Ephippos 3946317944, 9783946317944, 9783946317975

Citation preview

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

Band 16.3 · Ephippos

Athina Papachrysostomou

Ephippus Introduction, Translation, Commentary

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

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

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

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

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-946317-97-5

to the memory of my grandparents, Athina and Andreas, deux étoiles “Quand tu regarderas le ciel, la nuit, puisque j’habiterai dans l’une d’elles, puisque je rirai dans l’une d’elles, alors ce sera pour toi comme si riaient toutes les étoiles” (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Le Petit Prince)

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

9

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

11

Commentary . . . . . . . . Testimonia. . . . . . . . Play-titles & Fragments Ἄρτεμις (Artemis) (“Artemis”) . . . . . .

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

22 22 25

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

25

Βούσιρις (Bousiris) (“Busiris”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

Γηρυόνης (Gēryonēs) (“Geryon”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

Ἐμπολή (Empolē) (“Merchandise”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

Ἔφηβοι (Ephēboi) (“Ephebes”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

Κίρκη (Kirkē) (“Circe”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Κύδων (Kydōn) (“Cydon”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Ναυαγός (Nauagos) (“The Castaway”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (Homoioi vel Obeliaphoroi) (“The Look-alikes” or “The Spit-bread Bearers”). . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Πελταστής (Peltastēs) (“The Peltast”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Σαπφώ (Sapphō) (“Sappho”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Φιλύρα (Philyra) (“Philyra”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Incertarum Fabularum Fragmenta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Bibliographical Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Indices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

9

Preface It is a great honour and a special privilege for me that Professor Dr Bernhard Zimmermann, following the publication of the Amphis volume in 2016 (FrC 20), entrusted me with the production of a second volume within the internationally acclaimed KomFrag project, under the auspices of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences. Methodologically, my approach to Ephippus’ surviving material features four stages: (i) analysis of each play-title, (ii) discussion of possible date for each play (provided that available evidence allows it), (iii) translation, contextualization, critical discussion, metrical analysis, and interpretation for each fragment, (iv) commentary on individual terms and expressions featuring in every fragment. Given the tiny fraction that we possess from Ephippus’ dramatic output, I make every possible effort to extract all information available and associate it with comic and non-comic parallels, literary antecedents and posterior material, in terms of thematic motifs, stylistic patterns, syntactical structures, and grammatical forms. After meticulously studying all evidence, I regularly present the reader with a plausible reconstruction of both the play’s plot and each fragment’s (immediate) context (often including speaker identification). Whilst doing this, I am aware of – although I do not disrespect – the opposite view that advises against any reconstruction attempt in the absence of solid and irrefutable evidence. As I have argued elsewhere (2008: 23–25, 2012–2013: 165–166), whilst acknowledging the sheer inconclusiveness that lies at the very heart of (comic) fragments, I strongly believe that it is a scholar’s duty to pursue all implications, allusions, and data available to the furthest possible extent, in an attempt to project and understand every fragment against the bigger, catholic picture. Accordingly, I often take a leap of faith (always setting off from the safe platform of evidence) and I invite the reader to do the same, in the belief that, until more papyri scraps are unearthed and more palimpsests are discovered, we need to approach and comprehend fragmentary comic evidence not in vacuo, but as an integral part of a meaningful entity. Regarding the volume’s practical issues of abbreviations (for authors and works) and translations, I follow the abbreviations of the Liddell–Scott–Jones Greek-English Dictionary (91940, with suppl. 1996), while for Greek and Latin texts I use the corresponding English translations of the Loeb Classical Library series (slightly adapted on a few occasions), except for the case of Amphis, where I use my translation (FrC 20, 2016). I have also put together a set of abbreviations of commonly referred works, which can be found in the relevant section of this volume. The editions of Ephippus, mentioned separately and in chronological order at the beginning of Bibliography, are referred to throughout the volume only by the editor’s name. As mentioned above, my participation in the KomFrag project is a cherished privilege and a distinct honour. Above all, heartfelt and sincere thanks are due to the mastermind of this initiative, Professor Dr Bernhard Zimmermann, not only for

10

Preface

his spot-on feedback, but primarily for his continued trust in me, his authenticity, and his exemplary academic ethos. I am also grateful to the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences for generously funding the publication of this volume and all other aspects of the KomFrag project. Many thanks are also due to the KomFrag team members Dr Virginia Mastellari, for taking the time to read my manuscript and make helpful suggestions, and Dr Christian Orth, for providing me with essential bibliographical items. Further thanks are due to Ms Sue Willetts at the ‘Combined Library of the Institute of Classical Studies and the Hellenic and Roman Societies’ in London, who went the extra mile to promptly provide me with hard-to-find bibliographical material, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic (where physical presence at the libraries was not an option); without her invaluable help, the publication of the present volume would have been seriously delayed. Of course, special thanks are due to my husband George for his unremitting support and for discussing classical stuff with me (albeit not a classicist himself!). And, as always, a huge thank-you goes out to my one-of-a-kind parents, Antonia and Christoforos, for teaching me to think outside the box and look life – and people – in the face. This volume is dedicated to the loving memory of my grandparents, Athina and Andreas, who passed away some time ago, but whose words have stayed with me ever since. My grandmother Athina, a manual labourer, used to quote a Cypriot proverb about how the eyes can get scared at the sight of heavy workload, but the hands always come to the rescue and save the day (a proverb that always reminded me of Gorgias’ argument about the power of sight); mutatis mutandis, I often find myself identifying with the quintessence of that proverb. My grandfather Andreas, also a manual labourer, whenever adversities occurred, would always smile peacefully and say, “this too shall pass”. Being an optimist by nature myself, I always keep his words in my mind, especially during the trying times of the Covid-19 world pandemic that has changed our lives in an unprecedented way. Athina Papachrysostomou Athens, August 2020

11

Introduction 1. Name / Identity Ephippus ( Ἔφιππος) was an Athenian comic playwright, who lived and flourished during the fourth century BC (IG II2 2325.145 = IRDF 2325E.40, PA 6160 + add., PAA 452960). Suda ε 3929 (test. 1) and Athenaeus 9.482c (test. 5) classify him among the poets belonging to the period of Middle Comedy. The ancient Scholiast on Iliad 5.76a (test. 4) also mentions Ephippus as a comic poet, albeit not out of literary interest in his work. The proper name Ἔφιππος is a speaking one; it etymologically pertains to horses ( Ἔφιππος < ἐπί + ἵππος). As an adjective, ἔφιππος signifies the person who is on horseback, riding. Accordingly, the proper name Ἔφιππος may – theoretically, at least – allude to the aristocratic, equestrian class of Athens, the class of Ἱππεῖς (Knights); yet, no such real-life connection can be established in the case of the comic playwright Ephippus. Dover (commenting on the cognate proper name Φειδιππίδης in Aristophanes’ Clouds) notes that “there was nothing unusual about names beginning with Ἱππο- or ending in -ιππος” (1968: xxvi); cf. Olson (1992) 308. In general, the proper name Ἔφιππος is a rather infrequent one, both within and outside the boundaries of Attica. Indicative of the name’s rarity is the fact that it only features four times in PAA (including the entry of Ephippus the comic poet). On the whole, the surviving evidence (inscriptional and other) is meagre but interesting. Within Attica the name is first attested on a black-figure hydria from Athens (ca. 520 BC), which is the work of a prolific painter called ‘the Antimenes painter’ (Beazley 1927: 63). On this hydria, the name Ἔφιππος is most appositely assigned to a youth attending to horses (Beazley 1927: 88). Additionally, on a midfourth century inscription (ca. 360–350 BC) from the Athenian deme of Melite (IG II2 2383,20) the name Ἔφιππος is borne by both a father and a son (LGPN 2,191, PAA 452970). Outside Attica the name is attested on three inscriptions from three different locations in Boeotia (dating to the sixth, fifth, and second centuries BC; LGPN 3B,171). Ephippus was also the name of the celebrated writer at the court of Alexander the Great (FGrH 126) and author of the anecdotal work On the Life and Death of Hephaestion and Alexander (see Pearson 1960: 61–67; Badian 1964: 253–254); this Ephippus is commemorated on a fourth-century BC inscription from Olynthus (LGPN 4,140).

12

Ephippus

2. Chronology and Career Ephippus belongs to the period widely acknowledged and referred to as ‘Middle Comedy’.1 He won a single victory at the Lenaea of an unknown year. On the so-called ‘Victors List’ for that festival (IRDF 2325E) Ephippus’ name appears in line 40 (IRDF 2325E.40 = test. 2), immediately following Eubulus (line 39) and directly preceding Antiphanes (line 41). Ephippus’ adjacency to these two comic playwrights allows us to date his victory ca. 378–376 BC (see further comm. under test. 2). With all probability, Ephippus’ agonistic record is also preserved on IGUR 218.15 (= test. 3). Nesselrath (1990: 196–197) dates Ephippus’ floruit to the years 375–340 BC, based on the topicality of the political references featuring in (at least) three of his fragments (frr. 1, 16, 17). In addition, certain pieces of internal evidence from Ephippus’ surviving output (such as references/allusions to contemporary individuals or events) allow us to provide probable, possible, or tentative dates (mostly termini post quem) for seven out of his twelve play-titles. We can further identify an early career period (featuring the plays Artemis, Geryon, The Look-alikes or The Spit-bread Bearers, and Philyra) and a late career period (featuring the plays Busiris, The Peltast, and Sappho).

3. Tradition and Reception The surviving dramatic production of Ephippus is preserved by Athenaeus in his Deipnosophistae and consists of twelve play-titles and twenty-eight fragments (some of which are fairly substantial); five of these fragments, preserved in the Epitome of Deipnosophistae, are IFF (incertarum fabularum fragmenta), i. e. they are not assigned to any particular play. Regarding Athenaeus’ reliability, in terms

1

The – (until recently) fairly controversial – period of Middle Comedy conventionally begins after the performance of Aristophanes’ last intact surviving play, Plutus (388 BC), and ends with Menander’s first stage appearance, with the play Orge (either in 324/3 or in 321 BC). For discussion of divergent and/or original views and for further bibliographical references, see Papachrysostomou (2008) 10–14, Arnott 2010, Shaw (2014) 106–122, Hartwig 2014. Paramount and unsurpassed remains Nesselrath’s synopsis of both ancient views and modern scholarship on Middle Comedy (1990: 1–187); and so does Nesselrath’s discussion of the interesting “Merkmalkombination” (1990: 331–340), which uniquely marks off this period (cf. Papachrysostomou 2011, Konstantakos 2015); see also Nesselrath 2015, where the author convincingly establishes that the tripartite division of the comic genre (into Old, Middle, and New Comedy) traces back to the Alexandrian scholars (but not earlier than that). For some radical challenges of the traditional view of Comedy’s tripartite division, see Sidwell 2000a and 2014, Csapo 2000a, Fielitz 1866.

Introduction

13

of both the context and the content of the fragments that he quotes, it is generally agreed that he made every effort to assure the authenticity and correctness of his quotations; cf. Rudolph 1891, Düring 1936, Nesselrath (1990) 65–79. As far as Athenaeus’ manuscript tradition is concerned, codex Venetus Marcianus 447 (noted with the siglum A) is of paramount importance, since it is the only manuscript of independent value, which preserves the unepitomized version of Deipnosophistae (codex Marcianus was written by John the Calligrapher in the early tenth century AD; Marcianus’ apographs have no independent value). The Epitome of Deipnosophistae is widely acknowledged to be an inferior substitute of the unepitomized work; in Arnott’s words (2000: 47), “the practice of the compiler was haphazardly to omit some of the original citations and to abridge, rearrange and paraphrase some of the citations that he retained, while removing virtually all the titles of the works that were cited” (see further Arnott 2000 for a detailed study of Athenaeus’ manuscript tradition in general). On Athenaeus’ value as a huge reservoir of fragmentary material, his method(s) of quotation, his ur-encyclopedic style, his modus scribendi, etc. see Lukinovich 1990, Braund & Wilkins 2000 (multiple essays featuring thorough analyses of individual issues), Jacob 2013, Murray 2015, Papachrysostomou (2016) 12–13. Additionally, regarding the structure of Deipnosophistae, it should be borne in mind that the work features two narrative levels, the second being embedded within the first. Athenaeus simultaneously assumes the twofold role (i) of the external narrator (addressing his acquaintance Timocrates) and (ii) of the actual participant in the symposion that he recently attended, conversing with the other banqueters (cf. 1.2a); for a list of the symposion characters and a brief introduction to the narrative, see Olson Athenaeus I, vii-xxiv. Inherent to this twin narrative technique is the riveting ‘mirror-effect’ that Athenaeus establishes between the text and the symposium; as Jacob (2000: 85) puts it, “from eating food and drinking wines, there is a shift towards eating words, quotations and scholarly comments about drinks and food” (for the mirror-like construction of Deipnosophistae in general, wherein Athenaeus emerges as both a reader and a scholar, see analytically Jacob 2000). See also Wilkins 2000b, who delves into the structure of the Deipnosophistae highlighting Athenaeus’ key methodological techniques and essential structural devices, which underpin the bulk of information and serve as the backbone of the entire work. Furthermore, despite the initial claim (Ath. 1.1f) that δραματουργεῖ δὲ τὸν διάλογον ὁ Ἀθήναιος ζήλῳ Πλατωνικῷ (Athenaeus imitates Plato in his dramatization of the dialogue), Wilkins (2000b: 36) evinces that Athenaeus “makes little attempt to imitate the elegant narrative development of a Platonic dialogue; rather, Athenaeus revels in the excesses of the bookstack of a library” (in that regard see also Trapp 2000: 353–355). Fortunately, because of this ‘revel’ by Athenaeus, we now have invaluable fragments from lost works not only from Comedy but from every single literary genre. A few fragments of Ephippus are additionally preserved (in their entirety or in part) by Eustathius in his Commentaries on Iliad and Odyssey. In all these cases,

14

Ephippus

Eustathius’ indebtedness to Athenaeus’ Epitome can be confidently established (Eustathius’ manuscript tradition preserves the same readings with the Epitome codices C and E); this agrees with our knowledge that Eustathius made extensive use of Athenaeus’ Epitome. It is also likely (as argued by Morelli 1963: 342–346, and Olson Athenaeus I, xvi) that Eustathius had his own copy of the Epitome, which was superior to the text preserved by the codices C and E. On Eustathius’ use of Athenaeus’ Epitome see the discussions (featuring further bibliography) of Collard (2007) 74–76 (= 1969: 164–168) and Fowler 2010 (on Maas’ hypothesis that Eustathius was the author of the Epitome); cf. Aldick’s ‘Index locorum ab Eustathio ex Athenaei Epitoma exscriptorum’ (1928: 61–72), which features more than 1750 entries that Eustathius copied from Athenaeus’ Epitome. One fragment of Ephippus (fr. 2) is also preserved by Macrobius in his Saturnalia. On Macrobius’ manuscript tradition see Kaster (2010) passim but esp. 3–28, 85–112.

4. Themes and Motifs The surviving fragments of Ephippus feature a wide array of thematic trends and touch – directly or tangentially – on a number of common comic topoi: (a) Food, wine, symposion The sympotic dyad of food and wine is part and parcel of the comic genre. Especially during the period of Middle (and New) Comedy food and wine are much celebrated, unrestrainedly pursued, and extravagantly consumed. Most outstanding are the lengthy food lists/catalogues (asyndetic or paratactic enumerations of food items), which – along with eclectic wine imagery – enjoy a ubiquitous presence throughout the surviving comic material, typically within a largely sympotic setting. Ephippus’ comic output finds itself in the very middle of this overwhelmingly sympotic atmosphere, since a high percentage (almost two thirds) of his surviving fragments pertain (either straightforwardly or peripherally) to some aspect of commensality and/or wine drinking, always against a sympotic backdrop. Regarding especially the comic topos of list/catalogue, Ephippus’ contribution is significant in that regard, since he provides us with singular samples of two unparalleled kinds of lists: (i) the single surviving food list consisting exclusively of fish (fr. 12), and (ii) the single surviving food list consisting almost exclusively of desserts (fr. 13). Additionally, fr. 4 is a minuscule, albeit valuable, piece of evidence regarding a rarely attested, specific type of symposion called collective (συναγώγιμον), where everyone was expected to contribute their share. Regarding wine and its multifarious effect (from rendering people intrepid to making them confess the truth), different wine blends, along with a couple of high-quality wines (Lesbian and pramnian), these are issues addressed in frr. 2, 10, 11, 18, 25, and 28. Furthermore, fr. 9 is the only surviving piece of evidence from the comic genre visualizing a rowdy sympotic scene of a ‘drinking-cup war’:

Introduction

15

banqueters bring along their own supply of ‘ammunition’, i. e. drinking-cups, which they use as weapons, throwing them at each other (the fragment foreshadows Lucian’s Symposion). In addition to these fragments, sympotic atmosphere is explicitly present in frr. 8, 24, and 26, and is alluded to (e. g. shopping and cooking instructions, etc.) in frr. 15, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Of course, a caveat is in order here: Ephippus’ seeming penchant for sympotic matters may not truly represent the poet’s thematic preferences; the surviving evidence could be misleading, especially since it is exclusively the result of Athenaeus’ choices that were meant to meet the purposes of his quintessentially sympotic text. (b) Politics & personal mockery As a general rule, during the period of Middle Comedy the comic satire (political and other) is largely allegoric, veiled and/or enigmatic, as ancient testimonies already notice; e. g. sch. on Dion. Thrax (XVIIIa.37–39 Koster): τρεῖς διαφορὰς ἔδοξεν ἔχειν ἡ κωμῳδία· καὶ ἡ μὲν καλεῖται παλαιά, ἡ ἐξ ἀρχῆς φανερῶς ἐλέγχουσα, ἡ δὲ μέση ἡ αἰνιγματωδῶς, ἡ δὲ νέα ἡ μηδ’ ὅλως τοῦτο ποιοῦσα πλὴν ἐπὶ δούλων ἢ ξένων (it is believed that Comedy had three different periods; the first one is called ‘Old’, the one that from the beginning makes direct accusations, the ‘Middle’ period is the one that scoffs enigmatically, while the ‘New’ is the period that does not exercise satire at all, except against slaves and foreigners; of course, this last statement about New Comedy does not hold water), and Tzetzes (XIa I.70–71 Koster): τῆς μέσης δὲ καὶ δευτέρας ἦν γνώρισμα τὸ συμϐολικοτέρως, μὴ καταδήλως λέγειν τὰ σκώμματα (mocking through symbolisms/metaphors and not openly was the characteristic of the second period, the Middle one). Nevertheless, despite the conspicuous and uncontested withering of Comedy’s political taste during the periods of Middle and New Comedy, there is still a good number of cases where the comic playwrights choose to directly engage in topical discussions on current/recent political affairs, or even name an entire play after a known political figure. For trenchant discussions see Webster (21970) 37–56; Nesselrath (1990) 218–225, and 1997; Papachrysostomou (2008) 18–19, 2009, and 2012; Henderson 2014; Rosenbloom 2014; Sommerstein (2014) 299–302, Mastellari 2016. Within Ephippus’ twenty-eight fragments there survive personal references and/or jibes (ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν) against several named individuals (see details below, under “Kōmōdoumenoi”). Among these there are three political figures (Alexander of Pherae, Dionysius I of Syracuse, and Nicostratus of Argos), all of whom are non-Athenians. In addition, it is probable that two of Ephippus’ plays were large-scale political allegories: Busiris (alluding to Egypt’s pharaoh Nectanebo II) and Geryon (alluding to Macedon’s king Philip II); cf. below under “Myth”. The pattern that clearly emerges is that Ephippus specifically chose to target non-Athenian political figures (albeit these figures, and especially Philip II, constantly kept the Athenian politicians busy), i. e. a tactic that fits nicely with Middle Comedy’s changed political taste and idiosyncratic handling of political issues. Ephippus’ proclivity for non-Athenian political targets is paralleled by several cases (from both Middle and New Comedy), the most remarkable ex-

16

Ephippus

amples being Mnesimachus’ Philip (PCG 7,23–26, about Philip II of Macedon; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 210–220, Mastellari 2020: 451–452), Eubulus’ Dionysius (PCG 5,203–205, about Dionysius I of Syracuse; cf. Hunter 1983: 116–122), and Philemo’s Pyrrhus (PCG 7,264f.; about the homonymous king of Epirus; cf. Dietze 1901: 10–12, Bruzzese 2011: 63–66); see further Orth 2017. (c) Myth According to what numerous play-titles strongly suggest and what the surviving fragments commonly substantiate, mythological themes constitute an emblematic feature of the entire period of Middle Comedy (on Old Comedy’s legacy on this matter see Bakola 2010: 180–208, Bowie 2010, Ruffell 2011: 314–360). The ways in which Middle Comedy employs and converses with the mythical tradition vary and can be distinctively idiosyncratic. Most typical is mythological parody, which is practically ubiquitous in Comedy’s treatment of myth; the preposterous scenario described by Aristotle (Po. 1453a37–39) serves as an example of the comic playwrights’ uncontrollable imagination regarding twisting and distorting the mythical tradition (which was also staged in parallel by contemporary tragedy): οἳ ἂν ἔχθιστοι ὦσιν ἐν τῷ μύθῳ, οἷον Ὀρέστης καὶ Αἴγισθος, φίλοι γενόμενοι ἐπὶ τελευτῆς ἐξέρχονται, καὶ ἀποθνῄσκει οὐδεὶς ὑπ’ οὐδενός (those who are the worst enemies in myth, like Orestes and Aegisthus, leave the stage at the end having become friends and no one is killed by anyone). This is what Webster (1948: 23) identified as “comic reversal of tradition”. Simultaneously, and even more preposterously, mythological parody often entails – especially in the period of Middle Comedy – the incongruous transfer of mythical figures into the everyday life of fourth-century Athens. The comic playwrights love experimenting with the endless comic possibilities created when mythical characters are portrayed as stepping out from the mythical sphere into a very concrete here and now. Myth becomes the vehicle that bridges the chrono-topic gap with the present and facilitates the transfer/ travelling of legendary figures (such as Heracles and Geryon in Ephippus’ case) – through time and space – from a vague mythological chronotope to the play’s practically tangible contemporary reality. The result of this whimsical technique is blatantly anachronistic and consists of an imaginative amalgamation of mythical tradition with contemporary reality (including contemporary politics), as the mythical realm infiltrates the real world and inextricably blends with it. See further Webster (21970) 16–19, 82–85; Nesselrath (1990) 188–241, and 1995; Casolari 2003; Mangidis 2003; Konstantakos 2014; Dixon 2015; Papachrysostomou (2016) 14 and 2017. Ephippus’ surviving material corroborates the widely acknowledged view regarding Middle Comedy’s idiosyncratic relation with mythical tradition. Ephippus largely exercised the dramaturgic technique of allusive scenarios, where the mythical tradition intertwined with current affairs. In particular, we have good reason to believe that Ephippus’ Busiris, Geryon, and Circe (and perhaps Philyra) featured mythological burlesque, to an indeterminable extent; the eponymous mythological title-figures probably functioned as mythological disguises for contemporary individuals, with whom they shared common traits and/or behavioural patterns. It is

Introduction

17

remarkable that Ephippus exhibited a pronounced penchant for Heracles-related mythical tradition; both Busiris and Geryon feature mythical enemies of Heracles in their title, and it is likely that they constituted full-scale political allegories, with Busiris standing for the Egyptian pharaoh Nectanebo II and Geryon being a dramatic persona for the Macedonian king Philip II (cf. Old Comedy’s parallel cases, i. e. Aristophanes’ Knights, Eupolis’ Marikas, Plato’s Cleophon and Hyperbolus). (d) Hetairai Hetairai enjoy a ubiquitous presence in Middle (and New) Comedy, featuring both in individual fragments and in play-titles; in the latter case the reasonable assumption is that these plays dealt with the corresponding hetairai in a number of irrecoverable ways. Ephippus’ case is no exception. With all probability, Ephippus’ Philyra referred to the homonymous historic hetaira, presumably within a scenario where reality and myth amalgamated. Likewise, it is probable that his Circe alluded to some bewitching hetaira (real or fictitious), who shared certain features with her mythical counterpart. A most conspicuous case is fr. 6 (from the play Merchandise), which features a description of a complaisant hetaira; as such, the fragment exemplifies the relatively rare comic topos of praising and defending hetairai. On the presence of hetairai in Comedy see Hauschild 1933; Keuls (1985) 153–186, 267–273; Henry 1985 and 2006; Konstan 1987; Nesselrath (1990) 318–324; Davidson 1997; Kurke 1997; Henderson 2000 and (2014) 191–193; Suoto Delibes 2002; McClure 2003; Auhagen 2009; Llopis 2014. (e) Plato Satire against philosophers is a common comic topos throughout the comic genre. Middle Comedy’s enfant terrible is Plato (who succeeds Socrates as Comedy’s favourite comic butt); aspects of his philosophy, his alleged habits and behaviour, his students, are all subject to regular ridicule and satire. Although Middle Comedy draws a largely anodyne portrait of Plato (e. g. greedily snatching the Academy’s sacred olives, whilst aimlessly meandering and endlessly prattling about incomprehensible stuff), Ephippus fr. 14 constitutes a rather harsh critique against Plato and the Academy.

5. Kōmōdoumenoi Prompted by Revermann’s truism (2006a: 159), “there is no theatre without an audience”, I wish to highlight a quintessential parameter regarding comic satire, and this is the audience; for there is no satire without an audience. The regular exposure of Athenian citizens to the experience of dramatic performances resulted in a deep, subconscious theatrical training, to the point that the spectators could prove both instrumental in making a theatrical performance meaningful and catalytic in unravelling the (often knotty) threads of comic satire (on Middle Comedy’s largely enigmatic, veiled satire, see Intro. 4b above). The spectators’ theatrical competence is inseparably linked to and reciprocally related with their erudition, which in turn pertains to other germane issues, such as the (varying)

18

Ephippus

politicization level and their socio-economic status (élite and non-élite).2 Besides, it has been shown (Hall 1995: passim, esp. 44) that ancient Greek audiences were more interventionist than modern ones; in this regard, one can safely agree with Revermann (2006a: 159) that “audiences, like actors, can justly be said to ‘perform’, to ‘stage’ themselves”. Hence, for the satire to work against the kōmōdoumenoi listed below, the audience’s ‘participation’ was indispensable; and the comic poets relied on it to drive their point home. A number of historic figures are mentioned (albeit not always ridiculed) in Ephippus’ fragments as follows (NB I chose to include even the non-ridiculing references, since a satirical comment might have occurred in the missing context): − Alexander despot of Pherae: fr. 1 − Chaeremon (tragic poet): fr. 9 − a certain Euripides (not the tragic poet): fr. 9 and fr. 16 − Plato (philosopher): fr. 14 − Bryson of Heraclea Pontica (philosopher): fr. 14 − Thrasymachus of Chalcedon (sophist): fr. 14 − Dionysius I tyrant of Syracuse: fr. 16 − Demophon (poet): fr. 16 − Cotys king of Thrace: fr. 16 − Theodorus (tragic actor): fr. 16 − Menecrates of Syracuse (physician): fr. 17 − Nicostratus of Argos (general): fr. 17 − Philyra (hetaira): title-figure in Philyra Additionally, Nectanebo II, Pharaoh of Egypt, was possibly alluded to via the mythical persona of Busiris in the homonymous play. Likewise, in the play Geryon the mythical title-figure probably functioned as a dramatic disguise for Philip II of Macedon, in an amalgamation of myth with reality (cf. above Intro. 4c Myth).

6. Language Ephippus’ language presents a number of interesting peculiarities, including the following seven hapaxes: − πεντεσκάλμους (adjective πεντέσκαλμος: five-tholed vessel): fr. 5.17 and fr. 19.17 (NB in the latter fragment Ephippus reuses his own material) − the expression ᾠῶν ἑκατόμβη (hecatomb of eggs): fr. 8.4 (variation on the phrase βοῶν ἑκατόμβη)

2

Certain scholars (like Sommerstein 1997, 1998b, and Bowie 1998) make a case for a predominantly élite audience in fifth-century Athens, but others (like Dawson 1997, Wilson 2000, and Revermann 2006b) argue in favour of a broadly stratified one.

Introduction

19

− παραβόσκομεν (verb παραβόσκω: maintain besides, feed – with explicit reference to parasites): fr. 8.6 (variation on the synonymous verbs παρατρέφω, παρασιτέω, and παραδειπνέω) − the noun κανναβίδες (hemp-seeds): fr. 13.5 (forming a homoioteleuton, following σησαμίδες in line 3 and πυραμίδες in line 4) − the astonishing compound formation Βρυσωνοθρασυμαχειοληψικερμάτων (one of those taking coins like Bryson and Thrasymachus): fr. 14.3 (evoking Aristophanes’ compound hapaxes) − ῥοδόπνοα (adjective ῥοδόπνοος: breathing of roses, rose-scented): fr. 26.2 (variation on the synonymous ἡδύοσμος: sweet-smelling, fragrant) − ψακαστοῖς (adjective ψακαστός: dripping): fr. 26.3 (variation on the synonymous στακτός: trickling) It is noteworthy that four of the hapaxes (ᾠῶν ἑκατόμβη, παραβόσκομεν, ῥοδόπνοα, and ψακαστοῖς) are innovative variations on established forms, while fr. 8 and fr. 26 feature two hapaxes each. Furthermore, a hapax meaning is assigned to the following terms: (i) the noun μνοῦς is unprecedently used to designate some sort of fluffy dessert, fluffy pastry in fr. 13.4; (ii) the noun παίγνια features the otherwise unattested sense of dainties (at a symposion) in fr. 24.3; (iii) the verb ὑποκαθίημι is singularly used in fr. 14.7 with the sense of letting the beard grow long, instead of the simplex καθίημι, which is the common terminus technicus for this notion. Most conspicuous and noteworthy are also the two metonymies that Ephippus employs for wine: κύλικας εὐζωρεστέρας (stronger cups) instead of οἴνου εὐζωρεστέρου (stronger wine) in fr. 3.11; and Λεσβία σταγών (Lesbian drop) instead of Λέσβιος οἶνος (Lesbian wine) in fr. 28.2. Apart from homoioteleuton in fr. 13.3–5 (cf. the hapax κανναβίδες above), Ephippus also practises enjambment four times; in fr. 1 (following Kock’s emendation), twice in fr. 2, and in fr. 11.

7. Metre As Nesselrath notes (1990: 267), Ephippus has the highest percentage of anapaestic dimeter lines of all poets of Middle Comedy. Either Ephippus had a special predilection for this metrical pattern or the surviving evidence from other poets is accidentally disproportionate compared to their original output (Nesselrath l. c. favours the latter possibility). Five fragments of Ephippus feature the anapaestic dimeter: fr. 1 (fraction of a food list), fr. 5 (narration of preposterous events), fr. 12 (fish list), fr. 13 (dessert list), fr. 19 (report of narration of preposterous events). These five fragments yield a total of 62 lines (NB Ephippus’ total surviving output consists of 163 lines).

20

Ephippus

As already noted by Meineke (1,302–303), the (recitative) anapaestic dimeter is the metre par excellence for food catalogues in Middle and New Comedy.3 Accordingly, Ephippus frr. 1, 12 and 13 expectedly feature this metre (see Nesselrath 1990: 267–276). Yet, in other fragments (by Ephippus and other poets) the reason for the use of anapaestic dimeter is not immediately discernible. Nesselrath (1990: 276–280) studies these idiosyncratic instances and argues that in these cases the anapaestic dimeter is used by the poets for “Kunstvolle Ekphraseis” of various sub-types; regarding Ephippus fr. 5, Nesselrath detects connotations of what he describes as “märchenhafter Phantasie” (1990: 276), while in fr. 19 the anapaestic pattern seems an appropriate match for the speaker’s bombastic style (Nesselrath l. c. identifies the speaker with a soldier figure). For a meticulous study of all aspects of the anapaestic metre in Comedy, see White (1912) 108–138, Dale (21968) 47–68, Gentili & Lomiento (2003) 108–119. West’s arguments against the metrical reality and validity of anapaestic dimeters and monometers (1977: 89–94 and 1982: 95) are opposed by Parker (1997) 56. Apart from the five fragments in anapaestic dimeter, the remaining twentythree fragments (101 lines) of Ephippus feature the iambic trimeter. Below are some interesting data regarding these fragments: − violation of Porson’s law occurs three times; once in a line without caesura (fr. 15.3), and twice in a line with middle caesura (fr. 16.3, fr. 22.3) − there are two lines with no caesura: fr. 14.3 (consisting of one long compound word), and fr. 15.3 (also featuring violation of Porson’s law and three resolutions of longa) − there are four lines with middle caesura: fr. 6.1, fr. 8.6, fr. 16.3, fr. 22.3 − there are two lines with triemimeral caesura: fr. 2.2, fr. 28.2 − penthemimeral caesura occurs more often, almost by double, than hephthemimeral caesura − resolution of anceps occurs seven times: fr. 2.2, fr. 15.4, fr. 16.1, fr. 17.1, fr. 20.4, fr. 23 (in both lines of this fragment) − there are 46 resolutions of a long element; occasionally, resolution occurs twice in the same line (fr. 14, lines 7 and 11; and fr. 21 in the same position in lines 2 and 4), and even thrice in the same line (fr. 15, in the same position in lines 3 and 10; and fr. 22.2) − there are nine resolutions of a short element; in fr. 21 resolution occurs twice, in lines 2 and 4, in the same position (first metre) − sequence of multiple brevia is detected in fr. 9.1 (six brevia), fr. 14.10 (four brevia), and fr. 22.2 (five brevia)

3

e. g. Mnesim. fr. 4 (a most typical, lengthy example; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 186–209, Mastellari 2020: 372–440), Alex. fr. 167, Anaxandr. fr. 42, Antiph. frr. 130 and 131, Eub. fr. 63 (cf. Hunter 1983: 149), etc.

Introduction

21

As far as both iambic and anapaestic lines are concerned, Ephippus practices correptio epica once (fr. 22.3) and correptio attica twenty times (twice in anapaest and eighteen times in iambos).

8. Ephippus and other comic poets With all probability, Ephippus won his single Lenaean victory within the same decade as Eubulus and Antiphanes did (cf. “Chronology & Career” above, and test. 2). Mnesimachus, whose name follows immediately after Antiphanes’ on the Victors List (IRDF 2325E.42) can also be considered Ephippus’ younger contemporary.4 There seems to have been some thought-provoking thematic affinity between these four poets. To begin with, it is striking that the fourth century BC saw the production of three Busiris-plays: by Ephippus, Antiphanes and Mnesimachus. We cannot determine who pioneered this thematic trend (Ephippus’ Busiris was probably produced after 343 BC, but we have no means to date Mnesimachus’ play; cf. Mastellari 2020: 351); yet, the common thematic motif is at least intriguing. Furthermore, Ephippus fr. 3 is virtually identical to Eubulus fr. 148; instead of blaming the Epitome scribe for carelessness, it is wiser to accept the manuscript tradition as preserved and acknowledge that poets felt free to recycle and reuse (in a more or less adapted version) another poet’s lines and/or draw from the same stock material (cf. “Citation Context” for Ephipp. fr. 3); additionally, Eub. fr. 109.1–2 is practically identical to Ephipp. fr. 15.3–4. Equally astonishing is the thematic and verbal propinquity attested between Ephippus fr. 12 and Mnesimachus fr. 4; a total of twenty-three fish names feature in both fragments in largely the same order, albeit grouped differently (cf. “Citation Context” for Ephipp. fr. 12). What all these instances confirm is that mobility of comic material was a commonly practised technique, especially (though not exclusively) among roughly contemporary poets, as the available evidence suggests.

9. Literature Arnott, W. G., ³1996. “Ephippus” (1), OCD 529. Bäbler, B., 1997. “Ephippos” (2), DNP 3, 1087. Orth, C., 2014. “Ephippos”, in B. Zimmermann & A. Rengakos (eds), Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike, 2. Band: Die Literatur der klassischen und hellenistischen Zeit, München, 1010–1012. Kaibel, G., 1905. “Ephippos” (3), RE 5.2, 2858. Pernigotti, C., 2019. “Ephippus”, in A. H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Greek Comedy, Hoboken, 318–319. 4

Mastellari (2020) 339 dates Mnesimachus’ victory to the years 370/365–350 BC.

22

Commentary Testimonia test. 1 Suda ε 3929 Ἔφιππος, Ἀθηναῖος, κωμικὸς τῆς μέσης κωμῳδίας. Ephippus, an Athenian, a comic poet of Middle Comedy.

This pithy lemma of Suda informs us about three key aspects of Ephippus’ personality: (i) his origin (an Athenian), (ii) his profession (a comic playwright), and (iii) the period of his floruit (Middle Comedy). Suda provides biographical lemmata for eighty-six comic playwrights in total. As known, Suda’s main source for comic playwrights (and also for poets and authors of other literary genres) is the work Ὀνοματολόγος ἢ Πίναξ τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ ὀνομαστῶν (Anthology of names or Catalogue of those famous for their erudition) by the biographer Hesychius of Miletus,1 as well as the epitomized version of this work (cf. Sud. η 611 s. v. Ἡσύχιος Μιλήσιος). The attribution of the majority of Suda’s biographical lemmata to this single source explains the striking similarities that these lemmata present (in terms of style, language, and typical content). Apart from Hesychius’ work and its epitome, the Suda’s author consulted on several occasions Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae, mostly in search of play-titles. Wagner (1905: 33–35) put together an instructive catalogue of Suda’s lemmata that are traceable to Hesychius’ work. Suda’ laconic lemma on Ephippus (cf. the similar or quasi-similar cases of Alcimenes, Amipsias, Amphis, Anaxilas, and Sotades) can be confidently traced to the epitome of Hesychius’ work. See Wagner (1905) 30–55 (esp. 36–37 for Ephippus), Nesselrath (1990) 60, Lorenzioni (2012) 324–329, Orth (2013) 18–20.

test. 2 IRDF 2325E.40 (= IG II2 2325.145)

1

line 39 line 40 line 41

Εὔβουλος ΠI Ἔφιππος I [Ἀ]ντιφάνη. [ς] ΠΙΙΙ

line 39 line 40 line 41

Eubulus – six victories Ephippus – one victory [A]ntiphane[s] – eight victories

Hesychius lived during the first half of the sixth century AD; his sources can be traced back to Alexandrian scholarship (see Kaldellis 2005).

Testimonia

23

The inscription IRDF 2325E (= IG II2 2325.116–189), also known as the ‘Victors List’ for the Lenaea, registers the comic poets who were victorious at that festival, on the chronological basis of their first victory (for technical description, editions, figures, etc., see IRDF pp. 133–140, 178–182). Admittedly, the available evidence, on which we need to rely to date Ephippus, is not utterly solid, but rather rests on a number of strong probabilities. Ephippus’ name features in line 40; the adjacent names of Eubulus and Antiphanes are the ones that define the timespan into which Ephippus’ victory occurred. According to Hunter (1983: 7–8), Eubulus’ first victory fell in the period 380–370 BC (cf. Capps 1907: 188). The date of Antiphanes’ first Lenaean victory is crucial in establishing a terminus ante quem for Ephippus’ victory. Capps (1900: 54–57) dates Antiphanes’ victory ca. 367 BC, whereas Konstantakos (2000b: 175), refuting Capps’ arguments, maintains that Antiphanes was first victorious at Lenaea ca. 375 BC. If one follows Capps’ dating, then Ephippus’ Lenaean victory is to be dated before 367 BC; perhaps “early in the ’sixties”, as Webster (21970: 42) confidently claims. Such a date (early 360s or late 370s) coincides with Nesselrath’s estimate (1990: 196–197), who dates Ephippus’ floruit to the years 375–340 BC (NB both Webster and Nesselrath’s discussions are prior to Konstantakos’). On the other hand, if we adopt Konstantakos’ standpoint (NB his argumentation is fairly convincing), Ephippus’ victory must have occurred before 375 BC. Since we do not know how many years elapsed between the names listed on the inscription, and since we need to acknowledge some span for Eubulus towards the beginning of the decade, Ephippus’ victory could be tentatively dated ca. 378–376 BC. Admittedly, this is a rather early victory date for a poet, whose at least three of his plays can be dated after the mid–340s (Busiris, The Peltast, Sappho). However, this seems to be the best possible date reconstruction, on the basis of critical evaluation of all surviving evidence: Ephippus won a single Lenaean victory quite early in his career, ca. 378–376 BC, and continued being productive (albeit never victorious again) for more than three decades.

test. 3 IGUR 218.15 (IG XIV 1098) [ – – – ἐ]νίκα Λήναι[α ἐπὶ – – – ] (lacuna) was victorious at the Lenaea on the archonship of (lacuna)

IGUR (Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae), also known as the “Roman Fragments” or “Roman Fasti” (edited by Moretti 1968–1990), is a fragmentarily surviving and badly mutilated – albeit originally lengthy – inscription, probably a product of Alexandrian scholarship, which featured the entire agonistic history of Greek Comedy and was on display in a library of Imperial Rome (perhaps the Palatine Library). See futher Körte 1905 and Dittmer 1923.

24

Ephippus

Wilhelm (1906: 200), followed by Dittmer (1923: 53–54), suggested that the missing name in the initial lacuna is that of Ephippus (on the basis of the preceding names on the inscription; cf. IRDF p. 229).

test. 4 Schol. Hom. E 76a (Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, scholia vetera; ed. Erbse vol. 2, 1971: p. 16): πῇ μὲν ψιλοῦμεν πῇ δὲ δασύνομεν … καὶ Ἔφιππος ὁ κωμικός. Ancient Scholiast on Hom. Iliad 5.76a (Erbse): there are cases where we exercise lenition and cases where we exercise aspiration (sc. of consonants) … and (sc. an example of the latter is) Ephippus the comic poet.

The ancient Scholiast mentions Ephippus’ name as an example where aspiration is exercised in composition, in the case of certain proper names (ἐπί + ἵππος > Ἔφιππος, but e. g. Λεύκιππος, instead of *Λεύχιππος); see further Lehrs (31882) 313–315.

test. 5 Athenaeus 9.482c: (post Ephipp. fr. 9) … ὥς φησιν Ἀντίοχος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Μέσῃ Κωμῳδίᾳ Κωμῳδουμένων Ποιητῶν … … as Antiochus of Alexandria says in his treatise “On the Poets who are being satirized in Middle Comedy” …

This testimonium indirectly – albeit indisputably – registers Ephippus amongst the poets of Middle Comedy. Antiochus of Alexandria (see LGGA s. v.) was a Greek grammarian (doubtfully dated before the first century BC), who wrote a treatise on poets whom he found being ridiculed in plays of Middle Comedy. Athenaeus (9.482c) resorts to Antiochus and his work, on the occasion of the immediately preceding quotation of Ephipp. fr. 9 (see “Citation Context” ad loc.), where a certain Euripides is being satirized. Athenaeus explains that, according to Antiochus, this individual was not the celebrated tragic playwright, but rather some minor poet (PAA 444547). Antiochus’ work and Athenaeus’ reference to it are significant, for they demonstrate that both Antiochus and Athenaeus took for granted the fact that Ephippus belonged to the period of Middle Comedy.

25

Play-titles & Fragments Ἄρτεμις (Artemis) (“Artemis”) Discussion Meineke 1,351; Bothe 489; Kock 2,250; Kock 1882; Breitenbach (1908) 158; PCG 5,131 Title Theoretically, the title-figure may refer to (a) the goddess Artemis or (b) some mortal woman (perhaps a hetaira). Option (a) is far more probable; and here is the reason why: despite Breitenbach’s claim (1908: 158) that “nomina magnorum deum nusquam in comoediae titulis inveniri, velut Ζεύς, Ἥρα, Ἀπόλλων etc. … una fabula excepta, Platonis Ζεὺς κακούμενος” (nowhere did I come across any name of some great god, such as Zeus, Hera, Apollo, etc., featuring in a comic play’s title ... , with the exception of Plato’s Ζεὺς κακούμενος), parallels of comic plays featuring a deity’s name in the title (in nominative case and on its own, i. e. with no other attribute, e. g. a participle as in Plato’s play mentioned by Breitenbach) do exist within the surviving comic corpus. Philemo wrote an Ἀπόλλων (Apollo; PCG 7,234), Theopompus wrote an Ἀφροδίτη (Aphrodite; PCG 7,711f.), and Epicharmus wrote a Κωμασταὶ ἢ Ἅφαιστος (Revellers or Hephaistus; PCG 1,51). Plus, there are several comic plays entitled Διόνυσος (Dionysus): by Magnes (PCG 5,628f.), Eubulus (PCG 5,243–246), Timocles (PCG 7,760), and Alexander (PCG 2,18); yet, apparently, Breitenbach did not count Dionysus among the “magni dei”. The list drastically increases, if we include all cases of comic plays featuring a deity’s name plus some other term in the title (i. e. not only those cases where the deity’s name features on its own and in nominative; and I am limiting the following list only to cases featuring one, or more, of the twelve Olympian gods, leaving out cases like Πάν and Ἀσκληπιός): Ἀθηνᾶς Γοναί by Hermippus; Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ Ἀπόλλωνος ⟨Γοναί⟩ by Philiscus; Ἀφροδίτης Γοναί by Polyzelus, Nicophon, and Antiphanes; Διόνυσοι by Epicharmus and Cratinus; Διόνυσος Ἀσκητής by Aristomenes; Διόνυσος Ναυαγός by Aristophanes; Διονύσου Γοναί by Polyzelus, Demetrius I, and Anaxandrides; Διὸς Γοναί by Philiscus; Ἑρμοῦ καὶ Ἀφροδίτης Γοναί by Philiscus. In addition to all these cases, there are further play-titles that deal with either minor deities (e. g. Μοῦσαι by Epicharmus, Phrynichus, Euphanes, and Euphro) or aspects of godly affairs in general (e. g. Θεοί by Hermippus, and Θεῶν ἀγορά by Euphro). Regardless of whether the deity’s name features on its own in a comic play’s title in nominative case or is otherwise defined/accompanied by an attribute and/ or some other term, it is manifest – and this is the important, core element of this discussion – that gods and goddesses (both major and minor) are predominantly present in the play-titles of all comic eras. This remark alone suffices to substantially support option (a), i. e. that the Artemis featuring in Ephippus’ present play-title is no other than the homonymous goddess.

26

Ephippus

Besides, it is reasonable to assume that the choice of the specific goddess as title-figure was not haphazard, but instead her identity was related to the play’s plot. In particular, the presence of Artemis in the title (a goddess worshipped in Thebes) and the politically topical content of fr. 1, featuring Alexander of Pherae (cf. “Interpretation” on Alexander’s alliance with Athens and the Thebans’ invasion of Thessaly in 368 BC), constitute a fairly substantial ground that allows us to tentatively argue in favour of a Theban air / theme for the entire play. Pausanias (9.17.1) tells us that Artemis was worshipped in Thebes and testifies to the existence of a local temple (near the Proetidian Gate) dedicated to Artemis of Fair Fame (Ἄρτεμις Εὐκλεία), which also featured a statue of her by the famous sculptor Scopas (first half of the fourth century BC). In addition, according to Plutarch (Arist. 20), Artemis’ cult was well established in the whole Boeotia already by the early fifth century BC. On the contrary, option (b), i. e. Artemis being a woman’s name, is less likely. The thought was first put forward by Meineke (1,351: “an Dianam intellexerit, incertum est, cum Artemis etiam mulieris nomen fuerit”), on the basis of a reference to a slave girl called Artemis in D.L. 3.42 (PAA 202160). The fact that the name Artemis was occasionally borne by (both free and slave) women is confirmed by inscriptional evidence; see LGPN 2,66 (eight records), PAA 206160 – 206235 (twelve records); cf. Bechtel (1902) 76–77 and Fick (21894) 304. Nevertheless, the female proper names featuring in comic play-titles neatly fall into the following categories: deities (see above), mythical figures (e. g. there survive six Μήδεια play-titles), the poetess Sappho (a category in itself; there are six Σαπφώ play-titles), and hetairai, mostly real (e. g. Νέαιρα) or, rarely, fictitious ones (e. g. Ἀντιλαΐς). There are no comic plays named after ordinary, everyday women; so, if we exclude the category of deities, the only other category into which Ephippus’ Artemis could belong is that of hetairai. But since we know of no historic hetaira called Artemis, we would need to assume that the title-figure of Ephippus’ present play is a fictitious hetaira. Overall, between an ordinary (and otherwise unknown) woman (with no comic parallels), a fictitious hetaira (entailing unnecessary surmise), and the goddess Artemis (bearing direct relation to and further substantiating a Theban-related plot for the play), it is evident that the safest and most reasonable interpretation of Ephippus’ play-title (on the basis of surviving evidence), and also the one that needs the fewest (or, practically zero) assumptions (i. e. according to the Occam’s razor theory) is to identify the title-figure with the huntress Olympian goddess, distinctively worshipped in Thebes and generally in Boeotia. Besides, this interpretation directly lands the play in the midst of a widely established comic tradition of plays dealing – in various ways – with members of the Greek pantheon. On the representation of gods in Greek Comedy and its multiple semantics, see Parker (2005) 147–152, Scullion 2014, and Revermann 2014. Date The play Artemis belongs to Ephippus’ early career (cf. Intro. 2 “Chronology & Career”). On the basis of the play’s political flavour (cf. the reference to Alexander of Pherai; see “Interpretation” for fr. 1), Kock (1882: 135) suggests that Ephippus’

Ἄρτεμις (fr. 1)

27

present play was performed in the spring of 367 BC or shortly after, while Edmonds (2,146) dates the play in 368 BC. I consider it safer to acknowledge the year 368 BC as a probable terminus post quem for the play’s production.

fr. 1 (1 K.) παρ’ Ἀλεξάνδρου δ’ ἐκ Θετταλίας κολλικοφάγου κρίβανος ἄρτων 2 κολλικοφάγου Kock: κόλλικα φαγών A

And from Alexander from bread-roll eating Thessaly, a baking-pot full of bread Ath. 3.112f τῶν δὲ κολλικίων ἄρτων – οἱ αὐτοὶ δ᾿ εἰσὶ τοῖς κολλάβοις – Ἔφιππος ἐν Ἀρτέμιδι μνημονεύει οὕτως· παρ’ — ἄρτων Little bread-rolls (‘kollikia’), which are the same thing as ‘kollaboi’, are also mentioned by Ephippus in Artemis, as follows: “And — bread”

Metre Anapaestic dimeter

kklll|llkkl llkkl|lkkll

Discussion Meineke 3,322; Bothe 489; Kock 2,250f.; Edmonds 2,146f.; PCG 5,131f.; Nesselrath (1990) 196, 267, 274; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 484; Rusten & Henderson 482 Citation Context The present fragment is quoted by Athenaeus 3.112f, as part of an extensive discussion within the text of Deipnosophistae about multiple kinds of bread. The discussion begins at 3.108f, when the Cynic philosopher Cynulcus asks for bread to be served to the banqueters: ὁ Κύνουλκος ἀνέκραγεν· ‘ἄρτου δεῖ’ (Cynulcus shouted: “we need bread”). Constitution of Text In line 2 codex A preserves κόλλικα φαγών. In this case, the subject of the participle φαγών would be missing from the surviving fragment (and even if we assume that it immediately preceded the beginning of the fragment, it would still seem rather cut off from the participle φαγών). Instead of this muddled up syntax and the concomitant strange meaning, Kock suggested the felicitous reading κολλικοφάγου (which is an Aristophanic coinage, used at Ach. 872). Kock’s reading, adopted by all posterior editors, smooths out syntax and serves as an attributive adjective describing Thessaly (Θετταλίας), whilst also creating a case of enjambment. On the matter of the manuscripts’ errors of transmission, Headlam’s remark is instructive (1922: 316): “scribes usually write blindly

28

Ephippus

the words they know, breaking up unfamiliar and unexpected compounds into small parts”; i. e. presuming (in regard with Ephippus’ present fragment) that the rare compound κολλικοφάγου (being the original reading in the text) had been broken up by an uneducated scribe. Interpretation The speaker shares (either with the audience or with another character) some interesting piece of news; a baking-pot full of bread has been sent from Thessaly, on behalf of Alexander. The fragment is probably a snippet from a longer report and, despite consisting of merely two lines, it constitutes an example (i) of Middle Comedy’s occasional taste for topical political references (cf. Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”), and (ii) of the comic topos of the list/catalogue (see Ephipp. fr. 3 “Interpretation”), albeit in miniature scale. (i) Regarding the fragment’s political colour, it was Casaubon (Animadv. 136) who first pointed out (and his suggestion was further substantiated by Kock 1882) that the Ἀλέξανδρος mentioned by Ephippus in the present fragment is no other than Alexander the despot of Pherae in Thessaly (RE 1,1408–1409 s. v. Alexandros nr. 5), who ruled from 369 BC (after murdering Polyphron, his uncle and tagos of the Thessalians, thus avenging the death / murder of his father; cf. X. HG 6.34.4) until 358 (or 357) BC (when he was murdered by his own wife and her brothers). Plutarch in the Life of Pelopidas describes Alexander with dark colours and pictures him as a ferocious and savage authoritarian tyrant (cf. Plu. 193d). Likewise, Xenophon (who was Alexander’s contemporary) draws a similarly unfavourable portrait of Alexander and contrasts his violent ruling to that of his predecessor, Jason (HG 6.4.28–37); cf. D. 23.120. The fourth century affairs at Pherae resonated not only with comedy, but also with contemporary tragedy; the tragic playwright Moschion wrote a play called Φεραίοι (Pheraeans), from which only one fragment survives (TrGF 97 F 3). On the reign of Alexander see Westlake (1935) 126–159; Buckler (1980) 110–129, 175–182, 245–249; Sprawski 2006. Ephippus appears to have captured the era’s political beat, at the moment when Alexander became a close ally of Athens in 368 BC. Shortly after Alexander seized power (in 369 BC), he faced a military invasion in Thessaly by the Thebans (who were invited to intervene by some Thessalians, probably the leaders of the city of Pharsalus, seeking to overthrow Alexander). Thus, in order to repel the eminent military power that Thebes was at the time, Alexander actively sought and secured the alliance of Athens late in the year 368 BC. The relevant military events and their intertwined political implications are narrated in detail by D.S. 15.67–80. The play’s topical Theban associations nicely combine with the goddess Artemis featuring as the play’s title-figure (for her cult in Boeotia and especially Thebes, see “Title”). For modern discussions of military episodes and political events in Thessaly and Boeotia in the 360s see Buckler (1980) 233–277 (featuring a survey of primary sources), Roy 21994, Stylianou (1998) 446–455, Sprawski 2003. (ii) Regarding the list/catalogue pattern, it is probable that the present fragment, albeit brief, was originally part of a lengthy (food) catalogue. In favour of this hypothesis argue not only the anapaestic dimeter, a telltale sign of food lists (see

Ἄρτεμις (fr. 1)

29

Intro. 7 “Metre”), but also the style of speech featuring in this fragment. That is, the expression “and from Alexander ... a baking-pot full of bread” strongly conveys the impression that these lines belonged to a longer list featuring offerings/gifts originating from various places / persons, which either have already arrived or are expected to; i. e. a phrase saying something like, “from someone / somewhere there comes this or that”, must have both preceded and followed the surviving part of the text. Comparable to the present case is Amphis fr. 40; cf. Papachrysostomou (2016) 250–255. It is conceivable that the speaker (perhaps a household slave, a cook’s assistant or a character central to the plot; his identity cannot be established) records the numerous goodies (e. g. foodstuffs, wine, perfumes) flowing in from different places (perhaps from all over Greece) at the epicentre of the dramatic plot, upon some celebratory occasion (a symposion, a local or panhellenic festival, some familial event, etc.). In the absence of firm evidence, the play’s setting cannot be established with certainty. Yet, Athens and Thebes are two likely options (though not the only ones); although Athens was the most preferred locus in all Greek Comedy, a Theban background is not inconceivable; e. g. this could be some Theban feast, for which Alexander cared to send a preposterous gift (cf. s. v. κρίβανος ἄρτων), in order to placate the locals and either avert or stop the hostilities. The reference to Alexander does not necessarily mean that he was a character in the play or that he made a stage appearance; in fact, I consider this as a rather unlikely scenario. Metre The (recitative) anapaestic dimeter is the metre par excellence for food catalogues in Middle and New Comedy; cf. Intro. 7 “Metre”. 1 Ἀλεξάνδρου pretation”.

With all probability, this is Alexander of Pherai. Cf. “Inter-

1–2 Θετταλίας κολλικοφάγου The compound adjective κολλικοφάγος (bread-roll eating) is Aristophanes’ coinage, used once, in Ach. 872 (Dicaeopolis addressing the Theban): ὦ χαῖρε κολλικοφάγε Βοιωτίδιον (welcome, my bread-roll eating Boeotian). In Ephippus’ present fragment κολλικοφάγου is Kock’s felicitous emendation (cf. “Constitution of Text”). The first component, κόλλιξ, designates either a roll or a loaf of coarse bread, commonly made from barley. Hipponax fr. 26.6 considers κόλλιξ (regardless of its origin) as a cheap and humble kind of bread: κρίθινον κόλλικα, δούλιον χόρτον (coarse barley bread, fodder for slaves). Thessalian κόλλικες are mentioned and recommended for purchase by Archestr. fr. 5.12: κόλλιξ Θεσσαλικός σοι ὑπαρχέτω (go get yourself a Thessalian bread-roll); cf. Olson & Sens (2000) 31–32. The rich land of Thessaly, with its huge, endless fields and flat plains (X. HG 6.1.9 πλατυτάτης γε γὴν γῆς οὔσης Θετταλίας: Thessaly is an exceedingly flat land), was a bountifully producer of all kinds of high quality grain (and also of cattle and other goods as well). The Thessalian groats (χόνδρος, cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.1a) were considered the best, as the speaker in Antiph. fr. 36.3 maintains: οὐ Θετταλικὸν τὸν χρηστὸν εἶναί φασι δέ; (don’t they say that

30

Ephippus

the Thessalian variety is the best?); cf. Hermipp. fr. 63.6, Alex. fr. 196 (with Arnott 1996: 572), Eriph. fr. 6, Philetaer. fr. 10. On the agricultural production of ancient Greek economy in general, see Bresson (2016) 118–141. 2 κρίβανος κρίβανος (baking-pot) is the Attic form of κλίβανος (the latter form is identified as Doric by various sources; e. g. Hdn. 3.2 p. 538 Lentz, EM 538.19, Et.Gud. s. v. κρίβανος); cf. Ath. 3.110c Ἀττικοὶ μὲν διὰ τοῦ ρ στοιχείου λέγουσι καὶ κρίϐανον καὶ κριϐανίτην (Attic authors say ‘kribanos’ and ‘kribanitēs’ with a rho). The κρίβανος was a portable, covered piece of earthen cooking equipment, which was primarily (though not exclusively) used to bake bread, which was accordingly called κριϐανίτης (sc. ἄρτος). The κρίβανος was rounded and its shape resembled a bell, being wider at the bottom and narrower at the top. Either a small fire or hot embers were arranged all around its bottom, where a number of holes allowed for the resulting heat to enter the κρίβανος and cook any food item placed underneath; cf. EM 538.17–18: κρίβανος: σημαίνει τὴν κάμινον, ἔνθα ὤπτων τοὺς ἄρτους (‘kribanos’: it signifies the furnace, where they used to bake the bread), Et.Gud. s. v. κλίβανος: κλίβανος ὁ φοῦρνος, ἔνθα ὀπτῶσι τοὺς ἄρτους (‘klibanos’: klibanos is the oven, where they bake the bread), Dsc. 1.72.3 ἀγγείῳ κεραμεῷ, σωληνοειδεῖ [στενῷ] κατὰ τὰ ἄνωθεν, τρήματα δὲ ἐκ τῶν ὑπὸ πόδας ἔχοντι, ὥσπερ οἱ κλίβανοι (to an earthen vessel, pipe-shaped upwards, with holes around its feet, like the ‘klibanoi’). See further Blümner (21912) i.79–82, Cubberley 1995, Cubberley – Lloyd – Roberts 1988. Although κρίβανος was mostly associated with bread baking (e. g. Epich. fr. 46, Sophr. frr. 26 and 27, Ar. fr. 1, Antiph. fr. 174, Archestr. fr. 5, Amips. fr. 5 – cf. Orth 2013: 205–206), the surviving evidence demonstrates that it was occasionally used for cooking other foodstuffs as well, such as meat and fish; e. g. Sopat. fr. 5 εἴ που κλίβανος ἦν, πολὺ δέλφαξ σιτευτὸς ἔγρυξεν (if a ‘kribanos’ was available, the fatted pig would squeal amain), with Favi’s thorough comment ad loc. (2017: 312–314). See also A. fr. 309.1–2 ἐγὼ δὲ χοῖρον καὶ μάλ᾿ εὐθηλούμενον / τόνδ᾿ ἐν νοτοῦντι κριβάνῳ θήσω (I am going to put this piglet – a very well suckled one – into a moistened ‘kribanos’), Arr. Ind. 28.1 ἔφερον ἐκ τῆς πόλιος θύννους τε ἐν κριβάνοισιν ὀπτούς (they brought from the city tunny-fish baked in ‘kribanoi’); in addition, Archestr. fr. 14 advocates the cooking of some sea-fish (either a σκάρος: parrot-wrasse, or a σπάρος: bream) into a hot kribanos. Nonetheless, Ar. Ach. 85–86 should not be properly acknowledged as real evidence regarding the use of kribanos for cooking as big an animal as an ox (εἶτ᾽ ἐξένιζε παρετίθει θ᾽ ἡμῖν ὅλους / ἐκ κριβάνου βοῦς: then he threw us a party and served us up whole oxen cooked in a ‘kribanos’). Dicaeopolis’ reply alone (86–87 καὶ τίς εἶδε πώποτε / βοῦς κριβανίτας; τῶν ἀλαζονευμάτων: and who has ever seen oxen cooked in a ‘kribanos’? what swaggering charlatanism) strongly suggests that we should rather evaluate

Ἄρτεμις (fr. 1)

31

this claim as a purely preposterous and absurd exaggeration, designed to take the theme of Persian gluttony (ludicrously described earlier, lines 77–78) even further.2 Interestingly, there survives a testimony about a proverb (spuriously attributed to Plutarch), which allegedly records the invention of κρίβανος; [Plu.] Prov. fr. 28: Ἄννας κρίβανος: μυθεύεται [ὅτι] τὴν Ἄνναν Αἰγυπτίαν οὖσαν εἰς τὴν τῶν ἄρτων ὄπτησιν ἐπινενοηκέναι τὸν κρίβανον. ἀφ’ ἧς ἡ παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν καινόν τι ἐφευρηκότων (‘Anna’s kribanos’: rumour has it that some woman from Egypt called Anna has invented the ‘kribanos’ for the baking of bread; whence the proverb about those who have invented something new). For the Greeks’ renowned tendency to identify the first inventors of practically everything, see Kleingünther 1933. 2 κρίβανος ἄρτων A baking-pot full of bread. ἄρτων is a genitive of contents. Alexander’s gift is unusual and, arguably, rather preposterous. He sends as many bread-rolls as a kribanos can take in, along with the kribanos itself, in what amounts to a uniquely peculiar present; indeed, no parallel case of a kribanos being sent as a gift is recorded. Yet, kribanos was portable (cf. the study of relevant evidence by Cubberley – Lloyd – Roberts 1988), so its transfer from Thessaly to wherever the party/symposion/feast was held, should not have been a problem for Alexander. Yet, whilst preposterous (from the point of view of quantity of bread and the lack of any parallels), Alexander’s gift could simultaneously be considered a most apposite one; i. e. originating from the vast and grain-producing plains of Thessaly (cf. s. v. Θετταλίας κολλικοφάγου), bread, being a local product / specialty, makes for an oustanding gift, which was even to be expected.

2

The practice of cooking big animals (e. g. ox, horse, camel), common among the Persians, as Herodotus testifies (1.133), is an altogether different issue. What I presently question is the possibility of cooking such big animals in a κρίβανος (as claimed by the Ambassador in Aristophanes’ Acharnians l. c.). Herodotus (1.133) does not mention a κρίβανος, but a κάμινος (a larger structure that could accommodate an ox, a horse, a camel, etc.): οἱ εὐδαίμονες αὐτῶν βοῦν καὶ ἵππον καὶ κάμηλον καὶ ὄνον προτιθέαται ὅλους ὀπτοὺς ἐν καμίνοισι (before the rich are set oxen or horses or camels or asses, roasted whole in ovens).

32

Βούσιρις (Bousiris) (“Busiris”) Discussion Meineke 1,351; Bothe 489; Kock 2,251; Edmonds 2,146f. Title The title straightforwardly establishes a solid mythical backdrop to the plot (possibly, with some concomitant political allegory, as explained below). Mythological themes are mostly typical during Middle Comedy, often featuring an absurd, albeit interesting, amalgam of myth and contemporary reality (see Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”). Judging from the surviving evidence, Ephippus appears to have exhibited a special interest in mythological tradition relating to Heracles (cf. his play Geryon). The story of the mythical king of Egypt Busiris, son of Poseidon, who used to sacrifice his guests, in accordance with an oracle, until he was eventually killed by Heracles, is narrated in detail by [Apollod.] 2.116–117; at a time when Egypt was suffering from long-lasting dearth, a seer from Cyprus was said to have visited Busiris and advised him that as a cure he needed to sacrifice one stranger yearly to Zeus. Busiris started immediately by sacrificing the seer and kept doing the same with all strangers arriving at his land. But Heracles managed to trick Busiris and kill him along with his son. Busiris’ story was particularly popular among the comic playwrights, apparently because it entailed much comic potential, i. e. possibilities for burlesque and absurd plot twists. In the fifth century BC both Epicharmus and Cratinus wrote a Busiris (PCG 1,24 and 4,133f., respectively), whereas the fourth century saw the production of three Busiris-plays, by Antiphanes (PCG 2,345f.), Mnesimachus (PCG 7,17), and Ephippus. In addition, Euripides wrote a satyr play called Βούσιρις Σατυρικός (frr. 312b–315, plus testimonia; TrGF 5.1,368–370). It is noteworthy that the surviving material from Epicharmus’ Busiris (esp. fr. 18) constitutes the earliest comic evidence regarding the satirical portrayal of Heracles as both the epitome and the embodiment of gluttony. Additionally, Isocrates wrote an epideictic oration entitled Busiris (ca. 390–385 BC), albeit this was meant as a rhetorical exercise, a παίγνιον (entertainment, diversion); Isocrates himself acknowledges the triviality of the subject (§9): οὐ σπουδαίαν οὖσαν (sc. τὴν ὑπόθεσιν) οὐδὲ σεμνοὺς λόγους ἔχουσαν (even though the subject is not serious and does not call for a dignified style). Isocrates’ Busiris belongs to the category of “paradoxical encomia”, a sub-genre of epideictic oratory devoted to the praise of seemingly unpraiseworthy subjects / persons, etc.; Amphis fr. 1 features the same rhetorical disposition (praising hetairai over wives); see further Papachrysostomou (2016) 24–25, as well as Livingstone’s commentary (2001) of Isocrates’ speech. Ephippus’ present play probably staged Heracles’ arrival to Busiris’ court in Egypt. The play must have featured mythical burlesque and several unexpected plot twists; with all probability, the mythical figure of Busiris was arbitrarily pulled out of the mythical world and plunged into the poet’s contemporary era (for this

Βούσιρις

33

thematic/stylistic trend see Papachrysostomou 2017). It is also conceivable that the play constituted a large-scale political allegory, which gave the play a strong topical flavour and provided for the mythical and the real world to dynamically infiltrate one another (cf. Cratinus’ Dionysalexandrus, with Bakola 2010: 180–229). In particular, it is likely that the figure of Heracles served as a comic disguise for the Greek general Nicostratus of Argos, who – according to Diodorus of Sicily (16.44.3–4) – ἐμιμεῖτο τὸν Ἡρακλέα κατὰ τὰς στρατείας καὶ λεοντῆν ἐφόρει καὶ ῥόπαλον ἐν ταῖς μάχαις (he imitated Heracles when on a campaign by wearing a lion’s skin and carrying a club in battle). This hypothesis looks even more attractive, if we consider that (a) Ephippus takes interest in Nicostratus elsewhere in his work (fr. 17.2, ubi vide s. v. Νικόστρατος), where the Argive general is explicitly compared to Heracles (he is termed ἕτερος Ἡρακλῆς; see comm. s. v.); and (b) Nicostratus was commissioned in 343 BC by the Persian king Artaxerxes III (known as ‘Ochus’) to lead a military force of three thousand Argive mercenaries and join his (second and eventually victorious) expedition against Egypt and its ruler, the pharaoh Nectanebo II (‘Nakhthorheb’); cf D.S. 16.44.2–3, with Stronk (2017) 194–274. Hence, it is conceivable that in the present play Heracles allegorically stands for Nicostratus, Heracles’ warlike fellow Argives (referred to by Heracles in the surviving fragment) symbolize the Argive mercenaries under Nicostratus’ orders, while the mythical figure of the Egyptian king Busiris alludes to the real-life Egyptian ruler Nectanebo II. Eventually, both Egyptian masters were overpowered; Busiris was single-handedly defeated by (the original) Heracles, while Nectanebo’s overthrow was considerably aided by Nicostratus, the second Heracles (ἕτερος Ἡρακλῆς, as Ephippus calls him). It is significant that Nicostratus was believed to have madness mingled with his intelligence (D.S. 16.44.3 μεμιγμένην δ᾿ ἔχων τῇ φρονήσει μανίαν), just like his mythological counterpart, Heracles (see Stafford 2012: 87–92, 97 with fig. 3.1, 100–103). The historical events are narrated by Diodorus of Sicily (16.40ff.), who probably draws on Theopompus (FGrH 115) and Ephorus (FGrH 70); on Diodorus’ sources see Stronk (2017) 31–85. On Artaxerxes III Ochus see Briant (2002) 680–690 (on his reign), and Ruzicka (2012) 154–198 (on his two major invasions of Egypt). It is instructive (and supporting of the proposed plot reconstruction) that, even before the production of Ephippus’ Busiris, Middle Comedy had already exhibited a political interest in current affairs between Greece and Egypt. In particular, Anaxandr. fr. 40 is believed to allude to the alliance forged between the Egyptian king Tachos and the Athenian general Chabrias against the Persians in 361 BC; see Millis (2015) 186–193; Will 1960. Of course, the exact nature of Ephippus’ present adaptation of the mythical tradition on Busiris, as well as the extent of the concomitant mythological parody, remain elusive. Yet, since we have no reason to disbelieve Athenaeus (who preserves the play’s single surviving fragment), we can – at least – confidently establish that Heracles appeared on stage and had a speaking part. Busiris must have been a character in the play too (cf. “Interpretation”).

34

Ephippus

Date The play Busiris belongs to Ephippus’ late career (cf. Intro. 2 “Chronology & Career”). Edmonds (2,147) suggests the year 342 BC as the play’s production date, taking into consideration the Argive participation in the invasion in Egypt by the Persian king’s military forces, which had taken place the previous year (cf. “Title”). Indeed, if we are willing to detect a contemporary, political flavour in this play, with the Argive general Nicostratus lurking behind the figure of Heracles (being a speaker in fr. 2), then we should accordingly acknowledge the year 343 BC as a probable terminus post quem for the play’s performance.

fr. 2 (2 K.) (Ἡρ.) οὐκ οἶσθά μ᾿ ὄντα, πρὸς θεῶν, Τιρύνθιον Ἀργεῖον; οἳ μεθύοντες αἰεὶ τὰς μάχας πάσας μάχονται. (B.) τοιγαροῦν φεύγουσ᾿ ἀεί 1–2 Ἀργεῖον om. Ath. CE, Eust. 2 αἰεὶ τὰς Ath. A: ἀεὶ τὰς Ath. CE, Eust. 3 τοιγαροῦν Ath. ACE, Eust.: ταῦτ’ ἄρ’ οὖν Kaibel ἀεί Ath. CE, Eust., Macr. P: αἰεί Ath. A

(Her.) Don’t you know, by the gods, that I’m a Tirynthian Argive? These people always fight all their battles drunk. (B.) It is exactly for that very reason that they always run away Ath. 10.442d–e κωμῳδοῦνται δὲ ὡς μέθυσοι Ἀργεῖοι μὲν καὶ Τιρύνθιοι ὑπὸ Ἐφίππου ἐν Βουσίριδι (fab. nom. om. CE). ποιεῖ δὲ τὸν Ἡρακλέα λέγοντα· οὐκ — ἀεί (hinc Eust. in Il. p. 1178,34) The Argives and the Tirynthians are satirized for being drunks by Ephippus in Busiris. He represents Heracles as saying: “Don’t — away” Macrobius Saturnalia 5.21.17 multibibum heroa istum fuisse, ut taceam quae vulgo nota sunt, illud non obscurum argumentum est quod Ephippus in Busiride inducit Herculem sic loquentem: οὐκ — ἀεί To say nothing of what’s common knowledge, the hero’s great fondness for drink is plainly shown by the fact that Ephippus, in his “Busiris”, brings Hercules onstage saying: “Don’t — away”

Metre Iambic trimeter

llkl l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llk|l kklkl llkl (triemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkl l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,322f.; Bothe 489; Kock 2,251; Edmonds 2,146f.; PCG 5,132; Nesselrath (1990) 327; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 484; Rusten & Henderson 482

Βούσιρις (fr. 2)

35

Citation Context (a) Athenaeus. Towards the beginning of Book 10 of Deipnosophistae the symposiarch Ulpian prompts the banqueters to move from eating to drinking: 10.422e ἐπεὶ δεδείπναμεν (since we have finished our dinner) ... 423a εὐχόμενοι κεραννύωμεν (let us pray to the gods and mix some wine). Thereupon, the banqueters engage in a lively discussion (wherein Ephipp. fr. 10 is quoted; cf. “Citation Context” ad loc.) regarding all aspects of wine, including drunkenness as distinctive trait of whole peoples (442b καὶ ὅλα δὲ ἔθνη περὶ μέθας διατρίβοντα μνήμης ἠξίωται: whole peoples, moreover, have been thought to deserve being described as spending all their time drunk). Ephippus’ present fragment is meant to serve as evidence regarding the – allegedly – habitual drunkenness of Argives and Tirynthians. Luckily, Athenaeus identifies for us the first speaker as Heracles. Eustathius (in Il. p. 1178,34) also preserves Ephippus’ fragment, directly drawing / copying from Athenaeus’ Epitome (hence, he omits the play’s title; cf. “Constitution of Text”). (b) Macrobius. At the beginning of section 21 of Book 5 of Saturnalia, Macrobius notes how Virgil commonly uses Greek names of drinking-cups (“nomina poculorum Vergilius plerumque Graeca ponit, ut carchesia, ut cymbia, ut cantharos, ut scyphos”: for the most part Virgil uses Greek names of vessels, like ‘carchesia’, ‘cymbia’, ‘canthari’, ‘scyphi’). Macrobius then proceeds to an individual study of each type of cup; when he reaches σκύφος, he identifies it as Heracles’ cup (5.21.16 “scyphus Herculis poculum est”), and thereupon he makes a short digression about Heracles’ stereotypical fondness of wine; in this context, he quotes Ephippus’ present fragment as an additional piece of evidence. Constitution of Text The Epitome codices C and E omit the play’s title (on Athenaeus’ Epitome see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). The same two codices (along with Eustathius, who copies from the Epitome) preserve a truncated version of the fragment, since they omit the entire first line along with the first word (Ἀργεῖον) of the second line; i. e. the quotation begins from οἳ μεθύοντες (line 2). In line 2 codex A (Marcianus) preserves the correct reading αἰεὶ τὰς, which produces a longum at the eighth position as required by the metre, as opposed to ἀεὶ τὰς (preserved by the codices C and E, and Eustathius), which produces an unmetrical short element for that position. In line 3 the manuscript tradition unanimously preserves τοιγαροῦν, but Kaibel suggested the reading ταῦτ’ ἄρ’ οὖν instead; however, since τοιγαροῦν scans correctly and poses no other problem (on the level of either grammar or syntax), there is no reason to alter the tradition’s original reading. At the end of line 3 we witness one of those rare instances where codex A is erroneous in preserving the unmetrical αἰεί (a textbook case of dittography, given the αἰεὶ featuring in the previous line), whilst the Epitome (along with Eustathius and Macrobius’ codex P) is right in preserving the correct reading ἀεί, which provides the necessary short element for the line’s penultimate position. Interpretation This is one of the rare, felicitous cases where the play’s title bears direct relation to the surviving fragment. In a comic play entitled Busiris one nor-

36

Ephippus

mally expects Heracles to play a central role. Thanks to Athenaeus’ introductory note (10.442d ποιεῖ δὲ τὸν Ἡρακλέα λέγοντα), we do know that the character who utters the first two and a half lines is indeed Heracles, whose bombastic style (in the lines of “don’t you know who I am?”) recalls the typical comic figure of the braggart soldier (cf. Nesselrath 1990: 427; on the soldier figure see Ephipp. The Peltast “Title”). Heracles’ collocutor, character B, if not Busiris himself, must be someone related to Busiris; perhaps one of his slaves/attendants or soldiers. Judging from what Heracles says (i. e. that he and his companions go to battle drunk) and how he says it (i. e. using a bellicose rhetorical question), it is reasonable to presume that Heracles recently had more than enough to drink and now is fairly tipsy, if not entirely drunk (for Heracles as an epic wine-drinker see comm. s. v. μεθύοντες). Hence, it is conceivable that the present fragment followed a feast/symposion that Busiris held in honour of the newly arrived Heracles ahead of sacrificing him to Zeus, according to the custom he observed (cf. “Title”). It is also likely that at this symposion Heracles drank to excess (and probably ate in the same way too, adhering to Comedy’s stereotypical portrayal of him as both a drunkard and a glutton), and now he envisages fighting – either Busiris in a duel or Busiris’ army – in order to save his life (and the life of any companions possibly travelling with him). Heracles’ overall speaking style (the expression οὐκ οἶσθα and the ensuing rhetorical question, the invocation to gods, plus the twofold enjambment) is rather quarrelsome and suggests that Heracles is seeking both to intimidate his opponent and reassure himself. Heracles sounds fairly agitated (perhaps because of some plot element that we cannot recover) and seems to assume that wine/drunkenness enhances the military performance of himself and his fellow Tirynthians / Argives (NB this is a typical example of the common literary topos that wine inspires people and drastically improves their performance in all fields of action; see comm. s. v. μεθύοντες). Yet, Heracles’ claim is immediately rebuked by speaker B, who refuses to take him and his intentions seriously; B’s response to Heracles takes away all solemnity and plays down Heracles’ pretentious assumption, while it also serves as a counter-argument regarding wine’s beneficial effects. One should always bear in mind that in this play Heracles stands – with all probability – as a comic disguise for the real-life figure of the Argive general Nicostratus (cf. “Title”); hence, all ridicule against Heracles may be ultimately directed against the bellicose Argive general. The same style of aggressive, daredevil address towards one’s prospective enemy in battlefield is also found in Mnesim. fr. 7 (from the play Philip), where Demosthenes defiantly addresses Philip of Macedon (lines 1–3): ἆρ’ οἶσθ’ ὁτιὴ πρὸς ἄνδρας ἐστί σοι μάχη, / οἳ τὰ ξίφη δειπνοῦμεν ἠκονημένα / ὄψον δὲ δᾷδας ἡμμένας καταπίνομεν; (don’t you know that in us you are going to fight against men who dine on sharpened swords and swallow blazing torches as a relish?); see Papachrysostomou (2008) 210–216, Mastellari (2020) 453–467. 1a οὐκ οἶσθα A common expression typically used (mostly in poetry but also in prose) to introduce a rhetorical question. It constitutes a stylistic / rhetoric fea-

Βούσιρις (fr. 2)

37

ture that conveys the speaker’s heightened emotional state (commonly irritation, agitation, anxiety, impatience, anger, rage). Despite the presence of the cognitive verb, this expression is not meant to target the collocutor’s literal ignorance of something, but it is rather designed to emphasize something that the collocutor already knows but does not seem to properly evaluate or fully comprehend (and, as a result, he behaves/talks in an irritating and incongruous way); e. g. E. Alc. 677–678 οὐκ οἶσθα Θεσσαλόν με κἀπὸ Θεσσαλοῦ / πατρὸς γεγῶτα γνησίως ἐλεύθερον; (do you not know that I am a freeborn Thessalian, legitimately begotten of a Thessalian father?), S. Aj. 1291–1292 οὐκ οἶσθα σοῦ πατρὸς μὲν ὃς προὔφυ πατὴρ / τἀρχαῖον ὄντα Πέλοπα βάρβαρον Φρύγα; (do you not know that the father of your father, Pelops, was by origin a barbarous Phrygian?), Ar. Lys. 469–470 οὐκ οἶσθα λουτρὸν οἷον αἵδ’ ἡμᾶς ἔλουσαν ἄρτι / ἐν τοῖσιν ἱματιδίοις, καὶ ταῦτ’ ἄνευ κονίας; (don’t you comprehend the kind of bath they’ve given us just now, when we were still in our clothes, and without soap to boot?). See also S. Ant. 316; E. Alc. 523; [E.] Rh. 20–21, 269–270; X. Mem. 2.1.13, 2.7.6. An akin expression, of quasi-equivalent rhetorical impact to οὐκ οἶσθα, is ἆρ’ οἶσθα, used in comparable contexts, e. g. Mnesim. fr. 7.1–2 (cf. “Interpretation” above) ἆρ’ οἶσθ’ ὁτιὴ πρὸς ἄνδρας ἐστί σοι μάχη, / οἳ τὰ ξίφη δειπνοῦμεν ἠκονημένα (don’t you know that in us you are going to fight against men who dine on sharpened swords; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 214, Mastellari 2020: 458), Ar. Av. 668–669, Alex. fr. 223.14–17, Nicostr.Com. fr. 30, etc.; cf. Denniston (21954) 44–51. 1b Τιρύνθιον Heracles was a member of the Argive royal line through both his putative father Amphitryon and his mother Alcmene (both Amphitryon and Alcmene were descendants of Perseus, the legendary founder of Mycenae). Accordingly, Heracles was commonly considered to be of Argive origin, despite the fact that he was born in Thebes (e. g. h.Merc. 1–3), where Amphitryon (along with Alcmene) was exiled for having (accidentally) killed his brother. Yet, throughout mythological tradition Heracles is visualized as closely associated with specifically the city of Tiryns, which was an early and legendary settlement in Argolis, believed to have been walled by the Cyclopes; cf. Str. 8.6.11 τειχίσαι διὰ Κυκλώπων (NB that Heracles’ labours were dictated by Eurystheus, king of Tiryns). Accordingly, the present fragment explicitly pinpoints Heracles’ origin as specifically Tirynthian; i. e. Heracles is not merely described as originating from the region of Argolis (Ἀργεῖον), but he is self-identified using the ethnic Τιρύνθιον as being a genuine native of the city of Tiryns (Τίρυνς), a true-born Tirynthian; understandably, the fact that Heracles himself is the speaker lends further weight to and validates the claim. Parallel information on Heracles’ Tirynthian origin is found in E. fr. 696.4–5 (from the play Telephus; where the title-figure delivers the prologue) Αὔγη γὰρ Ἀλέου παῖς με τῷ Τιρυνθίῳ / τίκτει λαθραίως Ἡρακλεῖ (for Aleus’ daughter Auge bore me secretly to Heracles of Tiryns). Additionally, in Call. Dian. 146 Heracles is called Τιρύνθιος ἄκμων (Tirynthian anvil), and Pindar (O. 10.31–32) describes Heracles’ army as Τιρύνθιον / … αὐτῷ στρατόν (his army of Tirynthians); cf. Pi. I. 6.28. See next note for further comm.

38

Ephippus

For supplementary mythological details regarding Heracles’ birth and Hera’s scheming plots (how she delayed Heracles’ birth and precipitated the birth of Eurystheus instead), see Hom. Il. 19.96–133, [Hes.] Sc. 27–56, D.S. 4.9.1–5, [Apollod.] 2.53, 2.61–62, Ovid Met. 9.285–303, etc. Cf. Stafford (2012) 3–20. 1–2 Τιρύνθιον / Ἀργεῖον These two ethnic adjectives asyndetically and emphatically designate Heracles’ origin as a Tirynthian Argive or a Tirynthian from Argolis (NB the elaborate style featuring enjambment). There are two – not necessarily mutually exclusive – ways to interpret this double definition of Heracles’ origin (cf. previous note), which, admittedly, may seem superfluous at first sight (i. e. if a Tirynthian, one would also qualify automatically as an Argive, since Tiryns is located within the region of Argolis). On one hand, this emphatic phraseology can be explained merely through syntax: Ἀργεῖον is the second consecutive ethnic in the sentence, immediately following Τιρύνθιον; hence, syntactically this is a typical case of attributive apposition (cf. Smyth 1956: §986). The ethnic Ἀργεῖος designates someone who originates either specifically from the city of Argos or generally from anywhere within the area of Argolis; in the present case, the latter sense is preferred, given Heracles’ explicit association with Tiryns. On the other hand, there is a good case to be made for a more elaborate (and, perhaps, imaginative) interpretation, based on Bothe’s elucidation (1825: 16) of E. Heracl. 163 (NB Bothe adopts the mss’ reading Τιρυνθίοις θεὶς πόλεμον Ἀργείοις ἔχειν and not Kirchhoff ’s conjecture τί ῥυσιασθείς, π. Ἀ. ἔ.). The present fragment’s dual characterization of Heracles as Τιρύνθιον Ἀργεῖον may be understood as an echo of the geopolitical circumstances within the region of Argolis. In the early-mid 460s BC (the precise date can hardly be fixed) the Argives razed the city of Tiryns to the ground and forced the Tirynthian citizens to move to Argos; cf. Paus. 8.27 ἀνθρώπων πλήθει τὸ Ἄργος ἐπηύξησαν καταλύσαντες Τίρυνθα (they increased the population of Argos by destroying Tiryns), and Paus. 2.25.8. This attack against Tiryns (and other cities in Argolis, such as Hysiae, Orneae, Mideia, and Mycenae) was part of the Argives’ plan to increase their (man)power against the constant threat that Sparta posed to Argos; see Forrest (1960) 230–232 (favouring the year 465 BC for the Argive capture of Tiryns), Andrewes 1990, Lewis (21992) 107. In the aftermath of Tiryns’ destruction (even a century later the political memories of such an event would not have been obliterated), the characterization Τιρύνθιος Ἀργεῖος would reasonably highlight an individual’s origin (Heracles’ in this case) not as vaguely Argive, but as genuinely Tirynthian, i. e. tracing back to the legendary city of Tiryns with the famous walls, which they were believed to be (Paus. 2.25.8) a Κυκλώπων ἔργον, made of ἀργῶν λίθων (unwrought stones), μέγεθος ἔχων ἕκαστος λίθος ὡς ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν μηδ᾿ ἂν ἀρχὴν κινηθῆναι τὸν μικρότατον ὑπὸ ζεύγους ἡμιόνων (each stone being so big that a pair of mules could not move the smallest from its place to the slightest degree). NB the mythical/ancestral glory attached to the city of Tiryns had always been unsettling for Argos. For the rivalry (political, cultural, and other) between Argos and Tiryns during the fifth century (and beyond) see Kiechle 1960.

Βούσιρις (fr. 2)

39

Regardless of how we choose to interpret the twofold designation of Heracles’ origin, a case of enjambment is not to be missed here; as a matter of fact, this is the first of two consecutive enjambments in this fragment (cf. s. v. τὰς μάχας πάσας μάχονται). This enjambment further accentuates the pugnacious style that the rhetorical question already introduces (cf. s. v. οὐκ οἶσθα). The double enjambment featuring in this fragment can be interpreted as a symptom of Heracles’ inebriation, i. e. he is fairly tipsy so he can hardly coordinates his speech, and simultaneously as a symptom of his overall agitation/irritation (for which wine is probably to blame, at least in part). 2 μεθύοντες Speaking on behalf of his fellow Tirynthians, Heracles claims – rather preposterously – that they (the Tirynthians and, by extension, all Argives) fight all their battles whilst drunk, thereby implying that (i) wine makes them daredevil, fearless, and invincible, and (ii) wine-drinking is practically inherent to their nature. Interestingly, the latter piece of information regarding Tirynthians – Argives occurs nowhere else but in Ael. VH 3.15 καὶ Ἀργεῖοι δὲ καὶ Τιρύνθιοι κεκωμῴδηνται καὶ οὗτοι ἀκρατέστερον τῷ οἴνῳ προσιόντες (the Argives and the Tirynthians were also ridiculed in comedy for their fondness of nearly unmixed wine). A reasonable assumption is that Ephippus’ present fragment served as Aelian’s single source. However, the detail regarding the consumption of almost unmixed wine is perplexing, since it is absent from Ephippus’ fragment. This could mean that (a) Aelian consulted another source, outside Ephippus, which is now lost to us or (b) at Aelian’s time a bigger chunk of Ephippus’ play was available (perhaps the whole lot) and that the detail on the unmixed wine was mentioned somewhere in it. Within the surviving comic corpus Heracles is universally portrayed as the comic figure of excess par excellence and is accordingly satirized as both an epic eater and a wine-drinker on the grand scale. The archetypical (and earliest) comic passage of this kind is Epich. fr. 18; similar instances include Ar. Pax 741, Av. 1583–1605, Ra. 503–511, 549–576; Archipp. fr. 10; Cratin. fr. 346; Phryn.Com. fr. 24; Stratt. fr. 12; Alex. fr. 140; Eub. fr. 6 (cf. Hunter 1983: 90–93), etc. For analyses of the Heracles theme in Comedy see Galinsky (1972) 81–100, Degani 1995, Wilkins (2000a) 90–97, Hill (2011) 81–102, Stafford (2012) 104–116. For reflections of Comedy in contemporary art see Metzger (1951) 405 no. 37. This twofold visualization of Heracles (as a glutton and a wine-lover) is not limited to the comic genre but permeates the entire Greek literature, beginning from Homer (Od. 11.601–603, where Heracles is described as taking joy in feasts: τέρπεται ἐν θαλίῃς) and extending down to the Hellenistic era (e. g. Call. Dian. 146–151). Admittedly, Heracles’ gluttony is omnipresent and is celebrated/satirized by comedy much more often than the hero’s concomitant fondness of wine; yet, the latter is not at all a negligible aspect of Heracles’ (comic) portrayal. The present fragment is one of these cases that exemplify Heracles’ regular habit of excessive wine-drinking; other similar passages include Alex. fr. 88 (cf. Arnott 1996: 233–236) where Heracles is described as a wineskin (ἀσκός) and a meal-sack (θύλακος), Diph. 45 (from the play Heracles)

40

Ephippus

where Heracles confesses that he has been drinking quite a lot: ἐμὲ μὲν οὐχ ὁρᾷς πεπωκότα; (don’t you see I’ve been drinking?), Ar. Ra. 511 (where Persephone is reported to have been mixing some very sweet wine ahead of Heracles’ alleged return to the Underworld), E. Alc. 773–802 (where the intoxicated Heracles, being in a state of euphoria, advocates a carefree lifestyle accompanied by consumption of wine: εὔφραινε σαυτόν, πῖνε, τὸν καθ’ ἡμέραν / βίον λογίζου σόν, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα τῆς τύχης (788–789): cheer your heart, drink, regard this day’s life as yours but all else as Fortune’s). Regarding Heracles’ assumption that wine imbues the Tirynthians – Argives with fearlessness, this is a manifestation of the common motif that wine stimulates and envigorates people in various ways, both physically and mentally. Under wine’s intoxicating effect people tend to be more audacious and valiant, exhibit a daredevil behaviour, act more spontaneously and more resourcefully, and engage less in rigorous calculations of any potential failure or negative results that may come out of the chosen course of action. In the present case, not only the tipsy/ drunk Heracles does defiantly confront his collocutor (and is ready to fight), but also the Tirynthians are reported as fighting their battles drunk. Arguably, the importance of this claim is not exhausted in humorously interpreting it as merely ridiculing the Tirynthians as bibulous people; instead, its essential weight lies deeper, with the fact that it is wine that makes the Tirynthians fiery, daring, and defiant of any risk involved, i. e. death in this case. The early position of the participle μεθύοντες within the relative clause (i. e. immediately after the introductory relative pronoun) further substantiates the emphasis that the speaker wishes to place on the participle’s meaning. The veracity of this motif regarding wine’s multifaceted enhancing impact is fervently argued by the speaker in Amphis fr. 33.1–2: κατὰ πόλλ’ ἐπαινῶ μᾶλλον ἡμῶν τὸν βίον / τὸν τῶν φιλοποτῶν (on many accounts I praise the life of us, the drink-lovers), and further down (lines 7–10): διὰ τὸ μὴ σαφῶς / τί ποτ’ ἀφ’ ἑκάστου πράγματος συμϐήσεται / διαλελογίσθαι δρᾷ τι καὶ νεανικὸν / καὶ θερμόν (as a result of not having calculated exactly what may ever come out of every single action, [someone] accomplishes something that is both daring and fiery); see Papachrysostomou (2016) 211–219, 71–72 . On an even bigger scale, Cratinus wrote an entire play, Πυτίνη (The Wine-flask; 423 BC), where he played up to Aristophanes’ satire of his bibulousness (mostly in the Knights of the previous year); with all probability, the play ended with Cratinus being triumphantly established as Dionysus’ inebriated servant and with Μέθη (Drunkenness) being sanctioned as his true passion for intoxicated inspiration; cf. Bakola (2010) 59–63. In addition, Athenaeus (10.428f–429a) preserves an array of anecdotes regarding how various poets used to write poetry whilst drunk (μεθύοντες ἔγραφον τὰ ποιήματα), such as Aeschylus, the lyric poet Alcaeus, and Aristophanes. To this miscellany of testimonies, Athenaeus adds a remark – pertinent to the present fragment – about how many other men (though without providing any further identification) fought more brilliantly in war when drunk: πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι μεθυσκόμενοι λαμπρότερον ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ἠγωνίσαντο (10.429a); further down

Βούσιρις (fr. 2)

41

(10.435b), Athenaeus preserves a testimony by Theopompus (FGrH 115 F 236) who describes how the Macedonian king Philip II often went into battle drunk (πολλάκις μεθύων ἐξεβοήθει). On wine inducing people to speak the truth see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 25.2. The bibliography concerning various aspects of wine and its role in society, politics, and military affairs is vast; exempli gratia, see Tolles (1943) 77–90; Murray 1990a, 1990b, 1991; Bowie 1995; Wilkins (2000a) 202–256; Wilkins & Hill (2006) 166–186; Pütz (22007) 156–174; Osborne 2014. 2–3 τὰς μάχας / πάσας μάχονται The pleonastic use of the verb μάχομαι along with its cognate object (μάχη) is intentional and emphatic. The defiant image of Tirynthians that Heracles wishes to communicate is further highlighted through a conspicuous case of enjambment. Assuming a less pretentious style, Heracles could have simply said something like μάχονται αἰεί, which would essentially render the same meaning (they always fight vs they fight all their battles), albeit without the emphasis that Heracles presently seeks. This emphatic syntactical structure, featuring both the verb μάχομαι and the noun μάχη as cognate object, is not uncommon in Greek literature; it occurs already in Homer in two stereotypical versions, μάχην ἐμάχοντο (Il. 12.175, 15.414, 15.673) and ἐμάχοντο μάχην (Il. 18.533, Od. 9.54). See also Hdt. 5.119 (μάχην ἐμαχέσαντο), 9.46 (τὴν μάχην αὐτῶν ἐν Μαραθῶνι μαχεσάμενοι); Isoc. 6.54 (μηδὲ μίαν μάχην ἀξίαν λόγου φαίνεσθαι μεμαχημένους); X. Ages. 5.5 (μάχεσθαί γε μέντοι πάλιν τὴν αὐτὴν μάχην), etc. 3a τοιγαροῦν This is the strengthened type of the inferential particle τοιγάρ (therefore, accordingly), which is the result of the latter’s combination with the adverb οὖν (certainly). The emphatic τοιγαροῦν means for that very reason and naturally refers to something that has already been mentioned in the preceding sentence; it is used in both prose and poetry. In poetry τοιγαροῦν occasionally occurs in instances of antilabē, introducing the second part of a line, just like in the present fragment; cf. Antiph. frr. 163.2 and 192.13, S. OT 1519. 3b φεύγουσ᾿ ἀεί This is a sarcastic comment by speaker B, who nonchalantly plays down Heracles’ bombastic claim. The comment probably hints to at least one occasion, where some Argive military corps was forced to retreat, perhaps rather chaotically (as the verb φεύγω implies, i. e. flee, abandon the battle-field running). The adverb ἀεί should not be understood literally (i. e. as if this was a regular habit of Argive army), but instead it should be interpreted as a comic exaggeration (i. e. a single historical event or a couple of such instances are mockingly presented in a distorted, exaggerated way). Instructively, Diodorus of Sicily (16.34.3, 16.39.4) records a significant case of a military defeat of Argive forces that were overpowered by the Spartan army in 352 BC, near the city of Ὀρνε(ι)αί (Orneae) in Argolis. We cannot say with certainty whether B’s scornful insinuation was meant to refer to that particular Argive retreat/defeat or to some other occasion; see comm. under “Date” and “Title” for the play’s probable performance after the year 343 BC.

42

Γηρυόνης (Gēryonēs) (“Geryon”) Discussion 5,132

Meineke 1,351f.; Bothe 489f.; Kock 2,251; Edmonds 2,146f.; PCG

Title The mythical title-figure of Geryon directly establishes a firm mythical background for the present play. At the same time, one of the surviving fragments (fr. 5) – besides its mythical quintessence – contains allusive references to the play’s contemporary political reality. Mythical themes are typical of Middle Comedy; in particular, mythological parody – of varied extent – is often a common ingredient of the comic plot. Equally typical of the era is the intermittent emergence of comedy’s odd political taste; (cf. Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”). It is likely that the present play featured an imaginative amalgam of these two core elements, i. e. myth burlesque and politics. Geryon was a three-headed and three-bodied grotesque creature, son of the Oceanid Callirrhoe and Chrysaor (the latter being an offspring of Poseidon and Medusa), who was imagined dwelling in the very far west, on the island of Erytheia (Ἐρύθεια) that was situated beyond the Pillars of Heracles (modern Strait of Gibraltar; cf. Hdt. 4.8, Scyl. 26.14–15 GGM). According to the mythical tradition, Geryon was killed by Heracles, when the latter reached Erytheia (sailing in a golden cup, δέπας, given to him by the Sun), in order to accomplish his tenth labour, which consisted of stealing Geryon’s cattle (and herding them back to Eurystheus). Given the remote, non-Athenian habitat of the mythical Geryon, it is possible that the present play was accordingly situated in a locus other than Athens (cf. comm. on fr. 3.5). Ephippus had a special predilection for mythical material related to Heracles (cf. his play Busiris, and Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”). Aspects of Geryon’s myth occur in Greek literature as early as Hesiod (Th. 287–294, 979–983). Stesichorus’ fragmentarily surviving Gēryonēis (Γαρυοναΐς; originally consisting of at least 1300 lines, of which only some 180 are now readable) features all basic elements of the myth, including a soliloquy by Geryon pondering his death (fr. 15 Davies & Finglass 2014); for detailed analysis see the monographs of Lazzeri (2008) and Curtis (2011), as well as the commented edition by Davies & Finglass 2014 (esp. the useful overview in pp. 243–248); cf. Eisenfeld 2018, and Noussia-Fantuzzi 2013. A number of other ancient authors also preserve various details of Geryon’s myth (genealogy, dwelling, monstrous appearance and gruesome anatomy), including his confrontation with Heracles; e. g. Ibyc. 282A.viii.18–19, Pi. fr. 169a, A. fr. 74 (from the play Heraclids) and Ag. 870, E. HF 423–424, D.S. 4.17, [Apollod.] 2.42 and 2.106–112. Cf. Gantz (1993) 402–408 and LIMC iv.1.186–190, v.1.81–85. Yet, Geryon’s myth was not particularly popular among the dramatic poets; remarkably, Ephippus’ present play is the only example of a comic play with this title. As far as the tragic genre is concerned, there is only one surviving play-title Γηρυόνης, but no fragments, by Nicomachus Alexandr. (TrGF 127). Ephippus’

Γηρυόνης

43

current handling of Geryon’s myth must have undoubtedly featured substantial mythological parody; at the same time, it is likely – as has already been suggested by various scholars – that the play contained a number of (veiled, oblique or straightforward) political allusions and/or that it even constituted a full-scale political allegory (cf. Ephippus’ Busiris, comm. under “Title”), of the type that was often practised in Old Comedy (e. g. Aristophanes’ Knights, Eupolis’ Marikas, Plato’s Cleophon and Hyperbolus). A common dramaturgical practice of Greek comedy, especially in the period of Middle, is the time- and space-travelling of mythical figures, whereby myth and reality get intertwined in all sorts of imaginative ways (see Papachrysostomou 2017 and Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs” for further analysis and bibliography). It is highly probable that Ephippus adhered to this “time- and space-travelling” technique in the composition of his Geryon. It is likely that the mythological figure of gigantic and monstrous Geryon was transferred to the poet’s contemporary reality and, keeping the defining attributes of mythological monstrosity, coarseness, and vulgarity, functioned as a comic disguise for some real-life character (cf. Konstantakos 2014: 170–171), and particularly as a disguise for some (domineering) king. Ephippus’ figure of Geryon has variously been interpreted as being a comic disguise for (i) the Athenian general Timotheus (Dušanić 1980–1981), (ii) Alexander the Great (Meineke 1,351f., Bothe 489f., Kock 2,251, Droysen ap. Meineke 3,325 and Kock l. c.), and (iii) the Persian king (Webster 21970: 40–42, Davidson 1993: 61). An altogether different, non-political, interpretation is put forward by Pernigotti (2000), who focuses on the fragment’s legacy regarding litetary motifs and metrical patterns. From within the politically-oriented interpretations, I consider option (i) as the weakest, since Timotheus was not a king (of course, he could have been portrayed as such, but this scenario would need a lot more hypothesizing and precarious guesswork, of the kind that Dušanić pursued). Option (ii) necessitates a rather late production date for the play (after 336 BC); NB the main reason for advancing option (ii) was the erroneous assessment regarding the date of Celts’ first involvement in Greek affairs (cf. “Date”). Option (iii) is likely, although it heavily relies on the absence of the definite article in front of βασιλεύς (line 9), as unmistakably evoking the Persian king (cf. e. g. Davidson’s staunch confidence; 1993: 61), whereas this may be due to other reasons, currently obscured by the passage’s fragmentary nature; besides, the entire passage balances on a – fairly stretched – syntactic tightrope (cf. comm. on lines 4, 12, 14, 17). Nesselrath (1990: 218–221) draws a parallel with Anaxandrides’ Prōtesilaos (PCG 2,259–264; cf. Millis 2015: 194–237), presents a synopsis of previous scholarly opinions, and proceeds to suggest that Ephippus staged a rationalized version of the myth featuring not a monstrous Geryon figure, but instead one reduced to normal human size. Konstantakos (2011: 232ff.) argues – rather convincingly – against Nesselrath’s humanization / rationalization scenario. (On aspects of myth rationalization in Greek Comedy in general see Sumler 2014.)

