FrC 19.1 Antiphanes frr. 1-100 [1 ed.] 9783949189654, 9783949189630

Citation preview

Fragmenta Comica Antiphanes Agroikos – Ephesia

Titelei_VUR P0019041_FrC_19.1_Olson.qxp_. 17.11.22 17:29 Seite 1

Titelei_VUR P0019041_FrC_19.1_Olson.qxp_. 17.11.22 17:29 Seite 2

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

Band 19.1 · Antiphanes frr. 1–100

Titelei_VUR P0019041_FrC_19.1_Olson.qxp_. 17.11.22 17:29 Seite 3

S. Douglas Olson

Antiphanes Agroikos – Ephesia Introduction, Translation and Commentary

Verlag Antike

Titelei_VUR P0019041_FrC_19.1_Olson.qxp_. 17.11.22 17:29 Seite 4

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

Die Bände der Reihe Fragmenta Comica sind aufgeführt unter: http://www.komfrag.uni-freiburg.de/baende_liste Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. © 2023 Verlag Antike, Robert-Bosch-Breite 10, D-37079 Göttingen, ein Imprint der Brill-Gruppe (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland; Brill Österreich GmbH, Wien, Österreich) Koninklijke Brill NV umfasst die Imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike, V&R unipress und Wageningen Academic. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Umschlaggestaltung: disegno visuelle kommunikation, Wuppertal

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-949189-65-4

For my sweet, loving, smart and beautiful wife Rachel

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Testimonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragments Ἄγροικος (Agroikos) “The Rustic” . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀδελφαί (Adelphai) “Sisters” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἄδωνις (Adônis) “Adonis” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀθάμας (Athamas) “Athamas” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Αἰγύπτιοι (Aigyptioi) “The Egyptians” . . . . . . . . . . . Αἴολος (Aiolos) “Aiolos”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀκέστρια (Akestria) “The Seamstress” . . . . . . . . . . Ἀκοντιζομένη (Akontizomenê) “The Girl who is Hit by a Javelin” . Ἀλείπτρια (Aleiptria) “The Female Anointer”. . . . . . . Ἁλιευομένη (Halieuomenê) “The Girl who Went Fishing” . . . Ἄλκηστις (Alkêstis) “Alcestis” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀνασῳζόμενος (Anasôizomenos) “The Man who is Being Rescued” . Ἀνδρομέδα (Andromeda) “Andromeda” . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀνθρω]πογονία (Anthrôpogonia) “The Birth of Mankind” . . . . . . Ἀνταῖος (Antaios) “Antaios” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἄντεια (Anteia) “Anteia” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

11 13 32

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

40

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

63

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

64

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

67

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

72

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

74

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

81

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

91

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

95

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Ἀντερῶσα (Anterôsa) “The Female Rival in Love” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀποκαρτερῶν (Apokarterôn) “The Man who is Starving Himself to Death” . . . . Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (Argyriou aphanismos) “The Disappearance of Money” . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀρκάς (Arkas) “The Man from Arkadia” or “Arkas” . . . . . . . . . Ἁρπαζομένη (Harpazomenê) “The Girl who is Being Kidnapped” . . . . . . . . . Ἀρχεστράτη (Archestratê) “Archestratê”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἄρχων (Archôn) “The Archon” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀσκληπιός (Asklêpios) “Asklepios”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἄσωτοι (Asôtoi) “The Spendthrifts” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Αὐλητής (Aulêtês) “The Piper” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι (Aulêtris ê Didymai) “The Pipe-girl or Twin Girls” . . . . . . . . . . . . . Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν (Hautou erôn) “The Man who is in Love with Himself ” . . . . . . . Ἀφροδίσιος (Aphrodisios) “The Man who Loves Sex” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἀφροδίτης γοναί (Aphroditês gonai) “The Birth of Aphrodite” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Βάκχαι (Bakchai) “The Bacchants”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Βοιώτιος vel Βοιωτία (Boiôtios vel Boiôtia) “The Man from Boiotia” or “The Girl from Boiotia” Βομβυλιός (Bombylios) “The Growler”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Βούσιρις (Bousiris) “Bousiris” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Βουταλίων (Boutaliôn) “Boutaliôn” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Βυζάντιος (Byzantios) “The Man from Byzantium” . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . 148 . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Γάμος vel Γάμοι (Gamos vel Gamoi) “The Marriage or The Wedding Celebration” Γανυμήδης (Ganymêdês) “Ganymêdês” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Γλαῦκος (Glaukos) “Glaukos” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Γόργυθος (Gorgythos) “Gorgythos” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Δευκαλίων (Deukaliôn) “Deukaliôn” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Δηλία (Dêlia) “The Girl from Delos” . . . . . . . . . . . . . Δίδυμοι (Didymoi) “Twin Brothers” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Διπλάσιοι (Diplasioi) “The Doubles” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Δραπεταγωγός (Drapetagôgos) “The Slave-catcher” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Δυσέρωτες (Dyserôtes) “Men for Whom Love Proved Dangerous”. . Δύσπρατος (Dyspratos) “The Man who was Difficult to Sell” . . . . . Δωδωνίς (Dôdônis) “The Girl from Dodone” . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἐνεά (Enea) “The Girl who was Dumb” . . . . . . . . . . . Ἐπιδαύριος (Epidaurios) “The Man from Epidauros” . . . . . . . . . . Ἐπίκληρος (Epiklêros) “The Heiress” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Εὐθύδικος (Euthydikos) “Euthydikos” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Εὔπλοια (Euploia) “Euploia” or “Smooth Sailing” . . . . . . . . . Ἐφεσία (Ephesia) “The Girl from Ephesus” . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

