, 475; Kock 1884 II, 229; Blaydes 1896, 139; Edmonds 1959 II, 42–43; PCG VII, 92; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630–631 Citation Context The lemma has four lexicographical occurrences, apparently all drawing from the same source. Interpretation In Men. Epitr. 489, the term designates a thin, diaphanous garment. The diminutive ταραντινίδιον (Luc. Dial. meretr. 70.2) also corresponds to a thin, luxurious fabric, like the one worn by the women of Taras. We have no information in what context Nicostratus used the word.

fr. 40 K.–A. (dubium) (41 K.) Schol. Eur. Phoen. 1010 (I p. 355.13 Schwartz) Σωσιφάνης ὁ τραγικὸς (TrGF I 92 fr. 4) ὑπὸ τοῦ Λαΐου φησὶ τεθνηκέναι τὸν Μενοικέα, Νικόστρατος (Νικοκράτης Hecker [376 fr. 7 Jac.]; Νικόμαχος [Muller 1851, 466; TrGF I ad 36 test. 1 et 127 fr. 7]) δὲ ὑπὸ τῆς Σφιγγός The tragedian Sosiphanes says that Menoeceus was killed by Laius; Nicostratus, however, by the Sphinx

Meter Unknown. Discussion Meineke 1840 III, 291; Meineke 1847 I, 640; Muller 1851, 466; Kock 1884 II, 229; Edmonds 1959, 42–43; PCG VII, 92; Sanchis Llopis 2007, 630–631 Citation Context The fragment is a Scholion on Phoen. 1010. The speaker is Menoeceus, Creon’s son, who is announcing to the chorus his plan to take his own life and thus contribute to the salvation of the city of Thebes, according to the instructions of Teiresias (1009–1012 ἀλλ᾽ εἶμι καὶ στὰς ἐξ ἐπάλξεων ἄκρων / σφάξας ἐμαυτὸν σηκὸν ἐς μελαμβαθῆ / δράκοντος, ἔνθ᾽ ὁ μάντις ἐξηγήσατο / ἐλευθερώσω γαῖαν …). The scholiast comments on σφάξας ἐμαυτόν, reporting different versions of the myth, according to which Menoeceus is killed by Laius, or by the Sphinx. Interpretation According to this scholion, Nicostratus had Menoeceus killed by the Sphinx. No other direct or indirect information has been preserved in order to know the context or the play in which this event was staged. In Euripides, there is no doubt that Menoeceus kills himself following the instructions of Teiresias. According to the ancient scholiast, different versions of the myth also exist, with Sosiphanes and Nicostratus having Menoeceus be killed by Laius and the Sphinx respectively. The reference to Sosiphanes holds no doubts, but there is considerable discussion regarding the reference to Nicostratus. According to Schwartz’ s edi-

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 40)

209

tion, all codices (MTAB) offer the reading Νικόστρατος, and the reading has been accepted by all subsequent editors, with the exception of Hecker (who emends to Νικοκράτης apud 376 fr. 7 Jac.) and Mueller (who emends to Νικόμαχος (vid. Snell ad 36 Test. 1 et 127 fr. 7). However, there are doubts whether the Νικόστρατος mentioned is in fact our comic poet (see Kock 1884 II, 229, after Meineke 1840, 291; Meineke 1847, 640: “si tamen is comicus Nicostratus est”).

211

Abbreviations CEG CGL Chantraine CRF DGRBM EGM Et. Gen.

Et. Magn. Et. Sym. Frisk GDI GEF HE ΙD IEG Edmonds

Frisk Ghiron-Bistagne GP

Hansen, P. A. (ed.) (1983–1989) Carmina Epigraphica Graeca, vols. 1–2, Berlin / New York Lindemann, F. (ed.) (1831–1840) Corpus grammaticorum Latinorum veterum, vols. 1–4, Leipzig Chantraine, P. (20092) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Nouvelle édition, Paris Ribbeck, O. (ed.) (18973) Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta II. Comicorum Romanorum praeter Plautum et Terentium fragmenta, Lipsiae Smith, W., Sir (ed.) (1813–1893) A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, London Fowler, R. L. (ed.) (2000–2013) Early Greek Mythography, vols. 1–2, Oxford Lasserre, F. / Livadaras, N. (eds.) (1976–1992) Etymologicum Magnum Genuinum. Symeonis Etymologicum una cum Magna Grammatica. Etymologicum Magnum auctum, vols. 1–2 [α–β], Rome / Athens Calame, C. (ed.) (1970) Etymologicum Genuinum. Les citations de poètes lyriques, Rome Marcovigi, G. (1970) “Le citazioni dei lirici corali presso l’Etymologicum Genuinum – edizione comparata”, Quaderni Triestini per il lessico della lirica corale greca 1, 1–49 Gaisford, T. (ed.) (1848) Etymologicum Magnum, Oxford [one manuscript of the Etymologicum Symeonis–published as cod. Va– in:] Gaisford, T. (ed.) (1848) Etymologicum Magnum, Oxford Frisk, H. (1960–1972) Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Band I–III, Heidelberg Collitz, H. (1884–1915) Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, Göttingen West, M. L. (ed.) (2003) Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, Cambridge MA / London Gow, A. S. F. / Page, D. L. (eds.) (1965) The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, vols. 1–2, Cambridge Dürrbach, F. et al. (eds.) (1926–1972), Inscriptions de Délos, vols. 1–6, Paris West, M. L. (ed.) (1989-19922 [1st ed. 1971-1972]) Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, vols. 1–2, Oxford Edmonds, J. M. (1957–1961) The Fragments of Attic Comedy after Meineke, Bergk, and Kock, Argumented, Newly Edited with their contexts, Annotated, and completely Translated into English Verse, vols. 1–3 (in: 1957, 1959, 1961), Leiden Frisk, H. F. (1960–1972) Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, vols. 1–3, Heidelberg Ghiron-Bistagne, P. (1976) Recherches sur les acteurs dans la Grèce antique, Paris Denniston, J. D. (1996) [=19502] The Greek Particles, London / Indianapolis IN

212 GVI Kaibel Kock (K.) Lex. Bachm. LGPN II LIMC LSJ Meineke Millis / Olson Montanari NP OCD Olson PA PAA PCG (K.-A.) PMG RE SIG3 Smyth Stephanis SVF Tzetzes

Abbreviations Peek, W. (1955) Griechische Vers-Inschriften, vol. 1 (Grab-Epigramme), Berlin Kaibel, G. (1887) Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum Libri XV, vols. 1–2, Leipzig Kock, T. (1880–1888) Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, vols. 1–3 (in: 1880, 1884, 1888), Lipsiae Bachmann, L. (ed.) (1828) Anecdota Graeca, Leipzig Osborne, M. J. / Byrne, S. G. (1994) Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. 2: Attica, Oxford Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vols. 1–8 plus indexes (1981–1999), Zürich / Munich / Düsseldorf Liddell, H. G. / Scott, R. (19409) A Greek-English Lexicon9, rev. H. Stuart-Jones et al., Oxford Meineke, A. (1839–1857) Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, vols. 1–5 (in 7: 1839, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1857), Berolini Millis, B. W. / Olson, S. D. (2012) Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens. IG II2 2318–2325 and Related Texts, Leiden / Boston Montanari, F. (20133) Vocabolario della Lingua Greca, con la collaborazione di I. Garofalo e D. Manetti, Torino Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik / H. Schneider (2002–2010), Leiden / Boston Hornblower, S. / Spawforth, A. / Eidinow, E. (20124) Oxford Classical Dictionary4, Oxford Olson, S. D. (2006–2012) Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters Books I–XV, vols. 1–8, ed. and trans., Cambridge MA Kirchner, J. (1901–1903) Prosopographia Attica, vols. 1–2, Berlin Traill, J. (ed.) (1994-2016) Persons of Ancient Athens, Toronto Kassel, R. / Austin, C. (eds.) (1995-2001) Poetae comici Graeci, vols. 1–8 (in: 1995, 1989, 1998, 1986, 1983, 1984, 1991, 2001), Berlin / New York Page, D. L. (ed.) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung, begonnen von G. Wissowa, herausgegeben von W. Kroll (1894–2000), Stuttgart Dittenberger, W. (ed.) (19823) Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, Hildesheim Smyth, H. W. 1984 [=1920] Greek Grammar, Cambridge MA Stephanis, I. E. (1988) Διονυσιακοὶ Τεχνίται. Συμβολὲς στὴν Προσωπογραφία τοῦ Θεάτρου καὶ τῆς Μουσικῆς τῶν Ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων, Herakleion Arnim, J. v. (eds.) (1903–1924) Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, vols. 1–4, Leipzig Massa Positano, I. / Holwerda, I. D. / Koster, W. J. D (eds.) (1960–1964) Io. Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem, fasc. 1–4, Groningen.

213

Bibliography Adler, A. (1928–1938) Suidae Lexicon, vols. 1–5, Leipzig Adler, A. (1931) “Suidas (1)”, in: RE IVA.1, 675–717 Alpers, K. (1970) “Supplementa Comica”, Philologus 114, 144–145 Amigues, S. (2004) “Les plantes du ramassage dans l’alimentation gréco-romaine”, Pallas 64, 169–182 Amyx, D. A. (1958) “The Attic Stelai: Part III”, Hesperia 27, 163–310 André, J.-M. (1981) L’alimentation et la cuisine à Rome, Paris Andreau, J. (1968) “Banque grecque et banque romaine dans le théâtre de Plaute et de Terence”, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire (École française de Rome) 80, 461–516 Apostolakis, K. (2019) Timokles : Translation and Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 21), Göttingen Arnold, P. J. (1998) The Pornoboskos and Leno in Greek and Roman Comedy, Diss. Ph., Oxford Arnott, P. (1962) Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century, Oxford Arnott, W. G. (1968) “Studies in Comedy, I: Alexis and the Parasite’s Name”, GRBS 9, 161– 168 Arnott, P. (1991) “The Suda on Alexis”, in: Studi di filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco, vol. 1, 327–338, Palermo Arnott, W. G. (1996) Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary, Cambridge Arnott, W. G. (1997) “Final Notes on Menander’s Sikyonioi”, ZPE 118, 95–103 Arnott, W. G. (2001) “Some Orthographical Problems in the Papyri of Later Comedy I: πο(ι)εῖν (along with Compounds and Congeners)”, ZPE 134, 43–51 Arnott, W. G. (2006) Menander, vol. 1, Cambridge MA Arnott, W. G. (2007) Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z, London / New York Arnott, W. G. (2010) “Middle Comedy”, in: G. W. Dobrov (ed.) (2010), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 279–331 Asheri, D. / Lloyd, A. / Corcella, A. (2007) A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV (edited by O. Murray and A. Moreno), Oxford Auhagen, U. (2009) Die Hetäre in der griechischen und römischen Komödie, Munich Austin, C. / Olson, S. D. (2004) Aristophanes Thesmophoriazusae: Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford Bäbler, B. (2002) “Nicostratus 4”, in: NP 1 Bagordo, A. (2013) Telekleides: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 4), Heidelberg Bagordo, A. (2014a) Alkimenes – Kantharos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 1.1), Heidelberg Bagordo, A. (2014b) Leukon – Xenophilos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 1.2), Heidelberg Bagordo, A. (2016) Aristophanes fr. 590–674: Übersetzung und Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 10.9), Heidelberg Bagordo, A. (2018) Aristophanes fr. 821–976: Übersetzung und Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 10.11), Göttingen. Bailey, J. (1840) Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Cambridge Bain, D. M. (1982) “κατωνάκην τὸν χοῖρον ἀποτετιλμένας (Aristophanes, Ekklesiazusai 724”, LMC 7, 7–10. Bakola, E. (2008) Cratinus and the Art of Comedy, Oxford

214

Bibliography

Barlow, S. A. (1986) Euripides: Trojan Women, Warminster Barringer, J. M. (2001) The Hunt in Ancient Greece, Baltimore Bathrellou, E. (2008) Studies in the Epitrepontes of Menander, Diss. Ph., Cambridge Beazley, J. D. (1927) “Some Inscriptions on Vases”, AJA 31.3, 345–353 Bechtel, F. (1964) Die historischen Personnamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, Hildesheim Bekker, E. (1833) Harpocration et Moeris, Berlin Belardinelli, A. M. (1994) Menandro Sicioni: Introduzione, Testo e Commento, Bari Benoit, F. (1961) L’Épave du grand congloué à Marseille, Fouilles Sous-Marines, Gallia Suppl. 14, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris Bergk, T. B. (1838) Commentationum de reliquiis comoediae Atticae antiquae libri duo, Lipsiae Bernhardy, G. / Gaisford, T. (1843–1853) Suidae lexicon graece et latine, Halis Beta, S. (2019) “Eustathius”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 343 Bianchi, F. P. (2016) Kratinos: Archilochoi – Empipramenoi (Fragmenta Comica 3.2), Heidelberg Biles, Z. P. (2002) “Intertextual Biography in the Rivalry of Cratinus and Aristophanes”, AJP 123, 169–204 Biles, Z. P. / Olson, S. D. (2015) Aristophanes Wasps. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford Billeter, G. (1898) Geschichte des Zinsflusses im griechisch-römischen Altertum bis auf Justinian, Leipzig Blaydes, F. H. M. (1890) Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta, pars I, Halis Saxonum Blaydes, F. H. M. (1891) “Notae in Theophrasti Characteras”, Hermathena 8.17, 1–13 Blaydes, F. H. M. (1896) Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta, pars II, Halis Saxonum Blech, M. (1982) Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen, Berlin / New York Blum, R. (1977) Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Biobibliographie, Frankfurt am Main Blumenthal, A., von (1892) “Illyrisches und Makedonisches”, Indogermanische Forschungen 49.1, 169–183 Blümner, H. (1875–1887) Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern, vols. 1–4, Leipzig Boardman, J. (1990) “Symposion Furniture”, in: O. Murray (ed.) (1990), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 122–131 Boeckh, A. (1857) The Public Economy of the Athenians, with Notes and a Copious Index, trans. A. Lamb, Boston / London Bogaert, R. (1968) Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques, Leiden Bothe, F. H. (1855) Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta post Augustum Meineke recognovit et Latine transtulit, Parisiis Bowen, A. J. (2013) Aeschylus: Suppliant Women, Oxford Bowie, A. (2010) “Myth and Ritual in Comedy”, in: G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 143–176 Breitenbach, H. (1908) De genere quodam titulorum comoediae Atticae, Basel Breuer, Ch. (1995) Reliefs und Epigramme griechischer Privatgrabmäler, Cologne