44

Ephippus

Here I would like to advance a fourth interpretative option, which I consider the strongest candidate so far; this is Philip II of Macedon. First of all, Philip would be a most intriguing and interesting comic target, since he was an enormously influential figure and a largely unconventional personality of the mid-fourth century BC, whose actions and initiatives inaugurated a new era in Greek politics and warfare, paving the way for Alexander’s colossal expedition to the East (see Squillace 2009; Müller 2010; Worthington 2014: 25–119; Ober 2015: 239–240, 268–291). We already know of another play from Middle Comedy, which was entirely dedicated to Philip (and was probably set in Macedon); this is the play Φίλιππος by Mnesimachus (PCG 7,23–26), a contemporary of Ephippus (Mnesimachus won his first Lenaean victory between 370/365–350 BC; cf. Mastellari 2020: 331, 339); cf. also the play Macedonians or Pausanias by Strattis, a playwright of late Old Comedy (see Orth 2009: 144–164). Arguably, Geryon was a full-scale political allegory, wherein the mythological figure of Geryon functioned as a comic disguise – of grotesque dimensions – for the Macedonian king Philip II. From a chronological point of view, this interpretation reconciles the fragment’s reference to a king (this being Philip, who reigned from 360/359 to 336 BC) with the date of the Celts’ first contact with the Greeks (369 BC), as well as with Ephippus’ life span and career period (cf. Intro. 2 “Chronology & Career”). But most importantly, Philip, who led Macedonia’s rapidly expanding rule of Greek affairs, can be allegorically understood as a most apposite real-life match for the play’s boorish mythological ogre. Geryon’s non-human size and gargantuan appetite aptly correspond to and graphically visualize Philip’s hunger for conquest, i. e. his grandiose military plans for territorial expansion and political control (cf. “Interpretation” for fr. 5). It is instructive that parallel imagery (i. e. eating / devouring territories) is present in Mnesim. fr. 8 (from the aforementioned play Philip), where the citizens of Pharsalus (a town in Thessaly and an ally of Philip) are portrayed as gluttonous people who would even eat the tables, though they are currently busy eating up the town of Halus (which Philip had recently helped them to reduce to submission); line 4: ὀπτὴν κατεσθίουσι πόλιν Ἀχαιϊκήν (they [sc. the Pharsalians] are eating up an Achaean town roasted). See Papachrysostomou (2008) 216–218, Mastellari (2020) 467–473. It is noteworthy that the imagery of a political figure (Philip II) being assimilated to a monster (Geryon) is a manifestation of ‘deep parody’ (see Papachrysostomou 2020b), since the satirical process entails the recategorization of the target (i. e. from human to monster); this version of deep parody traces back to Old Comedy (cf. Cleon’s assimilation to an outlandish monster in Ar. V. 1031–1036 and Pax 754–759) and recurs in Timocl. fr. 12, where Demosthenes is assimilated to the giant Briareos (see Apostolakis 2019: 115–123). Arguably, Ephippus’ present allegory (Geryon as Philip) was meant to go beyond the phenomenally overwhelming political agenda of the Macedonian king. It is conceivable that the absurdly gigantic fish-dish prepared for Geryon corresponds to Philip’s notorious lavishness and hedonistic modus vivendi, as attested by the ancient sources; even the fact that the food being prepared for him is specifically

Γηρυόνης

45

fish (i. e. the luxury food par excellence; cf. Wilkins 2000a: 293–304, Davidson 1997: 11–20) highlights Philip’s attested sumptuousness. The fourth-century historian Theopompus (who dealt extensively with the Macedonian king in his Histories) describes Philip as being strikingly extravagant and testifies to his prodigality and dissipation; most arresting is the following passage (FGrH 115 F 224), preserved by Athenaeus 4.167a–c: περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀσωτίας καὶ τοῦ βίου Φιλίππου καὶ τῶν ἑταίρων αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐνάτῃ καὶ τεσσαρακοστῇ τῶν Ἱστοριῶν ὁ Θεόπομπος τάδε γράφει· Φίλιππος ἐπεὶ ἐγκρατὴς πολλῶν ἐγένετο χρημάτων, οὐκ ἀνάλωσεν αὐτὰ ταχέως, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξέβαλε καὶ ἔρριψε, πάντων ἀνθρώπων κάκιστος ὢν οἰκονόμος οὐ μόνον αὐτός, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ περὶ αὐτόν· ἁπλῶς γὰρ οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν ἠπίστατο ζῆν ὀρθῶς οὐδὲ σωφρόνως οἰκεῖν οἰκίαν. τοῦ δ᾿ αὐτὸς αἴτιος ἦν ἄπληστος καὶ πολυτελὴς ὤν, προχείρως ἅπαντα ποιῶν καὶ κτώμενος καὶ διδούς· στρατιώτης γὰρ ὢν λογίζεσθαι τὰ προσιόντα καὶ τἀναλισκόμενα δι᾿ ἀσχολίαν οὐκ ἠδύνατο. ἔπειτα δ᾿ οἱ ἑταῖροι αὐτοῦ ἐκ πολλῶν τόπων ἦσαν συνερρυηκότες· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς χώρας, οἱ δὲ ἐκ Θετταλίας, οἱ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἄλλης Ἑλλάδος, οὐκ ἀριστίνδην ἐξειλεγμένοι, ἀλλ᾿ εἴ τις ἦν ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἢ τοῖς βαρβάροις λάσταυρος ἢ βδελυρὸς ἢ θρασὺς τὸν τρόπον, οὗτοι σχεδὸν ἅπαντες εἰς Μακεδονίαν ἀθροισθέντες ἑταῖροι Φιλίππου προσηγορεύοντο. εἰ δὲ καὶ μὴ τοιοῦτός τις ⟨ὢν⟩ ἐληλύθει, ὑπὸ τοῦ βίου καὶ τῆς διαίτης τῆς Μακεδονικῆς ταχέως ἐκείνοις ὅμοιος ἐγίνετο. τὰ μὲν γὰρ οἱ πόλεμοι καὶ αἱ στρατεῖαι, ⟨τὰ δὲ⟩ καὶ αἱ πολυτέλειαι θρασεῖς αὐτοὺς εἶναι προετρέποντο καὶ ζῆν μὴ κοσμίως, ἀλλ᾿ ἀσώτως καὶ τοῖς λῃσταῖς παραπλησίως. As for the profligate lifestyle of Philip and his companions, Theopompus writes the following in Book XLIX of his Histories: “When Philip got his hands on large amounts of money, he did not just spend it quickly, but threw it away and wasted it, and was the worst manager in the world. And it was not just Philip, but also his circle; for, simply put, none of them knew how to live properly or manage a household responsibly. Philip himself was responsible for this, because he was greedy and extravagant, and did everything off-hand, be it accumulating money or disposing of it; for the fact that he was a soldier meant that he had no spare time to calculate his income and expenses. On top of this, his companions had streamed in from many places; some were from Macedon itself, others from Thessaly, and some from the rest of Greece. Nor had they been selected on the basis of merit. Instead, if anyone in the Greek or barbarian world had a sexually depraved, disgusting, or arrogant character, practically all such men gathered in Macedon and came to be called Philip’s companions. And if someone was different from this when he arrived, the Macedonian lifestyle and the way they behaved soon made him resemble them. For wars and military campaigns, on the one hand, and an extravagant life-

46

Ephippus

style, on the other, encouraged them to be arrogant and to live not in an orderly way but like spendthrifts and bandits. Theopompus makes similarly harsh remarks about Philip’s self-indulgence elsewhere too (FGrH 115 F 236): Φίλιππος ἦν τὰ μὲν φύσει μανικὸς καὶ προπετὴς ἐπὶ τῶν κινδύνων, τὰ δὲ διὰ μέθην· ἦν γὰρ πολυπότης καὶ πολλάκις μεθύων ἐξεβοήθει … ὢν γὰρ φιλοπότης καὶ τὸν τρόπον ἀκόλαστος (Philip was manic and prone to rushing head-long into danger, in part because this was his nature, but in part because of his heavy drinking; for he consumed large amounts of wine and often went into battle drunk … he liked to drink and was personally undisciplined). Dissolute behaviour and habits are also assigned to Philip by Demosthenes 2.18–19 (though a caveat is in order here: the validity of Demosthenes’ words could be questioned, since it suits him to malign Philip). For an exhaustive compilation of ancient testimonies relating to Philip II, see Bradford 1992; cf. also Lane Fox (2011) 257–269, 335–391. Date The play Geryon belongs to Ephippus’ early career (cf. Intro. 2 “Chronology & Career”). Within the – quite substantial – surviving material of this play (33 lines in total), there is one crucial term that has proven controversial among modern scholars. This is the address to some Celt (apparently a slave) in the ultimate line (line 21) of fr. 5. Interestingly, the vocative Κέλθ’ (preceded by the imperative σβέννυ) is Wilamowitz’s resourceful emendation of the manuscript’s unintelligible σβεννυκελτους (cf. “Constitution of Text” ad loc.). Having adopted Wilamowitz’s conjecture (in the absence of any better suggestion), the presence of Celts in Ephippus’ play becomes indeed a significant dating clue. Meineke (1,352), Kock (2,251), and Edmonds (2,159) suggested 335/4 BC as the year of the play’s performance, since it was then that Alexander the Great received some Celt ambassadors (cf. Str. 7.3.8 συμμῖξαι τῷ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ Κελτοὺς τοὺς περὶ τὸν Ἀδρίαν φιλίας καὶ ξενίας χάριν, δεξάμενον δὲ αὐτοὺς φιλοφρόνως τὸν βασιλέα: the Celts who lived about the Adriatic joined Alexander for the sake of establishing friendship and hospitality, and the king received them kindly), whereas – as Meineke and Kock claim – the Celts were previously unknown to the Greeks. Nonetheless, this inference is erroneous. First, such a late date is already problematic, given that Ephippus won his first Lenaean victory ca. 378–376 BC (cf. comm. under test. 2); i. e. it is rather unlikely that he was still productive four decades later (NB Nesselrath 1990: 196–197 extends Ephippus’ floruit only down to 340 BC). Secondly, and most importantly, the Celts became involved in the Greek affairs for the first time much earlier, in 369 BC, when Dionysius of Syracuse dispatched a Celtic mercenary force to assist the Spartans (as Webster 21970: 42 points out); cf. X. HG 7.1.20 καταπλεῖ Λακεδαιμονίοις ἡ παρὰ Διονυσίου βοήθεια, τριήρεις πλέον ἢ εἴκοσιν. ἦγον δὲ Κελτούς τε καὶ Ἴβηρας (the expedition sent by Dionysius to aid the Lacedaemonians sailed in, numbering more than twenty triremes; and, they brought Celts and Iberians); see further Freeman 1994. Accordingly, and regardless of the play’s political implications (if any), the presence of a Celt leads us to acknowledge

Γηρυόνης (fr. 3)

47

the year 369 BC as a secure terminus post quem for the play’s production. Given the preferred interpretation put forward above (“Title”), i. e. Geryon being a disguise for Philip II of Macedon, the play could not have been performed before Philip ascended to the throne of Macedon in 360/359 BC. Webster (21970: 42–43) opts for a date in “the early ’sixties” (NB Webster interprets Geryon as a disguise for the Persian king; cf. “Title”).

fr. 3 (3 K.)

5

10

ἔπειτα πῶς οὐ στέφανος οὐδείς ἐστι πρόσθε τῶν θυρῶν, οὐ κνῖσα κρούει ῥινὸς ὑπεροχὰς ἄκρας Ἀμφιδρομίων ὄντων; ἐν οἷς νομίζεται ὀπτᾶν τε τυροῦ Χερρονησίτου τόμους ἕψειν τ᾿ ἐλαίῳ ῥάφανον ἠγλαϊσμένην πνίγειν τε παχέων ἀρνίων στηθύνια τίλλειν τε φάττας καὶ κίχλας ὁμοῦ σπίνοις κοινῇ τε χναύειν τευθίσιν σηπίδια πιλεῖν τε πολλὰς πλεκτάνας ἐπιστρόφως πίνειν τε πολλὰς κύλικας εὐζωρεστέρας

2 πρόσθεν C 3 κνίσα Α: κνΐσσα CE 11 εὐζωρεστέρας ACE: -ου Meineke ed. min.

5

10

5 Χερρονη- A: Χεροννη- CE

How is it, then, that there is not a single wreath in front of the doors nor does any greasy smell of burning fat tickles the tip of the nose, although it’s the Amphidromia? On such an occasion, it is the custom to toast slices of Chersonesian cheese, boil cabbage shimmering with oil, stew little breasts of plump little lambs, pluck ringdoves and thrushes, as well as chaffinches, nibble on little squids along with little cuttlefish, diligently pound numerous octopus tentacles, and drink many cups of virtually unmixed wine

Ath. 9.370c–d Ἀθήνησι (-ῃσι A) δὲ καὶ ταῖς τετοκυίαις κράμβη παρεσκευάζετο ὥς τι ἀντιφάρμακον εἰς τροφήν. Ἔφιππος γοῦν ἐν Γηρυόνῃ φησίν (fab. nom. om. CE)· ἔπειτα — εὐζωρεστέρας In Athens, cabbage was prepared for women who had just given birth, as a sort of antidote, meant as nourishment. Ephippus, for one, in Geryon says: “How — wine”

48

Ephippus

Metre

5

10

Iambic trimeter

klkl lkkkl llk|l klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) llkl l|lkkk klkl (penthemimeral caesura) llkkl ll|kl klkl (middle caesura) llkl l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkl l|kkkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) llkkk l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law llkl llkl llkl llkl

observed)

l|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) l|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) l|kkkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,325f.; Bothe 490f.; Kock 2,251f.; Edmonds 2,148f.; PCG 5,133; Nesselrath (1990) 220; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 485f. Citation Context At the beginning of Book 9 of Deipnosophistae (366a), Athenaeus momentarily steps out of the second narrative level (i. e. his recent participation in the symposion) and addresses his acquaintance, Timocrates, in Homeric style (cf. Od. 4.213, Il. 24.601): δόρπου δ᾿ ἐξαῦτις μνησώμεθα (let us think once again of our dinner); accordingly, he starts enumerating various foodstuffs that were served at the banquet and how each one incited an erudite conversation among the banqueters about its appellation, grammatic gender, usage in literature, best way(s) of cooking, etc. At 9.369e the discussion turns to κράμβη (cabbage); several fragments are quoted – from comedy and other genres (e. g. lyric poetry) – highlighting various aspects of this vegetable (including a bizarre habit of swearing by the cabbage). The reason why Ephippus’ present fragment is quoted is to evince the claim that in Athens cabbage was offered to women after childbirth, as some sort of postnatal remedy. Indeed, this is a well-chosen passage; the fragment’s context is a celebration of Amphidromia (a ceremonious festival held a few days after the birth of a child; cf. comm. s. v. Ἀμφιδρομίων) and features various dishes that were customarily prepared for the occasion; boiled cabbage is mentioned as one of them (line 6; NB the fragment features the term ῥάφανος, which is the Attic equivalent to κράμβη; cf. s. v.). There is a long-standing scholarly controversy regarding the possibility of this fragment being quoted twice within Athenaeus’ work. The critical passage in Athenaeus where Ephippus’ fragment is allegedly quoted again (in part) occurs – most adversely – in the Epitome, at 2.65c–d (on the Epitome’s value see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). Within a discussion of edible, small game birds, Athenaeus mentions chaffinches (σπίνοι), and as an example he quotes lines 4–11 from the present fragment, albeit he assigns the passage to Eubulus (= Eub. fr. 148).

Γηρυόνης (fr. 3)

49

Remarkably, the Epitome passage features minor – though not negligible – differences compared to the passage quoted at 9.370c–d (cf. critical apparatus at PCG 5,133). There are two – mutually exclusive – explanations here. The easy guess is to assume that the Epitome is mistaken; besides, its overall credibility is not exactly rock-solid. It was Casaubon (Animadv. 83) who first suggested that Epitome’s reading Εὔβουλος should be emended to Ἔφιππος. Within the same train of thought, Kaibel ad loc. suggested instead that an entire quotation by Eubulus (on the issue of σπίνοι) must have been inadvertently omitted by the Epitome’s scribe, along with Ephippus’ name signalling the authorship of what follows that now looks as belonging to Eubulus. Kock 2,214 also found fault with the Epitome: “scriptori ipsi plus fidei habendum videtur quam epitomes auctori” (it seems we’d better trust the author himself than the producer of the epitome). Blaming the Epitome for mixing up authors and passages, one way or another, has been the dominant opinion ever since; cf. Kann (1909) 61. All major editions (mentioned under “Discussion”) consider (more or less hesitantly) the Epitome passage 2.65c–d as a second citation instance of Ephippus’ fragment (adopting any necessary text changes to this end). Yet, Hunter (1983: 231) advises against this urge to “tidy up” Epitome’s text noting that “it seems wise not to reject the testimony of the Epitome here, doubtful though it may be”. Having studied all relevant evidence and having taken into consideration a number of comparable cases within Athenaeus’ work (see below), it is my firm belief that we should neither alter in any way the Epitome’s text (e. g. emending Εὔβουλος to Ἔφιππος) nor assume that the Epitome author omitted an entire quotation plus the author’s name of the following quotation, i. e. the exact amount of text that very conveniently helps us reach a neat conclusion regarding the authorship of Ephipp. fr. 3 and Eub. fr. 148. Firstly, we should always bear in mind the prime principle of textual criticism, which dictates that any text that is unanimously preserved in the manuscript tradition should never be altered, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so (e. g. to restore metrical, syntactical, grammatical correctness or semantic soundness). It is manifest that in the present case there is neither real need nor adequate justification to alter the Epitome’s text. Besides, a second solid reason why we should adopt the original text of the Epitome is that this is not an isolated case. Interestingly, it is not uncommon to find a comic passage being used – either identical or slightly modified – by more than one playwright (in what could be labelled as ‘plagiarism’, on which see Ziegler 1950, Stemplinger 1912, and Roscalla 2006). Two – not mutually exclusive – interpretations suggest themselves; in general, the comic playwrights (i) used to independently draw on common stock material (cf. Hunter 1983: 210); (ii) used to borrow from their fellow poets and reproduce passages and / or entire scenes (cf. Kann 1909: 62–63) for various reasons (e. g. because the original passage proved popular with the audience, or else to parody the original author / text, etc.). Remarkably, there is an exemplary case of striking convergence between – again – Eubulus and Ephippus: Eub. fr. 109.1–2 ≈ Ephipp. fr. 15.3–4 (cf. Hunter 1983: 210–211); comparable to

50

Ephippus

these two passages is also Nicostr.Com. fr. 4.2 and even Amphis fr. 35. In addition, Ephippus fr. 12 (ubi vide) and Mnesimachus fr. 4 feature several food-list items in the same order. Equally intriguing is the thematic and verbal propinquity attested between two other comic poets, Alexis and Amphis; apart from the fact that these two poets share nine identical play-titles (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 16–17), there is also a number of conspicuously salient similarities between Alex. fr. 16 and Amphis fr. 30 (see Kann 1909: 73–74, Nesselrath 1990: 294, Arnott 1996: 98–99, Papachrysostomou 2016: 190–203). Another occasion of verbal similarity is the one exhibited between Eub. fr. 67.4 and Xenarch. fr. 4.6 (cf. Hunter 1983: 155). Besides, it is also helpful to remember that the comic playwrights occasionally recycled outstanding passages of their own and used them again (in either identical or slightly modified version) in some subsequent production of theirs. It is noteworthy that Ephippus appears indeed to have practised recycling of his material; the lines making up fr. 5 (from Geryon; cf. comm. ad loc.) appear again in The Peltast. In the latter play, according to Athenaeus’ testimony (8.347b–c), the entire fr. 5 preceded lines 22–25 of fr. 19 (cf. comm. ad loc.). But even before Ephippus, Aristophanes already practised recycling of his own verses; in Peace (421 BC) he reuses a passage from Wasps (produced in 422 BC): lines 752–759 from Peace are virtually identical with Wasps 1030–1037; this is the memorable passage where Cleon (alive during the production of Wasps but deceased by the time of Peace) is described as a grotesquely inhuman monster (cf. Biles & Olson 2015: 387–390). Commenting on Wasps l. c. MacDowell (1971: 265) instructively notes that “this (sc. the fact that the same lines appear in Peace) does not mean that the lines are out of place in either play, but only that Aristophanes was pleased with them”. By analogy, any comic poet was naturally at liberty not only to draw from a common comic reservoir, but also to appreciate and reuse (in a more or less adapted version) another poet’s lines; whether we choose to describe this as ‘borrowing’, ‘copying’, ‘imitation’ or even ‘plagiarism’, matters very little. All in all, regarding the much-debated passage from Athenaeus (2.65c–d), I strongly believe that we should trust Epitome’s testimony and acknowledge the lines quoted at 2.65c–d as belonging to Eubulus (fr. 148), and simultaneously acknowledge the – virtually identical – lines quoted at 9.370c–d as belonging to Ephippus. Accordingly, Eustathius’ testimony (in Il. p. 1063,39), which is identical to the text preserved by the Epitome 2.65d (ὁμοῦ τε χναύειν μαινίσιν σηπίδια) should not be considered as quoting Ephipp. fr. 3.9, but instead as quoting Eub. fr. 148.6. Constitution of Text Within Athenaeus’ text immediately preceding the quotation of Ephippus’ present fragment (9.370c), codex A preserves the erroneous reading Ἀθήνῃσι (featuring an unnecessary iota subscript under the second ēta), while the play’s title (ἐν Γηρυόνῃ) is left out by the Epitome codices C and E (on the value of Athenaeus’ mss see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). In line 2 codex C preserves πρόσθεν, whereas codices A and E preserve πρόσθε; the latter reading is adopted by all editors. The metre is not affected by either reading

Γηρυόνης (fr. 3)

51

(the short epsilon of πρόσθε is at the anceps position of the third metre). Selvers (1909: 14), whilst studying the metrical analysis of words ending in -θεν in Middle Comedy, points out that the -θεν ending (as opposed to -θε) is the dominant one, whereas the -θε ending occurs only where long syllables could not have been accommodated in the iambic trimeter. Selvers singles out Ephippus’ present fragment as an exceptionally rare case of -θε occurring in the fifth foot position; plus, even more strangely, this is a position where -θεν could have been used instead, without disturbing the metre. The obvious assumption is that Ephippus’ preference of πρόσθε to πρόσθεν was a conscious one; for parallels see comm. s. v. πρόσθε τῶν θυρῶν. In line 3 codex A preserves κνίσα with an acute accent, while C and E preserve another erroneous reading, κνΐσσα, with a double sigma, an acute accent and diaeresis; all editors print κνῖσα with a circumflex and one sigma; cf. Hdn.Gr. 3,2.901.15–16 GG κνῖσα γίνεται ἀπὸ μέλλοντος τοῦ κνίζω κνίσω. διὸ καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς γράφεται σ καὶ ἔκτασιν ἔλαβε τοῦ ι (the term κνῖσα is produced from the future tense of the verb κνίζω, which is κνίσω; hence it is written with one sigma and the iota is lengthened). In line 5 codex A preserves the preferred reading Χερρονησίτου, whereas the Epitome codices C and E apply gemination at the wrong position and preserve Χεροννησίτου (i. e. double nu instead of double rho). Generally, the double rho (-ρρ-) is practically universal in inscriptions written in the Attic dialect during the fifth and fourth centuries BC, except for certain special cases that are painstakingly gathered and categorized by Threatte (1980: i.534–537), where -ρσ- occurs instead (NB the -ρσ- reappears in the Hellenistic period); cf. Meisterhans (31900) 99. In line 11 Athenaeus’ manuscript tradition unanimously preserves the reading εὐζωρεστέρας; yet, Meineke suggested the reading εὐζωρεστέρου in his editio minor (1847: 627; NB whilst commenting on the almost identical Eub. fr. 148; cf. “Citation Context”). Meineke’s reasoning is clear; assuming an either absent / missing or following οἴνου, he understands εὐζωρεστέρου as genitive of contents to κύλικας (i. e. cups full of very strong wine). Yet, the text as preserved in the manuscript tradition is impeccable from all aspects; hence, there is no need to alter it in any way; cf. s. v. εὐζωρεστέρας. Interpretation An ostensibly hungry and/or greedy comic character expresses his bewilderment and downright disappointment at the sheer absence of festive spirit (decoration, food, wine) upon arrival at a house where the Amphidromia festival was supposed to be held (cf. s. v. Ἀμφιδρομίων). His bewilderment and disappointment are made manifest by various signs within his speech (introductory rhetorical question, detailed description, and graphic visualization of absent food; cf. comm. below). The reason(s) for the absence of festive spirit cannot be established with certainty; it could be that (i) the speaker is mistaken or misinformed (i. e. either the Amphidromia festival was not actually held in that house or a different festival / ritual was taking place); (ii) the scene’s setting may be somewhere else other than Athens, perhaps some non-Greek region (where the Amphidromia was either not known/performed or performed differently); (iii)

52

Ephippus

there may be some family mourning and hence no proper celebrations were held (cf. E. Alc. 536–567, where the possibility of denying hospitality to a guest because of family mourning does come under consideration); (iv) there may be some other specific, plot-related reason for the absence of festive spirit, e. g. the newborn may be illegitimate or of unknown parentage; (v) last but not least, if Heracles is the speaker (see below), the family may have hidden all food and wine away, lest the ravenous hero devours all their stock supplies. Beyond these initial remarks, the present fragment is exceptional for two reasons: (a) it is a most representative example of the comic stereotype that consists of Heracles being denied a meal; (b) it is a rare comic example of an imaginary food list (i. e. one that enumerates absent items, which the speaker anticipated that they would be present). (a) The fragment features an ostensibly surprised and disappointed character fervently asking a series of rhetorical questions regarding the absence of festive food (and festive decorations) on the occasion of the Amphidromia festival. Given the play’s mythical framework (cf. “Title”), Nesselrath (1990: 220) plausibly suggested that the fragment is a snapshot from a scene featuring a house / a stop in Heracles’ way to Geryon’s habitat. It is possible that the disappointed speaker is Heracles himself. Alternatively, it might be a slave or some other character; yet, the fervour permeating the lines that graphically describe the sought-after food strongly suggests that the speaker is a glutton and decisively points towards Heracles, Comedy’s glutton figure par excellence (always bearing in mind the play’s title). If Heracles is the speaker, then the present fragment qualifies as the most typical occurrence of the comic pattern featuring hungry Heracles being cheated of his dinner: Ἡρακλῆς τὸ δεῖπνον ἐξαπατώμενος (Ar. V. 60; see further Biles & Olson 2015: 104); cf. Ar. Pax 741 (τούς θ’ Ἡρακλέας τοὺς ... πεινῶντας ἐκείνους) with Olson (1998) 218–219. The visualization of Heracles being denied a meal (i. e. having an anticipated meal cancelled, against his and the spectators’ expectations) constitutes a common comic motif that occurs in either adapted versions or slight variations; e. g. Ar. Av. 1579–1605, Eub. fr. 6. For bibliography on Heracles in Comedy, see Ephipp. fr. 2, s. v. μεθύοντες. (b) Additionally, the fragment features a peculiar version of the comic topos of the (food)list / catalogue (i. e. paratactic enumeration of individual foodstuffs or other items, e. g. incense and spices, hetairai, etc.; cf. Ephipp. fr. 1 “Interpretation”). The peculiarity rests with the fact that the speaker enumerates several items (mostly foodstuffs along with strong wine), which are not (and will not be) present (since no dinner is scheduled), but which he passionately wishes that they were; hence, this catalogue of goods remains an elusive gastronomical indulgence, existing (sic) only in the sphere of (the speaker’s) imagination. Yet, the result of this imaginary list is a vivid visualization of a lavish dinner table, which – to the speaker’s sheer disappointment – is not to be materialized. The motif of the (food-)list traces its origin to Old Comedy (e. g. Ar. Pl. 190– 192, Ar. fr. 332; Hermipp. fr. 63, cf. Gilula 2000, Comentale 2017: 249–275), and

Γηρυόνης (fr. 3)

53

even further back to iambic and elegiac poetry (e. g. Hippon. fr. 26a, Solon frr. 38–40). The most impressive (and lengthy) comic examples are Anaxandr. fr. 42 (cf. Millis 2015: 199–237) and Mnesim. fr. 4 (cf. Gilula 1995a; Papachrysostomou 2008: 186–209; Mastellari 2020: 372–440); see also Antiph. fr. 140 (a remarkable list of seasonings). Roman comedy examples – of considerably smaller scale – include Plaut. Rud. 297–298 and Trin. 251–252. For deeper analysis, more parallels, and additional bibliography, see Arnott (1996) 224–225 and Papachrysostomou (2016) 70, 114–115. Furthermore, to the fragment’s literary assets one should add the employment of two rhetorical figures of speech; synecdoche (line 10) and metonymy (line 11). 1 ἔπειτα πῶς This expression occurs commonly in comic texts (but also occasionally in other genres; cf. e. g. Arist. Pol. 1268b11) and serves as an emphatic way of introducing a question, often a rhetorical one. The parataxis of the two adverbs produces an abrupt tone and conveys the speaker’s strong bewilderment about something – commonly about something that is not; hence negation often follows, cf. οὐ (line 2) in the present fragment (NB πῶς is always the interrogative adverb, never the enclitic one). Occasionally, καί precedes ἔπειτα (and merges via crasis with it into κἄπειτα). Instead of ἔπειτα, εἶτα (or κᾆτα after crasis with the preceding καί) is also used. Comic parallels include Ar. Av. 963–964 κἄπειτα πῶς / ταῦτ’ οὐκ ἐχρησμολόγεις (how come you didn’t divulge this oracle?), Ar. Th. 188 ἔπειτα πῶς οὐκ αὐτὸς ἀπολογεῖ παρών (then why don’t you go and make your own defense?), Ar. Ra. 647 κᾆτα πῶς οὐκ ἔπταρον (then why didn’t I sneeze?) and 786–787 κἄπειτα πῶς / οὐ καὶ Σοφοκλέης ἀντελάβετο τοῦ θρόνου; (then how come Sophocles didn’t stake a claim to the chair?), Alex. fr. 125 ἔπειτα πῶς ἦλθες; (so how did your errand go?). 2a πρόσθε τῶν θυρῶν On the infrequent (as far as Middle Comedy is concerned) usage of πρόσθε instead of πρόσθεν, see “Constitution of Text”. The exact phrase recurs in Men. Sam. 405 (ἀλλ’, Ἡράκλεις, τί τοῦτο; πρόσθε τῶν θυρῶν) at the exact position (line end) of an iambic trimeter line. In both Menander’s passage and the present fragment, the metrical quantity of the epsilon of πρόσθε is essentially irrelevant, since this is the anceps position (of the third meter). Within Menander the expression πρόσθε τῶν θυρῶν occurs again at line end, in Pk. 299 (περιπατῶν δὲ προσμενῶ σε, ⟨ Δᾶε ⟩ , πρόσθε τῶν θυρῶν); although this is a trochaic tetrameter catalectic line, the (brevis) quantity of the epsilon of πρόσθε is again metrically immaterial, for this coincides once more with the line’s third anceps position. Generally (and, perhaps, surprisingly so), this expression is a most rare one; yet, it is already present in Homer, albeit with the diction adapted to the metre’s requirements; Il. 9.473 ἄλλο δ’ ἐνὶ προδόμῳ, πρόσθεν θαλάμοιο θυράων (and one in the porch in front of the door of my chamber). 2b στέφανος ... πρόσθε τῶν θυρῶν For wreath (στέφανος) within Greek antiquity and its manifold use in a variety of settings and for different reasons, as

54

Ephippus

a virtually ritual accoutrement on numerous occasions (e. g. symposion, athletic and familial events, religion and worship, etc.), see the exhaustive monograph of Blech 1982. In the present fragment a wreath is hanged outside the door to mark the ongoing celebration of the Amphidromia festival (see s. v. Ἀμφιδρομίων below); regarding the ancient Greek practice of hanging wreaths outside the doors as a festive sign of ongoing – familial or communal – celebrations (still applicable nowadays in most parts of the world), see Blech (1982) 275–276. 3 κνῖσα κρούει ῥινὸς ὑπεροχὰς ἄκρας The graphic visualization of the smell of burning fat (κνῖσα) tickling (κρούει) the tip, the projecting extremity (ὑπεροχὰς ἄκρας) of the nose (ῥινός) – as it ascends from the sacrificial offering upwards – is original, imaginative, and unparalleled. The closest comparable example (though far from being an actual parallel) is Luc. Tim. 9 ἔτι γοῦν ἐν ταῖς ῥισὶ τὴν κνῖσαν αὐτῶν ἔχω (indeed, I have the steam of them still in my nostrils). 4 Ἀμφιδρομίων The Amphidromia (Ἀμφιδρόμια, τά) was an originally Attic festival of purification, where fathers acknowledged their newborn babies. There is a conspicuous disagreement among the ancient, lexicographical sourses regarding the festival’s distinct rituals and the technical details of their performance (i. e. when exactly, by who, and how each ritual act was carried out); characteristic of this discrepancy is the way Hamilton (1984: 245) describes the incongruous image presented by the testimonies: “The lexical sources agree on very little: when a child was born, someone ran around something on some day somewhere”. But let us get down to (the contradictory) details. The festival of Amphidromia (originally held in Attica but also practised elsewhere) was celebrated a few days after the birth of a child (cf. Poll. 2.8); yet, the exact number of days is disputed among the ancient sources: it might have been on the fifth day (sch. on Pl. Tht. 160e, Paus.Gr. α 101, and Sud. s. v. ἀμφιδρόμια) or on the seventh (Hsch. δ 2400) or on the tenth day (sch. on Ar. Lys. 757) after childbirth; the latter possibility is favoured by Hamilton (1984: 251). Another issue of controversy is whether the Amphidromia was a different occasion from the child’s naming ceremony (known as ἡ δεκάτη, i. e. the tenth day after the child’s birth; cf. Ar. Av. 494, Eub. fr. 2); Hamilton (1984: 249) considers the naming ceremony as a part of the Amphidromia. The festival featured a series of purification rites; yet, the main act is revealed through its name: ἀμφιδρόμια < ἀμφί + verbal root δραμ- from ἔδραμον (aor. 2 of τρέχω): someone (a nurse/midwife or the father) – perhaps in the presence of family – carried the child around (ἀμφί) the hearth in running (δραμ-), thereby symbolically introducing the newborn to the family, the family deities, and thence to community; alternatively, a group of women ran around the child that was lying on the ground (NB the father reserved the right to refuse to acknowledge the newborn as his own and expose it). The newborn was then presented by the father to the extended family members/relatives/clansmen (φράτερες), and in the evening a dinner was held for them, where seafood (e. g. octopuses and cuttlefish; cf. Harpocration s. v. Ἀμφιδρόμια) was typically served.

Γηρυόνης (fr. 3)

55

In a well-known passage from Plato’s Theatetus, Socrates memorably assimilates dialogue/conversation to labour and logical conclusion(s) to a newborn (160e): μόλις ποτὲ ἐγεννήσαμεν ... μετὰ δὲ τὸν τόκον τὰ ἀμφιδρόμια αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀληθῶς ἐν κύκλῳ περιθρεκτέον τῷ λόγῳ, σκοπουμένους μὴ λάθῃ ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἄξιον ὂν τροφῆς τὸ γιγνόμενον (we have at last managed to give birth ... after the birth, we must in very truth perform the Amphidromia for it (sc. the newborn), running round in the circle of our argument, and examine whether it may turn out to be after all not worth rearing). Ar. Lys. 757 οὐ τἀμφιδρόμια τῆς κυνῆς αὐτοῦ μενεῖς; (won’t you stay here till your helmet has its naming day?). On ceremonial eating and drinking as a conspicuous feature of ancient society, see Garnsey (1999) 128–138, Wilkins (2000a) 63–66. In an attempt to simultaneously disentangle and reconcile all (seemingly) contradictory evidence, Hamilton, having meticulously gone through all surviving testimonies, concludes to the following schema (1984: 250): “We may conclude, then, that the Amphidromia began with a private celebration, probably restricted to women, which involved examination of the child by running around (it?), sacrifice to the gods, preparation for a feast which included some drinking and which culminated in a more public feast during the night at which the child was named and presented to the larger group of relatives. … Finally, one can imagine the whole ritual complex – the running around, sacrifice, preparation for feast, feast – could take several days”. (NB I have left out all parenthetical references to sources, to provide for a smooth narrative) And further down (o.c. 251): “The great majority of sources, classical and later, date the naming to the tenth (sc. day), and that must have been the normal time for the feast, at least for classical Athens”. Overall, I consider Hamilton’s reconstruction fairly reasonable and realistic. 5–11 ὀπτᾶν ... εὐζωρεστέρας A (peculiar) instance of the comic topos of the list / catalogue (cf. “Interpretation”). These seven lines feature an enumeration of (absent) food items and wine. Beside the fact that these items are merely part of the speaker’s wishful thinking, what is additionally noteworthy here is the innovative stylistic way in which the playwright handles and varies the paratactic syntax of the list; instead of simply collocating nouns / individual items making up the list (as e. g. in Ephipp. fr. 12, Anaxandr. fr. 42.36–66, Mnesim. fr. 4.29–63, etc.), the speaker employs a more intricate pattern featuring an infinitive plus its object (a foodstuff or wine cup) in accusative. Hence, the ‘items’ of the list consist of the following seven pairs of infinitive + object: ὀπτᾶν ... τόμους (line 5), ἕψειν ... ῥάφανον (line 6), πνίγειν ... στηθύνια (line 7), τίλλειν ... φάττας καὶ κίχλας (line 8; two objects), χναύειν ... σηπίδια (line 9), πιλεῖν ... πλεκτάνας (line 10), πίνειν ... κύλικας (line 11). Understandably, this variation is more demanding on many levels; language / vocabulary, syntax, as well as metre. 5 τυροῦ Χερρονησίτου Cheese from the (Thracian) Chersonese (on the spelling Χερρονησίτου see “Constitution of Text”; on the ethnic Χερρονησίτης as typically

56

Ephippus

referring to the Thracian peninsula see X. HG 1.3.10, D. 5.25). Cheese is most frequently mentioned in food catalogues, either as an individual foodstuff (e. g. Ar. V. 676, Anaxandr. fr. 42.44, Anaxil. fr. 18.3, Ephipp. fr. 13.3) or grated as an ἄρτυμα (condiment, seasoning; e. g. Ar. Av. 533, Anaxipp. fr. 1.8, Alex. fr. 138.6, Archestr. fr. 14.5 with Olson & Sens 2000: 72); cf. Olson & Sens (1999) 127 (on Matro fr. 1.92). The type of cheese to be understood here is the dried, salted cheese (different from the fresh cheese, χλωρὸς τυρός, e. g. Ar. Ra. 559). Cheese from the Thracian Chersonese is not attested anywhere else in our sources; yet, the present context suggests that the speaker considers it a delicacy. Instead, cheese in ancient Athens was customarily imported from Sicily; accordingly, it is the Sicilian variety that is commonly mentioned as a titbit in symposion contexts; cf. Philem. fr. 79 (from a play entitled Σικελικός): ἐγὼ πρότερον μὲν ᾠόμην τὴν Σικελίαν / ἓν τοῦτ᾿ ἀπότακτον αὐτό, τοὺς τυροὺς ποεῖν / καλούς (I used to think that Sicily produced only this single specialty, first-rate cheese); cf. Ar. V. 838 (with additional political connotations; cf. Biles & Olson 2015: 338), Hermipp. fr. 63.9, Antiph. fr. 233.4, etc. An educated guess, which accommodates the rare literary occurrence of cheese from the Thracian Chersonese, while taking into account the play-title’s mythical context, is to surmise that the play featured a remote, non-Athenian, dramatic location (probably close to Heracles’ Pillars or even beyond; cf. “Title”), where cheese was imported not from Sicily (as was the norm in Athens), but from the Thracian Chersonese, which in such a case would constitute a remote location and thus its products would enjoy greater reputation (even nowadays there is a widespread – albeit absurd – popular belief that goods imported from afar are of better quality than the ones produced locally or in nearby locations). 6a ῥάφανον The term ῥάφανος (ἡ) is the Attic equivalent of κράμβη, cabbage; cf. Ath. 1.34d τὴν κράμβην ῥάφανον ἐκάλουν οἱ παλαιοί (the ancients [sc. in the Attic dialect] referred to cabbage as ῥάφανον), and Apollod.Car. fr. 32 … καλοῦμεν ῥάφανον, ὑμεῖς δ᾿ οἱ ξένοι / κράμβην (we call it ῥάφανον, but you foreigners call it κράμβην); cf. sch. on Ar. Pl. 544, Hsch. ρ 143, Poll. 1.247, Phot. s. v. κράμβη. The reason why Athenaeus quotes Ephippus’ present fragment is precisely to exemplify the medicinal use of cabbage (cf. “Citation Context”). The fact that Athenaeus employs the term κράμβη to introduce the fragment and simultaneously retains the original term, ῥάφανος, within the quotation, should neither confuse us nor lead us to accuse him of carelessness or discrepancy (as Blaydes Adv. II 143 did); instead, we should interpret this differentiation in terminology as a typical example, reassuring of Athenaeus’ diligence, thoroughness, and staunch concern to preserve as faithfully as possible the words of the authors he draws his material from. It is indicative that Athenaeus adheres to the same practice (i. e. presence of dual terminology for cabbage) elsewhere; e. g. at 9.370d–e he uses the term κράμβη to introduce Antiph. fr. 181 (Ἀντιφάνης δ᾿ ἐν Παρασίτῳ ὡς εὐτελοῦς βρώματος τῆς κράμβης μέμνηται ἐν τούτοις), but then he preserves the term ῥαφάνους within the fragment (line 6), as originally used by Antiphanes; cf. the cases of Diph. fr. 14 and Alc. fr. 24 (both quotations immediately follow Antiph. fr. 181 within Athenaeus’ text).

Γηρυόνης (fr. 3)

57

It is noteworthy that the comic playwright’s reported beliefs on the medicinal value of cabbage are substantiated by professional instructions preserved in the Hippocratic corpus; e. g. at Nat. Mul. 9 drinking cabbage juice is recommended as a cleansing means to women who have just given birth. The use of cabbage is prescribed on several other occasions (not restricted to women) within the Hippocratic corpus; e. g. Nat. Mul. 32.17, Morb. 2.19, Aff. 55, Vict. 2.54, Int. 12, etc. The medicinal benefits of cabbage are also outlined by Dioscorides (e. g. 2.120, 2.121) and Galen (e. g. 6.630–631). Ubiquitously, the common cooking method for cabbage is the one described in Ephippus’ present fragment, i. e. boiled and garnished with oil (most rarely, the juice of raw cabbage is also recommended). In addition to cabbage’s beneficial effect on women following childbirth, there was a widely established belief (adhered to not only by the Greeks but also by the Egyptians and the Sybarites; cf. Ath. 1.34c), according to which cabbage was outstandingly effective as an antidote to inebriation (φάρμακον μέθης); in fact, cabbage was credited with the ability not only to cure but also to prevent drunkenness and hangover; see Amphis fr. 37 (with Papachrysostomou 2016: 235–239), Alex. fr. 287 (with Arnott 1996: 91), Anaxandr. fr. 59 (with Millis 2015: 287–290), Eub. fr. 124 (with Hunter 1983: 225), Nicoch. fr. 18 (with Orth 2015: 96–99); also Thphr. HP 4.16.6 and Arist. Pr. 873b11. See also Onians (21954) 42–43, Dalby (2003) 67. Regardless of any medicinal effects, ῥάφανος is regularly mentioned in Comedy, normally within food lists; e. g. Ar. fr. 111, Call.Com. fr. 26, Crat. fr. 19, Alex. fr. 15.7, etc. 6b ἠγλαϊσμένην The passive participle of the verb ἀγλαΐζω (make splendid, glorify; adorn oneself with, take delight in) is used here παρὰ προσδοκίαν with reference to the cabbage. The hungry speaker (on his identity, condition, etc. see “Interpretation”) visualizes a glorious dish of boiled cabbage, doused in shimmering oil. His gluttony, combined with his disappointment (at the absence of all food), has such a catalytic effect on him that he even uses disproportionately elevated language to refer to this humble dish and exaggerates in his description of it. The verb ἀγλαΐζω,-ομαι is commonly used in epic, iambic, and lyric poetry with reference to the abstract concepts of shine and delight of glory (e. g. Hom. Il. 10.331, Semon. fr. 7.70, Pi. O. 1.14). Instead, with reference to the tangible / visible shine of oil (as is the case with the cabbage here), the proper term to be used would be the adjective λιπαρός. Indeed, in other descriptions of boiled cabbage drenched in oil λιπαρός is used to convey the oily, shiny appearance of the dish; e. g. Antiph. fr. 181.6, Diph. fr. 14.2. Normally, the adjective λιπαρός is used to describe anything (animate or inanimate) that is shining, gleaming as a result of having been anointed with or doused in oil; e. g. Hom. Od. 15.332 αἰεὶ δὲ λιπαροὶ κεφαλάς (their heads are always sleek), Ar. Pl. 616 λιπαρὸς χωρῶν ἐκ βαλανείου (walking gleaming from the bathhouse), Anaxandr. fr. 35.5 λιπαρὸς περιπατεῖ Δημοκλῆς, ζωμὸς κατωνόμασται (Democles walks around covered with oil; he is dubbed Meat-broth), etc. The elevated expression of Ephippus’ present fragment

58

Ephippus

reccurs in Eub. fr. 148.3 (on this fragment’s controversial attribution see discussion under “Citation Context”). 7a πνίγειν A rare meaning of the verb πνίγω is to cook in a close-covered vessel, to stew, to bake; and this is how it is presently used. Other similar uses include Ar. V. 511 ἐν λοπάδι πεπνιγμένον (stewed in a casserole dish; cf. Biles & Olson 2015: 246), Cratin. fr. 29 τῷ δ᾿ ὑποτρίψας τι μέρος πνῖξον καθαρύλλως (rub down a portion of it in and make a nice casserole), Metag. fr. 6.9 τεμάχη … αὐτόματα πεπνιγμένα (fish slices that stew themselves), Hdt. 2.92 ἐν κλιβάνῳ … πνίξαντες (stewing in a baking-pot). See Orth (2009) 158–159. 7b ἀρνίων ἀρνίον is the diminutive of ἀρήν, ἀρνός (lamb). The sheer tenderness of the meat of young lamb is recorded in the proverbial expression ἀρνίου μαλακώτερος: tenderer/softer/more malleable than a little lamb (with a double entendre on μαλακώτερος, i. e. μαλακός meaning soft both literally and figuratively, i. e. morally weak, subservient); cf. Philippid. fr. 30 ὁ τραχύτατος δὲ συκοφάντης μνᾶς δύο / λαβών ἄπεισιν ἀρνίου μαλακώτερος (the utter rough sycophant, after taking two minae, left more pliable than a lamb). 7c στηθύνια στηθύνιον is the irregular (i. e. grammatically deviant) diminutive of στῆθος (breast), as if a primitive *στηθύνη existed. Petersen (1910: 259) is probably correct in assuming that the formation of this diminutive developed by analogy to nouns like χελύνη > χελύνιον (little lip, little jaw) and λαγύνη > λαγύνιον (little flask). During the BC era the term στηθύνιον occurs only in Ephippus’ present fragment and in Eub. fr. 148.4 (cf. “Citation Context”). In later antiquity the term’s meaning and correctness appear controversial. Although Suda favours the diminutive meaning (σ 1082 στηθύνιον· τὸ μικρὸν στῆθος), Pollux preserves a different interpretation of the term (2.162): τὸ δὲ στηθῶν μέσον στηθύνιον (the middle part of breasts is called στηθύνιον). Most outstanding is Phrynichus’ insistence on Attic accuracy and simultaneous polemic against the term’s correctness (Ecl. 362): στηθύνιον ὀρνιθίου λέγουσί τινες οὐχ ὑγιῶς. εἰ γὰρ χρὴ ὑποκοριστικῶς λέγειν, ⟨λέγε⟩ στηθίδιον· … πόθεν εἰσεκώμασε καὶ τοῦτο τὸ κακὸν τῇ τῶν Ἑλλήνων φωνῇ; (some people say ‘στηθύνιον’ of a little bird incorrectly; because, if you need to use a diminutive, say ‘στηθίδιον’ … From where on earth did this vulgarism too intrude the Greek language?). Regarding the term’s meaning within Ephippus’ present fragment, little breasts is the accurate translation, although the notion of tenderness / succulence is also present, given that the lambs are also little / young (ἀρνίων, see s. v.); by definition, the meat of a young animal is tender and succulent, and it is this quality (i. e. tastefulness) that sounds more important than anything else to the hungry speaker. 8a φάττας Attic form of the term φάσσα (ἡ), which designates the ringdove (Columba palumbus), the biggest (μέγιστον) species of the pigeon-family (περιστεροειδῆ), according to Aristotle HA 544b1–5. Ringdoves were commonly considered a delicacy (cf. e. g. Ar. Pax 1004, Ephipp. fr. 15.8) and – just like in the present fragment – are mentioned along with thrushes (κίχλαι; cf. next note) in

Γηρυόνης (fr. 3)

59

food catalogues; e. g. Ar. Ach. 1104, Anaxandr. fr. 42.64–65. See Thompson (21936) 300–302, Arnott (2007) 267–269. 8b κίχλας κίχλη (ἡ) is the thrush. Thrushes, just as other small birds (cf. previous note), were widely consumed and considered a dainty (on the existence of three different sub-species all described by the generic term κίχλη see Arist. HA 617a18 sqq.); e. g. Ar. Ach. 1007 (spitted on skewers), Ar. Pax 1149 (along with chaffinches, σπίνοι; cf. next note) and 1195, Ar. fr. 581.3, Pherecr. fr. 113.23, Telecl. fr. 1.12. See Thompson (21936) 148–150, Pellegrino (2000) 183 (with bibliography), Arnott (2007) 140–141. 8c σπίνοις σπίνος (ὁ) is the chaffinch; another small bird that was regularly consumed as a delicacy (see two previous notes); cf. Ar. fr. 402.7. Aristophanes (Av. 1079; cf. Dunbar 1995: 585) offers us a glimpse into the Athenian practice of stringing chaffinches together in batches (of seven) and selling them in the agora (reportedly at one obol per batch; the price though cannot be verified). See Thompson (21936) 267, Arnott (2007) 323–324. 9–10 At the feast held after the Amphidromia rites were concluded (cf. s. v. Ἀμφιδρομίων), seafood was the dominant food category being served. In particular, Harpocration (s. v. Ἀμφιδρόμια), Photius (α 1317) and Suda (α 1722) unanimously testify to the presence of octopuses and cuttlefish (πολύποδας καὶ σηπίας); both of them feature in Ephippus’ present fragment (cf. s. v. σηπίδια and πλεκτάνας below). 9 κοινῇ … τευθίσιν σηπίδια The speaker imagines that he simultaneously (κοινῇ) nibbles (χναύειν; cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.4b) on servings of both squid and cuttlefish. Indeed, all major categories of molluscs (squid, cuttlefish, and octopus) are normally mentioned together in food catalogues in Comedy; cf. e. g. Epich. fr. 54.1, Ar. fr. 333, Anaxandr. fr. 42.46–47, Ephipp. fr. 12.6–7 (cf. comm. s. vv. σηπία and τευθίς), Mnesim. fr. 4.41–43, Sotad. fr. 1.14–16. On molluscs (μαλάκια) see Thompson (1947) 155–158. 10–11 These lines present an admirable, rare symmetry on the levels of both syntax (infinitive + object: female noun, consisting of three syllables, in accusative plural defined by the adjective πολύς) and sound (featuring parechesis: πιλεῖν - πίνειν; and repetition: πολλάς - πολλάς). Even the number of syllables would be identical, if the two lines did not diverge in their final terms: ἐπιστρόφως - εὐζωρεστέρας. Yet, this variation (εὐζωρεστέρας) at the end of the second line, practically having the surprising effect of a παρὰ προσδοκίαν case, makes all preceding similarity even more conspicuous. 10a πιλεῖν The verb πιλέω (to compress) is the terminus technicus used to refer to the pounding procedure that an octopus needs to undergo, in order to become tender (cf. Sud. δ 1267 = Phot. δ 668 ὁ πολύπους θηρευθεὶς τύπτεται πολλάκις πρὸς τὸ πίων γενέσθαι: when caught, the octopus is pounded repeatedly, in order to become plump); cf. Ar. fr. 197 πουλύπου πιλουμένου, Eub. fr. 148.7 πιλοῦν πλεκτάνας. See Thompson (1947) 204–208.

60

Ephippus

10b πλεκτάνας This is a case of synecdoche (also known as pars pro toto); the octopus’ tentacles (πλεκτάναι) stand for the octopus itself (similarly in Eub. fr. 148.7). The noun πλεκτάνη (normally in plural, πλεκτάναι; cf. Arist. HA 524b34) signifies the tentacle(s) not only of the octopus (e. g. Diph. fr. 33.1–2), but also of various species of cuttlefish and squid (cf. Arnott 1996: 468), e. g. Alex. fr. 192.2. See also Crobyl. fr. 7.1 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 173). 10c ἐπιστρόφως The adverb ἐπιστρόφως (< adj. ἐπίστροφος) means diligently, exactly, and occurs extremely rarely in Greek literature; e. g. Memnon FGrH 434 F 5,5, Epict. Diss. Arr. 4.1.81. Instead, in the (almost identical; cf. “Citation Context”) Eub. fr. 148 the commoner term ἐπιστρεφῶς (earnestly, vehemently) is used (< adj. ἐπιστρεφής). 11a κύλικας κύλιξ,-ικος (ἡ) is the cup, and especially the wine-cup; cf. Ar. Lys. 203, Pherecr. fr. 45, Ephipp. fr. 9.1, Alex. fr. 293, Hdt. 4.70, etc. The κύλικες (just like the majority of wine-cups and utensils) were typically ceramic (Ath. 11.480b κεράμεα ποτήρια); understandably, wealthy households were equipped with bronze- and silverware instead (cf. Carion’s exuberance in Ar. Pl. 812–813, when, upon Plutos’ rehabilitation, all household equipment turns from ceramic into bronze); see Vickers 1985. The κύλικες made in Athens and Argos were the most remarkable and sought-after ones, as Athenaeus (11.480c) reports: ἐπίσημοι κύλικες αἵ τε Ἀργεῖαι καὶ αἱ Ἀττικαί. 11b εὐζωρεστέρας The adjective εὔζωρος (< εὖ + ζωρός = pure, sheer) means quite pure, unmixed and typically refers to wine (on εὔζωρος cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 11.3a). Despite the present usage of the comparative degree (εὐζωρεστέρας), there is no actual comparison here with any other kind of κύλικες or with anything else. Instead, the comparative degree is used in an absolute sense, merely to soften/mitigate the wine’s strength/pureness designated by the adjective’s positive degree; i. e. the comparative εὐζωρέστερος means virtually/practically unmixed, somewhat/rather strong wine. For this grammatical phenomenon, also occurring in Ephipp. fr. 10.2, see Smyth (1956) §1082d. An actual comparison featuring the comparative occurs in Diph. fr. 57, where the speaker specifically asks for stronger (εὐζωρότερον) wine, instead of the watery wine (ὑδαρές) that they had been drinking. 11c κύλικας εὐζωρεστέρας The phrase literally translates as virtually unmixed cups. Here the term κύλικας (see s. v. κύλιξ) stands metonymically for wine; i. e. one would normally expect the wine to be described as practically unmixed (εὐζωρέστερον); instead, it is the cups (κύλικας) that are described as such. A parallel case of metonymy occurs in Ar. Pl. 1132 κύλικος ἴσον ἴσῳ κεκραμένης (of the wine-cup mixed one to one; again, it is not the cup that is mixed, but the wine: κύλικος κεκραμένης stands for οἴνου κεκραμένου). Remarkably, there are further parallel cases where other kinds of wine-cups similarly stand for wine via metonymy: apart from Eub. fr. 148.8 (cf. “Citation Context”), see AP 11.28.3 ζωρὸν δέπας (unmixed beaker), and AP 5.289.4 ζωροτέρῳ μείζονι κισσυβίῳ (by

Γηρυόνης (fr. 3)

61

a large unmixed cup); cf. also Ephipp. fr. 28.2, where Λεσβία σταγών (Lesbian drop) stands metonymically for Lesbian wine. Meineke’s attempt (1847: 627; cf. “Constitution of Text”) to modify the text, so that the adjective refers to wine (advocating εὐζωρεστέρου instead of εὐζωρεστέρας), not only is unnecessary (since the text is flawless from all aspects; syntax, grammar, metre, meaning), but also spoils the rare rhetorical effect generated by metonymy. The consumption of neat, unmixed wine was widely considered a conspicuous symptom of boorish and uncivilized behaviour, typical of barbarians; cf. e. g. Anacr. fr. 356b.3 PMG (Σκυθικήν πόσιν: Scythian way of drinking), Hdt. 6.84, Pl. Lg. 637d–e, Philochorus FGrH 328 F 5b (ap. Ath. 2.38c–d), Alciphr. 3.15, Ar. Ach. 75, Eub. fr. 48, adesp. com. fr. 133 (unmixed wine as typical feature of despicable lifestyle): ὧν ἐστι τὸ ζῆν οὐδὲν ἄλλ’ ἢ κραιπάλη, / κῶμος, βαλανεῖ’, ἄκρατος, ἀμίδες, ἀργία, πότος (whose life consists of nothing else than drinking-bouts, revels, bathhouses, unmixed wine, chamberpots, laziness, carousal). On the contrary, as concisely presented by the speaker in Alex. fr. 9, the consumption of wine mixed with water (κεκραμένος οἶνος) was the defining attribute of the Greek way of drinking (Ἑλληνικὸς / πότος, Alex. l. c. lines 8–9); ideally served in modest-sized cups (μετρίοισι ποτηρίοις, Alex. l. c. line 9), mixed wine prevented fast and uncontrollable intoxication, thus allowing for a bit of banter and some nice conversation among the banqueters (λαλεῖν τι καὶ ληρεῖν πρὸς αὑτοὺς ἡδέως, Alex. l. c. line 10). Greeks drank unmixed wine only in special ceremonial cases, the commonest of which was the first libation after a meal, when a toast to the good spirit (Ἀγαθός δαίμων) was made (cf. also the Homeric cases of neat wine libations, σπονδαὶ ἄκρητοι, meant to consolidate the alliance of Greek armies, e. g. Il. 2.341, 4.159). The typical wine-mixing analogy was one-to-three, i. e. one part of wine mixed with three parts of water (strength index 0,33), already recommended by Hesiod (Op. 596) as a moderate blend and later described by Plutarch (657c) as νηφάλιος καὶ ἀδρανὴς κρᾶσις (sober and feeble mixture); cf. Anaxil. fr. 23 (with Tartaglia 2019: 161). The one-to-three mixture, along with the mixture consisting of two parts wine and five parts water (strength index 0,4), were the most temperate – and hence, recommended – blends; cf. Ath. 10.426e ἢ γὰρ δύο πρὸς πέντε πίνειν φασὶ δεῖν ἢ ἕνα πρὸς τρεῖς (people claim that you should drink either two-to-five or oneto-three). Another common, albeit slightly stronger, blend was the one consisting of two parts wine and three parts water (strength index 0,66), which is deemed the best mixture (ἀρίστη κρᾶσις) by the Scholiast on Ar. Eq. 1187a (cf. the relevant thorough note by Van Leeuwen 1900: 203–204). As to the one-to-one mixture, i. e. featuring equal parts of wine and water (strength index 1), this was regarded as an excessively strong one (see Timocl. fr. 22 πατάξω τ᾿ ἴσον ἴσῳ ποτηρίοις / μεγάλοις ἅπασαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν φράσαι: I’ll smack you into telling me the whole truth, by using big cups mixed one-to-one; cf. Apostolakis 2019: 178–180, see also Archipp. fr. 2), and was reserved almost exclusively for toasts (cf. Alex. fr. 59, with Arnott 1996: 183–184); cf. also Stratt. fr. 23.2 (with Orth 2009: 136–137), sch. on Ar. Pl. 1132, and adesp. com. fr. 101.12. In addition, there was also a wide range of other

62

Ephippus

possible admixtures, varying in strength (wine’s quality always being a variable), cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 11.2c. A large number of relevant testimonies (mostly comic fragments) on different kinds of blends is preserved by Athenaeus 10.426b–427c, 430d–431b; cf. also Plu. 657b–d. See further Wilkins (2000a) 216–218; Davidson (1997) 45–49; Page (1955) 308. Generally, excessive and uncontrollable wine-drinking (followed by rowdy and violent behaviour: παροινία) forms part of a widespread and disquieting discourse that permeates Greek literature and is manifested in various genres and forms; simultaneously, self-control (ἐγκράτεια) was an equally major cause of anxiety for ancient Greeks. Caution against excessive wine-consumption is recommended as early as Theognis (479–487, 500–510). See Papachrysostomou (2016) 71–72, 186–189 (with bibliography); Papakonstantinou 2012.

fr. 4 (4 K.) καὶ συναγώγιμον συμπόσιον ἐπικληροῦσιν 2 ἐπικληροῦσιν A, Bothe: ἐπιπληροῦσιν Casaubon coll. Men. fr. 123

and they assign by lot a collective symposion Ath. 8.365b–c καλοῦσι (sc. οἱ ἀρχαῖοι; cf. Ath. 8.364f) δέ τινα καὶ συναγώγιμα δεῖπνα … καὶ Ἔφιππος ἐν Γηρυόνῃ· καὶ — ἐπικληροῦσιν They (sc. the ancients) refer to certain dinners as “collective” (συναγώγιμα) … and Ephippus in the Geryon: “and — symposion”

Metre Iambic trimeter

l kklkl lkkkkk llk

Discussion Meineke 3,326; Bothe 491; Kock 2,252; Edmonds 2,148f.; PCG 5,134; Nesselrath (1990) 220; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 486 Citation Context In Book 8 of his Deipnosophistae (from 362d onwards) Athenaeus goes through various appellations used by the ancients (to whom he refers as either οἱ παλαιοί or οἱ ἀρχαῖοι) to describe various types of feasts, sacrifices, and festive dinners. At 8.365b the discussion turns to the so-called συναγώγιμα δεῖπνα (collective dinners); to substantiate the usage and exemplify the meaning of this appellation, Athenaeus quotes (8.365c) Alex. fr. 253, Ephipp. fr. 4, and Men. fr. 123 (NB in Menander’s fragment the term συναγώγιον is used instead).

Γηρυόνης (fr. 4)

63

The extremely short quotation from Ephippus is anything but helpful towards clarifying the meaning of the adjective συναγώγιμος. Instead, Alexis’ fragment is much more enlightening, given the antithesis that the speaker draws between the contribution required for a συναγώγιμον dinner and the fact that his partner is a skinflint; see further comm. s. v. συναγώγιμον. Constitution of Text There is one major issue regarding this tiny fragment; and it concerns the reading ἐπικληροῦσιν. Even though this reading is clearly preserved by codex A, Casaubon (Animadv. 399) overconfidently modified the manuscript’s reading to ἐπιπληροῦσιν, after comparing Men. fr. 123.2 ἐπλήρωσέν τε τὸ συναγώγιον (and he filled up the dinner). Casaubon’s alternative reading (which I intentionally refrain from describing as “correction”, since the original text was in no need of being corrected in the first place) has ever since been adopted by all subsequent editors (including Meineke, Kock, Edmonds, and Kassel-Austin), apart from Bothe who considered Casaubon’s modification unnecessary (“prater necessitatem”). Likewise, I consider changing the text not only unnecessary but also wrong. First, there is absolutely no reason to alter the text as preserved by the manuscript tradition; and this (i. e. to never modify the text unless it is imperative to do so in order to remedy issues of syntax, grammar, metre, meaning) is – as widely known – a fundamental principle of textual criticism. Secondly, Casaubon’s reading ἐπιπληροῦσιν is as unparalleled as ἐπικληροῦσιν (always with reference to a symposion set up). Men. fr. 123 (which Casaubon uses as parallel evidence) features the verb πληρόω (to fill up, to make complete), not ἐπιπληρόω (to refill). Similarly, Pollux (2.6.8), whilst registering the apropos terminology for setting up a symposion, enlists the verb πληρόω (again, not ἐπιπληρόω): συναγαγεῖν συμπόσιον, συστῆσαι, πληρῶσαι, συγκροτῆσαι, συναθροῖσαι, συγκαλέσαι. Instead, the rare occurrences of the verb ἐπιπληρόω are utterly irrelevant with the symposion imagery; e. g. Th. 7.14.2 οὐδ᾿ ὁπόθεν ἐπιπληρωσόμεθα τὰς ναῦς ἔχομεν (we have no source from which to get recruits for manning our ships), Hp. Vict. 1.32.1 ἐν τῇσι μεταβολῇσι τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ τῶν ὡρέων τῇσι μεγίστῃσιν οὐκ ἐπιπληροῦται τὸ ἔσχατον οὐδέτερον (at the greatest changes in the seasons of the year neither is fulfilled to the extreme limit). Hence, between two verbs (ἐπιπληρόω and ἐπικληρόω) that are both previously unattested as terms designating a symposion arrangement, it is imperative that we trust the manuscript tradition. Yet, my strongest objection to Casaubon’s reading rests with the fact that it clearly aims to apply (if not impose) an erroneous understanding of “normality” within the surviving material and eliminate any singular and eccentric expressions. In fact, there is a good case to be made that ἐπικληροῦσιν (cf. comm. s. v.) was purposely used as an impactful hapax, which was meant to entail some thought-provoking connotations regarding the ever so complex relation between the symposion and the democratic regime. Interpretation One third from the first line and two thirds from the second line is all that survives from the present fragment. A character narrates how a group of unidentifiable individuals (the subject of ἐπικληροῦσιν) unprecedentedly ar-

64

Ephippus

range by lot (ἐπικληροῦσιν) a symposion, to which all participants are required to contribute (συναγώγιμον). The context of these incomplete lines is highly elusive. We can neither recover the background nor establish whether this symposion had anything to do with either the absent meal that the speaker of fr. 3 is drooling over or the preposterous dinner preparations taking place in fr. 5 (cf. “Interpretation” for both fragments). This tiny excerpt might be (and might equally not be) part of the same scene and/or adjacent with either fr. 3 or fr. 5. The plot possibilities are manifold; and it would be pure surmise to pursue them. What particularly stands out – provided that we keep the original reading ἐπικληροῦσιν in the text – is Ephippus’ witty combination of an aristocratic institution (symposion) and a democratic procedure (drawing of lots). Metre Despite the minimal amount of surviving text, we can confidently identify the metre as iambic trimeter. From the first line we have the last element of the second metre and the entire third metre, while from the second line we have the beginning consisting of the first metre plus three elements of the second metre. 1 συναγώγιμον It is precisely to exemplify both the usage and the meaning of this adjective that Athenaeus quotes Ephippus’ present fragment; cf. “Citation Context”. The adjective συναγώγιμος derives from the verb συνάγω, which generally means to bring together, though this generic sense ramifies into multiple sub-meanings; one of them is to bring together/to assemble upon some festive occasion; e. g. Isoc. 4.1 πολλάκις ἐθαύμασα τῶν τὰς πανηγύρεις συναγαγόντων (many times have I wondered at those who convoked the national assemblies), Ath. 8.365c (immediately after quoting Ephippus’ present fragment) ἔλεγον δὲ συνάγειν καὶ τὸ μετ’ ἀλλήλων πίνειν (they used the verb συνάγειν to refer to drinking with one another), Ath. 5.186b τοῖς φιλοσόφοις δὲ ἐπιμελὲς ἦν συνάγουσι τοὺς νέους μετ᾿ αὐτῶν πρός τινα τεταγμένον νόμον εὐωχεῖσθαι (the philosophers did their best to gather a group of young men and feast them in a prescribed way), Ath. 5.187a παρὰ δὲ τοῖς οὐ τὰ σώφρονα συμπόσια συνάγουσι (for those who celebrate immodest symposia), Men. Epit. 412 νυνὶ μὲν οὖν συνάγουσι (right now they are having dinner with company), Men. fr. 123.1 καὶ νῦν ὑπὲρ τούτων συνάγουσι κατὰ μόνας (and now as a result they’re getting together separately), etc.; cf. LSJ 9 s. v. I.2. Nevertheless, despite the common occurrence of the verb συνάγω with the aforementioned specific meaning, the adjective συναγώγιμος occurs only twice: in Ephippus’ present fragment and in Alex. fr. 253; cf. Arnott (1996) 716 (Ephippus is probably our earliest testimony of this term; Alexis was a younger contemporary of Ephippus, and his career extended well into the New Comedy era; cf. Arnott 1996: 18–25). In addition, we have the laconic testimony of Athenaeus who introduces both comic fragments in the following words (8.365b): καλοῦσι δέ τινα καὶ συναγώγιμα δεῖπνα (they [sc. the ancients] refer to certain dinners as συναγώγιμα). Unfortunately, neither Athenaeus’ remark nor Ephippus’ tiny fragment is revealing of the adjective’s meaning; all we can safely deduce is that συναγώγιμος is a term that applied to certain festive dinners/symposia (where, naturally, people assem-

Γηρυόνης (fr. 4)

65

bled together). But Alex. fr. 253 seems more enlightening (NB though that Alexis uses συναγώγιμος substantively): κατάκεισο κἀκείνας κάλει. συναγώγιμον ποιῶμεν. (B) ἀλλ᾿ εὖ οἶδ᾿ ὅτι κυμινοπρίστης ὁ τρόπος ἐστί σου πάλαι Lie down and invite the women in! Let’s have a ‘συναγώγιμον’. (B) But I know perfectly well that you’ve always been a cheapskate. B’s caustic comment suggests that he considers A’s stinginess as a major hindrance to setting up a συναγώγιμον. Therefore, one may assume that this kind of gathering (a συναγώγιμον dinner/symposion) required an individual contribution from every participant; if so, then the συναγώγιμα δεῖπνα appear practically similar to the so-called δεῖπνα ἀπὸ συμβολῶν (dinners from contributions). This hypothesis gains further support from Athenaeus’ ensuing remarks, where indeed he identifies – albeit hesitantly – the συναγώγιμον type of dinner with the dinner from contributions (8.365c–d): μήποτε δὲ τοῦτ᾿ ἐστὶ τὸ ἀπὸ συμβολῶν καλούμενον (perhaps this is the same to what is referred to as (sc. dinner) “from contributions”). On δεῖπνα ἀπὸ συμβολῶν (dinners from contributions; first alluded to in Ar. Ach. 1211 – cf. Olson 2002: 361), also known as ἔρανοι (attested since Hom. Od. 1.226), see Papachrysostomou (2016) 245–248 (comm. on Amphis fr. 39), and comm. on Ephipp. fr. 20.3a (s. v. ἀσύμβολον). All in all, although the surviving evidence regarding the precise meaning of the adjective συναγώγιμος is not downright conclusive, it strongly suggests that the term designated a very specific structure of dinner, which (i) somehow deviated from the practically stereotypical supply of everything by the host, and (ii) closely resembled – if was not identical with – the dining practice of συμβολαί (contributions). Accordingly, I chose to translate συναγώγιμον as collective in Ephippus’ present fragment. Another derivative from the verb συνάγω is the – rarely occurring – noun συναγώγιον, which served (i) as an alternative appellation for the symposion (Ath. 8.365c ἔλεγον δὲ … καὶ συναγώγιον τὸ συμπόσιον: they used the term “συναγώγιον” to refer to the symposion; cf. Men. fr. 123.2), and (ii) via synecdoche, to describe the room itself, the space, where the symposion was taking place (cf. Poll. 6.7). 2a συμπόσιον The symposion; a multifaceted and multidimensional phenomenon (that grew into an institution), primarily of cultural (largely musical) nature, albeit with explicit socio-political ramifications, which left a strong print (literary and other) upon both the Greek and the Roman world. Lissarrague (1990: 19) succinctly defined symposion as “a setting of shared pleasure … a meeting with a changeable agenda, at once spectacle, performance, and enjoyment, with an appeal to all the senses: hearing, taste, touch, smell, and sight”. From among the

66

Ephippus

immense relevant bibliography I shall merely mention here, exempli gratia, three acclaimed collected volumes: (i) Sympotica (1990) edited by O. Murray (featuring twenty-three diverse chapters that cover various aspects of the symposion ranging from furniture to ethics; plus, extensive bibliography for each chapter), (ii) Dining in a Classical Context (1991) edited by W. Slater, and (iii) Feasting and Polis Institutions (2018) edited by F. van den Eijnde, J. H. Blok, and R. Strootma, featuring a diachronic overview of feasting in ancient Greece, in relation with both religion and politics, from the early Iron Age to the Imperial period. Outstandingly insightful is also F. Hobden’s monograph The Symposion in Ancient Greek Society and Thought (2013), where – among other things – she introduces the notion of metasympotics and delves deep into the political implications of symposiality. As is known, Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae is set within a sympotic context (cf. 1.1a), and the entire genre of Comedy abounds in references to various symposion aspects; from vigorous symposion preparations (archetypically featuring in Ar. Ach. 1085-end; cf. Amphis fr. 27 with Papachrysostomou 2016: 170–176) to exhaustive listings of symposion items (e. g. Mnesim. fr. 4; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 186–209, Mastellari 2020: 372–440) and to the central presence and instrumental role of hetairai (providing sexual services but also acting as αὐλητρίδες: pipe-girls, ὀρχηστρίδες: dancers, ψάλτριαι: harpers, κιθαρίστριαι: cithara-players, etc.) in such an environment (e. g. Ar. V. 1216–1222, Pl.Com. fr. 71, Metag. fr. 4 with Orth 2014: 400–406); for the sympotic presence of hetairai in Athenaeus see McClure (2003) passim, while for a detailed discussion of the role of pipe (αὐλός) in the symposion see Wilson (1999) 82–85 (cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 7.2). Fairly outstanding is Amphis fr. 9, which displays all three major sympotic pleasures (food, wine, and sex) and verges on the ‘comic utopia’ motif; see Papachrysostomou (2016) 66–74. The common assumption that Comedy never actually staged a symposion (but rather the relevant scenes are either preparations for a forthcoming symposion or an account of a past one) is challenged – rather unconvincingly – by Webster (21960: 112) and more recently (and more efficiently) by Konstantakos 2005. 2b ἐπικληροῦσιν The basic reasons why the reading ἐπικληροῦσιν (preserved by codex A) should be preferred to Casaubon’s – widely adopted – conjecture ἐπιπληροῦσιν are discussed under “Constitution of Text”. Here I shall explain how Ephippus was probably winking to his audience through this unprecedented use of ἐπικληρόω with reference to sympotic matters. The verb ἐπικληρόω (just like the simplex κληρόω), meaning to assign/appoint by lot, is a quintessentially “democratic” term, coined especially to meet the distinct needs of Athens’ democratic regime and its unprecedented working mechanisms. The procedure of κλήρωσις (selection/assignment by lot) was a fundamental institution of Athenian democracy, which promoted and simultaneously safeguarded the key principles of equality (ἰσότητα), equality before the law (ἰσονομία), and equal opportunity to access public offices (ἰσοτιμία). To fully grasp the significance of assignment by lot, a brief examination of a few relevant sources is necessary at

Γηρυόνης (fr. 4)

67

this point. In a well-known passage (3.80.6; featuring a fascinating chronotopic transcendence) Herodotus registers the defining attributes of Democracy; the assignment of public offices by lot (πάλος < πάλλω; the literal meaning of πάλος is lot cast from a shaking helmet) stands out as the cornerstone of the democratic regime: πλῆθος δὲ ἄρχον πρῶτα μὲν οὔνομα πάντων κάλλιστον ἔχει, ἰσονομίην, δεύτερα δὲ τούτων τῶν ὁ μούναρχος ποιέει οὐδέν· πάλῳ μὲν ἀρχὰς ἄρχει, ὑπεύθυνον δὲ ἀρχὴν ἔχει, βουλεύματα δὲ πάντα ἐς τὸ κοινὸν ἀναφέρει. The virtue of a multitude’s rule lies first in its excellent name, which signifies equality before the law; and secondly, in that it does none of the things that a monarch does; all offices are assigned by lot, and the holders are accountable for what they do therein; and the general assembly arbitrates on all counsels. Aspects of selection by lot are also described in detail in [Aristotle’s] Athenian Constitution, e. g. §63 (members of Jury-courts), §8.1 (Nine Archons), etc. The procedure of κλήρωσις for the higher of offices (e. g. the Nine Archons) – already democratic enough in itself – became even more egalitarian with time, in the sense that the early timocratic (Solonian) restrictions were gradually lifted, so that eventually all citizens were eligible to participate in the draw, regardless of their property qualifications. On this point [Aristotle] makes two outstanding remarks capturing the essence of Athens’ democratization process (Ath. 26.2): ἕκτῳ ἔτει μετὰ τὸν Ἐφιάλτου θάνατον ἔγνωσαν καὶ ἐκ ζευγιτῶν προκρίνεσθαι τοὺς κληρωσομένους τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων (five years after the death of Ephialtes they decided to extend to the Teamster class eligibility to the preliminary roll from which the Nine Archons were to be selected by lot), and – most conspicuously – in Ath. 7.4 καὶ νῦν ἐπειδὰν ἔρηται τὸν μέλλοντα κληροῦσθαί τιν᾿ ἀρχὴν ποῖον τέλος τελεῖ, οὐδ᾿ ἂν εἷς εἴποι θητικόν (even now when the presiding official asks a man who is about to draw lots for some office what rate he pays, no one would say that he was rated as a Labourer; this passage testifies to the fact that eventually all timocratic stratification was ignored without ever being formally repealed). As to verb ἐπικληρόω itself, it commonly appears in [Arist.] Athenian Constitution in the context of various issues that were dealt with through assignment by lot in fifth- and fourth-century BC Athens (e. g. 59.5 ἐπικληροῦσι ταῖς ἀρχαῖς οὗτοι τὰ δικαστήρια τά τ᾿ ἴδια καὶ τὰ δημόσια: they assign the public and the private jury-courts by lot among the magistrates; 63.5 ἐπειδὰν δὲ ὁ θεσμοθέτης ἐπικληρώσῃ τὰ γράμματα ἃ δεῖ προσπαρατίθεσθαι τοῖς δικαστηρίοις, ἐπέθηκε φέρων ὁ ὑπηρέτης ἐφ᾿ ἕκαστον τὸ δικαστήριον τὸ γράμμα τὸ λαχόν: as soon as the Lawgiver has drawn by lot the letters to be assigned to the courts, the attendant immediately takes them and affixes to each court its allotted letter), and also in Demosthenes (e. g. 14.19, 14.22, 14.23, 21.13, 37.39); cf. Pl. Lg. 760b. (NB an important category of Athens’ public officers who were not designated by lot – but were elected instead – were the Ten Generals, since the effective management of

68

Ephippus

their office required expert knowledge and special/technical abilities; cf. [Arist.] Ath. 22.2, 44.4.) It is against this multiplicate background that we need to approach and assess the impact of ἐπικληροῦσιν in Ephippus’ present fragment. Given that the verb ἐπικληρόω has strong political connotations of explicitly democratic nature (as demonstrated above), what immediately strikes the reader (as also did the play’s original audience) is the manifest notional antithesis that is automatically drawn between the adjacent terms συμπόσιον and ἐπικληροῦσιν; for this constitutes – via synecdoche – a dramaturgical juxtaposition of aristocracy and democracy, which corresponds to the real antithesis (in terms of essence, structure, numbers, and participation criteria) between the aristocratic drinking company and the entire citizen body of a polis. Murray (1990b) analyzes some interesting aspects of this intricate relationship and observes (p. 150) that “the symposion remained largely a private and aristocratic preserve”; see also Murray 1990a. This fundamental opposition would have been perceptible by fourth-century spectators, who were regularly exposed to (i) the experience of dramatic performances (cf. Revermann 2016a: 159–175), and (ii) the everyday political happenings. Accordingly, Ephippus’ audience had already been subconsciously trained to instantly identify such poetical winks like the present, witty apposition of the two “heavily-loaded” terms at the beginning of the line. Besides, as has been shown (Revermann 2006b), both fifthand fourth-century audiences, featuring a broadly stratified composition (i. e. élite and non-élite members), exhibited a considerable level of theatrical competence (for the view of predominantly élite audiences, see Sommerstein 1997, 1998b and Bowie 1998). What is more, an innovative concept emerges from Ephippus’ tiny fragment. Given the interpretation of the συναγώγιμον συμπόσιον (cf. comm. s. v. συναγώγιμον), as well as the presence of the verb ἐπικληρόω, it becomes evident that what the comic character presently describes is a (previously unheard-of and, admittedly, fairly preposterous) democratized symposion, where the contributions/ share required by every participant are assigned by lot. That is, this collective (συναγώγιμον) symposion (which has already an inherent dash of democratic spirit, since everyone is expected to contribute) acquires a (further) democratic twist and fully complies with the modus operandi of public affairs in Athens; the individual contribution of the banqueters is not arbitrarily decided (by the host, the symposiarch, etc.), but is democratically designated by lot. This is clearly one of Ephippus’ most inventive and original ideas; a harmonic, albeit utopian, amalgam of opposite ideologies, of the kind that only Comedy’s upside-down world (cf. Arist. Po. 1453a37–39) could provide and allow for.

Γηρυόνης (fr. 5)

69

fr. 5 (5 K.)

5

10

15

20

τούτῳ δ᾿ ὁπόταν ναέται χώρας ἰχθύν τιν᾿ ἕλωσ᾿ οὐχ ἡμέριον, τῆς περικλύστου δ᾿ ἁλίας Κρήτης μείζω μεγέθει, λοπάς ἐστ᾿ αὐτῷ δυνατὴ τούτους χωρεῖν ἑκατόν. καὶ περιοίκους εἶναι ταύτῃ Σίνδους, Λυκίους, Μυγδονιώτας, Κραναούς, Παφίους. τούτους δ᾿ ὕλην κόπτειν, ὁπόταν βασιλεὺς ἕψῃ τὸν μέγαν ἰχθύν· καὶ προσάγοντας, καθ᾿ ὅσον πόλεως ἕστηκεν ὅρος, τοὺς δ᾿ ὑποκαίειν. λίμνην δ᾿ ἐπάγειν ὕδατος μεστὴν εἰς τὴν ἅλμην, τοὺς δ᾿ ἅλας αὐτῷ ζεύγη προσάγειν μηνῶν ὀκτὼ συνεχῶς ἑκατόν. περιπλεῖν δ᾿ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄμβωσιν ἄνω πέντε κέλητας πεντεσκάλμους περιαγγέλλειν τ᾿· “οὐχ ὑποκαίεις, Λυκίων πρύτανι; ψυχρὸν τουτί.” “παύου φυσῶν, Μακεδὼν ἄρχων.” “σβέννυ, Κέλθ᾿, ὡς μὴ προσκαύσῃς”

1 ὁππότε τῷ Γηρϋόνῃ CE 2 τιν’ om. CE ἕλωσ᾿ Schweigh.: -σι CE: -σιν A οὐχ ἡμέριον A: om. CE: οὐχ ἡμεδαπόν Kock: οὐχ ἡμερινόν vel (5.1,85) οὐ δὴ μέτριον Meineke, quae postea Anal.Ath. 153 ipse dixit non magnopere placere 3 δαλίας A: ἁλίας CE 5 sq. om. CE 6 ταύτῃ (vel ταύτης) Schweigh. IX.582: -η A: φασιν Schweigh. III.278 7 Σινδούς Schweigh. (Σίνδους corr. Meineke): ἐσϊνδοὺς ϊνδοὺς A: ϊνδοὺς CE 7–8 Μυγδονιώτας, Κραναούς et τούτους om. CE 10 καὶ – 12 ὑποκαίειν om. CE 17 πεντεσκάλμους Herwerden (1876) 308: πεντασκάλμους ACE 18–21 om. CE 18 τ᾿· “οὐχ ὑποκαίεις Wil. ap. Kaibel: τε κοὐχ ὑποκαίειν A 19 λυκείων Α: corr. Schweigh. πρύτανι Wil. ap. Kaibel: πρυτάνεις A 21 σβέννυ, Κέλθ᾿, ὡς Wil. ap. Kaibel: σβεννυκελτους A: σβέννυ Kέλτους Schweigh.: σβέννυ, Kέλτους Meineke Anal. Ath. 153 προσκαύσῃς Schweigh.: προσκλύσῃς A

5

Whenever the inhabitants of the country catch an exceptional fish for him, larger in size than the sea-girt, thalassic Crete, a cooking-pot is available for his sake, which is capable of holding one hundred of these. And the inhabitants dwelling around this country are Sindians, Lycians, Mygdonians, Cranaans, and Paphians; these, they chop wood, whenever the king is cooking

70

Ephippus 10

15

20

the big fish, and carry it forward, up to the city’s boundaries, and set fire to it. And a lake full of water is supplied for the brine; and they marshal one hundred pairs of oxen to transport salt for it, for eight months non-stop. And up on the rim, five fast, five-tholed boats keep sailing about and carry orders around: “Won’t you turn up the fire, Lycian commander? This bit right here is cold!” “Stop blowing, ruler of Macedon!” “Quench that flame, Celt, lest you burn it all!”

Ath. 8.346e–347b τάχα δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἄνδρες φίλοι, ἑκόντες παρελίπετε ὡς ἱερόν τινα ἰχθὺν τὸν παρ᾿ Ἐφίππῳ τῷ κωμῳδιοποιῷ, ὅν φησι τῷ Γηρυόνῃ σκευάζεσθαι ἐν τῷ ὁμωνύμῳ δράματι (Geryonis mentionem hic om. CE) διὰ τούτων λέγων· τούτῳ — προσκαύσῃς But perhaps you too, my friends, intentionally left out – as if it was sacred – the fish found in the comic playwright Ephippus, which he says it was prepared for Geryon in the homonymous play, in the following words: “Whenever — all”

Metre

5

10

15

20

Anapaestic dimeter

llkkl|kklll llkkl|llkkl lkkll|kklll llkkl|kklll kklll|llkkl lkkll|llll llkkl|lkkll kklkkl|llll llkkl|kklll lkkll|lkkll kklkkl|llkkl lkkll|llkkl kklll|llll lkkll|llkkl llll|kklkkl kklkkl|llkkl lkkll|llll kklll|lkkll kklkkl|llll llll|kklll llll|llll

Γηρυόνης (fr. 5)

71

Discussion Meineke 3,323–325; Bothe 490; Kock 2,252f.; Edmonds 2,156–159; Wilamowitz (1962) 235–236; Webster (21970) 40–43; Dušanić 1980–1981; PCG 5,134f.; Nesselrath (1990) 218–221, 267, 272, 276, 326; Pernigotti 2000; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 486f.; Konstantakos 2011 Citation Context Fish is the main topic of Book 7 of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae; Book 8 largely continues the discussion of the same subject, which expands into the germane issue of gluttony; cf. Marchiori 2000. Ever since 7.275c the symposiarch Ulpian has suspended the serving of food (ἐπισχεῖν τε κελεύσας τοὺς παῖδας τὴν περιφοράν: he ordered the slaves to stop bringing food around) to allow for uninterrupted conversation among the banqueters; this gesture of his is later disapproved by the banqueter Democritus, who eagerly awaits the serving of fish (8.346c ἡμᾶς τῶν ἰχθύων ἀπεστέρησεν: he deprived us of fish). In analogy and in response to Ulpian intentionally halting the serving of food before fish was served, Athenaeus has Democritus complaining on the omission of Ephippus’ fishy fragment from the banqueters’ erudite discussion (8.346e καὶ ὑμεῖς … ἑκόντες παρελίπετε … : you too – i. e. just like Ulpian – intentionally left out …); Democritus then proceeds with quoting Ephippus’ fragment (8.346f–347b). Constitution of Text This is a tangled text, which numerous scholarly conjectures have so far attempted to heal. Here I present the most important aspects of this elaborate procedure. Prior already to the quotation of the actual fragment, within Athenaeus’ text, the Epitome codices C and E leave out the overall thematic reference to Geryon (τῷ Γηρυόνῃ), which is preserved by codex A. Yet, this omission is counterpoised in line 1 of Ephippus’ fragment, where both codices (C and E) preserve the (unmetrical) reading ὁππότε τῷ Γηρϋόνῃ. Yet, a vital caveat is in order here; it is not inconceivable that the Epitome scribe inserted in Ephippus’ fragment the same piece of information (plus an extra ὁππότε), which he had previously omitted from Athenaeus’ own text (this possibility is significant for the fragment’s interpretation; cf. “Interpretation” below). In line 2 codices C and E leave out the reading τιν’ (which is supplied by codex A). Also, the same codices preserve the reading ἕλωσι, while codex A features ἕλωσιν (with a final nu). Yet, this extra syllable renders the line unmetrical; hence Schweighaeuser modified the text to ἕλωσ᾿, a reading that satisfies the metre. In the same line codex A preserves the reading οὐχ ἡμέριον, which is omitted by the codices C and E. Given the hapax sense that ἡμέριον presently has (οὐχ ἡμέριον meaning not mortal-like, i. e. exceptional; cf. s. v.), Kock and Meineke came up with alternative readings (which would not require an unparalleled understanding of ἡμέριον); the former suggested the reading οὐχ ἡμεδαπόν (not of our land) and the latter suggested either οὐχ ἡμερινόν (not of day) or οὐ δὴ μέτριον (not of average size), but later Meineke (Anal.Ath. 153) confessed he was not happy with either of his suggestions. Although Kock’s suggestion and Meineke’s οὐ δὴ μέτριον are notionally sound (Meineke’s οὐχ ἡμερινόν is rather unfelicitous), they significantly deviate palaeographically from what the manuscript tradition preserves. Overall,

72

Ephippus

there is no need to alter the manuscript tradition (and substitute the term ἡμέριον presently bearing an unparalleled sense), especially since this is a fragment that features language peculiarities elsewhere too (cf. “Interpretation”). In line 3 codices C and E preserve – rather surprisingly – the correct reading ἁλίας, whereas codex A preserves the unintelligible reading δαλίας. Lines 5 and 6 are omitted by codices C and E. In line 6 codex A preserves the (syntactically inapt) reading ταύτη. Schweighaeuser suggested three alternatives: in vol. ix p. 582 of his Animadversiones suggested either ταύτῃ (which is the most suitable reading, since the dative case is governed by the preposition περί, featuring in the preceding compound περιοίκους) or ταύτης, while in vol. iii p. 278 of the same work suggested the entirely divergent reading φασιν. In line 7 codex A preserves the reading ἐσϊνδοὺς ϊνδοὺς, while codices C and E preserve ϊνδοὺς. Schweighaeuser astutely suggested the reading Σινδούς. Meineke notes that the correct accentuation for Schweighaeuser’s conjecture would be Σίνδους; and this is indeed the preferred reading, which is corroborated by the following testimonies: Herodian (3.1 p. 142 Lentz) recommends the paroxytone accentuation: Σίνδος … τινὲς δὲ ὀξυτονοῦσιν, οὐκ εὖ (Σίνδος … some put the accent on the last syllable, but this is wrong); likewise, Arcadius, in his spurious essay Περὶ τόνων (p. 53 Schmidt), offers an interesting accentuation guideline: τὰ εἰς ΔΟΣ δισύλλαβα ἔχοντα πρὸ τοῦ Δ σύμφωνον βαρύνεται, εἰ μὴ ἐπιθετικὰ εἴη· λίνδος Σίνδος Πίνδος νάρδος μάρδος. σεσημείωται τὸ Ἰνδός, ποταμὸς καὶ τὸ ἐθνικόν (all words of two syllables ending in -ΔΟΣ that have a consonant before delta are accentuated on the penultimate syllable, unless they are adjectival; e. g. λίνδος, Σίνδος, Πίνδος, νάρδος, μάρδος; with the exception of Ἰνδός, the river and the ethnic). It is evident that Arcadius uses the term Σίνδος as a noun (i. e. the city of Sindos) rather than as an ethnic (otherwise the phrase εἰ μὴ ἐπιθετικὰ εἴη would make no sense); for a more recent approach to ps.-Arcadius’ text see Roussou 2011. From lines 7–8 codices C and E selectively left out the terms Μυγδονιώτας, Κραναούς, and τούτους. The same codices also left out the part from καὶ (line 10) until ὑποκαίειν (line 12). In line 17 the manuscript tradition unanimously preserves the reading πεντασκάλμους (with an alpha), but Van Herwerden (1876: 308) corrected it to πεντεσκάλμους (with an epsilon), on the basis that this form (πεντέσκαλμος) complies with the Attic norm of the era, according to which the letter epsilon (not the letter alpha) standardly features as the connective/linking letter in cases of compound adjectives with the number five (πέντε); cf. Phryn. PS fr. 346: πεντέπηχυ καὶ πεντέκλινον καὶ πεντέχαλκον καὶ πεντέμηνον καὶ πάντα τὰ ὅμοια οὕτω λέγουσι διὰ τοῦ ε ([sc. the Athenians] say “πεντέπηχυ” and “πεντέκλινον” and “πεντέχαλκον” and “πεντέμηνον” and they form all other kindred terms in this way, with an epsilon), and Moer. π 63: πεντετηρίς πεντέκλινον πεντέμηνον Ἀττικοί· πενταετηρίς καὶ τἆλλα ὁμοίως Ἕλληνες (the Athenians say “πεντετηρίς”, “πεντέκλινον”, “πεντέμηνον”; but all other Greeks say “πενταετηρίς” and the rest of them similarly [sc. with an alpha instead of an epsilon]). The grammarians’

Γηρυόνης (fr. 5)

73

claims are evinced by (i) fifth- , fourth- and third-century BC literary texts (where πεντα- , instead of πεντε- , features only in numeral adjectives and adverbs, and the resulting compounds, e. g. πεντακόσιοι, πεντάκις, πεντακισχίλιοι, πεντακοσιομέδιμνος), and (ii) ample inscriptional evidence from Attica from the fifth and fourth centuries BC. It is striking that the earliest surviving inscriptional example of a πεντα- compound (with an alpha) is dated ca. 100 BC (πεντάμνουν); see Meisterhans (31900) 158. Generally, the shift from -ε- to -α- was triggered in Greek grammar (albeit this happened considerably late in Attica) by analogy to the compounds with four (τετρα-), seven (ἑπτα-), nine (ἐννεα-), and ten (δεκα-). Further discussion is carried out by Pearson (1917) ii.85 (comm. on S. fr. 429). Taking into consideration all the above, it is justifiable to modify Ephippus’ text from πεντασκάλμους to πεντεσκάλμους. Nonetheless, there are a couple of counterarguments to this correction: apart from the cardinal rule of textual criticism that dictates not to modify the text, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so, the term πεντάσκαλμος is a hapax; therefore, we might perhaps accept it for what it is (i. e. an idiosyncratic formation, a hapax, which is by definition unique), rather than seeking to homogenize it with anything else. In addition, natives of six regions (other than Attica) are mentioned in this fragment (Sindians, Lycians, Mygdonians, Paphians, Celts, and Macedonians), and it is highly likely that the speaker himself is a non-Athenian; simultaneously, it is also likely that the language of the fragment, as well as the overall diction/style, were not meant to be strictly Attic (cf. “Interpretation” for the fragment’s linguistic peculiarities); if so, the obvious antecedent would be Aristophanes and his habitual use of incorrect and/ or gibberish language in case of foreign comic characters; e. g. Ach. 100, 104; cf. Colvin 1999: passim, esp. 119–263). Hence, the hapax πεντασκάλμους was perhaps meant to be accommodated under the non-Athenian aura of the fragment. On balance and given the absence of the fragment’s wider context, I am inclined to hesitantly adopt Van Herwerden’s correction πεντεσκάλμους. Lines 18–21 are omitted by the Epitome codices C and E. In line 18 codex A preserves the reading τε κοὐχ ὑποκαίειν. But Wilamowitz (ap. Kaibel) detected that this was probably meant as a rhetorical question and suggested the alternative reading τ᾿· “οὐχ ὑποκαίεις, which has been widely adopted ever since. In line 19 codex A preserves the reading λυκείων, which Schweighaeuser corrected to λυκίων. Also, Wilamowitz (ap. Kaibel) corrected the reading πρυτάνεις (preserved by codex A) to πρύτανι, a vocative that appositely corresponds to the second person singular featuring in Wilamowitz’s other conjecture in the preceding line (τ᾿· “οὐχ ὑποκαίεις). In line 21 codex A preserves the incoherent reading σβεννυκελτους. Schweighaeuser simply separated this reading into two words and suggested that we read σβέννυ Κέλτους (which still does not make any sense), while Meineke (Anal.Ath. 153) merely inserted a comma after σβέννυ (i. e. σβέννυ, Κέλτους). But Wilamowitz (ap. Kaibel) was resourceful enough to come up with the befitting reading σβέννυ, Κέλθ᾿, ὡς, which (i) is meaningful, (ii) satisfies the metrical requirements, and (iii) intertwines nicely with and complements the meaning

74

Ephippus

of the immediately following text (quench that flame, Celt – lest you burn it all), creating a concluding object (substantival) clause (ὡς μὴ προσκαύσῃς). Yet, the final word, προσκαύσῃς, is Schweighaeuser’s ingenious conjecture (replacing A’s reading προσκλύσῃς), which blends in nicely with the text’s overall meaning and tenor (i. e. a direct order is issued to some Celt to put out the fire, σβέννυ, so that the fish is not burnt: ὡς μὴ προσκαύσῃς). Interpretation The present fragment (reasonably described as “amüsantes” by Wilamowitz 1962: 235) features an imaginative narration of how an enormous fish is being prepared for the king Geryon (NB the king’s name/identity is not mentioned in the fragment itself, but provided by Athenaeus; see further below). The (unidentifiable) speaker (of unknown origin) describes – in every utopian detail – how a gigantic fish (bigger than the island of Crete) is cooked in an equally extra-large pot for the sake of Geryon. The inhabitants of neighbouring regions are actively involved in the preparation of this dish and vigorously carry out individual tasks. The speaker addresses this detailed report either directly to the audience or to some comic character(s); in either case, the aim is to inform the listener(s) about the peculiar habit of the king, and beyond that to create a strong and long-lasting impression about the king’s authority and supreme power. The fragment is a typical example of a distinct comic topos, which consists of grandiloquent narrations of preposterous events and irrational situations. This topos includes a wide range of sub-cases, where the speaker (when identifiable, this is usually an arrogant soldier, a foreigner, an envoy or some traveller) vividly and pompously describes some absurd situation that encompasses surrealistic, utopian, outlandish, and/or exotic elements (often of Münchausen type), which could have never occurred in real life. This comic tradition of blustering utterances has a long pedigree that traces back to Aristophanes (e. g. Ach. 80–89; cf. Olson 2002: 99) and extends down to Roman comic tradition (e. g. Plaut. MG 13–19, 25–30). Some of the most representative examples of this comic pattern from Middle Comedy include Antiph. fr. 200 (cf. Konstantakos 2000a: 211–231), Alex. fr. 63 (cf. Arnott 1996: 188–192), and Mnesim. fr. 7 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 210–216, Mastellari 2020: 453–467); see further Nesselrath (1990) 325–330 and Papachrysostomou (2016) 67–74, 180–184 (on Amphis frr. 9 and 28 respectively, with more parallels and bibliography). See also comm. and further bibliography on the arrogant soldier figure under “Title” for Ephippus’ The Peltast. What is more, Ephippus’ present fragment is the obvious antecedent of Juvenal’s Fourth Satire, where a gigantic fish is prepared for the emperor Domitian; see Santorelli (2012) 20–24, who, although failing to include Ephippus’ present fragment among the parallels he cites, points out that large fish have always been considered gifts appropriate for royals and tyrants; for the pattern of the monarch/tyrant as devourer, see Fileni 1983. The fragment’s language is idiosyncratic in various aspects. The speaker uses a hapax (line 17), elevated style, nouns and adjectives (characteristic of epic, lyric, tragic poetry or otherwise peculiar; cf. comm. on lines 1b, 2, 3a, 3b, 8, 11), whilst

Γηρυόνης (fr. 5)

75

his overall use of syntax is not exactly a textbook one (cf. comm. on lines 12 and 14); it is possible that Ephippus consciously – and more Aristophaneo – employed this divergent stylistic register as a telltale sign of the speaker’s non-Athenian origin and/or of his overwhelming exuberance that makes him use largely unconventional syntactic structure. Whatever the case, the combination of elevated language with non-standard syntactical forms must have generated a paradoxical acoustic result. Furthermore, the fragment presents a number of challenging interpretation issues. First, the information that the fish is prepared for Geryon is supplied by Athenaeus in his introductory comment (τῷ Γηρυόνῃ; preserved solely by codex A) and by the Epitome codices as a varia lectio in line 1 of the fragment; the possibility that this piece of information is Athenaeus’ own intelligent guess (reasonably, and perhaps instinctively, induced by the play’s title) should not be hastily crossed out (the fact that in Epitome’s version the phrase ὁππότε τῷ Γηρϋόνῃ occurs in the fragment itself is not at all binding; cf. “Constitution of Text”). Later on in the fragment (line 9) we hear that the fish is prepared for the king (whose identity remains undisclosed); hence, we are presented with the following possibilities: (i) identify Geryon with this king within a purely mythological context (Geryon might be pictured as a king of his remote island of Erytheia in some strange adaptation/ twist of the mythical tradition), (ii) assume that Athenaeus unintentionally misinformed us about Geryon being the recipient of the fish-dish, (iii) hypothesize that the title-figure of Geryon functions as a comic disguise of a historic character who was a king in real life (or, less likely, a despotic political figure). Option (i) seems unlikely; the comic potential would be low and the possibilities for comic exploitation minimal, if this were a purely mythological comedy (i. e. without any political implications). Option (ii) is also rather unlikely, given Athenaeus’ overall meticulousness (despite his occasional infelicities; cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 12–13). Option (iii) appears to be the most appealing and the most popular one among modern scholars (cf. comm. under “Title”). Against the play’s firm mythological backdrop, fourth-century contemporary reality suggests itself in the present fragment through the reference to people dwelling in and around mainland Greece and on Greek islands (lines 6–7); but most telling is the concluding twofold reference to some Macedonian ruler (line 20) and some Celt (line 21). As explained above (cf. “Title”), the material of the present fragment makes a strong case in favour of identifying the play’s mythological title-figure of Geryon with the Macedonian king Philip II. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the inhabitants of neighbouring regions are not portrayed as mere ναέται, but they are also described as περίοικοι (cf. s. v.), i. e. dwelling around whilst being simultaneously subject to the king. Further intriguing are the five strategically pinpointed areas (lines 7–8) that form the king’s sphere of influence, which starts from Macedonia (Μυγδονιῶται; cf. s. v.), extends to the north up to the vast territory of Sindians (Σίνδοι), in the northern border of Black Sea, spreads to the south down to Cyprus (Πάφιοι), enters Asia Minor to the east reaching Lycia (Λύκιοι), and of course includes the

76

Ephippus

city of Athens (Κραναοί), whilst understandably engulfing all areas in-between. Complementary to this imagery of ethnic regions is the cooking-vessel (λοπάς, cf. s. v.), which can arguably be understood as an allegory for the Mediterranean Sea. The visualization of such an extended spatial region may allegorically refer to Philip’s plans for territorial expansion and geopolitical control. In that regard, it is noteworthy that the fragment embeds even a veiled reference to Macedon’s early expansionism (cf. comm. s. v. Μυγδονιῶται). Last but not least, another issue that calls for discussion is the testimony of Athenaeus (8.347c) that Ephippus used the exact same lines (i. e. the entire fr. 5) into another one of his plays, The Peltast: οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δ᾿ ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα εἴρηκεν ὁ Ἔφιππος κἀν Πελταστῇ τῷ δράματι (I am well aware that Ephippus makes exactly the same remarks in his play “The Peltast”); see further comm. on fr. 19. We cannot say whether this was a recycling or a self-quotation. The antecedent for the former is Aeschylus (Pers. 811 ~ Ag. 527), while for both phenomena Aristophanes (e. g. Ach. 504 ~ Th. 472, Pax 752–759 ~ V. 1030–1037); cf. Ephipp. fr. 3 “Citation Context”. Accordingly, it is in the same way that we need to approach Ephippus’ double use of his material; i. e. it does not follow that we presently need to interpret fr. 5 as a story reported by someone else (as is the case in fr. 19). Besides, another playwright of Middle Comedy, Philetaerus (he won his first victory between 372 and 366 BC; IRDF 2325E.38) also used a set of same lines into two different plays of his; fr. 5 (PCG 7,325) from his play Korinthiastes (“The Whore-Monger”) is similar (minus the first line) to fr. 8 (PCG 7,326) from his play Kynagis (“The Huntress”). Metre The use of anapaestic dimeter is relevant to the fragment’s thematic idiosyncracy. The present fragment belongs to a special category of comic fragments where anapaestic dimeter serves the purposes of some ‘artistic ekphrasis’ (Nesselrath 1990: 276–280); this case is particularly described by Nesselrath (l. c. 276) as “märchenhafter Phantasie”. On the anapaestic metrical pattern see further Intro. 7 “Metre”. 1 – 4 ὁπόταν … ἕλωσ’ … ἐστ’ The syntactic structure of the introductory temporal clause (ὁπόταν + the aorist subjunctive ἕλωσ’), in combination with the present indicative in the main clause (ἐστ’), automatically reveals that what the speaker is about to describe is a habit that recurs regularly in the present and will recur indefinitely in the future (cf. Smyth 1956: §2399). 1a τούτῳ For him, i. e. for Geryon (τῷ Γηρυόνῃ); cf. “Constitution of Text” and “Interpretation”. 1b ναέται This is the only occurrence of the noun ναέτης (inhabitant) within the comic corpus (cf. “Interpretation”). Instead, the term occurs in lyric poetry (e. g. Simon. fr. 76, Limen. 41), as well as in later authors (e. g. Paus. 10.18.2); compound forms of it (with prefixed prepositions) also feature in epic poetry (e. g. περιναιέτης in Il. 24.488 and A.R. 4.470; μεταναιέτης in Hes. Th. 401); cf. Schroeter (1906) 55–56.