Addenda et Corrigenda in Vols. II–III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

11

Preface This is the final volume of my Fragmenta comica edition of the comic poet Antiphanes, although technically the first in the three. Most of the work on this portion of the commentary was completed at Bilkent University in Ankara, the University of Bari, the University of Freiburg, the Fondation Hardt and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, as well as the University of Minnesota. Like the volumes that preceded it, this one is dedicated to my lovely wife Rachel, who will soon be living with me in our new home in Athens. This is likely to be my final volume of fragments for this series. I would therefore like to explicitly acknowledge my gratitude to my good friend Bernhard Zimmermann for his leadership of the project, as well as to all my other Komfrag colleagues, in Freiburg and elsewhere, for our many years of lively and productive work together. S. Douglas Olson Bari, 29 September 2022

13

Introduction 1. Name and Identity

Although his work survives today only in fragments, Antiphanes (PA 1219; PAA 137260) was perhaps the most important and successful 4th-century comic playwright, at least before Menander (who was first victorious at the Lenaia in 316 BCE). Hesychius (as excerpted in the Suda; = test. 1) reports that Antiphanes wrote 365 comedies, or perhaps 280, while the anonymous Byzantine de Com. (test. 2) gives the total as 260 plays.1 Test. 1 adds that he took the prize 13 times, and test. 4 supports this, showing that 8 of his victories were at the Lenaia festival, meaning that the other 5 must have been at the City Dionysia. Antiphanes’ closest rival in regard to number of plays is the slightly later Alexis, who is said to have written 245 (Alex. test. 1), and who was victorious between 2 and 4 times at the Lenaia (Alex. test. 8). Anaxandrides for his part is supposed to have composed only 65 plays but to have taken the prize 10 times, 3 times at the Lenaia and 7 times at the City Dionysia (Anaxandr. test. 1; 6). Over 100 of Antiphanes’ titles survive, and the number of comedies attributed to him and Alexis is so enormous—at least 5 per year, even if we assume long and consistently active careers—that there can be little doubt that both men, and doubtless many of their contemporaries as well, produced texts for performance not just at the major festivals in Athens but elsewhere as well. Antiphanes’ family and personal background are almost entirely obscure, and the confusion stretches back to the ancient world. Test. 1 reports that his father’s name was either Dêmophanês or Stephanos; that his mother’s name was Oinoê; that he came from Kios (an obscure city in Bithynia, on the southern coast of the Black Sea), where he also died, or from Smyrna or perhaps Rhodes; that some authorities claimed that his parents were slaves; and that he also had a son named Stephanos who was a comic poet. Test. 2 as well reports that Antiphanes’ father and son were named Stephanos, but identifies him as an Athenian, while acknowledging that he was said by some to have been from Larissa in Thessaly and to have been made a citizen by Demosthenes, i. e. sometime after the mid-350s BCE or so. Test. 2 also puts Antiphanes’ death on Chios. Test. 1’s “Kios” might be an error for test. 2’s “Chios”, or the latter might be a banalization of the former; the claim that Antiphanes had a servile background might well be slander mined from a play by a competitor, given the high level of literacy that a career as a comic 1

For the number of plays, see Konstantakos 2000b. 177–9, who regards the figure of 365 as “too large to be credible”. But all the numbers are (from a 5th-century perspective, at least) strikingly large, and it is unclear what the objective basis could be for judging that Antiphanes might have written 260 or 280 plays, but not 365.