Bibliography

215

Buccini, A. F. (2009) “The Bitter – and Flatulent – Aphrodisiac: Synchrony and Diachrony of the Culinary Use of Muscari Comosum in Greece and Italy”, in: S. R. Friedland (ed.), Vegetables: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2008, Devon, 46–55 Buck, C. D. (1889a) “Discoveries in the Attic Deme of Ikaria 1888. III. The Choregia in Athens and at Ikaria. Inscriptions from Ikaria Nos. 5–7”, AJA 5.1, 18–33 Buck, C. D. (1889b) “Discoveries in the Attic Deme of Ikaria, 1888, IV. Chronological Reperot of the Excavations, V. Topography of the Ikarian District, VI. Architectural Remains”, AJA 5.2, 154-181 Buck, C. D. (1892) “Discoveries in the Attic Deme of Ikaria, 1888”, Papers of the American School of Classical Studies 5 (1886–1890), 43–134. Bühler, W. (1982) Zenobii Athoi proverbia, vol. 4, Göttingen Burian, P. (2007) Euripides: Helen, Oxford Burkert, W. (1985) Greek Religion, trans. J. Raffan, Cambridge Cameron, A. (2004) Greek Mythography in the Roman World, Oxford Campbell, A. C. (1982) The Hamlyn Guide to the Flora and Fauna of the Mediterranean Sea, London Capps, E. (1907) “Epigraphical Problems in the History of Attic Comedy”, AJPh 28, 179–199 Carter, D. M. (2004) “Citizen Attribute, Negative Right: A Conceptual Difference Between Ancient and Modern Ideas of Freedom of Speech”, in: I. Sluiter / R. M. Rosen (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, Leiden, 197–220 Carter, D. M. (2011) “Plato, Drama, and Rhetoric”, in: D. M. Carter (ed.), Why Athens? A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics, Oxford, 45–67 Carter, D. M. (2019) “Society and Politics in Post-Fifth-Century Tragedy”, in: V. Liapis / A. K. Petrides (eds.), Greek Tragedy After the Fifth Century, Cambridge, 270–293 Casaubon, I. (1796) Isaaci Casauboni animadversionum in Athenaei deipnosophistas libre quindecim, tom. 1 libr. 1–5, Lipsiae Casson, L. (1971) Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton Chandezon, Ch. (2015) “Animals, Meat, and Alimentary By-products: Patterns of Production and Consumption”, in J. Wilkins / R. Nadeau (eds.), A Companion to Food in the Ancient World, Malden / Oxford, 138–146 Chatzis, A. (1914) Der Philosoph und Grammatiker Ptolemaios Chennos, Paderborn Ciaraldi, M. (2007) People and Plants from Ancient Pompeii. a New Approach to Urbanism from the Microscope Room, London Clarke, M. (2007) “Snowy Helen and Bull-Face Wine: Ion and the Logic of Poetic Language”, in: V. Jennings / A. Katsaros (eds.), The World of Ion of Chios, Leiden, 206–216 Clay, J. S. (2009) “Works and Days: Tracing the Path to Arete”, in: F. Montanari / A. Rengakos / C. Tsagalis (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden / Boston, 71–90 Clinton, H. F. (1834) Fasti Hellenici, the Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece, from the Earliest Accounts to the Death of Augustus, vol. 2, Oxford Clinton, K. (1974) The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, TAPA n.s. 64.3, Philadelphia Clinton, K. (2004) “Epiphany in the Eleusinian Mysteries”, ICS 29, 85–109 Cobet, C. G. (1858) Novae Lectiones, Leipzig Collard, C. (1970) “On the Tragedian Chaeremon”, JHS 90, 22–34 Collard, C. (2005) “Euripidean Fragmentary Plays. The Nature of Sources and their Effect on Reconstruction”, in: F. McHardy / J. Robson / D. Harvey (eds.), Lost Dramas of Classical Athens. Greek Tragic Fragments, Exeter, 49–62

216

Bibliography

Collard, C. / Cropp. M. J. (2008) Euripides. Fragments: Aegeus–Meleager, Cambridge MA / London Collard, C. / Cropp, M. J. / Gibert, J. (2004) Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays with Introductions, Translations, and Commentaries, vol. 2, Warminster Collard, C. / Cropp, M. J. / Lee, K. H. (2015) Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays, vol. 1, Oxford Colvin, S. (1999) Dialect in Aristophanes, Oxford Comentale, N. (2017) Ermippo: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento (Fragmenta Comica 6), Heidelberg Conti Bizzarro, F. (1999) Poetica e critica letteraria nei frammenti dei poeti comici greci, Napoli Courby, F. (1922) Les Vases grecs à reliefs, Paris Cropp, M. J. (2000) Euripides: Iphigeneia in Tauris, Warminster Cropp, M. J. (2020) “Euripides or Critias, or Neither? Reflections on an Unresolved Question”, in: A. Lamari / F. Montanari / A. Novokhatko (eds.), Fragmentation in Ancient Greek Drama, Berlin / Boston, 235–256 Crusius, O. (1887) “Coniectanea”, Philologus 46, 606–631 Csapo, E. / Slater, W. J. (1995) The Context of Ancient Drama, Ann Arbor Csapo, E. / Wilson, P. (2015) “Drama Outside Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC”, in: A. Lamari (ed.), Reperformances of Drama in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC: Authors and Contexts, TCSI 7.2, Berlin / Boston, 316–395 Csapo, E. / Wilson, P. (2020) A Social and Economic History of the Theatre to 300 BC, vol. 2; Theatre Beyond Athens: Documents with Translation and Commentary, Cambridge Curtis, R. I. (1991) Garum and Salsamenta, Leiden Dalby, A. (1989) “On Thria”, Petits Proposes Culinaires 31, 56–57 Dalby, A. (1996) Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece, London / New York Dalby, A. (2000) “Lynceus and the Anecdotists”, in: D. Braund / J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 372–394 Dalby, A. (2003) Food in the Ancient World from A to Z, London / New York Daub, A. (1882) Studien zu den Biographika des Suidas, Freiburg Davidson, A. (1981) Mediterranean Seafood, Baton Rouge Davidson, J. (1997) Courtesans and Fishcakes: the Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, New York Davidson, A. D. (20023) Mediterranean Seafood, Berkeley Davies, J. K. (1971) Athenian Propertied Families, Oxford Dedousi, Ch. (2006) Μενάνδρου Σαμία (εἰσαγωγή, κείμενο, μετάφραση, σχόλια), Athens Demiańczuk, I. (1912) Supplementum Comicum, Krakow Denniston, J. D. (1952) Greek Prose Style, Oxford Denniston, J. D. (1979 repr.) Euripides Electra: Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford De Romilly, J. (1968) Time in Greek Tragedy, Ithaca NY Despinis, G. I. (2007) “Neues zu der spätarchaischen Statue des Dionysos aus Ikaria”, AM 122, 103–137 Dickey, E. (1996) Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian, Oxford Dickey, E. (2007) Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period, Oxford

Bibliography

217

Dietze, C. A. (1872) De Philemone Comico, Diss. Ph., Göttingen Diller, A. (1962) “Photius’ Bibliotheca in Byzantine Literature”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16, 389–396 Dindorf, W. (1827) Athenaeus: Ex recensione Guilielmi Dindorfii, vols. 1–3, Leipzig Dingel, J. (1967) Das Requisit in der griechischen Tragödie, Diss. Ph., Tübingen Dittenberger, W. (1906) Ethnika und Verwandtes II, Hermes 41, 78–102, 161–219 Dobree, P. P. (1833) Adversaria, vol. 2, ed. J. Scholefield, Cambridge Dohm, H. (1964) Mageiros: Die Rolle des Kochs in der griechisch–römischen Komödie (Zetemata 32), Munich Dover, K. J. (1968) Aristophanes’ Clouds, Oxford Dover, K. J. (1974) Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford Dover, K. J. (1980) Plato Symposium, Cambridge Dover, K. J. (1993) Aristophanes’ Frogs, Oxford Duckworth, G. E. (1952) The Nature of Roman Comedy, Princeton Dunbar, N. (1995) Aristophanes’ Birds Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford Duncan, A. (2017) “Euripides in the Fourth Century BCE”, in: L. K. McClure (ed.), A Companion to Euripides, Malden / Oxford, 533–545 Durham, D. B. (1913) Vocabulary of Menander: Considered in its Relation to the Koine, Diss. Ph., Princeton Edmonds, R. G. (2013) Redefining Ancient Orphism: A Study in Greek Religion, Cambridge Egger, E. (1886) Essai sur l’Histoire de la Critique chez les Grecs, Paris Ehrenberg, V. (1951) The People of Aristophanes. A Society of Old Attic Comedy, Oxford Faraone, C. A. (1997) “Hymn to Selene-Hecate-Artemis from a Greek Magical Handbook (PGM IV 2714-83)”, in: M. Kiley (ed.), Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology, New York, 195–199 Farmer, M. C. (2017) Tragedy on the Comic Stage, Oxford Fick, A. (1894) Die griechischen Personennamen, Göttingen Fiesel, E. (1937) “Tintenfische”, in: RE VI.A.2, 1393–1406 Finglass, P. J. (2011) Sophocles Ajax: Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Cambridge Finglass, P. J. (2018) Sophocles Oedipus the King: Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Cambridge Finley, M. I. (1999) The Ancient Economy (updated edition), Berkeley / Los Angeles / London Fischer, E. (1974) Die Ekloge des Phrynichos, vol. 1, Berlin / New York Fisher, N. (2001) Aeschines Against Timarchos: Introduction, Translation, Commentary, Oxford Flach, J. (1880) “Untersuchungen über Hesychius Milesius”, RhM 35, 191–235 Fludernik, M. (2006) An Introduction to Narratology, New York Foerster, R. (1920) “ Ἐλλόβιον, nicht ἐλλέβορος”, Philologus 76, 349–351 Forbes, P. B. R. / Browning, R. / Wilson, N. G. (2012) “Photius”, in: S. Hornblower / A. Spawforth / E. Eidinow (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary4, Oxford, 1141 Fox, R. J. L. (2011) “Introduction: Dating the Royal Tombs at Vergina”, in: R. J. L. Fox, (ed.) Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC–300 AD, Leiden / Boston, 1–34 Fraenkel, E. (1950) Aeschylus: Agamemnon, vol.3, Oxford Fraenkel, E. (1962) Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes, Rome Funke, H. (1965–1966) “Euripides”, REG 8/9, 233–279 Furley, W. D. (2009) Menander: Epitrepontes, London

218

Bibliography

Furley, W. D. (2015) Menander: Perikeiromene or The Shorn Head (Edited with Introduction and Commentary), London Gaisford, Th. S.T.P. (1834) Suidae Lexicon post Ludolphum Kusterum ad codices manuscriptos, vol. 2, Oxford Gantz, T. (1993) Early Greek Myth, vols. 1–2, Baltimore / London García Soler, M. J. (2001) El arte de comer en la antigue Grecia, Madrid Giannini, A. (1960) “La figura del cuoco nella commedia greca”, Acme 13, 135–216 Gil, L. (1975) “Comedia ática y sociedad ateniense. III. Los profesionales del amor en la comedia media y nueva”, Estudios Clásicos 19, 59–88 Glazebrook, A. (2011) “Porneion: Prostitution in Athenian Civic Space”, in: A. Glazebrook / M. M. Henry (eds.), Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE200 CE, London, 34–59 Gould, T. (1963) Platonic Love, London Gow, A. S. F. (1950) Theocritus. Edited with a Translation and Commentary, 2 vols., Cambridge Gow, A. S. F. (1965) Machon. The Fragments, Cambridge Graf, F. (1985) Nordionische Kulte, Rome Green, J. R. (1994) Theatre in Ancient Greek Society, London Grimal, P. (2002 [1986]) The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, trans. A. R. Maxwell-Hyslop, Malden MA / Oxford Grotius, H. (1626) Excerpta ex tragoediis et comoediis graecis tum quae extant, tum quae perierunt, Parisiis Gudeman, A. (1909) Grundriss zur Geschichte der klassischen Philologie, Leipzig / Berlin Gunkel, H. (1917) Das Märchen im alten Testament, Tübingen Gutzwiller, K. J. (2000) “The Tragic Mask of Comedy: Metatheatricality in Menander”, ClAnt 19, 102–137 Gyraldus, L. G. (1696) Opera Omnia, 2 vols., Lugduni Batavorum Halliwell, St. (2004) “Aischrology, Shame, and Comedy”, in: I. Sluiter / R. M. Rosen (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, Leiden, 115–144 Halperin, D. M. (1990) “Why is Diotima a Woman? Platonic Erōs and the Figuration of Gender”, in: D. M. Halperin / J. J. Winkler / F. I. Zeitlin (eds.), Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World, Princeton, 257–308 Hammond, N. G. L. (19863) A History of Greece to 322 B.C., Oxford Handley, E. W. (1965) The Dyskolos of Menander, London Hanink, J. (2010) “The Classical Tragedians from Athenian Idols to Wandering Poets”, in: Gildenhard, I. / M. Revermann (eds.), Beyond the Fifth Century, Berlin, 39–67 Hanink, J. (2014) Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy, Cambridge Hanow, R. (1830) Exercitationum criticarum in comicos graecos liber primus, Halii Saxonum Harder, A. (1985) Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, Leiden Hartkamp, R. F. (2004) Von leno zu ruffiano. Die Darstellung, Entwicklung und Funktion der Figur des Kupplers in der römischen Palliata und in der italienischen RenaissanceKomödie, Tübingen Hartley, B. (2014) Novel Research: Fiction and Authority in Ptolemy Chennus, Diss. Ph., Exeter Hartwig, A. (2014) “The Evolution of Comedy in the Fourth Century”, in: E. Csapo / H. R. Goette/ J. R. Green/ P. Wilson (eds.), Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century BC, Berlin / Boston, 207–227