Γηρυόνης (fr. 5)

77

2 ἡμέριον Cf. “Constitution of Text”. The adjective ἡμέριος (< ἡμέρα: day) originally designates something / someone that lasts / lives only one day; by extension, the mortals, being short-lived, are often collectively described as ἡμέριοι (e. g. S. Ant. 789). Resourcefully, Ephippus uses this adjective in a figurative sense; given that ἡμέριος describes something that becomes the mortals, it follows that anything that is not mortal-like (οὐχ ἡμέριον), just like the fish under discussion, must be something that exceeds human nature, standards, and expectations; such a creature can legitimately be described as an exceptional one. There is no known parallel for Ephippus’ present usage of this term (cf. “Interpretation”). 3a περικλύστου This is another touch of elevated language (cf. “Interpretation”); a term that does not feature anywhere else in the comic corpus (cf. s. v. ναέται). The adjective περίκλυστος (< περί + κλύζω) means washed all around by the sea (cf. next note) and is commonly used to describe islands in epic and tragic poetry (e. g. h.Ap. 181, Hes. Th. 199, A. Pers. 879, etc.), as well as in later prose (e. g. D.H. 5.13.4, Str. 1.1.3, etc.). Though not featuring anywhere else in the comic genre, the adjective περίκλυστος is often used by the parodist Archestratus (e. g. frr. 11.4, 28.1, etc.). 3b ἁλίας Line 3 features a case of hendiadys; the adjective ἅλιος (< ἅλς), meaning of the sea, is synonymous with the immediately preceeding περίκλυστος; here both adjectives emphatically describe the island of Crete as being sea-girt, thalassic. The display of conspicuous (and superfluous) diligence in the description of Crete (which is tangential, if not irrelevant, to the speaker’s point) sounds fairly paratragic and constitutes another instance of affected, elevated language; cf. “Interpretation”. Just like περίκλυστος, the adjective ἅλιος is often employed in epos (e. g. Hom. Il. 1.556), tragedy (e. g. A. Supp. 14), as well as lyric poetry (e. g. Pi. O. 9.72). But as far as comedy is concerned, it occurs only here and in Mnesim. fr. 4.59 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 437). 3c Κρήτης Crete is the largest of the Greek islands; hence, the speaker reasonably chose this particular island as a measure for comparison, in order to communicate the absurd size of the fish under discussion. 4a ἐστ᾿ αὐτῷ αὐτῷ is dative of the possessor, indicating the person to whom something belongs (here, the λοπάς) or for whom something exists; it is typically accompanied by the verb εἶναι (here, ἐστ᾿); e. g. E. Hel. 819 ἔστ᾿ ἔνδον αὐτῷ ξύμμαχος θεοῖς ἴση (he has indoors an ally powerful as the gods), E. El. 1311 πόσις ἔστ’ αὐτῇ καὶ δόμος (she has a husband and a home). See further Smyth (1956) §1476. 4b λοπάς The term λοπάς,-άδος (ἡ) was a common name for a round and shallow, earthenware cooking vessel, typically with a lid sitting on a flanged rim (cf. comm. s. v. ἄμβωσιν), which was used for stewing and boiling (mostly fish), e. g. Ar. V. 511, Ar. Pl. 812, Arched. fr. 2.4; it is distinguished from τήγανον (frying-pan) in Pl.Com. fr. 189.12 and Eub. fr. 108. Elsewhere, the term λοπάς seems to designate a

78

Ephippus

serving plate/dish, rather than a cooking-pot, e. g. Ar. Eq. 1034, Alex. fr. 115.22. See Sparkes (1962) 130 and pl. vi; Arnott (1996) 323–324 (with further bibliography). Presently, the λοπάς meant by the speaker is absurdly huge, since it is meant to accommodate a fish bigger than the island of Crete; hence, no wonder that five large boats are said to be sailing around (περιπλεῖν) its rim. Such an immense vessel could perhaps be an allusion to the Mediterranean Sea itself, wherein there are fish (obviously), as well as boats sailing around its ‘rims’ (shores). This metaphorical interpretation of λοπάς complements the political reading of the fragment as alluding to Philip II’s territorial ‘hunger’ (cf. “Interpretation”). 5 τούτους As Meineke first observed, metrical reasons dictate that τούτους is presently used instead of τοιούτους (the latter reading would produce an extra longum element). Smyth (1956: §1241) notes that the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος has a wider range of use than the other demonstratives. At the same time, it is significant to bear in mind that both demonstrative pronouns, οὗτος and τοιοῦτος, are closely related; not only is τοιοῦτος compound from τοῖος + οὗτος, but also both pronouns generally refer to what precedes (Smyth 1956: §1245). Hence, on certain cases, οὗτος is used instead of τοιοῦτος, just like in Ephippus’ present fragment; e. g. Thgn. 1.83–86 τούτους οὐχ εὕροις διζήμενος οὐδ᾿ ἐπὶ πάντας / ἀνθρώπους … / οἷσιν ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ τε καὶ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἔπεστιν / αἰδώς, οὐδ᾿ αἰσχρὸν χρῆμ᾿ ἔπι κέρδος ἄγει (not even if you searched among all men would you find … such men on whose tongue and eyes there is a sense of shame and whom profit does not lead to a disgraceful act), pap. adesp. com. fr. 1000.1–2 ὦ πάτερ, ἐχρῆν μὲν οὓς ἐγὼ λόγους λέγω, / τούτους λέγειν σε (father, you should be saying words similar to the ones that I am now saying). 6a περιοίκους Here the adjective περίοικος,-ον is used substantively to denote the inhabitants dwelling around (περί + οἰκέω) the king’s realm. It is possible that Ephippus merely wished to designate the people who lived in areas adjacent to this kingdom. Yet, the term περίοικος is not attested anywhere else in comedy or tragedy (instead, it is commonly found in historic texts, as well as in rhetoric speeches). This singular occurrence of the term becomes even more interesting, if we simultaneously evaluate the fact that περίοικος also has a very specific meaning as a substantive, and this is dependent, subject. Most famous were the περίοικοι of Sparta (i. e. the inhabitants of towns in Laconia that were dependent on Sparta); these were free people (i. e. non-slaves), though they did not have Spartan citizenship rights (Hdt. 6.58, Th. 1.101; cf. Shipley 2006). The institution of perioeci also featured elsewhere, such as in Argos (cf. Arist. Pol. 1303a8) and Crete (Arist. Pol. 1271b30; it is material that the political regime of Crete featured striking similarities with Sparta, Arist. Pol. 1271b41–1272a12: ἔχει δ᾿ ἀνάλογον ἡ Κρητικὴ τάξις πρὸς τὴν Λακωνικήν … , etc.). Hence, it is conceivable that Ephippus presently winks at his audience and allows for the term περίοικοι to be interpreted in two ways, which are not mutually exclusive: i. e. as people dwelling around the king’s realm, who are at the same time the king’s subjects (cf. “Interpretation”).

Γηρυόνης (fr. 5)

79

6b ταύτῃ The referent of this demonstrative pronoun is the term χώρας (line 1), despite the separating distance of five lines. 7a Σίνδους The Sindians was a Scythian tribe (CAH 3.2,572), who lived south of the Maeotis Lake (modern Sea of Azof; cf. Steph. Byz. s. v. Σίνδοι· ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας τῆς Μαιώτιδος λίμνης), next to the Maeotian people (Scyl. Per. 72), in the northern part of the Black Sea. Their land was exceedingly cold (Hdt. 4.28), vast and desolate (A.R. 4.322). Cf. Gardiner-Garden 1986. 7b Λυκίους Lycians, the inhabitants of remote Lycia in southwestern Asia Minor. Their first mention in Greek literature occurs as early as Homer’s Iliad (2.876); their king, Sarpedon, is a prominent figure in the epos (he is eventually killed by Patroclus in 16.419–461). 7c Μυγδονιώτας Mygdonians, the inhabitants of Mygdonia (Μυγδονία), a region in northwestern Asia Minor (cf. Steph. Byz. s. v. Μυγδονία; Schwertheim & Olshausen BNP s. v. Mygdonia). Mygdonia bordered to the south with the peninsula of Chalcidice and the lake Bolbe (Th. 1.58), and to the north with the regions of Crestonia and Bisaltia. Mygdonia was conquered early on by Macedon; Thucydides (2.99.4–5), whilst tracing the early settlement patterns of Macedonians in the region, points out that the forefathers of Alexander I drove out the native Edonians and settled down in Mygdonia (καὶ πέραν Ἀξίου μέχρι Στρυμόνος τὴν Μυγδονίαν καλουμένην Ἠδῶνας ἐξελάσαντες νέμονται:  and beyond the Axius river they [sc. the Macedonians] possess the district as far as the Strymon, which is called Mygdonia, having driven out the Edonians). Hence, Mygdonians in this fragment is essentially another denomination for Macedonians, albeit one that recalls the early territorial expansion of Macedonia, i. e. a political behaviour still fervently pursued by the Macedonians at the time of the play’s production (cf. “Title”, “Date”, “Interpretation” for fr. 5.) 8 Κραναούς Cranaans; an archaic/solemn appellation of the Athenians, highlighting their descendance from Κραναός, a mythical king of Athens (cf. Marm. Par. FGrH 239 F A.4; [Apollod.] 1.49, 3.186–187; Str. 9.1.18; Paus. 1.2.6, 1.31.3). As a (poetic) adjective, κραναός means rocky, rugged; in the Homeric poems it is nearly always used with reference to the island of Ithaca (e. g. Il. 3.201, Od. 1.247; but cf. Il. 3.445). By the fifth century BC, both the appellation Κραναοί (as a proper name) and the phrase κραναὰ πόλις have come to be associated with the Athenians and the city of Athens, respectively. Pindar uses the expression κρανααῖς ἐν Ἀθάναις (or Ἀθάναισιν) three times (O. 7.82, O. 13.38, N. 8.11); Herodotus (8.44) testifies to the fact that the early, Pelasgian appellation of Athenians was Κραναοί; and Athena in A. Eum. 1011 addresses the Athenian citizens as children of Cranaus (παῖδες Κραναοῦ). Aristophanes too employs similar terminology with reference to Athens; Ach. 75 (ὦ Κραναὰ πόλις – ah, city of Cranaus; cf. Van Leeuwen 1901: 21), Av. 123 (μείζω τῶν Κραναῶν ζητεῖς πόλιν; – could you be looking for a city greater than the Cranaans’?), Lys. 480–481 (τὴν / Κραναὰν κατέλαβον – they occupied Cranaus’ citadel). Τhe term continued – in parallel – to designate

80

Ephippus

rocky terrain in certain texts; e. g. A.R. 1.608, 4.580; AP 9.64.2. Considering (i) the number, (ii) the date, and (iii) the origin of texts featuring the epithet Κραναός as characteristic of Athenians and/or the city of Athens, it is reasonable to argue that the Κραναοί of Ephippus’ present fragment are no others than the Athenians, mentioned by one of their myth-imbued titles. On the contrary, Olson (2002: 95) suggests that Ephippus meant the inhabitants of a city in Caria, mentioned by Pliny (NH 5.108): “Caria interiorum nominum fama praenitet. quippe ibi sunt oppida Mylasa libera, Antiochia, ubi fuere Symmaethos et Cranaos oppida” (Caria is especially distinguished for the famous list of places in its interior, for here are Mylasa, a free town, and Antiochia which occupies the sites of the former towns of Symmaethus and Cranaos). I consider Olson’s interpretation rather improbable; first, this Carian “oppidum” is not attested anywhere else (hence, it was either little known or completely unknown to Ephippus and his audience); secondly, its Carian location makes it a weak candidate considering the fragment’s wide scope and strategic perspective (Caria is adjacent to Lycia, whose citizens are already mentioned in the previous line; cf. “Interpretation”); thirdly, in a mid-fourth century comic fragment that portrays the Macedonian king Philip II as a despot, the presence of Athenians as subjects is highly befitting, if not indispensable. 11 καθ᾿ ὅσον πόλεως ἕστηκεν ὅρος This line features a touch of elevated style (cf. “Interpretation”) and arguably recalls the following Euripidean line: Hec. 16 ἕως μὲν οὖν γῆς ὄρθ’ ἔκειθ’ ὁρίσματα (as long as the land’s boundary markers stood erect). The term ὅρος (ὁ) designates the boundary (cf. Hdt. 1.72, Th. 2.12.2), the limit-defining pillar (e. g. of mortgaged property, cf. Solon fr. 36.6). 12 τοὺς δ’ Here and in line 14 the article τούς (followed by the particle δέ) functions as demonstrative pronoun; however, this is a primordial use and meaning of the definite article, which is mostly reserved for Attic prose (not poetry); cf. Smyth (1956) §§ 1099, 1106. Cf. “Interpretation”. 14 τοὺς δ᾿ ἅλας αὐτῷ ζεύγη προσάγειν “They marshal one hundred pairs of oxen to transport salt for it”. This sentence features a remarkable case of anacoluthon (cf. Smyth 1956: §§ 3004–3008). The article τούς (presently bearing demonstrative force; see previous note) is the subject of the infinitive προσάγειν. The grammatical inconsistency (anacoluthon) rests with the accusative case of the term ζεύγη (as if this was also the subject of the infinitive προσάγειν), whereas the dative case (ζεύγεσι) must have been used instead, since this is the means through which salt (ἅλας) is transported. This anacoluthon can be explained as follows: they (τούς) are indeed the agents (the typical, grammatically correct subject) who arrange for the transportation (προσάγειν). However, they do not actually transport salt themselves; they get the oxen to do it. Hence, from the grammatical point of view the oxen constitute the means, whereas they are literally the ones that transport (προσάγουσι) the salt. 16 ἄμβωσιν The term ἄμβων signifies the rim, edge of a cup or some other vessel; here, the rim of the cooking-pot (cf. comm. s. v. λοπάς); cf. LSJ 9 s. v., Phot.

Γηρυόνης (fr. 5)

81

α 1173 ἄμβωνες· τὰ χείλη τῶν λοπάδων, καὶ οἱ λόφοι τῶν ὀρῶν (ἄμβωνες: the rims of the cooking-pots and the hillcrests). As mentioned at the beginning of the fragment (lines 4–5), this cooking-pot is so extraordinarily huge that there are five boats sailing on its edges, around the rim. 16, 18 περιπλεῖν, περιαγγέλλειν The verb περιπλέω means to sail around and is presently used in absolute sense, i. e. without an object (similar absolute use occurs in Hdt. 6.44). The verb περιαγγέλλω means send round orders (for people to do something), and it is typically accompanied by an infinitive that defines what the orders are; NB mss tradition did supply an infinitive here, τε κοὐχ ὑποκαίειν, but Meineke suggested modifying it into τ᾿· “οὐχ ὑποκαίεις; cf. “Constitution of Text”. Hence, περιαγγέλλειν is presently used in an absolute sense; this use is extremely rare and, when it does occur, the verb περιαγγέλλω bears the slightly different meaning of send a message around (rather than an order), e. g. Hdt. 7.119. However, what is more significant here is the twin presence of the preposition περί (round about, around), which both verbs are compound with. This is associated with the round cooking pot (λοπάς, cf. s. v.), wherein the gigantic fish is being cooked. If the pot stands for the Mediterranean Sea, boats can naturally be visualized sailing around and carrying orders and/or a message around on behalf of the king (for the play’s political reading cf. “Interpretation”). 17 πεντεσκάλμους On the grammatical form see analytical discussion under “Constitution of Text”. πεντέσκαλμος is a hapax term that signifies the boat that has five tholes (σκαλμός) on each side, i. e. making it a ten-oared vessel. The odd number (five) must necessarily refer to the number of tholes on each side of the boat (not the total number of tholes), both in the present fragment and in similar cases (cf. Casson 1971: 158); e. g. the πλοῖον τρισκάλμου μεῖζον mentioned by Plutarch (Aem. 6.3) is a boat carrying more than six oars (i. e. having three holes on each side). Similarly, what Cicero describes as “actuariolis decemscalmis” (Att. 16.3.6) should be interpreted as twenty-oared small fast vessels (i. e. having ten tholes on each side). 19 Λυκίων πρύτανι Vocative expression. Outside Athens (where the term πρύτανις had a very specific meaning as a member of the tribe presiding in the Council of Five Hundred), the appellation πρύτανις is attested being used as a title for some chief magistrate in other Greek cities (cf. Arist. Pol. 1305a18 for the city of Miletus). In the present fragment πρύτανις should be understood as an army commander. The ethnic (Λυκίων) corresponds to the earlier reference to Lycians (line 7). 20 Μακεδών ἄρχων Vocative expression. Although the Macedonians are not previously mentioned in the fragment until this line, the address to some Macedonian ruler is not unanticipated, since the reference to Mygdonians (line 7) constitutes a camouflaged hint to Macedon’s early expansionist strategy (cf. s. v. Μυγδονιώτας). Besides, an address to some Macedonian ruler would befit the

82

Ephippus

context, if indeed the title-figure of Geryon was a comic disguise for Philip II of Macedon (as put forward above; cf. “Title”). 21 Κέλθ’ The reference to Celts (cf. “Constitution of Text”) is probably the fragment’s most crucial and most useful piece of evidence, which helps us date Ephippus’ present play, since it offers a definite terminus post quem, i. e. the year 369 BC (see further analysis under the play’s “Date” and “Interpretation” for fr. 5).

83

Ἐμπολή (Empolē) (“Merchandise”) Discussion Meineke 1,352; Bothe 491; Kock 2,254; PCG 5,136 Title This is an unparalleled and a most peculiar comic title. There are three comic plays entitled Ἔμπορος (Merchant), by Epicrates (PCG 5,157f.), Diphilus (PCG 5,66–69), and Philemo (PCG 7,239), where the title understandably designates the protagonist (or a central character); yet, a comic play whose title designates a purchase, a piece of merchandise (of unknown nature) is not only atypical and bizarre, but also thought-provoking and intriguing. What is more, the noun ἐμπολή may also designate – quite reasonably, through synecdoche – the gain made by traffic, the profit (cf. LSJ9 s. v. III). Plus, there is one single passage, from late antiquity, where the term refers specifically to a hetaira’s hire; this is Artem. 1.78 (within a long-running discussion on brothels and hetairai): ἀγαθαὶ δὲ καὶ ⟨αἱ⟩ ἐπὶ ἐργαστηρίων καθεζόμεναι καὶ πιπράσκουσαί τι καὶ δεχόμεναι ἐμπολὰς καὶ ὁραθεῖσαι καὶ μιγεῖσαι (competent are also those who reside at the workshops; they sell stuff and accept hiring bids and are being checked out and engage into sexual intercourse). Meineke (refuting Casaubon) is evidently mistaken in refusing to interpret this passage as referring to hetairai (1,352: “neque enim de meretricibus illic agitur, sed de mulieribus mercaturam facientibus et mercedem exigentibus”). Artemidorus’ text (and wider context) explicitly dwells on the issue of hetairai (besides, the sexual connotations of the participle μιγεῖσαι cannot be ignored). Plus, as widely known, ἐργαστήρια commonly doubled as brothels in antiquity (cf. also the so-called “spinning hetairai”); see Keuls (1985) 252–259 and Papachrysostomou (2016) 33–34, 119–121 (esp. p. 121), with further bibliography. On the ecomomics of ancient prostitution in general, see Kapparis (2017) 265–314. All in all, the present play’s title can designate (a) some merchandise, (b) the profit made through merchandise, (c) a hetaira’s hire. Although fr. 6 describes a complaisant hetaira, one should not hurriedly apply the third possible interpretation to the title; besides, this meaning occurs only once in the surviving literary corpus and in a much later text (Artemidorus’ passage from his Onirocriticon, quoted above; second century AD). Hence, the interpretative approach should be limited between options (a) and (b), albeit there might be no need to markedly differentiate between the two notions in the play (i. e. a merchandise would naturally incur some profit for the comic character). We have no means to establish the nature of this merchandise and/or the concomitant profit of such a transaction; it could pertain to a person (hetaira or slave), to payment for lessons (e. g. to a sophist, some other philosopher figure, etc.) or for (pseudo-)medical advice, or to any other item (e. g. fish, wine, etc.). Whatever this ἐμπολή was, its role and impact apparently exceeded even the protagonist’s part, since it made sense to Ephippus to name the entire play after it. Date

unknown

84

Ephippus

fr. 6 (6 K.)

5

ἔπειτά γ᾿ εἰσιόντ᾿, ἐὰν λυπούμενος τύχῃ τις ἡμῶν, ἐκολάκευσεν ἡδέως· ἐφίλησεν οὐχὶ συμπιέσασα τὸ στόμα ὥσπερ πολέμιον, ἀλλὰ τοῖσι στρουθίοις χανοῦσ᾿ ὁμοίως τ’ ἠδὲ παρεμυθήσατο ἐποίησέ θ᾿ ἱλαρὸν εὐθέως τ᾿ ἀφεῖλε πᾶν αὐτοῦ τὸ λυποῦν κἀπέδειξεν ἵλεων

5 χανοῦσ᾿ Meineke ed. min.: χαυνοῦσα codd., Eust. post ὁμοίως defic. 1CE, 1 2 Eust. τ’ ἠδὲ ipsa: † ἥ σε † A: ἧς ἐ(παρεμ.) A: ᾖσε Mus.: ἔκυσε Kock: ἡδὺ Tucker (1908) 197 7 λυποῦν 1A: λοιπὸν 2A

5

And then, whenever one of us comes in being unhappy, she pleasantly pampers him. She kisses him, not with her lips squeezed together, as if he were an enemy, but instead with her mouth wide open just like baby sparrows do, and she assuages him and makes him happy and she immediately removes all his trouble and proves him gracious

1

Ath. 8.363b–c ὅτι δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν ἵλεων καὶ ἱλαρὸν ἔλεγον δηλοῖ Ἔφιππος ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ δράματι Ἐμπολή (fab. nom. om. CE)· περὶ ἑταίρας δέ τινος λέγει· ἔπειτα — ἵλεων (hinc Eust. in Od. p. 1411,7) That they described the same personality as both ἵλεως and ἱλαρός is made clear by Ephippus in his play entitled Merchandise; he says about a certain hetaira: “And — gracious” 2

Ath. 13.571e–f περὶ δὲ τῶν ἑταιρῶν Ἔφιππος (Εὔσχημος A, corr. Casaubon) ἐν Ἐμπολῇ τάδε φησίν· ἔπειτα — ἵλεων Regarding hetairai, Ephippus says the following in Merchandise: “And — gracious”

Metre Iambic trimeter

klkl kl|kl llkl (middle caesura; Porson’s law observed) klkl l|kkkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) kklkl k|lkkk klkl (penthemimeral caesura) llkkk k|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

5

klkl l|lkkk llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

klkkk kk|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) llkl l|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura)

Ἐμπολή (fr. 6)

85

Discussion Meineke 3,326f.; Bothe 491; Kock 2,254; Edmonds 2,148f.; PCG 5,136f.; Nesselrath (1990) 321; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 487 Citation Context The present fragment is quoted twice by Athenaeus; (i) in Book 8 and (ii) in Book 13 (in the latter case the quotation seems more befitting). (i) In Book 8 Athenaeus piles up some considerable amount of information regarding the etymology and/or meaning of a number of terms tangential to dining/feasting, which the ancients (οἱ ἀρχαῖοι) used (NB the transition from one item to the next is not always smooth); e. g. βαλλίζω and βαλλισμός (to dance and dancing), εἰλαπίνη and εἰλαπιναστής (feast and feaster), λαφύττειν, λαπάζειν, and λάπτειν (swallow greedily, gulp down and lap/drink greedily), etc. At a certain point, after establishing that the cry ἰὴ ἰή aimed to placate the gods and make them ἵλεως (propitious, gracious), Athenaeus abruptly turns to the comparison between the adjectives ἵλεως and ἱλαρός, which leads him (8.363c) to the quotation of Ephippus’ present fragment, in an attempt to demonstrate that the two terms were considered synonymous (but cf. comm. on lines 6–7 below). Eustathius (in Od. p. 1411,7), drawing on Athenaeus, also preserves Ephippus’ fragment (albeit only a part of it; cf. “Constitution of Text”). (ii) The second time that Athenaeus cites this fragment is in Book 13, i. e. the specific Book that deals extensively, exhaustively, and almost exclusively with women (appositely entitled Περὶ γυναικῶν; cf. McClure 2003: 1–58), including both wedded wives and hetairai (some one hundred and fifty historical hetairai, dating from the fifth to the third centuries BC, are mentioned in this Book; cf. McClure 2003: 183–197, 1–58). At the beginning of Book 13 Athenaeus announces his intention to discuss matters relating to love (13.555a–b: τὸν περὶ ἐρωτικῶν λόγον). Within this context the Cynic philosopher Cynulcus and the grammarian Myrtilus engage in a rivalry (resembling a dramatic agon) regarding the true nature of hetairai. After Cynulcus concludes his diatribe against hetairai, Myrtilus sets off to defend them and focuses on what he considers real hetairai (13.571c περὶ τῶν ὄντως ἑταιρῶν); these, he claims, can maintain a friendship not based on trickery (τῶν φιλίαν ἄδολον συντηρεῖν δυναμένων). Among the numerous quotations that Myrtilus cites, in order to demonstrate the manifold value of hetairai, there also features Ephippus’ present fragment, laying emphasis on how their genteel manners can lift up the spirit of their clients. Constitution of Text At Ath. 8.363c the Epitome codices C and E omit the play’s title (as is usually the case with the Epitome; cf. Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). In line 5 all Athenaeus’ codices and Eustathius preserve the reading χαυνοῦσα (< verb χαυνόω: make flaccid), which Meineke (in his editio minor) corrected to χανοῦσ᾿ (< verb χάσκω: open the mouth wide); the modification in meaning is crucial to the correct interpretation of the fragment, whereas the metrical change (from long χαυ- to short χα-) is immaterial, since this is the anceps position of the first iambic metre. Both the Epitome (codices C and E) and Eustathius conclude the quotation of Ephippus’ fragment after the reading ὁμοίως (line 5). Immediately after ὁμοίως, in line 5, codex A features a locus desperatus, which Kassel-Austin

86

Ephippus

place between cruces († ἥ σε †). There have been several attempts to cure this; Musurus suggested the reading ᾖσε, Kock recommended ἔκυσε (which KasselAustin consider “otiosum”, since it repeats the notion already communicated by the nearby ἐφίλησεν, in line 3), while Tucker (1908: 197) proposed the emendation ἡδύ. The reading ἧς ἐπαρεμυθήσατο preserved by codex A when Athenaeus quotes the fragment again (13.571e–f) is not helpful either, since it is grammatically wrong and does not establish notional soundness. Arguably, Musurus’ ᾖσε (she sang; in asyndeton with παρεμυθήσατο) and Tucker’s ἡδύ (in its Homeric use as adverb, defining παρεμυθήσατο; cf. LSJ9 s. v. ἡδύς) are acceptable solutions. Yet, in the text above I have adopted an alternative conjecture of mine, which I consider equally plausible; this is τ’ ἠδέ (and), which connects paratactically the actions performed by the hetaira (ἐφίλησεν and παρεμυθήσατο, thus picking up again the pace of narrative after the parenthetical phrase οὐχὶ – ὁμοίως). Throughout the surviving literary corpus ἠδέ often occurs without ἠμέν and is commonly preceded by τε (cf. LSJ9 s. v.). In Comedy it occurs twice in this form: Eup. fr. 13.3 κύτισόν τ’ ἠδὲ σφάκον εὐώδη, καὶ σμίλακα τὴν πολύφυλλον (medick tree and fragrant sage, and leafy bindweed) and Alex. fr. 138.6 τυρῷ τε σάξον ἁλσί τ’ ἠδ’ ὀριγάνῳ (stuff it with cheese, salt, and marjoram). In line 7 codex A preserves the reading λυποῦν at Ath. 8.363c, whilst at Ath. 13.571f it preserves λοιπόν. Evidently, the correct reading is λυποῦν (to be adopted in 13.571f too), which functions as direct object to the verb ἀφεῖλε of the previous line. At Ath. 13.571e codex A preserves the reading Εὔσχημος as the supposed name of the author of the present play. Casaubon corrected it to Ἔφιππος, albeit Suda had already reproduced the wrong information (ε 3762: Εὔσχημος, κωμικός. τῶν δραμάτων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν Ἐμπολή· ὡς Ἀθήναιος λέγει: Euschemus, a comic poet; “Merchandise” is one of his plays, according to Athenaeus). This misattribution can be explained as follows: in Ath. 13.571e, just before the quotation of Ephipp. fr. 6, Athenaeus quotes Men. fr. 287, which concludes with the words εὔσημον ποιεῖ. It is likely that this is a case where dittography went wrong, i. e. the scribe duplicated the penultimate word of Menander’s quotation (εὔσημον) but make a copying mistake in the process, thus resulting in εὔσχημος as the supposed name of the poet of the subsequent quotation. In that regard, Jacobs (Animadv. II.3.73) reasonably urged to expunge this supposed playwright Euschemus from the list of comic poets (“ex Comicorum catalogo expungendi”). Interpretation The speaker (a male), addressing either a collocutor or the audience, praises the grace and genteel temperament of a certain hetaira, whose company and favours he enjoyed in the past; i. e. what he describes is some firsthand experience that he – or some friend of his – went through more than once. The syntactical structure of the fragment allows us to securely establish that this past occurrence/encounter with this special hetaira is typical of what often occurs: the speaker employs a total of six verbs in aorist tense (ἐκολάκευσεν, ἐφίλησεν, παρεμυθήσατο, ἐποίησε, ἀφεῖλε, ἀπέδειξεν); this is a specific type of aorist, akin to the gnomic aorist, typically employed in general descriptions, visualized scenes,

Ἐμπολή (fr. 6)

87

etc. (cf. Smyth 1956: §§ 1931–1932). Accordingly, in the present fragment what happened in the past is representative of what normally happens on a regular basis. This special hetaira (who is not named) is described as able to soothe and comfort her clients and make them forget all their troubles with her courteous behaviour and her expert kissing technique. What part this narrative had within the entire play is beyond recovery. Similarly, it cannot be established whether this hetaira and her complaisant manners related somehow to the title. The emerging possibilities are practically endless (e. g. it could be that the hetaira doubled as some kind of banausic worker [cf. “Title”] and that a purchase of one/some of her products played a key role in the plot); however, in the absence of any solid evidence it would be unwise to pursue any possibility any further. Yet, the fragment’s chief value rests with the conspicuous comic topos featuring in it; i. e. praise and defence of hetairai (and this is precisely the reason for the fragment’s quotation within Athenaeus’ text, as part of Myrtilus’ extensive defence of ‘real’ hetairai; cf. “Citation Context” ii). This is a relatively rare thematic trend of Middle and New Comedy (absent from the period of Old). Expectedly, the dominant and stereotypical portrayal of hetairai is picturing them being greedy, scheming, and deceptive (e. g. Amphis fr. 23 with Papachrysostomou 2016: 150–157, Alex. fr. 103 with Arnott 1996: 268–269, Anaxil. fr. 22 with Tartaglia 2019: 120–156, Theophil. fr. 11 with Papachrysostomou 2008: 272–276, Timocl. fr. 25 with Apostolakis 2019: 198–201, etc.), whereas eulogizing a hetaira seems rather unanticipated and surprising, if not paradoxical. However, arguing a paradox (or the impossible) gradually became a particularly popular literary motif during the fourth century BC and was subsequently shaped and crystallized into a rhetorical sub-genre of paradoxical encomia (NB its later reemergence during the Second Sophistic; e. g. Lucian’s Fly’s Encomium). Among such “singularum rerum laudes” (Cic. Brut. 47) or παίγνια (as Gorgias puts it, Hel. 21; cf. Giombini 2012: 126, 142–144) there feature encomia of death by Alcidamas (Men. Rh. i,ii,346.17; on Alcidamas see Russell & Wilson 1981: 248–249), of pebbles, cauldrons, and mice by Polycrates the Sophist (Alex. Rh. 3,3 Spengel; cf. Chroust 1957: 254 n. 382; Nightingale 1995: 100–101), as well as encomia of hetairai (of Ναΐς by Alcidamas and of Λαγίς by Cephalus; Ath. 13.592c). It is against this prevalent literary pattern of arguing in favour of the seemingly unworthy of praise that we need to approach and interpret Comedy’s practice of enthusiastically praising hetairai and/or defending them against defamation. Accordingly, the speaker in Ephippus’ present fragment explains how beneficial a meeting with this hetaira can prove, as if he was giving a recommendation about her. Discussion of potential benefit out of a prospective relation with a hetaira is also the subject of Amphis fr. 6 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 49–55). In addition, this motif of praise and/or defence of hetairai also features in Amphis fr. 1 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 20–29) Anaxil. fr. 21 (cf. Tartaglia 2019: 114– 119), Antiph. fr. 101 and fr. 210 (esp. lines 5–7: ἦθός τι χρυσοῦν πρὸς ἀρετὴν κεκτημένης, / ὄντως ἑταίρας· αἱ μὲν ἄλλαι τοὔνομα / βλάπτουσι τοῖς τρόποις

88

Ephippus

γὰρ ὄντως ὂν καλόν: a character of gold she had, full of grace – a real companion! Because the behavior of the others spoils the name, which is actually a good one), Eub. 41, Theophil. fr. 12 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 276–281), and Men. fr. 411. Plus, Χρυσίς, the hetaira behind the title-figure of Menander’s play The Woman from Samos (Σαμία), incarnates par excellence the “honourable” hetaira with a heart of gold, as her aptly chosen name confirms (Χρυσίς: Golden), along with her decent behaviour in the play. See Keuls (1985) 187–203, Wehrli (1936) 40–41. On further bibliography on hetairai in Comedy see Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”; cf. also “Interpretation” for Ephippus’ Philyra. 1 εἰσιόντ᾿ The present participle (masculine gender) of the verb εἴσειμι (enter, go into) refers to the client entering the hetaira’s own space; either her house or a special room (of her house or of a brothel), where she regularly received her clientele. A contrary image to this entrance is drawn by the speaker in Aristopho fr. 4, who complains that the houses of hetairai have become unapproachable, because of the high fees they charge (cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 102–103; Orth 2020: 35–38). 2a τις ἡμῶν One of us. The speaker is a member of a larger, all-male group. He could merely be a random individual, but he could equally be the leader of the play’s chorus. If the latter, this might be a mid-fourth century clue regarding the continuation of the role of the chorus as an agent essential to the plot during the period of Middle Comedy. On chorus in fourth century and beyond see Maidment 1935; Webster (21970) 58–63; Hunter 1979 and (1983) 191; Rothwell 1995; Revermann (2006a) 278–281 (arguing in favour of fourth century parabasis); Jackson (2020) 113–137. 2b ἐκολάκευσεν The verb κολακεύω is presently used beyond its primary denotation (to flatter), with the special meaning of pamper, take care of, spoil, coddle, cherish, worship. The present case is paralleled by three passages in Menander; Dysc. 37 Νύμφας κολακεύουσ᾿ (cherishing the Nymphs; cf. Gomme & Sandbach 1973: 141), Pk. 314 εἰς τὸ κολακεύειν τραπέσθαι, ζῆν τε πρὸς ταύτην ἁπλῶς (try to show her some attention, simply live for her alone), and fr. 337.4–5 φοιτῶν καὶ κολακεύων ⟨ ἐμέ τε καὶ ⟩ / τὴν μητέρ’ (visiting and looking after me and my mother). The same meaning also features elsewhere; e. g. Ael. Ep. 19 τούς τε ἔνδον καὶ τοὺς ἔξω θεοὺς ἐκολάκευον (I sought to appease both household gods and gods abroad), Stob. 3.1.172 κολακεύειν γονεῖς μὴ ὄκνει (don’t refrain from cherishing your parents). On the use of aorist tense see “Interpretation”. 3–5 ἐφίλησεν … / … τοῖσι στρουθίοις / χανοῦσ’ ὁμοίως This elaborate simile is presently used to describe the unique kissing technique exercised by the courteous hetaira. The technique consists of opening her mouth wide (χανοῦσ’), and, presumably, enveloping her lover’s lips and tongue in a deep kiss (this may be comparable to what we nowadays call “French kiss”). Yet, there are no graphic details in the text; instead, it is remarkable how the speaker achieves balance between erotic arousal and decorous narrative. Through this simile, the speaker

Ἐμπολή (fr. 6)

89

communicates an image of a seemly, real, hetaira (cf. Ath. 13.571c περὶ τῶν ὄντως ἑταιρῶν; see “Citation Context”), who opens her mouth not in a lustful way, but instead with loving tenderness resembling that of a she-sparrow feeding her nestlings that eagerly await with an open mouth (cf. s. v. στρουθίοις for sparrow’s erotic connotations). 3 ἐφίλησεν The verb φιλέω (along with κυνέω) is typically used for erotic kissing (see Hendserson 21991: 181–182 for parallels from Comedy). Here the hetaira is praised for her expert kissing technique (cf. previous note). On the use of the aorist tense, see “Interpretation”. 4 στρουθίοις The term στρουθίον is the diminutive of στρουθός (ὁ and ἡ, sparrow) and designates the little/baby sparrow; see Thompson (21936) 268–270, Dunbar (1995) 388, Arnott (2007) 330–333. Presently, baby sparrows are used as part of an elaborate simile (cf. above, 3–5), triggering emotions of tender care and affection. Yet, the tenderness is not the only point of convergence between the hetaira tending to her clients and the she-sparrow caring for her nestlings. Sparrows had strong erotic (and sexual) associations; cf. Hsch. σ 2032 στρουθός· ὁ καταφερής, καὶ λάγνος (‘sparrow’: one who is prone to sensual pleasures and lustful). It is no coincidence that we hear of a hetaira who was nicknamed Στρουθίον (sch. on Luc. Cat. 12). The consumption of sparrows was even believed to induce sexual arousal; cf. Ath. 9.391e–f τοὺς ἐμφαγόντας στρουθῶν ἐπικαταφόρους πρὸς ἀφροδίσια γίνεσθαι (people who eat sparrows are prone to lust). “Sparrow” was also a slang term for both male and female genitalia; see Ar. Lys. 723–725, with Henderson (21991) 48–50, 129. Cf. Erbse 1997. 6–7 ἱλαρόν – ἵλεων Athenaeus (8.363b–c) considers this fragment as a piece of evidence supposedly confirming that the two adjectives, ἱλαρός and ἵλεως (Attic for ἵλαος), were used interchangeably, as synonyms (cf. “Citation Context” i). However, Ephippus’ text does not confirm Athenaeus’ claim; the two expressions, ἐποίησέ θ᾿ ἱλαρόν and κἀπέδειξεν ἵλεων, do not constitute a redundant tautology. Instead, the speaker describes in detail how the hetaira achieves a dual purpose; she makes her client cheerful (ἱλαρόν) and proves him to be gracious (ἵλεων), i. e. she reveals his true, gracious / polite nature, which was previously suppressed because of his sorrows (πᾶν τὸ λυποῦν); now that the sadness has been removed (ἀφεῖλε), he can be his true self again. This is not the only instance within the text of Deipnosophistae that Athenaeus misinterprets the quoted fragment or is otherwise mistaken in some way. Here the misconstruction is not particularly grave, yet it should alert us about other cases where Athenaeus sounds equally confident about the claims he makes. On parallel infelicities of Athenaeus see Papachrysostomou (2016) 119–120, 181; Papachrysostomou (2008) 174–175; Oellacher (1916) 152–153. LSJ9 s. v. ἱλαρός claim that in later Greek the adjective ἱλαρός is used with the same meaning as ἵλεως (and cite PMag.Leid.W.14.12, as an example); however, I was not able to detect any other such instance confirming this.

90

Ephippus

fr. 7 (7 K.)

5

κοινωνεῖ γάρ, ὦ μειράκιον, ἡ ἐν τοῖσιν αὐλοῖς μουσικὴ κἀν τῇ λύρᾳ τοῖς ἡμετέροισι παιγνίοις· ὅταν γὰρ εὖ συναρμόσῃ τις τοῖς συνοῦσι τὸν τρόπον, τόθ᾿ ἡ μεγίστη τέρψις ἐξευρίσκεται

1 sq. om. CE κοινωνεῖ A: συμφωνεῖ Kock (κοινωνεῖ ex Athenaei verbis τῆς κοινωνίας ortum esse putans) 1–2 μειράκιον, ἡ / ἐν Dindorf: -κιον ην A: -κίδιον / ἡ ’ν Dobree Adv. II 347: -κιον εὖ / ἡ ’ν Meineke Anal.Ath. 296 (ἡ ’ν iam Casaubon) 3 τοῖς ἡμ. π. et γὰρ om. CE 4 συναρμόσῃ τις CE: συναρμόσωσι A

5

For music produced on the pipes and on the lyre participates, my boy, in our performances; since, whenever someone efficiently attunes his mode to those partaking, then the ultimate delight is accomplished

Ath. 14.617f–618a περὶ δὲ τῆς αὐλῶν πρὸς λύραν κοινωνίας, ἐπεὶ πολλάκις καὶ αὐτὴ ἡμᾶς ἡ συναυλία ἔθελγεν, Ἔφιππος ἐν Ἐμπολῇ φησιν (fab. nom. om. CE)· κοινωνεῖ — ἐξευρίσκεται. Regarding the coordination of pipes with the lyre, since this combination of instruments charmed us on many occasions, Ephippus says in Merchandise: “for — accomplished”

Metre Iambic trimeter

l llk|l lkkkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

5

llkl l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkkl k|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) klkl k|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) klkl llk|l llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,327; Bothe 491f.; Kock 2,254; Edmonds 2,150f.; PCG 5,137; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 487f. Citation Context At 14.616e Athenaeus notes that throughout the symposion there was frequently musical entertainment of various sorts (πολλῶν οὖν πολλάκις ὄντων τῶν ἀκροαμάτων καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν οὐκ αἰεί). Since these matters were discussed on numerous occasions (ἐπειδὴ πολλοὶ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐγίνοντο λόγοι), Athenaeus – assuming the role of the external narrator (cf. Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”) – promises his collocutor Timocrates to offer him an account of the topics that were discussed (τῶν πραγμάτων μνησθήσομαι). In this context, numerous types of mu-

Ἐμπολή (fr. 7)

91

sic and dancing are mentioned, entailing the quotation of various corresponding fragments drawn from comedy, lyric poetry, historiography, etc. Ephippus’ present fragment is quoted (14.618a) as a testimony exemplifying the musical practice of combining pipe- and lyre-music, to which Athenaeus applies the term συναυλία (see further comm. line 2). Constitution of Text In his edition of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae Kaibel reckons that the phrase ἡ συναυλία ἔθελγεν, used by Athenaeus to introduce the fragment (14.617f), was originally part of Ephippus’ own text and, hence, it should be accordingly edited as such and credited to Ephippus. The Epitome codices C and E omit practically half of the present fragment (on the value of Athenaeus’ mss see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”); they omit lines 1 and 2 in their entirety, plus they also omit the first half of line 3 (up to the semicolon) and the reading γὰρ of the same line. In line 1 codex A preserves the reading κοινωνεῖ, which Kock suggested that it should be emended to συμφωνεῖ (considering κοινωνεῖ a diplographic error risen from Athenaeus’ immediately preceding words κοινωνίας: 14.617f αὐλῶν πρὸς λύραν κοινωνίας). Apparently, there is no reason to modify the ancient text in any way; not to mention that it was probably Athenaeus who was prompted to use the term κοινωνίας copying from Ephippus’ own words, rather than the other way around as Kock thought. In the same line, codex A preserves the reading μειράκιον ην, which is syntactically flawed (ην has no functionality); from among all attempted emendations, the preferred one (by Kassel-Austin and myself) is Dindorf ’s μειράκιον, ἡ / ἐν, since it is palaeographically the closest to the preserved text and the simplest (Occam’s razor). In line 4 the correct reading συναρμόσῃ τις is unexpectedly preserved by the Epitome (codices C and A), whereas codex A preserves the erroneous reading συναρμόσωσι. Interpretation An elder speaker, sounding like a guru, well-versed in musical matters, explains to his young collocutor (whom he addresses as μειράκιον) that his and his colleagues’ performances (ἡμετέροισι παιγνίοις) feature musical accompaniment of both pipe- and lyre-music. The speaker then proceeds to explain how the proper adjustment of musical mode/tune can lead to sheer musical delight. The speaker’s identity cannot be established; perhaps this is a teacher of music addressing his disciple or a (leading) member of some larger group (e. g. a troupe, a band, a musical ensemble; cf. s. v. ἡμετέροισι), which carries out some kind of performances (παίγνια). Crucial to our understanding of the fragment is the referent of the participle συνοῦσι (cf. s. v.), which however remains obscure. Whatever the case, the speaker might be the play’s Chorus leader (on chorus’ continuity in fourth century see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 6.2a). The combination of pipes and lyre was typical in performances of choral poetry; yet, given the incomplete context of the fragment, the precise meaning/nature of παίγνια remains elusive and indeterminate (cf. comm. s. v. ἡμετέροισι παιγνίοις). Furthermore, it is possible, albeit unprovable, that the present fragment had something to do with the fourth-century resonances of the revolutionary change in musical style known

92

Ephippus

as ‘New Music’ (consisting mainly of intricate rhythmical patterns, abandonment of the strophic form, and modulations between different harmoniae), which was set in motion during the second half of the fifth century BC (cf. comm. on line 2). 1a μειράκιον The term μειράκιον (τό) is the diminutive of μεῖραξ, ἡ (young girl; later also masc.). It is a colloquial age denomination (cf. Biles & Olson 2015: 302), which typically designated the stripling of eighteen and nineteen years old (Davidson 2007: 78), although the appellation could also more loosely apply to the adolescents between thirteen and twenty years old (Bagordo 2016: 193; comm. on Ar. fr. 645). A boy of this age range could also be called a νεανίσκος. The age class of μειράκια – νεανίσκοι followed boyhood (παῖδες) and preceded young manhood (νέοι, νεανίαι). Ancient sources are not always consistent in their use of respective terminology. For a discussion of the age classes and their denominations see Davidson (2007) 68–98, esp. 78–83; cf. Napolitano (2012) 230. Cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 20.1 (s. v. νέος). 1b ἡ The definite article is quite extraordinarily positioned at line-end, thus creating a case of enjambement. Although odd, this is not an unparalleled phenomenon; Van Leeuwen (1904: 113) has anthologized a great number of parallel instances from both comedy and tragedy; e. g. Ar. V. 504, Antiph. fr. 85.4, Amphis fr. 30.5, A. Ag. 7, S. Ant. 409. 2 ἐν τοῖσιν αὐλοῖς μουσικὴ κἀν τῇ λύρᾳ The speaker, a musical expert (cf. “Interpretation”), claims that in the performances (παίγνια; cf. comm. s. v. below) carried out by him and his colleagues there is substantial presence of instrumental music, and particularly combination of music produced on pipes and on lyre. Stereotypically, pipes and lyre were the accompanying musical instruments in choral performances (although the present context is irrecoverable); the practice traces back to Archil. fr. 93a (badly mutilated; describing how some men well-versed in both pipe and lyre were introduced to the island of Thasos); cf. Pi. O. 10.93–94 τὶν δ᾿ ἁδυεπής τε λύρα / γλυκύς τ᾿ αὐλὸς ἀναπάσσει χάριν (upon you, however, the sweetly speaking lyre and melodious pipe are shedding glory), Pi. P. 10.39 λυρᾶν τε βοαὶ καναχαί τ᾿ αὐλῶν δονέονται (sounds of lyres, and pipes’ shrill notes are stirring); X. Smp. 3.1 συνηρμοσμένῃ τῇ λύρᾳ πρὸς τὸν αὐλὸν ἐκιθάρισεν ὁ παῖς καὶ ᾖσεν (the boy, attuning his lyre to the pipes, played and sang). It is noteworthy that the concerted playing of pipes and lyre, visualized by the speaker in Ephippus’ present fragment, is precisely one of the (three, at least) distinct meanings of the term συναυλία, used by Athenaeus to introduce the fragment (cf. “Citation Context” and “Constitution of Text”). συναυλία can also mean symphony of pipes, as well as accompaniment of the voice by the pipe; see further Pearson (1917) i.39 (comm. on S. fr. 60). However, LSJ 9 s. v. seem to believe that Athenaeus’ usage of the term συναυλία (i. e. to designate the concerted playing of pipes and lyre) is an ad hoc adaptation rather than a common meaning of the term. During the second half of the fifth century BC a series of groundbreaking musical/technical – and concomitant social  – developments, known as ‘New

Ἐμπολή (fr. 7)

93

Music’, swept across the Greek musical landscape (cf. West 1992: 350–372; Csapo 2000b; Barker 2004; D’Angour 2006); it is noteworthy that pipers played a pivotal role within this complex process, since they introduced a series of innovations (which were subsequently transferred to string-based performance), in an attempt to explore and elaborate on the full musical potential of the pipe; in that regard, Csapo (2004b: 211) describes the pipers as “the unsung heroes of the New Music”. Of course, the revolutionary developments in the use of the pipe had already begun during the early fifth century BC (cf. Wallace 2003). The musico-political discourse emanated from the wave of ‘New Music’ was still felt during the fourth century BC (part of this musical revolution was also the so-called ‘New Dithyramb’; cf. Nesselrath 1990: 241–266); hence, it is conjecturable that this discourse was not immaterial to the play’s plot. On numerous aspects of music in ancient Athens, see the collected volume by Murray & Wilson 2004; on pipe in general see Wilson 1999; on pipers’ rise and prominence within the musical context of Athens see Csapo (2004b) 210–221 (with bibliography); on lyre (and its political connotations) see Wilson 2004 (with bibliography); for a critical re-evaluation of Athenaeus’ credibility (regarding the information he presents in Book 14) see Leven 2010. 3 ἡμετέροισι παιγνίοις The term παίγνιον generally designates some kind of game, performance, albeit here the present performances are of unspecified nature. LSJ9 s. v. παίγνιον III.2 provide the specific interpretation of comic performance and cite, as examples, Ephippus’ present fragment, Pl. Lg. 816e ὅσα μὲν οὖν περὶ γέλωτά ἐστι παίγνια, ἃ δὴ κωμῳδίαν πάντες λέγομεν (all those laughable amusements which we all call “comedy”), and Suet. Aug. 99 “percontatus ecquid iis videretur mimum vitae commode transegisse” (asking whether it seemed to them that he had played the comedy of life fitly). However, it is unwise to apply the precise meaning of comic performance to Ephippus’ case; Ephippus’ usage of the term lacks its original context and there is no way to know with certainty the true nature of the παίγνια that the comic character meant. All we know is that these performances featured musical accompaniment of both pipes and lyre (cf. previous note). Nevertheless, it is conceivable that the speaker in Ephippus’ fragment engages in this discussion not to state the obvious, but to draw emphasis on some exceptional aspect of some different (i. e. other than choral) kind of performances; i. e. it is likely that Ephippus’ παίγνια were dramatic performances – of tragedy, comedy, or even mime – or else some entirely different type of performance (e. g. athletic). In the absence of any further evidence, all options remain open. Therefore, it is wiser to translate παίγνια as simply performances. In Ephipp. fr. 24.3 (ubi vide) the term παίγνια is used with the hapax meaning of dainties (at a symposion). 4a συναρμόσῃ The verb συναρμόζω means fit together, combine, and metaphorically adapt, conform. Presently, συναρμόζω metaphorically refers to the achievement of musical accord, to the adaptation of the musical experience/ ways (τρόπον) to those partaking in the performances (παίγνια; cf. s. v.). Given the context (references to pipes, music, lyre, etc.), the present use of συναρμόζω bears explicit musical overtones; besides, συναρμόζω (< σύν + ἁρμόζω) is cognate

94

Ephippus

with ἁρμονία (a derivative of ἁρμόζω), which also has a distinct application to musical matters (mode, intonation, musical scale; cf. LSJ9 s. v. IV). A noteworthy passage where συναρμόζω refers to the musical accord between lyre and pipes is Xen. Smp. 3.1 συνηρμοσμένῃ τῇ λύρᾳ πρὸς τὸν αὐλόν (quoted and transl. above, under comm. for line 2). The result of this musical adjustment/adaptation is the effectuation of huge delight (μεγίστη τέρψις, line 5). 4b τοῖς συνοῦσι The verb σύνειμι (< σύν + εἰμί) means be with, be joined with, and has a wide range of sub-meanings (ranging from sexual intercourse to stellar conjunction), according to the context (cf. LSJ9 s. v.). Since the context is presently missing, all one can do is put forward a couple of educated guesses (although these are not the only possible ones). Given the age difference between the speaker and the addressee (whom he calls μειράκιον, cf. s. v.), the speaker’s guru-sounding style, the references to musical instruments (line 2) and the performances (παίγνια), it is possible that the speaker is a music teacher and the συνόντες are the fellow-pupils of the μειράκιον. The verb σύνειμι, among its other meanings, is also the technical term for attending, associating with a teacher, be with a fellow-pupil (cf. X. Mem. 1.2.8). Another possibility is to interpret the συνόντες as the guests of a dinner-party (cf. Ar. V. 1300); in this case, the speaker could be a leader of some musical ensemble giving instructions to some younger member/novice (cf. “Interpretation”). 4c τρόπον Given the fragment’s dominant theme of music, the term τρόπος (bearing the generic meaning of manner, way) needs to be interpreted accordingly as a musical technical term designating the musical mode, style, even harmony (LSJ9 s. v. IV); cf. Pi. O. 14.17–18 Λυδῷ τρόπῳ ἀείδων (singing in Lydian mode), Eup. fr. 326.1–2 ἄγε δὴ πότερα βούλεσθε τὴν ⟨νῦν⟩ διάθεσιν / ᾠδῆς ἀκούειν, ἢ τὸν ἀρχαῖον τρόπον; (well now, do you people want to hear the modern style of song or the old sort?), Pl. R. 398c μετὰ τοῦτο τὸ περὶ ᾠδῆς τρόπου καὶ μελῶν λοιπόν (we are left with the handling of singing mode and lyrics). 5 ἡ μεγίστη τέρψις This immense enjoyment / delight (τέρψις < τέρπω: gladden) is presently of purely musical nature and the result of fine tuning and adaptation of musical experience to the circumstances (τοῖς συνοῦσι). Likewise, τέρψις is again of explicitly musical nature in Hes. Th. 917 τέρψις ἀοιδῆς (pleasure of song).

95

Ἔφηβοι (Ephēboi) (“Ephebes”) Discussion Meineke 1,352; PCG 5,138 Title The title denotes either a pair or a group of adolescents. Their number, identities, activities, and role in the play are beyond recover. They (i) could be love rivals in pursuit of the same woman (either a free girl or a hetaira); (ii) could constitute the play’s chorus (on this issue cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 6.2a); (iii) could be free-born abandoned babies who have now grown up and incidentally happen to discover their identity and reunite with their families (thus foreshadowing New Comedy’s favourite plot element of recognition, cf. e. g. Menander’s Perikeiromene), etc.; the possibilities are practically endless. Ephippus’ present play is not the only one featuring adolescent figures in its title. The theme of ephebeia attracted the comic playwrights’ interest quite substantially, the main reason probably being the practically infinite scenaria that the particular theme could accommodate (love affairs, spendthrifts’ adventures, father and son motif, recognitions and family reunion, military patterns, etc.). Philemo wrote two relevant plays, an Ἔφηβος (Ephebe; PCG 7,242f.) and a Συνέφηβος (Fellow-ephebe; PCG 7,271). Euphro, Menander, and Apollodorus each wrote a Συνέφηβοι (Fellow-ephebes; PCG 5,289f., 6.2,220, and 2,510f. respectively). As to Latin counterparts, Laberius produced an Ephebus, while Caecilius and Pomponius wrote a Synepheboi each. Date

unknown

fr. 8 (8 K.)

5

χόνδρος μετὰ ταῦτ᾿ εἰσῆλθε, μύρον Αἰγύπτιον, φοινικικοῦ βῖκός τις ὑπανεῴγνυτο, ἴτρια, τραγήμαθ᾿ ἧκε, πυραμοῦς, ἄμης, ᾠῶν ἑκατόμβη. πάντα ταῦτ᾿ ἐχναύομεν. ἐμασώμεθ᾿ οὕτως ἀνδρικῶς ὅσ᾿ εἴχομεν· καὶ γὰρ παραμασύντας τινὰς παραβόσκομεν

1 ταῦτ᾿ εἰσῆλθε Jacobs Addit. 341: τ’ εἰσῆλθεν A 2 φοινικικοῦ Casaubon: -ικίνου Ath.2, Eust.: -ικου Ath.1 6 παρὰμασυλτας A: corr. Casaubon: παραμασήτας prob. Nauck (1894) 95 παραβόσκομεν mss: παρεβόσκομεν Olson

5

Gruel came in next and Egyptian perfume, a cask of Phoenician wine was tapped, sesame-wafers, sweetmeats arrived, honey-cakes, milk-cakes, a hecatomb of eggs. We nibbled on all these items. This is how bravely we chewed on everything we had; for we have some fellow-chewers as well to feed

96

Ephippus

1

Ath. 14.642e (lines 1–6) Ἔφιππος Ἐφήβοις· χόνδρος — παραβόσκομεν Ephippus in Ephebes: “Gruel — feed” 2 Ath. (epit.) 1.29d (line 2) φοινικικοῦ δὲ οἴνου μέμνηται καὶ Ἔφιππος (fr. 24.1–2) … καὶ πάλιν· φοινικικοῦ — ὑπανεῴγνυτο.

Phoenician wine is also mentioned by Ephippus (fr. 24.1–2) … and again: “a cask — tapped” Eust. in Od. p. 1445,48 (line 2) τὸ γοῦν οἴνου φοινικικοῦ — ὑπανεῴγνυτο οὐ πάνυ βραχὺ ἀγγεῖον τὸν βῖκον εἶναι δηλοῖ The phrase “a cask of Phoenician wine was tapped” shows that βῖκος (cask) was not a particularly small vessel 3 Ath. (epit.) 2.58a (lines 3–4) Ἔφιππος· ἴτρια — ἐχναύομεν

Ephippus: “sesame-wafers — items” Eust. in Il. p. 1020,63 (line 4) τοῦ ἀστείου Ἐφίππου, ὃς εὐτραπέλως ᾠῶν ἑκατόμβην εἰπὼν ὡς πρὸς τὸ βοῶν μονάζει τῷ νοήματι. Of witty Ephippus, who humorously coined an unparalleled expression, when he mentioned a hecatomb of eggs, with a pun on oxen. Eust. in Il. p. 1205,55 (line 4) τὸ ᾠῶν ἑκατόμβη, παιχθὲν παρά τινι παλαιῷ “hecatomb of eggs”, being a wordplay by some ancient authority Eust. in Il. p. 1063,38 χναύειν, ὅ ἐστι λίχνως ἐσθίειν, οὗ καὶ Ἀθήναιος μέμνηται, οἷον· πάντα ταῦτ’ ἐχναύομεν, καί· (Eub. fr. 148.6) (line 4) To nibble, that is to eat greedily, a term mentioned by Athenaeus as follows, “we nibbled on all these items”, and (there follows Eub. fr. 148.6; cf. “Citation Context” for Ephipp. fr. 3)

Metre Iambic trimeter

llkkl llk|kk llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

llkl llk|kk klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) lkkkl klk|l klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) llkkl l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

5

kklkl l|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) llkkk ll|kl kklkl (middle caesura)

Ἔφηβοι (fr. 8)

97

Discussion Meineke 3,327f.; Bothe 492; Kock 2,255; Edmonds 2,150f.; PCG 5,138f.; Nesselrath (1990) 262, 309; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 488f. Citation Context The entire fragment is quoted by Athenaeus in 14.642e; in addition, bits and pieces of it are also preserved elsewhere as shown above (line 2 is quoted by Ath. 1.29d and Eust. in Od. p. 1445,48; lines 3–4 are preserved in Ath. 2.58a; line 4 is attested by Eust. in Il. p. 1020,63, p. 1205,55, and p. 1063,38). In Athenaeus Book 14 (as the symposion draws to its conclusion) desserts are being served to the banqueters (14.639b); this triggers the quotation of a lengthy series of fragments that aim to exemplify the nature and content of a number of typical dessert-terms; e. g. τραγήματα / τρωγάλια (sweetmeats, nibbles), ἐπιδορπίσματα / ἐπιφορήματα (after-dinner snacks), δεύτεραι τράπεζαι (second tables), as opposed to terms denoting ordinary food (βρώμα / ἔδεσμα): 14.641e τὸ μὲν οὖν ὅλον διαφέρειν τράγημα βρώματος νομιστέον ὅσον ἔδεσμα τρωγαλίου (a τράγημα should be regarded as different from ordinary food, to the extent that what one eats differs from what one munches on). Ephippus’ present fragment belongs in a group of fragments featuring and exemplifying the meaning of the term τραγήματα (line 3). It is immediately followed by Ephipp. fr. 13 (ubi vide), which features a list of sweetmeats. In Athenaeus 1.29d (from the Epitome), line 2 of Ephippus’ fragment is quoted as evidence about Phoenician wine, while Eustathius (in Od. p. 1445,48) uses the same line to demonstrate that the βῖκος was a considerably large vessel. In Athenaeus 2.58a (from the Epitome) lines 3 and 4 are quoted because of the reference contained therein to eggs, as part of an on-going discussion about this foodstuff (that begins at 2.57d). Line 4 of this fragment is partially referred to three times by Eustathius; twice for the witty pun on eggs (hecatomb of eggs, ᾠῶν, instead of the expected oxen, βοῶν), and once to demonstrate the meaning of the verb χναύω. Constitution of Text In line 1 codex A preserves the unmetrical reading τ’ εἰσῆλθεν, which Jacobs (Addit. 341) emended to ταῦτ᾿ εἰσῆλθε. In line 2 the reading φοινικου is preserved at 1Ath. 14.642e, while the Epitome (2Ath. 1.29d) and Eustathius preserve φοινικίνου (of the date-palm). It was Casaubon who suggested the correction φοινικικοῦ (Phoenician) after comparing the present case with Ephipp. fr. 24.2 (οἴνου … φοινικικοῦ, cf. ad loc.). In line 6 codex A preserves the incomprehensible παρὰμασυλτας, which Casaubon corrected to παραμασύντας (fellow-chewers, i. e. parasites). The term παραμασύντης occurs only once elsewhere, in Alex. fr. 224.8; in addition, its formation is fairly eccentric and arguably violates the grammatical rules (since it would need to derive from the unattested *(παρα) μασύνω; cf. comm. s. v.). Nauck (1894: 95) suggested the alternative παραμασήτας, taking into consideration the parallels of Alex. fr. 238.2 (παραμασήτης) and Timocl. fr. 9.6 (παραμασήτην); besides, παραμασήτης is grammatically sound, since it derives from the verb (παρα)μασάομαι (that gives derivatives with an ēta, like μάσημα). Yet, I agree with Kassel-Austin in adopting Casaubon’s correction, which is palaeographically closer to the reading παρὰμασυλτας, preserved by

98

Ephippus

codex A; besides, the “abnormal” formation of παραμασύντας may have been a resourceful coinage by Ephippus, meant as a telltale sign of the speaker’s nonGreek or non-Athenian origin. Also, in line 6 the manuscripts unanimously preserve the reading παραβόσκομεν, which Olson modified to παρεβόσκομεν, apparently in an attempt to homogenize the present tense of this verb to the two preceding cases of past continuous (ἐχναύομεν and εἴχομεν, lines 4–5). However, it is unnecessary to alter the text, since the meaning is sound as it stands (i. e. with παραβόσκω in present tense); on one hand the speaker describes his past experience (in past continuous tense) and on the other hand he states a truism (via the present tense; ‘present of general truth’), i. e. a situation (the maintenance of parasites) that is true for all time (see further s. v. παραβόσκομεν). Interpretation Food is part and parcel of comic discourse throughout Greek Comedy, providing the necessary background against which all sorts of situations evolve. The present context is manifestly sympotic (on symposion see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 4.2a). The fragment features a narrative of a symposion (a past one; cf. verbs in past tense: εἰσῆλθε, ὑπανεῴγνυτο, ἧκε, etc.), which is a major locus communis of Comedy (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 69). This is specifically a snapshot from the so called δεύτεραι τράπεζαι (second tables), which typically followed the δεῖπνον, cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 13.1a (μετὰ δεῖπνον). The asyndeton in this fragment reveals the speaker’s excitement; he apparently relives the recent gastronomical experience, as he informs either the audience, through a monologue, or some fellow comic character(s) about the dainties that were served to them. The presence of desserts and unguent, both typical of a symposion’s final stages, helps us establish that the surviving fragment captures the later / final part (cf. line 1 μετὰ ταῦτ᾿) of the comic hero’s account (likewise, Athenaeus draws near the conclusion of his own narrative; cf. “Citation Context”). All we can say about the speaker’s identity is that he was a participant at this recent banquet (whether he had anything to do with the play’s title figures remains obscure); plus, it is likely that he is of non-Greek or non-Athenian origin (cf. comm. s. v. παραμασύντας and παραβόσκομεν). The reference to the Egyptian perfume (line 1; cf. comm. s. v. Αἰγύπτιον) is a telltale sign of the host’s extravagance. The fragment also features a brief (line 6), albeit emphatic, reference to parasites (on this stereotypical figure see comm. s. v. παραμασύντας); the speaker uses two terms, the rare παραμασύντας and the hapax παραβόσκομεν, to describe the parasites’ regular presence at dinners (NB παραβόσκομεν is in present tense; cf. “Constitution of Text”). It is noteworthy that the first three lines of this fragment convey a strong impression of automation, combined with ample and continuous provision of goods (ἀγαθά). This results from the fact that the subjects of the three verbs, εἰσῆλθε, ὑπανεῴγνυτο and ἧκε, are not e. g. the servants (παῖδες) bringing in various goods, but rather the goods themselves, which are visualized being brought in, almost automatically: χόνδρος (and μύρον) εἰσῆλθε (gruel and perfume came in), βῖκος

Ἔφηβοι (fr. 8)

99

ὑπανεῴγνυτο (a cask was tapped; almost as if the cask practically opened itself), ἴτρια, τραγήματα (and other foodstuffs) ἧκε (sesame-wafers and sweetmeats arrived; again, as if by themselves). This combination of notions, i. e. automation and ample / continuous provision of goods, constitute the two typical defining attributes of the comic utopia motif. Comic utopias commonly occur in Old Comedy (e. g. Ar. Ach. 976 αὐτόματα πάντ’ ἀγαθὰ … πορίζεται: all bounties are supplied spontaneously, cf. Olson 2002: lii-liii; Ar. Pl. 1190; Telecl. fr. 1.3, cf. Bagordo 2013: 59–60; Pherecr. frr. 113 and 137; Eup. fr. 315; Metag. fr. 6, cf. Orth 2014: 415–426; etc.; see Zimmermann 1991, Wilkins 2000a: 122–123; Pellegrino 2000), but they are relatively rare (and harder to detect) in Middle and New Comedy; see Papachrysostomou (2016) 15, 181–183, for the intermittent emergence of this motif in Amphis (in frr. 9, 28, 38, 43), and also for more examples and further bibliography on this pattern. Regarding the overwhelming presence of food in this fragment, this is also typical of Comedy, and especially of the period of Middle Comedy. Throughout the surviving comic texts, food is much celebrated, unrestrainedly pursued, and extravagantly consumed. Comedy abounds in scenes that relate to an off-stage feast, whether it is a preparation for or an account of one (but see Konstantakos 2005); e. g. Ar. Pax 922–1126 (cf. Dohm 1964: 37–55), V. 1299ff., Ec. 834–852; Amphis fr. 9 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 67–74); Anaxandr. fr. 42 (cf. Millis 2015: 199–237); Eub. fr. 63 (cf. Hunter 1983: 149); Mnesim. fr. 4 (cf. Gilula 1995a, Papachrysostomou 2008: 186–209, Mastellari 2020: 372–440); Men. Dysc. 943ff., etc. The same pattern also occurs in E. Alc. 747–802. On Aristophanic symposia see Pütz (22007) 1–120. See also Gilula (1995b); Wilkins (2000a) passim; Fisher (2000); Papachrysostomou (2016) 114–115. 1a χόνδρος Gruel / groats of either wheat (spelt or emmer) or barley (cf. Arist. Pr. 929b1 ff., Thphr. HP 4.4.9); these were typically boiled and served as a dessert (cf. Ephipp. fr. 13.1 μετὰ δεῖπνον: after dinner), mixed with milk or simply water, thus resembling modern porridge or wheat-pudding; cf. Pherecr. fr. 113.18 παρῆν δὲ χόνδρος γάλατι κατανενιμμένος (there was also gruel snow-covered with milk), Men. fr. 409.10 χόνδρον ἕψει (he boils gruel), Ar. fr. 208 ἢ χόνδρον ἕψων … / ἐδίδου ῥοφεῖν ἄν (or when he boiled gruel, he would … offer it to someone to gulp down), etc. Most celebrated were the groats from Thessaly (cf. Hermipp. fr. 63.6, Antiph. fr. 36.3, Alex. fr. 196 – with Arnott 1996: 572; cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 1 s. v. Θετταλίας κολλικοφάγου), and from Megara (Antiph. fr. 36.2). Boiled χόνδρος (being soft to chew or watery enough to gulp down) was frequently administered to the elderly (since these were considered toothless) or the sick, e. g. Ar. V. 736–738 καὶ μὴν θρέψω γ᾿ αὐτὸν παρέχων / ὅσα πρεσβύτῃ ξύμφορα, χόνδρον / λείχειν (I will support him by providing whatever a senior citizen needs; gruel to lick up); Hp. Acut. (sp.) 53 χόνδρον ἑφθὸν ἐν γάλακτι (boiled groats with milk). See further Blümner (21912) i.55–57; Jasny (1944) 14–16, 54–55; Moritz (1958) 147–149. 1b μύρον Perfume / scented oil was a sine qua non for a symposion and stereotypically features in such contexts; the ritual of anointing the guests with perfume

100

Ephippus

typically succeeded the main meal. See Ar. Ach. 1085–1093, Ec. 834–852; Mnesim. fr. 4.60–63 (with Papachrysostomou 2008: 208–209, Mastellari 2020: 437–440); Amphis fr. 9 (with Papachrysostomou 2016: 67–74); Machon fr. 16.262–268; Archestr. fr. 60 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 224–238). On perfumes in antiquity, see the all-inclusive monograph of Squillace 2014. 1c Αἰγύπτιον The Egyptian perfume was the best (κράτιστον), according to the comic character of Dexicr. fr. 1. Indeed, it was one of the most expensive perfumes (πολυτελές) and a colourless one (Thphr. Od. 30.31); its present reference is a sign that the host of this dinner-party was noticeably wealthy. Its mode of manufacture and its composition are reported in detail by Dsc. 1.59.1. Egyptian perfume is mentioned in only a handful of other passages; Pl.Com. fr. 71.6–7, Anaxandr. fr. 41, and Antiph. fr. 105.2–3. Yet, the so-called Egyptian perfume was apparently not the only one produced in Egypt; according to Pliny (HN 12.111), the perfume called μᾶρον (a kind of sage; cf. LSJ9 s. v.) originated in Egypt as well (although Dsc. 3.42 testifies to its provenance from Magnesia and the city of Tralles in Caria instead). 2a φοινικικοῦ Phoenician. The manuscripts are hopelessly confused (and confusing) regarding the correct reading of this term (cf. “Constitution of Text”). The adjective φοινικικός (< Φοινίκη) means Phoenician / of Phoenicia (e. g. Th. 6.46.3 πόλεων καὶ Φοινικικῶν καὶ Ἑλληνίδων), whereas the adjectives φοινίκιος, φοινικήιος and φοινίκινος (< φοῖνιξ) primarily designate a product made from palm-tree (e. g. Hdt. 1.194.2 βίκους φοινικηίους: palm-wood casks; Antiph. fr. 105 μύρῳ φοινικίνῳ: palm-perfume); cf. LSJ9 s. vv. In Ephippus’ present fragment the adjective φοινικικοῦ is used substantively (i. e. the noun οἴνου is to be understood) to designate wine from Phoenicia. Phoenician wine is also mentioned in Ephipp. fr. 24.2 (accompanying sweetmeats served after dinner during the so-called ‘second tables’) and is discussed in Archestr. fr. 59.5–14 (praised, yet ranked below Lesbian wine), see Olson & Sens (2000) 218–221; cf. Dalby (1996) 97, McGovern (2009) 172–187. On wines mentioned in Athenaeus’ text, see Brock & Wirtjes 2000 (albeit they leave out all reference to Phoenician wine). The manuscripts’ confusion (between Phoenician wine and wine made from palm-tree) may be understood, given that Herodotus testifies to the Babylonians’ practice of making wine (and other products) out of palm trees (1.193.4): φοίνικες πεφυκότες ἀνὰ πᾶν τὸ πεδίον, οἱ πλεῦνες αὐτῶν καρποφόροι, ἐκ τῶν καὶ σιτία καὶ οἶνον καὶ μέλι ποιεῦνται (there are palm trees growing all over the plain, most of them yielding fruit, from which food is made and wine and honey). Besides, in the aforementioned passage from Herodotus (1.194.2) the terms βῖκος and φοινικήιος are mentioned together, adjacent to one another (just like it happens in Ephippus’ present fragment): βίκους φοινικηίους κατάγουσι οἴνου πλέους (they carry down palm-wood casks full of wine). The similarity between Herodotus’ and Ephippus’ texts (βίκους φοινικηίους ~ φοινικικοῦ βῖκος) is fairly striking and might not have been coincidental; it is likely that Ephippus wished to allude to Herodotus’ text albeit through witty wordplay and variation (different meaning of similarly sounding term), probably believing that Herodotus’ exotic narrative on Babylonians’ eccentric habits would

Ἔφηβοι (fr. 8)

101

have stuck in people’s minds. Herodotus’ amazement at the boats carrying these palm-wood casks (1.194.1: τὸ δὲ ἁπάντων θῶμα μέγιστον: the most marvelous thing) corroborates the argument that Ephippus’ audience were able to recognize the intertextual reference to one of Herodotus’ most memorable sections (similarly, Aristophanes alludes to / parodies Herodotus’ work, in Ach. 524–529; cf. Olson 2002: liii-liv). 2b βῖκος βῖκος was a large jar/cask commonly used to transport wine; cf. X. An. 1.9.25 Κῦρος γὰρ ἔπεμπε βίκους οἴνου ἡμιδεεῖς πολλάκις (Cyrus used to send half-emptied casks of wine) and Hdt. 1.194.2 (quoted and transl. in the previous note). A different use of βῖκος (i. e. to store pickled / salted fish) is attested by Archestr. fr. 39.2. However, Pollux’ glossing (ap. Ath. 11.784d) that βῖκος was a φιαλῶδες ποτήριον (a cup resembling a “phiale” / bowl) is not supported by any of the term’s surviving occurrences. 2c ὑπανεῴγνυτο Imperfect tense, passive voice of the verb ὑπανοίγω / ὑπανοίγνυμι, which means open from below, tap (a cask); cf. Hermipp. fr. 77.6–7 ἔστι δέ τις οἶνος, τὸν δὴ σαπρίαν καλέουσιν, / οὗ καὶ ἀπὸ στόματος στάμνων ὑπανοιγομενάων … (there is one particular wine, which they refer to as “mellow”; when casks of it are tapped …). On the automation effect (i. e. a cask was tapped, instead of someone / a servant tapped a cask), as a sign of a comic utopia instance, see “Interpretation” above. 3a ἴτρια ἴτριον was a kind of dessert (classified among τραγήματα; cf. comm. s. v. below). Specifically, it was a thin pastry made with sesame and honey, according to Ath. 14.646d (πεμμάτιον λεπτὸν διὰ σησάμου καὶ μέλιτος γινόμενον), resembling a wafer. Its crispiness and fragility were proverbial and are best revealed by Anacr. fr. 373.1 PMG (ap. Ath. 14.646d and 11.472e) ἠρίστησα μὲν ἰτρίου λεπτ⟨οῦ μικρ〉ὸν ἀποκλάς (I broke off a bit of crisp “itrion” and had it for lunch) and Herod. 3.44 ἀλλ᾿ ὀ κέραμος πᾶς ὤσπερ ἴτ⟨ρ⟩ια θλῆται (the whole tiling is crushed like “itria”); cf. Headlam (1922) 140. 3b τραγήμαθ’ The term τραγήματα (sweetmeats) describes a wide-ranging category of desserts typically served at second tables (δεύτεραι τράπεζαι, cf. “Interpretation”). τραγήματα included a large variety of foodstuffs (numerous kinds of savoury or sweet πλακοῦντες (cakes), dried and fresh figs, as well as other dried fruits and nuts, chickpeas, various types of beans, etc.), which were supposed to soak up alcohol and stimulate thirst; hence, the consumption of τραγήματα was typically accompanied by wine-drinking (the immediately preceding reference to a cask of wine being tapped, in line 2, is most apposite). References to τραγήματα abound throughout Greek Comedy; e. g. Ar. Ra. 510, Ec. 844; Eub. fr. 44; Alex. frr. 168.2 (cf. Arnott 1996: 494), 190; Philem. fr. 158; Men. frr. 194, 409; etc. Cf. also Pl. R. 372c, Clearch. fr. 87 (ap. Ath. 14.648f–649a). 3c πυραμοῦς Honey-cake (grammatically, this is a case of ‘collective singular’; cf. Ephipp. fr. 13 “Interpretation”); πυραμοῦς,-οῦντος (< πυρός: wheat) or

102

Ephippus

πυραμίς,-ίδος (featuring in Ephipp. fr. 13.4) was a kind of cake/pastry (classified among τραγήματα; cf. s. v. above), which was made of wheat that has been roasted and soaked in honey (ἐκ πυρῶν πεφωσμένων καὶ μέλιτι δεδευμένων: Ath. 14.647c); cf. EM 697.27 πυραμίς· ἡ ἐκ πυρῶν καὶ μέλιτος, ὥσπερ σησαμίς, ἡ ἐκ σησάμων καὶ μέλιτος. τινὲς δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβαίνοντος αὐτῇ σχήματος, πλατέος κάτωθεν ὄντος καὶ εἰς ὀξὺ λήγοντος, ὅ ἐστι τὸ φλογὶ ἀναφερομένῃ ἐοικός. ἢ παρὰ τὸν πυρόν (πυραμίς: a pastry made from wheat and honey, just like σησαμίς is a pastry made from sesame and honey. Some think that πυραμίς takes its name from its shape, i. e. starting wider at the bottom and ending up pointed, thus resembling the flame of fire; or else, it takes its name from the wheat). NB that Kaibel added the reading οὐ in Ath. 14.647b (an addition adopted by all subsequent editors of Athenaeus), thus allowing for the identification of the two terms, πυραμοῦς and πυραμίς (Ath. 14.647b–c): Ἰατροκλῆς ἐν τῷ Περὶ Πλακούντων καὶ τοῦ πυραμοῦντος καλουμένου, ⟨οὐ⟩ διαφέρειν λέγων τῆς πυραμίδος καλουμένης (Iatrocles mentions these in his “On Cakes”, along with the so-called πυραμοῦς, claiming that this is no different from the so-called πυραμίς); cf. Trypho fr. 116 (ap. Ath. 3.114b) with von Velsen (1853) 82–83. Honey-cakes were awarded as a prize in various agonistic contexts; e. g. to the winner of the cottabus-game at symposia (cf. EM 533,21–22; on cottabus see Ath. 15.665d–668f and Kurke 1999: 275–298), to the best dancer (cf. Plu. 747a), as well as to the person who managed to stay awake during the all-night festival of παννυχίς (cf. Ath. 14.647c, Call. fr. 227.5–6). 3d ἄμης ἄμης,-ητος (ὁ) is a type of milky cake: εἶδος πλακοῦντος γαλακτώδους (sch. on Ar. Pl. 999 = Sud. α 1581), typically classified among τραγήματα (cf. comm. s. v.); as such, ἄμης features regularly in sympotic contexts and/or food lists, e. g. Ar. Pl. 999, Amphis fr. 9.3, Alex. fr. 168.5 (cf. Arnott 1996: 494), Anaxandr. fr. 42.56, Antiph. fr. 89.2, Clearch. fr. 87.12, etc. As far as grammar is concerned, the present usage is a case of ‘collective singular’; cf. Ephipp. fr. 13 “Interpretation”. 4a ᾠῶν ἑκατόμβη A hapax expression. A hecatomb of eggs is a witty wordplay, intended to sound similar to (almost homophone with) the common notion of βοῶν ἑκατόμβη (hecatomb of oxen). This pun is the reason why Eustathius refers to line 4 of the present fragment twice (cf. “Citation Context”). Yet, Ephippus is not alone in creating such an imaginative wordplay; Anaxandr. fr. 42.29 features a πουλυπόδων ἑκατόμβη (a hecatomb of octopuses). Both comic playwrights wished to emphasize the absurd quantity of the respective foodstuff (eggs and octopuses), and thereby the lavishness of the symposion in question. Eggs were typically served at the second tables (cf. “Interpretation”); see Ath. 14.641f ἐδίδοτο δὲ καὶ ᾠὸν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τραπέζῃ (eggs were also offered on the second table); in general, eggs feature regularly in food catalogues, e. g. Ephipp. fr. 24.3 (ubi vide), Amphis fr. 9.3, Antiph. frr. 138.5 and 140.4, Anaxandr. frr. 42.59 and 80. The term ἑκατόμβη, despite its etymology (< ἑκατόν + βοῦς), hardly ever signifies a literal offering of a hundred oxen. Already in Homeric texts, the term designates any given sacrifice, e. g. Il. 1.315 (of bulls and oxen), Il. 23.146 (of fifty rams), Od. 3.59 (unspecified).

Ἔφηβοι (fr. 8)

103

4b ἐχναύομεν The verb χναύω means to nibble, to gnaw. Here, it is most appositely used in relation with the various sweetmeats (τραγήματα), which one normally nibbles upon, taking small bites of all present items (here: χόνδρος, ἴτρια, πυραμοῦς, ἄμης); cf. Ephipp. fr. 3.9, Epich. fr. 122.8, E. Cyc. 358. 5 ἀνδρικῶς The adverb ἀνδρικῶς (< ἀνδρικός < ἀνήρ) literally means like a man; hence vigorously, resolutely. Accordingly, ἀνδρικῶς is typically used in contexts that relate to men’s tasks, physical endurance and prowess (e. g. Ar. Pax 478 οἱ Λάκωνες ἕλκουσ᾿ ἀνδρικῶς: the Spartans are pulling manfully; Ar. Pax 1308 ἀλλ᾿ ἀνδρικῶς ἐμβάλλετε: pull hard like real men). Yet, with a comic twist and against the spectator’s / reader’s expectation (παρὰ προσδοκίαν), the speaker in the present fragment applies this manly bravery to the humble act of chewing (ἐμασώμεθ’), which thereby is disproportionately elevated to an important task. The adjective ἀνδρικός, as well as the adverb ἀνδρικῶς (common in Comedy and Plato, although never found in epic, tragedy or Thucydides) are colloquial alternative to the synonymous, albeit more elevated, ἀνδρεῖος and ἀνδρείως respectively; cf. Neil (1901) 17 (comm. on Ar. Eq. 80–81). 6a παραμασύντας The reading παραμασύντας is Casaubon’s correction (cf. “Constitution of Text”). The noun παραμασύντης occurs only here and in Alex. fr. 224.8 (παραμασύντην); its meaning is the same with the synonymous term παραμασήτης (< παραμασάω), i. e. parasite, trencher companion; cf. Hsch. μ 372 μασύντης· παράσιτος. Parasites (in various guises) have a long pedigree in Greek literature. The first freeloaders are Penelope’s suitors (cf. Hom. Od. 1.91–92, 2.50–59); see Fehr 1990. As far as Comedy is concerned, the parasite figure appears already in Epicharmus (frr. 31, 32, 33) and permeates the entire comic genre (both Greek and Roman). The term initially used for parasite was not παράσιτος, but κόλαξ (cf. Ath. 6.236e, Polemon fr. 78); yet, it appears that Epicharmus had already used the term παράσιτος (fr. 33). The parasite figure has a ubiquitous presence in all comic eras experiencing its heyday during the fourth century BC (and beyond); see Nesselrath (1985) 15–70, 93–96, 102–111; Nesselrath (1990) 309–317; Arnott (1996) 542–545; Damon (1997) 23–26; Davidson (1997) 270–273; Fisher (2000) 371–378. Throughout Comedy parasites are stereotypically depicted as determinate dinner-goers who arrive early and are prepared to accept all challenges, in order to secure a free meal; cf. Cratin. fr. 46, Eup. fr. 175, Antiph. frr. 80 and 193, Aristopho fr. 5 (with Orth 2020: 38–44), Timocl. fr. 8, Diph. fr. 61. See also comm. on Ephipp. fr. 20.3a (s. v. ἀσύμβολον). As Arnott points out (1996: 644; in relation with Alex. fr. 224.8), despite the grammatically unorthodox formation of παραμασύντης (i. e. there is no such verb as *παραμασύνω; NB all nouns in -ύντης or -υντής derive from verbs ending in -ύνω), it is mostly wise and recommended to keep this term in both Ephippus’ and Alexis’ text (παραμασύντας and παραμασύντην respectively), since this reading is palaeographically closer to the manuscript tradition (in both fragments). In addition, rather than being a mistake by a careless scribe, it is reasonable to

104

Ephippus

presume that this grammatically divergent term was a witty coinage by Ephippus (just like the hecatomb of eggs, line 4), meant to highlight the non-Greek or nonAthenian origin of the speaker. It is instructive that in Alex. fr. 224.8 (from the play Ταραντίνοι, Men from Tarentum) the term παραμασύντης is indeed spoken by a non-Athenian character, in a scene probably set in Tarentum; see Arnott (1996) 627, 641. For (non-Greek and non-Athenian) comic characters making all sorts of mistakes and generally using incorrect and/or gibberish language, the antecedent is Aristophanes; cf. Colvin (1999) passim, esp. 119–263. For what it is worth, in Ar. V. 433 a slave (probably of foreign origin) is called Μασυντίας (cf. Van Herwerden 1903: 112), a name that seems to mean Chewer (MacDowell 1971: 193). 6b παραβόσκομεν The verb παραβόσκω is a hapax and means to maintain besides, to feed. Immediately after παραμασύντας (see previous note) the speaker repeats the imagery of parasites being regularly present at dinners and adds further emphasis to his statement through syntax, i. e. by using the present tense of general truth (typically used to describe a situation as being true for all time; cf. Smyth 1956: §1877). Apparently, Ephippus coined the verb παραβόσκω by analogy to the following three verbs that are also compound with the preposition παρά: παρατρέφω (feed beside; applicable to parasites, e. g. Timocl. fr. 9.2, but also to other persons, e. g. hetairai, slaves, and animals; cf. LSJ9 s. v.), παρασιτέω (be a parasite; e. g. Alex. fr. 200), and παραδειπνέω (dine next to someone as a parasite; e. g. Amphis fr. 31, cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 204–206). It is conceivable that Ephippus’ choice to coin a new verb (whilst he had three synonymous terms at his disposal) had something to do with – and was meant to highlight – the speaker’s non-Athenian / non-Greek origin, especially if we study the verb παραβόσκω alongside with the grammatically weird παραμασύντας. Alternatively, this could simply be a manifestation of Ephippus’ penchant for originality and of his tendency to distinguish himself from established forms through innovative variation (cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 26, s. vv. ῥοδόπνοα and ψακαστοῖς). Furthermore, it could be argued that παραβόσκω (contrary to the three other synonymous verbs) bears a derogatory nuance, since the simplex βόσκω is mostly (though not exclusively) used of herdsmen and with reference to cattle (e. g. Hom. Od. 14.102, 21.49).

fr. 9 (9 K.) οὐ κύλικας ἐπὶ τὰ δεῖπνα Χαιρήμων φέρει; οὐ κυμβίοισι πεπολέμηκ᾿ Εὐριπίδης; 1 sq. signa interrogationis posuit Casaubon, om. Kaibel

2 :: οὐ Kock

Doesn’t Chaeremon bring wine-cups at dinner-parties? Hasn’t Euripides fought with small drinking-cups?

Ἔφηβοι (fr. 9)

105

Ath. 11.482b–d ὅταν δ᾿ Ἔφιππος ἐν Ἐφήβοις λέγῃ· οὐ — Εὐριπίδης, οὐ τὸν τραγικὸν λέγει ποιητήν, ἀλλά τινα ὁμώνυμον αὐτῷ, ἤτοι φίλοινόν τινα ἢ αἰτίαν ἔχοντα οὐ χρηστήν, ὥς φησιν Ἀντίοχος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Μέσῃ Κωμῳδίᾳ κωμῳδουμένων ποιητῶν· τὸ γὰρ ἐπάγεσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἑστιάσεις κυμβία καὶ δοκεῖν τούτοις διαμάχεσθαι εἰς ἑκάτερα τείνει. μνημονεύει δ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ Ἀναξανδρίδης ἐν Νηρηίσιν· … καὶ Ἔφιππος ἐν Ὁμοίοις ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροις When Ephippus in Ephebes says “Doesn’t — drinking-cups?”, he does not refer to the tragic poet, but to a different person with the same name, someone who was either fond of wine or had a bad reputation, according to Antiochus of Alexandria in his work On the Poets ridiculed in Middle Comedy; because bringing small drinking-cups to feasts and having a reputation for using them as weapons would account for both charges (i. e. fondness of wine and bad reputation). Anaxandrides also mentions this Euripides in Nereids (fr. 33) … also Ephippus in The Look-alikes or The Spit-bread bearers (fr. 16)

Metre Iambic trimeter

lkkkkk klk|l llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law llkl k|kkkl llkl

observed) (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,328f.; Bothe 492; Kock 2,255; Edmonds 2,150f.; PCG 5,139; Nesselrath (1990) 59f., 247; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 489; Rusten & Henderson 484 Citation Context This fragment is quoted by Athenaeus in Book 11, paragraph 482c, within a discussion on κυμβία (small drinking-cups; cf. comm. s. v.), which starts earlier in the text (11.481d) and encompasses several comic fragments featuring this term (e. g. Philem. fr. 87, Anaxandr. fr. 3, Alex. fr. 100, Ephipp. fr. 16), along with a number of prose testimonies from historiographers, orators, grammarians, etc. In turn, the discussion on κυμβία is embedded in a much lengthier discussion on practically all sorts of wine-/drinking-cups, which sets off at 11.460f ἄξιον δ᾿ ἐστὶ ζητῆσαι εἰ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι μεγάλοις ἔπινον ποτηρίοις (a question that deserves discussion is whether the ancients used large cups when they drank). It is rather unusual for Athenaeus to comment on a fragment after its quotation; yet, here Athenaeus does care to give some clarifications regarding the identity of the Euripides figure mentioned in the fragment, the possible reasons why this Euripides became a comic target, plus the source of his information. Cf. Ephipp. test. 5. Constitution of Text In both lines the interrogation mark was added by Casaubon, although Kaibel refused to adopt this modification in his own edition of Athenaeus’ text. I agree with Kassel-Austin’s decision to print both interrogation marks, since it is evident that both lines were meant as rhetorical questions. In line 2 Kock suggested a change of speaker, although this is not necessary and cannot be established with certainty.

106

Ephippus

Interpretation The speaker, in a moment of emotional outburst, uses a distinct syntactic structure featuring a double rhetorical question, whereby he evokes someone else’s preposterous behaviour, probably as an excuse for one’s own (perhaps his) actions (the same structure recurs in Ephipp. fr. 17, ubi vide). Via this rhetorical formulation, the comic character (whose animated spirit cannot be accounted for) mocks the tragic poet Chaeremon and a certain Euripides for misbehaving at symposia (NB this Euripides is not the known tragic poet, according to Athenaeus’ source ad loc., but some namesake; yet, Farmer 2017b: 52–53 thinks otherwise, cf. s. v. Εὐριπίδης). The speaker appears fairly confident about his knowledge of both Chaeremon’s and Euripides’ rowdy and reprehensible sympotic behaviour; he either has personal experience, i. e. he has dined in their company (more than once) or has repeatedly heard about their eccentric comportment at dinner-parties. According to the speaker, Chaeremon regularly brings wine-cups at symposia, while Euripides is known for hurling wine-cups against fellow banqueters, apparently when drunk (Euripides’ ill behaviour is echoed by Lucian in his Symposion; cf. comm. s. v. πεπολέμηκ’). The (rhetorical) way in which the speaker presents these two cases (i. e. “doesn’t A do this and doesn’t B do that” – and we all know about it and they get away with it, so why shouldn’t I do that other thing) strongly suggests that he means to use them as paradigms and excuses for some equally unmannerly/unruly (sympotic) behaviour that has already been exhibited (or is anticipated) by either the speaker himself or some third party, whom the speaker ardently defends and is perhaps associated with (e. g. father–son or uncle– niece relation, risky love affair, etc.). The references to two kinds of drinking-cups (κύλιξ, κυμβίον) and to dinner-parties (δεῖπνα) suggest a sympotic context (on the symposion in general see on Ephipp. fr. 4.2a); at the same time there is a conspicuous intertextuality with Lucian’s Symposion. It would be both futile and unwise to try to date Ephippus’ play based on the reference to Chaeremon (TrGF 71), since the latter’s floruit is elusive (ca. midfourth century BC). Yet, the dual reference to these individuals (absent from stage, with all probability) constitutes a conspicuous and rare instance of re-emergence of ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν, a most favourite technique of Old Comedy. Personal mockery and harsh personalized attack, extensively exercised for purely satirical and/or political purposes during the period of Old Comedy (cf. Halliwell 1984, Reckford 1987: 461–482), gradually wither away during the fourth century and beyond, albeit without ever completely disappearing, as this and other parallel cases demonstrate (see Intro. 5 “Kōmōdoumenoi”); cf. Amphis fr. 13 (against Plato; see Papachrysostomou 2016: 86–93), Arched. fr. 4 (against the politician Demochares, active in ca. late fourth – early third century BC), Philippid. fr. 25 (against Stratocles, the henchman of Demetrius Poliorcetes), Philem. fr. 132 (against Magas of Cyrene), etc. It is noteworthy that the same Euripides featuring in Ephippus’ present fragment is also satirized (for his fondness of κυμβία) in Anaxandr. fr. 33 and Ephipp. fr. 16. For the modified (and arguably milder) version of ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν during the periods of Middle and New Comedy, which largely focuses

Ἔφηβοι (fr. 9)

107

on prosopographic aspects of the targeted individuals, see Papachrysostomou 2009, and Henderson 2014 (with further bibliography). 1a κύλικας See comm. on Ephipp. fr. 3.11a. 1b Χαιρήμων Meineke was the first to suggest that this individual should be identified with the tragic playwright Chaeremon (TrGF 71), who was an older contemporary of Aristotle and active about the middle of the fourth century BC (cf. Brown OCD s. v. Chaeremon 1). Eleven play-titles and forty-three fragments survive from Chaeremon’s dramatic output (TrGF 1,215–227). According to Aristotle’s judgement (Rh. 1413b12–13), Chaeremon was an ἀναγνωστικός poet (i. e. his works were meant for reading, ἀνάγνωσις, rather than performance), and he was also as precise (ἀκριβής) as a λογογράφος (writer of speeches). He also seems to have valued wine very highly; his appreciation for it is revealed in one of his fragments (TrGF 71 F 15), preserved by Athenaeus 2.35d: Χαιρήμων δὲ ὁ τραγῳδὸς παρασκευάζειν φησὶ τὸν οἶνον τοῖς χρωμένοις “γέλωτα, σοφίαν, εὐμαθίαν, εὐβουλίαν” (the tragic poet Chaeremon claims that wine provides those who consume it with “laughter, wisdom, a quick wit, sound judgment”). 1c φέρει This is a case of present tense of general truth (cf. Smyth 1956: §1877), which describes the activity it refers to as infinitely true/valid. Via the bombastic effect of the rhetorical question, the speaker in Ephippus’ fragment presents a bizarre habit of Chaeremon as indisputable and widely known. Charemon brings his own wine-cups whenever he is invited to a dinner-party. The reason why Chaeremon does this, albeit unimaginable at first, suggests itself in the following line, where we hear that Euripides hurls wine-cups when drunk at dinner. Accordingly, Chaeremon brings along his own ‘ammunition’; the wine-cups are not to be used for drinking, but for throwing them at other banqueters. This interpretation is substantiated further by Athenaeus’ comment following the quotation of the present fragment (11.482c τὸ γὰρ ἐπάγεσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἑστιάσεις κυμβία καὶ δοκεῖν τούτοις διαμάχεσθαι; cf. transl. above). Alternatively, though far less likely, it is possible that Chaeremon owned some special cups, perhaps silver ones, which he cherished and wished to proudly demonstrate to his fellow-banqueters. 2a κυμβίοισι The term κυμβίον is the reason why Athenaeus cites Ephippus’ fragment (cf. “Citation Context”). Grammatically, κυμβίον is the diminutive of κύμβη, which designates a certain type of drinking-cup and also a specific type of boat (apparently, the two looked alike, although it is unclear which was named after the other); cf. Hsch. κ 4542 κυμβίον· εἶδος ποτηρίου, καὶ πλοίου (a kind of cup and of boat). According to Sud. κ 2683, κυμβίον was an oblong (ἐπίμηκες) and narrow (στενόν) cup, whose shape resembled that of the boat with the same name. Athenaeus 11.481d anthologizes several testimonies that describe additional aspects of κυμβίον; it was concave (κοῖλον) and curved (κυφόν), deep (βαθύ) and tall (ὀρθόν), with no base and no handles. The case of κυμβίον being a name of both a cup and a boat is not unparalleled; the same happens with the terms ἄκατος (Thgn. 1.458: boat; Theopomp.Com. fr. 4: cup), τριήρης (Hdt. 7.89: boat; Antiph.

108

Ephippus

fr. 223: cup; cf. Ath. 11.500f) and κάνθαρος (Ar. Pax 143: boat, see Olson 1998: 95–96; Phryn.Com. fr. 15: cup). In Latin, the equivalent term “cumba” is often used of small fishing boats (e. g. Livy 26.45.7). See further Millis (2015) 47, Casson (1971) 329–330. As far as syntax is concerned, κυμβίοισι is an instrumental dative proper (cf. Smyth 1956: §§ 1503–1507), governed by πεπολέμηκ᾿ (see next note). 2b πεπολέμηκ᾿ This is the present perfect tense of the verb πολεμέω, which means fight, wage war, but also quarrel, wrangle (cf. LSJ9 s. v.). Presently the verb describes a bizarre war. Euripides is said to have quarreled / fought (i. e. with fellow banqueters) using drinking-cups as weapons (κυμβίοισι; cf. previous note); apparently under the intoxicating effect of wine, he hurled drinking-cups at people with whom he had some sort of disagreement (this interpretation is further substantiated by Athenaeus’ clarifying comment, following the fragment’s quotation, at 11.482c τὸ γὰρ ἐπάγεσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἑστιάσεις κυμβία καὶ δοκεῖν τούτοις διαμάχεσθαι; cf. transl. above). This kind of unruly behaviour is paralleled (better say, creatively imitated; cf. Whitmarsh 2005: 1) by Lucian in his Symposion, where the Stoic philosopher Zenothemis (following an absurd quarrel over who gets the plumber bird for dinner) hurls a drinking-cup (σκύφος) towards the Epicurean Hermon. Zenothemis misses Hermon but hits the groom, who starts bleeding. The scene is conspicuously grotesque (§ 44): ὁ μὲν Ζηνόθεμις σκύφον ἀράμενος ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης κείμενον … ῥίπτει ἐπὶ τὸν Ἕρμωνα, κἀκείνου μὲν ἅμαρτε, παραὶ δέ οἱ ἐτράπετ᾿ ἄλλῃ, διεῖλε δὲ τοῦ νυμφίου τὸ κρανίον ἐς δύο χρηστῷ μάλα καὶ βαθεῖ τῷ τραύματι (Zenothemis picked up a bowl that was on the table … and threw it at Hermon, “and him it missed and went another way” [cf. Hom. Il. 11.233] and hit the groom’s head, almost splitting it into two, inflicting a wound that was generous and deep). The entire setting in Lucian’s Symposion is described as a bloody battlefield, preposterously featuring drinking-cups being thrown as weapons by- and against the banqueters (§ 45): Λαπίθας οὖν καὶ Κενταύρους εἶπες ἄν, εἰ εἶδες τραπέζας ἀνατρεπομένας καὶ αἷμα ἐκκεχυμένον καὶ σκύφους ῥιπτομένους (you would think they were Lapiths and Centaurs, if you saw tables being turned upside down and blood flowing and cups being hurled all over the place); cf. § 1 ἄχρι τραυμάτων προχωρῆσαι τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ τέλος αἵματι διαλυθῆναι τὴν συνουσίαν (the affair ended in wounds and the party was finally broken up by the shedding of blood). Ephippus’ present fragment is the only surviving piece of evidence from Comedy featuring a drinking-cup war within a symposion context. Lucian might have come up with the cup-hurling scene independently or could have drawn inspiration from relevant comic material (Ephippus’ fragment and perhaps other texts, now lost). Given Lucian’s indebtedness to earlier literary tradition (comic and other; cf. Sidwell 2000b, Papachrysostomou 2014–2015, Storey 2015), and also considering that the Second Sophistic authors largely exhibited an outstanding imitative capacity and systematically sought to establish a literary propinquity with their classical forbears (cf. Anderson 1993: 69–85, Whitmarsh 2005), it is conceivable that Ephippus’ fragment stands as a literary antecedent to Lucian’s

Ἔφηβοι (fr. 10)

109

absurd description of the philosophers’ boorishness, gluttony, and drunken / violent behaviour in his Symposion. 2c Εὐριπίδης Athenaeus 11.482c confidently claims that, according to his source, i. e. the work On the Poets Ridiculed in Middle Comedy (Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Μέσῃ Κωμῳδίᾳ κωμῳδουμένων ποιητῶν) by Antiochus of Alexandria, this Euripides is not the tragic poet, but a different individual bearing the same name. This other Euripides (PAA 444547, Steinhausen 1910: 49) is mentioned only in two other comic fragments, Anaxandr. fr. 33 and Ephipp. fr. 16, both quoted by Athenaeus immediately after the quotation of Ephippus’ present fragment. In all three cases Euripides is associated with κυμβία (small wine-cups); the present fragment is the most instructive regarding the nature of this association / mockery (he either threw once or used to throw cups against guests at dinner parties; cf. s. v. πεπολέμηκ’). Be that as it may, Athenaeus is still not able to precisely describe (because, apparently his source, Antiochus, was similarly unable to establish) the reason why Euripides was mocked by the comic poets; understandably, throwing cups at symposia was a piece of stock-in-trade satire (probably based on actual events), but Athenaeus  – after quoting the fragment (cf. “Citation Context”) – alludes to a deeper reason behind Euripides’ uncouth behaviour; he suspects he was either φίλοινος (wine-lover; prone to getting drunk and behaving badly at symposia) or that he enjoyed a bad reputation for some other, unknown reason (Ath. ibidem αἰτίαν ἔχοντα οὐ χρηστήν). Whatever the case, Athenaeus concludes, using winecups as weapons at dinners is a fitting portrayal of this individual, revealing of his unruly character (Ath. ibidem τὸ γὰρ ἐπάγεσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἑστιάσεις κυμβία καὶ δοκεῖν τούτοις διαμάχεσθαι εἰς ἑκάτερα τείνει). Nonetheless, Farmer (2017b: 52–53) believes that, contrary to Athenaeus’ statement, the Euripides meant and mocked is the Euripides the well-known tragic poet, and that all three comic fragments are instances of a running joke in Middle Comedy depicting him as a drunkard. Farmer’s suggestion is plausible, especially since in the present fragment the other named and satirized person is also a tragic poet.

fr. 10 (10 K.) φιάλην ἑκατέρᾳ ἔδωκε κεράσας ζωρότερον Ὁμηρικῶς 2 ἔδωκεν A: corr. Schweigh.

