FrC 22.2 Nikostratos II – Theaitetos [1 ed.] 9783949189296, 9783949189272

Citation preview

Fragmenta Comica Nikostratos II – Theaitetos Nikostratos II Philippides Sosippos Stephanos Theaitetos

Titelei_VUR P0016154_FrC_22.2_Hartwig.qxp_. 12.11.21 10:12 Seite 1

Titelei_VUR P0016154_FrC_22.2_Hartwig.qxp_. 12.11.21 10:12 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 22.2 · Nikostratos II – Theaitetos

Titelei_VUR P0016154_FrC_22.2_Hartwig.qxp_. 12.11.21 10:12 Seite 3

Andrew Hartwig

Nicostratus II – Theaetetus Introduction, Translation, Commentary

Verlag Antike

Titelei_VUR P0016154_FrC_22.2_Hartwig.qxp_. 12.11.21 10:12 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 978-3-949189-29-6

τοῖς ἐμοῖς φίλοις

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 10

Nicostratus II (Νικόστρατος) . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Testimonia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Play Title. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [․․4–5․․]οσκόπος ([—]oskopos) (‘[—]watcher’) . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

11 11 15 15 23

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Philippides (Φιλιππίδης) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Testimonia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Play Titles and Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀδωνιάζουσαι (Adōniazousai) (‘Women Celebrating the Adonia’) . . . . . . . . . . Ἀμφιάραος (Amphiaraos) (‘Amphiaraus’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀνανεοῦσα (Ananeousa) or Ἀνανεώσις (Ananeōsis) (‘She who Renews’ or ‘Rejuvenation’) . . . . . . . . . Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (Argyriou aphanismos) (‘Disappearance of Money’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Αὐλοί (Auloi) (‘Pipes’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Βασανιζομένη (Basanizomenē) (‘Female Cross-Examined under Torture’) . . . . . . Ἐκπ[ ] (Ekp[ ]) (‘Out[ ]’). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Λακιάδαι (Lakiadai) (‘Demesmen of Lakiadai’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Μαστροπός (Mastropos) (‘Procuress’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Μύστις (Mystis) (‘Female Initiate’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

24 24 37 37 77

. . . . . . . . . .

77

. . . . . . . . . .

90

. . . . . . . . . . 103 . . . . . . . . . . 125 . . . . . . . . . . 137 . . . . . . . . . . 144 . . . . . . . . . . 150 . . . . . . . . . . 155 . . . . . . . . . . 166 . . . . . . . . . . 175

Συνεκπλέουσα (Synekpleousa) or Συνεκπλέουσαι (Synekpleousai) (‘Female Sailing Out in Company’ or ‘Females Sailing Out in Company’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Φιλάδελφοι (Philadelphoi) (‘Siblings in Love’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Φιλαθήναιος (Philathēnaios) (‘Athens-Lover’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Φιλάργυρος (Philargyros) (‘Money-Lover’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Φίλαρχος (Philarchos) (‘Power-Lover’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Φιλευριπίδης (Phileuripidēs) (‘Euripides-Lover’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incertarum fabularum fragmenta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sosippus (Σώσιππος) . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . Play Title. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀπολείπουσα (Apoleipousa) (‘Woman Seeking a Divorce’) Stephanus (Στέφανος) . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Commentary . . . . . . . . . . Testimonia. . . . . . . . . . Play Title and Fragment . . Φιλολάκων (Philolakōn) (‘Sparta-Lover’) . . . . .

. . . . .

Theaetetus (Θεαίτητος) . Introduction . . . . . . . Commentary . . . . . . . Testimonium . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . 178 . . 189 . . 196 . . 203 . . 211 . . 215 . . 229 . . . .

. . . .

289 289 291 291

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

295 295 297 297 303

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

316 316 318 318

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

9

Preface This volume contains the surviving fragments and testimonia of several comic poets active around the late fourth century through to the early third century BCE – Nicostratus II, Philippides, Sosippus, Stephanus and Theaetetus. In the case of two of these poets, Sosippus and Theaetetus, there is doubt whether they wrote comedy at all. The most substantially represented author in this volume is Philippides about whose life we know considerably more than most other comic poets due to the chance survival of a contemporary decree in his honour (test. 3), as well as his defensive attack on one of the leading Athenian politicians of the time, Stratocles of Diomeia, preserved in the writer Plutarch (fr. 25). The latter has forced a rethink on traditional ideas about the scope and pungency of New Comedy as reconstructed from the more benign works of Menander and the Roman playwrights Plautus and Terence. Apart from an individual fragment or two of Philippides, the poets and fragments in this volume have not previously received a comprehensive modern scholarly commentary. The approach here has been to take play titles as a starting point to provide the larger historical, socio-cultural and literary background to each drama. Close analysis of the individual fragments also offers parallels of comic themes, motifs and characters which may indicate how these comedies fit within the broader comic tradition. Interpreting fragments is inevitably full of pitfalls and difficulties, and the analysis here can only suggest possibilities with comic precedents. Part of the research for this volume was assisted by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (Postdoctoral Fellowship) held at the University of Sydney, which I gratefully acknowledge here. The Centre for Classical and Near Eastern Studies of Australia at the University of Sydney (CCANESA) provided a collegial and supportive environment for my work. Among the many individuals who have helped in various ways during the writing of this commentary I thank Han Baltussen and Peter Davis for inviting me to contribute to their workshop on self-censorship in the ancient world where I first grappled with Philippides in earnest. Stelios Chronopoulos, whom I had met at a conference many years ago as a fellow graduate student of comedy, suggested (via Eric Csapo) that I contribute to the KomFrag project. At Sydney, Eric Csapo and Peter Wilson have since been a constant support, hosting theatre seminars, reading work samples, and always sharing their ideas and expertise. Many other colleagues, both at Sydney and elsewhere, have given helpful advice and suggestions. I take the opportunity to thank Francesco Bianchi, James Collins, Federico Favi, Dick Green, Elisabeth Günther, Daniel Hanigan, Frances Muecke, Sebastiana Nervegna, Douglas Olson, Christian Orth, Elodie Paillard, Reuben Ramsey and Nello Sidoti. Particular thanks go to Bernhard Zimmermann for his constant positivity, encouragement and patience, and especially to Virginia Mastellari for her ever-prompt feedback and suggestions. Finally, but not least, I thank my family for their support during the time needed to complete this book. Sydney, 3 July 2021

10

Note Unless indicated otherwise, all comic fragments [fr.] and testimonia [test.] are cited according to the numbering in Kassel and Austin’s Poetae Comici Graeci (also abbreviated as K.-A. or PCG). Citations of Aristophanes follow the OCT edition of Wilson (2007), as do references to the Hypotheses of individual plays. The scholia [Σ] on Aristophanes follow the edition of Koster and Holwerda (1960–2007). Fragments of Menander follow Kassel and Austin (1998 VI 2), while references to Menander’s plays (e. g. Dysc., Epit., Sam., etc.) follow the numbering in Arnott (1979–2000). The fragments of Matro of Pitane and Archestratus of Gela follow the editions of Olson and Sens (1999 and 2000). References to fragments of the tragic poets follow Snell et al. (TrGF 1971–2004). Most other ancient works follow the editions used by Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Abbreviations of all ancient Greek authors and their works follow the conventions used in LSJ. Roman authors follow the abbreviations in Brill’s New Pauly [BNP]. Frequently cited lexicographers follow the numbering used in these editions: Antiatticist = Valente (2015), Hesychius = Latte et al. (1953–2009), Photius = Theodoridis (1982–2013), and the Suda = Adler (1928–1938). Journal abbreviations follow L’Année philologique or else the Journal of American Archaeology. Botanical and zoological names which use the nomenclature of Carl Linnaeus are indicated by [L.]. For futher abbreviations, see the Bibliography. The printed text of the comic fragments in this volume closely follows the text as found in the edition of Kassel and Austin. Sometimes, however, a different text is preferred and presented (see e. g. Philippid. frr. 4, 7, 13, 22, 25, 27). Likewise, the textual apparatus relies for the most part on the readings reported by Kassel and Austin, but occasionally contains additions. All English translations of ancient authors are my own and are primarily meant to elucidate the Greek without making any claim to literary merit.

11

Nicostratus II (Νικόστρατος) Introduction 1. Name and Identity Nicostratus II (PA 11038; PAA 717838) was a poet from the period of New Comedy. Because of his shared name and profession, he is thought by some scholars (e. g. Kirchner in PA and Sutton 1987) to belong to the same family as the Middle Comedy poet Nicostratus I (PA 11038; PAA 718525)1 who in turn may have been a son of the Old Comedy poet Aristophanes (PA 2090; PAA 175685; see Proleg. de com. XXXI.11–14 Koster; Σrec. Pl. Ap. 19c [= Ar. test. 3.13–16; Dicaearch. fr. 103 Fortenbaugh-Schutrumpf; Apollod. fr. 50 Jacoby; FGrH 244 F 75]) τρεῖς δ’ ἔσχεν υἱούς, Φίλιππον … καὶ Ἀραρότα … καὶ τρίτον, ὃν Ἀπολλόδωρος μὲν Νικόστρατον καλεῖ, οἱ δὲ περὶ Δικαίαρχον Φιλεταῖρον, ‘(Aristophanes) had three sons, Philippus … and Araros … and a third, whom Apollodorus calls Nicostratus, but those around Dicaearchus call Philetaerus’ (see Kirchner at PA 11038; Sutton 1987. 20–1; Millis and Olson 2012. 74).2 If the family connection is genuine, then Nicostratus II would have been an Athenian from the deme Kydathenaion. The comic poet Nicostratus III (PAA 717840; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 94), who competed at the Dionysia of 186/5 BCE (SEG 38.162 line 153 = IG II2 2323.279 M-O = Nicostr.Com. III test. 1), may also be from the same family (cf. Millis and Olson 2012. 104, 190). Nonetheless, despite these possible links, the name Nicostratus was very common in the Greek world, with more than six-hundred individuals by this name recorded in LGPN, and some twenty or so attested in Athens from the fourth century to the middle of the third century BCE.3 If our Nicostratus is unrelated to these earlier comic poets, he may not have been Athenian at all.

1

2

3

Cf. Ath. 13.587d Νικόστρατος δὲ ὁ τῆς μέσης κωμῳδίας ποιητής, ‘Nicostratus the poet of Middle Comedy’, and IG II2 3094 = IG II3 4, 497 dated ca. 400–375 BCE; although see Csapo and Wilson 2020. 163–4 for doubts about the identity of Nicostratus there. Leaving aside difficulties in evaluating the respective merits of Dicaearchus and Apollodorus of Athens in their judgement on the sons of Aristophanes, proposed solutions to the dilemma (found in Sutton 1987. 20) include the idea that both were Aristophanes’ sons, with one possibly illegitimate; or that both are the same person; or that one of them was related to Aristophanes in some other capacity. Interestingly, Nicostratus I and Philetaerus are both attributed with the authorship of the comedy Antyllos (Ath. 2.65d; 3.108c; 3.118e; Suda ν 405). But how one should interpret this in relation to the proposals above remains an open question. Mette (1977. 216) tentatively identifies him instead with a Nicostratus, son of Nicostratus, from the deme Cholargos (PA 11058; PAA 718840, perhaps the same person as PA 11057 = PAA 718845).

12

Nicostratus II

2. Chronology and Career Our earliest date for Nicostratus II’s activity is the City Dionysia of 311 BCE (test. 1) where the first half of his name is restored with reasonable certainty as the second-prize winner that year. The evidence of the Lenaean victors’ list (test. 3) suggests that his first victory at that festival could have been as early as 315 BCE, and it is reasonable to suppose that his dramatic debut was even earlier than this. He was still active as late as 280 BCE when he is recorded competing alongside Philemon and Aminias at Delos (test. 4), and therefore apparently sustained a reasonably long career of more than thirty years. His record in the Lenaean victors’ list indicates he won at least one victory in Athens (test. 3).

3. Nicostratus II and Other Comic Poets Several plays and fragments assigned to Nicostratus I in Kassel and Austin (1989 VII. 74–92) are sometimes attributed to Nicostratus II. Early editions of the comic fragments (e. g. Meineke, Kock) did not yet have the epigraphical evidence at their disposal, and so did not recognise the later poet, but attributed all the fragments to Nicostratus I despite occasional references to ‘New Comedy’ in the sources (see e. g. Meineke 1839. 346). Most citations in Athenaeus refer to Nicostratus by name alone with no distinguishing epithet, and it seems doubtful he knew there was more than one poet by this name,4 although at Ath. 13.587d (= Nicostr. Com. fr. 20) he does identify the poet in question more specifically as the ‘poet of Middle Comedy’ (see Nesselrath 1990. 61–2). The comedies and fragments listed below have been suspected for various reasons, and with varying degrees of probability, as belonging to Nicostratus II. Since we do not know with certainty when Nicostratus I finished his career and whether he was still active in the second half of the fourth century, some of the dating criteria should be treated cautiously. The most likely among the candidates below for authorship by Nicostratus II are Basileis and Ornitheutēs. Apelaunomenos: Bain (1977. 190 n. 4), on the basis of fr. 7.1 (ἄνδρες), suspects this may be a direct address to the audience, suggesting this was more typical of New Comedy. But comedy has always addressed the audience directly, including Middle Comedy, where direct address can be found, for example, at Henioch. fr. 5 (speaker anticipating audience questions and setting the scene at Olympia) and Timocl. fr. 19.6–7 (interlocutor asking the audience not to hiss at a ‘frigid’ joke). Webster (1952. 22 n.1) also notes the reference at fr. 7.1 to mattyē – a Thessalian 4

Contrast, for example, citations by Athenaeus of Cratinus and Cratinus Junior where in the case of the latter he always uses the distinguishing epithet Κρατῖνος ὁ νεώτερος (see frr. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14).

Introduction

13

dish apparently introduced to Athens during the period of Macedonian hegemony and so suggests it would better suit Nicostratus II and the period of New Comedy (cf. Ath. 14.662f; Antiph. test. 7; Macho fr. 19.463 Gow = fr. 1 K.-A.; Poll. 6.70; Hsch. μ 412).5 Basileis: Körte (1936. 546; see also Wilhelm 1906a. 132–3, 181) argues that the title probably refers to the Successors of Alexander and the sudden efflorescence of ‘kings’ after the Antigonids first assumed the title in 306 BCE (see on Steph.Com. fr. 1.1 this volume). The play also features a braggart soldier, a character more typical of late fourth-century comedy (see on Steph.Com. fr. 1 ‘Interpretation’ for references; Nesselrath 1990. 326 n. 120). In addition, our only fragment from this comedy (fr. 8.2) features the word εὐπάρυφος, attested only here in comedy, and which Poll. 7.46 tells us was a ‘New Comedy’ term for χλαμύς (χλαμύς … ὡς ἡ νέα κωμῳδία εὐπάρυφος). Edmonds 1961. 182–3 assigns the play to Nicostratus II. Mageiros: Like Apelaunomenos it contains a reference to the Thessalian dish mattyē (fr. 16.3) and is therefore thought to be later (Webster 1952. 22 n. 1). Ornitheutēs: Harpocration (p. 225, 17 Dindorf) explicitly mentions that this title by Nicostratus appears in the ‘New Comedy’: ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ νέᾳ κωμῳδίᾳ δρᾶμα Ὀρνιθευτὴς Νικοστράτου, ‘in New Comedy there is also a drama of Nicostratus, Ornitheutēs (Bird-catcher)’.6 Pandrosos: Weinreich (1931. 125) suspects this may belong to a later era based on stylistic criteria, more specifically fr. 18.4–5 with its proverbial conciseness on the themes of τύχη and πρόνοια, which he considers more typical of later comedy. This criterion is somewhat weak, and Athenaeus, in any case, explicitly attributes this comedy to Nicostratus the poet of ‘Middle Comedy’ (Ath. 13.587d = fr. 20). Syros: Webster (1952. 22 n. 1) suspects this comedy may belong to the younger poet based on the reference to the wandering performer Cephisodorus (PAA 568055) at fr. 25.1. The same figure is also mentioned by Dionysius of Sinope (fr. 4) who won his first Lenaean victory in the 330s (IG II2 2325.153 = 2325E.53 M-O; see Papachrysostomou 2008. 150). Tokistēs: Fr. 26.3 refers to the parasite Chaerephon. Webster (1952. 22) dates most comic references to this figure to around 325–310 BCE (for references in Middle Comedy see Antiph. fr. 197; Alex. frr. 213, 259; Timocl. fr. 9; Timoth. fr. 1; 5

6

For the dish in New Comedy, see Philem. frr. 8, 11 and 71; Macho fr. 1. For the dish in Middle Comedy writers, see Alex. frr. 50.3 and 208 (from Pyraunos dated ca. 305 to 295 BCE based on fr. 207: Arnott 1996. 590, and so from the period of New Comedy); Sophil. fr. 5.5 (date uncertain, but he mocks Stilpo, who died early 3rd c. BCE, in his Gamos); and Dionys.Com. fr. 1.1 (first Lenaean victory ca. 339–332 BCE during the period of Macedonian domination: Papachrysostomou 2008. 150). All such references then – leaving aside the disputed attribution of Nicostr.Com. frr. 7 and 16 – could easily fit the late fourth century post 338 BCE during the Macedonian hegemony. On the problem of whether Harpocration recognised ‘Middle Comedy’ at all, see Nesselrath 1990. 16.

14

Nicostratus II

in New Comedy: Men. frr. 215, 225, 265; Apollod.Car. frr. 29, 31), and therefore attributes this play to the younger Nicostratus (see also Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 87). Fr. 28: Edmonds (1959. 40 n. 2), tentatively and without any supporting argument, suggests that this fragment belongs to Nicostratus II. Fr. 29: Weinreich (1931. 125) attributes fr. 29 to Nicostratus II due to the popularity of the Euripides quotation (E. fr. 661.1) among New Comedy poets (e. g. Men. Asp. 407; Philippid. fr. 18 this volume with note). The quote, however, already appears as early as Ar. Ra. 1217. Even less convincingly, he argues that the style of pithy wisdom used in this fragment was apparently more pronounced in the time of Nicostratus II (cf. on Pandrosos above). Fr. 32: Nesselrath (1990. 326 n. 120) suggests the New Comedy poet may be in question here because Pollux, when citing the fragment, mentions Nicostratus alongside Menander as poets who used the word περισκελίδας ‘leg bands’ (Poll. 5.100) τῷ ὀνόματι κέχρηται Μένανδρος καὶ Νικόστρατος οἱ κωμῳδοδιδάσκαλοι, ‘the comic poets Menander and Nicostratus have used the word’.

4. Literature Editions: Edmonds 1961. 182–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 93 Studies: Wilhelm 1906a. 132–3; Körte 1936. 545–6; Sifakis 1967. 27; Sutton 1987. 20–1; Bäbler 2006; Shaw 2019. 611

15

Commentary Testimonia test. 1 K.-A.

40

45

50

IG II2 2323a.39–53 = 2323a.5–19 M-O [ἐπὶ Πολέμ]ωνος παλαιᾶι [․․․6․․․ Θ]ησαυρῶι Ἀναξαν [ποη ∶ Φιλιπ]πίδης Μύστιδι [ὑπε ∶ Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος [Νικόστ]ρατος δεύ [․․4–5․․]οσκόπωι [ὑπε ∶ Κ]άλλιππος νεώτε [Ἀμεινί]ας? τρί ∶ Ἀπολειπούσει [οὗτος ἔ]φηβος ὢν ἐνεμήθη [ὑπε ∶ Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος [Θεόφιλο]ς? τέ ∶ Παγκρατιασ [ὑπε ∶ ․․․ιπ]πος [․․․․8․․․․ πέμ ∶ Π]αιδίωι [ὑπε ∶ — —] [ὑπο ∶ Ἀσκληπιόδωρο]ς ἐνίκ[α]

312/11 BCE

43 [Νικόστ]ρατος Wilhelm 44 [Ἀργυρ]οσκόπωι Wilhelm : [Μετωπ]οσκόπωι Wilhelm : [Τερατ]οσκόπωι Wilhelm, Körte : [Ὀρνιθ]οσκόπωι Kassel and Austin : [Θυνν]οσκόπωι Millis and Olson : fortasse [Ὀρνε]οσκόπωι aut [Χειρ]οσκόπωι 40

45

50

[In the archonship] of [Polem]on, with an old (comedy) [—] with [Th]ēsauros of Anaxandrides. [The poet was Philip]pides with Mystis, [the actor was Ask]lepiodoros. [Nicost]ratus was second [with -]oskopos, [the actor was K]allippos the Younger. [Amini]as? was third with Apoleipousa, [this one] was distributed (a chorus) while an [e]phebe, [the actor was Ask]lepiodoros. [Theophilu]s? was fourth with Pankratiastēs, [the actor was –ip]pos. [— was fifth with P]aidion, [the actor was —] [The actor Asklepiodoro]s was the winne[r]

312/11 BCE

Discussion Wilhelm 1906a. 45–50; Edmonds 1961. 182–3; Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 94, 109–10; Ghiron-Bistagne 1976. 40–2; Mette 1977. 114–15; Nesselrath 1990. 190; Millis and Olson 2012. 70–5.

16

Nicostratus II

Citation context From the so-called Didascaliae (IG II2 2319–2323a, Agora I 7151), an inscription which preserved records of tragic and comic performances at the Athenian dramatic festivals of the Lenaea and the City Dionysia (see more recently Millis and Olson 2012. 59–60; Millis 2014. 434–40). Here it evidently records participants at the City Dionysia as the inclusion of an ‘old (comedy)’ suggests at lines 39–40 (a feature added to that festival in 339 BCE, see IG II2 2318.316–18 = 1563–5 M-O; Millis and Olson 2012. 70). This fragment of the inscription was found on the south slope of the Acropolis of Athens and is now held in the Epigraphical Museum of Athens (EM 8229). See also on Philippid. test. 8 this volume. Text Wilhelm (1906a. 45) restored [Nicost]ratus in the lacuna at line 43. No other comic poet from this period has the same name ending. The obscure figure Callistratus (Kassel and Austin 1983 IV. 56), active in the fifth century, and Timostratus, active in the second century BCE (IG II2 2323.141, 155 = 262, 291 M-O), are the only other known comic poets with the same ending. The restoration of Nicostratus receives further support from the relative position of his name on the Lenaean victors’ list (test. 3) which indicates he won his first victory at the Lenaea around 315 BCE or soon after, approximately the same time as the production recorded here. For the restorations to the dramatic title in line 44 as listed in the apparatus (and other possibilities), see the commentary below under ‘Title’. Interpretation Of the five comic poets who competed at the City Dionysia on this occasion, Nicostratus (as restored) took second place after Philippides, with Aminias? third, and probably Theophilus? and Menander? fourth and fifth respectively. test. *2 K.-A.

40

45

50

IG II2 2323a.38–52 = 2323a, col. ii.4–18 M-O ἐ[πὶ — — —] [— — —] .[— — —] Ị[— — —] Γ̣[— — —] Μ[— — —] [— — —] .[— — —] Φ[— — —] Τ[— — —] Στ̣[— — —] ὑπ[ε — — —] Νι[κόστρατος? πέμ? (aut ἕκτ ?) ∶ —] ὑπ̣[ε — — —] ὑπ[ο — — —]

Testimonia (test. *2)

17

38 ἐ[πὶ — — οὐκ ἐγένετο?] Mette 39 ἐ[πὶ — — παλαιᾶι] Mette 42 Γ̣ Wilhelm  : Π̣ Mette 46 fortasse Φ[ιλήμων —] aut Φ[ιλιππίδης —] 48 Στ[ράτων? τέ ∶ —] Wilhelm : fortasse Στ̣[έφανος τέ ∶ —] aut Στ̣[έφανος πέμ ∶ —] 50 Νι[κόστρατος? πέμ ∶—] Wilhelm : fortasse Νι[κόστρατος ἕκτ ∶ —]

40

45

50

I[n the archonship of — —] [— — —] .[— — —] Ị[— — —] G̣[— — —] Μ[— — —] [— — —] . [— — —] Ph[— — —] Τ[— — —] Sṭ[— — —] the act[or was —] Ni[costratus? was fifth? (or sixth?) with —] the act[or was —] The act[or — was the winner]

Discussion Wilhelm 1906a. 45, 49–50; Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 109–10; Mette 1977. 116; Millis and Olson 2012. 72–3, 75. Citation context From the Didascaliae (see on test. 1 above) listing comic poets and actors at the City Dionysia ca. 302 BCE. Our text appears on the right-hand edge of the same stone fragment as test. 1 (Athens EM 8229), forming the initial letters of entries found in the adjacent column of text (image in Millis and Olson 2012. 71). Text At line 38 we either have the beginning of a new annual entry, or else an indicator that no contest was held that year, in which case the beginning of the next annual entry would have appeared at line 39. If the record begins at line 38, the length of the annual entry would be 15 lines, although normally one might expect 13 lines. The additional two lines may therefore suggest that six poets competed at the Dionysia that year, with the extra two lines containing details for another poet, play and actor. However, it is also possible that the two extra lines were added due to overlap or supplementary detail, as we find in IG II2 2323a lines 44 and 47 (= test. 1 above; cf. Wilhelm 1906a. 49; Millis and Olson 2012. 70). If six poets are listed here, their names presumably appeared at line 40 (as the second word after the formulaic ποη), and at the beginning of lines 42, 44, 46, 48 and 50. At line 40 Millis and Olson (2012. 73) note a vertical trace along the break and suggest that ‘any letter that has a left vertical is possible’. Since this is where we might expect the word ‘Poet’ to appear, a Π is attractive. At line 42 the Γ̣ might instead be read as Π̣, so Mette (cf. Millis and Olson 2012. 73: ‘Dotted gamma: the letter is along the break, and pi is also possible’).

18

Nicostratus II

At line 46, if we have a line here denoting a poet (see below) we might propose Ph[ilemon] or Ph[ilippides] as possible restorations. At line 48 we might propose St[ephanus] (PCG VII. 614–15; see this volume) who still appears to have been active at this time (see on Steph.Com. fr. 1.1), rather than Wilhelm’s suggestion of the comic poet St[rato] (= Strato test. *2). At line 50, the name Ni[costratus] is the most likely supplement based on known names of comic poets. The comic poet Nicomachus was active around the middle of the third century BCE (Nicom.Com. test. 1–3) and therefore remains a distant second option. Based on the possibility that six comic poets competed at the Dionysia at the end of the fourth century (see discussion below), Nicostratus (if the restoration is correct) might be restored as taking sixth place. Throughout this part of the inscription there is a conspicuous absence of the letter upsilon, usually found at the beginning of every second (or sometimes) third line, to denote the actors (i. e. ὑπε, cf. test. 1 above). On the assumption that six poets competed, and working backwards from line 51 where the last actor is mentioned, we might expect an upsilon to appear at the beginning of line 49 (as it does), at line 47 (where we have Τ), at line 45 (where it may have appeared in the lacuna), at line 43 (where we have Μ), and at line 41 (where we have an underdotted iota). Its absence at the beginning of 43 and 47 (if this reconstruction is correct) might be explained as being postponed and written second after the actor’s name, as apparently paralleled at IG II2 2322.95 = 5 M-O (see Millis and Olson 2012. 111; cf. also IG II2 2323.103 = 17 M-O). Or it may be that play titles that properly belonged to the lines immediately above beside the name of the poet were instead inserted into the next line due to a lack of space, with the actor’s name written immediately after on the same line (cf. IG II2 2320, a section of the Didascaliae recording productions of tragedy ca. 341–339 BCE where the verb abbreviation ὑπε denoting the actor regularly appears as the second item in the line due to overlapping play titles). In both cases no extra lines would have needed to be added to the annual entry. Interpretation Wilhelm restored the name of Nicostratus in line 50. The other remaining traces of letters have traditionally been thought to suggest he was the fifth-place getter in the City Dionysia of that year. However, it is also possible six poets may have competed, in which case Nicostratus would have come sixth (see below). Based on their reconstruction of the Didascaliae and the approximate number of lines for each column and for each yearly entry, Millis and Olson (2012. 70) estimate that this section of the inscription probably records the results of the comic competition at the City Dionysia some 9 or 10 years after test. 1 – i. e. in either 303/2 or 302/1 BCE. There are some grounds for suspecting that six comic poets were competing at the City Dionysia by this time (ca. 302–301 BCE). By the late fourth century the comic choregia at the City Dionysia had been reorganised along tribal lines, with each of the ten tribes apparently forming pairs to support the five comic

Testimonia (test. *2)

19

poets and their choruses (Arist. Ath. 56.3; see also Csapo 2016. 279–80 on the change to a tribal basis for the organisation of comedy sometime before ca. 325 BCE). Although the choregoi were replaced by a single agonothete ca. 308/7 BCE, the same theatrical networks used by the tribes and the earlier choregoi for recruitment and training presumably continued. Indeed, the agonothete, who was now solely in charge of the entire festival (at least nominally) and who was now responsible for a task formerly done by five choregoi, must have relied heavily on these pre-existing structures to relieve what would otherwise have been an enormous burden. With the introduction of two new tribes, increasing from ten to twelve, soon after in 307/6 BCE, and the necessary allocation of demes to the two new tribes, the number of comic poets at the Dionysia also presumably increased from five to six, not only due to the pre-existing tribal organisational structure of the contest, but to ensure that the two new tribes were not excluded but could participate in the competitive rivalry which had long been established in the comic competition. The fact that six poets were competing at the City Dionysia by 215 BCE (IG II2 2323.100–12 = 14–28 M-O) is best explained (in lieu of any other obvious reason) by this underlying tribal arrangement and increase in tribes (cf. esp. Csapo and Wilson 2014. 406), and so the increase was presumably made sooner rather than later. An increase in the number of comic poets in the late 300s BCE might appear to be contradicted by the inscriptional evidence for the Lenaea festival. There we find five comic poets still competing in 286/5 BCE (IG II2 2319, col. i.56; see Millis and Olson 2012. 109). However, the Lenaean choregia was never organised along tribal lines. The Athenaion Politeia (56.3) only mentions tribally appointed choregoi in relation to the City Dionysia and Thargelia festivals. The Lenaea was also administered by a completely different official (the archon basileus) and made use of non-citizen metic choregoi (ΣVE Ar. Pl. 953d; SEG 32.239; Wilson 2000. 29–31) which precluded any tribal-based appointment of choregoi at that festival. In fact, we have no evidence that six comic poets ever competed at the Lenaea at all. The increase is only attested by inscriptional evidence for the City Dionysia. Considering that the records for comedy at the City Dionysia as preserved in the Didascaliae are lacunose between the years 311 and 215 BCE, this increase in the number of poets, theoretically, could have occurred at any point between those dates. A date much closer in time to the increase of tribes from ten to twelve (i. e. 307/6 BCE) would seem more realistic for this change, especially if the increase in poets was closely tied to the increase of tribes. Our inscription above, then, may provide our earliest (albeit fragmentary) evidence of this change.

20

Nicostratus II

test. 3. K.-A.

160

165

160

165

IG II2 2325.160–7 = 2325E.60–7 M-O Μ[έν]ανδρος Ι[—] Φ[ι]λήμων ΙΙΙ Ἀπολλόδωρο[ς —] Δίφιλος ΙΙΙ Φιλιππίδης ΙΙ[—] Νικόστρατος [—] Καλλιάδης Ι Ἀμεινίας Ι M[en]ander Ι[—] Ph[i]lemon III Apollodoru[s —] Diphilus III Philippides II[—] Nicostratus [—] Calliades I Aminias I

Discussion Wilhelm 1906a. 181; Edmonds 1961. 182–3; Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 114, 118–19; Mette 1977. 176; Millis and Olson 2012. 178–9, 190. Citation context A fragment from the Lenaean victors’ list recording the number of career victories by individual comic poets at that festival. The inscription as a whole contained a total of eight separate lists for victorious tragic poets, tragic actors, comic poets and comic actors at both the Lenaea and City Dionysia festivals at Athens. All fragments were found on the south slope of the Acropolis, suggesting it was probably erected near the theatre and precinct of Dionysus. The lists were inscribed on the architraves inside an apparently a rectilinear building with remnants of another agonistic inscription (IG II2 3080, an agonothetic dedication) and perhaps IG II2 2853 (an agonothetic dedication dated 279/8 BCE). See generally Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 72–3; Millis and Olson 2012. 133–40; and Millis 2014. 440–3. It appears to have been first inscribed around 280 BCE with additions by other hands down to around 150 BCE (Tracy 2015. 569–70; on the date see also Millis and Olson 2012. 133). The names of the poets are recorded in descending chronological order based on when they won their first victory at the festival. Any subsequent victories at that festival were not inscribed further below in a separate entry but were tallied beside the poet’s name where it first appears (see Millis and Olson 2012. 137; Millis 2014. 441). This fragment is preserved in the Epigraphical Museum at Athens (EM 8194). Interpretation Given that (1) Menander apparently won his first victory at the Lenaea of 321 BCE (for this date see the detailed discussion under Philippid. test.

Testimonia (test. 4)

21

7), that (2) at least four years intervened after Menander’s first victory to cover the first victories of the next four poets in the victors’ list (i. e. the years 320–317 BCE), and that (3) Menander won again at the Lenaea in 316 BCE with Dyskolos (see Men. Dysc. Hyp.), our earliest possible date for Nicostratus’ first Lenaean victory will be 315 BCE. However, a date ca. 315–310 BCE seems more plausible if any of the poets who appeared earlier in the list won an additional victory soon after (as indeed was the case with Menander). The inscription unfortunately breaks off before we are told the total number of victories Nicostratus won at the Lenaea during his career.

test. 4. K.-A.

20

25

20

25

IG XI 2, 107.16–25 οἵδε ἐπεδείξαντο τῶι θεῶι· αὐληταί· Τιμόστρατος Κυζικηνὸς δίς· κωμωιδοί· Τέλεσις Πάριος, Ἱερώνυμος, Πολυκλῆς, Μενεκλῆς, Σιμίας Ἀθηναῖος, Διόδωρος Σινωπεύς· τραγωιδοί· Θεμιστῶν[αξ ․]ΑΣ[․]ΑΜΙΡ̣ΕΥΣ Διονύσιος, Ἀρίσταρχος, Ἡγήσιππος· κιθαριστής· Λύσανδρος δίς̣, 〚— — —〛 Αὐτόνομος· vac. ποιηταὶ κωμωιδιῶν· Φιλήμων (Jun. test. 3), Νικόστρατος, Ἀμεινίας (test. 3). These men gave a show for the god: auletes: Timostratos of Kyzikine twice; Comic (actors): Telesis of Paros, Hieronymos, Polykles, Menekles, Simias of Athens, Diodoros of Sinope; Tragic (actors): Themiston[ax], [—]amireus, Dionysios, Aristarchos, Hegesippos; Kitharist: Lysandros twice, 〚— — —〛 Autonomos. vac. Poets of comedies: Philemon (Jun. test. 3), Nicostratus, Aminias (test. 3).

Discussion Hauvette-Besnault 1883. 106–7; Preuner 1899. 73; Capps 1900c. 122–3; Wilhelm 1906a. 45–6; Edmonds 1961. 182–3; Sifakis 1967. 24–5, 27, 29, 148–9; Csapo and Wilson 2020. 653. Citation context From the so-called tabulae archontum or records of the eponymous archons at Delos (IG XI 2, 105–33) which record significant events that occurred during the year in which each held office (see Sifakis 1967. 19; Csapo and Wilson 2020. 651–3). The present record is from the year 280 BCE, as indicated by the archon name Charmos found in line 1 (not included in the text above).

22

Nicostratus II

Interpretation The inscription preserves records of the choregoi and performers at the Delian Apollonia and Dionysia festivals in 280 BCE. The first half of the inscription (here omitted) mentions comic choregoi only in connection with the Dionysia festival, and so the comic performance recorded here was presumably at the local Dionysia also (on the local Dionysia, see Csapo and Wilson 2020. 654–7; Sifakis 1967. 25 suggests it could be ‘either the Dionysia or the federal Ptolemaia’). Three comic poets are listed: Philemon (I or II?), Nicostratus and Aminias, while six comic actors are listed. Poets are rarely named in these inscriptions, or are usually a single individual, e. g. IG XI 2, 113.26 of 263 BCE: Nicomachus (= test. 1); IG XI 2, 115.26 of 259 BCE: Chrysippus (= test.); IG XI 2, 120.53 of 236 BCE: Aristides (= test.), although the text is lacunose (see Sifakis 1967. 148–52 for a summary of the personnel recorded in these inscriptions). Sifakis (1967. 25) therefore suggests that the presence of three poets ‘might imply an extraordinary occasion’. All three poets might certainly have been chosen in this case on the basis of their experience and reputation. Nicostratus and Aminias were already well established in their careers by this stage with over thirty years of experience behind them (Aminias would have been aged around 50 at the time, and Nicostratus was even older than this). And if a special occasion is in question we might surmise that the Philemon mentioned here was the more senior and better-known poet, then aged around 80, who continued to be active writing comedy until his death some twenty years later in 263/2 BCE. The formulaic phrase οἵδε ἐπεδείξαντο τῶι θεῶι at line 16 (‘these men gave a show for the god’) may suggest the performances were non-competitive (see Csapo and Wilson 2020. 653; cf. Sifakis 1967. 24). This formula, at any rate, was later replaced by the phrase οἵδε ἠγωνίσαντο τῶι θεῶι (‘these men competed for the god’) sometime between 259 and 236 BCE (Sifakis 1967. 19 thinks both phrases are equivalent in meaning). If a competition did take place, their names may be listed in order of merit at the contest. Otherwise, unless random, the order might follow that in which each poet performed.

23

Play Title [․․4–5․․]οσκόπος ([—]oskopos) (‘[—]watcher’)

Discussion Wilhelm 1906a. 48; Edmonds 1961. 182–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 93; Millis and Olson 2012. 74. Title For what remains of the title see test. 1.44 (above). Approximately 4 or 5 letters are lost at the beginning of the word, but the second half reveals it is a compound form containing the word for ‘watcher’ (-σκόπος). The suffix is not found elsewhere among known comic titles. It does, however, admit a limited number of possibilities for reconstruction. Compounds with this element usually refer either to guards (e. g. ἡμεροσκόπος, ‘guard who watches by day’), fishermen (θυννοσκόπος, ‘watcher for tunny-fish’; βατιδοσκόπος, ‘watcher for skate’), or, most frequently of all, various types of seers and diviners (ἱεροσκόπος and θυοσκόπος, ‘diviner of sacrificial victims’; τερατοσκόπος, ‘diviner of signs and marvels’; ὀρνεοσκόπος and ὀρνιθοσκόπος, ‘bird-diviner’; χειροσκόπος, ‘palm reader’; ὡροσκόπος, ‘astrologist’). Among solutions for the lacuna proposed by scholars, Wilhelm (1906a. 48) offered [Ἀργυρ]οσκόπωι (‘Assayer of Silver’), [Μετωπ]οσκόπωι (‘Forehead Reader’), and [Τερατ]οσκόπωι (‘Diviner of Marvels’), the last of which he considered the most probable (cf. Körte 1936. 546 who endorses the restoration). Other proposals include [Ὀρνιθ]οσκόπωι (‘Bird Diviner’) by Kassel and Austin (1989. 93) and [Θυνν]οσκόπωι (‘Tunny Scout’) by Millis and Olson (2012. 74). Considering the fondness of New Comedy for ethical themes and conventional character types, a more likely subject would be a seer or diviner of some kind (cf. Wilhelm 1906a. 48). Mendicant priests and diviners who conform to the ethical type of the ἀλαζών or ‘braggart’ (see Ribbeck 1882. 14–15) lie behind many Middle and New Comedy titles (e. g. Anaxandrides’ Pharmakomantis; Antiphanes’ Mēnagyrtes and Oiōnistes; Alexis’ Manteis; Philemon’s Agyrtes; and Menander’s Hiereia and Mēnagyrtes) and so would not be out of place here (for seers in comedy, see on Philippid. fr. 38 this volume). If such a character is the eponymous figure of our play, we might propose [Ὀρνε]οσκόπωι or [Χειρ]οσκόπωι as possible titles which fit the suggested four to five letter lacuna. Content No fragments survive. On thematic possibilities, see ‘Title’ above. Date 311 BCE at the City Dionysia. Nicostratus came second in the competition (test. 1).

24

Philippides (Φιλιππίδης) Introduction 1. Name and Identity Philippides of Athens (PA 14356; PAA 928970; APF 14546; LGPN II s. v. 9) was a poet of New Comedy. He was the son of Philokles (PA 14546; PAA 936080; APF 14546; LGPN II s. v. 71) from the deme Kephale (tribe Akamantis) located in southeast Attica (see test. 3.58–9; Humphreys 2018. 986–7). The family was evidently wealthy: Philokles served as trierarch sometime before 323/2 BCE;7 while Philippides himself spent large amounts of his own money as agonothete in 284/3 BCE (see test. 3.38–48). Beyond this evidence, reconstructions of Philippides’ family line are highly speculative. Scholars have hypothesised several figures who may be descendants or relatives of our poet. Kirchner in particular (1896. 260–1; see also under PA 14567) inferred that Philippides had a son named Philokles (PA 14547).8 Kirchner also suspected that Philippides (II) from Kephale (PA 14355; PAA 928960; LGPN II s. v. 11), who served as archon basileus in 216/15 BCE (IG II2 1706.90), was the son of this putative Philokles, and so the grandson of our poet Philippides. Kirchner further conjectured that the second-century BCE comic poet Philocles (PA 14548; PAA 935460; LGPN II s. v. 30), who won at the City Dionysia of 154 BCE with Traumatias (see test. 9.234; PCG VII. 361), was Philippides’ greatgrandson (see also Sutton 1987. 23–4). The reconstruction is possible, but cf. the scepticism of scholars such as Davies (1971. 541–2) and Millis and Olson (2012. 106 on line 510).9 7

8

9

Philokles paid upwards of 4,300 drachmas to equip the trireme Pallēnis built by Chairestratus (IG II2 1631.474–8). Philokles may also be the same as PAA 935300 whose name was inscribed on a lead curse tablet dated ca. 323 BCE (IG III App. 103.7, Wünsch 1897. 26–7) directed against a group of wealthy Athenian citizens, many of whom served as trierarch around the same time as Philokles. One might suggest that the comic actor Philokles (PAA 935350) who first won the acting prize at the City Dionysia ca. 285 BCE and at the Lenaea ca. 280 BCE (IG II2 2325.94 = 2325D.27 M-O and 210 = 2325F.80 M-O) was the poet’s presumed son (cf. the exempli gratia comments of Millis and Olson 2012. 106 on IG II2 2323.510 M-O). But aside from their professional link, the name is otherwise extremely common in Athens (there are 145 examples in LGPN II s. v.) and any such identification can only remain speculative at best. Philokles’ relationship as presumed great-grandson to Philippides would be only just chronologically possible if we assume Philippides was born ca. 345 BCE (see ‘Chronology and Career’ below) and that each generation was born on average around 40 years apart. This would make Philokles around 70 years of age when Traumatias was produced in 154 BCE.

Introduction

25

A homonymous Philippides son of Dio[-] from Kephale, who was a member of the Council in 305/4 BCE (Agora XV 58.62; PAA 928970; LGPN II s. v. 10; cf. APF 14546), is suspected of being the poet’s uncle (so Dow 1937. 34) or perhaps a cousin (Paschidis 2008. 116 n. 3).

2. Chronology and Career Philippides was likely born ca. 345 BCE when we consider that: (1) he received the highest honours in Athens in late 283 BCE (test. 3), an honour typically bestowed on citizens after they had reached the age of sixty (see e. g. Paschidis 2008. 116 n. 2), giving us a terminus ante quem of 343 BCE; and (2) we emend his floruit, as recorded by the Suda, from the evidently corrupt ριαʹ (336/2 BCE) to the orthographically similar and more chronologically plausible ριδʹ (324/0 BCE), a date which, as often with dramatic poets, can denote either his debut or (more likely) his first victory (see test. 1). A debut or first victory around the age of twenty to twenty-five is highly plausible, from which a birth date of ca. 345 BCE would certainly fit. Several sources, including the Suda above, combine to suggest that Philippides probably won his first dramatic victory more specifically at the City Dionysia of 320 BCE (see detailed arguments under test. 1, 5 and 7). His dramatic debut could potentially have been several years before this date, making him a slightly older and more experienced contemporary of Menander. His first victory at the Lenaea can be roughly dated to 317 BCE at the very earliest, or else 315 BCE or later (test. 7). We know that he won a victory at the City Dionysia in 311 BCE with Mystis (test. 8), and it is just possible – but far from certain – that traces of Philippides’ name are preserved in an inscription listing the comic poets and actors competing at the City Dionysia ca. 303–302 BCE (see Nicostr.Com. II test. *2 this volume). It appears that Philippides was still actively competing in Athens at the end of the fourth century due to his criticisms of the leading Athenian politician, Stratocles of Diomeia, for his over-indulgence of the Macedonian kings Antigonus I Monophthalmus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes. Two fragments, from what appear to be two separate comedies (see comm. on Philippid. frr. 25 and 26), give us an insight into the personal nature of this dispute and the apparent threat of recriminations against Philippides by Stratocles. The poet seems to have left Athens around this time – certainly before the Battle of Ipsos in 301 BCE – when he took up residence at the court of king Lysimachus in Thrace, possibly in self-imposed exile.10 We cannot be sure whether Philippides had already established a personal relationship with Lysimachus before this time. The Successors of Alexander took competitive pride in their courts – which included reputable comic poets (see 10

See also Sonnabend 1996. 310–11.

26

Philippides

further under test. 2 ‘Interpretation’) – and Philippides may therefore have been invited to join the court of Lysimachus before the controversies in Athens. But whether he took up any such invitation in earnest before 301 is not certain.11 In 301 BCE, at least, the bad blood stirred up by his comedies may have forced Philippides’ hand, precipitating his departure from Athens and his acceptance of any offer of royal patronage in earnest. Philippides was apparently present in person at the Battle of Ipsos in 301 BCE, presumably as part of Lysimachus’ retinue (cf. test. 2a where Lysimachus considered it auspicious for military campaigns if he happened to meet Philippides beforehand). After the battle, in any case, he reportedly spent much of his own money burying the Athenian war dead, and he helped point out to the king Athenian prisoners-of-war, repatriating those who did not wish to serve in regiments under Lysimachus (test. 3.16–26). At Lysimachus’ court he was a close friend (philos) of the king and was instrumental in securing various gifts and donations for Athens. This included a new mast and yard-arm for the Panathenaic ship-cart in 299/8 BCE (test. 3.14–16), proposing aid in the form of 10,000 medimnoi of grain in 299/8 BCE (test. 3.10–14), as well as encouraging further gifts of grain and some 130 talants in monetary aid in 286/5 BCE (test. 3.33–4 with comm.). At Lysimachus’ court Philippides acted much like a foreign consulate assisting Athenians abroad (test. 3.29–31). We can only guess the poet’s dramatic activities during this period. He presumably continued producing comedies not only at local (Thracian) events, but perhaps also at Athens during the occasional trip back home (see further below for possible evidence), and even at festivals elsewhere in the Greek world where comic dramas were staged. One might even suppose, given his status as poet and philos of Lysimachus and his later stint as agonothete at Athens in 284/3 BCE, that Philippides helped organise theatrical performances in the districts ruled over by Lysimachus, events which promoted not only theatre but also helped consolidate Lysimachus’ rule. How long Philippides remained in Thrace is not entirely certain. Despite his agonothesia at Athens in 284/3 BCE during which he spent vast sums of his own money on the city’s contests and performed sacrifices on behalf of Athens (test. 3.38–48), he had evidently not returned to Athens on a permanent basis (see test. 3.29–31 with comm.). A likely conjecture is that Philippides remained in Thrace until the death of Lysimachus at the Battle of Corupedium in 281 BCE, after which he probably returned home to Athens. We have possible evidence of Philippides occasionally visiting Athens during the years 301–281 BCE, even competing in the Athenian festivals. He appears to have visited Athens in 299/8 BCE when bringing gifts from Lysimachus (see test. 3.11 where ἐκόμισεν suggests personal agency. Luraghi 2012. 365 proposes that the comedy containing fr. 25 was performed then). Our fragmentary records for 11

Luraghi 2012. 363–4 suggests Philippides may have left Athens in 303 BCE at the time when Demochares of Leukonoe went into exile.

Introduction

27

the Lenaea of 285 BCE (IG II2 2319.56 = 2319.3 M-O) may preserve a trace of his name as one of the competitors that year, especially now that conditions were right for him to visit after the expulsion of Demetrius Poliorcetes from Athens in 287 or 286 BCE. A lacuna where the name of the fifth-placed comic poet appears could support either [Φοινικίδ]η̣ς, [Καλλιάδ]η̣ς or [Φιλιππίδ]η̣ς.12 Philippides might also have been present in Athens during the latter part of 285/4 BCE for his nomination as agonothete. He was surely present in Athens for at least some part of 284/3 BCE during his agonothesia (test. 3.39) – although as agonothete it would seem unlikely he competed in any of the contests over which he presided. Finally, he was almost certainly in Athens for the City Dionysia of 282 BCE in order to receive the highest honours for his services to Athens (see test. 3.60–3). Gellius (test. 4) tells us that Philippides died at a ripe old age while still competing, ascribing his death to overwhelming joy after winning an unexpected victory. While the manner of his death is a standard topos in dramatic biographies and no doubt apocryphal, the idea that Philippides lived to an old age and was still competing (and even winning) in the dramatic contests is certainly plausible. His career statistics even give us reason to think Philippides was still producing comedies at the Athenian contests well into the 270s BCE. Philippides’ total number of plays, according to the Suda, was 45 (test. 1). We have some reason to suspect this number does not represent a library collection (i. e. surviving play texts collected by the Alexandrians), but instead a production number, specifically the number of comedies Philippides produced at the Athenian Lenaea and City Dionysia festivals during his lifetime (see discussion under test. 1). Considering that Philippides was probably active from around 320 BCE or shortly before, and that he left Athens in 301 BCE, he might potentially have produced up to around 40 of those plays during that period – assuming he competed at virtually every Lenaea and City Dionysia festival which was held between ca. 320 to 301 BCE. A lower number is of course far more realistic. To bring that number up to 45 we must assume he entered the contests at least another ten occasions or so, whether during his occasional visits to Athens (excluding ca. 295–286 BCE when Athens was under Demetrius Poliorcetes’ rule), or else after Lysimachus’ death in 281 BCE when he presumably returned to Athens. After 281

12

See Capps (1900a. 84; also Millis and Olson 2012. 109). Kassel and Austin (1989. 388) tentatively restore the inscription with the name [Phoinikid]es, following the original supplement of Körte, and place it among that poet’s testimonia (= Phoenicid. test. *4). If Philippides is the correct reading, we would also have another dramatic title for our poet: Anasōizomen[-]. Capps’ argument (1900a. 84) that Philippides should not be restored because he was too good a poet to come fifth should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when we consider that Menander apparently took fifth place at two consecutive City Dionysia in 311 and 310 BCE (see IG II2 2323a.36, 51 = 2323a.2, 17 M–O).

28

Philippides

BCE he may well have competed at the Athenian festivals over the next decade, if not longer. In Athens, Philippides won at least two victories at the Lenaea festival with a possible maximum of four (see test. 7). We also know of at least one victory at the City Dionysia festival with Mystis in 311 BCE (test. 8), to which we might add his conjectured debut victory in 320 (?) BCE (test. 1), and potentially more. These statistics, however – both production numbers and victory numbers – only pertain to his career in Athens and do not take into account any dramatic activities abroad.

3. Tradition and Reception Of Philippides’ total dramatic output only 16 titles and 41 fragments survive. Of those fragments, 17 are without an assigned play title. All our primary sources – i. e. the ancient writers who preserve these fragments – were active many centuries after Philippides, from the second century CE at the earliest and after. Our most prolific source, Athenaeus (late 2nd to early 3rd c. CE), preserves nine fragments, as does Pollux (late 2nd c. CE), while the Antiatticist (2nd c. CE) preserves eight, Stobaeus (5th c. CE) preserves seven, Photius (9th c. CE) has six, Eustathius (12th c. CE) three, Plutarch (1st to 2nd c. CE) and the Suda (10th c. CE) two each, while Phrynichus (late 2nd c. CE, assigned to 178 CE), Aelian (2nd to 3rd c. CE) and a gnomological anthology (P.Harris 171, 2nd c. CE) all preserve one fragment each. We might set these out in presumed chronological order as follows: – Plutarch (1st–2nd c. CE) – Gnomol. Pap. Harris (2nd c. CE) – Antiatticist (2nd c. CE) – Pollux (late 2nd c. CE) – Phrynichus (late 2nd c. CE) – Athenaeus (late 2nd c. CE) – Aelian (2nd–3rd c. CE) – Stobaeus (5th c. CE) – Photius (9th c. CE) – Suda (10th c. CE) – Eustathius (12th c. CE)

frr. 25, 26 fr. 12 frr. 2, 3, 8, 11, 15, 21, 24, 41 frr. 1, 10, 13, 14, 17, 22, 23, 33, 38 fr. 36 frr. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 16, 20, 28, 31 fr. 40 frr. 6, 7, 18, 27, 29, 30, 32 frr. 8, 19, 21, 35, 37, 39 frr. 8, 21 frr. 5, 28, 34

The most important stage in the transmission of Philippides’ works was the institution of the Library at Alexandria by Ptolemy I Soter (367/6–282 BCE) and the great project of gathering ancient writings and the scholarly analysis of these texts during the reign of the Ptolemies. It seems, however, that many of Philippides’ works did not find their way to the Library even at this early stage. Despite evidence he produced 45 comedies at Athens and no doubt several more at festivals outside of Athens during his lifetime, only 15 of these it seems – certainly not many more (Mystis may not have survived) – managed to find their way into the Alexandrian

Introduction

29

collection (see on test. 1 for a discussion of these numbers). The reason for such a severe loss at this early stage is unclear, although Philippides’ departure from Athens ca. 301–281 BCE and his lengthy residence at the court of Lysimachus in Thrace, a rival to the Ptolemies in Alexandria, may have contributed in some way. Philippides’ inclusion in the ‘canon’ of New Comedy poets (test. 6; cf. test. 5) – lists which very likely originated from the canons of the Alexandrian scholars Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca. 257–180 BCE) and Aristarchus of Samothrace (ca. 216–144 BCE) – would have provided further impetus for the preservation, study, and even performance of his works. Tzetzes suggests that the canonised poets (οἱ ἐγκριθέντες) were subject to closer study or treatment which perhaps included commentaries of their works (see on test. 6). Around this time we still find Philippides’ comedies reperformed in Athens (e. g. the Philathēnaios, reperformed at the City Dionysia of 154 BCE: test. 9), and it is quite likely his works were also adapted by the Roman playwrights in the first half of the second century BCE (i. e. by Plautus: ca. 205–184 BCE and Terence: active ca. 170–160 BCE). It is interesting to note, in any case, that among the canonical poets of New Comedy (test. 5–6) all except Philippides are explicitly attested in the limited evidence available to us as having been adapted by the Roman playwrights, making it a reasonable inference that Philippides, too, was adapted by them (see under test. 9). The state in which Philippides survived down to the second century CE where we find our earliest and most frequent attestations of the poet is somewhat obscured by the nature of our sources. Our primary sources are mostly lexicographical (e. g. Antiatticist, Pollux, Phrynichus, Athenaeus, Aelian), gnomological (e. g. P.Harris 171), or biographical (e. g. Plutarch), all of whom probably relied on earlier compilations and anthologies of a similar nature for their material (see e. g. fr. 20 where Athenaeus reveals his source as Crates of Mallos). Earlier sources that potentially cited Philippides, to mention only a few, include lexicographical studies on comedy by the Alexandrian scholars Lycophron of Chalcis (early 3rd c. BCE), Eratosthenes of Cyrene (ca. 285–194 BCE), Aristophanes of Byzantium (see above) and Didymus Chalcenterus (1st c. BCE); works on proverbs and maxims by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Didymus; biographical studies such as those on the kōmōdoumenoi (‘people mocked in comedy’) by Ammonius (2nd c. BCE) and by the Pergamene scholar Herodicus (late 2nd c. BCE) (see Steinhausen 1910), and biographical studies on courtesans by Aristophanes of Byzantium, Apollodorus of Athens (ca. 180-post 120 BCE), Ammonius, and others (see Ath. 13.567a). Other sources that may have cited Philippides, especially for historical or related purposes, include Philochorus (ca. 340–260 BCE), Duris of Samos (ca. 340-ca. 260 BCE) and his brother Lynceus of Samos (ca. 300 BCE) who were all exact contemporaries of Philippides and presumably took a keen interest in his controversies with Stratocles. All of these writers could have provided ready-made material for our surviving primary sources, and were far more convenient to consult than papyrus rolls containing undigested play texts. We can almost definitely say that our later primary sources for the fragments of Philippides – e. g. Stobaeus (5th

30

Philippides

c. CE), Photius (9th c. CE), the Suda (10th c. CE), and Eustathius (12th c. CE) – all relied on secondary sources and compilations for their knowledge of Philippides. Indeed some of their citations can be traced directly back to second-century CE sources (see e. g. on frr. 5, 8, 21, 28, 39). This does not prove, nonetheless, that play texts of Philippides did not survive into the second century CE, or that scholars like Athenaeus did not occasionally take excerpts from them. If we are to believe the comments of Athenaeus about the library of the Roman Larensius, who apparently had an extraordinarily large collection of Greek books to rival any private library in the past (Ath. 1.3a), and the claim, in Athenaeus, by the philosopher Democritus of Nicomedia that he had read over 800 Middle Comedies and had himself compiled passages from them (Ath. 8.336d), we might assume that Greek New Comedy play texts could still be accessed by dedicated scholars around that time. In the case of Athenaeus, he apparently made use of the collection owned by Larensius (cf. Olson 2006–2012 I. viii). Whether Philippides was still widely recognised by this time is difficult to determine. We have an intriguing reference to the poet by the Roman writer Aulus Gellius (born ca. 125–128 CE) who speaks familiarly of him as haut ignobilis (‘not at all obscure’; Gell. 3.15.2 = Philippid. test. 4). But in what context he and other Romans might have been familiar with Philippides and his comedies remains unclear (in libraries? on the stage? or through education, whether learning maxims or memorising longer passages for rhetorical practice?). Whether Philippides’ works were still performed on stage by the second century CE is far from certain. Ancient Greek comedies were still performed in imperial Roman times (see esp. Nervegna 2013. 99–110), although by then comedy was largely synonymous with Menander. Nonetheless, performances of plays by other New Comedy poets cannot be definitively ruled out (see Skotheim 2016. 170–2). It does not inspire one with confidence that a Greek writer like Pausanias can visit the Theatre of Dionysus at Athens in the middle of the second century CE and comment on the statues of the comic poets, among them (presumably) Philippides, remarking that apart from Menander the rest are ‘obscure’ (Paus. 1.12.1; see comm. on test. 3.63–4). For possible evidence of the reception of Philippides, we might mention here a passage by Lucian (born ca. 120 CE) and another by Alciphron (2nd to 3rd c. CE) which have possible traces of Philippidean influence. Alciphron, in particular, is known to have drawn heavily upon New Comedy for themes and ideas. One of his letters by a courtesan (Alciphr. 4.14) describes a colourful drinking party with friends and their plan to celebrate in similar style the Adonia festival the following week. This is particularly evocative of the themes one might expect to find in Philippides’ uniquely titled Adōniazousai (‘Women Celebrating the Adonia’). Lucian, too, was heavily influenced by comedy. One passage (Luc. Hist.Conscr. 1) describes a sickness that fell upon the inhabitants of Abdera for the poetry of Euripides during the reign of king Lysimachus after witnessing a local production of Euripides’ Andromeda. Philippides’ Phileuripidēs was possibly influential here,

Introduction

31

especially given its theme of Euripides-mania and the chronological and geographical setting of Lucian’s anecdote in Lysimachean Thrace.

4. Themes and Motifs Play titles, fragments, and the characters themselves give us tantalising glimpses into possible themes and motifs in Philippides’ comedies. His characters and situations often hint at wider themes typical of Middle and New Comedy, not least of all themes found in Menander and the Roman playwrights, Terence and Plautus. We find standard comic characters such as slaves (frr. 18, 22, 28; cf. also Basanizomenē), young men (frr. 27, 28), fathers/older men (frr. 6?, 12, 13?, 27), wives (fr. 13), courtesans (frr. 2?, 5, 19?, 26?), and bawds (see Mastropos). We also find ethical types such as parasites (frr. 8, 9?, 31?) and misers (fr. 12; cf. the title Philargyros, and the name ‘Pheidylos’ at fr. 6.2). In addition we appear to have a dishonest retail seller (fr. 16), a greedy duties collector (fr. 17), and possibly a seer (fr. 38). An especially popular character type suggested by the surviving play titles is the man who has an excessive fondness, or monomania, for something or someone. So we find in the titles Philathēnaios (‘Athens-Lover’), Philargyros (‘MoneyLover’), Philarchos (‘Power-Lover’), and Phileuripidēs (‘Euripides-Lover’). Among the dramatic themes which appear we find (probably) rape committed by a young man while drunk (fr. 27? and cf. perhaps Mystis?). We probably have a recognition token at fr. 33 and so recognition scenes (cf. perhaps Philadelphoi and Synekpleousa?). We also have typical themes of misogynistic characters denouncing marriage (fr. 6), and poor husbands who marry rich (and in this case unattractive) wives (fr. 29). Other themes and motifs well-represented in the fragments which were popular in Middle and New Comedy are banquets, symposia, and lists of food (frr. 4, 5, 10?, 20, 26?, 28, 31, 34), although these are no doubt over-represented because of their particular interest to Athenaeus, our chief source for the fragments of Philippides and other comic poets. Especially interesting are the points where Philippides intersects with the themes and motifs found particularly in Old Comedy.13 Most striking is the personal abuse of the leading Athenian politician, Stratocles of Diomeia, in frr. 25 and 26. Our source for the latter fragment (fr. 26) even suggests that Stratocles was brought on stage as a character, much like Cleon, Hyperbolus and other politicians were represented on stage by fifth-century comedy.14 Other titles are evocative 13

14

Cf. Meineke (1839. 471): ‘(Philippides) erectae fuit homo indolis et oris libertate tanta, ut pristina comoediae virtus et fortitudo in eo revixisse videatur’. For similar traits in the Middle Comedy poet Timocles, see Apostolakis 2019. 11 and 13. Cf. Middle and New Comedy’s stage representation of foreign potentates in Eubulus’ Dionysios (Dionysius I of Syracuse), Mnesimachus’ Philippos (Philip II of Macedon)

32

Philippides

of themes that go back to Old Comedy, such as Adōniazousai which brings to mind the ‘women plays’ popular in the fifth century,15 the deme title Lakiadai which continues a tradition of such titles going back to Old Comedy, and the unusual title Auloi which would seem metaphorical much like some titles in Old Comedy. To these we might add Ananeousa which apparently involves the theme of rejuvenation, as often in Old Comedy, and the play Amphiaraos, here probably with a cult setting rather than a mythological one, much like Aristophanes’ play of the same name. 5. Kōmōidoumenoi The persons, living or dead, who are satirised in the surviving fragments of Philippides’ comedies are relatively few. They are as follows: – Politicians: Stratocles of Diomeia (frr. 25 and 26), leading Athenian politician after the restoration of democracy in 307 BCE. – Courtesans: Gnathaina (fr. 5), here to be identified with the supposed lover of Diphilus (Diph. test. 7–8) rather than the older Gnathaina mentioned by Timocles (fr. 27). – Philosophers: Plato (fr. 6), or rather Plato’s theory of the ‘Good’ is satirised for its obscurity many years after the Athenian philosopher had died. We also have indirect criticism of the Macedonian kings Antigonus I Monophthalmus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes (fr. 25), via direct criticism of the Athenian citizen Stratocles. 6. Language and Style Despite a relatively small number of surviving fragments, Philippides displays a remarkably rich variety of linguistic and stylistic devices, justifying his place in the New Comedy canon. We might divide analysis into three categories: (a) rhetorical devices or figures of speech, (b) stylistic registers, and (c) individual words. a. Rhetorical devices There is a vast array of rhetorical figures in the surviving fragments. Alliteration is noticeable at fr. 9.6 (καὶ κάππαριν χαλκῶν τριῶν ἐν τρυβλίῳ) and fr. 34 (τυροὺς καὶ ταρίχους). Anaphora is prominent in fr. 25 (ὁ τὸν … ὁ τὴν … δι’ ὃν … δι’ ὃν)

15

and Philemon’s Pyrrhos (Pyrrhus of Epirus). Philippides may have done the same with Demetrius Poliorcetes, perhaps indirectly via emphasis (see on Philippid. frr. 25 and 26). But cf. other ‘women’ plays with plural titles by New Comedy poets, such as Menander’s Aulētrides, Kōneiazomenai, Synaristōsai, or Diphilus’ Danaides and Lēmniai, among others.

Introduction

33

where it is reinforced by asyndeton (see below). Antithesis is prominent in fr. 25 in presenting pairs of opposed images (i. e. year/month, Acropolis/inn, prostitutes/ maiden, burning/frost, impiety/peplos, divine/mortal), as well as fr. 29 (ἀηδῶς ἡδέως) and fr. 30 (τραχύτατος … μαλακώτερος), the latter two reinforced by chiasmus (see below). Asyndeton is particularly prominent, such as in lists of food (frr. 4? and 20), and in frr. 28 and 29. At fr. 25 Philippides uses a textbook combination of asyndeton and anaphora recommended in rhetorical writings, including Aristotle, for forceful spoken delivery. Chiasmus is used at frr. 20.2 and 33, while at frr. 29 and 30 the mirrored word order is used to especially good effect to reinforce opposing ideas. Ellipsis is apparently used at fr. 13.3 (i. e. κράτιστόν ἐστι must again be supplied to complete the syntax). Enjambement occurs at fr. 5.2 and 5.5 in apparent mock-parody of Homeric style, at fr. 9.3 (reinforced by tetremimeral caesura) to emphasise the delayed word, and additionally at frr. 9.9, 13.2 and 19.2. Figura etymologica (etymological word play) is used with biting irony at fr. 16 (ὁ φανὸς … οὐκ ἔφαινεν). Hyperbaton, or separation of noun and adjective, can be found with noun first at fr. 5.1–2 (ὄρχεις … πολλούς) and fr. 9.6–7 (τρυβλίῳ … ἀργυρῷ), and with adjective first – which often gives additional emphasis to that word – at fr. 6.4 (πλειόνων … πραγμάτων), fr. 13.1–2 (τοῦτον … τὸν δίφρον), fr. 13.3 (ἕτερον δὲ καινὸν … τόνον), fr. 20.2 (ὅλην … τὴν ἡμέραν) and fr. 33 (τετταράκοντ’ … δραχμάς). Hyperbole, or exaggeration, is used in expressions at fr. 20.2 (ὅλην λέγοντ’ ἄν μ’ ἐπιλείποι τὴν ἡμέραν) and perhaps fr. 28.4 (κάδοι μείζους ἐμοῦ) if this is not literal. Isocola are used for structural effect in fr. 25 where we find two bicola (lines 1–3 and 4–6) with an expanded second element. Metonymy is used in fr. 18.2 where the name ‘Euripides’ stands for ‘the plays of Euripides’. Paradox is found at fr. 7.1 to striking effect in the phrase ‘rejoice in being defeated’ (χαῖρ’ ἡττώμενος). Periphrasis is used at fr. 21 (μακρὸν ποιῶ) and fr. 24 (περικατάληπτος γίνομαι). Personification is likely present at fr. 6.3 (Τύχη ‘Fortune’) and certainly at fr. 32 (Χρόνος ‘Time’ as physician), and there is a hint of personification in the ‘boastful’ (ὑπερήφαν’) drinking cups at fr. 28.3. Puns which play on different meanings of individual words (i. e. polysemy) are used at fr. 5.4 (οἱ νεφροί) where ‘kidneys’ also has the secondary meaning ‘testicles’, and fr. 31.2 (ἀνακείμενος) where there is play on the two meanings ‘recline’ (on a couch) and ‘dedicate’ (a statue). Synecdoche (in this case whole for part rather than part for whole) is apparently used at fr. 25.7 where the generic term κωμῳδία is used instead of a specific reference to Philippides’ own comedy. b. Stylistic registers Among the stylistic registers, we find colloquial words and expressions at fr. 2 (γυναί), fr. 18.4 (τῶν πολλῶν ἕνα), fr. 20.2 (ὅλην λέγοντ’ ἄν μ’ ἐπιλείποι τὴν ἡμέραν), and fr. 21 (μακρὸν ποιῶ). At fr. 5 we find parody of Homeric language (e. g. the words ἀνδροφόνος, ὑπτίους and καταπεσεῖν) and style (e. g. enjambement) when describing a dinner scene (cf. the parodist Matro of Pitane), although using Attic forms in place of their Homeric equivalents. Paratragic language is

34

Philippides

used at fr. 9.1 (ἀλλ’ ἔλεος ἐμπέπτωκέ τίς μοι τῶν ὅλων), possibly in the mouth of a long-suffering parasite, while the advice of being content in defeat given at fr. 7 is evocative of tragedy in both style and sentiment, despite the possible comic metre in line 2. We also have direct quotation of tragedy at fr. 18.3 (= E. TrGF fr. 661.1), also in a context where one character offers another advice or consolation after a misfortune. Worldly wisdom in the form of proverbs and maxims appears frequently. So at fr. 6 we are given a definition of Plato’s ‘Good’ as the avoidance of marriage, at fr. 7 someone is advised to be satisfied in defeat and thereby maintain their ‘advantage’, at fr. 18 someone is advised that no person is completely happy, while at fr. 32 someone is consoled with the advice that Time is a common healer. Finally, we might mention the use or parody of ‘technical’ language taken from various professions: administrative, medical and legal. At fr. 17 we find jargon used by tax collectors when describing export duties. At fr. 18.2 we find a character offering consolation using medical language, both in the prescription (Εὐριπίδου μνήσθητι) and its promised relief (ῥᾴων ἔσῃ), the latter phrase repeated in the Hippocratic corpus. And at fr. 27.2 we find the language of acquittal and pardon typically used in courtroom oratory (συγγνώμης τυχεῖν), although here addressed by a father to his son. c. Individual words Attic forms are used in fr. 2 (γυναί for γυναῖκες) and fr. 16.2 (ἠδύνω for ἐδύνασο), while rarer but legitimate alternatives for other Attic words mentioned by the Antiatticist are found at fr. 11 (ἐπανακάμψαι for ἐπαναστρέψαι), fr. 15 (ἀπόστασις for ἀποθήκη) and fr. 36 (ἐξαλλάξαι for τέρψαι or παραγαγεῖν εἰς εὐφροσύνην). Here we might also note the use of foreign or non-Attic forms by Philippides, perhaps as evidence for non-Attic characters. So at fr. 14 Philippides uses the unaugmented verb ὁδοιπορήκαμεν which is found in the Ionic Greek of Herodotus. At frr. 14 and 22 we find the rare word ῥύμη in place of the Attic word στενωπός used to denote a narrow street. Whether this is a foreign word is not entirely certain, but its combination with ὁδοιπορήκαμεν in fr. 14 may mark it as such. We also have the extremely rare and unusual word κοράσιον at fr. 37, attested by ancient scholars to be Macedonian and its use reportedly mocked by Philippides. We find hapax legomena at fr. 1 (ἀναμασχαλιστήρ) which may be a metri gratia variant of μασχαλιστήρ, and at fr. 8 (ψωμοκολακεύων), a verb form of the noun ψωμοκόλαξ attested elsewhere in comedy. We possibly have metri gratia forms at fr. 2 (γυναί) and fr. 6.2 (Φειδύλε). 7. Metre and Form In almost every case where we have sufficient text to determine the metre we find iambic trimeters, the regular metre for spoken lines in drama. Our only significant exception is fr. 22 where we have a very rare iambic tetrameter acatalectic (octo-

Introduction

35

narius), a metre found elsewhere in comedy only in Pherecrates and the Roman comic playwrights. Among the trimeters, we have fifty complete lines of text where the caesura is unambiguous. Of these fifty lines, there are thirty cases of penthemimeral caesura, fourteen cases of hephthemimeral caesura, five cases of medial caesura, and one case of tetremimeral caesura. In the latter case (fr. 9.3), this rare pause strongly reinforces the antithesis of ideas discussed in the text. We also have eight complete lines where penthemimeral and hephthemimeral caesura are side-by-side. Of these, six are interpreted as dominant at the penthemimeral pause, and two dominant at the hephthemimeral pause. There are also a further ten incomplete or partial lines of text where the caesura is suggestive, but by no means certain. Here, at a tentative count, we find seven cases of penthemimeral caesura, two medial, and one hephthemimeral. We might also note cases where an octahemimeral pause can be felt in lines with penthemimeral caesura (see White 1912. 55). Among these there is possible octahemimeral pause at frr. 4, 6.1, 13.2, 17.2 and 25.1. Likewise there are possible cases of tetremimeral pause in lines with a hephthemimeral caesura. Among these, tetremimeral caesura appears to dominate at fr. 25.5 where the hephthemimeral pause seems weaker. One last metrical phenomenon to note here are cases of hephthemimeral caesura where the division splits the arsis of an anapaest in the fourth foot. Although often emended away by earlier editors of texts, we have two possible cases here at Philippid. frr. 5.3 and 25.6 which are retained in the printed text and treated as artistic choices rather than scribal errors.

8. Philippides and Other Comic Poets As a comic poet active at the end of the fourth century and beginning of the third century BCE, Philippides was a direct rival of New Comedy poets such as Philemon, Menander and Diphilus, not to mention Middle Comedy poets such as Alexis. Many of his dramatic titles are shared in common with other poets, going back to Old and Middle Comedy. These could indicate the influence of earlier poets on Philippides, or conversely Philippides’ influence on contemporary or later poets, especially given the tendency of New Comedy more generally to draw upon a common pool of characters, plots and themes. Among his shared titles we find: Amphiaraos (cf. Aristophanes OC,16 Apollodorus of Carystus NC); Argyriou aphanismos (cf. Strattis OC, Antiphanes MC); Mystis (cf. Antiphanes MC, Philemon NC); Philadelphoi (cf. Amphis MC, Diphilus NC [sing.], Menander 16

I identify each poet with OC = Old Comedy, MC = Middle Comedy and NC = New Comedy to help place Philippides within the overall comic tradition.

36

Philippides

NC, Apollodorus Gelous NC, Sosicrates NC); Philarchos (cf. Sophilus? MC); Philargyros (cf. Crates II OC, Philiscus MC [plur.], Dioxippus MC, Theognetus NC); Philathēnaios (cf. Alexis MC); and Phileuripidēs (cf. Axionicus MC). If the title is restored correctly, we might also add Ekp[ōmatopoios] (cf. Alexis MC). One last play that gives us further reason to suspect direct borrowing from one poet by another (i. e. diaskeuē) is Philippides’ Ananeousa (or Ananeōsis) and Philemon’s similarly titled Ananeoumenē. Apart from their cognate titles, both comedies also share the relatively rare comic words ψωμοκολακεύων (Philippid. fr. 8) and ψωμοκόλαξ (Philem. fr. 7). We find direct borrowing of a joke from the Old Comedy poet Aristophanes at Philippid. fr. 31 with a pun on the double sense of ἀνατίθημι (see Ar. fr. 966 who makes exactly the same joke but with the synonymous verb ἀναπίπτω, cf. also Diph. fr. 124 which makes a similar play on words with the verb ἀνατίθημι). We also find direct influence over, or direct borrowing from, other New Comedy poets at fr. 32 where Philippides personifies Time as the universal healer of all wounds. The same idea is found in Menander (fr. 876) and Diphilus (fr. 116); but it could be that this now commonplace expression first originated with Philippides.

9. Literature Editions: Meineke 1841. 467–78; Kock 1888. 301–12; Edmonds 1961. 164–81; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 333–52 Studies: Meineke 1839. 470–5; Bergk 1887. 228–30; Wilhelm 1906a. 132; Norwood 1931. 61–2; Körte 1938. 2204–6; Philipp 1973; Gallo 1984; Gallo 1994; Hidber 2006a; Bayliss 2019. 703–4

37

Commentary Testimonia test. 1 K.-A. Suda φ 345 Φιλιππίδης, Ἀθηναῖος, κωμικὸς καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς νέας κωμῳδίας, υἱὸς Φιλοκλέους· ἦν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ριδʹ ὀλυμπιάδος. ἐδίδαξε {καὶ αὐτὸς} δράματα μεʹ. ριδʹ (324/0) Clinton : ριαʹ (336/2) codd. : ρκαʹ (296/2) Meineke Bernhardy

{καὶ αὐτὸς} delevit

Philippides, of Athens, himself also a comic poet of the New Comedy, son of Philokles. He flourished (?) in the 114th Olympiad (324/0 BCE). He produced {himself also} 45 plays.

Discussion Meineke 1839. 470–1; Norwood 1931. 61; Edmonds 1961. 164–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 333; Rusten 2011. 678. Citation context From the Suda, a Byzantine lexicon-encyclopaedia compiled in the late 10th c. CE. The biographical entries on dramatic poets found in the Suda are derived from the Onomatologos of Hesychius of Miletus (6th c. CE), or rather an epitome of Hesychius (both are now lost) made in the 9th c. CE (see Suda η 611; Flach 1882. xii; Wentzel 1898. 275; Wagner 1905. 30; Adler 1931. 706–8; Blum 1991. 202–10; Kaldellis 2005. 384–9; Dickey 2007. 90–1; Lorenzoni 2012. 324–5). Some of the information in these entries, such as dramatic dates, number of victories, and number of plays (as here), evidently goes back to scholars with knowledge of didascalic records and ancient library catalogues. Hesychius’ Onomatologos appears to be an attempt to recreate, or at least imitate, the Pinakes of Callimachus (2nd c. BCE) in the sixth century CE (cf. Blum 1991. 202–3). Both texts were bio-bibliographical in format and have strikingly similar titles. Callimachus titled his work the Pinakes of Those Eminent in Every Genre and their Writings in 120 Books (Suda κ 227 Πίνακες τῶν ἐν πάσῃ παιδείᾳ διαλαμψάντων, καὶ ὧν συνέγραψαν, ἐν βιβλίοις κʹ καὶ ρʹ). It grouped authors into separate genres (i. e. tragedy, comedy, etc.), listing them alphabetically, and gave a brief biography of each poet along with an appended list in alphabetical order of their surviving (i. e. library-held) writings (see Schmidt 1922; Pfeiffer 1949. 344–9 frr. 429–53; Regenbogen 1950. 1420–3; Fraser 1972. 452–4; Blum 1991. 150–60; Jacob 2000. 91–2). Hesychius’ work, as we are told by the Suda, had the similar title Onomatologos or Pinax of Names by Genre (Suda η 611 Ὀνοματολόγον ἢ Πίνακα τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ ὀνομαστῶν).17 He too arranged individual entries with a biography 17

The alternative title was Πίνακα τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ λαμψάντων, ‘Pinax of Those Eminent by Genre’.

38

Philippides

followed by a list of works. In some cases Hesychius appended an alphabetical play list of apparently Callimachean or at least Alexandrian origin (see e. g. the lists for Phrynichus at Suda φ 763 = Phryn.Com. test. 1 and Plato Comicus at Suda π 1708 = Pl.Com. test. 1), although he presumably found these in secondary sources since the Callimachean original was evidently lost. Whenever such a list could not be found for a particular author, the Hesychian biographies instead supplement these with dramatic titles found in the Deipnosophistai of Athenaeus, additions which go back either to Hesychius himself or to an interpolator active before the ninth-century epitome was made.18 Unfortunately, most of the longer lists of Alexandrian provenance were excised by the ninth-century epitomator in order to save space. This can be seen more explicitly in the Suda entries for Eupolis (Suda ε 3657 = test. 1) and Theopompus (Suda θ 171 = test. 1), as well as the entry for Aristophanes (Suda α 3932 = test. 2b).19 Text The Suda preserves the number ριαʹ (i. e. 111th Olympiad: 336/2 BCE). But Clinton’s emendation ριδʹ (i. e. 114th Olympiad: 324/0 BCE) is adopted here as the most economic and chronologically likely solution for the problematic manuscript reading ριαʹ (see Clinton 1834. xlv; cf. Flach 1882. 224; Bergk 1887. 228 n. 199). The corruption of an original ριδʹ into ριαʹ would have been easy given the frequent confusion of uncial Α and Δ in manuscripts (see Reynolds and Wilson 1991. 224). A corruption of the very same numbers, in fact, seems to underlie the disputed tradition on the date of the death of the tragic poet Sosiphanes: the Suda tells us he died in the 111th Olympiad (ριαʹ, 336/2 BCE), but also mentions ‘others’ who give this date as the 114th Olympiad (ριδʹ, 324/0 BCE), Suda σ 863 (= TrGF I 92 test. 1) Σωσιφάνης … τελευτᾷ δὲ ριαʹ ὀλυμπιάδι, οἱ δὲ ριδʹ. These discrepant dates likely arose from a corruption similar to that posited here. The (corrupt) manuscript reading of ριαʹ (336/2 BCE) is also unsatisfactory for chronological reasons. The date itself could potentially indicate a birth date, a debut date, a ‘floruit’, or an initial victory date (often the same as the previous). If we interpret it as a ‘floruit’ (i. e. 40 years of age) it presupposes that Philippides was born around 376 BCE. But our earliest evidence for Philippides’ dramatic activity 18

19

These are indicated in the margins of the relevant lemmata of Adler’s edition by ‘Hesy.?’ (see e. g. Suda σ 881 = Sophil. test. 1; Suda ξ 22 = Xenarch. test. 1; Suda θ 135 = Theognet. test. 1, etc.). In the case of Aristophanes we are fortunate enough that the original Hesychian entry, including biography (the same as that in the Suda) and the full list of surviving plays, is preserved in the so-called Novati Index (Proleg. de com. XXXa Koster = Ar. test. 2a; cf. Blum 1991. 205). The Suda, which only knew the version of the Hesychian epitomator, supplements the gap in play titles left by the epitomator by providing the titles of the eleven plays by Aristophanes preserved in the Ravenna manuscript (Ravennas 429, 10th c. CE) or its exemplar. Unusually, the long list of titles for Plato Comicus (Suda π 1708 = Pl.Com. test. 1) managed to survive the epitomator’s knife, possibly preserved in this instance by confusion with the homonymous philosopher.

Testimonia (test. 1)

39

is 311 BCE (test. 8), which would make him 65 at the time, and would suggest he was around 56 when he won his first dramatic victory (see following paragraph). It would also make him around 93 at the time of his agonothesia in 283 BCE (test 3.39) and his honours in 282 BCE (test. 3). Although physically possible, this all seems highly unlikely. If we interpret ριαʹ (336/2 BCE) as an initial victory date this faces immediate problems. Test. 5 suggests that Philippides won his first victory after Menander and Diphilus, and therefore this must have been after 321 BCE at the earliest (see on test. 5). We are left, then, with the possibility that ριαʹ (336/2 BCE) signifies his birth date, or his dramatic debut. A birth date is possible for 336/2 BCE. But ἦν usually does not bear the sense ‘was born’ in the Suda, and one might have expected instead the verb γέγονε in its – for the Suda – rarer sense ‘was born’. Furthermore, the award in Athens of the highest honours (μέγισται τιμαί, see test. 3) were given late in the recipient’s life, generally after reaching the age of sixty (see e. g. Habicht 1979. 50 n. 28; Habicht 1982. 126; Gauthier 1985. 88; Kralli 1999–2000. 140–1). This would make Philippides too young for those honours in 283 BCE (see Paschidis 2008. 116 n. 2). Finally, if the manuscript text ριαʹ (336/2 BCE) indicates the date of Philippides’ dramatic debut, we would have to assume that there was at least a twelve-year hiatus, if not longer, between his debut and his first victory (his first victory was after Menander and Diphilus). This again seems unlikely on chronological grounds. Meineke’s proposal of ρκαʹ (121st Olympiad, i. e. 296/2 BCE; see Meineke 1823. xliv; Meineke 1839. 471), although it has found wide favour among scholars, does not improve matters at all. The date 296/2 BCE cannot indicate a birth date or a debut or premiere victory date, since we know Philippides won at least as early as 311 BCE (test. 8). If it indicates a ‘floruit’ (i. e. 40 years) it would assume Philippides was born ca. 336 BCE. But again this would make Philippides too young for his honours in 283 BCE (so Paschidis 2008. 116 n. 2). Clinton’s neglected reading ριδʹ (114th Olympiad; i. e. 324/0 BCE), which is adopted here, is superior to Meineke’s proposed emendation both on textual and interpretive grounds. A birth date can be ruled out. However, as a debut or firstvictory date it is perfectly plausible, especially since ἦν in this context (see lemma below) often indicates a ‘floruit’ in the sense of first victory. We can even narrow down further a more precise date for that victory within this Olympiad based on what we know of the careers of Menander and Diphilus. Both poets, as implied by the order of their names in the canonical lists of the De Comoedia, won their first victories before Philippides (see on test. 5). Menander probably won his first victory at the Lenaea of 321 BCE (so Euseb. Chron. Ol. 114, 3–4 = Men. test. 49; see below on Philippid. test. 7 for a fuller discussion and defence of this date), while our evidence suggests that Diphilus won his first victory that very same year (see on test. 5). If Philippides won his first victory in the 114th Olympiad (324/3 to 321/0 BCE) then the only possible year after Menander and Diphilus is 320 BCE. The festival at which he won that first victory would also have

40

Philippides

been the City Dionysia, since Philippides’ first Lenaean victory was 317 BCE at the very earliest, as indicated by the Lenaean victors’ list (see test. 7). Interpretation The Suda’s biographical entry on Philippides includes several elements typical of other entries on literary figures, including the poet’s name, ethnic, genre, parentage, date of activity (floruit) and number of plays (see Wagner 1905. 33–5). A striking omission, however, is the absence of a list of attributed play titles typical of many other Suda entries. It is very possible the original sixthcentury Hesychian entry for Philippides (see ‘Citation context’ above for details) included a full alphabetical list of surviving plays of Alexandrian provenance, or else a list of titles cobbled together from citations in Athenaeus, as elsewhere. Any such list, however, we might assume was later removed by the ninth-century epitomator of Hesychius, and so is missing here in the Suda.20 Ἀθηναῖος ... υἱὸς Φιλοκλέους For Philippides’ Athenian origins and parentage see the honorary decree (= Philippid. test. 3.58 below) which tells us he was the son of Philokles (PAA 936080) from the deme Kephale. καὶ αὐτός The phrase καὶ αὐτός ‘himself also ...’ (repeated later by scribal error) is a vestigial trace that must go back to the original sixth-century Onomatologos of Hesychius. In the Suda, the entry for Philippides (Suda φ 345) does not immediately follow an entry for a fellow New Comedy poet, making the phrase redundant. In Hesychius, however, the entry for Philippides most likely followed the entries for Philemon (Suda φ 327 = test. 1) and Philemon Junior (Suda φ 329 = test. 1), in which case the phrase ‘he too was a New Comedy poet’ makes sense. But the epitomator of Hesychius or else the Suda itself subsequently separated these entries, but mechanically preserved the phrase καὶ αὐτός despite its redundancy (cf. Volkmann 1873. iv-viii; Daub 1880. 10; Maass 1880. 121; Flach 1882. 52).21 For other Suda entries with the same obsolete phrase, see Diodorus δ 1152 (= test. 1); Epinicus ε 2493 (= test. 1); Philemon φ 327 (= test. 1); Philemon Junior φ 329 (= test. 1); and Timocles τ 624 (= test. 1). τῆς νέας κωμῳδίας For other Suda entries that identify the subject as a poet of ‘New Comedy’, see α 1991 (= Anaxipp. test.); μ 589 (= Men. test. 1); and φ 327 (= Philem. test. 1). The distinction between Old, Middle and New Comedy possibly goes back to Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca. 257–180 BCE; see Nesselrath 1990. 180–7). ἦν Rohde notes that ἦν and γέγονε in the Suda are often used in the sense ἤκμαζε, i. e. ‘floruit’ (see Rohde 1878. 166, 169 n. 6, 177, 217; cf. Mosshammer 1979. 162). For more explicit examples of ἦν in the Suda used as a substitute for ἤκμαζε, compare Suda η 472 Ἡράκλειτος … ἦν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ξθʹ (69th) Ὀλυμπιάδος with D.L. 20 21

For an estimate of the number of surviving plays by Philippides known to the Alexandrians, see the discussion under ἐδίδαξε … δράματα μεʹ below. Sutton (1987. 23) wrongly infers that the phrase here suggests that Philippides’ father, Philokles, was also a comic poet.

Testimonia (test. 1)

41

9.1 Ἡράκλειτος … ἤκμαζε μὲν κατὰ τὴν ἐνάτην καὶ ἑξηκοστὴν Ὀλυμπιάδα, and also Suda κ 2341 Κράτης … ἦν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ριγʹ (113th) Ὀλυμπιάδος with D.L. 6.87 ἤκμαζε δὲ κατὰ τὴν τρίτην καὶ δεκάτην καὶ ἑκατοστὴν Ὀλυμπιάδα. In the case of dramatic poets, the verb ἤκμαζε and its variant ἐγνωρίζετο (both translated in Jerome’s Latin version of the Eusebius Chronicle as clarus habetur) can denote the occasion of a premiere victory at either the Lenaea or City Dionysia festival (see Luppe 1970). Here, then, ἦν most likely denotes the period in which Philippides won his premiere victory (see also Capps 1900b. 57; so probably at Suda α 3922 = Aristomen. test. 1 and Suda ε 3386 = Eub. test. 1).22 ριδʹ 114th Olympiad (324/0 BCE). This number best indicates an initial victory date for Philippides (see above and also under ‘Text’). For a more precise date for that victory within the Olympiad (i. e. 320 BCE), see further under ‘Text’. ἐδίδαξε … δράματα μεʹ The verb ἐδίδαξε here very likely refers to a ‘production’ number (i. e. Philippides appeared 45 times during his lifetime at the City Dionysia and Lenaea festivals of Athens) rather than a ‘library’ number (i. e. 45 plays survived and were catalogued in a collection like that at Alexandria). The source for calculating Philippides’ total number of productions could have been the Didascaliae inscription at Athens (see test. 8) or a written copy of the same, just as scholars were able to consult Aristotle’s Didaskaliai for the production records of earlier poets. Nonetheless – and somewhat counter-intuitively – there are cases in the Suda where ἐδίδαξε also indicates a number of surviving plays catalogued in a library (cf. Mensching 1964. 22–3; the standard verb in such cases is usually φέρεται or σῴζεται).23 It is therefore possible we have a library number here, whether that number derives from (1) the holdings at Alexandria listed in Callimachus’ Pinakes (see above), (2) the re-assessment of the Alexandrian numbers in light of subsequent scholarship by Aristophanes of Byzantium (cf. S. TrGF test. 1.76–7), or even (3) the holdings of the library at Pergamon (see Ath. 8.336e).24

22

23

24

Note, however, the use of ἦν at Suda δ 338 (= Dinol. test. 1) and Suda ε 2766 (= Epich. test. 1), where a first-victory date would seem unlikely since both poets were not active in the Athenian contests. The verb ἐδίδαξε must refer to library numbers in the case of Epicharmus (Suda ε 2766 = test. 1 ἐδίδαξε δὲ δράματα νβʹ, ὡς δὲ Λύκων φησὶ λεʹ) and Dinolochus (Suda δ 338 = test. 1 ἐδίδαξε δράματα ιδʹ), since both did not compete in Athens to acquire a production number. A library number must also be meant for Magnes (Suda μ 20 = test. 1 ἐδίδαξε κωμῳδίας θʹ) since the total number of plays given (i. e. 9) is smaller than his total number of known victories (i. e. 11: see IG II2 2325.44 = 2325C.8 M-O = test. 4). The same must apply to the entry for Alexis (Suda α 1138 = test. 1 ἐδίδαξε δράματα σμεʹ) since he could not possibly have produced 245 plays at Athens during his lifetime. An alternative number source, perhaps from a Peripatetic library, is indicated in the Suda entry for Epicharmus (ε 2766), according to Lykon (assuming that ‘Lykon’ is not a corruption of ‘Lykophron’, the Alexandrian scholar).

42

Philippides

In the case of Philippides, however, a statistical analysis better supports a production number. If Philippides had 45 surviving plays in a library collection, it is highly unusual, from a statistical perspective, that only a small percentage of that number (i. e. 15 titles out of 45, or 33%) are attested by our ancient sources. Usually, when we are given a comic poet’s library number, this number often has a 100% attestation rate in our ancient sources, with an equivalent number of play titles to match the library number. For example, Pherecrates reportedly had 17 or 18 surviving plays (Suda φ 212 = test. 1; Proleg. de com. VIII Koster = test. 3). This number is matched by the 18 known play titles cited by our ancient sources. Phrynichus reportedly had 10 surviving plays (Proleg. de com. VIII Koster = test. 3). Again all 10 titles are attested among the fragments. Aristophanes reportedly had 44 surviving plays (Proleg. de com. XXVIII.66 = test. 1.66) with 44 titles attested in play texts and fragments. Unusually Cratinus reportedly had 21 surviving plays (Suda κ 2344 = test. 1; Proleg. de com. III.24–5 = test. 2a.10–11), with an even larger 25 titles (or 24 if Idaioi is an alternative title) attested.25 Plato Comicus reportedly had 28 surviving plays (Suda π 1708 = test. 1; cf. Proleg. de com. VIII) with 28 titles attested by our sources.26 Strattis reportedly had 16 surviving plays (Proleg. de com. VIII Koster = test. 2) with 16 titles in total attested among the fragments. In all these cases the correspondences are striking with the library numbers receiving a 100% attestation rate (even surplus attestations) in our ancient sources. This gives us some indication how ancient scholars and writers made full and wide use of every one of their surviving works. Less than full attestation rates occur only when we come to the most highly productive authors, e. g. Antiphanes, Alexis, Philemon and Menander. But even here we find that the number of fragments with titles cited by ancient writers comes relatively close to the ‘library’ number attested for each.27 Antiphanes re25

26

27

A further two titles are known from didascalic sources, i. e. Satyroi and Cheimazomenoi, but these were evidently lost and would not have been counted in the ‘library’ number. The unusual discrepancy in Cratinus’ case may be due to 21 being the original Callimachean number (whose Pinakes no doubt remained a key source for such information), without accounting for additional plays ascribed to him at a later date. Alternatively, Callimachus may have initially over-attributed plays to Cratinus, and this number was later revised down to 21 by Aristophanes of Byzantium after scholars such as Eratosthenes of Cyrene or even Aristophanes himself judged them spurious (cf. Proleg. de com. XXVIII. 66–7 = Ar. test. 1.59–61; Mensching 1964. 28). If we include Mammakythoi which, although no fragments are preserved, apparently survived: see Pl.Com. Mammakyth. test. ii-iii. Plato’s play list in the Suda actually preserves 30 titles, which disagrees with the official number given for his plays (28). The list of 30 titles in the Suda probably derives ultimately from Callimachus’ Pinakes, and two of these plays were presumably reattributed by later scholars (cf. note above on Cratinus). The enormous number of plays attested for each of these poets can only be a library number (explicitly so for Philemon) since it would have been impossible for each to

Testimonia (test. 2)

43

portedly had a massive 260 or 280 surviving plays (Proleg. de com. III.52 Koster = test. 2.8; Suda α 2735 = test. 1; see Konstantakos 2000b. 177–9) of which around 137 titles are attested in the surviving fragments. Alexis reportedly had 245 plays (Suda α 1138 = test. 1) of which around 136 titles are attested. Philemon had 97 ‘surviving’ plays (Proleg. de com. III.56 Koster = test. 2.6–7) of which around 60 titles are attested. Finally, Menander had around 108 surviving plays (Proleg. de com. III. 60 Koster = test. 3; cf. also test. 1 and 46) of which around 100 titles are attested by play texts and citations in ancient writers. In all these cases, while the library number is not fully matched by the number of cited titles, there is nonetheless an impressively high attestation rate (i. e. over 50%, and nearly 100% in Menander’s case). In Philippides’ case we have a relatively moderate number of 45 plays more comparable to the poets with 100% attestation rates. But of these 45 only 15 are cited by ancient sources, giving an extremely low attestation rate of 33%. The anomaly is striking, especially in the case of a canonical poet (see test. 5 and 6) one might have expected ancient writers to quote and cite more widely. On these comparative grounds, then, a library number seems highly unlikely. The number 45 better fits a production number28 of which only a small percentage found their way into library collections.29 test. 2 K.-A. (a.) Plu. Demetr. 12.8–9 ἦν δ’ ὁ Φιλιππίδης Λυσιμάχου φίλος, καὶ πολλὰ δι’ αὐτὸν ὁ δῆμος εὖ ἔπαθεν ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως. ἐδόκει δὲ καὶ πρὸς πρᾶξιν αὐτῷ καὶ πρὸς στρατείαν εὐσύμβολος ἀπαντήσας εἶναι καὶ ὀφθείς. ἄλλως δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ ἦθος εὐδοκίμει, μηθὲν ἐνοχλῶν μηδ’ αὐλικῆς περιεργίας ἀναπιμπλάμενος. φιλοφρονουμένου δέ ποτε τοῦ Λυσιμάχου πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ εἰπόντος ‘ὦ Φιλιππίδη, τίνος σοι τῶν ἐμῶν μεταδῶ;’ ‘μόνον’ ἔφη ‘βασιλεῦ μὴ τῶν ἀπορρήτων’.

28

29

produce so many plays at Athens during their lifetimes (hence ruling out a didascalic number). This number might also include false attributions. The same arguments can be made for Hermippus and Philemon Junior. Hermippus was attributed with 40 plays (Suda ε 3044 = test. 1), but only 10 titles are attested by fragments, suggesting the number 40 is a production number (cf. Mensching 1964. 34). Philemon Junior was attributed 54 plays (Suda φ 329 = test. 1), yet only 3 fragments survive and no known titles. Here again, unless his works were almost entirely overlooked by ancient writers, we surely have a production number. If we had to guess a ‘library’ number for Philippides, one might surmise a total close to the number of titles attested by ancient sources (i. e. around 15 – certainly not many more). With regard to Philippides’ ‘production’ number, we should note that 45 by no means represents the upper limit of Philippides’ total dramatic output, since it does not account for comedies produced outside of Athens.

44

Philippides Philippides was a friend of Lysimachus, and the people (of Athens) received many benefactions from the king because of him. It was considered auspicious by Lysimachus for business and military campaigning if he met and saw him. In any case Philippides was highly esteemed for his character, since he caused no trouble and was not obsessed with the gossip of the court. Once when Lysimachus was showing him favour and said: ‘Philippides, what of my belongings am I to share with you?’, he replied: ‘Anything, king, except your secrets’. (b.) Plu. Reg. et imp. apophth. = Mor. 183e πρὸς δὲ Φιλιππίδην τὸν κωμῳδοποιὸν φίλον ὄντα καὶ συνήθη ‘τίνος σοι’ εἶπε ‘τῶν ἐμῶν μεταδῶ;’ κἀκεῖνος ‘οὗ βούλει πλὴν τῶν ἀπορρήτων.’ To Philippides the comic poet who was his friend and intimate he said: ‘What of my belongings am I to share with you?’ And he (replied): ‘Anything you like, except your secrets’. (c.) Plu. De garr. = Mor. 508c ὀρθῶς οὖν Φιλιππίδης ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς φιλοφρονουμένου τοῦ βασιλέως αὐτὸν Λυσιμάχου καὶ λέγοντος ‘τίνος σοι μεταδῶ τῶν ἐμῶν;’ ‘οὗ βούλει’ φησί, ‘βασιλεῦ, πλὴν τῶν ἀπορρήτων.’ Rightly, then, when king Lysimachus was showing him favour and asked ‘What of my belongings am I to share with you?’, does Philippides the comic poet say: ‘Anything you like, king, except your secrets’. (d.) Plu. De cur. 4 = Mor. 517b διὸ καλῶς Φιλιππίδης ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς εἰπόντος αὐτῷ ποτε Λυσιμάχου τοῦ βασιλέως ‘τίνος σοι τῶν ἐμῶν μεταδῶ;’ ‘μόνον’ εἶπεν, ‘ὦ βασιλεῦ, μὴ τῶν ἀπορρήτων.’ And so Philippides the comic poet, when Lysimachus the king once said to him ‘What of my belongings am I to share with you’, responded well: ‘Anything, king, except your secrets’. (e.) Stob. 4.8.19 Λυσίμαχος ὁ τύραννος πρὸς Φιλιππίδην τὸν κωμῳδιοποιὸν φίλον ὄντα καὶ συνήθη ‘τίνος σοι’, εἶπε ‘μεταδῶ;’ κἀκεῖνος ‘οὗ βούλει πλὴν τῶν ἀπορρήτων’. Lysimachus the tyrant, who was a friend and intimate of Philippides the comic poet, said: ‘What am I to share with you?’ And he (replied): ‘Anything you like, except your secrets’.

Discussion Norwood 1931. 61–2; Edmonds 1961. 166–7; Philipp 1973. 500–1; Franco 1990. 118–19; Lund 1992. 130; Montes Cala 1999. 243; Monaco 2013. 118. Citation context The anecdote is repeated several times, although with slightly different formulations, by Plutarch (1st c. CE) and is quoted again later in the anthology of Stobaeus (5th c. CE) who appears to have used the version found at Plu. Mor. 183e (= test. 2b). Our fullest account of the anecdote (test. 2a) comes from Plutarch’s biography on Demetrius Poliorcetes, immediately after he describes the ominous natural disturbances which took place after the Athenian politician Stratocles granted special privileges to Demetrius, quoting Philippid. fr. 25.4–7 as

Testimonia (test. 2)

45

evidence. The anecdote is included to provide some additional background information on Philippides and to contrast his character favourably in comparison with that of Stratocles. At Plu. Mor. 183e (Sayings of Kings and Emperors) the anecdote is gathered under sayings associated with king Lysimachus. At Plu. Mor. 508c (On Garrulity) it is offered as a model of prudent behaviour when dealing with powerful rulers, with Plutarch offering the philosophical advice that those who tell secrets often destroy themselves. There he also cites the example of Fulvius, friend of Augustus, who reveals to his wife Augustus’ secret plan to install his grandson Agrippa Posthumus as successor rather than his stepson Tiberius. She in turn reveals this to Augustus’ wife Livia, resulting in the death of Fulvius and his wife. At Plu. Mor. 517b (On Curiosity) the anecdote again is used to illustrate prudent behaviour, arguing that those who are rashly curious about the secrets of great men – especially of rulers who are unhappy with someone, planning revenge, harbouring jealousy, or suspecting disloyalty – put themselves at great risk. Finally, Stobaeus 4.8.19 repeats the anecdote in a section of his anthology titled ψόγος τυραννίδος (‘Censure of Tyranny’). Interpretation The description of Philippides as Λυσιμάχου φίλος (‘friend of Lysimachus’) in test. 2a has the force of an honorary title, indicating his status as a high-ranking courtier who pursued the king’s interests and who in turn might receive rich rewards for his loyalty and advice (cf. Kortenbeutel 1941. 95–103; Shear 1978. 23; Herman 1980–1981. 111–13; Franco 1990. 118–19; Lund 1992. 178–82). The benefactions received by Athens due to Philippides and Lysimachus’ friendship are listed in the honorary decree for Philippides below (test. 3, esp. lines 9–16, 33–4). For Lysimachus, see Berve 1926 II. 239–41 no. 480; Lund 1992. Their friendship possibly had its beginnings with Lysimachus inviting Philippides to his court and offering him patronage as a poet. Similar acts of patronage were extended to other figures by the Successors of Alexander elsewhere in Greece. In fact the quality of their courtiers appears to have been the subject of intense rivalry between the kings, certainly between Lysimachus and Demetrius Poliorcetes, who reportedly mocked each other’s courts (cf. Phylarch. FGrH 81 F 12 ap. Ath. 14.614e–f; Lund 1992. 180–1). Attracting reputable comic poets is most notable in the case of Ptolemy I Soter who, if the evidence has any truth, reportedly invited both Philemon and Menander to his court, the latter purportedly rejecting the offer (see Alciphr. 4.18 = Men. test. 20; Alciphr. 4.18.5 = Philem. test. 10; cf. Plin. HN 7.30.31 = Men. test. 15; cf. also Machon of Sicyon who produced his comedies at Alexandria around the middle of the 3rd c. BCE, Ath. 14.664a = Macho test. 1).30 Among others, Lysimachus apparently patronised the historian 30

A fragment of Diphilus, who possibly had (among others) his rival comic poets in mind, gives a negative view of those who accepted the patronage of kings, Diph. fr. 97 αὐλὰς θεραπεύειν δ’ ἐστίν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, / ἢ φυγάδος ἢ πεινῶντος ἢ μαστιγίου, ‘to attend courts, it seems to me, marks one as either an exile, a pauper, or a rascal’.

46

Philippides

Onesicritus (FGrH 134) who we are told read his work in Lysimachus’ court (Plu. Alex. 46.4) and who probably helped the king by promoting a positive image of Lysimachus in the publicity wars of the Successors (cf. Lund 1992. 8–9). Any such invitation to Philippides and others was presumably after 309 BCE when Lysimacheia was founded. Whether Philippides had visited Lysimachus before 301 BCE is uncertain, but it seems the suffocating political atmosphere in Athens under Stratocles in the late 300s, not to mention Philippides’ apparent personal dispute with the demagogue (see Philippid. frr. 25–6), prompted the poet to take up any such offer of patronage in earnest. He appears to have remained with Lysimachus for quite some time, from before the Battle of Ipsos in 301 BCE until possibly as late as 281 BCE when Lysimachus died (cf. test. 3.29–31). Underlying these stories is the literary motif of the artist under royal patronage whose loose tongue (παρρησία) gets him into trouble. So we find in the anecdote of the comic poet Epicharmus who was supposedly punished by his patron Hieron I of Syracuse for uttering ‘secrets’ (ἀπόρρητα) in front of his wife (Plu. Mor. 175c = test. 15); the tragic poet Antiphon who was punished with death by Dionysius I for mocking his tragedies, or for expressing anti-monarchical sentiments by claiming the best bronze was that from which the statues of the tyrannicides were made (Plu. Mor. 68a = TrGF I 55 test. 5; 833b = TrGF I 55 test. 2; Vit. Antipho 2.10 = TrGF I 55 test. 3); the lyric poet Philoxenus who was sent to the quarries by Dionysius I for laughing at his tragedies (Luc. Ind. 15); the kithara player Stratonicus who was forced to drink poison by Nicocles, king of Cyprus, after making fun of his sons (Ath. 8.352d); and the poet Sotades who was shut in a lead box and drowned after mocking Ptolemy II Philadelphus for incest (Plu. Mor. 11a; Ath. 14.621a). A similar anecdote is told about Philippides’ patron, Lysimachus, who is said to have locked one of his officers, Telesphoros, in a cage before putting him to death for making a witty jest about his wife Arsinoe (Ath. 14.616c and cf. Plu. Mor. 606b).31 In the case of Philippides the motif is inverted, with the comic poet held up as a model of restraint and prudence when dealing with a capricious and potentially brutal royal patron. test. 3 K.-A. a

5

31

IG II3 1, 877 = IG II2 657 [ἐ]πὶ Εὐθίου ἄρχοντος ἐπὶ τῆς [[Ἀ[ντιγονίδο]ς]] τ̣ρ̣[ίτης] [π]ρυτανείας, εἷ Ναυσιμένης Ναυσικύδου Χολαρ[γεὺ][ς] ἐγραμμάτευεν· Βοιηδρομιῶνος ὀγδόει ἐπὶ δέκ[α· ἐ][ν]άτει καὶ δεκάτει τῆς πρυτανείας· ἐκκλησία κυρ[ί]α· τῶν προέδ[ρ]ων ἐπεψήφιζεν Ἱερομνήμων Τεισιμάχου ἐκ Κοίλης καὶ συμπρόεδροι· ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλεῖ κ-

stoich. 40 283/2

Cf. also the anecdote on the philosopher Menedemus at the court of Nicocreon (D.L. 2.129–30).

47

Testimonia (test. 3)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

b 50

αὶ τῶι δήμωι· Νικήρατος Φιλέου Κεφαλῆθεν εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ Φιλιππίδης διατετέλεκεν ἐν παντὶ καιρῶ[ι] ἀποδεικνύμενος τὴν πρὸς τὸν δῆμον εὔνοιαν καὶ ἀποδημήσας πρὸς 〈 τ⟩ ὸν βασιλέα Λυσίμαχον πρότερόν τε διαλεχθεὶς τῶι βασιλεῖ ἐκόμισεν τῶι δήμωι δωρεὰν πυρῶν μεδίμνους Ἀττικοὺς μυρίους τοὺς διαδοθέντας πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις ἐπ’ Εὐκτήμονος ἄρχοντος, διελέχθη δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ κεραίας καὶ ἱστοῦ, ὅπως ἂν δοθεῖ τῆι θεῶι εἰς τὰ Παναθήναια τῶι πέπλωι, ἃ ἐκομίσθη ἐπ’ Εὐκτήμονος ἄρχοντος· καὶ νικήσαντος Λυσιμάχου τοῦ βασιλέως [τὴ]ν μάχην τὴν Ἰψῶι γενομένην πρὸς Ἀντίγον[ον κα]ὶ Δημήτριον τοὺς μὲν τελευτήσαντας ἐν τῶι κ[ινδύνωι] τῶν πολιτ[ῶ]ν ἔθαψεν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ἀναλώμα[σιν, ὅσοι δ]ὲ αἰχμάλωτοι ἐγένοντο, ἐμφανίσας τῶι βα[σιλεῖ καὶ] λαβὼν αὐτοῖς ἄφε[σ]ιν, τοὺς μὲν βουλομέν[ους στρατ]εύεσθαι διώικησεν ὅπως ἂν καταχωρισθῶσιν [ἐν] ἡγεμονίαις, τοὺς δὲ προαιρουμένους ἀπιέναι ἀμφιέσας καὶ ἐφόδια δοὺς παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν, οὗ ἕκαστοι ἠβ[ο]ύλοντο πλείους ὄντας ἢ τριακοσίους· παρειτήσατο δὲ καὶ ὅπως ἂν ἀφεθῶσιν καὶ ὅσοι τῶν πολιτῶν κατελήφθησαν ἐν τῆι Ἀσίαι εἱργμένοι ὑπὸ Δημητρίου καὶ Ἀντ[ι]γόνου, καὶ τοῖς ἀεὶ περιτυνχάνουσιν Ἀθηναίων χρήσιμος ὢν διατελεῖ, καθότι ἂν ἕκαστος αὐτὸν παρακαλε〈 ῖ⟩ , καὶ κομισαμένου τοῦ δήμου τὴν ἐλευθερίαν διατετέλεκε λέγων καὶ πράττων τὰ συμφέροντα τεῖ τῆς πόλεως σωτηρίαι, καὶ παρακαλῶν τὸν βασιλέα βοηθεῖν καὶ χρήμασιν καὶ σίτωι, ὅπως ἂν διαμένει ὁ δῆμος ἐλεύθερος ὢν καὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ κομίσηται καὶ τὰ φρούρια τὴν ταχίστην, καὶ ὑπὲρ τούτων π[ά]ντων πολλάκις μεμαρτύρηκεν αὐτῶι ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τοὺς π[ρ]εσβεύοντας Ἀθηναίων πρὸς ἑαυτόν· καὶ χειροτον[ηθεὶ]ς ἀγωνοθέτης ἐπὶ Ἰσαίου ἄρχοντος ὑπήκουσε[ν τῶι δ]ήμωι ἐθελοντὴς ἐκκ τῶν ἰδίων, τάς τε πατρίο[υς θυσία]ς ἔθυσεν τοῖς θεοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τὴ[ν . . . .8. . . .]ν ἔδωκεν πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις πάντας τοὺς [ἀγῶνας, καὶ ἐπί]θετον ἀγῶνα κατεσκεύασεν τεῖ Δήμ[ητρι καὶ τεῖ Κόρε]ι [πρ]ῶτος ὑπόμνημα τῆς τοῦ δήμου [ἐλευθερίας· ἐπεμελή]θη δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγώνων κα[ὶ θυσιῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεω]ς, καὶ εἰς ταῦτα πάντα ἐκ τῶ[ν ἰδίων ἀναλώσας πολλὰ χρ]ήματα τὰς εὐθύνας δέδωκεν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους κα[ὶ οὐ]θὲν ὑπεναντίον πρὸ[ς δ]ημοκρατίαν οὐδεπώποτε [πέπραχ]ε[ν ο]ὔτ[ε λόγωι οὔτ’] ἔργωι· ὅπως ἂν οὖν φανερὸν εἶ [πᾶσιν, ὅτι ὁ δῆμος ἐπί]σταται χάριτας ἀποδιδόναι τ[οῖς εὐεργέταις ἀξί]ας ὧν ἂν εὐεργετήσωσιν, ἀγαθεῖ [τύχει, δεδόχθαι τῆ]ι βουλεῖ· τοὺς προέδρους οἳ ἂν λά[χωσιν προεδρεύε]ιν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, ὅταν ἐξέλθωσιν αἱ [ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ἡμ]-

299/8 299/8 301

284/3

48

Philippides 55

60

65

70

έραι τῆς αἰτήσεως χρηματίσαι περὶ τ[ούτων εἰς τὴ]ν πρώτην ἐκκλησίαν κατὰ τὸν νόμον, γνώ[μην δὲ ξυμβ]άλλεσθαι τῆς βουλῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον, ὅτι δοκεῖ τ[ῆι β]ουλεῖ, ἐπαινέσαι Φιλιππίδην Φιλοκλέους Κεφαλ[ῆ]θεν ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ εὐνοίας, ἧς ἔχων διατελεῖ π[ε]ρὶ τὸν δῆμον τὸν Ἀθηναίων, καὶ στεφανῶσαι αὐτ[ὸ]ν [χ]ρυσῶι στεφάνωι κατὰ τὸν νόμον καὶ ἀνειπεῖν τὸν στέφανον Διονυσίων τῶν μεγάλων τραγωιδῶν τῶι ἀγῶνι· στῆσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰκόνα χαλκῆν ἐν τῶι θεά[τ]ρωι καὶ εἶναι αὐτῶι σίτησιν ἐν πρυτανείωι καὶ ἐκγόνων ἀεὶ τῶι πρεσβυτάτωι καὶ προεδρία[ν] ἐμ πᾶσι [τ]οῖς ἀγῶσι, {τ}οἷ〈 ς⟩ ἡ πόλις τίθησιν· τῆς δὲ πο[ι]ήσεως τοῦ στεφάνου καὶ τῆς ἀναγορεύσεως ἐπιμεληθῆναι τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆι διοικ[ή]σει· ἀναγράψαι δὲ [τ]ό[δ]ε τὸ ψήφισμα τὸν γραμματέα τὸν κατὰ πρυτανείαν ἐν στήληι λιθίνει καὶ στῆσαι παρὰ τὸν νεὼ τοῦ Διονύσου· εἰς δὲ τὴν ἀναγραφὴν τῆς στήλης μερίσαι τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆι διο[ι]κήσει ΔΔ δραχμὰς [ἐκ] τῶν εἰς τὰ κατὰ ψηφίσματα ἀναλισκομένων τῶι δήμωι. in corona: ὁ δῆ[μος].

1–48 supplevit Rhousopoulos 49–74 supplevit Philios 1 [[Ἀ[ντιγονίδο]ς]] Byrne : Ἀ[καμαντίδο]ς Köhler 41–2 τη|[ν διωβελία]ν Dittenberger : τὴ|[ν οἰνοχοία]ν Kirchhoff : τὴ|[ν εἱστίασι]ν Zink : τη|[νίκα δωρεὰ]ν ἔδωκεν Knoepfler : τη|[νίκα προσα]νέδωκεν Knoepfler 42–3 πάντας τοὺς | [ἀγῶνας] Zink  : πάντας τοὺς | [ἄρτους] Knoepfler 43 [ἐπί]θετον Zink 44 Δήμ|[ητρι καὶ τεῖ Κόρε]ι Dittenberger 45 [ἐλευθερίας] Dittenberger : [εὐεργεσίας] Rhousopoulos  : [φιλοτιμίας] Zink 49 [πέπραχ]ε[ν] Gauthier In the archonship of Euthios (283/2), in the third prytany of [[Antigonis]], in which Nausimenes son of Nausikydes of Cholargos was secretary. On the eighteenth of Boedromion, the nineteenth of the prytany, (there was) a sovereign assembly. [5] Of those presiding Hieromnemon son of Teisimachos from Koile and his fellow presidents put it to the vote. The Council and the People decided. Nikeratos son of Phileas from Kephale said: since Philippides has continued at every opportunity to display his goodwill towards the People, and [10] having resided abroad with king Lysimachus and having discussed the matter previously with the king he brought for the People as a gift ten-thousand Attic medimnoi of wheat which was distributed to all Athenians in the archonship of Euktemon (299/8); and he also held discussions about the yard-arm and mast so that [15] they might be given to the goddess at the Panathenaea for the peplos, which were brought in the archonship of Euktemon (299/8); and when king Lysimachus was victorious in [th]e battle that took place at Ipsos (301) against Antigon[us an]d Demetrius, he buried those of the citizens who died in the v[entur]e at [20] his own expen[se, and all those who] were prisoners-of-war, having pointed them out to the ki[ng and] having secured their rele[a]se, he arranged for those who wish[ed to serve in the a]rmy to be assigned [in] regiments, while those who preferred to

Testimonia (test. 3)

49

leave he clothed and gave travelling expenses from [25] his own (money) and sent them away where each d[e]sired, numbering more than three-hundred; and he also made entreaties so that all of the citizens who were seized in Asia, imprisoned by Demetrius and Antigonus, also be released; and to those Athenians who encounter him from time to time [30] he continues to be useful, insofar as each one appeals to him; and after the People recovered freedom (287 or 286) he has continued to say and do what is useful for the safety of the city, and to exhort the king to help with both money and grain, so that the People [35] may continue to be free and recover the Piraeus and garrisons as soon as possible; and concerning all these things the king has often borne witness in his favour to those Athenians sent to him as ambassadors; and having been elec[te]d agonothete in the archonship of Isaios (284/3) he answere[d [40] the P]eople willingly from his own resources, and he made the ancestra[l sacrific]es to the gods on behalf of the People and he gave t[he …] to all the Athenians for all the [contests; and] he was [the f]irst to furnish [an ad]ditional contest for Dem[eter and Kor]e as a memorial of the People’s [45] [freedom]; and he also [took care of] the other contests an[d sacrifices on behalf of the cit]y; and [having spent much mo]ney on all these things from hi[s own resources] he has returned the accounts of office in accordance with the laws; an[d] he [has] never [done anyth]ing oppose[d to d]emocracy either [in word or] [50] in deed. Therefore, so that it is clear [to all that the People kn]ows how to return favours to i[ts benefactors worth]y of their good deeds, with good [fortune, it is decided by th]e Council, that the presidents who are al[lotted to presi]de before the People, when the [d]ays of the request [as per the law] come to an end, [55] that they do business concerning t[hese matters at th]e first assembly according to the law, and that they [pres]ent the judge[ment] of the Council to the People, namely that the Council decides to praise Philippides son of Philokles from Kephal[e] on account of his virtue and goodwill, which he continues to hold con[cern]ing [60] the People of Athens; and to crown h[im] with a [g]old crown according to the law and proclaim the crown at the contest of tragedies of the Great Dionysia; and to set up also a bronze statue of him in the thea[t]re; and that there be free meals for him in the prytaneion and [65] for the eldest of his descendants at any one time, and a sea[t] of honour in all [t]he contests which the city administers; and that those in charge of fina[n]ces take care of the making of the crown and the proclamation; and that the secretary of the prytany inscribe this decree on a stele [70] of stone and set it up beside the temple of Dionysus; and that those in charge of finances apportion 20 drachmas for the inscription of the stele [from] the money that is spent on matters (voted) by decree by the People. (in a crown): The Peo[ple]

Discussion Edmonds 1961. 166–9; Philipp 1973. 500–1, 508–9; Shear 1978; Franco 1990; Lund 1992. 85–7; Bielman 1994. 74–80; Bringmann and von Steuben 1995. 21–5; West 1995. 240; Habicht 1997. 80–2; Mikalson 1998. 99–101; Montes Cala 1999. 234–8; Kralli 1999–2000. 151–2; Bagnall and Derow 2004. 27–9; Austin 2006. 112–16; Oliver 2007a. 92–4; Paschidis 2008. 116–25; Luraghi 2012. 362–5; Hanink 2014a. 241–2; Tracy 2015. 571; Shear 2017. 177, 181. Date 18 Boedromion 283/2 BCE (see line 3), i. e. early October 283 BCE. The procession to Eleusis for the Mysteries was traditionally held the following

50

Philippides

day. The benefactions for which Philippides is honoured go back as early as the summer of 301 BCE (Battle of Ipsos) and 299/8 BCE (gifts from Lysimachus brought to Athens by Philippides), and as recently as the previous year 284/3 BCE (Philippides’ agonothesia). Citation context Inscribed copy on a stele of grey marble of an honorary decree proposed soon after Philippides had performed the office of agonothete in Athens. The stele proclaiming the honours was set up beside the Temple of Dionysus just below the Theatre of Dionysus on the south slope of the Acropolis (line 70). It was found in two fragments: fr. a (lines 1–49) was discovered in 1862 in the Theatre of Dionysus near its original place of dedication; fr. b (lines 48–73) was discovered in 1890 some distance away in Eleusis. It is now in the Epigraphical Museum of Athens (EM 10409). Text The only textual problem of some significance is the insoluble lacuna at the beginning of line 42 τὴ|[ν . . . .8. . . .]ν ἔδωκεν. How we reconstruct this lacuna also depends on the restoration at the beginning of line 43 where most editors read [ἀγῶνας], i. e. ‘all the contests’ (also adopted here). Some of the proposals for line 42 include Dittenberger’s τὴ|[ν διωβελία]ν, ‘he gave the diōbelia to all’ (although the reading διωβολίαν would be orthographically preferable, cf. Arist. Pol. 1267b2; Ath. 28.3); Kirchhoff ’s τὴ|[ν οἰνοχοία]ν, ‘he gave the pouring of wine to all’; and Zink’s τὴ|[ν εἱστίασι]ν, ‘he gave the public dinner to all’ (although ἑστίασιν is orthographically preferable). In all these cases the supplemented accusative noun is treated grammatically as the direct object of the verb ἔδωκεν, while in line 43 the second accusative noun [ἀγῶνας] is understood as part of an adverbial expression ‘for all the contests’, i. e. καὶ τὴ|[ν . . . .8. . . .]ν ἔδωκεν πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις πάντας τοὺς | [ἀγῶνας], ‘and he gave t[he …] to all the Athenians 〈 for⟩ all the [contests]’. For more details about each of the proposed readings listed above, see the commentary ad loc. below. Knoepfler (2014. 435) offers an alternative construction of the Greek, along with two different textual supplements for the lacunae at the beginning of lines 42 and 43. The two versions offered by Knoepfler are καὶ τη|[νίκα δωρεὰ]ν ἔδωκεν πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις πάντας τοὺς | [ἄρτους], ‘and at that time he gave all the bread to all the Athenians as a gift’, or alternatively καὶ τη|[νίκα προσα]νέδωκεν πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις πάντας τοὺς | [ἄρτους], ‘and at that time he distributed in addition all the bread to all the Athenians’. In both cases the supplemented noun [ἄρτους] in line 43 is made the direct object of the verb. These restorations have the benefit of being grammatically smoother but are less convincing on linguistic and interpretational grounds: προσαναδίδωμι and τηνίκα are extremely rare and not attested in Attic inscriptions, while the supplement ἄρτους would seem a rather paltry gift compared with more substantial donations of meat known to have been given to the community by agonothetes elsewhere (see on lines 42–3 below). Interpretation A decree from Athens awarding Philippides the highest honours (μέγισται τιμαί) for his services to the city between the years 301 and 283 BCE.

Testimonia (test. 3)

51

His services include (1) burying the Athenian dead at his own expense and (2) securing the release of Athenian prisoners-of-war captured by Lysimachus after the Battle of Ipsos in 301 BCE; (3) securing the release of Athenian captives in Asia (the details of their captivity are obscure); (4) obtaining from king Lysimachus gifts of grain for Athens as well as (5) a new mast and yard-arm for the Panathenaic ship-cart in 299/8 BCE; (6) continuing to support the interests of Athenians abroad who have required his help; (7) obtaining further money and grain from king Lysimachus for Athens after its newly won freedom from Demetrius Poliorcetes in 287 or 286 BCE; and (8) performing the office of agonothete at Athens in the year 284/3 BCE in which he organised and spent vast amounts of his own money on the contests held by the city that year. In return, Philippides was awarded a gold crown, a bronze statue in the theatre, free meals at the prytaneion, and perpetual front-row seating at the city’s contests (prohedria), with the honours to be publicly proclaimed during the tragic competition at the City Dionysia in Athens. The decree does not explicitly mention Philippides’ services as comic poet. However, it implicitly recognises his dramatic achievements and primary status as a poet by having his statue set up in the theatre, and a copy of his honorary decree set up alongside the Temple of Dionysus below the theatre. The decree features structural elements typical of such documents which might be outlined as follows (based on West 1995. 240): 1–7: Prescript 7–50: Motivation formula 1: Philippides’ services to Athens. 50–2: Purpose clause: Athens rewards its benefactors. 52–6: Resolution formula: decision of the Council. 56–8: Recommendation: Council recommends the resolution to the People. 59–60: Motivation formula 2: Philippides continues to show goodwill. 60–3: Action formula 1: crowning of Philippides at the tragedies of the City Dionysia. 63–4: Action formula 2: dedication of a bronze statue to Philippides. 64–5: Action formula 3: award of sitēsis to Philippides and his descendants. 65–6: Action formula 4: award of prohedria at the city’s contests. 66–8: Provision for making and announcing the crown. 68–70: Publication formula. 70–3: Provision for expenses of inscribing the decree. 1 [ἐ]πὶ Εὐθίου ἄρχοντος Euthios son of Antiphon of the deme Teithras (PAA 431713) was archon in the year 283/2 BCE. He would receive an honorary decree two years later for the conduct of his (present) archonship (IG II3 1, 881 = SEG 25.89). [[Ἀ[ντιγονίδο]ς]] Suspected by Byrne (2010. 173) as an erasure around 200 BCE as part of the damnatio memoriae of the Antigonids. For the known demes assigned to this tribe, see Pritchett 1940; Traill 1975. 26–9. 2–3 Ναυσιμένης Ναυσικύδου Χολαρ[γεὺ|ς] ἐγραμμάτευεν PAA 702050; see also Davies 1971. 314–15 (AFP 8443).

52

Philippides

5–6 Ἱερομνήμων Τεισιμάχ|ου ἐκ Κοίλης Hieromnemon (PAA 532640), in his official capacity as prytanis, put the motion of Philippides’ honours before the popular Assembly for vote. 7 Νικήρατος Φιλέου Κεφαλῆθεν εἶπεν Nikeratos (PAA 710650) formally proposed the honours for Philippides to the Council before it was brought before the Assembly (see on line 55). Nikeratos was from the same deme (Kephale) as Philippides and also from a wealthy family (APF 14239). His father Phileas (PAA 923680) served as syntrierarch in 326/5 BCE (IG II2 1628.139–40) and trierarch before 322/1 BCE (IG II2 1631.659), around the same time as Philippides’ father, Philokles. Davies (1971. 535; cf. Humphreys 2018. 987) suggests there might have been a family connection between Nikeratos and Philippides. Regardless, the fact they were from wealthy families, from the same deme, and apparently of the same generation, suggests they might very well have been age-mates and friends from an early period in their lives. 9–10 ἀ|ποδημήσας πρὸς τ̣ὸν βασιλέα Λυσίμαχον For Philippides’ relationship with Lysimachus, see on test. 2 above. The phrase indicates that Philippides was already sojourning with Lysimachus before his brief return to Athens in 299/8 BCE when he brought gifts from the king. For the verb ἀποδημέω and the idea of sojourning abroad, cf. Pl. Cri. 53e6 (of Socrates’ proposed exile abroad); cf. Pl. Ap. 40e4; Phd. 61e1 and 67b10 where the verb and its cognate noun are used metaphorically of the soul’s migration after death. See also Franco 1990. 117 n. 21. Shear (1978. 49) suggests that Philippides may have gone abroad in self-imposed exile (see further on Philippid. fr. 25). 10–11 πρότερόν | τε διαλεχθεὶς τῶι βασιλεῖ Shear (1978. 49) interprets the phrase ‘having discussed the matter previously with the king’ to mean before (πρότερον) the Battle of Ipsos. This would seem to be the case if the benefactions listed in this decree are recorded in chronological order, or to be more precise, according to the time when each benefaction was first conceived or proposed, rather than when each was first put into action. Alternatively, Franco (1990. 116 with n. 19) suggests that Philippides’ benefactions are listed here in thematic order, i. e. gifts, provisions for citizens, diplomatic actions, and lastly his agonothesia. 11–12 δω|ρεὰν πυρῶν μεδίμνους Ἀττικοὺς μυρίους Lysimachus’ gift of grain, along with the mast and yard-arm (see below), prompted the Athenians to award Lysimachus a crown. For the crown, see the treasury records IG II2 1485.27–9 (with Burstein 1978. 184–5). 14 κεραίας καὶ ἱστοῦ For the yard-arm and mast of the Panathenaic shipcart cf. Phot. ι 239 ἱστὸς καὶ κεραία· ὁ μὲν ἱστὸς, τὸ ἐπίμηκες ξύλον ἄνω τεταμένον· κεραία δὲ, τὰ πλάγια, ὥστε γενέσθαι γράμμα τὸ 〈 ταυ⟩ · διετείνετο δὲ πολλάκις ὁ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς πέπλος εἰς τοιοῦτο σχῆμα ξύλων καὶ ἐπόμπευσεν, ‘Mast and yardarm: the mast is the long piece of wood that extends upwards, the yard-arm is the sideways part so as to form the letter T. The peplos of Athena was often unfurled onto such an arrangement of wood and paraded’.

Testimonia (test. 3)

53

The choice of gift may suggest that the damage done to the peplos by fierce winds at the Great Panathenaea of 302 BCE also extended to the mast and yard-arm of the Panathenaic ship-cart (see on Philippid. fr. 25.5; cf. Scott 1928. 159–60; Parke 1977. 40; Shear 1978. 36 n. 89; Norman 1983; Sonnabend 1996. 312; Mikalson 1998. 99; Shear 2001. 581). Paschidis (2008. 119–20) does not think the mast and yard-arm were damaged on that occasion, but that Lysimachus’ gift was purely one of goodwill towards Athens. However, there is no reason why goodwill and practicality should not have coincided in this gift. Philippides, at any rate, must have seen this as a useful opportunity to secure friendly relations between Lysimachus and Athens by offering such a gift, perhaps making the suggestion to Lysimachus before the Battle of Ipsos (see on lines 10–11 above). A similar example of an Athenian advising a ruler to offer a gift to Athens to secure goodwill can be seen in the case of Callias of Sphettos who, sometime after the liberation of Athens in 287 or 286 BCE, advised Ptolemy II Philadelphus to make a gift of the ropes used for securing the peplos to the mast of the Panathenaic ship-cart (IG II3 1, 911.64–70 = SEG 28.60; Shear 1978. 39–40). 15 τῶι πέπλωι The dative is perhaps best understood as a dative of advantage (dativus commodi), i. e. ‘for the convenience of holding up the peplos’. It is unlikely to be a dative of accompaniment, i. e. that Lysimachus made a gift of the mast and yard-arm along with the peplos. This, at any rate, does not align with what we know of the manufacture of the peplos elsewhere, which was very much a local Athenian affair, involving a contest of submitted designs, approval by an allotted jury, and weaving by Athenian girls (see comm. on Philippid. fr. 25.5). One would also expect the peplos to have been mentioned earlier and more prominently than the mast and yard-arm if it was a gift, especially since it would have constituted the most important and costly item. 17 [τὴ]ν μάχην τὴν Ἰψῶι The battle was fought in Phrygia in 301 BCE by Antigonus I Monophthalmus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes against a coalition composed of Seleucus, Lysimachus and Cassander (Plu. Demetr. 28–9; D.S. 21.1–4). Philippides’ actions regarding the Athenians killed in battle and those captured fighting for the enemy (lines 18–26) suggest that he personally accompanied Lysimachus there (cf. Bielman 1994. 78). Antigonus was killed in the battle, and Athens afterwards refused Demetrius entry into the city. Demetrius would later recapture Athens from the tyrant Lachares in the spring of 295 BCE (Plu. Demetr. 33–4). 18 Ἀντίγον[ον κα]ὶ Δημήτριον In contrast with ‘king’ Lysimachus (cf. line 10), Antigonus and Demetrius are not given the honorary title βασιλεῖς as they had previously received in Athens (see e. g. IG II2 469.7, dated 306/5 BCE, τῶν βασιλέων Ἀντιγόνο[υ καὶ Δημη|τρ]ίου). This is likely a ‘sign of deliberate hostility and disrespect’ by the Athenian nationalists (so Shear 1978. 16–17; cf. also IG II3 1, 911.27, 36 = SEG 28.60; Bringmann and von Steuben 1995. 25 ad loc.). For the origin of the title ‘king’ as used by the Successors of Alexander, see on Steph.Com. fr. 1.1 (this volume).

54

Philippides

20 [ὅσοι δ]ὲ αἰχμάλωτοι ἐγένοντο i. e. Athenians who fought on the side of Antigonus and Demetrius and were captured by Lysimachus. There is uncertainty whether these soldiers were part of an Athenian contingent who fought under Antigonus and Demetrius after enlisting as part of the revived Hellenic League (on these troops see Agora XVI 114 with Ferguson 1948; cf. Burstein 1977), or whether they were fighting as mercenaries, as most scholars suggest. See generally Droysen 1884. 501 n. 2; Parke 1933. 217 n. 6; Griffith 1935. 55; Launey 1949. 146–7; Bielman 1994. 79; Habicht 1997. 80–1. 27–9 ὅσοι τῶν πολιτῶν κατελήφθησαν ἐν | τῆι Ἀσίαι εἱργμένοι ὑπὸ Δημητρίου καὶ Ἀντ[ι]γόνο|υ The circumstances under which these Athenians were seized in Asia is unknown (Habicht 1997. 81). The absence of an explicit descriptor such as αἰχμάλωτοι throws doubt on the possibility they were Athenian mercenaries fighting for Lysimachus and the other kings. Scholars have suggested they were political prisoners, Athenian citizens hostile toward the Antigonids who happened to be in Asia for one reason or another and were detained by the authorities (see Franco 1990. 115 n. 14; Bielman 1994. 79–80; Paschidis 2008. 121). Either way, the inclusion of the name Antigonus here would seem to imply that their ‘capture’ must have taken place prior to or during the Battle of Ipsos, while Antigonus was still alive. The reversal in order of the names Demetrius and Antigonus (contrast line 18) may be due to the fact that after Antigonus’ death at Ipsos all negotiations were done principally through Demetrius. For dismissal of Bielman’s theory that Antigonus II Gonatas is meant here, see Paschidis 2008. 121. 29–31 καὶ τοῖς ἀεὶ περιτυνχάνουσιν Ἀθηναίων χρήσιμ|ος ὢν διατελεῖ, καθότι ἂν ἕκαστος αὐτὸν παρακαλε|〈 ῖ⟩ ‘And to those Athenians who encounter him from time to time he continues to be useful, insofar as each one appeals to him’. Philippides, to draw a modern comparison, seems to have acted much like a foreign consulate for Athenians abroad in Thrace. As also noted by several scholars (e. g. Franco 1990. 128 n. 83; Bielman 1994. 78–9; Paschidis 2008. 117–18), these lines imply that at the time of Philippides’ honours (283/2 BCE) he was still based abroad. His agonothesia then (see on 38–9 below), let alone the expulsion of Demetrius from Athens in 287 or 286 BCE, did not mark his permanent return to Athens. Instead he probably remained at the court of Lysimachus possibly until the king’s death at Corupedium some two years later in February 281 BCE. 31 κομισαμένου τοῦ δήμου τὴν ἐλευθερίαν Athens was liberated from the virtual oligarchy under Demetrius Poliorcetes either in the spring of 287 BCE or around Hekatombaion in 286 BCE (cf. Plu. Pyrrh. 11–12). For the later date see Shear (2001. 585 and 2010) who argues very plausibly that the cancellation of the Great Panathenaea in 286 BCE would only have been possible under extraordinary circumstances, and that Athens would certainly not have missed the opportunity in 286 BCE to celebrate the festival and their newly restored freedom if it had been won the previous year in 287 BCE. The cancellation of the Panathenaea in 286 BCE, then, was probably due to a major political disturbance at that very

Testimonia (test. 3)

55

time. On the characterisation of the period under Demetrius ca. 295–286 BCE as ‘oligarchic’, cf. lines 43–5 below; see also Plu. Mor. 851f and IG II3 1, 911.81 (= SEG 28.60) with Shear 1978. 52–5 and Habicht 1979. 30–2. 33–4 παρακαλῶν τὸν βασιλέα βοηθ|εῖν καὶ χρήμασιν καὶ σίτωι After Athens’ revolt from Demetrius in 287 or 286 BCE, Athenian embassies were sent abroad to seek financial aid (cf. Shear 1978. 27–8). Demochares of Leukonoe (PAA 321970) is known to have fronted Athenian embassies to Lysimachus in 286/5 BCE to secure monetary aid from the king, the first embassy securing 30 talants and the second a further 100 (Plu. Mor. 851e; Shear 1978. 81). Demochares is probably implied in lines 36–8 of our decree as one of the ambassadors who received good reports about Philippides from Lysimachus (so Shear 1978. 81). Philippides, still living in Thrace at this time, apparently used his influence to encourage Lysimachus to accept these appeals and to send aid to Athens in the form of money and grain (see Ferguson 1911. 150; Shear 1978. 80–1; Kralli 1999–2000. 151–2). He might also have appealed to Lysimachus of his own accord after hearing of the revolt (cf. Osborne 1979. 192). The Athenian decrees IG II3 1, 866 (= IG II2 662) and IG II3 1, 867 (= IG II2 663), dated to 285 BCE, both honour foreigners who visited Athens on behalf of Lysimachus in relation to these appeals. See also the decree in honour of Habron and Matrias (IG II3 1, 864 = IG II2 651, dated February 285 BCE). These men may have been honoured as the persons who brought Athens the grain which Philippides helped to secure (Shear 1978. 81). 35–6 τὸν Πειραιᾶ κομίσηται καὶ τὰ | φρούρια τὴν ταχίστην Although by 286 BCE Demetrius had departed and Athens was nominally ‘free’ (cf. lines 34–5 above ὅπως ἂν διαμένει ὁ δῆμ|ος ἐλεύθερος ὢν, ‘so that the People continues to be free’), Demetrius’ son Antigonus II Gonatas still held control of the Piraeus and other Attic fortresses (see Ferguson 1911. 149–50; Shear 1978. 27–8). There is much debate over how long the Piraeus remained under Macedonian control, with Gauthier (1979. 394–6) proposing that it was recovered in 281 BCE, Shear (1978. 29 with n. 62) suggesting the spring of 281/0 BCE, while other scholars suggest a date as late as 229 BCE (see Habicht 1979. 95–112; Habicht 1997. 124; Garland 1987. 52). 36–8 καὶ ὑπὲρ τούτων π[ά]ντων πολ|λάκις μεμαρτύρηκεν αὐτῶι ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τοὺς π|[ρ]εσβεύοντας Ἀθηναίων πρὸς ἑαυτόν See commentary on lines 33–4 above for ambassadors sent to king Lysimachus from Athens seeking financial aid. Lysimachus evidently used these occasions to do Philippides a personal favour by reminding the ambassadors of the poet’s benefactions to individual Athenian citizens when abroad in Thrace and the material assistance he had advised the king to give the Athenians in their times of need. 38–9 χειροτον|[ηθεὶ]ς ἀγωνοθέτης Philippides served as agonothete the year before the proposal of his honours, and the performance of this important office no doubt served as the launching pad for his formal ‘request’ of those honours (see on line 55). Agonothetes held the office for a year and were responsible for

56

Philippides

organising the competitions (agones) and performing sacrifices at the relevant festivals during that time (on the agonothesia generally see Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 91–3; Wilson 2000. 72–6; Papakonstantinou 2016; for Philippides’ agonothesia see Shear 1978. 84; Wilson 2000. 275). The state or dēmos probably covered the basic expenses of these contests (cf. Mikalson 1998. 57; and note the formula on agonothetic monuments which makes the dēmos the choregos, i. e. sponsor/financier, see e. g. IG II2 3073, 3076, 3079, 3081, etc.), but the office nonetheless also required the incumbent to spend vast sums of their own money, as we find in the case of Philippides (see lines 40 and 46–7). The fact that Philippides spent so much of his own money invites the question whether he received additional financial support for this office from Lysimachus (cf. the choregiai of Plato and Epaminondas who both received financial backing from wealthy patrons for their own liturgies, Plu. Arist. 1.4). Lysimachus was otherwise evidently keen for Philippides’ reputation to flourish in Athens (see lines 36–8). Philippides must have been in Athens at some point in the first half of 284 in order to volunteer himself for election as agonothete (for the language of the ‘election’ of agonothetes see IG II3 1, 984.53 and 57 = IG II2 682; and IG II3 1, 1035.5 = IG II2 749; cf. IG II3 1, 857.30). While in office he must have been present in Athens on multiple occasions to fulfil his duties, and so presumably based himself in Attica for most of 284/3 BCE (although contrast Paschidis 2008. 118 n. 1 who argues he need not have been based in Attica at all). 39–40 ὑπήκουσε|[ν τῶι δ]ήμωι There is a hint of rhetorical exaggeration in the decree by describing Philippides as ‘answering the call’ of the People when nominating himself for the office of agonothete. Cf. also IG II3 1, 1160.4 (= IG II2 834) ἀγωνοθέτης ὑπακούσα[ς], ‘having answered the call (of the People) as agonothete’. The rhetoric was no doubt shaped to support Philippides’ application to receive the present honours (see on line 55 below). 40 ἐκκ For the spelling with double consonant in other epigraphic examples, see Threatte 1980. 531. 41–2 τὴ|[ν . . . .8. . . .]ν ἔδωκεν The lacuna has defied attempts at a convincing solution (see under ‘Text’ for possibilities, and below for the implications of each reading). If we accept the reading [ἀγῶνας] in line 43, then the lacuna here likely contained a benefit Philippides gave to all Athenians for all the contests over which he presided that year. One would expect such a donation to be of considerable importance and generosity to deserve mention here. Among the proposed ideas, Dittenberger’s supplement τὴ|[ν διωβελία]ν, despite his own doubts and those of later scholars, may be possible. In the fourth century, or possibly earlier, a surplus monetary fund known as the ‘theorikon’ was created for issuing doles to all Athenian citizens, allowing rich and poor alike to pay admission fees to the theatre and other spectacles (see generally PickardCambridge 1968. 265–8; Csapo and Slater 1995. 287–8, 293–6; Roselli 2009 with bibliography p. 5 n. 1; Roselli 2011. 88–90). Two obols appear to have been the original payment, however we also hear of a drachma and up to five drachmas

Testimonia (test. 3)

57

issued in the second half of the fourth century (although the latter may very well be an extravagant anomaly funded by Demades). The last we hear of the theorikon is during the 320s, after which it was likely abolished during the oligarchy under Demetrius of Phaleron (317–307 BCE) and remained so throughout the political upheavals that followed. After the restoration of democracy in either 287 or 286 BCE, however, it would have been pointedly symbolic for Philippides to restore this dole, if only for that year, to commemorate Athens’ new-found freedom. The dole was, after all, strongly associated with democracy (the ‘glue of democracy’ as Demades once described it: Plu. Mor. 1011b)32 by making the festivals accessible to all Athenian citizens. A similar ‘pro-democratic’ initiative, in any case, can be seen in the new agon to Demeter and Kore which Philippides established at the Eleusinia that same year (see below on lines 43–5). That Philippides should not only give symbolic recognition to the restoration of democracy in the form of a new celebratory agon, but also revive in concrete form a democratic institution par excellence that allowed all Athenians to participate in their festivals, would certainly have been fitting at this time. A payment of two obols, then, if Dittenberger’s supplement is correct, may have been provided by Philippides for each citizen for each day of the relevant agones held that year. These would presumably have included the Panathenaea, Eleusinia, Anthesteria, Lenaea, City Dionysia, and even the Thargelia. Given that Athens had an adult-male citizen population of around 21,000 at the end of the fourth century according to the census held by Demetrius of Phaleron (Ctesicl. FGrH 245 F 1 ap. Ath. 6.272b–c), this would mean up to seventy minas or just over one talent would need to be supplied for each occasion, whether this was intended to cover multiple days per festival or only a one-off payment per festival. If Philippides provided the funds for such a dole, including multiple payments for different days of competition at a single festival, he could potentially have contributed up to ten talants on top of all the other contributions and expenses of his agonothesia (cf. IG II3 1, 1160.4–5 = IG II2 834.4–5 where an agonothete spends seven talants on his office). The real cost, however, was probably much less, given that not all citizens were necessarily present on every occasion to collect the dole. Kirchhoff ’s proposal τὴ|[ν οἰνοχοία]ν takes its inspiration from a passage of Philochorus FGrH 328 F 171 (ap. Ath. 11.464f) which mentions how wine and snacks were supplied to the audience during ‘every contest’: παρὰ δὲ τὸν ἀγῶνα πάντα οἶνος αὐτοῖς ᾠνοχοεῖτο καὶ τραγήματα παρεφέρετο, ‘wine was poured for them during every contest and snacks were served’. But the Philochorus passage is not strictly relevant here since it alludes to persuasive strategies financed by rival choregoi to win the audience’s support for a particular play (see Csapo and Slater 1994. 290; Hartwig 2008. 57 n. 37; cf. Ar. V. 58–9; Pax 962; Pl. 797–9; Pherecr. fr.

32

For Demades contributing large amounts of his own money to such funds, see Plu. Mor. 818e.