14

Antiphanes

poet must have required; and Stephanos is elsewhere said to have been Alexis’ son rather than Antiphanes’ (Alex. test. 1). By the 4th century, however, many of the poets who staged plays in Athens were originally from elsewhere—Alexis, for example, was supposedly from Thurii—and the repeated references to Antiphanes’ non-Athenian origins, combined with the confusion about his family background, tends to support the notion that he too was an immigrant.2 If so, he may have begun his theatrical career in his city of origin and come to Athens only after a series of successes there, offering a possible means of resolving the main puzzle in his personal chronology (§ 2).

2. Chronology and Career The anonymous de Com. (test. 2) claims that Antiphanes began to stage plays “after the 88th Olympiad” (= 388/4 BCE); the Suda, excerpting Hesychius (test. 1), reports that he died at age 74; and fr. 27 (n.), from Halieuomenê, refers to numerous contemporary Athenians who seem to belong to the late 330s or very early 320s BCE. This information combined places Antiphanes’ birth ca. 404 BCE and suggests that—like e. g. Aristophanes and Eupolis a few generations earlier—he began producing plays as a very young man, and died shortly after Halieuomenê was staged. The Athenian Victors List (test. 4) puts his first victory at the Lenaia probably in the late 370s or 360s BCE, i. e. ca. 10 to 15 years after the date the de Com. gives for his first comedy. This is a striking gap, given what seems to have been Antiphanes’ extraordinary dominance in the theatrical competitions thereafter, and scholars have made repeated efforts to close it. The manuscripts of the Suda (test. 1) claim that Antiphanes γέγονε in the 93rd Olympiad (= 408/4 BCE). In the Hesychian Lives, this would normally mean “had his floruit” and would refer to the poet’s first victory (perhaps specifically at the City Dionysia). If it means instead “was born”, the date matches the one that can be calculated on the basis of the other evidence (above). Bernhardy instead emended the manuscripts’ ργ΄ (“93rd”) to γ΄ (“83rd”) allowing γέγονε to have its normal sense and putting Antiphanes’ first victory approximately where the inscription has it, in 368/4 BCE. Both interpretations are consistent with our other dates for him, and neither offers any obvious explanation of his seeming early lack of professional success.3 The de Com.’s sources are obscure. But in this case it is worth contemplating the possibility that what it means is that Antiphanes staged his first play on Chios or wherever he was from (see § 1) in the late 380s BCE, and 2 3

The name itself is common both at Athens and elsewhere, and thus offers no help in determining where the poet’s family was from. See also Konstantakos 2011. 161–2. See in general Konstantakos 2000b. 174–7, who stresses the fragility of the evidence and of the presuppositions that help shape the interpretation of it.

Introduction

15

that after he spent the first 5–10 years of his career there, he moved to Athens for the much more substantial opportunities and rewards the greatest theatrical city in the world had to offer.

3. Transmission and Reception That many of Antiphanes’ plays were performed outside of the Theater of Dionysus in Athens, and probably outside of Attica altogether, seems guaranteed by their sheer quantity (§ 1) and is hinted at by certain peculiarities of form (§ 7). At some point, large numbers of the comedies must have been collected in the Library at Alexandria and perhaps in other libraries as well, where scholars were able to consult them. But there is little evidence that Antiphanes was ever taught in schools or widely read e. g. in Roman Egypt,4 unlike the poets who wrote a generation or two earlier and later, such as Cratinus, Aristophanes and Eupolis, on the one hand, and Menander and Diphilus, on the other. Fragments of Antiphanes’ plays are preserved in over 20 sources. Most of what we have of his comedies, however, comes from the Deipnosophists of Athenaeus of Naucratis (ca. 200 CE), who preserves almost 190 fragments, some of them 15–20 lines in length or even more.5 Valuable as this material is, our dependence on a single source has substantial and probably deleterious consequences for our understanding of the plays themselves; see § 4 and the observations of Arnott 2010. 281–2. Athenaeus’ own sources are obscure and generally untraceable. There can nonetheless be little doubt that most of what he passes on is not simply a product of his own reading of the original sources, but is instead drawn from older Hellenistic or Roman-era scholarship, meaning that Antiphanes must have been widely cited there. This impression is strengthened by the substantial number of fragments preserved by Pollux (33), by sources such as Photius (11 fragments) that rely in large part on work by older lexicographers and grammarians, and by the broad scatter of individual citations in authorities as diverse as the scholia to Lucian, Clement of Alexandria, the Et.Gen. and Zonaras (all a single fragment apiece, like most authorities other than the ones mentioned above). The Antiatticist also appeals repeatedly to Antiphanes (28 fragments), clearly regarding him as both a legitimate source of 4th-century usage and a reservoir of unusual forms and meanings of individual lexical items. The other main source of transmission for bits and pieces of Antiphanes’ plays is the paroemiographers, including not just Stobaeus 4