Bibliography

219

Hartwig, A. (2019) “Suda”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 911–912 Harz, K. (1969) Die Orthopteren Europas. The Orthoptera of Europe, vol. 1, The Hague Haupt, M. (1876) Opuscula, vol. 2, Leipzig Headlam, W. (1899) “Critical Notes”, Classical Review 13.1, 3–8 Headlam, W. (1922) Herodas. The Mimes and Fragments. With Notes by W. Haedlam, Edited by A. D. Knox, Cambridge (=Bristol 2001) Heeren, A. H. L. (1792) Ioannis Stobaei Eclogarum physicarum et ethicarum libri duo, Göttingae Heinemann, M. (1910) Epistulae amatoriae quomodo cohaereant cum elegiis Alexandrinis, Argentorati Hemsterhusius, T. / Reitzius, J. F. (1822) Luciani Samosatensis opera, vol. 1, Leipzig Henderson, J. (1987) Aristophanes: Lysistrata. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford Henderson, J. (19912) The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, Oxford / New York Henderson, J. (1998) Aristophanes: Clouds, Wasps, Peace, Cambridge MA / London Henderson, J. (2002) Aristophanes: Frogs, Assembly Women, Wealth, Cambridge MA / London Henderson, J. (2007) Aristophanes: Fragments, Cambridge MA / London Henderson, J. (2014) “Comedy in the Fourth Century II: Politics and Domesticity”, in: M. Fontaine / A. C. Scafuro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, 181–198 Henderson, J. (2019) “Aristophanes”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 80–88 Henry, M. M. (1992) “The Edible Woman: Athenaeus’ Concept of the Pornographic”, in: Α. Richlin (ed.), Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, Oxford / New York, 250–268 Henry, M. M. (2011) “The Traffic in Women: From Homer to Hipponax, from War to Commerce”, in: A. Glazebrook / M. M. Henry (eds.), Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE-200 CE, London, 14–33 Henry, M. M. (2019) “Ocimon”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 619 Hense, O. (1894) Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii, vol. 3, Berolini Herwerden, H. van (1868) Analecta critica ad Thucydidem, Lysiam, Sophoclem, Aristophanem et comicorum graecorum fragmenta, Utrecht Herwerden, H. van (1872) Studia critica in poetas scenicos Graecorum, Amstelodam Herwerden, H. van (1893) “Ad fragmenta comicorum”, Mnemosyne 21, 149–179 Hidber, Th. (2002) “Nausicrates”, in: NP I Hilka, A. (1913) Historia Septem sapientum, vol. 2. Johannis de Alta Silva Dolopathos, sive De rege et septem sapientivus, Heidelberg Holzinger, K. (1940) Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar zu Aristophanes’ Plutos, SB Wien 218.3, Vienna / Leipzig Hopfner, T. (1939) “Hekate-Selene-Artemis und Verwandte in den griechischen Zauberpapyri und auf den Fluchtafeln“, in: Th. Klauser / A. Rücker (eds.), Pisciculi. Studien zu Religion und Kultur des Altertums. Franz Joseph Dölger zum sechzigsten Geburtstage dargeboten von Freunden, Verehrern und Schülern, Münster, 125–145

220

Bibliography

Hornblower, S. (2015) Lykophron Alexandra: Greek Text, Translation, Commentary, and Introduction, Oxford Hunter, R. (1979) “The Comic Chorus in the Fourth Century”, ZPE 36, 23–38 Hunter, R. (1983) Eubulus: The Fragments, Cambridge Hunter, R. (1985) The New Comedy of Greece and Rome, Cambridge Hunter, R. (1999) Theocritus: A Selection, Cambridge Hunter, R. (2016) “‘Palaephatus’, Strabo, and the boundaries of myth”, Classical Philology 111, 245–261 Jacobs, Fr. (1805) Spicilegium observationum et emendationum ad novissinam Athenaei editionem [J. Schweighaeuser], Altenburg Jacobs, Fr. (1809) Additamenta animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Jena Janko, R. C. M. (1992) The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. IV: Books 13–16, Cambridge Johnston, S. I. (1991) “Crossroads”, ZPE 88, 217–224 Kaibel, G. (1889) “Zur attischen Komödie”, Hermes 24.1, 35–66 Kaibel, G. (1906) Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, Wien Kaldellis, A. (2005) “The Works and Days of Hesychios the Illoustrios of Miletos”, GRBS 45, 381–403 Kalén, Τ. (1918) Questiones grammaticae graecae, Michigan Kann, S. (1909) De iteratis apud poetas antiquae et mediae comoediae Atticae, Giessen Kannicht, R. (1969) Euripides Helena, 2 vols., Heidelberg Kapparis, K. K. (2011) “The Terminology of Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World”, in: A. Glazebrook / M. M. Henry (eds.), Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE-200 CE., London, 222–255 Karamanou, I. (2017) Euripides, Alexandros: Introduction, Text and Commentary, Berlin / Boston Karamanou, I. (forthcoming) Diphilus Paralyomenos–Chrysochoos: Translation and Commentary (Fragmenta Comica) Kassel, R. (1973) “Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten”, RhM 116, 97–112 Keller, O. K. (1913) Die antike Tierwelt, vol. 2.1–2, Leipzig Kidd, S. E. (2014) Nonsense and Meaning in Ancient Greek Comedy, Cambridge Kirk, G. S. (1985) The Iliad: A Commentary, Cambridge Kivilo, M. (2021) “Sappho’s Lives”, in: P. J. Finglass / A. Kelly (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Sappho, Cambridge, 11–21 Knöbl, R. (2008) Biographical Representations of Euripides, Diss. Ph., Durham Knobloch, J. (1986) Sprachwissenschaftliches Wörterbuch, vol. 1, Heidelberg Konstantakos, I. (2000a) A Commentary on the Fragments of Eight Plays of Antiphanes, Diss. Ph., Cambridge Konstantakos, I. (2000b) “Notes on the Chronology and Career of Antiphanes”, Eikasmos 11, 173–196 Konstantakos, I. (2002) “Towards a Literary History of Comic Love”, C&M 53, 141–171 Konstantakos, I. (2003–2004) “This Craft of Comic Verse: Greek Comic Poets on Comedy”, Archaiognosia 12, 11–53 Konstantakos, I. (2005) “The Drinking Theatre: Staged Symposia in Greek Comedy”, Mnemosyne 58.2, 183–217 Konstantakos, I. (2014) “Comedy in the Fourth Century I: Mythological Burlesques”, in: A. Scafuro / M. Fontaine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, 160–180

Bibliography

221

Konstantakos, I. (2015) “Tendencies and Variety in Middle Comedy”, in: S. Chronopoulos / C. Orth (eds.), Fragmente einer Geschichte der griechischen Komödie, Heidelberg, 159–198 Konstantakos, I. (2016) “On the Early History of the Braggart Soldier Part Two: Aristophanes’ Lamachus and the Politicization of the Comic Type”, Logeion 6, 112–163 Konstantakos, I. (2020) “The Play of Characters in the Fragments of Middle Comedy”, talk in the international conference Sub palliolo sordido. Studi sulla commedia frammentaria greca e Latina, University of Padova, 15 October 2020, available at https://www. academia.edu/44314822/_The_play_of_characters_in_the_fragments_of_Middle_ Comedy_International_conference_Sub_palliolo_sordido_Studi_sulla_commedia_ frammentaria_greca_e_latina_University_of_Padova_15_October_2020_With_full_ video_of_the_conference_ Körte, A. (1927) “Sosikrates 2 ”, in: RE III.A.1, 1160 Körte, A. (1935) “Nausikrates”, in: RE XVI.2, 2020 Körte, A. (1936) “Nikostratos”, in: RE XVII.1, 545–546 20, 21 Körte, A. (1938) “Philetairos”, in: RE XIX.2, 2163–2163 Korver, J. (1934) De Terminologie van het Crediet-Wezen in het Grieksch, Amsterdam Koster, W. J. W. (1957) Autour d’un manuscrit d’Aristophane écrit par Démétrius Triclinius, Groningen Kremezi, A. (2000) The Foods of the Greek Islands, New York Kron, G. (2015) “Agriculture”, in: J. Wilkins / R. Nadeau (eds.), A Companion to Food in the Ancient World, Malden / Oxford, 160–172 Kugelmeier, C. (1996) Reflexe früher und zeitgenössischer Lyrik in der Alten attischen Komödie, Stuttgart / Leipzig Kühner, R. (1898–1904) Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache: II Satzlehre, 3rd ed. by B. Gerth, Hannover / Leipzig Kuster, L. / Portus, A. (1705) Suidae lexicon, graece et latine, Cambridge Lamari, A. (2017) Reperforming Greek Tragedy: Theater, Politics, and Cultural Mobility in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC, Berlin / Boston Lamari, A. (2021) “Sympotic Sexuality: The Ambiguity of Seafood in Middle Comedy (Nausicrates fr. 1 K.-A.)” in: M. Vöhler / T. Fuhrer / S. Frangoulidis (eds.), Strategies of Ambiguity in Ancient Literature, Berlin / Boston, 123–139 Lamari, A. / Montanari, F. / Novokhatko, A. (eds.) (2020) Fragmentation in Ancient Greek Drama, Berlin / Boston Landauer, M. (2019) Dangerous Counsel: Accountability and Advice in Ancient Greece, Chicago Larocca, M. / Di Marsico, M. / Riccio, P. / Rossano, R. (2018) “The in vitro antioxidant properties of Muscari comosum bulbs and their inhibitory activity on enzymes involved in inflammation, post-prandial hyperglycemia, and cognitive / neuromuscular functions”, Journal of Food Biochemistry 42.5 (DOI: 1o.1111/jfbc. 12580) Larson, J. (1995) Greek Heroine Cults, Madison WI Lausberg, H. (19879) Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik, Munich Lautensach, O. (1899) Augment und Reduplikation (Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern und Komikern), Hannover / Leipzig Leo, F. (1901) Die griechisch-römische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form, Leipzig Leumann, M. (1959) Kleine Schriften, Zürich LeVen, P. A. (2014) The Many-Headed Muse: Tradition and Innovation in Late Classical Greek Lyric Poetry, Cambridge

