FrC 19.2 Antiphanes frr. 101-193 (Zakynthios-Progonoi) 3949189335, 9783949189333

Citation preview

Titelei_VUR P0016849_FrC_19.2_Olson.qxp_. 01.03.22 18:00 Seite 1

Titelei_VUR P0016849_FrC_19.2_Olson.qxp_. 01.03.22 18:00 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 19.2 · Antiphanes frr. 101–193

Titelei_VUR P0016849_FrC_19.2_Olson.qxp_. 01.03.22 18:00 Seite 3

S. Douglas Olson

Antiphanes Zakynthios – Progonoi Translation and Commentary

Verlag Antike

Titelei_VUR P0016849_FrC_19.2_Olson.qxp_. 01.03.22 18:00 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. © 2022 Verlag Antike, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 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 und V&R unipress. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Umschlaggestaltung: disegno visuelle kommunikation, Wuppertal

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-949189-35-7

For Rachel (as always)

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

11

Ζακύνθιος (Zakynthios) “The Man from Zakynthos”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Ζωγράφος (Zôgraphos) “The Painter” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

Ἡνίοχος (Hêniochos) “The Charioteer” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

Θαμύρας (Thamyras) “Thamyras” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

Θεογονία (Theogonia) “The Birth of the Gods” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων (Thorikioi ê Dioryttôn) “Residents of Thorikos or The Man who Dug Tunnels” . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

[Ἰάσων (Iasôn)] [“Jason”]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

Ἰατρός (Iatros) “The Physician”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Ἱππεῖς (Hippeis) “The Knights”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

Καινεύς (Kaineus) “Kaineus” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

Κᾶρες (Kares) “The Carians”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

Καρίνη (Karinê) “The Girl from Caria” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

Κηπουρός (Kêpouros) “The Gardener”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

Κιθαριστής (Kitharistês) “The Lyre-player” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

Κιθαρῳδός (Kitharôidos) “The Kitharode” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

Κλεοφάνης (Kleophanês) “Kleophanês” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

Κναφεύς (Knapheus) “The Fuller” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80

Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων (Knoithideus ê Gastrôn) “The Man from Mount Knoithideus or The Glutton” . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85

Κορινθία (Korinthia) “The Girl from Corinth”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96

Κοροπλάθος (Koroplathos) “The Figurine-maker” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Κουρίς (Kouris) “The Female Hair-cutter” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Κυβευταί (Kybeutai) “Gamblers” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Κύκλωψ (Kyklôps) “The Cyclops”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Κώρυκος (Kôrykos) “The Bag” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Λαμπάς (Lampas) “Lampas” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Λάμπων (Lampôn) “Lampôn” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Λεπτινίσκος (Leptiniskos) “Little Leptines” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία (Leukadios vel Leukadia) “The Man from Leukas” or “The Girl from Leukas” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Λεωνίδης (Leônidês) “Leônidês” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Λήμνιαι (Lêmniai) “Women from Lemnos” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Λυδός (Lydos) “The Lydian” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Λύκων (Lykôn) “Lykôn” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Μαλθάκη (Malthakê) “Malthakê” or “The Woman who was Soft” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Μελανίων (Melaniôn) “Melaniôn” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Μελέαγρος (Meleagros) “Meleager” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Μέλιττα (Melitta) “Honey-bee” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Μέτοικος (Metoikos) “The Metic” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Μήδεια (Mêdeia) “Medea” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης (Mênagyrtês vel Mêtragyrtês) “The Mendicant Priest of Mên” or “The Mendicant Priest of the Mother”. . 195 Μητροφῶν (Mêtrophôn) “Mêtrophôn” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Μίδων (Midôn) “Midon” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Μίνως (Minôs) “Minos” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Μισοπόνηρος (Misoponêros) “The Man who Hated Villains” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Μνήματα (Mnêmata) “Monuments”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Μοιχοί (Moichoi) “Seducers of Women” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Μυλών (Mylôn) “The Millhouse” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Μύστις (Mystis) “Mystis” or “The Female Initiate”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Νεανίσκοι (Neaniskoi) “Young Men” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Νεοττίς (Neottis) “Nestling” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Ὄβριμος (Obrimos) “The Man who was Strong” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ (Oinomaos ê Pelops) “Oinomaos or Pelops” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Οἰωνιστής (Oiônistês) “The Bird-Prophet” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι (Homoiai vel Homoioi) “Women who Were the Same” or “Men who Were the Same”. . . . . . . . . 267 Ὁμοπάτριοι (Homopatrioi) “Men who Share a Father”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 Ὀμφάλη (Omphalê) “Omphale” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Ὁμώνυμοι (Homônymoi) “Men who Shared a Name” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 Ὀρφεύς (Orpheus) “Orpheus” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Παιδεραστής (Paiderastês) “The Pederast” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Παράσιτος (Parasitos) “The Parasite”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Παρεκδιδομένη (Parekdidomenê) “The Girl who was Being Mis-married” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Παροιμίαι vel Παροιμαζόμενος (Paroimiai vel Paroimiazomenos) “Proverbs” or “The Man who Quoted Proverbs” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 Πλούσιοι (Plousioi) “Wealthy Men” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Ποίησις (Poiêsis) “Poetry” or “Writing Poetry” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 Ποντικός (Pontikos) “The Man from the Black Sea Region” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Προβατεύς (Probateus) “The Shepherd”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 Πρόβλημα (Problêma) “The Puzzle” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 Πρόγονοι (Progonoi) “Step-sons” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

11

Preface This is Volume II of my edition of the comic poet Antiphanes. Volume III is already in print, and Volume I should follow in 2023. Much of the work on this portion of the commentary was completed at Bilkent University in Ankara, where I have been a Visiting Professor since 2017. I would like to thank Adnan Akay (Provost of the University) and Mustafa Nakeeb (Coordinator of the Bilkent CCI Program) for arranging this appointment. I have also profited from the opportunity to use libraries at the University of Bari, the University of Freiburg and the Fondation Hardt, as well as the University of Minnesota. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge support for my research carried out under the agreement for the provision of grants from the federal budget in the form of subsidies No. 075-15-2021-571, project “Digital commentaries to classical texts: Greek comedy” (IWL RAS, Moscow, Russia). This volume, like the one that preceded it, is dedicated to my lovely wife Rachel, who has always been on my side. I have not seen her for many months, and this preface was written late at night in a beautiful apartment we should have shared for a few days. Next year will be better. S. Douglas Olson Milan, 10 November 2021

13

Ζακύνθιος (Zakynthios)

“The Man from Zakynthos”

Introduction Title Zakynthos (IACP #141) is one of the Ionian islands and is located off the west coast of the Peloponnese near the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth, more or less due south of Cephalonia; the name was also used for the city there. Zakynthos was an Athenian ally during the Peloponnesian War years (e. g. Th. 2.7.3) and later a member of the Second Athenian League (IG II2 43.B.35–8); during the first half of the 4th century BCE, control of the place shifted repeatedly back and forth between oligarchic and democratic elements of the population. See in general Benton 1931/1932. 213–20; Philippson–Kirsten 1958. 528–40; Gehrke–Wirbelauer 2004. 374–5. The title of Antiphanes’ play as the manuscript of Athenaeus preserves it is actually Ζάκυνθος (“Zakynthos”). But Koppiers’ Ζακύνθιος fits the normal pattern of local adjectives; cf. Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Λευκάδιος, Λυδός, Ποντικός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός, and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (male plurals) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; (female characters) Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Καρίνη, Κορινθία, Λευκαδία; (female plural) Λήμνιαι with Introduction; and Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 101 K.–A. (102 K.)

5

2 καὶ ἑταίραις werden

5

εἶτ’ οὐ δικαίως εἰμὶ φιλογύνης ἐγὼ καὶ τὰς ἑταίρας ἡδέως πάσας ἔχω; τουτὶ γὰρ αὐτὸ πρῶτον ὃ σὺ ποεῖς παθεῖν, μαλακαῖς καλαῖς τε χερσὶ τριφθῆναι πόδας, πῶς οὐχὶ σεμνόν ἐστιν; ἔχω Ath.A : πρὸς ἔχων Naber τὰς ἑταίρας πάσας Ath.A : ταῖς A πάσαις Herwerden 3 πρῶτον ὃ σὺ ποεῖς Ath. : πρῶθ᾿ ὃ σὺ ψέγεις Her-

So then, aren’t I right to like women and to enjoy all the prostitutes? Because, first to all, to have done to me what you’re doing — to have my feet rubbed by soft, pretty hands — isn’t that great?

14

Antiphanes

Ath. 12.553b–d Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν μὲν Ἀλκήστιδι (fr. 31) ἐλαίῳ τινὰ ποιεῖ χριόμενον τοὺς πόδας. ἐν δὲ Μητραγύρτῃ φησί (fr. 152)· ——. καὶ ἐν Ζακυνθίῳ (Koppiers : Ζακύνθῳ Ath.A)· ——. καὶ ἐν Θορικίοις (fr. 105)· —— Antiphanes in Alkêstis (fr. 31) represents someone having his feet anointed with olive oil. Whereas in Mêtragyrtês he says (fr. 152): ——. And in Zakynthios (thus Koppiers : Zakynthos Ath.A): ——. And in Thorikioi (fr. 105): ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llkl l|lk|r klkl llkl l|lkl llkl llkl k|lk|r klkl rlkl k|lk|l llkl llkl k|lk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Herwerden 1876. 316; Naber 1880. 47–8; Kock 1884 II.51–2; Herwerden 1903. 81; Reinhardt 1974. 108–9; Scholtz 1996. 74 Text In 2, Naber’s πρὸς … ἔχων (cf. Isoc. 1.20 ἡδέως μὲν ἔχε πρὸς ἅπαντας) for the paradosis καὶ … ἔχω converts the sense of the first two verses to ~ “So aren’t I rightly said to like women, given that I’m nice to all the prostitutes?”, which is unlikely to be the sense intended, especially since in what follows the speaker speaks glowingly not of his own good character but of the physical pleasure women give him. In the middle of 2, Herwerden’s dative ταῖς ἑταίραις … πάσαις for Athenaeus’ accusative τὰς ἑταίρας … πάσας makes the construction match the one used at D. 5.15; 14.12, where the sense of ἡδέως ἔχω is “be well-disposed to”. But nothing is obviously wrong with the paradosis (see Interpretation), and the speaker seems in any case to be saying that he likes to receive sexual and other services from prostitutes, not that he wants to be their friend. In 3, Herwerden’s πρῶθ᾿ ὃ σὺ ψέγεις (“first of all, to have done to me what you’re condemning”) arbitrarily rewrites the text to eliminate the woman who is rubbing the speaker’s feet as a character in the scene, converting this into an abstract debate about different sorts of pleasure (thus perhaps between two men). Citation context

See fr. 31 Citation context.

Interpretation The speaker is seemingly in a brothel, where he is enjoying one of the services provided (sc. in addition to sex). His words are directed in the first instance to the woman who is massaging his feet (3). But the rhetorical questions suggest that he is simultaneously offering a response to a separate interlocutor, who disapproves of what he is doing, as she presumably does not, making this sound like a speech directed in part to the world at large. εἶτ(α) in 1 marks this as the next point in a case the speaker has been building (cf. fr. 157.1), while τουτὶ … πρῶτον in 3 shows that he anticipates running through a whole list of reasons, of

Ζακύνθιος (fr. 101)

15

which this is only the first, for why he is right to prefer women (sc. to boys?; see on 1 φιλογύνης). 1 For δικαίως + a finite verb in the sense “be right to”, e. g. Ar. Th. 831; Ra. 584, 642; Aristopho fr. 11.1; Alex. fr. 187.1–2. φιλογύνης is attested elsewhere in the classical period only at Pl. Smp. 191d, where it means “fond of (having sex with) women (as opposed to males)”, which is thus perhaps to be taken as the sense here as well; cf. Ath. 13.603e φιλομεῖραξ δὲ ἦν ὁ Σοφοκλῆς, ὡς Εὐριπίδης φιλογύνης (“Sophocles liked boys, just as Euripides liked women”) and φιλογύναιος used in the same way at e. g. Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 248. If so, whoever the speaker is responding to might be an advocate of pederasty (like the title-character of Paiderastês). 2 τὰς ἑταίρας ἡδέως πάσας ἔχω amounts to a gloss on 1 εἰμὶ φιλογύνης, with the speaker making it clear that he not a μοιχός (“seducer of free women”; see Moichoi introductory n.), unlike Plato’s φιλογύναι (Smp. 191d; cf. 1 n.). For the sense of ἑταίρα, fr. 2.1 n. For ἡδέως ἔχω + acc. in the sense “enjoy, take pleasure in”, cf. Men. fr. 843.2; E. Ion 647; Th. 5.11.1. 4 For having one’s feet rubbed (often with perfumed oil) as a sensuous pleasure, cf. Cephisod. fr. 3.3; Anaxandr. fr. 41 (one politician does this for another, seemingly as an act of self-abasement) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Eub. frr. 89 (done— absurdly—to a dog being kept in the greatest possible luxury); 107 (seemingly again a service performed by prostitutes); Scholtz 1996. 73–7. When used in reference to an object of desire, μαλακός is always a positive characteristic; cf. Cratin. fr. 335.1 with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc. (citing in addition to this fragment Ar. Nu. 979; Ec. 1058; Pl. 1022; S. Ant. 783–4) and add Ar. Lys. 1109 (a supplement to the text by Wilamowitz); Pl. Smp. 195e (of Eros himself and everything he touches). For τριφθῆναι πόδας, fr. 152.5 Text. 5 For πῶς οὐ; after an if-clause, a relative clause or the like as a way of offering a strong assertion (~ “Certainly …!”), e. g. Eub. fr. 67.2; Men. Dysc. 389; fr. 224.10; adesp. com. fr. 1096. 87; A. Supp. 476; X. Oec. 15.4. For σεμνός (properly applied to deities or the like; cf. fr. 81.4 with n.) used of objects in the sense “wonderful” vel sim., cf. Eub. fr. 14.4, 7 (of food-items, but with a dithyrambic flavor complicating the question of register and thus sense); Aristopho fr. 7.4 σεμνὸν τὸ βρῶμα (“That’s fantastic food”); Alex. fr. 19.2; LSJ s. v. II.2.

16

Ζωγράφος (Zôgraphos) “The Painter”

Introduction Title The noun and its cognates are first attested at Hdt. 2.46.2 (contrasted with sculptors); Ion FGrH 392 F 6 (a ζωγράφος uses colors in a portrait), and note in the 4th century e. g. Ar. Ec. 996 (the painting of funerary vases); X. Mem. 1.4.3 (painting contrasted with sculpture); Oec. 6.13 (painters contrasted with sculptors). For painting in the 4th century, see Keuls 1978, esp. 59–87; Miller 2014; Stansbury–O’Donnell 2014; Millis 2015. 89 (with further discussion and older bibliography); Plantzos 2018. For other comedies by Antiphanes called after a profession, occupation or the like (not necessarily of a central character, but at least of someone involved in a crucial moment of the action), see Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ἡνίοχος, Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Τριταγωνιστής, and in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Anaxandrides wrote a Zôgraphoi ê Geôgraphoi (“Painters or Geographers”). Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 102 K.–A. (103 K.) Antiatt. α 114 ἄγαλμα καὶ γραφὴν καὶ ἀνδριάντα· ἀδιαφόρως. Ἀντιφάνης Ζωγράφῳ agalma and painting and statue; used indiscriminately. Antiphanes in Zôgraphos

Discussion

Kock 1884 II.52; Kannicht 1969. 90

Citation context Phot. α 92 = Suda α 131 = Synag. B α 31 ἄγαλμα· πᾶν ἐφ’ ᾧ τις ἀγάλλεται. ἀγάλματα δὲ καὶ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ τοὺς ἀνδριάντας λέγουσιν (“agalma: anything in which one exults. They use agalmata (pl.) to refer to both paintings and statues”; from the common source conventionally referred to as Σ΄) is very similar. The Antiatticist’s reference to Antiphanes might be intended to represent his own, further contribution to the discussion, but more likely it has merely been cut out of the other version of the material; see Interpretation.

Ζωγράφος (fr. 102)

17

The parallel rules out Kock’s suggestion that ἄγαλμα καὶ γραφὴν κ(αὶ) ἀνδριάντα (e. g. 〈xl〉kl k|lkl lklk) ought all to be given to Antiphanes. Note also Hsch. α 261 ἄγαλμα· ξόανον, ἀφομοίωμα εἰκόνων ἢ ἀνδριάντων (“agalma: a cult-statue, a copy of images or statues”); Antiatt. α 115 ἀνδριάς· καὶ ἐπὶ γραφῆ⟨ς⟩. Πλάτων Πολιτείᾳ (420c), Μένανδρος Δυσκόλῳ (159) (“andrias (‘statue’): also in reference to a painting. Plato in the Republic (420c), Menander in Dyskolos (159)”). Interpretation An ἄγαλμα is normally a “statue” (e. g. Ar. Ec. 780; Anaxandr. fr. 29.2 with Millis 2015 ad loc.), but LSJ s. v. 4 cites E. Hel. 262–3 εἴθ’ ἐξαλειφθεῖσ’ ὡς ἄγαλμ’ αὖθις πάλιν / αἴσχιον εἶδος ἔλαβον ἀντὶ τοῦ καλοῦ (“If only I could be wiped clean once again, like an agalma, and have an ugly appearance rather than a lovely one!”; Helen regrets the beauty that has brought her so much trouble) to show that the word can also mean “portrait, picture”. The claim at Antiatt. α 115 (quoted in Citation context) that ἀνδριάς means “painting” in Plato’s Republic and Menander’s Dyskolos is false—in both cases the sense is certainly “statue”, and in the first instance painted (i. e. “polychrome”) sculpture is specifically in question— and Kannicht argues that the same is true in Euripides’ Helen: Helen does not wish that her beauty could be blotted away like a painting (cf. A. Ag. 1327–9; E. fr. 618), but that it could be removed from her face, like paint from a statue. If so, Phot. = Suda = Synag. B is probably wrong about the alleged second sense of ἄγαλμα, and it is tempting to think that the Antiatticist has got the meaning of the word wrong in Antiphanes as well. ἄγαλμα is attested already in Homer in the sense “pleasing offering (to a god)” (e. g. Od. 12.347), but the specific sense “statue (of a god)” (LSJ s. v. 3) is first secure in the 5th century. On this and related terms, see Bloesch 1953; Pritchett 1998. 61–5.

18

Ἡνίοχος (Hêniochos) “The Charioteer”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.326; Breitenbach 1908. 101–3

Title A ἡνίοχος (< ἡνία, “reins” + ἔχω) is a “charioteer”, i. e. the man who drove a chariot for another person (e.g. in Homeric warfare or as part of an athletic competition). For other comedies by Antiphanes called after a profession, occupation or the like (presumably that of a central character), see Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος with Introduction, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων, and Τριταγωνιστής, and in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Meineke notes that Heniochos is also attested as a personal name in Athens (8 examples overall in LGPN II, including the comic poet, along with a handful of others from other places), and raises the possibility that this might instead be a play called after a male character, like Γόργυθος, Εὐθύδικος, Λάμπων, Λεπτίνης, Λεωνίδης, Μητροφῶν, Μίδων, Τίμων, Φάων and Φιλίσκος. But Menander also wrote a Hêniochos, and as male personal names are systematically ignored as titles for his comedies, the easiest conclusion is that both plays were called “The Charioteer”.1 Content Date

1

Unknown.

Unknown.

Breitenbach compared Men. fr. 159 ὧν δὲ μὴ αἴτιος τρόπος, / τά γ’ ἀπὸ τῆς τύχης φέρειν δεῖ γνησίως τὸν εὐγενῆ (from Hêniochos) to Antiph. frr. dub. 320–1 (both of which also have to do with how a good man deals with adversity), and proposed on that basis that the latter two fragments were from Antiphanes’ Hêniochos, which must then have been Menander’s model for his play. This is a circular argument, and these are all in any case moralizing commonplaces that might be inserted into any play by any poet. Perhaps Ἡνίοχος is merely another alternative title for Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, since in some versions of that story a charioteer played a crucial role.

Ἡνίοχος (fr. 103)

19

Fragment fr. 103 K.–A. (104 K.) ἀνδρὸς διαφέρει τοῦτ’ ἀνήρ· ὁ μὲν κακῶς πράττων τὸ λυποῦν ἤγαγ’ εἰς παράστασιν, ὁ δ’ ἐμφρόνως δεξάμενος ἤνεγκεν καλῶς 2 τὸ λυποῦν ἤγαγ’ Stob.SMA : ὑπὸ λύπης ἦλθεν vel διὰ λύπην ἦλθεν Herwerden παράστασιν Stob.SMA : περίστασιν Dobree : μετάστασιν Kock

One man differs from another in this regard: when one has trouble, he lets his grief infuriate him, whereas the other accepts the situation rationally and bears it well Stob. 4.44.19 Ἀντιφάνους Ἡνιόχῳ· —— In Antiphanes’ Hêniochos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr l|lkl klkl llkl l|lk|l klkl klkl lrk|l llkl

Discussion Dobree 1833. 360; Meineke 1839–1857 III.52; Kock 1884 II.52; Herwerden 1903. 81; Mangidis 2003. 177 Text τὸ λυποῦν ἤγαγ’ εἰς παράστασιν (“he takes what grieves him to frenzy”, i. e. “due to his grief, he ends up crazed”) in 2 is comprehensible but odd, and παράστασις in the sense it seems to have here (LSJ s. v. II.7.a–c) is not attested elsewhere before the second half of the 3rd century BCE. Herwerden’s proposals for rewriting the line (both ~ “due to his grief he arrives at frenzy”) are too far from the paradosis to be plausible. Dobree’s εἰς περίστασιν (“to a crisis”) is no clearer than what Stobaeus offers, and the noun is not attested in the necessary sense (LSJ s. v. II.1.b “difficult position, crisis”) any earlier than παράστασις is. Kock’s μετάστασιν (“a change”; cf. Alex. fr. 294.2) seems designed to make τὸ λυποῦν κτλ mean ~ “alters what is troubling him”. If this were right, both courses of action would seemingly be approved: some people try to change the bad situation they are in, while others adapt to it. The writing is crude in any case (see Interpretation), and it is probably better to attribute the awkwardness to Antiphanes than to the tradition that preserves his words. Citation context From a section entitled ὅτι δεῖ γενναίως φέρειν τὰ προσπίπτοντα ὄντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ κατ᾿ ἀρετὴν ζῆν ὀφειλόντας (“That inasmuch as we are

20

Antiphanes

human beings and ought to live in accord with virtue, it is necessary that we bear what happens to us with nobility”). Philem. frr. 77; 123; Men. frr. 855–6; Philem. frr. 39; 72; Diph. fr. 4; Philippid. fr. 18; Men. fr. 303, in that order, are cited before this (along with a number of tragic fragments), Men. fr. 197; Antiph. fr. dub. 321; Men. fr. 857; Philem. frr. 94; 124; 148; Apollod. Com. fr. 18; Philem. fr. 149; Men. fr. 50; Philem. fr. 107; Men. frr. 91; 236.14–16; 236.3–6; 138; 159; Alex. fr. 220; Philem. fr. 109; Alex. fr. 254; Men. Kon. 18–20; Epitr. fr. 9 Sandbach, in that order, after this (along with a number of other fragments, mostly from tragedy). Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material he quotes, which must instead be drawn from one or more pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. Interpretation A gnomic statement perhaps offered in connection with the arrival of bad news for a character in the play, or part of a proffer of advice to someone about to rush headlong into trouble; cf. Millis 2020. The first sort of reaction is not obviously contemptible, but—assuming that the text is sound—seems to be disparaged here: reckless bravery is worse than quiet endurance. For the implication that a wise man bears what fortune brings him philosophically, while the fool lets his troubles get under his skin, cf. frr. dub. 320–1; Men. fr. 857 ἔνεγκ’ ἀτυχίαν καὶ βλάβην εὐσχημόνως. / τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἀνδρὸς νοῦν ἔχοντος, οὐκ ἐὰν / ἀνασπάσας τις τὰς ὀφρῦς οἴμοι λαλῇ, / ἀλλ’ ὃς τά ⟨γ’⟩ αὑτοῦ πράγματ’ ἐγκρατῶς φέρει (“Bear bad luck and injury gracefully! This is the mark of a sensible man, not if someone screws his face up and says ‘Oh my!’, but the man who puts up with his problems in a self-controlled manner”) (all preserved in this same section of Stobaeus); Apollod. Com. fr. 18 χαλεπὸν τύχη ’στὶ πρᾶγμα, χαλεπόν· ἀλλὰ δεῖ / αὐτὴν φέρειν κατὰ τρόπον ὥσπερ φορτίον (“Luck is a harsh, harsh thing; but one needs to bear it in the proper way, like a burden”); S. fr. 319 ἐσθλοῦ πρὸς ἀνδρὸς πάντα γενναίως φέρειν (“It’s a mark of a good man to bear everything nobly”) with Pearson 1917 ad loc.; D. 18.97 φέρειν δ’ ἃν ὁ θεὸς διδῷ γενναίως. Philem. fr. 149 begins in a similar fashion: ἐνταῦθ’ ἀνὴρ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνδρὸς διάφορος, / ἐν τῷ τό τε κακὸν εὖ φέρειν καὶ τἀγαθόν (“for one man is different from another here: in bearing both evil and good well”). The argument is not elegantly constructed: despite initial appearances, 1–2 κακῶς / πράττων applies to both men, not just the first, and the actual contrast is between 2 τὸ λυποῦν ἤγαγ’ εἰς παράστασιν (crabbed and difficult) and 3 ἐμφρόνως δεξάμενος ἤνεγκεν καλῶς (where the bland second adverb adds nothing to the sense). κακῶς in 1 is nonetheless balanced by καλῶς in 3: when one does “badly”, the best response is to bear the situation “well”. 1–2 κακῶς πράττω (a very general description of an unhappy state of affairs) is widely attested in the 5th and 4th centuries (e. g. fr. 238.3–4; Ar. Pax 605; Av. 605; A. Pers. 213; fr. 466.3; S. Ant. 564; E. Heracl. 27; frr. 81.1; 957; [A.] PV 264–5; Hdt. 8.14.1; Th. 6.13.2; And. 2.9; Pl. Grg. 495e), but not before that. 2 παράστασις is here apparently “frenzy” (LSJ s. v. II.7.c) < παρίστημι in the sense “be beside oneself ”, i. e. “be out of one’s mind” (LSJ s. v. B.VI); cf. Men.

Ἡνίοχος (fr. 103)

21

fr. 761.8 ψυχῆς πονηρᾶς δυσσεβὴς παράστασις (“an impious parastasis of a base soul”; of jealousy). 3 ἔμφρων is 5th/4th-century vocabulary (first attested at Pi. O. 9.74; A. Ch. 195, 1026); the adverb is first attested here, in Plato (e. g. R. 396d, 517c) and in Hippocrates (Epid. VII 25.22 = 5.396.6 Littré). ἤνεγκεν καλῶς is a somewhat unusual combination of verb and adverb (also e. g. S. Ai. 1073–4; OC 1694; Th. 2.60.3; X. Cyr. 8.4.14; Isoc. 4.47), here probably intended to produce a jingle with 1–2 κακῶς / πράττων.

22

Θαμύρας (Thamyras) “Thamyras”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1957. 207 n. d, 208 n. a; Webster 1970. 83

Title According to Il. 2.594–600, the Thracian singer and lyre-player Thamyris (sic; Thamyras is the Attic form of the name) was maimed physically and deprived of his art by the Muses when he met them on his way to somewhere else from the house of Eurytos in Oechalia (in Thessaly) and claimed that he could defeat them in a musical contest. Elsewhere it is said specifically that Thamyris was blinded (Hes. fr. 65 M.–W. = fr. 66 Most; [E.] Rh. 915–25), while later on he is reported to have claimed the right to sleep with the Muses if he proved the better singer (Asclep. Trag. FGrH 12 F 10, drawing on Sophocles?; [Apollod.] Bib. 1.3.3). [Apollodorus] adds that Thamyris fell in love with Hyakinthos, thus inventing pederasty. See in general Brillante 1992; Gantz 1993. 55; Nercessian, LIMC VII.1.902–3. For the title, compare especially Ὀρφεύς (also a Thracian singer, and paired with Thamyris / Thamyras at Pl. Ion 533b; R. 620a; Lg. 829d, as well as at Str. 7.35, where Thamyris is exceptionally referred to as a king of Thrace), and note other plays in which a musician of one sort or another appears to have been a central character (Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός). For mythological titles, cf. also Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς, and Ὕπνος; and see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Sophocles wrote a tragedy entitled Thamyras; cf. Poll. 4.141 (the Thamyris mask, which featured eyes of two different colors, like a Van cat). Content Unknown. The content of fr. 104 (n.) suggests that the action was set in mythic times. Date Unknown.

Θαμύρας (fr. 104)

23

Fragment fr. 104 K.–A. (105 K.) καὶ σοῦ γ’ ἐπώνυμός τις ἐν φήμαις βροτῶν Θρῄκην κατάρδων ποταμὸς ὠνομασμένος, Στρυμών, μεγίστας ἐγχέλεις κεκτημένος 2 Θρῄκην Scaliger : Θρῄκης Ath.ACE : Θρῇκας Madvig ποταμὸς ὠνομασμένος ut gloss. del. et ⟨πέδια … ποτῷ⟩ vel ⟨πεδίον … ποτῷ⟩ supplet. Headlam ὠνομασμένος Ath.ACE : εὐνόμου πέδον Kock

and a river that bears your name, widely reputed in the reports of mortals, watering Thrace— the Strymon, endowed with the largest eels Ath. 7.300c–d ὅτι δὲ καὶ αἱ Στρυμόνιαι ἐγχέλεις δι’ ὀνόματος ἦσάν φησιν ἐν Θαμύρᾳ Ἀντιφάνης· —— Antiphanes in Thamyras claims that Strymonian eels were also well-known: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl klk|l llkl llkl l|rk|l klkl llkl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Scaliger ap. Cant. ms. II p. 65v; Meineke 1839–1857 III.55; Madvig 1871. 61; Kock 1884 II.52–3, III.734; Headlam 1907. 313; Edmonds 1957. 208 n. a Text In 1, κατάρδων needs an object, hence Scaliger’s Θρῄκην for the paradosis Θρῄκης (which must otherwise be taken as modifying ποταμός). Madvig suggested Θρῇκας instead, on the ground that Antiphanes’ Θρῄκην would not be easily corrupted into Athenaeus’ Θρῄκης. But corruption of Θρῇκας to Θρῄκης is no more or less improbable than corruption of Θρῄκην into Θρῄκης, and the plural is not wanted in any case. The various corrections proposed in 2 (below) deal with the problem in a different way. At the end of 2, ὠνομασμένος is clumsy after 1 ἐπώνυμος, hence seemingly Headlam’s Θρῄκης κατάρδων πέδια / πεδίον … ποτῷ (“watering the plain / plains of Thrace … with water”) and Kock’s Θρῄκης κατάρδων ποταμὸς εὐνόμου πέδον (“a river watering the plain of well-ordered Thrace”). But the over-full language is probably to be understood as part of the parody (see Interpretation 1–2 n.), and Headlam’s proposal does not yield a complete line. Citation context Quoted near the end of an extended discussion of eels (Ath. 7.297c–300d) as part of the long, largely alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes

24

Antiphanes

up much of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and that is probably drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. Fr. 145 is preserved shortly before this. For Hsch. κ 1376 (perhaps a reference to 2), see Interpretation 1–2 n. Interpretation Seemingly addressed to an otherwise unattested King Strymon (thus approximately Meineke), who is told that a river will come to bear his name. Kock took the words to be from an oracle at the beginning or end of the play, while Webster suggested that they might be from an epilogue pronounced by a god, like e. g. E. Hel. 1670–5; Or. 1643–6 (cited by Kassel–Austin; cf. E. Hec. 1271–3). The specification of what the river will do or what purpose it will serve, has not been preserved. But the reference to eels in 3 is patently bathetic; cf. Ar. fr. 372 Λῆμνος κυάμους τρέφουσα τακεροὺς καὶ κάλους (“Lemnos, which nourishes fine, soft beans”; from Women of Lemnos, which seems to have involved parody of tragedy). For Athens and Thrace, see Sears 2013 (with older bibliography). 1–2 The specific choices of language and forms (below), the elaborately entangled word-order and the gratuitously pleonastic ἐπώνυμος … / … ὠνομασμένος combine to suggest parody of elevated style. ἐπώνυμος (nowhere else in comedy) is already used repeatedly in early epic in the sense “called by a significant name” or “as a significant name” (LSJ s. v. I.1, to whose examples add Hes. fr. 296.3 M.–W. = fr. 232.3 Most); first attested with the genitive in the sense “named after” (LSJ s. v. I.3), as here, in the 5th century. ἐν φήμαις βροτῶν / … ὠνομασμένος i. e. (more prosaically put) “much-discussed”. For the specific language, Kassel–Austin compare Ar. fr. 170 φήμαις ⟨μὲν⟩ οὖν ἐγὼ βροτῶν ἅπαντας ἐκλαπῆναι (~ “I therefore (believe) what mortals say, that everyone was hatched (from an egg)”). Θρῄκην κατάρδων For the image of a land “watered” by its rivers, as if the rivers were gardeners (cf. Κηπουρός Introduction), see Timocl. fr. 17.5; Ibyc. PMG 286.2–3; A. Pers. 487, 805–6; Hdt. 1.193.1; 2.13.3, 2.14.2; 3.117.2. The compound is attested elsewhere in the classical period only at Ar. Ach. 658 (figurative, of “sprinkling” others with praise or the like), although cf. fr. 304 n. (on the simplex). Hsch. κ 1376 κατάρδειν· … ποτίζειν (“katardein: … to water”) might accordingly be an allusion specifically to this verse. Θρᾴκη (“Thrace”) and Θρᾷξ (“Thracian”) are the normal Attic forms of the word (e. g. Ar. Ach. 136, 155; Pax 283; Th. 1.100.3; 7.27.2; X. HG 1.3.17; Agora XVI 329[1].4 ο]ἱ ̣ Θρᾶκες; cf. fr. 209.3 θρᾷτταν), whereas tragedy uses Θρῄκη and Θρῇξ (e. g. A. Pers. 509; S. fr. 582; E. Alc. 483; Hec. 1142; in Aristophanic lyric at Ra. 681). 3 Στρυμών The River Strymon—the modern Struma, which flows through Bulgaria and northern Greece, and empties into the northern Aegean near the eastern side of the Chalkidiki peninsula—is mentioned already at Hes. Th. 339, and marked the eastern boundary of Macedonia until the time of Philip II. The area was strategic, as a source of precious metals and ship-building timber, hence the Athenian foundation of Amphipolis there in 437 BCE; the city was seized by

Θαμύρας (fr. 104)

25

Philip in 358/7 BCE (see Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 2011, esp. 416–18; Karathanasis 2019. 712–13).2 μεγίστας ἐγχέλεις κεκτημένος For eels, see in general fr. 45.1 n. For forms of μέγας as praise in culinary contexts, fr. 180.1 n. Large eels from the Strymon are mentioned also at Archestr. fr. 10.5–7 (described as having “a great reputation for quality”, being “both long and of amazing girth”); cf. Arist. HA 592a7–9; Ptol. Euerg. FGrH 234 F 1 ap. Ath. 2.71b–c; Hikesios ap. Ath. 7.298b.

2

A collection of recent Google reviews for the Struma are mostly variants on “nice river”, “has fish” (sic; no mention of eels) and “not very clean”.

26

Θεογονία (Theogonia) “The Birth of the Gods”

Irenaeus, adv. haer. II.14.1–2 multo verisimilius et gratius de universorum genesi dixit unus de veteribus comicis Antiphanus in Theogonia. ille enim de Nocte et Silentio Chaos emissum dicit, dehinc de Chao et Nocte Cupidem, et ex hoc Lumen, dehinc reliquam secundum eum primam deorum genesim; post quos rursus secundam deorum generationem inducit et mundi fabricationem; dehinc de secundis diis narrat hominum plasmationem, unde ipsi adsumentes sibi fabulam quasi naturali disputatione commenti sunt, solummodo demutantes eorum nomina, id ipsum autem universorum generationis initium et emissionem ostendentes, pro Nocte et Silentio Bythum et Sigen nominantes, pro Chao autem Nun, et pro Cupidine, per quem ait comicus (cf. Ar. Av. 696–700) reliqua omnia disposita, hi Verbum adtraxerunt; et pro primis ac maximis diis, Aeonas formaverunt; et pro secundis diis, eam quae est extra Pleroma Matris ipsorum enarrant dispositionem, secundam Ogdoadem vocantes eam, ex qua mundi fabricationem et plasmationem hominum similiter atque ille adnuntiant, inenarrabilia et incognita mysteria solos se dicentes scire, quae ubique in theatris ab hypocritis splendidissimis vocibus comoedisantur, transferentes in suum argumentum, immo vero eisdem argumentis docentes, tantum immutantes nomina. et non solum quae apud comicos posita sunt arguuntur quasi propria proferentes, sed etiam quae apud omnes qui Deum ignorant et qui dicuntur philosophi sunt dicta, haec congregant Antiphanes, one of the ancient comic poets, spoke about the origin of everything in a more plausible and pleasing fashion in Theogonia. For he says that Chaos was produced from Night and Silence; then Desire from Chaos and Night; from (Desire) Light; and from this, in his opinion, the rest of the first generation of gods. After these, he again introduces a second generation of gods and the creation of the world; then he describes the creation of mankind by the second set of gods. (The heretics) drew a story for themselves from this source, devising it as if by an argument from nature, merely changing the names of these things, but putting on display the very same beginning of the generation of everything and its production: in place of Night and Silence, they referred to Bythus and Sigê3; in place of Chaos Nus4; and in place of Desire—by whom, the comic poet says, everything else was set in order (cf. Ar. Av. 696–700)—they brought forward the Word. And in place of the primary and greatest gods, they invented the Aeons; in place of the secondary gods, they describe the series created by their mother that is outside the Pleroma, referring to this series as the second Ogdoad; and like (Antiphanes), they report that the creation of the world and the formation of human beings came from (the Ogdoad), saying that they alone are informed about these indescribable and unknown mysteries, which are everywhere made into comedies in theaters by actors with extremely pompous voices, transferring them into their own system, or indeed teaching them by means of the same arguments and merely changing the names. And not only do they offer the arguments found in the comic poets, putting them forward as if they were their own, but indeed they assemble points that are made in all those who do not know God and are referred to as philosophers

3 4

i. e. Βυθός and Σιγή, personified Depth and Silence. i. e. Νοῦς, personified Intelligence.

Θεογονία

27

Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.318–20; Schoemann 1857. 76–7; Weiher 1913; Cataudella 1932. 260–5; Grant 1965. 157–9; Rousseau–Doutreleau 1982. 254–5; Unger 2012. 133–4 Interpretation From a refutation of Valentinian theories having to do with the emission of the Aeons by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon (second half of the 2nd century CE). The text was originally in Greek, but is preserved only in Latin. Irenaeus in this section of adv. haer. appears to be drawing on a pre-existing body of material; that he knew Antiphanes’ play at first hand is unlikely. In Antiphanes’ scheme as Irenaeus presents it, the universe began with the divine couple Nox / Night and Silentium / Silence,5 who produced Chaos (Χάος?). Chaos then seemingly mated with his mother and produced Cupido / Desire (Ἔρως?), and Cupido (alone?) in turn produced Lumen / Light (Φάος?), followed by the entire first generation of gods, among whom the primordial Nox, Silentium, Chaos and Cupido seem not to be included. The fundamental figure in all of this was in any case Cupido / Desire. A second generation of gods were created by the first, and this second generation of gods for their part made the world and human beings.6 Meineke (followed by Grant, Rousseau and Unger) took all of this to be a reference to the Birds’ theogony at Ar. Av. 693–702, which begins with Χάος, Νύξ, Ἔρεβος and Τάρταρος. Νύξ then mates with Ἔρεβος, laying an egg from which Ἔρως hatches; Ἔρως in turn mates with Χάος and produces first the birds, and then—seemingly through a different process of combination—the physical universe and all the other gods (the Birds’ central claim being that they are to be counted among the latter). Meineke accordingly suggested that Irenaeus’ Antiphanus was simply an error for Aristophanus. But the resemblances between the scheme in Birds and the one attributed to Antiphanes are generic at most (thus Schoemann, Weiher and Cataudella, noting inter alia the importance of Νύξ in other “Orphic” theogonies, a point now further confirmed by the Derveni papyrus); the most striking feature of the Aristophanic theogony, Night’s egg,7 is missing from the theogony assigned to Antiphanes; and the Birds make no

5

6

7

Νύξ and Σιγή (the most obvious Greek equivalents of Latin Nox and Silentium) are both feminine, and thus cannot represent a proper couple; Irenaeus says in any case below that the Valentinian heretics replaced Silentium (neuter) with Σιγή, so the latter must not be Antiphanes’ name for the partner of Nox. Χάος is neuter in Greek, but Chaos is masculine in Latin; that Chaos mates with Nox thus suggests that Nox, not Silentium, is the female member of the original pair. Irenaeus’ Nox might thus easily have been Νύξ in Antiphanes, but after that, matters become obscure. Thus clearly Irenaeus in his second, summary pass through the story; in his initial account of it, both the second generation of the gods and the world might be taken to have been produced by the first generation of gods. Cf. Ar. fr. 170 (quoted in fr. 104.1–2 n.).

28

Antiphanes

reference to the creation of mankind (also missing from e. g. the story of the origin of the universe in Hesiod’s Theogony). Irenaeus’ Theogonia can be understood as a title, as in the text printed above (following Kassel–Austin), or be represented as lower-case theogonia (“in a theogony”; thus Grant 1965. 158). Schoemann (tracing the idea to Grabe’s edition of Irenaeus) suggested that material of this sort might have been found in Aphroditês gonai, while Weiher more plausibly proposed that it came from Orpheus, or perhaps Mêtragyrtês, Mystis or Oionistês. More likely Cataudella is right, and this is actually a reference to a passage in Antiphanes’ Ἀνθρωπογονία (“The Creation of Human Beings”).

29

Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων (Thorikioi ê Dioryttôn)

“Residents of Thorikos or The Man who Dug Tunnels”

Introduction Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–1805 VIII.214–15; Meineke 1839–1857 III.331; Kock 1884. 53 Title The bedrock around Thorikos—located on the coast northeast of Lavrion— is rich in lead ores containing a considerable amount of silver. There was mining in the area already in the Bronze Age, but such activity intensified in the 5th and 4th centuries, when the silver from the area became a fundamental basis of Athens’ economy and thus of its military, social and political power. Thorikos also has one of the earliest known stone theaters in Greece—perhaps the earliest known stone theater (early 5th century BCE, and oddly shaped)—and was fortified by Antiphanes’ time (X. HG 1.2.1). See in general Mussche 1998; Docter–Webster 2018 (with comprehensive bibliography; pp. 43–7 on the mines and ore-processing facilities). Antiphanes’ play with fr. 105 = Labarbe 1977 test. 26 for the place. Kephalos (who married and eventually killed Procris, the daughter of King Erechtheus of Athens) was an early king of Thorikos; whether Antiphanes’ play touched on his story, is impossible to say, although there is no obvious hint of this in the title or the fragment. Θορίκιοι refers to an intra-Athenian deme-identity; the closest parallel in Antiphanes is Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων (“The Man from Mount Knoithideus or The Glutton”), and there appear to be no other 4th-century examples of titles of this sort. For other geographical designators and the like as play-titles, cf. (male plurals) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; (individual male characters) Ἀφροδίσιος, Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία, Λυδός, Ποντικός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός, and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (individual female characters) Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Καρίνη, Κορινθία; (female plural) Λήμνιαι with Introduction; and Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. The simplest conclusion would seem to be that the action was set in Thorikos and involved the adventures of a family or group of acquaintances there; cf. Αἰγύπτιοι Introduction. The alternative title Διορύττων might be taken to mean ~ “The Miner” (thus Kock); for other comedies by Antiphanes called after a profession, occupation or the like, see Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος with Introduction, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων, and perhaps Τριταγωνιστής, and in general Arnott 2010. 311–1. But the verb also refers to burglary of the sort that involved “digging through” mud-brick walls (e. g. Ar. Pl. 565; X. Smp. 4.30; D. 54.37; cf. fr. 287 n. and the more common

30

Antiphanes

τοιχωρύχος, literally “wall-digger”, and abusive Latin equivalents at Plaut. Asin. 563; Pseud. 979–80). The eponymous character may accordingly have been a criminal (thus Schweighäuser, seemingly followed by Meineke; cf. Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων Introduction). Or perhaps the play featured two houses built side-by-side (sc. belonging to different residents of Thorikos) with a hole excavated in the wall between them by one of the parties, allowing for various forms of confusion and deceit, as in Menander’s Phasma and Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus. The double title (for which, see Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι Introduction) is offered only at Ath. 15.689e; at Ath. 12.553d, the play is simply referred to as Θορίκιοι. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 105 K.–A. (106 K.)

5

(Α.) λοῦται δ’ ἀληθῶς 〈lklx〉 (Β.) ἀλλὰ τί; (Α.) ἐκ χρυσοκολλήτου γε κάλπιδος μύρῳ Αἰγυπτίῳ μὲν τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὰ σκέλη, Φοινικικῷ δὲ τὰς γνάθους τά τε τιτθία, σισυμβρίνῳ δὲ τὸν ἕτερον βραχίονα, ἀμαρακίνῳ δὲ τὰς ὀφρῦς καὶ τὴν κόμην, ἑρπυλλίνῳ δὲ τὸ γόνυ καὶ τὸν αὐχένα

1 λοῦται δ’ Ath.(2)A : λοῦτ᾿ αι δου ο Ath.(1)A 1–2 (Α.) λοῦται δ’; (Β.) οὐκ. (Α.) ἀληθῶς; ἀλλὰ τί; / (Β.) ἐκ κτλ Kaibel : (Α.) λοῦται δ’ οὐδ᾿ ἀηδῶς. (Β.) ἀλλὰ τί; / (Α.) ἐκ κτλ Tucker : (Α.) λουσαμένη δ᾿ ἀλείφεται / ἐκ κτλ Kock 2 χρυσοκολλήτου γε 3 τὰ σκέλη Ath.(1)A : Musurus : χρυσοκολλήτου δὲ Ath.(1)A : χρυσοκολλή τε Ath.(2)A A τὰς χεῖρας Ath.(2) : fort. τὰς χέρας 4 Φοινικικῷ scripsi : φοινικίνῳ Ath.(1–2)A τά τε Herwerden : καὶ Ath.(1–2)A 5 σισιμβρίνῳ Ath.(2)A : σισυμβρίῳ Ath.(1)A post hunc versum μελιλωτίνῳ δὲ τὸν ἕτερον καὶ τὰ σφυρά add. Meineke 7 ἑρπυλλίνῳ … γόνυ Ath.(1)A : ἑρπυλενῳ … γύνυ Ath.(2)A

5

(A.) She’s actually washing ⟨lklx〉 (B.) What? (A.) her feet and her legs with Egyptian perfume from a bucket inlaid with gold, and her cheeks and her titties with Phoenician perfume, and her one arm with mint-perfume, and her eyebrows and her hair with marjoram-perfume, and her knee and her neck with thyme-perfume

Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων (fr. 105)

31

Ath. 15.689e–f ὅτι δὲ διὰ σπουδῆς ἦν τοῖς παλαιοτέροις ἡ τῶν μύρων χρῆσις δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ καὶ ἐπίστασθαι ποῖόν τι ἑκάστῳ τῶν μελῶν ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἐπιτήδειον. Ἀντιφάνης γοῦν ἐν Θορικίοις ἢ Διορύττοντί φησιν· —— That people in ancient times were interested in using perfume is apparent from the fact that they knew which sort was appropriate to each of our limbs. Antiphanes, for example, says in Thorikioi or Dioruttôn: —— Ath. 12.553b–d Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν μὲν Ἀλκήστιδι (fr. 31) ἐλαίῳ τινὰ ποιεῖ χριόμενον τοὺς πόδας, ἐν δὲ Μητραγύρτῃ φησί (fr. 152)· ——. καὶ ἐν Ζακυνθίῳ (fr. 101)· ——. καὶ ἐν Θορικίοις· —— Antiphanes in Alkêstis (fr. 31) represents someone having his feet anointed with olive oil, whereas in Mêtragyrtês he says (fr. 152): ——. And in Zakynthios (fr. 101): ——. And in Thorikioi: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. llkl l|〈lkl

5

x〉lkl llkl llk|l klkl llkl l|lkl llkl llkl k|lkl rlkl klkl k|rkl klkl krkl k|lkl llkl llkl k|rk|l klkl

Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 III.56; Herwerden 1855. 48; Meineke 1858 II.512; Kock 1884 II.53; Kaibel 1887–1890 III.221; Tucker 1908. 204; Lilja 1972. 69; Jüngst 1986. 98 Text At the beginning of the preserved portion of 1, λοῦται δ’ in Book 12 appears to represent a more sensible handling of the letter-sequence the scribe presents in Book 15 as λοῦτ᾿ αι δ; the problem is where the obscure ου ο that follows in Book 15 has come from, and thus whether the letters ought to be printed within obels (as in Kassel–Austin) or dropped (as in Meineke and Kock). ου ο might simply have been expelled in Book 12, as nonsensical. But this could only be the case if the corruption went very far back, in order for it to be present in two separate versions of the fragment within the Deipnosophists, which is difficult to explain unless Athenaeus himself found the text in a problematic state in his source and passed it on that way, with an industrious scribe intervening at some point to improve the situation in Book 12 but not in Book 15. Why Athenaeus would have passed on a patently defective text, however, rather than cutting out or rewriting the problematic words or letters, is unclear, and it is easier to believe that the version in Book 15 has been corrupted in the course of transmission. 〈xlkl〉 λοῦται δ’ ἀληθῶς (Β.) ἀλλὰ τί; (as in Meineke and Kock) leaves the line without a normal caesura, and I accordingly locate the lacuna in the middle. Alternatively, one might

32

Antiphanes

print λοῦται δ’ ἀληθῶς (Β.) ἀλλὰ τί 〈xlkl〉. Kaibel attempted to accommodate the reading in Book 15 by emending to (Α.) λοῦται δ’; (Β.) οὐκ. (Α.) ἀληθῶς; ἀλλὰ τί; / (Β.) ἐκ κτλ (“(A.) Is she bathing? (B.) No. (A.) Really? What is she doing? (B.) From a bucket …”), although what verb is to be supplied with (B)’s response in 2–7, is unclear, and this is probably the wrong approach to the problem in any case (see above); cf. Tucker’s (Α.) λοῦται δ’ οὐδ᾿ ἀηδῶς. (Β.) ἀλλὰ τί; / (Α.) ἐκ κτλ (“(A.) He8 takes a bath, and a very pleasant one. (B.) What is he doing? (A.) From a bucket …”). Kock’s (Α.) λουσαμένη δ᾿ ἀλείφεται / ἐκ κτλ (“(A.) And after she bathes, she anoints herself from a bucket”) is too far from the paradosis to deserve much consideration. In 2, neither Ath.(1)’s δέ nor Ath.(2)’s τε (i. e. ΤΕ) makes sense. Editors accordingly print Musurus’ γε (i. e. ΓΕ), from the editio princeps of Athenaeus. This seems pointless even if otherwise inoffensive, although the confusion in 1 makes it impossible to be sure what (A.) is trying to communicate, and nothing better seems to have been suggested. If δου ο was found in 1 in Ath.(2) rather than in Ath.(1), one might think it originated in a superlinear attempt to correct χρυσοκολλή to χρυσοκολλήτου. Attempting to adapt this explanation to make sense of the situation in Ath.(1), on the other hand, rapidly becomes too complicated to be right. In 3, Ath.(2)’s τὰς χεῖρας (“her hands”) is unmetrical, and editors accordingly print Ath.(1)’s τὰ σκέλη. τὰς χέρας would do instead, although the form is otherwise confined in the classical period to elevated poetry (e. g. Pi. O. 2.74; A. Pers. 563; E. Med. 4) and to a paratragic passage at Ar. Th. 913/14. At the beginning of 4, Athenaeus’ φοινικίνῳ seems inherently improbable, particularly given that palm-perfume is mentioned nowhere else. I print instead Φοινικικῷ (“Phoenician”, i. e. “Syrian [perfume]”), balancing “Egyptian” in 2. In Athenaeus’ version of the text, every body-part except τιτθία in 4 has a definite article. Perhaps this is merely weak writing; but Herwerden’s τά τε is such an easy fix that I print it in place of the paradosis καί. At the beginning of 5, the Ath.A-copyist struggled with the rare σισυμβρίνῳ, producing σισιμβρίνῳ at one point and σισυμβρίῳ at another, but leaving no doubt as to what ought to be read. τὸν ἕτερον βραχίονα alone in 5 is odd, and Meineke accordingly composed an exempli gratia additional verse μελιλωτίνῳ δὲ τὸν ἕτερον καὶ τὰ σφυρά (“and her other arm and her ankles with melilôt-[perfume]”9) to be inserted between 5–6. The repetitive form of the verses makes it easy to believe that a verse or more has been lost before or after this one; or perhaps the point is simply that the woman is

8 9

Sic. It is unclear whether Tucker is confused about what is going on in the fragment, or whether he thinks the subject shifts between 1 and 2. μελίλωτον is a variety of clover mentioned e. g. at Alex. fr. 119 as a material for wreaths; melilôton-perfume, by contrast, does not seem to be referred to anywhere.

Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων (fr. 105)

33

using one hand (and the arm attached to it) to anoint herself, and only “the other arm” is accordingly available to be doused in perfume. In 7, the Ath.A-copyist (or more likely the copyist of Ath.A’s exemplar) had difficulty with the rare word ἑρπύλλινος in Book 12, where he also managed to garble γόνυ. He nonetheless got both words right in Book 15. Citation context In Book 15, the fragment is quoted in the course of a long and occasionally wandering discussion of perfume (Ath. 15.686c–92d, esp. 688c–92b) that also refers repeatedly to garlands and is perhaps drawn at least in part from Philonides’ On Perfumes and Garlands (cited at Ath. 15.691f), Apollodorus’ work by the same title (cited at Ath. 15.675e) and / or Aelius Asclepiades’ Garlands (cited at Ath. 15.676f, 679b); followed immediately by Cephisod. fr. 3; Anaxandr. fr. 41; Theopomp. Com. frr. 1; 17; Antiph. fr. 37, in that order. Fr. 222 is preserved at Ath. 15.691c–d. In Book 12, the fragment is quoted immediately after frr. 31 (where see Citation context); 152; 101 (in that order). Interpretation A description of a woman (note 4 τιτθία with n.) offered by one character to another. There is nothing overtly sexual about the passage, but the theme seems inherently erotic, given both the commonplace association of perfume with love-making (e. g. Ar. Ec. 520–6) and the leisurely, almost voyeuristic pace of the narrative. That the woman is a courtesan, and that (A.) and (B.) are two of her admirers, is a reasonable guess but nothing more. The quantity (2) and variety of perfumes in any case suggest enormous luxury. The pairs in 3–4, 6 can be read as part-for-the-whole descriptions of particular sections of the woman’s body (3 “feet and legs” = the lower body; 4 “jaws and titties” = lower part of the head and the chest; 6 “eyebrows and hair” = upper part of the head), but 7 is less susceptible to such analysis. For perfume and perfume-making, cf. frr. 37; 233.5 n. 1 In comedy, free-standing ἀλλὰ τί; (absent from tragedy and seemingly colloquial) generally represents a puzzled response to an assertion by a second party, with the verb to be supplied from what precedes (Ar. Eq. 955; Ra. 488; Ec. 928; Damox. fr. 2.46; cf. Pl. Euthphr. 14d “But what else would it be?”; Phd. 89b “But what would I do?”; Euthyd. 294a “But what is the situation then?”, etc.; contrast “But why?” at Anaxandr. fr. 50.1, and “But what difference does it make?” at Men. Sam. 348). If that is the case here, (B.) is saying “But what is she washing?” or the like. For λοῦμαι used thus (of “bathing” oneself in perfume), cf. fr. 146.5 with n.; Ephipp. fr. 26.2–3 μύροις / λοῦμαι ψακαστοῖς. 2 ἐκ χρυσοκολλήτου γε κάλπιδος is to be taken not just with 3 but with 4–7 as well, although common sense dictates that a different container must be in question in every case. For χρυσοκόλλητος (poetic), fr. 234.2 n. A κάλπις is routinely a jar used to fetch water from a spring or river (e. g. Ar. Ra. 1339a; Od. 7.20 with Brommer 1942. 365; hDem. 106–7; E. Hipp. 123; Theoc.

34

Antiphanes

5.127; Poll. 8.66; 10.30), i. e. a type of hydria or another name for one. LSJ s. v. glosses the word “box for unguent” here and at Plb. 30.25.17 γυναῖκες ἐκ χρυσῶν καλπίδων μύροις ἔρραινον (“women were sprinkling [the guests] with perfumes from golden kalpides”). But the latter passage comes from a description of an overthe-top procession in which perfume seemingly was ladled out by the bucketful, as apparently also here (where the emphasis is otherwise on the enormous number of different varieties employed). 2–3 For specifically Egyptian perfume, cf. Pl. Com. fr. 71.6–7 with Sofia 2016. 127–9; Eub. fr. 100 (where the term used is the loan-word ψάγδαν, for which see Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 204); Anaxandr. fr. 41.2; Ephipp. fr. 8.1; Dexicr. fr. 1; Hp. Nat. Mul. 7.7 = 7.322.3 Littré, 32.137 = 7.360.5 Littré, etc.; Achae. TrGF 20 F 5.2; Thphr. Od. 30–1, 38, 44. For other local perfumes, cf. 4 (from Phoenicia, i. e. Syria); Ar. Lys. 944 (from Rhodes); Poll. 6.104–5; Pütz 2003. 264–78. 4 As Henderson 1991 § 200 notes, τιτθίον is the standard term for the female breast in comedy (in addition to the passages cited below, note Crates Com. fr. 43.2; Ar. Ach. 1199; Pax 863; Th. 1185; Ra. 412; Pl. 1067; Canthar. fr. 6; cf. τιτθίδια at Ar. fr. 338.2) and is restricted to this genre before the Roman period. That the word is “always used as a symbol of female beauty and male sexual pleasure, rather than, say, to express any kind of female biological function apart from sexuality”, on the other hand, is untrue; cf. Ar. Th. 143 ἀλλ’ ὡς γυνὴ δῆτ’; εἶτα ποῦ τὰ τιτθία; (“Or [are you being raised] as a woman, in fact? Then where are your titthia?”; Inlaw to the effeminately dressed Agathon), 690–1 τὸ παιδίον / ἐξαρπάσας μοι … ἀπὸ τοῦ τιτθίου (“after snatching my child from my titthion”; a complaint about the kidnapping of what is supposedly a baby); Men. Sam. 266, 536, 540 (the titthion used to nurse an infant). τιτθός (of which τιτθίον is the diminutive) is used at Ar. Lys. 83; Th. 640; neither passage is erotic, and this form of the word (attested elsewhere in Attic literature only at Lys. 1.10, 12, but very common in Hippocrates) is seemingly less vulgar than the diminutive. Contrast μαστός / μαζός (already in Homer), which is used of the breasts of both men and women; and note στέρνα at Xenarch. fr. 4.5 (in reference to prostitutes’ chests). For Syrian perfume, see fr. 200.8–11 (imported into Cyprus) with n., and cf. Luc. DMeretr. 14.2 ἀλάβαστρον μύρου ἐκ Φοινίκης. 5–7 For the form of the adjectives, fr. 164.4 n. 5 σισυμβρίνῳ For perfume made of σισύμβριον (a variety or local name of mint, μίνθα; etymology obscure), cf. Pherecr. fr. 2.2–3; Thphr. Od. 27 (made from the plant’s flowers). For the plant itself, cf. Cratin. frr. 105.3 (used in garlands); 116.3 (in a list of dainties); 257.1 (in a list of fragrant plants, along with roses and lilies); Ar. Av. 160; Thphr. HP 1.4.2 (on its cultivation, but noting its sweet smell); 5.7.1 (turns into ordinary mint when neglected; cf. 2.16.4); 6.6.2 (sweet-smelling), 6.14.7 (used for garlands), and see in general Andrews 1958a. 6 ἀμαρακίνῳ For marjoram-scented perfume, cf. Eub. fr. 107.3; Hp. Mul. 126.10 = 8.270.15 Littré, 133.153 = 8.294.16 Littré; Thphr. Od. 28 (said to be made from the root of the plant), 30–1 (particularly high quality), 38 (has a long-lasting

Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων (fr. 105)

35

scent), 42 (expensive), 55 (has a long-lasting scent). For ἀμάρακον / ἀμάρακος (probably an Oriental loan-word), cf. Pherecr. fr. 138.3; Chaerem. TrGF 71 F 14.16; Thphr. HP 6.1.1 (used in garlands), 6.7.4 (the characteristics of the plant itself), 6.14.9 (its scent). For marjoram generally, cf. fr. 140.2 (in a catalogue of kitchen supplies and referred to as ὀρίγανον) with n.; fr. dub. 330.5 = Eub. fr. 18.5 and see Bertoldi 1938; Andrews 1961 (pp. 77–8 on this specific variety). 7 ἑρπυλλίνῳ For thyme-perfume, cf. Thphr. Od. 27 (noting that the leaves, rather than the flowers or the roots, produce the scent). For the sweet smell of the plant—treated as a basic and beloved Attic product at fr. 177.4; cf. fr. dub. 330.4 = Eub. fr. 18.4—cf. Cratin. fr. 105.4 (used in wreaths); Ar. Pax 168 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Eub. fr. 104.1 (used in wreaths), and see in general Andrews 1958b. The plant is more often referred to as θύμα; ἕρπυλλος is a variety.

36

[Ἰάσων (Iasôn)] [“Jason”]

Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.314, 316; Edmonds 1959. 209 nn. f–g The only evidence of a Iasôn by Antiphanes is Antiatt. δ 41 διετίθουν· διετίθεσαν. Ἀντιφῶν Ἰάσονι (TrGF 55 F 1a), where Meineke half-heartedly proposed emending the poet’s name to Ἀντιφάνης. For confusion of the two names, cf. frr. 276 (assigned to Ἀντιφῶν, but seemingly by Ἀντιφάνης); 312 (assigned to Ἀντιφάνης, but actually by Ἀντιφῶν?); frr. dub. 324 (assigned to both Ἀντιφάνης and Ἀντιφῶν); 326 (assigned to both Ἀντιφάνης and Ἀντιφῶν). Kassel–Austin not unreasonably ignore the suggestion. For Jason himself, see Mêdeia Introduction.

37

Ἰατρός (Iatros) “The Physician”

Introduction Title For physicians and medicine in this period generally, see Gil–Rodríguez Alfageme 1972; Cordes 1994 (the image of the physician himself); Jouanna 1999; Nutton 2004, and cf. frr. 47 (a doctor treating a patient); 206 (a description of a physician’s office and his equipment) with nn. With attention to comedy in particular (where the physician appears to be a stock 4th-century character, as in Menander’s Aspis and Plautus’ Menaechmi), see Brecht 1930. 45–9; Gil 1973. For medical language in comedy (in most cases with attention in the first instance to Aristophanes), see Miller 1945; Byl 1990; Rodríguez Alfageme 1995; Jouanna 2000; Byle 2006; Soleil 2010; Kazantzidis 2018 (with further bibliography). For other comedies by Antiphanes called after a profession, occupation or the like, see Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος with Introduction, Ἡνίοχος, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων, and perhaps Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Note also Ἀσκληπιός with Introduction and (more distant parallels) Ἀκοντιζομένη and Τραυματίας (both of which might easily have involved physician characters). Aristophon also wrote a Ἰατρός. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 106 K.–A. (107 K.) ἅπαν τὸ λυποῦν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ νόσος ὀνόματ᾿ ἔχουσα πολλά 1 ἀνθρώπῳ Stob.S : ἀνθρώπων Stob.MA : ἄνθρωπον Langholf Gaisford : ὀνόματα δ᾿ ἔχουσα πολλά Stob.SMA

2 ὀνόματ᾿ ἔχουσα πολλά

Anything that causes pain is a sickness with many names for a person

38

Antiphanes

Stob. 4.35.27 Ἀντιφάνους ἐξ Ἰατροῦ· —— From Antiphanes’ Iatros: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lk|l llkl krkl k|lk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion

Gaisford 1822 III.539; Langholf 1986. 18 n. 62; Orth 2014b. 1018

Text In 1, Stob.S’s ἀνθρώπῳ (dative of interest) is better than Stob.MA’s ἀνθρώπων (“a sickness of human beings”); the error is perhaps to be traced to ἀνθρώπω or the like in the exemplar. Langholf ’s ἄνθρωπον (to be taken with λυποῦν, “whatever causes a person pain”) is based on the phrasing of a similar sentiment in Hippocrates (see Interpretation). That it might be right is insufficient reason to emend. In 2, Stobaeus’ ὀνόματα δ᾿ ἔχουσα πολλά is metrical (krrl k|lk| 〈l xlkl〉), but a separate clause is not wanted, and if one were, ὀνόματα δ᾿ ἔχον πολλά (with the participle modifying τὸ λυποῦν) would have been expected. Gaisford accordingly wrote ὀνόματ᾿ ἔχουσα πολλά, with the error to be attributed to the somewhat strained character of the expression. Citation context Quoted by Stobaeus (5th century CE) in a section entitled περὶ λύπης (“On grief ”) that also preserves Philem. frr. 106; 6; 146; 171; Men. fr. 848; Alex. fr. 298; Apollod. Com. fr. 11; Men. fr. 849; Philem. fr. 147; Amphis fr. 34; Apollod. Com. fr. 3; Antiph. fr. 287; Alex. fr. 294; Posidipp. Com. frr. 20–1, in that order, before this. Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material he quotes, which must instead be drawn from one or more pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. Interpretation I. e. “whatever the specific trouble in question is called, it can reasonably be described as a νόσος”. Seemingly a response to someone who defined the word in a more limited and standard fashion (LSJ s. v. I vs. s. v. II, the latter entry showing that the extended use of the word is not unusual; note esp. S. fr. dub. 1137 πενία δὲ τοῖς ἔχουσιν οὐ σμικρὰ νόσος, “poverty is no minor disease for those who have it”). Langholf compared Hp. Flat. 1.21–2 = 6.92.6–7 Littré ὅ τι γὰρ ἂν λυπέῃ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τοῦτο καλέεται νοῦσος (“for whatever causes a person pain, this is referred to as a sickness”) and emended 1 on that basis (see Text). The medical theme fits the title of the play, although this tells us nothing about who spoke the words or what the trouble in question was. For the trope (a general word or title conceals a more complex reality), cf. S. fr. 941.1–5 ὦ παῖδες, ἥ τοι Κύπρις οὐ Κύπρις μόνον, / ἀλλ’ ἐστὶ πολλῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπώνυμος. / ἔστιν μὲν Ἅιδης, ἔστι δ’ ἄφθιτος βίος, / ἔστιν δὲ λύσσα μανιάς, ἔστι δ’ ἵμερος / ἄκρατος, ἔστ’ οἰμωγμός (“Children, Aphrodite is not Aphrodite only, but she is the bearer

Ἰατρός (fr. 107)

39

of many names: she is Hades, she is eternal life, she is raving madness, she is uncontrollable desire, she is lamentation”).

fr. 107 K.–A. (108 K.) Ath. 4.175a–b μνημονεύει τῶν γίγγρων (γίγγρων αὐλῶν Ath.A : αὐλῶν del. Kassel–Austin) Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἰατρῷ καὶ Μένανδρος ἐν Καρίνῃ (fr. 203) Ἄμφις τ’ ἐν Διθυράμβῳ (fr. 14) λέγων οὕτως· ——. καὶ Ἀξιόνικος ἐν Φιλευριπίδῃ (fr. 3)· —— Antiphanes mentions giggroi (“giggroi pipes” Ath.A : “pipes” deleted by Kassel–Austin) in Iatros, as do Menander in Karinê (fr. 203) and Amphis in Dithyrambos (fr. 14), saying the following: ——. Also Axionicus in Phileuripidês (fr. 3): ——

Citation context From a brief discussion of the giggras in the context of a larger treatment of exotic instruments of all sorts. Athenaeus refers at 4.174f to “Xenophon” as the source for at least some of his information. As nothing like this is preserved in what we have of Xenophon of Athens, Bapp suggested emending to “Tryphon” (cf. Ath. 14.618c, where Tryphon includes γίγγρας in a list of names of pipe-songs to which one danced), while Bergk proposed “Xenophanes” (who belongs to the late 6th / early 5th century BCE and is thus much too early; see Interpretation). Another possibility is Xenophantos the teacher of Aristoxenus (RE s. v. 6), who must date to the middle of the 4th century BCE. Related material (but without reference to the comic poets) is preserved at – Poll. 4.76 γίγγρας δὲ μικρός τις αὐλίσκος γοώδη καὶ θρηνητικὴν φωνὴν ἀφιείς, Φοῖνιξ μὲν ὢν τὴν εὕρεσιν, πρόσφορος δὲ μούσῃ τῇ Καρικῇ. ἡ δὲ Φοινίκων γλῶττα Γίγγραν τὸν Ἄδωνιν καλεῖ, καὶ τούτῳ ὁ αὐλὸς ἐπωνόμασται (“A giggras is a type of miniature pipe that omits a mournful, lamenting tone; it was invented in Phoenicia and is well-adapted to Carian music. The Phoenician language refers to Adonis as Giggras, and the pipe is called after him”) – Hsch. γ 559 γίγγρος· αὔλημά τι, ὅπερ ἔνιοι γίγγρον· οἱ δὲ αὐλοῦ γένος (“giggros: a type of pipe-music, which some authorities refer to as a giggron. Others claim it is a type of pipe”) – Phot. γ 116 γίγγρας· αὐλὸς Καρικός. καὶ τὸ αὔλημα ὁμωνύμως (“giggras: a Carian pipe. Also the music played on the pipe as a homonym”). Note also – Poll. 4.102 ἦν δὲ καὶ γίγγρας πρὸς αὐλὸν ὄρχημα, ἐπώνυμον τοῦ αὐλήματος (“There was also a giggras dance performed to pipe-music, which got its name from the pipe-music”). Interpretation According to Athenaeus (quoting “Xenophon” and Democleides FGrH 794 F 8), the γίγγρας was only one span—the length of a fully extended hand from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger, and thus nine inch-

40

Antiphanes

es or so—long, which suggests that it was high-pitched. He also reports that it was played by Carians and / or Phoenicians to produce lament-music in honor of Adonis/Giggras; cf. Poll. 4.76 (quoted in Citation context), which is patently drawn from the same source; Καρίνη Introduction. The name has no etymology and must be an Eastern loan-word. Speaker (A.) in Amphis fr. 14 identifies the instrument as a “new discovery … being used now at drinking parties in Athens”, and references to it in the classical period are confined to the 4th-century comic fragments cited by Athenaeus, suggesting that it was in fact an exotic musical novelty that enjoyed a brief period of favor in the city.10 See West 1992. 92.

10

Papachrysostomou 2016. 99 for unspecified reasons puts the arrival of the γίγγρας in Athens in the late 5th century, despite what Amphis’ character says and the fact that the other evidence for the instrument likewise all dates firmly to the 4th.

41

Ἱππεῖς (Hippeis) “The Knights”

Introduction Title “Knights” was originally a class-designation used in the Solonian system as a term for the second-wealthiest group of citizens ([Arist.] Ath. 7. 3–8. 1). In the 5th and 4th centuries, the word referred to Athens’ cavalry, said at Ar. Eq. 225 and X. Eq.Mag. 9. 3 to have numbered 1,000. The knights seem to have been implicated in some of the outrages of the oligarchic regime of the Thirty at the end of the Peloponnesian War, and to have failed to distinguish themselves in the Corinthian War in the mid-390s BCE, so that there was something of a stain on their name by Antiphanes’ time, at least in the popular eye. Put more directly, the individuals referred to in the title of this play, and one or more of whom are seemingly speaking in frr. 108–9 and are clearly much more interested in parties than in fighting, may not have been heroic—or even particularly positive—characters. See in general Bugh 1982; Bugh 1988, esp. 39–78; Spence 1993. 9–17, 198–202 (noting that knights are at least conventionally depicted as younger men); Low 2002; Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 293; Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 343. A title referring to what are most likely significant characters by social rather than personal or behavioral characteristics or occupation is unusual, but compare Μέτοικος and Πλούσιοι. Aristophanes also wrote a Knights (called after the chorus; extant), while Alexis wrote a Ἱππεύς. Content Unknown, beyond the fact that the characters in frr. 108–9—the knights who gave the play its name?—have had enough of military life and are looking for something easier and more pleasant. Meletius ap. An.Ox. III p. 83.13 assigns the obscure and apparently corrupt phrase καπαῖον ἤτοι φάλτον Δία to “Aristophanes in Knights”. Nothing like the words in question is found in the text of that play as we have it, and Meineke (followed by Kock) proposed giving what Kassel–Austin print as Ar. fr. dub. 935 (= 905 K.) to Antiphanes (= fr. 111 K.). This is precisely the same situation as with fr. dub. 109 (n.), and if one text was to be transferred from the 5th-century poet to his 4th-century near-namesake, they ought both to have been. Date

Unknown.

42

Antiphanes

Fragments fr. 108 K.–A. (109 K.) (Α.) πῶς οὖν διαιτώμεσθα; (Β.) τὸ μὲν ἐφίππιον στρῶμ’ ἐστὶν ἡμῖν, ὁ δὲ καλὸς πῖλος καλὸς ψυκτήρ· τί βούλει; πάντ’, Ἀμαλθείας κέρας 2 καλὸς Ath.A : κάδος Dobree

3 τί Ath.A : ὅ τι Kock

(A.) How do we live then? (B.) Our horse-cloth serves as our bed, while our lovely helmet is a lovely cooler. What (more) do you want? Everything (is here), Amaltheia’s horn Ath. 11.503b Ἀντιφάνης Ἱππεῦσι· —— Antiphanes in Hippeis: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llk|r klkl llkl l|rkl llkl llkl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Dobree 1833. 336; Kock 1884 II.54; Orth 2009. 249 n. 41; Orth 2014b. 1018–19 Text Dobree (followed by Kock and Kassel–Austin) emended Athenaeus’ καλός (i. e. ΚΑΛΟΣ) in 2 to κάδος (i. e. ΚΑΔΟΣ), “wine-jar” (cf. fr. 112.1 with n.). But καλός has no point if it is not picked up in what follows, while “our lovely helmet is a wine-jar, a cooler” is awkward at best, and I accordingly retain the paradosis. Kock proposed emending Athenaeus’ τί to ὅ τι and printing 3 in the form ψυκτήρ, ὅ τι βούλει, πάντ’, Ἀμαλθείας κέρας (“a cooler, whatever you want, everything, Amaltheia’s horn”). But Kassel–Austin compare Eub. fr. 106.9, where someone proposing to solve a riddle first offers his explanation and then says τί βούλει;, which appears to mean “What (more) do you want?”, i. e. “Are you satisfied?, Is that enough?” Citation context From the discussion of the psygeus or psyktêr (Ath. 11.502c–3d) in the long, roughly alphabetical catalogue of cups and related vessels that makes up much of Book 11 of the Deipnosophists. Frr. 112–13 are quoted immediately after fr. 108. Alex. fr. 65; Dioxipp. fr. 5; Men. fr. 401; Epigen. fr. 5.1–3; Stratt. fr. 62; Alex. fr. 2.1–8; Euphro fr. 3, in that order, are also preserved by Athenaeus in this section. Interpretation (A.) and (B.) appear to be cavalrymen preparing to abandon fighting for symposia; (A.) is playing the straight man, (B.) the inventive comic

Ἱππεῖς (fr. 108)

43

genius. Orth speculates that the characters are involved an expedition “to the cold North, perhaps Thrace”, a charming thesis supported by no evidence of any sort. The first-person plural in 1 and ἡμῖν in 2 might refer only to the two men onstage or to a larger group to which they belong. οὖν in 1 shows that (A.)’s question expands on some previous claim or observation. Fr. 109 is very similar and might easily be part of the same set of remarks (repurposing the tools of war for a happier existence). 1 Middle-passive διαιτάω in the sense “lead one’s life” is prosaic (attested twice in tragedy, at S. OC 769, 928; elsewhere in comedy at Pl. Com. fr. 183.3). An ἐφίππιον was something a rider could sit upon (X. Eq. 7.5, where this is contrasted with riding bareback) that also protected at least a portion of the horse’s belly (X. Eq. 12.8) and was held in place by straps (X. Eq. 8.4); included in a list of words for equipment associated with horses at Poll. 1.185 (but not defined further).11 The Greeks are generally held not to have used saddles, and the object in question is apparently some sort of saddle-cloth, which can thus be repurposed as bedding (2 with n.). See in general Szeliga 1983. 2 στρῶμ(α) (< στόρνυμι, “strew”; first attested at Thgn. 1193) is more often plural and means “bed-clothes” vel sim. (e. g. frr. 213.1; 223.3; 233.2 with n.; Hermipp. fr. 77.2; Ar. Ach. 1090; Nu. 37; Pl. Com. fr. 230.1; X. Cyr. 5.2.15). Here the singular appears to be used in the same sense, as also at Hp. Morb.Sacr. 1.48 = 6.356.17 Littré. LSJ s. v. I.2 (followed by Montanari s. v.) glosses στρῶμα “horsecloth, horse-trappings” in this fragment and at X. Cyr. 8.8.19, and compares Poll. 1.183 and [Luc.] Asin. 38. This is patently wrong both here and in Xenophon (where part of the evidence for contemporary Persian luxury is said to be that “they have more strômata on their horses than on their beds”, making this a paradox rather than evidence for an established sense of the word), while in Pollux ψύχειν τὰ στρώματα τοῦ ἵππου (literally “to cool / dry the horse’s strômata”) is one in a series of short phrases that all describe taking care of the animal, so that the reference is probably to changing the straw bedding in its stall or the like. The word does appear to refer to something worn by a donkey in Lucian (2nd century CE). For πῖλος in the sense “helmet”, cf. Ar. Lys. 562 εἰς τὸν χαλκοῦν ἐμβαλλόμενον πῖλον λέκιθον (“having gruel dumped into his bronze pilos”, of a horseman; cited by Kassel–Austin); Th. 4.34.3; Aen. Tact. 11.12; Ctes. FGrH 688 F 20.36 τὸν δ’ ἐφίππειον πῖλον (“his horseman’s pilos”). 3 For ψυκτήρ (< ψυχω, “cool”), in this period perhaps the name of a large cup, cf. frr. 112.2; 243.2 with n. For τί βούλει;, see Text. πάντ’ cf. fr. 216.1 πάντ’ ἔστιν ἡμῖν. 11

Neither “saddle blanket” nor “horse blanket”, as conventionally used in English, is right, since the former is a piece of fabric placed between the saddle (which the Greeks did not use) and the animal’s back, while the latter serves to keep the horse warm when it is not being ridden.

44

Antiphanes

Ἀμαλθείας κέρας According to Pherecydes (FGrH 3 F 42 ap. [Apollod.] Bib. 2.148), Ἀμάλθεια δὲ ἦν Αἱμονίου θυγάτηρ, ἣ κέρας εἶχε ταύρου. τοῦτο δὲ … δύναμιν ἔχει τοιαύτην ὥστε βρωτὸν ἢ ποτόν, ὅπερ ⟨ἂν⟩ εὔξαιτό τις, παρέχειν ἄφθονον (“Amaltheia was a daughter of Haimonios, who had a bull’s horn. This (horn) has the power to supply in abundance whatever food or drink someone prays for”). D. S. 4.35.4 (cf. Palaeph. incred. 45; Str. 10.458) identifies the horn as one broken off of the head of the river-god Acheloos by Herakles, ἐν ᾧ … πλῆθος ὑπάρχειν πάσης ὀπωρινῆς ὥρας, βοτρύων τε καὶ μήλων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων (“in which there is a large quantity of fall fruit of every sort, grape-clusters and apples and other similar fruits”), but does not explain who Amaltheia was or how she got control of it; cf. Pi. fr. 249a (Acheloos trades a horn he gets from the Oceanid Amaltheia for the one Herakles wrenched off of his head). Alternatively, Amaltheia is either the goat who nursed the infant Zeus (Call. h. 1.47–8) or the owner of the goat (Ov. Fasti 5.111–28), or according to Prov. Coisl. 23 a woman who ran a bar and owned a magic horn that Herakles stole. See Wernicke 1894; Hunter 1983 on Eubulus’ Amaltheia; Gantz 1993. 41–2; Henig, LIMC I.1 pp. 582–4; Simon 1999; Fowler 2013. 323–4. For Amaltheia’s horn as a symbol of abundance, cf. Ar. fr. 707 ἡ μὲν πόλις ἐστὶν Ἀμαλθείας / κέρας, † σὺ μόνον εὖξαι καὶ πάντα πάρεσται (“The city is Amaltheia’s horn, † just pray and everything will be there!”); Philem. fr. 68 τὸ τῆς Ἀμαλθείας δοκεῖς εἶναι κέρας / οἷον γράφουσιν οἱ γραφεῖς κέρας βοός; / ἀργύριόν ἐστι· τοῦτ’ ἐὰν ἔχῃς, λέγε / † πρὸς τοῦτ’ εἰ βούλει, πάντα σοι γενήσεται, / φίλοι, βοηθοί, μάρτυρες, συνοικίαι (“Do you think Amaltheia’s horn is the sort artists depict, a cow’s horn? It’s money; if you’ve got this, tell † this if you want something, and everything will be there for you—friends, allies, witnesses, apartment buildings”); Anacr. PMG 361.1–2; Philox. Leuc. PMG 836e.4. Eubulus wrote a play entitled Amaltheia. For the cornucopia generally, see Bemmann 1994.

fr. dub. 10912 K.–A. (110 K.) τῶν δ’ ἀκοντίων συνδοῦντες ὀρθὰ τρία λυχνείῳ χρώμεθα 2 λυχνείῳ Musurus : λυχνίῳ Ath.ACE Eust.

We set three of the javelins upright, tie them together, and use them as a lampstand

12

Kassel–Austin designate this fr. *109. But * prefixed to the number is normally used to signal that the identity of the author is certain, but that the fragment is only conjecturally assigned to an individual play. As this is not the case here, this is better described as a dubium.

Ἱππεῖς (fr. dub. 109)

45

Ath. 15.700c Ἀντιφάνης (Porson : Ἀριστοφάνης Ath.ACE Eust.) Ἱππεῦσι· —— Antiphanes (thus Porson : “Aristophanes” Ath.ACE Eust.) in Hippeis: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xlk〉|l klkl llkl k|rkl llkl

Discussion Porson 1812. 148; Meineke 1813. 75; Pritchett–Pippin 1956. 241 n. 192; Orth 2014b. 1018–19 Text In 2, Musurus’ λυχνείῳ for the paradosis λυχνίῳ in the editio princeps of Athenaeus is a matter of metrical necessity. Cf. fr. 57.2 (where the same error occurs but the correction is not metrically guaranteed); Pherecr. fr. 90 (the same error with the correction metrically guaranteed); Ar. fr. 573.3 (λυχνείῳ Dindorf : λυχνίῳ Poll.); Diph. fr. 2.2 (λυχνεῖον metrically guaranteed); Clearch. fr. 87.4 Wehrli (λυχνεῖον metrically guaranteed); IG I3 422.109; 1424a col. I.161; 1425.348 (all λυχνεῖον), and the comments of the lexicographers quoted in Citation context (with Zonaras referring expressly to a diphthong). Citation context From the discussion of λύχνος and cognates that makes up part of a longer treatment (lacunose at the end due to physical damage to Ath.A) of words for lamps, torches and the like that extends from Ath. 15.699d–701b. Pherecr. fr. 90 is cited immediately before this, Diph. fr. 2; Euphor. fr. 5, FHG iii.72; Hermipp. fr. iamb. 8; fr. 62, in that order, immediately afterward. Eustathius has got the fragment from his own copy of the Epitome of Athenaeus and is not an independent witness to the text. Cognate material is preserved at – Ammon. 304 λυχνοῦχον καὶ λαμπτῆρά φασι τὸν νῦν φανόν, φανὸν δὲ τὴν λαμπάδα, καὶ οἱ μὲν κωμικοὶ διὰ τοῦ φ, οἱ δὲ τραγικοὶ διὰ τοῦ π, πανός. λυχνεῖον δὲ ἐκάλουν τὴν λυχνείαν (“they use lychnouchos and lamptêr for what is now called a phanos, and phanos to refer to a lamp, the comedians with a phi, the tragedians with a pi, panos. And they used lychneion to mean lychneia”) – Phryn. ecl. 288 λυχνίαν· ἀντὶ τούτου λυχνεῖον λέγε ὡς ἡ κωμῳδία (“lychnia: say lychneion in place of this, as comedy does”) – Zon. p. 1323.21–2 λυχνίον· ὁ λύχνος. λυχνεῖον δὲ ὁ τόπος τοῦ λύχνου, διὰ διφθόγγου (“lychnion: a lamp. Whereas a lychneion, with a diphthong, is the place for a lamp”). Interpretation Athenaeus (followed by Eustathius) assigns these words to “Aristophanes in Hippeis”. Because they do not appear in that play as we have it, Porson gave the fragment to Antiphanes’ Hippeis instead.13 The similarity of the content to that of fr. 108 (where see Interpretation) supports the emendation. But 13

Thus also separately Meineke.

46

Antiphanes

the fragment-number ought nonetheless to have an asterisk before it (missing in Kassel–Austin) to make it clear that it belongs to Antiphanes only by conjecture. 1 An ἀκόντιον is a “javelin”, i. e. a light spear intended for throwing rather than hoplite fighting; a cavalry weapon at X. Eq. 8.10; 12.13; Eq.Mag. 1.21 (cf. fr. 108.1, likewise referring to cavalry equipment), associated with peltasts at e. g. Ar. Lys. 563; Pl. Lg. 834a, and used for hunting at e. g. X. Cyn. 9.2; 10.1. Cf. fr. 216.7 ἐξακοντίζει with n. 2 λυχνείῳ For lampstands—the make-shift one in question here is a tripod on which the lamp is set or from which it is suspended—cf. (in addition to the passages cited in Text, none of them revealing) Diph. fr. 2 ἅψαντες λύχνον / λυχνεῖον ἐζητοῦμεν (“We lit a lamp and started searching for a lychneion”); Pritchett–Pippin 1956. 240–1. For lamps (here probably to be used at a symposium or dinner party, like the objects mentioned in fr. 108), fr. 150.2 n.

47

Καινεύς (Kaineus) “Kaineus”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 211 n. g

Title Kaineus was king of the Lapiths, and originally a woman. After she slept with Poseidon, the god offered her anything she wanted, and she chose to become a man. The male Kaineus was enormously strong and invulnerable to wounds, and when he was ultimately destroyed by the Centaurs, it was by being pounded into the ground. Whether this took place during the battle between the Lapiths and Centaurs at Pirithoos’ wedding (cf. Od. 21.295–304), or was a separate incident in a larger Centauromachy, is unclear. Cf. Il. 1.263–8 (Nestor recalls Kaineus as an early hero who fought against the mountain beasts and destroyed them); Hes. fr. 87 M.–W. = fr. 165 Most (sex with Poseidon and the gift of a change from woman to man); [Hes.] Sc. 178–84 (the war with the Centaurs); Acus. FGrH 2 F 22 (a detailed account, including a description of the impiety that turned Zeus against him and led to the conflict with the Centaurs); Pl. Lg. 944d (the change from woman to man); A. R. 1.59–64; Plu. Mor. 1057c–d (his invincibility); [Apollod.] Bib. 1.22; Ov. Met. 12.189–535. See in general Delcourt 1953; Gantz 1993. 280–1; Fowler 2013. 159–62; Bremmer 2015; Shamugia 2017. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; and see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Araros also wrote a Kaineus. Content Date

Unknown except for what is suggested by the title.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 110 K.–A. (112 K.) εἶτ’ ἤδη δὸς φιάλην Ἄρεως, κατὰ Τιμόθεον, ξυστόν τε βέλος 1 εἶτ’ ἤδη δὸς Emperius : ειτ’ ηδηλος Ath.A : ᾔτει δ᾿ ἥρως Tyrwhitt Ἄρεως Ath.A : τὸ ὅπλον del. Koppiers

Next now, give me Ares’ libation bowl, to quote Timotheos, and a shaved missile!

φιάλην τὸ ὅπλον

48

Antiphanes

Ath. 10.433c–d οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι δέ τις καὶ τὸ ποτήριον αὐτοῦ λέγων φιάλην Ἄρεως κατὰ τὸν Ἀντιφάνους Καινέα, ἐν ᾧ λέγεται οὕτως· —— It would not be a mistake to refer to (Nestor’s) cup as “Ares’ libation bowl”, to quote Antiphanes’ Kaineus, in which the following is said: ——

Meter Anapaestic dimeter.

llll | rlrl rlrl | llrl

Discussion Koppiers 1771. 40–1; Tyrwhitt 1806. 175–6; Emperius 1847. 349; Kock 1884 II.55; Page 1962. 416 (ad PMG 797); Nesselrath 1990. 177–8; Mangidis 2003. 181–2 Text At the beginning of 1, the Ath.A-copyist was unable to make sense of what he found in his exemplar, and he accordingly wrote ειτ’ ηδηλος (printed with obels by Kock). Emperius diagnosed a simple majuscule error (Λ for Δ) and proposed εἶτ’ ἤδη δὸς (printed by Kassel–Austin), the obvious objection to which is the limited number of good parallels for the combination εἶτα ἤδη; see Interpretation. Tyrwhitt’s ᾔτει δ᾿ ἥρως (“a / the hero requested”) is easier sense but further from the paradosis.14 Further on in 1, τὸ ὅπλον disrupts the meter and appears to be an intrusive superlinear gloss on φιάλην Ἄρεως intended to correct Athenaeus’ explanation of the words (see Interpretation); deleted by Koppiers. Citation context Part of a long, disjointed and at this point somewhat garbled discussion of drinking. The reference to Nestor’s cup (Il. 11.632–7) is perhaps drawn from Asclepiades of Myrlea’s treatment of it, a substantial portion of which is quoted at Ath. 11.487f–94b. Interpretation A request for hoplite gear in an elevated, “dithyrambic” style (for which, fr. 55 n.), with the reference to the lyric poet Timotheos of Miletus (mid-5th to mid-4th century BCE; = PMG 797) in 2 revealing the speaker’s self-consciousness about the odd way he is talking and thus his pretensions. Kock, noting the title of the play, took the fragment to be drawn from a parody of a battle between the Lapiths and the Centaurs, i. e. at Pirithoos’ wedding. Nesselrath expands on Kock’s idea to suggest that, regardless of what Timotheos meant by “Ares’ libation bowl”, the speaker in Antiphanes may actually have been referring to a wine-bowl, which he intended to use as a shield faute de mieux, in which case his “shaved missile” may have been a repurposed spit. But this is all speculation, and nothing can be built on it. εἶτ(α) (if right) in any case marks this as at least the second in a series

14

Meineke prints εἰ τῇ δῆλος with no indication of how he believes the text should be understood.

Καινεύς (fr. 110)

49

of remarks (presumably commands). For Timotheos, see Anaxandr. fr. 6 (another quotation of a snatch of arguably absurd language) with Millis 2015 ad loc., and in general Hordern 2002 (p. 253 on this fragment). Aristotle (Rhet. 1407a16–17, 1412b35; Po. 1457b21–2) repeatedly expresses his belief that—despite Athenaeus— φιάλη Ἄρεως means “a shield”, which makes better sense in Antiphanes regardless of what Timotheos intended. If so, ξυστὸν βέλος must mean “a spear”. 1 ἤδη (if right) seems to serve merely to intensify εἶτα, as at Arist. Met. 1032b9; cf. LSJ s. v. II (“joined with other words of time”). The combination is attested nowhere else in the classical period.15 φιάλην Ἄρεως is a kenning; for other kennings in Timotheos, see Waern 1951. 137–8. For other kennings in Antiphanes, frr. 180.3 with n.; 216.23. A φιάλη (also mentioned in fr. 223.4) is a broad, shallow drinking bowl (e. g. Xenarch. fr. 2.3), often with a navel-like, embossed center (e. g. Cratin. fr. 54; Theopomp. Com. fr. 4; IG I3 386.66 = 389.20, etc.), used for libations to the gods (Ar. Pax 431 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Av. 975). See Miltner 1938; Luschey 1939; Luschey 1940; Sparkes–Talcott 1970 i.105–6 and fig. 6; pls. 23, 52, nos. 518–26; Kanowski 1984. 116–17; and in general Gaifman 2018. 2 For κατά + acc. in the sense “according to, to quote” (ignored in LSJ s. v.), e. g. Epich. fr. 51.1; Ar. Av. 807, 910; Th. 134; frr. 341; 592.35; Cratin. Jun. fr. 10.2. For the elaborate (“poetic”) ξυστὸν … βέλος, cf. Ar. fr. 418 ξυστὴ κάμαξ (literally “a shaved pole”, meaning “a spear-shaft” as opposed to a spear-head); Alcm. PMG 68 δουρὶ δὲ ξυστῷ (“a shaved spear”), and note the substantival use of ξυστόν alone to mean “spear” at Il. 4.469; 11.565, etc.; E. Hec. 920, “spear-shaft” at Hdt. 1.52; 2.71, and “cavalry-lance” at X. Cyr. 4.5.58, 4.6.1; 7.1.33. For ξυστός, cf. fr. 131.8, where the adjective is used exceptionally of grated cheese.

15

Note that at D. 18.266 and Arist. Cael. 280b19, εἴτ’ ἤδη represents εἴτε ἤδη not εἶτα ἤδη. Posidon. fr. 72a Edelstein–Kidd = 180a Theiler also has εἶτ’ ἤδη (balancing τὸ μὲν πρῶτον), but the text is quoted elsewhere (fr. 72b Edelstein–Kidd = 180c Theiler) with μετὰ δὲ καί instead, and it is impossible to know what Posidonios wrote.

50

Κᾶρες (Kares) “The Carians”

Introduction Discussion

Webster 1952. 19; Edmonds 1959. 212 n. a

Title Caria is a region on the Aegean coast south of the Maeander River, in the southwest of modern Turkey. The largest Greek city there was Halikarnassos (modern Bodrum); the element -assos in the name is probably Carian. In Antiphanes’ time, Caria was a Persian satrapy, controlled from 377–353 BCE by the Hekatomnid dynast Mausolos. The population was mixed, but the Carians (mentioned already at Il. 2.867–9, in the catalogue of Trojan allies) were a distinct, non-Greek-speaking people. The shadowy Leleges are supposedly a previous indigenous population whom the Carians enslaved. See in general Dal 2017; Unwin 2017. 32–60. Cf. Καρίνη (an alternative title for the same comedy?) with Introduction, and for ethnics, local adjectives and the like as play-titles, especially Αἰγύπτιοι, Καρίνη, Λυδός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός (referring to non-Greek characters), as well as Βοιωτία, Βυζάντιος, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ἐφεσία, Ζακύνθιος, Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία, Λήμνιαι with Introduction (most likely mythological travesty) and Ποντικός, along with Μέτοικος. See Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. Whether the plural means that two or more Carians were visiting Athens and interacted with Athenian characters, or the action was set in Caria among the local inhabitants, is unclear. Alexis and Timocles wrote comedies entitled Καύνιοι (likely referring to persons from the city by that name in Caria). For the plural, cf. from Alexis alone also Θεσπρωτοί, Θηβαῖοι, Λοκροί, Μιλήσιοι and Ταραντῖνοι, and see Αἰγύπτιοι Introduction. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 111 K.–A. (113 K.)

5

οὐχ ὁρᾷς ὀρχούμενον ταῖς χερσὶ τὸν βάκηλον; οὐδ’ αἰσχύνεται ὁ τὸν Ἡράκλειτον πᾶσιν ἐξηγούμενος, ὁ τὴν Θεοδέκτου μόνος ἀνευρηκὼς τέχνην, ὁ τὰ κεφάλαια συγγράφων Εὐριπίδῃ

3 πᾶσιν Ath.ACE : παισὶν Kock

5 Εὐριπίδῃ Ath.ACE : Εὐριπίδου Schmidt

Κᾶρες (fr. 111)

5

51

Don’t you see the pansy dancing with his hands? And he’s not ashamed— the man who explains Heraclitus to everyone, who’s the only person to understand Theodektês’ art, who composes his headings for Euripides16

Ath. 4.134b–c μήποτε δὲ καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Καρσὶ κατὰ τὸ Ἀττικὸν ἔθος τῆς ὀρχήσεως (τῆς ὀρχήσεως del. Kaibel) κωμῳδεῖ τινα τῶν σοφῶν ὡς παρὰ δεῖπνον ὀρχούμενον λέγων οὕτως· —— Perhaps Antiphanes as well is referring to the Attic practice of dance (“of dance” deleted by Kaibel) in Kares when he mocks one of the sophists for dancing at a dinner party, saying the following: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlkl x〉|lkl llkl llkl klk|l llkl rlkl k|lk|l llkl klrl l|rkl llkl krkl k|lkl llkl

Discussion Schmidt 1837. 11–12; Trendelenburg ap. Meineke 1839–1857 III.60; Meineke 1839–1857 III.59–60; Schneidewin 1856. 13–14; Schrader 1885. 251–4; Kock 1884 II.55–6; Kaibel 1887–1890 I.304–5; Weinrich 1944/48. 136–40; Gottshalk 1980. 159–60; Hanink 2014a. 174–5; Orth 2014b. 1019; Bianchi 2018. 64–7; Schutrumpf 2018. 108 Text In 3, Kock’s παισίν (“to boys”) in place of the paradosis πᾶσιν (“to everyone”) might be right, although this is no reason to emend. In 5, Athenaeus’ Εὐριπίδῃ would have to mean that the man in question does work for someone named Euripides, who must then be a contemporary; see Interpretation. Schmidt’s genitive converts this into a reference to the 5th-century tragic poet, whose plays the man summarizes, sc. for an audience that prefers not to read them in their entirety. Citation context Quoted along with Alex. fr. 224 (immediately before this) and Eriph. fr. 1; Alex. fr. 102 (immediately after this) as evidence that the ancient Athenians danced at their symposia. Interpretation A disparaging description of an intellectual putting on a physical display unworthy of someone as clever as he is supposed to be. Athenaeus’ claim that the reference is to “dancing at a dinner party”, i. e. with extravagant gestures in

16

2–5 are misleading translated as a question at Rusten 2011. 498.

52

Antiphanes

addition to footwork,17 might be based on knowledge of the original context. But 1–2 ὀρχούμενον / ταῖς χερσί (“dancing with his hands”) is an odd and seemingly paradoxical expression (contrast the much more obvious “dance with one’s feet” at e. g. Hes. Th. 3–4 πόσσ’ ἁπαλοῖσιν / ὀρχεῦνται; Sapph. vel Alc. fr. 16.1–2 πόδεσσιν / ὤρχεντ’ ἀπάλοισ’; or. ap. Hdt. 1.66.2 δώσω τοι Τεγέην ποσσίκροτον ὀρχήσασθαι; Ar. Pax 330–2; cf. Pl. Com. fr. 138), and it is tempting to think that the fragment has been misunderstood and this is merely a colorful way of saying “waving his hands about” or perhaps (given what follows) “talking with his hands”. That guests routinely danced at symposia—as opposed to watching hired persons of a lower social class dance to entertain them—is unclear in any case; cf. fr. 172b.1 n. Trendelenburg (followed by Schrader and most later scholars) thought the individual in question was the philosopher Heracleides of Pontos (a younger contemporary of Antiphanes; = fr. 10 Wehrli = fr. 146 Schutrumpf), who in fact seems to have been interested in Heraclitus (fr. 39 Wehrli = fr. 127 Schutrumpf), rhetoric (fr. 33 Wehrli = fr. reiectum 2 Schutrumpf) and tragedy, including Euripides (fr. 180 Wehrli = fr. 1.87 Schutrumpf). Gottschalk nonetheless rejects the thesis. 2 βάκηλος (etymology uncertain, but sometimes taken to be an alternative form of κάληβος / κάβηλος) is attested elsewhere in the classical period only at Alex. fr. 105 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Men. fr. 368 (see below). The lexicographers and paroemiographers are uncertain whether a βάκηλος is properly a “eunuch” or an “effeminate”: Phryn. ecl. 238 βάκηλος· ἁμαρτάνουσιν οἱ τάττοντες τοῦτο κατὰ τοῦ βλακός· σημαίνει γὰρ ὁ βάκηλος τὸν ἀποτετμημένον τὰ αἰδοῖα, ὃν Βιθυνοί τε καὶ Ἀσιανοὶ Γάλλον καλοῦσιν (“bakêlos: Those who take this word to be a form of blax (‘stupid’) are wrong; because bakêlos refers to someone who has been castrated, whom the Bithynians and Asians call a Gallos”); Hsch. β 106 βάκηλος· ὁ μέγας ἢ ἀνόητος ἢ ὁ ἀπόκοπος, ὁ ὑπ’ ἐνίων Γάλλος. οἱ δὲ ἀνδρόγυνος, ἄλλοι παρειμένος, γυναικώδης (“bakêlos: someone big or foolish, or someone who has been castrated, called by some authorities a Gallos. But some authorities (define the word as meaning) a transsexual man, others a weakling, an effeminate”) ~ Phot. β 29 = Suda β 46 = Synag. β 10 βάκηλος· μέγας μέν, ἀνόητος δὲ καὶ γυναικώδης (“bakêlos: someone big but foolish and effeminate”); Suda β 46 (continued) βάκηλος· εὐνοῦχος, ἀπόκοπος. καὶ παροιμία· βάκηλος εἶ, κατὰ τῶν ἐκλύτων καὶ ἀνάνδρων· τοιοῦτοι γὰρ οἱ ἀπόκοποι (“bakêlos: a eunuch, someone who has been castrated. Also a proverb: ‘You are a bakêlos’: in condemnation of those who are feeble and unmanly; because this is what men who have been castrated are like”); Zenob. Ath. II.70 βάκηλος εἶ· αὕτη τάττεται κατὰ τῶν ἐκλύτων καὶ ἀνάνδρων. λέγεται δὲ κυρίως βάκηλος ὁ ἀπόκοπος. μέμνηται αὐτῆς Μένανδρος ἐν Ὑμνίδι (fr. 368) καὶ Ἄλεξις ἐν Καρχηδονίῳ (fr. 105) (“You’re a bakêlos: this (proverb) is used 17

Whatever motions are in question, they are not properly referred to as χειρονομία, despite Sittl 1890. 242 (cited with implicit approval by Kassel–Austin ad loc.); see Olson 2018. For hands explicitly referenced as part of a dance that involves the legs as well, e. g. X. Smp. 2.16.