5

A papyrus from the 3rd century CE preserves fr. 34 (portions of three lines, along with the second half of Antiphanes’ name and the title of the play), but must be from a florilegium. Other fragments of the poet might of course lurk unidentified among the adespota papyri. For Athenaeus as a source of comic fragments, see in general Nesselrath 1990. 65–79.

16

Antiphanes

(46 fragments) but various papyrus fragments of gnomologia that represent earlier phases of the same, now largely vanished tradition (3 fragments). This material is consistently moralizing and—aside from occasional points of interest having to do with word-choice or imagery—rarely sheds substantial light on the action of the comedies themselves (although see § 4).6

4. Themes and Motifs No complete plays by Antiphanes or any of his contemporaries are preserved, and in very few cases do we have more than two or three fragments—most often the number is one—from an individual comedy whose name we know. As a result, we rarely have even the hypothetical possibility of reconstructing the onstage action of a mid-4th-century comic drama. Instead, we have inherited a handful of words or lines, occasionally featuring multiple speakers, that allow us to catch glimpses of specific scenes and situations. In addition, a large number of titles have been passed on to us attached both to otherwise mostly lost comedies by Antiphanes, Alexis, Eubulus and others, and to fully or partially preserved plays by Menander and the Roman poets Plautus and Terence. When combined, this material allows for a number of broad general conclusions about the character of mid-4th-century comedy, even if these are inevitably less detailed and revealing than we might want them to be. As noted in § 3, the fragments of Antiphanes’ plays, and the longer fragments in particular, come overwhelmingly from Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists. The more substantial of these preserve an interesting but limited range of scenes: preparations for dinner parties and symposia, and for associated shopping expeditions, or reports of such expeditions (frr. 69; 101; 104; 122; 124; 126; 150; 204; cf. fr. 216); market scenes (frr. 27; 36); confrontations between cooks or similar characters, many of them seemingly addicted to elaborate language, on the one hand, and individuals hosting or attending parties, on the other (frr. 1; 51; 55; 169; 180; 221); onstage dinner parties and symposia (frr. 4; 57; 85; 111; 125; 134; 137; 161; 163; 197); after-the-fact descriptions of such events (frr. 3; 61; 81–2; 143; 172; 183; 280); and two elaborate riddle scenes, one or both of which might easily be set at a symposium (frr. 192; 194). In addition, we repeatedly encounter what appear to be a set of stock comic characters: not just the overbearing cook (above), but the clumsy

6

The situation is very similar with Alexis, the other most substantially preserved mid-4th-century Athenian comic poet: the vast majority of the fragments are preserved by Athenaeus, with the balance coming largely from the Antiatticist, Pollux and Stobaeus. This is largely true for Anaxandrides as well, although his contemporary Aristotle also knows and cites him. For Pollux as a source of comic fragments, see in general Nesselrath 1990. 79–102.