58

Philippides

101). In our context – with choregoi long since abolished and now replaced by a single agonothete – such sweeteners were no longer necessary. Zink’s supplement τὴ|[ν εἱστίασι]ν (‘he gave the banquet to all the citizens’), apart from the orthographical anomaly (εἱστίασιν instead of ἑστίασιν), is attractive insofar as it has a liturgical pedigree (cf. Arist. Pol. 1321a37). Communal feasts funded by an agonothete are attested elsewhere. We have a near-parallel in second/ first c. BCE Priene where an agonothete held a ‘dinner’ (δεῖπνον, restored) for citizens and others in the theatre, IK Priene 72.11–13 [γενομένων δὲ] | ἀγώνων ἐπὶ στεφανηφόρου Ἡρῴδου συνετέλεσεν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων μετὰ̣ [τῶν συναγωνοθετῶν δεῖπνον ἐν τῶι θεά]|τρωι τοῖς τε πολίταις καὶ κατοίκοις καὶ παροίκοις καὶ οἰκέταις, ‘during the contests when Herodos was magistrate he paid from his own money, along with [his fellow agonothetes, for a dinner in the thea]tre for the citizens, residents, neighbours and slaves’. Around the same time we find distributions of meat (κρεαδοσίαν) given to all the citizens (πᾶσι τοῖς πολίταις) by agonothetes in Priene at IK Priene 67.174 and IK Priene 72.14; and an Athenian agonothete in the mid third century BCE apparently provided five oxen for the Dionysia (IG II3 1, 991.12 = IG II2 798.12). The fact that sacrifices are mentioned immediately beforehand in our inscription may give further support to the idea that feasting or a gift of meat underlies the lacuna here. 42–3 πάντας τοὺς | [ἀγῶνας] Here the accusative can be treated adverbially, i. e. ‘for all the contests’ or ‘during all the contests’ (so Zink). Dittenberger and Kirchhoff suspect that εἰς may have been accidentally omitted due to the homoeoteleuton of ΟΙΣ and ΕΙΣ, i. e. the inscription should properly read Ἀθηναίοις 〈 εἰς⟩ πάντας. The supplement [ἀγῶνας] (Zink) is generally accepted. For the phrase elsewhere, cf. IG II2 20.11 πάντας τοὺς ἀ̣[γῶνας], IG II3 1, 857.31 (of an agonothete) [τ]οὺς ἀγῶνας ... [π]άντας, and IG II3 1, 991.14 (= IG II2 798.14, also of an agonothete) [τοὺς ἀγῶνας] πάντας ἐποίησεν καλῶς. For the possible ‘agones’ referred to here on this reconstruction, see above on lines 41–2. Knoepfler’s [ἄρτους], i. e. ‘he gave all the [bread]’ is less attractive. While we do hear of large loaves of spitted bread for public feasting within a festival context, particularly at the City Dionysia (i. e. ὀβελίας ἄρτος, see Poll. 6.75; Phot. ο 8; Eust. Il. 3.529.20–1), such a donation is unattested for agonothetes and would seem to pale in comparison with far more generous gifts of oxen and distributions of meat (κρεαδοσίαν) to the citizenry, as are attested for agonothetes in other sources (see on lines 41–2 above). 43–5 [καὶ ἐπί]θετον ἀγῶνα κατεσκεύασεν τεῖ Δήμ|[ητρι καὶ τεῖ Κόρε]ι [πρ]ῶτος ὑπόμνημα τῆς τοῦ δήμου | [ἐλευθερίας] The ‘freedom’ of the People (here restored by Dittenberger) refers to Athens’ liberation from Demetrius Poliorcetes in 287 or 286 BCE (see on line 31 above).33 Some scholars suggest Philippides 33

Ferguson (1899. 10–11) gives the less likely suggestion that it refers to the liberation of Athens from the tyrant Lachares nearly a decade earlier.

Testimonia (test. 3)

59

instituted a new festival for Demeter and Kore, but the text only mentions a ‘contest’, presumably instituted within a pre-existing festival. The most likely occasion at which Philippides introduced his new contest would be the Eleusinia festival celebrated in honour of Demeter in the month of Metageitnion (cf. Shear 1978. 85; Mikalson 1998. 106) and which had hosted athletic contests in foot racing from early times (see IG I3 991; Σ Pi. O. 9.150; Rigsby 2010). The nature of the ‘additional’ or ‘new’ (ἐπίθετον) contest which Philippides inserted into this festival is unknown, and an athletic contest is perhaps more likely; although Philippides’ background as a dramatic poet could possibly have determined that the new agon was musical or dramatic in form. The choice of the Eleusinia for the inclusion of a new contest may have been due to the recovery of Eleusis by Athens, recaptured by Demochares sometime between 287 and 270 BCE (Plu. Mor. 851f; Habicht 1997. 129, 137; see also Ferguson 1911. 145 n. 4; Shear 1978. 83–6, esp. 85–6, dates its recovery between September 285 and May 284 BCE, although the latter date for the terminus ante quem rests on a confusion of the archon Diotimos of 354/3 BCE with that of 285/4 BCE in IG II2 1682 = I.Eleusis 141; Mikalson 1998. 106). For a parallel elsewhere of an agonothete introducing an ‘additional’ contest (the word is restored) to celebrate Athens’ freedom from foreign rule, see the decree in honour of Eurykleides (dated post 229 BCE) who introduced an additional ‘hoplitic’ contest (the festival, as here, is not stated) during his own tenure as agonothete (IG II3 1, 1160.23–4 = IG II2 834.23–4 [ἐπίθετον] | ἀγῶνα εἰσηγήσατο ὁ[πλιτικὸν ὑπόμνημα τῆς ἐλευθερώσεως]; see Ferguson 1911. 295; Habicht 1997. 136, 180). For the word ὑπόμνημα in connection with the ‘commemoration’ of an important event at festivals, see Parker 1996. 273–4. 47–8 τὰς εὐθύνας δέδω|κεν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους Philippides would have rendered a public account of his agonothesia before a jury court at the end of his office. It was then possible for an individual to bring a public or private charge against him and present it to the auditors (εὐθύνοι) within three days (or thirty according to some scholars) if they believed him guilty of maladministration (see Arist. Ath. 48.4, 54.2 with Rhodes 1992 ad loc.) 48–50 κα[ὶ οὐ]θὲν ὑπεναντίον πρὸ[ς δ]|ημοκρατίαν οὐδεπώποτε [πέπραχ]ε[ν ο]ὔτ[ε λόγωι οὔτ’] | ἔργωι The same (or similar) formula appears in the honorary decrees to Demochares (Plu. Mor. 851f) μηδὲν ὑπεναντίον τῇ δημοκρατίᾳ πεπραχότι μήτε λόγῳ μήτε ἔργῳ, and to Callias of Sphettos (IG II3 1, 911.81–3 = SEG 28.60) ὥστε μ[ηδ]ὲν̣ [ὑ]|πεναντίον πρᾶξαι μήτε τοῖς νόμοις μήτε τεῖ δημοκ̣[ρατί]|α̣ι (for the text [πέπραχ]ε[ν] in the decree for Philippides see Gauthier 1982. 221–2 with n. 28). While formulaic, both Demochares and Philippides left Athens in the late fourth century at odds with the democratic faction of the city led by Stratocles (cf. esp. on Philippid. fr. 25.7; Shear 1978. 47). This formula, then, would appear to reassert their democratic credentials and absolve them of any anti-democratic suspicion or innuendo that arose at that time. See also Shear 2010. 149–50 who notes the similarities of this phrase to the Decree of Demophantos which required Athenians to swear an oath to oppose, even kill,

60

Philippides

anyone who overthrew the democracy. So here it aligns Philippides with the good democratic citizen, even with ‘tyrant-slayers and liberators’. 55 τῆς αἰτήσεως A ‘request’ for the honours first had to be made by Philippides, and a persuasive curriculum vitae compiled to support the request. The request in this instance was formally presented to the Council by Philippides’ fellow demesman Nikeratos (line 7), after which there was a legally prescribed delay of a certain number of days to consider the motion before it could be presented before the Assembly (see Gauthier 1985. 83–9, esp. 84–5, 87; Osborne 2012. 37–9). For the persuasive strategies used in a similar ‘request’ for higher honours by Demochares – on that occasion requested posthumously on behalf of his deceased uncle, Demosthenes – see Shear 2017. 163–6. 58–9 Φιλιππίδην Φιλοκλέους Κεφαλ[ῆ]|θεν For the patronymic see also test. 1. Kephale was a deme situated in the southeast of Attica (near modern Keratea). It was part of the tribe Akamantis and had one of the larger populations in Attica with a bouleutic quota of 9, i. e. with a population of around 540 adult male citizens, or more than 2,500 total population (on the deme see Humphreys 2018. 985–90). For the form of the demotic and the suffix -ῆθεν, see Whitehead 1986. 73. 62–3 Διονυσίων τῶν μεγάλων τραγωιδῶν τῶι ἀγ|ῶνι On the standard scheduling at the City Dionysia for the proclamation and presentation of public honours immediately before the tragic contest, see Wilson 2009 and Wilson and Hartwig 2009. The ceremony itself apparently had pro-democratic origins, with our earliest-known proclamation in the theatre dated to 409 BCE when Thrasybulus of Calydon was honoured for assassinating the oligarch Phrynichus (IG I3 102). Here too a pro-democratic note is struck in the citation of honours to Philippides, noting his benefactions to the dēmos and his promotion of Athens’ democracy (cf. lines 9, 31–3, 43–5, 48–50). 63–4 εἰκόνα χαλκῆν ἐν τῶι θεά[τ]|ρωι For the honorary reward of statues, usually in the agora, see Henry 1983. 294–6 and Gauthier 1985. 80. As Oliver (2007b. 196) notes, the statue for Philippides was set up in the most appropriate place for the honorand, in this case the theatre. We hear of other statues to comic poets from this era set up in the theatre (see e. g. Ma 2013. 274; Nervegna 2013. 61–2). A statue for (probably) the Middle Comedy poet Diodorus of Sinope was erected ca. 295 BCE (IG II3 1, 856 = IG II2 648; Habicht 1997. 89). A seated statue of Menander, situated along the east parodos of the Theatre of Dionysus, was erected probably sometime soon after his death in 292/1 BCE (IG II2 3777 = Men. test. 25; see also Papastamati–von Moock 2007; Hanink 2014a. 236–41). Similarly, a seated statue of Posidippus, usually thought to represent the comic poet (see, however, Dickie 1994 who argues it is the epigrammatist), was erected perhaps around the mid third century BCE, although its place of erection is uncertain. Pausanias, on his tour of Athens in the second century CE, mentions the statues (εἰκόνες) of comic poets erected in the theatre. With the exception of Menander, he calls the others, which presumably included Philippides (unless his statue had

Testimonia (test. 4)

61

since been removed or destroyed), ‘obscure’: Paus. 1.12.1 εἰσὶ δὲ Ἀθηναίοις εἰκόνες ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ καὶ τραγῳδίας καὶ κωμῳδίας ποιητῶν, αἱ πολλαὶ τῶν ἀφανεστέρων· ὅτι μὴ γὰρ Μένανδρος, οὐδεὶς ἦν ποιητὴς κωμῳδίας τῶν ἐς δόξαν ἡκόντων, ‘in Athens there are statues in the theatre of the poets of both tragedy and comedy, most of them rather obscure; for other than Menander there was no poet of comedy among them who came to eminence’. 64 σίτησιν ἐν πρυτανείωι i. e. Philippides is to be provided with food at the prytaneion permanently at public expense (see generally Osborne 1981; Henry 1983. 275–8; MacDowell 2007). This right is also made hereditary by being granted to the eldest male in the family line (on possible descendants of Philippides, see ‘Introduction 1. Name and Identity’). The award of sitēsis was regularly concomitant with the award of prohedria (below; see Henry 1983. 275–6, and for extensions of these honours, in this case the award of a bronze statue, see Henry 1983. 277–8). 65–6 προεδρία[ν] ἐμ πᾶσι | [τ]οῖς ἀγῶσι, {τ}οἷ ἡ πόλις τίθησιν i. e. the right of front-row seating at any of the contests the city holds. 68 τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆι διοικήσει The officials who controlled state revenues. Cf. lines 71–2 and see Shear 1978. 80; Rhodes 1992. 516. 69 τὸν γραμματέα τὸν κατὰ πρυτανείαν i. e. Nausimenes (see line 2). For the title ‘grammateus’ see Rhodes 1992. 600. 70 στῆσαι παρὰ τὸν νεὼ τοῦ Διονύσου Along with his statue in the theatre, the erection of the stele containing this decree beside the Temple of Dionysus, situated just below the theatre on the south slope of the Acropolis, implicitly acknowledges Philippides’ principal status in Athenian society, and the god’s patronage of him, as a comic poet. test. 4 K.-A. Gell. 3.15.2 Philippides quoque, comoediarum poeta haut ignobilis, aetate iam edita, cum in certamine poetarum praeter spem vicisset et laetissime gauderet, inter illud gaudium repente mortuus est Philippides too, by no means an obscure comic poet, when already advanced in years had unexpectedly won in a competition of poets and was rejoicing most exuberantly, in the middle of that joy suddenly died.

Discussion Norwood 1931. 61; Edmonds 1961. 166–7; Rusten 2011. 678; Ochman 2011. 144–6. Citation context From the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (thought to have been published ca. 180 CE). Gellius’ work is composed of anecdotes and short chapters on various topics ranging from philosophy, law, history, philology and literary criticism. Our passage appears among a collection of anecdotes on people who

62

Philippides

had died of unexpected joy, or rather among stories meant to illustrate how strong emotions of joy can have an adverse affect on the body resulting in death. Gellius’ source for the Philippides story is unknown, but it fits the mould of ‘unusual deaths’ in the biographical tradition for which Hermippus of Smyrna was particularly known (on Hermippus and other early biographers of the poets see Bollansée 1999. 141–53). Interpretation The passage is interesting for potential light it sheds on the reception of Philippides in antiquity, as well as his biography. The litotes haut ignobilis (a poet ‘by no means obscure’) suggests Philippides was familiar enough to Gellius’ readership in the late second century CE. Plays by Philippides may still have survived then, whether for performances on stage or for use in rhetorical and educational contexts (see on test. 6 and cf. test. 9). Gellius also describes Philippides at his time of death as aetate iam edita (‘now at an advanced age’) and still active in comic competitions. We have enough evidence to suggest he lived at least beyond the age of sixty (not least of all the honours in test. 3), which gives some credence to the anecdote in Gellius that he lived to an advanced age. More questionable is the manner of Philippides’ death. He is described as dying of joy after an unexpected victory in the dramatic contests. A sudden and unexpected end of this kind was considered by the ancients a ‘happy death’ (cf. Plin. HN 7.180). But such a death was also a favourite motif or topos of the ancient biographical tradition. Reports of famous figures dying of joy, usually at an advanced age, are cited at Gell. 3.15 and D.L. 1.72. A specific motif in the case of dramatic poets was the playwright dying after success in the dramatic contest, again usually in old age. So in Diodorus Siculus we find a tradition that makes Sophocles die of joy after a victory, D.S. 13.103.4 (= S. TrGF test. 85; cf. 1.14.61–2) φασὶ δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον τὴν ἐσχάτην τραγῳδίαν εἰσαγαγόντα καὶ νικήσαντα χαρᾷ περιπεσεῖν ἀνυπερβλήτῳ, δι’ ἣν καὶ τελευτῆσαι, ‘they say that this man (Sophocles), having brought in his last tragedy and having won, fell into (a state of) overwhelming joy, and as a result died’. A similar death is attributed to Dionysius I of Syracuse, Plin. HN 7.180 (= TrGF I 76 test. 9; cf. D.S. 15.74) gaudio obiere praeter Chilonem … Sophocles et Dionysius Siciliae tyrannus, uterque accepto tragicae victoriae nuntio, ‘Apart from Chilo, Sophocles and Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, when they each received the announcement of a tragic victory, died of joy’. In addition, Philippides’ fellow comic poets, Philemon and Alexis, who lived to advanced old age, are also said to have died immediately after winning a comic contest, Plu. Mor. 785b (= Philem. test. 8 and Alex. test. 5) Φιλήμονα δὲ τὸν κωμικὸν καὶ Ἄλεξιν ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ἀγωνιζομένους καὶ στεφανουμένους ὁ θάνατος κατέλαβε, ‘death overcame Philemon the comic poet and Alexis while competing on the stage and being crowned (with victory)’ (see also Lefkowitz 2012. 111–12). Alternative versions of the deaths of Sophocles and Philemon are found elsewhere (e. g. S. TrGF test. 1.14; Luc. Longaev. 25 = Philem. test. 5; and Suda φ 327 = Philem. test. 1).

Testimonia (test. 5)

63

We can clearly doubt the circumstances of Philippides’ death and regard it as biographical fiction. But the underlying assumptions of the passage – that he lived to an old age and that he was still producing comedies towards the end of his life – are at least plausible (cf. test. 1 and 3). test. 5 K.-A. Anon. περὶ κωμῳδίας (Proleg. de com. III.53–4), p. 10 Koster τῆς δὲ νέας κωμῳδίας γεγόνασι μὲν ποιηταὶ ξδʹ, ἀξιολογώτατοι δὲ τούτων Φιλήμων (test. 2), Μένανδρος (test. 3), Δίφιλος (test. 1), Φιλιππίδης, Ποσείδιππος (test. 3), Ἀπολλόδωρος (Car., test. 2). Of New Comedy there are 64 poets, and the most worthy of mention among these are Philemon (test. 2), Menander (test. 3), Diphilus (test. 1), Philippides, Posidippus (test. 3), Apollodorus (Car., test. 2).

Discussion Meineke 1839. 470; Steffen 1876. 44–5; Kaibel 1899. 6–10; Capps 1900b. 49; Norwood 1931. 60; Cantarella 1949. 25–7; Edmonds 1961. 166–7; Koster 1975. 7–10; Nesselrath 1990. 174–5, 185; Rusten 2011. 678. Citation context From the anonymous De Comoedia (= Proleg. de com. III Koster) found appended to the plays of Aristophanes in codices E (= Estensis α.U.5.10: 14th or 15th c. CE), N2 (i. e. the second hand of N = Neapolitanus II. F. 22: 14th c. CE), and the Aldine edition of Aristophanes published in 1498 CE. The De Comoedia as it survives appears to be an epitome of a longer work which gave a short overview of Old, Middle and New Comedy. The work itself is a redaction of various sources, some of which evidently go back to Alexandrian scholarship and to authors who had a deep knowledge of didascalic and pinacographical writings on comedy. Among other things, the De Comoedia reports the number of surviving dramas in each ‘genre’ (or in the case of New Comedy the number of known poets), the most illustrious poets from each of these periods (as we have here), and usually a short biography on each of them, providing career statistics such as debut date, number of victories and number of surviving plays – all of which is sadly missing for Philippides, possibly as a result of epitomisation (on the De Comoedia generally, see more recently Nesselrath 1990. 45–51; Konstantakos 2000b. 173; Storey 2003. 55; and the volumes of Bianchi 2017. 287 and Olson 2017. 40–2). Interpretation As the corresponding list for Old Comedy shows (Proleg. de com. III.12–13 Koster), the poets listed here appear in chronological order, apparently based on the order in which they won their first comic victory, whether that first victory was at the Lenaea or City Dionysia festival (see Olson 2017. 40–1; cf. Capps 1900b. 49; Nesselrath 1990. 50 n. 50). A review of the evidence relating to each of the New Comedy poets listed here seems to bear this out. Philemon won his first City Dionysia victory in 327 BCE (Marm.Par. FGrH 239 B 7 = Philem. test.

64

Philippides

13).34 Menander apparently won his first victory at the Lenaea in the archonship of Philokles (322/1 BCE) when he also made his debut (Euseb. Chron. p. 125, 22 Helm = Men. test. 49).35 Our evidence for Diphilus is less certain, but we are told at Proleg. de com. III.61 Koster (= Diph. test. 1) that he ‘produced at the same time as Menander’ (κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον ἐδίδαξε Μενάνδρῳ) where the phrase ‘at the same time’ must refer to the archon date given for Menander immediately beforehand in the same text, i. e. the archonship of Philokles in 322/1 BCE (Proleg. de com. III.59 Koster). Given the likelihood this date is mentioned because it indicates a significant moment in Diphilus’ career, a debut or first victory is most likely. If it signifies a victory then Diphilus could have won his first victory at the City Dionysia of 321 BCE, since Menander had already won that year at the Lenaea. Philippides’ first victory (as argued under Philippid. test. 1 ‘Text’ and ad loc.) probably took place in the 114th Olympiad (i. e. 324/0 BCE). Taken together with the evidence for the preceding poets, we would have to assume this victory was in 320 BCE, since Menander and Diphilus both occupy 321 BCE. Philippides would also have won his first dramatic victory at the City Dionysia, since his first Lenaean victory was at least a few years later (see on Philippid. test. 7). The next poet in the list, Posidippus, we are told produced ‘in the third year after the death of Menander’ (Suda π 2111 = Posidipp. test. 1). Menander died in 292/1 BCE, so this gives either a debut date or a first victory date for Posidippus in 289/8 BCE. Our last-named poet, Apollodorus (of Carystus), appears in the City Dionysia victors’ list two lines below Posidippus (IG II2 2325.73 = 2325C.82 M-O = Apollod. Car. test. 6). For all the New Comedy poets listed here, then, it seems that they too, like the corresponding Old Comedy list, appear according to the order in which they won their first victory at the Athenian festivals, whether at the Lenaea or Dionysia. The order of names in this list, together with other evidence – especially the Suda entry on Philippides (test. 1) if we accept the emendation ριδʹ (114th Olympiad: 324/0 BCE) – not only confirms the Eusebius Chronicle’s placement of Menander’s first victory on debut at the Lenaea of 321 BCE, but also allows us to be quite precise in pinpointing the first victories of Diphilus (i. e. City Dionysia 321 BCE; his first Lenaean victory was 318 BCE at the very earliest, cf. test. 7 below) and Philippides (City Dionysia 320 BCE; his first Lenaean victory was 317 BCE at the very earliest). The selection criteria for our canon are not entirely clear, but they must have been based on more than purely literary grounds. Magnes’ presence in the corresponding Old Comedy list would seem to rule out a literary canon since ancient 34 35

Proleg. de com. III.56 Koster (= Philem. test. 2) vaguely dates Philemon ‘before’ the 113th Olympiad (i. e. 328/4 BCE). Menander’s first City Dionysia victory was several years later in 315 BCE according to the Parian Marble (FGrH 239 B 14 = Men. test. 48). See further below under Philippid. test. 7 for a more detailed discussion about the date of Menander’s first victory.

Testimonia (test. 5)

65

scholars report that none of his plays survived, with all nine attributed to him (by Callimachus?) said to be false (Proleg. de com. III.18–19 Koster = Magn. test. 3; cf. Ath. 9.367f and 14.646e; Bagordo 2014. 79–80). Our list of noteworthy New Comedy poets, then, was almost certainly not created by the Alexandrian scholars Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus of Samos who compiled similar canons ranking individual poets presumably in order of literary merit (see on test. 6 below; cf. also Steffen 1876. 44–5). Indeed one of these two ancient scholars, if not Eratosthenes of Cyrene before them, was likely responsible for dismissing Magnes’ plays as spurious.36 The division of each list into the categories of Old, Middle and New would also suggest our lists date from after the time of Aristophanes of Byzantium, if in fact he is responsible for these categories (on the possible origin of the terms ‘Old’, ‘Middle’ and ‘New’ with Aristophanes, see Nesselrath 1990. 186–7; but for the possibility of an earlier Callimachean origin for these terms, cf. Nesselrath 1990. 175). Considering that the poets in our list are ordered based on the relative chronology of their first victories and that this necessarily required access to didascalic records, repeated success in the dramatic competitions may have been one of the criteria for inclusion. This would certainly apply to Magnes who won an astonishing eleven victories at the City Dionysia (IG II2 2325.44 = Magn. test. 4). However, we might then ask why a successful Old Comedy poet like Teleclides (8 victories, see IG II2 2325.54, 119 = Telecl. test. 3–4) was omitted from the same list, and why a comic poet like Epicharmus who did not appear on the didascalic lists at all was included. Apart from competitive success, literary merit, or indeed a well-received reputation as reflected in contemporary or nearcontemporary sources, must have been considered as criteria for their inclusion. The latter certainly applies in the case of Magnes, who enjoyed a high reputation in the comedy of Aristophanes (see Ar. Eq. 520–5 = Magn. test. 7); and also Epicharmus, who was very popular during the fourth century, as attested by Plato, Aristotle, Alexis and others (see e. g. Hartwig 2014. 223). A range of factors would therefore seem to lie behind the selection of these poets. Philippides’ inclusion probably depended both on his record in the dramatic competitions as well as his literary style, which was evidently well developed (see Introduction 6).37 τῆς δὲ νέας κωμῳδίας γεγόνασι μὲν ποιηταὶ ξδʹ Calculations for the number of 64 New Comedy poets could have been based either on a library catalogue or on didascalic records. But while didascalic records were no doubt necessary for 36

37

Cf. Quint. 1.4.3 who clearly has in mind Aristophanes and Aristarchus when he speaks of the veteres grammatici (‘grammarians of old’) who deem lines or entire plays spurious with the stroke of a pen and include certain authors and exclude others from their canons. For Eratosthenes’ critical work in deeming plays spurious, see e. g. Harp. p. 203, 8 s. v. μεταλλεῖς and Phot. ε 2203 (= Pherecr. Metallēs test. i-ii). Less likely is the suggestion in Rusten (2011. 678) that he was canonised ‘on the strength of his economic and political activity in Athens rather than his comedy’, on which see test. 2 and 3 above.

66

Philippides

determining which poets fell chronologically under the rubric of ‘New’ Comedy, the number counts for Old and Middle Comedy in the De Comoedia were evidently calculated on the basis of library records. We are told, at any rate, that 36538 Old Comedy dramas were ‘in circulation’ (φέρεται) including false attributions or pseudepigraphoi (Proleg. de com. III.10–11 Koster; see also Olson 2017. 41–2); while for Middle Comedy we are told there were 57 poets and that their ‘surviving’ (φέρεται) dramas amounted to 617 in total (Proleg. de com. III.45–6 Koster). We might guess, therefore, that the total of New Comedy poets given here was also calculated from a library collection. We know that Callimachus’ Pinakes (see on test. 1) grouped authors according to genre, which might readily be consulted to find out such numbers. However, as already noted, there is doubt whether the tripartite division of comedy into Old, Middle and New was already established by that time.39 We do, however, have tantalising evidence in a passage of Athenaeus that suggests such genre-specific pinakes existed, whether originating with Callimachus or with a later scholar (e. g. Aristophanes of Byzantium?). Athenaeus notes of Hegemon of Thasos (Ath. 1.5b = Hegem. test. 1) that ‘some people register/assign him to Old Comedy’ (ὃν τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ κωμῳδίᾳ τινὲς ἐντάττουσιν), which can be taken to mean he was registered in a library’s pinacographical table containing the ‘Old’ Comedy poets, as opposed to the table containing parodists and the like (the other genre for which Hegemon was known). It is difficult to think that this could mean anything other than a library pinax where a scholar had to make the hard choice where one should catalogue Hegemon’s surviving works and record his biographical information, deciding in the end to place him among the Old Comedy poets. A corresponding table of ‘New’ Comedy poets might therefore have existed which a scholar could readily consult and calculate the number of poets as given here. The alternative is that this number of poets was calculated from didascalic records. One possible source is the other well-known Pinax by Callimachus, i. e. the Table and List of Poets Arranged Chronologically and From the Beginning (Suda κ 227 Πίναξ καὶ ἀναγραφὴ τῶν κατὰ χρόνους καὶ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γενομένων διδασκάλων) (see Schmidt 1922. 25–7; Pfeiffer 1949. 349–50 frr. 454–6; Regenbogen 1950. 1423–4; Fraser 1972. 453; Blum 1991. 137–42). Körte (1905. 444–6) argues that Callimachus’ work was the exemplar of the fragmentary didascalic inscription on individual comic poets found in Rome inscribed on the walls of an Imperial library (IGUR 215, 216 and 218; on the inscription see Körte 1905; 38

39

Potentially a suspect number, since 365 was used symbolically to denote a large number in general (see esp. Konstantakos 2000b. 177 with examples at n. 19). But here, given its inclusion among other carefully tallied numbers – sometimes even larger – it should presumably be taken literally. A later scholar may of course have scrutinised the ‘Pinax’ containing all the comic poets and then calculated the number of New Comedy poets on the basis of that catalogue (see Nesselrath 1990. 175).

Testimonia (test. 6)

67

Capps 1906; Dittmer 1923; Millis and Olson 2012. 225–9). This work, at least, arranged poets in descending chronological order, which would have facilitated any calculations of ‘Old’, ‘Middle’ and ‘New’ poets. Such a calculation would necessarily have required access to a post-Aristotelian didascalic source such as the Athenian Didascaliae (IG II2 2319–2323a), or perhaps a written copy of these records, as is suggested by didascalic information on New Comedy poets found in chronicles (e. g. Marm.Par.; Euseb. Chron.), play hypotheses (e. g. Men. Dysc.) and biographical writings. test. 6 K.-A. Canones comicorum Kroehnert, Tab. M cap. 4, p. 6 = Tab. C cap. 10, p. 12 κωμῳδοποιοὶ … νέας κωμῳδίας εʹ· Μένανδρος (test. 143), Φιλιππίδης, Δίφιλος (test. 13), Φιλήμων (test. 26), Ἀπολλόδωρος (Car., test. 3) νέας δὲ εʹ tab. CBN : ασδ tab. CV, ‘nicht erkennbar’ Rabe Ἀπολλόδωρος omisit tab. CB tab. CN

διείφιλος tab. CVB : διΐφιλος

Comic poets … of New Comedy (there are) 5: Menander (test. 143), Philippides, Diphilus (test. 13), Philemon (test. 26), Apollodorus (Car., test. 3).

Discussion Montfaucon 1715. 589, 597; Meineke 1839. 470; Steffen 1876. 44–5; Kroehnert 1897. 26–30; Rabe 1910. 341. Citation context From a Byzantine catalogue of eminent writers in various literary genres (i. e. hexameter, lyric, iambic, elegy, tragedy, comedy, oratory, history, philosophy, etc.), published in Kroehnert (1897). Table M is preserved in codex C (Coisl. 387, 10th c. CE); while Table C is preserved in codices V (Vat. gr. 1456, 11th to 12th c. CE); B (Bodl. misc. 211, Auct. T. II. 11, 15th c. CE); and N (Barocc. 125, 16th c. CE). The New Comedy ‘canon’ itself (on the modern term see Pfeiffer 1968. 207) may go back to the Alexandrian scholars Aristophanes of Byzantium or Aristarchus of Samos (pace Steffen 1876. 44–5). Several of the lists in Kroehnert, however, are evidently later compositions, since they contain later poets, poets we know were excluded from the Alexandrian lists (see below), and otherwise bear characteristics that suggest they come from a library catalogue (Steffen 1876. 10–11). Interpretation The choice of poets here is probably based on literary merit, although the specific criteria for selection will depend on when the canon was made and the preoccupations of the person who made the selection. Presumably all of the poets ‘included’ in this list (i. e. οἱ ἐγκριθέντες, the standard term by scholars for inclusions in such lists) were ‘treated’ or ‘studied’ (πραττόμενοι, i. e. their works were commented on by scholars: Pfeiffer 1968. 208), as hinted at by Tzetzes in his prolegomena to the Scholia on Lycophron (= Proleg. de com. XXIIb.39–41 Koster)

68

Philippides

κωμῳδοὶ πραττόμενοί εἰσιν οὗτοι … νέοι Μένανδρος, Φιλήμων, Φιλιστίων καὶ πλῆθος πολύ, ‘Comic poets who are studied are as follows … New poets Menander, Philemon, Philistion and a great multitude (of others)’.40 Our list is not ordered chronologically (contrast test. 5), although other lists in the same collection sometimes appear to follow a roughly chronological order (e. g. the tragic poets, Tab. M cap. 3: Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Ion, Achaeus). Each of the poets here does not appear at first glance to be ordered according to rank, as was the method used by the Alexandrians in their ‘canons’, as well as by others. Philippides, in any case, is not likely listed second here because he was considered the ‘second-best’ poet of New Comedy (a position universally reserved for Philemon). But it could be that his name was misplaced by accident, and so a ranked list of Alexandrian provenance still remains possible (see final paragraph below). We might note, at any rate, broader indications that the New Comedy list has potential Alexandrian ancestry. Several other lists in the collection of Kroehnert follow the same genre divisions used by the Alexandrian grammarians, and they also include a number for the total poets admitted into each individual canon. There are also several canons in Kroehnert that have striking similarities with the canons discussed by Quintilian, who himself (or his source) evidently had an intimate knowledge of the Alexandrian lists. In one passage Quintilian claims that Aristarchus included three iambic poets in his canon (Quint. 10.1.59), naming Archilochus among them. This corresponds with the number in the Kroehnert lists (Tab. M cap. 2; cf. Tab. C cap. 8) which names the three as Semonides, Archilochus and Hipponax (cf. also Choerob. in Heph. 5.1, p. 227.21s Consbruch; Phot. Bibl. 239; Luc. Pseudol. 2 for the same trio), and therefore has a strong claim to Aristarchean origins (cf. Kroehnert 1897. 21). Immediately after, Quintilian numbers the lyric poets as nine, possibly with Aristarchus’ canon still in mind (Quint. 10.1.61), naming Pindar, Stesichorus, Alcaeus and Simonides among their number. This again corresponds with the nine lyric poets in the canons of Kroehnert (Tab. M cap. 6; cf. Tab. C cap. 13) there named as Alcman, Alcaeus, Sappho, Stesichorus, Pindar, Bacchylides, Ibycus, Anacreon and Simonides.41 Just as revealing is the canon of ‘Poets’ (i. e. writers of hexameter poetry) in Kroehnert Tab. M cap. 1 (cf. Tab. C cap. 7) said to be five in number, i. e. Homer, Hesiod, Pisander, Panyassis and Antimachus. In his discussion on hexameter poets useful 40

41

The obscure Philistion, whose name elsewhere is sometimes thought to be an error for Philemon (cf. Philem. test. *25 and Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 317), may be a confused double reference to that poet after the writer failed to understand that Philemon was sometimes wrongly called by that name. It may even be a mistake for Philippides if we have a mental slip caused by mention of Philemon beforehand, prompting him to write Philistion mistakenly instead of Philippides. The canon of nine lyric poets is even thought to pre-date the Alexandrians (cf. AP 9.184 and 9.571 with Pfeiffer 1968. 205 and see Hadjimichael 2019). But this does not preclude that Quintilian was citing the list on this occasion as received through Aristarchus.

Testimonia (test. 6)

69

for aspiring orators, Quintilian mentions, in order, Homer, Hesiod, Antimachus and Panyassis (Quint. 10.1.46–56). It is thought here that Quintilian was copying Dionysius of Halicarnassus who treats these four poets in the same order (D.H. De imit. fr. 31.2.1–4; Steffen 1876. 28–9). But more recent scholars think Quintilian and Dionysius both used a common source, Alexandrian or Pergamene (see Vardi 2003. 136–7). At any rate, Quintilian explicitly refers to the ‘grammarians’ and their canonical lists in this section (10.1.53). He then notes how Apollonius of Rhodes might justifiably have taken his place in such a canon, but that he was omitted by Aristophanes and Aristarchus due to their exclusion of contemporary poets (Quint. 10.1.54).42 The list of five ‘Poets’ in Kroehnert at Tab. M cap. 1, then, which omits Apollonius, could very well be Alexandrian in origin, albeit with a slightly skewed order. Aside from these lists, Quintilian also mentions the canon of elegiac poets in which Callimachus and Philetas took the two top spots. The elegiac canon at Kroehnert Tab. M cap. 5 includes both among the four canonical poets, although its Alexandrian provenance might be doubted if Aristophanes and Aristarchus considered Callimachus too close a contemporary for inclusion (Steffen 1876. 34–5 thinks it is not Alexandrian on these grounds; cf. Vardi 2003. 139). While the Kroehnert lists occasionally differ from those of apparent Alexandrian origins in the order each poet appears, this could be due to a reordering of the same lists by later scholars, or else a question of corrupt textual transmission. We know that the Alexandrians ranked the poets within each canon in order of merit. In the Alexandrian lists of hexameter poets we are told Antimachus was ranked second by ‘consensus of the grammarians’ (Quint.10.1.53 ei secundas fere grammaticorum consensus deferat).43 In Kroehnert Tab. M cap. 1, however, Antimachus is listed last in fifth place. In the list of elegiac poets Quintilian says that Callimachus came first and Philetas second on the ‘admission of most’ (Quint. 10.1.58 cuius princeps habetur Callimachus, secundas confessione plurimorum Philetas occupavit); however in Kroehnert Tab. M cap. 5 Callimachus is listed fourth (i. e. last) and Philetas third, reversing the order. For the poets of New Comedy Quintilian tells us that Philemon was regarded ‘by the consensus of all’ (i. e. including the canons of Aristophanes and Aristarchus) as second after Menander (Quint. 10.1.72 = Philem. test. 23 Philemon, qui ut pravis sui temporis iudiciis Menandro saepe praelatus est, ita consensu tamen omnium meruit credi secundus). This is also supported by other sources where Menander 42

43

Cf. the expanded list of ‘Poets’ at Tab. M cap. 9 which happens to include Apollonius, as well as Aratus and Theocritus who are also both mentioned by Quintilian in the same passage as other potential inclusions. Cf. AP 7.409 attributed to Antipater of Sidon, late 2nd c. BCE, where Antimachus is praised as second after Homer, apparently inspired by the Alexandrian canons. Others put Panyassis second after Homer, or else after Hesiod and Antimachus: Suda π 248; An.Ox. III. 139).

70

Philippides

and Philemon are mentioned frequently side-by-side as the chief representatives of New Comedy (see e. g. Proleg. de com. XIa I.104; XIc.43; XXIa.27; XXIIb.40; XXVIII.6, 50–1; XXIXa.8 Koster). Apart from Philemon, Diphilus is sometimes included to form a New Comedy trio (so Velleius Paterculus, ca. 19 BCE – ca. 31 CE, 1.16.3 ac novam comicam Menander aequalesque eius aetatis magis quam operis Philemo ac Diphilus; Diomedes, 4th c. CE, Ars Gram. in Grammatici Latini I. 489 tertia aetas fuit Menandri Diphili et Philemonis). A competition of ‘old comedy’ in Athens in 254 BCE (SEG 26.208; see Millis and Olson 2012. 123–8) also pitted reperformances of plays by Diphilus, Menander and Philemon against each other, suggesting that the three had become a trio quite early (see Nervegna 2013. 57–8). In our passage the position of Philippides’ name in second place contradicts Quintilian’s statement that Philemon ‘by consensus of all’ was listed as second in rank after Menander. Philippides also appears before Diphilus who was very likely third in rank. But this discrepancy can be explained if the original order of the list was disrupted in transmission. The most plausible explanation for the displacement would be the homoearcton of the names Philemon and Philippides, causing a copyist to skip ahead and write Philippides’ name in second place before realising the error and writing Philemon instead where Philippides’ name should properly have appeared. In that case the New Comedy trio of Menander, Philemon and Diphilus would still be listed in the correct order, while presumably Philippides and Apollodorus appeared in the original canon in fourth and fifth places respectively. Otherwise, the logic here is most likely not that Philippides was ranked second, but rather that Menander came first,44 followed at some distance, and in no specific order, by the rest. test. 7 K.-A. 160

160

44

IG II2 2325.160–4 = 2325E.60–4 M-O Μ[έν]ανδρος Ι[—] Φ[ι]λήμων ΙΙΙ Ἀπολλόδωρο[ς —] Δίφιλος ΙΙΙ Φιλιππίδης ΙΙ[—] M[en]ander Ι[—] Ph[i]lemon III Apollodoru[s —] Diphilus III Philippides II[—]

Menander would in any case have gravitated towards the beginning of any list due to his overwhelming popularity after death (cf. the judgement of Aristophanes of Byzantium at IG XIV 1183c = Men. test. 170; and see generally Nervegna 2013).

Testimonia (test. 7)

71

Discussion Wilhelm 1906a. 180–1; Edmonds 1961. 166–7; Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 114, 118–19; Mette 1977. 176; Rusten 2011. 678; Millis and Olson 2012. 133–40, 178–92. Citation context From the Lenaean victors’ lists. See Nicostr.Com. II test. 3 (this volume) for further context. Interpretation We can get a more precise idea of the date of Philippides’ first Lenaean victory based on what we know of Menander’s career. Menander’s first victory at the Athenian festivals, although debated among scholars, is given by the Eusebius Chronicle as 321 BCE when he won on debut with Orgē (= Men. test. 49 Menander primam fabulam cognomento orgen docens superat, cf. Sync. 331.24 Μένανδρος ὁ κωμικὸς ποιητὴς πρῶτον δρᾶμα διδάξας Ὀργὴν ἐνίκα, ‘Menander the comic poet, having produced his first drama Orgē, was victorious’). While different versions of the Chronicle record this event beside two different dates – i. e. Jerome’s Latin translation places it alongside Ol. 114, 4 (i. e. 320 BCE) while Karst’s German translation of the Armenian version places it alongside Olympiad 114, 3 (i. e. 321 BCE) – the date 321 BCE in this version finds further support in Proleg. de com. III.59 Koster (= Men. test. 3.6–7) which, apart from a minor textual corruption, apparently placed his debut (while an ephebe) in the archonship of Philokles (i. e. 322/1 BCE).45 The same year also fits within the time Menander was an ephebe given his attested birth date in the archonship of Sosigenes (i. e. 342/1 BCE, see IG XIV 1184 = Men. test. 2), which would make him 20 years old at the time and presumably in the second year of his ephebeia (see de Marcellus 1996. 72; the alternative date of 320 BCE would fall after Menander’s ephebeia, giving further support to 321 BCE). Since the Parian Marble reports that Menander won his first victory ‘at Athens’ (i. e. at the City Dionysia) in 315 BCE (FGrH 239 B 13 = Men. test. 48), the occasion of Menander’s debut and victory in 321 BCE must have been the Lenaea (so Wilhelm 1906a. 50, 180–1; Lewis in Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 119). Despite the Chronicle’s explicit statement that Menander won on debut in 321 BCE, many scholars doubt its testimony. The principal reason for doubt is an unfounded belief that the Eusebius Chronicle only reported City Dionysia victories. The victory in 321 BCE is therefore understood to refer to the City Dionysia, despite the fact that 321 clashes with the date given by the Parian Marble (315 BCE) for Menander’s first City Dionysia victory. Scholars subsequently explain this discrepancy away by assuming that the Eusebius Chronicle’s date of 321 BCE must simply indicate Menander’s dramatic debut and that it was mistaken in recording this as a victory (see e. g. Clark 1906. 316; de Marcellus 1996. 72; Iversen 2011. 45

Proleg. de com. III.59 actually records the archon’s name as ‘Diokles’, a name only attested for archons in the years 409/8 BCE and 286/5 BCE. It has been readily explained as a corruption of the name ‘Philokles’ (so Clinton) who was archon in 322/1 BCE (it is less likely a corruption of ‘Archippos’ the archon in 321/0 BCE).

72

Philippides

186). But there is no justification for assuming that the Eusebius Chronicle only recorded City Dionysia victories. The Chronicle does not actually name either festival, City Dionysia or Lenaea, when dating dramatic victories, and it would be question begging to assume these were all Dionysian. In fact, the evidence suggests that in several entries the Chronicle also records Lenaean victories. Apart from our Menander example, which can be quite firmly explained as Lenaean, a second victory for Sophocles is reported under Ol. 85, 4 (i. e. 436 BCE = S. TrGF test. 38). Given that an earlier victory for Sophocles was already recorded in the Chronicle for 468 BCE (S. TrGF test. 34) – which could only have been at the City Dionysia since the Lenaea had not yet been instituted (cf. also Marm.Par. FGrH 239 A 56 = S. TrGF test. 33) – the occasion in 436 BCE was presumably his first Lenaean victory soon after the competition was introduced. Likewise, the combined entry for Eupolis and Aristophanes under Ol. 88, 1 or Ol. 88, 2 (i. e. 426 BCE in the Armenian version; 427 BCE in Jerome’s version: Eupolis et Aristofanes scriptores comoediarum agnoscuntur = Eup. test. 6; Ar. test. 13) can be interpreted to mean both poets won premiere dramatic victories that same year. Since Aristophanes very likely won his first dramatic victory at the City Dionysia in 426 BCE with Babylonians it can be argued that Eupolis (who had already debuted in 430/29 BCE, see Eup. test. 2a) won at the Lenaea that same year, which is recorded in the Chronicle (cf. Storey 2003. 63 who dates Eupolis’ first Lenaean victory to either 427 or 426 BCE on the basis of the Lenaean victory list; also Stama 2014. 12–13 for discussion of relevant evidence relating to Phrynichus which supports this).46 Other Lenaean victories probably underlie the corrupt dates for Euripides (Ol. 77, 4 = 469/8 BCE; cf. at E. TrGF test. 57) and Plato Comicus (Ol. 81, 3 = 454/3 or Ol. 81, 4 = 453/2 BCE; Pl.Com. test. 5). These errors can be explained quite plausibly as the result of a confusion of similar archon names by an earlier source,47 with the amended archon dates and other corroborating evidence suggesting they were Lenaean victories (see further Luppe 1970. 5–6; Hartwig 2010. 21). On this basis, there seems very little justification to assume that the Chronicle confined itself only to City Dionysia victories. Returning to our victors’ list, if we take 321 BCE as our starting point when Menander won his first Lenaean victory and allow at least three additional years for Philemon, Apollodorus and Diphilus to cover their first Lenaean victories, we have a terminus post quem of 318 BCE, in which case Philippides could have 46

47

The Chronicle’s alternative date of 427 BCE can be explained as indicating the debut year of Aristophanes and the debut victory of Eupolis. In any case, whether 427 or 426 BCE, the occasion recorded for Eupolis is almost certainly for his debut victory at the Lenaea. Eupolis won his first City Dionysia victory in either 425 or 424 BCE (IG II2 2325.59 = 2325C.25 M-O = Eup. test. 11). i. e. Apsephion, archon in 469/8 BCE, may have been a confusion for Apseudes, archon in 433/2 BCE; while Ariston, archon in 454/3 BCE, may have been a confusion for Aristion, archon in 421/0 BCE.

73

Testimonia (test. 8)

won his first Lenaean victory as early as 317 BCE. A later date, however, might be a safer guess given the possibility that any of the previous winners could have won an additional Lenaean victory during the years 321 to 318 BCE. Seeing that Menander won at the Lenaea in 316 with Dyskolos, Philippides’ first Lenaean victory could be either 317 BCE or else 315 BCE and later. The number of victories recorded for Philippides in the inscription breaks off at two where there is a lacuna. We know, then, that he won two Lenaean victories at the very least, but could have won up to a maximum of four (the inscription uses the numbers I, II, III, IIII for up to four victories, then Π, ΠΙ, ΠΙΙ, etc. for five or more). test. 8 K.-A.

40

45

50

40

45

50

IG II2 2323a.39–53 = 2323a.5–19 M-O [ἐπὶ Πολέμ]ωνος παλαιᾶι [․․․6․․․ Θ]ησαυρῶι Ἀναξαν [ποη : Φιλιπ]πίδης Μύστιδι [ὑπε : Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος [Νικόστ]ρατος δεύ [․․4–5․․]οσκόπωι [ὑπε : Κ]άλλιππος νεώτε [Ἀμεινί]ας? τρί : Ἀπολειπούσει [οὗτος ἔ]φηβος ὢν ἐνεμήθη [ὑπε : Ἀσκ]ληπιόδωρος [Θεόφιλο]ς? τέ : Παγκρατιασ [ὑπε : ․․․ιπ]πος [․․․․8․․․․ πέμ : Π]αιδίωι [ὑπε : — —] [ὑπο : Ἀσκληπιόδωρο]ς ἐνίκ[α]

312/11 BCE

[In the archonship] of [Polem]on, with an old (comedy) [—] with [Th]ēsauros of Anaxandrides. [The poet was Philip]pides with Mystis, [the actor was Ask]lepiodoros. [Nicost]ratus was second [with -]oskopos, [the actor was K]allippos the Younger. [Amini]as? was third with Apoleipousa, [this one] was distributed (a chorus) while an [e]phebe, [the actor was Ask]lepiodoros. [Theophilu]s? was fourth with Pankratiastēs, [the actor was –ip]pos. [— was fifth with P]aidion, [the actor was —] [The actor Asklepiodoro]s was the winne[r]

74

Philippides

Discussion Wilhelm 1906a. 43–50; Edmonds 1961. 166–7; Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 94, 109–10; Ghiron-Bistagne 1976. 40–2; Mette 1977. 114–16; Nesselrath 1990. 190; Rusten 2011. 678; Millis and Olson 2012. 70–5. Citation context A fragment from the so-called Didascaliae (IG II2 2319–2323a, Agora I 7151) which preserved records of tragic and comic performances at the Athenian dramatic festivals of the Lenaea and the City Dionysia (see Millis and Olson 2012. 59–60; Millis 2014. 434–40). The festival in question here is the City Dionysia as indicated at lines 39–40 by the reperformance of an ‘old’ comedy (see below test. 9 and see on Nicostr.Com. II test. 1 this volume). This inscription had traditionally been thought to belong to the same building on which the victors’ lists (IG II2 2325) were inscribed (see test. 7), but it is now thought to belong to a separate building (Millis and Olson 2012. 59, 138). The inscription itself, or at least the section covered by IG II2 2320, 2323a, 2321, 2319 and Agora I 7151, which all belong to the same hand, is thought to have been inscribed around 280 BCE (Tracy 2015. 561, 563, 573), while IG II2 2323 and 2322 represent the work of several later hands. Our fragment was discovered on the south slope of the Acropolis of Athens, as were several other fragments from the same inscription (although IG II2 2319 was found near the Roman Agora). This would suggest that the building on which it was inscribed was erected in close proximity to the Theatre of Dionysus. Our fragment is now held in the Epigraphical Museum of Athens (EM 8229). Interpretation This is our most secure evidence for Philippides’ earliest known dramatic activity, notwithstanding the adopted correction to the Olympiad date at Suda φ 345 (= Philippid. test. 1). This section of the inscription records the comic contestants at the City Dionysia of 311 BCE when Philippides won first prize with his play Mystis (no fragments survive from this play; see commentary). Five comic poets in total competed at the festival in 311, while the same three actors were used as protagonists across all the productions – including the ‘old’ comedy. On this occasion the ‘old’ comedy reperformed at the festival was the Middle Comedy poet Anaxandrides’ Thēsauros (on reperformances of ‘old’ comedies, see below on Philippid. test. 9). The protagonist of Philippides’ play, Asklepiodoros, also won the actors’ prize. Philippides’ rivals that year, according to the most likely restorations, were the poets Nicostratus II (= test. 1 this volume; PCG VIII. 93) with -oskopos, Aminias (?) with Apoleipousa (= test. *2; PCG II. 196), Theophilus (?) with Pankratiastēs (= test. *3; PCG VIII. 704–5 frr. 8–9), and Menander (?) with Paidion (= test. *51; PCG VI 2. 182–5 frr. 273–9).

75

Testimonia (test. 9)

test. 9 K.-A.

235

240

243a 243b

235

240

243a 243b

IG II2 2323.232–44 = 2323.509–23 M-O ἐπὶ Μνησιθέου παλαιᾶι· Δάμων Φιλαθηναίωι Φιλιππί[δου] πο Φιλοκλῆς Τραυματίαι· ὑπε Καλλικράτης Χαιρίων Αὑτοῦ καταψευδομέ[νωι]· ὑπε Δάμων Βίοττος Ἀγνοοῦντι· ὑπε Δάμων Τιμόξενος Συνκρύπτον[τι]· ὑπε Καλλικράτης Ἀγαθοκλῆς Ὁμονοία[ι]· [ὑπε Νι]κ[ό]λαος [poet and play] [actor] [ὑπο - - - ἐνίκα]

155/4 BCE

In the archonship of Mnesitheus, with an old (comedy): Damon with Philathēnaios of Philippi[des]. The poet was Philocles with Traumatias, the actor was Kallikrates. Chaerion with Hautou katapseudomenos, the actor was Damon. Biottus with Agnoous, the actor was Damon. Timoxenus [with] Synkryptōn, the actor was Kallikrates. Agathocles [with] Homonoia, [the actor was Ni]k[o]laos. [poet and play] [actor] [the actor - - - was the winner]

155/4 BCE

Text The IG text did not account for an extra comic performer in the second century, which here is inserted in the lacuna between lines 243 and 244 (see the text in Millis and Olson 2012. 101). For the possible inclusion of six comic poets at the City Dionysia as early as the last decade of the fourth century BCE, see on Nicostr.Com. II test. *2 (this volume). Discussion Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 111; Mette 1977. 133–4; Rusten 2011. 678; Millis and Olson 2012. 76–7, 93–4, 106; Nervegna 2013. 66. Citation context From the so-called Didascaliae (see on test. 8 above). This part of the inscription is preserved mostly on fragment d of IG II2 2323. It was found on the south slope of the Acropolis, now in the Epigraphical Museum of Athens (EM 8233).

76

Philippides

Interpretation The revival of an ‘old’ (παλαιᾶι) comedy was first introduced to the City Dionysia festival in 339 BCE (see IG II2 2318.316–18 = 1563–5 M-O). More than a hundred years after the death of Philippides, in 154 BCE, his Philathēnaios (see fr. 19) was the play reperformed that year, with the actor Damon playing the lead role. From the fragmentary epigraphic record, other comic authors whose plays were reperformed as part of the same ‘exhibition’ of old comedies in other years include Anaxandrides (311 BCE = Anaxandr. test. 7 = Philippid. test. 8 above), Philemon (215 BCE = Philem.Jun. test. *4), Menander (197 and 167 BCE = Men. test. 54–5) and Posidippus (183 and 181 BCE = Posidipp. test. 8–9). The latter three poets (along with Philippides) are all featured in canonical lists for New Comedy (see Philippid. test. 5; cf. test. 6), and all are known (except Philippides) for having their comedies adapted by Roman playwrights, e. g. Philemon was adapted by Plautus (Trinummus, Mercator); Menander by Lucius Lavinius (Phasma?), by Plautus (Colax), and by Terence (Andria, Eunuchus, Heautontimorumenos); and Posidippus by unnamed Roman authors (Gell. 2.23.1 = Posidipp. test. 4). Among other canonical New Comedy poets Diphilus was adapted both by Plautus (Rudens, Commorientes, Asinaria?) and by Terence (Adelphoe); and Apollodorus of Carystus by Terence (Hecyra, Phormio). This makes Philippides a striking exception as the only canonical New Comedy poet who is not explicitly known to have been adapted by a Roman playwright. But it would seem highly likely, not least of all given reperformances of his comedies in the mid second century BCE, as we have here, that his comedies were well known at that time and that they too were subject to Roman ‘borrowing’ and adaptation (cf. also test. 4 for Philippides’ reputation apparently surviving many centuries later during the 2nd c. CE; but see on Philippid. test. 3.63–4 above). The victorious comic poet that year was Philocles with Traumatias (line 234). Kirchner (at PA 14548; cf. Millis and Olson 2012. 106) suspects that Philocles may in fact have been the great-grandson of Philippides (see ‘Introduction: 1. Name and Identity’). That he won the comic contest the very same year in which a play by his (putative) illustrious forebear was reperformed might indeed have been partly due to audience nostalgia triggered by the Philippidean reperformance and his family connection to Philippides.

77

Play Titles and Fragments Ἀδωνιάζουσαι (Adōniazousai)

(‘Women Celebrating the Adonia’) Discussion Meineke 1839. 472; Meineke 1841. 467; Kock 1888. 301–2; Gow 1952 II. 266; Edmonds 1961. 168–9; Weill 1966. 684; Weill 1970. 592; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 336–7; Reitzammer 2016. 13. Title This is the only comedy known by this title, apart from the unusual exception of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata (411 BCE) which one ancient tradition assigned the alternative title Ἀδωνιάζουσαι.48 In other genres, Theocritus’ Idyll 15 was also known by the alternative titles Συρακόσιαι ἢ Ἀδωνιάζουσαι (cf. Arg. Theoc. 15). The feminine plural ending is akin to many of the ‘festival’ or ‘ritual’ plays especially popular in Old Comedy. Among these we might note Phrynichus’ Mystai, Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazousai and Skēnas Katalambanousai, Autocrates’ Tympanistai, and Plato’s Hai aph’ Ierōn. A closer contemporary to Philippides, the Middle Comedy poet Timocles – also known for his archaising tendencies (see Apostolakis 2019) – had a comedy titled Dionysiazousai. We might also note comic titles which allude to women feasting, especially given the nature of Adonia celebrations (see ‘Adonis in Cult’ below), such as Menander’s Synaristōsai. Several Old and Middle Comedy poets are attributed with plays by the related title Adōnis, including Plato, Nicophon, Araros, Antiphanes and Philiscus (cf. Atallah 1966. 98–104). These plays are ambiguous in that they could be mythological in theme, or else ‘ritual’ or ‘festival’ comedies depicting Adonia celebrations, as apparently in Philippides’ play. Plato’s Adōnis (fr. 3) contains an oracle in dactylic hexameters to king Cinyras, father of Adonis, about the fate of his new-born son, which suggests a mythological theme (see Pirrotta 2009. 70; Bowie 2000. 322). We have no fragmentary evidence for Nicophon’s Adōnis (388 BCE; see Pellegrino 2013. 23–5), although mythological themes were at their peak during the first half of the fourth century (cf. Nicophon’s contemporaries competing at the same festival: Aristomenes with Admētos and Alcaeus with Pasiphae: Hyp. Ar. Pl. III; PCG VII. 63).49 Araros’ Adōnis contains a passage that may allude to the boar that killed Adonis (fr. 1) ὁ γὰρ θεὸς τὸ ῥύγχος ὡς ἡμᾶς στρέφει, ‘for the 48

49

This alternative title, criticised by ancient scholars as poorly conceived, was derived from a brief passage in that comedy (Ar. Lys. 387–98) which mentioned the women’s ritual mourning at the Adonia while the Athenian Assembly was deliberating the expedition to Sicily, ΣR Ar. Lys. 389 τινὲς δὲ ἐκ τούτου τὸ δρᾶμα Ἀδωνιαζούσας ἐπιγράφουσιν οὐ καλῶς, ‘from this some give the drama the title Adōniazousai incorrectly’. Reitzammer (2008) argues for an ‘Adonian’ reading of Aristophanes’ comedy. Bowie (2000. 327–31) includes the Adōnis plays of Plato and Nicophon in his discussion of ‘ritual’ comedies; cf. also Bowie 2010. 160, 164.

78

Philippides

god is turning his snout towards us’ (for ῥύγχος used of swine, cf. Pherecr. fr. 107).50 Antiphanes’ Adōnis has very little in the surviving fragments to suggest a theme, while Philiscus’ Adōnis has no surviving fragments at all, although the author was particularly fond of mythological themes, especially the birth of gods (Suda φ 357 = Philisc.Com. test. 1). Overall, the Adōnis plays of comedy appear mythological in focus rather than pursuing ritual or cult themes suggested by the title of Philippides’ play. Adonis in Myth Various accounts are given of the parentage of Adonis: one makes him the son of Phoenix and Alphesiboea (Hes. fr. 139 Merkelbach-West = Apollod. 3.14.4); another the son of Theias, king of Assyria, and his daughter Smyrna (Panyas. PEG fr. 27 = Apollod. 3.14.4; Ant.Lib. 34; cf. Tz. ad Lyc. 831); while the most common makes him the son of Cinyras, king of Cyprus and founder of Paphos, and of the king’s daughter Smyrna or Myrrha (cf. Pl.Com. fr. 3; Antim. IEG fr. 102 = Probus on Verg. Ecl. 10.18; Apollod. 3.14.3; etc.; see esp. Matthews 1974). According to Hyginus (Fab. 58), Smyrna’s mother boasted her daughter was prettier than Aphrodite, so the goddess punished her by making Smyrna fall in love with her own father. The version found at Apollod. 3.14 (perhaps derived from Panyas. PEG fr. 27; see Matthews 1974. 120–5) recounts that after Adonis was born Aphrodite fell in love with the child, hiding him from the other gods in a chest and keeping him beside Persephone. When Persephone refused to give him back to Aphrodite, Zeus ordained that Adonis’ time should be divided each year into three parts: one part by himself, one with Persephone, and the other with Aphrodite. Adonis devoted his own part to Aphrodite. Apollodorus implies that this led to his death – killed by a wild boar while hunting. He also reports (3.14.4) that he was killed by the boar because of the anger of Artemis (cf. E. Hipp. 1420–2). Another version holds the Muses responsible for his death. Angered with Aphrodite after falling in love and becoming pregnant, the Muses lured her favourite, Adonis, to the hunt where he was killed (Tz. ad Lyc. 831). Alternatively we are told that Ares, a rival for the love of Aphrodite, turned himself into a boar and killed Adonis (Tz. ad Lyc. 831; Eust. Od. 1.438.11–16; and cf. Arar. Adōnis fr. 1). Adonis in Cult The cult of Adonis apparently had Semitic origins (adon = ‘lord’; see Dümmler 1894b. 393; cf. Theoc. 15.149) and is thought to have arrived in Greece via Cyprus or Lesbos (see Burkert 1985. 177; Simms 1998. 124–5; for the cult in Greece see Dümmler 1894b. 385–90). The myth of Adonis was known in Greece as early as Hesiod (fr. 139 Merkelbach-West) and the ritual mourning for Adonis was familiar to Sappho (7th–6th c. BCE; see frr. 140 and 168 Lobel-Page). In Athens, 50

Araros may be responsible for the version of the myth in which Ares, disguised as a boar, kills Adonis (see Tz. ad Lyc. 831; cf. Meineke 1839. 344). Reed 1996 suggests that Antimachus of Colophon may be responsible for this version of the myth instead.

Ἀδωνιάζουσαι

79

the Adonia festival is known to have been celebrated at least as early as the late fifth century (see Ar. Pax 420, produced in 421 BCE; also Cratin. fr. 17 from Boukoloi, date unknown; and Pherecr. frr. 181, 213, which may be earlier. See also an Attic red-figure fragment, Athens NM 19522 in LIMC s. v. ‘Adonis’ no. 45, thought to depict an Adonia scene, dated around 450 BCE). The festival was not officially recognised or funded by the state, but instead a mostly private affair celebrated at home by women, so ΣΓ Ar. Lys. 389 ἑορτὴν γὰρ ἐπετέλουν τῷ Ἀδώνιδι αἱ γυναῖκες … ὀργιάζονται … θυσίας οὐ δημοτελεῖς οὐδὲ τεταγμένας (θυσίας … τεταγμένας Meineke; θεοὺς … τεταγμένους Γ), ‘for women celebrated the festival for Adonis … they conducted rites neither funded nor organised by the state’. It was celebrated not only by citizen women (cf. Ar. Lys. 392–6 where Demostratus’ wife is imagined as participating; also Men. Sam. 40–1 where Plangon and others are involved), but naturally – given the connection with Aphrodite – by hetairai and prostitutes (cf. Diph. fr. 42.38–40; Alciphr. 4.14). The relative unimportance of the festival in Athens is seemingly reflected in our comic sources: at Cratin. fr. 17 the speaker complains about an archon awarding a chorus to the tragic poet Gnesippus at the expense of Sophocles (presumably for the City Dionysia), before stating he would not have thought Gnesippus worthy even of the Adonia: ὃς οὐκ ἔδωκ’ αἰτοῦντι Σοφοκλέει χορόν, / τῷ Κλεομάχου δ’, ὃν οὐκ ἂν ἠξίουν ἐγὼ / ἐμοὶ διδάσκειν οὐδ’ ἂν εἰς Ἀδώνια, ‘who did not give a chorus to Sophocles when asking, but to the son of Cleomachus whom I would not think fit to produce for me, not even at the Adonia’ (see Reitzammer 2016. 13; Bianchi 2016. 119). Similarly, at Ar. Pax 418–20 Trygaeus promises that if Hermes helps recover Peace the Athenians will celebrate every festival in his honour, even down to relatively insignificant cults such as the Adonia which is mentioned last: καὶ σοὶ τὰ μεγάλ’ ἡμεῖς Παναθήναι’ ἄξομεν / πάσας τε τὰς ἄλλας τελετὰς τὰς τῶν θεῶν, / μυστήρι’ Ἑρμῇ, Διπολίει’, Ἀδώνια, ‘and we will celebrate the Great Panathenaia for you, and all the other rites of the gods, the Mysteries for Hermes, the Dipolieia, the Adonia’. The precise time of the festival is much debated. Some scholars argue it took place in spring (e. g. Nock 1934. 290–2; Dillon 2003). However, the evidence indicates more explicitly a summer celebration (so Dümmler 1894a. 384 ‘Hochsommer’; Weill 1966. 675; Detienne 1977. 100 and 167 n. 4). Jerome places the celebrations in June (in Ezech. 15.82 Migne) in mense Junis … Adonidis. Similarly the Hebrew and Assyrian month of ‘Tammuz’ (i. e. the Hebrew and Assyrian name for Adonis: Origen in Ezech. 13.797 Migne) fell in the summer months of June/ July. Plato tells us the so-called ‘Gardens of Adonis’ (see below) were planted in summer (Pl. Phdr. 267b θέρους, ‘in summer’; Nock 1934 tries to argue that Plato uses the term loosely); while Theophrastus, too, associates the Gardens of Adonis with summer, HP 6.7.3 ἐν ὀστράκοις, ὥσπερ οἱ Ἀδώνιδος κῆποι, τοῦ θέρους, ‘in pot sherds, just like the Gardens of Adonis, in summer’.51 51

The additional testimonies of Aristophanes and Plutarch should be used cautiously. Aristophanes places the Adonia at the same time that the Assembly decided to make

80

Philippides

The Adonia festivities themselves might be divided into two vastly distinct halves: first an all-night revel or pannychis at a private residence (cf. Men. Sam. 46) which celebrated the annual ‘reunion’ between Aphrodite and Adonis (cf. Theoc. 15.100–3); and secondly, at dawn, a more solemn phase marked by mourning for the death and departure of Adonis, together with a mock funeral procession. During the first part guests would gather at the house of a friend for a dinner, each bringing a small Garden of Adonis (Ἀδώνιδος κῆπος) as well as a doll or figurine which represented the god (see Alciphr. 4.14.8 ὅπως δ’ ἥξεις φέρουσα κηπίον καὶ κοράλλιον, ‘make sure you come with a small garden and a little doll’; cf. Hsch. α 1231 εἴδωλα ἐξάγουσιν καὶ κήπους, ‘they bring out figurines and gardens’). The host also adorned a separate image of Adonis for the party (Alciphr. 4.14.8 τὸν γὰρ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἐρώμενον ἡ Θεττάλη στέλλει, ‘Thettale (the host) is dressing up the beloved of Aphrodite’). The ‘Gardens of Adonis’ appear to have had a symbolic function (see Baudy 1986. 9–13) representing the short and unfulfilled life of Adonis.52 Lettuce and fennel were planted in broken pots or baskets, the former supposedly grown because Aphrodite was said to have laid Adonis among lettuce when he died (Hsch. α 1231; cf. Suda α 517; on the significance of lettuce see also Eub. fr. 13; Reed 1995. 325). The Gardens were only grown for a short time until sprouts had formed (Plato mentions a period of eight days: Pl. Phdr. 276b; other sources say the Gardens were ready for the festivities as soon as green shoots appeared: Zen. Cent. 1.49 ἄχρι χλόης μόνης). Guests then brought them to the host’s house where they were carried ‘up to the roof ’ (Men. Sam. 45 [ἐπὶ] τὸ τέγος κήπους γὰρ ἀνέφερόν τινας; cf. ΣΓ Ar. Lys. 389; LIMC s. v. ‘Adonis’ nos. 45–9). This may mean little more than they were taken to the upstairs apartments or women’s quarters where, with other items, they were placed alongside the adorned image of Adonis (cf. Theoc. 15.113–14).53

52

53

the expedition to Sicily (Ar. Lys. 387–98). Thucydides puts this in spring (Th. 6.8.1). Plutarch, on the other hand, places the Adonia at the time the expedition was launched (Plu. Alc. 18; Nic. 13). The expedition, Thucydides tells us, set out in the middle of summer (6.30.1). Nonetheless, both sources are not entirely reliable and use the background of the Adonia and its mourning as a literary conceit to emphasise the ill-omened nature of the expedition (but contrast Furley 1992. 16–17 who suggests it was a well-known occasion to Aristophanes and his audience). They were certainly understood this way in the proverbial tradition. See e. g. Zen. Cent. 1.49 ἀκαρπότερος εἶ Ἀδώνιδος κήπων· ἐπὶ τῶν μηδὲν γενναῖον τεκεῖν δυναμένων εἴρηται ἡ παροιμία, ‘“you are more fruitless than the gardens of Adonis”: the proverb is said in reference to those incapable of producing anything noble’ (see also Suda α 517; Eust. Od. 1.438.12–16). The idea that the Gardens were placed on the roof to wither in the sun (e. g. Detienne 1977. 115; Winkler 1990. 192–3) is a modern conjecture (as noted e. g. by Simms 1998. 129). The celebrations took place during the night, and rather than wither, the Gardens were disposed of the following morning when they were thrown into a spring or the sea (see below).

Ἀδωνιάζουσαι

81

The feasting during this phase could be quite sumptuous. A fragment from Diphilus’ Zōgraphos (fr. 42.38–41) has a cook tell – apparently to his apprentice – of the lavish Adonia party hosted by an hetaira where they have been hired, and all the nice food he will be able to steal. Among the celebrations mentioned in our comic (and related) sources, the women participated in drinking (Ar. Lys. 395; Diph. fr. 49; Alciphr. 4.14.8), dancing (Ar. Lys. 392; Men. Sam. 46), and telling riddles (Diph. fr. 49). A passage from Menander’s Samia describes the high-spirited revelry of such parties, in this case resulting in an unwanted pregnancy, Men. Sam. 38–49 ἐξ ἀγροῦ δὴ καταδραμών, [ὡς ἔτυ]χ[έ] γ’, εἰς Ἀδώνι’ αὐτὰς κατέλαβον [συν]ηγ[μ]ένας ἐνθάδε πρὸς ἡμᾶς μετά τινων [ἄλλω]ν γυναικῶν. τῆς δ’ ἑορτῆς παιδιὰν [πολλὴ]ν ἐχούσης, οἷον εἰκός, συμπαρὼν [ἐγι]νόμην, οἴμοι, θεατής· ἀγρυπνίαν [ὁ θ]όρυβος αὐτῶν ἐνεπόει γάρ μοί τινα· [ἐπὶ] τὸ τέγος κήπους γὰρ ἀνέφερόν τινας, [ὠρχο]ῦντ’, ἐπαννύχιζον ἐσκεδασμέναι. [ὀκν]ῶ λέγειν τὰ λοίπ’· ἴσως δ’ αἰσχύνομαι [ὅτ’] οὐδὲν ὄφελος· ἀλλ’ ὅμως αἰσχύνομαι. [ἐκύ]ησεν ἡ παῖς, ‘After rushing back from the countryside I found them, as it happened, gathered here at our place for the Adonia with some other women. With their celebrations full of high spirits – as you’d expect – I joined them, alas, as a spectator, since the noise they made prevented me from getting any sleep. They were carrying some gardens onto the roof, dancing, and holding an all-night revel throughout the house. I hesitate to tell the rest. Perhaps I’m ashamed when there’s no need. But I’m ashamed all the same. The girl fell pregnant’. The revelry of these celebrations continued, as Alciphron states, ‘until cock crow’ (4.14.3 εἰς ἀλεκτρυόνων ᾠδάς). At this point the festivities took a melancholy turn. With early dawn the festival changed from celebrating the reunion of the two lovers (Aphrodite and Adonis), to that of mourning the death and departure of Adonis.54 A passage from Aristophanes’ Lysistrata describes the ritual mourning taking place at the same time as a sitting of the Assembly – presumably conceived as sitting at dawn (cf. Ar. Ach. 19–20; Th. 375; Ec. 20–1, 84–5; IG I3 68.30), as often, Ar. Lys. 387–98 ἆρ’ ἐξέλαμψε τῶν γυναικῶν ἡ τρυφὴ / χὠ τυμπανισμὸς χοἰ πυκνοὶ Σαβάζιοι, / ὅ τ’ Ἀδωνιασμὸς οὗτος οὑπὶ τῶν τεγῶν, / οὗ ’γώ ποτ’ ὢν ἤκουον ἐν τἠκκλησίᾳ; / ἔλεγεν ὁ μὴ ὥρασι μὲν Δημόστρατος /πλεῖν εἰς Σικελίαν, ἡ γυνὴ δ’ ὀρχουμένη / “αἰαῖ Ἄδωνιν” φησίν, ὁ δὲ Δημόστρατος / ἔλεγεν ὁπλίτας καταλέγειν Ζακυνθίων· / ἡ δ’ ὑποπεπωκυῖ’ ἡ γυνὴ ’πὶ τοῦ τέγους / “κόπτεσθ’ Ἄδωνιν” φησίν· ὁ δ’ ἐβιάζετο, / ὁ θεοῖσιν ἐχθρὸς καὶ μιαρὸς Χολοζύγης. / τοιαῦτ’ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἀκολαστάσματα, ‘Has the women’s decadence flared up again, their beating of drums and frequent cries of Sabazios, and this Adonia business, the one on the 54

Early Christian accounts appear confused on this matter, stating that the ritual mourning first took place, followed by celebrations over Adonis as though risen from the dead (see Origen, 184–254 CE, on the rites of Tammuz/Adonis, Select. in Ezech. 13.797– 800 Migne; cf. Jerome, ca. 347–420 CE, in Ezech. 15.82–3 Migne; Cyril of Alexandria, 376–444 CE, in Isaiam 70.441 Migne; cf. Lane Fox 2009. 253–4). The confusion is probably due to the similar Christian narrative of the death and resurrection of Christ.

82

Philippides

roofs, which I once heard while I was in the Assembly? Demostratus, god curse him, was arguing that we sail to Sicily, but his wife, dancing the while, exclaimed “woe Adonis!” And Demostratus was arguing that we gather Zakynthian hoplites, but his wife, somewhat tipsy on the roof, exclaimed “beat your breast for Adonis!” But he, that god-hated and foul Bile-yokite, was forcing the issue. That’s the kind of licentiousness coming from them’. The same format of night-time celebrations followed at dawn by mourning is found in Theocritus’ fifteenth Idyll. There a female singer performing at the public festivities held by Ptolemy’s wife, Arsinoe, sings of the imminent return of Adonis from Hades after twelve months (15.102–3), and of the couch pre-prepared by Arsinoe on which an image of Adonis was placed (cf. the ‘Adonis’ prepared by Thettale at Alciphr. 4.14.8). Beside the image were other items, including Gardens of Adonis in silver baskets, fruit, cakes, perfumes, and crimson blankets (15.112– 27), all in preparation for the prospective happy reunion of the two lovers. Their reunion, however, is only short-lived, and is succeeded by the women’s mourning once dawn arrives, Theoc. 15.128–35 τὸν μὲν Κύπρις ἔχει, τὰν δ’ ὁ ῥοδόπαχυς Ἄδωνις. / ὀκτωκαιδεκετὴς ἢ ἐννεακαίδεχ’ ὁ γαμβρός· / οὐ κεντεῖ τὸ φίλημ’· ἔτι οἱ περὶ χείλεα πυρρά. / νῦν μὲν Κύπρις ἔχοισα τὸν αὑτᾶς χαιρέτω ἄνδρα· / ἀῶθεν δ’ ἄμμες νιν ἅμα δρόσῳ ἀθρόαι ἔξω / οἰσεῦμες ποτὶ κύματ’ ἐπ’ ἀιόνι πτύοντα, / λύσασαι δὲ κόμαν καὶ ἐπὶ σφυρὰ κόλπον ἀνεῖσαι / στήθεσι φαινομένοις λιγυρᾶς ἀρξεύμεθ’ ἀοιδᾶς, ‘Kypris holds him, and rosy-armed Adonis holds her. Her lover is eighteen or nineteen years old. His kiss does not prickle. Tawny down is still around his lips. Now, let Kypris delight in holding her companion. But at dawn, with the dew, we will carry him outside together to the waves which heave on the shore, and having loosened our hair and having unfastened our garments to our ankles, with breasts bared we shall begin our shrill song’. At dawn, a mock funeral procession took place accompanied by the strains of the gingras pipes (cf. Ath. 4.174f).55 Plutarch gives a graphic description of women laying out ‘figurines’ (εἴδωλα) of Adonis and performing mock funeral rites, Plu. Nic. 13.11 Ἀδώνια γὰρ εἶχον αἱ γυναῖκες τότε, καὶ προὔκειτο πολλαχόθι τῆς πόλεως εἴδωλα, καὶ ταφαὶ περὶ αὐτὰ καὶ κοπετοὶ γυναικῶν ἦσαν, ‘for the women were holding the Adonia at that time, and in many places throughout the city figurines were laid out, and burial rites and loud lamentations of the women surrounded them’. Cf. also Plu. Alc. 18 Ἀδωνίων γὰρ εἰς τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας καθηκόντων, εἴδωλά τε πολλαχοῦ νεκροῖς ἐκκομιζομένοις ὅμοια προὔκειντο ταῖς γυναιξί, καὶ ταφὰς ἐμιμοῦντο κοπτόμεναι καὶ θρήνους ᾖδον, ‘for the Adonia arrived at that time, and everywhere figurines like corpses were brought out and laid forth by the women, and they began to imitate burial rites, beating their breasts, and they 55

The order of events – pannychis followed by dawn procession – is also paralleled by the Panathenaea (IG II2 334.32–4, ca. 335/4 BCE) ποεῖν τὴν πα[ν|νυχίδα] ὡς καλλίστην τῆι θεῶι καὶ τὴν πομπὴν πέμπε[ι|ν ἅμα ἡ]λίωι ἀνιόντι, ‘to hold the pannychis in as fine a manner as possible for the goddess and to send the procession as the sun comes up’.

Ἀδωνιάζουσαι

83

were singing laments’.56 At the conclusion of the procession both the Gardens and figurines of Adonis were either thrown into springs (Zen. Cent. 1.49 ἐκφέρονται δὲ ἅμα τελευτῶντι τῷ θεῷ καὶ ῥιπτοῦνται εἰς κρήνας, ‘they are carried out as the god dies and thrown into springs’), or else into the sea (Eust. Od. 1.438.13–14 καὶ αὐτίκα ῥιπτούμενα κατὰ θαλάσσης καὶ ἀφανιζόμενα, ‘and at once are thrown into the sea and disappear’; cf. Theoc. 15.132–3; Hsch. α 1231). Content Three fragments survive, each a single word, making reference to ‘women’ in the plural (fr. 2 γυναί), a female adornment that was worn around the chest (fr. 1 ἀναμασχαλιστήρ), and a prayer or wish for a favourable outcome in something (fr. 3 κατεύχεσθαι). The plural title suggests we have two or more women celebrating the Adonia festival. One immediately thinks of the ‘women’ plays of Old Comedy (see e. g. Henderson 2000) where the title also indicates the setting (e. g. Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazousai at the Thesmophoria; Ekklēsiazousai at a dawn Assembly). It is quite possible, however, that the plot was only very loosely connected to the Adonia.57 An aspect of the festival which features prominently in other comedies is the night-time celebrations, or pannychis.58 Comedy often mentions lavish feasting and drinking by hetairai at the Adonia. The festival itself is even regarded as a pretext for women to drink wine and misbehave. Diphilus’ Zōgraphos (fr. 42.38– 41) describes preparations for an extravagant Adonia party hosted by a wealthy hetaira at a brothel, catered for by professional cooks. Diphilus’ Thēseus (fr. 49) portrays three Samian women (again probably hetairai) drinking wine during the Adonia, posing riddles to each other and telling bawdy jokes. Philippides, then, would have had ample scope in a comedy depicting women celebrating the Adonia to explore sympotic settings (for such scenes in comedy, cf. e. g. Pherecr. fr. 76; Pl.Com. fr. 46; Antiph. fr. 57; Eub. fr. *93; note also the extended dining/ sympotic scenes in Roman New Comedy in which tables and couches are brought on stage in front of the house. See further Konstantakos 2005; cf. Shaw 2010; and the essays in Taufer 2018). He might also have indulged in the stock comic topos of female bibulousness (see e. g. Pherecr. fr. 76; Ar. Lys. 195–208; Th. 628–32, 733–55; 56

57

58

Apart from privately held processions, we also hear of a local guild of Aphrodite, apparently based in the Piraeus, holding a procession for Adonis in 302/1 BCE (IG II2 1261.9–10; cf. IG II2 1290, mid third century; Simms 1998. 125 n. 24). Cf. Gow (1952 II. 266) who doubts that Philippides’ comedy revolved around the Adonia festival at all: ‘The Ἀδωνιάζουσαι of Philippides was probably as remote in theme as the Lysistrata, which … was sometimes very inappropriately called by that name’. But Gow’s comparison with the Lysistrata is very weak, the latter receiving its alternative title due to a scholar’s very poor understanding of that play (see above under ‘Title’). We do find, however, a group of women, possibly tipsy, at Pherecr. fr. 181 who claim to be participating in the ritual mourning for Adonis: Ἀδώνι’ ἄγομεν καὶ τὸν Ἄδωνιν κλάομεν, ‘we are observing the Adonia and we weep for Adonis’.

84

Philippides

Ec. 132–43, 227; Plu. 644–5; Eub. fr. 42; Antiph. frr. 25, 58, 163; Alex. fr. 172 with Arnott; Xenarch. fr. 6; Axion. fr. 5; Men. Dysc. 858; Plaut. Curc. 77–82, 96–109; Pers. 170; Pseud. 221; Truc. 903–4; Ath. 10.440e–442a; see also on Philippid. fr. 15). Another source which may shed further light on the treatment of this theme is Alciphron Letter 4.14. New Comedy’s influence on Alciphron has long been recognised (cf. Volkmann 1886; Kock 1888. 674–9 reconstructs supposed comic fragments from passages in Alciphron; Funke 2015). Weill (1966. 684 and 1970. 592) suspects that Alciphron 4.14 may actually borrow material from Philippides’ Adōniazousai. The Letter describes a gathering of hetairai at a drunken party who make plans to hold comparable celebrations during the Adonia the following week. Whether a direct link to Philippides existed ot not, the themes and motifs of the letter suggest strong comic influence and are at least suggestive of ideas Philippides could have explored in his play. Alciphron describes a party attended by hetairai (cf. Diph. frr. 42, 49). The letter refers to the upcoming Adonia which the women plan to celebrate the following week in similar fashion, but with added male company. At this particular party we find one of the guests, Philoumene, arriving late because she first had to get her newly married and jealous husband to sleep (4.14.2; cf. comic wives arriving late after deceiving their husbands at Ar. Lys. 15–19; Ec. 35–40, 47–8, 54–6). The party itself is described as a rowdy συμπόσιον full of songs, scurrilous jokes, and drinking (4.14.3; cf. Diph. fr. 49 with its drinking party and bawdy riddles). Some of the women hold a callipygian contest (4.14.4 φιλονεικία … ὑπὲρ τῆς πυγῆς, for similar contests cf. AP 5.35; Ath. 12.554c–e), and there are allusions to other contests where they compare breasts and bellies (4.14.6–7). Finally, the women leave the party and conduct a drunken revel through the streets during which one of the hetairai, Thais, attempts to woo a potential new lover, Deximachus, who had just received an inheritance from his wealthy father (4.14.7; cf. Plu. Alex. 38.1). This again seems to be based on a comedy which inverted the theme of the paraklausithyron where, rather than a young man drunkenly serenading his beloved outside her house, we have a drunk, aging prostitute serenading a wealthy young man for his money (for paraklausithyra, see Ar. Ec. 938–75 with Olson 1988; Theoc. 3 with Hunter 1999. 107–9; Plaut. Curc. 1–157; cf. Men. Mis. 1–14; Ter. Eun. 46–56). Whether Alciphron found such themes in Philippides is uncertain, but the pool of ideas was shared by both. Date

Unknown.

Ἀδωνιάζουσαι (fr. 1)

85

fr. 1 K.-A. (1 K.) Poll. 5.100 (FS, A, BC) περὶ δὲ τοῖς στέρνοις αἰγίδας καὶ μασχαλιστῆρας· καὶ ἀ ν α μ α σ χ α λ ι σ τ ή ρ, ὡς Φιλιππίδης ὁ τῆς κωμῳδίας ποιητὴς ἐν Ἀδωνιαζούσαις. ἀναμασχαλιστήν Poll.FSC : ἀναμασχαλιστῆρας Bekker

ὡς … Ἀδωνιαζούσαις om. Poll.B

Around the chest (they wore) aigides (‘cross-bands’) and maschalistēres (‘straps’); also a n a m a s c h a l i s t ē r (‘over-strap’), as Philippides the poet of comedy (says) in Adōniazousai.

Metre Unknown. Most likely part of an iambic trimeter, probably at the beginning of the line rather than the second metron since the latter would leave us without penthemimeral, hephthemimeral or even medial caesura. The former at least allows penthemimeral caesura.

r l k l l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 467; Kock 1888. 301; Edmonds 1961. 168–9; Detienne 1977. 156 n. 40; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 336. Citation context From Pollux’s Onomasticon (late 2nd c. CE), a lexical work arranged by topic/theme rather than in alphabetical order. This passage comes from a section on ‘the names of female adornments’ (5.95 τὰ τῶν γυναικείων κόσμων ὀνόματα). Pollux had earlier mentioned adornments worn on the head, the ears, neck, arms, hands and feet, and in the present passage lists the three adornments (above) which were worn ‘around the chest’ (περὶ δὲ τοῖς στέρνοις). Text There is some debate over the form of the word ἀναμασχαλιστήρ as it appeared in Pollux, and whether he used a nominative singular form (ἀναμασχαλιστήρ) or accusative plural (ἀναμασχαλιστῆρας). This has potential implications for the meaning of the passage, since the text μασχαλιστῆρας καὶ ἀναμασχαλιστῆρας (rather than μασχαλιστῆρας· καὶ ἀναμασχαλιστήρ) could imply that Philippides used all three words (αἰγίς, μασχαλιστήρ, and ἀναμασχαλιστήρ) in Adōniazousai. Codices A and B preserve the nominative ἀναμασχαλιστήρ, while FSC preserve the dubious accusative singular ending –τήν. Bekker proposed the accusative plural ἀναμασχαλιστῆρας (presumably corrupted via haplography: -τῆρ〈 ας⟩ ὡς) to conform with the accusative plurals immediately beforehand. But the Philippides citation appears to have been added here as an afterthought (via interpolation?), especially as a rare variant for μασχαλιστήρ (cf. Poll. 6.54 = Philippid. fr. 10, where πυρίεφθα is added as a synonym for πυριάτη). We also have to contend with the possibility that Pollux is epitomised here, and therefore attempts to change the word into the accusative to match what preceded should be avoided.

86

Philippides

Interpretation The word ἀναμασχαλιστήρ refers to a strap (possibly decorated) worn by women around the chest. It may have been mentioned in the play in reference to one or more of the women celebrating the Adonia. Women celebrating this festival would typically beautify themselves with nice clothes and jewellery (see Detienne 1977. 156 n. 40, although there he wrongly interprets the ἀναμασχαλιστήρ as a bracelet worn on the upper arm). The fact that this item accentuated the female form and was probably very similar in function to, if not the same as, the ‘charmed girdle’ worn by Aphrodite with its famed powers of seduction (Hom. Il. 14.214), may suggest it was worn by an hetaira. ἀναμασχαλιστήρ A hapax legomenon. Hsch. α 4433 simply tells us it was a female adornment: ἀναμασχαλιστήρ· εἶδος γυναικείου κόσμου, ‘anamaschalistēr: a type of female adornment’. Poll. 5.100 gives more context by listing it alongside the μασχαλιστήρ and the αἰγίς as items which were worn ‘around the chest/breast’ (περὶ δὲ τοῖς στέρνοις). The ἀναμασχαλιστήρ was probably not much different, if at all, from the μασχαλιστήρ, with the compound form used rather by Philippides as a metri gratia variant. The etymology of the word suggests it passed under the armpits (μασχάλη = ‘armpit’; cf. Beekes 2009. 912–13). This has led some to suspect it was a type of brassiere worn under the clothing, cf. e. g. the translation of Pollux by Meursius (1701. 1585) et fascia axillaris: sicut Philippides, comoediae poeta, in Adoniazusis (on the ancient bra in general – i. e. τὸ στρόφιον, cf. also ἀπόδεσμος at Ar. fr. 332.13 – see Stafford 2005; Poll. 7.65–8 discusses names for bras). But Hesychius’ description of it as an ‘adornment’, as well as its categorisation by Pollux alongside the aegis, suggests it was visible and worn outside the clothing. Elsewhere, a μασχαλιστήρ refers to the under-strap around a horse’s torso in a ‘throat and girdle’ harness (Poll. 1.147; Hsch. μ 380; cf. Str. 11.8.6.22: decorated with gold; cf. Phot. λ 191); Hdt. 1.215 describes it as a decorative band of gold worn by the Massagetai; while A. Pr. 71 uses the term to describe the bindings which fastened Prometheus’ mid-riff to the rock (ἀλλ’ ἀμφὶ πλευραῖς μασχαλιστῆρας βάλε, ‘put the maschalistēras around his ribs’). The αἰγίς with which Pollux implicitly compares the μασχαλιστήρ was a criss-cross strap worn outside the clothing, forming an ‘X’ between the breasts, and decorated with a central boss or ‘gorgoneion’ at the crux (see e. g. Villing 2000). The ἀναμασχαλιστήρ, then, most likely refers to a type of binding worn outside a woman’s clothing (peplos or chiton) which ran beneath the breasts, under the armpits, and was probably anchored by wrapping over the shoulders (hence: ἀνα-, cf. E. Ba. 696 νεβρίδας τ’ ἀνεστείλανθ’ with Dodds 1960 ad loc.; also Ar. Ec. 268 ἀναστέλλεσθ’ ἄνω τὰ χιτώνια). A possible example might be seen on the statue of Themis from Rhamnous who wears a simple cord across the chest and around the shoulders, accentuating the breasts (Athens, NM 231; see Harrison 1977, with Taf. 43). The band might range from a simple piece of cording (as described above), to straps with elaborate decoration. Decorated examples of the μασχαλιστήρ are mentioned at Hdt. 1.215 (golden) and at Poll. 4.117 (describing the stage costume of the character Dionysus: μασχαλιστῆρι ἀνθινῷ, ‘(he wore) a decora-

Ἀδωνιάζουσαι (fr. 2)

87

ted maschalistēr’). Hom. Il. 14.214–21 seems to have a similar kind of decorated band or strap in mind when describing the ‘charmed girdle/strap’ (ἱμὰς κεστός) of Aphrodite which the goddess lends to Hera for its powers of seduction.

fr. 2 K.-A. (2 K.) Antiatt. γ 1 (= AB 86.12) γ υ ν α ί· ἀντὶ τοῦ γυναῖκες. Φιλιππίδης Ἀδωνιαζούσαις. g y n a i: instead of gynaikes. Philippides in Adōniazousai.

Discussion Meineke 1841. 467; Kock 1888. 301; Edmonds 1961. 168–9; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 336. Citation context The word is cited by the ‘Antiatticist’ (2nd c. CE, see Latte 1915; Valente 2015. 59) in a work that gathers and approves of a wider variety of Attic Greek words than other more strictly Atticizing grammarians (see Lee 2013. 294–7). The name ‘Antiatticist’ is a modern invention and apparently a misnomer (Dickey 2007. 97–8; Lee 2013. 294 n. 32). It can be understood in relation to the author’s tendency, as illustrated in this example, of presenting acceptable alternative words in Attic Greek with the formula ἀντὶ τοῦ (‘instead of ’, i. e. ‘instead of ’ their more commonly used Attic forms). Unfortunately, only a severely epitomised version of this work survives in the Lexica Segueriana. This abbreviated version omits many literary quotations that illustrate the usage of words, occasionally omits the names of sources, and may have introduced other errors in the process of compressing the work, including occasional false attributions resulting from these deletions (see e. g. Antiatt. ε 128 wrongly attributed to Ar. Ec., but comes from Av. 768). Text A question we might ask here is whether the word γυναί appeared in Philippides in the same case and number as cited by the Antiatticist. The form of the lemmata in this work is somewhat erratic, although there is a faintly discernible logic. Nouns and adjectives are usually listed in their nominative forms, mostly in the singular. Oblique cases are avoided. Where a source text has a word in the genitive or dative, the Antiatticist prefers to use the nominative form in the lemma. See e. g. Antiatt. δ 59 δράκαινα· … Εὐριπίδης Βάκχαις (cf. E. Ba. 1358 δρακαίνης 〈 σχῆμ’⟩ ἔχουσαν), and Antiatt. α 41 αἰτίαμα· Αἰσχύλος Προμηθεῖ δεσμώτῃ (cf. A. Pr. 194 and 255 αἰτιάματι and αἰτιάμασιν). Sometimes a lemma with an accusative form may appear, which usually reflects the form found in the citation source, e. g. Antiatt. ο 15 ὀξάλμην· Ἀριστοφάνης Σφηξίν (cf. Ar. V. 331 εἰς ὀξάλμην ἔμβαλε). Our lemma illustrates a nominative plural (Antiatt. γ 1 γυναί· ἀντὶ τοῦ γυναῖκες. Φιλιππίδης Ἀδωνιαζούσαις. Φερεκράτης Κραπατάλλοις τὴν γυνήν) which would seem, then, to reflect Philippides’ original text.

88

Philippides

Bergk (1834. 255), nonetheless, argues that Philippides may have used the accusative plural form γυνάς, arguing that Pherecr. fr. 206 (ἀλλ’ ὁρῶ τὰς γυνάς) actually belongs to Philippides. His supposed evidence rests on Choeroboscus in Theod. I, p. 307, 18 Hilg. ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι εὑρίσκεται παρὰ Φερεκράτει ἡ αἰτιατικὴ τὴν γυνήν “ὡς ἄτοπόν ἐστι μητέρ’ εἶναι καὶ γυνήν”, καὶ ἡ αἰτιατικὴ τῶν πληθυντικῶν τὰς γυνάς, “ἀλλ’ ὁρῶ τὰς γυνάς”, ‘one should note that the accusative τὴν γυνήν is found in Pherecrates (fr. 96) “how strange it is to be mother and wife (γυνήν)”, and the accusative plural τὰς γυνάς (fr. 206) “but I see the women (γυνάς)”’. The absence of authorial attribution in the second passage (Pherecr. fr. 206) prompted Bergk to suspect it belonged to Philippides. But as most editors recognise, Choeroboscus has omitted Pherecrates’ name when quoting the second passage for the sake of economy. Nonetheless, we do have an example in the Antiatticist where a nominative plural form is cited in the lemmata, while the source text uses an accusative plural. The Antiatticist’s entry s. v. ἀστράγαλοι (Antiatt. α 64) cites Plato’s Theaetetus as its source, but in Plato we only find the accusative plural form ἀστραγάλους (Pl. Tht. 154c) and the genitive plural form ἀστραγάλων (Pl. Tht. 155b). That Philippides used the accusative plural form γυνάς, then, remains just faintly possible, but not for the reasons given above by Bergk. Interpretation The plural form γυναί might refer to the eponymous women of the comedy. A third-person reference to the women is likely, although a first or second-person subject is also possible (i. e. ‘we women’, ‘you women’). γυναί An anomalous form of the third-declension noun γυνή, γυναικ-, here treated as a first-declension eta noun (see K.-B. I p. 458 §130; Epimer.Hom. γ 25; Choerob. in Theod. I, p. 307, 18 Hilg.). This usage is restricted to comedy which may suggest it is a shortened colloquial form, or even metri gratia. Elsewhere in comedy we find the voc. sing. ὦ γυνή (Alc.Com. fr. 32; contrast the regular vocative γύναι at Philippid. fr. 13.1); the acc. sing. γυνήν (Pherecr. fr. 96); the nom. plur. γυναί (Men. fr. *457); and the acc. plur. γυνάς (Pherecr. fr. 206). Here we apparently have the nominative plural form (so Antiatt. γ 1 ἀντὶ τοῦ γυναῖκες), although a vocative plural is also theoretically possible.

fr. 3 K.-A. (3 K.) Antiatt. κ 84 (= AB 104.26) κ α τ ε ύ χ ε σ θ α ι· ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, ἀντὶ τοῦ εὔχεσθαι. Φιλιππίδης Ἀδωνιαζούσαις. k a t e u c h e s t h a i: for a good thing, instead of euchesthai. Philippides in Adōniazousai.

Discussion Meineke 1841. 467; Kock 1888. 302; Edmonds 1961. 168–9; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 336–7.

Ἀδωνιάζουσαι (fr. 3)

89

Citation context Cited by the Antiatticist (2nd c. CE; see on fr. 2), here offered as a legitimate alternative for the simple form εὔχεσθαι in the sense of ‘pray favourably’ as opposed to ‘pray against’. Text The Antiatticist regularly lists verbs in the lemmata in the infinitive form (present or aorist), regardless of how they may have appeared in the source text. Examples of this phenomenon can be found at Antiatt. α 95 ἀγκυρίσαι … Ἀριστοφάνης Ἱππεῦσιν (cf. Ar. Eq. 262 ἀγκυρίσας); Antiatt. γ 29 γαυριᾶν· … Δημοσθένης περὶ τοῦ στεφάνου, Εὐριπίδης Βάκχαις (cf. D. 18.244 γαυριᾷς, and E. Ba. 1144 γαυρουμένη); Antiatt. γ 30 γεύεσθαι· … Εὐριπίδης Κύκλωπι (cf. E. Cyc. 155 γεῦσαι and 559 γεύσωμαι); Antiatt. θ 7 θῦσαι … Εὐριπίδης Ὀρέστῃ (cf. E. Or. 562 ἔθυσα). On the rare occasion when the Antiatticist gives a finite form of the verb in the lemmata, this is usually an accurate reflection of how that verb appeared in the cited source text, e. g. Antiatt. α 125 ἀπειλοῦμαι (cf. X. Smp. 4.31); Antiatt. α 51 ἀποφυγγάνει (cf. D. 23.74); Antiatt. ε 34 ἑστήξουσι (cf. D. 20.38). We have an apparent exception at Antiatt. β 8 βαλανεύω· Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ· .... κἀγὼ ἐμαυτὸν βαλανεύσω (cf. Ar. Pax 1103), unless a scribe has accidentally omitted the sigma. The infinitive form κατεύχεσθαι would therefore appear to be a modification of Philippides’ original text by the Antiatticist or his source – unless of course Philippides happened to use the infinitive form. Interpretation A prayer ‘for good’ could potentially relate to anything incidental to the action of the comedy. The Antiatticist’s entry for κατεύχεσθαι gives the impression that the meaning ‘a prayer for good’ was less common than its use in curses. However, the verb in Attic literature is neutral in meaning and used of prayer in general, whether for good or bad (in fact always good from the perspective of the precant). Examples where it means ‘curse’ are actually rare, and these take a genitive object: so Pl. R. 393a κατεύχεσθαι τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, ‘to pray against the Achaeans’ (describing Chryses in Iliad 1) (cf. Phot. κ 453 κατεύχεσθαι· τὸ καταρᾶσθαι· οὕτως Πλάτων, ‘kateuchesthai: to curse, so Plato’, and Phot. κ 454 κατεύχεσθαι τῶν Ἀχαιῶν· ἀντὶ τοῦ κατὰ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεσθαι, ‘kateuchesthai the Achaeans: instead of “to pray against the Achaeans”’; see also Suda κ 1015; Poll. 5.128–129). In most other cases the verb can be understood neutrally, with an object clause determining the nature of the prayer. So we find the verb used in adverse prayers or curses at A. Th. 633; S. Aj. 392; OT 246; E. IT 536; and other times where it appears in a prayer for good (as here) at A. A. 1250 (prayer to avert evil); Ch. 88 and 138–9 (Electra to her dead father); Eu. 922 (a prayer for the good of Athens; cf. Eu. 1021); S. OC 1574 (prayer for Oedipus to have an easy journey to the Underworld); E. Andr. 1105 (prayer on behalf of Orestes); IA 1186 (prayer for the good Agamemnon will receive after sacrificing Iphigenia). Context determines its meaning (cf. the cognate noun κατεύγματα which at A. Eu. 1021 = ‘blessings’, but at A. Th. 709 = ‘curses’).

90

Ἀμφιάραος (Amphiaraos) (‘Amphiaraus’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 472; Meineke 1841. 468; Kock 1888. 302; Edmonds 1961. 168–9; Petrakos 1968. 136; Gallo 1984. 233; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 337; Petrakos 1995. 13; Orth 2017. 94. Title Only two other comic poets are known to have produced plays by this title. Aristophanes’ Amphiaraos was produced at the Lenaea of 414 BCE (Hyp. Ar. Av. II.38–9 Wilson; see Orth 2017. 94–214), while Apollodorus of Carystus (first City Dionysia victory ca. 285 BCE) also produced a comedy by this title. Among the tragedians, Sophocles wrote a satyr play titled Amphiaraos, while the Suda attributes an Amphiaraos to the fourth-century tragic poet Kleophon (although this may in fact belong to Iophon, son of Sophocles).59 Finally, Carcinus II (debut ca. 380 BCE) is suspected to have written an Amphiaraos, or at least a tragedy that featured him as a character, as Aristotle informs us (Arist. Po. 1455a26 = TrGF I 70 fr. 1c). For morphological variants of the name see Heubeck 1971. The orthography of the title both here and elsewhere has caused some disagreement. Kock (1888), Körte (1938) and Edmonds (1961) all preserve the form Ἀμφιάρεως following the example of Dindorf who had amended all ancient citations of the title of Sophocles’ homonymous play as such (see Radt TrGF IV. 151). However, the title Ἀμφιάραος is very likely correct (see Gallo 1984. 233; cf. Orth 2017. 94). While we often find Ἀμφιάρεως in the texts of the tragic poets (e. g. A. Th. 569; S. El. 837; OC 1313; E. Supp. 158; frr. 752h.42, 757.856, 758c.6), the alternative form Ἀμφιάραος is also found at E. Ph. 173 and 1111 (cf. Gallo 1984. 233 for the co-existence of both forms in Attic authors). All our secondary ancient sources who cite dramas by this title use the form Ἀμφιάραος, and our Athenian inscriptional records from the early fourth century onwards also regularly use the form Ἀμφιάραος (see Threatte 1980. 125–6). More pertinently, if this comedy centres on the nearby cult of Amphiaraus at Oropos, one might expect the play to use the same form as that officially used for the Oropian god (so Kaibel ap. PCG III.2. 41). Athenian decrees found at Oropos from around this period, including one which proposes to honour the god with a gold crown (See Scafuro 2009), regularly employ the form Ἀμφιάραος (e. g. 59

The list of titles attributed to Kleophon by the Suda (κ 1730 = TrGF I 77 test. 1) is suspiciously similar to that of Iophon (Suda ι 451 = TrGF I 22 test. 1), and it seems plausible Iophon’s plays were wrongly attributed to Kleophon due to the similarity of their names. Snell (on TrGF I 77 p. 246 n. 77 1; cf. TrGF I 22 test. 1, p. 132) even suspects Kleophon may not have been a tragic poet at all. The Suda does not directly attribute an Amphiaraos to Iophon, but it may have been among the unnamed plays which the Suda claims Iophon wrote with Sophocles (Suda ι 451 = Iophon TrGF I 22 test. 1; cf. Ar. Ra. 73–9; Σ Ar. Ra. 78a–b). If so, it might be the case that the Amphiaraos attributed to Sophocles and that attributed to Kleophon/Iophon was one and the same play.

Ἀμφιάραος

91

I.Oropos 296.16, 19 of 332/1 BCE; I.Oropos 297.12, 15, 25–6, 30 of 332/1 BCE; and I.Oropos 298.14, 16, 48 of 329/8 BCE). The following discussion is subdivided into (a) myth and (b) cult for the sake of convenience. Amphiaraus in Myth Amphiaraus of Argos (or Pylos: see Hyg. Fab. 70) was renowned as both a warrior and a prophet (see e. g. Vicaire 1979; Sineux 2007; for Amphiaraus in art see LIMC I. 691–713). He was a descendant of the seer Melampous and the Melampodidai, one of the three royal lines of Argos (cf. Σ Pi. N. 9.30b).60 Most sources name his father as Oecles (e. g. Hom. Od. 15.244; Pi. O. 6.13; A. Th. 609) and his mother as Hypermestra (Hes. fr. 25.34 Merkelbach-West; Hyg. Fab. 73), although an alternative tradition makes him the son of Apollo (Hyg. Fab. 70). Early literary sources praise Amphiaraus both for his military prowess and for his insight as a seer (e. g. Pi. O. 6.16–17; S. OC 1313–14; cf. Thebais PEG fr. 10). He preferred to show his excellence on the battlefield rather than boast about it (A. Th. 592; cf. also A. Th. 591 and E. Ph. 1111–12 for the deliberate lack of ‘arrogant’ insignia on his shield). Homer describes him as particularly dear to Zeus and Apollo (Hom. Od. 15.245–6), while other sources describe him as pious and reverent toward the gods (cf. Hes. fr. 25.38 Merkelbach-West; A. Th. 610; E. frr. 752k.21, 757.40). Plato made Amphiaraus the model of his ‘just’ man (Pl. R. 361b; cf. Plu. Arist. 3.5). Among key myths of Amphiaraus, the Pindaric scholia tell of the civil dispute in Argos between the royal houses of the Melampodidai and the Biantidai where Amphiaraus slew the Biantid Talaus and exiled his son Adrastus (Adrastus later came to power in Sicyon, Σ Pi. N. 9.30b). Amphiaraus was later reconciled with Adrastus after marrying his sister Eriphyle on the condition that she decide any future quarrel between the two (see ΣV Hom. Od. 11.326, a summary which purportedly derives from Asclepiades of Tragilus’ 4th c. BCE work Tragoidoumena taken from tragic plots; also Σ Pi. N. 9.30b; D.S. 4.65.6; Apollod. 3.61). Amphiaraus’ marriage to Eriphyle produced two sons, Alcmeon and Amphilochus (Hom. Od. 15.248), and two daughters, Eurydice and Demonassa (cf. Paus. 5.17.7–8; Asius names Alcmene as another daughter, fr. 4 Davies ap. Paus. 5.17.7). When Adrastus sought to raise an army to help restore Polyneices, son of Oedipus, to the throne of Thebes, Amphiaraus received a prophecy (cf. A. Th. 617–18) foretelling that the expedition would fail and that he and all the other leaders, except Adrastus, would die. Amphiaraus initially declined to join the expedition and persuaded the others to do the same (Apollod. 3.60). Polyneices, wishing Amphiaraus to join, was told to bribe Amphiaraus’ wife Eriphyle with

60

For Amphiaraus as ‘king’ cf. Hes. fr. 197.6 Merkelbach-West Ἀμφιαράου Ὀϊκλείδαο ἄνακτος, and S. El. 837 ἄνακτ’ Ἀμφιάρεων.

92

Philippides

the necklace of Harmonia,61 since she had the power to decide any disagreement between Amphiaraus and Adrastus (see above).62 Foreseeing this, Amphiaraus forbade Eriphyle from accepting any gifts from Polyneices, but in the end his wife succumbed to the bribe, effectively condemning her husband to death (see Hom. Od. 11.326–7 and 15.247; ΣV Hom. Od. 11.326; D.S. 4.65.5; cf. E. Hyps. fr. 752k.15–17). An alternative version in Hyginus (Fab. 73) reports that Amphiaraus went into hiding to avoid going on the campaign, with Eriphyle alone knowing where he was. Adrastus therefore made an elaborate necklace to bribe Eriphyle into disclosing his hiding place.63 While en route to the Theban campaign Amphiaraus interceded on behalf of Hypsipyle, nurse of the royal child Opheltes (Archemorus), after the child was killed by a serpent when Hypsipyle momentarily left to guide the Argives to a spring (E. Hyps.; cf. Stat. Theb. 4.746–803, 5.499–604; Apollod. 3.64). During the subsequent funeral games (the first Nemean Games), Amphiaraus tried once again, unsuccessfully, to convince the army to abandon the expedition (cf. B. Nem. 9.10–24). At Thebes, Aeschylus tells us Amphiaraus was positioned opposite the warrior Lasthenes at the sixth or ‘Homoloid’ Gate (A. Th. 620–1), while Euripides (Ph. 1109) sets him opposite the ‘Proitid’ Gate.64 Literary sources depict him rebuking his comrades at the battle for encouraging the expedition (cf. A. Th. 571–86 where he reproaches Tydeus and Polyneices), but distinguishing himself in a futile battle (cf. Stat. Theb. 7.690–770 for his heroism on the field, at times assisted by Apollo). The death of Amphiaraus was a popular theme in literature and art. Rather than allow Amphiaraus to be struck down by an enemy assailant (Pi. N. 9.26), or else suffer the indignity of lying unburied due to Creon’s decree (cf. Stat. Theb. 7.776–7), Zeus split the earth with his thunderbolt, which swallowed Amphiaraus, his chariot and charioteer Baton (see Pi. O. 6.13–14; N. 9.24–5, 10.8–9; S. fr. 958; Stat. Theb. 7.816–23; Hyg. Fab. 73; LIMC I. 698–700). Ancient traditions list several places where Amphiaraus’ chariot was believed to have disappeared. Pausanias 61 62 63

64

On the history of the necklace, see Stat. Theb. 2.266–305. Cf. also Σ Pi. N. 9.35 where it is Adrastus who corrupts Eriphyle by offering her the necklace. Eriphyle’s betrayal was a popular motif in ancient art and literature (cf. LIMC I. 694–7). Pausanias describes an elaborate carving he saw in which Amphiaraus, leaving for war, looks back at Eriphyle as he mounts his chariot with sword half-drawn, as though restraining himself from striking her (Paus. 5.17.8; the same theme can be found at LIMC I. 557–8, nos. 16–18, all dated 6th or 5th c. BCE). Negative depictions of Eriphyle appear as early as Homer (Od. 11.326–7). Amphiaraus is also said to have left instructions to his sons, Alcmeon and Amphilochus, to slay their mother in revenge and mount a second expedition against Thebes after they came of age (ΣV Hom. Od. 11.326; Apollod. 3.62; cf. also Apollod. 3.86). In Aeschylus Tydeus stands opposite the Proitid Gate (A. Th. 377), while in Euripides he stands opposite the Homoloid Gate (E. Ph. 1119–20).

Ἀμφιάραος

93

(1.34.2) mentions the Boeotian town Harma (‘Chariot’) on the road to Chalkis from Thebes; at 9.8.3 he also notes a place on the right-hand side of the road when travelling north to Thebes from Potniai (i. e. the modern suburb of Tachy south of the ancient citadel).65 Strabo (9.1.22) also claims that Amphiaraus was swallowed by the earth at Oropos, although his source, Sophocles, actually mentions Thebes (fr. 958 ἐδέξατο ῥαγεῖσα Θηβαία κόνις / αὐτοῖσιν ὅπλοις καὶ τετρωρίστῳ δίφρῳ, ‘the broken dust of Thebes received him, armour, four-horsed chariot and all’).66 Amphiaraus in Cult A hero cult and dream oracle of Amphiaraus was known at Thebes67 from at least the mid sixth century BCE when according to Herodotus an envoy of the Lydian king Croesus consulted it to find out how to curtail Persian expansion (Hdt. 1.46, 52). Croesus supposedly regarded it highly since, along with the oracle at Delphi, it gave the reply that should he attack Persia he would destroy a great empire. The Theban oracle was consulted by the Carian Mys soon after the battle of Salamis (480 BCE) who paid someone to spend the night in the Amphiareion to receive a dream vision (Hdt. 8.134; Plu. Arist. 19.2, Mor. 412a). Aeschylus also apparently refers to the oracle at Thebes in the Seven Against Thebes (467 BCE) when Amphiaraus predicts that he will become a prophet buried in enemy soil (A. Th. 597–8). The original location of the oracle, according to Strabo (9.2.10), was Knopia, an ancient suburb of Thebes located outside the city walls less than a kilometre south of the Kadmeia (Keramopoullos 1917. 261–6; Symeonoglou 1985a. 12 and map A, I 15). The sanctuary had apparently fallen into disuse by the time of Herodotus who reports that the golden shield and spear dedicated by Croesus were on display in his own time in the temple of Ismenian Apollo.68 Archaeological evidence indicates that Knopia itself was abandoned in the fifth century and resettled in an area north of the Kadmeia (cf. Symeonoglou 1985b. 157). This possibly encouraged the relocation of the Amphiareion from Thebes to Oropos (see Parker 1996. 148), although other factors may have contributed, including the already high number of oracular centres around the city (see Symeonoglou 1985b; Plu. Mor. 411f–12b) 65 66

67 68

Possibly he meant Knopia (see ‘Amphiaraus in Cult’ below). Strabo perhaps confused this with the tradition, mentioned by Pausanias (1.34.4), that Amphiaraus re-emerged as a god from the sacred spring at Oropos, a tradition itself that was possibly invented to lend legitimacy to the relocation of his sanctuary there in the fifth century (see below). For the idea there was never an oracle of Amphiaraus at Thebes, but that this was always in Oropos, see Schachter 1981. 22–3 (contrast e. g. Hubbard 1993). Hdt. 1.52. Symeonoglou (1985b. 157) suggests that the shield and spear were always held in the sanctuary of Ismenian Apollo since the Amphiareion was an open-air sanctuary (cf. Paus. 9.8.3). Pindar’s description of the Amphiareion, however, as ‘my neighbour and guardian of my possessions’ (Pi. P. 8.58 γείτων … μοι καὶ κτεάνων φύλαξ ἐμῶν) suggests it probably had a treasury and place for dedications of its own.

94

Philippides

and the unusual circumstance where Thebans themselves could not consult the oracle, having chosen to honour Amphiaraus as a hero and helper in war rather than as a seer (Hdt. 8.134). The healing and oracular sanctuary of Amphiaraus near Oropos, situated on the border of Boeotia and Attica, was likely established in the last quarter of the fifth century sometime before 414 BCE (Petropoulou 1981. 57–8; Roesch 1984. 175; Petrakos 1995. 7; Parker 1996. 146), approximately the same time as the healing god Asclepius was introduced to Athens in 420 BCE. The sanctuary remained active until at least the third century CE (cf. Schachter 1981. 25 with n. 3). The Oropians, according to Pausanias, were the first to recognise Amphiaraus as a divinity, as distinct from his status as hero in Thebes (Paus. 1.34.2; Petropoulou 1985. 176). Unlike the sanctuary at Thebes, it is at Oropos that Amphiaraus first appears as a god of healing, first attested in Aristophanes’ Amphiaraos (414 BCE; see Orth 2017). In later times other cults of Amphiaraus were established within Attica at Athens, Rhamnous and the Piraeus.69 The location of Oropos near the Boeotian and Attic border, as well as its proximity to Eretria in Euboea, resulted in control of Oropos and the Amphiareion changing hands many times over the centuries. In the second half of the fourth century, roughly contemporaneous with Philippides, several changes took place. Either Philip II of Macedon after the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE, or Alexander after the sack of Thebes in 335 BCE, gave Oropos to Athens (Paus. 1.34.1; Σ D. 18.176 Dilts; Papazarkadas 2011. 102–6). Under Athenian control Oropos embarked on building works and reorganised the local games, the Little Amphiareia held every year and the Great Amphiareia every four years (Petrakos 1968. 194–8; Petrakos 1995. 31–6; cf. I.Oropos 297.12–13 of 332/1 BCE). The Athenians also divided up the territory among the ten tribes (see Papazarkadas 2011. 102–6).70 Oropos became independent after the battle of Crannon in 322 BCE (cf. D.S. 18.56.6 where its independence was confirmed in 319), while in 312 BCE Ptolemy, general under Antigonus I Monophthalmus, joined it to the Boeotian Confederacy (D.S. 19.78.3). It became an Athenian possession once again in 304 BCE when it was given to Athens as a gift by Demetrius Poliorcetes (cf. SEG 3.117.13–19 of 303/2 BCE). In either 295 BCE or 287–286 BCE it was again freed from Athenian

69

70

Cf. Kearns 1989. 147. In the fourth century the ‘healing hero’ (ἥρως ἰατρός) in Rhamnous, a deme quite close to Oropos, began to be identified with Amphiaraus (cf. IG II2 4426). Evidence of Amphiaraus in Athens and the Piraeus is first attested in the late fourth or third century BCE. See further Parker 1996. 148 n. 105. Athens sent three citizens, Euxenippos and two others, to the sanctuary to receive dream oracles for determining whether part of that land could legitimately be allocated to the Akamantid and Hippothontid tribes, or whether it belonged to the god. See Hyp. 4.14, a speech made in defence of Euxenippos (ca. 330–324, so Whitehead 2000. 155–7) after he was accused of accepting bribes to report a false dream.

Ἀμφιάραος

95

control (cf. D.L. 2.141–2). On the history of Oropos in general, see Roesch 1984. 175; Petrakos 1995. 8–9; Hansen 2004. 449. Visitors to the Oropian sanctuary, seeking either an oracle or a medical cure, were required to sleep in the koimētērion (‘sleeping quarters’) where an answer was furnished through dreams (on the sanctuary and consultation of the oracle, see Petrakos 1968. 129–35; Roesch 1984. 177–8; Petrakos 1995. 13–22; Johnston 2008. 93–5). Anyone wishing to consult the god, whether for themselves or on behalf of others, first paid a preliminary fee (the so-called eparchē: see Petropoulou 1981) which was put into the treasury in the presence of the temple official (ὁ νεωκόρος). Originally the fee was set at no less than one Boeotian drachma (cf. I.Oropos 276.2–5 of ca. 402–387 BCE), but in the early fourth century was raised to nine obols (see I.Oropos 277.20–4 = IG VII 235 of ca. 387–377 BCE which contains regulations for priests and visitors to the sanctuary; see also Petropoulou 1981. 42–57). Devotees were then instructed by the priest to abstain from wine for at least three days, and from food for one day, to ensure clarity in their dreams (Philostr. VA 2.37). Anyone seeking an oracle was also required to make a preliminary sacrifice (cf. Petrakos 1968. pl. 41α for a votive relief depicting both a pig and a ram being led to the sanctuary. Cf. also Petropoulou 1985. 176). The first sacrifice was purificatory to Amphiaraus and all the other gods with a share in the sanctuary altar (see Petrakos 1995. 46–7), among them Zeus, Apollo, Hermes, Aphrodite, as well as more abstract healing divinities such as Panacea, Iaso and Hygieia (cf. Paus. 1.34.3; for Iaso cf. Ar. fr. 21). The choice of animal to sacrifice was left to the discretion of the worshipper (cf. I.Oropos 277.30–1 θύειν δὲ ἐξ|εῖν ἅπαν ὅ τι ἂν βόληται ἕκαστος, ‘it is permitted to sacrifice whatever each person likes’), with the priest receiving the shoulder of each victim. The second sacrifice involved a ram, the skin of which the devotee would then sleep upon (Paus. 1.34.5; see also Petrakos 1968. pl. 48β depicting a woman lying on a ram skin. Petropoulou 1985 observes a similar practice at the Asklepieion at Athens and notes that the ram skin is sometimes absent from the iconography, perhaps indicating this sacrifice was not always necessary). Devotees brought their own bedding (see perhaps Ar. fr. 18 where the speaker asks someone to fetch a cushion and pillow; and cf. Ar. Pl. 624 for devotees of Asclepius taking bedding to his sanctuary). A large stoa north of the sanctuary, perhaps built ca. 367–366 BCE (see Petrakos 1968. 83 n. 1; Roesch 1984. 183 dates it to the late fourth or early third century BCE), is thought to have served as sleeping quarters for those wishing to consult the god. During incubation men and women were kept separate, men lodging east of the altar and women to the west (I.Oropos 277.43–7). Afterwards, the priests, who did not receive or deliver oracles themselves,71 would interpret the visitors’ dreams (Paus. 1.34.4; cf. Hdt. 8.134.1; Plu. Mor. 412a–b; Aristid. 19.2; see Harris 2019). After receiving an oracle 71

Contrast the priests at Charonion who slept in the cave on behalf of the sick person and prescribed a cure based on their own dreams: Str. 14.1.44.

96

Philippides

the devotee threw a gold or silver coin into the sanctuary’s spring (Paus. 1.34.4). After a cure the devotee might make a votive dedication, sometimes an offering that represented the cured body part (cf. Van Straten 1981. 124–5 no. 16, which mentions body parts made of gold or silver representing the face, breasts, genitals and hands). Content Only one fragment of Philippides’ play survives (fr. 4) containing a single line listing different seafoods. Only the title gives us any indication of a broader theme, although this could suggest either a mythological play or a cultic comedy, i. e. one that featured the oracular and healing sanctuary of Amphiaraus in Oropos.72 Webster (1970. 115) appears to assume it was a mythological play, although mythological (and indeed comic treatment) of Amphiaraos is sometimes doubted. Scholars have puzzled how Sophocles treated the myth in his satyr play Amphiaraos (see e. g. Lloyd-Jones 1996. 46).73 There is, however, the possibility that elements of Sophocles’ plot are preserved in the Fabulae of Hyginus, who, inter alia, drew upon the hypotheses to the plays of Euripides and Sophocles for material.74 There we find a certainly unheroic and even comic touch in the detail that Amphiaraus hid himself (itaque celavit se) to avoid going on campaign to Thebes (Hyg. Fab. 73). Amphiaraus’ status as seer, a typical alazōn figure in Greek comedy (see on Philippid. fr. 38; cf. Nicostratus’ [-]oskopos this volume; Bertolini 2019), might also have provided scope for comic material. Philippides, however, does not otherwise exhibit a clear interest in mythological themes. Mythological comedy itself was far less popular in the late fourth century than it was in the first half (cf. Webster 1970. 85; Hartwig 2014. 209–10).75 What little we can gather from other Amphiaraos comedies would suggest a ‘cultic’ theme. Unfortunately, we know very little about Apollodorus of Carystus’ comedy of which only a single fragment survives (Apollod.Car. fr. 1 mentions two or more people about to place an unidentified object into a saddle bag before loading it onto a pack-animal). We have a much better idea, however, of Aristophanes’ 72

73 74

75

A political theme related to the events mentioned in Hypereides 4 (ca. 330–324 BCE, see above) may be just possible if Philippides debuted at the latter end of this period. But doubts remain (cf. Edmonds 1961. 168–9 n. c). For the argument that Philippides’ first victory was quite likely in 320 BCE, see on test. 1. His debut was presumably shortly before this. For suggested themes of Sophocles’ drama, see Scheurer and Kansteiner 1999. 240–2. See esp. Breen (1991. 44–6) for a list of entries in Hyginus thought to derive from tragic plots. The Tragoidoumena by Asclepiades of Tragilus (4th c. BCE), used by PseudoApollodorus, is another possible source for Hyginus. Breen (1991. 140 n. 125) is sceptical that the mythical account of Amphiaraus at Hyg. Fab. 73 stemmed from Sophocles’ satyr play on the assumption that mythological sources would not have used satyr plays for their material. But there seems little reason prima facie to assume they did not. The only New Comedy poet who shows any noteworthy interest in this sub-genre is Diphilus, and even here less than 10% of his surviving titles reflect mythological themes.

Ἀμφιάραος

97

Amphiaraos (414 BCE). Surviving fragments indicate the action took place around the oracle and healing sanctuary of Amphiaraus at Oropos, and that it featured an old man and his wife with a theme of rejuvenation (cf. Vicaire 1979. 42; Alvoni 1995. 101–3; Orth 2017. 97–103). Ar. fr. 35 (ap. Phot. α 1983) describes the plot as a ‘human story’ (i. e. rather than mythological). Ar. fr. 34 mentions ‘untainted’ or ‘inviolable’ water with possible reference to the famous spring of Amphiaraus at Oropos (Orth 2017. 197–8; the water notoriously had no other function except receiving gold and silver donations from happy devotees: so Paus. 1.34.4). Ar. fr. 20 preserves the words of a priest (or perhaps Amphiaraus himself?) asking someone in paratragic style what their affliction is (cf. TrGF adesp. fr. 70; Orth 2017. 125–6). At Ar. fr. *21 Amphiaraus himself appears to speak, addressing Iaso as his daughter (Orth 2017. 130). Ar. fr. 28 contains what appears to be a prayer in anapaests by the chorus, or by one of the characters, to a priest or Amphiaraus himself, asking him to seal up in a basket the healing serpents and to stop selling remedies (see Orth 2017. 159–61). In addition, at Ar. fr. 29 we seem to have an oracle in dactylic hexameters possibly uttered by the god as part of a dream remedy.76 Our closest point of comparison for a cultic play are comedies which treat the similar cult of Asclepius. In Aristophanes’ Wasps Philocleon is reportedly sent to sleep in the sanctuary of Asclepius in Aegina to cure him of his addiction to jury service (Ar. V. 122–4). In Ar. Pl. 620–747 the god Wealth is taken to the sanctuary for the night to be cured of his blindness (Ar. Pl. 634–6). Asclepius himself is depicted visiting each devotee as they sleep and administering a cure, including grinding up poultices and applying them (Ar. Pl. 710–11, 716–21; cf. Antiph. Asklēpios fr. 47 where someone, possibly Asclepius, concocts a medicine for an ailing old woman; see also Plaut. Curc. 260–2 where Aesculapius appears to Cappadox in a dream while sleeping in the sanctuary, but fails to approach him and offer a cure). Asclepius is also attended by the same characters as Amphiaraus, including Iaso (Ar. Pl. 701; cf. Ar. fr. 21) and Panacea (Ar. Pl. 702, 730; cf. Paus. 1.34.3), while ΣRVE Ar. Pl. 701b tells us that Hygieia (‘Health’) was personified as his daughter (cf. Paus. 1.34.3; Philetaer. Asklēpios fr. 1). Both cults also feature serpents affecting cures: a serpent heals Wealth by licking his eyes (Ar. Pl. 733–6), while a similar cure is attested for Amphiaraus at Ar. fr. 28 and on a fourth-century votive relief depicting Amphiaraus and a serpent curing Archinos (see Petrakos 1968. pl. 40α). 76

Faraone (1992) argues that the hexameters describe a magic spell rather than an oracle. Orth (2017. 170) thinks it may relate to a magical remedy obtained from pharmakopōlai at the Amphiareion (cf. Ar. fr. 28). Nonetheless, a dream oracle is still possible. In ordinary circumstances devotees presumably did not dream oracular remedies in dactylic hexameters, but in a literary context it is not unusual for dreams to be sent by gods in hexameter form: cf. e. g. Hdt. 5.55–6 where Hipparchus supposedly had a dream foretelling his murder by the tyrannicides, there given in riddling dactylic hexameters; also E. Hec. 74–5 (if the lines are genuine) where Hecuba’s dream vision is presented in hexameters.

98

Philippides

Among other motifs, Aristophanes depicts the priest of the Asklepieion as a parasite figure, cleaning up whatever food and offerings were still to be found around the altars (Ar. Pl. 676–81). Philippides may have utilised any of these themes, characters and motifs if his comedy centred on the cult of Amphiaraus. Date Unknown. It may be relevant that Aristophanes produced his Amphiaraos (414 BCE) during a period when Oropos and the nearby Amphiareion fell under Athenian control. However, a time soon after Athens lost control of Oropos is also possible, as was quite likely the case with Apollodorus’ comedy of the same name.77 The Amphiareion fell under Athenian control before 322 BCE, and again between 304 to either 295 or 287 (or 286) BCE (see under ‘Title’ above).

fr. 4 K.-A. (4 K.) ὄστρει’, ἀκαλήφας, 〈 μῦς⟩ , λεπάδας παρέθηκέ μοι ὄστρει’ Meineke : ὄστρε’ Ath.A

〈 μῦς⟩ Peppink : 〈 καὶ⟩ Dindorf

Oysters, sea-nettles, 〈 mussels⟩ , limpets (he) set beside me Ath. 3.90b (ACE) τῆς μέντοι θαλασσίας ἀκαλήφης μνημονεύει καὶ Φιλιππίδης ἐν Ἀμφιαράῳ οὕτως· — Indeed Philippides also mentions the sea-nettle in Amphiaraos as follows: —

Metre Iambic trimeter.

l l r l

l | 〈 l⟩ r l

r l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 468; Kock 1888. 302; Edmonds 1961. 168–9; Gallo 1984. 233; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 337. Citation context The passage is cited in the Deipnosophistai of Athenaeus (written ca. 200 CE), a dialogue set at a dinner party in which various topics related to dining and drinking are discussed and illustrated with numerous literary examples. Fragment 4 is quoted within a larger discussion on shellfish, beginning at Ath. 3.85c, which momentarily diverts to the side-topic of sea-anemones (κνίδαι) which Athenaeus notes were also called ἀκαλήφαι (sea-nettles) by the comic poets.

77

For the possible political implications of Amphiaraus in an Athenian drama (Euripides’ Hypsipylē) produced at a time when Oropos was not under Athenian control, see Cropp 2003. 141–3.

Ἀμφιάραος (fr. 4)

99

Text Meineke’s correction of A’s ὄστρε’ to ὄστρει’ is surely correct. Ath. 3.92e remarks that this was the regular form used by ancient writers: ὄστρεια δὲ μόνως οὕτως ἔλεγον οἱ ἀρχαῖοι (cf. Phot. ο 574 ὄστρεια· σὺν τῷ ι μᾶλλον). The mistake is extremely common in our texts, as demonstrated by the many examples where emendation to the correct form ὄστρεια is guaranteed by the metre (e. g. Epich. fr. 40.3; Cratin. fr. 8; Philyll. fr. 12.1; Anaxandr. fr. 42.61; Alex. fr. 115.1; and Lync. fr. 1.17 where A has ὄστρεια while CE preserve ὄστρεα). Our present text is metrically ambiguous allowing either form, as at Diph. fr. 43.2, but which Meineke (surely correctly) had also emended accordingly. More difficult is the choice between Dindorf ’s 〈 καί⟩ and Peppink’s 〈 μῦς⟩ (‘mussels’) to fill the lacuna in the third foot. Much, however, can be said in favour of Peppink’s supplement (1936. 23; adopted by Edmonds 1961). The resulting asyndeton in a list of food is common in such contexts (see esp. Philippid. fr. 20 and possibly fr. 28.4). Mussels are also the only shellfish that will fit the required monosyllable (the alternative disyllabic accusative form μύας is also sometimes found: e. g. Epich. fr. 40.5; Posidipp. fr. 15.3). They are also regularly listed in similar catalogues of seafood and shellfish, especially alongside oysters and limpets, e. g. A. fr. 34 κόγχοι, μύες κὤστρεια, Philyll. fr. 12.1–2 ὄστρειον, / χήμας, λεπάδας, σωλῆνας, μῦς, Anaxandr. fr. 42.61 λεπάδες, μύες, ὄστρεια, Archestr. fr. 7.1 τοὺς μῦς Αἶνος ἔχει μεγάλους, ὄστρεια δ’ Ἄβυδος, Plaut. Rud. 297–8 echinos, lopadas, ostreas, balanos captamus, conchas, / marinam urticam, musculos, plagusias striatas. The omission of μῦς might be explained as an error of haplography due to the homoeoteleuton (i. e. final sigma) of both ἀκαλήφας and μῦς. It is therefore tentatively adopted here in place of Dindorf ’s bland 〈 καί⟩ . Interpretation The speaker recounts to another character a lavish feast at which he (or she) was served seafood delicacies. For stereotypical dinner narratives, not least of all in comedy, where a character relates second-hand a banquet or drinking party, see Fraenkel 1912. 20–32; and cf. Philippid. frr. 5, 20, 28, 31. Given that our fragment comes from a play connected with a healing figure (and healing sanctuary), it is worth noting the medicinal properties of the items listed here. All are mentioned elsewhere in medical contexts as potential remedies for constipation (including mussels if the restoration 〈 μῦς⟩ is correct; see further under individual notes below). A fascinating parallel may underlie the intriguingly titled Parasitus Medicus of Plautus (fr. 3 = Monda 2004, line 104) where we find a strikingly similar list of seafoods: addite lopadas, echinos, ostreas (‘add limpets, sea-urchins, oysters’). But there, as here, we have no further context beyond the title of the play. For the possibility these items may even have aphrodisiac properties, cf. Shaw 2014. ὄστρει’ ‘Oysters’ (Ostrea edulis, L.), a bivalve shellfish, often served as an appetiser: see Alex. fr. 115.1–4 where they are described as the ‘prelude of a charmingly regulated dinner’ (πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ὄστρεια … ἔστι γὰρ προοίμιον / δείπνου χαριέντως ταῦτα πεπρυτανευμένου); also Matro fr. 1.16 where they

100

Philippides

are an entrée to the feast; Hegesander of Delphi, FHG IV, 415 fr. 10 (ap. Ath. 4.132c), where, as in Alexis, shellfish in general (‘ὄστρεα’) are eaten as a ‘prelude to dinner’ (προοίμιον … δείπνου); Plin. HN 32.64 also notes their efficacy for ‘restoring the appetite’ (fastidiis medentur). They were presumably an expensive delicacy, so Matro of Pitane who in mock-epic parody calls them the ‘truffles of the Nereid Thetis’ (fr. 2 ap. Ath. 2.62c ὄστρεά τ’ ἤνεικεν, Θέτιδος Νηρηίδος ὕδνα), and especially so if they were imported to Athens (e. g. from Abydos on the Hellespont which was particularly known for its oysters, see Archestr. fr. 7.1; Supp. Hell. 984.13–17). At Attic dinner-parties they might typically be served on a single platter with other assorted shellfish, to judge from the speaker in Lync. fr. 1.17–22 who asks that each dish be served individually instead so that he not miss out on anything (a complaint about expensive but meagrely apportioned banquets at Athens, cf. on Philathēnaios). A single platter of assorted shellfish might therefore be implied in the present fragment. In comedy oysters are found in similar lists of seafood at Epich. fr. 40.3; Philyll. fr. 12.1; Anaxandr. fr. 42.61; Alex. fr. 115.1; Plaut. Rud. 297 (chorus of fishermen describing the fish they catch); and Plaut. Parasit. Med. fr. 3 (= line 104 Monda, quoted above). Medicinally, Diocles of Carystus, a contemporary of Aristotle, writes in his work On Health that among shellfish, oysters as well as mussels were best for promoting bowel movements and urination (fr. 223 Van der Eijk, ap. Ath. 3.86b–c) Διοκλῆς δ’ ὁ Καρύστιος ἐν τοῖς Ὑγιεινοῖς κράτιστά φησιν εἶναι τῶν κογχυλίων πρὸς διαχώρησιν καὶ οὔρησιν μύας, ὄστρεα, ‘Diocles of Carystus in his Matters of Health says that the best among shellfish for bowel movements and urination are mussels, oysters’. Additionally, the medical writer Diphilus of Siphnos (ca. 300 BCE), who may have been a personal acquaintance, even friend, of Philippides owing to his status as physician to king Lysimachus in Thrace (cf. Ath. 2.51a), writes in his work Diets for the Sick and Healthy that smaller clams called ‘oysters’ with rough shells are ‘gentle on the stomach and easy to excrete’ (Ath. 3.90c ὄστρεα λέγονται καὶ εὐστόμαχοί εἰσι καὶ εὐέκκριτοι). Pliny HN 32.64 also notes that oysters settle the stomach (stomachum unice reficiunt) and have a slight laxative effect (emolliunt alvum leniter). On oysters in general, see Keller 1913. 562–8; Thompson 1947. 190–2; Andrews 1948; Davidson 1981. 197; Campbell 1982. 164, with illustration. ἀκαλήφας ‘Sea-nettles’, an alternative name for the sea-anemone (κνίδη: cf. Arist. PA 681a36; Archestr. fr. 11.7; ΣVE Ar. Eq. 422a, c-d; ΣRΓ Lys. 549a; Ath. 3.89f; Eup. fr. 68; Oribas. 2.58.46; Phot. α 705; Suda α 788; for an ancient account of the sea-nettle, a fleshy creature that clings to rocks and catches food in the tentacles surrounding its mouth, see Arist. HA 531a31-b17; PA 681a36-b12). Athenaeus explains that the same name is also used of the stinging-nettle plant (cf. e. g. Ar. V. 884; fr. 572.3; Pherecr. fr. 29.2; Athenaeus wrongly assumes that Ar. fr. 572 and Pherecr. fr. 29 refer to the marine creature), and that both were so named due to a corruption of the euphemistic phrase ἀκαλὴ τῇ ἁφῇ (‘peaceful to the touch’: Ath. 3.90b; cf. Pseud.-Zonar. α p. 102, 28–9; see also Beekes 2009. 48 s. v. who states

Ἀμφιάραος (fr. 4)

101

that the etymology of the word is unknown). For references to ἀκαλήφαι as food, see e. g. Pythag. fr. C 6 (D.-K. I. 466.13–15); Arist. HA 531b10–17; Plu. Mor. 670d; Ael. NA 7.35; and Alciphr. 1.2.2. They were a delicacy according to Archestratus fr. 11.7 who says they were ‘bought as a delicacy’ (ὀψωνεῖν), while Lynceus of Samos compares them with truffles at fr. 22 Dalby (ap. Ath. 2.62c) ἀκαλήφην ἡ θάλασσα ἀνίησιν, ἡ δὲ γῆ ὕδνα, ‘the sea issues forth the sea-nettle, the earth (issues forth) truffles’ (cf. the similar comparison with ὄστρεια above). Part of the reason for their status as a delicacy (and presumably high price) was no doubt the difficulty in collecting them, since one had to dive and gather them by hand, usually getting stung in the process (cf. Ath. 3.90a). The physician Diphilus of Siphnos writes that they had diuretic qualities, and were easy on the stomach and bowels (Ath. 3.90a) Δίφιλος δ’ ὁ Σίφνιος ἰατρὸς ‘ἡ δὲ ἀκαλήφη’, φησίν, ‘ἐστὶν εὐκοίλιος, οὐρητική, εὐστόμαχος’, ‘Diphilus the physician from Siphnos says “the sea-nettle is easy on the bowels, promotes urination, easy on the stomach”’. For sea-nettles elsewhere in comedy, see Ar. Eq. 422; Lys. 549; Eup. fr. 68; and Plaut. Rud. 298. In general see Keller 1913. 576–7; Thompson 1947. 5–6, 118; and Davidson 1981. 218. Campbell (1982. 72–80) lists and illustrates various kinds of Mediterranean sea-anemones. 〈 μῦς〉 ‘Mussels’. Here a textual supplement suggested by Peppink (see on ‘Text’ above). Mussels (Mytilus edulis or Mytilus galloprovincialis, L.) are a bivalve, like oysters, except they are hinged and have a smooth shell. Mussels were inexpensive to judge from their relative cost in Alex. fr. 15.5 (cf. also Mart. 3.60, where a social divide is drawn between those eating oysters and those eating mussels). Mussels are imported from the Black Sea at Antiph. fr. 191.1 (μῦς Ποντικοί); otherwise Ephesus was particularly well known for its mussels (see the medical writers Diphilus of Siphnos in Ath. 3.90d and Hikesios in Ath. 3.87c), and Ainos was renowned for producing a large variety (Archestr. fr. 7.1). For mussels in catalogues of seafood elsewhere, see the examples cited under ‘Text’ above, also Epich. frr. 40.5, 41.1; Antiph. 191.1; and Posidipp. fr. 15.3. Medicinally mussels had similar properties to oysters and sea-nettles: Diocles of Carystus notes their efficacy as a diuretic and promoting bowel movements (Ath. 3.86b–c, quoted above under ὄστρει’), as does Diphilus of Siphnos at Ath. 3.90d οἱ δὲ μύες … διαχωρητικοί, οὐρητικοί, ‘mussels … promote bowel movements, promote urination’ (cf. also Heraclides of Tarentum fr. 69 Guardasole ap. Ath. 3.120b–d; Oribas. Coll. Med. 2.58.90). See further Keller 1913. 547–9; Thompson 1947. 166–7; Davidson 1981. 198; Campbell 1982. 160, with illustration. λεπάδας ‘Limpets’ (Patella vulgata, L.), a univalve shellfish typically found clinging to rocks around the shoreline. For the latter trait it was proverbial (e. g. Ar. V. 105 ὥσπερ λεπὰς προσεχόμενος τῷ κίονι, ‘clinging to the pillar like a limpet’ Pl. 1095–6 τὸ γρᾴδιον / ὥσπερ λεπὰς τῷ μειρακίῳ προσείχετο, ‘the old woman clung to the youth like a limpet’). Hermipp. fr. 31 suggests their shells might be used as castanets: λεπάδας δὲ πετρῶν ἀποκόπτοντες κρεμβαλιάζουσι, ‘knocking limpets from rocks they use them as castanets’. For limpets mentioned in lists of seafood, see Epich. frr. 40.2, 114; Archipp. fr. 24; Plaut. Rud. 297; Cas. 493; and

102

Philippides

cf. Speusippus in Ath. 3.86d. Hikesios, a student of the physician Erasistratos (ca. 315–240 BCE), notes among their medicinal properties that they are ‘easy to excrete’ (Ath. 3.87b–c) τὰς δὲ λεπάδας ὁ Ἱκέσιος … εὐεκκρίτους μᾶλλον εἶναι, ‘Hikesios (says) that limpets are easier to excrete’. See also Arist. HA 528b1; Thompson 1947. 147–8; cf. Campbell 1982. 128. παρέθηκέ μοι ‘Served me’, ‘set beside me’, the standard term for serving dishes, found as early as Homer (e. g. Il. 11.779; Od. 1.139, 14.76). It is to be distinguished from the verb παραφέρειν which is used of entrées, snacks, or drinks carried around and offered to the diners by servants (cf. Neil 1901 on Ar. Eq. 1215; Ar. fr. 482 τί οὐκ ἐκέλευσας παραφέρειν τὰ ποτήρια; see also Ath. 3.101b and esp. 9.380d–e). In the context of sophisticated banquets, one might naturally expect the subject of the verb in the active voice to denote the servant who physically delivers the food (so e. g. Alex. fr. 129.14–15; Pl. Smp. 175b6; cf. Ar. Eq. 1205 which distinguishes the ‘server’, τοῦ παραθέντος, from the person who cooks the meat). However other subjects we find with the verb include the host of the banquet, even though he does not serve the dishes himself (e. g. Ar. Ach. 85–6; Antiph. fr. 61.1, probably fr. 172.6; Alex. fr. 260.1); while by far the most common subject of the verb, especially in Middle and New Comedy, is the cook (e. g. Epich. fr. 158.4 with Dohm 1964. 24; Antiph. fr. 170.8; Alex. fr. 177.5; Dionys.Com. fr. 2.40; Diph. fr. 90.1; Anaxipp. fr. 1.33, 38, 45; Lync. fr. 1.5, 18, 21; Euphro frr. 8.2, 10.5; Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1.17; etc.; cf. Matro fr. 1.81–2; Archestr. fr. 13.4). Any of these agents then – host, cook, or slave – could be the subject of the verb.