He gave a bowl to each of the two women, after he prepared a considerably strong mixture of wine, in the Homeric style

110

Ephippus

Ath. 10.423d–e περὶ τοῦ ζωρότερον … Ἔφιππος Ἐφήβοις· φιάλην — Ὁμηρικῶς. Regarding the term ζωρότερον (sc. “purer, stronger” wine) … Ephippus says in Ephebes: “He — style”.

Metre Iambic trimeter

kkl klkl klkkk l|lkkk klkl (penthemimeral caesura)

Discussion Meineke 3,329; Bothe 492; Kock 2,255; Edmonds 2,150f.; PCG 5,139; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 489 Citation Context This fragment is quoted in Book 10 of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae, soon after the symposiarch Ulpian prompts the banqueters to move on from eating to drinking (10.422e–423b; cf. “Citation Context” for Ephipp. fr. 2). In this context Ulpian – displaying his erudition – offers, as a preamble, to provide the banqueters with some remarks about the term ζωρότερον (πρότερον δέ μοι λελέξεται περὶ τοῦ ζωρότερον); first, he quotes Antiph. frr. 147 and 137, and then proceeds to the quotation of Ephippus’ present fragment, which is immediately followed by the Homeric verse ζωρότερον δὲ κέραι(ρ)ε (Il. 9.203), to which the fragment alludes. NB Antiph. fr. 137 does not feature the term ζωρότερον, but the synonymous εὐζωρέστερον; this is one of several instances within the text of Deipnosophistae where Athenaeus’ quotations are either tangential to the stated purpose or contain some sort of inconsistency; cf. Papachrysostomou (2016) 120, Papachrysostomou (2008) 174–175. Constitution of Text In line 2 codex A preserves the reading ἔδωκεν, which disturbs the metrical analysis of iambos, since the third element is long by position (epsilon is followed by two consonnants), whereas iambos needs a short there. Schweighaeuser remedied this by deleting the final nu from the reading, substituting ἔδωκεν with ἔδωκε. Interpretation The fragment captures a snapshot from a comic character’s narrative, who describes how someone else prepared a mixture of considerably strong (virtually sheer) wine and offered a bowl of it to two women. The context of the narrative is sympotic (on symposion see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 4.2a); hence, the women may be identified as hetairai (the only sort of women allowed to be present at symposia), who perhaps doubled as entertainers; e. g. αὐλητρίδες (pipegirls), κιθαρίστριαι (cithara-players), ψάλτριαι (harpers), ὀρχηστρίδες (dancers). Alternatively, these two women may be slaves that are about to be set free by their master; given the existence of two parallel cases (Aristopho fr. 13 and Xenarch. fr. 5), it is conceivable that the present fragment features a scene of manumission of two female slaves, which is sanctified by consumption of strong wine. The present reference to a φιάλη (the preferred kind of vessel for religious ceremonies, rituals, libations, etc.; cf. comm. s. v.) further supports the plausibility of this hypothesis.

Ἔφηβοι (fr. 10)

111

The female speaker in Aristopho fr. 13 (quoted below) describes this exact procedure (see Papachrysostomou 2008: 143–149, Orth 2020: 131–135), where – in an instance of παρὰ προσδοκίαν – the master gives her to drink not the ἐλευθέριον ὕδωρ (water of freedom; a ritual that allegedly sanctified manumission, cf. Hsch. ε 2021, Antiph. fr. 26), but a strong mixture of wine: ἴσον ἴσῳ κεκραμένην (mixed half-and-half). A mixture containing wine and water in equal proportions was considered a rather strong blend; cf. sch. on Ar. Pl. 1132 ζωρότερον τὸ τοιοῦτο κρᾶμα (this mixture is considerably strong), and adesp. com. fr. 101.12 (a doctor’s warning) ἐὰν δ’ ἴσον ἴσῳ προσφέρῃ, μανίαν ποιεῖ (if you offer a half-and-half mixture, it will induce frenzied madness). Aristopho fr. 13:

l k τοιγαροῦν ἐμοὶ μὲν ἀρτίως ὁ δεσπότης

5

δι’ ἀρετὴν τῶν θηρικλείων εὐκύκλωτον ἀσπίδα, ὑπεραφρίζουσαν, τρυφῶσαν, ἴσον ἴσῳ κεκραμένην, προσφέρων ἔδωκεν :: οἶμαι, χρηστότητος οὕνεκα. :: εἶτ’ ἐλευθέραν ἀφῆκε βαπτίσας ἐρρωμένως

5

For that very reason my master lately, because of my excellence, gave me the beautifully rounded shield of thericleians; he brought it to me foaming over the brim, dainty, mixed half-and-half. (B.) As a reward for honesty, I suppose. (A.) He then let me go free, having soused me overwhelmingly in wine

Similarly, the slave female speaker in Xenarch. fr. 5 wishes to be granted the chance to drink the wine (instead of water) of freedom, before dying: ⟨οὕτως⟩ ἐμοὶ γένοιτο σοῦ ζώσης, τέκνον, / ἐλευθέριον πιοῦσαν οἶνον ἀποθανεῖν (thus might it be granted me, my child, while you are still alive, / to die once I drink the wine of freedom). Metre Line 1 is incomplete; it misses the entire first metre and part of the second metre. Regarding the two brevia featuring within the second metre, (i) they may be the result of the resolution of that metre’s short element; or (ii) the first present short element could be actually the second of the two brevia that resulted from the resolution of the second metre’s longum (the originally first short element of that resolution does not survive, so the short element featuring as ‘first’ was actually the ‘second’ one); if so, then the second short is the regular short element of the second iambic metre. 1a φιάλην A hollow, broad, and stemless drinking-bowl, with a central boss (ὀμφαλός) and no handles, standardly made of either gold or silver. It typically featured in religious ceremonies, rituals, and libations (e. g. Ar. Pax 431, Av. 975), as well as sympotic contexts (e. g. Pl. Smp. 223c, X. Smp. 2.23, E. Ion 1181–1182). See further Luschey 1939; Richter & Milne (1935) 29–30 and fig. 181; Sparkes & Talcott (1970) 1.105–106, 2. pl. 23, 52, 518–526. The presence of a φιάλη (rather than any

112

Ephippus

other kind of beaker) supports the hypothesis argued above (cf. “Interpretation”) that the fragment possibly features a snippet from a manumission scene, enacted as a ritual (with wine-libations and wine-drinking). 1b ἑκατέρᾳ The female gender of the indefinite pronominal adjective ἑκάτερος (each of two; Lat. “uterque”) indicates that the recipients of strong wine are two women; each one is offered a bowl of it. 2a ζωρότερον This term (comparative of ζωρός) is the precise reason why Athenaeus cites this fragment (cf. “Citation Context”). The adjective ζωρός means pure, sheer, and typically refers to unmixed wine, i. e. wine that has not been diluted with water (on ζωρός cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 11.3a). Despite the present usage of the comparative degree (ζωρότερον), there is no actual comparison here; instead, the comparative is used in an absolute sense, in a way that softens the meaning of the adjective’s positive degree; i. e. the meaning of the comparative ζωρότερος (considerably strong, practically pure) is – paradoxically – less intense than the positive ζωρός (entirely pure wine). For this grammatical phenomenon, also occurring in Ephipp. fr. 3.11, see Smyth (1956) §1082d. 2b Ὁμηρικῶς In the Homeric style, in the manner of Homer. Athenaeus (10.423e) cites the Homeric line alluded to by the comic character immediately after the quotation of Ephippus’ present fragment: ζωρότερον δὲ κέραι(ρ)ε (Il. 9.203), albeit with a varia lectio (κέραιρε instead of the Homeric κέραιε). The Homeric line ζωρότερον δὲ κέραιε (mix the wine more pure, i. e. add less water) belongs in the famous embassy scene of the Iliad, where Achilles asks Patroclus to mix some really strong wine (almost pure; see previous note) and prepare a cup for each of the guests. In other quotations of the same line elsewhere (e. g. Arist. Po. 1461a15–16, Plu. 677c, Sud. ζ 164), the Homeric reading κέραιε occurs. The metrical analysis (dactylic hexameter) is not affected by the extra rho, interpolated by Athenaeus; yet, this inconsistency is picked up by Eustathius (in Il. 2,699.9–11), who notes that on some occasions the correct reading κέραιε is mistakenly replaced with κέραιρε; cf. Philox.Gramm. fr. 140. Hainsworth (1993: 90; comm. on Hom. l. c.) points out that Homer “attributes to the Heroic Age the drinking practice of his own and later times, although the Greek practice of diluting the wine is implied by Myc. ka-ra-te-ra MY Ue 611”. Yet, it is remarkable that all three authors that quote the Iliadic line, i. e. Athenaeus, Aristotle, and Plutarch (ll.c.), try to downplay the remarkable potency of wine asked by Achilles and explain instead the Homeric reference to almost pure wine (ζωρότερον) metaphorically, so that it complies with the Greek habit of mixing the wine with water. Aristotle l. c. claims that Achilles did not mean neat wine for topers, but mixing faster (οὐ τὸ ἄκρατον ὡς οἰνόφλυξιν ἀλλὰ τὸ θᾶττον), while Athenaeus and Plutarch argue that the Homeric reference must be either to hot (θερμόν) wine (as if the term ζωρός derived from ζωτικός, ζέσις) or to old wine (prefix ζα + ὧρος = year > ζωρός). Needless to say, these etymologies are palpably wrong; simultaneously, the meticulous attempt to exonerate Achilles (and Homer) from enjoying some

Ἔφηβοι (fr. 10)

113

stronger wine (practically neat; cf. s. v. ζωρότερον on the absolute usage of the comparative degree) is a major example of the Greeks’ anxiety and disquiet over the semantics of consuming unmixed wine (cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 3.11c); on the notional width of ζωρός see Ephipp. fr. 11.3a. For wine in the Homeric world in general see Papakonstantinou 2009.

114

Κίρκη (Kirkē) (“Circe”) Discussion Bothe 492; Kock 2,255f.; Edmonds 2,151; PCG 5,139 Title The title strongly suggests a play of mythological burlesque, of the kind that was most popular and common during the period of Middle Comedy (cf. Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”), featuring absurd anachronisms and preposterous intertwinement of mythical tradition with contemporary (largely Athenian) reality (cf. the comparable case of Ephippus’ Φιλύρα with “Interpretation” ad loc). In an imaginary twist of Homeric tradition, Ephippus’ title-figure of Circe could be a hetaira (so Bothe) or even a bossy madam running a brothel; this hetaira / madam figure could be either entirely fictitious or a disguise for a real person (just like Paphlagon stands for Cleon in Aristophanes’ Knights and Eupolis’ Marikas is a disguise for Hyperbolus). In fact, given the rich set of (comically exploitable) connotations attached to the mythical figure of Circe (a destructively beautiful, spellbinding, independent and mystifying immortal female – to mention but a few), it is conceivable that Ephippus meant Circe as a telltale nickname for (either a fictitious or real) hetaira. This nickname could be Ephippus’ own invention, intended to describe / satirise a specific hetaira whose bewitching behaviour and enticing manners and means (e. g. strong wine; cf. fr. 11 “Interpretation”) exercised a catalytic and stupefying effect upon her clients, just like mythical Circe, using her wand and baneful drugs (φάρμακα λυγρά), transformed Odysseus’ comrades into pigs (Od. 10.235–240). It is useful to remember that nicknames were not uncommon among hetairai; the most typical example is Phryne, arguably the most famous hetaira of antiquity, whose real name, Mnesarete (Ath. 13.591e), was soon replaced by the nickname Phryne that alluded to her pale complexion (φρύνη: toad). Another example is the hetaira Sinope, who was nicknamed Abydos (a timeworn colony of Miletus in the Hellespont, infamous for its depraved inhabitants), because of her longevity and licentiousness (Ath. 13.586a, 12.524f); also, in Luc. DMeretr. 11.2 Παγίς (Trap) is a hetaira’s nickname. Ephippus was not alone in seeking inspiration in Homer’s legendary enchantress. The Middle Comedy playwright Anaxilas also wrote a play called Circe (PCG 2,282f.), with two of the three surviving fragments directly relating to the title; especially, Anaxil. fr. 12 is distinctively striking (a character warns a group of individuals against Circe’s mischievous intentions): τοὺς μὲν ὀρειονόμους ὑμῶν ποιήσει δέλφακας ὑλιβάτας, / τοὺς δὲ πάνθηρας, ἄλλους ἀγρώστας λύκους, / λέοντας (she will turn some of you into mountain-ranging, mudtrodding pigs, / some into wildcats, others into savage wolves / or lions). See Tartaglia (2019) 63–72. There is no way to know (and it does not really matter) which fourth-century poet, Ephippus or Anaxilas, was the first who comically revived Circe’s theme. In any case, they were both preceded by Dinolochus (from Syracuse or Acragas; a younger contemporary of Epicharmus, variously described as the latter’s son, pupil or rival; cf. test. 1–2), who wrote a play entitled Κίρκα ἢ Ὀ[δυσσ- (Circe or

Κίρκη

115

O[dysseus; PCG 1,177f.; no surviving fragments), in the early fifth century BC. In addition, Aeschylus wrote a satyr play called Κίρκη Σατυρική (frr. 113a–115, plus testimonia; TrGF 3,227–228). Shaw (2014: 106–122), based on the considerable number of shared play-titles between Middle Comedy and satyr drama (roughly one third of known production), takes Nesselrath’s (1995) findings further and thoroughly studies the pronounced shift of Comedy’s interest, during the fourth century BC, towards plots conventionally associated with the satyr play. Kock (2,256) suggested that the adesp. comic fr. 175 (ap. EM 592,40) ἔχων μὲν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ μῶλυ (holding some ‘moly’ herb in his hand) should be assigned to either Ephippus’ or Anaxilas’ Circe, apparently because of the reference to μῶλυ. The term μῶλυ is the name of a potent herbal drug (φάρμακον ἐσθλόν), which Hermes in Odyssey gives to Odysseus to protect him against Circe’s deadly wiles (Hom. Od. 10.286–306; however, EM l. c. claims that μῶλυ was the antidote that Odysseus used to turn his companions back into humans, whereas in Od. 10.392 this is performed by Circe who anoints them with a different drug than before: προσάλειφεν ἑκάστῳ φάρμακον ἄλλο). Admittedly, Kock’s suggestion is attractive; yet, the two Circe-plays (by Ephippus and Anaxilas) are not the only possible contexts that could accommodate a reference to μῶλυ. Apart from Dinolochus’ homonymous play, which – by the same reasoning – should also be considered as an equally possible third option, there are also numerous other fragmentarily surviving plays from all three comic periods, which draw on Odysseus’ theme and could perfectly allow for a reference to his adventures on the island of Circe; first, there are nine plays that feature Odysseus in the title: by Epicharmus (two plays: PCG 1,60–68 Ὀδυσσεὺς αὐτόμολος and PCG 1,69 Ὀδυσσεὺς ναυαγός), Cratinus (PCG 4,192–200 Ὀδυσσῆς), Theopompus (PCG 7,724–726 Ὀδυσσεύς vel Ὀδυσσῆς), Amphis (PCG 2,225 Ὀδυσσεύς), Anaxandrides (PCG 2,253–255 Ὀδυσσεύς), Eubulus (PCG 5,231 Ὀδυσσεὺς ἢ Πανόπται), Alexis (two plays: PCG 2,110f. Ὀδυσσεὺς ἀπονιπτόμενος and PCG 2,111f. Ὀδυσσεὺς ὑφαίνων); plus, there is an Alcinous by Phormis (PCG 1,175), a Penelope by Theopompus (PCG 7,731), a Nausica by Eubulus (PCG 5,229), and a Washerwomen or Nausica (Πλύντριαι ἢ Ναυσικάα) by Philyllius (PCG 7,378). (NB that I restrict the list to only include play-titles directly relating to Odysseus, i. e. leaving out cases such as the two plays called Ναυαγός, The Castaway, by Ephippus [ubi vide] and Paramonus.) The plot possibilities and comic twists are practically innumerable; any of the above Odysseus-related plays could have accommodated the adesp. comic fr. 175, in ways that exceed our imagination. Hence, it is wiser to consider this fragment an adespoton and refrain from assigning it to any of the above plays. Date

unknown

116

Ephippus

fr. 11 (11 K.) (A.) οἶνον πίοις ἂν ἀσφαλέστερον πολὺ ὑδαρῆ. (B.) μὰ τὴν γῆν, ἀλλὰ τρία καὶ τέτταρα. οὕτως ἄκρατον, εἰπέ μοι, πίῃ; (B.) τί φῄς; 1 ἀσφαλέστερον πολύ om. CE 2 τέσσαρα CE 3 φής CE τί φῄς personae A continuaverunt Meineke, Bothe et Kassel-Austin, quos non secuti sunt Kock, Kaibel et Edmonds

(A.) It would be much safer, if you drank watery wine. (B.) By the earth, but it’s three to four! (A.) Tell me, you drink it that strong? (B.) What are you talking about? Ath. 10.430e–f Ἔφιππος δ᾿ ἐν Κίρκῃ τρεῖς πρὸς τέτταρας· οἶνον — φῄς; And Ephippos in Circe, three-to-four: “It — about”

Metre Iambic trimeter

llkl k|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) kklkl l|lkkk llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

llkl k|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) Discussion Meineke 3,329; Bothe 492; Kock 2,255f.; Edmonds 2,150f.; PCG 5,140; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 489f. Citation Context This fragment is quoted by Athenaeus in Book 10 of Deipnosophistae, after the banqueters have concluded eating and have moved to the drinking session (cf. “Citation Context” for Ephipp. fr. 10). Upon some banqueters’ request for wine to be specifically mixed one-to-one, the group decide to discuss about ancient admixtures (426b–c ἔδοξε πᾶσι λέγειν περὶ τῶν κράσεων τῶν παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις). The conversation soon digresses to other wine-related issues before the philosopher Democritus calls for the discussion on ancient blends to be resumed (429f περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων κράσεων … ἐπαναλήψομαι τὸν λόγον). It is in this context that Ephippus’ present fragment is quoted (10.430f), along with several other testimonies (mainly, though not exclusively, from Comedy), as examples of various admixtures of different strength. Ephippus’ fragment is a testimony for a rather strong blend (strength index 1,33; cf. “Interpretation”); yet, it is preceded by three other quotations that showcase even stronger wine-blends (Anacr. fr. 409 PMG, strength index 1,66; Philetaer. fr. 15, strength index 1,5; and Pherecr. fr. 76 – featuring blatant irony, strength index 2). Constitution of Text In line 1 the Epitome codices C and E (on the value of Athenaeus’ mss see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”) omit the phrase

Κίρκη (fr. 11)

117

ἀσφαλέστερον πολύ (thus leaving both the metre and the first speaker’s comment incomplete). In line 2 the same codices preserve the reading τέσσαρα, instead of the standard Attic form τέτταρα, which is preserved by codex A. In line 3 codices C and E preserve the grammatically wrong reading φής (i. e. omitting the iota subscript); the correct reading φῄς is preserved by codex A. Yet, the fragment’s biggest controversy is whether the concluding question τί φῄς (line 3) should be assigned to speaker A (who would thus continue his reprehension of speaker B with a second and stronger rhetorical question) or to speaker B (who would thus reply to A with a curt question and in a rather vexed mood, clearly without agreeing with A’s views / advice on sobriety). Scholars are divided; Meineke, Bothe, and Kassel-Austin assign τί φῄς to speaker A, whilst Kock, Kaibel and Edmonds assign this short question to speaker B (thus assuming a case of antilabē). Kassel-Austin cite Ar. Lys. 70 and Th. 144 as parallels (where, however, τί φῄς is immediately followed by τί σιγᾷς, forming a rhetorical ensemble, which is absent from Ephippus’ fragment). Admittedly, it is possible to argue this issue both ways. Yet, I would rather assign τί φῄς to speaker B, since it prevents a stylistic tautology; see comm. s. v. τί φῄς below. Interpretation Ephippus’ present fragment is the only surviving piece of evidence featuring the – conspicuously strong – wine-blend consisting of three parts of water and four parts of wine (strength index 1,33; cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 3.11c). The fragment captures a snippet of a vivid dialogue between two characters conversing – and disagreeing – over the strength of the wine-blend that character B either currently drinks or prepares and is about to start drinking, against character A’s advice. It is conceivable that this strong wine admixture had something to do with the title-figure; e. g. according to the reconstruction outlined under “Title”, unusually strong wine could be the means used by the hetaira nicknamed Circe to daze her clients, or, better say, put a spell on them, just like her mythical counterpart did (albeit with different means). However, the identity of the two speakers, A and B, cannot be positively identified. Yet, swearing by the Earth (μὰ τὴν γῆν, line 2) seems to have been an oath reserved for males (so Arnott 1996: 360), wherever the speaker’s sex can be confidently verified; therefore, one may assume that speaker B is male (and perhaps so is speaker A). If so, this could be a pair of banqueters, or else a master (speaker B) and his outspoken slave (speaker A) offering some advice (outspoken slaves already appear in late Aristophanes, e. g. Ra. 23–24; cf. Dover 1993: 43–50). Nonetheless, since (i) there is no evidence whatsoever regarding the sex of either speaker, (ii) the particular wine-blend (three-to-four) is remarkably strong (and hence with a mellowing effect on e. g. a hetaira’s clients), and (iii) bibulousness is a stereotypical feature of / charge against women in Comedy (cf. below), I would argue that speaker B is female (either a free woman or a hetaira, perhaps even the title-figure; cf. “Title”) and that Ephippus meant this scene to be conspicuously hilarious, precisely because a woman opts for strong wine either for herself (women going awry and misbehaving is a comic topos; see Ar. Ecclesiazusae, and

118

Ephippus

the two plays called Γυναικοκρατία, Female Dominion, by Amphis and Alexis; cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 61) or for others (e. g. the hetaira’s clients). Besides, Pherecr. fr. 76 (that immediately precedes Ephippus’ fragment in Athenaeus’ text) features at least one female character who is a zealous fan of very strong wine (it is likely that Athenaeus consciously arranged for two germane fragments to be adjacent). As far as wine-drinking in antiquity is concerned, this was an activity ideally suited – and largely reserved – for men (predominantly within a sympotic context, and along the parameters of emotional group bonding, socialization, military experience, and political alliance; cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 71–72). Simultaneously, there was a widespread stereotyped perception that traces back to Anacreon (οἰνοπότις γυνή, fr. 455), according to which women were commonly believed to have a pronounced penchant for wine. Athenaeus succinctly echoes this view in 10.440e: ὅτι δὲ φίλοινον τὸ τῶν γυναικῶν γένος κοινόν (that women like wine is a commonplace). Throughout Comedy the bibulousness of women (both free ones and hetairai) is a commonplace and a typical occasion for laughter. A memorable scene is the Kinsman’s outburst in Ar. Th. 730–738, where he calls women ποτίσταται (735 dipsomaniacs; πότις = drinker / tippler, here in superlative degree) and describes how they never miss a chance to wangle a drink (736 κἀκ παντὸς ὑμεῖς μηχανώμεναι πιεῖν; cf. Austin & Olson 2004: 252–253; NB earlier in the play, lines 383ff., Euripides is slandered as the propagator of this misogynistic view). Other comic passages satirising women for their fondness of wine include Ar. V. 1402, Lys. 113–114 (cf. Henderson 1987: 81–82), Ec. 132–146, Pl. 644–645; Axionic. fr. 5 γυναικὶ δὴ πίστευε μὴ πίνειν ὕδωρ (trust a woman – not to drink water! – cf. Orth 2020: 214–216); Epicr. fr. 3.1 (the hetaira Lais is called πότις); Eub. fr. 42 (esp. lines 3–4 κατειδὼς τὴν γυναικείαν φύσιν, / ὡς οὐχὶ μικροῖς ἥδεται ποτηρίοις: familiar with women’s nature, which is not satisfied with tiny cups); Alex. fr. 172 (esp. lines 1–2 γυναιξὶ δ᾿ ἀρκεῖ πάντ᾿, ἐὰν οἶνος παρῇ / πίνειν διαρκής: women are fully satisfied, as long as there’s enough wine to drink) This motif is bequeathed to both Roman Comedy (e. g. Plaut. Pers. 170, Pseud. 221; cf. also the opening scene of Cistellaria [an adaptation of Menander’s Συναριστῶσαι: Women lunching together], featuring a wine-party involving women) and Second Sophistic authors (e. g. Luc. DMeretr. 5, Alciphr. 4.13–14). Cf. also the anecdote, from Romulus’ era, preserved by Val. Max. 6.3.9, about a husband who allegedly beat his wife to death, because she drank wine. Regardless of the speakers’ identity and sex (both of which remain unverified), Ephippus’ present fragment is valuable for one additional reason: it evinces beyond all doubt that the term ἄκρατος could be – and was – used not only in the strictly literal sense of neat, unmixed, but also to designate the conspicuously strong wine (cf. comm. s. v.). 2a ὑδαρῆ The adjective ὑδαρής, meaning watery, is mostly used of wine that is mixed with too much water (in comic texts a tone of contempt is often detectable); cf. Pherecr. fr. 76.2 (in ironical sense; the admixture under discussion, four-to-two,

Κίρκη (fr. 11)

119

is anything but watery), Antiph. fr. 25.4 (ὑδαρής and ἄκρατος οἶνος are juxtaposed and perceived as opposites), Alex. fr. 232, X. Lac. 1.3 (ὑδαρὴς οἶνος is considered practically equal to abstention), Diph. fr. 57 (ὑδαρὲς vs εὐζωρότερον); see further s. v. ἄκρατον below. In metaphorical sense ὑδαρής can mean washy, feeble, languid; cf. e. g. A. Ag. 798 (ὑδαρεῖ φιλότητι: with feeble affection), Arist. Pol. 1262b15 (φιλίαν ἀναγκαῖον ὑδαρῆ γίνεσθαι: friendship inevitably becomes diluted). 2b μὰ τὴν γῆν Oaths to Earth (whether perceived as earth the element or Earth the primeval deity; cf. Hes. Th. 116–118, 126–138) are quite common in Comedy (e. g. Ar. Pax 188 and 1117, Ar. Av. 194, Anaxil. fr. 8.1, Strato fr. 1.41, Theophil. fr. 2.4, Timocl. fr. 41, Alex. fr. 128.3, Men. Dysc. 908). Both Arnott (1996: 360) and Olson (1998: 104) attempted to stereotype this oath on the basis of the following three parameters: always delivered by males, in negative sentences, and occupying the same position in the line (cf. Werres 1936: 16–17). Yet, all these supposedly stereotypical features either have exceptions or lack confident verification. For example, Arnott l. c. infelicitously claims that in Ephippus’ present fragment the speaker’s sex is identifiable as male, whereas it is more than evident that the sex of speaker B cannot be established (cf. “Interpretation”). Therefore, instead of closely typecasting this oath, I would rather speak of broad tendencies that selectively apply to individual cases; cf. the in-depth analysis by Tartaglia (2019) 46. In Ephippus’ present fragment the negation in the sentence (a common characteristic in other instances of this oath; cf. Olson l. c.) is not explicitly (i. e. grammatically) expressed, but only notionally implied through B’s vexed rejoinder. As to the oath’s position in the line, the fragment follows the tendency exhibited in most other instances; i. e. the three syllables μὰ τὴν γῆν correspond to metrical elements three to five (short – long – long), with the penthemimeral caesura occurring immediately afterwards, in an apposite notional break. 2c τρία καὶ τέτταρα The reference is to a remarkably strong wine-blend, which consists of three parts of water and four parts of wine (strength index 1,33; to put this into perspective see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 3.11c for further blends with different strength indexes). This is the only surviving testimony for this specific admixture (cf. “Title” and “Interpretation” for possible plot reconstructions). Ironically, this strong blend is anything but close to the watery wine that speaker A suggests. 3a οὕτως ἄκρατον Speaker A is stunned by the extraordinary strength of the three-to-four analogy (see previous note) and marvels at how much this blend resembles neat wine (cf. “Interpretation”). It is evident that here the term ἄκρατος does not mean unmixed / neat, but simply conspicuously strong, practically unmixed. This fragment is a valuable piece of evidence that categorically confirms that terms like ἄκρατος and its synonyms (e. g. ζωρός and εὔζωρος) do not always need to be translated literally but are to be allowed some interpretative flexibility (e. g. Hom. Il. 9.203; cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 10.2b and fr. 3.11b). As Ussher points out (1973:

120

Ephippus

228–229; on Ar. Ec. 1123 κέρασον ἄκρατον), “the word (i. e. ἄκρατος) had perhaps become so common that its literal sense was little felt”. 3b εἰπέ μοι This personal address is a powerful request/imperative (tell me), commonly intended to prompt one’s collocutor to (further) engage in conversation and/or provide more information about the issue under discussion; cf. Hom. Od. 3.214, E. IA 381, Ar. Eq. 102, Antiph. fr. 200, etc. Here, however, this formulaic expression is used in an adapted way; being preceded by the adverb οὕτως, the request εἰπέ μοι acquires a purely rhetorical nature and functions as a trenchant interjection rather than as a real imperative demanding information. Speaker A does not seek an answer; he does not actually need his collocutor to tell him anything, for he already knows the truth/answer: speaker B is indeed preparing/ going to drink practically neat wine (οὕτως ἄκρατον). Here the role of εἰπέ μοι is merely emphatic, meant to reveal the speaker’s sheer astonishment (instead of “tell me”, the speaker means εἰπέ μοι as “come on, seriously?!”). A closely parallel case is Men. Dysc. 233–234 οὕτω παρέργως δ᾿, εἰπέ μοι, τῷ πράγματι / φαύλως τ᾿ ἐχρήσω; (but, tell me, did you treat the matter so cursorily and carelessly?). See also Ar. Ach. 157; cf. López Eire (1996) 100–101. 3c τί φῄς; For an outline of the scholarly controversy over the attribution of the final part of line 3, see “Consitution of Text”. I believe that τί φῄς should be assigned to speaker B, so let us first examine what it would mean if this question were assigned to speaker A. In this case, τί φῄς (what are you saying) would translate as “are you serious?”, “are you in your right mind?”. This would produce an unnecessary stylistic repetition, immediately following εἰπέ μοι (cf. previous note); i. e. “what are you saying” being virtually adjacent to “tell me”, and delivered by the same speaker, would constitute an obnoxious pleonasm. However, if B delivers τί φῄς (in a typical case of antilabē), two different interpretations become available: first, speaker B could mean this as a curt comment, revealing of his growing irritation towards speaker A, in the sense of “what are you saying?”, “what are you talking about?”, “what is this nonsense?” (as if, I heard you the first time but still do not care; leave me alone); this seems reasonable given that B is being annoyed by A’s insistence and abruptly cuts him off in the middle of his sentence, with a natural rejoinder. Secondly, speaker B could be an utterly naïve, ignorant character who is genuinely not aware of wine-blends and their respective wine strength; he might even be a foreigner, perhaps a slave, who has not yet familiarized himself with Greek customs regarding wine mixing. The oath he takes may be another sign of his surprise and utter failure to understand his collocutor’s objections; even the way he refers to the admixture that he prepares could be considered almost apologetic and revealing of his genuine ignorance/dumbness (ἀλλὰ τρία καὶ τέτταρα: but I’m only mixing three to four! – and then, τί φῄς: what are you saying, as in “I don’t understand”). Arguably, both interpretations ensuing from speaker B uttering τί φῄς are more dramaturgically intricate and sophisticated. Speaker A is the easier option, whilst speaker B is – mutatis mutandis – the difficilior option, hence the potior one.

Κίρκη (fr. 11)

121

The expression τί φῄς is normally used in dramatic poetry as a rhetorical question (at the beginning of the line), meant to reveal the speaker’s sheer astonishment (or otherwise heightened emotional state), often upon the announcement of some bad and/or unforeseeable news; e. g. A. Ch. 778; E. Alc. 822, Med. 691, Hec. 1122, Cyc. 127 (τί φῄς; βορᾷ χαίρουσιν ἀνθρωποκτόνῳ; what do you mean? do they enjoy feasting on humans?); Men. Asp. 270, Dysc. 50. Closely parallel to Ephippus’ present fragment is E. Hel. 685 featuring antilabē with τί φῄς at line-end.

122

Κύδων (Kydōn) (“Cydon”) Discussion Meineke 1,352f.; Bothe 492; Kock 2,256; Breitenbach (1908) 64; Edmonds 2,152f.; PCG 5,140 Title The identity of the title-figure has been the cause of much scholarly speculation. Scholars have entertained two diametrically different interpretative approaches; either Κύδων is a proper name and has something to do with the proverbially hospitable individual by the same name (Zenob. 2.42) or Κύδων is simply an ethnic (Steph. Byz. p. 390,17). Both possibilities are paralleled by other comic plays; yet, the content of the two surviving fragments (bountiful feast, luxurious fish list in fr. 12 and desserts in fr. 13), if not incidental, might be interpreted as pointing towards the first option. Analytically, Zenobius (2.42) and several other paroemiographical and lexicographical sources (e. g. Diogen. 8.42, Macar. 1.32, Apostol. 16.59, Plu. 2.29, Phot. s. v. τίς ἐν Κύδωνος, Sud. s. v. ἀεί τις ἐν Κύδωνος) preserve the proverb ἀεί τις ἐν Κύδωνος (there’s always someone at Cydon’s), and gloss it as follows (with minor and inconsequential differences): ἐπὶ τῶν φιλοξένων, καὶ πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν ἑτοίμων· παρόσον ὁ Κορίνθιος Κύδων φιλοξενώτατος ἐγένετο (with reference to the hospitables and those who readily welcome people; inasmuch as the Corinthian Cydon was extremely hospitable). Meineke was the first who called attention to this proverb, albeit he refrained from unreservedly associating the proverbial Κύδων with Ephippus’ title-figure. Bothe and Kock merely reproduce Meineke’s assessment without any further comment, but Breitenbach proves more resourceful. First, he acknowledges two different ways of associating the play to the proverb; either the play gave rise to the proverb (which he considers rather unlikely) or the play featured an extraordinarily hospitable person, whom Ephippus named Cydon, after the well-known proverb. In addition, Breitenbach is the first who entertains the second abovementioned possibility (i. e. Κύδων being an ethnic) by calling attention to Steph. Byz. p. 390,17: Κυδωνία, πόλις Κρήτης, ἡ πρότερον Ἀπολλωνία, ἀπὸ Κύδωνος τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ Ἀκακαλλίδος τῆς Μίνω θυγατρός. δευτέρα πόλις Σικελίας. τρίτη Λιβύης. ὁ πολίτης Κυδωνιάτης καὶ Κύδων καὶ Κυδώνιος καὶ Κυδωναῖος (“Cydonia” is a city in Crete, which was used to be called “Apollonia”; it is named after Cydon, son of Apollo and Acacallis, the daughter of Minos. There is a second city called “Cydonia” in Sicily and a third one in Libya. The citizen is called “Cydōniatēs” and “Cydōn” and “Cydōnios” and “Cydōnaios”). Edmonds and Kassel-Austin acknowledge both possible reconstructions of Ephippus’ play, without positively adopting either of them. It is worthwhile that we take a closer look into both possibilities. Regarding the first possibility, it is conceivable that Ephippus’ Κύδων was either an entirely fictitious character or a comic disguise for a real person, who exhibited some extraordinary hospitality in the play. Whether fictitious or real, it is likely that this character engendered the proverb (all testimonies of the proverb are much later

Κύδων

123

than Ephippus). However, if it was this comic play that gave rise to the proverb, one would expect this to have been somehow documented or at least hinted at by at least one of the numerous sources preserving the proverb; yet, such documentation / hints about the proverb’s origin may have simply not survived, deemed unnecessary to include, etc. If, on the other hand, the proverb antedated Ephippus’ play, the title-figure could equally be either a fictitious character or a comic disguise for a real person, who behaved just like the proverbial figure; hence, the name Κύδων functioned as a most apposite proper name or nickname for this individual and made it easier for the audience to stereotype his behaviour. However, what is more important than trying to establish whether Κύδων was a fictitious or a historic character and whether the play predated or antedated the proverb, is the fact that a play featuring a generous and hospitable protagonist in its title is not unparalleled, but can be compared to Aristopho’s Φιλωνίδης (Philonides; PCG 4,10f.), which possibly dealt with the wealthy Philonides of Melite (PAA 957480, PA 14907), known (and mocked in Comedy) for his gluttony and for being a patron to a number of parasites (this suggestion, first advanced by Hanow 1830: 29, is challenged by Orth 2020: 129–131); this latter quality (i. e. being a patron to parasites) could comically be perceived as hospitality. It is not unthinkable that Ephippus’ Κύδων featured a similarly wealthy person, who hosted lavish dinnerparties (like the ones described in the play’s surviving fragments), where parasites were typically present. Bon viveurs (like Philonides and, arguably, Cydon) are often satirised in Comedy (cf. e. g. the mockery of Morychus in Ar. Ach. 887, Pl.Com. fr. 114, Telecl. fr. 12). A major antecedent and a closely parallel case is Eupolis’ portrayal of wealthy Callias in his Κόλακες (Spongers; PCG 5,380–398); the key difference in Ephippus’ and Aristopho’s cases is that these generous individuals, Cydon and Philonides, feature in the play’s title. This is reminiscent of the favourite practice of Old Comedy, where entire plays are named after the central character, albeit this was typically a political figure (e. g. Plato’s Hyperbolus and Cleophon); cf. also the plays Callonides and Plato by the Middle Comedy poet Aristopho (see Papachrysostomou 2008: 112–115, 120–122; Orth 2020: 57, 72–74). As far as the second possible interpretation of the title is concerned, i. e. Κύδων being an ethnic, this also deserves some serious consideration. As Stephanus Byzantius notes (p. 390,17; quoted above), Κυδωνία was a city in Crete (at the site of the modern city of Chania), whose citizen could be called by various names, Κύδων being one of them. We first hear of Κύδωνες in Odyssey 3.291–292 ἔνθα διατμήξας τὰς μὲν Κρήτῃ ἐπέλασσεν, / ἧχι Κύδωνες ἔναιον Ἰαρδάνου ἀμφὶ ῥέεθρα (then he split the fleet in two, bringing some ships to Crete where the Cydonians dwelt about the streams of Iardanus). Ethnics (of male or female gender, in either singular or plural number) as play-titles constitute a predominant comic trend that permeates all three comic eras. If Ephippus’ play referred to (the adventures of) a citizen of Cydonia, it would be a typical case of this trend, paralleled by the following playtitles (only those featuring a male ethnic in singular number are included in the list): Αἰγύπτιος by Callias; Μῆδος by Theopompus; Ἀρκάς, Βυζάντιος, Ζακύνθιος,

124

Ephippus

Λευκάδιος, Λυδός, Ποντικός, Σκύθης, and Τυρρηνός by Antiphanes; Τυρρηνός by Axionicus; Σύρος by Nicostratus; Ἐπιδαύριος by Theophilus; Ποντικός by Timocles; Ἐρετρικός, Καρχηδόνιος, Κύπριος, Ποντικός, Ὀλύνθιος, Σικυώνιος, Συρακόσιος, and Φρύξ by Alexis; Βοιώτιος and Σικελικός by Diphilus; Αἰτωλός, Βαβυλώνιος, and Σικελικός by Philemo; Γαλάτης by Posidippus; Ἐφέσιος, Καρχηδόνιος, Κρής, and Σικυώνιος by Menander; Δήλιος by Philostephanus; Αἰτωλός by Bato and by Crito; cf. Plautus’ Poenulus. Furthermore, based on the testimony of Stephanus Byzantius (… ἀπὸ Κύδωνος τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ Ἀκακαλλίδος; quoted in full above), one may assume that Ephippus’ present play did not refer to a citizen of Cydonia, but rather to Κύδων the son of Apollo (or Hermes; cf. schol. on A.R. 4.1491) and Acacallis, who – according to legend – was the ἥρως κτίστης of Cydonia, i. e. the founding hero of the city; cf. Roscher 2.1674. This, however, is a much less likely interpretation (there are no parallels, plus Κύδων is a minor mythological figure, with no substantial and comically exploitable mythological background). On balance, I am inclined to interpret Ephippus’ Κύδων as the witty nickname and comic disguise of a real character, probably some wealthy bon viveur, who – just like his proverbial counterpart – was exceptionally welcoming and used to host sumptuous symposia, a glimpse of which is preserved in the play’s surviving fragments (cf. esp. the expensive fish catalogue in fr. 12). Such hospitable behaviour points to a member of the social and/or the political élite; cf. how Plutarch describes Cimon’s open-handedness towards the poorer Athenians (Per. 9.1–2): ἐκεῖνος ἀνελάμβανε τοὺς πένητας, δεῖπνόν τε καθ᾿ ἡμέραν τῷ δεομένῳ παρέχων Ἀθηναίων, καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ἀμφιεννύων, τῶν τε χωρίων τοὺς φραγμοὺς ἀφαιρῶν ὅπως ὀπωρίζωσιν οἱ βουλόμενοι (he [sc. Cimon] would win over the poor, by furnishing a dinner every day to any Athenian who wanted it, bestowing raiment on the elderly men, and removing the fences from his estates that whosoever wished might pluck the fruit). It is conceivable that Ephippus’ play was meant as a caricature of some – socially and/or economically – prominent and recognizable contemporary individual, thus being a rare revival and an adaptation of Old Comedy’s practice of personal attacks. If this hypothesis is correct, Ephippus’ present play is an invaluable, further piece of evidence regarding the generic evolution and simultaneous modification (emphasis shifted from politically to socially/economically outstanding figures) of Old Comedy’s practice of naming entire plays after well-known individuals (not necessarily using their real names; cf. Eupolis’ Marikas). Date

unknown

Κύδων (fr. 12)

125

fr. 12 (12 K.)

5

θύννου τεμάχη, γλάνιδος, γαλεοῦ, ῥίνης, γόγγρου, κεφάλου, πέρκης, σαῦρος, φυκίς, βρίγκος, τρίγλη, κόκκυξ, φάγρος, μύλλος, λεβίας, σπάρος, αἰολίας, θρίττα, χελιδών, καρίς, τευθίς, ψῆττα, δρακαινίς, πουλυπόδειον, σηπία, ὀρφώς, κωβιός, ἀφύαι, βελόναι, κεστρεῖς

2 κεφάλου Meineke: κεφαλῆς 1A: om. 1CE 3–4 τρίγλη κόκκυξ om. 1CE 5 θρίττα 1 2 3 ACE: θρᾷττα A, ACE, K-A 6 καρίς τευθίς ψῆττα om. 1CE 7 πουλυπόδειον Dindorf: πουλυπόδιον 1ACE: πολυπόδιον 2A post hoc verbum defic. 1CE

5

Slices of tuna, sheatfish, dogfish, of angel-shark, conger-eel, cephalos-mullet, and perch; horse-mackerel, wrasse, brincus, red mullet, piper, braize, brown meagre, lebias, bream, speckled fish, anchovy, flying-fish, shrimp, squid, turbot, great weever, octopus, cuttlefish, great sea-perch, gudgeon, small fry, garfish, mullets

1

Ath. 7.322d–e Ἔφιππος δ᾿ ἐν Κύδωνι (fab. nom. om. CE) πολλῶν καὶ ἄλλων ἰχθύων κατάλογον ποιούμενος καὶ τοῦ σαύρου μνημονεύει διὰ τούτων· θύννου — κεστρεῖς Ephippus in Cydon, whilst putting together a catalogue of many and various fish, also mentions the horse-mackerel in the following passage: “Slices — mullets” 2 Ath. 9.403b θύννου — γόγγρου [NB this is quotation of Mnesim. fr. 4.31–32 (= Ephipp. fr. 12.1–2)]: “slices — conger-eel” 2

Ath. 9.403b σαῦρος … φυκίς — κόκκυξ [NB this is quotation of Mnesim. fr. 4.37, 38–39 (= Ephipp. fr. 12.3–4)]: “horse-mackerel” … “wrasse — piper” 2

Ath. 9.403b–c φάγρος — ὀρφώς [NB this is quotation of Mnesim. fr. 4.39–43 (= Ephipp. fr 12.4–7; the only difference is the reading θρίττα in Ephipp. fr. 12.5 vs θρᾷττα in Mnesim. fr. 4.41)]: “braize — great sea-perch” 3

Ath. 7.329d μύλλος — τευθίς [NB this is quotation of Mnesim. fr. 4.40–41 (= Ephipp. fr. 12.4–6; the only difference is the reading θρίττα in Ephipp. fr. 12.5 vs θρᾷττα in Mnesim. fr. 4.41): “brown meagre — squid”

126

Ephippus

Metre Anapaestic dimeter

5

llkkl|kklkkl llll|kklll llll|llll llll|llkkl kklkkl|llkkl llll|lkkll lkkll|lkkll lkkkkl|kklll

Discussion Meineke 3,329f.; Bothe 492f.; Kock 2,256; Edmonds 2,152f.; PCG 5,140f.; Nesselrath (1990) 267, 270, 273; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 490 Citation Context This fragment is quoted by Athenaeus once in full, in Book 7, paragraph 322d–e, where it is assigned to Ephippus, within a discussion about horse-mackerel (σαῦρος) and other kinds of fish (that begins at 7.277c). In addition, most of the terms of Ephippus’ fragment feature in the same order, albeit grouped differently, in Mnesim. fr. 4 (one of the longest extant comic fragments, consisting of sixty-five lines). Mnesim. fr. 4 is quoted in part later in Book 7, 329d, and in its entirety in Book 9, 402f–403d (NB at both instances, 7.329d and 9.402f–403d, Athenaeus assigns the lines to Mnesimachus; no reference is made to Ephippus whatsoever). The precise correspondence of lines and terms between Ephippus’ present fragment and Mnesim. fr. 4 is outlined above in detail. Strikingly, the only terms of Ephippus’ fragment missing from Mnesimachus’ are κεφάλου and πέρκης in line 2, θρίττα in line 5 (Mnesim. fr. 4.41 has θρᾷττα), plus the entire line 8; everything else reappears in Mnesimachus (Ephippus’ lines 1–2 even feature the same syntax with Mnesim. fr. 4.31–32). Mnesimachus was Ephippus’ younger contemporary (both poets won once at Lenaea; Ephippus ca. 378–376 BC and Mnesimachus between 370/365–350 BC; cf. Mastellari 2020: 331, 339, IRDF 2325E.42). Mnesim. fr. 4 belongs to the play Ἱπποτρόφος (The HorseBreeder), which can be confidently dated to the middle of the fourth century BC (on grounds of the reference made in fr. 4.7 to the historic figure of Pheidon; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 183, 194–196; Mastellari 2020: 371). Ephippus’ present fragment cannot be dated. However, it is insignificant who produced his play first and whether this recycling of fish items was intentional or not. As known, comic playwrights independently drew on common stock material, while they simultaneously used to freely recycle lines, passages, episodes, ideas, etc. – either their own ones or of their fellow poets. The examples of this mobility of comic material are numerous and enough to convince us that such borrowing was neither frowned upon nor considered a reproachable practice (cf. Ephipp. fr. 3 “Citation Context”). Therefore, we should not presently seek to establish the authorship of this shared material.

Κύδων (fr. 12)

127

Constitution of Text The play’s title is preserved only by codex A at Ath. 7.322d–e (NB all following notes refer to 7.322d–e, unless stated otherwise). In line 2 Meineke modified the incorrect reading κεφαλῆς preserved by codex A to κεφάλου, thus providing for the genitive case of the fish κέφαλος (a variety of mullet); the Epitome codices C and E miss out on this reading altogether. The same two codices, C and E, leave out the reading τρίγλη (last term of line 3) and κόκκυξ (first term of line 4). In line 5 the reading θρᾷττα, adopted by Kassel-Austin, is preserved at Ath. 9.403c (by codex A) and at Ath. 7.329d (by all three codices; A, C and E); nonetheless, in both passages (9.403c and 7.329d) Athenaeus quotes Mnesim. fr. 4 (in its entirety and in part, respectively; cf. “Citation Context”), not Ephippus’ present fragment. Instead, at Ath. 7.322d–e, where Athenaeus acknowledges these eight lines to be Ephippus’ own, the reading θρίττα is preserved by all three codices. Adhering to the primary rule of textual criticism, which dictates that the preserved text must not be altered unless serious issues of syntax, grammar, metre, etc. need to be resolved, I chose to adopt the reading θρίττα for Ephippus’ fragment, a reading that is unanimously preserved in the text exactly where Ephippus’ fragment is quoted (Ath. 7.322d–e). Of course, presently the aim is not to make Ephippus’ fragment match with Mnesimachus’ one; instead, the obvious priority here is to retain the manuscript tradition unaltered as much as possible. In line 6 codices C and E omit the following three readings: καρίς, τευθίς, and ψῆττα. In line 7 all three codices preserve the reading πουλυπόδιον, which Dindorf corrected to πουλυπόδειον, thus restoring the line’s metrical soundness (given how the rest of the line unfolds, the fourth syllable must be a longum, since it is preceded by an anapaestic foot and followed by a long syllable; otherwise, a short element in this position, i. e. -δι-, would leave the line incomplete by one short element). At Ath. 9.403c codex A preserves the reading πολυπόδιον; this spelling (-πο- instead of -που-), being a later orthography, is a commonly occurring mistake (cf. Anaxandr. fr. 42.39, Antiph. fr. 95.1), which is due to some later scribe’s carelessness, since this corruption (here and elsewhere) disturbs the metre (see analytically Arnott 1996: 514); Dindorf ’s emendation πουλυπόδειον is similarly adopted here as well. At Ath. 7.322 the codices C and E end the quotation of Ephippus’ fragment at πουλυπόδιον (sic). Interpretation This fragment is an asyndetic food catalogue; with all probability, this is a vivid snapshot of a symposion somehow related to the play’s plot (on symposion see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 4.2a). Catalogues / lists, and especially lists of food items, is a ubiquitously recurring comic topos, particularly during the period of Middle Comedy (see Ephipp. fr. 3 “Interpretation” and Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”). Yet, this specific food list is noticeably outstanding and unparalleled, since it is the only surviving food catalogue that exclusively consists of fish; impressively, thirty different species of fish are mentioned, within eight lines (Mnesim. fr. 4 mentions forty-six fish species within a total of sixty-five surviving lines; cf. “Citation Context”). Fish was an exquisite delicacy in antiquity; typically, it was highly priced (and Comedy despises fishmongers for that; see Papachrysostomou

128

Ephippus

2020a) and was widely considered as the luxury food par excellence, while its conspicuous consumption was often a sign of social preeminence and/or a cause for political anxiety (see Davidson 1993, 1995, and 1997: 11–20; Gilula 1995b: 391–396; Wilkins 1997: 20; Wilkins 2000a: 293–304; Papachrysostomou 2016: 195–196). Therefore, the excessive presence of fish dishes in Ephippus’ present fragment is enough evidence that allows us to unambiguously establish this symposion as an extraordinarily extravagant one, of the kind that only a substantially wealthy host could afford; it is likely that the host of this symposion was the hospitable title-figure of Cydon (cf. “Title”). Ephipp. fr. 13 (ubi vide), featuring a list of desserts, probably followed fr. 12 in the play (a thought already harbored by Meineke and Kock). The speaker of this fragment could be the host himself or one of the guests (perhaps a parasite; on parasites see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.6a), or else the cook who was hired to prepare all these dishes, or even the cook’s assistant (on cooks as stereotypical comic figures, see “Interpretation” for Ephipp. fr. 22); whatever the case, it is likely that it is the same character who delivers both fr. 12 and fr. 13. This opulent symposion may have already taken place, within or outside the play’s plot (if so, the speaker cites the fish items from memory, perhaps informing a collocutor, just like Athenaeus himself narrates to Timocrates the banquet he has recently been to; cf. 1.2a); alternatively, it may either be about to begin or have just started and is currently underway. The latter possibility, i. e. an extravagantly sumptuous banquet being already afoot, is precisely the setting of Mnesim. fr. 4, where the cook bids his assistant to summon a special group of guests to the party (lines 9–10): τούτοις τοίνυν ἄγγελλ’ ὁτιὴ / ψυχρὸν τοὖψον, τὸ ποτὸν θερμόν (well then, tell them that / the fish is cold, the wine is warm); cf. Papachrysostomou (2008) 186–189, Mastellari (2020) 399–401. In Mnesimachus’ case, food, wine, incence, etc. are all set, albeit not visible on stage; this could similarly be the case for Ephippus’ fragment as well (for the possibility of staged symposia in Comedy see Konstantakos 2005). It is conceivable that Ephippus’ and Mnesimachus’ plays shared more than merely two dozen of orderly arranged fish items; perhaps they also shared a comparable episode and some common figures too; certainty is impossible. Metre The anapaestic dimeter is the metre par excellence for food catalogues in Middle and New Comedy; cf. Intro. 7 “Metre”. Line 8 features a rare example of a sequence of four brevia (-βιός ἀφύ- : k k k k); this metrical pattern in anapaests is generally avoided; see West (1982) 95 for further exceptions. 1a θύννου θύννος,-ου (ὁ) is the tunny-fish, tuna (on the manifold ancient Greek appellations corresponding to the numerous species of the tuna family see Pellegrino 2000: 247). Tuna was considered a delicacy (cf. Anan. fr. 5.7–8) and, as such, it features regularly in descriptions and visualizations of dinners in comic and other texts. Most of the species being considerably large, tuna was often served in slices (τεμάχη, as in the present fragment; cf. also Mnesim. fr. 4.31, Antiph. fr. 221.6, Archestr. fr. 38); alternatively, we hear of a tuna’s head in Call.Com. fr. 6.1 (θύννου κεφάλαιον) and Alex. fr. 159 (ap. Ath. 7.303a τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ

Κύδων (fr. 12)

129

θύννου ἐπαινῶν), a tuna’s flanks in Antiph. fr. 130.5 (θύννου λαγόνες), a tuna’s underbelly (ὑπογάστριον) in Eriph. fr. 3.2, Ar. fr. 380.2–3, Stratt. frr. 5.1 and 32, while Athenaeus reports that the so-called ‘shoulder-bones’/‘keys’ (κλεῖδας) of tuna were highly valued (7.303a ἐπῄνουν δὲ τῶν θύννων καὶ τὰς κλεῖδας καλουμένας); in fact, this particular dish (θύννειοι κλεῖδες) is called noble dish (σεμνὸν βρῶμα) in Aristopho fr. 7.4 (cf. Orth 2020: 70–71). See further Thompson (1947) 79–91, García Soler (2001) 171–174, Davidson (32002) 125–130, Dalby (2003) 333–337. 1b τεμάχη The term τέμαχος (τό) derives from the verb τέμνω (to cut) and means slice; NB τέμαχος designates only slices of fish, whereas the term τόμος (also a derivative of τέμνω) is reserved for slices of meat; cf. Mnesim. fr. 4.31 θύννου τεμάχη (tuna slices), Antiph. fr. 221.6 θύννου τέμαχος (tuna slice), Ar. Nu. 339 κεστρᾶν τεμάχη (mullet slices), Arched. fr. 3.2 γόγγρου τεμάχια (small slices of conger-eel), Archestr. fr. 38 θύννης … τεμάχη (slices of female tunny – cf. Olson & Sens 2000: 161), etc. In Ephippus’ fragment the term τεμάχη governs the preceding genitive θύννου, as well as the six following ones (γλάνιδος, γαλεοῦ, / ῥίνης, γόγγρου, κεφάλου, πέρκης). Cf. Pellegrino (2000) 140 (comm. on Metag. fr. 6.9). 1c γλάνιδος γλάνις,-ιδος (ὁ, and very rarely ἡ) is the sheatfish, a large freshwater catfish. According to Strömberg (1943: 70), γλάνις is etymologically cognate with γλάνος (= hyena – on account of both species’ ravenousness). It commonly features in food catalogues and/or sympotic context as a delicacy; e. g. Archipp. fr. 26 (with Miccolis 2017: 175–176), Mnesim. fr. 4.32 (with Mastellari 2020: 416), Matro fr. 1.80 (with Olson & Sens 1999: 120). See Thompson (1947) 43–47; García Soler (2001) 159; Dalby (2003) 299–300. 1d γαλεοῦ γαλεός,-οῦ (ὁ) is the dogfish, a small shark species with a long tail; for a collection of testimonies, see Ath. 7.294c–295b. It often features in similar food catalogues and/or within a sympotic context; e. g. Pl.Com. fr. 146, Archipp. frr. 15.2 and 23.2 (with Miccolis 2017: 119), Philyll. fr. 1, Mnesim. fr. 4.32 (with Mastellari 2020: 416), Sotad. fr. 1.2, Archestr. fr. 22.1–2 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 97). See further Strömberg (1943) 108; Thompson (1947) 39–42; Lythgoe & Lythgoe (1991) 25; García Soler (2001) 150–153; Davidson (32002) 26; Dalby (2003) 120–121, 298. 2a ῥίνης ῥίνη,-ης (ἡ) is a shark species, either the angel-shark or the monkfish. Here and elsewhere it features served in slices (apparently because of its size), e. g. Mnesim. fr. 4.32 (with Mastellari 2020: 416) and Anaxandr. fr. 42.53. Other sympotic instances include Epich. fr. 52.2, Archipp. fr. 23.2 (with Miccolis 2017: 158–159), Matro fr. 1.56 (with Olson & Sens 1999: 108), Archestr. fr. 47.2 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 192). See Thompson (1947) 221–222; Lythgoe & Lythgoe (1991) 29–30; García Soler (2001) 153; Davidson (32002) 32; Dalby (2003) 120. 2b γόγγρου γόγγρος,-ου (ὁ) is the conger-eel; a very large fish that was righteously considered a delicacy. It commonly features in food lists and/or sympotic

130

Ephippus

context; see Arched. fr. 3.2, Antiph. fr. 130.4, Alex. frr. 15.15, 83.1, 180.3, Mnesim. fr. 4.32 (with Mastellari 2020: 416–417), Archestr. fr. 19 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 89), Plaut. Aul. 398–399. See Thompson (1947) 49–50; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 200–201; Campbell (1982) 264–265; Davidson (32002) 55; Dalby (2003) 95. 2c κεφάλου κέφαλος,-ου (ὁ) is a species of grey mullet (arguably the best species, ἄριστοι, according to Hicesius, ap. Ath. 7.306e), thus named because of its big and heavy head (κεφαλή), according to the following testimony preserved by Ath. 7.307a–b: Εὐθύδημος δ᾿ ὁ Ἀθηναῖος ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ταρίχων εἴδη κεστρέων εἶναι ⟨κέφαλον⟩ … καὶ κεφάλους μὲν λέγεσθαι διὰ τὸ βαρυτέραν τὴν κεφαλὴν ἔχειν (Euthydemus of Athens in his “On Saltfish” claims that cephalos is a mullet species … and that cephaloi get their name from the fact that they have quite a heavy head). The κέφαλος often features in sympotic contexts and/or food catalogues; e. g. Archipp. fr. 12 (with Miccolis 2017: 88), Archestr. fr. 46.2 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 181–182). See Thompson (1947) 110–112; García Soler (2001) 167–168; Dalby (2003) 168. 2d πέρκης πέρκη,-ης (ἡ) is the perch; it probably derives its name from its speckled appearance (see Frisk s. v. περκνός). Aristotle fr. 231 (ap. Ath. 7.319c) describes perch with the hapax adjective γραμμοποίκιλος (striped); cf. Strömberg (1943) 24–25. There are both fresh- and saltwater varieties of perch. Its presence is typical in Comedy’s food catalogues and/or within a sympotic context; e. g. Henioch. fr. 3.3, Anaxandr. fr. 42.50, Antiph. fr. 192.2, Alex. fr. 115.13 (with Arnott 1996: 320). See Thompson (1947) 195–197, 283–284; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 41–43; Campbell (1982) 274; García Soler (2001) 177; Davidson (32002) 73; Dalby (2003) 90–91. 3a σαῦρος σαῦρος,-ου (ὁ) is the horse-mackerel; this is the reason why Athenaeus quotes Ephippus’ present fragment, along with Alex. fr. 138 (a cook giving instructions on its proper preparing and stuffing; cf. Arnott 1996: 399) and Mnesim. fr. 4.36–39 (cf. “Citation Context”). Horse-mackerel also features as a dainty in Epich. fr. 44. See Strömberg (1943) 121; Thompson (1947) 230, 263; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 116–118; Campbell (1982) 276–277; García Soler (2001) 174; Davidson (32002) 101; Dalby (2003) 295. 3b φυκίς φυκίς,-ίδος (ἡ) is a species of wrasse; it is the female of φύκης,-ου (ὁ). This fish lives in seaweed (φῦκος, τό), whence it derives its name. There are approximately twenty species of wrasse, featuring significant differences among them (including differences between the two sexes of the same species). The female φυκίς seems to have been preferred to its male counterpart for Comedy’s dinner-parties; cf. Mnesim. fr. 4.38 (with Mastellari 2020: 420), Anaxandr. fr. 42.49, Antiph. fr. 130.8, Alex. fr. 115.12 (with Arnott 1996: 319). See Thompson (1947) 10, 91, 116, 128, 272, 276–278; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 61–63; Campbell (1982) 286–288; García Soler (2001) 186; Davidson (32002) 109–112; Dalby (2003) 361.

Κύδων (fr. 12)

131

3c βρίγκος This fish remains unidentified; it is only mentioned here and in Mnesim. fr. 4.38. Hesychius s. v. glosses it as ἰχθὺς κητώδης (a cetaceous fish), which Thompson (1947: 36) finds it hard to accept because in both fragments this fish comes between φυκίς and τρίγλη, whose size is rather small; cf. García Soler (2001) 196. However, this juxtaposition could simply aim to variety or humour. Whatever the case, in absence of any further evidence, we have but to rely upon Hesychius’ testimony. Besides, it is not uncommon for such catalogues to lack a systematic order; cf. Mnesim. fr. 4.47–49 (poultry- and game dishes are mentioned at random, without any order), Antiph. fr. 295 (featuring a list of domestic and wild fowls in disarray). 3d τρίγλη τρίγλη,-ης (ἡ) is the red mullet; a relatively small fish with a distinctively reddish colour, which made for a good fry-up and typically features as a dainty at dinner parties, e. g. Cratin. fr. 236.1, Mnesim. fr. 4.38 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 421), Nausicr. fr. 1.7–11, Opp. H. 1.130, Archestr. fr. 42.4–5 (cf. Olson & Sens 2000: 173), Matro fr. 1.27–32. With all probability, Τρίγλη was also the nickname of some red-haired hetaira, on whom the fourth-century Athenian politician Callisthenes (PAA 559815) was said to have spent huge amounts of money (so Schweighaeuser on Ath. 8.338f); cf. Antiph. fr. 27.10–11 τρίγλας, ἔδεσμα τοῦ καλοῦ Καλλισθένους·/ κατεσθίει γοῦν ἐπὶ μιᾷ τὴν οὐσίαν (red mullets, the noble Callisthenes’ favorite food; / he’s spending everything he’s got, at any rate, on just one [sc. of you]). See Thompson (1947) 264–268; Campbell (1982) 286–287; García Soler (2001) 184–185; Davidson (32002) 94–95; Dalby (2003) 280. 4a κόκκυξ κόκκυξ,-υγος (ὁ). Just like κόκκυξ the bird (cuckoo, cf. Arnott 2007: 153–154), κόκκυξ the fish (piper) is an onomatopoeic appellation, due to the sound this fish species makes when pulled out of the sea; cf. Arist. HA 535b18–20 κόκκυξ· … παραπλήσιον τῷ κόκκυγι ψόφον, ὅθεν καὶ τοὔνομα ἔχει (the cuckoo-fish: it makes a sound like the cuckoo – whence its name); cf. Ael. NA 10.11. For a collection of testimonies featuring cooking instructions, see Ath. 7.309e–f. Piper features within a similar food-list context in Mnesim. fr. 4.39 and Anaxandr. fr. 42.52. See Thompson (1947) 119–120; García Soler (2001) 188–189; Davidson (32002) 152; Dalby (2003) 170. 4b φάγρος φάγρος,-ου (ὁ) is the braize; the term applied to more than one species of the Sparidae family and featured regularly in food catalogues and/or sympotic contexts; e. g. Epich. fr. 56.1, Eup. fr. 42.3, Metag. fr. 6.6, Stratt. frr. 26 and 45.2, Amips. fr. 8 (with Orth 2013: 231), Antiph. fr. 191.3, Mnesim. fr. 4.39 (with Mastellari 2020: 422), Archestr. fr. 27.1 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 121) See Thompson (1947) 273–274; García Soler (2001) 180; Davidson (32002) 77; Dalby (2003) 62. 4c μύλλος μύλλος,-ου (ὁ) is – with all probability – the brown meagre or corb (cf. LSJ9 s. v.); it was commonly imported salted from the Black Sea (Gal. 6.729, 747) and was also found in the Danube (Ael. NA 14.23). According to Dorion (ap. Ath. 3.118c; Dorion being the author of a treatise On Fish, cf. Wellmann 1888),

132

Ephippus

the term μύλλος is merely one of three appellations attributed to the same fish depending on its age; Dorion claims that μύλλοι are those that are not yet full-grown (οἱ δὲ μέσην ἔχοντες ἡλικίαν μύλλοι), whereas the little ones are called ἀγνωτίδια, and the big ones πλατίστακοι. Thompson (1947: 161–162) and Dalby (2003: 169) believe that the fish in question is the grey mullet. In Comedy, μύλλος features in similar food lists in Ar. fr. 430 and Mnesim. fr. 4.40 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 422). 4d λεβίας λεβίας,-ου (ὁ) is an unidentifiable freshwater fish, but also an appellation for any salted/smoked fish with scales, according to Hesychius’ testimony (s. v. λεϐίαι· τὰ λεπίδας ἔχοντα ταρίχη. καὶ ἰχθῦς λιμναῖοι); cf. Phot. p. 215,4 (s. v. λέπραι). Apart from the present fragment, λεβίας also features, as a food-list item, in Ar. fr. 430 and Mnesim. fr. 4.40; cf. Diph. fr. 17.9. Archestr. fr. 28 (cf. Olson & Sens 2000: 123) suggests that λεβίας and ἥπατος are the same fish. See Thompson (1947) 146; García Soler (2001) 203; Dalby (2003) 145, 172. 5a σπάρος σπάρος,-ου (ὁ) designates more than one small species of bream; its presence is typical in Comedy’s food catalogues; e. g. Henioch. fr. 3.2, Mnesim. fr. 4.40 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 423), Alex. fr. 115.13; cf. Matro fr. 1.81 (with Olson & Sens 1999: 121). See Thompson (1947) 248–249; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 78–80; Campbell (1982) 278–280; García Soler (2001) 178–179; Davidson (32002) 82; Dalby (2003) 62. 5b αἰολίας αἰολίας,-ου (ὁ). This fish remains unidentified. All we can deduce by etymologizing its name is that αἰολίας was a speckled fish, and probably a remarkably fast moving, agile one. The term αἰολίας is cognate with (i) the verbs αἰολέω (= vary, change, variegate; cf. Pl. Cra. 409a τὸ δὲ ποικίλλειν καὶ αἰολεῖν ταὐτόν: variegate is identical with αἰολεῖν), (ii) the verb αἰόλλω (= to shift rapidly to and fro, variegate; and in pass. to shift colour), (iii) the adjectives αἰόλος (and αἴολος) and αἰόλειος; cf. Hsch. s. v. αἰόλος· ποικίλος ἢ εὐκίνητος (many-coloured/ spotted or agile); cf. EM 33.32 (αἴολος αἰόλειος· ὁ ποικίλος). This spotty and nimble fish features often in Comedy’s fish lists; e. g. Epich. fr. 41.2, Pl.Com. fr. 189.14 (cf. Pirrotta 2009: 363), Mnesim. fr. 4.40. 5c θρίττα θρίττα,-ας (ἡ) is a kind of anchovy. The term θρίττα (Attic for θρίσσα), along with the terms τριχίας (ὁ) and τριχίς (ἡ), are etymologically cognate (< θρίξ, τριχός: hair) and synonymous appellations that were interchangeably used to designated one or more species of anchovy, which had very thin, hair-like bones. A number of other small fish with similarly thin bones (such as sprats and sardines) could also be given any of these names; cf. Phot. s. v. τριχίδες: θρίσσαι· διὰ τὸ λεπτὰ ἔχειν ὀστᾶ (τριχίδες are the same as θρίσσαι; thus named because they have thin bones) and Sud. τ 1038 τριχίδες: εἶδος ἰχθύος, αἱ λεγόμεναι θρίσσαι (τριχίδες is a kind of fish, the so-called θρίσσαι). θρίττα also features in plural (θρίτται) as part of a food list in Anaxandr. fr. 42.52. Thompson (1947: 77) and Millis (2015: 226) claim that θρίττα is the same fish as θρᾷττα. However, the way Athenaeus presents the relevant evidence (7.329b–f) strongly contradicts the identification of the two species; in particular, at 7.329b Athenaeus acknowledges that, since he

Κύδων (fr. 12)

133

has already discussed about θρίτται (ἐπεὶ προδιειλέγμεθα περὶ θρισσῶν), he will now proceed to study θρᾷτται (φέρε εἴπωμεν τίνες εἰσὶν αἱ θρᾷτται); shortly after (7.329d) he quotes two lines from Mnesim. fr. 4 featuring the reading θρᾷττα (cf. “Constitution of Text”); cf. Mastellari (2020) 423. See Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 6–8; Campbell (1982) 264–266. 5d χελιδών χελιδών,-όνος (ἡ) designates here the flying-fish, sea-swallow (for the homonymous bird see Arnott 2007: 47–48) and is also mentioned as a food-list item in Epich. fr. 55.1 and Mnesim. fr. 4.41. The “flying” of this fish is described in detail by Arist. HA 535b26–30 ὅταν φέρωνται ἀπερειδόμενοι τῷ ὑγρῷ, ὃ καλοῦσι πέτεσθαι, ῥοιζοῦσι, καὶ αἱ χελιδόνες αἱ θαλάττιαι ὁμοίως· καὶ γὰρ αὗται πέτονται μετέωροι, οὐχ ἁπτόμεναι τῆς θαλάττης· τὰ γὰρ πτερύγια ἔχουσι πλατέα καὶ μακρά (when they pass along supporting themselves on the water – this is what is described as ‘flying’ – , make a whizzing sound; so do the sea-swallows: these fly quite clear of the water, without touching it, having long broad fins). According to Speusippus (ap. Ath. 7.324f), the piper (κόκκυξ), flying-fish (χελιδών), and red mullet (τρίγλη) resemble one another (ἐμφερῆ εἶναι). See Thompson (1947) 285–287; García Soler (2001) 188; Davidson (32002) 58; Dalby (2003) 149. 6a καρίς καρίς,-ίδος/-ῖδος (ἡ) is a generic term for small crustaceans, such as shrimp and prawn (including all sub-species), typically featuring as a delicacy in Comedy’s dinner-parties and food catalogues. Oddly enough, the metrical analysis of the term καρίς changes over the years; until the end of the fifth century the iota is always short (e. g. Epich. fr. 41.3, Ar. V. 1522, Ar. fr. 333.2, Cratin. fr. 314), whereas from the fourth century onwards it changes into long, e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 23, Mnesim. fr. 4.41 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 423–424), Alex. fr. 115.13 (cf. Arnott 1996: 320), Archestr. fr. 26.2 (cf. Olson & Sens 2000: 118–119), etc. See Thompson (1947) 103–104; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 361–363; Campbell (1982) 200–202; García Soler (2001) 141–142; Davidson (32002) 187; Dalby (2003) 301. 6b τευθίς τευθίς,-ίδος (ἡ) is the squid (albeit a smaller and more delicate sub-species than τεῦθος); τευθίς was a standard dainty at symposia and often features in Comedy’s food lists (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 50.3, with Pellegrino 2000: 230), with roasting / grilling (ὀπτᾶν) being the preferred cooking method (cf. Dohm 1964: 111–112), e. g. Ar. fr. 333.3, Ar. Ach. 1156–1157, Metag. fr. 6.6, Anaxandr. fr. 42.46, Antiph. fr. 216.17–23, Eub. fr. 14.8; cf. Alex. fr. 84.1 (with Arnott 1996: 225–227), Archestr. fr. 55.1–2 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 204) and Matro fr. 1.50 (with Olson & Sens 1999: 104). See Thompson (1947) 155–157, 260–261; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 295–297; Campbell (1982) 180–181; García Soler (2001) 139–140; Davidson (32002) 211; Dalby (2003) 310–311. 6c ψῆττα ψῆττα,-ας (ἡ) is a small species of flatfish (Hsch. s. v. ψῆττα· ἰχθύδιον τῶν πλατέων ἡ ψῆττα; cf. Sud. ψ 78, Ael. NA 14.3), probably the turbot (or the flounder or any type of sole), with those from Eleusis enjoying a high culinary reputation (cf. Poll. 6.63). ψῆττα often features in comedy’s sympotic settings, e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 42.51, Mnesim. fr. 4.42 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 424), Alex. fr. 115.12; cf.

134

Ephippus

Archestr. fr. 33.1 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 132–133), Matro fr. 1.27 (with Olson & Sens 1999: 93). In addition, ψῆττα served as a nickname for a fifth-century celebrated glutton, Glauketēs (PAA 274620; Pl.Com. fr. 114.2). See Thompson (1947) 294–295; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 158–160; Campbell (1982) 304–305; Lythgoe & Lythgoe (1991) 229, 232; García Soler (2001) 193; Davidson (32002) 157, 161–162; Dalby (2003) 147–148. 6d δρακαινίς δρακαινίς,-ίδος (ἡ) is the great weever (also known as δράκων, ὁ); a dinner delicacy (cf. Epich. fr. 53.2, Mnesim. fr. 4.42), albeit a rather dangerous one, since this fish is equipped with a venomous dorsal fin and a sharp spike. See Thompson (1947) 56–57; Lythgoe & Lythgoe (1991) 144–145; Davidson (32002) 114; Dalby (2003) 348. 7a πουλυπόδειον Here the adjective πουλυπόδειος is used substantively to designate the octopus (the noun to be understood is κρέας, i. e. πουλυπόδειον κρέας: octopus flesh; NB κρέας does not always mean meat); parallel cases include Theopomp.Com. fr. 6.3, Philyll. fr. 12.1, and Mnesim. fr. 4.43. The adjective πουλυπόδειος is a derivative of the noun π(ο)υλύπους (octopus). Regarding the term’s orthography, the form πουλύπους is the Homeric and the early Attic spelling (on the paretymology cf. Bagordo 2014: 112), whereas the alternative πολύπους is a later form, first occurring in Aristotle (albeit not instantly adopted by contemporary comic playwrights); for metrical and other problems in manuscript tradition because of this dual spelling, see “Constitution of Text” and Arnott (1996) 514. See further Thompson (1947) 155–157, 204–208; Olson & Sens (2000) 202–203 (on Archestr. fr. 54.1); García Soler (2001) 140–141 and (2005) 590–592; Davidson (32002) 213; Dalby (2003) 236–237. 7b σηπία σηπία,-ας (ἡ) is the cuttlefish, a typical presence in food catalogues; e. g. Epich. fr. 54, Anaxandr. fr. 42.47, Ephipp. fr. 3.9, Eub. fr. 109.2, Mnesim. fr. 4.43 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 425), Alex. fr. 159.3 (cf. Arnott 1996: 467–468), Archestr. fr. 56 (cf. Olson & Sens 2000: 206), Matro fr. 1.34 (cf. Olson & Sens 1999: 96). On the dark ink (θόλος) they discharge when threatened, see Arist. HA 621b28–622a1. See further Thompson (1947) 231–233; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 290–292; Dohm (1964) 100–101; Campbell (1982) 180–181; García Soler (2001) 138–139; Davidson (32002) 209; Dalby (2003) 110. 7c ὀρφώς ὀρφώς,-ώ (ὁ) is the great sea-perch, a large tasty fish. Yet, it is likely that this appellation designated more than one kindred species; see Thompson (1947) 187–188, Dalby (2003) 169. With all probability, ὀρφώς is etymologically cognate with the adjective ὀρφνός meaning dark, dusky (Strömberg 1943: 21–22). In Comedy it appears quite often in sympotic contexts and food catalogues; e. g. Ar. V. 493–495 (NB this is a most celebrated passage revealing how ostentatious consumption of expensive and large fish could be considered an arrogant exhibition of wealth and power by the élite, a reversal of democratic equality, and an indication of tyrannical propensities; cf. Davidson 1993 and 1995), Amips. fr. 8, Cratin. fr.

Κύδων (fr. 12)

135

171.50, Pl.Com. fr. 189.14, Archipp. fr. 17, Mnesim. fr. 4.43; cf. Ath. 7.315a–c. See Lythgoe & Lythgoe (1991) 86–88; García Soler (2001) 178; Davidson (32002) 69. 8a κωβιός κωβιός,-οῦ (ὁ) is the gudgeon. According to Arnott (1996: 320), the term commonly described “any member of a large group of cheap small fish with large heads, prominent eyes and pouting cheeks, abundant in the Mediterranean”; for a collection of testimonies see Ath. 7.309b–e. κωβιός features frequently in Comedy’s food lists and other dinner-related contexts; e. g. Epich. fr. 59, Antiph. fr. 204.4, Henioch. fr. 3.2, Mnesim. fr. 4.35 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 418–419), Alex. fr. 115.13, Men. Kol. fr. 5, Machon fr. 5.31, 37, 40 (cf. Gow 1965: 66–67). See Strömberg (1943) 13, 16; Thompson (1947) 137–139; Lythgoe & Lythgoe (1991) 154–156; García Soler (2001) 189–190; Dalby (2003) 160. On the metrical analysis of line 8, see “Metre” above. 8b ἀφύαι The term ἀφύη,-ης (ἡ) was mostly used in plural (ἀφύαι) in the Attic dialect to designate any species of tiny fish served fried at dinners; the small-fry (cf. Hsch. s. v. ἀφύη· τὰ μικρὰ ἰχθύδια). Albeit allegedly despised in Athens at times (cf. Chrysipp.Stoic. ap. Ath. 7.285d τὴν ἀφύην, φησί, ἐν Ἀθήναις μὲν διὰ τὴν δαψίλειαν ὑπερορῶσι καὶ πτωχικὸν εἶναί φασιν ὄψον, ἐν ἑτέραις δὲ πόλεσιν ὑπερθαυμάζουσι πολὺ χείρω γινομένην: in Athens, he says, they regard small-fry with contempt because they are abundant, and they claim that this is beggars’ fish, whereas in other cities they admire them immensely, even though they are much worse there), ἀφύαι feature regularly in Comedy’s food catalogues and dinner-parties; e. g. Ar. fr. 520.1, Call.Com. fr. 10, Metag. fr. 6.8 (cf. Orth 2014: 424), Archipp. fr. 19, Anaxandr. fr. 42.41, Mnesim. fr. 4.44, Nicostr.Com. fr. 11, Sotad. fr. 1.30, Alex. fr. 84.1, Archestr. fr. 11.8–9 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 54, 59–60), Matro fr. 1.22 (with Olson & Sens 1999: 89f.), etc. Furthermore, according to testimonies preserved by Athenaeus, Ἀφύαι was a common nickname for hetairai (13.586b ἑταιρῶν ἐπωνυμίαι αἱ ἀφύαι). See Thompson (1947) 21–23; Pellegrino (2000) 169–170; García Soler (2001) 195–196; Dalby (2003) 14–16. On the metrical analysis of line 8, see “Metre”. 8c βελόναι The term βελόνη,-ης (ἡ) designates two distinct kinds of fish: the (inedible) pipefish (cf. Arist. HA 567b23) and the (edible) garfish or sea needle (Arist. HA 506b10); needless to say, the present fragment along with the rest of the comic evidence refer to the latter fish. The garfish/sea needle owes its name to its long narrow beak that resembles a needle (βελόνη); cf. Strömberg (1943) 36–37. It is only sporadically mentioned in Comedy’s food catalogues; apart from Ephippus’ present fragment, βελόναι recur in Archipp. fr. 24 (cf. Miccolis 2017: 164) and Mnesim. fr. 4.44. See Thompson (1947) 29–32; Lythgoe & Lythgoe (1991) 63–64; García Soler (2001) 166; Davidson (32002) 57. 8d κεστρεῖς κεστρεύς,-έως (ὁ) is the mullet (any of the – seven, at least – species found in the Mediterranean). According to Aristotle (HA 591b1–3), κεστρεύς was the greediest and most insatiable of the fishes (λαίμαργος δὲ μάλιστα τῶν ἰχθύων ἐστὶν ὁ κεστρεὺς καὶ ἄπληστος) and was also known for going without food for

136

Ephippus

days; this habit of mullet gave rise to the proverbial expression κεστρεὺς νῆστις (fasting mullet), commonly used to refer to parasites and other gluttons; cf. Arnott (1996) 723–724 and Miccolis (2017) 87–88. Athenaeus (7.307c–308b) preserves a considerable amount of evidence (mainly from Comedy) about this fish, which seems to have had a stereotypical presence in (comic) symposia; e. g. Ar. fr. 159.1, Amips. fr. 1.3 (cf. Orth 2013: 191–192), Pl.Com. fr. 28.2, Theopomp.Com. fr. 14.1, Archipp. fr. 12, Diocl. fr. 6.2, Anaxil. fr. 20.1, Antiph. fr. 136.1, Eub. fr. 68.2, Euphro fr. 2, Alex. fr. 258, Diph. fr. 53.2, Philem. fr. 83, etc.; cf. Archestr. fr. 43.1 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 176–177). See Thompson (1947) 108–110; Palombi & Santarelli (21960) 21–23; Campbell (1982) 282–283; Lythgoe & Lythgoe (1991) 208; García Soler (2001) 166–168; Davidson (32002) 140–144; Dalby (2003) 168–169.

fr. 13 (13 K.)

5

καὶ μετὰ δεῖπνον κόκκος ⟨ ῥοιᾶς ⟩ ἐρέβινθος ⟨ ⟩ κύαμος, χόνδρος, τυρός, μέλι, σησαμίδες, βάτραχος, βρυγμός, μνοῦς, πυραμίδες, μῆλον, κάρυον, γάλα, κανναβίδες, κόγχαι, χυλός, Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος

1 sq. lacunas indic. Dindorf 1 καὶ μετὰ δεῖπνον Meineke (1814) 72: καὶ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον A: om. CE fin. ⟨ ῥοιᾶς ⟩ ipsa: ⟨ μήκων ⟩ Edmonds 2 ⟨ ἀχράς, βολβός ⟩ Meineke: ⟨ ὀπός, καυλός ⟩ Edmonds 3 τυρός ACE: π- Eust. 4 βάτραχος, βρυγμός ipsa (βάτραχος, βότρυες iam Kock): βράχος· βρυγμός Α (intra cruces K-A): βρυγμός CE: μνοῦς ACE: ῥοῦς Kock πυραμίδες om. CE 5 κανναβίδες ACE (Eust.): καραβίδες Blaydes Adv. II 144 6 κόγχαι, χυλός om. CE

5

And after dinner seeds ⟨ of pomegranate ⟩, chickpeas ⟨ ⟩ broad beans, gruel, cheese, honey, sesame-cakes, angler-fish, chomping, fluffy pastries, honey-cakes, apples, nuts, milk, hemp-seeds, mussels, barley-water, the whole nine yards

1

Ath. 14.642e (lines 1–6) καὶ ἐν Κύδωνι· (fab. nom. om. CE) καὶ — ἐγκέφαλος and in Cydon: “And — yards” 2

Ath. 14.646f (line 3) (σησαμίδες) μνημονεύει αὐτῶν καὶ Ἔφιππος ἐν Κύδωνι· πρόκειται τὸ μαρτύριον (sesame-cakes) Ephippus too mentions them in Cydon; the testimony was quoted earlier

Κύδων (fr. 13)

137

Eust. in Il. p. 948,38 (lines 2–3, 5) Ἔφιππος δὲ τραγήμασιν ἐντάττων κυάμους καὶ ἐρεβίνθους συναριθμεῖ καὶ χόνδρον, τυρόν, μέλι, σησαμίδας καὶ κανναβίδας Ephippus, along with including beans and chickpeas among sweetmeats, also counts in gruel, cheese, honey, sesame-cakes, and hemp-seeds

Metre Anapaestic dimeter lkkll|ll ⟨ll⟩ kklk ⟨ ⟩kkl

llll|kklkkl kklll|llkkl llkkl|kklkkl llll|kklkkl

Discussion Meineke 3,330f.; Bothe 493; Kock 2,256f.; Edmonds 2,152f.; PCG 5,141f.; Nesselrath (1990) 267, 270, 273; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 490f. Citation Context The fragment is quoted in Ath. 14.642e, immediately after Ephipp. fr. 8 (ubi vide), with which it shares the same citation context; i. e. the aim is to exemplify various generic appellations for sweetmeats, such as the term τραγήματα. But, unlike fr. 8 (where the speaker describes everything listed with the collective term τραγήματα, line 3) the present fragment does not quite accomplish its quotation aim, since it does not feature any term collectively designating sweetmeats; instead, it features a catalogue of sweetmeats themselves (on similar phenomena in Athenaeus’ text see “Citation Context” for Ephipp. fr. 10). Later in Athenaeus’ text, in 14.646f, a second reference is made to Ephippus’ present fragment (though without triggering its quotation afresh), on account of the term σησαμίδες (sesame-cakes) featuring in it (a term discussed by Athenaeus in that section). In addition, Eustathius (in Il. p. 948,38) makes a cursory reference to the sweetmeats presently listed by Ephippus (though he cites the passage in prose and fails to acknowledge the play it belongs to), within an ongoing discussion of legumes. Constitution of Text The play’s title is omitted by the Epitome codices C and E at Ath. 14.642e (on the value of Athenaeus’ mss see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”); it is also omitted by Eustathius. Dindorf was the first who detected the two lacunas in this fragment, in lines 1 and 2, as noted above. In line 1 Meineke (1814: 72) deleted the article τό (from the phrase καὶ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον, preserved by codex A; NB the entire phrase is omitted by codices C and E), thus restoring the metre (i. e. μετὰ τό gives a sequence of three brevia, which is an invalid pattern in anapaests); Meineke’s emendation is corroborated by parallel cases from within comedy, such as Mnesim. fr. 4.50 (μετὰ δεῖπνον) and Ephipp. fr. 16.3 (κατὰ δεῖπνον); further passages featuring μετὰ δεῖπνον (i. e. without the definite article) include X. Smp. 4.8, X. HG 5.4.7, Arist. EE 1214b24–25, etc.

138

Ephippus

For the lacuna at the end of line 1, I propose the reading ῥοιᾶς (of pomegranate). The noun κόκκος hardly ever occurs on its own (when meaning seed, grain); instead, it is typically accompanied by another noun (normally in genitive case) denoting the nature of the seed (e. g. ῥοιᾶς: of pomegranate, h.Cer. 372; μήκωνος: of poppy, Euphro fr. 10.10–11; πυρῶν: of wheat, Philum. Ven. 3.3; even metaphorically νόου: a grain of sense, Timo fr. 840.3 SH). At the same time, it should be emphasized that κόκκος alone means seed – any kind of seed; NB Olson’s translation of this fragment in Ath. 14.642e is incorrect (κόκκος does not mean pomegranate-seed). Yet, Olson’s translation of κόκκος alone as pomegranate-seed can be remedied, if we actually add the corresponding term for pomegranate to the text, in genitive case: ῥοιᾶς; and this is exactly my suggestion for filling the lacuna (NB the form ῥοιά is attested for both the fifth and the fourth century BC, e. g. Hdt. 4.143, Arist. Pr. 923b25, along with the classical Attic spelling ῥόα, which however would presently be unmetrical, since a long element is needed for the line’s penultimate position); cf. Hermipp. fr. 37, h.Cer. 412, Thphr. HP 2.2.5, Poll. 6.80, Ael.Dion. α 8, etc. Edmonds suggested the supplement μήκων (poppy seeds), which however leaves the nature of κόκκος unspecified. In line 2 I hesitantly refrained from adopting either Meineke’s (ἀχράς, βολβός: wild pears, bulbs) or Edmonds’ reconstruction (ὀπός, καυλός: vegetable juice, cauliflower); both suggestions are equally likely, since they are paralleled (e. g. all four suggested terms feature in the food list of Anaxandr. fr. 42.55, 58–59), satisfy the metre and aptly complement the dessert list. In line 3 all three Athenaeus’ codices (A, C, and E) preserve the reading τυρός, whilst Eustathius’ manuscript tradition preserves the reading πυρόν (wheat); the latter reading (an apparent misreading / miscopying of the term’s initial consonant, tau for pi) obviously needs to be emended to τυρός, since Eustathius is expressly drawing on Ephippus’ present fragment (besides, raw wheat could hardly qualify as a dessert). In line 4 codex A preserves the unmetrical dual reading βράχος· βρυγμός (the line is left incomplete by one short element), which Kassel-Austin put within cruces; the Epitome codices C and E preserve only βρυγμός (the line is unmetrical, again). Instead of βράχος, Kock suggested the reading βάτραχος (NB not frog, but anglerfish), after comparing Mnesim. fr. 4.37, Anaxandr. fr. 42.50, and Antiph. fr. 130.5; in addition, instead of βρυγμός, Kock suggested the reading βότρυες (grapes). In the text I print above, I adopt part of Kock’s emendation (βάτραχος) and part of what manuscript tradition preserves (βρυγμός), according to the following reasoning: the reading βράχος definitely needs to be emended; βάτραχος (cf. s. v.) is a convincing emendation, since it remedies the metrical sequence of anapaests and provides the ongoing catalogue with another food stuff (albeit not a dessert), while one can easily imagine how a scribe in haste omitted two letters whilst copying: β(άτ)ραχος (i. e. -άτ- fell out). Having restored the metrical soundness of the line, I consider it unnecessary to further change what the manuscript tradition preserves; instead, we can keep βρυγμός (chomping, noise from munching greedily) in the text and interpret it as a παρὰ προσδοκίαν case, which simultaneously results in an

Κύδων (fr. 13)

139

incongruous juxtaposition of concrete foodstuffs with an abstract notion / a sound generated by the consumption of these foodstuffs (for parallels see s. v. βρυγμός). Next, in the same line, all three codices (A, C, and E) preserve the reading μνοῦς, an extremely rare term, which Kock suggested that it should be emended to ῥοῦς (sumach; cf. Alex. fr. 132.6 with Arnott 1996: 388). Although μνοῦς is not attested elsewhere as a dessert’s appellation, but only as a term denoting soft fluff (cf. comm. s. v.), I agree with Kassel-Austin about keeping μνοῦς in the text, as a hapax name – perhaps a colloquial description – of some fluffy dessert. The final term of line 4, πυραμίδες, is omitted by codices C and E (i. e. from line 4 only βρυγμός and μνοῦς are preserved by C and E). In line 5 Athenaeus’ codices A, C, and E, as well as Eustathius’ manuscript tradition, preserve the reading κανναβίδες (a hapax, cf. comm. s. v.), which Blaydes (Adv. II 144) suggested that it should be emended to καραβίδες; however, this emendation – albeit imaginative (cf. Posidipp. fr. 15) – is utterly unnecessary, given the unanimous agreement of the manuscript tradition; besides, the reading κανναβίδες creates a remarkable homoioteleuton. Finally, the beginning of line 6, κόγχαι χυλός, is left out by the Epitome codices C and E. Interpretation This fragment is a substantial example of the list/catalogue motif, which is most widespread thoughout Comedy, and especially during the period of Middle (cf. Ephipp. fr. 3 “Interpretation”). The context is explicitly sympotic (on symposion see on Ephipp. fr. 4.2a); the fragment captures a scene from the so-called δεύτεραι τράπεζαι (second tables) and features a list of desserts (cf. comm. s. v. μετὰ δεῖπνον). The speaker (of unverifiable identity; a dinner-guest, the cook, a cook’s assistant, the master/symposiarch – all possibilities are open), addressing either a collocutor or the audience, delivers an asyndetic list of desserts (probably not visible to the audience; but see Konstantakos 2005) relating to some sumptuous symposion – a past, a future/imminent, or even an ongoing one. It is probable – and this possibility has already been entertained by Meineke and Kock – that the present fragment followed shortly after fr. 12 within Ephippus’ present play; it is also likely and that the same character delivers both fr. 12 and fr. 13 (cf. Ephipp. fr. 12 “Interpretation”). Of course, this reconstruction cannot be safely established, due to the lack of adequate evidence, but needs to remain an enticing conjecture. Thankfully, the present fragment provides us with further interesting material. The present catalogue of desserts is not a commnonplace example of the comic topos of the ‘list’, but rather a remarkably outstanding one; in fact, this is the only surviving example of a list that consists almost exclusively of dessert items (except for the two problematic readings in line 4, cf. “Constitution of Text”); and, to be specific, fifteen dessert items (NB fr. 12 from the same play is the only surviving example of a list exclusively consisting of fish items). What is more, we can confidently establish that this is a complete list, i. e. we possess the actual beginning and the end of it. The introductory phrase καὶ μετὰ δεῖπνον unmistakably signals the list’s beginning. The following enumeration of sweetmeats climaxes in line 6 with the proverbial expression Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος (the whole nine yards; cf. s. v.); this expression functions as a final crescendo that rounds off everything that has

140

Ephippus

been cited before and constitutes adequate evidence that the end of Athenaeus’ quotation from Ephippus’ play coincided with the end of this dessert list. Several items in this catalogue are mentioned in singular number (κόκκος, ἐρέβινθος, κύαμος, μῆλον, κάρυον); these are cases of ‘collective singular’ (Smyth 1956: §996), i. e. a noun in the singular stands for a larger number of the same things. Accordingly, the plural number is used in the English translation (besides, it would be utterly ridiculous to imagine that just one seed, one chickpea, etc. were served for dinner). Cf. Ephipp. fr. 8.3 (πυραμοῦς, ἄμης). Metre The fragment’s metrical pattern is an apposite match to the fragment’s content, since the anapaestic dimeter is the metre par excellence for food catalogues in Middle and New Comedy; see further Intro. 7 “Metre”. Regarding the lacuna in line 2, both Meineke’s and Edmonds’ suggested supplements (ἀχράς, βολβός and ὀπός, καυλός respectively) provide for the same metrical analysis that satisfies the metre ( k – – – ). However, above I refrain from designating any metrical analysis for the lacuna, since the suggested readings are not obviously the only possible ones; hence, we have no means to establish the corresponding metrical analysis for the missing part of this line. 1a μετὰ δεῖπνον See “Constitution of Text”. This expression signals the end of the main part of the symposion (δεῖπνον) and the transition to the subsequent, distinct stage of dining and drinking known as δεύτεραι τράπεζαι (second tables), which consisted mostly of desserts, i. e. various snacks, nibbles, and sweetmeats (dried fruits, nuts, etc.), plus the occasional small game (e. g. Ath. 14.641f λαγῷα καὶ κίχλαι: hare-meat and thrushes), all of which were meant to incite thirst and stimulate wine-drinking; see e. g. Amphis fr. 9 (with Papachrysostomou 2016: 67–74), Antiph. fr. 172, Philippid. fr. 20. Aristotle testifies to the distinctive nature of the second tables and explains the appellation “second” (Περὶ μέθης fr. 675, ap. Ath. 14.641e): διόπερ οὐ κακῶς ἔοικεν εἰπεῖν ὁ πρῶτος δευτέραν προσαγορεύσας τράπεζαν· ὄντως γὰρ ἐπιδορπισμός τις ὁ τραγηματισμός ἐστιν, καὶ δεῖπνον ἕτερον παρατίθεται ⟨τὰ⟩ τραγήματα (the first person to use the term “second table” would thus seem to have been right; for snacking is in fact eating something after dinner, and the sweetmeats are served as what amounts to a second dinner). See Olson & Sens (1999) 134–144. 1b κόκκος ⟨ ῥοιᾶς ⟩ Pomegranate-seeds (collective singular, see “Interpretation” fin.; on filling the lacuna, see “Constitution of Text”); cf. Poll. 6.80 κόκκοι ῥόας· καὶ οὕτω μὲν ὁ καρπός, τὸ δὲ δένδρον ῥοιά (seeds of ῥόα: this is how the fruit is called, whereas ῥοιά is the name of the pomegranate-tree). Pollux’ distinction between the two terms (ῥόα for the fruit and ῥοιά for the tree) is not universally adhered to. Instead, the terms ῥόα (classical Attic form, used in Ephipp. fr. 24.1; cf. Arnott 1996: 206), ῥοιή (Ionic and epic form) and ῥοιά (described by LSJ9 s. v. as ‘later’, though already attested in the fifth and the fourth century BC, e. g. Hdt. 4.143, Arist. Pr. 923b25) can be found designating interchangeably both the pomegranate tree and the pomegranate fruit (cf. LSJ9 s. v.). Pomegranate (along with apples) is

Κύδων (fr. 13)

141

considered cheap and common fare at Ar. V. 1268; yet, being sweet/fruity and easy to nibble on, it constitutes a most apposite dessert item for the second tables (δεύτεραι τράπεζαι; cf. previous note); cf. Antiph. fr. 66, Men. fr. 83. 2a ἐρέβινθος Chickpeas (ἐρέβινθος is a case of collective singular; cf. “Interpretation” fin.), of any variety (cf. Thphr. HP 8.5.1, 8.6.5). Chickpeas were regularly eaten as τραγήματα (sweetmeats; cf. Phaen. fr. 43, ap. Ath. 2.54f), whether raw / green (χλωρός / ἁπαλός – despised in Crobyl. fr. 9; cf. Mastellari 2020: 182–183), boiled (ἑφθός) or roasted (φρυκτός / πεφρυγμένος; cf. Pherecr. fr. 170) and were typically accompanied with wine; cf. the blissful atmosphere visualized by Xenoph. fr. D54.2–3 ἐν κλίνῃ μαλακῇ κατακείμενον, ἔμπλεον ὄντα, / πίνοντα γλυκὺν οἶνον, ὑποτρώγοντ’ ἐρεβίνθους (reclining on a soft couch, having eaten one’s fill, drinking sweet wine and nibbling chickpeas). Similarly, roasting chickpeas is visualized as an activity typical of the peaceful life longed for by the Chorus in Ar. Pax 1127–1139; cf. Ar. Ec. 45 (with Ussher 1973: 80). In Alex. fr. 167.14 and Archestr. fr. 60.14 chickpeas feature as part of a pauper’s diet and are considered evidence of wretched beggary (πτωχείης παράδειγμα κακῆς; Archestr. l. c.); see Arnott (1996) 489 and Olson & Sens (2000) 233. 2b κύαμος Broad beans (here κύαμος is a collective singular; cf. “Interpretation” fin.). Just like chickpeas (cf. s. v. ἐρέβινθος), broad beans could be eaten raw / green, boiled or roasted. Apart from being one of the most common sweetmeats (cf. Anaxandr. fr. 42.43; Alex. fr. 167.11 with Arnott 1996: 486–487; Archestr. fr. 60.15 with Olson & Sens 2000: 234; also Ar. fr. 372), broad beans were also used as lots, in Athens and other city-states, as an (original) election prodecure through which the majority of public officers were designated (e. g. Th. 8.66, X. Mem. 1.2.9, [Arist.] Ath. 8.1, 22.5, Plu. Per. 27.2; satirized in Ar. Av. 1022 and elsewhere). See Theoc. 7.66 (with Gow 21952: ii.149). 3a χόνδρος Gruel (of either wheat or barley), mixed with milk (cf. γάλα, line 5) or water; see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.1a. 3b

τυρός

See comm. on Ephipp. fr. 3.5.

3c μέλι Honey features in food lists in its own right (e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 42.44), but was also used as a relish for both savoury and sweet dishes; e. g. in Ar. Ach. 1040 honey is used as a roasting sauce for sausages (κατάχει σὺ τῆς χορδῆς τὸ μέλι: you, pour the honey on the sausage); in Magn. fr. 2 honey is poured over hot pancakes (ταγηνίας ἤδη τεθέασαι χλιαροὺς / σίζοντας, ὅταν αὐτοῖσιν ἐπιχέῃς μέλι; : have you ever seen warm pancakes sizzle, when you pour honey over them?); in Pl.Com. fr. 188.8–9 thrushes are coated with honey (κίχλαι ἑκκαίδεχ᾿ ὁλόκληροι μέλιτι μεμιγμέναι: sixteen whole thrushes in honey-sauce); Th. 4.26.8 mentions honeyed poppy-seeds (μήκωνα μεμελιτωμένην). 3d σησαμίδες σησαμίς,-ίδος (ἡ): sesame-cake. According to Ath. 14.646f, σησαμίδες were ball-shaped pastries (σφαιροειδῆ πέμματα), made of honey, roasted sesame-seeds, and oil (ἐκ μέλιτος καὶ σησάμων πεφρυγμένων καὶ ἐλαίου), typically

142

Ephippus

served at weddings, since the sesame-seeds were considered a symbol of fertility (διὰ τὸ πολύγονον; sch. on Ar. Pax 869). σησαμίς features regularly in food-lists, occurring as early as Stesichorus (fr. 179a.1); cf. Antiph. fr. 79, Eup. fr. 176.3 (with Olson 2016: 106–107). Suda (σ 341) identifies the cake called σησαμίς with the one called σησαμῆ (featuring e. g. in Ar. Pax 869, Amphis fr. 9.3, Men. Sam. 74–75, 125), but distinguishes both items from the cake called σησαμοῦς. See Oakley & Sinos (1993) 11–37. 4a βάτραχος Angler-fish (or phishing-frog); this is Kock’s resourceful emendation, which I chose to adopt (cf. “Constitution of Text”). βάτραχος (also known as ἁλιεύς) is not uncommon in food catalogues; e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 42.50, Antiph. fr. 130.5 (βατράχου γαστήρ: belly of a phishing-frog), Mnesim. fr. 4.37, Archestr. fr. 48.1 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 194). See Thompson (1947) 28–29; García Soler (2001) 194; Davidson (32002) 168; Dalby (2003) 12. 4b βρυγμός Biting, gobbling, chomping; or else “eager eating” (the latter being Storey’s translation of Eup. fr. 375 ὅσος ⟨δ᾿⟩ ὁ βρυγμὸς καὶ κοπετὸς ἐν τῇ στέγῃ: what a noise of eager eating in the house). The noun βρυγμός derives from the verb βρύκω or βρύχω (eat greedily, gobble; also gnash, grind the teeth; cf. LSJ9 s. v.); onomatopoeia is probably at work here (both the verb and the noun sound pretty much like the meaning they denote). The notion of munching and chewing noisily is most pertinent to τραγήματα and τρωγάλια, many of which were crispy and crunchy, such as the seeds, the broad beans, and the nuts (like the ones featuring in the present fragment), especially when roasted. As explained under “Constitution of Text” (ubi vide), the reading βρυγμός (rather than seeking to replace it) can be interpreted as a well-chosen παρὰ προσδοκίαν case, which momentarily interrupts the flow of dessert items only to complement the audience’s visualization of these foodstuffs with an audio input hinting precisely to the sound that the consumption of these items produces. A parallel case is Mnesim. fr. 4, where the speaker momentarily interrupts the enumeration of food items to insert a vivid description of how food is already being butchered up (line 16 διαλαιμοτομεῖθ’) and wine is being gulped down (line 17 ἐξερροίϐδητ’) by guests already present, before resuming the listing of food and other dinner paraphernalia (NB for what it is worth, the verb ἐκροιβδέω is also onomatopoeic, just like βρύκω and βρυγμός; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 197, Mastellari 2020: 405–406). As to the comic incongruity that results from asyndetically citing an abstract term adjacent to concrete ones, the obvious antecedent is Aristophanes, who often adhered to this technique; e. g. Nu. 1007 σμίλακος ὄζων καὶ ἀπραγμοσύνης καὶ λεύκης φυλλοβολούσης (fragrant with woodbine and carefree content, and the catkins flung by the poplar tree), and Av. 1539–1541 τὴν εὐβουλίαν, / τὴν εὐνομίαν, τὴν σωφροσύνην, τὰ νεώρια, / τὴν λοιδορίαν, τὸν κωλακρέτην, τὰ τριώβολα (good counsel, / law and order, decency, shipyards, / mudslinging, paymasters, three-obol fees – see Dunbar 1995: 705); cf. Eub. fr. 74 (with Hunter 1983: 164).