222

Bibliography

Lewis, S. / Llewellyn-Jones, L. (2018) The Culture of Animals in Antiquity: A Sourcebook with Commentaries, Oxford / New York Licht, H. (1932) Sexual Life in Ancient Greece, London Lilja, S. (1972) The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity, Helsinki Lobeck, C. A. (1829) Aglaophamus sive de theologiae mysticae Graecorum causis, Regimontii Prussorum Lonsdale, S. H. (1990) Creatures of Speech: Lion, Herding, and Hunting Similes in the Iliad, Stuttgart López Eire, A. (1996) La Lengua coloquial de la Comedia aristofánica, Murcia Lorenzoni, A. (2012) “Ateneo nella Suda (specimina dai bio-bibliographica comicorum)”, Eikasmos 23, 321–347 MacDowell, D. M. (1971) Aristophanes: Wasps, Oxford MacDowell, D. M. (1995) Aristophanes and Athens: An Introduction to the Plays, Oxford Manieri, A. (2019) “Zeus Soter”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 1029 Marshall, C. W. (2013) “Sex Slaves in New Comedy”, in: B. Akrigg / R. Tordoff (eds.), Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greek Comic Drama, Cambridge, 173–196 Martin, G. (2018) Euripides, Ion. Edition and Commentary, Berlin Mastellari, V. (2018) “Food and Parties. Seduction, Erotic and Sexual Metaphors in Greek Comic Fragments”, in: C. Soares / C. da Silva Gomes Ribeiro (eds.), Mesas luso-brasileiras: alimentação, saúde & cultura, vol. 2, Coimbra, 23–34 Mastellari, V. (2020) Calliade – Mnesimaco: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento (Fragmenta Comica 16.5), Göttingen Mastronarde, D. J. (1994) Euripides: Phoinissae, Cambridge Mau, A. (1900) “convivium”, in: RE IV.1, 1201–1208 McClure, L. (2003) “Subversive Laughter: The Sayings of Courtesans in Book 13 of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae”, AJPh 124.2, 259–294 McClure, L. (2013) Courtesans at Table: Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus, Ablington / New York McDonald, M. (1978) Terms of Happiness in Euripides, Göttingen Meineke, A. (1847) Fragmenta comicorum graecorum (editio minor, vols. 1–2), Berlin Meineke, A. (1855–1857) Ioannis Stobaei Florilegium, vols. 1–4, Lipsiae Meineke, A. (18563) Theocritus, Bion, Moschus, Berlin Meineke, A. (1867) Analecta Critica ad Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Berlin Merkelbach, R. / West, M. L. (1965)‚ “The Wedding of Ceyx”, RhM 108, 300–317 Mervyn Jones, D. (1960) “Review of The Fragments of Attic Comedy. Vol. ii: Middle Comedy by J. M. Edmonds”, CR 10.3, 202–204 Metzger, H. (1951) Les Représentations dans la Céramique Attique du IVe siècle, Paris Meursius, J. (1701) Bibliotheca Attica I–VI ed. J. Gronovius, Thesaurus graecarum antiquitatum, vol. 10, 1398–1624 Miccolis, E. R. (2017) Archippos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 12), Heidelberg Michell, H. (19572) The Economics of Ancient Greece, Cambridge Mikalson, J. D. (2012) “The Daimon of Eudaimonia”, in: J. F. Miller / C. Damon / K. Sara Myers (eds.), Vertis in Usum: Studies in Honor of Edward Courtney, Leipzig, 250–258 Milanezi, S. (2000) “Laughter as Dessert: On Athenaeus’ Book 14, 613–16”, in: D. Braund / J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and His World, Exeter, 400–412 Millett, P. (1991) Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens, Cambridge

Bibliography

223

Millis, B. (2015a) Anaxandrides: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 17), Heidelberg Millis, B. (2015b) “Out of Athens: Greek Comedy at the Rural Dionysia and Elsewhere”, in: S. Chronopoulos / C. Orth (eds.), Fragmente einer Geschichte der griechischen Komödie, Heidelberg, 228–249. Millis, B. (2019) “Victor lists”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 998–999 Moorhouse, A. C. (1962) “ΕΥ ΟΙΔΑ and ΟΥΔΕ ΕΙΣ: Cases of Hiatus”, CQ 12, 239–247 Muller, C. (1851) Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. 4, Paris Munn, M. L. Z. (2003) “Corinthian Trade with the Punic West in the Classical Period”, Corinth 20, 195–217 Müri, W. (1931) “συμβολή”, in: RE IV.A.1, 1088–1090 Müri, W. (1947) “Beitrage zum Verständnis des Thukydides”, MH 4, 251–275 Nagy, G. (1990) Greek Mythology and Poetics, Ithaca / New York Nairn, J. A. (1904) The Mimes of Herodas with Introduction, Critical Notes, Commentary, and Excursus, Oxford Nauck, A. (1889) “Analecta Critica”, Hermes 24, 447–472 Nauck, A. (1894) Bemerkungen zu Kock Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, in: Mélanges Gréco-Romains, “Tirée du Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.Pétersbourg, Tome VI”, St.-Pétersbourg, 53–180 Neil, R. A. (1901) The Knights of Aristophanes, Cambridge Neils, J. (2000) “Others within the Other: An Intimate Look at Hetaerai and Maenads”, in: B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden, 203–206 Nervegna, S. (2013) Menander in Antiquity: The Contexts of Reception, Cambridge Nervegna, S. (2019) “Apollodorus of Athens”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, vol. 1, Hoboken NJ, 65–66 Nesselrath, H.-G. (1985) Lukians Parasitendialog. Untersuchungen und Kommentar, Berlin Nesselrath, H.-G. (1990) Die attische Mittlere Komödie, Berlin / New York Nesselrath, H.-G. (1993) “Parody and Later Greek Comedy”, HSCP 95, 181–195 Nesselrath, H.-G. (1995) “Myth, Parody, and Comic Plots: The Birth of Gods and Middle Comedy”, in: G.W. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Oxford, 1–27 Nesselrath, H.-G. (1998) “The Polis of Athens in Middle Comedy”, in: G. Dobrov (ed.), The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama, Chapel Hill, 271–288 Newiger, H.-J. (1961) “Prokeleusmatiker im Komischen Trimeter?”, Hermes 89, 175–184 Ní Mheallaigh, K. (2014) Reading Fiction with Lucian: Fakes, Freaks and Hyperreality, Cambridge North, H. (1966) Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature, Ithaca NY Nuttall, P. A. (1840) A Classical and Archaeological Dictionary of the Manners, Customs, Laws, Institutions, Arts, etc. of the Celebrated Nations of Antiquity and of the Middle Ages, London O’Connor, J. B. O. (1908) Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece together with a Prosopographia Histrionum Graecorum, Chicago Ogden, D. (2013) Drakōn. Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds, Oxford Olson, S. D. (1998) Aristophanes Peace: Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford

224

Bibliography

Olson, S. D. (2002) Aristophanes Acharnians: Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford Olson, S. D. (2006) Athenaeus The Learned Banqueters Books III.106e–V: Edited and Translated, Cambridge MA / London Olson, S. D. (2007) Broken Laughter. Select Fragments of Greek Comedy, Oxford Olson, S. D. (2008) Athenaeus The Learned Banqueters Books VI–VII: Edited and Translated, Cambridge MA / London Olson, S. D. (2011) Athenaeus The Learned Banqueters Books XIII.594b–XIV: Edited and Translated, Cambridge MA / London Olson, S., D. (2012) Athenaeus The Learned Banqueters Book XV, Indexes: Edited and Translated, Cambridge MA / London Olson, S. D. (2014) Eupolis frr. 326-497: Fragmenta incertarum fabularum. Translation and Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 8.3), Heidelberg Olson, S. D. (2016) Eupolis Heilotes – Chrysoun genos (frr. 147–325). Translation and Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 8.2), Heidelberg Olson, S. D. (2017) Eupolis, Testimonia and Aiges – Demoi: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 8.1), Heidelberg Olson, S. D. (2021) Antiphanes: Sappho–Chrysis (frr. 194–330), Fragmenta incertarum fabularum, Fragmenta dubia (Fragmenta Comica 19.3), Göttingen Olson, S. D. / Sens, A. (1999) Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE. Text, Translation, and Commentary, Atlanta Olson, S. D. / Sens, A. (2000) Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE. Text, Translation, and Commentary, Oxford Ornaghi, M. (2002) “Κωμωιδοτραγωιδία, amori e seduzioni di fanciulle: Alceo comico e Anassandride in Suda”, Medioevo Greco 2, 113–140 Ornaghi, M. (2012) “Gli Esiodi di Teleclide e le variazioni comiche del modello agonale”, in: D. Castaldo / F. G. Giannachi / A. Manieri (eds.), Poesia, musica e agoni nella Grecia antica – Poetry, Music and Contests in Ancient Greece. Rudiae. Ricerche sul mondo classico 22/23, Galatina, 385–414 Ornaghi, M. (2020) “Ethnic Stereotypes and Ethnic Mockery in Ancient Greek Comedy”, in: A. Lamari / F. Montanari / A. Novokhatko (eds.), Fragmentation in Ancient Greek Drama, Berlin / Boston, 407–434 Orth, C. (2013) Alkaios – Apollophanes: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 9.1), Heidelberg Orth, C. (2014) Aristomenes – Metagenes: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 9.2), Heidelberg Orth, C. (2015) Nikochares – Xenophon: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 9.3), Heidelberg Orth, C. (2017) Aristophanes, Aioliskon – Babylonioi. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 10.3), Heidelberg Orth, C. (2019a) “Dicaearchus”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 262–263 Orth, C. (2019b) “Photius”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 712 Orth, C. (2020) Aristophon – Dromon: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 16.2), Göttingen O’Sullivan, P. / Collard, C. (2013) Euripides’ Cyclops and Major Fragments of Greek Satyric Drama, Oxford

Bibliography

225

Page, D. L. (1988 repr. [1938]) Euripides Medea, Oxford Papachrysostomou, A. (2008) Six Comic Poets : A Commentary on Selected Fragments of Middle Comedy, Tübingen Papachrysostomou, A. (2012–2013) “Continuity and Change in the Comic Genre or How it all ended up with Menander: The Case of Sub-Trends”, Ordia Prima 11–12, 165–189 Papachrysostomou, A. (2016) Amphis: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 20), Heidelberg Papachrysostomou, A. (2019) “Love”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 502–504 Papachrysostomou, A. (2021) Ephippus: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 16.3), Göttingen Papachrysostomou, A. (forthcoming) Epicrates, Epigenes, Eriphus: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica) Parker, R. B. (1996) Athenian Religion, Oxford Pascucci, G. P. (1965) Note stilistiche sull’uso del diminutivo greco, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica n.s. Pellegrino, M. (1998) “Metagene”, in: A. M. Belardinelli (ed.), Tessere : Frammenti della commedia greca. Studi e commenti, Bari, 291–339 Pellegrino, M. (2000) Nicofonte. Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento (Fragmenta Comica 15), Mainz Pellizer, E. (1990) “Outlines of a Morphology of Sympotic Entertainment”, in: O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, 177–184 Penzer, N. M. (1926) The Ocean of Story, being C. H. Tawney’s Translation of Somadeva’s Kathā Sarit Sāgara (or Ocean of Streams of Story), vol. VI, Delhi Peppink, S. P. (1936) Observationes in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Lugduni Batavorum Peppler, C. W. P. (1902) Comic Terminations in Aristophanes and the Comic Fragments, I. Diminutives, Character Names, Patronymics. A Dissertation, Baltimore Perlman, S. (1964) “Quotations from Poetry in Attic Orators of the Fourth Century BC”, AJP 85, 155–172 Perrone, S. (2019) Cratete: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento (Fragmenta Comica 2), Göttingen Petersen, W. P. (1910) Greek Diminutives in -ιον. A Study in Semantics, Weimer Pfeiffer, R. (1949) Callimachus. Volumen I: Fragmenta, Oxford Picard, C. (1910) “À propos de deux coupes du Vatican et d’un fragment du Musée Kircher”, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire (École Française de Rome) 30, 99–116 Piccione, R. M. (2019) “Stobaeus, John”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 906 Pickard-Cambridge, A., Sir (19682) The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, Oxford Pierson, J. (1830) Moeridis Atticistae Lexicon Atticum, Leipzig Pieters, Th. M. F. (1946) Cratinus: bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der vroeg-attische comedie, Leiden Pirrotta, S. (2009) Plato Comicus: Die fragmentarischen Komödien. Ein Kommentar, Berlin Platt, V. (2018) “Silent bones and singing stones: materializing the poetic corpus in Hellenistic Greece”, in: N. Goldschmidt / B. Graziosi (eds.), Tombs of the Ancient Poets. Between Literary Reception and Material Culture, Oxford, 21–49 Pollard, J. (1977) Birds in Greek Life and Myth, London Porson, R. (1812) Adversaria: notae et emendationes in poetas graecos, ed. by J. H. Monk / J. C. Blomfield, Cambridge

226

Bibliography

Porson, R. (1815) Tracts and Miscellaneous Criticisms (Collected and Arranged by Rev. Th. Kidd), London Porson, R. (1829) The Medea of Euripides (from the Text and with a Translation of the Notes of Porson by J. R. Major), London Portus, Ae. (1705) Suidae Lexicon Graece et Latine: textum graecum cum manuscriptis codicibus collatum a quamplurimis mendis purgavit notisque perpetuis illustravit, Cantabrigiae Pritchett, W. K. (1956) “The Attic Stelai Part II”, Hesperia 25, 178–317 Quincey, J. H. (1966) “Greek Expressions of Thanks”, JHS 86, 133–158 Rademaker, A. (2005) Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint: Polysemy and Persuasive Use of an Ancient Greek Value Term, Leiden Ransom, C.L. (1905) Couches and Beds of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, Chicago Reitzenstein, R. (1907) Der Anfang des Lexikons des Photios, Leipzig / Berlin Rengakos, A. (1992) “Homerische Wörter bei Kallimachos”, ZPE 94, 21–47 Richter, G. M. A. (1966) The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, London Richter, G. M. A. / Milne, M. J. (1935) Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases, New York Riddle, J. M. (1984) “Byzantine Commentaries on Dioscorides”, DOP 38, 95–102 Rieu, E. V. (2003) Homer: The Odyssey, rev. ed. by D. C. H. Rieu, with Introduction by P. Jones, London Ritschl, F. (1845) Parerga zu Plautus und Terenz, Berlin Robert, L. (1963) Les noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine, Paris Rohde, E. (1901) Kleine Schriften, vol. 1, Tübingen / Leipzig Rohde, E. (19745) Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer, Hildesheim / New York Romano, I. B. (1982) “The Archaic Statue of Dionysos from Ikarion”, Hesperia 51, 398–409 Rosen, R. M. (1988) Old Comedy and the Iambographic Tradition, Atlanta Rosen, R. M. (2004) “Aristophanes’ Frogs and the Contest of Homer and Hesiod”, TAPA 134, 295–322 Rosen, R. M. (2012) “Timocles fr. 6 K.-A. and the Parody of Greek Literary Theory”, in: C. W. Marshall / G. Kovacs (eds.), No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy, London, 177-186 Rosenbloom, D. (2002) “From Ponêros to Pharmakos: Theater, Social Drama, and Revolution in Athens, 428–404 BCE”, ClAnt 21.2, 283–346 Rothwell, K. S. (2005) “The Continuity of the Chorus in Fourth-Century Attic Comedy”, GRBS 33.3, 209–225 Rouse, W. H. D. (1902) Greek Votive Offerings, Cambridge Ruhnken, D. (1789) Timaei sophistae Lexicon vocum Platonicarum, Lugduni Batavorum Rusten, J. (2011) The Birth of Comedy, Baltimore Rutherford, W. G. (1881) The New Phrynichus, London Saint-Denis, E. de (1947) Le vocabulaire des animaux marins en latin classique, Paris Sallares, R. (1991) The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World, London Sanchis Llopis, J. L. et al. (2007) Fragmentos de la comedia, Madrid Sanders, E. / Thumiger, C. / Carey, C. / Lowe, N. J. (eds.) (2013) Erôs in Ancient Greece, Oxford Sarischouli, P. (2000) “Η Λειτουργική Εξέλιξη του Ασύνδετου Σχήματος από την Αρχαϊκή Ποίηση ως τους Ρητορικούς Λόγους”, Ελληνικά 50, 7–34 Saxonhouse, A. W. (2006) Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens, New York / Cambridge Scafuro, A. (1997) The Forensic Stage, Cambridge Scaliger, J. J. (1565) Coniectanea in M. Terentium Varronem De Lingua Latina, Paris