103

Ἀνανεοῦσα (Ananeousa) or Ἀνανεώσις (Ananeōsis) (‘She who Renews’ or ‘Rejuvenation’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 472–3; Meineke 1841. 468–9; Kock 1888. 302–3; Legrand 1917. 157, 202; Webster 1952. 21; Edmonds 1961. 168–71; Gallo 1984. 234–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 337–9. Title There are no exact comic parallels for both titles given above, although Philemon’s Ananeoumenē comes very close. The exact form of the title is not secure. Manuscript A of Athenaeus at 9.384e (= fr. 5) and 6.262a (= fr. 8) preserves the form Ἀνανεώσις (‘Rejuvenation’), which is favoured by Meineke (1839. 472–3). Stobaeus, however, preserves the participial form Ἀνανεοῦσα (‘She who Renews’ or ‘Rejuvenatrix’) at 4.22.33 (= fr. 6) and 3.1.9 (= fr. 7); and so too the Antiatticist (with a slight corruption: Ἀνανε[υ]ούσῃ, ψ 5 = fr. 8). But the participial form, although attested across multiple sources, is problematic. The active form of the verb with the meaning ‘renew, revive’ is extremely rare, and is found only in late sources (epigraphical examples from the 2nd c. BCE at SEG 37.515b.11 and Philae 12bis.10–11). In the fourth century the meaning ‘renew’ followed by an accusative object was conveyed by the middle form ἀνανεοῦμαι (see LSJ s. v., the middle implying personal benefit rather than reflexive). Indeed our only comic parallel for this title – Philemon’s Ἀνανεουμένη – uses precisely the expected middle form (pace Meineke 1839. 473 who apparently takes the verb as passive or middlereflexive and assumes Philemon’s play treated of an old woman experiencing rejuvenation: ‘de vetula repuerascente’). The unusual active form of the participle Ἀνανεοῦσα, whether used as a descriptive epithet (‘She who Renews’) or perhaps as a proper name, therefore remains doubtful. The alternative title Ἀνανεώσις (‘Rejuvenation’) may be correct. Rejuvenation is a commonplace theme in Greek myth and comedy. Its popularity can be understood against the pervasive cultural view in Ancient Greece of old age (γῆρας) as a terrible evil, while its antithesis youth (ἥβη) marked the prime of life. Pejorative representations of old age occur as early as Hes. Th. 225 (Γῆράς τ’ οὐλόμενον, ‘destructive Old Age’, for the epithet see also Thgn. 272, 527, 768, etc.), while in Homer old age is regularly described as ‘sorrowful/mournful’ (γήραϊ λυγρῷ, Il. 5.153, 10.79, 18.434; Od. 24.250–1). Among the lyric poets Solon ranks ‘evil old age’ (IEG fr. 24.10 κακὸν γῆρας) alongside disease and death, while others regularly lament the troubles and frailties of old age, e. g. Sapph. fr. 58 Lobel-Page (= POxy. 1787 + the recently discovered PKöln 21351 and 21376); Mimn. frr. 1.5–10 and fr. 5.5–8 (for tragedy see esp. E. HF 637–54 and S. OC 1235–8; also Gilleard 2007). Youth (ἥβη), by contrast, is commonly praised as ‘most charming/delightful’ (χαριεστάτη ἥβη, Hom. Il. 24.348; Od. 10.279; Anacr. PMG 395.3) and ‘much-loved’ (ἥβη πολυήρατος, Hom. Od. 15.366; Hes. frr. 30.31, 205.2 Merkelbach-West; cf. Simon. IEG fr. 20.5). One of our earliest-known passages which mentions rejuvenation in Greek myth depicts youth as one of the

104

Philippides

highest goods when the elderly Phoenix states he would give up even a second youth to stay at Achilles’ side (Hom. Il. 9.446–7 οὐδ’ εἴ κέν μοι ὑποσταίη θεὸς αὐτὸς / γῆρας ἀποξύσας θήσειν νέον ἡβώοντα, ‘not even if a god himself should promise to strip off my old age and make me a new person in his youth’). In myth our most famous ‘rejuvenatrix’ is Medea. She is said to have restored Jason’s father Aeson to youth through her magic potions (e. g. Nostoi, PEG fr. 7 αὐτίκα δ’ Αἴσονα θῆκε φίλον κόρον ἡβώοντα / γῆρας ἀποξύσασα ἰδυίηισι πραπίδεσσι, / φάρμακα πόλλ’ ἕψουσ’ ἐνὶ χρυσείοισι λέβησιν, ‘at once she made dear Aeson a boy in his youth, stripping off old age with her clever wits, boiling many potions in her golden cauldrons’; see also Ov. Met. 7.159–293; West 2013. 274–5), while both Pherecydes (FGrH 3 F 113a) and Simonides (PMG 548 = fr. 270 Poltera) preserve a tradition in which Medea rejuvenated Jason himself by boiling him (Arg. E. Med. [a] Diggle). Medea also rejuvenates the nurses of Dionysus by boiling, along with their husbands, in Aeschylus’ tragedy Dionysou trophoi or Trophoi (Arg. E. Med. [a] 18–20 Diggle = A. fr. 246a; ΣVEΓΘM Ar. Eq. 1321a; Ov. Met. 7.294–6). More notoriously, Medea deceived the daughters of Pelias wishing to rejuvenate their father, first cutting up a ram and boiling it with magic herbs by way of demonstration, only for them to do the same resulting in the king’s death (Apollod. 1.9.27; D.S. 4.51.4–4.52.5; Paus. 8.11.2–3; Plaut. Pseud. 869–72; Cic. Cato 83; Ov. Met. 7.297–349; Hyg. Fab. 24; cf. Pi. P. 4.250; E. Med. 9–10; LIMC 7.1 s. v. ‘Pelias’ 10–12, 16c, 18–19, 21, 23; cf. also the tragedies titled Peliades by Euripides and Aphareus). In comedy rejuvenation can take either a physical or a ‘spiritual’ form. Our only extant example in comedy where a character undergoes physical rejuvenation is in the Knights of Aristophanes. There the Sausage Seller, as he tells us, rejuvenates Demos to his former youth and beauty through the magical process of boiling (Eq. 1321 τὸν Δῆμον ἀφεψήσας ὑμῖν καλὸν ἐξ αἰσχροῦ πεποίηκα, ‘after boiling Demos I have turned him from ugly/base into handsome/noble’). We also have numerous comic titles from the late fifth and early fourth centuries that treat the mythical character of Medea. But it is far from certain whether any explored the theme of physical rejuvenation (cf. the Mēdeia plays attributed to Epicharmus, Dinolochus, Cantharus, Strattis, Antiphanes and Eubulus; while a Peliades is attributed to Diphilus). Internal or ‘spiritual’ rejuvenation is far more common in comedy. Apart from some isolated passages involving, for example, ‘bacchic’ rejuvenation (e. g. Ar. Ra. 345–8, cf. E. Ba. 184–94) or reinvigoration of one’s former fighting spirit (Ar. Lys. 669–70), comedy often follows the absurd consequences of rejuvenated old men pursuing the habits and follies of youth (cf. the proverbial idea of old age as a second childhood at e. g. Cratin. fr. 28; Ar. Nu. 1417; Theopomp.Com. fr. 70; in tragedy see S. fr. 487.3). Two Aristophanic comedies which feature this theme are Wasps and probably the fragmentary Gēras (‘Old Age’). Both comedies present rejuvenated old men displaying the worst excesses of youth. Philocleon’s rejuvenation in Wasps (see lines 1354–63) is marked by drunk and disorderly behaviour

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 4)

105

(1299–1325), the theft of a pipe-girl from a symposium (1341–87), stealing bread from a breadseller (1390–1), and committing assault (1417–18). Aristophanes’ Gēras, we are told, featured old men who ‘cast off ’ their age (Ath. 3.109f τῶν τὸ γῆρας ἀποβαλλόντων). In one fragment they tease and snatch bread from a breadseller (fr. 129; Süvern 1836. 155–6); in another we hear of a banquet of delicacies which may suggest the soft living and moral degeneration associated with the younger generation (fr. 128; Süvern 1836. 180–1); elsewhere a character, perhaps one of the old men, over-indulges in wine (fr. 135; Süvern 1836. 179); while other passages may reference a prostitute or brothel (frr. 137 and 148; Süvern 1836. 157–9). Sexual reinvigoration is an apparent side-effect of rejuvenation in both comedies (Ar. V. 1299–1325, 1341–87 and frr. 144 and 146–8 from Gēras. Cf. also Ar. fr. 29 for an apparent attempt to revive an elderly husband’s sexual potency). In both comedies, rejuvenation has unexpected and absurd consequences, with old men exchanging the physical frailties and unpleasant effects of old age for the recklessness and insolence of youth. Content The cast of characters include an old (?) man named Pheidylos either about to marry or already married (see on fr. 6 for the ambiguity of the verb ἔλεγον), and his misogynist friend (fr. 6). Other characters may include a parasite (cf. fr. 8) and perhaps the bride of Pheidylos. The courtesan Gnathaina (fr. 5) is also mentioned. However, we have no direct evidence she is among the dramatis personae since she is only mentioned second-hand by an unidentified character reporting a dinner party. In terms of plot, Kock suggested the play had a fantasy theme featuring a female character who claimed she could restore ‘the bloom of life’ to humans with magic, just like Medea (1888. 302 ‘mulier quae Medeae instar magicis opinor artibus humanis corporibus florem aetatis reddere se posse profitebatur’). Kock, however, was working on the basis that the title is Ἀνανεοῦσα, which is far from certain (although see further below for potential similarities with Philemon’s Ananeoumenē which may certainly have featured such a figure). Magical themes are otherwise quite rare in comedy, although see Ar. fr. 29; Aristomenes’ Goētes ‘Sorcerers’; Diph. fr. 125; Menander’s Thettalē ap. Plin. HN 30.7; Men. fr. 794; Plaut. Cist. 290; Le Grand 1917. 157, 202. The other attested title Ἀνανεώσις opens up more possibilities, whether that included a rejuvenatrix, or indeed ‘Rejuvenation’ herself as a personification: cf. similar comic titles ending in –σις, such as the Nemesis plays by Cratinus and Menander, Iasis by Alexis, and perhaps Antiphanes’ Poiēsis. For abstract personifications in Old Comedy, see e. g. Εἰρήνη ‘Peace’, Ὀπώρα ‘Harvest’ and Θεωρία ‘Holiday’ at Ar. Pax 520–3, as well as Διαλλαγή ‘Reconciliation’ at Ar. Lys. 1114 (see also Smith 2011; Komornicka 2013). The theme of rejuvenation, typically in comedy, usually involves the restoration of youthful spirits in an elderly man (see under ‘Title’). From the evidence of fr. 6, the marriage between Pheidylos,

106

Philippides

apparently an old miser (see fr. 6.2 on Φειδύλε), and his unnamed bride (probably much younger), may provide the motivation for the play’s title.78 One final point of interest is the possibility that Philippides or Philemon has revised (i. e. plagiarised) a play produced earlier by the other. There are two striking parallels between Philemon’s Ἀνανεουμένη and Philippides’ Ἀνανεοῦσα/ Ἀνανεώσις which raise suspicions of borrowing, especially considering their rarity. First is the obvious similarity between the titles of both comedies, a root form that is only found in our two playwrights. Second is the similarity of the rare words ψωμοκολακεύων in our comedy by Philippides (fr. 8) and ψωμοκόλαξ in Philemon’s Ἀνανεουμένη (fr. 7). While compound forms of ψωμός and κόλαξ appear in Old Comedy (Ar. fr. 172 and Sannyr. fr. 11), they only re-emerge much later in New Comedy in the two ‘rejuvenation’ plays of Philemon and Philippides. Revisions of dramas (διασκευαί) are usually associated with individual authors who revise their own plays for a later production (e. g. Euripides’ Hippolytos, Epicharmus’ Wedding of Hebe/Muses, or Aristophanes’ Clouds). But the phenomenon also refers to authors who, to a greater or lesser extent, borrow plot ideas and other elements from each other. This can involve contemporaries (e. g. Phrynichus’ Phoenician Women and Aeschylus’ Persians; cf. also Neophron and Euripides’ Medea) or later writers borrowing from their predecessors, such as Menander’s recycling of Antiphanes (Eus. PE 10.3.12–13 = Men. test. 76, 81), Philemon’s recycling of Araros (Clem.Al. Strom. 6.26.6 = Philem. Hypobolimaios test. p. 272; cf. Proleg. de com. XXVIII.6 Koster = Philem. test. 32); as well as adaptations of Greek New Comedy plays by Roman poets such as Plautus, Terence and others (on διασκευαί see e. g. Meineke 1839. 31–2; Nervegna 2013. 90–3). We may have the same phenomenon here. If so, Philemon’s play may shed light on Philippides’ play insofar as it evidently featured a female figure who brings about rejuvenation (Ἀνανεουμένη, ‘She who Renews’, see under ‘Title’). Date Unknown. Webster (1952. 21) suggested a date of ca. 350–330 BCE based on the reference to Gnathaina (fr. 5) and on the assumption that a reference to Plato’s Good (fr. 6) could only have been made very soon after the philosopher’s death. But this date is far too early. On the dates for Gnathaina (perhaps born ca. 340) see note on fr. 5.3; and for the quasi-proverbial ‘Good’ of Plato see on fr. 6.2 (also Gallo 1984. 234–5). The most that we can say about the date, based on Gnathaina’s probable floruit and Philippides’ absence from Athens in the early third century, is that it was perhaps produced around the last decade of the fourth century. 78

Marriage is associated with rejuvenation in Aristophanes’ Peace where Trygaeus is rejuvenated by his marriage to ‘Harvest’ (Ὀπώρα) at Ar. Pax 842–67, esp. 860–1 ζηλωτὸς ἔσει γέρων, / αὖθις νέος ὢν πάλιν, ‘you will be an envied old man, being young once again’ (cf. also the myth of Heracles who conquers old age and becomes immortal by marrying Hebe ‘Youth’).

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 5)

107

fr. 5 K.-A. (5 K.)

5

ἔπειτ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσιν ἧκ’ ὄρχεις φέρων πολλούς. τὰ μὲν οὖν γύναια τἄλλ’ ἠκκίζετο, ἡ δ’ ἀνδροφόνος Γνάθαινα γελάσασα 〈 k l⟩ “καλοί γε,” φησίν, “οἱ νεφροί, νὴ τὴν φίλην Δήμητρα.” καὶ δύ’ ἁρπάσασα κατέπιεν, ὥσθ’ ὑπτίους ὑπὸ τοῦ γέλωτος καταπεσεῖν

1 πᾶσιν om. Ath.CE 2 ἠκκίζετο Ath.CE : ἀκκίζετο Ath.A, superscr. η 3 γελάσασα Ath.ACE : γελάσασ’ ἡδέως Porson : γελάσασ’ ἠρέμα Palmer : ἀναγελάσασ’, “ἄγαν Jacobs : ἀναγελάσασα δὴ Meineke : ἀναγελάσασ’ ἅμα Meineke 4–5 νὴ τὴν φίλην Δήμητρα om. Ath.CE

5

Next, on top of all this he came bringing testicles, lots of them. The other girls were feigning ignorance, but man-slaying Gnathaina, laughing 〈 …⟩ , said ‘kidneys are lovely indeed, by dear Demeter!’ And snatching up two she gulped them down, so that they (we) fell on their (our) backs with laughter.

Ath. 9.384e (ACE) καὶ ὄρχεις ἤσθιον, οὓς καὶ νεφροὺς ἐκάλουν· Φιλιππίδης ἐν τῇ Ἀνανεώσει (A, om. CE) Γναθαίνης τῆς ἑταίρας τὸ γαστρίμαργον ἐμφανίζων λέγει· — And they used to eat testicles, which they also called kidneys. Philippides in the Ananeōsis, pointing out the gluttony of the hetaira Gnathaina, says: — Eust. Il. 4.486.9–14 δοκοῦσι γὰρ ἀστείως καὶ οἱ ὄρχεις νεφροὶ κληθῆναι παρὰ τῷ εἰπόντι τὸ “ἧ κ ε ν ὄ ρ χ ε ι ς φ έ ρ ω ν π ο λ λ ο ύ ς ”, κ α ὶ ἡ Γ ν ά θ α ι ν α τ ῶ ν ἄ λ λ ω ν γ υ ν α ί ω ν ἀ κ κ ι ζ ο μ έ ν ω ν “ κ α λ ο ί γ ε ” ε ἶ π ε ν “ ο ἱ ν ε φ ρ ο ί ”, “ κ α ὶ δ ύ ο ἁ ρ π ά σ α σ α κ α τ έ π ι ε ν , ὥ σ θ ’ ὑ π τ ί ο υ ς ὑ π ὸ τ ο ῦ γ έ λ ω τ ο ς κ α τ α π ε σ ε ῖ ν”. δῆλον οὖν ἐν τούτοις ὅτι οὐ κυριολεκτικῶς ἡ Γνάθαινα ἐλάλησεν, ἀλλ’ ἐσεμνολόγησεν εὐφημότερον τοὺς ὄρχεις ὡς νεφροὺς διὰ τὰς αἰδουμένας γυναῖκας. For testicles also appear jestingly to have been called kidneys by the one who said: ‘h e c a m e b r i n g i n g m a n y t e s t i c l e s ’, a n d G n a t h a i n a , s i n c e t h e other girls were feigning ignorance, said: ‘kidneys are lovely indeed! And snatching up two she gulped them down, so that t h e y f e l l o n t h e i r b a c k s w i t h l a u g h t e r’. It is clear in these lines that Gnathaina did not speak in the literal sense, but in a solemn tone spoke of the testicles rather euphemistically as kidneys on account of the women’s modesty.

Metre Iambic trimeters. For the split anapaest in line 3 at the hephthemimeral caesura, see on ‘Text’ below.

108

Philippides

5

k l l k l l

l l l l l l

r l r l r l k l k l k l

l | l k | l l l k l k l k | l l l k l k l k|k l k a 〈 k l⟩ k | l k l l l k l k | l k l k r k l r | l k l l r k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 468; Kock 1888. 302; Le Grand 1917. 25; Edmonds 1961. 168–70; Gow 1965. 8–9; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 337–8; Fontaine 2010. 209; Rusten 2011. 679. Citation context The fragment is cited by Athenaeus of Naukratis (see on fr. 4) 9.384e in a section discussing various meats eaten at banquets. It is also mentioned by Eustathius (12th c. CE), archbishop of Thessalonica, in his commentary on Homer’s Iliad (4.486.9–14) when discussing the word ἐπινεφρίδιον (‘kidney fat’) at Il. 21.204. Text The end of line 3 is corrupt. Manuscripts ACE of Athenaeus preserve γελάσασα which leaves the line metrically incomplete. Some editors try to emend away the split anapaest in the fourth foot (-νᾰ γ λᾱσ-) by reading ἀναγελάσασ(α). But for a fourth foot anapaest elsewhere where dissyllabic arsis is divided by hephthemimeral caesura, see Ar. Av. 1624; Philippid. fr. 25.6; West 1982. 90; and see White 1912. 47 §121.iii who notes many more examples which have been emended away in Aristophanes, although in some cases the emendation (e. g. removal of ephelcystic nu from verbs and nouns ending in -σι) appears justified, e. g. Eq. 208; Nu. 62; V. 1369; Pax 187, 415; Av. 40 (see esp. Dunbar 1995. 149 ad loc.), 1495; Ra. 1220; Ec. 167, 428. Among the solutions for the lacuna at the end of the line, several adverbs and particles have been suggested. Jacobs (1809. 204) first proposed ἀναγελάσασ’, “ἄγαν. Meineke followed suit proposing ἀναγελάσασα δὴ and ἀναγελάσασ’ ἅμα. However a far simpler and more attractive proposal was made by Porson (1812. 112) who suggests γελάσασ’ 〈 ἡδέως⟩ (cf. Palmer’s γελάσασ’ ἠρέμα, ‘laughing softly’, 1889. 25). Porson’s suggestion has been largely overlooked (although Meineke 1841. 468 at least acknowledges it in his apparatus to the text), yet it has superior parallels and contributes to the stylistic tone of the passage. This combination of verb and adverb occurs many times in Greek literature, e. g. S. fr. 171.3; E. Tr. 406; Ar. Ec. 1156; Theoc. 7.42, 128; Luc. Dem.Enc. 44.2; Nav. 46.28; Ath. 3.99e; Longus 3.22.4.2, 4.18.1.1; cf. IG II2 3101.1 and IG II2 11387.3 ἡδυγέλωτι, but especially so in Homer, and so would suit the Homeric undercurrent in this passage (see ‘Interpretation’ below). Cf. the set phrase ἡδὺ γελάσσας / ἡδὺ γέλασσαν at Hom. Il. 2.270; 11.378; 21.508; 23.784; Od. 20.358; 21.376; and cf. ἡδὺ δ’ ἄρ’ ἐκγελάσας at Od. 16.354; 18.35 (on the combination see Halliwell 2008. 67–8 with n. 41). Attic dialect prefers the adverbial form ἡδέως to the adverbial neuter adjective ἡδύ (so e. g. Ar. Ec. 1156 τοῖς γελῶσι δ’ ἡδέως). This would also be in keeping with

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 5)

109

Philippides’ Homeric adaptations in this fragment where he imitates epic style but maintains Attic forms (and comic trimeters) throughout (cf. esp. on καταπεσεῖν below, line 6). Interpretation An unidentified character, perhaps a fellow guest (?), reports a lavish feast attended, or even hosted, by the hetaira Gnathaina. The opening phrase (ἔπειτ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσιν, ‘then, in addition to all these things’) is formulaic, usually found at the end of a list of items, giving emphasis to the last item mentioned (see e. g. Antiph. fr. 81.4 ἔπειτ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσι, where a slave is ordered to pour countless ladles of wine, followed by an even stronger one ‘in addition to all these’; and Sosip. fr. 1.18 ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις, where the speaker lists various scientific contributions to the art of cooking by Sikon, before adding lessons in military strategy ‘in addition to all these’). A list of food items would therefore appear to have immediately preceded our fragment (cf. Philippid. frr. 4, 20 and 34 for such lists). The party was attended by women, among them the hetaira Gnathaina. The other women were presumably hetairai also, to judge from the contemptuous name used to describe them (line 2: γύναια) and the fact that married women did not ordinarily attend such parties. We might note that the verb ἠκκίζετο (line 2) is also regularly used to describe the feigned modesty of hetairai (see note ad loc.). The setting of the feast could have been at the household of one of these women, if not that of Gnathaina herself. Gnathaina might even be conceived here as a mastropos figure setting up liaisons for the other girls by hosting the party (cf. Alex. fr. 103.3–4). Hetairai hosting parties is commonly mentioned in our sources (cf. e. g. on Adōniazousai), and we find several references to Gnathaina herself in this capacity: e. g. Macho fr. 16.258 (ap. Ath. 13.579e Gnathaina hosting Diphilus); Macho fr. 16.262–84 (ap. Ath. 13.579e–80a Gnathaina hosting a magnificent dinner for the Aphrodisia); Lynceus fr. 24 Dalby (ap. Ath. 13.584d Gnathaina hosting men to dinner); and Lynceus fr. 24 Dalby (ap. Ath. 13.584e Gnathaina welcoming the parasite Chaerephon who comes uninvited). For other hetairai hosting parties see also Macho fr. 16.295–9 (ap. Ath. 13.580b–c Dexithea hosting Gnathaina); Macho fr. 15.252 (ap. Ath. 13.579d Mania hosting a drinking party); and Plu. Demetr. 11.3 (‘Phylakion’ apparently hosting Stratocles, quoted below under Philippid. fr. 26). On the homes of hetairai, see further Davidson 1997. 104–5. Apart from the person serving the dishes (φέρων), it is uncertain if other males are present (the masculine form ὑπτίους at line 6 may be generic). However, the feigned modesty and coyness of the women (ἠκκίζετο) strongly implies men were present as well. The fragment reports a joke Gnathaina made which spectacularly breaks the ice at the party. Her laughter at line 3 (γελάσασα) suggests she is fully aware of the joke she is about to make, as one would expect of a courtesan otherwise known for her quick wit, rather than stumbling innocently into a faux pas at which the others laugh. Here she affects ignorance of the identity of a dish of testicles, making not only a joke about her own gluttony (see note on Γνάθαινα

110

Philippides

below), but also an ironic joke on her professional (i. e. sexual) appetite and reputation. Gnathaina’s laugh and gorging of dishes is at distinct odds with what was considered polite behaviour for courtesans at dinner. We find recommended behaviour in Lucian (DMeretr. 6.3) where a mother instructs her daughter prior to embarking on a career as an hetaira to ‘smile sweetly’ (μειδιῶσα ἡδύ) when in company rather than ‘cackle’ (καγχαρίζειν), and to eat daintily rather than overfill herself (ὑπερεμφορεῖται) or stuff food into her mouth (οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέρας παραβύεται τὰς γνάθους). Cf. also Eub. fr. 41 (an hetaira with good manners, like the girls from Miletus, who does not stuff her mouth with leeks and gnaw meat like others), and Antiph. fr. 210 (a well-behaved hetaira more generally, unlike others who give the profession a bad name). In contrast to the low comic humour, the fragment is otherwise stylistically complex with quasi-Homeric undertones throughout. Not only do we have the Homeric epithet ἀνδροφόνος at line 3, but we also have a striking frequency of enjambement at lines 2 and 5 – apparently meant to suggest Homeric style (on Homeric enjambement, see Parry 1929; Higbie 1990; Graziosi 2001), as well as other Homeric expressions at line 6 (ὑπτίους … καταπεσεῖν) and perhaps line 3 (γελάσασ’ 〈 ἡδέως⟩ ). The Homeric imagery may even underscore the idea of the dinner party as a ‘battle’ between diners. For such imagery within dining contexts, see e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 34.7 ὠθισμός … δακτύλων, ‘shoving of fingers’ (with Millis 2015 ad loc.); Mnesim. fr. 7 passim οἶσθ’ ὁτιὴ πρὸς ἄνδρας ἐστί σοι μάχη, ‘do you know that you have a battle against men’; Posidipp. fr. 29; Plaut. Persa 112 sed quid cessamus proelium committere? ‘but why do we hesitate to commence battle?’; cf. also Matro fr. 1.7, 28–32, 46, 97; Archestr. fr. 4. Kassel and Austin (1989 VII. 337) note the similarity of this fragment to many of the anecdotes in the Chreiai of Machon, a work in which he collected witty sayings by famous courtesans (many probably based on passages in Middle and New Comedy), including several anecdotes about Gnathaina (see Macho fr. 17). 1 ἧκ’… φέρων The subject here is probably a servant, but it could also be, indirectly, the dinner host or even the cook himself (see on παρέθηκέ μοι at fr. 4). For a cook described as ‘bringing’ (φέρων) dishes to the diners, see the similarly phrased ἦλθε φέρων at Matro fr. 1.25 (see also Matro fr. 1.73, 81–2, 97). ὄρχεις The vox propria for testicles (Henderson 1991. 124 §73). Testicles are mentioned as a culinary dish in the Art of Cooking of Epainetos (ca. 1st c. BCE), although they appear there under the euphemistic name παραστάται, i. e. ‘comrades’ (see Ath. 9.395f; for the euphemism see Pl.Com. fr. 188.13 with Pirrotta 2009. 348–9); see also the dishes served at Petr. Sat. 35. A ram’s testicles (κριοῦ τ’ ὄρχεις) are served at the banquet described at Eub. fr. 63.4 alongside other meats, including tuna, pork and beef, and therefore one of the main dishes of a banquet rather than an entrée or after-dinner snack (see on fr. 20). Whether rams’ testicles are served here is not stated; however those of other animals (bull or goat?) are possible. Rams’ testicles would have been considerably large and difficult to swal-

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 5)

111

low in the manner attributed here to Gnathaina, although this in itself may have been part of the humour. 2 γύναια A derogatory substitute for αἱ γυναῖκες. The neuter may even mildly bestialise the women as females of any species (cf. Germ. ‘Weiber’). The word is frequently used pejoratively in the sense of being excessively ‘womanish’ and subject to the faults and weaknesses with which women were commonly associated (so here translated as ‘girls’): see And. 1.130, etc.; D. 25.57; Men. Dysc. 568; cf. Arist. EN 1171b10. It is only used as a substitute for γυνή much later. ἠκκίζετο ‘Were feigning ignorance’. The verb is formed from the Proper Name Ἀκκώ (cf. Hermipp. fr. 6 and the eponymous comedy by Amphis, for which see Papachrysostomou 2016. 30–1; see also Beekes 2009. 52 s. v. ἀκκώ) and originally meant ‘to act like Akko’, i. e. to be foolish, so Σ Pl. Grg. 497a τὸ ἀκκίζεσθαι ἐκ γυναικὸς εἰρῆσθαί φασιν Ἀκκοῦς καλουμένης, ἣν οὕτως εὐήθη λέγουσιν ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱστοῦ θοἰμάτιον καθελομένην ἡμίεργον ἀμφιέσασθαι, εἴς τε τὸ κάτοπτρον βλέπουσαν πρὸς τὴν παρ’ αὐτῆς ἔμφασιν εἰς αὐτὸ γιγνομένην ὡς ἑτέρᾳ προσλαλεῖν γυναικί, ‘they claim the verb akkizesthai is named after a woman called Akko who they say was so simple-minded that taking her himation down from the loom half-finished she dressed herself, and looking into the mirror at her own reflection produced in it she began chatting as if to another woman’. See also Diogenian. Paroem. Cent. 2.4.1 ἀκκίζεσθαι· Ἀκκὼ γυνή τις ἐπὶ μωρίᾳ διαβαλλομένη, ἥτις ἐσοπτριζομένη τῇ οἰκείᾳ σκιᾷ ὡς ἑτέρᾳ διελέγετο, ‘akkizesthai: a woman Akko slandered for foolishness, who looking in the mirror began conversing with her own reflection as though with another woman’; Et.Gud. α p. 66, 6 ἀκκίζεσθαι· τὸ μωραίνειν· ἀπὸ Ἀκκοῦς τινος, ‘akkizesthai: to act foolishly, after a certain Akko’. The verb, however, also came to mean ‘to affect ignorance’, or ‘to pretend not to know something’, so Pl. Grg. 497a with Σ ἀκκίζει οὖν φησὶν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνοηταίνεις οἷα γυνή, μὴ εἰδέναι προσποιούμενος, ‘he says “you are acting like Akko” instead of “you are acting foolish like a woman”, by pretending not to know’; EM p. 49, 3 ἀκκίζεσθαι· τὸ μωραίνειν ἢ προσποιεῖσθαι εὐήθειαν, ‘akkizesthai: to be foolish or feign simplicity’. The further meaning ‘to act coy’, ‘to be prudish’, ‘to feign modesty’ is also implied and can be felt in the present passage. See Phot. α 755 ἀκκιζόμενος· θρυπτόμενος, προσποιούμενος, γυναικιζόμενος, ‘akkizomenos: acting prudishly, pretending, being womanish’; Suda α 878 ἀκκιζόμενος· προσποιούμενος, γυναικιζόμενος, ἢ μωραίνων, ἀπό τινος γυναικὸς μωρᾶς, ἥτις ἐκαλεῖτο Ἀκκώ, ‘akkizomenos: pretending, being womanish, or acting foolishly, from a certain foolish woman who was called Akko’. The verb, therefore, is regularly associated with prostitutes (as here), especially in Alciphron in contexts where they affect innocence and modesty as a strategy to make themselves more desirable to potential lovers: so Alciphr. 3.5.2 (the courtesan Klymene acting coy towards a man in love with her, and thereby expecting to receive more gifts from him); 4.13.15 (a courtesan chewing leaves to appear coy); and 4.14.5 (the courtesan Thryallis momentarily abandoning all pretence of modesty during her callipygian contest

112

Philippides

with Myrrhine). The behaviour of these courtesans might be contrasted with the cheap brothel girl at Philem. fr. 3.14 who has no need to act coy due to the more businesslike nature of her transactions with clients. 3 ἀνδροφόνος A Homeric epithet, especially used of the warrior Hector (so Il. 1.242, 6.498, 9.351, 16.77, 17.428, etc.), but also of Achilles’ hands (Il. 18.317, 23.18, etc.), and elsewhere Ares (Il. 4.441) and Lycurgus (Il. 6.134). In comedy the word appears at Amphis fr. 30.8 (of fish-sellers); Euphro fr. 9.10 (of a cook); Men. Dysc. 481 (of wild beasts – a metaphor by Knemon for uninvited visitors who disturb his peace); while Philemon and Baton both wrote comedies by this title. Euphro fr. 9.10 applies the adjective to a cook who takes advantage of a feast at which he is catering to eat as much free food as he can. Here, therefore, it would principally refer to Gnathaina’s gluttony (see following note) and her destructive power over a dinner host’s edible resources. In the case of a courtesan, however, it can also suggest her seductive power over men, whether devouring them sexually (for the idea that a vagina dentata joke lies behind the epithet, see Fontaine 2010. 209), or bringing them to financial ruin by draining their wealth and resources (for the destructive power of courtesans, cf. Anaxil. fr. 22). But additionally, the epithet may also allude to the cutting wit for which Gnathaina was well known, especially given the image of her ‘slaying’ the other guests with laughter (see on line 6 ὑπτίους … καταπεσεῖν below). Γνάθαινα (PAA 278790) a celebrated courtesan in Philippides’ day, apparently well educated (cf. Ath. 13.583f) and particularly renowned for her wit, many examples of which are collected in the anecdotal works of Machon and Lynceus of Samos (see Macho fr. 16 ap. Ath. 13.579e–580f; fr. 17.333–48 ap. Ath. 13.581a–b; fr. 18.433–8 ap. Ath. 13.583a; Lync. fr. 23–4 Dalby ap. Ath. 2.62c, 13.583e–f, 13.584b–e; see also Ath. 13.585a–c). There is controversy whether she is the same Gnathaina as that mentioned by the Middle Comedy poets Anaxilas (fr. 22.13) and Timocles in his Orestautokleidēs (fr. 27.2–3). In the latter drama, usually dated ca. 345 BCE, a certain Gnathaina who appears alongside other courtesans as a sleeping Fury is described as ‘old’: εὕδουσι γρᾶες, Νάννιον, Πλαγγών, Λύκα, / Γνάθαινα, ‘the old women are sleeping, Nannion, Plangon, Lyka, Gnathaina’. This is evidently an older courtesan of the same name. Similarly the Gnathainion mentioned in Eubulus’ Pornoboskos fr. 88 was much older and should not be identified with the younger Gnathaina’s homonymous daughter (PAA 278850), herself a celebrated courtesan (see Hunter 1983. 179–80; Gow 1965. 8; the date of Pornoboskos is unknown, but Eubulus was active ca. 380–335: Hunter 1983. 10). Two Gnathainas are otherwise known from contemporary Attic inscriptions: the first making a votive dedication to Artemis at Brauron in IG II2 1517.180 (dated sometime after 341/0 BCE) and so therefore conceivably the same Gnathaina mentioned by Timocles; the second making dedications to the Athenian Asklepieion in IG II2 1534.247, 294 (ca. 275 BCE), and may be the same Gnathaina mentioned here by Philippides and in the anecdotists. Our Gnathaina was also famously known as the lover of the New Comedy poet Diphilus (see Diph. test. 7–8), an exact con-

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 5)

113

temporary of Philippides, and she is also a contemporary of the courtesans Mania (PAA 639735) and Lamia (PAA 601325; see Alciphr. 4.16.2), both of whom were lovers of Demetrius Poliorcetes after he first came to Athens in 307 BCE (see on Philippid. fr. 25 ‘Interpretation’). One might therefore, like Schiassi (1951. 244), place her floruit ca. 310 BCE, although Schiassi’s proposed birth date of ca. 330 BCE appears slightly late for a courtesan with such a well-established reputation by that time. A birth date up to ten years earlier, ca. 340 BCE, might therefore be more reasonable. The name Gnathaina itself was apparently a nickname given to her rather than a birth name or self-adopted nom de guerre (cf. Macho fr. 14.208–10 ap. Ath. 13.578d–e on a lover giving ‘Mania’ her nickname). The stem γναθ- (‘jaw’ or ‘cheek’) usually suggests a parasite, e. g. Lync. fr. 26 Dalby (ap. Ath. 6.245a); cf. also the parasite ‘Gnatho’ in Terence’s Eunuchus (esp. 264), modelled on Menander’s play of the same name; and Plu. Mor. 707e Γνάθων γέγονε δεινότατος ἀνθρώπων τἀλλότρια δειπνεῖν, ‘Gnathon was the most formidable of men at dining on other people’s belongings’. It is unflattering and evidently a gentle swipe at her apparent gluttony or perhaps her larger-than-average size. Philippides no doubt plays on this sense of her name in the present fragment when making light of her voracious appetite. Elsewhere Gnathaina was known for hosting lavish dinners (see the references above under ‘Interpretation’), and was even attributed with writing a short treatise on ‘dinner regulations’ (νόμον συσσιτικόν), a copy of which was preserved in the Library at Alexandria (Ath. 13.585b; Call. fr. 433 Pf.). γελάσασα Along with its cognates (cf. γέλωτος at line 6), the verb γελάω properly refers to laughing out loud, as distinct from smiling (μειδάω). While the verb is sometimes thought to cover the phenomenon of smiling, see the detailed discussion and reassessment of the evidence in Halliwell (2008. 520–9) who shows this does not occur as often as is thought. 4 καλοί γε Rarely used to describe food, but in such contexts must refer to the flavour of the dish, i. e. ‘tasty’, ‘lovely’ (see Dover 1974. 69–70). For a similar use of the adjective in a culinary context, both with the superlative form, see Epicr. fr. 6.5 (roast pork); and Matro fr. 1.65 (gilt-head fish). νεφροί Kidneys were in all probability poor man’s fare. They are not known for their flavour, and are not mentioned elsewhere in a culinary context (the young goat’s kidney stolen by the cook at Euphro fr. 1.25 is probably not intended as a meal, but to render a sacrifice inauspicious and therefore prompt an additional offering to satisfy the cook’s gluttony). Athenaeus’ claim that ‘kidney’ was a common alternative for testicles (Ath. 9.384e ὄρχεις … οὓς καὶ νεφροὺς ἐκάλουν, ‘testicles, which they also called kidneys’) may be an inference based on this passage alone. But we have probable allusions to testicles under this term already at Ar. Ra. 475 and 1280 (see Dover 1993 ad loc.; Henderson 1991. 125 §76). 4–5 νὴ τὴν φίλην / Δήμητρα In Old Comedy oaths sworn by Demeter are only uttered by men (see Henderson 1987 on Ar. Lys. 271–4). However on the rare occasions in Middle and New Comedy and related literature when women swear

114

Philippides

by Demeter they always append the epithet τὴν φίλην (see Werres 1936. 45): so Antiph. fr. 26.2 (in relation to a brothel?); Men. Epit. 955; Macho fr. 16.293 (also uttered by Gnathaina); and Herod. 1.69. The oath is a particularly strong one, and would here give a reassuring tone to the other dinner guests, i. e. ‘they really are nice, I tell you!’ The noun and epithet of the oath are never split between lines elsewhere. We might also note that this type of enjambement, especially in Homer, where the previous line ends with an adjective and the noun is delayed until the following line, is extremely rare (see Edwards 1966. 125–30). The resulting split is therefore particularly striking and probably done for stylistic effect (cf. also πολλούς in line 2). 5 ἁρπάσασα Snatching food is regularly associated with animals (Ar. Ach. 1161: a dog; V. 837: the dog Labes), parasites (Ar. Pax 1118: the soothsayer Hierokles; Pl. 677: the priest of Asklepios), and especially gluttons (Stratt. fr. 12.1: Herakles; Euphanes fr. 1.5: the glutton Phoinikides; Anaxil. fr. 20: the glutton Maton; cf. Anaxandr. fr. 34.3; Philem. fr. 82.17; Ath. 8.342d ὑπερβολὴ γαστριμαργίας τὸ καὶ ἁρπάζειν ἐσθίοντα, ‘snatching food while eating is the height of gluttony’). Gnathaina self-consciously affects the role of glutton here, indeed to a perverse degree if ‘kidneys’ were far from the highly prized delicacies gourmandisers otherwise sought (cf. Ath. 8.342d–e on the glutton Maton in Anaxil. fr. 20 who is so excessive in his habit that he even beats the other diners to inexpensive mullet-head). Dinner parties were competitive places for gluttons, where every dish served was considered fair game for all diners. Cf. the competitive diners at Anaxandr. fr. 34 with their ‘jostling fingers’ (military metaphor at line 7, see Millis 2015 ad loc.) and scorched mouths; also Philem. fr. 82.17–18 where some diners ‘snatched’ everything while others missed out: οἱ μὲν ἥρπασάν τι γάρ, / οἱ δ’ οὐδέν, οἱ δὲ πάντα, ‘for some snatched a little, others nothing, others everything’; see also Matro fr. 1.30–2; Ath. 8.345c–d; and note the gluttonous soothsayer Hierokles at Ar. Pax 1118 who claims his right to snatch the sacrificial innards, not because he is a soothsayer, but because ‘they lie in the middle’, i. e. up for grabs, as though he were at a banquet: ἀλλ’ ἁρπάσομαι σφῷν αὐτά· κεῖται δ’ ἐν μέσῳ, ‘I’ll snatch them from you. They lie in the middle!’ (for the phrase ἐν μέσῳ see Olson 1998 ad loc.). κατέπιεν ‘Gulped down’, i. e. swallowed without chewing. The verb is used often of food within a dining context where the banqueters eat choice dishes, or where gluttons try to stuff in as much food as they can as quickly as possible, see e. g. Telecl. fr. 1.5; Pherecr. fr. 113.24; Amips. fr. 18.2; Anaxandr. fr. 34.8; Eub. fr. 8.3; Antiph. fr. 138.5. 6 ὑπτίους … καταπεσεῖν ‘Fell down backwards’. Gnathaina’s witticism has left them so convulsed with laughter that they have collapsed entirely onto their backs. More to the point, the language continues the Homeric imagery with the dinner guests described as though they had been ‘slain’ by Gnathaina’s joke. Epic heroes killed in battle are typically depicted ‘falling down’ either face first or ‘backwards’ (ὕπτιος) onto the ground, cf. Hom. Il. 11.179 πολλοὶ δὲ πρηνεῖς τε καὶ

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 6)

115

ὕπτιοι ἔκπεσον ἵππων ‘many fell face first and backwards from their horses’. Closer parallels to the expression used by Philippides can be found at Hom. Il. 4.522–3; 13.548–9; 16.289–90 ὃ δ’ ὕπτιος ἐν κονίῃσι / κάππεσεν ‘he fell down backwards in the dust’, and Il. 15.434 ὃ δ’ ὕπτιος ἐν κονίῃσι / … πέσε. For the compound form καταπίπτω used elsewhere of ‘fallen’ (i. e. slain) heroes, see Hom. Il. 5.560; 12.23; 16.311, 414. Cf. Metag. fr. 4.4 (in hexameters) for the Homeric expression ὑπὸ γούνατα … ἔλυσαν, ‘(they) slacken the knees (for a price)’ used of pipe-girls. ὑπὸ τοῦ γέλωτος The preposition ὑπό may denote accompaniment or attendant circumstances, i. e. ‘with laughter’ (see K.-G. I p. 523 §442) as suggested by Kassel and Austin who compare Ar. fr. 629 ὑπὸ γέλωτος εἰς Γέλαν ἀφίξομαι, ‘I shall arrive at Gela with laughter’. But here the idea of cause or agency can also be strongly felt (cf. Mastronarde 2002 on E. Med. 34), particularly given the quasi-passive implications of καταπεσεῖν, i. e. ‘to be thrown down/felled/slain’, in this case ‘by laughter’. fr. 6 K.-A. (6 K.) ἔλεγον ἐγώ σοι μὴ γαμεῖν, ζῆν δ’ ἡδέως. τὸ Πλάτωνος ἀγαθὸν δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦτο, Φειδύλε, μὴ λαμβάνειν γυναῖκα μηδὲ τῇ τύχῃ διὰ πλειόνων αὑτὸν παραβάλλειν πραγμάτων 1 ᾐθέῳ Kock 2 δ’ Stob.SMA Stob.SMA 4 αὐτὸν Stob.M

Φειδύλε Meineke : φείδυλε cod. Par. 1985 : φίδυλε

I kept telling you not to marry, but to live pleasantly. That’s what Plato’s Good is, Pheidylos: not taking a wife, and not exposing oneself to misfortune through more troubles. Stob. 4.22.33 (SMA) Φιλιππίδου Ἀνανεούσης· — Philippides’ Ananeousa: —

Metre Iambic trimeters. Medial caesura in line 4.

k r k l l | l k l l l k l r l k r l | l k | l k l k l l l k l k l k | l k l k l r l k l l l | r l l l k l

116

Philippides

Discussion Meineke 1841. 468–9; Kock 1888. 303; Helm 1906. 377; Fenk 1913. 46–8; Weiher 1913. 49–50; Legrand 1917. 117; Edmonds 1961. 170–1; Gaiser 1980. 11–12; Gallo 1984. 234–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 338; Arnott 1996. 259, 737; Rusten 2011. 679; Farmer 2017b. 12–13. Citation context The fragment is preserved in the early 5th c. CE Eclogae or Anthologium of Ioannes Stobaeus, a collection of literary passages selected to illustrate various ethical topics. Our fragment appears at Stob. 4.22.33 among a group of passages (4.22.28 to 4.22.66) which illustrate the theme ‘that marriage is not a good thing’ (ὅτι οὐκ ἀγαθὸν τὸ γαμεῖν). Text At line 1 Kock’s suggested emendation ζῆν δ’ ᾐθέῳ (‘to live with an unmarried youth’) is unnecessary and improbable. The manuscript reading ζῆν δ’ ἡδέως ‘to live pleasantly’ is confirmed elsewhere by similar contexts where marriage is contrasted with the pleasant life (see comm. ad loc.). At line 4 Kock (1888. 303) adopted προβάλλειν on the basis of Gaisford (1824. 19) who reports that this reading was found in manuscript A. But Hense (1909. 515) has since discredited Gaisford’s reported reading, noting that all three manuscripts are in agreement (‘παραβάλλειν etiam A, non προβ- ut opinatur Gaisford’). Interpretation The unnamed speaker of the passage is probably an elderly bachelor, so Legrand (1917. 117) and Arnott (1996. 737) who notes that warnings against marriage elsewhere are usually made by older figures (as one might naturally expect). His friend and addressee, Pheidylos, is also quite likely an older man. His name suggests a miser (see note ad loc.), a typically older character in comedy. Both characters may enter the stage in mid-conversation (see Frost 1988. 10–11). The marital status of Pheidylos himself is not exactly clear from this fragment. One way to interpret the imperfect tense ἔλεγον is to assume Pheidylos’ bachelor friend had repeatedly advised him in the past not to marry, but Pheidylos has ignored that advice and now married. However, it is also possible that Pheidylos merely expressed an intention to marry, and his friend now renews his efforts to dissuade him. Jokes about Plato’s ‘Good’ are a favourite topos in comedy, and Philippides joins the discourse by contributing another comic solution to the perennial mystery of what Plato’s ‘Good’ may have been (see note ad loc.). In this case Pheidylos’ friend defines Plato’s over-subtle metaphysical idea with a comically bathetic explanation taken from everyday life (i. e. avoiding marriage). Little else is likely intended by way of humour (cf. also Farmer 2017b. 12–13), although several scholars have sought, unconvincingly, to detect hidden philosophical allusions in the joke. For example, Fenk (1913. 46) suggests that Philippides’ negative definition of marriage may allude to Plato’s abolition of marriage among the Guardian class in the Republic by making wives common among the men (457c–d) τὰς γυναῖκας ταύτας τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων πάντων πάσας εἶναι κοινάς, ‘that these women all be shared among all these men’ (cf. Weiher 1913. 49 ‘man könnte höchstens eine Anspielung

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 6)

117

auf die in Staat 464 geforderte Aufhebung der Einzelehe darin sehen’; see Epict. fr. 15 Schenkl ap. Stob. 3.6.58; Luc. Symp. 39; cf. Ar. Ec. 614–15). Fenk (1913. 46) also suggests the joke may allude to Plato’s own life who was traditionally thought to have remained celibate, Suda π 1707 τελευτᾷ … οὐδὲ γάμον τινὰ οὐδὲ ὁμιλίαν καθάπαξ σώματος εἰς πεῖραν δεξάμενος, ‘he died … without making trial of any marriage or physical intercourse at all’. Weiher (1913. 50) argues that the speaker of our fragment may misguidedly associate Plato’s Good with the Epicurean or Cynic doctrine of the ‘community of wives’ (cf. D.L. 6.72 ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ κοινὰς εἶναι δεῖν τὰς γυναῖκας, ‘he used to say that wives ought to be shared too’; also Seneca fr. 45 = Epicur. fr. 19). Finally, but with more plausibility than the examples above, Gaiser (1980. 30 n. 23; cf. 1979. 109) makes the point that there may be an underlying joke on the ‘Good’ as ‘One’ – in other words the life of the ‘single’ bachelor, rather than that of a couple, is held to be better because it corresponds closest with the Good. Disparagement of marriage and wives is a literary commonplace going back to early poetry, cf. the misogynistic theme in Hes. Th. 590–3, 600–1; Op. 57–8, 375; Semon. fr. 7; Hippon. fr. 68; Sus. fr. 1; E. Andr. 273 and fr. 402. In comedy, especially Middle and New, it becomes a conventional joke, e. g. Epich. fr. 268; Anaxandr. fr. 53; Antiph. fr. 285; Eub. fr. 115; Alex. fr. 150, 264; Aristopho fr. 6; Philem. frr. 165, 167; Diph. fr. 114; Men. frr. 64, 119, 219, 508, 796–9, 801, 804.16; Plaut. Trin. 51–65; Ter. Ad. 43–4; see also Ath. 13.558e–60a; Stob. 4.22.28–66. The speaker’s suggestion that by marrying Pheidylos will invite ‘more’ troubles (πλειόνων) into his life would seem to invoke the pessimistic Greek view that the gods inflict enough grief on humankind, and that Pheidylos is rashly attracting more by marriage. The kind of troubles we are meant to understand are no doubt the standard charges brought against wives in misogynist literature, including adultery, alcoholism, the tendency to gossip, theft of household supplies, laziness, wastefulness, and high maintenance costs (see e. g. Semon. fr. 7 and Ar. Th. 392–4, 418–21). There may also be additional point if the elderly Pheidylos is marrying a much younger wife, a partnership which was considered especially adverse for older husbands, e. g. Thgn. 457 οὔ τοι σύμφορόν ἐστι γυνὴ νέα ἀνδρὶ γέροντι, ‘a young wife is not advantageous to an old husband’; E. fr. 317 γυναικί τ’ ἐχθρὸν χρῆμα πρεσβύτης ἀνήρ, ‘an old husband is a hateful thing to a wife’; see also E. frr. 804, 807; X. Oec. 7.5; Ar. Th. 410–13; Ec. 323–6; fr. 616; Theophil. fr. 6.1; Men. Asp. 257–60; com. adesp. fr. 738. 1 ζῆν δ’ ἡδέως This phrase and similar expressions are found elsewhere in contexts which recount the ‘pleasant life’ of the unmarried bachelor, see Alex. fr. 264.1–2 τίς δῆθ’ ὑγιαίνων νοῦν τ’ ἔχων τολμᾷ ποτε / γαμεῖν, διαπραξάμενος ἥδιον βίον; ‘who, then, being healthy and sound of mind, ever dared to marry, having passed his life quite pleasantly?’; Men. fr. 799 ὅστις πενόμενος (Bentley; γεν- Stob.MA) βούλεται ζῆν ἡδέως, / ἑτέρων γαμούντων αὐτὸς ἀπεχέσθω γάμου, ‘he who, being poor, wishes to live pleasantly, let him abstain from marriage when others marry’.

118

Philippides

2 τὸ Πλάτωνος ἀγαθόν Ancient sources as early as Aristotle report that Plato once gave a public lecture in the Piraeus titled ‘On the Good’. It was notorious for its obscurity, prompting many in the audience to leave early, and culminated in the arcane mathematical conclusion that ‘the Good is One’ (τὸ πέρας ὅτι ἀγαθόν ἐστιν ἕν, see Aristox. Harm. 2.30–1; Themist. Or. 21, 245c–d; Procl. in Phileb. p. 688, 4–18 Cousin; Riginos 1976. 124–6; Gaiser 1963. 451–5; Guthrie 1978. 424–6; Gaiser 1980, esp. 11–12). Plato was often the butt of jokes by comic poets (see esp. D.L. 3.26–8), and although he was long dead by Philippides’ time, his unpublished lecture ‘On the Good’ was still talked about and his ideas were still familiar both from his school and from his surviving writings (the Good is mentioned at Pl. Prt. 334b; Phlb. 11b, 65a; Crat. 412c; Parm. 134c; Grg. 495a–b, 499c; HippMaj. 297b; Lys. 222d; Euthyd. 281e). The incomprehensibility of Plato’s explanation of the Good became proverbial and is gleefully exploited as such by comedy (see esp. Farmer 2017b; cf. also Cratin.Jun. fr. 10 for the incomprehensibility of Plato’s doctrine on the soul). A slave in the Middle Comedy poet Amphis’ Amphikratēs mentions the elusive and impenetrable nature of Plato’s idea when advising his master not to marry, fr. 6 τὸ δ’ ἀγαθὸν ὅ τι ποτ’ ἐστίν, οὗ σὺ τυγχάνειν / μέλλεις διὰ ταύτην, ἧττον οἶδα τοῦτ’ ἐγώ, / ὦ δέσποτ’, ἢ τὸ Πλάτωνος ἀγαθόν, ‘as for the good – whatever it is – that you will get from her, I know less about this, Master, than Plato’s Good’ (see Papachrysostomou 2008. 38–42 and 2016. 49–55 with discussion). A fragment of the New Comedy poet Philemon (fr. 74), while not naming Plato explicitly but likely with his concept in mind, mentions how philosophers vainly try to discover what is good: οἱ φιλόσοφοι ζητοῦσιν, ὡς ἀκήκοα … τί ἐστιν ἀγαθόν, κοὐδὲ εἷς εὕρηκέ πω τί ἐστιν, ‘the philosophers, I have heard, seek … what is good, and not a single person has yet discovered what it is’. The New Comedy poet Baton, much like Philippides, has a character offer his own definition of the ‘Good’ at fr. 3.1–3 ἐξὸν γυναῖκ’ ἔχοντα κατακεῖσθαι καλὴν / καὶ Λεσβίου χυτρῖδε λαμβάνειν δύο· / ὁ φρόνιμός ἐστι 〈 τοῦτο,⟩ τοῦτο τἀγαθόν, ‘when it’s possible to lie down with a pretty woman and take two small pots of Lesbian wine: this is the “thoughtful man”, this is the “Good”’. Additionally Alex. fr. 98 features a speaker (a chef praising his own skill? see Arnott 1996. 258) misapplying Platonic metaphysics in an equally bathetic context by invoking the premise that the Good is the same everywhere, including food regardless of whether it is served hot or cold: κἂν μὴ παραθῶσι θερμά; (Β.) τἀγαθὸν Πλάτων / ἁπανταχοῦ φησ’ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, μανθάνεις; / τό θ’ ἡδὺ πάντως ἡδύ, κἀκεῖ κἀνθάδε, ‘and if they don’t serve it hot? (B.) Plato says that the Good is good everywhere, do you understand? The Pleasant is pleasant in any case, both there and here’. Cf. also Damox. fr. 2.63–4 and Hegesipp.Com. fr. 2 for Epicurean definitions of the ‘Good’ as ‘pleasure’. δ’ Postponement of δέ is especially common in Middle and New Comedy. Some more extreme examples can be found at Antiph. fr. 152.4 (5th word); Alex. frr. 16.3 (5th), 278.3 (6th); Men. Epit. 521 (7th); and fr. 333.3 (5th). Handley (1965. 131) suggests the phenomenon is not a metrical necessity but rather a striving for

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 6)

119

realism and colloquial effect. Here it is delayed because the first three words form a single sense unit. See further Allen 1937. 280–1; Denniston 1954. 185–9; Dover 1985. 337–8. Φειδύλε The name suggests ‘thrift’, ‘sparing’ (from φείδομαι with diminutive suffix -υλος), and therefore probably indicates that Pheidylos is a miser, a comic type stereotypically associated with old men (see on Philargyros). The name itself is extremely rare (only four cases attested in Athens in LGPN II ca. 4th c. to 2nd c. BCE, see below on the orthography), and this is our only extant occurrence of the name in comedy. But cf. Alciphron 4.2.5 where the courtesan Glykera is apprehensive Menander will mock her in one of his comedies through the mouthpiece of ‘some Chremes or Pheidylos’: δεήσει με ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ὑπὸ Χρέμητός τινος ἢ Φ〈 ε⟩ ιδύλου πικρῶς λοιδορεῖσθαι (on the text see Granholm 2012. 156). The pairing of Chremes and Pheidylos in this passage reinforces the association of the name with miserliness: cf. Antiph. fr. 189.22 where the names Chremes and Pheidon appear together (for Chremes as miser, see the character in Ter. An., Haut. and Phorm.; Hor. Epist. 1.33; Cic. Fin. 1.1.3 and Off. 1.9.30). Elsewhere the name Φείδυλος is usually written with a double lambda. A Φείδυλλος appears in the transcript of a lost fourth century Attic inscription, while Φείδυλ[λος is restored in another inscription from the same period, both possibly referring to the same person (see SEG 54.302 and IG II2 1896: LGPN II s. v. 4). Similar spelling is used for an epimelete at the Dionysia in the third century (IG II2 668.28 = IG II3 1, 920: LGPN II s. v. 1) and in our other extant examples. The alternative spelling here with single lambda, then, may be metri gratia. For variants of the name in Roman literature, see Fontaine (2010. 65). 3 λαμβάνειν ‘Receive/take (in marriage)’ (LSJ s. v. II.1.c). Potential wives are ‘given’ by their father or guardian, an offer which then must be ‘accepted’ or ‘taken’ by their prospective husbands. Cf. X. HG 4.1.14 (Agesilaos advising Otys to take Spithridates’ daughter in marriage) ἐμοὶ μὲν τοίνυν, ἔφη, δοκεῖ, ὁ Ἀγησίλαος, σὲ μέν, ὦ Σπιθριδάτα, … διδόναι Ὄτυϊ τὴν θυγατέρα, σὲ δὲ λαμβάνειν, ‘well it seems a good idea to me, said Agesilaos, that you, Spithridates, give your daughter to Otys, and that you take her’; Anaxandr. fr. 53.6; Men. Pk. 1013–14 (Πατ.) ταύτην γν[ησίων] / παίδων ἐπ’ ἀρότωι σοι δίδωμι. (Πο.)    λ[αμβάνω.], (Pat.) ‘I give you this girl for the tillage of leg[itimate] children. (Po.) I t[ake her]’; com. adesp. fr. 1000.27 ὁ νῦν με λαμβάνειν μέλλων ἀνήρ, Isoc. 10.39 ἐξὸν γὰρ αὐτοῖς λαμβάνειν … γυναῖκας. See also Men. fr. 802 which playfully reverses the terminology in the case of the poor man who does not ‘take’ a wife but rather ‘gives’ himself to her: ὅταν πένης ὢν καὶ γαμεῖν τις ἑλόμενος / τὰ μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐπιδέχηται χρήματα, / αὑτὸν δίδωσιν, οὐκ ἐκείνην λαμβάνει, ‘whenever someone who is poor and who chooses to marry receives a dowry with his wife, he gives himself, he does not take her’. τῇ τύχῃ Dative with παραβάλλειν (cf. Ar. Pl. 243 quoted below). The concept of fortune as a random, irrational and unpredictable phenomenon, good or bad, that can befall anyone at any time is especially prevalent in New Comedy (see

120

Philippides

e. g. Men. frr. 256, 311, *682, 683, 686, 853, 855; cf. also Dysc. 271–87, 801–4; Plaut. Pseud. 678–87; Hunter 1985. 141–4). Here the context makes it clear that the pejorative sense ‘misfortune’ is meant, i. e. Pheidylos is courting his own ruin by getting married. ‘(Mis)fortune’ here is very likely personified. Personification of Τύχη occurs as early as Hes. Th. 360, as well as Archil. fr. *16; Pi. O. 12.2; Paus. 7.26.8; E. Hec. 786; IA 864. In comedy it is particularly common, e. g. Men. frr. 672, *681, 687, 846, 860; and esp. Aspis where Τύχη speaks the prologue. There are many other examples where personification seems likely, e. g. in prose: Th. 3.97.2, 6.23.3; D.L. 1.33, 6.93, etc.; in poetry: S. fr. 951.2; Philem. fr. 56; Apollod.Com. fr. 16.3; com. adesp. fr. 878.2; Macho fr. 11.111. 4 διὰ πλειόνων … πραγμάτων The preposition διά here is used of means (K.-G. I p. 483 §434.I.3c) while πραγμάτων has the pejorative sense ‘troubles’, ‘annoyances’ (see LSJ s. v. III.5). παραβάλλειν Literally ‘throw beside’, especially of fodder or food given to animals, and by extension, as here, ‘exposing’ something to potential danger or misuse. See Ar. Av. 333–4 παρέβαλέ τ’ ἐμὲ παρὰ / γένος ἀνόσιον, ‘he cast me alongside/exposed me to an impious race’; Pl. 243 πόρναισι καὶ κύβοισι παραβεβλημένος, ‘(sc. Wealth) cast alongside/exposed to prostitutes and dice’; Posidipp. fr. 28.13–14 ἂν δ’ ἀληθινὸν / σαυτὸν παραβάλλῃς, καὶ προσεκδαρεὶς ἄπει, ‘if you expose your true self, you’ll be flayed alive before you leave’. fr. 7 K.-A. (7 K.) ὅταν 〈 δ’⟩ ἁμαρτάνῃς τι, χαῖρ’ ἡττώμενος· μάλιστα γὰρ οὕτω σῴζεται τὸ συμφέρον 1 ὅταν Stob.M Mac : ὅταν 〈 δ’⟩ Hertelius, Meineke : 〈 ἀλλ’⟩ ὅταν Schenkl : 〈 σὺ δ’⟩ ὅταν Schenkl : 〈 ⟩ ὅταν Kassel and Austin 2 μάλιστα γὰρ οὕτω Stob.M Mac : μάλιστα δ’ οὕτω Blaydes : πλεῖστον γὰρ οὕτω Blaydes : οὕτω μάλιστα Blaydes

Whenever you fail at something, rejoice in being defeated: for advantage is best preserved in this way Stob. 3.1.9 (M, Mac) Φιλιππίδου Ἀνανεούσης· — Philippides’ Ananeousa: —

Metre Iambic trimeters.

k l k l l l k | l l l k l k l r l l | l k l k l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 469; Kock 1888. 303; Edmonds 1961. 170–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 338; Rusten 2011. 679.

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 7)

121

Citation context From the anthology of Stobaeus 3.1.9 (5th c. CE, see on fr. 6) among a large selection of quotations (3.1.1 to 3.1.210) chosen to illustrate the theme ‘On Virtue’ (περὶ ἀρετῆς). Many of the other excerpts describe situations where psychological fortitude or ‘virtue’ remains constant even though external fortunes or circumstances may change or become adverse. Text line 1 is unmetrical, a word missing either before or after ὅταν. Schenkl (1895. 472, see apparatus) and Kassel and Austin (1989. 338) favour the idea that a word is missing in the first position. However the solution of Hertelius (1560. 260; cf. also Meineke 1841. 469) who proposed the supplement ὅταν 〈 δ’⟩ is far simpler, with the omission perhaps to be explained as a haplographical error due to similarity between the uncial forms Δ and Α. At line 2 Blaydes offers various alternative readings (μάλιστα δ’ οὕτω or πλεῖστον γὰρ οὕτω, 1890. 181; and οὕτω μάλιστα, 1896. 245), evidently to avoid the comic anapaest in the second foot which would undermine the supposed serious intent of the advice. But comic anapaests occur elsewhere in similar maxims, e. g. Men. fr. 699 ἀνὴρ ἀχάριστος μὴ νομιζέσθω φίλος, also Men. Mon. 547 Jaekel ξένος ὢν ἀκολούθει τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις νόμοις. Maxims in comedy, especially when preserved as fragments, should not be assumed to be always serious in tone. They are routinely decontextualised by anthologists, often counter to their original comic purposes (see especially Nervegna 2013. 207). The possibility still remains, however, that this passage may be a tragic quotation or at least paratragic in style. In that case Blaydes’ proposed μάλιστα δ’ οὕτω (i. e. replacing γάρ with δέ) is the simplest and most attractive way to preserve the tragic metre. On this reading the erroneous γάρ of our manuscripts might originally have been an intrusive gloss to explain the explanatory force of δέ. For this phenomenon elsewhere see Barrett (1964) on E. Hipp. 709 where the manuscripts preserve both alternatives; cf. also A. Th. 120 where δέ appears in manuscript M but has γάρ written above it by a glossator or corrector. For the explanatory use of δέ, frequently mentioned by grammarians and scholiasts as ὁ δέ ἀντὶ τοῦ γάρ, see Denniston 1954. 169–70. Interpretation The identity of the speaker and his addressee are uncertain. The advice is quite possibly given to the elderly Pheidylos by the same sententious friend in fragment 6. The general tenor of the advice is to look on the bright side of life and consciously adopt a positive attitude after a setback. ‘Advantage’ is gained through the good cheer with which one accepts a defeat, as opposed to the bleaker alternative of defeat compounded by despondency. The consolation offered here is seemingly paratragic in style and may even involve a direct quotation from tragedy if we emend line 2 to remove the comic anapaest (see on ‘Text’ above). One might compare E. fr. 634.2 (ap. Stob. 3.3.20) which has a similar theme and structure, where the first line describes a suggested course of action, and the second anticipates the result: ὅστις νέμει κάλλιστα τὴν αὑτοῦ φύσιν, / οὗτος σοφὸς πέφυκε πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον, ‘whoever manages his own nature best, this one is wise to his own advantage’. Literary conceit such as the

122

Philippides

paradox at line 1 (χαῖρ’ ἡττώμενος, ‘rejoice in being defeated’) is also a favourite device of tragedy. We might note also that New Comedy is particularly fond of citing tragedy in contexts of consolation: see esp. Men. Asp. 407–28; Philippid. fr. 18.3 (below); and the introduction to Phileuripidēs. Apart from possible paratragic elements, the format of this passage follows the advice of Aristotle that any maxim offered which is disputable or paradoxical requires an explanatory supplement or ‘epilogue’, such as we have here (Arist. Rh. 1394b28–9; cf. Philippid. fr. 25 for possible Aristotelian influence). 1 ἁμαρτάνῃς The verb can mean ‘miss the mark’, ‘fail of one’s purpose’, ‘fail of having’, vel sim. (LSJ s. v. I.1–3). The verb can also mean ‘to make a mistake’, ‘err’ (LSJ s. v. II; see on Philippid. fr. 27.2). The former sense better fits the context here. χαῖρ’ ἡττώμενος ‘Rejoice in being defeated’, a paradox bordering on oxymoron (i. e. a joyful defeat). Paradoxical expressions and contradictory juxtapositions of this kind are a popular conceit of tragedy, cf. e. g. A. Ch. 151 παιᾶνα τοῦ θανόντος, ‘paean for a dead man’; S. Ant. 74 ὅσια πανουργήσασ’, ‘committing holy crimes’; E. Hipp. 694 μὴ καλῶς εὐεργετεῖν, ‘to do good not well’ (see also Rutherford 2012. 75–6). 2 τὸ συμφέρον As a substantive means ‘use’, ‘profit’, ‘advantage’ (LSJ s. v. II.3.b), referring to something which is personally useful or advantageous to an individual or group. Orators regularly distinguish between the concepts of ‘advantage’ and ‘justice’ (τὸ δίκαιον) when they argue that a particular course of action will not only be personally advantageous for themselves, but also (supposedly) fair and just for all (e. g. Lys. 19.64; Isoc. 18.68; D. 48.58; Aeschin. 1.196; 3.260. Contrast Pl. Alc. 113d–15a where Socrates opposes the separation of the two ideas, arguing that justice itself must necessarily be ‘advantageous’).

fr. 8 K.-A. (8 K.) ψωμοκολακεύων καὶ παρεισιὼν ἀεί morsel-flattering and always coming in alongside Ath. 6.262a (ACE) ψωμοκόλακος δὲ μνημονεύει Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Γηρυτάδῃ οὕτως (fr. 172)· … καὶ Σαννυρίων Ἰοῖ (fr. 11)· … Φιλήμων Ἀνανεουμένῃ (fr. 7)· … Φιλιππίδης δ’ ἐν Ἀνανεώσει (A, om. CE)· — Aristophanes recalls the word psōmokolax in Gērytadēs as follows (fr. 172): … And Sannyrion in Io (fr. 11): … Philemon in Ananeoumenē (fr. 7): … And Philippides in Ananeōsis: — Antiatt. ψ 5 (= AB 116.23) ψωμοκόλακες· Φιλιππίδης Ἀνανεούσῃ (Ἀνανευούσῃ cod.). psōmokolakes: Philippides in Ananeousa.

Ἀνανεοῦσα (fr. 8)

123

Phot. s. v. (= 657.14 Porson) ψωμοκόλακες· Φιλιππίδης. psōmokolakes: Philippides. Suda ψ 134 ψωμοκόλακες· οἱ παράσιτοι, ὡς Φιλιππίδης. psōmokolakes: parasites, so Philippides.

Metre Iambic trimeter.

l r k l

l | l k l

k l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 469; Cobet 1840. 58; Kock 1888. 303; Edmonds 1961. 170–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 339; Nesselrath 1990. 309 n. 63, 315 n. 85; Wilkins 2000. 82, 285 n. 105. Citation context Quoted by Athenaeus (2nd c. CE) in a brief passage discussing how flattery (κολακεία), at least from the parasite’s perspective, is superior to bragging (ἀλαζονεία). Apart from the participial form ψωμοκολακεύων in the quotation of Athenaeus, later sources apparently attribute the noun form ψωμοκόλακες to Philippides. But one can reconstruct how this error arose. In his original entry the Antiatticist most likely cited Sannyrion fr. 11 for the headword ψωμοκόλακες, followed by the participle found in Philippides. The epitomator of the Antiatticist has then rather haphazardly omitted the reference to Sannyrion but retained the reference to Philippides, creating the misleading impression that Philippides uses the noun form. Our later lexical sources, Photius and the Suda, apparently consulted the epitome of the Antiatticist since they reproduce the same error in attributing the noun to Philippides. The Suda also has the additional gloss οἱ παράσιτοι, whether finding this in a source other than Photius or the Antiatticist, or interpolating the detail itself. Interpretation The speaker of the passage describes someone in disparaging terms typically applied to parasites. It is unclear whether the speaker is addressing someone directly, or describing someone’s behaviour in the third person. The character type of the parasite was a particular favourite of New Comedy, typically arriving at dinner uninvited (ἄκλητος), or failing to contribute to the expense of a feast he attends (ἀσύμβολος). Parasites may willingly subject themselves to the violence and ridicule of others at the dinner party or exhibit their own wit and humour to secure a free meal. See generally Ribbeck 1883; Nesselrath 1985 and 1990. 309–17; Tylawsky 2002. See also on Philippid. frr. 9 and 31. ψωμοκολακεύων ‘Morsel-flattering’ (cf. Suda ψ 135 ψωμόλεθρος· ὁ πολυφάγος, ‘morsel-destroyer: one who eats a lot’). A ψωμός is properly a ‘morsel’ or ‘bit’ of food (LSJ s. v.; Beekes 2009. 1665 s. v. ψῆν), whether meat (e. g. Hom. Od. 9.374

124

Philippides

where it is used of human flesh; cf. perhaps Amips. fr. 18.2 λιπαρὸν ψωμόν, ‘fatty/ shining morsel’), or bread (so Suda ψ 136, although there it is misleadingly suggested that the word morsel itself means bread: ψωμός· ὁ ἄρτος, ‘morsel: bread’). The related verb form ψωμίζω means to feed by putting small bits of food in the mouth, as in the case of small children (Suda ψ 132 τὸ δὲ ψωμίζεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν μικρῶν παιδίων λέγεται, ‘psōmizesthai is said in relation to small children’). The compound noun ψωμοκόλαξ, then, would seem to evoke the idea of an abject and desperate parasite who shamelessly debases himself for even the most insignificant morsel of food (cf. the similar compound at Diph. fr. 48 ψωμοκόλαφον, i. e. ‘one who takes a beating for a morsel’). It appears as a term of abuse as early as Old Comedy, perhaps first in Aristophanes’ Gērytadēs (ca. 408 BCE, Geissler 1969. 61) fr. 172 ψιθυρός τ’ ἐκαλοῦ καὶ ψωμοκόλαξ (‘you were called slanderer and morsel-flatterer’); and in Sannyrion’s Iō fr. 11 φθείρεσθ’ ἐπίτριπτοι ψωμοκόλακες (‘go to hell you damned morsel-flatterers!’). It reemerges in New Comedy in both Philemon fr. 7 ψωμοκόλαξ δ’ ἔσθ’ οὗτος (‘here’s a morsel-flatterer’), and here in Philippides who converts the noun into a verb (cf. Meineke 1839. 474; Cobet 1840. 58). A similar compound makes an appearance in Roman Comedy, according to Fontaine (2010. 173–4), who notes how Plautus uses the Latin word ‘adulescens’ as a witty portmanteau equivalent to the Greek term ψωμοκόλαξ in Men. 506 (i. e. adulator + esca > adulescens). παρεισιὼν ἀεί ‘Always coming in alongside (an invited guest)’, i. e. an habitual gate-crasher who gains entry to banquets in the company of a legitimate guest (cf. Nesselrath 1990. 315 n. 85; for the adverb ἀεί see also on Philippid. fr. 31.1). Plutarch (Mor. 707a–710a) discusses at some length the phenomenon of banqueters who are invited to a dinner by one of the guests rather than by the host, and the etiquette involved in such behaviour. Names for such visitors include the ‘secondary guest’ (ἐπίκλητος, lit. ‘invited in addition’), and ‘shadow’ (σκιά, see Plu. Mor. 707a; he cites the example of Aristodemus in Plato’s Symposium who turns up alone, somewhat awkwardly, not as the invited guest of Agathon, but as the secondary guest of Socrates). The nickname ‘Skiff ’ (Λέμβος) at Anaxandr. fr. 35.7, given to parasites who ‘follow behind’ others (ὄπισθεν ἀκολουθεῖ κόλαξ τῳ, Λέμβος ἐπικέκληται, ‘a flatterer follows behind someone, he’s nicknamed “Skiff ”’), probably relates to the same phenomenon. Philemon had a comedy titled Παρεισιών which may have treated a parasite figure of this kind. Another comic fragment which may play on the parasitical implications of the verb is Nicostr. Com. fr. 5.1–2 where a hungry diner waiting on dishes exclaims Βυζάντιόν 〈 τε⟩ τέμαχος ἐπιβακχευσάτω, / Γαδειρικόν θ’ ὑπογάστριον παρεισίτω, ‘let a Byzantine fillet rush in like a Bacchant, and let a slice of belly from Cadiz come in beside it’. The speaker in this case is very happy to welcome gate-crashers of this kind.

125

Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (Argyriou aphanismos) (‘Disappearance of Money’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 473; Meineke 1841. 469–70; Kock 1888. 303–4; Edmonds 1961. 170–1; Philipp 1973. 499–504; Gallo 1984. 233; Livrea 1985. 16–17; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 339–40; Gallo 1994. 231–2. Title Our earliest known comedy by this title is Argyriou aphanismos by the Old Comedy poet Strattis. This play also had the alternative title Agathoi, the authorship of which was disputed and also attributed to Pherecrates (Ath. 6.248c, 10.415c, 15.685b; there is controversy surrounding the unusual disjunctive form ἢτοι which separates the titles in the Suda σ 1178 = Stratt. test. 1 and whether Agathoi is a genuine alternative title for Argyriou aphanismos or a separate comedy altogether: see Orth 2009. 35). A homonymous comedy Argyriou aphanismos is also attributed to the Middle Comedy poet Antiphanes, although its authorship was disputed and sometimes ascribed to the fourth-century comic poet Epigenes (Ath. 9.409d). The New Comedy poet Diphilus wrote a comedy with the similar title Anargyros (‘Penniless’), although the alternative reading Anagyros (i. e. the mythic hero) is also preserved. The term ἀργύριον is standard for Attic silver coinage, and so by extension ‘money’ or ‘cash’ more generally, so Poll. 3.86 τὸ δ’ ἀργύριον καλεῖται καὶ χρήματα καὶ νόμισμα, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ χρυσίον, ‘argyrion is the name for both money and coinage, as is chrysion’; EM p. 137, 30 ἰστέον ὅτι πᾶν νόμισμα, εἴτ’ ἐν χαλκῷ, εἴτ’ ἐν ἀργύρῳ, εἴτ’ ἐν χρυσῷ, εἰώθασιν ἀργύριον καλεῖν, ‘one should know that they are accustomed to call any coinage argyrion, whether bronze, silver or gold’. Occasionally it simply means ‘silver’ (i. e. ἄργυρος), e. g. Th. 2.13 (see LSJ s. v. II). The word ἀφανισμός in the title could mean (1) money that has ‘disappeared’ or ‘gone missing’ (LSJ s. v. II), i. e. lost or stolen, or else (2) money that has been ‘obliterated’ or ‘removed’, implying it no longer exists (LSJ s. v. I). Content The speaker of fr. 9 who complains of poor food at banquets may be a parasite figure (see fr. 9 ‘Interpretation’). The title itself admits various thematic possibilities where money is missing in comedy. Elsewhere in comedy we encounter misers who have lost their money, or families reduced to desperation when their wealth is lost with a sunken ship, as well as utopian comedies where money is banished. Some scholars try to detect contemporary political allusions in the play title as well as the destitution mentioned in our only fragment. Edmonds (1961. 171 n. c), for example, suggests the title may be connected with the Harpalus affair of 324 BCE, or the looting of Delphi by the Celts in 279 BCE. Philipp (1973. 501–4) suggests the scarcity of food in fr. 9 can be understood against the backdrop of famine in Athens during the tyranny of Lachares in 294 BCE (cf. Demetr.Com. Nov. fr. 1; Plu. Demetr. 34). But the title need not allude to contemporary historical events, but may simply describe the fictitious world depicted in the comedy itself.

126

Philippides

A miser-themed play (as suggested by Livrea 1985) finds support in that Philippides explores this theme elsewhere in Philargyros and mentions a miser in fr. 12 (from Ekp[—]). A parallel of a miser play with ‘vanished’ money is Plautus’ Aulularia where the elderly miser Euclio finds a pot of gold and buries it, only for the slave of Lyconides to steal it (Plaut. Aul. 701–12). Lyconides apparently returns the gold to Euclio (the manuscripts are incomplete), who in turn offers Lyconides his daughter in marriage, along with the stolen gold as her dowry. Another play which mentions the loss of money, but does not involve a miser, is Menander’s Perikeiromenē. There the old man Pataikos was forced to abandon his children Moschion and Glykera after the loss of a ship containing all his money (Men. Pk. 801–12). There the loss of money is only mentioned incidentally as the motivating factor for his abandonment of the children, while the comedy itself centres on the love interest Moschion conceives for his (unknown) sister (cf. on Philadelphoi) and the recognition scene which resolves the main plot. Alternatively a comedy with a fantasy or ‘utopian’ theme, where money has been removed from society entirely, is suspected to lie behind other comedies with the same title. Orth (2009. 41–2) suspects that the Agathoi or Argyriou aphanismos of Strattis had a utopian theme where the ‘good men’ of the comedy’s alternative title flee Athens to find a place where money and the problems it causes do not exist. So too the Argyriou aphanismos of Antiphanes (or Epigenes) may have a similar theme. Only a single fragment from that comedy survives (Antiph. fr. 41 καὶ τότε / † περιπατήσεις † [or πτέριν πατήσεις] κἀπονίψει κατὰ τρόπον / τὰς χεῖρας, εὐώδη λαβὼν τὴν γῆν, ‘and then you will † walk about [tread the fern] † and will wash, as is customary, your hands, taking the fine-smelling earth’), which Bergk interpreted as describing a land of milk and honey where men ‘tread the soft fern’ and wash their hands with sweet-smelling earth (Bergk 1838. 288): ‘talem enim vitam finxit poeta, ubi homines mollem filicem calcarent et terra bene olente tanquam unguento usi abstergerent manus’. The utopian theme of the αὐτόματος βίος (i. e. where life’s necessities provide themselves of their own accord) appears often in Old Comedy (see Ath. 6.267e–70a). In New Comedy, however, the evidence is scarce (for possible traces of utopian themes in Middle Comedy, cf. Antiphanes’ Argyriou aphanismos mentioned above; cf. also the comments of Hunter 1983. 164–5 on Eubulus’ Olbia; and Arnott 1996. 399 and 445 on Alexis’ Leukē and Meropis). Other Philippidean fragments thought by Meineke to belong to this comedy are fr. 28 and fr. 33 (see Meineke 1839. 473 and cf. Meineke 1841. 470 where ‘praeterea ad hanc fabulam referenda videntur Fragm. inc. fab. VI et X’ is evidently a mistake for ‘Fragm. inc. fab. V et IX’). But the only reason to connect these fragments with our play is that they mention items made of precious metals: fr. 28 mentions golden drinking cups, while fr. 33 mentions a gold necklace (cf. the silver platter and phiale in fr. 9). Date

Unknown.

Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (fr. 9)

127

fr. 9 K.-A. (9 K.)

5

10

ἀλλ’ ἔλεος ἐμπέπτωκέ τις μοι τῶν ὅλων, ὅταν ἀπορουμένους μὲν ἀνθρώπους ἴδω ἐλευθέρους, μαστιγίας δ’ ἐπ’ ἀργυροῦ πίνακος ἄγοντος μνᾶν τάριχος ἐνίοτε δυεῖν ὀβολῶν ἔσθοντας ἢ τριωβόλου, καὶ κάππαριν χαλκῶν τριῶν ἐν τρυβλίῳ ἄγοντι πεντήκοντα δραχμὰς ἀργυρῷ· πρότερον δὲ φιάλην ἦν ἀνακειμένην ἰδεῖν   ἐργῶδες. (Β.) ἀμέλει τοῦτο μὲν καὶ νῦν ἔτι· ἂν γὰρ ἀναθῇ τις, εὐθὺς ἕτερος ἥρπασεν

1 ἀλλ’ om. Ath.CE τίς μοι Ath.A : μοι τΐς Ath.CE τῶν ὅλων om. Ath.CE 3 ἐπ’ ACE A CE Ath. : ἀπ’ Herwerden 5 δυεῖν Ath. : δυοῖν Ath. ὀβολῶν Ath.ACE : ὀβολοῖν Dindorf 9 ἐργῶδες· ἀμέλει Ath.ACE : ἐργῶδες ἀμέλει. : : Kaibel

5

10

But a kind of pity has overcome me for the whole situation, when on the one hand I see free citizens who are poor, and on the other those who deserve the whip eating, on a silver platter weighing a mina, salt-fish sometimes worth two obols or a three-obol piece, and capers worth three bronze pieces in a bowl of silver weighing fifty drachmas. In the past, to see a dedicated phiale was hard work. (B.) This is still the case now too, you know: if someone makes a dedication, another snatches it up at once.

Ath. 6.230a (ACE) Φιλιππίδης δ’ ἐν Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμῷ (fab. nom. om. CE) ὡς φορτικοῦ μέμνηται τοῦ τοιούτου καὶ σπανίου, ζηλουμένου δὲ ὑπό τινων νεοπλούτων μετοίκων· — Philippides in Argyriou aphanismos recalls such a practice (i. e. serving food on silver dishes) as vulgar and unusual, but emulated by some newly rich metics: —

Metre Iambic trimeters. At line 3 we have a rare case of tetremimeral caesura (see White 1912. 55), in this case reinforcing the μέν … δέ contrast.

5

l k k k k l

r k l r k l l k l r k l l r l l k l

l l k | l k l k | l | l l k l l | l k l l l k | l l l | k l

l l k l l l k l k l k l k r k l k l k l l l k l

128

Philippides

10

k l k l l l k | l r l k r l | l r l l k r l | l k | l l r l k | l k |

l l k l l k l k l l l l k l r k l k l

Discussion Meineke 1839. 473; Meineke 1841. 469–70; Kock 1888. 303–4; Clerc 1893. 409; Herwerden 1903. 186; Calderini 1908. 38–9, 356 with n. 2; Edmonds 1961. 170–1; Philipp 1973. 499–504; Whitehead 1977. 40 (cf. 114); Gallo 1984. 233; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 339–40; Rusten 2011. 679. Citation context From Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistai (2nd c. CE), cited during a discussion beginning at 6.228c on the extravagant display of precious silverware at dinner parties as opposed to the more regular use of ceramic vessels. Athenaeus suggests that the passage refers to the behavior of rich metics. Whether he knows this from finding the passage in an anthology which made the context clear, or excerpted it himself from a complete text of the play is uncertain, because this cannot be determined from the fragment alone. Otherwise he may have merely guessed the context from the word μαστιγίας which he interpreted as such. Text At line 3 Herwerden’s popular emendation (1868. 44) of ἀπ’ in place of Athenaeus’ ἐπ’ (ACE) is unnecessary. The locatival idea in the preposition ἐπί (‘eating salt-fish on a silver platter’) is reinforced by ἐν τρυβλίῳ at line 6 (‘eating capers in a silver bowl’). Herwerden defends his emendation by arguing that one does not, for example, drink ‘in a cup’ but rather ‘from a cup’. But this is misguided in that the prepositional phrases describe where the food items are located (i. e. salt-fish on a platter, capers in a bowl), rather than how they are consumed (i. e. eating from a platter). A word like ‘served’ or ‘placed’ can be readily understood. For items elsewhere served ‘on a platter’ (ἐπί + genitive), cf. Ath. 6.224b πλῆθος ὅσον ἰχθύων φέροντες … ἐπὶ πινάκων ἀργυρῶν, ‘bringing a great number of fish on silver platters’; Ath. 6.228d τὸ ἐπὶ πινάκων παρατιθέναι τὰ ὄψα, ‘serving delicacies on platters’; Poll. 7.197 προυτίθεσαν ἐπὶ πινάκων κεραμέων, ‘they served (the birds) on ceramic platters’. At line 9 our manuscripts (Ath.ACE) reportedly do not mark a change of speaker. The introduction of a second speaker appears to go back to Casaubon (non vidi – it is already present in Schweighäuser’s edition of 1802), and was presumably introduced because it appears to resemble a bomolochic intervention. But the manuscripts may be right in attributing the entire fragment to a single speaker, especially if we have (as argued below) a typical parasite monologue. One final problem at line 9 is whether we have sentence end after ἐργῶδες or after ἀμέλει. The manuscripts preserve the former (ἐργῶδες. ἀμέλει). Kaibel moves the break (and change of speaker) after ἀμέλει (i. e. ἐργῶδες ἀμέλει. : :) and defends his text (ap. Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 340) by comparing Men. Sam.

Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (fr. 9)

129

371 (ἐλεινὸν ἀμέλει τὸ δάκρυον).79 Kassel and Austin (1989. 340) dismiss the change, arguing that one parallel is not enough (‘vix sufficiet’). But more examples of postponed ἀμέλει could be cited (see note ad loc.). Nonetheless, ἀμέλει occurs at the beginning of a sentence more often, and as the reading reported in our manuscripts is preferred here. Interpretation The speaker laments the current degenerate state of the world in which free citizens (ἐλευθέρους) are left poor while non-citizens (μαστιγίας) abound in wealth. The sentiment draws upon the topos, first found in Solon, of ignoble/evil men enjoying wealth while noble/good men are poor, Sol. El. 15.1 πολλοὶ γὰρ πλουτέουσι κακοί, ἀγαθοὶ δὲ πένονται, ‘for many ignoble men are rich, while noble men are poor’ (see Philipp 1973. 500; for the topos, cf. e. g. Thgn. 683–4, 865–7, 1061–2; B. 1.160; E. fr. 326; Ar. Pl. 502–4; Men. Kol. B43–5). A further comment on the degenerate state of the world seems to occur in lines 8–10 which mentions the theft of dedicated phialai from temples. There is, however, little reason to suspect that there was a spate of such crimes in Philippides’ time, as e. g. Herwerden (1903. 186) proposes, suggesting that the poet was making a comment on the audacity of temple thefts in his own age (‘Notavit τῶν ἱεροσύλων aetatis suae audaciam Philippides’). The identity of the μαστιγίαι has been questioned (see e. g. Whitehead 1977. 40). We can probably rule out that they are slaves due to the fact they enjoy immense wealth and are hosting banquets (although for the phenomenon of wealthy slaves, see Cohen 2000. 130–54). Despite the doubts of modern scholars, Athenaeus declares that they are rich metics, and the antithesis with ἐλεύθεροι could support his claim (for comic treatment of metics, cf. e. g. the Metoikoi plays by Crates or Pherecrates and by Plato Comicus; also the Metoikos comedies by Antiphanes and Philemon). Whether these metics are former slaves – as the word μαστιγίας may suggest (so Calderini 1908. 38–9; see Whitehead 1977. 16–17) – or resident foreigners more generally, is probably not to be stressed here (although for envy of successful former slaves in Roman writers, cf. Plin. HN 18.8; Mart. 9.73; 10.76). The speaker in this case may simply use the pejorative term μαστιγίας to tar all metics with the same brush, whether of servile origins or not. The main opposition stressed here is between poor citizens and rich foreigners (among them no doubt former slaves). Here too the non-citizens are doubly ‘ignoble’ in that they not only make distasteful shows of expensive silverware, but more egregiously serve cheap food on top of them. The serving of capers and salt-fish in this case would appear the result of stinginess and poor hospitality rather than a lack of means (but see further below for the alternative; for the stereotype of metics as interested only in money, see Lape 2010. 49–50). Among the ethical types described 79

Kaibel might have been concerned about the delayed position of μέν in line 9 to make the change. The change of speaker at penthemimeral pause might also have been considered advantageous.

130

Philippides

by Aristotle, the figures mentioned here most resemble his ‘excessive and vulgar man’ (ὁ ὑπερβάλλων καὶ βάναυσος, EN 1123a19–27) who makes inappropriate displays of wealth, not least of all by ‘expending little where one ought to spend a lot, and a lot where one ought to spend little’ (οὗ μὲν δεῖ πολλὰ ἀναλῶσαι, ὀλίγα δαπανῶν, οὗ δ’ ὀλίγα, πολλά). The speaker of our fragment may very well be a parasite making a complaint about current dining conditions (the opening of the passage in paratragic style would establish the melodramatic tone and the parasite’s depth of emotion). More specifically he would be expressing self-pity for his own stomach due to the incapacity of free citizens to offer him hospitality and the tight-fistedness of wealthy metics who can. If we remove the addition of a second speaker at line 9 (introduced by later editors who considered it a ‘bomolochic’ intervention) and attribute these lines to a single speaker (as does the manuscript tradition), we quite likely have a parasite’s entrance monologue (on this phenomenon, see e. g. McCarthy 2000. 62–3; Guastella 2002). Among the features of these monologues, which include direct address to the audience (as perhaps here) and a description of the parasite’s trade, such speeches often feature a complaint which gives motivation for their entrance onto the stage. So at Plaut. Stich. 183–95 Gelasimus enters and complains that dinner hosts no longer make invitations like they used to, forcing him to venture outside and advertise his talents as a genial table companion; at Plaut. Men. 104–7 Peniculus complains of being housebound for days and is now out to find a feast; at Plaut. Capt. 92–106 Ergasilus laments that his usual dinner host has been captured in battle and that the other young men of the day are not as charitable as him in entertaining parasites; while at Capt. 461–97 he repeats his lament about the present-day lack of hospitality in a second monologue. Our present fragment seems to have a similar complaint and motivation for the character’s entrance. In this case we have a lament for the degenerate state of the world where the poverty of free and liberal citizens and the stinginess of rich foreigners has short-changed him of potential meals. An alternative interpretation might view the metics’ stinginess as due to their own poverty, limiting what they can offer their guests. Admittedly, though, the opposition between citizen and foreigner and the speaker’s apparent sympathy for the former and antipathy for the latter would then be puzzling. In that case the poverty-stricken metic would resemble the πτωχαλαζών or ‘braggart beggar’ who makes a show of what little wealth he has (see Ath. 6.230c and ΣVLhAld Ar. V. 325b and ΣR Ar. Av. 1297 for the term). Ath. 6.230c–e cites Alex. fr. 2 (a young man displaying what little silverware he has to impress a girl) and Sopat. fr. 14 (a rotten fish served on a silver platter), as examples of this phenomenon. Stylistically we might note the paratragic tone of line 1 and the element of pathos (or comic melodrama) which it introduces. Antithesis is used throughout. We have the opposition between free (ἐλευθέρους) and slave (μαστιγίας) and by extension citizen and foreigner. A further opposition is introduced by the μέν … δέ construction in that the word order also opposes ἀπορουμένους (μέν)

Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (fr. 9)

131

with μαστιγίας (δέ), and in doing so creates an implicit opposition between rich (foreigner) and poor (citizen). These oppositions are further reinforced by the rare tetremimeral caesura at line 3. Other antitheses can be found in the contrast between the cheap food items and the expensive silverware on which it is served. Chiasmus further reinforces the opposition with the order of their presentation, i. e. silver dish, food item, food item, silver dish. One other stylistic feature we may note is the alliteration at line 6 (καὶ κάππαριν χαλκῶν τριῶν ἐν τρυβλίῳ), especially the repetition of the gutturals kappa and chi which seem to add to the speaker’s tone of contempt. 1 ἀλλ’ ἔλεος ἐμπέπτωκέ τις μοι τῶν ὅλων Paratragic style. Cf. esp. S. Ph. 965–6 ἐμοὶ μὲν οἶκτος δεινὸς ἐμπέπτωκέ τις / τοῦδ’ ἀνδρὸς, ‘a terrible pity has overcome me for this man’. ἔλεος ‘Pity’. The synonym οἶκτος is more common in tragedy (so in S. Ph. 965 quoted above), but ἔλεος is especially prevalent in late-Euripidean tragedy, and in tragedies that were known to be reperformed during the late fourth century (see e. g. E. Ph. 1286; Or. 333, 568, 832, 958; IA 491). For this reason ἔλεος may have been felt suitably tragic in tone for a contemporary audience (for reperformances of Euripides in the fourth century see Nervegna 2014; Lamari 2017; and on Phileuripidēs this volume). ἐμπέπτωκέ Tragedy often uses the verb ἐμπίπτειν metaphorically to describe an emotion or state of mind (here pity) which ‘attacks’ or ‘falls upon’ one (LSJ s. v. 3a). Cf. e. g. A. Ag. 341; S. Ant. 782; OC 942; E. IA 808. The perfect tense of the verb only occurs elsewhere in comedy at Ar. V. 203 and, paratragically, at Men. Asp. 402–3 σκηπτός τις εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν / ῥαγδαῖος ἐμπέπτωκε, ‘a raging storm has fallen upon our house’. τις The indefinite adjective indicates the pity is of a special or indeterminate kind (cf. Latin quidam), e. g. Ar. Th. 904 ἀφασία τίς τοί μ’ ἔχει, ‘a kind of speechlessness holds me’ (paratragic); Ec. 1056 Ἔμπουσά τις, ‘a kind of Empusa’; K.-G. I p. 590 §461.1 Anm. 2. τῶν ὅλων Sc. e. g. πραγμάτων ‘the whole business’, ‘the entire situation’, cf. Plb. 18.33.1 τοῖς δ’ ὅλοις πράγμασιν ἐσφαλμένος, ‘defeated by the whole business’. See also Men. fr. 374.2 τὴν δ’ ἡγεμονίαν τῶν ὅλων τὸν ἄνδρ’ ἔχειν, ‘that the husband has control of all affairs’. For the objective genitive after a word denoting pity cf. S. Ph. 965–6; Ar. Pax 425 (Poultney 1936. 40). 2 ἀπορουμένους ‘Who are poor’, ‘without means’. The verb in this sense is found in both active and middle forms (LSJ s. v. ἀπορέω IV.1; cf. Poll. 3.111). For examples in the middle voice, as here, see Antiph. fr. 121.3; Alex. fr. 78.2; Men. Pk. 126 (contrast the active form at Tim. fr. 11.2). 3 ἐλευθέρους Regularly used of a ‘free’ person as opposed to a slave, an antithesis especially common in tragedy, e. g. S. Aj. 1020; Tr. 52–3; Ph. 995–6; E. Hec. 234; Andr. 433–4. It is also used of citizens living in politically autonomous and democratic states rather than people subject to autocratic rule, e. g. Hdt. 1.6.3; D. 1.23; 7.30, 32; [D.] 17.8; cf. A. Pr. 50. Here it must mean ‘free-born’ and

132

Philippides

with full citizen rights, in contrast with μαστιγίαι and its implication of servile origins. It may also suggest ‘liberal’ and ‘generous’ dinner hosts. μαστιγίας Properly describes someone who has been whipped (e. g. Pl. Grg. 524c; Macho fr. 16.285; Poll. 3.79; Hsch. μ 358 μαστιγίας· ὁ μαστιζόμενος, ‘mastigias: one who is whipped’), and so it is naturally used of slaves (Phot. μ 128; Suda μ 261 μαστιγίας· δοῦλος ὁ δι’ ἁμάρτημα μαστιζόμενος, ‘mastigias: a slave who is whipped for wrongdoing’). In comedy the name is usually uttered as a derogatory term when addressing a slave with the implication that they deserve a whipping, i. e. ‘rascal’, ‘rogue’, so Ar. Eq. 1228 (to Paphlagon); Lys. 1240 (to public slaves); Ra. 501 (to Xanthias); Men. Dysc. 473 (to Getas); Sam. 324 (to Parmenon); Epit. 1113 (to Onesimos); Pk. 324 (to Daos). But μαστιγίας can also be applied to non-slaves, e. g. Men. Kol. E230 (a pimp); Diph. fr. 97.2 (a court attendant); Macho frr. 16.285 and 17.369 (customers of the hetairai Gnathaina and Gnathainion – unlikely to be slaves due to the high price they must pay); cf. also Luc. JTr. 48.7, 52.8; and see Luc. Sat. 3.9 and perhaps Men. fr. 441 ἀφόρητός ἐστιν εὐτυχῶν μαστιγίας, ‘a rogue who enjoys good fortune is hard to bear’ (both with similar sentiments to the one echoed in the present fragment). 4 πίνακος A silver ‘platter’ used for serving food (for πίνακες of this kind see Hom. Od. 1.141, 16.49; Ar. Pl. 996; Metag. fr. 8; Nicostr.Com. fr. 1.1; Lync. fr. 1.5, 17, 19; Sopat. fr. 14; Matro fr. 1.47, 5.2; Poll. 10.82–3). We hear of platters made of bronze, silver and gold-plate at the elaborate wedding feast of Caranus (Ath. 4.128d–129b), as opposed to the more humble varieties made of terracotta and wood elsewhere (e. g. Ar. Pl. 813 πινακίσκους ... σαπρούς ‘rotten’ platters – evidently wooden – turned into silver by the god Wealth; and Ar. fr. 547: ἄπυρον, an ‘unfired’ terracotta platter; cf. Poll. 10.82). Platters were often served containing a variety of dishes, so Ar. Pl. 996: various ‘nibblies’ or τραγήματα; Nicostr.Com. fr. 1: the ‘first’ platter with sea-urchins, capers, fish slices, etc.; Ath. 4.128d: a silver platter with bread, geese, hares, etc.; and see Lync. fr. 1.5–6 παρέθηκε πίνακα γὰρ μέγαν, / ἔχοντα μικροὺς πέντε πινακίσκους ἄνω, ‘he served a large platter / with five small platters on top’. Smaller platters (πινακίσκοι) are mentioned at Pherecr. fr. 113.14; Pl.Com. frr. 127.3, 118.14; Epig. fr. 1.3, and in particular are used for serving fish at Ar. Pl. 813 and fr. 547 πινακίσκον … ἰχθυηρόν (the latter two made of terracotta and wood). The idea that salt-fish, rather than fresh fish, is served here on a larger-sized platter rather than the appropriately-sized πινακίσκος, and on one made of silver rather than the cheaper and more usual wood or ceramic, adds to the incongruity and stinginess of the spectacle. For a similar contrast, cf. Sopat. fr. 14 σαπρὸν σίλουρον ἀργυροῦς πίναξ ἔχων, ‘a silver platter containing rotten sheatfish’. ἄγοντος ‘Weighing’ (LSJ s. v. VI); see Ar. Ra. 1365; Alex. fr. 2.6; Hipparch. Com. fr. 3.2; Plu. Mor. 828b. See also line 7 below and Philippid. fr. 33. μνᾶν i. e. 100 drachmas in both weight and monetary value (twice the value of the bowl in which the capers are served). The platter would therefore weigh around 430g or nearly half a kilogram.

Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (fr. 9)

133

τάριχος Can be used of any preserved or pickled meat, but particularly salted, smoked or dried fish (‘salsamenta’; see esp. Ath. 3.116d–20b). In the singular the noun is usually treated as third-declension neuter (e. g. Chionid. fr. *6; Ar. Ach. 967; V. 491; fr. 639; Pl.Com. fr. 211.2; Alex. fr. 77.2; Men. Epit. fr. 5 Arnott; but contrast Ar. fr. 207); while in the plural it is usually second-declension masculine (e. g. Crat.Com. fr. 19.2; Cratin. fr. 44; Pl.Com. fr. 49; Timocl. fr. 16.5; Philippid. fr. 34; see also Bianchi 2016. 267–9). Salt-fish is sometimes mentioned in contexts where it was evidently seen as a delicacy, certainly in the hands of an expert cook (e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 51, served with seasonings such as coriander and oregano, see Millis 2015; and Antiph. fr. 181.3, listed alongside seasoned lamb and stuffed pastries as opposed to more simple fare). Nonetheless, it was otherwise quite common and cheap, even proverbially so, and that is the evident implication here. For its cheapness see e. g. Ar. V. 491 τοῦ ταρίχους ἐστὶν ἀξιωτέρα, i. e. ‘cheaper than salt-fish’ (cf. Ar. Ach. 967); also Nicostr.Com. fr. 5.5 ἐπριάμην παρ’ ἀνδρός … ταριχοπώλου … τιλτὸν μέγιστον, ἄξιον δραχμῆς, δυοῖν ὀβολοῖν, ‘I bought from a salt-fish seller a very large scaled fish worth a drachma for two obols’ (the suggestion seems to be that if bought fresh the same fish would cost three times as much). Salt-fish is mentioned as plain soldier’s fare at Ar. Ach. 1101 in contrast with the delicacies mentioned by Dikaiopolis; at Pl.Com. fr. 211 it is considered a suitable dish to buy household slaves to eat; while at Thphr. Char. 4.13 it is a favourite dish of the ‘rustic’ (ἄγροικος), no doubt because of its cheapness as well as its durability. Cf. also D.L. 2.139 for guests passing up dinner after learning it was salt-fish rather than meat. Prior to cooking, salt-fish had to be thoroughly washed to remove the salt and pickling juice before it could be combined with other ingredients (cf. Ar. fr. 207; Alex. fr. 191.6; Diphilus of Siphnos ap. Ath. 3.121c πάντας δὲ χρὴ τοὺς ταρίχους πλύνειν, ἄχρι ἂν τὸ ὕδωρ ἄνοσμον καὶ γλυκὺ γένηται, ‘it is necessary to wash all the saltfish until the water is odourless and sweet’). The present fragment may suggest that here it was served plainly without any other ingredients. In Athens the salt-fish sellers (τὰ ταριχοπώλια) operated separately from the fresh-fish sellers (τὰ ἰχθυοπώλια) (see Thphr. Char. 6.9), their market located ‘at the gates’ where one entered the agora (Ar. Eq. 1247 ἐπὶ ταῖς πύλαισιν, οὗ τὸ τάριχος ὤνιον). For salt-fish imported from Sicily see Archestr. fr. 39.1–2 (pickled in brine and put into an amphora for transportation), and from the Black Sea see Cratin. fr. 44 (with the ample notes of Bianchi 2016. 272–3; cf. Hermipp. fr. 63.5; for importers see Alex. frr. 77 and 221). On salt-fish generally see Williams 1979. 117–18 with pl. 46; Curtis 1991. 6–26, 38–45; Olson and Sens 2000. 164–5; and see further the note on Philippid. fr. 34. On the price of fish, a vexed issue, see Davidson 1997. 187; Schaps 1985–1988; Lytle 2010. 284. 5 δυεῖν ὀβολῶν … ἢ τριωβόλου ‘Worth two obols or a three-obol piece’. At Men. Epit. 140–1 two obols are described as enough to buy porridge to keep a poor man from starving: δύ’ ὀβολοὺς τῆς ἡμέρας, / [ἱκανό]ν τι τῷ πεινῶντι πρὸς πτισ[άνη]ν, ‘two obols a day, a sufficient amount for gruel for one who’s starving’.

134

Philippides

For two obols as the price of salt-fish elsewhere, see Nicostr.Com. fr. 5.5–6 and Alex. fr. 191.6 (cf. Alex. fr. 15.9 where cubed salt-fish costs three obols; while the ‘raw salt-fish’ worth five bronze pieces at line 4 would cost two and a half obols at most if the tetrachalkon is meant). That the speaker counterintuitively offers the more expensive alternative of three obols when trying to convey the cheapness of the fish is softened by the fact that a three-obol piece was proverbial of anything cheap and worthless, e. g. Ar. Pax 848 οὐκ ἂν ἔτι δοίην τῶν θεῶν τριώβολον, ‘I couldn’t give a three-obol piece for the gods’; Pl. 124–5 τὴν Διὸς τυραννίδα / καὶ τοὺς κεραυνοὺς ἀξίους τριωβόλου, ‘Zeus’ rule and his thunderbolts worth a threeobol piece’; Nicoph. fr. 20.2–3 πυρετὸς … οὐκ ἄξιος τριωβόλου,‘a fever not worth a three-obol piece’; also Eub. fr. 87.3; Plaut. Poen. 381, 463 non homo trioboli, ‘a man not worth a three-obol piece’ (see Bagordo 2014b. 216 on Thugen. fr. 3). Here the speaker is effectively saying ‘for two obols or not very much at all’. δυεῖν The Hellenistic genitive dual form δυεῖν replaced δυοῖν in Attic Greek around 330 BCE. For literary examples see Men. Dysc. 327; fr. 411.1; Macho frr. 9.66 and 15.224; Thphr. Char. 2.3 (δυεῖν A); K.-B. I p. 633 §186 Anm. 3. For the inscriptional evidence see Threatte 1996. 415–16. 6 κάππαριν ‘Capers’ (Capparis spinosa, L.; André 1956. 202); a collective use of the singular, as often with this noun (e. g. Philem. fr. 100.5; Nicostr.Com. fr. 1.2; Tim. fr. 25.2; K.-G. I p. 13 §347.1). The word generally denotes the caper plant as a whole, but in the present case refers more specifically to the unripened flower buds which were usually pickled in brine before consumption (Plu. Mor. 687d; Polyaen. 4.3.32.36–7 καππάρεως ἐσκευασμένης ἐν ἅλμῃ, ‘capers prepared in brine’). Capers could be used, on the one hand, as a condiment or garnish, e. g. Antiph. fr. 140.4 where they are listed among other ἀρτύματα, ‘seasonings’ (cf. Ath. 2.68a); Alex. fr. 132.6 where they are listed among ἡδύσματα, ‘condiments’ or ‘spices’ (cf. Ath. 4.170a and Poll. 6.65). Otherwise they could be served on their own as an appetiser on the ‘first platter’ before the main course (Nicostr.Com. fr. 1.2; cf. Plu. Mor. 687d where salted olives and capers are eaten to pique the appetite). In the present fragment the capers are apparently conceived as a main dish to reflect the stinginess of the hosts. They are particularly associated with poverty and those forced to live hand-to-mouth, such as the courtesan Phryne before she acquired great wealth, according to a fragment of Timocles (fr. 25.1–3) ἀλλ’ ἔγωγ’ ὁ δυστυχὴς / Φρύνης ἐρασθείς, ἡνίκ’ ἔτι τὴν κάππαριν / συνέλεγεν οὔπω τ’ εἶχεν ὅσαπερ νῦν ἔχει, ‘but I, poor soul, after falling in love with Phryne when she was still gathering capers and didn’t yet have all that she has now …’. A fragment of Demetrius II features a cook recounting how during a famine he salvaged a banquet held by the tyrant Lachares by serving capers, i. e. a beggar’s banquet (fr. 1.7–9) Λαχάρους τινός, / ὅτ’ ἦν ὁ λιμός, ἑστιῶντος τοὺς φίλους, / ἀνάληψιν ἐποίησ’ εἰσενέγκας κάππαριν, ‘when a certain Lachares – during the famine – was hosting his friends, I made good by bringing in capers’. A comic fragment of unknown authorship also categorises capers among cheap foods fit for the poor

Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (fr. 9)

135

(com. adesp. fr. 733) πρὸς κάππαριν ζῇς δυνάμενος πρὸς ἀνθίαν, ‘you live on capers when you can live on anthias fish’ (with word-play on the name ‘flower fish’ in pointed contrast to the unblossomed buds of the caper). Similarly Plutarch mentions capers as a cheap dish, like porridge, that one would avoid eating at an extravagant fish banquet beside the sea (Plu. Mor. 668b); while Philem. fr. 100.5 refers to them, ironically, as ‘little delicacies’ (ὀψάρια) prescribed by a doctor as part of a diet his patient claims will destroy him due to its meagreness. χαλκῶν ‘Bronze (pieces)’. The value of the coinage is not specified, but ‘bronze pieces’ could either mean the chalkous (one eighth of an obol, the smallest denomination of Attic coinage), the dichalkon (two chalkoi, i. e. quarter of an obol), or the tetrachalkon (four chalkoi, i. e. half an obol). Silver coinage went as low as one quarter of an obol (same as the dichalkon), so the bronze coinage referred to here is perhaps the chalkous. Three bronze pieces, then, would effectively be just under half an obol in value, a very cheap price. On bronze coinage more generally, which only came into regular use in Athens around the middle of the fourth century, see e. g. Kraay 1968. 16; Kroll 1979. τρυβλίῳ A shallow bowl or saucer not too dissimilar to a phiale (on which see below). In any case the similarity in appearance between the two objects prompts the mention of a phiale immediately below in line 8, as if they were one and the same thing, setting up the joke about votive dedications (cf. Alex. fr. 60 where the drinking cup called a petachnon is said to resemble both vessels in shape). The τρύβλιον could be used as a serving dish (e. g. small fry at Ar. Eq. 649–50 and Av. 77), for eating porridge, gruel and thick soups (Crat.Com. fr. 11; Alex. fr. 146.2–3; Diph. fr. 64.2), as well as drinking wine (Ar. Ach. 278; Alex. fr. 60). Ceramic types, which one might ordinarily expect, are attested at Ar. Ec. 252 and Axionic. fr. 7.1 (the latter as part of a list of ‘ceramic’ vessels according to Poll. 10.122). 7 ἄγοντι πεντήκοντα δραχμάς ‘Weighing fifty drachmas’, i. e. approximately 215g or half the weight of the serving platter mentioned above. For ἄγοντι see on line 4. 8 φιάλην A shallow bowl without handles, often with a boss or ‘omphalos’ in the centre, used for pouring libations or drinking (Richter and Milne 1935. 29–30; Ath. 11.500f–502b; cf. the Roman patera). Phialai were also dedicatory objects par excellence. They are one of the most common objects found in the inventory lists of the Parthenon during the fifth and fourth centuries. Such dedications were usually made of silver (the alternative Attic term was ἀργυρίδες: Ath. 11.502a–b; some gold examples are also attested), and on average weighed around 100 drachmas (1 mina), although phialai varying in weight between 50 and 200 drachmas are also recorded. In the fourth century they were more usually dedicated in the Erechtheion (Harris 1995. 114, 212–14). ἀνακειμένην Quasi-passive form of ἀνατίθημι, the standard verb for making dedications (see ἀναθῇ at line 10). See further on Philippid. fr. 31.2. 9 ἐργῶδες For the impersonal construction of ἐργῶδες with the infinitive, cf. Nicom.Com. fr. 2 ἐργῶδές ἐστιν … λαθεῖν.

136

Philippides

ἀμέλει ‘You know’. Originally an imperative, i. e. ‘don’t worry!’, then used colloquially as an adverb, i. e. ‘rest assured’, ‘doubtless’, ‘of course’, (see Sommerstein 2013. 174 on Men. Sam. 223). In terms of position, ἀμέλει often appears as the first word of a speaker’s utterance, e. g. Ar. Nu. 488, 877, 1111; Lys. 842, 935; Ra. 532; Ec. 800; Nicostr.Com. fr. 9.3; Dromo fr. 1.3 (cf. also Pl. Phd. 82a; R. 422c, 450a, 539e). However, it can also be postponed or used parenthetically in a later position, so Eup. fr. 222.1; Men. Asp. 388; Dis 107; Mis. 92; Sam. 223, 371 (see Diggle 2004. 193). It does not always appear in a speaker’s initial utterance, but is sometimes found during a longer speech in a later sentence (cf. Ar. Ach. 368; Men. Asp. 388; Sam. 223). 10 ἂν γὰρ ἀναθῇ τις, εὐθὺς ἕτερος ἥρπασεν For the verb ἀναθῇ, see ἀνακειμένην above (line 8) and on Philippid. fr. 31. Temple-robbery or ἱεροσυλία was a capital crime in Athens. The offender’s property was confiscated and his body refused burial within Attica (X. HG 1.7.22; Isoc. 20.6; Lycurg. Leocr. 65; MacDowell 1978. 149; Parker 1983. 45). For temple theft in Roman Comedy, see Plaut. Men. 941; Trin. 83–5. ἥρπασεν Gnomic aorist. The verb is used of theft elsewhere at Ar. Eq. 428 and Ra. 1343. For ‘snatching up’ of items as soon as they appear, cf. Ar. Pl. 597; Men. Epit. 398; Diph. fr. 31.24.

137

Αὐλοί (Auloi) (‘Pipes’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 473; Meineke 1841. 470; Kock 1888. 304; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 340. Title Auloi is strikingly unique in taking its title from a musical instrument. Usually comic titles are named after the instrumentalist or enthusiast of that instrument, e. g. Philetaerus’ Philaulos, Antiphanes’ Aulētēs and Aulētris, Alexis’ Aulētris, Anaxilas’ Aulētēs, Theophilus’ Philaulos, Philemon’s Aulētēs, Menander’s Aulētris and Aulētrides, Phoenicides’ Aulētrides, and Diodorus’ Aulētris. Cf. also the many Kitharistēs and Kitharōidos titles in comedy (e. g. by Antiphanes, Alexis, Diphilus, Menander, etc.), yet no comedy survives with the title Kithara. The aulos, often incorrectly translated as ‘flute’ in English, was characterised by a long cylindrical tube (‘aulos’) no longer than two feet, made of either reed, bone, wood, ivory, or metal. At one end of the tube was attached a smaller mouthpiece, bulbous in shape, into which was then inserted a double-reed like that of an oboe or bassoon (as distinct from the single-reeded clarinet or saxophone), in Greek called the ‘tongue’ (γλῶττα or γλωττίς), which gave the instrument its distinctive loud and resonant tone (see generally Schlesinger 1939; Landels 1981; West 1992. 81–107; Anderson 1994. 179–84; Wilson 1999; Byrne 2000; Hagel 2010. 327–51; Psaroudakes 2013). Typically, auloi had five finger-holes along the length of the tube, four on the upper side for the fingers and one beneath for the thumb, which were manipulated to change the pitch of the notes. Some auloi, however, had more holes that could be opened by a rotating collar. The aulos was generally played in pairs by an individual, hence the plural ‘auloi’ (the single pipe was usually referred to as a ‘monaulos’: e. g. Arar. fr. 13; Anaxandr. frr. 19 and 52; Sopat. fr. 2). Of the two pipes one was typically longer than the other. When played in pairs one pipe might provide a drone while the other supplied the melody, or both might play harmonies or some other form of accompaniment, with the second pipe extending or complementing the melodic range of the first (cf. West 1992. 103–5; Anderson 1994. 181; Byrne 2002; Hagel 2010. 327). A harness known as the ‘phorbeia’ was sometimes worn on the head to help support the pipes, especially in the case of professional pipers (Bélis 1986; West 1992. 89; Wilson 1999. 70–2). Auloi and auletes might be encountered in several typical situations in Greek society (for auletes, see Scheithauer 1997; Taplin 1993; Wilson 2002). Professional auletes accompanied choruses at the many dramatic and choral contests of Greece. Thebes in particular was known for nurturing auletes of high quality for such occasions (see Wilson 2002. 47; APl. 16.28). Auloi were played on the battlefield, especially by the Spartans (X. Lac. 13.8; Plu. Mor. 1140c); when sailing (cf. Plu. Alc. 32); and in cultic contexts such as (among others) the Corybantic rites (Pl. Cri. 54d; Men. Thphr. 27–8) and the Adonia festival (cf. the lament accompanied by the ‘gingras’). They were also regularly played during sacrifices (cf. the hired female

138

Philippides

piper Parthenis at Men. Dysc. 432; Macho fr. 11.134–6); at weddings (Posidipp. fr. 28.22; Ath. 4.131b); and sometimes by entertainers at symposia (cf. Ar. V. 1219; Th. 1175 piper boy Teredon; Amips. fr. 21 female piper at a symposium). In Athens the aulos appears to have fallen into disfavour among the higher social ranks. Aristotle in his Politics (1341a34–7) argues it was still popular in the mid-fifth century among the élite, based on a surviving dedicatory pinax for a comic victory by Ecphantides where the wealthy choregos Thrasippus also apparently played the pipes. Its disfavour is apparently mirrored by a mythological tradition preserved in the lyric poets Melanippides and Telestes where the noble goddess Athena discards the pipes after seeing her disfigured facial features in a reflection while playing them, only for the satyr Marsyas to pick up the abandoned instrument (Melanipp. PMG 758; Telest. PMG 805; Wilson 1999. 60–9). Plutarch (Alc. 2.5–7) dates the instrument’s fall from favour in Athenian education to around the 430s BCE after the young Alcibiades supposedly refused to learn it. By Aristotle’s time, at any rate, the instrument appears to have fallen out of fashion among the élite. The reason for its loss of popularity, according to Aristotle (Pol. 1341a18–28), was that it was unsuitable for education, not only because it required far too much time to master than is proper for a general education, but because it excited the emotions, and prevented the player from using words and reason (cf. Martin 2003. 155–7). So too, Plutarch’s Alcibiades rejects the instrument because it blocked the mouth, depriving one of speech and reason (τήν τε φωνὴν καὶ τὸν λόγον ἀφαιρούμενον), a highly prized asset in Athens (Plu. Alc. 2.6; cf. Pl. Grg. 501e). Auloi and auletes were subject to many disparaging associations in antiquity. The nature of the instrument as antithetical to speech linked it with a lack of intelligence, as in an epigram recorded at Ath. 8.337e (= Anon. FGE 1550–1) ἀνδρὶ μὲν αὐλητῆρι θεοὶ νόον οὐκ ἐνέφυσαν, / ἀλλ’ ἅμα τῷ φυσῆν χὠ νόος ἐκπέταται, ‘the gods gave auletes no brains: when they blow their brains fly away too’ (cf. Wilson 1999. 85–7). Its cultic, cathartic and orgiastic associations were thought to cause a loss of self-control, both physical and moral (cf. Arist. Pol. 1341a21–7; Plu. Per. 1.5; Wilson 1999). The increasing professionalisation of theatrical aulos playing around the end of the fifth century also gave the instrument a banausic taint, making it unsuitable for gentlemen (cf. Arist. Pol. 1341a18–28). Instead it became associated with foreigners (esp. Thebans) and people of low status, like the pipegirls (αὐλητρίδες) hired at symposia who were often little more than prostitutes with only a modicum of ability (e. g. the pipe-girl Dardanis who was expected to perform sexual services for the guests: Ar. V. 1346; and see Diggle 2004. 318–19, with references).80 The sound of the instrument itself was sometimes described as harsh, whether like geese (Diph. fr. 78; Ath. 14.657e; Bélis 1992. 499–500; Martin 80

For possible phallic associations of the instrument, cf. Archil. IEG fr. 42? ap. Ath. 10.447b; Ar. fr. 178 ap. Phot. α 83; Nicopho fr. 8; Thphr. Char. 20.10 αὐλώμεθα with Lane Fox 1996. 148; Henderson 1991. 184–5 with n. 129; Wilson 1999. 72.

Αὐλοί

139

2003. 166–7), or a swarm of wasps (Ar. Ach. 864–6). The potentially unpleasant sound of the pipes in the wrong hands underlies com. adesp. fr. *920 δραχμῆς μὲν αὐλεῖ, τεττάρων δὲ παύεται (‘he pipes for a drachma, and stops for four’). The attendance of pipers at sacrifices contributed to their reputation as parasite figures, not least of all in comedy (e. g. the piper Chaeris at Ar. Ach. 866; Pax 950–5; Av. 857–61; cf. Hartwig 2009. 385–90, 393–6). Cf. also the proverb ‘you are living a piper’s life’ (αὐλητοῦ βίον ζῇς) which pertained to parasites, and quite likely had comic origins (Paroemiogr. II. Diogenian. Cent. I, 92; cf. Suda α 4438; see also Harp. p. 76, 9 s. v. βωμολοχεύεσθαι, Phot. β 322; Suda β 486). The title Auloi itself is elusive and could be either concrete or metaphorical in meaning. Titles in comedy which are named after a concrete object are quite rare. They sometimes refer to recognition tokens (e. g. the Daktylios comedies of Alexis, Amphis, Timocles, Menander, and Philemon; Alexis’ Bostrychos or ‘Lock of hair’; cf. perhaps Alexis’ Hippiskos and Kalasiris with Arnott 1996. 52–3, 283). Concrete objects can also be emblematic of a character in the play. So the many Thēsauros comedies (Diphilus, Menander, etc.) can suggest a miser figure, Alexis’ Lebēs (‘Cauldron’) may hint at a cook, if not a storage vessel for a miser’s treasure or recognition tokens (cf. Arnott 1996. 362–3). Alternatively the title may be metaphorical. In Old Comedy, such titles are common, e. g. Aristophanes’ Wasps with its chorus of jurors; Cratinus’ Panoptai which perhaps had a chorus of divine-like ‘all-seeing’ philosophers (cf. Pl. Sph. 216b and Pieters 1946. 163–4); Plato Comicus’ Lakōnes likely featured a chorus of poets (see Pirrotta 2009. 164); and Philonides’ Kothornoi appears similarly metaphorical (i. e. a shoe that fit either foot; the politically ambivalent Theramenes is mentioned in the play at Philonid. fr. 6; cf. Ar. Ra. 534–40). In Middle and New Comedy such titles can also be used as nicknames for particular people or character types. So we find for Eubulus’ Klepsydra (‘Water clock’, a nickname for an hetaira: Ath. 13.567d), and similar hetaira names have been suspected for Alexis’ Lampas (cf. Antiphanes’ Lampas; Arnott 1996. 356–7), and perhaps Nicostratus’ Klinē. Similarly Antiphanes’ Kōrykos (‘Punching-bag’) may be a nickname for a parasite (cf. Tim. fr. 31), while his Bombylios, named after a vessel which ‘rumbles’ when liquid is poured out, might also be a nickname. Content Our only fragment (fr. 10) mentions a type of cheese (or pudding?) and wafers and gives little insight into the play’s content beyond a sympotic allusion. Based on the title, a concrete use of the title could be emblematic of one of the characters in the play. Auloi could indicate a character associated with the instrument (cf. the many Aulētēs / Aulētris / Aulētrides comedies mentioned above). It could also refer to a recognition token; although such tokens usually consist of clothing and jewellery (see on Philippid. fr. 33). The best evidence we have for a metaphorical use of ‘auloi’, particularly in late fourth-century Athens, is in relation to politicians and orators (cf. Wilson 1999. 86–7). Aeschines ca. 330 BCE disparagingly likened his political rival Demosthenes to auloi (3.229) οὗ τὴν γλῶτταν

140

Philippides

ὥσπερ τῶν αὐλῶν ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ, τὸ λοιπὸν οὐδέν ἐστιν, ‘if one takes away his tongue just like that of auloi, there is nothing left’. The same metaphor was used by Demades (380–318 BCE) of his fellow Athenians, Demad. fr. 57 (ap. Stob. 3.4.67) Δημάδης τοὺς Ἀθηναίους εἴκαζεν αὐλοῖς, ὧν εἴ τις ἀφέλοι τὴν γλῶτταν τὸ λοιπὸν οὐδέν ἐστι, ‘Demades likened the Athenians to auloi: if anyone should remove their reed/tongue nothing is left’.81 The instrument’s renowned effect on the emotions rather than logic might also suitably characterise the persuasive strategies of popular leaders. A conceivable subject of such a metaphor, if that is what we have here, might of course be the foremost politician and demagogue in Athens at the end of the fourth century, Stratocles of Diomeia (PAA 837635), whom Philippides attacks elsewhere, even bringing him on stage in one of his comedies (see on Philippid. frr. 25–6). Date Unknown.

fr. 10 K.-A. (10 K.) τὰ δὲ πυρίεφθα καὶ τὰ λάγανα ταῦτ’ ἔχων τὰ δὲ πυρίεφθα Schweighäuser : τους δὲπυριεφθας Ath.A : πϋριέφθα Ath.CE (cf. Poll.FSA) λάγανα Ath.A : λάχανα Musurus

and having the boiled beestings and these wafers Ath. 14.658d (ACE) πυριέφθων δὲ μνημονεύει (οὕτω δὲ καλεῖται τὸ πρῶτον γάλα) Φιλιππίδης ἐν Αὐλοῖς· — Philippides mentions pyriephtha (this is what the first milk is called) in Auloi: — Poll. 6.54 (FS, A) πῦον, πυριάτη· Φιλιππίδης δ’ ἐν Αὐλοῖς καὶ πυρίεφθα εἴρηκεν Pyon (‘beestings’), pyriatē (‘cream-cheese’); Philippides in Auloi has also used the term pyriephtha (‘boiled beestings’)

Metre Iambic trimeter.

k r k l

k | l k r

k l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 470; Kock 1888. 304; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 340. Citation context From Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistai (late 2nd c. CE) in a section where the character Ulpian discusses different types of cheese (14.658a λέξωμέν τι 81

We also find the idea of the politician’s voice as a musical instrument at Plu. Per. 8.1.

Αὐλοί (fr. 10)

141

καὶ περὶ τυρῶν), among them the so-called πυρίεφθα (14.658d). Athenaeus does not mention any source for his quote, as he does for the preceding words; but his slightly garbled definition of the word πυρίεφθα as ‘first milk’ suggests he is misquoting from a lexical source which listed the word πυός beside it (see note ad loc.). Pollux (late 2nd c. CE), a fellow native of Naucratis living in Rome and whose lexical work Onomasticon (ca. 180–192 CE) was written slightly before Athenaeus (completed soon after 193 CE), cites the word at 6.54 in a section listing names of various foods. He cites the word and the play title Auloi (without quotation) alongside πῦον (‘first milk, beestings’) and πυριάτη (a cheese or pudding made from beestings). Whether Pollux has influenced Athenaeus is difficult to tell given the presence of epitomisation and interpolation in his work (see Dickey 2007. 96). But it is possible the original text of Pollux may have included a full quotation of the fragment. Text Manuscript A’s masculine form τους δὲπυριεφθας (apparently from ὁ πυριεφθής) would scan and certainly seems possible, i. e. τοὺς δὲ πυριεφθάς (cf. Hsch. ψ 155 for the form πυριεφθής, there possibly an adjective? describing a type of bread). Schweighäuser corrected this to the neuter plural, supported by the Epitome of Athenaeus (CE πϋριέφθα δὲ καλεῖται παρὰ Φιλιππίδῃ τὸ πρῶτον γάλα) and by Pollux (πυρίεφθα). A masculine form is otherwise not in evidence, including πυρίεφθος which Aelius Dionysius explicitly states is incorrect, Ael.Dion. π 77 πυριάτη· θηλυκῶς τὸ πυρίεφθον· οὐχὶ πυρίατος οὐδὲ πυριατὴ ὀξυτόνως οὐδὲ πυρίεφθος, ‘pyriatē: pyriephthon in the feminine; (it is) not pyriatos, nor pyriatē with oxytone accent, nor pyriephthos’. Musurus replaced A’s λάγανα with λάχανα (‘herbs’ or ‘vegetables’), which would have been an easy-enough error, but an unverifiable conjecture. Interpretation The fragment likely has a sympotic connection, since πυρίεφθα were associated with after-dinner snacks eaten during the symposium (cf. Ath. 14.658e where Ulpian, immediately after citing this fragment, says καὶ ἴσως πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπιδειπνίδας ἔλεγον Μακεδόνες. κώθωνος γὰρ ἡδύσματα ταῦτα, ‘perhaps the Macedonians called all such dishes “after dinner treats”, for these are the pleasant delights of the drinking party’). The demonstrative ταῦτ’ may suggest that the wafers were present on stage, or else immediately present to the speaker’s mind having been mentioned previously (for the demonstrative, see K.-G. I p. 645 §467.5; and for demonstratives in Greek theatre which do not necessarily refer to a person or item on stage, see Taplin 1977. 150–2). Whether the demonstrative applies to the boiled beestings as well is not certain. The participle ἔχων is ambiguous in that it could literally mean ‘holding’ the object(s) in one’s hands, although other possibilities include a circumstantial participle describing attendant circumstances, (i. e. ‘with’ LSJ s. v. A.I.6), or ἔχων followed by a dependent infinitive in the next line (i. e. ‘being able to …’ LSJ s. v. A.III.1). The items might have been mentioned in a staged symposiast scene (see Konstantakos 2005), or in the second-hand report of such a scene (as apparently at Philippid. frr. 4, 5, 20,

142

Philippides

28, and 31). One might also think of a cook making preparations for a party and discussing these items, perhaps in a monologue (cf. Philem. fr. 82 where a cook comes out-of-doors to praise the success of his cuisine at the party inside). πυρίεφθα Apparently a type of cheese or milk pudding made from the colostrum-enriched milk (‘beestings’) of a goat or sheep immediately after birth. The name itself – πῦρ (fire) + ἑφθός (boiled) – must refer to the process by which the milk was curdled, i. e. heated on fire and boiled. What little we know of this dish might be supplemented by what we know of the dish πυριάτη (Cratin. fr. 149.2; Ar. V. 710) which the grammarians tell us was an alternative name for the same thing, e. g. ΣRVΓAld Ar. V. 710a πυριάτης τὸ πυρίεφθον ὑπό τινων προσαγορευόμενον, ὃ κατασκευάζουσιν ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου γάλακτος μετὰ τὸν τόκον, ‘pyriatēs (sic) called pyriephthon by some, which they prepare from the first milk after birth’; Poll. 1.248 πυριάτη τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν λεγόμενον πυρίεφθον, ‘pyriatē which is called pyriephthon by many’; Aët. 2.99.4 οἱ δὲ παλαιοὶ τοῦτο ἐκάλουν πυριάτην, τινὲς δὲ πυρίεφθον, ‘the ancients called this pyriatē, but some pyriephthon’ (for the etymology of πυριάτη see Beekes 2009. 1260 s. v. πῦρ). At Ar. V. 710 pyriatē is an expensive delicacy which ordinary citizens might enjoy if the immense wealth of Athens’ empire was distributed equally; while at Cratin. fr. 149.2 it is associated with the idyllic life of the Cyclopes. The word πυός, which properly seems to mean ‘new milk, beestings’ (cf. Hsch. π 1337; Suda π 3179; EM p. 697, 3; Beekes 2009. 1259; cf. Paus.Gr. π 43 τινὲς δὲ πᾶν γάλα νέον, ‘some say it is any new milk’), also appears to have been used as a synonym for the treated (i. e. cooked) form of the milk (so our grammatical sources, e. g. Paus.Gr. π 43; Phot. π 1542; Suda π 3179; cf. Poll. 6.54). Ancient authors apparently use the word in this sense at Cratin fr. 149.2 (πυὸν δαινύμενοι, ‘dining on beestings’ – the verb is more natural with food items, although ‘consume’ may apply here) and Pherecr. fr. 113.19 (πυοῦ τόμοι, ‘slices of beestings’), where the set form of the milk (i. e. curdled and fixed after boiling) is implied. In these cases the word πυός is probably a metonymic substitute for the more proper terms πυριάτη or πυρίεφθον. This synonymy with puriephtha, and the co-presence of πυός and πυρίεφθον in lexicographical works, may lie behind Athenaeus’ mistaken definition of pyriephtha as ‘first milk’ (cf. also Hsch. π 4422; see ‘Citation context’ above). λάγανα ‘Wafers’. Hsch. λ 36 describes them thus: λάγανα· εἶδος πλακουνταρίου, ὡς καπυρώδη, ἀπὸ σεμιδάλεως ἐν ἐλαίῳ τηγανιζόμενον. καὶ ἄρτοι βραχέντες ἐλαίῳ, ‘lagana: a kind of small flatcake, rather dry, (made) from fine-ground flour and pan-fried in olive-oil; also bread deep-fried in olive-oil’. Cf. Et.Gud. s. v. λάγανα, which instead of ὡς καπυρώδη (‘rather dry’, cf. Phot. λ 13; Suda λ 12) has the erroneous ὡς παπυρώδ’ (‘papyrus-like’). In a passage discussing different kinds of bread (ἄρτος), Ath. 3.110a describes the laganon as ἐλαφρόν τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἄτροφον, ‘light and thin’. Matro of Pitane (fr. 5), in a fragment describing a dish of fattened birds (presumably roasted), likens the thin, crispy skin on their backs to wafer bread: ὄρνιθας … λαγάνοις κατὰ νῶτον ἐΐσας, ‘birds which on their back resemble wafers’. Diocles of Carystus (fr. 191 Van der Eijk, ap. Ath. 3.110b) also

Αὐλοί (fr. 10)

143

attests to their delicate texture, but informs us that ‘roasted’ wafers (ἀπανθρακίς) were even ‘more delicate’ (ἁπαλωτέρα) than lagana. The text of Ath. 3.110a which reports that lagana were ‘baked’ (λάγανα πέττεται) should be treated cautiously since Athenaeus evidently consulted a variant text of Ar. Ec. 843 with the reading λάγανα πέττεται instead of the accepted πόπανα πέττεται. Tzetzes confuses matters further by claiming that πόπανα (‘round cakes’, cf. Ar. Th. 285) was a generic term for λάγανα and other kinds of bread soaked in oil, ΣTzet Ar. Pl. 660a πόπανα· ἄρτοι τινὲς ἐλαίῳ δεδευμένοι οἱ καὶ λάγανα καλούμενοι καὶ ψαιστά, ‘popana: breads soaked in olive-oil which are also called lagana and psaista’. The report of Lex.Seg. Coll. Verb. χ p. 413, 29 that lagana were ‘roasted/baked’ (λάγανα ὀπτά) is presumably based on error. Diocles of Carystus (see above) clearly distinguished λάγανα from the ‘roasted’ variety of wafer-bread (ἀπανθρακίς).

144

Βασανιζομένη (Basanizomenē)

(‘Female Cross-Examined under Torture’) Discussion Meineke 1839. 473; Meineke 1841. 470; Kock 1888. 304; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 340. Title No other comedy is known by this title. There are many similarly formed titles in Middle and New Comedy with feminine passive participles, e. g. Antiphanes’ Akontizomenē (Female Struck by a Javelin), Harpazomenē (Female Kidnapped), Alexis’ Mandragorizomenē (Female Drugged with Mandrake), Apollodorus Carystus’ Proikizomenē (Female Given a Dowry), Menander’s Perikeiromenē (Female with Shorn Hair), Phoenicides’ Misoumenē (Female Hated), Posidippus’ Apokleiomenē (Female Locked Out), and many others. For comic titles with a similar ‘legal’ flavour, cf. the Epidikazomenos comedies (Man Pursuing a Law Suit) attributed to Philemon, Diphilus and Apollodorus Carystus (adapted in Terence’s Phormio); and the Epitrepontes (Men at Arbitration) of Menander. The verb βασανίζω (noun: βάσανος, LSJ s. v. III.1, primarily = ‘touchstone’, see Beekes 2009. 203) signifies one of the more curious practices of Greek law, namely the cross-examination of slaves under torture (see generally Thalheim 1899; Lipsius 1905. 888–95; Bonner and Smith 1938. 126–30; Harrison 1971. 147–50; Thür 1977; MacDowell 1978. 245–7; duBois 1991. 47–74; Gagarin 1996; Mirhardy 1996 and 2000; Sternberg 2006. 156–73). Cross-examination under torture did not take place when a slave was guilty or suspected of a particular crime, but when he or she was thought to possess important information in relation to someone else’s affairs. Information gathered in this way was apparently considered acceptable evidence in both public and private lawsuits. Contemporary justification of the practice, no doubt with rhetorical exaggeration, can be found in the almost verbatim passages of Is. 8.12 and D. 30.37. To quote Demosthenes, there the speaker claims that basanoi yield truer evidence than witnesses sworn under oath, as though this were a widely accepted fact, D. 30.37 ὑμεῖς τοίνυν καὶ ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ βάσανον ἀκριβεστάτην πασῶν 〈 πίστεων⟩ νομίζετε, καὶ ὅπου ἂν δοῦλοι καὶ ἐλεύθεροι παραγένωνται, δέῃ δ’ εὑρεθῆναι τὸ ζητούμενον, οὐ χρῆσθε ταῖς τῶν ἐλευθέρων μαρτυρίαις, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δούλους βασανίζοντες, οὕτω ζητεῖτε τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὑρεῖν. εἰκότως, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί· τῶν μὲν γὰρ μαρτυρησάντων ἤδη τινὲς οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυρῆσαι ἔδοξαν· τῶν δὲ βασανισθέντων οὐδένες πώποτ’ ἐξηλέγχθησαν, ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῆ τὰ ἐκ τῆς βασάνου εἶπον, ‘Well you, both privately and publicly, regard basanos as the most accurate of all 〈 evidence⟩ , and wherever slaves and free men are present, and questions must be answered, you do not use the testimonies of free men, but in this way, by cross-examining slaves under torture, you seek to discover the truth. Quite rightly, men of the jury; for some of those who gave testimony in the past did not appear to bear true witness. But none of those cross-examined under torture were ever refuted on the grounds that what they said from this cross-examination was untrue’.

Βασανιζομένη

145

Nonetheless, the value of such evidence was disputed in antiquity. A famous dissenting voice is Aristotle (Rh. 1376b31–77a8) who noted that some slaves would endure torture rather than tell the truth, while others were prepared to lie if it would end their torture as soon as possible. On this basis he concluded that no evidence gathered this way could be trustworthy (ὥστε οὐδὲν ἔστι πιστὸν ἐν βασάνοις, ‘such that there is nothing trustworthy in questioning-under-torture’). The untrustworthiness of information gained by torture is also mentioned several times in our ancient sources elsewhere, e. g. Antipho 5.32–3 and 5.40 where a slave undergoing basanos supposedly told the truth before his ordeal, but lied out of necessity when tortured on the wheel; Lys. 4.16 where slaves are said hypothetically to utter falsehoods under torture to please their masters; also Plaut. Truc. 777–9 where the old man Callicles has doubts whether the information he extracted from two slaves under torture was reliable (see further duBois 1991. 47–62). Basanos could be performed either by the state or by private citizens (Thalheim 1899. 40). In matters concerning the state an owner might offer his slaves for interrogation after agreeing to terms of compensation (Herod. 2.89–90). Then the relevant ‘men in office’ (οἱ ἄρχοντες) or men chosen by the boulē would conduct the interrogation until they were satisfied. Such interrogation might even take place in court before the presence of a jury (D. 53.25; Aeschin. 2.126; cf. Harp. p. 89, 15 s. v. δημόκοινος· ὁ δημόσιος βασανιστής, ‘dēmokoinos: the public torturer’). Private cross-examinations followed a different process. Before basanos itself took place there first had to be a ‘challenge’ (πρόκλησις) where the interested party either demanded his opponent’s slave(s) for questioning, volunteered his own, or even requested those of a third party (Lys. 4.15; D. 37.40; see Thür 1977). Both disputants would agree on what questions were to be asked (Antipho 1.10), who the βασανισταί or ‘interrogators’ would be (Antipho 1.10–11; Isoc. 17.15), what method of torture would be administered (Ar. Ra. 618–22; Isoc. 17.15), the terms of compensation if the slave was harmed (Ar. Ra. 623–4; D. 37.40–1; 59.124), and the location where the cross-examination would take place, i. e. whether in private (Is. 10.12; but see D. 53.25 on the possibility of disputing such results) or in a public place (Isoc. 17.15 mentions the Hephaisteion in the Agora as the place for an examination). Both sides would also give pledges, and the conditions of the examination were written out and sealed (D. 37.40–2). The parties might also agree that the basanos itself would put an end to the matter without going to trial, and agree to any appropriate compensation. Otherwise the evidence gathered by the interrogator might be sealed and later used to support a lawsuit (cf. the procedure for arbitration outlined at Arist. Ath. 53.2–3; cf. also Ar. Ra. 1119 and following which appears to parody the procedure, especially 1132–3 and 1151). Some scholars doubt whether the process of cross-examination under torture ever actually took place. It is probably right to think that both parties rarely agreed to submit their slaves to such proceedings during the πρόκλησις or ‘challenge’ stage, and that this act of challenge (and expected refusal) in itself was used for rhetorical purposes (cf. e. g. D. 59.125; see Thür 1977. 261; Gagarin 1996; Johnstone

146

Philippides

1999. 70–92). But there are clear examples where torture as part of basanos did take place (e. g. Antipho 1.20; 5.32–3 and 39–40), and if there was no real likelihood of cross-examination under torture ever taking place, the recriminations of the orators would come across as weak, and even open them to ridicule by their opponents. Ancient sources mention various forms of torture which might be used during basanos proceedings. Aristophanes’ Frogs (618–24) parodies the process, even down to the initial agreement between both parties on what methods of torture are acceptable, as well as the deposit of a bond for compensation by the torturer in case the slave is severely injured: (Αι.) καὶ πῶς βασανίσω; (Ξα.) πάντα τρόπον, ἐν κλίμακι / δήσας, κρεμάσας, ὑστριχίδι μαστιγῶν, δέρων, / στρεβλῶν, ἔτι δ’ εἰς τὰς ῥῖνας ὄξος ἐγχέων, / πλίνθους ἐπιτιθείς, πάντα τἄλλα, πλὴν πράσῳ / μὴ τύπτε τοῦτον μηδὲ γητείῳ νέῳ. / (Αι.) δίκαιος ὁ λόγος· κἄν τι πηρώσω γέ σοι / τὸν παῖδα τύπτων, τἀργύριόν σοι κείσεται. ‘(Aeac.) And how am I to torture him? (Xanth.) Any way (you like), by binding him to a ladder, hanging him up, whipping him with bristles, thrashing him, putting him on the rack, even pouring vinegar down his nostrils, laying bricks on him, and everything else, but don’t use a leek to hit him, or a fresh onion. (Aeac.) What you say is fair; and in case I somehow maim your slave while beating him, money will be deposited for you’. In Frogs the torture eventually settled on is beating or whipping on the backside, ribs and belly. But the most commonly attested – indeed cruellest – method (as implied by Arist. EN 1153b19) was to be ‘strained tight’ or ‘racked’ (στρεβλοῦν), a punishment often associated with ‘the wheel’ (ὁ τροχός), a device which the victim would mount (ἀναβῆναι) before being bound (cf. Plu. Mor. 509c ἐνδεδεμένον) or fixed (Plu. Mor. 19e προσηλῶσαι) and stretched by cables tied to the limbs (cf. Anacr. PMG 388.7 which suggests the neck too might be stretched). For the association between the wheel and stretching, see also Ar. Lys. 846; Pl. 875; Antipho 1.20; And. 1.43–4; D. 29.40; Plu. Mor. 509b–c.82 This punishment is attested as a method of torture during basanos at Ar. Ra. 620; Antipho 5.32 (cf. 5.40); Isoc. 17.15; and Herod. 2.89. A combination of punishments during basanos, whether administered separately or at the same time, is mentioned at Isoc. 17.15 (whipping and being racked: μαστιγοῦν … καὶ στρεβλοῦν) and Plaut. Truc. 777 (hung up and flogged: verberatas … pendentis simul); cf. the torture without cross-examination at Ar. Pax 452 (a runaway slave whipped while stretched on the wheel). Female slaves were not exempt from these tortures, as implied by the title of Philippides’ comedy. We find examples of females subject to basanos at Lys. 1.16; D. 30.35–6; and 59.124; and in comedy at Plaut. Truc. 777 and Ter. Hec. 773. For apparent references in New Comedy to the torture of slaves intended as evidence in a trial, see Plaut. Mostell. 1086–1101 and Ter. Hec. 327–35 (see also Scafuro 1997. 465). 82

Stretching on the wheel was used, seemingly gratuitously, to torment criminals before they were executed (so Antipho 1.20; Lys. 13.54; D. 18.133)

Βασανιζομένη

147

Content Our only indication of the comic characters is the title. The title figure probably alludes to a slave girl, but it could also suggest a free foreigner (cf. the pornoboskos of Herod. 2.89 who volunteers himself for basanos). Athenian citizens, at any rate, were forbidden from undergoing cross-examination under torture following a decree in the archonship of Skamandrios (date unknown: see Andoc. 1.43–4 with MacDowell 1962).83 How central the girl was to the action of the drama is impossible to tell. She may have been only a relatively minor character (cf. Chrysis the ‘Samian’ woman of Menander’s Samia). To what extent her involvement in a cross-examination took place during the play is also questionable. The present-participle form of the title may suggest that a cross-examination scene took place on stage during the play. But equally so, the incident could have occurred off stage (see below), or formed part of the background to the story, whether prior to the action of the play itself, or as a looming incident that threatens to take place in the course of the action (see the survey of participial titles in Konstantakos 2000a. 63). Comic titles which refer to action taking place during the play include, among others, Menander’s Epitrepontes (‘Men at Arbitration’) which featured an arbitration scene at lines 219–371 (see also Garton 1972. 84) and Diphilus’ Klēroumenoi (adapted by Plautus in his Casina) which apparently had a lot-casting scene (see Plaut. Cas. 341–423). Our only extant comic parallels of torture taking place on stage is the basanos scene at Ar. Ra. 612–73 (see under ‘Title’) and perhaps the scene from an Old Comedy depicted on the ‘New York Goose Play’ calyx krater where an old man is apparently handed over to be tortured (New York MMA 24.97.105; com. adesp. fr. 57; Csapo and Wilson 2020. 414). But its presence in both these cases is mitigated somewhat by the farcical slapstick humour typical of Old Comedy (cf. Riess 2012. 271). New Comedy’s aversion to such scenes is suggested by Plaut. Truc. 775–80 where Callicles mentions the torture and questioning of slaves earlier off stage, before he brings all involved on stage for further questioning – this time without the violence. In the same play we find the interrogation of slaves (off stage) resulting in the resolution of a significant plot strand. At Plaut. Truc. 775–854 the examination under torture of slaves makes Diniarchus realise he unwittingly fathered the child of Callicles’ daughter, and so now promises to marry her. The torture of a slave girl (off stage) might therefore have lead to a plot resolution in Philippides’ play. Date

83

Unknown.

The decree was almost suspended in 415 BCE to allow basanos of citizens following the mutilation of the Herms.

148

Philippides

fr. 11 K.-A. (11 K.) Antiatt. ε 20 (= AB 92.22) ἐ π α ν α κ ά μ ψ α ι· ἐπαναστρέψαι. Φιλιππίδης Βασανιζομένῃ e p a n a k a m p s a i: to turn back (to). Philippides in Basanizomenē

Discussion Meineke 1841. 470; Kock 1888. 304; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 340. Citation context From the Antiatticist (2nd c. CE) who records ἐπανακάμψαι as an acceptable alternative in Attic Greek for the more common ἐπαναστρέψαι. Text The Antiatticist typically cites verbs in the infinitive form in the lemmata, regardless of their form in the source text (see under fr. 3 ‘Text’ with further examples). The infinitive, therefore, likely does not reflect the form of the verb as it appeared in Philippides. The aorist tense, however, – unless another Attic author was also originally cited by the Antiatticist in the unepitomised version and was the source for our lemma (cf. on fr. 8 ‘Citation context’) – quite likely reflects the tense used by Philippides. Interpretation The double-compound verb ἐπανακάμψαι first appears only in the fourth century BCE, and then rarely, although it is found quite frequently in much later sources. It literally means ‘to turn back to’ which could fit any possible number of contexts, whether in a literal or metaphorical sense. Aristotle uses the word for bodily ducts and veins which ‘turn’ or ‘bend back’ inside the body (Arist. HA 510a.21, 26; 514a.11). We also find the verb used metaphorically in the sense ‘to turn back / return (to the beginning of something)’ at Arist. Pr. 916a32 ἐπανακάμπτειν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν, ‘to turn back to the beginning’ (when completing one’s lifespan as if it were a circle; see also the synonymous verb ἐπαναστρέφειν used in the same sense and context at Arist. Pr. 916a22); and cf. the single-compound form of the verb with the same meaning at Longin. 36.4 ἀνακάμπτει γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν (returning to an earlier theme). The slightly different meaning ‘reverse’, ‘move backwards’ is suggested by an ancient scholar’s note to Ar. Av. 648 where the verb ἐπανάκρουσαι – a term for reversing a ship by oar, or a beast of burden by the reins – is glossed with ἐπανάκαμπτε (see ΣV Ar. Av. 648; Suda ε 1952). Although not attested directly, one other possible meaning is suggested by the Antiatticist’s gloss ἐπαναστρέψαι, a verb which, certainly in the fifth century, often had the military sense ‘to turn back against (the enemy)’. So we find at Th. 4.130.6 ἐπαναστρέψας (of Nicias and the Athenian army assaulting Mende); 8.105.3 ἐπαναστρέψαντες (of Thrasybulus turning his ships from a defensive position into one of attack); X. Eq.Mag. 8.25 ἐπαναστρεφομένοις (of enemy cavalry turning to attack); Ar. Eq. 244 κἀπαναστρέφου (of cavalry turning to the attack); and Ar. Ra. 1102 ἐπαναστρέφειν (metaphor of counterattack used to describe the literary contest between Aeschylus and Euripides). A verb with military connotations

Βασανιζομένη (fr. 11)

149

might certainly suit the typical exaggerated accounts of war-time exploits told by a braggart soldier (miles gloriosus) or his slave, as often in Middle and New Comedy.84 However, a military metaphor would in that case also be possible.