Κύδων (fr. 13)

143

4c μνοῦς The noun μνοῦς means soft and fine fluff, down; cf. Poll. 10.38 εἴποις δ’ ἂν οἶμαι καὶ χνοῦν καὶ μνοῦν ἐπὶ τῶν μαλακῶν (you could use, I guess, the terms χνοῦν [“down”] and μνοῦν [“fluff ”] for all things soft); cf. Ar. fr. 268, AP 5.121.2 (about a hetaira) μνοῦ χρῶτα τερεινοτέρη (her skin is more tender than down). Ephippus’ present fragment is the only surviving passage where μνοῦς seems to designate some sort of dessert. Given that Athenaeus’ manuscript tradition unanimously preserves this reading (cf. “Constitution of Text”), it seems reasonable to presently accept an exceptional, hapax meaning of this term; it is conceivable that μνοῦς was a rare, colloquial appellation of some sort of fluffy pastry (perhaps resembling a modern-day croissant). 4d πυραμίδες Honey-cakes. The term πυραμίς is an alternative appellation for πυραμοῦς; see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.3c (s. v. πυραμοῦς). 5a μῆλον The term μῆλον designates primarily the apple, but it can also be used as a generic term to refer to a number of other tree-fruits, such as peaches, apricots, quinces, citrons, etc.; cf. LSJ9 s. v. μῆλον (B). μῆλα regularly appear in food catalogues, e. g. Ar. Pax 1001, Pherecr. fr. 158.1, Anaxandr. fr. 42.54, Eub. fr. 74.3, Archestr. fr. 60.15 (cf. Olson & Sens 2000: 234). In other comic contexts μῆλα bear erotic associations (the relevant passages are collected by Perrone 2019: 199, along with bibliography). 5b κάρυον The term κάρυον refers primarily to the walnut, but it also serves as a generic term designating practically any other kind of nuts: chestnuts, almonds, hazelnuts (see LSJ9 s. v.). Athenaeus is aware of and highlights the term’s broad definition range (2.52a): οἱ Ἀττικοὶ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι συγγραφεῖς κοινῶς πάντα τὰ ἀκρόδρυα κάρυα λέγουσιν. Ἐπίχαρμος δὲ κατ᾿ ἐξοχὴν ὡς ἡμεῖς (Attic authors and others refer generically to all hard-shelled fruit as κάρυα. But Epicharmus (fr. 148) uses the word in a specific sense, as we do). A semantic juxtaposition between κάρυα and ἀκρόδρυα is also found in Thphr. Char. 11.4 καὶ πληθούσης τῆς ἀγορᾶς προσελθὼν πρὸς τὰ κάρυα ἢ τὰ μύρτα ἢ τὰ ἀκρόδρυα (when the agora is crowded, he goes to the stands for walnuts, myrtleberries, and hard-shelled fruits; cf. Diggle 2004: 315–317). κάρυα (whether walnuts in particular or nuts in general) feature regularly in food catalogues and are a typical nibble of the so-called δεύτεραι τράπεζαι (second tables; cf. comm. s. v. μετὰ δεῖπνον above); e. g. Metag. fr. 18.2 (with Pellegrino 1998: 335–336, and Orth 2014: 480), Anaxandr. fr. 42.45, Antiph. fr. 273.1, Ephipp. fr. 24.1, Philyll. fr. 24 (with Orth 2015: 226). See Dalby (2003) 152, 173, 346. 5c γάλα This is the only example of milk featuring on its own in a food catalogue; instead, we often come across milky cakes (ἄμητες), see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.3d. This peculiar and unparalleled presence of milk in a list of desserts can be easily explained, if we associate it with the preceding reference to gruel (χόνδρος, line 3), which was often mixed with milk (cf. s. v.); i. e. the milk was not meant to by drunk on its own, but rather be poured onto the gruel making for a creamy porridge.

144

Ephippus

5d κανναβίδες Hemp-seeds. This is a hapax term (cf. “Constitution of Text”), which is cognate with the noun κάνναβις,-ιος: hemp. The suffix -ίς,-ίδος commonly designates origin, provenance; e. g. σησαμίς (sesame-cake) < σήσαμον (sesame-seed), Κεκροπίς (one of the ten Athenian tribes) < Κέκρωψ, etc. (cf. Smyth 1956: §845.4). Accordingly, the hapax κανναβίς,-ίδος designates some byproduct of κάνναβις, i. e. hemp-seeds. Herodotus (4.75) is well aware of hemp-seeds, which he describes differently though as τῆς καννάβιος τὸ σπέρμα (the seed of the hemp). In the immediately preceding paragraph (4.74) Herodotus testifies to the fact that Thracians used to make garments of hemp that were very much like linen (τοῖσι λινέοισι ὁμοιότατα). The hapax term κανναβίδες is an ingenious conception by Ephippus, since it stylistically corresponds to σησαμίδες (line 3) and πυραμίδες (line 4); all three terms (σησαμίδες, πυραμίδες, κανναβίδες) are emphatically positioned at the end of the verse, thus creating a conspicuous homoioteleuton in three consecutive lines. 6a κόγχαι Mussels. As Athenaeus reports (3.86f), the noun occurs both as a feminine (κόγχη) and as a masculine (κόγχος). κόγχαι feature occasionally in food catalogues and dinner-contexts. They are enjoyed charcoaled in Ar. fr. 67.2 (ὀπτωμέναις κόγχαισιν) and are praised in Epich. fr. 84 κόγχος, ἃν τέλλιν καλέομες· ἐστὶ δ᾿ ἅδιστον κρέας (‘conchos’, which we refer to as a ‘tellis’; the meat is the sweetest there is), and in Arar. fr. 8, where κόγχαι are included in a list of κομψὰ νωγαλεύματα (fine sweetmeats). See also Posidipp. fr. 15.2 and Lync. fr. 1 – NB κόγχαι are not despised in Lync. l. c., as Tartaglia 2019: 278 maintains; instead, the speaker’s discontent has to do with the food-arrangement in attic dinners. A proverb about supposedly easy tasks is registered by Telecl. fr. 20 κόγχην διελεῖν (to break open a mussel shell; NB the proverb, in adapted form, is still in use in modern Greek); cf. Bagordo (2013) 133–134 (with a note on κόγχη’s sexual associations). See García Soler (1994) 198. 6b χυλός The term χυλός is a generic appellation for a number of juices, extracts, and decoctions; e. g. plant juice, vegetable extract, meat juice / sauce, etc. It is even used in metaphorical sense in Ar. Pax 998 φιλίας χυλῷ (extract of friendship; cf. Olson 1998: 260). The gastronomic context of the present fragment suggests an analogous interpretation of χυλός as barley-water (i. e. gruel having the barley or groats strained off), especially since χόνδρος (gruel) features in line 3 of the present fragment (ubi vide); that is, it makes sense that both the unstrained χόνδρος and the strained χυλός (alternative forms of the same foodstuff) were included in the present array of desserts. Understandably, χυλός was not a particularly palatable snack option, hence it is often intended for the elderly; cf. Anaxipp. fr. 1.46, where the cook boasts that he prepares special χυλοὺς ἐχομένους δριμύτητος (sauces that have some zing) for the elderly, in order to wake up their sluggish nature. See further examples in Olson & Seaberg (2018) 86 (comm. on Cratin. fr. 329.2). 6c Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος Zeus’ brain. This is a proverbial expression (also known as βασιλέως ἐγκέφαλος: king’s brain), which describes the abundance, lavishness, and

Κύδων (fr. 13)

145

high quality of foodstuffs available and/or enjoyed on a certain occasion. Clearchus of Soli (fr. 51a–d), using rather obscure language, associates this proverb (and, arguably, its origin) to the luxurious modus vivendi of the Persians, and specifically to a bizarre habit of the Persian king; Clearchus’ testimony is preserved by Ath. 12.514d–e: καὶ προελθὼν δὲ γράφει· τοῖς γοῦν πορίσασί τι αὐτῷ ἡδὺ βρῶμα διδοὺς ἆθλα τοῦ πορισθέντος οὐχ ἑτέραις ἡδύνων ταῦτα τιμαῖς παρετίθει, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτὸς ἀπολαύειν αὐτῶν, νοῦν ἔχων· τοῦτο μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λεγόμενος, οἶμαι, καὶ Διὸς ἅμα καὶ βασιλέως ἐγκέφαλος (further on, he [sc. Clearchus] writes [fr. 51a]: although he [sc. the Persian king] offered prizes to people who brought him something delicious to eat, once he had the food, he did not increase the appeal of the prizes by attaching other honors to them, but instead preferred to enjoy them all by himself, and rightly so; because this is what is referred to, I believe, as “the brain of Zeus and of the king as well”); cf. Tsitsiridis (2013) 160–161. Athenaeus quotes again Clearchus’ obscure testimony in 12.529d. Zenobius also registers the proverb (3.41): Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος: ἐπὶ τῶν ἡδυπαθούντων ἡ παροιμία τέτακται. Κλέαρχος δὲ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ περὶ Βίων φησὶ τὰ πολυτελῆ βρώματα παρὰ τοῖς Πέρσαις Διὸς καὶ βασιλέως ἐγκέφαλον καλεῖσθαι (Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος: the proverb applies to those who enjoy living extravagantly; Clearchus in Book 5 of the “Lives” [fr. 51b] says that the Persians refer to luxurious foodstuffs as “Zeus’ and king’s brain”); cf. Paus.Gr. δ 16 Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος· κάλλιστόν τι βρῶμα (Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος: some exquisite foodstuff). Intriguingly, this proverb also survives in Latin (“cerebrum Iovis”), in Ennius’ Hedyphagetica (largely based on Archestratus’ gastronomic work), where (fr. 1.7, ap. Apul. Apol. 39.2–4) the parrot wrasse (“scarus”) is considered a rare delicacy, deserving the proverbial characterization of “cerebrum Iovis”. Ephippus was Clearchus’ older contemporary, roughly by a generation (cf. Intro. 2 “Chronology & Career”, and Tsitsiridis 2013: 1–8); this makes the present fragment by Ephippus the earliest surviving testimony of the proverbial expression Διὸς ἐγκέφαλος. It is conceivable that this expression was coined during Ephippus’ lifetime and was subsequently registered by Clearchus. Whatever the case, this is not the only instance where an item is figuratively described – within a proverbial context – as being either Zeus’ own or somehow associated with Zeus, in order to designate that something is of extraordinary size, quality, quantity, etc.; cf. Eup. fr. 312 τοῦ Διὸς τὸ σάνδαλον (the sandal of Zeus; see Olson 2016: 491–492, with further examples).

146

Ναυαγός (Nauagos) (“The Castaway”) Discussion Meineke 1,353; Bothe 492; Kock 2,256; Breitenbach (1908) 64; Edmonds 2,152f.; PCG 5,140 Title The title may either refer to some fictitious seafarer or to some mythological figure, probably Odysseus, the archetypical castaway within Greek literature. Paramonus also wrote a Ναυαγός (PCG 7,101), while Epicharmus wrote an Ὀδυσσεύς Ναυαγός (PCG 1,69), and Aristophanes a Διόνυσος Ναυαγός (PCG 3.2,157). The possibility of Ephippus’ play being situated in-between myth and contemporary reality is not inconceivable. Not only is the intertwinement of mythical and real worlds a common motif during the period of Middle Comedy (cf. Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”), but also there is an eye-catching, parallel case, Anaxandr. fr. 35, where Odysseus is believed to be addressing a group of fourth-century Athenians (see Millis 2015: 21, 155, 166–169). Accordingly, taking into consideration the comic parallels (Epicharmus’ play and Anaxandrides’ fragment) and given the stereotypical portrait of Odysseus as the castaway mythical figure par excellence, one can reasonably imagine that the title-figure in Ephippus’ present play is the ever-wandering Odysseus.

fr. 14 (14 K.)

5

10

ἔπειτ᾿ ἀναστὰς εὔστοχος νεανίας τῶν ἐξ Ἀκαδημείας τις ὑπὸ Πλάτωνα καὶ Βρυσωνοθρασυμαχειοληψικερμάτων πληγεὶς ἀνάγκῃ, ληψιλογομίσθῳ τέχνῃ συνών τις, οὐκ ἄσκεπτα δυνάμενος λέγειν, εὖ μὲν μαχαίρᾳ ξύστ᾿ ἔχων τριχώματα, εὖ δ᾿ ὑποκαθιεὶς ἄτομα πώγωνος βάθη, εὖ δ᾿ ἐν πεδίλῳ πόδα τιθεὶς ὑπόξυρον κνήμης ἱμάντων ἰσομέτροις ἑλίγμασιν, ὄγκῳ τε χλανίδος εὖ τεθωρακισμένος, σχῆμ᾿ ἀξιόχρεων ἐπικαθεὶς βακτηρίᾳ, ἀλλότριον, οὐκ οἰκεῖον, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, ἔλεξεν· “ἄνδρες τῆς Ἀθηναίων χθονός”

1 ἐπεὶ καταστὰς A: corr. Jacobs Addit. 278 2 Ἀκαδημείας Dindorf: Ἀκαδημίας A 3 Βρυσων ὁ θρασ. A: corr. Meineke 4 ληψιλογομίσθῳ Meineke: λιψιγομισθω Α, inter cruces K-A: ληψολιγομίσθῳ J. Adamus (recepit Kaibel, addends ‘sed dubito’): διψιλογομίσθῳ Meineke Anal.Ath. 235: ῥιψολογομίσθῳ Edmonds: λεπτολογομίσθῳ Grotius Exc. 982: μαψιλογομίσθῳ Kock 7 ὑποκαθιεὶς ἄτομα Scaliger apud Grot.: ὑποκαθιεῖ σατομα A 8 πόδα Scaliger: πολλὰ A ὑπὸ ξυρὸν A, inter cruces K-A: ὑπόξυρον Scaliger: ὑποξύλῳ Dobree: ἐπισφύρων vel περισφύρων Kaibel

Ναυαγός (fr. 14)

5

10

147

Then a shrewd young man stood up, someone from the Academy who had been under Plato, one of those taking coins like Bryson and Thrasymachus, driven by necessity, a person familiar with this money-making speech craft and incapable of saying anything inconsiderate. With hair neatly trimmed with shears, having nicely let his uncut beard grow long and thick, having his lean feet nicely set in sandals with twisted straps of equal length around his shins, and nicely shielded beneath his bulky cloak, while setting his compelling stature upon a staff, he made a speech composed, in my opinion, by someone other than himself: “Men of the land of Athens”

Ath. 11.509b–e Διὸ καὶ Ἔφιππος ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς ἐν Ναυαγῷ Πλάτωνά τε αὐτὸν καὶ τῶν γνωρίμων τινὰς κεκωμῴδηκεν ὡς καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἀργυρίῳ συκοφαντοῦντας, ἐμφαίνων ὅτι καὶ πολυτελῶς ἠσκοῦντο καὶ ὅτι τῆς εὐμορφίας τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀσελγῶν πλείονα πρόνοιαν ἐποιοῦντο. λέγει δ᾿ οὕτως· ἔπειτ᾿ — χθονός Therefore, the comic poet Ephippus in The Castaway has satirized Plato himself and some of his acquaintances for blackmailing in order to extort money, emphasizing that they dressed extravagantly and pursued a comely appearance more vigorously than our present-day profligates. He puts it as follows: “Then — Athens”

Metre Iambic trimeter

klkl l|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) llkkl llk|kk klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) llkkk klkl klkl (no caesura) llkl l|lkkk llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

5

klkl llk|kk klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) llkl l|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) lkkkl l|kkkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

10

llkl l|kkkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) llkl l|kkkl klk l (penthemimeral caesura) llkkk k|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkkk l|kkkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkkl llk|l klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) klkl l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

148

Ephippus

Discussion Meineke 3,332f.; Bothe 493f.; Kock 2,257f.; Edmonds 2,152–155; PCG 5,142f.; Nesselrath (1990) 253, 255; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 491f.; Rusten & Henderson 484 Citation Context The quotation of Ephippus’ fragment in Deipnosophistae Book 11 serves as a reasonable conclusion and an apposite closure (cf. 509b διὸ καί) to a long section of Athenaeus’ text (starting at 11.504b), which is essentially a detailed and harsh criticism against Plato (see Trapp 2000: 358–363). Drawing on various and numerous sources (such as Theopomp. FGrH 115, Hegesand. FHG iv.412, etc.), Athenaeus preserves an array of charges condemning Plato’s character and his work. Using bitter and scathing language, Athenaeus starts from Plato’s jealousy towards Xenophon and proceeds to register the philosopher’s pronounced tendency to slandering and his alleged malignity (κακοήθεια, 11.507a), as well as the rumour/accusation that most of his dialogues are useless, full of lies, and the product of other authors (ἀχρείους καὶ ψευδεῖς … ἀλλοτρίους, 11.508c), and have their material purloined from elsewhere (κεκλεμμένων, 11.507e). On top of all that, the individuals associated with the Academy are described as living in an unholy and disgraceful fashion (ἀνοσίως καὶ ἀδόξως), having extracted money through fraud, by acting impiously and unnaturally (ἐξ ἀσεβείας καὶ παρὰ φύσιν, 11.509a–b). Ephippus’ present fragment (11.509c–e), which rounds off Athenaeus’ report on anti-platonic tradition (and concludes Book 11), is the only piece of evidence that originates from the comic genre; on Athenaeus’ source in this regard see Düring (1941) 87 and Trapp 2000 (featuring critical evaluation of Düring’s views). Constitution of Text In line 1 codex A preserves the reading ἐπεὶ καταστάς, which Jacobs (Addit. 278) astutely corrected to the meaningful ἔπειτ᾿ ἀναστάς (i. e. understandably, in order to speak, the individual in question does not sit down; he stands up). In line 2 codex A preserves the reading Ἀκαδημίας, which Dindorf corrected to Ἀκαδημείας. Although in the present case either reading could theoretically satisfy the meter (the syllable -μεί- / -μί- occupies the second anceps position, which can accommodate either a long or a short element), in other passages (e. g. Epicr. fr. 10.11, Alex. frr. 25 and 99, Ar. Nu. 1005; cf. Croenert 1903: 31 n. 3) the orthography Ἀκαδήμεια is explicitly confirmed as the correct one, since it is the only one allowed by the respective metrical patterns; cf. Hdn. Pros.Cath. 3.1,277.14 GG. On the attestation of Ἀκαδήμεια on Attic inscriptions, see Threatte (1980) i.128 (with bibliography and discussion); cf. Meisterhans (31900) 41, 50. NB the original form of the name was Ἑκαδήμεια (the loss of the aspiration remains unexplained). In line 3 codex A preserves the reading Βρυσων ὁ θρασυμαχειοληψικερμάτων, which Meineke perceived as one word and accordingly corrected to Βρυσωνοθρασυμαχειοληψικερμάτων; the latter reading removes the syntactically inapposite nominative Βρυσων and provides the text with a second, syntactically anticipated (cf. line 2 καί) partitive genitive (the first one being τῶν ἐξ Ἀκαδημείας).

Ναυαγός (fr. 14)

149

In line 4 codex A preserves the incomprehensible and non-metrical reading λιψιγομισθω (which Kassel-Austin print between cruces). Numerous scholars have attempted to remedy the text and restore both the sense and the metre, in what was manifestly meant as a hapax term (scholarly conjectures are recorded in the critical apparatus above). However, the reading to be adopted here needs not only to be notionally and metrically sound, but also palaeographically close to the ms. reading (so that one can explain how the error occurred during the transmission process). The reading that satisfies all these requirements and the one that I have chosen to adopt is Meineke’s ληψιλογομίσθῳ (a compound coinage alluding to the notion of receiving payment through the art of talking: λαμβάνω + λόγος + μισθός). It is easily conceivable that the scribe, vis-à-vis with a term he had never seen before, ran a high risk of making a mistake whilst copying it – and so did he; he left out one syllable (-λo- ; in a quasi-haplographic manner, given the following syllable -γo-) and turned the ēta of the first syllable into an iota (probably through eye-skipping to the second syllable -ψι-). In line 7 Scaliger corrected the unintelligible reading ὑποκαθιεῖ σατομα of codex A to ὑποκαθιεὶς ἄτομα, thus furnishing the text with another participle (ὑποκαθιείς), which sustains the ongoing syntactic structure based on participles (cf. ἔχων and τιθείς in the preceding and the following line respectively). Scaliger’s remedying attempts are also valuable in line 8, where he replaced the reading πολλά of codex A with the reading πόδα (the presence of sandal, πεδίλῳ, in the same line corroborates Scaliger’s emendation). At the end of the same line codex A preserves the reading ὑπὸ ξυρόν, which Kassel-Austin print between cruces, since the meaning is problematic. Dobree suggested the reading ὑποξύλῳ (with reference to πεδίλῳ, thus alluding to the wooden base of a cothurnus), while Kaibel proposed either ἐπισφύρων or περισφύρων (with reference to ἱμάντων). However, in my text I chose to adopt Scaliger’s emendation ὑπόξυρον (lit. cut away as if by a razor; hence lean, slender), which I consider the most fitting solution; not only is quasi-identical to the manuscript reading, but it also allows for a defensible meaning (see further comm. s. v.). Interpretation This fragment calumniates Plato and the Academy articulating an amalgam of accusations; as such, the fragment lands in the very middle of and heartily continues a long-running literary tradition of comic attacks against philosophers in general and against Plato (and the Academy) in particular, whilst employing the Old Comedy’s favourite technique of ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν (see Weiher 1913; Imperio 1998; Zimmermann 1993). The speaker describes in detail a young dandy, a student in Plato’s Academy (better say, a would-be philosopher). The comic character ironically emphasizes the youth’s excessively elaborate style and extravagant appearance (regarding his hair, beard, feet, sandals, cloak, etc.), castigates his crooked pursuit of money, and insinuates that his proclaimed devotion to Philosophy is fake. The speaker’s report (along with the fragment) concludes with the narrative switching to direct speech and with the young Platonist addressing a group of Athenians (probably at the Athenian Popular Assembly or

150

Ephippus

at some court – NB the reference of Academy in line 2 precludes the possibility that we are currently at the Academy). As the emphatic remark on his provenance strongly suggests (line 2), the young Platonist is to be interpreted as representative of all members/students of the Academy, and his character as primarily reflecting that of his teacher, Plato. The fragment’s language and style are excessively affected and pretentious featuring a number of (para)tragic echoes and disproportianately elevated language (e. g. lines 4, 7, 8, 9, 13; cf. comm. ad loc.). Through an over-elaborate style, the speaker describes the young dandy’s overstated appearance, which, however, does not correspond to an equally fervent devotion to Philosophy, but rather proves to be a theatrical façade. The youth’s overall presentation conveys an air of fraudulence that is reminiscent of Plutarch’s description of a flatterer’s obsequious and imitative behaviour and attire, when he is on the track of a scholarly and studious young man (52c ἂν δὲ θηρεύῃ φιλόλογον καὶ φιλομαθῆ νέον); cf. Pl. Phdr. 239d. The archetypical antecedents regarding comic satire against philosophers (mainly, albeit not exclusively, against Socrates) are to be found in Old Comedy, and especially in Aristophanes’ Clouds (cf. Dover 1968a: xxxii-lvii; NB the reference to the Academy in this play, line 1005, has no Platonic associations), Amipsias’ Connus (cf. Orth 2013: 213–248), and Eupolis’ Kolakes frr. 157, 158 (cf. Olson 2016: 34, 43–52, Carey 2000); cf. also Eup. frr. 386, 395 (cf. Olson 2014: 130–135, 157–160). For posterior manifestations of satire towards philosophers, see Papachrysostomou 2014–2015. Within Middle Comedy the philosopher figure most commonly mocked (for various reasons) is Plato (see Brock 1990, Farmer 2017a); yet, most satire against him is fairly innocuous (largely due to society’s familiarization with philosophical tenets in general; cf. Imperio 1998: 120–130) and often targets aspects that are peripheral – if not irrelevant – to the essence of Plato’s teachings; e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 20, Alex. fr. 151, Amphis fr. 13 (see Papachrysostomou 2016: 87–93). But even when referring to Plato’s philosophy, the comic playwrights refrain from conveying any serious criticism, and the satire against both Plato and the Academy remains largely anodyne; e. g. Amphis fr. 6 (see Papachrysostomou 2016: 49–55, with further examples), Alex. fr. 163, Antiph. fr. 35, Cratin.Jun. fr. 10 (cf. Mastellari 2020: 125–131). An outstanding passage, largely parallel to Ephippus’ present fragment (albeit with no pronounced acrimony or serious slander against anyone), is – the quite substantial – Epicr. fr. 10, featuring a (comically twisted) snapshot from one of the Academy’s sessions, with Plato and students contemplating on trivial issues. Furthermore, Plato features as a title-figure in a play by Aristopho (Πλάτων; PCG 4,6, with one surviving fragment; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 120–122, Orth 2020: 72–78). However, Ephippus’ present fragment stands out due to the explicit charge (lines 3–4) that Plato and his students use cunning and devious money-making methods (cf. Athenaeus’ phraseology in introducing the fragment: ἐπ᾿ ἀργυρίῳ συκοφαντοῦντας), whilst falsely cultivating Philosophy as a façade. The only other fragment that could vie with Ephippus’ one is perhaps Alex. fr. 99, where the speaker is jubilant on the

Ναυαγός (fr. 14)

151

occasion of the philosophers’ withdrawal from Attica (following a bill of 307 BC requiring all philosophers to be registered by the state; cf. Arnott 1996: 260–265). The uncomplimentary portrait of Plato (as reported by various sources and epitomized by Athenaeus) is counterbalanced by a diametrically different branch of the tradition (e. g. Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Stobaeus), which sees Plato favourably and acknowledges him as a dignified philosopher. For further reading on anti-platonic tradition see Fenk 1913, Düring 1941, Trapp 2000; for a collection of all surviving anecdotes about Plato (148 in total), see the comprehensive monograph of Riginos (1976), who concludes that the anecdotes are “on the whole, unreliable as sources of information about the historical Plato” (o.c. 199). Metre Line 3 features – necessarily – no caesura, since it consists of one long compound term; cf. comm. ad loc. 1 The overall demeanour of the stylish young man is heavily reminiscent (in terms of both style and phraseology) of Ar. Ec. 427–429 μετὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν εὐπρεπὴς νεανίας / λευκός τις ἀνεπήδησ᾿ … / δημηγορήσων, κἀπεχείρησεν λέγειν (after that, a pale, good-looking young man sprang to his feet to address the people and attempted to make a case). In addition, Fraenkel (1912: 34–36) draws attention to further quasi-parallel passages, i. e. E. Or. 902–905 κἀπὶ τῷδ᾿ ἀνίσταται / ἀνήρ τις ἀθυρόγλωσσος, ἰσχύων θράσει· / … ἠναγκασμένος, / θορύβῳ τε πίσυνος κἀμαθεῖ παρρησίᾳ (then there stood up a man with no check on his tongue, strong in his brashness … suborned, relying on noise from the crowd and the obtuse license of his tongue), and Pl.Com. fr. 200, which features a skinny individual about to start speaking (lines 3–4: σκελετός, ἄπυγος, καλάμινα σκέλη φορῶν, / φθόης προφήτης: thin as a rake, no butt to speak of, walking on legs like reeds, a harbinger of decay). Of course, the imagery of an ‘orator’ (in the broadest sense of the term) who rises and solemnly assumes speaking in front of an audience traces back to the Homeric assembly (ἀγορή) and is exemplified on various occasions throughout the Homeric poems (NB the usage of the verb ἀνίστημι, also present in Ephippus’ fragment); e. g. Il. 1.58 (τοῖσι δ᾿ ἀνιστάμενος μετέφη πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς: among them rose and spoke Achilles, swift of foot), Il. 2.76–78 (τοῖσι δ᾿ ἀνέστη Νέστωρ … ὅ σφιν ἐὺ φρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν: among them rose up Nestor … He with good intent addressed the assembly and spoke among them), etc. 1 εὔστοχος The literal meaning of the adjective εὔστοχος,-ον is well-aimed, e. g. E. HF 195 ὅσοι δὲ τόξοις χεῖρ᾿ ἔχουσιν εὔστοχον (the men who are skilled with the bow), X. Eq. 12.13 μακρότατον οἴσεται τὸ ἀκόντιον, εὐστοχώτατον μέντοι (he will give the javelin the furthest carrying power, and it will be most likely to hit the mark). However, in Ephippus’ present fragment the term is used metaphorically to signify the shrewd, perceptive person who thinks acutely and makes well-aimed remarks. This figurative meaning is introduced into Greek language via philosophy, its earliest occurrence being Pl. Lg. 950b θεῖον δέ τι καὶ εὔστοχον ἔνεστι καὶ τοῖσι κακοῖς (even in the wicked there resides a divine and shrewd intuition); cf. also Arist. Rh. 1412a12 οἷον καὶ ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ ἐν πολὺ διέχουσι θεωρεῖν

152

Ephippus

εὐστόχου (just as, for instance, in philosophy it needs sagacity to grasp the similarity in things that are apart). It is neither irrelevant nor a coincidence that in a passage where the Platonic school is disparaged Ephippus employs εὔστοχος with the very same meaning that Plato first did. 2a Ἀκαδημείας The Academy; the renowned philosophical school established by Plato. The Academy’s contribution in promoting Platonism and facilitating its evolution and dissemination for some three hundred years, its historical and social milieu, as well as its cultural/philosophical impact are analytically discussed in the collected volume published by Kalligas et al. 2020. On the presence of and the satire against Academy in Comedy see “Interpretation”. On the name’s form cf. “Constitution of Text”. For a general account of the Academy and its topography see Judeich (21931) 412–414; Hill (1952) 221; Travlos (1971) 42–51. 2b ὑπὸ Πλάτωνα For (Middle) Comedy’s attitude towards Plato see “Interpretation”. It is significant that the present syntax conveys conspicuous connotations of servile dependence; when the preposition ὑπό takes the accusative (of a proper name, personal pronoun or certain common nouns), it often designates a relation of control and subjection (cf. LSJ9 s. v. C.II), e. g. Hdt. 7.108 ἦν ὑπὸ βασιλέα δασμοφόρος (it [sc. the country] was tributary to the king), Th. 4.60.2 τάδε πάντα πειράσασθαι ὑπὸ σφᾶς ποιεῖσθαι (try to bring everything here under their sway), Pl. R. 348d πόλεις τε καὶ ἔθνη δυνάμενοι ἀνθρώπων ὑφ’ ἑαυτοὺς ποιεῖσθαι (having the power to subject cities and nations to themselves), Men. Mis. fr. 5 ὑπό τιν᾿ ἦν τῶν βασιλέων (I served under one of their kings). In Ephippus’ present fragment the speaker employs this syntactical pattern to scornfully imply that the young man has not been a genuine student of Plato (e. g. he could have said τῶν μετὰ Πλάτωνος: one of those who are/study with Plato), but rather subservient to him (because of some force majeure, cf. line 4 πληγεὶς ἀνάγκῃ, and not because of true love for phisophy). 3 Βρυσωνοθρασυμαχειοληψικερμάτων This hapax term is coined by Ephippus, in order to convey in a single word an amalgam of notions climaxing to the concept of money-making business (λαμβάνω + κέρμα). The influence of Aristophanes’ long compound hapax formations is manifest; the longest compound occurs in Ecclesiazusae (taking up six and a half lines, 1169–1175), whereas other similar Aristophanic hapaxes are collected by Van Leeuwen (1902: 82–83; comm. on Av. 491 s. v. τορνευτολυρασπιδοπηγοί). The first component of Ephippus’ present coinage is the name of Βρύσων Ἡρακλεώτης. Bryson (late fifth – early fourth century BC) originated from Heraclea in Pontus (a colony of Megara on the south shore of the Black Sea; cf. Burstein 1974), but lived in Athens, where he became a pupil of either Socrates or Eucleides (or probably both). He earned the reputation of an acclaimed mathematician and an eloquent philosopher/sophist, whose rhetorical flair appears to have aggravated Aristotle at least on one occasion (regarding the possibility of αἰσχρολογεῖν, Rh. 1405b9–10). Bryson was associated with the Megarian school

Ναυαγός (fr. 14)

153

and was believed to have founded the ‘eristic dialectic’ (Sud. σ 829,27–31 … ὃς τὴν ἐριστικὴν διαλεκτικὴν εἰσήγαγε, cf. Arist. SE 172a3–4, and see Döring 1972: 158–159, 163). Cf. Braund & Hall (2014) 372–373, 379 n. 32. The present allusion regarding Bryson’s link with Plato may not be as inapposite as it looks, if we take into account what Athenaeus reports earlier in his text (11.508c–d; based on material drawn from Theopompus FGrH 115 F 259) about how Plato used to misappropriate the work of other authors, including the treatises of Bryson (on Athenaeus’ sources see Düring 1941: 37, 82, and Trapp 2000): τοὺς πολλούς, φησί, τῶν διαλόγων αὐτοῦ ἀχρείους καὶ ψευδεῖς ἄν τις εὕροι· ἀλλοτρίους δὲ τοὺς πλείους … πολλοὺς δὲ κἀκ τῶν Βρύσωνος τοῦ Ἡρακλεώτου (the majority of his dialogues are useless and full of lies. Most of them are actually by other authors … and many are excerpts from the works of Bryson of Heraclea – this is Bryson fr. 207 Döring); cf. comm. s. v. ἀλλότριον … , lines 12–13 below. The sophist Thrasymachus of Chalcedon (DK 85) makes up the second component of Ephippus’ hapax adjective. Thrasymachus lived during the second half of the fifth century BC and is best known for being a character in Plato’s Republic, where he articulates a memorable theory of and critique on justice (in brief, justice being the advantage of the stronger); cf. Vasiliou (2008) 172–191 and Santas (2010) 15–54. Interestingly, in the long section of Deipnosophistae that precedes the quotation of Ephippus’ fragment (cf. “Citation Context”), Athenaeus claims that Plato used to calumniate the sophist Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, by saying that he deserved his name (11.505c διαβάλλει δὲ ὁ Πλάτων καὶ Θρασύμαχον τὸν Χαλκηδόνιον σοφιστὴν ὅμοιον εἶναι λέγων τῷ ὀνόματι), i. e. being a “bold fighter”, an accusation also cast against Thrasymachus by Herodicus (as preserved by Arist. Rh. 1400b29): καὶ Ἡρόδικος Θρασύμαχον “ἀεὶ θρασύμαχος εἶ” (Herodicus said of Thrasymachus, “you are ever bold in fight”). 4a πληγεὶς ἀνάγκῃ Driven / struck by nececcity. The term ἀνάγκη is reminiscent of tragedy (cf. “Interpretation”), where it frequently occurs in stereotypical expressions designating the unavoidable and/or the lack of alternative options (e. g. S. Tr. 295 πολλή ’στ’ ἀνάγκη, E. Med. 1013 πολλή μ’ ἀνάγκη, E. Hec. 396 πολλή γ’ ἀνάγκη). Nonetheless, the present occurrence of ἀνάγκη bears a conspicuously rare meaning; it means duress / force majeure, a compulsion which – often, as in the present case – stems from dire financial predicament; cf. Th. 3.82 ἐν μὲν γὰρ εἰρήνῃ … αἵ τε πόλεις καὶ οἱ ἰδιῶται ἀμείνους τὰς γνώμας ἔχουσι διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐς ἀκουσίους ἀνάγκας πίπτειν (for in peace … both states and individuals have gentler feelings, because they are not forced to face conditions of dire necessity), Stob. 3.28.13 (= Democr. 350) ὅρκους οὓς ποιέονται ἐν ἀνάγκῃσιν ἐόντες, οὐ τηρέουσιν οἱ φλαῦροι ἐπὴν διαφύγωσιν (worthless people do not respect oaths that they made when they were under duress once they escape from it). Ephippus’ present usage of the term ἀνάγκη and the meaning of the whole expression (πληγεὶς ἀνάγκῃ) are further comparable to the ignoble connotations attached to the participle ἠναγκασμένος in E. Or. 903–904 ἀνήρ τις ἀθυρόγλωσσος, ἰσχύων θράσει· / [Ἀργεῖος οὐκ Ἀργεῖος, ἠναγκασμένος (then there stood up a man with no check on his tongue, strong in

154

Ephippus

his brashness, [he was an Argive by origin but no Argive in character, suborned); cf. Krieg (1934) 40. Likewise, the speaker in Ephippus’ fragment wishes to emphasize that what led the young man to Plato’s Academy was not some special calling for Philosophy, but rather his sheer poverty. 4b ληψιλογομίσθῳ τέχνῃ Cunning craft (τέχνη) of dexterously handling speech (λόγος) in order to receive (ληψι- < λαμβάνω) remuneration (μισθός). The hapax compound ληψιλογομίσθῳ is Meineke’s resourceful emendation (cf. “Constitution of Text”). The noun τέχνη is to be interpreted in a bad sense, as craft, cunning (cf. LSJ9 s. v. I.2). The speaker continues (cf. previous lemmata) to denigrate Plato, the Academy and the young student(s) / follower(s), by coining a hapax term, especially to highlight the fact that the solemnity (of style and appearance) exhibited by Plato and his students is nothing more than a cheap – albeit elaborate and deceptive – façade, a cunning and ignoble craft to make money by mesmerizing the listeners. 5 οὐκ ἄσκεπτα δυνάμενος λέγειν The rhetorical device of double negative (οὐκ + ἄσκεπτα) is presently used most appositely and eloquently, in order to precisely describe the young Platonist as a potent orator and a dexterous public speaker. The adjective ἄσκεπτος designates someone/something that is either inconsiderate, unreflecting or unconsidered, unobserved; e. g. Pl. R. 438a μήτοι τις ἀσκέπτους ἡμᾶς ὄντας θορυβήσῃ (lest someone protest that we have not thought this through), X. Mem. 4.2.19 ἵνα μηδὲ τοῦτο παραλίπωμεν ἄσκεπτον (for we mustn’t overlook that either). 6 μαχαίρᾳ A barber’s tool, shears / scissors (LSJ9 s. v. I.3). Unlike the present case, the term typically occurs in plural (μάχαιραι or μάχαιραι κουρίδες, e. g. Cratin. fr. 39), whilst in Ar. Ach. 849 emphasis is put on the singular number: ἀποκεκαρμένος … μιᾷ μαχαίρᾳ (with a haircut done with single scissors). In that regard, Pollux claims the following (2.32): ἔλεγον δέ τι οἱ κωμῳδοὶ καὶ κείρεσθαι μιᾷ μαχαίρᾳ, ἐπὶ τῶν καλλωπιζομένων· τὴν δὲ μάχαιραν ταύτην καὶ ψαλίδα κεκλήκασιν (the comic playwrights used to use the expression “cut off one’s hair with a single blade”, with reference to dandies; this specific blade was also called ‘ψαλίς’ [shears]); cf. Poll. 10.140. The emphasis on one μάχαιρα (in Pollux, Ar. Ach. 849 and the present fragment) leads one to suspect that the singular number (μάχαιρα) designated a somehow different implement, other than μάχαιραι (in plural); indeed, Nicolson makes this technical differentiation and convincingly argues that (1981: 15) “μία μάχαιρα or ψαλίς” was a special kind of shears, which “consisted of a single piece of elastic metal, bent on itself in the middle and having the two edges sharpened” (i. e. the singular number referring to the single piece of metal out of which these specifir shears were forged). 7a ὑποκαθιείς The verb καθίημι is the terminus technicus typically employed to describe the action of letting one’s beard grow long; cf. D.L. 6.13 (πώγωνα καθεῖναι), Plu. Lys. 1.1 (πώγωνα καθειμένου), Luc. Pisc. 11 (πώγωνας βαθεῖς καθειμένοις), etc. In the present case Ephippus employs a slight variation using ὑποκαθίημι

Ναυαγός (fr. 14)

155

instead, in what qualifies as a hapax usage of this verb with reference to a growing beard. The preposition ὑπό in composition (cf. LSJ9 s. v. F2) is symptomatic of anything that is in small degree or gradual. Apart from serving the metre, it is possible that the precise meaning of gradually letting the beard grow reflects the young man’s fastidiousness and excessive attention to detail. 7b ἄτομα ἄτομος,-ον (< alpha privative + τέμνω) means uncut and is presently used in an unparalleled way in association with beard growing long. 7c ἄτομα πώγωνος βάθη Uncut depths of beard; a disproportionately elevated periphrasis and an elaborate variation of the commonly used adjective βαθυπώγων. Growing a long, thick beard often features in ancient texts as a habit regularly practised by philosophers (e. g. Plu. 710b about some Stoic philosopher: βαθυπώγωνα σοφιστὴν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς) and/or as a sign of fake maturity, wisdom, and trustworthiness. This habit is typically met with sarcasm and perceived as a hypocritical veil of the philosophers’ uncouthness; e. g. Luc. JTr. 26 μηδὲν αἰδεσθεὶς εἰ ἀγένειος ὢν δημηγορήσεις, καὶ ταῦτα βαθυπώγωνα καὶ εὐγένειον οὕτως υἱὸν ἔχων τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν (don’t be shy about speaking without a beard when you have such a long-bearded, hairy-faced son in Asclepius), Luc. Philops. 5 βαθὺν πώγωνα καθειμένος ἑξηκοντούτης ἀνήρ, ἔτι καὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ συνὼν τὰ πολλά (with such a long beard, a man of sixty, and a great devotee of philosophy too), Luc. Pisc. 41 (with Nesselrath 1985: 452), Alciphr. 3.19.3–4 ὁ Ἐπικούρειος Ζηνοκράτης … ἐπὶ βαθεῖ τῷ πώγωνι σεμνυνόμενος (the Epicurean Zenocrates … proud of his full beard); on Lucian’s treatment of philosophy and philosophers in general see Helm (1906) 371–386, Jones (1986) 24–32. Studniczka (in Bechert et al. 1897: 222) detects similarities between Plato’s literary portrait and Theophrastus’ Characters. 8 The line sounds like a paratragic paraphrasis of E. fr. 124.1–3 τίν᾿ ἐς γῆν βαρβάρων ἀφίγμεθα / ταχεῖ πεδίλῳ; διὰ μέσου γὰρ αἰθέρος / τέμνων κέλευθον πόδα τίθημ᾿ ὑπόπτερον (to what barbarians’ land has my swift sandal brought me? Cutting my path through middle heaven, I set my winged foot). It is probable that the Euripidean echo is not accidental, but a deliberate attempt to generate an overall elevated style and affected diction (cf. “Interpretation”). 8 ὑπόξυρον This reading is Scaliger’s resourceful emendation (cf. “Constitution of Text”). The adjective ὑπόξυρος occurs rarely in ancient texts; and when it does, the manuscripts attest to a large-scale confusion between the readings ὑπόξυρος and ὑπόξηρος (e. g. in three Hippocratic passages, Art. 77, Fract. 4 and Epid. 6.8.26; NB the manuscripts preserve both readings interchangeably). LSJ9 interpret ὑπόξυρος as “cut away as if by a razor” (whence the germane meaning of lean, slender can reasonably be deduced) and ὑπόξηρος as “somewhat dry” and also “lean, slender – of parts that have not much flesh over them”. The meanings of these two terms are very much alike (Manetti & Roselli 1982: 189 acknowledge their synonymity and interchangeability); this impression is further corroborated by Galen’s corresponding glosses: 19.149.13 ὑπόξυρος· γρυπὸς τὴν ῥῖνα, διὰ τὸ ταπεινότερα τὰ πέριξ εἶναι τοῦ ὑψώματος (of an aquiline nose, for the surroundings are lower

156

Ephippus

than the bridge of the nose) and 19.149.12 ὑπόξηρα· ὑπόκοιλα, ταπεινότερα (slightly concave, lower). One of the aforementioned Hippocratic passages, Art. 77, is relevant to Ephippus’ present fragment (on the grounds of associating the adjective ὑπόξυρος to the lower part of leg / foot), thus substantiating the correctness of Scaliger’s conjecture: οἱ μηροί … ἄνωθεν σαρκώδεές τε καὶ σύμμηροι, ἐς δὲ τὸ κάτω ὑπόξυροι (at the top the thighs are fleshy and close together, but they are slenderer downwards). 9 ἱμάντων ἰσομέτροις ἑλίγμασιν A highly elaborate expression (cf. “Interpretation”) that describes how the youth’s sandals are bound around the leg via straps (ἱμάντων) that have undergone bends (ἑλίγμασιν) of equal measure (ἰσομέτροις). It is possible that the sandals in question are of the specific elaborate kind that Pollux (7.94) calls ῥᾴδια (glossed by LSJ9 s. v. as “a kind of easy shoes”) and further describes as ποικίλον καὶ πολυέλικτον ὑπόδημα (an intricate and much convoluted sandal); Pollux also testifies to the fact that both Pherecrates (fr. 261) and Plato Com. (fr. 282) mentioned this special type of sandal (unfortunately, the actual wording of these two comic fragments does not survive). 10a ὄγκῳ χλανίδος χλανίς,-ίδος (ἡ) is a unisex, large, woolen upper-garment, very much like a cloak/cape, albeit much more luxurious than a τρίβων (threadbare cloak). The adjacent presence of ὄγκῳ (bulk, size, mass) reveals the typically bulky nature of χλανίς, a quality that is equally manifest in Ephipp. fr. 19.25 χλανίδ’ ἕλκων (dragging his cloak) and Anaxil. fr. 18.2 χλανίδας ἕλκων (trailing his cloaks), cf. Tartaglia (2019) 93–94. The present fragment implies that students of the Academy were distinguishable because of their stereotypically extravagant style and overwhelmingly elaborate appearance; this implication is substantiated by Antiph. fr. 35, where the luxurious outfit of some unknown individual (lines 3–4 λευκὴ χλανίς, φαιὸς χιτωνίσκος καλός, / πιλίδιον ἁπαλόν, εὔρυθμος βακτηρία: a white mantle, a nice little gray cloak, a small, soft felt cap, an elegant staff) leads the comic character to acknowledge him as the embodiment of the Academy itself (lines 5–6 ὅλως / αὐτὴν ὁρᾶν γὰρ τὴν Ἀκαδήμειαν δοκῶ: I’m seeing the Academy itself, pure and simple). This affected demeanour is later echoed in Lucian’s Symposium, where the Platonic philosopher Ion is described as (§7) σεμνός τις ἰδεῖν καὶ θεοπρεπὴς καὶ πολὺ τὸ κόσμιον ἐπιφαίνων τῷ προσώπῳ (a grave and reverend person to look at, with great dignity written on his features). 10b εὖ τεθωρακισμένος An imaginative allegory meant to accentuate the ongoing irony towards the young Platonist. The present perfect participle of the verb θωρακίζω is used metaphorically in what qualifies as a hapax visualization of a person / (would-be)philosopher being nicely and comfortably covered / enshrouded / cushioned away beneath his warm, bulky cloak (ὄγκῳ χλανίδος, cf. previous note), as if the latter served like some kind of armour that kept the philosopher safe and unscathed from all the dangerous and disconcerting issues of the real world. Cf. Studniczka in Bechert et al. (1897) 222.

Ναυαγός (fr. 14)

157

11 βακτηρίᾳ This is a manifestation of a ritual/pattern that traces back to Homer; anyone who was about to address an audience (be it Agamemnon in front of the Achaeans or an orator before the Athenian Popular Assembly) used to hold a βακτηρία or σκῆπτρον (staff, stick, cane) during their speech (commonly given to the speaker by the herald). This staff served as a symbolic and highly significant piece of equipment that rendered the speaker venerable, inviolate, and untouchable; cf. Hom. Il. 2.46 (of Agamemnon) εἵλετο δὲ σκῆπτρον πατρώιον, ἄφθιτον αἰεί· / σὺν τῷ ἔβη κατὰ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων (he took the staff of his fathers, imperishable ever, and with it set out along the ships of the bronze-clad Achaeans), Hom. Od. 2.36–38 (of Telemachus) μενοίνησεν δ᾿ ἀγορεύειν, / στῆ δὲ μέσῃ ἀγορῇ· σκῆπτρον δέ οἱ ἔμβαλε χειρὶ / κῆρυξ Πεισήνωρ (he was eager to speak; so he took his stand in the midst of the assembly, and the staff was placed in his hands by the herald Peisenor). The following passage from Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae features comparable imagery and language with Ephippus’ present fragment, i. e. about leaning one’s figure on the staff (NB the reference here is to a woman disguised as a man; lines 149–150): ἄγε νυν ὅπως ἀνδριστὶ καὶ καλῶς ἐρεῖς / διερεισαμένη τὸ σχῆμα τῇ βακτηρίᾳ (speak like a man and be cogent, leaning your stature hard on your stick) – albeit with sexual connotations (cf. Sommerstein 1998a: 151). 12–13 ἀλλότριον, οὐκ οἰκεῖον … / ἔλεξεν The adjective ἀλλότριον defines the suppressed λόγον, which is the internal object of ἔλεξεν (on cognate accusative see Smyth 1956: §§ 1563–1577). The speaker accuses the young Platonist of delivering a speech written by someone other than himself; this reproach coincides with – and appears to substantiate – a major allegation voiced by Athenaeus in the paragraphs preceding the quotation of Ephippus’ present fragment. Remarkably, Athenaeus uses the same term, ἀλλότριος, to doubt the authorship of Plato’s dialogues (cf. “Citation Context” and comm. s. v. Βρυσωνοθρασυμαχειοληψικερμάτων) and further claim that most of them are not Plato’s own work but excerpts of treatises by other members of the Socratic circle, such as Aristippus of Cyrene (SSR IV A 26), Antisthenes (PAA 136800, SSR V A 147), and Bryson of Heraclea Pontica: 11.508c–d ἀλλοτρίους δὲ τοὺς πλείους (sc. τῶν διαλόγων αὐτοῦ), ὄντας ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστίππου διατριβῶν, ἐνίους δὲ κἀκ τῶν Ἀντισθένους, πολλοὺς δὲ κἀκ τῶν Βρύσωνος τοῦ Ἡρακλεώτου. Elsewhere (8.343c–d, 11.507b) Athenaeus testifies to an ongoing hostility between Aristippus and Plato (which would not be irrelevant to the accusations against the latter allegedly misappropriating the work of the former). 13 ἄνδρες τῆς Ἀθηναίων χθονός This is a poetic, affected variation of the commonly occurring, prosaic formula (ὦ) ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, e. g. Hdt. 8.140, Th. 1.53.2, Isoc. 14.1, And. 3.13, X. HG 1.7.16, Pl. Ap. 17a, D. 1.1, etc. In tragedy the name of a land is often given in periphrasis (the latter being a feature of elevated style) consisting of the noun χθών plus an ethnic adjective, e. g. A. Sup. 912 ἀνδρῶν Πελασγῶν … χθόνα (land of Pelasgian men), E. fr. 223.114 πεδία Θηβαίας χθονός (plains of Theban land), E. Ba. 961 διὰ μέσης … Θηβαίας χθονός (through the middle of Theban land).

158

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (Homoioi vel Obeliaphoroi) (“The Look-alikes” or “The Spit-bread Bearers”) Discussion Meineke 1,353; Bothe 494; Kock 2,258; Edmonds 2,154f.; PCG 5,144 Title The notion of “similarity” / “resemblance” that is present in the first title (Ὅμοιοι) strongly suggests a comedy of errors, a play of confused identities (cf. Webster 21970: 67–68), i. e. a play featuring some major confusion(s) and misunderstanding(s) originating from the characters’ ignorance of certain events or relations among them, and/or from the similarity/resemblance between two or more individuals (e. g. identical twins/brothers or unrelated look-alikes). If Ephippus’ present play was indeed a comedy of errors, then this is presumably a fourth-century antecedent to Menander’s Perikeiromene (where initial ignorance regarding Glykera’s, Moschion’s, and Pataikos’ blood relationship leads to a series of misunderstandings before culminating in back-to-back revelations, reconciliations, and recognitions). Ephippus was not the only poet who explored the comic potential of this thematic pattern. Within the comic output there are two further plays entitled Ὅμοιοι, by Posidippus (PCG 7,571) and Metrodorus (PCG 7,14); there is also a play called Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι by Antiphanes (PCG 2,406f.), while Alexis wrote an Ὁμοία (PCG 2,116f.; on the play’s disputed authorship between Alexis and Antidotus, see Arnott 1996: 492–493). In addition, we know of two plays entitled Ὁμώνυμοι (Men with the same name), one by Antiphanes (PCG 2,410f.) and one by Dionysius (PCG 5,36–38). The Roman comic playwright Lucius Afranius wrote a play called Equales (Of the same age; CRF3 194); for a similar identity confusion see Plautus’ Menaechmi (cf. Segal 2001). Kock (2,375) argued that Alexis’ Συντρέχοντες may have also designated and dealt with individuals of the same age (“aequales aetate”), but Arnott (1996: 615) readily rejects this conjecture. The play’s alternative title, Ὀβελιαφόροι, suggests a religious association with Dionysus, since the ὀβελιαφόροι were the men who – during Dionysiac processions – carried some special kind of bread called ὀβελίας, in honour of Dionysus, who was supposedly the one who discovered it (Ath. 3.111b). This type of bread was remarkably huge (Poll. 6.75 ἐκ μεδίμνου ἑνὸς ἢ δυοῖν ἢ τριῶν τὸ μέγεθος: they were of one or two or three bushels in size) and was thus named either because it cost an obol (Ath. 3.111b ὅτι ὀβολοῦ πιπράσκεται) or because it was baked spitted on skewers (Ath. 3.111b ὅτι ἐν ὀβελίσκοις ὠπτᾶτο, cf. Hsch. ο 18). Photius (ο 314.1) offers a slightly different description: ὀβελίας ἄρτος· περιπεπλασμένος μακρῷ ξύλῳ καὶ οὕτως ὀπτώμενος· γίνεται δὲ παραμήκης καὶ γαστρώδης (ὀβελίας bread: kneaded against a long piece of wood and so baked; it becomes elongated and convex). Regarding the grammatic form of the play’s alternative title (i. e. a compound term that has the noun φορεύς as second component), Ephippus’ Ὀβελιαφόροι is paralleled by four other comic play-titles, which similarly designate a group of individuals as carriers / bearers of certain objects: Hermippus’ Φορμοφόροι (Basketbearers), Aristomenes’ Κολεοφόροι ἢ Ὑλοφόροι (Sheath-bearers or Wood-bearers), Eubulus’ Καλαθηφόροι (Basket-bearers), and Philetaerus’ Λαμπαδηφόροι (Torch-

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι

159

bearers). Eubulus and Philetaerus belong in Middle Comedy, just like Ephippus; the plural number of male individuals featuring in the respective play-titles may cautiously be interpreted as possible evidence for the continuation of the chorus during the fourth century BC, not only as physical presence, but also as an agent significant to the plot (for the comic chorus beyond the fifth century BC, see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 6.2a). Fragmentarily surviving dramatic plays, especially comic ones, bearing double titles is a common phenomenon. Universally absent from didascalic inscriptions, most of Comedy’s alternative titles trace back to the Hellenistic era and the Alexandrian scholarship, whereas there is no sound evidence that the addition of an alternative title was ever the comic poet’s own initiative; thorough discussions of this practice and the manifold reasons behind it (e. g. restaging, emphasis on leading character(s), scholiast’s/scribe’s incidental remark, avoiding confusion between homonymous plays, etc.) are carried out by Hunter (1983) 146–148 and Arnott (1996) 51 (both providing further bibliography). As to the reason(s) that gave rise to a double title for Ephippus’ present play, a tenable conjecture is that the spit-bread bearers were also look-alikes; even so, it is impossible to know which title was the one that Ephippus originally assigned to the play. Usener (1914: iii.24) wonders whether one should discern two different plays here, given that Athenaeus (8.359a) introduces fr. 15 only by the second title (ἐν τοῖς Ὀβελιαφόροις), but mentions both titles (ἐν Ὁμοίοις ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροις) in 11.482d (fr. 16). Date With all probability, the play belongs to Ephippus’ early career (cf. Intro. 2 “Chronology & Career”). In the year 367 BC Dionysius I of Syracuse competed at the Lenaea festival in Athens with a tragic play and won the first prize (TrGF 76 F 2a; cf. test. 1 and 3 ad loc.). Given the reference to Dionysius in Ephipp. fr. 16.1 (cf. comm. ad loc.), the play’s performance possibly took place in the immediately following years. Yet, since Dionysius is additionally reported to have previously participated in Athens’ dramatic contests (winning second and third place), caution is in order regarding the dating of the present play; i. e. Ephippus could have been inspired by some previous participation of Dionysius in Athens’ tragic contests. Edmonds (2,157) reckons that Ephippus’ present play was produced in 367 or 366 BC (although he does not provide any reasoning for this date, it is possible that he means to relate the play to Dionysius’ victory). Webster (21970: 68) dates the play before 370 BC, but fails to provide any reasoning for this suggestion. All in all, we can acknowledge the year 367 BC as a tentative terminus post quem for the play's production.

160

Ephippus

fr. 15 (15 K.)

5

10

(A.) ἀλλ᾿ ἀγόρασον εὐτελῶς· ἅπαν γὰρ ἱκανόν ἐστι. (B.) φράζ᾿, ὦ δέσποτα. (A.) μὴ πολυτελῶς, ἀλλὰ καθαρείως, ὅ τι ἂν ᾖ, ὁσίας ἕνεκ᾿· ἀρκεῖ τευθίδια, σηπίδια, κἂν κάραβός τις ᾖ λαβεῖν, εἷς ἀρκέσει ἢ δύ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν. ἐγχελύδια Θήβηθεν ἐνίοτ᾿ ἔρχεται· τούτων λαβέ. ἀλεκτρυόνιον, φάττιον, περδίκιον, τοιαῦτα. δασύπους ἄν τις εἰσέλθῃ, φέρε. (B.) ὡς μικρολόγος εἶ. (A.) σὺ δέ γε λίαν πολυτελής. πάντως κρέ᾿ ἡμῖν ἔστι. (B.) πότερ᾿ ἔπεμψέ τις; (A.) οὐκ ἀλλ᾿ ἔθυσεν ἡ γυνή. (B.) τὸ μοσχίον τὸ τῆς Κορώνης αὔριον δειπνήσομεν

2 om. CE φράζ᾿, ὦ δέσποτα Hanow (1830: 126): φράζεο δέποτε A 3 καθαρείως CE: καθαρίως A 3–4 ὅ τι ἂν ᾖ, ὁσίας Schweigh.: ὅτι ἀνοησίας A: om. CE 4 ἕνεκ᾿· ἀρκεῖ om. CE 5 εἷς om. CE 6 om. CE 9–13 om. CE 10 δέ γε Casaubon: λέγε A 11 κρέ᾿ Casaubon: κρες A 12–13 :: τὸ … δειπνήσομεν ipsa servo tribui

5

10

(A.) But do the shopping without spending too much; for anything will suffice. (B.) Explain, master. (A.) Not lavishly, but frugally; whatever is available, for appearances’ sake. Squidlets and little cuttlefish suffice; and if a crayfish is for sale, one or two will be enough for our table. Sometimes little eels come from Thebes; buy some of them. A little chicken, a little pigeon, a little partridge, stuff like that. If a hare turns up, fetch it. (B.) How stingy you are! (A.) And you are too extravagant. In any case, we’ve got meat. (B.) Did someone send it or something? (A.) No, but the woman made a sacrifice. (B.) Tomorrow we’ll dine on Corone’s little calf

1 Ath. 8.359a–c (lines 1–13) (post Ephipp. fr. 21) ἥδιστος δ᾿ ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ποιητῇ ἐν τοῖς Ὀβελιαφόροις (fab. nom. om. CE) νεανίσκος κατασμικρύνων ἅπαντα τὰ περὶ τὴν ὀψωνίαν καὶ λέγων ὧδε· ἀλλ᾿ — δειπνήσομεν

Most adorable is the young man in The Spit-bread bearers by the same poet, who belittles everything pertaining to shopping and says the following: “But — calf ” 2

Ath. 8.359d (lines 12–13) εἴπατέ μοι τίνι ἐννοίᾳ ὁ Ἔφιππος ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις ἔφη· τὸ — δειπνήσομεν. ἐγὼ γὰρ οἴομαι ἱστορίαν τινὰ εἶναι καὶ ποθῶ μαθεῖν. καὶ ὁ Πλούταρχος ἔφη Ῥοδιακὴν εἶναι λεγο-

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (fr. 15)

161

μένην ἱστορίαν, ἣν ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ἀποστοματίζειν οὐ δύνασθαι τῷ πάνυ πρὸ πολλοῦ ἐντετυχηκέναι τῷ ταῦτα περιέχοντι βιβλίῳ Tell me in what sense did Ephippus in the aforementioned passage say the following: “tomorrow — calf ”. For I think there is a story here and I yearn to find out. And Plutarch responded that there was a story told in Rhodes (FGrH 533 F 7), but he was at the moment unable to repeat it by heart, because it had been a long time since he encountered the book that included it

Metre Iambic trimeter

lkkk klkl klkkk klk|l llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

lkkkl lkkkl lkkkl (no caesura; Porson’s law violated) kklkk|l llkkk llkl (triemimeral caesura; Porson’s law 5

10

observed) llkl k|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) lkkkl klk|l klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) llkkk k|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) klkkk l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llk|kk llkl llkl (triemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkkk l|kkkl lkkkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkl llk|kk klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) llkl k|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) klkl l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,334f.; Bothe 494f.; Kock 2,258f.; Edmonds 2,154–157; PCG 5,144f.; Nesselrath (1990) 285f., 292; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 492f.; Rusten & Henderson 485 Citation Context Athenaeus quotes the entire fragment in Book 8, 359a–c, and shortly after (8.359d) he quotes again the very end of the fragment (the final one and a half lines). Book 8 features a lengthy report on fish (varieties, qualities, etc.) delivered by the symposiast Daphnus, a physician from Ephesus (he assumes speaking at 8.355a); the incidental reference to small fish triggers the quotation of Ephipp. fr. 21 (ubi vide), followed by Ephippus’ present fragment, and Mnesim. fr. 3. After quoting all three fragments, Daphnus repeats the final one and a half lines of Ephippus’ present fragment and asks Ulpian and the other grammarians to enlighten the group about the meaning of the quasi-proverbial sounding phrase τὸ μοσχίον / τὸ τῆς Κορώνης αὔριον δειπνήσομεν. In response, the grammarian Plutarch confirms the existence of a relevant Rhodian story, although he cannot

162

Ephippus

recall it in detail (FGrH 533 F 7 = Ath. 8.359d–360b); see further comm. lines 12–13. Constitution of Text Only the alternative title (Ὀβελιαφόροι) is quoted, only at 8.359a–c, and only by codex A. Regarding the text itself, line 2 is omitted by the Epitome codices C and E (on the value of Athenaeus’ manuscript tradition, see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). In line 2 the reply by speaker B φράζ᾿, ὦ δέσποτα (which triggers speaker A’s response) is Hanow’s resourceful emendation (1830: 126) replacing the unintelligible reading φράζεο δέποτε preserved by codex A. In line 3 codices C and E preserve the metrically correct reading καθαρείως (whereas codex A features καθαρίως); καθαρείως is required by metre, since the long diphthong -ει- occupies the final position of the second iambic metre (no analysis is feasible). As Cobet points out (1858: 77–78), later grammarians preferred the simpler reading with the iota (καθαρίως), instead of the older reading featuring the diphthong (καθαρείως); this confusion in orthography caused textual errors and metrical abnormalities in poetic texts. In lines 3–4 the phrase ὅ τι ἂν ᾖ, ὁσίας is Schweighaeuser’s conjecture, instead of A’s reading ὅτι ἀνοησίας (codices C and E omit the reading altogether). In addition, codices C and E also leave out the readings ἕνεκ᾿· ἀρκεῖ (line 4) and εἷς (line 5), as well as the entire line 6 and lines 9–13. In line 10 Casaubon corrected A’s reading λέγε to δέ γε, which provides for a meaningful conversation; besides, palaeographically, the initial letter (delta) could have been easily mistaken for a lambda by a scribe. In line 11 the incomprehensible reading κρες preserved by codex A is emended by Casaubon to κρέ᾿ (κρέα – meat), which suits the context and complements the meaning. In line 12 I assign the final one line and a half (τὸ μοσχίον … δειπνήσομεν) to the slave (speaker B), since this last bit qualifies as a sarcastic comment that makes sense only if addressed to the stingy speaker A, and not delivered by the latter (cf. comm. on lines 12–13 below). Interpretation The fragment features a snapshot from a conversation between a μικρολόγος (pennypincher, miser; cf. s. v.) of a young age (Athenaeus 8.359a describes him as a νεανίσκος) and his fairly outspoken slave. The stingy master (speaker A) gives shopping instructions (in the form of a shopping list) to his slave (speaker B), apparently ahead of a symposion/dinner-party. Such shopping lists (either pending or executed) are a common topos in Comedy, particularly in the periods of Middle and New (e. g. Eub. fr. 120, Sotad. fr. 1, Nicostr.Com. fr. 27, Alex. frr. 115 and 191, Arched. fr. 3, etc.); a germane topos, which permeates the entire comic genre, consists of masters giving orders/instructions to their slaves/ assistants; cf. Ar. Ach. 1096–1142, Amphis fr. 27 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 171–176), Anaxipp. fr. 6, Antiph. fr. 221, Dionys.Com. fr. 3, Mnesim. fr. 4 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 186–209, Mastellari 2020: 372–440), Sophil. fr. 5, Men. fr. 2, etc. What is particularly remarkable in Ephippus’ present fragment is the fact that the master orders the slave to shop economically and, to that end, he repeatedly uses diminutives (six in total) to specifically emphasize that a little quantity / tiny sample of everything will suffice for the forthcoming feast. A qua-

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (fr. 15)

163

si-similar scene features in Mnesim. fr. 3 (albeit the miser here is older, giving instructions to his nephew; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 183–186, Mastellari 2020: 358–369). In addition, striking verbal similarity (accumulative presence of diminutives accompanied by the usage of the expression μὴ πολυτελῶς, ἀλλὰ καθαρείως) features in Nicostr.Com. fr. 4 and Eub. fr. 109. Amphis fr. 35 is also a close parallel (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 225–229); cf. Men. fr. 390 (φειδωλὸς ἦν καὶ μέτριος ἀγοραστής: he was a sparing and moderate shopper). It is advisable that we refrain from seeking to detect/establish the archetype of this pattern, which was subsequently imitated by others, but that we rather acknowledge the existence of some common, stock comic material, from which comic poets felt comfortable to draw at will and use on different occasions. The pattern is also found in Roman Comedy, in Plaut. MG 750 “commodulum obsona, ne magno sumptu: mihi quidvis sat est” (shop carefully, without much expense; anything will satisfy me). The stock comic pattern featuring a stingy character asking for parsimonious shopping is reversed in Ephipp. fr. 21 (ubi vide). Outspoken slaves (like the present figure) appear already in Aristophanes’ Frogs (Xanthias; cf. Dover 1993: 43–50) and Wealth (Carion; see esp. lines 23–24), and feature regularly in Middle and New Comedy, e. g. Amphis fr. 6 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 51), [Alex.] fr. 25 (cf. Arnott 1996: 819–830), the figure of crafty Getas in Menander’s Dyscolus (see esp. lines 183–184), etc.; cf. Nesselrath (1990) 283–296; MacCary 1969; Krieter-Spiro (1997) 14–43, 83–87, 160–162. See also the collected volume edited by Akrigg & Tordoff (2013). 1a ἀγόρασον ἀγοράζω < ἀγορά < ἀγείρω: assemble, gather together. The noun ἀγορά (ἀγορή) designates originally in Homer the assembly and the place of the assembly (e. g. Il. 1.54, 2.51, 7.382, 8.2; Od. 2.7, etc.); and later the market-place (Ar. Eq. 181), where people assembled. Originally, the verb ἀγοράζω means frequent the market-place (e. g. Hdt. 2.35), and by extension buy in the market (Ar. Ach. 625; cf. Olson 2002: 234) and buy in general; cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 21.2. 1b εὐτελῶς At a cheap rate, economically, frugally; cf. Xenarch. fr. 4.16, X. Smp. 4.49. The pennypincher of the present fragment is being pleonastic; he states the same instruction to his slave to shop sparingly thrice: in line 1 via positive syntax (εὐτελῶς), in line 3 via negative syntax (μὴ πολυτελῶς), and then using the adverb καθαρείως as an antonym of πολυτελῶς. The pleonasm’s role is evident; the speaker wishes to make perfectly clear to his slave that he must spend the minimum amount possible. 2 φράζ᾿, ὦ δέσποτα Here the verb φράζω bears the distinct meaning of explain, as opposed to merely say–λέγω (the notional contradistinction is manifest in Isoc. 15.117 δεῖ γὰρ οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ σαφῶς φράσαι περὶ αὐτῶν: for one should not make a simple reference, but explain clearly about them). The slave’s request to his master to explain his order analytically (cf. “Interpretation”) is paralleled by the requests put forward in Nicostr.Com. fr. 4.1 (by some slave or assistant; τί οὖν ἀγοράζω; φράζε γάρ: what should I buy, then? Tell me!) and in Antiph. fr. 69.4–5

164

Ephippus

(by some master to a hetaira; φράζε δή, Φιλούμενον, / ὄψῳ τίνι χαίρεις; : tell me, Philoumenon, what kind of seafood do you like?). Likewise, the fatherly figure in Ephipp. fr. 21.2 impatiently interrupts his sweet-talking offspring and asks for details (φράζε τί); cf. comm. ad loc. 3 μὴ πολυτελῶς, ἀλλὰ καθαρείως Driven by his sheer stinginess, speaker A (the master) employs a combination of two rhetorical devices, tautology and hendiandys, in an overall pleonastic context (i. e. not lavishly/costly, but frugally/ economically); cf. s. v. εὐτελῶς (line 1). Further down (line 10) the master accuses his slave of being πολυτελής (extravagant); cf. s. v. The expression μὴ πολυτελῶς, ἀλλὰ καθαρείως occurs in identical form in Nicostr.Com. fr. 4.2 and Eub. fr. 109.1 (cf. “Interpretation”). Additionally, the adverb καθαρείως occurs in Amphis fr. 35.1 within a similar context (see Papachrysostomou 2016: 225–229). The literal meaning of καθαρείως is cleanly, tidily, neatly (cf. LSJ9 s. v.); remarkably, the metaphorical meaning of καθαρείως as frugally is only applicable in the four comic fragments under discussion, i. e. Nicostr.Com. fr. 4.2, Eub. fr. 109.1, Amphis fr. 35.1 and the present one by Ephippus; NB all four cases belong in the fourth century BC (Middle Comedy). It is reasonable to assume that the meaning frugally was an additional, colloquial meaning of καθαρείως, which naturally infiltrated the linguistic register of contemporary comedy. 4a ὁσίας ἕνεκ᾿ The noun ὁσία means divine law, rite. The expression is a quasi-proverbial one (cf. LSJ9 s. v. ὁσία III); its literal interpretation would be for the sake of the rite, and it is with this very meaning that occurs in h.Cer. 211. The phrase reccurs as ὁσίας ἕκατι in E. IT 1461 in the sense of “so that piety is satisfied”. According to Richardson (1974: 225–226), the expression gradually became proverbial and acquired the stereotypical meaning “for form’s sake” / “to keep up appearances”. It is with this latter meaning that is being used in Ephippus’ present fragment and in Eub. fr. 109.2. On the development of the sense see the bibliography cited by Richardson l. c. 4b τευθίδια, σηπίδια τευθίδιον (squidlet) is the diminutive of τευθίς (cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 12.6b) and σηπίδιον (little cuttlefish) is the diminutive of σηπία (cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 12.7b). Athenaeus (8.359a) is right when he says that the speaker minimizes everything / uses diminutives throughout (κατασμικρύνων ἅπαντα τὰ περὶ τὴν ὀψωνίαν). Indeed, the stingy master expresses himself in diminutives, in an attempt to emphasize the need to save money (cf. “Interpretation”). Throughout the fragment, he orders his slave to buy a small size of six different foodstuffs; τευθίδια (squidlets), σηπίδια (little cuttlefish), ἐγχελύδια (little eels), an ἀλεκτρυόνιον (a little chicken), a φάττιον (a little pigeon), and a περδίκιον (a little partridge). Similar accumulation of diminutives (and for the same reason, i. e. to stress the need to economize) feature in all four comic fragments already mentioned above on account of their thematic convergence (cf. “Interpretation” and comm. on line 3): Amphis fr. 35 (four diminutives in less than two and a half lines: ἐγχελύδιον, γλαυκινιδίου, λαβρακίου, τεμάχια; cf. Papachrysostomou 2016:

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (fr. 15)

165

225–229), Nicostr.Com. fr. 4 (νηττία, ὀρνιθάρια), Mnesim. fr. 3 (ἰχθύδια, ὀψάριον; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 183–186, Mastellari 2020: 361–364), and Eub. fr. 109 (τευθίδια, σηπίδια, πλεκτάνια μικρὰ πουλύποδος); cf. Ar. fr. 258.2 (diminutives of three fish species within a similar purchase context; cf. comm. s. v. λαβεῖν below). Furthermore, comparable usage of diminutives is found in Ar. Pl. 984–985, where the old woman describes how her young lover would make “small” requests using diminutives (χιτώνιον, ἱματίδιον): καὶ ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς ἀγοράσαι χιτώνιον / ἐκέλευσεν ἂν τῇ μητρί θ᾿ ἱματίδιον (and he’d want me to buy little dresses for his sisters, and a little wrap for his mother). 5a λαβεῖν Here the verb λαμβάνω is being used as synonymous to ἀγοράζω (also used in the present fragment, cf. s. v.); this is understandable, since when making a purchase (ἀγοράζω), one literally takes/grasps (λαμβάνω) the item bought. This usage – probably echoing colloquial language  – recurs in Ar. fr. 258 τραπόμενον εἰς τοὖψον λαβεῖν / ὀσμύλια καὶ μαινίδια καὶ σηπίδια (turning towards the fishmarket to get little stinkers, little salted sprats, and little cuttlefish – cf. previous note), Eub. fr. 120 (a shopping list; cf. “Interpretation”): περδίκια / λαβὲ τέτταρ᾿ ἢ καὶ πέντε, δασύποδας ⟨δὲ⟩ τρεῖς, / στρουθάριά θ᾿ οἷον ἐντραγεῖν † ἀκανθυλλίδας, / βιττάκους, σπινία, κερχνῇδας, / τά τ᾿ ἄλλ᾿ ἅττ᾿ ἂν ἐπιτύχῃς † (get four or even five partridges, three hares, and sparrows such as to nibble on † siskins, parrots, chaffinches, kestrel-hawks, and whatever else you happen on †), Alex. fr. 47.6–7 ἐς τὴν ἀγοράν, τοὖψον πριάμενος οἴχεται / φέρων ἅπαν τὸ ληφθέν (into the marketplace, he buys the fish and disappears, carrying off everything he bought), and Nicostr.Com. fr. 27.4 μύρον, στεφάνους, λιβανωτόν, αὐλητρίδα λαβέ (buy some perfume, garlands, frankincense, and a pipegirl). See further Fraenkel (1950) 151 (comm. on A. Ag. 275). 5b κἂν κάραβός τις ᾖ λαβεῖν This is an infinitive syntactic structure with a twist; i. e. an impersonal construction is turned into personal for emphasis. The impersonal expression ἔστι – it is possible (here in subjunctive mode: ᾖ) typically takes the infinitive (here λαβεῖν) as its subject (cf. Smyth 1956: §1985); accordingly, in the present case one would normally expect κάραβον in accusative serving as the object of λαβεῖν. However, here κάραβός features in nominative, thus serving not as object of λαβεῖν, but as subject of ᾖ, which is thereby transformed from impersonal expression (it is possible) to personal verb (the crayfish is). By nature, the nominative is syntactically the strongest case, since it is the case of the subject par excellence (cf. Smyth 1956: §938), i. e. the nominative bears more significance and more semantic weight than the accusative. As a result, a term in nominative (a subject) is given more syntactical prominence and is being paid more attention by a listener (or reader). Accordingly, in the present fragment, since the speaker wished to put emphasis on the crayfish (κάραβος), rather than on anything else, κάραβος had to feature in nominative case and be made the subject of the entire sentence. As the text stands (with κάραβος in nominative), the exact translation is “if crayfish can be bought / is available for sale” (with emphasis placed on the subject, crayfish), whereas with κάραβον in accusative the translation would be

166

Ephippus

“if it is possible to buy some crayfish” (with emphasis placed on the possibility of making some / any purchase). This syntactical variation occurs rarely, whenever the attention of the audience needs to be directed towards some notion that would be otherwise downplayed through accusative; e. g. Eup. fr. 148.1–2 (Γνήσιππος instead of Γνήσιππον): τὰ Στησιχόρου τε καὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος Σιμωνίδου τε / ἀρχαῖον ἀείδειν, ὁ δὲ Γνήσιππος ἔστ᾿ ἀκούειν (singing the works of Stesichorus, Alcman, and Simonides is old-fashioned; but you can hear Gnesippus), A. Pers. 419 (θάλασσα instead of θάλασσαν): θάλασσα δ᾿ οὐκέτ᾿ ἦν ἰδεῖν (and the sea was no longer visible), Ar. Th. 800 (βάσανος instead of βάσανον): βάσανός τε πάρεστιν ἰδέσθαι (a test exists to prove it). 6–7 ἐγχελύδια / Θήβηθεν On the diminutive ἐγχελύδια (little eels) and the ensuing connotations for the speaker, see comm. on line 4b above and “Interpretation”. The city of Thebes belongs in the region of Boeotia. Eels from Boeotia (particularly from lake Copais) were highly reputed and widely considered an exquisite delicacy. Comedy abounds in references to this desirable foodstuff; most memorable is the scene from Aristophanes’ Acharnians (885–894) where Dicaeopolis goes into raptures over a Boeotian eel from Copais (NB the superlative φιλτάτη as well as the terms ποθουμένη and ποθεινή, revealing of Dicaeopolis’ overwhelming desire to consume one); cf. Ar. Pax 1005, Lys. 35–36, 702, fr. 380.2; Stratt. fr. 45.3–4 (with Orth 2009: 206–207); Antiph. frr. 191.1, 216.2; Eub. fr. 36.3, Archestr. fr. 10.5–7 (with Olson & Sens 2000: 48–52); see further Van Leeuwen (1893) 61–62 (comm. on Ar. V. 510). Eels were proverbially expensive; already in Aristophanes a single eel is priced at three drachmas (Ach. 962; taken at face value by both Oder RE I.1 s. v. Aal and Davidson 1997: 186–187, whereas Starkie 1909: 194 disagrees), and some fifty years later, in Antiphanes’ time, twelve drachmas are allegedly required just to catch a whiff of an eel (fr. 145); the latter claim, albeit preposterous, gives an idea of the high prices regularly charged (cf. Paulas 2010 and Lytle 2010). 8a ἀλεκτρυόνιον On the diminutive’s role see comm. on line 4b above and “Interpretation”. The noun ἀλεκτρυών signifies both the male and the female chicken (cock and hen respectively); hence, either could be meant in the present case. Chicken is not a regular item in Comedy’s food lists (a rare example being Ar. Ec. 1173). See further Dunbar (1995) 330 (comm. on Ar. Av. 483–484), Thompson (21936) 33–44, Arnott (2007) 16–18. 8b φάττιον On the accumulative presence of diminutives in this fragment see comm. on line 4b and “Interpretation”. φάττιον (little pigeon) is the diminutive of φάττα, on which see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 3.8a. In Ar. Pl. 1011 φάττιον is used as a term of endearment (“dovey”), probably echoing contemporary, colloquial usage of it. 8c περδίκιον On the speaker’s conspicuous usage of diminutives see comm. on line 4b and “Interpretation”. περδίκιον (τό) is the diminutive of πέρδιξ (ὁ and ἡ), partridge; cf. Dunbar (1995) 245 (comm. on Ar. Av. 297), Thompson (21936) 234–238, Arnott (2007) 254–256. πέρδικες are mentioned along with other poultry

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (fr. 15)

167

in a food list in Antiph. fr. 295, whereas the diminutive recurs in Eub. fr. 120.1 (quoted above, comm. s. v. λαβεῖν). 9 δασύπους Hare regularly features as a delicacy in Comedy’s food lists (e. g. Antiph. fr. 131.6) and/or festive contexts (e. g. Alc. fr. 17); particularly revealing of the hare meat reputation is Ar. V. 709–710, where Bdelycleon’s visualization of some heavenly utopia consists of people rolling in hare meat (ἂν … ἔζων ἐν πᾶσι λαγῴοις) and other sympotic goodies (garlands, beestings, etc.). For further references and bibliography see Orth (2013) 83, Biles & Olson (2015) 309; cf. also Johannes (1907) 41–42. 10a μικρολόγος The term μικρολόγος is compound, deriving from μικρός (small, little, but also petty, trivial) and λέγω, and describes a person who pays attention to trifles, hence a miser, pennypincher. Based on etymology, one could further argue that a μικρολόγος is also one who minimizes everything (on the level of grammar), i. e. one who uses diminutives throughout his speech (as palpable evidence of his stinginess); that is, as Athenaeus puts it (8.359a), κατασμικρύνων ἅπαντα, just like the master character in Ephippus’ fragment does. The pennypincher is one of the Characters studied by Theophrastus (Char. 10); the latter laconically defines μικρολογία (pennypinching) as (10.1) ἡ φειδωλία τοῦ διαφόρου ὑπὲρ τὸν καιρόν (immoderate sparing of expense). In addition, Aristotle (MM 1192a8–14) acknowledges μικρολογία as a form of illiberality (ἀνελευθεριότης): ἔστι δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀνελευθεριότητος εἴδη πλείω, οἷον … κυμινοπρίστας καὶ αἰσχροκερδεῖς καὶ μικρολόγους … πάντες γὰρ οὗτοι περὶ χρήματά εἰσι ψεκτοί (there are various forms οf illiberality; for example, … the grain-splitters, the greedy and the penurious … for all these deserve censure for their misuse of wealth). In Comedy the term occurs once more, in Men. fr. 106, where the speaker reprimands his collocutor for being a μικρολόγος, since he refuses to buy a new pair of slippers, although the old ones are already worn out. 10b πολυτελής The adjective πολυτελής,-ές derives from πολύς + τέλος (τέλος: expenditure, here; cf. LSJ9 s. v. and Waanders 1983: 3–20, 180) and designates someone or something as costly, expensive, luxurious, extravagant; a synonymous term is πολυδάπανος (πολύς + δαπάνη: expenditure), while the antonym is εὐτελής (cf. comm. s. v. εὐτελῶς). The connotations presently attached to πολυτελής are explicitly negative, since the stingy master employs the term as a countercharge to his slave calling him pennypincher (μικρολόγος; see s. v.); cf. the direct instructions he just gave him using quasi-similar vocabulary not to buy extravagantly (πολυτελῶς) but frugally (εὐτελῶς, καθαρείως; lines 1, 3). For a similar negative use/meaning of πολυτελής see Men. fr. 544.2. However, πολυτελής is commonly used with positive connotations (classy); e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 41.1–2 μύρῳ … / … πολυτελοῦς Αἰγυπτίου (with perfume … an expensive Egyptian variety), Apollod. Gel. fr. 4 τορευτὰ πολυτελῆ ποτήρια (expensive cups with relief work), Athenio fr. 1.37 τάριχος πολυτελές (expensive saltfish).

168

Ephippus

11a πότερ᾿ πότερα or πότερον (originally the neuter of correlative pronoun πότερος) commonly introduces a direct (or indirect) alternative question (i. e. a question that contains two alternative possibilities), bearing the adverbial meaning “which one of the two?”. On certain occasions (like the present case), the second alternative is missing, when it is implicit in another sentence (cf. Smyth 1956: §2659), e. g. Ar. Av. 103–104 σοι ποῦ τὰ πτερά; / :: ἐξερρύηκε. :: πότερον ὑπὸ νόσου τινός; (where are your feathers? :: They’ve fallen out. :: From some disease?), A. Ag. 274 πότερα δ᾿ ὀνείρων φάσματ᾿ εὐπειθῆ σέβεις; (have you been awed by a persuasive vision in a dream?), S. Ph. 1235 πότερα δὴ κερτομῶν λέγεις τάδε; (are you saying this to tease me?); cf. X. Cyr. 7.5.83. Similarly, in Ephippus’ present fragment, the missing second alternative is the one readily supplied by the master in the following line. See Ephipp. fr. 22.1 for another idiosyncratic use of πότερον. 11b ἔπεμψε Allusion to a well-established cultural pattern, according to which people used to send sacrificial meat to friends and acquaintances, whom they wished to please, thank, honour and / or influence; cf. Ar. Ach. 1049–1050, Men. Sam. 403–404, Thphr. Char. 15.5 and 17.2; cf. Ar. Pax 192, Th. 558. On the distribution of sacrificial meat in general see Rosivach (1994) 9–67. 12 ἡ γυνή The presence of the definite article, ἡ, indicates that this woman is someone recently mentioned and/or central to the plot and/or a figure immediately identifiable by both the slave and the audience. It is conceivable that she is a hetaira (featuring as a speaking character in the play), possibly (though not necessarily) the Corone mentioned in the following line. If so, this would facilitate the subsequent allusion to the ritual of κορωνίζειν. 12–13 τὸ μοσχίον / τὸ τῆς Κορώνης αὔριον δειπνήσομεν This sentence (quoted twice by Athenaeus, cf. “Citation Context”) is not proverbial in itself; yet, the mention of Κορώνη (as a mere term, not a proper name) reminds the banqueters of the bygone (cf. the past tenses used in the text, e. g. ἐκαλοῦντο 8.360b) Greek custom/ritual of collection (ἀγερμός), performed by men called κορωνισταί (crow-singers), whose song (inviting people to donate for the crow, κορώνη) was called κορώνισμα (begging crow-song); cf. Ath. 8.360b κορωνισταὶ δὲ ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ τῇ κορώνῃ ἀγείροντες, ὥς φησι Πάμφιλος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ Ὀνομάτων· καὶ τὰ ᾀδόμενα δὲ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν κορωνίσματα καλεῖται, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Ἁγνοκλῆς ὁ Ῥόδιος ἐν Κορωνισταῖς (‘coronistai’ was the appellation of the people who made a collection for the crow, according to Pamphilus of Alexandria in his work “On Names” (fr. XV Schmidt); and their songs are referred to as ‘coronismata’, according to Hagnocles of Rhodes in his work “Coronistai”). Athenaeus quotes such a κορώνισμα (8.359e–360a) by Phoenix of Colophon (cf. Wills 1970 for a different, erotic reading of this fragment), before narrating (8.360b–d) how the Rhodians practise a similar type of collection called χελιδονίζειν (< χελιδών: swallow). In Ephippus’ fragment the phrase τὸ μοσχίον … δειπνήσομεν alludes to κορωνίσματα; it hints at the begging nature of these songs and overall constitutes a sarcastic comment, revealing of the slave’s exasperation with his master’s stingi-

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (fr. 15)

169

ness (on lines’ assignment cf. “Constitution of Text”); accordingly, the meaning is that, if the master continues economizing and minimizing his purchases, they will soon run out of supplies and they will have to beg for their dinner, as if they were performing the ritual of κορωνίζειν. As to why a μοσχίον (little calf) is specifically mentioned, this may have something to do with the play’s plot, the details of which now evade us (e. g. the play might feature a hetaira called Corone who could have recently made a sacrifice of a little calf; cf. comm. s. v. ἡ γυνή). 13 Κορώνης Although occasionally borne by free Athenian women (cf. LGPN vol. 2, s. v.), the name Κορώνη (lit. “Crow”) is commonly attested in our sources as serving (i) as a professional name / nickname for hetairai: e. g. in Ath. 13.583e the hetaira Theocleia is nicknamed Corone (PAA 507884); likewise, in Machon fr. 18.435 a hetaira is nicknamed Κορώνη, but her real name is not mentioned (PAA 582910, cf. Gow 1965: 133); and (ii) (in plural number) as a generic (and rather pejorative) term for all hetairai (apparently the inexpensive and mediocre ones); cf. Philetaer. fr. 9.6 (on the longevity of hetairai): Κοσσύφας δὲ καὶ Γαλήνας καὶ Κορώνας οὐ λέγω (and I say nothing of all the Kossyphes and Galenes and Corones), and probably Archil. fr. (spur.) 331 συκῆ πετραίη πολλὰς βόσκουσα κορώνας, εὐήθης ξείνων δέκτρια Πασιφίλη (like a fig tree on rocky ground that feeds many ‘crows’, good-natured Pasiphile receives strangers). Yet, there must have been at least two hetairai, whose real name was Κορώνη (unless this was again a nickname that had swept her real names away in an early stage of their career); a certain Κορώνη (PAA 582915) is mentioned in Men. Kol. fr. 4 (asyndetic enumeration of hetairai), and a second one (PAA 582902) is mentioned in a treatise Περὶ ἑταιρῶν by Antiphanes Jun. FGrH 349 F 2a: Προσκήνιον ἐπεκαλεῖτο ἡ Νάννιον … ἦν δὲ Κορώνης τῆς Ναννίου θυγάτηρ, τὸ τῆς τήθης ἀναφέρουσα ἐκ τριπορνείας ὄνομα (Nannion was nicknamed ‘False Front’ … and she was the daughter of Corone, who was the daughter of Nannion; thus she [i. e. Nannion the ‘False-Front’] carried her grandmother’s name through three generations of prostitution). Hunter (1983: 152–153) believes that the latter Corone could be the mother of Eubulus’ title-figure of Nannion, PCG 5,227f. (without excluding the possibility that this Corone could be the same person with the hetaira Theocleia mentioned in Ath. 13.583e). In Ephippus’ present fragment it is unclear whether Corone is meant as a hetaira’s real name or nickname (she could be the γυνή of the previous line, cf. comm. ad loc.; NB Olson in Ath. 8.359c, n. 223, believes this is Theocleia, cf. 13.583e) or whether the name is simply mentioned as part of the allusion to the traditional ritual of κορωνίσματα (see comm. on lines 12–13 above). Whatever the case, Corone could generally be considered a speaking name for three reasons: (i) a woman/hetaira called Corone could be as noisy as a crow (cf. Et.Gud. κ 340.17 κορώνη, παρὰ τὸ κρώζω: from the verb ‘to croak’; κρώζω also applied to annoyingly yelling humans, e. g. Ar. Lys. 506, Pl. 369); (ii) the point of comparison could be the crow’s proverbial longevity, cf. Hes. fr. 254.1–2 ἐννέα τοι ζώει γενεὰς λακέρυζα κορώνη / ἀνδρῶν ἡβώντων (the cawing crow outlives nine generations of vigorous

170

Ephippus

men); NB Philetaer. fr. 9 (quoted above) dwells on the issue of longevity and the long-running career of hetairai); (iii) apart from crow, κορώνη was also a slang term for the penis (cf. Henderson 21991: 20); cf. Sud. κ 2105 κορώνη: διάφορα σημαίνει· καὶ τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ αἰδοίου (‘corone’ has many meanings; the tip of the penis being one of them; NB Suda’s immediately following quotation from Artem. Onir. 5.65 makes it perfectly clear that here the term αἰδοῖον signifies the male genitalia). Hence, it would be appropriate for a hetaira to bear a name with a sexual double entendre.

fr. 16 (16 K.)

5

Διονυσίου δὲ δράματ᾿ ἐκμαθεῖν δέοι καὶ Δημοφῶντος ἅττ᾿ ἐπόησεν εἰς Κότυν, ῥήσεις τε κατὰ δεῖπνον Θεόδωρός μοι λέγοι, Λάχητί τ᾿ οἰκήσαιμι τὴν ἑξῆς θύραν, κυμβία τε παρέχοιμ᾿ ἑστιῶν Εὐριπίδῃ

2 Κότυν Casaubon: κοτύλην A 3 Θεόδωρος Meineke: θεωρός A 4 Λάχητί τ᾿ Porson Misc. 243: λητιτ A 5 Εὐριπίδῃ Canter: Εὐριπίδην Porson Misc. 243: εὑριπιδης Α

5

May I be forced to learn Dionysius’ plays by heart and everything that Demophon wrote for Cotys, and may Theodorus recite speeches to me over dinner, and may I live next door to Laches, and may I supply Euripides with small drinking-cups, whenever I give a feast

Ath. 11.482d καὶ Ἔφιππος ἐν Ὁμοίοις ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροις· Διονυσίου — Εὐριπίδῃ And Ephippus in The Look-alikes or The Spit-bread bearers: “May — feast”

Metre

5

Iambic trimeter

kklkl l|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) llkl k|lkkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) llkkk ll|kkl llkl (middle caesura; Porson’s law violated) klkl llk|l llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law lkkkkk l|lkl llkl

observed) (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,335f.; Bothe 495; Kock 2,259f.; Edmonds 2,156f.; PCG 5,145; Nesselrath (1990) 59f., 196; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 493; Rusten & Henderson 485

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (fr. 16)

171

Citation Context This fragment shares the same Citation Context with Ephipp. fr. 9 (ubi vide), occurring within the same discussion on wine cups in Athenaeus Book 11. Constitution of Text It is noteworthy that three of the six proper names featuring in this fragment are felicitous conjectures by scholars. In particular, in line 2 codex A preserves the unmetrical κοτύλην, which Casaubon emended to Κότυν. Apart from satisfying the metre, the reading Κότυν is notionally expedient; as the text now stands, the first two lines feature two foreign monarchs (Dionysius of Syracuse and Cotys of Thrace), with their names appositely positioned at the beginning of line 1 and the end of line 2 respectively. In line 3 codex A preserves the reading θεωρός that satisfies the metre but not the meaning. Meineke’s emendation Θεόδωρος is metrically valid (via a resolution of the short element of the second iambic metre) and fits nicely into the pattern developed by the speaker (i. e. each ordeal he is willing to undertake is matched with a proper name). In line 4 codex A preserves the incomprehensible reading λητιτ, which Porson (Misc. 243) corrected to Λάχητί τ᾿, which satisfies both the metre and the meaning (providing a name for a person who would be a nightmare to live next door to). In line 5 codex A preserves the reading εὑριπιδης. Porson (Misc. 243) suggested Εὐριπίδην in accusative, but the preferable emendation features in Canter’s manuscript notes (which never went to print); this is the dative Εὐριπίδῃ that provides for a suitable indirect object to παρέχοιμ’. Interpretation In what constitutes a conspicuous re-emergence of the Old Comedy’s favourite technique of personal mockery (ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν; cf. Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”), the speaker names five contemporary and/or historic individuals, three of which relate to some aspect of performance (theatrical or other): (i) Dionysius I, tyrant of Syracuse and an amateur playwright, (ii) Demophon, a poet, and (iii) Theodorus, a tragic actor (NB the last individual is not ridiculed; cf. details s. vv. below). The remaining two individuals are an otherwise unknown Laches and a certain Euripides (probably not the tragic playwright). The speaker willingly undertakes a preposterous, self-imposed challenge and calls down various curses on his own head, should he fail to come through. Unfortunately, his daring statement is left unfinished, since the conditions under which he would undergo the dreadful self-inflicted punishments that he visualizes are left out from Athenaeus’ quotation. On the stylistic / syntactic level, the fragment features a version of a stereotypical, albeit extremely rare, self-imposed, and self-motivated challenge pattern (one could also describe it as a “bet”). The speaker daringly names and vividly visualizes a number of self-inflicted punishments and/or unpleasant situations (of either comic or non-comic nature), which he will readily suffer or submit to, in case he (i) proves wrong about a view he feels strong about, (ii) fails to carry out a promise, or (iii) breaks his oath. Typically, this self-imposed challenge is syntactically formulated as a conditional clause; in particular, it follows the structure of the third form of conditions (cf. Smyth 1956: §2326d), according to which the apodosis features

172

Ephippus

the optative of wish (in the present fragment: δέοι, λέγοι, οἰκήσαιμι, παρέχοιμ’ – unfortunately, the protasis is missing). NB this pattern is markedly different from the frequently recurring stereotypical pattern of self-cursing, which consists of the verb ἀπόλλυμαι in the optative mode, often accompanied by the adverb κακῶς, either in the positive degree or in the superlative, κάκιστα, e. g. Ar. Ach. 151, 476, Ra. 579; Eub. fr. 115.7; Men. Dysc. 95. The (non-comic) origins of this self-imposed challenge pattern trace back to Homer, e. g. Il. 2.258–261 (challenge expressed via the twin optative of wish ἐπείη and κεκλημένος εἴην): εἴ κ᾿ ἔτι σ᾿ ἀφραίνοντα κιχήσομαι ὥς νύ περ ὧδε, / μηκέτ᾿ ἔπειτ᾿ Ὀδυσῆι κάρη ὤμοισιν ἐπείη, / μηδ᾿ ἔτι Τηλεμάχοιο πατὴρ κεκλημένος εἴην, / εἰ μὴ ἐγώ σε λαβὼν ἀπὸ μὲν φίλα εἵματα δύσω (if I find you again playing the fool, as you are doing now, then may the head of Odysseus rest no more on his shoulders, and may I no more be called the father of Telemachus, if I do not take you and strip off your clothes), Il. 5.212–216 (challenge expressed via the optative of wish τάμοι) εἰ δέ κε νοστήσω καὶ ἐσόψομαι ὀφθαλμοῖσι / πατρίδ᾿ ἐμὴν ἄλοχόν τε … / αὐτίκ᾿ ἔπειτ᾿ ἀπ᾿ ἐμεῖο κάρη τάμοι ἀλλότριος φώς, / εἰ μὴ ἐγὼ τάδε τόξα φαεινῷ ἐν πυρὶ θείην / χερσὶ διακλάσσας (but if I return home and look with my eyes on my native land and my wife … then may some stranger immediately cut my head from my neck, if I do not myself break this bow with my hands and place it in the blazing fire). A most conspicuous Aristophanic passage, which closely parellels Ephippus’ present fragment (since the prospective punishments pertain to contemporary figures associated with dramatic poetry), is Eq. 400–401 (challenge expressed via the twin optative of wish γενοίμην and διδασκοίμην): εἴ σε μὴ μισῶ, γενοίμην ἐν Κρατίνου κῴδιον / καὶ διδασκοίμην προσᾴδειν Μορσίμου τραγῳδίᾳ (if I don’t hate you, may I turn into a blanket in Cratinus’ house and be coached by Morsimus to sing in a tragedy); Farmer (2017b: 51–54) discusses both Ephippus’ fragment and the Aristophanic passage from the Knights in relation to Comedy’s ‘culture of tragedy’ (a notion introduced by Farmer to describe “all the ways the comic poets depict tragedy as part of the everyday life of their contemporary Athens”, o.c. 5). See also Alex. fr. 149 (challenge expressed via the optative of wish γενοίμην) εἴ τινας μᾶλλον φιλῶ / ξένους ἑτέρους ὑμῶν, γενοίμην ἔγχελυς, / ἵνα Καλλιμέδων ὁ Κάραβος πρίαιτό με (if I love any other foreigners more than you, may I turn into an eel, so that Callimedon the Crayfish may buy me; cf. Arnott 1996: 439), Ar. Lys. 234–235 (featuring a burlesqued oath; challenge expressed via the optative of wish ἐμπλῇθ᾿): ταῦτ᾿ ἐμπεδοῦσα μὲν πίοιμ᾿ ἐντευθενί. / εἰ δὲ παραβαίην, ὕδατος ἐμπλῇθ᾿ ἡ κύλιξ (if I live up to these vows, may I drink from this cup. But if I break them, may the cup be full of water), and (remotely) Ar. Eq. 694–695. The pattern recurs in Roman literature, e. g. Plaut. Merc. 308 “decide collum stanti si falsum loquor” (cut off my head while I am standing here, if I don’t speak the truth), Petr. Sat. 62 “ego si mentior, genios vestros iratos habeam” (may all your guardian angels punish me, if I am lying); cf. Kassel (1966) 1–2. 1 Διονυσίου This is the tyrant of Syracuse Dionysius I (PAA 350340; on his reign see Caven 1990). Born in 431 BC, he reigned from 406/5 until his death in

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (fr. 16)

173

367 BC. Dionysius was an amateur playwright of tragedies (TrGF 76) and perhaps also of comedies (Dionysius II PCG 5,41; but see Aelian’s ambiguous testimony, VH 13.8), as well as an aspiring historiographer (FGrH 557); cf. Sud. δ 1178 Διονύσιος, Σικελίας τύραννος· ἔγραψε τραγῳδίας καὶ κωμῳδίας καὶ ἱστορικά (Dionysius, Sicily’s tyrant: he wrote tragedies and comedies and historical essays). Suda’s claims are substantiated (albeit partially; NB Suda is the only source that credits Dionysius with the composition of comedies) by Tzetzes (H. 5.23.178–181), who testifies to the fact that Dionysius repeatedly competed in dramatic competitions of tragedy at Athens (πολλὰς μὲν τραγῳδίας / ἐν ταῖς Ἀθήναις ἀναγνούς); he took second and third place (δεύτερος, τρίτος ἦλθεν), before he eventually managed to win the first prize (ἐνίκησε πάντας ἐν ταῖς Ἀθήναις) with the play Ἕκτορος λύτρα (Hector’s Ransom) just before his death in 367 BC; cf. D.S. 15.73–74. In addition, provided we give credit to Tzetzes (H. 5.23.182), Dionysius appears to have written a play against Plato (cf. Meineke 1,525). On Dionysius’ association with and political investment in the Sicilian theatre see further Duncan 2012, Wilson (2017) 10–17. But what really matters in Ephippus’ case is that Dionysius was not a particularly celebrated dramatic poet; amusing examples of his linguistic frigidity and stylistic rigidity are provided by Athenaeus 3.98d, while Lucian (Ind. 15) further testifies to his ineptness: λέγεται δὲ καὶ Διονύσιον τραγῳδίαν ποιεῖν φαύλως πάνυ καὶ γελοίως (they say that Dionysius used to write tragedy in a very feeble and ridiculous style), and then he narrates an anecdote exposing Dionysius’ simplemindedness (about how he took great pains to procure the wax-tablets on which Aeschylus used to write, naïvely believing that the tablets would inspire him and bring him success); see Niese in RE 5,901 for further references. Dionysius’ amateurish and unskilful plays are exactly the point of satire in the present fragment. The speaker boldly proposes that, if he fails the challenge (cf. “Interpretation”), his first punishment would be to learn by heart Dionysius’ plays; the implication is that this would be a painful experience that would qualify as a cruel punishment, given the plays’ bad reputation and quality. 2a Δημοφῶντος This Demophon (PAA 321650) is otherwise unknown. However, judging from what the speaker says, i. e. that Demophon wrote/composed (ἐπόησεν) something (ἅττ᾿) for or in praise of Cotys (εἰς Κότυν), it is probable that he was some minor and largely unsuccessful poet, whom the lexicographical sources did not deem worth mentioning. It is likely that Demophon was a wannabe choral poet, who wrote one or more (adulatory) encomia for Cotys (whilst perhaps living in his court in Thrace). In the present fragment Demophon’s work is openly discredited and downright rejected, since the speaker considers it a punishment to learn his verses by heart (for the idiosyncratic challenge context see “Interpretation”). 2b εἰς Κότυν This is the mid-fourth century BC king of Thrace (PAA 583219); he reigned from ca. 384/3 until 359 BC. Cotys had already become of interest to the Athenians some time prior to his taking the throne, when the Athenian general Iphicrates (PAA 542925) married his daughter (Ath. 4.131a) or his sister

174

Ephippus

(Davies 1971: 248–252; NB the date of the wedding is disputed); cf. Harris 1989. The wedding’s barbarousness and lack of etiquette are made fun of in Anaxandr. fr. 42 (cf. Millis 2015: 194–195, 199–237). It is noteworthy that Cotys was awarded the Athenian citizenship (D. 23.118) either shortly before or soon after he became king (see Osborne 1981–1983: iii.49–50). On Cotys’ reign see Archibald (1998) 218–226, 231; cf. Peter (1997) 112–125. The preposition εἰς (εἰς Κότυν) leaves no room for doubt that Cotys was the prospective recipient of whatever Demophon had written, since this is the stereotypical formulation for dedications; cf. LSJ9 s. v. εἰς IV.b. 3 ῥήσεις … Θεόδωρος Theodorus (PAA 506155, O’Connor #230, Stephanis #1157) was one of the most successful and most famous tragic actors of the first half of the fourth century BC, who grew into a distinguished protagonist and enjoyed the reputation of an exceptionally virtuoso performer. He won four Lenaean victories (IRDF 2325H.26), and it is possible that he also won a victory at the City Dionysia ca. 400 BC (his name is perhaps to be restored at IRDF 2325B.23). Plutarch records Theodorus as an example of an actor who refines and adorns the tragic genre with all necessary, supplementary decorations (348e): τραγικοὶ δ᾿ αὐτοῖς ὑποκριταὶ καὶ Νικόστρατοι καὶ Καλλιππίδαι καὶ Μυννίσκοι καὶ Θεόδωροι καὶ Πῶλοι συνίτωσαν, ὥσπερ γυναικὸς πολυτελοῦς τῆς τραγῳδίας κομμωταὶ καὶ διφροφόροι (let the tragic actors accompany them [i. e. the tragic poets], men like Nicostratus and Callippides, Mynniscus, Theodorus, and Polus, who robe Tragedy and bear her litter, as though she were some woman of wealth); cf. Plu. 18c. Further instructive regarding Theodorus’ acting skills is Aristotle’s testimony, which stresses Theodorus’ innate, natural talent that made him stand out among his fellow actors (Rh. 1404b22–24): διὸ δεῖ λανθάνειν ποιοῦντας, καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν λέγειν πεπλασμένως ἀλλὰ πεφυκότως· τοῦτο γὰρ πιθανόν, ἐκεῖνο δὲ τοὐναντίον· … καὶ οἷον ἡ Θεοδώρου φωνὴ πέπονθε πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ὑποκριτῶν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ λέγοντος ἔοικεν εἶναι, αἱ δ᾿ ἀλλότριαι (wherefore those who practise this artifice must conceal it and avoid the appearance of speaking artificially instead of naturally; for that which is natural persuades, but the artificial does not. … Such was the case with the voice of Theodorus as contrasted with that of the rest of the actors; for his seemed to be the voice of the speaker, that of the others the voice of someone else). Whilst referring to Theodorus’ tomb, Pausanias (1.37.3) considers him to have been the best tragic actor of his day (Θεοδώρου … τραγῳδίαν ὑποκριναμένου τῶν καθ᾿ αὑτὸν ἄριστα). In this regard, one needs to remember that the fourth century BC saw the professionalization of actors (a phenomenon already detected in the late fifth century BC), who gradually grew into virtuosic stars; cf. Easterling & Hall 2002 (passim; most of the collected essays are of interest here), Csapo 2004a, Le Guen 2004. Especially Theodorus (along with a few others, like Aristodemus and Neoptolemus) used to go on tour and perform revivals of tragedies; in addition, he was considered a specialist in female roles; cf. D. 19.246, and see Dihle (1981) 29–31, Easterling 1999.