Bibliography

227

Schelp, J. (1975) Das Kanoun  : Der griechische Opferkorb, Beiträge zur Archäologie 8, Würzburg Schmidt, V. (1968) Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Herondas, Berlin Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. (1981) Lions, héros, masques: les représentations de l’animal chez Homère, Paris Schultz, H. (1913) “Hesychios (10)”, RE VIII.2, 1322–1327 Schwartz, C. T. P. (1877) Aelii Dionysii Halicarnasensis Reliquias, Rhenum Schweighäuser, J. (1801–1807) Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, vols. 1–9, Strasbourg Scullion, S. (2006) “The Opening of Euripides’ Archelaus”, in: D. Cairns / V. Liapis (eds.), Dionysalexandros: Essays on Aeschylus and his Fellow Tragedians in Honour of Alexander F. Garvie, Swansea, 185–200 Sehrt, A. (1912) De Menandro Euripides imitatore, Diss. Ph., Giessen Seidler, A. (1812) De versibus dochmiacis tragicorum Graecorum, Leipzig Shaw, C. A. (2014) “‘Genitalia of the Sea’: Seafood and Sexuality in Greek Comedy”, Mnemosyne 67, 554–576 Shaw, C. A. (2019) “Nicostratus (1)”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 611 Slater, W. J. S. (1989) “Grammarians and Handwashing”, Phoenix 43.2, 100–111 Sobel, H. (1990) Hygieia. Die Göttin der Gesundheit, Darmstadt Sommerstein, A. Η. (1980) Aristophanes: Acharnians, Warminster Sommerstein, A. H. (1981) Aristophanes: Knights, Warminster Sommerstein, A. H. (1995) “The Language of Athenian Women”, in: F. De Martino / A. H. Sommerstein (eds.), Lo spettacolo delle voci, Bari, 61–86 Sommerstein, A. H. (2001) Aristophanes: Wealth, Warminster Sommerstein, A. H. (2008) Aeschylus: Fragments, Cambridge MA / London Sommerstein, A. H. (2010) “The History of the Text of Aristophanes”, in: G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 399–422 Sommerstein, A. H. (2013) Menander: Samia, Cambridge Sommerstein, A. H. (2014) “The Informal Oath”, in: A. H. Sommerstein / I. C. Torrance (eds.), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, Berlin / Boston, 315–347 Sommerstein, A. H. (2019a) “Cephisodorus (2)”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 166 Sommerstein, A. H. (2019b) “Chaerephon (1)”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 167 Sommerstein, A. H. (2019c) “Chaerephon (2)”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 167 Sommerstein, A. H. (2019d) “Nausicrates”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken NJ, 599 Spanoudakis, K. (1999) “Terpsicles (RE 1)”, CQ 49.2, 637–639 Sparkes, B. A. (1962) “The Greek Kitchen”, JHS 82, 121–137 Sparkes, B. A. (1975) “Illustrating Aristophanes”, JHS 95, 122–135 Sparkes, B. A. / Talcott, L. (1970) The Athenian Agora XII.2: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th centuries B.C., Princeton Spyropoulos, E. S. (1974) L’accumulation verbale chez Aristophane, Thessaloniki Squintu, C. (2006) Le atellane di Pomponio, Cagliari Stager, J. M. S. (2005) “‘Let No One Wonder at This Image’: A Phoenician Funerary Stele in Athens”, Hesperia 74, 427–429

228

Bibliography

Stahl, J. M. (1907) Kritisch-historische Syntax des Griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit, Heidelberg Stama, F. (2014) Frinico. Introduzione, Traduzione, Commento (Fragmenta Comica 7), Heidelberg Stamatopoulou, Z. (2017) Hesiod and Classical Greek Poetry: Reception and Transformation in the Fifth Century BCE, Cambridge Steinfatt, O. (1954) “Vogelkundliche Beobachtungen in Attika”, Journal für Ornithologie 95, 23–37, 245–262 Stephanus, H. (1572) Thesaurus Graecae linguae, ab Henrico Stephano Constructus, Paris Stephens, L. D. (1988) “Contiguous Resolution and Substitution in the Comic Trimeter: Linguistic Considerations”, QUCC 28.1, 123–133 Stevens, P. T. (1976) Colloquial Expressions in Euripides, Wiesbaden Storey, I. C. (2010) “Origins and Fifth-Century Comedy”, in: G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 179–225 Storey, I. C. (2011), Fragments of Old Comedy, Cambridge MA / London Strömberg, R. (1943) Studien zur Etymologie und Bildung der griechischen Fischnamen, Göteborg Strong, D. E. (1966) Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate, London Süss, W. (1954) “Scheinbare und wirkliche Inkongruenzen bei Aristophanes”, RhM 97, 115–159 Sutton, D. F. (1987) “P. Lit. Lond. 77: A Rebuttal”, ZPE 56, 33–34 Taillardat, J. (1965) Les images d’Aristophane. Études de langue et de style, Deuxième tirage revu et corrigé, Paris Takeuchi, K. (2010–2013) “Ten Notes on Inscriptions from the Attic Demes”, Horos 22–25, 85–106 Tambornino, J. (1914) “Hygieia”, in: RE IX.1, 93–97 Taplin, O. (1993) Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama through VasePaintings, Oxford Theodoridis, C. (1982–2013) Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, vols. 1–3, Berlin / New York Thomas, B. M. (2002) “Constraints and Contradictions: Whiteness and Femininity in Ancient Greece”, in: L. Llewellyn-Jones (ed.), Women’s Dress in the Ancient Greek World, London, 1–16 Thomas, N. R. (2012) “A Lion’s Eye View of the Greek Bronze Age”, Aegaeum 37, 375–389 Thompson, D. W. (1895) A Glosssary of Greek Birds, Oxford Thompson, D. W. (1947) A Glossary of Greek Fishes, London Thompson, H. A. (1934) “Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery”, Hesperia 3, 311–480 (reissued in H. A. Thompson / D. B. Thompson, Hellenistic Pottery and Terracottas, with preface by S. I. Rotroff, Princeton 1987) Threatte, L. (1980–1996) The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, vols. 1–2, Berlin / New York Tolles, D. (1943) The Banquet-Libations of the Greeks, Ann Arbor Toup, J. (ed.) (1790) Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium et alios lexicographos graecos, vol. 4, ed. R. Porson, Oxford Trenkner, S. (1958) The Greek Novella in the Classical Period, Cambridge Tribulato, O. (2014) “‘Not even Menander would use this word!’. Perceptions of Menander’s Language in Greek Lexicography”, in: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), Menander in Context, New York / London, 199–214 Tsagalis, C. (2008) Inscribing Sorrow: Fourth-Century Attic Funerary Epigrams, Berlin

Bibliography

229

Tsagalis, C. (2017) Early Greek Epic Fragments I: Antiquarian and Genealogical Epic, Berlin / Boston Tuplin, C. (1996) Achaemenid Studies, Stuttgart Tylawsky, E. I. (2002) Saturio’s Inheritance. The Greek Ancestry of the Roman Comic Parasite, New York Ussher, R. G. (1973) Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford van Leeuwen, J. F. (1906) Aristophanis Pax cum prolegomenis et commentariis, Leiden van Raalte, M. (1986) Rhythm and Metre: Towards a Systematic Description of Greek Stichic Verse, Leiden van Straten, F. T. (1995) Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece, Leiden / New York / Cologne Wagner, R. J. Th. (1905) Symbolarum ad comicoruum Graecorum historiam criticam capita quattuor, Lipsiae Wallace, R. W. (2004) “The Power to Speak—and not to Listen—in Ancient Athens”, in: I. Sluiter / R. M. Rosen (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, Leiden, 221–232 Wallinga, H. T. (1993) Ships and Sea-Power before the Great Persian War. The Ancestry of the Ancient Trireme, Leiden Webster, T. B. L. (1952) “Chronological Notes on Middle Comedy”, CQ 2, 13–26 Webster, T. B. L. (1956) Art and Literature in Fourth-Century Athens, London Webster, T. B. L. (19602) Studies in Menander, Manchester Webster, T. B. L. (19702) Studies in Later Greek Comedy, Manchester Weiland, F. (1841) Grammaire grecque à l’usage du collége royal français, Berlin Weinreich, O. (1931) “Nikostratos über Euripides”, Hermes 66.2, 124–125 Welcker, F. G. [1844-1867] (1973) Kleine Schriften (repr.), Osnabrück Wendel, T. (1929) Die Gesprächsanrede in griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit, Stuttgart Wentzel, G. (1898) “Hesychiana”, Hermes 33, 275–312 West, M. L. (2005) The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, Oxford White, J. W. W. (1912) The Verse of Greek Comedy, London White, M. E. (2013) “Poets and Poetry in Later Greek Comedy”, CQ 63.2, 603–622 Whitehead, D. (1986) The Demes of Attica 508/7 – ca. 250 B.C.: A Political and Social Study, Princeton Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1889) Euripides: Herakles, vols. 1–2, Berlin Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. (1913) Sappho und Simonides. Untersuchungen über griechische Lyriker, Berlin Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. (1935) Kleine. Schriften, vol. 1, Berlin Wilhelm, A. (1906) Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, Vienna Wilkins, J. (2000) The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy, Oxford Wille, G. (2001) Akroasis: Der akustische Sinnesbereich in der griechischen Literatur bis zum Ende der klassischen Zeit, Tübingen Willi, A. (2003) The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek, Oxford Williams, C. K., II (1979) “Corinth, 1978: Forum Southwest”, Hesperia 48, 105–144 Wilson, P. (1996) “Tragic Rhetoric: The Use of Tragedy and the Tragic in Fourth Century”, in: M. S. Silk (ed.), The Tragedy and the Tragic, Oxford, 310–331 Wilson, P. (2000) The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia: The Chorus, the City, and the Stage, Cambridge

230

Bibliography

Wilson, P. (2008) “Costing the Dionysia”, in: M. Revermann / P. Wilson (eds.), Performance, Iconography, Reception. Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, Oxford, 88–127 Wilson, P. (2015) “The Festival of Dionysos in Ikarion: A New Study of IG I3 254”, Hesperia 84, 97–147 Wolters, P. (1913) “Eingeritzte Inschriften auf Vasen”, MDAI (Ath. A.) 38, 193–202 Wright, M. (2013) “Poets and Poetry in Later Greek Comedy”, CQ 63.2, 603–622 Wyse, W. (1904) The Speeches of Isaeus. With Critical and Explanatory Notes, Cambridge Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. (1994) Studies in Fourth-Century Tragedy, Athens Zimmermann, B. (2011) “Die attische Komödie”, in: B. Zimmermann (ed.), Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike. Erster Band: Die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit, München, 671–800 Zimmermann, B. (2014) “Aristophanes”, in: M. Fontaine / A. C. Scafuro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, 132–159

231

Indices 1. Index fontium Aeschin. 1.98: Nausicr. test. 3 Ath. 2.47e: Nicostr. fr. 31 Ath. 2.65d: Nicostr. fr. 4 Ath. 3.108b–c: Nicostr. fr. 6 Ath. 3.110a: Nicostr. fr. 12 Ath. 3.111c: Nicostr. fr. 13 Ath. 3.116a–118e: Nicostr. fr. 5 Ath. 4.133a–c: Nicostr. fr. 1 Ath. 6.230d: Nicostr. fr. 8 Ath. 6.247e: Nicostr. fr. 23 Ath. 7.296a: Nausicr. fr. 1 Ath. 7.301a–b: Nicostr fr. 11 Ath. 7.325e: Nausicr. fr. 1 Ath. 7.330b: Nausicr. fr. 1 Ath. 9.399e-f: Nausicr. fr. 2 Ath. 11.474b: Nicostr. fr. 9 Ath. 11.486f: Nicostr. fr. 3 Ath. 11.499b: Nicostr. fr. 10 Ath. 11.499b-c: Nicostr. fr. 14 Ath. 12. 516d–517a: Nicostr. fr. 16 Ath. 13.587c–d: Nicostr. fr. 20 Ath. 14.615e–f: Nicostr. fr. 25 Ath. 14.654b: Nicostr. fr. 2 Ath. 14.664b–c: Nicostr. frr. 7, 16 Ath. 15.685c: Nicostr. fr. 27 Ath. 15.685e: Nicostr. fr. 26 Ath. 15.692f–693a: Nicostr. fr. 18 Ath. 15.692f-693b: Nicostr. fr. 19 Ath. 15.699d–700b: Nicostr. fr. 22