Κᾶρες (fr. 111)

53

in condemnation of those who are feeble and unmanly. bakêlos properly means someone who has been castrated. Menander in Hymnis (fr. 368) and Alexis in Karchêdonios (fr. 105) mention (the proverb)”) with Bühler 1999. 306–13; cf. Luc. Eun. 8 and Pseudol. 17 (used as a parallel term to εὐνοῦχος, “eunuch”); Sat. 12 (in reference to castrated priests, i. e. Galloi); Maass 1925. 472–5; Masson 1967b. 229. If the proper sense was “eunuch”, however, it is easy to see how the word might have been used pejoratively in an extended sense to mean “unmanly, effeminate”, a thesis seemingly confirmed if Plaut. Poen. 1318 te cinaedum esse arbitror is in fact an echo of Alex. fr. 105, as Arnott 1996. 286 (following Dietz) maintains (but see Introduction § 4). 3 The On Nature of Heraclitus of Ephesus (22 D.–K.; late 6th / early 5th century) was notoriously obscure; cf. the description of him at Timo SH 817.2 as αἰνικτής (“a riddler”). This fragment and a series of references in Plato (e. g. Cra. 402a; Smp. 187a) appear to be the first dateable mentions of Heraclitus, and most of what is known of his career comes from D. L. 9.1–17. See in general Kirk 1954; Vlastos 1955; Guthrie 1971. 403–92. 4 Theodektês son of Aristandros of Phaselis (PAA 504645; TrGF 72) was a mid-4th-century tragic poet; this fragment = TrGF 72 T 9. Theodektês took the prize at the City Dionysia seven times (IG II2 2325A.45 Millis–Olson), first around 370 BCE, and was thus extremely successful, although the nasty implication of this remark would seem to be that it required a learned exegete to make his poetry interesting. Theodektês is also supposed to have produced rhetorical works of various sorts (T 2 ap. St.Byz. φ 40), and he delivered a funerary speech in honor of Mausolus of Caria in the late 350s (Suda θ 653)—an intriguing connection to the title of this play. For μόνος in exaggerated praise or blame, fr. 19.4 n. LSJ s. v. II (comparing inter alia Timocl. fr. 39 Χῖοι πολὺ / ἄριστ’ ἀνευρήκασιν ὀψαρτυσίαν, “The Chians have created far and away the best cuisine”) takes ἀνευρηκώς to mean “having thought out, having invented”, as if Theodektês’ art were the product not of Theodektês himself but of the person under discussion. The sense is then similar to 5—the man is a ghost-writer—but μόνος is not to the point (see above). It is easier to think that the sense is instead parallel to 3, being once again that the person referred to is a talented expounder of difficult texts. The compound is first attested at A. Ag. 1094 and is found in both prose (e. g. Hdt. 2.2.2; Th. 1.128.6; Pl. Plb. 16b–c) and poetry (also e. g. Ar. V. 1204; E. Ion 588). 5 τὰ κεφάλαια are apparently “the key points”, as at Men. Dysc. 45; Georg. 75 κεφάλαιόν ἐστι τοῦτο τοῦ παντὸς λόγου (“this is the kephalion of the whole argument”); Pk. 363. For this sense of the word, see LSJ s. v. II.2, although Antiphanes’ τὰ κεφάλαια συγγράφων is there glossed “drawing up the heads of the play”, which appears to require treating the comic and the tragic poets as contemporaries (which they were not) and is in any case obscure. As LSJ s. v. II notes, συγγράφω is largely confined to descriptions of composing prose rather than poetry.

54

Antiphanes

If the Εὐριπίδης in question here is not the tragic poet (see Text), the obvious candidate is the man by the same name (PAA 444547) mocked as a drunk by Ephippus (frr. 9.2; 16.5) and Anaxandrides (fr. 33.3). The fact that that this Euripides was prominent enough to be mentioned repeatedly on the comic stage leaves little doubt in any case that he was actually an important person, perhaps an orator whose points were supposedly not as original as he made them out to be.

55

Καρίνη (Karinê)

“The Girl from Caria”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1823. 91; Edmonds 1959. 213 n. d

Title Hsch. κ 824 offers the gloss Καρῖναι· θρηνῳδοὶ μουσικαί, αἱ τοὺς νεκροὺς τῷ θρήνῳ παραπέμπουσαι πρὸς τὰς ταφὰς καὶ τὰ κήδη. παρελαμβάνοντο δὲ αἱ ἀπὸ Καρίας γυναῖκες (“Carian women: musicians specializing in laments, those who escort corpses to the graves and the funeral rituals with lamentation. Women from Caria were used (for this purpose)”); cf. Ar. Ra. 1302–3 Καρικῶν αὐλημάτων, / θρήνων, χορειῶν (“Carian pipe-melodies, laments (and) choral songs”; among the debased materials allegedly incorporated into Euripides’ tragedies); Pl. Lg. 800e χορούς τινας ἔξωθεν μεμισθωμένους ᾠδούς, οἷον οἱ περὶ τοὺς τελευτήσαντας μισθούμενοι Καρικῇ τινι μούσῃ προπέμπουσι τοὺς τελευτήσαντας (“choruses of singers hired from abroad, like the hired choruses for the deceased that escort them with a Carian muse”, i.e. “with Carian songs”); Poll. 4.76 (on mournful Carian music; quoted in fr. 107 Citation context), and see in general Bachvarova–Dutsch 2016 (arguing for an elaborate Near Eastern background for laments for sacked cities in particular); Iancu 2017 (on Carian mourning practices as documented in Herodotus). On this basis, LSJ s. v. Καρίνη 2, following Meineke on Menander’s homonymous play, offers “(Carian woman) esp. woman hired to sing Carian dirges; title of plays by Antiphanes and Menander”.18 But the titles of Antiphanes’ plays routinely consist of ethnics and the like—note especially Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Κορινθία and Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία, on the one hand, Αἰγύπτιοι, Κᾶρες, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός (showing that such titles could refer to non-Greeks), on the other—and there is no positive reason to believe that this one is to be taken to mean anything more than “The Girl from Caria”. Perhaps the title-character was ultimately shown to be Athenian, as in e. g. Terence’s Andria (reworking a homonymous comedy by Menander, albeit with added material from the Perinthia). For Caria, see Κᾶρες Introduction. The Roman poet Caecilius (2nd century BCE) wrote a Carina (perhaps adapted from Menander). Content

Unknown.

Date Unknown.

18

Montanari s. v. 2 ignores the 4th-century uses of the word, citing it only from Plutarch.

56

Antiphanes

Fragments fr. 112 K.–A. (114 K.) τρίποδα καὶ κάδον παραθέμενος ψυκτῆρά τ’ οἴνου 〈lkl〉 μεθύσκεται 1–3 τρίποδα καὶ / οἴνου κάδον παραθέμενος ψυκτῆρά τε / μεθύσκεται Dobree

He had a table and a wine-jar and a psyktêr full of wine set beside him, and he’s getting drunk Ath. 11.503b–c ἐν δὲ τῇ Καρίνῃ σαφῶς δηλοῦται, ὅτι τούτῳ ἐχρῶντο οἰνοχοοῦντες κυάθῳ· εἰπὼν γὰρ ——, ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ποιεῖ αὐτὸν λέγοντα (fr. 113)· —— And in Karinê he makes it absolutely clear that they used this vessel (i. e. the psyktêr) by pouring wine with a ladle; because after he says ——, in what follows he represents the man as saying (fr. 113): ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xlk〉|r klkl krkl llk|l l〈lkl〉 klkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion

Dobree 1833. 336; Edmonds 1959. 212

Text Dobree’s rewriting of the fragment serves to eliminate the need for a lacuna at the end of 2. For the collocation οἴνου κάδον, e. g. Anacr. PMG 373.2; Hdt. 3.20.1 (both quoted in Interpretation); [Luc.] Asin. 37. Edmonds proposed filling the gap with ⟨Βιβλίνου⟩ (cf. Philyll. fr. 23.2 with Orth 2015 ad loc.; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 59.5), which is merely a guess. Citation context From the discussion of the psygeus or psyktêr (Ath. 11.502c–3d) in the long, roughly alphabetical catalogue of cups and related vessels that makes up much of Book 11 of the Deipnosophists. Fr. 108 is cited immediately before this, fr. 113 (from the same play and perhaps the same scene) immediately afterward. Alex. fr. 65; Dioxipp. fr. 5; Men. fr. 401; Epigen. fr. 5.1–3; Stratt. fr. 62; Alex. fr. 2.1–8; Euphro fr. 8, in that order, are also preserved in this section of Athenaeus. Interpretation A description of someone prepared to engage in serious drinking, as Alex. fr. 9.11–12 τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἕτερον λουτρόν ἐστιν, οὐ πότος, / ψυκτῆρι πίνειν καὶ κάδοις (“because the other style (sc. of consuming wine) amounts to a bath, not a drinking party, (that is) drinking with a psyktêr and wine-jars”) makes clear. The

Καρίνη (fr. 113)

57

table mentioned in 1 must be the one on which symposium snacks were served; cf. frr. 143 with n.; 172b; 280 n. 1 For τρίπους (literally “three-footer”) meaning “table”, e. g. Epich. fr. 147 (where the joke turns on the fact that the “three-footer” in question has four feet, making it clear that already by the early 5th century the word had a generic sense); Ar. fr. 545 (a similar joke);19 Eub. fr. 119.4; Men. Dysc. 916 (but distinguished from a τράπεζα); X. An. 7.3.21; Arist. PA 641a32. Colloquial usage; elevated poetry always has τράπεζα (e. g. Od. 14.158; Pi. O. 3.40; Xenoph. fr. B1.9; S. OT 1464; E. Hel. 296), reserving τρίπους for actual tripods. For tables generally, see Pritchett–Pippin 1956. 241–3; Richter 1966. 63–72; Andrianou 2006. 251–7; Andrianou 2009. 50–8. A κάδος is a jar or bucket of any sort, including one lowered into a well to get water (e. g. Ar. Ec. 1002). Here it is patently a wine-jar, as also at e. g. frr. 113.4; 223.5; Alex. fr. 9.12 (above); Epigen. fr. 6.1; Philippid. fr. 28.4; Archil. fr. 4.7; Anacr. PMG 373.2 οἴνου δ’ ἐξέπιον κάδον; Hdt. 3.20.1 φοινικηίου οἴνου κάδον. See in general Amyx 1958. 186–90; Masson 1967a. 42–4. 2 παρατίθημι (“set beside”) is the vox propria not only for serving food (cf. fr. 61.1 n.) but also for setting out dinner tables and the like (in comedy at e. g. frr. 143.1 παρετέθη τρίπους; 172b.2; Crates Com. fr. 16.5 παρατίθου τράπεζα, “Set yourself [beside the guests], table!”, an order issued in a magical world where dinner can be made to serve itself; Pl. Com. fr. 46.4–5; Eub. fr. 80.5; Alex. frr. 176.1 παρέθηκε τὴν τράπεζαν; 263.5–6; Lync. fr. 1.5). Here the action in question is presumably performed by a slave. ψυκτῆρά τ’ οἴνου For the ψυκτήρ (in this period probably a term for a large cup of some sort), frr. 113.4 n.; 243.2 n. For the genitive of content, Poultney 1936. 81–2 (with specific reference to Aristophanes). 3 μεθύσκεται The verb is first attested at Alc. frr. 332.1; 335.4, but is otherwise absent from elevated poetry (in satyr play at E. Cyc. 167, 538), the behavior in question being too degraded to be described explicitly.

fr. 113 K.–A. (115 K.)

5

19

πότος ἔσται ⟨…⟩ σφοδρότερος. οὐκοῦν, εἰ φράσαι τις· οὐκέτι ἔξεστι κυαθίζειν γὰρ ⟨lxlkl⟩ τὸν δὲ κάδον ἔξω καὶ τὸ ποτήριον λαβὼν ἀπόφερε τἄλλα πάντα

Likely also Ar. Ec. 744, 787, despite Ussher 1973 on 744 (who takes the objects in question to be tripods rather than tables).

58

Antiphanes

2 οὐκοῦν 1 πότος ἔσται Ath.A : ἔσται πότος / Dobree : πότος ἔσται ⟨δ᾿ ἴσως⟩ Hermann εἰ φράσαι τις Ath.A : οὐκοῦν, εἰ φράσει τις Hermann : οὔκουν εἶ φράσων τις; Dobree : οὔκουν εἶ φράσων, ὅτι Herwerden : οὐκοῦν μὴ κεράσῃ τις Kock 3 ἔξεστι, Dobree γὰρ Ath.A : παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἐνθάδε⟩ Herwerden : γὰρ ⟨οὐχὶ βούλομαι⟩ Edmonds : γάρ· ⟨ἀλλά, παῖ, τρέχε⟩ Kock : ⟨μεθύσκεσθαι δὲ δεῖ⟩ (del. γὰρ) Kaibel, cf. fr. 112.3 4 δὲ Ath.A : τε Kock : 5 ἀπόφερε· τἄλλα πάντ᾿ ἔα Hermann γε Edmonds ἔξω Ath.A : ἕξω Edmonds

5

It’s going to be quite a wild drinking party. Certainly, if someone should declare, “Because it’s no longer possible to ladle …”, get the wine-jar and the cup outside, and then remove everything else!

Ath. 11.503b–c ἐν δὲ τῇ Καρίνῃ σαφῶς δηλοῦται, ὅτι τούτῳ ἐχρῶντο οἰνοχοοῦντες κυάθῳ· εἰπὼν γὰρ (fr. 112) ——, ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ποιεῖ αὐτὸν λέγοντα · —— And in Karinê he makes it absolutely clear that they used this vessel [i. e. the psyktêr] by pouring wine with a ladle; because after he says (fr. 112) ——, in what follows he represents the man as saying: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈xlkl xlk〉|r

5

krkl llkr lrkl krkl

ll〈kl〉 l|lkl klkl llk|〈l xlkl〉 l|lrl klkl k|lk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Dobree 1833. 336; Hermann 1842. 512; Herwerden 1878. 63–4; Kock 1884 II.56–7; Kaibel 1887–1890 III.111–12; Edmonds 1959. 212 Text In 1, the paradosis πότος ἔσται cannot stand at the end of a line and thus requires that a gap be marked (filled by Hermann exempli gratia with ⟨δ᾿ ἴσως⟩, “but perhaps”). Dindorf ’s ἔσται πότος / eliminates the problem, but the text is generally too corrupt to render minor fixes of this sort worth printing, particularly since there is no obvious reason to assume that there is not a lacuna here as well as in 3. οὐκοῦν, εἰ φράσαι τις, in 2 makes reasonable sense, and Hermann’s οὐκοῦν, εἰ φράσει τις, (substituting a future indicative for the aorist optative) is no improvement. What Dobree’s οὔκουν εἶ φράσων τις; was supposed to mean is unclear, but it provided the basis for Herwerden’s οὔκουν εἶ φράσων, ὅτι οὐκέτι / ἔξεστι κυαθίζειν παρ᾿ ⟨ἡμῖν ἐνθάδε⟩; (“You’re certainly not going to say that it’s no longer possible to ladle wine here in our company?”); a disadvantage of the latter is that the individual addressed is likely a slave (cf. 4–5) and ought thus not to be interfering in

Καρίνη (fr. 113)

59

what goes on at the party. Kock’s οὐκοῦν μὴ κεράσῃ τις (“Accordingly, let no one mix (any wine)!”) is too far from the paradosis to deserve much consideration. γάρ normally occupies second position, but can also stand further on in its colon. 2–3 οὐκέτι / ἔξεστι κυαθίζειν γὰρ might therefore be punctuated either οὐκέτι / ἔξεστι· κυαθίζειν γὰρ (“it’s no longer possible; because to ladle …”; thus Dobree and Edmonds) or (“since it’s no longer possible to ladle …”; thus Kock). The former is obscure, although “It’s no longer possible (to drink this way)” might be intended. Kaibel proposed expelling γάρ, but arbitrary rewriting is no way to deal with textual difficulties. In 4, Kock’s τε for Athenaeus’ δὲ is driven by his desire to coordinate his proposed supplement τρέχε in 3 with ἀπόφερε in 5. This is methodologically backwards, and how Kock proposes dealing with τἄλλα πάντα at the end of 5 is left unclear. Edmond’s γε is similarly motivated by his proposal to alter Athenaeus’ ἔξω to ἕξω (thus “I’ll have my wine-jar, at any rate, and my cup”). But the change robs λαβών of any significance (“I’ll get and have”), and one would expect σὺ δέ or the like to introduce the imperative in 5. In 5, Hermann’s ἀπόφερε· τἄλλα πάντ᾿ ἔα (“Take (the wine-jar and the cup) away, but leave everything else!”) is a simple change that yields much easier sense than the paradosis (see Interpretation), although it remains unclear how the proposed action is supposed to respond to the situation described in 1–3. Citation context

See fr. 112 n.

Interpretation Athenaeus reports that fr. 113 followed fr. 112 in Karinê. The claim is not necessarily to be trusted—cf. Ath. 3.94c–d, where Ar. Eq. 300–2 is said to be followed by (καὶ ἑξῆς) 160–1—but there is in any case no way of knowing whether the verses were part of the same scene or merely concerned the same person, as Kock assumed (“ὁ μεθυσκόμενος haec dicit”). Fr. 112, at any rate, is a description of a third party who is already getting drunk, whereas fr. 113 is most easily understood as addressed to a slave (given orders in 4–5) and represents plans for a party rather than an account of one already underway. The sense is extremely difficult, inter alia because at least half a verse—and perhaps more—has been lost at the end of 3. φράζω can introduce a direct quotation (e. g. Ar. Pl. 539), and if the quotation begins with οὐκέτι, what has been lost may be an order or conclusion based on the imaginary speaker’s belief that “ladling”—i. e. adding wine to the mixing bowl in anticipation of water being poured in afterward (3 n.)—is “no longer possible”, sc. because stronger stuff is wanted at the celebration. If so, the imaginary speaker’s closing words (e. g. “bring me more appropriate implements!”) have perhaps been displaced by the actual speaker’s order to his interlocutor (“take the wine jar and the cup outside, and remove everything else!”), be it by Athenaeus or a careless scribe. But this is a very conservative and in some ways problematic treatment of the text, in that it attempts to retain what we have without altering it; puts γάρ in fourth position rather than second; and relies on an arguably over-specific sense of the rare verb κυαθίζω in 3

60

Antiphanes

and a difficult interpretation of ἔξω … λαβὼν / ἀπόφερε in 4–5 (n.). Put another way, the paradosis is too unstable and obscure to allow for any clear judgment as to what the speaker is attempting to communicate. 1 πότος (“drinking bout, drinking”20) is 5th/4th-century vocabulary (frr. 122.2; 188.20; Cratin. fr. 199.2, 5; Ar. Eq. 97; Alex. fr. 9.11 (quoted in fr. 112 Interpretation); Critias fr. 6.31; Panyas. fr. 17.4, p. 181 Bernabé; Lys. 16.11; Pl. R. 389a, e); absent from lyric poetry and tragedy. 2 σφοδρότερος Although σφοδρῶς is attested at Od. 12.124, the cognate adjective is confined to prose (e. g. Th. 1.103.4; X. Mem. 4.1.3; Pl. R. 586c) and comedy (also Diph. fr. *61.5; Men. Asp. 370; Dysc. 315; Pk. 128; note also the adverb at Cratin. Jun. fr. 2). 3 κυαθίζειν is first attested here and at Diph. fr. 107.1, where it is used expressly to refer to “ladling” wine into a mixing bowl, with water then to be poured in over it. But there is no obvious reason why the word should not mean instead “to ladle (wine into cups for drinking)”. For the κύαθος (“ladle”), fr. 81.3 n. 4–5 As the text has been passed down to us, τὸν … κάδον (see fr. 112.1 n.) and τὸ ποτήριον (see fr. 57.14 n.) must be governed by λαβών, while τἄλλα πάντα is governed by ἀπόφερε. But a finite verb is wanted with ἔξω, meaning that φέρε vel sim. must be supplied from what follows (“get the wine-jar and the cup (and bring them) outside!”) and the adverb must be taken to mean “onstage”—i. e. out of the house represented by a stage-door (cf. fr. 75.7–8 ἔξω τις δότω / ἱμάντα)—despite the fact that the drinking party is presumably to be imagined as going on in a room inside the house.

20

Not “My drink”, as in Rusten 2011. 499, where 2 is also garbled (“so, if someone speak, no longer”).

61

Κηπουρός (Kêpouros) “The Gardener”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 213 n. h

Title The basic distinguishing feature of a κῆπος appears to be the presence of a ready supply of water, allowing herbs and vegetables to be grown, often alongside fruit-trees and the like; cf. the word in a sense ~ “vegetable garden”, or in the classical period “market garden”, at e. g. Ar. Av. 159–60 (a κῆπος where inter alia water-mint grows); Stratt. fr. 71.2 (a description of insects in a vegetable bed); Il. 21.257–9 (irrigation work in a κῆπος); Od. 4.737 (a κῆπος full of trees); 7.129 (Alkinoos’ κῆπος outside his palace, which includes both fruit-trees and vegetable beds, and as a sign of special divine favor not just one but two springs); 24.246–7 (grapevines, fruit-trees and vegetable beds in Odysseus’ κῆπος on his farm); Hdt. 4.181.4 (irrigated κῆποι); Pl. Lg. 845d (water is crucial for a garden). Managing irrigation and tending vegetable beds are accordingly among the basic duties of a κηπουρός; cf. fr. 104.1–2 n.; Ar. fr. 697 (κηπουροί using a swing-beam to water plants); Thphr. HP 7.2.5 (κηπουροί tending crops of radishes and turnips), 7.5.2 (κηπουροί watering and fertilizing vegetables and herbs); CP 5.6.7 (a passing reference to opening and closing irrigation channels); [Pl.] Min. 316e (the job of κηπουροί is to manage κῆποι, supposedly on the basis of technical manuals; contrasted with farmers); Plu. Mor. 927b (the basic occupation of a κηπουρός is moving water), and cf. Men. fr. 229 (corrupt, but taken by Kock—ignored by Kassel–Austin—to be a description of the activity of κηπουροί). See generally Carroll-Spillecke 1989; Carroll-Spillecke 1992, esp. 15–44; Bowe 2010. For other comedies by Antiphanes called after a profession, occupation or the like, see Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος with Introduction, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων, and perhaps Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

62

Antiphanes

Fragment fr. 114 K.–A. (116 K.) Ath. 13.586a μνημονεύει δ’ αὐτῆς (i. e. τῆς Σινώπης) Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἀρκάδι (fr. 43) καὶ ἐν Κηπουρῷ, ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ (fr. 23), ἐν Ἁλιευομένῃ (fr. 27.12), ἐν Νεοττίδι (fr. 168) Antiphanes mentions her (i. e. Sinôpê) in Arkas (fr. 43) and in Kêpouros, in Akestria (fr. 23), Halieuomenê (fr. 27.12) (and) in Neottis (fr. 168)

See frr. 23 n.; 27.12 n.

63

Κιθαριστής (Kitharistês) “The Lyre-player”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 214–15 n. b; Konstantakos 2000b. 179–80

Title For the κιθάρα (a type of lyre), see Kitharôidos Introductory n. A κιθαριστής is someone who plays the instrument but does not necessarily sing along with it; contrast the κιθαρῳδός (who both played and sang). The noun is attested already at Hes. Th. 95; fr. 305.2 M.–W. = fr. 255.2 Most (both ἀοιδοὶ καὶ κιθαρισταί); the cognate verb κιθαρίζω is found already at Il. 18.570. For a musician of one sort or another as the name-character for the play, cf. Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Θαμύρας, Κιθαρῳδός and Ὀρφεύς. For other comedies by Antiphanes called after a profession, occupation or the like (presumably that of a central character), see Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς and Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων, and perhaps Δραπεταγωγός, Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Menander also wrote a Κιθαριστής, in which the title-character’s daughter seems to have been the love-interest of the young Moschion (the son of the lyre-player’s neighbor), and to have been from Ephesus (i. e. an Ἐφεσία), while the Roman playwright Pomponius (1st century BCE) wrote an Atellan farce entitled Citharista. Anaxandrides wrote a Κιθαρίστρια (the name-character of which was probably at least initially enslaved). Content

Unknown.

Date Likely shortly after 370 BCE, although Konstantakos would put the play much later, in the time of Alexander “the Great”; see fr. 115 Interpretation.

Fragment fr. 115 K.–A. (117 K.) οὐκ ἐφύσων οἱ Λάκωνες ὡς ἀπόρθητοί ποτε; νῦν δ’ ὁμηρεύουσ’ ἔχοντες πορφυροῦς κεκρυφάλους; 2 ὁμηρεύουσ’ Elmsley : ὁμηρέους Ath.A

Didn’t the Spartans once upon a time boast that they were unravaged? Whereas nowadays they wear purple head-scarves and serve as hostages

64

Antiphanes

Ath. 15.681c Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν δευτέρῳ Βίων (fr. 39 Wehrli), ὅρα, φησίν, τοὺς τὸ κοσμοσάνδαλον ἀνείροντας Λακεδαιμονίους, οἳ τὸν παλαιότατον τῆς πολιτικῆς κόσμον συμπατήσαντες ἐξετραχηλίσθησαν. διόπερ καλῶς περὶ αὐτῶν εἴρηκεν ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κιθαριστῇ· —— Clearchus says in Book II of the Lives (fr. 39 Wehrli): Look at the Spartans, who make garlands out of kosmosandalon, and who trampled on their most ancient political arrangements and were ruined. This is why the comic poet Antiphanes in Kitharistês is right to say about them: ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lkll lklk | lkll lkl lkll lkll | lklk lkl

Discussion

Elmsley 1811. 86

Text In 2, Athenaeus’ nonsensical ὁμηρέους (which leaves the line without a main verb) reflects the influence of πορφυροῦς κεκρυφάλους; corrected to the elided 3rd-person plural verb ὁμηρεύουσ’ by Elmsley. Citation context From a brief discussion of garlands made of the flower known as kosmosandalon within a larger treatment of garlands generally (Ath. 15.676f–86c) probably drawn at least in part from Aelius Asclepiades’ Garlands (cited at Ath. 15.676f, 679b) and / or Philonides’ On Perfumes and Garlands (cited at Ath. 15.691f; note also Ath. 15.675a–e). Cratin. fr. 105.1–2 (quoted at greater length at Ath. 15.685b–c, with shorter snippets at Ath. 15.681a, e, 685f) is cited immediately before this. Interpretation A snide comment about the Spartans delivered at some point after the ravaging of their country in 370 BCE by the combined forces of the Argives, Boeotians, Arcadians and Eleians (X. HG 6.5.25–32; D. S. 15.63.3–65.5; Plut. Ages. 31–2; Pelop. 24) in the aftermath of the Battle of Leuktra the previous year. See in general Cartledge 1979. 296–300. There appear to be no other references to a Spartan surrender of hostages at this time. But the individuals in question are patently of an elevated social class (since they wear purple), and the fact that the speaker knows how they dress suggests that he has seen them, so that the obvious conclusion is that they were resident in Athens. One obvious occasion is winter 370/369 BCE, when five Spartan ambassadors already in the city begged the Athenian assembly for assistance against the Theban-led invasion and got it, although in the course of the debate considerable doubt was expressed about the wisdom of the intervention (X. HG 6.5.33–51); perhaps the Spartans remained in Athens as guaranteurs of their city’s good faith while Iphicrates and his army marched into the Peloponnese. Konstantakos 2000b. 179–80, by contrast, associates the reference with the Spartan hostages known from Aeschin. 3.133 to have been sent to Alexander in late 330 BCE; if so, Kitharistês must have been among the final plays Antiphanes wrote.

Κιθαριστής (fr. 115)

65

1 φυσάω (literally “blow”) is here “bluster”, as at e. g. Men. Epitr. 913; fr. 219.2; E. IA 125, 381; [Pl.] Alc. II 145e; [D.] 59.97, and thus “talk loud, boast”.21 See in general Headlam 1966 on Herod. 2.32. ὡς ἀπόρθητοι For Sparta as conspicuously “unpillaged” before the Battle of Leuktra, cf. Ion Samius fr. 1.3 Diehl = FD III.1 50.3; Lys. 33.7 (where the adjective is transferred from the country itself to the people who inhabit it, as also in Antiphanes); Aeschin. 1.180. 2 ὁμηρεύουσ(ι) The taking of hostages (sc. to guarantee the good behavior of their family or fellow citizens) appears to have been standard procedure among Greek states in the classical period and doubtless earlier as well (e. g. Ar. Lys. 244; Hdt. 1.64.1; 6.85.1, 6.99; Th. 1.56.2, 1.57.6, 1.108.3, 1.115.3, 1.117.3; 3.90.4, 3.101.2; X. HG 3.1.20; 6.1.18; An. 6.3.9; Isoc. 8.92; 20.6; D. 23.149–50; Aeschin. 2.140; Aen. Tact. 10.23); see in general Amit 1970; Lonis 1977; Panagopoulos 1978. 193–217. For Roman practice, see Moscovich 1979–1980; Moscovich 1983 (both with further bibliography). For the verb, cf. E. Ba. 297 (clearly intransitive, “serve as a hostage”, despite the doubts expressed by LSJ s. v. II; see Dodds 1960 ad loc.); [E.] Rh. 434 with Liapis 2012 ad loc., whose claim that the word is primarily prosaic must be balanced against the fact that it is very poorly attested in the classical period, rendering such conclusions hazardous). For ἔχω in the sense “wear” vel sim., fr. 17.1 n. πορφυροῦς For purple dye and purple fabric and garments of all sorts (extremely expensive and thus a sign of luxury), fr. 70 n. A κεκρύφαλος (probably substrate vocabulary; not cognate with κρύπτω) is a long band of cloth or light netting (“sprang”) that was wrapped around the head and tied, producing a sack that held the hair; cf. fr. 187 (in a catalogue of fashion accessories); Eup. fr. 170; Ar. Th. 138 (part of Agathon’s effeminate costume), 257 (an item in the disguise Inlaw adopts in order to infiltrate the women’s assembly); fr. 332.6 (in a catalogue of women’s accessories); Il. 22.469 (part of Andromache’s costume); Hp. Mul. 219.4 = 8.424.3 Littré; Superf. 25.8 = 8.488.19 Littré (in both cases worn on a woman’s head over a strip of linen cloth); IG II2 1522.18; 1523.22; 1524.195–6, etc. (women’s dedications at Brauron); Posidipp. ep. 46.4 τρητῶν πλέγματα κεκρυφάλων (“woven work consisting of kekryphaloi full of holes”); Antip. Sid. AP 6.206.3–4 = HE 200–1; Clark 1983 (on the weaving of sprang generally); Stone 1984. 203–4; Jenkins–Williams 1985.

21

LSJ s. v. I appears to treat Ephipp. fr. 5.20 παύου φυσῶν, Μακεδὼν ἄρχων as another example of the idiom. Perhaps some word-play is involved, but the text does not obviously mean anything more than “stop blowing (on the fire), Macedonian ruler!”

66

Κιθαρῳδός (Kitharôidos) “The Kitharode”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 215 n. d

Title The κιθάρα (first attested at Thgn. 778; etymology unknown, but cognate with English “guitar”) was a seven-stringed lyre; see Lawergren 1985; Maas–Snyder 1989. 53–78; West 1992. 50–6; Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 120–2 (with further bibliography). For κιθαρῳδοί, who sang along with the instrument rather than simply playing it (as a κιθαρίστης did), and who competed in Athens at the Panathenaic festival but not at the City Dionysia or the Lenaia, cf. fr. 27.17; Pherecr. fr. 6; Eup. fr. 311; Ar. Ra. 1281–2; Ec. 739 (the term mockingly applied to a rooster); Canthar. fr. 1; Alex. fr. 3.2 (also cited in this section of Athenaeus); Diph. fr. 76.2–3, and see in general Power 2010, esp. 425–34, 475–89, 491–507, with the cautions and corrections of Holford-Strevens 2012. For other comedies by Antiphanes featuring a musician as the title-character, cf. Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Θαμύρας, Κιθαριστής and Ὀρφεύς. It is tempting to think that one attraction of such plays for the poet might have been the opportunity to present an onstage performance by the individual in question, like Agathon’s mock-tragic hymn at the beginning of Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae. For additional comedies by Antiphanes called after a profession, occupation or the like, note Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Comedies entitled Kitharôidos were also written by Clearchus Comicus, Alexis, Sophilus, Theophilus, Diphilus, Apollodorus Comicus, Anaxippus and Nico. Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 116 K.–A. (118 K.) οὐ ψεῦδος οὐδέν φησιν he tells no lie at all

Κιθαρῳδός (fr. 117)

67

Ath. 8.342d Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κιθαρῳδῷ, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· —— Antiphanes in Kitharôidos, which begins: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 215 n. d

Citation context An incipit offered to introduce fr. 117, where see Citation context. For similar introduction-formulae (originally intended to make the life of the individual trying to check the reference in a scroll easier, by offering a way to be sure he had the right text in hand) in Athenaeus, cf. 1.4e (Archestratos of Gela’s Life of Pleasure), 6a (a poem by Philoxenos of Cythera); 5.209f (a speech by Lysias); 13.573f (a victory ode by Pindar); 14.658c (an Iamb of Semonides). Interpretation Perhaps an appeal to a trope at the beginning of an opening monologue, intended to lend the words that follow a bit of moral or gnomic context (“He tells no lie 〈who says that … ; for here in this house … 〉” vel sim.). οὐ ψεῦδος οὐδέν φησιν ~ a more emphatic οὐ ψεύδεται. Cf. Ar. Ra. 627–8; Od. 3.20 = 328; 19.203; Hdt. 3.118.2; Antipho 4.2.2; Pl. R. 414e; Isoc. 12.89; etc. (but all with forms of λέγω rather than φημί).

fr. 117 K.–A. (119 K.) ὀφθαλμὸν ὤρυττέν τις ὥσπερ ἰχθύος Μάτων προσελθών Someone came up and tried to gouge out an eye, just as Matôn does with a fish’s (eye) Ath. 8.342c–d καὶ Μάτων δ’ ὁ σοφιστὴς ὀψοφάγος ἦν· δηλοῖ δὲ τοῦτο Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κιθαρῳδῷ, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή (fr. 116)· ——. (fr. 117) —— The sophist Matôn was also a glutton; Antiphanes makes this clear in Kitharôidos, which begins (fr. 116): ——. (fr. 117) ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llk|l klkl klkl l|〈lkl xlkl〉

Citation context From a catalogue of gluttons (Ath. 8.340e–5e). Anaxil. fr. 20 (quoted in Interpretation) is preserved immediately after this, followed a few lines

68

Antiphanes

later by fr. 188. Frr. 27 (at Ath. 8.338e–9d); 50 (at Ath. 8.343d); and 77 (at Ath. 8.340c) all come from the same section of the Deipnosophists. Interpretation A retrospective description of an assault. The vague τις in 1 makes it clear that the focus of the narrative is on the action rather than the agent, so perhaps this is only part of a multi-pronged attack on someone. The comparison to Matôn and fish nonetheless lends the tale a comic aspect. Matôn (PAA 635840) is known only from this fragment; fr. 188.16–17 (see Interpretation there for the possibility that he was a politician rather than simply a notorious glutton); and Anaxil. fr. 20 (quoted immediately after this in Athenaeus) τοῦ κεστρέως κατεδήδοκεν τὸ κρανίον / ἀναρπάσας Μάτων· ἐγὼ δ’ ἀπόλλυμαι (“Matôn grabbed the head of the gray mullet and gobbled it down; but I’m ruined”). The name is not otherwise attested, although three men named Ματώ are known from elsewhere (Chios? 4th/3rd century BCE; Ionia? 4th century; Teos 2nd–1st century BCE). For philosophers as gluttons, cf. Eub. fr. 137 (Cynics). 1 For ὀρύττω in the sense “gouge (an eye or the like)”, generally with at least passing reference to pankration-fighting, cf. Ar. Pax 898 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Av. 442 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc. 1–2 ὥσπερ ἰχθύος / Μάτων For fish-eyes as a delicacy (today mostly a feature of Chinese cuisine), cf. the anecdote at Ath. 8.345c “When a glaukos—but nothing else—was served, Kindon grabbed its eye. Demylos jammed his thumb into Kindon’s eye and tried to strong-arm him, shouting ‘You let go, and I’ll let go!’”;22 Wang 2010 “The trick to eating a fish eyeball is to keep it in your mouth for as long as possible. A rush of fatty fish flavor is accompanied by a gelatinous, spongy texture. Swallow too quickly and you’ll miss the nuances”.23 fr. 118 K.–A. (120 K.) εἰσδυόμενος εἰς πόρκον, ὅθεν ἔξω πάλιν οὐ ῥᾳδίως ἔξειμι τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδόν 1 εἰσδυόμενος δ᾿ Meineke

ἔξω πάλιν Et. gen. B : πάλιν ἔξω Et. gen. A

entering a trap, out of which I will not easily emerge again by the same route Et. gen. AB s. v. πόρκις πόρκιος (= EM p. 683.27–9) καὶ Ἀντιφάνης Κιθαρῳδῷ· —— Also Antiphanes in Kitharôidos: —— 22 23

Nothing else is known of either man. The hard center of the eyeball—i. e. the lens—is often not consumed and is in any case not where the flavor resides.

Κιθαρῳδός (fr. 118)

69

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkr llk|r llkl llkl llk|l llkl

Discussion

Meineke 1847. 520

Text Meineke offers no explanation for his suggestion that δ᾿ might be added after εἰσδυόμενος in 1. The upsilon in the first principal part of the verb is often demonstrably long (e. g. S. OT 1317 οἴμοι μάλ’ αὖθις· οἷον εἰσέδυ μ’ ἅμα), and there is accordingly no need to assume that it is short here (which would require that the first foot as printed above be scanned lrkk, justifying Meineke’s emendation). If the point is instead to eliminate the asyndeton, the verses have been snatched out of syntactic context in any case—a main verb is lacking—and there is no point in attempting a partial remedy of the situation without rewriting the fragment completely. At the end of 1, Et. gen. A offers πάλιν ἔξω, which appears to be the more common order for the words (in the classical period at Pl. Tim. 78d; Arist. Spir. 483a22; Aud. 800a33) but is here unmetrical. Citation context From a long lexicographic note attributed at the very end to Orus (fr. 136) and perhaps originally intended as a gloss on Pl. Sph. 220c (quoted in Interpretation and referenced at the beginning of the gloss). Diph. fr. 79 (quoted in Interpretation) is preserved immediately before this. Cognate material is preserved at – Tim. Lex. π 1001a24 πόρκος· κύρτος θαλάσσιος ὁ εἰς ἄγραν ἰχθύων. πόρκος· οἱ μὲν τὸ δίκτυον ἀπέδοσαν, οἱ δὲ σχοινίου πλέγμα, οἱ δὲ κύρτον, οὐδὲ οὗτοι ὑγιῶς· ὁ γὰρ Πλάτων ἕτερον φησὶ τὸν πόρκον τοῦ κύρτου (“porkos: a fishtrap used in the sea to hunt fish. porkos: Some authorities explain the word as meaning a net, others an object woven out of line, others a fish-trap; but the latter are wrong, because Plato says that a porkos is different from a fish-trap”) – Hsch. π 3041 πόρκος· κύρτος. τινὲς δὲ τὸν ἁλιευτικὸν κύρτον ἀποδιδόασιν (“porkos: a fish-trap. But some authorities explain the word as meaning a fishtrap used by sea-fishermen”). Interpretation Unless a fish is speaking—possible in 5th-century comedy, but unlikely in Antiphanes or his peers, who seem not to use animal characters—this must be a metaphor: the speaker contemplates or recalls getting into a nasty situation from which there will be no escape (~ “walking into a trap”). Kassel–Austin compare X. An. 1.3.17 φοβοίμην δ’ ἂν τῷ ἡγεμόνι ὃν δοίη ἕπεσθαι, μὴ ἡμᾶς ἀγάγῃ ὅθεν οὐκ ἔσται ἐξελθεῖν (“I’d be afraid to follow the guide he’d give us, for fear he might lead us somewhere it will be impossible to escape from”).

24

The initial gloss is also preserved at Phot. π 1101 = Suda π 2077.

70

Antiphanes

1 εἰσδυόμενος The verb is found already in Homer (Il. 23.622), but is otherwise attested in elevated poetry only at S. OT 1317 (quoted in Text); E. IA 1583. A πόρκος was a woven fish-trap, probably made of wicker rather than line and thus with a fixed shape; the fragment suggests that it functioned passively, i. e. the fish swam into it of its own accord and then was somehow prevented from swimming out. The word is attested elsewhere in the classical period only at Diph. fr. 79 θᾶττον πλέκειν / κέλευε τῶν πόρκων πυκνοτέρους (“quickly urge [someone] to weave them finer than porkoi!”; quoted immediately before this in the Et. gen. = Oros); Pl. Sph. 220c κύρτους δὴ καὶ δίκτυα καὶ βρόχους καὶ πόρκους καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα (“fish-traps and nets and netting and porkoi and the like”), and Moer. π 60 πόρκους οἱ Ἀττικοί, οὓς κύρτους λέγουσιν Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers (say) porkoi, whereas Greeks generally say kyrtoi”25) identifies it as an Atticism. Cf. Lyc. 237, 595–6 (both porkeus, “someone who fishes with a porkos”); Pancrat. SH 600.2 πορκῆες ἁλίζωοι (“porkeis who live from the sea”); Plu. Mor. 730c οὐδαμοῦ καθῆκαν ἄγκιστρον οὐδὲ πόρκον οὐδὲ δίκτυον (“they nowhere lowered a hook or a porkos or a net”, sc. “into the sea”); Gal. III.4.15 K. (specifically described as woven); Poll. 1.97 (in a collection of terms for fishing equipment); 7.137 οἱ τῷ πόρκῳ χρώμενοι πορκεῖς (“those who use a porkos are porkeis”; in a list of words for fishermen); 10.132 (in a collection of terms for fishing equipment). 2 οὐ ῥᾳδίως (“not easily”, i. e. “with great difficulty”; litotes) is prosaic (e. g. Th. 1.49.3; X. HG 6.1.7; Pl. Ap. 31a; Arist. Pol. 1316a27); elsewhere in poetry only at Ar. V. 461. τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδόν (“by the same route”) + a verb of motion is found already in Homer (e. g. Il. 6.391), but is absent from elevated poetry and in the classical period is largely confined to prose (e. g. Hdt. 5.12.4; X. HG 4.2.8; Pl. Lg. 821b; D. 21.87); elsewhere in comedy at fr. 54.2–3; Philem. fr. 77.5*–6 τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν / … πορεύεται.

fr. 119 K.–A. (121 K.) Hsch. σ 1701 στειλέαν (fort. στειλεάν vel στελεάν)· τὴν μακρὰν ῥάφανον (fort. ῥαφανῖδα). Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κιθαρῳδῷ steiléa (perhaps steileá or steleá) (acc.): a large cabbage (perhaps “radish”). Antiphanes in Kitharôidos

Discussion Text 25

Porson 1815. 234–5; Meineke 1839–1857 III.62–3

See Interpretation.

κύρτος is used for a woven fishing-device of some sort also at e. g. Pl. Tim. 78b, 79d.

Κιθαρῳδός (fr. 119)

71

Citation context An isolated lexicographic note. If there is a connection to adesp. com. fr. *105 and / or Zenob. Ath. I.73 (p. 357 Miller) (both quoted in Interpretation), Porson’s ῥαφανῖδα (“radish”) rather than ῥάφανον ought to be printed in Hesychius. Interpretation Cf. adesp. com. fr. *105 † στελεω ῥαφανῖδας, σικυοὺς τέτταρας † (“† steleô radishes, four cucumbers †”), to which Meineke (followed by Kock) took Hesychius to be referring; Zenob. Ath. I.73 (p. 357 Miller) ὦ Λακιάδαι καὶ στελέαι· αὕτη εἴρηται ἐπὶ τῶν μοιχῶν, ὡς ἀξίων ὕβρεως καὶ κολαζομένων † ἐκδιζωπυριῶν †. δῆμος δέ ἐστι τῆς Ἀττικῆς αἱ Λακιάδαι, κἀκεῖ ῥαφανῖδες μεγάλαι γίνονται· ταύταις δὲ χρῶνται κατὰ τῶν ληφθέντων μοιχῶν ἐφυβρίζοντες, εἰ δὲ μὴ παρεῖεν, στελεῷ τῷ ἐκ τῆς δικέλλης (“O Lakiadai and steleai!: this (proverb) is used in reference to adulterers, to the effect that they deserve abuse and being punished † ekdizôpuriôn †. There is an Attic deme Lakiadai, and large radishes grow there; they use them on adulterers who are caught, as a way of abusing them, and if (radishes) are unavailable, (they use) a mattock handle (steleon)”; cited by Kassel–Austin), to which the note in Hesychius may be a confused reference. A στελεόν is an ax-handle or the like (e. g. Anaxipp. fr. 6.3), a στειλειή / στελεά supposedly the hole in the ax-head into which the handle was inserted (Od. 21.422 with e. g. Hsch. σ 1702), although this too may mean “ax-handle” (thus the Odyssey scholia; cf. LfgrE s. v.). Perhaps στειλέα is a different word. But it is tempting to think that στειλεάν or στελεάν and ῥαφανῖδα are wanted in Hesychius and that the claim that στειλέα was a term for a large radish is merely a condensed and garbled version of Zenobius’ claim that a στελεόν (“mattock handle”) was used to punish adulterers when no radishes were available. For cabbage (also called κράμβη), fr. 6 n. For radishes, fr. 273.2 n.

72

Κλεοφάνης (Kleophanês) “Kleophanês”

Introduction Discussion Kock 1884 II.58; Breitenbach 1908. 49; Webster 1952. 16; Edmonds 1959. 215 n. f Title Κλεοφάνης (literally “Gloriously renowned” vel sim.) is a legitimate if quite uncommon Athenian name (one other classical example in LGPN II). For a non-mythological male personal name as the title of one of Antiphanes’ plays, cf. Εὐθύδικος, Λάμπων, Λεπτινίσκος, Λεωνίδης, Μητροφῶν, Μίδων, Τίμων, Φιλίσκος and perhaps Γόργυθος, Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Φάων. Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 120 K.–A. (122 K.)

5

10

15

τόδε τυραννεῖν ἐστιν ⟨…⟩ ἢ τί ποτε; τὸν σπουδαῖον ἀκολουθεῖν ἐρεῖς ἐν τῷ Λυκείῳ μετὰ σοφιστῶν νὴ Δία λεπτῶν, ἀσίτων, συκίνων, λέγονθ’ ὅτι τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτ’ οὐκ ἔστιν, εἴπερ γίγνεται, οὔτ’ ἔστι γάρ πω γιγνόμενον ὃ γίγνεται, οὔτ’ εἰ πρότερον ἦν, ἔστιν ὅ γε νῦν γίγνεται, ἔστιν γὰρ οὐκ ὂν οὐδέν· ὃ δὲ μὴ γέγονέ πω, οὐκ ἔσθ’ ἕωσπερ γέγονε † ὃ δὲ μὴ γέγονέ πω † ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ εἶναι γέγονεν· εἰ δ’ οὐκ ἦν ὅθεν, πῶς ἐγένετ’ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντος; οὐχ οἷόν τε γάρ. † εἰ δ’ αὐτόθεν ποι γέγονεν, οὐκ ἔσται κηποι δεποτις εἴη, πόθεν γενήσεται τοὐκ ὂν εἰς οὐκ ὄν; εἰς οὐκ ὂν γὰρ οὐ δυνήσεται † ταυτὶ δ’ ὅ τι ἐστὶν οὐδ’ ἂν Ἁπόλλων μάθοι

1 τόδε Musurus : τὸ δὲ Ath.(1)A ⟨ἐστ᾿ ἴσως⟩ Kaibel : ⟨ἐστί σοι⟩ Kassel–Austin : τὸ δὲ παρανοεῖν ⟨ἐστι δὴ⟩ Kock 2 τί ποτε τὸν Kaibel : τί ποτε τὸ Ath.(1)A : πῶς ποτε Hermann ἐρεῖς Scaliger : ἔρις Ath.(1)A : ἐρᾷς Kock 3 Λυκείῳ Musurus : Λυκίῳ A A Ath.(1) –(2) 4 συκίνων Ath.(1)A : σκυτίνων Ath.(2)A 5–7 γίγνεται Morelius, γιγνόμενον Dindorf : γίνεται et γινόμενον Ath.(1)ACE 6 οὔτ’ vel οὐκ Dindorf : οὐδ’ Ath.(1)ACE ὃ γίνεται Ath.(1)ACE : ὅ γ᾿ ἔσθ῾ ἔτι Kaibel 7 οὔτ’ Ath.(1)ACE : οὐδ’ Grotius

Κλεοφάνης (fr. 120)

73

ὃ δὲ Ath.(1)A : ὃ Ath.(1)CE : ὅ 9 ἔσθ’ ἕωσπερ Dobree : ἔστιν ὥσπερ Ath.(1)ACE γε Schweighäuser ὃ δὲ μὴ γέγονέ πω ex v. 8 iterata secl. Kaibel : οὐδὲ γέγονεν ὄν Wilamowitz 12–14 εἰ δ’ αὖ ποθεν, πῶς γέγονεν, οὐκ ὄν; ἔστ᾿ ἄρ᾿ οὐκ / οὐδέν ποτ᾿· ἢ πόθεν γενήσεται τό γ᾿ οὐκ / ὂν εἰς ὄν; εἰς οὐκ ὂν γὰρ οὐ δυνήσεται Hermann : εἰ δ᾿ αὐτόθεν πῃ γέγονεν, οὐκ ἔσται· πόθεν / καὶ ποῖ γὰρ ἴσ᾿ ἂν εἴη; πόθεν γενήσεται / οὐκ ὄν ποτ᾿ εἰς ὄν; καὶ γὰρ οὐ δυνήσεται Mervyn Jones 12 αὐτόθεν ποι Ath.(1)ACE : αὐτόθεν πη A Meineke 13 κηποι δεποτις εἴη πόθεν Ath.(1) : πόθεν γὰρ Ath.(1)CE 15 Ἁπόλλων Dindorf : Ἀπόλλων Ath.(1)ACE

5

10

15

this is to be a tyrant … or whatever? You’ll say the serious man trails along at the Lyceum with a crowd of sophists, by Zeus, who are scrawny, starving and made of fig-wood, and says that this object doesn’t exist, if it’s coming into existence, because neither is what is coming into existence existent nor, if it existed previously, is it what is now coming into existence, since nothing exists that does not; whereas what has not come into existence does not exist until it has come into existence † and what has not come into existence † because it has come into existence from existence; and if there was no source for it, how did it come into existence from what doesn’t exist? for this is impossible. † But if it has come into existence from the same source to somewhere, it will not be kêpoi depotis it would be, whence will what is not turn into what is not? Because it will not be able to into what is not † And what all this means, not even Apollo could understand

Ath.(1) 3.98f–9b κατὰ γὰρ τὸν Ἀντιφάνους Κλεοφάνη· —— For to quote Antiphanes’ Kleophanês: —— Ath.(2) 13.565f τοὺς ἀκολουθοῦντας ἐν τῷ Λυκείῳ … / ἀσίτων, σκυτίνων, κατὰ τὸν Ἀντιφάνην (vv. 2–4) who follow along at the Lyceum … starving and made of leather, to quote Antiphanes (vv. 2–4)

Meter Iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈xlkl x〉|rkl

llk〈l〉 lrkl llk|r llkl

74

Antiphanes

5

10

llkl l|rkl llkl llkl l|lkl klkl klkl l|lk|l llkl llkl l|lkr klkl llkr l|lk|r llkl llkl k|lk|r lrkl llkl l|rk|†rlrkl† llkl l|rk|l llkl lrkl l|lk|l llkl †llkl l|rk|l ll llkr llkl klkl lkllklllkl klkl† llrl k|lk|l llkl

Discussion Morelius 1553. 102; Grotius 1626. 976; Scaliger ap. Cant. ms. II p. 68; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 II.171–4; Dindorf 1827 I.226–7; Dobree 1833. 301; Meineke 1839–1857 III.64–6; Hermann 1842. 512; Kock 1884 II.58–9; Kaibel 1887–1890 I.227; Herwerden 1903. 82–3; Düring 1957. 356–7 (= Arist. test. 53a); Mervyn Jones 1960. 203; Webster 1970. 52–3 Text Musurus’ τόδε in 1 in the editio princeps of Athenaeus in place of τὸ δὲ in Ath.(1)A (“But to be a tyrant is …”) makes what is preserved of the text modestly easier to understand, and the manuscript has no authority in such matters. The lacuna might nonetheless be longer than than this (e. g. 〈x〉rkl llk| 〈l xlkl〉), and there is no way to be certain what is being said. The supplements proposed by Kaibel (“this is perhaps to be a tyrant”) and Kassel–Austin (“this is to be a tyrant in your eyes”) should be regarded as exempli gratia. Kock’s τὸ δὲ παρανοεῖν ⟨ἐστι δὴ⟩ (“Is being deranged in fact …?”) does not improve the text enough to be worth considering, especially given the problems that follow (below). In 1–2, Meineke and Kock print τὸ δὲ τυραννεῖν ἐστιν ⟨…⟩ / ἢ τί ποτε τὸ σπουδαῖον;26 (“Is being a tyrant what is good, or (if it is not,) what in the world is?” This is fine so far as it goes, but if what follows meant “You’ll say it’s following …”, τὸ ἀκολουθεῖν in crasis (unmetrical) rather than simple ἀκολουθεῖν would be needed. I therefore follow Kassel–Austin in adopting Kaibel’s τὸν σπουδαῖον (as subject of the infinitive), although this leaves the sense of what precedes it—problematic in any case due to the lacuna—obscure. At the end of 2, Scaliger’s ἐρεῖς is a straightforward correction of the incoherent paradosis ἔρις (“strife, contention”) that allows τὸν σπουδαῖον κτλ to be understood as a response to the question posed in 1–2, as Kock’s ἐρᾷς (“you desire”; for the verb in this sense + infin., cf. Eup. fr. 355 ἠράσθη πιεῖν with Olson 2014 ad 26

Kock fails to mark the lacuna and thus gives the text in an unmetrical form.

Κλεοφάνης (fr. 120)

75

loc.) does not. This must be an aural error dating to a period in which ει and ι had come to be pronounced alike; cf. Λυκίῳ for Λυκείῳ in 3. In 3, Musurus’ Λυκείῳ in place of the paradosis Λυκίῳ is a matter of metrical necessity; cf. Ar. Pax 356 (metrically guaranteed); IG I3 105.34 (409 BCE); II2 1357b.4 (400–350 BCE). For the error, cf. above on Ath.A’s ἔρις in 2. In 4, συκίνων (literally “made of fig-wood”) in Ath.(1)A is a rare use of the adjective but one with parallels elsewhere both earlier and later; see Interpretation. σκυτίνων (“made of leather”; see Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 418) in Ath.(2)A, on the other hand, would have to mean ~ “skin and nothing more” (LSJ s. v. 2), as seemingly at Automed. AP 11.361.4 = GPh 1564 with Gow–Page 1968 ad loc. but nowhere else. The reading in Ath.(2)A is probably an example of a seemingly easier word driving out one that came to seem more difficult, even if in its own time it was idiomatic. In 5–7, the manuscripts repeatedly offer forms of γίγνομαι in γίν- rather than in γίγν-, which is expected in this period; see fr. 30.2 Text n. At the beginning of 6, the paradosis οὐδ’ (properly “not even”; printed by Kassel–Austin) is clumsy and makes the argument even more complicated and confused than it needs to be. Dindorf ’s οὔτ’ coordinates 6 and 7 and converts them into an explication of the thesis advanced in 5, which thus emerges as the central point the imaginary speaker is trying to make, and is followed by a long string of arguments intended to prove that it is right. Grotius went at the problem the other way around, writing οὐδ’ … / οὐδ’, which does not improve the sense in the same way. At the end of 6, Kaibel suggested ὅ γ᾿ ἔσθ῾ ἔτι (“which still exists”) in place of the paradosis ὃ γίνεται (“what is coming into existence”). This is a long-shot emendation that does not improve the sense enough to be worth adopting. With Athenaeus’ ἔστιν ὥσπερ (printed by Meineke), the first half of 9 means “it doesn’t exist just as it has come into existence”, which is difficult at best. Dobree accordingly proposed ἔσθ’ ἕωσπερ (adopted by Kock and Kassel–Austin), which adds a temporal element to match the move to the perfect at the end of 8. If this is right, scriptio plena ἔστι was probably written for ἔσθ’; a nu was added later to eliminate the apparent hiatus; and the unusual ἕωσπερ was eventually converted to the more obvious ὥσπερ. In the second half of 9, ὃ δὲ μὴ γέγονέ πω appears to be taken from 8 and was accordingly obelized by Kaibel. Neither Schweighäuser’s ὅ γε μὴ γέγονέ πω (“which at any rate hasn’t come into existence”) nor Wilamowitz’ οὐδὲ γέγονεν ὄν (“nor has it come into existence even if it was”) obviously improves the situation, and the latter is not particularly close to the paradosis in any case. 12–14 are desperately corrupt; in 13 the Epitome has dropped Ath.(1)A’s badly garbled † κηποι δεποτις † and converted πόθεν κτλ into another γάρ-clause, which does not suggest that γάρ (taken over by Mervyn Jones in his conjecture) has any authority. Hermann proposed εἰ δ’ αὖ ποθεν, πῶς γέγονεν οὐκ ὄν; ἔστ᾿ ἄρ᾿ οὐκ / οὐδέν ποτ᾿· ἢ πόθεν γενήσεται τό γ᾿ οὐκ / ὂν εἰς ὄν; εἰς οὐκ ὂν γὰρ οὐ δυνήσεται

76

Antiphanes

(“But if, on the other hand, (it has come into being from somewhere), how has it come into being if it doesn’t exist? In that case there will never be anything. Or whence will what doesn’t exist come into being, if it doesn’t exist? Because it won’t be able to turn into what doesn’t exist”), while Mervyn Jones suggested εἰ δ᾿ αὐτόθεν πῃ γέγονεν, οὐκ ἔσται· πόθεν / καὶ ποῖ γὰρ ἴσ᾿ ἂν εἴη; πόθεν γενήσεται / οὐκ ὄν ποτ᾿ εἰς ὄν; καὶ γὰρ οὐ δυνήσεται (~ “But if it has come into existence from the same source somehow, it won’t exist; for whence and equally whither would it be? Whence will it turn into something that exists, if it doesn’t exist? For in fact it won’t be able to”); neither is close enough to the paradosis to be regarded as anything more than an exempli gratia restoration of what at least a portion of the text may originally have said. In 13, Kassel–Austin print πόθεν (also adopted here) for Kock’s ποθεν, but retain his half-stop in the middle of 14, where the interrogative form requires a question mark, as in 11. In 15, Dindorf ’s (ὁ) Ἀπόλλων (also Ar. Av. 584 Elmsley;27 Ra. 1184 with Dover 1993 ad loc.; adesp. com. fr. 1062.9) for the paradosis Ἀπόλλων is a matter of metrical necessity. Citation context The quotation in Book 3 is from an extended attack on supposed verbal sophistication of all sorts (Ath. 3.97d–9f) sparked by Ulpian’s denunciation of the Cynics for eating, drinking and talking too much (Ath. 3.96f–7c). At Ath. 3.98f the speaker (Cynulcus) claims that “not even the Pythian god could understand” much of Alexarchos of Ouranopolis’ strange letter to the people of Kasandreia, seemingly anticipating the final verse of this fragment. The slightly adapted quotation of 2–4 in Athenaeus Book 13 is part of a wandering, bitter attack on the Stoics (cf. Ath. 13.563d–e), inter alia for their supposed devotion to pederasty, embedded within a larger discussion of male beauty. Alex. fr. 266 is quoted shortly before this. Interpretation A mocking attack on philosophical argument and thus on the addressee, who supposedly approves (sc. and is able to make sense of, or at least pretend to make sense of) this sort of thing and the people who engage in it. Kock suggested that the speaker was a father or an older friend trying to get a young man to abandon philosophy, while Hermann hypothesized that he was an overbearing individual attacking an actual philosopher. 1 τυραννεῖν Taken by Kassel–Austin to mean “the condition of greatest possible happiness”, in ironic reference to the situation described in what follows, i. e. spending time in the Lyceum with sophists talking nonsense. But see Text.

27

Wilson follows Coulon, Zanetto and Sommerstein in printing Elmsley’s Ἁπόλλων, but the confusion in his apparatus shows that he originally intended to adopt the paradosis ὅ γ᾿ Ἀπόλλων, as in Dunbar.

Κλεοφάνης (fr. 120)

77

2 σπουδαῖος in reference to persons is 4th-century prosaic usage (e. g. X. Oec. 3.12; Cyr. 4.2.45; Pl. Phdr. 242c; Isoc. 15.136; Is. 4.27; D. 19.277); elsewhere in comedy only in Menander (Dysc. 824 and perhaps Sik. 312, 318 (fragmentary)). 2–3 For ἀκολουθέω μετά + gen. (typical of 4th-century Attic prose), cf. Men. Dis Ex. 59; Th. 7.57.9; Lys. 12.12; Pl. La. 187e; Mx. 249d; Isoc. 5.48; 8.44; 14.15, 28; D. 24.162; Phryn. ecl. 330 (condemning the combination); Antiatt. α 122 ~ Phot. α 789 = Synag. B α 747 (acknowledging this as a legitimate Atticism); van Leeuwen 1904 on Ar. Pl. 823 (identifying this as 4th-century usage). 3 ἐν τῷ Λυκείῳ The Lykeion, located just outside the city walls to the east, and extending probably from what is now Syntagma Square into the National Gardens, was originally a sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios (Paus. 1.19.3; cf. 15 with n.). By the 5th century, it was the site of one of three large public gymnasia in Athens, the others being the Academy and Kynosarges (D. 24.114 with Σ; Suda γ 480). Construction of the gymnasion buildings there is variously attributed to Pisistratos (Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 136) and Pericles (Philoch. FGrH 328 F 37; Hsch. λ 1380); cf. Wycherley 1962. 10–12; Travlos 1971. 345–7; Lynch 1972. 9–67; Kyle 1987. 77–84; Lygouri-Tolia 2002, and for gymnasia generally, Delorme 1960. 253–60. Protagoras supposedly gave readings in the Lykeion (D. L. 9.54), Socrates spent much of his time there (e. g. Pl. Euthphr. 2a), and when Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 BCE, it became the spot where he taught as he walked about (hence the name for his school, the Peripatetics). But Isoc. 12.18 ἐν τῷ Λυκείῳ συγκαθεζόμενοι τρεῖς ἢ τέτταρες τῶν ἀγελαίων σοφιστῶν (“three or four of the ordinary sophists sitting together in the Lykeion”) shows that the Lykeion was already in use for such purposes before that. Cf. [Alex.] fr. 25.1–3, and see in general Wycherley 1962; Rihll 2003. 172–84; Matthaiou 2007. The place was also used for cavalry displays (X. Eq. Mag. 3.1, 6; cf. Wycherley 1963) and to marshal Athenian forces before land campaigns (Ar. Pax 356; X. HG 1.1.33). 3–4 νὴ Δία is placed between a noun and the adjective that modifies it also at Ar. Pax 1096 ἀλλ’ ὁ σοφός τοι νὴ Δί’ Ὅμηρος δεξιὸν εἶπεν (cited by Kassel– Austin); Av. 1433 ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἕτερα νὴ Δί’ ἔργα σώφρονα; Th. 609 τίτθη νὴ Δί’ ἐμή. Cf. frr. 157.7–8 (between preposition and object); 183.2–3 (the same phenomenon with νὴ τὴν Ἑστίαν); Ar. Pl. 337 (the same phenomenon with νὴ τὸν Ἡρακλέα). 4 λεπτῶν, ἀσίτων, συκίνων The three adjectives are bound closely together; the men in question are thin because they are underfed (viz. because philosophers almost by definition have no time to think about pedestrian matters such as where their next meal is coming from; cf. Eup. fr. 386 (in reference to Socrates) with Olson 2014 ad loc.), and they are accordingly fragile, friable and worthless. But λεπτός can also mean “subtle” vel sim. (e. g. Ar. Nu. 359; Av. 318; Amphis fr. 33.5; Alex. fr. 223.8; Denniston 1927. 119), and part of the wit of the attack may be that the speaker appears at first to use the word in praise but then immediately turns the sense in a different direction. For λεπτός in the pejorative sense “scrawny”, and thus often by extension “lacking in vigor”, e. g. fr. 27.23 (of undersize seafood); Eup. fr. 316.5 with Olson

78

Antiphanes

2016 ad loc.; Ar. Nu. 1018; Ec. 539 λεπτὴ κἀσθενής (“leptê and weak”); Hermipp. fr. 36.3; Alc. fr. 347a.5; Thphr. Char. 26.5 λεπτὸς καὶ αὐχμῶν (literally “scrawny and dry”, i. e. “unoiled”). Cf. fr. 180.5 λοπάδ(α) with n. For ἄσιτος, cf. fr. 216.9 (elevated style) with n. The adjective (attested already in Homer) is more often paired with ἄποτος (“thirsty”; e. g. Phryn. Com. fr. 57 ἄσιτος, ἄποτος, ἀναπόνιπτος, “hungry, thirsty, unwashed”; X. Cyr. 7.5.53; Pl. Phdr. 259c); contrast the sense at Pl. Com. fr. 28.3 (“inedible”). συκίνων Fig-tree wood is a symbol of worthlessness at [Pl.] Hp. Mai. 290d– 1b; Theoc. 10.45 σύκινοι ἄνδρες (“Fig-wood men! This wage is wasted”) with Gow 1950 ad loc. (citing the paroemiographers); Luc. Ind. 6 (presumably used as a learned Atticism); Hsch. σ 2233 = Phot. σ 683 (etc.) σύκινον· ἀσθενές (“made of fig-wood: weak”, apparently because it splinters and breaks easily); Hor. Sat. 1.8.1 olim truncus eram ficulnus, inutile lignum (“I once was a fig-tree trunk, useless wood”); cf. Ar. Pl. 945–6 ἐὰν δὲ σύζυγον λάβω τινὰ / καὶ σύκινον (“but if I get a partner, even one made of fig-wood”; generally taken to be a pun on συκοφάντης,28 although “even a weak / worthless one” is enough to make sense of the passage); Hippon. fr. 41 καὶ νῦν ἀρειᾷ σύκινόν με ποιῆσαι (“and now you threaten to turn me into fig-wood”; obscure but compatible with this interpretation). For figs, fr. 177.3 n. 5–14 The argument assigned to the “serious” man (2) being mocked here is deliberately obscure—the speaker’s underlying point is that all such nominally “philosophical” discussion is in fact meaningless double-talk—nor is its coherence improved by the corruption in 9 and 12–14. The distinctions the man is imagined as attempting to draw seem to depend in part on the nuances of the verbs εἰμί (“be”) and γίγνομαι (“become” and thus often simply “be”), although the confusion that results from mixing the terms may also add some humor to his words. Fundamentally, however, what he is exploring is a basic ontological question: can something that does not exist come into being? or (as he insists) is that an essentially incoherent idea, since only if a thing exists can one speak of it as doing anything? Kassel–Austin aptly compare Parm. 28 B 8.19–20 D.–K.; Meliss. 30 A 5 D.–K.; Gorg. 82 B 3 (esp. 66–8) D.–K. On the text printed here (see Text on 6), the argument begins with the main assertion (5), which is then supported (6 γάρ) by two further claims (6 and 7), the second of which gets its own supporting γάρ-clause argument in 8. At 8 ὃ δὲ μὴ γέγονέ πω the imaginary speaker turns 28

Cf. adesp. com. fr. 427 συκίνη μάχαιρα· συκοφάντια (“a fig-wood dagger: one involved in sycophancy”). LSJ s. v. σκυτῖνος 1 compares Ar. Lys. 110 σκυτίνη ’πικουρία and Stratt. fr. 57 Σαννυρίωνος σκυτίνην ἐπικουρίαν and suggests that “prob(ably) both writers meant to pun upon the proverb συκίνη ἐπικουρία”, for which see e. g. ΣRBar Ar. Lys. 110 (additional sources cited at Orth 2009. 238). It is worth considering the possibility that Strattis wrote συκίνην and that the text of the fragment has been corrupted in the same way Antiph. fr. 120.4 has been (see Text), perhaps under the influence of the line from Lysistrata.

Κλεοφάνης (fr. 120)

79

to the negative case, offering another argument once again supported by a γάρclause (in 10). Two more conditions (10 εἰ δ’ –11, 12–14) follow, cast in the form of rhetorical questions addressed to an imaginary opponent in debate; both are followed by a γάρ-clause (11, 14). The repeated use of πω (6, 8–9 [apparently an error in the second case]; concealed in 13 δεποτις?) amounts to a stylistic tic on the speaker’s part. Note similar but much more abbreviated gibberish at fr. 192.7–8. 5 τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτ(ο) “this object”, something whose status is supposedly under debate between the imaginary “serious” man and an intellectual rival. 11 οἷός τε εἰμί (“I am able to”)—here the verb must be supplied—is a late 5th/4th-century idiom (e. g. Eup. fr. 192.69; Ar. V. 318b; Hdt. 1.112.1; E. Med. 1076–7; S. OC 803; Th. 5.9.10; Antipho 5.45; And. 2.3; X. Smp. 4.64). 15 οὐδ’ ἂν Ἀπόλλων μάθοι The point is not that Apollo is a proverbially shrewd interpreter of dark sayings, but that as someone who routinely offers them to others (sc. at his oracular shrines at Delphi and elsewhere), he if anyone should be able to make sense of them. For hyperbole of this sort generally, see Headlam 1966 on Herod. 2.90.

80

Antiphanes

Κναφεύς (Knapheus) “The Fuller”

Introduction Title For fulling—which involved washing fabric with a detergent such as urine; fumigating it with sulphur; scrubbing it with “Cimolian earth” (calcium montmorillonite) or the like; raising the nap with a comb and then trimming it with shears—and fullers, see Ar. V. 1128; Ra. 713 with Dover 1993 ad loc.; Ec. 415; Pl. 166; X. Mem. 3.7.6 (a common occupation, as also at Pl. Grg. 491a and Aeschin. 1.124); Plin. Nat. 35.196–8 with Robertson 1949; Blümner 1912. 170–90; Forbes 1964 IV.82–6, esp. 84–6; Robertson 1986; Diggle 2004 on Thphr. Char. 10.14; Flohr 2007 (Pompeii); Flohr 2013, esp. 98–120 (a detailed study of the Roman evidence); Wasserman 2013 (with particular attention to Babylonian practices, but in a broader historical setting). γναφεύς rather than κναφεύς may well be the correct spelling for this period; see Threatte 1980. 560–1. The word is attested in Mycenean but lacks an etymology in Greek; borrowed from the Near East along with the technology it describes? For other comedies by Antiphanes called after a profession, occupation or the like, cf. Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος with Introduction, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, and Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων, and perhaps Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Various Roman playwrights produced comedies entitled Fullo (“The Fuller”), Fullones (“The Fullers”) and Fullonicum (“The Fulling Shop”). Content Unknown. The speaker of fr. 121 (n.) is apparently a skilled craftsman in an desperate economic and social situation, so perhaps that dilemma somehow drove the plot. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 121 K.–A. (123 K.)

5

ὅστις τέχνην κατέδειξε πρῶτος τῶν θεῶν, οὗτος μέγιστον ηὗρεν ἀνθρώποις κακόν· ὅταν γὰρ ἀπορῆταί τις, ἂν μὲν ἀργὸς ᾖ, ἐλθὼν ἀπεκινδύνευσεν ἡμέραν μίαν, ὥστ’ ἢ γεγονέναι λαμπρὸς ἢ τεθνηκέναι·

Κναφεύς (fr. 121)

81

ἡμεῖς δ’ ἔχοντες ἀρραβῶνα τὴν τέχνην τοῦ ζῆν ἀεὶ πεινῶμεν ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐλπίσιν, ἐξόν τε μικρὸν διαπορηθῆναι χρόνον, τὸν βίον ἅπαντα τοῦτο δρᾶν αἱρούμεθα 1 κατέδειξε πρῶτος Stob.SM : πρῶτος κατέδειξε Stob.A 2 μέγιστον Stob.MA : μέγιστος S SMA Stob. ηὗρεν Kassel–Austin : εὗρεν Stob. 3 ᾖ Jacobs : ἦν Stob.SMA 5 λαμπρὸς Naber : λαμπρὸν Stob.SMA

5

Whichever god was the first to introduce craft, invented the greatest trouble there is for human beings. Because when a man has nothing, if he lacks a trade, he goes and risks his life for a single day so as to either become distinguished or die. Whereas since we have our craft as earnest-money for living, we always starve on hopes, and because it’s possible to do with nothing for a little while, we opt to do this for our entire life

Stob. 4.18.13 Ἀντιφάνους ἐκ Κναφέως· —— From Antiphanes’ Knapheus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llkl rlk|l llkl llkl k|lk|l llkl klkr llk|l klkl llrl klk|l klkl llkr l|lk|l llkl llkl k|lkl klkl llkl llk|r llkl llkl l|rkl llkl lrkl k|lk|l llkl

Discussion Jacobs 1827. 101; Meineke 1839–1857 III.66; Naber 1880. 49; Birt 1881. 33–4, 70–1 Text In 1, Stob.A’s πρῶτος κατέδειξε scans but does not produce a normal caesura, unlike Stob.SM’s κατέδειξε πρῶτος, which is accordingly to be preferred. In 2, Stob.S’s μέγιστος has been attracted into the case of οὗτος. Further on in 2, Kassel–Austin’s ηὗρεν rather than the paradosis εὗρεν is probably right in this period, although they do not make the change in the text itself; see Threatte 1996. 482–3.

82

Antiphanes

In 3, the manuscripts of Stobaeus preserve the imperfect indicative ἦν, but what is wanted after ἄν is a subjunctive (thus Jacobs’ ᾖ). In 5, λαμπρός was apparently altered to λαμπρόν by someone who thought the accusative was needed with the infinitive; corrected by Naber. Citation context From the second half of a section entitled περὶ τεχνῶν (“On Crafts”), the first half of which collects passages (including Amphis fr. 3; Men. fr. 68) that praise crafts, whereas here they are disparaged. Men. fr. 18 (quoted in Interpretation) is preserved immediately before this, Men. fr. 363 immediately afterward. Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material he quotes, which must instead be drawn from one or more pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. Interpretation A lament by someone who has a marketable skill that nonetheless produces little income. Perhaps a soliloquy (from the prologue? or the first appearance of the character onstage?); Meineke thought the eponymous fuller was speaking. The speaker uses the plural throughout (6–7, 9), although whether he is speaking for a group or is merely resorting to grand style for a moment is unclear. Kassel–Austin compare Men. fr. 18 (cited immediately before this by Stobaeus) ὁ πρῶτος εὑρὼν διατροφὴν πτωχῷ τέχνην / πολλοὺς ἐποίησεν ἀθλίους· ἁπλοῦν γὰρ ἦν / τὸν μὴ δυνάμενον ζῆν ἀλύπως ἀποθανεῖν (“The man who invented a craft as a means of substinence for a pauper made many people miserable; because (before this) it was simple for someone who could not keep himself alive to die without suffering”). 1–2 For ὅστις … οὗτος (gnomic), e. g. fr. dub. 319; Amphis fr. 22; Timocl. fr. 36; Men. fr. 778; adesp. com. fr. *900.4–5 = Hippon. fr. 182.4–5 West2 (lacunose?); E. frr. 175.14–15; 634; 952; Lys. 3.4; X. Oec. 13.5; Hipparch. 8.18; Pl. Ap. 23b; Isoc. 4.76; 13.12. τέχνην i. e. (the idea of) having a skill and using it to support oneself; cf. Amphis fr. 3 οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν ἀτυχίας ἀνθρωπίνης / παραμύθιον γλυκύτερον ἐν βίῳ τέχνης· / ἐπὶ τοῦ μαθήματος γὰρ ἑστηκὼς ὁ νοῦς / αὑτὸν λέληθε παραπλέων τὰς συμφοράς (“There’s no sweeter soothing of human misfortune in life than technê; because when one’s mind has a basis in its education, it sails past its troubles unawares”). For the word generally, fr. 142.1–2 n.   For καταδείκνυμι in the sense “introduce a new thing / custom to mankind” (5th/4th-century vocabulary; absent from elevated poetry), e. g. Ar. Av. 500 κατέδειξέν γ’ οὗτος πρῶτος; Ra. 1032, 1062, 1079; Hdt. 1.163.1, 1.171.4; 4.42.2;29 Pl. R. 406c (Asklepios); Isoc. 12.202; D. 23.81 ἃ θεοὶ κατέδειξαν καὶ μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἄνθρωποι χρῶνται πάντα τὸν χρόνον (“which the gods introduced and human beings always use ever since”); [Arist.] Ath. 27.5; Thphr. Lap. 59. For the theme of the πρῶτος εὑρετής (“inventor”) generally, e. g. Eup. fr. 385.3; Ar. Av. 500 (quoted above); Anaxandr. frr. 18.1–3; 31 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Eub. fr. 72.1–2 29

Read -δειξ- rather than the paradosis -δεξ- (as if < δέκομαι) in all three passages.

Κναφεύς (fr. 121)

83

with Hunter 1983. 162; Alex. frr. 152; 190; Men. fr. 18 (quoted above); Euphro fr. 1.13–15; Leo 1912. 151–4; Kleingünther 1933; Davies 1986. 25–6. Here this is allied with a separate idea, which is that the gods are responsible for inventing or discovering everything that is best or most brilliant in life, and that they then passed all this on to human beings (e. g. Diod. Com. fr. 2 (Zeus invented the art of being a parasite, although all other technai were invented by men); adesp. com. fr. 101.1–3; Il. 5.59–61; hAphr. 12–15 with Olson 2012 ad loc.; [A.] PV 442–68; Sosib. FGrH 595 F 10 “Dionysus discovered the fig-tree”; Draco of Corcyra FHG iv.402–3 “Janus invented garlands, as well as rafts and boats, and was the first to mint bronze coins”; Ath. 2.55b “Chickpeas were discovered by Poseidon”). 3 For ἀπορέω in the sense “be impoverished” (LSJ s. v. IV), fr. 229.6–7 n. For the use of the middle, cf. 8 διαπορηθῆναι; Philippid. fr. 9.2; Alex. fr. 78.2; Men. Pk. 126; adesp. com. fr. 904. In light of 1–2, ἂν … ἀργὸς ᾖ probably means “if he lacks employment”, i. e. “if he has no technê” (thus LSJ s. v. ἀργός I.1). But it might mean “if he’s lazy” (for this sense of ἀργός, e. g. Ar. Nu. 53, 334; Epicr. fr. 3.1; Men. Dysc. 755) instead, in which case the speaker is far more judgmental about the “other people” he is describing: the problem is not that they lack a way to make a living, but much more fundamentally that they do not want one and prefer an allegedly fast and easy means of getting ahead (4–5) to buckling down to work on an everyday basis. 4–5 ἐλθὼν ἀπεκινδύνευσεν ἡμέραν μίαν is a reference to service as a mercenary soldier (for which, cf. frr. 96; 264 with n.) and in particular to fighting in a single battle, in which one might either make one’s reputation or fortune or be killed. ἀποκινδυνεύω is late 5th/4th-century Athenian vocabulary (e. g. Ar. Ra. 1108; Lys. 4.17; Th. 7.67.4; X. Mem. 4.2.5; Aeschin. 2.104); absent from elevated poetry. λαμπρός is also used thus (LSJ s. v. II.1) at Demetr. Com. fr. 1.4 (corrupt); Timocl. fr. 5.2 (probably playing on two different senses of the word); cf. frr. 206.2 with n.; 226.6 with n. 6–9 The point appears to be that—perversely—having just enough in life to allow one the possibility of eventually getting somewhere (sc. if one scrimps and saves and works hard, as a man would to pay for a major purchase over time) is merely a guarantee that one will starve while looking fondly toward the future, and that the ability to do without for a short while leads one to unwisely commit to doing it forever. 6 ἀρραβών (a loan-word, perhaps Semitic in origin; attested elsewhere in this period at e. g. Pl. Com. fr. 80.2 with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; Men. fr. 459.1; Is. 8.23; Pytho TrGF 91 F 1.18; Thphr. fr. 650.38; IG IV2,1 110.36) is defined at Et. gen. AB s. v. (citing the Menander fragment) as ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς ὠναῖς παρὰ τῶν ὠνουμένων διδομένη πρώτη καταβολὴ ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας (“the first payment offered by purchasers in connection with sales for the sake of security”, i. e. earnest money, a down-payment).

84

Antiphanes

7 πεινῶμεν ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐλπίσιν A witty—or confused?—reworking of a more traditional and apparently proverbial image, according to which hopes “feed” those who have nothing else (e. g. Eub. fr. 9.7; Semon. fr. 1.6; A. Ag. 1668 with Fraenkel 1950 ad loc.; E. Ph. 396; Ba. 617); here one starves on hopes, because one is making no money and can only imagine that someday one will. 8 ἐξόν κτλ An accusative absolute, used when the verb is impersonal (Kühner–Gerth 1898 ii.87–8; Smyth 1956 § 2076); cf. δέον at e. g. Ar. Nu. 988, παρόν at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 113.21, μετόν at e.g. Ar. Ec. 667. This use of ἐξόν (routinely line-initial in comedy, e. g. Ar. Ach. 411; Ec. 1003; Amphis fr. 26.2; Anaxandr. fr. 29.2; Eub. fr. 67.3) is first attested in the second half of the 5th century (e. g. S. El. 365; E. Med. 372; [A.] PV 648; Antipho 5.61; Th. 4.18.5), as indeed appears to be true of the construction generally. Rusten 2011. 500 takes the clause to be instead concessive (“although we might be desperate for a brief time”, seemingly in reference to the possibility of serving as a mercenary). For διαπορηθῆναι (an intensified form of ἀπορῆμαι), 3 n. 9 τὸν βίον ἅπαντα This form and order of the words also appears at e. g. Pl. Smp. 181d; but ἅπαντα τὸν βίον or πάντα τὸν βίον is more common (e. g. Ar. Av. 41; Pl. R. 417b).

85

Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων (Knoithideus ê Gastrôn)

“The Man from Mount Knoithideus or The Glutton”

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.331; Ribbeck 1883. 72; Breitenbach 1908. 66–7; Webster 1952. 23; Edmonds 1959. 219 n. c; Webster 1970. 83 Title Phot. κ 825 identifies Κνοιθιδεύς as ὄρος τῆς Ἀττικῆς (“a mountain in Attica”; otherwise unknown), and Meineke (followed by Webster) compared what seems to be Mount Lykabettos as a speaker at Theopomp. Com. fr. 30, and suggested that the title character might be the personified mountain itself, which could thus have e. g. spoken the prologue. But the word looks like a local adjective (cf. Βυλλιδεύς, Κρουσιδεύς, Πισιδεύς, Τρῳαδεύς, Χαλκιδεύς), meaning that the name of the mountain—if that is what it is—is more likely Κνοιθίς30 and the title character must be a man from there. γάστρων (< γαστήρ, “belly”) is first attested at Alc. fr. 4295, where the poet is said to have called Pittakos both γάστρων and φύσκων (< φύσκη, “large intestine”) “because he was fat”. It is likewise abusive at Ar. Ra. 200, where Charon addresses Dionysos thus when the god is slow to start rowing and Dover 1993 glosses “Tubby”, while at Herod. 5.1, 15, a slave who has allegedly shown sexual interest in other women is addressed by his mistress as Γάστρων (or γάστρων) before being punished;31 see below. Note also—all abusive and all from comedy or a related genre, leaving little doubt that such words with the so-called “Hoffmann” suffix -ων are the products of a crude, colloquial formation strategy—γλάμων (“bleary-eyed”; e. g. Eup. fr. 9; Ar. Ra. 588); γλίσχρων (“greedy one”; Ar. Pax 193); καταπύγων (“one who likes it up the butt”; e. g. Ach. 79); κέντρων (“one who has been tortured with a prod”, i. e. “villain”; Ar. Nu. 450); κυρτών (“hunchbacked”; Crates Theb. SH 356.1; better κύρτων?32); κύφων (“one who has had his neck in a pillory”, i. e. “scoundrel”; Archil. fr. 274); μόθων (“upstart”; e. g. Ar. Pl. 279); πέδων (“one in shackles”; Ar. fr. 871); στίγων (“tattooed one”, i. e. “runaway slave”; Ar. fr. 99); στράβων (“squint-eyed”; adesp. com. fr. 756); τρίβων (“practiced one, old hand”, i. e. “experienced villain”; Ar. Nu. 869–70); and see in general Bechtel 1898, esp. 31–2; Hoffmann 1955; Risch 1974. 56; Balles 2008. 202, 207; Olsen 2009. 191–2; 30 31

32

Seemingly non-Greek and thus probably pre-Greek, supporting the notion that this is a toponym. Τhe word is printed and translated in Headlam 1966 as a personal name—thus also Lambertz 1907. 55; Masson 1990. 153—but might simply be a nominative adjective used as a vocative. Γνάθων (< γνάθος, “jaw”) is certainly the personal name (or nickname?) of a parasite-character in Menander’s Kolax. The recessive accent seems to be typical of so-called “Strabo” formations in -ων, whereas “Hoffmann” formations are oxytone.

86

Antiphanes

Weiss 2010. 309–10; Barth 2016. 2.33 LSJ s. v. glosses γάστρων “pot-belly” (thus referring to the physical shape of the person in question; cf. fr. 223.6 προγάστορες with n.), but also identifies it as equivalent in sense to γάστρις, which seems to mean “gluttonous” (fr. 89.5 with n.). The two ideas are difficult to disentangle: a glutton grows fat because he has an uncontrollable appetite, and a man with a pot-belly can be assumed to eat too much. But none of Antiphanes’ other attested titles refers to a character’s appearance, whereas a number of them describe personal qualities (Ἄγροικος, Ἀντερῶσα, Ἀποκαρτερῶν, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, Ἀφροδίσιος, Βουταλίων, Δύσπρατος, Μισοπόνηρος, Ἐνεά, Ὄβριμος, Παιδεραστής, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ and Φιλοπάτωρ), suggesting that Γάστρων is properly “The Glutton” rather than “The Man with a Big Belly”.34 Ribbeck accordingly took the character in question to be a parasite. Alternatively, this is a personal name, in which case the parallel in Herodas (above) suggests that he was a slave, like the title-character of Δύσπρατος (n.), in which case this aspect of his personality must have been somehow relevant to the plot; cf. fr. 89. Content Unknown; but see Title for the possibility that Γάστρων is a slave-name that suggests a man with outsized physical appetites. Date The apparent reference to Philip II of Macedon in fr. 122.15 puts the play after 359 BCE.

Fragments fr. 122 K.–A. (124 K.)

5

33

34

ἐγὼ πρότερον μὲν τοὺς κελεύοντας λέγειν γρίφους παρὰ πότον ᾠόμην ληρεῖν σαφῶς λέγοντας οὐδέν· ὁπότε προστάξειέ τις εἰπεῖν ἐφεξῆς ὅ τι φέρων τις μὴ φέρει, ἐγέλων νομίζων λῆρον, οὐκ ἂν γενόμενον οὐδέποτέ γ’, οἶμαι, πρᾶγμα παντελῶς λέγειν,

Note also σπάδων (“eunuch”; late) and Herodian’s αὐχίτων, which probably = αὐχήτων (~ αὐχήτης, “boaster”). πόσθων (< πόσθη; Ar. Pax 1300) and σάθων (< σάθη; Telecl. fr. 71) are formed in the same way (from words meaning ~ “penis”), but are less obviously abusive, both supposedly being teasing or endearing ways to address boys. So too γλύκων (“sweetie”; Ar. Ec. 985). The Latin proper names Naso and Fronto are the result of a similar formation strategy. Γάστρων is securely attested once as a personal name in Athens (in a mid-3rd-century inscription from the Asklepieion, Aleshire Inv. V.140 = IG II2 1534.265), and perhaps once more in a late 4th-century vase inscription from the Kerameikos (restored on the basis of the Asklepieion inscription).

Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων (fr. 122)

10

15

87

ἐνέδρας δ’ ἕνεκα. νυνὶ δὲ τοῦτ’ ἔγνωχ’, ὅτι ἀληθὲς ἦν· φέρομεν γὰρ ἄνθρωποι δέκα ἔρανόν τιν’, οὐ φέρει δὲ τούτων τὴν φορὰν οὐδείς. σαφῶς οὖν ὅ τι φέρων τις μὴ φέρει, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, ἦν θ’ ὁ γρῖφος ἐνταῦθα ῥέπων. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ κἄστι συγγνώμην ἔχον· ἀλλ’ οἷα λογοποιοῦσιν ἐν τῷ πράγματι οἱ τἀργύριον μὴ κατατιθέντες. ὡς σφόδρα ὁ Φίλιππος ἆρ’ ἦν εὐτυχής τις, νὴ Δία

2 πότον ᾠόμην Musurus : πωτον ᾤμην Ath. A 3 ὁπότε Ath. A : ὅτε δὲ A Blaydes προστάξειέ Cobet : προστάξεταί Ath. : προστάξαι τε Kock 4 εἰπεῖν Musurus : εἰπὼν Ath.A 8–9 ἄνθρωποι δέκα / ἔρανόν τιν’ Scaliger : ἔρανόν τιν’ ἄνθρωποι δέκα Ath.ACE 10 οὐδείς Grotius : οὐδὲ εἷς Ath.ACE 13 ἐν Ath.A : ἐπὶ post Herwerden 14–15 σφόδρα / ὁ Φίλιππος Kaibel : σφόδροφίλιππος Ath.A 14 lac. ind. Dindorf 15 ἆρ’ ἦν Musurus : ἄρ’ ἦν Ath.A : ἦν ἄρ’ Kaibel : εὑρεῖν Jacobs εὐτυχής Ath.A : εὐτελής vel εὐθυεπής Emperius

5

10

15

Before this, I used to think that people who encouraged (me) to solve riddles when they were drinking were blathering and obviously talking nonsense. Whenever someone ordered (me) to take my turn and tell him what a man doesn’t bring when he’s bringing it, I laughed because I thought this was nonsense, that he was describing something that could absolutely never happen at any time, in my opinion, so as to trick me. But now I recognize that this was true; because there are ten of us bringing a loan together, and not one of the ten is bringing his contribution, so obviously this is a case of someone bringing something but not bringing it, which is what the riddle was hinting at. There’s an excuse for this, however; but the stories those who don’t pay their money tell as they do so—what a really lucky person Philip was, by Zeus!

Ath. 10.448e–9b περὶ δὲ τῶν γρίφων Ἀντιφάνης μὲν ἐν Κνοιθιδεῖ ἢ Γάστρωνί φησιν· —— On the subject of riddles, Antiphanes says in Knoithideus ê Gastrôn: ——

88

Antiphanes

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

10

15

klrl l|lkl llkl llkr k|lkl llkl klkl k|rk|l llkl llkl l|rkl llkl rlkl l|lk|l lrkl lrkl l|lk|l klkl rlkr llk|l llkl klkl rlk|l llkl rlkl klk|l llkl llkl l|rkl llkl llkl k|lk|l llkl llkl l|lk|l llkl llkr llk|l llkl llrl l|rkl klkl rlkl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Grotius 1626. 976; Jacobs 1805. 58; Dindorf 1827 II.994–5; Emperius 1847. 310; Cobet 1858. 129; Herwerden 1876. 313; Kock 1884 II.60–1; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.475–6; Blaydes 1896. 107; Webster 1952. 18; Pütz 2003. 253–4; Chiarini 2019. 127 Text In 2, Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus made two small but vital changes, correcting the garbled and unmetrical paradosis πωτον ᾤμην to πότον ᾠόμην. For ᾤμην vs. ᾠόμην, see fr. 59.6–7 n. In 3, Ath.A’s ὁπότε implies that the riddle was posed habitually, which seems odd (since then it would cease to puzzle those who were asked it), hence presumably Blaydes’ ὅτε δὲ. But this is much too subtle logic for a text like this, nor is the alleged error an obvious one. Further on in 3, Ath.A offers future middle indicative προστάξεται, which will not do, and Cobet conjectured aorist active optative προστάξειέ (printed by Kassel–Austin, followed here).35 Kock’s προστάξαι τε incorporates a different form of the 3rd-person singular aorist active optative, with τε serving to link ὁπότε κτλ with 1–3 οὐδέν. The error is easier to explain (ΕΤΑΙ written for ΑΙΤΕ) than in the case of Cobet’s suggestion. But this is the wrong spot for the conjunction (which would be better after ὁπότε), and the speaker is in any case not describing two separate, parallel actions, but clarifying what he meant by what he has just said (see Interpretation on 3 ὁπότε–7 ἕνεκα), so that “and” is not wanted.

35

Meineke adopts Dindorf ’s προστάττοιτο, which is not only much further from the paradosis but retains the unwanted middle-passive form.

Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων (fr. 122)

89

Active προστάττω (3) is almost always transitive (with dative + infinitive at e. g. Ar. V. 708), and εἰπών (“someone gave an order, responding and saying”) at the beginning of 4 in Ath.A makes little sense in any case, hence Musurus’ easy εἰπεῖν in the Aldine. In 7, a comma after the verb makes the sense clearer, as after γιγνώσκων at fr. 30.2. In 8–9, the paradosis ἔρανόν τιν’ ἄνθρωποι δέκα is unmetrical and was emended by Scaliger to ἄνθρωποι δέκα / ἔρανόν τιν’. The error probably reflects an unconscious desire on a scribe’s part to have the direct object next to the verb that governs it. In 10, the paradosis οὐδὲ εἷς (for which, fr. 85.1 n.) is unmetrical. Grotius’ οὐδείς is an easy fix. For Herwerden’s suggestion ἐπὶ τῷ πράγματι (“in reference to the matter”) in place of Ath.A’s ἐν τῷ πράγματι (literally “in the matter”, but apparently to be understood “as part of the matter”, i. e. “as they refuse to pay”) in 13, cf. fr. 188.7 (where the sense is ~ “in reaction to the matter”). For the lacuna marked by Dindorf between 14 and 15, see Interpretation. Kock dealt with the situation by printing οἱ τἀργύριον μὴ κατατιθέντες, ὡς σφόδρα / ὁ Φίλιππος. ἆρ’ ἦν εὐτυχής τις, νὴ Δία (“those who don’t pay their money, as Philip certainly (didn’t). I was a lucky person, by Zeus!”, with the speaker presumably going on to explain why his own situation is better than everything up to this point would lead one to expect). This does not improve the text much, and ὡς σφόδρα / ὁ Φίλιππος is difficult. At the end of 14 and the beginning of 15, σφόδροφίλιππος in Ath.A is most easily taken to represent σφόδρ᾿ ὁ Φίλιππος, hence Kaibel’s σφόδρα / ὁ Φίλιππος (adopted by Kassel–Austin and printed here). Earlier editors printed the metrically equivalent σφόδρα / Φίλιππος. In 15, Athenaeus’ ἄρ’ ἦν is unmetrical, but Musurus’ reaccentuation as ἆρ’ ἦν (with no change of meaning) solves the problem and is easier than Kaibel’s ἦν ἄρ’. Jacobs’ εὑρεῖν (“What a very lucky person Philip (was / is) at finding things!”) is much further from the paradosis, and since it does not improve the sense, is not worth considering. Further on in 15, Emperius suggested εὐτελής (“cheap”) or εὐθυεπής (“plain-spoken”) for Athenaeus’ εὐτυχής. The former fits the context better than “lucky” does; but nothing suggests that Philip was notoriously cheap, and altering the text thus does not make the reference to him clearer. εὐθυεπής is not classical vocabulary (first attested in the late Roman period) and is not obviously better than “lucky” in any case. Citation context The first in a series of long passages from comedy referring to what Athenaeus calls γρῖφοι (“riddles”) offered by Larensius, who up to this point has been drawing at least in part on Clearchus’ On Riddles. Fr. 55; Alex. fr. 242; Eub. fr. 106; Antiph. frr. 192; 194; Diph. fr. 49, in that order, are cited immediately

90

Antiphanes

after this. Frr. 51 and 75 are also preserved later on in the same discussion. As is often the case, the Epitome manuscripts preserve only a truncated version of the text, hence their appearance only at scattered points in the apparatus. Interpretation A male character (note 5 νομίζων)—patently a free person rather than a slave, and sufficiently well-to-do and socially well-connected that he is able to attend symposia on a regular basis—offers a witty introduction to his current situation: he and nine other men are organizing a loan for some third party, but no one has so far proved willing to put up his share of the money (8–10). The attention of Athenaeus (or his source) was drawn to the reference to riddles in 1–7 (cf. 11). For the speaker, on the other hand, this is merely a witty way of describing the problem he faces. From a prologue, outlining a conflict that will be central to the action of the play as a whole? For riddles as symposium entertainment, cf. fr. 142.8 n.; Pütz 2003. 242–63, and see in general frr. 192; 194, and the fragments of other comic poets cited in this section of Athenaeus (listed in Citation context); Konstantakos 2000. 146–56. The point of 14 ὡς σφόδρα–15 is unclear, as is how the remark connects with what precedes it, hence Dindorf ’s lacuna (Text). Alternatively, the apparent non sequitur may be intended as a comment on 13–14 κατατιθέντες: Philip (i. e. Philip II, king of Macedon 359–336 BCE) was lucky because he too promised money once and managed to avoid paying it, or because he was at some point famously able to force another man who had defaulted on a promise of funds to make good on it (as the speaker has not so far been able to do with his fellow ἔρανος-contributers), or the like. 1–7 ἐγὼ πρότερον μὲν … ᾠόμην, … νυνὶ δέ Cf. Ar. Pl. 825 ἀνὴρ πρότερον μὲν ἄθλιος, νῦν δ’ εὐτυχής; Alex. fr. 47.1–3 πρότερον μὲν … νυνὶ δέ; Philem. frr. 79.1 ἐγὼ πρότερον μὲν ᾠόμην; 98.2–5 ἐγὼ πρότερον μὲν … νυνὶ δέ. 1–2 For γρῖφος, as well as λέγειν / γρίφους in the sense “to solve riddles”, fr. 75.4–5 n. 2 For πότος (“drinking bout, drinking”), fr. 113.1 n. For the specific phrase παρὰ πότον (typical of the 4th and 3rd centuries), e. g. Epicr. fr. 5.2; X. Smp. 8.41; Aeschin. 2.156; Thphr. Char. 27.2. ληρέω and cognates are colloquial late 5th/4th-century vocabulary and appear routinely in abusive contexts to characterize another person’s words; cf. fr. 229.1 n.; Ar. Pl. 517 λῆρον ληρεῖς (“you’re talking nonsense”); [Archil.] fr. 330.3 ληρεῖν ὅλως (“to talk complete nonsense”); Isoc. 15.199 καταφανῶς ληροῦσιν (“they talk patent nonsense”). For the use of σαφῶς, fr. 164.7 n. 3 λέγοντας οὐδέν does not so much add to the sense of ληρεῖν in 2 as repeat and thus emphasize it. Cf. 5 οὐκ ἂν–6 with n. For the idiom, cf. fr. 192.6 n. 3 ὁπότε~7 ἕνεκα largely repeats the idea expressed in 1–3 οὐδέν, although in a more specific way in reference to both what the riddler asked and how the

Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων (fr. 122)

91

speaker reacted; note in particular the echo of 2 ᾠόμην ληρεῖν in 5 νομίζων λῆρον and the expansion of 3 λέγοντας οὐδέν in 5 οὐκ ἂν γενόμενον–6 λέγειν. 3 The use of προστάττω frames this not as simple encouragement but as a challenge: it is the speaker’s turn to perform, and if he does not do so, he will presumably be punished, as in fr. 75.9–10. 4 ἐφεξῆς (first attested in Herodotus, e. g. 5.18.3 ἐπεξῆς … ἵζοντο, and at E. Hel. 1390 χωρεῖτ’ ἐφεξῆς) is “one after another, in a row” vel sim. (e. g. Ar. Ra. 915; Ec. 842; Theopomp. Com. fr. 14.1; Eub. fr. 67.4; Isoc. 4.26). It here thus apparently means “in turn”, i. e. “as the game went around the circle of guests”. ὅ τι φέρων τις μὴ φέρει represents the direct question τί φέρων τις οὐ φέρει; and is an example of a riddle κατ᾿ ἐναντίον, like the one in fr. 192.7–8, and in “Q. When is a door not a door? A. When it’s ajar36”, “Q. When is a car not a car? A. When it turns into a driveway”; cf. fr. 194.2 with n.; Pütz 2003. 253–9. Whether a real riddle playing on two different senses of φέρω is being referenced is unclear, although Kassel–Austin compare Dionysus’ quibbling with Xanthias at Ar. Ra. 25–32 as to whether a man riding a donkey can be said to carry what is on his shoulders, since the donkey is carrying both of them. The point is to set up 8–11 in any case. 5 οὐκ ἂν–6 functions as an extended gloss on λῆρον. Cf. 3 n. 6 οὐδέποτέ γ’ … παντελῶς The hyperbolic character of the denial sets up the reversal in 7, where the speaker acknowledges that he was wrong. For παντελῶς, fr. 234.4 n. 6 For the interjection of οἶμαι, e. g. fr. 263.1; Diocl. Com. fr. 10.1; Ar. Nu. 1185; Av. 75; Pl. Com. fr. 132.1; Anaxandr. fr. 6.3; Aristopho fr. 2.2; Eub. fr. 115.4. The expression is apparently formulaic, since what the speaker means is “in my opinion (at the time)”, i. e. “I thought” (not “I think”). 7 ἐνέδρας δ’ ἕνεκα i. e. in an attempt to make the speaker say the wrong thing and thus get himself in trouble (3 n.). ἐνέδρα is first attested at Ibyc. S222.19 ἐ]νέδραν πολεμ̣[ί-, but outside of this fragment is otherwise confined to prose (e. g. Th. 2.81.5; X. HG 4.8.35; D. 19.77). ἕνεκα is the standard Attic form of the preposition; see fr. 226.1 n. τοῦτ’ ἔγνωχ’, ὅτι Cf. fr. 30.2 τοῦτο γιγνώσκων, ὅτι with n. ἀληθὲς ἦν is an awkward of saying “(the riddle) referred to something real”; contrast the speaker’s previous vigorous denial of this possibility in 5–6. 8–9 For φέρομεν … / ἔρανον and the meaning of ἔρανος, fr. 260.2 n. For the word-play, cf. Alex. fr. 145.5 ἐράνους φέροντες οὐ φέρομεν ἀλλ’ ἢ κακῶς (“when we bring a loan together, we only bring it with ill grace”). 10 ὅ τι φέρων τις μὴ φέρει is an echo of 4*. 11 ἦν θ’ ὁ γρῖφος ἐνταῦθα ῥέπων For the figurative use of ῥέπω (applied concretely to a scale-pan, which sinks to indicate the heavier object; cf. Ar. Ra.