Ὅμοιοι ἢ Ὀβελιαφόροι (fr. 16)

175

The above dithyrambic evaluations of Theodorus’ skill call for a careful analysis of line 3 of Ephippus’ present fragment, where – at first sight – one would be inclined to believe that Theodorus himself is the comic target (for being unsuccessful in his profession). However, as Reitzenstein first noted (1893: 34–35), the comic character aims to ridicule not Theodorus but rather the ῥήσεις, i. e. the tragic speeches, which are presented as a real punishment to hear (probably implying they are boring, long, and full of calamities), especially during the buoyant dinner time (κατὰ δεῖπνον; where a comic recital would be far more appropriate and welcome). In fact, Theodorus, given his unparalleled acting skills, would accordingly deliver these speeches in an utterly natural way (πεφυκότως; as Aristotle notes, cf. Rh. 1404b22 quoted above), and this would make the “punishment” worse. In other words, Theodorus is being mentioned here not for failing at his job, but for being too good at it. The present case stands out, since the comic target is not the person involved, but rather the tragic speech itself. Comparable passages (where, however, the target is the person involved) are (i) Ar. Ra. 151 (targeting the tragic poet Morsimus; since line 145 Heracles has been enumerating a number of sins / dreadful situations, such as wronging a ξένος, striking one’s parents and perjury, and concludes in line 151 with a παρὰ προσδοκίαν sentence): Μορσίμου τις ῥῆσιν ἐξεγράψατο (someone copies out a speech by Morsimus – i. e. to be learnt and recited); and (ii) Ar. Nu. 1371–1372 (targeting Euripides, the tragic poet; Pheidippides is reported to have recited a Euripidean speech, after-dinner, featuring incest): ὁ δ᾿ εὐθὺς ἦγ᾿ Εὐριπίδου ῥῆσίν τιν’, ὡς ἐκίνει ἁδελφός, ὦ ᾿λεξίκακε, τὴν ὁμομητρίαν ἀδελφήν (and he right away tossed off some speech by Euripides about how a brother, god save me, was screwing his sister by the same mother). 4 Λάχητι This Laches is otherwise unattested (“de Lachete non constat”, as Kassel-Austin 5,145 note); NB this name is Porson’s emendation (cf. “Constitution of Text”). Yet, the comic character must have meant some well-known individual, easily recognizable by the audience, so that his argument could be upheld and be meaningful. The reason why living next door to Laches is considered a punishment cannot be established. Perhaps Laches was a rowdy guy, some wealthy aristocrat who used to throw extravagant parties, with guests getting drunk and noisy and with hired personnel constantly coming and going, carrying and attending to (smelly) supplies (e. g. fish, poultry, etc.). Another possibility is that Laches owned some king of business (e. g. a tannery) that discharged malodorous sewage; cf. Ar. Pax 753 (with reference to Cleon) βυρσῶν ὀσμὰς δεινάς (terrible smells of raw leather), with Olson (1998) 221 on the foul smell that naturally accompanied the tanneries in ancient Athens. Certainty is impossible. 5 κυμβία … Εὐριπίδῃ On κυμβία and Euripides (probably not the tragic poet) see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 9.2 s. vv.

176

Πελταστής (Peltastēs) (“The Peltast”) Discussion Meineke 1,353; Bothe 496; Kock 2,260; Edmonds 2,157; PCG 5,146; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 493f. Title Mercenary peltast troops were fashionable and on the rise during the fourth century BC. Hence, the title straightforwardly establishes a contemporary, fourth-century setting for the play and, simultaneously plunges the plot within the long-running thematic tradition of soldier-related comic scenes and/or entire scenarios. Eriphus also wrote a Πελταστής (PCG 5,181f.; Thomas Reinesius – teste Meineke 1,353 – suggested that, instead of Ἔριφός, we should read Ἔφιππός in Ath. 4.137d). Originating from Thrace, the peltasts (πελτασταί) constituted a specialist military force (between heavy and light-armed) that started featuring in Greek military affairs in the late sixth century BC. The peltasts were named after the πέλτη (peltē) they carried, which was a special kind of light, wooden or wicker, crescent-shaped shield without a rim (apart from the peltē, they also carried a thrusting spear or javelins and a sword, although they were not uniformly armed). By the last quarter of the fifth century BC the peltasts had well infiltrated Greek warfare as an innovative way of prosecuting war (cf. X. HG 1.2.1 about events of 409 BC; in HG 2.4.12 Xenophon refers to them as πελτοφόροι < πέλτη + φέρω), while the fourth century BC saw the numbers of both Greek and non-Greek peltasts literally catapulting (see Parke 1933: 48–57, 79–83; Best 1969: passim; Trundle 2004: 29–30, 47–54). It is important to remember that traditionally on the battlefield the hoplites were the ones who held the predominant position and the ones most highly esteemed; cf. Pritchard (1998) 44–53, Hunt (2007) 111–117, Krentz 2013. In that regard, it has been argued (by Parke l. c.) that peltasts outnumbered the hoplites by the beginning of the fourth century BC. Iphicrates (PAA 542925) is twice mentioned (by D.S. 15.44.1–3 and Nep. Iph. 1.3–4) as having played a catalytic role in a major military reform in 374/3 BC, which allegedly saw the hoplites being turned into peltasts (D.S. 15.44.3 οἱ μὲν πρότερον ἀπὸ τῶν ἀσπίδων ὁπλῖται καλούμενοι τότε δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς πέλτης πελτασταὶ μετωνομάσθησαν: the infantry who had formerly been called “hoplites” because of their heavy shield, then had their name changed to “peltasts” from the light peltē they carried). This twin testimony is given some consideration by Parke l. c., but is categorically – and convincingly – rejected by Best (1969: 102–110), who concludes that there was no such thing as a “peltast reform”. Iphicrates’ role – if any – remains obscure and vague and should not hold us long. On the contrary, what is of major importance, for both Greek military history and Ephippus’ present play, is that “the majority of mercenaries who fought in Spartan and Athenian armies in Greece proper in the fourth century were peltasts”, as Best (1969: 134) safely concludes. For a focused analysis of the Athenians’ usage of peltasts and other, non-heavy troops see Trundle 2010.

Πελταστής

177

In that regard, it is noteworthy that the fourth century BC saw a conspicuous boom in mercenary soldier numbers in general (peltasts and others), in what has been termed the “Greek mercenary explosion” (Miller 1984). Keeping in line with contemporary reality, the Middle Comedy stage witnesses the rise of the braggart soldier to a stereotypical figure, who excels in Münchausen-type narrations of exotic and preposterous events (cf. “Interpretation” for Ephipp. fr. 5). Early traces of this figure are already detectable in the portrayal of Lamachus in Aristophanes’ Acharnians (presented as relentlessly belligerent, cf. lines 572–574, 620–622, 964–965; NB the example of Lamachus is not mentioned in the otherwise useful monograph of Hofmann & Wartenberg 1973), whereas Hunter (1985: 66) points to even earlier documentations of this pattern outside Comedy, i. e. in tragedy, Archilochus, and even Homer. The bombastic soldier figure is bequeathed to New Comedy and then to Roman comic playwrights (e. g. Men. Kol. fr. 2; cf. Ter. Eun. 391–453; NB Thraso in the Eunuch is Terence’s only soldier), where the soldier is typically involved in some ill-starred (at least at the beginning of the plot) love-affair; on certain occasions within the Menandrean corpus the soldier’s boasting appears gentled and somewhat milder (e. g. in Misoumenos and Perikeiromene; cf. Hunter 1985: 66–68). As to the Plautine Comedy, the figure of the braggart soldier appears in seven plays; yet, most typical is the introductory scene of Miles Gloriosus, along with Truc. 505–511 and Curc. 439–441. On Comedy’s braggart soldier see further Ribbeck (1882) 27–32; Wysk 1921; Wehrli (1936) 101–113; Hanson 1965; Webster (21970) 64; MacCary 1972; Webster (1974) 192; Arnott (1996) 605–607; Konstan 2010. Accordingly, Ephippus’ present play must have featured the adventures and/or the homecoming of some mercenary peltast, whose bragging probably turned him into yet another typical example of the arrogant soldier figure of Middle Comedy. Date With all probability, the present play belongs to Ephippus’ late career (cf. Intro. 2 “Chronology & Career”). Webster (1952: 18) suggested that Ephippus’ Peltast was produced in the period 360–340 BC, on the basis of the references it contains to the physician Menecrates and the Argive general Nicostratus (fr. 17); yet, Arnott (1996: 460) considers Webster’s estimate too confined. However, having studied all the surviving evidence regarding both Menecrates and Nicostratus, I believe we can adopt the year 343 BC as a possible terminus post quem for the play’s performance, since (i) the most significant single moment (commemorated as such by ancient sources) in Nicostratus’ career was his participation in a military expedition in Egypt in 343 BC (cf. s. v. Νικόστρατος); (ii) Menecrates’ activities are associated with datable events of the second half of the fourth century BC; besides, his fame demonstrably carried on until (at least) the third quarter of the fourth century, as a reference in a play by Alexis evinces (Μίνως; cf. s. v. Μενεκράτης).

178

Ephippus

fr. 17 (17 K.) οὐ Μενεκράτης μὲν ἔφασκεν εἶναι Ζεὺς θεός, Νικόστρατος δ᾿ Ἁργεῖος ἕτερος Ἡρακλῆς; 1 εἶναι Ζεὺς θεός Schweigh.: εἶναι ὁ θεός A: εἶναι † ὁ θεός † K-A: εἶναι Ζεὺς νέος Herwerden (1872) 5: εἶν’ ὁ θεῶν θεός Bothe (1844) 46 2 Ἁργεῖος Dindorf: ὁ ἀργεῖος A

Didn’t Menecrates claim to be Zeus the god, and Nicostratus the Argive a new Heracles? Ath. 7.289a–b Μενεκράτης … ὁ Συρακόσιος … ὁ Ζεὺς ἐπικαλούμενος, ὃς ἐφρόνει μέγα ὡς μόνος αἴτιος τοῦ ζῆν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις γινόμενος διὰ τῆς αὑτοῦ ἰατρικῆς. τοὺς γοῦν θεραπευομένους ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἱερὰς καλουμένας νόσους συγγράφεσθαι ἠνάγκαζεν ὅτι ὑπακούσονται αὐτῷ δοῦλοι περισωθέντες. καὶ ἠκολούθουν ὁ μέν τις Ἡρακλέους σκευὴν ἔχων καὶ καλούμενος Ἡρακλῆς (Νικόστρατος δ᾿ ἦν οὗτος ὁ Ἀργεῖος, ἱερὰν νόσον θεραπευθείς· μνημονεύει δ᾿ αὐτῶν Ἔφιππος ἐν Πελταστῇ λέγων ὧδε· οὐ — Ἡρακλῆς;) Menecrates … of Syracuse … was nicknamed Zeus and was extremely proud, since he was convinced that his medical skills were the only thing that kept people alive. He required the individuals he was treating, at any rate, for the so-called sacred diseases to draw up a document promising that, if they survived, they would serve him like slaves. One man used to accompany him wearing a Heracles-outfit and was actually referred to as Heracles (this was Nicostratus of Argos, who had been cured of the sacred disease. Ephippus mentions the two of them in The Peltast, putting it thus: “Didn’t — Heracles?”)

Metre Iambic trimeter

lkkkl kklk|l llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

llkl llk|kk klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) Discussion Meineke 3,337; Bothe 496; Kock 2,260f.; Edmonds 2,156f.; PCG 5,146; Nesselrath (1990) 197; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 493f.; Rusten & Henderson 486 Citation Context This is an interesting example of a double-framed quotation in Athenaeus Book 7; the present fragment is quoted within a discussion about arrogant cooks, which in turn occurs parenthetically within another discussion about various species of fish (begun at 7.277c). Athenaeus interrupts the lengthy fish catalogue first to cite a fragment by Philemo (fr. 82) featuring a pompous cook taking pride in the exquisite way he prepared a fish-dish; the cook’s arrogance is unprecedently preposterous and Athenaeus considers it hard to have it paralleled with anyone else’s ego. In this regard, Athenaeus recalls another self-important figure, albeit far less conceited than the cook, and this is the physician Menecrates of Syracuse who referred to himself as Zeus (cf. s. v.); the reference to

Πελταστής (fr. 17)

179

Menecrates leads to the quotation of Ephippus’ present fragment (7.289b), where both Menecrates and his former patient, Nicostratus, are mentioned derisively. Constitution of Text Both lines present metrical irregularities that have been resourcefully and effectively addressed by modern scholars. In line 1 codex A (on Athenaeus’ manuscript tradition cf. Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”) preserves the reading εἶναι ὁ θεός, which leaves the line incomplete by one short syllable. Schweighaeuser suggested the alternative reading εἶναι Ζεὺς θεός, which satisfies the metre, while keeping in line with the ancient sources attesting to Menecrates nicknamed Zeus (cf. comm. s. v.). Herwerden’s and Bothe’s conjectures, although metrically sound, diverge from A’s reading further than Schweighaeuser’s suggestion. Herwerden (1872: 5) replaces θεός with νέος (εἶναι Ζεὺς νέος), in what is not a probable palaeographical error (nu could not be easily mistaken for thēta), while Bothe’s conjecture (1844: 46) disturbs the nearby εἶναι, so that he can then metrically accommodate the genitive θεῶν (εἶν’ ὁ θεῶν θεός), in what is an entirely unnecessary series of changes. On the contrary, Schweighaeuser’s emendation is overall nearer to ancient testimonies whilst requiring the minimum change to A’s text (and this is why I chose to adopt it). Kassel-Austin refrain from adopting any of the suggested conjectures, but instead they prefer to edit A’s problematic reading between cruces. In line 2 codex A preserves the unmetrical reading ὁ ἀργεῖος (which burdens the line with a superfluous long element); Dindorf effectively corrected this into Ἁργεῖος (featuring a rough breathing, resulting from crasis whereby the definite article ὁ merges with the following ethnic). Interpretation The speaker, in an apparently heightened emotional state, employs a distinct syntactic structure featuring a double rhetorical question, whereby he evokes someone else’s absurd behaviour, probably as an excuse for one’s own (perhaps his) actions (the same structure recurs in Ephipp. fr. 9, ubi vide). Via this rhetorical formulation, the comic character mocks the physician Menecrates of Syracuse and the general Nicostratus of Argos for preposterously self-promoting themselves (cf. Intro. 5 “Kōmōdoumenoi”). According to the speaker, Menecrates is said to have considered himself equal to Zeus and Nicostratus on par with Heracles; this twin assimilation is a most apposite one, given that in Greek mythology Zeus is Heracles’ father. The speaker’s words are marked with vigour that is created by the (twofold) rhetorical question containing negation, where the negative word (οὐ) is emphatically placed first; this specific syntactical structure can communicate certain strong feelings, such as indignation, sarcasm, and / or contempt (cf. e. g. Philetaer. fr. 9.1–2, about hetairae growing old: οὐχὶ Κερκώπη μὲν ἤδη γέγον’ ἔτη τρισχίλια, / ἡ δὲ Διοπείθους ἀηδὴς Τέλεσις ἕτερα μυρία; : hasn’t Kerkope already become three thousand years old, and the disgusting Telesis of Diopeithes another ten thousand?). Via this negative rhetorical question the speaker in Ephippus’ fragment seeks to confirm/reassure himself (or a collocutor) and alleviate any concerns, as he tries to justify an audacious and destined-to-raise-some-eyebrows decision or an otherwise extraordinary course of action that he (or his collocutor) has already taken or will be taking soon, by comparing the present situation to that

180

Ephippus

of Menecrates and Nicostratus (cf. comm. s. vv.). Since the context is missing, it remains unclear whether this distich served as a self-exhortation/self-justification or as a strong advice to some other (hesitant) character to proceed as planned. The course of action in question must have something to do with the self-promotion of the character involved (the speaker’s or his collocutor), since the quintessence of the twin example (Menecrates and Nicostratus) is an eloquent demonstration of their alleged obsession with their personal image and self-importance. In other words, the comic character highlights – and scoffs – what is known to everyone (didn’t X do Y?) and, by doing so, he argues something like, “if they went that far with self-promotion, what’s the harm in me/you doing that other (lesser) thing?”. Menecrates and Nicostratus allegedly going to extremes presently serves as an alibi for the comic character (or his collocutor); i. e. given the precedent of their absurd behaviour, practically anything is excusable/allowable at the moment. This negative rhetorical pattern constitutes a mild version of a much more forceful stylistic way of introducing a question or an exclamation; this is the εἶτ’ οὐ / εἶτ’ οὐχί / εἶτ’ οὐ δικαίως introductory motif that occurs quite often in Comedy as well as in rhetorical texts; cf. Papachrysostomou (2016) 25–26 (with examples and bibliography). The speaker’s identity is irrecoverable. However, if a daring conjecture was to be made, this would be to detect some notional propinquity between the play’s title (a peltast as an arrogant soldier; cf. “Title”) and the fragment’s thematic core, i. e. the arrogance displayed by the duo mentioned by the speaker. On the basis of the common ground of arrogance (in the widest sense and in all possible manifestations), it could be argued that either the speaker or his collocutor is the title-figure himself, who – being arrogant by nature – ponders upon acting in some self-important way; at that moment, the cases of Menecrates and Nicostratus are appositely mentioned to dispel all hesitation and reluctance. 1 Μενεκράτης … Ζεύς Menecrates was a highly competent (and on occasion itinerant, if need be; cf. Squillace 2012: 45–46) physician from Syracuse, who became famous for his outstanding medical skills some time during the first half of the fourth century BC (the earliest evidence about him is his written correspondence with the king of Sparta Agesilaus II, at some point between 377/6 and the king’s death in 361 BC; cf. Squillace 2004 and 2012: 55–61); his activities are also associated with datable events of the second half of the fourth century too (cf. Squillace 2012: 22), and he is also mentioned by Alexis (fr. 156, from the play Μίνως), whose productive period covered the years ca. 350–270 BC (cf. Arnott 1996: 3–25, 459–461; Arnott dates Alexis’ Μίνως to the period 350–325/320 BC); cf. Bain (1977) 216–217. As a physician, Menecrates was able to successfully treat and heal certain acute diseases, including epilepsy, pleurisy, and pneumonia, which could prove fatal at the time; hence, he was nicknamed “Zeus”, probably by the Syracusans, as a token of their gratitude and admiration. Menecrates readily used this divine title to refer to himself (cf. Plu. Ages. 21.5 ἐπεὶ κατατυχὼν ἔν τισιν ἀπεγνωσμέναις θεραπείαις Ζεὺς ἐπεκλήθη, φορτικῶς ταύτῃ χρωμένου τῇ

Πελταστής (fr. 17)

181

προσωνυμίᾳ: for his success in certain desperate cases, he had received the surname of Zeus and had the bad taste to employ the appellation). His fame earned him some eminent patients (such as Nicostratus of Argos; see next note) and was conspicuous enough to turn him into a significant comic butt that the Athenian audience was expected to know (for Menecrates’ treatment by Comedy see Squillace 2012: 76–85, 172). Menecrates also addressed letters to the Spartan king Archidamus III (reigned ca. 361–338 BC), as well as to the Macedonian king Philip II (reigned 360/359–336 BC); cf. Squillace 2004 and (2012) 47–64. Twentieth century scholarship (including Arnott 1996: 459–461) has been considerably influenced by Weinreich, who in his monograph of 1933 portrayed Menecrates as a schizophrenic, a “Fall von religiöser Paranoia” (1933: 90). Recently, the figure of Menecrates has been thoroughly re-examined and radically reevaluated by Giuseppe Squillace, who analyzed afresh the primary sources (in a series of studies: 2004, 2012, 2013, 2015), in an attempt to distinguish reality from comic hyperbole and fiction (the latter having been significantly inflated by Suda’s haphazard and uncritical quotation of information). The rich anecdotological material reported by Athenaeus (7.289a–f) and other sources (Aelian VH 11.51, Plu. Mor. 191a, 213a, Ages. 21, Suda s. v. Μενεκράτης, etc.) is certainly based upon and fueled by Menecrates’ overconfidence. It seems that Menecrates was fairly haughty (and justifiably so, given his outstanding medical skills), but he was neither delusional nor paranoid. In the present fragment the speaker credits Menecrates with the arrogant initiative of calling himself Zeus (ἔφασκεν εἶναι Ζεύς); the syntactical structure (active voice) strongly suggests that it was Menecrates himself who came up with this pompous title, which he applied to himself. On the contrary, the passive voice formulations employed by Athenaeus (7.289a ὁ Ζεὺς ἐπικαλούμενος), Plutarch (Ages. 21.5 Ζεὺς ἐπεκλήθη), and Clemens of Alexandria (Protr. 4.54.3 Ζεὺς οὗτος ἐπικεκλημένος) counter-suggest that this title was bestowed on him (by the people he treated); and Menecrates was vain enough to welcome this manifestation of adulation and adopt the title. See further Squillace (2012) 35–39. 2a Νικόστρατος Nicostratus was a wealthy, mid-fourth century Argive general of noble origin (Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 124), who excelled in bodily strength (D.S. 16.44.3 τοῦ σώματος ῥώμῃ διαφέρων) and stood out for his virtue both in action and in councel (D.S. l. c. ἀγαθὸς καὶ πρᾶξαι καὶ βουλεύσασθαι). With all probability, Ephippus took again interest in Nicostratus, in his play Busiris, where the Argive general was disguised as Heracles. According to Ath. 7.289b, Nicostratus was treated for and cured from epilepsy by the physician Menecrates (cf. previous note); see Squillace (2012) 42–44. The highlight of Nicostratus’ career came in 343 BC, when the Persian king (Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’) requested his military contribution against Egypt; responding to the King’s request, Nicostratus led a military force of three thousand Argive mercenaries and helped the King prevail against the Egyptian pharaoh Nectanebo II (cf. comm. on Ephippus’ Busiris under “Title”). The events are narrated by Diodorus of Sicily (16.44). Regarding Nicostratus’ character, Theopompus (FGrH 115 F 24) describes him as a disgusting

182

Ephippus

flatterer, whereas Plutarch (192a) preserves an incident between the king of Sparta Archidamos III and Nicostratus, when the latter declined the former’s request to betray a stronghold, despite the large amount of money promised as reward (χωρίον τι προδοῦναι παρακαλούμενος ἐπὶ χρήμασι πολλοῖς). 2b ἕτερος Ἡρακλῆς Nicostratus (see previous note) is compared to/assimilated with Heracles (cf. Ephippus’ Busiris “Title”). Stylistically, the expression “ἕτερος X” is a common form of comparison employed in cases where someone is likened to an outstanding individual (e. g. Socrates) or to some god (demigod, etc.). Apart from ἕτερος, other adjectives used in such comparative structures include νέος, καινός, δεύτερος, etc.; Headlam (1922) 199 registers several parallel cases. The assimilation of Nicostratus to Heracles is not part of Ephippus’ comic fiction, but reflects reality, as both Athenaeus (7.289b–c) and Diodorus of Sicily confirm. Diodorus attests to the fact (also reported by Ath. l. c.) that Nicostratus used to dress in Heracles’ outfit (16.44.3–4): ἐμιμεῖτο τὸν Ἡρακλέα κατὰ τὰς στρατείας καὶ λεοντῆν ἐφόρει καὶ ῥόπαλον ἐν ταῖς μάχαις (he imitated Heracles when on a campaign by wearing a lion’s skin and carrying a club in battle); yet, Diodorus notes that this happened κατὰ τὰς στρατείας, whereas Athenaeus claims that Nicostratus would dress as Heracles whilst joining the entourage of Menecrates. In addition, Nicostratus was said to have madness mingled with his intelligence (D.S. 16.44.3 μεμιγμένην δ᾿ ἔχων τῇ φρονήσει μανίαν), just like his mythological counterpart, Heracles (see Stafford 2012: 87–92, 97 with fig. 3.1, 100–103). Meineke (1823: 183) suggests that the figure of Nicostratus may be hiding behind Menander’s Fake Heracles (Ψευδηρακλῆς); cf. Men. fr. 416. Nicostratus was not the only one ever to be assimilated with Heracles. The Stoic Cleanthes is reported by Diogenes Laertius (7.170) to have been known as δεύτερος Ἡρακλῆς (second Heracles). Furthermore, in later antiquity (second century AD), a hardly identifiable figure by the name of Sostratus was also nicknamed Heracles; he originated from Boeotia and was a philosopher (perhaps a Cynic; cf. Dudley 1937: 182); cf. Luc. Dem. 1 ὃν Ἡρακλέα οἱ Ἕλληνες ἐκάλουν καὶ ᾤοντο εἶναι (whom the Greeks called Heracles and believed to be that hero). The treatise that Lucian had dedicated to him is now lost (Jones 1986: 90). Kindstrand (1979–1980) argues that the Sostratus alluded to by Lucian must be the same person (i) with the figure described by Philostratus (VS 2.552–554) as “Heracles of Herodes” (ὃν ἐκάλουν οἱ πολλοὶ Ἡρώδου Ἡρακλέα), also known as Agathion (Ἀγαθίων; lit. Goodfellow), and (ii) with the nebulous figure of Sosaster (Σώσαστρος) referred to by Plutarch 660e. At approximately the same time, the Roman emperor Commodus (reigned 177–192 AD) considered himself to be a reincarnation of Heracles; cf. Wilamowitz (21895) I 94 n. 174. Yet, the primary figure that was first ever assimilated to Heracles was believed to have been Theseus. Plutarch (Th. 29.3) records the proverb ἄλλος οὗτος Ἡρακλῆς (lo! another Heracles), and traces its origin and primary reference to Theseus, with the reasoning that αὐτὸν μηδενὸς συμμάχου δεηθέντα πολλοὺς καὶ καλοὺς ἄθλους κατεργάσασθαι (he himself without asking for any ally, performed many glorious exploits); the proverb is also registered by Diogenianus CPG I 63

Πελταστής (fr. 18)

183

and explained as ἐπὶ τῶν ἰσχυρῶν καὶ κραταιῶν ἡ παροιμία (the proverb applies to the powerful and mighty ones); cf. Leutsch ad loc. The practical identification of Theseus and Heracles that results thereby should not surprise us, since both these figures constituted legendary emblems and archetypical examples of the Greek civilization. If seen schematically, Heracles was primarily associated with places of Mycenaean ancestry (cf. Nilsson 21972: 187–220; Stafford 2012: 3–20), whereas Theseus was the counterbalancing, institutional response of the Ionians of Attica and especially Athens (cf. Walker 1995: 127–141; Mills 1997: 6, 27–29, 129–159).

fr. 18 (18 K.) ἔνθ᾿ ὄνων χἴππων στάσεις καὶ γεύματ’ οἴνων 1 ὄνων ἵππων τε στάσεις A: τε del. Meineke: χἴππων Meineke ed. min.: ὄνων θ’ ἱπποστάσεις Postgate (1908) 295: ἵππων ὄνων τε σιτίσεις Meineke Anal.Ath. 167

Where there are stalls for donkeys and horses and samples of wines Ath. 9.380e–f καὶ ὁ Οὐλπιανός, Ἔφιππος, ἔφη, ἐν Πελταστῇ· ἔνθ᾿ ὄνων — οἴνων And Ulpian said: Ephippus in The Peltast: “Where — wines”

Metre Iambic trimeter

llkl l

lkl llkl (Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,337; Bothe 496; Kock 2,261; Edmonds 2,156f.; PCG 5,147; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 494 Citation Context In Deipnosophistae Book 9 Athenaeus enumerates the various foods served at the symposion and describes how each food item generated heated discussion among the banqueters about both linguistic issues (e. g. proper appellation, grammatic gender, literary usage, etc.) and cooking methods. At 9.380d the symposiarch Ulpian boasts about his linguistic knowledge regarding the term γεύματα: τὰ γὰρ γεύματα ἐγὼ οἶδα μόνος (because I am the sole authority on samples). Shortly after, another banqueter invites Ulpian to share his knowledge with the rest of the group (9.380e): περὶ δὲ τῶν γευμάτων ἃ σαυτῷ προὔπιες ὥρα σοι λέγειν, Οὐλπιανέ (but now it is time, Ulpian, for you to discuss these samples of yours that you mentioned in your toast). Responding to this request, Ulpian quotes the present fragment from Ephippus (9.380e–f).

184

Ephippus

Constitution of Text The fragment, as embedded within Athenaeus’ prose, is unmetrical; codex A preserves the reading ὄνων ἵππων τε στάσεις, which presents an abnormal series of four consecutive long syllables. Hence, there have been many scholarly attempts to remedy the metre. The text I chose to adopt and print is a combination of Meineke’s suggestions; first, Meineke deleted τε (3,337: “delevi τε, quod omitti posse videtur, ut in similibus dicendi formis, νέοι γέροντες, ἄνδρες γυναῖκες, pedes eques, etc.”), albeit reservedly so, aknowleding that the present case is slightly different from the examples he cites (“quamquam haec aliquid differunt”). In his editio minor Meineke returns to the case suggesting the emendation of the reading ἵππων to χἴππων (ii.665), which – leaving out of the text the problematic τε – provides for the necessary conjunction between the two nouns. This qualifies for an infrequent case of crasis, which is nonetheless paralleled by Cratin.Jun. fr. 13 (καρῖδας ἡ ζὰψ ἐκφέρει κἰχθύδια). Later, Meineke revisited Ephippus’ text and suggested the reading ἵππων ὄνων τε σιτίσεις (Anal. Ath. 167), but this modification is not necessary. Postgate (1908: 295) proposed the reading ὄνων θ’ ἱπποστάσεις (with the reasoning that Ephippus was writing burlesque, which was not appreciated by the copyist, who consequently corrupted the text) and drew attention to similar cases of seeming mismatches, e. g. E. Ph. 28 (ἱπποβουκόλοι) and Ar. Pl. 819–820 (βουθυτεῖ / ὗν καὶ τράγον καὶ κριόν); yet, Postgate’s conjectures are rather improbable. All in all, the text I print is the one closest to what codex A preserves, albeit with the necessary modifications by Meineke (as explained above), so that the metre and the syntax are best served. Interpretation It is likely that the fragment bears some relevance to the play’s title (cf. comm. under “Title”). The speaker (perhaps the title-figure or an attendant/slave of his) refers to a place (an establishment, a village or a town), where both animals (donkeys and horses) and people can recharge, the former in stables (στάσεις) and the latter with some wine-tasting (γεύματ’ οἴνων). Such a place could be a military base or station, in Greece or abroad, where the speaker has recently been to whilst on a military expedition. The fact that the speaker uses the adverb ἔνθα suggests that this place is somewhere away from the speaker’s current location. The speaker may be addressing either the audience or one or more characters on stage; in either case, he describes a place he has visited to people who have not, with the intent to inform them, and perhaps to impress them too. It is conceivable that we find ourselves in the opening scenes of Ephippus’ play and that the speaker is either the title-figure of the peltast or his slave, who – upon return to homeland – narrates a bunch of (military) adventures to family members and friends, and/or the audience. If so, this would be yet another exemplification of the stereotypical figure of the braggart soldier, narrating unheard-of stories with the intent to impress his listeners. Besides, such a reconstruction would be paralleled by the beginning of Menander’s Aspis, where (lines 23 ff.) the slave Daos describes how his master had fought as a mercenary in an expedition to Lydia. Metre Both lines are incomplete; line 1 misses its beginning and line 2 misses its ending. From line 1 the entire first metre and the first element of the second

Πελταστής (fr. 19)

185

metre are missing. Line 2 misses the entire third metre, along with the three final elements of the second metre. 1 χἴππων στάσεις Horse stables, stalls. Presently, the term στάσις is used with the sense of σταθμός as in LSJ9 s. v. I.1, i. e. standing-place for animals, farmstead, steading. The poetic periphrasis ἵππων στάσις (also occurring in E. fr. 442 ἵππων … στάσιν) is a rare alternative for ἱππόστασις (used metaphorically by Euripides twice, Alc. 593 and fr. 771.5; cf. Diggle 1970 comm. ad loc.) or ἱπποστάσιον (Lys. fr. 64 Carey; v.l. ἱππόστασιν). In addition, although unattested within the Greek literary corpus, the term ὀνοστάσιον features as a gloss – along with ἱπποστάσιον – for the Latin term “stabulum” (CGL 187.50). 2 γεύματ’ The noun γεῦμα, deriving from the verb γεύω (give a taste), means taste, smack, sample of a thing. Presently, the reference is to samples of wine (γεύματ’ οἴνων), i. e. the equivalent of modern “wine-tasting”. The practice of wine-tasting is also mentioned in Diph. fr. 3.2–3 (λαγύνιον· / ἔχον βαδίζειν εἰς τὰ γεύμαθ’ ὑπὸ μάλης: to go to wine-tasting holding a little wine-flask under his arm), and in Antiph. fr. 83 (as a verb: οἰνογευστεῖ: he samples wine), while its purpose is explained in E. Cyc. 149–150 βούλῃ σε γεύσω πρῶτον ἄκρατον μέθυ; / δίκαιον· ἦ γὰρ γεῦμα τὴν ὠνὴν καλεῖ (would you like me to give you a taste of it neat first? / that’s fair enough: a taste invites a purchase). A memorable case of (allegorical) wine-tasting occurs in Aristophanes Acharnians, when Amphitheus brings three samples of σπονδαί (wine-libations, and – by metonymy – treaties) to Dicaeopolis (line 187: τρία γε ταυτὶ γεύματα); cf. Engelmann 1986. The term γεῦμα is used metaphorically by Aristotle (HA 491a7–8), with the meaning of foretaste, sample of what follows within his theoretic analysis: ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον εἴρηται νῦν ὡς τύπῳ, γεύματος χάριν περὶ ὅσων καὶ ὅσα θεωρητέον (what has just been said has been stated thus by way of outline, so as to give a foretaste of the matters and subjects which we have to examine).

fr. 19 (5 K-A & 19 K-A)

5

10

τούτῳ δ᾿ ὁπόταν ναέται χώρας ἰχθύν τιν᾿ ἕλωσ᾿ οὐχ ἡμέριον, τῆς περικλύστου δ᾿ ἁλίας Κρήτης μείζω μεγέθει, λοπάς ἐστ᾿ αὐτῷ δυνατὴ τούτους χωρεῖν ἑκατόν. καὶ περιοίκους εἶναι ταύτῃ Σίνδους, Λυκίους, Μυγδονιώτας, Κραναούς, Παφίους. τούτους δ᾿ ὕλην κόπτειν, ὁπόταν βασιλεὺς ἕψῃ τὸν μέγαν ἰχθύν· καὶ προσάγοντας, καθ᾿ ὅσον πόλεως ἕστηκεν ὅρος,

186

Ephippus

15

20

25

τοὺς δ᾿ ὑποκαίειν. λίμνην δ᾿ ἐπάγειν ὕδατος μεστὴν εἰς τὴν ἅλμην, τοὺς δ᾿ ἅλας αὐτῷ ζεύγη προσάγειν μηνῶν ὀκτὼ συνεχῶς ἑκατόν. περιπλεῖν δ᾿ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄμβωσιν ἄνω πέντε κέλητας πεντεσκάλμους περιαγγέλλειν τ᾿· “οὐχ ὑποκαίεις, Λυκίων πρύτανι; ψυχρὸν τουτί.” “παύου φυσῶν, Μακεδὼν ἄρχων.” “σβέννυ, Κέλθ᾿, ὡς μὴ προσκαύσῃς.” τοιαῦθ᾿ ὑθλῶν δειπνεῖ καὶ ζῇ θαυμαζόμενος μετὰ μειρακίων, οὐ γινώσκων ψήφων ἀριθμούς, σεμνὸς σεμνῶς χλανίδ᾿ ἕλκων

1 ὁππότε τῷ Γηρϋόνῃ CE 2 τιν’ om. CE ἕλωσ᾿ Schweigh.: -σι CE: -σιν A οὐχ ἡμέριον A: om. CE: οὐχ ἡμεδαπόν Kock: οὐχ ἡμερινόν vel (5.1,85) οὐ δὴ μέτριον Meineke, quae postea Anal.Ath. 153 ipse dixit non magnopere placere 3 δαλίας A: ἁλίας CE 5 sq. om. CE 6 ταύτῃ (vel ταύτης) Schweigh. IX.582: -η A: φασιν Schweigh. III.278 7 Σινδούς Schweigh. (Σίνδους corr. Meineke): ἐσϊνδοὺς ϊνδοὺς A: ϊνδοὺς CE 7–8 Μυγδονιώτας, Κραναούς et τούτους om. CE 10 καὶ – 12 ὑποκαίειν om. CE 17 πεντεσκάλμους Herwerden (1876) 308: πεντασκάλμους ACE 18–21 om. CE 18 τ᾿· “οὐχ ὑποκαίεις Wil. ap. Kaibel: τε κοὐχ ὑποκαίειν A 19 λυκείων Α: corr. Schweigh. πρύτανι Wil. (ap. Kaibel): πρυτάνεις A 21 σβέννυ, Κέλθ᾿, ὡς Wil. (ap. Kaibel): σβεννυκελτους A: σβέννυ Kέλτους Schweigh.: σβέννυ, Kέλτους Meineke Anal.Ath. 153 προσκαύσῃς Schweigh.: προσκλύσῃς A 22 τοιαῦτά θ’ ὑθλῶν Bothe 24 γινώσκων codd.: γιγνώσκων Meineke

5

10

15

Whenever the inhabitants of the country catch an exceptional fish for him, larger in size than the sea-girt, thalassic Crete, a cooking-pot is available for his sake, which is capable of holding one hundred of these. And the inhabitants dwelling around this country are Sindians, Lycians, Mygdonians, Cranaans, and Paphians; these, they chop wood, whenever the king is cooking the big fish, and carry it forward, up to the city’s boundaries, and set fire to it. And a lake full of water is supplied for the brine; and they marshal one hundred pairs of oxen to transport salt for it, for eight months non-stop. And up on the rim, five fast, five-tholed boats keep sailing about

Πελταστής (fr. 19)

20

25

187

and carry orders around: “Won’t you turn up the fire, Lycian commander? This bit right here is cold!” “Stop blowing, ruler of Macedon!” “Quench that flame, Celt, lest you burn it all!” This is the kind of nonsense he prattles about when dining and passes his life being honoured among the boys, despite being ignorant of the abacus numbers, solemnly dragging his cloak in all his glory

Ath. 8.346e–347b (lines 1–21) τάχα δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἄνδρες φίλοι, ἑκόντες παρελίπετε ὡς ἱερόν τινα ἰχθὺν τὸν παρ᾿ Ἐφίππῳ τῷ κωμῳδιοποιῷ, ὅν φησι τῷ Γηρυόνῃ σκευάζεσθαι ἐν τῷ ὁμωνύμῳ δράματι (Geryonis mentionem hic om. CE) διὰ τούτων λέγων· τούτῳ — προσκαύσῃς But perhaps you too, my friends, intentionally left out – as if it was sacred – the fish found in the comic playwright Ephippus, which he says it was prepared for Geryon in the homonymous play, in the following words: “Whenever — burn it all” Ath. 8.347b–c (lines 22–25) οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δ᾿ ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα εἴρηκεν ὁ Ἔφιππος κἀν Πελταστῇ τῷ δράματι, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ταῦτα ἐκείνοις ὑποτέτακται· τοιαῦθ᾿ — ἕλκων. εἰς τίνα δὲ ταῦτ᾿ ἀποτεινόμενος ὁ Ἔφιππος εἴρηκεν ὥρα σοι ζητεῖν, καλὲ Οὐλπιανέ, καὶ διδάσκειν ἡμᾶς I am well aware that Ephippus makes exactly the same remarks in his play The Peltast, in which the following lines come after the ones just quoted (fr. 5): “This is — glory”. It is time for you, my good Ulpian, to take up the question of the object of these remarks by Ephippus, and to offer us some instruction

Metre Anapaestic dimeter

5

10

15

llkkl|kklll llkkl|llkkl lkkll|kklll llkkl|kklll kklll|llkkl lkkll|llll llkkl|lkkll kklkkl|llll llkkl|kklll lkkll|lkkll kklkkl|llkkl lkkll|llkkl kklll|llll lkkll|llkkl llll|kklkkl

188

Ephippus

20

25

kklkkl|llkkl lkkll|llll kklll|lkkll kklkkl|llll llll|kklll llll|llll llll|llll llkkl|kklkkl llll|llkkl llll|kkll (paroemiac)

Discussion Meineke 3,323–325, 3,336f.; Bothe 490, 496; Kock 2,252f., 2,261; Edmonds 2,156–159; PCG 5,134f., 5,147; Nesselrath (1990) 267, 276, 326; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 486f., 494; Rusten & Henderson 486 Citation Context In Athenaeus Book 8, immediately after a long quotation from Ephippus’ Geryon (fr. 5, see “Citation Context” ad loc.), the banqueter Democritus continues speaking (and showing off); he proudly declares that he is well aware of the fact that the very same lines (τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα) that he has just quoted from Geryon (fr. 5) are mentioned again by Ephippus in The Peltast too, and proceeds with quoting (8.347c) four further lines (lines 22–25 of the present fragment), which follow (ὑποτέτακται) the initial set of identical lines. For what it is worth, Athenaeus employs the same expression, the very same lines (αὐτὰ ταῦτα), once again, in 3.84b, to describe how Eriphus begins a certain passage using a set of iambic lines, which are identical to Antiphanes’ lines that Athenaeus had just quoted, 3.84a–b ( Ἔριφος δ᾿ ἐν Μελιβοίᾳ αὐτὰ ταῦτα τὰ ἰαμβεῖα προθεὶς ὡς ἴδια ἐπιφέρει: Eriphus in “Meliboea”, beginning with these same iambic lines, as if they were his own, continues). Regarding the use of the verb ὑποτάσσω as a terminus technicus for putting after, following in both literary texts and inscriptions see LSJ9 s. v. III. An additional passage exemplifying that ὑποτάσσω can mean immediately follow within the text is D.H. Comp. 5.18–24 “κλῦθί μευ αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς τέκος Ἀτρυτώνη” καὶ “ἔσπετε νῦν μοι Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ᾿ ἔχουσαι” … “μνῆσαι πατρὸς σεῖο, θεοῖς ἐπιείκελ᾿ Ἀχιλλεῦ” ἐν γὰρ τούτοις ἡγεῖται μὲν τὰ ῥήματα, ὑποτέτακται δὲ τὰ ὀνόματα : after quoting three lines from the Iliad (5.115, 2.484, 24.486), Dionysius observes that in these lines the verbs ‘lead the way’ (ἡγεῖται), and the nouns ‘follow’ (ὑποτέτακται); in what follows the sense of the antonym προτάσσω is exemplified (place immediately in front of). To return to Athenaeus’ text pertaining to the present fragment, Democritus explicitly testifies to the fact that the lines constituting fr. 5 from Geryon featured also in The Peltast; therefore, I see no reason why we should not acknowledge these lines for what they also are, i. e. the largest part of fr. 19, which concludes with the four extra lines (22–25) that do not feature in the Geryon. Hence, I deviate from what all editors (bar Edmonds) acknowledge as fr. 19 (i. e. only lines 22–25). On

Πελταστής (fr. 19)

189

the issue of Ephippus and other poets consciously recycling their own lines as well as freely sharing / drawing upon the same stock material, see “Interpretation” for fr. 5 and “Citation Context” for frr. 3 and 12. Constitution of Text For lines 1–21 see “Constitution of Text” for fr. 5. In line 22 Bothe suggested – for metrical reasons – the alternative reading τοιαῦτά θ’ ὑθλῶν. Τhe metrical analysis of Bothe’s reading is llkkl , i. e. practising correptio attica on ypsilon (ὑθλ-). On the contrary, correptio attica is not observed in the codices’ reading τοιαῦθ᾿ ὑθλῶν. Bothe’s modification of the text is entirely unnecessary, as is the practice of correptio attica (which is, after all, an exception to the rule). Besides, elsewhere in comic anapaests correptio attica is normally not practised; cf. e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 42.37 (in τερενόχρωτες the omicron is long), Cratin. fr. 176.3 (in κατεβέβληντο δρυπετεῖς the omicron -ντο is long too). In line 24 Meineke suggested the reading γιγνώσκων, as opposed to γινώσκων that is preserved by the manuscript tradition. Again, although the Attic form of the verb is γιγνώσκω (as opposed to the later γινώσκω, which also occurs in early Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic dialects; cf. LSJ9 s. v.), it is not necessary to alter the text for any reason (the context eludes us and we have no means to know why the poet would have wanted his character to speak in atypical Attic language; cf. “Interpretation” for fr. 5 for atypical language, perhaps suggesting a non-Athenian speaker for that fragment, and for the present one too). Besides, γινώσκων satisfies the metre too, since the iota of γινώσκων is long (by antectasis). Interpretation The speaker reports – in direct speech – a typical example of the preposterous stories that a presumptuous, ignorant individual (the subject of δειπνεῖ and ζῇ, line 22) often narrates over dinner. The reported example takes up most of the fragment (lines 1–21); in concluding his narration (lines 22–25), the speaker expresses his disdain about the phoniness of the arrogant individual, whom he charges with utter incompetence and with the habit of cultivating and promoting the appearance of fake solemnity (NB the metrical analysis of line 25 allows us to establish that this was the actual end of the speech; cf. “Metre”). It is noteworthy that it is only rather late in the fragment (line 22) that we come to realize that the speaker does not actually narrates the preposterous story (about an absurdly huge fish), but he merely reports it as narrated by some other character, of whom the speaker thinks very little (the speaker’s distaste is made manifest from the way he concludes his narration: τοιαῦθ᾿ ὑθλῶν line 22, and οὐ γινώσκων line 24). Although we cannot positively identify the original storyteller, whom the speaker dislikes and considers totally unworthy of all the adulation he receives (line 23), there are at least two plausible lines of interpretation that are worth considering; the original storyteller (NB not the actual speaker) could be (i) the title-figure of the peltast, given the pronounced and ubiquitous propensity of Comedy’s soldier figure to pompously narrate hardly believable stories similar to the one featuring in this fragment (cf. comm. under “Title” for The Peltast), (ii) some philosopher, since the speaker assigns to this individual certain features that are stereotypical of the philosopher figure in Comedy (cf. “Interpretation”

190

Ephippus

for Ephipp. fr. 14), such as the cultivation of an intellectual façade, ignorance, and condescendingly dragging one’s cloak (cf. comm. on lines 24 and 25). Of course, the options of a soldier or a philosopher are not the only possible ones (e. g. this could be a pompous political figure, a king, etc.); certainty is impossible. As to the identity of the comic character who actually delivers the fragment, this is also beyond recover. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the lines 1–21 (the preposterous story) also constitute fr. 5 of Ephippus (cf. “Interpretation” ad loc.). Meineke (3,337) suggested that the two fragments share a common thematic background; Kock (2,261), despite finding Meineke’s opinion “prorsus incredibilis” (utterly incredible), admits that he has nothing better to propose. Nesselrath (1990: 276–277) emphasizes the possibility that Ephippus reused a passage that had proven popular with the audience before. Indeed, as already argued (cf. “Citation Context” for the present fragment), comic poets regularly felt free to reuse material that had previously proved successful. Accordingly, we do not need to assume that Ephippus’ set of identical lines belonged in similar contexts within the two plays. What is more, given the possible performance dates for Geryon and The Peltast (after 369 and after 343 BC respectively), it follows that Ephippus reused in The Peltast a set of identical lines that had presumably proved successful with the audience before. Metre The extravagant content of the fragment is appositely expressed via the anapaestic dimeter (Nesselrath 1990: 276). The last verse (line 25) is a catalectic anapaestic dimeter, also known as paroemiac. A paroemiac normally concludes a group of anapaestic dimeters; hence, this is a crucial piece of evidence that the end of the speaker’s report within the play coincides with the end of Athenaeus’ quotation of Ephippus’ text (a manifestation of Athenaeus’ diligence and attentiveness to the material at hand; cf. Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). On the anapaestic metrical pattern see further Intro. 7 “Metre”. For commentary on lines 1–21 see under Ephippus fr. 5. 22 ὑθλῶν The verb ὑθλέω occurs very sporadically in Greek literature and means to talk nonsense, to trifle. In Comedy it occurs once in the period of Middle (the present case) and twice in Old Comedy: in Eup. fr. 259.78 (a case of hendiadys): μηδ’ ὕθλει μὴ φ[λυάρει (don’t trifle and don’t talk nonsense) and in Ar. Nu. 783 ὑθλεῖς· ἄπερρ’ (you’re blathering; get lost). The verb is not attested anywhere else outside Comedy – until later antiquity (e. g. in Philo Judaeus, Aëtius, Eusebius). In this line we eventually realize that the text so far has been a direct report of the story by someone else, whose identity cannot be established. 23 μειρακίων On the age-class that the appellation μειράκιον refers to, see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 7.1a. The speaker presently accuses the pompous figure (i. e. the original storyteller) of unworthily enjoying the admiration and respect (θαυμαζόμενος) of the adolescents. 24 οὐ γινώσκων ψήφων ἀριθμούς ψῆφος,-ου (ἡ) is a small round worn stone, a pebble. Pebbles were used for various purposes in antiquity, most commonly

Πελταστής (fr. 19)

191

for reckoning (i. e. as abacus counters) and for voting (i. e. as ballots, votes). In the present fragment the former use is meant; accordingly, the speaker accuses the prattling guy either literally of mathematical illiteracy or metaphorically of utter incompetence, i. e. of not being able to perform even the simplest of tasks (counting being one of the first things taught to little kids). Herodotus speaks of the Greek method of counting with pebbles (2.36.4): λογίζονται ψήφοισι Ἕλληνες μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀριστερῶν ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιὰ φέροντες τὴν χεῖρα (the Greeks calculate with pebbles by moving the hand from left to right). The widespread use of pebbles for accurate, exact reckoning (as opposed to rough counting with one’s fingers) is exemplified in Ar. V. 656 καὶ πρῶτον μὲν λόγισαι φαύλως, μὴ ψήφοις ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ χειρός (first of all, calculate roughly, not with counters, but on your fingers). When used as means for reckoning, ψῆφος normally occurs in the plural number (as in the present fr.), precisely because the term signifies the multiple pebbles used in the counting procedure; cf. AP (Asclep.) 5.181.5–6 ἐλθὲ λαβοῦσα, / Φρύνη, τὰς ψήφους (come, Phryne, and bring the abacus). But in Alex. fr. 15.3 the singular number is used instead (apparently as a ‘collective singular’; cf. Smyth 1956: §996): ἀβάκιον, ψῆφον (bring an abacus and some counting pebbles); cf. Arnott (1996) 88 (with bibliography on ancient calculation methods). The present accusation of innumeracy (especially in its figurative sense as utter incompetence/ineffectiveness) is part of a widespread comic pattern, wherein philosophers are accused of cultivating a fake intellectual façade (see “Interpretation” for the possibility that the speaker refers to a philosopher); cf. “Interpretation” for Ephipp. fr. 14, and Amphis fr. 13 ὦ Πλάτων, / ὡς οὐδὲν οἶσθα πλὴν σκυθρωπάζειν μόνον, / ὥσπερ κοχλίας σεμνῶς ἐπηρκὼς τὰς ὀφρῦς (O Plato, / you know nothing but scowling, / raising solemnly your eyebrows like a snail) with Papachrysostomou (2016) 88–91. Presently, οὐ γινώσκων is concessive participle, which the speaker uses to emphasize how much this presumptuous individual does not deserve the admiration of the youth. The entire line 24 (οὐ γινώσκων ψήφων ἀριθμούς) is reminiscent of Pi. O. 13.46 οὐκ ἂν εἰδείην λέγειν ποντιᾶν ψάφων ἀριθμόν (I would not know how to state a clear number for the pebbles of the sea). Of course, the context is manifestly different, and it would be unwise to make any further surmise; yet, the stylistic similarity is, at least, worth noting. 25a σεμνὸς σεμνῶς The asyndetic parataxis of two cognate terms (normally an adjective and an adverb) is a commonly recurring rhetorical pattern, which – apart from the evident parechesis effect – results in emphasizing the notion expressed thereby, presently the notion of σεμνότης. Of course, here the speaker is being ironic, since this is not a genuine, but a fake solemnity that he sees in the person he refers to. Regarding the possibility (cf. “Interpretation”) that the person referred to might be a philosopher, the element of fake solemnity would complete the comic image of such a figure; cf. Amphis fr. 13 (quoted in the previous note), where Plato is portrayed solemnly (σεμνῶς) raising his eyebrows.

192

Ephippus

The same paratactic expression recurs twice in Libanius, Or. 1.35 σεμνὸς σεμνῶς εἱστήκει (there he stood in all his glory), and Decl. 22.13 σεμνὸς σεμνῶς ἐκάθητο Φίλιππος (Philip was sitting in all his glory). Other instances include Aristid. Or. 46, p. 171 Jebb σεμνοὶ σεμνῶς κεῖνται (they solemnly lie in all their glory), Plu. Flam. 10 ταῖς κατηγορίαις λαμπροὶ λαμπρῶς τὰς πόλεις ἀνερρήγνυσαν (they stirred up the cities with the most vociferous denunciations), and Hdt. 2.173.2 (parataxis of two different cases of the same adjective) σὲ γὰρ ἐχρῆν ἐν θρόνῳ σεμνῷ σεμνὸν θωκέοντα (we would have you sit aloft on a throne of pride). For further examples see Lobeck (1837) 58. See also E. Med. 805–806 κακὴν κακῶς / θανεῖν σφ᾿ ἀνάγκη (that wretch must die a wretched death) and ibid. 1386 σὺ δ’ … κατθανῇ κακὸς κακῶς (but you … shall die the miserable death of a coward); NB both Euripidean examples are versions (and variations) of another rhetorical pattern, germane to the one under discussion, i. e. a pattern of curse; cf. Watson (1991) 35. 25b χλανίδ᾿ ἕλκων On χλανίς see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 14.10a. The presence of the participle ἕλκων (ἕλκω: drag, draw) conveys the sense that the object (χλανίδ᾿) is something particularly heavy and bulky; indeed, such was the nature of this large, woolen garment, cf. Anaxil. fr. 18.2 χλανίδας ἕλκων (trailing his cloaks), Ephipp. fr. 14.10 ὄγκῳ χλανίδος (beneath his bulky cloak). Dragging their cloaks around in an apathetic and nonchalant manner is how philosophers are portrayed elsewhere in Comedy (NB both Anaxilas and Ephippus ll.c. refer to philosopher figures); on the possibility that the individual presently described by the comic character is a philosopher, see “Interpretation”. Furthermore, such swaggering was generally regarded as a manifestation of self-conceit and pomposity, in both Greek and Roman literature; cf. D. 19.314 διὰ τῆς ἀγορᾶς πορεύεται θοἰμάτιον καθεὶς ἄχρι τῶν σφυρῶν (he paces the marketplace with his long robe reaching to his ankles), and Cic. Clu. 111 “non solum mores et adrogantiam eius, sed etiam voltum atque amictum atque etiam illam usque ad talos demissam purpuram” (not only his manners and his arrogance, but also his expression and his clothes, and that purple robe he wore right down to his heels).

193

Σαπφώ (Sapphō) (“Sappho”) Discussion Edmonds 2,161; PCG 5,148; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 494 Title The lyric poetess Sappho is a conspicuously popular figure throughout all three eras of Greek Comedy. She is the title-figure of six comic plays; one in Old Comedy: by Amipsias (PCG 2,204–205; cf. Orth 2013: 268–270), three in Middle Comedy: by Amphis (PCG 2,228; cf. Papachrysostomou 2016: 207–209), Antiphanes (PCG 2,424–426; cf. Konstantakos 2000a: 157–180), and Ephippus, and two in New Comedy: by Diphilus (PCG 5,94), and Timocles (PCG 7,777; cf. Apostolakis 2019: 226–230). Poets being the title-figure of comic plays is a commonly recurring pattern in Greek Comedy; cf. the plays Ὅμηρος by Metagenes, Ἡσίοδος by Nicostratus and Ἡσίοδοι by Telecleides, Ἀρχίλοχος by Alexis and Ἀρχίλοχοι by Cratinus, Κλεοβουλίνη by Alexis and Κλεοβουλῖναι by Cratinus, and Κινησίας by Strattis. According to Athenaeus (13.599d), Diphilus’ Sappho featured Archilochus and Hipponax as Sappho’s lovers (in a chronologically twisted scenario, since Archilochus was a generation older than Sappho, while Hipponax was a couple of generations her younger; cf. Davies 1981), while Antiphanes pictures Sappho enunciating riddles (fr. 194). Arguably, Comedy’s overwhelming interest in the Lesbian poetess predominantly stems from Sappho’s close association with and traditionally acknowledged expertise in love matters; throughout Greek and Latin literature Sappho enjoyed the reputation of the love poetess par excellence and was considered an authority in erotic affairs (cf. Pl. Phdr. 235c, Epicr. fr. 4, Plu. 762f– 763a, Paus. 9.27.3, AP 7.407; Hor. Carm. 4.9.10–12, etc.), while she is also reported to have been engaged in various love adventures herself. Apart from Diphilus’ scenario in his Sappho, Anacreon is reported as Sappho’s lover by Chamaeleon (fr. 26), Anacreon and Alcaeus are visualized rivalling for her love by Hermesianax (fr. 3.47–56), while Sappho’s infatuation with the mythical Phaon (an elderly and ugly, yet honourable, boatman from Lesbos, whom Aphrodite rejuvenated as a reward for his honesty) is preserved in multiple versions; Sappho is said to have committed suicide by throwing herself off a cliff on the island of Leucas, because of her unrequited passion for him; see Palaeph. 48, Str. 10.2.9, Luc. DMort. 19.2, Ael. VH 12.18–19, Ov. Her. 15, Plaut. MG 1246–1247; cf. also the two comic plays entitled Phaon, by Plato (PCG 7,508–517) and Antiphanes (PCG 2,437–438). See Amphis’ play Leucas (with Papachrysostomou 2016: 163–169). Sappho’s close association with erotic matters in general (including the parallel case of Diphilus’ play) allows us to put forward the hypothesis that Ephippus’ present play may have featured some romantic adventures, which were somehow linked to Sappho (she could be either an enamoured figure or a go-between). Yet, even so, one must rule out the possibility of any reference to female homosexuality, since this is a subject that is entirely absent from all surviving Greek Comedy; cf. Dover (1978) 172–173; Wilamowitz (1913) 72; Most (1996) 14, 32–33; Schmidt

194

Ephippus

(2016) 191 (with nn. 66–68). The surviving fragment’s erotic – albeit pejorative – reference to a homosexual male prostitute (cf. “Interpretation” ad loc.) may or may not be incidental and, accordingly, its relation – if any – with the play’s overall erotic atmosphere remains indeterminable. For further discussion of Sappho’s personality, poetic technique, comic exploitation, reception (in both antiquity and in modern times), etc., see – from among the plethora of relevant studies – Wilamowitz (1913) 17–42; Dover (1978) 171–184, Nagy (1990) 223–262; Williamson (1995) 5–33; Greene 1996; Lefkowitz & Fant (32005) 2–4; Yatromanolakis 2007; Kivilo (2010) 195–198; Lefkowitz (22012) 41–44; Davidson (2007) 391–417, esp. 402; D’Angour 2013. Date With all probability, Sappho belongs to Ephippus’ late career (cf. Intro. 2 “Chronology & Career”). The wording and ideas of the play’s one surviving fragment feature striking similarities with Aeschines’ speech Against Timarchus (esp. §75, cf. “Interpretation” below), delivered between late summer 346 and spring 345 BC. The possibility of direct influence of one text to the other has been already entertained by Fisher (2001: 213), who, nonetheless, believes that the influence, if any, could have been exercised both ways, meaning that Ephippus’ play could have preceded Aeschines’ speech. This is rather improbable; if we are willing to acknowledge an influence here – and a consequent dating clue – this must have originated from Aeschines’ speech. Timarchus’ trial was an extraordinary and memorable case; not only did it arise out of intense political and personal rivalries following the Athenian embassy to Philip II in Macedon to negotiate peace in 346 BC (Peace of Philocrates), but it also featured charges and accusations not about Timarchus’ recent activities, but activities in which he allegedly engaged some decades earlier (which was rather unorthodox; cf. Fisher 2001: 1–8). It is reasonable to believe that such an unusual case exercised some serious effect on Comedy (a genre receptive, by nature, to contemporary happenings, even during the fourth century BC; cf. Papachrysostomou 2009 and 2012, Henderson 2014, Nesselrath 1997), and not that Aeschines needed to search for inspiration and fancy vocabulary in contemporary comic plays. If one accepts that Ephippus was indeed influenced by Aeschines’ Against Timarchus, then Sappho must have been produced after the trial, though not too long after it (provided that the comic poet expected his audience to recall the events); i. e. we can consider the spring of 345 BC as a tentative terminus post quem for the play’s performance.

fr. 20 (20 K.) ὅταν γὰρ ὢν νέος ἀλλότριον ἐλθὼν ὄψον ἐσθίειν μάθῃ ἀσύμβολόν τε χεῖρα προσβάλῃ βορᾷ, διδόναι νόμιζ᾿ αὐτὸν σὺ τῆς νυκτὸς λόγον

Σαπφώ (fr. 20) 1 γὰρ ὢν A: om. CE: τις ὢν Dobree Adv. II 344 ACE, † εἰσελθὼν K-A: εἰσδὺς Blaydes Adv. II 145

195 2 ἐλθὼν Grotius Exc. 982: εἰσελθὼν 4 σὺ A: σοι CE

Because whenever a young man acquires a habit of eating another person’s serving, upon entering a house, and puts his hand on food without having contributed anything himself, you can assume he’s paying off his debt at night Ath. 13.572c–d καλῶς δὲ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων Ἔφιππος ἐν Σαπφοῖ φησιν (om. CE, φησὶν Ἀντιφάνης post poetae verba CE)· ὅταν — λόγον. τὰ αὐτὰ εἴρηκεν καὶ Αἰσχίνης ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐν τῷ Κατὰ Τιμάρχου Ephippus in Sappho makes some nice remarks about these people: “Because — night”. The orator Aeschines makes the same observation in his Against Timarchus

Metre Iambic trimeter

kl klkl lkkkl l|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) klkl klk|l klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) kklkl ll|kl llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,338; Bothe 496; Kock 2,262; Edmonds 2,160f.; PCG 5,148; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 494; Rusten & Henderson 486 Citation Context The fragment is quoted in Athenaeus Book 13 (just like Ephipp. frr. 6 and 23; cf. “Citation Context” for both frr.), and particularly within Myrtilus’ lengthy encomium of hetairae, i. e. 13.571a–610a (see McClure 2003: 46–58, 179–181). The present fragment (ap. 13.572c) comes shortly after the quotation of Ephipp. fr. 6 (ap. 13.571e–f), which praises the gracious manners of a certain hetaira (cf. “Interpretation” ad loc.). Remarkably, the present fragment, along with the preceding quotation of Alex. fr. 244 (ap. 13.572b–c) and the following reference to Aeschin. 1.75 (ap. 13.572c–d), differ from the rest of the passages, for they refer not to hetairai but to male prostitutes instead (πόρνοι), and, as such, are employed by Myrtilus as counter-examples to the refined character and the courteous nature of hetairai. The interpolation of not only a non-comic but also a non-poetic reference (i. e. Aeschines) among a series of comic quotations is remarkable and fairly unusual in Athenaeus’ text. Constitution of Text The introductory phrase that assigns the fragment to Ephippus and to his play Sappho (καλῶς δὲ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων Ἔφιππος ἐν Σαπφοῖ φησιν) is preserved only by codex A, while this information is missing from the Epitome codices C and E; instead, at the end of the quotation the scribe assigns the fragment to Antiphanes by noting φησὶν Ἀντιφάνης. Given the widely acknowledged lesser quality of the Epitome and the slapdash modus operandi of

196

Ephippus

the compiler (on Athenaeus’ Epitome see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”), this is manifestly a careless mistake of the compiler, who had apparently heard of Antiphanes’ Sappho (but not of Ephippus’). In line 1 the reading γὰρ ὢν is preserved by codex A, but it is omitted by codices C and E. Dobree (Adv. II 344) suggested the alternative reading τις ὢν, presuming that γὰρ was part of Athenaeus’ wording and did not belong to Ephippus’ text. However, when quoting a fragment, Athenaeus often ends his introductory phrase with φησίν; whatever follows is typically the words of the quoted author/ poet, e. g. 13.571e Ἔφιππος ἐν Ἐμπολῇ τάδε φησίν· (Ephipp. fr. 6 follows), 14.652b Δίνων γοῦν ἐν τοῖς Περσικοῖς φησιν· (Dinon FGrH 690 F 12 follows), 14.652d Φοινικίδης δ᾿ ἐν Μισουμένῃ φησίν· (Phoenicid. fr. 2 follows), 15.681a Κρατῖνος δὲ ἐν Μαλθακοῖς φησιν· (Cratin. fr. 105.4 follows), etc. Accordingly, in the present fragment Atheanaeus’ wording clearly ends at φησιν; hence, there is no need to alter the text in any way. In line 2 the manuscript tradition unanimously preserves the reading εἰσελθὼν, which disturbs the metre, since it presents the line with a superfluous long element. The solution that deviates the least from the manuscript tradition is the one I adopt, which was put forward by Grotius (Exc. 982), and consists simply in removing the initial, long syllable of εἰσελθὼν, turning it into ἐλθὼν, without significantly modifying the meaning. Blaydes’ suggestion εἰσδὺς (Adv. II 145), despite being a lectio difficilior that could have been corrupted into εἰσελθὼν, entails a clandestine sense, which is absent from the manuscripts’ reading εἰσελθὼν (NB the verb εἰσδύνω inherently communicates a conspirational notion of crawling into rather than merely entering; cf. LSJ9 s. v.). In line 4 codex A preserves the reading σὺ (as the subject of νόμιζ᾿), which is adopted by KasselAustin and all other editors, whereas the codices C and E preserve the reading σοι. It is clear that the dative σοι is incorrect; διδόναι takes λόγον as its direct object, but its indirect object remains unspecified. Interpretation Within a largely sympotic context (on symposion see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 4.2a), the fragment touches on two topics: primarily on male homosexual prostitution (which is treated scornfully) and tangentially on the fatherand-son relationships (a common comic motif). Athenaeus’ introductory remark is already ironic about male homosexual prostitution (καλῶς περὶ τῶν τοιούτων … φησιν, where καλῶς is meant ironically, signifying exactly the opposite, cf. e. g. S. Ant. 739, E. Med. 588). The speaker of the fragment, assuming an authoritative, guru style, presents a typical and often repeated scenario: whenever, he says, a young man grows a habit of freeloading at dinner-parties (instead of paying his expected share of the cost), this is definitely a sign that he pays off his debts during the night. The speaker thereby insinuates that the young man provides sexual gratification for his host/benefactor. Syntactically the speaker appositely uses an indefinite temporal clause; i. e. the action described thereby recurs an indefinite number of times and/or continues for an indefinite period (Smyth 1956: §2392); cf. s. v. μάθῃ below. The speaker could be addressing another comic character or soliloquizing; in either case, the visualized scenario must have something to

Σαπφώ (fr. 20)

197

do with events related to the play (these events either take place within the play or belong to the play’s prehistory). The behaviour ascribed to the young man by the speaker is easily recognizable as that of a πόρνος (NB the term is first attested on a sixth century BC graffiti from Thera, IG XII 536), i. e. or boy or a man who engages in homosexual acts in return for either money or a non-monetary reward; cf. X. Mem. 1.6.13 τήν τε γὰρ ὥραν ἐὰν μέν τις ἀργυρίου πωλῇ τῷ βουλομένῳ, πόρνον αὐτὸν ἀποκαλοῦσιν (for to offer one’s beauty for money to anyone who wants it is called prostitution); see also Ar. Pl. 153–159, Phryn.Com. fr. 49, Alex. fr. 244 (cf. Arnott 1996: 685). The situation presented in Ephippus’ fragment is heavily reminiscent of the accusations cast by Aeschines against the politician Timarchus in his homonymous speech (that was delivered some time between late summer 346 and spring 345 BC; cf. Fisher 2001: 6), to the point that one is allowed to think that Ephippus was probably influenced by Timarchus’ trial and Aeschines’ accusations (in terms of vocabulary and ideology); if so, we have a dating clue for Sappho’s production date (cf. “Date” above). On the other hand, the verbal and ideological similarities may be coincidental and may have independently derived from common gossip on the usual phenomenon of male homosexuality. In any case, it is significant that the parallelism is drawn by Athenaeus too, immediately after the quotation of Ephippus’ fragment (τὰ αὐτὰ εἴρηκεν καὶ Αἰσχίνης ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐν τῷ Κατὰ Τιμάρχου). It is especially §75 from Aeschines’ speech with which Ephippus’ fragment can be compared: τί χρὴ λέγειν, ὅταν μειράκιον νέον, καταλιπὸν τὴν πατρῴαν οἰκίαν, ἐν ἀλλοτρίαις οἰκίαις νυκτερεύῃ, τὴν ὄψιν ἑτέρων διαφέρον, καὶ πολυτελῆ δεῖπνα δειπνῇ ἀσύμβολον, καὶ αὐλητρίδας ἔχῃ καὶ ἑταίρας τὰς πολυτελεστάτας, καὶ κυβεύῃ, καὶ μηδὲν ἐκτίνῃ αὐτός, ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερος ὑπὲρ ἐκείνου; … οὐκ εὔδηλον ὅτι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη τὸν τὰ τηλικαῦτα ἐπιτάγματά τισιν ἐπιτάττοντα καὶ αὐτὸν ἀντὶ τούτων ἡδονάς τινας παρασκευάζειν τοῖς τὸ ἀργύριον προαναλίσκουσιν; (what shall we say when a young man leaves his father’s house and spends his nights in other people’s houses, a conspicuously handsome young man? When he enjoys costly suppers without paying for them, and keeps the most expensive flute-girls and hetairai? When he gambles and pays nothing himself, but another man always pays for him? … Is it not perfectly plain that the man who makes such demands must himself necessarily be furnishing in return certain pleasures to the men who are spending their money on him?); cf. Fisher (2001) 211–213. More than four decades ago (1978) Dover’s pioneering monograph on Greek Homosexuality delineated the fundamental parameters and the predominant patterns pertaining to homosexuality in ancient Greece; remarkably, the second chapter of his monograph (pp. 19–109) analytically studies the case of Aeschines’ prosecution of Timarchus from a legal, sexual, and social aspect. Ever since, a plethora of relevant studies on this topic have been produced, a useful synopsis of which is nicely present by Fisher (2001: 25–53); cf. the recent monograph by Davidson 2007. See also Davidson (2011) 608, Kapparis (2017) 187–209. NB male homosexuality is typically presented pejoratively in Comedy; cf. Henderson (21991) 208–209.

198

Ephippus

Although the identity of the speaker of Ephippus’ fragment is irrecoverable, his age can be discerned from what he says; i. e. the way he refers to a νέος (i. e. as a condition that is distant from him) allows us to assume that the speaker is an older figure, probably a father, uncle, paedagogus, guardian or older slave, who cares about some younger lad. Older figures feeling anxious about profligate youngsters is a comic motif that permeates Greek and Latin Comedy, tracing back to Chionid. fr. 1 (where a father complains about his son’s disinclination from military service; cf. Bagordo 2014: 40). The motif is memorably crystallized in Aristophanes’ Clouds (esp. 8–16, where Strepsiades complains about the idleness of his son) and recurs in Theophil. fr. 11 (where an elderly figure expresses his worries about a youth’s contacts with hetairai; cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 272–276). Similarly, Webster (21970: 63) interpreted Alex. fr. 103 as a warning of either a paedagogus or a father addressed to his son alerting him about the treacherous tricks of the hetairai (see Arnott 1996: 268–269); cf. Bato fr. 5 (where a father worries about his son, who has descended into a life of debauchery under the influence of his guardian). Within Latin comedy this pattern emerges in Terence’s Adelphoi; cf. especially the worries expressed by Micio (35–38), Demea (355–364) and the slave (962–963). In that regard, a well-known reversal of both age typology and roles between father and son occurs in Aristophanes Wasps; see Biles & Olson (2015) xxxii-xxxvii, Rothwell (2019) 2. For a discussion of the relations between fathers and sons in Comedy (and beyond), see Hunter (1985) 95–109, Strauss 1993, Zimmermann 2007. Metre Only the second half of line 1 survives; i. e. the first metre, along with the first two elements of the second metre are missing. 1 νέος Strictly speaking a νέος is a young man between twenty and twenty-nine years old (Davidson 2007: 78); cf. X. Mem. 1.2.35 (Socrates, seeking to establish the age limit below which a man is to be considered a νέος, receives the following answer from his collocutor): ὅσουπερ χρόνου βουλεύειν οὐκ ἔξεστιν, ὡς οὔπω φρονίμοις οὖσι· μηδὲ σὺ διαλέγου νεωτέροις τριάκοντα ἐτῶν ([i. e. a person is considered νέος] as long as he is not permitted to sit in the Council, because as yet he lacks wisdom; you shall not converse with anyone who is under thirty). The crucial threshold of thirty years old (i. e. when one ceased to be a νέος) was a quintessential age criterion that needed to be met before any Athenian citizen could be eligible to be a candidate for any official, governmental post in Athens (cf. [Arist.] Ath. 4.3). Regarding the age-denomination, Davidson (2007: 74) emphasizes how scrupulous the ancient Greeks were regarding age-distinctions and, in that regard, he offers an anthropological explanation of ancient Greek society as an “age-class society” (i. e. a society obsessed with age, yet largely oblivious as to when its members were actually born). In addition, Davidson (2007: 74–98) provides a useful elucidation of age terminology per se as well as with reference to (homosexual) love ethics. See also Van Nortwick (2008) 24–49, and Papachrysostomou (2016) 208–209 (on Amphis fr. 33.9–10; on young age as potential source of troubles in general). Cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 7.1a (s. v. μειράκιον).

Σαπφώ (fr. 20)

199

The visualization of a νέος freeloading and the concomitant suspicions regarding male homosexual prostitution described in this fragment are reminiscent of and comparable to Aeschin. 1.75 (cf. “Interpretation”); the parallelism is drawn by Athenaeus himself in a rather unusual intergeneric association of passages (cf. “Citation Context”). It is conceivable that Ephippus was directly influenced by Aeschines’ vivid representation of the politician Timarchus as a male homosexual prostitute in the orator’s speech against him, which was delivered in Athens amidst heated political climate in 346/5 BC. If we acknowledge such an influence, the play’s possible production date is narrowed down to the years closely following this trial (cf. “Date”). 2a ὄψον Within the tripartite division of ancient Greek diet (cf. Hom. Od. 3.479–480 σῖτον καὶ οἶνον / ὄψα τε: bread and wine and dainties), ὄψον is a generic term used to describe anything and everything other than bread and wine; i. e. any kind of cooked food or (occasionally uncooked) relish or sauce that can be accompanied with bread and wine; cf. Ath. 7.277a: ὄψον κυρίως καλεῖται πᾶν τὸ πυρὶ κατασκευαζόμενον εἰς ἐδωδήν (the term “opson” is properly applied to anything rendered edible by the application of fire); cf. Plu. Them. 29.11. In addition, especially in Athens the term ὄψον was also used to designate fish in particular (cf. Plu. 667f); cf. Poll. 7.26, Archestr. fr. 20.2 (see Olson & Sens 2000: 47–48, 92). See Hug in RE 18,759–760 s. v. opson; Dalby (1996) 24, 57–129; Davidson 1995 and (1997) 20–26; Romeri (2000) 265–267. In the present fragment the term ὄψον has the generic, all-embracing sense of relish / delicacy / anything other than bread and wine (rather than exclusively fish; but Fisher 2001: 212 thinks otherwise); the speaker is not interested in what the young man eats, but in the fact that he does eat (everything and anything) at someone else’s dinner-party without contributing towards the expenses (see s. v. ἀσύμβολον). 2b μάθῃ Here the verb μανθάνω (commonly, to learn) is used with the rare meaning of acquire a habit of (cf. LSJ9 s. v. II). The notion of habit is revealed through syntax too; i. e. this is a twin indefinite temporal clause that designates indefinite repetition in the past and the present (ὅταν … μάθῃ … τε … προσβάλῃ – νόμιζ’; cf. “Interpretation”). Parallel cases include Hp. Acut. 28 οἱ μεμαθηκότες δὶς σιτεῖσθαι τῆς ἡμέρης, ἢν μὴ ἀριστήσωσιν, ἀσθενέες καὶ ἄρρωστοί εἰσιν (those who have the habit of taking two meals a day, should they omit lunch, find themselves weak and feeble), and Antiph. fr. 97.3–4 Χαιρεφῶν οὕτως ⟨ . . . ⟩ / μεμάθηκε κωμάζειν ἄδειπνος (Chaerephon has been accustomed to celebrate this way when he hasn’t had dinner). 3a ἀσύμβολον The term is to be understood within the context of commensality, and especially in relation with the popular institution of cooperative / shared meals, the so-called δεῖπνα ἀπὸ συμβολῶν (lit. dinners from contributions; the earliest reference occurs in Ar. Ach. 1211). The participants in these dinner-parties were expected to contribute towards the cost of the feast (food and wine) by paying an equal share/contribution (συμβολή; cf. Hegesand. fr. 31, FHG iv.419), either

200

Ephippus

in advance or afterwards; cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 4.1 (s. v. συναγώγιμον). The adjective ἀσύμβολος (< alpha privative + συμβολή) designates either a person who fails to pay his share or a dinner-party (ἀσύμβολον δεῖπνον) where the guests are not expected to pay their share (such a dinner is understandably revealing of its host’s wealth). In the present fragment, in an apposite instance of a pars pro toto, the adjective ἀσύμβολον designates the hand (χεῖρα) of the person who fails to contribute to the meal. ἀσύμβολα δεῖπνα and ἀσύμβολοι characters feature often in Middle and New Comedy (cf. Arnott 1996: 86–87); e. g. Phryn.Com. fr. 60, Anaxandr. fr. 10, Eub. fr. 72, Timocl. frr. 8.10 and 10, Diph. fr. 74, Alex. fr. 259 (see Arnott 1996: 725), Macho frr. 5.44 and 16.315 (with Gow 1965: 68–69). Parasites and toadies are highly likely to be ἀσύμβολοι (on parasites see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.6a s. v. παραμασύντας); in any case, ἀσύμβολοι would be reasonably suspected of offering an alternative compensation, e. g. of supplying sexual services to the host/ benefactor – as in Ephippus’ present fragment. 3b βορᾷ The feminine noun βορά,-ᾶς (< βιβρώσκω: eat) means food; yet, it is typically used with reference to carnivorous animals (e. g. Ar. Eq. 416, A. Ch. 530), fish (e. g. Amips. fr. 8; cf. Orth 2013: 231), as well as cannibal feasts (e. g. Hdt. 1.119, E. Cyc. 127). It is only rarely used to describe simple food (as a poetic term, e. g. A. Pers. 490) and, even then, a notion of excessive gluttony is often implicit (e. g. E. Supp. 865–866, Ar. Th. 1033 along with a metaphorical monster imagery, cf. Austin & Olson 2004: 317). Accordingly, the present use of βορά bears explicit connotations not only of gluttony, but also of uncouth and brutish devouring of food. Thereby, the youth described by the comic character is visualized as a voracious individual, behaving like an animal at dinners, attacking food the way animals do. 4 νόμιζ’ The second person (singular or plural) of present (or past) imperative of the verb νομίζω (or, rarely, δοκέω) followed by infinitive (here διδόναι) constitutes a typical syntactical structure of sententious aphorisms in poetry (mostly in comedy and tragedy). This is a standard and colloquial way of expressing one’s certainty – in a quasi-authoritative way – about some situation, potential outcome, etc. This idiosyncratic expression sounds like an exhortation to the addressee(s) to unquestionably believe the speaker, who seems to say “take my word for it”. The examples are numerous, e. g. Aristopho fr. 5.3–4 δεῖ τιν’ ἄρασθαι μέσον / τῶν παροινούντων παλαιστὴν νόμισον Ἀργεῖόν μ’ ὁρᾶν (if a drunk has to be grabbed about the waist and hoisted off the ground, rest assured you are looking at an Argive wrestler). For further examples see Arnott (1996) 759–760 (on Alex. fr. 271.4), Papachrysostomou (2016) 249 (on Amphis fr. 39.2), Orth (2020) 97 (on Aristopho fr. 10.2).

201

Φιλύρα (Philyra) (“Philyra”) Discussion Meineke 1,353; Bothe 496; Kock 2,262; Breitenbach (1908) 134; Edmonds 2,160f.; PCG 5,149; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 495 Title The title-figure could be (i) the historic hetaira Philyra (PAA 953300), (ii) a mythological figure (two or three different individuals bear this name; cf. below), (iii) a conflation of the historic hetaira with one of her mythological counterparts. Before we proceed in examining our options, it should be noted that φιλύρα, as a noun, is the name of the linden tree, which is described in detail by Thphr. HP 3.10.4–5; cf. Dsc. 1.96 φιλύρα δένδρον ἐστὶν ὅμοιον κύπρῳ κατὰ μέγεθος, φύλλα δὲ ἐλαίας ὅμοια, πλατύτερα δὲ καὶ μελάντερα (philyra is a tree similar in size to henna, while its leaves are similar to those of the olive-tree, except they are wider and darker). The simplest and most straightforward interpretation of the title-figure is to identify her with the historic hetaira Philyra (PAA 953300), especially since Athenaeus (7.286e, in introducing Ephipp. fr. 22 from the present play) cares to note that ἑταίρας δ᾿ ὄνομα ἡ Φιλύρα (Philyra is a hetaira’s name; understandably, if the play was about some other female figure called Philyra, Athenaeus’ comment about the hetaira would be irrelevant). Meineke was the first to suggest the identification of Ephippus’ title-figure with the historic hetaira (1,353); he also drew attention to Ath. 13.586e, where the hetaira Philyra is mentioned again, in association with Lysias’ speech Reply to Laïs (dated in the early fourth century), where we hear the interesting piece of information that Philyra gave up prostitution while still in her prime (cf. “Date”): Λυσίας δ᾿ ἐν τῷ Πρὸς Λαΐδα, εἴ γε γνήσιος ὁ λόγος, τούτων μνημονεύει· Φιλύρα γέ τοι ἐπαύσατο πορνευομένη ἔτι νέα οὖσα (Lysias in his “Reply to Laïs” [fr. 208 Carey] – if the speech is genuine – mentions the following hetairai: Philyra, at any rate, stopped working as a whore when she was still young; on the expression εἰ γνήσιος and germane issues of authenticity, see Dover 1968b: 13–22; NB ever since the Hellenistic period the authenticity of many speeches ascribed to Lysias had been questioned). All subsequent editors reproduce Meineke’s suggestion, pace agreeing with his reasonable interpretation of Ephippus’ play-title. If indeed the title-figure is the homonymous historic hetaira, the play automatically becomes part of a long series of comic plays that are named after hetairai, either historic or fictitious ones; the pattern occurs in all three eras of Comedy, but it is particularly popular during the periods of Middle and New Comedy; e. g. Pherecrates’ Θάλαττα, Κοριαννώ, and Πετάλη (Pherecrates was probably the one who pioneered this trend; so Henderson 2014: 191, cf. Henderson 2000), Hegemon’s Φίλιννα, Antiphanes’ Μαλθάκη, Eubulus’ Κλεψύδρα, Νάννιον, and Πλαγγών, Axionicus’ Φίλιννα, Alexis’ Παμφίλη, Πεζονίκη, and Πολύκλεια, Menander’s Γλυκέρα, Θαΐς, and Φάνιον, Timocles’ Νέαιρα, Philemon’s Νέαιρα, etc.; the catalogue seems endless; cf. Arnott (1996) 52 (ubi NB a slipup though: there is no Νέαιρα play by Diphilus). See Hauschild (1933) 14; Wehrli (1936) 28;

202

Ephippus

Webster (21970) 22–23, 63–64; Hartwig (2014) 210–211. Further bibliography is cited in Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”; cf. also “Interpretation” for Ephipp. fr. 6 (for the comic topos of praising and defending hetairai). Yet, although it is a truism that “the simplest solution is most likely the right one” (Occam’s razor principle), the identification of the play’s title-figure with the homonymous historic hetaira is not the only likely interpretative approach. In Greek mythology Φιλύρα is also the name of the wife of Nauplius and mother of Palamedes, as attested by [Apollod.] 2.23 (according to one stream of the tradition). There is also another mythological Φιλύρα, an Oceanid, the mother of the centaur Cheiron by Cronus; according to the legend preserved by [Apollod.] 1.9 and Hyg. Fab. 138, when Philyra realized that she had given birth to a species never seen before (allegedly because Cronus had assumed the shape of a horse, when she slept with her), she asked Jupiter to change her into a linden-tree (φιλύρα). A third mythological Φιλύρα is said to have been the daughter of river Asopus and mother of Hypsaeus by Peneius; the testimony (preserved by the scholia in Pi. P. 9.27a) is ascribed to Akesandros (FGrH 469 F 2), a historian from Cyrene. However, with all probability, this genealogy was a later invention that was inspired by Cyrene’s association in Pindar (Pythian 9) with Cheiron, Philyra’s famous son (Fowler 2013: 148). It is not inconceivable that Ephippus’ Φιλύρα dramatized – in some comic way – the mythological material pertaining to one of the two Philyra figures, i. e. either the mother of Palamedes or the mother of Cheiron. Myth holds a prominent position in the thematic repertoire of Middle Comedy. The era’s preferred way of handling myth is creating unique amalgams of contemporary reality and mythological tradition, by comically intertwining elements from known myths with everyday features and/or recognizable individuals of real life, thus resulting in myth parody and unprecedented burlesque situations (cf. Intro. 4 “Themes & Motifs”). Accordingly, it is likely that Ephippus’ present play featured a semi-historic semimythological Philyra as the protagonist; i. e. a figure that would recall at once both the historic hetaira and one of the two mythological Philyra-characters (the ratio of myth vs reality is indeterminable). Ephippus may have followed the same pattern of myth burlesque involving a hetaira in his Circe (cf. “Interpretation” ad loc.). Date It is likely that the present play belongs to Ephippus’ early career (cf. Intro. 2 “Chronology & Career”). Breitenbach (1908) 134 argues that the play should be dated in the early years of Middle Comedy (“primis mediae comoediae temporibus ascribenda est”), since the historic hetaira Philyra (the probable title-figure) flourished ca. 390–380 BC. Given that, with all probability, the play dealt indeed with this hetaira (cf. “Title”), it is reasonable to assume that Ephippus did not wait for the subject to lose its topicality, but dramatized aspects of her life/career/ adventures when these were still fresh in people’s memories and not, say, after two or three decades. Of course, a counterargument to an early date for the play would be that Ephippus perhaps chose to ridicule Philyra when she had grown old; cf. Philetaer. fr. 9 lampooning a group of old hetairai with Papachrysostomou (2008) 228–236 (with parallels). Although a late play, produced when Philyra had grown

Φιλύρα (fr. 21)

203

old, is not an entirely impossible scenario, I consider it less likely than an early play produced near Philyra’s prime. The passages about old hetairai do exist, but they are just this, passages, satirizing in passing certain features of theirs, etc. On the contrary, here we have an entire play; apart from the fact that there is no known parallel for a comic play dealing in its entirety with an elderly hetaira or recalling her bygone prime, a vital piece of evidence against a late date is Lysias’ testimony (quoted under “Title”) that Philyra quit prostitution early and while still in her prime. Hence, taking everything into consideration, I agree with Breitenbach for an early date for Ephippus’ present play.

fr. 21 (21 K.) (A.) παππία, βούλει δραμὼν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν κᾆτ᾿ ἀγοράσαι μοι (B.) φράζε τί (A.) ἰχθῦς φρονοῦντας, ὦ πάτερ. μή μοι βρέφη. (B.) οὐκ οἶσθ᾿ ὁτιὴ τἀργύριόν ἐστ᾿ ἰσάργυρον; 1 παπία A: corr. Schweigh. 2 φράζετι A: φράζε CE, Eust.: φράζ’ ὅ τι Blaydes Adv. II 145 3 ὦ πάτερ om. CE, Eust. 4 ὁτιὴ Heringa Obs. 276: ὅτι A τὸ ἀργύριον A: τοὐψάριον Kock ἐστ᾿ ἰσάργυρον Heringa: ἐσθ᾿ εἰς αργυρον A

(A.) Daddykins, would you like running to the marketplace and then buy me (B.) Explain what exactly. (A.) Some full-grown fish, father. No babies! (B.) Don’t you know that money is worth its weight in silver? Ath. 8.358f–359a (lines 1–4) ἐκφαυλίζων δὲ καὶ Ἔφιππος (φίλιππος A) τοὺς μικροὺς τῶν ἰχθύων ἐν Φιλύρᾳ φησί· παππία — εἰς αργυρον Disparaging the little fishes Ephippus says in Philyra: “Daddykins — silver?” Ath. epit. (CE) l. c. (lines 2–3) Ἔφιππος δὲ ὁ ποιητὴς ἐκφαυλίζων τοὺς μικροὺς ἰχθύας φησί· φράζε — βρέφη Ephippus the poet, disparaging the little fishes, says: “explain — babies” Eust. in Od. p. 1720,55 (lines 2–3) Ἐφίππου τοῦ ποιητοῦ τό, φράζε ἰχθῦς φρονοῦντας μή μοι βρέφη, ἀνδρός ἐστι λόγος φιλοῦντος μὲν τοὺς μείζονας, ἐκφαυλίζοντος δὲ τὰ ἰχθύδια The phrase “explain, full-grown fishes, no babies” belongs to the poet Ephippus, and the words are those of a man who loves the bigger fishes but disparages the little ones

204

Ephippus

Metre Iambic trimeter

lkl llkl (Porson’s law observed) llkkl l|kkkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkl k|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkkl lkkk|l llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,339; Bothe 497; Kock 2,262; Edmonds 2,160f.; PCG 5,149; Nesselrath (1990) 320; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 495; Rusten & Henderson 486 Citation Context The present fragment is quoted in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae Book 8 (which largely focuses on fish) and shares the same citation context with Ephipp. fr. 15 (ubi vide), which is quoted immediately after the quotation of the present fragment. The Epitome codices C and E preserve only the last word from line 2 and line 3 from this fragment (bar the vocative address ὦ πάτερ), along with the poet’s name, but without the play’s title (as is the tactic of the Epitome scribe; cf. Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). Eustathius (in his scholia in Od. p. 1720,55), copying from the Epitome, preserves the same fraction from the fragment as the Epitome. Constitution of Text Upon introducing the fragment the otherwise largely reliable codex A preserves the reading φίλιππος as the poet’s name, instead of Ἔφιππος (cf. Lorenzioni 2012: 336–339, Orth 2014: 997). Misattribution of the fragment (and the play) to Philippus (PCG 7,353–355) is avoided, since (i) the Epitome ad loc. preserves the correct reading ( Ἔφιππος), and (ii) Ephippus’ name is correctly preserved upon quotation of frr. 22 and 23 in Ath. 7.286e and 13.571b respectively. Regarding the Epitome, the introductory note features the form ἰχθύας (instead of the contract type ἰχθῦς). In line 1 codex A preserves the reading παπία (with one pi), which Schweighaeuser corrected to παππία, which is widely considered as the correct form of the term. Yet, MacDowell (1971: 174) notes that the versions πάπας, παπίας, and παπίδιον are valid ones, preserved by manuscripts in a number of passages and, hence, he argues that there is no need to remove them by systematic emendation. In line 2 codex A preserves the reading φράζετι; the Epitome codices and Eustathius preserve the reading φράζε (which metrically leaves the line short of the last element, i. e. the brevis in longo one), while Blaydes (Adv. II 145) suggested the reading φράζ’ ὅ τι. All editors so far have adopted A’s reading, albeit with separation of φράζετι into two words, φράζε τί. In line 3 the vocative address ὦ πάτερ is absent from both the Epitome (codices C and E) and Eustathius (who copies from the Epitome). In line 4 codex A preserves the reading ὅτι (which leaves the first metre short of the final long element). Heringa (Obs. 276) corrected ὅτι into ὁτιὴ, satisfying the metrical requirements of the line; similar emendations (manuscript reading ὅτι modified into ὁτιὴ) have been made in a number of other comic passages and fragments (the cases are listed under Eup. fr. 50 in PCG 5,322). In the same

Φιλύρα (fr. 21)

205

line codex A preserves the reading τὸ ἀργύριον (which provides for a superfluous short element in the second metre); all editors (apart from Kock) adopt the reading τἀργύριόν (with crasis), thus removing the metrical abnormality. Kock suggested the alternative reading τοὐψάριον, which deserves some thought given that (i) the ongoing discussion is about fish, and (ii) the high market prices of fish is a comic topos. Besides, A’s reading τὸ ἀργύριον could have been an unintentional error of transmission, which is explicable through parablepsis, and particularly through dittography, albeit not a textbook case of the phenomenon (i. e. the scribe’s eyes moved prematurely to the end of the line, αργυρον, hence he ended replacing τὸ ὀψάριον with τὸ ἀργύριον). Overall, although Kock’s suggestion is probable, we should opt for the reading τἀργύριόν, since this is palaeographically the closest one to what the manuscript tradition preserves (plus, the meaning is unproblematic). Finally, at the end of line 4 codex A preserves the reading ἐσθ᾿ εἰς αργυρον, which Heringa l. c. corrected into the meaningful and syntactically correct ἐστ᾿ ἰσάργυρον. Interpretation The fragment features a youth (or perhaps a child; cf. s. v. παππία) cajoling his/her stingy father into buying him/her some full-grown fish from the market; the father responds with a rhetorical question (line 4) highlighting the exorbitantly high fish prices. The fragment is an example of three comic topoi: (i) shopping-list (albeit on limited scale; cf. “Interpretation” for Ephipp. fr. 15), (ii) father-and-son relationships (cf. “Interpretation” for Ephipp. fr. 20), and (iii) high fish prices / costly fish purchases (the target can be either the profiteering seller or the profligate buyer; cf. Papachrysostomou 2020a, Papachrysostomou 2016: 194– 196 on Amphis fr. 30, and “Interpretation” for Ephipp. fr. 12). Typically, in similar cases elsewhere, the person giving shopping instructions is a miser, who meets with the irritation of a less parsimonious collocutor, e. g. Ephipp. fr. 15 (see comm. ad loc.), Nicostr.Com. fr. 4, Eub. fr. 109, Amphis fr. 35 (with Papachrysostomou 2016: 225–229). The present fragment features a reversal of this stock situation, memorably paralleled by Plaut. Cas. 501 “argento parci nolo, opsonato ampliter” (I don’t want to save money, buy plenty; Lysidamus sends the slave Olympio off to the fish market with these words). In Ephippus’ present case the reversal of the established pattern is facilitated precisely because the character requesting the purchase is a younger person; by nature, youths in Comedy are stereotypically portrayed as spendthrifts, cf. e. g. Alex. fr. 110.1–2 Διόδωρος οὑπίτριπτος ἐν ἔτεσιν δύο / σφαῖραν ἀπέδειξε τὴν πατρῴαν οὐσίαν (in two years that damned Diodorus turned the property he inherited from his father into a ball); see Arnott (1996) 295–296. Regarding the identity of the two characters, B is clearly A’s father; but there is no way to know the sex of character A. Eustathius assumed it was a male (ἀνδρός ἐστι λόγος… the words are those of a man…). Metre The first line misses the entire first metre, along with the first element (i. e. the anceps) of the second metre.

206

Ephippus

1 παππία Vocative address (the normally preceding ὦ must have been left out from Athenaeus’ quotation). The term παππίας is diminutive of πάππας (papa, daddy; cf. Frisk s. v.); accordingly, παππίας constitutes a term of endearment, an affectionate form of address (translating as dear little papa, daddykins), predominantly used by children towards their father (cf. Ael.Dion. s. v. μάμμην) and is occasionally associated with making requests (as in the present fragment). Its present usage by character A is crucial in interpreting Ephippus’ fragment, since it is revealing of the age of this character, who must be a young person or even a child. Parallel comic instances confirm the generalized usage of παππία by either children addressing their father (in Aristophanes) or by youths addressing an elderly figure (in Menander): in Ar. V. 297–298 a boy (παῖς) asks his father to buy him some dried figs (ἰσχάδας, ὦ παππία), in Ar. Pax 127–128 Trygaeus’ daughter employs the same address mode towards her father, while in Menander’s Dyscolus the vocative παππία is used twice to sweet talk Knemon, once by Sostratus (856) and once by Sikon (930). Mutatis mutandis, the diminutive μαμμία (mommy) is similarly used by Myrrhine’s child (παιδίον) in Ar. Lys. 879. On balance, character A in Ephippus’ fragment is definitely a younger figure, with good chances of even being a child, who resorts to the endearing diminutive παππία, in order to sweeten the expensive request that he has. The fact that this younger person asks for fish (a rather unexpected gastronomical choice for a child) should not exclude the possibility of this person being a child; the request should not necessarily be interpreted prima facie, but rather one should always allow some room for the possibility of implied connotations and hidden agendas, originally associated with the larger picture of the whole play, but now lost to us (cf. e. g. how the boy’s request for some dried figs in Ar. V. 297–298 had nothing to do with the boy’s appetite per se, but this was rather a pointed comment meant to reflect the old jurors’ destitution; i. e. for them dried figs – the commonest kind of sweet and a basic foodstuff – were still too much of an extravagance, especially after the devastation of Attica’s countryside during the Peloponnesian war; see MacDowell 1971: 175, Biles & Olson 2015: 177). 2a κᾆτ᾿ καί + εἶτα (in crasis κᾆτα): and then. Idiomatic expression used for temporal emphasis in both poetry and prose. The combination of the conjunction καί and the adverb εἶτα (or ἔπειτα), often resulting in crasis (κᾆτα, κἄπειτα), commonly features in texts as an idiomatic expression (albeit a notionally superfluous and syntactically incongruous one), which adds conspicuous emphasis on the time sequence. This happens when κᾆτα (or κἄπειτα) follows a temporal (or temporal-conditional) participle (here δραμών), which κᾆτα seems to connect with the following verb (or infinitive; here ἀγοράσαι), as if the two (participle and verb/ infinitive) were syntactically equivalent verbal forms. Whilst being syntactically deviant, κᾆτα is in addition notionally unnecessary, since the temporal sequence (and then) is already present and encapsulated in the temporal participle. The function of κᾆτα, which emerges precisely through this (seeming) syntactical anomaly, is that it emphatically reiterates the temporal sequence in the sentence

Φιλύρα (fr. 21)

207

(in a way parallel to the emphatic causal effect of the particle ἅτε that often accompanies causal participles). Parallel instances include Ar. Av. 673–674 ἀπολέψαντα χρὴ / ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς τὸ λέμμα κᾆθ᾿ οὕτω φιλεῖν (we’ll just have to peel that shell off her head and then kiss her that way; see Dunbar 1995: 368, comm. on Av. 536–7), Pl.Com. fr. 22 λαβὼν οὖν / τὸν σκύλακα τὸν τοῦ προξένου κἄπειτα δῆσον αὐτόν (so take the representative’s chain and then tie him up), Pl. Grg. 457b ἐὰν δέ, οἶμαι, ῥητορικὸς γενόμενός τις κᾆτα ταύτῃ τῇ δυνάμει καὶ τῇ τέχνῃ ἀδικῇ (and, in my opinion, if a man becomes a rhetorician and then uses this power and this art unfairly; cf. Dodds 1959 ad loc.); for further examples see Van Leeuwen (1898) 106. 2b ἀγορὰν … ἀγοράσαι On these cognate terms, both derivatives of ἀγείρω (assemble, gather together), see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 15.1. Presently the speaker feels the need to specify that the purchase needs to be made in the market-place (εἰς τὴν ἀγοράν); this implies that by Ephippus’ time the early meaning of ἀγοράζω as buy in the market-place had considerably faded, if not entirely disappeared, and that the verb already meant buy in general. An additional, not necessarily mutually exclusive interpretation, is that the speaker is currently seeking to add emphasis to his request. 2c φράζε For the meaning explain that the verb φράζω bears on certain occasions and for parallel passages see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 15.2. Here the fatherly figure abruptly interrupts his son/daughter and cuts straight to the chase by asking for specific details regarding the request, thus avoiding any further unnecessary and tiresome cajoling. 3a ἰχθῦς φρονοῦντας The concept that φρόνησις (reason, wisdom, prudence) is a defining attribute of coming of age (and, hence, infants, babies and children have not fully developed this ability yet) is present in and substantiated by a number of texts (cf. Cobet 1858: 90); e. g. Is. 9.20 (the phrase ἐκ παιδίου: from childhood is contrasted with the period when Astyphilus reached the age of reason: ἐπειδὴ ἤρχετο φρονεῖν), Aeschin. 1.139 (τοὺς τῆς φιλίας λόγους εἰς τὴν φρονοῦσαν καὶ πρεσβυτέραν ἡλικίαν ἀναβάλλεται: the words of friendship are deferred to the reasoning and older age), Ar. fr. 604.1–2 (τὴν γυναῖκα δὲ / αἰσχύνομαι τώ τ’ οὐ φρονοῦντε παιδίω: my wife I am ashamed to face and my two nescient children). On the basis of this established perspective and mutatis mutandis, the expression prudent fish (ἰχθῦς φρονοῦντας) is meant to be funny and metaphorically signifies fish of the larger size, fully-grown fish; it goes without saying that these fish must be of a species that can grow large by nature (and not e. g. anchovies); these larger fish are juxtaposed with the term βρέφη (babies) at line end. The youth’s desire for thinking, i. e. larger and fully fledged fish is reminiscent of a comparable metaphorical expression occurring in Amphis fr. 26.2: ἐξὸν ἀπολαύειν ἰχθύων ἀληθινῶν (when it is possible to enjoy true fish), where the adjective ἀληθινός is idiomatically used to emphasize that this is “the real thing”, “the real/solid food” (as opposed to radishes of the following line); cf. Papachrysostomou (2016) 165–166.