Introduction

17

rustic (frr. 21; 69; 127), the know-it-all slave (frr. 69; 75; 124), the witty fishmonger (fr. 27), the learned doctor (fr. 47), the self-interested and elaborately self-assured parasite/flatterer (frr. 80; 142; 193), the boastful soldier (frr. 96; 136; 200), the filthy, skinny, nonsense-talking philosopher (cf. frr. 120; 133) and the drunken old woman (frr. 25; 47; 161). The character of this material reflects Athenaeus’ own interest in food and dinner parties, cooks, parasites, banquet procedures, riddles and the like, and our profound reliance on him makes it difficult to know if there was more to Antiphanes—and presumably other poets of the same period, who are even less well preserved—than this. But a few bits of additional information drawn from Athenaeus and elsewhere suggest that there was. The fragments of Antiphanes’ comedies preserved by Athenaeus and other sources, first of all, include a scatter of rather different material, which is generally quoted for reasons only peripherally related to its content. These include four scraps of mythological travesty: frr. 19 (from Aiolos; preserved by Athenaeus because it references wine and its morally debilitating effects); 74 (from Ganymêdês; preserved by a scholium on Euripides in connection with the question of Ganymêdês’ parentage); 75 (also from Ganymêdês; preserved by Athenaeus because it touches on the use of riddles at drinking parties); and 104 (from Thamyras; preserved by Athenaeus because it mentions eels from the Strymon River). There are also a few lines from what seem to be two prologues: frr. 166 (from Neottis, telling the story of a kidnapped and enslaved brother-sister pair; quoted by one of Athenaeus’ characters in order to abuse another) and 210 (from Hydria, describing how a man fell in love with a respectable courtesan who moved in next door; likewise quoted by one of Athenaeus’ characters in order to abuse another). Finally, we have a scattering of fragments—many of them quoted by Stobaeus rather than Athenaeus—that involve a cluster of matters that might almost be described in a shorthand fashion as “Menandrian”: returns home after time abroad (frr. 88; 177); remarks about being in love and the impossibility of disguising the fact (fr. 232); father and son relationships (frr. 167; 203; 260–1); comments about the perils of wives and marriage (frr. 58; 220), and the attractions and dangers of courtesans (frr. 2; 101); old men’s complaints (frr. 94; 250–1); praise of the joy that comes from doing favors for a friend (fr. 226); and references to disasters borne or anticipated, and to the fragility of happiness (frr. 54; 86; 98; 103; 202). Limited in quantity though this material is, it suggests that the bulk of what is preserved in Athenaeus offers a less than comprehensive image of Antiphanes’ plays. That impression is further strengthened by the titles in light of what we know of those of other comic playwrights. How the titles we have for individual comedies were chosen is unclear, at least in the case of Greek poets; Plautus and Terence, by contrast, often announce the names of their plays in their prologues. The practice with 4th-century comedies is nonetheless consistent enough to leave little doubt that either there were standard ways of dealing with such matters (i. e. the poets chose the titles we have, but did so in a generally standard manner) or the titles were set by later scholars who had

18

Antiphanes

a general overview of the entire comic corpus and proceeded in a fashion that seemed helpful and efficient to them. Regardless of how titles were awarded, at any rate, the vast majority of Antiphanes’ fall into a restricted number of categories also used for the plays of other comic poets: (in rough order of frequency) the names of mythological figures (e. g. Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις) or—far less common— mythological events (Ἀφροδίτης γοναί); occupations both male and female (e. g. Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής); ethnics, local adjectives and the like both male and female and both singular and (less common) plural (e. g. Αἰγύπτιοι, Βοιώτιος vel Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐπιδαύριος, Κᾶρες and Λυδός); personal names, both male (e. g. Γόργυθος, Εὐθύδικος, Κλεοφάνης and Λεπτινίσκος) and female (e. g. Μέλιττα, Νεοττίς, Φιλῶτις and Χρυσίς; seemingly always courtesans); adjectives of all sorts, generally referring to a man’s character (e. g. Ἄγροικος, Ἀφροδίσιος, Βουταλίων and Φιλέταιρος) or to an eccentric group to which two or more individuals belong (Ἀδελφαί, Ὁμοπάτριοι and Πρόγονοι, on the one hand, and Δίδυμοι, Διπλάσιοι, Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι and Ὁμώνυμοι, on the other); participles describing what an individual—in other authors, occasionally a group—does or endures (e. g. Ἀκοντιζομένη, Ἁρπαζομένη and Ἀποκαρτερῶν); and objects often easily interpreted as recognition tokens or something in which such tokens might be kept (e. g. Βομβυλιός, Κώρυκος and Ὑδρία). The precise relationship between these titles and the content of individual plays is obscure; see further below. But those preserved for e. g. Alexis, Eubulus and Ephippus mostly fall into the same groups, suggesting that whatever information is preserved here is, broadly speaking, representative of mid-4th-century comedy generally. The most obvious divergence of the titles from the general impression of Antiphanes’ plays created by what we find in Athenaeus is the abundance of what is probably to be understood as mythological travesty, i. e. traditional mythological stories treated onstage in amusing or ridiculous ways.7 Material of this sort is almost entirely absent from what we have of Menander at the end of the 4th century,8 although the slightly earlier Philemon and Diphilus apparently continued to produce it. Put another way, the evidence of the titles suggests that frr. 19; 74–5; 104 (noted above) are probably far more representative of the corpus of Antiphanes’ comedies as a whole than the sort of material generally selected by Athenaeus makes them appear to be. Even more intriguing and suggestive are the parallels of the non-mythological titles with what we know of Menander, on the one hand, and of Plautus and Terence, on the other. Substantial remains of the text of about 20 comedies by Menander are preserved, along with a considerable body of mosaic evidence and a large number of other titles and fragments. As far as one can tell, the plays are all family dramas or love-intrigues of one sort or another, offering varying mixes of callow and/or

7 8

Cf. Plautus’ Amphitryo, the only preserved play of this sort. Only the title Trophônios, which is perhaps the name of the prologue-speaker.