84

See e. g. Antiph. fr. 200; Phoenic. fr. 4.5–6; Plaut. Curc. 420–53; Epid. 437–55; Mil. 1–78; Poen. 470–503; Truc. 482–90; cf. Plu. Mor. 547e; and see further on Steph.Com. fr. 1 this volume.

150

Ἐκπ[ ] (Ekp[ ]) (‘Out[ ]’)

Discussion Livrea 1985. 15, 16–17; Andorlini 1985. 9–18 with plate XV (no. 170); Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 340–1; Sommerstein 1990. 224; Gallo 1994. 230–1; Arnott 1996. 194–5. Title Papyrus Harris 171 at line 9 cites the name of the author and only the first three letters of the title before the papyrus breaks off (Φιλιππίδου̣ Ἐκπ[ ]). Livrea, in the editio princeps of the text, gives the restoration Ἐκπ[ωματοποιῶι], comparing Alexis’ comedy Ekpōmatopoios (‘Drinking-cup Maker’), which also happened to be cited in the same papyrus. Livrea’s reading is printed by Kassel and Austin (1989 VII). In favour of this restoration, we might note that this is the only surviving comic title known from elsewhere which begins with the same combination of letters. Similar ‘banausic’ titles include the Middle Comedy poet Anaxilas’ Lyropoios (‘Lyre-Maker’), the New Comedy poet Apollodorus of Gela’s Deusopoios (‘Dye-Maker’), and Apollodorus of Gela or Apollodorus of Carystus’ Grammateidiopoios (‘Tablet-Maker’). Livrea’s restoration, however, is by no means certain. Citations of authors and their dramas in P.Harris 171 are set out on separate lines. The space of the lacuna for the remaining letters of the title is therefore of indeterminate length and could admit various supplements. There is some reason to doubt Livrea’s restoration when we consider that Pollux, who cites the title Ἐκπωματοποιός in his Onomasticon (7.190), attributes it only to Alexis without naming Philippides (the transmission of Pollux’s text could of course be a factor here). The opening combination of letters can also, theoretically, admit numerous other possibilities which tap into typical New Comedy themes, among them titles derived from verbs such as ἐκπίπτω or ἐκπλήττω: e. g. Ἐκπίπτουσα, Female Cast Ashore/Shipwrecked? (see LSJ s. v. 1), or Ἐκπληττόμενος, Boy Struck by Desire? (see LSJ s. v. II.2; cf. Ar. Pl. 673). Among other possibilities, Sommerstein (1990. 224) plausibly suggests the title may have been Ἐκπ[λέουσα], a shortened alternative form of the existing play title Συνεκπλέουσα (for a contra view, see Gallo 1994. 230 n. 9, who argues that the prefix Συν- is indispensable to that title since it is found in all its known variant spellings, and so considers Ἐκπ[λέουσα] unlikely here). Another possibility is that the play may simply have been named after the object rather than the craftsman, i. e. Ἔκπ[ωμα] (‘Drinking-Cup’), which in that case might signify a recognition token.85 Content Our only fragment (fr. 12) comes from an anthology of passages illustrating the theme of φιλαργυρία (love of money) and mentions in particular the ‘love of money of an old man’. Miser characters are typical in New Comedy (see 85

For inscribed cups as recognition tokens, cf. Ar. fr. 634; Alex. fr. 272; Eub. fr. 69; see Arnott 1996. 760.

Ἐκπ[ ] (fr. 12)

151

comm. below) and one may have featured in this play, but he may also have been mentioned here casually. If a miser appeared to a more significant extent, we might at least mention some possible themes and subplots involving misers elsewhere. Livrea (1985. 17) suggested that the plot involved a miser who saved his wealth in vain only to die before he could enjoy it: a commonplace theme in epigram, cf. e. g. AP 11.165–173; 11.294; 11.389; see also FPG 3.19 Χίλων φιλάργυρον ἰδὼν ἐκφερόμενον ἔφη· οὗτος βίον ἀβίωτον ζήσας ἑτέροις βίον καταλέλοιπεν, ‘Chilon, upon seeing a miser being carried out for burial, said: “this man, having lived an unliveable life (βίον), has left his livelihood (βίον) behind for others (to enjoy)”’. Having a character die in this way would be unusual for a comedy. Gallo (1994. 231) has suggested the plot revolved around the standard comic theme of a miserly old man complaining about the spendthrift ways of a young man – perhaps father and son, or a father-in-law complaining about his daughter’s dowry being wasted by his son-in-law – as often elsewhere in New Comedy (‘il vecchio avaro di solito contrapposto al giovane spendaccione e scialacquatore, per lo piú padre e figlio’). For this opposition, cf. Men. Epit. fr. 6, and lines 126–31, 1065–6 (father-in-law at odds with son-in-law for wasting his daughter’s dowry); Mnesim. fr. 3 (uncle and nephew); cf. also the wealthy miser Euclio in Plaut. Aul. 190–3, 236–8 who is unwilling to supply a dowry for his daughter’s marriage. Austin’s restorations to fr. 12 suggest a character who enriches himself unethically by taking ‘drachmas’ τὰς δ[ραχμὰς] to produce a ‘fine income’ ἵνα λάβη̣ι πρ̣[οσόδους καλάς]. West’s supplement πρ̣[οῖκ’] in line 2 suggests that the theme of misers and marriage may have appeared in the play. We find misers in comedy who cynically marry wealthy brides for their dowries, or indeed force their sons to marry wealthy brides and obstruct two young lovers from their preferred match (see fr. 12 ‘Interpretation’ below). An elderly miser obstructing the potential marriage of two young lovers and scheming to marry the girl himself for financial gain appears in Menander’s Aspis. There Smikrines prevents the marriage of his niece to Chaireas in order to acquire her large inheritance, only to be thwarted by a clever intrigue by the slave Daos. Date

Unknown. fr. 12 K.-A.

a l φιλα]ργυρίαν γ̣έ̣ροντ̣ο̣ς· τασδ[ ] . ας εἴληφ’ ἵνα λάβη̣ι πρ̣[

1 init. μισῶ Livrea τάσδ[ε γὰρ] West : τὰς δ[ραχμὰς] Austin 2 [μεμάθη]κ̣ας; Austin : [ἔγνω]κ̣ας; Gallo λάβη̣ ι vel λάβο̣ι Livrea πρ̣[οῖκ’ k –] West : πρ̣[οσόδους καλάς] Austin

[…] old man’s [love of m]oney […] […] I have/he has taken in order to get […]

152

Philippides

P.Harris 171, lines 9–11 Φιλιππίδου̣ Ἐκπ[ ·] — Philippides’ Ekp[ ]: —

Metre line 1.

Unknown. Probably iambic trimeters with possible medial caesura in

[a l k l] [a l] k l

r l | k l l | r k l

l l [k l] [a l k l]

Discussion Livrea 1985; Andorlini 1985; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 341; Gallo 1994. 230–2. Citation context The passage is quoted on a papyrus scrap (P.Harris 171) from the second century CE preserving an anthology of short quotations from various Middle and New Comedy authors (Antiphanes, Alexis, Philemon, Philippides and Apollodorus of Gela) that illustrate the themes ‘love of money’ (φιλαργυρία) and ‘base profiteering’ (αἰσχροκέρδεια) (see Livrea 1985. 12). Text Livrea (1985. 17) proposed the supplement μισῶ at the beginning of line 1, which is generally accepted. There is, however, room for doubt. Livrea based his restoration on ‘gnomic’ parallels, including Ar. Ra. 1427; Men. fr. 704, and Men. Mon. 457, 466, 475, 483 Jaekel.86 But we do not seem to have a ‘gnomic’ utterance of this sort here at all. Such passages are highly formulaic and usually involve the speaker expressing dislike for a certain type of person, followed by a relative, temporal, or equivalent clause outlining hypocritical behaviour at odds with that person’s presumed identity. So at Ar. Ra. 1427–8 (= E. fr. 886) we have μισῶ πολίτην, ὅστις ὠφελεῖν πάτραν / βραδὺς πέφανται, ‘I hate a citizen who has proved slow to help his fatherland’; at Men. Mon. 457 Jaekel (= E. fr. 905) μισῶ σοφιστήν, ὅστις οὐχ αὑτῷ σοφός, ‘I hate a wise man who is not wise for himself ’; and at Men. fr. 704, in a parody of this formula, μισῶ πονηρόν, χρηστὸν ὅταν εἴπῃ λόγον, ‘I hate a bad man whenever he speaks a good word’ (cf. S. Ant. 495–6; fr. 737; E. Hipp. 413–12; Supp. 1108; frr. 61, 248.2–3, 360.30–1, 492.3–4, 886.1, 905 and 1053). It seems unlikely we have a formulaic utterance of the same type here since the remnants of line 2, although incomplete, do not appear to support the expected follow-up clause describing that figure’s contrary behaviour. A verb of disapproval might still be possible – but not for the reasons Livrea states. Austin, in his supplements of the text, restores τὰς δ[ραχμὰς] at the end of line 1, and [μεμάθη]κ̣ας; at the beginning of line 2 (based on Men. Sam. 655). He

86

All these formulaic passages are apparently paratragic (see below). Indeed many of the Menandrean ‘monostichoi’ are direct quotations of tragedy by comedy, and many have been falsely attributed to Menander (for this phenomenon, see Liapis 2007; Nervegna 2013. 209–10).

Ἐκπ[ ] (fr. 12)

153

also has the noun/adjective combination πρ̣[οσόδους καλάς] at the end of line 2 (apparently modelled on Bato fr. 2.11 ἐγὼ δὲ τὰς προσόδους μεθύων καλὰς ποιῶ): [μισῶ φιλα]ργυρίαν γ̣έ̣ροντ̣ο̣ς· τὰς δ[ραχμὰς] [μεμάθη]κ̣ας; εἴληφ’ ἵνα λάβη̣ι πρ̣[οσόδους καλάς] [I hate] the old man’s [love of m]oney: did you [learn of] the d[rachmas?] He has taken (them) in order to get [a fine income] West (ap. Kassel and Austin 1989 VII) restores τάσδ[ε γὰρ] at the end of line 1, and πρ̣[οῖκ’ ] towards the end of line 2: [μισῶ φιλα]ργυρίαν γέ̣̣ ροντ̣ο̣ς· τάσδ[ε γὰρ] [ ] . ας εἴληφ’ ἵνα λάβη̣ι πρ̣[οῖκ’ k –] [I hate] the old man’s [love of m]oney: [for] thes[e] [ ] he has taken in order to get a do[wry] Interpretation The speaker is commenting on the ‘avarice’ (φιλαργυρία) of an old man. The absence of the definite article with γέροντος, unless this appeared in the lacuna, may suggest we have a generic reference to old men (i. e. ‘the avarice typical of an old man’), rather than to a specific person (i. e. ‘the old man’s avarice’). But the definite article can be omitted when referring to someone familiarly (see e. g. Men. Dysc. 553, 883 with Handley 1965 ad loc.; Pk. 262, 359; Epit. 403), and therefore could be a specific reference here. In line 2 the verb εἴληφ’ could be either third-person: (‘[he] has taken so that [he] may get’) or first-person (‘I have taken so that [he] may get’). If West’s supplement πρ̣[οῖκ’ k –] in line 2 is accepted (πρ̣[οῖκας k –] is also possible), the fragment may touch on the comic topos of the avaricious man who marries for the sake of a large dowry (see Philippid. fr. 29). We also find money-loving fathers forcing their sons to marry for the sake of rich dowries. See e. g. Choric. Dial. 21.1.4 ἦ που ἐκεῖνον μέμνησθε τὸν γέροντα τὸν φιλάργυρον, οὗ πενιχρᾶς ἠράσθη κόρης ὁ παῖς, ἦν γὰρ εὐπρόσωπος αὕτη. ὁ δὲ ἄρα οἱ παρθένον οὐκ εὐειδῆ συνάπτειν ἠξίου, ἦν γὰρ εὔπορος αὕτη, ‘no doubt you recall that old money-lover whose son fell in love with a penniless girl, for she was pretty. But he thought it right to join him with an unattractive lass, for she was wealthy’; and cf. perhaps com. adesp. fr. 1084.3: πέμπτ[ο]ν̣ γεγάμηκα μῆνα, πεισθεὶς τῷ πατρί, ‘I’ve been married five months, persuaded by my father’. In any case, the idea of ‘taking’ in this fragment (on the verb see comm. below) would be suggestive of a base profiteer who is unscrupulous in the pursuit of money and profit, however small. 1 φιλα]ργυρίαν γέ̣̣ ροντ̣ο̣ς Love of money is typically associated with old men in comedy, see e. g. Smikrines in Men. Asp. 351 ὁ δὲ φιλάργυρος γέρων, Euphr. fr. 9.12–13 φιλάργυρος / ὁ γέρων, Euclio the miserly ‘senex’ in Plautus’ Aulularia; Jul. Or. 1.19d καθάπερ οἱ φιλάργυροι γέροντες ὑπὸ τῶν κωμῳδῶν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν ἑλκόμενοι, ‘like the elderly money-lovers dragged on stage by the

154

Philippides

comic poets’; Pomp. Porph. comm. Hor. Epod. 1.33 Chremes nomen senis est in comoediis; ibi enim fere senes avari finguntur, ‘Chremes is an old man’s name in comedy, for old men are usually depicted there as avaricious’; Σ Th. 2.44.4 seems to recall the comic stereotype when it observes that old men are typically fond of money: φιλάργυροι γὰρ οἱ γέροντες, and cf. Arist. EN 1121b13–14; and Cic. Cato 65 who mentions senes avari. 2 εἴληφ’ Both first-person (‘I have taken’) or third-person (‘he/she has taken’) forms are possible. The precise shade of meaning of the verb here is difficult to tell without an accusative object. Livrea (1985. 17) suggests that it means ‘keep, preserve’, vel sim. (‘accaparrato’) in the context of a thrifty miser who hoards his wealth. The verb can also be used of taking/accepting a bride (see on Philippid. fr. 6.3), especially if a dowry is in question here (see under ‘Text’ on line 2). For further associations of this verb with philargyroi, see below. λάβη̣ι The verb is typically used of the φιλάργυρος, especially the ‘base profiteer’ (αἰσχροκερδής) who always seeks personal gain. For ‘taking’ as a chief characteristic of the ‘stingy’ or ‘illiberal’ man (ἀνελεύθερος) more generally, see Arist. EN 1121b17–19 πολλοὶ γὰρ τρόποι δοκοῦσι τῆς ἀνελευθερίας εἶναι. ἐν δυσὶ γὰρ οὖσα, τῇ τ’ ἐλλείψει τῆς δόσεως καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῆς λήψεως, ‘many characteristics seem to belong to stinginess, for its essence is twofold: a lack of giving and an excess of taking’. For the verb found in similar contexts in comedy, see Antiph. fr. 316 μ̣ι̣κρὸν λ[α]βὼν κ̣έ̣ρ̣[δος, ‘taking a small profit’ (from the same anthology, P.Harris 171, and ethical theme as our present fragment); Diph. fr. 94.1–2 εἰ μὴ τὸ λαβεῖν ἦν, οὐδὲ εἷς πονηρὸς ἦν. / φιλαργυρία τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, ‘if taking did not exist, there would not be a single rogue. This is philargyria’; Diph. fr. 99 ἆρ’ ἐστὶν ἀνοητότατον αἰσχροκερδία· / πρὸς τῷ λαβεῖν γὰρ ὢν ὁ νοῦς τἄλλ’ οὐχ ὁρᾷ, ‘base gain is the most mindless thing: for by being occupied with taking, the mind does not see anything else’; and see the witticism of the Cynic philosopher Diogenes of Sinope at Stob. 3.10.57 οἱ φιλάργυροι καθάπερ μαχαίρᾳ τῷ βίῳ χρῶνται, πάντα ποιοῦντες κατὰ τὴν λαβήν, ‘money-lovers use life like a knife, doing everything by the “handle/taking” (λαβήν)’. See also Gerhard 1909. 76 and 163; and Philippides’ Philargyros ‘Title’.

155

Λακιάδαι (Lakiadai)

(‘Demesmen of Lakiadai’) Discussion Meineke 1839. 473; Meineke 1841. 470–1; Kock 1888. 304–5; Kock 1924. 525; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Whitehead 1986. 338; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 341–2; Jones 1999. 113. Title Poll. 10.37 preserves the plural title Lakiadai, however at Poll. 9.38 manuscripts S and F preserve Λακιάδης and Λακιάδες respectively, both corrected by Meursius (1701. 1586 C) to Λακιάδαι. The title could refer either to the Attic deme Lakiadai itself, or more specifically to its inhabitants, i. e. Demesmen of Lakiadai (demotic: Λακιάδης, pl. Λακιάδαι). The latter seems more likely when we compare other comic titles which invariably use the demotic form: – Eupolis’ Prospaltioi (deme name: Πρόσπαλτα). – Aristophanes’ Acharneis (deme name: Ἀχάρναι). – Strattis’ Potamioi (deme name: Ποταμός). – Antiphanes’ Thorikioi (deme name: Θορικός). – Timocles’ Ikarioi and Marathōnioi (deme names: Ἰκάριον and Μαραθών). – Menander’s Halaeis (deme name: Ἁλαὶ Ἀραφηνίδες) – An anonymous Erchieis (deme name: Ἐρχία).87 In addition we have singular titles based on the demotic form, e. g. Magnes’ Titakidēs (unless the title is Pytakidēs, see Bagordo 2014. 107–8), and Antiphanes’ Phrearrios. Philippides’ comedy likely followed this tradition in naming his comedy after the demesmen rather than the deme itself (on the demes in comedy more generally, see Whitehead 1986; Jones 1999). Several Old Comedies with demotic titles are sometimes named after the chorus, certainly so in the case of Eupolis’ Prospaltians (fr. 259.13), Aristophanes’ Acharnians, and perhaps Strattis’ Potamians. In Middle Comedy Antiphanes’ Thorikioi may have been named after the chorus. The deme was known for its mines, and the play also had the alternative title Διορύττων ‘The Miner’. Closer in time to Philippides, both the Ikarioi Satyroi and Marathōnioi of Timocles may also be named after choruses (see Constantinides 1969; Apostolakis 2019. 136, 190–1). The Attic deme Lakiadai, of the tribe Oineis, was located on the Sacred Way, east of the Cephisus river, less than four kilometres northwest of the city (Traill 1975. 49). It was a relatively small deme with a bouleutic quota of two, suggesting 87

Com. adesp. fr. 7 = IG II2 2323.97 = 2323.11 M-O. Another possible comic title taken from either the deme name or the demotic, Thymoitadai, has been inferred from Paus. Gr. δ 27 (Phot. δ 762; Suda δ 1515 = com. adesp. fr. 8) ἐκωμῳδοῦντο γὰρ οἱ Ἀχαρνεῖς ὡς ἄγριοι καὶ σκληροί. Ποτάμιοι δέ ὡς ῥᾳδίως δεχόμενοι τοὺς παρεγγράφους. Θυμοιτάδαι καὶ Προσπάλτιοι ὡς δικαστικοί, ‘for the Acharnians were mocked in comedy as fierce and austere; Potamians as ready to accept illegally enrolled citizens; those from Thymoitadai and Prospalta as practised in trials’ (see Whitehead 1986. 329 n. 16).

156

Philippides

a male citizen population of around 120 (see Jones 2004. 75). The deme was named after the hero Lakios (Kearns 1989. 180) to whom a sanctuary was dedicated there (Paus. 1.37.2) Λακίου τέμενός ἐστιν ἥρωος καὶ δῆμος ὃν Λακιάδας ὀνομάζουσιν ἀπὸ τούτου, ‘there is a sanctuary of the hero Lakios and a deme which they call Lakiadai after him’. In myth, the hero Phytalos (Kearns 1989. 205) is said to have welcomed Demeter at his home in Lakiadai, for which he was rewarded by the goddess who gave him the fig (Paus. 1.37.2) ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χωρίῳ Φύταλόν φασιν οἴκῳ Δήμητρα δέξασθαι, καὶ τὴν θεὸν ἀντὶ τούτων δοῦναί οἱ τὸ φυτὸν τῆς συκῆς, ‘in this place they say that Phytalos welcomed Demeter in his house, and that the goddess in return for these things gave him the fig plant’ (the ‘sacred fig’ was reportedly mentioned in the inscription on the hero’s tomb at Lakiadai, as seen by Pausanias 1.37.2; see also Plu. Mor. 703c; IG I3 386.163). Consequently the district itself was sometimes called ‘Sacred Fig’ (Ἱερὰ συκῆ). There was also an important sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone in the deme (Paus. 1.37.2 Δήμητρος ἱερὸν καὶ τῆς παιδός, Athena and Poseidon were also worshipped in the deme) which was an important stopping point during the celebration of the Greater Mysteries when the sacred objects were brought from Eleusis to Athens (Ath. 3.74d; Philostr. VS 2.20.3). Appropriately, it was a demesman of Lakiadai, Thessalus (PA 7208; PAA 513180; APF 8429 XIIIc) son of Cimon (see below) and a descendant of the genos Philaidai, who impeached Alcibiades for wronging the goddesses after the scandal of the Mysteries (Plu. Alc. 22.3). Another myth associated with the deme was the arrival of Theseus to Athens, in which the Phytalidai are said to have purified Theseus at the altar of Zeus Meilichios, on the opposite side of the Cephisus, after he had killed several bandits (Paus. 1.37.4) διαβᾶσι δὲ τὸν Κηφισὸν βωμός ἐστιν ἀρχαῖος Μειλιχίου Διός· ἐπὶ τούτῳ Θησεὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπογόνων τῶν Φυτάλου καθαρσίων ἔτυχε, λῃστὰς καὶ ἄλλους ἀποκτείνας καὶ Σίνιν, ‘Crossing the Cephisus, there is an ancient altar of Zeus Meilichios. Upon this, Theseus obtained purification at the hands of the descendants of Phytalos after slaying bandits, especially Sinis’. It is perhaps noteworthy that a member of the deme Lakiadai, Cimon (PA 8429; PAA 569795; APF 8429), played a prominent role in the return of the bones of Theseus to Athens. The myth also suggests that Lakiadai and the Cephisus stream were regarded as a threshold and entry point of sorts to the city of Athens itself (cf. Walker 1995. 22–3). Famous inhabitants of the deme include the general Miltiades (ca. mid 6th c. to 489 BCE; PA 10212; PAA 653820; APF 8429 VIIIb; cf. Plu. Cim. 4.4 οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Μιλτιάδην Λακιάδαι), best known for his role in the Battle of Marathon, and father of Cimon (see above). Another famous figure not necessarily from the deme, but certainly associated with it, is the tragic actor Theodorus (PAA 506155; Stephanis 1988 no. 1157), active in the first half of the fourth century BCE. His tomb was located along the Sacred Way in Lakiadai (Paus. 1.37.2) πρὶν δὲ ἢ διαβῆναι τὸν Κηφισὸν Θεοδώρου μνῆμά ἐστι τραγῳδίαν ὑποκριναμένου τῶν

Λακιάδαι

157

καθ’ αὑτὸν 〈 ἄριστα⟩ , ‘before crossing the Cephisus is the memorial of Theodorus, the 〈 best⟩ actor of tragedy among those of his time’. Like other culture heroes, his memorial was given a prominent position along a major thoroughfare into the city not far outside the walls of Athens. Lakiadai had various agricultural associations. Apart from the myth of Demeter and her gift of the fig to Phytalos, we hear that Cimon allowed his fellow demesmen to take whatever food they needed from his large estate, supplying a free meal every day to anyone who needed it, Arist. Ath. 27.3 ὁ γὰρ Κίμων ἅτε τυραννικὴν ἔχων οὐσίαν … τῶν δημοτῶν ἔτρεφε πολλούς. ἐξῆν γὰρ τῷ βουλομένῳ Λακιαδῶν, καθ’ ἑκάστην τὴν ἡμέραν ἐλθόντι παρ’ αὐτὸν ἔχειν τὰ μέτρια. ἔτι δὲ τὰ χωρία πάντα ἄφρακτα ἦν, ὅπως ἐξῇ τῷ βουλομένῳ τῆς ὀπώρας ἀπολαύειν, ‘Cimon, seeing that he had a lordly estate, used to feed many of his demesmen. It was possible for any of the Lakiadai who were willing to visit him each day and have a share. All his property was still unfenced so that it was possible for anyone who wished to benefit from his crops’ (see also Cratin. fr. 1; Theopomp.Hist. FGrH 115 F 89 ap. Ath. 12.533a–b καὶ δεῖπνον αἰεὶ εὐτελὲς παρασκευάζεσθαι πολλοῖς ἀνθρώποις, καὶ τοὺς ἀπόρους [προσιόντας] τῶν Ἀθηναίων εἰσιόντας δειπνεῖν, ‘and always prepare a simple dinner for many people, and to dine Athens’ poor when they came in’; Plu. Cim. 10.1–4; Per. 9.2; cf. Jones 2004. 74). Plutarch (Cim. 10.7–8) described this state of affairs as a quasi-return to the golden age of Kronos. Lakiadai was also well known for the large radishes, known as στειλέαι, which grew there, Zen. Ath. I 73 (see Posidipp. fr. 4) δῆμος δέ ἐστι τῆς Ἀττικῆς οἱ Λακιάδαι, κἀκεῖ ῥαφανῖδες μεγάλαι γίνονται, ‘Lakiadai is a deme in Attica and large radishes grow there’ (cf. Suda π 1683; Antiph. fr. 119 ap. Hsch. σ 1701 στειλέαν· τὴν μακρὰν ῥάφανον). The reputation of radishes from Lakiadai were such that a fragment of Posidippus has a character invoke the deme and its radishes (fr. 4 Ὦ Λακιάδαι καὶ στειλέαι), apparently in connection with their supposed utility for humiliating adulterers via so-called rhaphanidōsis (so Zen. Ath. I 73 αὕτη εἴρηται ἐπὶ τῶν μοιχῶν, ὡς {ἐπὶ τῶν} ἀξίων ὕβρεως καὶ κολαζομένων, ‘this is said in relation to adulterers, as in relation to those worthy of humiliation and being punished’; Hsch. λ 196 Λακιάδαι· δῆμος τῆς Ἀττικῆς, ῥαφανίδας φέρων, ὃν ἐπιβοῶνται κατὰ τῶν μοιχῶν, ‘Lakiadai: a deme of Attica, producing radishes, which they call upon against adulterers’; Suda ω 62 Λακιάδαι, ἐν ᾧ ῥαφανῖδες πολλαί, αἷς ἐχρῶντο κατὰ τῶν ληφθέντων ἐνυβρίζοντες, Lakiadai, where there are many radishes, which they used insultingly against those who were caught’; On rhaphanidōsis, cf. Ar. Nu. 1083–4 with ΣRVE; X. Mem. 2.1.5; Catull. 15.19; Cohen 1985; Carey 1993; Kapparis 1996).88 88

Our sources also say that where a radish was unavailable the handle of a garden implement (στελεός) might be used, cf. Zen. Ath. I 73; Suda ω 62 καὶ στελεοῖς δὲ ἐχρῶντο μὴ παρουσῶν τούτων ἀναβάστοις, ‘and they also used raised(?) handles if these were unavailable (i. e. radishes)’. But the word ‘handle’ (στελεός) may be an error arising from a corruption of the similar word ‘radish’ (στειλέα).

158

Philippides

Content Fr. 13 has a character addressing a woman about the condition of a piece of furniture and how it should be fixed. In fr. 14 we have two or more characters who have arrived on stage, apparently searching for a particular place. The title of the play possibly reflects the location of the dramatic action. One might compare Menander’s Halaeis which was apparently set in the deme of Halai Araphenides (St.Byz. s. v. Ἁλαὶ Ἀραφηνίδες, p. 68, 2–4 = Men. Halaeis test. iii K.-A. δασύνεται δὲ τὸ Ἁλαί, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ δράματι Μενάνδρου ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀραφηνίσιν Ἁλαῖς διακεῖσθαι τὰ πράγματα, ‘“Halai” is aspirated, as also in the drama of Menander from the fact that the events are set in Halai Araphenides’.89 Whether the title indicates the identity of the chorus is uncertain (see under ‘Title’ for choruses in comedies with demotic titles). In any case, there is indirect evidence (via Roman comedy) that choruses in the late fourth century BCE may have interacted with the main characters and participated in the action of the play. So we encounter a chorus of fishermen in Plautus’ Rudens 290–324 (at Rud. 32 Plautus claims his play is based on a comedy by Diphilus) who first enter speaking a monologue before engaging in dialogue with Trachalio. We also have a chorus of lawyers in Plautus’ Poenulus 504–816, who may be the remnant of a chorus from Alexis’ Karchedonios dated ca. 330 BCE or later (Arnott 1996. 287). Philippides’ drama may have exploited stereotypes and jokes about the deme, as often in comedy. In the case of other demes, for example, Acharnians were depicted as tough, unyielding rustics (Ar. Ach. 180–1; com. adesp. fr. 498 ap. Phot. δ 762); Potamians were ridiculed for their carelessness in registering illegal citizens (Men. fr. 117 ap. Harp. p. 255, 7 s. v. Ποταμός; Paus.Gr. δ 27; Suda δ 1515); Thymoitadai and Prospalta were satirised for litigiousness (com. adesp. fr. 8 ap. Paus.Gr. δ 27; Phot. δ 762; Suda δ 1515); Teithras was known for wickedness (ΣRV Ar. Ra. 477b; Suda τ 579); Diomeia for braggarts (Ar. Ach. 605); Aixone for abusive language (Pl. La. 197c; Men. fr. 200; Suda α 239–42); while Rhamnousians were considered wise and held in high regard (Suda ρ 32) (cf. also Göbel 1915. 21–5 on demes and their characteristics). Demes were also associated with particular local products. Acharnai was known for its charcoal (cf. Ar. Ach. 348); Thorikos for its silver mines (cf. Antiphanes’ Thorikioi or Dioryttōn ‘The Miner’); Sphettos for vinegar (Ar. Pl. 720–1; unless the humour revolves around a joke on their temperament: cf. Ath. 2.67c–d); Phaleron for sprats (Ar. Ach. 901; Av. 76; fr. 521); Aixone for red mullet (Cratin. fr. 236; Nausicr. fr. 1.7–8; Hsch. α 2015); Aigilia for figs (Theoc. 1.147; Ath. 14.652e); Athmonon for vines (Ar. Pax 190); Kephisia for turnips (CratesCom. fr. 30); and of course Lakiadai for radishes (Posidipp. fr. 4). Cf. Osborne 1985. 186 and 252 n. 4. The apparent agricultural abundance of the deme (Demeter, figs, radishes, Cimon’s property), as indeed the association of

89

Menander’s Hauton timōroumenos was also set in the deme of Halai (fr. 77; cf. Ter. Haut. 61–4).

Λακιάδαι (fr. 13)

159

the deme and its radishes with the punishment of adulterers, may have provided thematic material.90 Date Unknown.

fr. 13 K.-A. (12 K.) κράτιστόν ἐστι τοῦτον ἐκτεμεῖν, γύναι, τὸν δίφρον· ἄχρηστα παντελῶς οὕτως ἔχει· ἕτερον δὲ καινὸν ἐμβαλεῖν αὐτῷ τόνον 2 ἄχρηστα Poll.CL : ἄχρηστα δὲ Poll.FS οὕτως ἔχει τὰ σπάρτα Poll.FSCL : {οὕτως ἔχει} τὰ σπαρτία Meineke : {οὕτως} τὰ σπάρτ’ ἔχει Scaliger 2–3 ἄχρηστα παντελῶς οὕτως ἔχει | τὰ σπαρτί’· ἕτερον δ’ ἐμβαλεῖν αὐτῷ τόνον Meineke

It’s best, woman, to cut out this stool seat – it’s completely useless like this – and put another new cord in it Poll. 10.36–7 (FS, CL) καὶ μὴν τό γε τῇ κλίνῃ ἢ τῷ σκίμποδι ἐντεταμένον ὡς φέρειν τὰ τυλεῖα, σπάρτα σπαρτία, τόνος, κειρία, τάχα δὲ καὶ σχοῖνος καὶ σχοινία καὶ κάλοι· ὧν ἐπὶ τὰ ἄλλα κοινῇ (ἐπεὶ τὰ ἄλλα κοινά, ἡ μέν Bekker) κειρία ἔστιν ἐν Ὄρνισιν Ἀριστοφάνους, παραδηλοῦντος αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ σπάρτα, ὅταν φῇ (Ar. Av. 815–16) … ὁ δὲ τόνος ἐν τῇ Λυσιστράτῃ (Ar. Lys. 923). καὶ Θουκυδίδης μέν φησιν (Th. 4.48.3) ‘ἐκ κλινῶν τοῖς σπάρτοις ἀπαγχόμενοι’, Φιλιππίδης δ’ ἐν Λακιάδαις· — Furthermore, that which is stretched taut in a couch or low couch so as to support the cushions (is called) sparta (‘esparto-twine’), spartia (‘small esparto-twine’), tonos (‘cord’), keiria (‘bedstead-cord’), and perhaps also schoinos (‘rush-twine’), schoinia (‘small rush-twine’) and kaloi (‘cables’). As far as the former of these are generally concerned (or with Bekker: ‘Since the others are common, …’), keiria (‘bedstead-cord’) is in the Birds of Aristophanes, although he insinuates that it is also sparta (‘esparto-twine’) when he says (Ar. Av. 815–16) … . Tonos (‘cord’) is in Lysistrata (923). And Thucydides says (4.48.3) ‘hanging themselves with the sparta (‘esparto-twine’) from couches’, while Philippides in Lakiadai (says): —

Metre Iambic trimeters.

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

90

Cf. Kock 1924. 525; Whitehead 1986. 338 n. 78. For adultery in comedy, cf. the ‘μοιχός’ plays of Ameipsias, Alcaeus, Antiphanes, and Philemon; see also Plaut. Mil. which ends with the punishment of an adulterer at 1394–1427.

160

Philippides

Discussion Meineke 1841. 470–1; Kock 1888. 305; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 341. Citation context Pollux’s Onomasticon (see fr. 1) in a section listing different words for the supporting rope or cording used in couches (κλίνη ‘sofa/bed’, or in Philippides’ case the cording used for a stool: δίφρος) upon which a cushion or mattress was then placed. Fragment 13 is cited here for its use of the word τόνος (line 3). The fragment also purportedly illustrates the synonymous term τὰ σπάρτα (line 2), however this is likely a textual corruption (see ‘Text’ below). Text Line 2 is hypermetrical: τὸν δίφρον· ἄχρηστα παντελῶς οὕτως ἔχει τὰ σπάρτα, i. e. scanned as: – kk k – k – k – – – k – – – –. By far the simplest solution is to excise τὰ σπάρτα at line end as an obtrusive gloss. Pollux, at any rate, probably cited our fragment for its example of the word τόνος in line 3. The intrusion of τὰ σπάρτα is possibly a misguided gloss to provide a subject for the verb ἔχει. The likely subject of ἔχει here, however, is ὁ δίφρος, implicit from the previous sentence. Among other solutions, Scaliger (in Canter’s unpublished manuscript Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta a Th. Cantero collecta, pars prima, p. 466) deleted οὕτως and rearranged the final three words to read ἄχρηστα παντελῶς τὰ σπάρτ’ ἔχει, ‘the esparto-twine is completely useless’. Meineke (1841. 471) tried solving the difficulty by deleting οὕτως ἔχει and changing σπάρτα into the diminutive form σπαρτία (endorsed by the editions of Kock and Edmonds). However, it is far more difficult to conceive how the words οὕτως ἔχει might have crept into the text by mistake, especially when they fit the metre and provide good sense. Interpretation The speaker makes a proposal to a woman that a stool needs to have its support-cording replaced in order to be of any use. The circumstances of the proposal are unclear. The speaker may be addressing a slave, or we may have a husband addressing his wife (cf. Philippid. frr. 6.3 and 29.1). Whether the item was visible on stage is unclear. The demonstrative τοῦτον in line 1 may refer to an object seen or mentioned earlier which now is not necessarily present (see note below, and cf. Philippid. fr. 10 for a similarly ambiguous demonstrative). 1 τοῦτον The demonstrative pronoun can either describe a person or object immediately present on stage, or something merely present in the speaker’s mind (K.-G. I p. 645 §467.5). The same would apply to the demonstrative adverb οὕτως in line 2. ἐκτεμεῖν Lit. ‘cut out’, i. e. cut out the cording (τόνος, see below) which provided support for the seat. The verb regularly takes an accusative of the part which is cut out, sometimes followed by a genitive of source (or possession), e. g. Hom. Il. 11.829 μηροῦ δ’ ἔκταμ’ ὀϊστόν, ‘cut out the arrow from the thigh’. Here one might have expected τὸν τόνον as the direct object rather than τὸν δίφρον (i. e. ἐκτεμεῖν τὸν τόνον τοῦ δίφρου, ‘to cut out the cord from the stool’). But for δίφρος referring specifically to the ‘seat’ or ‘support’ of a stool, see below.

Λακιάδαι (fr. 13)

161

2 τὸν δίφρον Typically refers to a portable light stool (cf. Hom. Od. 19.97; Ar. Eq. 1164; Pl. R. 328c; Apollod.Com. fr. 15.6; Herod. 6.1; Theoc. 15.3), without back or arm-rests, usually with four legs, and upon which one might place a cushion (Pl. R. 328c; Theoc. 15.3; cf. 14.41) or a fleece (cf. Hom. Od. 19.97, 20.150; h.Cer. 196) for comfort. Ath. 5.192e–f notes that the diphros was ‘more humble’ (εὐτελέστερος) than a thronos (chair) or klismos (couch). A folding variety, or δίφρος ὀκλαδίας, is also attested (see Richter 1966. 43–6 with figs. 236–58). The term was sometimes also used, albeit rarely, for any seat in general (see Pritchett 1956. 215, who cites Hdt. 3.146 and Ael. VH 9.3; note also the elaborate Thessalian ‘stool’ which Erotian ε 36 tells us had a backrest: cf. Eup. fr. 66; Poll. 10.47, 7.112; Ath. 13.568d; and below). Stools ranged from the cheap and rudimentary (cf. Ath. 5.192f who cites Hom. Od. 20.259 δίφρον ἀεικέλιον, ‘unseemly stool’; cf. h.Cer. 190–200) to the more elaborate made from expensive materials (see e. g. IG II2 1394.13–14; D. 24.129 δίφρον τὸν ἀργυρόποδα, ‘silver-footed stool’; Pritchett 1956. 216; Richter 1966. 38). On the origins of the name (lit. ‘two-bearer’, i. e. a chair carried by two people), see Beekes 2009. 341–2; and more generally Hug 1931. 411; Pritchett 1956. 215–17; Richter 1966. 38–46 with figs. 198–235; Andrianou 2009. 25–30. In the present passage the word δίφρος must refer to the part of the stool upon which one sat (i. e. the seat) rather than the stool as a whole. This, at least, is implied by the verb ἐκτεμεῖν which governs our accusative (see note ad loc.). That δίφρος can have this more specific meaning is apparently attested by Hippocrates who refers specifically to the ‘seat’ (δίφρος) and the ‘backrest’ (ἀνακλισμός) of a ‘large Thessalian chair’ (μέγα ἕδος θεσσαλικόν), Hipp. Art. 7.37–40 Littré τὸν ἄνθρωπον καθίσαι πλάγιον ἐπὶ τῷ δίφρῳ· κἄπειτα τὸν βραχίονα … ὑπερβάλλειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνακλισμοῦ, ‘the person (should) sit horizontally on the seat (ἐπὶ τῷ δίφρῳ); and then put the arm over the backrest’ (see Pritchett 1956. 215). We might compare δίφρος in its other meaning of ‘chariot’ (LSJ s. v. I.2) as well as more specifically the ‘chariot-board’ upon which one stood (LSJ s. v. I.1) for a parallel use of these general and specific meanings of the noun. ἄχρηστα Adverb with ἔχει, further qualified by παντελῶς ‘completely useless’. For neuter accusative adverbs with ἔχω, cf. e. g. S. Ph. 201 εὔστομ’ ἔχε, Pl. Lg. 932a γονέων ἀμελέστερον ἔχῃ, X. Oec. 21.7 οἳ ἂν αὐτῶν ἄριστα τὸ σῶμα … ἔχωσι, Theoc. 15.3 ἔχει κάλλιστα. 3 ἐμβαλεῖν For the verb taking a thing as direct object (accusative) and a dative (or εἰς + acc.) for the place ‘into’ which that thing is put, see LSJ s. v. I.2. The infinitive depends on κράτιστόν ἐστι understood from line 1 (unless it depends on something in the missing line that followed). τόνον ‘Cord’, singular for plural, as elsewhere (e. g. Ar. Eq. 532; Lys. 923; cf. κάππαριν at Philippid. fr. 9.6). Such cording could be made from rush grass, for example esparto grass (i. e. τὰ σπάρτα, Lygeum spartum, L.), a type of rush found in southern Europe popular for weaving and making rope (see Quattrocchi 2006. 1254). Its use as cording in couches is alluded to at Th. 4.48.3 (τοῖς σπάρτοις); but

162

Philippides

see also Hdt. 9.118.1 (τοὺς τόνους ἕψοντες τῶν κλινέων ἐσιτέοντο, ‘they boiled and ate the cording of the couches’) where the cording boiled and eaten there might have been of leather (cf. Hdt. 5.25.1). Cording for couches and stools was presumably threaded closely enough to support a person without requiring a mattress or cushion, although this had its discomforts (cf. Ar. Lys. 923 αἰσχρὸν γὰρ ἐπὶ τόνου γε, ‘for it’s awkward on the cording’; note esp. the image in Richter 1966, fig. 216 for a preserved stool rail with narrowly spaced holes to fasten the cording, also p. 53 where she notes that couch cords might be interlaced, as shown by a marble couch from Pergamon illustrated in Ransom 1905, pl. V). For worn out or slack cording in couches (and by extension in stools), see Ar. Eq. 532 which may depict Cratinus metaphorically as a worn-out couch: ἐκπιπτουσῶν τῶν ἠλέκτρων καὶ τοῦ τόνου οὐκέτ’ ἐνόντος, ‘with its amber falling out and cording missing’ (for this reading, see ΣVE Ar. Eq. 532a–b μεταφορᾷ οὖν κέχρηται ἀπὸ τῶν κλινῶν, ‘he uses a metaphor from couches’; for the alternative idea we have a lyre metaphor, see Bianchi 2017. 314–15 on Cratin. test. 9). Cf. also the Eleusinian accounts of 357/6 BCE which mention couches with ‘stretched’ cording (IG II2 1541.22–6 = I.Eleusis 140 κλῖναι τοὺς τόνους λίαν ἐντατοί, ‘couches too stretched in their cording’), apparently denoting cords now too slack to provide adequate support.

fr. 14 K.-A. (13 K.) ὀρθῶς γε τὴν ῥύμην ὁδοιπορήκαμεν. ὀρθῶς Poll.S : ὀρθός Poll.F

ὁδοιπορήκαμεν Poll.FS

We’ve walked the lane correctly at least Poll. 9.38 (FS) τάχα δ’ ἂν εὕροις καὶ ῥύμην εἰρημένην καὶ πλατεῖαν, ὡς οἱ νῦν λέγουσι, Φιλήμονος μὲν ἐν Πανηγύρει εἰπόντος (fr. 61) … Φιλιππίδης δὲ ἐν Φιλευριπίδῃ (fr. 22) … ὁ γὰρ στενωπὸς οὗτος ἐν Ἀθήναις ἦν· καὶ Λακιάδαις· — You might perhaps find that both rhumē (‘laneway’) and plateia (‘broadway’) are used, as people today say, since Philemon says in Panēgyris (fr. 61 plateia) … And Philippides in Phileuripidēs (fr. 22 rhumē) … For this was the stenōpos (‘narrow passageway’) in Athens; and in Lakiadai: —

Metre Iambic trimeter with medial caesura.

l l k l

k l | k l

k l k l

Discussion Dobree 1831–1833. 578; Meineke 1839. 475; Meineke 1841. 471; Herwerden 1868. 34–5; Kock 1888. 305; Herwerden 1903. 186–7; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Gallo 1984. 235; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 342.

Λακιάδαι (fr. 14)

163

Citation context Pollux’s Onomasticon 9.38 (late 2nd c. CE) in a section discussing different words for broad or narrow roads. Beforehand Pollux had given examples of names for broad streets: τὰς μὲν εὐρυτέρας ὁδοὺς λεωφόρους ἂν καὶ ἁμαξιτοὺς καλοίης καὶ ἁμαξηλάτους καὶ ἱππηλάτους, ‘the wider streets you might call leōphoroi (‘people bearers’) and hamaxitoi (‘wagon ways’) and hamaxēlatoi (‘wagon roads’) and hippēlatoi (‘chariot roads’)’, followed by names for narrow streets: τὰς δὲ στενὰς στενωποὺς καὶ λαύρας, ‘the narrow (roads you might call) stenōpoi (‘narrow passageways’) and laurai (‘lanes’)’. Here he adds two more words for narrow and wide passageways (rhumē and plateia), citing the use of rhumē as a synonym for stenōpos at Philippid. frr. 22 and 14.91 Text The ὀρθῶς of manuscript S is uncontroversial (F’s ὀρθός does not agree in number with the subject). Herwerden (1903. 187) unnecessarily inserts the preposition κατά in front of τὴν ῥύμην, i. e. ‘we have walked down the lane’. But for the accusative with an intransitive verb of motion, see comm. on ὁδοιπορήκαμεν below. Attempts to amend ὁδοιπορήκαμεν as found in manuscripts FS are also unnecessary. Editors have been troubled by the verb’s lack of augment. But the past tense of this verb in non-Attic authors does not have an augment at all. We find the imperfect form ὁδοιπόρεον at Hdt. 4.116.1, and the pluperfect form διοδοιπορήκεσαν at Hdt. 8.129.2 (see Gallo 1984. 235). Philippides may even have written these lines with a non-Athenian character in mind (see further below and on ῥύμην; cf. also e. g. Anaxil. fr. 15.2 where the Doric form of the verb ἐξηρτυόμαν may involve similar characterisation). Among other proposals, Herwerden (1868. 34–5) proposed the future form ὁδοιπορήσομεν, while Meineke (1839. 475: ὁδοιπεπορήκαμεν) and Kock (1888. 305: ὁδοπεποιήκαμεν) reduplicate the perfect stem. But even here Attic parallels suggest the verb usually has a temporal augment on the first syllable for past tenses (see e. g. the imperfect form ὡδοιπόρεις at S. Aj. 1230 and OT 1027; and the perfect form ὡδοιπορηκότες at Gal. De aliment. 3, Kühn VI. 499). Lautensach (1899. 151–2) restores a temporal augment and assumes the text was abridged, spreading the passage across two lines, i. e. ὀρθῶς γε τὴν ῥύμην k – a – k – / ὡδοιπορήκαμεν. Interpretation Two or more characters arrive on stage (ὁδοιπορήκαμεν: firstperson plural), entering from one of the parodoi. They claim to have been walking down a laneway (rhumē), taking the accusative in the expression τὴν ῥύμην ὁδοιπορήκαμεν as an accusative of the place traversed, as elsewhere with this verb (see note ad loc.). The stage setting would therefore seem to be a laneway where one might find the entrance to houses: cf. the prologue and setting of Men. Mis. 91

The expression ὁ γὰρ στενωπὸς οὗτος ἐν Ἀθήναις ἦν is slightly odd, and could mean ‘this laneway was in Athens’. But it seems to be a gloss for the word ῥύμη (see comm. below ad loc. and under fr. 22 ‘Text’).

164

Philippides

6–7 πρὸς ταῖς ἐμαυτοῦ νῦν θύραις ἕστηκ’ ἐγώ / ἐν τῷ στενωπῷ, περιπατῶ τ’ ἄνω κάτω, ‘Now I stand in front of my own doors in the laneway, walking back and forth’ (cf. also Plaut. Pseud. 960–2, discussed at Philippid. fr. 22). Depending on how we interpret the adverb ὀρθῶς, our characters have either all arrived walking ‘upright’ (less likely), or else (and more likely) they have followed the lane ‘correctly’ – or rather, they have turned off the main road into the correct lane where their destination is located (for branching laneways used as a navigational tool, usually counted when walking a main road starting from a significant landmark like a city gate, see on fr. 22). The non-Attic form of the verb ὁδοιπορήκαμεν as well as the rare use of ῥύμη to mean ‘laneway’ (see notes ad loc.) may both suggest the speaker is a foreigner, i. e. non-Athenian, and not from Lakiadai. For foreigners in comedy arriving on stage looking for a location, we might compare Harpax at Plaut. Pseud. 595–9, the braggart soldier’s servant who arrives from the harbour seeking the house of the pimp Ballio to pay money for a girl. In our fragment the speaker arrives in company, suggesting at least two characters appear on stage (cf. fr. 22 from Phileuripidēs where a master and a slave apparently arrive together looking for an address). ὀρθῶς Here most likely ‘correctly’, ‘the right way’, vel sim. Cf. Pl. R. 506c where the adverb describes a blind man who follows the road correctly without straying from the path: ἢ δοκοῦσί τί σοι τυφλῶν διαφέρειν ὁδὸν ὀρθῶς πορευομένων οἱ ἄνευ νοῦ ἀληθές τι δοξάζοντες; ‘or do you think that those who hold a true opinion without reason differ in any way from blind men who travel a path correctly?’ Hipp. Art. 58.27 Littré has the additional meaning ‘travel more upright’ (ὀρθότεροι μὲν ὁδοιπορήσουσι) in the context of someone using a long walkingstick when recovering from a dislocated thigh. τὴν ῥύμην ‘Lane, alleyway’ (cf. Latin angiportum). It is found again in this sense at Philippid. fr. 22 (see also PCair.Zen. 764.42, 46; Beekes 2009. 1294). LSJ s. v. ῥύμη II.1 suggest that in the present passage the word simply means ‘street’. But they are possibly misled by Pollux’s citation of the word alongside πλατεῖα (cf. also Suda α 383 which treats the word as synonymous with other words for ‘street’ ἀγυιαί· ἄμφοδα, ῥύμαι).92 Our source for this fragment equates the word ῥύμη with στενωπός ‘lane, alley’ and tells us that the latter was the regular term for ‘laneway’ in Attica, Poll. 9.38 ὁ γὰρ στενωπὸς οὗτος ἐν Ἀθήναις ἦν, ‘for this was the stenōpos in Athens’. The Atticist Phrynichus even suggests that ῥύμη in this sense had foreign Macedonian origins, Phryn. Ecl. 383 ῥύμη· καὶ τοῦτο οἱ μὲν Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπὶ τῆς ὁρμῆς ἐτίθεσαν, οἱ δὲ νῦν ἀμαθεῖς ἐπὶ τοῦ στενωποῦ. δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ τοῦτο Μακεδονικὸν εἶναι. ἀλλὰ στενωπὸν καλεῖν χρή, ῥύμην δὲ τὴν ὁρμήν, ‘rhumē: this too the Athenians established in the sense hormē (i. e. ‘impulse, rush’), but ignorant people today in the sense stenōpos (‘laneway’). It seems to me that this 92

Kock (1888. 307) also happened to include Pollux’s gloss ὁ γὰρ στενωπὸς οὗτος ἐν Ἀθήναις ἦν (with slight emendation) as the second line of Philippid. fr. 22, leaving ῥύμη undefined and open to misinterpretation.

Λακιάδαι (fr. 14)

165

is actually Macedonian. But one ought to call it a stenōpos, and call hormē (by the name) rhumē’ (see Sturz 1808. 29 n. 7 and 31 n. 9). Cf. also Antiatt. ρ 2 ῥύμην· οὔ φασι δεῖ〈 ν⟩ λέγειν, ἀλλὰ στενωπόν, ‘rhumē: they say one should not say (this), but rather stenōpos’. It is notable that no Attic author except Philippides (frr. 14 and 22) uses ῥύμη in this sense, whereas στενωπός (‘laneway’) is the more standard word, as we find e. g. at Pherecr. fr. 113.4; Nicostr.Com. fr. 25.2; Men. Mis. 7; Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1.23; Thphr. Vent. 29 (cf. also S. fr. 832 and Pl. Ti. 70b). ὁδοιπορήκαμεν For the absence of the temporal augment, see under ‘Text’ above. The verb elsewhere takes an accusative of the space or way ‘walked upon or over’, as is typical with other intransitive verbs of movement, e. g. Hdt. 4.116.1 ὁδοιπόρεον … ὁδόν, and S. OT 1027 ὡδοιπόρεις … τούσδε τοὺς τόπους. Cf. also AP 9.565.1 (= Theaet. test. line 1, this volume).

166

Μαστροπός (Mastropos) (‘Procuress’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 473; Meineke 1841. 471; Kock 1888. 305; Krakert 1902. 8; Stotz 1912. 12; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 342. Title No other Greek comedy is known by this title. By contrast, the related title Pornoboskos is attributed several times to the Middle Comedy poets Eubulus and Anaxilas, and to the New Comedy poet Posidippus, while an Antipornoboskos is attributed to the Middle Comedy poet Dioxippus (see Nesselrath 1990. 324). The word μαστροπός can apply either to a male or a female. However, the weight of our evidence suggests it more typically refers to females. Sources which refer generically to μαστροποί in the plural typically treat them as female: e. g. Luc. Tox. 13 αἱ μαστροποί, and Poll. 4.120 αἱ μαστροποί (referring specifically to the figures encountered in comedy). By contrast, Diph. fr. 42.22 refers to male mastropoi (κόλλοψι μαστροποῖς ‘pathic mastropoi’). But there they are androgynous and the term may be an insult for effeminate pornoboskoi. In Xenophon’s Symposium, while the term μαστροπός there is used in relation to males, this may be due to its metaphorical application to Socrates and Antisthenes (see also Cohen 2015. 142 on the metaphorical use of the term when applied to males). Philippides’ unique and deliberate choice in naming the comedy Mastropos rather than the more common and explicitly masculine equivalent Pornoboskos further suggests that the title figure here was conceived as female. A gender distinction between these two terms, at any rate, can be found in the Mimiamboi (Mimes) of Herodas (early to mid-third century BCE) where the sketch titled Προκυκλίς ἢ Μαστροπός (= Mim. 1) describes a female figure, while Πορνοβοσκός (= Mim. 2) describes a male figure. For the apparent adaptation of these two figures in Roman comedy under the names lena and leno respectively, see further below (cf. also Stotz 1912. 1–2; Arnold 1998). The word μαστροπός (note also the variant spelling μαστροφός) is attested in Greek literature apparently as early as the late fifth century in the μῖμοι ἀνδρεῖοι of Sophron (fr. 69). Different etymologies have been offered to explain the name (see Kapparis 2011. 252). In his commentary on Sophron’s Mimes, the grammarian Apollodorus (2nd c. BCE) gives the following definition (FGrH 244 F 217bis = Sophr. fr. 69 K.-A.) μαστροπός· παρὰ τὸ ‘μαίεσθαι’ τοὺς ‘τρόπους’ τῶν πορνευουσῶν γυναικῶν, ‘Mastropos: derived from the fact they “seek after” the “types” (tropous) of women who prostitute themselves’. On this definition the mastropos is envisioned as a go-between or matchmaker who ‘seeks out’ and recruits women who are willing to receive payment for forming relationships with interested male clients (cf. Herod. 1 where the mastropos Gyllis tries to convince Metriche to have a relationship with a young male client who had approached her). Phot. μ 138 also notes that they were called ‘seekers’: ἐκάλουν δὲ αὐτὰς καὶ μαστρύας εὐφήμως ‘they also called them “seekers” (mastruas) euphemistically’

Μαστροπός

167

(μάστρυας Phot.gz : ματέρας Theodoridis, who compares the text in Et.Gen. s. v.). Cf. Stotz 1912. 2: ‘μαστροπός autem derivatur ab vocabulis μάω, μαστήρ, μαστρός’ (Stotz explains the ‘seeking’ to refer to mastropoi peering out of doors or windows looking for customers: ‘designat hominem, “der etwas ausspäht, ausfindig macht”). See also Chantraine 1968–1980. 659 s. v. μαίομαι; but contrast Beekes (2009. 912) who is cautious of any such etymology since the variant form with -φ- (i. e. μαστροφός) ‘may point to a Pre-Greek word’. An alternative etymology preserved in the Etymologicum Gudianum derives the word from ‘mother’, Et.Gud. p. 381, 18 μαστροπὸς, μα, τὸ σημαῖνον τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὸν τρόπον, οἱονεὶ ἡ δοκοῦσα ἔχειν μητέρος τρόπον· σημαίνει δὲ τὴν μαυλίστριαν, ‘Mastropos: “ma”, indicating “mother”, and “character”, that is: one who appears to have the character of a mother. It signifies the female bawd (maulistrian)’. Cf. Herod. 1.5 Γυλλίς, ἠ Φιλαινίδος μήτηρ, ‘Gyllis, the mother of Philainis’; Poll. 4.120 αἱ δὲ μαστροποὶ ἢ μητέρες ἑταιρῶν, ‘mastropoi or mothers of hetairai’; and EM p. 574, 268 ματέρας γὰρ ἐκάλουν οἱ Δωριεῖς τοὺς μαστροποὺς ἐπευφημιζόμενοι, ‘the Dorians called mastropoi “mothers” as a euphemism’. But the latter passages, which state that ‘mother’ was used euphemistically, may have encouraged attempts to derive the etymology of μαστροπός itself from μήτηρ (or ‘μα’). A false etymology of this kind would have been further encouraged by the fact that in Roman comedy (based on Greek models) the equivalent figure of the lena is quite often the real or adoptive mother of a girl whom she is forced to ‘rent’ to young male suitors in order to make ends meet (on the lena see below). There is some fluidity in the meaning of μαστροπός in that the term can describe both a ‘match-maker’ (i. e. προαγωγός), without any implication of prostitution, as well as ‘brothel-keeper’ (πορνοβοσκός). The mastropos might work on behalf of both male and female clients. At Ar. Th. 558–9 they are conceived as arranging illicit affairs for married women in exchange for some kind of payment, in this case meat saved from a festival which the women claim to their husbands was eaten by a household pet. They appear to arrange similarly illicit affairs at Theopomp.Hist. FGrH 115 F 227 (ap. Ath. 10.443a) where the tyrant Cleomenes of Methymna orders that all μαστροποί (fem.) accustomed to ‘procure’ (προαγωγεύειν) free women (i. e. citizen wives) be executed: Κλεομένης ὁ τύραννος, ὁ καὶ τὰς μαστροποὺς τὰς εἰθισμένας προαγωγεύειν τὰς ἐλευθέρας γυναῖκας … ἐνδήσας εἰς σάκκους καταποντίσαι τισὶν προστάξας, ‘Cleomenes the tyrant, the one who ordered some people to bind in a sack and throw into the sea mastropoi who were accustomed to procure free women’. The impersonation of mastropoi arranging affairs for married women seems to have been a favourite subject for mime artists (μαγῳδοί) if we accept Meineke’s emendation at Ath. 14.621c which tells us they would ‘act the roles of adulterous women and mastropoi’: ὑποκρινόμενος ποτὲ μὲν γυναῖκας [καὶ] μοιχοὺς καὶ μαστροπούς (καί delevit Meineke : γυναῖκα καὶ μοιχούς Ath.A : γυναῖκας καὶ μοιχούς Ath.CE). Apart from match-making and setting up illicit affairs, other sources depict μαστροποί as little different from πορνοβοσκοί. The kinds of relationships

168

Philippides

proffered by these mastropoi might range from a short-term visit to a brothel to longer-term relationships with hetairai. The latter type is far more common. Phot. μ 138 (cf. Suda μ 290) envisions them in brothels alongside hetairai where they welcome customers: ματρυλ{λ}εῖον· τόπος ἐν ᾧ γρᾶες μαστροποὶ διατρίβουσιν ἑταίρας ἔχουσαι καὶ δέχονται τοὺς βουλομένους, ‘matryleion (brothel): a place in which elderly female mastropoi pass the time with hetairai and receive anyone who is willing’ (cf. Harp. p. 199, 17 s. v. ματρυλεῖον; on the word ματρυλεῖον see Beekes 2009. 912 s. v. μαστροπός. Gomme and Sandbach 1973. 353 call the matryleion a ‘tavern-cum-brothel’). Other sources depict mastropoi acting as agents for hetairai. In Herodas’ first Mime the mastropos Gyllis appears to act as a match-maker or agent for several prostitutes, among them Myrtale and Sime (Herod. 1.89), as well as the former prostitute Metriche (cf. Zanker 2009. 20). Mastropoi acting as agents for hetairai, whether on behalf of an individual or a group, is also mentioned at Theophil. Philauloi fr. 11 τοῦ μή ποτ’ αὐτὸν ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς Λαΐδα / φερόμενον ἢ Μηκωνίδ’ ἢ Σισύμβριον / ἢ Βάραθρον ἢ Θάλλουσαν ἢ τούτων τινὰ / ὧν ἐμπλέκουσι τοῖς λίνοις αἱ μαστροποί, / † ἢ ναυσιον ἢ Μαλθάκην, ‘that he never got carried away and fell in with Lais or Mekonis or Sisymbrion or Barathron or Thallousa, or any of these women in whose nets the mastropoi entangle you, or Nausion(?) or Malthake’. Several sources describe the working methods and tricks of mastropoi used to attract clients. At X. Smp. 4.57 Socrates defines the chief task of the mastropos as that of making someone appear attractive to others: ὑμῖν δοκεῖ μαστροποῦ ἔργον εἶναι ἣν ἂν ἢ ὃν ἂν μαστροπεύῃ ἀρέσκοντα τοῦτον ἀποδεικνύναι οἷς ἂν συνῇ; ‘don’t you think that the job of the mastropos is to display whatever female or male for whom he works as pleasing to whomever they spend time with?’ Socrates defines this task more specifically as instructing others to dress attractively, or use appropriate facial expressions and speech. The mastropos herself must also be practiced in these skills when trying to attract potential clients. So we find in Plautus’ Asinaria where Diabolus tells how the lena figure Cleareta deceitfully enticed him ‘with flattery and kindness’ (Asin. 206 illiciebas me ad te blande ac benedice); while a fragment of Epicrates tells how a mastropos made extravagant claims about the chastity and inexperience of a girl to a client, but fell considerably short in delivering on that promise (fr. 8) τελέως μ’ ὑπῆλθεν ἡ κατάρατος μαστροπός, / ἐπομνύουσα τὰν Κόραν, τὰν Ἄρτεμιν, / τὰν Φερρέφατταν, ὡς δάμαλις, ὡς παρθένος, / ὡς πῶλος ἀδμής· ἡ δ’ ἄρ’ ἦν μυωνιά, ‘The accursed mastropos completely tricked me, swearing by Kore, by Artemis, by Persephone, what a girl she was, what a maiden, what an unbroken filly! She was a mouse-hole after all!’ Similar techniques of persuasion can be seen in Herod. 1.50–5 where the mastropos Gyllis tries to convince one of her former girls, Metriche, to work for her again, attempting to entice her by listing the credentials of an interested young man (athleticism, wealth, placidness, sexual inexperience) to make him attractive to her. Other tricks mentioned in Lucian include relaying messages to potenti-

Μαστροπός

169

al lovers accompanied by gifts (Tox. 13) καὶ γραμματεῖά τε εἰσεφοίτα παρὰ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτῷ καὶ στέφανοι ἡμιμάραντοι καὶ μῆλά τινα ἀποδεδηγμένα καὶ ἄλλα ὁπόσα αἱ μαστροποὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς νέοις μηχανῶνται, ‘and she regularly brought him messages from the woman and half-withered wreaths and some bitten apples and all the other things mastropoi devise for young men’. Harbours and taverns are sometimes mentioned as typical places mastropoi might haunt looking for customers, so Diph. fr. 42.22 where a successful sailor upon arriving at harbour consults ‘pathic mastropoi’ to arrange sexual liasons (ἀφροδίσι’ ὑπὸ κόλλοψι μαστροποῖς ποιῶν). A similar scene of mastropoi frequenting taverns is implied by Ath. 13.567a ἐν τοῖς καπηλείοις συναναφύρῃ οὐ μετὰ ἑταίρων ἀλλὰ μετὰ ἑταιρῶν, μαστροπευούσας περὶ σαυτὸν οὐκ ὀλίγας ἔχων, ‘you mingle in taverns, not with friends but with hetairai, with not a few of those who act as mastropoi around you’. The social standing of mastropoi in Greek society was evidently low. Poll. 6.128 mentions the trade among ‘livelihoods for which one might be rebuked’ (βίοι ἐφ’ οἷς ἄν τις ὀνειδισθείη, … μαστροπός). At X. Smp. 3.10, when asked of what he was most proud, Socrates gives the deliberately outrageous response that he was proud of his mastropeia (ἐπὶ μαστροπείᾳ). Callias later refers to this as ‘such an unseemly trade’ (4.56 οὕτως ἀδόξῳ οὔσῃ τέχνῃ). In the same work Antisthenes bristles at the idea of being called an accomplished practitioner of the related art of ‘soliciting’ (4.61 προαγωγεία), a trade evidently held in contempt. In Greek comedy, our best evidence for the treatment of the mastropos can be found in the parallel figure of the lena in Roman comedy (cf. also the term conciliatrix). Despite the shared etymology in Roman comedy for the male leno and the female lena, both figures are treated quite differently. While the male is a brothel owner, the female is usually ‘an older woman, typically a former prostitute, who corrupts or attempts to corrupt a younger woman by involving her in prostitution’ (see Rosivach 1998. 63). Furthermore, the lena and her girl often represent a mother and daughter pair, one in which the mother is forced to sell her daughter’s favours due to poverty. This uneven treatment of the leno and lena may be due in part to Roman comedy modelling both these characters on the pornoboskos and mastropos figures of Greek comedy respectively. The Roman lena otherwise exhibits stereotypical features which correspond with what we know of the mastropos figure in Greek literature. Both mastropos and lena are typically old: so Phot. μ 138 γρᾶες μαστροποί, ‘old female mastropoi’; Gyllis in Herod. 1.15–16 τὸ γὰρ γῆρας / [ἠμέ]α̣ς καθέλκει, ‘old age drags me down’; the unnamed lena at Plaut Cist. 48 and 149 (haec … est anus); and Syra in Ter. Hec. 74–5. Both figures are also typically fond of alcohol: so Gyllis who is served a strong drink at Herod. 1.79–87 and full of praise when she finishes it (86–7) ἠδύς γε· ναὶ Δήμητρα, Μητρίχη, τούτου / ἠδίον’ οἶνον Γυλλὶς οὐ πέπωκέν κω, ‘Sweet indeed! Yes by Demeter, Gyllis has never drunk a sweeter wine than this, Metriche’. A fondness for alcohol is a recurring characteristic of the Roman lena, e. g. Plaut. Asin. 200; Mil. 107; and especially Cist. 18 where the lena comp-

170

Philippides

lains her wine was watered down and insufficient (cf. Men. Synarist. fr. 335), 127 (adeo me complevi flore Liberi), and 149 (multibiba). See also Harp. p. 199, 17 s. v. ματρυλεῖον (cf. Phot. μ 138), perhaps influenced by comedy, which describes the brothel as a place one might go to be raved at by drunken old women (i. e. by mastropoi) Ἡρακλέων καὶ Δίδυμος τόπον τινά φασιν εἶναι ἐν ᾧ γρᾶες διατρίβουσαι δέχονται τοὺς βουλομένους καταμεθυσθῆναι, ‘(the grammarians) Heracleon and Didymus say it is a place where old women pass the time and welcome those who wish to be raved at drunkenly’. It may be no coincidence that our only surviving fragment from Philippides’ play (fr. 15) mentions ‘storehouses’ of wine, a passage that is perhaps related in some way to this stereotypical trait of the mastropos (see below; Krakert 1902. 8 n. 3). More generally, mastropoi are characterised as devious, greedy and unscrupulous towards their clients. A gloss in Hesychius describes mastropoi as peevish, Hsch. μ 370 μαστροπός· δύστροπος, ‘mastropos: surly/peevish’. This characterisation may owe something to comedy. Ovid speaks of the quasi-proverbial improba lena (Amor. 1.15.17–18) who appears in the comedies of Menander. Deceit is also exercised by the ‘accursed mastropos’ (ἡ κατάρατος μαστροπός) of Epicr. fr. 8 (quoted above). One of the more unashamed accounts of the lena’s trade is given by Cleareta in Plaut. Asin. 153–242, who describes how she deliberately sets out to exploit ignorant young men. Cleareta even engages in quasi-metatheatrical self-reflection on the unscrupulous behaviour of the lena, stating that no selfrespecting lena depicted anywhere in art or poetry has ever treated a lover well (174–5) nam nec fictum usquam est nec pictum nec scriptum in poematis / ubi lena bene agat cum quiquam amante quae frugi esse volt. Other lena figures in Roman comedy encourage their girls to exploit young men, such as the lena at Plaut. Cist. 96–8 who advises Selenium not to fall in love, but pretend to be so and look after her own interests; while in Ter. Hec. 63–5 the old lena Syra tells Philotis never to pity her lovers, but get from them everything she can (for the lena’s greed cf. Ter. Haut. 234 quoi nil iam praeter pretium dulcest, ‘for whom there is nothing sweet except money’). Kock may be right when he suggests that the speaker of Men. fr. 202 (from Karinē), who seems to be instructing a girl (the title figure?) how to conduct herself around her lover, is a mastropos figure: περὶ τὸν τράχηλον ἁλύσιόν τί σοι δότω, ‘Let him give you a silver chain around your neck’. Among standard plots involving the lena in Roman comedy we find mother and daughter pressed by poverty (cf. e. g. Plaut. Asin. 142, 163; Cist. 45), compelling the mother to prostitute her daughter. At one level this involves the mother securing gifts from her daughter’s boyfriends to allow them to continue the relationship (e. g. Plaut. Asin. 230 where Cleareta demands 20 minas from Diabolus to secure exclusive access to Philaenium for a year). In Plautus’ comedy the plot is complicated by daughter and boyfriend falling in love and denied contact after the young man becomes indigent (see Plaut. Asin. 504–44, esp. 515 and 541 where Philaenium complains to Cleareta that she is keeping her from her lover. Cf. also Cist. 59–119). Other comic impediments to such lovers may include the

Μαστροπός

171

foreign status of the mother and daughter, preventing marriage to a male citizen (cf. Terence’s Andria; note also the foreign status of the mastropos in Epicr. fr. 8 who speaks Doric); or else the young man’s father might disapprove of such a union. In plots of this kind the lena may not necessarily oppose the marriage, but may openly support it, especially if the husband-to-be is wealthy. Comedy often resolves such plot strands by having the girl discover she is not in fact the daughter of the lena at all, but abandoned or lost by citizen parents when a young child. For similar resolutions see Plautus’ Cistellaria (based on Menander’s Synaristōsai); Terence’s Heautontimorumenos (based on Menander’s Hauton timōroumenos); Terence’s Andria (based on Menander’s Andria and Perinthia); and Terence’s Eunuchus (based on Menander’s Eunouchos). A potentially different plot treatment altogether (although not from a comedy) might be found in Herodas’ first Mime where a mastropos tries to lure a former prostitute Metriche back to work during her boyfriend’s absence abroad. There dramatic tension is created by the mastropos insinuating that the absent boyfriend has found another lover and moved on, while Metriche rejects her offer and remains faithful to her absent partner (a comic motif found, e. g., in Plaut. Stich.). Content The title would indicate a mastropos featured in our comedy. Our only fragment (fr. 15) mentions ‘storehouse(s) of wine’ but without further context. No other characters can be securely determined from these remains. Based on comic parallels (discussed above) one might suggest the title figure was an older woman. Literary sources, including comedy (see discussion under ‘Title’), generally do not treat such figures with sympathy. The comedy probably also featured at least one younger female connected to the mastropos. It is also quite possible that the play featured a young man as her lover, as often in comedy. In terms of possible staging and costume, the house of the mastropos might sometimes be represented on the stage in comedy (for the ‘House’ of a lena represented on stage, cf. that of Melainis in Plaut. Cist.). Pollux gives details about the costume worn by old women and mastropoi. Old women typically wore a yellow or light-blue dress, Poll. 4.119 ἡ δὲ γυναικῶν ἐσθὴς κωμικῶν, ἡ μὲν τῶν γραῶν μηλίνη ἢ ἀερίνη, πλὴν ἱερειῶν· ταύταις δὲ λευκή, ‘the costume of women in comedy: that of old women quince-yellow or light-blue, except for priestesses: for these it is white’. In addition, he states that the mastropos wore a purple ribbon on her head to distinguish her character, Poll. 4.120 αἱ δὲ μαστροποὶ ἢ μητέρες ἑταιρῶν ταινίδιόν τι πορφυροῦν περὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ ἔχουσιν, ‘mastropoi, or mothers of hetairai, wear a purple ribbon around the head’. Date Unknown.

172

Philippides

fr. 15 K.-A. (14 K.) Antiatt. α 92 (= AB 80.32) ἀ π ό σ τ α σ ι ς· ἀντὶ τοῦ οἴνου ἀποθήκας ἔχουσα. Φιλιππίδης Μαστροπῷ. a p o s t a s i s: instead of “having apothēkas (storehouses) of wine”. Philippides in Mastropos.

Metre Unknown. Based on Tsantsanoglou’s reconstructed text, we possibly have the beginning of an iambic trimeter with medial caesura.

l l k l

k l | k l

k 〈 l k l ⟩

Discussion Meineke 1839. 474; Meineke 1841. 471; Kock 1888. 305; Krakert 1902. 8 n. 3; Stotz 1912. 12; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Tsantsanoglou 1984. 136; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 342. Citation context From the Antiatticist (2nd c. CE.; see on fr. 2) who cites Philippides as an authority for using the word ἀπόστασις in Attic Greek instead of the more common form ἀποθήκη. Text Tsantsanoglou (1984. 136) has observed that the Antiatticist here is directly quoting Philippides, although he has substituted the more usual Attic word ἀποθήκας in place of ἀποστάσεις (pl.) which would have appeared in Philippides’ text. The original passage, on this premise, would have read οἴνου ἀποστάσεις ἔχουσα (‘having storehouses of wine’). Earlier editors did not detect a direct quotation, but instead understood the entire text as an explanatory gloss. The resulting incomplete text prompted supplements such as συνοικία (Kock) or οἰκία (Edmonds) to provide a subject for ἔχουσα, yielding the following: ἀπόστασις· ἀντὶ τοῦ 〈 συνοικία⟩ οἴνου ἀποθήκας ἔχουσα, ‘apostasis: instead of 〈 a building⟩ having stores of wine’ (see Kock 1888. 305: ‘apud Antatticistam post ἀντὶ τοῦ videtur excidisse συνοικία vel aliquid simile’). Apart from having to supply an additional word, the resulting gloss is not only unusual in form (the Antiatticist usually glosses with a single word equivalent rather than a phrase), but also provides awkward sense in that it incorrectly suggests that an ἀπόστασις was a storehouse used exclusively for wine, rather than a storehouse more generally. Interpretation The term ἀπόστασις generally indicates a storehouse, more specifically a harbour-side building used on a commercial scale for the temporary storage of merchants’ goods, whether imported or intended for export (see comm. below). Based on the feminine participle ἔχουσα, the subject which possesses these storehouses stocked full of wine may be a place (i. e. a city), especially a major wine-producing centre in Greece (for wine-producing sites in Greece and elsewhere, see Ath. 1.28d–34b; Dalby 2000), or perhaps an individual person – even the mastropos figure of the title herself (cf. Krakert 1902. 8 n. 3). It might therefore involve a typical comic joke on the bibulousness of women (for this comic topos,

Μαστροπός (fr. 15)

173

see e. g. Pherecr. fr. 76; Ar. Lys. 193–208; Th. 393, 630, 735–7; Antiph. fr. 58; Eub. fr. 42.3–4; Alex. fr. 172.1–2 Ath. 10.440e–42a. For New Comedy see Men. Dysc. 857–9; Plaut. Persa 170; Pseud. 221; Truc. 903–4; see also Oeri 1948. 13–18, 39–40; Ehrenberg 1962. 201–2; for the bibulousness of the mastropos in particular, see under ‘Title’ above). On this reading the idea of a woman possessing ‘storehouses’ of wine – i. e. on a commercial scale rather than simply a private storeroom or cellar at home – would be comic hyperbole emphasising her fondness for drink. Alternatively, as Krakert suggests, the ‘storehouses’ could be metaphorical of the mastropos herself (i. e. storehouses = body/stomach of the woman) and her capacity for drinking and holding her wine (1902. 8 n. 3: ‘fragmentum ἀπόστασις … comice ebriosam mulierem, fortasse ipsam lenam significat’). For a similar metaphor describing a gourmand able to handle and devour hot food quickly, cf. Crobyl. fr. 8.4 κάμινος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ‘(he’s) an oven, not a human being’. ἀποστάσεις Here the suffix -σις is used of a concrete place or object, i. e. ‘repositories, storehouses’ (LSJ s. v. II). Strabo uses the term to describe the storehouses found along the harbour of Alexandria, whether situated in the Emporion, or between it and the ship-sheds, Str. 17.1.9 εἶτα τὸ Καισάρειον καὶ τὸ ἐμπόριον καὶ ἀποστάσεις, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τὰ νεώρια, ‘next is the Caesarion and the Emporion and storehouses, and after these the ship-sheds’ (see Fraser 1972 I. 25). Dio Cassius, referring to the same district and Caesar’s burning of Alexandria’s harbour in 48 BCE, calls them ἀποθήκαι (cf. the Antiatticist’s gloss above), noting that they were used to store grain and books, D.C. 42.38.2 πολλὰ δὲ καὶ κατεπίμπρατο, ὥστε ἄλλα τε καὶ τὸ νεώριον τάς τε ἀποθήκας καὶ τοῦ σίτου καὶ τῶν βίβλων, ‘many things burned down, especially the ship-shed and the storehouses both of grain and books’. Their position on the harbour near the Emporion and ship-sheds would suggest that articles stored there were only held temporarily as a loading point during transport in or out of the city. Heraclides Lembus, at any rate, uses the same term for what were presumably quay-side storehouses used by merchant sailors, in this case for wine intended for export, Heraclid.Lemb. Pol. 72 φασὶ δέ ποτε ξένον πριάμενον οἶνον μὴ ἀναλαβεῖν ἐπείξαντος αὐτὸν τοῦ πλοῦ, καταλιπεῖν δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἀποστάσει οὐδενὶ παραδόντα, ὕστερον δὲ κατ’ ἄλλην ἐμπορίαν ἐλθόντα εὑρεῖν τοῦτον ἄθικτον, ‘they say that one day a foreigner buying wine did not take it on board since the time for sailing hurried him on, and that he left it in the storehouse without giving it to anyone, and that later when he came on other business found it untouched’. Pollux 9.34, which cites a fragment of Hyperides (= Hyperid. fr. 186), may suggest that ἐξαίρεσις was a synonym of ἀπόστασις and also denoted a storehouse beside a harbour: τὰ δὲ περὶ τοὺς λιμένας μέρη δεῖγμα, χῶμα, ἐμπόριον, καὶ ὡς Ὑπερείδης φησίν, ἐξαίρεσις, ὅπου τὰ φορτία ἐξαιρεῖται, ‘the parts around harbours are: bazaar, jetty, emporion, and as Hyperides says, exairesis, where cargoes are taken out’. The same term is also found at PTeb. 5.25–7 (Alexandria, 118 BCE) μηδὲ ἐπιλαμβάνασθ̣α̣ι̣ ἐὰν μὴ ἐπὶ τῶν κατ’ Ἀλεξά(νδρειαν) ὅρ[μων] | [ἐ]π̣ὶ̣ τῆς ἐξαιρέ〈 σε⟩ ως εὑ̣ρ̣ί̣ [σκ]ηι τι τῶν μὴ τετελωνημ̣έ̣ν[ων] | ἢ̣ τῶν ἀπορρήτων̣, ‘and not

174

Philippides

to confiscate unless he (the duties collector) finds any untaxed or forbidden items at the exairesis in the harbours of Alexandria’.93 Exairesis in this context takes its name from the perspective of one who ‘unloads’ or ‘takes out’ imported cargo for storage. Whether there were separate storage facilities for incoming cargoes (exairesis) and outgoing ones (cf. Heraclides cited above where apostasis is used for storing outgoing wine) is unclear.

93

LSJ s. v. II and Grenfell, Hunt and Smyly on PTeb. 5.26 gloss the word as ‘wharf ’, which can suggest goods left out in the open rather than stored away nearby. But for ἐπί + gen. which very often means ‘in’ or ‘at’ a place, see LSJ s. v. I.1 (e. g. Aeschin. 1.74 τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκημάτων καθημένους, Isoc. 7.15 ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἐργαστηρίων καθίζοντες).

175

Μύστις (Mystis) (‘Female Initiate’)

Discussion Breitenbach 1908. 163; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 342; Millis and Olson 2012. 74. Title Two other comedies titled Mystis are attributed to the Middle Comedy poet Antiphanes and to the New Comedy poet Philemon.94 The Old Comedy poet Phrynichus also produced a play with the plural title Mystai, presumably named after the chorus (so Stama 2014. 220; cf. the chorus at Ar. Ra. 316–459), although the alternative singular form Mystēs ‘Male Initiate’ is also preserved at Suda φ 763 (= Phryn.Com. test. 1) and Eust. Il. 4.74.1 (= Phryn.Com. fr. 38). It is possible Philippides’ play might take its title from a character’s name. Kock (1884. 77) has suggested that Antiphanes’ Mystis might represent a proper name: ‘aut nomen proprium aut a μύστης derivatum est’. The female name Μύστις is not attested in LGPN, however the related male name Μύστης is attested several times across Greece. Comedy, however, frequently alludes to mystery cults (see Breitenbach 1908. 163–4), and the fragments of the homonymous comedy by Antiphanes (frr. 161–3) suggest a cult setting (see below). The meaning ‘Female Initiate’, then, would seem more likely here. The noun μύστης/μύστις and the related verb μυεῖν ‘to initiate into the mysteries’ (see LSJ s. v.) derive from the verb μύειν ‘to close (the eyes or mouth)’ (see Beekes 2009. 988). The title Mystis would denote a female participant in a mystery religion (cf. Hsch. μ 1981 μύστις· μεμυημένη, ‘mystis: an initiated female’), of which there were various cults in Greece (see generally Hopfner 1935; Burkert 1985. 276–304; Burkert 1987; Cosmopoulos 2003; Delneri 2006; Bowden 2010). Among these cults, some promised a happy afterlife to its initiates, such as the Eleusinian, Orphic and Dionysian Mysteries; or they might involve ecstatic rites which were therapeutic in nature, such as those associated with the Korybantes or the Dionysian Mysteries (see Graf 2007. 140). As a technical term μύστης, certainly in the fifth century, is attested for initiates not only in the Eleusinian Mysteries, but also the Dionysian Mysteries, Samothracian Mysteries, and probably those of Cybele, all of which also included female worshippers (see Graf 2007. 140, 208 n. 19). The most famous of these cults was the Eleusinian Mysteries (cf. Parker 2005. 327). There is a vast amount of literature on the Eleusinian cult, and it is worth outlining it in more detail for any possible light it may shed on intersections between comedy and Mystery cults more generally (for secondary literature, see e. g. Deubner 1932. 71–91; Mylonas 1961; Parke 1977. 55–72; Burkert 1983. 248–97 94

Philemon’s play probably postdates Philippides’ comedy of 311 BCE, perhaps produced at the Lenaea of 285 BCE: see IG II2 2319.54 = 2319.1 M-O with Capps 1900a. 84 and Parker 2006. 58–60. But contrast Millis and Olson 2012. 109.

176

Philippides

and Burkert 1987; Clinton 2003; Parker 2005. 342–68; Bremmer 2014. 1–20 among others; for the influence of the Eleusinian Mysteries on the development of drama, see Zimmermann 2011a. 453, 457, 461). Initiation at the Eleusinian Mysteries was open to men, women, slaves and foreigners for a fee, provided they could speak Greek and were not tainted by bloodguilt. Candidates were required to pass through three stages of initiation, with an optional fourth stage: (1) initial myēsis or purification;95 (2) participation in the Lesser Mysteries in the month of Anthesterion (February/March); (3) initiation as mystai at the Greater Mysteries in the month of Boedromion (September/October); and (4) higher initiation as epoptai one year later at the Greater Mysteries for those already initiated as mystai. The Greater Mysteries featured the great procession to Eleusis, involving a twenty kilometre journey along the Sacred Way,96 at the head of which were the sacred items (hiera) and a statue of Iacchus. Along the way they performed dances, sacrifices and other ritual actions, including their subjection to ritual mockery or gephyrismos when crossing the Cephisus in Eleusis. The order of other events is not certain, but at some point initiates appear to have undergone fasting, probably before initiation, followed by a pannychis or all-night revel for Iacchus, and later perhaps the pouring of libations and dedication of clothing. Mystery cults are often encountered in comedy (see e. g. Delneri 2006). They are sometimes mentioned as occasions for drinking, and like other festivals sometimes occasions for rape. Antiphanes’ Mystis features women involved in drinking bouts (Antiph. fr. 163), while in another fragment a woman eulogises her drinking cup as ‘worthy of the fame of the festival’ (fr. 161.3–4 ἄξιόν τε τοῦ κλέους / τοῦ τῆς ἑορτῆς).97 Drinking was apparently acceptable (although no doubt prohibited during periods of fasting) at the Eleusinian Mysteries (see h.Cer. 206–7 with Richardson 1974. 224; cf. Plu. Phoc. 6.7). The pannychis, or all-night revel, was particularly a time for drinking and drunkenness, as we find at Plaut. Aul. 795 (see further below; comedies titled Pannychis are attributed to Pherecrates, Eubulus, Alexis and Hipparchus). Encounters between the two sexes is another theme found in comedy and elsewhere in relation to Mystery religion and other festivals. At Ar. Ra. 409–15 a chorus member describes taking a peek at a fellow participant’s breasts from be95 96

97

On ‘pre-initiation’, see Clinton 2003. 58, 60 (who cites Cl.Alex. Strom. 5.11.70.7–71.1; Plu. Demetr. 26.1); Parker 2005. 345. For controversies about the date and manner of the procession, see IG II2 1078.18–21; Σ Ar. Ra. 324; Plu. Phoc. 28.2; Cam. 19.10; Mikalson 1975. 58–9; Clinton 1988. 70; Robertson 1998. 551, 558. Cf. the similar phrase at Ar. Ra. 391 τῆς σῆς ἑορτῆς ἀξίως, ‘in a manner worthy of your festival’, which may suggest Antiphanes’ play was set against the backdrop of the Eleusinian Mysteries. Cf. also Antiph. Mystis fr. 162.1 ταῖς εὐτελείαις οἱ θεοὶ χαίρουσι, ‘the gods rejoice in thrift’, which may also recall the Eleusinian cult (cf. Ar. Ra. 404–8; Pl. 845–6; Dover 1993. 62–3).

Μύστις

177

neath her torn clothing during the Iacchus revel at the Eleusinian Mysteries, while the ‘piggy’ and ‘sausage’ joke at Ra. 337–9 seems to presuppose the potential for sexual opportunism there. At Ar. Pl. 1013–16 a rich elderly woman recounts how her avaricious young lover became jealous after discovering someone else eyeing her during the procession to Eleusis. Other sources name the Mysteries as the occasion when Phaedra first saw and fell in love with Hippolytus (E. Hipp. 24–8); while Philip II of Macedon supposedly met his wife Olympias while both were participating in the Mysteries of Samothrace (Plu. Alex. 2.2). Rape and recognition at the Mysteries is a theme in Plautus’ Aulularia where the girl Phaedrium is raped ‘during the night-time revel of Ceres’ (Aul. 36 Cereris vigiliis), an assault which the wealthy young Lyconides attributes to his drunkenness on that occasion (Aul. 795 Cereris vigiliis per vinum). Content No fragments from this comedy survive. The singular title Mystis by no means suggests we have a single figure, since Antiphanes’ play of the same name appears to have involved several mystai in the comic action. Nor is the action necessarily set during the festivities of a Mystery cult (as Antiphanes’ play appears to be), but may involve events before or during the aftermath of such an occasion. Comic parallels hint at possible ways Philippides may have treated this theme in his own play. Antiphanes’ Mystis shows traces of comic elements typical of ‘women’ or ‘festival’ plays, especially female bibulousness. The comic topos of women taking advantage of a festival occasion as an excuse to drink (cf. e. g. Ar. Th. 628–32) may have provided Philippides with some comic material for his play, especially if he exploited similar comic themes elsewhere (see on Philippides’ Adōniazousai and on Mastropos Philippid. fr. 15). Festivals and drinking often lead to more unfortunate circumstances, especially in New Comedy where the theme of rape and recognition is quite common. Philippides may explore the theme of drunken rape elsewhere in his comedies (see esp. on Philippid. fr. 27). In comedy, this typically takes place during the pannychis of a festival, so we find at Men. Sam. 46–9 which recounts a rape during the pannychis of the Adonia; Men. Epit. 451–4 and 470–519 which recounts a rape committed by the young man Charisios while drunk during the pannychis of the Tauropolia (see Bathrellou 2012); Men. Phasm. 195 refers to the pannychis at the Brauronia, most likely in the context of recounting a rape (see Arnott 1979–2000 III. 369–70); while Plaut. Aul. 36, 795 refers to a drunken rape committed during the pannychis of the Eleusinian Mysteries. A female initiate in a comedy, then, might well have been depicted as the victim of one of these assaults. Such comedies often set the action in the aftermath of the incident and can include typical plot elements such as a recognition scene or even the eventual marriage of the young couple (cf. Plaut. Aul. 36, 795; Ter. Ad. and Hec. 572, 828–32). Date

311 BCE at the City Dionysia. Philippides won first prize (see test. 8).

178

Συνεκπλέουσα (Synekpleousa) or Συνεκπλέουσαι (Synekpleousai)

(‘Female Sailing Out in Company’ or ‘Females Sailing Out in Company’) Discussion Meineke 1839. 474; Meineke 1841. 472; Kock 1888. 306; Edmonds 1961. 172–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 343. Title Athenaeus preserves the plural form of the title but omits the prefix -εκ(Ath. 15.700c = fr. 16 Φιλιππίδης Συμπλεούσαις, Ath.A, om. Ath.CE). Pollux, however, preserves the singular form with double prefix (Poll. 9.30 = fr. 17 τῇ Φιλιππίδου Συνεκπλεούσῃ, Poll.FS). Meineke (1839. 474) combined both suggesting that the title may have been Synekpleousai (‘Females Sailing Out Together’) based on comparison with Nicomachus’ Metekbainousai (3rd c. BCE). Otherwise the closest parallel we have to this title elsewhere in comedy is Alexis’ Diapleousai (‘Females Sailing Across/Through’), which may lend further support to the plural form. But if the text of Athenaeus (Συμπλεούσαις) was somewhat careless here in omitting the prefix εκ- (its omission is far more likely than accidental inclusion), this might tilt favour towards the singular form Synekpleousa as preserved in Pollux. Content Based on the title our play seems to have included a female character (or females) who were involved in some way in a journey by sea. Possible characters to emerge from the fragments include a harbour-duties collector (fr. 17); a sailor (fr. 17); and a slave (fr. 16); while the interlocutor with the slave in fr. 16 could be either another slave, the slave’s master, or, as seems more likely, a retailstore proprietor (κάπηλος).98 The figure(s) implied by the title are unclear. If we assume the plural form Synekpleousai the title may refer to two women sailing together, such as, for example, the wife and daughter pair in Menander’s Kitharistēs who, on Arnott’s reconstruction, sail out from Ephesus together to rejoin their husband and father Phanias in Athens, but apparently go missing at sea (Men. Kith. 42–7 with Arnott 1979–2000 II. 114–15). Arnott mentions other comedies where voyage by sea plays a small role in the background of the plot, such as Terence’s Andria and Plautus’ Bacchides, where the titular characters have moved to Athens from abroad due to poverty and end up as prostitutes (Arnott 1996. 172). If we assume the singular form Synekpleousa the most likely subject of the title would be a girl who has been forced into prostitution. The company with whom she ‘sails out’ admits various possibilities. Plautus’ Rudens (based on an unnamed play by Diphilus) features a young girl who is first carried off by a pirate, then later sold to a pimp with whom she is shipwrecked while sailing toward Sicily. In Terence’s Andria (based on Menander’s Andria and Perinthia) we find the fictitious story of 98

Harbour-duties collectors (i. e. δεκατηλόγοι, εἰκοστολόγοι, πεντηκοστολόγοι, ἐλλιμενισταί) and shopkeepers (i. e. κάπηλοι), as we appear to have in our fragments, are all listed by Pollux (6.128) among the ‘livelihoods for which one should be ashamed’ (βίοι ἐφ’ οἷς ἄν τις ὀνειδισθείη).

Συνεκπλέουσα

179

a young girl sailing out with an elderly merchant who dies in a shipwreck while the girl is washed ashore and orphaned (Ter. An. 221–3). In Plautus’ Mercator (based on Philemon’s Emporos) a prostitute from Rhodes sails back with a merchant to his home town of Athens with the girl becoming a secret object of affection for both the merchant and his father. The association here between merchant sailor and prostitute is interesting for our play in light of fr. 17 where we appear to have a merchant sailor, and who may very well be the ‘company’ with whom the titular character ‘sails out’ (for the association between merchant sailors and prostitutes in comic and related literature elsewhere, see Diph. fr. 42.18–22; Macho fr. 17.389 Gow; Herod. Mim. 1.23; and Alciphr. 3.29, 4.11.5). The setting of the play may be, as often, Athens. However a foreign port and setting is also possible (cf. Diphilus’ Emporos fr. 31.1–2 which was set in Corinth). The title’s description of a female who has ‘sailed out’ may refer to an event imagined to have taken place before the main action of the play begins (cf. e. g. Plaut. Merc.), or which took place quite early in the action (cf. e. g. Men. Sam. 96; and perhaps Men. Nauklēros fr. 247). Date Unknown.

fr. 16 K.-A. (16 K.) (A.) ὁ φανὸς ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔφαινεν οὐδὲ ἕν. (Β.) ἔπειτα φυσᾶν δυστυχὴς οὐκ ἠδύνω; 1 οὐδὲ ἕν Ath.A : οὐδέν Ath.CE, Eust.

(A.) Our torch didn’t light – not even once. (B.) Then couldn’t you blow, poor thing? Ath. 15.700c (ACE) Φιλιππίδης Συμπλεούσαις (om. CE)· — Philippides in Sympleousai: — Eust. Od. 1.264.5–7 ἔστι δέ φασι φανὸς, ἡ ἐκ ξύλων τετμημένων δέσμη. καὶ δηλοῖ αὐτὸ Φιλιππίδης ἐν τῷ, ὁ φ α ν ὸ ς ἡ μ ῖ ν ο ὐ κ ἔ φ α ι ν ε ν ο ὐ δ έ ν. πρὸς ὃ λέγει ὁ ἀκούσας· ἔ π ε ι τ α φ υ σ ᾶ ν δ υ σ τ υ χ ὴ ς ο ὐ κ ἠ δ ύ ν ω. καὶ ὅρα τὸ ὁ φανὸς οὐκ ἔφαινεν ἐτυμολογικῶς ῥηθέν. And a phanos, they say, is the bundle made out of split wood. Indeed Philippides makes this clear in the passage: ‘Our torch didn’t light at all’, to which the person listening to him says: ‘then you couldn’t blow, poor thing’. Note also that the phrase ‘the torch (phanos) didn’t light (ephainen)’ is spoken etymologically.

180

Philippides

Metre Iambic trimeters.

k l k l k l k l

l | l k l l | l k l

k l k l l l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 472; Kock 1888. 306; Edmonds 1961. 172–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 343; Lorenzoni 2000. 158, 160. Citation context The passage is quoted by Athenaeus (2nd c. CE) during a lengthy discussion on various words for ‘torch’ or ‘lamp’ (Ath. 15.699d–701b). Eustathius, archbishop of Thessalonica (12th c. CE), in his commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, also cites the passage when discussing variant words for torch (φανός), a discussion obviously indebted to Athenaeus, and therefore of limited independent value. See also on Philippid. fr. 39 where it appears that Photius (λ 494), like Eustathius, cites this very same passage from Athenaeus to illustrate the word φανός. Rather than an independent fragment, then, fr. 39 (ap. Phot. λ 494) would appear to be an additional citation of the present fragment (see Lorenzoni. 2000). Text At the end of line 1 οὐδὲ ἕν is found only in manuscript A of Athenaeus. Manuscripts CE of Athenaeus and Eustathius preserve οὐδέν instead which does not fit the metre. For similar corruption (haplography) of the same expression see Alex. fr. 27.3 where all three manuscripts of Athenaeus 9.386c (ACE) preserve the unmetrical οὐδέν (on the expression οὐδὲ ἕν see note below). Interpretation Two characters are discussing onstage an incident with a torch in which one of the characters was unable to light it. There are at least two possible scenarios here as suggested by previous scholars: (a) a buyer has returned the faulty torch to the seller and is complaining about the item’s poor quality (so Kock 1888. 306: ‘altercantur inter se emptor et vendidor’); and (b) a slave is discussing with his master, or perhaps another slave, an incident where the torch did not light (so Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 343: ‘quidni servus cum ero, vel servus cum servo?’). Speaker A would appear almost certainly to be a slave as suggested by the idiomatic use of the plural pronoun ἡμῖν (see note below). The attempt to light the torch itself is described as an act which took place in the past (note the imperfect verbs ἔφαινεν and ἠδύνω). Why a slave should complain to his master or a fellow slave about a torch which failed to light in the past is not altogether clear. A complaint by a slave to a vendor on his master’s behalf (‘our torch’), on the other hand, would make more sense. Speaker A’s utterance is more like a direct complaint on the quality and efficacy of the torch – with an ironical pun on the etymology of the ‘non-lighting light’. The sarcastic and dismissive response of Speaker B would suggest a vendor trying to avoid and deflect responsibility. This at least finds support when we consider that base profiteering by shopkeepers and complaints about faulty torches are both stereotypical themes in comedy.

Συνεκπλέουσα (fr. 16)

181

Shopkeepers or kapēloi, like other retail traders, had a reputation for dishonesty. They were particularly notorious for watering down the alcohol they sold (Ar. Th. 347; Ec. 153–5; Pl. 435–6; Nicostr.Com. fr. 22; Antiph. fr. 25; Eub. fr. 80.1–5; Diph. fr. 3.5–6; D.L. 1.104.3; Ehrenberg 1962. 119–20). Nicostratus fr. 22 jokes that in addition to selling watered-down wine and vinegar their torches, too, produced water instead of fire: ὁ κάπηλος γὰρ οὑκ τῶν γειτόνων, / ἄν τ’ οἶνον ἄν τε φανὸν ἀποδῶταί τινι / ἄν τ’ ὄξος, ἀπέπεμψ’ ὁ κατάρατος δοὺς ὕδωρ, ‘for the barman from our neighbourhood, if he gives someone wine, if he gives someone a torch, if he gives someone vinegar, the bastard sends him away with water’ (for waterlogged torches see further on οὐκ ἔφαινεν below). The identification of the second speaker as a dishonest κάπηλος or καπηλίς (female proprietors, ‘barmaids’, were just as common as barmen: see Ar. Th. 347; Pl. 435; cf. also female ‘innkeepers’, πανδοκεύτριαι, at the note to fr. 25.2) would therefore seem very attractive. For such a figure apparently on stage in a comedy elsewhere, see com. adesp. fr. 1103.35 ὁ κάπηλος οὑτοσὶ, ‘this shopkeeper/barman here ...’. Where we are to conceive this encounter taking place is uncertain. The stage of New Comedy more typically represented two or three neighbouring houses in a city street, or even the countryside (Duckworth 1952. 121–2; Handley 1965. 21–2; Hunter 1985. 11), and unless the shopkeeper was a substantial character in the play, it would seem unlikely one of the doors on stage represented his or her shop. Instead, just like the apparent harbour-duties collector in fr. 17, the meeting here with the kapēlos was perhaps a chance encounter on the street, which in this case might be readily explained by the fact that καπηλεῖα were situated in residential neighbourhoods, much like a local ‘corner store’ (cf. Nicostr.Com. fr. 22.1; Eub. fr. 80.1–2). 1 ὁ φανός ‘Torch’. The word derives etymologically from φάος ‘shining, bright’ (Beekes 2009. 1551–2), and we are told by ancient grammarians that the variant spelling πανός, found in some of our sources, is an older form which was later replaced by φανός (so Phot. π 155 πανός· δέσμη κληματίδων· οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι Ἀττικοὶ φανόν. Ἀριστοφάνης, ‘panos: a bundle of branches. More recent Attic writers say phanos. Aristophanes’). However, the ‘older’ form πανός still appears among later authors (e. g. Men. fr. 59; Diph. fr. 6; see Arnott 1996. 242 n. 1), and is thought to derive from a completely different etymological origin, perhaps a Pre-Greek word due to the variant spelling πτανός attested in the manuscript tradition of E. Ion 195 and 1294 (see Beekes 2009. 1150). According to Athenaeus a ‘torch’ was composed of split wood that had been bundled together: Ath. 15.700b τὴν ἔκ τινων ξύλων τετμημένων δέσμην, ‘the bundle made out of bits of split wood’; cf. 15.700d–e πανὸς δ’ ὀνομάζεται τὸ διακεκομμένον ξύλον καὶ συνδεδεμένον, ‘wood split through and bound together is called a torch’; Phot. π 155 πανός· δέσμη κληματίδων, ‘torch: a bundle of branches’. Ar. Lys. 308 mentions a torch made from vine branches (τῆς ἀμπέλου … τὸν φανόν, ‘the torch (made) of vine’; cf. ΣRΓBar Ar. Lys. 308 = Ar. fr. 391 ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἀμπελίνων τὰς λαμπάδας κατεσκεύαζον εἰς ἔξαψιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν Λημνίαις φησί, ‘from

182

Philippides

vine branches they furnished torches for lighting, as he says also in Lēmniai’); while other sources mention a type of torch called a grabion made of oak or holmoak (Seleuc. FHG fr. 46 ap. Ath. 15.699e). In the middle or core would have been kindling (cf. φυσᾶν below) and pitch, the most common type of pitch consisting of the resin extracted from pine trees (see Thphr. HP 9.2.2; for pitch used in torches see Ar. V. 1375; Theodorid. SH 739). Torches were more commonly used when travelling outdoors at night, and are to be distinguished from oil-lamps (λύχνοι), usually made of terracotta and with a wick, which were first placed in a lantern (λυχνοῦχος, see Philippid. fr. 39) before they were taken outside (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 44; Pl.Com. fr. 91; Alex. fr. 152; see Arnott 1996. 291; for the distinction between torch and lamp see Men. fr. 59, and esp. Anaxandr. fr. 49 where the speaker asks someone to light his oil-lamp with a torch: οὔκουν λαβὼν τὸν φανὸν ἅψεις μοι λύχνον; ‘won’t you take the torch and light my lamp?’). Torches might commonly be purchased in καπηλεῖα (see Lys. 1.24; Nicostr. Com. fr. 22), a term which refers, more generally, to retail shop-keeping or trade that takes place within a city, i. e. καπηλική (as opposed to ἐμπορική which describes commercial trade between cities: Pl. R. 371d; Sph. 223d; Lg. 918d; Ehrenberg 1962. 114–15). More specifically, in comedy the term refers to establishments that specialised in serving alcohol, i. e. ‘bars’. Bars were situated in local neighbourhoods (Ar. Pl. 435 ἡ καπηλὶς ἡ ’κ τῶν γειτόνων, ‘the barmaid from our neighbourhood’; Nicostr.Com. fr. 22 ὁ κάπηλος γὰρ οὑκ τῶν γειτόνων, ‘the barman, the one from our neighbourhood’; Antiph. fr. 25.1–2 γείτων ἐστί τις / κάπηλος, ‘there is a neighbourhood barman’), and they might stay open late into the night (cf. Lys. 1.22–4) – a circumstance which seems to have made it profitable for them to sell torches, whether for patrons who needed a light to get home, or for anyone in need who happened to pass by at night. ἡμῖν Dative of Possession (see K.-G. I p. 429 §424.4c). The plural suggests the speaker is acting on behalf of others, as is often the case with slaves in Menander who use the first person plural to refer to the household to which they belong (see Katsouris 1977. 239 n. 25; Bain 1977. 200; e. g. Ar. V. 1474; Pax 260; Men. Sam. 649–50; Mis. 637; Her. 34). It is less likely a poetic plural, a use ‘much too elevated for comedy’ (Bain 1977. 198–9), and which is usually restricted in comedy to high-style passages, paratragedy (see Bers 1984. 57–9), or characters such as gods who assume some importance. οὐκ ἔφαινεν The most obvious reason the torch failed to light would be exposure to damp and wet conditions, an evidently commonplace problem, e. g. Men. fr. 60 ὁ φανός ἐστι μεστὸς ὕδατος οὑτοσί, / δεῖ τ’ οὐχὶ σείειν, ἀλλ’ ἀποσείειν αὐτόθεν, ‘this torch is full of water, and rather than shake it, I have to shake it out’; Diph. fr. 6 ἀλλ’ ὁ πανὸς ὕδατός ἐστι μεστός, ‘but the torch is full of water’; and Nicostr.Com. fr. 22 (quoted earlier). However the speaker’s intimation that he made repeated attempts to light it (note the imperfect tense and the expression οὐδὲ ἕν) may suggest something other than waterlogging. For the wordplay between φανός and ἔφαινεν (figura etymologica) see Eust. Od. 1.264.7 καὶ ὅρα τὸ

Συνεκπλέουσα (fr. 16)

183

ὁ φανὸς οὐκ ἔφαινεν ἐτυμολογικῶς ῥηθέν, ‘note also that the phrase “the torch didn’t light” is spoken etymologically’ (cf. ΣRΓ Ar. Lys. 308 = Ar. fr. 391 φανὸν μὲν πᾶν τὸ φαῖνον ἐκάλουν, ‘anything producing light they called a “light”’). The use of this rhetorical figure in the present passage lends a heavily ironic edge to the speaker’s complaint, i. e. ‘our so-called “light” didn’t “light” at all!’ For other examples of the same figure with a noun subject coupled with a cognate verb see Fehling 1969. 158–9. οὐδὲ ἕν ‘Not even once’. The expression is a more emphatic variant of οὐδέν, so Moorhouse (1962. 245) who compares the difference between English ‘none’ and the more emphatic ‘not one’. It is ubiquitous in comedy (see e. g. Ar. Lys. 1045; Pl. 138; Alex. fr. 15.10; Men. Dysc. 35; Asp. 234; Sam. 177, 198), but extremely rare in tragedy. For the hiatus in this and similar expressions see Moorhouse (1962. esp. 245–6). 2 ἔπειτα Like εἶτα it is often used before questions that express surprise (LSJ s. v. II.3; e. g. Ar. Nu. 226; Av. 123; Th. 188; Pl. 827; and see Dunbar 1995 on Av. 123). The patronising response that follows would suggest feigned or mock surprise by the interlocutor. φυσᾶν ‘Blow’, i. e. fan the kindling so that the torch will catch alight. Cf. Casaubon 1621. 991: ‘at tu infelix, non poteras flatu facem excitare?’ For φυσᾶν used of kindling or reinvigorating a fire, see e. g. Pherecr. fr. 66 ἀνέπλησα τὠφθαλμὼ πάλης φυσῶν τὸ πῦρ, ‘I filled my eyes with ash blowing the fire’; Dionys.Com. fr. 2.16 φυσᾶν τὸ πῦρ, ‘to blow the fire’; Henioch. fr. 4.7–8 ἔτνος κυάμινον διότι τὴν μὲν γαστέρα / φυσᾷ, τὸ δὲ πῦρ οὔ, ‘why it is that bean soup blows air into the belly, but not the fire’. δυστυχής Sometimes used as a term of abuse (e. g. Men. Epit. 218), but more often used in expressions of pity or self-pity at an impending or actual disaster (cf. Ar. Ec. 1103; Timocl. fr. 25.1; Men. Dysc. 574, 919; Pk. 185, 472; cf. also Dickey 1996. 161–5 on this and other terms of pity). The latter use would seem to apply here, although with a patronising and ironic tone towards his interlocutor, exaggerating with mock pity the seriousness of his calamity, i. e. ‘you poor thing!’, vel sim. ἠδύνω Attic form of the second-person singular imperfect of δύναμαι (i. e. ἐδύνασο) with loss of intervocalic sigma and lengthening of the augment (Moeris Lex.Att. p. 198, 21 ἠδύνω ἠπίστω Ἀττικοί, ἐδύνασο ἐπίστασο Ἕλληνες, ‘ēdunō, ēpistō: Attic speakers; edunaso, epistaso: Greeks’). The form is extremely rare in extant literature, found in Classical authors elsewhere only at Antisth. fr. 15.11.2 Caizzi. Here it may have been adopted metri gratia.

184

Philippides

fr. 17 K.-A. (17 K.) ὅταν ἐξίῃς, παραγώγιον 〈 ὧν⟩ ἂν ἐκφέρῃς 〈 σ’⟩ εἰσπράξομαι 1 ὅταν ἐξίῃς Cobet : ὅταν ἑξῆς Poll.FS : ὅ τι ἂν ἔχῃς Bekker 2 〈 ὧν⟩ ἂν Cobet : ἂν Poll.FS : 〈 σ’⟩ , ἂν Bekker ἐκφέρῃς Poll.FS : ἐκφέρῃ σ’ Cobet : ἐκφέρῃς 〈 σ’⟩ Kassel-Austin

When you leave, I shall charge you duty on whatever you carry out Poll. 9.30 (FS) ἦ που δὲ καὶ παραγώγιον τέλους ὄνομα, εἰ δεῖ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν τῆς κοινῆς χρήσεως παρέχεσθαι τὸ ἐν τῇ Φιλιππίδου Συνεκπλεούσῃ εἰρημένον· — Indeed paragōgion is also the name of a tax, if, in defense of its common usage, one must bring forward what is said in Philippides’ Synekpleousa: —

Metre Iambic trimeter(s).

〈 u l k l u l k l⟩ r l k l r l r 〈 l⟩ k | l k l l l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 472; Bekker 1846. 365; Cobet 1858. 125; Boeckh 1886. 397; Kock 1888. 306; Edmonds 1961. 174–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 343. Citation context Pollux (late 2nd c. CE) cites the word in his lexicographical work, the Onomasticon, which was arranged by topic or theme rather than by alphabetical order. The present fragment is quoted in a section covering various words for taxes, in this case to illustrate the term παραγώγιον. Text At line 1 ἐξίῃς is Cobet’s emendation (1858. 125) for the nonsensical ἑξῆς ‘continually, next’ of the manuscripts. It is a far more economical solution than Bekker’s ὅ τι ἂν ἔχῃς and is consistent with the idea that the addressee will be taxed upon his ship’s departure from port, as suggested by the verb ἐκφέρῃς in line 2. At line 2 Cobet’s supplement 〈 ὧν⟩ ἂν, necessary for the metre, appears correct based on similar phrasing in inscriptions (see note below). In the third metron Kassel and Austin supply 〈 σ’⟩ based on parallel usage of the verb εἰσπράττεσθαι with double accusative, apparently omitted here via haplography. However the pronoun is not strictly necessary and can be easily supplied by sense. Interpretation The speaker advises another character that he will exact from him a form of tax on any items he may have with him when he departs. It would appear the speaker is a harbour-duties collector who exacted payment from sailors on imports and exports, as well as goods in transit. His addressee, then, is presumably a sailor involved in such trade, although a metaphorical use of such langua-

Συνεκπλέουσα (fr. 17)

185

ge in a different context cannot be entirely ruled out. The language of the speaker faithfully reflects the technical language used in official documents pertaining to harbour taxes (see notes on παραγώγιον and 〈 ὧν⟩ ἂν ἐκφέρῃς), giving him an air of authority and stiff formality. Tax collectors (τελῶναι) were despised figures in comedy, often satirised for their greed, so Xeno fr. 1 πάντες τελῶναι, πάντες εἰσὶν ἅρπαγες, ‘all tax-collectors, all are robbers’; Anaxipp. fr. 1.40 (tax-collectors served lavish dishes symbolic of their greediness: Olson 2006–2012 IV. 387 n. 244); cf. Ar. Eq. 248; Apollod. Com. fr. 13.13 (Ehrenberg 1962. 325–7; Diggle 2004. 255). Theophrastus puts them alongside innkeepers and brothel-keepers in his character sketch of the ‘man who has lost all sense’ (ἀπονενοημένος) 6.5 δεινὸς δὲ καὶ πανδοκεῦσαι καὶ πορνοβοσκῆσαι καὶ τελωνῆσαι, ‘he is apt to be an innkeeper, a brothel-keeper and a tax-collector’. Harbour-duties appear to have been divided into four types: harbour-anchorage fees, import fees, export fees, and transit fees (on import/export fees, see recently Fawcett 2016. 159–64, 185–6). Anchorage fees, it seems, were collected by the ellimenistēs (ἐλλιμενιστής), literally one who charged tax on ships that were docking ‘in the harbour’ (Hsch. α 583 ἔπρασσον γὰρ ἐν τοῖς λιμέσιν ἐνόρμιον καὶ ἐνλιμένιον ὡς ἐκλογήν, ‘for in harbours they exacted an “at anchor” and “in harbour” fee as payment’). The precise nature of this tax is unclear (see Chankowski 2007. 314–19), but rather than a set fee it was possibly charged according to the size of the ship and its length of stay (cf. Bresson 2016. 307). A collector of harbour anchorage fees may appear in Eup. fr. 55 ἐλλιμένιον δοῦναι πρὶν εἰσβῆναί σε δεῖ, ‘you must pay the harbor fee before you board!’; although the speaker is also interpreted metaphorically as a brothel-keeper (so Kock 1880. 269 on fr. 48 ‘dici haec videntur nescio cui in lupanar introeunti’; Ehrenberg 1962. 326; for the metaphor cf. Plaut. Asin. 158–9 where Diabolus claims he will no longer pay the ‘port fee’ at Cleareta’s brothel; for other possibilities, see Olson 2017. 201). A greedy harbour-anchorage-fee collector is also alluded to in Aristophanes’ Polyidos fr. 472 ἐλλιμενίζεις ἢ δεκατεύεις, (better punctuated as an incredulous question: ‘are you collecting harbour-docking fees or a 10% duty?’). The joke would seem to imply that anchorage fees were normally relatively cheap (presumably cheaper than import and export duties which were around 1% in the late fifth century BCE: see below), and that the collector was outrageously expensive, charging exorbitant docking fees comparable to the most expensive duties (on these, see further below). Import and export duties on merchants’ cargoes were collected by the socalled πεντηκοστολόγοι (Eub. fr. 119.5; D. 21.133; Phot. π 586 = Men. fr. 1052.1; Phot. π 588 πεντηκοστή, EM s. v. πεντηκοστευόμενον, p. 660, 33 Kallierges; Fawcett 2016. 176–7). This was a separate tax from the harbour docking fee or ἐλλιμένιον mentioned above (for the difference, cf. apparently Poll. 8.132 τέλη δ’ ἦν τὰ παρὰ τοῖς πεντηκοστολόγοις ἢ ἐλλιμενισταῖς· ταῦτα δ’ ἐκαλεῖτο ἐλλιμένια καὶ ἐμπορικά, ‘the (payments) with pentēkostologoi or ellimenistai were taxes. These were called ellimenia and emporika’). In Athens a 1% tax ad valorem on

186

Philippides

all goods both entering and leaving the Piraeus (ἑκατοστή, ‘one-hundredth’) is known to have been in place during the late fifth century (Ar. V. 658–9; [X.] Ath. 1.17). This was increased to a flat rate of 2% (πεντηκοστή, ‘one-fiftieth’) around the turn of the fifth/fourth centuries, and remained in place until Roman times (Woolmer 2015. 70).99 Pentēkostologoi were awarded the right to collect the tax after offering the highest bid at public auction (see Andoc. 1.133–4; Arist. Ath. 47.2; Andreades 1933. 296; Michell 1957. 256–7; Lewis 1959. 243–4; Austin and VidalNaquet 1973. 123; Bresson 2016. 308; Fawcett 2016. 161). A ship only had to pay the import duty if it unloaded its cargo at port, and similarly export duties were only charged on goods loaded at port, not those that remained on board during transit (see D. 35.29–30; Isager and Hansen 1975. 64; Bresson 2016. 308, who cites IG V 1, 1421 from Kyparissia ca. 4th/3rd c. BCE; cf. Philippid. fr. 15 on harbour storehouses). Merchants who failed to register with the pentēkostologos, at least in Kyparissia, were subject to a 20% duty (IG V 1, 1421.6–7). Other cities known to have imposed a 2% duty include Epidaurus, Troizen, Delos, Halicarnassus, Knidos and Atarneus (see Busolt 1920. 614 with n. 4). Our last tax, a transit tax, was imposed on ships which passed through a territory without unloading their cargoes. The typical cost of such duties is unclear (a 10% transit tax was levied by the Athenaians at the Bosporus in 410 BCE, but this may have been exceptional, see Fawcett 2016. 160–1). Our fragment’s use of the term παραγώγιον would suggest that such a tax is perhaps meant here, although there are potential problems with this meaning. Our tax collector tells the sailor he will tax him on any goods he has with him when he leaves, which would seem to imply an export duty. Philippides, then, may use the term παραγώγιον loosely here to mean an export tax. In support of a transit fee, however, we should note that the Successors of Alexander appear to have regularly imposed transit duties on ships which passed through their territories (cf. Milet I 3, 139A.6–7 ca. 262 BCE ἀπολύσαντα καὶ παραγωγίων … ἅ τινες | τῶμ βασιλέων κατέστησαν, ‘(sc. Ptolemy I Soter) having exempted [the Milesians] also from the paragōgia which some of the kings established’). And so we may have here the unorthodox imposition of a transit tax where the tax collector unfairly ‘double-dips’ by treating the duty more like an import and export tax, charging the sailor both on arrival and departure. 1 ὅταν ἐξίῃς Here must mean ‘when you depart’ (i. e. sail away from port). But contrast the meaning ‘disembark’ from a ship onto dry land at Epict. Diss. ab Arr. 1.24.11 τί οὖν ποιήσω; B. τί ποιεῖς, ἐκ πλοίου ὅταν ἐξίῃς; μή τι τὸ πηδάλιον αἴρεις, μή τι τὰς κώπας; ‘What am I to do then? B. What do you do when you go out from a boat? Don’t you raise the rudder at all? Don’t (you raise) the oars?’ 99

Higher rates might occasionally appear, such as the 5% tax mentioned at Th. 7.28.4 which was imposed on Athens’ subject-allies in 413 BCE in place of tribute (cf. Ar. Ra. 363 where Thorykion the εἰκοστολόγος, ‘one-twentieth collector’ is thought to have collected this tax in Aegina: so Dover 1993. 241). Demosthenes (23.177, dated 352 BCE) also mentions an even more costly 10% tax.

Συνεκπλέουσα (fr. 17)

187

In our present fragment, however, there can be little question that the sailor has already disembarked, which would exclude this meaning, and so ‘go out of town/ harbour’ is more fitting. Likewise the verb ἐκφέρῃς in line 2 does not mean to unload cargo from a ship onto the docks, but rather to carry cargo inside of a ship out of harbour, i. e. ‘export’, as epigraphical parallels with the standard verb of export, ἐξάγειν, suggest (examples cited under lemma 〈 ὧν⟩ ἂν ἐκφέρῃς below). 2 παραγώγιον A relatively late word (this is the earliest attested example) for a duty imposed on merchant vessels. It appears in third-century inscriptions (e. g. IG XI 2, 163 A.24 from Delos; and in Milet I 3, 139A.6 a letter from Ptolemy II Philadelphus ca. 262 BCE noting how his father exempted the Milesians from certain taxes in his territories) where it appears to mean specifically a transit duty (also called a διαγώγιον). The clearest instance of the word meaning ‘transit duty’ is in Polybius (4.47.3) who uses it to describe a very unpopular toll imposed by Byzantium in the third century BCE on cargo ships passing through the Hellespont into and out of the Black Sea (Plb. 4.47.1), a tax which, due to the unique geography of the Bosporus, passing ships could scarcely avoid. This specific toll was only imposed in the years 410–405 BCE, 389–386 BCE, and was revived in the late third century BCE when it sparked a war with Rhodes. Polybius uses the synonym διαγώγιον at 4.52.5 (cf. also the verb παραγωγιάζειν at Plb. 3.2.6; 4.44.4; 4.46.6; Boeckh 1886. 397). The meaning of παραγώγιον in our Philippides passage is complicated by the verbs ἐξίῃς and ἐκφέρῃς and the speaker’s claim that he will charge tax on what his interlocutor takes with him when leaving port, i. e. an export duty. The verb ἐκφέρειν is virtually synonymous with ἐξάγειν, the standard verb used to describe exporting (e. g. Ar. Eq. 278, 282; and see following note for epigraphical examples). An export tax might therefore be intended here and the prefix παρά in this case might be conceived with the idea ‘to’ or ‘from’ (cf. LSJ s. v. G.I and II). Given, however, that we have here a comic character in the form of a greedy duties-collector, it may be that he is administering the transit tax in an unorthodox or corrupt manner (see ‘Interpretation’ above). For compound forms similar to παραγώγιον used for various duties, cf. ἐξαγώγιον (an export tax) and εἰσαγώγιον (an import tax, both at SEG 37.859B.16, Herakleia Latmia, early 2nd c. BCE), and διαγώγιον (a transit tax at Plb. 4.52.5; cf. IK Priene 16.28, ca. 334 BCE, [δι]α̣γωγίου where earlier editions read [ἐξα]γωγίου). Cf. also Magnesia 93.20–1, third century BCE, where the honorand is given tax exemptions on everything he brings in, brings out, and brings ‘through’: [εἰσ]άγηι ἤ ἐξάγηι ἤ διάγηι εἰς τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον̣. ἂν ἐκφέρῃς The phrase parodies the formal, technical language used in relation to import and export taxes, e. g. SEG 28.696.9 ὧν ἂν εἰ]σ̣άγηι ἢ ἐξ[ά]γη ̣ ̣ι ̣ (Cos, late 4th c. BCE); IG XII 6, 1:150.18 ὧν ἂν εἰσά[γ]ωνται (Samos, late 4th c. BCE); IK Priene 29.6 ὧν ἂν εἰσάγηται ἢ ἐξάγηται (ca. 285–280 BCE); IG XI 4, 1038.20–1 ὧν ἂν εἰσάγω[σιν καὶ ἐξά]|γωσιν (Delos, ca. 280 BCE).

188

Philippides

εἰσπράξομαι ‘Charge, exact’. A technical term (cf. previous note). It can be used of various fees, penalties and taxes, e. g. the exaction of tribute by the Athenians at IG I3 68.17–18 (426/5 BCE) ἐσπράχσον|[ται τὸν φ]όρον, or the imposition of a fine at Men. Asp. 367. For the double accusative construction to denote both the fee and the person from whom it is obtained cf. Isoc. 5.146 and D. 50.67. The simplex form πράττειν is sometimes used in the same sense (LSJ s. v. πράττειν VI; cf. Antiph. fr. 208.3; Poll. 9.31; Σ D. 24.198 πράττονται· ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰσπράττονται, ‘prattontai: instead of eisprattontai’). Both the Active and Middle forms of the verb are also interchangeable (Frag. Lex. Gr. no. 123, in Hermann, De emend. rat. Gr. gramm. p. 337 ὁμοίως ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς σημασίας καὶ τὸ εἰσπράττω, καὶ τὸ πράττομαι, καὶ τὸ εἰσπράττομαι, ‘likewise with the same meaning are eisprattō, prattomai and eisprattomai’). In this case the choice of the Middle form may add a subtle touch of greed to the portraiture of the tax collector, i. e. ‘I shall exact for myself ’.

189

Φιλάδελφοι (Philadelphoi) (‘Siblings in Love’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 474; Meineke 1841. 472; Kock 1888. 306; Edmonds 1961. 174–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 344. Title Comedies titled Philadelphoi are attributed to several authors, beginning with the Middle Comedy poet Amphis (see Papachrysostomou 2008. 96–100 and 2016. 210–22), and the New Comedy poets Diphilus (for whom the singular form Philadelphos is attested), Menander, Apollodorus Gelous, and the (third-century?) poet Sosicrates. The precise meaning of φιλάδελφοι here is difficult to determine without a secure dramatic context. Compounds with Φιλ- in the title elsewhere in Philippides regularly indicate an object of affection or devotion, usually to an obsessive and unhealthy degree (see on Philathēnaios). But the present compound would appear slightly different. Based on plot lines from other comedies with similar titles or themes (for which see under ‘Content’ below), the title could refer, e. g., to a pair of sisters who endure the absence of their husbands – husbands who also happen to be each other’s brother (cf. Plautus’ Stichus, based on the Philadelphoi of Menander), i. e. ‘Sisters who Loved Brothers’; or it may refer to a long-lost brother and sister who are linked amorously in some way before their true relationship is revealed, i. e. ‘Brother and Sister in Love’. The translation ‘Siblings in Love’ offered above tries to account for these dramatic possibilities without being precise. Content From the little evidence we can glean from our only surviving fragment of this play (fr. 18), two of the characters, at least, were a master and a slave. There the slave consoles his master after he suffers an unstated misfortune. The title also suggests that siblings were characters, whether sisters, brothers, or a sister and brother pair. Comparative evidence from other comedies may shed light on how Philippides treated his own play.100 The Stichus of Plautus, as the didascalic note attached to that play reports, was based on the Adelphoi of Menander (Graeca Adelphoe Menandru.), more precisely the First Adelphoi (Ἀδελφοί αʹ) which is also thought to be the same comedy as Menander’s Philadelphoi (see Webster 1960. 139–45; cf. Webster 1974. 112–14). In general outline the drama focuses on two sisters, Panegyris and Pamphila, whose husbands, Epignomus and Pamphilippus, who also happen to be brothers, have gone abroad to seek their fortune, having fallen on hard times. The girls’ father, Antipho, encourages them to remarry in the extended absence of their husbands, but they hold out against his advice. Eventually the husbands return, having made their fortune, and are reconciled with their wives 100

There is little need to speculate a political or historical theme, as we find, for example, in Edmonds (1961. 175 n. b) who suggests the title may refer to Ptolemy II Philadelphus who married his sister Arsinoe II in the mid–270s BCE.

190

Philippides

and with Antipho. It is the sisters’ loving devotion to their husbands – who are compared at the beginning of the play with the archetypal devoted wife Penelope (Plaut. Stich. 1–6) – which apparently gave motivation for the alternative title Philadelphoi in the Menandrean original. Another potential plotline could involve a courtship between siblings, separated when young children, who only discover their true relationship after a recognition scene. Such plots are hinted at in Menander’s Epitrepontes where Syros, recalling tragic plotlines (and even comic), notes how recognition tokens prevented a brother and sister from marrying, 341–2 γαμῶν ἀδελφήν τις διὰ γνωρίσματα / ἐπέσχε, ‘because of recognition tokens someone held off marrying his sister’. Such a plotline can be found in Menander’s Perikeiromenē where Moschion unknowingly falls for his sister Glykera, only for both to discover their true identity in the recognition scene at lines 755–828, allowing Glykera to patch up her relationship with the jealous love-rival Polemon. Likewise, in Roman comedy we find longseparated brothers and sisters in potential love matches, sometimes complicated by a love rival, with a recognition scene resolving their identity and the rival now receiving the newly identified brother’s blessing to marry the girl. So we find in Plautus’ Curculio with the soldier Therapontigonus and Planesium, in Epidicus with the half-siblings Stratippocles and Telestis, and similarly in Poenulus with the cousins Agorastocles and Adelphasium. See also Duckworth 1952. 158–9 and Hunter 1983. 159–60, who suggests the possibility of such a plotline in Eubulus’ Neottis. Date Unknown.

fr. 18 K.-A. (18 K.) ὅταν ἀτυχεῖν σοι συμπέσῃ τι, δέσποτα, Εὐριπίδου μνήσθητι, καὶ ῥᾴων ἔσῃ. οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ’ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ. εἶναι δ’ ὑπόλαβε καὶ σὲ τῶν πολλῶν ἕνα 2 ἔσει Meineke

4 εἶναι δ’ ὑπόλαβε Stob.SMA : νόμιζε δ’ εἶναι Michael Hieromon

Whenever it befalls you to be unlucky in some way, Master, remember Euripides, and you’ll be more at ease. ‘There is no man who is happy in every respect’. Assume that you too are one of the many. Stob. 4.44.10 (SMA) Φιλιππίδου (φιλίππου Stob.MA) Φιλαδέλφων· — Philippides’ Philadelphoi: —

Φιλάδελφοι (fr. 18)

191

Metre Iambic trimeters. The caesura in line 4 is ambiguous, but interpreted here as penthemimeral.

k l l l

r k l l | l k l k l k l l k l l l k | l l l k l l k l l | l k l l l k l l k r k | l k | l l l k l

Discussion Boissonade 1832. 456; Meineke 1841. 472; Kock 1888. 306; Edmonds 1961. 174–5; Hunter 1985. 119; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 344; Gallo 1994. 232; Kosak 2004. 4, 193; Knobl 2008. 59–60; Nervegna 2013. 210; Wright 2013. 615–16; Farmer 2017. 59. Citation context Cited in the Anthology of Stobaeus (5th c. CE) in a collection of passages chosen to illustrate the theme ὅτι δεῖ γενναίως φέρειν τὰ προσπίπτοντα, ‘that it is necessary to bear one’s fortunes nobly’ (4.44.t.1). Text At line 2 the manuscripts read ἔσῃ while Meineke (1841. 472) reads ἔσει. While this is purely an orthographical issue, the latter may be correct since ηι is increasingly replaced by ει in Attic inscriptions from around 375 BCE with ει becoming dominant by 300 BCE. Spelling with η begins to be restored only around the second century CE (Meisterhans-Schwyzer 1900. 165; Threatte 1980. 369, 377). At line 4, instead of εἶναι δ’ ὑπόλαβε, we find the alternative reading νόμιζε δ’ εἶναι quoted in a letter by Michael Hieromon (Boissonade 1832. 456). Hieromon, who quotes several ancient sources, presumably found the passage in a collection like that of Stobaeus, a ready sourcebook for those looking for ancient maxims when writing letters offering wisdom, although here his version differs from the surviving text in Stobaeus. One might conclude that the source he consulted was corrupt, or that he himself has slightly altered the text, especially if quoting from memory (cf. Men. Dysc. 484–5 which has the very similar expression νομίζεθ’ ἕνα … με τῶν πολλῶν). In any case, ὑπόλαβε is the lectio difficilior and νόμιζε is more likely a gloss for ease of comprehension which has somehow supplanted the original text. Interpretation A slave addresses his master – apparently after the master has suffered a setback or misfortune of some kind – offering him consolation in the form of a sententious quote taken from the tragic poet Euripides. Stylistically the slave adopts a philosophical and apparently serious (or quasi-serious) tone as reflected in the vocabulary and the metre with its absence of comic anapaests. He adopts the language of a doctor prescribing medicine to ease a patient’s malady, offering tragic wisdom as a remedy, not only in the form of the direct quotation at line 3, but also in the sentiment of line 4 which is equally tragic, although here expressed in prosaic terms. Consolations by means of tragedy typically fall into two kinds: either the example of a character from tragedy is presented whose sufferings are considered comparatively worse (cf. e. g. Tim. fr. 6); or else, as here,

192

Philippides

a slice of gnomic wisdom taken from tragedy is offered upon which the sufferer can reflect.101 The slave’s moralising would indicate that he is much like the Plautine servus callidus or ‘clever slave’ who ‘delivers moral teachings and wisdom – more than any other figure in the comedy’ (see Schironi 2013. 454–5; cf. also Harsh 1955; Stace 1968; MacCary 1969). Such slaves often help resolve the central problem of the main plot (cf. e. g. Daos in Menander’s Aspis). Possibly the slave here is an older figure. Aristotle, at any rate, suggests that maxims are better suited to older men with some experience of the advice they give, otherwise their sententiousness strikes an incongruous note (Rh. 1395a2–6). If we have a younger slave addressing an older master, his advice might have been intended to appear arrogant or condescending. We do not know for certain how the master failed or in what respect he was unsuccessful. The word ‘master’ (δέσποτα) is often addressed to older characters, usually already married with children, who are head of the household (see comm. below). But we also find several younger unmarried ‘masters’ in comedy – typically soldiers who are very often love-rivals with other young men. Among these are the mercenary Thrasonides in Menander’s Misoumenos whose amorous advances are rejected by his own slave girl; the soldier Polemon in Menander’s Perikeiromenē who encounters difficulties in his pursuit of Glykera; and also the soldier Thraso in Terence’s Eunuch (a character lifted from Menander’s Kolax, Ter. Eun. 30–3) who is in love with Thais and owns a household with several slaves (see Ter. Eun. 772–81). Based on what we know of similar-titled comedies, themes and characters, the unfortunate man here could be a soldier in love who has suffered an unlucky turn in his pursuit of a girl (cf. Men. Pk. where the soldier comes off second-best with a love rival until the girl’s true identity is discovered; or Plaut. Curc. where the soldier’s love interest turns out to be the sister of the soldier himself). 1 ἀτυχεῖν The verb generally means: ‘fail to obtain’, ‘be unlucky’ (see LSJ s. v.). The shade of meaning intended here remains vague due to the lack of immediate context. συμπέσῃ Cf. Men. Pk. 141. For a parallel of the impersonal construction of this verb with dative object, infinitive and adverb, see D.Chr. 29.21 εἴ τινι συμπέσοι τελευτῆσαι ταχύτερον, ‘if it should befall anyone to die too soon’. Although attested much later, the verb appears several times in Galen to describe the affliction of medical ailments, e. g. Gal. De diff. febr. VII. 327, 16 Kühn πυρετὸς συμπέσῃ βληχρὸς, ‘a slight fever occurs’; De diff. resp. VII. 783, 9 Kühn ὅταν μὲν κατ’ αὐτὸν 101

It seems unlikely that the phrase ‘remember Euripides’ is meant to recall the life of the poet himself (so Knobl 2008. 59–60). Knobl submits that the phrase may refer to Euripides’ reputation as a parasite (cf. Theopomp.Com. fr. 35), with the poet’s example presumably meant to console the sufferer. But here the phrase ‘remember Euripides’ surely means ‘remember (the words of) Euripides’, without any suggestion the poet himself was meant – as indicated by the quotation which follows (see comm. below).

Φιλάδελφοι (fr. 18)

193

τὸν πνεύμονα τὸ πάθημα συμπέσῃ, ‘when the affliction occurs in the lungs themselves’. A medical tone might therefore be felt here also, especially considering the more obvious medical language below in line 2. δέσποτα Properly an address made by a slave to the head of the household (cf. Lat. erus, with Dickey 2002. 79–80) as distinct from the master’s son or the ‘younger master’ who was called τρόφιμος (Poll. 3.73 ὁ νεώτερος δεσπότης … τρόφιμος, see on Philippid. fr. 28.2). In comedy this address is usually made to older men, e. g. Ar. Pl. 67 (Chremylos); Men. Dysc. 589 (Knemon); Sam. 296 and 304 (Demeas); Sic. 373 (Kichesias); probably Per. 16 (in Ter. An. the slave Davus [= Daos in Perinthia] is the slave of the old man Simo). We do, however, find younger masters addressed as such, e. g. Bdelycleon in Ar. V. 67 (see also 142, 420) and the love-struck mercenary soldier Thrasonides in Men. Mis. 97 and 408(?). See further Dickey 1996. 95–8; and under ‘Interpretation’ above. 2 Εὐριπίδου μνήσθητι A shorthand expression, via metonymy, for ‘remember (the words of) Euripides’ (for the fuller expression without metonymy, cf. Aristid. p. 396, 20–1 Jebb ἀναμνήσθητι τῶν Ὁμήρου, ‘remember the [words] of Homer’). Like English, Greek might substitute the name of the poet to represent his works or words (e. g. ‘I’m reading Shakespeare’), so Ar. Ach. 484 καταπιὼν Εὐριπίδην, ‘swallowing down Euripides’ (i. e. his words; cf. the similar metaphor, but without metonymy, at Ar. V. 462 ἔτυχον τῶν μελῶν τῶν Φιλοκλέους βεβρωκότες, ‘they happened to have devoured the lyrics of Philokles’). For the fifth-century tragic poet Euripides and his popularity in the fourth century, especially among the comic poets, see on Phileuripidēs (‘Title’). Euripides was highly revered in antiquity for his maxims, many of which were gathered in ancient gnomic collections (see Quint. 10.1.67–8; D.Chr. 18.7; Ritchie 1964. 225–8; Most 2003; Nervegna 2013. 209). Here the imperative form μνήσθητι also seems intentionally to imitate the language of a doctor prescribing a cure, in this case with an imperative used as an alternative to a conditional protasis (i. e. ‘if you do this …’). For a parallel, cf. Luc. Lex. 20 (quoted following note). ῥᾴων ἔσῃ ‘You’ll be more at ease/feel better’. The language parodies that of a doctor’s prescription, although in this case the medicine or ‘analgesic’ administered to relieve the patient’s suffering is a dose of Euripidean wisdom (so Kosak 2004. 4 and 193). For the phrase elsewhere in medical or medical-parody contexts, see Hp. Aff. 12.46–7 Littré ταῦτα ἢν ποιέῃ, ῥήϊον οἴσει τὴν νοῦσον, ‘if you do this you’ll bear your malady more easily’; Luc. Lex. 20 where Sosipolis prescribes medicine to Lexiphanes to purge him of his linguistic ailment: ἀλλὰ πείσθητί μοι καὶ πῖθι καὶ ῥᾴων ἔσῃ, ‘but listen to me and drink up and you’ll be more at ease’. See also the similar parody of medical language at Theopomp.Com. fr. 63.5 where the speaker prescribes more sensible behavior to a young man in order to preserve his inheritance: ταῦτ’ ἢν ποιῇς, ῥᾴων ἔσει τὴν οὐσίαν, ‘if you do this you’ll be more at ease regarding your estate’; cf. also Theoc. 11.7.

194

Philippides

3 οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ’ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ ‘There is no man who is happy in every respect’. A direct quotation of the opening line of Euripides’ Stheneboia (TrGF fr. 661.1; cf. POxy. 2455, fr. 5, 50–1, hypothesis to Stheneboia, which cites this line as the incipit of the play). In Euripides’ tragedy the line is spoken in a monologue by Bellerophon with reference to Proitos, king of Tiryns, whose wife Stheneboia had been unfaithful to him by pursuing a relationship with their guest-friend, Bellerophon, behind her husband’s back (see E. fr. 661.1–31). The saying was especially popular in antiquity and was already a popular saying by Philippides’ time. Aristophanes quotes the line as early as 405 BCE at Ra. 1217 during his parody of Euripidean prologues. The Middle Comedy poet Nicostratus also quotes the line, perhaps, as here, within the context of a consolation, or else a general reflection (fr. 29) “οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ’ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ.” / νὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν συντόμως γε, φίλτατε / Εὐριπίδη, τὸν βίον ἔθηκας εἰς στίχον (‘“there is no man who is happy in every respect”, yes by Athena! My dearest / Euripides, you’ve summed up life in a single line!’). We also find the line quoted at Men. Asp. 407 (date uncertain) where the slave Daos cites it along with other lines from tragedy in mock self-consolation for the pretended death of Chairestratos; and in a fragmentary commentary to a lost comedy in POxy. 2086r, fr. 1.1 (= com. adesp. fr. 1059.1). By Menander (and Philippides’) time the saying already appears to have found its way into collections of gnomai. Aristotle (Rh. 1394b2), at any rate, quotes it alongside other sayings during a survey of different kinds of maxims, a survey that likely used such a collection, perhaps Aristotle’s very own writings on proverbs (see D.L. 5.26 Παροιμίαι αʹ). The very passage from Menander’s Aspis mentioned above suggests that Daos (if not Menander himself) was quoting from a ready-made collection of maxims when Smikrines responds with the words (414) γνωμολογεῖς, τρισάθλιε; (‘are you citing maxims, you utter wretch?’). In any case, the line eventually found its way into the collections of maxims attributed to Menander, quite likely via the Aspis passage cited above (Men. Mon. 596 Jaekel; see Nervegna 2013. 210). There is no reason why Philippides (or the speaker of the fragment) might not be assumed to have used a similar gnomic source, which would encourage us to divorce the phrase from its original Euripidean setting and not assume any shared context between the two (i. e. that the ‘master’ here has been cheated on by a wife or girlfriend like Proitos in Euripides’ Stheneboia). For the idea elsewhere in literature that no man is ever entirely happy, see Hdt. 1.32.4–5; E. Supp. 170; frr. 44, 273.3; cf. Med. 1228–30. 4 δ’ The particle δέ seems to have inferential force here (i. e. = οὖν ‘then’, ‘therefore’); or rather, as Denniston remarks on this usage: ‘the writer is content with merely adding one idea to another, without stressing the logical connexion between the two, which he leaves to be supplied’ (Denniston 1954. 169; see also 170 §ii). ὑπόλαβε Often with infinitive, esp. εἶναι: ‘suppose that …’ (LSJ s. v. III.1). The verb in this sense and construction occurs especially often in Plato and Aristotle

Φιλάδελφοι (fr. 18)

195

(e. g. Pl. Grg. 458e; Prt. 341b; Phd. 86b; Arist. Metaph. 1005b26; 1010b10), which adds to the quasi-philosophical tone of the passage here. τῶν πολλῶν ἕνα ‘One of the many’, i. e. ‘just like everyone else’. Cf. the Latin expression unus e multis (i. e. an ordinary person; Otto 1890. 358 s. v. ‘unus’ 1). For other examples of the phrase in Greek authors, typically prose or comedy, see Men. Dysc. 484–5 νομίζεθ’ ἕνα … με τῶν πολλῶν, ‘regard me as one of the many’; Isoc. 2.50 οὐχ ἕνα τῶν πολλῶν, ἀλλὰ πολλῶν βασιλεύοντα, ‘not one of the many, but ruling many’; D. 21.96; Heliod. 10.12.4; Ach.Tat. 8.8.7; see also Arnott 1966. 79 on Charito 1.12.1 and Fraenkel on A. Ag. III, p. 690 n. 1. The same idea, although expressed differently, is commonplace in tragic consolations, especially in Euripides where often the consoler reminds the afflicted they are not alone or unique in their suffering, e. g. E. Alc. 416–19, 892; Med. 1017; Hipp. 834; and Andr. 1041.

196

Φιλαθήναιος (Philathēnaios) (‘Athens-Lover’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 474; Meineke 1841. 473; Kock 1888. 307; Edmonds 1961. 174–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 344. Title An homonymous comedy Philathēnaios is attributed to the Middle/ New Comedy poet Alexis. Apart from Alexis and Philippides, we possibly have evidence in the Didascaliae of another comedy by this title (author unknown) performed at the City Dionysia in 197 BCE where it came third (IG II2 2323.135 = 177 M-O [- - -]αθην[- - -]).102 As a proper name it is attested numerous times in Attica, although all of these come from late sources (see LGPN II s. v.). An ethical epithet rather than a proper name, in any case, seems the most likely interpretation of our title here. Thematically similar titles elsewhere include Antiphanes’ Philothēbaios (‘Thebes-Lover’) and the Philolakōn (‘Sparta-Lover’) by Antiphanes’ son Stephanus (see this volume). In comedy, compound titles beginning with ‘Φιλ-’ usually denote an excessive liking for something bordering on madness or illness (see further on Stephanus’ Philolakōn). The word φιλαθήναιος itself is mostly found in political and diplomatic contexts to describe foreigners or foreign states ‘friendly’ to Athens. It is also sometimes applied to Athenians themselves (i. e. a ‘patriot’), although this usage is attested only in later sources. In literature the word is found as early as Aristophanes’ Acharnians (425 BCE) where it describes Sitalkes, king of the Odrysians, with word-play on the erotic connotations of the prefix φιλ-, Ar. Ach. 142–4 καὶ δῆτα φιλαθήναιος ἦν ὑπερφυῶς / ὑμῶν τ’ ἐραστὴς ἦν ἀληθής, ὥστε καὶ / ἐν τοῖσι τοίχοις ἔγραφ’ “Ἀθηναῖοι καλοί”, ‘Indeed he was exceptionally fond of Athens, and he was a true lover of you, that he even wrote on the walls “the Athenians are handsome”’. In Aristophanes’ Wasps an unnamed character said to have reported the revolt at Samos in 440 BCE is labelled a φιλαθήναιος (identified by ΣV Ar. V. 283b as a certain ‘Karystion’ who was granted Athenian citizenship), Ar. V. 281–3 ὃς ἡμᾶς διέδυ πως, / ἐξαπατῶν καὶ λέγων / ὡς φιλαθήναιος ἦν καὶ / τἀν Σάμῳ πρῶτος κατείποι, ‘who somehow slipped past us, deceptively claiming he was a friend of Athens and that he first revealed the events in Samos’. The word reflects similar language found in honorary decrees and grants of citizenship where the honoured foreigner is sometimes called a ‘friend of the Athenians’ or a ‘friend of the dēmos’. So we find in a citizenship decree for Archippos of Thasos (IG II3 1, 333.15–17 = IG II2 336) from 334/3 BCE (heavily restored) where his father is described as a friend of the Athenians who was granted citizenship: [ὁ πατὴρ] | αὐτοῦ Ἀθηνα[ίων φίλος 102

Wilhelm (1906a. 71) proposed two possible restorations [Φιλ]αθην[αίωι] and [Μισ]αθην[αίωι]. The latter reading (‘Athens-Hater’), however, is otherwise unparalleled, as indeed is any other ethnic with the prefix Μισ-, and so the former reading would seem more probable (cf. Arnott 1996. 709 n. 1).