208

Ephippus

3b μή μοι βρέφη This is an elliptical sentence (missing the imperative ἀγόραζε). The youth urges the father not to buy him/her small fish; the dative of disadvantage (μοι) and its position immediately after the negative μή solidify a syntactical pattern that makes the appeal almost tangible, as if the realization of the opposite would have been a catastrophe (i. e. “don’t do this to me”). Likewise, the speaker in Pherecr. fr. 73.4 abhors the prospect of eating lentils, using the same, elliptical, syntactical structure (μή + dative of disadvantage + disliked object): μή μοι φακούς, μὰ τὸν Δί᾿· οὐ γὰρ ἥδομαι (don’t [serve] me lentils, by Zeus; I don’t like them); cf. Ar. Ach. 345 ἀλλὰ μή μοι πρόφασιν (come, no excuses, please) and Ar. V. 1179 μὴ ᾿μοιγε μύθους (don’t [give] me fairytales); cf. Biles & Olson (2015) 428. 4α ἰσάργυρον ἰσάργυρος,-ον is an extremely rare adjective and designates something that is worth its weight in silver; cf. Antiatt. ι 15 ἰσάργυρον, ἰσόχρυσον· ἀντὶ τοῦ πολύτιμον (‘worth its weight in silver’, ‘worth its weight in gold’: instead of ‘highly priced’, ‘very costly’). This is the only occurrence of this term in the surviving comic corpus (NB this is Heringa’s emendation; cf. “Constitution of Text”). The only other instances of it within Greek literature are A. Ag. 959–960 πολλῆς πορφύρας ἰσάργυρον / κηκῖδα (ooze of abundant purple, worth its weight in silver) and Achae. TrGF 20 F 5 (ap. Ath. 15.689b) ἰσάργυρον … Κυπρίου λίθου / κόσμον (an ornament of Cypriot stone worth its weight in silver). Yet, the same notion of extremely high price is expressed periphrastically in Ath. 12.526c ἰσοστάσιος γὰρ ἦν ἡ πορφύρα πρὸς ἄργυρον ἐξεταζομένη (for purple dye cost its weight in silver). 4b τἀργύριόν ἐστ᾿ ἰσάργυρον Money is worth its weight in silver. There is a resourceful tautological pun in the original Greek text (NB the reading ἰσάργυρον is Heringa’s emendation; cf. “Constitution of Text”), since ἀργύριον (silver) was the commonest metal from which coins (ἀργύριον, again) were minted at the time (coins were exclusively minted from silver until the final years of the Peloponnesian war, before copper was introduced; see Kraay 1976: 55–70, Seltman 21955: 177– 179); hence, the literal meaning turns out to be a pleonasm (provided, of course, that the coins are unalloyed!) and a funny tautology, i. e. silver coins are worth their weight in silver. The connotation of pleonasm must have been deliberate on behalf of the stingy father (cf. “Interpretation”), who thereby wishes to tone down his jolly young’s enthusiasm and highlight money’s value.

fr. 22 (22 K.) (A.) πότερον ἐγὼ τὴν βατίδα τεμάχη κατατεμὼν ἕψω; τί φῄς; ἢ Σικελικῶς ὀπτὴν ποιήσω; (B.) Σικελικῶς 2 φής CE: :: τί φῄς; :: Meineke, Kock. ‘quod si verum, v. 3 scribendum (B.) Σικελικῶς; ut sit homo occupato animo respondens’ Kaibel. ‘A. post ἕψω orationem abrumpit alterius responsum exspectans; B. autem, ex πότερον recte concludens interrogationem ut bipartitam nondum esse finitam, tacere alterum miratus quaerit τί φῄς;’ Kock

Φιλύρα (fr. 22)

209

(A.) Which one then, having cut the skate into slices, should I stew it? What’s your opinion? Or should I roast it Sicilian style? (B.) Sicilian style Ath. 7.286e Ἔφιππος δ᾿ ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς ἐν Φιλύρᾳ δράματι· ἑταίρας δ᾿ ὄνομα ἡ Φιλύρα· πότερον — Σικελικῶς Ephippus the comic playwright in his play Philyra; Philyra being a hetaira’s name: “Which — style”

Metre Iambic trimeter

kkkkl lkkkkk l|kkkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law

lkkkl ll|kl lkkkl

observed) (middle caesura; Porson’s law violated)

Discussion Meineke 3,338; Bothe 496f.; Kock 2,262f.; Edmonds 2,160f.; PCG 5,150; Nesselrath (1990) 300, 305; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 495; Rusten & Henderson 486 Citation Context The present fragment is quoted in Book 7 of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae, within a lengthy discussion about various kinds of fish and seafood; presently, the term of interest for Athenaeus is βατίς (skate). This erudite discussion about fish begins at 7.277c, where Athenaeus (as external narrator) promises Timocrates to relate everything that was said in that regard during the symposion. Within this discussion the banqueters enlist multiple species of fish and do not miss out on displaying their learnedness by quoting numerous fragments for every single species. For the greater part of Athenaeus’ narration, the names of fish species are mentioned in quasi-alphabetical order (as promised by Athenaeus l. c.: κατὰ στοιχεῖον τάξω τὰ ὀνόματα). Constitution of Text In line 2 the Epitome codices C and E preserve the reading φής, i. e. missing the iota subscript, which is added by all editors. Regarding the attribution of the question τί φῄς; , Kassel-Austin assign it to speaker A; thus, τί φῄς; is a question posed by speaker A to speaker B (i. e. what are you saying? , what’s your opinion?). On the other hand, Meineke (followed by Kock) suggests that τί φῄς; should be attributed to speaker B. In that regard, Kaibel (CGF ad loc.) notes that, if we adopt Meineke’s suggestion, then we should also add a question mark after Σικελικῶς (i. e. Σικελικῶς;), thus turning this bit into another curt, rhetorical/exclamatory question analogous to τί φῄς;. Thus, both τί φῄς; and Σικελικῶς; would reveal the frustration of speaker B, who first abruptly interrupts speaker A (τί φῄς;), heatedly reacting to what A says (i. e. what are you talking about? , are you serious? , what is this nonsense?), and then he is equally irritated by A’s alternative solution (Σικελικῶς;). But Kock believes (cf. crit. app.) that speaker B is

210

Ephippus

merely confused, waiting for A to state the alternative (since A starts his sentence with πότερον); but when A pauses after ἕψω, B asks rather baffled τί φῄς; (i. e. what do you mean?, as if expecting to hear the alternative option). Yet, certainty is impossible. Similarly controversial is the parallel case of Ephipp. fr. 11.3, where the attribution of τί φῄς; divides the scholars again (cf. “Constitution of Text” ad loc.). Interpretation The fragment is a typical example of a recurrent comic pattern; it features a snapshot from a dialogue between a cook (speaker B) and his hesitant assistant / trainee / slave (speaker A): the latter asks the former for instructions on how to cook some fillets of skate fish. Parallel scenes featuring cooks giving instructions to their assistants (on cooking, serving, shopping, even stealing) are common in comedy; e. g. Antiph. fr. 221, Dionys.Com. fr. 3 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2008: 174–182), Alex. fr. 138 (cf. Arnott 1996: 399). Besides, during the periods of Middle and New Comedy the cook as a culinary specialist (already in nascent stage in Aristophanes, e. g. Pax 922–1126 and Av. 848–1057, and traceable in Doric farce, cf. Berthiaume 1982: 74) crystallizes into a stereotypical figure, who uses grandiloquent (at times even dithyrambic) language (cf. Dobrov 2002) and assumes an arrogant, self-important style; e. g. Antiph. fr. 55, Dionys.Com. fr. 2, Mnesim. fr. 4, Alex. fr. 177, Posidipp. fr. 28, Men. Dysc. 646; cf. Plaut. Pseud. 790–895 (with Lowe 1985). See further Giannini 1960; Dohm (1964) 30–55, 67–275; Nesselrath (1990) 241–309; Dobrov & Urios-Aparisi (1995) 164–173; Wilkins (2000a) 87, 387–410; Papachrysostomou (2016) 115, 246–248. 1 πότερον See comm. on Ephipp. fr. 15.11a. The present use of πότερον is not a textbook one, since a brief question (τί φῄς;) is interjected before the alternative proposition is stated; this peculiar structure has caused much scholarly discussion regarding the attribution of τί φῄς; , cf. “Constitution of Text”. 2a βατίδα … ἕψω βατίς,-ίδος (ἡ) is a certain species of flatfish, perhaps skate or ray (LSJ9 s. v.); cf. Arist. HA 565a23–29, Strömberg (1943) 47 (on the name), Thompson (1947) 26–28, Arnott (1996) 227. βατίς features regularly as a dainty in sympotic contexts and food catalogues (e. g. Epich. fr. 52.1, Ar. V. 510, Call.Com. fr. 6.1, Eup. fr. 174.2, Pl.Com. fr. 166.1, Philonid. fr. 2.1, Sannyr. fr. 3, Anaxandr. fr. 42.51, Antiph. fr. 130.6, Timocl. fr. 3.1, Alex. fr. 84.1), occasionally cooked in the way presently suggested as option one by the cook’s assistant, i. e. ἑφθή (boiled, stewed), ἑφθός being the verbal adjective of ἕψω (to boil); e. g. Archestr. fr. 50.1 βατίδ’ ἑφθήν (cf. Olson & Sens 2000: 196–197), Metag. fr. 6.4 ἑφθῶν τε βατίδων. Alternatively, βατίς could be prepared ὀπτή (roasted, broiled), e. g. Hermipp. fr. 46.2. 2b τὴν βατίδα τεμάχη κατατεμών On the term τεμάχη see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 12.1a. κατατεμών is second aorist participle of the verb κατατέμνω (cut up, cut in pieces), which often takes the double accusative, just like it does in the present fragment. Syntactically, βατίδα is direct object to the participle κατατεμών, while the internal accusative (or accusative of result) τεμάχη is used in a proleptic predicative sense to anticipate the effect of the verbal action (κατατεμών) upon

Φιλύρα (fr. 22)

211

the direct object (‘cutting the skate into slices’). Similar syntactic structures are detected in Alex. fr. 192.4, where a cook cuts a cuttlefish into many cubes (τὸ σῶμα κατατεμὼν πολλοὺς κύβους; cf. Arnott 1996: 564), as well as in Euphro fr. 10.7, where a cook’s student describes how his master cut the turnip in thin and elongated slices (ταύτην [sc. τὴν γογγυλίδα] ἔτεμε λεπτὰ καὶ μακρά); cf. Ar. Ach. 300–302 ὃν / κατατεμῶ τοῖσιν ἱπ-/πεῦσι καττύματα (whom I will cut up into leather pieces for the knights) with Olson (2002) 157, and Pl. R. 610b εἴ τις ὅτι σμικρότατα ὅλον τὸ σῶμα κατατέμοι (even if someone cuts the whole of the body up into the smallest pieces possible). See Headlam (1922) 93 for further parallels. 2c τί φῄς; See “Constitution of Text”, and comm. on Ephipp. fr. 11.3c. 3a Σικελικῶς The cook endorses his assistant’s alternative cooking suggestion, i. e. to roast the skate the Sicilian way (‘a la Siciliana’). Accordingly, one must assume that the cook’s assistant would copiously season the roasted fish fillets with spices and aromatic herbs, and perhaps even accompany them with some piquant sauce; and this is because the richness and intensity of flavour of Sicilian cuisine were proverbial, see Zen. 5.94 (cf. CPG i.158 for further testimonies) Συρακουσία τράπεζα: ἡ πολυτελής. ἐδόκουν γὰρ οἱ Σικελιῶται ἁβροδίαιτοι εἶναι μᾶλλον πάντων (Syracusan meal: the luxurious; for the Sicilians had the reputation of living most delicately of all). Τhe voluptuous lifestyle of the Sicilians is also recorded by Ath. 12.527c διαβόητοι δ᾿ εἰσὶ περὶ τρυφὴν Σικελιῶταί τε καὶ Συρακόσιοι (the Sicilians and the Syracusans are notorious for their addiction to luxury). In that regard, Plato (R. 404d) refers to Σικελικὴν ποικιλίαν ὄψου (Sicilian diversity in enhancing cooked food) and Eustathius (sch. in Il. 24.476, p. 1360) speaks of σκευασίαν περιττήν (excessive preparing and dressing). Plethora of luxurious food, along with excessive, strong-flavoured seasoning and zesty, aromatic sauces seem to have been the defining attributes of Sicilian cuisine (probably a reflection of the voluptuousness of Syracusan tyrants), adding up to what [Plato] describes (Ep. 7.326b) as βίος εὐδαίμων … Συρακουσίων τραπεζῶν πλήρης (blissful life … replete with Syracusan banquetings). Sicilian cuisine was so conspicuous that even a cookery book had been written about it, as Plato records in Grg. 518b Μίθαικος ὁ τὴν ὀψοποιίαν συγγεγραφὼς τὴν Σικελικήν (Mithaecus, the author of the book on Sicilian cookery); cf. Hill & Wilkins 1996. Furthermore, in Ar. fr. 225 a Syracusan meal (Συρακουσία τράπεζα) is mentioned as a manifestation of hedonism; in Antiph. fr. 90 the speaker refers to cakes baked and flavoured according to the Sicilian cooking art: Σικελῶν δὲ τέχναις ἡδυνθεῖσαι / δαιτὸς διαθρυμματίδες (banquet cakes, seasoned with Sicilian arts); in Cratin.Jun. fr. 1 sweet smell and delectable steam are believed to emanate from only two sources, either a frankincense-dealer or a Sicilian cook (μάγειρος Σικελικός); cf. Göbel (1915) 120–121 for a full list of references to Sicilian cuisine and Sicilian cooking methods, and Mastellari (2020) 66–67 for an exhaustive analysis of all aspects of Sicilian cooks/ cuisine (with further examples and bibliography).

212

Ephippus

3b ὀπτὴν ποιήσω The predicate adjective ὀπτὴν agrees in gender with βατίδα, but not with τεμάχη (and rather expectedly so, since τεμάχη is internal accusative, cf. comm. on line 2b above). A comparable (albeit not similar) case is Alex. fr. 192.2–3 τὰς μὲν πλεκτάνας / καὶ τὰ πτερύγια συντεμὼν ἑφθὰς ποῶ (after chopping up the tentacles and fins I stewed them), where the predicate adjective (ἑφθάς) agrees with the female gender (πλεκτάνας) that prevails over the neutral (πτερύγια); cf. Arnott (1996) 564. On the agreement of predicate adjectives with two or more subjects, see Smyth (1956) §§ 1053–1059.

fr. 23 (23 K.) ὡς σκαιὸς εἶ κἄγροικος αἰσχροεπῶν ἀεί· ἐπαρίστερ᾿ ἐν τῷ στόματι τὴν γλῶσσαν φορεῖς 1–2 αἰσχροεπῶν ἀεί· ἐπαρίστερ᾿ Jacobs Addit. 305: αἰσχροεπῶν εαπαριστερα Α: αἰσχροεπῶν kl ἐπαρίστερ᾿ K-A: αἰσχροεπῶν· ἔα, ἐπαρίστερ᾿ Dindorf 2 γλῶτταν Mus.

What a clumsy and unsophisticated foul-mouth you always are; you gauchly wield the tongue in your mouth Ath. 13.571a–b ὡς — φορεῖς, κατὰ τὴν Ἐφίππου Φιλύραν “What — mouth”, to quote Ephippus’ Philyra

Metre Iambic trimeter

llkl llk|l kklkl (hephthemimeral caesura) kklkl lkkk|l llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,339; Bothe 497; Kock 2,263; Edmonds 2,160f.; PCG 5,150; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 495 Citation Context The fragment is quoted in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae Book 13 (just like Ephipp. frr. 6 and 20; cf. “Citation Context” for both frr.), by the banqueter Myrtilus, at the beginning of his deuterology, as he responds to Cynulcus’ fierce invective against hetairai. Myrtilus employs Ephippus’ words as a direct address to and a slur against Cynulcus. Constitution of Text Codex A preserves the unmetrical reading αἰσχροεπῶν εαπαριστερα, which leaves the first line short of the final two elements (kl) and simultaneously burdens the second line with two superfluous short elements. I adopt Jacobs’ textual suggestions (Addit. 305), i. e. supplementing the reading ἀεί· in the first line and modifying εαπαριστερα to ἐπαρίστερ᾿ in the second line;

Φιλύρα (fr. 23)

213

thus, both the metre and the meaning are best served. The reading ἐπαρίστερ᾿ is adopted by all editors. Regarding the end of the first line, Kassel-Austin (as well as Llopis – Gómez – Asensio) refrain from filling in the lacuna (kl), while Dindorf (followed by Meineke, Bothe, Kock, and Edmonds) suggested the reading ἔα as a possible complement. Regarding the reading γλῶσσαν, preserved in the manuscript tradition in line 2, Musurus suggested that it should be changed into the genuine Attic form γλῶτταν; yet, Selvers (1909: 36) seems willing to accept the atypical γλῶσσαν, given that this is not the only uncommon term in this passage; in line 1 the term αἰσχροεπῶν is extremely rare (cf. s. v.). Indeed, there is not enough reason to alter the preserved text, especially since this linguistic peculiarity may have had some special significance (e. g. to mark someone’s foreign origin, etc.). Interpretation The fragment is a snapshot from a character’s furious response against someone else (who must also be present on stage). The wider context remains irrecoverable, as does the identity of the two characters. As to what triggered the speaker’s steaming reaction, this was probably something that the other character said (rather than did), since the speaker’s attack expressly concentrates on his collocutor’s maladroitness in speaking and his blatant lack of basic rhetorical skills (cf. αἰσχροεπῶν, ἐπαρίστερ᾿ … τὴν γλῶσσαν). 1a σκαιὸς … κἄγροικος Both adjectives often bear (as they do here) the metaphorical meaning of clumsy / unsophisticated / gauche. In particular, σκαιός literally means left, of/on the left (hand); metaphorically, when applied to people, σκαιός implies inability to understand and is used to derogatorily describe someone as intellectually clumsy and stupid; in either case, σκαιός is the antonym of δεξιός (right, dexterous); cf. e. g. Ar. Nu. 655 (coupled with ἀγρεῖος, which is synonymous to ἄγροικος). As to ἄγροικος (< ἀγρός + οἰκέω), it literally designates (as either an adjective or a substantive) someone dwelling in the fields (person or animal), a countryman, a rustic (cf. Strepsiades’ self-presentation in Ar. Nu. 47). Yet, ἄγροικος is commonly used with the metaphorical sense of unsophisticated, boorish, rude, clumsy, i. e. alluding to qualities and/or behavioural patterns that are stereotypically attached to a person originating from the countryside; cf. Ar. Nu. 628–629 (coupled with σκαιόν), Men. Dysc. 956 (cf. Gomme & Sandbach 1973 ad loc.) 1b αἰσχροεπῶν The verb αἰσχροεπέω (< αἰσχρός + ἔπος) means to use foul language. It occurs extremely rarely in our texts. As a matter of fact, apart from later lexicographical entries, it occurs only in the present fragment (as intransitive) and in Hp. de Arte 1 (as transitive; τὰς τέχνας αἰσχροεπεῖν: vilifying the arts). Phrynichus (PS 46.1) glosses αἰσχροεπεῖν as αἰσχρολογεῖν (this interpretation is reproduced by Phot. α 669, and Lex. Bachm. p. 52.14). The two verbs are obviously synonymous; for αἰσχρολογέω see D.S. 5.4.7 ἔθος δ᾿ ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις αἰσχρολογεῖν κατὰ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμιλίας διὰ τὸ τὴν θεὸν ἐπὶ τῇ τῆς Κόρης ἁρπαγῇ λυπουμένην γελάσαι διὰ τὴν αἰσχρολογίαν (and it is their custom during these days to indulge in coarse language as they associate one with another, the reason being that by such coarseness the goddess, grieved though she was at

214

Ephippus

the Rape of Corê, burst into laughter), Pl. R. 395e, and Arist. Rh. 1405b9–10 (here Aristotle, assuming an agonistic attitude, crisply questions and rejects Bryson’s opinion regarding the impossibility/inexistence of αἰσχρολογεῖν as a rhetorical notion; on Bryson see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 14.3). 2a ἐπαρίστερ᾿ The adverb ἐπαρίστερα / ἐπαριστέρως (antonym of ἐπιδέξια / ἐπιδεξίως) literally signifies the movement from right to left (Hdt. 2.36.4, with Lloyd 21994: 161–162), with a secondary sense of (towards) the wrong way (i. e. breaking with some established/accepted normality), e. g. Ar. Av. 1567 (cf. Van Leeuwen 1902: 238, Dunbar 1995: 716). It is this secondary/figurative sense that is evoked in the present fragment; the speaker accuses his collocutor of moving his tongue gauchely, maladroitly, incompetently. 2b τὴν γλῶσσαν φορεῖς The verb φορέω (bear, wear, possess) is idiomatically used in Comedy with reference to body parts, especially when the situation is peculiar or noteworthy, e. g. Pl.Com. fr. 51.1 φορεῖτε γλῶτταν ἐν ὑποδήμασιν (you wear the tongue in your shoes – as a metaphor for using foul language). This distinct use of φορέω is most apposite for the present fragment, where tongue is visualized as a rhetorical tool that its owner handles and wields at will (albeit incompetently, ἐπαρίστερ᾿; cf. s. v.). There is a recurring imagery in Greek Comedy, mostly during the fifth century, wherein tongue stands as a visualization or as a (commonly pejorative) metonymy for ungraceful or inexistent rhetorical skills; e. g. Cratin. fr. 327 γλῶττάν τέ σοι / δίδωσιν ἐν δήμῳ φορεῖν / καλῶν λόγων ἀείνων, / ᾗ πάντα κινήσεις λέγων (he offers you a tongue with fine flowing words to wield among the people, with which you will sway all when you speak). For further analysis and examples, see Olson & Seaberg (2018) 74, 78–81.

215

Incertarum Fabularum Fragmenta fr. 24 (24 K.) κάρυα, ῥόας, φοίνικας, ἕτερα νώγαλα, σταμνάριά τ᾿ οἴνου μικρὰ τοῦ φοινικικοῦ. ᾠάρια, τοιαῦθ᾿ ἕτερα πολλὰ παίγνια 1 ῥοιὰς CE: corr. Dindorf (ῥοὰς Schweigh.) νώγαλα Casaubon ex 3Ath. epit. 2.47d (Eust. in Il. p. 1163,26) Ἀντιφάνης· βότρυς, ῥοιάς, φοίνικας, ἕτερα νώγαλα (sic C, Eust.): 2 φοινικϊκοῦ 2Ath. CE: φοινίκου 1Ath. νωγαλεύματα 3Ath. E: νωγαλίσματα 1Ath. CE CE: φοινικίνου Meineke, Bothe, Kock, Edmonds

Nuts, pomegranates, dates, other sweetmeats, and little jars of wine, of the Phoenician type. Little eggs and many other similar dainties 1

Ath. (epit.) 1.29d (lines 1–2) φοινικικοῦ δὲ οἴνου μέμνηται καὶ Ἔφιππος· κάρυα — φοινίκου. καὶ πάλιν· (Ephipp. fr. 8.2) … μνημονεύει αὐτοῦ καὶ Ξενοφῶν Ἀναβάσει (Cmg.: om. E) Phoenician wine is also mentioned by Ephippus: “Nuts — type”; and again (Ephipp. fr. 8.2 ubi vide) … Xenophon also mentions it in the Anabasis 2

Ath. (epit.) 2.57e (lines 2–3) καὶ Ἔφιππος· σταμνάρια — παίγνια And Ephippus: “and little — dainties”

Metre Iambic trimeter

kkkkl llk|kk klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) kkkkl llk|l llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

lkkkl lkkk|l klkl (hephthemimeral caesura) Discussion Meineke 3,340; Bothe 498; Kock 2,263; Edmonds 2,161–163; PCG 5,151; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 495f. Citation Context This fragment is preserved partially at two instances within Athenaeus’ Epitome (lines 1–2 at 1.29d, and lines 2–3 at 2.57e); on the Epitome (and the common omission of play-titles) see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”. At the beginning of Book 1 Athenaeus makes several introductory remarks on various sympotic issues; wine is one of them, and discussion focuses exclusively on it from 1.28d onwards. Numerous kinds/varieties of wine originating from all over the Greek world (especially – though not exclusively – from various islands, e. g. Chios, Thasos, Lesbos, etc.), as well as from Italy, are mentioned and praised

216

Ephippus

for their quality and taste. The quotation of lines 1–2 of Ephippus’ present fragment is meant to exemplify wine from Phoenicia; to this end, Ephipp. fr. 8.2 is also quoted immediately after the quotation of the present fragment (cf. comm. ad loc.); Ephipp. fr. 24.1–2 and Ephipp. fr. 8.2 are the only testimonies within Athenaeus’ text that provide evidence for Phoenician wine. Athenaeus’ following reference to Xenophon’s Anabasis, as an additional passage supposedly featuring Phoenician wine, is incorrect; Xenophon’s reference is to palm wine instead (An. 2.3.14 οἶνος φοινίκων). At Ath. 2.57e the (narrated) symposion is already under way. The serving of appetizers has already begun and their appearance is typically accompanied by corresponding literary quotations. At 2.57d eggs (ᾠά) are mentioned, followed by the diminutive, ᾠάρια (little eggs); the latter term is exemplified through Anaxandr. fr. 80 and Ephippus’ present fragment (lines 2–3). Constitution of Text In line 1 codices C and E preserve the reading ῥοιὰς (ῥοιά is defined by LSJ 9 s. v. as “later Attic version of ῥόα”, although it already occurs as early as Herodotus, e. g. 4.143; cf. “Constitution of Text” for Ephipp. fr. 13.1), which Dindorf corrected to ῥόας for metrical reasons (-οι- is long, whereas a short element is needed for that metrical position). Schweighaeuser had already modified the unmetrical mss reading ῥοιὰς to the infelicitous ῥοὰς, which equally satisfies the metre but compromises the meaning (ῥοά is the Doric version of ῥοή: river, stream). In the same line, codices C and E preserve the unmetrical reading νωγαλίσματα, which Casaubon corrected to νώγαλα, after comparing Antiph. fr. 66.1 κάρυα, ῥόας, φοίνικας, ἕτερα νώγαλα (ap. Ath. 2.47d); yet, the reading νώγαλα (at Ath. 2.47d) is preserved only by codex C (codex E reads νωγαλεύματα) and is reproduced by Eust. in Il. p. 1163,26. In line 2 the reading φοινικϊκοῦ (Phoenician) is preserved at 2Ath. 2.57e, whereas at 1Ath. 1.29d φοινίκου is preserved instead (NB for Ephipp. fr. 8.2, also quoted at 1.29d immediately after Ephipp. 24.1–2, the reading φοινικίνου is preserved; cf. ad loc.). Kassel-Austin adopt the reading φοινικικοῦ (having removed the superfluous diaeresis), whilst Meineke (followed by Bothe, Kock, and Edmonds) unnecessarily modified the text into φοινικίνου (of the date-palm, made of date-palm). Regarding Athenaeus’ infelicitous reference to Xen. An. 2.3.14 (cf. “Citation Context”), this is noted only in the margin of codex C, and it is missing from codex E. Interpretation The fragment is an example of the common comic pattern of (food-)list / catalogue (on which see Ephipp. fr. 3 “Interpretation”). The context is manifestly sympotic; in particular, the snapshot refers to the concluding part of a symposion, since all mentioned food items are typical of the so called δεύτεραι τράπεζαι (second tables; cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 13.1a), i. e. they are all desserts – along with the indispensable accompaniment of wine, of course. The present setting resembles the presumed context for Ephipp. fr. 12 (ubi vide for off-stage and staged symposia). The speaker could be the host, a banqueter, a slave waiter, or even an entertaining hetaira.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 24)

1a

κάρυα

1b

ῥόας

217

Nuts; see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 13.5b. Pomegranates; see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 13.1b.

1c φοίνικας The term φοῖνιξ,-ικος designates both the tree (date-palm) and – via synecdoche – the date-palm’s fruit (i. e. date); yet, the date is on occasion more accurately described as ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ φοίνικος (the fruit of date-palm); e. g. Hdt. 1.193.5, Hermipp. fr. 63.22. Of course, in the present fragment the reference is to the fruit, the date, (not the tree); cf. Antiph. fr. 66, Phormus fr. 1, Hellan. FGrH 4 F 56. Dates were a tasteful snack, suitable for the second tables (δεύτεραι τράπεζαι, see “Interpretation”). On the physiology of date-palms see Thphr. HP 2.6.1–8, 3.3.5. 1d νώγαλα νώγαλα, νωγαλίσματα, and νωγαλεύματα (cognate with the verb νωγαλίζω) are synonymous terms that designate a wide range of dainties / sweetmeats (ἡδέα βρώματα: delicious foods; Ath. 2.47d), which were served at second tables (δεύτεραι τράπεζαι, cf. “Interpretation”) as desserts (ἐπιδορπίσματα, according to Phot. s. v. νωγαλεύματα) and, reasonably enough, were not meant to satiate hunger (μὴ εἰς χορτασίαν, Hsch. ν 760). Arnott’s remark that this triad of appellations specifically refers to “nuts and fruits with pips or stones” (1996: 771) is substantiated by the present fragment, where the expression and other νώγαλα (i. e. implying that some νώγαλα have already been mentioned) follows the mention of nuts (see comm. 1a), pomegranates (see comm. 1b), and dates (see comm. 1c). As such, the subcategory of νώγαλα falls within the bigger, all-inclusive category of τραγήματα (cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.3b). The term νώγαλα occurs only in Antiph. fr. 66, and in Ephippus’ present fragment, where however it is Casaubon’s correction of the codices’ unmetrical reading νωγαλίσματα (cf. “Constitution of Text”). νώγαλα is also mentioned by later lexicographical sources that manifestly draw on Athenaeus, e. g. Sud. ν 528, Eust. in Il. p. 1163,26. The term νωγαλεύματα features in Arar. fr. 8 (cf. Tartaglia 2019: 276–278), while the usage of νωγαλίσματα is attested at Poll. 6.62. 2a σταμνάρια σταμνάριον is the diminutive of στάμνος (earthen jar used for storing mainly wine, as well as other agricultural products, such as honey, olive oil, olives, and vinegar). The diminutive σταμνάριον (little jar) is used only here and in Eup. fr. 217 (cf. Olson 2016: 226; brief discussion of vase nomenclature and diminutives). For detailed analysis of diminutives ending in -άριον see Petersen (1910) 260–271; cf. Arnott (1996) 418 (comm. on Alex. fr. 144). The use of diminutives (ὑποκορισμός) is briefly discussed by Aristotle Rh. 1405b28–33, who resorts to Aristophanes (fr. 92) for substantiating evidence. 2b οἴνου … φοινικικοῦ On phoenician wine (which is the reason why Athenaeus quotes the present fragment at 1.29d; cf. “Citation Context”) see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.2a. 3a ᾠάρια ᾠάριον is the diminutive of ᾠόν (egg); the present reference to little eggs by Ephippus is the reason why Athenaeus quotes lines 2–3 of the present fragment at 2.57e (cf. “Citation Context”). On diminutives ending in -άριον see

218

Ephippus

comm. s. v. σταμνάρια above. On eggs see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.4a. Nonetheless, the nouns ᾠόν / ᾠάριον, apart from egg / little egg, can also mean cup, and especially egg-shaped cup (also cupping-glass; see LSJ9 s. v. 4); cf. Ath. 11.503e–f (within a discussion of various kinds of wine cups, ᾠοσκύφια and ᾠόν are mentioned). Based on the relevant testimonies of Hsch. κ 4335 and BGU 781.5.6 about the alterative sense of ᾠόν / ᾠάριον as cup, Kramer (1983: 118) believes that this secondary meaning should be applied to Ephippus’ present fragment too. This is not entirely unlikely, given that little cups would correspond to little jars of the previous line. However, to adopt such an interpretation, we would need to question and altogether reject Athenaeus’ introductory statement and overall reliability in general (i. e. why trust whatever Athenaeus says anywhere else?); yet again, this is the Epitome section of Deipnosophistae, where infelicities are to be expected (on Athenaeus’ trustworthiness see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). On balance, adhering to Occam’s razor principle, I am inclined to interpret ᾠάρια as little eggs rather than little cups. 3b παίγνια Here the term παίγνια designates collectively all sort of food dainties (savoury and sweet) that accompany the items already mentioned and make up for the second tables (cf. “Interpretation”). This is a hapax meaning for this term, which is evinced by the preceding words τοιαῦθ᾿ ἕτερα (others of the same kind). Elsewhere, the term παίγνιον can mean performance (cf. comm. on Ephipp. fr. 7.3b), (sex)-plaything – male or female (see Ar. Ec. 922 and Plu. Ant. 59.8 for male sex-plaything and Anaxandr. fr. 9.3 for female sex-plaything; cf. Henderson 1991: 157), joke (Ar. fr. 719), etc. (see LSJ9 s. v. for additional meanings). The sympotic nature of παίγνια (whether dainties or sex-playthings) is substantiated by a vase inscription of the early third century BC that reads ‘παίγνια’; see Lang (1976) 75 (Hd 14).

fr. 25 (25 K.) (A.) οἴνου σε πλῆθος πόλλ᾿ ἀναγκάζει λαλεῖν. (B.) οὐκοῦν μεθύοντάς φασι τἀληθῆ λέγειν 2 “an οὔκουν … λέγειν;” Kock

(Α.) Too much wine makes you talk too much. (B.) Well yes, they say that those who are drunk speak the truth Ath. (epit.) 2.38b φησί που Ἔφιππος· οἴνου — λέγειν Ephippus says somewhere: “Too much — truth”

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 25)

219

Metre Iambic trimeter

llkl l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed) llkkl l|lkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,340; Bothe 498; Kock 2,263; Edmonds 2,162f.; PCG 5,151; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 496 Citation Context The quotation of this fragment occurs in Athenaeus’ Epitome (hence the omission of the play’s title; cf. Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). The fragment is quoted on account of the wine-reference it contains and is part of a lengthy and meandering discussion on wine, which begins in Book 1 of Deipnosophistae (1.28d) and concludes in 2.40f (cf. “Citation Context” for Ephipp. fr. 24). Constitution of Text In line 2 the manuscript tradition preserves the reading οὐκοῦν, whereas Kock suggested the reading οὔκουν with a final question-mark, instead of a full-stop. οὐκοῦν is generally used in affirmative sentences (cf. s. v. below), whereas οὔκουν is preferred in impassioned, rhetorical questions (cf. LSJ 9 s. v.). Both styles are likely and perhaps Kock’s suggestion would make for an even perkier dialogue; yet, one should not get carried away. No modification of the manuscript text is presently required. Interpretation This terse fragment lands in the very midst of (Middle) Comedy, since it discusses wine, a theme that manifoldly permeates the entire comic genre. The fragment features a snapshot from a dialogue between two (unidentifiable) speakers, a sober character (speaker A) and a drunk one (speaker B); the occasion is manifestly sympotic (the pair are either at a dinner or have just left one; on symposia, staged and other, see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 4.2a). Speaker A states the obvious (and thereby scorns his collocutor), i. e. that speaker B has drunk too much and, as a result, he talks incessantly. Speaker B, without denying the charges (neither of having drunk to excess nor of palavering), reports what he presents as a truism (cf. φασι), i. e. that drunk people speak the truth. This apophthegmatic claim evokes the later Latin proverb in vino veritas (Plin. NH 14.141 “volgoque veritas iam attributa vino est”: and truth has come to be proverbially credited to wine); see further comm. on line 2b. 1 οἴνου σε πλῆθος πόλλ᾿ ἀναγκάζει λαλεῖν Speaker A (the sober one) realizes that the large quantity of wine his collocutor has drunk makes him talkative. Speaker B may be irritating Speaker A and/or may be talking about sensitive and/ or controversial stuff, e. g. revealing certain secrets; on wine stimulating impulsiveness and impetuousness see Amphis fr. 33 (with Papachrysostomoy 2016: 211–219). The present line by Ephippus is heavily reminiscent of and conspicuously comparable – both notionally and syntactically – to Alex. fr. 82 πολὺς γὰρ οἶνος πόλλ᾿ ἁμαρτάνειν ποεῖ (because lots of wine leads to lots of mistakes); both fragments emphasize that excess in wine consumption (designated as πλῆθος οἴνου by Ephippus and πολὺς οἶνος by Alexis) unmistakably lead (ἀναγκάζει and ποεῖ

220

Ephippus

respectively) to excess in action (πολλὰ λαλεῖν and πόλλ᾿ ἁμαρτάνειν); cf. Arnott (1996) 220 (with further parallels) and Führer (1982) 40. Evaluated from the opposite perspective, instead of how much a drunk speaks and how many mistakes he makes, Men. fr. 735 highlights how little a drunk can think: ὁ πολὺς ἄκρατος ὀλίγ’ ἀναγκάζει φρονεῖν (too much unmixed wine makes a person think deficiently); this is exactly the meaning of the expression ὁρμᾶν προχείρως (to rush hurriedly) occurring in the aforementioned fragment by Amphis (fr. 33.7). The truism that drunkenness cannot be hidden (thus leading – among other things – to incessant babbling and lots of mistakes) is the subject of the fragment that Athenaeus chooses to quote immediately after Ephippus’ present one; that is Antiph. fr. 232 κρύψαι, Φειδία, / ἅπαντα τἆλλά τις δύναιτ᾿ ἂν πλὴν δυοῖν, / οἶνόν τε πίνων εἰς ἔρωτά τ᾿ ἐμπεσών. / ἀμφότερα μηνύει γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν βλεμμάτων / καὶ τῶν λόγων ταῦθ᾿· ὥστε τοὺς ἀρνουμένους / μάλιστα τούτους καταφανεῖς ποεῖ (a man can conceal anything else, Pheidias, but there are two things he can’t: that he’s drinking wine and that he’s fallen in love. Because both conditions betray themselves from the expression on his face and the words he speaks; in the end those who deny it are the ones they most obviously convict). On wine in general (including its alleged enhancing effect on people’s performance) see further on Ephipp. fr. 2.2 s. v. μεθύοντες. For παροινία, i. e. the abusive behaviour resulting from immoderate wine-drinking, see Papachrysostomou (2016) 186–189. 2b μεθύοντας … τἀληθῆ λέγειν In vino veritas (cf. “Interpretation”). Winedrinking and telling the truth are known to have been closely interconnected within the mentality of ancient symposion; this concept traces to Alcaeus, according to the testimony of the ancient scholia on Pl. Smp. 217e παροιμία ‘οἶνος καὶ ἀλήθεια’, ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν μέθῃ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λεγόντων. ἔστι δὲ ᾄσματος Ἀλκαίου ἀρχή· “οἶνος, ὦ φίλε παῖ, καὶ ἀλάθεα” (‘Wine and truth’ is a proverb used of those who speak the truth when drunk. It is the opening of a song by Alcaeus (fr. 366 V.): “wine, dear boy, and truth”). For a detailed analysis and interpretation of this concept, with reference to the truthfulness as a major sympotic duty of both the banqueters (unreserved candour, refraining from lies and exaggerations) and the poets (faithful preservation of tradition), see Rösler 1995 (with further bibliography). Alcaeus’ line is copied by Theocritus and used as an introductory statement to his Idyll 29 (line 1) “οἶνος, ὦ φίλε παῖ,” λέγεται, “καὶ ἀλάθεα” (“wine and truth, my dear lad,” as they say), and continues (line 2) κἄμμε χρὴ μεθύοντας ἀλάθεας ἔμμεναι (and we too ought to be truthful now that we are drunk); cf. Gow (21952) ii.504–505. On drunkenness and wine see also previous note.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 26)

221

fr. 26 (26 K.) ὡς ἐγὼ σκιρτῶ πάλαι ὅπου ῥοδόπνοα στρώματ᾿ ἐστί, λούμενος μύροις ψακαστοῖς 2–3 λούμενος / μύροις Wil. ap. Kaibel (qui dubitanter recepit): καὶ μύροις / λοῦμαι Boissonade ap. Schweigh., K-A: καὶ λούομαι μύροις E: καὶ λουόμενος μύροις C: ἀλείφομαι / μύροις Kock (‘fortasse’)

since I have long been frolicking around, where the rose-scented rugs are, bathing in dripping perfumes Ath. (epit.) 2.48b–c ὡς — ψακαστοῖς, φησὶν Ἔφιππος “Since — perfumes”, says Ephippus

Metre Iambic trimeter

lkl llkl (Porson’s law observed) klkkk k|lkl klkl (penthemimeral caesura) klkl l

Discussion Kock 2,263; Edmonds 2,162f.; PCG 5,152; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 496 Citation Context The present fragment is quoted in Athenaeus’ Epitome (hence, the omission of the play’s title is not surprising; cf. Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”), within a discussion (beginning at 2.47e–f) about dining-halls (οἶκοι); at 2.48a the discussion focuses on στρώματα, i. e. the coverings of dinner-couches, the rugs used to adorn and/or cover the dinner-couches. Ephippus’ present fragment is quoted within this very context, as an example of the use of στρώματα at dinner parties/symposia. Constitution of Text The fragment’s single critical issue occurs at the ending of line 2 – beginning of line 3. The kindred readings preserved by the Epitome codices unsettle the metrical sequence of both lines (codex C reads καὶ λουόμενος μύροις, whereas codex E reads καὶ λούομαι μύροις). Boissonade (ap. Schweighaeuser, addenda p. 401) suggested the reading καὶ μύροις / λοῦμαι, which restores the metrical pattern and preserves the initial καὶ of the mss tradition, but reverses the order between the two following terms; thus, the reading palaeographically deviates from the mss tradition to a significant extent. Yet, Kassel-Austin adopt Boissonade’s reading. Instead, I chose to adopt Wilamowitz’s reading (ap. Kaibel) λούμενος / μύροις, which remains palaeographically closer and more faithful to the Epitome readings, since the order of terms remains unaltered. The only weak-

222

Ephippus

ness of this reading (and perhaps the reason why Kaibel accepted it with doubts) is that it does away with the initial καὶ. In any case, since modification of the manuscript tradition is inevitable, Wilamowitz’s solution is manifestly preferable to Boissonade’s because of its palaeographic proximity to the mss readings. As to Kock’s conjecture (ἀλείφομαι / μύροις), it is not to be adopted either, since it unnecessarily introduces an altogether different verb to the text. Interpretation The backdrop of this fragment is an opulent/extravagant (cf. the scented rugs and the abundance of perfumes), ongoing symposion; cf. the present tense of both the verb σκιρτῶ and the participle λούμενος (cf. “Constitution of Text”), as well as the adverb πάλαι, i. e. this situation has been going on for quite some time (on the symposion in general see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 4.2a). The speaker sounds elated; this is presumably to be attributed to (ongoing) wine consumption (on wine’s effect see comm. on Ephipp. frr. 2.2, 25.2) and/or to some event/encounter (perhaps with a hetaira) that is about to occur. What the speaker says implies some sort of preparation and/or anticipation on his behalf (cf. the connotations of πάλαι, the present tense, the excessive use of perfume). The speaker’s ebullience is accompanied by the use of previously unheard-of vocabulary; the terms ῥοδόπνοα (line 2) and ψακαστοῖς (line 3) are hapaxes. It cannot be a coincidence that this mirthful character coins two brand-new terms, and in such proximity between them (one wonders how many more coinages existed in the rest of his speech that is now lost). It is likely that this innovative use of language was somehow related to his identity within the play (e. g. perhaps this is an erudite displaying his learnedness in the way the learned banqueters do in Athenaeus’ text); yet, no conclusions can be drawn. Furthermore, we cannot undeniably establish that we are at a dinner party (on staged symposia see Konstantakos 2005), since the speaker may have (temporarily) left the party to appear (briefly) on stage and address the audience or converse with another character; cf. Getas’ report on what is going on inside the house in Men. Dysc. 901ff. (901–902: θόρυβός ἐστιν ἔνδον, / πίνουσιν: they are making such a racket in there, carousing); see also Mnesim. fr. 4 (where the party referred to is already afoot); cf. Papachrysostomou (2008) 186–209, Mastellari (2020) 372–440. Metre Lines 1 and 3 are metrically incomplete. From line 1 the entire first metre and the first element of the second metre are missing. From line 3 the entire third metre, along with the last three elements of the second metre are missing. 1a σκιρτῶ The verb σκιρτάω,-ῶ (frequentative of the verb σκαίρω: skip, dance) means spring, leap, bound and is properly used of animals, e. g. young horses (Hom. Il. 20.226, E. Ph. 1125), goats (Theoc. 1.152), etc. By extension, σκιρτάω is also used to designate people prancing / frolicking / playfully skipping about; e. g. E. Ba. 446. In Comedy the verb occurs within a high-spirited context (similar to the one featuring in Ephippus’ present fragment) in Ar. Nu. 1078 (Wrong encourages Pheidippides to enjoy himself) χρῶ τῇ φύσει, σκίρτα, γέλα, νόμιζε μηδὲν αἰσχρόν (go ahead and indulge your nature, romp, laugh, think nothing shameful), Ar. Pl.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 26)

223

761 (Carion announces Wealth’s imminent arrival) ὀρχεῖσθε καὶ σκιρτᾶτε καὶ χορεύετε (start dancing, skipping, and promenading), and Mnesim. fr. 4.55 (graphic report of an on-going symposion; cf. “Interpretation”) πίνει, σκιρτᾷ, λορδοῖ, κεντεῖ {βινεῖ} (drinking, frisking, bending backwards, pricking, {having sex}); cf. Ar. V. 1305 (Bdelycleon describes his father’s uncouth behaviour at some recent dinner) ἀνήλατ᾿, ἐσκίρτα, ’πεπόρδει, κατεγέλα (he jumped up and started to prance about, fart, and make fun of people). In addition, in Pl. R. 571c σκιρτάω is used to describe the activity of the bestial side of the soul that darts about, when the rational side is not operational during sleep. 1b πάλαι The adverb πάλαι is often used with a verb (or participle) in present tense (here: σκιρτῶ) to designate the long-lasting duration of an activity that began in the past and is being continued until the present time; cf. S. Aj. 20 (Odysseus of his overlong search of Ajax) κεῖνον γάρ, οὐδέν᾿ ἄλλον, ἰχνεύω πάλαι (for it is he and no other I have long been tracking), Ar. Pl. 257 οὔκουν ὁρᾷς ὁρμωμένους ἡμᾶς πάλαι προθύμως (can’t you see that we’ve been hustling eagerly the whole time?), etc. Likewise, in Ephippus’ present fragment the speaker uses this adverb to emphasize that it is for quite some time now that he has been playfully frisking about; cf. “Interpretation”. 2a ῥοδόπνοα The adjective ῥοδόπνοος (< ῥόδον + πνέω) is a hapax. This imaginative coinage means breathing of roses, i. e. rose-scented. Arguably, this hapax is a resourceful variation of the synonymous adjective ἡδύοσμος (sweet-smelling, fragrant), which occurs only once in Comedy, in Ar. fr. 715 (quoted by Athenaeus 2.48c, immediately after Ephippus’ present fragment; NB στρώματα in Ar. fr. 715 mean bed-sheets): ὅστις ἐν ἡδυόσμοις / στρώμασι παννυχίζων / τὴν δέσποιναν ἐρείδεις (you who spend the night in sweet-smelling sheets, banging your mistress). It is not inconceivable that Ephippus was aware of Aristophanes’ use of ἡδύοσμος (another rare term, occurring only once before Aristophanes, in Simon. fr. 597) and wished to avoid using the already available terminology, but instead playfully vie with his predecessor; thus, he came up with this novel concept of not simply sweet-smelling rugs, but rugs breathing of roses. Roses were widely used in antiquity in the manufacture of perfumes/scented oils, but also in medicine and cooking; cf. Thphr. Od. 47, Pliny NH 21.10. See further Osmun 1975. 2b στρώματ᾿ Presently the term στρώματα (always in plural when bearing the present meaning) designates the rugs, coverlets that were typically laid upon the wooden couches at dinner-parties/symposia (for reasons of comfort but also as a sign of luxury); it is precisely on account of this very term that Athenaeus quotes Ephippus’ present fragment (cf. “Citation Context”). στρώματα typically feature in sympotic contexts, e. g. Ar. Ach. 1090 (a synopsis of the symposion sine qua non items) κλῖναι, τράπεζαι, προσκεφάλαια, στρώματα (couches, tables, pillows, coverlets – NB the list goes on), Ar. Ra. 543a στρώμασιν Μιλησίοις (Milesian coverlets), Ar. Lys. 1189 στρωμάτων ποικίλων (intricate tapestries). On rugs / bedclothes in general see Pritchett & Pippin (1956) 244–250.

224

Ephippus

2–3 λούμενος / μύροις On perfumes see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 8.1b. The verb λοῦμαι (Attic form of λούομαι: bathe) is not the proper terminology for applying perfume, a process for which the verbs ἀλείφω or χρίω are typically used instead (both verbs meaning to anoint); e. g. Archil. fr. 205 (μύροισι … ἠλείφεο), Semon. fr. 7.64 (μύροις ἀλείφεται), Amphis fr. 27.2 (ἀλείφειν … μύρῳ), Anacr. fr. 363 (χρισάμενος μύρῳ), Achae. TrGF 20 F 17.3 (μύρῳ σε χρίσω), etc. The participle λούμενος emphasizes the abundance of perfumes available at the symposion (hence, the host’s wealth) and the speaker’s unrestrained indulgence in them; for, instead of simply being anointed with perfumes (i. e. applying them in moderation), he gaily proclaims that he has been bathing (λούμενος) in them; the aim of this graphic metaphor is to highlight the indulgent use of excessive quantities of perfumes by the speaker. A similarly extravagant use of perfumes (communicated via the same terminology) is attested for Aristippus, Socrates’ student (Ath. 12.544d): μύροις ἐλούετο (he used to bathe in perfume); NB Aristippus was well known for maintaining a Weltanschauung where luxury and bliss were intertwined (Ath. 12.544a: ἀποδεξάμενος τὴν ἡδυπάθειαν ταύτην τέλος εἶναι ἔφη καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν βεβλῆσθαι: he expressed his approval of a life of luxury and said that this is what one should aim for, as well as what happiness is based on). 3 ψακαστοῖς This is another hapax term (cf. ῥοδόπνοα in the previous line and “Interpretation”). The adjective ψακαστός (dripping) derives from the noun ψακάς or ψεκάς (Ionic and later form respectively), which means drop (of rain), drizzle, and by extension drop of other liquids (e. g. blood: A. Ag. 1390 ψακάδι φοινίας δρόσου; wine: Critias fr. 1.10 Βρομίου ψακάδεσσι), as well as tiny particle of solid material, e. g. money: Ar. Pax 121 ἀργυρίου μηδὲ ψακάς (not even a droplet of silver); cf. Olson (1998) 92. Just like ῥοδόπνους is a variation on an existing, synonymous term (ἡδύοσμος; cf. comm. ad loc.), ψακαστός is also an innovative variation on the existing, synonymous epithet στακτός: trickling (< στάζω: shed drop by drop), which is regularly used with reference to perfume; e. g. Ar. Pl. 529 μύροισιν μυρίσαι στακτοῖς (to scent with drops of perfume), Archestr. fr. 60.3 στακτοῖσι μύροις ἀγαθοῖς χαίτην θεράπευε (treat your hair with fine perfumes dispensed in drops); cf. Olson & Sens (2000) 227–228. Ephippus’ present fragment is the only surviving occurrence of the adjective ψακαστός; yet, Eustathius seems to consider it a rather regular term, judging from the following passage (in Il. p. 1071,11) τὰ ψακαστὰ μύρα τὰ παρὰ τοῖς ὕστερον στακτά (people used to call ‘ψακαστά’ the perfumes that in later times were known as ‘στακτά’ – NB Eustathius’ elliptic and brachylogic syntax makes the passage highly susceptible to misinterpretation that would erroneoudly result into exactly the opposite translation). The incongruity between the hapax occurrence of ψακαστός and Eustathius’ testimony suggesting a widespread use of the term can be explained in a number of ways: (i) ψακαστός was a colloquial term (hence Eustathius’ claim), which was only used in writing by Ephippus; (ii) there have been many more written occurrences of the term (substantiating Eustathius’ claim), but none of them survived, except Ephippus’; (iii) given that in his Homeric commentaries Eustathius made extensive

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 27)

225

use of Athenaeus’ Epitome, it is reasonable to assume that he intuitively maximized the impact of that text and that he inadvertently and hastily extrapolated that Ephippus’ use of the term was representative of a generalized trend of the poet’s contemporary linguistic register, rather than it being a newfangled term. Certainty is impossible. On Eustathius see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”.

fr. 27 (27 K.) ἵν᾿ ὥσπερ οἱ μύκητες ἀποπνίξαιμί σε ὡσπερεὶ μύκης τις Kock (ὡσπερεὶ iam Meineke: “fortasse ὡσπερεὶ”)

So that I choke you to death, like mushrooms do Ath. (epit.) 2.60e–61a φύονται δὲ οἱ μύκητες γηγενεῖς καί εἰσιν αὐτῶν ἐδώδιμοι ὀλίγοι· οἱ γὰρ πολλοὶ ἀποπνίγουσιν … (2.61a) Ἔφιππος· ἵν᾿ — σε Mushrooms grow out of the earth unsown and few of them are edible, because the majority cause death by choking. … Ephippus: “So — do”

Metre Iambic trimeter

klkl klk|kk llkl (hephthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

Discussion Meineke 3,340; Bothe 498; Kock 2,263f.; Edmonds 2,162f.; PCG 5,152; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 496 Citation Context The fragment is quoted in the Epitome of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae (hence the omission of the play-title; cf. Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”). In Book 2 the (narrated) symposion is already afoot and the serving of various appetizers triggers a number of corresponding literary quotations. Ephippus’ present fragment is quoted with reference to mushrooms (μύκαι), first mentioned at 2.60b. In particular, the fragment is meant to substantiate the claim made at 2.60e that the majority of mushrooms are not edible, but cause death by choking instead. Constitution of Text The one surviving line, as preserved by the manuscript tradition, is impeccable from every aspect. Yet, Meineke suggested that the reading ὡσπερεί should perhaps (fortasse) replace the mss reading ὥσπερ οἱ, whereas Kock preferred the reading ὡσπερεὶ μύκης τις. Yet, neither Meineke’s nor Kock’s emendation needs to be adopted. Interpretation In this fragment, consisting of a single line, an infuriated comic character seems to threaten his collocutor with strangling/choking (apparently, to death). This line must have originally been part of an angry tirade/address. The

226

Ephippus

recipient of the threat must also be present on stage and, presumably, in close proximity with the speaker. We could even imagine that the speaker moves aggresively towards his collocutor or that he even touches him, grabs him by his garments in a threatening way. The reason why the speaker makes this threat is irrecoverable; one can only assume that it had something to do with some kind of fight/quarrel, presently unfolding on stage. See further s. v. ἀποπνίξαιμί σε. μύκητες μύκης,-ητος (mushroom or other fungus; cf. LSJ9 s. v.). Mushrooms are mentioned here by the speaker as a point of comparison for the violent death by choking/strangulation that he threatens to inflict upon his collocutor (cf. “Interpretation”). The consumption of certain species of mushrooms was already known in antiquity to cause excruciating death (cf. “Citation Context”), while cooking was known to largely remove the element that caused asphyxiaton (τὸ πνιγῶδες; Ath. 2.61e, citing the physician Diphilus of Siphnos; cf. Dsc. 1.116). Within Comedy the visualization of choking/asphyxiating through consumption of poisonous mushrooms is a recurring theme, featuring – apart from Ephippus’ present fragment – in Epich. fr. 153 and Antiph. fr. 186. Simultaneously, the edible species of mushrooms enjoyed a low culinary reputation, as is made obvious by certain passages (e. g. Polioch. fr. 2, Antiph. fr. 225), as well as by the absence of mushrooms from Comedy’s food lists. Nonetheless, in Roman times mushrooms climbed up the culinary ladder, to the point that Seneca considered their consumption an indulgence (describing them as “voluptarium venenum”: pleasant poison, Ep. 95.24–25), and willingly forsook them for ever (Ep. 108.15). A good number of testimonies about mushrooms (and the concomitant danger of poisoning) are anthologized by Athenaeus 2.60b–61f, while all relevant material, from both Greek and Roman antiquity, is gathered by Dalby (2003) 223–224 (with bibliography); cf. Grmek 1982, García Soler (2001) 63–64. ἀποπνίξαιμί σε The speaker appears to threaten his collocutor with strangulation (cf. “Interpretation”). Yet, the threat is not straightforward; the speaker does not use the future indicative (i. e. ἀποπνίξω σε), but accommodates the apparent threat within a secondary final clause using the optative mode instead. Since the context is missing, we can neither confidently evaluate the essence of this threat (real or imaginary) nor fully comprehend the syntactical role of this secondary clause (past, present, future reference / real or unreal). Of course, the straightforward and most probable interpretation is to take this line at face value, i. e. as a direct threat from an angry character. Yet, one needs to keep in mind that this might have also been a funny visualization or some joke between the two characters. The verb ἀποπνίγω,-ομαι (synonymous to the simplex πνίγω,-ομαι, but with the preposition ἀπό adding further emphasis / notional intensity) means (in mid./ pass. cause to) choke, throttle, either literally, e. g. whilst eating (Pherecr. fr. 170, Alex. fr. 268.4, Hp. Epid. 5.37), as an act of violence (Ar. Eq. 893), because of smoke (Ar. Nu. 1504), etc., or metaphorically, e. g. with rage (Alex. fr. 16.7, Luc. Nav. 22, D. 19.199), with vexation (Antiph. fr. 169.2), financially (Anaxil. fr. 22.16; cf. Tartaglia 2019: 146), etc. Yet, it is remarkable that in nearly all ancient testimonies

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 28)

227

regarding mushroom poisoning (e. g. Ath. 2.60e, Antiph. fr. 186, Eparchid. FGrH 437 F 2, Diph.Siph. ap. Ath. 2.61e, Gal. 12.225 and 12.303, Dsc. 1.116 and 2.112, Paul.Aeg. 5.55, etc.), the verb ἀποπνίγω is the typical term (becoming almost a terminus technicus), which is standardly used to refer to death caused by poisonous mushrooms (cf. previous note); i. e. what this verb singularly registers is choking / asphyxiation as the primary (if not the only) symptom of mushroom poisoning. However, the ancient testimonies on this matter largely contradict the modern, scientific evidence regarding mushroom-poisoning that is now widely known to be manifested through a variety of symptoms (e. g. gastrointestinal, liver and/or kidney failure, nausea, dizziness), but only extremely rarely through respiratory failure (choking / asphyxiation); see Christensen (1975) 7–33, Spoerke & Rumack 1994. For extremely rare cases of acute/fatal respiratory failure see Jang et al. 2013, White et al. 2019. Interestingly though, the belief that poisonous mushrooms cause death by choking persisted until the 17th century, at least; cf. Gerard (1633) 1386: “most of them (sc. the mushrooms) do suffocate and strangle the eater”.

fr. 28 (28. 29 K.) φιλῶ γε πράμνιον οἶνον Λέσβιον πολλὴ δὲ Λεσβία σταγὼν ἐκπίνεται ἄγαν 1 φιλῶ γε CE: ⟨ἄγαν⟩ φιλῶ γε Jacobs Addit. 26: φιλῶ γέ ⟨τοι⟩ (tum πράμνειον) Meineke ed. min.: φιλῶ γέ⟨ροντα⟩ πράμνιον οἶνον Λέσβιον Kock (“sine dubitatione”) οἶνον Λέσβιον del. Bothe (1844) 46 2 ἐκπίνεται δὲ Λεσβία πολλὴ σταγὼν Bothe (ἐκπίνεται δὲ Λεσβία σταγὼν ἄγαν attribuit Antiph. Bothe) 3 ἄγαν “fortasse delendum est” Meineke: del. Kock

I love Pramnian wine from Lesbos. Many drops of Lesbian are quaffed excessively Ath. (epit.) 1.28f Ἔφιππος· φιλῶ — ἄγαν Ephippus: “I love — excessively”

Metre Iambic trimeter

kl l|kkkl llkl (penthemimeral caesura; Porson’s law obser-

llk|l klkl llkl kx

ved) (triemimeral caesura; Porson’s law observed)

228

Ephippus

Discussion Meineke 3,339; Bothe 497; Kock 2,264; Edmonds 2,162f.; PCG 5,152; Llopis – Gómez – Asensio 496 Citation Context The present fragment is quoted in Athenaeus Deipnosophistae Book 1 and shares the same Citation Context with Ephipp. fr. 24 (cf. also “Citation Context” for Ephipp. fr. 25); the ongoing discussion among the banqueters centres around wine and its numerous varieties. Constitution of Text The Epitome codices C and E (on the Epitome see Intro. 3 “Tradition & Reception”) preserve the reading φιλῶ γε, thus leaving line 1 short of the two first metrical elements (cf. “Metre”). In order to fill in the lacuna, Jacobs (Addit. 26) suggested the reading ἄγαν, while Meineke in his editio minor suggested the addition of the reading τοι immediately after φιλῶ γε (in this case the reading πράμνειον, instead of πράμνιον, should be adopted, for metrical reasons). Kock believes beyond doubt that line 1 should read φιλῶ γέροντα πράμνιον οἶνον Λέσβιον, thus being a metrically complete and correct iambic trimeter line (Kock supports his conjecture by comparing the present case with Eub. fr. 121.2, Alex. 172.5, and Ar. fr. 688). Both Meineke’s and Kock’s conjectures unnecessarily alter the manuscript tradition and, therefore, are not to be adopted. Jacob’s suggestion is viable, even though it sounds repetitive (cf. ἄγαν in line 3); unless, of course, this was some stylistic/rhetorical device (e. g. anaphora). Bothe (1844: 46) deleted the reading οἶνον Λέσβιον. Regarding line 2, Bothe advanced the suggestion that Antiphanes (whose name follows in Athenaeus’ text, immediately after ἄγαν) had also written the exact same line, save the substitution of the reading πολλὴ with the reading ἄγαν. Blaming the copyists for sloppiness (“quibus non est mos gerendus”), Bothe believes that Ephippus’ line originally read ἐκπίνεται δὲ Λεσβία πολλὴ σταγών, while Antiphanes’ line read ἐκπίνεται δὲ Λεσβία σταγὼν ἄγαν. In line 3 Meineke thought that the reading ἄγαν should perhaps be deleted; Kock proceeded with actually deleting it. Interpretation The fragment apparently consists of two interconnected parts, line 1 and lines 2–3, which must have originally been in close proximity within the play (judging from the common subject, i. e. consumption of Lesbian wine), but not necessarily immediately following one another. The background is manifestly sympotic (on symposion see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 4.2a). The character delivering line 1 either currently drinks Pramnian wine from Lesbos or longs for some whilst consuming another variety or whilst visualizing a dinner party / symposion. Lines 2–3 describe an ongoing symposion (cf. “Interpretation” for Ephipp. fr. 26) and are probably delivered by a character who has just been to it, seen the wine-drinking being in full swing and now appears on stage either to address and inform the audience about the festivities or to converse with another character. The news that he shares regarding this ongoing symposion are limited (because of the fragmentary nature of our text) to the abundant availability and immoderate consumption of Lesbian wine.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 28)

229

Metre Lines 1 and 3 are metrically incomplete. From line 1 the entire first metre and the first element of the second metre are missing. From line 3 the entire third metre, along with the last three elements of the second metre are missing. 1a φιλῶ … οἶνον On wine see comm. on Ephipp. fr. 2.2 s. v. μεθύοντες. The verb φιλέω (to love; cf. LSJ9 s. v.) has strong notional connotations that exceed simple ‘liking’ and reach the level of erotic and affectionate nuances. Fondness of wine is rarely described using the verb φιλέω; apart from the present fragment, similar terminology occurs in Ar. Ec. 227 οἶνον φιλοῦσ’ εὔζωρον ([sc. the women] love neat wine) and, outside Comedy, in E. Cyc. 554 φιλῶν τὸν οἶνον (loving the wine). Of course, fondness for wine is also expressed in other ways; e. g. the adjectives φίλοινος (φιλέω + οἶνος) and φιλοπότης (φιλέω + πότος) are commonly used to refer to wine-loving characters. 1b πράμνιον οἶνον Pramnian wine (πράμνιος or πράμνειος οἶνος) was a dry red wine that is attested in our sources since Homer (Il. 11.639, Od. 10.235). Yet, ancient testimonies are eclectic at best, if not contradictory at times: ‘pramnian’ is attested both as a variety name and as a geographical appellation, while at the same time it is erratically identified with the wine called φαρμακίτης (adulterated; Semus FGrH 396 F 6a) and with the bibline wine (βίβλινος οἶνος; sch. on Hes. Op. 589; Pertusi 1955: 190). Athenaeus 1.30c claims that pramnian wine is γένος τι οἴνου (a type of wine); i. e. a variety name, deriving from a specific grape/vine variety called πράμν(ε)ιος ἄμπελος (Didymus p. 77 Schmidt, Eust. in Od. p. 1656,63). According to Dioscorides (5.6.4), pramnian wine was made of sun-dried grapes (i. e. raisins); and according to Ath. 1.30c, it was neither sweet nor syrupy (οὔτε γλυκὺς οὔτε παχύς), but dry, harsh, and very intense (αὐστηρὸς καὶ σκληρὸς καὶ δύναμιν ἔχων διαφέρουσαν); on this occasion Athenaeus quotes Aristophanes (fr. 688) claiming that the Athenians dislike both harsh poets and harsh pramnian wine, for they both give them stomach cramps (the former metaphorically, the latter literally). Within the same section Athenaeus quotes further testimonies on this issue: Eparchides (FGrH 437 F 1; NB Jacoby considers this testimony problematic) regards pramnian wine as a geographical appellation claiming that γίνεται δὲ ἐν Ἰκάρῳ (it is produced in Icarus – NB Icarus is the modern day island of Icaria); likewise, Semus (FGrH 396 F 6a) maintains that on Icarus there is a rock called Pramnian (Πράμνιος πέτρα) and a nearby high mountain (παρ᾿ αὐτῇ ὅρος μέγα), and that this is where the Pramnian wine gets its name from (ἀφ᾿ οὗ τὸν Πράμνιον οἶνον). Further down his text (1.31d–e) Athenaeus quotes Alciphron of Maeander reporting that pramnian wine was produced in Latoreia (Λατώρεια), near Ephesus. As far as the etymology of πράμν(ε)ιος is concerned, Athenaeus provides a couple of (unsubstantiated) hypotheses (without any details on their provenance): ἔνιοι δὲ ἐν τῷ καθόλου τὸν πρὸς παραμονὴν ἐπιτήδειον οἱονεὶ παραμόνιον ὅντα· οἱ δὲ τὸν πραΐνοντα τὸ μένος, ἐπεὶ οἱ πιόντες προσηνεῖς (some say that it refers generally to wine that can be stored, as if the word was παραμόνιος [‘enduring’]; others argue that this is wine that makes one’s temper milder).

230

Ephippus

Despite the seeming vastness of available information, there is a way to reconcile all testimonies as follows: first, Ephippus’ present fragment categorically excludes the possibility of pramnian being a geographical appellation (originating from Icarus or anywhere else), since the speaker clearly refers to pramnian wine produced in Lesbos (πράμνιον οἶνον Λέσβιον). This leaves us only with the possibility of pramnian being a variety name, produced from a vine variety that could grow on various locations (Lesbos, Icarus, Latoreia, etc.). Apparently, pramnian wine from some locations (Icarus, Latoreia) enjoyed conspicuous reputation (perhaps because it was of better quality), hence those locations are named in our sources as supposed single origin spots. Regarding particularly the case of Icarus and the homonymous rock (Πράμνιος πέτρα) and nearby mountain, the rock was probably named after the vine variety (rather than the other way around), precisely because the pramnian vine variety thrived in the nearby region. For further references to Pramnian wine see Phryn.Com. fr. 68, Ar. Eq. 107 (with Van Leeuwen 1900: 21), Ar. fr. 334.1. Cf. Gigante (1963) 241, Meyer in RE suppl. 14 (1974) 477–478 (s. v. Pramnios, Pramnos), Dalby 2000. 1c οἶνον Λέσβιον Wine from the island of Lesbos enjoyed a high reputation and, along with wine from the islands of Chios and Thasos, formed a triad of exquisite wines that were highly acclaimed all over the Greek world. Archestratus compares Lesbian wine to ambrosia (fr. 59.10–11) κεῖνος δὲ δοκήσει / οὐκ οἴνῳ σοι ἔχειν ὅμοιον γέρας, ἀμβροσίῃ δέ (Lesbian wine will seem to you to share the rank of ambrosia rather than of wine), and considers it the crown jewel of them all (fr. 59.19): οὐθὲν τἆλλ᾿ ἐστὶν ἁπλῶς πρὸς Λέσβιον οἶνον (the other [sc. wines] are just nothing compared with Lesbian wine). Likewise, Alexis (fr. 276) regards the Lesbian as the finest wine: Λεσβίου ⟨δὲ⟩ πώματος / οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος οἶνος ἡδίων πιεῖν (there’s no other wine that’s more pleasant to drink than the Lesbian draught); see Arnott (1996) 769 (with further information, testimonies, and bibliography), and cf. Alex. fr. 278. See also Dalby (1996) 97–102; Dalby 2000; Wilkins (2000a) 214–216; Brock & Wirtjes 2000 (on almost all wine varieties/appellations mentioned in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae). 2a Λεσβία σταγών Lesbian drop is a metonymy for Lesbian wine (wine is also referred to via metonymy in Ephipp. fr. 3.11, cf. comm. ad loc. s. v. κύλικας εὐζωρεστέρας). The noun σταγών,-όνος (drop) can be used with reference to various liquids; e. g. water (E. Supp. 81), blood (S. OT 1278), tears (A. Ch. 186), milk (AP 7.552), etc. Also, on various occasions σταγών refers to wine; cf. Antiph. fr. 172.3–4 τῆς τρυφερᾶς ἀπὸ Λέσβου σεμνογόνου σταγόνος / πλῆρες ([about a drinking-cup being] full of the luxurious, nobly-born drop from Lesbos), E. Cyc. 67 οἴνου χλωραὶ σταγόνες (fresh drops of wine), Thphr. Piet. fr. 2.41–42 σταγόνας οἴνου (drops of wine), Luc. VH 1.7 σταγὼν οἴνου (drop of wine), Ael. VH 3.42 οἴνου καὶ γάλακτος σταγόνες (drops of wine and milk), etc. What is exceptional in Ephippus’ case is that not only does σταγών refer to wine, but it also stands metonymically for it.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 28)

231

2c ἐκπίνεται The verb ἐκπίνω means quaff, swallow down, drain a cup dry quickly or even in one go (cf. LSJ9 s. v.); e. g. Hom. Od. 10.237, S. fr. 483 πλῆρες ἐκπιόντι χρύσεον κέρας (having drunk off a golden horn full of wine), Antiph. fr. 4.1 ὅλην μύσας ἔκπινε (shut your eyes and drink the whole cup). The image presently visualized (i. e. wine being gulped down greedily) is reminiscent – albeit through a different vocabulary – of another ongoing symposion (cf. “Interpretation” for both the present fr. and fr. 26) featuring immoderate wine consumption: this is Mnesim. fr. 4, where line 17 reads κρατὴρ ἐξερροίϐδητ’ οἴνου (a bowl of wine is being gulped down and emptied); NB ἐξερροίϐδητ’ (ἐκροιϐδέω) is a hapax meaning empty by gulping down); cf. Papachrysostomou (2008) 197–198, Mastellari (2020) 405–406. 3 ἄγαν Very much, usually in bad sense; excessively. Since the rest of the line is missing, it is impossible to say with certainty whether ἄγαν referred to the immediately preceding consumption of wine (line 2) or to some other activity (perhaps eating), which was also taking place in a similar intemperate way and was described in the rest of line 3 and the immediately following text. I am inclined to adopt the latter interpretation, since (i) the wine consumption is already described as abundant (πολλή) and any further description would be pleonastic (though not prohibitive) and would also require an enjambment; (ii) the emphatic position of ἄγαν as the first word of the line corresponds symmetrically to the adjective πολλή (for reasons of variation, the poet chose an adjective for line 2 and an adverb for line 3); (iii) in all surviving, in-context, poetic instances of ἄγαν as the first word of a line, ἄγαν refers to what follows, never to what preceeds in the text; e. g. Pi. fr. 210.1, A. Th. 710, A. Ag. 1241, A. Pr. 180, E. fr. 962.3, E. Alc. 679, etc.

233

Bibliographical Abbreviations Blaydes Adv.: Blaydes, F. H. M., 1890–1896. Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 2 vols, Halle an der Saale. BNP: Brill’s New Pauly. Antiquity volumes edited by H. Cancik & H. Schneider, Brill Online. CAH: Boardman, J., et al., 31970–2005. The Cambridge Ancient History, 14 vols, London – Cambridge – New York. Canter: Canter, Th., Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta a Th. Cantero collecta (unpublished; part one is kept in Oxford (Bodleian Library; ms. d’Orville 123), part two in Paris (National Library; suppl. gr. 1013). Casaubon: Casaubon, I., 1600. Animadversiones in Athenaei Dipnosophistas Libri XV, Lyon. CGF: Kaibel, G. (ed.), 21958. Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Berlin. CGL: Goetz, G., 1888. Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, vol. II, Leipzig. CPG: Leutsch, E. L. & Schneidewin, F. G., 1839. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, 2 vols, Göttingen. CRF 3: Ribbeck, O., 31897–1898. Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta, vol. II: Comicorum Romanorum praeter Plautum et Syri quae feruntur sententias Fragmenta, Leipzig. Dindorf: Dindorf, W., 1827. Athenaeus Deipnosophistae, 3 vols, Leipzig. DK: Diels, H. & Kranz, W. (eds), 71954. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols, Berlin. Dobree Adv.: Dobree, P. P., 1831–1833 (ed. by J. Scholefield). Adversaria, 2 vols, Cambridge. FGrH: Jacoby, F. et al., 1923–1999. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin – Leiden – Boston. FHG: Müller, K., 1878–1885. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vols, Paris. Frisk: Frisk, H., 1954–1972. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3 vols, Heidelberg. GG: Lentz, A., 1883–. Grammatici Graeci, Leipzig (facsimile repr. Hildesheim 1965–). GGM: Müller, K., 1855. Geographi Graeci Minores. Tabulae in Geographos Graecos minores instructae, Paris (facsimile repr. Hildesheim 1965). Grotius Exc.: Grotius, H., 1626. Excerpta ex tragoediis et comoediis Graecis, Paris. Heringa Obs.: Heringa, A., 1749. Observationum criticarum liber, Leeuwarden. IRDF: Millis, B. W. & Olson, S. D., 2012. Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II2 2318–2325 and Related Texts, Leiden. Jacobs Addit.: Jacobs, F., 1809. Additamenta animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, in quibus et multa Athenaei et plurima aliorum scriptorum loca tractantur, Ienae. Jacobs Animadv.: Jacobs, F., 1798–1814. Animadversiones in Epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae, Leipzig. Kaibel: Kaibel, G., 1887–1890. Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, 3 vols, Leipzig. Kassel-Austin or K-A: Kassel, R. & Austin, C., 1983–2001. Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 vols, Berlin & New York. Koster: Koster, W. J. W., 1975. Scholia in Aristophanem, pars I, fasc. 1A: Prolegomena de Comoedia, Groningen. LGPN: Fraser, P. M. & Matthews, E. (eds), 1987-. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, 7 vols, Oxford & New York. LGGA: Montanari, F. (ed.), 2015– . Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity, Leiden. LIMC: Boardman, J., et al., 1981–2009. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 8 vols (& 2 vols suppl.), Zürich. Meineke Anal.Ath.: Meineke, A., 1867. Analecta critica ad Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Leipzig.

234

Bibliographical Abbreviations

O’Connor: O’Connor, J. B., 1908. Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece together with a Prosopographia Histrionum Graecorum, Chicago. Olson Athenaeus (plus volume and page): Olson, S. D., 2006–2012. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters, 8 vols, Cambridge MA. PA: Kirchner, I., 1901. Prosopographia Attica, 2 vols, Berlin. PAA: Traill, J. S., 1994–2012. Persons of Ancient Athens, 21 vols, Toronto. PCG: Kassel, R., & Austin, C., 1983– . Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 vols, Berlin & New York. PMG: Page, D. L., 1962. Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford. Porson Misc.: Porson, R., 1815. Tracts and Miscellaneous Criticisms of the late Richard Porson Esq. (ed. Th. Kidd), London. Roscher: Roscher, W. H., 1884–1937. Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, 6 vols, Leipzig. Schmidt: Schmidt, M., 1854. Didymi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig. Schweighaeuser: Schweighaeuser, I., 1801–1807. Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (post Isaacum Casaubonum), 9 vols, Argentoratum. SH: Lloyd-Jones, H. & Parsons, P., 1983. Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin & New York. SSR: Giannantoni, G., 1990. Socratis et Socraticorum reliquiae, 4 vols, Naples. Stephanis: Stephanis, I. E., 1988. Διονυσιακοὶ Τεχνίται, Herakleion. TrGF: Snell, B., Kannicht, R., Radt, S. 1971–2004. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 5 vols, Göttingen.

235

Bibliography Editions of Ephippus (chronological order) Meineke, A., 1839–1857. Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, 5 vols, Berlin: vol. 1,351–354 & vol. 3,322–340. Meineke, A., 1847. Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum (editio minor), 2 vols, Berlin. Bothe, F. H., 1855. Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Paris: 489–498. Kock, T., 1880–1888. Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, 3 vols, Leipzig: vol. 2,250–264. Edmonds, J. M., 1957–1961. The Fragments of Attic Comedy after Meineke, Bergk, and Kock, 3 vols, Leiden: vol. 2,146–163. Kassel, R. & Austin, C., 1983–2001. Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 vols, Berlin & New York: vol. 5,131–152. (abbr. as PCG or Kassel–Austin / K–A) Llopis, J. S., Gómez, R. M., Asensio, J. P., 2007. Fragmentos de la Comedia Media, Madrid: 483–496. Rusten, J. (ed.) & Henderson, J., et al. (transl.), 2011. The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents, and Art from Athenian Comic Competitions, 486–280, Baltimore: 481–486.

General bibliography (alphabetical order) Akrigg, B. & Tordoff, R., 2013. Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greek Comic Drama, Cambridge. Aldick, K. G., 1928. De Athenaei Dipnosophistarum epitomae codicibus Erbacensi, Laurentiano, Parisino, Diss. Münster. Anderson, G., 1993. The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman World, London & New York. Andrewes, A., 1990. “Argive Perioikoi”, in E. M. Craik (ed.), ‘Owls to Athens’: Essays on Classical Culture presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, Oxford, 171–178. Apostolakis, K., 2019. Timokles. Translation and Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 21), Göttingen. Archibald, Z. H., 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked, Oxford. Arnott, W. G., 1996. Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary, Cambridge. Arnott, W. G., 2000. “Athenaeus and the Epitome: Texts, Manuscripts, and Early Editions”, in D. Braund & J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 41–52. Arnott, W. G., 2007. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z, London & New York. Arnott, W. G., 2010. “Middle Comedy”, in G. W. Dobrov, Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden & Boston, 279–331. Auhagen, U., 2009. Die Hetäre in der griechischen und römischen Komödie, Munich. Austin, C. & Olson, S. D., 2004. Aristophanes Thesmophoriazusae, Oxford & New York. Badian, E., 1964. Studies in Greek and Roman History, Oxford. Bagordo, A., 2013. Telekleides: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 4), Heidelberg.

236

Bibliography

Bagordo, A., 2014. Alkimenes – Kantharos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 1.1), Heidelberg. Bagordo, A., 2016. Aristophanes fr. 590–674: Übersetzung und Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 10.9), Heidelberg. Bain, D., 1977. Actors and Audience. A Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek Drama, Oxford. Bakola, E., 2010. Cratinus and the Art of Comedy, Oxford. Barker, A., 2004. “Transforming the Nightingale: Aspects of Athenian Musical Discourse in the Late Fifth Century”, in P. Murray & P. Wilson (eds), Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousikē’ in the Classical Athenian City, Oxford, 184–204. Beazley, J. D., 1927. “The Antimenes Painter”, JHS 47, 63–92. Bechert, M. et al. (Philological Society of Leipzig), 1897. Theophrasts Charaktere, edited with Translation and Commentary, Leipzig. Bechtel, F., 1902. Die attischen Frauennamen, Göttingen. Bers, V., 1984. Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age, New Haven. Berthiaume, G., 1982. Les rôles du mágeiros (Mnemosyne suppl. 70), Leiden. Best, J. G. P., 1969. Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare, Groningen. Biles, Z. P. & Olson, S. D., 2015. Aristophanes Wasps. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Blaydes, F. H. M., 1890–1896. Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 2 vols (vol. I: secundum editionem Meinekianam, 1890; vol. II: secundum editionem Kockianam, 1896), Halle an der Saale. (abbr. as Blaydes Adv.) Blech, M., 1982. Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen, Berlin & New York. Blümner, H., 21912. Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern, vol. I, Leipzig & Berlin. Boardman, J., et al., 31970–2005. The Cambridge Ancient History, 14 vols, London – Cambridge – New York. (abbr. as CAH) Boardman, J., et al. (eds), 1981–2009. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 8 vols (& 2 vols suppl.), Zürich. (abbr. as LIMC) Bothe, F. H., 1825. Euripidis Heraclidae, Leipzig. Bothe, F. H., 1844. Die griechischen Komiker. Eine Beurtheilung der neuesten Ausgabe ihrer Fragmente, Leipzig. Bowie, A., 2010. “Myth and Ritual in Comedy”, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden & Boston, 143–176. Bowie, E. L., 1995. “Wine in Old Comedy”, in O. Murray & M. Tecuşan (eds), In Vino Veritas, London, 113–125. Bowie, E. L., 1998. “Le portrait de Socrate dans les Nuées d’Aristofane” in M. Trédé & P. Hoffmann (eds), Le rire des anciens: actes du Colloque International, Université de Rouen, Ecole normale supérieure, 11–13 janvier 1995, 53–66. Bradford, A. S., 1992. Philip II of Macedon: A Life from the Ancient Sources, Westport CT. Braund, D. & Hall, E., 2014. “Theatre in the Fourth-Century Black Sea Region”, in E. Csapo, H. R. Goette, J. R. Green, P. Wilson (eds), Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century B.C., Berlin & Boston, 371–390. Braund, D. & Wilkins, J. (eds), 2000. Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter. Breitenbach, H., 1908. De genere quodam titulorum comoediae atticae, Diss., Basel. Bresson, A., 2016. The Making of the Ancient Greek Economy: Institutions, Markets, and Growth in the City-States, Princeton.

Bibliography

237

Briant, P., 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (transl. by P. T. Daniels), Winona Lake. Brock, R., 1990. “Plato and Comedy”, in E. M. Craik (ed.), ‘Owls to Athens’: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, Oxford, 39–49. Brock, R. & Wirtjes, H., 2000. “Athenaeus on Greek Wine”, in D. Braund & J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 455–465. Bruzzese, L., 2011. Studi su Filemone Comico, Lecce. Buckler, J., 1980. The Theban Hegemony, 371–362 BC, Cambridge MA. Burstein, S. M., 1974. Outpost of Hellenism: The Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea, Berkeley. Campbell, A. C., 1982. The Hamlyn Guide to the Flora and Fauna of the Mediterranean Sea, London. Canter, Th., Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta a Th. Cantero collecta (unpublished; part one is kept in Oxford (Bodleian Library; ms. d’Orville 123), part two in Paris (National Library; suppl. gr. 1013). (abbr. as Canter) Capps, E., 1900. “Chronological Studies in the Greek Tragic and Comic Poets”, AJPh 21, 38–61. Capps, E., 1907. “Epigraphical Problems in the History of Attic Comedy” AJPh 28, 179–199. Carey, C., 2000. “Old Comedy and the Sophists”, in F. D. Harvey & J. M. Wilkins (eds), The Rivals of Aristophanes. Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London, 419–436. Carey, C., 2007. Lysiae orationes cum fragmentis, Oxford. Casaubon, I., 1600. Animadversiones in Athenaei Dipnosophistas Libri XV, Lyon. (abbr. as Casaubon) Casolari, F., 2003. Die Mythentravestie in der griechischen Komödie, Münster. Casson, L., 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton. Caven, B., 1990. Dionysius I: War-lord of Sicily, New Haven & London. Christensen, C. M., 1975. Molds, Mushrooms, and Mycotoxins, Minneapolis. Chroust, A. H., 1957. Socrates, Man and Myth: The two Socratic Apologies of Xenophon, London. Cobet, C. G., 1858. Novae lectiones: quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores Graecos, 2 vols, Leiden. (reprinted: 2005, Hildesheim & New York) Collard, C., 1969. “Athenaeus, the Epitome, Eustathius and Quotations from Tragedy”, RFIC 97, 157–179. Collard, C., 2007. Tragedy, Euripides and Euripideans: Selected Papers, Exeter. Colvin, S., 1999. Dialect in Aristophanes and The Politics of Language in Ancient Greek Literature, Oxford & New York. Comentale, N., 2017. Ermippo: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento, Heidelberg. Crönert, W., 1903. Memoria graeca herculanensis; cum titulorum Aegypti papyrorum codicum denique testimoniis comparatam, Leipzig. Csapo, E., 2000a. “From Aristophanes to Menander? Genre Transformation in Greek Comedy”, in M. Depew & D. Obbink (eds), Matrices of Genre. Authors, Canons, and Society, Cambridge MA & London, 115–133. Csapo, E., 2000b. “Later Euripidean Music”, in M. Cropp, K. Lee, D. Sansone (eds), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century (= ICS 24–25), Champaign ILL, 399–426. Csapo, E., 2004a. “Some Social and Economic Conditions behind the Rise of the Acting Profession in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC”, in C. Hugoniot, F. Hurlet, S. Milanezi, (eds), Le statut de l’acteur dans l’antiquité grecque et romaine, Tours, 53–76.

238

Bibliography

Csapo, E., 2004b. “The Politics of the New Music”, in P. Murray & P. Wilson (eds), Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousikē’ in the Classical Athenian City, Oxford, 207–248. Cubberley, A. L., 1995. “Bread-baking in Ancient Italy: clibanus and sub testu in the Roman World”, in J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, M. Dobson (eds), Food in Antiquity, Exeter, 55–68. Cubberley, A. L., Lloyd, J. A., Roberts, P. C., 1988. “Testa and Clibani. The Baking Covers of Classical Italy”, PBSR 56, 98–119. Curtis, P., 2011. Steisichoros’s Geryoneis (Mnemosyne suppl. 333), Leiden & Boston. Dalby, A., 1996. Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece, London. Dalby, A., 2000. “Topikos oinos: The Named Wines of Old Comedy”, in D. Harvey & J. Wilkins (eds), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London & Swansea, 397–405. Dalby, A., 2003. Food in the Ancient World: From A to Z, London & New York. Dale, A. M., 21968. The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama, Cambridge. Damon, C., 1997. The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage, Ann Arbor. D’Angour, A. J., 2006. “The New Music: So what’s New?” in S. Goldhill & R. Osborne (eds), Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient Greece, Cambridge, 264–283. D’Angour, A. J., 2013. “Love’s Battlefield: Rethinking Sappho Fragment 31”, in E. Sanders, C. Thumiger, C. Carey, N. J. Lowe (eds), Erôs in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 59–71. Davidson, A., 32002. Mediterranean Seafood, Berkeley. Davidson, J. N., 1993. “Fish, Sex and Revolution in Athens”, CQ 43, 53–66. Davidson, J. N., 1995. “Opsophagia: Revolutionary Eating at Athens”, in J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, M. Dobson (eds), Food in Antiquity, Exeter, 204–213. Davidson, J. N., 1997. Courtesans and Fishcakes. The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, London. Davidson, J. N., 2007. The Greeks and Greek Love: A Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece, London. Davidson, J. N., 2011. “Sexing Space and Zoning Gender in Ancient Athens”, Gender & History 23.3, 597–614. Davies, J. K., 1971. Athenian Propertied Families, Oxford. Davies, M., 1981. “Archilochus and Hipponax in a Scholium on Ovid’s Ibis”, Prometheus 7, 123–124. Davies, M. & Finglass, P. J. (eds), 2014. Stesichorus: The Poems. Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Cambridge. Dawson, S., 1997. “The Theatrical Audience in 5th-Century Athens: Numbers and Status”, Prudentia 29, 1–14. Degani, E., 1995. “Ar. Pax 741”, Eikasmos 6, 67–69. Denniston, J. D., 21954. The Greek Particles, Oxford. Diels, H. & Kranz, W. (eds), 71954. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols, Berlin. (abbr. as DK) Dietze, A., 1901. De Philemone comico, Diss., Göttingen. Diggle, J., 1970. Euripides Phaethon. Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, Cambridge. Diggle, J., 2004. Theophrastus, Characters. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Cambridge. Dihle, A., 1981. Der Prolog der ‘Bacchen’ und die antike Überlieferungsphase des EuripidesTextes, Heidelberg. Dindorf, W., 1827. Athenaeus Deipnosophistae, 3 vols, Leipzig. (abbr. as Dindorf) Dittmer, W. A., 1923. The Fragments of Athenian Comic Didascaliae found in Rome (IG XIV 1097, 1098, 1098A), Leiden.

Bibliography

239

Dixon, D., 2015. Myth-Making in Greek and Roman Comedy, Diss. (ProQuest). Dobree, P. P., 1831–1833 (ed. by J. Scholefield). Adversaria, 2 vols, Cambridge. (abbr. as Dobree Adv.) Dobrov, G. W., 2002. “Μάγειρος Ποιητής: Language and Character in Antiphanes”, in A. Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy, Oxford & New York, 169–190. Dobrov, G. W. & Urios-Aparisi, E., 1995. “The Maculate Music: Gender, Genre and the Chiron of Pherecrates”, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta GA, 139–173. Dodds, E. R., 1959. Gorgias. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Dohm, H., 1964. Mageiros: die Rolle des Kochs in der griechisch-römischen Komödie, Munich. Döring, K., 1972. Die Megariker: Kommentierte Sammlung der Testimonien, Amsterdam. Dover, K. J., 1968a. Aristophanes Clouds, Oxford. Dover, K. J., 1968b. Lysias and the ‘corpus lysiacum’, Berkeley & Los Angeles. Dover, K. J., 1978. Greek Homosexuality, London. Dover, K. J., 1985. “Some Types of Abnormal Word-Order in Attic Comedy”, CQ 35, 324– 343. Dover, K. J., 1993. Aristophanes Frogs, Oxford. Dudley, D. R., 1937. A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the 6th century A.D., London. Dunbar, N., 1995. Aristophanes Birds, Oxford. Duncan, A., 2012. “A Theseus outside Athens: Dionysius I of Syracuse and Tragic SelfRepresentation”, in K. Bosher (ed.), Theater Outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy, Cambridge, 137–155. Düring, I., 1936. “De Athenaei Dipnosophistarum indole atque dispositione”, in Apophoreta Gotoburgensia Vilelmo Lundström oblata, Göteborg, 226–270. Düring, I., 1941. Herodicus the Cratetean. A Study in Anti-Platonic Tradition, Stockholm. Dušanić, S., 1980–1981. “Athens, Crete and the Aegean after 366/5 B.C.”, Talanta 12–13, 7–29. Easterling, P. E., 1999. “Actors and Voices: Reading Between the Lines in Aeschines and Demosthenes, in S. Goldhill & R. Osborne (eds), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, Cambridge, 154–166. Easterling, P. E. & Hall, E. (eds), 2002. Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, Cambridge. Ehrenberg, V., 31962. The People of Aristophanes: A Sociology of Old Attic Comedy, New York. Eisenfeld, H., 2018. “Geryon the Hero, Herakles the God”, JHS 138, 80–99. Engelmann, H., 1986. “Degustation von Götterwein (I.v.E. 2076)”, ZPE 63, 107–108. Erbse, H., 1997. “Sapphos Sperlinge”, Hermes 125, 232–234. Farmer, M. C., 2017a. “Playing the Philosopher: Plato in Fourth-Century Comedy”, AJPh 138.1, 1–41. Farmer, M. C., 2017b. Tragedy on the Comic Stage, New York. Favi, F., 2017. Fliaci: testimonianze e frammenti, Heidelberg. Fehr, B., 1990. “Entertainers at the Symposion: The Akletoi in the Archaic Period”, in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford & New York, 185–194. Fenk, R, 1913. Adversarii Platonis quomodo de indole ac moribus eius iudicaverint, Diss., Ienae. Fick, A., 21894. Die griechischen Personennamen, Göttingen. Fielitz, W., 1866. De atticorum comoedia bipartita, Diss., Bonn. Fileni, M., 1983. “Osservazioni sull’idea di tiranno nella cultura greca archaica”, QUCC 43, 29–35.

240

Bibliography

Fisher, N., 2000. “Symposiasts, Fish-eaters and Flatterers: Social Mobility and Moral Concerns”, in D. Harvey & J. Wilkins (eds), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London & Swansea, 355–396. Fisher, N., 2001. Aeschines against Timarchos: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Oxford. Forrest, W. G., 1960. “Themistokles and Argos”, CQ 10, 221–241. Fowler, R. L., 2010. “Paul Maas’ Athenaeus”, ZPE 172, 55–64. Fowler, R. L., 2013. Early Greek Mythography, vol. II: Commentary, Oxford. Fraenkel, E., 1912. De media et nova comoedia quaestiones selectae, Diss., Göttingen. Fraenkel, E., 1950. Aeschylus Agamemnon, 3 vols, Oxford. Fraser, P. M. & Matthews, E. (eds), 1987-. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, 7 vols, Oxford & New York. (abbr. as LGPN) Freeman, P., 1994. The Earliest Classical Sources on the Celts: A Linguistic and Historical Study, Diss. (ProQuest). Frisk, H., 1955–1972. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3 vols, Heidelberg. (abbr. as Frisk) Führer, R., 1982. Zur slavischen Übersetzung der Menandersentenzen, Königstein. Galinsky, G. K., 1972. The Herakles Theme: The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature from Homer to the Twentieth Century, Oxford. Gantz, T., 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore & London. García Soler, M. J., 1994. “Nombres de moluscos en la obra de Ateneo de Naucratis”, Veleia 11, 197–235. García Soler, M. J., 2001. El arte de comer en la antigua Grecia, Madrid. García Soler, M. J., 2005. “La cocina del amor: alimentos afrodisíacos en la Antigua Grecia”, REA 107.2, 585–600. Gardiner-Garden, J. R., 1986. “Fourth Century Conceptions of Maiotian Ethnography”, Historia 35.2, 192–225. Garnsey, P., 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge & New York. Gentili, B. & Lomiento, L., 2003. Metrica e ritmica: storia delle forme poetiche nella Grecia antica, Milano. Gerard, J., 21633 (rev. by Th. Johnson). The Herball, or, Generall Historie of Plantes, London. Giannantoni, G., 1990. Socratis et Socraticorum reliquiae, 4 vols, Naples. (abbr. as SSR) Giannini, A., 1960. “La figura del cuoco nella commedia greca”, Acme 53, 135–216. Gigante, M., 1963. “Poesia e critica letteraria nell’Academia antica”, in Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni, Torino, 234–248. Gilula, D., 1995a. “Food – An Effective Tool of Amatory Persuasion: A Commentary on Mnesimachus fr. 4 K–A”, Athenaeum 83, 143–156. Gilula, D., 1995b. “Comic Food and Food for Comedy”, in J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, M. Dobson (eds), Food in Antiquity, Exeter, 386–399. Gilula, D., 2000. “Hermippus and his Catalogue of Goods (fr. 63)”, in D. Harvey & J. Wilkins (eds), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London & Swansea, 75–90. Giombini, S., 2012. Gorgia epidittico: Commento filosofico all’Encomio di Elena, all’Apologia di Palamede, all’Epitaffio, Passignano sul Trasimeno. Göbel, M., 1915. Ethnica, pars prima: de graecarum civitatum proprietatibus proverbio notatis, Diss., Vratislaviae. Goetz, G., 1888. Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, vol. II, Leipzig. (abbr. as CGL)

Bibliography

241

Gomme, A. W. & Sandbach, F. H., 1973. Menander. A Commentary, Oxford. Gow, A. S. F., 21952. Theocritus. Edited with a Translation and Commentary, 2 vols, Cambridge. Gow, A. S. F., 1965. Machon: The Fragments. Edited with an Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge. Greene, E. (ed.), 1996. Re-Reading Sappho: Reception and Transmission, Berkeley. Grmek, M. D., 1982. “Intoxication par les champignons dans l’antiquité grecque et latine”, Litt.Med.Soc. 4, 17–52. Grotius, H., 1626. Excerpta ex tragoediis et comoediis Graecis, Paris. (abbr. as Grotius Exc.) Hainsworth, B., 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. III: Books 9–12, Cambridge. Hall, E., 1995. “Lawcourt Dramas: The Power of Performance in Greek Forensic Oratory”, BICS 40, 39–58. Halliwell, S., 1984. “Ancient interpretations of ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν in Aristophanes”, CQ 34, 83–88. Hamilton, R., 1984. “Sources for the Athenian Amphidromia”, GRBS 25, 243–251. Handley, E. W., 1965. The Dyskolos of Menander, London. Hanson, J. A., 1965. “The Glorious Military” in T. A. Dorey & D. R. Dudley (eds), Roman Drama, London, 51–85. Hanow, R. 1830. Exercitationum criticarum in comicos Graecos liber primus, Halle. Harris, E. M., 1989. “Iphicrates at the Court of Cotys”, AJPh 10, 264–271. Hartwig, A., 2014. “The Evolution of Comedy in the Fourth Century”, in E. Csapo, H. R. Goette, J. R. Green, P. Wilson (eds), Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century B.C., Berlin & Boston, 207–227. Hauschild, H., 1933. Die Gestalt der Hetäre in der griechischen Komödie, Diss., Leipzig. Headlam, W., 1922. Herodas. The Mimes and Fragments, Cambridge. Helm, R., 1906. Lucian und Menipp, Leipzig & Berlin. Henderson, J., 1987. Aristophanes Lysistrata, Oxford. Henderson, J., 21991. The Maculate Muse. Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, Oxford & New York. Henderson, J., 2000. “Pherekrates and the Women of Old Comedy”, in D. Harvey & J. Wilkins (eds), The Rivals of Aristophanes. Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London & Swansea, 135–150. Henderson, J., 2014. “Comedy in the Fourth Century II: Politics and Domesticity”, in M. Fontaine & A. C. Scafuro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford & New York, 181–198. Henry, M., 1985. Menander’s Courtesans and the Greek Comic Tradition, Frankfurt am Main. Henry, M., 2006. Neaera: Writing a Prostitute’s Life, London. Heringa, A., 1749. Observationum criticarum liber, Leeuwarden. (abbr. as Heringa Obs.) Hill, I. T., 1952. The Ancient City of Athens, London. Hill, S. E., 2011. Eating to Excess: The Meaning of Gluttony and the Fat Body in the Ancient World, Santa Barbara CA. Hill, S. E. & Wilkins, J., 1996. “Mithaikos and Other Greek Cooks”, in H. Walker (ed.), Cooks and other People. ‘Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 1995’, Totnes, 144–149. Hobden, F., 2013. The Symposion in Ancient Greek Society and Thought, Cambridge. Hofmann W. & Wartenberg G., 1973. Der Bramarbas in der antiken Komödie, Berlin.

242

Bibliography

Hunt, P., 2007. “Military Forces”, in P. Sabin, H. van Wees, M. Whitby (eds), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, vol. I: Greece, The Hellenistic World and The Rise of Rome, Cambridge, 108–146. Hunter, R. L., 1979. “The Comic Chorus in the Fourth Century”, ZPE 36, 23–38. Hunter, R. L., 1983. Eubulus: The Fragments, Cambridge. Hunter, R. L., 1985. The New Comedy of Greece and Rome, Cambridge. Imperio, O., 1998. “La figura dell’ intellettuale nella commedia greca”, in A. M. Belardinelli, O. Imperio, G. Mastromarco, M. Pellegrino, P. Totaro (eds), Tessere. Frammenti della Commedia Greca: Studi e Commenti, Bari, 43–130. Jackson, L. C. M. M., 2020. The Chorus of Drama in the Fourth Century BCE: Presence and Representation, Oxford. Jacob, C., 2000. “Athenaeus the Librarian”, in D. Braund & J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 85–110. Jacob, C., 2013. The Web of Athenaeus, Washington. Jacobs, F., 1798–1814. Animadversiones in Epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae, Leipzig. (abbr. as Jacobs Animadv.) Jacobs, F., 1809. Additamenta animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, in quibus et multa Athenaei et plurima aliorum scriptorum loca tractantur, Ienae. (abbr. as Jacobs Addit.) Jacoby, F. et al., 1923–1999. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin – Leiden – Boston. (abbr. as FGrH) Jang J., et al., 2013. “An Elderly Man with Fatal Respiratory Failure after Eating a Poisonous Mushroom Podostroma cornu-damae”, Tuberc.Respir.Dis. 75, 264–268. Jasny, N., 1944. The Wheats of Classical Antiquity, Baltimore. Johannes, R., 1907. De studio venandi apud Graecos et Romanos, Diss., Göttingen. Jones, C. P., 1986. Culture and Society in Lucian, Cambridge MA & London. Judeich, W., 21931. Topographie von Athen, Munich. Kaibel, G., 1887–1890. Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, 3 vols, Leipzig. (abbr. as Kaibel) Kaibel, G. (ed.), 21958. Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Berlin. (abbr. as CGF) Kaldellis, A., 2005. “Hesychios the Illoustrios of Miletos”, GRBS 45, 381–403. Kalligas, P., et al., 2020. Plato’s Academy. Its Workings and Its History, Cambridge. Kann, S., 1909. De iteratis apud poetas antiquae et mediae comoediae atticae, Diss., Giessen. Kapparis, K. A., 2017. Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World, Boston. Kassel, R., 1966. “Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten II”, RhM 109.1, 1–12. Kaster, R., 2010. Studies on the Text of Macrobius’ Saturnalia, Oxford & New York. Keuls, E. C., 1985. The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens, New York. Kiechle, F., 1960. “Argos und Tiryns nach der Schlacht bei Sepeia”, Philologus 104.1, 181–200. Kindstrand, J. F., 1979–1980. “Sostratus-Hercules-Agathion: The Rise of a Legend”, Annales Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum Regiae Upsaliensis, 50–79. Kirchner, I., 1901. Prosopographia Attica, 2 vols, Berlin. (abbr. as PA) Kivilo, M., 2010. Early Greek Poets’ Lives: The Shaping of the Tradition (Mnemosyne suppl. 322), Leiden. Kleingünther, A., 1933. “Πρῶτος εὑρετής. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung”, Philologus suppl. 26.1, 1–155. Kock, T., 1882. “Alexandros von Pherä und die Artemis des Komikers Ephippos”, RhM 37, 130–136.