36

I. e. “a jar”.

92

Antiphanes

1393–4; fr. 504.4–5), Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Pl. 51 οὐκ ἔσθ’ ὅπως ὁ χρησμὸς εἰς τοῦτο ῥέπει (“It’s impossible that the oracle is hinting at this”). Note also S. OT 847 τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἤδη τοὔργον εἰς ἐμὲ ῥέπον (literally “this deed”—the murder of Laios—“is now inclining toward me”, i. e. “I seem to be marked as potentially the responsible party”) and the similarly figurative uses of the verb at e. g. Men. Pk. 169; X. Lac. 4.1; Pl. Plt. 308a; Lg. 802e. 12 κα(ὶ ἐ)στὶ συγγνώμην ἔχον For the use of καί, see Denniston 1954. 321–2 “Sometimes καί contrasts the objective reality of an idea”—here the fact that the aforementioned behavior can be forgiven—“with its subjective reality or with the unreality of something else”—here the stories that accompany the failure to pay and that cannot be forgiven (13–14). For συγγνώμην ἔχω (generally “grant forgiveness”, e. g. Ar. Pax 668; S. Ai. 1322 (the earliest attestation of the noun)) in the sense “encounter forgiveness”, S. Tr. 328; E. Ph. 995; Th. 3.44.2 ἔχοντάς τι ξυγγνώμης; Antipho 5.92; D. 19.133; 21.66. For (ἐ)στὶ … ἔχον in place of ἔχει, cf. fr. 54.3 ἔστ’ ἀναγκαίως ἔχον with n.; Anaxandr. fr. 57.4 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; A. Ch. 136 with Garvie 1986 ad loc., and see in general Björck 1940. 17–40. 13 οἷα λογοποιοῦσιν Thphr. Char. 8.1 defines the λογοποιός (“fabulist”) as the sort of person who does not allow someone he meets to get a word out before he launches into second- and third-hand reports of various wild rumors, which he embroiders and converts into a great show of concern. The men about whom the speaker is complaining thus do not merely offer self-serving lies to explain their unwillingness to put up the money they promised, but put forward wild and improbable tales to justify themselves, at least as he would have it. 4th-century vocabulary (to the examples cited in LSJ s. v. add e. g. And. 3.35; X. Cyr. 2.2.13; Isoc. 11.38; D. 6.14), although Herodotus already has λογοποιός in the senses “story-teller” (2.134.3) and “prose-author” (5.125.1); otherwise confined to prose. οἷα is an internal accusative (exclamatory). ἐν τῷ πράγματι is * at Ar. Pl. 348; Philem. Jun. fr. 1.9, but is otherwise confined to prose (e. g. Antipho 6.34; Pl. Phdr. 235b). 14 For κατατίθημι in the sense “pay” (LSJ s. v. I.3) elsewhere in comedy, Ar. Nu. 246; Pax 1214; Ra. 176; Ec. 1007; Dromo fr. 1.5; Diph. fr. 32.8, and see fr. 27.8 n. 15 For ἆρ(α) “marking realization of the truth, or drawing a conclusion”, Denniston 1950. 45. For Philip II of Macedon, see Cawkwell 1978 with the comments of Harding 1979; Musgrave–Neave–Prag 1984, Prag 1990 and Musgrave 1991 (using osteological evidence to argue that the royal burial in Tomb II at Vergina is his); Hammond 1994 with the comments of Whitby 1995 and Hechel 2000; Gill 2008 (further discussion of Tomb II at Vergina, rejecting the now much-disputed association with Philip II on the basis of the weight standard used for the silver vessels found in the burial) with further bibliography. For Philip’s luck in particular, cf. Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 237a (“Philip was lucky in everything”).

Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων (fr. 123)

93

fr. 123 K.–A. (125 K.)

5

(Α.) ἄτοπά γε κηρύττουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσι κηρύγμαθ’, οὗ καὶ νῦν τις ἐκεκράγει μέγα μέλιτος γλυκυτέρας μεμβράδας φάσκων ἔχειν. (Β.) εἰ τοῦτο τοιοῦτ’ ἐστίν, οὐδὲν κωλύει τοὺς μελιτοπώλας αὖ λέγειν βοᾶν θ’ ὅτι πωλοῦσι τὸ μέλι σαπρότερον τῶν μεμβράδων

1–2 et 4–6 sic divisi 1–2 ἄτοπά γε / κηρύγμαθ’, οὗ Meineke : ατοπόν τε κήρυγμα οὗ Ath.A : ἄτοπόν γε / κήρυγμ’, ὅπου Porson

5

(Α.) They’re making odd announcements in the fish-market, where someone just now was calling out loudly, claiming that he had sprats that were sweeter than honey. (Β.) If that’s the case, nothing’s stopping the honey-vendors for their part from saying and shouting that the honey they’re selling is rottener37 than the sprats

Ath. 7.287d–e (βεμβράδες) ἐν δὲ ταῖς Εὐπόλιδος Αἰξὶν (fr. 31) ἔστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦ μ γραφόμενον. Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Κνοιθιδεῖ· —— (bembrades) In Eupolis’ Aiges (fr. 31), on the other hand, the word can be found spelled with a mu. Antiphanes in Knoithideus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

krkl llk|l llkl llkl l|lk|r klkl rlkr l|lkl llkl llkl l|lk|l llkl lrkl l|lkl klkl llkr k|rkl llkl

Discussion Porson 1812. 93; Meineke 1839–1857 III.68; Kock 1884 II.61; Olson 2007. 361–2 (J6) Text The paradosis κήρυγμα οὗ (i. e. κήρυγμ’ οὗ) at the beginning of 2 is unmetrical. Porson’s ἄτοπόν γε … / κήρυγμ’, ὅπου (“They’re making an odd announcement in the fish-market, where”; printed by Meineke) is an easier change than Meineke’s alternative suggestion ἄτοπά γε … / κηρύγμαθ’, οὗ (printed by Kock and Kassel–Austin, and adopted here), but sits oddly with κηρύττουσιν, since in 37

Scarcely “more ripe”, as at Rusten 2011. 123.

94

Antiphanes

2–3 only one person is said to be making the claim about the sprats he has for sale (thus expressly also Kock); see Interpretation. Athenaeus’ τε must in any case be a majuscule error (Τ for Γ). Citation context From the discussion of βεμβράδες / μεμβράδες (“smelt” vel sim.; see Interpretation) in the long, largely alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes up much of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and that is probably drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. Phryn. Com. fr. 52; Epich. fr. 53.2; Sophr. fr. 65; Numen. SH 570; Aristonym. fr. 2.1; Aristomen. fr. 7; Aristonym. fr. 2.2; Ar. fr. 140; Pl. Com. fr. 131, are preserved immediately before this, Alex. frr. 260; 200, immediately afterward. Interpretation News about contemporary events elsewhere in the city (1–3), followed by what is on the division of the lines adopted here a cynical comment by a second character (4–6). The most obvious interpretation of the fragment is that (A.) has just returned from the market, where he has been purchasing supplies for dinner. If ἄτοπα … / κηρύγμαθ’ is right (see Text), additional “odd announcements” may have been described in what followed. 1–2 ἄτοπα Late 5th-/4th-century vocabulary (e. g. Pherecr. fr. dub. 285 = Eup. fr. 194.2 (adv.); Ar. Ec. 956; E. Ion 690; Lys. 24.8; Th. 3.38.5; X. HG 2.3.19; Pl. Lys. 218c). γε adds emphasis to the adjective (Denniston 1950. 115–19). For ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσι (literally “in the fish”) meaning “in the fish-market”, cf. frr. 83.2 ἐν τοῖς στεφάνοις (“in the garland-market”) with n.; 201.2 εἰς τοὖψον with n.; Ar. V. 789*; Alex. frr. 57.3*; 78.5*. For κηρύττω with the internal cognate accusative κήρυγμα, cf. Aeschin. 3.23, 154. κήρυγμα is 5th-/4th-century vocabulary (e. g. S. Ant. 454; E. Hec. 662; Ar. Pax 311 (the only other attestation in comedy); Hdt. 3.52.1; Th. 4.105.2; X. HG 5.4.11). The announcements in question are apparently advertisements like the one described in 3; cf. fr. 166.4 with n. (similarly in reference to what is most easily taken to be a private sale in the marketplace, in that case of slaves). ἐκεκράγει is pluperfect for imperfect, as routinely with this verb; cf. frr. 194.8 (perfect for present participle, of oratorical bellowing) with n.; 216.12 (perfect for present participle); Eup. fr. 1.3 with Olson 2017 ad loc.; Ar. Ach. 335 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; S. Ai. 1236 with Finglass 2011 ad loc.; Men. fr. 132.1 (quoted below). For market-merchants advertising their wares to customers by shouting, cf. Ar. Ach. 34–5. For the adverbial use of μέγα, e. g. Cratin. fr. 102.2 καυχᾶσθαι μέγα; Sannyr. fr. 8.4 ἀνακράγοι … μέγα; Ar. Nu. 220 ἀναβόησον … μέγα, 393 μέγα βροντᾶν; V. 618 μέγα καὶ στράτιον κατέπαρδεν, 963 λέξον μέγα; Strato Com. fr. 1.5 ἐπηρώτησε … μέγα; Men. fr. 132.1 ἀλεκτρυών τις ἐκεκράγει μέγα. 3 μέλιτος γλυκυτέρας The adjective is properly “sweet” in the sense “sugary”, as opposed to ἡδύς, which is “sweet” in the sense “pleasant”; but cf. fr. 286 (“Hunger makes everything more γλυκύς except itself ”); Diph. fr. 1.2 (of μίμαρκυς, a dish made of the meat and blood of a hare); Macho 21 (of meat), in all of which

Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων (fr. 123)

95

γλυκύς appears to have the extended meaning “delicious”, as also here. Use of the word serves in any case as the basis for the fish-seller’s witticism, since honey (5–6 n.) was proverbially γλυκύς (Il. 1.249; 18.109). A μεμβράς / βεμβράς is a “smelt”, “sprat” or “anchovy”, i. e. a tiny, inexpensive fish; in addition to the fragments mentioned in Citation context, cf. Ar. V. 493–4 (also spelled with mu) with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; Nicopho fr. 10.1 (another reference to μεμβράδες-vendors); Nicostr. Com. fr. 11 βεμβράδ’, ἀφύην, ἑψητόν; Timocl. fr. 11.9; Arist. HA 569b24–7; Macho 35; Alciphr. 3.17.1 χύτραν μεμβράδας ἔχουσαν καὶ ἀφύας Μεγαρικάς (“a cookpot containing membrades and Megarian small-fry”; a bit of Attic color); Thompson 1947. 32; García Soler 2001. 161–2. Beekes 2010 s. v. takes the variations in the name—not only βεμβράς and μεμβράς, but also βαμβραδών in Epicharmus (fr. 53.2)38—to suggest that this is substrate (pre-Greek) vocabulary, and compares for the form ἀνθρηδών ~ πεμφρηδών ~ τενθρηδών (some sort of wasp or bee) and τερηδών (a wood-eating worm). Similar formations are collected at Schwyzer 1953. 529–30. 4 οὐδὲν κωλύει is * at Ar. Eq. 723, 972 (both in the sense “Nothing prevents (this)”, i. e. “Let’s do it!”), but is otherwise prosaic (e. g. X. Mem. 4.4.23; Pl. Cra. 406c; Isoc. 10.47; D. 23.96). 5–6 τοὺς μελιτοπώλας … / … τὸ μέλι For honey-sellers (here specifically located in the market-place), cf. Ar. Eq. 853 (closely associated with cheese-sellers and leather-sellers, perhaps telling us something about the actual location of such vendors in the Agora); Men. Pk. 287–8 (an old woman); Poll. 7.198. For honey (an Attic specialty), fr. 273.2 n. For this use of αὖ, e. g. fr. 182.2; Hermipp. fr. 44.2; Metag. fr. 6.8; Ar. Ach. 375; LSJ s. v. II.2; Revuelta Puigdollers 2009. 98–9 (“Topic change marker”). λέγειν βοᾶν θ’ reworks ἐκεκράγει … / … φάσκων in 2–3 and is probably to be taken in a similar fashion (~ “saying in a loud voice”). σαπρός (< σήπομαι, “rot”; first attested at Thgn. 1362; Hippon. fr. 9.2) is similarly applied to fish that has begun to turn at fr. 217.4; Alex. fr. 130.8; Sopat. fr. 14; Diod. Com. fr. 2.36. For the adjective, see in general Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 478.

38

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

96

Antiphanes

Κορινθία (Korinthia)

“The Girl from Corinth”

Introduction Title Corinth was famously wealthy, but also notorious for its prostitutes (Ar. Pl. 149 with Sommerstein 2001 ad loc.; Orth 2009 on Stratt. fr. 27.2–3; cf. fr. 27.20 n.), hence the verb Κορινθιάζομαι (“be a prostitute”; Ar. fr. 370) and apparently the title Κορινθιαστής (“The Pimp”; Philetaerus and Poliochus). But just as likely the title-character was simply a girl transplanted to Athens from Corinth for one reason or another. For Corinth and its image generally, see Goebel 1915. 32–40; Salmon 1981. For ethnics, local adjectives and the like as play-titles, cf. (individual female characters, as here) Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Καρίνη, Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία; (female plural) Λήμνιαι with Introduction; (male characters) Βοιώτιος, Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ζακύνθιος, Λυδός, Ποντικός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός, and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (male plurals) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; and cf. Μέτοικος. See Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. Philemon also wrote a Κορινθία, while Clearchus Comicus wrote a Κορίνθιοι. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 124 K.–A. (126 K.)

5

(Α.) ἔπειτα κἀκροκώλιον ὕειον. (Β.) Ἀφροδίτῃ; γελοῖον. (Α.) ἀγνοεῖς· ἐν τῇ Κύπρῳ δ’ οὕτω φιληδεῖ ταῖς ὑσίν, ⟨ὦ⟩ δέσποθ’, ὥστε σκατοφαγεῖν ἀπεῖρξε ⟨x⟩ τὸ ζῷον ⟨l x⟩, τοὺς δὲ βοῦς ἠνάγκασεν

2 (Β.) Ἀφροδίτῃ; γελοῖον. (Α.) ἀγνοεῖς Kassel : Ἀφροδίτῃ. (Β.) γελοῖον. (Α.) ἀγνοεῖς ὑσίν Schweighäuser : ὑεσίν Meineke ἀγνοεῖς; Kock 3 δ’ Ath.A : γ’ Blaydes A Ath. 4 ⟨ὦ⟩ δέσποθ’ anon. ap. Schweighäuser : δέσποτα Ath.A ἀπεῖρξε Ath.A : ἀπεῖρξε μὲν Herwerden : ἀπεῖρξ᾿ ἐκεῖ Kassel–Austin : ἀπείθισε Kock : ἀπείργαθε Schmidt 5 ⟨αὐτοῦ⟩ Herwerden : ⟨αὐτὴ⟩ Kock : ⟨ὄντως⟩ Bothe

5

(A.) Then a pig’s trotter. (B.) For Aphrodite? Ridiculous. (A.) You’re misinformed; on Cyprus she’s so fond of sows, master, that she prevented the animal from eating dung, and made the cows (do it)

Κορινθία (fr. 124)

97

Ath. 3.95f Ἀντιφάνης Κορινθίᾳ· —— Antiphanes in Korinthia: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlkl〉 klk|l klkl klkr klkl klkl llkl llkl llkl 〈l〉lkl l|rkl klk〈x〉 llk〈l x〉|lk|l llkl

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–1805 II.142–3; Meineke 1839–1857 III.88–9; Bothe 1855. 375; Schmidt 1863. 353; Kock 1884 II.61–2; Herwerden 1886. 174; Blaydes 1896. 108; Vahlen 1908. 514; Lasserre 1966. 264 Text This is Kassel’s division of the verses—not adopted in Kassel–Austin, who follow Meineke and Kock in giving the first five words to (A.) and everything that follows to (B.) —and implies that Aphrodite and precisely what sort of offerings can be made to her is already a topic of conversation before this. On the traditional division of the lines (“(A.) Then a pig’s trotter for Aphrodite? Ridiculous”), the speaker is working his way through a catalogue of offerings or the like and expresses displeasure at this one. Kock punctuates the end of 2 as a question apparently to be taken “Are you unaware?”, i. e. “Don’t you understand?”, sc. that what follows in 3–5 is the case. But this is awkward, especially before δ(έ) in 3. In 3, Blaydes’ γ’ (“in Cyprus”) is more pointed than the paradosis δ’, which is however insufficient reason to emend the text. ὕεσσιν is used as the dative plural of ὗς (“pig”) in Homer (e. g. Od. 13.410, with double sigma metri gratia; cf. the byform σύεσσι(ν) at e. g. Il. 12.146), but in the classical period (accented ὑέσιν) is elsewhere always a form of υἱός (“son”; e. g. Pl. La. 186b; Is. 6.28). Schweighäuser accordingly emended Ath.A’s ὑεσίν (metrical; the upsilon is short) at the end of 3 to ὑσίν. The beginning of 4 is metrically deficient, and ὦ (attributed by Schweighäuser to an anonymous editor) is an easy, uncontroversial supplement; see Interpretation. Ath.A actually has scriptio plena δέσποτα, which is not an error but merely a conventional way of representing an elided word. An anceps syllable is missing at the end of 4 and two more syllables are missing in the first half of 5; the proposed supplements should be regarded as exempli gratia.39 The situation is complicated by the fact that μή is expected with ἀπείργω + infinitive (cf. Eup. fr. *175.2–3 with Olson 2016 ad loc.), raising the possibility that

39

Herwerden’s ⟨αὐτοῦ⟩ is to be understood “in that spot, there”, i. e. “on Cyprus”.

98

Antiphanes

the apparent double lacuna reflects the fact that this portion of the text is not what Antiphanes wrote but a rough, unmetrical paraphrase. Citation context From a section of the Deipnosophists (Ath. 3.95e–6c) having to do mostly with ἀκροκώλια within a treatment of boiled meats generally (Ath. 3.94c–6d) that also preserves fr. 73. Ar. frr. 4; 164 are cited immediately before this, Call. fr. 200a; Pherecr. fr. 113.13–14; Alex. frr. 123; 180; Pherecr. fr. 50; Antiph. fr. 183; Ecphantid. fr. 1, in that order, immediately afterward. Interpretation Part of a discussion between a master (note 4 ⟨ὦ⟩ δέσπο(τα)) and his slave in which—as printed here; see Text—various offerings for Aphrodite are listed and discussed. 1 ἔπειτα κ(αί) shows that the pig’s trotter is at least the second item in the catalogue. Perhaps the slave is from Cyprus, hence his knowledge of the place. Pigs and piglets were common sacrificial victims (cf. fr. 170.5, and see Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 374–5; Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 301), but were not normally offered to Aphrodite (Ar. Ach. 792–3; Call. fr. 200a ap. Str. 9.437–8; IG XII,2 73.4–7 = LSCG no. 126.4–7 (instructions on an altar of Aphrodite and Hermes from Mytilene) θυέτω ὅττι κε θέλη καὶ ἔρσεν καὶ θῆλυ πλ[ὰ]γ χοί[ρω], “let him sacrifice whatever he wishes, male or female, except a piglet”; cf. Paus. 2.10.5). According to ΣEΓ Ar. Ach. 793, this was because a boar killed the goddess’ lover Adonis; see Ἄδωνις Introduction. Cf. Reese 1989, whose analysis of the remains of burnt offerings from the altar of Aphrodite Ourania in Athens identified a negligible number of pig-bones among thousands of fragments of sheep- and goat-bones from scores of victims. Perhaps the explanation has to do with the goddess’ apparently Semitic origins. 1 For ἔπειτα used to add another item to a list, e. g. frr. 1.4; 207.4, and presumably fr. 95.1. ἀκροκώλιον is treated by LSJ s. v. as a generic term for extremities such as snouts, ears and trotters (cf. Anaxil. fr. 19.4 ἀκροκώλι’ ἕψειν … ῥύγχη, πόδας, “to stew akrokôlia … snouts, feet”, where “snouts, feet” is easily taken as standing in apposition to ἀκροκώλια40), although the reference to “front akrokôlia” at Hp. Vict. 82.13–14 = 6.632.5–6 Littré suggests that the word could also be understood as referring to trotters in particular. Whatever akrokôlia are, at any rate, they are frequently said to come from pigs (2 ὕειον; also Archipp. fr. 10.1–2; Stratt. fr. 5; Hp. Vict. 82.13–14 = 6.632.5–6 Littré) and to be stewed, sc. to render the meaty parts soft enough to eat (Pherecr. fr. 113.14; Telecl. fr. 51; Ar. fr. 4; Anaxil. fr. 19.4, quoted above; Alex. fr. 180.3; Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.30; Hp. Vict. 80.8 = 6.626.14 Littré; 82.13–14 = 6.632.5–6 Littré; Matro fr. 1.94; mentioned elsewhere in comedy also at Ar. fr. 164; Eub. frr. 6.9; 14.6; Alex. frr. 123.2; 281.2). For pigs’ feet, also Ecphantid. fr. 1 πόδας … ἑφθοὺς ὑός (“boiled feet of a pig”); Theophil. fr. 8.2–3 (Α.) ῥυγχίον, 40

Note also Alex. fr. 115.15–16 κρεάδι’ ἄττα, ποδάρια, ῥύγχη τινά, / ὠτάρι’ ὕει’ (“some little bits of meat, little feet, some snouts, pigs’ ears”).

Κορινθία (fr. 124)

99

κωλῆν, πόδας / τέτταρας ὑείους. (Β.) Ἡράκλεις. (Α.) βοὸς δὲ τρεῖς (“(A.) a little snout, a ham, four pigs’ feet. (B.) Herakles! (A.) and three cow’s feet”). 2–3 ὕειον … ταῖς ὑσίν For pigs (common domestic animals), frr. 44.1 n.; 131.5–6 with n.; Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 24–5; MacKinnon 2001 (with specific reference to Roman Italy); Kitchell 2014. 150–3.41 For γελοῖον, fr. 57.4 n. 3 ἐν τῇ Κύπρῳ For Aphrodite’s traditional association with Cyprus, e. g. Hes. Th. 193–9; hHom. 6.2–3; 10; Pirenne-Delforge 1994. 309–69; Karageorghis 2005 (a broad consideration of “the Cypriot goddess”); Budin 2003 passim; Young 2005 (with particular attention to the archaeological evidence); and see Ἀφροδίτης γόναι Introduction. φιληδέω is attested before this only at Ar. Pax 1130 (lyric); subsequently at Thphr. HP 9.16.1; Call. hAp. 56 with Williams 1978 ad loc. (who suggests that Callimachus may have drawn it “from an epic model no longer extant”, which is pure speculation); contrast the rare ἀηδέω at Od. 1.134. The verb is used repeatedly by Aelian (e. g. NA 2.15, 41; 5.3) and Athenaeus (e. g. 8.339c) and once by Alciphro (2.21.2), which might suggest either that it was taken in the Roman period to be an Atticism or that it is a common if ill-attested colloquialism. 4 For ⟨ὦ⟩ δέσποθ’, cf. fr. 86.2* with n.; Ar. V. 142; Pax 824*; Pl. 20*; Pl. Com. fr. 182.1; Amphis fr. 6.3*; etc. σκατοφαγέω is attested elsewhere before the Roman period only at Men. Sam. 427 (figuratively “act like a brute” vel sim.), but cognate σκατοφάγος is used in a figurative abusive sense at Ar. Pl. 706 (although playing on the idea of actually tasting fecal matter); Men. Dysc. 488 (adv.); Pk. 394; Sam. 550; fr. 571 ap. Phot. σ 283, who glosses the word ἀκάθαρτος (“foul, impure”); cf. the literal use of the adjective at Epich. fr. 56.2 (of fish); Crobyl. fr. 7.2 (quoted below; of a boar). Poll. 5.91 suggests that σκῶρ (gen. σκατός) refers in the first instance to human excrement rather than that of animals (for which he offers a series of specific names, as well as the general κόπρος), in which case it likely has a distinctly negative emotional valence; cf. Ar. Ra. 146, where villains being punished in the Underworld are trapped in a river of—patently disgusting—σκῶρ.42 That Epicharmus uses the word in the form σκάρ of the droppings produced by fish (fr. 48.3) may not count against this conclusion, since the fish in question is the σκάρος (“parrot-wrasse”), suggesting that word-play is involved. For the readiness of pigs—scavengers that doubtless roamed Athenian streets much as they did those in e. g. medieval English towns (Jørgensen 2013) and New York and other major American cities two centuries 41

42

Readers interested in foodways are directed to Brophy–Chrisman 2013, which is not directly relevant to the subject of this commentary but is too interesting a topic to be omitted from the bibliography. σκῶρ / σκάρ is attested elsewhere before the Roman period only at Ar. Pl. 305 (quoted below); Stratt. fr. 8; Sophr. fr. 11.2; and in an adespota medical text (Brit. Mus. inv. 137, at 30.28 Diels).

100

Antiphanes

ago (Larsen 1969. 243–4; Guilford 2017); see in general Miller 1990. 125–31—to consume feces, cf. Ar. Pax 24 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Pl. 304–5 ἔπεισεν ὡς ὄντας κάπρους / μεμαγμένον σκῶρ ἐσθίειν (“she persuaded them, since they were boars, to eat kneaded dung”); Crobyl. fr. 7.2 καπρίσκου σκατοφάγου (“a skôr-eating little boar”). 5 τοὺς δὲ βοῦς ἠνάγκασεν According to Hsch. β 976 βοῦς Κύπριος· κοπροφάγος (“a Cyprian cow: one that eats dung”) and Prov. Bodl. 222 βοῦς Κύπριος εἶ· ἀντὶ τοῦ σκατοφάγος (“You’re a Cyprian cow: in place of ‘a skatophagos’”), the 4th-century astronomer Eudoxus of Cnidus (fr. 361)—seemingly a more or less exact contemporary of Antiphanes—reported that Cyprian cows were κοπροφάγοι (“dung-eaters”), suggesting that the idea did not originate with the comic poet even if σκατοφαγεῖν (4 with n.) perhaps expands it.43 For cows and cattle generally, cf. frr. 22.2 with n.; 131.3; 157.2–3 n.; 170.5 with nn.; 227.7.

43

Lasserre appears to believe that Antiphanes has got the notion from Eudoxus; but just as likely this is a bit of common folklore. Kassel–Austin direct the reader to Toomer 1968. 337, who merely notes that “it would be interesting to know the authority for Lasserre’s apparent belief in the existence of βόες κοπροφάγοι”—a matter on which there is no further evidence except the fragment of Antiphanes, which Lasserre cites.

Κοροπλάθος (fr. 125)

101

Κοροπλάθος (Koroplathos) “The Figurine-maker”

Introduction Title A κοροπλάθος was a sculptor who produced small figurines out of clay; see Pl. Tht. 147a–b (a man who works with clay); Isoc. 15.2 (a demeaning term when applied to a sculptor who worked on a grand scale, such as Pheidias); Luc. Lex. 22 (the final product was painted in vivid colors); Poll. 7.163 (the final product was painted); 10.189 (the clay was shaped around a wooden frame); Moer. κ 51 ~ Harp. κ 76 τοὺς ἐκ πηλοῦ ἢ κηροῦ ἤ τινος τοιαύτης ὕλης πλάττοντας κόρας ἢ κόρους οὕτως ὠνόμαζον (“they used the term for those plattontes koras ê korous [who produced statues of girls or boys] out of clay or wax or some such material”); Tim. Lex. κ 23; Phot. κ 953, 962. For plays called after a profession, occupation or the like, cf. Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος with Introduction, Ἡνίοχος, Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 125 K.–A. (127 K.) γύναι, πρὸς αὐλὸν ἦλθες. ὀρχήσει πάλιν τὴν ἴγδιν. 〈lx〉 τὴν θυείαν ἀγνοεῖς; 1 ὀρχήσει Poll.FSCL : ὀρχήση Poll.AB 2 (Β.) ⟨ἴγδιν;⟩ Herwerden : fort. τὴν ἴγδιν. (Β.) τὴν ⟨ἴγδιν;⟩ (Α.) θυείαν ἀγνοεῖς; θυείαν ed. pr. : θυΐαν Poll. 〈3〉 τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἴγδις e Pollucis verbis Antiphanis fragmento adiecit Meineke

Lady, you came to pipe-music; you’ll dance the igdis back. 〈lx〉 Aren’t you familiar with the thyeia? Poll. 10.103 τὴν δὲ θυΐαν καὶ θυΐδιον εἴποις ἂν … καὶ ἴγδιν δὲ αὐτὴν κεκλήκασι Σόλων τε ἐν τοῖς ἰάμβοις λέγων (fr. 39)· ——, καὶ ἔτι σαφέστερον Ἀντιφάνης Κοροπλάθῳ· (vv. 1–2) γύναι —— τὴν ἴγδιν. ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἴγδις καὶ ὀρχήσεως σχῆμα, ὁ δὲ παίζων πρὸς τοὔνομα κωμικῶς ἐπήγαγε· (v. 2) τὴν θυΐαν ἀγνοεῖς; τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἴγδις ἡ θυία

102

Antiphanes

You could use the terms thyïa and thyïdion … It is also referred to as an igdis by Solon in his Iambs when he says (fr. 39): ——, and even more clearly by Antiphanes in Koroplathos: (vv. 1–2): Lady—the igdis. An igdis is also a dance-step, but he plays on the name and continues in a comic fashion: (v. 2) Aren’t you familiar with the thyïa?, meaning that an igdis is a thyia

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl k|lk|l llkl llk〈l x〉|lkl llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 III.69–70; Herwerden 1872. 83–4; Kock 1884 II.62; Rotondo 1995 Text In 1, the subjunctive is not wanted, and ὀρχήση in Poll.AB must be the product of a period when ει and η had come to be pronounced alike; cf. below on ει and ί. 2 is lacunose, and Herwerden’s ⟨ἴγδιν;⟩ (“An igdis?”, to be spoken by the woman; printed by Kassel–Austin) could easily have been omitted by haplography. The words that follow can be taken as the end of the line; but how much text is missing is in fact obscure. The manuscripts of Pollux preserve θυΐαν in 2, but elsewhere other authorities have the word in the form θυεία (e. g. Ath. 2.71e, preserving fr. 243.3), which editors since the editio princeps have adopted here. The lack of epigraphic evidence means that either reading might be right, but this look like a typical late confusion of ει and ι (Threatte 1980. 190–9). Cf. Poll. 10.104, where the manuscripts offer θυΐα or θύα in Ar. fr. 7, but the editio princeps and editors of the comic fragments print θυεία. Meineke took Pollux’s τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἴγδις ἡ θυία to preserve the first half of a third verse (“This”—i. e. a θυεία—“is an igdis”), although this leaves ἡ θυία unexplained. Citation context From a brief discussion of terms for mortars as part of a collection of words for utensils for food preparation within the long catalogue of σκεύη (“implements”) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of Pollux. See also Interpretation 1–2n. Interpretation Most easily taken as addressed to a dancing-girl (ὀρχηστρίς; e. g. Metag. fr. 4.1; Ar. Ach. 1093 with Olson 2002 ad loc.), i. e. hired entertainment for a party, by the host or a guest. “You’ll dance the igdis back” sounds vaguely menacing, but the point in any case is that the addressee will leave in a very different style than she entered. 1 γύναι A seemingly neutral term that can be used to address one’s wife (e. g. Ar. Ach. 262; Men. Epitr. 303, 376) but is appropriate for any adult woman (e. g. Ar. Ach. 1063; V. 1399; Th. 905; Ra. 555; Alex. fr. 173.4 (almost certainly a courtesan, since she is posing riddles for the speaker, i. e. at a symposium); Men. Epitr. 858–9; Sic. 32). Cf. fr. 181.1, and see in general Dickey 1996. 86–8.

Κοροπλάθος (fr. 125)

103

For πρὸς αὐλόν in the sense “to pipe-music, accompanied by the pipe”, e. g. X. An. 6.1.5 πρὸς αὐλὸν ὠρχήσαντο; [Arist.] Pr. 918a22–3 ἐάν τις πρὸς αὐλὸν ἢ λύραν ᾄδῃ. 1–2 ὀρχήσει … / τὴν ἴγδιν According to Poll. 4.101 (cited by Kassel–Austin), μακτρισμὸς … καὶ ἴγδις ἀσελγῆ εἴδη ὀρχήσεων ἐν τῇ τῆς ὀσφύος περιφορᾷ (“The maktrismos and the igdis are vulgar types of dances that involve wiggling one’s rear end”; cf. the more compact and less judgmental comment at 10.103, quoted above), while Ath. 14.629e–f (also cited by Kassel–Austin) reports γελοῖαι δ’ εἰσὶν ὀρχήσεις ἴγδις καὶ μακτρισμὸς (“The igdis and the maktrismos are humorous dances”). Presumably the buttocks were rotated in what could be imagined as a grinding motion; see Lawler 1947; Rotondo 1995. 283–6. ἴγδις (etymology uncertain) in the sense “mortar” is attested in Attic only in Sol. fr. 39.144 (preserved in the same section of Pollux as the fragment of Antiphanes; elsewhere in the classical period only at Hp. Nat.Mul. 88.2 = 7.408.11 Littré; Mul. 103.1 = 8.224.22 Littré) and is disapproved by Phryn. ecl. 136, who recommends θυεία instead. 2 For θυεία, fr. 243.3 n.

44

Seemingly from a description of the preparation of a culinary sauce; see Noussia 2001. 355–6.

104

Antiphanes

Κουρίς (Kouris)

“The Female Hair-cutter”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 223 n. b

Title κουρίς is properly the feminine equivalent of masculine κουρεύς (“barber”), which was a simple, skilled occupation (listed in Philyll. fr. 13 along with charcoal-seller, sieve-maker and gardener; see in general Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 194). Ar. Ec. 737 refers to a κομμώτρια in a way that suggests that this was a term for a female slave charged with taking care of her mistress’ hair, and Pl. R. 373c lists κομμώτριαι with κουρεῖς in a catalogue of διάκονοι (household “attendants” or the like), along with e. g. paedagogues, nurses and cooks. Pollux knows both κουρεύς, κουρίς and κομμωτής, κομμώτρια (7.165; cf. Poll. 2.31 οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴν κόμην χειροτέχναι κομμωταί, καὶ κομμώτριαι αἱ γυναῖκες, “handworkers involved with hair are kommôtai, while their female equivalents are kommôtriai”); Phot. Bibl. p. 530a12–14 and ΣR Ar. Ec. 737 both claim that “people today” use the term κουρίς for what the ancient Athenians called a κομμώτρια; and LSJ s. v. II accordingly takes κουρίς in this title and others to be equivalent to κομμώτρια. But whether κουρίς implied servile status in the classical period, is unclear, and the limited evidence that survives is compatible with the alternative possibilities that (1) κουρίδες (like κουρεῖς) were normally free, but κομμώτριαι (like κομμωταί) were not, even if κουρεύς / κουρίς, as the more common and less specialized term, could sometimes be used carelessly in reference to slaves, as by Plato; or (2) κουρεῖς and κουρίδες (cognate with κείρω) cut hair, whereas κομμωταί and κομμώτριαι arranged it (cf. Moer. κ 58 κομμώτριαν Ἀττικοί· ἐμπλέκτριαν Ἕλληνες, “Atticspeakers (say) kommôtria, whereas Greeks generally (say) emplektria [plaiter, braider]”). κομμωτής / κομμώτρια is in any case seemingly an Atticism, and there is accordingly no reason to think that the sense of κουρεύς / κουρίς evolved (thus Papachrysostomou 2016. 148–9), this instead seemingly having been the only term available in some periods for ~ “barber / hairdresser”. For similar titles referring specifically to female occupations, cf. Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια and Αὐλητρίς, as well as e. g. Eubulus’ Μυλωθρίς and Στεφανοπώλιδες. Amphis and Alexis also wrote plays entitled Κουρίς, while Gn. Naevius (second half of the 3rd century BCE) wrote a play perhaps entitled Commotria (a palliata and thus probably modeled on one of these comedies or another with a similar plot; = adesp. com. fr. 41.5). Alexis’ play apparently featured two brothers, one of whom was a rustic clod, the other a sophisticated (or debauched) man about town (fr. 113). This does not mean that what little is known about either play can be used to reconstruct the other. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Κουρίς (fr. 126)

105

Fragments fr. 126 K.–A. (128 K.) ἐλθών τε πρὸς τὸν τεμαχοπώλην περίμενε, παρ’ οὗ φέρειν εἴωθα· κἂν οὕτω τύχῃ Εὔθυνος 〈lx〉 ἀπολοπίζων αὐτόθι χρηστόν τι, περίμεινον, κέλευσόν μοι τεμεῖν 1 περίμενε Ath.A : Παρμένων Bothe 2 εἴωθα κὰν Ath.A : εἴωθας ἂν Bothe οὕτω Ath.A : A οὔπω Dalechamp 3 Εὔθυνος Musurus : ἐυθουνος Ath. : Εὔθυνον Kock ἀπολοπίζων Fritzsche : ἀπολογίζων Ath.A : ⟨αὐτὸς⟩ ἀπολοπίζων Iacobi : ⟨ἰχθῦς⟩ ἀπολοπίζων Edmonds : ⟨ὄψον⟩ ἀπολοπίζοντ᾿ Kock : ⟨οὗτὸς⟩ ἀπολογίζων Desrousseaux αὐτόθι Ath.A : αὐτόθεν A Herwerden 4 περίμεινον Ath. : περιμένων Schweighäuser : Παρμένων Bothe : περιμείνας Edmonds : fort delendum μοι Schweighäuser : μὴ Ath.A

and go to the fish-steak seller from whom I normally buy and wait around; and if Euthynos thus turns out 〈lx〉 to be scaling a nice piece there, wait around, kindly tell him to cut (a steak for me)! Ath. 3.120a Εὐθύνου δὲ τοῦ ταριχοπώλου μήμνηται Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κουρίδι οὕτως· —— Antiphanes mentions the saltfish-seller Euthynos in Kouris as follows: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|rkl lrkl klkl llk|l llkl llk〈l x〉|rkl llkl llkr llkl llkl

Discussion Fritzsche 1831. 106; Iacobi ap. Meineke 1839–1857 V.1.76–7; Bothe 1844. 26–7; Bothe 1855. 375–6; Kock 1884 II.63; Herwerden 1903. 83; Desrousseaux 1942. 58–9; Edmonds 1959. 222–3 Text περίμενε in 1 followed by περίμεινον in 4 seems awkward to the point of illogicality, and Bothe suggested reading Παρμένων (a slave’s name at e. g. Ar. Ec. 868; Men. Sam. 189) in one line or the other. Making the change in 1 (as in Bothe 1855) removes the main verb and thus requires εἴωθας ἂν for εἴωθα· κἂν in 2. Kock advocated for but did not print Παρμένων in 4,45 although this seems very late in 45

Hence presumably “(Kock)” in Kassel–Austin’s apparatus after their assignment of the conjecture to Bothe 1844. Cf. the similar note in regard to Schweighäuser’s μοι for Athenaeus’ μὴ.

106

Antiphanes

the order for resort to the personal name. The imperative is not needed in 4 for metrical purposes and might simply be deleted there (leaving llrl l|lkl 〈xlkl〉, which has the added advantage of yielding a normal caesura). Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin all retain Ath.A’s οὕτω, place a comma at the end of 2, and understand κἂν οὕτω τύχῃ to mean “if it turns out thus” vel sim.; cf. Cratin. fr. 74 ἢν τύχῃ; Philem. fr. 15.1 ἂν οὕτω τύχῃ*; Men. Epitr. fr. 5.2 Koerte ἐὰν οὕτω τύχῃ /; Hp. VM 21.8–9 = 1.624.18–19 Littré; Fract. 2.14 = 3.418.13 Littré; X. HG 4.1.34. This makes no obvious sense and leaves Εὔθυνος κτλ in 3–4 without a main verb, and I accordingly follow Herwerden and Edmonds in taking τύχῃ … ἀπολοπίζων together.46 οὕτω is ignored by Edmonds in his translation and may be a colloquial way of saying ~ “when you do so”. The alternative is to adopt Dalechamp’s οὔπω (to be diagnosed as a simple majuscule error, Τ for Π; the emendation appears in his 1597 joint edition of the Deipnosophists with Isaac Casaubon), in which case the idea is that the addressee is to wait about (1, 4) as Euthynos works on lesser cuts of fish, and then make his purchase when he hits on a nice one. Ath.A offers the garbled ἐυθουνος at the beginning of 3; corrected by Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus to the proper name Εὔθυνος (for which, cf. fr. 188.1). For Kock’s Εὔθυνον … ἀπολοπίζοντ᾿, see below. Ath.A’s ἀπολογίζων in the middle of 3 is impossible—the verb is deponent— and Fritzsche’s ἀπολοπίζων would represent another simple majuscule error (Γ for Π; cf. above on 2). Of the various attempts to supplement the text recorded in the apparatus, Iacobi’s ⟨αὐτὸς⟩ (“Euthynos himself ”) alters the sense in an odd and unhelpful way. Edmond’s ⟨ἰχθῦς⟩, supplying an object for ἀπολοπίζων, is a consequence of his decision to put a comma after the participle and print χρηστόν τι περιμείνας κέλευσόν μοι τεμεῖν (“after you wait around, order him to cut me a nice piece!”) in 4; it is easier to treat χρηστόν τι as the object, and the supplement is palaeographically less likely than Kock’s ⟨ὄψον⟩ in any case. Kock’s Εὔθυνον ⟨ὄψον⟩ ἀπολοπίζοντ᾿, finally, converts all this into the direct object of περίμεινον (“wait for Euthynos as he scales fish!”) and is a much more complicated correction. The paradosis αὐτόθι at the end of 3 would seem to refer back to πρὸς τὸν τεμαχοπώλην in 1, and thus implies that Euthynos is not the saltfish-seller himself but e. g. his employee. Herwerden, adopting suggestions by Bothe and Kock, suggested reading κἂν ἀγαθὸν τύχῃ / Εὔθυνος ⟨ὄψον⟩ ἀπολοπίζων, αὐτόθεν / χρηστόν τι, Παρμένων, κέλευσόν μοι τεμεῖν (“and if Euthynos happens to be scaling some good fish, tell him, Parmenon, to cut me a nice piece from that!”) in 2–4 instead. ἀγαθὸν is unconvincing as an emendation of the paradosis οὕτω and is unnecessary in any case. 46

Cf. Bothe 1844, who prints ἂν οὔπω τύχῃ / Εὔθυνος αὐτόθ᾿, ἀπολογισόμενος (“if Euthynos should happen not to be there, to make your plea (to him)”), and Bothe 1855, who prints ἂν οὕτω τύχῃ / Εὔθυνος ⟨εὔνους⟩ ἀπολοπίζειν (“if Euthynos should happen to be scaling (fish) in a good mood”).

Κουρίς (fr. 126)

107

The asyndetic series of imperatives in 4 is awkward, and Schweighäuser emended Athenaeus’ περίμεινον to the present participle περιμένων. The paradosis κέλευσον μὴ τεμεῖν (“tell him not to cut (it)!”) at the end of 4 would have to mean that the speaker wants this particular piece of fish, but prefers that it not be reduced to smaller steaks. This might be right, but Schweighäuser’s κέλευσόν μοι τεμεῖν (printed by Meineke and Edmonds, and advocated for by Kock; cf. fr. 134.1 (a supplement)) is such an easy change (an aural error dating to a time when οι and η had come to be pronounced alike), and improves the text so much, that there is little reason not to emend. Citation context From a brief collection of texts referring to saltfish-sellers (also Alex. fr. 77; Hyp. fr. 183 Jensen; Alex. frr. 6; 221, in that order) embedded in a larger discussion of saltfish (Ath. 3.116a–21c) that also preserves frr. 78; 184 (both at Ath. 3.118d). Interpretation τε in 1 is most easily taken to suggest that περίμενε is at least the second in a series of commands issued by a man planning a dinner party to a slave who will do the marketing, as in e. g. Ephipp. fr. 15. The text is insecure throughout, but 2–4 appear to suggest that the speaker is unwilling to settle for an average piece of saltfish and wants the addressee to wait about until a particularly fine one is on offer and then snatch it up. That the speaker is a seafood connoiseur is in any case apparent from his claim in 2 to be a regular customer of a particular τεμαχοπώλης and indeed to do business with him or his staff (see Text) on a first-name basis. Euthynos is not a common name (eight other 5th/4th-century examples in LGPN II), and LGPN (followed by PAA) identifies the man mentioned here (PAA 433922) with the dainty Euthynos of fr. 188.1–3. If this is right, Euthynos must not have been an ordinary market-vendor but a large-scale importer of saltfish like Chairephilos (for whom, see fr. 27.22 n.), although the implication of the text is that he handles his wares himself. As Kassel–Austin note, the cook named Euthynos (PAA 433925) at Euphr. fr. 1.9 (3rd century BCE) is certainly someone else. For saltfish, fr. 27.22 n. Here it seems to be pickled rather than dried, and the speaker imagines that the addressee will wait around as the transport-jars are unpacked and the individual slabs of fish are processed for sale. 1 τεμαχοπώλης is attested nowhere else. But a τέμαχος (literally “cut”) is specifically a slice or steak of saltfish rather than of fresh fish at fr. 179.2 (n.) and perhaps elsewhere as well (cf. frr. 188.6; 221.6), and τεμαχοπώλης is probably to be understood as equivalent to ταριχοπώλης (e. g. Nicostr. Com. fr. 5.4; Alex. fr. 15.14, both from the same section of Athenaeus), as Athenaeus’ introductory Εὐθύνου δὲ τοῦ ταριχοπώλου suggests. 2 φέρειν is here “to fetch” (cf. fr. 60.1) and thus by an easy extension of meaning “to fetch (home from the market)” and thus “to purchase”, as at Ephipp. fr. 15.9; cf. fr. 274.1 Text; Aristomen. fr. 7 βεμβράδας φέρων ὀβολοῦ (literally

108

Antiphanes

“fetching smelt for an obol”); and perhaps Pherecr. fr. 74.2 οὐκ ἰσχάδας οἴσεις; (literally “Fetch some dried figs!”). For οὕτω (obscure), see Text. 3 ἀπολοπίζω is < λοπίς (“scale”; e. g. Ar. V. 790; cf. fr. 133.3 n. on λέπω). The compound is attested elsewhere only at Ar. fr. 138 and Phryn. PS p. 44.13–14 ~ Phot. α 2548; cf. the simplex (also of preparing fish) at fr. 216.10. Fish appear to have been cleaned routinely by the seller (sc. because he is a professional and thus does a better job, on the one hand, and because the work is nasty and filthy, on the other), as commonly today; cf. Archipp. fr. 23.2–3; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 46.8; contrast Plaut. Aul. 398 (a task for a slave); Ter. Adelph. 376. Saltfish that had been scaled before being preserved—as the fish in question here has not—was called τιλτὸν τάριχος, literally “plucked saltfish” (Pl. Com. fr. 211.2; Nicostr. Com. fr. 5.5). For αὐτόθι (referring to the saltfish-seller’s stand), see Text. The word is attested already in Homer (e. g. Il. 9.617; Od. 6.245), but is absent from tragedy and found in lyric poetry only at Pi. N. 9.32, and in the classical period is largely restricted to prose with occasional appearances in comedy (fr. 164.3; Pherecr. fr. 89; Ar. Eq. 119; Ra. 274; Philem. fr. 49.4, and frequently in Menander, e. g. Sam. 110). 4 For χρηστός (a very general term of commendation) applied to objects and in particular to food, cf. frr. 36.3; 143.2 πλακοῦντα χρηστόν; 238.1 ὄψον χρηστόν with n.; 269; Ar. Pax 563 ἐμπολήσαντές τι χρηστὸν … ταρίχιον; Theophil. fr. 4.3 τευθὶς … χρηστή; Alex. fr. 15.8 (cabbage); Arched. fr. 3.10 (referring generally to food purchased in the marketplace); Philem. fr. 32.2 ὀψάρια χρηστά.

fr. 127 K.–A. (129 K.)

5

10

(Α.) ὁ μὲν ἀγρῷ τρεφόμενος θαλάττιον μὲν οὗτος οὐδὲν ἐσθίει πλὴν τῶν παρὰ γῆν, γόγγρον τιν’ ἢ νάρκην τιν’ ἢ θύννης τὰ πρὸς γῆς—(Β.) ποῖα; (Α.) τὰ κάτωθεν λέγω. (Β.) τούτους φάγοις ἄν; (Γ.) τοὺς γὰρ ἄλλους νενόμικα ἀνθρωποφάγους ἰχθῦς. (Β.) τὸ δεῖνα δ’ ἐσθίεις, † τουτι κακόνωτα πλοῖα; † (Γ.) Κωπᾷδας λέγεις; † ἀγρίως γε· παρὰ λίμνην † γὰρ γεωργῶν τυγχάνω. τὰ δ’ ἐγχέλεια γράψομαι λιποταξίου· κομιδῇ γὰρ οὐκ ἦν οὐδαμοῦ

1 μὲν Ath.ACE : μὲν ⟨ἐν⟩ Schweighäuser : δ᾿ ἐν Meineke 3 πλὴν Ath.CE : πρὶν A A 4 τὰ πρὸς γῆς. :: ποῖα; Cobet : τὰ πρὸς τῆς ποια Ath. : τὰ πρὸς τῇ :: ποῖα; Ath. Schweighäuser 6 δεῖνα δ’ ἐσθίεις Schweighäuser : δ᾿ ινα δ’ ἐσθιηις Ath.A τὸ δεῖνα δ’ ἐσθίεις; :: τὸ τί; (ἰχθῦς del.) Kaibel 7 τουτι κακόνωτα πλοῖα Ath.A : :: τί τὸ κακόν; :: ᾧ τὰ πλοῖα :: Dobree : ταυτὶ κακόνωτα χἀπαλά Iacobi : ταυτὶ μακρόνωτα. :: ποῖα; ::

Κουρίς (fr. 127)

109

Palmer : init. τὰ μαλακόνωτα Kaibel : λεῖα pro πλοῖα Naber : τὰ λειόνωτα ταῦτα Blaydes : post :: τὸ τί; :: τὰ Βοιωτῶν λοιπά; Kock 8 ἀγρίως γε Ath.A : :: ἔγνως Headlam ἀγρίως γε lac. esse stat. Wilamowitz παρὰ λίμνην γὰρ Ath.A : γὰρ del. Jacobs : παρὰ del. Dindorf 9 ἐγχέλεια Schweighäuser : ἐγχέλια Ath.ACE Eust. γράψομαι λιποταξίου Porson : γράφομαι λειποταξίου Ath.ACE Eust. 10 κομιδῇ γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ⟨οὐδὲν ἐνταῦθ᾿⟩ (vel ἐνθάδ᾿) οὐδαμοῦ Blaydes

5

10

(A.) Because he lives in the country, this guy eats no seafood except what’s found near land: a conger eel or an electric ray or the parts of a thynnis that are toward the land—(B.) What parts are those? (A.) I’m referring to the lower parts. (B.) You’d eat these fish? (C.) Yeah—I think of the other fish as man-eaters. (B.) And you eat whatchamacallit, † this here foul-backed ships? † (C.) Are you referring to Copaic ones (fem.)? † savagely in fact †; because my farm happens to be near a marsh. But I’m going to indict the eels for deserting the ranks; because they simply weren’t anywhere

Ath. 7.303f–4b τῆς θυννίδος τὸ οὐραῖον ἐπαινεῖ καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κουρίδι οὕτως· ——. τούτων τῶν ἰαμβείων ἔνια ἔστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ (fr. 24) καὶ ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ (fr. 12) ἢ Βουταλίωνι (fr. 69.10–12) Antiphanes in Kouris recommends the tail-section of the thynnis, as follows: ——. Some of these iambic lines can also be found in Akestria (fr. 24) and in Agroikos (fr. 12) or Boutaliôn (fr. 69.10–12)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

10

〈xlkl xl〉k|r lrkl klkl k|lk|l klkl llrl llk|l llkl llkl l|lk|r llkl llkl l|lk|l lrkl llrl llk|l klkl †llkklk|lk†|l llkl †kklkkkll†|lkl llkl klkl k|lkl rlkl rlkl l|lkl 〈xlkl〉

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–1805 IV.249–51; Jacobs 1809. 177–8; Porson 1812. 98; Dobree 1833. 316; Meineke 1839–1857 III.70–2; Meineke 1839–1857 III.70–2; Iacobi ap. Meineke 1839–1857 V.1.77; Cobet 1858. 129; Herwerden

110

Antiphanes

1864. 19; Naber 1880. 50; Kock 1884 II.63–4; Ellis 1885. 285; Palmer 1888. 301; Wilamowitz ap. Kaibel 1887–1889 II.170; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.169–70; Blaydes 1890. 70; Blaydes 1896. 108; Headlam 1899. 6 Text ἀγρῷ in 1 must be a dative of agent, which is normally used with the perfect or pluperfect passive (e. g. Ar. fr. 140 ταῖς πολιόχρωσι βεμβράσιν τεθραμμένη), although note Clearch. Com. fr. 2.2 τούτοις … τρέφεται τὸ πνεῦμα (literally “our breath is nourished by these”). Schweighäuser suggested dealing with the difficulty by writing ὁ μὲν ⟨ἐν⟩ ἀγρῷ τρεφόμενος (with ἐν understood to have been omitted by haplography), while Meineke proposed ὁ δ᾿ ἐν ἀγρῷ τρεφόμενος (in both cases “Because he is nourished in the country” vel sim.); cf. Ar. Eq. 293 ἐν ἀγορᾷ … τέθραμμαι; Th. 456 ἐν ἀγρίοισι τοῖς λαχάνοις … τραφείς; Ra. 234 ἐν λίμναις τρέφω, 729 τραφέντας ἐν παλαίστραις καὶ χοροῖς καὶ μουσικῇ, 1431b ἐν πόλει τρέφειν; Anaxandr. fr. 29.1 ἐν οἰκίᾳ τρέφειν; Anaxil. fr. 16.2 τρέφω … ἐν ἀγρῷ. But this would require that (C.) be someone’s dependent (see Moussy 1969, esp. 43–70; Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 226.1) and thus almost inevitably a slave, which adds an odd and unnecessary twist to the text. In 3, Ath.A’s πρίν (“before what’s found near land”) makes no sense, and the Epitome’s πλήν must be right. In 4, Athenaeus’ τὰ πρὸς τῆς ποια was corrected to τὰ πρὸς γῆς. :: ποῖα; (echoing and reworking τῶν παρὰ γῆν in 3) by Cobet; a majuscule error (Τ for Γ). Schweighäuser’s τὰ πρὸς τῇ :: ποῖα; assumes that (A.) pulls up short or is interrupted before he can say e. g. οὐρᾷ (thus Meineke), and is simultaneously less clever and further from the paradosis. In 6, Schweighäuser corrected the paradosis δ(ὲ) їνα to δεῖνα and restored ἐσθίεις for ἐσθιηις. τουτι κακόνωτα πλοῖα at the beginning of 7 in Ath.A has never been convincingly emended. – Dobree, who gave the end of 6 to (A.), suggested (Β.) τί τὸ κακόν; (Α.) ᾧ τὰ πλοῖα (“(B.) What the hell is this? (A.) That with which the boats —”), which is close to the paradosis but makes no obvious sense. – Iacobi, comparing Stratt. fr. 45.3 καὶ Κωπᾴδων ἁπαλῶν τεμάχη (“and steaks of soft Copaic (eels)”), and seemingly with the eel’s dorsal fin in mind, proposed (Β.) τὸ δεῖνα δ’, ἐσθίεις / ταυτὶ κακόνωτα χἀπαλά; (“(B.) Umm, uhh … Do you eat these foul-backed and soft things here?”), although elsewhere there is no δ(έ) when τὸ δεῖνα is used to stall this way (e. g. Ar. V. 524). – Palmer offered (Β.) ταυτὶ μακρόνωτα. (Γ.) ποῖα; (Α.) Κωπᾷδας λέγει (“(B.) Those long-backed fellows. (C.) What exactly? (A.) He means Copaic eels”);47 deictic iota would most naturally be taken to suggest that the eels were visible onstage. 47

Designations of speakers altered to match those in Kassel–Austin. Palmer’s (K.) to designate the speaker of the second half of 6 is apparently a typo for (A.).

Κουρίς (fr. 127)

111

– Kock suggested (Γ.) τὸ τί; (Β.) τὰ Βοιωτῶν λοιπά; (“(C.) What’s this?”, i. e. “What are you referring to?” “(B.) That which survives of the Boeotians”, with reference to the defeat of Thebes by Philip II at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE and the destruction of the city by Alexander a few years later), which is too far from the paradosis to be taken seriously and would also have to be very late in Antiphanes’ career (i. e. perhaps too late). – κακόνωτα looks in any case like a high-style compound, and Kaibel suggested that the line might originally have begun τὰ μαλακόνωτα (“the soft-backed ones”), while Blaydes conjectured τὰ λειόνωτα ταῦτα (“these smooth-backed ones”), Naber τὰ λευκόνωτα λεῖα (“the smooth white-backed ones”). (C.)’s response does not necessarily begin with Κωπᾷδας, which is merely where the text begins to make sense again. At the beginning of 8, Headlam’s ἔγνως (“You understood (what I meant)”; spoken by (B.)) for ἀγρίως γε in Ath.A is neither an easy nor an obvious emendation. 8 is hypermetrical, and Jacobs proposed deleting γὰρ, while Dindorf removed παρὰ (“my farm happens to be a marsh”, which must then be a self-deprecating joke). But the problem that remains at the beginning of the line means that neither suggestion can be regarded as compelling. The Kassel–Austin text lacks a stop of any sort at the end of 8. As noted in Interpretation, 9–10 do not follow easily after 6–8 if the subject there is already Copaic eels. Wilamowitz accordingly posited a lacuna after ἀγρίως γε in 8; one might just as easily be posited between 8 and 9. The corruption in both verses, however, makes it impossible to know what is being said and thus whether there is in fact a problem in the text. In 9, ἐγχέλια, γράφομαι and λειποταξίου in Ath.ACE Eust. are all metrically impossible, hence Schweighäuser’s ἐγχέλεια and Porson’s γράψομαι λιποταξίου. For ἐγχέλειον, cf. 45.1 (metrically guaranteed) Text. λειποταξίου for λιποταξίου is another example of confusion of epsilon-iota and iota, made easier in this case by assimilation of λιπο- to the present stem λείπω. Blaydes proposed supplementing 10 κομιδῇ γὰρ οὐκ ⟨οὐδὲν ἐνταῦθ᾿⟩ οὐδαμοῦ (“for there simply wasn’t anything anywhere here”) or κομιδῇ γὰρ οὐκ ⟨οὐδὲν ἐνθάδ᾿⟩ οὐδαμοῦ (“for there simply wasn’t anything anywhere there”), which does not improve the sense and is merely a guess in any case. Citation context From the discussion of the θύννις (“female tuna”) in the long, largely alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes up much of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and is probably drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. Epich. fr. 91; Cratin. fr. 171.49–50; Arist. fr. 206; Archestr. fr. 38; Antiph. fr. 179, in that order, are cited immediately before this, Hippon. fr. 36; Stratt. fr. 13, in that order, immediately afterward. Not all of the text is preserved in the Epitome, hence the variation between Ath.ACE and Ath.A in the critical apparatus.

112

Antiphanes

Eustathius knows the fragment from his own copy of the Epitome of Athenaeus and is not to be regarded as a separate witness to the text (as implicitly in Kassel– Austin). Interpretation (A.) and (B.) are having a conversation in (C.)’s presence about what (C.) is willing to eat. (C.) is an ἄγροικος (“rustic”; cf. 1, 8) with typically ignorant rustic prejudices against large fish (5–6 with n.) and what is perhaps intended to be understood as a crude, buffoonish sense of humor (9–10). The simplest explanation of 7–8 is that (C.) is a Boeotian, i. e. a non-Athenian character, since he has a farm near Lake Copais. (A.) already knows something of (C.)’s background and habits (1–4), but (B.) does not (4–7). (C.) is certainly a man; (A.) and (B.) need not be. Part of a discussion set in the city and preparing for a banquet in which (C.) will be introduced to some of the finer things in life, with (A.) the host for the party and (B.) a hired cook trying to work out the menu or a slave charged with doing the marketing? Cf. fr. 69, to which this scene has direct verbal connections (5–6 with n.), where the speaker seemingly comparable to (A.) here is a woman and perhaps a courtesan, and the third character (~ (B.) here) is her slave. Dobree, comparing fr. 126, thought that (B.) might be instead the saltfish-seller, and took (A.) for another rustic. 1 ὁ μέν suggests that in what follows the concerns of other guests—doubtless including and perhaps limited to (A.)—will be taken into account as well. If ἀγρῷ τρεφόμενος is right (see Text), it must mean ~ “since he is fed by the countryside”, i. e. “since he lives off of what the countryside produces”, meaning meat, cheese, fruit and vegetables, grain and honey—but generally no fish. 2 (A.) presumably intends θαλάττιον μὲν … οὐδέν to be balanced by a description of something that (C.) will eat. But (B.) interrupts in 4 and then brings (C.) into the conversation. 3 Both conger eels and electric rays can be found in shallow coastal waters. The main point of παρὰ γῆν, however, seems to be to set up the joke in 4. γόγγρον τιν(ά) For conger eel, fr. 27.12–14 n. νάρκην τιν(ά) For eating electric ray, cf. fr. 130.2 (steamed); Pl. Com. fr. 164 (stewed); Alex. fr. 38 (stuffed and broiled whole); Archestr. fr. 49 (stewed in olive oil, wine and herbs, with a bit of cheese grated on top) with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; in catalogues of food and the like elsewhere at Epich. fr. 52.1; Anaxandr. fr. 42.52; Mnesim. fr. 4.37; Timocl. fr. 11.7; Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.11. See in general Thompson 1947. 169–71; García Soler 2001. 154; Davidson 2002. 33 (“not good to eat”; the Greeks apparently disagreed). 4 The point of the joke—neither particularly clever nor particularly clear, and ignored by (B.)—is seemingly that the tail portion of the fish is “toward the land” because the lower part of e. g. a human being is; cf. Eup. fr. 159 (Kekrops’ “upper portion” was human as far as his buttocks, but his “lower portion” was that of a fish and indeed specifically of a thynnis).

Κουρίς (fr. 127)

113

Athenaeus implicitly treats the θύννα and the θυννίς (frr. 78.2 with n.; 179.1) as identical, as Archestratus does expressly at fr. 38.1–5, where it is also made clear that the tail portion was regarded as a delicacy: καὶ θύννης οὐραῖον ἔχειν, τὴν θυννίδα φωνῶ / τὴν μεγάλην, ἧς μητρόπολις Βυζάντιόν ἐστιν. / εἶτα τεμὼν αὐτὴν ὀρθῶς ὄπτησον ἅπασαν / ἁλσὶ μόνον λεπτοῖσι πάσας καὶ ἐλαίῳ ἀλείψας, / θερμά τ’ ἔδειν τεμάχη βάπτων δριμεῖαν ἐς ἅλμην (“Get the tail of a thynna as well; I mean the big thynnis, whose mother-city is Byzantion. Then cut it up properly and roast it all, after sprinkling it with fine-ground salt only and basting it with olive oil, and eat the steaks hot, dipping them into pungent brine”). For baffled ποῖα;, cf. fr. 200.5 ποῖον;; Men. Sam. 434, 452. For κάτωθεν in the sense “below” (not “from below”), e. g. Eup. frr. 115; 159.2 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Mnesim. fr. 4.20; Alex. fr. 133.3. 5–6 Cf. fr. 69.10–12 (Α.) τούτων φάγοις ἄν; (Β.) κἄν τις ἄλλος μικρὸς ᾖ· / τοὺς γὰρ μεγάλους τούτους ἅπαντας νενόμικα / ἀνθρωποφάγους ἰχθῦς, to which Athenaeus is probably referring when he says that “some of these iambic lines can also be found” in Boutaliôn. The implication is that the scene is a generic one and that Antiphanes was at least occasionally (routinely?) willing to recycle material. τούτους φάγοις ἄν; Addressed to (C.), with reference to the various items listed by (A.) in 3–4. For γάρ in the sense “(Yes;) for”, fr. 69.3–4 n. For ἀνθρωποφάγος, fr. 69.10–12 n. 6–7 Use of τὸ δεῖνα is a colloquial means of hemming and hawing (Moorhouse 1963. 23; Lowe 1973. 101; Chadwick 1996. 209–10; López Eire 1996. 114–16), here as if (B.) were at a loss for the proper term for the fish in question; cf. fr. 137 (the speaker momentarily forgets a slave’s name); Eup. frr. 260.19; 261.1; Ar. Ach. 1149; V. 524; Pax 268; Av. 648; Lys. 921, 926, 1168; Th. 620–2; Ra. 918; Henioch. fr. 4.3; Men. Dysc. 897; Pk. 335; Sam. 547; Strato Com. fr. 1.14. The corrupt τουτι κακόνωτα πλοῖα; may accordingly conceal an elaborate (highly poetic?; cf. fr. 55 n.) periphrasis punctured by (C.)’s Κωπᾷδας λέγεις;. The presence of δ’, at any rate, guarantees that τὸ δεῖνα is not to be taken alone (“umm … do you eat etc.?”), since when the phrase is used that way, there is no connective. 7–8 Κωπᾷδας Lake Kopais in Boiotia (fed by the Kephissos and Melas Rivers) was once the largest lake in Greece. Efforts were made to channel and control its waters already in the Mycenean period and apparently also in the time of Alexander “the Great” (Str. 9.406–7, 414–15; Knauss–Heinrich–Kalcyk 1984, esp. 167–242; Knauss 1987; cf. Lane 2016); the lake was finally drained in the second half of the 19th century and the area it occupied appropriated for agricultural purposes. ἔγχελυς is feminine, and it seems always to have been assumed that (C.) is referring to the famous Copaic eels (9 n.). This makes no sense in context, however, for 9–10 stand in contrast to what is being said here—(C.) eats the creatures described in the first half of 7 because his land allows him easy access to them, but no eels were to be found—and if Κωπᾷδας (ἐγχέλεις) were nonetheless in question here by some odd twist of the argument, τὰ δ’ ἐγχέλεια in 9 (rather than αὐτάς

114

Antiphanes

vel sim.) would be impossibly awkward. The alternative to this interpretation is to posit a lacuna in or after 8; see Text. For λέγεις; used thus, cf. fr. 57.8*; Ar. Ach. 424*; Nu. 768*; Ra. 124*; Pl. 396; Men. Dysc. 412. 9 τὰ δ’ ἐγχέλεια For Boiotian eels (often said to come specifically from Lake Kopais, and routinely presented as a delicacy), cf. frr. 191.1; 216.2–7; Ar. Ach. 880–94 with Olson 2002 on 880; Pax 1005; Lys. 35–6; Stratt. fr. 45; Eub. frr. 36.3; 64; Ephipp. fr. 15.6–7; Archestr. fr. 10.5–7 with Olson–Sens 2000 on vv. 1–2, 6; Matro fr. 1.40–5; Dorion and Agatharch. FGrH 86 F 5 ap. Ath. 7.297d; SEG XXXII 450.B31 (eel in a list of fish-prices from Hellenistic Boeotia) with Lytle 2010. For eels generally, fr. 45.1 n. γράψομαι λιποταξίου According to Poll. 8.43, a sailor who deserted his ship could be charged with λιποναύτιον, while a soldier who deserted the ranks could be charged with λιποτάξιον; cf. Ar. fr. 846; Pl. Com. fr. 7 with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; Lys. 14.5; Pl. Lg. 943d (something that occurs on campaign, and seemingly distinguished from running away when combat was already underway); D. 21.103 with MacDowell 1990 ad loc., 110, 166; 39.17; Aeschin. 2.148; Lycurg. Leocr. 147 (seemingly distinguished from ἀστρατεία, which is a simple failure to appear when drafted); Hamel 1998. The penalty for conviction was disenfranchisement. For γράφομαι in the sense “indict” (LSJ s. v. B.3), e. g. Ar. Pax 107; Av. 1052; Men. fr. 824; D. 45.4. 10 For κομιδῇ as an adverbial intensifier, fr. 239.2 n.

115

Κυβευταί (Kybeutai) “Gamblers”

Introduction Title For κυβευτής and cognates, see Kidd 2017 (arguing that “dice-players” etc. represents a too restricted translation, even if dice in particular were often used for gambling); Costanza 2019. 76–97, 186–93. For the generally bad reputation of gamblers, see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 74–6; Olson 2017 on Eup. fr. 99.85, and in general Fittà 1998. 110–19; Campagner 2005, esp. 83–7 (with particular attention to Aristophanes); Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 372 (with further bibliography). Note also fr. 92 with n. In Plautus, dice-playing routinely goes on at parties, generally in a courtesan’s house (Asin. 779–80, 904–6; Bacch. 71; Capt. 72–3; Curc. 355–6; Miles 164–5; Most. 309). For titles referring to what must have been the favorite or most distinctive activity of the name-character or -characters (somewhat different from an occupation), cf. Μοιχοί, Παιδεραστής, Παράσιτος and Παροιμιαζόμενος on the one hand, and Ἄσωτοι on the other. Amphis, Eubulus and Alexis also wrote comedies entitled Κυβευταί, while the Roman poet Pomponius (1st century BCE) wrote an Atellan farce entitled Aleones; the repeated use of the plural, with no examples of the singular, is striking. See in general Arnott 1996. 347 (with further bibliography). Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 128 K.–A. (130 K.) ῥίσκος ἦν ὃν εἶπεν It was a rhiskos which he mentioned Poll. 10.137 παρὰ δὲ τοῖς νεωτέροις ῥίσκοι, ὡς Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κυβευταῖς· —— but in the more recent poets (they are called) rhiskoi, for example Antiphanes in Kybeutai: ——

Meter Probably iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈xlk〉l k|lk|l x〈lkl〉

116

Antiphanes

Citation context From a collection of words having to do in one way or another with cloth or clothing, and in this section with clothing-storage in particular (ἵνα δὲ ἀποτίθενται αἱ ἐσθῆτες), from the long catalogue of σκευαί of all sorts that makes up Pollux Book 10. Fr. 40 is preserved shortly after this. Poll. 7.79 (citing Men. fr. 242) and 7.159 are probably from the same source. Interpretation ῥίσκος ἦν ὃν εἶπεν is probably a colloquial way of saying “what he mentioned was a rhiskos”. ῥίσκοι (a loan-word; source uncertain), “storage boxes”, are mentioned also at Posidipp. Com. fr. 11.2 (cited in the same section of Pollux); Men. Sik. 389; Phylarch. FGrH 81 F 10; Hsch. θ 48 (rhiskoi made of leather); cf. Latin riscus (Ter. Eun. 754 with Maltby 1985. 118). LSJ s. v. “esp. for plate or money” seemingly reflects the fact that in the Hellenistic period ῥισκοφυλάκιον and ῥισκοφύλαξ were occasionally used to mean “treasury” and “treasurer”, respectively.

117

Κύκλωψ (Kyklôps) “The Cyclops”

Introduction Discussion Holland 1884. 212–18; Webster 1952. 14; Schiassi 1955. 116–18; Edmonds 1959. 223 n. d; Gelli 2008; Olson 2014b Title and Contents Epicharmus and the tragic poet Aristias also wrote plays entitled Κύκλωψ, both of which reworked the story of Odysseus’ encounter with the monster in Odyssey 9, as did Euripides’ homonymous satyr-play and seemingly Cratinus’ Ὀδυσσῆς (for which, see Nesselrath 1990. 236–9; Bakola 2009. 234–46; Telò 2014 (eccentric)) as well. Callias Comicus wrote a Κύκλωπες staged in 434 BCE, about which nothing substantial can be said. What little survives of Antiphanes’ comedy suggests that it was dedicated—or dedicated at least in part—to a different incident, first attested in Philoxenos of Cythera’s Cyclops or Galateia (PMG 815–24; early 4th century), in which Polyphemos fell in love with the sea-nymph Galatea; see Dörrie 1968; Troiani 2018. This was probably the subject of Alexis’ Γαλάτεια (see Arnott 1996. 139–41) and perhaps of Nicochares’ Γαλάτεια as well (thus Meineke 1839–1857 I.254). For the figure of the Cyclops in comedy and satyr play, see in general Mastromarco 1998; Casolari 2003. 127–68. Frr. 130–1 look like arrangements for a wedding feast, with contributions from both sides of the match. For Cyclopes, see Glenn 1971; Mondi 1983; Rautenback 1984; TouchefeuMeynier, LIMC V.1.154–5; Aguirre–Buxton 2020. For mythological travesty, cf. Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Καινεύς, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; and see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 129 K.–A. (131 K.) κέρμα γάρ τι τυγχάνω τι Poll.CL : om. Poll.FS vel ⟨φέρων〉 Holland

τυγχάνω 〈λαχών⟩ vel ⟨λαβών〉 Meineke : ⟨ζητῶν〉 Kaibel : ⟨ἔχων〉

because I happen to … a coin

118

Antiphanes

Poll. 9.88 κέρματα ἀλλ’ οὐ κέρμα λέγειν Ἀττικόν,48 παρὰ μέντοι τοῖς Δωριεῦσι καὶ τὸ κέρμα ἔστιν εἰρημένον· εὕροι δ’ ἄν τις αὐτὸ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Ἄμφιδος Ἀμπελουργῷ (fr. 5)· ——, καὶ παρ’ Ἀντιφάνει ἐν τῷ Κύκλωπι· —— Attic style is to say kermata (pl.) rather than kerma (sing.), although kerma is said in Doric authors. One could also find it in Attic authors, for example in Amphis’ Ampelourgos (fr. 5): ——, and in Antiphanes in Kyklôps: —— Poll. 7.170 κέρματα δὲ πολλῶν πληθυντικῶς εἰρηκότων, κέρμα ἑνικῶς Ἄμφις εἴρηκεν ἐν Ἀμπελουργῷ (fr. 5) καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κύκλωπι While many authorities use kermata in the plural, Amphis uses kerma in the singular in Ampelourgos (fr. 5), as does Antiphanes in Kyklôps: ——

Meter Probably iambic trimeter. e. g. 〈xlk〉l k|lkl kl〈kl〉 Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 III.74; Holland 1884. 215–16; Kaibel ap. Kassel– Austin; Mangidis 2003. 54–7 Text τι is needed for the meter but not the sense, and the word has been omitted from one family of manuscripts of Pollux either deliberately (to condense the text) or accidentally before τυ-γχάνω. A participle to govern κέρμα … τι is wanted with τυγχάνω, and the supplements recorded in the apparatus (“I happen to have been allotted” or “to have got” Meineke; “I happen to have” or “to be carrying” Holland; “I happen to be seeking” Kaibel) are exempli gratia attempts to fill out what can, on the metrical scheme adopted here, be imagined as the end of the line. Citation context Poll. 9.88 is part of a discussion of words for coins and associated vocabulary, while the passage from Poll. 7.170 is a passing comment in a treatment of terms associated with τραπεζίτης (“banker”) and ἀργυραμοιβός (“money-changer”). The citation of the same fragments of Amphis and Antiphanes in both places (although with the original text omitted in one case) leaves no doubt that both passages go back to a single source. Interpretation Most easily understand as an explanation of some previous remark, hence γάρ. κέρμα (< κείρω, “shear,49 crop, clip”) is literally “a snippet” vel sim. (cf. Emp. 31 B 101.1 D.–K.) and thus “a bit (of silver), a coin”; colloquial 5th/4th-century

48 49

Papachrysostomou 2016. 45 (Citation context for Amphis fr. 5) omits κέρματα ἀλλ’ and thus misunderstands what Pollux is saying. Perhaps a cognate.

Κύκλωψ (fr. 130)

119

vocabulary, probably much more common in everyday spoken Attic than in the surviving literary sources. Despite Pollux (i. e. Pollux’ source), comparing the use of χρῆμα/χρήματα, on the one hand, and of ἀργύριον/ἀργύρια, on the other, κέρμα seems to be used just as often in the singular (also e. g. Theopomp. Com. fr. 31.2; Eub. frr. 67.7 = 82.7; Alex. fr. 133.7) as in the plural (e. g. Ar. Av. 1108; Pl. 379; Eub. fr. 82.1). Poll. 9.89 specifies, however, that his rule applies only to οἱ ἀρχαῖοι Ἀττικοί, and the singular is not in fact attested before the 4th century. Note also the diminutive κερμάτιον (in comedy at Philippid. fr. 23.2; Men. Her. 7).

fr. 130 K.–A. (132 K.)

5

ἔστω δ’ ἡμῖν κεστρεὺς τμητός, νάρκη πνικτή, πέρκη σχιστή, τευθὶς σακτή, συνόδων ὀπτός, γλαύκου προτομή, γόγγρου κεφαλή, βατράχου γαστήρ, θύννου λαγόνες, βατίδος νῶτον, κέστρας ὀσφύς, † ψήττας κισχος † μαινίς, καρίς, τρίγλη, φυκίς· τῶν τοιούτων μηδὲν ἀπέστω

1 ἡμῖν Ath.A : ὑμῖν Ath.CE τμητός Porson : ὑμήττιος Ath.ACE : νῆστις Schweighäuser 7 ψηττας κισχος Ath.A : ψήττας (debuit -ης) ἰξύς Porson : ψήττα, ξίφιος Meineke : ψήττα, σκίνδος Kock : fort. ψήττης ἰσχίον 8 μαινίς Ath.CE : μενις Ath.A

5

Let’s have a sliced gray mullet, a steamed electric ray, a butterflied perch, a stuffed squid, a roasted sea-bream, the front half of a glaukos, the head of a conger eel, the belly of a fishing-frog, the flanks of a tuna, the back of a ray, the tail of a spet, † a flounder’s [corrupt] † a sprat, a shrimp, a red mullet, a phykis-wrasse! Let no fish of this sort be absent!

Ath. 7.295f Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Κύκλωπι ὑπερακοντίζων τὸν τένθην Ἀρχέστρατόν (test. 8) φησιν· —— Antiphanes in Kyklôps outdoes the glutton Archestratos (test. 8) when he says: ——

120

Antiphanes

Meter Anapaestic dimeter.

5

llll | llll llll | llll llll | rlll llrl | llrl rlll | llrl rlll | llll † llll † llll | llll llll | lrll

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–1805 IV.296; Porson 1812. 96; Meineke 1839– 1857 III.72–3; Bothe 1844. 28; Kock 1884 II.65; Schiassi 1955. 117; Pretagostini 1987. 247–8; Nesselrath 1990. 273; Mangidis 2003. 50–1; Gelli 2008. 248–50; Orth 2014b. 1019 Text Forms of ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς (pronounced alike in the Byzantine period) are routinely confused in manuscripts. Editors routinely print Ath.A’s ἡμῖν in 1, allowing the fragment to be understood as spoken by either the Cyclops or Galateia; see Interpretation. But the Epitome’s ὑμῖν (as in fr. 131.1, although see Text there) might just as easily be right, in which case this is a suggestion by a third party (“Might you have ….!”). Further on in 1, the paradosis ὑμήττιος (“Hymettian”; cf. fr. dub. 330.4 = Eub. fr. 18.4) is unmetrical and was interpreted by Porson as a garbled version of τμητός. Gray mullets are often described as “starving” (e. g. fr. 136 with n.; Ar. fr. 159; Amips. fr. 1.3; Anaxandr. fr. 35.8; Alex. fr. 258 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Plaut. Pers. 59–60), hence Schweighäuser’s νῆστις. But this is a more difficult emendation, and the adjectives that follow in 2–3 all have to do with how the fish is prepared for cooking rather than its inherent character. In 7, Ath.A’s ψηττας κισχος is nonsense, and the lack of accentuation shows that the scribe was aware of the problem, as again with μενις for the Epitome’s μαινίς in 8. What is wanted is either (a) genitive ψήττης + a word for a body part, matching 4–6, hence Porson’s ψήττας ἰξύς (i. e. ψήττης ἰξύς, “the waist of a flounder”) οr perhaps better ψήττης ἰσχίον (“the haunch of a flounder”);50 or (b) two fish-names in the nominative, matching 8, hence Meineke’s ψήττα, ξίφιος (“a flounder, a swordfish”) and Kock’s much less likely ψήττα, σκίνδος (“a flounder, a skindos”).51 50

51

Kassel–Austin also record Bothe’s ψήττης κύσθος (misaccented κυσθός in their apparatus). Bothe himself took this to mean “a flounder’s anus” (podex), although it ought actually to mean “a flounder’s cunt”; see Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 247.4. But the sense is in any case too absurd to deserve notice, especially given the lack of any other obvious obscenity in the passage. σκίνδος is not attested elsewhere. Anaxandr. fr. 28.4 has diminutive σκινδάριον (a hapax), but Kassel–Austin treat the verse as corrupt and it offers a dubious basis for

Κύκλωψ (fr. 130)

121

In 8, Ath.A’s garbled and accordingly unaccented μενις (see above on 7) is a simple aural error for the Epitome’s μαινίς. Citation context From a large collection of material (Ath. 7.295b–7c) having to do with the glaukos (see Interpretation on v. 4) and / or the mythological figure Glaukos preserved in the long, largely alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes up much of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and that is probably drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. Also preserved in this section of Athenaeus are Epich. fr. 44; Numen. SH 571; Archestr. fr. 21; Antiph. frr. 191; 221.1–8; Eub. fr. 43; Anaxandr. fr. 31; Amphis frr. 16; 35, in that order, before this, and Nausicr. fr. 1.1–5, immediately after this. For Archestratus, to whom the speaker of this fragment is compared in Athenaeus, see Olson–Sens 2000. Interpretation A catalogue of fish for a proposed banquet. Kassel–Austin follow Meineke in identifying these as Cyclopis verba (“Cyclops’ words”), with the monster presumably addressing Galatea and suggesting items she might supply from her realm for their wedding feast. The thesis gets some support from the fact that a number of the anatomical terms used in 4–6 for the parts of the fish the speaker would like to see served appear better suited to four-footed creatures like those with which Polyphemos must have been most familiar. But these might just as easily be the words e. g. of Galatea herself, who proposes fish as part of the wedding banquet to match her partner’s proposal of sheep and goats and cheese of every sort in fr. 131 (in the same meter), using language that will make easy sense for him. Or perhaps this is instead a suggestion by a friend or subordinate of the Cyclops who will also participate in the meal and wants to contribute to it (and see Text on 1 ἡμῖν). 1 ἔστω δ’ ἡμῖν is resumed in 9 τῶν τοιούτων μηδὲν ἀπέστω, with τῶν τοιούτων expanding the compass of the demand to include not just the fish that have been listed but any that might resemble them. The first part of the catalogue describes how the fish in question are to be handled or prepared (1–3), the second which parts of them are to be consumed (4–6), these now being being large creatures that cannot simply be cooked whole in a pan. The pace increases at the end via a series of four unadorned fish-names (8). 1 The κεστρεύς (“gray mullet”) appears in catalogues of seafood and the like at e. g. fr. 216.10 (grilled and sprinkled with grated silphium) with n.; Archipp. fr. 12 with Miccolis 2018 ad loc.; Philyll. fr. 12.3; Anaxandr. fr. 42.47 (stewed); Anaxil. fr. 20.1; Ephipp. fr. 12.8; Henioch. fr. 3.3; Mnesim. fr. 4.45; Alex. fr. 16.8–10 (on sale in the marketplace at an outrageous price) with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Archestr. fr. 43.1 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; Matro fr. 1.59 with Olson–Sens 1999 ad loc. See in general frr. 136 with n.; 192.3, 5 (a riddle); Thompson 1947. 108–10; García Soler 2001. 166–8; Davidson 2002. 140–4.

emendation here.

122

Antiphanes

τμητός i. e. “cut into steaks” (τεμάχη; cf. frr. 131.9 (of cheese); 179.2 with n.; 216.2–3 ἔγχελυς Βοιωτία / τμηθεῖσα, “a Boiotian eel cut into steaks”). 2 νάρκη πνικτή For the electric ray, fr. 127.3 n. For the sense of πνικτός, fr. 1.4 n. πέρκη The sea-perch or comber, also in catalogues of seafood and the like at Epich. frr. 43; 86; Philyll. fr. 12.3; Anaxandr. frr. 28.2 (diminutive); 42.50; Alex. fr. 115.13 (fried on a têganon) with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Ephipp. fr. 12.2; Mnesim. fr. 4.37; Matro fr. 1.51. Cf. fr. 192.2 (part of a riddle), 4 (a proverb), and see in general Thompson 1947. 195–7; García Soler 2001. 177; Davidson 2002. 73. σχιστή is literally “split”, but is probably a reference to butterflying, i. e. the removal of the backbone, ribs and fins of the fish so as to create more room for stuffing (3 n.). 3 τευθὶς σακτή Squid appears in banquet catalogues and the like also at e. g. fr. 216.20 (seemingly grilled) with n.; Pherecr. frr. 50.3; 137.10; Ar. Eq. 929–30; fr. 333.3; Metag. fr. 6.6 with Pellegrino 1998 ad loc.; Anaxandr. fr. 42.46; Eub. frr. 14.8; 75.4; 109.2; Ephipp. frr. 3.9; 12.6; 15.4; Theophil. fr. 4.3; Mnesim. fr. 4.41; Archestr. fr. 55.1, and is also stuffed at Alex. fr. 84 (corrupt) with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.15 τευθὶς ὠνθυλευμένη. See in general Thompson 1947. 260–1; García Soler 2001. 139–40; Davidson 2002. 211 (“ideal for stuffing”). σακτός (< σάττω) is attested only here and at Poll. 6.78 (the name of a cake);52 but cf. fr. 221.8 n.; Eup. fr. 477 σάξας (“stuffing full”), and for other references to “stuffing” whole animals Alex. fr. 38 (electric ray); Diph. fr. 90.1–2 (a lamb). συνόδων ὀπτός For the sea-bream, fr. 45.2 n. 4 γλαύκου προτομή The γλαῦκος is a large fish similar to a shark or dogfish, although Aristotle claims that it has anatomical features that sharks and dogfish lack (HA 508b13–25); no precise identification is possible. See in general Thompson 1947. 48; García Soler 2001. 197–8. For γλαῦκος as a delicacy, cf. frr. 77.2 (the head); 221.1–2 (a small one stewed in brine); Cratin. fr. 336; Ar. fr. 380.2; Amphis fr. 22; Axionic. fr. 6.14 (a stewed steak); Philem. fr. 82.20–1; adesp. com. fr. 1146.1; in other catalogues of foodstuffs and the like at Epich. frr. 44; 87; 164; Cratin. fr. 171.50; Amphis fr. 16; Alex. fr. 115.8; Anaxipp. fr. 1.40. προτομή (the second element is < τέμνω) is first attested here and at Philox. Leuc. PMG 836d.1, where the reference is to a drinking vessel shaped like an animal’s head. γόγγρου κεφαλή For the conger eel, fr. 27.12–14 n. For eating fishheads (a delicacy), fr. 45.2 n. 5 βατράχου γαστήρ The angler-fish or fishing-frog, also called the ἁλιεύς or “fisherman” because of the way it uses an adapted dorsal fin to lure smaller fish near its mouth (cf. Arist. HA 620b13–19; Opp. H. 2.86–106; Ael. NA 9.24; Plu. Mor. 978d), is included in banquet catalogues and the like elsewhere at Anaxandr. fr. 42.50; Mnesim. fr. 4.37; Archestr. fr. 48 (with specific reference to its γαστρίον).

52

σακτός at Eup. fr. 476 is a different word (“strained [wine]”).

Κύκλωψ (fr. 131)

123

See in general Thompson 1947. 28–9; García Soler 2001. 194; Davidson 2002. 168 (“large and grotesque … The tail is good to eat—firm, white and lobster-like. The rest of the fish is not usually seen in fishmongers’ shops”). In culinary contexts, a γαστήρ is usually a cow’s stomach that has been stuffed (cf. fr. 221.8 n.) and baked (e. g. Ar. Nu. 409), but cf. Eub. fr. 63.6 γαστήρ τε λαγώ (“and a hare’s stomach”), where a cut of meat is again clearly in question. θύννου λαγόνες For tuna, fr. 78.2 n. 6 βατίδος νῶτον The βατίς (also in catalogues of seafood and the like at e. g. fr. 221.5; Ar. fr. 333.4; Call. Com. fr. 6.1; Sannyr. fr. 3; Metag. fr. 6.4; Anaxandr. fr. 42.51; Ephipp. fr. 22.2 (cut into steaks); Timocl. fr. 3.1) is a ray or skate of some sort. See in general Thompson 1947. 26–8; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 50.1; García Soler 2001. 154–6; Davidson 2002. 33–6. κέστρας For the spet, fr. 97.2 n. ὀσφύς (“rump”) is a particularly odd word for part of a fish; see initial n. 7 A ψήττα is a sole or flounder; mentioned in catalogues of seafood and the like at e. g. fr. 209.3; Anaxandr. fr. 42.51; Ephipp. fr. 12.6; Henioch. fr. 3.3; Mnesim. fr. 4.42; Alex. fr. 115.12. See in general Thompson 1947. 294–5; García Soler 2001. 193; Davidson 2002. 160–4. 8 For the μαινίς, fr. 27.5 n. καρίς Shrimp are included in catalogues of seafood and the like at e. g. Ar. fr. 333.2; Cratin. Jun. fr. 13; Ephipp. fr. 12.6; Mnesim. fr. 4.41; Ophelio fr. 1; Alex. fr. 115.13. See in general Thompson 1947. 103–4; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 26.2; García Soler 2001. 141–2; Davidson 2002. 170–6. For the τρίγλη, fr. 27.10 n. The φυκίς (a feminine form of the much less common masculine φύκης) is also mentioned in catalogues of seafood and the like at Anaxandr. fr. 42.49; Ephipp. fr. 12.3; Mnesim. fr. 4.38; Alex. fr. 115.12 with Arnott 1996 ad loc. See in general Thompson 1947. 276–8; García Soler 2001. 186; Davidson 2002. 109–12.

fr. 131 K.–A. (133 K.)

5

τῶν χερσαίων δ’ ὑμῖν ἥξει παρ’ ἐμοῦ ταυτί· βοῦς ἀγελαῖος, τράγος ὑλιβάτης, αἲξ οὐρανία, κριὸς τομίας, κάπρος ἐκτομίας, ὗς οὐ τομίας, δέλφαξ, δασύπους, ἔριφοι 〈yl〉 τυρὸς χλωρός, τυρὸς ξηρός, τυρὸς κοπτός, τυρὸς ξυστός, τυρὸς τμητός, τυρὸς πηκτός

124

Antiphanes

3 τράγος Ath.A : ταῦρος Ath.CE ὑλιβάτης 1 ὑμῖν Ath.ACE : ἡμῖν Nesselrath A Casaubon : ὑλιβάτας Ath. : ὑληβάτης Ath.CE : ἠλιβάτας Eust. 6 e. g. 〈δορκάς⟩ Holland 9 πηκτός Ath.ACE : κνηστός Halbertsma ex Eust.

5

But of terrestial animals will come to you (pl.) from me the following: a cow from my herd, a mud-trodding he-goat, a heavenly she-goat, a castrated ram, a castrated boar, an uncastrated pig, a sow, a hare, kids … fresh cheese, dried cheese, minced cheese, grated cheese, sliced cheese, cottage cheese

Ath. 9.402d–e τὰ δὲ παρὰ τοῖς κωμῳδιοποιοῖς λεγόμενα δεῖπνα ἡδίστην ἀκοὴν παρέχει τοῖς ὠσὶ μᾶλλον ἢ τῇ φάρυγγι, ὥσπερ τὰ παρὰ Ἀντιφάνει μὲν ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ (fr. 21)· ——. ἐν δὲ Κύκλωπί φησι· —— The dinner parties described in the comic poets offer more pleasure to one’s ears than to one’s gullet, as for example the passage in Antiphanes in Akestria (fr. 21): ——. And in Kyklôps he says: ——

Meter Anapaestic dimeter (1, 3–9) and monometer (2).

5

llll | llll rlll lrll | rlrl llrl | llrl rlrl | llrl e. g. llrl | rl〈cyl〉 llll | llll llll | llll llll | llll

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 687; Holland 1884. 213–15; Kock 1884 II.65; Halbertsma 1896. 67–8; Nesselrath 1990. 273 n. 87; Mangidis 2003. 50–3; Olson 2007. 130–1 (C6); Gelli 2008. 250–2; Orth 2014b. 1019 Text In 1, Nesselrath n. 87 argued for ἡμῖν (“to us”)53 in place of the paradosis ὑμῖν (“to you (pl.)”). Confusion of forms of ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς is so ubiquitous in manuscripts (e. g. frr. 130.1; 185.2, both also from Athenaeus) that this barely de53

Holland and Kock claim the reading is already found Ath.C, but the reading there is also ὑμῖν.

Κύκλωψ (fr. 131)

125

serves to be described as an emendation. Adoption of Nesselrath’s ἡμῖν nonetheless amounts to rewriting the fragment to make it fit the one thing modern scholars tend to assume that we know about Kyklôps, viz. that it centered on the love-affair of Polyphemus and Galateia. Put another way, although this interpretation of Kyklôps may be correct (see the general Introduction to the play), the argument for emendation here is circular, and ὑμῖν should be retained. ὑλιβάτης in 3 is Casaubon’s correction of ὑλιβάτας (with Doric alpha, which is not wanted) in Ath.A and ὑληβάτης (unmetrical) in Ath.CE. The word is attested elsewhere only at Anaxil. fr. 12.1 δέλφακας ὑλιβάτας (“mud-trodding hogs”), where it is again a conjecture by Casaubon, in that case for ὑλιβάτους (Ath.A; as if from ὑλίβατος) and ὑληβάτ(ας) (Ath.CE; as if from ὑληβάτης, and thus once again unmetrical); see Interpretation. Eustathius has instead ἠλιβάτας, i. e. ἠλιβάτης (glossed “haunting the heights” in LSJ s. v. ἠλιβάτας), which might either be drawn from his copy of the Epitome or be his own emendation, and which seems to recall Homeric ἠλίβατος (“high, steep”). The upsilon in ὗλις (“mud”), whence apparently ὑλιβάτης (see Interpretation), is long, and the Epitome’s ταῦρος (“bull”) for Ath.A’s τράγος is accordingly impossible unless the adjective is more drastically emended, which is pointless. The name of another animal has apparently been lost somewhere in 6, although not necessarily where the lacuna is marked in the text as printed here and in Kassel–Austin (following Meineke and Kock). Holland’s ⟨δορκάς⟩ (“roe deer”) is merely an exempli gratia supplement. There is no obvious difference between τυρὸς χλωρός (“green cheese”, i. e. fresh cheese) in 7 and τυρὸς πηκτός (literally “curdled cheese”, i. e. milk that has been curdled and drained to produce cream cheese) at the end of 9. The latter also seems out of place after 8–9 “minced cheese, grated cheese, sliced cheese”. Halbertsma therefore suggested emending πηκτός to κνηστός (“diced” vel sim.; cf. fr. dub. 323 with n.). The alleged error is not an obvious one, and it seems better to assume that the catalogue is less tightly organized and thought out than it might have been. Citation context Preserved at the end of a catalogue of meats along with fr. 21 (quoted immediately before this) and Mnesim. fr. 4 (quoted immediately after this, and followed by Anaxipp. fr. 1; Dionys. Com. fr. 2; Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1; Demetr. Com. fr. 1, which are seemingly all from the collection of mostly long comic fragments having to do with cooks another section of which is preserved at Ath. 9.381c–3f). Eustathius repeatedly cites portions of the fragment (vv. 3–4 at p. 1753.22; vv. 4–5 at p. 1524.1454; vv. 7–9 at pp. 872.11; 1524.1355; vv. 8–9 at p. 872.11). But he is drawing the material from his own copy of the Epitome, as a consequence of which he ought not to be treated as an independent witness to the text, as implicitly in Kassel–Austin. 54 55

Miscited as p. 1524.15 in Kassel–Austin. Miscited as p. 1524.14 in Kassel–Austin.