Introduction

19

misguided young men, angry or accommodating fathers, over-involved or utterly unreliable slaves, difficult wives and prying neighbors, female love-interests of all kind (many seemingly unacceptable for marriage for one reason or another), rapes, unexpected births and abandoned babies, lost and ultimately reunited family members, and the like. The same is true of the comedies of Plautus and Terence, who are adopting Greek originals by Philemon, Diphilus, Menander, Apollodorus of Carystus and other poets; the sole exception to the rule is Plautus’ Amphitryo, which adopts similar patterns for use in a mythological travesty. The titles of Menander’s plays are nonetheless highly diverse, and those whose specific content is known to some degree include examples called after a male occupation (Γεωργός); ethnics, local adjectives and the like both male and female and both singular and plural (Ἴμβριοι, Καρχηδόνιος, Λευκαδία, Περινθία, Σαμία, Σικυώνιος vel Σικυώνιοι); adjectives referring to a man’s character (Δύσκολος, Μισούμενος); participles describing what individuals do or endure (Δις ἐξαπατῶν, Ἐπιτρέποντες, Θεοφορουμένη, Περικειρομένη, Συναριστῶσαι); an object that serves as a recognition token (Ἀσπίς; probably also Ἐγχειρίδιον); and the name of a divine prologue-speaker (Ἥρως). Put another way, the wide range of title-styles for Menander’s comedies appears to disguise an overall lack of diversity of plottype, and e. g. The Shield (an object that brings about a recognition) could just as easily have been entitled Tychê (after the divine prologue-speaker); Deceiving Twice (referring to a slave’s actions that help drive the plot) could just as easily have been entitled Sisters (after the two courtesans at the center of the story) or The Soldier (after the rival lover); Herôs (the prologue-speaker) could just as easily have been entitled Twins (the characters about whom the plot apparently revolves); and The Man who is Hated could just as easily have been entitled The Soldier (the same man described another way) or The Sword (the object that serves as a recognition token). Nor are the persons, objects or actions that serve as titles of Menander’s plays always crucial to the story as a whole, as one might expect: the farmer of Γεωργός seems not to be involved in the central love-story; the lyre-player of Κιθαριστής may well simply be the father of the girl Moschion is love with; and the arbitration scene that gives Ἐπιτρέποντες its title is in many ways peripheral to the plot, as is the meeting for lunch that gives Συναριστῶσαι its name, as Plautus’ adaptation of the play in his Cistellaria makes clear.9 That this disconnect between the title of a play and its most important plot element or elements is not merely a consequence of a modern misunderstanding of the original texts is apparent from the practice of the Roman comic poets. Terence mostly calls his plays after their Greek originals, although Apollodorus of Carystus’ Ἐπιδικαζόμενος becomes his Phormio. Plautus, on the other hand, seems generally to alter the titles of his originals: Casina (the name of a slave girl who is the love-object of both father and son, but who nev-

9

Cf. Demophilus’ Onagus (The Donkey-driver), named after a character who, Plautus’ adaptation of the play in his Asinaria shows, was almost entirely incidental to the plot.