Φιλαθήναιος

197

ἦν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐ|τ]ῶι ὁ δῆμο[ς τὴν πολιτείαν], ‘his [father was a friend of the] Athenia[ns and] the dēmo[s gave h]im [citizenship]’; while an honorary decree for Timosthenes of Carystus (IG II2 467.4–6) of 306/5 BCE, possibly granting citizenship, honours him for ‘continuing to be a friend and w[ell-disposed to the dēmos of the Athenia]ns’, [δι]|ατελεῖ φίλος ὢν καὶ ε[ὔνους τῶι δήμωι τῶι Ἀθηναί]|ων. Other references to the word φιλαθήναιος in literature can be found at Pl. Ti. 21e where the inhabitants of Sais in Egypt are described as self-confessed ‘sturdy friends of Athens’ (μάλα δὲ φιλαθήναιοι), while the adjective is also applied to foreign rulers in contexts of diplomatic relations, e. g. Philip II of Macedon (D. 19.308, said to have been described as φιλαθηναιότατον by Aeschines); Alexander the Great (Isoc. Ep. 5.2 φιλαθήναιος); and later Mark Antony (Plu. Ant. 23.2 φιλαθήναιος). Only late sources use the word to describe Athenians themselves. More specifically it used of Athenian citizens renowned for their apparent reluctance to leave the city, such as Sophocles and Socrates, while elsewhere it describes the fervent patriotism of Demosthenes.103 But more generally, as also with the similar epithet φιλολάκων (see on Stephanus’ Philolakōn), it typically describes a person with a fondness for another city and its ways. Content Our only fragment from the play (fr. 19) refers to a person applying rouge to the face, quite possibly an old hetaira who may have been among the dramatis personae. Besides this we have the eponymous title character who, based on the usual application of the term φιλαθήναιος, was most likely a non-Athenian with a fondness for Athens. An Athenian-born ‘patriot’ is less likely, but cannot be entirely ruled out. Two possible themes that emerge are an ethical comedy or a political comedy, with the former seeming more likely. In the case of an ethical play, a generic character type obsessed with the habits, manners and customs of Athens is otherwise recommended by plays with similar titles, among them Antiphanes’ Philothēbaios and Stephanus’ Philolakōn. The fact that our comedy was also reperformed over a century later at the City Dionysia in 154 BCE might further support the idea it featured a more generic ethical theme rather than a topical and time-bound

103

Sophocles: Vit.Soph. 10 (= TrGF test. 1.37) οὕτω δὲ φιλαθηναιότατος ἦν ὥστε πολλῶν βασιλέων μεταπεμπομένων αὐτὸν οὐκ ἠθέλησε τὴν πατρίδα καταλιπεῖν, ‘he was so fond of Athens that although many kings sent after him he was unwilling to leave his homeland’; Socrates: Lib. Decl. 2.1.33 ὦ νομιμώτατε Σώκρατες καὶ φιλαθηναιότατε διὰ τέλους πάντων ὧν οἶδα ἐγώ, οὐδὲ νῦν ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν ἀποδημῆσαι θέλεις, ‘Socrates, most law-abiding and of all I know most fond of Athens to the last, not even now are you willing to travel abroad from Athens’; Demosthenes: Luc. Dem.Enc. 42.13 οὕτως μανικῶς φιλαθήναιος ἦν, ‘he was so madly fond of Athens’, with explicit reference to the ‘manic’ characteristics often associated with compounds with the prefix ‘φιλ-’.

198

Philippides

political theme, since ethical comedies held wider appeal for later audiences (cf. Hartwig 2014. 211–13).104 There are various ‘typical’ Athenian character traits such a comedy might have presented. Generally speaking, Athenian habits and customs were defined in opposition to Spartan ones (on Spartan traits see under Stephanus’ Philolakōn this volume). Among the more salient features associated with Athens (mostly derogatory) that may have survived into the late fourth century was a reputation for litigiousness (including sycophancy) and attending the law courts, talkativeness (to the point of idle chatter), a fondness for lavish and exotic dinner parties, as well as drunkenness. Aristophanes criticises Athens as a city full of judges (Ar. Nu. 206–8) who do nothing else other than judge law suits (Ar. V. passim; Pax 505). Litigiousness, especially sycophancy, was represented as a frequent problem even in the late fourth century (see Heraclid.Crit. FGH fr. 1.4; and on Philippid. fr. 30 for further references). Talkativeness is recognised proverbially as a defining feature of the Athenian character (cf. Ar. Nu. 931, 1052–4; Ra. 89–91; Heraclid.Crit. FGH fr. 1.4), especially in Plato’s Laws (641e), where it is contrasted with Spartan taciturnity: τὴν πόλιν ἅπαντες ἡμῶν Ἕλληνες ὑπολαμβάνουσιν ὡς φιλόλογός τέ ἐστι καὶ πολύλογος, ‘every Greek suspects of my city that it loves words and is full of them’. This characteristic is variously attributed to the influence of Pericles (Pl. Grg. 515e) or Euripides (Ar. Ra. 954, 1069; see Diggle 2004. 266; cf. Babr. 1.15). Athens’ reputation for elaborate dining and drinking parties, replete with perfumes, lotions, and exotic dishes, is sharply contrasted with Spartan customs at Plu. Phoc. 20. A fragment of Lynceus of Samos (fr. 1) complains that while Athenian dinner parties are full of exotic dishes, the portions are too few, leaving the diner hungry. Drunkenness is also mentioned as a conspicuous trait of Athenian drinking parties at Pl. Lg. 637a, again in contrast with Sparta where it is unheard of according to the Spartan Megillos. Various other stereotypical traits, both positive and negative, which might be mentioned here include the Athenians’ fickleness in political decision making (a general complaint against democracy), whether they are ‘quick to decide’ (Ar. Ach. 630 Ἀθηναίοις ταχυβούλοις), always changing their mind (Ar. Ach. 632 Ἀθηναίους μεταβούλους), or making bad decisions generally (Ar. Nu. 587–8 φασὶ 104

An historical, political target remains possible, but less likely. Two possible candidates in the late fourth century of foreign potentates ‘friendly to Athens’ are Antigonus I Monophthalmus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes who helped restore democracy in 307 BCE and were lauded at the time by many Athenians. Philippides’ subsequent disillusionment with both, especially Demetrius, would give ironic pungency and comic force to the epithet φιλαθήναιος (cf. fr. 25). If an Athenian ‘patriot’ was targeted, the leading politician Stratocles of Diomeia (PA 12938; PAA 837635), whom Philippides considered a misguided patriot in his trust and loyalty to the Antigonids (see fr. 25 and cf. fr. 26 where he is presented on stage), would be an obvious choice. Again the title would be sharply ironic.

Φιλαθήναιος

199

γὰρ δυσβουλίαν / τῇδε τῇ πόλει προσεῖναι, ‘they say that bad decision-making is attached to this city’; see also Ar. Ec. 797–8; Isoc. 15.19; Göbel 1915. 15–18). Avarice is mentioned as a trait at Diogenian. 3.12 Ἀττικὸς ὑπέχει τὴν χεῖρα ἀποθνήσκων· ἐπὶ τῶν φιλαργύρων. φιλοκερδεῖς γὰρ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, ‘“The Attic man holds out an upturned hand when he is dying”: pertains to money-lovers, for the Athenians are lovers of profit’. Among their more favourable traits Athenians were said to be fond of festivals (cf. Th. 2.38; X. Ath. 3.8; Isoc. 4.45–6), and were loyal to their friends (Th. 2.40.4–5; Isoc. 4.45; Heraclid.Crit. FGH fr. 1.4; Vell.Pat. 2.23.4; cf. Diogenian. 2.80; Suda α 4359). For the distinction between the positive ‘Athenian’ character and the negative ‘Attic’ one – apparently a witty attempt (of comic origin?) to deflect criticism by ascribing negative traits to the Attic man and positive ones to the Athenian (despite being one and the same thing) – see Heraclid.Crit. FGH fr. 1.4 and cf. Pl. Lg. 626d. For summaries of the Athenian character more generally see Th. 2.40; Heraclid.Crit. FGH fr. 1.4 (with Pfister 1951); Plu. Mor. 799c; Göbel 1915. 10–26. One last aspect of the Athenian character that may have relevance to the content of our play is dress and grooming. Personal appearance was heavily imbued with socio-political significance in comedy, and any comic character obsessed with Athens would very likely have dressed and groomed himself accordingly. In general terms, Athenian dress was ideally ‘moderate’ or ‘restrained’ for the average democratic Athenian, somewhere between Dorian asceticism and Ionian luxury (cf. e. g. Geddes 1987. 330–1). A himation that hung to the calves was preferable to one that was too short and reached only the knees (the shortness of which would be more typical of Spartan dress, cf. e. g. Ar. Lys. 278; Pl.Com. fr. 132.2), and preferable to one that hung too low and reached the ankles which would imply arrogance and luxury. Likewise the hair was generally worn at a moderate length, since long hair (at least in the fifth century) could suggest pro-Spartan sympathies (see Ar. V. 466; Av. 1281–2; Pl.Com. fr. 132.2; cf. Hdt. 1.82.37–9). The beard, too, was preferably of moderate length. A beard trimmed too close implied effeminacy (cf. Ar. Th. 218, 235), while a longer or unkempt beard again was associated with Sparta (Ar. Lys. 1072; cf. Plu. Phoc. 10.1; Austin and Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 33). Beard wearing, nonetheless, is complicated in New Comedy, since young Athenian men of the late fourth century, including comic characters, were usually clean shaven in imitation of the Macedonian habit (see Webster 1970. 121–2; Arnott 1996. 744; for jokes against beardless youths see Men. Sik. 264; com. adesp. fr. *136). Date Unknown. The comedy was reperformed at the City Dionysia in Athens by the actor Damon approximately a century and a half later in 154 BCE (see test. 9). This does not necessarily imply that the original performance took place in Athens.

200

Philippides

fr. 19 K.-A. (19 K.) τοῖς συκαμίνοις δ’ ἀντὶ τοῦ φύκους ὅλον τὸ πρόσωπον 2 〈 ἐστι καταπεπλησμένον⟩ e. g. suppl. Meineke : 〈 καταπεπλασμένη⟩ Herwerden

and with mulberries instead of orchil rouge the entire face Phot. σ 680 (= 547.7 Porson) συκάμινα· τὰ μόρα. Φιλιππίδης Φιλαθηναίῳ· — sukamina: black mulberries. Philippides in Philathēnaios: —

Metre Iambic trimeter(s).

l l k l l | l k l l l k l r l k 〈 l x l k l x l k l⟩

Discussion Meineke 1841. 473; Kock 1888. 307; Edmonds 1961. 174–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 344. Citation context From the Lexicon of Photius (ca. 810-ca. 893 CE), Patriarch of Constantinople, probably compiled in the late ninth century CE. Photius composed his work from various pre-existing lexica rather than primary-source texts (cf. Reynolds and Wilson 1991. 63; see also on Philippid. fr. 21 where Photius has quite evidently copied the Antiatticist). Text A verb of application, i. e. ‘smear’, ‘cover’, vel sim. very likely appeared in line 2 to complete the sense. Whether that verb was active or passive depends on the case of τὸ πρόσωπον which here could be either nominative subject, accusative object, or else an accusative of respect. Meineke – admittedly by way of example – supplied ἐστι καταπεπλησμένον in line 2 (taking τὸ πρόσωπον as nominative), while Herwerden supplied καταπεπλασμένη (with τὸ πρόσωπον as accusative of respect). Of these two examples, Herwerden’s supplement is less likely due to the absence of either penthemimeral or hephthemimeral caesura. But in any case, both readings are quite weak and unlikely since properly speaking one does not ‘plaster’ (καταπλάττειν) oneself with rouge. This verb, rather, is elsewhere applied to thicker materials such as lead-based foundation (ψιμύθιον), mud and similar substances. A better verb, if we compare the parallel expression at Eub. fr. 97.3 (quoted below), would involve a form of χρίω ‘smear’ (e. g. κεχριμένη). Interpretation The passage describes a person who has applied rouge to the entire face. If a woman, she is quite likely an hetaira, although a married woman is also a possibility (cf. Ath. 13.557e–f on Eub. fr. 97; but see Hunter 1983. 192, who suggests the women in question are hetairai past their prime). Wearing rouge was

Φιλαθήναιος (fr. 19)

201

considered excessively showy, along with wearing perfume, gold and purple (cf. Plu. Mor. 693b; IG V 1, 1390.22). It was typically associated with women trying to cover their faults, especially hetairai, whether younger hetairai (cf. Alex. fr. 103.18 λευκόχρως λίαν τίς ἐστι, παιδέρωτ’ ἐντρίβεται, ‘one is too fair-skinned, she rubs in rouge’) or older ones (cf. Plaut. Mostell. 275 in a scene where the younger meretrix Philematium is told that she does not have to apply rouge like the older ladies). Here the person concerned is described as covering her entire face with rouge (ὅλον τὸ πρόσωπον), and not just her cheeks as one might normally expect. She also uses an apparently cheaper substitute made from mulberry juice rather than the more commonly attested rouge made from archil lichen. We might surmise, then, that the fragment refers to an ageing hetaira resorting to desperate measures to conceal her unattractiveness by covering her entire face with rouge, and who, it seems, was also forced to economise by using a cheaper variant. For different types of rouge in a Roman context similar to those used here, i. e. morum and fucus, see Stewart 2007. 42–3. 1 συκαμίνοις ‘Mulberries’ (Morus nigra, L.). LSJ s. v. I.1, on the basis of this fragment and Eub. fr. 97.2, suggest that mulberry juice was used ‘by women as a wash’. But in the Eubulus fragment mulberries are clearly used as a cosmetic applied specifically to the cheeks, with the drawback that in hot weather, when mixed with sweat, it would leave red lines that ran down from the cheeks to the neck, fr. 97.2–3, 5–6 συκαμίνῳ τὰς γνάθους / κεχριμέναι … ἐκ δὲ τῶν γνάθων ἱδρὼς / ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον ἄλοκα μιλτώδη ποιεῖ, ‘smeared on their cheeks with mulberry-rouge … sweat makes a red furrow from the cheeks to the neck’. Rouge made from the juice of mulberries, due to their ready availability when in season, was presumably a cheaper substitute for the dye extracted from archil lichen (φῦκος, see note below). τοῦ φύκους ‘Orchil rouge’ (cf. Latin fucus). The word refers specifically to the reddish dye extracted, in all probability, from the archil lichen (Roccella tinctoria, L.), despite the claim by Dioscorides (4.99) that this particular rouge came from the root of a plant by the same name (on different rouges, see Hermann and Blümner 1882. 200–1). Archil lichen commonly grows on rocks and cliffs around the sea shore, and was particularly associated with Crete (Thphr. HP 4.6.5; Plin. HN 13.48.136). Aristotle (HA 568a4–10) also notes that φῦκος, undoubtedly the same plant, regularly washed into the Hellespont from the Black Sea at the beginning of each summer, from which a purple dye was extracted (τοῦ δὲ Πόντου καθαιρομένου ἐπιφέρεταί τι κατὰ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον ὃ καλοῦσι φῦκος … οἱ δέ τινές φασι τοῦτο ἄνθος εἶναι τοῦ φύκου, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ φυκίον εἶναι, ‘when the Black Sea is cleansed a material which they call phykos is carried down to the Hellespont … and some say that this is the flower of the phykos from which rouge comes’). Thphr. HP 4.6.5 says that the colouring extracted from the plant was used for dyeing ribbons, wool and clothing, and that its hue was more beautiful than porphyry. It is mentioned as a rouge in the list of beauty accessories at Ar. fr. 332.5; also Theoc. 15.16; Alciphr. 4.6.4; AP 11.408.5; Poll. 5.101, 102 (φύκει

202

Philippides

πυρσαίνει, ‘makes [the face] red with phykos’); and cf. the verb φυκοῦσθαι ‘to wear rouge’ at Plu. Mor. 142a and 693b. An inscription from Messenia from the first century BCE forbids women from wearing rouge and other cosmetics during the procession of the Mysteries (IG V 1, 1390.22, dated to 92/1 BCE): μὴ ἐχέτω δὲ μηδεμία χρυσία μηδὲ φῦκος μηδὲ ψιμίθιον, ‘let no woman wear gold or rouge or lead whitener’. See also Plaut. Mostell. 275 which mentions old women quae vitia corporis fuco occulunt (‘who conceal the faults of their body with rouge’). In Latin the equivalent word (fucus) can also be used metaphorically to mean ‘disguise’ or ‘deceit’ (cf. Ter. Eun. 589). 1–2 ὅλον / τὸ πρόσωπον There may be a comic point behind covering the ‘entire’ face with rouge. Women usually only covered the entire face when applying whitener such as lead (ψιμύθιον), cf. AP 11.408.3 τὸ πρόσωπον ἅπαν ψιμύθῳ κατάπλαττε, ‘plaster your entire face with white lead’. Rouge, on the other hand, was usually applied only to the cheeks, cf. Eub. fr. 97.2–3 συκαμίνῳ τὰς γνάθους / κεχριμέναι, ‘smeared on their cheeks with rouge’; Lex.Seg. s. v. ἐψιμυθιῶσθαι· … ἐχρῶντο δὲ τῷ φύκει εἰς τὰ μῆλα, ἵνα ξανθίζῃ· τῷ δὲ ψιμυθίῳ εἰς ὅλον τὸ πρόσωπον, ἵνα λευκὸν ᾖ, ‘epsimuthiōsthai: … they used rouge on the cheeks to make them red, but white lead on the entire face to make it white’.

203

Φιλάργυρος (Philargyros) (‘Money-Lover’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 474; Meineke 1841. 473; Kock 1888. 307; Edmonds 1961. 174–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 345; Gallo 1994. 231. Title The title is well attested in comedy in the fourth and third centuries. The fifth- or fourth-century comic poet Crates II (see Orth 2014. 371) is attributed with a Philargyros; the Middle Comedy poet Philiscus (for his date see Nesselrath 1990. 229 n. 140) wrote a Philargyroi (possibly named after the chorus); while the Middle Comedy poet Dioxippus also wrote a Philargyros. In the third century Theognetus wrote a comedy with the alternative title Phasma ē Philargyros (comedies titled Phasma are attributed to the New Comedy poets Philemon and Menander; cf. Plautus’ Mostellaria).105 Φιλαργυρία or ‘love of money’ was a favourite topic of philosophical discussion. As defined by Aristotle, the φιλάργυρος is one who views money as something to own rather than use, Arist. EE 1232a4–6 ὁ δὲ φιλάργυρος ὁ περὶ τὸ νόμισμά ἐστιν ἐσπουδακώς, τὸ δὲ νόμισμα τῆς κτήσεως ἀντὶ τῆς κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς χρήσεως ἐστίν, ‘the philargyros is one who is eager for money, and money is for possessing instead of using according to circumstance’. His principal characteristic is a ‘deficiency of liberality’ (ἀνελευθερία), which according to Aristotle (VV 1251b4–5; cf. MM 1.24.1) manifests itself in three ways: ‘base profiteering’ (αἰσχροκερδία), ‘thrift’ (φειδωλία), and ‘niggardliness’ (κιμβεία). Theophrastus’ Characters provides sketches of the ‘Illiberal Man’ (Char. 22 Ἀνελεύθερος), as well as the sub-categories of this type in the ‘Base Profiteer’ (Char. 30 Αἰσχροκερδής) and the ‘Penny Pincher’ (Char. 10 Μικρολόγος). In general terms, philargyria might be divided into two broad categories: (1) a deficiency of giving – into which the φειδωλός (spend-thrift), the μικρολόγος (penny-pincher), the κίμβιξ (niggard), and the κυμινοπρίστης (skin-flint) would fall; and (2) an excess of taking – into which the αἰσχροκερδής (base-profiteer) falls. Both characteristics, however, can sometimes be found in the same individual (cf. e. g. Eub. fr. 87). On the phenomenon more generally, see Arist. EE 1221a5, 34, 1231b36–8, 1232a4–15; EN 1107b8–14, 1119b22–22a17; VV 1251b4–16; Phgn. 809a22; Poll. 2.124 = Hyp. fr. 255; Gerhard 1909. 57–62; Enk 1935; Ludwig 1961. 56–8; Hunter 1983. 180; Diggle 2004. 301, 419, 507. See also Plu. Mor. 523c–8b; Stob. 3.10; and for an extensive list of names synonymous with the φιλάργυρος see Poll. 3.112–13.

105

Interestingly, the old man Theopropides in Plautus’ comedy might arguably fall into the character type of the miser whose son profligately wastes his wealth. Cf. Plaut. Mostell. 20–33, and esp. 30–1 on Theopropides’ reputation for thrift even when a young man (see further below on this motif).

204

Philippides

Like many words with the prefix ‘φιλ-’, philargyria is sometimes conceived as a form of illness. So we find especially in Plutarch (e. g. Plu. Per. 22.4; Mor. 502e, 633a, 1050d; see also the introduction to Stephanus’ Philolakōn this volume). It was also used as a derogatory term, according to Pl. R. 347b οὐκ οἶσθα ὅτι τὸ φιλότιμόν τε καὶ φιλάργυρον εἶναι ὄνειδος λέγεταί τε καὶ ἔστιν; ‘Do you not realise that love of honour and love of money are both uttered as, and in fact are, a term of reproach’ (cf. Plu. Cic. 25.4; also Plu. Mor. 633a where philargyria is a charge at which people take offence). Some ancient sources considered philargyria the chief source of all worldly ills (cf. ‘root of all evil’), Stob. 3.10.37 (= Bion fr. 35a) Βίων ὁ σοφιστὴς τὴν φιλαργυρίαν μητρόπολιν ἔλεγε πάσης κακίας εἶναι, ‘Bion the sophist used to say that love of money was the metropolis of all wickedness’; cf. Diph. fr. 94 εἰ μὴ τὸ λαβεῖν ἦν, οὐδὲ εἷς πονηρὸς ἦν. /φιλαργυρία τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, ὅταν ἀφεὶς σκοπεῖν / τὰ δίκαια τοῦ κέρδους διὰ παντὸς δοῦλος ᾖς, ‘if there was no taking, there would be no rogues. This is what love of money is: when you become a slave of profit through any means and omit to observe what is just’ (see also Apollod.Gel. fr. 3.4–5). As a derogatory term it was sometimes directed at foreigners or the inhabitants of particular cities. So we find it used of non-Greeks (S. fr. 587 φιλάργυρον μὲν πᾶν τὸ βάρβαρον γένος, ‘the entire barbarian race is fond of money’), the inhabitants of Chalcis in Euboea (Plu. Prov. Cent. 1.84, taken from a comedy, οἱ γὰρ ἐν Εὐβοίᾳ Χαλκιδεῖς ἐπὶ φιλαργυρίᾳ ἐκωμῳδοῦντο, ‘the Chalcideans in Euboea are mocked in comedy for love of money’), as well as Athenians (see Pl. Grg. 515e; Diogenian. Cent. 3.12 Ἀττικὸς ὑπέχει τὴν χεῖρα ἀποθνήσκων· ἐπὶ τῶν φιλαργύρων. φιλοκερδεῖς γὰρ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, ‘An Attic man holds out a cupped hand when he dies: referring to money-lovers. For Athenians are fond of profit’). It is also directed against certain professions, including soothsayers (S. Ant. 1055), mercenary speechwriters such as Antiphon (Pl.Com. fr. 110), as well as brothelkeepers (πορνοβοσκοί, see Eub. fr. 87; Arist. EN 1121b32–4). Philargyroi, especially in comedy, are notable for their miserliness. We encounter many such figures who avoid spending money on a banquet, despite often being wealthy. Even relatively simple meals may be considered extravagant. See e. g. Philyll. fr. 17; Eub. fr. 87; Mnesim. fr. 3; Ephipp. fr. 15; Men. Epit. fr. 6, 126–31, 1065–6; cf. also Thphr. Char. 10.12–13; 22.4; 30.2, 18 which probably borrow elements of their portraiture from depictions of the philargyros in comedy (see Fortenbaugh 1981; Hunter 1985. 148–9; Diggle 2004. 8–9); and Ath. 8.343d = Hegesand. FHG fr. 17 ὁρᾷς οὖν, εἶπεν, ὦ Πλάτων, ὅτι οὐκ ἐγὼ ὀψοφάγος, ἀλλὰ σὺ φιλάργυρος, ‘“You can see, Plato”, he said, “that I am not a gourmand, but rather you are a money-lover”’, i. e. stingy). Elsewhere misers are said to stint on a child’s education (Plu. Mor. 4f; cf. Thphr. Char. 22.6, 30.14). While in epigram we find the witty motif of the miser who is so cheap that he will put off committing suicide if it will save him money on rope (AP 11.169–71; cf. 11.264).

Φιλάργυρος (fr. 19)

205

Content The title indicates that a philargyros figure, a miser or an unscrupulous profiteer, was a character in our play. Our only fragment (fr. 20) reports a drinking party featuring an abundant spread of after-dinner snacks. Beyond this we can only compare stereotypical features of philargyros characters in comedy elsewhere which were quite likely explored here. As was typically the case for philargyroi in comedy, the eponymous character was most likely an old man (see on Philippid. fr. 12.1 for examples; but contrast Ephipp. fr. 15 where the miser appears to be a young man according to Ath. 8.359a). The precise nature of this figure’s philargyria is open to two main possibilities: a philargyros in the mould of the φειδωλός (thrifty man), or else one in the mould of the αἰσχροκερδής (base profiteer). The latter type of the base profiteer, however, can often display characteristics found in the first type, i. e. tight-fistedness (cf. Thphr. Char. 30.14; and the quasi-motto of the philargyros at Plu. Mor. 526c κέρδαινε καὶ φείδου, ‘make profit and be thrifty!’). Both types are encountered in Menander. The first type is illustrated by Smikrines in Menander’s Epitrepontes who is burdened by the excessive spending of a prodigal son-in-law. Smikrines is somewhat of a sympathetic character, and his function is largely to add colour to the play and provide some dramatic tension by insisting that his daughter divorce her husband. The other type is illustrated by the homonymous character in Menander’s Aspis (for Smikrines as a typical name for misers in Menander, cf. Chor. 32.2.73 = Men. test. 141). There Smikrines demands to marry the daughter of his dead brother so that he can inherit the rich spoils his brother accumulated in war. He is an avaricious and unsympathetic character, and provides a central stumbling block to the main plot in which the girl intends to marry the young man Chaireas instead.106 In Philippides’ comedy we cannot be sure which type was represented, nor is it necessary that the titular character was central to the plot. But if he was, his love of money possibly presented an obstacle to one of the main plot strands. Apart from potential plot strands and character motifs, a passage in Theophrastus may give a possible hint on how the philargyros – certainly the thrifty and parsimonious type – might have been represented on stage in comedy. At Thphr. Char. 10.14 ( the character sketch of the μικρολόγος) we are told he wears a himation which does not cover the thighs (φοροῦντας ἐλάττω τῶν μηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια), has close-cropped hair (κειρομένους, cf. the mask of the elderly ‘First Pappos’ who is short-haired: Poll. 4.143; MNC3 I. 9; and cf. mask E in Middle Comedy at MMC2 8), and walks around barefoot in the midday heat (τὸ μέσον τῆς ἡμέρας ὑπολυομένους). While this passage is thought to be a later addition to Theophrastus’ works, its quasi-parodic description of these outward characteristics, as though all such figures dressed the same, may betray comic origins where 106

Indeed the first type of miser can also be an obstacle to a potential love match, cf. e. g. Callicles in Plaut. Truc. esp. 821–49 who eventually allows Diniarchus to marry his daughter, but reduces the dowry substantially.

206

Philippides

physical signifiers in the form of costume and mask were important for identifying character types. Date

Unknown.

fr. 20 K.-A. (20 K.) πλακοῦντες, ἐπιδορπίσματ’, ᾠά, σήσαμα· ὅλην λέγοντ’ ἄν μ’ ἐπιλίποι τὴν ἡμέραν 2 λέγοντα Ath.A : λέγοντ’ ἄν Jacobs

ἐπιλείποι Ath.A : ἐπιλίποι Musurus

flat-cakes, after-dinner snacks, eggs, sesame seeds: it would take me all day to tell Ath. 14.640c (ACE) τραγήματα Κράτης φησὶ Φιλιππίδην λέγειν ἐν Φιλαργύρῳ οὕτως· — Crates says that Philippides speaks of tragēmata in Philargyros as follows: —

Metre Iambic trimeters.

l l k r l l k | l k l k l k l k l l | r k l l l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 473; Kock 1888. 307; Fraenkel 1912. 32; Mette 1952. 53; Edmonds 1961. 174–5; Gallo 1984. 235–6; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 345; Wilkins 2000. 231; Broggiato 2001. 110, 268. Citation Contest From Athenaeus (2nd c. CE) in a passage (14.640c) where the character Ulpian asks Pontianus to say a few remarks about after-dinner snacks (ἐπιδορπίσματα). Athenaeus cites the fragment second hand, quoting a passage by the Pergamene grammarian Crates of Mallos (2nd c. BCE; FGrH 362 F 12 = fr. 112 Broggiato), who had originally cited Philippides to show that he used the term ἐπιδορπίσματα as a synonym for τραγήματα. Text At line 2 Musurus’ correction of manuscript A’s ἐπιλείποι to ἐπιλίποι is necessary for scansion (cf. Gallo 1984. 236). Jacobs’ (1809. 339) correction of A’s λέγοντα to λέγοντ’ ἄν is necessary for sense. An optative of wish without ἄν would imply that the speaker wishes to speak all day long listing every dish seen at a banquet – an unlikely sentiment, and at odds with the idiom (see below) as found elsewhere. Schmidt (ap. Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 345) suspects that something has been omitted between lines 1 and 2. One can only assume that Schmidt considered the asyndetic ending of the list at line 1 as abrupt and awkward. But similar lists

Φιλάργυρος (fr. 20)

207

in comedy often end asyndetically (e. g. Alex. fr. 281.3; Anaxipp. fr. 6.3; Antiph. fr. 130.8; Mnesim. fr. 4.49, 63; and cf. other examples of the same phenomenon – unless we assume the list has been interrupted by the interlocutor – at Anaxandr. fr. 42.66; Antiph. fr. 223.5; Axionic. fr. 7.2; and Dionys.Com. fr. 5.3). In particular we should note D. 18.295–6 which offers the parallel of a similar list of items without connecting particles before abruptly transitioning to the same idiomatic expression we have here in line 2: Ἵππαρχος, Κλείταρχος, Σωσίστρατος. ἐπιλείψει με λέγονθ’ ἡ ἡμέρα τὰ τῶν προδοτῶν ὀνόματα, ‘… Hipparchus, Cleitarchus, Sosistratus. It would take me all day to list the names of the traitors’. Two elements are missing from our fragment which might have been expected to complete the sense: first a subject for the verb ἐπιλίποι (e. g. a noun such as ‘the day’ or ‘time’), and secondly (although not entirely necessary), an accusative object for λέγοντ’ (e. g. ‘the names of all the foods’). In both cases these details may have appeared in the following line and were omitted by Athenaeus (see comm. below for more details). Interpretation Similar descriptions of banquets and drinking parties, a common motif in comedy, can be found at Philippid. frr. 4, 5, and 28. Here we have an unidentified speaker who may be describing a well-catered party he or she witnessed in the past to an unidentified second person. Alternatively the speaker may be describing a party ‘ready and waiting’ off-stage (cf. Antiph. fr. 216; Eub. frr. 14 and 75; Hunter 1983. 105). In that case we might even have a cook describing somewhat boastfully – either to another character or perhaps in monologue before the audience (cf. Philem. fr. 82) – a party for which he is presently catering. The food items mentioned here pertain more specifically to the ‘second tables’ (δεύτεραι τράπεζαι) when the tables were removed, cleaned, and brought back after the main meal. This is suggested by the food items themselves, and especially the generic term ἐπιδορπίσματα (‘after-dinner snacks’, cf. τραγήματα) which were typically eaten as an accompaniment to the drinking party (see Ath. 14.641e–43d; Olson and Sens 1999. 26, and on Matro fr. 1.111). The ‘second tables’ also added considerably to the cost of the dinner according to Dicaearch. fr. 80 FortenbaughSchutrumpf (ap. Ath. 14.641e); and the apparently prodigious number of foods served here, as the speaker implies (line 1 is possibly the culmination of a longer list; cf. Fraenkel 1912. 32), would suggest no expense was spared on this occasion. Within the context of a drama featuring a philargyros and the frequent motif of such figures complaining about profligate sons, sons-in-law or nephews who fritter away wealth on such indulgences (cf. under ‘Title’ above; also Mnesim. fr. 3; Smikrines in Men. Epit.; and cf. perhaps Diox. fr. 4 in his Philargyros), the party described here may take on extra significance as another such example of profligate and displeasing behaviour. For similar lists of food in Philippides and comedy more broadly, see on fr. 4 (also asyndetic as found elsewhere in comedy) and fr. 5. For the chiastic structure

208

Philippides

of line 2 (here enclosed by a noun and adjective pair in hyperbaton), cf. Philippid. frr. 29 and 30. 1 πλακοῦντες ‘Flat-cakes’ (sc. ἄρτοι, Ath. 14.644b). A generic term (sing. πλακοῦς, contracted from πλακόεις, Ath. 14.644b) used for various kinds of unleavened breads and cakes (see Olson and Sens 1999. 141–2; Ath. 14.643e–8c). Among the different varieties of flat-cakes, some might be made with cheese (τυροῦντες: Hegem. parod. fr. line 15, p. 44 Brandt ap. Ath. 15.698f; Ar. Ach. 1125; and cf. Ath. 14.647d for many other types with cheese), honey (ἀμόραι or μελιτώματα: Ath. 14.646d; βασυνίαι: Ath. 14.645b; cf. Archestr. fr. 60.15–18), sesame (σησαμοῦντες: Ath. 14.644b; Ar. Ach. 1092; Suda σ 341), cheese and honey (Philox. PMG 836(e).18), sesame and honey (ἴτρια: Ath. 14.646d; Ar. Ach. 1092; σησαμίδες: Ath. 14.646f; Eup. fr. 176.3; Antiph. fr. 79; cf. Philox. PMG 836e.17), sesame, cheese and honey (σταιτίται: Ath. 14.646b), or served with honey as a sauce (cf. Ar. Ach. 1130; Magn. fr. 2; Archestr. fr. 60.15–18; κηρία Ath. 14.645d; ἐγκρίδες Ath. 14.645e). Flat-cakes could be baked (Men. fr. 409.10; cf. Pl. R. 404d) or fried in oil (τηγανίται: cf. Ath. 14.646d–e; Cratin. fr. 130). Paros (or Parium on the Hellespont) and Samos were well-known for their flat-cakes (Alex. fr. 22 with Ath. 14.644b; Sopat. fr. 4), as was Athens (Pl. R. 404d; Archestr. fr. 60.15–16; Ath. 4. 130c–d). For flat-cakes in similar lists, see Theopomp.Com. fr. 12; Nicopho fr. 6.3; Anaxandr. fr. 42.54; Antiph. fr. 181.2; and Diph. fr. 80.1. As a snack eaten at the symposium, cf. Alex. fr. 252.4. ἐπιδορπίσματ’ ‘After-dinner snacks’, a distinctly Attic word (cf. Ath. 14.664e τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον δεῖπνον οἱ μὲν Ἀττικοὶ προσηγόρευον ἐπιδόρπισμα, οἱ δὲ Δωριεῖς ἐπάικλον, τῶν δ’ ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων οἱ πλεῖστοι ἐπιδειπνίδα, ‘those in Attica call such a meal epidorpisma, the Dorians epaiklon, and most of the Greeks epideipnis’). The term refers generally to the snacks (τραγήματα) eaten as part of the ‘second tables’ during the symposium (Hsch. ε 4739 ἐπιδορπίσματα· τραγήματα, ἐπίδειπνα, ‘epidorpismata: snacks, after dinner dishes’; cf. the verb ἐπιδορπίζομαι at Diph. fr. 80.2 and Sophil. fr. 5.5; Aristophanes reportedly used the noun ἐπιφορήματα instead, so Poll. 6.79 = Ar. fr. 819). As a generic term it covers a variety of snacks including, as here, cakes, eggs and sesame seeds, as well as pastries, nuts, fruits, even roasted hare, geese, thrushes, partridges and other meats. The use of the word epidorpismata in this passage is slightly unusual in that it is listed alongside individual food items that fall under the generic umbrella of epidorpismata. However, for a similar example of a catalogue of foods where we find a generic term listed alongside more specific items that fall within its genus, cf. the τραγήματα in Ephipp. fr. 8.3–4 ἴτρια, τραγήμαθ’ ἧκε, πυραμοῦς, ἄμης, / ᾠῶν ἑκατόμβη. πάντα ταῦτ’ ἐχναύομεν, ‘sesame-and-honey cakes came, snacks, honey-cake, milk-cake, / a hecatomb of eggs. We were nibbling on all these things’. ᾠά Eggs are often found in lists of foods, especially among the snacks typically eaten as part of the ‘second tables’ (see ‘Interpretation’ above), so Antiph. fr. 138.5 and Amphis fr. 9.3 (for the context of these passages see Ath. 14.641f); Philox. PMG 836(e).21 (cf. Ath. 14.642f–43a and line 3 for context); also Philyll.

Φιλάργυρος (fr. 20)

209

fr. 24; Ephipp. fr. 8.4 and Anaxilas fr. 18.4 where they are listed alongside other snacks (they are mentioned with condiments at Anaxandr. fr. 42.59 and Antiph. fr. 140.4). Eggs were even awarded as a prize during the symposiastic game of kottabos at Antiph. fr. 57.2–3. As an after-dinner snack, as we find here, they were most likely hard-boiled (ἑφθά): cf. Lync. fr. 24 Dalby (ap. Ath. 13.584e); Alex. fr. 178.10 (a sliced egg); although Philem. fr. 63.3 seems to imply they could be prepared in more creative ways by the cook (Nicom.Com. fr. 3 also mentions eating raw eggs, although the implication of this fragment, despite Athenaeus, is that this was unusual). Herakleides of Syracuse in his work the Art of Cooking (Ath. 2.58b) mentions peacock eggs as the best in quality for cooking, followed by fox-goose eggs (cf. the goose eggs at Epich. fr. 150 and Eriph. fr. 7), then hens’ eggs, an order which no doubt reflected their relative availability and expense. σήσαμα ‘Sesame seeds’. The noun σήσαμον refers either to the fruit or to the seeds of the sesame plant, of which the latter alone was eaten (the neuter form can also refer to the plant itself, but this was otherwise called σησάμη and later σησαμίς, ΣRE Ar. Ach. 1092a; Steier 1923. 1849). Sesame seeds are usually found listed in comic catalogues as a condiment (e. g. Antiph. fr. 140.2; Alex. fr. 132.3; Philem. fr. 113.3; possibly Anaxandr. fr. 42.60). As an ingredient they were popular in wedding cakes (i. e. σησαμή, σησαμίς, and σησαμοῦς, see above on πλακοῦντες), reportedly due to their association with fertility (ΣRV Ar. Pax 869b; cf. Men. Sam. 190). Here, however, they appear to have been served on their own (presumably roasted) as a table snack. 2 ὅλην … τὴν ἡμέραν Accusative of duration: ‘all day’, cf. Eub. fr. 59 οὗ τὴν νύχθ’ ὅλην / τήν θ’ ἡμέραν δειπνοῦσι, ‘where they dine all night and day’. Here it is to be taken adverbially with λέγοντ’, cf. Aeschin. 3.48 ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν λέγε. The hyperbaton of adjective and noun gives emphasis to ὅλην. The addition of this phrase is somewhat pleonastic, i. e. ‘(time) would leave me behind speaking all day (their names)’, and would seem intended to give added force, perhaps colloquial, to what is already a hyperbolic expression. λέγοντ’ An accusative object appears to be missing, although the verb could also be used absolutely here. Based on parallels elsewhere we might expect an accusative object such as ‘(speaking) the names of the after-dinner snacks’ (cf. D. 18.296 λέγονθ’ … τὰ τῶν προδοτῶν ὀνόματα), or even the simple pronoun αὐτά vel sim. would suffice. If we have a missing accusative, it might have appeared in the following line (not quoted by Athenaeus), or it might just as easily have been supplied by sense. ἐπιλίποι The implied subject of the verb is probably ὁ χρόνος (cf. Gallo 1984. 236), although ἡ ἡμέρα is also possible (so Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 345), lit. ‘(time/the day) would leave me behind’ (i. e. one would run out of time). The nominative subject is always included in similar expressions elsewhere (see examples below) and so possibly appeared here too, presumably in the following line. The phrase itself is hyperbolic and so probably colloquial. It occurs elsewhere at Lys. 12.1 ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη ἢ τὸν κατήγορον ἀπειπεῖν ἢ τὸν χρόνον ἐπιλιπεῖν, ‘but

210

Philippides

it is inevitable either that the prosecutor tires of speaking, or that time leaves him behind’ (i. e. in enumerating all the crimes of the accused); Isoc. 1.11 ἐπιλίποι δ’ ἂν ἡμᾶς ὁ πᾶς χρόνος εἰ πάσας τὰς ἐκείνου πράξεις καταριθμησαίμεθα, ‘all time would leave us behind if we should count up all his (good) deeds’; and D. 18.296 ἐπιλείψει με λέγονθ’ ἡ ἡμέρα τὰ τῶν προδοτῶν ὀνόματα, ‘day(light) will leave me behind speaking the names of the traitors’ (see Wankel 1976. 1256); Ep.Hebr. 11.32 ἐπιλείψει με γὰρ διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ Γιδεών …, ‘For time will leave me behind telling of Gideon …’. In the latter three examples, as here, the expression is used rhetorically to bring a catalogue of items to a close, with the suggestion that much more could be added if the speaker wished, but excuses himself (or herself) by claiming this would take too long.

211

Φίλαρχος (Philarchos) (‘Power-Lover’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 474; Meineke 1841. 473; Kock 1888. 307; Breitenbach 1908. 107; Edmonds 1961. 174–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 345. Title We have only one other example of the title Philarchos in comedy, attributed to the Middle Comedy poet Sophilus at Ath. 3.125e (= Sophil. fr. 8). However there is some uncertainty about the title of Sophilus’ play. Athenaeus also preserves the alternative form Φύλαρχος at 3.100a (= Sophil. fr. 7) which may be correct.107 Indeed scholarly preference leans towards Φύλαρχος (e. g. Breitenbach 1908. 107), given that Φυλ- seems to be the lectio difficilior and the title Φύλαρχος is attested elsewhere for the third-century comic poet Phoenicides at Ath. 10.415e. Philippides’ title is only attested once (Antiatt. μ 26 = Philippid. fr. 21), and we cannot rule out that it may have been subject to a similar corruption. However, based on Philippides’ evident fondness for Φίλ- compounds elsewhere, we can be reasonably confident we have the same phenomenon here. There is a small possibility that Philarchos represents a proper name. The name, however, is rare and is only attested once in Athens for a Council member from Lamptrai active in the second century BCE (LGPN II s. v.; PAA 923310). More likely, as we seem to have in other titles by Philippides containing the prefix Φίλ(e. g. Philargyros, Philathēnaios and Phileuripidēs), the title Philarchos describes a character trait or ethical type. Compound words with φιλ- elsewhere in comedy typically suggest the idea of illness or madness, or at least an unhealthy obsession with something (on such compounds, see further on Stephanus’ Philolakōn this volume, as well as the introductory notes on Philathēnaios and Phileuripidēs). A φίλαρχος is someone who craves power (LSJ s. v. ‘fond of rule or power, ambitious’). As an ethical quality it is often paired with φιλότιμος ‘love of honour or esteem’, see e. g. Pl. Phd. 82c; R. 549a; Plu. Pomp. 30.6; Comp. Nic. et Crass. 3.8; Mor. 785f, 806c. Just as φιλότιμος can have a pejorative sense (so Pl. R. 347b), so φίλαρχος is evidently to be understood here with pejorative meaning, denoting an abnormal, excessive love of power. Apart from autocratic contexts, this characteristic is also mentioned in democratic contexts to describe those with oligarchic sympathies. Two passages seemingly illustrate this (although in both cases the text is controversial). In the definition of oligarchy appended to the introduction of the ‘Oligarchic Man’ of Theophrastus (Char. 26.1), oligarchy is defined as ‘a 〈 love of rule⟩ that strives for power and profit’ (δόξειεν δ’ ἂν εἶναι ἡ ὀλιγαρχία 〈 φιλαρχία⟩ τις ἰσχύος καὶ κέρδους γλιχομένη. Diggle 2004. 464 substitutes 〈 φιλαρχία⟩ with 〈 προαίρεσις⟩ ‘policy’ instead). A similar description of those with oligarchic tendencies within a democracy seems to be at play in Pherecrates’ Agrioi (Lenaea 420 107

The Suda’s attribution of a Φύλαρχος to Sophilus (Suda σ 881 = Sophil. test. 1) is of little independent value here since it is directly copied from Ath. 3.100a.

212

Philippides

BCE). There the sons of Carcinus are described as φίλαρχοι, with the apparent suggestion they sought disproportionate political influence in Athens: ΣVΓAld Ar. V. 1509c (= Pherecr. fr. 15) καὶ Καρκίνος μέν τις ἦν ὁ Θωρυκίου υἱός. ἦσαν δὲ αὐτῷ τρεῖς τινες μικροὶ κομῆται τότε καὶ νῦν εἰσὶν μικροὶ καὶ κομῆται. φίλαρχοι τότε παῖδες ἦσαν ὄντες νῦν φιλαρχικώτεροι, ‘there was also a Carcinus, the son of Thorykios (an error or pun for ‘Thorikian’, i. e. from the deme Thorikos). He had three small (sons) with long hair then, and now they are small and long-haired. His sons were fond of power then, and are more fond of power now’. Meineke substituted φίλαρχοι and φιλαρχικώτεροι with both φίλορχοι and φιλορχικώτεροι (i. e. ‘fond of dance’). But the description of them as κομῆται ‘long-haired’ seems to reinforce the political implications, suggesting fondness for Sparta (cf. Ar. V. 466; Av. 1281–2; Plu. Alc. 23.3) and by extension pro-oligarchic tendencies (for the socio-political implications of dress and personal style, see on Stephanus’ Philolakōn this volume and Philippides’ Philathēnaios). Carcinus served as trierarch around 450 and as general in 431 BCE (see IG I3 365.36–9; IG I3 874; Th. 2.23.2; Harp. p. 168, 10 s. v. Καρκίνος; TrGF I 21 T 6–7; Sommerstein 1996. 344) which indicates the family was politically active and quite wealthy, potentially exposing them to criticism, whether light-hearted or not, of having oligarchic aspirations (for the abuse of such accusations in law, see Philippid. fr. 30.1 on συκοφάντης). Content Our only surviving fragment gives no useful information on character or plot. The title, however, suggests a political theme in which the titular character was greedy for power or had oligarchic tendencies (see above). The titular character could be (1) a generic type or (2) a thinly veiled allusion to a real individual. A generic character might have had shared characteristics with the ‘Oligarchic Man’ of Theophrastus (Char. 26) who ideally wishes to restrict the political franchise to as few citizens as possible, and constantly grumbles of the perceived ills and defects of democracy. If the title conceals a specific individual, an obvious candidate would be the leading democratic politician in Athens during the last decade of the fourth century, Stratocles of Diomeia (PAA 837635), who supported the wishes of the Antigonids and bullied his political opponents in ways that ostensibly compromised Athens’ democracy and promoted his own power (see on Philippid. fr. 25). Philippides apparently depicted Stratocles on stage in a comedy, as suggested by fr. 26 for which we have no associated dramatic title. If Philarchos is an apt epithet for Stratocles, it is quite possible fr. 26 belongs to our play108 (but cf. also on Auloi and Philathēnaios). 108

Sophilus’ homonymous comedy Philarchos (frr. 7–8) alludes to someone gourmandising and indulging in dainties, a trait associated with political greed and tyranny (cf. Ar. V. 495 and Davidson 1993). Interestingly, these traits are also assigned by the literary tradition to Stratocles (e. g. Matro fr. 1.30–1; Plu. Demetr. 11.3; cf. Philippid. fr. 26). Antigonus I Monophthalmus, whom Stratocles supported, is also described in the biographical tradition of having suffered defeat (and death) at the Battle of Ipsos in 301 BCE due to his ‘excessive love of power’ (ἄγαν φιλαρχία, Plu. Demetr. 28.3).

Φίλαρχος (fr. 21)

213

Date Unknown.

fr. 21 K.-A. (21 K.) Antiatt. μ 26 (= AB 108.12) μ α κ ρ ὸ ν π ο ι ῶ· ἀντὶ τοῦ μηκύνω. Φιλιππίδης Φιλάρχῳ. m a k r o n p o i ō (‘I make long’): instead of mēkunō (‘I lengthen’). Philippides in Philarchos. Phot. μ 52 (= 243.10 Porson) = Suda μ 78 (om. οὕτω Φιλιππίδης) μ α κ ρ ὸ ν π ο ι ῶ· ἀντὶ τοῦ μηκύνω. οὕτω Φιλιππίδης. m a k r o n p o i ō (‘I make long’): instead of mēkunō (‘I lengthen’). So Philippides.

Metre Unknown. If the text is accurate and no other words intervened between adjective and verb, we most likely have part of an iambic trimeter with correption of ποῐῶ (as often in the Attic poets).

l l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 473; Kock 1888. 307; Edmonds 1961. 174–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 345. Citation context Cited by the Antiatticist (2nd c. CE) to illustrate an acceptable Attic alternative to the more common verb μηκύνω. The lemma is repeated almost verbatim by later lexicographical sources, Photius (9th c. CE) and the Suda (late 10th c. CE), with Photius perhaps copying the Antiatticist, and the Suda in turn copying Photius. Text Because it is cited by a lexicographical source, it is by no means certain that Philippides used the first-person singular ending in his play. However the lemmata in the Antiatticist usually convert verbs into their respective infinitive form, while any finite forms of a verb preserved in the lemmata tend to reflect accurately what appeared in the source text (see on Philippid. fr. 3 ‘Text’; cf. fr. 24). There is a good chance, then, that the first-person singular form ποιῶ derives directly from Philippides’ text. As a side note on the orthography of πο(ι)ῶ, given that the first syllable here was apparently short (see on metre below), the spelling may have been altered in transmission. Inscriptional evidence shows that although the traditional spelling with iota remained the preferred form at the time, nonetheless spelling without iota increased in frequency up to around 300 BCE before decreasing again (see Threatte 1980. 326–30). Additionally manuscripts sometimes adopted the spelling which reflects the scansion (Arnott 1996. 100). In this case the scansion would have been short and so the iota was possibly omitted. Interpretation We know nothing about the speaker or the context. An accusative object is missing which would clarify what was being ‘lengthened’ or ‘incre-

214

Philippides

ased’. The majority of parallels of the expression μακρὸν ποιεῖν and its synonym μηκύνειν provide the accusative object λόγον, i. e. ‘I speak at length’ (see below), however other accusative objects are possible. μακρὸν ποιῶ An alternative expression for μηκύνω, which is here replaced by the periphrastic causative verb ποιεῖν and the complement μακρὸν (εἶναι). An accusative object noun is needed to fulfil the expression (K.-G. I p. 318 §411.1a; Wackernagel 1926. 263). Examples are rare, e. g. Pl. Plt. 277b διὸ μακροτέραν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν πεποιήκαμεν, ‘so we have made our demonstration rather long’; Theoc. 21.28 μακρὰν τὰν νύκτα ποιεῖ, ‘(anxiety) makes the night long’; cf. the similar expression with διά + gen. at Isoc. 8.27 διὰ μακροτέρων τοὺς λόγους ποιήσασθαι, and Pl. Grg. 449b διὰ μακρῶν τοὺς λόγους ποιεῖσθαι (i. e. to make long speeches). Several other examples of ποιεῖν with μακρόν can be found where μακρόν is used attributively rather than predicatively, and is therefore not properly a synonym of μηκύνειν (e. g. X. Cyn. 10.7; Pl. Phdr. 258a; R. 407d; Plu. Lys. 19.6). The periphrastic causative ποιεῖν is otherwise found quite frequently in Isocrates, Plato and Aristotle, and appears to be colloquial in origin (see Gibson 2002). The more regular verb μηκύνω is found in Attic authors such as Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Xenophon, Isocrates and Plato. Accusative objects we find for this verb include χρόνον, i. e. ‘I delay’ (cf. E. HF 87), and the far more common λόγον, whether stated explicitly or not, i. e. ‘I speak at length’ (cf. Th. 2.42.1, 4.17.2; S. El. 1484; Ar. Lys. 1132).

215

Φιλευριπίδης (Phileuripidēs) (‘Euripides-Lover’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 474; Meineke 1841. 473–4; Kock 1888. 307–8; Edmonds 1961. 174–7; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 346; Gallo 1994. 232; Scharffenberger 2012. 160; Hanink 2014a. 179; Hanink 2014b. 193; Farmer 2017a. 41, 44. Title A Phileuripidēs is also attributed to the Middle Comedy poet Axionicus. An apparently similar-themed comedy, Philotragōidos (‘Tragedy Lover’), is attributed to Alexis. While it is possible our title may represent a proper name (cf. ‘Philocleon’ in Aristophanes’ Wasps), it is more likely adjectival describing a particular character trait as similarly compounded titles beginning with Φιλ- elsewhere suggest. For the implications of the prefix ‘φιλ-’ which can denote an obsession equivalent to madness or illness, see especially on Stephanus’ Philolakōn (this volume) and further below. The tragic poet Euripides (PA 5953; PAA 444585) was regarded, alongside Aeschylus and Sophocles, as part of the great triumvirate of Athenian tragedians in the fifth century. He was supposedly born either in the archonship of Philokrates (485/4 BCE: Marm.Par. = E. TrGF test. 10a) or that of Kalliades (480/79 BCE: D.L. 2.45 = E. TrGF test. 11; cf. test. IA.1). His parents were reportedly Mnesarchides of the deme Phlya (PA 10246; PAA 655305) and Kleito (PA 8552; PAA 576265). According to Philochorus his family was well-to-do (FGrH 328 F 218 = E. TrGF test. A 3.1), despite claims in the biographical tradition that his father was a shopkeeper and his mother a vegetable seller (e. g. E. TrGF test. A 1, IA.1). The latter claims were no doubt falsely inferred from comic satire against Euripides (see e. g. Ar. Eq. 19; Th. 387, 456; Ra. 840; and see Roselli 2005; Knöbl 2008. 34–6; Lefkowitz 2012. 88). Other dubious character traits which probably originated in comedy suggest he always wore a scowl, was antisocial, and a misogynist (Suda ε 3695 = E. TrGF test. 3; cf. Ar. Lys. 283, 368–9; Th. 85, 372–94; Lefkowitz 2012. 95; for Euripides’ reputation for misogyny in Philippides’ time, cf. Diph. fr. 74.4–5; Lefkowitz 2012. 95). Before becoming a tragic poet he is reported to have been a wrestler, boxer and painter, which again was quite likely inferred by biographers from metaphors in his dramas (see E. TrGF test. 1 IA.2, 4; Lefkowitz 2012. 88, 90). Euripides first competed in tragedy at the City Dionysia during the archonship of Kallias (i. e. in 455 BCE: aged around 25–30) where he took third place (E. TrGF test. IA.9). His first victory came much later in the archonship of Diphilos (i. e. 441 BCE according to the Parian Marble FGrH 239 A 60 = E. TrGF test. 10b). He is said to have ‘presented’ a total of 22 times and won 5 victories (Suda ε 3695 = E. TrGF test. A 3), statistics which seem to reflect only the Athenian City Dionysia and do not take into consideration productions at other festivals, such as the Lenaea, Rural Dionysia, and even plays produced outside of Attica (e. g. Andromachē, ΣMNO E. Andr. 445 with Csapo and Wilson 2020. 584–6; and Archelaos, Vit.Eur. = E. TrGF test. IA.6; see also Allan 2001; Vahtikari 2014. 87–90, 222–4, 229–47

216

Philippides

passim; Csapo and Wilson 2020. 584–6 on Euripidean tragedy abroad). In later years he lived in Magnesia and in Macedon at the court of Archelaus where, in 407/6 BCE, he died (Marm.Par. FGrH 239 A 63 = E. TrGF test. 15a), supposedly, according to biographical sources, after being mauled to death by a pack of hunting dogs (cf. Knöbl 2008. 175–8, 181–7; Lefkowitz 2012. 92–5). Euripides’ posthumous popularity, especially in Philippides’ time, is indicated by various sources. His place among the three canonical poets of tragedy was already taking shape soon after – if not before – his death, as suggested by the Frogs of Aristophanes (405 BCE; see Nervegna 2014. 157–8; cf. also Rosen 2006). In fourth-century Athens, the City Dionysia introduced the annual reperformance of an ‘old’ tragedy in 386 (see the ‘Fasti’ IG II2 2318.201–3 = 1009–11 M-O) where Euripides proved to be one of the more popular choices for reperformance. A surviving fragment from the Didascaliae (IG II2 2320) preserves the tragic programme of the City Dionysia during the years 341 to 339, in which the ‘old’ tragedies presented each year all belonged to Euripides, i. e. the Iphigeneia, the Orestēs, and another of which the title is lost. A further indication of the popularity of Euripides in late fourth-century Athens can be seen in the actions of the politician Lycurgus who, in the 330s, had official state texts of the three tragedians’ works commissioned (Plu. Mor. 841f), as well as honorary statues of the three erected in the Theatre of Dionysus (Plu. Mor. 841f; see also Papastamati-von Moock 2007).109 Euripides, more so than Aeschylus and Sophocles, had notably high appeal among non-Athenians (see especially Bing 2011; Knöbl 2008. 169; Nervegna 2014. 162–3). The Greek West and Macedonia are particularly notable in this regard. Euripides spent his last years in Macedonia, and in the fourth century continued to enjoy popularity during the reign of Philip II and Alexander (cf. Knöbl 2008. 179–80; Liapis 2014. 293). His tragedies may already have been popular in the Greek West in the late fifth century. While the story itself may not be true, that captured Athenians from the failed Sicilian expedition (415–413 BCE) could win their freedom by singing songs by Euripides, it at least suggests his popularity in the Greek West (cf. Satyr. Vit.Eur. F 6 fr. 39 col. xix; Plu. Nic. 29.3–4; and see Csapo and Wilson 2020. 369–75, esp. on Arist. Rh. 1384b11–16). So too the tyrant Dionysius I of Syracuse (ruled ca. 405–367 BCE), as told by Hermippus of Smyrna (unless the story takes its origin from a comedy: cf. Hunter 1983. 118), is reported to have purchased the writing tablet, pen and harp that formerly belonged to Euripides (Vit.Eur. = E. TrGF A 1, III.4). The same passage states that Euripides was ‘most loved by foreigners’ (ξενοφιλώτατον κεκλῆσθαί φασι διὰ τὸ μάλιστα ὑπὸ ξένων φιλεῖσθαι, ‘they say that he was called xenophilōtatos because he was

109

For these activities as part of a general movement – along with the building of the theatre itself and the inscribing of the historical victors’ list known as the ‘Fasti’ (IG II2 2318) – to reinforce the primacy of Athens in the now-burgeoning world of dramatic theatre, see Csapo and Wilson 2014. 408–9; Hanink 2014a.

Φιλευριπίδης (fr. 21)

217

especially loved by foreigners’), language that has particular resonance with the title of our drama by Philippides. There is an especially rich history of references to Euripides in comedy. During his own lifetime Old Comedy frequently satirised the poet and his dramas. Euripides himself featured as a character in Aristophanes’ Acharnians (425), Proagōn (422? see ΣVLhAld Ar. V. 61c), Thesmophoriazousai (411), and posthumously in Frogs (405).110 He is mocked, among other things, for the degenerative moral effect of his poetry, for his ragged heroes, female villains, plot-types featuring recognitions and rescues, as well as his astrophic polymetric monodies, experimental music and stage devices. But in fourth-century comedy there is a noticeable shift. Posthumously Euripides becomes a ‘classic’ where literary-critical concerns are largely put aside.111 Characters in fourth-century comedy are especially fond of quoting Euripides, especially his maxims as a source of authority and wisdom (see Nervegna 2013. 210; Wright 2013. 616–18). Comic characters, for example, may cite him to express a general truth appropriate to the situation at hand (Diph. fr. 60.1–3; Men. Epit. 1123–4); to seek consolation in misfortune (Nicostr.Com. fr. 29; Men. Asp. 407, 424–5; Philippid. fr. 18); to complain about the troubles caused by women (com. adesp. fr. 1048); or to espouse the joys of avoiding disaster on the sea (com. adesp. fr. *897). Euripides’ reputation for wisdom is sometimes challenged by a character (com. adesp. fr. *860); while others may misquote or misappropriate his lines (Antiph. fr. 205.7–8; Diph. fr. 74). We also find unattributed allusions and adaptations of Euripidean lines which a fourth-century audience, itself imbued in the reperformance of ‘old’ tragedies, was obviously quite capable of identifying and appreciating (see e. g. Alex. fr. 3; Philem. fr. 82.1–2; cf. Farmer 2017a. 81–2). If later comedy is critical of Euripides, it is largely directed against the more fervent admirers of his tragedies, as we have here, rather than the poet himself (see e. g. Axionic. fr. 3; Philem. fr. 118; cf. Slater 1985. 103; Knöbl 2008. 52–4; Hanink 2014a. 166 and 2014b. 191–4).112 Our title suggests the eponymous character(s) was an obsessive fan of Euripides. Obsessive ‘fandom’ of tragedy in general (on which, see Farmer 2017a. 41–5) can be seen as early as Philocleon in Aristophanes’ Wasps, especially for the songs of the earlier tragedians Thespis and Phrynichus (he is called φιλῳδός at Ar. V. 270; see the discussion in Farmer 2017a. 125–30). We also have two obsessive fans of tragedy depicted arguing aggressively over their favourite poet in Plato 110

111

112

Hunter (1983. 117, 120–1; cf. Hanink 2014a. 166–7) suggests Euripides may have appeared posthumously as a character in the Dionysios of Eubulus; while Knöbl (2008. 59 n. 107) thinks he appeared in Diphilus’ comedy Parasitos. Comedy is even thought to have been influenced by Euripidean tragedy in structural terms, for which see the cautious comments of Duckworth 1952. 33–8; also Arnott 1972. 73–5; Hunter 1985. 25, 28, 116–17; Nesselrath 1993. For other references to Euripides in fourth-century comedy, see Antiph. fr. 111; Eub. fr. 26; Ephipp. frr. 9, 16; Philem. fr. 153; Men. Asp. 407, 424–5.

218

Philippides

Comicus’ Skeuai fr. 136 (see Pirrotta 2009. 272–4; Farmer 2017a. 16). The idea of a ‘love’ for Euripides occurs as early as Aristophanes’ Frogs where Dionysus expresses a passionate longing (53 πόθος) – there misinterpreted by Heracles as sexual desire – for the now-deceased tragic poet after reading his Andromeda, a tragedy notable itself for Perseus’ passion for the titular character (see E. frr. 129, 136, 138, 138a; cf. the parody at Ar. Th. 1115–24; D.L. 4.29; Gibert 1999–2000). Dionysus describes his longing (ἵμερος) for Euripides as driving him to ruin, Ar. Ra. 58–9 ἀλλ’ ἔχω κακῶς· / τοιοῦτος ἵμερός με διαλυμαίνεται, ‘I’m in a bad way. Such longing is bringing me to ruin’. He later tells Heracles that nothing will stop him going to Hades, even beyond, to satisfy his craving for the poet, Ar. Ra. 68–70 (Δι.) κοὐδείς γέ μ’ ἂν πείσειεν ἀνθρώπων τὸ μὴ οὐκ / ἐλθεῖν ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνον. (Ηρ.) πότερον εἰς Ἅιδου κάτω; / (Δι.) καὶ νὴ Δί’ εἴ τί γ’ ἔστιν ἔτι κατωτέρω, ‘(Dion.) Yes, and no-one can dissuade me from going to him. (Heracl.) Below to Hades? (Dion.) And still further below, by Zeus, if there’s anything’. Heracles later advises Dionysus that the quickest route to Hades, if he so dearly wants to see Euripides, would be the noose, hemlock, or jumping from a tall tower (Ar. Ra. 117–35). The same theme is found in an unplaced fragment by Philemon where another Euripides fanatic considers suicide to meet his hero (Philem. fr. 118) εἰ ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν οἱ τεθνηκότες / αἴσθησιν εἶχον, ἄνδρες, ὥς φασίν τινες, / ἀπηγξάμην ἂν ὥστ’ ἰδεῖν Εὐριπίδην, ‘If it is true that the dead had consciousness, as some people claim, gentlemen, I would hang myself to see Euripides’. ‘Love’ for Euripides often intersects with the ideas of madness (μανία) and illness (νόσος). ‘Madness’ for Euripides appears again in Aristophanes’ Frogs where Dionysus proclaims he is ‘mad’ for Euripidean verse (103 μἀλλὰ πλεῖν ἢ μαίνομαι), while a slave from the underworld observes that every criminal in Hades was ‘beyond mad’ for Euripides (776 ὑπερεμάνησαν). Obsession for Euripides as an ‘illness’ appears in Axionicus’ homonymous comedy Phileuripidēs. There someone describes two characters ‘sick for the songs of Euripides’ to the extent they shun every other poet (fr. 3) οὕτω γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῖς μέλεσι τοῖς Εὐριπίδου / ἄμφω νοσοῦσιν, ὥστε τἄλλ’ αὐτοῖς δοκεῖν / εἶναι μέλη γιγγραντὰ καὶ κακὸν μέγα, ‘For the two of them are so sick for the songs of Euripides that they consider the rest tunes played on the gingras and a great evil’ (see Scharffenberger 2012. 161–2). One final example of Euripidean ‘sickness’ with possible links to comedy can be found in Lucian (2nd c. CE).113 Lucian transforms the usual metaphorical language of illness and madness into an actual affliction with physical symptoms (on the passage see Klimek-Winter 1993. 101–3 = T IV b.1; Csapo and Wilson 2020. 113

Lucian was well known for borrowing and adapting ideas from comedy (see especially Storey 2015 for a survey of comic references in Lucian, including Alexis, Philemon and Menander), and at times even explicitly acknowledges his debt to the genre (e. g. Luc. BisAcc. 33; and Prom.Es. 5 where he describes his work as a combination of ‘dialogue and comedy’; for a sceptical view of the depth of Lucian’s knowledge of comedy and other genres, see Anderson 1976 esp. 64, 66–7).

Φιλευριπίδης (fr. 21)

219

597–600). Lucian tells of a bizarre epidemic of Euripides-sickness befalling the inhabitants of Abdera in Thrace during the reign of Lysimachus114 after witnessing a local production of Euripides’ Andromeda: Luc. Hist.Conscr. 1 Ἀβδηρίταις φασὶ Λυσιμάχου ἤδη βασιλεύοντος ἐμπεσεῖν τι νόσημα, ὦ καλὲ Φίλων, τοιοῦτο· πυρέττειν μὲν γὰρ τὰ πρῶτα πανδημεὶ ἅπαντας ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης εὐθὺς ἐρρωμένως καὶ λιπαρεῖ τῷ πυρετῷ, περὶ δὲ τὴν ἑβδόμην τοῖς μὲν αἷμα πολὺ ἐκ ῥινῶν ῥυέν, τοῖς δ’ ἱδρὼς ἐπιγενόμενος, πολὺς καὶ οὗτος, ἔλυσεν τὸν πυρετόν. ἐς γελοῖον δέ τι πάθος περιίστα τὰς γνώμας αὐτῶν· ἅπαντες γὰρ ἐς τραγῳδίαν παρεκίνουν καὶ ἰαμβεῖα ἐφθέγγοντο καὶ μέγα ἐβόων· μάλιστα δὲ τὴν Εὐριπίδου Ἀνδρομέδαν ἐμονῴδουν καὶ τὴν τοῦ Περσέως ῥῆσιν ἐν μέλει διεξῄεσαν, καὶ μεστὴ ἦν ἡ πόλις ὠχρῶν ἁπάντων καὶ λεπτῶν τῶν ἑβδομαίων ἐκείνων τραγῳδῶν, “σὺ δ’ ὦ θεῶν τύραννε κἀνθρώπων Ἔρως”, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ ἀναβοώντων καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πολύ, ἄχρι δὴ χειμὼν καὶ κρύος δὲ μέγα γενόμενον ἔπαυσε ληροῦντας αὐτούς. αἰτίαν δέ μοι δοκεῖ τοῦ τοιούτου παρασχεῖν Ἀρχέλαος ὁ τραγῳδός, εὐδοκιμῶν τότε, μεσοῦντος θέρους ἐν πολλῷ τῷ φλογμῷ τραγῳδήσας αὐτοῖς τὴν Ἀνδρομέδαν, ὡς πυρέξαι τε ἀπὸ τοῦ θεάτρου τοὺς πολλοὺς καὶ ἀναστάντας ὕστερον ἐς τὴν τραγῳδίαν παρολισθαίνειν, ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐμφιλοχωρούσης τῆς Ἀνδρομέδας τῇ μνήμῃ αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦ Περσέως ἔτι σὺν τῇ Μεδούσῃ τὴν ἑκάστου γνώμην περιπετομένου, ‘They say that when Lysimachus was now king, my fine Philon, an illness of the following kind befell the Abderites: first of all the entire population, from the first day, caught a fever with symptoms that were immediately strong and persistent, but around the seventh day, a severe discharge of blood flowed from the noses of some, while for others a sweat followed, this also severe, and relieved them of the fever. It put their minds into a ridiculous state; for they were all mad (παρεκίνουν) for tragedy and uttering iambic verses and shouting aloud. In particular they sang the monody from Euripides’ Andromeda, and went through the speech of Perseus meticulously; and the city was full of all these pale and emaciated seven-day tragic actors shouting: “You, tyrant of gods and men, Eros!” and other things in a loud voice, and that too for a long time – until, that is, winter and a great frost came about and stopped them from their nonsense. It seems to me that the tragic actor Archelaos, who was held in high esteem at that time, provided the cause of such an illness, since he performed the Andromeda for them in the middle of summer in severe heat, so that many caught fever from the theatre, and after recovering they later slipped back into tragedy, with the Andromeda haunting their memory for a long time, and Perseus with Medusa still hovering around their minds’.115 114

115

Scholars read the adverb ἤδη in the phrase Λυσιμάχου ἤδη βασιλεύοντος to indicate a time soon after Lysimachus assumed the title of king, i. e. 306 BCE or later (see the note on βασιλεύς at Steph.Com. fr. 1.1 this volume). But this meaning of the adverb need not be pressed so hard and alternatively may simply indicate contemporaneity, i. e. ‘when Lysimachus was then king’. An adaptation of the same story is found in Eunapius of Sardis (4th c. CE) fr. 48 Blockley (1983. 72–5) who attributes the cause of the illness to an unknown actor during Nero’s

220

Philippides

Content Apart from the lead character (or possibly characters? cf. Axionic. Phileuripidēs fr. 3.2 ἄμφω νοσοῦσιν ‘both are sick’, with Scharffenberger 2012. 161), fragment 22 has two characters in conversation, apparently a master and slave, looking for an unfamiliar destination; fragment 23 presents a character talking about someone who is planning to fleece another person of their money; while fragment 24 possibly depicts someone being physically apprehended or else he simply exclaims that he has been caught or discovered getting up to no good. How the titular character(s) was treated in this drama can be partly estimated by comic parallels. A character (or characters) obsessed with Euripides might have been fond of quoting the poet (see the passages under ‘Title’ above), especially maxims for which Euripides was particularly renowned, or even lyric song. Parody of Euripidean song, we might note, especially monody, was not restricted to Old Comedy, but Axionicus’ homonymous play Phileuripidēs fr. 4 featured what appears to be a comic cook singing about fish in mock Euripidean style (see Webster 1970. 61; Scharffenberger 2012. 162–70; cf. the ‘rooster’ monody in Ar. Ra. 1331–63). It is even possible the metaphor of ‘sickness’ was made concrete in the play. The passage of Lucian quoted above provides an interesting parallel in this respect, and has some striking coincidences with Philippides. Lucian often develops ideas typical of comedy; his anecdote is set during the reign of Philippides’ friend and patron Lysimachus (Philippid. test. 2 and 3), with whom Philippides spent most of his time during that reign; it makes fun of the nearby Abderites who were under Lysimachus’ rule for their obsession with tragedy (for theatre at Abdera, see Csapo and Wilson 2020. 597–600); and Philippides is the only comic poet known to have written a Phileuripidēs around this period.116 A passing joke or anecdote about the Abderites, or even a more substantial treatment in Philippides’ play, remains a tantalising possibility. Date Unknown. fr. 22 K.-A. (22 K.) (A.) πόστην 〈

k⟩ εἶφ’ ὁ Δᾶος εἶναι, παιδάριον, ῥύμην; (Β.) τρίτην

εἰφόδαος ὡς εἶναι Poll.F : εἰφόδαος εἶναι Poll.S : fortasse εἶφ’ ὁ Δᾶος εἶναι : ὑφ’ ὁδοῦ ὡς εἶναι ed. pr. : ὑφοδώσει or ὑφοδώσεις Dobree : ἀφ’ ὁδοῦ φῄς Kaibel ms.

(A.) Which 〈 ⟩ laneway did Daos say it was, boy? (B.) The third

116

reign performing Andromeda in the summer heat for a barbarian audience. Like the Abderites they succumb to an epidemic seven days later, the symptoms of which include singing tragic melodies and finally death from acute diarrhoea. Cf. Wright 2013. 615 who draws a link between Lucian’s anecdote and the Phileuripidēs of Axionicus.

221

Φιλευριπίδης (fr. 22)

Poll. 9.38 (FS) τάχα δ’ ἂν εὕροις καὶ ῥύμην εἰρημένην καὶ πλατεῖαν, ὡς οἱ νῦν λέγουσι, Φιλήμονος μὲν ἐν Πανηγύρει εἰπόντος (Philem. fr. 61) … Φιλιππίδης δὲ ἐν Φιλευριπίδῃ (Philippid. fr. 22)· —. ὁ γὰρ στενωπὸς οὗτος ἐν Ἀθήναις ἦν· καὶ Λακιάδαις (Philippid. fr. 14) … You might perhaps find that both rhumē (‘laneway’) and plateia (‘broadway’) are used, as people today say, since Philemon says in Panēgyris (fr. 61 plateia): … And Philippides in Phileuripidēs (fr. 22 rhumē): —. For this was the stenōpos in Athens; and in Lakiadai (Philippid. fr. 14 rhumē): …

Metre Unknown. Probably an iambic tetrameter acatalectic. The text as transmitted is corrupt, with the following metrical scheme:

l l l k u k l l l l r l k l k l

Two minor adjustments would produce a tetrameter: (1) the insertion of a short syllable between the two opening words, and (2) the removal of ὡς which in any case is absent in Poll.S and makes little grammatical sense (see further on ‘Text’ below). The resulting line would be an iambic tetrameter acatalectic (iambic octonarius) which might be set out as follows (with textual additions and deletions noted in angular and square brackets respectively):

l l 〈 k⟩ l

k l k [l] l

l | l r l

k l k l

An iambic trimeter divided across two lines (i. e. with the fourth metron beginning a new line) is highly unlikely due to the resulting sixth foot anapaest in παιδάριον (an example can be found at Ar. Ra. 1203, but there unique, see Dover 1993 ad loc.). Although quite rare, we do find examples of acatalectic iambic tetrameters in comedy at Pherecr. fr. 111, and in satyr play at both S. fr. 314.298–328 (Ichneutai) and Ion fr. 20 (Omphalē); see West 1982. 93. More encouragingly, Roman comedy frequently employs the iambic octonarius. Terence in particular was fond of the metre, often using it in scenes of dialogue, as we have here, and preferring to place the caesura in the middle of the fifth foot, as here also (see generally Questa 2007. 348–54). Roman practice may reflect a more common use of this metre in Greek New Comedy than our fragmentary remains suggest. Discussion Meineke 1839. 474; Meineke 1841. 473; Kock 1888. 307; Wachsmuth 1890. 302; Edmonds 1961. 174–7; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 346. Citation context From Pollux’s Onomasticon 9.38 (2nd c. CE) in a section discussing various words for broad and narrow streets (see further on Philippid. fr. 14). Text A short monosyllable such as e. g. 〈 γάρ⟩ or 〈 ἄρ’⟩ ending with a consonant is required between the first two words to restore an iambic metron. If we restore γάρ, the particle might have ‘progressive’ force where the speaker, satisfied on an earlier point, now seeks further details (see Denniston 1954. 81–5; cf. E. Cyc. 685–6).

222

Philippides

The sequence εἰφόδαος ὡς εἶναι is nonsensical and has metrical difficulties. The text provides reasonable sense if we divide the existing letters into εἶφ’ ὁ Δᾶος, i. e. ‘which laneway did Daos say it was?’, and erase ὡς which appears to be a corrupt addition (it is grammatically nonsensical, disturbs the metre, and, significantly, absent from manuscript S). The name ‘Daos’ is well attested in New Comedy (see note ad loc.),117 while the verb εἶφ’ finds some support in Roman comedy in similar contexts where characters arrive on stage following directions ‘told’ (dixit, dixerit) to them by somebody else. So we find e. g. at Plaut. Pseud. 596–7 mi ita dixit erus meus miles, septumas esse aedis a porta ubi ille habitet leno, ‘my master, a soldier, told me as follows, that it is the seventh house from the gate where that pimp lives’; and Pseud. 960–2 hoc est sextum a porta proxumum angiportum, in id angiportum me devorti iusserat; quotumas aedis dixerit, id ego admodum incerto scio, ‘this is the sixth laneway from the gate, into that laneway he had ordered me to turn; which house he said, of that I’m quite uncertain’. Among previous attempts at textual emendation, Dobree substituted εἰφόδαος ὡς εἶναι with ὑφοδώσει or ὑφοδώσεις. However the verb ὑφοδόω (‘guide’) is otherwise unattested. The resulting sense would be: ‘to which laneway will he guide (us), boy?’ or ‘to which laneway will you guide (me), boy?’ Alternatively Kaibel proposed ἀφ’ ὁδοῦ φῄς, i. e. ‘which laneway from the road do you say it is, boy?’ which is a slightly better solution, although one did not count laneways from the main road, but rather from a significant landmark such as a city gate (see ‘Interpretation’). One last textual matter we might note here is the assumption by Kock (1888. 307) that the phrase ὁ γὰρ στενωπὸς οὗτος ἐν Ἀθήναις ἦν was originally part of Philippides’ text. Kock emends Ἀθήναις to Ἀθήνησιν and with some adjustments to the previous line produces a pair of iambic trimeters. The sentence itself, whether it was part of Philippides’ text or a gloss by Pollux, is in any case odd, i. e. ‘this laneway was in Athens’ (was there a well-known laneway in Athens named ἡ ῥύμη?). But it is surely better to understand the comment as a lexicographical gloss by Pollux to explain the meaning of the rare word ῥύμη: ‘this was the stenōpos in Athens’ (see also the note on ῥύμη at Philippid. fr. 14 where Phrynichus and the Antiatticist note it meant ‘laneway’, but that στενωπός was preferred instead in Attic). Any perceived oddities in the expression might be explained by possible textual corruption or epitomisation. Interpretation A conversation between two characters, with Speaker A asking Speaker B for confirmation of the location of an unfamiliar destination. Parallels (cf. fr. 14; and see below) may suggest the two speakers are in the laneway itself, as represented on stage, or perhaps a main street off which the laneway is imagined 117

The inclusion of a proper name in the fragment may have confused a scribe who did not recognise the sequence of letters and the proper word divisions (for corruption of the same name elsewhere, see e. g. Men. Asp. 391 where B has οδαος).

Φιλευριπίδης (fr. 22)

223

to branch. Speaker A is presumably a master and Speaker B (the ‘παιδάριον’) his slave attendant. Based on the text as reconstructed above, both characters would be following directions given them by a third character (i. e. ‘Daos’) who presumably is not on stage. Our closest parallel in comedy of a newly arrived character counting laneways to find a location can be found in Plautus’ Pseudolus, a play set in Athens and adapted from a Greek original of unspecified authorship, Plaut. Pseud. 960–2 habui numerum sedulo: hoc est sextum a porta proxumum / angiportum, in id angiportum me devorti iusserat; / quotumas aedis dixerit, id ego admodum incerto scio, (Simia): ‘I have considered the number carefully: this is the sixth laneway (angiportum) nearest from the city gate. He told me to turn into that laneway. How many houses he mentioned, of that I’m quite uncertain’. It appears that the speaker has turned into the sixth laneway looking for a specific house, with the stage representing the laneway.118 Elsewhere in comedy we find the stage representing a laneway with house frontage.119 So we are told in the prologue to Menander’s Misoumenos, lines 6–7 πρὸς ταῖς ἐμαυτοῦ νῦν θύραις ἕστηκ’ ἐγώ / ἐν τῷ στενωπῷ, περιπατῶ τ’ ἄνω κάτω, ‘Now I stand by my own doors in the laneway (stenōpos), walking back and forth’. See also Philippid. fr. 14 which depicts two or more people walking down a laneway (rhumē), again presumably represented by the stage. There appear to be conflicting accounts of the location of Ballio’s house in Plautus’ comedy. As well as the ‘sixth laneway’ (Pseud. 960–1) we are also told the house was the ‘seventh’ from the city gate (Pseud. 597) septumas esse aedis a porta ubi ille habitet leno, ‘it is the seventh house from the city gate where that pimp lives’ (i. e. presumably the seventh house along the main road). Both accounts might be 118

119

The stage of Plautus’ Pseudolus represented the house of Callipho on the left, Simo in the middle, and the pimp Ballio’s house third to the right, cf. Pseud. 951–2 (Simi.) mi monstrare ubi sit os lenonis aedium. / (Pseud.) tertium hoc est, (Simia) ‘show me where the pimp’s house entry is.’ (Pseudolus) ‘It’s the third one here.’ Some scholars prefer to read angiportum here as main street rather than a laneway. So we find in Johnston 1933. 141: ‘Here angiportum seems to refer to the street represented by the stage-setting, not to the usual lane, or alleyway, between two houses’; also Beare 1951. 255: ‘in Pseud. 960, 961, 971 … angiportum is used of the platea itself ’; and more recently Marshall 2006. 55: ‘the word used in Roman comedy for the street can be platea … via … or angiportum (Pseudolus 960–61) … Angiportus/-um is never used for a route perpendicular to the stage, though this idea is perpetuated in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which defines it as “a narrow passage, alley, lane”’ (see also Duckworth 1952. 87). The word angiportum in Roman comedy elsewhere is thought to describe a laneway which runs parallel to the main street behind the houses rather than between them (see e. g. Beare 1951. 248–55; Duckworth 1952. 87; Marshall 2006. 107). But there seems little reason on prima facie grounds why it could not be used for a laneway perpendicular to the main road here. If there is a breach of common usage here, it may be because Plautus has adapted a Greek text and used the term angiportum as a near approximation of the Greek στενωπός.

224

Philippides

reconciled if we assume that the ‘sixth laneway’ ran perpendicular between the sixth and seventh houses on the main road.120 In any case, Pseud. 960–1 uses the same system of locating a house as apparently here in our Philippides fragment. Here the ‘third’ laneway presumably means the third lane branching off the main road starting from a major landmark such as a city gate. For city gates as a point of significance when navigating the city streets, cf. also Plaut. Pseud. 658 where the character Harpax says he is staying in the third inn outside the city gate, i. e. when walking along the main road out of the city: ego devortor extra portam huc in tabernam tertiam, ‘I’m turning off here into the third inn outside the gate’. It could be (indeed it seems more likely) that our fragment (as apparently Men. Mis.; Philippid. fr. 14; and Plaut. Pseud.) is set within a laneway. In that case our characters can be conceived as having already turned into the lane with Speaker A now seeking confirmation that they made the correct turn so that now they can find their specific destination (e. g. a house) as represented on the stage. πόστην Interrogative adjective used when one expects an ordinal number in response, as we have here with τρίτην. ὁ Δᾶος See above on ‘Text’. The proper name Δᾶος is extremely common in Menandrean comedy and in later Roman comedy (cf. Latin ‘Davos’), and therefore quite plausible here. The name almost always applies to slaves, for which see Ter. An. 194, who makes a joke on the proverbial association of the name with unsophisticated comic slaves: Davos sum, non Oedipus; ΣRELh Ar. Ach. 243a εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ κωμῳδίᾳ οἰκέται Ξανθίας, Τίβιος, Σωσίας, Δᾶος, Γέτας, ‘Xanthias, Tibios, Sosias, Daos, Getas are also household slaves in comedy’; see also Lambertz 1907. 12. Characters by this name appear in Menander’s Aspis (slave), Dyskolos (slave), Epitrepontes (shepherd), Geōrgos (slave), Hērōs (slave), Kolax (slave), Perikeiromenē (slave), and Perinthia (slave). See also com. adesp. frr. 1007, 1066, 1092, 1093; and Herod. 5.68 with Headlam and Knox 1922. 258–9. παιδάριον A term applicable to both genders (cf. Poll. 2.17 = Ar.Byz. fr. 69 Slater), and to a fairly broad age range, despite grammarians (like Aristophanes of Byzantium) who equate the term specifically with ‘toddler’ (Ar.Byz. fr. 39 Slater τὸ ἤδη περιπατοῦν καὶ τῆς λέξεως ἀντεχόμενον, ‘one who already walks about and has a grasp of speech’). In comedy, while it is sometimes used of infant children (e. g. Men. Epit. 245 παιδάριον … νήπιον, Sam. 411), it can also be used of children old enough to receive an education (Ar. Ra. 1054–5 where it is contrasted with ἡβῶσι), and is also applied too older youths, like Pheidippides at Ar. Nu. 821 (Aristophanes implicitly defines the term at Nu. 821–3 in loose apposition with ἀνήρ) and the beardless youth at com. adesp. fr. 1103.45 ἀγένειον εἶ παιδάρ[ιον]. 120

If the actor entered from the spectator’s right, Ballio’s house (the third house represented on stage from left to right – see footnote above) would be the first he encountered, and might therefore be imagined on the corner of the main road and laneway into which he turned. However, characters coming from the harbour are usually represented entering from the spectator’s left (on wing entrances, see Duckworth 1952. 85–6).

Φιλευριπίδης (fr. 23)

225

For the term used of slave characters, see Ar. Th. 1203 (the piper boy Teredon); probably Ar. Pl. 823 and 843; Xenarch. fr. 10; Diph. fr. 18; Men. Asp. 222; Epit. 473; and Mis. 989. ῥύμην Here ‘laneway’ vel sim. (see note on Philippid. fr. 14). The regular word in Attic for a laneway was στενωπός (lit. ‘a narrow way’), whereas ῥύμη in this sense was considered foreign to Attic by Phrynichus (Ecl. 383). τρίτην ‘Third’ (i. e. third ῥύμη). This passage is cited by Wachsmuth (1890. 302) as proof that ancient streets were not officially named. Some ancient writers do give us names for several Athenian streets, e. g. Tripod Street, Panathenaic Way, Sacred Way, Street of Tombs – but generally speaking they were unnamed. Like the street names above, significant locations and physical landmarks were used to describe or name major roads (see e. g. Agora XIX P29.14–15, ca. 340/39 BCE [ἡ ὁδὸ]|ς ἡ εἰς τὸ Διονύσιον φ[έρουσα π]ρὸς ἡλίου ἀνι[όν], ‘the road bearing towards the Dionysion to the east’, i. e. towards Thorikos), while side-streets or laneways which branched off these roads were identified by counting them in order from a significant location such as a city gate (which is how ‘third’ is most likely used here, see ‘Interpretation’ above). Individual houses, similarly, were not officially numbered like houses today, but were identified by their relation to significant landmarks (see the examples in Wachsmuth 1890. 303 n. 1), or else located more precisely by counting the houses in order starting from an important landmark (cf. Plaut. Pseud. 658 quoted under ‘Interpretation’ above).

fr. 23 K.-A. (23 K.) οὕτως οἴεται περισπάσειν κερμάτιον αὐτοῦ 1 οὕτως Poll.FS : οὗτος Poll.CL 1–2 περισπάσειν κερμάτιον Poll.C : παρὰ πᾶσι L κερμάτιον Poll. : κερμάτιον περισπάσσειν Poll.FS

of his money

this way (s)he thinks (s)he will strip him

Poll. 9.88 (FS, CL) ὥσπερ καὶ κέρματα ἀλλ’ οὐ κέρμα λέγειν Ἀττικόν, 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 (fr. 129). ἐν μέντοι τῷ Φιλιππίδου (Poll.L, Φιλίππου Poll.FSC) Φιλευριπίδῃ· — So too kermata but not kerma is Attic in usage; however among the Dorians kerma is also used. And one might find it even among those in Attica, as in the Ampelourgos of Amphis (fr. 5) and in Antiphanes in the Kyklōps (fr. 129). However in the Phileuripidēs of Philippides: —

226

Philippides

Metre Iambic trimeter(s).

⟨ a l k⟩ l l | l k l k l k l l r k l l | ⟨ l k l a l k l⟩

Discussion Meineke 1841. 474; Kock 1888. 308; Edmonds 1961. 176–7; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 346. Citation context From Pollux’s Onomasticon 9.88 (2nd c. CE) in a section discussing different words for money and coins (pl. κέρματα and sing. κέρμα). Philippides is cited for his use of the related cognate form κερμάτιον. Text The manuscripts are divided on whether to read οὕτως (FS) or οὗτος (CL), both of which fit the metre. Confidence in οὕτως in manuscripts FS is partly undermined by the corrupt word order found there, and οὗτος otherwise finds the majority of support among editors (endorsed by Meineke, Kock and Edmonds). Nonetheless, either reading could be correct, and the text above follows the edition of Kassel and Austin in adopting οὕτως. Interpretation A character mentions someone who is apparently planning to swindle money from somebody. Depending on whether we read οὕτως or οὗτος the third figure in question could be male or female. One can only speculate who the swindler might be and his (or her) motivation. But there are several suggestive comic parallels that point in a particular direction. Our deceiver need not be a villain, and given the fact that the speaker is privy to the swindler’s plot, it is possible we have a comic intrigue of the type that often involves a young man and his clever slave either against a pimp or even against the young man’s father. A common theme in comedy is where a pimp is left in financial ruin, cheated of a slave girl along with his money. For this theme see most notably Plaut. Persa 81–2, 127–64, 325–6, 779–82 where the young man Toxilus first buys the freedom of his girlfriend Lemniselenis, and then swindles the pimp Dordalus of all his money by selling him an expensive free-born girl disguised as a slave before she is reclaimed by her father. Cf. also Plaut. Pseud. 1220–37 where the pimp Ballio is cheated of a slave girl and left ruined by having to pay a large refund and fulfil a lost wager (for other pimps left in financial ruin cf. Lycus in Plautus’ Poenulus and Cappadox in Curculio). Additionally comedy might feature a son, with the help of a clever slave, trying to get money from his father by underhand means to gain access to or purchase the freedom of a girlfriend, as e. g. in Plaut. Pseud. 118–22, 288–92, 430–4, 482–9 where the young man Calidorus approves of his slave Pseudolus’ plans to cheat his father Simo of money; and Plaut. Bacch. 229–33, 349–67, 691–4, 706–13 where the young man Mnesilochus and his slave Chrysalus plot to defraud the young man’s father of money. Cf. also Plaut. Epid. 510–11, 671–2; and Ter. Haut. 329–30, 512–13. Another comic figure who might be cheated of money is the miser. For intrigues against misers where a character hides or steals from the miser’s treasure trove, see e. g. Plaut. Aul. 701–12; cf. Plaut. Persa 266–7.

Φιλευριπίδης (fr. 24)

227

1 περισπάσειν See Phot. π 758 (cf. Suda π 1290) περισπᾶν· ἐξαπατᾶν· καὶ τὸ μετὰ βίας ἀφαιρεῖσθαί τι, ‘perispān: to deceive, and the act of taking something away with force’. The word appears originally to mean ‘strip off ’ or ‘strip bare’ and then, as we have here, to ‘steal’ or ‘rob’ (LSJ s. v. III.4); cf. Men. Epit. 359–60 ἅπανθ’ εὑρὼν [ἐγὼ] / ἅπαντα περιέσπασμ’, ‘after finding everything I’m stripped/ robbed of everything’; Philostr. Gym. 45. See also Men. Epit. 952 where it is used intransitively in the apparent sense ‘deceive’ (cf. Phot. π 758 [καὶ σύ μ]ε περισπᾶις, ἱερόσυλε; ‘Are you trying to deceive me too, you crook?’; Gomme and Sandbach 1973. 368 ad loc. translate with ‘distract, divert’). 2 κερμάτιον Diminutive of κέρμα (‘coin’ from κείρω ‘cut’, so a ‘cut-off piece’ or small piece of money or change: see Beekes 2009. 665). Despite the diminutive form, the word (in the collective singular, cf. K.-G. I p. 13 §347.1) can denote much larger amounts of money. So at Men. Her. 33 Gorgias borrows ‘some coin’ (τι κερμάτιον) to cover the expenses of his father’s funeral; and cf. the anecdote by Hegesander of Delphi (FHG IV. 413 fr. 3.4 ap. Ath. 6.260b) who mentions the ‘sufficient coin’ (ἱκανὸν κερμάτιον, i. e. a talant of silver as we are told at Ath. 14.614e) sent by Philip II of Macedon for the jokes of ‘The sixty’ who dined at the sanctuary of Heracles at Diomeia.

fr. 24 K.-A. (24 K.) Antiatt. π 35 (= AB 112.31) π ε ρ ι κ α τ ά λ η π τ ο ς γ ί 〈 γ⟩ ν ο μ α ι· Φιλιππίδης Φιλευριπίδῃ. p e r i k a t a l ē p t o s g i 〈g⟩ n o m a i (‘I am caught and surrounded’): Philippides in Phileuripidēs.

Metre Unknown. Most likely from an iambic trimeter (see also below on ‘Text’). The caesura suggests the phrase probably appeared at the beginning of a line (penthemimeral caesura).

k r k l

l | l k l

〈 k l k l⟩

Discussion Meineke 1841. 474; Kock 1888. 308; Edmonds 1961. 176–7; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 346. Citation context From the Antiatticist (2nd c. CE; see further under Philippid. fr. 2). Text As noted under Philippid. fr. 3, the Antiatticist usually lists verbs under a generic infinitive form, and that when it deviates from this practice and presents a finite form of the verb (as we have here) this usually reproduces what was found in the source text. The lemma here, then, with the first-person singular form could very well reflect Philippides’ original text.

228

Philippides

Meineke’s γίγνομαι is clearly required by the metre (the manuscripts have γίνομαι which is reproduced in Kock). The form γίνομαι was officially adopted in Attic inscriptions from 306/5 BCE onwards. However the classical spelling γίγνομαι is still occasionally found in inscriptions up to around 250 BCE (see Threatte 1980. 562–5; Arnott 1996. 145–6). Whatever the orthography of the text, the first syllable of γίνομαι/γίγνομαι was treated long for metrical purposes (see ‘Metre’ above). Interpretation The words literally mean to be surrounded and seized. This could be taken concretely where the speaker has being physically apprehended and is surrounded by other figures on stage. Alternatively it can be taken metaphorically with the speaker exclaiming that he has been caught out or detected in some act (e. g. an intrigue or deception? cf. fr. 23 above). περικατάληπτος Lit. ‘caught and surrounded’. The adjective is typically found in periphrasis with the verb γίγνομαι or εἰμί. D.S. 2.50.6 uses the word of an ostrich which hides its head when caught and surrounded by its pursuers: ἐπειδὰν δὲ περικατάληπτον ᾖ, τὴν κεφαλὴν εἴς τινα θάμνον ἢ τοιαύτην σκέπην ἀποκρύπτεται, ‘whenever it is caught and surrounded it hides its head away in a bush or a similar covering’. It has the weakened sense ‘detect’ at D.S. 4.76.6 θάπτων δ’ αὐτὸν καὶ περικατάληπτος γενόμενος, ‘being caught in the act of burying him’ (of Daedalus after slaying his nephew Talos out of jealousy); while Phld. Mort. 39 uses it metaphorically to describe somebody unexpectedly taken by death. γίγνομαι The present tense suggests that the action is taking place at the moment of utterance. The perfect tense γεγένημαι is regularly used in similar periphrastic expressions to describe a condition that has come into being and is still in effect (e. g. Ar. Nu. 722; Th. 246, 846; Pl. 148).

229

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta fr. 25 K.-A. (25 K.)

5

ὁ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν συντεμὼν εἰς μῆν’ ἕνα, ὁ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν πανδοκεῖον ὑπολαβὼν καὶ τὰς ἑταίρας εἰσαγαγὼν τῇ παρθένῳ, δι’ ὃν ἀπέκαυσεν ἡ πάχνη τὰς ἀμπέλους, δι’ ὃν ἀσεβοῦνθ’ ὁ πέπλος ἐρράγη μέσος, τὰς τῶν θεῶν ποιοῦντα τιμὰς ἀνθρωπίνας· ταῦτα καταλύει δῆμον, οὐ κωμῳδία

1–3 et 4–7 coniunxit Meineke 3 ἑτέρας εἰσάγων Plu.K : εἰσαγαγών Meineke : ἐπαγαγών Naber 5 ἀσεβοῦνθ’ ὁ πέπλος ἐρράγη codd. : ἀσεβοῦντα δ’ ὁ πέπλος ἐρράγη Meineke : ἀσεβοῦνθ’ ὁ πέπλος διερράγη Cobet 6 ποιοῦντα τιμάς codd. : τιμὰς ποιοῦντ’ Anon. 7 κωμωδίαν Plu.K

5

The one who reduced the year into a single month, The one who took over the Acropolis as an inn And brought in prostitutes to the Virgin, Because of whom the frost scorched the vines, Because of whose impiety the peplos was torn in the middle, Making honours that belong to the gods fit for humans: These things – not comedy – destroy the dēmos.

1 Plu. Demetr. 26.1–5 (PKLr) ἀναζευγνύων εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας ἔγραψεν (Demetrius), ὅτι βούλεται παραγενόμενος εὐθὺς μυηθῆναι καὶ τὴν τελετὴν ἅπασαν ἀπὸ τῶν μικρῶν ἄχρι τῶν ἐποπτικῶν παραλαβεῖν … Στρατοκλέους γνώμην εἰπόντος, Ἀνθεστηριῶνα τὸν Μουνυχιῶνα ψηφισαμένους καλεῖν καὶ νομίζειν, ἐτέλουν τῷ Δημητρίῳ τὰ πρὸς Ἄγραν (ἀγοράν codd., corr. Salmasius), καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἐξ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος ὁ Μουνυχιὼν γενόμενος Βοηδρομιὼν ἐδέξατο τὴν λοιπὴν τελετήν, ἅμα καὶ τὴν ἐποπτείαν τοῦ Δημητρίου προσεπιλαβόντος. διὸ καὶ Φιλιππίδης τὸν Στρατοκλέα λοιδορῶν ἐποίησεν (line 1)· — While shifting his quarters to Athens, (Demetrius) wrote that on arrival he wanted to be initiated at once and to receive the entire rites from the Lesser to the Epopteia … When Stratocles expressed his opinion that they vote to name and regard Mounychion as Anthesterion, they performed the rites at Agra for Demetrius; and after this, Mounychion again becoming Boedromion from Anthesterion, he received the remaining rites, with Demetrius also receiving the Epopteia as well at the same time. For this reason Philippides, reviling Stratocles, wrote (line 1): — 2–3 Plu. Demetr. 26.5 καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ Παρθενῶνι κατασκηνώσεως (lines 2–3)· — And on his taking up of quarters in the Parthenon (lines 2–3): —

230

Philippides

4–7 Plu. Demetr. 12.2–7 τέλος δὲ τῶν τε μηνῶν τὸν Μουνυχιῶνα Δημητριῶνα καὶ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὴν ἕνην καὶ νέαν Δημητριάδα προσηγόρευσαν, καὶ τῶν ἑορτῶν τὰ Διονύσια μετωνόμασαν Δημήτρια. ἐπεσήμηνε δὲ τοῖς πλείστοις τὸ θεῖον· ὁ μὲν γὰρ πέπλος, ὥσπερ ἐψηφίσαντο μετὰ τοῦ Διὸς καὶ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς προσενυφηναμένων Δημήτριον καὶ Ἀντίγονον, πεμπόμενος διὰ τοῦ Κεραμεικοῦ μέσος ἐρράγη θυέλλης ἐμπεσούσης … ᾗ δ’ ἡμέρᾳ τὰ τῶν Διονυσίων ἐγίνετο, τὴν πομπὴν κατέλυσαν ἰσχυρῶν πάγων γενομένων παρ’ ὥραν, καὶ πάχνης βαθείας ἐπιπεσούσης … ἀμπέλους … ἁπάσας ἀπέκαυσε τὸ ψῦχος … διὸ καὶ Φιλιππίδης ἐχθρὸς ὢν τοῦ Στρατοκλέους ἐν κωμῳδίᾳ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐποίησε ταῦτα (lines 4–7)· — In the end, among the months they called Mounychion ‘Demetrion’, among the days they called the last of the month ‘Demetrias’, and among festivals they changed the name of the Dionysia to ‘Demetria’. A divine sign attended most. The peplos – just as they decreed that Demetrius and Antigonus be woven together with Zeus and Athena – was torn in the middle while being paraded through the Kerameikos when a strong wind fell upon it … and on the day when the rites of the Dionysia took place, they omitted the procession since strong frosts appeared contrary to the season; and when a heavy frost came down … the cold scorched all the vines … For this reason Philippides, being an enemy of Stratocles, wrote these lines in a comedy against him (lines 4–7): —

Metre Iambic trimeters. See under ‘Text’ for discussion of metre in lines 5 and 6.

5

k k l k k l l

r k l l k r l k l r k l r k l l k l r k l

l | l k l l l k l l | l k l k r k l l | l r l l l k l k | l k l l l k l k l k | l k l k l k l k|k l l l k l l | l k | l l l k l

Discussion Cobet 1840. 123; Meineke 1841. 475–5; Bothe 1855. 673; Cobet 1858. 29; Naber 1880. 428; Kock 1888. 308–9; Blaydes 1896. 246; Van Herwerden 1903. 188; Ferguson 1911. 123–4; Norwood 1931. 68–9; Edmonds 1961. 176–9; Habicht 1970. 214–16; Philipp 1973. 506–9; Mastrocinque 1979. 265–7; Gallo 1984. 226–33; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 347–8; Major 1997. 47, 62; Mikalson 1998. 89–90, 99; Montes Cala 1999. 228–32; Olson and Sens 1999. 31–2; Olson 2007. 224–6; O’Sullivan 2009. 64–8; Rusten 2011. 680; Bayliss 2011. 162–3; Luraghi 2012. 360–6; Monaco 2013. 117–18; Nervegna 2013. 29–30; Hartwig 2015. 24–7; Baron 2017. 233; Csapo 2021. 58–60. Citation context From three separate quotations in Plutarch’s Life of Demetrius (late 1st or early 2nd c. CE). Plutarch quoted these lines to illustrate some of the extreme lengths to which the Athenians and their popular leader Stratocles of Diomeia (PA 12938; PAA 837635) went to honour the Macedonian Successor Antigonus I Monophthalmus and more particularly his son Demetrius Poliorcetes after they helped restore democracy in Athens in 307 BCE. Line 1 and lines 2–3

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

231

(Plu. Demetr. 26.5) are cited as evidence of indulgences granted to Demetrius when he was in Athens: namely manipulating the calendar so he could be initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, and allowing him to lodge within the Parthenon. Lines 4–7 (Plu. Demetr. 12.7) are quoted as evidence of apparent signs of divine disapproval at other honours, such as supposedly changing the name of the Dionysia festival to the Demetrieia, which is linked by Plutarch to a blighted harvest, and the decision to include likenesses of the Antigonids on the peplos dedicated to Athena, which consequently was said to be torn by a freak gust of wind during the Panathenaic procession. A related problem here is whether Plutarch found these lines directly in a playtext of Philippides – for which he did not supply the title – or whether he found them second-hand in a compilation, such as a biographical dictionary which gathered literary testimonia on Stratocles, more particularly a work on komodoumenoi like those written by Ammonius or Herodicus (see Steinhausen 1910. 73; Pfeiffer 1968. 242). The publication by Herodicus is known to have encompassed fourth-century identities since it included the courtesans Sinope and Phryne (Ath. 13.586a and 13.591c). Luraghi 2014. 207 suggests Plutarch may have found the quote second-hand in the works of Duris of Samos who was antagonistic to Stratocles. Here we might also note as a possible source Demochares of Leukonoe who is known to have attacked Stratocles in his Histories (see e. g. on line 3 below). For more on Plutarch’s portrayal of Stratocles and Philippides, see Xenophontos 2012. 609–10; Monaco 2013; and Luraghi 2014. 204–8. Text Meineke combined line 1, lines 2–3, and lines 4–7 to form a single fragment. His restoration of these passages as a single fragment finds support not only in their shared theme of impiety towards the gods and religious institutions, but also their literary style and structure, and their common targeted abuse of the Athenian politician Stratocles. Nevertheless, as Kock warns, there remains the possibility that other lines may have intervened and that the fragment as reconstructed may not have been continuous (Kock 1888. 308: ‘incertum tamen est num continuo cohaeserint’). If a single line or multiple lines happen to be missing, one would expect them to have intervened between lines 3 and 4. One would also expect them to have followed a similar structural pattern to the rest of the fragment. Structurally the fragment can be broadly sub-divided into two groups of three lines, capped by the climactic statement at line 7. Lines 1–3 and lines 4–6 closely mirror each other in structure and style, with anaphora in the opening two lines of each, while the third line extends the thought of the previous line. The first group (1–3) describes certain political measures Stratocles seems to have proposed, while the second group (4–6) describes the divine consequences of other such proposals. If additional material is missing between lines 3 and 4, one would expect either a single line, most likely a main clause as at line 7, to balance both halves of the fragment. This, however, would ruin the rhetorical build up to line 7 which acts as a climax here. Otherwise another three lines may have been omitted between lines 3 and 4, echoing the same anaphoric structure

232

Philippides

as lines 1–3 and 4–6. But apart from becoming long-winded, this would upset the balance between lines 1–3, which describe specific actions by Stratocles, and lines 4–6, which describe the response of the gods. If other (now lost) lines intervened, one might have expected Plutarch to cite these in his biography of Demetrius also as valuable contemporary evidence related to Stratocles and the Antigonids (cf. Olson 2007. 225). On these consideration, at least, it appears the fragment is continuous and self-contained. In line 3 Naber 1880. 428 proposed ἐπαγαγών on the grounds that it is ‘more pointed and appropriate’ (‘multo acrius et convenientius’). Van Herwerden 1903. 188, similarly suggests προσαγαγών. But neither emendation adds considerably to the passage, apart from removing the fourth foot anapaest, and the manuscript readings should therefore be preferred. Meineke 1841. 474, was probably correct to adopt the aorist form εἰσαγαγών on account of ὑπολαβών in the previous line. Gallo 1984. 227–8, has defended the present participle εἰσάγων preserved in codex K (Marcianus 396) on the grounds that it describes a continuous action, as opposed to συντεμών and ὑπολαβών which relate to decrees passed by the Athenians at the instigation of Stratocles. He also finds an apparent analogy in the present participles ἀσεβοῦνθ’ and ποιοῦντ’ elsewhere in this passage. But εἰσαγαγών is not analogous to the other present participles here, but acts as a substantive in correlation with ὁ ὑπολαβών as the connective καί makes clear (i. e. ὁ εἰσαγαγών). Furthermore manuscript K is the only surviving codex to report εἰσάγων, and is consistently in error elsewhere in this passage, preserving ἑτέρας instead of ἑταίρας at line 3, and wrongly recording the accusative κωμωδίαν in line 7. It would seem more likely, then, that this scribe committed the simple error of haplography. In line 5 the prosody of πέπˈλος – without so-called Attic correption – has prompted editors to emend the text unnecessarily. Among the various solutions, least convincing of all is Meineke’s ἀσεβοῦντα δ’ ὁ πέˈπλος ἐρράγη which disrupts the pointed use of asyndeton (on style see further below under ‘Interpretation’). Avoidance of correption in comedy, however, with a long replacing a short before a mute and a liquid, is sometimes found where the language is elevated, especially in parody of epic or tragic diction (West 1982. 90; cf. Ar. V. 678 ὑγˈρᾷ, Av. 45 καθιδˈρυθέντε with Dunbar 1995 ad loc.). But there are also other cases of the phenomenon where these conditions are not necessarily present or obvious (e. g. Ar. Nu. 320; V. 837; Av. 579, 591; Pl.Com. fr. 90.1; Stratt. fr. 31.3). Here the subject matter and seemingly serious tone of the fragment would justify the lengthening of the syllable without having to resort to emendation. In line 6 the manuscripts (PKLr) preserve the following text: τὰς τῶν θεῶν ποιοῦντα τιμὰς ἀνθρωπίνας. All editors emend due to the split anapaest in the fourth foot (-ντᾰ | τῐμᾱς), mostly adopting the text of Anonymous (i. e. τιμὰς ποιοῦντ’).121 But several arguments can be made for retaining the transmitted 121

Bothe 1855. 673, has ἀνθρωπίνας ποιοῦντα τὰς τιμὰς θεῶν.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

233

text. Split anapaests in themselves are not uncommon in comedy (cf. West 1982. 90). Examples of the split k|k – can be found at Ar. Ach. 6 (2nd foot); Av. 1624 (4th foot); Ra. 652 (4th foot); Men. fr. 351.3 (2nd foot); fr. 844.10 (2nd foot). Split anapaests of the kind kk | – occur with even greater frequency, e. g. Ar. Ach. 107; Av. 1022, 1226, 1228; Lys. 731, 746; Th. 637; Ec. 1027; Men. Epit. 560; fr. 351.3, fr. 844.10 (see also Handley 1965. 63–6, with further examples and discussion). For hephthemimeral caesura falling at the split in a fourth-foot anapaest (as here), see esp. Ar. Av. 1624, and Philippid. fr. 5.3 (other possible examples cited by White 1912. 47). On artistic grounds, the carefully composed mirror structuring of these lines (see below at the end of the discussion under ‘Interpretation’) would support the text as preserved in all our codices, since the fourth foot anapaest in line 6 may deliberately echo the rhythm of line 3 (lines 3 and 6 are mirror lines). The split anapaest may also underscore the disturbing state of affairs described by Philippides. The resulting hyperbaton whereby τιμάς has become separated from its own word group (τὰς τῶν θεῶν … τιμάς) and now falls on the other side of the hephthemimeral divide next to ἀνθρωπίνας reinforces the very meaning of the words. For similar effective use of a rare metrical phenomenon to reinforce the meaning of the text, cf. the tetremimeral caesura at Philippid. fr. 9.3. In line 7 the accusative κωμωδίαν is preserved in manuscript K. The resulting sense is just possible, i. e. Stratocles’ indulgences to the Antigonids may do damage to the democracy but they do not damage comedy. But the weight of other considerations (text and meaning) are against it and favour the nominative. Date We have no direct information about the play title, date, festival, plot or speaker of this fragment. Plutarch only tells us that it appeared ‘in a comedy’ (ἐν κωμῳδίᾳ) without naming the specific play. Nonetheless, internal evidence of the fragment itself suggests a terminus post quem of 302 BCE, or in other words an earliest possible production date at the Lenaea of 301 BCE. Demetrius’ initiation into the Mysteries, alluded to in line 1, took place after his return to Athens during the month of Mounychion (April/ May) in 303 BCE (see under ‘Interpretation’ for more details). While the damage to the peplos mentioned at line 5 likely took place at the Great Panathenaea in Hekatombaion (July/August) of 302 rather than 306 BCE. Philippides helped with the purchase of a new mast and yard-arm for the Panathenaic ship-cart in 299/8 BCE (see IG II3 1, 877 = II2 657 = Philippid. test. 3.13–16); and assuming these were both damaged during the same incident involving the peplos, the damage likely occurred in 302, with the ship-cart repaired in time for the following Great Panathenaea of 298 BCE. As for the latest date for the fragment, Philippides appears to have left Athens for the court of Lysimachus in Thrace before the Battle of Ipsos (summer 301 BCE) and remained there for some 20 years (see on Philippid. test. 3.17 and 29–31). He evidently visited Athens occasionally during this period and possibly continued to present comedies now and then at its festivals (see ‘Introduction 2. Chronology

234

Philippides

and Career’). It is therefore plausible that the play in which this fragment appeared was performed during one of those visits (cf. Luraghi 2012. 363–5 who posits a date ca. 298–295 BCE; O’Sullivan 2009. 65–6 suggests a date post 287 BCE). We can rule out, however, the period when Lachares was tyrant, which apparently began at some point before the death of Cassander in the spring of 297 until his expulsion in the spring of 295 BCE. Any mention, during that period, of the abuses of democracy and accusations of ‘destroying the dēmos’ were obsolete. A date post 301 BCE is sometimes thought likely on the grounds that Stratocles was then a softer target who was less able to strike back, whereas in 301 he was still a real political threat enjoying the support of the Antigonids (cf. Sommerstein 2009. 275 n. 13). It is even suggested on related grounds that the fragment may not have been produced at all (cf. Lape 2004. 59). But there is some indication that Athenian sentiment was beginning to turn against Stratocles, certainly at an administrative level, after Demetrius departed Greece for Asia in late 302 BCE (see Johnson 1915. 433–5); a change which Philippides frr. 25 and 26, if both are dated to 301 BCE, may also reflect. It is also easily overlooked that fr. 25, apart from an attack on Stratocles, is also apparently a vehement defence speech by Philippides in which he uses all manner of devices – rhetorical and religious – to repudiate a charge and to redirect the indignation of the citizens against Stratocles instead (cf. Scott 1928. 160). Such a vigorous and spirited denial of anti-democratic behaviour was no longer necessary after 301 BCE when political circumstances had changed dramatically. After the Battle of Ipsos in 301 BCE Demetrius was no longer welcome in Athens (Plu. Demetr. 30.2–5; cf. Bayliss 2011. 182–3), Stratocles was no longer politically prominent, having depended on the patronage of the Antigonids for his authority (cf. Philipp 1973. 507; Bayliss 2011. 183), and Philippides himself was apparently no longer living in Athens. We must also consider that the original comic passage (if not the entire comedy) which initially prompted Stratocles’ outrage (as implied at line 7; see further below and also on fr. 26) was presumably far more offensive than anything in fr. 25. This earlier incident must have occurred at a time when Stratocles was at the peak of his power and able to threaten poets with impeachment. Philippides might certainly have been emboldened by the departure of Demetrius in 302 BCE and the growing mood of dissatisfaction with the leading party in Athens to launch this initial attack against Stratocles. He apparently did not wait for a more benign political atmosphere on that occasion, so there is little reason to think he waited for a kindlier political situation to deliver the present fragment. In any case, after Ipsos Athens soon had more pressing issues to worry about, with famine and civil war, and the tyranny of Lachares, making this issue no longer topical and relatively insignificant (see also the comments of Zimm 2016. 228–9 n. 708). If we accept a date of 301 BCE as the most plausible, we might propose that the occasion in question was the City Dionysia, and that the comedy which originally offended Stratocles was produced two months earlier at the Lenaea (see on

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

235

Philippid. fr. 26).122 It is reasonable to think that this sequence of offence-accusation-recrimination flared up within a relatively short period of time, especially given the seriousness of the charge and the high consequences at stake. Indeed, the tensions our present passage aggravated were perhaps responsible for Philippides’ apparently precipitous departure from Athens for the court of Lysimachus before the Battle of Ipsos, presumably in self-imposed exile (cf. Smith 1962. 115; Shear 1978. 49). Interpretation An attack on the Athenian politician and demagogue Stratocles of Diomeia ostensibly for his various over-indulgences of the Antigonids, Antigonus I Monophthalmus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes, after they helped restore democracy in Athens in 307 BCE. While he is not explicitly named in the fragment, our source Plutarch twice identifies Stratocles as the particular target of these attacks (Plu. Demetr. 12.6 Φιλιππίδης ἐχθρὸς ὢν τοῦ Στρατοκλέους ἐν κωμῳδίᾳ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐποίησε ταῦτα, ‘Philippides, being an enemy of Stratocles, wrote these lines against him in a comedy’; and Demetr. 26.5 Φιλιππίδης τὸν Στρατοκλέα λοιδορῶν, ‘Philippides abusing Stratocles’). Whether Stratocles was directly responsible for proposing all the measures mentioned here is not entirely certain, although he no doubt endorsed them all. The specific charges Philippides makes against Stratocles in this fragment, as well as the consequences of these actions, are as follows: At line 1 the poet claims that Stratocles ‘reduced the year into a single month’ (τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν συντεμὼν εἰς μῆν’ ἕνα). Stratocles, we are told, answered a written request by Demetrius that he be initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries immediately upon his return to Athens in 303 BCE.123 Stratocles proposed a motion to rearrange the calendar to accommodate Demetrius’ request (Plu. Demetr. 26.1–5; cf. D.S. 20.110.1; Philoch. FGrH 328 F 69–70 ap. Suda α 2303; Ferguson 1911. 122; Dunn 1998. 227; Bayliss 2011. 176–7). The name of the month Mounychion (April/May) was therefore changed to Anthesterion (February/March) so that Demetrius could be initiated into the Lesser Mysteries. The month was then 122

123

We potentially have inscriptional evidence of Philippides producing in Athens around this time, perhaps the very occasion when he produced this passage. IG II2 2323a, col. ii.46 (= 2323a, col. ii.11 M-O) – estimated by Millis and Olson to record the competitors at the City Dionysia in either 302 or 301 BCE (Millis and Olson 2012. 70) – preserves a phi at the beginning of the line where one might expect the name of the third-placed poet (or even fourth-placed if there were six competitors) to appear (see Nicostr.Com. II test. *2 this volume for the text and the possibility of six poets competing). If the line preserves the beginning of a poet’s name, Ph[ilemon] and Ph[ilippides] are potential candidates. For the date see SEG 36.165 with Woodhead 1989, esp. 300, who notes how this would explain adjustments to the calendar in 304/3 BCE which was not an intercalary year. Before this, scholars had traditionally accepted Demetrius was initiated in the year 302 BCE.

236

Philippides

changed to Boedromion (September/October) so that Demetrius could be initiated immediately afterwards into the Greater Mysteries. He was then allowed to be initiated into the supreme rites of the ἐποπτεία at the same time, despite the fact these normally took place at least a year after initiation into the Greater Mysteries (cf. Mylonas 1961. 239; Clinton 2003. 50–60; Parker 2005. 343–4; and see on Philippides’ Mystis this volume). Stratocles, then, effectively condensed a span of nineteen months into one. There appears to have been little opposition to this motion at the time. Plutarch (Demetr. 26.3) reports that the only person who spoke out against the measure was Pythodoros the Torch-bearer. At line 2 Philippides claims that Stratocles ‘took over the Acropolis as an inn’ (τὴν ἀκρόπολιν πανδοκεῖον ὑπολαβών). On his return to Athens in the winter of 304/3 BCE, after removing the threat of Cassander, Demetrius (we are told) was allowed to reside in the opisthodomos of the Parthenon (Plu. Demetr. 23.5 τὸν γὰρ ὀπισθόδομον τοῦ Παρθενῶνος ἀπέδειξαν αὐτῷ κατάλυσιν, κἀκεῖ δίαιταν εἶχε, τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς λεγομένης ὑποδέχεσθαι καὶ ξενίζειν αὐτόν, ‘for they assigned to him the opisthodomos of the Parthenon as his lodgings, and there he passed his time, with Athena said to receive and entertain him’). Demetrius took similar lodgings at an earlier date when he stayed in the temple of Apollo on Delos in the summer of 304 BCE (cf. IG XI 2, 146 A, 76–7; Ferguson 1910. 193; Habicht 1970. 197; Mikalson 1998. 87). While this was no doubt offensive to Athenian religious sensibilities, justification was partly provided by Athens’ earlier honouring of Demetrius and Antigonus as Saviour-gods. Demetrius himself, according to report, habitually referred to Athena as his older sister (Plu. Demetr. 24.1), and he even had gold coins minted with his own likeness superimposed on the head of Athena (see Seltman 1909. 267–9; Newell 1927. 38–41).124 There is some confusion and debate over the term opisthodomos and its precise location on the Acropolis (see Hollinshead 1999. 210–13; cf. Hurwit 2005. 24–5; Harris 1995. 258 lists the primary sources). Demetrius, however, almost certainly lodged in the smaller rear chamber at the west end of the Parthenon, located behind the cella containing the chryselephantine statue of Athena Parthenos. Ordinarily this room was used as the treasury of Athena and the other gods (Ar. Pl. 1193; Hsch. ο 1012; Suda ο 457) with the items stored there acting as reserve bullion, consisting mostly of undecorated phialai and other vessels made of silver and gold, each worth around 100 drachmas in weight (Lapatin 2005. 283). Dinsmoor (1931. 37 and 1934. 96) notes that the fragmentary decree IG II2 482 dated to Posideon 23 (December) of 304 BCE – roughly around the same time Demetrius took up lodgings in the Parthenon in the winter of 304/3 BCE – appears to indicate that a review of the statue of Athena Parthenos was organised 124

Cf. also the hymn of the Athenians to the divine Demetrius (Duris FGrH 76 F 13 ap. Ath. 6.253d–f), dated ca. 291–290 BCE, which makes him the son of Poseidon and Aphrodite. The hymn, however, is dated to Demetrius’ later rule in Athens, and therefore likely post-dates our fragment.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

237

around that time. Other epigraphical evidence shows that the statue was typically inspected after political or administrative upheavals in Athens to ensure that none of the gold plating was missing. This would seem a potentially insulting course of action if Demetrius was already living on the Acropolis. On the other hand, it may be evidence that Demetrius had not yet moved into the Parthenon by this time, and that this was a preliminary measure to take stock before he moved in. Apart from religious concerns, then, the treasury was clearly worried about the potential threat to Athenian finances presented by Demetrius and his company.125 The implied equivalence here of Stratocles as an ‘inn-keeper’ is a suitably derogatory image for a comic demagogue. Theophrastus’ depiction of the man who has lost all sense (although the text at 6.7 is suspected, see Diggle 2004) describes this character-type as one who constantly harangues others with a loud, cracked voice, a characteristic common both to inn-keepers and demagogues elsewhere in comedy.126 At line 3 Philippides expands upon the idea of the Acropolis as an inn with the charge that Stratocles ‘brought in prostitutes to the Virgin’ (τὰς ἑταίρας εἰσαγαγὼν τῇ παρθένῳ). Inns themselves appear to have been places where one could hire entertainers associated with prostitution, and perhaps also where one could arrange liaisons with hetairai (see comm. ad loc.). While Philippides here seems largely to refer to the company Demetrius kept while in Athens, the company kept by Stratocles himself may also be implied.127 Demetrius was associated with several hetairai in antiquity (see Kapparis 2018. 116–20). Plu. Demetr. 24.1 lists Chrysis (PAA 994150), Lamia (PAA 601325), Demo,128 and Antikyra129 as com125

126

127 128 129

Some of the items stored in the opisthodomos possibly went missing during Demetrius’ stay. An example of the Antigonids taking advantage of Athenian money might be seen in a decree referring to crowns awarded to Demetrius and Antigonus at the City Dionysia of 304/3 BCE (IG II2 1477 B, col. II.1 = SEG 38.143[1]). The decree suggests these crowns were intended to be recovered for the treasury and should have been handed over to the treasurers of the following year (303/2 BCE). However, they evidently went missing in the meantime, since a later emendation to the first line of column II inserts 〈 οὐ⟩ to indicate they were not handed over at all (cf. Lewis 1988. 305; see also Harris 1995. 37). Cf. Ar. V. 35–6 where the image of the sea-monster ‘with the voice of a blazing sow’ (ἔχουσα φωνὴν ἐμπεπρημένης ὑός) – an image meant to suggest the demagogue Cleon – is also described as a πανδοκεύτρια (usually taken by scholars simply to mean ‘alldevouring’ or ‘voracious’, so MacDowell 1971 ad loc. But cf. Kraus 1985. 192 and Biles and Olson 2015 ad loc. who maintain that the meaning ‘inn-keeper’ is felt here). Cf. also Ar. Ra. 569–70 where, appropriately, the metic inn-keepers in the underworld name the deceased demagogues Cleon and Hyperbolus as their respective προστάται or ‘patrons’, not only because they were loud-mouthed like themselves, but because they engaged in equally disreputable trades (Cleon a tanner and Hyperbolus a lamp-maker). For Stratocles and prostitutes, see on fr. 26. See also Ath. 13.578a. Plu. Demetr. 27.4 seems to conflate Demo with the hetaira Mania. Cf. Men. Kol. fr. 4 Arnott where Chrysis and Antikyra are mentioned in a list of hetairai.

238

Philippides

pany Demetrius kept on the Acropolis (Plutarch calls them πόρναι, ‘prostitutes’). Others with whom Demetrius was frequently associated were the hetairai Leaina (PAA 602685), Mania (PAA 639735), and Gnathaina (PAA 278790, see Alciphr. 4.16.2 and on Philippid. fr. 5.3). It seems unlikely that Demetrius, in addition to his several wives, maintained continuous live-in relationships with all these women simultaneously. Nevertheless, he maintained a particularly strong relationship with the older flute-girl (αὐλητρίς) Lamia; and we have surviving anecdotes recording the jealous quips of Mania because of Demetrius’ favouritism towards her (Plu. Demetr. 27.9–10). Many of the surviving stories concerning Demetrius and his hetairai, in particular the famous banquet given by Lamia for Demetrius recorded by Lynceus of Samos (Plu. Demetr. 27.3; Ath. 3.101e, 4.128a–b), as well as the sordid stories reported by Machon (frr. 12, 13 and 15.226–30 Gow), were possibly conceived as taking place on the Acropolis (cf. also Clem.Al. Protr. 4.54). Demochares of Leukonoe, a political opponent of Stratocles, reports in his Histories that the Athenians were so obsequious towards Demetrius that they even dedicated temples to Leaina and Lamia Aphrodite (FGrH 75 F 1 ap. Ath. 6.253a Λεαίνης μὲν καὶ Λαμίας Ἀφροδίτης ἱερά). At line 4 Philippides claims that Stratocles’ impiety was responsible for a severe frost which ‘scorched the vines’ (ἀπέκαυσεν ἡ πάχνη τὰς ἀμπέλους). Plutarch reports that the cold weather withered not only the grape vines, but also the figs, and destroyed the grain crops, Plu. Demetr. 12.5 καὶ πάχνης βαθείας ἐπιπεσούσης οὐ μόνον ἀμπέλους καὶ συκᾶς ἁπάσας ἀπέκαυσε τὸ ψῦχος, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ σίτου τὸν πλεῖστον ἐν χλόῃ διέφθειρε, ‘and because a heavy frost came down, not only did the cold burn the vines and all the figs, but it also destroyed most of the crop in its first green’. Plutarch also claims that this weather event occurred at the time of the Dionysia (i. e. Elaphebolion, springtime, March/April), and that the festival procession had to be cancelled because of it, Plu. Demetr. 12.5 ᾗ δ’ ἡμέρᾳ τὰ τῶν Διονυσίων ἐγίνετο, τὴν πομπὴν κατέλυσαν ἰσχυρῶν πάγων γενομένων παρ’ ὥραν, ‘on the day which the rites of the Dionysia were held they omitted the procession since intense frosts arose contrary to the season’. Philippides, however, does not give precise details about the time or occasion of the frosts, and their connection with the Dionysia may have been introduced by later sources.130 Plutarch explicitly connects the frosts with the Dionysia, claiming that they were a divine response to the Athenians renaming the Dionysia festival after Demetrius (Plu. Demetr. 12.2 καὶ τῶν ἑορτῶν τὰ Διονύσια μετωνόμασαν Δημήτρια, ‘and among the festivals they renamed the Dionysia the Demetria’). But this retelling has two significant problems. Firstly, the Demetrieia (‘Demetria’ 130

We have possible evidence for a destructive weather event in the year 307/6 BCE as reflected in the manipulation of the calendar that year. Meritt (1935) suggests that the Dionysia of 306 BCE may have been affected, which falls firmly within the period of events referred to in this fragment. Meritt may be right, but the connection with the time of the Dionysia (following Plutarch) is unnecessary.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

239

in Plutarch) was not instituted until after 295 BCE. Our Philippides fragment, on the other hand, almost certainly dates before this time. Between 306 and 301 BCE Demetrius and Antigonus were celebrated as Saviour-gods and were honoured each year with ‘contests, a procession, and sacrifice’ (D.S. 20.46.2). The Demetrieia, however, as inscriptional evidence indicates, was only first instituted after Demetrius returned to Athens in March 295 BCE (cf. Habicht 1970. 53–4; and esp. Thonemann 2005. 78–80; also Csapo 2021. 63). His return at that time, when he ousted the tyrant Lachares, happened to coincide with the time of the Dionysia, and the resulting celebration, the Demetrieia, was apparently appended to the Dionysia for this reason. Secondly, Plutarch is incorrect to say that the City Dionysia was renamed the Demetrieia. Our only contemporary inscriptional evidence for the Demetrieia in Athens (IG II3 1, 857.41–3 = SEG 45.101 of 293/2 BCE) mentions the festival side-by-side with the Dionysia (as restored in the text), rather than supplanting it: [κ]αὶ [ἀ]νειπεῖν τὸν στέφ[α|νον Διονυσίων τῶν ἐν ἄστ]ει καὶ Δημητριε[ί]ων τρ[α|γωιδῶν τῶι ἀγῶνι], ‘[a]nd to [p]roclaim the cro[wn at the contest of] tr[agedies of the Dionysia in the cit]y and Demetrie[i]a’. Similar decrees from the same period (295–286 BCE) name the City Dionysia alone without any mention of the Demetrieia (IG II3 1, 853.29–31 = IG II2 646 of 295/4 BCE and IG II3 1, 870.36– 8 = IG II2 653 of 289/8 BCE). Plutarch himself also refers to the festival in question as the Dionysia rather than Demetrieia (cf. Scott 1928. 148–9). The Demetrieia was instead an appended festival, perhaps extending the Dionysia by one or more days in honour of Demetrius (so Habicht 1970. 53; and see Thonemann 2005. 78; Buraselis 2012. 248–50). The idea that the Dionysia was completely renamed would seem to go back to a hostile historical source, possibly Duris of Samos or Demochares of Leukonoe in his Histories.131 The frost and damaged crop which Philippides refers to in his fragment, then, would seem a completely separate event, the details of which unfortunately remain obscure. At line 5 Philippides claims that due to Stratocles’ impiety ‘the peplos was torn in the middle’ (ἀσεβοῦνθ’ ὁ πέπλος ἐρράγη μέσος). According to Plutarch (Demetr. 12.2), when the procession of the Great Panathenaea was passing through the Kerameikos a sudden strong gust of wind appeared and damaged the peplos. He attributes this apparent sign of divine disfavour to the passing of a decree which ordered that the likenesses of Antigonus and Demetrius be woven into the peplos alongside the figures of Zeus and Athena (cf. Plu. Demetr. 10.5; D.S. 20.46.2). While Plutarch does not tell us who proposed the decree, Diodorus suggests that Stratocles was directly responsible for a whole raft of measures honouring the 131

Duris, notably, refers to the festival as the ‘Demetrieia’ elsewhere, rather than the ‘Dionysia’ or the ‘Dionysia and Demetrieia’ (cf. FGrH 76 F 14 ap. Ath. 12.536a γινομένων δὲ τῶν Δημητρίων Ἀθήνησιν ἐγράφετο ἐπὶ τοῦ προσκηνίου ἐπὶ τῆς Οἰκουμένης ὀχούμενος, ‘when the Demetria took place in Athens, he [i. e. Demetrius] was painted on the proscenium carried on [a personification of] the inhabited world’).

240

Philippides

Antigonids soon after the arrival of Demetrius in 307 BCE, among them the proposal to weave their image into the peplos (γράψαντος ψήφισμα Στρατοκλέους … ἐνυφαινόντων αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς πέπλον, ‘with Stratocles passing a decree … weaving them into the peplos of Athena’). The proposal to include Antigonus and Demetrius on the peplos – who were apparently depicted taking part in the battle against the Giants alongside Zeus and Athena – was presumably justified by their newly acquired status as defenders of democracy after ending the oligarchy of Demetrius of Phaleron in 307 BCE. The inclusion of both men on the design of the peplos could have been approved for both the Great Panathenaea festival of 306 and that of 302 BCE. Some doubts have been expressed whether the likenesses of Antigonus and Demetrius could have been woven on the peplos in time for the procession on Hekatombaion 28 in 306 BCE (cf. Parke 1977. 40; Shear 2001. 181).132 But if Demetrius had declared the Athenians free from oligarchy at the beginning of Hekatombaion in 307 BCE, just over a year before the Panathenaic procession of 306 BCE, there is little reason to doubt that legislation could have been quickly passed in the initial euphoria of the restored democracy to include them on the peplos in time for the next festival. Even if the sample design for the peplos had already been decided by then, special consideration might easily have been given for a new design, especially if the weaving of the peplos itself did not begin for another three to four months.133 Their likenesses, then, could conceivably have featured on the peplos at two consecutive festivals. This opens up the possibility that the damage to the peplos could have occurred either in 306 or in 302 BCE. The latter date, however, remains more likely if we assume the mast and yard-arm of the Panathenaic ship-cart, on which the peplos was displayed, were damaged in the same incident, and that Philippides helped replace these in 299/8 BCE in time for the next Panathenaea (IG II3 1, 877.14–16 = IG II2 657 = Philippid. test. 3; see further on Philippid. test. 3.14). At line 6 Philippides refers to Stratocles ‘making honours that belong to the gods fit for humans’ (τὰς τῶν θεῶν ποιοῦντα τιμὰς ἀνθρωπίνας). He may be commenting here more generally on any of the honours granted to Antigonus and Demetrius by the Athenians, not least of all their worship as Saviour-gods (cf. Plu. Demetr. 10.4). But the structure of the fragment suggests Philippides is expanding on the idea of the previous line (as he does at lines 2–3) and so is commenting more specifically here about the inclusion of the Antigonids on the peplos fighting alongside the Olympian gods. 132

133

For the date of the procession see Mikalson 1975. 34. In terms of the Julian calendar it would have fallen approximately around 31 July in 306 BCE since the first new moon after the summer solstice of 306 BCE – heralding the beginning of Hekatombaion and the new year – fell on 3 July that year. For the process involved in weaving the peplos for the festival, see comm. line 5 s. v. ὁ πέπλος below.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

241

At line 7 Philippides summarises the preceding lines, claiming that ‘these things – not comedy – destroy the dēmos’ (ταῦτα καταλύει δῆμον, οὐ κωμῳδία). The unexpected mention here of comedy ‘destroying the dēmos’ would suggest someone had previously complained against comedy (or more likely a particular comic poet) for subverting Athenian democracy in some way. The obvious source of this complaint would be Stratocles, since here Philippides repudiates the complaint and deflects the charge against the politician, illustrating examples of Stratocles’ own irresponsible and damaging behaviour (cf. Ferguson 1911. 123; Webster 1970. 106: ‘this seems to imply that Stratocles had accused the comic poets of destroying democracy and perhaps that some restriction had been placed on comedy in the preceding years’). A previous attack by Stratocles on the genre of comedy as a whole seems unlikely. Not all comic poets held the same political views (cf. Alex. fr. 116 which flatters Demetrius, with Arnott 1996. 309–10 on the circumstances of the praise); and indeed most comic poets of the period presumably maintained an apolitical stance most of the time. Furthermore, the language of the charge, καταλύει δῆμον, implies a threatened legal action or ‘impeachment’ (eisangelia, see note below) which is typically brought against an individual accused of damaging the democracy. That Philippides is defending another comic poet against the charge also seems unlikely. Menander is sometimes drawn into this controversy insofar as his Imbrioi, ‘written’ in the archonship of Nikokles (302/1 BCE), was supposedly not performed ‘because of the tyrant Lachares’.134 Apart from the note’s obvious chronological confusion (Lachares did not become tyrant until after 301 BCE), a tyrant is hardly likely to invoke a law (eisangelia) against Menander designed to protect democracy. And even if we remove this difficulty by understanding the reference to Lachares the tyrant as ‘anticipatory’ (i. e. the epithet ‘tyrant’ is an intentional anachronism used to identify Lachares as the future autocrat), the underlying suggestion of our passage is that Stratocles brought the charge, not Lachares.135 134

135

POxy. 1235 col. iii, 103–10 Ἴμβριοι … ταύτην [ἔγρα]ψεν ἐπὶ Νικοκλέο[υς] … [καὶ] ἔδωκεν εἰς ἐργασίαν [εἰς τὰ] Διονύσια, οὐκ ἐγένετο δ[ὲ διὰ] Λαχάρην τὸν τύρανν[ον], ‘Imbrioi … he [wro]te this in the archonship of Nikokle[s] (302/1 BCE) … [and] he gave it for production [at the] Dionysia, but it did not take place [because of] Lachares the tyran[t]’ (see O’Sullivan 2009). Indeed the date and cause of the supposed Menander-Lachares incident can be explained differently. Wilamowitz’s idea (1914. 245) that our source confused the archon names, and that the incident took place during the archonship of Nikias (296/5 BCE) is very attractive. Indeed, Demetrius Poliorcetes expelled the tyrant Lachares from Athens in the month of Elaphebolion in 295 BCE, precisely the time when the Dionysia was held (see Thonemann 2005. 73). Assuming that the Imbrioi was intended for production in 295 BCE, it seems that not only Menander, but the entire comic contest – if not the entire festival – was disrupted (see Csapo 2021). Putting the blame for this

242

Philippides

The most likely and natural assumption is that Stratocles had attacked Philippides himself. After the restoration of democracy at Athens in 307 BCE, Stratocles and his circle frequently employed impeachment (eisangelia) against their political enemies. Citizens who supported the oligarchy under Demetrius of Phaleron were typically prosecuted in this manner, Philoch. FGrH 328 F 66 ὕστερον δὲ εἰσηγγέλθησαν πολλοὶ 〈 τῶν⟩ πολιτῶν, ἐν οἷς καὶ Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεύς, ‘Later many of the citizens were impeached, among whom was also Demetrius of Phaleron’. Others accused include the orator Deinarchus, a resident alien, who went into exile for fifteen years (D.H. Din. 3 καταλῦσαι τὸν δῆμον); while the sycophancy of the democrats and abuse of this law was reportedly so pervasive that even the comic poet Menander was in danger of prosecution merely due to his friendship with Demetrius of Phaleron (D.L. 5.79). Stratocles and his circle appear to have continued using the law to threaten fellow democrats who were not accommodating towards the Antigonids. Around 303–302 BCE Demochares of Leukonoe apparently played a role in rescinding legislation that allowed Demetrius the extraordinary power of governing by letter (Plu. Demetr. 24.6–10; cf. Shear 1978. 48–9). Stratocles reportedly had those who voted down the decree put to death or exiled. Demochares was exiled (see Plu. Demetr. 24.10–11; Smith 1962). That he and others faced eisangelia proceedings for acting against the dēmos is strongly suggested by the honorary decree drafted for him by his son Laches in 271/0 BCE which presents Demochares as a model democratic citizen cast out of Athens by ‘those who destroyed the dēmos’, Plu. Mor. 851e ἐξέπεσεν ὑπὸ τῶν καταλυσάντων τὸν δῆμον. Thus we have a similar repudiation and retaliation against Stratocles as that here in our Philippides fragment.136 The decree also pointedly notes (like Philippides’ honorary decree, IG II3 1, 877 = IG II2 657 = Philippid. test. 3.48–50) that Demochares never acted ‘in opposition to the democracy, either in word or deed’ (μηδὲν ὑπεναντίον τῇ δημοκρατίᾳ πεπραχότι μήτε λόγῳ μήτε ἔργῳ). At line 7 it remains unclear if Philippides intended ‘comedy’ to mean the genre itself, or ‘a specific comedy’. The latter (on which see O’Sullivan 2009. 67) could refer to a specific comedy by Philippides which caused offence. From a rhetorical standpoint Philippides may therefore be contrasting the innocent offence of a single comedy against the outrageous and repeated offences of Stratocles. But the word ‘comedy’ may also be generic. Stratocles’ attack on Philippides may inten-

136

cancellation/postponement on ‘Lachares the Tyrant’ could certainly be understood from a pro-democratic or pro-Demetrian perspective. There seems little reason, then, to associate or link the events suggested in Philippid. fr. 25.7 with the disrupted production of Menander’s Imbrioi. Cf. also the decree in honour of Callias of Sphettos (SEG 28.60 lines 79–80) which Shear 1978. 48 and 50, believes also refers to the same period of the democracy under Stratocles and his associates when it mentions that ‘the dēmos was destroyed’: [κ]αταλελυμένου τοῦ δήμου.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

243

tionally be represented as an attack on the comic genre as a whole. In doing so the poet not only exploits any perceived religious sanction or protection inherent in the genre and the wider religious context of the dramatic festivals, but he also presents Stratocles’ attack on comedy as another instance of his dangerous impiety, in keeping with the main theme of this fragment (see below).137 What offence Philippides had initially caused in his comedy which Stratocles was then able to construe as ‘undemocratic’ and a threat to the polis is uncertain. Part of the reason may lie in fr. 26, a comedy in which Philippides had evidently made fun of Stratocles (see on fr. 26). Thematically and rhetorically the passage draws upon long-standing religious views of the dangers posed to the polis by impious individuals. Philippides depicts Stratocles as a polluter of the state through various acts of impiety, as evidenced by portentous natural events, and therefore by implication deserving of exclusion from the city in order to purify it (cf. Parker 1983. 269). In the final line he expands on this religious theme, characterising these acts not only as sacrilegious, but also anti-democratic and harmful to the political constitution. The final point, in fact, seems to be the real complaint, with Stratocles’ abuse of democratic process the key issue, while the theme of religious impiety is there to give the attack rhetorical weight. Philippides exploits the potent symbolism of the Parthenon and the peplos to underscore the implicit connection between religion and politics. Both the Parthenon and the peplos not only had deep religious significance in Athens, but they were also powerful symbols of Athens’ democracy.138 To many, it would seem, allowing Demetrius and his companions to lodge in the Parthenon not only debased Athenian religion, but also symbolised how Athens and her democracy were diminished by his presence in Athens (for the characterisation of Demetrius’ second period of control over Athens, ca. 295–286 BCE, as ‘oligarchic’, see on Philippid. test. 3.31). The peplos too was no doubt closely associated with the political freedom of Athens, perhaps taking on an even deeper political significance after the Persian Wars.139 The fact that a freak gust of wind tore the peplos after the Athenians decided to weave the images of Antigonus and Demetrius on it alongside Athena might certainly have been interpreted by some as an ominous 137

138

139

For a similar rhetorical strategy in tainting an opponent with impiety for offending the sanctity of the Dionysia, cf. D. 21.51 (with MacDowell 1990. 17–18). For similar exploitation of the supposed religious sanction of comedy, especially in relation to potentially controversial political statements, cf. esp. Ar. Ra. 368, 384–90, 674 and 686–7 with Hartwig 2015. 29–30. Athena Parthenos, the ‘unyoked’ maiden, had been invoked by Aristophanes in 411 BCE in her role as protector of the democracy at a particularly unsettled period in Athenian politics when it was under threat of oligarchy (Ar. Th. 1136–47; cf. the comments of Anderson 1995. 64–5). It depicted Athena destroying the Giants, and was suspended from the mast of a shipcart which was possibly meant to invoke a Greek trireme from the Athenian victory at Salamis (cf. Mansfield 1985. 68, 74. But contrast Shear 2001. 147 and see below ad loc.).

244

Philippides

sign of the dangers they posed to Athenian political freedom. In the final line the separate threads of religion and politics are tied together more firmly. There Philippides suggests not only that Stratocles is guilty once more of interfering with Athenian religious life and its festivals by attacking a comic poet under the patronage of the god Dionysus, but that his suppression of other voices that offer political advice in democratic Athens is more befitting a tyrant than a democrat. Stylistically, the fragment has an isocolic structure (i. e. lines 1–3 and 4–6). Lines 1–3 and 4–6 could be described as two ascending bicola where the third line of each expands on the idea in the second line. The fragment is especially noticeable for the prominent use of anaphora (ὁ … ὁ … δι’ ὃν … δι’ ὃν) and asyndeton. Aristotle (Rh. 1413b19–20) approved of both these tropes (τά τε ἀσύνδετα καὶ τὸ πολλάκις τὸ αὐτὸ εἰπεῖν, ‘lack of connectives and saying the same thing repeatedly’), particularly for use in public speaking, as opposed to written composition, stating that they were better suited to dramatic (ὑποκριτική) delivery when heard aloud. The author of Demetrius’ On Style (267–71) also notes the ‘force’ (δεινότης) of these two figures when used together, and their suitability for dramatic delivery (cf. e. g. S. Ph. 663–6; E. Med. 765–7; Ph. 1252–3). Philippides also employs antitheses throughout the passage. Each line contains a contrasting pair of ideas or objects, usually direct opposites, where in nearly each case the nobler or greater of the two is debased and reduced to its corresponding opposite. Thus we see a contrast between ‘year’ and ‘month’ in line 1, ‘Acropolis’ and ‘inn’ in line 2, ‘virgin’ and ‘prostitutes’ in line 3, ‘frost’ and ‘heat’ in line 4, ‘peplos’ and ‘impiety’ in line 5, as well as ‘gods’ and ‘mortals’ in line 6. The perverse and preternatural order of things that Philippides is at pains to illustrate through these opposites is presented as the direct result of Stratocles’ obsequious behaviour towards Demetrius. Some scholars (see on fr. 26 for details) assume that this passage (fr. 25) also appeared in the same comedy as fragment 26 (title unknown) where Stratocles apparently featured on stage as a dramatic character. But both fragments may originate from completely different plays. It is a reasonable conjecture that the comedy which contained fragment 26 was partly if not fully to blame for Stratocles’ accusation against Philippides, and that fragment 25 is effectively a defence speech in the aftermath of that comedy. Fragment 26, then, does not necessarily shed any light on the plot, characters, or speaker of fr. 25. As for the immediate context of fr. 25, the iambic trimeters merely indicate it comes from a spoken passage within the drama. It does not necessarily indicate the entire comedy attacked Stratocles (cf. the remarks of Gallo 1984. 229), but rather this passage was most likely extra-dramatic, even parabasis-like in the style of Old Comedy, where a character speaks in persona poetae, as the personal nature of the attack, the highly charged rhetoric, and explicit mention of ‘comedy’ in line 7 imply. Here we have the voice of Philippides himself, taking advantage of the festival setting to address the Athenian citizens about domestic political concerns and to defend himself and his genre against political pressure.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

245

1 τὸν ἐνιαυτόν Here possibly means ‘year’, as often, to contrast with month (LSJ s. v. I.2). But the word can also signify any long period or cycle of time, and a longer period may be implied here to denote the time it takes to be fully initiated into the Mysteries. Indeed the period from the Lesser Mysteries until full initiation into the rites of the epopteia at the Greater Mysteries took nineteen months in total (i. e. from Mounychion to Boedromion, and from there to Boedromion the following year. See ‘Interpretation’ above). συντεμών Lit. ‘cut down’, ‘cut short’ (e. g. cutting food into smaller pieces, cf. Mastellari 2020. 367 on Mnesim. fr. 3.4). But here and often elsewhere it is used metaphorically to mean ‘reduce’, ‘abbreviate’, vel sim. See Ar. Ra. 1262 εἰς ἓν γὰρ αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ μέλη ξυντεμῶ, ‘I shall reduce all his lyric songs into one’; cf. also A. Eum. 227 (reducing honours); Ar. Th. 178 (abbreviating a speech). 2 πανδοκεῖον Here in apposition with τὴν ἀκρόπολιν. Inns were primarily public houses that provided lodging and meals for travelers (see generally Firebaugh 1923). For the provision of meals, cf. e. g. Ar. Ra. 549–78 where the comic glutton Herakles evinces fondness for such establishments (the inn-keeper serves Herakles bread, stew, fish, cheese and sausages). Inns also offered overnight accommodation to foreign travelers, as indicated by the presence of sleeping mattresses (ψιάθοι) at Ar. Ra. 567 (cf. Ar. Lys. 921–5), and the ‘bed-bugs’ proverbially associated with such establishments at Ar. Ra. 114–15 πανδοκευτρίας, ὅπου / κόρεις ὀλίγιστοι, ‘inn-keepers, where bed-bugs are fewest’. Some inns also appear to have provided female entertainers who may have doubled as prostitutes. Polyaenus in his Strategemata 4.2.3 recounts a story where two generals serving under Philip of Macedon hired a harp-girl from a local inn before bringing her back to the Macedonian camp near Thebes (ἀπὸ πανδοκείου μισθωσάμενοι ψάλτριαν, ‘having hired a harp girl from the inn’). Cf. also Ath. 13.567a which suggests that similar establishments (there ‘taverns’, sing. καπηλεῖον)140 were often the haunts of mastropoi seeking customers for hetairai. Inn-keeping itself was not a respectable occupation (see e. g. Ar. Pl. 426–8). Pl. Lg. 918d (cf. Poll. 6.128; Stob. 4.2.47.9–11) lists it among the retail trades (καπηλεία) which decent citizens (ἄριστοι ἄνδρες) entirely avoided. Even customers at these establishments might be frowned upon (cf. Ath. 13.566f for social stigma associated with eating at inns). Many inn-keepers were mostly metics (cf. Ar. Ra. 569–70 with Dover 1993. 263) and were notorious for base profiteering and swindling their customers. Thphr. Char. 6.5 mentions the trade, alongside brothel-keeping and tax-collecting, as suitable for ‘the man who has lost his senses’ (ὁ ἀπονενοημένος) and is unashamed of doing any kind of work. ὑπολαβών ‘Take up’, ‘take over’. The verb here seems to imply taking charge or responsibility for a place (cf. ὑποδέχομαι LSJ III.2). But the idea of seizing or taking a place in an underhand way (LSJ s. v. ὑπό F.III) might also just be felt here. 140

See Ehrenberg 1962. 114 n. 4 who considers the pandokeutria as essentially the same as a kapēlis.