126

Antiphanes

Interpretation Kock took the speaker to be Polyphemos, who is offering to contribute animals and other products from his flocks and fields to the wedding banquet to match Galatea’s seafood; cf. fr. 130 (in the same meter) with n. But if the paradosis ὑμῖν is retained in 1 (see Text), either the speaker is someone else—presumably a friend of the couple or a relative of the groom, since he wants to contribute to the banquet—or the Cyclops is addressing e. g. Galatea and the other sea-nymphs. The catalogue of animals in 3–6 goes from large to small (a cow > three kinds of sheep or goats and three kinds of pigs > a hare, kids and something else) and is followed in 7–9 by bathos of a different sort in the list of six different styles of cheese. The repeated references in 4–5 to the castration-status of the animals in question stand in sharp contrast to the high-style adjectives employed in 3–4, and along with the fixation on cheese in the final three verses suggest the perspective of an unsophisticated herdsman, regardless of whether the speaker is Polyphemos himself or one of his allies. Holland compared the Cyclops’ attempt to win Galatea with a description of the gifts he would give her at Ov. Met. 13.832; better perhaps Met. 13.821–30, which focus on his flocks. 1 χερσαῖος is attested only here in the comic poets, and χέρρος / χέρσος (“dry land”) is not found in comedy at all, suggesting that both words seemed generally too formal for the genre; cf. 3 n., 4 n. The adjective (first attested at A. Th. 64) is generally used specifically to distinguish a thing or creature naturally associated with the land from one associated with the air or water (e. g. Hdt. 2.123.2 τὰ χερσαῖα καὶ τὰ θαλάσσια καὶ τὰ πετεινά; Pl. Lg. 704b πότερον ἐπιθαλαττίδιος ἔσται τις ἢ χερσαία), which tends to support the notion that this fragment is to be associated with fr. 130 as describing a different category of food. For forms of ἥκω used in reference to foods or similar goods that “arrive” at the table, e. g. frr. 180.2; 200.9; Ar. fr. 546; Ephipp. fr. 8.3; Nicoch. fr. 14.2; Alex. fr. 137; Diph. fr. 14.1, and cf. fr. 172a.2 ἦλθε with n. 3 βοῦς ἀγελαῖος is a Homeric echo (e. g. Il. 11.729 βοῦν ἀγελαίην; 23.846 βοῦς ἀγελαίας; Od. 22.299 βόες ὣς ἀγελαῖαι; cf. S. Ai. 175 βοῦς ἀγελαίας). The adjective (< ἀγέλη, “herd”) is attested elsewhere in comedy only at Eup. fr. 404 (with Olson 2014 ad loc.); Pl. Com. fr. 78, in the sense “run of the mill, ordinary”. For bulls as sacrificial victims in comedy (extraordinary offerings and thus a mark of the lavish nature of the preparations imagined here), see fr. 227.7 n., and in general fr. 22.2 n. Anaxilas and Antiphanes must have been rough contemporaries, since they both mention the glutton Matôn (fr. 117 with n.). The fact that both poets use the otherwise unattested adjective ὑλιβάτης of animals, and that Anaxilas (fr. 12.1) does so in lyric, thus suggests a common source (dithyramb?) to which both are referring, and marks this as a further attempt at grandiloquence. Montanari s. v. takes the adjective to be < ὕλη (“woods”; cf. ὑλοβάτης in epigram), although it ought instead to be < ὗλις (“mud”; thus LSJ s. v., which nonetheless favors Eustathius’ ἠλιβάτας here). Why a goat would be described as “mud-trodding” is unclear,

Κύκλωψ (fr. 131)

127

but perhaps the point depends on knowledge of the high-style original (above), which is now lost to us. For the formation, cf. ἐλειοβάτης (“marsh-trodding”; A. Pers. 39 (anapests)); ὀρειβάτης (“mountain-trodding”; S. Ph. 955); ὀρεσσιβάτης (“mountain-trodding”; S. OT 1100 (lyric)). 4 αἲξ οὐρανία The “heavenly goat” is properly Amaltheia (or Amaltheia’s goat; see fr. 108.3 n.). The adjective does not appear to be used elsewhere to mean “of the sort one finds in heaven”, i. e. “of exceptional quality”, which is to say that the speaker is deliberately playing on the name of the mythological character. For αἴξ (also fr. 55.8), cf. not only diminutive αἰγίδιον (fr. 21.4) but e. g. αἰπόλος (“goatherd”; e.g. Eup. fr. 1.3), αἰπόλιον (“flock of goats”; e.g. Il. 11.679), αἰγίς (“goatskin, aegis”; e. g. Ar. Nu. 602) and αἰγίβοτος (“browsed by goats”; e. g. Od. 4.606). 4–5 τομίας (“castrated”; cognate with τέμνω, “cut”) is first attested here and in Aristotle (HA 575b1 (of bulls), 578a33, b3 (both of pigs)),56 while ἐκτομίας is found already in Herodotus (3.92.1; 6.9.4, in both cases of boys; subsequently at [Arist.] Pr. 897b27 (of bulls)). “Uncastrated” is normally ἔνορχος / ἔνορχις / ἔνορχης (e. g. Il. 23.147; Ar. Lys. 661/2), which is metrically impossible here and for which the awkward οὐ τομίας accordingly stands in. 5–6 κάπρος (“boar”) is a more specific term than ὗς (“pig”; feminine at e. g. fr. 124.3 ταῖς ὑσίν; Ar. V. 36 ἐμπεπρημένης ὑός, but here obviously referring to a boar). A δέλφαξ, by contrast, is properly a full-grown sow (esp. Ar. Ach. 786 νέα γάρ ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ δελφακουμένα (“Because she’s young; but once she’s become a delphax …” (of a supposed “piglet”)). For pigs generally, fr. 124.2–3 n. 6 δασύπους (literally “shaggy-footed one, hairy-footed one”) is attested elsewhere in the classical period only in comedy (also Cratin. fr. 434; Alc. Com. fr. 17.1; Ephipp. fr. 15.9; Nausicr. fr. 2.3; Nicostr. Com. fr. 4.2; Diph. fr. 1.2; adesp. com. fr. *829), in Aristotle (e. g. HA 516a2; GA 783a7), and at Antisth. fr.100.7 Caizzi, and is apparently to be traced to a homely, colloquial, riddling register. The more conventional term for the creature is λαγώς / λαγός. For hares in banquet catalogues and the like, also e. g. Epich. fr. 53.2; Eup. fr. 174.2; Ar. Ach. 878; Eub. fr. 63.6; Archestr. fr. 57 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; and see in general Keller 1909–1913 I.210–17; García Soler 2001. 232–3; Kitchell 2014. 82–5. This is the only animal in the list that a man would normally trap or hunt (or buy in the marketplace) rather than raise. Perhaps the idea is that the speaker is a rustic, and a rustic would have opportunities to fetch a hare from the fields. Or perhaps there was a commercial hare-raising industry of which we otherwise catch very few glimpses. ἔριφοι For kids and kid-meat, frr. 21.5 n.; 221.6–7. 7–9 For cheese and cheese-making generally, see frr. 21.3 n.; 51 n.; Davis 1944 (most of whose observations apply just as much to ancient cheese-making as to modern).

56

τομίαις (if correct) at Alc. fr. 317 appears to be a form of ταμίας.

128

Antiphanes

7 τυρὸς χλωρός For green cheese (i. e. cheese that has not yet been allowed to dry), see Ar. Ra. 559; Alex. fr. 178.12 τυροῦ τροφάλια χλωρὰ Κυθνίου; Lys. 23.6 (the green-cheese market in Athens); Poll. 6.48; 7.175; Phryn. PS p. 127.7–8, and cf. the Cyclops’ cheese-making operation at Od. 9.219–23. χλωρός is cognate with χλόη (“first green shoots of plants” and thus “green herbs”; cf. fr. 1.5 with n.), on the one hand, and with English “green”, “yellow” and more directly “chlorine”, on the other. Bianchi 2016. 265 suggests that the adjective also means “fresh” at Cratin. fr. 43 (of cow-pies), but the sense there might just as easily be “greenish yellow”, as also at Crobyl. fr. 9.1 (of a chick-pea). τυρὸς ξηρός i. e. mature cheese (as opposed to green cheese); also called τυρὸς ἰσχνός, according to Poll. 6.48. 8 For κοπτός in the sense “minced”, cf. Cratin. fr. 390 (of a dried fig) and the use of the cognate verb κόπτω in the sense “chop fine” at e. g. Mnesim. fr. 4.53; Alex. frr. 132.4 ἀσταφίδα κεκομμένην (“minced raisin”); 177.12. 9 For τμητός, cf. fr. 130.1 (of fish-steaks) with n. τυρὸς πηκτός For “curdled cheese”, i. e. drained curdled milk or “cream cheese”, cf. E. Cyc. 190 πηκτοῦ γάλακτος … τυρεύματα (“little cheeses made of curdled milk”); Theoc. 11.20 λευκοτέρα πακτᾶς (“whiter than cream cheese”); 20.26 πακτᾶς ἁπαλώτερον (“softer than cream cheese”). The adjective is < LSJ s. v. πήγνυμι III “make solid or stiff”.

129

Κώρυκος (Kôrykos) “The Bag”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.338; Kock 1884 II.66; Breitenbach 1908. 108

Title Meineke suggested that the title of the play might either refer to a boxer’s bag (e. g. Dion. Chalc. fr. 3.3 West2) or be an otherwise unattested name. But a κώρυκος (no etymology) is most often a bag of a sort sometimes used to hold provisions (Od. 5.267; 9.213; Ar. Lys. 1209–11 ἴτω / εἰς ἐμοῦ σάκους ἔχων / καὶ κωρύκους· ὡς λήψεται  πυρούς, “let him come to my house holding sacks or kôrykoi; since he will get wheat”; cf. Pherecr. fr. 83). Breitenbach (followed by Kassel–Austin) accordingly noted the reference to the dining habits of certain Pythagorean philosophers in fr. 133 (n.), as well as the claim in Athenaeus that fr. 132 was spoken by a Cynic; compared Diphilus’ Πήρα; and argued that the bag in question was the wallet in which Cynics carried their food. That κώρυκος is not used in this specific sense elsewhere counts against the hypothesis, and the object in question may instead simply have held e. g. recognition tokens, like the title-objects in Plautus’ Aulularia, Cistellaria and Vidularia. For other comedies by Antiphanes called after a physical object, which must have been somehow central to the intrigue, cf. Βομβυλιός, Μνήματα, Ὑδρία and perhaps Λαμπάς, and for examples in other poets, e. g. Alexis’ Ἀμφωτίς and Λέβης; Nicostratus Comicus’ Κλίνη; Arnott 2010. 317–18. What Ath. 4.161a (citing fr. 133) means by referring to this as “the play properly entitled Kôrykos”, is unclear (evidence for a second version, as in the case of Ἄγροικος / Βουταλίων?) Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 132 K.–A. (134 K.)

5

(Α.) τῶν θαλαττίων δ’ ἀεὶ ὄψων ἓν ἔχομεν, διὰ τέλους δὲ τοῦθ’, ἅλας. 〈xlklx〉 ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις πίνομεν οἰνάριον. (Β.) ἧδος, νὴ Δί’, οἰκίας τρόπον. (Α.) πῶς ἧδος; (Β.) οἷον τοῖς παροῦσι συμφέρει ἁπαξάπασιν ὀξυβάφῳ ποτηρίῳ

130

Antiphanes

2 ἓν ἔχομεν Schweighäuser : ἕνεχ᾿ ὁ μὲν Ath.A τοῦθ’, 1 ἀεὶ Ath.DBQMPMus : αἰεὶ Ath.A ἅλας Schweighäuser : τοῦτο αλα Ath.A 4 ἧδος Schweighäuser : εἶδος Ath.A οἰκίας τρόπον Ath.A : σκιᾶς τρόπον Cobet : κοιλιοστρόφον Kock 5 :: πῶς ἧδος Kock (πῶς εἶδος iam Cobet) : ποσειδος Ath.A (Α.) πῶς ἧδος; οἷον Schenkl : (Β.) πῶς ἧδος; (Α.) οἷον Kaibel : (Γ.) πῶς ἧδος; (Α.) οἷον Kock 6 ἁπαξάπασιν Ath.MPMus : απαξαναπασιν Ath.A

5

(A.) We always have one type of seafood dish, and we have it constantly: salt. . . . And to go with this we drink a little wine. (B.) That’s a hêdos, by Zeus, in the house style. (A.) What do you mean, “a hêdos”? (B.) The type that’s good for everyone who’s there with a vinegar cruet for a cup

Ath. 9.366b–c καὶ ἅλας δὲ ἡδυσμένους ὁρῶ ἐν ἄλλαις παροψίσιν. ἀνηδύντων δὲ ἁλῶν πλήρεις οἱ κυνικοί, παρ’ οἷς κατὰ τὸν Ἀντιφάνην, λέγει δ’ ἐν Κωρύκῳ τις ἄλλος κύων· —— I also see seasoned salt in other sauce-dishes. Whereas the Cynics are full of unseasoned salt; according to Antiphanes, another dog in their pack says in Kôrykos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlkl x〉|lkl klkl llkr l|rkl klkl 〈xlkl x〉|rkl llkl lrkl l|lk|l klkl llkl l|lkl klkl klkl k|lrl klkl

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–1805 V.6–8; Cobet 1858. 16; Kock 1884 II.66–7; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.300–1; Schenkl 1891. 325 Text For ἀεί (a 15th-century correction taken over by Musurus into the first printed edition of Athenaeus) in place of the paradosis αἰεί, see Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 76.1. ἀεί with short initial alpha appears to have been the standard form in this period (see Threatte 1980. 275, and cf. frr. 80.4; 121.7; 194.11 (an emendation); 205.1 (an emendation); 228.4; 229.2), but Antiphanes occasionally uses what must at this point have been the alternative poetic form with long alpha metri gratia (frr. 227.5 (corrupt); 254.2). In the first half of 2, Schweighäuser’s ἓν ἔχομεν is merely a different division of the letters in Ath.A’s nonsensical ἕνεχ᾿ ὁ μὲν. At the end of 2, τοῦτο αλα in Ath.A (with the final three letters left unaccented as the scribe’s way of indicating his uncertainty about how to handle them) was emended by Schweighäuser to τοῦθ’, ἅλας. Kassel–Austin print ἅλα, presumably in order to remain as close to the paradosis as possible while matching singular

Κώρυκος (fr. 132)

131

τοῦ(το). But the noun is normally used in the plural in the 4th century (see fr. 71.2 n.), and ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις in 3 is much easier with plural ἅλας in 2. Athenaeus’ εἶδος (“appearance, form”) makes no sense in 4, hence Schweighäuser’s ἧδος in 4 and—building on that and on Cobet’s πῶς εἶδος (for which, see below)—Kock’s πῶς ἧδος in 5 in place of the garbled paradosis ποσειδος, which is left unaccented by the Ath.A-scribe in acknowledgment of his inability to make sense of the text. At the end of 4, Ath.A’s οἰκίας τρόπον is just clear enough, and the sense of the fragment as a whole just obscure enough, that there is no point in emending. Cobet retained εἶδος in the first half of the verse and emended the end to σκιᾶς τρόπον, giving the entire verse to (A.): “a little wine, (the mere) appearance (of such), like a shadow”. (B.) then responds “What do you mean, ‘(a mere) appearance (of such)’?”, and (A.) replies “One of the sort that …”. Kock boldly emended οἰκίας τρόπον to κοιλιοστρόφον (unattested) as part of his attempt to make sense of 4–5 as a whole (see below). There must be a change of speaker before πῶς ἧδος; (a surprised reaction to what has just been said) at the beginning of 5. What is less clear, is whether there are any other changes of speaker; how many characters are involved in the action; and how 4–5 (however corrected) are to be divided among them. Kassel–Austin follow Kock in placing a change of speaker before ἧδος κτλ in 4, which thus becomes a reaction to and comment on οἰνάριον, and follow Schenkl in giving all of 5–6 to (A.). (A.) thus hears (B.) use ἧδος; disapproves of what he takes (B.) to be saying (that the wine is a “pleasure”); and redefines ἧδος as meaning “vinegar”, hence ὀξυβάφῳ ποτηρίῳ at the end of 6. Kaibel rejected Kock’s change of speaker in 4, but followed him in putting one before οἷον κτλ in 5. On this interpretation of the text, (A.) says “a little wine. It’s a hêdos, by Zeus, in the house style”; (B.) finds this opaque and responds “What do you mean, ‘a hêdos’?”; and (A.) makes clear that the hêdos in question is actually vinegar. Kock, finally, taking (A.) to be a Cynic philosopher and (B.) someone skeptical of Cynic practices who calls (A.)’s wine “vinegar that turns one’s stomach” (see above), gave πῶς ἧδος; in 5 to a third character, a student, to whom (A.) responds reassuringly with 5–6 οἷον κτλ. I take ὀξυβάφῳ ποτηρίῳ at the end of 6 to be a punchline, and I accordingly give οἷον κτλ to (B.) as a joke; see Interpretation. At the beginning of 6, Ath.A offers the garbled απαξαναπασιν (perhaps to be interpreted as evidence of two variant readings, ἅπαξ πᾶσιν and ἀνὰ πᾶσιν, that have been run together in the manuscript); corrected by an anonymous editor in the late 15th century to ἁπαξάπασιν, which was taken over by Musurus into the first printed edition of the Deipnosophists. Citation context From near the beginning of Book 9, introducing a discussion of side-dishes, seasonings and the like. Interpretation According to Athenaeus, (A.)—who speaks for a group; note 2 ἔχομεν, 3 πίνομεν—is a Cynic and thus devoted to a simple lifestyle as a way of

132

Antiphanes

attaining happiness (εὐδαιμονία). Even if this is false, i.e. if Athenaeus’ understanding of the passage is the product of a Hellenistic or Roman-era scholarly desire to discover evidence for the history of 4th-century philosophical movements even where there was none, and (A.) is merely speaking “as a Cynic should”, (A.) is not obviously complaining about the menu (contrast fr. 225) but seems proud of it. (B.) appears less enthusiastic. The Cynic movement is generally traced to Diogenes of Sinôpê (ca. 412/403–ca. 324/321 BCE), who probably spent a considerable amount of time in Athens from the late 360s BCE on. Among Diogenes’ most basic teachings was a rejection of human artifice and conventions of all sorts, expressed inter alia in an extremely simple way of life, as a means of attaining happiness. See in general Dudley 1937; Long 1999. 623–9; Moles 2000; Desmond 2008. 4–6 appear to be a joke that turns on two different senses of ἧδος, “delight, pleasure” (LSJ s. v. I; epic vocabulary) and “vinegar” (LSJ s.v. II). (A.) is taken aback when (B.) describes his wine this way, presumably because he takes ἧδος in LSJ’s first sense and pleasure is not something he and his group value. I therefore follow Kock and Kaibel in placing a change of speaker before οἷον in 5, although I take everything that follows to belong to (B.), who wittily explains that he intended ἧδος in LSJ’s second sense. See Text for other possible divisions of the lines. 1–2 τῶν θαλαττίων … / ὄψων ἕν suggests seafood of some sort, with ἅλας deflating the idea. For salt—scarcely to be thought of as ὄψον (see fr. 69 n.), unless one has absolutely nothing else—fr. 71.2 n. Kassel–Austin compare D. L. 6.57, where Diogenes of Sinôpê himself declares βούλομαι ἐν Ἀθήναις ἅλα λείχειν ἢ παρὰ Κρατέρῳ τῆς πολυτελοῦς τραπέζης ἀπολαύειν (“I prefer to lick salt”—i. e. to lead a very simple existence—“in Athens than to enjoy expensive meals with Krateros”). 2 διὰ τέλους (here “permanently, completely, constantly, always”; cf. LSJ s. v. τέλος II.2.c) appears to be an Atticism (e. g. Amphis fr. 33.4; Timocl. fr. 8.5; A. Eu. 64; E. Supp. 270; Antipho 5.42; X. An. 6.6.11; Pl. R. 519c). 4 Diminutive οἰνάριον has a deteriorative sense at Polioch. fr. 2.7–8 πιεῖν οἰνάριον ἦν / ἀμφίβολον (“there was dubious oinarion to drink”); Apollod. Car. fr. 30.1–2 τό γ’ οἰνάριον πάνυ / ἦν ὀξὺ καὶ πονηρόν (“the oinarion was very acidic and bad”), as perhaps here as well, in which case (A.) is being open about the low quality of the food he and his group consume. Contrast the seemingly more neutral sense of the diminutive at Alex. fr. 277.1; Diph. fr. 60.8; Thphr. Char. 17.2; Diocl. Car. fr. 182.177–8 μικρὸν μετὰ τὸ ἄριστον οἰνάριον λεπτόν (“a small quantity of light oinarion after lunch”). 4–5 Ael. Dion. η 3 (ap. Eust. p. 1417.19–21; cf. Hsch. η 132) claims that—in Attic at any rate—ἧδος took a rough breathing when it meant “vinegar”, but a smooth breathing when it meant ὄφελος (“something advantageous”). This would make the word-play here more awkward, since (B.) seemingly says ἧδος, but (A.) hears ἦδος, and it is tempting to think that it represents an attempt by a late grammarian to impose an artificial if seemingly helpful distinction on what were

Κώρυκος (fr. 133)

133

in fact homonyms. συμφέρει in any case picks up the latter sense of the word and ties it to the former. 5 For πῶς used thus, quoting the previous speaker’s words back at him in a hostile or skeptical fashion, cf. fr. 69.13 ἀνθρωποφάγους; πῶς; with n.; Ar. Ach. 397 πῶς ἔνδον, εἶτ’ οὐκ ἔνδον;; Th. 13 πῶς χωρίς;; Ra. 25, 29, 98 πῶς γόνιμον; 6 ἁπαξάπασιν A colloquial Attic form, attested almost exclusively in comedy (e. g. Ar. Th. 550; Hermipp. fr. 73.3; Stratt. fr. 37.2; Xenarch. fr. 7.16; elsewhere at e. g. Aen. Tact. 22.9). ὀξυβάφῳ Literally a “vinegar-dipper”, i. e. small, bowl-like vessel that could be used for drinking (fr. 161.5 ὀξυβαφίων with with n.; Cratin. fr. 199.6 ὀξύβαφον οἰνηρόν; Eub. fr. 65.2) or to hold e. g. vinegar in which to dip cooked food in order to give it a bit of extra bite; cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 35 with Stama 2014 ad loc.; Ar. Av. 361; Pl. Com. fr. 127.3; Alex. fr. 178.11; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 9.1; IG II2 1643.3 (mid-4th century BCE) ὀξύβαφα ἐλαιηρὰ ΙΙ· ὀξηρὰ ΙΙ (“oxybapha for olive oil: 2; for vinegar: 2”; from a catalogue of dedications on Delos).

fr. 133 K.–A. (135 K.) πρῶτον μὲν ὥσπερ Πυθαγορίζων ἐσθίει ἔμψυχον οὐδέν, τῆς δὲ πλείστης τοὐβολοῦ μάζης μελαγχρῆ μερίδα λαμβάνων λέπει First of all, he acts like a Pythagorean and eats nothing that’s alive, but takes a swarthy piece of the biggest barley-cake he can buy for an obol and removes the skin Ath. 4.160f–1a εἰ αὐτάρκειαν ἀσπάζῃ, φιλόσοφε, τί οὐ τοὺς Πυθαγορικοὺς ἐκείνους φηλοῖς, περὶ ὧν φησιν Ἀντιφάνης μὲν ἐν Μνήμασι τάδε (fr. 158)· ——. κἀν τῷ κυρίως Κωρύκῳ δ᾿ ἐπιγραφομένῳ φησί· —— If you’re eager for mere self-sufficiency, philosopher, why don’t you imitate the well-known disciples of Pythagoras, about whom Antiphanes says the following in Mnêmata (fr. 158): ——. While in the play properly entitled Kôrykos he says: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|rkl llkl llkl k|lk|l llkl llkl l|rk|l klkl

Discussion

Arnott 1996. 170

134

Antiphanes

Text Kassel–Austin note a number of divergences in Ath.CE’s version of the fragment from that of Ath.A. But these are merely examples of the Epitome’s typically free treatment of quoted texts, and none of them are metrical or of any other significance for the constitution of the text. Citation context Part of a long collection of texts that attack philosophers as gluttons, lechers, fools and the like. Alex. frr. 223; 201 (both dealing with Pythagorean habits) are quoted immediately after this, in that order, followed by Antiph. frr. 87; 63 (not obviously connected to the theme, except that they have to do with eating voraciously and inexpensively, respectively) and Aristopho fr. 9 (also about Pythagoreans), in that order. The reference to “mere sufficiency” picks up on something Cynulcus said at 4.157f (quoting one of Parmeniscus’ characters). For another collection of comic fragments referencing Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, see D. L. 8.37. All these texts taken together, along with Theoc. 14.5–6, make up Diels–Kranz 58 E (“Pythagoristen in der mittleren Komödie”). Eust. p. 1863.54–5 quotes v. 3 from his own copy of the Epitome and should not be treated as a separate witness to the text (as implicitly in Kassel–Austin’s apparatus). Interpretation A description of the frugal life-style of some third party (a man; note masculine Πυθαγορίζων and λαμβάνων) who is not actually a Pythagorean but acts like one in sticking to a vegetarian diet, most likely out of poverty rather than philosophical conviction. 1 πρῶτον μέν is most easily taken as marking this as the first item in a list. For Pythagoras and 4th-century Pythagoreans, as well as the verb Πυθαγορίζω (“play the Pythagorean”), see fr. 225.8 n., and cf. frr. 158; 166.7–8. 1–2 Cf. Mnesim. fr. 1 ὡς Πυθαγοριστὶ θύομεν τῷ Λοξίᾳ, / ἔμψυχον οὐδὲν ἐσθίοντες παντελῶς (“since we sacrifice to Loxias in Pythagorean style, eating absolutely nothing that’s alive”) and the comic twist put on the idea at Alex. frr. 27 ὁ πρῶτος εἰπὼν ὅτι σοφιστὴς οὐδὲ εἷς / ἔμψυχον οὐδὲν ἐσθίει, σοφός τις ἦν. / ἐγὼ γὰρ ἥκω νῦν ἀγοράσας οὐδὲ ἓν / ἔμψυχον. ἰχθῦς ἐπριάμην τεθνηκότας / μεγάλους· κρεᾴδι’ ἀρνὸς ἔστι πίονος / οὐ ζῶντος· οὐχ οἷόν τε γάρ. τί ἄλλο; ναί· / ἡπάτιον ὀπτὸν προσέλαβον. τούτων ἐὰν / δείξῃ τις ἢ φωνήν τι ἢ ψυχὴν ἔχον, / ἀδικεῖν ὁμολογῶ καὶ παραβαίνειν τὸν νόμον (“The first person to say that no one with an education eats anything alive was a wise man indeed. I’ve come back now having bought nothing that was alive. I did purchase some large dead fish. And there are cuts of a fat lamb that’s not alive, since that’s impossible. What else? Yes, I also got a roasted liver. If anyone can point to a single one of these items that’s got a voice or the breath of life, I’ll admit I’m in the wrong and am breaking the law”) with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; 223.1–6 (Α.) οἱ Πυθαγορίζοντες γάρ, ὡς ἀκούομεν, / οὔτ’ ὄψον ἐσθίουσιν οὔτ’ ἄλλ’ οὐδὲ ἓν / ἔμψυχον, οἶνόν τ’ οὐχὶ πίνουσιν μόνοι. / (Β.) Ἐπιχαρίδης μέντοι κύνας κατεσθίει, / τῶν Πυθαγορείων εἷς. (Α.) ἀποκτείνας γέ που· / οὐκέτι γάρ ἐστ’ ἔμψυχον (“(A.) Because the Pythagoreans, so we hear, don’t eat fish or anything else that’s alive; and they’re the only people who don’t drink

Κώρυκος (fr. 134)

135

wine. (B.) But Epicharides eats dogs, even though he’s one of the Pythagoreans. (A.) After he kills them, I imagine; then it’s not alive any more”). 2 ἔμψυχος is 5th/4th-century vocabulary (e. g. S. Ant. 1167; E. Med. 230; Hdt. 3.100.1; Th. 7.29.4; Pl. Phlb. 43b; cf. “Simon.” AP 7.443.4 = FGE 885 (Hellenistic)) and appears in the Pythagorean injunction τῶν ἐμψύχων ἀπέχεσθαι ([Pythag.] 14 9.11 D.–K. ap. Str. 15.716 et D. L. 8.20). For ψυχή used to mean “breath of life, life” (i. e. that which distinguishes animals, including human beings, from plants) rather than “soul”, e. g. Alex. fr. 27.8 (quoted above). τοὐβολοῦ is a genitive of price (e. g. frr. 170.3; 175.5; Eup. fr. 255 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Ar. Av. 1079; Men. Epitr. 130; cf. Poultney 1936. 104). 3 μάζης μελαγχρῆ μερίδα For color as an indication of the quality of barley-cake, see fr. 225.1–2 n., and cf. Polioch. fr. 2.1–2 μεμαγμένην / μικρὰν μελαγχρῆ μᾶζαν ἠχυρωμένην (“a small, swarthy, kneaded barley-cake full of bran”). For μελάγχρης (as opposed to the older and more common μελάγχροος), also Cratin. fr. 471 with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc.; Eup. fr. 468 with Olson 2014 ad loc.; Men. fr. 667, and see in general Sommer 1948. 21–9. μερίς is colloquial late 5th/4th-century vocabulary (in tragedy only at E. Supp. 238, the earliest attestation of the word); cf. Pherecr. fr. 50.7 μερὶς κρεῶν. μέρος is the older and more elevated equivalent. λέπω is normally “peel” (e. g. Eup. fr. 275.2 with Olson 2016 ad loc.),57 and Arnott argues that the joke must be that the man in question does not even eat the entire piece of bread (sic) “but first removes the crust”, perhaps to save it for another meal. This is barley-cake, however, which was not baked, so perhaps the man tears it apart or the like (in any case to avoid eating the entire thing at one time?).

fr. 134 K.–A. (136 K.) (Α.) ἐν ὅσῳ δ’ ἀκροῶμαί σου, κέλευσόν ⟨μοι⟩ τινὰ φέρειν ἀπονίψασθαι. (Β.) δότω τις δεῦρ’ ὕδωρ καὶ σμῆμα 1 μοι add. Koppiers

(Α.) While I’m listening to you, order someone to bring me (what I need) to wash my hands! (B.) Someone bring water here, and soap!

57

LSJ s. v. λέπω II.2 cites Eup. fr. 465 as a parallel for taking the verb to mean “eat” here. But the manuscripts have † λέπτει † there, and what ought to be printed is uncertain.

136

Antiphanes

Ath. 9.409c–d ἐχρῶντο δ’ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας ἀποπλύνοντες αὐτὰς καὶ σμήματι ἀπορρύψεως χάριν, ὡς παρίστησιν Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κωρύκῳ· —— When they washed their hands, they also used soap to get them clean, as Antiphanes establishes in Kôrykos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlrl l|lkl l〈l〉kl klrl llkl llkl llk〈l xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion

Koppiers 1771. 41; Lilja 1972. 69–70

Text 1 is metrically deficient, and Koppier’s μοι (unnecessary for the sense and thus easily omitted) is an easy supplement. Citation context From an extended and occasionally wandering discussion of post-dinner hand-washing, hand-towels and the like (Ath. 9.408b–11a) that serves at least in part as a reply to arguments put forth in Aristophanes of Byzantium’s Response to Callimachus’ Tablets (fr. 368) and that brings Book 9 of the Deipnosophists to a close. Fr. 41 is preserved shortly after this, at Ath. 9.409d–e. Interpretation From a scene involving at least two characters (gender uncertain), one of whom is the master or mistress of the house and is about to start singing, playing an instrument or the like, while the other—patently a guest, who nonetheless appears to feel free to issue the other person orders—prepares to wash up after a meal; a courtesan (B.) entertaining a lover (A.)? 1 ἐν ὅσῳ δ’ ἀκροῶμαί σου perhaps pick up on some preceding suggestion as to what (B.) should do (“Provide us with musical entertainment!” vel sim.); cf. Ar. Ec. 1151–3. For onstage symposia, see fr. 4 Interpretation. 1 ἀκροάομαι and cognates (first attested at Pherecr. frr. 163.3; 204; Eup. frr. 102.7; 279; Ar. Eq. 629) are absent from elevated poetry but common in comedy (also e. g. Ar. Lys. 503; Ra. 774; Antidot. fr. 2.1; Men. fr. 437) and prose (e. g. Th. 4.106.2; X. HG 7.3.3; Pl. Mx. 236b; Isoc. 12.263), and the verb seems to be identified as an Atticism at Phryn. PS p. 38.6; Antiatt. α 17. μοι (if correct) might be understood either as an ethical dative (~ “please”) with the imperative or as a dative of interest, as in the translation offered here. 2 ἀπονίψασθαι (identified by Aristophanes of Byzantium as the term used specifically for washing up after a meal, as opposed to cleaning one’s hands before one) is an epexegetic infinitive. 2–3 δότω τις δεῦρ’ ὕδωρ / καὶ σμῆμα complies with the command in 1–2, but with a description of the specific objects to be fetched (suiting a direct order to a slave) substituted for (A.)’s description of why they are wanted. Cf. Plaut. Most. 308 cedo aquam manibus, puere. This is a typical form for orders issued by a master or mistress to anonymous servants within the house (esp. Ar. Av. 1693 γαμήλιον

Κώρυκος (fr. 134)

137

χλανίδα δότω τις δεῦρό μοι; Pl. 1194 ἐκδότω τις δεῦρο δᾷδας ἡμμένας; fr. 516 φέρε παῖ ταχέως κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ, / παράπεμπε τὸ χειρομάκτρον (preserved at Ath. 9.410b); Pl. Com. fr. 177 δότω τις ἡμῖν μαζονομεῖον ἔνδοθεν; Men. Sam. 731 δεῦρο δ’ ἡμῖν ἐκδότω τις δᾷδα καὶ στεφάνους; Chrysipp. Com. fr. 1.1 δᾷδας ἡμμένας μοι ταχὺ δότω τις ἔνδοθεν; cf. more generally Eup. fr. 273.1 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Ar. Ach. 1118 παῖ παῖ, καθελών μοι τὸ δόρυ δεῦρ’ ἔξω φέρε; Av. 1579–80 τὴν τυρόκνηστίν τις δότω· φέρε σίλφιον· / τυρὸν φερέτω τις; Nicostr. Com. fr. 10.3 τὸν μεστὸν ἡμῖν φέρε λάγυνον; Svennung 1958. 220–1). 3 σμῆμα For soap, fr. 41.3 n., and cf. Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.41 σμήμασιν ἰρινομίκτοις (literally “soaps mixed with iris”, i. e. “iris-scented soap”); Theoc. 15.29–30 ὕδατος πρότερον δεῖ, / ἃ δὲ σμᾶμα φέρει (“Water’s wanted first—but she brings the soap!”; in reference to a clumsy slave-girl helping her mistress wash up); Phryn. ecl. 224 σμῆγμα καὶ σμῆξαι· καὶ ταῦτα ἀνάττικα· τὸ γὰρ Ἀττικὸν σμῆμα καὶ σμῆσαι, τὸ μὲν ἄνευ τοῦ γ, τὸ δὲ διὰ τοῦ σ (“smêgma and smêxai: These too are non-Attic forms; because the Attic is smêma and smêsai, the former without a gamma, the latter with a sigma”).

138

Λαμπάς (Lampas) “Lampas”

Introduction Discussion 356–7

Meineke 1839–1857 I.313; Breitenbach 1908. 128; Arnott 1996.

Title Λαμπάς is literally “The Torch”, and reference to a a physical object is possible (cf. Κώρυκος Introduction). The sense might also be “The Torch-race”, although Antiphanes’ titles only rarely refer to events (cf. Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Γάμος vel Γάμοι) as opposed to persons. Meineke (followed by Breitenbach and Arnott) accordingly suggested that this was a courtesan’s working-name, as at Ath. 13.583e. Bechtel 1902. 122 compared Θρυαλλίς (literally “Wick”) and Φανίον (literally “Little Torch”); Arnott added Λύχνος (literally “Lamp”); and note also Λαμπυρίς (literally “Glow-worm”) and Ἄστρα (literally “Stars”) (both in the same catalogue of courtesan-names at Ath. 13.583e). For other plays seemingly called after courtesans (common in the 4th-century comic poets), cf. Μέλιττα, Μύστις, Νεοττίς, Φιλῶτις and Χρυσίς, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρχεστράτη, Εὔπλοια, Μαλθάκη and Ὀμφάλη; and see Arnott 2010. 316. For courtesans generally, fr. 2 n. Alexis also wrote a Λαμπάς. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 135 K.–A. (137 K.) τράπεζα † φυστημινεις ἀλλαμὴν † Δαίμονος Ἀγαθοῦ μετάνιπτρον, ἐντραγεῖν, σπονδή, κρότος 1 φυστημινεις Ath.(2)A : ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν ἐστιν Dindorf : φυστή, μαινίς Emperius : φύσκη, μαινίς Papabasileios ἀλλαμὴν Ath.(2)A : ἀλλὰ Dindorf : ἅλμη vel ἀλλᾶς Emperius : ἅλμια Nauck : ἅμα δ’ ἦν Kaibel 2 fort. Ἀγαθοῦ, μετάνιπτρον μετάνιπτρον Ath.(1–2)A : fort. μετανιπτρίδ᾿

a table † phystêmineis allamên † a metaniptron dedicated to the Good Divinity,58 (something) to nibble on, a libation, applause

58

or “full of the Good Divinity”, i. e. of wine.

Λαμπάς (fr. 135)

139

Ath.(1) 11.486f μετάνιπτρον. ἡ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον ἐπὴν ἀπονίψωνται διδομένη κύλιξ. Ἀντιφάνης Λαμπάδι· Δαίμονος … κρότος metaniptron: the cup offered after (meta) the dinner when they wash their hands (aponipsôntai). Antiphanes in Lampas: a metaniptron dedicated to the Good Divinity … applause Ath.(2) 11.487b Ἀντιφάνης Λαμπάδι· τράπεζα … μετάνιπτρον Antiphanes in Lampas: a table … a metaniptron

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klk†llkllkl†lkl rlrl k|lkl llkl

Discussion Dindorf 1827 II.1092; Emperius 1847. 310; Nauck 1851. 416; Kock 1884 II.68; Papabasileios 1889. 202; Kaibel ap. K.–A. Text φυστημινεις ἀλλαμὴν in 1 is corrupt, as the Ath.A-scribe (who left the first set of letters unaccented at 11.487b) was aware. That this portion of the text is omitted at 11.486f may suggest that the transmitted letters made no sense there as well, although whether this implies that the Ath.A-scribe omitted them in that case rather than transcribing nonsense, or the problem goes back to Athenaeus’ source or sources, is unclear. Kassel–Austin unhelpfully print ἀλλὰ μὴν, which is not merely difficult sense (“but certainly”) but hypermetrical and thus patently incorrect. Dindorf suggested τράπεζα ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν ἐστιν (“we’ve got a table”) in the first half of the line, and ἀλλὰ Δαίμονος (“but a metaniptron dedicated to the Good Divinity”, with μὴν to be expelled as e. g. a superlinear variant that made its way into the text) in the second. That the two emendations do not work together does not count against them individually, but ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν ἐστιν does not map easily onto the manuscript’s φυστημινεις, and ἀλλὰ is awkward in any case, there being no obvious need for opposition. Emperius’ τράπεζα, φυστή, μαινίς, ἀλλᾶς (“a table, a cake,59 a sprat,60 a sausage61”) or τράπεζα, φυστή, μαινίς, ἅλμη (“a table, a cake, a sprat, brine62”) is more convincing; cf. Papabasileios’ φύσκη (another type of sausage; e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 42.40 with Millis 2015 ad loc.) in place of Emperius’ φυστή, and Nauck’s ἅλμια (“salted foods”: cf. Men. fr. 351.5) in place of Emperius’ ἀλλᾶς or ἅλμη (although “salted foods” seem somewhat less likely in a catalogue of symposium goods). But see Interpretation for the question of whether the fragment should be repunctuated in a way that makes Δαίμονος / Ἀγαθοῦ dependent 59 60 61 62

Cf. Anaxandr. fr. 42.57 with Millis 2015 ad loc. Cf. fr. 27.5 n. Cf. fr. 72 n. Cf. fr. 75.10 n.

140

Antiphanes

on whatever preceded it, which ought then to be the name of a vessel or the like, rather than on μετάνιπτρον.63 Kaibel’s ingenious ἅμα δ’ ἦν (“and there was at the same time”) interprets the paradosis λλ as a simple majuscule error (ΛΛ for Μ), and converts this into a retrospective account of a party. Εxcept at Hsch. μ 1033, which is likely an echo of Athenaeus, the name of the vessel referred to in 2 is elsewhere μετανιπτρίς, including in fr. 147.1. It is thus tempting to think that the paradosis μετάνιπτρον should be emended to μετανιπτρίδ᾿. If so, the error seems once again to have been found in both versions of the text passed on in Ath.A (cf. above on 1 † φυστημινεις ἀλλαμὴν †). Citation context From the discussion of the metaniptron or metaniptris (Ath. 11.486f–7b) in the long, roughly alphabetical catalogue of cups and related vessels that makes up much of Book 11 of the Deipnosophists. That the same fragment is quoted twice in slightly different forms is most naturally taken to suggest that two separate sources have been clumsily combined by Athenaeus here. Interpretation A catalogue of items and activities associated with a symposium; cf. frr. 172a–b (which take the form of a narrative rather than a simple list) with nn. 1 τράπεζα Given the context, this must be a “second table” (τράπεζα δευτέρα), on which symposium dainties and related items were delivered; cf. fr. 172b.1–2 n. 1–2 After the meal, but before the symposium began, guests at a Greek dinner party were offered a small portion of unmixed wine dedicated to the Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων who had discovered it, who can only be Dionysus; cf. Ar. Eq. 85 ἄκρατον οἶνον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος (“unmixed wine belonging to the Good Divinity”), 106 σπεῖσον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος (“pour a libation in honor of the Good Divinity!”); V. 525; Pax 300 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Theopomp. Com. fr. 42.2 ἄκρατον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος (“unmixed (wine) belonging to the Good Divinity”); Eriph. fr. 4.1; Nicostr. Com. fr. 19.1; Diph. fr. 70.2; Arist. Oec. 1353b21–2; Philoch. FGrH 328 F 5b; D. S. 4.3.4; Plu. Mor. 735d; and the inscription on a fragmentary cup (ARV2 330.5) [σπ]ένδω τῷ δαίμονι τῷ ἀγαθ[ῷ] (“I pour a libation to the Good Divinity”). 2 For the μετάνιπτρον or μετανιπτρίς, cf. fr. 147.1 (dedicated to Hygieia); Call. Com. fr. 9 καὶ δέξαι τηνδὶ μετανιπτρίδα τῆς Ὑγιείας (“and accept this metaniptris dedicated to Hygieia!”); Philox. Leuc. PMG 836c.1–2 σὺ δὲ τάνδ’ † ἐκβακχια † / εὔδροσον πλήρη μετανιπτρίδα δέξαι (“and you accept this dew-filled, full † ekbakchia † metaniptris!”); Nicostr. Com. frr. 3 = 18.2;64 Philetaer. fr. 1.1; Diph. fr. 70 δέξαι τήνδε τὴν μετανιπτρίδα / μεστὴν Διὸς Σωτῆρος, Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος (“ac63

64

Kassel–Austin also include in their apparatus Kock’s ⟨ἀπῄρετο⟩ / τράπεζ᾿, ἐφυσᾶτ᾿· ἦλθε Δαίμονος / Ἀγαθοῦ (“the table was removed, the pipe was played; a libation bowl belonging to the Good Divinity arrived”), which is too far from the paradosis to deserve much consideration. Most likely a single fragment, with the play-title Ἀντερῶσα at Ath. 11.487b to be emended to Πανδρόσῳ, as at Ath. 15.693a (thus Kock).

Λαμπάς (fr. 135)

141

cept this metaniptris full of Zeus the Savior, of the Good Divinity!”). Everything known about the vessel comes from these fragments, all but two of which are quoted by Athenaeus along with fr. 135;65 from Hsch. μ 1033 μετάνιπτρον ἢ μετανιπτρίς· ἡ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον, ἐπὰν νίψωνται, διδομένη κύλιξ· οἱ δὲ τὴν ὑστάτην πόσιν (“metaniptron or metaniptris: the cup that is offered after dinner, when they wash themselves; but others (say it is) the final drink”), which is likely drawn either direct from Athenaeus or from one of Athenaeus’ sources; and from Poll. 6.31 καὶ πότος μεταδόρπιος, καὶ κύλιξ μετανιπτρὶς ἡ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν· εἴποις δ’ ἂν τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐπινιπτρίδα (“an after-dinner (metadorpios) drink, and the metaniptris cup that follows everything; you could also refer to the same cup as an epiniptris”), 100 ἡ δὲ μετανιπτρὶς κύλιξ ἐστὶν ἣν μετὰ τὸ ἀπονίψασθαι ἐλάμβανον· τὸ δ’ ὄνομα οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἔκπωμα σχήματος ἀλλὰ τῆς τάξεως. ἦν δὲ Ὑγιείας ἱερά, ὥσπερ καὶ Διὸς σωτῆρος ὁ τρίτος κρατὴρ ἱερὸς ἦν. Ἀγαθοῦ δὲ Δαίμονος ὁ μετὰ τὰς τραπέζας ἄκρατος (“The metaniptris is a cup they got after they washed up; its name does not come from the shape of the vessel but from the order (in which it was offered in the course of proceedings). It was sacred to Hygieia, just as the third mixing-bowl was sacred to Zeus the Savior. The unmixed wine that followed (the arrival of) the tables belonged to the Good Divinity”). Antiphanes in fr. 147, Callias Comicus, Nicostratus and Philetaerus all agree with Pollux that the metaniptris was sacred specifically to Hygieia. Diph. fr. 70 allows for the possibility that the vessel could also be associated with Zeus the Savior (responsible for the idea of mixing wine with water to dull its otherwise destructive effects) and the Good Divinity (responsible for the existence of wine itself), although the genitives there seem to function metonymically to mean ~ “mixing water and wine”, i. e. “mixed wine”. If the metaniptris properly belongs to Hygieia, however, Δαίμονος / Ἀγαθοῦ is perhaps to be taken with whatever is concealed in the corruption in the first half of 1, in which case μετάνιπτρον should be set off with commas (“a [corrupt] of the Good Divinity, a metaniptron, etc.”). That the name means what Athenaeus, Pollux and Hesychius suggest —this is a cup that followed the post-dinner hand-washing—seems in any case likely to be right, given the absence of an easy, plausible alternative. For ἐντραγεῖν, fr. 273.1 n. For the use of the infinitive, cf. Pherecr. fr. 73.1–2 (seemingly also from a symposium scene) τράπεζαν εἴσφερε / καὶ κύλικα κἀντραγεῖν, ἵν’ ἥδιον πίω (“Bring in a table and a cup and (something) to nibble on, so I can enjoy my drinking more!”). σπονδή For libation as a basic part of symposium procedure, cf. fr. 150.3, and see in general fr. 110.1 n. κρότος i. e. as a pleased reaction to entertainment of one sort or another, as at Ar. Lys. 1318/19 (in response to a dance-performance); Ra. 157 (in response to a choral performance? or clapping in time to music, as at Hdt. 2.60.1?); Amphis fr.

65

The exceptions are fr. 147.1 and Nicostr. Com. fr. 18, both of which come from elsewhere in Athenaeus.

142

Antiphanes

14.8 (in response to a musical / choral performance); Men. Sam. 735 (in response to a dramatic performance); X. An. 6.1.13 (in response to a dance performance); Cyr. 8.4.12; Pl. Euthd. 303b; Lg. 700c κρότοι ἐπαίνους ἀποδιδόντες (“applause offering praise”; in response to musical performances); D. 19.195 (in response to symposium performances); 21.14 (seemingly in response to a choral performance); Thphr. Char. 11.3 (in the Theater; contrasted with whistling in derision); Hsch. κ 4214; Suda κ 2479; cf. Monaco 1971–1974; Kassel–Austin on Posidipp. Com. fr. 6.12.

143

Λάμπων (Lampôn) “Lampôn”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.275, 313; Breitenbach 1908. 82–3

Title The name Λάμπων is relatively uncommon in Athens (8 classical or archaic examples in LGPN II), but was borne by a famous 5th-century seer (PA 8996; PAA 601655; see Kett 1966. 54–7; Bianchi 2016. 368–70 on Cratin. fr. 62). Although the latter must have been dead by Antiphanes’ time, Meineke suggested that his name may nonetheless have been used on the 4th-century comic stage as a way to attack the popular power of diviners of various sorts. This seems an extravagant conclusion, given the lack of other obvious retrospective historical references of this sort in Antiphanes and his peers, and more likely this is simply an individual’s name (cf. Εὐθύδικος, Κλεοφάνης, Λεπτινίσκος, Λεωνίδης, Μητροφῶν, Μίδων, Τίμων, and Φιλίσκος, and perhaps Γόργυθος, Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Φάων as well), perhaps with a hint at his metaphorically “brilliant” character or appearance. Content

Unknown. Fr. 136 may be addressed to a soldier (the title character?).

Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 136 K.–A. (138 K.) κεστρεῖς ἔχων, ἀλλ’ οὐ στρατιώτας, τυγχάνεις νήστεις 1 ἀλλ’ οὐ Meineke : ἄλλους Ath.ACE

You happen to have starving gray mullets, but not soldiers Ath. 7.307d Ἀντιφάνης Λάμπωνι· —— Antiphanes in Lampôn: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lrl llkl ll〈kl xlkl xlkl〉

144 Discussion

Antiphanes

Meineke 1839–1857 III.77; Kock 1884 II.68; Schenkl 1891. 326

Text In 1, the paradosis ἄλλους (“You happen to have gray mullets, other starving soldiers”) makes little sense and probably represents a deliberate correction of the obscure ΑΛΛΟΥ into an adjective to match the case and number of the nouns on either side. Meineke’s emendation is merely a matter of dropping a sigma and redividing the letters. Citation context From the discussion of the κεστρεύς (“gray mullet”) at Ath. 7.306d–8b within the long, largely alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes up much of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and is probably drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. Archipp. fr. 12 is cited immediately before this fragment, Alex. fr. 258; Amips. fr. 1; Euphro fr. 2; Philem. fr. 83; Ar. fr. 159; Anaxandr. fr. 35.8; Eub. fr. 68; adesp. com. fr. *112; Diph. fr. 53; Theopomp. Com. fr. 14, in that order, immediately after it, all in reference to the commonplace description of the fish as “starving” (for which, see Interpretation). Interpretation A mocking comment, perhaps in response to the addressee’s claim to have troops at his disposal; cf. the similar use of ἀλλ’ οὐ at Ar. Nu. 1063–6 (Κρ.) ὁ γοῦν Πηλεὺς ἔλαβε διὰ τοῦτο τὴν μάχαιραν. / (Ητ.) μάχαιραν; ἀστεῖόν γε κέρδος ἔλαβεν ὁ κακοδαίμων. / Ὑπέρβολος δ’ οὑκ τῶν λύχνων πλεῖν ἢ τάλαντα πολλὰ / εἴληφε διὰ πονηρίαν, ἀλλ’ οὐ μὰ Δί’ οὐ μάχαιραν (“(Stronger Argument) Peleus, for example, got a knife because of his self-control. (Weaker Argument) A knife? What a charming advantage the poor guy got. Hyperbolos from the lamp-market has got countless talents due to his depravity, but not a knife, by Zeus, no!”). Schenkl suggested that the remark might be directed at a mercenary commander who had failed to provide for his troops. For mercenaries, fr. 264 n. For what may be another mercenary commander as a character in one of Antiphanes’ comedies, fr. 200. 1–2 κεστρεῖς … νήστεις For the κεστρεύς, see in general fr. 130.1 n. According to Aristotle (or ps.-Aristotle) fr. 215,66 quoted at Ath. 7.308a–b, the gray mullet was described as νῆστις (“starving, fasting”) ὅτι οὐδὲν δέλεαρ ἐσθίει ἔμψυχον καὶ ἀνελκυσθεὶς δ’ οὐ δελεάζεται οὔτε σαρκὶ οὔτ’ ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἐμψύχῳ (“because it eats no living bait and is not attracted by meat or anything else that is alive when it is caught”). For the idea, cf. fr. 216.9–10 with n. and the fragments listed in Citation context, and note also Poll. 6.50; Paus.Gr. κ 29 (both probably drawing on sources not much different from Athenaeus’). 1 στρατιώτας Late 5th/4th-century colloquial vocabulary, widely attested in comedy (also e. g. fr. 80.11 and as a title; Cratin. fr. 150.5; Eup. fr. 206; Ar. Ach.

66

cf. Arist. HA 591b2–4 for the second section of material attributed to Aristotle by Athenaeus, to the effect that the gray mullet is no good (sc. to eat) when it is not fasting, and that it hides its head (sc. in the muck at the bottom of the sea) when frightened,.

Λάμπων (fr. 137)

145

1065; Diph. fr. 55.3) and especially prose (e. g. Hdt. 8.10.1; Th. 6.24.3; And. 1.75; X. HG 4.1.17; Pl. Smp. 220b; Is. 9.1), but absent from elevated poetry. 2 νήστεις The initial nu is a privative (cf. ἄνηστις at Cratin. fr. 47 with Bianchi 2016 ad loc.), while the second element in the word (attested already in Homer) is cognate with ἔδω / ἐσθίω (“eat”).

fr. 137 K.–A. (139 K.) ὁ δεῖν’, Ἰᾶπυξ, κέρασον εὐζωρέστερον Whatever your name is—Iapyx!—mix some nice, really strong (wine)! Ath. 10.423d ἐν δὲ Λάμπωνι· —— And in Lampôn: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|rk|l llkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 III.77

Citation context Quoted along with fr. 147, immediately before this, and Ephipp. fr. 10; Il. 9.203, immediately after this, followed shortly by Diph. fr. 57; Thphr. fr. 574 (from On Drunkenness); Emp. 31 B 35.14–15 D.–K., as part of a brief discussion of the meaning of ζωρέστερος (comparative of ζωρός and a Homeric hapax, hence probably the interest in the term). Interpretation An order addressed to a slave, likely as part of a symposium-scene. Cf. Ar. Ec. 1123 κέρασον ἄκρατον (the Slave-girl at the end of the play “addressing an imaginary servant of her own” (Ussher 1973 ad loc.)). The speaker’s inability to immediately recall the slave’s name might reflect either his unfamiliarity with the household (in which case he is a guest at a party thrown by someone else) or the fact that his attention is primarily focussed elsewhere (e. g. on the drinking). For δεῖν(α) used as a place-filler for a word the speaker is momentarily unable to recall, see fr. 127.6–7 n.; also in place of a name at e. g. Ar. Th. 620–2; Ra. 918. As Meineke noted, the slave might be called Ἰᾶπυξ either because he was an Iapygian (a non-Greek people from what is today Apulia, on the eastern coast of the south end of the Italian peninsula; see in general Nenci 1978) or because he supposedly moved with the speed of the west-northwest wind that also bore the name (Hor. c. 1.3.4; Verg. Aen. 8.710). The etymology and thus the meaning of ζωρός was—and remains—obscure (additional ancient discussion at e. g. [Arist.] Po. 1461a14–16; Thphr. fr. 574; Plu. Mor. 677c–8b; note the learned allusions to the question at A. R. 1.477 and Asclep.

146

Antiphanes

AP 12.50.5 = ep. XVI.5 with Sens 2011 ad loc., and the “quotation” of Il. 9.203 at Ephipp. fr. 10 φιάλην ἑκατέρᾳ / ἔδωκε κεράσας ζωρότερον Ὁμηρικῶς, “he / she gave a libation-bowl to each woman after mixing (the wine) euzôteron in Homeric fashion”). By the classical period, however, it seems to have generally been taken to signify “unmixed, undiluted” (Hdt. 6.84.3; Thphr. Char. 4.9 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.; cf. fr. 147.2 ζωροτέρῳ χρώμενον οἰνοχόῳ with n., and in general Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 73–5). εὐζωρός, on the other hand, is an Atticism (E. Alc. 757 πίνει μελαίνης μητρὸς εὔζωρον μέθυ; Ephipp. fr. 3.11 = Eub. fr. dub. 148.8 πίνειν τε πολλὰς κύλικας εὐζωρεστέρας; Diph. fr. 57.2 (contrasted with ὑδαρές, “watery”); and the eiresionê hymn quoted at Plu. Thes. 22.7 καὶ κύλικ’ εὔζωρον, ὡς ἂν μεθύουσα καθεύδῃ; in prose at Hp. Morb. III 14.25 = 7.136.8 Littré οἶνον αὐτίτην πινέτω εὔζωρον), hence Phrynichus’ advice (ecl. 114) to adopt the word, as well as the use of it by the over-the-top Second Sophistic Atticist Eudemos at Luc. Lex. 14.

147

Λεπτινίσκος (Leptiniskos) “Little Leptines”

Introduction Discussion

Breitenbach 1908. 57

Title Probably an otherwise unattested diminutive form of the common male personal name Λεπτίνης (15 classical examples in LGPN II); for similar titles, cf. Εὐθύδικος, Κλεοφάνης, Λεωνίδης, Μητροφῶν, Μίδων, Τίμων, Φάων and Φιλίσκος, and perhaps Γόργυθος, Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Φάων. Breitenbach suggested a reference to the orator Leptines (PA 9046; PAA 603480), who seems to have died around 342 BCE. Alternatively, he notes, the title might simply mean “The Man who was Very Thin” (< λεπτός), although similar titles generally refer to some aspect of a character’s personality (Ἄγροικος, Ἀντερῶσα, Ἀποκαρτερῶν, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, Ἀφροδίσιος, Δύσπρατος, Ἐνεά, Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων, Ὄβριμος, Παιδεραστής, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ, Φιλοπάτωρ and perhaps Μαλθάκη) rather than his or her appearance (although see Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων Introduction). Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 138 K.–A. (140 K.)

5

(Α.) οἶνον Θάσιον πίνοις ἄν; (Β.) εἴ τις ἐγχέοι. (Α.) πρὸς ἀμυγδάλας δὲ πῶς ἔχεις; (Β.) εἰρηνικῶς. † μαλακὰς σφοδρα διας † μέλιτι προσπαίζειν βίᾳ. (Α.) μελίπηκτα δ’ εἴ σοι προσφέροι; (Β.) τρώγοιμι, καὶ ᾠὸν δὲ καταπίνοιμ’ ἄν. (Α.) ἄλλου δεῖ τινος;

1 ἐγχέοι Rutherford : ἐγχέαι Ath.ACE Eust. 3 ante hunc versum excidisse quaedam censuit Dindorf, in quibus πρὸς λαγῷα καὶ κίχλας; infuisse ex Athenaei verbis conj. Headlam μαλακὰς σφοδρα διας Ath.A : μᾶλλον δι᾿ ἃς Ath.CE Eust. : : : μαλακῶς Kaibel, “sed reliqua non intellego” : μαλακὰς σφόδρ᾿ : : ἀδεῶς Headlam προσπαίζειν Ath.ACE : A E C πρέπει παίειν Gulick βίαι Ath. : δέει Ath. : δεί() Ath. : δέδοται Eust. : δέ δεῖ vel δ᾿ ἔα Headlam 4 προσφέροι Ath.A : προσφέρει Ath.CE Eust. τρώγοιμι καὶ Ath.A : CE τρώγοιμ᾿ ἄν Ath. Eust. : τρώγοιμι, ναὶ Meineke : τρώγοιμ᾿ ἄρα Arnoldt : τρώγοιμι τἄν Kaibel 5 : : ᾠὸν δέ; : : Meineke ἄλλου δεῖ τινος Dobree : ἄλλου δη τινος Ath.A

(A.) Would you drink Thasian wine? (B.) If someone poured it in my cup. (A.) What’s your attitude toward almonds? (B.) Relaxed.

148

Antiphanes

5

† soft (fem. acc. pl.) extremely bright (fem. acc. pl.) † to make violent fun of honey. (A.) And if someone brought you honey-cakes? (B.) I’d eat them, and I’d gulp down an egg as well. (A.) Do you need anything else?

Ath. 14.641f–2a ἐδίδοτο δὲ καὶ ᾠὸν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τραπέζῃ, ὥσπερ καὶ λαγῷα καὶ κίχλαι κοινῇ μετὰ τῶν μελιπήκτων εἰσεφέρετο, ὡς Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Λεπτινίσκῳ φησὶν οὕτως· —— An egg was also offered on the second table, just as hare-meat and thrushes were brought in along with the honey-cakes, as Antiphanes says in Leptiniskos, as follows: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llrl llk|l klkl rlkl k|lkl llkl †kklkkkl†|krl llkl rlkl l|lkl llkl llkr llk|l llkl

Discussion Dindorf 1827 III.1425–6; Dobree 1833. 348; Meineke 1839–1857 III.77–8; Bothe 1844. 28–9; Rutherford 1881. 437; Headam 1899. 6; Arnoldt ap. Kaibel ap. K.–A.; Kaibel ap. K.–A.; Gulick 1937. 464 Text Rutherford 1881. 433–42 argues at length that optatives in -αι are foreign to Attic of the classical period and thus that Athenaeus’ ἐγχέαι in 1 should be emended to ἐγχέοι. 3 as transmitted makes no sense, and efforts to improve the situation, both ancient and modern, have proven unsuccessful. The problem with the first half of the line was already apparent to the Ath.A-scribe, who left σφοδρα διας unaccented to indicate his own inability to understand the text; the Epitome’s μᾶλλον δι᾿ ἃς (apparently referring back to 2 ἀμυγδάλας) is no improvement and leaves the line metrically deficient. Dindorf suggested that part of the problem might be that a verse or more has been lost between 2 and 3, and Athenaeus’ introduction to the fragment seems to promise a mention of hare-meat and thrushes along with honey-cake (4). Kaibel accordingly proposed that μαλακῶς (for Ath.A’s μαλακὰς), literally “softly”, might be another response by (B.) matching εἰρηνικῶς in 2, while Headlam suggested μαλακὰς σφόδρ᾿ : : ἀδεῶς (“(A.) … very soft”, in reference to the thrushes; “(B.) Fearlessly”, again matching εἰρηνικῶς; see below for Headlam’s handling of the second half of the line). None of this is solid enough to deserve to be printed. In the second half of 3, Gulick’s μέλιτι πρέπει παίειν βίᾳ for the paradosis μέλιτι προσπαίζειν βίᾳ is supposed to mean “you should whip them up well in honey”; for παίω used of aggressive eating, cf. Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 834–5. At the end of the line, the Epitome’s δέει / δεί() might be a legitimate variant for Ath.A’s βίᾳ,

Λεπτινίσκος (fr. 138)

149

and Headlam proposed writing μέλιτι προσπαίζειν δὲ δεῖ (“but I need to play with honey as well”) or μέλιτι προσπαίζειν δ᾿ ἔα (“but let me play with honey as well!”) on that basis. Just as likely, however, this is an unsuccessful attempt at correction (crudely modeled on 5 ἄλλου δεῖ τινος;?), which was then extended by Eustathius with δέδοται. At the end of (A.)’s question in 4, Ath.A’s optative προσφέροι is better than the Epitome’s indicative προσφέρει, given the other optatives throughout. At the end of 4, potential optative τρώγοιμι needs ἄν, which comes only in the middle of 5, and 4–5 καὶ / … δέ is confusing at best. The Epitome accordingly supplied the particle after τρώγοιμι as well, in place of Ath.A’s καί, and Kaibel adapted this and wrote τρώγοιμί τ(οι) ἄν (“I would assuredly eat it”). Arnoldt suggested instead τρώγοιμ᾿ ἄρα (“I’d eat it, I think!” vel sim.). καὶ / … δέ requires punctuation before it in any case (included only by Bothe). (B.)’s mention at the beginning of 5 of another food he would gladly eat in addition to a honey-cake does not match the structure of the conversation in 1–2, 4, where (A.) names an item and (B.) expresses his feelings about it. Meineke accordingly suggested that ᾠὸν δέ; might be another question from (A.) (“And (if someone were to bring you) an egg?”), to which (B.) replies “I’d gulp it down”; this requires some version of the Epitome’s τρώγοιμ᾿ ἄν at the end of 4. At the end of 5, the Ath.A-scribe was again unable to make sense of the text and left δη τινος unaccented; the editor of the Epitome dealt with the issue in a different way, by omitting the last three words of the fragment. Dobree’s ἄλλου δεῖ τινος (with the error to be traced to a period when η and ει had come to be pronounced in the same way) makes neat, easy sense of the genitive. Citation context From an extended discussion of symposium-snacks generally and the various terms for them (Ath. 14.640a–2f), this portion of which appears to be drawn from Book I of Dicaearchus’ Descent into Trophonius’ Shrine (fr. 19 Wehrli = fr. 80 Mirhady; cited at 14.641e). Fr. 172b; Anaxandr. fr. 2; Clearch. Com. fr. 4; Eub. fr. 44;67 Alex. frr. 190; 168, follow, in that order. Interpretation A conversation between at least two persons—the lines traditionally assigned to (A.) could also be divided between (A.) and a third character—about what (B.) will be served at a symposium. 3 is obscure, and some lines may be missing there; see Text. But in 1–2, 4–5 (B.) is consistently relaxed and agreeable: everything that is offered appeals to him. The question at the end of 5 perhaps marks a shift to a second, slightly different stage of the dialogue, in which (B.) makes requests and (A.) responds to them. 1 οἶνον Θάσιον For Thasian wine (a high-quality item), fr. 238.2 n., and cf. Antidot. fr. 4.1 Θάσιον ἔγχει. For ἐγχέω, frr. 57.16 n.; 81.2 n.

67

Mistakenly cited by Kassel–Austin as from Ath. 14.624c.

150

Antiphanes

2 πρὸς + acc. πῶς ἔχεις; appears to be a 4th-century colloquialism; cf. Theophil. fr. 4.3 πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς κάραβον; (“How do you feel about crayfish?”); Pl. Prm. 131e πρὸς τόδε πῶς ἔχεις; (“How do you feel about this?”); Smp. 174a–b πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸ ἐθέλειν ἂν ἰέναι ἄκλητος ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; (“How do you feel about maybe going to dinner uninvited?”); Prt. 352b πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς ἐπιστήμην; (“How do you feel about knowledge?”), and note fr. 271.2 συνακρατίσασθαι πῶς ἔχεις μετ’ ἐμοῦ; (“How do you feel about having lunch with me?”) with n. ἀμυγδάλας The almond was “a widely grown nut tree in the Mediterranean basin … and probably one of the earliest, fruit tree domesticants in Old World agriculture” (Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 147–9, quote at p. 147; see also Martinoli– Jacomet 2004; Borojević et al. 2008. 295–6); almonds are mentioned in comedy also at e. g. Epich. fr. 148 (a list of foods; distinguished from κάρυα, “nuts”); Pherecr. fr. 158.1 (a catalogue of dainties?); Hermipp. fr. 63.20 (imported into Athens from Paphlagonia); Eup. fr. 271 δίδου μασᾶσθαι Ναξίας ἀμυγδάλας /οἶνόν τε πίνειν Ναξίων ἀπ’ ἀμπέλων (“offer Naxian almonds to chew on and wine from Naxian vines to drink!”); Philyll. frr. 18 ἀμυγδάλια (in a list of symposium-snacks; distinguished from καρύδια, “little nuts”); 24 (distinguished from κάρυα, “nuts”); Diph. fr. 80.1 (in a catalogue of symposium dainties); Men. fr. 83.1 (an after-meal snack?). εἰρηνικός is a typical late 5th/4th-century formation; see fr. 268.2 n. First attested at Ar. Ra. 715 (the only other example of the word in poetry); in prose at e. g. X. HG 3.1.22 (adv.); Pl. R. 399b; Isoc. 2.24; Arist. Pol. 1254b32. 3 μέλιτι For honey, fr. 273.2 n. (with further cross-references). προσπαίζειν is colloquial 4th-century vocabulary (e. g. Men. Epitr. 399 προσπαίζεις ἐμοί;; X. Oec. 3.1.4; Pl. Phdr. 262d; Lg. 804b). 4 For μελίπηκτα (a symposium delicacy), fr. 79 n. For προσφέρω in the sense “offer, serve”, fr. 81.1 n. For τρώγω, fr. 273.1 n. 4–5 καὶ / … δέ cf. Denniston 1954. 199–200 (cited by Kassel–Austin) “a natural enough combination, the former particle denoting that something is added, the latter that what is added is distinct from what precedes” (quotation at 199). The expression is nonetheless unusual for this period, adding to the uncertainties about this portion of the fragment (for which, see Text). 5 ᾠὸν … καταπίνοιμ’ ἄν For eggs served hard-boiled as symposium snacks, see fr. 273.1 n., and cf. fr. 140.4 n. The verb (literally “drink down”) is used in comedy of gulping down food of all sorts (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 113.23–4 (thrushes); Telecl. fr. 1.4–5 (barley-cakes); Ar. Nu. 338–9 (fish steaks); V. 1502 (what is nominally a crab); Archipp. fr. 19 (a minnow); Pl. Com. fr. 37 (a brain); Anaxil. fr. 22.19 (a sea-trader along with his boat, as Charybdis would do); Eub. fr. 8.3–4 (fish-steaks); Mnesim. fr. 7.3 (lighted torches standing in for dainties); Euphr. fr. 1.29 (a heart)), the distinction from e. g. καταφάγω perhaps being that no chewing is involved; thus at Hes. Th. 459, 467 Cronos κατέπινε his children but then

Λεπτινίσκος (fr. 138)

151

was able to regurgitate them unharmed.68 καταπίνω is also attested early on in Hipponax (fr. 155 West2) and in satyr play (A. fr. 91.2; Ion TrGF 19 F 29.2), as well as in Archestratus (fr. 23.7), but was seemingly too undignified for tragedy or lyric poetry.

68

Cf. E. Cyc. 219–21, where the Cyclops notes that if he were to καταπίνω the chorus of satyrs, they would continue to dance around inside his belly.

152

Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία (Leukadios vel Leukadia) “The Man from Leukas” or “The Girl from Leukas”

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 ΙΙΙ.78; Kock 1884 II.69; Konstantakos 2000. 159 Title Leukas (IACP #126) is an island in the Ionian Sea more or less due north of Kephalonia and Zakynthos, and thus of the entrance into the Gulf of Corinth. The city there was a Corinthian foundation, and was accordingly a Spartan ally during the Peloponnesian War years (Th. 2.9.3) and sided with Corinth and Athens during the Corinthian War (D. S. 14.82.3). Leukas joined the Second Athenian League in 368 BCE (IG II2 104) and was also a member of the Hellenic League that opposed Philip II of Macedon (D. 18.237; cf. Aeschin. 3.95–8). The German archaeologist Wilhelm Dörpfeld famously convinced himself that the place was actually Odysseus’ Ithaca; there is no hint of the idea in the ancient sources. See in general Philippson–Kirsten 1958. 460–90; Gehrke–Wirbelauer 2004. 364–6. The Suda cites fr. 139 from Λευκάδιος and is followed in this regard by all editors with varying degrees of caution.69 The title Pollux offers for fr. 140 is corrupt, but is most easily restored with Bekker as Λευκαδία. Perhaps the Suda is right and Pollux is in error, although Alexis, Menander and Diphilus all wrote plays entitled Λευκαδία (in the case of Alexis, Λευκαδία ἢ Δραπέται) and no other poet is assigned a Λευκάδιος. Alternatively, these may be two different plays, like Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι and Δίδυμοι, on the one hand, and Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι (where see Introduction), on the other. For ethnics, local adjectives and the like as play-titles, cf. (male characters) Βοιώτιος, Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ζακύνθιος, Λυδός, Ποντικός, Σκύθης, Τυρρηνός and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (male plurals) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; (female characters) Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Καρίνη, Κορινθία; (female plural) Λήμνιαι with Introduction (probably mythological travesty); and cf. Μέτοικος. See Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. Content Date

69

Unknown.

Unknown.

Kassel–Austin in particular ignore the issue and print Λευκαδίῳ in place of Λευκαδίᾳ in Pollux.

Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία (fr. 139)

153

Fragments fr. 139 K.–A. (141 K.) ἐνταῦθ’ ἀναρίστητος εὐθὺς κιθαριεῖ κιθαριεῖ SudaAFSM : κιθαρεῖ SudaGTI

When he / she is there with no lunch, he / she will immediately play the lyre Suda α 2048 ἀνάριστος· μᾶλλον δὲ ἀναρίστητος … Ἀντιφάνης Λευκαδίῳ· —— anaristos: better anaristêtos … Antiphanes in Leukadios: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llk|l lrkl

Text κιθαριεῖ (SudaAFSM; future active indicative < κιθαρίζω) apparently confused the scribe of the common archetype of SudaGTI, who wrote κιθαρεῖ, as if from the non-existent *κιθαρέω. Citation context Ar. fr. 470; Alex. fr. 235, in that order, are preserved immediately before this, Timocl. fr. 26, Men. fr. 521, in that order, immediately after this. Parallel material, but omitting the references to Antiphanes and Timocles, is preserved at Phot. α 1632; both notes must be drawn from the common source of Photius and the Suda generally referred to as Σ΄΄, which in turn is dependent on a lost Atticist lexicographer Interpretation A description of the future behavior of a third party (gender uncertain). The place in question—referred to simply as ἐνταῦθα—must have been specified in the immediately preceding verses. The connection between having had no lunch and producing music is unclear, but the lyre-playing perhaps represents an attempt to get fed: having arrived hungry, the person being discussed will do his or her best to curry favor with whoever is in charge of the situation (an evening symposium, meaning that the musician has not eaten all day long?). ἀναρίστητος is confined to 5th- and early 4th-century comedy; in addition to the fragments listed in Citation context, note Eup. fr. 77.1 (ap. Ath. 2.47e and Phot. α 989 = Suda α 1052 = Synag. B α 882). Other authors, including Xenophon (e. g. HG 4.5.8; Smp. 1.11), Hippocrates (e. g. Acut. 9 = 2.290.9 Littré) and Menander (fr. 521, preserved in the same entry in the Suda) use ἀνάριστος. Cf. Eup. fr. 347 ἄδειπνος. For ἄριστον (literally “early meal” and thus ~ “lunch”), cf. fr. 271.1 with n. For adverbial εὐθύς, fr. 25.2 n. For the κιθάρα, see Kitharôidos Introductory n.

154

Antiphanes

fr. 140 K.–A. (142 K.) ἀσταφίδος, ἁλῶν, σιραίου, σιλφίου, τυροῦ, θύμου, σησάμου, λίτρου, κυμίνου, ῥοῦ, μέλιτος, ὀριγάνου, βοτανίων, ὄξους, ἐλαῶν, εἰς ἀβυρτάκην χλόης, καππάριδος, ᾠῶν, ταρίχους, καρδάμων, θρίων, ὀποῦ 2 λίτρου Poll. : νίτρου Ath.CE ῥοῦ, μέλιτος Poll.FS : om. Poll.A Ath.CE Ath.CE : βατανίου Poll.FS : om. Poll.A : βαλανίων Kock : fort. πατανίων ἐλαίου Poll. 4 ταρίχους Ath.C : ταρίχων Ath.E

3 βοτανίων ἐλαῶν Ath.CE :

raisin(s), salt, grape-syrup, silphium, cheese, thyme, sesame, soda ash, cumin, sumach-fruit, honey, marjoram, greens, vinegar, olives, fresh herbs for a sour sauce, a caper, eggs, preserved fish, cress, fig leaves, silphium juice Ath. 2.68a ὅτι ἀρτύματα ταῦτα καταλέγει που Ἀντιφάνης· —— Antiphanes somewhere lists the following seasonings: —— Poll. 6.66 εἴη δ’ ἂν ἐκ τῶν ἡδυσμάτων καὶ λίτρον· Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Λευκαδίᾳ (Bekker : Λευκάδι Poll.FS : Λευκάσι Poll.S : Λευκαδίῳ Meineke)· —— litron would also be included among the seasonings; Antiphanes in Leukadia (thus Bekker : Leukadi Poll.FS : Leukasi Poll.S : Leukadios Meineke) (vv. 2–3): ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lklr lkll | lkll lkl lklk lkll | lklk rkl rkll lkll | lklk lkl lrkl lkll | lkll lkl

Discussion

Kock 1884 II.69

Text In 2, λίτρον (as in Pollux) appears to be the proper Attic form of the word, whereas νίτρον (as in the Epitome of Athenaeus) is Hellenistic. Cf. IG I3 422.150; II2 1673.22 λιτροπώλου; Phryn. ecl. 272 νίτρον· τοῦτο Αἰολεὺς μὲν ἂν εἴποι, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ἡ Σαπφώ (fr. 189), διὰ τοῦ ν, Ἀθηναῖος δὲ διὰ τοῦ λ, λίτρον (“nitron: an Aeolian would pronounce it this way, as Sappho (fr. 189) in fact does, with a nu, whereas an Athenian (would pronounce it) with a lambda, litron”); Moer. λ 10 λίτρον Ἀττικοί· νίτρον Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers (use) litron, Greeks generally (use) nitron”); Suda ν 182 ὡς πνεύμων, πλεύμων Ἀττικῶς, καὶ νίτρον, λίτρον (“like pneumôn, in Attic pleumôn, also nitron, (in Attic) litron”).

Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία (fr. 140)

155

Further on in 2, both Ath.CE and Poll.A omit ῥοῦ, μέλιτος, which is preserved only in Poll.FS. But Poll.A also omits βατανίου at the beginning of 3, and these are thus most likely independent errors or editorial decisions, perhaps driven in the first case by the rarity of ῥοῦς (“sumach”) and consequent confusion about what may have looked like the incomprehensible reading ῥουμέλιτος. The opposite possibility, that a copyist responsible for the common exemplar of Poll.FS generated these words to fill a perceived gap in the text of Antiphanes, is unlikely: the sense is unaffected by the lacuna, which would accordingly have been difficult to detect; the meter is unusual, making it difficult to supplement correctly; the first word is a far from obvious choice to supply; and the copyists of Pollux seem in any case to have been more interested in shortening the text than in lengthening it. At the beginning of 3, Poll.FS’s βατανίου (Poll.A omits the word), “a casserole-dish” (fr. 71.1 n.), cannot stand before ὄξους, and Kassel–Austin follow Meineke in printing the Epitome’s βοτανίων.70 This is comprehensible, even if the word is rare and not entirely welcome before χλόης at the end of the line. The two readings combined seem to point to βατανίων (“casserole-dishes”), which would be the only reference to a cooking implement in the fragment. If this is right, however, what Antiphanes wrote was probably πατανίων; see fr. 71.1 Text. Further on in 3, Pollux’ ἐλαίου (“olive oil”) for the Epitome’s ἐλαῶν (“olives”) cannot stand before εἰς and is an easy error after singular ὄξους (“vinegar”). In 4, Ath.E’s ταρίχων would do just as well metrically as Ath.C’s ταρίχους. But the comic poets generally use the word in the singular, except when what is intended is “different varieties of saltfish” (e. g. Hermipp. fr. 63.5). Citation context Cited in the context of general discussions of seasonings by both Athenaeus (2.67f–8c; preserved only in the Epitome and thus probably abbreviated) and Pollux (6.65–71). There is no other specific connection between the two discussions, which thus do not obviously go back to a single source, although note that Athenaeus cites a more complete version of Alex. fr. 132 (vv. 3–8 of which are quoted by Pollux at 6.65) at 4.170a. Fr. dub. 330 is cited immediately after this in Pollux (although assigned there to Eubulus). Interpretation A catalogue of cooking supplies, all in the genitive and thus dependent on another, now-lost word or construction (e. g. “the kitchen is full of ” or “I have need of ”); cf. fr. 71 (a list that also includes cooking vessels and the like); Ar. fr. 128.1–2; Eub. fr. 18 (with each commodity identified by its place of origin); Alex. frr. 132.4–8 (the last three passages all preserved in this same section of Pollux); 179.4–10, esp. 4–8. The mention of soap in 2 and the specification εἰς ἀβυρτάκην in 3 make it clear that this is not a recipe but a list of items a cook might need. 70

Kock emended to the genitive plural form of βαλάνιον, a hangover cure made of stewed acorns (Nicoch. fr. 18), which seems out of place even in this somewhat diverse catalogue.

156

Antiphanes

1 ἀσταφίδος is here most likely singular for plural, as at Alex. fr. 132.4 ἀσταφίδα κεκομμένην (“minced raisin(s)”). For raisins, cf. in general Hermipp. fr. 63.16 (imported into Athens from Rhodes, along with dried figs) with Comentale 2017 ad loc.; Nicopho Com. fr. 12 (where the variant form ὀσταφίς is preserved, as also at Cratin. fr. 131) with Pellegrino 2013 ad loc. For traditional raisin-production techniques in Greece (probably not much changed since antiquity), see Weaver 1960. 215–17. ἁλῶν For salt generally, fr. 71.2 n. In the kitchen, it was used e. g. to produce stewing brine (cf. fr. 221.2 n., 4–5 with n.) or was sprinkled on food as it cooked or afterward (e. g. fr. 216.10 with n.; Crates Com. fr. 16.10; Ar. Pax 1074; Alc. Com. fr. 17; Axionic. fr. 8.3–4). σίραιον (also known as ἕψημα, according to Poll. 6.16–17, citing Pl. Com. fr. 163) is new wine (γλεῦκος) that has been boiled down to produce grape-syrup (also Paus.Gr. σ 12; Plin. Nat. 14.80); included in another catalogue of seasonings at Alex. fr. 132.8, and in a recipe for a sauce at Alex. fr. 193.4. See also García Soler 2001. 290. For σίλφιον, cf. 5 ὀπός; frr. 71.1 n.; 88.3–4 n.; fr. dub. 330.3–4; in a catalogue of allegedly old-fashioned seasonings, again immediately before cheese, at Anaxipp. fr. 1.7–8. τυροῦ For cheese, cheese-making and the cheese-market, frr. 21.3 n.; 51 n.; 131.7–9; 181.2 (in a list of simple foods); in recipes at e. g. Ar. Av. 1580; Alex. fr. 138.6; Philem. fr. 82.6; Archestr. fr. 14.5 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc., but also eaten as a side-dish (e. g. Alex. fr. 263.3). For θύμον, cf. fr. 177.4 (a typical product of Attica); fr. dub. 330.4 = Eub. fr. 18.4 (thyme from Mount Hymettos) with Kassel–Austin ad loc.; Alex. frr. 122.2; 132.7; Atchley 1938. 36; Andrews 1958b. 150–2, 155–6; García Soler 2001. 354, and cf. fr. 105.7 n. (on thyme-perfume). 2 σησάμου A Semitic loan-word. For sesame generally, fr. 79 n.; also in a catalogue of kitchen-supplies at Alex. fr. 132.3, and in a recipe for bolboi (fr. 225.3 n.) at Philem. fr. 113.3. λίτρον is sodium carbonate, which was used for soap (Ar. Ra. 711–13 with Dover 1993 ad loc.); cf. Schramm 1936; Gow 1950 on Theoc. 15.15–16; Pritchett– Pippin 1956. 311–12. An Egyptian loan-word; see McGready 1968. 249; Griffith 1994 (speculative). κυμίνου Cumin is an annual herb native to the Mediterranean; included in catalogues of spices also at Alex. frr. 132.6; 179.7; Anaxipp. fr. 1.7; in recipes for fish at Sotad. Com. fr. 1.7; Archestr. frr. 14.7; 24.10. The word is attested already in Linear B and may be borrowed from a Semitic language (Masson 1967a. 51–2). See also García Soler 2001. 351–2. ῥοῦ Sumach-fruit, which has a tangy, lemony taste and is still used today as a seasoning in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cuisines, is also included in a catalogue of kitchen supplies at Alex. fr. 132.6. See in general Barkley–Barkley 1938; García Soler 2001. 348. The etymology of the word is uncertain.

Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία (fr. 140)

157

μέλιτος For honey, fr. 273.2 n. ὀρίγανον is probably common marjoram; cf. fr. 105.6 n. Mentioned in a seafood-recipe at fr. 221.4 (n.) and in catalogues of cooking supplies and the like also at fr. dub. 330.5 = Eub. fr. 18.5; Alex. frr. 132.7 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; 138.6; 179.4; Anaxandr. fr. 51.1 (used to season saltfish) with Millis 2015 ad loc. See also García Soler 2001. 356–7. 3 βοτανίων A βοτάνιον (< βοτάνη) is simply a “little plant” and thus perhaps in the plural here “greens” (or “minced greens”, if that is the point of the diminutive). But see Text. ὄξους Vinegar (for which, see also fr. 250.2 with n.; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 286.3) is used in sauces and the like at e. g. fr. 216.12–13 (sprinkled over roasted seafood, presumably to add some tang); Ar. Av. 534; Philonid. fr. 9; Alex. fr. 193.4; Diph. fr. 18.1; Philem. fr. 113.3; Archestr. fr. 24.8 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc., and cf. fr. 132.6 n. (with reference to its use as a post-cooking dipping sauce). Vinegar also appears in catalogues of cooking supplies and the like at e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 42.58; Alex. fr. 179.4; Anaxipp. fr. 1.7. See also García Soler 2001. 337–8. ἐλαῶν Olives are not used for cooking but are instead eaten as a side-dish, as at e. g. Mnesim. fr. 4.29; Alex. fr. 263.3; Archestr. fr. 8 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc. See also García Soler 2001. 64–6. On olive trees and related industries, see in general Foxhall 2007; Akrigg 2019. 188–91. An ἀβυρτάκη (etymology uncertain) is defined at Phot. α 66 ~ Synag. B α 61 (= Paus.Gr. α 4) as ὑπότριμμα βαρβαρικὸν ἐκ δριμέων σκευαζόμενον, ἐκ καρδάμων καὶ σκορόδων καὶ σινάπεως καὶ σταφίδων (“a barbarian paste made from pungent ingredients, from cress and garlic and mustard and raisins”), and at Suda α 103 = ΣΔ Luc. Lexiph. 6 (= Ael. Dion. α 8) as ὑπότριμμά τι βαρβαρικὸν κατασκευαζόμενον διὰ πράσων καὶ καρδάμων καὶ ῥόας κόκκων καὶ ἑτέρων τοιούτων (“a barbarian paste made of leeks and cress and pomegranate seeds and mustard and other, similar substances”). Pherecr. fr. 195 refers to it as “ground”, sc. in a mortar, while Theopomp. Com. fr. 18 mentions cress and leeks as ingredients and suggests that the dish is Persian in origin. See also García Soler 2001. 363. For χλόη, fr. 1.5 n. 4 καππάριδος For capers, fr. 63.2 n. ᾠῶν Eggs (for which, see in general fr. 273.1 n., and cf. fr. 138.5) also appear in a list of basic cook’s supplies at Alex. fr. 179.8. For chickens (whence presumably the eggs in question, although the Greeks also knew e. g. goose eggs, for which cf. Eriph. fr. 7; Heracleides of Syracuse ap. Ath. 2.58b), see Olson 2017 on Eup. fr. 111.2. ταρίχους For saltfish, fr. 27.22 n.

158

Antiphanes

κάρδαμον is a bitter herb71 also included in a kitchen catalogue or the like at fr. dub. 330.2 = Eub. fr. 18.2. See in general Stol 1983–1984. 24–30; García Soler 2001. 346–7; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 42.60. θρίων Presumably to be used to wrap food for baking or stewing, as at Ar. Ach. 1101; Eq. 954; Anaxandr. fr. 42.40 with Millis 2015 on v. 39 δημοῦ; Alex. fr. 179.5 (in a catalogue of basic kitchen supplies); Anan. fr. 5.2; Archestr. fr. 36.6 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc. For figs and fig-trees, fr. 177.3 n. For ὀπός and silphium generally, cf. 1 σίλφιον; frr. 71.1 n.; 88.3–4 n.

71

Not to be identified with English “cardamom”/Greek καρδάμωμον (an Indian plant).

159

Λεωνίδης (Leônidês) “Leônidês”

Introduction Discussion

Breitenbach 1908. 50; Edmonds 1959. 229 n. g

Title A personal name, like Γόργυθος, Εὐθύδικος, Κλεοφάνης, Λεπτινίσκος, Μητροφῶν, Μίδων, Τίμων, Φάων and Φιλίσκος. The name is common throughout the Greek world in all period (scores of classical examples in LGPN II), and there is accordingly no reason to suspect a reference to any particular person. Perhaps a “speaking name” for someone with a leonine, i. e. fierce, character; cf. Λύκων Introduction. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 141 K.–A. (143 K.) ἀλλὰ πρὶν δεδειπνάναι ἡμᾶς παρέσται But he / she / it will be here before we’ve finished dinner Ath. 10.422e ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ Οὐλπιανὸς ἔφη· ἐπεὶ δεδείπναμεν (εἴρηκε δὲ οὕτως … καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Λεωνίδῃ· —— In response to these remarks, Ulpian said: Since we’ve finished dinner—this form of the word is used … also Antiphanes in Leônidês: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl x〉|lkl klkl llkl l|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 230 n. a

Citation context One in a series of examples of second perfect δέδειπνα < δειπνέω (sc. rather than the more common first perfect δεδείπνηκα, as at e. g. Ar. Ec. 1133; Philyll. fr. 3.1; Pl. Com. fr. 71.1; Diph. fr. 53.1; Apollod. Car. fr. 29.5; Od. 17.359; Antipho 1.18; X. Cyr. 8.3.35; Pl. Prt. 310c) as the perfect of δειπνέω. Alex.

160

Antiphanes

fr. 114; Eub. frr. 90–1, in that order, are cited immediately before this, Ar. frr. 480; 260; Pl. Com. fr. 157; Epicr. fr. 1, in that order, immediately after this. A brief discussion of second perfect ἤριστα < ἀριστάω (sc. in place of first perfect ἠρίστηκα), citing Ar. fr. 513; Hermipp. fr. 60; Theopomp. Com. fr. 23, in that order, follows; cf. fr. 216.25 ἠριστηκότας with n. That these forms attracted ancient scholarly attention and comment is also apparent from the now radically truncated Antiatt. δ 32 δεδειπνάναι· Πλάτων Σοφισταῖς (fr. 157); 35 δεδείπνηκας· Μένανδρος (fr. 427). Interpretation A comment about the movements of a third party (a parasite who can be expected to arrive before the food is gone? an entertainer wanted for the symposium portion of the event? a personified dish everyone is eager to consume?). 1 δέδειπνα is attested only in late 5th/4th-century comedy and, like ἤριστα (see Citation context), appears to be a colloquial Attic form used by the comic poets when metrically convenient. Cf. Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 114 (with further bibliography).

161

Λήμνιαι (Lêmniai)

“Women from Lemnos”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.330; Kock 1884 II.70

Title and Content Like Aristophanes’ comedy by the same title—apparently modeled on Euripides’ Hypsipyle—and perhaps Nicochares’ Λήμνιαι as well, this seems most likely to have been a parodic version of the tale of the visit of the Argonauts to the island of Lemnos, where the local women had murdered their husbands and were desperate to have sex (and thus get children). For the story—alluded to already at Il. 7.467–71, and the subject of tragedies by Aeschylus and Sophocles as well as Euripides—see in general Burkert 1970; Burkert 1983. 190–6; Jackson 1990; Gantz 1993. 345–6; Maugère, LIMC VIII.1.645–7. For other mythological travesties, cf. Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; and see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. The title might alternatively be understood as referring to the place of origin of two female characters in the play, as seemingly with male characters in Αἰγύπτιοι with Introduction and Κᾶρες, and in Alexis’ Λημνία; cf. (female characters) Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Καρίνη, Κορινθία; (male characters) Ἀφροδίσιος, Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ζακύνθιος, Λευκάδιος, Λυδός, Ποντικός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός and, and perhaps Ἀρκάς; and see Arnott 2010. 318–19 for other similar titles in other 4th-century comic poets. Although male ethnics and local adjectives in the plural are common as titles in the 4th-century comic poets, however, as are female ethnics and local adjectives in the singular, female ethnics and local adjectives in the plural are extremely rare—Diphilus’ Λήμνιαι, Anaxandrides’ and Posidippus’ Λοκρίδες (also mythological travesty? see Redfield 2003. 85–150; Millis 2015. 130), and an anonymous 2nd-c. BCE Σαλαμίνιαι appear to be the only other examples—which counts against this interpretation. Diphilus’ Λήμνιαι was thus most likely mythological travesty as well. Date Unknown.

162

Antiphanes

Fragments fr. 142 K.–A. (144 K.)

5

10

εἶτ’ ἐστὶν ἢ γένοιτ’ ἂν ἡδίων τέχνη ἢ πρόσοδος ἄλλη τοῦ κολακεύειν εὐφυῶς; ὁ ζωγράφος πονεῖ τι καὶ πικραίνεται· ὁ γεωργὸς 〈lxlklxlkl xlk〉 ἐν ὅσοις ἐστὶ κινδύνοις πάλιν. πρόσεστι πᾶσιν ἐπιμέλεια καὶ πόνος, ἡμῖν δὲ μετὰ γέλωτος ὁ βίος καὶ τρυφῆς· οὗ γὰρ τὸ μέγιστον ἔργον ἐστὶ παιδιά, ἁδρὸν γελάσαι, σκῶψαί τιν’, ἐκπιεῖν πολύν, οὐχ ἡδύ; ἐμοὶ μὲν μετὰ τὸ πλουτεῖν δεύτερον

3 τι Ath.ACE : τε Grotius s s Ath.AC E : ἐμπιεῖν Ath.CE

5

10

4–5 lac. indic. Jacobs

8 οὗ Ath.CE : οὐ Ath.A

9 ἐκπιεῖν

So is there, or could there be, another craft or source of income more enjoyable than toadying adeptly? The painter does difficult work and has it hard; the farmer 〈lxlklxlkl xlk〉 how many dangers he’s again exposed to. They all have trouble and hard work, whereas our life involves laughter and luxury; because when the most important task is having fun, laughing loudly, mocking someone, consuming a lot (of wine), isn’t that nice? In my opinion, this is the next best thing after being rich

Ath. 6.258c–e Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Λημνίαις τέχνην τινὰ εἶναι ὑποτίθεται τὴν κολακείαν ἐν οἷς λέγει· —— Antiphanes in Lêmniai suggests that flattery is a craft, in the passage where he says: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llkl klk|l klkl lrkl l|lrl llkl llkl klk|l klkl rlk〈l xlkl xlkl xlk〉r l|lk|l klkl klkl k|rkl klkl llkr klk|r llkl

Λήμνιαι (fr. 142)

10

163

llrl k|lk|l klkl klrl llk|l klkl llrl l|rk|l llkl

Discussion Grotius 1626. 976; Jacobs 1809. 156–7; Reinhardt 1974. 106–8; Nesselrath 1990. 311–12; Arnott 1996. 336; Mangidis 2003. 184 Text In 3, Grotius suggested τε in place of the paradosis τι (an internal accusative). This is a trival change. But “The painter both does difficult work and has it hard” is not the sense that is wanted, since either this is hendiadys (~ “does bitterly hard work”) or the second verb means “grows embittered”, sc. as a consequence of hard and implicitly unrewarding labor rather than as a separate, parallel action. 4–5 are transmitted as a single (metrical) verse, but without a main verb. Nor does it make obvious sense to refer to farming as a dangerous occupation. Jacobs accordingly argued for a lacuna (adopted by both Kock and Kassel–Austin, as also here) and suggested that the man referred to in 5 was perhaps a merchant (see fr. 149.1 n.) or a soldier (see fr. 264 n.). In 8, the Epitome’s οὗ (“where”) is patently correct, as opposed to Ath.A’s οὐ (“not”). Manuscript accents and breathing marks, like punctuation, have in any case no authority, and editors are free to handle them as they will. In 9, either ἐκπιεῖν (thus Ath.A and as a superlinear variant in the Epitome manuscripts; printed by Meineke and Kock) or ἐμπιεῖν (thus the main text in the Epitome manuscripts; printed by Kassel–Austin) might be right. ἐκπίνω appears to be used routinely in the sense “drain” when a vessel is named (e. g. Ar. Pl. 737 καὶ πρίν σε κοτύλας ἐκπιεῖν οἴνου δέκα). But it can also mean simply “drink up” (cf. fr. 47.3 n.), and the better attested reading ought to be preferred, with the Epitome’s mu understood as a minuscule error.72 Citation context From a long, wandering discussion of flattery and flatterers (Ath. 6.248c–62a) that also preserves fr. 200. Interpretation A shamelessly self-congratulatory speech by what must be a toady (κόλαξ; see 2 n.); cf. the praise of the parasite at fr. 80. ἡμῖν in 7, as well as the unguarded tone, suggest that the addressee (if there is one) is another practitioner of the “craft” (1). But the speaker might instead be bragging to an ordinary person about the marvelous life he and his peers enjoy; or this might be part of 72

The Epitome’s ἐμπίνω (“drink one’s fill, guzzle”) is first attested at Thgn. 1129, but is absent from tragic poetry and lyric; found in prose at Hdt. 3.11.3; 4.64.1 (both ugly passages referring to drinking the blood of one’s enemies); in satyr play at E. Cyc. 336; in comedy at e. g. Epich. fr. 32.7; Cratin. fr. 301; Ar. Pax 1143; Alex. fr. 25.4; and in mock-didactic at Archestr. fr. 60.6 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc. The compound is picked up by a number of Second Sophistic authors (e. g. Plu. Cim. 1.4; Luc. Nigr. 22; Ael. ep. 15), suggesting that in the Roman period it was taken to be a 5th/4th-century colloquialism.

164

Antiphanes

a prologue soliloquy directed to the audience. 1 εἶτ(α) marks what follows as a conclusion building on an previous argument (cf. frr. 101.1; 157.1) and thus as only part of a longer speech. 1–2 τέχνη / ἢ πρόσοδος represents a single idea viewed from two different perspectives, as a skill implicitly producing revenue, on the one hand, and as revenue implicitly produced by a skill, on the other. Cf. Ar. Pax 1212 ἀπώλεσάς μου τὴν τέχνην καὶ τὸν βίον (“You’ve ruined my craft and my livelihood”). 1 ἢ γένοιτ’ ἄν raises the argumentative stakes considerably: the question is not just whether there is another craft more enjoyable than flattery, but whether this is even conceivable. A τέχνη is something one either learns from another person or invents for oneself by investing mental effort: e. g. Ar. V. 1431 ἔρδοι τις ἣν ἕκαστος εἰδείη τέχνην (“let every man practice the trade he knows”); Ra. 766 τὴν τέχνην σοφώτερος (“wiser in his trade”); Ec. 364 δεινὸς … τὴν τέχνην (“clever in respect to his trade”); Pl. 905 τέχνην τιν’ ἔμαθες; (“Did you learn a trade?”); Amphis fr. 3; Theophil. fr. 12.7 τέχνῃ σοφῆς (“skilled in her trade”; said of a female lyre-player); Xenarch. fr. 8.3 εὕρηκα παντοδαπὰς τέχνας (“I’ve invented every sort of device”; said by a clever fisherman); Alex. frr. 37.8–9; 259.1 τιν’ εὑρίσκει τέχνην (“he invents a device”, of a parasite who always discovers a means to tell where a good meal is being prepared); Anaxipp. fr. 1.2 συμμαθηταὶ τῆς τέχνης (“fellow-students of the trade”), 21–2, 24–5 (all in reference to cooking); Philem. frr. 136; 178.5 τέχνην μαθών (“learning a trade”). Cf. the use of the word for working as a sycophant at Ar. Av. 1423; of bullshitting and flattery (as here) at Anaxandr. fr. 50; and of being a parasite at Diph. fr. 76.2, and see in general Löbl 1997–2008. 2 For πρόσοδος in the sense “income, revenue” (LSJ s. v. II), a prosaic 5th/4thcentury sense of the word, cf. Diph. fr. 31.5. κολακεύω (“play the toady, play the lickspittle, Pence”; etymology uncertain) and cognates are first attested in the final quarter of the 5th century in comedy and are normally insulting; for nouns in -αξ (routinely hostile in tone), see Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 172.9–10. No real person would claim to be a κόλαξ, except perhaps in self-mockery, and the term instead reflects a hostile judgment applied to a social situation from outside of it: someone (A.) takes to be a friend, confidant, ally, intellectual partner or the like is described by (B.) as a mere κόλαξ. (A.) is convinced that the man in question has become part of his intellectual or social circle because he shares his own beliefs or enjoys his company, and he therefore extends hospitality, support and patronage to him when he can. (B.), by contrast, insists that such gifts are all that interests the man he disparagingly terms a “toady”, who is playing a cynical game and making (A.) his fool. For the term and its history, see Thphr. Char. 2 with Diggle 2004. 181; Ath. 6.234c–62a, esp. 248c–61a (preserving a large portion of the most important ancient material, including this fragment); Ribbeck 1883; Nesselrath 1985. 88–121; Brown 1992; Arnott 1996. 543; Wilkins 2000. 71–86; Pernerstorfer 2010; Corner 2013 (all with further bibliography), and cf. the introduction to Παράσιτος. The speaker here, however, is well aware that

Λήμνιαι (fr. 142)

165

he is engaged in calculating behavior, hence εὐφυῶς (used similarly at Alex. fr. 24.1*73). For the speaker’s awareness of his inferior social station and his longing to escape it, see 10 n. 3 ζωγράφος For painters, see Zôgraphos Introduction. πονεῖ τι καὶ πικραίνεται Probably hendiadys; see Text. πονεῖ τι is picked up in 6 πόνος. πικραίνω is prosaic late 5th/4th-century vocabulary (e. g. Hp. Epid. II 6.22.2 = 5.136.15 Littré; Pl. Lg. 731d). 4 ὁ γεωργός For the proverbially hard life of the farmer, which must have been the point of whatever followed here, cf. Men. Dysc. 604–6 τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν εἰλικρ[ινὴς] γεωργὸς Ἀττικός· / πέτραις μαχόμενος θύμα φερούσαις καὶ σφάκον / ὀδύνας ἐπισπᾶ[τ’ ο]ὐδὲν ἀγαθὸν λαμβάνων (“This is a perfect example of an Attic farmer: he wages war on rocks that produce thyme and sage, and reaps pains and gets nothing good”); fr. 782 (more upbeat, but still acknowledging ἀλγεινά, “toils”, as the most obvious aspect of a farmer’s life). 5 If πάλιν has its normal sense “back, again” (as at e. g. fr. 231.3; = LSJ s. v. I), what preceded was perhaps a description of how the individual in question thought he was out of trouble, although he was not. 6 For the combination ἐπιμέλεια καὶ πόνος—here not obviously anything other than another hendiadys (cf. 3 n.)—Kassel–Austin compare Men. Dysc. 862; X. Mem. 2.1.28 τῶν γὰρ ὄντων ἀγαθῶν καὶ καλῶν οὐδὲν ἄνευ πόνου καὶ ἐπιμελείας οἱ θεοὶ διδόασιν ἀνθρώποις (“for the gods give nothing good or fair to human beings without trouble and hard work”; Prodicus is speaking), and add X. Hier. 9.11; Cyn. 13.13; Isoc. 7.43; 19.28. For ἐπιμέλεια, fr. 283 n. 6–7 ἡμῖν δέ stands in pointed contrast to πᾶσιν (“all [of them] … whereas our life …”). For βίος in the sense “way of life, lifestyle”, cf. frr. 80.2, 5; 225.6. 7 is unpacked in 8–10, with more emphasis on laughter (γέλως) than on luxury (τρυφή). τρυφή (< θρύπτω, “break in pieces” and thus “weaken, enervate”) is late 5th/4th-century Attic vocabulary, first attested in poetry (e. g. Ar. Ra. 21; E. Tr. 997; Agathon TrGF 39 F 3.1; not in Aeschylus or Sophocles); cf. fr. 172a.3 τρυφερᾶς with n. For the theme of luxury in general, fr. 91 n. 8 παιδιά (first attested as the title of a play by Crates) must refer in the first instance to symposium games such as cottabus (fr. 57 with n.), riddles (fr. 122 with n.) and “likenesses” (see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1308–10), as at e. g. Pl. Prt. 347d. 9 For ἁδρός (cognate with ἅδην, “to one’s fill”), frr. 21.5 n.; 27.21 n. Late 5th/4th-century colloquial vocabulary, absent from elevated poetry. For the word used adverbially, cf. comparative ἁδρότερον at Diph. fr. 5.2 (of drinking; noted in LSJ s. v. I).

73

Kassel–Austin compare εὐφυῶς κ[ at POxy. 3534.2 (from Menander’s Kolax).