20

Antiphanes

er actually appears onstage) is based on Diphilus’ Κληρούμενοι (Men who are Casting Lots); Cistellaria (referring to the vessel in which the recognition tokens are stored) is based on Menander’s Συναριστῶσαι (Women who Have Lunch Together); Miles gloriosus (referring to the rival in love who must be duped and defeated) is based on an original called Ἀλαζών (The Bullshitter); Stichus (the name of a slave character) is based on Menander’s Ἀδελφοί (Brothers); Trinummus (referring to a deceptive payment of three coins that helps drive the plot) is based on Philemon’s Θησαυρός (The Treasure); and Vidularia is based on Diphilus’ Σχεδία (The Raft). In the absence of more substantial and direct evidence, all of this suggests that the names of Antiphanes’ plays ought probably to be interpreted in the same way. The obvious parallels for titles such as Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Κορινθία and Λευκαδία are Menandrian comedies such as Λευκαδία, Περινθία and Σαμία (cf. Ἀνδρία, Βοιωτία, Θεττάλη, Καρίνη, Μεσσηνία, Μηλία, Ὀλυνθία), in which “The Girl from …” is consistently a love-interest of a central male character, and even if she originally seems not to be an Athenian by birth, it eventually emerges that she is in fact eligible for marriage. But Menandrian comedies with many other types of titles were also romances or family dramas of the same sort, and there is no reason to think that the same was not true of similarly titled plays by Antiphanes, particularly given the scatter of strikingly “Menandrian” elements in the fragments noted above. Thus for e. g. Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, cf. Menander’s Γεωργός; for e. g. Αἰγύπτιοι, Ἐπιδαύριος and Λυδός, cf. Menander’s Ἴμβριοι, Καρχηδόνιος and Σικυώνιος vel Σικυώνιοι; for e. g. Ἄγροικος, Ἀφροδίσιος and Φιλέταιρος, cf. Menander’s Δύσκολος and Μισούμενος; for e. g. Ἀκοντιζομένη, Ἁρπαζομένη and Ἀποκαρτερῶν, cf. e.g. Menander’s Δις ἐξαπατῶν, Ἐπιτρέποντες and Περικειρομένη; and for e. g. Βομβυλιός, Κώρυκος and Ὑδρία, cf. Menander’s Ἀσπίς.10 Once again, the implication is that Athenaeus has unintentionally led us wrong. Antiphanes’ plays certainly featured extended discussion of various aspects of dinner parties and symposia for which it is difficult to find substantial parallels in Menander, Plautus and Terence. It also featured stock characters (especially cooks) who often seem to be put to little more than perfunctory use later on. Elements of its language are different from what we find in Menander in particular (see § 6), and its apparent deep interest in mythological travesty seems to have been mostly abandoned by the end of the century. Whatever Menander’s—by all accounts enormous—contribution to the development of the comic genre was, however, he most likely did not invent tangled domestic dramas featuring love-affairs (frr.

10

The relatively small number of substantially preserved plays of Menander includes no examples of a comedy called after a male name, a female name, a family relationship in the plural, or pairs of individuals likely to have been confused. But among the plays for which we have only titles and scattered fragments, note Ἀδελφοί and Ἀνεψιοί, and Δίδυμοι, respectively.

Introduction

21

210; 232), missing siblings (fr. 166), complicated power struggles between fathers and sons (frr. 260–1), and the like.11

5. Kômôidoumenoi12 The following historical or quasi-historical individuals are mentioned by name in the fragments of Antiphanes: – Batalos, piper (Stephanis #519): see Αὐλητής Introduction – Chairephôn, parasite (PA 15189; PAA 975770): fr. dub. 197.3 – Demosthenes, Athenian politician (384–322 BCE; PA 3595; PAA 318615): fr. 167.3; cf. Αὐλητής Introduction; fr. dub. 288 – Diogeitôn, glutton (PAA 325590): fr. 188.17–18 – Euripides, 5th-century tragic poet: fr. 205.7–8 and perhaps fr. 111.5; alternatively, the Euripides in question in the latter passage may be PAA 444547, who is mocked as a drunk by other comic poets – Euthynos, probably a large-scale importer of saltfish (PAA 433922): fr. 126.3 – Harmodios of Aphidnai, late 6th-century tyrannicide (PA 2232; PAA 203425): frr. 1.3; 85.5 – Heraclitus of Ephesus, late 6th/early 5th-century philosopher (22 D.–K.): fr. 111.3 – Kallimedôn, Athenian politician (PA 8032; PAA 558185; active from the 340s BCE or so and sent into exile in 319 BCE): frr. 27.7; 77.2 – Kallisthenês, Athenian politician, (Berve 1926 #I.410; PA 8090; PAA 559815; active in public life from the mid-350s to at least the mid-330s BCE: fr. 27.10 – Kallistratos son of Kallikratês of the deme Aphidna, Athenian politician (PA 8157; PAA 561575; active in public life from the late 390s BCE, d. 355 BCE): fr. 293.4 – Kôbios (likely a nickname), wealthy man? (PAA 588990): fr. 27.19 – Matôn, glutton and politician? (PAA 635840): fr. 117.2 11