246

Philippides

3 τὰς ἑταίρας Lit. ‘(female) companions’ (see Ath. 13.571c–e). Plu. Sol. 15.2 tells us that in Athens it was little more than a euphemism for prostitute, i. e. πόρνη (on the distinction and blurring of the two terms, see Glazebrook and Henry 2011a. 4–8). In contrast with women who worked in brothels (cf. Eub. frr. 67, 82; Xenarch. fr. 4; Philem. fr. 3), hetairai appear generally to have been more expensive (cf. Antiph. fr. 2; Tim. fr. 25), more refined (cf. Antiph. fr. 210; Anaxil. fr. 21), and to have had a greater degree of independence. We hear of hetairai sharing the dinner table and meeting clients at symposia (cf. Eub. fr. 41; Epicr. fr. 3; cf. also Philippid. fr. 5), as well as co-habiting with clients long-term in return for money and gifts (cf. Antiph. fr. 210; Amphis fr. 1 with Papachrysostomou 2016. 23–4; and esp. Phoenicid. fr. 4 for an hetaira – line 2 ἑταιρεῖν – who lives successively with a soldier, a doctor and a philosopher). Hetairai might also work with the help of a mastropos – herself often a former hetaira – to help find her clients (see Herod. 1; Alex. fr. 103; Theophil. fr. 11; cf. Ath. 13.567a; see also on Philippid. Mastropos, this volume). For some of the vast secondary literature on hetairai in society and in comedy, see e. g. Hauschild 1933; Henry 1985; Davidson 1997; Kurke 1997; Faraone and McClure 2006; Auhagen 2009; Kapparis 2018. For some of the notorious hetairai in Athens specifically linked with Demetrius Poliorcetes, see ‘Interpretation’ above. Cf. also on fr. 26 for Stratocles and hetairai. εἰσαγαγών Typically means to ‘bring’ or ‘lead’ someone into a dwelling (cf. Phoenicid. fr. 4.12). For the construction with the dative of the place or person where one is brought in, cf. e. g. E. Alc. 1112 where the manuscripts read αὐτὴν εἴσαγ’ … δόμοις, ‘bring her into the house’; Hipp. 526–7 εἰσάγων … ψυχᾷ χάριν, ‘(Eros) who brings joy into the soul’; X. Mem. 2.4.3 τοῖς μὲν οἰκέταις καὶ ἰατροὺς εἰσάγοντας, ‘bringing in doctors to the servants’. τῇ παρθένῳ With double reference both to the statue of Athena Parthenos housed within the Parthenon, and to the goddess’ status as a virgin – here in pointed contrast with ‘prostitutes’ (ἑταίρας). It is already found as an epithet for Athena in the early fifth century: IG I3 728.1 and 745.2. For the strong political connotations of the epithet in Athens, especially due to the goddess’ association with democracy, see Ar. Th. 1139, and Anderson 1995. 64–5. For the noun elsewhere in a context where it is antithetical to a sexually promiscuous person, cf. Epicr. fr. 8.3. 4 δι’ ὅν For the phrase, here repeated in the following line (i. e. anaphora) and with asyndeton, cf. Theophil. fr. 1.3–4 (a slave praising his master) τὸν τροφέα, τὸν σωτῆρα, δι’ ὃν εἶδον νόμους Ἕλληνας, ‘my nurturer, my protector, on whose account I saw Greek laws’; also Men. Sam. 700; fr. 449.2. ἀπέκαυσεν The paradoxical idea of burning frosts was well-established by Philippides’ time, cf. X. An. 4.5.3 ἄνεμος βορρᾶς … ἀποκαίων πάντα, ‘wind from the north scorched everything’; 7.4.3 τῶν Ἑλλήνων πολλῶν καὶ ῥῖνες ἀπεκαίοντο καὶ ὦτα, ‘the noses and ears of many Greeks were scorched’ (i. e. by the extreme cold); Thphr. CP 2.3.1 ἀποκάει τὰ ψυχρά, ‘the cold scorches’ (cf. also Plu. Demetr. 12.5 ἀμπέλους … ἀπέκαυσε τὸ ψῦχος). Despite this well-worn usage, the primary

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

247

meaning of the word may very well be reinvigorated and intentionally paradoxical here to emphasise the preternatural and ominous character of the event. ἡ πάχνη ‘Frost’, see e. g. A. Pr. 25 πάχνην θ’ ἑῴαν ἥλιος σκεδᾷ, ‘the sun will scatter the morning frost’. It is distinguished from ‘ice’ (κρύσταλλος) by Theognet. fr. 1.3–4 where pachnē is implied to be more fleeting and shorter lasting than ice. τὰς ἀμπέλους ‘Grape-vines’ (Vitis vinifera, L.). In the Northern Hemisphere grapes begin to bud in early Spring (March) and are usually harvested between late-Summer and Autumn (August to October). 5 ἀσεβοῦνθ’ The verb denotes an act of impiety or sacrilege against the gods. Any of the acts attributed to Stratocles in lines 1–5 could potentially be defined as such. But the specific charge here seems to be Stratocles’ support for weaving the images of Antigonus and Demetrius into the sacred peplos alongside those of Athena and the other Olympian gods (see ‘Interpretation’ and on ὁ πέπλος below). See also line 6 (‘making honours that belong to the gods fit for humans’), which expands on this point. ὁ πέπλος Not to be confused with the robe dedicated annually to the goddess, as Diodorus suggests (20.46.2 κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν), since this practice was probably not instituted until the late second century BCE (see Shear 2001. 102; on the peplos in general see Mansfield 1985; Robertson 1985. 288–90; Barber 1992. 112–17; Shear 2001. 173–86; Wachsmann 2012. 238–9). The peplos mentioned here belongs to the quadrennial Great Panathenaea, and was apparently a much larger and elaborate woolen tapestry, estimated at between four to eight square metres in size (so Mansfield 1985. 58). It was evidently a major draw-card of the festival to judge from Plaut. Merc. 66–8 (modelled on Philemon’s Emporos) where the youthful rustic Demipho is said only to have visited the city every four years and to have been ushered away by his father as soon as they had seen the peplos. The tapestry was conveyed in procession on the mast of the Panathenaic ship-cart, and required ‘countless men’ to hoist it ‘like a sail onto the mast’ of the cart (cf. Stratt. fr. 31 with Orth 2009 ad loc. τὸν πέπλον δὲ τοῦτον / ἕλκουσ’ ὀνεύοντες τοπείοις ἄνδρες ἀναρίθμητοι / εἰς ἄκρον ὥσπερ ἱστίον τὸν ἱστόν, ‘countless men draw this peplos to the top, hauling it with ropes, just like a sail to the mast’, cf. Mansfield 1985. 68–78). The ship-cart was then drawn on wheels by oxen in procession along the Panathenaic Way. The processional route began at the Kerameikos at the Dipylon Gate and proceeded as far as the Eleusinion in the south-east corner of the agora (ΣVE Ar. Eq. 566a; cf. Philostr. VS 2.5, p. 59 Kayser). The ship-cart was then stationed between the Eleusinion and the Areopagus (cf. Paus. 1.29.1) while the procession continued with the peplos up the steep ascent to the Acropolis where it concluded (cf. Pl. Euthphr. 6c; Mansfield 1985. 76–8; Travlos 1971. 422–3, with map). For the ship-cart, see Shear 1978. 40–4 and Mansfield 1985. 68–78.141 141

Shear (2001. 143–55) is extremely skeptical of its ship-like appearance (esp. p. 147) arguing that ‘the device neither was nor looked like a boat in the third and second centuries B.C.’. However, evidence from the early third century suggests it featured a

248

Philippides

The tapestry or peplos itself depicted the Gigantomachy, i. e. the battle between the Olympian gods and the Giants, with an emphasis on the aristeia of Athena battling against the Giant Enkelados (E. Hec. 466–74; Stratt. fr. 73; Pl. Euthphr. 6b7-c4; Σ Pl. R. 327a; ΣVE Ar. Eq. 566a; [Verg.] Cir. 29–31; Shear 2001. 176–9). By Philippides’ time a jury selected by lot judged and approved sample designs for the peplos, a task previously performed by the Council (Arist. Ath. 49.3 ἔκρινεν δέ ποτε καὶ τὰ παραδείγματα καὶ τὸν πέπλον ἡ βουλή, νῦν δὲ τὸ δικαστήριον τὸ λαχόν, ‘the Council once judged both the designs and the peplos, but now a jury selected by lot’; see Rhodes 1992 ad loc. Cf. Ath. 60.1). The peplos was then woven by Athenian girls named ἐργαστῖναι under the supervision of two ἀρρηφόροι (Harp. p. 59, 1 s. v. ἀρρηφορεῖν, Hsch. ε 5653 ἐργαστῖναι· αἱ τὸν πέπλον ὑφαίνουσαι); although Mansfield (1985. 6, 22 n. 12) argues that professional weavers performed this task, just as Akeseus and Helikon reportedly manufactured the first robe (Zen. 1.56; Diogenian. 2.7; Ath. 2.48b), while Athenian women and girls only wove the annual robe. Shear (2001. 183) suggests that those who supplied the designs for approval by the jury were male, while the weaving was carried out by females. The weaving itself began nine months before the festival during the Chalkeia: Paus. Gr. χ 2 Χαλκεῖα … ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἱέρειαι μετὰ τῶν ἀρρηφόρων τὸν πέπλον διάζονται, ‘Chalkeia … when also the priestesses together with the arrhēphoroi (maidens who carried the sacred objects) begin to weave the peplos’. ἐρράγη μέσος Cf. esp. Ar. Ra. 955 ὤφελες μέσος διαρραγῆναι, ‘If only you’d been split in the middle’. For μέσος elsewhere taken with a verb to mean ‘in the middle’ or ‘by the middle’ (typically with ἔχω or λαμβάνω), cf. Ar. Ach. 274 μέσην λαβόντ’, ‘taking her by the middle (i. e. the waist)’; Ach. 571 ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔχομαι μέσος, ‘I am being held by the middle’; also Eq. 388; Nu. 1047; Ra. 469; and see LSJ s. v. I.b. 6 τὰς τῶν θεῶν ποιοῦντα τιμὰς ἀνθρωπίνας For the opposition between the ‘human’ (ἀνθρώπινος) and the ‘divine’ (θεῖος) spheres, see And. 1.139. The adjective ἀνθρώπινος refers to things that properly ‘belong to humans’. So at Men. Pk. 137 it is a euphemism for death; at Men. Epit. fr. 10.2 it describes pain as an inevitable part of human life; at Men. Sam. 22 it describes conceiving a desire for an hetaira; at Alex. fr. 222.5–6 it describes the ‘lot’ or ‘fate’ of humans (μοῖρα); and at Amphis fr. 3.1 it describes ‘bad luck’ (ἀτυχία) as part of the human experience. It is often found in phrases encouraging one to bear one’s circumstances ‘like a human being’ (ἀνθρωπίνως), i. e. to understand that human life is not perfect and to accept it (Men. Asp. 166, 260; Mis. 703). Here the divine sphere is diminished and degraded by association with the imperfections of the human sphere. 7 καταλύει δῆμον A legal-technical term to describe treasonous or antidemocratic behaviour. For the omission of the definite article in set phrases of this kind, especially legal or other technical language, see K.-G. I p. 604 §462.c (cf. Th. 1.107.4; 6.27.3; but contrast the examples quoted below). The language is mast, yard-arm and extensive rigging (see Philippid. test. 3.14), while iconographical evidence also supports its ship-like appearance (see Wachsmann 2012).

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 26)

249

suggestive of εἰσαγγελία proceedings (‘impeachment’) against supposedly antidemocratic behaviour (on eisangelia in general see esp. Hansen 1975; Harrison 1971. 51–9; MacDowell 1978. 179–85; Todd 1993. 114; Volonaki 2018). This law was originally instituted by Solon to prosecute would-be tyrants, or anyone who ‘conspired for the destruction of the dēmos’: τοὺς ἐπὶ καταλύσει τοῦ δήμου συνισταμένους … Σόλωνος θέντ[ος] νόμον εἰσα[γγ]ελ[ία]ς περὶ αὐτῶν (Arist. Ath. 8.4; with Rhodes 1992. 156). It also applied in the case of orators who ‘try to dissolve the dēmos (τῶν καταλυόντων τὸν δῆμον) or do not say what is best for the dēmos’, as well as all cases where the written laws did not cover crimes committed against the dēmos (Poll. 8.51; cf. Sommerstein 2004a. 215). Such an open-ended definition of the law, and the freedom for any citizen to prosecute the charge, made it especially prone to abuse, as evidenced by measures introduced ca. 333–330 BCE whereby prosecutors who invoked this law but failed to secure a conviction had to pay a 1000 drachma fine (Poll. 8.52; Harrison 1971. 51 with n. 3; MacDowell 1978. 419). The law was a favourite of professional informers (sykophantai, see on Philippid. fr. 30) who used it to threaten or blackmail others for suspected anti-democratic behaviour.142 κωμῳδία Could mean either ‘comedy’ in the generic sense or ‘a comedy’ more specifically. The definite article is often omitted for generic terms with abstract meaning, see K.-G. I p. 606 §462.h (cf. also §462.i where names of specific arts and sciences can also omit the article). So we find at Ar. Ach. 500 τὸ γὰρ δίκαιον οἶδε καὶ τρυγῳδία, ‘for even trygedy (i. e. comedy) knows what is just’. Other examples are more ambiguous, e. g. Ar. Ach. 499; V. 66; Ra. 15; Eup. fr. 259.3–4 (see Olson 2016. 320).

fr. 26 K.-A. (31 K.) ἀποστρεφομένης τὴν κορυφὴν φιλεῖς μόλις when she has her head turned away you struggle to kiss her

142

Cf. e. g. Ar. Pl. 948–9 where the sycophant threatens to bring a charge against Wealth ‘because he is destroying the democracy’ (ὁτιὴ καταλύει … / τὴν δημοκρατίαν); and note also frequent comic satire of Cleon’s tendency to accuse others of conspiracy on the slightest and most absurd pretexts, e. g. Ar. Eq. 257, 452, 475–9, 624–82, 860–3; V. 417, 463–507. That impeachment proceedings might be brought against poets, especially comic poets who ridiculed domestic politics, is suggested by Cleon’s apparent impeachment of Aristophanes for his abuse of the city and its officeholders in Babylonians (cf. Ar. Ach. 379–82, 502–3, 631; ΣREΓLh Ach. 378; cf. [X.] Ath. 2.18; Bianchetti 1980. 34; Sommerstein 2004b. 153; Hartwig 2015. 20–4).

250

Philippides

Plu. Mor. 750e–f ἀκούεις δέ τινος τραγικοῦ γαμέτου λέγοντος πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα “μισεῖς· ἐγὼ δὲ ῥᾳδίως μισήσομαι, / πρὸς κέρδος ἕλκων τὴν ἐμὴν ἀτιμίαν” (TrGF adesp. fr. 401). τούτου γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐρωτικώτερος (-τερον BE) ὁ μὴ διὰ κέρδος ἀλλ’ ἀφροδισίων ἕνεκα καὶ συνουσίας ὑπομένων γυναῖκα μοχθηρὰν καὶ ἄστοργον· ὥσπερ Στρατοκλεῖ τῷ ῥήτορι Φιλιππίδης ὁ κωμικὸς ἐπεγγελῶν ἐποίησεν· — You hear a husband in tragedy saying to his wife ‘You hate me. But I shall bear your hatred easily by dragging my dishonour towards profit’ (TrGF adesp. fr. 401). For one who abides a troublesome and unaffectionate woman – not because of profit, but for the sake of lust and sex, just as Philippides the comic poet wrote when mocking the orator Stratocles – is by no means more lovingly disposed than this man: —

Metre Iambic trimeter.

k l k r

l | l r l

k l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 475; Kock 1888. 310; Frantz 1900; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Webster 1970. 106; Philipp 1973. 505–6; Gallo 1984. 229; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 348; Gallo 1994. 233–4; Major 1997. 47; O’Sullivan 2009. 68; Luraghi 2012. 365–6; Luraghi 2014. 206; Hartwig 2015. 26–7. Citation context From the Ἐρωτικός (On Love) of Plutarch (1st c. CE). The passage comes from the speech of Protogenes who argues that friendship which leads to virtue is a more genuine example of love than excessive desire for pleasure and sex (Mor. 750d–e). He cites the tragic example of the husband who marries for profit as one who is just as loving (if not more so) as the man who forms a union out of lust, citing Stratocles – as he is depicted in comedy – as an example of the latter. For Plutarch’s possible sources for this fragment, see further below and on fr. 25. Text Meineke (1841. 475) suspected the verb φιλεῖς may have been the thirdperson form φιλεῖ. But he accepts the second-person form if Stratocles appeared on stage. Interpretation The fragment depicts a person directly addressing another character and describing how his attempts to kiss an unnamed woman are rejected by her. To judge from Plutarch, the person addressed is most likely the politician Stratocles of Diomeia (see on Philippid. fr. 25). The second-person form of the verb φιλεῖς even suggests that Stratocles perhaps featured as a character in the drama from which this fragment comes (cf. Meineke 1841. 475: ‘fortasse ipsum Stratoclem Philippides in scaenam produxit’; also e. g. Frantz 1900. 671; Webster 1970. 106; Philipp 1973. 505; Gallo 1984. 229; Gallo 1994. 234; Luraghi 2012. 366). A passing mention of Stratocles via reported speech remains a faint possibility (cf. e. g. Gnathaina in Philippid. fr. 5), although the fragment and the contextual evidence provided by Plutarch suggest a more substantial treatment of his character. The identity of the female who rejects his kisses could be his wife (if this sense of γυναῖκα was intended by Plutarch), angry with him for some misdeed. But an

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 26)

251

hetaira seems more likely since Stratocles is described by Plutarch as enduring her mistreatment of him for the sake of sex. We might also note external evidence which supports this view. Stratocles’ reputation for dallying with prostitutes is treated as a familiar and well-known trait in the dinner party satire of Matro fr. 1.121–2 πόρναι δ’ εἰσῆλθον, κοῦραι δύο θαυματοποιοί, / ἃς Στρατοκλῆς ἤλαυνε ποδώκεας ὄρνιθας ὥς, ‘prostitutes entered, two girls performing tricks, whom Stratocles drove like swift-footed birds’. In Gorgias’ work On Courtesans we hear of his association with the hetairai Leme, Parorama and possibly Didrachmon (for the third name see Kaibel 1887–1890 III. 315), although it is possible all three (so Kaibel) refer to a single woman (FGrH 351 F 1 ap. Ath. 13.596f) Στρατοκλῆς δ’ ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐρωμένην εἶχε τὴν ἐπικληθεῖσαν Λήμην ἑταίραν, τὴν καλουμένην Παρόραμα … διὰ τὸ καὶ δύο δραχμῶν φοιτᾶν πρὸς τὸν βουλόμενον, ὥς φησι Γοργίας ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἑταιρῶν, ‘The orator Stratocles had as his lover the hetaira nicknamed Leme, the one called Parorama, 〈 and the one called Didrachmon?⟩ since she visited anyone who wanted her for two drachmas, as Gorgias says in his book On Hetairai’. In addition, we have the anecdote of Plutarch (Demetr. 11.3, see below) where Stratocles is in the company of an hetaira named Phylakion. Here Stratocles’ companion is showing signs of displeasure (see note below on ἀποστρεφομένης) and is refusing his kisses for an apparent slight. We find a close parallel for such behaviour in an anecdote of Machon who tells how the hetaira Gnathainion (daughter of Gnathaina, see Philippid. fr. 5) was angry with her lover, the actor Andronikos, for not giving her gifts, and therefore refused his kisses: Macho fr. 17.376–9 (ap. Ath. 13.581f–82a) ἔπειτα, φασί, τῆς Γναθαινίου ποτὲ / τὸν Ἀνδρόνικον οὐ θελούσης παρὰ πότον / φιλεῖν, καθάπερ ταῖς πρότερον ἡμέραις ἀεί, / ὀργιζομένης δὲ διὰ τὸ μηδὲν λαμβάνειν, ‘they say that when Gnathainion once refused to kiss Andronikos at a drinking party like she always did on previous days, angry because she did not receive anything …’. If our unidentified female is an hetaira, Stratocles might be guilty of a similar omission of money or gifts, prompting the woman to withhold her favours. Plutarch’s description of this character as a ‘troublesome and unaffectionate woman’ (γυναῖκα μοχθηρὰν καὶ ἄστοργον) would suggest the female was characterised as particularly demanding, matched only by Stratocles’ excessive lust for her. Scholars often pair our fragment with Philippid. fr. 25, both of which apparently allude to Stratocles, and assume that both fr. 25 and fr. 26 must come from the same play (see e. g. Kock 1888. 310; Philipp 1973. 506; Gallo 1994. 234). But both fragments may come from two separate plays, and indeed a case might be made that the comedy in which fr. 26 appeared was the original spur to Stratocles’ complaint against comedy which Philippides answers in fr. 25 (cf. Luraghi 2012. 365–6; Hartwig 2015. 26). On this reading, if fr. 25 can be dated most plausibly to 301 BCE, the comedy in which fr. 26 appeared was presumably performed not long beforehand, perhaps as recent as the Lenaea of 301. Frantz (1900) suspected that an anecdote about Stratocles and the hetaira Phylakion preserved in Plutarch’s Life of Demetrius may have derived from the

252

Philippides

very same comedy as this fragment, Demetr. 11.3 ἔσχε δὲ τὴν ἑταίραν Φυλάκιον ἀνειληφώς, καί ποτ’ αὐτῷ πρὸς δεῖπνον ἐξ ἀγορᾶς πριαμένης ἐγκεφάλους καὶ τραχήλους “παπαί” εἶπε “τοιαῦτά γ’ ὠψώνηκας οἷς σφαιρίζομεν οἱ πολιτευόμενοι”, ‘(Stratocles) had taken up the hetaira Phylakion, and one day when she had bought for him brains and neck-bones from the marketplace for dinner he exclaimed “Wow! You’ve bought the sort of delicacies we politicians play ball with!”’.143 Frantz went even further and reconstructed the following ‘Philippidean’ fragment from the passage in Plutarch (cautiously noted by Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 352, but not included by them among the numbered fragments):

〈a

l

k

l

a

l

k

l

τοιαῦτά γ’ ὠψώνηκας οἷς σφαιρίζομεν

a

l⟩ παπαί,

Wow! You’ve bought the sort of delicacies we play ball with! Frantz suggested that the Phylakion here is the same woman who rejects Stratocles’ attempts to kiss her in Philippid. fr. 26. If so, we may have a name for our unidentified female figure.144 Apart from personal mockery of Stratocles, the comedy from which fr. 26 was taken may also have contained controversial political satire (if this is the point behind Philippid. fr. 25.7). An obvious political topic involving Stratocles would be his perceived over-indulgence of Demetrius Poliorcetes in the last decade of the fourth century (cf. fr. 25), indulgences which to Stratocles, on the one hand, seemed vital to the short-term survival of Athens’ democracy, but to others seemed to compromise the very democracy they were intended to protect. While it can only remain speculative, a play featuring Stratocles fawning excessively over an especially demanding hetaira may have been symbolic of his relationship with 143

144

For this passage and its possible Philippidean connections, cf. Ferguson 1911. 124; Mastrocinque 1979. 267; Gallo 1994. 234; Marasco 1994. 336; Monaco 2013. 116–17; Luraghi 2014. 206; Hartwig 2015. 26. The anecdote probably involves a joke on the apparent insensitivity of Stratocles after the Athenian defeat at Amorgos in 322 BCE as told by Plu. Demetr. 11.4. Plutarch certainly appears to have drawn upon comic material for his biographies – not necessarily as a source of biographical truth, but for the light they may shed on a person’s moral character and reputation as reflected by his contemporaries (cf. Plu. Alex. 1 for his biographical method; for his use of comic sources, see e. g. Stadter 1989. lxiii-lxix; and cf. Xenophontos 2012, esp. 609–10, who notes how Plutarch often uses comic templates to characterise figures in his biographies). Other possible sources Plutarch may have consulted for this anecdote, if not taken directly from a comedy, include writers such as Lynceus of Samos and Machon (both of whom also wrote comedy), Matro of Pitane and Duris of Samos (cf. O’Sullivan 2009. 71 with n. 43; Luraghi 2014. 207), not to mention works on komoidoumenoi or even on courtesans (see e. g. McClure 2003. 37–46), all of which mined comedy for such material.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 26)

253

Demetrius.145 Indeed the very name ‘Phylakion’ (‘Dear/Beloved Guardian’) could be a thinly veiled reference to Demetrius qua ‘protector’ of Athens (i. e. against Cassander and other supposed threats to Athens’ democracy). Such a comedy may not only have offended Stratocles personally, but could have been (mis)represented by him as anti-democratic insofar as it put Demetrius’ patronage of Athens and protection of Athens’ democracy at risk (see Hartwig 2015. 24–7). ἀποστρεφομένης Genitive absolute. Turning one’s head away from another and avoiding eye contact is a standard expression of rejection, usually accompanied by strong feelings of anger, so e. g. S. OC 1272 (Oedipus rejecting Polynices); E. Med. 1148 (Glauke’s angry reaction at seeing Jason and Medea’s children); Hipp. 946–7 (Hippolytus rejecting Theseus’ accusations); Hel. 78 (Teucer rejecting Helen because of the Trojan War); Ar. Pax 683 (statue of Peace turning away from the people of Athens out of anger at their support for Hyperbolus); cf. also Verg. Aen. 6.469 (Dido’s anger at Aeneas). See further Cairns 2001. τὴν κορυφήν Most likely a ‘retained’ accusative with ἀποστρεφομένης, lit. ‘turned away as to her head’. For the construction cf. Hdt. 1.166.2 ἀπεστράφατο γὰρ τοὺς ἐμβόλους, ‘they (i. e. ships) were turned back as to their beaks’. The other possibility is to take κορυφήν as the direct object of φιλεῖς ‘you kiss her head’ (see note below). Herwerden (1903. 188) notes that one might have expected κεφαλήν instead of κορυφήν. Of the handful of examples of κορυφή that survive in comedy, Aristophanes (as often elsewhere) uses it of mountain peaks (Ar. Nu. 270, 279; Av. 740), while at Alex. fr. 16.7 it evidently means the topmost part of the head or ‘crown’ in a hyperbolic expression for raised eyebrows: τὰς δ’ ὀφρῦς / ἔχοντας ἐπάνω τῆς κορυφῆς, ‘with his eyebrows raised above (the top of) his head’. Cf. Hsch. κ 3728 κορυφή· κεφαλή, λόφος, ἀκρωτήριον, ‘koryphē: head, crest, extremity’. Here it appears to mean ‘head’ more generally. φιλεῖς ‘Kiss’ (see Henderson 1991. 181–2). It is possible the verb takes κορυφήν as its object, i. e. ‘kiss her head’ (cf. S. OC 1131 φιλήσω … τὸν σὸν κάρα); but elsewhere φιλεῖν usually takes an accusative pronoun denoting the whole person (i. e. με, σε, αὐτόν, αὐτήν, e. g. Ar. Ach. 1200; Eq. 946; Av. 671; Lys. 890; Th. 1190–1; Ec. 647, 650). A similar pronoun (i. e. αὐτήν) might therefore be easily understood here.

145

For Old Comedy ‘allegorising’ political figures and bringing them on stage in thin disguise (i. e. emphasis), cf. Dionysalexandros (= Pericles) in Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros, Paphlagon (= Cleon) in Aristophanes’ Knights, and Marikas (= Hyperbolus) in Eupolis’ Marikas. Could Philippides have done the same with Demetrius/Phylakion? For doubts, see Luraghi 2017. 192 n. 51.

254

Philippides

fr. 27 K.-A. (26 K.) οὐκ ἔστιν “ἐμεθύσθην, πάτερ” λέγοντα 〈 καί⟩ “ἥμαρτον”, ὥστε πρὸς ἐμὲ συγγνώμης τυχεῖν. ὁ γὰρ εἰς τὸν ἀσθενῆ βίᾳ τι, Πάμφιλε, ποιῶν ὑβρίζειν, οὐχ ἁμαρτάνειν δοκεῖ 1 〈 σε⟩ Meineke : 〈 σ’ ἢ⟩ Kock : 〈 καὶ⟩ Bothe 2 ὥστε πρὸς ἐμὲ Grotius : ὥστε πρὸς σέ με Stob.SMA : ὥς γε πρὸς ἐμὲ Richards, Kaibel : ὡς τὸ πρόσθε Meineke 3 βία τι Stob.SA : βιεστὶ Stob.Md

It’s not possible saying ‘I got drunk, father’ 〈 and⟩ ‘I made a mistake’ to obtain forgiveness on my part. For he who does something by force against the weak, Pamphilos, seems to commit hybris, not make a mistake. Stob. 3.18.20 (SMA) Φιλιππίδου· — Philippides: —

Metre Iambic trimeters. Medial caesura is found at lines 1 and 3.

l l k r l l | k l k l k ⟨ l⟩ l l k l k | r k | l l l k l r l k l k l | k l k l k l l l k l l | l k l k l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 475–6; Kock 1888. 309; Mras 1916. 314–15; Edmonds 1961. 178–9; Webster 1970. 113; Hunter 1983. 172; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 348; Fisher 1992. 102; Rosivach 1998. 148; Riess 2012. 68, 91. Citation context From the anthology of Stobaeus (5th c. CE) in a collection of passages that illustrate the theme περὶ ἀκρασίας (‘on loss of control’, 3.18), many of which, as here, illustrate the potential effects of alcohol consumption. Text At line 1 Bothe’s 〈 καί⟩ (1844. 96) has the advantage of removing the harsh asyndeton between ἐμεθύσθην and ἥμαρτον and is adopted here as the most likely reading. Meineke’s 〈 σε⟩ is a possible alternative, providing a subject for the infinitive clause, although the subject can easily be supplied by sense. In line 2 our manuscripts preserve the sequence πρὸς σέ με. This is doubtful both on metrical grounds (split anapaest in the fourth foot, although cf. fr. 25.6), and especially on grounds of sense. The meaning of the received text, ‘with the result that I (i. e. the father) obtain forgiveness on your part’, is the opposite of the required meaning. Instead πρός should govern με, i. e. ‘so as to obtain forgiveness with regard to me/on my part’. The pronoun σέ could therefore be an extraneous

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 27)

255

gloss supplied by a later scholar to give an explicit subject to the ὥστε clause (for a similar example of a glossed pronoun intruding into the text where it is not strictly necessary, cf. S. Ph. 769 ἐᾶν χρεὼν / … εὕδειν [μ’]). Indeed, the most economical solution from a paleographical viewpoint would be simply to read πρὸς ἐμέ, as first proposed by Grotius (1623. 525), with the manuscript reading apparently arising from a copyist’s error due to the homophony of both phrases. Interpretation A father upbraids his son, Pamphilos, for committing an act of drunken violence, arguing that it was not a mere ‘mistake’ but could be construed as an act of hybris with far more serious consequences. The son had presumably apologised to his father in the lost lines that preceded our fragment. The nature of the act committed by the son is uncertain, but two distinct possibilities stand out: (1) the son has physically assaulted and dishonoured his own father; or more likely (2) the father has discovered that his son has raped a girl and upbraids him (Mras 1916. 314–15 offers the unlikely alternative that the son has played a malicious prank on someone). Considering the first possible reading, the figure of the father-beater (πατραλοίας, see Hsch. π 1122 ὁ τὸν πατέρα ἀτιμάζων, πατροτύπτης, ‘one who dishonours his father, a father-beater’) was familiar from Old Comedy, so e. g. Pheidippides in Ar. Nu. 1321–1475; the father-beater ‘intruder’ at Ar. Av. 1337–71; while Ar. Ra. 149–51, 274 mentions a special place reserved in Hades for father-beaters alongside perjurers and other criminals (cf. 773 where they are mentioned alongside thieves and burglars). The term πατραλοίας is otherwise used as an insult at Ar. Nu. 911 (cf. 1327) and Philonid. fr. 5. Assaulting one’s parents was considered particularly outrageous in that parents, after the gods, were by nature highly revered: X. Mem. 4.4.20 οὐκοῦν καὶ γονέας τιμᾶν πανταχοῦ νομίζεται; ‘is it not customary everywhere, then, to honour one’s parents too?’ (i. e. as well as the gods). It is certainly possible, given the lack of further context, that Pamphilos was guilty of such a crime here, one for which his father would seem reluctanct to forgive him. It is more likely, however, and more in keeping with the typical themes of New Comedy, that the fragment refers to a rape (so Hunter 1983. 172; Rosivach 1998. 148). Indeed, the two reasons the young man put forward – ‘I was drunk’ and ‘I made a mistake’ – are typical excuses for rape in comedy. The poet even reveals a degree of metatheatrical self-consciousness by criticising these conventional excuses. Young men in New Comedy typically commit rape when drunk, usually against a girl unknown to him at the time, and usually during a night-time festival, so Men. Sam. 46 (during the Adonia); Epit. 451–4 (Tauropolia); Phasm. 95 (Brauronia); Men. Plok. (see Gell. 2.23.15 filia hominis pauperis in pervigilio vitiata est, ‘the daughter of a poor man is violated at an all-night festivity’); Plaut. Aul. 36, 795 (nocturnal festival of Ceres). Drunkenness is typically offered as the standard defense for such behaviour (so Men. Epit. 407, 472; Plaut. Aul. 745, 795; Cist. 158–9 based on Menander’s Synaristōsai; Truc. 827–8; Ter. Ad. 470–1; Hec. 825?; Phorm. 1017). The rape itself is also often described as a ‘mistake’ (so Men.

256

Philippides

Sam. 646–7 ὁ τρόφιμος ἐξήμαρτεν εἰς ἐλευθέραν / κόρην, ‘my young master made a mistake against a free girl’; Ter. Ad. 687 where Micio describes Aeschinus’ rape of Pamphila as a peccatum; also Plaut. Truc. 786 where Diniarchus claims that his rape of Callicles’ daughter was a mistake: peccavi). Other words also suggest rape is the issue in question here. The idea of violence (βία) is typically associated with rape in New Comedy (e. g. Men. Epit. 453 βιασμὸν … παρθένου, ‘force (used on) a maiden’; probably Kith. 20 Arnott (PBerlin 9767) βίᾳ. Cf. the parallel use of Latin vis in Roman Comedy at Plaut. Cist. 159 and Ter. Hec. 828). The word and its cognates are also used to describe rape in legal contexts, so Plu. Sol. 23 ἐὰν δ’ ἁρπάσῃ τις ἐλευθέραν γυναῖκα καὶ βιάσηται, ζημίαν ἑκατὸν δραχμὰς ἔταξε, ‘if anyone seizes a free woman and uses force, he (sc. Solon) set a fine of one hundred drachmas’; Lys. 1.32–3 ἐάν τις ἄνθρωπον ἐλεύθερον ἢ παῖδα αἰσχύνῃ βίᾳ, διπλῆν τὴν βλάβην ὀφείλειν, ‘if anyone shames a free person or child by force, he owes twice the damages’; see also Pl. Lg. 874c (quoted below); Hermog. Stat. 2.104–7. Cases of rape might even be prosecuted via a δίκη βιαίων (Harrison 1968. 34–5; MacDowell 1978. 124; Omitowoju 2002. 54–71). Physical dominance over a weaker person, as we have here (cf. τὸν ἀσθενῆ, ‘the weak’ at line 3), is an idea also found in the context of rape in Roman Comedy at Plaut. Truc. 812–13 plus potest qui plus valet. / vir erat, plus valebat: vicit, quod petebat apstulit, ‘one who is stronger is more capable. He was a man, he was stronger: he conquered and took away what he sought’. Even the idea of hybris in line 4 can suggest rape. Rape itself is described as an act of hybris at, e. g., Hdt. 6.137 ὑπὸ ὕβριός … βιᾶσθαι, ‘to be forced by hybris’; E. Hipp. 1073 ἐς πατρώιαν ἄλοχον ὑβρίζειν ἔτλης, ‘you dared to commit hybris against your father’s wife’; Pl. Lg. 874c ἐὰν ἐλευθέραν γυναῖκα βιάζηταί τις ἢ παῖδα περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια, νηποινὶ τεθνάτω ὑπό τε τοῦ ὑβρισθέντος βίᾳ καὶ ὑπὸ πατρὸς ἢ ἀδελφῶν ἢ ὑέων· ἐάν τε ἀνὴρ ἐπιτύχῃ γαμετῇ γυναικὶ βιαζομένῃ, κτείνας τὸν βιαζόμενον ἔστω καθαρὸς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ‘if someone violates a free woman or child sexually, let him die without compensation at the hands of the person who was violently subject to hybris, and at the hands of her father or brothers or sons. And if a man finds a married woman being subjected to force, after killing the violator let him be pure in the law’; Din. 1.23; and Aeschin. 1.15–17 (see Harris 1990. 373; Omitowoju 2002. 29–50). If the broader context of our fragment involves a rape, the closest parallel we have to this passage is Terence’s Adelphoe 685–95 where Micio upbraids his adopted son Aeschines for committing rape. Aeschines too acted under the influence of alcohol (471 vinum) and his transgression is described as a ‘mistake’ (687 peccatum). For rape in New Comedy generally, see e. g. Pierce 1997; Sommerstein 1998. 1–2 οὐκ ἔστιν … ὥστε ... τυχεῖν ‘It is not possible (so as) to obtain forgiveness’. Expressions of ability, capability, possibility and skill are often followed simply by the dynamic infinitive (K.-G. II pp. 9–11 §473.3). However, ὥστε is also sometimes included in such expressions (see K.-G. II pp. 11–12 §473.3 Anm. 9), here marking the intended result of the son’s apology. For the phrase ἔστιν/οὐκ ἔστιν (i. e. licet/non licet) followed by ὥστε + infinitive elsewhere (apparently only

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 27)

257

here in comedy), see S. Ph. 656 ἆρ’ ἔστιν ὥστε … θέαν λαβεῖν …; ‘Is it possible (so as) to take a look?’; Pl. Phd. 103e ἔστιν ἄρα … περὶ ἔνια τῶν τοιούτων, ὥστε … αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος ἀξιοῦσθαι τοῦ αὑτοῦ ὀνόματος, ‘it is possible then … regarding some things of this kind, so as … to deem the form itself worthy of the same name’; D. 19.114 μηδ’ ἦν ὥστ’ ἰδεῖν ἅπαντας, ‘and (if) it was not possible so as to see them all’. Richards (1909. 112–13) puzzlingly argues that this construction is unlikely here due to the intervening participial phrase and the distance between ἔστιν and ὥστε. But cf. the example in Pl. Phd. 103e; and note the exaggerated hyperbaton of ὁ … ποιῶν in lines 3–4 above. 1 ἐμεθύσθην For drunkenness as an excuse for wrongdoing or ‘making a mistake’, see Philem. fr. 163 ἐμέθυον· ἱκανὴ πρόφασις εἰς θἀμαρτάνειν, ‘I was drunk: a sufficient excuse for making a mistake’; see Riess 2012. 68. 2 ἥμαρτον ‘I made a mistake’. In antiquity ἁμαρτία is characterised as a forgivable offence since it does not proceed from a morally depraved or hybristic character. Aristotle discusses the concept in relation to tragedy, and emphasises the unintentional nature of ἁμαρτία by contrasting those who act in this way with those who do wrong due to moral wickedness: Arist. Po. 1453a8–10 μήτε διὰ κακίαν καὶ μοχθηρίαν μεταβάλλων εἰς τὴν δυστυχίαν ἀλλὰ δι’ ἁμαρτίαν τινά (‘undergoing a change into misfortune not because of wickedness and depravity, but because of some error’). The philosophical school of Hegesias of Cyrene (fl. 290 BCE) defines ἁμαρτία as an unintentional offence made under compulsion, and therefore easily forgiven: D.L. 2.95 ἔλεγον τὰ ἁμαρτήματα συγγνώμης τυγχάνειν· οὐ γὰρ ἑκόντα ἁμαρτάνειν, ἀλλά τινι πάθει κατηναγκασμένον, ‘they used to say that mistakes obtain forgiveness, for one does not do wrong/make a mistake willingly, but because one is compelled by a certain condition/state’. Pamphilos, much like the speaker of Philem. fr. 163 (quoted above on line 1), is arguing that he acted unwillingly and under compulsion (i. e. due to the influence of alcohol) and therefore deserved forgiveness for his ‘mistake’. πρὸς ἐμέ ‘In relation to me’, ‘as far as I’m concerned’ (see also under ‘Text’). In phrases of this kind with συγγνώμης τυχεῖν one usually finds the preposition παρά with the genitive, i. e. ‘receive pardon from me’ (so e. g. Isoc. 15.51 συγγνώμης τυγχάνειν παρ’ ὑμῶν, Isoc. 16.12; Isae. 10.1; D. Exord. 24). Here we might have expected παρ’ ἐμοῦ or similar, but this does not scan. συγγνώμης τυχεῖν ‘Obtain pardon’. The phrase occurs elsewhere in extant tragedy and comedy only at E. Hipp. 1326 (Artemis addressing Theseus for his role in the death of Hippolytus). It is otherwise a common phrase borrowed from the law courts in the context of being ‘acquitted’ of a crime. In addition to the examples cited in the previous note, see also Antipho Tetr. III 1.6; Lys. 1.3; 3.4; Isoc. 7.27, 47; 12.271; 14.30; D. 4.1; 18.15; 23.55; [D.] 61.10. For the idea of ‘mistakes’ (ἁμαρτία) deserving pardon or forgiveness, cf. D.L. 2.95 (quoted above under ἥμαρτον), and Plu. Agis 21 ἡλικίας δὲ γεγονὼς ἐν ᾗ ἁμαρτάνοντες ἄνθρωποι συγγνώμης τυγχάνουσι, ‘being of an age at which people, when they make mistakes, obtain forgiveness’.

258

Philippides

3–4 εἰς τὸν ἀσθενῆ … τι … ποιῶν More often ποιεῖν and similar verbs take an accusative with a dative of the personal object, cf. X. Hier. 7.2 τοιαῦτα … ποιοῦσι τοῖς τυράννοις. But for parallels where the dative is replaced by εἰς or πρός with the accusative see e. g. Hdt. 1.41 ἐμέο προποιήσαντος χρηστὰ ἐς σὲ, 2.141 ἄτιμα ποιεῦντα ἐς αὐτοὺς, Pl. Phd. 113e πρὸς πατέρα … βίαιόν τι πράξαντες, Men. Dysc. 647 [εἰ]ς τραπεζοποιὸν ὅ τι βούλει πόει. See further K.-G. I p. 324 §411 Anm. 6. 3 τὸν ἀσθενῆ Riess (2012. 91 n. 305) suggests the word may indicate social status rather than physical strength, i. e. ‘poor’ (cf. E. Supp. 433–4 ὅ τ’ ἀσθενὴς / ὁ πλούσιός τε, ‘both the weak and the rich’; LSJ s. v. 4). Here the masculine form is probably used generically as part of a general observation, so Rosivach 1998. 148. On generic masculines see K.-G. I pp. 82–3 §371.1–2. βίᾳ ‘By force/violence’. The noun and its cognates can also denote ‘compulsion’ without the direct use of physical violence (cf. Omitowoju 2002. 52). Πάμφιλε Literally ‘Friend to all’ or ‘Loved by all’. The name was very common in Attica, see LGPN II. 357–8. The Middle Comedy poet Eubulus wrote a comedy titled Πάμφιλος (see Hunter 1983. 172–5), and it is common in New Comedy, e. g. Philem. fr. 135; Men. fr. 744; fr. 1001; Apollod.Car. fr. 13; com. adesp. frr. 156, 446 and 1025; Ter. Hecyra (based on Apollodorus) and Andria (based on Menander). Donatus in his commentary on Ter. Ad. 26 suggests the name was typical for young men in comedy: hinc seruus fidelis Parmeno, infidelis Syrus uel Geta, miles Thraso uel Polemo, iuuenis Pamphilus, ‘hence the faithful slave (is called) Parmeno, the unfaithful slave Syrus or Geta, the soldier Thraso or Polemo, the young man Pamphilus …’. The few details that can be gleaned from comic remains and other related sources support this, with characters so-named often entangled in love plots, so Ter. Hec. (a young man who rapes Philumena); An. (a young man who has raped Glycerium); Alciphr. 1.15 (a rich youth [μειράκιον] from Athens); 4.6 (a youth offering money to an hetaira); Call. Epigr. 49 Pf. = AP 6.311 (a dedication with an illustration of a comic mask said to represent the ‘Pamphilos’ character, although in this case not ‘bitten [or burned] by love’: οὐ μὲν ἔρωτι δεδαγμένον / δεδαυμένον, as though this were typical for characters by this name); Luc. DMeretr. 2 (a lover of the pregnant hetaira Myrtion who suspects he is going to marry the daughter of a wealthy merchant; cf. com. adesp. fr. 156 Πάμφιλος γαμεῖ; γαμείτω· καὶ γὰρ ἠδίκησέ με, ‘Pamphilos is marrying? Let him marry, for he has done me wrong’); Aristaenet. Epist. 1.25; 2.16; 2.18; and cf. also the Medieval Latin comedy titled Pamphilus de amore (12th or 13th c. CE). For typical comic names elsewhere in Philippides see also on fr. 6.2. 4 ὑβρίζειν The father offers an alternative explanation of his son’s behaviour that has potentially more serious consequences than ἁμαρτία. The classic definition of hybris is given by Arist. Rh. 1378b23–9 ἔστι γὰρ ὕβρις τὸ πράττειν καὶ λέγειν ἐφ’ οἷς αἰσχύνη ἔστι τῷ πάσχοντι, μὴ ἵνα τι γίγνηται αὑτῷ ἄλλο ἢ ὅ τι ἐγένετο, ἀλλ’ ὅπως ἡσθῇ· οἱ γὰρ ἀντιποιοῦντες οὐχ ὑβρίζουσιν ἀλλὰ τιμωροῦνται. αἴτιον δὲ τῆς ἡδονῆς τοῖς ὑβρίζουσιν, ὅτι οἴονται κακῶς δρῶντες αὐτοὶ ὑπερέχειν

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 28)

259

μᾶλλον, διὸ οἱ νέοι καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι ὑβρισταί, ‘Hybris is the act of doing and saying things which bring disgrace to the sufferer, not so that something comes about for oneself other than what took place, but so that one derives pleasure. For those who retaliate do not commit hybris, instead they exact vengeance. But the cause of pleasure for those who commit hybris is that they believe, by mistreating others, they are superior, for which reason the young and the wealthy are prone to hybris’ (see also MacDowell 1978. 129; Fisher 1992. 1 and 33–4 on the difference between ἁμαρτάνειν and ὑβρίζειν). Instead of an innocent mistake committed under compulsion (ἁμαρτία), Pamphilos’ father suggests he committed the act to show his superiority over someone physically or socially inferior (i. e. ὕβρις). He may hint here at the potential for legal charges against Pamphilos via a γραφὴ ὕβρεως (for the law see D. 21.47; Aeschin. 1.15; Harrison 1968. 34–6; MacDowell 1978. 129–32). The potential consequences of such a charge might be seen when we compare the case of Ktesikles (cited at D. 21.180) who claimed to have assaulted a man with a whip at the Dionysia due to drunkenness (i. e. an act of ἁμαρτία, cf. on line 1), but was subsequently sentenced to death for hybris. Drunkenness was often thought to lead to hybris, see e. g. Panyas. PEG frr. 17 (third round of drinking) and 18; E. Cyc. 534; Alex. fr. 46.4; Eub. fr. 93.6–7 (fourth cup); com. adesp. fr. 101.11.

fr. 28 K.-A. (27 K.) τὰ ποτήρι’ ἂν ἴδῃς τὰ παρεσκευασμένα, ἅπαντα χρυσᾶ, τρόφιμε, νὴ τὸν οὐρανόν, ὑπερήφαν’, ἁγὼ μὲν παρεξέστην ἰδών· κρατῆρες ἀργυροῖ, κάδοι μείζους ἐμοῦ 1 ἂν Ath.CE : ἃν Herwerden 3 ὑπερήφανα ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ἐξέστην ἰδών Ath.CE : ὑπερήφαν’, ἁγὼ μὲν παρεξέστην ἰδών Leo : ὑπερήφανοι Eust. : ὑπερήφανοι—’γὼ μὲν γὰρ ἐξέστην ἰδών— κρατῆρες Headlam : ὑπερήφαν’ 〈 ἔργ’.⟩ ἐγὼ μὲν {γὰρ} ἐξέστην ἰδών Kaibel (Wilamowitz γάρ delevit) 4 μείζους Schweighäuser : καὶ μείζους Ath.CE, Eust.

if you saw the drinking cups that have been prepared, all made of gold, Young Master, yes by heaven, ostentatious ones – which I was astonished to see; kraters of silver, jars larger than me Ath. 11.781e–f (CE) ἐχρῶντο δὲ καὶ λιθοκολλήτοις ἐκπώμασι. Μένανδρος (fr. 438) δέ πού φησι καὶ ποτήριον τορνευτὸν καὶ τορευτά. Ἀντιφάνης (fr. 234)· … φησὶ πρός τινα Νικόμαχος (fr. 4)· … Φιλιππίδης· —

260

Philippides

They also used drinking cups set with precious stones. Menander speaks somewhere (fr. 438) of a cup turned on a lathe and (others) worked in relief. Antiphanes (fr. 234): … Nicomachus says to someone (fr. 4): … Philippides: — Eust. Od. 1.346.34–7 Μίμνερμος δέ φασι τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καλούμενον ποτήριον εὐνὴν †κύλην† εἶπεν, Ἡφαίστου χερσὶν ἐληλαμένην (Mimn. IEG fr. 12), τῶν δὲ τοιαῦτα εἰπόντων ἐπὶ μεγάλοις ποτηρίοις ἀστειότερον ἔφρασεν ὁ γράψας οὕτω. ν ὴ τ ὸ ν ο ὐ ρ α ν ὸ ν ὑ π ε ρ ή φ α ν ο ι κ ρ α τῆρες, ἀργυροῖ κάδοι καὶ μείζονες ἐμοῦ. Mimnermos, they report, said that the so-called Cup of the Sun was a bed, forged by the hands of Hephaestus (Mimn. IEG fr. 12). But with regard to large cups, he who wrote the following spoke with more wit than those who mention such things: ‘yes by heaven! ostentatious kraters, jars of silver even larger than me’.

Metre Iambic trimeters. Medial caesura in lines 1 and 4.

r l k l k l | r l l l k l k l k l l | r k l k l k l r l k l l | l k l l l k l l l k l k l | k l l l k l

Discussion Meineke 1839. 473; Meineke 1841. 476; Kock 1888. 309; Fraenkel 1912. 32; Edmonds 1961. 178–9; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 349; Gallo 1994. 231 n. 14. Citation context From the Epitome of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistai (mss. CE). Athenaeus wrote in the late 2nd c. CE, while the Epitome was first made ca. 10th–11th c. CE (see Arnott 2000. 47; manuscripts CE are 15th c.). The passage is cited in a section that discusses elaborately decorated and expensive (especially gold) drinking vessels. The Epitome of Athenaeus regularly omits comic titles, and sometimes truncates quotations. The passage is also found, in abbreviated and slightly altered form, in the commentary on Homer’s Odyssey by Eustathius, archbishop of Thessalonika (12th c. CE). Elsewhere Eustathius derives much of his material from Athenaeus, and he has likely done the same here. His inclusion of the unmetrical phrase καὶ μείζους as found also in line 4 of the Epitome suggests he probably copied from the Epitome here. Text At line 1 Herwerden (1872. 92) reads the relative pronoun ἃν (i. e. crasis of the relative pronoun ἅ and the particle ἄν). This would produce a gramatically complete sentence (if we supply the verb ‘to be’), but a slightly awkward relative clause (i. e. ‘the drinking cups – whatever you see – the ones having been prepared [are] all gold …’). It seems best, therefore, to retain the ἄν of CE (i. e. crasis of εἰ and ἄν) marking the protasis of a conditional clause. The apodosis may have appeared before the fragment. Headlam (1899. 8) exempli gratia supplies words to the effect ‘〈 what will you say⟩ if you saw …?’ or ‘〈 you would say so⟩ if you saw …’.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 28)

261

At line 3 the hiatus in the MS reading ὑπερήφανα ἐγώ is problematic. Leo’s reading ὑπερήφαν’, ἁγώ, with a relative clause (crasis of ἅ and ἐγώ), is adopted here tentatively (see Fraenkel 1912. 32 n. 1). Headlam (1899. 8), following Eustathius’ paraphrase, reads ὑπερήφανοι with prodelision of ‘γὼ so that the adjective agrees with κρατῆρες. But this introduces an awkward change from accusatives to nominatives. Headlam’s text, nonetheless, has the advantage of eliminating further ‘knock-on’ emendations to the rest of the line, and yields reasonably good sense if we understand a complete sentence in lines 1–2 (by reading ποτήρια as nominative, ἴδῃς as an intransitive verb, and by supplying the verb ἐστίν) and an incomplete sentence in lines 3–4 (two nominative subjects in asyndeton without a predicate, presumably given in the next line or soon after). A suggested translation might read: ‘The cups that have been prepared, if you look, (are) all gold, master, yes by Heaven! Ostentatious mixing bowls made of silver (for I was astonished when I saw [them]), jars bigger than me 〈 were on display⟩ ’, vel sim. Leo’s παρεξέστην in place of γὰρ ἐξέστην (CE) is also accepted tentatively as a necessary emendation metri gratia (see Fraenkel 1912. 32 n. 1; verb paralleled at Polyb. 32.3.6). The verb, however, is not attested elsewhere in comedy, whereas ἐξέστην is paralleled in comedy at Men. Her. 70; Sam. 279, 620; and com. adesp. fr. 751. At line 4 both Athenaeus (CE) and Eustathius read κάδοι καὶ μείζους which does not scan, prompting editors to remove καί. The text would also scan if we read the uncontracted form μείζονες for μείζους and push ἐμοῦ to the next line, i. e. κάδοι καὶ μείζονες / ἐμοῦ (‘jars even bigger than me’). Assignment to known plays Meineke (1839. 473) attributed the fragment to Argyriou aphanismos (see also fr. 33), presumably due to the mention of silver mixing bowls in line 4. But the absence of any explicit reference to missing silverware, and the frequent description of sympotic scenes and utensils elsewhere in comedy make the link tenuous at best. Interpretation A servant recounts to his Master’s son (τρόφιμε) preparations he witnessed for a grand banquet with expensive drinking vessels. The description of lavish banquets and symposia is a popular topos in Middle and New Comedy (e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 42; Mnesim. fr. 4; Alex. frr. 67, 263), and not least of all in Philippides (see Philippid. frr. 4, 5 and 20). For ‘ecphrastic’ passages in comedy that list or describe objects and utensils used at feasts and symposia, as we have here, see e. g. Epig. fr. 6 (utensils prepared for the arrival of a visiting dignitary); Alex. fr. 272 (description of an elaborate cup); and Apollod.Gel. fr. 4 (expensive cups and other items). See also Fraenkel 1912. 32. The occasion for which these preparations are made is unclear. The size of the vessels (i. e. ‘kadoi bigger than me’) may be literal (cf. Ephipp. fr. 5 and the oversized casserole dish for a feast for Geryon, mythical king of Erythrae), but it could also be comic hyperbole by an overexcited speaker. 1 τὰ ποτήρι’ A generic term for drinking cups. It was freely interchangeable with the (also generic) word ἔκπωμα, as evidenced by the discussion in

262

Philippides

Ath. bk. 11 passim; Poll. 6.95; Hsch. ε 1656; Phot. π 1124 ποτήριον λέγουσιν, οὐ μόνον ἔκπωμα, ‘they say potērion, not only ekpōma’. Among the many varieties of cup that fell under this rubric are the kylix, phiale (contrast Ar. V. 677), lepaste, kantharos, skaphion and the so-called ‘Theracleian’ cups (see Poll. 6.95; Amyx 1958. 206–8; for the shapes and names of specific varieties of cup, see Richter and Milne 1935; and for metallic and precious varieties of these types from Hellenistic Macedonia, see Zimi 2011. 60–84, 199–239). παρεσκευασμένα The verb παρασκευάζειν and its cognates are often found in contexts where utensils and consumables are prepared for a dinner or drinking party, e. g. Hdt. 9.82.6; Pherecr. frr. 50.1, 183; Ar. Ach. 1089; Ec. 839; Anaxandr. fr. 1.1; Alex. frr. 145.10, 275.1; Aristopho fr. 7.2; Men. Dysc. 554; Posidon. FGrH 87 F 1 (= fr. 53 Edelstein-Kidd); Plu. Mor. 629c. 2 τρόφιμε Lit. ‘Nursling’ (probably with passive force, LSJ s. v. II, cf. III). The term is usually addressed by an older household slave to the son of his master, and which he continued to use when addressing the son after his master’s death, cf. Poll. 3.73 ὁ νεώτερος δεσπότης … τρόφιμος, ‘the younger master (is called) … trophimos’ (see Dickey 1996. 77, 211, 235; also Miccolis 2018. 170–1 on the word more generally). It is used, e. g., by Getas of his young master Sostratos at Men. Dysc. 413 and 553; by Daos of his young master Kleostratos for whom Daos was also παιδαγωγός (‘tutor’) at Men. Asp. 2; by Parmenon of his master’s son Moschion at Men. Sam. 646; by Onesimos of his philandering young master Charisios at Men. Epit. fr. 1; by Daos of his young master Moschion at Men. Pk. 264, 292, 329 Arnott; by Daos of his young master Pheidias at Men. Kol. C191; and of the young Pheidias at Men. Phasm. 16. Donatus (on Ter. Eun. 289) reports that Terence adopted the Latin equivalent erilis filius to cover the Greek word τρόφιμος: non potest Terentius τρόφιμον dicere et ideo ‘erilem filium’ dicit, ‘Terence is not able to say “trophimos”, and therefore says “the master’s son”’; see also Ter. An. 602 and Phorm. 39. νὴ τὸν οὐρανόν Along with Earth and the River Styx, Ouranos was part of the oath invoked by the gods in epic (see e. g. Hom. Il. 15.36–8; Od. 5.184–6; h.Ap. 84–6). As the personification of the sky, whether day or night (cf. Hes. Th. 127 Οὐρανὸν ἀστερόενθ’, ‘starry Ouranos’), Ouranos might be invoked as a wideseeing and reliable witness. In comedy, oaths ‘by heaven’ are sworn exclusively by males (see Sommerstein 2014. 321). Examples occur as early as Ar. Eq. 705 but become more common in the later comedy of Aristophanes (five occurrences at Ar. Pl. 129, 267, 366, 403, 1043), Middle Comedy (Tim. fr. 13.4) and New Comedy (Men. Dysc. 629; com. adesp. fr. 1084.2). See Wüst RE s. v. ‘Uranus’, 966–80; LIMC VII.1. 132–6 s. v. ‘Ouranos’. 3 ὑπερήφαν’ This word usually has the meaning ‘proud’, ‘arrogant’, ‘ostentatious’ even ‘boastful’, often in a derogatory sense in association with vulgar displays of wealth, e. g. Men. fr. 840.1 ὑπερήφανόν που γίνεθ’ ἡ λίαν τρυφή, ‘too much luxury surely produces arrogance’; Diph. fr. 31.19–20 ὁρῶμεν ὀψωνοῦνθ’ … / οὐχὶ μετρίως … ἀλλ’ ὑπερηφάνως, ‘we see you buying fish … not moderately …

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 28)

263

but ostentatiously’. Otherwise the word can be applied to inanimate objects themselves with an element of personification, as at Alex. fr. 263.6 (adverb) παρετέθη / ὑπερηφάνως ὄζουσα τῶν Ὡρῶν λοπάς, ‘a dish was served smelling boastfully of the Seasons’ (i. e. the food itself was proudly proclaiming its flavour). Here we have a similar use where the golden drinking cups stand ‘proud’ and ‘boastful’ of their own quality, reflecting the ostentation of their owner. μέν So-called ‘μέν solitarium’ left unanswered by a corresponding particle or adverb. Here it appears with a personal pronoun, as often, which is ‘implicitly contrasted with other persons’ (Denniston 1954. 381), i. e. ‘I was certainly beside myself (if no-one else)’. παρεξέστην ‘I was beside myself ’, ‘lost my mind’, lit. ‘I stood out beside (my mind)’ (sc. τῇ διανοίᾳ). The verb – which occurs nowhere else in extant comedy (see ‘Text’ above) – denotes exaggerated mental states, e. g. fear, anger, inebriation, or, as here, astonishment. In this case the dative noun τῇ διανοίᾳ vel sim. has been suppressed, cf. e. g. Polyb. 32.3.6 ὁ δ’ Ἰσοκράτης ἐμπεσὼν εἰς τὴν αἰτίαν ὁλοσχερῶς παρεξέστη τῇ διανοίᾳ, ‘but when Isocrates fell under accusation he was utterly beside himself ’ (lit. ‘stood out beside his mind’); Polyb. fr. 192 (ap. Suda π 531) ὥστε καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ ἀχανεῖς γενέσθαι καὶ παρεκστῆναι ταῖς διανοίαις, ‘so that even those in the Council were agape and beside themselves’. Contrast the active form of the verb with the accusative τὴν διάνοιαν where it is the mind, not the person, which changes location (cf. English ‘lost my mind’), e. g. Plu. Mor. 713a παρεξιστὰς … τὴν διάνοιαν ὑγρὰν ὑπὸ τῆς μέθης, ‘causing his mind, soaked by alcohol, to stand out beside (him)’. 4 κρατῆρες The kratēr or ‘mixing bowl’ was a large vessel for mixing wine and water at various ratios during the symposium. They were typically set in the middle of the drinkers and were sometimes decorated with ivy (E. Ion 1165; Ba. 221–2; Alex. fr. 124; see also Lissarrague 1990. 197 n. 6 for garlands). Apart from ceramic examples, mixing bowls of metal (as here) are mentioned in Men. Dysc. 928 (bronze) and E. Ion 1165 (gold). For a large metal comparandum we might note the massive bronze Vix Krater (Musée du Pays Châtillonnais, ca. 500 BCE). On mixing bowls in general and the various types, i. e. column krater, volute krater, calyx krater and bell krater, see Richter and Milne 1935. 6–8; Amyx 1958. 198–201; Lissarrague 1990. κάδοι ‘Jars’. A kados was a medium-sized vessel made of clay or metal used for various purposes, including the transportation and storage of wine (cf. Archil. IEG fr. 4.6–9; Hdt. 3.20; Antiph. fr. 112; Poll. 6.14), to serve as a large drinking cup at symposia (Anacr. PMG 373; Alex. fr. 9; cf. Cratin. frr. 199.4, 206), as well as to draw water from wells (Pherecr. fr. 81; Ar. Ec. 1002–4; Men. Dysc. 190; fr. 229; Poll. 10.31). For kadoi as a showpiece at the symposia of wealthy hosts (ignored by the hungry guest), cf. Diph. fr. *61.3 οὐδὲ δοκιμάζω τοὺς Κορινθίους κάδους, ‘nor am I wowed by his Corinthian jars’. See further Ath. 11.472e–73b; Amyx 1958. 186–90 with pl. 47b and d; Sparkes 1975. 127–8 with pl. XII.

264

Philippides

μείζους ἐμοῦ For oversized vessels, cf. the large kantharos depicted on the Caputi Hydria (on which, see e. g. Green 1961). Amyx (1958. 189) proposes that the Greeks may have called vessels which were larger than the standard kados, but similar in shape, by the same name. His theory, however, is based mainly on this passage and Ar. Pax 1202 (kadoi worth three drachmas, considered an expensive price and therefore thought to refer to larger vessels). fr. 29 K.-A. (28 K.) αἰσχρὰν γυναῖκ’ ἔγημας, ἀλλὰ πλουσίαν· κάθευδ’ ἀηδῶς, ἡδέως μασώμενος 1 γυναῖκα γήμας Prov.NM μασσώμενος Stob.S, Prov.

: : ἀλλὰ πλουσίαν : : Herwerden

2 μασώμενος Stob.MA :

You married an ugly wife, but wealthy: sleep unpleasantly, while chewing pleasurably Stob. 4.22c.75 (SMA) Φιλιππίδου· — Philippides: —

Metre Iambic trimeters.

l l k l k l k | l k l k l l | l k l

k l k l k l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 476; Kock 1888. 310; Edmonds 1961. 178–9; Bühler 1987. 167; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 349. Citation context From the anthology of Stobaeus (5th c. CE) in a selection of passages grouped under the title ὅτι τοῖς μὲν ἐπωφελῆ τὸν γάμον, τοῖς δὲ ἀσύμφορον ὁ τῶν συναπτομένων ἀπετέλεσε τρόπος, ‘that the character of those joined in union produces marriage beneficial for some, but inconvenient for others’ (4.22c). Text Herwerden (1855. 103) proposed to split line 1 between two speakers: (A.) αἰσχρὰν γυναῖκ’ ἔγημας (B.) ἀλλὰ πλουσίαν, with Speaker A resuming at line 2. On this reading Speaker B would seem to be a husband defending his choice of spouse. Meineke (1857. lxxiii) rejected the division, comparing the monologue at Anaxandr. fr. 53.9–12 where the speaker proposes and objects to potential marriage with an ugly or older spouse (‘non credo haec recte Herwerdenum inter colloquentes personas distribuisse sic, ut verba ἀλλὰ πλουσίαν maritus dixerit; a κάθευδε orditur apodosis, nota dicendi forma, qua e. c. utitur Anaxandrides apud Stobaeum LX, 1, 9–12’).

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 29)

265

Interpretation As discussed above under ‘Text’ there are several possible contexts. On the one hand the fragment may contain (1) a dialogue (so Herwerden) where Speaker B defends his choice of bride despite Speaker A’s criticisms (cf. fr. 6 from Ananeousa or Ananeōsis which may be relevant here). Otherwise we may have (2) a monologue where the speaker comments on his recent marriage, offering himself self-consolation; or (3) he is offering hypothetical reflections on marriage more generally, weighing the pros and cons of marrying a wealthy but unattractive bride. A parallel for interpretation (3) is found at Anaxandr. fr. 53 where the speaker, during a monologue, argues against marriage, offering various scenarios where the bride is wealthy, poor, ugly or old. The aorist form ἔγημας, on this reading, would be ‘resultative’ in a hypothetical context (i. e. ‘So let’s assume you are married to an ugly wife, but rich …’). We find a similar use of the aorist ἔλαβεν at Anaxandr. fr. 53.9 and 11. For husbands who marry ugly but wealthy wives in comedy, see Men. Plok. fr. 296.10–12 where a poor elderly husband complains of marrying a wealthy but ugly wife: οἴμοι Κρωβύλην / λαβεῖν ἔμ’, εἰ καὶ δέκα τάλαντ’ 〈 ἠνέγκατο, / τὴν⟩ ῥῖν’ ἔχουσαν πήχεως, ‘Alas! that I took Krobyle (as wife), even if she brought ten talants, since her nose measures a cubit’ (cf. Gell. 2.23.8); cf. also Choric. Dial. 21.1.4 for the son in comedy forced by his father to marry an ugly but wealthy wife. For comic husbands shrinking from the idea of sex with such wives, see Plaut. Mostell. 690–710 where an elderly dowried wife expects sex from her reluctant husband in return for the good lunch she provided him (692–3) prandium uxor mihi perbonum dedit, nunc dormitum iubet me ire, ‘my wife gave me a very good lunch, now she orders me to go to bed’. Refusal on this occasion means he will have both a bad dinner and a bad ‘sleep’ (701) et cenandum et cubandum est ei male, ‘he’ll have to have a disagreeable dinner and a disagreeable sleep’. See also Men. fr. 296.9–10 σιωπᾶν βούλομαι τὴν νύκτα τὴν / πολλῶν κακῶν ἀρχηγόν, ‘I wish to remain silent about that night, the beginning of many ills’. Cf. also Semonid. fr. 7.76–7 ἆ τάλας ἀνὴρ / ὅστις κακὸν τοιοῦτον ἀγκαλίζεται, ‘wretched the man who holds such an evil (i. e. the ugly wife) in his arms’; and D.L. 6.3 for the saying ἂν μὲν καλήν, ἕξεις κοινήν, ἂν δὲ αἰσχράν, ἕξεις ποινήν, ‘if (you marry) a pretty wife, you’ll have common property, but if you marry an ugly one, you’ll have (her as) a punishment’ (attributed to Antisthenes, but cf. D.L. 4.48; Gell. 5.11.3; and Stob. 4.22a.17). For parasites who sleep with wealthy old women and are fed in return, see Macho frr. 6–7.46–52 Gow (with Ath. 6.246b–c). Husbands marrying wives for a rich dowry is a common theme in comedy and elsewhere, e. g. Men. fr. 802; Men. Mon. 154 Jaekel γάμει δὲ μὴ τὴν προῖκα, τὴν γυναῖκα δέ, ‘marry not the dowry, but the woman’; Mon. 296 Jaekel ἦθος προκρίνειν χρημάτων γαμοῦντα δεῖ, ‘he who marries should prefer character to money’; Plu. Mor. 13f–14a οἵ γε μακρῷ κρείττους ἑαυτῶν λαμβάνοντες οὐ τῶν γυναικῶν ἄνδρες, τῶν δὲ προικῶν δοῦλοι λανθάνουσι γιγνόμενοι, ‘those who take (marriage partners) far superior to themselves are not husbands of wives, but fail to notice they are slaves of dowries’. For wealthy wives as imperious and

266

Philippides

domineering, and who effectively ‘enslave’ their husbands, see comm. below under πλουσίαν. Stylistically the fragment is striking for its antitheses reinforced by the chiastic structure in both lines, with the adjectives αἰσχράν and πλουσίαν bookending line 1, and with a clear ABBA structure in line 2. The asyndeton in line 2 reinforces the chiasmus even further. 1 αἰσχράν Here ‘ugly’, usually in opposition to καλός, although both words can also describe moral characteristics, i. e. ‘shameful/noble’, sometimes with ambiguity whether physical or moral character is implied (Dover 1974. 69–73; cf. Ar. Eq. 1321; Nu. 1020–1). For clear examples where αἰσχρός denotes physical ugliness, see Ar. Ec. 618, 619, 625, 629 (cf. also the comedies titled Αἰσχρά (?) by Anaxandrides and Euphron, with Millis 2015. 58). The adjective is used more specifically of wives at Semonid. fr. 7.73 αἴσχιστα μὲν πρόσωπα, ‘most ugly in appearance’ (describing the wife who resembles the ‘monkey’, suggesting a snub nose: cf. e. g. Ar. Ec. 616, 705 and Theoc. 3.8); Hdt. 1.196.2; D.L. 6.3 (quoted earlier); see also Anaxandr. fr. 53.9–10 ἀλλ’ ἔλαβεν αἰσχράν· οὐ βιωτόν ἐστ’ ἔτι, / οὐδ’ εἴσοδος τὸ παράπαν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, ‘So he took an ugly wife: life’s no longer worth living, nor is there entry whatsoever into his house’ (i. e. he refuses visitors out of shame, see Millis 2015. 271). πλουσίαν ‘Wealthy, rich’, i. e. the wife brings with her a considerable dowry. Wealthy wives are usually characterised in fourth-century comedy as domineering and ‘enslaving’ their husbands. See e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 53.4–6 ἢ γὰρ πένης ὢν τὴν γυναῖκα χρήματα / λαβὼν ἔχει δέσποιναν, οὐ γυναῖκ’ ἔτι, / ἧς ἐστι δοῦλος, ‘for if he is poor, by taking money he has his wife as his mistress, no longer a wife, of whom he is a slave’; Alex. fr. 150.1–3 ὦ δυστυχεῖς ἡμεῖς 〈 …⟩  πεπρακότες / τὴν τοῦ βίου παρρησίαν καὶ τὴν τρυφὴν / γυναιξὶ δοῦλοι ζῶμεν ἀντ’ ἐλευθέρων, ‘Wretched us! having sold off our life’s free speech and luxury we live as slaves to women instead of free men’; Men fr. 296.6–7 ᾖ τ’ εὔγνωστος οὖσ’ ἐμὴ γυνὴ / δέσποινα, ‘(so that) my wife, who is well-known, may be my mistress’; and Men. fr. 802 ὅταν πένης ὢν καὶ γαμεῖν τις ἑλόμενος / τὰ μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐπιδέχηται χρήματα, / αὑτὸν δίδωσιν, οὐκ ἐκείνην λαμβάνει, ‘whenever someone who is poor and chooses to marry receives money with his wife, he gives himself (to her), he does not take her (as wife)’. See also Plaut. Men. 766–7 (cf. 795–6); Mil. 683 and 701–2. Cf. E. fr. 502.3–4 τὰ τῆς γυναικὸς γὰρ κρατοῦντ’ ἐν δώμασιν / δουλοῖ τὸν ἄνδρα, κοὐκέτ’ ἔστ’ ἐλεύθερος, ‘his wife’s possessions, which hold sway in the house, enslave the husband, and he is no longer free’; also E. fr. 775; Pl. Lg. 774c; Arist. EN 1161a1 ἐνίοτε δὲ ἄρχουσιν αἱ γυναῖκες ἐπίκληροι οὖσαι· οὐ δὴ γίνονται κατ’ ἀρετὴν αἱ ἀρχαί, ἀλλὰ διὰ πλοῦτον καὶ δύναμιν, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις, ‘sometimes wives who come into an inheritance are leaders: they are certainly not leaders according to virtue, but because of wealth and power, just as in oligarchies’. 2 κάθευδ’ Lit. ‘sleep’, but here evidently a euphemism for sex, as often elsewhere, so e. g. Ar. Ach. 1147, 1220; Th. 1193; Ec. 700, 894, 938, 1039, 1051;

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 30)

267

perhaps Men. Mis. 9; Plaut. Mostell. 693, 701, 704–5 (cf. Cratin. fr. 311; Ar. Ec. 1009; Henderson 1991. 161). ἀηδῶς, ἡδέως For both adverbs in antitheses elsewhere, see e. g. Pl. Prt. 351c; Arist. EN 1124b15; Men. fr. 843.2; D.L. 2.90. μασώμενος A colloquial word mostly restricted to comedy (elsewhere see e. g. Hp. Epid. 5.386.9–10; Thphr. Char. 20.5). It principally means ‘chew, masticate’, so Ar. Eq. 717 (a nurse chewing up food for a baby: see Taillardat 1965 §139); Th. 494 (chewing garlic), and is often associated with eating snacks (e. g. Eup. fr. 271.1: chewing almonds; Euphro fr. 10.13: chewing turnip disguised as small fry; Ephipp. fr. 8.5: after-dinner snacks; Apolloph. fr. 5.3: myrtle berries). But when more substantial meals are in question (see e. g. Ar. Pax 1310; Sotad. fr. 3.2) the verb seems to imply eating at leisure and savouring the meal, especially in contrast to verbs like καταπίνω which are used of gulping down one’s food hastily, often due to competition at the table (see note on Philippid. fr. 5.5). In Epicurean contexts ‘chewing’ is described as the height of the pleasant life, e. g. Hegesipp.Com. fr. 2.5–6 τοῦ γὰρ μασᾶσθαι κρεῖττον οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ ἓν / ἀγαθόν· πρόσεστιν ἡδονῇ γὰρ τἀγαθόν, ‘there is not a single good thing better than chewing, for the Good lies in pleasure’; Damox. fr. 2.62–4 Ἐπίκουρος οὕτω κατεπύκνου τὴν ἡδονήν· / ἐμασᾶτ’ ἐπιμελῶς. εἶδε τἀγαθὸν μόνος / ἐκεῖνος οἷόν ἐστιν, ‘Epicurus condensed pleasure in this way: he chewed carefully. He alone knew what the Good is’. The idea of enjoying a substantial meal at one’s own leisure and without the threat of deprivation due to competition with other diners (i. e. living the life of a poor parasite) would therefore seem prominent here in the choice of verb. fr. 30 K.-A. (29 K.) ὁ τραχύτατος δὲ συκοφάντης μνᾶς δύο λαβὼν ἄπεισιν ἀρνίου μαλακώτερος But the prickliest informer upon receiving two minas will go away softer than a little lamb Stob. 3.2.8 Φιλιππίδου· — Philippides: —

Metre Iambic trimeters.

k l r l k | l k l l l k l k l k l k | l k l r l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 476; Kock 1888. 310; Lofberg 1920. 63; Kalbfleisch 1925. 33; Edmonds 1961. 178–9; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 349.

268

Philippides

Citation context From the 5th c. CE anthology compiled by Ioannes Stobaeus, in a collection of passages that illustrate the theme περὶ κακίας (‘on baseness’), many of which explore the characteristics of the πονηρός and κακὸς ἀνήρ (malicious and base man). Interpretation The fragment mentions the sycophant or ‘informer’ figure, known in particular for extorting money from others by threatening to inform against them or bring a false lawsuit (on the use of blackmail by sycophants, see e. g. Telecl. fr. 44; Isoc. 15.174–5; Lofberg 1917. 32–48; Christ 1998. 75–6). Sycophants occasionally appear on the Old Comedy stage at Ar. Av. 1410–69; Pl. 850–950; Eup. fr. 99.78–120 (with Storey 2003. 364); and in slightly altered form in Roman Comedy at Plaut. Trin. 843–997 and Pseud. 893–1051 (see further in comm. below). Nonetheless, a sycophant figure did not necessarily appear in the comedy from which these lines derive. Instead, the speaker of our fragment may simply have invoked the sycophant figure as a proverbial exemplum in relation to some other matter to press the point that anyone can be ‘bought’ or won over for the right price; or else it may emphasise the value of two minas (here seemingly emphasised by the word position and enjambement between μνᾶς δύο and λαβών) and how it is an acceptable price for even for the worst (i. e. prickliest) of sycophants. Our passage appears to be the first instance where a form of the popular proverb ‘gentler than a sheep’ occurs in literature (see comm. below). Here and elsewhere it is mostly uttered to denote the transformation of a disagreeable character into something more pleasant. In Philippides these opposing psychological characteristics are described through physical metaphor (i. e. ‘sharp’ τραχύτατος vs ‘soft’ μαλακώτερος), with the antithesis reinforced by the chiastic structure and the position of both ideas at opposite ends of the sentence. 1 τραχύτατος ‘Prickliest’. Here the superlative form of the adjective suggests a sharp and prickly exterior such as spines (cf. Ar. Pax 1086 and 1114 where it is used of a hedgehog: οὐδέποτ’ ἂν θείης λεῖον τὸν τρηχὺν ἐχῖνον, ‘you could never make the prickly hedgehog smooth’) or thorns (cf. Plu. Mor. 32e, 138d) in direct contrast to the soft exterior of the lamb (μαλακώτερος). συκοφάντης Lit. ‘fig-revealer’, a term of obscure and disputed origin (see Ister FGrH 334 F 12; Arnott 1996. 442 for a survey; Beekes 2009. 1421). In the fifth and fourth centuries it regularly denotes an ‘informer’, especially one who brings false lawsuits (Suda σ 1330 συκοφαντεῖν· τὸ ψευδῶς τινος κατηγορεῖν, ‘sykophantein: to prosecute someone falsely’; Hsch. σ 2238 συκοφάντης· ψευδοκατήγορος. κακοπράγμων, ‘sykophantēs: a false accuser, mischief-maker’). Such lawsuits were made possible in Athens by a law attributed to Solon which allowed any citizen to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of an injured party (Arist. Ath. 9.1 τὸ ἐξεῖναι τῷ βουλομένῳ τιμωρ[εῖ]ν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδικουμένων, ‘that it be possible for anyone who pleases to seek retribution on behalf of those wronged’). The prosecutor, if successful, then received a share of any penalty recovered by the state. Sycophants

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 30)

269

were encouraged by this law by initiating lawsuits in the hope of securing a conviction. Abuse of the law prompted regulations that any prosecutor who failed to gain one-fifth of the vote or abandoned a suit was subject to a 1000 drachma fine (MacDowell 1978. 64). More to the point here, the sycophant could also threaten wealthy citizens with a flimsy lawsuit, exploiting popular prejudice and the wealthy citizen’s own insecurities, and then demand payment from him to halt the action (i. e. extortion or even blackmail if there was a grain of truth to the charge). On sycophancy more generally, see Lofberg 1917; Harrison 1971. 60–2; Fisher 1976. 36–7; MacDowell 1978. 62–6; Osborne 1990; Harvey 1990; Christ 1998. 48–71. Athens and democratic governments in general created circumstances more conducive to nurturing sycophants (cf. Plu. Tim. 37.1 πάσῃ δημοκρατίᾳ συκοφάντην, ‘in every democracy a sycophant’; Isoc. 8.133). Partly responsible for this were the readily abused treason laws which were designed to protect Athens’ democracy, as well as the potential to exploit popular prejudice based on the stereotypical association between the wealthy classes and oligarchy.146 For democracy and sycophancy, see e. g. Lys. 25.27 where the problems caused by sycophants are mentioned as the principal reason for the establishment of oligarchy in 404 BCE (cf. Thphr. Char. 26.4 where the Oligarchic Man complains he cannot live in the city because of sycophants); X. HG 2.3.12; Arist. Ath. 35.3 where known sycophants are among the first to face reprisals when oligarchy was established in 404 BCE; D.S. 15.40.1 where citizens in various cities in the Peloponnese ca. 375/4 BCE start bringing false accusations (κρίσεις … συκοφαντώδεις κατεδίκαζον) immediately after becoming democracies; Plu. Phoc. 32 (cf. D.S. 18.65) where the return of demagogues and sycophants is expected in the wake of Polyperchon’s declaration of democracy in Athens in 319 BCE; and cf. esp. D.L. 5.79 where a glut of false accusations and impeachments (eisangeliai), quite possibly including the comic poets Menander and Philippides (see on Philippid. fr. 25), are made after the restoration of democracy in Athens in 307 BCE. In New Comedy the word ‘sycophant’ is often used as a term of abuse for a ‘liar’ or ‘swindler’ more generally (see e. g. Men. Epit. 218; Sam. 578; Pk. 378; Theophor. fr. 1.17 Arnott; Georg. fr. 1 Arnott); or else it refers to a stock comic type, namely a trickster or impostor hired to take part in an intrigue (so Plaut. Trin. 843–997; cf. Simia in Plaut. Pseud. 893–1051, an expert in lies and deceit). For other examples, as here, where the traditional identification as ‘informer’, ‘blackmailer’ can still be felt, see Diph. fr. 31.16 συκοφαντεῖν κατ’ ἀγορὰν, ‘to bring a false accusation in the marketplace’; and Ter. An. 815–16 (based on Menander) where Crito is worried that attempts to claim his cousin’s inheritance through the law courts will expose him to accusations of sycophancy. On the comic stage, sycophants were usually depicted as poor and shabby, see Ar. Av. 1416–17; Ter. An. 815–16 sycophantam …

146

For an example of a wealthy citizen who prefers not to be wealthy because it attracts opportunistic sykophantai, see X. Smp. 4.30.

270

Philippides

mendicum, ‘a beggarly sycophant’; and cf. com adesp. fr. 1051.6–10 with supplemented text. μνᾶς δύο i. e. 200 drachmas. This appears to have been a typical price, with sycophants usually accepting one or two minas to withdraw a threatened suit, although sometimes they might receive many more (see Harvey 1990. 115 with n. 41). Two minas was not an inconsiderable amount when we consider that in the late fourth century BCE the daily wage for workmen varied between one drachma to two and a half drachmas depending on skill and expertise (see Glotz 1913. 207, 209–10 who suggests a family of three could live securely on one drachma a day; also Schaps 2004. 157–9). For the view that sycophants could be bought cheaply (but from the perspective of a wealthy Athenian), see Pl. Cri. 45a οὐχ ὁρᾷς τούτους τοὺς συκοφάντας ὡς εὐτελεῖς, καὶ οὐδὲν ἂν δέοι ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς πολλοῦ ἀργυρίου; ‘do you not see how cheap these sycophants are, and how it would not require much money at all for their purposes?’ 2 λαβών Translated here as ‘receiving’, however the active sense ‘taking’ is very prominent in that the sycophant effectively extracts payment by blackmail. For ‘taking’ as characteristic of sycophants, see [D.] 12.19 συκοφαντοῦντας ἀεί τι λαμβάνειν παρ’ αὐτῶν, ‘bringing false suits they (sc. orators) always take something from them (sc. generals)’; Plu. Nic. 4 οὐκ ὀλίγοι … ἦσαν αἰτοῦντες καὶ λαμβάνοντες, ‘there were not a few making requests (for money) and those taking it’ (the latter referring to sycophants who had blackmailed Nicias). Xenophon appears to play on the idea of the sycophant who ‘takes’ at X. Mem. 2.9.4 where Archedemos, turning convention on its head, claims that ‘it is very easy to take from sycophants’ (ἔφη ῥᾷστον εἶναι ἀπὸ τῶν συκοφαντῶν λαμβάνειν). For the verb used elsewhere of greedy philargyroi, see on Philippid. fr. 12.2. ἀρνίου μαλακώτερος ‘Softer than a little lamb’. The diminutive form ἀρνίον (from ἀρήν ‘lamb’) intensifies the antithesis with the superlative τραχύτατος, i. e. ‘softer than the softest wool’. The comparison of the appeased sycophant with a lamb may also gain additional point from the proverbial characterisation of sycophants elsewhere as wolves, typical predators of lambs, and so here depicted as the very antithesis of the sycophant through such imagery (cf. Men. Mon. 603 Jaekel ὁ συκοφάντης ἐστὶν ἐν πόλει λύκος, ‘the sycophant is a wolf in the city’). For the proverbial expression ‘gentle as a sheep’ used by the Romans to describe a person’s character, see Ter. Ad. 534 tam placidum quam ovem, ‘as placid as a sheep’; Sulp.Sev. Dial. 2.9.4 ove placidior, ‘more placid than a sheep’; Apul. Met. 7.23 (of a castrated ass) quovis vervece mitiorem efficere, ‘to make milder than any wether’ (Otto 1890. 261; Tosi 1991 §148).

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 31)

271

fr. 31 K.-A. (30 K.) 〈 a l k l a l k⟩ καὶ δειπνῶν ἀεὶ ἀνακείμενος παρ’ αὐτόν 〈 l a l k l⟩ 〈 a l k⟩ πότερον ἀνδριάντας εἱστία; 2 αὐτόν Ath.CE : fortasse αὑτόν 3 ἀνδριάντας Meineke : ἀνδριάντα Ath.CE : ἀνδριάντά σ’ Desrousseaux : fortasse ἀνδριάντά γ’

… and dining always reclining beside him … … whether he was entertaining statues? Ath. 1.23b–c (CE) ἀνακεῖσθαι δέ φαμεν ἐπὶ ἀνδριάντος· ὅθεν τοὺς ἐπὶ κατακειμένων χρωμένους τῇ λέξει διέσυρον. Δίφιλος (fr. 124)· … Φιλιππίδης (lines 1–2)· —. καὶ ἐπάγει (line 3)· — We say anakeisthai in relation to a statue. Hence they used to mock those who use the expression for people lying down. Diphilus (fr. 124): … Philippides (lines 1–2): —. And he continues (line 3): —

Metre Unknown. Probably iambic trimeters as set out below.

⟨ a l k l a l k⟩ | l l l k l r l k l k | l k | ⟨ l a l k l⟩ ⟨ a l k⟩ r k | l k l k l k l

Discussion Meineke 1839. 475; Meineke 1841. 477; Kock 1888. 310; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 350. Citation context From the Epitome of Athenaeus 1.23b–c (mss. CE). Athenaeus originally wrote his work in the late 2nd c. CE, while the Epitome, which regularly omits the names of dramas, was made around the 10th to 11th centuries CE (see Arnott 2000. 47). Our fragment appears in a slightly jumbled passage of Athenaeus (due to epitomisation) where the interlocutors are ostensibly discussing verbs (including ἀναπίπτω and κατάκειμαι) which mean ‘lie down’ or ‘recline’. Text In Athenaeus, the verb ἐπάγει (‘he continues’, Ath. 1.23c) is used several times by the epitomator after skipping over a section of text. So we find, e. g., at Ath. 1.4f (= Antiph. fr. 227) and Ath. 1.11c (= Antiph. fr. 271); and see especially Ath. 2.49b (= X. An. 7.3.21–22) where the epitomator cuts out several words of Xenophon’s text before resuming his quotation with the same formulaic verb. We might compare the expressions μετὰ μικρόν ‘after a little’ and μετ’ ὀλίγα ‘after a few [lines]’ at Ath. 1.5c which are more explicit. The hiatus between lines 2 and 3 in our fragment is therefore indeterminable. But presumably it was not much longer (if at all) than the text printed above since the pun on ἀνακείμενος must have been in close proximity.

272

Philippides

At line 2 one might propose the reflexive pronoun αὑτόν rather than αὐτόν, especially if the first two lines are part of a subordinate indicative clause reporting the words of the dinner host, i. e. ‘and he (the host) said that (ὅτι or ὡς) the guest happened to dine always reclining beside him (i. e. the host)’. For the place beside the host as a position of honour, see ‘Interpretation’ below. Corruption of αὑτόν into αὐτόν is common enough in our manuscripts. To note some examples in our dramatic texts, see e. g. S. Tr. 451; E. Ph. 763, 1418; Or. 698; Ar. Ra. 536, 1042, 1195; also Philippid. fr. 6.4 this volume. At line 3 editors correct the hiatus ἀνδριάντα εἱστία in CE either by making the noun plural (ἀνδριάντας, so Meineke 1841. 477), or by inserting the secondperson singular pronoun (ἀνδριάντά σ’, Desrousseaux 1942). Of these solutions, Meineke’s plural is the most attractive. It is only weakened by the fact that a single guest is described as ‘laying back’, and so one might expect the singular form ‘statue’ to reflect this. But the plural receives some support from the almost identical joke at Ar. fr. 966 (quoted below under ‘Interpretation’) where an individual is told by his host to recline and responds by asking the host if he was entertaining ‘statues’ (plural). Desrousseaux’s alternative ἀνδριάντά σ’ εἱστία with the resulting apposition produces clumsy sense: ‘was he was entertaining you, a statue?’ An alternative solution, if we wish to preserve the singular form, would be to add the particle γε which is sometimes accidentally omitted by copyists, i. e. ἀνδριάντά γ’ εἱστία. For the omission of γε elsewhere as shown by conflicting manuscript readings or where it is supplied to restore metre, cf. e. g. Ar. Ach. 176, 1185; V. 680, 1029; Lys. 945; Ec. 54; Pl. 1010. Edmonds (1961. 180–1) treated these lines as direct dialogue between two speakers. However, the third-person imperfect εἱστία suggests reported speech (indirect alternative question introduced by πότερον, i. e. ‘he asked him whether he …’). If we have an indirect question in line 3, the question mark at the end of the line becomes unnecessary. Interpretation A reported conversation (note the third-person verb εἱστία) between two people at a dinner party, apparently between the dinner host and one of his guests. The host, it seems, had used the word ἀνάκειμαι in the sense ‘recline/ lay back’ (i. e. on a couch) to describe a guest, to which someone wittily asks – with word-play on the alternative meaning ‘set up / dedicate’ (a statue) – whether he was entertaining statues. Similar word-play can be found in Diphilus (fr. 124), reported in the same passage of Athenaeus as the Philippides fragment (Ath. 1.23c) Δίφιλος· ‘ἐγὼ δ’ ἕως μέν τινος ἀνεκείμην’. πρὸς ὃν δυσχεραίνων ὁ ἑταῖρός φησιν· ‘ἀνάκεισο’, ‘Diphilus: “for some time I was reclining”, to whom his annoyed companion says: “be dedicated!”’ (i. e. ‘be a statue’ – apparently a request to his dinner companion to keep quiet by acting like a statue). We also find a strikingly similar joke to our Philippides passage in a fragment of Aristophanes (fr. 966; see Bagordo 2018. 184–5), although there he uses the verb ἀναπίπτω. That verb also means ‘fall back, recline’ (see E. Cyc. 410; Alex. fr. 295) as well as the (other-

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 31)

273

wise unattested) meaning ‘dedicate, set up’ a statue or offering: (A.) ἀνάπιπτ’. (B.) ἀνδριάντας ἑστιᾷς; ‘(A.) Lie back! (B.) Are you entertaining statues?’ 147 Unlike the Aristophanes passage which comes from a scene of direct dialogue between two characters, our Philippides fragment (as noted above) evidently involves a reported conversation between two people by a third party. For a similar passage where a third party reports a joke uttered at a symposium – although there the report integrates direct speech – we might compare Philippid. fr. 5. We might read further into the fragment and suggest that the host speaks of his guest as a parasite figure, a standard character in New Comedy. The guest’s witty response may further support this identification, since parasites in comedy often rely on wit and humour to justify their place at the table (cf. Epich. fr. 32.3–4; Eup. fr. 172.13–13; Alex. fr. 188; Philippos the γελωτοποιός at X. Smp. 1.11; the parasite ‘Gelasimus’ in Plaut. Stich.; Poll. 6.122; Ribbeck 1883. 15–16, 36; Damon 1997. 29 with n. 22). The host’s complaint that his guest is always dining and reclining beside a certain person – here reading αὐτόν (‘him’) – could refer to a gatecrasher who gains entry to dinner parties in company with an invited guest (see comm. on Philippid. fr. 8) and sits beside him. Alternatively, if the transmitted text involves a corruption of the reflexive αὑτόν, the host would be referring to himself, in this case complaining of a hanger-on presumptuous enough to take the position of honour beside the host himself (cf. the parasite Chaerephon at Matro fr. 1.8–10 who always shadows the dinner host Xenokles). For the seat beside the host as a place of honour reserved for legitimate guests, see e. g. Hom. Od. 7.167–71; Pl. Smp. 213c where Alcibiades expresses mock surprise at finding Socrates sitting beside the host Agathon rather than beside a ‘joker/ridiculous figure’ (γελοῖος – a word with parasitic connotations – see above) like Aristophanes;148 Thphr. Char. 21.2 where the man of petty ambition is eager to sit beside the host; also Plu. Mor. 619d where the place of honour for invited guests (in a Roman context) is to the immediate right of the host (cf. Call. Ap. 29 with Williams 1978 ad loc.). By contrast, see Lync. fr. 27 Dalby (ap. Ath. 6.245a) where the parasite Chaerephon sits, as expected, on the last couch (κατακλιθεὶς ἔσχατος).149 See further Mau 1900. 1205–6.

147

148

149

The joke apparently hinges on ἀναπίπτω used as a quasi-passive form of ἀναβάλλω, which in turn has the weak sense ‘put, place’ (LSJ s. v. βάλλω A.II.6), i. e. ἀναβάλλω = ἀνατίθημι ‘set up, dedicate (a statue)’. Apart from the suggestion that the ridiculously ugly Socrates should not sit beside the handsome Agathon (so Dover 1980 ad loc.), Alcibiades’ jest presupposes that the place beside the host was one of honour and should not be assumed by one who resembled a lowly parasite figure, as did Aristophanes insofar as he was a joker and wit. For the ‘last couch’ used to dishonour a guest, see Stob. 3.13.56 where Dionysius tries to slight Plato by placing him there: ἀτιμάζων αὐτὸν … κατέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ χώρᾳ, ‘dishonouring him … he had him recline in the last place’.

274

Philippides

1 δειπνῶν ἀεί The adverb ἀεί might also be felt with ἀνακείμενος. In any case, here it may suggest a gourmand or parasite who habitually attends dinners. Cf. Philippid. fr. 8 (παρεισιὼν ἀεί, ‘always coming in alongside’) where the adverb ἀεί is explicitly applied to a parasite who ‘always’ rides the coat-tails of invited guests into banquets (see on fr. 8). 2 ἀνακείμενος In the middle voice, as intended here by the first speaker, the verb can mean ‘reclining’ (lit. ‘laying back’) on a couch. See also S. fr. 756 (a satyr speaking of Herakles) ἀνακειμένῳ / μέσον εἰς τὸν αὐχέν’ εἰσαλοίμην, ‘May I / I might jump on the middle of his neck while he’s laying back’; Arist. fr. 607 Rose = 472 Gigon (ap. Ath. 1.23d) οἱ δὲ Τυρρηνοὶ δειπνοῦσι μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν ἀνακείμενοι, ‘the Tyrrhenians dine while reclining with their wives’; Diph. fr. 124 (see above); Plb. 13.6.8 τοὺς δ’ ἀνακειμένους ἐν ταῖς ἰδίαις οἰκίαις διέφθειρον, ‘they killed others as they were reclining in their own houses’. More commonly, however, as the interlocutor’s response reveals, the verb ἀνάκειμαι is used as a quasi-passive of the verb ἀνατίθημι in the sense ‘set up’ or ‘dedicate’ a votive offering or statue (cf. Philippid. fr. 9.8, where the verb is used of dedicating a phiale). When used of statues the object dedicated itself becomes the subject of the verb, e. g. D. 19.251 τὸν Σόλων’ ἀνακεῖσθαι τῆς … σωφροσύνης παράδειγμα, ‘(a statue of) Solon was set up as an example of moderation’; Aeschin. 1.25 ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ τῇ Σαλαμινίων ἀνάκειται ὁ Σόλων, ‘in the marketplace of the Salaminians (a statue of) Solon is set up’; Lycurg. 51 εὑρήσετε … ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς ἀθλητὰς ἀνακειμένους … στρατηγοὺς ἀγαθοὺς καὶ τοὺς τὸν τύραννον ἀποκτείναντας, ‘you will find … in marketplaces (statues of) athletes set up … good generals and those who killed the tyrant’; Theoc. 10.33 χρύσεοι ἀμφότεροί κ’ ἀνεκείμεθα τᾷ Ἀφροδίτᾳ, ‘we are both set up as gold (statues) to Aphrodite’. Comic jokes suggest that some eccentricity was felt in the meaning ‘recline’, especially when it already had the older and well-established meaning in a dedicatory context of ‘setting up’, and when there was otherwise an alternative compound verb κατάκειμαι that meant ‘recline’ (see e. g. Philonid. fr. 8; Theopomp.Com. fr. 65.2; Alex. fr. 279.1). The prefix ἀνα- might also have seemed counter-intuitive (i. e. ‘lie up’) as opposed to the more natural expression κατα- (‘lie down’), even though in this context the prefix ἀνα- evidently means ‘back’ (i. e. ‘lie back’, LSJ s. v. ἀνά F.4). Comic criticism of the verb likely encouraged Atticist writers to reject this usage, cf. Phryn. Ecl. 187 (s. v. ἀνάκειται) ἀνάκειται μὲν γὰρ ἀνδριὰς καὶ ἀναθήματα καλῶς ἐρεῖς, ἀνάκειται δ’ ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης οὐκέτι, ἀλλὰ κεῖται, ‘for you will be right to say “a statue and dedications are set up (anakeitai)”, but no longer “he lies back (anakeitai) on a couch”, but rather “he is laying” (keitai)’; [Hdn.] Philet. 34 κατακεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἑστιωμένων, ἀνακεῖσθαι δὲ ἐπὶ εἰκόνων καὶ ἀνδριάντων, ‘katakeisthai is used of those being feasted, anakeisthai is used of portraits and statues’ (cf. Ath. 1.23b). παρ’ αὐτόν For παρά + acc. with a verb of reclining see Pl. Smp. 175c παρ’ ἐμὲ κατάκεισο, ‘recline beside me’; Alex. fr. 295 ἀναπεσεῖν / … παρ’ ἐμέ, ‘to fall back beside me’; Thphr. Char. 21.2 παρ’ αὐτὸν … κατακείμενος, ‘reclining beside

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 32)

275

him’; Luc. DMeretr. 3.2 παρ’ αὐτὸν κατεκλίθην, ‘I reclined beside him’. For the alternative text αὑτόν and the possibility it refers to a seat of honour beside the dinner host, see under ‘Interpretation’ above. 3 εἱστία Imperfect of ἑστιᾶν, the regular verb used of the dinner host who ‘entertains’ or ‘dines’ his guests, e. g. Epich. fr. 32.4; Ar. Nu. 1360; Pl. Smp. 174c2; X. Smp. 1.4; Alex. fr. 259.7; Men. fr. 208.5; Demetr.Com.Nov. fr. 1.8. Here the subject of the verb is almost certainly a dinner host. In rare cases, however, it might be used of those who work for the host, such as Admetus’ servant at E. Alc. 765 (cf. παρέθηκε with note at Philippid. fr. 4).

fr. 32 K.-A. (32 K.) ὁ κοινὸς ἰατρός σε θεραπεύσει χρόνος The universal physician will heal you — Time Stob. 4.56.21 (SMA) Φιλιππίδου (φιλιπδ Stob.S φιλίππου Stob.M φιλιππίδους Stob.A)· — Philippides: —

Metre Iambic trimeter.

k l k l

l l k | r

l l k l

Discussion Meineke 1839. 342–3; Meineke 1841. 477; Kock 1888. 310; Kassel 1958. 91; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 350; Cohen 2014. 13–14. Citation context From the anthology of Stobaeus (5th c. CE) in a section of passages (4.56) grouped thematically under the heading παρηγορικά (‘consolations’). Interpretation The speaker offers consolation to someone, presumably for psychological suffering of some kind, by assuring it will be healed in time (cf. the hackneyed English phrase ‘time heals all wounds’). For the technique of consoling someone via aphoristic homespun wisdom, see also Philippid. fr. 18.3–4. On moralising and the use of maxims in New Comedy more generally, see e. g. Duckworth 1994. 300–4; Hunter 1985. 139–47; and Nervegna 2013. 203–11. The idea of Time as a positive healing force (although not yet explicitly personified as a ‘physician’) occurs in extant literature as early as S. El. 179 Χρόνος γὰρ εὐμαρὴς θεός, ‘for Time is a god that brings ease’ (chorus consoling Electra). But only with New Comedy does the conceit of Time as ‘physician’ first appear, quite possibly in Philippides. We do, however, find similar ideas in Philippides’ contemporaries, Menander and Diphilus, although not so elegantly expressed as here. Cf. Men. fr. 876 πάντων ἰατρὸς τῶν ἀναγκαίων κακῶν / χρόνος ἐστίν· οὗτος καὶ σὲ νῦν

276

Philippides

ἰάσεται, ‘Time is a physician of all necessary ills. This will now heal you too’; Diph. fr. 116 λύπης δὲ πάσης γίνετ’ ἰατρὸς χρόνος, ‘Time is a physician of every grief ’. Cf. also Philet. Dem. fr. 13 Spanoudakis (= fr. 1 Bergk) ἀλλ’ ὅτ’ ἐπὶ χρόνος ἔλθῃ, ὃς ἐκ Διὸς ἄλγεα πέσσειν / ἔλλαχε, καὶ πενθέων φάρμακα μοῦνος ἔχει, ‘but when Time advances, who is appointed to ripen woes from Zeus, and who alone holds the medicine for sorrows’; D.S. 34/35.17.1 μέχρις ὅτου τῆς λύπης ὁ κάλλιστος ἰατρὸς χρόνος ἐξέλυσε τὴν ἀκμὴν τοῦ πένθους, ‘until the finest physician of grief, Time, sets free the height of sorrow’. Many later authors also depict Time as a benevolent power who soothes grief, without explicitly characterising him as a ‘physician’, in contrast to earlier literary depictions which emphasise the destructive and all-conquering nature of Time (see note on χρόνος below), e. g. Ov. Tr. 4.6.16 hoc minuit luctus maestaque corda levat, ‘this (i. e. Time) diminishes sorrows and lightens sad hearts’; Apollon.Phil. Ep. 58.38–9 εἰ χρόνος καὶ τοὺς κακοὺς λύπης ἔπαυσε, ‘if Time stops even the ills of grief ’. ἰατρός For Chronos explicitly depicted elsewhere as a ‘healer’ or ‘physician’, see Men. fr. 876; Diph. fr. 116; D.S. 34/35.17.1; and cf. Philet. Dem. fr. 13 Spanoudakis (all quoted above). For the apparent novelty of this characterisation of Time in the late fourth century, see note on χρόνος below. θεραπεύσει As a medical term see LSJ s. v. II.7 ‘treat medically’, and so by extension ‘heal, cure’, cf. Men. fr. 865.3 λύπην γὰρ εὔνους οἶδε θεραπεύειν λόγος, ‘benevolent speech knows how to cure grief ’. χρόνος The personification of ‘Chronos’ occurs as early as the sixth-century BCE writer Pherecydes of Syros (7 A 8 D.-K.); in lyric and tragic authors such as Simon. PMG 531.5; Simon. IEG frr. 20.15 and 88; Pi. O. 2.17; fr. 33; B. 7.1; 9.80; 13.168; S. Aj. 714; OC 609; and in the Orphic Hymns (e. g. 8.13; see Guthrie 1952. 85–91; West 1983. 104, 189–94). See also Waser 1903; LIMC 3.1, pp. 276–8. Time is often characterised like Zeus in having power over all things, as expressed through such epithets as πανδαμάτωρ ‘all-subduing’ (Simon. PMG 531.5; Simon. IEG fr. 20.15; B. 13.168; App.Anth. 163.7) and παγκρατής, ‘all-mighty’ (S. OC 609), through titles such as Χρόνος ὁ πάντων πατήρ, ‘father of all’ (Pi. O. 2.17), and as ὁ πάνθ’ ὁρῶν / καὶ πάντ’ ἀκούων, ‘the one who sees all and hears all’ (S. fr. 301). (See also Cohen 2014. 13–14 on these characteristics.) Time is is also regularly characterised as a destructive and maleficent force, e. g. wearing away all things with his sharp teeth (Simon. IEG fr. 88), bringing death and old age (S. OC 609), robbing people of their senses (S. OC 930), withering all things (S. Aj. 714), and a ‘grey-haired craftsman’ who changes everything ‘for the worse’ (Diph. fr. 84). Only in later sources, as here, does Time regularly begin to assume a more benevolent aspect (see further under ‘Interpretation’ above).

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 33)

277

fr. 33 K.-A. (33 K.) ἁλύσιον εἶχε τετταράκοντ’ ἄγον δραχμάς FSBL

εἶχε Poll. : δὲ εἶχε Poll.C, om. Poll.A ἄγον δραχμάς cod. Brux. 60 : δραχμὰς ἄγον ABC Poll. : δραχμὰς δὲ ἄγων Poll.L : δραχμὰς ἔχων Poll.FS

(S)he used to have (or ‘wear’) a little chain weighing forty drachmas Poll. 10.167 (FS, ABCL) ἡ δὲ ἅλυσις οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῦ δεσμοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ γυναικείου κόσμου ὠνόμασται παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει (fr. 332.12) … Φιλιππίδης δὲ ἔφη· — halysis (‘chain’) is a name not only for bindings but also for feminine adornments in Aristophanes (fr. 332.12): … And Philippides said: —

Metre Iambic trimeter.

k r k l

k | l r l

k l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 477; Kock 1888. 310–11; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 350. Citation context From the Onomasticon of Pollux (late 2nd c. CE) who quotes the fragment (at 10.167) to illustrate the word ἁλύσιον ‘necklace’. The broader context of the passage is a wide-ranging discussion on names for various accessories (τὰ σκεύη) and is mentioned here immediately after words for collar (κλῳὸς καὶ κλοιός) and alternative expressions for chain (ἅλυσις, μονάλυσις). Text Instead of ἄγον (ABC) alternative readings include ἄγων (L) and ἔχων (FS). The latter two are nonsensical, while ἄγον is both the lectio difficilior and the standard term used for assessing the worth of jewelry and plate by weight (see on fr. 9.4). The word order ἄγον δραχμάς is testified only at cod. Brux. 60 (so Kühn). All other manuscripts have δραχμάς first. But ἄγον δραχμάς is necessary metri gratia. Assignment to known plays Meineke (1839. 473) assigned the fragment to Argyriou aphanismos (see also on fr. 28). Interpretation The most obvious context in which a necklace is mentioned in a New Comedy is as a recognition token. Rings and necklaces were standard recognition tokens in New Comedy according to Satyrus’ Life of Euripides (POxy. 1176, fr. 39 col. vii = E. TrGF test. 137) ἀναγνωρισμοὺς διά τε δακτυλίων καὶ διὰ δεραίων, ταῦτα γάρ ἐστι δήπου τὰ συνέχοντα τὴν νεωτέραν κωμωιδίαν, ‘recognitions through rings and necklaces, for these are surely the chief matters in the newer comedy’. We find necklaces as tokens left with exposed children at Men. Epit. 246 and 303 τὰ δέραια καὶ γνωρίσματα, ‘necklaces and recognition tokens’; Pk. 815 δέραια; and com. adesp. fr. 1084.27 περιδέραια. Cf. also Arist. Po. 1454b24–5 and

278

Philippides

E. Ion 1431. Chariclides wrote a comedy titled Ἅλυσις (Chain, see note on ἁλύσιον below), while Menander’s Πλόκιον (Necklace) involved the rape of a poor girl during an all-night festival resulting in her pregnancy (Gell. 2.23.14–18; Webster 1960. 99–100). There a necklace quite possibly featured as a recognition token, either taken from the girl by the rapist or left with an abandoned child resulting from the rape. In the present fragment the imperfect tense verb εἶχε (‘used to have’ or ‘used to wear’) may suggest such a recognition scene where a token discovered with, e. g., an abandoned child was recognised as belonging to the child’s mother, or else it was taken during a rape and later recognised as belonging to the victim of the assault (cf. e. g. the ring in Ter. Hec. 811–12, 821–32). For the apparent chiastic word order, cf. frr. 29 and 30. ἁλύσιον Properly a loop-in-loop chain as opposed to a strap or cord (see Beekes 2009 s. v. ἅλυσις who explains the meaning as ‘winding’ from the same root as εἰλύω, ‘wrap’, ‘enfold’). It was usually worn around the neck as an adornment, often with elaborate finials such as lion, calf or bull heads where the chain is fastened (see generally Hoffmann and Davidson 1965. 113–51). The word may occasionally denote a small chain of a different sort, e. g. the silver chain attached to a wooden fan at IG II2 1534.197 (ῥιπὶς ξυλίνη ἁλύσιον ἀργυροῦν ἔχουσα, ‘a wooden fan with a silver chain’). But in the great majority of cases it means a necklace, so e. g. Men. fr. 202 περὶ τὸν τράχηλον ἁλύσιόν τί σοι δότω, ‘let (him) give you a chain around your neck’; PHib. 1.121.3 (251/0 BCE), a chain also weighing, as here, 40 drachmas: ἁλύσιον (δραχμὰς) μ, ‘a necklace 40 drachmas’ (Grenfell and Hunt misleadingly translate as ‘ring’ which would be extraordinarily heavy). Cf. also Hsch. α 3303; Phot. α 1062, π 434; Suda α 1440; An.Bachm. 172.12, where each source effectively treats the noun as a synonym for πλόκιον (‘necklace, chain’). Golden necklaces are mentioned at Alciphr. 1.13.4 and Phot. π 434 (cf. also Men. fr. 275 where Meineke supplements 〈 ἁλύσιον⟩ to accompany the adjective χρυσοῦν). Chains of other materials are sometimes mentioned in inscriptional sources, e. g. silver and bronze at IG II2 1534.49 and 95. Apart from the diminutive form, the cognate noun ἅλυσις was also used of women’s necklaces: e. g. Ar. fr. 322.12 (in a passage listing various women’s accessories); Nicostr.Com. fr. 32.1 (cited by Clement of Alexandria in a passage on women’s adornments). But ἅλυσις can also denote a larger chain used for binding, cf. Poll. 10.167 (our source for the present fragment) and see Alciphr. 4.12.2–3 (a necklace worn by a bride, but with a pun on its double meaning as a chain for binding). There was probably, then, no substantial difference in size between the ἅλυσις and the ἁλύσιον when used of a necklace, the diminutive form simply used to obviate any potential confusion between the meanings ‘(large) chain’ and ‘necklace’. εἶχε Either ‘used to have’ or ‘used to wear’. For ἔχειν meaning ‘wear’, see LSJ s. v. II.3; and see e. g. Hdt. 2.36.3; Ar. Lys. 278; Ra. 557; Men. fr. 264.3–4. For the verb used of wearing jewellery, as we may have here, cf. esp. Lys. 12.19 χρυσοῦς ἑλικτῆρας, οὓς ἔχουσα ἐτύγχανεν … ἐκ τῶν ὤτων ἐξείλετο, ‘the gold earrings which she happened to be wearing (ἔχουσα) … he took from her ears’.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 34)

279

τετταράκοντ’ … δραχμάς On the basis that one drachma in weight was approximately 4.3 grams, a necklace weighing 40 drachmas would total around 170 grams. This is reasonably heavy for a necklace and would suggest it was made of a precious metal like gold (as is often the case with ἁλύσια and ἁλύσεις) and was intended to be worn by an adult. Contrast the ‘necklace and tokens’ in Menander’s Epitrepontes (246, 303), some made of gold (309), which are predicted to be worth only around 12 drachmas (335). ἄγον ‘Weighing’. For this meaning of the verb, LSJ s. v. VI; and see further on Philippid. fr. 9.4 and 9.7 (a platter weighing a mina, and a bowl weighing 50 drachmas).

fr. 34 K.-A. (34 K.) τυροὺς καὶ ταρίχους cheeses and salt-fish Eust. Il. 1.117.12–15 κατὰ δὲ Ἡρωδιανὸν καὶ τάριχος ἑκατέρως λέγεται, τὸ τάριχος γὰρ καὶ ὁ τάριχος. φέρει δ’ ἐκεῖνος καὶ χρήσεις ἀμφοῖν. Μένανδρος (Epit. fr. 5 Arnott)· … Φιλιππίδης· — According to Herodian tarichos (‘salt-fish’) is also used either way (i. e. has two declensions and genders), for there is to tarichos (neut.) and ho tarichos (masc.). He also provides examples of both: Menander (Epit. fr. 5 Arnott): … Philippides: —

Metre Unknown. Most likely part of an iambic trimeter as reconstructed below.

⟨ a l k⟩ l

l | l k l

l ⟨ l k l⟩

Discussion Meineke 1841. 478; Kock 1888. 311; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 351. Citation context From the commentary of Eustathius (12th c. CE) on Hom. Il. 1.171 and in particular his note on the word ἄφενος which he observes can be declined differently with two different genders (heteroclitic). Among others, Eustathius introduces τάριχος into the discussion as a comparable heteroclitic word (i. e. second-declension masculine and third-declension neuter), having evidently found it attested by the 2nd c. CE grammarian Herodian (see also Bianchi 2016. 268–9). Text Meineke (1841. 478) inserts τε before καί and makes ταρίχους neuter singular (i. e. τυροὺς τε καὶ τάριχος). Both changes are unnecessary and would preclude the possibility other items were mentioned. Interpretation Possibly from a catalogue of foods (cf. Philippid. frr. 4, 10 and 20), or perhaps a ‘shopping-list’ scene (see esp. Men. Sam. 189–95; cf. Plaut. Bacch.

280

Philippides

94–100; Men. 219–25; see also Nesselrath 1990. 285–9; Konstantakos 2000a. 31–2). The specific items mentioned here suggest rather parsimonious and simple fare. Salt-fish was known for its affordability and durability, and hard cheese too was likewise able to be stored for long periods. This latter quality suggests another possible context, i. e. that both foods are mentioned here as military provisions (for cheese as soldiers’ fare see Ar. Pax 1129; for salt-fish see Ar. Ach. 967, 1101; cf. Olson 1998. 147 on Ar. Pax 368). Alternatively, the plural forms may imply that various kinds of cheese and (perhaps) different types of salt-fish are in question here, which would suit a dining (or marketplace) context. Cheese is otherwise typically found in the generic singular (τυρός), which would also have fit without disturbing the metre. The rarer plural form could therefore imply a variety of cheeses, whether imported cheeses from different geographical origins, such as Cythnian and Sicilian cheese (cf. Ath. 14.658a–e), or indeed different types of cheese such as fresh (‘green’) and dry cheese (see note below). Both fish and cheese are sometimes mentioned together in recipes. Grated cheese was often used as a condiment with fish, whether stuffed in the fish with other herbs (Alex. fr. 138.5–6) or mixed with oil for basting (cf. Philem. fr. 82.4–6; possibly Cratin. fr. 136; see also Archestr. 14.5; 32.6; 37.3; 46.13; with Olson and Sens 2000. 72). τυρούς Greek cheese (see Kroll 1919) was typically made from either sheep’s or goats’ milk (Hom. Od. 9.244–7; Antiph. fr. 21.2–5), although Aristotle also mentions cheese made from the milk of cows, mares and she-asses, the latter two combined in Phrygian cheese (Arist. HA 522a7–9). There were generally two types of cheese, fresh cheese and dry cheese. Fresh cheese (χλωρὸς τυρός, Ar. Ra. 559; Antiph. fr. 131.7; Alex. fr. 178.12) was made by filling special baskets (τάλαροι) with curdled milk in which the whey was strained and the cheese allowed to set before consumption (see Gow 1965 on Theoc. 5.86; Poll. 7.175). A special place was reserved in the Athenian agora for the sale of fresh cheese (Lys. 23.6; Poll. 10.19). Dry cheese (ξηρὸς τυρός, Antiph. fr. 131.7) was made the same way, but with the additional stages of salting (cf. Plin. HN 28.131) and drying on wicker racks (ταρσοί) for preserving the cheese (Gow 1965 on Theoc. 5.86 and 11.37). Cheese could be used either as a condiment (Antiph. fr. 140.1; Anaxipp. fr. 1.8; and see above), or else eaten as an accompaniment to food or wine (cf. Poll. 7.196 τυροπῶλαι· ἔθος ἦν ἐπερωτᾶν τούτους πότερα κνῆν ἢ ἐπεσθίειν, ‘cheese-sellers: it was customary to ask them whether to grate it or eat it as an accompaniment’). While there were varieties of expensive imported cheeses which might be served at extravagant banquets (e. g. Cythnian cheese: Alex. fr. 178.12; Ael. NA 16.32; and Sicilian cheese: Ar. V. 838, 896–7; Hermipp. fr. 63.9; Antiph. fr. 233.4; cf. also Ar. V. 676), cheese otherwise formed part of a staple diet for the Greeks and was relatively cheap: so Chionid. fr. 7 where cheese is mentioned among the standard foods served in the Prytaneion (cf. Pl. R. 372c–d where it is among the simple ὄψα preferred in Plato’s ideal state); Ar. Pax 368 where it is part of Trygaeus’ simple, rustic diet; Antiph. fr. 63.1 where it is mentioned beside other comestibles that could be bought cheaply (see on Philippid. fr. 9.6); Alex. fr. 201.2 where it is part

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 35)

281

of the ascetic diet of the Pythagorean; and Alex. fr. 263.2–3 where it is mentioned alongside olives as a cheap and insubstantial dish served by parsimonious hosts. Aristotle notes that a piece of cheese (τροφαλίς) sold for around an obol (HA 522a31) while Aischylides (in Ael. NA 16.32) says a talent in weight of cheese cost 90 drachmas. The cheap price of cheese on the whole is suggested at Men. Pk. 284 and 290 where the profession of cheese-seller is characterised as arduous and unlikely to generate much profit. ταρίχους Here apparently treated as a second-declension masculine accusative plural in coordination with τυρούς, although a third-declension neuter genitive singular is also theoretically possible (i. e. a partitive genitive, ‘some salt-fish’; cf. Chionid. fr. 5 with Bagordo 2014a. 60 for the partitive genitive with verbs of eating). For the morphology of the noun and the proverbial cheapness of salt-fish, see the note on Philippid. fr. 9.4. If we have a plural form here, it may be intended to denote different varieties of salt-fish (cf. on τυρούς above). Salt-fish might be distinguished by the type of fish used, its geographical origin, and perhaps even the shape of the cut or the degree of salting (on these details see esp. Olson and Sens 2000. 164–5 on Archestr. fr. 39.1–2). Otherwise the word may be used here broadly of different types of preserved meats, not necessarily fish alone (see on Philippid. fr. 9.4).

fr. 35 K.-A. Phot. α 2808 (Sz) ἀ ρ ι σ τ ῆ σ α ι· Ἀραρὼς Καμπυλίωνι (fr. 11) καὶ Φιλιππίδης καὶ ἕτεροι. a r i s t ē s a i: Araros in Kampylion (fr. 11) and Philippides and others.

Discussion Tsantsanoglou 1984. 143; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 351; Tartaglia 2019. 286. Citation context From Photius’ Lexicon (9th c. CE) as preserved in the Zavorda codex (codex Zavordensis 95), a manuscript copied ca. 13th to 14th c. CE containing our only full version of Photius’ text and rediscovered only recently in 1959. An abbreviated version of the lemma (without mention of Philippides) can be found in An.Bachm. 143.4. Tsantsanoglou (1984. 143) suggests Photius may have adopted the note from an ‘Antiatticistic source’. Interpretation A denominative verb (formed from ριστον < ἦρι, ‘early’; see further Comentale 2017. 240–1 on Hermipp. fr. 60) which originally meant ‘to eat the morning meal/have breakfast’ (so Hom. Od. 16.2; cf. A. fr. 182 which lists the three main meals as ἄριστον, δεῖπνον and δόρπον), but in later sources undergoes a shift in which ἄριστον denotes the midday meal (‘to eat lunch’, very often in a dining context), δεῖπνον the evening meal, and ἀκράτισμα/ἀκρατισμός

282

Philippides

the early morning snack (bread dipped in wine). Cf. Ath. 1.11b–f; Bagordo 2014a. 245 on Canthar. fr. 10; Orth 2014. 88–9 on Aristomen. fr. 14. So we find at Ar. Av. 1602 where Peisetaerus intends to invite his divine ambassadors to a meal (τοὺς πρέσβεις ἐπ’ ἄριστον καλῶ, ‘I’ll call the ambassadors for ariston’) – there conceived as taking place ‘just after midday’ (1499 σμικρόν τι μετὰ μεσημβρίαν, see Dunbar 1995 on Av. 659); Canthar. fr. 10 where the interlocutors decide to skip their ἀκρατισμός and eat their ἄριστον later; and cf. Men. Pk. 175 where ἄριστον is served after other action had been conceived as taking place earlier in the day. The noun ἀριστόδειπνον at Alex. fr. 296 and Men. fr. 625 evidently denotes a meal that lasts from midday to evening, while the verb ἀριστῆσαι in some Middle and New Comedy sources appears in dining contexts that obviously better suit a ‘lunch’ setting rather than breakfast (e. g. Antiph. fr. 216.25; Dromo fr. 2.1; Men. Dysc. 778–9; Diph. fr. 45; Diod.Com. fr. 2.37). Problematically, the meaning ‘to breakfast’ was apparently still current – at least in the early fourth century – at X. Cyr. 6.3.21 (on preparations for battle the following morning) αὔριον δὲ πρῴ, ἕως ἂν ἐγὼ θύωμαι, πρῶτον μὲν χρὴ ἀριστῆσαι καὶ ἄνδρας καὶ ἵππους, ‘early tomorrow, while I am sacrificing, both men and horses must first breakfast (aristēsai)’ (see Dover 1993. 60; but contrast X. Cyr. 1.2.11 τὸ οὖν ἄριστον τοῦτο δειπνήσαντες, ‘eating this lunch for dinner’; there used of hunters who take with them a packed lunch but can only eat it at the end of the day). The apparent inconsistency in meaning between ‘breakfast’ and ‘lunch’ might perhaps best be explained if ἄριστον was simply conceived as the first substantial meal of the day, irrespective of the time it was eaten. For the fluidity of terminology on meals, see Wilkins 2000. 57–8.

fr. 36 K.-A. (35 K.) Phryn. Ecl. 341 (bB, XZ) ἐξα λ λάξαι· τὸ τέρψαι καὶ παραγαγεῖν εἰς εὐφροσύνην· χρὴ φυλάττεσθαι οὕτω λέγειν, οὐ γὰρ χρῶνται οἱ δόκιμοι, Φιλιππίδης δὲ καὶ Μένανδρος (fr. 540) αὐτῷ χρῶνται. εἰς δ’ εὐφροσύνην Phryn.XZ χρὴ ἀλάττεσθαι Phryn.X : τρέψαι Phryn.XZ bB φυλαττόμενον χρὴ Phryn. οὕτω λέγειν deficit Phryn.Z οὐ γὰρ χρῶνται οἱ B δόκιμοι deficit Phryn. e x a l l a x a i: to delight and divert toward good cheer. One ought to be wary speaking like this, for esteemed writers do not use it, but Philippides and Menander (fr. 540) do.

Discussion Meineke 1841. 478; Rutherford 1881. 467–8; Kock 1888. 311; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 351. Citation context Cited by the Atticist lexicographer Phrynichus (late 2nd c. CE) in his Ecloga (341) in which he advises against using the verb ἐξαλλάξαι in the sense ‘divert, amuse’ when striving for pure Attic style. Its avoidance is recom-

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 37)

283

mended on the grounds that esteemed writers (οἱ δόκιμοι) do not use it, despite the fact that the late fourth-century comic poets Philippides and Menander both use the verb in this sense. Interpretation Fundamentally the verb means ‘change utterly’ (ἐξ- has intensifying force, LSJ s. v.); but here LSJ s. v. II.4 gloss the verb ‘divert, amuse’. The idea of ‘delight’ (τέρψαι) is found in other ancient sources (Antiatt. ε 92 = AB 96.1; Phot. ε 1086; Suda ε 1523), while Phrynichus has the additional gloss παραγαγεῖν εἰς εὐφροσύνην (‘divert to good cheer’). Our only passage where the meaning ‘divert, amuse’ is attested is Men. fr. 540 where two or more comic characters ask a third person – who is evidently about to be deceived in some way by a fourth character – whether he would like them to ‘divert’ the attention of the swindler: ἄνθρωπον ἐξαλλάξομεν / κακόν τί σοι δώσοντα; ‘shall we divert the fellow who intends to give you something bad?’ The cognate noun ἐξαλλάγμα occurs at Anaxandr. fr. 21 apparently in the sense ‘recreation, amusement’: παρθένοι παίζουσι 〈 ⟩ πρὸς ἐλάφρ’ ἐξαλλάγματα, ‘girls play 〈 ⟩ at trivial amusements’ (see Millis 2015. 112–13).

fr. 37 K.-A. (36 K.) Phot. π 26 (= 369.26 Porson) παιδισκάριον, κ ο ρ ά σ ι ο ν δὲ οὐ λέγεται· ἀλλὰ καὶ κεκωμῴδηκεν Φιλιππίδης ὡς ξενικόν. paidiskarion (‘dear young child’), but k o r a s i o n (‘young girl’) is not used. Rather, Philippides has made fun of it as foreign.

Discussion Meineke 1839. 475; Meineke 1841. 477–8; Kock 1888. 311; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Slater 1986. 36–7; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 351. Citation context From the Lexicon of Photius (9th c. CE), although the note may ultimately go back to Aristophanes of Byzantium (see frr. 73–5 Slater) via a later Atticist source who rejected κοράσιον from proper Attic usage on the authority of Philippides. Interpretation The word κοράσιον (‘young girl’) may have been uttered in Philippides’ unnamed comedy by a character who was either foreign (i. e. nonAthenian) or who was an Athenian affecting foreign speech. In either case its usage was apparently ‘mocked’ (κεκωμῴδηκεν) in the play. Grammatical sources note the eccentricity of the word, not least of all the Atticist writer Phrynichus (Ecl. 50) κόριον, ἢ κορίδιον, ἢ κορίσκη· τὸ δὲ κοράσιον παράλογον (‘korion or koridion or koriskē: but korasion is unusual’); cf. Poll. 2.17 κόρη, κορίσκη, κορίσκιον. τὸ γὰρ κοράσιον εἴρηται μέν, ἀλλὰ εὐτελές, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ κορίδιον (‘korē, koriskē, koriskion. Korasion is used, but rarely, as is koridion too’). A scholar on Hom. Il. 20.404c (scholia vet.), while discussing Doric alpha, suggests the word is Macedonian:

284

Philippides

οὕτως ἔχει καὶ τὸ κοράσιον, ὃ μᾶλλόν ἐστι Μακεδονικόν (‘Korasion is like this too, which instead is Macedonian’). Apart from Macedon, the word appears frequently in inscriptions from Central Greece, especially Chaeronea in Boeotia and Delphi in Phocis, from around the second century BCE, there mostly in manumission inscriptions. Evidence from Macedon is attested much later (2nd to 3rd centuries CE). Based on the context of these attestations, the word here possibly denoted a slave girl. The character who utters the word, accordingly, may be a bawd or pimp of foreign background mocked for using his or her native speech. An Athenian using such a form, however, may not have been out of place in a comedy from the late fourth century BCE when the Successors of Alexander dominated the Greek world, and when Macedonian fashions were being widely adopted in other parts of Greece, including Athens. fr. 38 K.-A. (37 K.) Poll. 7.188 κ ο σ κ ι ν ο μ ά ν τ ε ι ς δὲ εἴρηκε Φιλιππίδης. And Philippides has mentioned k o s k i n o m a n t e i s (‘sieve-diviners’).

Discussion Meineke 1841. 478; Kock 1888. 311; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 351. Citation context From Pollux’s Onomasticon 7.188 (2nd c. CE) in a section listing words for different kinds of ‘seers’ or ‘diviners’ (μάντεις). Interpretation Seers and oracle-collectors are regularly satirised in comedy, e. g. Aristox. fr. 1; Epich. fr. 9; Ar. Nu. 332; Pax 1031, 1044–126; Av. 959–91; Eup. frr. 225 and 231; cf. E. fr. 973 (see Flower 2008. 19; Bertolini 2019). Philippides’ mention of sieve-diviners (κοσκινομάντεις) is therefore likely also to have appeared in a derogatory context. Whether a sieve-diviner appeared on stage as a dramatic character is uncertain. The word may, for example, instead have been used as a term of abuse. Sieve-diviners are mentioned, along with other seers, as charlatans and fraudsters at Artemid. 2.69 ὅσα γὰρ ἂν λέγωσι … ἀστραγαλομάντεις τυρομάντεις κοσκινομάντεις … ψευδῆ πάντα καὶ ἀνυπόστατα χρὴ νομίζειν  … αὐτοὶ μὲν μαντικῆς οὐδὲ βραχὺ ἴσασι, γοητεύοντες δὲ καὶ ἀπατῶντες ἀποδιδύσκουσι τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας, ‘one ought to regard everything which bone-diviners, cheesediviners, sieve-diviners (etc.) say (i. e. in dreams) to be false and unsubstantial … they themselves know not even a little of divination, but by beguiling and deceiving they strip those who encounter them’. The trade seems to be associated particularly with old women, typically in rustic settings, e. g. Philostr. Vit. Ap. 6.11.213–17 γρᾶες ἀνημμέναι κόσκινα φοιτῶσιν ἐπὶ ποιμένας, ὅτε δὲ καὶ βουκόλους, ἰώμεναι τὰ νοσοῦντα τῶν θρεμμάτων μαντικῇ, ὥς φασιν, ἀξιοῦσι δὲ

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 38)

285

σοφαὶ ὀνομάζεσθαι καὶ σοφώτεραι ἢ οἱ ἀτεχνῶς μάντεις, ‘old women holding sieves frequent shepherds and sometimes even cowherds, healing the sick among their animals by divination, so they say, and they think themselves worthy to be called wise women and wiser than those who are simply seers’ (cf. also the sieve-diviner Ἀγροιώ [Heinsius reads ἁ γραία] at Theoc. 3.31). Sieve-diviners were classed among the cheapest (and therefore lowliest) of seers according to ΣVBCΩ Luc. Alex. 9 ἐπὶ τῶν εὐτελεστάτων μάντεων τοῦτο λέγεσθαι εἴωθεν, ‘this (i. e. the proverbial saying κοσκίνῳ μαντεύεσθαι, “to divine by sieve”) is customarily said of the cheapest/lowest seers’. See also Ael. NA 8.5; Luc. Alex. 9; Ganschinietz 1922; Bühler 1982. 300–1. The κόσκινον or ‘sieve’ itself consisted of a shallow cylinder frame having a diameter of approximately 30 to 50 cm, with criss-crossed cord, perforated hide or other material stretched across its lower face (see Blümner 1912. 49–55, with p. 62 fig. 24; Hug 1922; Amyx and Pritchett 1958. 259–61; and see Rostovtzeff 1937. 88–9 figs. 1 and 2b which depict persons using circle-shaped sieves over a kneadingtrough). For the different varieties of sieve see Poll. 6.74 τὸ μὲν ἐκ σχοίνων πλέγμα κόσκινον, εἰ δὲ τῷ τοῦ κοσκίνου κύκλῳ ἀντὶ τοῦ σχοίνου λινοῦν τι σινδόνιον εἴη ἐξημμένον, ὡς ἀκριβέστερον τὸ ἄλευρον καθαίροιτο, ἀλευρόττησις ἐκαλεῖτο, εἰ δ’ ἐξ ἐρίου εἴη, κρησέρα, ‘that which is woven from cord (is called) a sieve, but if some fabric made of flax has been attached to the rim of the sieve instead of cord so that the flour might be refined more precisely, it was called a flour-sieve, and if it was of wool, a straining-cloth’. See also Edict.Diocl. 15.56–58 (Mommsen) where we find a κόσκινον ἁλωνικὸν ἀπὸ βύρσης, ‘a sieve for threshing (made) of leather’; [κ]όσκινον ἀπὸ δέρματος σιμιδάλια, ‘a sieve (made) of hide for fine flour’; and [κόσκ]ινον πλεκτὸν μέγα, ‘a large woven sieve’. The potential use of κόσκινα as strainers is suggested by Ar. Nu. 373 (rain explained as Zeus urinating into a sieve; cf. also Pl. Grg. 493b and R. 363d of carrying water in a sieve). Κόσκινα might also be used for sowing seed, Gp. 2.19.5 πολύχυτον δὲ ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα, ἐὰν τὸ κόσκινον ἐκ λυκείου δέρματος εἴη, ἔχον τρήσεις λʹ, ὥστε δάκτυλον ἐμβαίνειν, ‘the seed will be widely diffused if the sieve is of wolf-hide with thirty perforations (large enough) so as to insert a finger’. Methods of divining with a sieve are not mentioned in ancient sources, but Arnott (1978. 30) cites a modern Greek parallel where the seer first puts beans, shells, pebbles and bat knuckles into the sieve (presumably all roughly the same size) before shaking it and interpreting the results. The ancient proverb τὰ ἐπὶ κοσκίνῳ (‘the things on the sieve’) would seem to imply that the seer examined what remained in the sieve after shaking it, basing any prognosis on the remaining contents rather than what may have passed through the holes: Zenob. Prov. 2.39 τὰ ἐπὶ κοσκίνῳ· δύναται ἡ παροιμία καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διὰ κοσκίνου μαντευομένων εἰρῆσθαι. καὶ ‘τὰ ἀπὸ τρίποδος’ καὶ ‘τὰ ἀπὸ δάφνης’, ‘“the things on the sieve”: the proverb can be said also in relation to those who practice divination by means of (διά) a sieve. Also “the things from the tripod” and “the things from the laurel”’ (see Bühler 1982. 302–3).

286

Philippides

fr. 39 K.-A. (38 K.) Phot. λ 494 (= 238.5 Porson) λυχνοῦχον· τὸν κεράτινον φανόν· ἀπὸ τοῦ λύχνον ἐν αὐτῷ περιέχεσθαι· φ α ν ὸ ς δὲ ἡ ἐκ ξύλων λαμπάς. Φιλιππίδης. lychnouchon (‘lantern’, lit. ‘lamp-holder’): the torch made of horn, from the fact that it surrounds the lychnos (‘lamp’) inside it. A p h a n o s ( ‘ t o r c h ’ ) is the lampas (‘light’) made from wood. Philippides.

Discussion Meineke 1841. 477; Kock 1888. 311; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 352; Lorenzoni 2000. 155–9; Orth 2017. 67–8. Citation context From Photius’ Lexicon (9th c. CE). Photius’ citation of Philippides is probably meant to illustrate the word φανός (‘torch’). In that case the quotation omitted here is probably Philippid. fr. 16. There a character, after failing to light his torch, is asked whether he tried to kindle it by blowing. Photius seems to have copied this information from Athenaeus. His definition of a φανός (i. e. φανὸς δὲ ἡ ἐκ ξύλων λαμπάς, ‘a phanos is the lampas made of wood’) closely echoes Ath. 15.700b ἄλλοι δὲ ἔφασκον φανὸν λέγεσθαι τὴν λαμπάδα, οἳ δὲ τὴν ἔκ τινων ξύλων τετμημένων δέσμην, ‘others claimed that the lampas is called a phanos, and others that (a phanos) is the bundling made from pieces of split wood’. Athenaeus then cites Philippid. fr. 16 soon after (Ath. 15.700c). Our fragment, then, probably belongs to Synekpleousa (= fr. 16; see Lorenzoni 2000. 158). Interpretation For the ‘torch’ (φανός), see on Philippid. fr. 16. A lantern (λυχνοῦχος, lit. ‘lamp-holder’) was used to cover a lamp (λύχνος) to prevent it from being extinguished by the breeze when travelling outside at night (cf. Pherecr. fr. 44; Pl.Com. fr. 91; Plaut. Amph. 149, 406 ‘lanterna’; Hug 1924; Watt 1949. 15–17; Forbes 1958. 164–6). They were typically carried by slaves (cf. Epich. fr. 32.8; Loeschcke 1909. 370–1). Traces remain of moulded lantern bases made of lead or wrought iron in which the lamp was securely held (see Howland 1958, pl. 39 no. 346; pl. 46 no. 542; and pl. 47 no. 596). The covering was typically made of diaphanous horn (Phryn. PS p. 87, 1–3 λυχνοῦχος μέν ἐστι σκεῦός τι ἐν κύκλῳ ἔχον κέρατα, ἔνδον δὲ λύχνον ἡμμένον, διὰ τῶν κεράτων τὸ φῶς πέμποντα, ‘a lantern is a piece of equipment surrounded by horn, and with a lamp fastened inside, sending its light through the horn’; cf. Plaut. Amph. 341 quo ambulas tu qui Volcanum in cornu conclusum geris, ‘where are you walking, you who carry Vulcan enclosed in horn?’). Photius (λ 494) also notes lanterns made of hide or ceramic: ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν καθαρῶν καὶ διαφανῶν δερμάτων λαμπτῆρες· καὶ κεραμεοῖ διατετρημένοι, ὥστε διαφαίνειν, ‘lanterns were also composed of clear and translucent hide, and of perforated clay so as to shine through’ (see Forbes 1958. 165 fig. 36 for a Roman example of the latter). See also Ar. Ach. 937–8; fr. 8 καὶ διαστίλβονθ’ ὁρῶμεν / ὡσπερεὶ καινοῦ λυχνούχου / πάντα τῆς ἐξωμίδος, ‘and we see everything gleaming through the tunic, just like through a new lantern’; fr. 290; Alex. fr. 107.1; Men. frr. 59 and 251; Loeschcke 1909).

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 40)

287

fr. 40 K.-A. (39 K.) Ael. VH 12.31 τί δέ; οὐκ ἐκεῖνα τοῖς Ἕλλησι τρυφῆς ἀπόδειξις; μύρῳ γὰρ οἶνον μιγνύντες οὕτως ἔπινον, καὶ ὑπερησπάζοντο τὴν τοιαύτην κρᾶσιν· καὶ ἐκαλεῖτο ὁ οἶνος μ υ ρ ί ν η ς (μυρ(ρ)ινίτας codd.). μέμνηται δὲ αὐτοῦ Φιλιππίδης ὁ τῆς κωμῳδίας ποιητής. Well? Are those things not proof of soft living among the Greeks? For they would mix their wine with perfume and drink it like this, and they were overly fond of such a blend. And the wine was called m y r i n ē s. Philippides the poet of comedy mentions it.

Discussion Meineke 1841. 478; Kock 1888. 311; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 352; Pütz 2007. 160, 222; Olson 2018. Citation context From Aelian’s Varia Historia 12.31 (written early 3rd c. CE), in a section discussing different varieties of wine consumed by the Greeks. The formulaic phrase μέμνηται δὲ αὐτοῦ is typically used in ancient lexica, etc., and probably suggests Aelian found this information in such a source. Text Our manuscripts read μυρ(ρ)ινίτας according to Kassel and Austin. Early editors of Aelian correct the text to μυρίνης or μυρρινίτης (see Kühn 1780. 147–8). Meineke (1841. 478) reads μυρίνης on the basis that this was the proper name for wine mixed with perfume as attested elsewhere (‘pro μυρρινίτης Philippides scripsit haud dubie μυρίνης, h. e. vinum unguento conditum. Ea enim genuina huius nominis forma est’). Interpretation μυρίνης is wine mixed with perfume (μύρον), as most sources tell us, rather than wine mixed with myrrh (μύρρα) or with myrtle/myrtle-berries (μυρρίνη). So we find in Ael. 12.31 μύρῳ γὰρ οἶνον μιγνύντες … ἐκαλεῖτο ὁ οἶνος μυρίνης, ‘mixing wine with perfume … the wine was called myrinēs’; Poll. 6.17 ἦν δέ τις καὶ μυρίνης οἶνος, μύρῳ κεκραμένος, ‘there was also a wine myrinēs, mixed with perfume’; Hsch. μ 1916 μυρρίνην· ἔνιοι μὲν οἶνον 〈 μυρρίνην⟩ καλοῦσιν· οἱ δὲ πότον ἐσκευασμένον· οἱ δὲ πόσιν φασίν, ᾗ ἐπεχεῖτο μύρον, ‘myrrinē: some call 〈 myrrinē⟩ wine, others call it a prepared drink. Others say it is a beverage on which perfume was poured’ (see generally Lilja 1972. 114 and Olson 2018). The Roman equivalent murrina is probably a loan word lifted directly from Greek comedy (cf. Olson 2018) rather than reflecting Roman customs. We find it mentioned e. g. at Plaut. Pseud. 741 and Plaut. fr. incert. 35 (De Melo) where it is called a ‘fine wine’: mittebam pulchrum vinum, murrinam. Pliny HN 14.92 thinks murrina was scented with myrrh (murra). But this appears to be a false etymology inferred merely from his superficial knowledge of the word as found in Plautus (cited above) lautissima apud priscos vina erant murrae odore condita, ut apparet in Plauti fabulis, ‘most praiseworthy among the ancients were wines mixed with the scent of myrrh, as appears in the plays of Plautus’. Pliny also suggests that sweet flag (Acorus calamus, L.) was added to the drink based on Plaut. Persa 88, although in that passage murrina is not explicitly mentioned at all, and so Pliny again seems

288

Philippides

to be in error. Perfume, on the other hand, is frequently mentioned by several ancient sources as mixed with wine. The contemporary evidence of Theophrastus mentions the pleasant effect of mixing perfume (μύρον) with wine as opposed to the unpleasant effects of mixing perfume with food (Thphr. Od. 10–11); while the physician Hikesios (1st c. BCE) in his work Περὶ Ὕλης (On Matter, quoted at Ath. 15.689c–d) mentions various perfumes suitable ‘for drinking’ (πρὸς πότον) – i. e. when mixed with wine – which are gentle on the stomach and aid digestion, among them rose, myrtle and quince perfumes. For μυρίνης elsewhere in comedy see Diph. fr. 17.10 and Posidipp. fr. 36. The latter passage notes it was ‘expensive’ (ὁ μυρίνης ὁ τίμιος), the high cost no doubt due to the perfume which, even though it could be sourced locally in Attica (cf. Antiph. fr. 233.5), was itself nonetheless reportedly very expensive (cf. Antiph. fr. 222; Men. fr. 243; Hipparch.Com. fr. 4; cited at Ath. 15.691c–d).

fr. 41 K.-A. (40 K.) Antiatt. σ 12 (= AB 113.33) σ υ ν ε π α ι ν ε ῖ ν· ἀντὶ τοῦ συγκατατίθεσθαι. Φιλιππίδης. s y n e p a i n e i n (‘agree with’): instead of synkatatithesthai (‘agree with’). Philippides.