166

Antiphanes

σκώπτω + accusative is “mock”, as at e. g. fr. 193.12 σκωμμάτων (in reference to giving a person a mocking nickname and all the hostile comments that presumably accompanied it) with n.; Ar. Nu. 1267 μὴ σκῶπτέ μ(ε); Cephisod. fr. 1.1 σκώπτεις μ(ε); contrast fr. 80.9 ἂν σκώπτῃς, γελᾷ with n. For nominally friendly insults as a standard occurence at symposia, cf. Ar. V. 1308–21; Alex. fr. 160; adesp. eleg. fr. 27.3–6 West2; and see in general Edwards 1991. 168–78; Halliwell 1991; Rosen 2016. For ἐκπίνω, see Text. 10 οὐχ ἡδύ; picks up ἡδίων in 1. Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Eq. 27*. ἐμοὶ μέν is often used withοut a balancing δέ-clause when an expression of opinion is in question (e. g. Ar. Nu. 1437; Av. 1603; Ec. 155; Men. Asp. 259), “no matter what anyone may think” vel sim. being implied. μετὰ τὸ πλουτεῖν δεύτερον plays on a traditional trope in which various human goods are ranked, good health not unreasonably being put first, and the question then being what comes second and after that; cf. carm. conv. PMG 890 (health first, beauty second, wealth third, and “being young with your friends” fourth); Anaxandr. fr. 18 (health first, but putting anything else ahead of wealth is a sign of insanity, since “a handsome man, if hungry, is an ugly beast”) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Dodds 1959 on Pl. Grg. 451e2. Here the speaker simply aspires to be rich—which is to say, despite everything he has just been arguing about the blessedness of his position, that what he would really like is to be someone who is toadied to rather than a toady.

fr. 143 K.–A. (145 K.) παρετέθη τρίπους πλακοῦντα χρηστόν, ὦ πολυτίμητοι θεοί, ἔχων ἐν ἀργυρῷ τε τρυβλίῳ μέλι A table was set beside me that held a nice cake, O much-honored gods, and honey in a silver bowl Ath. 6.230d–e καὶ Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν Λημνίαις φησί· —— Antiphanes too says in Lêmniai: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xlk〉|r klkl klkl k|lrl llkl klkl klk|l klkl

Λήμνιαι (fr. 143)

Discussion

167

Mangidis 2003. 184–5

Citation context Part of a collection of passages from comedy that mention silver dining and symposium vessels; Ar. Pl. 812–15; Pl. Com. fr. 127; Sophr. fr. 29; Philippid. fr. 9; Alex. fr. 2.3–9; Nicostr. Com. fr. 8, in that order, are quoted immediately before this, Sopat. frr. 14; 18; Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 252; Diph. fr. 43; Philem. fr. 35; Men. frr. 78; 366; Lys. fr. 201, in that order, immediately after this. Heliodorus of Athens’ On the Acropolis (FGrH 373 F 4) is cited at the beginning of the catalogue for his claim that Aristophanes’ family was from Naucratis (= Ar. test. 12); given the title of the work, however, Heliodorus’ main interest may well have been in literary parallels for silver objects dedicated on the Acropolis (for which, see e. g. IG I3 292.7–12), with all this material accordingly drawn from him.74 Interpretation An appreciative retrospective account of what, the items served suggest, is a symposium. If so, the τρίπους mentioned in 1 must be a “second table” loaded with everything needed for the event; cf. fr. 172b n. 1 For παρατίθημι, fr. 61.1 n.; with a table as object also at e.g. fr. 172b.2; Crates Com. fr. 16.5; Alex. fr. 176.1; Od. 5.92; 21.28–9; Thebais fr. 2.2, p. 23 Bernabé; X. An. 4.5.31. 2 For the πλακοῦς, fr. 55.11 n. Included in catalogues of symposium dainties (tragêmata) at e. g. Ar. Ach. 1092; Pl. 995–6; Philippid. fr. 20.1; Alex. fr. 252.4; Diph. fr. 80.1. For χρηστός applied to objects and in particular food, fr. 126.4 n. The invocation ὦ πολυτίμητοι θεοί (most likely colloquial usage) appears also at Ar. V. 1001*; Men. Asp. 408* (partially restored); Dysc. 202* (partially restored) with Handley 1965 ad loc., 381*, 479*; Mis. 565*; frr. 106.2*; 508.5*. Cf. fr. 145.3 τῶν θεῶν … τιμιωτέρα with n.; Ar. Ach. 759 πολυτίματος ᾇπερ τοὶ θεοί (“polytimatos like the gods”; of grain, playing on another sense of the word, “high-priced”) with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Th. 594 ὦ πολυτιμήτω θεώ* (of Demeter and Kore). The adjective is used elsewhere in invocations of e. g. Zeus (Pherecr. fr. 166.1; Ar. fr. 336.1; Eub. fr. 115.6; Mimn. fr. 26.1), the Clouds (e. g. Ar. Nu. 269, 293), Demeter (Ar. Th. 286) and Herakles (Ar. Ach. 807). 3 μέλι For honey, fr. 273.2 n. Here it is probably to be poured over the cake; cf. Crobyl. fr. 10 τὸν πλακοῦντα κόμμιδι / οὐ μέλιτι διεκόσμει (“He / she adorned the cake not with honey but with gum”; perverse behavior). ἀργυρῷ τε τρυβλίῳ For silver vessels (a mark of wealth and luxury), fr. 223.3 n. For the τρύβλιον, fr. 71.2 n. 74

If so, it may be that the odd claim regarding the poet’s place of origin reflects confusion with some otherwise unknown Aristophanes of Naucratis who dedicated a silver object with which Heliodorus was acquainted. Cf. FGrH 373 F 7, where Heliodorus attempts to identify a certain Onetor of the deme Melite mentioned by Isocrates and Demosthenes (PA 11473; PAA 748105) with a man who dedicated a choregic tripod (PA 11473; PAA 748110).

168

Λυδός (Lydos) “The Lydian”

Introduction Title The Lydians were a non-Greek (although Indo-European-speaking) people who lived around the Hermos River inland from coastal Ionia and north of Caria. Their ancient capital was Sardis, although by Antiphanes’ time they had long been absorbed into the Persian Empire. Lydians were regarded as archetypes of luxurious effeminacy (see Bagordo 2014. 97; Matthews 2015. 494–5, and in general fr. 91 n.), which perhaps contributed to the presentation of the title character. For ethnics, local adjectives and the like as play-titles, cf. (non-Greek male characters, as here) Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός; (Greek male characters) Βοιώτιος, Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ζακύνθιος, Λευκάδιος, Ποντικός and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (non-Greek male plurals) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; (Greek female characters) Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Καρίνη, Κορινθία, Λευκαδία and Λήμνιαι with Introduction; See Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. The early 5th-century comic poet Magnes wrote a Λυδοί (most likely called after the chorus) Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 144 K.–A. (146 K.) Κολχὶς ἄνθρωπος πάροινος an abusively drunk Colchian woman Ath. 10.445c Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Λυδῷ εἴρηκε· —— Antiphanes in Lydos says: ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic?

e. g. lkll lklx | 〈lklx lkl〉

Discussion ἄνθρωπος

Meineke 1839–1857 III.80; Meineke 1849 on p. 673.3 Φρυγία

Λυδός (fr. 144)

169

Citation context Pontianus (the speaker) had used the verb παροινέω twice at Ath. 10.444b (including in a quotation of fr. 42.2), and this is part of his response to Ulpian’s question as to where the cognate adjective is attested. A discussion of rare words and forms connected with drinking that includes frr. 4; 205; 161, in that order, follows. Interpretation Colchis is the eastern shore of the Black Sea region, roughly equivalent in geographical terms to modern Georgia and probably only very superficially Hellenized in Antiphanes’ time; see in general Braund 1994, esp. pp. 73–151. Meineke 1839–1857 (followed by Kassel–Austin, who cite Meineke 1849 to no real effect) took the individual in question to be a slave from there. For the slave-trade between Colchis and the Greek world; see Braund–Tsetskhladze 1989, and more generally Doumas 1991, and note the presence of a Colchian slave at IG I3 421.44 in the list of property belonging to one of the men condemned in connection with the supposed defamation of the Mysteries in the mid-410s BCE. For women as stereotypical comic drunks, fr. 47.1 n. For πάροινος, fr. 42.2 n., and cf. Pratin. TrGF 4 F 3.8 (lyric); [Epich.] fr. 244.4; Lys. 4.8; D. 54.14; Men. Pk. 1022; also the title of a play by Diphilus. For the pleonastic use of ἄνθρωπος with a geographical adjective, also Ar. Ec. 979 Ἀναφλύστιον … τιν’ ἄνθρωπον; Eub. fr. 87.1 Θετταλός τις ἄνθρωπος.

170

Λύκων (Lykôn) “Lykôn”

Introduction Discussion 231 n. e

Meineke 1839–1857 I.327; Breitenbach 1908. 58–9; Edmonds 1959.

Title Meineke thought that the reference was to the comic actor Lykon (PAA 611915; O’Connor #319; Stephanis #1567; cf. IG II2 2325F.48), who seems to belong to the 340s BCE or so and might thus have been active at the end of Antiphanes’ career. As Breitenbach points out, however, a comic actor is not an obvious target for a comic poet, who might well have to work with him in the future, and the name is in any case common in Athens in the classical period (19 examples in LGPN II). More likely, therefore, Λύκων is either the name of another real contemporary or a “speaking name” (cf. Εὐθύδικος, “Just-judge”, Τύχων, “Lucky”, and courtesan names such as Μαλθάκη) for a rapacious (“wolf-like”) character; cf. Λεωνίδης Introduction. For other non-mythological male names used as titles for Antiphanes’ plays, cf. Κλεοφάνης, Μητροφῶν, Μίδων, Τίμων, Φιλίσκος and perhaps Γόργυθος, Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Φάων. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 145 K.–A. (147 K.)

5

τά τ’ ἄλλα δεινούς φασι τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους εἶναι τὸ νομίσαι τ’ ἰσόθεον τὴν ἔγχελυν· πολὺ τῶν θεῶν γάρ ἐστι τιμιωτέρα· τῶν μὲν γὰρ εὐξαμένοισίν ἐσθ’ ἡμῖν τυχεῖν, τούτων δὲ δραχμὰς τοὐλάχιστον δώδεκα ἢ πλέον ἀναλώσασιν ὀσφρέσθαι μόνον· οὕτως † ἔσθ’ ἅγιον παντελῶς τὸ θηρίον

2 τὸ Ath.ACE Eust. : τε Naber 4 τυχεῖν Ath.ACE : θιγεῖν Kock 5 δὲ δραχμὰς Ath.ACE : δραχμὰς δὲ Bothe 6 ὀσφρέσθαι Elmsley : ὀσφρᾶσθαι Ath.ACE 7 οὕτως ἔσθ’ ἅγιον Ath.ACE : οὕτως ἅγιόν γε Koppiers : οὕτως ἅγιόν τι Dindorf : οὕτως ἄρ᾿ ἅγιον Edmonds : οὕτω ᾿στιν ἅγιον Porson : ὧδ᾿ ἐστὶν ἅγιον Richards : fort. οὕτως γὰρ ἅγιον

They say the Egyptians are clever in various ways, including in regarding the eel as equivalent to a deity;

Λύκων (fr. 145)

5

171

because it’s much more highly regarded than the gods. For we can contact (the gods) by praying, whereas despite spending at least a dozen drachmas (on eels), or more, we get only a whiff; that’s † how profoundly sacred the creature is

Ath. 7.299e Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Λύκωνι κωμῳδῶν τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους φησίν· —— Antiphanes in Lykôn makes fun of the Egyptians, saying: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

klkl l|lk|l llkl llkr l|rkl llkl rlkl k|lk|l klkl llkl rlk|l llkl llkl l|lkl llkl lrkl llk|l llkl ll†lkk l|lkl klkl

Discussion Koppiers 1771. 43; Porson 1812. 97; Dindorf 1827 II.650; Elmsley 1830. 28; Bothe 1855. 380–1; Naber 1880. 50; Kock 1884 II.71; Richards 1907. 34; Edmonds 1959. 232 Text τὸ νομίσαι in 2 is peculiar, and Naber’s τε νομίσαι is apparently intended to convert the sense to “And they say the Egyptians both are clever in other matters and regard the eel as equivalent to a god”. This is less convincing sense, and τά τ(ε) ἄλλα appears to be a prose idiom that works in a different way (see Interpretation). In 4, the paradosis τυχεῖν is an unusual way to say “come into contact with”, hence Kock’s θιγεῖν. But θιγγάνω does not appear to be used elsewhere in the specific sense the passage requires, and cf. A. Supp. 161 μὴ τυχοῦσαι θεῶν Ὀλυμπίων (“if we fail to come in contact with the Olympian gods”, i.e “if they do not heed our prayers”). χμ does not make position in forms of δραχμή in frr. 63.2; 175.5, hence Bothe’s δραχμὰς δὲ in place of the paradosis δὲ δραχμὰς, which would then be an example of a more conventional word-order (cf. τῶν μὲν in 4) replacing a less conventional but metrically conditioned order. But the word is not handled consistently in 4thcentury poets (see Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 2.6), and it is probably better to treat this as an irregularity in Antiphanes’ metrical practice. The meaning is unaffected in any case. In 6, the manuscripts of Athenaeus offer the non-form ὀσφρᾶσθαι, as if from *ὀσφράομαι. Elmsley’s strong-root aorist middle infinitive ὀσφρέσθαι (cf. ὤσφροντο at Ar. Ach. 179; ὀσφρόμενος at Ar. V. 792 and Th. 495; ὀσφρομένην

172

Antiphanes

at Philonid. fr. 2.2) is seemingly also attested at Eup. fr. 7, where the manuscripts offer the unmetrical ὀσφραίνεσθαι. 7 is unmetrical. Koppiers, Dindorf and Edmonds all proposed removing ἔσθ’ (a simple superlinear gloss ἐστί mistakenly incorporated into the text?) and adding another short syllable to the text (thus “so profoundly sacred” Koppiers; “such a profoundly sacred thing” Dindorf; “so sacred, then!” Edmonds). The first two suggestions require a double error, which strains credulity, and the difficulty with the third is that ἄρα “expressing a lively feeling of interest” is rare in Attic (Denniston 1954. 33). οὕτως γὰρ ἅγιον would also do, with the error in that case to be explained as a confusion of two ligatures. Porson and Richards, by contrast, retain a form of ἐστί and alter οὕτως. Against Porson’s οὕτω ᾿στιν ἅγιον is the fact that “οὕτω with prodelision is unparalleled and in itself very improbable, given the regularity of οὕτως before initial vowel” (Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 63, citing Platnauer 1960. 142). Richard’s ὧδ᾿ ἐστὶν ἅγιον is more plausible, as an example of a more common word driving out a less common one.75 Citation context Quoted in the course of an extended discussion of eels (Ath. 7.297c–300d) as part of the long, largely alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes up much of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and that is probably drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. Anaxandr. fr. 40 and Timocl. fr. 1 (see Interpretation) are preserved immediately after this, in that order, followed shortly by fr. 104. Interpretation An eel-lover’s lament. Despite Athenaeus (or his source; see Citation context), the Egyptians are mentioned only in passing and are not obviously the speaker’s main target, which is more likely fishsellers and their unconscionably high prices; see fr. 27 n. For the amused treatment of Egyptian theriomorphic deities, cf. Anaxandr. fr. 40 οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην συμμαχεῖν ὑμῖν ἐγώ· / οὔθ’ οἱ τρόποι γὰρ ὁμονοοῦσ’ οὔθ’ οἱ νόμοι / ἡμῶν, ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων δὲ διέχουσιν πολύ. / βοῦν προσκυνεῖς, ἐγὼ δὲ θύω τοῖς θεοῖς· / τὴν ἔγχελυν μέγιστον ἡγεῖ δαίμονα, / ἡμεῖς δὲ τῶν ὄψων μέγιστον παρὰ πολύ· / οὐκ ἐσθίεις ὕει’, ἐγὼ δέ γ’ ἥδομαι / μάλιστα τούτοις· κύνα σέβεις, τύπτω δ’ ἐγώ, / τοὔψον κατεσθίουσαν ἡνίκ’ ἂν λάβω. /  τοὺς ἱερέας ἐνθάδε μὲν ὁλοκλήρους νόμος / εἶναι, παρ’ ὑμῖν δ’, ὡς ἔοικ’, ἀπηργμένους. / τὸν αἰέλουρον κακὸν ἔχοντ’ ἐὰν ἴδῃς / κλάεις, ἐγὼ δ’ ἥδιστ’ ἀποκτείνας δέρω. / δύναται παρ’ ὑμῖν μυγαλῆ, παρ’ ἐμοὶ δέ γ’ οὔ (“I couldn’t make an alliance with you; because our styles don’t agree, and neither do our customs, but they’re quite different from one another. You 75

Richards himself calls this “an unusual use of ὧδε”, although he notes S. El. 941 οὐ γὰρ ὧδ’ ἄφρων ἔφυν; E. Ion 1546 οὐχ ὧδε φαύλως αὔτ’ ἐγὼ μετέρχομαι. But there are numerous parallels in Aristophanes in particular: Ach. 215 ὧδε φαύλως; Av. 235 ὧδε λεπτόν; Lys. 301 ὧδ’ ὀδάξ, 369 ὧδε … ἀναιδές, 518 ὧδ’ ἀνοήτως, 1015 ὧδ’ ἀναιδής; Th. 525 ὧδ’ ἀναιδῶς, and cf. adesp. com. fr. *142.1–2 τίς ὧδε μῶρος καὶ λίαν ἀνειμένως / εὔπειστος ἀνδρῶν;

Λύκων (fr. 145)

173

worship a cow, whereas I sacrifice it to the gods; you consider the eel the greatest deity, whereas we (regard it as) far and away the greatest delicacy; you don’t eat pork, whereas I’m extremely fond of it; you worship a dog, whereas I beat it when I catch it gobbling down my food. It’s the custom here for priests to have all their parts, whereas in your country, apparently, a piece of them is offered as a sacrifice. If you see a cat suffering, you cry, whereas I’m perfectly happy to kill it and take the skin. A fieldmouse is important in your eyes, but not in mine”); Timocl. fr. 1 πῶς ἂν μὲν οὖν σώσειεν ἶβις ἢ κύων; / ὅπου γὰρ εἰς τοὺς ὁμολογουμένους θεοὺς / ἀσεβοῦντες οὐ διδόασιν εὐθέως δίκην, / τίν’ αἰελούρου βωμὸς ἐπιτρίψειεν ἄν; (“How could an ibis or a dog protect someone? If people who fail to respect generally recognized gods aren’t punished immediately, who’s going to be destroyed by an altar dedicated to a cat?”). Hdt. 2.72 also reports that the Egyptians considered the eel sacred; cf. Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007 ad loc. For eating eel (a delicacy), fr. 45.1 n. 1–2 For τά τ(ε) ἄλλα used thus (prosaic), to acknowledge the existence of other items that might be included in a list but in which the speaker at the moment feels no particular interest, e. g. Ar. Ra. 975–7 διειδέναι / τά τ’ ἄλλα καὶ τὰς οἰκίας / οἰκεῖν ἄμεινον ἢ πρὸ τοῦ (“to thoroughly understand various things, including how to live in their homes better than before); Alex. fr. 131.2–4 τά τ’ ἄλλα γὰρ / νενομοθέτηκε πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖα δή, / νυνί τε καινὸν εἰσφέρει νόμον τινά (“because he’s gotten much other legislation of various sorts enacted, and now he’s introducing a new law”); adesp. com. fr. 148.1–2 τὸν νομοθέτην φασὶν Χαρώνδαν ἔν τινι / νομοθεσίᾳ τά τ’ ἄλλα καὶ ταυτὶ λέγειν (“they say that the legislator Charondas is proposing various things in a law-code, including the following”); Th. 3.36.1 οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τὸν μὲν Σάλαιθον εὐθὺς ἀπέκτειναν, ἔστιν ἃ παρεχόμενον τά τ’ ἄλλα καὶ ἀπὸ Πλαταιῶν … ἀπάξειν Πελοποννησίους (“the Athenians executed Salaithos, although he offered various things, including that he would get the Peloponnesians to leave Plataea”); X. HG 4.1.40 τά τ’ ἄλλα ὁ Ἀγησίλαος ἐπεμελεῖτο αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐρασθέντος αὐτοῦ τοῦ Εὐάλκους υἱέος Ἀθηναίου, πάντ’ ἐποίησεν ὅπως ἂν δι’ ἐκεῖνον ἐγκριθείη τὸ στάδιον ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ, μέγιστος ὢν τῶν παίδων (“Agesilaos took care of [the son of Parapita] in various ways, including that, since [the son of Parapita] was in love with the son of Eualkes, an Athenian, he made every effort to get [the son of Eualkes] admitted to the stade race for [the son of Parapita’s] sake, since [the son of Eualkes] was the tallest of the boys”); Pl. Smp. 220a τά τ’ ἄλλα καὶ πίνειν οὐκ ἐθέλων, ὁπότε ἀναγκασθείη, πάντας ἐκράτει (“in various ways, including that although he preferred not to drink, when he was forced to do so, he outdid everyone”); Thphr. CP 6.18.3 τὰ περὶ Κυρήνην … εὔοσμα τά τ’ ἄλλα καὶ μάλιστα τὸ ῥόδον καὶ ὁ κρόκος (“various plants found around Cyrene have a nice fragrance, and in particular the rose and the crocus”). 2 ἰσόθεος is used here in its traditional epic sense “equal to the gods” (LSJ s. v. 1; e. g. Il. 2.565; Od. 1.324; Hes. fr. 22.4 M.–W. = fr. 18.4 Most; cf. fr. 180.2 ἰσοτράπεζος, “as big as the table”; A. Pers. 80, 634 ἰσοδαίμων, 857; Bacch. 13.64; Pl. Phdr. 258c); contrast the meaning “equal to that which belongs to the gods” (LSJ

174

Antiphanes

s. v. 2) at e. g. Men. fr. 823 ἰσοθέους τιμάς; E. Tr. 1169 ἰσοθέου τυραννίδος; Pl. R. 568b ἰσόθεον … τὴν τυραννίδα; Isoc. 10.61 δύναμιν ἰσόθεον. 3 τῶν θεῶν … τιμιωτέρα plays on the two senses of τίμιος, “held in honor” (LSJ s. v. I) and “valuable, expensive” (LSJ s. v. II). Cf. frr. 59.9 (used in the first sense) with n.; 143.2 ὦ πολυτίμητοι θεοί with n.; 284 (used in the second sense); Ar. Ach. 759 (quoted in fr. 143.2 n.). 4–6 In both the μέν- and the δέ-clauses, the datives are dependent on ἐσ(τί) (“it is possible for us”), the genitives on the infinitive (“to come in contact with them”, “to get a whiff of those”). 4 For prayer, see in general Pulleyn 1997. 5–6 τοὐλάχιστον δώδεκα / ἢ πλέον (“twelve at least, or more”) is either weak writing or an attempt to characterize the speaker as a slightly muddled thinker. For adverbial τὸ (ἐ)λάχιστον (often with numbers, as here), e. g. Axionic. fr. 6.5 τοὐλάχιστον ὀκτὼ τραύματα; Hp. Morb. III 15.13 = 7.136.23 Littré; X. An. 5.7.8; D. 4.21; Aen. Tact. 6.1; Arist. Cael. 272b12–13; absent from elevated poetry. Gow 1965 on Macho 340 (cited by Kassel–Austin) notes that “in such phrases the number usually precedes the denomination” (which is not, however, ground for suspecting the soundness of the text). 6 For ὀσφραίνομαι + genitive, e. g. Ar. Lys. 618/9 ὀσφραίνομαι τῆς Ἱππίου τυραννίδος; Ra. 654 κρομμύων ὀσφραίνομαι; Philonid. fr. 2.2 ὀσφρομένην τῶν τηγάνων; Hdt. 1.80.5 ὤσφραντο … τῶν καμήλων, 1.202.2 ὀσφραινομένους δὲ καταγιζομένου τοῦ καρποῦ; X. Cyn. 4.6 τοῦ λαγῶ ὀσφραίνωνται, and see Poultney 1936. 101. Priscian, Inst. Gramm. 18.252 (Grammatici Latini III p. 334.15–17) cites Eup. fr. 7 προσένεγκέ μοὐγγὺς τὸ στόμ’ ὀσφρέσθαι τὸ σόν (“Bring your mouth close to me, please, so I can smell it!”) to show that the verb could also take the accusative, as it did in the Roman period. But this represents a misunderstanding of the syntax of the line, in which the accusative is the object of προσένεγκε and a genitive is generated from it to go with ὀσφρέσθαι; see Olson 2017 ad loc. For the sense of smell generally, fr. 78.3 n. For adverbial μόνον placed directly after the word it modifies, to allow for no doubt about its function, cf. frr. 57.10; 58.3; 59.8; 189.4; separated by a copulative at fr. 193.13. 7 That which is ἅγιος is properly “sacred” in a way that inspires awe, dread and reverence (cf. ἅζομαι) in those who encounter it, since it stands under a divine interdict of some sort (e. g. Ar. Nu. 304, of religious rites; Av. 522, of the Birds in the supposed past, when human beings felt respect for them as quasi-divinities; Lys. 262, of the olive-wood statue of Athena on the Acropolis; Mnesim. fr. 4.59, of Syria as a source of spices burnt as offerings; [Thesp.] TrGF 1 F [4.5], of altars; Hdt. 2.44.1, of a temple; Pl. Cri. 51a, of one’s fatherland, judged even more ἅγιος than one’s parents and ancestors; Criti. 116c, of a temple; [Arist.] Mir. 834b11–12, of an oath). The word is first attested at Cratin. fr. 402 and is absent from epic, lyric and tragedy except for the fragment of [Thespis] cited above. The alternative form is ἁγνός (already in Homer at e. g. Od. 5.123 Ἄρτεμις ἁγνή), which comedy uses

Λύκων (fr. 145)

175

mostly in lyric, in elevated passages of other sorts (cf. fr. 55.9, of Kore: “dithyrambic” language), or where cultic purity is in question (Eup. fr. 99.79; Ar. Lys. 912). For παντελῶς, fr. 234.4 n. θηρίον (properly a diminutive of θήρ, cognate with Latin ferus) is found in Homer at Od. 10.171, 180 (of a stag), but is absent from lyric poetry and tragedy, which use exclusively θήρ; in Homer, at least, the latter seems to be applied exclusively to wild rather than domestic animals. In the 5th and 4th centuries by contrast, the word appears to be the common colloquial generic term for “animal, non-human creature”; cf. fr. 159.1–2 οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν θηρίον τῶν ἰχθύων / ἀτυχέστερον (“there’s no thêrion more unfortunate than fish”); Ar. Av. 69–70 (“What thêrion are you?” “I’m a slave bird”); Lys. 1025 (a bug); Ra. 288 (the monstrous Empousa); Nausicr. fr. 2.2 λέοντας ἢ τοιοῦτον ἕτερον θηρίον (“lions or another such thêrion”); Alex. fr. 76.2 (sharks and the like); Men. Pk. 769 τ]ράγος τις ἢ βοῦς ἢ τοιουτὶ θηρ[ί]ον (“a billy-goat or a cow or some such thêrion”); Olson 2017 on Eup. fr. 143. Crates’ Thêria is thus just as likely “Animals” (as opposed to human beings) as “Wild Animals” (as opposed to both human beings and domesticated animals); Clackson 2019. 293–4.

176

Μαλθάκη (Malthakê)

“Malthakê” or “The Woman who was Soft”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.328–9; Breitenbach 1908. 128–9

Title Probably a courtesan’s working name (as at e.g. Men. Sic. 145, 386; Theophil. fr. 11.5; Luc. Rh.Pr. 12), like Λαμπάς, Μέλιττα, Μύστις, Νεοττίς, Φιλῶτις, Χρυσίς and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρχεστράτη, Εὔπλοια and Ὀμφάλη. For courtesans generally, fr. 2 n. But this might be instead a fundamental personal characteristic of the title-character (“cowardly” = LSJ s. v. II.1 or “mild” = LSJ s. v. II.2). Content

Unknown.

Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 146 K.–A. (148 K.)

5

ἔρχεται, μετέρχεται, προσέρχετ’, οὐ μετέρχεται, ἥκει, πάρεστι, ῥύπτεται, προσέρχεται, σμῆται, κτενίζετ’, ἐμβέβηκ᾿, ἐντρίβεται, λοῦται, σκοπεῖται, στέλλεται, μυρίζεται, κοσμεῖτ’, ἀλείφετ’· † ἂν δ’ ἔχοι τι † ἀπάγχεται

2 μετέρχεται, προσέρχετ’, οὐ μετέρχεται Scaliger : μετέρχεται αὕτη, προσέρχεται, οὐ μετέρχεται Clem. Al. : μετέρχετ᾿ αὖ, προσέρχετ’ αὖ, μετέρχεται Pierson : μετέρχεται, προσέρχετ’, αὖ μετέρχεται Herwerden : μετέρχετ᾿, αὖ προσέρχετ’, αὖ μετέρχεται Kaibel 2 in suspicionem vocavit Meineke, 3 Grotius, 3 ante 2 transp. Hermann (recepta Piersoni conjectura) 3 προσέρχεται Clem. Al. : “corruptum videtur” Kock : προσχρίεται Kaibel 4 σμῆται Klotz : σχήχεται Clem. Al. ἐμβέβηκε Clem. Al. : ἐκβέβηκε apogr. : ἐκδέδυκε Kock -βέβηκ᾿, ἐντρίβεται Meineke : -βέβηκε, τρίβεται Clem. Al. 5 λοῦται Pierson : λούεται Clem. Al. 6 ἂν δ’ ἔχοι τι Clem. Al. : ἂν δ’ ἔχῃ τι Sylburg : ἂν τύχῃ τι Meineke : ἂν δ’ ἕλητ᾿ Kaibel : ὃς ἂν ἔχῃ δ’ Kock

5

she’s coming, arriving, approaching, not arriving, she’s come, she’s here, she’s washing, approaching, using soap, combing her hair, she’s gotten in, she’s putting on make-up, bathing in perfume, looking at herself, getting herself ready, applying perfume,

Μαλθάκη (fr. 146)

177

ornamenting herself, anointing herself; † but if she should have something † she’s hanging herself Clem. Al. Paed. III.7.2 Ἀντιφάνης ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν Μαλθάκῃ τὸ ἑταιρικὸν τῶν γυναικῶν ἐπισκώπτει τὰ κοινὰ πάσαις ῥήματα εἰς τὴν κατατριβὴν ἐξηυρημένα λέγων· —— The comic author Antiphanes in Malthakê mocks the meretricious nature of women, pronouncing words that apply to them all and describe how they spend their time: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlkl xlkl x〉lkl klkl klk|l klkl llkl k|lkl klkl llkl k|lkl llkl llkl l|lkl llkl llkl k|†lklk† klkl

Discussion Grotius 1626. 976; Scaliger ap. Cant. ms. II p. 71; Pierson 1759. 337; Meineke 1839–1857 III.81–2; Hermann 1842. 512; Herwerden 1855. 49–50; Kock 1884 II.71–2; Kaibel ap. K.–A.; Lilja 1972. 69 Text In 2, Clement offers the hypermetrical μετέρχεται αὕτη, προσέρχεται, οὐ μετέρχεται. Scaliger (followed by Kassel–Austin and here faute de mieux) expelled αὕτη (an intrusive gloss?) and converted scriptio plena προσέρχεται to προσέρχετ’, producing μετέρχεται, προσέρχετ’, οὐ μετέρχεται; this is easy even if the point of μετέρχεται …, οὐ μετέρχεται remains obscure (see Interpretation). Pierson’s μετέρχετ᾿ αὖ, προσέρχετ’ αὖ, μετέρχεται (adopted by Kock) represents an attempt to salvage something from Clement’s αὕτη but is more complicated than Scaliger’s proposal, and one would expect μετέρχεται … μετέρχετ᾿ αὖ rather than μετέρχετ᾿ αὖ … μετέρχεται in any case. Herwerden proposed μετέρχεται, προσέρχετ’, αὖ μετέρχεται, Kaibel μετέρχετ᾿, αὖ προσέρχετ’, αὖ μετέρχεται. But αὖ seems to be consistently postpositive, ruling out this approach to the problem. Meineke printed 2 in the form μετέρχεθ’ αὕτη, προσέρχετ’, οὐ μετέρχεται (unmetrical), but suggested that the verse ought to be expelled from the text (originally a list of variants for 1 ἔρχεται?). On this view of things, προσέρχεται at the end of 3 (on which Kock commented “[the word] appears corrupt”) might also be ejected; but see Interpretation. Alternatively, Hermann suggested moving 3 to between 1 and 2— where he adopted Pierson’s μετέρχετ᾿ αὖ, προσέρχετ’ αὖ, μετέρχεται, although this makes little difference in this connection—so that the text reads “she’s coming, / she’s come, she’s here, she’s washing, approaching, / arriving again, approaching again, arriving, / using soap etc.”; the transition from 1 to 3 is easy, but after that the rearranged text makes no more sense that it did before the attempt at correction.

178

Antiphanes

If Clement’s προσέρχεται at the end 3 is taken to be corrupt (see above on 2), a word referring to a cosmetic procedure would seem to be wanted in its place, hence Kaibel’s προσχρίεται (“she applies ointment to herself ”).76 At the beginning of 4, the manuscripts offer the nonsensical and unmetrical σχήχεται, which Klotz corrected to σμῆται (printed by all editors, if only because no better alternative presents itself). Kassel–Austin compare Ar. fr. 376 (quoted in Interpretation). Further on in 4, Clement’s ἐμβέβηκε might mean “she’s gotten into (the bathtub)”. Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin print instead ἐκβέβηκε (“she’s gotten out”), an emendation or error by an anonymous Early Modern scribe or editor, who perhaps thought that the subject is already bathing in the middle of 3 and at the beginning of 4, so that it makes no sense to have her enter the tub only here. This assumes that the events in question are described in clear logical order. As this is not obviously the case, it is probably better to retain the paradosis and concede that we do not fully understand what is being said or why; see Interpretation. Kock’s ἐκδέδυκε would mean “she’s taken off (her clothing)” (LSJ s. v. II “active in middle sense”), which is again out of order, if the idea is that the woman is getting ready to bathe. At the end of 4, the paradosis τρίβεται would have to mean “she gets a massage” or perhaps “she rubs herself (with cosmetics)”. But ἐντρίβω is the normal verb for the latter (LSJ s. v. II; add to the passages cited there adesp. com. fr. *135, and note that Alex. fr. 103.18 is not in fact metaphorical), hence Meineke’s -βέβηκ᾿, ἐντρίβεται (also printed by Kock) in place of Clement’s -βέβηκε, τρίβεται. This represents a change of a single letter and arguably even less, if one assumes that what the copyist thought he saw was -βέβηκεν, τρίβεται with an apparently unnecessary nu-moveable that he accordingly removed. Phryn. ecl. 159 rejects forms such as the paradosis λούεται (unmetrical in any case) in 5 as non-Attic, hence Pierson’s λοῦται (also e. g. fr. 105.1; cf. Ar. Pl. 658 λούμενος; Ephipp. fr. 26.3 λοῦμαι). In the middle of 6, Clement’s ἂν δ’ ἔχοι τι (“and she would have something”) is incoherent, hence the proposals recorded in the apparatus. None of these are compelling, in part because those that make the most sense are too far from the paradosis to be taken seriously: “if she has something” (Sylburg; a simple change, but the meaning remains obscure); “if something happens” (Meineke); “if she’s caught” (Kaibel; i. e. lying about what she is actually doing?); “whoever (masc.) has her” (Kock, with the man in question now the subject of ἀπάγχεται, “hangs himself ”). Citation context From a denunciation of women’s use of cosmetics. Men. fr. 450 and Ar. Lys. 42–3 (aggressively misread and combined with material from 76

The compound is attested only once in the classical period, at Hp. Morb. II 30.4 = 7.48.6 Littré.

Μαλθάκη (fr. 146)

179

another source) are cited just before this, in that order, Alex. fr. 103.1–2, 7–26 (said to refer to wives, but in fact prostitutes are being described; apparently not from Athenaeus, who preserves the same fragment, see Arnott 1996. 274) just after this. All this material is probably drawn from some pre-existing, thematically oriented collection of texts, hence at least in part the ragged condition of the text. Interpretation Despite Clement—who is very unlikely to have had access to the original play—this is just as likely a description of a courtesan as of a wife. Although the text is full of problems (see Text), 1–3 clearly refer mostly to the woman’s movements (initially in the street, and then arriving at her house? or inside the women’s quarters, with her “destination” being the andrôn where a party is being held?), 4–6 to how she bathes and then adorns herself (now clearly within). The second half of 6 must be a joke: if something else happens (obscure), she hangs herself (or if the subject has changed, the man she belongs to hangs himself, as Kock proposed). Kock suggested that what we have here might be a slave-girl’s excuses for her mistress’ unwillingness to show herself to a man, in which case the seeming contradictions in 1–2 (“she’s arriving … she’s not arriving”) are part of the joke. προσέρχεται apparently out of order at the end of 3, and ἐμβέβηκε apparently out of order in the middle of 4 might be part of this as well, with the speaker backing up chronologically in her story to buy a bit more time (~ “well actually she’s arriving now … well actually she just got in”). 1–3 ἔρχεται / … / πάρεστι Wherever the woman is going to in 1–2, she ends up supposedly in the presence of the speaker (“she’s come, she’s here”). 3 ῥύπτεται–6 ἀλείφετ(αι) Regardless of what one makes of προσέρχεται at the end of 3 (intrusive? corrupt? part of the joke?), bathing seems to precede the woman making herself attractive, and the latter is a more complicated procedure. For the sequence, e.g. Il. 14.170–2 (Hera bathes in ambrosia and then covers herself with scented oil); hAphr. 60–5 with Olson 2012 ad loc., and cf. in general the female adornment scenes common on late 5th- and 4th-c. vases (for which, see in general Blundell and Rabinowitz 2008). There is no obvious substantial difference in sense between (1) 3 ῥύπτεται, 4 σμῆται … ἐμβέβηκε; (2) 4 ἐντρίβεται, 5 λοῦμαι … μυρίζεται, 6 ἀλείφετ(αι), and (3) 5 στέλλεται, 6 κοσμεῖτ(αι): the same actions are seemingly being described with different words. For women’s willingness to spend endless amounts of time primping and bathing, to the annoyance of the men in their lives, cf. Plaut. Poen. 217–33; Truc. 322–5. 3 ῥύπτω is attested before the Roman period only in late 5th- and 4thcentury Attic comedy (also Ar. Ach. 17 ῥύπτομαι (middle)) and prose (e. g. Arist. Mete. 359a22 τὰ δὲ ἱμάτια ῥύπτειν, “to wash clothes”; Thphr. HP 9.9.3 (middle)), although cf. cognate ῥυπόω / ῥυπάω (“be dirty”) and ῥύπα (“dirt, filth”) already at e. g. Od. 6.87 and Od. 6.93, respectively; ῥυπαρός (“dirty”) at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 199; Eup. fr. 329.2 with Olson 2014 ad loc.); and ῥυπτικός (“useful for cleansing”) at e. g. Pl. Ti. 65d; Thphr. CP 6.1.4.

180

Antiphanes

4 σμῆται, κτενίζετ(αι) Cf. Ar. fr. 619 λούσησθε καὶ κτενίσησθε πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον (“you might bathe and comb your hair in the sun”). σμῆται For the verb, cf. Hdt. 9.110.2; Ar. fr. 376 ἀλλ’ ἀρτίως κατέλιπον αὐτὴν σμωμένην / ἐν τῷ πυέλῳ (“but I left her just now soaping herself up in the tub”); Diocl. Car. fr. 182.34. For soap (σμῆμα), also fr. 41.3 n. ἐντρίβεται See Text. Kassel–Austin (who retain the paradosis τρίβεται) at fr. 152 compare this verse. But a foot massage is in question there, whereas that seems not to be the point here. 5 For λοῦμαι used of “washing” oneself in perfume rather than in a bathtub, fr. 105.1 n. σκοπεῖται “i. e. in a mirror” (Meineke). στέλλεται i. e. she puts on her clothes (LSJ s. v. I second half, citing passages from tragedy and 5th- and 4th-century prose). μυρίζεται The verb is first attested at Hdt. 1.195.1; elsewhere in Antiphanes at fr. 188.2 (n.). For perfume, fr. 233.5 n. (with further cross-references). 6 κοσμέω is used of putting clothing οn a person at e. g. Ar. Pl. 530, 940; Pl. Com. fr. 230.2; Hes. Th. 573; E. HF 703; Ion 327; of putting on jewelry at hAphr. 65; hHom. 6.11–12; of both at Hdt. 9.76.1 κοσμησαμένη χρυσῷ ⟨τε⟩ πολλῷ καὶ αὐτὴ καὶ ⟨αἱ⟩ ἀμφίπολοι καὶ ἐσθῆτι τῇ καλλίστῃ. Given the context, ἀλείφετ(αι) is most likely “she pours (perfume) on herself ”, as at e. g. frr. 152.3 with nn.; 200.8; Ar. Lys. 941; Cephisod. fr. 3.1; Amphis fr. 27.2; Anaxandr. frr. 41.3; 47.2; Eub. fr. 89.6; Alex. fr. 63.8, although the verb (already in Homer, but absent from elevated poetry in the 5th and 4th centuries) can also be used of applying ordinary olive oil to one’s skin, as at e. g. Ar. Ach. 999.

181

Μελανίων (Melaniôn) “Melaniôn”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 233 n. c

Title Melanion is paired with Atalantê already on the François Krater (early 6th century BCE), and appears without her as a participant in other early artistic representations of the Kalydonian Boar-hunt (Gantz 1993. 331; see in general Μελέαγρος Introduction). At Ar. Lys. 784–94, he is presented as a sort of “Black Hunter”, who prowls the countryside alone and in particular wants nothing to do with women; see Fitch 1944; Henderson 1987 ad loc.; and on such figures in general, Ma 2008. The name is not attested for a real person in Athens (7 exx. from Hellenistic Iasos in LGPN VB s. v.). This was thus most likely a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 147 K.–A. (149 K.) τοῦτον ἐγὼ κρίνω μετανιπτρίδα τῆς Ὑγιείας πίνειν ζωροτέρῳ χρώμενον οἰνοχόῳ I believe this man is drinking an after-washing cup dedicated to Hygieia using a very strong wine-steward Ath. 10.423d Ἀντιφάνης Μελανίωνι· —— Antiphanes in Melaniôn: ——

Meter Elegiac couplet.

lkk ll l|kk lkk lkk ll ll lkk l|lkk lkk l

182

Antiphanes

Discussion Pretagostini 1987. 251–2; Mangidis 2003. 186 Citation context Quoted along with fr. 137; Ephipp. fr. 10; Il. 9.203, immediately after this, in that order, followed shortly by Diph. fr. 57; Thphr. fr. 574 (from On Drunkenness); Emp. 31 B 35.14–15 D.–K., as part of a brief discussion of the meaning of ζωρέστερος (comparative of ζωρός and a Homeric hapax, hence probably the interest in the term). Interpretation Meter and content suggest a drinking song. “A very ζωρός wine-steward” must be “a wine-steward who mixes the wine very ζωρός”, i. e. “very strong” (see fr. 137 n.). Perhaps the two ideas are opposed to one another: “He’s drinking to Health, but is doing so with very strong wine” (which is dangerous); see 1 n. Or is “wine-steward” figurative? 1 ἐγὼ κρίνω appears to be emphatic, “in my opinion”, as at e. g. Hermipp. fr. 77.4. The identity of τοῦτον must already been established in what preceded, and the reference might simply be to another member of the company. But the idea might also be e. g. “(As for the man who …,) in my opinion he’s drinking …”, in which case the language might be metaphorical (~ “he’s playing with fire”). For the μετανιπτρίς, fr. 135.2 n. τῆς Ὑγιείας For Hygieia (literally “Health”), see in addition to the passages cited at fr. 135.2 (the deity to whom the metaniptris is routinely dedicated) also fr. 152.2 n.; Critias fr. 6.20 West2 τὴν τερπνοτάτην τε θεῶν θνητοῖς Ὑγίειαν (“Hygieia, the most pleasant of gods for mortals”; also part of an elegiac couplet); Licymn. PMG 769.2–3 βασίλεια ποθεινὰ / πραΰγελως Ὑγίεια (“desireable queen, softly-smiling Hygieia”); Hyp. For Euxenippos 19 (a statue of Hygieia to which a bowl is dedicated) with Whitehead 2000. 215; Ariphron PMG 813 (a paian in her honor); Herod. 4.5, 19–20 (Hygieia as a deity closely associated with Asklepios, with a statue in his temple) with Headlam 1966 ad loc.; Harp. υ 3 (citing Lycurg. fr. 6.22 Conomis, and identifying the name as an epithet of Athena); Wroth 1894; Leventi 2003. 2 The οἰνοχόος is the person who not only distributes but mixes the wine at a drinking party; thus at Pherecr. fr. 76.5 someone who has added too much water is told βατράχοισιν οἰνοχοεῖν σ᾿ ἔδει (literally “You should have been pouring wine for frogs”). Cf. Od. 9.9–10 μέθυ δ’ ἐκ κρητῆρος ἀφύσσων / οἰνοχόος φορέῃσι καὶ ἐγχείῃ δεπάεσσι (“and the oinochoos draws wine from the mixing bowl, and brings it and pours it into the goblets”); Ion fr. eleg. 27.2–3 West2 ἡμῖν δὲ κρητῆρ’ οἰνοχόοι θέραπες / κιρνάντων προχύταισιν ἐν ἀργυρέοις (“let the oinochoos servants mix a bowl for us in silver pitchers!”). The word is common in Homer but rare thereafter except in Xenophon, who uses it over a dozen times (e. g. Smp. 2.27; An. 7.3.24); attested nowhere else in comedy; in satyr play at E. Cyc. 560, 566; absent from tragedy and lyric poetry; twice in Herodotus (3.34.1; 4.71.4); and twice in Plato (Phlb. 61c; R. 562b, along with a citation of the Homeric passage quoted above at R. 390b). The cognate verb is somewhat more widely distributed, but is again missing from tragedy and 5th- and 4th-century lyric.

183

Μελέαγρος (Meleagros) “Meleager”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.315–16; Edmonds 1959. 234–5 n. a

Title and Content The stories involving Meleager (referenced already at Il. 2.642; 9.529–99; Hes. fr. 25 M.–W. = fr. 22 Most) all have to do in one way or another with the Kalydonian Boar-hunt. The fearsome Arkadian Atalantê is at the center of some versions of the tale, in that her participation in the hunt leads Meleager to fall in love with her, and when he gives her the hide, this sparks the fighting that leads to the death of Meleager’s uncles and then of Meleager himself. This provides reasonable potential material for a comedy, although whether the ill-starred Meleager–Atalantê romance was in fact Antiphanes’ subject, is impossible to say.77 See Μελανίων Introduction, and in general Gantz 1993. 328–33, 337; Arnott 1996. 119–20; Grossardt 2001; Fowler 2013. 136–40. There is only one classical example in LIMC II of the name used for an ordinary person (from an Athenian casualty list of 409 BCE, Agora XVII 23.344). Other likely mythological travesties by Antiphanes are Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Philetaerus also wrote a Μελέαγρος (which Meineke 1839–1857 I.350 suggested might have been the same play as his Ἀταλάντη78), as did the tragic poets Sophocles, Euripides (providing a specific model for some of the comic poets?79) and Antipho (TrGF 55 F 1b–2). Date Unknown.

77

78 79

Philetaerus, Strattis, Philyllius, Euthycles and Alexis all wrote plays entitled Ἀταλάντη, while Callias Comicus and the Sicilian poets Epicharmus and Phormis both wrote an Ἀταλάνται. There may nonetheless have been two mythological figures named Atalanta, and there were in any case other stories associated with her / them; see in general Gantz 1993. 335–9. Μελέαγρος is not included in the list of Philetaerus’ plays at Suda φ 308 = test. 1, which is however patently incomplete, since it also omits the known Ἀσκληπιός and Μῆνες. Gantz 1993. 331 characterizes the play as “our first evidence of Atalanta as femme fatale”. See in general Barringer 1996.

184

Antiphanes

Fragment fr. 148 K.–A. (150 K.) δίψους ἀρωγόν

ἀσκοπυτίνην τινὰ

2 ἀρωγόν Poll.C : ἀρρωγόν Poll.L : ἀγωγόν Poll.F

some askopytinê that’s useful against thirst Poll. 10.73 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀσκοπυτίνη· καὶ γὰρ τοῦτ’ ἄν τις εὕροι ἐν Ἀντιφάνους Μελεάγρῳ· ——. καὶ Μένανδρος δ’ ἐν Καρχηδονίῳ (fr. 232 Koerte = Carch. fr. 9 Kassel) κέχρηται τῷ ὀνόματι But also askopytinê; because one would find this in Antiphanes’ Meleagros: ——. And Menander also uses the noun in Karchêdonios (fr. 232 Koerte = Carch. fr. 9 Kassel)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl x〉|lkl klkl llkl x|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.316; Mangidis 2003. 188–9

Text ἀρωγόν in 2 is an unusual word, and two of the three manuscripts have mishandled it slightly. Citation context From an omnibus discussion of names for vessels associated with wine and wine-drinking. Interpretation ἀρωγός, here with the ablatival genitive δίψους (see LSJ s. v. ἀρωγός I.2), is almost entirely confined to elevated poetry (e. g. Il. 18.502; Od. 18.232; A. Supp. 726; Pi. O. 2.45; S. Ai. 835; E. Hipp. 675). The wit thus appears to depend on the use of elaborate, high-style language to describe a pedestrian object, as commonly in “dithyrambic” style (for which, see in general fr. 55 n.). 1 ἀσκοπυτίνη is attested only in Pollux and the two passages from comedy he cites. An ἀσκός is a wineskin (cf. fr. 20.2–3 n.), whereas a πυτίνη or βυτίνη is some sort of woven flask (esp. Poll. 7.175 πυτίνας πλέκειν, “to weave pytinai”; Hsch. π 4486 ~ Phot. π 1586 πυτίνη· πλεκτὴ λάγυνος οἴνου (Ar. fr. 880). ἔπλεκον δὲ ταύτας ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ οἱ δεσμῶται καὶ σπυρίδας καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, “pytinê: a woven flask for wine (Ar. fr. 880). Prisoners used to weave these, generally, along with baskets and the like”); in catalogues of names for wine-vessels along with λάγυνος and ἀσκός at Poll. 6.14; 10.72, also the title of a comedy by Cratinus; for the by-form βυτίνη, see Hsch. β 1352 βυτίνη· λάγυνος ἢ ἀμίς. Ταραντῖνοι, “bytinê:

Μελέαγρος (fr. 148)

185

a flask or a piss-pot. The people of Tarentum (use the word) (= Gloss. Ital. 100)”). An ἀσκοπυτίνη must have shared characteristics of both objects. 2 Neuter δίψος is rare and mostly confined to prose. Feminine δίψα / δίψη is more widely distributed (in comedy at Ar. Eq. 534; Ec. 146; Sopat. fr. 25.3, and in the manuscripts in the corrupt Pherecr. fr. 101).

186

Μέλιττα (Melitta) “Honey-bee”

Introduction Discussion 129

Meineke 1839–1857 I.329; Kock 1884 II.73, 130; Breitenbach 1908.

Title Probably a courtesan’s working name, like Λαμπάς, Μαλθάκη, Μύστις, Νεοττίς, Φιλῶτις, Χρυσίς and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρχεστράτη, Εὔπλοια and Ὀμφάλη. For courtesans generally, fr. 2 n. Macho 195–6 (ap. Ath. 13.578c) notes that the birth-name of the witty courtesan Mania was supposedly Melitta. As Breitenbach notes (against Meineke and Kock), however, she is at least a generation too late to have been mentioned by Antiphanes. Content Unknown; but see fr. 149 Interpretation. Kock proposed emending the first word in fr. 295 to assign those lines (a catalogue of food) to this play as well. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 149 K.–A. (151 K.) ἐπὶ χρήμασιν δ’ ὢν ἔμπορος φρονεῖ μέγα, ὧν ἐστι πάντων ἐνίοτ’ ἄνεμος κύριος 1 χρήμασιν δ’ ὢν Dobree : χρήμασ᾿ ἰνδὢν Stob.S : χρήμας ἰνδῶν Stob.M : χρήμασ᾿ ϊδὼν Stob.A φρονεῖ Stob.SMA : φρονεῖς Dobree

Since he’s a merchant, he’s proud about money, of all of which the wind is sometimes master Stob. 4.17.17 Ἀντιφάνους Μελίττης· —— From Antiphanes’ Melitta: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl l|lkl klkl llkl l|rk|r llkl

Discussion

Dobree 1820 addenda p. 108

Μέλιττα (fr. 149)

187

Text The scribe who produced the common exemplar of Stob.SMA was unable to make good sense of the sequence of letters he found in his copy of the text in the first half of 1, which he seemingly took as a reference to “Indian money” (thus Stob.SM : “seeing with money” vel sim. Stob.A, probably a clumsy attempt to improve the text). Dobree divided the words correctly. Further on in 1, Dobree suggested φρονεῖς μέγα (“you’re proud”) for the paradosis φρονεῖ μέγα (“he’s proud”). This might be right, but there is no reason to emend. Citation context Quoted by Stobaeus (5th century CE) in a section entitled περὶ ναυτιλίας καὶ ναυαγίου (“On sailing and shipwreck”) that also preserves Alex. fr. 214; Antiph. fr. 100; Archipp. fr. 45; Men. frr. 183; 784; Antiph. fr. 290, in that order, before this. Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material he quotes, which must instead be drawn from one or more pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. Interpretation For the trope of sailing as a miserable occupation, see frr. 100 with n.; 290 (both also from this section of Stobaeus), and cf. fr. 202.7. Here the specific point is the insecurity of a life that depends on the winds, which come and go as they will and which have the ability to wreck a man’s ship (or ships) and ruin him. But the presence of ἐνίοτ(ε) in 2 suggests that this destructive power, not just the fundamentally arbitrary nature of a merchant’s fate, is what the speaker is getting at: the wind is always in control of ships and the fortunes they produce, but “sometimes” it overwhelms them. Cf. fr. 193.5 φέρειν τιν’ ἄρας ἄνεμος (“when it comes to picking someone up and carrying him off, I’m a wind”); Eup. fr. 406 (a man who wanders around erratically, bringing destruction with him, referred to figuratively as “a wind”) with Olson 2014 ad loc.; Ar. Pl. 1179–80, where the Priest of Zeus complains that, before everyone became wealthy, ὁ μὲν ἂν ἥκων ἔμπορος / ἔθυσεν ἱερεῖόν τι σωθείς (“the merchant who had arrived (at the Piraeus) would make a sacrifice for having escaped with his life”); Diph. fr. 42.9–25 (a contrast between the attitude of a ναύκληρος who has had his ship damaged or has lost much of the cargo in a storm, and one who has enjoyed a fast, easy voyage and made a large amount of money), and more generally [Men.] Sent. 2.170–1 Jäkel καὶ μέγα φρονούντων ἐπὶ γένει καὶ χρήμασιν / αὑτῶν τε δόξῃ κἀπὶ κάλλει σωμάτων (“and those who are proud about family and money and their reputation and physical beauty”; said in disparagement of individuals who end up as nothing but bones and ash in a tomb). Epicrates, Diphilus and Philemon all wrote plays entitled Emporos, so perhaps the man referred to here was a major figure in Antiphanes’ comedy as well. If so, the implication would seem to be that he came to a bad end or at least experienced substantial difficulties in the course of the action. 1 An ἔμπορος is properly an overseas merchant or trader, as opposed to a ναύκληρος (who owns a ship on which an ἔμπορος might travel as a passenger), on the one hand, or a κάπηλος (local retail merchant), on the other. In practice, most

188

Antiphanes

ναύκληροι must also have been ἔμποροι, even if not all—perhaps not many?— ἔμποροι were also ναύκληροι. Nor is there any obvious reason why an ἔμπορος, once he was in town with his goods, could not have taken time to dispose of them in the fashion of a κάπηλος, thus perhaps considerably increasing his profits. Cf. fr. 166.2–4 (an emporos brought the speaker as a boy from Syria and sold him in the marketplace in Athens); Ar. Av. 594–5 (ναύκληροι seek out ἐμπορίαι κερδαλέαι); Knorringa 1926; Finkelstein80 1935; Isager–Hansen 1975. 65–6; Pébarthe 2007. 166–8. The word is attested already in Homer in the sense “passenger (on another man’s ship)” (Od. 24.300); cf. Ar. Pax 296; and see above on its use as a play-title. φρονεῖ μέγα Literally “he thinks a large thought” (an internal “adverbial” accusative, as at e. g. frr. 123.2 ἐκεκράγει μέγα; 282 θνητὰ καὶ φρόνει). The idiom is attested already in Homer (e. g. Il. 13.156); subsequently—generally with negative overtones—at e. g. fr. 42.3 μεῖζον ἢ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ; Call. Com. fr. 15.1 τί δὴ σὺ σεμνὴ καὶ φρονεῖς οὕτω μέγα; (“Why are you in fact haughty and so proud?”); Ar. Ach. 986 μεγάλα δὴ φρονεῖ (“he’s proud”); Diph. fr. 86.3 ὃς τὸν ταπεινὸν μέγα φρονεῖν ποιεῖς μόνος (“you who alone make the humble man proud”; of Dionysus, i. e. wine); S. Ant. 478–9 οὐ γὰρ ἐκπέλει / φρονεῖν μέγ’ ὅστις δοῦλός ἐστι τῶν πέλας (“for there’s no room for pride when someone is the slave of his neighbors”); Hdt. 7.10.3.ε; E. Hipp. 6 φρονοῦσιν εἰς ἡμᾶς μέγα (literally “they are proud in relation to us”, i. e. “they haughtily resist me”); HF 475 μέγα φρονῶν εὐανδρίᾳ (“proud in his courage”); X. Cyr. 4.6.3; Pl. Phdr. 257e. The use with ἐπί + dative (of what inspires the pride), on the other hand, appears to be typical only of the 4th century and later, and is confined to comedy and especially prose (e. g. Men. fr. 121.1; [Men.] Sent. 2.170–1 Jäkel (quoted above); Th. 6.16.4; X. Smp. 3.8; Pl. Prt. 342d; D. 14.29; Aeschin. 2.125). 2 ἐνίοτ(ε) is late 5th/4th-century vocabulary, first attested at Eup. fr. 221.2, E. Hel. 1213 and in Hippocrates (e. g. Aer. 15 = 2.62.9 Littré), and subsequently restricted to comedy (e. g. Ar. Pl. 1125; Axionic. fr. 6.5; Alex. fr. 24.4) and prose (e. g. Lys. 22.12; X. Mem. 3.12.2; Pl. Phd. 116d).

80

i. e. Moses Finley (born 1912) as a very young man. Finley changed his name in around 1946 and was eventually driven out of the United States to England by political persecution during the McCarthy era.

Μέτοικος (Metoikos) “The Metic”

Introduction Title Metics were non-citizen residents in Athens, who were required to register officially as such under the sponsorship of an Athenian citizen (προστάτης) and who may have had to call on the same person for support in any legal dealings; cf. Harrison 1968. 187–99; MacDowell 1978. 76–8. On the formal and informal status of metics in the city, see also Whitehead 1977; Todd 1993. 194–9; Pirrotta 2009. 184–5; Meyer 2010. 28–47; Watson 2010; Akrigg 2015; Sosin 2016. Many of Antiphanes’ plays are titled after city- or regional adjectives (e. g. Ποντικός with Introduction). Perhaps Μέτοικος was a different sort of play, in which what mattered was not where the man in question was from, but the simple fact that he was from elsewhere. Philemon also wrote a Μέτοικος, while Crates Comicus (or Pherecrates?) and Plato Comicus both wrote Μέτοικοι. Content

Unknown. The title suggests that the setting was Athens.

Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 150 K.–A. (152 K.) προσέλαβον ἐλθὼν τουτονὶ τραπεζοποιόν, ὃς πλυνεῖ σκεύη, λύχνους ἑτοιμάσει, σπονδὰς ποήσει, τἄλλ’ ὅσα τούτῳ προσήκει 2 λύχνους Jacobs : λύχνους τ᾿ Ath.A

When I got there, I hired this trapezopoios here, who will wash the dishes, get the lamps ready, prepare the libations, whatever else he’s supposed to Ath. 4.170d–e τῶν δὲ μαγείρων διάφοροί τινες ἦσαν οἱ καλούμενοι τραπεζοποιοί. εἰς ὅτι δὲ οὗτοι προσελαμβάνοντο, σαφῶς παρίστησιν Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Μετοίκῳ· ——. ζητητέον δὲ εἰ καὶ ὁ τραπεζοκόμος ὁ αὐτός ἐστι τῷ τραπεζοποιῷ

190

Antiphanes

The individuals referred to as trapezopoioi were different from cooks. That they too were hired is established clearly by Antiphanes in Metoikos: ——. But whether a trapezokomos is also the same as a trapezopoios, needs to be looked into

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl〉 krk|l llkl klkl k|lkl llkl klkl llkl llkl llkl l|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion 647)

Jacobs 1809. 111–12; Gomme–Sandbach 1973. 234 (on Men. Dysc.

Text Ath.A’s τ᾿ at the end of 2 is perhaps intended to coordinate σκεύη and λύχνους. But this leaves ἑτοιμάσει stranded; a single τ(ε) in a multiple-item, asyndetic list is awkward and unexpected; and Jacobs rightly expelled the word. Citation context From a wandering discussion of unusual vocabulary associated with dining that also preserves e. g. frr. 216.1–4; 95; 71; 180 (all before this, in that order), and fr. 224 (after this). Alexand. Com. fr. 3 and Philem. fr. 64 (quoted in Interpretation) are cited by Athenaeus shortly after this as further evidence for the sort of work done by a trapezopoios. Interpretation A remark addressed to another party regarding a trapezopoios, who the deictic τουτονί in 1 suggests is also onstage. The items referenced in 2–3 leave little doubt that preparations for a symposium are underway. The speaker (a man; note 1 ἐλθών) is most likely the host, but he might also be e. g. a cook charged with pulling together the staff for a party being thrown by someone else. A τραπεζοποιός (literally “table-maker”, i. e. “table-manager, banquet-manager” vel sim., called after the light, moveable tables on which food was served at parties) is a man hired to supervise the staff at a dinner-party or symposium and to be certain that everything is in its place and runs smoothly; regularly distinguished from the μάγειρος, who does the cooking. The point is thus not that the τραπεζοποιός will do all the work described here personally, but that he will see to it that it is done—and done properly. Cf. frr. 55 n.; 172b n.; IG I3 422.71–3 (a trapezopoios among the slaves belonging to the men whose property was confiscated in connection with the supposed defamation of the Mysteries in 415 BCE, sold for the relatively high price of 215 drachmas; alternatively to be understood as a craftsman specializing in the construction of tables); Diph. fr. 42 (a cook is talking to the trapezopoios he is taking along with him to a job); Philem. fr. 64 περὶ τοὐπτάνιον οὐ γίνεθ’ ἡ σκευωρία· / τραπεζοποιός ἐστ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ διακονεῖν (“What you’re in charge of doesn’t involve the kitchen; a trapezopoios is in charge of the serving”); Men. Asp. 232–45 (a Thracian trapezopoios as a character in the play; he is being paid a drachma for his work and is different from the cook, and appears to be a slave); Dysc. 644–7 (“no one harms a cook without being punished … Do

Μέτοικος (fr. 150)

191

whatever you want to a trapezopoios!”; a cook is speaking); Sam. 289–90 (a cook needs to know inter alia εἰ δεήσει προσλαβεῖν / τραπεζοποιόν, “if it’s going to be necessary to hire a trapezopoios”); Alexand. Com. fr. 3 εἰς αὔριόν με δεῖ λαβεῖν αὐλητρίδα. / τραπεζοποιόν, δημιουργὸν λήψομαι· / ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ ἀπέστειλ’ ἐξ ἀγροῦ μ’ ὁ δεσπότης (“tomorrow I have to get a pipe-girl. I’ll hire a trapezopoios, one who works free-lance; this is what my master sent me for from the countryside”); Poll. 3.41 ὁ δὲ πάντων τῶν περὶ τὴν ἑστίασιν ἐπιμελούμενος τραπεζοποιός (“the man who takes care of everything having to do with a dinner is a trapezopoios”); 6.13 ὁ δὲ φροντίζων τῆς ὑπηρεσίας ἁπάσης τραπεζοποιός. ἡ δ’ ὑπηρεσία παῖδες, οἰνοχόοι, τραπεζοκόμοι, τομεῖς, μάγειροι, ὀψοποιοί, ὀψαρτυταί (“the man who concerns himself with the staff as a whole is a trapezopoios. The staff consists of slaves, wine-stewards, table-setters, carvers, cooks, dish-preparers, chefs”); Hsch. τ 1256 τραπεζοποιός· οὐχ ὁ μάγειρος, ἀλλ’ ὁ τῆς πάσης περὶ τὰ συμπόσια παρασκευῆς ἐπιμελούμενος (“trapezopoios: not the cook, but the man who takes care of all the preparation having to do with symposia”) ~ Phot. τ 420 = EM p. 763.48–50 τραπεζοποιός· ὁ τῶν περὶ τὸ συμπόσιον πάντων ἐπι μελούμενος· τραπεζῶν· σκευῶν· σπονδῶν· ἀκουσμάτων· οὕτως Μένανδρος (“trapezopoios: the man who takes care of everything having to do with a symposium: tables, vessels, libations, music. Thus Menander”). In regard to the final query posed by the speaker in Athenaeus, Pollux (quoted above), at any rate, believes that the τραπεζοκόμος—identified with the Latin structor, “server of food, carver” vel sim., by Juba FGrH 275 F 14, cited immediately after this fragment—was not identical to the τραπεζοποιός but was under his authority. 1 προσλαμβάνω The prefix does not necessarily suggest “hire in addition to someone else” but merely “hire in addition to oneself ”, i. e. as an assistant (LSJ s. v. I.3.a). ἐλθών Where the speaker has been is not specified in what survives of the fragment. But it was probably the Agora, where one picked up casual workers of all sorts (e. g. Amips. fr. 1.1–2 with Orth 2013 ad loc.; Men. Sam. 191–5, 280–5 (a cook)). 2 σκεύη (literally “gear”) must here be “cookware, pots and pans”, as at e. g. Ar. Eq. 983–4 (further specified as a pestle and a stirring spoon); Th. 401–3 (further specified as a χύτρα, “cookpot”); Men. Dysc. 492. Cf. fr. 215 with n. Kassel–Austin compare Eub. fr. 30.1 διένιψα δ’ οὐδὲν σκεῦος οὐδεπώποτε (“I never washed a single vessel”), although the identity of the speaker there and thus the point of the remark is unclear. 2–3 λύχνους / ἑτοιμάσει i. e. he will fill them with oil, see that they are fitted with wicks of the proper size, etc. For lamps generally, fr. 71.1 n. 3 σπονδὰς ποήσει For libation, see in general frr. 110.1 n.; 135.1–2 n. 3–4 τἄλλ’ ὅσα / τούτῳ προσήκει sc. ποιεῖν; cf. Ar. Pl. 14 τοὐναντίον δρῶν ἢ προσῆκ’ αὐτῷ ποεῖν. 3 τ(ὰ) ἄλλ(α) ὅσα is prosaic (e. g. Hdt. 7.119.2; Antipho 5.88; Is. 3.80; D. 21.20; Arist. HA 489b1; in poetry also at E. Hel. 1265).

192

Μήδεια (Mêdeia) “Medea”

Introduction Discussion

Schiassi 1955. 114; Edmonds 1959. 236 n. a

Title The Colchian witch Medea is first mentioned at Hes. Th. 992–1002, where Jason—having presumably dealt with the snake that was guarding the Golden Fleece with her assistance—flees with her to Iolkos and she bears him a son. Cf. Mimn. fr. 11 (where no mention of Medea is preserved, but she seems transparently to be that without which Jason would not have accomplished what he did); Pi. P. 4, esp. 211–50; Sophocles’ lost Kolchides (“Women of Colchis”). An obvious possible theme for a comedy is one of the cluster of stories about Medea boiling an old man81—variously Pelias (Jason’s rival for the throne of Iolkos), Jason’s father Aison, or Jason himself—to make him young, sometimes successfully (Aison and Jason), sometimes with deliberately disastrous results (Pelias; the subject of Euripides’ lost Peliades, “Daughters of Pelias”; cf. Plaut. Pseud. 869–71). On that basis, Crusius 1887. 610 suggested that fr. 239 (n.) might belong to this play. Note also fr. 144. For Medea, see in general Gantz 1993. 191, 255–6, 358–73; Schmidt, LIMC V.1.386–7; Fowler 2013. 225–34. Other likely mythological travesties by Antiphanes are Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος), Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων, Φιλοκτήτης and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 151 K.–A. (153 K.) ἢν χιτὼν ἀμόργινος, ἕτερος δὲ περιηγητός ἐστιν οὑτοσί 1 ἢν Meineke : ἦν Poll.FSA

There!—an amorginos tunic, and this one here is another with a border 81

Cf. Ar. Eq. 1336, where the Sausage-seller has done something very similar to Demos.

Μήδεια (fr. 151)

193

Poll. 7.57 Ἀντιφάνης δέ φησιν ἐν Μηδείᾳ· ——. ἔστιν ἄρα καὶ ὁ περιηγητὸς εἶδος χιτῶνος And Antiphanes says in Mêdeia: ——. A periêgêtos is thus a type of chitôn

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl x〉|lkl klkl rlkr llk|l klkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 III.84; Mangidis 2003. 191

Text The manuscripts of Pollux accent the first word in 1 ἦν (past tense < εἰμί), which is awkward in coordination with present tense ἐστίν in 2. Meineke’s ἢν neatly restores the sense, while adding a colloquial touch. Citation context From a long discussion (Poll. 7.42–77) of names of garments that also includes fr. 289 (at 7.52). Cratin. Jun. fr. 5 is cited immediately after this. περιήγητος is attested elsewhere in the classical period only in inscriptions (see Interpretation 2 n.), and Hsch. π 1689 = Phot. π 688 περιήγητος· ὁ περιπόρφυρος χιτών (“periêgêtos: a tunic with a purple border”) is thus most likely another reference to this fragment. Interpretation Two or more characters are inspecting items of fine clothing. Given the title of the play, the poisoned garment Medea sent to Jason’s new wife might be in question. But perhaps e. g. a collection of temple dedications is being examined, or a woman is going through her wardrobe, etc. 1 The interjection ἤν (colloquial) draws attention to the word or phrase that follows, as if it were being summoned into existence out of nowhere; cf. Ar. Eq. 26; Pax 327; Ra. 1390 (both ἢν ἰδού); Pl. 75; E. HF 867 (ἢν ἰδού); Men. fr. 85 ἀλλ’ ἢν χιτών σοι (“But there—a tunic for you!”) ap. Phot. η 190; Theoc. 8.26; López Eire 1996. 111; Nordgren 2015. 171–3, 224; Collard 2018. 81–2. χιτών (“tunic”) is the generic term for the garment that was worn next to the skin beneath the outer ἱμάτιον (e. g. Ra. 1067), and consisted of a piece of cloth folded vertically and pinned over one or both shoulders; cf. frr. 35.3 with n.; 199 (from the same section of Pollux), and see in general Barker 1922; Stone 1984. 170–2; Compton–Engle 2015. 60. Socrates supposedly did without one, but only because he dressed like a slave or worse (X. Mem. 1.6.2). ἀμόργινος At Ar. Lys. 149–52, light amorgina χιτώνια are worn by women who hope to convince their husbands to have sex with them; cf. Eup. fr. 256 (merely a note that the poet mentioned amorgina); Aeschin. 1.97 (a woman “who knows how to produce amorgina and take them to market” listed among the skilled income-producing slaves belonging to Timarchus); [Pl.] Ep. 363a (expensive amorgina contrasted with Sicilian linen garments); Clearch. fr. 19 Wehrli ap. Ath. 6.255e (a purple blanket with an amorginos wrapper, in a context of extraordinary luxury); Moer. α 90 ἀμόργινον Ἀττικοί· λεπτὸν ὕφασμα Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers [use] amorginon, Greeks generally [use] ‘a light bit of weaving’”).

194

Antiphanes

Amorgina tunics also appear a number of times in lists of women’s dedications at Brauron (e. g. IG II2 1514 col. II.10, 22; 1516 col. II.39). At Ar. Lys. 737, the noun appears in the form ἀμοργίς, hence presumably Poll. 7.74 ὁ δὲ ἀμόργινος χιτὼν καὶ ἀμοργὶς ἐκαλεῖτο (“The amorginos tunic was also called an amorgis”).82 The meaning of the adjective (cognate with ἀμέργω, “pull, pluck, squeeze”?) is obscure. Paus.Gr. α 92 glosses it ὅμοιος βύσσῳ (“similar to linen”; cf. Paus.Gr. α 93 ἀμοργίς· κυρίως ἡ λινοκαλάμη, “amorgis: properly flax-stalk”; Harp. p. 26.13 = α 94 Keaney ἀμοργός· ἔστι παραπλήσιόν τι βύσσῳ, “amorgos: it is something like linen”); Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 184.14 seems to regard it as a color term (τὸ δ’ ἀμόργινος χιτὼν χρώματος ἴδιον, “but the amorginos chitôn has a particular hue”); LSJ s. v. I takes it to be mallow fiber used to produce fabric (but see Casson 1983. 202–7 on μολόχινα); and some modern scholars have understood it as a specific local variety of flax from the island of Amorgos (e. g. Raspe; Rogers 1911 on Ar. Lys. 150). See in general Richter 1929, who takes the reference to be to silk; Mayerson 1998; Cleland 2005. 93–4, 107. 2 Aristophanic usage suggests that οὑτοσί is to be treated as the subject, ἕτερος … περιηγητός as the predicate (thus not “this other one here has a border”); cf. Ach. 135 ἕτερος ἀλαζὼν οὗτος εἰσκηρύττεται (“This is another bullshitter being heralded in”); V. 903 ἕτερος οὗτος αὖ Λάβης (“This (dog) is yet another Labes”); Av. 274 ἕτερος ὄρνις οὑτοσί (“This here is another bird”), 279, 281, 992 ἕτερον αὖ τουτὶ κακόν (“This here is yet another evil”); Lys. 66 αὗται δ’ ἕτεραι χωροῦσί τινες (“Here come some others”). περιηγητός is attested numerous times of garments (mostly described expressly as chitones or chitoniskoi) in mid-4th-century catalogues of women’s dedications to Artemis at Brauron (e. g. IG II2 1514 col. II.18–19, 21 χιτωνίσκον περιήγητον, 43 χιτωνίσκος κτενωτὸς περιήγητος). Hsch. π 1689 = Phot. π 688 (quoted in Citation context) reports that the adjective is equivalent to “having a purple border”; cf. Crates Com. fr. 35 ἱμάτια περιπόρφυρα (“robes with a purple border”); Theopomp. Com. fr. *34.1–2 χιτῶνα … / … δαιδάλεον (“an elaborately decorated tunic”); Archipp. fr. 41 with Miccolis 2018 ad loc. For the chiton generally, see Lee 2015. 106–13.

82

Cratin. fr. 103 (preserved at Hsch. β 1273) may also contain the word in this form (thus Meineke for the paradosis ἀμοργόν), but is too obscure to be of much assistance.

195

Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης (Mênagyrtês vel Mêtragyrtês)

“The Mendicant Priest of Mên” or “The Mendicant Priest of the Mother”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.338; Edmonds 1959. 236–7 n. c

Title Μητραγύρτης is the title transmitted by Athenaeus for fr. 152, whereas the Antiatticist offers Μηναγύρτης for fr. 153. Given that three separate sources (including Athenaeus) claim that Menander as well wrote a Μηναγύρτης, there is no reason to choose between the titles ascribed to Antiphanes, which is to say that these are probably better understood as two different plays. For plays called after a profession, occupation or the like (presumably that of a central character), cf. Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Philemon wrote an Ἀγύρτης, while an undated and anonymous comic poet wrote a Μήτηρ θεῶν (adesp. com. fr. 9). μητραγύρται—the “Mother” in question is the Anatolian goddess Kybele, while the second element in the word is cognate with ἀγείρω—are attested already at Semon. fr. 36 and are treated as well-known dubious characters at fr. 157.8–9; see in general Roller 1999, esp. 163–9; Munn 2006; Serafini 2016, esp. 35–6. For Mên (another deity from Anatolia, in this case lunar and male), see Lane 1971–1978; Labarre 2009. For “begging priests” generally, note Cratin. fr. 66 ἀγερσικύβηλις with Bianchi 2016 ad loc.; S. OT 388 δόλιον ἀγύρτην (of Teiresias, as an insult); Pl. R. 364b–c; Serafini 2016 (with further bibliography at p. 28 n. 11). Content Unknown. Given the sentiments expressed at 157.8–9, it seems unlikely that the title-character was treated sympathetically. Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 152 K.–A. (154 K.)

5

τήν τε παῖδ’ ἀλείμματα παρὰ τῆς θεοῦ λαβοῦσαν εἶτα τοὺς πόδας ἐκέλευ’ ἀλείφειν πρῶτον, εἶτα τὰ γόνατα. ὡς θᾶττον ἡ παῖς δ’ ἥψατ’ αὐτοῦ τῶν ποδῶν ἔτριψέ τ’, ἀνεπήδησεν

196

Antiphanes

1 ἀλείμματα Ath.A : ἄλειμμά τι Naber Ath.A : ἔφριξεν Naber : ἐνέτριψέ Kock

5

4 δ’ ἥψατ’ Koppiers : διήψατο Ath.A

5 ἔτριψέ

and after the slave girl got ointments from the goddess, then he / she ordered her to anoint first his feet, then his knees. But as soon as the girl touched his feet and rubbed them, he leapt up

Ath. 12.553b–d Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν μὲν Ἀλκήστιδι (fr. 31) ἐλαίῳ τινὰ ποιεῖ χριόμενον τοὺς πόδας, ἐν δὲ Μητραγύρτῃ φησί· ——. καὶ ἐν Ζακυνθίῳ (fr. 101)· ——. καὶ ἐν Θορικίοις (fr. 105)· —— Antiphanes in Alkêstis (fr. 31) represents someone having his feet anointed with olive oil, whereas in Mêtragyrtês he says: ——. And in Zakynthios (fr. 101): ——. And in Thorikioi (fr. 105): ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlkl x〉|lk|l klkl rlkl klk|l klkl rlkl l|lk|l krkl llkl l|lk|l llkl klkr llk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Koppiers 1771. 38–9; Lobeck 1829. 639; Naber 1880. 50; Kock 1884 II.74; Latte 1913. 96–7; Scholtz 1996. 73 and n. 28 Text In 1, the paradosis plural ἀλείμματα is arguably unmotivated—why multiple types of oil?—hence Naber’s ἄλειμμά τι (“an ointment”). But 2–3 show that whoever issued the girl her orders expected the process to be more complicated than it was in the end, and there is accordingly no compelling reason to emend. In 4, Athenaeus’ διήψατο is an unattested compound and unmetrical in any case. Koppiers accordingly conjectured δ’ ἥψατ’. The delayed position of the particle poses no problem in poetry; see Denniston 1954. 187–8; Arnott 1996. 64 on Alex. fr. 4.1. In 5, Kock argued that the proper verb for rubbing oil into a body part was ἐντρίβω rather than the paradosis τρίβω; cf. fr. 146.4. But Athenaeus’ ἔτριψε (with πόδας to be supplied as a direct object from τῶν ποδῶν in 4) makes good sense; cf. fr. 101.4 μαλακαῖς καλαῖς τε χερσὶ τριφθῆναι πόδας; Ar. V. 739–4a (of a buttocks / penis massage), 1344 τριβόμενον οὐκ ἄχθεται (“it doesn’t mind being massaged”; of the speaker’s penis); Amphis fr. 20.6 (a reference to masturbation). For Naber’s ἔφριξεν, see n. 83. Citation context From a collection of comic fragments (beginning at Ath. 12.553a and also including Cephisod. fr. 3.1–3; Eub. frr. 107; 89; Antiph. fr. 31,

Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης (fr. 152)

197

before this, in that order, and frr. 101; 105; Anaxandr. fr. 41, after this, in that order) intended to show that “It was an Athenian practice to rub the feet of people addicted to luxury with perfume”. Fr. 105 is also quoted at Ath. 15.689e–f, as evidence that “people in previous times … knew which type of perfume is appropriate for all the various parts of our bodies”, along with Cephisod. fr. 3 (the first three verses of which are quoted at Ath. 12.553a) and Anaxandr. fr. 41 (quoted at Ath. 12.553d–e, immediately after the various fragments of Antiphanes). All this material is thus probably drawn from a single pre-existing document, most likely a Hellenistic or Roman-era antiquarian treatise on perfumes and their use; see frr. 105 Citation context; 115 Citation context (on Philonides’ On Perfumes and Garlands and Aelius Asclepiades’ Garlands). Interpretation Part of a report of past events; note τε in 1, which makes it clear that a description of an earlier portion of the action, which must have identified the individuals under discussion, preceded this. Athenaeus quotes the fragment (along with the others listed in Citation context) as evidence for the luxurious ancient practice of having one’s feet anointed with perfume and massaged. As Lobeck (followed by Latte) saw, however, the reference to “the goddess” in 2 (n.), combined with the instantaneous nature of the transformation in 4–5, suggest that this is instead a miracle healing of a man who was previously unable to walk.83 If so, the subject of ἐκέλευ(ε) in 3 may not be the same as that of ἀνεπήδησεν in 5: someone (e. g. a priest or priestess) ordered a slave-girl to anoint a third party’s feet and knees, and the moment she began her work, he was cured. ἀνεπήδησεν in 5 leaves no doubt that the man was sitting or lying down before this (sc. because he was unable to stand?). 1 ἄλειμμα is a prosaic term (e. g. Hp. Nat. Mul. 107.4 = 7.422.9 Littré; Pl. Ti. 50e; Lg. 932e; Diocl. Car. fr. 182.171; Thphr. HP 9.20.2; attested nowhere else in comedy) for μύρον (“perfume”; see in general fr. 233.5 n.). The use of it here serves to put the emphasis on the action of anointing (cf. 3–5) rather than on the pleasant scent of the oil. 2 Given the title of the play (see Mênagyrtês vel Mêtragyrtês Introduction), τῆς θεοῦ is most easily taken as a reference to Kybele. But the deity in question might alternatively be e. g. Iasô or Panakeia (cf. Ar. Pl. 701–2) or Hygieia (see fr. 147.1 n.; Norman 1986 (on the joint cult at Tegea); Compton 2002). Whoever she is, the simplest reading of the text is that the goddess herself was present, like Asklepios and his daughters in the central healing-scene in Aristophanes’ Wealth, in which case the action in question might have taken place in her shrine. Alternatively, “from the goddess” might mean “from the goddess’ resources”, i. e. 83

Naber, by contrast, thought that this was part of a recognition scene (cf. Od. 19.390–3, 467–72), and he accordingly proposed ἔφριξεν, ἀνεπήδησεν (“she shuddered”, sc. in delight, “(and) leapt up”)) for ἔτριψέ τ’, ἀνεπήδησεν in 5, requiring a comma at the end of 4. Since the text makes reasonable sense as we have it, there is no reason to emend.

198

Antiphanes

from supplies that belong to her. For Athenian healing cults generally, see Kutsch 1913. For various aspects of physical disability in the ancient world, see Dillon 1995; Garland 1995; Rose 1997; Little–Papadopoulos 1998; Rose 2003; Fischer 2015; Penrose 2015; Laes 2017 (numerous essays); Goodey–Rose 2018, and note also the title Ἐνεά (“The Girl who was Dumb”) and fr. 159.7–10 (a blind man taken advantage of by unscrupulous fishmongers). After the aorist participle λαβοῦσαν, εἶτα seems at first glance unexpected, since in such contexts the aorist itself suggests completed and thus antecedent action. But this appears to a common idiom (e. g. Ar. Ach. 291–2 σπεισάμενος εἶτα δύνασαι πρὸς ἔμ’ ἀποβλέπειν with Olson 2002 on 24–5; Eq. 281 εἰσδραμὼν εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον εἶτα πάλιν ἐκθεῖ πλέᾳ; Eub. fr. 72.4 καλέσας ἔπειτα συμβολὰς ἐπράξατο; Alex. fr. 129.5–7 ὄξος λαβὼν … / … εἶτα θερμὴν τὴν χύτραν / εἰς τοὔξος ἐνθῇς with Arnott 1996 on v. 7; van Leeuwen 1898 on Ar. Nu. 624). 3 For ἀλείφειν, fr. 146.6 n. For the coordination of πρῶτον and εἶτα, e. g. Ar. Eq. 24–5; Nu. 963–4; Anaxandr. fr. 55.4–5; Philem. fr. 126.1; Men. Dysc. 297. 4 ὡς θᾶττον Kassel–Austin compare Dromo fr. 2.1 ἐπεὶ … θᾶττον (also “as soon as”). There was no need for the girl to move on to the patient’s knees: the cure worked instantaneously the moment she rubbed the oil into his feet. 4–5 ἥψατ(ο) … / ἔτριψέ τ(ε) describes two aspects of a single action (hendiadys). 5 ἀνεπήδησεν The compound is attested already in Homer (Il. 11.379) but in the classical period is restricted to comedy (also Cratin. fr. 378; Ar. V. 1042; Av. 490; Lys. 929; Ra. 566; Ec. 428; Philem. fr. 82.15; Men. Pk. 357) and especially prose (e. g. Hp. Epid. VII 25.39 = 5.396.23 Littré; And. 1.115; X. Cyr. 1.4.8; An. 7.2.20; Pl. Smp. 213b; D. 19.198).

fr. 153 K.–A. (155 K.) Antiatt. δ 3 δεδιῳκημένα· Ἀντιφάνης Μηναγύρτῃ dediôikêmena (“having been arranged”; neut. pl.): Antiphanes in Mênagyrtês

Meter The word as transmitted by the Antiatticist scans kkllkk and could easily be accommodated in various cases in e. g. iambic trimeter or anapaests. Citation context Most easily understood as originally intended as a response to a now-lost note by another scholar who denied that Attic used this form; cf. Antiatt. δ 1 δεδιακόνηκα· Δημοσθένης Περὶ τοῦ ἐπιτριηραρχήματος (51.7) (“dediakonêka: Demosthenes, On the Trierarchy Continued Beyond the Legal Term (51.7)”). Orus fr. A 6a–b is considerably later than the Antiatticist, but leaves no doubt that

Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης (fr. 153)

199

doubly augmented and doubly reduplicated forms of this sort were of considerable interest to ancient grammarians. Interpretation For the perfect of διοικέω with reduplication of the prefix and an internal augment, cf. Men. Dysc. 93 πεπαρῴνηκε; Pk. 272 δεδιῳκηκ[ώς], which argue against the thesis that the Antiatticist or his source has misunderstood a text that read e. g. τὰ δὲ διῳκημένα. Contrast fr. 189.19 τὰ διῳχημένα with n., which suggests that the handling of such verbs may well have been inconsistent even among Attic-speakers; see in general Lautensach 1899. 164–5; Gow 1965 on Macho 76; Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 236.

200

Μητροφῶν (Mêtrophôn) “Mêtrophôn”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.328

Title Aristophanes is not known to have written a Mêtrophôn, and Meineke accordingly emended the Antiatticist’s Ἀριστοφάνης in the citation of fr. dub. 154 to Ἀντιφάνης. Ἀριστοφῶν (abbreviated Ἀριστοφν in an earlier copy of the Antiatticist or his source, and then mis-expanded) is another possibility (thus Bergk84), although Aristophon is a much less significant and seemingly much less productive figure, and is also not known to have written a Mêtrophôn. This play ought in any case to be treated as a dubium. Mêtrophôn might have been a personal name used in contemporary Athens, although LGPN II records only one example, from the mid-2nd century BCE; cf. in general Γόργυθος, Εὐθύδικος, Κλεοφάνης, Λεπτινίσκος, Λεωνίδης, Λύκων, Μίδων, Τίμων, Φιλίσκος and perhaps Φάων. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. dub. 154 K.–A. (156 K. = Ar. fr. dub. 936 K.) Antiatt. δ 8 διδοῦσιν· οὐ διδόασιν. Ἀντιφάνης (Meineke : Ἀριστοφάνης cod. : Ἀριστοφῶν Bergk ) Μητροφῶντι didousin (“they give”): not didoasin. Antiphanes (thus Meineke : “Aristophanes” cod. : “Aristophon” Bergk) in Mêtrophôn

Meter The word as the Antiatticist preserves it scans klx and is easily accommodated in e. g. iambic trimeter. Citation context A fragment of an ancient scholarly debate about the acceptability of διδοῦσιν vs. διδόασιν in Attic, another trace of which is preserved at Phryn. ecl. 215 διδοῦσιν· ἐν τῷ Περὶ εὐχῆς Φαβωρῖνος (fr. 8 Barigazzi) οὕτω λέγει, δέον διδόασιν· τὸ γὰρ διδοῦσιν ἄλλο τι σημαίνει (“didousin: Favorinus (fr. 8 Barigazzi)

84

Thus Meineke 1839–1857 III.85, citing “Bergkius ad Aristoph. fragm. p. 899”.

Μητροφῶν (fr. dub. 154)

201

in his On Prayer uses the word in this form, although he should have used didoasin; because didousin has a different sense”). Note also Zon. pp. 543.25–544.1 διδοῦσιν· ὅτι οἱ μάλα πολλὰ διδοῦσιν (Il. 2.255). προπερισπωμένως ἐκ τοῦ διδῶ (“didousin: ‘because they give (didousin) him numerous gifts’ (Il. 2.255). With a circumflex accent on the penult, from didô”). See Latte 1968. 613. Interpretation Despite the Antiatticist, διδόασιν is certainly the Attic 3rd-person plural present active indicative form of δίδωμι (also e. g. Ar. Ach. 54; Dionys. Com. fr. 3.6; Timocl. fr. 1.3; Men. Asp. fr. 1.7; Th. 1.42.4; And. 2.17; Antipho 5.34; Lys. 9.12; Pl. Phd. 82c; Isoc. 15.226; D. 18.12). διδοῦσιν—common in epic and elegiac poetry (e. g. Il. 19.265; Hes. Th. 219; Thgn. 446) and Ionic authors (e. g. Hdt. 2.30.5; Hp. Epid. II 5.2 = 5.74.7 Littré)—is nonetheless occasionally transmitted, and it is unclear whether the Antiatticist or his source has been misled by a faulty manuscript, or Antiphanes used the non-standard form in some special context.

202

Μίδων (Midôn) “Midon”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.401; Breitenbach 1908. 53; Kann 1909. 70 n. 2

Title Meineke compared the reference at D. L. to a spurious Platonic dialogue entitled Μίδων ἢ Ἱπποτρόφος (“Midôn or The Horse-breeder”, suggesting a wealthy man). See also Lang 1976. 35 (F 78). LGPN II records only one other example, from the 5th century BCE. For other plays with personal names as titles, cf. Γόργυθος, Εὐθύδικος, Κλεοφάνης, Λεπτινίσκος, Λεωνίδης, Λύκων, Μητροφῶν, Τίμων, Φιλίσκος and perhaps Φάων. Alexis also wrote a Midôn. Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 155 K.–A. (157 K.) Poll. 10.152 ἀργυροθήκην δὲ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Μίδωνι εἴρηκεν Antiphanes uses argyrothêkê (“money box”) in Midôn

Meter The word scans lkkll in all cases and is easily accommodated in e. g. iambic trimeter. Citation context From a brief discussion of words for money-sacks and the like that also includes fr. 52 (n.). Parallel material is preserved at – Poll. 4.19 γραμματεῖον δὲ παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἀργύριον ἀπέκειτο, ὃ καὶ γραμματεῖον Βοιώτιον ἐκάλουν· οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι αὐτὸ καὶ ἀργυροθήκην ὠνόμαζον (“In Attic authors, a grammateion is what money was stored in, which they also referred to as a Boiotian grammateion; but more recent authors called it an argyrothêkê”) – Hsch. α 7072 ἀργυροθήκη· τὸ ἀργυρικὸν γραμματεῖον (“argyrothêkê: a grammateion for money”) – Harp. α 223 ἀργυριοθήκη· Δείναρχος ἐν τῷ Κατὰ Προξένου βλάβης (or. 48 fr. 3). διττὰ ἦν γραμματείδια οἷς ἐχρῶντο Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰ μὲν ὥστε γράφειν μόνον τι ἐν αὐτοῖς, τὰ δὲ ὥστε καὶ ἀργυρίδιον κατατίθεσθαι, ἅπερ καὶ κιβώτια ἐκάλουν, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα καὶ δίθυρα (“argyrothêkê: Dinarchos in his Against Proxenos for

Μίδων (fr. 155)

203

Injury (or. 48 fr. 3). The Athenians used two types of grammateidia, one type simply to write something in, the other type to store money; they referred to the latter also as kibôtia, and to others (of the same sort) as dithyra (literally ‘having two doors’)”) – [Hdn.] Philetaer. 194 ἀργυροθήκη· τὸ νῦν ἀργεντάριον καλούμενον· παρὰ Διοκλεῖ (Diocl. Com. fr. 15) (“argyrothêkê: what is now referred to as an argentarion (‘silver cupboard’); in Diocles (Diocl. Com. fr. 15)”). Interpretation Most of the sources quoted in Citation context agree that an ἀργυροθήκη was a money-box; for ἀργύριον in the sense “money”, cf. fr. 69.3–4 n. But [Hdn.] raises the possibility that Antiphanes actually used the word to refer to a storage box or display cupboard (κυλικεῖον; see Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 30) for silver vessels (for which, fr. 223.3 n.); cf. ἀλαβαστοθήκη (“storage box for alabaster vessels”) at Ar. fr. 561 with Phot. α 888; βιβλιοθήκη (“bookcase” or “book-crate”) at Cratin. Jun. fr. 11; σανδαλοθήκη (“sandal-box”) at Men. fr. 244; χαλκοθήκη (“storage box for bronze vessels”) at Ath. 6.231d (allegedly an old word); Orth 2014 on Diocl. Com. fr. 15.

204

Μίνως (Minôs) “Minos”

Introduction Discussion

Kock 1884 II.75

Title As Kock noted, the title-character is almost certainly the great king of Crete mentioned already repeatedly in Homer (Il. 13.450–1; 14.322; Od. 11.322, 568–71; 17.523; 19.178–9); the name does not appear to have been used by ordinary people in Athens in any period. Potential topics for a comedy focused on Minôs include the stories involving his wife Pasiphae, the craftsman Daidalos and Poseidon’s bull, leading to the birth of the Minotaur; Theseus’ visit to Crete and his slaying of the monster in the labyrinth with the assistance of Minôs’ daughter Ariadne; and Daidalos’ escape to Kokalos’ court on Sicily and Minôs’ death there in a cauldron of bowling water (apparently the subject of Aristophanes’ Kôkalos). See in general Gantz 1993. 260–3, 273–5; Bažant, LIMC VI.1.570–1. Other likely mythological parodies by Antiphanes are Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία?, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων, Φιλοκτήτης and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Alexis also wrote a Minôs, while Sophocles composed a tragedy with the same title. Other comedies in which Minos may have played a part include Aristophanes’ Daidalos and Polyidos, Plato Comicus’ Daidalos, Alcaeus Comicus’ Pasiphaê, Eubulus’ Daidalos and Philippos’ Daidalos. Content

Unknown.

Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 156 K.–A. (158 K.) τρώγοντες μολόχης ῥίζαν τρώγοντες Ath.CE : τρώγοντας Eust.

μολόχης Ath.CE Eust. : fort. μαλάχης

eating (masc. nom. pl.) mallow root

Μίνως (fr. 156)

205

Ath. 2.58d μαλάχαι· … τοῦτο Ἀττικόν. ἐγὼ δέ, φησίν, ἐν πολλοῖς ἀντιγράφοις εὗρον τοῦ Ἀντιφάνους Μίνωος διὰ τοῦ ο γεγραμμένον· —— malachai: … This is the Attic form. But I, he says, found the word written with an omicron in many copies of Antiphanes’ Minôs: ——

Meter Anapaestic dimeter (thus Kock)? e. g. 〈y〉lll | rlll or—less likely—dactylic hexameter (thus Meineke)? e. g. ll lr l|l l〈y ly ll〉 Discussion

Mangidis 2003. 192–3

Text There is no reason to prefer Eustathius’ accusative τρώγοντας to Ath.CE’s τρώγοντες, particularly since the meaning is for all practical purposes unaffected. Perhaps Antiphanes used μολόχη rather than μαλάχη, as Athenaeus (or his source) believed. But the manuscripts are expressly said to have differed on this point—“many copies” had μολόχης, which means that at least some had μαλάχης— and given the absence of any other examples of the form in omicron before the Roman period, it is tempting to think that the paradosis is an error and that the form in alpha ought to be restored. Citation context From a small collection of texts referring to mallow (Ath. 2.52d–f) within a larger treatment of food served as pre-dinner appetizers. Hes. Op. 41 is cited immediately before this, Epich. fr. 151 immediately afterward. Eustathius (p. 1406.57) cites the fragment from his own copy of the Epitome as an example of alpha-omicron variation similar to that in ἀσταφίς / ὀσταφίς (cf. fr. 140.1 n.). The question of the proper form of μαλάχη in Attic was apparently a matter of ancient scholarly interest; note also – Moer. μ 24 μαλάχη Ἀττικοί· μολόχη Ἕλληνες (“malachê (is used by) Atticspeakers, molochê by Greek-speakers generally”) – Phot. μ 64 μαλάχη, οὐ μολόχη· παρ’ οὐδενὶ γὰρ κεῖται (“malachê, not molochê; because (the latter) is not attested in any author”). Interpretation For τρώγω, fr. 273.1 n. The choice of verb allows for the possibility that the reference is to the consumption of pre-dinner appetizers, as Athenaeus says, rather than to the diet of e. g. Pythagoreans (as at fr. 158.2, compared by Kassel–Austin). μολόχης ῥίζαν Mallow is treated as simple peasant food at Hes. Op. 41 with West 1978 ad loc., mallow shoots as an undesireable substitute for bread for the very poor at Ar. Pl. 543–4. Hippocrates (Mul. 75.48 = 8.166.9 Littré) and Theophrastus (HP 9.15.5) both refer specifically to “wild mallow”, leaving little doubt that there were cultivated varieties as well. All portions of the plant are edible. See García Soler 2001. 47–8.

206

Μισοπόνηρος (Misoponêros) “The Man who Hated Villains”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 238–9 n. c

Title μισοπόνηρος and cognates are 4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Lys. 30.35; D. 21.218; Aeschin. 1.69). For πονηρός as a very general term of condemnation, fr. 230.1 n. For titles referring to a key aspect of a character’s personality, cf. Ἄγροικος, Ἀντερῶσα, Ἀποκαρτερῶν, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, Ἀφροδίσιος, Βουταλίων, Δύσπρατος, Ἐνεά, Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων, Ὄβριμος, Παιδεραστής, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ, Φιλοπάτωρ and perhaps Μαλθάκη, and see in general Arnott 2010. 317. Content Unknown. If fr. 157 (n.) is in fact the title-character lashing out at various people he dislikes, he may well find almost everyone πονηρός and thus be amusingly difficult rather than morally upright in an unambiguously praiseworthy fashion. Menander’s “difficult man” is in fact described precisely this way (Dysc. 388 μισοπονήρου τῷ τρόπῳ with Handley 1965 on 384–9). Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 157 K.–A. (159 K.)