Choerob. in Theodos. Can. p. 238, 11: Nausicr. fr. 3 Clem. Alex. Paed. II 123.3: Nicostr. fr. 32 Eust. 677.4: Nicostr. fr. 33 Hdn. Π. ἀκλίτων ῥημ. p. 30.1: Nausicr. fr. 3 IG II2 2325.148: Nausicr. test. 2 IG II2 2325.196: Nausicr. test. 4 IG II2 3094: Nicostr. test.2 Phot. α 385: Nicostr. fr. 35 Phot. α 1197: Nicostr. fr. 21 Phot. ζ 48: Nicostr. fr. 36 Phot. ο 494: Nicostr. fr. 24 Phot. σ 551: Nicostr. fr. 37 Phot. σ 623: Nicostr. fr. 38 Phot. τ 57: Nicostr. fr. 39 Ptol. Chenn. apud Phot. Bibl. 190 p. 153a 23. 34: Nicostr. test. 3 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 1010: Nicostr. fr. 40 Stob. 1.8.13: Nicostr. fr. 15 Stob. 3.13.26: Nicostr. fr. 30 Stob. 3.36.8: Nicostr. fr. 28 Stob. 4.41.48: Nicostr. fr. 29 Sud. α 524: Nicostr. fr. 35 Sud. α 1703: Nicostr. fr. 17 Sud. ν 71: Nausicr. test. 1 Sud. ν 405: Nicostr. test. 1 Zon. cod. Cahir. 217: Nicostr. fr. 34

2. Index verborum Ἅβρα: 50, 57–59, 62  Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων: 68, 70, 138–140  ἀγκαλίς:14, 23, 29, 31, 164, 166  ἀγοράζω: 39, 72–73  Ἀερόπη: 142, 144–145  Ἀθηνᾶ: 32, 88, 166, 183, 186, 201  Αἰξωνικός:14, 23–24, 31, 33  ἅλυσις: 196, 198   ἅμαξα: 148–150, 206–207 

ἀμέλει (adv.): 93, 97  ἀμφίας: 128–129  ἀναβαίνω: 148–150  ἀναγκόσιτος: 193–196  ἀνήρ: 33, 183, 185–187  ἀντιλέγω: 85–86, 88  ἄξιος: 76, 82, 171  ἀξιόω: 62–64  ἁπαλός: 13, 23, 27–28, 64, 110 

232 ἀποβάλλω: 188, 192  ἀπόλλυμι: 192  ἀποφέρω: 138, 141–142  ἀρέσκω: 119, 121  ἀσπίς: 153, 188, 192,   ἀσύντακτος: 133, 138   ἀτμίς: 111, 113–116  αὐλητρίς: 35, 174–175, 177  Ἀφροδίτη: 140, 166, 186, 199–201  ἀφύη: 28, 84, 105–107  βεμβράς/μεμβράς: 105–107  βίος: 117, 136, 138, 183, 186, 188–189, 191–192    βλοσυρός: 199–202  βολβός: 58, 61–62   βουβάλιον: 196–198   Βυζάντιον: 76–77, 79, 81  Γαδειρικός: 76, 79–81  γαλακτόχρως: 14, 23, 26–27, 31, 33–35  γαστρίον: 62, 65, 176  γείτων: 152, 154  γῆ: 14, 69, 76, 81, 184, 193–194, 198  γιγνώσκω: 23–26, 30  Γλαῦκος: 13, 23–25, 27–32   δακτύλιος: 196, 198  δασύπους: 37, 39, 72–74  δεῖπνον: 23, 32, 58, 67, 69, 77–78, 86, 90, 109, 123–124, 172, 175  δεύτερος: 64, 69, 174, 175–176  διακονέω: 202–204  διατίθημι: 85, 88  δραχμή: 76, 82, 198  δύο: 23, 25, 76, 82, 168  δυσάρεστος: 119–120   δυσχερής: 116–117, 158, 160, 191  δῶρον: 32  ἐγκρυφίας: 108–110  ἐγχέω: 67, 68, 69, 70, 133, 135–136, 138, 139–140, 141, 142  εἰ … ἦν … ἄν (to express a gnomic statement): 180–181  εἶἑν: 168–169, 171  εἰκόσορος: 93–97  ἐκποδών: 138–139, 141–142  ἐκπρεπής: 14, 23–24, 30  ἐλλέβορος: 196–197, 199  ἔντοπος: 23, 31  ἐξορμενίζω: 159–160  

Indices ἐπιβακχεύω: 76, 80–81  ἐπίβλημα: 113, 115  ἔτι: 85, 93, 95, 97, 111, 112, 113  εὖ γε: 87  εὐδαιμονέω: 183, 185–187, 200  εὐπάρυφος: 89, 91–92  Εὐριπίδης: 183, 186–188, 203  ἐχῖνος: 58–60  ἑψητός: 105, 107  ζωμός: 123, 125–126  ἡγέομαι: 58, 60  θεός: 76, 81, 121, 137  θερμός: 111, 112, 113, 116  θνητός: 23, 121, 133, 137, 195  θρῖον: 59, 123–126  θρυμματίς: 58, 61  ἱεροφάντης: 50, 108–109  ἵππος: 148–150, 192, 199, 200  καθαρείως: 39, 72–74  καθετήρ: 196, 198  καιρός: 168, 170, 172  καὶ σὺ μέν: 174–175 κακῶς: 95, 103, 142, 164, 166  καλός: 13, 23–24, 27–28, 31, 33, 41, 76–78, 81–82, 168, 170–172, 207  καλός κἀγαθός: 76–78, 81–82  κάνδαυλος: 123–126  κάνθαρος: 93–97, 130  κανοῦν: 113–115  κάπηλος: 128, 151–155  κάππαρις: 58, 61  καταλαμβάνω: 152, 168–169  κατάρατος: 152, 153, 155  κατασταμνίζω: 100  κατὰ χειρός: 69, 168, 171, 175 κελεύω: 141–144, 146, 154  κεχλαμυδωμένος: 193–195  Κηφισόδωρος: 164, 166  κίχλη: 65, 72, 74–75  Κλίνη/κλίνη: 50–51, 111–112, 116, 146  κλύδων: 14, 23–24, 31  κόρη: 23, 31–34, 57, 199  κοσμέω: 174–176  κόψιχος: 72, 74–75, 195  κυκνοκάνθαρος: 93–97  κύκνος: 93, 95–97  λάγυνος: 98–101, 116–117   Λάκων: 119–120 

Indices λαλέω: 47, 179–182  λεπτός: 89–92, 105, 107, 200, 207   λευκός: 34, 54, 80, 107, 111, 115, 125, 159, 199  λέων: 37–39  λιβανωτός: 174–177  λοιπός: 40, 89–91, 117  μά / νή + accusative of a divinity: 166  μάγειρος: 50, 60, 85–86, 122–125, 177   ματτύη: 65, 85–88, 123–124, 126  μέγας: 58–61, 69–70, 76, 79, 82, 96, 107–108, 112, 114, 126, 140, 150, 199  μέγεθος: 111  μειράκιον: 193–194  μέλας ζωμός: 123, 125  μέλι: 105, 111, 114–116, 126  μεστός: 101, 154 μετανιπτρίς: 67–70, 133, 135–136, 140 μέτριος: 128–129, 180 μηδείς: 70, 78, 86, 88, 121, 164, 166, 191 μύρον: 143, 174–176 ναστός: 111–116 ναῦς: 95–97 ναυτίλος: 14, 23, 28–30, 32 νηττίον: 39, 72, 74–75 ξανθόχρως: 14, 23, 27, 31, 34 ξένος: 78, 171, 184, 199–202 ὀβολός: 76, 82, 91, 106, 154 ὁδός: 91, 142, 144 οἰνοποιός: 127–129 οἶνος: 29, 33, 80, 88, 100, 117, 128–129, 140, 152–153, 180 οἴομαι: 85–86, 88 ὀξίς: 89–92 ὄξος: 116–117, 152–153, 155 ὅπλον: 188, 190–191 ὀρνιθάριον: 62–65, 72, 74–75, 176 ὀρνιθευτής: 130 οὐδέποτε: 82–83, 119, 121 οὐκ ἔστι: 119, 126, 183, 185–187 ὄχλος: 14, 23, 26, 34 παλιναίρετος: 158–161 πάνυ: 76, 78, 81–82, 142, 146 παράσημον: 179–180, 182 παρείσιμι: 76, 80–81 παρέρχομαι: 164, 166 παρρησία: 188–192 πατριώτης: 151

233

πελάγιος:14, 23, 29, 31 πενία: 188, 190–191 περαίνω: 93, 95, 97 περιαιροῦμαι: 115 περισκελίς: 196, 198–199 περιστέριον: 62–63, 65, 74, 176 πήγνυμι: 14, 23, 34–35 πηλίκος: 98–100, 116 πίναξ: 58–61, 90 πλάνος: 47, 164–166 πολυτελῶς: 39, 72–74 πορνοβοσκός: 168, 170 πρᾶγμα: 78, 82, 133–135, 137, 171, 195 πρόνοια: 132–133, 137–138, 184, 195 πρῶτος: 13, 58–60, 69–70, 77, 106, 124–125, 155, 191 πώποτε: 37–38, 123, 142, 148–149 ῥόμβος: 23–24, 26–27, 34–35 σηπία: 28, 73, 82–84, 107 Σικελός: 14, 23, 26, 34–35, 106 στενωπός: 164–166 στέφανος: 136, 152–153, 168, 170–171, 174–177 στήριγξ: 206–207 στιγματίας: 173 στίχος: 60, 183, 188 στρῶμα: 142, 144, 146–147 συνεχῶς: 179–181 συντόμως: 183, 186 Σωσικράτης: 128–129 σωφρονέστερος: 179–180, 182 ταριχοπώλης: 60, 76–78, 81 τάριχος: 22, 60, 77–82, 144 ταχέως: 179–181 τέμαχος: 58, 61, 64, 76, 79–81, 116 τήγανον: 82, 84 τίθημι: 183 τιλτός: 76–78, 82 τράγημα: 64–65, 174, 176 τράπεζα: 64, 68, 111, 116, 138, 141, 146, 171, 174–175 τρίγλη: 23–28, 30–35, 84, 107 τρίχους: 98–101, 116 τυφλός: 133, 138 τύχη: 132–138, 183–184, 193–195, 200 τύχη ἀγαθή: 133–136 Ὑγιεία: 134, 138 ὕδωρ: 152, 153–154, 155, 171

234

Indices

ὑπερκύπτω: 111, 115 ὑπογάστριον: 76, 79–81 ὑποσκαφιόκαρτος: 193–195 ὑπότριμμα: 58, 59, 62 φαίνομαι: 29, 148, 191 φανός: 152–155 φημί: 23, 25, 28, 41, 99, 105, 116, 143, 152, 154, 160, 163, 164, 166, 187, 199, 203 φίλτατος: 133–136, 138, 183, 184, 187 φωσφόρος: 23, 31–34 Χαιρεφῶν: 168, 169, 172, 184

χάλκωμα: 142, 144, 146–147 χάριεν: 72–75 χελιδών: 179–182 χλαμυδόομαι: 195 χορτάζω: 142 χρόνος: 119–121, 148, 182 ψυκτήριον: 89–92 ψυχή: 199–201 Ὤκιμον: 142–144, 146 ὠμοτάριχος: 58, 60 ὥστε μή + infinitive: 164, 166

3. Index locorum Aesch. Ag. 755: 137 Cho. 587: 29 Cho. 657: 169 Aeschin. 3.246: 170 Alcaeus fr. 2.1: 116 fr. 16: 171 Alex. fr. 9.12: 92 fr. 15.8: 82 fr. 15.14: 81 fr. 59: 70, 101 fr. 91.3–4: 154 fr. 96: 180, 181 fr. 107.1–2: 154 fr. 122: 182 fr. 145.11: 116 fr. 152: 155 fr. 177.1–6: 116 fr. 178.1–2: 126 fr. 194.2–3: 116 fr. 224.4: 29 fr. 228.3: 29 fr. 234.1–2: 70, 140 fr. 257.1–3: 180 fr. 260: 105 fr. 260.2: 106 fr. 263.2: 171 Ameipsias fr. 20: 171 Anaxandr. fr. 7: 63

fr. 41.1: 143 fr. 42.62–63: 64 fr. 49: 154 Andoc. 4.26: 200 Antiph. fr. 25.1–3: 154 fr. 27.10–11: 33 fr. 78: 80 fr. 80.12: 175 fr. 135: 140 fr. 147: 136 fr. 194.15–16: 30 fr. 223.1–5: 147 fr. 233.3–4: 35 fr. 250: 117 fr. 280: 171 fr. 322: 191 Antiphon 4.2.2–3: 171 Ar. Ach. 975–976: 116 Ach. 1015–1017: 204 Ach. 1090: 146 Ach. 1156–1157: 117 Av. 464: 171 Av. 536: 116 Av. 1253–1255: 204 Av. 1296: 151 Av. 1323: 204 Av. 1691: 29 Eccl. 131: 136 Eccl. 154–155: 153 Eccl. 569: 86