Discussion Meineke 1841. 478; Kock 1888. 312; Edmonds 1961. 180–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 352. Citation context From the Antiatticist (2nd c. CE) where συνεπαινεῖν is cited as an acceptable substitute for the synonymous verb συγκατατίθεσθαι (both verbs used here in the sense ‘agree with’). The Antiatticist typically cites verbs in their infinitive forms, regardless of how they may have appeared in the source text (see on Philippid. fr. 3). Interpretation Philippides, according to the Antiatticist, used the word συνεπαινεῖν in his unnamed comedy in the sense ‘to agree with’ – or so it would seem from the gloss συγκατατίθεσθαι (cf. Poll. 6.117) which often means ‘agree with’ or ‘give assent to’ (lit. ‘put down together with’), e. g. Pl. Grg. 501c συγκατατίθεσαι ἡμῖν περὶ τούτων τὴν αὐτὴν δόξαν ἢ ἀντίφῃς; ‘do you put down the same opinion with us regarding these things or do you disagree?’ This meaning of συνεπαινεῖν is attested in several earlier Attic writers and was certainly not unique to Philippides: e. g. X. HG 2.2.22 ἀντειπόντων δέ τινων αὐτῷ, πολὺ δὲ πλειόνων συνεπαινεσάντων, ‘some disagreed with him, but far more agreed’; D. 18.179 συνεπαινεσάντων δὲ πάντων καὶ οὐδενὸς εἰπόντος ἐναντίον οὐδέν, ‘everyone agreed and no-one said anything in opposition’; and Pl. Hp.Mi. 363a συνεπαινεῖς τι τῶν εἰρημένων …; ‘do you agree with anything that was said?’

289

Sosippus (Σώσιππος) Introduction 1. Name and Identity Sosippus (PAA 863315; LGPN II s. v. 28) is known only from a single passage in Athenaeus (4.133f) who doubtfully attributes Diphilus fr. 18 from the Apoleipousa (see Diph. frr. 17–19) to either Diphilus or Sosippus: Δίφιλος δ’ ἢ Σώσιππος ἐν Ἀπολειπούσῃ, ‘Diphilus or Sosippus in the Apoleipousa’.150 The absence of any further attestation of a poet by this name prompted Meineke to suggest ‘Sosippus’ may be a corruption for ‘Posidippus’ (Meineke 1839. 453; endorsed by Körte 1927. 1173). Otherwise, our only other connection of the name with comedy is the dramatic title Sōsippus attributed to the Middle Comedy poet Anaxandrides, which Meineke (1839. 373) suggested was perhaps a comedy directed against our poet (for doubts about their chronological overlap, cf. Breitenbach 1908. 44; Millis 2015. 242). Despite the identification in PAA and LGPN of Sosippus as an Athenian, and despite the frequent attestation of the name in Attica (several men named Sosippus were active in Athens around the turn of the fourth/third centuries BCE), we cannot be sure he was Athenian at all. The name Sosippus occurs with some frequency elsewhere in the Greek world (see LGPN), and given the increasing regularity of comic poets in the late fourth century with ‘foreign’ (i. e. non-Athenian) origins (not least of all Diphilus),151 a foreign origin for Sosippus is quite possible (on foreign comic poets generally, see e. g. Nervegna 2013. 32–6; Hartwig 2014. 218–19). 2. Chronology and Career The association of Sosippus with Diphilus (the latter probably winning his first victory in 321 BCE – see on Philippid. test. 5) as well as the title of the play Apoleipousa (‘Woman Seeking a Divorce’) with which he is jointly attributed – a title attested frequently and only during the period of New Comedy – would suggest our poet was most likely active ca. late fourth to early third century BCE.

150 151

For possible explanations of the double attribution, see under ‘Title’ below. The double attribution of the Apoleipousa to both Diphilus and Sosippus has led to conjecture that Sosippus could have been a friend or family member of Diphilus. But equally so, both poets may simply have written plays by the same title without any further association.

290

Sosippus

3. Literature Editions: Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 608 Studies: Meineke 1839. 452–3; Körte 1927. 1173; Hidber 2006b; Sommerstein 2019a. 893

291

Commentary Play Title Ἀπολείπουσα (Apoleipousa) (‘Woman Seeking a Divorce’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 452–3; Meineke 1841. 381–4; Kock 1884. 545–6; Edmonds 1961. 104–7; Kassel and Austin 1986 V. 58–61; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 608; Mastellari 2020. 154 Title The title is frequently attested elsewhere in later comedy, including Crobylus (frr. 3–4), Diphilus (frr. 17–19), [Amini]as (test. *2, no fragments), Apollodorus Gelous (fr. 1) and Apollodorus Carystus (fr. 4). In the comedies by Crobylus (see Mastellari 2020. 154), Diphilus and Apollodorus Carystus the manuscripts preserve both the present form Ἀπολείπουσα and the aorist form Ἀπολίπουσα. It is therefore possible Sosippus also had a comedy with the aorist form. But of the two forms, the present tense Ἀπολείπουσα ‘Woman Seeking a Divorce’ seems more plausible. The accidental loss of epsilon by a copyist is much more likely than its accidental inclusion, especially due to iotacism where a copyist may have confused the ‘ει’ sound for ‘ι’. We might also note that titles with the present participle are far more prevalent in comedy than the much rarer aorist-participle form. The verb ἀπολείπειν and its cognate noun ἀπόλειψις are both used elsewhere in the technical-legal sense of ‘divorce’ when initiated by the wife. See Phot. α 2332 (= An.Bachm. 116.31 = Men. fr. 523) ἀπέλιπε μὲν ἡ γυνὴ τὸν ἄνδρα λέγεται· ἀπέπεμψε δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν γυναῖκα. οὕτως Μένανδρος, ‘the wife “left behind” her husband, it is said; while the husband “sent away” his wife. So Menander’; And. 4.14 ὥστ’ ἠνάγκασε τὴν γυναῖκα … ἀπολιπεῖν, ἐλθοῦσαν πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα κατὰ τὸν νόμον, ‘so that he compelled his wife to divorce him by going to the archon in accordance with the law’; D. 30.15 ἡ δ’ ἀπόλειψις ἐγράφη Ποσιδεῶνος μηνὸς ἐπὶ Τιμοκράτους, ‘the divorce was registered in the month of Posideon during the archonship of Timocrates’; D. 30.25 λόγῳ μὲν ἀπολελοιπυῖαν, ἔργῳ δὲ συνοικοῦσαν, ‘in theory having divorced him, but in reality living with him’; see also Ar. Nu. 1068; Is. 3.8; D. 30.26, 31, 33; Men. Epit. 930; Plu. Alc. 8.5; Luc. Sol. 9 (the latter an intentional solecism of a husband divorcing). Contrast D. 59.52 where the proper verb for the male, ἀποπέμπειν, is used. Cf. also the verb ἀπελθεῖν used of the wife at Anaxandr. fr. 57.2 with Millis 2015 ad loc. On divorce in Athens, see Harrison 1968. 38–45; MacDowell 1978. 88; Rosivach 1984; Cohn-Haft 1995. The double attribution of the title to both Diphilus and Sosippus has several possible explanations. Kaibel (1889. 42–3) has argued that ancient scholars had two means of determining the authorship of unattributed play texts: (1) by consulting didascalic records; and (2) judgement based on internal or stylistic grounds.

292

Sosippus

One might suppose, then, that an unattributed play text titled Apoleipousa was collected by the Alexandrians, and that scholars there consulted post-Aristotelian didascalic records (e. g. the Didascaliae inscription or a related text) to find a possible author, with both Diphilus and Sosippus discovered to have written plays by this title. A scholar might therefore have tentatively attributed the same play to both poets. But there are difficulties in assuming that this method of attribution was used here. The Didascaliae was a limited source of evidence for poets in the late fourth century since it only recorded Athenian productions, whereas Middle and New Comedy poets were becoming increasingly more productive and finding broader audiences beyond Athens (see Hartwig 2014. 218–20; for theatres and festivals outside Athens, see esp. Csapo and Wilson 2020). Such a method of attribution based purely on the Athenian didascalic records would therefore have been highly unreliable in the present case. We also know of another comedy by this title by [Amini]as (test. *2) which was apparently lost (IG II2 2323a.46; see Nicostr.Com. II test. 1 and Philippid. test. 8 this volume), and one might therefore have expected a triple attribution which also included this poet. If we assume an attribution based on stylistic grounds, it may be the case that Callimachus found multiple play texts of Apoleipousa in the Library with the names of Diphilus and Sosippus attached to them. He could have preserved the doubtful attribution in his Pinakes (on the Pinakes, see on Philippid. test. 1 this volume), while Aristophanes of Byzantium may have later reassigned the play to Diphilus on stylistic grounds. A similar method of attribution may have occurred in the case of Euripides’ Andromachē which was also apparently attributed to a ‘Demokrates’: see ΣMNO E. Andr. 445 (= Call. fr. 451 Pf.) ὁ δὲ Καλλίμαχος ἐπιγραφῆναί φησι τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ Δημοκράτην, ‘Callimachus says that Demokrates is inscribed on the tragedy’ (i. e. his name was written on a play text held by the Library). The fact that Euripides never produced an Andromachē at Athens – so Σ E. Andr. 445 (= Arist. fr. 430 Gigon) οὐ δεδίδακται γὰρ Ἀθήνησιν (‘for it was not produced in Athens’) – suggests the attribution to Euripides was likely made by the Alexandrians on stylistic grounds. In similar fashion, while Callimachus may have preserved the doubtful attribution to both poets in the Pinakes, later writers who cite the play, including Athenaeus, may simply have preferred to cite Diphilus as the author, to the detriment of Sosippus – no doubt for reasons of economy and because of the superior reputation of the former poet. Among other reasons for the confusion of authorship, Sosippus may have revised Diphilus’ play after his death (or vice versa) with only minor changes and produced it as his own (i. e. a diaskeuē of Diphilus’ comedy), resulting in the double attribution (on this phenomenon, see Meineke 1839. 31–2; Kaibel 1889. 44–5; Stemplinger 1912. 7–8; Kassel 1974. 125–6; Nervegna 2013. 90–3). Additionally, Sosippus may have ‘produced’ or ‘directed’ Diphilus’ comedy, with confusion over its authorship resulting from this arrangement (cf. Mensching 1964. 17–18 who assumes that the Proagōn attributed to Philonides at Hyp. Ar.

Ἀπολείπουσα

293

V. I.35–6 properly belongs to Aristophanes, and that Philonides merely produced the play). Furthermore, there is the possibility of authorial collaboration, with one poet formally attributed with its authorship while another poet is suspected to have written or to have co-authored it, as may have been the case for the double attribution of the Symmachia to both Plato and Cantharus (see Hartwig 2010. 27–8). Content Given that our only fragment (Diph. fr. 18) is also attributed to Diphilus, and that this poet is attributed with a further two fragments from the Apoleipousa (Diph. frr. 17–19), the reader is directed to the commentary of Karamanou (FrC 26.1). In addition, since we cannot be completely certain if Diphilus and Sophilus have the same play in common, for the purposes of the present discussion it will be assumed that both poets wrote completely separate plays (despite Ath. 4.133f), whether this involved a diaskeuē of one by the other, or two completely separate plays altogether which were confused by Athenaeus or an earlier source because of their shared title. A title with the participial form in the present tense would suggest a comedy where a wife apparently sought to divorce her husband.152 Comic parallels in Menander’s Epitrepontes and Plautus’ Stichus use the threat of divorce (in both cases at the urging of the father of the bride) as a dramatic impetus, with both plays having a happy outcome when the problem is eventually resolved. Reasons for a wife (or her father) seeking divorce in literary parallels usually involve dissolute behaviour by the husband.153 Cratinus’ Pytinē (‘Wine Flask’) produced in 423 BCE depicts the poet’s wife ‘Comedy’ seeking to leave him because he spends all his time with his mistress ‘Alcohol’, i. e. for being a heavy drinker and a philanderer (ΣVE Ar. Eq. 400a = Cratin. Pytinē test. iii). Likewise in Menander’s Epitrepontes Smikrines wants his daughter to divorce Charisios because of his infidelity, his drinking, and the squandering of her dowry (cf. Men. Epit. 126–37, 655–60, 714–22, 749–56, 930–2, 1064–5, 1102–4). Fragments from Crobylus’ Apoleipousa may hint at the same theme of spousal dissatisfaction with a dissolute husband. At Crobyl. fr. 3 someone makes critical remarks against persistent drinking and drunkenness: τὸ γὰρ ἐνδελεχῶς μεθύειν τίν’ ἡδονὴν ἔχει / ἀποστεροῦντα ζῶνθ’ ἑαυτὸν τοῦ φρονεῖν, / ὃ μέγιστον ἡμῶν ἀγαθὸν ἔσχεν ἡ φύσις; ‘What pleasure does constant drunkenness hold, depriving oneself of reason while alive, which nature holds as our greatest good?’ While at Crobyl. fr. 4 the speaker chastises someone for an apparently indulgent lifestyle: πάλιν ἡ τοῦ βίου / ὑγρότης με τοῦ σοῦ τέθλιφε· τὴν ἀσωτίαν / ὑγρότητα γὰρ νῦν προσαγορεύουσίν τινες, ‘again the “moistness” of your life distresses me: for some 152

153

For shame attached to a divorced wife, including one who initiates divorce – which is one possible theme the play may have explored if we retain the aorist – see E. Med. 236–7; Anaxandr. fr. 57. Our most celebrated account of an attempted divorce – that of Hipparete wife of Alcibiades – was due to her husband’s infidelities with courtesans (And. 4.14; Plu. Alc. 8.4–5).

294

Sosippus

people now call profligacy “moistness”’ (see LSJ s. v. ὑγρότης II.2). It may be, given the title of Crobylus’ play, that both of these complaints were made by a wife, or someone on the wife’s behalf, against an irresponsible husband. Diphilus’ (or Sosippus’) comedy is preserved in three fragments, two of which feature cooks (Diph. frr. 17–18), while the other refers to drinking utensils (Diph. fr. 19). The comedy appears to have included a wedding feast, since at fr. 17.2 a cook claims that he is preparing for one. A wedding feast and marriage in a comedy titled ‘Woman Seeking a Divorce’ (or ‘Woman Having Divorced’ - aorist?) certainly raises intriguing possibilities, especially if such a scene occurred near the end of the play, as often in New Comedy. A wedding feast in this comedy, however, could of course have come from a plot strand completely unrelated to the estranged couple implied by the title. Date

Unknown.

295

Stephanus (Στέφανος) Introduction 1. Name and Identity Stephanus (PA 12881; PAA 833650; LGPN II s. v. 6) was the son of the Middle Comedy poet Antiphanes (PA 1219; PAA 137260; LGPN III.B s. v. 28; see test. 2). He is apparently named after his paternal grandfather Stephanus (PA 12878; PAA 834765; test. 2), although an alternative tradition claims his paternal grandfather was named Demophanes (see also test. 2). Various traditions reported that the family originated from Chios, Smyrna or Rhodes (test. 2), as well as Larisa in Thessaly (test. 3). Stephanus’ father, Antiphanes, was reportedly a naturalised Athenian citizen, allegedly on the motion of Demosthenes (test. 3; see Osborne 1983. 76–8). Stephanus, then, was probably made an Athenian citizen retroactively owing to the honours granted to his father (see further under test. 3 below). The comic poet Antiphanes II son of Panaetius (Suda α 2734 = Antiph. II test. 1; PA 1219; PAA 137262; LGPN II s. v. 22) – who may possibly be the same person as the third-century BCE comic actor Antiphanes (IG II2 2319.56 = Antiph. II test. *3 and 65 = Antiph. II test. *4; and perhaps IG II2 2325F.105 M-O = Antiph. II test. *2; but see Millis and Olson 2012. 203 ad loc.) – may be from the same family (see Sutton 1987. 21).

2. Chronology and Career We can only make a rough guess about the birth date and subsequent debut date of Stephanus based on what ancient sources tell us about his father Antiphanes. The Suda (α 2735 = test. 2) gives Antiphanes a birth date between 408 and 404 BCE, and the De Comoedia (test. 3) gives him a dramatic debut between 387 and 384 BCE. On this basis, we might guess that Stephanus was born ca. 365 BCE, give or take ten years, if we assume Antiphanes was around forty at the time. A dramatic debut for Stephanus of around 345 BCE then becomes possible, assuming that a successful dramatic poet’s son who grew up around the trade probably began his career relatively early. Internal evidence from Steph.Com. fr. 1 would suggest Stephanus was still active during and even beyond the last decade of the fourth century (see comm. on fr. 1; see also Nicostr.Com. II *test. 2 line 48, this volume for other possible evidence), which would give him a relatively long career span of at least forty years. Nonetheless, apart from the claim that he ‘produced’ comedies written by his father (see on test. 3 below), our only other evidence for Stephanus’ dramatic activity is a single surviving play title and fragment from the Philolakōn.

296

Stephanus

Unfortunately, no didascalic information survives to inform us of a total number of plays or victories.

3. Literature Editions: Meineke 1841. 544; Kock 1888. 360–1; Edmonds 1959. 530–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 614 Studies: Meineke 1839. 376, 485–6; Körte 1929. 2364; Hidber 2006c; Sommerstein 2019b. 905

297

Commentary Testimonia test. 1 K.-A. Suda α 1138 (= Alex. test. 1) Ἄλεξις … κωμικός … ἔσχε δὲ υἱὸν Στέφανον, καὶ αὐτὸν κωμικόν. Alexis … comic poet … he had a son Stephanus, also himself a comic poet.

Discussion Meineke 1839. 376; Edmonds 1959. 372–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 614; Arnott 1996. 11. Citation context From the Byzantine lexicon-encyclopaedia known as the Suda (late 10th c. CE) which copied most of its biographical entries on the dramatic poets from a 9th century epitome of the Onomatologos of Hesychius (originally composed in the 6th c. CE). See on Philippid. test. 1 (this volume) for more details and bibliography. The biographical information here comes from the Suda entry on the Middle Comedy poet Alexis. Interpretation This phrase ἔσχε δὲ υἱὸν Στέφανον καὶ αὐτὸν κωμικόν, from the Suda entry on Alexis, is thought to be a duplicate, with a slight change in text and word order, of the similar phrase found in the Suda entry for Antiphanes (α 2735 = test. 2 below παῖδά τε ἔσχε Στέφανον καὶ αὐτὸν κωμικόν). It was evidently misplaced in the Alexis entry and properly belongs to the entry on Antiphanes since we know from elsewhere that Antiphanes’ father, according to one tradition, was named Stephanus (see test. 2 below), and that male children were often named after the paternal or maternal grandfather. How this detail came to be misplaced into the entry for Alexis is difficult to say. Arnott (1996. 11) suggests that a scribe may have accidentally omitted the words from the Antiphanes entry and later ‘added them in a margin or at the foot of the page, leaving a later scribe in doubt over their correct positioning’. This is certainly conceivable if the original entries for Alexis and Antiphanes in the Onomatologos of Hesychius were in close proximity to each other.

test. 2 K.-A. Suda α 2735 (= Antiph. test. 1) Ἀντιφάνης, Δημοφάνους, οἱ δὲ Στεφάνου καὶ μητρὸς Οἰνόης, Κιανός, ὡς δέ τινες Σμυρναῖος, κατὰ δὲ Διονύσιον Ῥόδιος· κωμικὸς τῆς μέσης κωμῳδίας … γέγονε δὲ κατὰ τὴν ϙγʹ Ὀλυμπιάδα καὶ ἔγραψε κωμῳδίας τξεʹ, οἱ δὲ σπʹ … παῖδά τε ἔσχε Στέφανον καὶ αὐτὸν κωμικόν.

298

Stephanus Antiphanes, son of Demophanes, others (say) of Stephanus and Oenoe, of Chios, but as some (say) of Smyrna, and according to Dionysius, from Rhodes; a poet of Middle Comedy … he was born in the 93rd Olympiad (i. e. 408/7–405/4 BCE) and he wrote 365 comedies, others (say) 280 … and he had a child Stephanus, also himself a comic poet.

Discussion Meineke 1839. 304; Flach 1882. 17 no. 63; Wagner 1905. 32–3; Edmonds 1959. 164–5; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 614; Arnott 1996. 11; Konstantakos 2000b passim. Citation context

From the Suda (see test. 1 above).

Interpretation Stephanus, it would appear, was named after his paternal grandfather, as was customary in Athens (both test. 2 and 3 name Stephanus as his paternal grandfather). While the tradition is disputed, since Demophanes is offered as an alternative, the sum of evidence nonetheless supports Stephanus. Leaving aside the dispute over the family’s place of origin, Stephanus’ father, Antiphanes, was reportedly a naturalised Athenian citizen, and as a result Stephanus would have received Athenian citizenship as well (see further on test. 3 below).

test. 3 K.-A. Anon. περὶ Κωμῳδίας (Proleg. de com. III.45–52), p. 10 Koster τῆς μὲν οὖν μέσης κωμῳδίας εἰσὶ ποιηταὶ νζʹ, καὶ τούτων δράματα φέρεται χιζʹ. τούτων δέ εἰσιν ἀξιολογώτατοι Ἀντιφάνης καὶ †Στέφανος†. Ἀντιφάνης μὲν οὖν Στεφάνου Ἀθηναῖος, καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν μετὰ τὴν ϙηʹ Ὀλυμπιάδα. καί φασιν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι μὲν τῶν ἀπὸ Θεσσαλίας ἐκ Λαρίσσης, παρεγγραφῆναι δὲ εἰς τὴν Ἀθηναίων πολιτείαν ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους … τῶν δὲ κωμῳδιῶν αὐτοῦ τινας καὶ ὁ Στέφανος ἐδίδαξεν. ἔστι δὲ αὐτοῦ δράματα σξʹ. †Στέφανος† EN2Ald : Ἄλεξις Dobree, Meineke αὐτοῦ⟩ Στέφανος Kaibel

μετά E : κατά Meineke

ὁ 〈 ὑιὸς

In Middle Comedy there are 57 poets, and of these 617 dramas are preserved. The most worthy of mention among these are Antiphanes and †Stephanus†. Antiphanes son of Stephanus was an Athenian, and he began to produce after (or ‘during’ if we read κατά) the 98th Olympiad (i. e. 388/7–385/4 BCE). They also say that he is a Thessalian, from Larissa, and that he was enrolled as an Athenian citizen by Demosthenes … Stephanus also produced some of his comedies. His dramas are 260.

Discussion Meineke 1830. 51; Dobree 1831–1833 II. 129; Meineke 1839. 304–5; Edmonds 1959. 162–3; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 614; Nesselrath 1990. 7 n. 19, 48 n. 45; Konstantakos 2000b. 184; Nervegna 2013. 39.

Testimonia (test. 3)

299

Text Dobree and Meineke independently corrected the corrupt †Στέφανος† to Ἄλεξις. The restoration of Alexis is supported by the canones comicorum in Kroehnert (Tab. M cap. 4; Tab. C cap. 10 = Alex. test. 3) where the two canonical poets of Middle Comedy are listed as Antiphanes and Alexis. In our text, subsequent repeated references to the name Stephanus (i. e. Antiphanes’ father and his comic-poet son) may have helped contribute to the error. It is even possible a kind of haplography occurred if a scribe, after copying the first instance of the name Antiphanes, somehow skipped ahead to the second occurrence of Antiphanes’ name where the patronymic Stephanus follows soon after (cf. Nesselrath 1990. 48 n. 45). Citation context From the anonymous work De Comoedia (= Proleg. de com. III Koster; see further under Philippid. test. 5 this volume). Interpretation If true, the claim that Stephanus’ father, Antiphanes, was granted Athenian citizenship by Demosthenes would suggest this honour came relatively late in Antiphanes’ career. Osborne (1983. 78) is sceptical that Demosthenes proposed these honours at all. Nevertheless, a time in the latter part of the fourth century seems very likely given that honorific decrees for theatre people became prominent in the late fourth century, especially during the Lycurgan period (i. e. 334/3–322/1 BCE), primarily as a means of shoring up support for the Athenian festivals in an increasingly competitive environment for attracting the best theatrical artists (see e. g. Csapo and Wilson 2014. 417–20; Lambert 2017. 102–5).154 If the general time-period for Antiphanes’ honours is correct, Stephanus, it would seem, was most likely born before this time and a non-Athenian by birth.155 Consequently, Stephanus’ mother too was necessarily non-Athenian. Honorary grants of citizenship, nonetheless, were typically extended to descendants of the recipient, so Stephanus would have received Athenian citizenship retroactively (see Osborne 1972. 147 n. 75; Osborne 1983. 150–4; Henry 1983. 66–8; Blok 2017. 261–2). The only restriction to Stephanus’ civic rights, owing to his mother’s presumed status as a non-Athenian, would have been disqualification from holding an archonship or priesthood in Athens ([D.] 59.92; Osborne 1983. 173–6; Blok 2017. 262–5).

154

155

Grants of citizenship required distinguished service to Athens (cf. [D.] 59.89–90), and it is possible political benefactions partly lie behind such grants to poets. Philemon is another comic poet granted Athenian citizenship (Osborne 1983. 81), apparently within the first twenty years of his career since we find an inscription dated to 306 BCE which names him as a member of the deme Diomeia (IG II3 4, 518.5 = Philem. test. 15). Similar honours were granted to Apollodorus of Carystus (Suda α 3404 = test. *7; Osborne 1983. 88). Antiphanes reportedly died ca. 330 BCE (see Suda α 2735 = Antiph. test. 1); although a later date near the end of the fourth century seems more likely (cf. Nesselrath 1990. 193–4; Konstantakos 2000b. 183).

300

Stephanus

The statement that Stephanus ‘produced’ comedies written by Antiphanes (τῶν δὲ κωμῳδιῶν αὐτοῦ τινας καὶ ὁ Στέφανος ἐδίδαξεν) is open to several possible interpretations. A standard modern reading would suggest that Stephanus directed plays written by Antiphanes, whether that involved applying to the archon for a chorus, taking responsibility for their production, or even helping to train the actors and chorus for the competition (see e. g. Leo 1878. 401–2; Wilhelm 1906a. 111–14; Wilhelm 1906b; cf. Capps 1907. 189). Credit for writing the play, on this scenario, would still have belonged to Antiphanes. Stephanus therefore presumably directed these comedies while Antiphanes was still alive, just as modern scholars suspect the obscure figures of Callistratus and Philonides156 acted on behalf of Aristophanes for many of his plays (see e. g. Ar. Ach. Hyp. I.37–8; V. Hyp. I.34–5; Av. Hyp. II.38–9; Lys. Hyp. I.33–4; Ra. Hyp. I.37–8). The comic poet Araros is sometimes thought to have directed plays by his father Aristophanes in apparently similar fashion (Ar. Pl. Hyp. III.6–7; Anon. Proleg. de com. III.41 Koster = Ar. test. 4.10; ΣAreth. Pl. Ap. 19c = Ar. test. 3.14; but see below for an alternative interpretation of the evidence). A closely related phenomenon, which may apply here, is posthumous performance where usually a son or other close relative is granted a chorus by the archon to produce the deceased father’s unpublished literary Nachlass. Most notable here are Euripides, whose son or nephew produced Iphigenia at Aulis, Alcmaeon and Bacchae at the City Dionysia after Euripides’ death, as Aristotle reports in his Didaskaliai (Arist. fr. 627 Rose = 446 Gigon = ΣVME Ar. Ra. 67d; cf. Suda ε 3695). So too Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus was reportedly produced by his grandson posthumously in 401 BCE (S. OC Hyp. II). Other possible cases of a son producing a father’s plays posthumously include Euphorion who, apart from producing his own plays, is said to have won four victories with plays by his father Aeschylus which had not previously been produced (Suda ε 3800 = TrGF I 12 T 1); while Aristias (TrGF I 9) reportedly came second at the Dionysia of 467 BCE ‘with the tragedies of his father Pratinus’ (POxy. 2256 fr. 2 = TrGF I, DID C 4), which seems to suggest posthumous production (contrast however Csapo and Wilson 2020. 479–80). Stephanus, in similar fashion, might have been conceived here as entering his father’s plays in the comic competitions under Antiphanes’ name after he had died.157 Another possible reading, which is attractive considering the massive number of comedies attributed to Antiphanes (i. e. variously given as 365, 280 or 260: test. 2 and 3), is that plays actually written and produced by Stephanus himself 156 157

Possibly the contemporary comic poet and fellow demesman of Aristophanes (see Welsh 1983). Some examples of Antiphanes’ plays which Edmonds thinks were produced posthumously by his son – all on the assumption Antiphanes died ca. 330 BCE (see Suda α 2735) – include Euthydikos, Kitharistēs and Chrysis (see Edmonds 1959. 203, 214–15, 283).

Testimonia (test. 3)

301

were ungenerously attributed by ancient scholars to his more famous father (cf. Mensching 1964. 19; Konstantakos 2000b. 178). This appears to have been a particularly common hazard for the sons of famous playwrights whose originality could easily be impugned by jealous rivals and contemporaries. Our clearest example of a poet who was victim of such insinuations is the tragic poet Iophon, son of Sophocles. Aristophanes in Frogs raised doubts about the authenticity of his tragedies by declaring that his worth as a tragic poet could only be properly gauged after his father was no longer around to help him (Ar. Ra. 76–9). Ancient scholars took this literally to suggest Sophocles actually co-wrote his son’s dramas: ΣRVME Ar. Ra. 78a–b; Suda ι 451 (= TrGF I 22 T 1a) δράματα δὲ Ἰοφῶν ἐδίδαξε νʹ … καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς Σοφοκλέους, ‘Iophon produced 50 dramas … and some others with his father Sophocles’. The same suspicion appears to have fallen on Araros, son of Aristophanes, who was also said to have produced his father’s plays, Ar. Pl. Hyp. III.3–7 τελευταίαν δὲ διδάξας τὴν κωμῳδίαν ταύτην ἐπὶ τῷ ἰδίῳ ὀνόματι, καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ συστῆσαι Ἀραρότα {δι’ αὐτῆς} τοῖς θεαταῖς βουλόμενος, τὰ ὑπόλοιπα δύο δι’ ἐκείνου καθῆκε, Κώκαλον 〈 καὶ Αἰολοσίκωνα⟩ , ‘(Aristophanes) having produced this comedy last in his own name (i. e. Wealth in 388), and wishing to recommend his son Araros to the spectators {through it}, presented his remaining two dramas, Kōkalos 〈 and Aiolosikōn⟩ , through him’. The authorship of the Kōkalos, we might note, was unambiguously attributed to Araros by one ancient tradition (Cl.Alex. Strom. 6.2.26.6 = Ar. Kōkalos test. iv). Didascalic records show that Araros was active as early as 387 BCE (the year after Wealth was produced and presumably while Aristophanes was still alive) where he is listed as the winner at the City Dionysia that year (IG II2 2318.196 = 1004 M-O).158 Such success might easily prompt malicious rumours by comic rivals that Aristophanes gave assistance or was even responsible for writing Araros’ comedies (cf. Capps 1907. 192, 198–9). Similarly, Stephanus, whether he received help from his more famous father or not, was perhaps subject to similar rumours which prompted ancient scholars to attribute some of his plays to Antiphanes. Two plays by Antiphanes which fall under suspicion of doubtful authorship due to internal dating criteria are the Parekdidomenē and the Didymoi. The first of these postdates 306 BCE due to its reference at fr. 185.4 to Seleucus as ‘king’, a time when Antiphanes is also generally thought to be dead; while the latter play at fr. 81.5 makes reference to an unidentified ‘king’ and may therefore also 158

The Suda α 3737 (= Arar. test. 1) gives his debut as 376–372 (διδάξας τὸ πρῶτον Ὀλυμπιάδι ραʹ) which is probably a corruption (see Capps 1907. 199; and cf. Philippid. test. 1 this volume for the easy corruption of dates in our sources; but contrast Tartaglia 2019. 231 who is sceptical). Some scholars have read this together with the evidence of the ‘Fasti’ (IG II2 2318) that in 387 BCE Araros must only have been ‘director’ (didascalus) of a play written by Aristophanes, and that the Fasti only recorded the name of the director, rather than the poet, as victor (see e. g. Wilhelm 1906b; although Capps 1907. 189 has reservations about this interpretation).

302

Stephanus

postdate 306 BCE (for this dating criterion, cf. comm. on Steph.Com. fr. 1.1 below; also Konstantakos 2000b. 187–91 on both plays). Both of these comedies may therefore have been written by Stephanus and were later (wrongly) reattributed to Antiphanes. One final interpretation to consider here is the possibility that Stephanus presented revised versions of his father’s plays (diaskeuai), altered to a greater or lesser extent, under his own name (he perhaps even completed unfinished plays by his father. On the revision of one poet’s comedy by another, see under Sosippus’ Apoleipousa ‘Title’, this volume, with bibliography). Two textual candidates again, as mentioned above, are the Parekdidomenē and Didymoi of Antiphanes, which could have been revised versions (diaskeuai) of Antiphanean originals by Stephanus. The apparent anachronisms in fragments 81 and 185 might be explained as later additions by a reviser, in this case by Antiphanes’ own son Stephanus (so Capps 1907. 191 n. 1; cf. Konstantakos 2000b. 188, 190–1). Among other comedies by Antiphanes, his Boutaliōn is known to be a revised version of one of his Agroikoi comedies (Ath. 8.358d), while other comedies with double titles might be evidence of later revisions. It is at least possible that later revisions of Antiphanes’ comedies were made by Stephanus who competed with these renovated versions as his own work.

303

Play Title and Fragment Φιλολάκων (Philolakōn) (‘Sparta-Lover’)

Discussion Meineke 1839. 304, 485–6; Meineke 1841. 544; Kock 1888. 360; Edmonds 1959. 530–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 615. Title No other comedy is known by this title. Compounds with the prefix Φιλare especially popular in the New Comedy poet Philippides (see this volume), but interestingly they are also well attested in the comedies of Stephanus’ father, the Middle Comedy poet Antiphanes. Thematically similar titles with a focus on a particular geographical region or population in Greece are Antiphanes’ Philothēbaios (‘Thebes-Lover’) and the Philathēnaios (‘Athens-Lover’) comedies of Alexis and Philippides (cf. also IG II2 2323.135 = 177 M-O for another possible example in 197 BCE). The prefix in comedy usually suggests an excessive ‘love’ for a particular object or thing, with the obsession typically characterised, as often elsewhere in Greek literature, in terms of a disease (νόσος) or madness (μανία). In extant comedy the idea is first explored to any significant extent in the prologue to Aristophanes’ Wasps (Ar. V. 71–88; Lenaea 422 BCE) where the slave characters Xanthias and Sosias challenge the audience to guess what ‘disease’ (νόσος) their master – later revealed to have the name ‘Philo-cleon’ – suffers, listing a host of vices all beginning with the prefix ‘φιλ-’ (e. g. ‘lover of dice’, ‘lover of drink’, ‘lover of sacrifices’, ‘lover of law courts’ and, with particular relevance here, ‘lover of foreigners’). Poll. 6.166 preserves an extensive list of similar compound adjectives, many of which were clearly taken from comedy (Alexis is cited twice among them, see Alex. frr. 336–7; see also Bagordo 2014b. 167–8 for a fuller list of analogous comic titles in Middle and New Comedy). For other examples where the prefix ‘φιλ-’ denotes an illness or madness, see this volume under the discussion of Philippides’ Philargyros and Phileuripidēs. Examples of the epithet φιλολάκων are found generally in late sources, especially Plutarch. Among the figures labelled such are the Athenian politicians Cimon (Plu. Cim. 16.1; Per. 9.5); Alcibiades (Ael. VH 4.15; cf. Plu. Alc. 23.3); and the historian Ctesias of Cnidus (FGrH 688) who is criticised for his pro-Spartan bias (Plu. Art. 13.7). We also have the often-repeated anecdote of the foreigner in Sparta who brags that in his home city he is called a ‘lover of Sparta’, only to be rebuked by Theopompus that it would be more honourable to be called a lover of one’s own city (Plu. Lyc. 20.3; cf. Mor. 221d). In all cases the name is applied to a foreigner, i. e. a non-Spartan citizen, who has pro-Spartan tendencies. Stereotypical traits of the φιλολάκων emerge from numerous ancient sources. These mostly outline physical characteristics and habits, consciously cultivated (cf. the verb λακωνίζειν), describing such persons as dirty, long-haired (cf.

304

Stephanus

Hdt. 1.82.37–9), simple of diet, and generally of ascetic habits (see also Geddes 1987. 320). So we find in Ar. Av. 1281–3 ἐλακωνομάνουν ἅπαντες ἄνθρωποι τότε, ἐκόμων, ἐπείνων, ἐρρύπων, ἐσωκράτων, σκυτάλι’ ἐφόρουν, ‘everyone at that time was mad for Sparta, they grew their hair long, fasted, were dirty, acted like Socrates, carried Spartan clubs’; Ar. Lys. 275–80 ὅμως Λακωνικὸν πνέων †ᾤχετο θὤπλα παραδοὺς ἐμοί, σμικρὸν ἔχων πάνυ τριβώνιον,† πεινῶν, ῥυπῶν, ἀπαράτιλτος, ἓξ ἐτῶν ἄλουτος, ‘nonetheless he left breathing Spartan spirit, handing me his arms, wearing a very small cloak, starving, dirty, unshaven, unwashed for six years’. Pl.Com. fr. 132 χαίρεις, οἶμαι, μεταπεττεύσας αὐτὸν διακλιμακίσας τε, τὸν ὑπηνόβιον σπαρτιοχαίτην ῥυποκόνδυλον ἑλκετρίβωνα, ‘you take pleasure, I think, in moving him like a chequer and twisting him like a wrestler, he who lives by his beard, with hair like rope, dirty knuckles, and ‘trailing’ threadbare cloak’; Antiph. fr. 46 ἐν Λακεδαίμονι / γέγονας· ἐκείνων τῶν νόμων μεθεκτέον / ἐστίν. βάδιζ’ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς τὰ φιδίτια, / ἀπόλαυε τοῦ ζωμοῦ, † φόρει τοὺς βύστακας. / μὴ καταφρόνει, μηδ’ ἕτερ’ ἐπιζήτει καλά, / ἐν τοῖς δ’ ἐκείνων ἔθεσιν ἴσθ’ ἀρχαιικός, ‘you were born in Sparta – you should practice those customs. Go to the mess-hall for dinner, enjoy the broth, wear a moustache. Don’t be arrogant, and don’t pursue other pleasures, but be old-fashioned in their manner’; Pl. Prt. 342b–c τοὺς ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι λακωνίζοντας, καὶ οἱ μὲν ὦτά τε κατάγνυνται μιμούμενοι αὐτούς, καὶ ἱμάντας περιειλίττονται καὶ φιλογυμναστοῦσιν καὶ βραχείας ἀναβολὰς φοροῦσιν, ὡς δὴ τούτοις κρατοῦντας τῶν Ἑλλήνων τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, ‘those in the cities who emulate Spartan ways, and who break their ears imitating them, and wind leather straps around their knuckles and are fond of exercise and wear short cloaks in the belief that the Spartans gained mastery of the Greeks with these’; D. 54.34 ἀλλ’ ἴσασιν ὑμῶν, ὡς ἐγὼ νομίζω, πολλοὶ καὶ τὸν Διότιμον καὶ τὸν Ἀρχεβιάδην καὶ τὸν Χαιρήτιον τὸν ἐπιπόλιον τουτονί, οἳ μεθ’ ἡμέραν μὲν ἐσκυθρωπάκασιν καὶ λακωνίζειν φασὶ καὶ τρίβωνας ἔχουσιν καὶ ἁπλᾶς ὑποδέδενται, ἐπειδὰν δὲ συλλεγῶσιν καὶ μετ’ ἀλλήλων γένωνται, κακῶν καὶ αἰσχρῶν οὐδὲν ἐλλείπουσι, ‘but many of you know, so I believe, Diotimos and Archebiades and Chairetios, the grey-haired one here, who each day scowl and say that they imitate the Spartans and dress in threadbare cloaks and wear single-soled shoes, but when they gather and are in each other’s company leave out no act of wickedness and disgrace’; Plu. Alc. 23.3 κουριῶντα καὶ ψυχρολουτοῦντα καὶ μάζῃ συνόντα καὶ ζωμῷ μέλανι χρώμενον, ‘in need of a haircut and taking cold baths and eating simple bread and having black broth’; Plu. Phoc. 10.1 ἦν δέ τις Ἀρχιβιάδης ἐπικαλούμενος Λακωνιστής, πώγωνά τε καθειμένος ὑπερφυῆ μεγέθει, καὶ τρίβωνα φορῶν ἀεὶ καὶ σκυθρωπάζων, ‘there was a man called Archibiades who imitated the Spartans by letting his beard overgrow in size, and by wearing a threadbare cloak at all times and by scowling’. Other stereotypical Spartan character traits are found across various sources (see esp. Göbel 1915. 45–52). Among these we find avarice and greed, e. g. E. Andr. 451 (αἰσχροκερδεῖς); Ar. Pax 623 (αἰσχροκερδεῖς); Σ E. Andr. 446 = Arist. fr. 544 Rose = 550 Gigon (cf. D.S. 7.12.5 who says it is part of an oracle brought

Φιλολάκων

305

back from Delphi by Lycurgus: ἁ φιλοχρηματία Σπάρταν ὀλεῖ, ἄλλο δέ γ’ οὐδέν, ‘love of money will destroy Sparta, nothing else’); X. Lac. 14.3; Isoc. 11.20 (τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀργίαν καὶ πλεονεξίαν, ‘the idleness and greed of the Spartans’); Plu. Lyc. 30.1 (Ἄγιδος δὲ βασιλεύοντος εἰσερρύη νόμισμα πρῶτον εἰς τὴν Σπάρτην, καὶ μετὰ τοῦ νομίσματος πλεονεξία καὶ πλούτου ζῆλος ἐπέβη διὰ Λύσανδρον, ‘money first flowed into Sparta when Agis was king, and with the money greed and zeal for wealth arrived because of Lysander’). Another trait is deceptiveness and untrustworthiness, e. g. Hdt. 9.54 (ἄλλα φρονεόντων καὶ ἄλλα λεγόντων, ‘they think one thing and say another’); E. Andr. 446–7 (Σπάρτης ἔνοικοι, δόλια βουλευτήρια, / ψευδῶν ἄνακτες, ‘inhabitants of Sparta, deceptive councillors, lords of lies’); Andr. 451–2 (λέγοντες ἄλλα μὲν / γλώσσῃ, φρονοῦντες δ’ ἄλλ’, ‘saying one thing with their tongue, but thinking another’); Ar. Ach. 308 (οἷσιν οὔτε βωμὸς οὔτε πίστις οὔθ’ ὅρκος μένει, ‘for whom neither altar nor pledge nor oath abides’); Pax 623 (διειρωνόξενοι, ‘thoroughly disingenuous’); Pax 1067–8 (ἀλωπεκιδεῦσι πέπεισθε, / ὧν δόλιαι ψυχαί, δόλιαι φρένες, ‘you have put your trust in fox-cubs, whose hearts are deceptive and minds are deceptive’). Other traditionally ascribed characteristics include brevity of speech (e. g. ΣVΓLh Ar. Pax 623a σμικρολόγοι οἱ Λάκωνες) and a reputation for pederasty (e. g. Suda λ 62 = Ar. fr. 358 λακωνίζειν δὲ παιδικοῖς χρῆσθαι). See further Göbel 1915. 50–2. The adjective φιλολάκων may also carry political connotations. Just as Spartan habits are generally held to be the opposite of Athenian ones (see on Philippides’ Philathēnaios this volume), this also extends to political beliefs. Our most famous political figure to be labelled a φιλολάκων, Cimon of Athens (Plu. Cim. 16.1), is said to have given his children Spartan names, valued the Spartan alliance, and to have had a tendency to chide Athenian faults by always remarking ‘the Spartans are not like this’ (Stesimbr. FGrH 107 F 7 ap. Plu. Cim. 16.3 ἀλλ’ οὐ Λακεδαιμόνιοί γε τοιοῦτοι). The charge of φιλολάκων was apparently used against Cimon to secure his ostracism, with the epithet effectively equivalent in meaning to ‘anti-democratic’ (Plu. Per. 9.5 Κίμωνα δ’ ὡς φιλολάκωνα καὶ μισόδημον ἐξοστρακισθῆναι, ‘Cimon was ostracised on the grounds that he was a lover of Sparta and a hater of the dēmos’). Content Our only fragment reveals that one of the characters was named Sosias, a name typically associated with slaves, as well as his unnamed interlocutor. A third figure referred to in our fragment, who supposedly received a gift of land from a king, may be a mercenary (braggart) soldier who featured in this comedy (see further under fr. 1 ‘Interpretation’).159

159

Edmonds (1959. 530–1) suggests this figure may have been an Athenian mercenary about to fight for king Archidamas III of Sparta during his expedition to South Italy, and therefore identifies him as the ‘Sparta Lover’ of the title. But it is far from certain the Spartan king is meant here.

306

Stephanus

In terms of the comedy’s possible themes, a satirical character study of someone who imitates Spartan practices, style and diet seems most likely (so Meineke 1839. 486; Kock 1888. 360). As Kock notes, ‘those foolish admirers of Spartan habits’ are mocked elsewhere in comedy (see the passages quoted under ‘Title’ above) and were still known in the late fourth century, as passages from Demosthenes and Plutarch demonstrate (D. 54.34; Plu. Phoc. 10.1). A fragment from a comparably titled play, Antiphanes’ Philothēbaios (‘Thebes Lover’), seems to hint at ways such a character might be treated in our play, with fr. 216.1–7 there mentioning Boiotian eel cooked at a banquet, perhaps in connection with the titular character who presumably enjoyed such delicacies from that region. An ethical theme or character study also seems to underpin most other comedies with similarly compounded titles. Date Unknown. But see under fr. 1 ‘Interpretation’ for a probable date post 306 BCE.

fr. 1 K.-A. (1 K.)

5

(Σω.) τούτῳ προέπιεν ὁ βασιλεὺς κώμην τινά. (Β.) καινόν τι τοῦτο γέγονε νῦν ποτήριον; (Σω.) κώμη μὲν οὖν τις ἐστὶ περὶ τὴν Θουρίαν. (Β.) εἰς τὰς Ῥοδιακὰς ὅλος ἀπηνέχθην ἐγὼ καὶ τοὺς ἐφήβους, Σωσία, τοὺς δυσχερεῖς

1 τούτῳ προέπιεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Ath.A : τούτῳ δὲ προὔπιεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Pierson : τούτῳ δ’ 4 δ’ οδιακος ὁ βασιλεὺς προὔπιεν Bothe 2 τι νῦν Ath.A : τι τοῦτο νῦν Jacobs A Ath. : Ῥοδιακὰς Jacques Adam 5 δυσχερις Ath.A : δυσχερεῖς Casaubon : εὐχερεῖς Herwerden

5

(Sos.) The King pledged him a village over drinks. (B.) Is this some new drinking cup now? (Sos.) No, it is a village near Thuria. (B.) I was completely carried off course to the ‘Rhodians’ and the ‘ephebes’, Sosias, damn them!

Ath. 11.469a (ACE) ἔφηβος. τὸ καλούμενον ποτήριον ἐμβασικοίταν οὕτως φησὶ καλεῖσθαι Φιλήμων ὁ Ἀθηναῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἀττικῶν Ὀνομάτων ἢ Γλωσσῶν. Στέφανος δ’ ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν Φιλολάκωνί φησι· — Ephēbos: Philemon of Athens in his work On Attic Names or Expressions says that the so-called embasikoitas drinking-cup is named thus. Stephanus the comic (poet) says in his Philolakōn: —

Φιλολάκων (fr. 1)

Metre Iambic trimeter.

5

l l l l l

l l l l l

k k k k k

r k | r k l l k | r k | l l k | l k | r r l | r k l l l | l k l l

307

l l k l k l k l l l k l l l k l l k l

Discussion Meineke 1841. 544; Kock 1888. 360–1; Steiger 1888. 52–3; Körte 1929. 2364; Edmonds 1959. 530–1; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 615. Citation context From the Deipnosophistai of Athenaeus (2nd c. CE). The passage forms part of a lengthy discussion on the names of various types of drinking cups (here cited as evidence for the drinking cup named ἔφηβος at line 5). The discussion of cup names begins around Ath. 11.782d and proceeds in roughly alphabetic order. Text In line 1 earlier scholars sought to integrate the contracted form προῦπιεν into the text which required further alterations to the line, e. g. Pierson (1830. 276, first published in 1759): τούτῳ δὲ προὔπιεν (which Meineke 1841 corrected to τούτῳ δὲ προὔπι’ ὁ β. for the sake of scansion), and Bothe 1855. 702: τούτῳ δ’ ὁ βασιλεὺς προὔπιεν. But while the contracted form of this verb is certainly predominant elsewhere (e. g. Ar. Th. 631; Men. fr. 401.3; Damox. fr. 1.4; E. Rh. 405; cf. also similar contractions of προε- > προὔ-), uncontracted compounds with προ- nevertheless occur often enough in comedy for us to have confidence in the text, see generally Lautensach 1899. 126–8, and note the examples at Ar. Nu. 989 (προέχων); Av. 596 (προερεῖ); Pl.Com. fr. 117 (προέχοντες); Antiph. fr. 54.4 (προεληλύθασιν); Alex. fr. 153.11 and 12 (προοπτήσαντα); Men. Dysc. 2 (προέρχομαι); fr. 110.2 (προελήλυθας); and perhaps Men. fr. 420.5 (προέλαβεν so Meineke, but προσέβαλεν Porson, Kock, Kassel-Austin). Inscriptional evidence, too, reveals a tendency to leave προ- compounds uncontracted from the second half of the fourth century and throughout the Hellenistic period (see Meisterhans 1900. 173 §25; Threatte 1996. 497–8). In line 2 the manuscript reading does not scan. The simplest solution has involved moving νῦν, which according to Jacobs (1809. 252) was thoughtlessly misplaced by a tired copyist. Jacobs’ proposed text (1809. 251: καινόν τι τοῦτο νῦν γέγονε ποτήριον) is quite possible, even likely if νῦν was accidentally placed one word earlier due to the similar endings of τι and -το. Nonetheless editors of Athenaeus and the comic poets, at least since the edition of Dindorf (1827. 1049), have mostly adopted the text printed above. An exception is Meineke’s edition of Athenaeus (1858 II) which reverts as closely as possible to the manuscript reading by printing καινόν τι νῦν τουτί. The deictic form of the demonstrative, however, makes little sense in the given context. At line 4 Adam’s Ῥοδιακάς for the corrupt δ’ οδιακος of manuscript A is almost certainly correct. The related form Ῥοδιάδας is less likely.

308

Stephanus

In line 5 Herwerden’s εὐχερεῖς in place of δυσχερεῖς is unnecessary. Herwerden’s interpretation considers Speaker B to be bibulous and pederastic (1903. 196 ‘qui loquitur homo dissolutus nihil curabat nisi pocula et pueros’) and apparently assumes that his mind has wandered off topic to the delights of the symposium, in which case, he argues, Speaker B was more likely daydreaming about ‘easy’ (εὐχερεῖς) boys rather than difficult (δυσχερεῖς) ones (‘non morosus, opinor, et difficiles, sed leves facilesque’). But Speaker B seems to be commenting about the word ἐφήβους itself (and Ῥοδιακάς for that matter) and curses them for the confusion they cause as names also for drinking cups (see below). Interpretation A conversation, probably between a slave (Sosias) and an unidentified interlocutor, with a misunderstanding over the meaning of κώμη – wrongly assumed by Speaker B to be a type of drinking cup when here it is intended in its literal sense ‘village’. The confusion is prompted by the verb προέπιεν which can take an accusative object to denote the gift pledged during a toast – usually a valuable drinking cup – and by the Athenian fashion for giving colourful nicknames to various kinds of drinking cups. Immediately before this fragment, so Kock suggests (1888. 360–1), someone may have mentioned other drinking cups which naturally led Speaker B to assume that a κώμη was also a cup: ‘ante v. 1 mira poculorum genera, qualia erant ἐλέφας, τραγέλαφος, τριήρης … altera persona commemoraverat: quo fiebat ut is quocum loquebatur etiam κώμην pro poculo haberat’. It may be enough, however, to explain the confusion purely by the verb προέπιεν without having to evoke previous discussion of drinking cups. Nonetheless, judging from the context, the discussion beforehand probably provided some background for the award of the village (most likely to a soldier, see below). It is quite possible other rewards in the form of drinking cups were mentioned soon beforehand, more specifically ‘Rhodians’ and ‘ephebes’. While it can only remain a speculative reconstruction, a joke in which Speaker B had first mistaken ‘Rhodian’ and ‘ephebe’ style drinking-cups as literal references to Rhodian women and ephebes,160 and then in our surviving passage, after being corrected, does the opposite and misinterprets the word κώμη (‘village’) to mean a drinking-cup, would provide Speaker B with reason to curse these earlier words at the end of the fragment due to the verbal pitfalls they caused him. The identity of the unnamed figure in line 1 (τούτῳ) who received the village could admit various possibilities, historical or fictional. But in a comedy it more than likely refers to a braggart soldier (miles gloriosus), presumably a mercenary working for the army of the unidentified ‘king’ (for soldiers in comedy, see generally Ribbeck 1882. 26–42, 55–75; Parke 1933. 234–5; Duckworth 1952. 160

The unqualified feminine form Ῥοδιακάς would have encouraged misinterpretation (see note in comm. on feminine names for cups). The historical background to the discussion about prizes in this fragment could have been the siege of Rhodes (305–304 BCE) by Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Peloponnesian campaign that followed (see below).

Φιλολάκων (fr. 1)

309

264–5; Hunter 1985. 66; Nesselrath 1990. 325–9; Mastromarco 2005). Kings and mercenary soldiers go hand-in-hand in comedy. We find a braggart soldier in Antiph. fr. 200 who tells us of the hospitality he enjoyed, with fantastic exaggeration, at the court of the king in Cyprus (apparently Evagoras I of Salamis, d. 374 BCE). Another braggart soldier at Phoenicid. fr. 4.4–11 continually boasts to his lover, evidently a courtesan, how he received a gift (δωρεά, an estate?) from the (unidentified) ‘king’ for his military services. In Plautus (Epid. 449–51) we find a conversation between a braggart soldier and a former soldier referring to the great wealth the latter made in the service of the kings. A soldier in Plaut. Mil. 75–7 mentions how he works for king Seleucus enlisting other mercenaries; while the soldier Thraso in Ter. Eun. 397–412 tells how he was a close friend of the king (unnamed). One might also note the braggart soldier in Nicostratus’ suggestively titled Basileis (Ath. 6.230d); Damox. fr. 1 where we appear to have a mercenary soldier toasted and presented with a cup by the Thracian dynast Adaeus of Cypsela (cf. Gallo 1981. 76); while outside of comedy we have Thphr. Char. 23.3 which features a braggart (ἀλαζών) who claims to have fought beside Alexander the Great and to have been close friends with him. Our Stephanus fragment, then, may very well describe another boastful mercenary soldier supposedly rewarded for his services to a king. The storyteller in this case could very well be his slave. Both the specific identity of the king and the location of the town ‘Thuria’ are interdependent problems. Thuria could refer to (a) the Athenian colony in South Italy, or (b) the town in the south-west Peloponnese (see note below). Several scholars (e. g. Kock, Steiger, Edmonds) suggest that Thurii in South Italy is the site referred to here. A passage in Strabo provides a host of possible kings who have had military dealings in South Italy, and who may be the referent of our fragment: Str. 6.3.4.12–21 τὸν Μολοττὸν Ἀλέξανδρον μετεπέμψαντο ἐπὶ Μεσσαπίους καὶ Λευκανούς, καὶ ἔτι πρότερον Ἀρχίδαμον τὸν Ἀγησιλάου καὶ ὕστερον Κλεώνυμον καὶ Ἀγαθοκλέα, εἶτα Πύρρον, ἡνίκα συνέστησαν πρὸς Ῥωμαίους. οὐδ’ ἐκείνοις δ’ εὐπειθεῖν ἠδύναντο οὓς ἐπεκαλοῦντο, ἀλλ’ εἰς ἔχθραν αὐτοὺς καθίστασαν. ὁ γοῦν Ἀλέξανδρος τὴν κοινὴν Ἑλλήνων τῶν ταύτῃ πανήγυριν, ἣν ἔθος ἦν ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ συντελεῖν τῆς Ταραντίνης, μετάγειν ἐπειρᾶτο εἰς τὴν Θουρίαν κατὰ ἔχθος, ‘(The Tarentines) sent for Alexander the Molossian against the Messapians and Leucanians, and still before then Archidamus the son of Agesilaus, and later Cleonymus and Agathocles, then Pyrrhus when they formed an alliance against the Romans. Nor were they able to stay obedient to those whom they summoned, but made them hostile. Alexander, at any rate, tried to transfer the common assembly of the Greeks in this area – which was customarily held at Heracleia in the Tarentine district – to Thuria due to enmity’. Taking these kings in chronological order, Edmonds (1959. 530) suggests Archidamas III of Sparta, who was killed in South Italy in 338 BCE, may be the king in our fragment. But his death on cam-

310

Stephanus

paign makes this unlikely.161 Another mooted possibility is Alexander I of Epirus (Alexander the Molossian) who went to the aid of the Tarentines in 334–331 BCE and again was killed in Italy. He seems a strong candidate in that he apparently attempted to move the Greek assembly to Thurii (Str. 6.3.4 quoted above), giving him a direct link to the area. But his death on campaign again makes him seem an unlikely referent. Kock and Körte are inclined to the view that Pyrrhus of Epirus, who assisted the Tarentines against Rome in 280–279 BCE, is implied here. Kassel and Austin (1989. 615), however, note that this would be quite late if Stephanus was the son of Antiphanes.162 Alternatively (and the location considered most likely here) Thuria could refer to the town in Messenia located in the south-west Peloponnese (so Schweighäuser and Meineke: ‘Thuriam intellego cum Schweigh. Messeniacam’). We can rule out that a Spartan king supposedly grants the Messenian village to our soldier since Messenia ceased to fall under Spartan control in 369 or 338 BCE. Instead the fragment may allude to the invasion of the Peloponnese by king Demetrius Poliorcetes in 303 BCE (Demetrius received the title ‘king’ in 306 BCE, see comm. below). It is uncertain whether Demetrius took control of the important town of Messene on that occasion (see Roebuck 1941. 61 with n. 12) and with it neighbouring Thuria which had shared political bonds with Messene (Roebuck 1941. 112–16). A passage in Plutarch, however, seems to imply precisely Demetrius’ capture of the town where Nicodemus the Messenian is said to have changed his allegiance from Cassander to Demetrius, stating that the latter was at that stage ‘in power’ (Plu. Dem. 13.4 ἀεὶ γὰρ εἶναι συμφέρον ἀκροᾶσθαι τῶν κρατούντων, ‘for it is always expedient to listen to those in power’). If the recipient of the village near Thuria was a mercenary soldier (as suggested earlier), and that this figure, as appropriate for a soldier, is also the ‘Sparta-Lover’ of our title, it would be quite apt for him to boast about receiving a Messenian village as a gift, especially one whose inhabitants, historically, were once enslaved by Sparta as helots (cf. Sommerstein 2019b. 905). If our fragment alludes to the invasion of the Peloponnese by Demetrius, there may also be a Demetrian connection with the ‘Rhodians’ mentioned at line 4. The famous siege of Rhodes by Demetrius took place in the years 305–304 BCE, immediately before the Peloponnesian campaign of 303 BCE, and might also have been 161

162

On Edmonds’ reading the king pledges a soldier a village near Thurii ‘in anticipation’ of a successful campaign. But the type of pledge in our fragment involves the very act of handing over the gift, which in this case the king did not yet possess or have the authority to hand over. Steiger (1888. 52–3) suggests Philip II of Macedon is intended, despite the fact he has no historical links with Thurii in South Italy. He considers the phrase κώμη μὲν οὖν τις ἐστὶ περὶ τὴν Θουρίαν (‘there is a village near Thuria’) as quasi-proverbial of a place so far away that the recipient is not likely ever to see it or have the benefit of it: ‘es handle sich um ein wirkliches Dorf, aber um eines, das der Beschenkte wohl nie sehen werde, denn es liege bei Thurioi. “Das Dorf liegt im Mond” würden wir sagen’.

Φιλολάκων (fr. 1)

311

mentioned together with that campaign. Demetrius certainly used large numbers of mercenaries in his armies around this time (D.S. 20.110.4; Parke 1933. 220; Griffith 1935. 52–5; cf. IG II3 1, 877.20–6 = Philippid. test. 3 with comm. on line 20 this volume: three-hundred Athenian mercenaries used by Demetrius at Ipsos). On the reading outlined above, the fragment could possibly be dated to 302 or 301 BCE – i. e. after the Peloponnesian campaign of 303 BCE and before the Battle of Ipsos when Demetrius subsequently lost control of the Peloponnese as well as the title of ‘king’ in Athens (see on Philippid. test. 3.18). 1 τούτῳ The demonstrative can be used of someone or something either present on stage, or else immediately present in the speaker’s mind (in this case apparently the latter). See K.-G. I p. 645 §467.5. For the possibility it refers to a comic character in the mould of the braggart soldier, see ‘Interpretation’ above. προέπιεν The verb often means to make a toast, usually followed by passing the cup to someone to drink (cf. e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 3; Men. fr. 401). But it can also mean to pledge a gift with that toast, typically the cup itself. In earlier sources, the act of ‘toasting’ and ‘giving’ of the cup (i. e. as a gift, rather than simply passing it to the next drinker at the party) are expressed separately, as we find in Pindar O. 7.1–4 φιάλαν … δωρήσεται νεανίᾳ γαμβρῷ προπίνων, ‘he will present (as a gift) a phiale to the young bridegroom while toasting him’. See also X. Cyr. 8.3.35 τὰ ἐκπώματα αὐτῷ ἃ ἔλαβε παρὰ Κύρου ἐμπιμπλὰς προύπινε καὶ ἐδωρεῖτο, ‘filling the cups which he received from Cyrus he made a toast and gave them to him as a gift’ (see Gallo 1981. 84 n. 55). Later the verb προπίνειν alone can express both ideas of ‘toasting’ and ‘giving (as a gift)’, as the scholia on Pindar would suggest, Σ Pi. O. 7.5a προπίνειν ἐστὶ κυρίως τὸ ἅμα τῷ κράματι τὸ ἀγγεῖον χαρίζεσθαι … ἀντὶ τοῦ χαρίζου, ‘propinein is properly the act of giving the vessel as a favour along with the mixed wine … give as a favour’. For this meaning, cf. the war spoils and expensive cups ‘pledged’ by Philip to the Theban envoys at D. 19.139 πίνων … ὁ Φίλιππος ἄλλα τε δὴ πολλά, οἷον αἰχμάλωτα καὶ τοιαῦτα, καὶ τελευτῶν ἐκπώματ’ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ χρυσᾶ προὔπινεν αὐτοῖς, ‘while drinking … along with many other things such as war booty and the like, Philip at last pledged them gold and silver drinking cups’. See also Damox. fr. 1.4–5 where the interlocutors discuss a large elaborate drinking horn brought on stage which one of them says was a pledge from king Adaeus: προὔπιεν δέ μοί ποτε / ἐν Κυψέλοις Ἀδαῖος, ‘Adaeus once pledged it to me in Cypsela’; and Plu. Alex. 39.2 on Alexander’s generosity and gifts where he pledges Ariston of Paeonia the gift of an expensive cup: “τοῦτ’” εἶπεν “ὦ βασιλεῦ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐκπώματος χρυσοῦ τιμᾶται τὸ δῶρον.” ὁ δ’ Ἀλέξανδρος γελάσας “κενοῦ γ’” εἶπεν, “ἐγὼ δέ σοι μεστὸν ἀκράτου προπίομαι”, ‘“this gift (i. e. an enemy’s severed head), my king”, he said, “is rewarded among our people with a gold cup”. And Alexander, with a laugh, said “yes, an empty one! But I shall pledge you one full of neat wine”’. Cf. also the anecdote about Alcibiades toasting Thrasyllus with a gift of numerous cups at Ath. 12.534e–f. Apart from expensive cups, other gifts could also be pledged over drinks, as shown by D. 19.139 (i. e. ‘war booty’, quoted above), and by our Stephanus frag-

312

Stephanus

ment (a village). Cf. also Anacr. PMG 407 ἀλλὰ πρόπινε ῥαδινοὺς ὦ φίλε μηρούς, ‘but pledge me your slender thighs, dear boy’; and D. 18.296 τὴν ἐλευθερίαν προπεπωκότες πρότερον μὲν Φιλίππῳ, νῦν δ’ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, ‘having pledged their freedom first to Philip, and now to Alexander’ (i. e. disloyal Greek ambassadors conceived as toasting away their freedom, as it were, while enjoying Macedonian hospitality). ὁ βασιλεύς References to kings in comedy during the second half of the fourth century and early Hellenistic period typically involve the Argeads (more specifically Alexander III the Great) or the Diadochi (Successors) of Alexander and their descendants. Theoretically, however, the word could also refer to the kings of Sparta, Persia, or even of myth (e. g. Ephipp. fr. 5.9; on the use of the title in Greek and its referents, see Dickey 1996. 90–5). The Successors of Alexander only began using the title ‘king’ after the death of Alexander IV (323–310 BCE) – at first Antigonus I Monophthalmus and Demetrius Poliorcetes after the Battle of Cyprian Salamis in 306 BCE, followed soon after by the other Successors (see Plu. Demetr. 18.1; D.S. 20.53.2–4; Just. Epit. 15.2.10–14; Heidelberg Epitome FGrH 155 F 1.7; also Ferguson 1911. 107–8; Shear 1978. 16–17). For references to Alexander and his Successors as kings in comedy, see e. g. Antiph. fr. 81.5 (possibly Alexander); fr. 185.4 (Seleucus I Nikator); Alex. fr. 116.4 (Antigonus I Monophthalmus); fr. 246.1 (Ptolemy II Philadelphus); Philem. frr. 61.2 and 132.1 (probably Ptolemy I Soter); Men. Kol. fr. 2.3–4 Arnott (Alexander); Plaut. Mil. 75 (probably Seleucus I Nikator). Cf. also Macho fr. 5.26 (Ptolemy I or II) and fr. 15.227 (Demetrius Poliorcetes). Among the inscriptional evidence referring to the Hellenistic rulers as ‘kings’, see e. g. IG II2 469.7–8 of 306/5 BCE (Antigonus and Demetrius); IG II2 480.17 of 305/4 BCE (Demetrius); IG II3 1, 844.13–14 = IG II2 641 of 299/8 BCE (Cassander); IG II3 1, 877.16–17 = IG II2 657 of 283/2 BCE (Lysimachus); IG II3 1, 911.23, 44–5 = SEG 28.60 of 270/69 BCE (Ptolemy I Soter, Ptolemy II Philadelphus); IG II3 1, 912.16, 33 = IG II2 687 of 266/5 BCE (Ptolemy II Philadelphus); IG II3 1, 982.19–20 = IG II2 477 of 260/59 BCE (Antigonus II Gonatas). The Persian King is mentioned, without name, at Antiph. fr. 59.5; cf. also Phoenicid. fr. 4.8 where the king’s name is not stated, although a non-specific Macedonian ruler may be implied. Here we may have a vague, non-specific reference to any king. But the mention of ‘Thuria’ at line 3 may point to a specific individual (see under ‘Interpretation’ above for possible candidates). His identity might have been understood by the audience without explicit mention. But it could be that the king’s name was mentioned earlier in the lost lines which preceded our fragment. Abbreviated references to a ‘king’ often occur when the king had already been named earlier, so we find e. g. at Alex. fr. 246.1 and 3; Macho fr. 5.26 and 29. Cf. also IG II3 1, 877 (= Philippid. test. 3, this volume) where king Lysimachus is explicitly named at first (lines 10 and 16–17), but in subsequent references named only as ‘king’ (lines 21, 33 and 37).

Φιλολάκων (fr. 1)

313

2 ποτήριον The term ποτήριον, like ἔκπωμα, means a drinking cup in general (Poll. 6.95; Hsch. ε 1656; Phot. π 1124). See further on Philippid. fr. 28.1. 3 μὲν οὖν The particles here have adversative force, i. e. ‘on the contrary’, ‘rather’. See Denniston 1954. 475 (3i). Θουρίαν Two locations are possible here: South Italy or the Peloponnese. Grammatical sources give this form of the name as a variant spelling for the Athenian colony of Thurii in South Italy founded in 443 BCE, e. g. Hdn.Gr. III.1, p. 299, 2 Lentz Θουρία πόλις Ἰταλίας, ἣ καὶ Θούριοι καὶ Θούριον, ‘Thuria, a city in Italy, which is also (called) Thurii and Thurion’. The town was named after the nearby spring Θουρία which was said to give mantic powers to anyone who drank its waters (ΣTzet Ar. Nu. 332b; Σ Theoc. 5.1d; Suda θ 418 Θούριοι ἐκλήθησαν ἀπὸ κρήνης Θουρίας, ‘Thurii is named after the spring Thuria’). In practice, however, this spelling usually refers to the broader district, and appears to have been rare when naming the city itself. Thucydides possibly refers to the city as Θουρία at 6.104.2, but otherwise he uses this name for the territory, e. g. Th. 6.61.7; 6.88.9; 7.33.5–6; and contrast Th. 6.61.6 where he evidently calls the city Θούριοι (see also IACP no. 74, p. 304). The alternative location is the town of Thuria at the head of the Messenian Gulf in the south-west Peloponnese, Hdn.Gr. III.2, p. 521, 20 Lentz Θουρία πόλις Μεσσηνίας, ‘Thuria, a city in Messenia’. Ancient sources identified it with the Homeric towns of Antheia and Aipeia (Paus. 4.31.1; Str. 8.4.4–5). They also called the nearby Messenian Gulf by the alternative name ‘Thurian Gulf ’ (ὁ Θουριάτης κόλπος, see Str. 8.4.5). See also IACP no. 322, pp. 565–6. 4 Ῥοδιακάς ‘Rhodians’. Here primarily refers to a type of drinking cup (cf. also the ἐφήβους in line 5), see Ath. 11.496e–f; Poll. 6.96 (in a list of names for drinking cups) καὶ ῥοδιάδα ἢ ῥοδιακόν, ‘both rhodias and rhodiakon’; Hsch. ρ 396 ῥοδιακόν· ποτηρίου καὶ ἐκπώματος εἶδος, ‘rhodiakon: a kind of drinking cup and vessel’ (cf. Hsch. ρ 397 ῥοδιάς· ποτηρίου εἶδος); Phot. ρ 134 Ῥοδιακὸν καὶ Ῥοδιάς· εἶδος ἐκπώματος· οὕτως Δίφιλος, ‘Rhodiakon and Rhodias: a kind of drinking cup; so Diphilus (fr. 5.2)’. The feminine plural form would suggest a noun such as κύλικες or φιάλαι in the generic sense ‘cups’ should be supplied, cf. Men. Theophor. fr. 4 Arnott ap. Ath. 11.472b θηλυκῶς δὲ τὴν θηρίκλειον εἶπε Μένανδρος, ‘Menander speaks of the Thericleian cup in the feminine’; Diox. fr. 4.1 τῆς Θηρικλείου, where κύλιξ should be understood. See also Ath. 11.470e–f; Alex. fr. 101.1; and cf. the feminine plural adjective πλείονας at Diph. fr. 5.1 where the same noun can be understood. Otherwise we find it as neuter, where the generic nouns ποτήριον or ἔκπωμα are implied, e. g. Epig. fr. 5.1 τὰ Ῥοδιακά (cf. perhaps Diph. fr. 5.2 and Diox. fr. 4.2?). The Rhodian cups mentioned here should be distinguished from the Rhodian cookpots mentioned by Aristotle (fr. 672 Rose ap. Ath. 11.464c Ῥοδιακαὶ χυτρίδες) in which drinking water was infused with spices before being added to wine. The cup itself appears to have been relatively large. A fragment of Dioxippus speaks of it in the same breath as an Athenian Thericleian cup, Diox. fr. 4 τῆς Θηρικλείου τῆς μεγάλης χρεία ’στί μοι. / (Β.) εὖ οἶδα. (Α.) καὶ τῶν Ῥοδιακῶν·

314

Stephanus

ἥδιστα γὰρ / ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων †αἴσχεα† ποτηρίων / εἴωθα πίνειν, ‘I need the big Thericleian. (B.) I know well. (A.) and the Rhodians. For I’m accustomed to drink most pleasantly from such […] cups’. See also Diph. fr. 5.2 ἔσθ’ ὑποχέασθαι πλείονας· πιεῖν γέ τι / ἁδρότερον, ἢ τῶν Ῥοδιακῶν ἢ τῶν ῥυτῶν, ‘it’s possible to pour more cups – yes, to drink somewhat more deeply, either from the Rhodians or the rhyta’ (for the rhyton, a large drinking horn, cf. Epin. fr. 2.4–5; Ath. 11.496f– 7e). An alternative name for the Rhodian cup was the hēdypotis which Lynceus of Samos says was invented to rival the Athenian Thericleian cups, only it was lighter and used by all social classes, not just the wealthy (Lync. fr. 16b Dalby ap. Ath. 11.469b and 11.496f). It is also identified with the so-called bombylios cup (Ath. 11.784d βομβυλιός. θηρίκλειον Ῥοδιακόν) from which one’s drink only ‘trickled bit-by-bit’ (ἐκ βομβυλιοῦ κατὰ μικρὸν στάζοντος). ὅλος Quasi-adverbial, ‘completely’, ‘wholly’, ‘entirely’. Cf. e. g. X. Mem. 2.6.28; D. 24.70; Theoc. 3.33; AP 12.116; Alciphr. 1.16.2. ἀπηνέχθην ‘I was carried off course’, i. e. ‘misled’. The verb properly comes from a nautical context, with the meaning ‘to be carried off course’ (i. e. a ship carried off course by strong winds; see LSJ s. v. I.1). For examples (with the prepositions εἰς, πρός, vel sim. as here), cf. Hom. Il. 14.255 Κόωνδ’ … ἀπένεικας, ‘you carried him off course to Cos’ (i. e. Hera stirring up the winds to carry Heracles off course); Hdt. 2.114 ὑπὸ ἀνέμων ἐς γῆν τὴν σὴν ἀπενειχθείς, ‘carried off course to your land by the winds’ (i. e. Paris and Helen carried off course to Egypt); 4.179 ὑπολαβεῖν ἄνεμον βορέην καὶ ἀποφέρειν πρὸς τὴν Λιβύην, ‘the north wind came upon him and carried him off course to Libya’ (i. e. Jason blown off course on his way to Delphi); Th. 6.104.2 ἀποφέρεται ἐς τὸ πέλαγος, ‘he is carried off course into the open sea’ (Gylippus blown out into sea while sailing along the Italian coast); 7.50.2 ἀπενεχθέντες … ἐς Λιβύην, ‘carried off course to Libya’ (Spartan hoplites driven off course on their way to Sicily). For the metaphorical use of ἀποφέρω, as we seem to have here, to describe someone’s thoughts wandering astray, cf. Plu. Mor. 374e οὐ δεῖ πρὸς ἐνίων φιλοσόφων δόξας ἀποφερομένους, ‘one ought not to be carried off course towards the opinions of some philosophers’. 5 ἐφήβους Here primarily means a type of drinking cup. Little can be said about the shape of the cup itself. The grammarian Philemon of Athens (2nd c. BCE) reports (Ath. 11.469a) that the cup was also called an ἐμβασικοίτας, lit. a cup that ‘goes onto the couch’ with the symposiast (-βασ- most likely from βαίνω, cf. Beekes 2009. 192 s. v. βαίνω). We also hear of the same cup in a Roman sympotic context: at Petron. 24 we are told that the name of the drinking cup embasicoetas was also used as a slang term for a catamite: tu non intellexeras cinaedum embasicoetan vocari?, ‘did you not know that a catamite (cinaedus) is called an embasicoetas?’ This slang term for the cinaedus would seem to have developed from the catamite also being the drinker’s ‘couch mate’, as vividly illustrated by the Petronius passage. We might venture that the Greek name for the cup, ἔφηβος, followed a similar logic, and was even responsible for the Roman double meaning. The name ἔφηβος is probably a secondary nickname for the ἐμβασικοίτας cup, insofar as this

Φιλολάκων (fr. 1)

315

cup which ‘goes on the couch’ beside the symposiast was wittily compared with the young man of ephebic age, familiar from the pederastic poetry of Anacreon, who – under ideal circumstances from the perspective of the symposiast – would take his place beside him on the couch. For younger men and adolescents at drinking parties, see generally Bremmer 1990. Σωσία Probably a slave character. The name is attested numerous times in Athens as early as the sixth century BCE for citizens, metics and slaves (see LGPN II. 415; and PAA 859300–859775 where many are of indeterminate status). But both the name itself and its cognates are used often of slaves (see Lambertz 1907. 67; Fragiadakis 1988. 373–4 nos. 764–78; cf. Thphr. Char. 28.2 where it is insinuated that persons by this and similar names are of servile origins, Diggle 2004. 488). It is especially popular for slaves in comedy, see ΣRE Ar. Ach. 243a εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ κωμῳδίᾳ οἰκέται Ξανθίας, Τίβιος, Σωσίας, Δᾶος, Γέτας, ‘Xanthias, Tibios, Sosias, Daos, Getas are also household slaves in comedy’; also Ar. V. 136 (Bdelycleon’s slave); Men. Pk. (Polemon’s slave); Per. (slave or freedman; cf. the freedman Sosia in Ter. An.); Kol. fr. 1.2 Arnott (a cook’s slave); com. adesp. fr. 1032.10 (evidently a slave used like an attack dog); Plaut. Amph. and Ter. Hec. (the slave Sosia); and cf. Philem. fr. 98.1 and Men. fr. 69 (although the social status of these characters is unclear). See also Gomme and Sandbach 1973. 465–6. Ancient grammarians note how the name is formed from the future tense of σῴζω (cf. Hdn.Gr. III.2 Lentz, pp. 434, 29; 534, 15; 586, 26; EM p. 513, 57 s. v. κινῶ). Pl. Cra. 397b, like the names Eutychides and Theophilos, explains it as a wish name. τοὺς δυσχερεῖς Here apparently used as a term of abuse, i. e. ‘the wretches’, ‘damn them’, vel sim. (see Dickey 1996. 164–5). The adjective would seem to apply to both τοὺς ἐφήβους and τὰς Ῥοδιακάς.

316

Theaetetus (Θεαίτητος) Introduction 1. Name and Identity Our only testimonium of this author is an epigram by the poet and scholar Callimachus of Cyrene (ca. 320-ca. 240 BCE: see Cameron 1995. xiii-xiv) at AP 9.565 = Call. Epigr. 7 Pf. (= test. below) which is thought to imply he wrote either drama or dithyramb. The name is attested throughout Greece (see LGPN: 15 times in Attica, 19 times in Asia Minor, and a few attestations in South Italy and the Aegean Islands). In literature we know only of two writers by this name: Theaetetus who wrote epigrams included in the Garland of Meleager compiled at the end of the second century BCE (see AP 6.357, 7.444, 7.499, 7.727; also D.L. 4.25.8 and 8.48.2); and Theaetetus Scholasticus, also an epigrammatist, but active much later during the time of Justinian (527–565 CE). It has been suggested, very plausibly, that our poet should be identified with the former (e. g. Pasquali 1986 I. 302, first published in 1919; Gow and Page 1965 II. 209–10: ‘it is likely, though not certain, that Theaetetus is the author of the epigrams which appear under that name’; so too Fraser 1972. 592; Livrea 1989; Weber 1993. 425; D’Alessio 2007. 223 n. 17). The chronology, too, would support this. Theaetetus the epigrammatist in the Garland appears to have been a contemporary of Callimachus, since his sepulchral epigram on the philosopher Crantor (D.L. 4.25.8) gives him a terminus post quem of ca. 270 BCE. In addition, his epigram at AP 7.499, an epitaph by Theaetetus for the sailor Ariston of Cyrene, may suggest that he, like Callimachus, was a native Cyrenean residing in Alexandria, and that both men were even friends (see Susemihl 1892. 534 n. 77; Gow and Page 1965 II. 520; Fraser 1972. 592: ‘possibly, like Callimachus, a Cyrenean and, like him, resident in Alexandria’).

2. Chronology and Career Theaetetus was apparently active at the same time as Callimachus, as AP 9.565 (= Call. Epigr. 7 Pf. = test. below) suggests. He was active as early as ca. 270 BCE, if we accept that he is the same person who wrote the epigram at D.L. 4.25.8 (on the death of the philosopher Crantor ca. 335–275 BCE). Depending how we read AP 9.565 (= test. below), if Callimachus wrote this to honour him after his death then his terminus ante quem would be ca. 240 BCE. One might therefore suggest he was active from around the early to mid third century BCE. A confident interpretation of our only testimonium on Theaetetus (AP 9.565) is notoriously difficult. On some readings of the epigram it is assumed that Theaetetus tried his hand at writing drama, and that he had switched genres at

Introduction

317

some point. But we cannot be entirely certain if he wrote drama at all, and it is possible to read the epigram without requiring this. If we accept that he wrote drama, even then we cannot be entirely sure if this was comedy (as e. g. Cessi 1907. 88 and Raines 1946. 90 argue: he is not listed in the editions of Meineke and Kock), and tragedy would seem the more likely alternative (he is listed tentatively as a tragic poet under TrGF I 117). There is even the possibility he wrote dithyramb (cf. Pasquali 1986 I [1919]. 304–5; Gow and Page 1965 II. 209; Sutton 1989. 115 no. 100). If we assume he did write drama at some point, his efforts were presumably offered to a local, Alexandrian, audience (for comedy at Alexandria in the early third century BCE, see e. g. Philem. test. 10; Men. test. 15 and 20; Macho test. 1–2; Call. test. 1; see also Favi 2017. 273–7 and Csapo and Wilson 2020. 791–2, 807–8 on Alexandrian and Cyrenean theatre, with further references).

3. Literature Editions: Snell TrGF I 117 p. 283; Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 693 Studies: Susemihl 1892. 534; Wilamowitz 1924. 123–5; Geffcken 1934. 1372; Gow and Page 1965 II. 209–10, 520; Fraser 1972. 592–3; Meillier 1979. 123–4; Livrea 1989; Sutton 1989. 115; Weber 1993. 425–6; Albiani 2006

318

Commentary Testimonium AP 9.565 (= Call. Epigr. 7 Pf. = 57 Gow-Page) ἦλθε Θεαίτητος καθαρὴν ὁδόν· εἰ δ’ ἐπὶ κισσὸν τὸν τεὸν οὐχ αὕτη, Βάκχε, κέλευθος ἄγει, ἄλλων μὲν κήρυκες ἐπὶ βραχὺν οὔνομα καιρὸν φθέγξονται, κείνου δ’ Ἑλλὰς ἀεὶ σοφίην. Theaetetus travelled an untainted path. Although This road, Bacchus, does not lead to your ivy, Heralds will proclaim the name of others for a brief Moment, but Hellas will always proclaim his skill.

Discussion Susemihl 1892. 534 n. 77; Wilamowitz 1924. 123–5; Gabathuler 1937. 57–8; Raines 1946. 90; Pfeiffer 1953. 82; Wimmel 1960. 55, 104, 109; Giannini 1963. 60–3; Gow and Page 1965 II. 209–10; La Penna 1971. 233–4; Fraser 1972. 592–3; Pasquali 1986 I [1919]. 302–6; Asper 1997. 53–6; D’Alessio 2007. 222–3; Fantuzzi 2007. 484–5; Klooster 2011. 162–6; Sistakou 2016. 54. Citation context An epigram attributed to the Alexandrian poet and scholar Callimachus found in the Palatine Anthology (late 10th c. CE). The Palatine Anthology is an expanded version of the Anthology of Constantine Cephalas (9th/10th c. CE), who in turn gathered this and many other epigrams from the Garland of Meleager, originally compiled around the last decade of the second century BCE (see Gow and Page 1965 I. xvi; Cameron 1968. 323–4). Our epigram is found in book nine of the Palatine Anthology under the rubric of ‘epideictic’, a category into which Cephalas placed a broad range of epigrams he could not easily classify, but which might otherwise have been more correctly distributed under the labels of erotic, dedicatory, sepulchral, etc., if they were not so ambiguous and obscure (see Lauxtermann 1998. 532, 536–7).163 Interpretation There are a couple of interpretations of this epigram which conceive Theaetetus as having written drama, whether tragedy or comedy, at some point in his career. But it is also quite possible to read the epigram without understanding Theaetetus to have been a dramatic poet – let alone a comic poet – at all. One interpretation regards Theaetetus as a poet who attempted to write drama but failed to win the prize. The ‘pure’ road he travelled has been variously interpre163

Gutzwiller (1998. 304) suggests the epigram was originally placed by Meleager among the dedicatory epigrams in book 6, but later removed by Cephalas and placed among the epideictic epigrams. But see ‘Interpretation’ below which argues it may originally have belonged among the sepulchral epigrams in book 7 before being placed among the epideictic epigrams.

Testimonium

319

ted to refer to Theaetetus’ originality in the genre, whether he inaugurated an original form of drama or treated unfamiliar myths, his poetic ‘self-consciousness’, or else his ‘purity’ of approach and moral sense (for a summary of such views, which seem far from satisfactory, see Fraser 1972. 592; also Harder 1990). Despite these innovations or approach, he failed to win success in any of the dramatic contests. On this reading, Callimachus consoles Theaetetus that he will nonetheless enjoy an everlasting reputation for his dramas in the future despite his lack of success in the present (among modern scholars who adopt this reading, see e. g. Gutzwiller 1998. 226; Fantuzzi 2007. 484–5 and Klooster 2011. 165–6). A slightly different reading makes Theaetetus a former dramatic poet who has now moved on to other things after failing to win in those contests. The ‘pure road’ is his new direction now that he has given up on the Dionysian path. Gow and Page (1965 II. 209–10), as well as Fraser (1972. 592–3), interpret the ‘pure road’ in the sense ‘unobstructed’ and assume that Theaetetus has now changed from writing drama (or dithyramb)164 to another literary genre in which his path is no longer hindered from success by the rivalry and competition he experienced in the theatrical genres.165 One last reading which might be put forward here is that the epigram does not require Theaetetus to have participated in the ‘Dionysian’ genres at all. The epigram can be read as a eulogy or epitaph for Theaetetus as one who did not aspire to success on the ‘crowded path’ of the Dionysian contests in his lifetime, but instead faithfully dedicated himself to the Apollonian ideals espoused elsewhere by Callimachus himself. Dionysus and the dramatic (and dithyrambic) genres are mentioned here as the antithesis of the Apollonian aesthetic pursued by Theaetetus. There is perhaps even a tone of defiance in Callimachus’ address to Dionysus by stating that his is not the only path to poetic glory (cf. AP 9.566 = Call. Epigr. 8 Pf. for a similar tone when addressing Dionysus and telling his devotees they should be shorter in speech when giving a victory speech). Theaetetus was never announced by the Dionysian herald nor enjoyed the brief moment of public adulation typical of such contests (as Callimachus characterises it) because he never deigned to attempt them and sully his Muse. Based on reconstructions of the identity of Theaetetus, he is very likely the writer of epigrams known from elsewhere (see ‘Introduction’). 164

165

As first suggested by Pasquali 1986 I (1919). 302. Dithyramb is not attested for the Dionysia at Alexandria, however it is attested at Cyrene (see Csapo and Wilson 2020. 791–2). Gow and Page 1965 II. 209: ‘Theaetetus, who has apparently taken to some other form of literature after failing in a dramatic, or at any rate a Dionysiac, competition’. Cf. Fraser 1972. 592–3: ‘we should suppose that Theaetetus has abandoned dramatic poetry for something else … [w]e may then imagine that Callimachus is celebrating either the decision of the poet to change his métier, or at a later date, praising the poet for having done so’. Kassel and Austin 1989 VII. 693 also follow this reading.

320

Theaetetus

The imagery of the ‘pure road’166 and its connection with the Apollonian aesthetics of epigram is well known from elsewhere. In Callimachus the image recalls the ‘untrodden paths’ (κελεύθους [ἀτρίπτο]υ̣ς) Apollo advises him to travel in his poetic journey and to restrict his Muse to shorter and more novel poetic forms.167 Callimachus alludes to the same theme of ‘conciseness’ and ‘purity’ in the Hymn to Apollo where again the god explicitly rejects longer poetic forms, comparing them to a large river polluted by numerous sources, as opposed to the small, trickling stream of a ‘pure’ (καθαρή) fountain.168 The association between Apollo and shorter, novel forms of poetry is clear from these passages. The association of Apollo with ‘purity’ itself is also well established elsewhere.169 Theaetetus’ ‘pure road’ may therefore allude to the Callimachean and Apollonian poetics represented especially by the genre of epigram.170 Callimachus’ 166 167

168

169

170

As well as a literary reference, it may partly allude to his death as having now trodden the ‘pure path’ (cf. Asper 1997. 88). Call. Aet. fr. 1.21–8 καὶ γὰρ ὅτ⌋ε πρ⌊ώ⌋τιστον ἐμοῖς ἐπὶ δέλτον ἔθηκα γούνασι⌋ν, Ἀ[πό]λλων εἶπεν ὅ μοι Λύκιος· ‘[.......]...ἀοιδέ, τὸ μὲν θύος ὅττι πάχιστον θρέψαι, τὴ]ν̣ Μοῦσαν δ’ ὠγαθὲ λεπταλέην· πρὸς δέ σε] καὶ τόδ’ ἄνωγα, τὰ μὴ πατέουσιν ἅμαξαι τὰ στείβε⌋ιν, ἑτέρων ἴχνια μὴ καθ’ ὁμά [δίφρον ἐλ]ᾶ̣ν μηδ’ οἷμον ἀνὰ πλατύν, ἀλλὰ κελεύθους [ἀτρίπτο]υ̣ς, εἰ καὶ στε⌊ι⌋ν̣οτέρην ἐλάσεις’, ‘For when I first placed the tablet on my knees, Apollo Lykios said to me: “[…] singer, raise your sacrificial offering to be as fat as possible, but your muse, good fellow, to be slender. And I also tell you this: tread where wagons do not travel, don’t drive your carriage in the same ruts of others, or on a wide path, but on roads that are unworn, even if you will drive a more confined path”’. Call. Ap. 105–12 (see also Σ ad loc.) ὁ Φθόνος Ἀπόλλωνος ἐπ’ οὔατα λάθριος εἶπεν· ‘οὐκ ἄγαμαι τὸν ἀοιδὸν ὃς οὐδ’ ὅσα πόντος ἀείδει.’ τὸν Φθόνον ὡπόλλων ποδί τ’ ἤλασεν ὧδέ τ’ ἔειπεν· ‘Ἀσσυρίου ποταμοῖο μέγας ῥόος, ἀλλὰ τὰ πολλά λύματα γῆς καὶ πολλὸν ἐφ’ ὕδατι συρφετὸν ἕλκει. Δηοῖ δ’ οὐκ ἀπὸ παντὸς ὕδωρ φορέουσι μέλισσαι, ἀλλ’ ἥτις καθαρή τε καὶ ἀχράαντος ἀνέρπει πίδακος ἐξ ἱερῆς ὀλίγη λιβὰς ἄκρον ἄωτον’, ‘Envy spoke secretly in the ear of Apollo: “I am not fond of the singer who does not sing as much as the sea”. Apollo spurned Envy with his foot and spoke as follows: “Great is the stream of the Assyrian river, but it draws much filth from the land and much refuse on its water. Bees do not carry water for Demeter from anywhere, but from a holy spring which comes forth pure (καθαρή) and undefiled, a small fount, the highest, most choice’” (cf. Thgn. 959–62). For Apollo’s status as the ‘pure’ and ‘purifying’ god, cf. e. g. h.Ap. 121; Th. 3.104 on the purification of Delos; Σ Ar. Av. 962; Suda β 47. Cf. also the god’s epithet Φοῖβος which was popularly known as a synonym for καθαρός, e. g. Phot. φ 237 (Suda φ 780) Φοῖβος· καθαρός· ἁγνός· … καὶ ὁ Ἀπόλλων, ‘Phoibos: pure, holy … also Apollo’; Σ A.R. 2.302 (p. 151, 2–3) φοῖβον γὰρ τὸ καθαρόν, ὅθεν καὶ Φοῖβος ὁ Ἀπόλλων, διὰ τὸ καθαρόν, ‘phoibos (means) “pure”, thus also Apollo (is called) Phoibos on account of his purity’; Plu. Mor. 388f and 393b; and note the verb φοιβάω which the Alexandrian poets used in the sense of ‘cleanse, purify’: A.R. 2.302 (φοιβήσαντες); Theoc. 17.134; Call. Lav.Pall. 11. For Callimachean/Apollonian poetics and similar imagery to that here, see Wimmel 1960. 103–5; Gow and Page 1965 II. 210; Gutzwiller 1998. 226; Klooster 2011. 163.

Testimonium

321

preference for shorter forms of poetry is a theme repeated throughout his writings elsewhere.171 Tragedy, on the other hand, is a genre he sometimes criticises for being among the over-long and bloated literary forms.172 In any case, there is no need to assume that Theaetetus had ever engaged in writing drama or dithyramb – the ‘Dionysian’ genres – before switching to epigram or the like. Instead, Callimachus’ short poem can be read as a eulogy for Theaetetus as a dedicated practitioner of the same Apollonian aesthetic as himself, and a declaration that while his literary choices (and patron god) did not give him access to the public plaudits and adoration enjoyed by poets under the patronage of Dionysus, he will nonetheless be heralded (metaphorically) for his skill as a writer of epigram into posterity. 1 ἦλθε … ὁδόν For intransitive verbs of motion with an accusative of the space traversed, cf. S. OT 67 πολλὰς δ’ ὁδοὺς ἐλθόντα. See also on Philippid. fr. 14 (this volume) for a similar construction. καθαρὴν ὁδόν Our closest parallel to this expression is in Pindar where it means a road ‘clear of objects, free’ (LSJ s. v. I.3a), so Pi. O. 6.23 ὄφρα κελεύθῳ τ’ ἐν καθαρᾷ βάσομεν ὄκχον, ‘so that we move our carriage on a road clear of objects’; cf. also Pi. I. 5.23 (κέλευθον … καθαράν). For the religious significance of καθαρός, see e. g. La Penna 1971. 234. For καθαρός in the sense ‘untouched’, ‘untainted’, ‘pure’ in a literary context, cf. Call. Ap. 111 (quoted above). εἰ Rather than conditional force, εἰ here could have causal force (see LSJ s. v. VI; K.-G. II p. 481 §577.1) or indeed concessive force (i. e. = εἰ καί, ‘and though …’; see K.-G. II p. 489 §578 Anm. 2: ‘sehr häufig steht auch εἰ allein in konzessiver Bedeutung’). In the latter case, the conjunction ὅμως (‘nonetheless’) will be implicitly felt in the apodosis. κισσόν ‘Ivy’ refers specifically to the ivy crown awarded by the archon to victors in the dramatic (or dithyrambic) contests (see Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 98 n. 6 for references), and so here is a metonym for victory. For the imagery of the ivy crown elsewhere in a dramatic or theatrical context, see e. g. CEG II, 773.3 171

172

Apart from Callimachus’ famous assertion that a big book was a big evil (Call. fr. 465 Pf. ap. Ath. 3.72a), see also AP 7.447 (= Epigr. 11 Pf.) where Callimachus finds even the briefest of epitaphs too long for his liking; and AP 12.43 (= Epigr. 28 Pf.) where he despises ‘common’ (or even ‘epic’) poetry (τὸ ποίημα τὸ κυκλικόν), and all other public or shared things (roads, springs, lovers). See e. g. AP 6.310 (Epigr. 48 Pf.) where he apparently suggests that a tragic mask dedicated to the Muses stands with its mouth agape because it is subjected to long, tiresome recitations of tragedy in the school room; at AP 9.566 (= Epigr. 8 Pf.) Callimachus advises that the most a victor at the dramatic contests should say is νικῶ, ‘I win’, and that he himself prefers brevity of diction; while at Call. Iamb. fr. 215 Pf. there may also be criticism of tragedy for its inflated diction. For Callimachus’ apparent hostile attitude towards tragedy and drama, despite apparently writing satyr plays and comedies (Suda κ 227), see Thomas 1979. 187–90; Schwinge 1986. 30–6; Cusset 2011. 465–6; Sistakou 2016. 52–4.

322

Theaetetus

(= IG II2 3101 = IG II3 4, 507, used of a victorious choregos); Alciphr. 4.18.16 (Menander wishing always to be crowned with Attic ivy); AP 6.279 (used of Eudoxus, perhaps the successful comic poet?); AP 7.21.4 (Sophocles); AP 7.414.4 (Rhinthon the phlyax writer); AP 7.708.2 (Machon qua comic poet = test. 3 K.A.) AP 13.6.3 (Lykon the comic actor); AP 13.28 (ivy-wearing dithyrambs); AP 13.29.5–6 (Cratinus). 2 αὕτη … κέλευθος Here κέλευθος is evidently variatio for ὁδός in line 1 and refers to the same ‘pure path’ as the earlier word, as the demonstrative αὕτη would indicate. For poetic ‘paths’ in Callimachus, crowded or otherwise, cf. Aet. fr. 1.27–8 κελεύθους / [ἀτρίπτο]υ̣ς, ‘untrodden paths’; and AP 12.43.1–2 (= Call. Epigr. 28.1–2 Pf.) ἐχθαίρω τὸ ποίημα τὸ κυκλικὸν οὐδὲ κελεύθῳ / χαίρω, τίς πολλοὺς ὧδε καὶ ὧδε φέρει, ‘I detest cyclic poetry, nor do I delight in a path which carries many people here and there’. Βάκχε For the epithet, cf. e. g. E. Ion 218; Ba. 145, 1020; Theoc. Epigr. 18.3 (= AP 9.600.3); also AP 6.77.1, 6.87.3, 6.154.8, 6.355.3 (all dedications to Dionysus); 11.26.4; 12.119.1; 16.307.7. 3 κήρυκες Callimachus may be thinking specifically of heralds at the theatrical contests in Alexandria. In Athens, the heralds of the archons (Arist. Ath. 62.2) were responsible for announcements at the City Dionysia and Lenaea festivals. Apart from proclaiming the winners of the contests, as implied here (see also Tim. PMG fr. 802 quoted below; Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 98 n. 5), we also find heralds introducing poets and their choruses at the proagon (see Ar. Ach. 11) and announcing civic honours before the tragic contest (see e. g. IG II2 2.10–12 and IG II2 20; and on Philippid. test. 3.62–3 this volume). ἐπὶ βραχὺν … καιρόν ‘For a brief moment’. Callimachus apparently has in mind the moment of the herald’s announcement of the winner in the contest, in contrast with the future perpetual admiration of Theaetetus (cf. Gow and Page 1965 II. 210). For a literary account of what the herald supposedly said when proclaiming the winner, cf. the lyric poet Timotheus recounting his victory against Phrynis at PMG 802 (ap. Plu. Mor. 539c) μακάριος ἦσθα, Τιμόθε’, ὅτε κᾶρυξ / εἶπε· νικᾶι Τιμόθεος / Μιλήσιος τὸν Κάμωνος τὸν ἰωνοκάμπταν, ‘blessed were you, Timotheus, when the herald said: “the winner is Timotheus of Miletus, son of Kamon, the bender of Ionian song”’. For the idea of short-lived and soon-forgotten poets in tragedy, cf. Ar. Ra. 89–95. 4 σοφίην Raines (1946. 90) argues that the term σοφία here indicates Theaetetus was specifically a comic poet, comparing an epigram on the comic poet Euthias (IG II2 11387.6 = Euthias test.) where it also appears (supposedly in the sense ‘wit’). But apart from doubts over the identity of Euthias – who may in fact have been a comic actor – the term σοφία and its cognates can be used of poetic ‘skill’ more generally (cf. e. g. Antiph. fr. 272). Thus we find the word used of epic poets (Pi. P. 3.113; Ar. Pax 1096), lyric poets (Pi. O. 1.9; Ar. Av. 934), comic poets (Cratin. fr. *203; Ar. Pax 700, 798; Ra. 17), and tragic poets (Ar. Ra. 766,

Testimonium

323

1104, 1108, 1118, 1518–19; cf. Pl. Smp. 175e). See also Asper 1997. 99 who argues σοφία can mean ‘poetry’.

325

Bibliography APF BNP CEG D.-K. FGE FGrH FHG FPG IACP IEG I.Eleusis IG IGUR IK Priene I.Oropos K.-A. K.-B. K.-G. LGPN LIMC LSJ Magnesia Milet I 3 MMC2 MNC3 M-O PAA PA PCG PEG Philae PMG RE SEG Suppl. Hell. TrGF

Davies 1971 Cancik et al. 2002–2014 Hansen 1983–1989 Diels and Kranz 1951–1952 Page 1981 Jacoby et al. 1923Müller 1841–1883 Mullach 1860–1861 Hansen and Nielsen 2004 West 1989–1992 Clinton 2005 Inscriptiones Graecae Moretti 1968 Blümel and Merkelbach 2014 Petrakos 1997 Kassel and Austin 1983–2001 Kühner 1890–1892 Kühner 1898–1904 Fraser et al. 1987Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae Liddell and Scott 1940 Kern 1900 Kawerau and Rehm 1914 Webster 1969 Webster 1995 Millis and Olson 2012 Traill 1994–2012 Kirchner 1901–1903 Kassel and Austin 1983–2001 Bernabé 1987–2007 Bernand and Bernand 1969 Page 1962 Wissowa et al. 1893–1980 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Lloyd-Jones and Parsons 1983 Snell et al. 1971–2004

326

Bibliography

Acosta-Hughes et al. 2011: B. Acosta-Hughes, L. Lehnus and S. Stephens (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Callimachus (Leiden and Boston) Adler 1928–1938: A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon (5 vols.: Stuttgart) Adler 1931: A. Adler, ‘Suidas (1)’, RE IV.A1 pp. 675–717 Albiani 2006: M. G. Albiani, ‘Theaetetus (2)’, BNP (online) Allan 2001: W. Allan, ‘Euripides in Megale Hellas: Some Aspects of the Early Reception of Tragedy’, G&R 48: 67–86 Allen 1937: T. W. Allen, ‘Adversaria IV’, RPh 11: 280–6 Amyx 1958: D. A. Amyx, ‘The Attic Stelai: Part III. Vases and Other Containers’, Hesperia 27: 163–254 Amyx and Pritchett 1958: D. A. Amyx and W. K. Pritchett, ‘The Attic Stelai: Part III. Vases and Other Containers’, Hesperia 27: 255–310 Anderson 1976: G. Anderson, ‘Lucian’s Classics: Some Short Cuts to Culture’, BICS 23: 59–68 Anderson 1994: W. D. Anderson, Music and Musicians in Ancient Greece (Ithaca and London) Anderson 1995: C. A. Anderson, Athena’s Epithets: Their Structural Significance in Plays of Aristophanes (Stuttgart and Leipzig) Andorlini 1985: I. Andorlini, The Rendel Harris Papyri of Woodbrooke College, Birmingham Vol. II (Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicum, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 26: Zutphen) André 1956: J. André, Lexique de termes de botanique en latin (Paris) Andreades 1933: A. M. Andreades, A History of Greek Public Finance Vol. I. (transl. C. N. Brown: Cambridge MA) Andreau and Chankowski 2007: J. Andreau and V. Chankowski (eds.), Vocabulaire et expression de l’économie dans le monde antique (Bordeaux) Andresen et al. 1999: K. Andresen, J. V. Bañuls and F. De Martino (eds.), El teatre, eina politica (Bari) Andrews 1948: A. C. Andrews, ‘Oysters as a Food in Greece and Rome’, CJ 43: 299–303 Andrianou 2009: D. Andrianou, The Furniture and Furnishings of Ancient Greek Houses and Tombs (Cambridge) Apostolakis 2019: K. Apostolakis, Timokles: Translation and Commentary (FrC 21: Göttingen) Argoud and Roesch 1985: G. Argoud and P. Roesch (eds.), La Béotie antique: Lyon–SaintÉtienne, 16–20 mai 1983 (Paris) Arnold 1998: P. J. Arnold, The Pornoboskos and Leno in Greek and Roman Comedy (Diss. Oxford) Arnott 1966: W. G. Arnott, ‘Notes on Greek Texts’, SO 41: 78–80 Arnott 1972: W. G. Arnott, ‘From Aristophanes to Menander’, G&R 19: 65–80 Arnott 1978: G. Arnott, ‘Coscinomancy in Theocritus and Kazantzakis’, Mnemosyne 31: 27–32 Arnott 1979–2000: W. G. Arnott, Menander (3 vols.: Cambridge MA and London) Arnott 1996: W. G. Arnott, Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary (Cambridge) Arnott 2000: W. G. Arnott, ‘Athenaeus and the Epitome: Texts, Manuscripts and Early Editions’, in Braund and Wilkins 2000, pp. 41–52 Asper 1997: M. Asper, Onomata allotria. Zur Genese, Struktur und Funktion poetologischer Metaphern bei Kallimachos (Hermes Einzelschriften 75: Stuttgart) Atallah 1966: W. Atallah, Adonis dans la littérature et l’art grecs (Paris)

Bibliography

327

Auhagen 2009: U. Auhagen, Die Hetären in der griechischen und römischen Komödie (Munich) Austin 2006: M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation2 (Cambridge) Austin and Olson 2004: C. Austin and S. D. Olson, Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae (Oxford) Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1973: M. M. Austin and P. Vidal-Naquet, Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece (Berkeley) Bäbler 2006: B. Bäbler, ‘Nicostratus (5)’, BNP (online) Bagnall and Derow 2004: R. S. Bagnall and P. Derow, The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation (Oxford) Bagordo 2014a: A. Bagordo, Alkimenes–Kantharos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (FrC 1.1: Heidelberg) Bagordo 2014b: A. Bagordo, Leukon–Xenophilos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (FrC 1.2: Heidelberg) Bagordo 2018: A. Bagordo, Aristophanes fr. 821–976: Übersetzung und Kommentar (FrC 10.11: Göttingen) Bain 1977: D. Bain, Actors and Audience: A Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek Drama (Oxford) Baltussen and Davis 2015: H. Baltussen and P. Davis (eds.), The Art of Veiled Speech: SelfCensorship from Aristophanes to Hobbes (Philadelphia) Barber 1992: E. J. W. Barber, ‘The Peplos of Athena’, in Neils 1992, pp. 103–17 Baron 2017: C. Baron, ‘Comedy and History, Theory and Evidence in Duris of Samos’, Histos Supplement 6: 211–39 Barrett 1964: W. S. Barrett, Euripides: Hippolytos (Oxford) Bathrellou 2012: E. Bathrellou, ‘Menander’s Epitrepontes and the Festival of the Tauropolia’, ClAnt 31: 151–92 Baudy 1986: G. Baudy, Adonisgärten: Studien zur antiken Samensymbolik (Frankfurt) Bayliss 2011: A. J. Bayliss, After Demosthenes: The Politics of Early Hellenistic Athens, (London) Bayliss 2019: A. J. Bayliss, ‘Philippides (2)’, in Sommerstein 2019, pp. 703–4 Beare 1951: W. Beare, The Roman Stage: A Short History of Latin Drama in the Time of the Republic (London) Beekes 2009: R. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (Leiden and Boston) Bekker 1846: I. Bekker, Iulii Pollucis Onomasticon (Berlin) Bélis 1986: A. Bélis, ‘La Phorbeia’, BCH 110: 205–18 Bélis 1992: A. Bélis, ‘L’aulète et le jeu de l’oie’, BCH 116: 497–500 Bergk 1834: T. Bergk, Anacreontis Carminum Reliquias (Leipzig) Bergk 1887: T. Bergk, Griechische Literaturgeschichte Vol. IV (Berlin) Bernabé 1987–2007: A. Bernabé, Poetae Epici Graeci: Testimonia et Fragmenta (2 vols.: Munich and Leipzig) Bernand and Bernand 1969: A. Bernand and É. Bernand, Les inscriptions grecques de Philae (2 vols.: Paris) Bers 1984: V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (New Haven) Berti et al. 2017: I. Berti, K. Bolle, F. Opdenhoff and F. Stroth (eds.), Writing Matters: Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berlin and Boston)

328

Bibliography

Bertolini 2019: S. Bertolini, ‘Φιλάργυρον γένος: Abusing the Seer in Ancient Greek Poetry’, in Mastellari et al. 2019, pp. 61–76 Berve 1926: H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (2 vols.: Munich) Bianchetti 1980: S. Bianchetti, ‘La commedia antica e la libertà di parola’, AATC 31: 1–40 Bianchi 2016: F. P. Bianchi, Cratino. Archilochoi–Empipramenoi (frr. 1–68): introduzione, traduzione, commento (FrC 3.2: Heidelberg) Bianchi 2017: F. P. Bianchi, Cratino: introduzione e testimonianze (FrC 3.1: Heidelberg) Bielman 1994: A. Bielman, Retour à la liberté. Libération et sauvetage des prisonniers en Grèce ancienne. Recueil d’inscriptions honorant des sauveteurs et analyse critique (Lausanne) Biles and Olson 2015: Z. P. Biles and S. D. Olson, Aristophanes: Wasps (Oxford) Bing 2011: P. Bing, ‘Afterlives of a Tragic Poet: Anecdote, Image and Hypothesis in the Hellenistic Reception of Euripides’, A&A 57: 1–17 Bing and Bruss 2007: P. Bing and J. S. Bruss (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram Down to Philip (Leiden and Boston) Blaydes 1890: F. H. M. Blaydes, Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Pars I Secundum Editionem Meinekianam (Halle, Saxony-Anhalt) Blaydes 1896: F. H. M. Blaydes, Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Pars II Secundum Editionem Kockianam (Halle, Saxony-Anhalt) Blockley 1983: R. C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus Vol. II (Liverpool) Blok 2017: J. Blok, Citizenship in Classical Athens (Cambridge) Blum 1991: R. Blum, Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography (Madison) Blümel and Merkelbach 2014: W. Blümel and R. Merkelbach, Die Inschriften von Priene (2 vols.: with F. Rumscheid: Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 69: Bonn) Blümner 1912: H. Blümner, Technologie und Terminologie: Der Gerwerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern2 Vol. I (Leipzig and Berlin) Boeckh 1886: A. Boeckh, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener3 Vol. I (ed. M. Fränkel: Berlin) Boissonade 1832: J. F. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca e Codicibus Regiis Vol. IV (Paris) Bollansée 1999: J. Bollansée, Hermippos of Smyrna and his Biographical Writings: A Reappraisal (Studia Hellenistica 35: Leuven) Bonner and Smith 1938: R. J. Bonner and G. Smith, The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle Vol. II (Chicago) Bothe 1844: F. H. Bothe, Die griechischen Komiker. Eine Beurteilung der neuesten Ausgabe ihrer Fragmente (Leipzig) Bothe 1855: F. H. Bothe, Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta post Augustum Meineke (Paris) Bowden 2010: H. Bowden, Mystery Cults of the Ancient World (Princeton) Bowie 2000: A. Bowie, ‘Myth and Ritual in the Rivals of Aristophanes’, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 317–39 Bowie 2010: A. Bowie, ‘Myth and Ritual in Comedy’, in Dobrov 2010, pp. 143–76 Brandt and Iddeng 2012: J. R. Brandt and J. W. Iddeng (eds.), Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning and Practice (Oxford) Braund and Wilkins 2000: D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire (Exeter) Breen 1991: A. B. Breen, The Fabulae Hygini Reappraised: A Reconsideration of the Content and Compilation of the Work (Diss. Urbana-Champaign)

Bibliography

329

Breitenbach 1908: H. Breitenbach, De Genere Quodam Titulorum Comoediae Atticae (Diss. Basel) Bremmer 1990: J. N. Bremmer, ‘Adolescents, Symposion, and Pederasty’, in Murray 1990, pp. 135–48 Bremmer 2014: J. N. Bremmer, Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World (Berlin) Bresson 2016: A. Bresson, The Making of the Ancient Greek Economy: Institutions, Markets, and Growth in the City-States (transl. S. Rendall: Princeton and Oxford) Bringmann and von Steuben 1995: K. Bringmann and H. von Steuben, Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer. Teil 1: Zeugnisse und Kommentar (Berlin) Broggiato 2001: M. Broggiato, Cratete di Mallo: I frammenti. Edizione, introduzione e note (La Spezia) Budelmann and Michelakis 2001: F. Budelmann and P. Michelakis (eds.), Homer, Tragedy and Beyond: Essays in Honour of P. E. Easterling (London) Bühler 1982: W. Bühler, Zenobii Athoi proverbia Vol. IV (Göttingen) Bühler 1987: W. Bühler, Zenobii Athoi proverbia Vol. I (Göttingen) Buraselis 2012: K. Buraselis, ‘Appended Festivals’, in Brandt and Iddeng 2012, pp. 247–58 Burkert 1983: W. Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (transl. P. Bing: Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Burkert 1985: W. Burkert, Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical (transl. J. Raffan: Oxford) Burkert 1987: W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Harvard MA) Burstein 1977: S. M. Burstein, ‘The Date of the Athenian Victory over Pleistarchus: A Note on Pausanias 1.15.1’, CW 71: 128–9 Burstein 1978: S. M. Burstein, ‘I.G. II2 1485A and Athenian Relations with Lysimachus’, ZPE 31: 181–5 Busolt 1920: G. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde Vol. I Allgemeine Darstellung des griechischen Staates (Munich) Byrne 2000: M. Byrne, ‘Understanding the Aulos I’, in Hickmann et al. 2000, pp. 279–85 Byrne 2002: M. Byrne, ‘Understanding the Aulos II: Extended Pipes and Drone’, in Hickmann et al. 2002, pp. 322–33 Byrne 2010: S. G. Byrne, ‘The Athenian Damnatio Memoriae of the Antigonids in 200 B.C.’, in Tamis et al. 2010, pp. 157–77 Cairns 2001: D. Cairns, ‘Anger and the Veil in Ancient Greek Culture’, G&R 48: 18–32 Cairns and Knox 2004: D. L. Cairns and R. A. Knox (eds.), Law, Rhetoric, and Comedy in Classical Athens (Llandysul) Cameron 1968: A. Cameron, ‘The Garlands of Meleager and Philip’, GRBS 9: 323–49 Cameron 1995: A. Cameron, Callimachus and his Critics (Princeton) Campbell 1982: A. C. Campbell, The Hamlyn Guide to the Flora and Fauna of the Mediterranean Sea (London, New York, Sydney and Toronto) Cancik et al. 2002–2014: H. Cancik, H. Schneider, M. Landfester and C. F. Salazar (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World (first published online 2006: Leiden and Boston) Cantarella 1949: R. Cantarella, Aristofane, Le commedie Vol. I Prolegomeni (Milan) Capps 1900a: E. Capps, ‘The Dating of Some Didascalic Inscriptions’, AJA 4: 74–91 Capps 1900b: E. Capps, ‘Chronological Studies in the Greek Tragic and Comic Poets’, AJPh 21: 38–61 Capps 1900c: E. Capps, ‘Studies in Greek Agonistic Inscriptions’, TAPhA 31: 112–37

330

Bibliography

Capps 1906: E. Capps, ‘The Roman Fragments of Athenian Comic Didascaliae’, CPh 1: 201–20 Capps 1907: E. Capps, ‘Epigraphical Problems in the History of Attic Comedy’, AJPh 28: 179–99 Carey 1993: C. Carey, ‘Return of the Radish or Just When You Thought it Safe to Go Back into the Kitchen’, LCM 18.4: 53–5 Carey et al. 2018: C. Carey, I. Giannadaki and B. Griffith-Williams (eds.), Use and Abuse of Law in the Athenian Courts (Leiden and Boston) Cartledge et al. 1990: P. Cartledge, P. Millett and S. Todd (eds.), Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society (Cambridge) Casaubon 1621: I. Casaubon, Animadversionum in Athenaei Dipnosophistas Libri XV (Lyon) Cessi 1907: C. Cessi, ‘La critica letteraria di Callimaco’, SIFC 15: 1–107 Chankowski 2007: ‘Les categories du vocabulaire de la fiscalite dans les cites grecques’, in Andreau and Chankowski 2007, pp. 299–331 Chantraine 1968–1980: P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots (Paris) Christ 1998: M. R. Christ, The Litigious Athenian (Baltimore and London) Clark 1906: W. R. Clark, ‘Menander: A Study of the Chronology of his Life’, CPh 1: 313–28 Cleland et al. 2005: L. Cleland, M. Harlow and L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds.), The Clothed Body in the Ancient World (Oxford and Oakville) Clerc 1893: M. Clerc, Les métèques Athéniens (Paris) Clinton 1834: H. F. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici: The Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece, From the LVth to the CXXIVth Olympiad Vol. II (Oxford) Clinton 1988: K. Clinton, ‘Sacrifice at the Eleusinian Mysteries’, in Hägg et al. 1988, pp. 69–79 Clinton 2003: K. Clinton, ‘Stages of Initiation in the Eleusinian and Samothracian Mysteries’, in Cosmopoulos 2003, pp. 50–78 Clinton 2005: K. Clinton, Eleusis: The Inscriptions on Stone Vol. I (Athens) Cobet 1840: C. G. Cobet, Observationes Criticae in Platonis Comici Reliquias (Amsterdam) Cobet 1858: C. G. Cobet, Novae Lectiones quibus Continentur Observationes Criticae in Scriptores Graecos (Leiden) Cohen 1985: D. Cohen, ‘A Note on Aristophanes and the Punishment of Adultery in Athenian Law’, ZRG 102: 385–7 Cohen 2000: E. C. Cohen, The Athenian Nation (Princeton) Cohen 2014: S. Cohen, Transformations of Time and Temporality in Medieval and Renaissance Art (Boston) Cohen 2015: E. E. Cohen, Athenian Prostitution: The Business of Sex (New York) Cohn-Haft 1995: L. Cohn-Haft, ‘Divorce in Classical Athens’, JHS 115: 1–14 Comentale 2017: N. Comentale, Ermippo: introduzione, traduzione e commento (FrC 6: Heidelberg) Constantinides 1969: E. Constantinides, ‘Timocles’ Ikarioi Satyroi: A Reconsideration’, TAPhA 100: 49–61 Cosmopoulos 2003: M. B. Cosmopoulos (ed.), Greek Mysteries: The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults (London and New York) Cropp 2003: M. Cropp, ‘Hypsipyle and Athens’, in Csapo and Miller 2003, pp. 129–45 Cropp et al. 1999–2000: M. Cropp, K. Lee and D. Sansone (eds.), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century (Illinois Classical Studies 24–5: Champaign)

Bibliography

331

Csapo 2016: E. Csapo, ‘Choregic Dedications and What They Tell Us about Comic Performance in the Fourth Century BC’, Logeion 6: 252–84 Csapo 2021: E. Csapo, ‘Lachares and Menander: A Theatre-Historical Look at POxy 1235, col. iii, 103–112’, in Mastellari 2021, pp. 49–67 Csapo et al. 2014: E. Csapo, H. R. Goette, J. R. Green and P. Wilson (eds.), Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century B.C. (Berlin and Boston) Csapo and Miller 2003: E. Csapo and M. C. Miller (eds.), Poetry, Theory, Praxis: The Social Life of Myth, Word and Image in Ancient Greece. Essays in Honour of William J. Slater (Oxford) Csapo and Slater 1995: E. Csapo and W. J. Slater, The Context of Ancient Drama (Ann Arbor) Csapo and Wilson 2014: E. Csapo and P. Wilson, ‘The Finance and Organisation of the Athenian Theatre in the Time of Eubulus and Lycurgus’, in Csapo et al. 2014, pp. 393– 424 Csapo and Wilson 2020: E. Csapo and P. Wilson, A Social and Economic History of the Theatre to 300 BC Vol. II Theatre Beyond Athens: Documents with Translation and Commentary (Cambridge) Curtis 1991: R. I. Curtis, Garum and Salsamenta (Leiden) Cusset 2011: C. Cusset, ‘Other Poetic Voices in Callimachus’, in Acosta-Hughes et al. 2011, pp. 454–73 Dalby 2000: A. Dalby, ‘Topikos Oinos: The Named Wines of Old Comedy’, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 397–406 D’Alessio 2007: G. B. D’Alessio, Callimaco: Inni, Epigrammi, Ecale4 (Milan) Damon 1997: C. Damon, The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage (Michigan) Daub 1880: A. Daub, De Suidae Biographicorum Origine et Fide (Leipzig) Davidson 1981: A. Davidson, Mediterranean Seafood2 (Baton Rouge) Davidson 1993: J. N. Davidson, ‘Fish, Sex, and Revolution in Athens’, CQ NS 43: 53–66 Davidson 1997: J. N. Davidson, Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (London) Davies 1971: J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. (Oxford) Davies 1988: M. Davies, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Göttingen) Deacy and Pierce 1997: S. Deacy and K. F. Pierce (eds.), Rape in Antiquity (London) Delneri 2006: F. Deneri, I culti misterici stranieri nei frammenti della commedia attica antica (Bologna) de Marcellus 1996: H. de Marcellus, ‘IG XIV 1184 and the Ephebic Service of Menander’, ZPE 110: 69–76 Denniston 1954: J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles2 (Oxford) Desrousseaux 1942: A. M. Desrousseaux, Observations critiques sur les livres III et IV d’Athénée (Paris) Detienne 1977: M. Detienne, The Gardens of Adonis: Spices in Greek Mythology, Translated by J. Lloyd (Trowbridge) Deubner 1932: L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin) Dickey 1996: E. Dickey, Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian (Oxford) Dickey 2002: E. Dickey, Latin Forms of Address: From Plautus to Apuleius (Oxford) Dickey 2007: E. Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period (Oxford) Dickie 1994: M. W. Dickie, ‘Which Posidippus?’, GRBS 35: 373–83

332

Bibliography

Diels and Kranz 1951–1952: H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (3 vols.: Berlin) Diggle 2004: J. Diggle, Theophratus: Characters (Cambridge) Dillon 2001: M. P. J. Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion (London) Dillon 2003: M. P. J. Dillon, ‘“Woe for Adonis” – but in Spring not Summer’, Hermes 131: 1–16. Dindorf 1827: G. Dindorf, Athenaeus Vol. II (Leipzig) Dinsmoor 1931: W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge MA) Dinsmoor 1934: W. B. Dinsmoor, ‘The Repair of the Athena Parthenos: A Story of Five Dowels’, AJA 38: 93–106 Dittmer 1923: W. A. Dittmer, The Fragments of Athenian Comic Didascaliae Found in Rome (Leiden) Dobree 1831–1833: P. P. Dobree, Adversaria (ed. J. Scholefield: Cambridge) Dobrov 2010: G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy (Leiden and Boston) Dodds 1960: E. R. Dodds, Euripides: Bacchae (Oxford) Dohm 1964: H. Dohm, Mageiros: die Rolle des Kochs in der griechisch-römischen Komödie (Munich) Dougherty and Kurke 2003: C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds.) The Cultures Within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration (Cambridge) Dover 1974: K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford) Dover 1980: K. J. Dover, Plato: Symposium (Cambridge) Dover 1985: K. J. Dover, ‘Some Types of Abnormal Word-Order in Attic Comedy’, CQ NS 35: 324–43 Dover 1993: K. J. Dover, Aristophanes: Frogs (Oxford) Dow 1937: S. Dow, Prytaneis: A Study of the Inscriptions Honoring the Athenian Councillors (Hesperia Supplement 1: Princeton) Droysen 1884: J. G. Droysen, Histoire de l’hellénisme Vol. II (Paris) duBois 1991: P. duBois, Torture and Truth (New York and London) Duckworth 1952: G. E. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment2 (Princeton) Dümmler 1894a: F. Dümmler, ‘Adonia’, RE I p. 384 Dümmler 1894b: F. Dümmler, ‘Adonis (2)’, RE I pp. 385–95 Dunbar 1995: N. Dunbar, Aristophanes: Birds (Oxford) Dunn 1998: F. M. Dunn, ‘Tampering with the Calendar’, ZPE 123: 213–31 Easterling and Hall 2002: P. Easterling and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession (Cambridge) Edmonds 1959: J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy, After Meineke, Bergk, and Kock Vol. II Middle Comedy (Leiden) Edmonds 1961: J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy, After Meineke, Bergk, and Kock Vol. IIIA New Comedy, Except Menander, Anonymous Fragments of the Middle and New Comedies (Leiden) Edwards 1966: M. W. Edwards, ‘Some Features of Homeric Craftsmanship’, TAPhA 97: 115–79 Ehrenberg 1962: V. Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes: A Sociology of Old Attic Comedy2 (New York) Enk 1935: P. J. Enk, ‘De Euclionis Plautini Moribus’, Mnemosyne 2: 281–90

Bibliography

333

Fantuzzi 2007: M. Fantuzzi, ‘Epigram and the Theater’, in Bing and Bruss 2007, pp. 477–95 Faraone 1992: C. A. Faraone, ‘Aristophanes, Amphiaraus, Fr.29 (Kassel-Austin): Oracular Response or Erotic Incantation?’, CQ NS 42: 320–7 Faraone and McClure 2006: C. Faraone and L. McClure, Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (Madison) Farmer 2017a: M. C. Farmer, Tragedy on the Comic Stage (Oxford) Farmer 2017b: M. C. Farmer, ‘Playing the Philosopher: Plato in Fourth-Century Comedy’, AJPh 138: 1–41 Favi 2017: F. Favi, Fliaci: testimonianze e frammenti (Studia Comica 7: Heidelberg) Fawcett 2016: P. Fawcett: ‘“When I Squeeze You with Eisphorai”: Taxes and Tax Policy in Classical Athens’, Hesperia 85: 153–99 Fehling 1969: D. Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin) Fenk 1913: R. Fenk, Adversarii Platonis Quomodo de Indole ac Moribus eius Judicaverint (Diss. Jena) Ferguson 1899: W. S. Ferguson, The Athenian Archons of the Third and Second Centuries Before Christ (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 10: Ithaca NY) Ferguson 1910: W. S. Ferguson, ‘Egypt’s Loss of Sea Power’, JHS 30: 189–208 Ferguson 1911: W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens: An Historical Essay (London) Ferguson 1929: W. S. Ferguson, ‘Lachares and Demetrius Poliorcetes’, CPh 24: 1–31 Ferguson 1948: W. S. Ferguson, ‘Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Hellenic League’, Hesperia 17: 112–36 Finkelberg and Stroumsa 2003: M. Finkelberg and G. G. Stroumsa (eds.), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World (Leiden and Boston) Firebaugh 1923: W. C. Firebaugh, The Inns of Greece and Rome: And a History of Hospitality from the Dawn of Time to the Middle Ages (Chicago) Fisher 1976: N. R. E. Fisher, Social Values in Classical Athens (Toronto) Fisher 1992: N. R. E. Fisher, Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (Warminster) Flach 1882: J. Flach, Hesychii Milesii Onomatologi Quae Supersunt (Leipzig) Flower 2008: M. A. Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece (Berkeley and Los Angeles) Fontaine 2010: M. Fontaine, Funny Words in Plautine Comedy (Oxford) Forbes 1958: R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology Vol. VI (Leiden) Fortenbaugh 1981: W. W. Fortenbaugh, ‘Theophrast über den komischen Charakter’, RhM 124: 245–60 Foxhall and Salmon 1998: L. Foxhall and J. B. Salmon (eds.), Thinking Men: Masculinity and its Self-Representation in the Classical Tradition (London and New York) Fraenkel 1912: E. Fraenkel, De Media et Nova Comoedia Quaestiones Selectae (Göttingen) Fragiadakis 1988: C. Fragiadakis, Die attischen Sklavennamen: von der spätarchaischen Epoche bis in die römische Kaiserzeit. Eine historische und soziologische Untersuchung (Diss. Mannheim) Franco 1990: C. Franco, ‘Lisimaco e Atene’, in Virgilio 1990, pp. 113–34 Frantz 1900: W. Frantz, ‘Ein Fragment des Komikers Philippides’, Hermes 35: 671 Fraser 1972: P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.: Oxford) Fraser et al. 1987- : J.-S. Balzat, S. G. Byrne, R. W. V. Catling, É. Chiricat, T. Corsten, P. M. Fraser, F. Marchand, E. Matthews and M. J. Osborne, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (Oxford) Frost 1988: K. B. Frost, Exits and Entrances in Menander (Oxford)

334

Bibliography

Funghi 2003: M. S. Funghi (ed.), Aspetti di letteratura gnomica nel mondo antico Vol. I (Florence) Funke 2015: M. Funke, ‘The Menandrian World of Alciphron’s Letters’, in Marshall and Hawkins 2015, pp. 223–38 Furley 1992: W. D. Furley, ‘Die Adonis-Feier in Athen, 415 v. Chr.’, Ktema 13: 13–19 Gabathuler 1937: M. Gabathuler, Hellenistische Epigramme auf Dichter (Leipzig) Gagarin 1996: M. Gagarin, ‘The Torture of Slaves in Athenian Law’, CPh 91: 1–18 Gaiser 1963: K. Gaiser, Platons ungeschriebene Lehre (Stuttgart) Gaiser 1979: K. Gaiser, review of Riginos 1976, Gnomon 51: 103–10 Gaiser 1980: K. Gaiser, ‘Plato’s Enigmatic Lecture “On the Good”’, Phronesis 25: 5–37 Gaisford 1824: T. Gaisford, Joannis Stobaei Florilegium Vol. III (Leipzig) Gallo 1981: I. Gallo, Teatro ellenistico minore (Rome) Gallo 1984: I. Gallo, ‘Note a Filippide comico’, Sileno 10: 225–36. Gallo 1994: I. Gallo, ‘Nuove note a Filippide comico’, in Storia, poesia e pensiero nel Mondo antico. Studi in onore di Marcello Gigante (Naples), pp. 229–34 Ganschinietz 1922: R. Ganschinietz, ‘Koskinomanteia’, RE XI.2 pp. 1481–3 Garland 1987: R. Garland, The Piraeus: From the Fifth to the First Century BC (London) Garton 1972: C. Garton, Personal Aspects of the Roman Theatre (Toronto) Gauthier 1979: P. Gauthier, ‘La réunification d’Athènes en 281 et les deux archontes Nicias’, REG 92: 348–99 Gauthier 1982: P. Gauthier, ‘Notes sur trois décrets honorant des citoyens bienfaiteurs’, RPh 56: 215–31 Gauthier 1985: P. Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs, IVe‐Ier siècle avant J.-C. (BCH Supplement 12: Paris) Geddes 1987: A. G. Geddes, ‘Rags and Riches: The Costume of Athenian Men in the Fifth Century’, CQ NS 37: 307–31 Geffcken 1934: J. Geffcken, ‘Theaitetos (4)’, RE V.A2 p. 1372 Geissler 1969: Chronologie der altattischen Komödie2 (Berlin) Gerhard 1909: G. D. Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon: Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig and Berlin) Ghiron-Bistagne 1976: P. Ghiron-Bistagne, Recherches sur les acteurs dans la Grèce antique (Paris) Giannini 1963: A. Gianinni, ‘Callimaco e la tragedia’, Dioniso 37: 48–73 Gibert 1999–2000: J. Gibert, ‘Falling in Love with Euripides (Andromeda)’, in Cropp et al. 1999–2000, pp. 133–68 Gibson 2002: D. Gibson, ‘Periphrastic Causatives with ποιέω  in Ancient Greek Prose’, Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics 7: 27–39 Gilleard 2007: C. Gilleard, ‘Old Age in Ancient Greece: Narratives of Desire, Narratives of Disgust’, Journal of Aging Studies 21: 81–92 Glazebrook and Henry 2011a: A. Glazebrook and M. M. Henry, ‘Introduction: Why Prostitutes? Why Greek? Why Now?’, in Glazebrook and Henry 2011b, pp. 3–13 Glazebrook and Henry 2011b: A. Glazebrook and M. M. Henry (eds.), Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE–200 CE (Madison and London) Glotz 1913: G. Glotz, ‘Les salaires à Délos’, JS 11: 206–15 Göbel 1915: M. Göbel, Ethnica: De Graecarum Civitatum Proprietatibus Proverbio Notates (Bratislava) Goldhill and Osborne 1999: S. Goldhill and R. Osborne (eds.), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy (Cambridge)

Bibliography

335

Gomme and Sandbach 1973: A. W. Gomme and F. H. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary (Oxford) Gow 1952: A. S. F. Gow, Theocritus2 (2 vols.: Cambridge) Gow 1965: A. S. F. Gow, Machon: The Fragments (Cambridge) Gow and Page 1965: A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (2 vols.: Cambridge) Graf 2007: F. Graf, ‘Dionysiac Mystery Cults and the Gold Tablets’, in Graf and Johnston 2007, pp. 137–64 Graf and Johnston 2007: F. Graf and S. I. Johnston, Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets (London and New York) Granholm 2012: P. Granholm, Alciphron: Letters of the Courtesans (Uppsala) Graziosi 2001: B. Graziosi, ‘Competition in Wisdom’, in Budelmann and Michelakis 2001, pp. 57–74. Green 1961: J. R. Green, ‘The Caputi Hydria’, JHS 81: 73–5 Griffith 1935: G. T. Griffith, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (Cambridge) Gronovius 1701: J. Gronovius (ed.), Thesaurus Graecarum Antiquitatum Vol. X (Leiden) Grotius 1623: H. Grotius, Dicta Poetarum Quae apud Ioannem Stobaeum Exstant (Paris) Guastella 2002: G. Guastella, ‘I monologhi di ingresso dei parassiti’, in Questa and Raffaelli 2002, pp. 155–98 Guthrie 1952: W. K. C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion (London) Guthrie 1978: W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy Vol. V (Cambridge) Gutzwiller 1998: K. J. Gutzwiller, Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Habicht 1970: C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte2 (Munich) Habicht 1979: C. Habicht, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr.(Munich) Habicht 1982: C. Habicht, Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit (Göttingen) Habicht 1997: C. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (Cambridge MA and London) Hadjimichael 2019: T. A. Hadjimichael, The Emergence of the Lyric Canon (Oxford) Hagel 2010: S. Hagel, Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical History (Cambridge) Hägg et al. 1988: R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G. C. Nordquist (eds.), Early Greek Cult Practice (Stockholm) Halliwell 2008: S. Halliwell, Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity (Cambridge and New York) Handley 1965: E. W. Handley, The Dyskolos of Menander (London) Hanink 2014a: J. Hanink, Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy (Cambridge) Hanink 2014b: J. Hanink, ‘Literary Evidence for New Tragic Production: The View from the Fourth Century’, in Csapo et al. 2014, pp. 189–206 Hansen 1975: M. H. Hansen, Eisangelia (Odense) Hansen 1983–1989: P. A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca (2 vols.: Berlin and New York) Hansen 2004: M. H. Hansen, ‘Oropos’, in Hansen and Nielsen 2004, pp. 448–9 Hansen and Nielsen 2004: M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford) Harder 1990: M. A. Harder, ‘Untrodden Paths: Where Do they Lead?’,’ HSPh 93: 297–309 Harris 1990: E. M. Harris, ‘Did the Athenians Regard Seduction as a Worse Crime than Rape?’, CQ NS 40: 370–7 Harris 1995: D. Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion (Oxford)

336

Bibliography

Harris 2019: W. V. Harris, ‘Manteis and Medicine’, Mnemosyne 73: 1–15 Harris et al. 2015: E. M. Harris, D. M. Lewis and M. Woolmer (eds.), The Ancient Greek Economy: Markets, Households and City-States (Cambridge) Harrison 1968: A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens Vol. I The Family and Property (Oxford) Harrison 1971: A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens Vol. II Procedure (Oxford) Harrison 1977: E. B. Harrison, ‘The Shoulder-Cord of Themis’, in Höckmann and Krug 1977, pp. 155–61 Harsh 1955: P. W. Harsh, ‘The Intriguing Slave in Greek Comedy’, TAPhA 86: 135–42 Hartwig 2008: A. Hartwig, ‘Interpretive Notes on Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae’, Philologus 152: 49–64 Hartwig 2009: A. Hartwig, ‘A Reconsideration of the Musician Chaeris’, CQ NS 59: 383–97 Hartwig 2010: A. Hartwig, ‘The Date of the Rhabdouchoi and the Early Career of Plato Comicus’, ZPE 174: 19–31 Hartwig 2014: A. Hartwig, ‘The Evolution of Comedy in the Fourth Century’, in Csapo et al. 2014, pp. 207–27 Hartwig 2015: A. Hartwig, ‘Self-Censorship in Ancient Greek Comedy’, in Baltussen and Davis 2015, pp. 18–41 Harvey 1990: D. Harvey, ‘The Sykophant and Sykophancy: Vexatious Redefinition?’, in Cartledge et al. 1990, pp. 103–21 Harvey and Wikins 2000: D. Harvey and J. Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (London) Hauschild 1933: H. Hauschild, Die Gestalt der Hetäre in der griechischen Komödie (Diss. Leipzig) Hauvette-Besnault 1883: A. Hauvette-Besnault, ‘Fouilles de Délos’, BCH 7: 103–25 Headlam 1899: W. Headlam, ‘Critical Notes’, CR 13: 3–8 Headlam and Knox 1922: W. Headlam and A. D. Knox, Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (Cambridge) Hekster and Fowler 2005: O. Hekster and R. Fowler (eds.), Imaginary Kings: Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome (Stuttgart) Helm 1906: R. Helm, Lucian und Menipp (Leipzig and Berlin) Henderson 1987: J. Henderson, Aristophanes: Lysistrata (Oxford) Henderson 1991: J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy2 (New York and Oxford) Henderson 2000: J. Henderson, ‘Pherekrates and the Women of Old Comedy’, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000, pp. 135–50 Henry 1983: A. S. Henry, Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees (Hildesheim, Zurich and New York) Henry 1985: M. M. Henry, Menander’s Courtesans and the Greek Comic Tradition (Frankfurt) Hense 1909: O. Hense, Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo posteriores Vol. II (Berlin) Herman 1980–1981: G. Herman, ‘The “Friends” of the Early Hellenistic Rulers: Servants or Officials?’, Talanta 12/13: 103–49 Hermann and Blümner 1882: K. F. Hermann and H. Blümner, Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten Vol. IV Privatalterthümer (Freiburg and Tübingen) Hertelius 1560: I. Hertelius, Vetustissimorum et Sapientissimorum Comicorum Quinquaginta, Quorum Opera Integra non Extant, Sententiae Quae Supersunt, Graece et Latine Collectae (Basel) Herwerden 1855: H. van Herwerden, Observationes Criticae in Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum (Diss. Leiden)

Bibliography

337

Herwerden 1868: H. van Herwerden, Analecta Critica ad Thucydidem, Lysiam, Sophoclem, Aristophanem et Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Utrecht) Herwerden 1872: H. van Herwerden, Studia Critica in Poetas Scenicos Graecorum (Amsterdam) Herwerden 1903: H. van Herwerden, Collectanea Critica, Epicritica, Exegetica sive Addenda ad Theodori Kockii Opus Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (Leiden) Heubeck 1971: A. Heubeck, ‘Amphiaraos’, Sprache 17: 8–22 Hickmann et al. 2000: E. Hickmann, I. Laufs and R. Eichmann (eds.), Studien zur Musikarchäologie 2 (Orient-Archäologie 7: Rahden) Hickmann et al. 2002: E. Hickmann, A. D. Kilmer and R. Eichmann (eds.), Studien zur Musikarchäologie 3 (Orient-Archäologie 10: Rahden) Hidber 2006a: T. Hidber, ‘Philippides (3)’, BNP (online) Hidber 2006b: T. Hidber, ‘Sosippus’, BNP (online) Hidber 2006c: T. Hidber, ‘Stephanus (2)’, BNP (online) Higbie 1990: C. Higbie, Measure and Music: Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the Iliad (Oxford) Höckmann and Krug 1977: U. Höckmann and A. Krug (eds.), Festschrift für Frank Brommer (Mainz) Hoffman and Davidson 1965: H. Hoffmann and P. F. Davidson, Greek Gold: Jewelry from the Age of Alexander (Mainz) Hollinshead 1999: M. B. Hollinshead, ‘“Adyton,” “Opisthodomos,” and the Inner Room of the Greek Temple’, Hesperia 68: 189–218 Hopfner 1935: T. Hopfner, ‘Mysterien’, RE XVI pp. 1209–1350 Howland 1958: R. H. Howland, The Athenian Agora IV: Greek Lamps and Their Survivals (New Jersey) Hubbard 1993: T. Hubbard, ‘The Theban Amphiaraion and Pindar’s Vision on the Road to Delphi’, MH 50: 193–203 Hug 1922: A. Hug, ‘Κόσκινον’, RE XI.2 pp. 1483–4 Hug 1924: A. Hug, ‘Lanterna’, RE XII.1 pp. 693–4 Hug 1931: A. Hug, ‘Stuhl’, RE IV.A1 pp. 398–422 Humphreys 2018: S. C. Humphreys, Kinship in Ancient Athens: An Anthropological Analysis (2 vols.: Oxford) Hunter 1983: R. L. Hunter, Eubulus: The Fragments (Cambridge) Hunter 1985: R. L. Hunter, The New Comedy of Greece & Rome (Cambridge) Hunter 1999: R. L. Hunter, Theocritus: A Selection (Cambridge) Hunter and Edmondson 2001: V. Hunter and J. Edmondson (eds.), Law and Social Status in Classical Athens (Oxford) Hurwit 2005: J. M. Hurwit, ‘Space and Theme: The Setting of the Parthenon’, in Neils 2005, pp. 9–33 Isager and Hansen 1975: S. Isager and M. H. Hansen, Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century B.C. A Historical Introduction to and Commentary on the ParagrapheSpeeches and the Speech Against Dionysodorus in the Corpus Demosthenicum (XXXIIXXXVIII and LVI) (transl. J. H. Rosenmeier: Odense) Iversen 2011: P. A. Iversen, ‘Menander’s Thaïs: “hac primum iuvenum lascivos lusit amores”’, CQ NS 61: 186–91 Jacob 2000: C. Jacob, ‘Callimachus: A Poet in the Labyrinth’, in Jacob and Polignac 2000, pp. 89–100

338

Bibliography

Jacob and Polignac 2000: C. Jacob and F. Polignac (eds.), Alexandria, Third Century BC: The Knowledge of the World in a Single City (Alexandria) Jacobs 1809: F. Jacobs, Additamenta Animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (Jena) Jacoby et al. 1923- : F. Jacoby et al. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and Leiden) Jaekel 1964: S. Jaekel, Menandri Sententiae. Comparatio Menandri et Philistionis (Leipzig) Johnson 1915: A. C. Johnson, ‘Studies in the Financial Administration of Athens’, AJPh 36: 424–52 Johnston 2008: S. I. Johnston, Ancient Greek Divination (Chichester) Johnstone 1999: S. Johnstone, Disputes and Democracy: The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens (Austin) Jones 1999: N. F. Jones, The Associations of Classical Athens: the Response to Democracy (New York and Oxford) Jones 2004: N. F. Jones, Rural Athens Under the Democracy (Philadelphia) Kaibel 1887–1890: G. Kaibel, Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum (3 vols.: Leipzig) Kaibel 1889: G. Kaibel, ‘Zur Attischen Komödie’, Hermes 24: 35–66 Kaibel 1899: G. Kaibel, Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Voluminis I Fasciculus Prior: Doriensium Comoedia Mimi Phlyaces (Berlin) Kalbfleisch 1925: K. Kalbfleisch, ‘Griechische Komödien-Bruchstücke aus seiner Anthologie’, in Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso 1884–1925 (Milan), pp. 29–35 Kaldellis 2005: A. Kaldellis, ‘The Works and Days of Hesychios the Illoustrios of Miletos’, GRBS 45: 381–403 Kapparis 1996: K. K. Kapparis, ‘Humiliating the Adulterer. The Law and the Practice in Classical Athens’, RIDA 43: 64–77 Kapparis 2011: K. K. Kapparis, ‘The Terminology of Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World’, in Glazebrook and Henry 2011, pp. 222–55 Kapparis 2018: K. K. Kapparis, Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World (Berlin and Boston) Kassel 1958: R. Kassel, Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur (Munich) Kassel 1974: R. Kassel, ‘Ärger mit dem Koch (Com. Gr. Fr. 219 Austin)’, ZPE 14: 121–7 Kassel and Austin 1983–2001: R. Kassel and C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci (8 vols.: Berlin and New York) Katsouris 1977: A. G. Katsouris, ‘Plural in Place of Singular’, RhM 120: 228–40 Kawerau and Rehm 1914: G. Kawerau and A. Rehm, Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahr 1899 Vol. I.3 Das Delphinion in Milet (Berlin) Kearns 1989: E. Kearns, The Heroes of Attica (London) Keller 1913: O. Keller, Die antike Tierwelt Vol. II (Leipzig) Keramopoullos 1917: A. D. Keramopoullos, ‘Θηβαϊκά’, AD 3: 1–503 Kern 1900: O. Kern. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin) Kirchner 1896: J. E. Kirchner, ‘Beiträge zur Attischen Prosopographie’, Hermes 31: 254–63 Kirchner 1901–1903: J. E. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica (2 vols.: Berlin) Klimek-Winter 1993: R. Klimek-Winter, Andromedatragödien (Stuttgart) Klooster 2011: J. Klooster, Poetry as Window and Mirror: Positioning the Poet in Hellenistic Poetry (Mnemosyne Supplement 330: Leiden and Boston) Knöbl 2008: R. Knöbl, Biographical Representations of Euripides. Some Examples of their Development from Classical Antiquity to Byzantium (Diss. Durham). Knoepfler 1988: D. Knoepfler (ed.), Comptes et inventaires dans la cité grecque (Geneva) Knoepfler 2014: D. Knoepfler, ‘Athènes hellénistique’, ACF 113: 427–47