5

10

εἶτ’ οὐ σοφοὶ δῆτ’ εἰσὶν οἱ Σκύθαι σφόδρα, οἳ γενομένοισιν εὐθέως τοῖς παιδίοις διδόασιν ἵππων καὶ βοῶν πίνειν γάλα; μὰ Δί᾿ οὐχὶ τιτθὰς εἰσάγουσι βασκάνους καὶ παιδαγωγοὺς αὖθις, ὧν μείζω 〈kl xlklx μετά⟩ γε μαίας νὴ Δία· αὗται δ’ ὑπερβάλλουσι, μετά γε νὴ Δία τοὺς μητραγυρτοῦντάς γε· πολὺ γὰρ αὖ γένος μιαρώτατον τοῦτ’ ἐστίν, εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας τις † βούλεται λέγειν 〈xlk〉 μετά γε τοὺς τραπεζίτας· ἔθνος τούτου γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐξωλέστερον

3 διδόασιν Grotius : διαδιδόασιν Ath.ACE πίνειν Ath.ACE : mel. πιεῖν? 4 μὰ Δί᾿ οὐχὶ Werres : οὐχὶ μὰ Δία Ath.ACE : κοὐ μὰ Δία Hanow : ἀλλ᾿ οὐχὶ Cobet 5–6 μείζω γε Ath.A : μεῖζον ⟨κακὸν / οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδέν, μετά⟩ γε Grotius : μείζω⟨ν βλάβη / οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο,

Μισοπόνηρος (fr. 157)

207

μετά⟩ γε Cobet 8 μητραγυρτοῦντας Schweighäuser : μητραρπατωντασγυργοῦντας αὖ Ath.A : οὖν Blaydes : δὴ Herwerden 10 τις βούλεται λέγειν Ath.A : βούλεταί Ath.A γέ τις λέγειν Meineke 10–11 τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας ⟨τοὺς θεοῖς ἐχθροὺς⟩ λέγειν / βούλοιτο Dobree : τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας τις λέγειν ⟨μιαρωτάτους⟩ / βούλοιτο Kaibel 11 ⟨τούτους δὲ⟩ Iacobi : ⟨μάλιστα⟩ vel ⟨ὀρθῶς γε⟩ Dobree

5

10

So aren’t the Scythians remarkably clever, given that they offer their children horse-milk and cow-milk to drink the moment they’re born? By Zeus, they don’t bring in malicious wet-nurses and slave-tutors as well, than whom greater … … after nannies at any rate, by Zeus! They’re the worst—after Cybele’s mendicant priests at any rate, by Zeus! They’re again far and away the vilest group there is—unless, by Zeus, someone † wants to mention the fish-mongers … after the money-lenders at any rate; because there’s no group more abominable than them

Ath. 6.226c–e ἐμφανίζει δ’ αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ σκαιόν, ἔτι δὲ ⟨τὸ⟩ μισάνθρωπον Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Μισοπονήρῳ πρὸς τοὺς ἐν τῷ βίῳ κακίστους τὴν σύγκρισιν αὐτῶν ποιούμενος διὰ τούτων· —— Antiphanes in Misoponêros reveals (the fishmongers’) stupidity, as well as their hostility to mankind, when he compares them to the worst people alive in the following passage: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

10

llkl l|lk|l klkl lrkl k|lkl llkl krkl l|lkl llkl rlkl l|lkl klkl llkl l|lk|l ll〈kl xlkl xr〉k|l llkl llkl llk|r klkl llkl llk|r klkl rlkl l|lk|l llkl llrl l|l†lklkl 〈xlk〉r k|lkl llkl llkl k|lk|l llkl

Discussion Grotius 1626. 977; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 III.306; Hermann 1816. 135; Hanow 1830. 149; Dobree 1833. 310; Meineke 1839–1857 III.85–6; Iacobi ap. Meineke 1839–1857 V.1.77; Cobet 1858. 130–1; Kock 1884 II.75–6;

208

Antiphanes

Kaibel 1887–1890 II.9–10; Blaydes 1896. 109; Herwerden 1903. 85–6; Werres 1936. 37; Handley 1965. 197; Reinhardt 1974. 97–100; Millett 1999. 197 Text Kaibel in his edition of Athenaeus divided the fragment between two characters as follows: “(A.) So aren’t the Scythians remarkably clever, given that they offer their children horse-milk and cow-milk to drink the moment they’re born? (B.) By Zeus, they don’t bring in malicious wet-nurses and slave-tutors as well, than whom there could be no greater (source of) injury! (A.) After nannies at any rate, by Zeus! They’re the worst. (B.) After Cybele’s mendicant priests at any rate, by Zeus! They’re again far and away the vilest group there is. (A.) Unless, by Zeus, someone † wants to mention the fish-mongers. (B.) After the money-lenders at any rate! Because there’s no group more abominable than them”). Kassel–Austin call this “wrong” (perperam); it might be better described as unnecessary. In 3, the paradosis διαδιδόασιν is unmetrical, and Grotius accordingly removed the prefix; a majuscule dittography (ΔΙΑΔΙΔ-)? The combination lrrl is forbidden in iambic trimeter (White 1912 § 125), and Athenaeus’ οὐχὶ μὰ Δία in 4 will accordingly not do. Werres reversed the order of the words to produce μὰ Δί᾿ οὐχὶ, as in Eub. fr. 97.1*. Hanow’s κοὐ μὰ Δία (printed by Kock; cf. the asyndetic οὐ μὰ Δία in Meineke) would also do, although there are no exact parallels. Cobet’s ἀλλ᾿ οὐχὶ is too far from the paradosis to deserve consideration, given the existence of easier options. Something is missing at the end of 5 and the beginning of 6, where Ath.A has ὧν μείζω γε μαίας (unmetrical and nonsensical), and comparison with 7 and 11 suggests that μετά likely stood before γε in 6. Grotius suggested ὧν μεῖζον ⟨κακὸν / οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδέν, μετά⟩ γε μαίας (“than whom there is no great evil, after nannies at any rate”), Cobet ὧν μείζω⟨ν βλάβη / οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο, μετά⟩ γε μαίας (“than whom there could be no greater (source of) injury, after nannies at any rate”). The gap might be larger than this (as also in 10–11), although elsewhere in the fragment the speaker seems to move rapidly from one target to the next. In the first half of 8, Ath.A offers the garbled, hypermetrical μητραρπατωντασγυργοῦντας, which looks like the result of a superlinear note or variant ἀ[ρ] πατῶντας (“deceiving”) making its way into the text. Schweighäuser removed the intrusive letters to produce μητραγυρτοῦντας. Near the end of 8, Ath.A’s αὖ (“again”) is difficult sense. Blaydes accordingly proposed οὖν (“therefore”; not much of an improvement) in its place, while Herwerden conjectured δὴ (“indeed, in fact”; more easily explained than Blaydes’ suggestion, as a majuscule error, ΔΗ for ΑΥ). A short syllable is missing between τις and βούλεται in Ath.A’s τις βούλεται λέγειν in 10, and there is also a lacuna—perhaps longer than the one indicated here (cf. on 5–6)—in the first half of 11. Meineke’s mechanical βούλεταί γέ τις λέγειν (adapting the still-unmetrical βούλεταί τις λέγειν85 in Ath.B) mends the meter, 85

Printed by Kock for no obvious reason.

Μισοπόνηρος (fr. 157)

209

but it unclear why βούλεται should receive the emphasis the particle adds. Dobree rewrote 9–11 to read εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία / τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας ⟨τοὺς θεοῖς ἐχθροὺς⟩ λέγειν / βούλοιτο (“unless, by Zeus, someone might want to mention the fishmongers whom the gods despise”) and alternatively suggested filling out the beginning of 11 with ⟨μάλιστα⟩ (“absolutely!”) or ⟨ὀρθῶς γε⟩ (“and rightly so!”); Iacobi tried ⟨τούτους δὲ⟩ μετά γε τοὺς τραπεζίτας (“them, after the bankers!”) there; and Kaibel proposed εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία / τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας τις λέγειν ⟨μιαρωτάτους⟩ / βούλοιτο (“unless, by Zeus, someone would like to mention the utterly foul fishmongers”). None of this is much more than guesswork. Citation context From an extensive collection at Ath. 6.224c–8c of comic fragments having to do with fish-mongers and their customers that also preserves fr. 164; Amphis fr. 30; Alex. fr. 16; Diph. fr. 67; Xenarch. fr. 7; Antiph. frr. 159; 217; Alex. frr. 204; 130–1, in that order, before this, and Diph. fr. 32; Alex. fr. 76; Archipp. fr. 23; Alex. fr. 78.7 (cited but not quoted); Anaxandr. fr. 34; Alex. fr. 78; Diph. fr. 31; Sophil. fr. 2, in that order, after this. Interpretation A rant—despite Athenaeus or his source, not aimed in the first instance at fish-mongers but at wet-nurses, paedagogues and nurses (1–7)? Each group mentioned is specifically if vaguely condemned at gradually increasing length (4 βασκάνους, 5 ὧν μείζω (followed by a lacuna), 8–9 πολὺ γὰρ αὖ γένος / μιαρώτατον τοῦτ’ ἐστίν, 11 (something lost at the beginning), 11–12 ἔθνος / τούτου γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐξωλέστερον); note also the drum-beat 6 ⟨μετά⟩ γε, 7–8 μετά γε … / …· γάρ, 11–12 μετά γε … / …· γάρ. The precise logic (assuming there is any) of the jump at 7–8 from problematic domestic characters to problematic public ones is unclear. The speaker also begins at 8 to add definite articles to the names of those he denounces (τοὺς μητραγυρτοῦντας, τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας, τοὺς τραπεζίτας vs. τιτθάς, παιδαγωγούς, μαίας), perhaps because the former are real identifiable social groups in the contemporary city (note 8 γένος, 11 ἔθνος), as opposed to simple generic descriptions of persons. In addition, he now tacks on specific condemnations of the groups he dislikes (8–9 πολὺ γὰρ αὖ γένος / μιαρώτατον τοῦτ’ ἐστίν, 11–12 ἔθνος / τούτου γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐξωλέστερον, with a similar phrase presumably lost in the lacuna that begins at the end of 10). εἶτ(α) generally picks up something that has just been said (cf. frr. 101.1; 142.1; 216.15 with n.), but can also begin a speech, the idea apparently being that the speaker is engaged in a dialogue inside his head, which only now bursts out into words for the audience to hear. Kassel–Austin accordingly follow Handley 1965. 158 and Reinhardt 1974. 98–100 in comparing Knemon’s angry opening soliloquy at Men. Dysc. 153–68 (to which compare also fr. 164 with n.), and note that the sentiments expressed fit so neatly with the title of the play that it is tempting to think that this is the Misoponêros himself venting a bit of steam. His initial complaints seem to cast him as a pater familias disappointed in his child or children, or in the general state of his household. But the attack rapidly devolves into a catalogue of villains who are, the speaker insists, admittedly even worse

210

Antiphanes

than wet-nurses, paedagogues and nannies. Handley also compares Amphis frr. 1 (which begins εἶτ’ οὐ); 17 (which begins εἶτ’ οὐχί); Alex. frr. 44 (which begins εἶτ’ οὐχ) with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; 145 (which begins εἶτ’ οὐ), at least some of which are probably the beginnings of similarly angry soliloquies (and note as well Eup. fr. 268.35–6 = 268j εἶτ᾿ οὐ[kl]μ̣ ον ἐ̣γώ). 1 For δῆτ(α) used to intensify a negative (often surprised, rhetorical or sarcastic) question, also e. g. Eup. frr. 224.1 οὐκ ἀργαλέα δῆτ’ ἐστὶ πάσχειν ταῦτ’ ἐμέ;; 268.35–6 = 268j (partially quoted above) with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Ar. Ach. 1127 ταῦτ’ οὐ πλακοῦς δῆτ’ ἐστὶν ἀνθρώποις γλυκύς;; Nu. 1299 ταῦτ’ οὐχ ὕβρις δῆτ’ ἐστίν;; Lys. 848 οὐκ ἄπει δῆτ’ ἐκποδών;; and see in general Denniston 1950. 271–2. οἱ Σκύθαι For the Scythians—not normally presented as paradigms of wisdom, marking this from the first as a paradoxical and thus intriguing claim—fr. 58.2–3 n. 2–3 Milk almost never appears in comedy in banquet catalogues, lists of culinary supplies, or the like.86 But “drinking milk” does serve as a standard marker of a nomadic lifestyle, and is tied specifically to the Scythians and their neighbors also at e. g. Il. 13.5–6; Hes. fr. 150.15 M.–W. = fr. 98.15 Most; fr. 151 M.–W. = fr. 97 Most; Hp. Aer. 18.19 = 2.68.21 Littré; Sem. 51.9–10 = 7.584.13–14 Littré; Hdt. 4.1.3–2.2; see Shaw 1982/1983; West 1999. There may be a secondary ideological element to this: uncivilized people drink milk, whereas civilized—i. e. urbanized— people do not. But it depends in any case on the simple practical reality that fresh milk does not stay good for long, especially in a Mediterranean climate, so that the easiest means of handling it is to convert most of it immediately into cheese (for which, fr. 21.3 n., with further cross-references). For giving children animal milk, cf. Hdt. 2.2.2 (goat milk seemingly offered as a substitute for mother’s milk to children raised in isolation from other human beings). εὐθέως The form is first attested in the first half of the 5th century (e. g. Crates Com. fr. 17.6; Ar. Ach. 544; S. Ai. 31; Lys. 3.11; Th. 4.44.3)—which does not mean that no one used it before that. 4, 6, 7, 9 The repeated oaths “by Zeus” bring out the speaker’s excitement and exasperation (as well as his lack of verbal agility?).

86

Exceptions at Pherecr. fr. 113.18 (poured over porridge as part of a description of a magical, seemingly subterranean world, making this perhaps a prelapsarian detail); Cratin. fr. 149.1 (Odysseus’ men in the land of the Cyclopes?); Ephipp. fr. 13.5 (in a catalogue of symposium dainties). Milk is drunk or described as drinkable elsewhere at e. g. Hes. Op. 590 (goat-milk as a prominent part of a rustic banquet, along with Bibline wine, a barley-cake and meat); A. Pers. 611 εὔποτον γάλα (“milk that is good to drink”; part of an offering made in the Persian royal court); E. Ba. 142, 708–10 (produced spontaneously from the earth for the bacchants); Philox. Leuc. PMG 836e.18 (an ingredient in a cake); Pl. Grg. 493e (available in an ideal world); Lg. 679a (along with meat, a basic part of the diet of the survivors of the Great Flood).

Μισοπόνηρος (fr. 157)

211

4 For wet-nurses (τιτθαί), e. g. Cratin. fr. 5 with Bianchi 2016 ad loc.; Ar. Eq. 716–18; Lys. 958; Th. 608–9 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; Men. Dysc. 384–7; Pl. R. 343a, 373c, 460d; Men. Sam. 84–5; D. 57.44–5 (an occupation into which a free woman is driven only by harsh economic necessity, making it clear that most were slaves); [D.] 47.55–6; Oeri 1948. 54–60; Hunter 1983 on Eub. Tithai or Tithê; Rühfel 1988; Brock 1994. 336–7; Aly 1996; Arnott 1996. 648; Schulze 1998 (with particular attention to visual evidence); Kosmopoulou 2001. 285–92, 304–5; Bettenworth 2014. 16–17. εἰσάγουσι sc. “into their houses” (as at e. g. Ar. Nu. 1149, 1212; Pax 73; Anaxandr. fr. 7, of birds kept in captivity; Men. Pk. 263), where they can then take up permanent residence and begin to cause trouble. For βάσκανος (a general term of abuse), fr. 80.8 n. 5 For the παιδαγωγός, a slave charged with supervising a wealthy boy’s behavior, keeping him away from potential bad influences, and the like, until he became a μειράκιον, “young man” (e. g. Lys. 32.28, two boys in a wealthy family, but only a single παιδαγωγός; X. Lac. 2.1–2; 3.1; Pl. Smp. 183c; Aeschin. 1.10); cf. Golden 1988; Golden 1990. 149–56; Arnott 1996. 785 on Alex. fr. 290.1; Schulze 1998 (with particular attention to visual evidence); Laes 2009; Castrucci 2017, and see fr. 75, where (A.) is probably Ganymedes’ paedagogue, with n. The word is not attested until the late 5th century, when paedagogues become regular figures in tragedy (e. g. in Sophocles’ Ajax and Euripides’ Medea). But Herodotus (8.75.1) claims that Themistocles’ children had a slave paedagogue in the time of the Persian Wars, and there is no reason to think that the institution did not go back even further than that. μαίας Less likely “midwives” (LSJ s. v. I.3) than “nurses, nannies” (cf. LSJ s. v. I.2 “foster-mother”), who are roughly parallel to paedagogues as long-term servile members of the household, as in e. g. Euripides’ Hippolytus (where Phaedra’s old nurse is indeed a very bad influence).87 Cf. the heavy-drinking τρόφος (“nurse”) at Eub. fr. 80; Vilatte 1991. How many of the individuals catalogued by Laes 2011 are what we would call midwives (i.e. medical semi-professionals moving from one client to another), as he believes they all are, and how many are nurses (bound to one mistress), is unclear. For an example of the latter in comedy, Men. Dysc. 387. The only other μαῖα mentioned in comedy, at Ar. Lys. 746–7 (a woman supposedly about to give birth begs οἴκαδέ μ’ ὡς τὴν μαῖαν … / ἀπόπεμψον, “send me home to my μαῖα!”), might be a midwife but could just as easily be the woman’s nurse, who has been with her since she was a child and will help her when she in turn gives birth. Note also the sense “nurse” at e. g. S. fr. 959.3. For midwives and the like, see also Pl. Tht. 149a–50b; King 1986 (an extremely wide-ranging discussion); Demand 1994. 66–9; Demand 1995.

87

For Phaedra’s nurse specifically called μαῖα by her mistress, E. Hipp. 243, 311.

212

Antiphanes

7–8 ὑπερβάλλουσι Literally “they exceed, they excel”, sc. “in villainy” vel sim.; cf. Ar. Eq. 409 οὔτοι μ’ ὑπερβαλεῖσθ’ ἀναιδείᾳ, 890 οὐχ ὑπερβαλεῖ με θωπείαις; Pl. 109 ὑπερβάλλουσι τῇ μοχθηρίᾳ. μετά γε νὴ Δία / τοὺς μητραγυρτοῦντάς γε For the word order, with the oath dividing the preposition from the noun it governs, Kassel–Austin compare X. Smp. 4.55 ἐπὶ νὴ Δία τοῖς ἄφροσιν. τοὺς μητραγυρτοῦντας For μητραγύρται (wandering mendicant priests of Kybele), see Mênagyrtês or Mêtragytrês introductory n. The cognate verb is first attested here and in Clearch. fr. 47 Wehrli; this does not suggest that Antiphanes coined it. For γένος used freely of a group of “related” persons with no actual genealogical connection among them, e. g. Ar. V. 223–4 γένος … / τὸ τῶν γερόντων (“the race of old men”); Anaxil. fr. 22.2, 6 (courtesans regarded as a homogenous group); Timocl. fr. 8.3 (parasites regarded as a homogenous group); Xenarch. fr. 7.4 τῶν δ’ ἰχθυοπωλῶν φιλοσοφώτερον γένος (“a more philosophical race than the fish-mongers”); Nicol. Com. fr. 1.1 τὸ τῶν παρασίτων … γένος (“the race of parasites”); Alex. fr. 164.2 (poor people regarded as a homogenous group); Diph. frr. 42.9 (merchant-traders regarded as a homogenous group); 67.3 (fish-mongers regarded as a homogenous group). 9 μιαρός is properly “polluted”; see Parker 1983. 4–5; Miccolis 2018. 155–6 on Archipp. fr. 23.1. Although common as a term of abuse in Aristophanes (e. g. Pax 362) and in prose-authors such as Plato (e. g. Chrm. 161b) and Demosthenes (e. g. 18.134), the adjective is attested nowhere else in 4th-century comedy before Menander (e. g. Asp. 313; suggested by Bentley in place of the paradosis μικρός at Philem. fr. 42.2). 9–10 Fish-mongers are denounced repeatedly in 4th-century comedy as rapacious, rude, deceptive and the like; cf. frr. 159 and 217 (knowingly selling rotten fish); 204.5–7 (charging high prices and trying to be charming at the same time);, and the fragments of other poets listed in Citation context. Nesselrath 1990. 291 suggests that the trope originated with Antiphanes. But it is patently to be traced in the first instance to popular grousing of a sort that has no specific point of invention and leaks almost of its own accord onto the comic stage, and Aristophanes is already complaining about the “utterly lawless hand of a fish-monger” at fr. 402.1. For the combination εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία, Kassel–Austin compare Lycurg. Leocr. 140 (no other examples from the classical period). 10 For ἰχθυοπώλης, fr. 69.7 n. 11 τραπεζίτης is < τράπεζα, “table”, by reference to the tables bankers set up e. g. in the Agora to carry out their business (LSJ s. v. II, citing Pl. Ap. 17c), which involved not just making loans but changing money, with a fee for the service naturally taken off the top; cf. English “bank” from Medieval Latin banca, “money-changer’s bench”. The word is first attested in this sense in Lysias (fr. 1) and in the classical period is otherwise confined to oratory (e. g. D. 36.50; Aeschin. 2.165). Other terms for bankers / money-changers include ὀβολοστάτης (literally

Μισοπόνηρος (fr. 157)

213

“obol-weigher”; fr. 166.4 with n.), ἀργυραμοιβός (literally “silver-changer”, i. e. “money-changer”; Pl. Plt. 289e), τοκιστής (“one who extracts interest”; Arist. EN 1121b34), κολλυβιστής (literally “one who deals in small-change”; Lys. fr. 202) and δανειστής (“one who makes loans”; e. g. D. 34.7). Bankers seem to have been despised as least as widely in the ancient world as they are in the modern one, presumably because their work was generally carried out at the retail level, rendering their depredations even more immediately obvious than they are today; note the alternative title of Alexis’ Τοκιστὴς ἢ Καταψευδόμενος (“The Money-lender or The Liar”), as well as Plaut. Most. 626 danista …, genus quod improbissumum est, 657–8 nullum edepol hodie genus est hominum taetrius / nec minus bono cum iure quam danisticum. For banks and banking in the classical period, e. g. Bogaert 1968; Isager–Hansen 1975. 88–98; Copeland 1977; Thompson 1979; Cohen 1990; Millett 1991. 179–217; Cohen 1992; Shipton 1997. 11–12 ἔθνος / τούτου … οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐξωλέστερον Cf. Ar. Pl. 442–3 Πενία γάρ ἐστιν, … ἧς οὐδαμοῦ / οὐδὲν πέφυκε ζῷον ἐξωλέστερον (“This is Poverty, than whom there is no more ruinous creature anywhere”); Anaxil. fr. 22.30–1 οὐδὲ ἓν / ἔσθ’ ἑταίρας ὅσα πέρ ἐστιν θηρί’ ἐξωλέστερον (“of all the wild beasts in the world, there’s none more ruinous than a courtesan”); [D.] 48.63 τῶν γραφομένων καὶ συκοφαντούντων ἐστίν· ὧν γένος ἐξωλέστερον οὐδέν ἐστιν (“people who bring indictments and make false charges, than whom there is no more abominable group”); Plaut. Most. 657–8 nullum edepol hodie genus est hominum taetrius / nec minu’ bono cum iure quam danisticum (“By Pollux, there’s no race of men today fouler or less law-abiding than that of the money-lenders”; cited by Kassel–Austin). 11 For ἔθνος in the sense “class of people” (LSJ s. v. 3), cf. Men. fr. 508.5–6 γυναῖκας … / ἔθνους μιαροῦ (“women … what a foul class of people!”). 12 ἐξωλής is properly “utterly ruined” (cf. ἐξωλὴς ἀπόλοιο ~ “Damn you straight to hell!” et sim. at e. g. Ar. Pax 1072; Men. Sam. 367; Hdt. 7.9.2.β; D. 54.41), but also “utterly ruinous”, i. e. “abominable” (in addition to the passages cited in 11–12 n., e. g. Ar. Ec. 1053, 1070 (both comparative); A. Supp. 741 (the earliest attestation of the word, and the only one in elevated poetry) with Johansen–Whittle 1980 ad loc.).

214

Μνήματα (Mnêmata) “Monuments”

Introduction Title The sense of the word might be “grave monuments, tombs” (LSJ s. v. I.2; thus a play about confusion as to who is dead and who is not?; cf. Diodorus Comicus’ Νεκρός), but seems more likely to be ~ “tokens” (LSJ s. v. I.1), with the objects in question ultimately used to establish someone’s identity. Cf. Βομβυλιός Introduction, Κώρυκος Introduction, and from other poets e. g. Δακτύλιος (The Ring; Alexis, Amphis, Timocles) and Ἐπιστολή / Ἐπιστολαί (The Letter / Letters; Alexis and Timocles, respectively); Arnott 2010. 317–18. Epigenes and Diphilos both wrote a Μνημάτιον.. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 158 K.–A. (160 K.) τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν δ’ ἔτυχον ἄθλιοί τινες ἐν τῇ χαράδρᾳ τρώγοντες ἅλιμα καὶ κακὰ τοιαῦτα συλλέγοντες 1 τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν Ath.A : Πυθαγορικοὶ (structura mutata) Ath.CE : τῶν Πυθαγοριστῶν Elmsley δ’ ἔτυχον Scaliger : δὲ τυχὸν Ath.A 2 ἅλιμα Bochartus : αλιμα Ath.A : ἄλιμα CE Ath. : ἄλιμον Nauck : fort. ἅλιμον 3 ⟨ἐν τῷ κωρύκῳ⟩ coll. insequentibus Athenaei verbis suppl. Koppiers : ⟨εἰς τὸν κώρυκον⟩ Wilamowitz

But some miserable Pythagoreans happened to be nibbling tree purslane in the ravine and gathering nasty foods of that type Ath. 4.160f–1a εἰ αὐτάρκειαν ἀσπάζῃ, φιλόσοφε, τί οὐ τοὺς Πυθαγορικοὺς ἐκείνους φηλοῖς, περὶ ὧν φησιν Ἀντιφάνης μὲν ἐν Μνήμασι τάδε· ——; κἀν τῷ κυρίως Κωρύκῳ δ᾿ ἐπιγραφομένῳ φησί (fr. 133)· —— If you’re eager for mere self-sufficiency, philosopher, why don’t you imitate the well-known disciples of Pythagoras, about whom Antiphanes says the following in Mnêmata: ——? While in the play properly entitled Kôrykos he says (fr. 133): ——

Μνήματα (fr. 158)

215

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr l|rk|l klkl llrl llk|r klkl llkl klk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Bochartus 1663. 876; Scaliger ap. Cant. ms. II p. 72; Koppiers 1771. 41; Elmsley 1803. 191; Meineke 1839–1857 III.87; Nauck 1851. 417; Kock 1884 II.76; Wilamowitz ap. Kaibel ap. K.–A. Text 1 appears to represent the earliest attested use of Πυθαγορικός in the sense “adherent of Pythagoras”, hence Elmsley’s τῶν Πυθαγοριστῶν (cf. Aristopho frr. 9.2; 12.3) in place of Ath.A’s τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν (converted to Πυθαγορικοὶ in Ath.CE to suit a different syntactic structure). But Alexis has Πυθαγορίζων and Πυθαγόρειος in the space of a few lines at his fr. 223.1, 6, which suggests that there was no stable term for “Pythagorean” in this period and thus no compelling reason to emend the text here. Further on in 1, Ath.A misdivided the letters as δὲ τυχὸν (“but by chance, but it happened that” vel sim.), leaving the fragment with no main verb; corrected to δ’ ἔτυχον by Scaliger. In 2, Ath.A was uncertain what sort of a breathing mark to put on ἅλιμα; Ath.CE offer ἄλιμα, but the reading in Ath.A suggests that the Epitome-editor was guessing. The root seems to be ἅλς (“sea, salt”; see Discussion), and Bochartus accordingly wrote ἅλιμα. Nauck wanted ἄλιμον, on the ground that “die ἄλιμος war eine Kost des Pythagoras und also wohl auch der Πυθαγορισταί”. But ἄλιμος was associated with Epimenides rather than with Pythagoras (see n. 89), and if a change is to be considered, it might better be to ἅλιμον, on the theory that the word was drawn into the plural by its proximity to κακὰ / τοιαῦτα. Koppiers offered the clever suggestion that the initial words of κἀν τῷ κυρίως Κωρύκῳ δ᾿ ἐπιγραφομένῳ φησί in Athenaeus just after the end of 3 caused ⟨ἐν τῷ κωρύκῳ⟩ (“in their leather bag”; printed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) to fall out of the text of Antiphanes.88 As Wilamowitz apparently saw, what is wanted is instead ⟨εἰς τὸν κώρυκον⟩ (cf. Th. 2.13.1 τῶν Πελοποννησίων ξυλλεγομένων τε ἐς τὸν Ἰσθμόν), since Koppier’s ἐν τῷ κωρύκῳ would mean that that the action took place in the bag, not that the materials in question were assembled into it. ⟨εἰς τὸν κώρυκον⟩ does not work as neatly with Koppiers’ explanation of how the words were supposedly lost, and it is better to leave the text as transmitted in any case. Citation context Part of a long collection of texts that attack philosophers as gluttons, lechers, fools and the like. Alex. frr. 223; 201 (both dealing with Pythagorean habits) are quoted immediately after this, in that order, followed by Antiph. frr. 87; 63 (not obviously connected to the theme, except that they have to do with eating voraciously and inexpensively, respectively) and Aristopho fr. 9 (also 88

For the object itself, see Kôrykos introductory n.

216

Antiphanes

about Pythagoreans), in that order. For another collection of comic fragments referencing Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, see D. L. 8.37. All these texts taken together, along with Theoc. 14.5–6, make up Diels–Kranz 58 E (“Pythagoristen in der mittleren Komödie”). Only part of the fragment is preserved in the Epitome of Athenaeus, hence the reference to readings in Ath.CE at some points in the apparatus but not at others. The reference to “mere sufficiency” picks up on something said by Cynulcus at 4.157f (quoting one of Parmeniscus’ characters). Interpretation A narrative set in the past. The structure of 1 perhaps suggests that a contrast is being drawn with another group (“but some of the Pythagoreans …”), and the definite article in the prepositional phrase in 2 suggests a definite place that is already under discussion. For Pythagoras and 4th-century Pythagoreans, fr. 225.8 n., and cf. frr. 133; 166.7–8. 1 For Πυθαγορικός, see Text. 2 A χαράδρα (cognate either with χαράσσω, “cut, furrow”, or with χέραδος, “debris, gravel, rubble”) is a torrent bed (already Il. 4.454) and thus by extension—or the other way around, depending on what one believes the etymology is—the mountain stream or torrent that runs down it from time to time (already Il. 16.390). For the word in the sense “torrent bed”, as here, e. g. Chionid. fr. 2.2 (“a lamb raised ἐν χαράδρᾳ”); Teleclid. fr. 1.4 (every χαράδρα in a magical place and time flowed with wine); for the sense “torrent”, e. g. Pherecr. fr. 56.3; Ar. V. 1034. The point of gathering greens in a χαράδρα is presumably that such places are better watered than others and thus more likely to produce vegetation. For τρώγω, fr. 273.1 n. The choice of verb (~ “snack on”) may add a bit of malicious irony. Dsc. 1.91.1 describes ἅλιμον—first mentioned here, where it is clearly a rough, wild plant foraged for and consumed only by those who have nothing better to eat—as θάμνος … φραγμίτης, ὅμοιος ῥάμνῳ, οὐκ ἔχων ἀκάνθας, φύλλα δὲ ἐλαίας παραπλήσια, πλατύτερα μέντοι. φύεται ἐν παραθαλασσίοις ⟨τόποις⟩ καὶ φραγμοῖς. λαχανεύεται δὲ αὐτῆς τὰ φύλλα ἑψόμενα εἰς βρῶσιν (“a bush that grows in hedges, resembling buckthorn; it lacks thorns and has leaves that are like those of an olive but broader. It grows in locations along the sea and in hedges. Its leaves are gathered as greens and are stewed for consumption”), while Aetius 1.20.1 ~ Gal. XI.821.3–5 K. also calls it a θάμνος (“bush”) and says that “some people eat the shoots”. LSJ s. v. takes it to be Atriples halimus (tree purslane or sea orach), which is salt-tolerant, hence probably the name as well as Dioscorides’ remark that it grew near the sea. Theophrastus also refers repeatedly (but without a detailed description) to a plant he calls ἅλιμον (e. g. HP 5.15.4), which may be a related species. Note also Phot. α 950 = Lex. Rhet. ap. An.Bachm. I.67.14 ~ Hsch. α 3014 ἄλιμον· βοτάνη δενδροειδὴς ἐσθιομένη (“alimon (sic): a tree-like plant that is

Μνήματα (fr. 158)

217

eaten”); Suda α 1228 = Synag. α 310 ἅλιμον· βοτάνη δενδροειδὴς παρὰ θάλασσα (“halimon: a tree-like plant found beside the sea”).89

89

There was apparently a story—alluded to already at Pl. Lg. 667d–e, and discussed more fully at Plu. Mor. 157d and Σ Hes. Op. 41, who cite Herodor. fr. 19 = FGrH 31 F 1 and Hermipp. Hist. fr. 15a Wehrli (cf. fr. 15b Wehrli ap. Ath. 2.58f, and Wehrli 1974. 53–4), who both obviously know it as well—that the early 5th-century sage Epimenides of Knossos (3 A 5–6 D.–K.) invented a food made out of the Hesiodic mallow and asphodel that he called ἄλιμος οr ἄλιμον because it kept him from starving. There is no connection to Antiphanes’ halimon, even if manuscripts sometimes transmit the latter with a smooth breathing or as masculine.

218

Μοιχοί (Moichoi)

“Seducers of Women”

Introduction Title The fundamental defining feature of μοιχεία is that the woman is free and the man who has sex with her is not authorized to do so; the marital status of the two parties is not really in question, except in the sense that married women are more or less automatically out of bounds for anyone except their husbands. To have sex e. g. with someone’s slave-girl is thus not μοιχεία (although it might well be regarded by her owner as an act of ὕβρις). For seduction and seducers in comedy, see in general Totaro 1998. 167–70; Orth 2013. 255–7 (extensive, detailed remarks with further bibliography), and cf. Παιδεραστής with Introduction. Amipsias also wrote a Μοιχοί, Philemon a Μοιχός; note also Alc. Com. Ἀδελφαὶ μοιχευόμεναι and Philippides’ Λακιάδαι with Zenob. Ath. I.73 (preserving Posidipp. Com. fr. 4). For the title, cf. also Ἀφροδίσιος and Παιδεραστής, on the one hand, and Ἄσωτοι and Κυβευταί (both seemingly unfavorable characterizations), on the other. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 159 K.–A. (161 K.)

5

10

οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν θηρίον τῶν ἰχθύων ἀτυχέστερον· τῷ μὴ γὰρ ἀποχρῆν ἀποθανεῖν αὐτοῖς ἁλοῦσιν, εἶτα κατεδηδεσμένοις εὐθὺς ταφῆναι, παραδοθέντες ἄθλιοι τοῖς ἰχθυοπώλαις τοῖς κακῶς ἀπολουμένοις σήπονθ’, ἕωλοι κείμενοι δύ’ ἡμέρας ἢ τρεῖς. μόλις δ’ ἐάν ποτ’ ὠνητὴν τυφλὸν λάβωσιν, ἔδοσαν τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν τούτῳ· κομίσας δ’ ἐξέβαλε ⟨lx⟩ οἴκαδε τὴν πεῖραν ἐν τῇ ῥινὶ τῆς ὀσμῆς λαβών

2 τῷ μὴ γὰρ Erfurdt : τῷ γὰρ μὴ Ath.CE Eust. : τὸ γὰρ μὴ Ath.A 4 ἄθλιοι Ath.ACE : ἅθλιοι Herwerden 7 ἐάν Porson : ἄν Ath.ACE 8 λάβωσιν, ἔδοσαν Herwerden : λάβωσιν ἔδωκαν Ath.A : λάβωσ᾿ ἔδωκε Ath.CE 9 ἐξέβαλε] ἐξέβαλεν Ath.ACE ⟨εὐθὺς⟩ Casaubon : ⟨αὖθις⟩ Meineke : ⟨ἐλθὼν⟩ Naber : ⟨ἀτάφους⟩ Kock : fort. ⟨αὐτοὺς⟩ vel ⟨τούτους⟩ 10 ὀσμῆς Ath.CE : ὀδμῆς Ath.A

Μοιχοί (fr. 159)

5

10

219

There’s no animal more unfortunate than a fish. For since it wasn’t enough for them to be caught and die, and then be eaten and given a funeral immediately, the miserable creatures are instead turned over to the damned fish-sellers and rot, lying there going bad for two days or three. If they eventually, with great effort, find a customer who’s blind, they allow him to collect the corpses. But after he gets them home, he throws them out when he catches a whiff of their scent in his nose

Ath. 6.225d–e ὅτι δὲ καὶ νεκροὺς πωλοῦσι τοὺς ἰχθῦς καὶ σεσηπότας ἐπισημαίνεται ὁ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Μοιχοῖς διὰ τούτων· —— Antiphanes in the following passage from Moichoi establishes that they sell rotten, dead fish: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

10

llkl l|lkl llkl rlkl l|lk|r lrkl llkl k|lk|r llkl llkl l|rkl klkl llrl l|lkl rlkl llkl l|lkl klkl llkl klk|l llkl klkr l|lkl klkl llrl lrk|〈l x〉lkl llkl l|lk|l llkl

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 399; Erfurdt 1812. 455; Porson 1812. 50; Meineke 1839–1857 III.87–8; van Herwerden 1876. 303; van Herwerden 1878. 63; Naber 1880. 50; Kock 1884 II.76–7 Text In 2, the unmetrical paradosis τῷ γὰρ (Epitome)/τὸ γὰρ (Ath.A) is an example of a misguided or unconscious correction to a more normal word-order. The use of the dative τῷ is odd (see Interpretation) and probably colloquial, whence the even more difficult τὸ (imagined as exclamatory, “that …!”?) in Ath.A. In 4, the paradosis ἄθλιοι is equivalent in sense to ἀθλίως, and Herwerden suggested writing ἅθλιοι (seemingly intended as ~ a parenthetic “the miserable creatures!”). Whether this is idiomatic is unclear; no parallels obviously present themselves, and one would expect οἱ ἄθλιοι to mean something more like “the class of miserable creatures”, which is not what is wanted here.

220

Antiphanes

In 7, the paradosis ἄν is unmetrical, and Porson’s ἐάν is needed with the subjunctive in any case. Mostly likely ΔΕΑΝ was misunderstood as representing scriptio plena δὲ ἄν and written δ’ ἄν. In 8, Ath.A’s λάβωσιν ἔδωκαν might be right and is printed by Meineke. Kassel– Austin, by contrast, take over the Epitome’s λάβωσ᾿ and print λάβωσ᾿ ἔδωκαν, with the reading in Ath.A to be explained as scriptio plena with nu added at some point to avoid hiatus. Although 3rd-person singular ἔδωκεν is common in texts of all sorts in the classical period (e. g. fr. 192.9), however, 3rd-person plural ἔδωκαν seems to be a metri gratia poeticism (Alex. fr. 212.6, and in a compound at Ar. Nu. 968) which shows up in inscriptions only in the final quarter of the 4th century or so (Threatte 1996. 600–2). This does not make it impossible in Antiphanes, despite the lack of parallels, since official language certainly lagged behind how average people talked on the street and thus in comedy. I nonetheless follow Kock in printing Herwerden’s λάβωσιν, ἔδοσαν and assume that the later form drove out the earlier one. 9 is lacunose. The conjectures recorded in the apparatus—“immediately” Casaubon; “again” Meineke; “after he goes” Naber (difficult after κομίσας, which seems to go with οἴκαδε at the end of the line, with “them” or the equivalent as a common object with ἐξέβαλεν); “unburied” Kock (recalling the theme with which the fragment begins)—all assume that the nu-moveable on the end of ἐξέβαλεν guarantees that the next word began with a vowel. More likely its presence merely reflects the fact that οἴκαδε begins with a vowel, and I have therefore struck the letter from the text. In 10, the Epitome’s ὀσμῆς rather than Ath.A’s ὀδμῆς appears to be the normal Attic form of the word in this period; cf. Alex. fr. 195.3 ὀσμάς (where Clement’s version of the text has the same error as Ath.A here); Anaxandr. fr. 42.36 ὀσμαί (where Ath.C alone offers ὀσμ-); Phryn. ecl. 62; Barrett 1964. 437; Threatte 1980. 567–8. Citation context From an extensive collection at Ath. 6.224c–8c of comic fragments having to do with fish-mongers and their customers that also preserves fr. 164; Amphis fr. 30; Alex. fr. 16; Diph. fr. 67; Xenarch. fr. 7, in that order, before this, and fr. 217; Alex. frr. 204; 130–1; Diph. fr. 32; Alex. fr. 76; Archipp. fr. 23; Alex. fr. 78.7 (cited but not quoted); Anaxandr. fr. 34; Alex. fr. 78; Diph. fr. 31; Sophil. fr. 2, in that order, after this. Eustathius cites vv. 2–3 from his own copy of the Epitome and should be not be treated as a separate witness to the text (as implicitly in Kassel–Austin). Interpretation Kassel–Austin, comparing Amphis fr. 3 (which begins “There’s no sweeter soothing of human misfortune than technê”) and Diph. fr. 87 (which begins “There’s no trade more ruinous than that of the pimp”), suggest that this is the beginning of a soliloquy; from a prologue? Whether this is true or not, the speaker’s principal interest is not necessarily in fish or fish-mongers, and his language might instead be taken to suggest that what really concerns him is burials,

Μοιχοί (fr. 159)

221

fish merely being an amusing initial example of how bad things can go for the dead, or—better suiting what seem to be typical themes in 4th-century literature—the fate of war-captives, who rather than dying and being buried are, like fish, captured (cf. 3) and given over to be sold (cf. 4–5). The argument veers about somewhat in any case, from a description of the allegedly miserable condition of fish (1–5), to an attack on fishmongers (6–9), to a joke about a blind man whose nose finally alerts him that his purchase is rotten (8–10), although the latter does return in an amusing fashion to the supposedly problematic handling fish get after they die. 1 οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδέν et sim. is a common line-opening formula (frr. 266.1*; 270.1*; Magnes fr. 5.1* οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδείς*; Ar. Pax 965 οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδείς*; Av. 1343a*; Lys. 212 = 213 οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδείς*; Philonid. II fr. 1.1 οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδείς*; Amphis fr. 3*; Xenarch. fr. 7.5*; Diph. fr. 87.1*; Men. Asp. 424*; frr. 191.1*; 819.1*; in tragedy at e. g. S. Ai. 486; E. Andr. 986*; Hec. 805*). Not infrequently followed by a comparative, as in 2 here. For θηρίον, fr. 145.7 n. 2 τῷ μὴ γὰρ ἀποχρῆν is glossed διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀποχρῆν (“due to the fact that it’s not enough”) by Meineke. Cf. Denniston 1954. 61 (on explanatory γάρ-clauses): “The connexion of thought is sometimes lacking in logical precision”. ἀτυχέστερον For τύχη and the need for human beings, at least, to bear up against it, cf. frr. 103; 257; frr. dub. 320–1. ἀποχράω is first attested at A. Ag. 1575, but is otherwise restricted in the classical period to comedy (also e. g. Pherecr. fr. 155.6, 17; Ar. Av. 1603) and prose (e. g. Hdt. 3.138.2; Lys. 13.32; Pl. R. 506b; Isoc. 15.85; D. 23.203). 3 For κατέδω, fr. 27.7 n. 4 ἄθλιοι adds a bit of nominally sympathetic emotional color, setting up the disparaging description of the fish-mongers in the next verse. 5–10 Cf. Plaut. Capt. 813–17. 5 Cf. Alex. fr. 16.5 τοὺς δ’ ἰχθυοπώλας τοὺς κάκιστ’ ἀπολουμένους (cited by Kassel–Austin). Forms of οἱ κακῶς ἀπολούμενοι and of the metrically equivalent οἱ κάκιστ’ ἀπολούμενοι are common in comedy (also e. g. fr. 190.2; Pherecr. fr. 22.1; Ar. Ach. 865*, 952*; Amphis fr. 20.1; Men. Dysc. 403; cf. κάκιστ’ ἀπολοίμην et sim. at e. g. Ar. Ach. 151). But each is also attested once in 4th-century prose (Is. 8.44; D. 19.325), which is enough to show that these are good Attic colloquialisms.90 6 ἕωλος is apparently cognate with ἕως (“dawn”) and means “yesterday’s” and thus by an easy extension of meaning “stale, spoiled” vel sim.; confined to comedy (also Ar. fr. 51; Axionic. frr. 6.15; 8.6; Philetaer. fr. 7.7), prose (e. g. Hp. Aff. 52.2 = 6.260.19 Littré καὶ πρόσφατος ἢ ἕωλος; D. 18.150 with Wankel 1976. 348; 21.112; [Arist.] Pr. 927b3) and the corrupt S. fr. 177.2 (perhaps satyr play).

90

Note κακῶς ἀπόλοιτο et sim. in the Atticizing Alciphro at 2.2.1, 2.25.3; 3.12.1.

222

Antiphanes

6–7 δύ(ο) … / ἢ τρεῖς (literally “two or three”) is used here in an offhand, colloquial fashion (not attested in elevated poetry in the classical period) to mean ~ “a few”, as also at e. g. Ar. Pax 829; Lys. 1051/2; Th. 474; Ra. 506, 515; Phryn. Com. fr. 35; Men. fr. 130.2–3; Od. 5.484; Anan. fr. 3.2; Th. 1.82.2; 4.124.4; X. HG 3.5.20. 7 For the combination of μόλις and ποτ(ε), which serves to make it clear how hard the fishmongers find it to unload their now-rotten wares—they do so only “with difficulty” and “eventually”, when a defenseless mark presents himself—cf. Men. Dysc. 684; Sam. 493; E. Ion 383; Hel. 896; Th. 7.40.3; Pl. Tht. 160e. μόλις is a predominantly Attic form (e. g. A. Ag. 1082; Cratin. fr. 255; S. Ant. 290; Eup. fr. 237; Ar. Eq. 540; Pl. Tht. 142b; Theopomp. Com. fr. 16.2) used in place of the predominantly non-Attic μόγις. ὠνητής is prosaic 4th-century vocabulary (X. Oec. 2.3; Aeschin. 1.108; Thphr. Char. 12.8). τυφλόν For general bibliography on disability in the ancient world, fr. 152.2 n. Like English “blind”, the adjective is sometimes used of individuals who merely see poorly (Ar. Pl. 747), as perhaps here. For the form of the adjective (common to designate physical or, by extension, spiritual defects), Chantraine 1933. 238 compares e. g. σιφλός, χωλός, τραυλός. 8 ἀναίρεσις (literally “lifting up”) is the term normally used for the recovery of the bodies of fallen soldiers from a battlefield (e. g. E. Supp. 18–19 οὐδ’ ἀναίρεσιν / δοῦναι θέλουσι; Th. 2.34.3; 3.24.3 ἀναίρεσιν τοῖς νεκροῖς, 3.109.1 περὶ νεκρῶν … ἀναιρέσεως, 3.113.1 ἀναίρεσιν αἰτήσων τῶν νεκρῶν; [Lys.] 2.7 δοῦναι τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν; Isoc. 14.54 τὴν τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναίρεσιν; D. 7.38 οὐδ’ ἀναίρεσιν ἔδωκεν, ἵνα ταφῇ). See in general Pritchett 1985. 153–241 (pp. 235–41 on bodies left unburied). 9 picks up the description at 2–4 of what might happen to fish, were they generically luckier creatures: instead of getting a decent burial, as counterfactually imagined there, they are left lying on the ground to rot, like traitors (e. g. Antigone’s brother Polynices) or various other types of criminals (for which practices, see in general Rosivach 1983). ἐξέβαλεν i. e. out of his house and into the street or onto a garbage-heap or dungpile (e. g. Ar. Ach. 987 with Olson 2002 ad loc. and on 616–17; Stratt. fr. 44), where they will eventually be eaten by pigs or dogs (Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 24–5). For the narrative order, 10 n. 10 For πεῖραν λαμβάνω, e. g. adesp. com. fr. 1000.33; Alex. frr. *18.1; 206.1; Philem. fr. 178.14; Men. Theophor. 24; E. frr. 691.2; 993 (the only examples of the construction in elevated poetry before the Hellenistic period); X. Mem. 1.4.18; Pl. Euthd. 275b; Isoc. 11.27; D. 28.22; Aeschin. 3.213. ἐν τῇ ῥινί is in one sense superfluous, since there is nowhere else to catch a smell but in one’s nose. But the words also serve as a sort of punchline for the brief vignette of the blind fish-market customer in 7–10: although he cannot see the fish, his nose eventually allows him to detect their desperate condition. Although

Μοιχοί (fr. 159)

223

the action described here logically precedes ἐξέβαλε in 9, therefore, it is presented after it. For the sense of smell generally, fr. 78.3 n.

224

Μυλών (Mylôn) “The Millhouse”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.325

Title This is the only title of a comedy by Antiphanes that refers to a place; cf. Amphis’, Alexis’, Timocles’ and Diphilus’ Βαλανεῖον (The Bathhouse); Epicrates’ Τριόδους ἢ Ῥωποπώλης (The Place where Three Roads Meet or The Huckster). Consignment to mill-work is routinely presented as a form of harsh punishment for slaves (E. Cyc. 240; Th. 6.22 (seemingly a reference to slaves to be rented out from their masters); Lys. 1.18; D. 45.33; Din. Dem. 23; Men. Asp. 243–5; Heros 2–3 with Arnott 1996b ad loc.; Pk. 277–8; Plaut. Asin. 31–7, 709; Epidic. 121, 145; Men. 975; Most. 17; Pers. 22, 420; Poen. 827–8, 1152–3; Pseud. 494, 499–501, 533–4, 1059–60, 1099–1100; Ter. Andr. 199–200, 213–14, 600; HT 530–1; Phorm. 249); cf. Δραπεταγωγός (The Slave-catcher”) and Δύσπρατος (“The Man who was Hard to Sell”), and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων, and for the Roman evidence for slaves working in mills and the like (much of it from comedy), Roth 2012. Alexis wrote a Μυλωθρός (“Miller”; see Arnott 1996. 461), Eubulus a Μυλωθρίς (“Female Miller”). Content

Unknown.

Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 160 K.–A. (162 K.) βιβλιδίου κόλλημα βιβλιδίου Poll.A : βιβλίου Poll.FS

κόλλημα Poll.A : κόλλυμα Poll.F : κώλλωμα Poll.S

a glued-together little roll Poll. 7.211 Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν τῷ Μύλωνι εἴρηκε· —— And Antiphanes says in Mylôn: ——

Meter Perhaps iambic trimeter, e. g.

〈xlkl x〉|lrl llk〈l〉 or 〈x〉lrl llk|〈l xlkl〉

or anapaestic dimeter, e. g.

〈y〉lrl | llk〈ky〉

Μυλών (fr. 160)

225

Text βιβλίον (Poll.FS) is far and away the more common form of the word and is thus more likely to have driven out the diminutive βιβλίδιoν (Poll.A) than the other way around. But βιβλίου would also scan here in iambic trimeter (e.g. 〈xlkl x〉| lrl llk〈l〉 or 〈x〉lrl llk|〈l xlkl〉). Cf. fr. 195 (from the same section of Pollux), where Poll.FS have again simplified and thus misrepresented the text. κόλλημα (Poll.A) is a rare word and was thus difficult for the scribes. κόλλυμα (Poll.F) is a product of a period in which eta and upsilon had come to be pronounced alike, while κώλλωμα (Poll.S) may represent a desperate attempt to understand the word as somehow cognate with κωλύω. Citation context From a brief collection of words (Poll. 7.210–11) having to do with books. Ar. fr. 795; Pl. Com. fr. 218; Hdt. 1.125.2; Aristomen. fr. 9; Cratin. fr. 267; Antiph. fr. 195; Cratin. Jun. fr. 11, in that order, are cited before this, Hdt. 5.58.3 after this. [Hdn.] Grammatici graeci III.2 p. 482.2 claims that βιβλίδιον has a long iota, which suggests that he knows the word from a poetic text and thus perhaps specifically from this fragment. The iota in question is in any case presumably the first (which scans long in comedy) rather than the second or the third. Interpretation A βιβλιδίου κόλλημα is literally “a glued-together object consisting of a little book” (genitive of definition; Poultney 1936. 49), i. e. a papyrus roll assembled out of individual sheets of papyrus pasted together. For the construction of such rolls and the use of papyrus as book-material generally, see Plin. Nat. 13.74–82; Hepper–Reynolds 1967; Turner 1968. 1–16; Lewis 1974; Sider 1976 (on the paste used to attach sheets to one another, which was probably nothing more than flour and water); Wallert 1989; Dimarogonas 1995 (the last two with further bibliography). On papyrus generally, see Ryan 1988. βιβλίδιον is a diminutive < βιβλίον. The origin of the latter is unclear, but the earliest form seems to be have been in βυβλ-, for which late 5th/4th-century colloquial Attic substituted βιβλ-; see Threatte 1980. 263; Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 974. βιβλίδιον is first attested here, but cf. βιβλιδάριον at Ar. fr. 795; Petersen 1910. 227. For the book-trade, see Pellegrino 2013. 51–2 on Nicopho fr. 10.4 βιβλιοπώλαις (“book-sellers”); Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 327.1; Orth 2014 on Aristomen. fr. 9 (all with further bibliography). κόλλημα (< κολλάω, “glue”) is attested elsewhere before the Roman period only at Hp. Art. 33.33 = 4.154.5 Littré and in an inscription from Delos dating to around 250 BCE (IG XII,2 287.152). But -μα compounds of this sort are extremely common (fr. 249.1 n.), and this is probably a simple, ordinary word of a sort that rarely found its way into literary texts.

226

Μύστις (Mystis)

“Mystis” or “The Female Initiate”

Introduction Discussion

Kock 1884 II.77; Breitenbach 1908. 163–4

Title As Kock observed, this might be either a proper name or a feminine form of μύστης (“initiate”). If the former, it may well be a courtesan’s working name, like Λαμπάς, Μαλθάκη, Μέλιττα, Νεοττίς, Φιλῶτις and Χρυσίς, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρχεστράτη, Εὔπλοια and Ὀμφάλη. For courtesans generally, fr. 2 n. Comedies entitled Mystis were also written by Philippides and Philemon. Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 161 K.–A. (163 K.)

5

(Α.) σὺ δ’ ἀλλὰ πῖθι. (Β.) τοῦτο μέν σοι πείσομαι· καὶ γὰρ ἐπαγωγόν, ὦ θεοί, τὸ σχῆμά πως τῆς κύλικός ἐστιν ἄξιόν τε τοῦ κλέους τοῦ τῆς ἑορτῆς· οὗ μὲν ἦμεν ἄρτι γὰρ ἐξ ὀξυβαφίων κεραμεῶν ἐπίνομεν. τούτῳ δέ, τέκνον, πολλὰ κἀγάθ’ οἱ θεοὶ τῷ δημιουργῷ δοῖεν ὃς ἐποίησέ σε, τῆς συμμετρίας καὶ τῆς ἀφελείας οὕνεκα

1 πείσομαι Ath.P Musurus : πίσομαι Ath.(1)ACE Eust. Ath.(2)A 4 οὗ μὲν ἦμεν Dindorf : ἄρτι Ath.(1)A : ἀρτίως Ath.(2)A † ουμενημεν † Ath.(1)A : οὔ μὲν οὐμέν Ath.(2)A 5 κεραμεῶν Ath.(1)A Poll.CL : κεραμέων Ath.(2)ACE : κεραμίων Poll.FS 6 τούτῳ] τούτων Meineke πολλὰ κἀγαθὰ Ath.(2)A : πόλλ᾿ ἀγαθὰ Ath.(1)A 7 σε Ath.(1)A : om. Ath.(2)A 8 καὶ τῆς ἀφελείας Ath.(1)A : καὶ τῆς ἀσφαλείας Ath.(2)A : τῆς τ᾿ ὠφελείας Kock

5

(A.) But as for you—drink! (B.) I’ll do what you say in this regard; for the fact is, by the gods, that the shape of the cup is rather enticing and fits the reputation of the festival. Because where we were just now, we were drinking out of ceramic vinegar-dishes. May the gods grant many blessings, child, to this craftsman who produced you, on account of your symmetry and simplicity

Μύστις (fr. 161)

227

Ath.(1) 10.446b–d καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Μύστιδι· —— Also Antiphanes in Mystis: —— Ath.(2) 11.494c–d ὅτι δέ ἐστι τὸ ὀξύβαφον εἶδος κύλικος μικρᾶς κεραμέας σαφῶς παρίστησιν Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Μύστιδι διὰ τούτων· γραῦς ἐστι φίλοινος ἐπαινοῦσα κύλικα μεγάλην καὶ ἐξευτελίζουσα τὸ ὀξύβαφον ὡς βραχύ. εἰπόντος οὖν τινος πρὸς αὐτήν· 〈σὺ δ’ ἀλλὰ πῖθι, λέγει⟩ (suppl. Schweighäuser ex 10.446b–d)· τοῦτο μέν σοι πείσομαι κτλ. —— Antiphanes in Mystis establishes unambiguously that an oxybaphon is a type of small ceramic cup in the following passage. An old woman who loves wine is praising a large goblet and disparaging the oxybaphon as small. When someone says to her: 〈But as for you—drink!, she says〉 (supplemented by Schweighäuser from Ath. 10.446b–d): I’ll do what you say in this regard etc. —— Poll. 10.67 καὶ τὸ ἐν Ἀντιφάνους Μύστιδι· (v. 5) —— Also the passage in Antiphanes’ Mystis: (v. 5) ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

klkl k|lk|l llkl lrkl k|lkl llkl lrkl k|lkl klkl llkl l|lk|l klkl llkr l|rkl klkl llkl k|lk|l klkl llkl l|lk|r llkl llrl l|lrl llkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 V.1.77; Kock 1884. 77–8; Bianchi 2018. 70–1

Text πείσομαι in 1 is a correction in a late 15th-century manuscript of Athenaeus (taken over by Musurus in the Aldine edition) for πίσομαι in Ath.(1)ACE Eust. and Ath.(2)A, which is a product of a period in which ει and ι had come to be pronounced alike. 4–5 are better punctuated thus than with a full stop in the middle of 4 and a half stop at the end of 5 (as in Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin). In the middle of 4, the Ath.A-scribe at 10.446b (or the man who produced his exemplar) was unable to make sense of the sequence of letters ουμενημεν, which Dindorf saw must represent οὗ μὲν ἦμεν. οὔ μὲν οὐμέν at Ath. 11.494d represents a more enterprising but still unsuccessful effort by the scribe to deal with the same problem, perhaps already aggravated there by the corruption of η to ου in the examplar.

228

Antiphanes

Further on in 4, ἄρτι (Ath.(1)A) and ἀρτίως (Ath.(2)A) are identical in meaning (fr. 92 n.), but the latter is unmetrical. In 5, κεραμεῶν (Ath.(1)A Poll.CL) is a metri gratia uncontracted genitive plural form of κεραμεοῦς, for which Kassel–Austin on Theophil. fr. 2.1 compare Nico fr. 1.291 μάνην … κεραμεοῦν and IG II2 463.51 γεῖσον … κεραμεοῦν (307/6 BCE; contrasted with λ[ί]θινον, “made of stone”, and perhaps with ξύλινον, “made of wood” (conjectural)), both of which references are drawn from LSJ s. v. Such words are normally contracted in inscriptions and thus presumably in normal, educated usage (Threatte 1996. 286–9), but cf. Ar. Nu. 1474 χυτρεοῦν (metri gratia); Theophil. fr. 2.1 κύλικα κεραμεᾶν (metri gratia); Ctes. FGrH 688 F 45r.54 ἀγγεῖα … κεραμεᾶ; X. An. 3.4.7 πλίνθοις κεραμεαῖς; Pl. Lys. 219e κύλικα κεραμεᾶν; Hp. Ulc. 17.12 = 6.420.17 Littré χυτρίδιον … κεραμεοῦν; Thphr. HP 5.3.2 κύλικας … κεραμεᾶς (also cited by LSJ s. v. κεραμεοῦς). Ath.(2)ACE accents the word as if it were < κεραμεύς, “potter”; but the handling of such adjectives is confused even in modern critical editions (corrected in the Plato and Theophrastus passages quoted above from barytone κεραμέαν and κεραμέας, respectively), and this does not really qualify as a variant reading. On adjectives of this type, see in general Zacher 1877. 46–54, esp. 48. Poll.FS makes the word a form of the noun κεράμιον, “earthenware vessel, jar” (e. g. Ar. fr. 743; Axionic. fr. 7.3; Alex. fr. 85.2; Arist. HA 534a21–2), which will not do after ὀξυβαφίων and appears to be an example of an easier word driving out a more difficult one. τούτῳ at the beginning of 6 is unexpected, although not obviously wrong on that account; see Interpretation. Meineke’s τούτων (proposed without gloss or explanation) is apparently supposed to be a genitive of the whole with πολλὰ κἀγάθ’. Further on in 6, πόλλ᾿ ἀγαθὰ (Ath.(1)A) is an easy error for πολλὰ κἀγαθὰ (Ath.(2)A)—cf. e. g. Alex. fr. 99.2 (quoted in Interpretation)—but is unmetrical. At the end of 7, σε was omitted in Ath.(2)A by haplography after ἐποίησέ. ἀφελείας (Ath.(1)A) in 8 is a rare word (see Interpretation) and was accordingly displaced in Ath.(2)A by the more common but unmetrical ἀσφαλείας (“security”). Kock proposed τῆς τ᾿ ὠφελείας (“and the benefit / assistance”, sc. “that you provide me with, by holding so much wine”), which does not improve the sense enough to be worth adopting. Citation context Quoted at Ath. 10.446b–d as part of a collection of examples (introduced by frr. 4; 205) of the use of the imperative πῖθι (1) that also includes Cratin. fr. 145, immediately before this, and Diph. fr. 20; Amips. fr. 17; Men. fr. 69, in that order, immediately after this. The fragment is much longer than it needs to be to make the point, and it is tempting to think that it has been drawn—or at least supplemented—by Athenaeus from 11.494c–d (below), where the full quotation is arguably more appropriate.

91

Unhelpfully cited as “Nicon. fr. 1,2”, as if the author’s name were Niconus or the like.

Μύστις (fr. 161)

229

The second citation of the fragment at Ath. 11.494c–d is part of a discussion of the oxybaphon in the long, roughly alphabetical catalogue of cups and related vessels that makes up much of Book 11 of the Deipnosophists. Cratin. fr. 199 is cited immediately before this, Ar. fr. 75 (also preserving information about the dramatic action generally rather than a curt citation of the strictly relevant text) and Eub. fr. 65 immediately afterward. That Athenaeus himself knew Mystis at first-hand cannot be assumed. But not all the incidental details he preserves about the speaker and circumstances are apparent from the text of the fragment itself (although see Interpretation), in which case this information must be drawn, if not from a complete text of the play, at least from a more substantial excerpt than what is preserved for us here. Pollux cites v. 5 in a brief collection of names for drinking vessels within the long catalogue of σκεύη (“implements”) of all sorts that makes up his Book 10. Cratin. fr. 199.6 is cited immediately before this (for οἰνηρὸν ὀξύβαφον), and the overlap with Ath. 11.494b–d (above) suggests that both discussions ultimately go back to the same source. Cf. Poll. 6.23 (once again citing Cratin. fr. 199.6, in this case for οἰνηρός); 10.86 (further discussion of ὀξύβαφον, but as a vessel for food, citing Ar. Av. 361; Phryn. Com. fr. 35). Interpretation Ath. 11.494c informs us that (B.) is an old woman who likes wine, and who is thus apparently a stereotypical female drunk; see fr. 47.1 n. This might nonetheless be circular argument, with τέκνον in 6 (n.) taken to signal that the speaker is a older woman—which in that case goes well beyond the evidence—and the other details deduced from there. Whoever (B.) is, he or she is making his or her way from one party to another on a festival day (3–5), perhaps Choes / Chytroi (see Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 960–1), where drinking was a central part of the festivities, matching the name of the event (~ its κλέος). ἦμεν in 4 might refer to the previous group of drinkers also described with a first-person plural in 5. But it might mean instead that (B.) has been accompanied from that party to this one by a third character, for whom (B.) speaks here, and who is perhaps given the cup after (B.) is done with it. (B.) is at pains to praise the shape of the cup (2–3, 8). But what she clearly means, behind her flowery, partially paratragic (6–8 n.) language, is that it is large (contrast 5 with n.). 5 also suggests that it is made from gold or silver rather than terracotta (5): this is a fancier party than the last one. Cf. fr. 163 (also featuring at least one female character who is determined to drink as much as possible). 1 “The use of δ’ ἀλλά is strictly circumscribed. It is always followed by an imperative, expressed or understood : and it is nearly always preceded by σύ” (Denniston 1954. 10). Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Ach. 191, 1033; Nu. 1369; Lys. 904. Add E. Med. 942; Heracl. 565; Ph. 1667; [E.] Rh. 167; X. HG 3.4.26; Pl. Sph. 235d.

230

Antiphanes

πῖθι is a colloquial Attic form, confined in the classical period to comedy (also Cratin. fr. 145; Ar. V. 1489; Amips. fr. 17; Alex. frr. 55 (in a compound); 234.5; Diph. fr. 20.2; Men. frr. 69.2; 281) and satyr play (Ion TrGF 19 F 27); cf. Call. fr. 233 (from Hekale = fr. 7 Hollis, and thus certainly used in a knowing fashion92) ap. [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 355.6; Herod. 1.82; Luc. Lex. 20 (an Atticism); Moer. π 64 πίομαι πῖθι Ἀττικοί· πιοῦμαι πίε Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers say piomai (and) pithi; Greeks generally say pioumai (and) pie”). (A.) holds out a cup full of wine. (B.) accepts it and then pauses to admire the vessel in 2–8. τοῦτο μέν σοι πείσομαι The δέ-clause is not expressed, but the impression (B.) creates is of being unwilling to follow (A.)’s lead in everything. She can nonetheless be persuaded to have a drink. 2 καὶ γάρ marks this as an explanation—and thus a justification—for the decision articulated in the second half of 1 (Denniston 1954. 108–9). For ἐπαγωγός, fr. 238.1 n. For the bland ὦ θεοί, fr. 59.3 n. σχῆμα is from the aorist stem of ἔχω and is thus “condition, form, (physical) character”; first attested at Titan. fr. 11.2, p. 15 Bernabé, but otherwise absent from epic and lyric poetry of the classical period. 3 κύλιξ (etymology uncertain) appears to be a generic term for a drinking vessel; first attested in lyric poetry (Semon. fr. 27; Sapph. fr. 2.14; Alc. fr. 346.5; Hippon. fr. 21.2), and found elsewhere in comedy at e. g. Crates Com. fr. 16.7; Pherecr. fr. 73.2–3; Hermipp. fr. 55.1; Ar. Ach. 938; Ephipp. fr. 3.11. 3–4 ἄξιόν τε τοῦ κλέους / τοῦ τῆς ἑορτῆς cf. Ar. Ra. 370–1 ἀνεγείρετε μολπὴν / καὶ παννυχίδας τὰς ἡμετέρας αἳ τῇδε πρέπουσιν ἑορτῇ (“rouse up a song and our night-long celebrations appropriate to this festival!”; the chorus speaks to itself), 391–2 τῆς σῆς ἑορτῆς ἀξίως/ παίσαντα καὶ σκώψαντα (“playing and joking in a fashion worthy of your festival”; addressed by the chorus to a goddess). 4 For ἄρτι, fr. 92 n. γάρ (which normally comes second in its clause) is in one sense substantially postponed here; see in general Denniston 1954. 95–8, esp. 97, who seems to regard this as typical of the loose syntactic style of comedy and compares inter alia frr. 27.22; 162.1; 210.7. But οὗ μὲν ἦμεν ἄρτι is best thought of as a single idea, which puts the particle precisely where it belongs. 5 ἐξ ὀξυβαφίων For the ὀξύβαφον (literally “vinegar-dipping vessel”, but also used for drinking), fr. 132.6 n. The diminutive ὀξυβάφιον—used here in a pointedly disparaging fashion: “little oxybapha” are even less capable of holding what (B.) would regard as a reasonable quantity of wine than normal oxybapha are—is attested elsewhere only in Pollux (10.86); in a 3rd-century CE list of bronze

92

Hollis 2009 ad loc. takes this to be “comic language”. But this gets the linguistic cart before the horse.

Μύστις (fr. 161)

231

vessels belonging to a soldier in Egypt (POxy. 1657.7); in Stud.Pal.20.67.10 (2nd century AD); and in glosses in the lexicographers (e. g. Hsch. γ 4; Hsch. τ 1535 ~ Phot. τ 518 = Synag. τ 273 ~ Suda τ 1089). That Antiphanes coined it is far less likely, however, than that this is a common, colloquial by-form of a pedestrian word of a sort that rarely made its way into literary material. For κεραμεῶν, see Text. 6–8 Addressed to the cup, which (B.) now holds up and inspects. As Meineke noted, κν does not normally make position in comedy, and 6 τέκνον scanned ll thus suggests that the blessing that follows is paratragic. 6–7 τούτῳ … πολλὰ κἀγάθ’ οἱ θεοὶ / δοῖεν This and cognate phrases (“to pray for many good things” for someone, “may there be good things” for someone!, etc.) appear to be something approaching a set phrase; cf. Ar. Th. 350–1 ταῖς δ’ ἄλλαισιν ἡμῖν τοὺς θεοὺς / εὔχεσθε πάσαις πολλὰ δοῦναι κἀγαθά; Ec. 1067 πόλλ’ ἀγαθὰ γένοιτό σοι; Alex. fr. 99.2–3 πόλλ’ ἀγαθὰ δοῖεν οἱ θεοὶ Δημητρίῳ / καὶ τοῖς νομοθέταις with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Men. Epitr. 358 πόλλ’ ἀγαθά σοι γένοιτο; Sic. 266 πόλλ’ ὑμῖν γένοιτο κἀγ[αθά; IG I3 37.55–6 (partially restored); II2 97.24–5; 281.10; 1237.112–13; A. Ag. 350 πολλῶν γὰρ ἐσθλῶν τὴν ὄνησιν εἱλόμην with Fraenkel 1950 II.179; And. 1.98 καὶ ἐπεύχεσθαι εὐορκοῦντι μὲν εἶναι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά; X. HG 5.1.3 ηὔχοντο αὐτῷ πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά; Cyr. 5.4.14 τούτοις πόλλ’ ἀγαθὰ δοῖεν οἱ θεοί; Pl. Phdr. 233e πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ αὐτοῖς εὔξονται; D. 24.151 ἐπαρᾶσθαι … εὐορκοῦντι δὲ πολλὰ κἀγαθὰ εἶναι; 55.24 μοι πόλλ’ ἀγαθὰ γένοιτο; 57.57 πόλλ’ ἀγαθὰ γένοιτο πᾶσιν ὑμῖν; Aeschin. 2.87 τοῖς δὲ δικασταῖς εὔχεσθαι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ εἶναι; Dinarch. or. 66–7 fr. 3a πολλὰ κἀγαθά, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, γένοιτο ὑμῖν καὶ τῷ νομοθετήσαντι ἐξεῖναι; Luc. Cat. 11 σπένδοντες ἐν τοῖς συμποσίοις μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ ἐπηύχοντό μοι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά. 6 τούτῳ is in emphatic position at the beginning of this portion of (B.)’s speech, but is simultaneously unnecessary, if all that is meant is “the craftsman who made you”. Some particular potter already identified for the audience and to the fore in the characters’ minds—perhaps even the owner of the house—is thus apparently in question. τέκνον functions not necessarily as a kinship term but simply as a nominally affectionate form of address, in comedy most often directed to a person who is younger, female or both (e. g. Ar. Lys. 7; fr. 129; Xenarch. fr. 5.1 (in all three cases spoken by a woman); Anaxandr. fr. 57.1; Men. Georg. 25); cf. Dickey 1996. 65–9. πολλὰ κ(αὶ) ἀγαθ(ά) The καί is routine in this and similar expressions, but is to be omitted in English translation. 7 A δημιουργός (attested already at Od. 17.383–5, where a seer, a doctor, a carpenter and a bard are offered as examples; 19.135, where heralds are identified thus) is someone who practices a skilled trade (τέχνη; e. g. Pl. Tht. 146d σκυτοτομική τε καὶ αἱ τῶν ἄλλων δημιουργῶν τέχναι, “shoemaking and the technai of the other dêmiourgoi”; Cra. 428e; Grg. 459c; Lg. 846d τὰ δημιουργικὰ τεχνήματα, 920d–e) that serves the public, i. e. someone who is available for hire (esp. Pl. Lg. 921b–c) or who sells the goods he produces on the open market; cf.

232

Antiphanes

fr. 224.3 (apparently a term for specialist cake-makers or the like; feminine) with n.; Ar. Lys. 407–19 (examples are a goldsmith and a shoemaker); Pl. Tht. 147a–b (a κοροπλάθος, “figurine-maker”, as a δημιουργός); La. 195d (a doctor as an example); Euthd. 301c–d (a bronze-worker, a potter and a cook as examples); R. 371a, c (farmers included in the category, at least to the extent that they sell the food they produce to the public), 466b (shoemakers as an example; farmers seemingly excluded), 596e (a painter as an example).93 8 τῆς συμμετρίας καὶ τῆς ἀφελείας i. e. “your simple, symmetrical shape”; picking up on the similarly positive but even less specific observation in 2–3. This is thin praise, and if it was not expanded on in the lost verses that follow, it might have been a joke: (B.) is actually interested only in how much the cup can hold, and is thus determined to praise it; the cup is otherwise unexceptional in appearance; and (B.) accordingly commends the fact that it is … uniformly round and unornamented. συμμετρία is late 5th/4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Antipho fr. 178 Thalheim = 87 B 106 D.–K.; Hp. Vict. 32.36 = 6.510.4 Littré; Simon Eq. 2; X. Mem. 3.10.3; Pl. Sph. 228c); attested nowhere else in poetry. Cf. fr. 200.16 σύμμετρον (similarly restricted); Nicom. Com. fr. 1.36 συμμέτρως (a cook describes the scientific character of his art). The abstract noun ἀφελεία is first attested here and at Hp. Decent. 3.3 = 9.228.9 Littré. For οὕνεκα (poetic), fr. 226.1 n.

fr. 162 K.–A. (164 K.)

5

ταῖς εὐτελείαις οἱ θεοὶ χαίρουσι γάρ. τεκμήριον δ’· ὅταν γὰρ ἑκατόμβας τινὲς θύωσιν † ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅπασιν ὕστατος 〈xlk〉  πάντων καὶ † λιβανωτὸς ἐπετέθη, ὡς τἄλλα μὲν τὰ πολλὰ παραναλούμενα δαπάνην ματαίαν οὖσαν αὐτῶν οὕνεκα, τὸ δὲ μικρὸν αὐτὸ τοῦτ’ ἀρεστὸν τοῖς θεοῖς

1 οἱ] fort. χοἰ 3 τούτοις ἅπασιν Porph. : “post θύωσιν videntur aliqua excidisse” 3–4 ὕστατος  πάντων Meineke : τοῖς βουσὶ πᾶσιν Kock : ταύροις ἅπασιν Nauck94 Porph. : ὕστατον / 〈πόπανον⟩ ἁπάντων vel ὕστατον / πάντων ⟨πόπανόν τε⟩ Meineke : ὕστατος / ⟨ἁπαξα⟩πάντων Cobet : ὕστατος / ⟨πέλανος⟩ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν Kock καὶ] fort. 93 94

The noun also had a separate sense very similar to our “public servant” (LSJ s. v. II); see Jeffery 1973–1974. Thus Kassel–Austin, referring to what should be Nauck 1894, where I do not find the emendation in the discussion of Antiphanes on pp. 89–92.

233

Μύστις (fr. 162) ἢ 5 ὡς τἄλλα Grotius : ὡστ᾿ ἄλλα Porph. ἀρέσκον Cobet

5

6 mel. αὑτῶν?

7 ἀρεστὸν Porph. :

for the gods are pleased by economies. And there’s proof; because whenever people offer hecatombs † on top of them all last 〈xlk〉  of all and † incense is placed upon (a brazier), as if the many other expenditures that accompanied it were a pointless outlay on their account, whereas this little item was the one that pleased the gods

Porph. Abst. II.17, pp. 85–6 Bouffartigue–Papillon τῶν τυράννων μετὰ τὸ κρατῆσαι Καρχηδονίων ἑκατόμβας κατὰ πολλὴν ἔριν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐκπρεπεῖς παραστησάντων τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, εἶτα πυνθανομένων αἷς ἡσθείη μάλιστα, παρ’ ἐλπίδα πᾶσαν αὐτὸν ἀποκρίνασθαι διότι τοῖς Δοκίμου ψαιστοῖς. Δελφὸς δὲ ἦν οὗτος σκληρὰ γεωργῶν πετρίδια· κατιὼν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ χωρίου ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκ τῆς περικειμένης πήρας τῶν ἀλφίτων ὀλίγας δράκας ἐθυλήσατο, πλέον τέρψας τὸν θεὸν τῶν μεγαλοπρεπεῖς θυσίας συντελεσάντων. ὅθεν καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν τισι διὰ τὸ γνώριμον ἀποφαίνεσθαι ἐδόκει τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὡς Ἀντιφάνει ἐν Μύστιδι λέγεται· —— After the tyrants defeated the Carthaginians, they became engaged in a great competition with one another to offer brilliant hecatombs to Apollo; and then when they asked which hecatombs he liked best, he responded, contrary to all expectation, that he liked the barley-cakes of Dokimos. This man was a resident of Delphi who farmed rough, rocky land. He came into the city from the countryside on that day and offered a few handfuls of barley-meal out of the wallet that hung around his neck, pleasing the god more than those who made magnificent sacrifices. Whence, because the matter became well known, similar opinions were be approved by some of the poets as well, as is said by Antiphanes in Mystis: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llkl l|lkl llkl llkl klk|r llkl llk†r llkl klkl 〈xlk〉l l|l†rl krkl llkl k|lk|r klkl rlkl k|lk|l llkl krkl k|lkl llkl

Discussion Grotius 1626. 617; Meineke 1839–1857 III.89–90; Cobet 1858. 131; Kock 1884 II.78 Text In 1, Porphyry’s οἱ fits his interpretation of the text, which is that this is an honest, free-standing comment on the gods’ feelings about sacrifice. But χοἰ = καὶ οἱ would work better with γάρ at the end of the line, as well as with what one

234

Antiphanes

would expect a 4th-century comic character to be saying: “for even the gods …” (i. e. an a fortiori argument; cf. X. Cyn. 13.17). Something has gone profoundly wrong in 3–4. 3 as transmitted in the manuscripts has no caesura, which does not mean that the line is corrupt, but counts against it; 4 is lacunose, perhaps after rather than before πάντων; ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅπασιν and ὕστατος πάντων seem to express the same idea twice; and there ought to be a masculine antecedent for τούτοις ἅπασιν. Meineke attempted to address the final problem by suggesting that something had fallen out of the text after θύωσιν, whereas Kock and Nauck proposed emending the paradosis ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅπασιν to ἐπὶ τοῖς βουσὶ πᾶσιν (“after all the cows”) and ἐπὶ ταύροις ἅπασιν (“after all (the) bulls”), respectively. (Kock’s emendation has the advantage of producing penthemimeral / hepthemimeral caesura, as Nauck’s does not.) Meineke and Kock added a word for another minor offering—πόπανον (a type of cake; see Ar. Th. 285 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; Brumfield 1997. 150–1) and πελανός (a batter made with barley meal; cf. Ar. Pl. 661; Sannyr. fr. 1), respectively—to the text to fill out 4, but this sits awkwardly with the singular in 7, unless one prints ἢ for καὶ. Cobet’s ὕστατος / ⟨ἁπαξα⟩πάντων (“last of all of them together”; for colloquial ἁπαξάπας, fr. 132.6 n.), which might easily have been abbreviated inadvertantly, avoids the latter problem and lends the argument a somewhat over-the-top character. None of the proposed corrections are compelling enough to print, and precisely where the problem or problems ought to be located in the text remains unclear. I accordingly print the lines with obels. In 5, the manuscripts have misdivided the letters, producing ὡστ᾿ ἄλλα (“with the result that others”), which does not work with the syntax of what follows; corrected by Grotius to ὡς τἄλλα. In 7, Cobet proposed ἀρέσκον for Porphyry’s ἀρεστὸν. But the latter is well attested in the 5th and 4th centuries and has precisely the sense that is wanted (see Interpretation), whereas the former is much rarer and is first found in Aristotle and his student Theophrastus, where it is applied to persons rather than objects and has negative overtones (“obsequious, cringing”; thus LSJ s. v.) that are inappropriate here. Citation context From a late 3rd-century CE treatise by the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry of Tyre advocating vegetarianism (see in general Clark 2000); Men. Dysc. 449–51 is quoted immediately after this. Porphyry draws throughout on earlier material (here seemingly on Theophrastus’ On Piety), and there is accordingly no reason to believe that he had direct access to Antiphanes’ play in particular. Interpretation γάρ in 1 suggests that this is an explanation of some preceding remark. Porphyry takes the speaker’s arguments to be sincere. But he might just as well be a miser concerned to justify his own refusal to spend money on something he treats as an extravagant, wasteful show; see Text on the possibility that χοἰ = καὶ οἱ should be read for the paradosis οἱ in the middle of 1, in which case Porphyry or his source has tweaked the text to make it say something more like what he thinks

Μύστις (fr. 162)

235

it should. Cf. fr. 204.1–4; Handley 1965. 214–15 on Men. Dysc. 447–53 (arguing that the idea “that simple offerings are to be preferred” represents “an attitude which seems fairly widespread in the fourth century”). But this claim appears to be coupled with an insistence that the moral character of the individual offering the sacrifice is what really matters, which is not what Antiphanes’ character is claiming: in addition to the fragments of Theophrastus’ On Piety preserved by Porphyry, cf. Anaximen. Rhet.Al. 2.9 οὐκ εἰκὸς τοὺς θεοὺς χαίρειν ταῖς δαπάναις τῶν θυομένων, ἀλλὰ ταῖς εὐσεβείαις τῶν θυόντων (“it is unlikely that the gods are pleased by the cost of what is sacrificed, but by the piety of those who make the sacrifices”). From a soliloquy? 1 For εὐτέλεια (a generally positive term—which may mean only that the speaker is putting a positive spin on his own behavior), fr. 21.2 n. For the postponement of γάρ, cf. frr. 27.22 with n.; 161.4 with n.; 210.7. 2 τεκμήριον δ(έ) is an abbreviated way of saying something like τεκμήριον δὲ τῶνδέ σοι λέξω μέγα (“I’ll offer you a substantial bit of evidence for these claims”; A. Eu. 447 ~ 662) or φράσω δ’ ἐγὼ μέγα σοι τεκμήριον (“and I’ll point out to you a substantial bit of evidence (in favor of this claim)”; Ar. fr. 101.2), and is routinely followed by a γάρ-clause explaining why the preceding assertion is true (e. g. Antipho 5.61 τεκμήριον δὲ μέγιστον ὡς οὐκ ἐβούλετο αὐτὸν ἀπολέσαι· ἐξὸν γάρ κτλ; Th. 2.15.4 τεκμήριον δέ· τὰ γὰρ ἱερά κτλ, 2.39.2 τεκμήριον δέ· οὔτε γὰρ Λακεδαιμόνιοι κτλ; Lys. 13.20 τεκμήριον δέ· οἱ γὰρ πολλοί κτλ; X. Eq. 5.8 τεκμήριον δέ· αἱ γὰρ ἀγελαῖαι τῶν ἵππων κτλ; 10.4 τεκμήριον δὲ ὅτι τούτοις ἥδεται· ὅταν γὰρ αὐτός; Pl. Smp. 192a μέγα δὲ τεκμήριον· καὶ γὰρ τελεωθέντες κτλ; Criti. 110e μέγα δὲ τεκμήριον ἀρετῆς· τὸ γὰρ νῦν κτλ; Isoc. 10.60 μέγιστον δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τεκμήριον· πλείους γάρ κτλ; 19.51 τεκμήριον δὲ μέγιστον· περὶ γὰρ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφερόμενοι κτλ; without a γάρ-clause at e. g. Philem. fr. 78.3 (cited by Kassel–Austin); E. fr. 898.5; Th. 2.50.2). τεκμήριον is first attested in Aeschylus (cf. above; also Ag. 332; Ch. 205), but is primarily prosaic. Homer has τέκμωρ (e. g. Il. 1.526; picked up by Apollonius Rhodius at e. g. 3.493, but not before that), while the metrically useful alternative form τέκμαρ is found in Hesiod (fr. 273.2 M.–W. = fr. 210.2 Most), Archilochus (fr. 139.4) and the 5th-century poets (e. g. Pi. P. 2.49; A. Supp. 483; E. Hec. 1273), and once in Hippocrates in the sense “symptom” (Mul. 123 = 8.266.12 Littré). ἑκατόμβη (< ἑκατόν plus a form of βοῦς) is properly a sacrifice of 100 cows, but seems to be used freely already in Homer to mean simply “a large sacrifice of animals” (LSJ s. v. I). The word is rare in the 5th and 4th centuries (absent from e. g. tragedy and the orators, and attested only once in lyric, at Pi. P. 10.33), although it shows up occasionally in Athenian inscriptions (IG I3 375.7, of an large sacrifice costing over 5000 drachmae (410/09 BCE); II2 1126.14–15 (380/79 BCE)). Herodotus has it only three times, once in a quotation of Homer (2.116.5) and twice in stories set in the mythic past (4.150.2, 4.179.1), and it is used in a mocking fashion at Anaxandr. fr. 42.29 (“a hecatomb of octopi”) and Ephipp. fr. 8.4 (“a hecatomb of eggs”), figuratively at Men. fr. 778.2 (of a mass slaughter of soldiers), and

236

Antiphanes

in a high-style passage at CGFPR *145.9 (Menander?). All of this taken together suggests that in the classical period the word was regarded as grand and archaic, and not as part of a normal colloquial register. 3–4 See Text. 3 Superlative ὕστατος is old Indo-European vocabulary, the first element perhaps deriving from PIE *ud (cognate with e. g. English “out”, German aus, and Latin usque); Greek has no simple form of the adjective. 4 λιβανωτός For frankincense (an aromatic tree-gum produced in what is today southern Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Horn of Africa, and imported into the Greek world through Syria), the tree from which it comes, and the ancient frankincense trade, see in general fr. 204.2; Hermipp. fr. 63.13; Anaxandr. fr. 42.36–7; Mnesim. fr. 4.57–61; A. Ag. 1312; E. Ba. 144; Pl. Lg. 847b; Van Beek 1960; Miller 1969. 102–4, 107; Müller 1976; Groom 1981. 53–64; Tucker 1986. 425–7; Thulin–Warfa 1987; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 60.4–5; Gebrehiwot et al. 2003; Beeston 2005; Erickson-Gini–Israel 2013 (with particular attention to the Nabataeans). A Semitic loan-word; see Masson 1967a. 53–4; Müller 1974. When the reference is to frankincense, forms of ἐπιτίθημι regularly mean “place on a brazier”, and thus “on coals” (Tsakirgis 2007. 228–9), burning frankincense being a routine part of small-scale religious proceedings of all sorts (Ar. Nu. 426 οὐδ’ ἐπιθείην λιβανωτόν; V. 96 ὥσπερ λιβανωτὸν ἐπιτιθεὶς νουμηνίᾳ; Ra. 888 ἐπίθες λιβανωτὸν καὶ σὺ δὴ λαβών; Pl. Com. fr. 71.9 τὸν λιβανωτὸν ἐπιτιθείς; Men. Sam. 158 σπείσας τε καὶ λιβανωτὸν ἐπιθείς; Hdt. 6.97.2; Antipho 1.18 σπονδάς τε ἐποιοῦντο καὶ λιβανωτὸν ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἐπετίθεσαν). The compound is thus unlikely to be picking up ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅπασιν in 3. 5 παραναλίσκω is first attested here and is found subsequently before the late Hellenistic period only at Arched. fr. 2.11, where it means “spend (on another purpose), use up (to get something else done)”, as presumably in the first instance here, since 6 δαπάνην ματαίαν οὖσαν would otherwise be pointless; D. exord. 21.3; [D.] 13.4 (in both cases “waste” vel sim.). 6 μάταιος (etymology uncertain) is first attested in Theognis (e. g. 105), but Homer already has ματάω (e. g. Il. 5.233; exclusively poetic), and note μάτην already at hDem. 308. ὄντα (agreeing with τἄλλα … τὰ πολλὰ παραναλούμενα in 5; metrically impossible) is expected rather than οὖσαν, which seems to represent a colloquial attraction of the participle into the gender and number of δαπάνην ματαίαν. αὐτῶν oὕνεκα presumably refers to the individuals who made the sacrifices (2–3) and hoped to get some benefit from the gods in return, like ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν in Antipho 1.18 (quoted in 4 n.) and at Men. Dysc. 448–9 (villains make elaborate preparations for a sacrificial feast οὐχὶ τῶν θεῶν / ἕνεκ’, ἀλλ’ ἑαυτῶν, “not for the sake of the gods but for themselves” (cited by Kassel–Austin)). For οὕνεκα (poetic), fr. 226.1 n. 7 For ἀρεστός (< ἀρέσκω; first attested at Semon. fr. 7.46) + dative, e. g. Men. Epitr. 288 εἰ τοῦτ’ ἀρεστόν ἐστί σοι; S. OT 1096–7 σοὶ δὲ / ταῦτ’ ἀρέστ’ εἴη; X.

Μύστις (fr. 163)

237

Mem. 3.11.10 ἀρεστοί σοί εἰσιν οἱ φίλοι. For the trope “pleasing the gods” using a form of ἀρέσκω + dative, e. g. Nicostr. Com. fr. 15.2; Thgn. 762; E. HF 814; X. Mem. 4.4.25; Cyn. 1.3.

fr. 163 K.–A. (165 K.) (Α.) βούλει καὶ σύ, φιλτάτη, πιεῖν; (Β.) καλῶς ἔχει μοι. (Α.) τοιγαροῦν ⟨xl⟩ φέρε· μέχρι γὰρ τριῶν ⟨x⟩ φασι τιμᾶν τοὺς θεούς 2 (Γ.) τοιγαροῦν Cobet ⟨ἐμοὶ⟩ φέρε Cobet : φέρ᾿ ἐ⟨γὼ πίω⟩ Hermann φασι Dindorf : ⟨δεῖ⟩, φασι Kaibel

3 ⟨δεῖν⟩

(A.) Do you want to drink too, my dear? (B.) I’m fine. (A.) In that case, bring … because they say to honor the gods … up to three (times)! Ath. 10.441b–c οἷαι δ’ εἰσὶ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι μεθύουσαι αἱ γυναῖκες παραδίδωσιν Ἀντιφάνης μὲν ἐν τῇ Ἀκοντιζομένῃ (fr. 25) οὕτω· ——. καὶ ἐν Μύστιδι· γυναῖκες δέ εἰσιν αἱ διαλεγόμεναι· —— Antiphanes in his Akontizomenê (fr. 25) conveys what Greek women are like when they get drunk, as follows: ——. Also in Mystis; the individuals speaking are women: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlk〉l l|lk|l klkl e. g. klkl l|lkl 〈xl〉kl rlkl 〈x〉|lk|l llkl

Discussion Dindorf 1827 II.977; Hermann 1842. 512; Cobet 1858. 132; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.459; Bianchi 2018. 71 Text Cobet wanted to give τοιγαροῦν κτλ in 2–3 to a third character (a male parasite), which might be right but makes the conversation less funny. Cobet’s division also means that the individual addressed in τοιγαροῦν ⟨xl⟩ φέρε in 2 must be a mute. For a slave speaking in a scene like this, see fr. 69. 2 and 3 are both lacunose, and Kassel–Austin print Cobet’s ⟨ἐμοὶ⟩ to fill the first gap (“bring (it) to me!”) and (following Meineke and Kock) Dindorf ’s ⟨δεῖν⟩ to fill the second (“they say that it is necessary”). In 2, Hermann’s φέρ᾿ ἐ⟨γὼ πίω⟩ would mean “Come, let me drink!”, while in 3 Dindorf ’s ⟨δεῖν⟩ φασι would mean “they say it’s necessary”, while Kaibel’s ⟨δεῖ⟩, φασι would mean “it’s necessary, they say”. Citation context From a discussion of women’s alleged fondness for drinking wine (Ath. 10.440e–2a) that also preserves Alex. frr. 172; 56; Antiph. fr. 58;

238

Antiphanes

Xenarch. fr. 6; Pl. Com. fr. 188; Axionic. fr. 5, in that order, quoted immediately after this. Interpretation A conversation between at least two characters; see Text on 2. τοιγαροῦν ⟨xl⟩ φέρε in 2 is probably addressed to a slave. φιλτάτη in 1 makes it clear that (B.) is a woman. How Athenaeus or his source knows that (A.) too is a woman, is impossible to say; perhaps he had access to the entire text, or perhaps he is guessing on the basis of women’s general reputation for being drunks (fr. 25 n.). 1 For βούλει introducing a nominally cheery question expecting a positive answer (colloquial), e. g. Cratin. fr. 270.1; Ar. Ach. 1115; Lys. 938; Th. 234; Pl. Com. fr. 19.1; Ephipp. fr. 21.1 (where the conclusion of (A.)’s remark in 3 would be better punctuated with a question mark); Men. Dysc. 942 (with οὐ); X. HG 4.1.12; Mem. 2.1.10; Pl. Phd. 104c; Cra. 383a, and extremely common in the dialogues generally; absent from tragedy. For φιλτάτη—seemingly friendly here, although the fact that (A.) must ask (B.) whether she too would like a drink makes it clear that (A.) has been dominating the proceedings so far, and when (B.) declines, (A.) makes no effort to persuade her and instead demands the cup again—fr. 21.3 n. 2 For καλῶς ἔχει μοι as a formula of polite refusal, cf. Clearch. Com. fr. 4.1–2 (Α.) λάβ’ ὕδωρ κατὰ χειρός. (Β.) μηδαμῶς· καλῶς ἔχει. / (Α.) λάβ’, ὦγάθ’· οὐδὲν χεῖρον (“(A.) Have some water over your hand! (B.) Absolutely not; I’m fine. (A.) Take it, my good sir; there’s no harm done!”); Men. Dysc. 829 καλῶς ἔχει μοι* (“(But no,) I’m fine”) with Handley 1965 ad loc.; Pk. 516–17; in abbreviated form at Ar. Ra. 512 πάνυ καλῶς, 888 καλῶς; cf. Ar. Ra. 508 κάλλιστ(α) (~ “It’s all good”, i. e. “No, thanks”); Gow 1950 on Theoc. 15.3; Quincey 1966. 135–8. Colloquial τοιγαροῦν (also e. g. fr. 192.13; Pl. Com. fr. 202.5; Aristopho fr. 13.1; Ephipp. fr. 2.3) is first attested in Sophocles—who nonetheless prefers the more dignified τοιγάρ, like the other tragedians—and at Eup. fr. 130 (unmetrical), and is the only form of the word used e. g. by Xenophon.95 In 4th-century comedy, τοιγαροῦν entirely replaces τοιγάρ (the older form of the particle used in Homer, Aeschylus and Euripides, and two out of three times by Herodotus), on the one hand, and the alternative colloquial form τοιγάρτοι (attested once in Aristophanes, at Ach. 643; contrast τοιγαροῦν at V. 1098–9 and τοιγάρ at Lys. 516, 901, 902). See in general Denniston 1954. 566–8 (“strongly emphatic”); López Eire 1996. 133. 3 seemingly alludes to the practice of dedicating the individual bowls of wine mixed at symposia to particular divinities, the third being that of Zeus the Savior; cf. Poll. 6.15; Ael. Dion. τ 25 (ap. Phot. τ 477 = Suda τ 1024); Paus.Gr. τ 47 (ap. Phot. τ 478), citing Philoch. FGrH 328 F 87; Hsch. τ 1450; Σ Pl. Phlb. 66d (p. 55 Greene), citing inter alia Ar. fr. 540; Σ Pl. Chrm. 167a (p. 116 Greene), citing S. fr. 425; Σ Pl. R. 583b (p. 269 Greene); Σ Pi. I. 6.10a (pp. 251.20–252.11 Drachmann), 95

This is also the only form of the word used in Attic inscriptions (at IG II2 12067.4, a mid-4th-century epitaph).

Μύστις (fr. 163)

239

citing inter alia S. fr. 425. Three bowls are safe, but beyond that lies danger; cf. Eub. fr. 93.1–2, 6–7 τρεῖς γὰρ μόνους κρατῆρας ἐγκεραννύω / τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσι· … / ὁ δὲ τέταρτος οὐκέτι / ἡμέτερός ἐστ’, ἀλλ’ Ὕβρεος (“for I mix up only three bowls of wine for sensible people … The fourth bowl no longer belongs to me but to Outrage”; Dionysus is speaking). (A.)—who is in any case clothing her dubious behavior as an act of piety—means not that she intends to set a limit on her drinking, however, but that she is determined to continue, regardless of what (B.) has decided. That (B.) refuses to join (A.) may mean not that she is refusing to drink at all, but that she has had enough, this being the third time around. LSJ s. v. treats μέχρι / μέχρις (in Homer at Il. 13.143 μέχρι; 24.128 μέχρις) as almost exclusively prosaic. While the word is largely absent from lyric poetry (once at Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.2) and tragedy (in a dubious line at S. Ai. 571), however, the comic poets do use it occasionally (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 28.3; Eup. fr. 159.2; Ar. Eq. 964; Anaxandr. fr. 42.7; Eub. fr. 87.3; adesp. com. fr. 1000.32). μέχρις (absent from comedy and from Attic inscriptions until the Imperial period; first in Attic prose in Aristotle, always before a vowel, suggesting that these merely represent sporadic scribal efforts to avoid hiatus) is common in Herodotus (e. g. 1.181.3) and Hippocrates (e. g. VM 11 = 1.594.8 Littré), and thus seems to be the Ionic form.

240

Νεανίσκοι (Neaniskoi) “Young Men”

Introduction Title νεανίσκος is used routinely of men in their twenties or so, e. g. of the chorus of Knights at Ar. Eq. 731; of a group of young roughnecks who intimidate any potential opponents of the 400 at Th. 8.69.4; and of the tragic poet Agathon when he celebrated his first victory at Pl. Smp. 198a. Cf. fr. 188.20 πότοι νεανικοί (“young men’s drinking parties”); Eup. fr. 367 with Olson 2014 ad loc. Most of the preserved plays of Menander, Plautus and Terence could have some form of the word as a title; cf. Ephippus’ Ἔφηβοι. Aeschylus wrote a tragedy entitled Neaniskoi; it was the third play in the Lykourgos tetralogy, and the title tells us only the generic identity of the chorus. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 164 K.–A. (166 K.)

5

ἐγὼ τέως μὲν ᾠόμην τὰς Γοργόνας εἶναί τι λογοποίημα, πρὸς ἀγορὰν δ’ ὅταν ἔλθω, πεπίστευκ’· ἐμβλέπων γὰρ αὐτόθι τοῖς ἰχθυοπώλαις, λίθινος εὐθὺς γίγνομαι, ὥστ’ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔστ’ ἀποστραφέντι μοι λαλεῖν πρὸς αὐτούς· ἂν ἴδω γὰρ ἡλίκον ἰχθὺν ὅσου τιμῶσι, πήγνυμαι σαφῶς

1 ᾠόμην Scaliger : ᾤμην Ath.ACE 3–4 ἐμβλέπων γὰρ αὐτόθι / τοῖς Porson : εὐθὺς ἐμβλέπων γὰρ αὐτοῖς Ath.A : εὐθὺς ἐμβλέπων γὰρ τοῖς Ath.CE 4 γίγνομαι Morelius : γίνομαι Ath.ACE 6 ἂν Dindorf : ἐὰν Ath.ACE

5

Before this, I used to think that the Gorgons were a fairytale; but whenever I go to the marketplace, I believe in them: because when I look at the fishmongers there, I immediately turn to stone, so that I’m forced to talk to them with my head turned away, since if I see how big a fish they’re selling for how much, I’m outright paralyzed

Νεανίσκοι (fr. 164)

241

Ath. 6.224c–d οἱ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἰχθυοπῶλαι οὐδ’ ὀλίγον ἀποδέουσι τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἀττικήν ποτε κωμῳδηθέντων· περὶ ὧν Ἀντιφάνης μὲν ἐν Νεανίσκοις φησίν· —— Because the fishmongers in Rome are scarcely different from those who were attacked in comedy in Attica once upon a time, about whom Antiphanes says in Neaniskoi: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

klkl k|lkl llkl llkr llk|r klkl llkl l|lkl klkl llrl l|rk|l llkl llkl l|lkl klkl klkl l|lkl klkl llkl llk|l klkl

Discussion Morelius 1553. 93; Scaliger ap. Cant. ms. II p. 73; Porson ap. Toup 1790 IV.501; Dindorf 1827 I.489; Kock 1884 II.79; Fraenkel 1922. 54 n. 2; Reinhardt 1974. 66, 69–70; Slater 1976. 237 n. 9; Sumler 2014. 92–3 Text In 1, the paradosis ᾤμην is unmetrical, and Scaliger’s ᾠόμην is an easy fix, as also at fr. 122.2. For ᾤμην vs. ᾠόμην, fr. 59.6–7 n. The end of 3 and beginning of 4 as preserved in the manuscripts of Athenaeus (εὐθὺς ἐμβλέπων γὰρ αὐτοῖς Ath.A; αὐτοῖς altered to the easier τοῖς in Ath.CE) are seriously corrupt. Porson (followed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) removed εὐθύς and converted Ath.A’s αὐτοῖς into αὐτόθι / τοῖς, the latter error to be traced to an easy saute from one ΤΟ to the next; this has the added advantage of putting γάρ where it should be, in second position. If Porson’s emendation is right, εὐθύς must be a spontaneous addition to the text adding vividness to πεπίστευκ’ (“I immediately believe”; cf. 4 λίθινος εὐθὺς γίγνομαι). For Morelius’ γίγνομαι in place of Ath.ACE’s γίνομαι in 4, fr. 30.2 Text n. At the beginning of 5, Kassel–Austin’s ὥσθ’ is a typographical error. The second syllable of ἐάν is long, making the paradosis version of 6 unmetrical, hence Dindorf ’s ἂν. Citation context From an extensive collection at Ath. 6.224c–8c of comic fragments having to do with fish-mongers and their customers that also preserves Amphis fr. 30; Alex. fr. 16; Diph. fr. 67; Xenarch. fr. 7; Antiph. frr. 159; 217; Alex. frr. 204; 130–1; Diph. fr. 32; Alex. fr. 76; Archipp. fr. 23; Alex. fr. 78.7 (cited but not quoted); Anaxandr. fr. 34; Alex. fr. 78; Diph. fr. 31; Sophil. fr. 2, in that order, after this. Interpretation A rant by a male character (note 3 ἐμβλέπων, 5 ἀποστραφέντι), who dislikes paying the prices demanded for fish in the marketplace, but seemingly does so anyway. Taken by Fraenkel to be the beginning of a soliloquy; Kassel–

242

Antiphanes

Austin compare Men. Dysc. 153–9, where Knemon in his initial appearance onstage begins by declaring Perseus blessed, inter alia because he could turn anyone who bothered him into stone (sc. with Medusa’s severed head). The speaker refers to the Gorgons collectively and to their power to turn anyone who looked at them into stone, alluding only vaguely to Perseus’ beheading of Medusa in his claim in 5–6 that he keeps his eyes averted from the fishmongers’ faces whenever he speaks with them. For the Gorgons and the stories associated with them, see Ἀνδρομέδα Introduction, as well as e. g. Ar. Th. 1098–1127 (a brief parody of Euripides’ Andromeda); Henioch. Gorgones; Cypr. fr. 32, p. 61 Bernabé; Hes. Th. 274–81; [Hes.] Sc. 216–37; Pi. P. 10.44–8; 12.9–12; Pherecyd. fr. 26; A. Ch. 1048–50; E. Alc. 1118; El. 459–61; frr. 124.5–6; 228a.9–11; [A.] PV 798–800; X. Smp. 4.24 ὥσπερ οἱ τὰς Γοργόνας θεώμενοι, λιθίνως ἔβλεπε πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ οὐδαμοῦ ἀπῄει ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ (“like those who look upon the Gorgons, he looked stonily at him and never went away from him”); Krauskopf–Dahlinger, LIMC IV.1 pp. 285–330 (with older bibliography); Gantz 1993. 20–2; Topper 2007 (on paradoxically beautiful Gorgons); Fowler 2013. 248–58. 1–3 πεπίστευκ(α) amounts to a puzzle (why would going to the marketplace make one believe in the Gorgons?) that is unpacked in the γάρ-clause that follows in 3–4 (because it is possible to be turned to stone by the horrifying sight one sees there). 1 τέως is here “previously, in the past”, as at e. g. Eup. fr. 384.3 with Olson 2014 ad loc.; Ar. Th. 449; fr. 543.2; contrast fr. 19.2 with n. 2 λογοποίημα is attested before the Roman period not only here but also in Phaedo of Elis’ Zopyrus (fr. 4 Rossetti = SSR IIIA 10 ap. Poll. 2.122; cf. fr. 2 Rossetti = SSR IIIA 10 ap. Antiatt. λ 24), which is enough to suggest that it was a common colloquial term and thus a rarity only in the sense that the sources that survive for us make little use of it. For nouns in -μα generally, fr. 249.1 n. The cognate verb λογοποιέω (first attested in Andocides and Thucydides) and noun λογοποιός (first attested in Herodotus) are generally used of spinning fabulous stories: e. g. Aesop as λογοποιός at Hdt. 2.134.3; Hecataeus as λογοποιός at Hdt. 2.143.1 (when he talks nonsense about the supposed mythological connections in his own family background) and 5.36.6, 5.125.2 (not overtly judgmental; LSJ s. v. I.1 suggests simply “prose-writer”, but there might be a hostile edge); “they logopoiousin things that are not and could not be” of misleading political rhetoric at Th. 6.38.2; of vicious and untrue stories spread by personal enemies at And. 1.54; “logoupountas about me and telling lies” at Lys. 16.11; “spinning false stories” at X. Cyr. 2.2.13; of people who offer genealogies of mythical times at Isoc. 11.37–8; of rumor-mongers at D. 4.49; Demosthenes went about the market and “elogopoiei and made himself out to be involved in what was going on” when he was not at Dinarch. 1.32; “logopoiia is the production of false stories and actions [i. e. false reports about things that did not really happen], which the logopoios wishes to have believed” at Thphr. Char. 8.1 with Diggle 2004. 277.