Bibliography

243

Konstan, D., 1987. “Between Courtesan and Wife: Menander’s Perikeiromene”, Phoenix 41, 122–139. Konstan, D., 2010. “Ridiculing a Popular War: Old Comedy and Militarism in Classical Athens”, in D. M. Pritchard (ed.), War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens, Cambridge, 184–200. Konstantakos, I. M., 2000a. A Commentary on the Fragments of Eight Plays of Antiphanes, Diss., Cambridge. Konstantakos, I. M., 2000b. “Notes on the Chronology and Career of Antiphanes”, Eikasmos 11, 173–196. Konstantakos, I. M., 2005. “The Drinking Theatre: Staged Symposia in Greek Comedy”, Mnemosyne 58.2, 183–217. Konstantakos, I. M., 2011. “Ephippos’ Geryones: A Comedy between Myth and Folktale”, AAntHung 51, 223–246. Konstantakos, I. M., 2014. “Comedy in the Fourth Century I: Mythological Burlesques”, in M. Fontaine & A. C. Scafuro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford & New York, 160–180. Konstantakos, I. M., 2015. “Tendencies and Variety in Middle Comedy”, in S. Chronopoulos & C. Orth (eds), Fragmente einer Geschichte der griechischen Komödie / Fragmentary History of Greek Comedy, Heidelberg, 159–189. Körte, A., 1905. “Inschriftliches zur Geschichte der attischen Komödie”, RhM 60, 425–447. Koster, W. J. W., 1975. Scholia in Aristophanem, pars I, fasc. 1A: Prolegomena de Comoedia, Groningen. (abbr. as Koster) Kraay, C. M., 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, Berkeley & Los Angeles. Kramer, J., 1983. “Etyma romanischer Wörter in griechischen Papyrusurkunden’, ZPE 51, 117–122. Krentz, P., 2013. “Hoplite Hell: How Hoplites Fought”, in D. Kagan & G. F. Viggiano (eds), Men of Bronze. Hoplite Warfare in Classical Greece, Princeton, 134–156. Krieg, W., 1934. De Euripidis Oreste, Diss., Halle an der Saale. Krieter-Spiro, M., 1997. Sklaven, Köche und Hetären: das Dienstpersonal bei Menander: Stellung, Rolle, Komik und Sprache, Stuttgart. Kurke, L., 1997. “Inventing the ‘Hetaira’: Sex, Politics, and Discursive Conflict in Archaic Greece”, ClAnt 16.1, 106–150. Kurke, L., 1999. Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece, Princeton. Lane Fox, R. J. (ed.), 2011. Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC-300 AD, Leiden & Boston. Lang, M. L., 1976, The Athenian Agora, vol. 21: Graffiti and Dipinti, Princeton. Lazzeri, M., 2008. Studi sulla Gerioneide di Stesicoro, Naples. Lefkowitz, M. R., 22012. The Lives of the Greek Poets, Baltimore. Lefkowitz, M. R. & Fant, M. B. (eds), 32005. Women’s Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation, Baltimore. Le Guen, B., 2004. “Le statut professionnel des acteurs grecs à l’époque hellénistique”, in C. Hugoniot, F. Hurlet, S. Milanezi, (eds), Le statut de l’acteur dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine, Tours, 77–106. Lehrs, K., 31882. De Aristarchi Studiis Homericis, Leipzig. Lentz, A., 1867–1870. Herodiani Technici Reliquiae, Leipzig. Lentz, A., 1883–. Grammatici Graeci, Leipzig (facsimile repr. Hildesheim 1965–). (abbr. as GG)

244

Bibliography

Leutsch, E. L. & Schneidewin, F. G., 1839. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, 2 vols, Göttingen. (abbr. as CPG) Leven, P. A., 2010. “New Music and its Myths: Athenaeus’ Reading of the Aulos Revolution (Deipnosophistae 14.616e-617f), JHS 130, 35–47. Lewis, D. M., 21992. “Mainland Greece, 479–451 B.C.”, in J. Boardman et al. (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History, London – Cambridge – New York, vol. V: The Fifth Century B.C., 96–120. Lissarrague, F., 1990. The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine and Ritual (transl. by A. Szegedy-Maszak), Princeton. Livingstone, N., 2001. A Commentary on Isocrates’ Busiris (Mnemosyne suppl. 223), Leiden & Boston. Llopis, J. S., 2014. “Las profesionales del sexo en la comedia griega del siglo IV a. c.”, Asparkía 25, 48–67. Lloyd, A. B., 21994. Herodotus Book II: Commentary 1–98, Leiden – New York – Köln. Lloyd-Jones, H. & Parsons, P., 1983. Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin & New York. (abbr. as SH) Lobeck, C. A., 1837. Paralipomena Grammaticae Graecae, Leipzig. López Eire, A., 1996. La Lengua coloquial de la Comedia aristofánica, Murcia. Lorenzioni, A., 2012. “Ateneo nella Suda (specimina dai bio-bibliographica comicorum)”, Eikasmos 23, 321–347. Lowe, J. C. B., 1985. “Cooks in Plautus”, ClAnt 4.1, 72–102. Lukinovich, A., 1990. “The Play of Reflections between Literary Form and the Sympotic Theme in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus”, in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford & New York, 263–271. Luschey, H., 1939. Die Phiale, Bleicherode am Harz. Lythgoe, J. & Lythgoe, G., 1991. Fishes of the Sea. The North Atlantic and Mediterranean, London. Lytle, E., 2010. “Fish Lists in the Wilderness: The Social and Economic History of a Boiotian Price Decree”, Hesperia 79, 253–303. MacCary, W. Th., 1969. “Menander’s Slaves: their Names, Roles, and Masks”, TAPA 100, 277–294. MacCary, W. T., 1972. “Menander’s Soldiers: Their Names, Roles, and Masks”, AJPh 93.2, 279–298. MacDowell, D. M., 1971. Aristophanes Wasps, Oxford. Maidment, K. J., 1935. “The Later Comic Chorus”, CQ 29, 1–24. Manetti, D. & Roselli, A., 1982. Ippocrate, Epidemie, libro sesto. Introduzione, Testo Critico, Commento e Traduzione, Florence. Mangidis, T., 2003. Antiphanes’ Mythentravestien, Frankfurt am Mein. Marchiori, A., 2000. “Between Ichthyophagists and Syrians: Features of Fish-Eating in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae Books Seven and Eight”, in D. Braund & J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 327–341. Mastellari, V., 2016. “Middle Comedy: Not only Mythology and Food. The Political and Contemporary Dimension”, AAntHung 56, 421–433. Mastellari, V., 2020. Calliade – Mnesimaco. Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento (Fragmenta Comica 16.5), Göttingen. McClure, L. K., 2003. Courtesans at Table. Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus, New York & London.

Bibliography

245

McGovern, P. E., 2009. Uncorking the Past. The Quest for Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London. Meineke, A., 1814. Curae criticae in comicorum fragmenta ab Athenaeo servata, Berlin. Meineke, A., 1823. Menandri et Philemonis reliquiae, Berlin. Meineke, A., 1867. Analecta critica ad Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Leipzig. (abbr. as Meineke Anal.Ath.) Meisterhans, K., 31900. Grammatik der attischen Inschriften (revised by E. Schwyzer), Berlin. Metzger, H., 1951. Les représentations dans la céramique attique du IVe siècle, Paris. Miccolis, E. R., 2017. Archippos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 12), Heidelberg. Miller, H. F., 1984. “The Practical and Economic Background to the Greek Mercenary Explosion”, G & R 31.2, 153–160. Millis, B. W., 2015. Anaxandrides: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 17), Heidelberg. Millis, B. W. & Olson, S. D., 2012. Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II2 2318–2325 and Related Texts, Leiden. (abbr. as IRDF) Mills, S., 1997. Theseus, Tragedy and the Athenian Empire, Oxford. Montanari, F. (ed.), 2015– . Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity, Leiden. (abbr. as LGGA) Morelli, G., 1963. “Aristofonte in Eustazio e in Ateneo”, RFIC 91, 340–347. Moretti, L., 1968–1990. Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae, 4 vols (in 5 fasc.), Rome. Moritz, L. A., 1958. Grain-mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity, Oxford. Most, G. W., 1996. “Reflecting Sappho”, in E. Greene (ed.), Re-Reading Sappho: Reception and Transmission, Berkeley, 11–35. Müller, K., 1855. Geographi Graeci Minores. Tabulae in Geographos Graecos minores instructae, Paris (facsimile repr. Hildesheim 1965). (abbr. as GGM) Müller, K., 1878–1885. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vols, Paris. (abbr. as FHG) Müller, S., 2010. “Philip II”, in J. Roisman & I. Worthington (eds), A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, Chichester & Malden, 166–185. Murray, O., 1990a. “Sympotic History”, in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford & New York, 3–13. Murray, O., 1990b. “The Affair of the Mysteries: Democracy and the Drinking Group”, in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford & New York, 149–161. Murray, O., 1991. “War and the Symposium”, in J. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor, 83–103. Murray, O., 2009. “The Culture of the Symposion”, in K. Raaflaub & H. van Wees (eds), A Companion to Archaic Greece, Chichester, 508–523. Murray, O., 2015. “Athenaeus The Encyclopedist”, in J. Wilkins & R. Nadeau (eds), A Companion to Food in the Ancient World, Chichester, 30–42. Murray, P. & Wilson, P. (eds), 2004. Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousikē’ in the Classical Athenian City, Oxford. Nagy, G., 1990. Greek Mythology and Poetics, Ithaca. Napolitano, M., 2012. I Kolakes di Eupoli. Introduzione, Traduzione, Commento, Mainz. Nauck, A., 1894. “Bemerkungen zu Kock Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta”, Mél. Gr.-R. 6, 53–180. Neil, R. A., 1901. The Knights of Aristophanes, Cambridge. Nesselrath, H.-G., 1985. Lukians Parasitendialog: Untersuchungen und Kommentar, Berlin & New York.

246

Bibliography

Nesselrath, H.-G., 1990. Die attische Mittlere Komödie, Berlin & New York. Nesselrath, H.-G., 1995. “Myth, Parody, and Comic Plots: The Birth of Gods and Middle Comedy”, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta GA, 1–28. Nesselrath, H.-G., 1997. “The Polis of Athens in Middle Comedy”, in G. Dobrov (ed.), The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama, Chapel Hill & London, 271–288. Nesselrath, H.-G., 2015. “Zur Periodisierung der griechischen Komödie in hellenistischer (und späterer) Philologie”, in S. Chronopoulos & C. Orth (eds), Fragmente einer Geschichte der griechischen Komödie / Fragmentary History of Greek Comedy, Heidelberg, 16–34. Nicolson, F. W., 1891. “Greek and Roman Barbers”, HSPh 2, 41–56. Nightingale, A. W., 1995. Genres in Dialogue:  Plato and the Construct of Philosophy, Cambridge & New York. Nilsson, M. P., 21972. The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology (with new introduction and bibliography by E. Vermeule), Berkeley – Los Angeles – London. Noussia-Fantuzzi, M., 2013 “The Portrayal of the Monster Geryon in Stesichorus’ Geryoneis”, TC 5.2, 234–259. Oakley, J. H. & Sinos, R. H., 1993. The Wedding in Ancient Athens, Madison. Ober, J., 2015. The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece, Princeton & Oxford. O’Connor, J. B., 1908. Chapters in the History of Actors and Acting in Ancient Greece together with a Prosopographia Histrionum Graecorum, Chicago. (abbr. as O’Connor) Oellacher, H., 1916. “Zur Chronologie der altattischen Komödie”, WS 38, 81–157. Olson, S. D., 1992. “Names and Naming in Aristophanic Comedy”, CQ 42, 304–319. Olson, S. D., 1998. Aristophanes Peace, Oxford. Olson, S. D., 2002. Aristophanes Acharnians, Oxford. Olson, S. D., 2006–2012. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters, 8 vols, Cambridge MA. (abbr. as Olson Athenaeus, plus volume and page) Olson, S. D., 2014. Eupolis frr. 326–497: Translation and Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 8.3), Heidelberg. Olson, S. D., 2016. Eupolis, Heilotes – Chrysoun genos: Translation and Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 8.2), Heidelberg. Olson, S. D., 2017. Eupolis, Testimonia and Aiges – Demoi (frr. 1–146): Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 8.1), Heidelberg. Olson, S. D. & Seaberg, R., 2018. Kratinos frr. 299–514:  Translation and Commentary, Göttingen. Olson, S. D. & Sens, A., 1999. Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE: Text, Translation, and Commentary, Atlanta GA. Olson, S. D. & Sens, A., 2000. Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE: Text, Translation, and Commentary, Oxford & New York. Onians, R. B., 21954. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate, Cambridge. Orth, C., 2009. Strattis: Die Fragmente. Ein Kommentar, Berlin. Orth, C., 2013. Alkaios – Apollophanes: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 9.1), Heidelberg. Orth, C., 2014. Aristomenes – Metagenes: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 9.2), Heidelberg.

Bibliography

247

Orth, C., 2015. Nikochares – Xenophon: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 9.3), Heidelberg. Orth, C., 2017. “Die athenische Außenpolitik in den Fragmenten der attischen Alten Komödie nach 404 v. Chr.”, in G. Mastromarco, P. Totaro, B. Zimmermann (eds), La commedia attica antica. Forme e contenuti, Lecce, 93–114. Orth, C., 2020. Aristophon – Dromon: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 16.2), Göttingen. Osborne, M. J., 1981–1983. Naturalization in Athens, 3 vols, Brussels. Osborne, R., 2014. “Intoxication and Sociality: The Symposium in the Ancient Greek World”, Past & Present 222 (suppl. 9), 34–60. Osmun, J. F., 1975. “Roses of Antiquity”, CO 52.10, 114–116. Page, D. L., 1955. Sappho and Alcaeus: An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Lesbian Poetry, Oxford. Page, D. L., 1962. Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford. (abbr. as PMG) Palombi, A. & Santarelli, M., 21960. Gli animali commestibili dei mari d’ Italia, Milan. Papachrysostomou, A., 2008. Six Comic Poets. A Commentary on Selected Fragments of Middle Comedy, Tübingen. Papachrysostomou, A., 2009. “Οὐδὲν πρὸς τὴν πόλιν; Αναφορές σε πολιτικά πρόσωπα στη Μέση Κωμωδία του τετάρτου αιώνα π.Χ.”, Ελληνικά 59.2, 181–204. Papachrysostomou, A., 2011. “Καλειδοσκόπιο στη Μέση Κωμωδία: Η Νομοτέλεια της Αλλαγής στο Δράμα”, in Th. Pappas & Α. Markantonatos (eds), Αττική Κωμωδία: Πρόσωπα και Προσεγγίσεις, Athens, 90–102. Papachrysostomou, A., 2012. “Πολιτική Σάτιρα και Κριτική στη Μέση Κωμωδία”, in Α. Markantonatos & L. Platypodes (eds), Θέατρο και Πόλη: Αττικό Δράμα, Αθηναϊκή Δημοκρατία και Αρχαία Ελληνική Θρησκεία, Athens, 326–349. Papachrysostomou, A., 2012–2013. “Continuity and Change in the Comic Genre or How it all ended up with Menander: The Case of Sub-Trends”, Ordia Prima 11–12, 165–189. Papachrysostomou, A., 2014–2015. “… ἄλλος ἄλλην τερατείαν ἐπεδείξαντο. Philosophers at Dinner”, Eranos 108.1, 35–51. Papachrysostomou, A., 2016. Amphis: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 20), Heidelberg. Papachrysostomou, A., 2017. “Time- and Space-Travelling in Greek Middle Comedy”, in A. Bierl, M. Christopoulos, A. Papachrysostomou (eds), Time and Space in Ancient Myth, Religion and Culture, Berlin, 165–178. Papachrysostomou, Α., 2020a. “πλῆθος ὅσον ἰχθύων ... ἐπὶ πινάκων ἀργυρῶν (Ath. Deipn. 6.224b): A Different Kettle of Fish”, in A. Lamari, F. Montanari, A. Novokhatko (eds), Fragmentation in Ancient Greek Literature, Berlin, 611–639. Papachrysostomou, Α., 2020b. “Surface and Deep Aristophanic Parody”, in P. Swallow & E. Hall (eds), Aristophanic Humour: Theory and Practice, London, 119–128. Papakonstantinou, Z., 2009. “Wine and Wine Drinking in the Homeric World”, AC 78, 1–24. Papakonstantinou, Z., 2012. “A Delight and a Burden (Hes. Sc. 400): Wine and WineDrinking in Archaic Greece”, AncSoc 42, 1–32. Parke, H. W., 1933. Greek Mercenary Soldiers: From the Ancient Times to the Battle of Ipsus, Oxford. Parker, L. P. E., 1997. The Songs of Aristophanes, Oxford. Parker, R., 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford. Paulas, J., 2010. “The Bazaar Fish Market in Fourth-Century Greek Comedy”, Arethusa 43, 403–428.

248

Bibliography

Pearson, A. C., 1917. The Fragments of Sophocles, 3 vols, Cambridge. Pearson, L. I. G., 1960. The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great, New York. Pellegrino, M., 1998. “Metagene”, in A. M. Belardinelli, O. Imperio, G. Mastromarco, M. Pellegrino, P. Totaro (eds), Tessere. Frammenti della Commedia Greca: Studi e Commenti, Bari, 291–339. Pellegrino, M., 2000. Utopie e immagini gastronomiche nei frammenti dell’archaia, Bologna. Pernigotti, C., 2000. “In margine al frammento 5 K.–A. di Efippo”, ASNP s. 4 n. 5.1, 237–246. Perrone, S., 2019. Cratete. Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento (Fragmenta Comica 2), Göttingen. Pertusi, A., 1955. Scholia Vetera in Hesiodi Opera et Dies, Milan. Peter, U., 1997. Die  Münzen der thrakischen Dynasten (5.-3. Jahrhundert v. Chr.): Hintergründe ihrer Prägung, Berlin. Petersen, W., 1910. Greek Diminutives in -ION. A Study in Semantics, Weimar. Pirrotta, S., 2009. Plato comicus. Die fragmentarischen Komödien. Ein Kommentar, Berlin. Porson, R., 1815. Tracts and Miscellaneous Criticisms of the late Richard Porson Esq. (ed. Th. Kidd), London. (abbr. as Misc.) Postgate, J. P., 1908. “A Few Notes on Athenaeus”, CQ 2, 294–295. Pritchard, D. M., 1998. “The Fractured Imaginary: Popular Thinking on Military Matters in Fifth Century Athens”, AH 28, 38–61. Pritchett, W. K. & Pippin, A., 1956. “The Attic Stelai: Part II”, Hesperia 25.3 (1956) 178–328. Pütz, B., 22007. The Symposium and Komos in Aristophanes, Oxford. Reckford, K. J., 1987. Aristophanes’ Old-and-New Comedy, London. Reitzenstein, R., 1893. Epigramm und Skolion. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alexandrinischen Dichtung, Giessen. Revermann, M., 2006a. Comic Business: Theatricality, Dramatic Technique, and Performance Contexts of Aristophanic Comedy, Oxford & New York. Revermann, M., 2006b. “The Competence of Theatre Audiences in Fifth- and FourthCentury Athens” JHS 126, 99–124. Revermann, M., 2014. “Divinity and Religious Practice”, in M. Revermann (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, New York, 275–287. Ribbeck, O., 1882. Alazon. Ein Beitrag zur antiken Ethologie und zur Kenntniss der griechisch-römischen Komödie nebst Übersetzung des Plautinischen Miles Gloriosus, Leipzig. Ribbeck, O., 31897–1898. Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta, vol. II: Comicorum Romanorum praeter Plautum et Syri quae feruntur sententias Fragmenta, Leipzig. (abbr. as CRF3) Richardson, N. J., 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford. Richter, G. M. A. & Milne, M. J., 1935. Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases, New York. Riginos, A. S., 1976. Platonica: The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings of Plato, Leiden. Romeri, L. R., 2000. “The λογόδειπνον. Athenaeus between Banquet and Anti-Banquet”, in D. Braund & J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 256–271. Roscalla, F., 2006. “Storie di plagi e di plagiari”, in F. Roscalla (ed.), L’autore et l’opera: attribuzioni, appropriazioni, apocrifi nella Grecia antica, Pisa, 69–102. Roscher, W. H., 1884–1937. Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, 6 vols, Leipzig. (abbr. as Roscher) Rosenbloom, D., 2014. “The Politics of Comic Athens”, in M. Fontaine & A. C. Scafuro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford & New York, 297–320.

Bibliography

249

Rosivach, V. J., 1994. The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens, Atlanta GA. Rösler, W., 1995. “Wine and Truth in the Greek Symposion”, in O. Murray & M. Tecuşan (eds), In Vino Veritas, London, 106–112. Rothwell, K. S. Jr., 1995. “The Continuity of the Chorus in Fourth-Century Attic Comedy”, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta GA, 99–118. Rothwell, K. S. Jr., 2019. Aristophanes’ Wasps, Oxford. Roussou, S., 2011. Pseudo-Arcadius’ Epitome of Herodian’s Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας: with a critical edition and notes on Books 1–8, Diss., Oxford. Roy, J., 21994. “Thebes in the 360s B.C.”, in J. Boardman et al. (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History, London – Cambridge – New York, vol. VI: The Fourth Century B.C., 187–208. Rudolph, F., 1891. “Die Quellen und die Schriftstellerei des Athenaios”, Philologus suppl. 6, 109–162. Ruffell, I. A., 2011. Politics and Anti-Realism in Athenian Old Comedy: The Art of the Impossible, Oxford & New York. Russell, D. A. & Wilson, N. G., 1981. Menander Rhetor. Edited with Translation and Commentary, Oxford. Ruzicka, S., 2012. Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BCE, New York. Santas, G. X., 2010. Understanding Plato’s Republic, Chichester & Malden MA. Santorelli, B., 2012. Giovenale, ‘Satira’ IV: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento, Berlin. Schmidt, E. A., 2016. Das süssbittre Tier: Liebe in Dichtung und Philosophie der Antike, Frankfurt am Main. Schmidt, M., 1854. Didymi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig. Schmidt, M., 1860. Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς καθολικῆς προσῳδίας Ἡρωδιανοῦ, Jena. Schroeter, G., 1906. De Simonidis Cei melici sermone quaestiones, Diss., Leipzig. Schweighaeuser, I., 1801–1807. Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (post Isaacum Casaubonum), 9 vols, Argentoratum. (abbr. as Schweighaeuser) Schwertheim, E. & Olshausen, E., “Mygdonia”, in Brill’s New Pauly (abbr. as BNP). Antiquity volumes edited by H. Cancik & H. Schneider, Brill Online.  Scullion, S., 2014. “Religion and the Gods in Greek Comedy”, in M. Fontaine & A. C. Scafuro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford & New York, 340–356. Segal, E., 2001. “The MENAECHMI: Roman Comedy of Errors”, in E. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Menander, Plautus, and Terence, Oxford & New York, 115–126. Seltman, C. T., 21955. Greek Coins: A History of Metallic Currency and Coinage down to the Fall of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, London. Selvers, F., 1909. De mediae comoediae sermone, Diss., Münster. Shaw, C., 2014. Satyric Play: The Evolution of Greek Comedy and Satyr Drama, New York. Shipley, G., 2006. “Sparta and its Perioikic Neighbours: A Century of Reassessment”, Hermathena 181, 51–82. Sidwell, K., 2000a. “From Old to Middle to New? Aristotle’s Poetics and the History of Athenian Comedy”, in D. Harvey & J. Wilkins (eds), The Rivals of Aristophanes. Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London & Swansea, 247–258. Sidwell, K., 2000b. “Athenaeus, Lucian and Fifth-Century Comedy”, in D. Braund & J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 136–152.

250

Bibliography

Sidwell, K., 2014. “Fourth-Century Comedy before Menander”, in M. Revermann (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, New York, 60–78. Slater, J. (ed.), 1991. Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor. Smyth, H. W., 1956. Greek Grammar (rev. by G. M. Messing), Cambridge MA. Snell, B., Kannicht, R., Radt, S. (eds.), 1971–2004. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 5 vols, Göttingen. (abbr. as TrGF) Sommerstein, A. H., 1997. “The Theatre Audience, the Demos and the Suppliants of Aeschylus” in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian, Oxford & New York, 63–79. Sommerstein, A. H., 1998a. Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae, Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H., 1998b. “The Theatre Audience and the Demos” in J. A. López Férez (ed.), La comedia griega y su influencia en la literatura española, Madrid, 43–62. Sommerstein, A. H., 2014. “The Politics of Greek Comedy”, in M. Revermann (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, New York, 291–305. Sparkes, B. A., 1962. “The Greek Kitchen”, JHS 82, 121–137. Sparkes, B. A. & Talcott, L., 1970. The Athenian Agora, vol. 12 (1, 2): Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C., Princeton. Spoerke, D. G. & Rumack, B. H., 1994. Handbook of Mushroom Poisoning, Diagnosis and Treatment, Boca Raton. Sprawski, S., 2003. “Philip II and The Freedom of the Thessalians”, Electrum 9, 55–66. Sprawski, S., 2006. “Alexander of Pherae: Infelix Tyrant”, in S. Lewis (ed.), Ancient Tyranny, Edinburgh, 135–146. Squillace, G., 2004. “Le lettere di Menecrate/Zeus ad Agesilao di Sparta e Filippo II di Macedonia”, Kokalos 46.1, 175–191. Squillace, G., 2009. Filippo il Macedone, Rome. Squillace, G., 2012. Menecrate di Siracusa. Un medico del IV secolo a.C. tra Sicilia, Grecia e Macedonia, Hildesheim. Squillace, G., 2013. “Da Ateneo alla Suda: la figura di Menecrate di Siracusa”, in F. Gazzano & G. Ottone (eds), Le età della trasmissione. Alessandria, Roma Bisanzio, Tivoli, 271–286. Squillace, G., 2014. I giardini di Saffo. Profumi e aromi nella Grecia antica, Roma. Squillace, G., 2015. “Menecrates of Syracuse: Reality and Fiction”, in J. Althoff, S. Föllinger, G. Wöhrle (eds), Antike Naturwissenschaften und ihre Rezeption (Band XXV), Trier, 79–92. Stafford, E., 2012. Herakles, Abingdon & New York. Starkie, W. J. M., 1909. The Acharnians of Aristophanes, London. Steinhausen, J., 1910. Κωμῳδούμενοι: De grammaticorum veterum studiis ad homines in comoedia attica irrisos pertinentibus, Bonn. Stemplinger, E., 1912. Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur, Leipzig. Stephanis, I. E., 1988. Διονυσιακοὶ Τεχνίται, Herakleion. (abbr. as Stephanis) Storey, I. C., 2015. “Exposing Frauds: Lucian and Comedy”, in C. W. Marshall & T. Hawkins (eds), Athenian Comedy in the Roman Empire, London & New York. Storey, I. C., 2019. Aristophanes Peace, London & New York. Strauss, B. S., 1993. Fathers and Sons in Athens: Ideology and Society in the Era of the Peloponnesian War, Princeton. Strömberg, R., 1943. Studien zur Etymologie und Bildung der griechischen Fischnamen, Göteborg. Stronk, J. P., 2017. Semiramis’ Legacy: The History of Persia according to Diodorus of Sicily, Edinburgh.

Bibliography

251

Stylianou, P. J., 1998. A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15, Oxford. Sumler, A., 2014. “Myth Rationalization in Ancient Greek Comedy”, QUCC 107.2, 81–100. Suoto Delibes, F., 2002. “El rol de la prostituta en la comedia: de Ferécrates a Menandro”, CFC(G) 12, 173–191. Tartaglia, G. M., 2019. Alkenor – (Asklepiodo)ros: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento, Göttingen & Heidelberg. Thompson, D’Arcy W., 21936. A Glossary of Greek Birds, London. Thompson, D’Arcy W., 1947. A Glossary of Greek Fishes, London. Threatte, L., 1980. The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, 2 vols, Berlin & New York. Tolles, D., 1943. The Banquet-Libations of the Greeks, Ann Arbor. Traill, J. S., 1994–2012. Persons of Ancient Athens, 21 vols, Toronto. (abbr. as PAA) Trapp, M., 2000. “Plato in the Deipnosophistae”, in D. Braund & J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 353–363. Travlos, J., 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London. Trundle, M., 2004. Greek Mercenaries: From the Late Archaic Period to Alexander, London & New York. Trundle, M., 2010. “Light Troops in Classical Athens”, in D. M. Pritchard (ed.), War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens, Cambridge, 139–160. Tsitsiridis, S., 2013. Beiträge zu den Fragmenten des Klearchos von Soloi, Berlin. Tucker, T. G., 1908. “Emendations in Athenaeus”, CQ 2, 184–209. Usener, H. K., 1912–1914. Kleine Schriften, 4 vols, Leipzig & Berlin. Ussher, R. G., 1973. Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae, Oxford. Van den Eijnde, F., Blok, J. H., Strootma, R. (eds), 2018. Feasting and Polis Institutions, Leiden & Boston. Van Herwerden, H., 1872. Studia critica in poetas scenicos Graecorum, Amsterdam. Van Herwerden, H., 1876. “Notulae ad Athenaeum”, Mnemosyne 4, 294–323. Van Herwerden, H., 1903. Collectanea critica, epicritica, exegetica sive addenda ad Theodori Kockii opus Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, Leiden. Van Leeuwen, J., 1893. Aristophanis Vespae. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis, Leiden. Van Leeuwen, J., 1898. Aristophanis Nubes. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis, Leiden. Van Leeuwen, J., 1900. Aristophanis Equites. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis, Leiden. Van Leeuwen, J., 1901. Aristophanis Acharnenses. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis, Leiden. Van Leeuwen, J., 1902. Aristophanis Aves. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis, Leiden. Van Leeuwen, J., 19o3. Aristophanis Lysistrata. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis, Leiden. Van Leeuwen, J., 1904. Aristophanis Plutus. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis, Leiden. Van Nortwick, T., 2008. Imagining Men: Ideals of Masculinity in Ancient Greek Culture, Westport CT. Vasiliou, I., 2008. Aiming at Virtue in Plato, Cambridge & New York. Vickers, M., 1985. “Silver, Copper and Ceramics in Ancient Athens”, in M. Vickers (ed.), Pots and Pans: A Colloquium on Precious Metals and Ceramics in the Muslim, Chinese and Graeco-Roman Worlds, Oxford, 137–151. Von Velsen, A., 1853. Tryphonis grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta, Berlin. Waanders, F. M. J., 1983. The History of ΤΕΛΟΣ and ΤΕΛΕΩ in Ancient Greek, Amsterdam. Wagner, R. J. T., 1905. Symbolarum ad comicorum Graecorum historiam criticam capita quattuor, Leipzig. Walker, H. J., 1995. Theseus and Athens, New York.

252

Bibliography

Wallace, R. W., 2003. “An Early Fifth-Century Athenian Revolution in Aulos Music”, HSPh 101, 73–92. Watson, L., 1991. Arae. The Curse Poetry of Antiquity, Leeds. Webster, T. B. L., 1948. “South Italian Vases and Attic Drama”, CQ 42, 15–27. Webster, T. B. L., 1952. “Chronological Notes on Middle Comedy”, CQ 2, 13–26. Webster, T. B. L., 21960. Studies in Menander, Manchester. Webster, T. B. L., 21970. Studies in Later Greek Comedy, Manchester. Webster, T. B. L., 1974. An Introduction to Menander, Manchester. Wehrli, F., 1936. Motivstudien zur griechischen Komödie, Zürich & Leipzig. Wehrli, F., 21967–1969. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentare, 10 vols, Basel. Weiher, A., 1913. Philosophen und Philosophenspott in der attischen Komödie, Diss., München. Weinreich, O., 1933. Menekrates Zeus und Salmoneus, Stuttgart. Wellmann, M., 1888. “Dorion”, Hermes 22, 179–193. Werres, J., 1936. Die Beteuerungsformeln in der attischen Komödie, Diss., Bonn. West, M. L., 1977. “Tragica I”, BICS 24, 89–103. West, M. L., 1982. Greek Metre, Oxford. West, M. L., 1992. Ancient Greek Music, Oxford. Westlake, H. D., 1935. Thessaly in the Fourth Century B.C., London. White, J., et al., 2019. “Mushroom Poisoning: A Proposed New Clinical Classification”, Toxicon 157, 53–65. White, J. W., 1912. The Verse of Greek Comedy, London. Whitehead, D., 1986. The Demes of Attica 508/7 – ca. 250 BC. A Political and Social Study, Princeton & Guildford. Whitmarsh, T., 2005. The Second Sophistic, Oxford. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff von U., 21895. Euripides Herakles, 2 vols, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff von U., 1913. Sappho und Simonides: Untersuchungen über griechische Lyriker, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff von U., 1962 (ed. by K. Latte). Kleine Schriften, vol. IV: Lesefrüchte und Verwandtes, Berlin. Wilhelm, A., 1906. Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, Vienna. Wilkins, J., 1997. “Disorder and Luxury at the Feast: Problematic Dining in Ancient Greece”, New Comparison 24, 5–22. Wilkins, J., 2000a. The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy, Oxford. Wilkins, J., 2000b. “Dialogue and Comedy. The Structure of the Deipnosophistae”, in D. Braund & J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 23–37. Wilkins, J. & Hill, S., 2006. Food in the Ancient World, Malden MA & Oxford. Will, E., 1960. “Chabrias et les finances de Tachôs”, REA 62, 254–275. Williamson, M., 1995. Sappho’s Immortal Daughters, Cambridge MA. Wills, G., 1970. “Phoenix of Colophon’s ΚΟΡΩΝΙΣΜΑ”, CQ 20, 112–118. Wilson, P., 1999. “The aulos in Athens”, in S. Goldhill & R. Osborne (eds), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, Cambridge, 58–95. Wilson, P., 2000. “Powers of Horror and Laughter: The Great Age of Drama” in O. Taplin (ed.), Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A New Perspective, Oxford, 88–132. Wilson, P., 2004. “Athenian Strings”, in P. Murray & P. Wilson (eds), Music and the Muses: The Culture of ‘Mousikē’ in the Classical Athenian City, Oxford, 269–306.

Bibliography

253

Wilson, P., 2017. “A Potted Political History of the Sicilian Theater (to ca. 300)”, in H. L. Reid, D. Tanasi, S. Kimbell (eds), Politics and Performance in Western Greece: Essays on the Hellenic Heritage of Sicily and Southern Italy, Sioux City IA, 1–32. Worthington, I., 2014. By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire, Oxford. Wysk, H., 1921. Die Gestalt des Soldaten in der griechisch-römischen Komödie, Diss. (Auszug), Giessen. Yatromanolakis, D., 2007. Sappho in the Making: The Early Reception, Washington DC & Cambridge MA. Ziegler, K., 1950. “Plagiat”, RE 20.21956–21996. Zimmermann, B., 1991. “Nephelokokkygia. Riflessioni sull’utopia comica”, in W. Rösler & B. Zimmermann (eds), Carnevale e utopia nella Grecia antica, Bari, 53–101. Zimmermann, B., 1993. “Aristophanes und die Intellektuellen”, in J. M. Bremer & E. W. Handley (eds), Aristophane: Sept exposés suivis de discussion. Vandœvres – Genève, 19–24 aout 1991, Geneva, 255–280. Zimmermann, B., 2007. “Väter und Söhne – Generationenkonflikt in den Wolken und Wespen des Aristophanes”, in T. Baier (ed.), Generationenkonflikte auf der Bühne. Perspektiven im antiken und mittelalterlichen Drama, Tübingen, 73–81. Zimmermann, B. & Rengakos, A. (eds) 2014. Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike, 2. Band: Die Literatur der klassischen und hellenistischen Zeit, München.

255

Indices 1. Index fontium Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 1.28f: Ephipp. fr. 28: 227 1.29d: Ephipp. fr. 8.2: 96–97 Ephipp. fr. 24.1–2: 215–217 2.38b: Ephipp. fr. 25: 218 2.48b–c: Ephipp. fr. 26: 221 2.57e: Ephipp. fr. 24.2–3: 215–217 2.58a: Ephipp. fr. 8.3–4: 96–97 2.61a: Ephipp. fr. 27: 225 3.112f: Ephipp. fr. 1: 27 7.286e: Ephipp. fr. 22: 204, 209 7.289a–b: Ephipp. fr. 17: 178 7.322d–e: Ephipp. fr. 12: 125, 127 8.346e-347b: Ephipp. fr. 5: 70 Ephipp. fr. 19.1–21: 187 8.347b–c: Ephipp. fr. 19.22–25: 187 8.358f-359a: Ephipp. fr. 21: 203 8.359a–c: Ephipp. fr. 15: 160, 162 8.359d: Ephipp. fr. 15.12–13: 160–161 8.363b–c: Ephipp. fr. 6: 84 8.365b–c: Ephipp. fr. 4: 62 9.370c–d: Ephipp. fr. 3: 47–50 9.380e–f: Ephipp. fr. 18: 183 9.482c: Ephipp. test. 5: 11, 24 10.423d–e: Ephipp. fr. 10: 110 10.430e–f: Ephipp. fr. 11: 116 10.442d–e: Ephipp. fr. 2: 34 11.482b–d: Ephipp. fr. 9: 105 11.482d: Ephipp. fr. 16: 159, 170 11.509b–e: Ephipp. fr. 14: 147

13.571a–b: Ephipp. fr. 23: 212 13.571e–f: Ephipp. fr. 6: 84, 86, 195 13.572c–d: Ephipp. fr. 20: 195 14.617f-618a: Ephipp. fr. 7: 90 14.642e: Ephipp. fr. 8: 96–97 Ephipp. fr. 13: 136–137 14.646f: Ephipp. fr. 13.3: 136–137 Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem p. 948,38: Ephipp. fr. 13.2–3, 5: 137 p. 1020,63: Ephipp. fr. 8.4: 96–97 p. 1063,38: Ephipp. fr. 8.4: 96–97 p. 1178,34: Ephipp. fr. 2: 34–35 p. 1205,55: Ephipp. fr. 8.4: 96–97 Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam p. 1411,7: Ephipp. fr. 6.1–5: 84–85 p. 1445,48: Ephipp. fr. 8.2: 96–97 p. 1720,55: Ephipp. fr. 21.2–3: 203–204 Inscriptiones Graecae IG II2 2325.145 (= IRDF 2325E.40): Ephipp. test. 2: 11, 22 Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae IGUR 218.15: Ephipp. test. 3: 12, 23 Macrobius Saturnalia 5.21.17: Ephipp. fr. 2: 34 Scholia on Hom. Iliad 5.76a: Ephipp. test. 4: 11, 24 Suda ε 3929: Ephipp. test. 1: 11, 22

2. Index verborum * All fragments mentioned are by Ephippus ** The initial terms, outside the parentheses, are cited in the precise form they occur in Ephippus’ fragments (i.e. same case, number, tense, mode, degree, etc.) ἄγαν: fr. 28.3: 227–228, 231 ἀγοράν (ἀγορά,-ᾶς ἡ): fr. 21.2: 203, 207 ἀγοράσαι (ἀγοράζω): fr. 21.2: 203, 206–207 ἀγόρασον (ἀγοράζω): fr. 15.1: 160, 163 ἄγροικος (ἄγροικος,-ον): fr. 23.1: 212–213

ἀεί: fr. 2.3: 34–35, 41 Ἀθηναίων (Ἀθηναῖος,-α,-ον): fr. 14.13: 146, 157 Αἰγύπτιον (Αἰγύπτιος,-α,-ον): fr. 8.1: 95, 98, 100 αἰολίας (αἰολίας,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.5: 125, 132

256

Index verborum

αἰσχροεπῶν (αἰσχροεπέω): fr. 23.1: 212–214 Ἀκαδημείας (Ἀκαδημεία,-ας ἡ): fr. 14.2: 146, 148, 152 ἄκρας (ἄκρη,-ης ἡ): fr. 3.3: 47, 54 ἄκρατον (ἄκρατος,-ον): fr. 11.3: 116, 119–120 ἅλας (ἅλας,-ατος τό): fr. 5.14: 69, 80; fr. 19.14: 186 ἀλεκτρυόνιον (ἀλεκτρυόνιον,-ου τό): fr. 15.8: 160, 164, 166 Ἀλεξάνδρου (Ἀλέξανδρος,-ου ὁ): fr. 1.1: 27, 29 ἀληθῆ (ἀληθής,-ές): fr. 25.2: 218, 220 ἁλίας (ἅλιος,-α,-ον): fr. 5.3: 69, 72, 77; fr. 19.3: 185–186 ἀλλότριον (ἀλλότριος,-α,-ον): fr. 14.12: 146, 153, 157 ἄμβωσιν (ἄμβων,-ωνος ὁ): fr. 5.16: 69, 77, 80–81; fr. 19.16: 186 ἄμης (ἄμης,-ητος ὁ): fr. 8.3: 95, 102 Ἀμφιδρομίων (Ἀμφιδρόμια,-ων τά): fr. 3.4: 47–48, 51, 54–55, 59 ἀναγκάζει (ἀναγκάζω): fr. 25.1: 218–220 ἀνάγκῃ (ἀνάγκη,-ης ἡ): fr. 14.4: 146, 152–154 ἄνδρες (ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός ὁ): fr. 14.3: 146, 157 ἀνδρικῶς: fr. 8.5: 95, 103 ἀποπνίξαιμι (ἀποπνίγω): fr. 27: 225–227 Ἀργεῖον (Ἀργεῖος,-α,-ον): fr. 2.2: 34–35, 37–39 ἀργύριον (ἀργύριον,-ου τό): fr. 21.4: 203, 205, 208 ἀρνίων (ἀρνίον,-ου τό): fr. 3.7: 47, 58 ἄρτων (ἄρτος,-ου ὁ): fr. 1.2: 27, 29, 31 ἄρχων (ἄρχων,-οντος ὁ): fr. 5.20: 69, 81–82; fr. 19.20: 186 ἄσκεπτα: fr. 14.5: 146, 154 ἀσύμβολον (ἀσύμβολος,-ον): fr. 20.3: 194, 199–200 ἄτομα (ἄτομος,-ον): fr. 14.7: 146, 149, 155 αὐλοῖς (αὐλός,-οῦ ὁ): fr. 7.2: 90, 92–93 ἀφύαι (ἀφύη,-ης ἡ): fr. 12.8: 125, 135 βακτηρίᾳ (βακτηρία,-ας ἡ): fr. 14.11: 146, 157 βατίδα (βατίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 22.2: 208, 210, 212 βάτραχος (βάτραχος,-ου ὁ): fr. 13.4: 136, 138, 142

βελόναι (βελόνη,-ης ἡ): fr. 12.8: 125, 135 βῖκος (βῖκος,-ου ὁ): fr. 8.2: 95–98, 100–101 βορᾷ (βορά,-ᾶς ἡ): fr. 20.3: 194, 200 βρέφη (βρέφος,-ους τό): fr. 21.3: 203, 207–208 βρίγκος (βρίγκος,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.3: 125, 131 βρυγμός (βρυγμός,-οῦ ὁ): fr. 13.4: 136, 138–139, 142 γάλα (γάλα,-ακτος τό): fr. 13.5: 136, 141, 143 γαλεοῦ (γαλεός,-οῦ ὁ): fr. 12.1: 125, 129 γεύματ’ (γεῦμα,-ατος τό): fr. 18.2: 183–185 γλάνιδος (γλάνις,-ιδος ὁ, ἡ): fr. 12.1: 125, 129 γλῶσσαν (γλῶσσα,-ης ἡ): fr. 23.2: 212–214 γόγγρου (γόγγρος,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.2: 125, 129–130 γυνή (γυνή, γυναικός ἡ): fr. 15.12: 160, 168–169 δασύπους (δασύπους,-ποδος ὁ): fr. 15.9: 160, 167 δειπνήσομεν (δειπνέω): fr. 15.13: 160–162, 168–169 δεῖπνον (δεῖπνον,-ου τό): fr. 13.1: 136– 137, 139–140, 143; fr. 16.3: 170, 175 δέσποτα (δεσπότης,-ου ὁ): fr. 15.2: 160, 162–164 Δημοφῶντος (Δημοφῶν,-φῶντος ὁ): fr. 16.2: 170, 173 Διονυσίου (Διονύσιος,-ου ὁ): fr. 16.1: 170, 172–173 Διός (Ζεύς, Διός / Ζηνός ὁ): fr. 13.6: 136, 139, 144–145 δρακαινίς (δρακαινίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 12.6: 125, 134 δυνάμενος (δύναμαι): fr. 14.5: 146, 154 ἐγκέφαλος (ἐγκέφαλος,-ου ὁ): fr. 13.6: 136, 139, 144–145 ἐγχελύδια (ἐγχελύδιον,-ου τό): fr. 15.6: 160, 164, 166 εἰπέ (λέγω): fr. 11.3: 116, 120 εἰσιόντ᾿ (εἴσειμι): fr. 6.1: 84, 88 ἑκατέρᾳ (ἑκάτερος,-α,-ον): fr. 10.1: 109, 112 ἑκατόμβη (ἑκατόμβη,-ης ἡ): fr. 8.4: 18–19, 95–96, 102

Index verborum ἐκολάκευσεν (κολακεύω): fr. 6.2: 84, 86, 88 ἐκπίνεται (ἐκπίνω): fr. 28.2: 227–228, 231 ἔλεξεν (λέγω): fr. 14.3: 146, 157 ἑλίγμασιν (ἕλιγμα,-ατος τό): fr. 14.9: 146, 156 ἕλκων (ἕλκω): fr. 19.25: 186, 192 ἕλωσ’ (αἱρέω): fr. 5.2: 69, 76; fr. 19.2: 185 ἐπαρίστερ᾿ (ἐπαρίστερα / ἐπαριστέρως): fr. 23.2: 212–214 ἔπειτα: fr. 3.1: 47, 53 ἔπεμψε (πέμπω): fr. 15.11: 160, 168 ἐπικληροῦσιν (ἐπικληρόω): fr. 4.2: 62–64, 66–68 ἐπιστρόφως: fr. 3.10: 47, 59–60 ἐρέβινθος (ἐρέβινθος,-ου ὁ): fr. 13.2: 136, 140–141 ἕτερος (ἕτερος,-α,-ον): fr. 17.2: 33, 178, 182 εὐζωρεστέρας (εὔζωρος,-ον): fr. 3.11: 19, 47, 51, 55, 59–61, 230 Εὐριπίδῃ (Εὐριπίδης,-ου ὁ): fr. 16.5: 170–171, 175 Εὐριπίδης (Εὐριπίδης,-ου ὁ): fr. 9.2: 104–106, 109 εὔστοχος (εὔστοχος,-ον): fr. 14.1: 146, 151–152 εὐτελῶς: fr. 15.1: 160, 163–164, 167 ἐφίλησεν (φιλέω): fr. 6.3: 84, 86–89 ἐχναύομεν (χναύω): fr. 8.4: 95–96, 98, 103 ἕψω: fr. 22.2: 208, 210 Ζεύς (Ζεύς, Διός / Ζηνός ὁ): fr. 17.1: 178–181 ζωρότερον (ζωρός,-όν): fr. 10.2: 109–113 ἠγλαϊσμένην (ἀγλαΐζω): fr. 3.6: 47, 57–58 ἡμέριον (ἡμέριος,-ον): fr. 5.2: 69, 71–72, 77; fr. 19.2: 185–186 ἡμετέροισι (ἡμέτερος,-α,-ον): fr. 7.3: 90–91, 93 Ἡρακλῆς (Ἡρακλῆς,-έους ὁ): fr. 17.2: 33, 178, 182–183 Θεόδωρος (Θεόδωρος,-ου ὁ): fr. 16.3: 170–171, 174–175 Θετταλίας (Θετταλία,-ας ἡ): fr. 1.1: 27, 29–31 Θήβηθεν: fr. 15.7: 160, 166 θρίττα (θρίττα,-ας ἡ): fr. 12.5: 125–127, 132–133

257

θύννου (θύννος,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.1: 125, 128–129 θυρῶν (θύρα,-ας ἡ): fr. 3.2: 47, 51, 53–54 ἱλαρόν (ἱλαρός,-ά,-όν): fr. 6.6: 84, 89 ἵλεων (ἵλεως,-ων): fr. 6.7: 84, 89 ἱμάντων (ἱμάς,-άντος ὁ): fr. 14.9: 146, 149, 156 ἵππων (ἵππος,-ου ὁ): fr. 18.1: 183–185 ἰσάργυρον (ἰσάργυρος,-ον): fr. 21.4: 203, 205, 208 ἰσομέτροις (ἰσόμετρος,-ον): fr. 14.9: 146, 156 ἴτρια (ἴτριον,-ου τό): fr. 8.3: 95–96, 99, 101, 103 ἰχθῦς (ἰχθῦς,-ύος ὁ): fr. 21.3: 203–204, 207 καθαρείως: fr. 15.3: 160, 162–164, 167 κανναβίδες (κανναβίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 13.5: 19, 136, 139, 144 κάραβος (κάραβος,-ου ὁ): fr. 15.5: 160, 165–166 καρίς (καρίς,-ίδος / -ῖδος ἡ): fr. 12.6: 125, 127, 133 κάρυα (κάρυον,-ου τό): fr. 24.1: 215–217 κάρυον (κάρυον,-ου τό): fr. 13.5: 136, 140, 143 κατατεμών (κατατέμνω): fr. 22.2: 208, 210–211 Κέλθ’ (Κελτός,-οῦ ὁ): fr. 5.21: 46, 69, 73, 82; fr. 19.21: 186 κεστρεῖς (κεστρεύς,-έως ὁ): fr. 12.8: 125, 135–136 κεφάλου (κέφαλος,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.2: 125–127, 129–130 κίχλας (κίχλη,-ης ἡ): fr. 3.8: 47, 55, 59 κνῖσα (κνῖσα,-ης ἡ): fr. 3.3: 47, 51, 54 κόγχαι (κόγχη,-ης ἡ): fr. 13.6: 136, 139, 144 κόκκος (κόκκος,-ου ὁ): fr. 13.1: 136, 138, 140–141 κόκκυξ (κόκκυξ,-υγος ὁ): fr. 12.4: 125, 127, 131, 133 κολλικοφάγου (κολλικοφάγος,-ον): fr. 1.2: 27–31, 99 Κορώνης (Κορώνη,-ης ἡ): fr. 15.13: 160–161, 168–170 Κότυν (Κότυς,-υος ὁ): fr. 16.2: 170–171, 173–174 Κραναούς (Κραναοί, οἱ): fr. 5.8: 69, 72, 79–80; fr. 19.8: 185–186

258

Index verborum

Κρήτης (Κρήτη,-ης ἡ): fr. 5.3: 69, 77; fr. 19.3: 185 κρίβανος (κρίβανος,-ου ὁ): fr. 1.2: 27, 29–31 κύαμος (κύαμος,-ου ὁ): fr. 13.2: 136, 140–141 κύλικας (κύλιξ,-κος ἡ): fr. 3.11: 19, 47, 51, 55, 60–61, 230; fr. 9.1: 104, 107 κυμβία (κυμβίον,-ου τό): fr. 16.5: 170, 175 κυμβίοισι (κυμβίον,-ου τό): fr. 9.2: 104, 107–108 κωβιός (κωβιός,-οῦ ὁ): fr. 12.8: 125, 135 λαβεῖν (λαμβάνω): fr. 15.5: 160, 165–167 λαλεῖν (λαλέω): fr. 25.1: 218–220 Λάχητι (Λάχης,-ητος ὁ): fr. 16.4: 170–171, 175 λεβίας (λεβίας,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.4: 125, 132 λέγειν (λέγω): fr. 14.5: 146, 154; fr. 25.2: 218, 220 Λεσβία (Λέσβιος,-α,-ον): fr. 28.2: 19, 61, 227–228, 230 Λέσβιον (Λέσβιος,-α,-ον): fr. 28.1: 227–228, 230 λοπάς (λοπάς,-άδος ἡ): fr. 5.4: 69, 76–78, 80–81; fr. 19.4: 185 λούμενος (λοῦμαι): fr. 26.2: 221–222, 224 Λυκίους (Λύκιοι, οἱ): fr. 5.7: 69, 79; fr. 19.7: 185 Λυκίων (Λύκιοι, οἱ): fr. 5.19: 69, 73, 81; fr. 19.19: 186 λύρᾳ (λύρα,-ας ἡ): fr. 7.2: 90, 92–94 μάθῃ (μανθάνω): fr. 20.2: 194, 196, 199 Μακεδών (Μακεδών,-όνος ὁ, ἡ): fr. 5.20: 69, 81–82; fr. 19.20: 186 μαχαίρᾳ (μάχαιρα,-ας ἡ): fr. 14.6: 146, 154 μάχας (μάχη,-ης ἡ): fr. 2.2: 34, 39, 41 μάχονται (μάχομαι): fr. 2.3: 34, 39, 41 μεθύοντας (μεθύω): fr. 25.2: 218, 220 μεθύοντες (μεθύω): fr. 2.2: 34–36, 39–41, 52, 220, 229 μειράκιον (μειράκιον,-ου τό): fr. 7.1: 90–92, 94, 198 μειρακίων (μειράκιον,-ου τό): fr. 19.23: 190 μέλι (μέλι,-ιτος τό): fr. 13.3: 136–137, 141 Μενεκράτης (Μενεκράτης,-ους ὁ): fr. 17.1: 177–178, 180–181 μετά: fr. 13.1: 136–137, 139–140, 143

μῆλον (μῆλον,-ου τό): fr. 13.5: 136, 140, 143 μικρολόγος (μικρολόγος,-ον): fr. 15.10: 160, 162, 167 μνοῦς (μνοῦς,-οῦ ὁ): fr. 13.4: 19, 136, 139, 143 μοσχίον (μοσχίον,-ου τό): fr. 15.12: 160–162, 168–169 μουσική (μουσική,-ῆς ἡ): fr. 7.2: 90, 92 Μυγδονιώτας (Μυγδονιῶται, οἱ): fr. 5.7: 69, 72, 79, 81; fr. 19.7: 185–186 μύκητες (μύκης,-ητος ὁ): fr. 27: 225–226 μύλλος (μύλλος,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.4: 125, 131–132 μύροις (μύρον,-ου τό): fr. 26.3: 221–222, 224 μύρον (μύρον,-ου τό): fr. 8.1: 95, 98–100 ναέται (ναέτης,-ου ὁ): fr. 5.1: 69, 75–77; fr. 19.1: 185 νέος (νέος,-α,-ον): fr. 20.1: 92, 194, 198–199 Νικόστρατος (Νικόστρατος,-ου ὁ): fr. 17.2: 33, 177–178, 181–182 νόμιζ’ (νομίζω): fr. 20.4: 194, 199–200 νώγαλα (νώγαλα, τά): fr. 24.1: 215–217 ὄγκῳ (ὄγκος,-ου ὁ): fr. 14.10: 146, 156, 192 οἰκεῖον (οἰκεῖος,-α,-ον / οἰκεῖος,-ον): fr. 14.12: 146, 157 οἶνον (οἶνος,-ου ὁ): fr. 11.1: 116; fr. 28.1: 227–230 οἶνου (οἶνος,-ου ὁ): fr. 24.2: 97, 215, 217; fr. 25.1: 218–220 οἶνων (οἶνος,-ου ὁ): fr. 18.2: 183–185 οἶσθα (οἶδα): fr. 2.1: 34, 36–37, 39 Ὁμηρικῶς: fr. 10.2: 109–110, 112 ὀπτᾶν (ὀπτάω): fr. 3.5: 47, 55 ὀπτήν (ὀπτός,-ή,-όν): fr. 22.3: 208, 212 ὁπόταν: fr. 5.1: 69, 76; fr. 19.1: 185 ὅρος (ὅρος,-ου ὁ): fr. 5.11: 69, 80; fr. 19.11: 185 ὀρφώς (ὀρφώς,-ώ ὁ): fr. 12.7: 125, 134–135 ὁσίας (ὁσία,-ας ἡ): fr. 15.4: 160, 162, 164 ὄψον (ὄψον,-ου τό): fr. 20.2: 194, 199 παίγνια (παίγνιον, τό): fr. 24.3: 19, 93, 215–218

Index verborum παιγνίοις (παίγνιον, τό): fr. 7.3: 90–91, 93–94 πάλαι: fr. 26.1: 221–223 παππία (παππίας,-ου ὁ): fr. 21.1: 203–206 παραβόσκομεν (παραβόσκω): fr. 8.6: 19, 95–96, 98, 104 παραμασύντας (παραμασύντης,-ου ὁ): fr. 8.6: 95, 97–98, 103–104, 200 πάσας (πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν): fr. 2.3: 34, 39, 41 πεντεσκάλμους (πεντέσκαλμος,-ον): fr. 5.17: 18, 69, 72–73, 81; fr. 19.17: 18, 186 πεπολέμηκ᾿ (πολεμέω): fr. 9.2: 104, 106, 108–109 περδίκιον (περδίκιον,-ου τό): fr. 15.8: 160, 164, 166 περιαγγέλλειν (περιαγγέλλω): fr. 5.18: 69, 81; fr. 19.18: 186 περικλύστου (περίκλυστος,-ον): fr. 5.3: 69, 77; fr. 19.3: 185 περιοίκους (περίοικος,-ον): fr. 5.6: 69, 72, 78; fr. 19.6: 185 περιπλεῖν (περιπλέω): fr. 5.16: 69, 78, 81; fr. 19.16: 186 πέρκης (πέρκη,-ης ἡ): fr. 12.2: 125–126, 129–130 πιλεῖν (πιλέω): fr. 3.10: 47, 55, 59 Πλάτωνα (Πλάτων,-ωνος ὁ): fr. 14.2: 146–147, 152 πλεκτάνας (πλεκτάνη,-ης ἡ): fr. 3.10: 47, 55, 59–60 πλῆθος (πλῆθος,-ους τό): fr. 25.1: 218–220 πνίγειν (πνίγω): fr. 3.7: 47, 55, 58 ποιήσω (ποιέω): fr. 22.3: 208, 212 πόλλ᾿ (πολύς, πολλή, πολύ): fr. 25.1: 218–220 πολλή (πολύς, πολλή, πολύ): fr. 28.2: 227–228, 231 πολυτελής (πολυτελής,-ές): fr. 15.10: 160, 164, 167 πολυτελῶς: fr. 15.3: 160, 163–164, 167 πότερ᾿ (πότερος,-α,-ον): fr. 15.11: 160, 168 πότερον (πότερος,-α,-ον): fr. 22.1: 168, 208–210 πουλυπόδειον (πουλυπόδειος,-ον): fr. 12.7: 125, 127, 134

259

πράμνιον (πράμν(ε)ιος,-ου ὁ): fr. 28.1: 227–230 πρύτανι (πρύτανις,-εως ὁ): fr. 5.19: 69, 73, 81; fr. 19.19: 186 πυραμίδες (πυραμίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 13.4: 19, 136, 139, 143–144 πυραμοῦς (πυραμοῦς,-οῦντος ὁ): fr. 8.3: 95, 101–103, 140, 143 πώγωνος (πώγων,-ωνος ὁ): fr. 14.7: 146, 155 ῥάφανον (ῥάφανος,-ου ἡ): fr. 3.6: 47, 55–57 ῥήσεις (ῥῆσις,-εως ἡ): fr. 16.3: 170, 174–175 ῥίνης (ῥίνη,-ης ἡ): fr. 12.2: 125, 129 ῥινός (ῥίς, ῥινός ἡ): fr. 3.3: 47, 54 ῥόας (ῥόα,-ας ἡ): fr. 24.1: 215–217 ῥοδόπνοα (ῥοδόπνοος,-οον): fr. 26.2: 19, 104, 221–224 ῥοιᾶς (ῥοιά,-ᾶς ἡ): fr. 13.1: 136, 138, 140 σαῦρος (σαῦρος,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.3: 125–126, 130 σεμνός (σεμνός,-ή,-όν): fr. 19.25: 186, 191–192 σεμνῶς: fr. 19.25: 186, 191–192 σηπία (σηπία,-ας ἡ): fr. 12.7: 59, 125, 134, 164 σηπίδια (σηπίδιον,-ου τό): fr. 3.9: 47, 55, 59; fr. 15.4: 160, 164–165 σησαμίδες (σησαμίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 13.3: 19, 136–137, 141–142, 144 σικελικῶς: fr. 22.3: 208–209, 211 Σίνδους (Σίνδοι, οἱ): fr. 5.7: 69, 72, 79; fr. 19.7: 185–186 σκαιός (σκαιός,-ά,-όν): fr. 23.1: 212–213 σκιρτῶ (σκιρτάω): fr. 26.1: 221–223 σπάρος (σπάρος,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.5: 125, 132 σπίνοις (σπίνος,-ου ὁ): fr. 3.8: 47, 59 σταγών (σταγών,-όνος ἡ): fr. 28.2: 19, 61, 227–228, 230 σταμνάρια (σταμνάριον,-ου τό): fr. 24.2: 215, 217–218 στάσεις (στάσις,-εως ἡ): fr. 18.1: 183–185 στέφανος (στέφανος,-ου ὁ): fr. 3.2: 47, 53–54 στηθύνια (στηθύνιον,-ου τό): fr. 3.7: 47, 55, 58

260

Index verborum

στρουθίοις (στρουθίον,-ου τό): fr. 6.4: 84, 88–89 στρώματ᾿ (στρῶμα,-ατος τό): fr. 26.2: 221, 223 συμπόσιον (συμπόσιον,-ου τό): fr. 4.2: 62–63, 65–66, 68 συναγώγιμον (συναγώγιμος,-ον): fr. 4.1: 14, 62–65, 68, 200 συναρμόσῃ (συναρμόζω): fr. 7.4: 90–91, 93–94 συνοῦσι (σύνειμι): fr. 7.4: 90–91, 94 τεθωρακισμένος (θωρακίζω): fr. 14.10: 146, 156 τεμάχη (τέμαχος,-ους τό): fr. 12.1: 125, 128–129; fr. 22.2: 208, 210–212 τέρψις (τέρψις,-εως ἡ): fr. 7.5: 90, 94 τευθίδια (τευθίδιον,-ου τό): fr. 15.4: 160, 164–165 τευθίς (τευθίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 12.6: 59, 125, 127, 133, 164 τευθίσιν (τευθίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 3.9: 47, 59 τέχνῃ (τέχνη,-ης ἡ): fr. 14.4: 146, 154 Τιρύνθιον (Τιρύνθιος,-α,-ον): fr. 2.1: 34, 37–38 τοιγαροῦν: fr. 2.3: 34–35, 41 τραγήμαθ’ (τράγημα,-ατος τό): fr. 8.3: 95, 101 τρίγλη (τρίγλη,-ης ἡ): fr. 12.3: 125, 127, 131, 133 τρόπον (τρόπος,-ου ὁ): fr. 7.4: 90, 93–94 τυρός (τυρός,-οῦ ὁ): fr. 13.3: 136, 138, 141 τυροῦ (τυρός,-οῦ ὁ): fr. 3.5: 47, 55–56 ὑδαρῆ (ὑδαρής,-ές): fr. 11.2: 116, 118–119 ὑθλῶν (ὑθλέω): fr. 19.22: 186, 189–190 ὑπανεῴγνυτο (ὑπανοίγω / ὑπανοίγνυμι): fr. 8.2: 95–96, 98–99, 101 ὑποκαθιείς (ὑποκαθίημι): fr. 14.7: 146, 149, 154–155 ὑπόξυρον (ὑπόξυρος,-ον): fr. 14.8: 146, 149, 155–156 φάγρος (φάγρος,-ου ὁ): fr. 12.4: 125, 131 φάττας (φάττα,-ας ἡ): fr. 3.8: 47, 55, 58–59 φάττιον (φάττιον,-ου τό): fr. 15.8: 160, 164, 166

φέρει (φέρω): fr. 9.1: 104, 107 φεύγουσ᾿ (φεύγω): fr. 2.3: 34, 41 φῄς (φημί): fr. 11.3: 116–117, 120–121; fr. 22.2: 208–211 φιάλην (φιάλη,-ης ἡ): fr. 10.1: 109–112 φιλῶ (φιλέω): fr. 28.1: 227–229 φοίνικας (φοῖνιξ,-ικος ὁ): fr. 24.1: 215–217 φοινικικοῦ (φοινικικός,-ή,-όν): fr. 8.2: 95–97, 100–101, 217; fr. 24.2 215–217: φορεῖς (φορέω): fr. 23.2: 212, 214 φράζ᾿ (φράζω): fr. 15.2: 160, 162–164; fr. 21.2: 203–204, 207 φρονοῦντας (φρονέω): fr. 21.3: 203, 207 φυκίς (φυκίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 12.3: 125, 130–131 Χαιρήμων (Χαιρήμων,-ονος ὁ): fr. 9.1: 104, 107 χανοῦσ’ (χάσκω): fr. 6.5: 84, 88–89 χελιδών (χελιδών,-όνος ἡ): fr. 12.5: 125, 133 Χερρονησίτου (Χερρονησίτης,-ου ὁ): fr. 3.5: 47, 51, 55–56 χθονός (χθών, χθονός ἡ): fr. 14.3: 146–147, 157 χλανίδ’ (χλανίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 19.25: 156, 186, 192 χλανίδος (χλανίς,-ίδος ἡ): fr. 14.10: 146, 156, 192 χναύειν (χναύω): fr. 3.9: 47, 55, 59, 96 χόνδρος (χόνδρος,-ου ὁ): fr. 8.1: 29, 95–96 98–99, 103, 141, 143–144; fr. 13.3: 136, 141 χυλός (χυλός,-οῦ ὁ): fr. 13.6: 136, 139, 144 ψακαστοῖς (ψακαστός,-ή,-όν): fr. 26.3: 19, 104, 221–222, 224 ψῆττα (ψῆττα,-ας ἡ): fr. 12.6: 125, 127, 133–134 ψήφων (ψῆφος,-ου ἡ): fr. 19.24: 186, 190–191 ᾠάρια (ᾠάριον,-ου τό): fr. 24.3: 215–218 ᾠῶν (ᾠόν,-οῦ τό): fr. 8.4: 18–19, 95–97, 102

Index locorum

261

3. Index locorum * Loci that are also fontes for Ephippus’ testimonia and fragments are to be found in the Index fontium Achaeus fr. 5: 208 fr. 17.3: 224 Adespota Fragmenta comica fr. 101.12: 61, 111 fr. 133: 61 fr. 175: 115 fr. 1000.1–2: 78 Aelianus De Natura Animalium 10.11: 131 14.3: 133 14.23: 131 Epistulae 19: 88 Varia Historia 3.15: 39 3.42: 230 12.18–19: 193 Aeschines 1.75: 194–195, 197, 199 1.139: 207 Aeschylus Agamemnon l. 7: 92 l. 274: 168 l. 527: 76 l. 798: 119 ll. 959–960: 208 l. 1390: 224 Choephoroi l. 186: 230 l. 530: 200 l. 778: 121 Eumenides l. 1011: 79 Persae l. 419: 166 l. 811: 76 Supplices l. 912: 157 Fragmenta fr. 309.1–2: 30

Alcaeus (lyr.) fr. 366: 220 Alciphro 3.15: 61 3.19.3–4: 155 4.13–14: 118 Alexis Archilochos: 193 Gynaikokratia: 118 Homoia: 158 Kleoboulinē: 193 Minōs: 177, 180 Odysseus aponiptomenos: 115 Odysseus yphainōn: 115 Pamphilē: 201 Pezonikē: 201 Polykleia: 201 Syntrechontes: 158 Fragmenta fr. 9: 61 fr. 15.3: 191 fr. 15.5: 130 fr. 15.7: 57 fr. 16: 50 fr. 16.7: 226 fr. 25: 148 fr. 47.6–7: 165 fr. 59: 61 fr. 63: 74 fr. 82: 219 fr. 83.1: 130 fr. 84.1: 133, 135, 210 fr. 88: 39 fr. 99: 148, 150 fr. 100: 105 fr. 103: 87, 198 fr. 110.1–2: 205 fr. 115: 162 fr. 115.12: 130, 133 fr. 115.13: 130, 132, 133, 135 fr. 115.22: 78 fr. 125: 53 fr. 128.3: 119

262 Alexis [cont.] fr. 132.6: 139 fr. 138: 130, 210 fr. 138.6: 56, 86 fr. 140: 39 fr. 144: 217 fr. 149: 172 fr. 151: 150 fr. 156: 180 fr. 159: 128 fr. 159.3: 134 fr. 163: 150 fr. 167: 20 fr. 167.11: 141 fr. 167.14: 141 fr. 168.2: 101 fr. 168.5: 102 fr. 172: 118 fr. 172.5: 228 fr. 177: 210 fr. 180.3: 130 fr. 190: 101 fr. 191: 162 fr. 192.2: 60 fr. 192.2–3: 212 fr. 192.4: 211 fr. 196: 30, 99 fr. 200: 104 fr. 223.14–17: 37 fr. 224.8: 97, 103–104 fr. 232: 119 fr. 238.2: 97 fr. 244: 195, 197 fr. 253: 62, 64–65 fr. 258: 136 fr. 259: 200 fr. 268.4: 226 fr. 271.4: 200 fr. 276: 230 fr. 278: 230 fr. 287: 57 fr. 293: 60 Amipsias Connus: 150 Sapphō: 193 Fragmenta fr. 1.3: 136 fr. 5: 30 fr. 8: 131, 134, 200

Index locorum Amphis Gynaikokratia: 118 Leucas: 193 Odysseus: 115 Sapphō: 193 Fragmenta fr. 1: 32, 87 fr. 6: 87, 150, 163 fr. 9: 66, 74, 99, 100, 140 fr. 9.3: 102, 142 fr. 13: 106, 150, 191 fr. 23: 87 fr. 26.2: 207 fr. 27: 66, 162 fr. 27.2: 224 fr. 28: 74, 99 fr. 30: 50, 205 fr. 30.5: 92 fr. 31: 104 fr. 33: 219 fr. 33.1–2: 40 fr. 33.7: 220 fr. 33.9–10: 198 fr. 35: 50, 163, 164, 205 fr. 35.1: 164 fr. 37: 57 fr. 38: 99 fr. 39: 65 fr. 39.2: 200 fr. 40: 29 fr. 43: 99 Anacreon fr. 356b.3: 61 fr. 363: 224 fr. 373.1: 101 fr. 409: 116 fr. 455: 118 Anaxandrides Dionysou Gonai: 25 Odysseus: 115 Prōtesilaos: 43 Fragmenta fr. 3: 105 fr. 9.3: 218 fr. 10: 200 fr. 20: 150 fr. 23: 133 fr. 33: 105, 106, 109 fr. 35: 146

Index locorum Anaxandrides [cont.] fr. 35.5: 57 fr. 40: 33 fr. 41: 100 fr. 41.1–2: 167 fr. 42: 20, 53, 99, 174 fr. 42.29: 102 fr. 42.36–66: 55 fr. 42.37: 189 fr. 42.39: 127 fr. 42.41: 135 fr. 42.43: 141 fr. 42.44: 56, 141 fr. 42.45: 143 fr. 42.46: 133 fr. 42.46–47: 59 fr. 42.47: 134 fr. 42.49: 130 fr. 42.50: 130, 138, 142 fr. 42.51: 133, 210 fr. 42.52: 131, 132 fr. 42.53: 129 fr. 42.54: 143 fr. 42.55, 58–59: 138 fr. 42.56: 102 fr. 42.59: 102 fr. 42.64–65: 59 fr. 59: 57 fr. 80: 102, 216 Anaxilas Kirkē: 114, 115 Fragmenta fr. 8.1: 119 fr. 12: 114 fr. 18.2: 156, 192 fr. 18.3: 56 fr. 20.1: 136 fr. 21: 87 fr. 22: 87 fr. 22.16: 226 fr. 23: 61 Anaxippus fr. 1.8: 56 fr. 1.46: 144 fr. 6: 162 Anthologia Graeca 5.121.2: 143 5.181.5–6: 191

Anthologia Graeca [cont.] 5.289.4: 60–61 7.552: 230 11.28.3: 60 Antiphanes (com.) Aphroditēs Gonai: 25 Busiris: 21, 32 Homoiai vel Homoioi: 158 Homōnymoi: 158 Malthakē: 201 Sapphō: 193, 196 Fragmenta fr. 4.1: 231 fr. 25.4: 119 fr. 26: 111 fr. 27.10–11: 131 fr. 35: 150, 156 fr. 36.2: 99 fr. 36.3: 29, 99 fr. 55: 210 fr. 66: 141, 217 fr. 66.1: 216 fr. 69.4–5: 163 fr. 79: 142 fr. 80: 103 fr. 83: 185 fr. 85.4: 92 fr. 89.2: 102 fr. 90: 211 fr. 95.1: 127 fr. 97.3–4: 199 fr. 101: 87 fr. 105: 100 fr. 105.2–3: 100 fr. 130: 20 fr. 130.4: 130 fr. 130.5: 129, 138, 142 fr. 130.6: 210 fr. 130.8: 130 fr. 131: 20 fr. 131.6: 167 fr. 136.1: 136 fr. 137: 110 fr. 138.5: 102 fr. 140: 53 fr. 140.4: 102 fr. 145: 166 fr. 147: 110

263

264 Antiphanes (com.) [cont.] fr. 163.2: 41 fr. 169.2: 226 fr. 172: 140 fr. 172.3–4: 230 fr. 174: 30 fr. 181: 56 fr. 181.6: 57 fr. 186: 226, 227 fr. 191.1: 166 fr. 191.3: 131 fr. 192.2: 130 fr. 192.13: 41 fr. 193: 103 fr. 200: 74, 120 fr. 204.4: 135 fr. 210: 87 fr. 216.2: 166 fr. 216.17–23: 133 fr. 221: 162, 210 fr. 221.6: 128, 129 fr. 223: 108 fr. 225: 226 fr. 232: 220 fr. 233.4: 56 fr. 273.1: 143 fr. 295: 131, 167 Antiphanes Junior (hist.) fr. 2a: 169 [Apollodorus] 1.9: 202 1.49: 79 2.23: 202 2.42: 42 2.53: 38 2.61–62: 38 2.106–112: 42 2.116–117: 32 3.186–187: 79 Apollodorus Carystius fr. 32: 56 Apollodorus Gelous fr. 4: 167 Apollonius Rhodius 1.608: 80 4.322: 79 4.470: 76 4.580: 80 4.1491: 124

Index locorum Apuleius Apologia 39.2–4: 145 Araros fr. 8: 144, 217 Archedicus fr. 2.4: 77 fr. 3: 162 fr. 3.2: 129, 130 fr. 4: 106 Archestratus fr. 5: 30 fr. 5.12: 29 fr. 10.5–7: 166 fr. 11.4: 77 fr. 11.8–9: 135 fr. 14: 30 fr. 14.5: 56 fr. 19: 130 fr. 20.2: 199 fr. 22.1–2: 129 fr. 26.2: 133 fr. 27.1: 131 fr. 28: 132 fr. 28.1: 77 fr. 33.1: 134 fr. 38: 128, 129 fr. 39.2: 101 fr. 42.4–5: 131 fr. 43.1: 136 fr. 46.2: 130 fr. 47.2: 129 fr. 48.1: 142 fr. 50.1: 210 fr. 54.1: 134 fr. 55.1–2: 133 fr. 56: 134 fr. 59.5–14: 100 fr. 59.10–11: 230 fr. 59.19: 230 fr. 60: 100 fr. 60.3: 224 fr. 60.14: 141 fr. 60.15: 141, 143 Archilochus fr. 93a: 92 fr. 205: 224 fr. (spur.) 331: 169

Index locorum Archippus fr. 2: 61 fr. 10: 39 fr. 12: 130, 136 fr. 15.2: 129 fr. 17: 135 fr. 19: 135 fr. 23.2: 129 fr. 24: 135 fr. 26: 129 Aristophanes Acharnenses l. 75: 61, 79 ll. 80–89: 74 ll. 85–86: 30 ll. 86–87: 30 l. 100: 73 l. 104: 73 l. 151: 172 l. 157: 120 l. 187: 185 ll. 300–302: 211 l. 345: 208 l. 476: 172 l. 504: 76 ll. 524–529: 101 l. 625: 163 l. 849: 154 l. 872: 27, 29 ll. 885–894: 166 l. 887: 123 l. 962: 166 l. 976: 99 l. 1007: 59 l. 1040: 141 ll. 1049–1050: 168 ll. 1085–1093: 100 ll. 1085ff.: 66 l. 1090: 223 ll. 1096–1142: 162 l. 1104: 59 ll. 1156–1157: 133 l. 1211: 65, 199 Aves ll. 103–104: 168 l. 123: 79 l. 194: 119 l. 297: 166 ll. 483–484: 166

Aristophanes – Aves [cont.] l. 491: 152 l. 494: 54 l. 533: 56 ll. 668–669: 37 ll. 673–674: 207 ll. 848–1057: 210 ll. 963–964: 53 l. 975: 111 l. 1022: 141 l. 1079: 59 ll. 1539–1541: 142 l. 1567: 214 ll. 1579–1605: 52 ll. 1583–1605: 39 Ecclesiazusae l. 45: 141 ll. 132–146: 118 ll. 149–150: 157 l. 227: 229 ll. 427–429: 151 ll. 834–852: 99, 100 l. 844: 101 l. 922: 218 l. 1123: 120 l. 1173: 166 Equites ll. 80–81: 103 l. 102: 120 l. 107: 230 l. 181: 163 ll. 400–401: 172 l. 416: 200 ll. 694–695: 172 l. 893: 226 l. 1034: 78 Lysistrata ll. 35–36: 166 ll. 113–114: 118 l. 203: 60 ll. 234–235: 172 ll. 469–470: 37 ll. 480–481: 79 l. 506: 169 l. 702: 166 ll. 723–725: 89 l. 757: 54, 55 l. 879: 206 l. 1189: 223

265

266 Aristophanes [cont.] Nubes l. 47: 213 l. 339: 129 ll. 628–629: 213 l. 655: 213 l. 783: 190 l. 1005: 148 l. 1007: 142 l. 1078: 222 ll. 1371–1372: 175 l. 1504: 226 Pax l. 121: 224 ll. 127–128: 206 l. 143: 108 l. 188: 119 l. 192: 168 l. 431: 111 l. 478: 103 l. 741: 39, 52 ll. 752–759: 76 l. 753: 175 ll. 754–759: 44 l. 869: 142 ll. 922–1126: 99, 210 l. 998: 144 l. 1001: 143 l. 1004: 58 l. 1005: 166 l. 1117: 119 ll. 1127–1139: 141 l. 1149: 59 l. 1308: 103 Plutus ll. 23–24: 163 ll. 153–159: 197 ll. 190–192: 52 l. 257: 223 l. 369: 169 l. 529: 224 l. 544: 56 l. 616: 57 ll. 644–645: 118 l. 761: 223 l. 812: 77 ll. 812–813: 60 ll. 819–820: 184 ll. 984–985: 165

Index locorum Aristophanes – Plutus [cont.] l. 999: 102 l. 1011: 166 l. 1132: 60, 61, 111 l. 1190: 99 Ranae ll. 23–24: 117 l. 151: 175 ll. 503–511: 39 l. 510: 101 l. 511: 40 l. 543a: 223 ll. 549–576: 39 l. 559: 56 l. 579: 172 l. 647: 53 Thesmophoriazusae l. 144: 117 l. 188: 53 l. 472: 76 l. 558: 168 ll. 730–738: l. 800: 166 l. 1033: 200 Vespae l. 60: 52 ll. 297–298: 206 l. 433: 104 ll. 493–495: 134 l. 510: 166 l. 511: 58 l. 656: 191 ll. 709–710: 167 ll. 736–738: 99 l. 838: 56 ll. 1030–1037: 76 l. 1179: 208 l. 1300: 94 l. 1305: 223 Fragmenta fr. 67.2: 144 fr. 208: 99 fr. 225: 211 fr. 258: 165 fr. 258.2: 165 fr. 604.1–2: 207 fr. 688: 228, 229 fr. 715: 223 fr. 719: 218

Index locorum Aristopho Kallōnidēs: 123 Philōnidēs: 123 Platōn: 123, 150 Fragmenta fr. 4: 88 fr. 5: 103 fr. 5.3–4: 200 fr. 7.4: 129 fr. 10.2: 200 fr. 13: 110, 111 Aristoteles [Athēnaiōn Politeia] 4.3: 198 7.4: 67 8.1: 141 22.2: 68 22.5: 141 26.2: 67 44.4: 68 59.5: 67 63: 67 63.5: 67 Historia Animalium 491a7–8: 185 535b18–20: 31 535b26–30: 133 565a23–29: 210 567b23: 135 591b1–3: 135 621b28–622a1: 134 Magna Moralia 1192a8–14: 167 Poetica 1453a37–39: 16, 68 1461a15–16: 112 Politica 1262b15: 119 1268b11: 53 1271b41–1272a12: 78 1305a18: 81 Rhetorica 1400b29: 153 1404b22–24: 174 1412a12: 151 Fragmenta fr. 231: 130 fr. 675: 140

Arrianus Indica 28.1: 30 Athenaeus 1.30c: 229 1.31d–e: 229 1.34c: 57 1.34d: 56 2.35d: 107 2.47d: 215, 216, 217 2.52a: 143 2.54f: 141 2.60b–61f: 226 2.61e: 226, 227 2.65c–d: 48, 49, 50 3.84a–b: 188 3.84b: 188 3.86f: 144 3.108f: 27 3.110c: 30 3.111b: 158 4.167a–c: 45 5.186b: 64 5.187a: 64 7.275c: 71 7.277a: 199 7.277c: 126, 178, 209 7.285d: 135 7.289a: 181 7.289a–f: 181 7.303a: 128, 129 7.307a–b: 130 7.307c–308b: 136 7.309b–e: 135 7.309e–f: 131 7.324f: 133 7.329b: 132 7.329b–f: 132 7.329d: 133 8.346c: 71 8.346e: 71 8.347c: 76, 188 8.359a: 159 8.359e–360a: 168 8.360b: 168 8.365b: 62, 64 8.365c: 62, 64 8.365c–d: 65 9.370d–e: 56 9.380d: 183

267

268 Athenaeus [cont.] 9.380e: 183 9.391e–f: 89 10.422e: 35 10.423e: 112 10.426b–427c: 62 10.426e: 61 10.428f–429a: 40 10.429a: 40 10.440e: 118 10.442d: 36 11.480b: 60 11.480c: 60 11.482c: 107, 108, 109 11.505c: 153 11.507a: 148 11.507e: 148 11.508c: 148 11.508c–d: 153, 157 11.509a–b: 148 12.514d–e: 145 12.526c: 208 12.527c: 211 12.544a: 224 12.544d: 224 13.555a–b: 85 13.571c: 85, 89 13.586b: 135 13.586e: 201 14.616e: 90 14.617f: 91 14.641e: 97, 140 14.641f: 102, 140 14.646f: 141 14.647b–c: 102 Athenio fr. 1.37: 167 Axionicus Philinna: 201 Tyrrēnos: 124 Fragmenta fr. 5: 118 Callias Aigyptios: 123 Fragmenta fr. 6.1: 128, 210 fr. 10: 135 fr. 26: 57

Index locorum Callimachus Hymnus in Dianam l. 146: 37 Cicero Brutus 47: 87 Epistulae ad Atticum 16.3.6: 81 Pro Cluentio 111: 192 Clearchus fr. 51a–d: 145 Clemens Alexandrinus Protrepticus 4.54.3: 181 Cratinus Archilochoi: 193 Busiris: 32 Dionysalexandros: 33 Kleoboulinae: 193 Odyssēs: 115 Pytinē: 40 Fragmenta fr. 29: 58 fr. 39: 154 fr. 46: 103 fr. 176.3: 189 fr. 236.1: 131 fr. 314: 133 fr. 327: 214 fr. 329.2: 144 Cratinus Junior fr. 1: 211 fr. 10: 150 fr. 13: 184 Critias fr. 1.10: 224 Crobylus fr. 7.1: 60 fr. 9: 141 Demosthenes 2.18–19: 46 19.314: 192 Diocles fr. 6.2: 136 Diodorus Siculus 4.9.1–5: 38 4.17: 42 5.4.7: 213

Index locorum Diodorus Siculus [cont.] 15.44.1–3: 176 15.44.3: 176 15.67–80: 28 15.73–74: 173 16.34.3: 41 16.39.4: 41 16.44.2–3: 33 16.44.3: 33, 181, 182 16.44.3–4: 33, 182 Diogenes Laertius 3.42: 26 6.13: 154 7.170: 182 Dionysius Homōnymoi: 158 Fragmenta fr. 2: 210 fr. 3: 162, 210 Dionysius Halicarnassensis De Compositione Verborum 5.18–24: 188 Dioscorides 1.59.1: 100 1.72.3: 30 1.96: 201 1.116: 226, 227 2.112: 227 2.120: 57 2.121: 57 3.42: 100 5.6.4: 229 Diphilus Boiōtios: 124 Emporos: 83 Sapphō: 193 Sikelikos: 124 Fragmenta fr. 3.2–3: 185 fr. 14: 56 fr. 14.2: 57 fr. 17.9: 132 fr. 33.1–2: 60 fr. 45: 39–40 fr. 53.2: 136 fr. 57: 60, 119 fr. 61: 103 fr. 74: 200

Ennius Hedyphagetica fr. 1.7: 145 Eparchides fr. 1: 229 fr. 2: 227 Epicharmus Busiris: 32 Dionysoi: 25 Kōmastai vel Haphaistos: 25 Mousai: 25 Odysseus automolos: 115 Odysseus nauagos: 115, 146 Fragmenta fr. 18: 39 fr. 31: 103 fr. 32: 103 fr. 33: 103 fr. 41.2: 132 fr. 41.3: 133 fr. 44: 130 fr. 46: 30 fr. 52.1: 210 fr. 52.2: 129 fr. 53.2: 134 fr. 54: 134 fr. 54.1: 59 fr. 55.1: 133 fr. 56.1: 131 fr. 59: 135 fr. 84: 144 fr. 122.8: 103 fr. 148: 143 fr. 153: 226 Epicrates Emporos: 83 Fragmenta fr. 3.1: 118 fr. 4: 193 fr. 10: 150 fr. 10.11: 148 Etymologicum Magnum 33.32: 132 538.17–18: 30 697.27: 102 Eubulus Dionysius: 16 Fragmenta fr. 2: 54

269

270 Eubulus [cont.] fr. 6: 39, 52 fr. 14.8: 133 fr. 36.3: 166 fr. 41: 88 fr. 42: 118 fr. 44: 101 fr. 48: 61 fr. 63: 20, 99 fr. 67.4: 50 fr. 68.2: 136 fr. 72: 200 fr. 74: 142 fr. 74.3: 143 fr. 108: 77 fr. 109: 163, 165, 205 fr. 109.1: 164 fr. 109.1–2: 21, 49 fr. 109.2: 134, 164 fr. 115.7: 172 fr. 120: 162, 165 fr. 120.1: 167 fr. 121.2: 228 fr. 124: 57 fr. 148: 48, 49, 51, 60 fr. 148.3: 58 fr. 148.4: 58 fr. 148.6: 50 fr. 148.7: 59, 60 fr. 148.8: 60 Euphro Mousai: 25 Synephēboi: 95 Theōn agora: 25 Fragmenta fr. 2: 136 fr. 10.7: 211 fr. 10.10–11: 138 Eupolis Kolakes: 123 Marikas: 17, 43, 114, 124 Fragmenta fr. 13.3: 86 fr. 42.3: 131 fr. 50: 204 fr. 148.1–2: 166 fr. 157: 150 fr. 158: 150 fr. 174.2: 210

Index locorum Eupolis [cont.] fr. 175: 103 fr. 176.3: 142 fr. 217: 217 fr. 259.78: 190 fr. 312: 145 fr. 315: 99 fr. 326.1–2: 94 fr. 375: 142 fr. 386: 150 fr. 395: 150 Euripides Alcēstis ll. 536–567: 52 ll. 677–678: 37 ll. 773–802: 40 Bacchae l. 446: 222 l. 961: 157 Cyclops l. 67: 230 l. 127: 121 ll. 149–150: l. 358: 103 l. 554: 229 Electra l. 1311: 77 Hecuba l. 16: 80 l. 396: 153 l. 1122: 121 Helena l. 685: 121 l. 819: 77 Heracles Furens l. 195: 151 ll. 423–424: 42 Heraclidae l. 163: 38 Iphigenia Taurica l. 1461: 164 Medea ll. 805–806: 192 l. 1013: 153 l. 1386: 192 Orestēs ll. 902–905: 151 Phoenissae l. 28: 184

Index locorum Euripides – Phoenissae [cont.] ll. 903–904: 153–154 Supplices l. 81: 230 ll. 865–866: 200 Fragmenta fr. 124.1–3: 155 fr. 223.114: 157 fr. 696.4–5: 37 Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem p. 1071,11: 224 Galenus 19.149.12: 156 19.149.13: 155 Hermippus Athēnas Gonai: 25 Phormophoroi: 158 Theoi: 25 Fragmenta fr. 37: 138 fr. 46.2: 210 fr. 63: 52 fr. 63.6: 30, 99 fr. 63.9: 56 fr. 63.22: 217 fr. 77.6–7: 101 Herodas 3.44: 101 Herodotus 1.133: 31 1.193.4: 100 1.194.1: 101 1.194.2: 101 2.36.4: 191, 214 2.92: 58 2.173.2: 192 3.80.6: 67 4.74: 144 4.75: 144 5.119: 41 7.89: 107 7.108: 152 9.46: 41 Hesiodus [Scutum] ll. 27–56: 38 Theogonia l. 401: 76

Hesiodus – Theogonia [cont.] l. 917: 94 Fragmenta fr. 254.1–2: 169 Hesychius Lexicon δ 2400: 54 ε 2021: 111 κ 4335: 218 κ 4542: 107 μ 372: 103 ν 760: 217 ο 18: 158 ρ 143: 56 σ 2032: 89 Hippocrates De arte 1: 213 De articulis 77: 155 De diaeta 1.32.1: 63 De diaeta in morbis acutis 28: 199 De diaeta in morbis acutis (sp.) 53: 99 De fracturis 4: 155 Epidemiae 6.28.6: 155 Hipponax fr. 26.6: 29 Homerus Ilias 1.58: 151 2.46: 157 2.76–78: 151 2.258–261: 172 2.341: 61 2.484: 188 4.159: 61 5.115: 188 5.212–216: 172 9.203: 110, 112, 119 9.473: 53 12.175: 41 15.414: 41 15.673: 41 18.533: 41

271

272 Homerus – Ilias [cont.] 24.486: 188 24.488: 76 24.601: 48 Odyssea 2.36–38: 157 3.291–292: 123 3.479–480: 199 4.213: 48 9.54: 41 10.235–240: 114 10.237: 231 10.392: 115 11.601–603: 39 15.332: 57 Isaeus 9.20: 207 Isocrates 4.1: 64 6.54: 41 11.9: 32 14.1: 157 15.117: 163 Libanius Declamationes 22.13: 192 Orationes 1.35: 192 Livius 26.45.7: 108 Lucianus Adversus Indoctum 15: 173 Demonax 1: 182 Dialogi Meretricii 11.2: 114 Juppiter Tragoedus 26: 155 Philopseudēs 5: 155 Piscator 11: 154 41: 155 Symposium 1: 108 7: 156 44: 108 45: 108

Index locorum Lucianus [cont.] Timon 9: 54 Vera Historia 1.7: 230 Lynceus fr. 1: 144 Macho fr. 5.31: 135 fr. 5.37: 135 fr. 5.40: 135 fr. 5.44: 200 fr. 16.315: 200 Macrobius Saturnalia 5.21.16: 35 Magnes Dionysos: 25 Fragmenta fr. 2: 141 Matro fr. 1.22: 135 fr. 1.27: 134 fr. 1.27–32: 131 fr. 1.34: 134 fr. 1.50: 133 fr. 1.56: 129 fr. 1.80: 129 fr. 1.81: 132 fr. 1.92: 56 Menander Dyscolos l. 37: 88 l. 50: 121 l. 95: 172 ll. 183–184: ll. 233–234: 120 l. 646: 210 l. 856: 206 ll. 901–902: 222 l. 908: 119 l. 930: 206 l. 956: 213 Epitrepontes l. 412: 64 Misumenos fr. 5: 152 Perikeiromene l. 299: 53

Index locorum Menander – Perikeiromene [cont.] l. 314: 88 Samia ll. 74–75: 142 l. 125: 142 ll. 403–404: 168 l. 405: 53 Fragmenta fr. 106: 167 fr. 123: 62, 63 fr. 123.1: 64 fr. 123.2: 63, 65 fr. 337.4–5: 88 fr. 390: 163 fr. 409.10: 99 fr. 735: 220 Metagenes Homēros: 193 Fragmenta fr. 4: 66 fr. 6: 99 fr. 6.4: 210 fr. 6.6: 131, 133 fr. 6.8: 135 fr. 6.9: 58, 129 fr. 18.2: 143 Mnesimachus Busiris: 21, 32 Philippos: 16, 44 Fragmenta fr. 3: 161, 163, 165 fr. 4: 20, 21, 50, 53, 66, 99, 126, 127, 128, 133, 142, 162, 210, 222 fr. 4.17: 231 fr. 4.29–63: 55 fr. 4.31: 128, 129 fr. 4.32: 129, 130 fr. 4.36–39: 130 fr. 4.37: 138, 142 fr. 4.38: 130, 131 fr. 4.39: 131 fr. 4.40: 132 fr. 4.41: 133 fr. 4.41–43: 59 fr. 4.42: 133, 134 fr. 4.43: 134, 135 fr. 4.44: 135 fr. 4.47–49: 131 fr. 4.50: 137

Mnesimachus [cont.] fr. 4.55: 223 fr. 4.59: 77 fr. 4.60–63: 100 fr. 7: 36, 74 fr. 7.1–2: 37 fr. 8: 44 Nicostratus Syros: 124 Fragmenta fr. 4: 163, 165 fr. 4.1: 163 fr. 4.2: 50, 164 fr. 11: 135 fr. 27: 162 fr. 27.4: 165 fr. 30: 37 Ovidius Metamorphoses 9.285–303: 38 Pausanias 1.37.3: 174 2.25.8: 38 8.27: 38 10.18.2: 76 Petronius Satyricon 62: 172 Pherecrates Koriannō: 201 Petalē: 201 Thalatta: 201 Fragmenta fr. 50.3: 133 fr. 73.4: 208 fr. 76: 116, 118 fr. 76.2: 118 fr. 113: 99 fr. 113.18: 99 fr. 113.23: 59 fr. 137: 99 fr. 158.1: 143 fr. 170: 141, 226 fr. 261: 156 Philemo Apollōn: 25 Emporos: 83 Ephēbos: 95 Neaira: 201

273

274 Philemo [cont.] Sikelikos: 124 Synephēbos: 95 Fragmenta fr. 79: 56 fr. 82: 178 fr. 83: 136 fr. 87: 105 fr. 132: 106 fr. 158: 101 Philetaerus Lampadēphoroi: 158 Fragmenta fr. 5: 76 fr. 8: 76 fr. 9: 170, 202 fr. 9.1–2: 179 fr. 9.6: 169 fr. 10: 30 fr. 15: 116 Philippides fr. 20: 140 fr. 25: 106 fr. 30: 58 Philonides fr. 2.1: 210 Philostratus Vitae Sophistarum 2.552–554: 182 Philyllius Plyntriai vel Nausica: 115 Fragmenta fr. 1: 129 fr. 12.1: 134 fr. 24: 143 Photius Lexixon α 669: 213 α 1173: 80–81 α 3117: 59 δ 668: 59 ο 314.1: 158 Phrynichus (att.) Ecloga 362: 58 Preparatio Sophistica 46.1: 213 fr. 346: 72 Mousai: 25

Index locorum Phrynichus (com.) Fragmenta fr. 15: 108 fr. 24: 39 fr. 49: 197 fr. 60: 200 fr. 68: 230 Pindarus Nemea 8.11: 79 Olympia 7.82: 79 10.31–32: 37 10.93–94: 92 13.38: 79 13.46: 191 14.17–18: 94 Pythia 10.39: 92 Plato (com.) Hyperbolos: 17, 43, 123 Kleophōn: 17, 43, 123 Fragmenta fr. 22: 207 fr. 28.2: 136 fr. 51.1: 214 fr. 71: 66 fr. 71.6–7: 100 fr. 114: 123 fr. 114.2: 134 fr. 146: 129 fr. 166.1: 210 fr. 188.8–9: 141 fr. 189.12: 77 fr. 189.14: 132, 135 fr. 200: 151 fr. 282: 156 Plato (phil.) Cratylus 409a: 132 Gorgias 457b: 207 518b: 211 Leges 816e: 93 950b: 151 Respublica 348d: 152 398c: 94

Index locorum Plato (phil.) – Respublica [cont.] 404d: 211 438a: 154 571c: 223 610b: 211 Theaetetus 160e: 54, 55 [Epistulae] 7.326b: 211 Plautus Cistellaria: 118 Mercator l. 308: 172 Miles Gloriosus l. 750: 163 Persa l. 170: 118 Pseudolus l. 221: 118 Plinius Historia Naturalis 5.108: 80 12.111: 100 Plutarchus Moralia 52c: 150 192a: 182 348e: 174 657c: 61 677c: 112 710b: 155 747a: 102 Vitae Aemilius Paulus 6.3: 81 Agesilaus 21: 181 21.5: 180, 181 Antonius 59.8: 218 Flamininus 10: 192 Lysander 1.1: 154 Pericles 9.1–2: 124 27.2: 141 Theseus 29.3: 182

Plutarchus [cont.] [Proverbia] fr. 28: 31 Poliochus fr. 2: 226 Pollux 2.32: 154 2.162: 58 2.6.8: 63 6.75: 158 6.80: 138 7.26: 199 7.94: 156 10.38: 143 10.140: 154 Posidippus Galatēs: 124 Homoioi: 158 Fragmenta fr. 15: 139 fr. 15.2: 144 fr. 28: 210 Sannyrio fr. 3: 210 Semonides fr. 7.64: 224 Semus fr. 6a: 229 Seneca Epistulae 95.24–25: 226 108.15: 226 Sopater fr. 5: 30 Sophocles Ajax l. 20: 223 ll. 1291–1292: 37 Oedipus Tyrannus l. 1278: 230 Philoctetes l. 1235: 168 Trachiniae l. 295: 153 Fragmenta fr. 429: 73 fr. 483: 231 Sotades fr. 1: 162 fr. 1.2: 129

275

276 Sotades [cont.] fr. 1.14–16: 59 fr. 1.30: 135 Stesichorus Gēryonēis: 42 fr. 179a.1: 142 Stobaeus 3.1.172: 88 3.28.13: 153 Strabo 7.3.8: 46 8.6.11: 37 Suda δ 1178: 173 δ 1267: 59 ε 3762: 86 κ 2105: 170 σ 341: 142 σ 829: 153 σ 1082: 58 τ 1038: 132 Suetonius Vita Divi Augusti 99: 93 Theocritus Idyllia 29.1–2: 220 Theognis 1.83–86: 78 1.458: 107 Theophrastus Characteres 10: 167 10.1: 167 11.4: 143 15.5: 168 17.2: 168 De Pietate fr. 2.41–42: 230 Historia Plantarum 2.2.5: 138 2.6.1–8: 217 3.3.5: 217 3.10.4–5: 201 4.4.9: 99 4.6.16: 57 8.5.1: 141 8.6.5: 141

Index locorum Theopompus (com.) Aphroditē: 25 Mēdos: 123 Odysseus vel Odyssēs: 115 Pēnelopē: 115 Fragmenta fr. 4: 107 fr. 6.3: 134 fr. 14.1: 136 Theopompus (hist.) fr. 24: 181 fr. 124: 181 fr. 224: 45–46 fr. 236: 41, 46 fr. 259: 153 Thucydides 2.99.4–5: 79 3.82: 153 4.26.8: 141 4.60.2: 152 6.46.3: 100 7.14.2: 63 Timocles Dionysos: 25 Neaira: 201 Pontikos: 124 Sapphō: 193 Fragmenta fr. 3.1: 210 fr. 8: 103 fr. 8.10: 200 fr. 9.2: 104 fr. 9.6: 97 fr. 10: 200 fr. 12: 44 fr. 22: 61 fr. 25: 87 fr. 41: 119 Tzetzes Historiarum variarum chiliades 5.23.178–181: 173 Xenarchus fr. 4.6: 50 fr. 4.16: 163 fr. 5: 110, 111 Xenophanes fr. D54.2–3: 141

Index rerum et nominum notabiliorum Xenophon Agesilaus 5.5: 41 Anabasis 1.9.25: 101 2.3.14: 216 Cyropaedia 7.5.83: 168 De Re Equestri 12.13: 151 Historia Graeca (Hellenica) 6.1.9: 29 7.1.20: 46

277

Xenophon [cont.] Memorabilia 1.2.35: 198 1.6.13: 197 4.2.19: 154 Respublica Lacedaemonorum 1.3: 119 Symposium 3.1: 92 Zenobius 3.41: 145 5.94: 211

4. Index rerum et nominum notabiliorum Academy: 17, 146–150, 152, 154, 156 Alexander of Pherae: 15, 18, 26–29, 31 allegory: 15, 17, 32–33, 43–44, 76, 156, 185 Amphidromia festival: 47, 48, 51–52, 54–55, 59 anapaestic dimeter: 19–21, 27–29, 70, 76, 126–128, 137–138, 140, 187, 189, 190 Argos / Argives: 33–41, 60, 78, 177–178, 181, 200 bread: 27–31, 158, 199 Bryson of Heraclea: 18, 19, 146–147, 152–153, 157, 214 Celts: 43–44, 46, 69–70, 73–75, 82, 186–187 Chaeremon: 18, 104, 106–107 cheese: 47, 55–56, 136–137, 141 Clearchus of Soli: 145 cloaks: 146–147, 149, 156, 186–187, 190, 192 collective singular: 101–102, 140–141, 191 cooks / cooking: 15, 29–31, 48, 57, 58, 69, 74, 76, 77–78, 80–81, 128, 130, 131, 133, 139, 144, 178, 183, 186, 199, 210, 211, 223, 226 Cotys of Thrace: 18, 170, 171, 173–174 cuttlefish: 47, 54, 59, 60, 125, 134, 160, 164, 165, 211 desserts: 14, 97, 98, 101, 122, 128, 139–140, 143–144, 216, 217 diminutives: 162–167, 217

Dionysius I of Syracuse: 15–16, 18, 46, 159, 170–173 eggs: 18, 95–97, 102, 104, 215–216, 217–218 enjambment: 19, 27, 36, 38–39, 41, 231 fight / fighting: 34, 36–37, 39–41, 108, 226 fish: 14, 19, 21, 30, 44–45, 68–71, 74–75, 77–78, 81, 101, 122, 124, 125–136, 138, 139, 142, 160–161, 165, 178, 185–187, 189, 199, 200, 203–208, 209–211 food lists / catalogues: 14, 19–20, 28–29, 50, 52, 55–57, 59, 102, 124, 125, 127–135, 137–140, 142–144, 166–167, 178, 210, 216, 226 hapax (terms / expressions / meanings): 18–19, 63, 71, 73, 74, 81, 93, 98, 102, 104, 130, 139, 143, 144, 149, 152–153, 154, 155, 156, 218, 222, 223, 224, 231 Heracles: 16–17, 32–41, 42, 52, 56, 175, 178–179, 181–183 hetairai: 17–18, 25–26, 32, 52, 66, 83–89, 95, 104, 110, 114, 117–118, 131, 135, 143, 164, 168, 169–170, 179, 195, 198, 201–203, 209, 212, 216, 222 homoioteleuton: 19, 139, 144 lyre: 90–94 male prostitution: 194–197, 199 Menecrates: 18, 177–182 metonymy: 19, 53, 60–61, 185, 214, 230 milk: 95, 99, 102, 136, 141, 143, 230

278

Index rerum et nominum notabiliorum

mushrooms: 225–227 music: 65, 90–94 myth / myth-burlesque: 16–17, 18, 26, 32–33, 37–38, 42–44, 52, 56, 75, 79–80, 114, 117, 124, 146, 179, 182, 193, 201–202 Nectanebo II: 15, 17, 18, 33, 181 Nicostratus of Argos: 15, 18, 33–34, 36, 177–182 oaths: 117, 119, 120, 171, 172 octopus: 47, 54, 59–60, 102, 125, 134 parasites: 19, 97–98, 103–104, 123, 128, 136, 200 perfume: 95, 98, 99–100, 167, 221–224 Philip II of Macedon: 15–16, 17, 18, 36, 41, 44–47, 75–76, 78, 80, 82, 181, 194 philosophers: 17, 18, 83, 108–109, 148, 149–152, 154–156, 182, 189–192 pipes: 66, 90–94 Plato (phil.): 13, 17, 18, 106, 123, 146–157, 173, 191 politics: 12, 15–16, 28, 32–34, 38, 41, 42–44, 46, 65–66, 68, 75–76, 78, 79, 93, 106, 118, 123–124, 128, 131, 173, 190, 194, 197, 199 proverbs / proverbial: 31, 58, 101, 122–124, 136, 139, 144–145, 164, 166, 169, 182–183, 211, 219–220 recycling of comic material: 18, 21, 50, 76, 126, 188–190 rhetorical questions: 36, 39, 51–53, 73, 105–107, 117, 121, 179, 205, 209, 219

second tables: 97–98, 100–102, 139–141, 143, 216, 217–218 Sicilian cuisine: 56, 209, 211 slaves: 15, 26, 29, 36, 46, 52, 83, 104, 110–111, 117, 120, 162–164, 167, 168, 178, 184, 198, 205, 210, 216 soldiers: 20, 36, 74, 176–177, 180, 184, 189–190 sparrows: 84, 89 symposion / sympotic context: 13, 14–15, 19, 36, 62–66, 68, 98, 99, 102, 106, 108–109, 110, 118, 127–128, 139, 156, 162, 196, 215–216, 218, 219–220, 222–224, 228, 231 Theodorus: 18, 170–171, 174–175 Thessaly: 26–31, 37, 44, 45, 99 Thrasymachus of Chalcedon: 18, 19, 146–147, 153 Tiryns / Tirynthians: 34–40 wine Lesbian: 14, 19, 61, 100, 215, 227–228, 230 Pramnian: 14, 227–230 strong / unmixed: 39, 47, 51–52, 60–61, 110–113, 114, 116–120, 220 wine blends: 14, 61–62, 111, 116–120 wine-cups: 14–15, 19, 35, 47, 60–61, 104–109, 170–171, 218, 230, 231 wreaths: 47, 53–54