Bibliography

339

Kock 1880: T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta Vol. I (Leipzig) Kock 1884: T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta Vol. II (Leipzig) Kock 1888: T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta Vol. III (Leipzig) Kock 1924: T. Kock, ‘Lakiadai’, RE XII.1 pp. 524–5 Komornicka 2013: A. M. Komornicka, ‘Personification in Aristophanes’ Comedies’, Eos 100: 211–32 Konstantakos 2000a: I. M. Konstantakos, A Commentary on the Fragments of Eight Plays of Antiphanes (Diss. Cambridge) Konstantakos 2000b: I. M. Konstantakos, ‘Notes on the Chronology and Career of Antiphanes’, Eikasmos 11: 173–96 Konstantakos 2005: I. M. Konstantakos, ‘The Drinking Theatre: Staged Symposia in Greek Comedy’, Mnemosyne 58: 183–217 Körte 1905: A. Körte, ‘Inschriftliches zur Geschichte der attischen Komödie’, RhM 60: 425–47 Körte 1927: A. Körte, ‘Sosippos (1)’, RE III.A1 p. 1173 Körte 1929: A. Körte, ‘Stephanos (10)’, RE III.A2 p. 2364 Körte 1936: A. Körte, ‘Nikostratos (21)’, RE XVII pp. 545–6 Körte 1938: A. Körte, ‘Philippides (7)’, RE XIX.2 pp. 2204–6 Kortenbeutel 1941: H. Kortenbeutel, ‘φίλος’, RE XX.1 pp. 95–103 Kosak 2004: J. C. Kosak, Heroic Measures: Hippocratic Medicine in the Making of Euripidean Tragedy (Leiden and Boston) Koster and Holwerda 1960–2007: W. J. W. Koster and D. Holwerda, Scholia in Aristophanem (4 vols.: Groningen) Koster 1975: W. J. W. Koster, Scholia in Aristophanem IA: Prolegomena de Comoedia (Groningen) Kozak and Rich 2006: L. Kozak and J. Rich (eds.), Playing Around Aristophanes: Essays in Celebration of the Completion of the Edition of the Comedies of Aristophanes by Alan Sommerstein (Oxford) Kraay 1968: C. M. Kraay, Coins of Ancient Athens (Newcastle) Krakert 1902: H. Krakert, Herodas in Mimiambis Quatenus Comoediam Graecam Respexisse Videatur (Diss. Freiburg) Kralli 1999–2000: I. Kralli, ‘Athens and her Leading Citizens in the Early Hellenistic Period (338–261 B.C.): The Evidence of the Decrees Awarding the Highest Honours’, Archaiognosia 10: 133–62 Kraus 1985: W. Kraus, Aristophanes politische Komödien: die Acharner, die Ritter (Vienna) Kroehnert 1897: O. Kroehnert, Canonesne Poetarum Scriptorum Artificum per Antiquitatem Fuerunt? (Diss. Köningsberg) Kroll 1979: J. H. Kroll, ‘A Chronology of Early Athenian Bronze Coinage, ca. 350–250 BC’, in Morkholm and Waggoner 1979, pp. 139–54 Kroll 1919: W. Kroll, ‘Käse’, RE X.2 pp. 1489–96 Krumeich et al. 1999: R. Krumeich, N. Pechstein and B. Seidensticker (eds.), Das griechische Satyrspiel (Darmstadt) Kühn 1780: C. G. Kühn 1780. Claudii Aeliani Sophistae Varia Historia et Fragmenta Vol. II (Leipzig) Kühner 1890–1892: R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache: i. Elementar- und Formenlehre3 (2 vols.: rev. F. Blass: Hanover) Kühner 1898–1904: R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache: ii. Satzlehre3 (2 vols.: rev. B. Gerth: Hanover)

340

Bibliography

Kurke 1997: L. Kurke, ‘Inventing the “Hetaira”: Sex, Politics, and Discursive Conflict in Archaic Greece’, ClAnt 16: 106–50 Lamari 2017: A. Lamari, Reperforming Greek Tragedy: Theater, Politics, and Cultural Mobility in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC (Berlin and Boston) Lambert 2017: S. D. Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes: Historical Essays (Leiden and Boston) Lambertz 1907: M. Lambertz, Die griechischen Sklavennamen (Vienna) Landels 1981: J. G. Landels, ‘The Reconstruction of Ancient Greek Auloi’, World Archaeology 12: 298–302 Lane Fox 1996: R. Lane Fox, ‘Theophrastus’ Characters and the Historian’, PCPhS 42: 127–70 Lane Fox 2009: R. Lane Fox, Travelling Heroes: Greeks and Their Myths in the Epic Age of Homer (London) Lapatin 2005: K. Lapatin, ‘The Statue of Athena and Other Treasures in the Parthenon’, in Neils 2005, pp. 261–91 Lape 2004: S. Lape, Reproducing Athens: Menander’s Comedy, Democratic Culture, and the Hellenistic City (Princeton and Oxford) Lape 2010: S. Lape, Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy (Cambridge) La Penna 1971: A. La Penna, ‘Estasi dionisiaca e poetica Callimachea’, in Studi filologici e storici in onore di Vittorio de Falco (Naples), pp. 229–37 Latte 1915: K. Latte, ‘Zur Zeitbestimmung des Antiatticista’, Hermes 50: 373–94 Latte et al. 1953–2009: K. Latte, P. Hansen and I. Cunningham, Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (4 vols.: Berlin and Boston) Launey 1949: M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques Vol. I (Paris) Lautensach 1899: O. Lautensach, Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern und Komikern: Augment und Reduplikation (Hannover and Leipzig) Lauxtermann 1998: M. D. Lauxtermann, ‘What Is an Epideictic Epigram?’, Mnemosyne 51: 525–37 Lee 2013: J. A. L. Lee, ‘The Atticist Grammarians’, in Porter and Pitts 2013, pp. 283–308 Lefkowitz 2012: M. R. Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets2 (London) Legrand 1917: P. E. Legrand, The New Greek Comedy (transl. J. Loeb, introd. J. W. White: London and New York) Leo 1878: F. Leo, ‘Bemerkungen zur attischen Kömodie’, RhM 33: 400–17 Lewis 1959: D. M. Lewis, ‘Law on the Lesser Panathenaia’, Hesperia 28: 239–47 Lewis 1988: D. M. Lewis, ‘The Last Inventories of the Treasurers of Athena’, in Knoepfler 1988, pp. 297–308 Liapis 2007: V. Liapis, ‘How to Make a Monostichos: Strategies of Variation in the Sententiae Menandri’, HSPh 103: 261–98 Liapis 2014: V. Liapis, ‘Cooking up Rhesus: Literary Imitation and its Consumers’, in Csapo et al. 2014, pp. 275–94 Liddell and Scott 1940: H. G. Liddell and R. Scott (1940) A Greek-English Lexicon9 (rev. H. S. Jones: Oxford) Lilja 1972: S. Lilja, The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 49: Helsinki) Lipsius 1905: J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren mit Benutzung des attischen Processes Vol. I (Leipzig) Lissarrague 1990: F. Lissarrague, ‘Around the Krater: An Aspect of Banquet Imagery’, in Murray 1990, pp. 196–209

Bibliography

341

Livrea 1985: E. Livrea, ‘P.Harris 171. Gnomologico con testi comici’, ZPE 58: 11–20 Livrea 1989: E. Livrea, ‘Teeteto, Antagora e Callimaco’, SIFC 82: 24–31 Lloyd-Jones 1996: H. Lloyd-Jones, Sophocles Vol. III Fragments (Cambridge MA and London) Lloyd-Jones and Parsons 1983: H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons, Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin and New York) Loeschcke 1909: S. Loeschcke, ‘Antiken Laternen und Lichthäuschen’, BJ 118: 370–430 Lofberg 1917: J. O. Lofberg, Sycophancy in Athens (Chicago) Lofberg 1920: J. O. Lofberg, ‘The Sycophant-Parasite’, CPh 15: 61–72 Lofberg 1976: J. O. Lofberg, Sycophancy in Athens (Chicago) Lorenzoni 2000: A. Lorenzoni, ‘Una torcia in Filippide e Menandro’, Eikasmos 11: 155–65 Lorenzoni 2012: A. Lorenzoni, ‘Ateneo nella Suda (specimina dai bio-bibliographica comicorum)’, Eikasmos 23: 321–47 Ludwig 1961: W. Ludwig, ‘Aulularia-Probleme’, Philologus 105: 44–71 Lund 1992: H. S. Lund, Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship (London) Luppe 1970: W. Luppe, ‘Zur Datierung einiger Dramatiker in der Eusebios/IeronymusChronik’, Philologus 114: 1–8 Luraghi 2012: N. Luraghi, ‘Commedia e politica tra Demostene e Cremonide’, in Perusino and Colantonio 2012, pp. 353–76 Luraghi 2014: N. Luraghi, ‘Stratokles of Diomeia and Party Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens’, C&M 65: 191–226 Luraghi 2017: N. Luraghi, ‘Timaeus’ Athens Revisited: Culture and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens’, ASNP 9: 179–208 Lytle 2010: E. Lytle, ‘Fish Lists in the Wilderness: The Social and Economic History of a Boiotian Price Decree’, Hesperia 79: 253–303 Ma 2013: J. Ma, Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World (Oxford) Maass 1880: E. Maass, De Biographis Graecis Quaestiones Selectae (Berlin) MacCary 1969: W. T. MacCary, ‘Menander’s Slaves: Their Names, Roles, and Masks’, TAPhA 100: 277–94 MacDowell 1962: D. M. MacDowell, Andokides: On the Mysteries (Oxford) MacDowell 1971: D. M. MacDowell, Aristophanes: Wasps (Oxford) MacDowell 1978: D. M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens (London) MacDowell 1990: D. M. MacDowell, Demosthenes: Against Meidias (Oxford) MacDowell 2007: D. M. MacDowell, ‘Heredetary Sitesis in Fourth-Century Athens’, ZPE 162: 111–13 Major 1997: W. E. Major, ‘Menander in a Macedonian World’, GRBS 38: 41–73 Mann et al. 2016: C. Mann, S. Remijsen and S. Scharff (eds.), Athletics in the Hellenistic World (Stuttgart) Mansfield 1985: J. M. Mansfield, The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos (Diss. Berkeley) Marasco 1994: G. Marasco, Plutarco, Vite Vol. V Demetrio e Antonio, Pirro e Mario, Arato, Artaserse, Agide-Cleomene e Tiberio – Gaio Graco (Turin) Marshall 2006: C. W. Marshall, The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy (Cambridge) Marshall and Hawkins 2015: C. W. Marshall and T. Hawkins (eds.), Athenian Comedy in the Roman Empire (London)

342

Bibliography

Marshall and Kovacs 2012: C. W. Marshall and G. Kovacs (eds.), No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy (London) Martin 2003: R. P. Martin, ‘The Pipes are Brawling: Conceptualizing Musical Performance in Athens’, in Dougherty and Kurke 2003, pp. 153–80 Mastellari 2020: V. Mastellari, Calliade–Mnesimacos: introduzione, traduzione e commento (FrC 16.5: Göttingen) Mastellari 2021: V. Mastellari (ed.), Fragments in Context (Studia Comica 11: Göttingen) Mastellari et al. 2019: V. Mastellari, N. Hatton and S. Hobe (eds.), Hacks, Quacks & Imposters: Affected and Assumed Identities in Literature (Freiburg) Mastrocinque 1979: A. Mastrocinque, ‘Demetrios Tragodoumenos (Propaganda e letteratura al tempo di Demetrio Poliorcete)’, Athenaeum 57: 260–76 Mastromarco 2005: G. M. Mastromarco, ‘Modelli greci della maschera comica del soldato fanfarone’, Vichiana s. 4, 7: 152–73 Mastronarde 2002: D. J. Mastronarde, Euripides: Medea (Cambridge) Mastronarde 2010: D. J. Mastronarde, The Art of Euripides: Dramatic Technique and Social Context (Cambridge) Matthews 1974: V. J. Matthews, Panyassis of Halikarnassos: Text and Commentary (Leiden) Mau 1900: A. Mau, ‘Convivium’, RE IV.1 pp. 1201–8 McCarthy 2000: K. McCarthy, Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy (Princeton NJ) McClure 2003: L. K. McClure, Courtesans at Table: Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus (London and New York) Meillier 1979: C. Meillier, Callimaque et son temps. Recherches sur la carrière et la condition d’un écrivain à l’époque des premiers Lagides (Lille) Meineke 1823: A. Meineke, Menandri et Philemonis Reliquiae (Berlin) Meineke 1830: A. Meineke, Quaestionum Scenicarum Specimen Tertium (Berlin) Meineke 1839: A. Meineke, Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum Vol. I Historiam Criticam Comicorum Graecorum Continens (Berlin) Meineke 1841: A. Meineke, Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum Vol. IV Fragmenta Poetarum Comoediae Novae Continens (Berlin) Meineke 1857: A. Meineke, Ioannis Stobaei Florilegium Vol. IV (Leipzig) Meineke 1867: A. Meineke, Analecta Critica ad Athenaei Deipnosophistas (Leipzig) Meisterhans-Schwyzer 1900: K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen Inschriften3 (with E. Schwyzer: Berlin) Mensching 1964: E. Mensching, ‘Zur Produktivität der alten Komödie’, MH 21: 15–49 Meritt 1935: B. D. Meritt, ‘The Seventh Metonic Cycle’, Hesperia 5: 201–5 Mette 1952: H. J. Mette, Parateresis: Untersuchungen zur Sprachtheorie des Krates von Pergamon (Halle) Mette 1977: H. J. Mette, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Griechenland (Berlin and New York) Meursius 1701: J. Meursius, ‘Biblia Attica I-VI’, in Gronovius 1701, pp. 1398–1624 Miccolis 2018: E. R. Miccolis, Archippos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (FrC 12: Heidelberg) Michell 1957: H. Michell, The Economics of Ancient Greece2 (Cambridge) Mikalson 1975: J. D. Mikalson, The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton) Mikalson 1998: J. D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London)

Bibliography

343

Millis 2014: B. W. Millis, ‘Inscribed Public Records of the Dramatic Contests at Athens: IG II2 2318–2323a and IG II2 2325’, in Csapo et al. 2014, pp. 425–45 Millis 2015: B. W. Millis, Anaxandrides: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (FrC 17: Heidelberg) Millis and Olson 2012: B. W. Millis and S. D. Olson, Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II2 2318–2325 and Related Texts (Leiden and London) Mirhardy 1996: D. C. Mirhardy, ‘Torture and Rhetoric in Athens’, JHS 116: 119–31 Mirhardy 2001: D. C. Mirhardy, ‘The Athenian Rationale for Torture’, in Hunter and Edmondson 2001, pp. 53–74 Mitchell and Rubinstein 2009: L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein (eds.), Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P. J. Rhodes (Swansea) Monaco 2013: M. Monaco, ‘The Bema and the Stage: Stratocles and Philippides in Plutarch’s Demetrius’, ICS 38: 113–26 Monda 2004: S. Monda, Vidularia et Deperditarum Fabularum Fragmenta (Sarsina and Urbino) Montes Cala 1999: J. G. Montes Cala, ‘Invectiva política y comedia helenística’, in Andresen et al. 1999, pp. 227–44 Montfaucon 1715: B. Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, olim Segueriana (Paris) Moorhouse 1962 : A. C. Moorhouse, ‘ΕΥ ΟΙΔΑ and ΟΥΔΕ ΕΙΣ: Cases of Hiatus’, CQ NS 12: 239–47 Moretti 1968: L. Moretti, Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae Vol. I (Rome) Morkholm and Waggoner 1979: O. Morkholm and N. M. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wetteren) Mosshammer 1979: A. A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (London) Most 2003: G. W. Most, ‘Euripide Ο ΓΝΩΜΟΛΟΓΙΚΩΤΑΤΟΣ’, in Funghi 2003, pp. 141–66 Mras 1916: K. Mras, ‘Die Personennamen in Lucians Hetärengesprächen’, WS 38: 308–42 Mullach 1860–1861: F. W. A. Mullach, Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum (3 vols.: Paris) Müller 1841–1883: K. O. Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (5 vols.: Paris) Murray 1990: O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion (Oxford) Mylonas 1961: G. E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton) Naber 1880: S. A. Naber, ‘Ad Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum’, Mnemosyne 8: 407–35 Neil 1901: R. A. Neil, The Knights of Aristophanes (Cambridge) Neils 1992: J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (Princeton) Neils 2005: J. Neils (ed.), The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge) Nervegna 2013: S. G. Nervegna, Menander in Antiquity: The Contexts of Reception (Cambridge) Nervegna 2014: S. G. Nervegna, ‘Performing Classics: The Tragic Canon in the Fourth Century and Beyond’, in Csapo et al. 2014, pp. 157–87 Nesselrath 1985: H.-G. Nesselrath, Lukians Parasitendialog (New York and Berlin) Nesselrath 1990: H.-G. Nesselrath, Die attische Mittlere Komödie: Ihre Stellung in der antiken Literaturkritik und Literaturgeschichte (Berlin and New York) Nesselrath 1993: H.-G. Nesselrath, ‘Parody and Later Greek Comedy’, HSPh 95: 181–95 Newell 1927: E. T. Newell, The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes (Oxford) Nock 1934: A. D. Nock, review of Deubner 1932, Gnomon 10: 289–95 Norman 1983: N. J. Norman, ‘The Panathenaic Ship’, ArchN 12: 41–6 Norwood 1931: G. Norwood, Greek Comedy (London)

344

Bibliography

Ochman 2011: K. Ochman, ‘A Literary Interchange – Gellius, Noctes Atticae III, 15’, GraecoLatina Brunensia 16: 143–9 Oellacher 1916: H. Oellacher, ‘Zur Chronologie der altattischen Komödie’, WS 38: 81–157 Oeri 1948: H. G. Oeri, Der Typ der komischen Alten in der griechischen Komödie, seine Nachwirkungen und seine Herkunft (Diss. Basel) Oliver 2007a: G. J. Oliver, War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens (Oxford) Oliver 2007b: G. J. Oliver, ‘Space and the Visualization of Power in the Greek Polis: The Award of Portrait Statues in Decrees from Athens’, in von den Hoff and Schultz 2007, pp. 181–204 Olson 1988: S. D. Olson, ‘The “Love Duet” in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae’, CQ NS 38: 328–30 Olson 1998: S. D. Olson, Aristophanes: Peace (Oxford) Olson 2006–2012: S. D. Olson, Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters (8 vols.: Cambridge MA and London) Olson 2013: S. D. Olson (ed.), Ancient Comedy and Reception: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Henderson (Berlin) Olson 2016: S. D. Olson, Eupolis, Heilotes–Chrysoun genos (frr. 147–325): Translation and Commentary (FrC 8.2: Heidelberg) Olson 2017: S. D. Olson, Eupolis, Testimonia and Aiges–Demoi (frr. 1–146): Introduction, Translation, Commentary (FrC 8.1: Heidelberg) Olson 2018: S. D. Olson, ‘Perfumed Wine (μυρίνης οἶνος): Diph. fr. 17.10, Posidipp.Com. fr. 36, Philippid. fr. 40 and the Lexica’, Mnemosyne 71: 689–92 Olson and Sens 1999: S. D. Olson and A. Sens, Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Atlanta) Olson and Sens 2000: S. D. Olson and A. Sens, Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE (Oxford) Omitowoju 2002: R. Omitowoju, Rape and the Politics of Consent in Classical Athens (Cambridge) Orth 2009: C. Orth, Strattis: die Fragmente. Ein Kommentar (Berlin) Orth 2014: C. Orth, Aristomenes–Metagenes: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (FrC 9.2: Heidelberg) Orth 2017: C. Orth, Aristophanes, Aiolosikon–Babylonioi (fr. 1–100): Übersetzung und Kommentar (FrC 10.3: Heidelberg) Osborne 1972: M. J. Osborne, ‘Attic Citizenship Decrees: A Note’, ABSA 67: 129–58 Osborne 1979: M. J. Osborne, ‘Kallias, Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 B.C.’, ZPE 35: 181–94 Osborne 1981: M. J. Osborne, ‘Entertainment in the Prytaneion at Athens’, ZPE 41: 153–70 Osborne 1983: M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens Vols. III-IV (Brussels) Osborne 1985: R. Osborne, Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge) Osborne 1990: R. Osborne, ‘Vexatious Litigation in Classical Athens: Sykophancy and the Sykophant’, in Cartledge et al. 1990, pp. 83–102 Osborne 2012: M. J. Osborne, ‘Secretaries, Psephismata and Stelai in Athens’, AncSoc 42: 33–59 O’Sullivan 2009: L. O’Sullivan, ‘History from Comic Hypotheses: Stratocles, Lachares, and P.Oxy. 1235’, GRBS 49: 53–79 Otto 1890: A. Otto, Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redesarten der Römer (Leipzig) Page 1962: D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford) Page 1981: D. L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge) Palmer 1889: A. Palmer, review of Kock 1888, CR 3: 22–6

Bibliography

345

Papachrysostomou 2008: A. Papachrysostomou, Six Comic Poets: A Commentary on Selected Fragments of Middle Comedy (Tübingen) Papachrysostomou 2016: A. Papachrysostomou, Amphis: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (FrC 20: Heidelberg) Papakonstantinou 2016: Z. Papakonstantinou, ‘The Hellenistic Agonothesia: Finances, Ideology, Identities’, in Mann et al. 2016, pp. 95–112 Papastamati-von Moock 2007: C. Papastamati-von Moock, ‘Menander und die Tragikergruppe. Neue Forschungen zu den Ehrenmonumenten im Dionysostheater von Athen’, MDAI(A) 122: 273–327 Papazarkadas 2011: N. Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens (Oxford) Parke 1933: H. W. Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers: From the Earliest Times to the Battle of Ipsus (Oxford) Parke 1977: H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (London) Parker 1983: R. Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford) Parker 1996: R. Parker, Athenian Religion: A History (Oxford) Parker 2005: R. Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens (Oxford) Parker 2006: H. N. Parker, ‘A Fragment of the Athenian Dramatic Didascaliae for the Lenaia Re-examined (IG II/III2 2319)’, ZPE 158: 55–60 Parry 1929: M. Parry, ‘The Distinctive Character of Enjambement in Homeric Verse’, TAPhA 60: 200–20 Paschidis 2008: P. Paschidis, Between City and King: Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries Between the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Courts in the Hellenistic Period (322–190 BC) (Meletemata 59: Athens) Pasquali 1986: G. Pasquali, Scritti filologici (2 vols.: Florence) Pellegrino 2013: M. Pellegrino, Nicofonte: introduzione, traduzione e commento (FrC 15: Mainz) Peppink 1936: S. P. Peppink, Observationes in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (Leiden) Perusino and Colantonio 2012: F. Perusino and M. Colantonio (eds.), La commedia greca e la storia: Atti del Seminario di studio, Urbino, 18–20 maggio 2010 (Pisa) Petrakos 1968: B. Petrakos, Ὁ Ὠρωπὸς καὶ τὸ Ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου (Athens) Petrakos 1995: B. Petrakos, The Amphiareion of Oropos (Athens) Petrakos 1997: B. Petrakos, Οἱ ἐπιγραφὲς τοῦ Ὠρωποῦ (Athens) Petropoulou 1981: A. Petropoulou, ‘The Eparche Documents and the Early Oracle at Oropus’, GRBS 22: 39–63 Petropoulou 1985: A. Petropoulou, ‘Pausanias 1.34.5: Incubation on a Ram Skin’, in Argoud and Roesch 1985, pp. 169–77 Pfeiffer 1949: R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus Vol. I Fragmenta (Oxford) Pfeiffer 1953: R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus Vol. II Hymni et Epigrammata (Oxford) Pfeiffer 1968: R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford) Pfister 1951: F. Pfister, Die Reisebilder des Herakleides: Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar mit einer Übersicht über die Geschichte der griechischen Volkskunde (SBWien 227.2: Vienna) Philipp 1973: G. B. Philipp, ‘Philippides, ein politischer Komiker in hellenistischer Zeit’, Gymnasium 80: 493–509 Pickard-Cambridge 1968: A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens2 (rev. J. Gould and D. M. Lewis: Oxford)

346

Bibliography

Pierce 1997: K. F. Pierce, ‘The Portrayal of Rape in New Comedy’, in Deacy and Pierce 1997, pp. 163–84 Pierson 1830: J. Pierson, Moeridis Atticistae Lexicon Atticum (ed. G. A. Koch: Leipzig) Pieters 1946: J. T. M. F. Pieters, Cratinus. Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Vroeg-Attische Comoedie (Leiden) Pirrotta 2009: S. Pirrotta, Plato Comicus: Die fragmentarischen Komödien. Ein Kommentar (Berlin) Porson 1812: R. Porson, Adversaria (Cambridge) Porter and Pitts 2013: S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts (eds.), The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development (Leiden) Poultney 1936: J. W. Poultney, The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Aristophanes (Baltimore) Preuner 1899: E. Preuner, Ein delphisches Weihgeschenk (Bonn) Pritchett 1940: W. K. Pritchett, ‘The Composition of the Tribes Antigonis and Demetrias’, AJPh 61: 186–93 Pritchett 1956: W. K. Pritchett, ‘The Attic Stelai, Part II’, Hesperia 25: 178–317 Psaroudakes 2013: S. Psaroudakes, ‘The Daphne Aulos’, Greek and Roman Musical Studies 1: 93–121 Pütz 2007: B. Pütz, The Symposium and Komos in Aristophanes (Oxford) Quattrocchi 2006: U. Quattrocchi, CRC World Dictionary of Grasses: Common Names, Scientific Names, Eponyms, Synonyms, and Etymology (Boca Raton FL) Questa 2007: C. Questa, La metrica di Plauto e di Terenzio (Urbino) Questa and Raffaelli 2002: C. Questa and R. Raffaelli (eds.), Due seminari Plautini (Urbino) Rabe 1910: H. Rabe, ‘Die Listen griechischer Profanschriftsteller’, RhM 65: 339–44 Raines 1946: J. M. Raines, ‘Comedy and the Comic Poets in Greek Epigram’, TAPhA 77: 83–102 Ransom 1905: C. L. Ransom, Studies in Ancient Furniture: Couches and Beds of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (Chicago) Reed 1995: J. D. Reed, ‘The Sexuality of Adonis’ ClAnt 14: 317–47 Reed 1996: J. D. Reed, ‘Antimachus on Adonis?’, Hermes 124: 381–3 Regenbogen 1950: O. Regenbogen, ‘Πιναξ (3)’, RE XX.2 pp. 1409–82 Reger et al. 2010: G. Reger, F. X. Ryan and T. F. Winters (eds.), Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy (Bordeaux) Reitzammer 2008: L. Reitzammer, ‘Aristophanes’ Adôniazousai’, ClAnt 27: 282–333 Reitzammer 2016: L. Reitzammer, The Athenian Adonia in Context (Madison) Reynolds and Wilson 1991: L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes & Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek & Latin Literature3 (Oxford) Rhode 1878: E. Rohde, ‘Γέγονε in den Biographica des Suidas. Beiträge zu einer Geschichte der litterarhistorischen Forschung der Griechen’, RhM 33: 161–220 Rhodes 1992: P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford) Ribbeck 1882: O. Ribbeck, Alazon. Ein Beitrag zur antiken Ethologie (Leipzig) Ribbeck 1883: O. Ribbeck, Kolax. Eine ethologische Studie (Leipzig) Richards 1909: H. Richards, Aristophanes and Others (London) Richardson 1974: N. J. Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford) Richter 1966: G. M. A. Richter, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (London) Richter and Milne 1935: G. M. A. Richter and M. J. Milne, Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases (New York) Riginos 1976: A. S. Riginos, Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato (Leiden)

Bibliography

347

Rigsby 2010: K. J. Rigsby, ‘The Schedule of the Eleusinia’, Mnemosyne 63: 289–97 Ritchie 1964: W. Ritchie, The Authenticity of the Rhesus of Euripides (Cambridge) Robertson 1985: N. D. Robertson, ‘The Origin of the Panathenaea’, RhM 128: 231–95 Robertson 1998: N. D. Robertson, ‘The Two Processions to Eleusis and the Program of the Mysteries’, AJPh 119: 547–75 Roebuck 1941: C. A. Roebuck, A History of Messenia from 369 to 146 B.C. (Diss. Chicago) Roesch 1984: P. Roesch, ‘L’Amphiaraion d’Oropos’, in Roux 1984, pp. 173–84 Roselli 2005: D. K. Roselli, ‘Vegetable-Hawking Mom and Fortunate Son: Euripides, Tragic Style, and Reception’, Phoenix 59: 1–49 Roselli 2009: D. K. Roselli, ‘Theorika in Fifth-Century Athens’, GRBS 49: 5–30 Roselli 2011: D. K. Roselli, Theater of the People: Spectators and Society in Ancient Athens (Austin) Rosen 2006: R. M. Rosen, ‘Aristophanes, Fandom, and the Classicizing of Greek Tragedy’, in Kozak and Rich 2006, pp. 27–47 Rosenbloom and Davidson 2012: D. Rosenbloom and J. Davidson (eds.), Greek Drama IV: Texts, Contexts, Performance (Oxford) Rosivach 1984: V. J. Rosivach, ‘Aphairesis and Apoleipsis: A Study of the Sources’, RIDA 31: 193–230 Rosivach 1998: V. J. Rosivach, When a Young Man Falls in Love: The Sexual Exploitation of Women in New Comedy (London and New York) Rostovtzeff 1937: M. Rostovtzeff, ‘Two Homeric Bowls in the Louvre’, AJA 41: 86–96 Roux 1984: G. Roux (ed.), Temples et sanctuaires. Séminaire de recherche 1981–1983 (Lyon) Rusten 2011: J. Rusten (ed.), The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents, and Art from Athenian Comic Competitions, 486–280 (Baltimore) Rutherford 1881: W. G. Rutherford, The Ecloga of the Grammarian Phrynichus with Introductions and Commentary (London) Rutherford 2012: R. B. Rutherford, Greek Tragic Style: Form, Language and Interpretation (Cambridge) Scafuro 1997: A. C. Scafuro, The Forensic Stage: Settling Disputes in Graeco-Roman New Comedy (Cambridge) Scafuro 2009: A. C. Scafuro, ‘The Crowning of Amphiaraos’, in Mitchell and Rubinstein 2009, pp. 59–86 Schachter 1981: A. Schachter, Cults of Boiotia. 1. Archeloos to Hera (BICS Supplement 38.1: London) Schaps 1985–1988: D. M. Schaps, ‘Comic Inflation in the Market-Place’, SCI 8–9: 66–73 Schaps 2004: D. M. Schaps, The Invention of Coinage and the Monetization of Ancient Greece (Ann Arbor) Scharffenberger 2012: E. Scharffenberger, ‘Axionicus, The Euripides Fan’, in Marshall and Kovacs 2012, pp. 159–75 Scheithauer 1997: A. Scheithauer, ‘Les aulètes dans le théâtre grec à l’époque hellénistique’, Pallas 47: 107–27 Schenkl 1895: H. Schenkl, review of Wachsmuth and Hense 1894, GGA 6: 453–91 Scheurer and Kansteiner 1999: S. Scheurer and S. Kansteiner, ‘Amphiareos’, in Krumeich et al. 1999, pp. 236–42 Schironi 2013: F. Schironi, ‘The Trickster Onstage: The Cunning Slave from Plautus to Commedia dell’Arte’, in Olson 2013, pp. 447–78 Schlesinger 1939: K. Schlesinger, The Greek Aulos: A Study of Its Mechanism and of Its Relation to the Modal System of Ancient Greek Music (London)

348

Bibliography

Schmidt 1922: F. Schmidt, Die Pinakes des Kallimachos (Berlin) Schröder 1996: S. Schröder, ‘Die Lebensdaten Menanders (mit einem Anhang über die Aufführungszeit seines Ἑαυτὸν τιμωρούμενος)’, ZPE 113: 35–48 Schwinge 1986: E.-R. Schwinge, Künstlichkeit von Kunst (Munich) Scott 1928: K. Scott, ‘The Deification of Demetrius Poliorcetes: Part I’, AJPh 49: 137–66 Shaw 2010: C. A. Shaw, ‘Middle Comedy and the “Satyric” Style’, AJPh 131: 1–22 Shaw 2014: C. A. Shaw, ‘“Genitalia of the Sea”: Seafood and Sexuality in Greek Comedy’, Mnemosyne 67: 554–76 Shaw 2019: C. A. Shaw, ‘Nicostratus (2)’, in Sommerstein 2019, p. 611 Shear 1978: T. L. Shear, Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.C. (Hesperia Supplement 17: Princeton) Shear 2001: J. L. Shear, Polis and Panathenaia: The History and Development of Athena’s Festival (Diss. Pennsylvania) Shear 2010: J. L. Shear, ‘Demetrios Poliorketes, Kallias of Sphettos, and the Panathenaia’, in Reger et al. 2010, pp. 135–52 Shear 2017: J. L. Shear, ‘Writing Past and Present in Hellenistic Athens: The Honours for Demosthenes’, in Berti et al. 2017, pp. 161–89 Seltman 1909: C. Seltman, ‘A Synopsis of the Coins of Antigonus I and Demetrius Poliorcetes’, NC 9: 264–73 Sifakis 1967: G. M. Sifakis, Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama (London) Simms 1998: R. R. Simms, ‘Mourning and Community at the Athenian Adonia’, CJ 93: 121–41 Sineux 2007: P. Sineux, Amphiaraos: Guerrier, devin et guérisseur (Paris) Sistakou 2016: E. Sistakou, Tragic Failures: Alexandrian Responses to Tragedy and the Tragic (Berlin and Boston) Skotheim 2016: M. Skotheim, The Greek Dramatic Festivals under the Roman Empire (Diss. Princeton) Slater 1985: N. W. Slater, ‘Play and Playwright References in Middle and New Comedy’, LCM 10: 103–5 Slater 1986: W. J. Slater, Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta (Berlin and New York) Sluiter and Rosen 2004: I. Sluiter and R. M. Rosen (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (Leiden) Smith 1962: L. C. Smith, ‘Demochares of Leuconoe and the Dates of his Exile’, Historia 11: 114–18 Smith 2011: A. C. Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art (Leiden) Snell et al. 1971–2004: B. Snell, S. Radt and R. Kannicht, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (5 vols.: Göttingen) Sommerstein 1990: A. H. Sommerstein, review of Kassel and Austin 1989, CR 40: 223–5 Sommerstein 1996: A. H. Sommerstein, ‘How to Avoid Being a Komodoumenos’, CQ NS 46: 327–56 Sommerstein 1998: A. H. Sommerstein, ‘Rape and Young Manhood in Athenian Comedy’, in Foxhall and Salmon 1998, pp. 100–14 Sommerstein 2004a: A. H. Sommerstein, ‘Comedy and the Unspeakable’, in Cairns and Knox 2004, pp. 205–22 Sommerstein 2004b: A. H. Sommerstein, ‘Harassing the Satirist: The Alleged Attempts to Prosecute Aristophanes’, in Sluiter and Rosen 2004, pp. 145–74. Sommerstein 2013: A. H. Sommerstein, Menander: Samia (Cambridge)

Bibliography

349

Sommerstein 2014: A. H. Sommerstein, ‘The Informal Oath’, in Sommerstein and Torrance 2014, pp. 315–47 Sommerstein 2019: A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy (Hoboken NJ) Sommerstein 2019a: A. H. Sommerstein, ‘Sosippus’, in Sommerstein 2019, p. 893 Sommerstein 2019b: A. H. Sommerstein, ‘Stephanus’, in Sommerstein 2019, p. 905 Sommerstein and Torrance 2014: A. H. Sommerstein and I. C. Torrance (eds.), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 307: Berlin and Boston) Sonnabend 1996: H. Sonnabend, Die Freundschaften der Gelehrten und die zwischenstaatliche Politik im klassischen und hellenistischen Griechenland (Zurich and New York) Sparkes 1975: B. A. Sparkes, ‘Illustrating Aristophanes’, JHS 95: 122–35 Stace 1968: C. Stace, ‘The Slaves of Plautus’, G&R 15: 64–77 Stadter 1989: P. A. Stadter, A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles (Chapel Hill and London) Stafford 2005: E. J. Stafford, ‘Viewing and Obscuring the Female Breast: Glimpses of the Ancient Bra’, in Cleland et al. 2005, pp. 96–110 Stama 2014: F. Stama, Frinico: introduzione, traduzione e commento (FrC 7: Heidelberg) Steffen 1876: G. Steffen, De canone qui dicitur Aristophanis et Aristarchi (Leipzig) Steier 1923: A. Steier, ‘Sesamon’, RE II.A2 pp. 1849–53 Steiger 1888: H. Steiger, Der Eigenname in der attischen Komödie (Diss. Erlangen) Steinhausen 1910: J. Steinhausen, ΚΩΜΩΙΔΟΥΜΕΝΟΙ. De Grammaticorum Veterum Studiis ad Homines in Comoedia Attica Irrisos Pertinentibus (Bonn) Stemplinger 1912: E. Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur (Leipzig and Berlin) Stephanis 1988: I. E. Stephanis, Διονυσιακοὶ Τεχνῖται (Herakleion) Sternberg 2006: R. H. Sternberg, Tragedy Offstage: Suffering and Sympathy in Ancient Athens (Austin) Stewart 2007: S. Stewart, Cosmetics and Perfumes in the Roman World (Stroud) Storey 2003: I. C. Storey, Eupolis: Poet of Old Comedy (Oxford) Storey 2015: I. C. Storey, ‘Exposing Frauds: Lucian and Comedy’, in Marshall and Hawkins 2015, pp. 163–80 Stotz 1912: O. Stotz, De Lenonis in Comoedia Figura (Diss. Giessen) Sturz 1808: F. W. Sturz, De Dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina (Leipzig) Susemihl 1892: F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit Vol. II (Leipzig) Sutton 1987: D. F. Sutton, ‘The Theatrical Families of Athens’, AJPh 108: 9–26 Sutton 1989: D. F. Sutton, Dithyrambographi Graeci (Munich and Zurich) Süvern 1836: J. W. Süvern, Two Essays on “The Clouds” and on “The Γῆρας” of Aristophanes (transl. W. R. Hamilton: London) Symeonoglou 1985a: S. Symeonoglou, The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to Modern Times (Princeton) Symeonoglou 1985b: S. Symeonoglou, ‘The Oracles of Thebes’, in Argoud and Roesch 1985, pp. 155–8 Taillardat 1965: J. Taillardat, Les images d’Aristophane: Études de langue et de style (Paris) Tamis et al. 2010: A. Tamis, C. J. Mackie and S. G. Byrne (eds.), Philathenaios: Studies in Honour of Michael J. Osborne (Athens) Taplin 1977: O. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy (Oxford)

350

Bibliography

Taplin 1993: O. Taplin, Comic Angels: And Other Approaches to Greek Drama Through Vase-Painting (Oxford) Tartaglia 2019: G. M. Tartaglia, Alkenor – [Asklepiodor]os: introduzione, traduzione e commento (FrC 16.1: Göttingen) Taufer 2018: M. Taufer (ed.), Das Symposion in der griechischen Komödie / Il simposio nella commedia greca (Freiburg) Thalheim 1899: T. Thalheim, ‘Βάσανοι’, RE III pp. 39–40 Theodoridis 1982–2013: C. Theodoridis, Photii Patriarchae Lexicon (3 vols.: Berlin) Thomas 1979: R. Thomas, ‘New Comedy, Callimachus, and Roman Poetry’, HSPh 83: 179–206 Thompson 1947: D. W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Fishes (London) Thonemann 2005: P. Thonemann, ‘The Tragic King: Demetrios Poliorketes and the City of Athens’, in Hekster and Fowler 2005, pp. 63–86 Threatte 1980: L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions Vol. I Phonology (Berlin and New York) Threatte 1996: L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions Vol. II Morphology (Berlin and New York) Thür 1977: G. Thür, Beweisführung vor den Schwurgerichtshöfen Athens: die Proklesis zur Basanos (Vienna) Todd 1993: S. C. Todd, The Shape of Athenian Law (Oxford) Tosi 1991: R. Tosi, Dizionario delle sentenze latine e greche (Milan) Tracy 2015: S. V. Tracy, ‘The Dramatic Festival Inscriptions of Athens: The Inscribers and Phases of Inscribing’, Hesperia 84: 553–81 Traill 1975: J. S. Traill, The Political Organisation of Attica: A Study of the Demes, Trittys, and Phylai, and their Representation in the Athenian Council (Hesperia Supplement 14: Princeton) Traill 1994–2012: J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens (21 vols.: Toronto) Traill 2008: A. Traill, Women and the Comic Plot in Menander (Cambridge) Travlos 1971: J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London) Tsantsanoglou 1973: K. Tsantsanoglou, ‘The Memoirs of a Lady from Samos’, ZPE 12: 183–95 Tsantsanoglou 1984: K. Tsantsanoglou, New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photius (Athens) Tylawsky 2002: E. I. Tylawsky, Saturio’s Inheritance: The Greek Ancestry of the Roman Comic Parasite (New York) Tzetskhladze et al. 2000: G. R. Tzetskhladze, A. J. Prag and A. M. Snodgrass (eds.), Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman (London) Vahtikari 2014: V. Vahtikari, Tragedy Performances Outside Athens in the Late Fifth and the Fourth Centuries BC (Helsinki) Valente 2015: S. Valente, The Antiatticist: Introduction and Critical Edition (Berlin and Boston) Van Straten 1981: F. T. Van Straten, ‘Appendix: Votive Offerings Representing Parts of the Human Body (The Greek World)’, in Versnel 1981, pp. 105–51 Vardi 2003: A. D. Vardi, ‘Canons of Literary Texts at Rome’, in Finkelberg and Stroumsa 2003, pp. 131–52 Versnel 1981: H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship (Leiden) Vicaire 1979: P. Vicaire, ‘Images d’Amphiaraos dans la Grèce archaïque et classique’, BAGB 1: 2–45

Bibliography

351

Villing 2000: A. Villing, ‘Kestos, Zoster and Athena’s Crossband Aegis’, in Tzetskhladze et al. 2000, pp. 361–70 Virgilio 1990: B. Virgilio (ed.), Studi ellenistici Vol. III (Pisa) Volkmann 1873: D. Volkmann (1873) De Suidae Biographicis Quaestiones Novae (Nuremberg) Volkmann 1886: W. Volkmann, Studia Alciphronea, Partic. I. De Alciphrone Comoediae Imitatore (Diss. Breslau) Volonaki 2018: E. Volonaki, ‘Abuse of the Eisangelia in the Latter Half of the Fourth Century BC’, in Carey et al. 2018, pp. 293–314 von den Hoff and Schultz 2007: R. von den Hoff and P. Schultz (eds.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context (New York) Wachsmann 2012: S. Wachsmann, ‘Panathenaic Ships: The Iconographic Evidence’, Hesperia 81: 237–66 Wachsmuth 1890: C. Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen im Alterthum Vol. II (Leipzig) Wachsmuth and Hense 1894: C. Wachsmuth and O. Hense, Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium Vol. III (Berlin) Wackernagel 1926: J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von griechisch, lateinisch und deutsch Vol. I (Basel) Wagner 1905: R. Wagner, Symbolarum ad Comicorum Graecorum Historiam Criticam Capita Quattuor (Leipzig) Walker 1995: H. J. Walker, Theseus and Athens (Oxford) Waser 1903: O. Waser, ‘Chronos (2)’, RE III.2 pp. 2481–2 Watt 1949: W. S. Watt, ‘Cicero, Ad Atticum 4.3’, CQ 43: 9–21 Weber 1993: G. Weber, Dichtung und höfische Gesellschaft: Die Rezeption von Zeitgeschichte am Hof der ersten drei Ptolemäer (Hermes Einzelschriften 62: Stuttgart) Webster 1952: T. B. L. Webster, ‘Chronological Notes on Middle Comedy’, CQ NS 2: 13–26 Webster 1960: T. B. L. Webster, Studies in Menander2 (Manchester) Webster 1969: T. B. L. Webster, Monuments Illustrating Old and Middle Comedy2 (BICS Supplement 23: London) Webster 1970: T. B. L. Webster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy2 (London) Webster 1974: T. B. L. Webster, An Introduction to Menander (Manchester) Webster 1995: T. B. L. Webster, Monuments Illustrating New Comedy3 (rev. J. R. Green and A. Seeberg: BICS Supplement 50: London) Weill 1966: N. Weill, ‘Adôniazousai ou les femmes sur le toit’, BCH 90: 664–98 Weill 1970: N. Weill, ‘La fête d’Adonis dans la Samienne de Ménandre’, BCH 94: 591–3 Weinreich 1931: O. Weinreich, ‘Nikostratos über Euripides, M. Haupt über Catull.’, Hermes 66: 124–5 Welsh 1983: D. Welsh, ‘IG ii2 2343, Philonides and Aristophanes’ Banqueters’, CQ NS 33: 51–5 Wentzel 1898: G. Wentzel, ‘Hesychiana’, Hermes 33: 275–312 Werres 1936 : J. Werres, Die Beteuerungsformeln in der attischen Komödie (Diss. Bonn) West 1982: M. L. West, Greek Metre (Oxford) West 1983: M. L. West, The Orphic Poems (Oxford) West 1989–1992: M. L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum Cantati2 (2 vols.: Oxford) West 1992: M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music (Oxford) West 1995: W. C. West, ‘The Decrees of Demosthenes’ Against Leptines’, ZPE 107: 237–47 West 2013: M. L. West, The Epic Cycle: A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics (Oxford)

352

Bibliography

White 1912: J. W. White, The Verse of Greek Comedy (London) Whitehead 1977: D. Whitehead, The Ideology of the Athenian Metic (Cambridge) Whitehead 1986: D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica, 508/7–ca. 250 B.C.: A Political and Social Study (Princeton) Whitehead 2000: D. Whitehead, Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches (Oxford) Wieher 1913: A. Weiher, Philosophen und Philosophenspott in der attischen Komödie (Diss. Munich) Wilamowitz 1914: U. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, ‘Neue lesbische Lyrik (OxyrynchosPapyri X)’, NJbb 33: 225–47 Wilamowitz 1924: U. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos Vol. II (Berlin) Wilhelm 1906a: A. Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen (Vienna) Wilhelm 1906b: A. Wilhelm, ‘Mitteilung über eine Inschrift aus Athen’, AAWW 43: 77–82 Wilkins 2000: J. Wilkins, The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy (Oxford) Williams 1978: F. Williams, Callimachus: Hymn to Apollo (Oxford) Williams 1979: C. K. Williams, ‘Corinth, 1978: Forum Southwest’, Hesperia 48: 105–44 Wilson 1999: P. Wilson, ‘The Aulos in Athens’, in Goldhill and Osborne 1999, pp. 58–95 Wilson 2000: P. Wilson, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia: the Chorus, the City and the Stage (Cambridge) Wilson 2002: P. Wilson, ‘The Musicians among the Actors’, in Easterling and Hall 2002, pp. 39–68 Wilson 2007: N. G. Wilson, Aristophanis Fabulae (2 vols.: Oxford) Wilson 2009: P. Wilson, ‘Tragic Honours and Democracy: Neglected Evidence for the Politics of the Athenian Dionysia’, CQ NS 59: 8–29 Wilson and Csapo 2012: P. Wilson and E. Csapo, ‘From Chorêgia to Agônothesia: Evidence for the Administration and Finance of the Athenian Theatre in the Late Fourth Century BC’, in Rosenbloom and Davidson 2012, pp. 300–21 Wilson and Hartwig 2009: P. Wilson and A. Hartwig, ‘IG I3 102 and the Tradition of Proclaiming Honours at the Tragic Agon of the Athenian City Dionysia’, ZPE 169: 17–27 Wimmel 1960: W. Wimmel, Kallimachos in Rom: Die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit (Hermes Einzelschriften 16: Wiesbaden) Winkler 1990: J. J. Winkler, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York and London) Wissowa et al. 1893–1980: G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Mittelhaus, K. Ziegler and H. Gärtner (eds.), Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart) Woodhead 1989: A. G. Woodhead, ‘The Calendar of the Year 304/3 B.C. in Athens’, Hesperia 58: 297–301 Woolmer 2015: M. Woolmer, ‘Forging Links Between Regions: Trade Policy in Classical Athens’, in Harris et al. 2015, pp. 66–89 Wright 2013: M. Wright, ‘Poets and Poetry in Later Greek Comedy’, CQ NS 63: 603–22 Wünsch 1897: R. Wünsch, Defixionum Tabellae Atticae (Berlin) Xenophontos 2012: S. Xenophontos, ‘Comedy in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives’, GRBS 52: 603–31 Zanker 2009: G. Zanker, Herodas: Mimiambs (Oxford) Zevi 1969: F. Zevi, ‘Presentazione di una incisione rinvenuta ad Ostia, probabilmente apposta alla statua di Platone il commediografo’, Dioniso 43: 74–83 Zimi 2011: E. Zimi, Late Classical and Hellenistic Silver Plate from Macedonia (Oxford)

Bibliography

353

Zimm 2016: M. S. Zimm, Constraints on Speech in Democratic Athens: 480–270 B.C.E. (Diss. Yale) Zimmermann 2011a: B. Zimmermann, ‘Drama’, in Zimmermann 2011b, pp. 451–800 Zimmermann 2011b: B. Zimmermann (ed.), Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike Vol. I Die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit (Munich)

355

Indices 1. Index fontium Ael. VH 12.31: Philippid. fr. 40 Antiatt. α 92: Philippid. fr. 15 Antiatt. γ 1: Philippid. fr. 2 Antiatt. ε 20: Philippid. fr. 11 Antiatt. κ 84: Philippid. fr. 3 Antiatt. μ 26: Philippid. fr. 21 Antiatt. π 35: Philippid. fr. 24 Antiatt. σ 12: Philippid. fr. 41 Antiatt. ψ 5: Philippid. fr. 8 AP 9.565: Theaet. test. Ath. 1.23b–c: Philippid. fr. 31 Ath. 3.90b: Philippid. fr. 4 Ath. 6.230a: Philippid. fr. 9 Ath. 6.262a: Philippid. fr. 8 Ath. 9.384e: Philippid. fr. 5 Ath. 11.469a: Steph.Com. fr. 1 Ath. 11.781e–f: Philippid. fr. 28 Ath. 14.640c: Philippid. fr. 20 Ath. 14.658d: Philippid. fr. 10 Ath. 15.700c: Philippid. fr. 16 Call. Epigr. 7 Pf.: Theaet. test. Canones com. (Kroehnert) Tab. M cap. 4: Philippid. test. 6 Eust. Il. 1.117.12–15: Philippid. fr. 34 Eust. Od. 1.264.5–7: Philippid. fr. 16 Eust. Od. 1.346.34–7: Philippid. fr. 28 Gell. 3.15.2: Philippid. test. 4 IG II2 657: Philippid. test. 3 IG II2 2323a.39–53: Nicostr.Com. II test. 1 IG II2 2323a.39–53: Philippid. test. 8 IG II2 2323a.38–52 col. ii: Nicostr.Com. II test. *2 IG II2 2323.232–44: Philippid. test. 9 IG II2 2325.160–4: Philippid. test. 7 IG II2 2325.160–7: Nicostr.Com. II test. 3 IG II3 1, 877: Philippid. test. 3 IG XI 2, 107.16–25: Nicostr.Com. II test. 4 P.Harris 171.9–11: Philippid. fr. 12 Phot. α 2808: Philippid. fr. 35 Phot. λ 494: Philippid. fr. 39 Phot. μ 52: Philippid. fr. 21 Phot. π 26: Philippid. fr. 37 Phot. σ 680: Philippid. fr. 19

Phot. s.v. ψωμοκόλακες: Philippid. fr. 8 Phryn. Ecl. 341: Philippid. fr. 36 Plu. De cur. 517b: Philippid. test. 2d Plu. De garr. 508c: Philippid. test. 2c Plu. Demetr. 12.2–7: Philippid. fr. 25.4–7 Plu. Demetr. 12.8–9: Philippid. test. 2a Plu. Demetr. 26.1–5: Philippid. fr. 25.1 Plu. Demetr. 26.5: Philippid. fr. 25.2–3 Plu. Mor. 750e–f: Philippid. fr. 26 Plu. Reg. et imp. apophth. 183e: Philippid. test. 2b Poll. 5.100: Philippid. fr. 1 Poll. 6.54: Philippid. fr. 10 Poll. 7.188: Philippid. fr. 38 Poll. 9.30: Philippid. fr. 17 Poll. 9.38: Philippid. fr. 14 Poll. 9.38: Philippid. fr. 22 Poll. 9.88: Philippid. fr. 23 Poll. 10.36–7: Philippid. fr. 13 Poll. 10.167: Philippid. fr. 33 Proleg. de com. III.45–52: Steph.Com. test. 3 Proleg. de com. III.53–4: Philippid. test. 5 Stob. 3.1.9: Philippid. fr. 7 Stob. 3.2.8: Philippid. fr. 30 Stob. 3.18.20: Philippid. fr. 27 Stob. 4.8.19: Philippid. test. 2e Stob. 4.22.33: Philippid. fr. 6 Stob. 4.22c.75: Philippid. fr. 29 Stob. 4.44.10: Philippid. fr. 18 Stob. 4.56.21: Philippid. fr. 32 Suda α 1138: Steph.Com. test. 1 Suda α 2735: Steph.Com. test. 2 Suda μ 78: Philippid. fr. 21 Suda φ 345: Philippid. test. 1 Suda ψ 134: Philippid. fr. 8

356 2. Index verborum ἄγω: 132, 135, 277, 279 ἀγωνίζομαι: 22 ἀεί: 124, 274 ἀηδῶς, ἡδέως: 267 αἰγίς: 86 αἰσχροκερδής: 154, 203, 205 αἰσχρός: 266 αἰτήσις, ‘request’ for honours: 60 ἀκαλήφη: 98, 100–1 ἀκκίζομαι: 109, 111–12 ἀκμάζω: 40–1 ἀκράτισμα/ἀκρατισμός: 281–2 ἁλύσιον: 277, 278 ἅλυσις: 278 ἁμαρτάνω: 122, 257, 259 ἁμαρτία: 257 ἀμέλει: 129, 136 ἄμπελος: 247 Ἀμφιάραος/ Ἀμφιάρεως: 90–1 ἀνα-, prefix: 86 ἀναβάλλω: 273 n. 147 ἀνακείμαι: 33, 135, 136, 272, 274 ἀναμασχαλιστήρ: 34, 83, 85–7 ἀνανεόω/ἀνανεόομαι: 103 ἀναπίπτω: 36, 272–3 ἀνατίθημι: 36, 135, 136, 274 ἀνδριάς: 272 ἀνδροφόνος: 34, 110, 112 ἀνελεύθερος: 154, 203 ἀνθρώπινος: 248 ἀπανθρακίς: 143 ἀπέρχομαι, of divorce: 291 ἀποδημέω: 52 ἀποθήκη: 34, 172, 173 ἀποκαίω: 246–7 ἀπολείπω, of divorce: 291 ἀποπέμπω, of divorce: 291 ἀπορέω/ἀπορέομαι: 131 ἀπόστασις: 34, 172–4 ἀποστρέφω: 253 ἀποφέρομαι, passive: 314 ἀργύριον: 125 ἀργυρίς: 135 ἀριστάω: 281–2 ἀριστόδειπνον: 282 ἄριστον: 281–2

ἀρνίον: 270 ἁρπάζω: 114, 136 ἀσεβέω: 247 ἀσθενής: 258 ἀτυχέω: 192 αὐτός/αὑτός: 272 ἀφανισμός: 125 Βάκχος: 322 βασανίζω: 144 βάσανος: 144 βασιλεύς: 312 βία: 256, 258 γάρ, progressive: 221 γάρ, replacing δέ: 121 γε, omission of: 272 γέγονε, in the Suda: 39, 40 γελάω: 113 γελάω + ἡδέως: 108, 110 γῆρας: 103 γίγνομαι/γίνομαι: 228 γναθ-, stem: 113 γνωρίζομαι: 41 γυναί (nom. pl.): 33, 83, 87–8 γύναιον: 109, 111 Δᾶος: 222, 224 δέ, corrupted to γάρ: 121 δέ, explanatory: 121 δέ, inferential: 194 δέ, omission of: 121 δέ, postponement of: 118–19 δειπνέω: 274 δεῖπνον: 281 δεσπότης: 192, 193 δημόκοινος: 145 διά, of means: 120 διαγώγιον: 187 διδάσκω: 41, 300–1 διοίκησις: 61 δίφρος: 160, 161 διωβελία/διωβολία: 50, 56 δόρπον: 281 δυεῖν/δυοῖν: 134 δύναμαι: 183 δυστυχής: 183 δυσχερής: 308, 315

2. Index verborum ἐγκριθέντες, ‘selected/canonised’ poets: 29, 67 εἰ, causal or concessive: 321 ει/ι, confusion: 291 εἶπε/dixit: 222 εἰσαγγελία: 249 εἰσάγω: 232, 246 εἰσαγώγιον: 187 εἰσπράττω/εἰσπράττομαι, ‘exact payment’: 184, 188 εἷς τῶν πολλῶν: 33, 195 ἑκατοστή: 185–6 ἐκκ: 56 ἐκπίπτω: 150 ἐκπλήττω: 150 ἔκπωμα: 150, 261–2 ἐκπωματοποιός: 150 ἐκτέμνω: 160 ἐκφέρω: 187 ἔλεος: 131 ἐλεύθερος: 129, 131–2 ἐλλιμένιον: 185 ἐλλιμενιστής: 185 ἐμβάλλω: 161 ἐμβασικοίτας: 314–15 ἐμπίπτω: 131 ἐνιαυτός: 245 ἐξ-, intensifying: 283 ἐξάγω: 187 ἐξαγώγιον: 187 ἐξαίρεσις: 173–4 ἐξαλλάγμα: 283 ἐξαλλάττω: 34, 282–3 ἔξειμι: 186–7 ἐξίστημι: 261 ἐπάγει, in Ath. Epit.: 271 ἐπάγω: 232 ἐπανακάμπτω: 34, 148 ἐπανακρούω: 148 ἐπαναστρέφω: 34, 148–9 ἔπειτα: 183 ἔπειτ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσιν: 109 ἐπί: 128 ἐπιδείκνυμι: 22 ἐπιδόρπισμα: 206, 207, 208 ἐπίθετος: 59 ἐπίκλητος: 124 ἐπιλείπω: 33, 209–10

357

ἐπιφόρημα: 208 ἐργῶδες: 135 ἔσει/ἔσῃ: 191 ἑστίασις/εἱστίασις: 50, 58 ἑστιάω: 275 ἔστιν/οὐκ ἔστιν ὥστε: 256–7 ἑταίρα: 246 εὔθυνα: 59 εὐπάρυφος: 13 ἔφηβος, drinking cup: 307, 308, 314–15 ἔχω: 141, 278 ζάω ἡδέως: 116, 117 ἥβη: 103 ἡδέως/ἡδύ: 108–9 ἠδύνω, Attic impf.: 34, 183 -ῆθεν, suffix: 60 ἡμῖν, used by slaves: 182 ἦν, in the Suda: 39, 40–1 ἡττάομαι: 122 θεῖος: 248 θεραπεύω: 276 ἰατρός: 276 ἱστός: 52 ἰχθυοπώλιον: 133 κάδος: 263, 264 καθαρός: 320, 321 καθεύδω: 266–7 καὶ αὐτός, in the Suda: 40 καιρός: 322 καλός: 113 καπηλεῖον: 182 κάπηλος/κάπηλις: 178, 181 κάππαρις: 134 κατάκειμαι: 274 καταλύειν δῆμον: 241, 242, 248–9 καταπίνω: 114, 267 καταπίπτω: 34, 110, 114–15 καταπλάττω: 200 κατεύγματα: 89 κατεύχομαι: 83, 88–9 κέλευθος: 322 κεραία: 52 κέρμα: 226, 227 κερμάτιον: 226, 227 κήρυξ: 322 κίμβιξ: 203 κισσός: 321–2 κνίδη: 98, 100

358

2. Index verborum

κοράσιον: 34, 283–4 κορυφή: 253 κοσκινομάντις: 284–5 κόσκινον: 285 κρατήρ: 263 κρύσταλλος: 247 κυμινοπρίστης: 203 κώμη: 308 κωμῳδία: 33, 249 λάγανον: 141, 142–3 Λακιάδαι: 155 λαμβάνω, of taking a bride: 119, 154 λαμβάνω, of profiteering: 154, 270 λέγω: 209 Λέμβος: 124 λεπάς: 101–2 λύχνος: 182 λυχνοῦχος: 286 μακρὸν ποιῶ: 33, 213–14 μαλακός: 270 μασάομαι: 267 μαστιγίας: 129, 132 μαστροπός: 166–7 μασχαλιστήρ: 34, 85–7 ματρυλεῖον: 168, 170 μεθύω: 257 μέν, solitarium: 263 μὲν οὖν, adversative: 313 μέσος: 248 μετὰ μικρόν, in Ath. Epit.: 271 μετ’ ὀλίγα, in Ath. Epit.: 271 μηκύνω: 213, 214 μικρολόγος: 203, 205 μισέω: 152 μνᾶ: 132, 270 μυρίνης: 287–8 μῦς/μύας, acc. pl.: 99 μύστης/μύστις: 175 νέα κωμῳδία: 40, 65 νεφροί: 33, 113 νὴ τὴν φίλην: 113–14 νομίζω: 191 ὀβολός: 133–4 ὁδοιπορέω: 34, 163, 165 ὁδός: 321 οἶκτος: 131 οἰνοχοία: 50, 57 ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν: 209

ὅλος: 131, 202, 314 ὀρθῶς: 164 ὄρχεις: 110–11 ὄστρειον/ ὄστρεον: 99, 100 οὐδὲ ἕν: 180, 183 οὐρανός: 262 οὗτος: 141, 160, 311 οὗτος/οὕτως: 226 παιδάριον: 224–5 πανδοκεῖον: 245 πανδοκεύτρια: 181, 237 n. 126 πανός: 181 παρά: 257, 274–5 παρα-, in compounds: 187 παραβάλλω: 116, 120 παραγωγιάζω: 187 παραγώγιον: 186, 187 παρασκευάζω: 262 παραστάται: 110 παρατίθημι: 102 παραφέρω: 102 παρείσειμι: 124 παρεξίστημι: 261, 263 παρθένος: 246 πατραλοίας: 255 πάχνη: 247 πεντηκοστή: 185–6 πεντηκοστολόγος: 185–6 πέπλος: 247–8 περικατάληπτος γίνομαι: 33, 228 περισκελίδες: 14 περισπάω: 227 πινακίσκος: 132 πίναξ: 132 πλακοῦς: 208 πλόκιον: 278 πλούσιος: 266 ποιέω, periphrastic causative: 214 ποιέω + εἰς: 258 πο(ι)ῶ: 213 πόπανον: 143 πόρνη: 246 πορνοβοσκός: 166, 167 πόστος: 224 ποτήριον: 261–2, 313 πράγματα: 120 πράττομαι, of poets ‘treated/studied’: 67–8

2. Index verborum πράττω/πράττομαι, ‘exact payment’: 188 προαγωγός: 167 προε-/πρου-, in compounds: 307 προεδρία: 61 πρόκλησις: 145 προπίνω: 308, 311–12 πρός: 257 προσάγω: 232 προσαναδίδωμι: 50 πρόσωπον: 202 πτανός: 181 πτωχαλαζών: 130 πυός: 141, 142 πυριάτη: 141, 142 πυριεφθής: 141 πυρίεφθον: 141, 142 ῥᾴων ἔσῃ: 34, 193 ῥήγνυμι: 248 Ῥοδιακός: 307, 313–14 Ῥοδιάς: 307 ῥύγχος: 77–8 ῥύμη: 34, 164–5, 225 σησάμη/σησαμίς: 209 σήσαμον: 209 -σις, of concrete noun: 173 -σις, personification: 105 σίτησις: 61 σκιά: 124 -σκόπος, compounds: 23 σοφία: 322–3 σπάρτον: 160, 161–2 στειλέα: 157 στελεός: 157 n. 88 στενωπός: 34, 164–5, 223, 225 στρεβλόω: 146 συγγνώμης τυγχάνω: 34, 257 συγκατατίθεμαι: 288 συκάμινον: 201 συκοφάντης: 268–70 συμπίπτω: 192–3 συμφέρον: 122 συνεπαινέω: 288 συντέμνω: 245 σῴζεται, of surviving plays: 41 Σωσίας: 315 ταριχοπώλιον: 133 τάριχος: 133, 279, 281 τηνίκα: 50

359

τις: 131 τόνος: 160, 161–2 τράγημα: 206, 208 τραχύς: 268 τρίτος: 225 τριώβολον: 134 τρόφιμος: 193, 262 τροχός: 146 τρύβλιον: 135 τυρός: 280–1 τύχη: 119–20 ὑβρίζω: 258–9 ὕβρις: 258–9 ὑπακούω: 56 ὑπερήφανος: 33, 262–3 ὑπό, of accompaniment: 115 ὑπολαμβάνω: 191, 194–5, 245 ὑπόμνημα: 59 ὕπτιος: 34, 110, 114–15 ὑφοδόω: 222 φαίνω: 182 φανός: 180, 181–2, 286 Φείδυλλος/Φείδυλος: 119 φειδωλός: 203, 205 φέρεται, of surviving plays: 41, 66 φέρω: 110 φιάλη: 135 φιλ-, compounds: 189, 196, 204, 211, 215, 303 φιλάδελφος: 189 φιλαθήναιος: 196–7 φιλαργυρία/φιλάργυρος: 153–4, 203 φίλαρχος: 211–12 φιλέω: 253 φιλολάκων: 197, 303, 305 φίλος: 45 φιλότιμος: 211 φοιβάω: 320 n. 169 φοῖβος: 320 n. 169 φυκόομαι: 202 φῦκος: 201–2 φύλαρχος: 211 φυσάω: 183 χαίρω: 122 χαλκός: 135 χλαμύς: 13 χρίω: 200 χρόνος: 275

360

3. Index locorum

ψιμύθιον: 200, 202 ψωμίζω: 123 ψωμοκολακεύω: 34, 36, 106, 123–4 ψωμοκόλαξ: 34, 36, 106, 123, 124

ψωμόλεθρος: 123 ψωμός: 123–4 ᾠόν: 208–9 ὥστε: 256–7

3. Index locorum Aelius Dionysius π 77: 141 Aeschines 3.229: 139–40 Aeschylus Eu. 1021: 89 Pr. 71: 86 Pr. 194: 87 Pr. 255: 87 Th. 610: 91 Th. 571–86: 92 Th. 592: 91 Th. 597–8: 93 Th. 617–18: 91 Th. 709: 89 fr. 34: 99 Aëtius 2.99.4: 142 Alcaeus Comicus fr. 32: 88 Alciphron 3.5.2: 111 4.2.5: 119 4.12.2–3: 278 4.13.15: 111 4.14: 30, 79 4.14.2: 84 4.14.3: 81, 84 4.14.4: 84 4.14.5: 111–12 4.14.6–7: 84 4.14.8: 80, 81, 82 4.18: 45 4.18.5: 45 Alexis fr. 2: 130 fr. 15.5: 101 fr. 15.9: 134 fr. 27.3: 180

Alexis [cont.] fr. 98: 118 fr. 103.3–4: 109 fr. 103.18: 201 fr. 115.1–4: 99 fr. 116.4: 312 fr. 150.1–3: 266 fr. 191.6: 134 fr. 246.1: 312 fr. 263.6: 263 fr. 264.1–2: 117 fr. 272: 261 fr. 296: 282 Amphis fr. 6: 118 fr. 30.8: 112 Anacreon PMG 407: 312 Anaxandrides fr. 21: 283 fr. 34.7: 110, 114 fr. 35.7: 124 fr. 42.61: 99 fr. 49: 182 fr. 51: 133 fr. 53.4–6: 266 fr. 53.6: 119 fr. 53.9–12: 264, 265 fr. 57: 293 n. 152 Anaxilas fr. 15.2: 163 fr. 22.13: 112 Andocides 1.43–4: 147 4.14: 291 Anthologia Graeca AP 6.310: 321 n. 172 AP 6.311: 258 AP 7.409: 69 n. 43

3. Index locorum Anthologia Graeca [cont.] AP 7.447: 321 n. 171 AP 7.499: 316 AP 9.566: 319, 321 n. 172 AP 11.408.3: 202 AP 12.43: 321 n. 171, 322 Antiatticist α 41: 87 α 51: 89 α 64: 88 α 95: 89 α 125: 89 β 8: 89 γ 1: 87 γ 29: 89 γ 30: 89 δ 59: 87 ε 34: 89 ε 128: 87 θ 7: 89 ο 15: 87 ρ 2: 165 Antimachus IEG fr. 102: 78 Antiphanes fr. 25.1–2: 182 fr. 26.2: 114 fr. 41: 126 fr. 46: 304 fr. 47: 97 fr. 59.5: 312 fr. 81.4: 109 fr. 81.5: 301–2, 312 fr. 119: 157 fr. 161.3–4: 176 fr. 162.1: 176 n. 97 fr. 163: 176 fr. 181.3: 133 fr. 185.4: 301–2, 312 fr. 189.22: 119 fr. 191.1: 101 fr. 200: 309 fr. 210: 110 fr. 316: 154 Antiphon 5.32–3: 145 5.40: 145

Antisthenes fr. 15.11.2 Caizzi: 183 Apollodorus Carystius fr. 1: 96 Apollodorus Gelous fr. 4: 261 Apollodorus Mythographus Bibl. 3.14: 78 Bibl. 3.60: 91 Bibl. 3.62: 92 n. 63 FGrH 244 F 217bis: 166 Apuleius Met. 7.23: 270 Araros fr. 1: 77–8 Archestratus fr. 7.1: 99, 101 fr. 11.7: 101 Aristides p. 396, 20–1 Jebb: 193 Aristophanes Ach. 142–4: 196 Ach. 484: 193 Ach. 500: 249 Ach. 1101: 133 Av. 333–4: 120 Av. 768: 87 Av. 1281–3: 304 Av. 1602: 282 Av. 1624: 108 Ec. 268: 86 Ec. 843: 143 Eq. 262: 89 Eq. 520–5: 65 Eq. 532: 162 Eq. 1247: 133 Eq. 1321: 104 Lys. 275–80: 304 Lys. 308: 181 Lys. 387–98: 77 n. 48, 79 with n. 51, 81–2 Lys. 392–6: 79 Lys. 392: 81 Lys. 395: 81 Lys. 669–70: 104 Lys. 923: 162 Lys. 1114: 105 Nu. 373: 285

361

362 Aristophanes [cont.] Nu. 1417: 104 Pax 418–20: 79 Pax 520–3: 105 Pax 848: 134 Pax 860–1: 106 n. 78 Pax 1118: 114 Pax 1202: 264 Pl. 124–5: 134 Pl. 243: 120 Pl. 435: 182 Pl. 597: 136 Pl. 620–747: 97 Pl. 624: 95 Pl. 634–6: 97 Pl. 676–81: 98 Pl. 701: 97 Pl. 702: 97 Pl. 710–11: 97 Pl. 716–21: 97 Pl. 730: 97 Pl. 733–6: 97 Pl. 948–9: 249 n. 142 Pl. 1095–6: 101 Pl. 1013–16: 177 Ra. 53: 218 Ra. 58–9: 218 Ra. 68–70: 218 Ra. 73–9: 90 n. 59 Ra. 76–9: 301 Ra. 103: 218 Ra. 117–35: 218 Ra. 337–9: 177 Ra. 345–8: 104 Ra. 391: 176 n. 97 Ra. 409–15: 176–7 Ra. 475: 113 Ra. 569–70: 237 n. 126 Ra. 618–24: 146 Ra. 776: 218 Ra. 955: 248 Ra. 1132–3: 145 Ra. 1151: 145 Ra. 1203: 221 Ra. 1217: 14, 194 Ra. 1280: 113 Ra. 1427–8: 152 Th. 558–9: 167

3. Index locorum Aristophanes [cont.] Th. 628–32: 177 V. 35–6: 237 n. 126 V. 71–88: 303 V. 105: 101 V. 122–4: 97 V. 203: 131 V. 281–3: 196 V. 331: 87 V. 462: 193 V. 491: 133 V. 710: 142 V. 884: 100 V. 1299–1325: 104–5 V. 1341–87: 105 V. 1390–1: 105 V. 1417–18: 105 fr. 8: 286 fr. 18: 95 fr. 20: 97 fr. *21: 97 fr. 28: 97 fr. 29: 97 with n. 76, 105 fr. 34: 97 fr. 35: 97 fr. 128: 105 fr. 129: 105 fr. 135: 105 fr. 137: 105 fr. 144: 105 fr. 146: 105 fr. 147: 105 fr. 148: 105 fr. 172: 106, 124 fr. 391: 181–2, 183 fr. 472: 185 fr. 482: 102 fr. 572.3: 100 fr. 629: 115 fr. 819: 208 fr. 966: 36, 272–3 Aristophanes of Byzantium fr. 39 Slater: 224 Aristotle Ath. 8.4: 249 Ath. 9.1: 268 Ath. 27.3: 157 Ath. 35.3: 269

3. Index locorum Aristotle [cont.] Ath. 49.3: 248 Ath. 56.3: 18–19 EE 1221a5: 203 EE 1231b36–8: 203 EE 1232a4–6: 203 EN 1107b8–14: 203 EN 1119b22–22a17: 203 EN 1121b17–19: 154 EN 1123a19–27: 130 EN 1161a1: 266 HA 568a4–10: 201 MM 1.24.1: 203 Phgn. 809a22: 203 Po. 1453a8–10: 257 Po. 1455a26: 90 Pol. 1321a37: 58 Pol. 1341a18–28: 138 Pol. 1341a34–7: 138 Rh. 1376b31–77a8: 145 Rh. 1378b23–9: 258–9 Rh. 1394b2: 194 Rh. 1394b28–9: 122 Rh. 1395a2–6: 192 Rh. 1413b19–20: 244 VV 1251b4–5: 203 fr. 627 Rose: 300 fr. 672 Rose: 313 Aristoxenus Harm. 2.30–1: 118 Artemidorus 2.69: 284 Athenaeus 1.3a: 30 1.5b: 66 2.58b: 209 2.62c: 101 3.72a: 321 n. 171 3.86b–c: 100, 101 3.87b–c: 102 3.87c: 101 3.90a: 101 3.90b: 100 3.90c: 100 3.90d: 101 3.92e: 99 3.109f: 105 3.110a: 142, 143

Athenaeus [cont.] 3.110b: 142–3 3.121c: 133 4.132c: 100 4.133f: 289 5.192e–f: 161 6.230c: 130 6.230d: 309 6.245a: 113, 273 6.253a: 238 6.253d–f: 236 n. 124 6.260b: 227 6.272b–c: 57 8.336d: 30 8.337e: 138 8.352d: 46 8.358d: 302 9.384e: 113 9.395f: 110 10.443a: 167 11.464c: 313 11.464f: 57 11.469a: 314 11.469b: 314 11.472b: 313 11.496f: 314 11.784d: 314 12.533a–b: 157 12.534e–f: 311 12.536a: 239 n. 131 13.566f: 245 13.567a: 169, 245 13.581f–82a: 251 13.585b: 113 13.587d: 11 n. 1, 12, 13 13.596f: 251 14.614e–f: 45 14.616c: 46 14.621a: 46 14.621c: 167 14.658e: 141 14.664a: 45 14.664e: 208 15.689c–d: 288 15.700b: 181, 286 15.700d–e: 181

363

364 Axionicus fr. 3: 218, 220 fr. 4: 220 Baton fr. 2.11: 153 fr. 3.1–3: 118 Callimachus Aet. fr. 1.21–8: 320 with n. 167 Ap. 105–12: 320 with n. 168 Epigr. 8: 319 Epigr. 11: 321 n. 171 Epigr. 28: 321 n. 171, 322 Epigr. 48: 321 n. 172 Epigr. 49: 258 fr. 215: 321 n. 172 fr. 433: 113 fr. 451: 292 fr. 465: 321 n. 171 Canones Kroehnert Tab. M cap. 1: 68–9 Tab. M cap. 2: 68 Tab. M cap. 3: 68 Tab. M cap. 4: 299 Tab. M cap. 5: 69 Tab. M cap. 6: 68 Tab. M cap. 9: 69 n. 42 Cantharus fr. 10: 282 Choeroboscus in Theod. I, p. 307, 18: 88 Choricius Dial. 21.1.4: 153, 265 Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.26.6: 106, 301 Comica Adespota fr. 7: 155 n. 87 fr. 8: 155 n. 87 fr. 57: 147 fr. *136: 199 fr. 156: 258 fr. 733: 134–5 fr. *920: 139 fr. 1000.27: 119 fr. 1059.1: 194 fr. 1084.3: 153 fr. 1103.35: 181

3. Index locorum Crates of Mallos FGrH 362 F 12: 206 fr. 112 Broggiato: 206 Cratinus fr. 17: 79 fr. 28: 104 fr. 149.2: 142 Cratinus Junior fr. 10: 118 Crobylus fr. 3: 293 fr. 4: 293–4 fr. 8.4: 173 Ctesicles FGrH 245 F 1: 57 Cyril of Alexandria in Isaiam 70.441: 81 n. 54 Damoxenus fr. 1: 309 fr. 1.4–5: 311 fr. 2.62–4: 118, 267 Demades fr. 57: 140 Demetrius Comicus NC fr. 1: 125 fr. 1.7–9: 134 Demetrius of Leukonoe FGrH 75 F 1: 238 Demetrius Phalereus Rhetor Eloc. 267–71: 244 Demosthenes 12.19: 270 18.244: 89 18.295–6: 207, 210 18.296: 312 19.139: 311 19.308: 197 21.180: 259 30.15: 291 30.25: 291 30.37: 144 54.34: 304 59.89–90: 299 n. 154 Dio Cassius 42.38.2: 173 Dio Chrysostom 29.21: 192

3. Index locorum Diocles Medicus fr. 191: 142–3 fr. 223: 100 Diodorus Siculus 2.50.6: 228 4.76.6: 228 7.12.5: 305–6 13.103.4: 62 15.40.1: 269 20.46.2: 239–40, 247 34/35.17.1: 276 Diogenes Laertius 1.72: 62 2.95: 257 2.129–30: 46 n. 31 2.139: 133 4.25.8: 316 5.79: 242, 269 6.3: 265 6.72: 117 6.87: 41 9.1: 40–1 Diogenianus Paroem. Cent. 2.4.1: 111 Paroem. Cent. 3.12.1: 199, 204 Diomedes Ars Gram. (in Gramm. Lat. I. 489): 70 Dionysius Comicus fr. 2.16: 183 fr. 4: 13 Dionysius of Halicarnassus De imit. fr. 31.2.1–4: 69 Din. 3: 242 Dioxippus fr. 4: 313–14 fr. 4.1: 313 Diphilus fr. 5.1–2: 313, 314 fr. 6: 182 fr. 17: 294 fr. 18: 289, 294 fr. 19: 294 fr. 31.1–2: 179 fr. 31.16: 269 fr. 31.19–20: 262–3 fr. 31.24: 136 fr. 42.22: 166, 169 fr. 42.38–41: 79, 81, 83, 84

Diphilus [cont.] fr. 43.2: 99 fr. 48: 124 fr. 49: 81, 83, 84 fr. *61.3: 263 fr. 94: 154, 204 fr. 97: 45 n. 30 fr. 99: 154 fr. 116: 36, 276 fr. 124: 36, 272 Donatus comm. ad Ter. Ad. 26: 258 comm. ad Ter. Eun. 289: 262 Duris of Samos FGrH 76 F 13: 236 n. 124 FGrH 76 F 14: 239 n. 131 Ephippus fr. 5: 261 fr. 5.9: 312 fr. 8.3–4: 208 fr. 15: 205 Epicrates fr. 6.5: 113 fr. 8: 168, 171 Epictetus Diss. ab Arr. 1.24.11: 186 Epigenes fr. 5.1: 313 fr. 6: 261 Epimerismi Homerici γ 25: 88 Erotian ε 36: 161 Etymologicum Gudianum p. 66, 6 s. v. ἀκκίζεσθαι: 111 p. 360, 19 s. v. λάγανα: 142 p. 381, 18 s. v. μαστροπός: 167 Etymologicum Magnum p. 49, 3 s. v. ἀκκίζεσθαι: 111 p. 137, 30 s. v. ἀργυρόηλον: 125 Eubulus fr. 13: 80 fr. 41: 110 fr. 63.4: 110 fr. 87: 203 fr. 87.3: 134 fr. 88: 112 fr. 97: 200, 201, 202

365

366 Eunapius of Sardis fr. 48 Blockley: 219 n. 115 Euphro fr. 1.25: 113 fr. 9.10: 112 Eupolis fr. 55: 185 Euripides Alc. 765: 275 Ba. 696: 86 Ba. 1144: 89 Ba. 1358: 87 Cyc. 155: 89 Cyc. 559: 89 Hec. 74–5: 97 n. 76 Hipp. 24–8: 177 Hipp. 1073: 256 Hipp. 1326: 257 Hipp. 1420–2: 78 Med. 236–7: 293 n. 152 Or. 562: 89 Ph. 1111–12: 91 Supp. 433–4: 258 fr. 317: 117 fr. 502.3–4: 266 fr. 634.2: 121 fr. 661.1: 14, 34, 194 fr. 752k.21: 91 fr. 757.40: 91 fr. 886: 152 fr. 905: 152 Eusebius Chron. Ol. 77, 4: 72 Chron. Ol. 81, 3–4: 72 Chron. Ol. 85, 4: 72 Chron. Ol. 88, 1–2: 72 Chron. Ol. 114, 3–4: 39, 64, 71 PE 10.3.12–13: 106 Eustathius Il. 3.529.20–1: 58 Od. 1.438.11–16: 78, 80 n. 52, 83 Gellius 2.23.1: 76 2.23.14–18: 278 3.15: 62 3.15.2: 30 Geoponica 2.19.5: 285

3. Index locorum Gorgias FGrH 351 F 1: 251 Harpocration p. 59, 1 s. v. ἀρρηφορεῖν: 248 p. 89, 15 s. v. δημόκοινος: 145 p. 199, 17 s. v. ματρυλεῖον: 170 p. 203, 8 s. v. μεταλλεῖς: 65 n. 37 p. 225, 17 s. v. ὀρνιθευτής: 13 Hegesander FHG fr. 3.4: 227 FHG fr. 10: 100 FHG fr. 17: 204 Hegesippus Comicus fr. 2: 118 fr. 2.5–6: 267 Heniochus fr. 4.7–8: 183 fr. 5: 12 Heraclides Criticus FGH fr. 1.4: 199 Heraclides Lembus Pol. 72: 173 Hermippus fr. 6: 111 fr. 31: 101 Herodas 1.50–5: 168 1.69: 114 1.89: 168 2.89–90: 145, 147 Herodian Hdn.Gr. III.1, p. 299, 2: 313 Hdn.Gr. III.2, p. 521, 20: 313 Hdn.Philet. 34: 274 Herodotus 1.46: 93 1.52: 93 1.215: 86 5.55–6: 97 n. 76 6.137: 256 8.134: 93, 94 9.118.1: 162 Hesiod fr. 25.38 M-W: 91 fr. 139 M-W: 78 fr. 197.6 M-W: 91 n. 60 Hesychius α 583: 185

3. Index locorum Hesychius [cont.] α 1231: 80, 83 α 4433: 86 ε 4739: 208 ε 5653: 248 κ 3728: 253 λ 36: 142 λ 196: 157 μ 370: 170 μ 380: 86 μ 1916: 287 μ 1981: 175 π 1122: 255 π 4422: 142 ρ 396: 313 ρ 397: 313 σ 1701: 157 σ 2238: 268 ψ 155: 141 Hippocrates Aff. 12.46–7 Littré: 193 Art. 7.37–40 Littré: 161 Art. 58.27 Littré: 164 Homer Il. 4.522–3: 115 Il. 11.179: 114–15 Il. 11.829: 160 Il. 13.548–9: 115 Il. 14.214–21: 86, 87 Il. 15.434: 115 Il. 16.289–90: 115 Od. 11.326–7: 92 Od. 15.244–8: 91, 92 Od. 20.259: 161 Hyginus Fab. 58: 78 Fab. 70: 91 Fab. 73: 92, 96 with n. 74 Hyperides 4.14: 94 n. 70 fr. 186: 173 Inscriptions Agora XV 58.62: 25 Agora XVI 114: 54 IG I3 102: 60 IG II2 334.32–4: 82 n. 55 IG II2 336.15–17: 196–7 IG II2 467.4–6: 197

Inscriptions [cont.] IG II2 469.7: 53 IG II2 646.29–31: 239 IG II2 648: 60 IG II2 651: 55 IG II2 653.36–8: 239 IG II2 662: 55 IG II2 663: 55 IG II2 682.53: 56 IG II2 682.57: 56 IG II2 749.5: 56 IG II2 798.12: 58 IG II2 834.4–5: 56, 57 IG II2 834.23–4: 59 IG II2 1261.9–10: 83 n. 56 IG II2 1290: 83 n. 56 IG II2 1477 B, col. II.1: 237 n. 125 IG II2 1485.27–9: 52 IG II2 1517.180: 112 IG II2 1534.197: 278 IG II2 1534.247: 112 IG II2 1534.294: 112 IG II2 1541.22–6: 162 IG II2 1628.139–40: 52 IG II2 1631.474–8: 24 n. 7 IG II2 1631.659: 52 IG II2 1682: 59 IG II2 1706.90: 24 IG II2 2318.196: 301 IG II2 2318.201–3: 216 IG II2 2318.316–18: 16, 76 IG II2 2319.54: 175 n. 94 IG II2 2319.56: 19, 27 IG II2 2322.95: 18 IG II2 2323a.36: 27 n. 12 IG II2 2323a.44: 17 IG II2 2323a.47: 17 IG II2 2323a.51: 27 n. 12 IG II2 2323.97: 155 n. 87 IG II2 2323.100–12: 19 IG II2 2323.135: 196, 303 IG II2 2325.44: 41 n. 23, 65 IG II2 2325.59: 72 n. 46 IG II2 2325.73: 64 IG II2 2325.94: 24 n. 8 IG II2 2325.210: 24 n. 8 IG II2 2853: 20 IG II2 3080: 20

367

368 Inscriptions [cont.] IG II2 3094: 11 n. 1 IG II2 3777: 60 IG II2 4426: 94 n. 69 IG II2 11387.6: 322 IG II3 1, 333.15–17: 196–7 IG II3 1, 853.29–31: 239 IG II3 1, 856: 60 IG II3 1, 857.41–3: 239 IG II3 1, 864: 55 IG II3 1, 866: 55 IG II3 1, 867: 55 IG II3 1, 870.36–8: 239 IG II3 1, 881: 51 IG II3 1, 911.64–70: 53 IG II3 1, 911.81: 55 IG II3 1, 911.81–3: 59 IG II3 1, 984.53: 56 IG II3 1, 984.57: 56 IG II3 1, 991.12: 58 IG II3 1, 1035.5: 56 IG II3 1, 1160.4–5: 56, 57 IG II3 1, 1160.23–4: 59 IG II3 4, 497: 11 n. 1 IG II3 4, 518.5: 299 n. 154 IG III App. 103.7: 24 n. 7 IG V 1, 1390.22: 202 IG V 1, 1421.6–7: 186 IG XI 2, 113.26: 22 IG XI 2, 115.26: 22 IG XI 2, 120.53: 22 IG XIV 1183c: 70 n. 44 IG XIV 1184: 71 IGUR 215: 66 IGUR 216: 66 IGUR 218: 66 IK Priene 16.28: 187 IK Priene 67.174: 58 IK Priene 72.11–13: 58 IK Priene 72.14: 58 Magnesia 93.20–1: 187 Milet I 3, 139A.6–7: 186 SEG 25.89: 51 SEG 26.208: 70 SEG 28.60: 53, 55, 59, 242 n. 136 SEG 32.239: 19 SEG 38.143[1]: 237 n. 125 SEG 45.101.41–3: 239

3. Index locorum Isaeus 8.12: 144 Isocrates 1.11: 210 10.39: 119 Ep. 5.2: 197 Jerome in Ezech. 15.82: 79, 81 n. 54 Lexica Segueriana Coll.Verb. p. 413, 29 s. v. χαυῶνας: 143 Gloss.Rhet. p. 258, 8 s. v. ἐψιμυθιῶσθαι: 202 Libanius Decl. 2.1.33: 197 n. 103 Lucian Dem.Enc. 42.13: 197 n. 103 DMeretr. 2: 258 DMeretr. 6.3: 110 Hist.Conscr. 1: 30–1, 218–19, 220 Ind. 15: 46 Lex. 20: 193 Longaev. 25: 62 Sat. 3.9: 132 Sol. 9: 291 Tox. 13: 168–9 Lynceus fr. 1.17–22 K.-A.: 100 fr. 16b Dalby: 314 fr. 22 Dalby: 101 fr. 26 Dalby: 113 fr. 27 Dalby: 273 Lysias 1.32–3: 256 4.16: 145 12.1: 209–10 12.19: 278 25.27: 269 Machon fr. 5.26 Gow: 312 fr. 15.227 Gow: 312 fr. 16.293 Gow: 114 fr. 17.376–9 Gow: 251 Martial 3.60: 101 Matro fr. 1.16: 99–100 fr. 1.25: 110 fr. 1.65: 113

3. Index locorum Matro [cont.] fr. 1.121–2: 251 fr. 2: 100 fr. 5: 142 Melanippides PMG 758: 138 Menander Asp. 402–3: 131 Asp. 407: 14, 194 Asp. 407–28: 122 Asp. 414: 194 Dysc. 481: 112 Dysc. 484–5: 191, 195 Dysc. 568: 111 Epit. 126–31: 151 Epit. 140–1: 133 Epit. 341–2: 190 Epit. 398: 136 Epit. 451–4: 177 Epit. 453: 256 Epit. 470–519: 177 Epit. 952: 227 Epit. 955: 114 Epit. 1065–6: 151 Epit. fr. 6: 151 Her. 33: 227 Kith. 20 Arnott: 256 Kith. 42–7 Arnott: 178 Kol. fr. 2.3–4 Arnott: 312 Mis. 6–7: 163–4, 223 Mon. 154 Jaekel: 265 Mon. 296 Jaekel: 265 Mon. 547 Jaekel: 121, 152 Mon. 596 Jaekel: 194 Mon. 603 Jaekel: 270 Phasm. 195: 177 Pk. 175: 282 Pk. 755–828: 190 Pk. 801–12: 126 Pk. 1013–14: 119 Sam. 38–49: 81 Sam. 40–1: 79 Sam. 45: 80 Sam. 46: 81 Sam. 46–9: 177 Sam. 371: 128–9 Sam. 646–7: 256 Sam. 655: 152

369

Menander [cont.] Sik. 264: 199 Theophor. fr. 4 Arnott: 313 fr. 60: 182 fr. 202: 170, 278 fr. 296.6–7: 266 fr. 296.10–12: 265 fr. 441: 132 fr. *457: 88 fr. 523: 291 fr. 540: 283 fr. 625: 282 fr. 699: 121 fr. 704: 152 fr. 799: 117 fr. 802: 119, 266 fr. 840.1: 262 fr. 865.3: 276 fr. 876: 36, 275–6 Metagenes fr. 4.4: 115 Mnesimachus fr. 3: 151 fr. 7: 110 Moeris Lex.Att. p. 198, 21: 183 Nicomachus Comicus fr. 2: 135 fr. 3: 209 Nicophon fr. 20.2–3: 134 Nicostratus fr. 5.1–2: 124 fr. 5.5: 133 fr. 5.5–6: 134 fr. 7.1: 12–13 fr. 8.2: 13 fr. 16.3: 13 fr. 18.4–5: 13 fr. 22: 181, 182 fr. 25.1: 13 fr. 26.3: 13 fr. 28: 14 fr. 29: 14, 194 fr. 32: 14 Origen Select. in Ezech. 13.797–800: 81 n. 54

370 Ovid Amor. 1.15.17–18: 170 Tr. 4.6.16: 276 Panyassis PEG fr. 27: 78 Papyri PHib. 1.121.3: 278 POxy. 1176, fr. 39 col. vii: 277 POxy. 1235 col. iii, 103–10: 241 POxy. 2086r, fr. 1.1: 194 POxy. 2256, fr. 2: 300 POxy. 2455, fr. 5, 50–1: 194 PTeb. 5.25–7: 173–4 Parian Marble FGrH 239 A 56: 72 FGrH 239 B 7: 63 FGrH 239 B 13: 71 FGrH 239 B 14: 64 n. 35 Pausanias Grammaticus δ 27: 155 n. 87 χ 2: 248 Pausanias Periegeta 1.12.1: 30, 60–1 1.34.2: 93–4 1.34.3: 97 1.34.4: 93 n. 66, 95 1.34.5: 95 1.37.2: 156 1.37.4: 156 5.17.8: 92 n. 63 9.8.3: 93 Petronius Sat. 24: 314 Sat. 35: 110 Pherecrates fr. 15: 211–12 fr. 29.2: 100 fr. 66: 183 fr. 96: 88 fr. 111: 221 fr. 113.19: 142 fr. 181: 79, 83 n. 58 fr. 206: 88 fr. 213: 79 Philemon fr. 3.14: 112 fr. 7: 106, 124 fr. 61.2: 312

3. Index locorum Philemon [cont.] fr. 74: 118 fr. 82: 141 fr. 82.17–18: 114 fr. 100.5: 135 fr. 118: 218 fr. 132.1: 312 fr. 163: 257 Philetaerus fr. 1: 97 Philochorus FGrH 328 F 66: 242 FGrH 328 F 171: 57 Philostratus VA 2.37: 95 VA 6.11.213–17: 284–5 Philyllius fr. 12.1–2: 99 Phoenicides fr. 4.4–11: 309 fr. 4.8: 312 Photius α 755: 111 α 2332: 291 ε 2203: 65 n. 36 ι 239: 52 κ 453: 89 κ 454: 89 λ 494: 286 μ 138: 166–7, 168, 170 ο 8: 58 ο 574: 99 π 155: 181 π 758: 227 π 1124: 262 ρ 134: 313 φ 237: 320 n. 169 Phrynichus Atticista Ecl. 50: 283 Ecl. 187: 274 Ecl. 383: 164–5 PS p. 87, 1–3: 286 Phylarchus FGrH 81 F 12: 45 Pindar O. 6.13: 91 O. 6.16–17: 91 O. 7.1–4: 311

3. Index locorum Pindar [cont.] P. 8.58: 93 n. 68 Plato Alc. 113d–15a: 122 Cra. 397b: 315 Cri. 45a: 270 Cri. 53e6: 52 Grg. 497a: 111 Lg. 626d: 199 Lg. 874c: 256 Lg. 918d: 245 Phdr. 267b: 79, 80 Prt. 342b–c: 304 R. 347b: 204 R. 361b: 91 R. 393a: 89 R. 457c–d: 116 R. 506c: 164 Smp. 213c: 273 Tht. 154c: 88 Tht. 155b: 88 Ti. 21e: 197 Plato Comicus fr. 3: 77, 78 fr. 132: 304 fr. 136: 217–18 fr. 188.13: 110 fr. 211: 133 Plautus Amph. 341: 286 Asin. 158–9: 185 Asin. 174–5: 170 Asin. 206: 168 Asin. 230: 170 Asin. 504–44: 170 Aul. 36: 177 Aul. 190–3: 151 Aul. 236–8: 151 Aul. 701–12: 126 Aul. 795: 176, 177 Capt. 92–106: 130 Capt. 461–97: 130 Cist. 96–8: 170 Curc. 260–2: 97 Epid. 449–51: 309 Men. 104–7: 130 Men. 506: 124 Men. 941: 136

Plautus [cont.] Merc. 66–8: 247 Mil. 75–7: 309, 312 Mostell. 275: 201, 202 Mostell. 690–710: 265 Persa 88: 287 Persa 112: 110 Poen. 381: 134 Poen. 463: 134 Pseud. 595–9: 164 Pseud. 596–7: 222, 223 Pseud. 658: 224 Pseud. 741: 287 Pseud. 951–2: 223 n. 118 Pseud. 960–2: 222, 223–4 Rud. 297–8: 99 Stich. 1–6: 190 Stich. 183–95: 130 Trin. 83–5: 136 Truc. 775–854: 147 Truc. 775–80: 147 Truc. 777–9: 145 Truc. 786: 256 Truc. 812–13: 256 fr. 3: 99 fr. incert. 35 De Melo: 287 Pliny HN 7.30.31: 45 HN 7.180: 62 HN 14.92: 287 HN 32.64: 100 Plutarch Agis 21: 257 Alc. 2.5–7: 138 Alc. 18: 80 n. 51, 82–3 Alc. 22.3: 156 Alc. 23.3: 304 Alex. 2.2: 177 Alex. 39.2: 311 Alex. 46.4: 46 Ant. 23.2: 197 Arist. 1.4: 56 Arist. 19.2: 93 Cim. 16.1: 305 Cim. 16.3: 305 Dem. 13.4: 310 Demetr. 10.5: 239 Demetr. 11.3: 251, 252

371

372 Plutarch [cont.] Demetr. 12.2: 238–9 Demetr. 12.5: 238 Demetr. 23.5: 236 Demetr. 24.1: 236, 237–8 Demetr. 24.6–10: 242 Demetr. 24.10–11: 242 Demetr. 26.1–5: 235 Demetr. 26.3: 236 Demetr. 27.9–10: 238 Mor. 11a: 46 Mor. 13f–14a: 265 Mor. 68a: 46 Mor. 175c: 46 Mor. 412a: 93 Mor. 523c–8b: 203 Mor. 526c: 205 Mor. 539c: 322 Mor. 606b: 46 Mor. 619d: 273 Mor. 668b: 135 Mor. 707a: 124 Mor. 707e: 113 Mor. 713a: 263 Mor. 785b: 62 Mor. 818e: 57 n. 32 Mor. 851e: 55, 242 Mor. 851f: 55, 59 Mor. 1011b: 57 Nic. 4: 270 Nic. 13: 80 n. 51 Nic. 13.11: 82 Per. 8.1: 140 n. 81 Per. 9.5: 305 Phoc. 10.1: 304 Phoc. 32: 269 Prov. Cent. 1.84: 204 Sol. 15.2: 246 Sol. 23: 256 Tim. 37.1: 269 Pollux 1.147: 86 1.248: 142 2.17: 283 2.124: 203 3.73: 193, 262 3.86: 125 3.112–13: 203

3. Index locorum Pollux [cont.] 4.117: 86–7 4.119: 171 4.120: 171 5.100: 14 5.128–9: 89 6.17: 287 6.74: 285 6.75: 58 6.96: 313 6.128: 169, 178 n. 98 6.166: 303 7.46: 13 7.190: 150 7.196: 280 8.51–2: 249 8.132: 185 9.34: 173 9.38: 164, 221–2 Polyaenus 4.2.3: 245 Polybius 4.47.3: 187 4.52.5: 187 32.3.6: 263 fr. 192: 263 Posidippus fr. 4: 157 fr. 28.13–14: 120 fr. 29: 110 fr. 36: 288 Proclus in Phileb. p. 688, 4–18: 118 Prolegomena de comoedia III.10–11: 66 III.12–13: 63 III.18–19: 65 III.24–5: 42 III.45–6: 66 III.52: 43 III.56: 43, 64 n. 34 III.59: 64, 71 III.60: 43 III.61: 64 VIII: 42 XIa I.104: 70 XIc.43: 70 XXIa.27: 70

3. Index locorum Prolegomena de comoedia [cont.] XXIIb.39–41: 67–8, 70 XXVIII.6: 70, 106 XXVIII.50–1: 70 XXVIII.66: 42 XXIXa.8: 70 XXXa: 38 n. 19 XXXI.11–14: 11 Quintilian 1.4.3: 65 n. 36 10.1.46–56: 69 10.1.53: 69 10.1.54: 69 10.1.58: 69 10.1.59: 68 10.1.61: 68 10.1.72: 69 Sannyrion fr. 11: 106, 123, 124 Sappho fr. 140 L-P: 78 fr. 168 L-P: 78 Scholia on Apollonius of Rhodes 2.302: 320 n. 169 Scholia on Aristophanes Ach. 243a: 224, 315 Eq. 400a: 293 Eq. 532a–b: 162 Lys. 308: 181–2, 183 Lys. 389: 77 n. 48, 79 Pl. Hyp. III: 77 Pl. Hyp. III.3–7: 301 Pl. 660a: 143 Pl. 701b: 97 Pl. 953d: 19 Ra. 67d: 300 Ra. 78a–b: 90 n. 59, 301 V. Hyp. I.35–6: 292–3 V. 283b: 196 V. 325b: 130 V. 710a: 142 V. 1509c: 212 Scholia on Demosthenes 24.198: 188 Scholia on Euripides Andr. 445: 292

Scholia on Homer Il. 20.404c: 283–4 Od. 11.326: 91, 92 n. 63 Scholia on Lucian Alex. 9: 285 Scholia on Menander Dysc. Hyp.: 21 Scholia on Pindar N. 9.30b: 91 N. 9.35: 92 n. 62 O. 7.5a: 311 Scholia on Plato Ap. 19c: 11 Grg. 497a: 111 Scholia on Sophocles OC Hyp. II: 300 Seleucus FHG fr. 46: 182 Semonides fr. 7.73: 266 fr. 7.76–7: 265 Solon El. 15.1: 129 Sopater Comicus fr. 14: 130, 132 Sophocles El. 179: 275 El. 837: 91 n. 60 OC 1313–14: 91 Ph. 965–6: 131 fr. 487.3: 104 fr. 587: 204 fr. 958: 93 Sophron fr. 69: 166 Sosippus fr. 1.18: 109 Stesimbrotus FGrH 107 F 7: 305 Stobaeus 3.4.67: 140 3.10.37: 204 3.10.57: 154 3.13.56: 273 n. 149 Strabo 6.3.4.12–21: 309 9.1.22: 93 9.2.10: 93

373

374 Strabo [cont.] 11.8.6.22: 86 14.1.44: 95 n. 71 17.1.9: 173 Strattis fr. 31: 247 Suda α 383: 164 α 517: 80 n. 52 α 878: 111 α 1138: 41 n. 23, 43 α 1991: 40 α 2735: 43 α 3404: 299 n. 155 α 3737: 301 n. 158 α 3922: 41 α 3932: 38 δ 338: 41 nn. 22–3 δ 1152: 40 ε 2493: 40 ε 2766: 41 nn. 22–4 ε 3044: 43 n. 28 ε 3386: 41 ε 3657: 38 ε 3800: 300 η 472: 40 η 611: 37 θ 135: 38 n. 18 θ 171: 38 θ 418: 313 ι 451: 90 n. 59, 301 κ 227: 37, 66 κ 1015: 89 κ 1730: 90 n. 59 κ 2341: 41 κ 2344: 42 μ 20: 41 n. 23 μ 589: 40 ξ 22: 38 n. 18 π 1707: 117 π 1708: 38 with n. 19, 42 π 2111: 64 σ 863: 38 σ 881: 38 n. 18, 211 n. 107 σ 1178: 125 σ 1330: 268 τ 624: 40 φ 212: 42

3. Index locorum Suda [cont.] φ 327: 40, 62 φ 329: 40, 43 n. 28 φ 357: 78 φ 763: 38 ψ 132: 124 ψ 135: 123 ψ 136: 124 ω 62: 157 Sulpicius Severus Dial. 2.9.4: 270 Syncellus 331.24: 71 Telestes PMG 805: 138 Terence Ad. 471: 256 Ad. 534: 270 Ad. 687: 256 An. 194: 224 An. 221–3: 178–9 An. 815–16: 269 Eun. 264: 113 Eun. 397–412: 309 Haut. 61–4: 158 n. 89 Haut. 234: 170 Hec. 63–5: 170 Themistius Or. 21, 245c–d: 118 Theocritus 15.102–3: 82 15.112–27: 82 15.128–35: 82 15.132–3: 83 Theognetus fr. 1.3–4: 247 Theognis 457: 117 Theophilus fr. 1.3–4: 246 fr. 11: 168 Theophrastus Char. 4.13: 133 Char. 6.5: 185, 245 Char. 10.14: 205–6 Char. 21.2: 273 Char. 23.3: 309 Char. 26.1: 211

4. Index rerum et personarum Tzetzes ad Lyc. 831: 78 Velleius Paterculus 1.16.3: 70 Vita Antiphonis 2.10: 46 Vita Euripidis E. TrGF test. A 1, III.4: 216–17 Vita Sophoclis S. TrGF test. 1.37: 197 n. 103 Xenophon Cyr. 1.2.11: 282 Cyr. 6.3.21: 282 Cyr. 8.3.35: 311 HG 4.1.14: 119 Mem. 2.9.4: 270 Mem. 4.4.20: 255 Smp. 3.10: 169 Smp. 4.56: 169 Smp. 4.57: 168 Smp. 4.61: 169 Zenobius Ath. I 73: 157 Cent. 1.49: 80 with n. 52, 83 Prov. 2.39: 285

Theophrastus [cont.] Char. 26.4: 269 Char. 28.2: 315 HP 4.6.5: 201 HP 6.7.3: 79 Od. 10–11: 288 Theopompus Comicus fr. 35: 192 n. 101 fr. 63.5: 193 fr. 70: 104 Theopompus Historicus FGrH 115 F 89: 157 FGrH 115 F 227: 167 Thucydides 4.48.3: 161 6.8.1: 80 n. 51 6.30.1: 80 n. 51 Timocles fr. 6: 191 fr. 19.6–7: 12 fr. 25.1–3: 134 fr. 27: 32 fr. 27.2–3: 112 Timotheus PMG 802: 322

4. Index rerum et personarum Abdera: 219, 220 accusative retained: 253 of space traversed: 163, 165, 321 Acharnai (Attic deme): 155, 158 Adaeus of Cypsela: 309 Adonia (festival): 77, 137 feasting and revelry at: 81, 83, 84 and hetairai: 79, 83, 84 mourning at: 78, 80, 81–3 origins of: 78–9 pannychis of: 80, 83 privately celebrated: 79 time of: 79 and women: 79 Adonis figurines of: 80, 83 ‘Gardens’ of: 79, 80, 83

Adonis [cont.] in myth: 78 in play titles: 77–8 Adrastus (hero): 91–2 adultery: 157, 159 with n. 90 adverbs, neuter accusative: 161 aegis: 86 Aelian: 28 Aeschylus (tragic poet) Dionysou trophoi: 104 Persians: 106 posthumous production: 300 Aeson: 104 agonothesia/agonothetes: 19, 50, 55–6 funding communal feasts: 58 instituting new agones: 57, 58–9 Aigilia (Attic deme): 158 Aixone (Attic deme): 158

375

376

4. Index rerum et personarum

Akko (name): 111 alazōn (braggart): 23, 96 see also soldiers, seers Alcaeus (lyric poet): 68 Alcibiades: 138, 293 n. 153 Alciphron (sophist and writer): 30, 84 Alcman (lyric poet): 68 Alexander I of Epirus: 310 Alexander the Great: 94, 197, 309, 312 Alexandria comedy at: 317 harbour storehouses: 173–4 see also Library of Alexandria Alexis (comic poet): 297, 299 Aulētris: 137 Bostrychos: 139 Daktylios: 139 death of: 62 Diapleousai: 178 Ekpōmatopoios: 36, 150 Hippiskos: 139 Iasis: 105 Kalasiris: 139 Karchedonios: 158 Lampas: 139 Lebēs: 139 Mandragorizomenē: 144 number of plays: 41 n. 23, 43 Philathēnaios: 36, 196, 303 Philotragōidos: 215 Pyraunos: 13 n. 5 Aminias (comic poet) Apoleipousa: 291, 292 at City Dionysia: 16, 74 at Delos: 12, 22 Ammonius (scholar): 29, 231 Amorgos, Battle of: 252 n. 143 Amphiaraos (hero and seer) consultation of oracle: 95–6 cults in Attica: 94 cult at Oropos: 90, 94–6 cult at Thebes: 93–4 death of: 92–3 dedications to: 96 deified: 94 in myth: 91–3 orthography of name: 90–1 priests of: 95, 97

Amphiaraos (hero and seer) [cont.] sacrifices to: 95 and serpents: 97 Spring of: 93 n. 66, 97 Amphis (comic poet) Akkō: 111 Daktylios: 139 Philadelphoi: 36, 189 Anacreon (lyric poet): 68, 315 Anaxandrides (comic poet) reperformances of: 74, 76 Sōsippus: 289 Thēsauros: 74 Anaxilas (comic poet) Aulētēs: 137 Lyropoios: 150 Andronikos (actor): 251 angiportum: 223 n. 119 see also laneways Antiatticist: 28, 87, 172 epitomisation of: 123 infinitive forms in: 89, 148, 213, 227 nominative forms in: 87 Antigonids: 51, 54 assume the title ‘king’: 13, 312 Antigonus I Monophthalmus: 25, 32, 53, 54, 94, 198 n. 104, 212 n. 108, 230, 239, 240, 312 Antigonus II Gonatas: 54, 55, 312 Antikyra (hetaira): 237 Antimachus (poet and scholar): 68–9, 78 n. 50 Antiphanes (comic actor): 295 Antiphanes (comic poet): 106, 295 Adōnis: 77, 78 Agroikos: 302 Akontizomenē: 144 Argyriou aphanismos: 36, 125, 126 Aulētēs: 137 Aulētris: 137 birth date of: 295 Bombylios: 139 Boutaliōn: 302 Chrysis: 300 n. 157 death of: 299 n. 155 Didymoi: 301–2 dramatic debut: 295 Euthydikos: 300 n. 157

4. Index rerum et personarum Antiphanes (comic poet) [cont.] Harpazomenē: 144 Kitharistēs: 300 n. 157 Kōrykos: 139 Lampas: 139 Mēdeia: 104 Mystis: 36, 175, 176, 177 naturalised Athenian: 295, 298, 299 number of plays: 42–3, 300 Parekdidomenē: 301–2 Philothēbaios: 196, 197, 303, 306 Phrearrios: 155 Poiēsis: 105 ‘produced’ by Stephanus: 300–2 Thorikioi: 155 Antiphanes II (comic poet): 295 Antiphon (tragic poet): 46 aorist, resultative: 265 Aphrodite: 78, 80, 83 n. 56, 95, 236 n. 124 charmed girdle of: 86, 87 Apollo: 91, 92, 95, 320 and Apollonian poetics: 319–21 Apollodorus of Athens (scholar): 29 Apollodorus of Carystus (comic poet) adapted by Roman playwrights: 76 Amphiaraos: 36, 90, 96, 98 Apoleipousa: 291 Epidikazomenos: 144 Grammateidiopoios: 150 naturalised Athenian: 299 n. 155 Proikizomenē: 144 victories: 64, 72 Apollodorus of Gela (comic poet) Apoleipousa: 291 Deusopoios: 150 Grammateidiopoios: 150 Philadelphoi: 36, 189 Apollonia (festival) at Delos: 22 Apollonius of Rhodes: 69 Araros (comic poet) adapted by Philemon: 106 Adōnis: 77, 78 n. 50 Kōkalos: 301 ‘produces’ Aristophanes’ comedies: 300, 301 Archelaus I of Macedon: 216

377

Archidamas III of Sparta: 305 n. 159, 309–10 archil lichen: 201–2 Archilochus (iambic poet): 68 Aristarchus of Samothrace (scholar): 29, 65, 67–9 Aristias (tragic poet): 300 Aristomenes (comic poet): Admētos: 77 Aristophanes (comic poet) Acharnians: 155 Aiolosikōn: 301 Amphiaraos: 32, 36, 90, 94, 96–7, 98 Babylonians: 72, 249 n. 142 Clouds: 106 Ekklēsiazousai: 83 family of: 11 first victory: 72 Frogs: 147 Gēras: 104–5 Knights: 104 Kōkalos: 301 list of plays: 38 with n. 19 Lysistrata: 77 number of plays: 42 and ‘producers’: 300, 301 Proagōn: 292–3 Skēnas Katalambanousai: 77 Thesmophoriazousai: 77, 83 Wasps: 104–5, 139, 303 Aristophanes of Byzantium (scholar): 29, 40, 42 n. 25, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70 n. 44, 283, 292 Aristotle (philosopher) Didaskaliai: 41 and proverbs/maxims: 192, 194 Arsinoe II: 46, 82, 189 n. 100 Asclepiades of Tragilus Tragoidoumena: 91, 96 n. 74 Asclepius: 94 in comedy: 97–8 priests of: 98 Asklepiodoros (comic actor): 74 Athena: 138, 239, 246, 248 see also Parthenon Athenaeus of Naucratis: 28, 30, 128, 292 Deipnosophistai: 38 Epitome of: 260, 271

378

4. Index rerum et personarum

Athenians: 198–9 avarice of: 199, 204 dinner parties of: 100, 198 dress and grooming of: 199 fickleness of: 198–9 fondness for festivals: 199 litigiousness of: 198 loyalty of: 199 talkativeness of: 198 Athmonon (Attic deme): 158 Attic forms: 34, 108–9, 134, 148, 163, 172, 183, 208 see also foreign (non-Attic) forms Atticism: 87, 274, 282, 283 attribution (of plays): 42 nn. 25–6, 291–3 audit/auditors: 59 augment, absence of: 163 Augustus (emperor): 45 auletes: 137–9 foreign: 138 low status of: 138 as parasites: 139 Theban: 137 aulos/auloi: 137–9 contexts of use: 137–8 depriving one of reason/self-control: 138 disfavour among élite: 138 disparagement of: 138 and popular leaders: 139–40 sound of: 138–9 Autocrates (comic poet) Tympanistai: 77 Axionicus (comic poet) Phileuripidēs: 36, 215, 218, 220 Bacchylides (lyric poet): 68 basanos (cross-examination under torture): 144–6 in comedy: 147 doubted by modern scholars: 145–6 of female slaves: 146 forbidden on citizens: 147 legal procedure: 145 torture methods: 146 untrustworthiness of: 145 Baton (comic poet) Androphonos: 112 bawds, see mastropoi

beards: 199 bomolochic intervention: 128 braggart beggar: 130 brassiere: 86 bread: 58, 143 breakfast: 281–2 bronze, see coinage/currency caesura, see metre Callias of Sphettos: 53, 59 Callimachus (poet and scholar): 65, 69, 316 and Apollo: 319–21 and Dionysus: 319, 321 Hymn to Apollo: 320 Pinakes (library lists): 37–8, 41, 42 n. 25, 66, 292 Pinax (production records): 66 Callistratus (comic poet): 16, 300 canons (literary): 63–70 Alexandrian: 68–9 ranking within: 68, 69–70 selection criteria for: 64–5, 67 Cantharus (comic poet) Mēdeia: 104 Symmachia: 293 capers: 129, 134–5 Carcinus I (tragic poet): 212 Carcinus II (tragic poet): 90 Cassander of Macedon: 53, 312 Cephisodorus (wandering performer): 13 Chaerephon (parasite): 13–14, 109, 273 chains: 278 Chalcis (Euboea): 204 Chariclides Halysis: 278 cheese: 140–1, 142, 280–1 choregia/choregoi: 18–19, 57–8 at City Dionysia: 18–19 at Delos: 22 at Lenaea: 19 and tribal appointment: 18–19 choruses: 139, 155, 158, 300 Chremes (name): 119, 154 Chronos, see time Chrysis (hetaira): 237 Cimon of Athens: 156, 157, 305 citizenship, honorary: 295, 298, 299

4. Index rerum et personarum City Dionysia (festival in Athens): 16 increase in comic competitors: 18–19 procession cancelled: 238 proclamation of honours at: 60 renaming of: 238–9 Cleon (demagogue): 31, 249 n. 142 coins/currency: 227 bronze: 135 chalkous: 135 dichalkon: 135 drachmas: 135, 279 minas: 132, 270 obols, value of: 133–4 silver: 125, 135 tetrachalkon: 135 collaboration, authorial: 293, 301 collective singular: 134, 227 colloquialisms: 33, 88, 118–19, 136, 209, 214, 267 comedy adaptated by Roman playwrights: 29, 76, 158, 171, 178–9 attacks against: 241, 242–3 ‘canons’: 29, 64–5, 67 ethical themes: 23, 31, 197–8, 306 festival/ritual plays: 77, 177 foreign (non-Athenian) poets: 289 magical themes: 105 mythological plays: 77–8, 96 number of competitors: 17, 18–19, 75 number of poets: 65–6 personification in: 105 political: 198 n. 104, 212, 249 n. 142, 252–3 with n. 145 religious sanction of: 243 reperformances of: 76 tribally arranged: 18–19 utopian themes in: 126 ‘women’ plays: 32 n. 15, 83, 177 consolation: 34, 122, 191–2, 194, 195, 217, 275 Constantine Cephalas, Anthology: 318 cooks: 102, 110, 112, 142, 207 cord/cording: 161–2 couches: 161–2 courtesans, see hetairai Crates of Mallos (scholar): 29

379

Crates II (comic poet) Philargyros: 36, 203 Cratinus (comic poet) Cheimazomenoi: 42 n. 25 citations in Athenaeus: 12 n. 4 Idaioi: 42 Nemesis: 105 number of plays: 42 Panoptai: 139 Pytinē: 293 Satyroi: 42 n. 25 Cratinus Junior (comic poet) citations in Athenaeus: 12 n. 4 Crobylus (comic poet) Apoleipousa: 291, 293–4 crowns: 51, 52 Ctesias of Cnidus: 303 cups, see drinking cups damnatio memoriae: 51 Damon (comic actor): 76, 199 Daos (name): 222, 224 death of poets in biographical tradition: 62 De Comoedia: 63, 66 definite article omission of: 153, 248, 249 Deinarchus (orator): 242 Delos archon records of: 21–2 comedy at: 22 Demades (politician): 57, 140 demagogues: 237 with n. 126 demes (Attic): 155 stereotypes/associations: 158–9 Demeter: 156 in oaths: 113–14 Demeter and Kore: 57, 58–9, 156 Demetrieia (festival): 231, 238–9 Demetrius of Phaleron: 57, 240, 242 Demetrius Poliorcetes: 25, 27, 32 n. 14, 32, 51, 54, 94, 198 n. 104, 230–1, 234, 253 and Athena: 236 and hetairai: 113, 237–8 intiation into the Mysteries: 231, 233, 235–6 as king: 53, 312 lodges in the Parthenon: 231, 236, 243

380

4. Index rerum et personarum

Demetrius Poliorcetes [cont.] mocking Lysimachus: 45 ‘oligarchic’ rule of Athens: 54–5, 243 and mercenaries: 54, 311 Peloponnesian campaign: 310 as Saviour-god: 236, 239, 240 siege of Rhodes: 310–11 woven onto the peplos: 231, 239–40, 243–4, 247 Demo (hetaira): 237 Demochares of Leukonoe: 55, 59, 60 exiled from Athens: 59, 242 Histories: 231, 238, 239 democracy: 57, 59, 60, 198, 241, 243, 248–9, 252–3, 269 Demophantos, decree of: 59–60 Demosthenes (politician and orator): 60, 139–40, 197, 295, 299 Dexithea (hetaira): 109 Diadochi, see Successors of Alexander diaskeuē (revision of a drama): 36, 106, 292, 293, 302 Didascaliae (inscription): 16, 17–18, 19, 41, 67, 74, 75, 216, 292 didascalic records: 66–7, 292 Didrachmon (hetaira): 251 Didymus (scholar): 29 dinner/drinking parties: 31 after-dinner snacks at: 208 as battleground: 110, 114 depicted on stage: 83, 141 narratives of: 99, 141–2, 207, 261, 272–3 ‘ready and waiting’ offstage: 207 seat of honour at: 273 and second tables: 207 Dinolochus (comic poet): 41 Mēdeia: 104 number of plays: 41 n. 23 diōbolia: 50, 56–7 Diodorus of Sinope (comic poet) Aulētris: 137 statue of: 60 Diomeia (Attic deme): 158 Dionysia (festival) at Delos: 22 see also City Dionysia Dionysius of Sinope (comic poet): 13

Dionysius I of Syracuse: 46, 62, 216 Dionysus: 218, 244, 322 and Dionysian poetics: 319, 321 stage costume of: 86–7 Dioxippus (comic poet) Philargyros: 36, 203 Diphilus (comic poet): 112–13 adapted by Roman playwrights: 76, 178 Anargyros: 125 Apoleipousa: 289, 291–3, 294 and comic canons: 70 Epidikazomenos: 144 Klēroumenoi: 147 and mythological plays: 96 n. 75 Peliades: 104 Philadelphos: 36, 189 Thēsauros: 139 victories: 39, 64, 72 direct address: 12 directors/producers: 292–3, 300 divorce: 291, 293 in comedy: 293 shame of: 293 n. 152 dowries: 151, 153, 265, 266 see also marriage drinking cups: 262, 308 bombylios: 314 embasicoetas: 314–15 ephēbos: 314–15 pledged as gift during a toast: 311 Rhodian: 313–14 rhyton: 314 Thericleian: 262, 313–14 drunkenness as excuse for wrongdoing: 257 and hybris: 259 Duris of Samos: 29, 231, 239, 252 n. 144 Ecphantides (comic poet): 138 ecphrasis: 261 eggs: 208–9 eisangelia (impeachment): 234, 241, 242, 248–9, 269 Eleusinia (festival): 57, 59 Eleusinian Mysteries: 156, 175–6, 235–6, 245 drinking at: 176, 177 gephyrismos: 176 pannychis of: 176

4. Index rerum et personarum Eleusinian Mysteries [cont.] procession of: 176 sexual opportunism at: 176–7 stages of initiation: 176 see also Mystery cults Eleusis (Attic deme): 59 Epaminondas (politician and general): 56 Epicharmus (comic poet): 41, 46, 65 Hēbas Gamos: 106 Mēdeia: 104 Mousai: 106 number of plays: 41 n. 23 Epigenes (comic poet) Argyriou aphanismos: 125, 126 epigram: 320–1 Eratosthenes of Cyrene (scholar): 29, 42 n. 25, 65 erilis filius: 262 Eriphyle: 91–2 Eubulus (comic poet) Dionysios: 31 n. 14 Klepsydra: 139 Mēdeia: 104 Neottis: 190 Pamphilos: 258 Euphorion (tragic poet): 300 Eupolis (comic poet) first victory: 72 list of plays: 38 Prospaltioi: 155 Euripides (tragic poet): 193, 215–19 Alcmaeon: 300 Andromachē: 215, 292 Andromeda: 218, 219 Archelaos: 215 appeal to non-Athenians: 216–17 Bacchae: 300 in biographical tradition: 215 in comedy: 217 dramatic career: 215–16 family: 215 and Greek West: 216 Hippolytos: 106 Iphigenia at Aulis: 300 madness/sickness for: 218–19 Medea: 106 obsession with: 218, 220 Orestes: 216

381

Euripides (tragic poet) [cont.] parody of: 220 plays produced by relatives: 300 posthumous popularity: 216 quotation of: 191, 217 reperformances of: 131, 216 statue of: 216 Stheneboia: 194 victories: 72, 215 Eusebius Chronicle: 71–2 Eustathius (archbishop of Thessalonica): 28, 30, 260 Euthias (comic poet): 322 Evagoras I of Salamis: 309 Fasti (inscription): 216 n. 109 fathers beaten by sons: 255 defrauded of money by sons: 226 forcing sons to marry: 153 urging daughters to divorce: 293 fig, sacred: 156 figures of speech alliteration: 33, 131 anaphora: 33, 244, 246 antithesis: 33, 130–1, 244, 267 asyndeton: 33, 99, 206–7, 232, 244, 246, 266 bathos: 116 chiasmus: 33, 131, 207–8, 266, 278 ellipsis: 33 enjambement: 33, 110, 114 figura etymologica: 33, 180, 182–3 hyperbaton: 33, 208, 209, 233 hyperbole: 33, 173, 209, 261 isocola: 33, 244 metaphor: 139, 173, 228 metonymy: 33, 142, 193, 321 paradox: 33, 121–2, 246–7 periphrasis: 33, 214, 228 personification: 33, 105, 263, 276 pleonasm: 209 polysemy: 33 synecdoche: 33 variatio: 322 fish-sellers: 133 flat-cakes: 208 food catalogues/lists of: 99, 208, 279–80

382

4. Index rerum et personarum

food [cont.] meal terminology: 281–2 snatching of: 114 foreign (non-Attic) forms: 34, 163, 164–5, 225, 283–4 fortune/fate (tychē): 119–20 personification of: 120 Garland of Meleager: 318 Gellius: 30 Attic Nights: 61–2 generic masculine: 109, 258 Gigantomachy: 248 gluttons/gluttony: 113, 114, 212 n. 108, 274 Glykera (hetaira): 119 Gnathaina (hetaira): 32, 105, 106, 109, 112–13, 132, 238 and Diphilus: 112–13 gluttony of: 109–10, 112, 113, 114 hosting parties: 109 meaning of name: 113 wit of: 109, 112 Gnathainion (hetaira): 112, 132, 251 gnomai, see proverbs and maxims gourmands, see gluttons Halai Araphenides (Attic deme): 158 hamartia: 257 hapax legomena: 34, 86 harbour-duties collectors, see tax collectors Harpalus: 125 Harpocration: 13 n. 6 Hegemon of Thasos (parodist and comic poet): 66 heralds: 322 Hermes: 95 Hermippus (comic poet) number of plays: 43 n. 28 Hermippus of Smyrna: 62 Herodicus (scholar): 29, 231 Hesiod (epic poet): 68–9 Hesychius of Miletus (scholar) epitomisation of: 37, 38 Onomatologos: 37–8, 40, 297 hetairai: 31, 83, 84, 109, 168, 237–8, 246, 251 acting coy: 111–12 destructive power of: 112

hetairai [cont.] hiding faults with cosmetics: 200–1 hosting parties: 81, 83, 84, 109, 238 nicknames of: 113 table-manners of: 110 heteroclitic nouns: 133, 279 hiatus: 183, 272 Hieron I of Syracuse: 46 Hipponax (iambic poet): 68 Homer (epic poet): 68–9 see also parody honours, proclamation of: 60 host (of a banquet): 102, 110, 130, 272, 273, 275 husbands, dissolute: 293 hybris: 258–9 Hygieia (healing divinity): 95, 97 Hyginus, Fabulae: 96 Hyperbolus (demagogue): 31 Hypsipyle: 92 Iaso (healing divinity): 95, 97 Ibycus (lyric poet): 68 illness/madness: 196, 204, 211, 215, 218–19, 303 impeachment, see eisangelia inn-keepers: 237, 245 inns: 237, 245 Iophon (tragic poet): 90 co-writing with Sophocles: 301 Ipsos, Battle of: 26, 53, 54 ivy crowns: 321–2 jars (kadoi): 263 Jason: 104 kapēloi, see shopkeepers Kephale (Attic deme): 60 Kephisia (Attic deme): 158 kidneys: 113, 114 kings: 309, 312 as title: 53, 312 kisses, refusal of: 251 Kleophon (tragic poet) Amphiaraos: 90 with n. 59 Lachares (tyrant of Athens): 53, 58 n. 33, 125, 234, 241 Lakiadai (Attic deme): 155–7 and agriculture: 157, 158–9 Lakios (hero): 156 Lamia (hetaira): 113, 237, 238

4. Index rerum et personarum laneways: 164–5, 223, 225 as stage setting: 163–4, 224 lanterns: 286 Larensius, library of: 30 lead (cosmetic): 200, 202 Leaina (hetaira): 238 lectio difficilior: 191, 211, 277 Leme (hetaira): 251 lena/leno: 166, 169–71 Lenaea (festival): 16, 19, 20, 57, 72, 74 Library of Alexandria: 28–9 books in harbour storehouse: 173 limpets: 99, 101–2 lists of plays: 37–8, 40 alphabetical: 38 epitomised: 38, 40 supplemented from Athenaeus: 38, 40 Lucian of Samosata: 30–1, 218–19 and comedy: 218 n. 113 Lucius Lavinius (comic poet): 76 Lycophron (poet and scholar): 29, 41 n. 24 Lycurgus (politician): 216 Lykon (scholar): 41 n. 24 Lynceus of Samos: 29, 112, 252 n. 144 Lysimachus (king of Thrace): 25–6, 45–6, 53, 54, 100, 219, 220, 312 crowned by Athens: 52 gifts to Athens: 26, 51, 52, 55 as ‘king’: 312 Machon of Sicyon (comic poet and anecdotist): 45, 112, 252 n. 144 Chreiai: 110, 112 Magnes (comic poet): 64–5 number of plays: 41 n. 23 Titakidēs/Pytakidēs: 155 Mania (hetaira): 109, 113, 238 Mark Antony: 197 marriage: 116, 119, 151, 265 disparagement of: 31, 117 and domineering wives: 266 rejuvenation by: 105–6 with n. 78 for sake of rich dowry: 153, 265 of old men to younger wives: 117, 151 terminology for: 119 to unattractive but wealthy wives: 31, 265 see also divorce, sex, weddings, women masters: 192, 193, 262

383

mastropoi: 31, 109, 166–70 as agents for hetairai: 167–8, 246 costume of: 171 etymology of: 166–7 fondness for alcohol by: 169–70 greed of: 170 haunts of: 169, 245 as match-makers: 167 as old women: 169 prostituting daughters: 170–1 social standing of: 169 tricks and persuasion by: 168–9 Matro of Pitane (parodist): 252 n. 144 mattyē: 12–13 Medea in comedy: 104 as rejuvenatrix: 104, 105 Menander (comic poet) adapted by Roman playwrights: 76 adapting other playwrights: 106 Adelphoi: 189–90 Andria: 171, 178 Aspis: 151, 194, 205 Aulētrides: 137 Aulētris: 137 and City Dionysia: 16, 27 n. 12, 74 and comic canons: 69–70 Daktylios: 139 Dyskolos: 21, 73 Epitrepontes: 144, 147, 190, 205, 279, 293 Eunouchos: 171 first victory: 20–1, 39, 64, 71 Halaeis: 155, 158 Hauton timōroumenos: 158 n. 89, 171 Imbrioi: 241 Kitharistēs: 178 Kolax: 192 at Lenaea: 21, 64, 71 Misoumenos: 192 Monostichoi: 152 n. 86 Nemesis: 105 number of plays: 43 Orgē: 71 Perikeiromenē: 126, 144, 190, 192 Perinthia: 171, 178 Phasma: 203 Philadelphoi: 36, 189–90

384

4. Index rerum et personarum

Menander (comic poet) [cont.] Plokion: 278 and Ptolemy I Soter: 45 reperformances of: 76 Samia: 147 statue of: 60 Synaristōsai: 77, 171 Thēsauros: 139 threatened with eisangelia: 242 mercenaries, see Demetrius Poliorcetes, soldiers metics: 129–30 in comedy: 129 metre anapaests: 121, 233 anapaests, sixth foot: 221 correption: 213, 232 hephthemimeral caesura: 35, 233 iambic tetrameter acatalectic: 35, 221 iambic trimeters: 35 medial caesura: 35 octahemimeral caesura: 35 octonarius: 221 penthemimeral caesura: 35 split anapaest: 35, 108, 232–3, 254 tetremimeral caesura: 35, 127, 131, 233 metri gratia forms: 34, 86, 88, 119 Michael Hieromon: 191 miles gloriosus, see soldiers Miltiades (Athenian general): 156 mina, see coins/currency misattribution of plays: 301 misers: 31, 106, 119, 126, 150–1 cheated of money: 226 dress of: 205–6 marrying for money: 153 obstructing marriage: 151, 205 n. 106 and spendthrift young men: 151, 203 n. 105, 205, 207 stinting on meals: 204 see also philargyria misogyny: 117 mixing bowls: 263 Mnesimachus (comic poet) Philippos: 31 n. 14 money, see coins/currency mulberries: 201 mussels: 99, 100, 101

Mystery cults: 175 and drinking: 176 Mystēs/Mystis (name): 175 navigation (of streets), see streets necklaces: 277–8, 279 Neophron (tragic poet) Medea: 106 New York Goose Play Vase: 147 nicknames: 113, 124, 139, 308, 314–15 Nicocles (king of Cyprus): 46 Nicomachus (comic poet): 18 Metekbainousai: 178 Nicophon (comic poet) Adōnis: 77 Nicostratus I (comic poet) Antyllos: 11 n. 2 Apelaunomenos: 12–13 authorship disputed: 12–14 Basileis: 12, 13, 309 Klinē: 139 Mageiros: 13 Ornitheutēs: 13 Pandrosos: 13 Syros: 13 Tokistēs: 13–14 Nicostratus II (comic poet) at City Dionysia: 15–19, 74 at Delos: 21–2 family of: 11 at Lenaea: 20–1 name restored: 16, 18 possible authorship: 12–14 victories: 12, 16, 21 Nicostratus III (comic poet): 11 Nikeratos of Kephale: 52, 60 Novati Index: 38 n. 19 number of plays library numbers: 41–3 production numbers: 41–3 oaths: 113–14, 262 obols, see coinage old age (gēras) as an evil: 103 as second childhood: 104 old men, and avarice: 153–4 see also misers oligarchy: 54–5, 211–12, 240, 269 Onesicritus (historian): 45–6

4. Index rerum et personarum opisthodomos, see Parthenon Oropos: 94–5 Ouranos: 262 oysters: 99–100 Palatine Anthology: 318 Pamphilos (name): 258 Panacea (healing divinity): 95, 97 Panathenaea (Great) cancellation of: 54 procession: 239–40, 247 see also ship-cart pannychis (all-night revel), see Adonia, Eleusinian Mysteries, rape Panyassis (epic poet): 68–9 Papyrus Harris 171: 28, 152 paraklausithyra: 84 parasites: 31, 98, 113, 114, 123, 124, 139, 274 monologues by: 130 as secondary guest: 124, 273 and wealthy women: 265 and wit/humour: 273 paratragedy: 34, 121–2, 130, 131, 152 n. 86 parody of Homer: 33–4, 110 of legal language: 34, 257 of medical language: 34, 191, 192–3 of tax collectors: 34, 185 Parorama (hetaira): 251 parrhēsia (loose speech) punished by tyrants: 45, 46 Parthenon opisthodomos: 236–7 statue of Athena Parthenos: 236–7, 243 n. 138, 246 symbolism of: 243 treasury: 135, 236 Pausanias (periegete): 30 pederasty: 308, 315 Pelias: 104 peplos: 53, 231, 233, 239–40, 247–8 damage to: 53, 233, 240 manufacture of: 248 symbolism of: 243 perfume: 288 Pergamon, library at: 41 Phaleron (Attic deme): 158

Pheidylos (name): 31, 116, 119 Pherecrates (comic poet) Agathoi: 125 number of plays: 42 phialai: 129, 135, 236 dedications of: 135 Philarchos (name): 211 philargyria (avarice): 154, 203–4 as a derogatory term: 204 as an illness: 204 of Greeks and foreigners: 204 and old men: 153–4, 205 as root of worldly ills: 204 types of: 203, 205 see also misers Philemon I (comic poet) adapted by Roman playwrights: 76 Ananeoumenē: 36, 103, 106 Androphonos: 112 Aulētēs: 137 and comic canons: 68, 69–70 Daktylios: 139 death of: 62 at Delos: 12, 22 Emporos: 179 Epidikazomenos: 144 Hypobolimaios: 106 Mystis: 175 name restored: 18 naturalised Athenian: 299 n. 154 number of plays: 43 Pareisiōn: 124 Phasma: 203 and Ptolemy I Soter: 45 Pyrrhos: 32 n. 14 reperformances of: 76 victories: 63, 72 Philemon II (comic poet) at Delos: 12, 22 Mystis: 36, 175 with n. 94 number of plays: 43 n. 28 reperformances of: 76 Philetaerus (comic poet): 11 Antyllos: 11. n. 2 Philaulos: 137 Philetas (elegiac poet): 69 Philip II of Macedon: 94, 197, 227

385

386

4. Index rerum et personarum

Philippides (comic poet) and adaptations by Roman playwrights: 76 as agonothete: 24, 26, 27, 54, 55–8 and Aristotle: 33, 122, 244 at Battle of Ipsos: 26, 53 benefactions to Athens: 26, 51, 52, 55 birth date: 39 canonisation of: 29, 65, 70 at City Dionysia: 16, 25, 27, 39–40, 64 death: 27, 61–3 debut: 25, 39 family of: 24–5 first victory: 25, 39–40, 41, 64 friend of Lysimachus: 25–6, 45, 52, 220 honoured by Athens: 25, 27, 39, 46–61 (test. 3) institutes agon to Demeter and Kore: 57, 58–9 leaves Athens: 25, 26, 46, 52, 233, 235 at Lenaea: 25, 40, 72–3 as model of restraint/prudence: 46 name restored: 18, 25, 27 number of plays: 27, 41–3 and Old Comedy: 31–2, 244 reception and survival: 30–1, 60–1, 62, 76 reperformances of: 29, 76 shared titles: 35–6 sources for: 28, 29–30 statue of: 30, 51, 60–1 themes in: 31–2 victories: 27, 28, 64, 72–3, 74 visits to Athens: 26–7, 56, 233–4 wealth: 24, 56, 57 Philiscus (comic poet) Adōnis: 77, 78 Philargyroi: 36, 203 Philistion: 68 n. 40 Philochorus (historian): 29 Philocles (comic poet): 24, 76 Traumatias: 24, 76 Philokles (comic actor): 24 n. 8 Philokles of Kephale: 24, 40, 60 Philonides (comic poet): 300 Kothornoi: 139 Proagōn: 292–3 Philoxenus (lyric poet): 46

Phoenicides (comic poet) Aulētrides: 137 Misoumenē: 144 Phylarchos: 211 Photius: 28, 30, 281 Phryne (hetaira): 134 Phrynichus (comic poet) Mystai: 77, 175 number of plays: 42 Phrynichus (tragic poet) Phoenician Women: 106 Phrynichus (Atticist): 28 Phylakion (hetaira): 109, 251–2, 253 Phytalos (hero): 156 pimps, see pornoboskoi pinax (platter): 132 Pindar (lyric poet): 68 Piraeus: 55, 185–6 Pisander (epic poet): 68 Plato (comic poet) Adōnis: 77 Hai aph’ Ierōn: 77 Lakōnes: 139 list of plays: 38 n. 19, 42 n. 26 Mammakythoi: 42 n. 26 number of plays: 42 Symmachia: 293 victories: 72 Plato (philosopher): 32, 56 celibacy of: 117 in comedy: 118 and the ‘Good’: 32, 34, 106, 116, 118 on marriage: 116–17 Symposium: 124 Plautus (comic poet): 29, 31, 106 Asinaria: 76, 170 Aulularia: 126, 177 Bacchides: 226 Casina: 147 Cistellaria: 171 Colax: 76 Commorientes: 76 Curculio: 190, 192 Epidicus: 190 Mercator: 76, 179 Mostellaria: 203 Parasitus Medicus: 99 Persa: 226

4. Index rerum et personarum Plautus (comic poet) [cont.] Poenulus: 158, 190 Pseudolus: 223–4, 226 Rudens: 76, 158, 178 Stichus: 189–90, 293 Trinummus: 76 Truculentus: 147, 205 n. 106 plural, poetic: 182 Plutarch (historian and philosopher): 28 and comedy: 252 n. 144 errors in: 239–9 sources of: 231, 252 n. 144 Pollux, Onomasticon: 141 poor/noble vs wealthy/ignoble: 129 pornoboskoi: 166, 169, 204 swindled in comedy: 226 Posidippus (comic poet) adapted by Roman playwrights: 76 Apokleiomenē: 144 reperformances of: 76 statue of: 60 victories: 64 posthumous production: 300 Potamos (Attic deme): 155, 158 Pratinus (tragic poet): 300 proagōgoi (match-makers): 167, 169 see also mastropoi producers, see directors/producers prohedria: 51, 61 Prospalta (Attic deme): 155, 158 prostitutes/prostitution: 138, 168, 178, 179, 237–8, 245, 251 see also hetairai, mastropoi, pornoboskoi proverbs and maxims: 13, 34, 121, 152, 191–2, 193, 194, 217, 268, 275 ancient collections of: 194 Ptolemy I Soter: 28, 45, 312 Ptolemy II Philadelphus: 46, 53, 189 n. 100, 312 pudding: 142 Pyrrhus of Epirus: 310 radishes: 157, 158–9 rape: 31, 176, 177, 255–6, 278 and drunkenness: 177, 255 and force/violence: 256 as hybris: 256 legal terminology for: 256

387

rape [cont.] as a mistake: 255–6 at a pannychis: 177, 255 recognition scenes: 177, 190 recognition tokens: 31, 139, 150, 190, 277–8, 279 rejection, expression of: 253 rejuvenation: 32, 97, 103–5 of old men: 104–5 physical: 104 sexual: 105 ‘spiritual’: 104–5 revisions, see diaskeuē Rhamnous (Attic deme): 158 rhaphanidōsis: 157, 159 rouge (cosmetic): 200–1 sailors: 179, 184 salsamenta: 133 salt-fish: 129, 133, 280, 281 Sappho (lyric poet): 68 scribal errors confusion of Α and Δ: 38, 121 confusion of archon names: 71 n. 45, 72 n. 47, 241 n. 135 confusion of proper names: 222 n. 117 corruption of ει to ε: 99 glosses incorporated into text: 121, 160, 191, 254–5, 297 haplography: 85, 99, 121, 180, 184, 232, 299 homoearcton: 68 n. 40, 70 homoeoteleuton: 58, 99, 307 homophony: 255 iotacism: 291 sea-nettles: 100–1 seers: 23, 96, 204, 284–5 Seleucus I Nikator: 53, 301, 309, 312 Semonides (iambic poet): 68 sesame seeds: 209 Seven against Thebes: 92 sex, with unattractive wives: 265 ship-cart (Panathenaic): 51, 52–3, 243 n. 139, 247 mast and yard-arm of: 52–3, 233, 240 see also peplos shopkeepers: 178, 180 in local neighbourhoods: 181, 182 reputation for dishonesty: 181

388

4. Index rerum et personarum

shopkeepers [cont.] serving alcohol: 181, 182 selling torches: 182 shopping-list scenes: 279–80 siblings, in love: 189, 190 sieve: 285 sieve-diviners: 284–5 silver, see coins/currency Simonides (lyric poet): 68 sitēsis (public meals): 51, 61 slaves: 31, 102, 129, 132, 180, 182, 224–5, 262, 315 clever: 192, 226 torture of, see basanos wealthy: 129 Smikrines (name): 205 Socrates (philosopher): 197 soldiers: 192 braggart: 13, 149, 305, 308–9 mercenaries: 54, 309, 311 Sophilus (comic poet) Philarchos/Phylarchos: 36, 211, 212 n. 108 Sophocles (tragic poet): 197 Amphiaraos: 90, 96 death of: 62 first victory: 72 and Iophon: 301 Oedipus at Colonus: 300 posthumous production of: 300 Sosias (name): 315 Sosicrates (comic poet) Philadelphoi: 36, 189 Sosiphanes (tragic poet): 38 Sosippus (comic poet) and Diphilus: 289 Sosippus (name): 289 Sotades of Maroneia (poet): 46 Spartans and asceticism: 304 avarice of: 304–5 and beards: 199, 304 brevity of speech: 305 deceptiveness of: 305 dirtiness of: 303, 304 dress of: 199, 304 long hair of: 199, 212, 303–4 pederasty of: 305

Spartans [cont.] and scowling: 304 sobriety of: 198 taciturnity of: 198 untrustworthiness of: 305 speaker division: 128, 264 speechwriters: 204 Sphettos (Attic deme): 158 stage settings: 181, 223–4 statues: 272, 274 of comic poets: 30, 60–1 honorary reward of: 60 of Themis: 86 Stephanus (comic poet) and Alexis: 297 family of: 295, 298 name restored: 18 naturalised Athenian: 295, 298, 299 ‘produces’ Antiphanes’ comedies: 300–2 Stesichorus (lyric poet): 68 Stobaeus: 28, 29–30 stools: 161 storehouses: 172–4 Strato (comic poet) name restored: 18 Stratocles of Diomeia: 32, 46, 140, 212, 231, 234, 235–44, 250–3 attack on comedy/Philippides by: 25, 241–3 as comic character: 31, 212, 250 and eisangeliai: 242 and prostitutes: 251 impiety of: 243–4, 247 indulgence of Antigonids: 44–5, 198 n. 104, 212, 230–1, 235 Stratonicus (kitharist): 46 Strattis (comic poet) Argyriou aphanismos or Agathoi: 36, 125, 126 Mēdeia: 104 number of plays: 42 Potamioi: 155 streets naming of: 225 navigation of: 164, 223–4, 225 style (literary), see figures of speech

4. Index rerum et personarum Successors of Alexander: 13, 25–6, 45, 186, 312 and patronage: 45–6 Suda (lexicon-encyclopedia): 28, 30, 37–8, 40 sycophants/sycophancy: 198, 249, 268–70 and democracy: 269 depiction of: 269–70 extorting the wealthy: 269 in Old Comedy: 268 payments to: 270 as trickster in New Comedy: 269 as wolves: 270 symposia, see dinner/drinking parties tabulae archontum (Delos): 21–2 tarichos, see salt-fish tax anchorage fees: 185 import/export duties: 185–6 transit duties: 186 tax collectors: 31, 178, 184–5 ellimenistai: 185 greed of: 185 pentēkostologoi: 185–6 Teithras (Attic deme): 158 Teleclides (comic poet): 65 Telesphoros: 46 Temple of Dionysus: 50, 51, 61 temple-robbery: 129, 136 Terence (comic poet): 29, 31, 106, 221, 262 Adelphoe: 76, 256 Andria: 76, 171, 178–9 Eunuchus: 76, 113, 171, 192 Heautontimorumenos: 76, 171 Hecyra: 76 Phormio: 76, 144 testicles: 109, 110–11, 113 Theaetetus (comic poet?): as epigrammatist: 316, 319 as dithyrambic poet: 317, 319 as dramatic poet: 317, 318–19 Theaetetus (epigrammatist): 316, 319 Theaetetus Scholasticus (epigrammatist): 316 theft: 136 see also temple-robbery Theocritus (poet): 77

389

Theodorus (tragic actor): 156–7 Theognetus (comic poet) Philargyros: 36, 203 Theophilus (comic poet) at City Dionysia: 16, 74 Philaulos: 137 Theophrastus (philosopher) Characters: 203, 204, 212 Theopompus (comic poet) list of plays: 38 theorikon: 56–7 Theseus (king of Athens): 156 Thessalus of Lakiadai: 156 Thorikos (Attic deme): 158 Thrasippus (choregos): 138 Thuria (Messenia): 309, 310, 313 Thuria/Thurii (South Italy): 309, 313 Thymoitadai (Attic deme): 155, 158 time as destructive force: 276 personification of: 36, 275–6 as physician: 275–6 Timocles (comic poet): 31 n. 13 Daktylios: 139 Dionysiazousai: 77 Ikarioi Satyroi: 155 Marathōnioi: 155 Timostratus (comic poet): 16 Timotheus (lyric poet): 322 titles ‘banausic’: 150 and choruses: 155, 175 and concrete objects: 139 demotics: 155 double: 302 doubly attributed: 291–3 feminine plural endings: 77 and instrumentalists: 137 legal-themed: 144 metaphorical: 139 and nicknames: 139 participial: 147, 293 as passive participles: 144 personifications ending –σις: 105 Φιλ- compounds: 189, 196, 211, 215, 303 toasts (drinking): 311 torches: 180, 181–2

390

4. Index rerum et personarum

torture, see basanos tragedy and consolations: 122, 191–2, 194, 195 obsession with: 217–18 and paradox: 122 quotation of: 34, 121, 191 reperformances of: 216 tychē, see fortune/fate ugliness: 266 utopia: 126 victors’ lists: 12, 16, 20–1, 40, 64, 70–3, 74, 216 n. 109 wafers: 142–3 wealth/poverty: 129, 266

weddings: 209, 294 wine: 172 perfumed: 287–8 wish names: 315 wives, see marriage women adornments of: 86, 200–2, 277 deceiving husbands: 84 fond of drink: 83–4, 169–70, 172–3, 177 see also marriage young men: 31, 84, 151, 170, 192, 199, 226, 255, 258, 262 youth (hēbē): 103–4, 106 n. 78 Zeus: 91, 92, 95, 239, 240, 276