Νεανίσκοι (fr. 164)

243

3–4 The idea in ἐμβλέπων κτλ is repeated in 6–7 ἂν ἴδω κτλ, but in a form that glosses what is said obliquely here (it is not so much the sight of the fishmongers that paralyzes the speaker, as an awareness of the prices they are charging) and converts mythological imagery (the speaker is turned to stone) into metaphor (he is “frozen”). 3 For πεπίστευκ(α) (a 4th-century form), fr. 230.4–5 n. For αὐτόθι (seemingly regarded in this period as inappropriate for elevated poetry), fr. 126.3 n. ἐμβλέπω is primarily prosaic, late 5th/4th-century vocabulary; with a dative also at e. g. Timocl. fr. 29.2; X. Cyr. 1.3.2; Pl. Chrm. 155c. 4 λίθινος Adjectives describing the material out of which something is made routinely end in -ινος; cf. frr. 105.5 σισυμβρίνῳ, 6 ἀμαρακίνῳ, 7 ἑρπυλλίνῳ; 120.4 συκίνων; 151.1 ἀμόργινος; 181.7 πίσινον; 225.11 πρινίνους; Chantraine 1933. 201–3. 5 For ἐξ ἀνάγκης (“as a matter of necessity, obligatorily”), a late 5th/4thcentury Attic idiom, e. g. Alex. fr. 103.20; Philem. fr. 6.4; Men. Dysc. 11; S. Ph. 73; Th. 3.40.3; X. Mem. 2.1.18; Pl. Tht. 176a; Isoc. 4.47; D. 19.65. ἀποστραφέντι The use of the passive (rather than the middle) reflects the influence of ἐξ ἀνάγκης: this is not really something the speaker controls. For the verb in the sense “turn one’s face away”, LSJ s. v. II.1. 6–7 ἂν ἴδω γὰρ κτλ is most naturally taken as evidence for placards (otherwise unattested) displaying prices, as in many modern street-markets. 6 ἡλίκος (“how big”, i. e. here “how small” (thus Kock), and thus occasionally “how old”)96 is first attested in the late 5th century (e. g. Ar. Ach. 703; S. OT 15; E. Hipp. 1180; Hdt. 1.123.1); for its use in an indirect question, see LSJ s. v. 3. τηλίκος (“of this size, of this age”), on the other hand, is found already in Homer (e. g. Il. 24.487; Od. 1.297; 17.20), the Homeric Hymns (hDem. 116) and Theognis (578), but nowhere after that until the 3rd century, although note τηλικόσδε (not attested in comedy) at e. g. S. Ant. 727; E. Alc. 643; Pl. Ap. 37d. 7 For σαφῶς (literally “clearly”) used as an intensifier to mean “manifestly, no two ways about it” or the like, e. g. fr. 122.2, 10; Ar. Th. 186 σαφῶς σώσεις ἐμέ with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; Ec. 1089; Amphis fr. 9.2; E. Hipp. 346 with Barrett 1964 ad loc. For πήγνυμι (“make stiff ” or “freeze”) used in the extended sense “paralyze” (of limbs, minds, etc.), cf. Men. Sam. 515 αὖός εἰμι καὶ πέπηγα τῷ κακῷ (literally “I’m dry and frozen by the trouble”); Il. 22.452–3 νέρθε δὲ γοῦνα / πήγνυται (“my knees are frozen beneath me”); Ibyc. PMG 283 τάφει πεπαγώς (“frozen with astonishment”); E. HF 1395 ἄρθρα γὰρ πέπηγέ μου (“for my joints are frozen”).

96

Kassel–Austin cite Kock’s quam exiguum (“how small”) with implicit approval. But this use of the word does not appear to be attested in this period and is in any case unnecessary to make sense of what Antiphanes is saying.

244

Antiphanes

fr. 165 K.–A. (167 K.) ὁ πλοῦτός ἐστι παρακάλυμμα τῶν κακῶν, ὦ μῆτερ, ἡ πενία ⟨δὲ⟩ περιφανές τε καὶ ταπεινόν 1 παρακάλυμμα Stob.SMA : περικάλυμμα Bothe 2 δὲ add. Grotius τε Stob.SMA : 1 τι Scaliger 3 “in marg. S ἀπ quod dubitat Mekler an ex λείπει compendiose scripto corruptum sit. hoc enim de tertio versu manco ingeri poterat” Hense

Wealth is a veil for troubles, mother, whereas poverty is a thing both open to view and humble Stob. 4.33.8 Ἀντιφάνους ἐκ Νεανίσκων· —— From Antiphanes’ Neaniskoi: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl k|rkl klkl llkl rl〈k〉|r klkl klk〈l xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion Grotius 1623. 550; Scaliger ap. Grotius 1623. 550; Bothe 1855. 385; Hense ap. Wachsmuth–Hense 1884–1912 V.799 Text Stobaeus’ παρακάλυμμα in 1 is a rare word (see Interpretation), hence Bothe’s proposal to emend to the slightly better attested περικάλυμμα (twice in Pl. Plt. 279d; cf. περικαλύπτω at e. g. Ar. Nu. 727; Diph. fr. 20.1; E. Ion 1522; Hdt. 4.23.4; Pl. Ti. 36e). παρα and περι are both routinely abbreviated πε, which would make the error easy to explain in the manuscripts of Stobaeus and perhaps also in Athenaeus (whence Heraclid. FGrH 689 F 2, the only other attestion of παρακάλυμμα in the classical period). But this is a weak case, especially since παρακαλύπτω is found in other 4th-century authors and παρακάλυμμα would be a typical colloquial formation, meaning that there is no compelling reason to emend. 2 is metrically defective. Grotius’ ⟨δὲ⟩ both fills out the line and supplies the expected connective. At the end of 2, Scaliger proposed τι, agreeing with neuter περιφανές … καὶ / ταπεινόν (thus “something open to view and humble”), in place of Pollux’ τε. But the use of a neuter singular adjective as the substantive predicate of a masculine or feminine noun is common, especially in gnomic contexts (see Kühner-Gerth 1898 I.58–60; Gildersleeve 1900 § 126; Barrett 1964 on E. Hipp. 443), and there is no need to emend. The first hand in Stob.S apparently has ἀπ in the margin in 3, and Mekler argued that this might represent a corruption of an abbreviated λείπει (“there is a lacuna”;

Νεανίσκοι (fr. 165)

245

presumably ΛΠ corrupted to ΑΠ) as a comment on the verse. Why a scribe would bother to add an isolated note of this sort, given that the sense is complete even if the line is not, is unclear, and he might just as easily be suggesting ἀπεινόν (or τ᾿ ἀπεινόν)—admittedly nonsense—or the like in place of ταπεινόν. Citation context Quoted by Stobaeus (5th century CE) in a section entitled σύγκρισις πενίας καὶ πλούτου (“Comparison of poverty and wealth”) that also preserves inter alia fr. 258; Men. fr. 843; Philem. frr. 98; 170. Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material he quotes, which must instead be drawn from one or more pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. Interpretation A gnomic statement: wealth allows a person to disguise their nastiness, with the haughtiness that comes with money seemingly another target of the critique, since ταπεινόν in 3 (emphasized via enjambment) is part of the contrasting praise of poverty. Kassel–Austin compare Men. fr. 92 πλοῦτος δὲ πολλῶν ἐπικάλυμμ’ ἐστὶν κακῶν (“wealth is a veil of many evils”), and for the sentiment generally Men. fr. 375 (having many possessions is the only way to obscure a bad background, bad manners and every other sort of evil); S. fr. 88.12 (wealth alone has the power to conceal κακά). For other reflections on wealth and its effects, see frr. 42.3–8; 229; 258–9 (the latter two also from Stobaeus). For poverty and the poor, see Rosivach 1991; Taylor 2017. But ὦ μῆτερ in 2 gives the remark a dramatic context and is most easily taken to suggest that the speaker is pleading with a family member to disregard economic status and take character into account instead (sc. because he or she wishes to marry someone “good but poor” and thus below his or her socio-economic class?). But see 2 n. 1 παρακάλυμμα is attested before the Roman period only here and at Heraclid. FGrH 689 F 2 (of a curtain). But cognate παρακαλύπτω is found at Men. Pk. 312; Pl. R. 440a, 503a, and this is probably best understood as a typical if ill-attested colloquial noun in -μα; see Text; fr. 249.1 n. 2 The cook at Men. Dysc. 495 says that he uses μῆτερ (literally “mother”) as an ingratiating form of address for any older woman. The word thus apparently functioned more or less as πάτερ (fr. 42.2 with n.) did (see Gow 1950 on Theoc. 15.60; Dickey 1996. 78–81), even if a real mother may be in question here. For πενία, see Coin-Longeray 2014. 145–76. περιφανής is attested twice in Sophocles (Ai. 66, 81 (adverb)), but is otherwise found only in comedy (e. g. Ar. Eq. 206, 1186 (adverb); Lys. 756; Aristopho fr. 11.9; Men. Sam. 457 (adverb; partially restored) and 4th-century prose (e. g. Th. 4.102.3; And. 1.24 (adverb); Lys. 22.11; X. HG 7.3.8; Pl. Phlb. 31e; Is. 12.6; D. 24.129). 3 ταπεινόν (first attested at Pi. N. 3.82) might simply be “abject, obscure” here. But the speaker’s argument has more point if the word responds tacitly to τῶν κακῶν in 1, in the same way that 2 περιφανές responds to 1 παρακάλυμμα. For the word in the sense “humble” as opposed to “proud”, cf. Diph. fr. 86.3.

246

Νεοττίς (Neottis) “Nestling”

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.329; Kock 1884 II.79; Breitenbach 1908. 130; Schiassi 1951. 233–4; Edmonds 1959. 245 n. b Title Most easily understood as a courtesan’s working name, like Λαμπάς, Μαλθάκη, Μέλιττα, Μύστις, Φιλῶτις and Χρυσίς, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρχεστράτη, Εὔπλοια and Ὀμφάλη. For courtesans generally, fr. 2 n. Eubulus and Anaxilas both also wrote a Νεοττίς; two substantial fragments of the latter (Anaxil. frr. 21–2) have to do specifically with courtesans. Content Fr. 166 (probably from the prologue) (n.) suggests that this was a drama of recognition and reunion that centered on a brother-sister pair and a stock villain (the money-lender). The setting is in any case Athens. Date The reference in fr. 167 (n.) to Demosthenes’ remark in connection with the dispute between Athens and Philip II of Macedon about Halonnesos puts the play after 343/2 BCE.

Fragments fr. 166 K.–A. (168 K.)

5

παῖς ὢν μετ’ ἀδελφῆς εἰς Ἀθήνας ἐνθάδε ἀφικόμην ἀχθεὶς ὑπό τινος ἐμπόρου, Σύρος τὸ γένος ὤν. περιτυχὼν δ’ ἡμῖν ὁδὶ κηρυττομένοις ὀβολοστάτης ὢν ἐπρίατο, ἄνθρωπος ἀνυπέρβλητος εἰς πονηρίαν, τοιοῦτος οἷος μηδὲν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν μηδ’ ὧν ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἐκεῖνος ἤσθιεν, ὁ τρισμακαρίτης, εἰσφέρειν ἔξω θύμου

7 ἤσθιεν Ath.CE : εἴσθιεν Ath.A

5

When I was a child, I came to Athens here along with my sister, brought by a trader, although I’m Syrian by birth. This fellow came upon us as we were being auctioned off, and being a money-changer, he bought us. He’s an unspeakably bad person, the sort who brings nothing into his house

Νεοττίς (fr. 166)

247

even of the foods the famous Pythagoras, the thrice-blessed, used to eat, except for wild onion Ath. 3.108e–f ἐπεὶ δὲ πεπαιδευμένος ἦν ὁ νεανίσκος …, ὡς ἐπυνθανόμην αὐτοῦ πῶς εἰς τὸν Μυρτίλον ἐνέπεσεν, ἔφη μοι τὰ ἐκ Νεοττίδος Ἀντιφάνους τάδε· —— Since the boy was educated …, when I asked him how he got mixed up with Myrtilus, he recited to me the following lines from Antiphanes’ Neottis: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llrl l|lkl llkl klkl llkr klkl klkr l|rkl llkl llrl rlkl lrkl llkr llk|l klkl llkl k|lk|l llkl llkl krkl klkl klrl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Leo 1912. 197 n. 3; Burkert 1972. 139; Gottschalk 1980. 116 n. 94; Konstantakos 2000. 128–40 Text In 7, εἴσθιεν in Ath.A for the correct ἤσθιεν in the Epitome is a product of a period in which the diphthong ει had come to be pronounced in the same way as η. Citation context From an attack directed by Ulpian (the symposiarch) against another guest, Myrtilus of Thessaly, for allegedly refusing to buy decent food. The slave in question belonged to Myrtilus and is supposed to have quoted these lines, along with Eub. fr. 87 (quoted in Interpretation) immediately before them, to Ulpian. Interpretation Identified by Leo as drawn from a prologue (although he implies that the speaker is a god rather than a human being, which is certainly not the case); note the emphatic identification of the setting in 1 (n.). If this is right, the speaker is likely alone onstage, with 3 ὁδί accompanied by a gesture e. g. toward the house that belongs to his master the money-changer. Cf. Eub. fr. 87 (quoted along with this fragment by Athenaeus) τρέφει με Θετταλός τις ἄνθρωπος βαρύς, / πλουτῶν, φιλάργυρος δὲ κἀλιτήριος, / ὀψοφάγος, ὀψωνῶν δὲ μέχρι τριωβόλου (“The man who keeps me”—i. e. most likely “my master”—“is an overbearing Thessalian, a wealthy man but a miser and a sinner, a glutton, although one who spends a maximum of three obols when he buys groceries”; from Pornoboskos (The Pimp), the title character probably being the man described, in which case the speaker might be a slave prostitute); Men. Sik. 5–15, esp. 8–10 πωλ[ουμένοις / π]ροσῆλθεν ἡγεμών τις· ἠρώτα πόσ[ου / ταῦτ’ ἐστιν; ἤκουσεν, συνεχώρησ’, ἐπ[ρίατο] (“a

248

Antiphanes

commander came up as we were being sold. He asked ‘How much does the merchandise cost?’; he heard the price, agreed, and made the purchase”); Ter. Eun. 107–43; Plaut. Capt. 8–20; Men. 24–33; Poen. 64–95; Rud. 39–41 (Latin parallels drawn from Konstantakos). The mention of the speaker’s sister in 1 μετ’ ἀδελφῆς is gratuitous unless she plays some further part in the story. Perhaps she has been sold to a different person in the meantime, and the story will involve her reunion with her brother and / or a love-plot of some sort. If so, it is at least worth considering the possibility that she is the eponymous Νεοττίς and thus probably a courtesan. The merchant (2) who sold the speaker could also easily have been ignored; if he too was mentioned because he played a role in what followed, he might e. g. have offered the speaker information about his birth-family (cf. fr. 167 n.) or have helped him identify his sister. The speaker in any case patently despises his master and can be assumed to have worked against his interests throughout the play. For bankers and money-changers—two sides of a single profession, and typically presented as villains—fr. 157.11 n. 1–4 are a concise account of the speaker’s personal history: he is an enslaved Syrian, brought to Athens as a child with his sister and sold to a money-changer / banker. 5–8, by contrast, concern the money-changer, with attention almost exclusively to his character—he is a generally bad person, but in particular a miser who refuses to buy any reasonable food—rather than to aspects of his personal life. 3–4 ὁδὶ / … ὀβολοστάτης ὤν links the two sections. A description of the current state of affairs in the household, introducing the plot of the play, probably followed at some point, perhaps preceded by further examples of how the money-changer is πονηρός. “Note the accumulation of participles; the speaker tries to accommodate as much information as possible in one period, to say much in few words. The style is common in narratives of past events in Menander’s prologues” (Konstantakos 2000. 130, comparing Asp. 106–10; Georg. 7–9; Dysc. 13–19; Pk. 124–33, 137–43, 151–7; Sam. 38–43). The number of lines in the fragment that lack a penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura is striking, particularly if these verses are in fact from the prologue, which one would expect to be among the more polished portions of the text. Perhaps this is deliberate characterization of the speaker as a man whose language is slightly clumsy. Οr perhaps the unintended message is that the poet did not care much about such niceties, or at least knew that his audience would not. 1 The fact that εἰς Ἀθήνας ἐνθάδε is specified so pointedly in what may be the opening line of the play, but is in any case likely part of the prologue, implies that a dramatic setting in Athens could not be taken for granted, i. e. that by this time comedies were being set in various places in the Mediterranean world, although perhaps always with an Athenian connection. Cf. fr. 88 (set in Cyrene?); Philem. fr. 95.6 ἐνταῦθ᾿ ἐν Ἀθήναις (seemingly also from a prologue); general parallels for specifying the location of the action in a prologue speech at Men. Dysc. 1–2 τῆς

Νεοττίς (fr. 166)

249

Ἀττικῆς νομίζετ’ εἶναι τὸν τόπον, / Φυλήν, τὸ νυμφαῖον δ’ ὅθεν προέρχομαι κτλ; Her. 21–2 ἐνθαδὶ / Πτελέασι. 2 ἀχθείς For the verb used specifically for the importation of goods from elsewhere (LSJ s. v. A. I.5, citing only two examples from Homer), e. g. fr. 203.1; Hermipp. fr. 63.3; Ar. Ach. 899, 901. For the sense of ἔμπορος, fr. 149.1 n. 3 Σύρος τὸ γένος ὤν is a strikingly vague description: either the speaker does not know the specific city he comes from (sc. because he was taken away from there too young, perhaps meaning that this is something he will learn in the course of the story?), or the playwright assumes that this sort of information will not interest his audience (a Syrian being simply a Syrian, wherever he comes from precisely). For the ethnic and geographic origins of actual Athenian slaves (including in Syria), see Lewis 2011, and note Timocl. fr. 7.2 νεωνήτοις Σύροις (“newly purchased Syrians”) and the slaves named Σύρα or Σύρος at e. g. Ar. Pax 1146 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Anaxandr. fr. 52.1 with Millis 2015 ad loc. Konstantakos 2000. 132 suggests that there may be a humorous point to making this character specifically a Syrian: since Syrians were said to refrain from eating fish (Timocl. fr. 4.9; Men. fr. 631), a master who provides food that is insufficient for a Syrian (cf. 6–8) is miserly indeed. There is no obvious hint of this in the text, which does not mean that the hypothesis is wrong but only that nothing further ought to be made of it. περιτυγχάνω is colloquial 4th-century vocabulary (attested elsewhere in comedy at Nicostr. Com. fr. 4.3; Alex. fr. 36; Men. Epitr. 275; Sam. 432; in prose at e. g. Hp. de Arte 5.4 = 6.8.1 Littré; And. 1.37; Lys. 13.23; Th. 1.20.2; X. Mem. 3.10.2; Pl. Phdr. 268c; D. 54.10). The implication might be that the money-changer “happens upon” the sale because the marketplace is where he does his business, which is to say that he is not really looking to purchase slaves but takes the opportunity to pick up a few when likely merchandise presents itself. But in the background is in any case the idea that τύχη / Τύχη governs all human affairs: the speaker was the victim of Fate or circumstances, as are we all. Cf. fr. 42.5–8 n. ὁδί properly refer to someone visible onstage and is here probably accompanied by a gesture toward the stage house, within which the speaker’s master is at the moment. 4 ἀποκηρύττω is the more common word for “sell to the highest bidder, auction” (Eup. fr. 273.2 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Pl. Com. fr. 129 ap. Harp. α 188; Men. Sam. 509 συναποκηρύττων; Lys. 17.7; D. 23.201; IG II2 1013.28). But [Ammon.] Diff. 268 = Herennius Philo α 9 = Ptol. Gramm. ap. Heylbut 1887. 397.20–1 attests that κηρύττω was used that way as well, as at Hdt. 6.121.2 and seemingly also in fr. 123.1–2. Whether κῆρυξ means anything more formal than “barker, tout” in such contexts is unclear; cf. frr. 247.3; 293.2; [D.] 44.4 (a low-paying job that requires one to be in the marketplace all day long); D. 51.22 καὶ μόνον οὐχ ὑπὸ κήρυκος πωλοῦσι τὰ κοινά (“and they all but sell public goods using a kêryx”). For selling slaves this way, cf. Eup. fr. 273; Ar. fr. 339 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων τῆς τόθ’ ἡμέρας, ὅτε /

250

Antiphanes

εἶπέν μ’ ὁ κῆρυξ· οὗτος ἀλφάνει (“Alas, unhappy me, for the day long ago when the herald said regarding me, ‘This fellow brings a price!’”); X. HG 3.4.19.97 For slave-trading and the slave-market, also fr. 70 n.; Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 426. ὀβολοστάτης ὤν serves in part simply to identify 3 ὁδί more fully as part of the opening exposition. But not everyone has the resources to buy a pair of slaves simply because they strike his fancy, whereas the speaker’s master can, meaning that the reference to how freely he spends money on certain things sets up the contrast with his miserly shopping habits as described in 6–8. An ὀβολοστάτης is literally an “obol-weigher” (cf. LSJ s. v. ἵστημι A.IV), i. e. a money-changer who converted foreign currency into its local Athenian equivalent. See in general fr. 157.11 n. The noun is first attested at Ar. Nu. 1155, where it refers specifically to money-lenders, as well as in Lysias (frr. 209a; 253) and Hypereides (fr. 154 Jensen)—both drawn from Harp. ο 1, who claims that the word was common in comedy—which taken together is enough to show that this was a common, colloquial term.98 5 Cf. Men. Asp. 116–17 πονηρίᾳ δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὅλως / ὑπερπέπαικεν (of the miser Smikrines; cited by Konstantakos 2000. 137). ἀνυπέρβλητος is 4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. X. Cyr. 8.7.15; Isoc. 4.71; D. 2.18); attested elsewhere in comedy only at Men. Sam. 215. Kassel–Austin compare Ar. Pl. 109 ὑπερβάλλουσι τῇ μοχθηρίᾳ (“they excel in wickedness”), which is the more normal construction with forms of ὑπερβάλλω (e. g. Ar. Eq. 409 οὔτοι μ’ ὑπερβαλεῖσθ’ ἀναιδείᾳ, 890 οὐχ ὑπερβαλεῖ με θωπείαις), although the use of εἰς is otherwise unexceptional (LSJ s. v. IV.2; Headlam 1966 on Herod. 1.55 (cited by Kassel–Austin)). πονηρία is a bland, general “badness”; see fr. 230.1 n. Kock (cited by Kassel– Austin with implicit approval) is thus overly specific in claiming that it here means precisely “avaritia et quae ex ea oritur inopia and miseria victus” (“avarice and the impoverished and miserable diet that arise from it”), particularly since the speaker may well have gone on in the lines that followed to offer other examples of his master’s extreme unwillingness to part with his money for daily needs. Colloquial 5th/4th-century Attic vocabulary, attested elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Nu. 1066; Th. 868; Demetr. Com. II fr. 2.1, and repeatedly in Menander; absent from lyric poetry, and found in the tragic poets only in satyr play (S. fr. 314.364; E. Cyc. 645) and at S. fr. 925 ἡ δὲ μωρία / μάλιστ’ ἀδελφὴ τῆς πονηρίας ἔφυ (“folly is absolutely a sister of wickedness”), which is thus probably from satyr play as well.

97

98

One of Alexis’ plays was entitled either Κηρυττόμενος or Ἐκκηρυττόμενος. If the former is correct, it might thus just as easily mean “The Man who Was Auctioned Off as a Slave” as the more obscure “The Man who was Named in a Proclamation” (Arnott 1996. 290). Also the title of a comedy by Caecilius (Obolostates sive Faenerator), probably adapted from a Greek original.

Νεοττίς (fr. 167)

251

7 Pythagoras of Samos (4 D.–K.) dates to roughly the second half of the 6th century BCE. For 4th-century Pythagoreans as miserable vegetarians, see fr. 225.8 n. For the history of the Pythagorean movement generally, see Burkert 1972; Kahn 2001; Riedweg 2002; Huffman 2008. For ἐκεῖνος used with a personal name in the sense “the famous, the wellknown” (colloquial), e. g. Eup. fr. 222.1 (Ἀ)μυνίας ἐκεῖνος with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Ar. Ach. 708 ἐκεῖνος ἡνίκ’ ἦν Θουκυδίδης; Ec. 167 δι’ Ἐπίγονόν γ’ ἐκεῖνον; Polyzel. fr. 12.1 ὁ μαινόμενος ἐκεινοσὶ Διονύσιος; D. 18.219 Καλλίστρατος ἐκεῖνος. Konstantakos 2000. 138 suggests an allusion here to the fact that the Pythagoreans themselves preferred not to name their master outright, but referred to him mostly as αὐτός or ἐκεῖνος: “So here ἐκεῖνος may humorously allude to that … practice”, which “is made to look ludicrous, because Pythagoras here is actually named, and so the Pythagorean ἐκεῖνος (originally used to avoid naming him) becomes pointless”. This is too elaborate to be easily believed. 8 τρισμακαρίτης is not attested elsewhere before the Byzantine period, but seems to be a sarcastic variant of the more common benedictory τρισμακάριος (e. g. Ar. Ach. 400; Nu. 166). Cf. τρὶς μάκαρ at Ar. Pax 1336 with Olson 1998 on 242–3 (on triple blessings, curses and the like); τρισκακοδαίμων (“thrice unfortunate”) at e. g. Ar. Ach. 1024; and τρισάθλιος (“thrice wretched”) at e. g. Men. Asp. 414. Kassel–Austin compare Ar. fr. 504.10, where ὁ μακαρίτης refers to someone who is dead and means ~ “of blessed memory” (for this sense of the word, cf. A. Pers. 634; Hsch. μ 107; Suda μ 51; de Heer 1969. 97–9), and Konstantakos 2000. 139 suggests that the point is that Pythagoras is many times dead because he claimed to have been reincarnated. For θύμον (probably not “thyme” here, despite Rusten 2011. 504), fr. 225.7 n.

fr. 167 K.–A. (169 K.) (Α.) ὁ δεσπότης δὲ πάντα τὰ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπέλαβεν ὥσπερ ἔλαβεν. (Β.) ἠγάπησεν ἂν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο παραλαβὼν Δημοσθένης 2 ὥσπερ ἔλαβεν Ath.ACE Plu. : ὅσαπερ ἔλαβεν Dobree : οὐ παρέλαβεν Kock ἂν Ath.ACE : ἠγάπησε γὰρ Plu. : ἠγάπησε γ᾿ ἂν Dobree

ἠγάπησεν

(A.) My master got all his father’s property back in the same condition as he got it.99 (B.) This phrase would happily have been taken over by Demosthenes!

99

Not “Just as he had taken it, my master took back everything from his father” (Rusten 2011. 504).

252

Antiphanes

Ath. 6.223d–e ἀποδίδομέν σοι τὰ τῶν δειπνοσοφιστῶν λείψανα καὶ οὐ δίδομεν, ὡς ὁ Κοθωκίδης φησὶ ῥήτωρ (Aeschin. 3.83) Δημοσθένην χλευάζων, ὃς (D. 7.5) Φιλίππου Ἀθηναίοις Ἁλόννησον διδόντος συνεβούλευε μὴ λαμβάνειν, εἰ δίδωσιν ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀποδίδωσιν. ὅπερ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Νεοττίδι παιδιὰν θέμενος ἐρεσχηλεῖ τόνδε τὸν τρόπον· —— I’m giving you back the learned banqueters’ leftovers rather than giving them to you, as the orator from Kothokê (Aeschin. 3.83) says, as a way of making fun of Demosthenes, who ([D.] 7.5) advised the Athenians not to accept Philip’s offer of Halonnesos if he was giving it to them rather than giving it back. Antiphanes turns this into a joke in Neottis, offering banter of the following sort: —— Plu. Dem. 9.5–6 τῶν δὲ κωμικῶν ὁ μέν τις αὐτὸν ἀποκαλεῖ ῥωποπερπερήθραν (adesp. com. fr. 149.3), ὁ δὲ παρασκώπτων ὡς χρώμενον τῷ ἀντιθέτῳ φησὶν οὕτως· (vv. 2–3) ——. ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία πρὸς τὸν ὑπὲρ Ἁλοννήσου λόγον ὁ Ἀντιφάνης καὶ τουτὶ πέπαιχεν, ἣν Ἀθηναίοις Δημοσθένης ([D.] 7.5) συνεβούλευε μὴ λαμβάνειν, ἀλλ’ ἀπολαμβάνειν παρὰ Φιλίππου, περὶ συλλαβῶν διαφερόμενος One of the comic poets calls (Demosthenes) “empty braggart talk” (adesp. com. fr. 149.3), while another makes fun of him for using opposed terms, saying the following: (vv. 2–3) ——. Unless, by Zeus, this too was a joke by Antiphanes in reference to the speech On Behalf of Halonnesos ([D.] 7.5), which (place) Demosthenes advised the Athenians not to take but to take back from Philip, quarreling about syllables

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl k|lk|r klkl krkl k|rl|l klkl klkl k|rkl llkl

Discussion Dobree 1820 Appendix p. 50 (ad Ar. Nu. 1382); Dobree 1833. 309; Kock 1884 II.80; Konstantakos 2000. 140–4; Erbì 2011. 173–7; Mastellari 2016. 423–4 Text In the middle of 2, Dobree conjectured ὅσαπερ ἔλαβεν (“in the same quantity he got it”) for the paradosis ὥσπερ ἔλαβεν (“just as he got it”), while Kock proposed οὐ παρέλαβεν (“he didn’t inherit it”). No change is necessary, and Kock’s suggestion has the substantial disadvantage of doing away with the echo of [Demosthenes]. At the end of 2, Plutarch’s ἠγάπησε γὰρ for Athenaeus’ ἠγάπησεν ἂν appears to reflect a conviction that all three lines ought to be given to a single speaker, who is thus trying to explain what he just said. Dobree’s ἠγάπησε γ᾿ ἂν represents an attempt to preserve part of the reading in Plutarch by assuming that Athenaeus too has made a minor mistake. But γ(ε) is pointless here. Citation context Cited by Athenaeus near the beginning of Book 6, shortly after fr. 189, and followed by Alex. frr. 212; 7; Anaxil. fr. 8 (for a play on δίδωμι and ἀποδίδωμι similar to that in [Demosthenes]; see Interpretation), in that order,

Νεοττίς (fr. 167)

253

and then by Timocl. fr. 12 (for Demosthenes, with specific reference to his use of opposed terms in 7). Plutarch is probably drawing all the material he cites here from Eratosthenes (see fr. dub. 288 Citation context), who may thus be Athenaeus’ source as well. The whole of adesp. com. fr. 149 is cited at D.L. 2.108 (whence Suda ρ 224), and the third verse—seemingly alluded to by Plutarch here—reads ἐπῆλθ’ ἔχων Δημοσθένους τὴν ῥωποπερπερήθρα (“he went off having Demosthenes’ empty braggart talk”). The textual situation, and thus what ought to be read at the end of the line, is complicated: the manuscripts of Diogenes have either ῥωμοστωμυλήθραν (D. L.F) or ῥωβοστωμυλήθραν (D. L.PL); the Suda has ῥομβοστωμυλήθραν; and ῥωποπερπερήθρα is restored by modern editors from Plutarch. If this is right, however, it makes it clear that Demosthenes was not in fact called “empty braggart talk”, as Plutarch maintains, but was merely said to have engaged in “empty braggart talk”. This in turn reinforces the notion that Plutarch did not know the text of that fragment at first hand, and raises the possibility that Eratosthenes was confused about it as well. Interpretation (A.) is certainly a slave, since he speaks in 1 of his master. He might accordingly be identified with the speaker of fr. 166, although there is no indication of the visceral dislike apparent there, and would one expect πάντα τὰ παρὰ τοῦ πατρός to refer to land or the like rather than to capital of the sort a money-lender tries to accumulate. The household in question is thus more likely a different one, perhaps one that has been at cross-purposes to that of the money-lender in the course of the action, but has ultimately come out on top. Indeed, (A.)’s master might himself be the speaker of fr. 166, who has been freed and restored to his proper station in life, and is now presumably on his way back to Syria. (B.) might be a slave as well, given that he and (A.) seem to be on intimate terms. He is in any case at least momentarily playing the bomolochos (“coarse buffoon”). For the 4th-century Athenian politician Demosthenes (384–322 BCE; PA 3595; PAA 318615), see Harding 1987; the essays in Worthington 2000; Worman 2004 (on the insults exchanged by Demosthenes and Aeschines, which Athenaeus claims are in the social and literary background to this fragment); MacDowell 2009; Worthington 2013 (all with further bibliography). For Demosthenes’ image in comedy, see Arnott 2010. 302–3; Erbì 2011 passim. On his reception generally, see Pernot 2006. The dispute about whether to accept the island of Halonnesos (one of the Northern Sporades, and previously a pirates’ nest) from Philip II of Macedon (who had taken it and cleared it out) took place in 343/2 BCE. The speech to which Athenaeus and Plutarch refer is included in the Demosthenic corpus and is seemingly alluded to at Aeschin. 3.83, but has been attributed since antiquity to Demosthenes’ contemporary Hegesippos (PA 6351; PAA 481555); see Roisman–Worthington 2015. 36–7. Hegesippos’ point was that Halonnesos belonged to the Athenians by right and could therefore not be given to them, although it might be given back. Although Alex. frr. 7; 212.6–7; Anaxil. fr. 8 (all

254

Antiphanes

quoted in this same section of Athenaeus) depend on the same contrast between δίδωμι and ἀποδίδωμι, they are not necessarily intended to echo [Demosthenes’] = Hegesippus’ remark (despite Arnott 1996. 607 on Alex. fr. 212), even if Athenaeus suggests they are. Konstantakos 2000. 141 suggests that this was in any case “a well-known slogan”, “a catchy synopsis of the political thesis of those opposing Philip, and as such doubtless widely used”. 1–2 πάντα τὰ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς / … ὥσπερ ἔλαβεν The normal verb for getting an inheritance from one’s father is παραλαμβάνω (e. g. Lys. 19.37 παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς παραλαβών; Isoc. 8.126 τὸν μὲν οἶκον ἐλάττω τὸν αὑτοῦ κατέλιπεν ἢ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς παρέλαβεν; D. 21.157 παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς πολλὴν οὐσίαν παραλαβών; [D.] 42.23 τὴν μικρὰν οὐσίαν παραλαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός; Arist. Pol. 1313a31–3 τὴν βασιλείαν ἐλάττω παραδιδοὺς τοῖς υἱέσιν ἢ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς παρέλαβεν). But cf. the simplex at Ar. Pl. 829–30 ἐγὼ γὰρ ἱκανὴν οὐσίαν παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς / λαβών, and ἀπολαμβάνω at Alex. fr. 282.2–3 ὃν γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀπέλαβον / παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, δεῖ τοῦτον ἀποδοῦναί με σοί with Arnott 1996 ad loc. For the theme, cf. fr. 236.1 τὰ πατρῷα … κατεδήδοκεν with n. Konstantakos 2000. 142–3 suggests a mocking allusion to Demosthenes’ own problems getting control of his inheritance: Demosthenes would happily have got his property back in the condition in which he originally inherited it. 2–3 ἀπέλαβεν ὥσπερ ἔλαβεν is picked up by παραλαβών in the next verse. For a form of ἀγαπάω + participle (mostly prosaic) in a sense similar to English “love to, enjoy” and thus often “be satisfied with”, cf. Men. Sam. 617, and see LSJ s. v. III.2. 3 παραλαβών echoes ἀπέλαβεν and ἔλαβεν in 2, which Konstantakos 2000. 143–4 takes to allude to Demosthenes’ own supposed greed (i. e. his desire to λαβεῖν). If that was the point, it might have been made later on, but it is not obviously made here. Δημοσθένης appears at the end of the remark as a punchline.

fr. 168 K.–A. (170 K.) Ath. 13.586a μνημονεύει δ’ αὐτῆς (i. e. τῆς Σινώπης) Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἀρκάδι (fr. 43) καὶ ἐν Κηπουρῷ (fr. 114), ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ (fr. 23), ἐν Ἁλιευομένῃ (fr. 27.12), ἐν Νεοττίδι Antiphanes mentions her (i. e. Sinôpê) in Arkas (fr. 43) and in Kêpouros (fr. 114), in Akestria (fr. 23), Halieuomenê (fr. 27.12) (and) in Neottis

See frr. 23 n.; 27.12 n.

255

Ὄβριμος (Obrimos)

“The Man who was Strong”

Introduction Discussion 245 n. c

Meineke 1839–1857 I.327; Breitenbach 1908. 79; Edmonds 1959.

Title Ὄβριμος was taken by Meineke to be a man’s name. But Breitenbach notes that the adjective (“strong, mighty”) is used routinely in the Iliad of Ares (e. g. 5.845), Hektor (e. g. 8.473) and swords (e. g. 3.357), and it seems more likely to describe the central character (a miles gloriosus?) or to be his nickname; cf. Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων Introduction. For titles referring to some key aspect of a character’s personality, cf. Ἄγροικος, Ἀντερῶσα, Ἀποκαρτερῶν, Ἄσωτοι, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, Ἀφροδίσιος, Βουταλίων,Δύσπρατος, Ἐνεά, Μισοπόνηρος, Παιδεραστής, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ, Φιλοπάτωρ and perhaps Μαλθάκη and Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων, and see in general Arnott 2010. 317. Content of town.

Unknown. Fr. 169 (n.) may suggest that someone is visiting from out

Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 169 K.–A. (171 K.) (Α.) ἂν κελεύῃ μ᾿ ἡ σταθμοῦχος. (Β.) ἡ σταθμοῦχος δ’ ἐστὶ τίς; ⟨lk⟩ ἀποπνίξεις με καινὴν πρός με διάλεκτον λαλῶν. (Α.) ἣ τέτακταί μοι στέγαρχος 1 μ᾿ ἡ Kaibel : με Poll.FSCL : μ᾿ ὁ Blaydes ἡ2 Poll.CL : ἢ Poll.F(S?) : ὁ Bentley δ’ om. FS Poll. 2 ⟨νὴ Δί᾿⟩ Hermann : ⟨ἦ γὰρ⟩ Kaibel με Hermann : δέ με Poll.FS : γάρ με Poll.CL καινὴν Poll.CL : κενὴν Poll.FS 3 ἣ τέτακταί μοι vel ἣ ᾿τέτακτό μοι Kaibel : ητε τακτοιμι Poll.C : ἤτε τακατοιμι Poll.L : ἤτε τακτομι Poll.FS : εἰ ᾿πιτάττοι μοι Bentley : εἴ τι τάττοι μοι Meineke : εἰ ᾿πιτάττῃ μοι Kock στέγαρχος Bentley : στέγαρχον Poll.CL : FS στεγάρχων Poll.

(A.) if the stathmouchos orders me. (B.) Who’s the stathmouchos? ⟨lk⟩ you’ll suffocate me by chattering a new language at me. (A.) The woman who’s been assigned to me as stegarchos

256

Antiphanes

Poll. 10.20–1 τὸν μὲν οὖν τοῦ παντὸς οἴκου δεσπότην ὅτι καὶ ναύκληρον καὶ ἱστιοπάμονα Δωρικῶς καὶ στέγαρχον καὶ στεγανόμον κλητέον, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἐνοίκιον οὐ ναῦλον μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ στεγανόμιον, ἔχεις προειρημένον (1.74). παίζων δ’ εἰ καὶ σταθμοῦχον ἐθέλοις αὐτὸν καλεῖν, ἐρεσχηλῶν τινὰ ἢ ἐκπειρώμενος, ὁ δὲ δεινὸς ὢν εἰς ὀνομάτων χρῆσιν λαμβάνοιτο τοῦ ῥήματος ὡς οὐκ ἂν εἴη δόκιμον, οὐδὲ σὺ μὲν ἂν αὐτὸ πάντῃ δόκιμον εἶναι νομίζοις, οὐ μέντοι οὐδὲ παντελῶς ἀδόκιμον· ὅτι δὲ ἔστιν εἰρημένον εἰ γνωρίζοις, φιλότιμος εἶναι δόξεις. εἴρηται τοίνυν ἐν Αἰσχύλου Σισύφῳ (fr. 226)· σὺ δ’ ὁ σταθμοῦχος εὖ κατιλλώψας ἄθρει. Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν Ὀβρίμῳ φησίν· ——. ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸ κοινότατον τουτὶ καὶ μᾶλλον τεθρυλημένον, τὸν οἰκοδεσπότην καὶ τὴν οἰκοδέσποιναν, οὐκ ἀποδέχομαι μὲν τοὔνομα κτλ That the person in charge of the entire house should be referred to as the nauklêros (literally “ship-owner, skipper”) or histiopamôn in Doric or stegarchos or steganomos, since rent is not only a naulos but also a steganomion, you have been told earlier (1.74). And if you were to want to refer to him as a stathmouchos as a joke, as a way of ribbing someone or teasing him, and if he were clever with regard to the use of vocabulary and were to seize on the word as not being approved, you for your part could acknowledge it as not entirely approved, but not however as entirely disapproved; and if you were to point out that it has been used (sc. by “good authorities”), you will seem to be overly contentious. It has been used, however, in Aeschylus’ Sisyphos (fr. 226): but you, as the stathmouchos, look carefully with scorn! And Antiphanes says in Obrimos: ——. But the following is in fact extremely common and more colloquial, oikodespotês or oikodespoina; I do not accept the word etc.

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lkll lklk | lkll lkl 〈lk〉rl lkll | lkrl lkl lkll lklx | 〈lklx lklx〉

Discussion Bentley ap. Wordsworth 1842 I.274; Meineke 1839–1857 III.93; Hermann 1842. 512; Kock 1884 II.80–1; Ellis 1885. 285; Blaydes 1890. 73; Kassel 1974. 122; Kaibel ap. Kassel–Austin Text In the second half of 1, a definite article or the metrical equivalent is needed before σταθμοῦχος. The manuscripts have either ἡ (Poll.CL) or ἢ (Poll.F(S?))—presumably different responses to an ambiguous majuscule Η—although Bentley conjectured ὁ and Meineke prints ἦ (introducing a question, “There’s a stathmouchos?”). Adopting the reading in Poll.CL is the simplest solution to the problem; although this would mean that (A.) is a man (note 2 λαλῶν) taking orders from a woman, the seeming peculiarity also counts against printing ὁ (adopted by Kock) instead, since it is difficult to believe that the feminine definite article would have driven out the masculine in this situation. Perhaps most important, ἡ matches the easiest solution to the confusion at the beginning of 3 (for which, see below). Adopting the feminine definite article in the second half of 1 has implications in turn for the first half of the line, where the manuscripts offer με σταθμοῦχος. It is awkward to have (B.) respond to (A.)’s “if a stathmouchos orders me” by asking “Who’s the stathmouchos?”, suggesting that a definite article is needed in (A.)’s

Ὄβριμος (fr. 169)

257

initial remark as well. If ἡ σταθμοῦχος is printed in the second half of the line, Kaibel’s μ᾿ ἡ σταθμοῦχος (adopted by Kassel–Austin) rather than Blaydes μ᾿ ὁ σταθμοῦχος (adopted by Kock) is therefore needed in the first. 2 is unmetrical, and δέ με (Poll.FS) and γάρ με (Poll.CL) look like separate attempts to make the remark sit more easily with (B.)’s question in 1. If δέ / γάρ is expelled, the line scans properly, although with a lacuna at the beginning. Hermann’s ⟨νὴ Δί᾿⟩ (“by Zeus”) and Kaibel’s ⟨ἦ γὰρ⟩ (“for certainly!”) represent exempli gratia attempts to fill the gap. In the middle of 2, κενὴν (Poll.FS; unmetrical) in place of καινὴν (Poll.CL) is a product of a period when αι and ε had come to be pronounced alike; a simple, common error. At the beginning of 3, the text lying behind the common exemplars of Poll.CL, on the one hand, and Poll.FS, on the other, seemingly offered ΗΤΕΤΑΚΤΟΙΜΙ vel sim. (thus ητε τακτοιμι Poll.C), which the scribes found impossible to decipher and accordingly garbled even further in three of the four manuscripts (Poll.L ἤτε τακατοιμι : Poll.FS ἤτε τακτομι). Kaibel’s palmary ἣ τέτακταί μοι or ἣ ᾿τέτακτό μοι represent little more than a rearticulation of the paradosis. Kaibel’s second suggestion (with the verb in the pluperfect rather than the perfect) is slightly closer to what the manuscripts offer, but also sits more awkwardly with κελεύῃ in 1. Bentley conjectured εἰ ᾿πιτάττοι μοι στέγαρχος (“if a stegarchos were to give me an order”; printed by Kock), which was tweeked by Meineke to εἴ τι τάττοι μοι (“if a stegarchos were to give me some order”) and by Kock to εἰ ᾿πιτάττῃ μοι (“if a stegarchos should give me an order”; subjunctive to match 1). Kaibel’s suggestions are much closer to the paradosis, and one or the other is to be preferred. At the end of the surviving portion of 3, Bentley’s nominative στέγαρχος is needed for the sense. στέγαρχον (Poll.CL) and στεγάρχων (Poll.FS) look like separate responses to a common exemplar that offered an abbreviated στεγαρχ vel sim. Citation context This fragment represents a slight digression within the long catalogue of σκεῦαι (“implements”) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of Pollux, the immediately preceding topic being furnishings, i. e. the sort of σκεῦαι that are kept in a house. Alex. fr. 227 is cited just after this (for οἰκοδεσπότης). As Pollux himself acknowledges obliquely, much of the first part of this material is found in a very similar form at 1.74–5 καλεῖται δὲ ὁ ὑποδεχόμενος καὶ ὁ ὑποδεχθεὶς ξένος, ἰδίως δὲ ὁ ὑποδεχόμενος ξενοδόχος. ἄλλως δὲ ὁ δεσπότης τῆς οἰκίας στεγανόμος· παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Δωριεῦσι καὶ Αἰολεῦσιν ἑστιοπάμων ὀνομάζεται. ἔνιοι δ’ αὐτὸν καὶ ναύκληρον ἐκάλεσαν, καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς καταγωγῆς μισθὸν ναῦλον, ὅπερ ἐνοίκιον οὐ παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς καλεῖται, παρὰ δὲ ἐνίοις καὶ στεγανόμιον (Men. fr. 455) (“The person who receives guests and the person who is received are both a xenos, but properly the one who does the receiving is a xenodochos. Alternatively, the master of the house is a steganomos; among the Dorians and Aeolians he is called a hestiopamôn. But some authorities also referred to him as a nauklêros, and the rent paid for lodgings as a naulos, which is

258

Antiphanes

referred to as an enoikion not only in many sources but in fact in the ancient ones, although in some sources as a steganomion (Men. fr. 455)”), although without reference to the word σταθμοῦχος. That the latter term was found, however, in the original discussion of words referring to an innkeeper, the resident manager of a boarding-house, or the like, is suggested by parallels at – Hsch. ν 120 ναύκληρος· ὁ συνοικίας προεστώς, ἢ μεμισθωμένος ὅλην καὶ ἀπομισθῶν κατὰ μέρος, καλούμενος σταθμοῦχος. καὶ ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ πλοίου (“nauklêros: the man in charge of a tenement-house, or who rents out the whole place and sublets parts of it, referred to as a stathmouchos. Also the master of a ship”) – Hsch. σ 1608 σταθμοῦχος· ὁ τῆς οἰκίας κύριος. καὶ ξενοδόχος (“stathmouchos: the master of a house. Also an innkeeper”) – Suda σ 993 σταθμός· τὸ πανδοκεῖον. καὶ σταθμοῦχος, ὁ πανδοκεύς (“stathmos: an inn. And a stathmouchos, an innkeeper”). Note also—perhaps the ultimate source of all this material, although preserved for us only in severely truncated form — – Ar. Byz. fr. 7 στεγανόμιον· τὸ ἀριστητήριον, καὶ ὁ μισθὸς τοῦ πανδοκείου (“steganomion: a refectory, and the rent for a inn”), whence also e. g. Ael. Dion. σ 33; Phot. π 144; σ 511. Interpretation Part of a discussion between two characters, the first certainly a man (note λαλῶν in 2). The complaint in 2 is similar to those made elsewhere by frustrated hosts dealing with wordy, insolent cooks (see fr. 55 with nn.), and these lines might be drawn from a similar context, even if nothing is said here about food. If so, (B.) probably knows what (A.) is talking about in general, but is unable to understand his specific choice of vocabulary, and further back-and-forth may well have followed, with (A.)’s second choice of a word meaning “innkeeper” in 3 similarly failing to meet with (B.)’s approval. σταθμοῦχος is attested elsewhere before the Roman period only at A. fr. 226, which is quoted by Pollux in this same section but is even more obscure than the lines of Antiphanes. στέγαρχος—treated by (A.) in 3 as more or less equivalent in meaning to σταθμοῦχος—meanwhile, is attested elsewhere before the Roman period only at Hdt. 1.133.4, where it refers to the master of a place where Persians supposedly meet to drink and talk, which might be either a private home or the local equivalent of a bar. (B.)’s reaction in 2 suggests in any case that σταθμοῦχος at least is not simply ill-attested in our sources but genuinely odd. We have at any rate little choice but to assume that Pollux (or Pollux’ source) is right that a σταθμοῦχος is someone—here a woman—who provides short-term housing for a fee. (A.) is thus perhaps from out of town, and 3 suggests that he has not personally selected the place where he is living, i. e. he has been put up there by someone else (but not by (B.)). Why (A.) is concerned about what the innkeeper has to say (1) is unclear. But he seems to feel put upon (note τέτακταί μοι in 3, suggesting

Ὄβριμος (fr. 169)

259

involuntary subordination) and thus unhappy about the situation; and see below on female innkeepers as notoriously abusive. Elsewhere, innkeeping (normally πανδοκεία, literally “receiving everyone”, whence ἡ πανδοκεύτρια for a woman who makes her living this way) is represented as a disreputable occupation routinely associated with dealing out loud, angry verbal abuse; cf. Eup. fr. 9; Ar. V. 35; Lys. 458 with Henderson 1987 ad loc.; Ra. 549–78 with Dover 1993. 263; Pl. 426–8; Pl. Lg. 918b, d; Thphr. Char. 6.5 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.; Poll. 6.128; Brock 1994. 341. 1 For ἡ σταθμοῦχος δ’ ἐστὶ τίς;, Kassel–Austin compare the similarly baffled responses to what is taken to be a strange choice of vocabulary at Philem. frr. 45.2 ὁ δὲ νάβλας τί ἐστιν (not necessarily a question, although it might be); 130.2 τίς ἐσθ’ ὁ βουνός;. A. fr. 226 (quoted by Pollux just before this) is from satyr play, which would allow for the possibility that this might be a colloquial word; but it must be elevated style instead (see above). 2 ἀποπνίξεις με i. e. “you’ll make me so angry I can’t breathe”; cf. Alex. fr. 16.7 ἀποπνίγομαι with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; D. 19.199 (both cited by Kassel– Austin), and note also Ar. Nu. 1036 ’πνιγόμην τὰ σπλάγχνα. For the hyperbole, cf. fr. 55.5–6 ἀποκτενεῖς / … μ(ε) (also cited by Kassel–Austin) with n. The verb is used in a literal sense in fr. 193.5. καινὴν … διάλεκτον Cf. frr. 189.18 (the language of tragic poets) with n.; 207.2–3 (the language of Philoxenos) with n.; Alex. fr. 148.2 μὴ σὺ καινῶς μοι λάλει (“Don’t use novel vocabulary with me!”, in response to someone who has just said πεφιλιππίδωσαι, “you’ve been Philippidized”); and the frustrated employer’s characterization of the incomprehensible language used by his glib, Homer-quoting cook at Strato Com. fr. 1.3 as καινὰ ῥήματα. διάλεκτος (5th/4th-century vocabulary) is here “language, style of speaking” (cf. Ar. fr. 706.1; Hermipp. fr. 3.1; LSJ s. v. II), as opposed to “talking, conversation, dialogue” (LSJ s. v. I). This is a hostile comment, and the use of λαλέω (onomatopoeic 5th/4th-century vocabulary) may well be intended as dismissive—(A.) is “chattering” rather than merely “talking”—as at e. g. fr. 192.16–18; Cratin. fr. 6.3 (the earliest attestation of the word); Eup. fr. 116 with Olson 2017 ad loc.; Ar. Lys. 627; Ec. 303α; Philonid. II fr. 2. But by this period the verb can also simply mean “talk”, as at fr. 164.6.

260

Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ (Oinomaos ê Pelops) “Oinomaos or Pelops”

Introduction Discussion

Kock 1884 II.81; Edmonds 1959. 246–7 n. a

Title and Content Oinomaos promised his daughter Hippodameia to anyone who could defeat him in a chariot race, with losers to be executed. Eventually Pelops son of Tantalos won the competition, according to some traditions because Poseidon (who had been his youthful lover) granted him a team of winged horses, while according to others Hippodameia fell in love with Pelops when he presented himself, and convinced Oinomaos’ charioteer to tamper with the axles of her father’s chariot, bringing about his death. Cf. Hes. fr. 259 M.–W. = fr. 197 Most; Pi. O. 1.23–89; Pherecyd. FGrH 3 F 37; Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 350; Gantz 1993. 540–4; Pipili, LIMC V.1.434–5; Triantis, LIMC VII.1.19–20, 282–3; Fowler 2013. 428–30; Shapiro 1994. 78–83; Hansen 2000, and Ἡνίοχος Introduction. This was thus probably a mythological parody, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος), Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία?, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων, Φιλοκτήτης and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Eubulus also wrote an Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ (on which, see Hunter 1983. 163), while Sophocles and Euripides wrote tragedies entitled Oinomaos. For other plays called after what seem clearly to be two different characters, note Eubulus’ Σεμέλη ἢ Διόνυσος (Semelê or Dionysus), Alexis’ Κράτεια ἢ Φαρμακοπώλης (Krateia or The Man who Sold Magical Objects), Diphilus’ Εὐνοῦχος ἢ Στρατιώτης (The Eunuch or The Soldier). Menander’s Ἀρρηφόρος ἢ Αὐλητρίς (The Girl who Carried the Sacred Objects or The Girl who Played the Pipes). Date Unknown. Fr. 170 (n.) appears to feature a Persian character, or at least someone raised in what was in Antiphanes’ time Persian territory.

Fragment fr. 170 K.–A. (172 K.) τί δ’ ἂν Ἕλληνες μικροτράπεζοι φυλλοτρῶγες δράσειαν; ὅπου τέτταρα λήψει κρέα μίκρ’ ὀβολοῦ. παρὰ δ’ ἡμετέροις προγόνοισιν ὅλους

Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ (fr. 170) 5

261

βοῦς ὤπτων, σῦς, ἐλάφους, ἄρνας· τὸ τελευταῖον δ’ ὁ μάγειρος ὅλον τέρας ὀπτήσας μεγάλῳ βασιλεῖ θερμὴν παρέθηκε κάμηλον

2 φυλλοτρῶγες Ath.ACE : φιλοτρῶγες Eust. : φυλλαδοτρῶγες Kock 4 προγόνοισιν Ath.A : προγόνοις Ath.CE : προδόμοισιν Kock 5 βοῦς ὤπτων, σῦς Jacobs : βοῦς ὀπτῶσιν Ath.ACE : ὀπτῶσιν βοῦς Kock

5

What could leaf-eating Greeks with their scanty tables accomplish? (A land) where you’ll get four little chunks of meat for an obol! Whereas in our ancestors’ time they used to roast whole oxen, pigs, deer and lambs; and as the final item, the cook would roast and serve the Great King a marvellous dish, a whole hot camel!

Ath. 4.130e–f Ἀντιφάνης ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς ἐν Οἰνομάῳ ἢ Πέλοπι διαπαίζων ἔφη· —— The comic poet Antiphanes said as a joke in Oinomaos ê Pelops: ——

Meter Anapestic dimeter (8 catalectic).

5

rlll | llrl llll | llrl lrll | rlrl rlrl | rlrl llll | rlll rlll | rlrl rlll | rlrl llrl rll

Discussion Jacobs 1809. 88; Meineke 1839–1857 III.94; Kock 1884 II.81; Nesselrath 1990. 233; Mangidis 2003. 195; Hobden 2013. 95 Text φυλλοτρῶγες (Ath.ACE; corrupted to φιλοτρῶγες in Eustathius, who had his own copy of the Epitome and is thus not to be regarded as an independent witness to the text) in 2 is a hapax and in one sense an absurdity, since φύλλα (“leaves”) are almost by definition not regarded as human food. Kock accordingly emended to φυλλαδοτρῶγες (unattested), taking this to be a reference to φυλλάς in the sense “a paste made of greens”, i. e. an herb pesto, as at Call. Com. fr. 7; Mnesim. fr. 4.31; Diph. fr. 18.4; Poll. 6.71 φυλλάδας δ’ ἐκάλουν τὰ χλωρὰ ὑποτρίμματα (“they

262

Antiphanes

referred to pastes made of greens as phyllades”).100 But the absurdity is probably the point: as far as the speaker is concerned, the Athenians consume a diet more suited for goats or the like; cf. fr. 178 n. In 5, Athenaeus’ βοῦς ὀπτῶσιν is not only unmetrical but also sits oddly with the aorist παρέθηκε in 8, on the one hand, and with προγόνοισιν (Ath.A; shorted to the unmetrical προγόνοις in the Epitome) in 4, on the other, both of which imply a reference to past events. Jacobs accordingly emended to βοῦς ὤπτων, σῦς (printed by Meineke and Kassel–Austin), while Kock solved the metrical problem by reversing the order of the words and took παρέθηκε in 8 to be atemporal in reference to customary action. Kock also advocated for (“scribo”) but did not print παρὰ δ’ ἡμετέροις προδόμοισιν (“in the front rooms of our houses”) in 4. πρόδομος is elevated poetic vocabulary (mostly epic) attested nowhere else in comedy, which does not count against the emendation as much as does the fact that one might butcher an animal in a courtyard, but would normally not do so within one’s house. Alternatively, one might take παρὰ δ’ ἡμετέροις προγόνοισιν to mean “in the land of our ancestors” rather than “in our ancestors’ time”. Citation context The first in a series of substantial comic fragments preserved at Ath. 4.130e–2f (directly after a long excerpt from a letter by Hippolochos of Macedon describing a feast given by Karanos of Macedon) that also preserves Ar. Ach. 85–9; Anaxandr. fr. 42 (where see Millis 2015 on Citation context); Lync. fr. 1; Diph. fr. 17; Men. fr. 351, in that order, all of which contrast Attic dinner parties in one way or another with those celebrated elsewhere. Interpretation A disparaging reference to Greek dinner parties and the Greek diet as evidence for the general incapacity of Greeks, sc. for war, love, big ideas or the like (1–3), followed by a reminiscence of the much more magnificent culinary procedures in the time of “our ancestors” (4–8). The references to the roasting of whole animals (4–5 with n.), to a “great king” (7) most easily understand as “the Great King”, and to eating a camel, the exotic eastern beast par excellence (8 with n.), leave little doubt that the speaker is a Persian (thus already Kock) or has at least grown up in what was in Antiphanes’ time Persian territory; Nesselrath suggested that he might be Pelops himself, since his family came from Lydia. If this is not a soliloquy, the easiest interpretation of 4 παρὰ δ’ ἡμετέροις προγόνοισιν is that the other characters onstage are also Persians / Lydians. Alternatively, they might be other foreigners or even Greeks (making the remarks a provocation), in both which cases the first-person plural possessive adjective would mean “the ancestors of my people (sc. as opposed to yours)”. The speaker is in any case a gluttonous carnivore, who would prefer to dine on whole roasted oxen and the like, whereas the Greeks as he presents them eat off of little tables (meaning inter alia tables with insufficient room to hold a large 100

LSJ s. v. II.3 (followed by Montanari s. v.) cites Pollux, but nonetheless offers the misleading “salad”.

Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ (fr. 170)

263

amount of food; but see 1 n.) and consume leaves (i. e. primarily vegetable matter, characterized in an aggressively hostile manner; but see 2 n.), since meat is almost unaffordable in their country (3). It is nonetheless striking that he draws a contrast not between the standard Greek practice at dinner parties and the practice of his own people, but between the standard Greek practice and the practice of his ancestors and in particular how the Great King ate once upon a time. Whoever the speaker is, therefore, he is not living the ancestral dream; perhaps he is an unhappy Persian metic, trapped for some reason in Athens or another Greek city, and thus all too intimately familiar with the Greek lifestyle, including the prices in a Greek marketplace, which he thinks of in terms of Greek monetary units (3). For the Greek image of Persians generally, see Miller 1997; Hutzfeldt 1999 (concentrating on 5th-century literature); Miller 2006/7 (concentrating on the artistic evidence). 1 μικροτράπεζος (attested only here; for the formation, cf. ἰσοτράπεζος at fr. 180.2 with n.) refers in the first instance to the light, portable tables on which food was served at Greek dinner parties and symposia; cf. frr. 112.1 n.; 172b with n.; 180.2 (a cookpot “as big as the table”); 202.11–12 with n. But the first term of the compound must have a second sense as well, the speaker’s complaint being that—at least as he see it—there is very little food on the tables that appear. Cf. Lync. fr. 1.3–9 (preserved in this same section of Athenaeus) “Neither of us likes Attic dinner parties … You’re served a big platter with five little platters on top of it; one holds a garlic clove, another two sea-urchins, the third a sweet thrymmatis-cake, the fourth ten shellfish, and the fifth a little piece of sturgeon”. ὅλους in 4 thus picks up and stands in emphatic contrast to the word. 2 φυλλοτρῶγες is another hapax (1 n.); for the formation, cf. κυαμοτρώξ at Ar. Eq. 41 (also a hapax; cited by Kassel–Austin), as well as the mock-epic mousename Πτερνοτρώκτης (“Ham-eater”) at Batrach. 29. The Greeks sometimes used fig leaves to wrap food for baking; see fr. 140.4 n. But this is invective, and what the speaker means is probably that they consume almost exclusively vegetable matter, which he implicitly criticizes as inedible by referring to it as “leaves”. 3 τέτταρα … κρέα μικρ(ὰ) ὀβολοῦ For κρέα (chunks of meat intended for stewing or the like), fr. 248.1 n. How much meat one could buy for an obol is unknown (although note Eup. fr. 156.3 “chunks of meat at a half-obol apiece”) and is in any case not really the point: what the speaker means by “four” is “not very many”, and he accordingly goes on to disparage the κρέα as μικρ(ά) (“small”), echoing μικροτράπεζοι in 1 (n.) and again setting up a contrast with 4 ὅλους. For the genitive of price, fr. 133.2 n. Second-person singular λήψει is used here in place of a less direct and thus less emotional λήψεταί τις, as at Ar. Ra. 1236 λήψει γὰρ ὀβολοῦ πάνυ καλήν τε κἀγαθήν (“because you can get a very nice one for an obol”); Dionys. Com. fr. 2.21–2 πάντα μὲν λήψει σχεδὸν / αἰεὶ γάρ (“because you can almost always get anything”), and probably Pherecr. fr. 86 λήψει δ’ ἐν Ἅιδου κραπάταλον καὶ ψωθία (“in Hades you’ll get a minnow and bread-crumbs”). For λαμβάνω in the sense “buy”, fr. 27.12–14 n.

264

Antiphanes

4 For παρὰ δ’ ἡμετέροις προγόνοισιν, see Text. 4–5 ὅλους / βοῦς … σῦς, ἐλάφους, ἄρνας Cf. Ar. Ach. 85–6 (quoted in this same section of Athenaeus), where one of the Athenian ambassadors sent to visit the Great King reports that he served them ὅλους / ἐκ κριβάνου βοῦς (“whole bulls out of a baking shell”, i. e. whole roasted bulls) with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Hdt. 1.133.1 (at birthday feasts, wealthy Persians “serve an ox, a horse, a camel and a donkey, roasted whole in ovens”). For ὅλους, 1 n., 6–7 n. 5 βοῦς For cattle and sacrifices of cattle generally, frr. 22.2 n.; 227.7 n. ὤπτων For the verb, fr. 248.1–2 n. σῦς For pigs as sacrificial victims, fr. 124 n. ἐλάφους Deer (for which, see in general Keller 1909–1913 I.277–9; García Soler 2001. 235; Kitchell 2014. 44–6) are game- rather than domestic animals; references to hunting them in various ways at e. g. Il. 11.475–6; 15.271–2; 22.189–90; [Hes.] Sc. 407–8; E. Ion 1161–2; X. Cyn. 9.11; Cyr. 2.4.20. For a representation of Persian hunters roughly contemporary with Antiphanes, see Franks 2009. ἄρνας For whole baked lamb, cf. Diph. fr. 90.1–2 παρατίθημ’ ὁλοσχερῆ / ἄρν’ ἐς μέσον σύμπτυκτον, ὠνθυλευμένον (“I’m serving you a whole lamb, trussed to a skewer and stuffed”). 6 Adverbial τὸ τελευταῖον is colloquial late 5th/4th-century usage (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 197.2; Ar. Nu. 945; Hdt. 1.91.5; Th. 3.56.1; 8.8.2; Lys. 8.5; Antipho 5.41; X. HG 2.4.23; Isoc. 12.25; D. 19.175); absent from elevated poetry. ὁ μάγειρος For cooks (stock 4th-century comic characters, even if this one is apparently imagined as working in Persia), fr. 233.1 n. Part of the magic of this man’s cooking for the Great King is his ability to surprise (8 with n.). 6–7 ὅλον / τέρας (literally “a whole marvel”) picks up ὅλους at the end of 4 and is in apposition to θερμὴν … κάμηλον in 8, to which the adjective really belongs. τέρας (attested already in Homer) is widely distributed, but three of its eight attestations in Aristophanes are in lyric (Th. 701; Ra. 1343, 1371) and it seems to have a generally solemn, supernatural sense (put to humorous use here). 8 Forms of θερμός (cognate with English “warm”) are also used of “nice warm” food, i. e. cooked food at the perfect temperature for eating, at e. g. fr. 184.2 (saltfish); Telecl. fr. 34.1 (a cake); Ar. Eq. 354 (tuna steaks); Alc. Com. fr. 2.1 (bread); Axionic. fr. 8.2 (broth); Eub. fr. 14.3 (goose drumsticks); Alex. fr. 145.11 (“If our food isn’t θερμός, we say nasty things about it”). παρέθηκε For the verb, fr. 61.1 n. κάμηλον is a punchline: the specific character of the dish is revealed to the audience only after the long build-up τὸ τελευταῖον … ὅλον / τέρας … / θερμήν, in the same way it seemingly is to the King. This is not to suggest that there was or is anything particularly unusual about eating camel, only that it makes an appropriate, if for a Greek audience somewhat unexpected dish for an eastern potentate. Camels (included in a catalogue of “satrapal” wealth at fr. 223.3) were among the Persian spoils captured at Plataia (Hdt. 9.81.2) and were thus already familiar to Athenians in the 5th century; cf. also Ar. V. 1035 = Pax 758; Av. 278

Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ (fr. 170)

265

(associated with a Mede, i. e. a Persian), 1559, 1563; Philyll. fr. 22. Because they are primarily work-animals or are kept for their milk, they normally serve as a source of meat only occasionally, when animals are culled. For camels in the ancient world at various places and times, e. g. Keller 1887. 20–36, Keller 1909–1913 I.275–7; Schauenburg 1955–6; Schauenburg 1962; Nachtergael 1989; Köhler-Rollefson 1993; Jung 1994; Potts 2004; Pigière–Henrotay 2012; Kitchell 2014. 21–3 (with further bibliography). κάμηλος (first attested in Herodotus) is a Semitic loan-word; cf. Hebrew gamal.

266

Οἰωνιστής (Oiônistês) “The Bird-Prophet”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.32

Title Before the Roman period, οἰωνιστής (i. e. a man who watches the movements of birds and predicts the future on that basis) is otherwise exclusively epic vocabulary (Il. 2.858; 13.70; 17.218; [Hes.] Sc. 185); Poll. 7.188 identifies as alternative terms for the same occupation ὀρνιθοσκόπος (S. Ant. 999; Thphr. Char. 16.11; 19.8) and οἰωνοπόλος (Il. 1.69; 6.76; A. Supp. 57). See in general Halliday 1967. 246–71; Pollard 1977. 116–29; Mynott 2018. 245–59. For plays called after a profession, occupation or the like (presumably that of a central character), cf. Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Alexis wrote a Μάντεις (on which, see Arnott 1996. 440–1), while the Roman comic poets Afranius and Laberius both wrote an Augur. Afranius wrote in addition an Omen, Naevius an Ariolus. Note also Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης. Content Porphyry (preserved in Eus. praep. ev. 10.3.13) reports: Καικίλιος (fr. 164 Ofenloch = fr. 43 Augello) δέ, ὥς τι μέγα πεφορακώς, ὅλον ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰς τέλος Ἀντιφάνους, τὸν Οἰωνιστήν, μεταγράψαι φησὶ τὸν Μένανδρον εἰς τὸν Δεισιδαίμονα (“Caecilius (fr. 164 Ofenloch), as if having detected a great crime, says that Menander took an entire play by Antiphanes, his Oiônistês, and rewrote it from one end to the other into his Deisidaimôn”). Almost everything else that is known of Menander’s Deisidaimôn (“The Superstitious Man”) comes from Men. fr. 106 (Α.) ἀγαθόν τί μοι / γένοιτο ⟨lk⟩ ὦ πολύτιμοι θεοί, / ὑποδούμενος τὸν ἱμάντα 〈l〉 τῆς δεξιᾶς / ἐμβάδος ἀπέρρηξ’. (Β.) εἰκότως, ὦ φλήναφε· / σαπρὸς γὰρ ἦν, σὺ δὲ μικρολόγος 〈k〉 οὐ θέλων / καινὰς πρίασθαι. (“(A.) May something good happen for me, much-honored gods! As I was putting on my shoes, I broke the strap on the right one. (B.) As one might expect, you babbler—it was rotten! You’re a cheapskate who doesn’t want to buy new shoes”; see Olson 2007. 377 (J22)). In Theophrastus’ Characters (16.11), the Deisidaimôn consults not only professional dream-interpreters (ὀνειροπόλοι) but also seers (μάντεις) and bird-prophets (οἰωνισταί); the title-character in Menander’s play is seemingly a gullible fool (above); and the simplest conclusion would seem to be that he was the dupe of another character, after whom the original version of the play by Antiphanes (otherwise lost) was perhaps called. Antiphanes’ Anteia was supposedly reworked by Alexis in a similar way. For the reception of Antiphanes by later comic poets generally, see Introduction § 8. Date Unknown.

267

Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι (Homoiai vel Homoioi)

“Women who Were the Same” or “Men who Were the Same”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.338–9

Title and Content Athenaeus cites fr. 171 as from Ὅμοιαι, fr. 172 as from Ὅμοιοι. Meineke (followed by Kock) takes these to be two fragments of a single play, to which he assigns the title Ὅμοιοι, while Kassel–Austin offer the non liquet Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι as above. But there is no obvious reason why these should not have been two separate plays, like Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι and Δίδυμοι, which editors make no effort to combine into one, and Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία (where see Introduction). Although Ὅμοιαι / Ὅμοιοι means literally “Women / Men who Were the Same”, the sense is probably “Women / Men who Looked the Same”, suggesting a comedy of mistaken identities, like Plautus’ Amphitryo, Bacchides and Menaechmi, and most likely Antiphanes’ Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δίδυμοι, Διπλάσιοι and Ὁμώνυμοι. Posidippus Comicus also wrote a Ὅμοιαι, Ephippus a Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι, Alexis and / or Antidotus a Ὁμοία, and the Roman poet L. Afranius (early 1st century BC) an Aequales (a fabula togata). Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 171 K.–A. (173 K.) εὖ δ’ ἐγίγνεθ’, ὅτι φακῆν ἕψειν μ’ ἐδίδασκε τῶν ἐπιχωρίων τις εἷς 1 δ’ ἐγίγνεθ’ ὅτι Porson (ἐγίγνεθ’ Dindorf) : δεγινεθ’ η Ath.A : δ’ ἐγίνεθ’ ᾗ Desrousseaux : δὲ γίγνετ’ εἰ … / … μὲ διδάσκει Meineke : fort. εὖ δ’ ἐγίγνετ’· ἦ vel εὖ δὲ γίγνετ’· ἦ 2 ἑψεῖν Jacobs (ἕψειν Dindorf) : εψειη Ath.A τις εἷς Jacobs : τισεισ Ath.A : τις εὖ Blaydes

It turned out fine, since one [masc.] of the locals was teaching me to cook lentil soup Ath. 4.158c Ἀντιφάνης Ὁμοίαις· —— Antiphanes in Homoiai: ——

268

Antiphanes

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl x〉|lkl krkl llrl k|lrl klkl

Discussion Jacobs 1805. 21; Porson 1812. 71; Dindorf 1827 I.353; Meineke 1839–1857 III.95; Blaydes 1896. 110; Desrousseaux 1942. 85–6; Orth 2014. 1020 Text The central portion of 1 is problematic, and the various emendations proposed all restore the syntax without making clear and convincing sense of what is being said. The Ath.A-scribe was baffled by what he found in his exemplar, which he transcribed as δεγινεθ’ η. Porson converted this into δ’ ἐγίγνεθ’ ὅτι—for Dindorf ’s γίγν- in place of the paradosis γιν-, see fr. 30.2 Text—which is printed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin, although it would be more convincing if there were an easy, obvious explanation for how ὅτι was corrupted into η. Ath.A’s -εθ’ suggests that the next word was understood at some point in the tradition to have had a rough breathing, and Desrousseaux suggested εὖ δ’ ἐγίνεθ’ ᾗ (“It turned out fine, (in the place) where”); this has the virtue of remaining closer to the transmitted text than Porson’s proposal does, but leaves the sense even more obscure. Meineke moved the verbs into the present tense, which requires only a few minor changes and redivision of the letters, and wrote εἰ for η (i. e. ΕΙ for Η), producing δὲ γίγνετ’ εἰ … / … μὲ διδάσκει (“It’s fine, if one of the locals is teaching me”). Alternatively, one might take Ath.A’s η to represent the affirmative particle ἦ, making the second clause an explanation of the first (“It turned out fine; one of the locals assuredly …!” or “It’s fine; one of the locals assuredly …!”). At the beginning of 2, the paradosis εψειη (left unaccented by the Ath.A-scribe to indicate his inability to make sense of the text) was corrected to ἑψεῖν by Jacobs, with Dindorf giving the word the proper accent; a simple majuscule error (Η for Ν). At the end of 2, the Ath.A-scribe was again at a loss and wrote unaccented τισεις, which Jacobs cleverly converted into the rare but acceptable 5th/4th-century combination τις εἷς. Blaydes’ τις εὖ yields no better sense but requires an emendation, and is in any case awkward after εὖ at the beginning of the preserved portion of 1. Citation context The last in a collection of poetic texts at Ath. 4.158a–c that refer to φακῆ (lentil soup), the others being Sophil. fr. 10; Timo SH 787–8; Crates Theb. SH 353; Chrysipp. fr. 709a, SVF iii.178; Ar. frr. 165; 23; Epich. fr. 30, in that order. Ath. 4.156c–7a (preserving inter alia fr. 185, where see Citation context) is perhaps drawn from the same source. Interpretation As printed—see Text on 1—a retrospective account of events in a place where the speaker was an outsider (hence the reference to “the locals” in 2). As Wachsmuth 1885. 123 (cited by Kassel–Austin on Ar. fr. 165) observed, “to teach someone to cook lentil soup” looks like a proverbial expression for offering instruction in something any normal person already knows how to do; cf. archaic

Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι (172a)

269

English “teaching Grandma to suck eggs”. If so, this is not straightforward praise of the locals, and some other activity than preparing soup is in question. 1–2 φακῆν / ἕψειν For lentil soup (simple, homely food), cf. fr. dub. 185.5 ῥοφεῖν φακῆν ἐσθ’ ἡδὺ μὴ δεδοικότα (“to gulp down lentil soup unafraid is pleasant”) with n.; Epich. fr. 30 χύτρα δὲ φακέας ἥψετο (“he / she was cooking a pot of lentil soup”); Pherecr. fr. 26.1 λέκιθον ἕψουσ’ ἢ φακῆν (“cooking [fem.] gruel or lentil soup”); Ar. Eq. 1007; V. 811, 814, 918, 984; Pl. 192, 1004 πλουτῶν οὐκέθ’ ἥδεται φακῇ (“now that he’s rich, he no longer likes lentil soup”); frr. 23; 164; 165 πτισάνην διδάσκεις αὐτὸν ἕψειν ἢ φακῆν; (“are you teaching him to cook barley gruel or lentil soup?”); Stratt. fr. 47.2 ὅταν φακῆν ἕψητε (“whenever you [pl.] cook lentil soup”) with Orth 2009 ad loc.; Anaxipp. fr. 1.41; Diph. frr. 42.35–6; 60.7; 64.2; Men. Carch. fr. 1.2 Sandbach = fr. 226.2 Koerte = [Carch. fr. 4.2 Kassel] ἑψήσω φακῆν (“I’ll cook lentil soup”); Timo SH 787 τὸ φακῆν ἕψειν (“cooking lentil soup”); Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1.10, 17. For the contraction, note Euphro fr. 3.2 φακέαν τὴν φακῆν (“(when you refer to) phakên as phakean”). For lentils, “among the oldest and the most appreciated grain legumes of the Old World”, see García Soler 2001. 68–9; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 77–82 (quote at 77). For the verb (basic culinary vocabulary), fr. 248.1–2 n. 2 ἐπιχώριος is first attested at A. Supp. 661 (lyric) and Emp. 31 B 62.8 D.–K., and is common in 5th/4th-century poetry (e. g. fr. 20.3; Ar. V. 859; Th. 907; Pi. O. 13.74; P. 9.103; S. OT 1046; E. IT 280) and prose (e. g. Hdt. 1.181.5; Th. 4.17.2; X. Cyr. 8.8.11; Pl. R. 327a).101 For the formation, see Strömberg 1946. 80. For the combination τις εἷς, which does not obviously mean anything more than either τις or εἷς alone, cf. S. Ant. 269 λέγει τις εἷς with Jebb 1906 ad loc.; Th. 6.61.2 τινα μίαν νύκτα; Ion FGrH 392 F 6.41 τις εἷς τῶν χρηστῶν Ἀθηναίων; Pl. Tht. 189a ὁ ἁπτόμενος δή του ἑνός γέ; Sph. 235b τοῦ γένους εἶναι τοῦ τῶν θαυματοποιῶν τις εἷς; Plt. 301c τις εἷς ἄρχων; and see fr. 225.3 Text n.

fr. 172a (172.1–4 K.–A. = 174.3–6 K.) ὡς δ’ ἐδείπνησαν (συνάψαι βούλομαι γὰρ τἀν μέσῳ) καὶ Διὸς Σωτῆρος ἦλθε Θηρίκλειον ὄργανον τῆς τρυφερᾶς ἀπὸ Λέσβου σεμνογόνου σταγόνος πλῆρες, ἀφρίζον, ἕκαστος δεξιτερᾷ δ’ ἔλαβεν 1 τἀν Koppiers : τὰ Ath.A Casaubon

101

3 σεμνογόνου Kaibel : σεμνοπόνου Ath.ACE : σεμνοπότου

Olson 2017. 255 (on Eup. fr. 80) gets the distribution wrong, having failed to pick up forms of the word that feature crasis or elision such as τἀπιχώρια, ’πιχωρία and κἀπιχωρίοις.

270

Antiphanes

But when they ate dinner—for I want to offer a summary account of what went on in the middle— and a Thericlean product dedicated to Zeus the Savior arrived, full of the luxurious, nobly-born drop from Lesbos, and foaming, and each man seized it with his right hand Ath. 11.471c μνημονεύει τοῦ ἐκπώματος καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ὁμοίοις οὕτως· —— Antiphanes too mentions the cup in Homoioi as follows: ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic (1–2) and dactylo-epitrite (3–4, D l D102).

lkll lkll lkll lklk lkklkkl l lkklkkl l

| lkll lkl | lklk lkl lkklkkl lkklkkl

Discussion Koppiers 1771. 50; Meineke 1839–1857 III.94–5; Cobet 1858. 132–3; Bergk 1882. 617–18; Kaibel 1887–1890 III.35; Wilamowitz 1900. 86; Handley 1965. 300; Pretagostini 1987. 254–5; Olson 2007. 304–5 (H6) Text The unusual mix of meters in passages from the same play, the shared subject matter, and the fact that both snippets of text are drawn from Athenaeus, led Meineke to combine fr. 172a and 172b, with the two lines of fr. 172b coming first (thus also Kock), while Kassel–Austin also assign all six verses to a single fragment, but in reverse order. There is obviously some intimate connection between the passages Athenaeus cites. But there is also no way of knowing whether other material originally stood between them, or which came first, and they are therefore better printed as two individual fragments. Editors routinely print temporal ὡς (LSJ s. v. Ad) at the beginning of 1, which allows the fragment to be understood as a description of three consecutive actions; see Interpretation. ὥς (“thus”; LSJ s. v. A), with a half-stop at the end of the line, by contrast, would point back to something just said (e. g. an account of the dishes that were served, or of the attitude with which the guests approached them, with the speaker here foreswearing any specific discussion of the point). LSJ calls this use of the word “freq(uent) in Hom(er) … rare in Att(ic), and almost confined to certain phrases”, which counts against it here, although the elevated tone means that a pointed epicism is conceivable. The paradosis τὰ near the end of 1 is unmetrical, hence Koppiers’ τἀν, for which cf. D. 18.215 ἵνα τἀν μέσῳ παραλείπω; 39.4 ἵνα τἀν μέσῳ συντέμω.

102

Supposedly known as a Choerilium or Diphilium; see Diph. test. 18 (with primary sources and secondary bibliography, including Perusino 1979. 137–8).

Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι (172a)

271

Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin all place an unnecessary comma at the end of 2. In 3, Athenaeus’ σεμνοπόνου (“fancily labored at” vel sim.; a hapax) is strange sense in a place where one would expect a celebratory adjective to match τρυφερᾶς. Meineke and Kock print Casaubon’s σεμνοπότου (~ “fancily drunk”, i. e. “costly to drink” (thus LSJ s. v.), “pompously drunk” or the like), while Kassel–Austin adopt Kaibel’s σεμνογόνου, which both fits a standard way of speaking about distinguished wine (see Interpretation) and is easier on palaeographic grounds (with the error to be traced to confusion of Γ and Π). Neither σεμνόποτος nor σεμνόγονος is attested elsewhere, but note e. g. εὔποτος and ἡδύποτος, and ἀρχαιόγονος, νεόγονος and παλαίγονος (all poetic), respectively. Citation context From an extended discussion of “Thericlean” vessels of various sorts at Ath. 11.470d–2e within the long, roughly alphabetical catalogue of cups and related vessels that makes up most of Book 11 of the Deipnosophists. Alex. fr. 88; Thphr. HP 5.3.2; Theopomp. Com. fr. 33; Cleanth. fr. 591, SVF i.133; Pamphil. fr. X Schmidt, in that order, are cited immediately before this, and Eub. frr. 30; 56; 42; Alex. frr. 101; 5; Timae. FGrH 566 F 33; Callix. FGrH 627 F 2a; Alex. fr. 124; Men. Theophor. fr. 4 Körte–Thierfelder = fr. 226 Kock; fr. 235 K.–A.; Dioxipp. fr. 4; Polemon fr. 1 Preller; Apollod. Gel. fr. 4; Aristopho fr. 13; Theophil. frr. 2; 10, in that order, immediately after this. Not all of the text is preserved in the Epitome, hence the reference to Ath.ACE at one point in the apparatus, but to Ath.A alone at another. Interpretation A description of three actions that logically follow one another: the men in question eat dinner, i. e. the meal is complete; a cup arrives, i. e. the symposium begins; and each man in turn takes the cup in his hand, i. e. to offer a toast and drink. The main action, toward which all this is building, must have been mentioned in what followed.103 The speaker is not obviously a member of the group whose actions and experiences he describes, and he is perhaps better imagined as e. g. a cook or a slave who has emerged from the house within which the party is going on. The language of 2–4 in particular is distinctly elevated; Handley characterizes it as “pseudo-dithyrambic, presumably sung”. Philoxenos of Leucas’ Δεῖπνον (“Dinner-party”; early 4th century BCE?), substantial portions of which are preserved by Athenaeus (five individual fragments combined = PMG 836), is also in dactylo-epitrite. Kassel–Austin follow Bergk 103

On Kassel–Austin’s arrangement of the text (with a comma after ἔλαβεν and fr. 172b placed immediately after that), two more actions—the introduction of “a dance or a second table” and setting the latter beside a guest “loaded with cakes”—follow and are performed by the same individuals who take hold of the Thericlean cup in 4. But guests do not serve dinner, and fr. 172b is more easily understood as describing the behavior of a host or symposiarch, who must be working in the second case through the slaves under his command.

272

Antiphanes

and Wilamowitz in believing that Antiphanes was imitating—i. e. mocking?— Philoxenos in frr. 172a–b. This might be true, although the alternative possibility is that these are merely two separate, roughly contemporary examples of dactylo-epitrite being put to what was for some reason regarded at the time as an amusingly appropriate use of the meter. Alex. fr. 137 “a slice of sausage has arrived, and some mincemeat” (again D l D) appears to be another example of the same phenomenon. 1 The point of the γάρ-clause is seemingly that ὡς δ’ ἐδείπνησαν is all that will be said about exactly what went on during the dinner itself (although see Text), the speaker being more interested in offering a full and circumstantial account of the symposium that followed (2–4). συνάπτω is 5th/4th-century vocabulary (first attested at A. Pers. 336, 724, 742, 885; Ag. 1609, and at Pi. P. 4.247). For τὰ (ἐ)ν μέσῳ, see Text; not “the interval”, as at Rusten 2011. 504. 2 Διὸς Σωτῆρος For Zeus the Savior and the “genitive of the toast”, fr. 3.2 n., and note esp. Eub. fr. 56 (a group drinking to Zeus the Savior from a large Thericleian cup). ἦλθε For similar verbs used of the arrival of food or drink—nominally under its own power—before the guests at a dinner party or symposium, cf. fr. 131.1 ἥξει with n.; Ar. fr. 546 ἥκειν; Nicostr. Com. fr. 5.1 ἐπιβακχευσάτω, 2 παρεισίτω; Ephipp. fr. 8.1 εἰσῆλθε, 3 ἧκε; Alex. fr. 137 ἧκεν; Epigen. fr. 1.1 ἔρχεται; adesp. com. fr. 1064.20–3; Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.7, 10, 13 (the latter two quoted in fr. 180.2 n.); Matro fr. 1.22 with Olson–Sens 1999 ad loc.; Hunter 1983. 128 on Eub. fr. 36.1 ἐπεισέπλει. Fr. 205.3 παταξάτο, 4 παρελθέτω seems to be reminiscent of this usage. Θηρίκλειον ὄργανον looks like a bit of mock high-style language; cf. LSJ s. v. ὄργανον II (“work or product”) and the passages cited there, on the one hand, and e. g. Ar. Av. 939 Πινδάρειον ἔπος (lyric); Th. 919 τὴν Τυνδάρειον παῖδ’ (epic parody), on the other, and note in general Theopomp. Com. fr. 33.1 Θηρικλέους πιστὸν τέκνον (addressed to a drinking cup). According to Ath. 11.470f (citing no source104), Thericles was a Corinthian potter contemporary with Aristophanes, putting him in the late 5th or early 4th century BCE, a generation or so earlier than Antiphanes. For the various drinking and mixing vessels that came to be associated with his name (clearly fashionable in Athens in the 4th and early 3rd centuries BCE), note, in addition to the various fragments listed in Citation context, Antisth. SSR V A 64; Dionys. Com. fr. 5; Epigen. fr. 5.1; Eub. fr. 56; Dioxipp. fr. 5.1; Istrus FGrH 334 F 47 (all similarly preserved by Athenaeus); IG II3,1 1010.158 (a dedication of a θηρίκλειον in the sanctuary of Asklepios, in an inventory from 248/7 BCE), and see Miller 1921.

104

Perhaps Cleanthes, given his apparent interest in the historical Thericles, as attested in fr. 591, SVF i.133 (quoted by Athenaeus at 11.471b).

Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι (172b)

273

3 Wine from Lesbos is mentioned repeatedly in ancient sources (e. g. Clearch. Com. fr. 5; Ephipp. fr. 28; Alex. frr. 276–8 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Archestr. fr. 59.3–4 (quoted below) with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc., 8–9) and was clearly a prestige product. For archaeological evidence for the Lesbian wine-trade, see Clinkenbeard 1982. For the Athenian wine-trade generally, see Lawall 2000. τρυφερᾶς (late 5th/4th-century vocabulary) is also a term of praise at e. g. fr. 200.4; Ar. V. 551; Ec. 901; Eub. fr. 107.2. Cf. fr. 142.7 τρυφῆς with n. For σεμνογόνου, see Text, and for the image of wine as a person with a place of birth and ideally a long life behind it, compare fr. 234.1 with n.; Alex. fr. 124.2 (quoted in 4 n.) with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Men. Dysc. 946 εὔιον γέροντα πολιόν with Handley 1965 on 946–53 and 946–7; Archestr. fr. 59.3–4 οἶνον … / … ἐκ Λέσβου περικύμονος ἐκγεγαῶτα (“a wine from wave-girt Lesbos by birth”). σταγών (first attested in Aeschylus’ Oresteia, e. g. Ag. 888; Ch. 400) and cognates are primarily poetic vocabulary; elsewhere in similar contexts in comedy at Ephipp. fr. 28.2 πολλὴ δὲ Λεσβία σταγὼν ἐκπίνεται (“and many Lesbian drops are drained”); Eub. fr. 121.2 Λέσβιον γέροντα νεκταροσταγῆ (“an old Lesbian man dripping nektar”; of wine), and cf. the over-the-top Ar. Ra. 471 αἱματοσταγής (“blood-dripping”) with Dover 1993 ad loc.; Moero AP 6.119.2 βότρυ, Διωνύσου πληθόμενος σταγόνι (“grape-cluster, full of drops of Dionysus”). 4 πλῆρες, ἀφρίζον Cf. fr. 234.2–3 with n.; Alex. fr. 124.2–3 λευκοῦ νέκταρος παλαιγενοῦς / πλήρης, ἀφρίζων (“full of ancient-born white nektar, foaming”; also of a Thericlean cup) with Arnott 1996 ad loc. δεξιτερός is elevated (primarily epic) poetic vocabulary (e. g. Il. 7.108; Od. 15.148; Hes. Th. 179; hAp. 535; attested also at e. g. Tyrt. fr. 11.25; Thgn. 758; Pi. P. 4.35; Parm. 28 B 1.23 D.–K.; Theoc. 22.121; Call. Dian. 214; nowhere else in comedy or tragedy).

fr. 172b (172.5–6 K.–A. = 174.1–2 K.) εἶτ’ ἐπεισῆγεν χορείαν ἢ τράπεζαν δευτέραν καὶ παρέθηκε γέμουσαν πέμμασι παντοδαποῖς Then he used to bring in after this a dance or a second table, and he set it beside (the guests) loaded with cakes of every sort Ath. 14.641f–2a ἐδίδοτο δὲ καὶ ᾠὸν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τραπέζῃ, ὥσπερ καὶ λαγῷα καὶ κίχλαι κοινῇ μετὰ τῶν μελιπήκτων εἰσεφέρετο, ὡς Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Λεπτινίσκῳ φησὶν οὕτως (fr. 138)· ——. ἐν δὲ Ὁμοίοις· —— An egg was also offered on the second table, just as hare-meat and thrushes were brought in along with the honey-cakes, as Antiphanes says in Leptiniskos, as follows (fr. 138): ——. And in Homoioi: ——

274

Antiphanes

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic (1) and dactylo-epitrite (2, D l D).

lkll lkll | lkll lkl lkklkkl l lkklkkl

Discussion Text

See fr. 172a Discussion.

See fr. 172a Text.

Citation context From a long discussion of symposium-snacks generally and the various terms for them (Ath. 14.640a–2f), this portion of which appears to be drawn from Book I of Dikaiarchos’ Descent into Trophonios’ Shrine (fr. 19 Wehrli = fr. 80 Mirhady; cited at 14.641e). Anaxandr. fr. 2; Clearch. Com. fr. 4; Eub. fr. 44; Alex. frr. 190; 168, follow, in that order. Interpretation See in general fr. 172a n. Once the two fragments are disassociated, this one is most easily understood as describing the actions of a τραπεζοποιός (fr. 150 n.) or a similar figure, who stage-manages the party for the host. εἶτ(α) in 1 makes it clear that this is only one in a series of activities this person is supposed to have engaged in, while the initial prefix on ἐπεισῆγεν suggests that what he or she is doing—perhaps merely inter alia—is introducing the company to a variety of pleasant experiences. The contrast of tense between the imperfect ἐπεισῆγεν and aorist παρέθηκε in 2 might be understood as nothing more than a response to metrical necessity. But the imperfect also suits the fact that what are described here are two alternative possibilities (thus 1 ἤ): this is an account of someone’s practice, not historical reportage. Contrast the repeated, consistent use of the aorist in fr. 172a.1, 2, 4. 1 χορείαν i. e. a dance-performance (like the one at e. g. X. Smp. 2); the point is not that the guests themselves dance, but that they watch others doing so.105 For symposium entertainment of this sort, see in general Olson–Sens 1999 on Matro fr. 1.121. 1–2 τράπεζαν δευτέραν / … γέμουσαν πέμμασι παντοδαποῖς After the banquet-portion of a Greek dinner party was over, the tables on which the food had been served were removed and the guests were offered water to wash their hands (fr. 280 nn.). Libations were then made (see fr. 3.2 n.), and the so-called “second tables” (mentioned already at Pi. O. 1.50; see Noussia 2001 for an attempt to push the practice back to at least the beginning of the 6th century) were brought in, loaded e. g. with perfume, garlands and incense (cf. frr. 162.4 n.; 238.2 nn.) and with dainties (τραγήματα; see fr. 273.1 n.) of every sort, such as roasted birds (fr. 89.2 n.) and hare (e. g. Alex. fr. 168.5; Archestr. fr. 57 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.); nuts, beans and chickpeas (e. g. Ephipp. frr. 13.2, 5; 24.1; Mnesim. fr. 7.4–6); eggs (e. g. Amphis fr. 9.3; Ephipp. fr. 8.4); and cakes (2 with n,.). Cf. Pherecr. fr.

105

That actual dancing is in question in fr. 111 is unclear, and whatever is going on, is in any case presented as disgusting behavior.

Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι (172b)

275

73.1–3; Nicostr. Com. fr. 27 καὶ σὺ μὲν / τὴν δευτέραν τράπεζαν εὐτρεπῆ ποίει, / κόσμησον αὐτὴν παντοδαποῖς τραγήμασι, / μύρον, στεφάνους, λιβανωτόν, αὐλητρίδα λαβέ (“and you get the second table ready! fit it out with dainties of every sort, perfume, garlands, incense! get a pipe-girl!”); Archipp. fr. 11 † ἰτρίοις ἐπιφορήμασί τ’ ἄλλοις γέμουσα † (“(a table) loaded with sesame-honey cakes and desserts of other sorts”); Anaxandr. fr. 2.1–3 ὡς δ’ ἐστεφανώθην, ἡ τράπεζ’ ἐσῄρετο / τοσαῦτ’ ἔχουσα βρώμαθ’ ὅσα μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς / καὶ τὰς θεὰς οὐδ’ ἔνδον ὄντ’ ᾔδειν ἐγώ (“after I was garlanded, the table was brought in holding more food, by the gods and goddesses, than I had ever seen inside”); Clearch. Com. fr. 4.2–3 ⟨ἡ⟩ παῖς, ἐπιτίθει / ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν κάρυα καὶ τραγήματα (“Slave-girl! Put nuts and dainties on the table!”); Eub. fr. 44.1 τραγημάτων δ’ ἔσθ’ ἡ τράπεζά σοι πλέα (“your table’s full of dainties”); Alex. fr. 176 παρέθηκε τὴν τράπεζαν, εἶτα παραφέρων / ἀγαθῶν ἁμάξας (“he / she set the table beside (me / him / them), then serving wagon-loads of goodies”); Philox. Leuc. PMG 836e.3; Olson–Sens 1999 on Matro fr. 1.111. 2 For παρατίθημι (the vox propria for serving food), frr. 61.1 n.; 112.2 n. πέμμα (< πέττω, “bake”) is first attested at Sol. fr. 38.3; Stesich. PMG 179a = fr. 3 Finglass “sesame-cakes and wheat-pudding and honey-and-oil cakes and other pemmata”, and is a generic term for “baked cake”. For specific types, cf. frr. 55.11 with n. and 143.2 πλακοῦς; 89.2 ἄμητας with n.; 273.1 ἐγκρίδας with n., and see in general Brumfield 1997; García Soler 2001. 379. παντοδαπός is first attested at Sapph. fr. 152 and hDem. 402; the source of the suffix (cf. τηλεδαπός, ποδαπός, ἡμεδαπός) is obscure.

276

Ὁμοπάτριοι (Homopatrioi) “Men who Share a Father”

Introduction Title ὁμοπάτριοι are “half-brothers on their father’s side”; contrast ὁμομήτριοι, “half-brothers on their mother’s side”. For other titles referring to family relationships of one sort or another, cf. Ἀδελφαί, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δίδυμοι, Ἐπίκληρος and Πρόγονοι, and see in general Arnott 2010. 316–17 (but omitting this example). Menander also wrote a Ὁμοπάτριοι. Content Probably a comedy centered on the complicated, intertwined affairs of an extended family, like Ἀδελφαί (where see Introduction) and Πρόγονοι. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 173 K.–A. (175 K.)