Indices Ar. (cont.) Eccl. 569–570: 88 Eccl. 570: 86 Eccl. 680: 173 Eccl. 724: 195 Eccl. 1134: 29 Eq. 85: 140 Eq. 354: 116 Eq. 814: 101 Eq. 871: 30 Lys. 151: 195 Lys. 308: 154 Lys. 443: 32 Lys. 530: 155 Lys. 848: 142 Nub. 37: 146 Nub. 176: 171 Nub. 676: 88 Nub. 1074–1075: 171 Nub. 1095: 30 Pax 33: 155 Pax 123: 126 Pax 143: 96 Pax 300: 140 Pax 360: 137 Pax 447: 153 Pax 663: 171 Pax 700–701: 118 Pax 771–772: 141 Pax 1003–1004: 75 Pax 1155: 144 Pax 1193: 141 Plut. 552–554: 191 Plut. 563: 97 Plut. 594–597: 32 Plut. 884: 198 Plut. 931: 64 Plut. 992: 29 Plut. 1013–1014: 150 Ran. 93: 181 Ran. 122: 29 Ran. 141: 82 Ran. 178: 155 Ran. 240: 175 Ran. 339: 146 Ran. 508: 172 Ran. 509–511: 64 Ran. 678–681: 181

Ar. (cont.) Ran. 704: 29 Ran. 849: 145 Ran. 853: 142 Ran. 1043: 145 Thesm. 541: 191 Vesp. 268–269: 60 Vesp. 693: 78 Vesp. 1189: 82 Vesp. 1216: 171 Vesp. 1296: 173 Vesp. 1340: 142 fr. 207: 81 fr. 332.12: 198 fr. 344: 150 fr. 516: 171 fr. 686: 142 Archedic. fr. 2.3: 171 Archestr. fr. 11: 106 fr. 14.6: 116 fr. 37.4: 116 fr. 38.5: 116 Archil. fr. 23: 29 Archipp. fr. 14.2–4: 161 Arist. Eth. Nic. 1121b32–34: 167 Aristonym. fr. 2: 106 Ath. 2.62f: 159–160 3.110b: 110, 112 6.234d: 157 6.248c: 157 7.287e: 105 7.325d: 33 9.408f: 69 11.486f: 67, 69 15.693e: 141 15.699d: 152, 154 Clearch. fr. 4: 171–172 Cratin. fr. 32: 151 fr. 44: 82 fr. 105.7: 177 fr. 105.8: 143 fr. 236.1: 33 Cratin. iun. fr. 14: 143–144 Critias fr. 4: 121 Damoxen. fr. 2.49–50: 141

235

236 Dem. 18.28: 82 18.242: 182 Demon. fr. 1.3: 171 Dio Chrys. Or. 7.133: 170 Diph. fr. 4.4–11: 186 fr. 6: 154 fr. 45.3: 114 fr. 58: 198 fr. 63: 120 fr. 83: 117 fr. 84: 121 Ephipp. fr. 9: 39 fr. 15.1–3: 73 fr. 15.1–10: 73 Euang. fr. 1.9: 126 Eub. fr. 29: 142 fr. 65.3–4: 117 fr. 72.3–5: 78 fr. 87: 79 fr. 92: 107 fr. 93.1–6: 69 fr. 109.1: 73 fr. 137: 159 Eup. fr. 199: 80 fr. 313.2: 195 fr. 316.3: 191 fr. 320: 171 fr. 355: 117 fr. 365: 74 Euphr. fr. 1.7–8: 125 Eur. Alc. 311: 191 Alc. 418: 136 Alc. 788–789: 136, 138 Alc. 831–832: 177 El. 952–953: 121 Hel. 765: 144 HF 777–778: 121 Heracl. 900: 121 Hipp. 421–423: 191 Hipp. 1114: 182 Ion 1512–1514: 195

Indices Eur. (cont.) Med. 553: 200 Or. 232: 120 Or. 362–365: 28–29 Or. 1377–1379: 29 Phoen. 391–392: 191 Phoen. 1202: 137 Suppl. 438–439: 191 Suppl. 787–788: 121 Tr. 353: 177 fr. 88: 181 fr. 641: 190–191 fr. 941: 14 Eust. 899.12–16: 160 1220.59: 159 Harp. p. 210.11–14: 22 p. 225.17: 130 p. 231.7–16: 160 Hdt. 1.32.4: 186 1.192.3: 150 1.194.2: 69 2.38.3: 69, 198 2.151.2: 115 2.162.4: 64 4.168.1: 199 5.78.1: 191 7.102.1: 190 Hegesipp. fr. 1.13: 115 fr. 2.1–2: 64 Hero Mechanicus Automatopoetica 22.5: 148 Herod. Mimiamb. 5.66–67: 144 Hom. Il. 7.212: 200 Il. 7.147: 166 Il. 15.607–608: 200 Il. 23.416: 166 Il. 24.263: 150 Od. 1.136–138 = 17.91–93: 171 Od. 6.260–261: 150 Od. 9.322–323: 96 Od. 12.234: 166

Indices Hsch. α 3945: 129 β 870: 198 β 948: 198 ε 2147: 199 ε 3949: 160 κ 125: 198 κ 646: 126 μ 1033: 69 ν 120: 22 ο 1947: 199 σ 2000: 207 σ 2003: 207 χ 327: 181 Luc. Am. 41: 198 Dial. Mort. 1.1: 32 Hermot. 59: 153 Navig. 278: 70 Lync. fr. 1.5–6: 59 fr. 1.17–19: 59 fr. 14 Dalby: 109 Matro fr. 1.46–47: 60 fr. 107–108: 176 Men. Dysk. 116–117: 29 Epitr. 223: 137 Perik. 303: 88 Sam. 732–733: 177 fr. 59: 154 fr. 60.1: 154 fr. 60.1–2: 154 fr. 292.1–2: 198 fr. 297.6: 29 fr. 372.1–6: 137 fr. 409.6–9: 126 fr. 687: 200 fr. 709.2: 200 Metag. fr. 4.1–3: 177 Mnesim. fr. 3.5–7: 63 Pherecr. fr. 11: 151 fr. 113.4: 166 fr. 113.5: 114 fr. 113.29: 195

Pherecr. (cont.) fr. 137.7: 113 fr. 143.1: 95 fr. 156.4–5: 171 Phryn. fr. 15: 94 fr. 53: 63 Philem. fr. 63.1–3: 125 fr. 63.3: 126 fr. 77.1–3: 180 fr. 99.1–9: 182 fr. 150: 70 fr. 118: 187 fr. 137: 200 fr. 150: 70 fr. 154: 180, 181 Philostr. Ep. 22: 198–199 Philyll. fr. 3.3: 171 Phot. ε 641: 199 ε 2513: 107 κ 393: 171 μ 148: 126 o 703: 199 Pind. Nem. 5.25: 60 Ol. 1.97: 91 Ol. 2.17: 121 Ol. 12.7–9: 138 fr. 109.3–4: 190 Pl. Alc. 149e: 167 Plt. 260c: 153 Prt. 314a: 153 Resp. 359e: 198 Resp. 506c: 138 Resp. 535b: 202 Resp. 557b: 191 Resp. 569a: 82 Soph. 220d: 34 Tht. 149: 200, 202 Plut. De aud. poet. 6.22f: 172 De lib. 2b: 138 De Pyth. or. 12: 182 Vit. Caes. 29: 182

237

238

Indices Suda α 1703: 129 β 347: 200 κ 303: 126 κ 863: 171 Telecl. fr. 1.2: 171 Thuc. 2.37.1: 190 2.89.1: 64 4.62.4: 138 Xen. An. 1.2.27: 199 An. 3.4.11: 192 An. 3.4.46: 91 Cyr. 3.3.27: 150 Cyr. 4.1.7: 150 Cyr. 4.7.18: 150 Cyr. 6.4.4: 150 Hell. 6.5.38: 142 Symp. 2.23: 70, 140 Symp. 4.12: 138 Symp. 4.38: 69 Xenarch. fr. 2.2–3: 140

Poll. 1.74–75: 22 2.194: 199 5.98: 198 5.99: 198, 199 5.99–100: 199 6.69: 126 6.100: 68 10.72: 98 Soph. Aj. 159: 191 Ant. 254: 117 Ant. 937–938: 81 Ant. 1158–1160: 195 El. 534: 171 OC 1165: 144 OT 197: 31 OT 977–978: 137 OT 1200: 191 OT 1213: 121 OT 1478–1479: 144 fr. 301: 121 fr. 473: 195 fr. 563.1–2: 70, 140 fr. 593.6: 138

4. Index rerum et personarum actor(s): 11–12, 18, 20–21, 39, 41, 128, 195, 207 Aelius Dionysius: 44, 57, 149, 159 Aerope: 133, 142, 144–145 Aeschines: 11–12, 19–21, 71 Aeschylus: 14, 29, 104, 120, 145, 184, 188, 205 Agathon: 103, 120, 145 Agathos Daimon: 133, 140 agon: 103, 188 Alexander of Myndos: 75 Alexis: 12–13, 17–19, 36, 43, 46, 48, 58–59, 64–66, 68, 83, 85, 91, 94, 102– 104, 111, 118, 123–124, 133–134, 151, 156–157, 162–163, 167, 169, 173, 177 almond oil: 176 Anacreon: 34, 54–55

Anaxandrides: 12–13, 18–19, 25, 36, 44, 48, 51, 66, 108, 118, 132–133, 146, 151, 162 Anaxilas: 122, 170, 177 anchovies: 107 antiaphrodisiac: 33 Antidotus: 109 Anti–Eros: 66 Antiphanes: 18–19, 25–26, 28, 33, 36, 46, 48, 60, 66–67, 79, 84, 102–103, 107–108, 118, 120, 133, 134, 151, 162, 163, 167, 169, 173, 177, 178, 202 aphrodisiac: 33, 61 Aphrodite: 55, 197, 199, 200–201 Apicius: 61, 75 Apollo: 55, 73 Apollodorus: 25, 28, 41–42, 48, 93, 107, 145

Indices appetizers: 59, 61, 73, 75, 193 Archestratus: 25, 37, 77, 80, 109, 125 Archippus: 13, 28, 45, 53, 80, 84, 156, 161 Ariadne: 127 Aristophanes: 13, 39, 41–43, 45–48, 58–59, 63, 72, 75, 90, 94, 103–104, 109, 114, 118, 127, 132, 136, 145, 149, 156, 166, 168, 175, 184, 187–188, 191, 194, 197, 204 Aristophon: 133 Aristotle: 25, 26, 30, 38, 75, 84, 117, 137, 141, 165, 167, 170, 184 Artemis: 32–33, 98, 178, 205 Asclepius: 69–70 asparagus: 61 Athenaeus: 11–12, 16–17, 25–26, 32–33, 37, 43, 48, 50–51, 58–59, 62, 65, 67–69, 72–73, 75, 77, 79, 83, 85–88, 90–91, 94, 98–100, 105, 107, 109, 113–114, 124, 126, 128, 132, 134, 141, 143, 145, 152–154, 157–158, 162–163, 165, 169, 178, 193–195 Athens: 11, 31, 33, 36, 41, 53, 60, 66, 70, 75–76, 106, 109, 119, 122, 125, 132, 136, 162, 165, 167– 168, 177, 180, 182, 185, 190, 192, 205 Atreus: 145 bacchant: 76, 80–81 baked in/on coals/ashes: 109–110, 112–113, 125 banquet / banqueters: 22, 25, 33, 46, 59–60, 64, 67–69, 80–81, 84, 86–87, 100, 106, 108, 111, 123–124, 132, 139, 141, 143–144, 169–172, 174, 176–177 barbarian(s): 151, 180–181 barley: 62, 115 bartender: 152–155 basket: 112–115, 132 beans: 176 beauty: 31, 34–35 beddings: 146 beetle: 93, 95–96 beets: 107 birds: 62–65, 72–75, 176 black tail: 30 boiled: 62, 65, 80, 84, 106, 126 bread: 33, 108, 109–115, 123, 125–126 broth: 123, 125

239

brothel–keeper(s): 36, 170 bulbs: 58, 61 butcher: 122 Byzantium: 76–77, 79, 114 cabbage: 159–160 Cadiz: 76–77, 79–81 cake: 58, 61, 64, 98, 112, 114–116, 126, 141, 176 Callias: 67–68, 136, 140, 207 Callimachus: 140, 172 caper: 58, 61 Carcinus II: 145 carpets: 146 catalogue of food: 28, 30, 33, 37, 65, 73, 80–81, 84, 106, 115, 117 Cephisodorus: 42, 47, 163–166 Chaeremon: 120, 137, 195 Chaerephon: 43, 47, 168–170, 172 chance: 193–194 character–types: 45–46, 201 Charicleides: 25 cheese: 27–28, 34–35, 86, 112, 115, 123–126 chickpeas: 176 choregia: 53 Choregus: 18 chorus: 13, 19–20, 41, 80, 102, 119, 151, 208 chous: 99, 116, 154 cicada: 56, 58–59 citizens: 191–192, 195 Cleaenetus: 13, 19–20 Clearchus of Soli: 77 Cleitopolis: 53 Clement of Alexandria: 44 cloak: 90, 193, 195 clothing: 91, 119, 194, 197 Clymene: 145 Comedy, Middle: 11, 30, 42–47, 66, 85, 98, 100, 102, 104, 108, 122, 124, 127, 130, 132–133, 136–137, 143, 148, 157–159, 163, 168, 171–172, 177, 182, 184, 187, 191, 201, 203–204 Comedy, New: 41, 45–46, 66, 92, 102, 108, 122, 130, 132–133, 137, 148, 168, 172, 184, 187, 191, 204 Comedy, Old: 26, 44, 82, 102, 104, 108, 127, 130, 132–133, 170–171, 192, 201, 204