5

ἐν Ἡλίου μέν φασι γίγνεσθαι πόλει φοίνικας, ἐν Ἀθήναις δὲ γλαῦκας. ἡ Κύπρος ἔχει πελείας διαφόρους, ἡ δ’ ἐν Σάμῳ Ἥρα τὸ χρυσοῦν, φασίν, ὀρνίθων γένος, τοὺς καλλιμόρφους καὶ περιβλέπτους ταὧς

1 γίγνεσθαι Dindorf : γίνεσθαι Ath.ACE 4 Ἥρα τὸ Ath.CE Eust. : ἤρατο Ath.A

5

3 διαφόρ(ους) Eust. : διφόρους Ath.ACE

People claim that there are phoenixes in Heliopolis, and little owls in Athens. Cyprus has special doves, and Samian Hera, they say, (has) her extraordinary breed of birds, the gorgeous and much-admired peacocks

Ath. 14.655a–b Μηνόδοτος δ’ ὁ Σάμιος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν Κατὰ τὸ Ἱερὸν τῆς Σαμίας Ἥρας (FGrH 541 F 2) φησίν· οἱ ταοὶ ἱεροί εἰσι τῆς Ἥρας. καὶ μήποτε πρώτιστοι καὶ ἐγένοντο καὶ ἐτράφησαν ἐν Σάμῳ καὶ ἐντεῦθεν εἰς τοὺς ἔξω τόπους διεδόθησαν, ὡς καὶ οἱ ἀλεκτρυόνες ἐν τῇ Περσίδι καὶ αἱ καλούμεναι μελεαγρίδες ἐν τῇ Αἰτωλίᾳ· διὸ καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν τοῖς Ὁμοπατρίοις φησίν· ——

Ὁμοπάτριοι (fr. 173)

277

Menodotus of Samos says in his On the Contents of the Temple of Samian Hera (FGrH 541 F 2): The peacocks are sacred to Hera. And it may be that they were first bred and kept on Samos, and were dispersed from there to other regions, just as roosters (originated) in Persia and the so-called meleagrides (originated) in Aetolia; which is why Antiphanes says in Homopatrioi: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

klkl l|lk|l llkl lrkl llk|l klkl klkl l|rkl llkl llkl l|lk|l klkl llkl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Dindorf 1827 III.1458; Meineke 1839–1857 III.96; Herwerden 1876. 322; Kock 1884 II.83; Orth 2014. 1020 Text In 1, Dindorf ’s γίγνεσθαι rather than the paradosis γίνεσθαι is the standard spelling of the word in this period (Threatte 1980. 562); see fr. 30.2 Text for similar errors in various forms of γιγνώσκω and γίγνομαι. In 3, διαφόρους must be Eustathius’ own correction of the unmetrical paradosis διφόρους (“double-bearing”, i. e. producing two broods every year? or consistently producing two eggs or more per brood?).106 At the beginning of 4, the scribe responsible for producing the common exemplar of the Epitome manuscripts (one of which was known to Eustathius) divided the letters ΗΡΑΤΟ correctly, as the Ath.A-copyist (or the copyist of the manuscript on which he was dependent) did not. At the end of 5, Meineke was the first editor to print ταὧς with internal aspiration. Citation context From the end of a brief treatment of peacocks at Ath. 14.654d– 5b, as part of a discussion of meat and birds at Ath. 14.654a–8a closely related to a much more extended treatment of the same topic at Ath. 9.373a–403d, where 9.397a–8b (citing inter alia fr. 203.1–2; Eub. fr. 113; Eup. fr. 41; Ar. Av. 102, 269, in that order) is also devoted to peacocks.107 Fr. 203 (complete); Alex. fr. 128; Stratt. fr. 28; Anaxandr. fr. 29; Anaxil. fr. 24, in that order, are cited immediately before this. Interpretation A catalogue of exceptional birds found in specific places, perhaps setting up a contrast with some other place and its avifauna. But particular attention is paid to Samos’ peacocks via the elaborate periphrasis ἡ δ’ ἐν Σάμῳ / Ἥρα in 3–4 (n.); the riddling apposition of 4 τὸ χρυσοῦν … ὀρνίθων γένος to 5 τοὺς καλλιμόρφους καὶ περιβλέπτους ταὧς, with the crucial word reserved for the very 106 107

Doves lay one or more often two eggs up to half a dozen times a year, so that “double-bearing” doves would be unexceptional on any count. Less likely taken over from Menodotus, as FGrH seems to imply.

278

Antiphanes

end; and the elaborate “poetic” adjectives (4 n., 5 n.). Note also the variatio: the birds are the subject of an accusative-infinitive construction in 1–2 γλαῦκας, but the direct objects of ἔχει in 2 ἡ Κύπρος–5. The repeated resort to φασί(ν) (1, 4) is striking: this is what “people say”, not what the speaker himself or herself knows to be the case, and the reports of the presence of phoenixes in Heliopolis and of peacocks on Samos are thus distinguished from the unremarkable observations that little owls are found in Athens and special doves on Cyprus. 1–2 ἐν Ἡλίου … πόλει Egyptian Heliopolis—to be distinguished from Heliopolis (Baalbek) in Syria—was a very old city located at the beginning of the Delta in a place now occupied by Matariya, one of the northern suburbs of Cairo. Cf. Hdt. 2.3.1 with Lloyd 1976 ad loc., 2.7.1, 2, 2.59.3; Str. 17.806 (reporting that he was shown a house in Heliopolis that had supposedly belonged to Plato, who the local priests claimed spent thirteen years there learning about cosmology and various mystical matters); Kákosy, Lexikon der Agyptologie II 1111–13; Dubrowolska–Dubrowolski 2006. 11–32 (popular); Nuzzolo–Krejči 2017 (with attention primarily to the Old Kingdom period). Herodotus (2.73) associates the φοῖνιξ—about which he is skeptical; mentioned before this at Hes. fr. 304.3–4 M.–W. = fr. 254.3–4 Most, as extraordinarily long-lived—specifically with Heliopolis, noting that drawings he had seen depicted it as having a mix of gold and red feathers and as about the same size and shape as an eagle. See in general Thompson 1936. 306–9; Lloyd 1976 on Hdt. 2.73. For Egypt in comedy, see in general Sofia 2016. 2 The γλαῦξ is the Little Owl (Athena noctua), which was closely associated with Athens (Ar. Av. 301 τίς γλαῦκ’ Ἀθήναζ’ ἤγαγεν;, “Who brought an owl to Athens?”, used proverbially of something unneeded, with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.; Thompson 1950, with nice illustrations of a series of Athenian “owl” coins; Bühler 1982 on Zenob. Ath. II.12 (on the proverb); van Alfen 2004–2005, a large hoard of “owls” more or less contemporary with Antiphanes; Kreuzer 2010; Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1086) and in particular with the city’s patron goddess (e. g. Ar. Eq. 1092–3; Av. 516 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.) and her sanctuary on the Acropolis (Ar. Lys. 760). For the bird itself, see in general Keller 1909–1913 II.39–45; Thompson 1936. 76–80; Arnott 2007. 55–6 (with further bibliography). 2–3 ἡ Κύπρος / ἔχει πελείας διαφόρους For Cyprus and its doves or pigeons, a common symbol on the local coins, cf. fr. 200.6 (where the word used is περιστερά) with n., and contrast Alex. fr. 58, where it is instead Sicilian pigeons (again περιστεραί) that are taken to be special. Arist. HA 544b2–5 attempts to discriminate between πελειάς and περιστερά, specifying that the πελειάς is smaller than the περιστερά and less easily domesticated, and thus less commonly kept. But the other evidence we have suggests that πέλεια or πελειάς (< Indo-European *pel-, meaning “gray”; cf. Latin palumbes and palleo, “be pale”) is the poetic word for the bird (e. g. Il. 22.140; Od. 12.62; hAp. 114; A. Th. 294; S. Ai. 140; E. Andr. 1140; Ion 1197; Lamprocl. PMG 736.2; A.R. 1.1050), περιστερά (no etymology) the

Ὁμοπάτριοι (fr. 173)

279

common one, at least in Attic.108 Despite LSJ s. vv., the distinction is not between domesticated περιστερά and wild πέλεια; note references to wild περιστεραί at Ar. Av. 1082 (caught and sold in the market) with Dunbar 1995 on 302; Lys. 754–5 (wild birds living on the Acropolis); Pl. Tht. 197c, 198d. See in general Keller 1909–1913 II.122–31; Thompson 1936. 238–47; Arnott 2007. 170–1, 177–9 (with extensive bibliography). For διάφορος, fr. 240.1 n. 3–5 For Samos (mentioned also in fr. *212, as a source of oil) generally, see Shipley 1987, esp. 129–68. For Hera’s association with the place, see already Hdt. 2.182.1 with Lloyd 1978 ad loc. 4 χρυσοῦς appears to be used here as a general adjective of commendation (LSJ s. v. III), as also at fr. 210.5 (of a person’s manner); Amphis fr. 17.1 (being left alone is a χρυσοῦν πρᾶγμα); Alex. fr. 131.4–5 (an excellent law) with Arnott 1996 ad loc. Most likely colloquial; cf. Pl. Phdr. 235e φίλτατος εἶ καὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς χρυσοῦς (“you’re a wonderful friend and literally gold”); Men. Dysc. 675 ὁ χρυσοῦς (ironic) with Handley 1965 ad loc. 5 καλλίμορφος is rare poetic vocabulary (also E. Andr. 1155; HF 925). Cf. the similarly innovative δύσμορφος at E. Hel. 1204, and ποικιλόμορφος at Ar. Pl. 530 (of elaborate clothing worn by a bride; attested nowhere else before the late Roman period). περίβλεπτος (literally “looked at from all sides”) has similar origins in Euripidean tragedy (Andr. 89; HF 508; IA 429), but by the 4th century has made its way into Attic prose (e. g. X. Eq. 10.1; Isoc. 16.48); attested nowhere else in comedy. ταὧς Peafowl (Pavo cristatus; related to pheasants) are originally from India, and the first ones in Athens are supposed to have belonged to Pyrilampes son of Antiphon (PA 12493; PAA 795965), who acquired them sometime in the late 440s BCE and exhibited them to all comers on the first day of the month (Antipho fr. 57; adesp. com. fr. 702 ap. Plu. Per. 13.15; Davies 1971. 329–30). Pyrilampes traveled several times as an ambassador to the Great King and other eastern powers (Pl. Chrm. 158a) and probably got his peafowl as a gift from Artaxerxes, as the mention of such birds at Ar. Ach. 63 in connection with other ambassadors to Persia may hint. Alternatively, his birds may have come from Hera’s temple on Samos when Pericles captured the island sometime around 440 BCE, and it is tempting to think that they originally got there as well as dedications by some Eastern potentate. Numismatic evidence supports the association of peafowl with Samos; see Gardner 1882. For domesticated peafowl, also fr. 203.1–2 (numerous in contemporary Athens); Eup. fr. 41 (their harsh, jarring cry); Stratt. fr. 28 (raised 108

Cf. English “dove” (an attractive and useful bird, of the sort that settled at a crucial moment on Jesus’ head; see Dixon 2009 with extensive bibliography) vs. “pigeon” (generally regarded as a pest). Herodotus uses πελειάς five times in the course of a single anecdote at 2.55, 57, but περιστερά at 1.138.2, and the Hippocratic authors also use both in different treatises (at e. g. Mul. 189.4 = 8.370.4 Littré; περιστερά at Vict. 47.7 = 6.548.5 Littré; 81.13 = 6.628.16 Littré).

280

Antiphanes

for their feathers); Alex. fr. 128 (prohibitively expensive to eat) with Arnott 1996 on fr. 115.14; Eub. fr. 113 (rare); Anaxandr. fr. 29 (extremely expensive) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Anaxil. fr. 24 (seemingly another reference to their screaming), and see in general Thompson 1936. 277–81; Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 102; Miller 1997. 189–92; Arnott 2007. 235–8 (with extensive bibliography). The name is a loanword from some unidentified Eastern language, hence the internal aspiration, which must represent an attempt to imitate the original pronunciation.

281

Ὀμφάλη (Omphalê) “Omphale”

Introduction Discussion

Webster 1952. 14; Schiassi 1955. 108–10; Gelli 2007. 31–2

Title and Content Omphale was a Lydian queen to whom Herakles was sold as a slave at Zeus’ command after he murdered Iphitos; at least in later sources, Herakles was humiliated by Omphale by being forced to wear women’s clothing, work at spinning and weaving, and the like. See S. Tr. 67–71, 248–53, 274–8; Pherecyd. FGrH 3 F 82b; Plu. Per. 24.6; Suhr 1953; Schauenburg 1960; Brommer 1985. 210–13; Volkommer 1988; Gantz 1993. 439–42; Cyrino 1998. 214–26; Boardman, LIMC VII.1.45–6; Fowler 2013. 318–21. The story has obvious comic potential, and Cratinus Jun. also wrote an Omphalê, while the 5th-century tragic poets Ion (TrGF 19) and Achaeus (TrGF 20) produced satyr plays with the same title. Antiphanes’ play may thus have been a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία?, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλωψ, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Alternatively, Omphale might be a courtesan’s name rather than that of the mythological queen herself; or perhaps the two ideas were combined, with the action set in contemporary Athens (cf. fr. 174) but Herakles (as slave) and Omphale (as his courtesan mistress) as leading characters. Meineke 1839–1857 III.96 suggested that fr. 249 (n.) might belong to this play as well. Date Unknown, although the reference to Thearion in fr. 174 (n.) would seem to suggest that the play belongs early in Antiphanes’ career.

Fragments fr. 174 K.–A. (176 K.)

5

πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις εὐγενὴς γεγὼς δύναιτ’ ἂν ἐξελθεῖν ποτ’ ἐκ τῆσδε στέγης ὁρῶν μὲν ἄρτους τούσδε λευκοσωμάτους ἱπνὸν κατέχοντας ἐν πυκναῖς διεξόδοις, ὁρῶν δὲ μορφὴν κριβάνοις ἠλλαγμένους, μίμημα χειρὸς Ἀττικῆς, οὓς δημόταις Θεαρίων ἔδειξεν;

282

Antiphanes

2 ποτ’ ἐκ τῆσδε Porson : ποτε δ᾿ ἐκ τῆς 1 γεγὼς Musurus : γεγονὼς Ath.A Ath.A 3 ὁρῶν μὲν Ath.DBQMMus : ὁρῶμεν Ath.A ἄρτους τούσδε Meineke : ἄρτους· τοὺς δὲ Ath.A : τοὺς δὲ del. Porson 4 κατέχοντας Meineke : κατεμπέχοντας Ath.A : καταμπέχοντας Musurus 6 δημόταις Porson : δηγοναις Ath.A

5

For how could any decent person ever leave this dwelling, when he sees these white-bodied loaves occupying an oven in constant shifts, and when he sees them changed in appearance by the baking-shells, a creation of an Attic hand,109 invented for his demesmen by Theariôn?

Ath. 3.112c–d τῶν δ’ Ἀττικῶν ἄρτων ὡς διαφόρων μνημονεύει καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ὀμφάλῃ οὕτως· —— Antiphanes refers to Attic bread as particularly good in Omphalê, as follows: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlk〉l k|lk|l klkl klkl llk|l llkl klkl l|lk|l klkl klrl k|lkl klkl klkl l|lkl llkl klkl k|lkl llkl klkl klk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Koppiers 1771. 51; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 II.283; Porson ap. Walpole 1805. 12, 91; Meineke 1818. 24; Schiassi 1955. 110; Kaibel ap. Kassel– Austin; Konstantakos 2000. 61–2 n. 9; Olson 2007. 265–6 (G2) Text At the end of 1, Ath.A’s γεγονώς is a legitimate form. But Attic poetry before Menander always uses Musurus’ γεγώς (in the editio princeps of the Deipnosophists), generally in precisely this position in the line (e. g. S. OT 1168; E. Supp. 896; cf. Philem. fr. 178.4 (trochaic tetrameter catalectic)); contrast γεγονώς at e. g. Men. Dysc. 611; Strato Com. fr. 1.49; Euphro fr. 1.3. The paradosis ποτε δ᾿ ἐκ τῆς στέγης at the end of 2 is unmetrical and appears to reflect a scribe’s desire to take 1–2 πῶς … ἐξελθεῖν; as an initial question followed by a second question that begins with πότε and thus seems to require that what was understood to be the particle δέ be moved into its normal (second) position in the clause. Corrected by Porson.

109

Not “skilled Attic replicas”, as at Rusten 2011. 505.

Ὀμφάλη (fr. 174)

283

Editors traditionally place a question mark at the end of 2, although the construction continues through to the end of 7, where I have put it instead. At the beginning of 3, Ath.A’s ὁρῶμεν (“we see”) mangles the sense and was corrected to ὁρῶν μὲν (balancing ὁρῶν δὲ in 5) by an anonymous 15th-century editor, with the emendation taken over by Musurus. In 3–4, Ath.A offers ἄρτους· τοὺς δὲ λευκοσωμάτους ἰπνὸν followed by the non-form κατεμπέχοντας. Musurus corrected the latter word to καταμπέχοντας, and Meineke and Kassel–Austin combine this with Porson’s suggestion that τοὺς δὲ be expelled from the text, printing ἄρτους λευκοσωμάτους ἰπνὸν / καταμπέχοντας. Kock adopted instead Meineke’s ἄρτους τούσδε λευκοσωμάτους / ἰπνὸν κατέχοντας, to which Kassel–Austin object that the resolution in the first foot of 4 is inappropriate to tragic parody. There is a more serious problem with the Musurus–Porson version of the text, however, which is that καταμπέχω ought to mean “contain” vel sim. (cf. fr. 1.5) and might thus be used to describe the oven but not the bread inside it. This is accordingly the wrong word, and Meineke’s solution—which also avoids the need to explain how the extra letters τοὺς δὲ / τούσδε got into the text in 3110—is to be preferred. For the aspiration on ἱπνὸν at the end of 3 (printed in the form ἰπνὸν by Kassel–Austin and earlier editors), see Threatte 1980. 503 (citing IG I3 4.B.15 hιπνε[ύεσθαι]). The line-numbering of the Kassel–Austin apparatus is confused, with both 4 καταμπέχοντας and 6 δημόταις mistakenly assigned to 5. At the end of 6, the Ath.A-scribe was unable to make sense of what he found in his exemplar and accordingly left the word unaccented as δηγοναις. Porson corrected this to δημόταις; originally ΔΗΝΟΓΑΙΣ for ΔΗΜΟΤΑΙΣ and then corrupted further from there? Citation context The first in a brief collection of passages (also Pl. Grg. 518b; Ar. frr. 177 (from Gêrytadês, which probably dates to the final decade of the 5th century); 1 (from Aiolosikôn, seemingly staged after the poet’s death in 388 BCE), in that order, immediately after this) that mention the baker Theariôn and are probably drawn from a Hellenistic or Roman-era catalogue of kômôidoumenoi, as part of a larger discussion at Ath. 3.109b–16a of bread of all sorts. Interpretation An explanation of some preceding remark, hence γάρ in 1. The simplest interpretation of the demonstratives in 2 and 3 is that the speaker is referring to the place where the action is going on and to objects that are visible onstage. But perhaps the items in question have been discussed in the preceding 110

τοὺς δὲ (i. e. ΤΟΥΣΔΕ) might be analyzed as a dittography of τους λε- (i. e. ΤΟΥΣΛΕ), if what we had in Ath.A were ἄρτους δὲ τοὺς λευκοσωμάτους (i. e. ΤΟΥΣΛΕ). But this would require another error or correction (τούσδε written for δὲ τοὺς) to get the words into the paradosis order, which makes the hypothesis too complicated to be worth pursuing.

284

Antiphanes

lines and can accordingly be referred to in this way. στέγη in 2 is an odd choice of word to describe a bakery, and Meineke suggested on the basis of the title of the play that the speaker might be the gluttonous Herakles in Omphalê’s house. See Ὀμφάλη Introduction; 6–7 appear to suggest in any case that the play is set in Athens rather than in Lydia, or at least that an Attic baker is producing the loaves. The language is elevated throughout. 1–2 offer no hint of the pedestrian subject matter in the verses that follow, which must thus be bathetic. The baker Theariôn (PAA 501987) is included by Plato (see Citation context) along with “Mithaikos the author of the Sicilian cookbook and Sarambos the bartender” as “marvellous caretakers of our bodies, the first by providing amazing bread, the second fine food, and the third wine”. The implication is that Theariôn owned a particularly successful and innovative late 5th / early 4th-century bakery, doubtless staffed with slaves not just to grind the grain, but to do all the other manual work of mixing, kneading, shaping and shuttling loaves in and out of the ovens; cf. Ὀμφάλη Introduction; Roth 2012 (on slave-labor inter alia in Roman bakeries, with particular attention to the evidence from comedy). Nothing else is known of Theariôn except for the reference at Ar. fr. 1 (also quoted by Athenaeus; paratragic) to “Theariôn’s bakery, where the abodes of the baking-shells are”; the name is extremely rare (only one other 5th/4th-century example in LGPN II). For bakeries and baking technology, cf. Ar. Ra. 112 (a basic landmark in a place); Pl. Com. fr. 92 (a customer who had several options as to what sort of bread to purchase); Blümner 1875. 58–68; Curtis 2001. 289–93; Wilson–Schörle 2009 (on artistic representations of Roman bakeries). 1 πῶς γὰρ ἄν marks this as a rhetorical rather than a real question, as at e. g. Ar. Av. 355; S. Tr. 828; X. Mem. 4.6.7. εὐγενής (properly “well-born”; first attested at hAphr. 94 Θέμις ἠϋγενής; Thgn. 183–4 ἵππους / εὐγενέας) is in the 5th century almost exclusively tragic vocabulary (e. g. A. Th. 409; S. OT 1225 (adv.); E. Heracl. 409); cf. fr. 180.2 (dithyrambic style). Here it appears to be used in an attenuated sense of general approval, as at fr. dub. 321 with n.; Eriph. fr. 2.6 (of nice-looking pomegranates); S. fr. 864 εὐγενὴς / χαλκός; Dover 1974. 93–5. γεγώς See Text. An almost exclusively tragic form, used once in comic lyric at Ar. Lys. 642 (fem. nom. sing.). 2 στέγη is used in a passage in dithyrambic style at fr. 55.3, and appears to be elevated vocabulary; cf. Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 375. 3–5 The μέν-clause concentrates on the hustle and bustle in the house— loaves are constantly being shuttled in and out of the oven or ovens (note plural κριβάνοις in 5)—the δέ-clause on the consequences of this action for the bread itself—it emerges from the heat in a different condition than when it entered. The repetition of ὁρῶν is arguably awkward, but serves to reinforce the purely visual

Ὀμφάλη (fr. 174)

285

character of the speaker’s reception of the situation; the smell of the baking bread in particular is left unmentioned.111 3 ἄρτος (etymology uncertain) is baked wheat-bread, which was a staple, at least for those who could afford it, the less expensive alternative being unbaked barley-cakes (fr. 225.1–2 n.). See in general Pellegrino 2000. 51–2; García Soler 2001. 82–95; Pellegrino 2013 on Nicopho fr. 6.1. Bread seems generally to have been produced in bakeries already before Theariôn’s time and to have been purchased there or from street-vendors; see Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 119–21. But a relatively wealthy house, and above all else a palace, could certainly have baked its own. λευκοσωμάτους is a hapax that plays on the one hand on the notion that flour and thus the bread made from it ought to be as white as possible (Ar. fr. 129.3; Philyll. fr. 4.2; Alex. fr. 125.4 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Archestr. fr. 5.17–18; Matro fr. 1.4–5 with Olson–Sens 1999 ad loc.; cf. fr. 225.1–2 on barley-cakes), and on the other hand on the idea of “white” human flesh as soft and erotic (e. g. Cratin. fr. 195.3; Ar. Th. 191 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; Ec. 699), adding an oddly leering tone to the description. Kassel–Austin compare the similarly high-style hapax λιμνοσώματοι (of eels) at Eub. fr. 36.2; note also ἁπαλοσώματος (Ar. fr. 778) and ἡδυσώματος (X. Smp. 8.30), on the one hand, and λευκαυγής (fr. 216.20, of squid flesh in a similarly mock-elevated passage), on the other. The adjective is not restricted to the μέν-clause: the bread is “white-bodied” even after it has risen further and turned brown on the outside in the oven. A ἱπνός is an open-faced oven placed on top of a brazier and used e. g. to bake bread (cf. Timocl. fr. 35.2 θερμῶν ἱπνιτῶν, “warm loaves of hipnos-bread”; Hp. Vict. 42.13–14 = 6.540.11–12 Littré οἱ ἱπνῖται ἄρτοι τροφιμώτεροι τῶν ἐσχαριτῶν καὶ ὀβελιέων, διότι ἧσσον ἐκκαίονται ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρός, “loaves of hipnos-bread are more nourishing than those baked on a brazier or on a spit, since they are burned less by the fire”; Hdt. 5.92.η.2) or to roast nuts (Diph. Siph. ap. Ath. 2.54a), meat (Archestr. fr. 47.3–4) or grain (Str. 15.731); by extension a kitchen-area that contained such an oven (e. g. Ar. V. 837 with Biles–Olson 2015 on 139). Cf. Ar. Pax 841 ἱπνοὺς ἔχοντες, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἱπνοῖσι πῦρ (“with hipnoi, and inside the hipnoi is fire”); Poll. 7.21; 10.110; Sparkes 1975. 127; Chadwick 1996. 161–5. The word is attested already in Mycenean (as i-po-no), but its etymology is disputed. 4 διέξοδος seems to combine notions of passing through something and of emerging out of it, and the word is accordingly used e. g. for the orbit of the sun through the sky (Hdt. 2.24.4; E. Andr. 1086); cf. Henioch. fr. 4.5 ἔχον … πολλὰς φροντίδων διεξόδους (“containing many orbits of thoughts”, i. e. “that required one to think and think again”). Here the idea is that individual loaves of bread are constantly (πυκναῖς) being moved in and out of the oven.

111

Contrast fr. 216.5–6 (but describing an off-stage situation).

286

Antiphanes

5 μορφήν is an accusative of respect dependent on ἠλλαγμένους. μορφή is attested only here in the comic poets (who generally employ εἶδος instead); is never used by Thucydides or the Attic orators; and appears only twice in Herodotus (2.76.2, 2.96.1). The word is very common in the other poets (e. g. Od. 8.170; Sol. fr. 13.40; Pi. O. 6.76; A. Supp. 496; E. Alc. 1063), however, and while it appears a number of times in Plato (e. g. R. 381c) and Xenophon (e. g. Oec. 6.16), it is tempting to think that it was felt to be elevated vocabulary, hence its presence here; cf. fr. 173.5 καλλιμόρφους (a high-style hapax) with n. κριβάνοις is a dative of agent with the perfect passive participle. The word seems to be used here simply as an alternative term for a ἱπνός (3 with n.). But properly a κρίβανος (or κλίβανος; etymology uncertain) is a baking shell pierced by a number of holes near the bottom: the shell was placed over an item of food; hot ashes or coals were swept around it, or a fire kindled about its periphery; and the holes conducted the heat inside the shell and baked whatever was placed there.112 Cf. Epich. fr. 46 and Sophr. frr. 26–7 (all κριβανίτης or κλιβανίτης, “baking-shell (bread)”); Ar. Ach. 86 (used to bake meat), 1123 κριβανίτας (“baking-shell (bread)”); V. 1153 (a joke about being “baked” in an overly heavy robe ~ a κρίβανος); Pl. 765 κριβανωτῶν ὁρμαθῷ (“a necklace of kribanôtoi”, identified by the scholia as loaves of bread); fr. 1.2 (Theariôn’s bakery features κριβάνων ἑδώλια, “the abodes of the baking-shells”); Ephipp. fr. 1.2 κρίβανος ἄρτων (“a baking-shell for bread”); Amips. fr. 5 κλιβανίτης ἄρτος (“baking-shell bread”); Alcm. PMG 94 θριδακίσκας τε καὶ κριβανωτώς (“lettuce-cakes(?) and baking-shell bread”); A. fr. 309.2 (used to bake a pig); Hdt. 2.92.5 (used by Egyptians to bake papyrus); Archestr. frr. 5.17 (used to bake bread); 14.6 (used to bake fish), and see in general Blümner 1891 I.81–3; Sparkes 1981; Cubberley–Lloyd–Roberts 1988; Cubberley 1995; Frankel 2011 (in Modern Hebrew, but profusely illustrated). 6 For μίμημα plus the subjective genitive χειρὸς Ἀττικῆς, Kassel–Austin compare A. fr. 78a.7 τὸ Δαι̣δ̣ά̣ λου μ[ί]μ̣ημα; no other obvious parallels present themselves, but the expression is self-evidently high-style. μίμημα (attested nowhere else in comedy) is in the 5th century exclusively tragic vocabulary (also e. g. A. fr. 364; E. Tr. 922; Hel. 74, 875; not in Sophocles), although Plato picks it up enthusiastically in the first half of the 4th (e. g. Ti. 50c; R. 395a–b). For nouns in -μα (typical 5th/4th-century formations), see fr. 249.1 n. For Attic bread as particularly good, cf. fr. 177.3; Lynceus ap. Ath. 3.109d; Archestr. fr. 5.15–16; Matro fr. 1.4–6. δημόταις Demes were the local administrative units of Attica—there were 139 in the 4th century, the first time sufficient evidence survives for a reliable count—and Athenian citizenship was based on membership in one of them, which was a different matter from residency, deme-affiliation being inherited. Athenians routinely identified themselves to one another by demotic, and many probably felt at least as strong a sense of loyalty to their fellow-demesmen, whom they often

112

Scarcely “loaf pans”, as at Rusten 2011. 505.

Ὀμφάλη (fr. 175)

287

knew on a personal basis, as to the state as a whole. See in general Traill 1975; Rhodes 1981 on [Arist.] Ath. 21.4; Osborne 1985, esp. 64–92; Whitehead 1986. 223–34; Jones 1999. 51–105; Osborne 2007. Why Theariôn is said to have invented bread for his demesmen in particular is nonetheless unclear. Perhaps the point is simply that his bakery was notoriously located in his home-deme, wherever it was; or perhaps this is intended to tell us something about the otherwise anonymous baker who is actually making the bread being described here, and who learned his craft from a famous fellow-demesman. 7 δείκνυμι here appears to have the sense “discover”, the idea being that what we could call an “invention”—implying that the process or object in question was created for the first time—was always there and merely needed to be uncovered. Kassel–Austin compare [A.] PV 481–2, where Prometheus boasts ἐγώ σφισιν / ἔδειξα κράσεις ἠπίων ἀκεσμάτων (literally “I showed [human beings] mixtures of soothing remedies”, i. e. “I invented” them; cf. 477 οἵας τέχνας τε καὶ πόρους ἐμησάμη, “the sorts of crafts and devices I conceived”). Note also Alex. fr. 270.1–2 τῶν ἑπτὰ νήσων, ἃς δέδειχεν ἡ φύσις / θνητοῖς μεγίστας (“of the seven largest islands that Nature has shown”, i. e. has produced, “for mortals”); Alcm. PMG 59b τοῦτο Ϝαδειᾶν ἔδειξε Μωσᾶν / δῶρον μάκαιρα παρσένων / ἁ ξανθὰ Μεγαλοστράτα (“this is the gift of the sweet Muses that a blessed young woman, blonde Megalostrate, showed”, i. e. first conceived of, in reference to the ability to use conversational skills to attract lovers); Heraclit. 22 B 53.1–2 D.–K. Πόλεμος πάντων μὲν πατήρ ἐστι, πάντων δὲ / βασιλεύς, καὶ τοὺς μὲν θεοὺς ἔδειξε τοὺς δὲ ἀνθρώπους (“War is the father of all, and the king of all, and he showed”, i. e. produced, “gods and men”); S. fr. 591.1–2 ἓν φῦλον ἀνθρώπων, μί’ ἔδειξε πατρὸς / καὶ ματρὸς ἡμᾶς ἁμέρα τοὺς πάντας (“there is a single race of human beings, a single day showed”, i. e. produced, “us all from our mother and father”); E. Tr. 801–2 ἵν’ ἐλαίας / πρῶτον ἔδειξε κλάδον γλαυκᾶς Ἀθάνα (Salamis, “where Athena first showed”, i. e. brought forth, “the branch of the gray olive tree”). εὑρίσκω (the more common Greek for “invent”; literally “find”) has the same underlying sense, as indeed does Latin invenire (“to come upon, encounter”), whence the English term.

fr. 175 K.–A. (177 K.)

5

ἐν χύτρᾳ δέ μοι ὅπως ὕδωρ ἕψοντα μηδέν’ ὄψομαι· οὐ γὰρ κακὸν ἔχω μηδ’ ἔχοιμ’. ἐὰν δ’ ἄρα στρέφῃ με περὶ τὴν γαστέρ’ ἢ τὸν ὀμφαλόν, παρὰ Φερτάτου δακτύλιος ἔστι μοι δραχμῆς

3 οὐ γὰρ κακὸν ἔχω Ath.A : οὐ κακὸν ἔχω γὰρ Kock

288

Antiphanes

5

Make sure I don’t see anyone boiling water in a cookpot for me; because I have no trouble and I hope I don’t have any! Although if there’s a cramp in my belly or my gut, I’ve got a ring from Phertatos that cost a drachma

Ath. 3.123b Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Ὀμφάλῃ· —— Antiphanes in Omphalê: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xlk〉|l klkl klkl llk|l klkl llkr l|lkl klkl klkr l|lk|l klkl rlkl lrk|l klkl

Discussion

Kock 1884 II.84; Schiassi 1955. 110

Text At the beginning of 3, Kock proposed οὐ κακὸν ἔχω γὰρ (lrkl l|) in place of Ath.A’s οὐ γὰρ κακὸν ἔχω (llkr l|) to avoid the tribrach at the end of the first foot. Kassel–Austin retain the paradosis and compare Men. Epitr. 864 γύναι, πόθεν ἔχεις, εἰπέ μοι, τὸ παιδί[ον (also llkr l|lkl klkl) and West 1982. 89 (whose point seems to be somewhat different113). Citation context From a discussion of water and how it was consumed (Ath. 3.122e–5a) that also preserves Eup. fr. 99.41–3 (quoted immediately before this) and Antiph. fr. 26 (quoted immediately after this). Interpretation The speaker—a glutton?; gender unclear—apparently regards himself as being in a position of some authority and is addressing either a group of domestic workers or someone who has the ability to control their actions. Kock took the speaker to be Herakles, and the point in 1–3 to be that the hero wants to consume straight wine rather than wine with warm water mixed into it. This would be a odd style in which to drink, however, and since a χύτρα would normally be used for producing stew or the like (frr. 55.1 n.; 243.3 n.) and ἕψω is a culinary verb (fr. 248.1–2 n.), the point of 1–3 is more likely something along the lines of “Don’t let me catch anyone merely boiling water in the cooking pot! Because I’m fine”, i. e. “I’m quite prepared to eat substantial food”. Kock’s identification of the speaker as Herakles might be right but can simultaneously be described as little 113

“There is a handful of exceptions in Aristophanes in which kr | in the second foot (with word-end and usually punctuation) is followed by rl in the third”. The line-number in Kassel–Austin’s apparatus is wrong (for “2” read “3”).

Ὀμφάλη (fr. 175)

289

more than a shot in the dark based on the one thing we imagine we know from the title of the play: if Omphale was a character, Herakles probably was as well. Nor need even a Herakles-play involve only a single glutton. 2 ὅπως + future is a colloquial equivalent of an imperative (“[See to it] that you …!”); common in the comic poets (e. g. Ar. Ach. 253–4; Eq. 760; Nu. 257; Pax 77; Arar. fr. 17; Polioch. fr. 1; Eub. fr. 2.1–2; Men. Epitr. 983; Sam. 63–5; cf. E. Cyc. 595, 630; IT 321). See Goodwin 1875 §§ 271, 273; Kühner–Gerth 1898 II.376–7; Stevens 1976. 29–30; López Eire 1996. 192; Collard 2018. 72–3. 3 οὐ γὰρ κακὸν ἔχω μηδ’ ἔχοιμ(ι) i. e. “I have no trouble digesting my food, no trouble with my appetite, vel sim.”, as what follows makes clear. For the construction, Kassel–Austin compare S. Ant. 499–500 ἐμοὶ τῶν σῶν λόγων / ἀρεστὸν οὐδέν, μηδ’ ἀρεσθείη ποτέ (“none of your words is pleasing to me, nor might it ever be pleasing!”); D. 19.149 ὑμῖν δὲ τοιοῦτο μὲν οὐδὲν οὔτ’ ἦν μήτε γένοιτο τοῦ λοιποῦ (“nothing like this ever happened to you, nor might it in the future!”), to which add D. 8.51, 68 (both cited by MacDowell 2000 on D. 19.149). “ἄρα in a conditional protasis denotes that the hypothesis is one of which the possibility has only just been realized: ‘If, after all’. This usage occurs sometimes in comedy, but is mostly confined to prose, where it is common in all styles” (Denniston 1954. 37–8). 4 στρέφῃ με περὶ τὴν γαστέρ’ ἢ τὸν ὀμφαλόν For the language (referring to a stomach-ache or some form of intestinal disturbance), cf. Ar. Pax 174–5 ἐμὲ / ἤδη στρέφει τι πνεῦμα περὶ τὸν ὀμφαλόν; Th. 484 στρόφος μ’ ἔχει τὴν γαστέρ(α) … κὠδύνη; Pl. 1131 ὀδύνη σε περὶ τὰ σπλάγχν’ ἔοικέ τις στρέφειν; fr. 477.1 οἴμοι τάλας, τί μου στρέφει τὴν γαστέρα; Hp. Epid. VI 8.19.1–2 = 5.350.12–13 Littré στρόφοι περὶ τὸν ὀμφαλὸν καὶ ὀδύναι; Aph. 4.11 = 4.504.10 Littré ὁκόσοισι στρόφοι, καὶ περὶ ὀμφαλὸν πόνοι; Hum. 3.8 = 5.480.5 Littré ὁκόταν ἔῃ κάτωθεν ὀμφαλοῦ τὸ στρέφον. ὀμφαλός is a descendant of an old Indo-European word and is cognate with Latin umbilicus, on the one hand, and English “navel”, on the other. 5 Cf. Ar. Pl. 883–4 οὐδὲν προτιμῶ σου· φορῶ γὰρ πριάμενος / τὸν δακτύλιον τονδὶ παρ’ Εὐδάμου δραχμῆς (“I don’t care about you; because I’m wearing this little ring I bought from Eudamos for a drachma”; cited by Kassel–Austin), after which another character makes it clear that such rings were typically supposed to protect against the bites of venomous creatures. For magical amulets and rings generally, see Faraone 2017; Olson–Seaberg 2018 on Cratin. fr. 373. Phertatos the φαρμακοπώλης (“dealer in magical objects”; cf. Olson 2017 on Eup. fr. 96) (PAA 920450) is otherwise unknown. δραχμῆς For the genitive of price, fr. 133.2 n.

290

Antiphanes

fr. 176 K.–A. (178 K.) οὐ φιλοτάριχος οὐδαμῶς εἰμ’, ὦ κόρη I’m not at all fond of saltfish, my girl! Ath. 3.125a–b κεῖται … ὁ φιλοτάριχος … παρ’ Ἀντιφάνει ἐν Ὀμφάλῃ οὕτως· —— philotarichos (“fond of saltfish”) is found in Antiphanes in Omphalê, as follows: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

lrkl k|lkl llkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 III.98; Schiassi 1955. 110

Citation context Cited in a brief exchange between two of the banqueters—one of whom claims to be φιλοτάριχος, while the other cites Antiphanes as an ancient authority who used the word—in the aftermath of a long discussion of saltfish at Ath. 3.116a–20b that preserves frr. 78; 184. Alex. fr. 43 is cited immediately after this for ζωμοτάριχος (“resembling saltfish broth”), after which κνισολοιχός (“fat-licker”) and cognates are treated at slightly greater length, including with a reference to fr. 65. Interpretation Meineke compared Eub. fr. 6, where Herakles (thus Athenaeus) announces that he has not come to eat appetizers but wants meat instead, and suggested that the hero might be the speaker here as well. As in the case of frr. 174–5, this might—or just as easily might not—be the case. Regardless of who the speaker is, he or she could also be speaking metaphorically, declining e. g. to sleep with someone old and unappetizing when “fresh fish” is available; cf. Ar. Pl. 1004–5 πλουτῶν οὐκέθ’ ἥδεται φακῇ· / πρὸ τοῦ δ’ ὑπὸ τῆς πενίας ἅπανθ’ ὑπήσθιεν (“now that he’s rich, he no longer likes bean soup; previously he ate everything out of poverty”; said of a young man who refuses to have anything to do with the old woman who had been keeping him); fr. 148 ὦ πρεσβῦτα, πότερα φιλεῖς τὰς δρυπεπεῖς ἑταίρας / ἢ τὰς ὑποπαρθένους ἁλμάδας ὡς ἐλάας / στιφράς (“Old man, do you like the tree-ripened prostitutes or the pre-adolescent ones, who are as firm as brined olives?”); Eub. fr. 122 (courtesans want old wine but a young man), on the one hand, and A. Ch. 296 (a matricide described as inter alia κακῶς ταριχευθέντα παμφθάρτῳ μόρῳ, “miserably pickled by an utterly ruinous fate”); Sophr. fr. 54 τὸ γὰρ ἀπεχθόμενον γῆρας ἁμὲ μαραῖνον ταριχεύει (“hateful old age wastes and pickles me”); D. 25.61 (a man who has been in jail for a long time described as τεταριχευμένος, literally “pickled”, while one who has just been arrested is νεαλής, literally “fresh-caught”) (all cited at LSJ s. v. ταριχεύω III), οn the other. For the addressee, see below.

Ὀμφάλη (fr. 176)

291

φιλοτάριχος is attested only here and in the passage of Athenaeus that cites the fragment, but is an easy, pedestrian formation and thus most likely a rarity only because such words were not much used in the type of texts that have come down to us. Cf. φίλετνος (“fond of pea-soup”; adesp. com. fr. *686); φίλοινος (“fond of wine”; Theopomp. Com. fr. 80); φιλοτραγήμων (“fond of after-dinner dainties”; Eub. fr. 44.2), and slightly more distant but similarly ill-attested parallels such as φιλόδειπνος (“fond of dinner”; Alex. fr. 168.1); φιλοθύτης (“fond of sacrifice”; Ar. V. 82); φιλόκυβος (“fond of dice”; Ar. V. 75); φιλόμυρος (“fond of perfume”; Alex. fr. 67). For saltfish, frr. 27.22 n.; 78.1 n., 2 n. οὐδαμῶς is similarly used to reinforce a preceding form of οὐ at e. g. fr. 222; Ar. V. 1126; S. fr. 745.2; Pl. Prm. 131e; Plt. 306b. Cf. μὴ … μηδαμῶς (a more common combination due to the rhetorical utility of adding such emphasis to imperatives and imperative-like constructions, optatives of wish, and the like) at e. g. Ar. Nu. 84; Th. 714; S. Ai. 1334. Neither οὐδαμῶς nor μηδαμῶς is attested before the 5th century, and both are absent from lyric poetry, on the one hand, and from Thucydides and Lysias, on the other, but are very common in comedy, suggesting that they had a casual, colloquial flavor. A κόρη is an unmarried girl, and the term seems generally to be used in an at least superficially respectful fashion (thus in addresses to divine virgins at e. g. Ar. Ra. 337; E. Hipp. 1092; cf. Ar. Lys. 473 σωφρόνως ὥσπερ κόρη καθῆσθαι, “to sit there modestly like a κόρη”; Dickey 1996. 76–7). The addressee is accordingly most likely neither a slave nor a courtesan, and may well be younger than the speaker (cf. Alex. fr. 242.9, where an older woman uses κόρη to address a younger one).

292

Ὁμώνυμοι (Homônymoi) “Men who Shared a Name”

Introduction Title and Content Probably a comedy of mistaken identities, like Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δίδυμοι, Διπλάσιοι and Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι; cf. Plautus’ Amphitryo, Bacchides and Menaechmi. The name of one of the characters is preserved in fr. 177.2. Dionysius Comicus also wrote a Ὁμώνυμοι. Fr. 177 (n.) may be set outside of Attica. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 177 K.–A. (179 K.)

5

(Α.) οἷα δ’ ἡ χώρα φέρει διαφέροντα † πάσης, Ἱππόνικε, τῆς † οἰκουμένης, τὸ μέλι, τοὺς ἄρτους, τὰ σῦκα (Β.) σῦκα μέν, νὴ τὸν Δία, πάνυ φέρει. (Α.) βοσκήματ’, ἔρια, μύρτα, θύμα, πυρούς, ὕδωρ ὥστε καὶ γνοίην ἂν εὐθὺς Ἀττικὸν πίνων ὕδωρ

1 δ’ ἡ Ath.ACE(2) : δὴ Ath.CBDE(1) 2 διαφέροντα Ath.CBDE(1) Ath.ACE(2) : διαφέρουσα Meineke πάσης, Ἱππόνικε, τῆς Ath.DBE(1) Ath.ACE(2) : πάσης, Ἱππόνικος, τῆς Ath.C(1) : τῆς ἁπάσης, Ἱππόνικ᾿ Porson : πᾶσιν, Ἱππόνικε, τῆς Meineke : πλεῖστον, Ἱππόνικε, τῆς Desrousseaux 4 θύμα Dobree : θύματα Ath.CDBE(1) πυρούς Ath.CDBE(1) : τυρούς CDB Musurus 4–5 ὕδωρ διαφέρον Ath. (1) : διαφέρον . . . 5 ὕδωρ om. Ath.E(1) : διαφέρον del. Dobree θυμιάματα / ⟨…⟩ ὕδωρ ⟨δὲ⟩ διαφέρον Porson 5 καὶ γνοίην Ath.CDB(1) : def. Ath.E(1) : καὶ γνοίης Naber : ἀναγνοίην Kock

5

(A.) the sorts of things the country produces, Hipponikos, better than the entire † inhabited world, the honey, the loaves of bread, the figs — (B.) Figs, by Zeus, it certainly produces. (A.) herds, wool, myrtle-berries, thyme, wheat, water such that I would immediately recognize that I was drinking Attic water

Ath.(1) 2.43b–c σταθμήσας τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν Κορίνθῳ Πειρήνης καλουμένης ὕδωρ κουφότερον πάντων εὗρον τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα· οὐ γὰρ Ἀντιφάνει τῷ κωμικῷ πεπίστευκα λέγοντι κατὰ πολλὰ τὴν Ἀττικὴν διαφέρουσαν τῶν ἄλλων καὶ ὕδωρ κάλλιστον ἔχειν· φησὶ γάρ· ——

Ὁμώνυμοι (fr. 177)

293

When I weighed the water from what is referred to as the Peirênê spring in Corinth, I discovered that it was the lightest water in Greece; for I put no credence in the comic poet Antiphanes when he claims that Attica is superior to other places in many ways, including in having the best water. Because he says: —— Ath.(2) 3.74d–e τῶν δὲ σύκων ἐστὶ γένη πλείονα, Ἀττικὸν μέν, οὗ μνημονεύει Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ὁμωνύμοις· ἐπαινῶν δὲ τὴν χώραν τὴν Ἀττικὴν τάδε λέγει· (vv. 1–4) —— φέρει There are many varieties of figs, first the Attic, which Antiphanes mentions in Homonymoi; in praise of the land of Attica he says the following: (vv. 1–4) —— produces

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

5

〈lklx lklx〉 | lkll lkl rklk † lllklkl†l lkl rkll lklk | lkll lkl rkll lkrk | lkrl lkl lkll lklk | lkll lkl

Discussion Porson 1812. 54; Meineke 1814. 7; Dobree 1833. 296; Meineke 1839–41 III.98; Naber 1880. 50–1; Kock 1884 II.84–5; Desrousseaux 1942. 15 Text In 1, δ’ ἡ (Ath.ACE(2)) and δὴ (Ath.CE(1)), “indeed”, are simply two different ways of dividing the letters ΔΗ. The former yields better sense. In 2, the manuscripts of Athenaeus all offer neuter plural διαφέροντα (agreeing with οἷα in 1). Meineke suggested the metrically indifferent διαφέρουσα (agreeing with ἡ χώρα in 1), which is easier with the genitive that follows (“superior to the entire world”, sc. in what she produces). But the brachylogy (“better than the entire world” = “better than those produced in the rest of the world”) is not difficult, and the fragment as a whole is concerned with Attic goods, not with Attica herself. The paradosis version of the rest of 2 is unmetrical and lacks the normal diaeresis between the second and the third foot. Porson’s τῆς ἁπάσης, Ἱππόνικ᾿ neatly solves both problems, but ἅπας ought not to stand between the article and the noun (cf. frr. 69.11; 106.1; 121.9; 232.2; 251.2; 256.1). Meineke’s πᾶσιν, Ἱππόνικε, τῆς (“outstanding in the eyes of all (inhabitants) of the inhabited world”) is not easy sense and again lacks the diaeresis. The same objections can be raised against Desrousseaux’s πλεῖστον, Ἱππόνικε, τῆς (“the most outstanding of the inhabited world”), which is in addition considerably further from the parabasis. In the second half of 4, the Epitome’s plural θύματα is unmetrical. Dobree made the easy correction to singular θύμα; but see below on the end of the line. Further on in 4, Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus altered the paradosis πυρούς to τυρούς, but there is no reason to emend. The Ath.E-scribe’s eye jumped from ὕδωρ at the end of 4 to the same word at the end of 5, omitting everything in between. The other manuscripts have ὕδωρ διαφέρον at the end of 4, which Dobree corrected by expelling the participle from

294

Antiphanes

the text. Porson instead expanded θύμα to θυμιάματα (“fragrant stuff for burning”), which has both a long upsilon and a long first alpha, and posited a lacuna at the beginning of 5 followed by ὕδωρ ⟨δὲ⟩ διαφέρον (“and outstanding water”). But incense and the like did not come from Attica (see fr. 162.4 n.), so the claim would be absurd. In place of the Epitome’s καὶ γνοίην in 5—this portion of the text has been lost in Ath.A—Naber proposed (“you would recognize”), which alters the sense without improving it. Kock suggested ἀναγνοίην (“I would recognize”) to eliminate the seemingly extraneous καί; but ἀναγιγνώσκω almost always means “read” in comedy, including at fr. 194.21. Citation context The quotation of the complete fragment in Book 2 of Athenaeus comes at the end of a extended technical discussion of the character, and in particular the allegedly varying weight of various local waters (Ath. 2.41e–3c), which begins with references to the historian Aristophanes of Boiotia and—patently much more important as a source in this section of Athenaeus—to Theophrastus. Eub. fr. 128 is cited immediately afterward, although to make a different point (that water can be described as “the body of a river”). This section of the Deipnosophists survives only in the Epitome, making it even more difficult than usual to attempt to trace Athenaeus’ sources; see Wellmann 1900. 355–63 (cited by Kassel–Austin), noting parallel material in Pliny. The separate quotation of vv. 1–4 φέρει later in the Deipnosophists comes near the beginning of a long, wandering discussion of figs at Ath. 3.74c–80e that also preserves fr. 196. For the material cited after it (all of which has to do with the question of the precise connection between the words σῦκον and συκοφάντης), see 3–4 n. Interpretation Part of a dialogue between two characters, at least one of them a man (note (A.)’s πίνων in 5, and see below on Hipponikos). Attica is already under discussion and can therefore be referred to in 1 simply as ἡ χώρα. The action may well be set elsewhere, however, since (A.) says that he would know Attic water if he tasted it. If so, he at least would very much like to get back home. (B.), by contrast, plays the cynic: Attica certainly produces figs (syka)—by which he punningly means “sycophants”, i. e. self-interested abusers of the city’s legal system (for whom, see Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 191; Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 1410–69; Christ 1998. 48–71; Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1094–7, all with further bibliography). Cf. Eub. fr. 74, which is a more extended example of the same basic joke, again with the conversation divided between one character who seems honestly to want to praise Athens and its rural products in particular, and another who thinks of the place as defined by its lawcourts. That (A.) here ignores (B.)’s comment suggests that (B.) is something approaching an Aristophanic bomolochos (buffoon), who interrupts with wise-cracks rather than serving as a serious interlocutor. (B.) also appears to be intimately familiar with Attica, as the audience for (A.)’s ecstatic praise of the country is not. The Hipponikos addressed by (A.) in 2 is thus most likely a third

Ὁμώνυμοι (fr. 177)

295

character, as Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin all implicitly suggest by identifying the second speaker simply as (B.). The name is in any case distinctly aristocratic (“Horse-victor”, i. e. “A man wealthy enough to be able to keep and race horses and chariots”) and thus perhaps hints at the character’s role in the play. (A.) begins in 3 by mentioning famous Attic delicacies in particular. In 4, he moves on to something more like praise of the land generally via a list of some of its finest and most well-known products. The city of Athens itself, meanwhile, and its people, culture, architectural, literary and political achievements, etc. are ignored—except in (B.)’s nasty side-comment about local litigiousness. Contrast Phoenicid. fr. 2.1–2, where the Propylaia are included along with myrtle berries, honey and dried figs. For the supposedly exceptional character of Attic products, Kassel–Austin compare Pl. Criti. 110e; Heraclid. fr. 1.2 Müller (Geographi Graeci I.98).114 1 οἷα is most easily understood as exclamatory, like οἷον at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 191; Eup. fr. 342; Ar. Ach. 321; Axionic. fr. 6.9. 2 Ἱππόνικος is a relatively common name in Athens in the classical period (7 other examples in LGPN II). ἡ οἰκουμένη in the sense “the inhabited (world, i. e. γῆ)”, often intensified with a form of πᾶς, is 4th-century prosaic usage (e. g. X. Vect. 1.6 πάσης … τῆς οἰκουμένης; Isoc. 6.32 ἁπάσης τῆς οἰκουμένης; D. 18.48 πᾶσ’ ἡ οἰκουμένη; 19.180, 312; Aeschin. 3.165 τῆς οἰκουμένης … πάσης; Lycurg. Leocr. 15 πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην; Arist. de An. 428b4); attested nowhere else in comedy. 3–4 For (A.)’s catalogue of goods, cf. Philem. fr. 105 (wheat, olive oil, wine, dried figs and honey as what a good piece of land produces); Diph. fr. 89.4 (barley groats, olive oil, dried figs and honey in what appears to be a similar context); Timocl. fr. 38.1 (figs, olive oil, dried figs and honey as a definition of γεωργία, “farming”). 3 τὸ μέλι For honey, fr. 273.2 n. Attic honey in particular was widely recognized as the finest in the world (also Ar. Th. 1191–2; Archestr. fr. 60.17–18 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; Macho 428; Str. 9.399–400; 10.489; cf. Phoenicid. fr. 2.1). τοὺς ἄρτους On bread generally, fr. 174.3 n. For Attic bread in particular (allegedly especially good), fr. 174.6 n. τὰ σῦκα Figs were sufficiently important to the Athenian rural economy for the tree to be included (along with wheat, barley, olive-trees and grapevines) among the witnesses to the Ephebes’ Oath (Tod, GHI #204.20), and Attic figs were believed—by the Athenians at least—to be the finest in the world (Phoenicid. fr. 2.1–2; Istrus FGrH 334 F 12 (cited immediately after this fragment by Athenaeus); Ath. 14.652b–3a). Cf. Ar. Pax 571–5 (figs as one of the fundamental and much-

114

Kassel–Austin also cite Vitruv. 8.3.6, which is disparaging, however, about the quality at least of the water brought into Athens by aqueduct, reporting that the locals avoid drinking it and use their wells instead.

296

Antiphanes

loved products of the Attic countryside); Ath. 3.74c–d (immediately before this fragment) and Paus. 1.37.2, which combine to make it clear that the Athenians claimed that the fig had actually been given to mankind as food at Eleusis, making a civilized form of life possible. See in general García Soler 2001. 111–15; Zohary– Hopf–Weiss 2012. 126–30. For dried figs (ἰσχάδες) as a simple, basic foodstuff, see Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 404. 3–4 For the supposed connection between σῦκον and συκοφάντης (to which (B.) is alluding here), cf. Istrus FGrH 334 F 12; Alex. fr. 187 with Arnott 1996 ad loc. (“The word’s derivation from σῦκον + φαίνειν seems obvious, but the link between literal meaning (‘revealer / denouncer of figs’) and everyday usage has puzzled etymologists since antiquity”); Philomnest. FGrH 527 F 1 (cited by Athenaeus, in that order, immediately after this fragment). 4 πάνυ φέρει is a mocking echo of 1. βοσκήματ(α) are literally “fed things” (< βόσκω), i. e. livestock of all sorts (used e. g. of what are supposed to be pigs at Ar. Ach. 811; generically of sacrificial animals at Athenio fr. 1.13; of goats at E. Cyc. 188–9; of horses at E. Hipp. 1356; generically of flocks and herds at X. HG 4.5.5). For ἔρια, fr. 21.3 n. μύρτα Myrtle berries—an outstanding product of Attica also at Ar. Pax 575; Phoenicid. fr. 2.1—are mentioned as symposium dainties at Pherecr. fr. 158.2; Ar. Pax 1154 with Olson 1998 on 575; Theopomp. Com. fr. 68; Pl. R. 372d (toasted in the fire). Sold in the marketplace in Athens at Ar. fr. 581.5; Eub. fr. 74.5; Thphr. Char. 11.4. Cf. Pellegrino 2000. 187–8; García Soler 2001. 118. θύμα For thyme, frr. 105.7 n.; 140.1 n.; Men. Dysc. 604–5 (typical of the Attic countryside). πυρούς i. e. for making the famous Attic bread (3; cf. Ar. V. 1404–5; Philyll. fr. 4). For wheat in general, see Jasny 1944; Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 1144–5; Olson– Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 5.14; García Soler 2001. 74–6; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 23–33. In fact, the Athenians imported much of their wheat in this period; see in general Gernet 1909; Moreno 2007 (with bibliography); Bissa 2009. 153–210; Akrigg 2019. 174–87. 5 Cf. Men. Epitr. 483–4 ἰδοῦσά γε / γνοίην ἂν αὐτήν.

297

Ὀρφεύς (Orpheus) “Orpheus”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 251 n. d

Title The Thracian singer Orpheus is first attested in literature at Ibyc. PMG 306 ὀνομάκλυτον Ὀρφήν (“famous Orpheus”); he is depicted at roughly the same time (mid-6th century BCE) as an Argonaut in one of the metopes of the Sicyonian treasury of Delphi. The most important aspects of his story—all potentially useful for a comedy—include the magical power of his voice, which was capable of attracting even inanimate objects (e. g. A. Ag. 1629–30; E. Cyc. 646–8; Ba. 561–3; IA 1211–13); his unsuccessful attempt to rescue his wife Eurydikê from Hades (E. Alc. 357–9; Pl. Smp. 179d–e; Isoc. 11.8; see Heath 1994); and his death at the hands of Thracian women (depicted already on Red-Figure vases). He is also famous already in the late 5th century for his mystic learning and the associated texts he supposedly produced (Ar. Ra. 1032, the first reference to Orpheus in comedy, with Dover 1993 ad loc.; E. Hipp. 953–4 with Barrett 1964 ad loc.; [E.] Rh. 943–4 with Liapis 2012 ad loc.; Alex. fr. 140.5 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; cf. West 1983). See in general Gantz 1993. 721–5; Garezou, LIMC VII.1.81–3. For other plays by Antiphanes with mythological titles, note Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία?, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλωψ, Ὀμφάλη, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος. See in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. The 5th-century tragic poet Aristias (TrGF 9) also wrote an Orpheus. For the central figure in the comedy as a lyre-player, cf. Θαμύρας, Κιθαριστής and Κιθαρῳδός; for cosmogonic poetry of the sort Orpheus supposedly composed, Θεογονία; and note also (pipe-players) Αὐλητής and Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 178 K.–A. (180 K.) βύστραν τιν’ ἐκ φύλλων τινῶν a certain bystra made of certain leaves

298

Antiphanes

Poll. 10.172 καὶ βύσμα δ’ ἂν εἴη τῶν χρησίμων, Ἀριστοφάνους (fr. 310.2) εἰπόντος· βύσμα καὶ γευστήριον. τοῦτο δὲ βύστραν ἕτεροι κεκλήκασιν, ὡς Ἀναξανδρίδης Κιθαριστρίᾳ (fr. 24) καὶ Ἀντιφάνης Ὀρφεῖ· —— A stopper [bysma] could also be included among useful items, given that Aristophanes (fr. 310.2) says: “a stopper [bysma] and a sample-cup”. But other authorities refer to this object as a bystra, like Anaxandrides in Kitharistria (fr. 24) and Antiphanes in Orpheus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter, e. g.

〈xlkl〉 llk|l llkl

Discussion

Weiher 1913. 1630; Millis 2015. 122–3

Citation context From a wildly diverse collection of words for useful household items within the long catalogue of σκεῦαι (“implements”) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of Pollux. Words for e. g. ladders, bird-traps and pouches precede, while words for e. g. roofing materials and pegs follow. Hsch. β 1348 βῦστραι· αἱ τῶν λαχάνων ἐνθέσεις. ἔνιοι δὲ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν λαχάνων  ψωμούς (“bystrai: insertions made of vegetables. But some (claim they are) morsels of vegetables”) may be another reference to this fragment; see Interpretation. Interpretation As Millis notes, the only two attestations of βύστρα (< βύω, “stuff, plug”) outside of the lexicographers, in Anaxandrides and Antiphanes, are in plays that featured musicians, so perhaps the plugs in question are earplugs. Alternatively, these might simply be stoppers of some kind (Kassel–Austin compare Ar. fr. 24 πόθεν ἂν λάβοιμι βύσμα τῷ πρωκτῷ φλέων, “from where could I get a plug [bysma] made of reeds for my asshole?”, while Millis compares φλόμου βύσματα ἀπὸ ἐλαιηρῶν κεραμίων, “plugs [bysmata] of sage from olive-oil jars” at Hp. Mul. 114.9–10 = 8.246.13–14 Littré). Or Pollux’ claim that βύσμα and βύστρα refer to the same object might be wrong, and a βύστρα might be a culinary stuffing (which would make better sense of the note in Hesychius); cf. frr. 130.3; 170.2 Text (on “leaves” as a disparaging term for greens); 221.8 n.; Alex. fr. 84.4–5 ἡδύσμασι / λεπτοῖσι χλωροῖς ὠνθύλευσα (“I stuffed it with finely chopped green seasonings”; of a squid). Weiher takes the object in question to be implicated in some dubious medical procedure (“Quacksalberei”; see fr. 47 n. and Ἰατρός Introduction on physicians). The speaker’s determined lack of specificity (“a certain bystra made of certain leaves”) is striking, although what to make of it is unclear (a sign that an actual bystra is not under discussion?).

299

Παιδεραστής (Paiderastês) “The Pederast”

Introduction Title The word is first attested at Ar. Ach. 265 (with Olson 2002 ad loc.). The phenomenon, by contrast, is much older; see Bremmer 1980; Shapiro 1981; Dover 1989. 60–8; Hubbard 1998; Hubbard 2000a; Hubbard 2006. For the title, cf. Ἀφροδίσιος and Μοιχοί, and more generally (describing a character’s distinctive, perhaps obsessive activity) Κυβευταί, Παράσιτος and Παροιμιαζόμενος. Diphilus wrote a Παιδερασταί. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 179 K.–A. (181 K.) τῆς τε βελτίστης μεσαῖον θυννίδος Βυζαντίας τέμαχος ἐν τεύτλου λακιστοῖς κρύπτεται στεγάσμασιν 1 τῆς τε Ath.A : τῆς Ath.E : τὰς Ath.C θυννίδος Ath.CE : θυννάδος Ath.A CE A Ath. : τλεύτλου Ath. κρύπτετ(αι) Ath.CE : κρύπτε ταῖ Ath.A

2 τεύτλου

and a mid-most steak of the finest Byzantine thynnis is hidden in shredded heaps of beet Ath. 7.303f καὶ Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Παιδεραστῇ· —— Also Antiphanes in Paiderastês: ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lkll lkll | lkll lkl rkll lkll | lklk lkl

Text At the beginning of 1, the Epitome has omitted τε, which is necessary for the meter but makes little contribution to the sense. Ath.C has also replaced τῆς with τὰς (apparently intended to agree with Βυζαντίας at the end of the line, as if the word were accusative plural rather than genitive singular).

300

Antiphanes

Further on in 1, Ath.A has θυννάδος, which Meineke and Kock print as an otherwise unattested variant form of θυννίς / θύννα (cf. LSJ s. v. θυννάς “Dim. of θύννα”). It is easier to follow Kassel–Austin in regarding this as a clumsy error and printing the Epitome’s θυννίδος (from the well-attested θυννίς). In 2, Ath.A’s τλεύτλου is another clumsy—in this case obvious and uncontroversial—error for the Epitome’s τεύτλου. Further on in 2, Ath.A’s κρύπτε ταῖ is merely a misdivision of κρύπτεται (as in the Epitome). Citation context From the discussion of the θυννίς (“female tuna”) in the long, largely alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes up much of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and is probably drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. Epich. fr. 91; Cratin. fr. 171.49–50; Arist. fr. 206; Archestr. fr. 38, in that order, are cited immediately before this, fr. 127; Hippon. fr. 36; Stratt. fr. 13, in that order, immediately afterward. Interpretation One item in a list (hence τε in 1), presumably a banquet catalogue or the like; elevated style (thus a cook’s speech or the like?). Cf. in general Pherecr. fr. 113.10–12 παρῆν τεμάχη μὲν ἐξωπτημένα / καταχυσματίοισι παντοδαποῖσιν εὐπρεπῆ / τεύτλοισί τ’ ἐγχέλεια συγκεκαλυμμένα (“roasted slices (of fish) were present, beautifully prepared with sauces of every sort, and eels concealed in beet”). 1 βέλτιστος as a superlative of ἀγαθός is Attic vocabulary (first attested at A. Ag. 378; subsequently at e. g. Ar. Eq. 765; Amips. fr. 9.1; E. IA 503; Th. 4.73.4; X. HG 4.5.16; cf. A. Supp. 1054 βέλτατον). In comedy, it is found most often as the polite if sometimes condescending form of address βέλτιστε (fr. 282 with n.). μεσαῖον Mock-elevated vocabulary?; see fr. 73 (where the word is applied to the central portion of a sausage) with n. Since the context appears to be laudatory (note βελτίστης), the underlying point is probably that the central steak is normally the thickest one. θυννίδος Βυζαντίας For the θυννίς / θύννα—routinely associated with Byzantium elsewhere as well —frr. 78.2 n.; 127.4 n. 2 A τέμαχος (cognate with τέμνω, “cut”) is a slice or slab of the flesh of a fish of any sort (e. g. fr. 188.6; Cratin. fr. 154 [sea perch]; Ar. Ach. 881 [eel]; Anaxandr. fr. 42.53 [monkfish]; Axionic. fr. 6.14 [glaukos]; Ephipp. fr. 22.2 [skate]; Nicostr. Com. fr. 5.1 Βυζάντιόν ⟨τε⟩ τέμαχος ἐπιβακχευσάτω, “and let a slice of Byzantine fish burst in like a bacchant!”); cf. fr. 126.1 n. on τεμαχοπώλης. The reference to Byzantium makes it clear that saltfish (τάριχος) is in question; see fr. 27.22 n. For τεμάχη cut specifically from tuna of one sort or another, cf. fr. 221.6 θύννου τέμαχος; Ar. Eq. 354 (where the noun must be supplied); Eub. fr. 63.2; Ephipp. fr. 12.1; Mnesim. fr. 4.31; Archestr. frr. 38.5; 39.1, 9. ἐν τεύτλου λακιστοῖς κρύπτεται στεγάσμασιν For beets, and in particular fish served in grated beet root, fr. 71.1 n. λακιστός (< λακίζω, “tear”) is attested only here and at adesp. tr. fr. 291 λακιστὸν ἐν πέτραισιν εὑρέσθαι μόρον (“to find for oneself a shredded fate among the rocks”, like Orpheus or Pentheus; quoted by

Παιδεραστής (fr. 179)

301

Lucian, who also uses the adjective once elsewhere and thus apparently thinks of it as refined ancient vocabulary). στέγασμα, on the other hand, appears to be prosaic (LSJ s. v., to whose references add only three more in Plato).115 λακιστοῖς ought properly to modify τεύτλου rather than στεγάσμασιν; another mark of elevated style.

115

The text cited by LSJ as “SIG 1259.5 (Athens, iv B. C.)” is IG III (3) 2–3 = Syll.3 1259, a letter from a certain Mnesiergos, who writes home: στέγασμα εἴ τι βόλεστε, | ἀποπέμψαι ἢ ὥας ἢ διφθέρας | ὡς εὐτελεστάτας (“If you please, send a coverlet [stegasma] of either sheepskin or goatskin, as cheap as possible”).

302

Παράσιτος (Parasitos) “The Parasite”

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839–1841 I.339, 377; Edmonds 1959. 252 n. a; Arnott 1968. 165; Arnott 1996. 543–4 Title The parasite-figure—a man who attaches himself to someone else in order to enjoy his food and drink, and who is therefore as obsequious and accommodating as possible, in order to avoid losing his patron’s favor—and the word παράσιτος itself have separate, partially overlapping histories. As far as we can tell (and as far as anyone in the ancient world seems to have known; see Ath. 6.234c–61e, esp. 248c–61a, preserving most of the primary evidence), an individual of this type was known before the 4th century BCE as a κόλαξ (“flatterer, toady, Pence”); see fr. 142.2 n. παράσιτος, by contrast, was a ritual term for a person allowed to share food dedicated to a god (Ath. 6.234d–5e, drawing inter alios on Polemon of Ilium fr. 78 Preller and citing a number of Attic inscriptions and scattered historical sources, including Aristotle). παράσιτος is first attested referring to a man who sponges off another here and at fr. 80.1, 3; at Arar. fr. 16.1; and in Alexis (frr. 121; 262.2, and as a title). See in general Arnott 1968. 165; Nesselrath 1990. 309–17; Amouroux 1995. 232–4; Arnott 1996. 543–4; Damon 1997. 23–36; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 10 (with further bibliography). Arnott believes that Alexis was responsible for converting παράσιτος into a comic term for a κόλαξ because Karystios of Pergamum (2nd century BCE) claims that he invented the comic parasite; see Date. This requires positing a very late date for fr. 16 of Araros (who was a son of Aristophanes), and Arnott simultaneously acknowledges that Karystios seems to have been working on titles rather than texts. Put more directly, there is no reason to believe that he knew who actually used the word itself first in this sense, and it thus seems easier to assume that, even if Alexis’ play antedated Antiphanes’, παράσιτος was already being used as equivalent to κόλαξ in the first half of the 4th century BCE. For plays called after a profession, occupation or the like (presumably that of a central character), cf. Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Diphilus also wrote a play entitled Παράσιτος, while Plautus wrote a Parasitus medicus and a Parasitus pigrus. In addition to Eupolis’ Κόλακες, Menander wrote a Κόλαξ, and Philemon may have as well. Content Unknown. The fragments all have to do in one way or another with feasting (or preparation for feasting)—typical of material preserved by Athenaeus,

Παράσιτος (fr. 180)

303

but very much in keeping with what can be assumed to have been the theme of this play. Fr. 180 (n.) appears to feature a self-important cook or a similar character, while in fr. 181 the speaker is engaged in a conversation with a woman (his wife? a courtesan?). Date Karystios of Pergamum, in a work entitled On Dramatic Records (fr. 17, FHG iv.359 ap. Ath. 6.235e), reports that “the character referred to today as a parasite was invented by Alexis”. As Athenaeus notes, this can hardly be correct— Epicharmus (frr. 31–2) already presented parasite-figures onstage at the beginning of the 5th century, as did Eupolis in his Kolakes (fr. 172)—and the title of Karystios’ work suggests that what he claimed may have been instead that Alexis was the first poet to stage a comedy entitled Παράσιτος. If so, Antiphanes’ play must date after Alexis’, putting it in the 350s BCE or later.

Fragments fr. 180 K.–A. (182 K.)

5

(Α.) ἄλλος ἐπὶ τούτῳ μέγας ἥξει τις ἰσοτράπεζος εὐγενής (Β.) τίνα λέγεις; (Α.) Καρύστου θρέμμα, γηγενής, ζέων (Β.) εἶτ’ οὐκ ἂν εἴποις; ὕπαγε. (Α.) κάκκαβον λέγω· σὺ δ’ ἴσως ἂν εἴποις λοπάδ’. (Β.) ἐμοὶ δὲ τοὔνομα οἴει διαφέρειν, εἴτε κάκκαβόν τινες χαίρουσιν ὀνομάζοντες εἴτε σίττυβον, πλὴν ὅτι λέγεις ἀγγεῖον οἶδα;

2 εὐγενής Ath.ACE : εὐπινής Kock : εὐπρεπής Blaydes 3 γηγενής, ζέων Ath.ACE : γηγενές, ζέον Bothe 4 λέγω Ath.ACE Eust. Poll.FB : λέγων Poll.CL : om. Poll.A 5 σὺ δ’ ἴσως ἂν Ath.ACE Poll.BCL : σὺ δ’ ἂν ἴσως Eust. : σὺ δ’ ἂν Poll.A : καὶ ἴσως δ’ ἂν Poll.F 6 οἴει 6–7 τινες / χαίρουσιν διαφέρειν Ath.ACE Poll.FBC : εἴη διαφέρειν Poll.AL : οὐ διαφέρει Eust. ὀνομάζοντες Sylburg : χαίρουσίν τινες ὀνομάζοντες Poll.ABCL : τινες χαίρουσιν ὀνομάζειν Poll.F : τινες χαίροντες ὀνομάζουσιν Ath.A : τινες ὀνομάζουσιν Ath.CE : ὀνομάζουσί τινες Eust.

5

(A.) After this will come another large one, as big as the table, excellent — (B.) What are you talking about? (A.) a child of Karystos, born of earth, boiling — (B.) Well won’t you name it? Move it! (A.) I’m referring to a kakkabos; you might perhaps call it as lopas. (B.) Do you think the name makes any difference to me, if some people like to refer to it as a kakkabos or a sittybon, provided I know you’re referring to a vessel?

304

Antiphanes

Ath. 4.169e–f ἐν δὲ Παρασίτῳ ὁ Ἀντιφάνης καὶ τάδε εἴρηκεν· —— But in Parasitos Antiphanes says the following: —— Poll. 10.106 καὶ κάκκαβον δὲ τὴν κακκάβην κατὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν χρῆσιν Ἀντιφάνης κέκληκεν εἰπὼν ἐν Παρασίτῳ· (v. 4) κάκκαβον … (v. 7) σίττυβον Antiphanes refers to a kakkabê in the common fashion as a kakkabos when he says in Parasitos: (v. 4) kakkabos … (v. 7) sittybon

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

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

Discussion Sylburg ap. Seber 1608 Notae p. 142; Meineke 1839–1841 III.99–100; Bothe 1855. 389–90; Kock 1884 II.85–6; Blaydes 1896. 111; Nesselrath 1990. 259, 312; Olson 2007. 136–7 (C10) Text In 2, the manuscripts of Athenaeus offer εὐγενής (literally “well-born”), for which Kock suggested εὐπινής (“tidy, elegant”; see Olson–Seaberg 2018 on Cratin. fr. 455), Blaydes εὐπρεπής (“good-looking”). But the metaphorical use of the adjective is unproblematic (see Interpretation), and there is no reason to emend. At the end of 3, Bothe suggested emending the paradosis γηγενής, ζέων (agreeing with 1–2 μέγας / … τις ἰσοτράπεζος εὐγενής and the anticipated κάκκαβος) to γηγενές, ζέον (to match the immediately preceding Καρύστου θρέμμα). But this is not an obvious error—Καρύστου θρέμμα, γηγενές, ζέον might easily have been written by a scribe who took the verse the way Bothe does, but there is no similarly clumsy, obvious, mechanical reason for converting the neuters to masculine—and Καρύστου θρέμμα is better understood as in apposition to the masculine subject, with whom the words at the end of the line agree. At the end of 4, κάκκαβον λέγω (Ath.ACE Eust. Poll.FB) has been converted to κάκκαβον λέγων (Poll.CL) by a scribe who mistakenly thought the words went with ὕπαγε (“start saying ‘stewing dish’!” vel sim.). At the beginning of 5, σὺ δ’ ἴσως ἂν (Ath.ACE Poll.BCL) has been reworked in various metrically impossible ways by Eustathius (dependent on his own copy of the Epitome of Athenaeus and not to be thought of as an independent witness to the text) and two of the copyists of Pollux. So too at the beginning of 6, Eustathius has

Παράσιτος (fr. 180)

305

converted οἴει διαφέρειν into οὐ διαφέρει (“it doesn’t make a difference”), which is easier sense even if unmetrical, while Poll.AL offer εἴη διαφέρειν (apparently intended as an optative of wish, “might it make a difference!”). In 6–7, Ath.A’s τινες χαίροντες ὀνομάζουσιν (“some people call with pleasure”) is metrical—the Epitome has dropped the participle, while Eustathius has in addition reversed the order of the two words that came down to him—but seems a less appropriate expression than Pollux’ χαίρουσίν τινες ὀνομάζοντες (“some people take pleasure in calling”; Poll.F has converted the participle into an infinitive). The version of the text in PolluxABCL is unmetrical, but Sylburg combined it with the word order in Ath.A to produce τινες / χαίρουσιν ὀνομάζοντες (also printed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin). For the punctuation of 7–8, see Interpretation. Citation context For the citation context in both Athenaeus and Pollux, see fr. 71. For Eustathius (not an independent witness to the text), see Text on v. 5. Interpretation Part of a conversation between two characters (gender uncertain), one of whom is offering a grandiose catalogue of food to be served at a dinner party, while his frustrated interlocutor claims to be unable to understand what he is saying and demands simpler language. Other items have already been described, hence ἐπὶ τούτῳ in 1. The parallel at fr. 55 (n.; cf. fr. 1) suggests that (A.) is an overbearing and loquacious cook, banquet-manager or the like, while (B.) is e. g. his aggravated client. (A.)’s language in 1–3 is in any case of the riddling, “dithyrambic” sort typical of such characters in 4th-century comedy. 1–3 (A.)’s description of the dish in question front-loads a series of decorative adjectives, appositives and participles, but reserves the crucial noun to which they apply in a way clearly designed to increase his audience’s appreciation of the description, even if the effect on (B.) is the opposite. Cf. Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.9–10 ἐπ’ αὐτῷ / δ’ ἄλλο παρῆλθε τόσον, βατὶς δ’ ἐνέην ἰσόκυκλος (“after it, another of the same size arrived, and a perfectly round ray was upon it”), 13–14 (quoted below) (from the Dinner Party); Archestr. fr. 14.3 κεὐμεγέθη, κυκλίῃ ἴσον ἀσπίδι σῶμα φοροῦντα (“and nice and big, with a body as large as a circular shield”; of a fish). 1 Forms of μέγας are common as praise in culinary contexts (e. g. fr. 104.3; Hermipp. fr. 46.2; Metag. fr. 6.2; Pl. Com. fr. 92.2; Eriph. fr. 7.2; Eub. fr. 6.8). Here the idea is expanded by means of the much more interesting adjective ἰσοτράπεζος in 2 (n.); cf. the simple εὐγενής in 2 expanded and improved in Καρύστου θρέμμα, γηγενής in 3. ζέων at the end of 3 might have received similar treatment, except that (B.) interrupts again and (A.) responds by breaking off the game. 2 ἥξει For verbs of this sort applied to the arrival of menu-items and the like in the banquet hall, fr. 172a.2 n. ἰσοτράπεζος is attested elsewhere only at Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.13–14 θερμὸς μετὰ ταῦτα παρῆλθεν / ἰσοτράπεζος ὅλος … συνόδων (“after these items arrived a whole, hot, four-toothed sea-bream as big as the table”; from the Dinner

306

Antiphanes

Party). For the formation (poetic), cf. on the one hand ἰσόθεος (fr. 145.2) with n.; ἰσόχρυσος (Archipp. fr. 56); ἰσάργυρος (Ephipp. fr. 21.4), and on the other hand μικροτράπεζος (fr. 170.1); αὐτοτράπεζος (Emp. 31 B 147.1 D.–K.); δυστράπεζος (E. HF 386 (lyric)); εὐτράπεζος (Eriph. fr. 6.2; A. Ag. 244; E. fr. 670.2); καλλιτράπεζος (Call. Com. fr. 8; Amips. fr. 18.2); μονοτράπεζος (E. IT 949). For dinner-tables, see fr. 170.1 μικροτράπεζος n. with further cross-references. For εὐγενής, fr. 174.1 n., and cf. 1 n. on how the word is picked up and made more vivid in 3. 3 Καρύστου θρέμμα is a kenning, like Archestr. fr. 13.3 θρέμμα Σελινοῦντος σεμνοῦ (“offspring of the august river Selinous”; of a fish) with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc. For kennings in Antiphanes, cf. frr. 110.1; 216.23, and see in general Waern 1951. θρέμμα (< τρέφω) is in the 5th century exclusively poetic vocabulary (e. g. Ar. Lys. 369; Pi. fr. dub. 352; A. Th. 181; S. OT 1143; E. Andr. 261), but is then taken over into 4th-century prose (e. g. X. Oec. 20.23; Pl. Phdr. 240b; Isoc. 2.45). For cookpots from the Euboean city of Karystos (IACP #373), cf. Matro fr. 1.49 ἀπ᾿ Εὐβοίης λοπάδες (“lopades”—see 6 n.—“from Euboea”). The place is also mentioned as a source of seafood at fr. 191.2; Archestr. fr. 35.5. γηγενής i. e. produced from clay;116 cf. fr. 55.3 πλαστὸν ἐκ γαίης with n.; Anaxandr. fr. 6.2 ἐν πυρικτίτοισι γᾶς with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Xenarch. fr. 1.9–10 τῆς τροχηλάτου κόρης / … λοπάδος στερροσώματον κύτος (“the solid-bodied hollow of the wheel-formed maiden, the lopas”); Luc. Lex. 7 γηγενῆ πολλὰ οἷα Θηρικλῆς ὤπτα (“many earth-born”—i. e. terracotta—“vessels of the sort that Therikles used to bake”; cited by Kassel–Austin). The adjective is generally applied to various fabulous (mostly mythological) creatures said to have been “born from the earth” or “born from Earth”, and is common in poetry (e. g. Eumel. fr. 19.2, p. 114 Bernabé; A. Supp. 250; S. fr. 792; E. Ion 20; Ar. Av. 824) although scarcely confined to it (e. g. Hdt. 8.55.1 (a cult-title); Pl. R. 415d). It is also attested in highstyle parody at Xenarch. fr. 1.5 Δηοῦς σύνοικος, γηγενὴς βολβός (“associate of Deo, the earth-born hyacinth bulb”). ζέων See 1 n. for what might have followed, had (B.) not interrupted for a second time. For the verb used intransitively, as normally, cf. fr. 26.4; Eub. fr. 8.3–4 δύναται καταπιεῖν ἐκ ζεόντων λοπαδίων / ἄθρους τεμαχίτας (“he is capable of gulping down whole chunks of saltfish out of boiling lopadia”); Damox. fr. 2.51–2 ἡ πρώτη λοπάς / ζεῖ (“the first lopas is boiling”); Euphan. fr. 1.2 μεστὴν ζέουσαν λοπάδα Νηρείων τέκνων (“a boiling lopas full of Nereus’ children”, i. e. of seafood). Contrast fr. 221.4 with n. 4–6 For the κάκκαβος (“stewing-pot”), fr. 243.3 n. The λοπάς (< λέπω, “peel”; probably connected with the hollow, shell-like shape of the vessel) with which it is here equated, is a low, open pan used for boiling, braising and stewing, especially

116

Arnott 1996. 307 misses the point, thinking the reference is to the enormous size of Earth’s children, the Giants. So too Rusten 2011. 505, translating “monstrous”.

Παράσιτος (fr. 181)

307

of seafood; cf. fr. 181.5; Sparkes 1962. 130–1; Sparkes–Talcott 1970 I.227–8 and pl. 95; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 115.21–3; Olson–Sens 2000. 108 on Archestr. fr. 24.7; Dedousi 2006 on Men. Sam. 365; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 34.3; Olson 2017 on Eup. fr. 5 (with further primary references). 4 οὐκ ἂν εἴποις; appears to be a combination of the imperatival use of οὐ + future to express a command (Kühner–Gerth 1898 I.176–7; Smyth 1956 § 1918) and the similar use of the optative + ἄν (Kühner–Gerth 1898 I.233–4; Smyth 1956 § 1830). The tone in any case is patently annoyed rather than polite. For ὑπάγω used intransitively in the sense “get a move on” (LSJ s. v. B.I–II.1), cf. in comedy Eup. fr. 87; Ar. Nu. 1298; V. 290; Av. 1017; Ra. 174; Men. Dysc. 144, 378. 7 For χαίρω + supplementary participle (LSJ s. v. I.3), cf. in comedy e. g. Eup. fr. 316.4; Ar. Nu. 1329; Ec. 228; Pl. Com. fr. 132.1; Anaxandr. fr. 35.6; Alex. fr. 103.22; Diph. fr. 84.2. This is the only attestation of σίττυβον in the classical period, but the lexicographers agree that the word (sometimes treated as feminine rather than neuter) means “a small piece of leather” or “a leather garment” (Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 378.1; Poll. 7.70; Hsch. σ 775; Phot. σ 254). The simplest conclusion is that (B.) uses it because it produces a jingle with κάκκαβος, and that the absurdity of applying the term to a stewing pan is the point (~ “a stewing pan or a slewing fan”). 8 πλὴν ὅτι λέγεις ἀγγεῖον οἶδα (literally “except that you’re referring to a vessel, I know”) appears to be dependent on 5–6 ἐμοὶ … / … διαφέρειν. I have accordingly moved the question mark traditionally placed at the end of 7 to the end of 8.

fr. 181 K.–A. (183 K.)

5

οἷα δ’ ἐστὶν οἶσθας, ὦ γύναι· ἄρτοι, σκόροδα, τυρός, πλακοῦντες, πράγματα ἐλευθέρι’, οὐ τάριχος οὐδ’ ἡδύσμασιν ἄρνεια καταπεπασμέν’ οὐδὲ θρυμματὶς τεταραγμένη καὶ λοπάδες ἀνθρώπων φθοραί. καὶ μὴν ῥαφάνους γ’ ἕψουσι λιπαράς, ὦ θεοί, ἔτνος θ’ ἅμ’ αὐταῖς πίσινον

1–2 οἶσθας, ὦ γύναι, / ἄρτοι Meineke : οῖσθα γυναι τοῖ Ath.A : οἶσθα σύ, / γύναι Kock : οἶσθα νῦν, / ἄρτοι Kaibel 3 ἐλευθέρι’, οὐ Tyrwhitt : ἐλευθέριου Ath.A 4 καταπεπασμέν’ θρυμματὶς Casaubon : θρίμματις Ath.A 6 γ’ ἕψουσι Jacobs : καταπεπλησμεν Ath.A Ath.DBQMPMus : γ’ ἐψοῦσιν Ath.A : πέψον σὺ Kock : γ’ ἕξουσι Schenkl 7 θ’ ἅμ’ Casaubon : θαῦμ’ Ath.A αὐταῖς Meineke : αὐτοῖς Ath.A

308

Antiphanes

5

You understand the sort of items they are, woman: loaves of bread, garlic, cheese, flat-cakes, things appropriate for a free person, not saltfish, or lamb buried in seasonings, or a mixed-up pastry and stewing-dishes that bring mankind to ruin. In fact, they’re stewing cabbages covered in oil, by the gods, and there’s pea-soup to go with them

Ath. 9.370d–e Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Παρασίτῳ ὡς εὐτελοῦς βρώματος τῆς κράμβης μέμνηται ἐν τούτοις· —— Antiphanes in Parasitos refers to cabbage as inexpensive food in the following passage: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlk〉l k|lk|l klkl llkr llkl llkl klrl klk|l llkl llkr klk|l klkl rlkl l|rk|l llkl llrl llk|r llkl llkl l|rk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Tyrwhitt ap. Toup 1790 IV.422; Jacobs 1805. 40; Meineke 1867. 163; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.309–10; Schenkl 1891. 326 Text The end of 1 and beginning of 2 are garbled in Ath.A, which offers οῖσθα γυναι τοῖ. An anapest in the sixth foot is extremely unlikely (White 1912 § 113 with n. 1), excluding οἶσθα, γύναι /, a problem solved by Meineke’s οἶσθας, ὦ γύναι. Meineke’s ἄρτοι at the beginning of 2 also makes sense of the puzzling paradosis τοῖ, as is not true of Kock’s οἶσθα σύ, / γύναι, in which the point of the emphatic pronoun is in addition unclear. Kaibel’s οἶσθα νῦν / ἄρτοι is no further from the paradosis than Meineke’s text, but the intended significance of the adverb is obscure. In 3, Ath.A’s difficult ἐλευθέριου (“things belonging to a free person”, with τάριχος presumably to be taken as a final item in the list begun in 2) represents a misdivision of letters; corrected to ἐλευθέρι’, οὐ by Tyrwhitt. In 4, the Ath.A-scribe was unable to make sense of καταπεπλησμεν and left the word unaccented. Meineke and Kock both print καταπεπλησμέν’ (< καταπίμπλημι, “stuff ”). But a genitive rather than a dative is expected with a form of πίμπλημι; ἡδύσματα would be an odd word for the materials used to produce a stuffing (see Interpretation); and Jacob’s καταπεπασμέν’, with the corruption to be traced to a majuscule Α / Λ error eventually converted into a form of a familiar verb via the addition of sigma, deals with both issues in a simple and convincing fashion.

Παράσιτος (fr. 181)

309

In 6, the nu on the end of Ath.A’s γ’ ἐψοῦσιν spoils the meter. The text was corrected by an anonymous 15th-century editor, with the revised reading taken over by Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus. This is precisely the verb that is wanted for preparing cabbage (see Interpretation), and Kock’s πέψον σὺ (“you cook!”) and Schenkl’s γ’ ἕξουσι (“they’ll have”) are thus unnecessary. In 7, the paradosis θαῦμ’ αὐτοῖς (“a marvel for them”) is unmetrical, and Casaubon’s θ’ ἅμ’ is an easy fix. Meineke further emended αὐτοῖς to αὐταῖς to agree with feminine ῥαφάνους in 6. Citation context From the end of a discussion of cabbage (Ath. 9.369e–70f) drawn at least in part from Eudemus of Athens’ On Vegetables (cited at Ath. 9.369e). Ephipp. fr. 3 is cited immediately before this, Diph. fr. 14; Alc. Com. fr. 24; Polyzel. fr. 10, in that order, immediately after this. Interpretation A male character (an ἄγροικος?) praises the preparations for a meal being made by a group (cf. 6 ἕψουσι) to a female character (thus ὦ γύναι in 1): the food is simple, a fact of which he approves. The tone is moralizing: dishes of this sort are appropriate for free people (2–3), whereas elaborate ones can have ruinous consequences (5 with n.). 1 Second-person singular οἶσθας (if right; see Text) is attested a handful of times mostly in 4th-century comedy (e. g. Cratin. fr. 112; Alex. fr. 15.11 with Arnott 1996 (but ignoring this fragment); Men. Epitr. 481; fr. 246.5; cf. Herod. 2.55 with Headlam 1966 ad loc.) and appears to represent a metrically useful (but probably also colloquial) combination of the more common οἶσθα and οἶδας. See Stevens 1976. 59–60. For ὦ γύναι, fr. 125.1 n. 2–3 The four items mentioned in the first half of 2 are examples of the kind of food the speaker is thinking of (cf. 1), with πράγματα / ἐλευθέρι’ set in resumptive apposition to all of this. “What a free man eats” is more or less identical to “what a decent person eats”, which is to say that what is included in the list depends entirely on the viewpoint of the speaker. Here he disapproves of luxury, so “a free man” consumes simple foods; cf. 5 n.; Anaxandr. fr. 61.1 “never make yourself a slave to pleasure”. More often the contrast is with “slavish” fare, i. e. cheap, miserable food (Thgn. 916; Alex. fr. 267.6–7; cf. Alex. fr. 159.2 “little fish fit (only) for freedmen”; Arched. fr. 2.9–10 “a perfect brine-sauce, into which any free man could dip his food”).117 2 ἄρτοι For bread, fr. 174.3 n., 6 n. (specifically on Attic bread). σκόροδα For garlic, fr. 63.1 n. τυρός For cheese, cf. frr. 21.3–4 (on the cheese-market); 51 n.; 63.2; 131.7–9 with n.; 140.1 (in a list of kitchen supplies) with n. For πλακοῦντες (unleavened cakes), fr. 55.11 n. 3 τάριχος For saltfish, frr. 27.2 n.; 78.2 n. 117

Fr. 26.5 (“may I never drink the water of freedom!”) is a different image.

310

Antiphanes

3–4 ἡδύσμασιν / ἄρνεια καταπεπασμέν(α) For lamb prepared in similar ways, cf. frr. 1.4–5; 55.4–5, and note fr. 170.5 (whole lambs baked in ovens). 3 ἡδύσματα —literally “things that make (some other food) more pleasant”—sometimes appear to be ~ “garnishes” (Pherecr. fr. 157.1–2 (contrasted with παροψίδες); Ar. Eq. 676–8 (coriander and green onions for small-fry); V. 696–8 (green onions for small-fry); Diph. fr. 18.5; X. Mem. 3.14.5; Pl. R. 332d, 404c). But Erot. p. 46.6 Nachmanson identifies the word as the Attic term for τοῖς χλωροῖς καὶ ξηροῖς ἀρτύμασι (“green and dried spices”), which is how it appears to be used here, as also at e. g. Dionys. Com. fr. 2.15–16 τεμεῖν / ἡδύσμαθ’ (“to chop up hêdysmata”; among a cook’s basic duties); Alex. frr. 84.4–5 περιπάσας ἡδύσμασι / λεπτοῖσι χλωροῖς ὠνθύλευσα (“I sprinkled it with minced green hêdysmata and stuffed it”; a cook’s treatment of a squid); 191.7–8 εἰς λοπάδιον ὑποπάσας ἡδύσματα / ἐνθεὶς τὸ τέμαχος, λευκὸν οἶνον ἐπιχέας (“after I sprinkled hêdysmata in the bottom of a stewing pan, put the fish-steak in, and poured white wine on top”); Diocl. Car. fr. 187.17–18 (“rue, cumin, coriander and the other green hêdysmata”). 4 καταπεπασμέν(α) For πάσσω / πάττω in culinary contexts, cf. fr. 216.10 with n.; Crates Com. fr. 16.10 (a fish sprinkled with salt). The foods listed here are all items of which the speaker disapproves, and the sense of the prefix is thus probably negative (“seasoned to death” vel sim.; cf. LSJ s. v. κατά E.VII). τεταραγμένη and φθοραί in 5 are similarly reserved for final position in the hostile descriptions of other items of food there. A θρυμματίς is a plakous (2 n.) of some kind (thus Poll. 6.77); also mentioned at Nicostr. Com. fr. 1.3 (an appetizer); Lync. fr. 1.8 (called γλυκεῖα, “sweet”); Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.17 (described as εὐπέταλοι, literally “with beautiful leaves”, i. e. made of many layers of dough?); Luc. Lex. 6. Phot. θ 238 claims that a θρυμματίς was made “of suet and wheat-flour and warblers [sic]”, while Hsch. θ 794 equates it with the ἐνθρυμματίς (mentioned elsewhere, however, only at Anaxandr. fr. 42.42, in a long catalogue of foods). See also García Soler 2001. 390–1. 5 ταράσσω is not a culinary term and must instead be a hostile way of referring to the fact that a θρυμματίς was made by mixing together a variety of different—and, if “warblers” (συκαλλίδων) in Photius (4 n.) is sound, unusual— ingredients, something the speaker characterizes as a sort of ugly disorder. For the λοπάς, fr. 180.4–6 n. φθορά (attested nowhere else in comedy) is a very strong word, and the speaker appears to be using it in an overwrought, almost apocalyptic sense (cf. Pl. Ti. 22c; Lg. 677a): eating foods like these can bring down a whole people (or worse). For the larger political and social context of the argument, cf. 2–3 (simple food as what a “free person” eats) with n. For the general idea, cf. Men. fr. 165 φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρήσθ’ ὁμιλίαι κακαί (“bad company ruins good habits”; quoted by Paul at NT I Cor. 15:33). 6 For καὶ μήν moving on to the next item in a list, fr. 27.17–18 n. ῥαφάνους … ἕψουσι λιπαράς looks like a condensed way of saying “they’re stewing cabbages, which are then covered with oil before being served”; cf. 7 n.;

Παράσιτος (fr. 182)

311

Ephipp. fr. 3.6 = Eub. fr. dub. 148.3 ἕψειν τ’ ἐλαίῳ ῥάφανον ἠγλαϊσμένην (“and to stew cabbage glistening with oil”); Diph. fr. 14.2 ῥάφανος λιπαρά (literally “sleek cabbage”; in a brief catalogue of good things to be supplied automatically). For stewing cabbage, also Crates Com. fr. 19.1; Alc. Com. fr. 24; Alex. fr. 287.3; Apollod. Car. fr. 5.23; Nicoch. Com. fr. 18.1; cf. Alex. fr. 15.7–8 (cabbage as an enthusiastically received part of a dinner menu) with Arnott 1996 ad loc., and see in general fr. 6 n. The enthusiastic emphasis added by γ(ε) (“they’re stewing cabbages”) is heard again in the oath ὦ θεοί (see fr. 59.3* n.) at the end of the line. 7 ἔτνος (etymology uncertain) appears to be a term for soup made of legumes of any kind (also specifically described as πίσινον, “made of peas”, at Ar. Eq. 1171; contrast ἔτνος κυάμινον, “etnos made of beans”, at Henioch. fr. 4.7); cf. Phot. α 471 ἔτνος ἐκ κυάμων ἢ πισῶν ἢ ἁπλῶς κατερεικτῶν ὡντινωνοῦν σκευάζεται (“etnos is made out of beans or peas or two-part pulse of any sort whatsoever”); García Soler 2001. 66–7; Pellegrino 2013 on Nicopho fr. 21.2. An ἐτνήρυσις (Ar. Ach. 245) is a utensil used for serving it; cf. fr. 243.3 ζωμήρυσιν with n. For ἕψω (6) used to describe how one cooks ἔτνος, e. g. Ar. Ra. 505–6; Ec. 845; fr. 419; Phot. ε 2095 ἔτνος· ἕψημα (“etnos: something boiled / stewed”). For peas, see Eup. fr. 323 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Ar. fr. 22; Alex. fr. 328 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Phaenias of Eresos fr. 48 Wehrli with Neri 1998; García Soler 2001. 71–2; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 82–7 (“among the oldest grain legumes of the Old World”; quote at p. 82).

fr. 182 K.–A. (184 K.) ἐγὼ περὶ τὴν ὀψωνίαν μὲν οὐ πάνυ ἐσπούδακ’, οὐδ’ αὖ συνέτεμον λίαν πάνυ, ὡς ἄν τις ἄλλως ἐξενεχθεῖσιν † ὅπου τοῦ διαλάβοι † κραιπάλην Ἑλληνικῶς 1 μὲν οὐ πάνυ Casaubon : μὲν οὐ πάνυ τι Ath.A : οὐ πάνυ τι Ath.CE 2 συνέτεμον … πάνυ Ath.A : συνέτεμον … πόνον Gulick : σύντομον … πότον Herwerden 3 ἄλλως ἐξενεχθεῖσιν ὅπου Ath.A : ἐξενεχθεῖσιν πότου Ath.A : ἄλλοις Casaubon : ἄλλος Bothe Casaubon : ἐξενεχθεὶς ἐκ πότου Hermann : ἐξενεχθείς, εἰ ξένος Herwerden 4 τοῦ διαλάβοι Ath.A : τουδὶ διαβάλοι Meineke : ἐμοῦ διαβάλοι Gulick : μὴ διαβάλῃ τὴν Hermann : πότου διαβάλοι Herwerden

I haven’t been extremely serious about my shopping, but I also didn’t pare it down too excessively, as someone would otherwise for / with those brought forth † where of the he could get hold † a hangover in Greek style

312

Antiphanes

Ath. 8.358c–d ταῦτα καὶ παρ’ ἡμῶν ἔχετε, ἄνδρες φίλοι, ὀψωνησάντων κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν ἑαυτῶν ὑγιεινῶς. κατὰ γὰρ τὸν Ἀντιφάνους Παράσιτον· —— That is what you get from us, my friends; I bought you the healthiest fish I could. For to quote Antiphanes’ Parasitos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klrl llkl klkl llkl l|lrl klkl llkl l|lkl lk†kl lrkl†|lkl llkl

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 624; Abresch 1755. 368; Meineke 1839–1841 III.101; Hermann 1842. 512; Bothe 1855. 390; Herwerden 1878. 64; Kock 1884 II.87; Tucker 1908. 196; Gulick 1930. 122 Text In 1, the paradosis μὲν οὐ πάνυ τι (thus Ath.A; the Epitome has dropped μὲν) would require an tribrach in the final foot, which will not do. Casaubon removed the final word and wrote μὲν οὐ πάνυ. In 2, the repetition of πάνυ (* in 1) immediately before λίαν—an otherwise unexampled combination of adverbs—has struck some editors as odd, hence Gulick’s συνέτεμον … πόνον (“nor have I cut my labours too short”) and Herwerden’s (“nor again about excessively vigorous drinking parties”118), neither of which is compelling enough to be adopted. In place of Ath.A’s ἄλλως in the first half of 3, Casaubon suggested ἄλλοις (to agree with ἐξενεχθεῖσιν; see below on 3–4), Bothe ἄλλος (to agree with τις). But the sense of what follows is too uncertain for there to be any point in emending. At the end of 3 and beginning of 4, Ath.A offers ἐξενεχθεῖσιν ὅπου τοῦ διαλάβοι, which is not just unmetrical but makes no sense. Casaubon proposed ὡς ἄν τις ἄλλων ξενεχθέντων πόπου / αὐτὸς διαλάβοι κραιπάλην Ἑλληνικῶς, Hermann ὡς ἄν τις ἄλλως ἐξενεχθεὶς ἐκ πότου / μὴ διαβάλῃ τὴν κραιπάλην Ἑλληνικοῦ, van Herwerden ὡς ἄν τις ἄλλος ἐξενεχθείς, εἰ