240

Indices

cook: 25, 45–46, 59, 65, 68, 73, 78, 85–87, 116, 122–125, 201, 204 cooking: 37, 59–60, 62, 77, 84, 86, 105, 107, 122, 124–125 couches: 111, 146 courtesans: 28, 146 crabs: 107 Crates: 48, 77, 81, 118, 158–159, 193–196 Cratinus: 25, 31, 45–46, 48, 102–103, 118, 156, 173, 195 crayfish: 61, 74, 106 Crobylus: 109, 196 crumble: 58, 61, cult: 32, 55, 69–70, 195, 205 cup: 46, 67–70, 91–92, 94–97, 99–100, 117, 134–135, 138–141 curdling: 34–35 cuttlefish: 28, 74, 84, 107 Cyclops: 27, 34–35, 54, 96 dainties: 141, 175–176 debate: 38, 41, 121, 127, 192 dedication: 42, 53, 135, 140 delicacy: 30, 33, 35, 64, 74–75, 91 democracy: 191–192 Demosthenes: 19, 81, 203 dialogue: 22, 30, 38–39, 57, 73, 95, 100, 122, 132, 135–136, 139, 171, 175, 202, 204 diminutives: 63–65, 194 dinner: 32, 67, 75, 77–78, 86, 90, 123, 133–135, 139, 141, 144, 146, 169–170, 172, 174–175, 177 Diocles of Carystus: 77 Diocles: 25, 77 Diogenianus: 44 Dionysia: 12, 18–20, 31, 41–42, 53, 130 Dionysius: 44, 53, 57, 108, 122, 149, 159, 164–165 Dionysus: 52–53, 70, 127, 140–141, 188 Diphilus: 22, 46, 49, 59–61, 67, 85, 98– 100, 102, 104, 117, 121, 133, 162, 173 dish(es): 39, 46, 58–60, 62–65, 74–75, 79–80, 83, 86–88, 106, 122–126, 167 divinity: 120, 134, 138–141, 166 dogs: 178 Dorion: 25, 106–107 drinking: 68, 87, 98, 117, 139, 141, 176 drinking vessels: 67, 95–96

drunkard: 128 ducks: 72, 74–75 earring: 196–197, 199 eels: 74, 106, 149 eggs: 60, 64, 125–126, 141, 176 Egypt: 75, 140, 151 Egyptian(s): 140, 151, 167–169, 197 entrées: 59, 61, 73 ephebes: 195 Ephippus: 17–18, 46, 48, 73, 102, 108 Epicharmus: 25, 35–36, 40, 45, 118 Epicrates: 66 Erechtheus: 133 Eriphyle: 145 Eros: 66, 191 etnitas: 113 Eubulus: 17–18, 25, 48, 66, 69–70, 83, 94, 98, 108, 118–119, 133, 146, 169–170, 201 Euphanes: 14, 18–19 Eupolis: 48, 118, 149 Euripides: 13–14, 29–30, 46–47, 55, 103, 104, 120, 132, 136, 145, 179, 183–188, 204, 208 family: 11, 30, 33, 41, 130, 175, 178, 202 fate: 186 father: 19, 53, 93, 121, 134–135, 145, 184, 188, 192 feast: 79, 87, 124, 133 festival(s): 19, 21, 33, 41, 53, 108, 132 fig–leaf: 123, 125 fish: 13, 22–25, 27–35, 37, 56, 58, 60–61, 73, 75–83, 103, 105–107, 125 flask: 100–101 flute–player(s): 175, 177 food trade: 60, 80 fragrance: 176 frankincense: 174–175, 177 freedom of speech: 47, 188–191 frugal(ly): 73–74, 79 Galateia: 27, 34–35 garlands: 169–171, 174, 176–177 garlic: 33, 59, 61, 115 garment(s): 57, 89, 91–92, 197, 207–208 Glaucus: 13, 23, 27–30 glutton(s): 64, 84, 109 gnomē / gnomic expressions: 119, 132, 137, 180–181, 184–185

Indices gobies: 107 good fortune: 135, 137 grapes: 62, 176 grill: 84 Grotius: 16, 200 Gyraldus: 16, 37 handwashing: 171 hare: 37, 39, 72, 74, 126, 141, 176 Harpocration: 22, 44, 130, 160–161 Health (personified): 68, 134–136, 138 Hecate: 22, 27, 31–34, 45, 49–50, 51, 98–99 Hegesander of Delphi: 25 heralds: 195 Hercules: 26, 70 Hermes: 69, 126, 132 Herodian: 12, 40 Hesiod: 45–46, 48, 50–51, 76–77, 102–105, 202 Hesychius of Miletus: 16, 50–51 Hesychius (of Alexandria): 69, 106, 197, 207 hetairai: 23, 28, 30, 33, 56, 66, 107, 133, 143–144, 201 Homer: 103–104, 136, 165–166, 171, 176, 179, 191, 202 honey: 112, 114–116, 125–126 hoplite: 192 horsemen: 150 horses: 150, 202 hunter(s) / hunting: 33–34, 38–39 hyacinth: 58, 61 Hygieia: 67, 69–70, 133–134, 138 Ikarion: 42, 53 intellectual property: 68 Isocrates: 46, 71 ivy: 171, 177 jewelry: 197–198 Joannes Zonaras: 44 jokes: 33, 187 kandaulos: 123–124 Keryx: 132 kistē: 132 kollura: 113 kottabos: 169 kotyle: 99, 116 lagynos: 98–100, 116–117 Laius: 208

241

Lake Kopais: 75 Laodameia: 133 leaves: 59, 109, 125–126, 195 Lemnos: 55–56 Lenaea: 11–12, 14, 18––21, 42, 128, 130, 165 lentils: 61 Leukas: 54–55, 162 libation: 139, 141, 155, 169 lions: 37–38, 202 List of Victors: 11 love: 36, 54–55, 64, 66, 69, 104, 114, 124, 143, 148, 196, 201 lovers: 28, 55–56, 60 lust: 54, 69 Lycurgus: 151 Lynceus of Samos: 25, 81, 99, 109, 117, 172 Magnes: 36, 118, 162 market: 33, 60, 79, 109, 114, 122, 177 marriage: 127 Matreas of Alexandria: 165 meals: 122 meat: 61–62, 64–65, 73, 84, 87, 122–123, 125–126 Melanthius: 25 Menelaus: 145 Menoeceus: 208 merchant(s): 36, 82, 144, 153, 201 Merope: 127 Metagenes: 36 metaniptron: 67, 70 metaphor(s): 14, 26–29, 30, 56, 91, 165, 191–192 military diction: 192 misconduct: 87, 145 Mnesimachus: 18–19, 63, 84 money: 36, 74, 150, 165, 167, 182, 201 money–lender(s): 45, 167–170 mullet: 24–25, 27, 30–33, 80, 106 Myrina: 54–55 Mysteries: 108, 150 mythical hero(es) / plot: 102, 118–119, 127, 133, 145–146, 185, 187 mythological burlesque: 45, 98, 127 Nauplius: 145 nautical: 13, 22 necklaces: 196–198

242 nibbling: 64 nickname(s): 28, 33, 46, 55–56, 84, 107, 143, 146, 173, 178 Nicochares: 35, 48, 118 nuts: 64, 73, 141, 176 oath: 81, 167, 201 obelias–bread: 113 Ocimon: 47, 133, 142–144, 146 Odysseus: 54, 96, 137 oil: 80, 106, 112, 153–155, 176, 197 Oenopion: 42, 127–128, 130 Orion: 127 ornament(s): 196–198 Oros of Alexandria: 44 pan: 83–84, 115 Pandion: 133 Pandrosos: 45, 48, 50–51, 68, 132–134, 139, 143, 184, 193 panos: 113, 152 pans: 84 parasite(s): 36, 43, 46–47, 157, 168, 170, 172–173, 196, 201 parody: 30, 45, 98, 108–109, 127, 165 paunch: 65 Pausanias: 38, 44, 66 peacocks: 63 perch: 30, 61, 79 perfume: 169, 174–177 Perses: 104 Phaon: 54–55 pheasants: 63 Philemon: 41, 58–59, 66, 85, 111, 118, 120, 123–125, 131, 163, 173, 177 Philetaerus: 12, 18, 25, 41–42, 48, 50, 56, 67, 72, 76–77, 83, 108, 127 Philippus: 18, 41 pickling (of fish): 79–80 pig: 28, 62 pigeons: 62–63, 65 pimp: 169–170, 172, 200–201 Pindar: 91, 160 plagiarism: 68 planos: 42, 163–166 Plato Comicus: 25, 48, 118, 131 Plautus: 36, 49, 93, 162, 167–168 Pleisthenes: 145 Plutarch: 70 politics: 118, 166, 190

Indices poppy–seed: 113 poverty: 188, 190–191 props: 79, 89, 144, 147 Protesilaus: 133 proverbial expressions: 135, 171, 181, 185–187 Ptolemy Chennus: 54–55 rays: 106 riddle(s): 22–23, 25–27–32, 34–35, 102 roasted / roasting: 39, 64, 80, 84, 107, 115, 176 salt: 62, 80, 86, 106, 124 saltfish: 76–77, 80 salting (of fish): 60, 79–80 sand–smelt: 107 Sannyrion: 13, 22 Sappho: 34, 46, 48–49, 54, 55, 67, 102, 104 satire: 56, 159 sauce(s): 58–59, 61–62, 75, 81, 115–117, 124–125 sausage: 63, 115, 125, 176 sea: 14, 23–24, 27, 29, 31, 55, 79, 95 seafood: 25, 28, 31, 59, 84 seasonings: 62, 80, 87, 117 sea–urchin: 58–61 sea vessels: 97 second tables: 64, 170, 174–175 Seleucus of Alexandria: 67, 69 Semus: 109 sententiae: 47, 132 serving: 65, 77, 79, 116, 135–136, 142 serving–platters / trays: 59–60 sesame oil: 176 sex/sexual: 23, 27–28, 31, 33, 35, 60, 66, 87, 107, 145, 150, 170, 191, 201 sex trade: 28 sexual connotations: 23, 27–28, 31, 33, 60, 87, 107, 150 ship: 22, 93–97, 148 Sicily: 27, 34–35 silphium stalks: 59 silverware: 90–91 skyphos: 99, 117 slave(s) / slavery: 36, 46, 57, 60, 73, 78, 114, 133, 135–136, 145, 151–152, 162–163, 171, 173–175, 187, 194–195, 204 small–fry: 105–106

Indices smoking (of fish): 60, 79–80 snacks: 174, 176 Socrates: 43, 46, 63, 81, 168, 172 soldier(s): 82, 89–91, 201 Sopater: 109 Sophilus: 111, 163 Sophocles: 14, 118, 120–121, 136 Sophron: 25 Sosicrates: 94, 128–129 Sparta: 119, 125 Speusippus: 25, 58 Sphinx: 208 squid: 74, 83–84, 107 stage: 22, 45–46, 100, 102, 104, 108, 140, 142, 159, 163, 175, 194 stew: 39, 105, 107, 123 Stobaeus: 44, 120, 137, 179, 183–184, 189 Strattis: 36, 118 swallows: 179–182 swan: 93, 95, 96 swimmer(s) / swimming: 58, 148 symposium: 22, 30, 57, 66, 70, 78–79, 81, 85, 92, 100, 111, 133, 135–136, 141, 143–144, 146–147, 169–172, 174–175 sympotic: 22–23, 26–27, 33, 45–46, 57, 60, 68, 84, 100, 109, 111, 133, 136, 143, 147, 168 table: 64, 75, 79–80, 101, 111, 138–142, 146, 169–171, 173–176, 202 tattooed: 46, 173 Terpsicles: 25, 33 Tettigidaia: 54–55

243

theater: 31, 53, 82, 192 therapeutic: 61, 185, 187 Thorician rock: 55 Thyestes: 145 thyme: 176 Timarchus: 11–13, 19–20, 71 Timocles: 36, 46, 108–109, 111, 118, 163, 187 Timocrates: 25, 127–128 toast(s): 46, 68, 70, 133–136, 138, 140 Triptolemus: 133 Tryphon of Alexandria: 109 tuna: 61, 76–77, 79, 106 turnips: 59 utensils: 46, 89–91 vegetables: 59, 61, 64–65, 73, 87 vinegar: 62, 90–91, 117, 129, 152–15 water: 29, 33, 69, 92, 106–107, 129, 134, 139, 141, 152–155, 169–171, 174, 193 wealth: 30, 89, 91, 156, 190 wet cooking: 105, 107 White Rock: 54–55 wine: 64, 69–70, 78, 80, 92, 98, 100–101, 111, 116–117, 127–129, 134, 136, 139–142, 152–155, 165, 169, 174, 176, 193 wine–cooler: 89, 91–92 wraps: 59 wreath: 108, 169–170, 172, 175, 177 Xenarchus: 36, 94, 118 Xenophon: 38, 43 Zeus Soter: 69