12

The Suda attributes the innovation to Anaxandrides (πρῶτος οὗτος ἔρωτας καὶ παρθένων φθορὰς εἰσήγαγεν, “he was the first to introduce on stage love-affairs and seductions of maidens”; = Anaxandr. test. 1). Whatever one makes of this (see Millis 2015. 20–1), Antiphanes was probably not far behind. It is tempting to think that elements of this plot-style were incorporated into the latter’s mythological travesties as well, so that e. g. Aiolos might have been both a comic reworking of Euripides’ homonymous tragedy and a domestic drama of love, rape, an unintended pregnancy, a confused father—and, one assumes, some sort of unexpectedly happy ending. I take the courtesan-characters who lend their names to a number of Antiphanes’ plays (e. g. Μέλιττα, Νεοττίς, Φιλῶτις and Χρυσίς) to be fictional characters. The same is true of various male names such as Γόργυθος, Εὐθύδικος, Κλεοφάνης and Λεπτινίσκος that cannot be tied to specific known historical persons.

22

Antiphanes

– Mêtras of Chios, benefactor of the Athenian people (PAA 650685 (add)): fr. 219.4 – Misgolas son of Naukratês of the deme Kollyte, pederast (PA 10225; PAA 654265; b. 390 BCE, attested until ca. 330 BCE): fr. 27.14 – Phertatos, dealer in magical objects (PAA 920450): fr. 175.5 – Philip II, king of Macedon (ruled 359–336 BCE): fr. 122.15 – Philoxenos of Cythera or Leukas, dithyrambic poet: frr. 205.8; 207.1–6 – Phoinikidês, glutton (PAA 962335): frr. 50.3; 188.4 – Pythionikê, courtesan (Berve 1926 #I.676; PAA 793690; d. 324 BCE): fr. 27.20 – Sappho, late 7th-century poetess: title-character – Seleukos I Nikator (successor of Alexander “the Great” and founder of the Seleucid dynasty (Berve #I.700): fr. dub. 185.4 – Sinôpê, courtesan (PAA 823225): frr. 23; 27.12; 43; 114; 168 – Sophocles I, tragic poet? or his grandson Sophocles II (TrGF 62)?: fr. 1.6 – Taureas, glutton (PAA 875865): fr. 188.4 – Theanô, courtesan (PAA 501887): fr. 27.24 – Theariôn, baker (PAA 501987): fr. 174.7 – Theodektês son of Aristandros of Phaselis, tragic poet (PAA 504645; TrGF 72): fr. 111.4 – Timôn, legendary misanthrope (PAA 890660): title-character – Timotheos, dithyrambic poet: fr. 110.2 – Tithymallos (a nickname), parasite and supposed pauper (PAA 882825): fr. 208.2 Note in addition – Alexander, king of Pherai (ruled 369–early 350s BCE): mentioned in test. 8 – Alexander “the Great”, king of Macedon (reigned 336–323): seemingly referenced in fr. 81.5 – Peron, perfume-maker (PAA 772900): seemingly referenced in fr. 37.1 – Pheidôn (PA 14184; PAA 919920), Pamphilos (PA 11555; PAA 762950) and Pheidippos (PA 14163; PAA 919290) (active by the 320s BCE or earlier), sons of the metic saltfish-dealer Chairephilos of Paiania (PA 15187; PAA 975710): referenced in fr. 27.22 – Philiskos, tyrant of Abydos (PA 14430; PAA 930870; d. 360 BCE): taken by Kock to be a title character

6. Language Readers more accustomed to late 5th-century comedy (the so-called “Old Comedy”), and to Aristophanic comedy in particular, who encounter the fragments of Antiphanes for the first time will likely be struck above all else by what they do not contain. There is no evidence of a parabasis, and no evidence at all

Introduction

23

of choral song (see § 7 Form). Overt obscenity is lacking.13 Sex is referred to in an oblique fashion (e. g. frr. 101, where the speaker declares that he likes women and enjoys prostitutes, but then describes only getting a foot-massage from them; 205.4–5, where someone says “It’s nice to have a change from every activity—except from one”, but leaves what he means implicit), even if the constant reference to courtesans (see fr. 2 n.) and titles such as Μοιχοί and Παιδεραστής leave no doubt that various aspects of sexual activity were a central concern of many of the plays. Abusive language is generally in short supply (although note e. g. frr. 9 καθαρὸς δοῦλος; 65 κνισολοιχός; 80.8 βάσκανος; 89.5 γάστρις; 111.2 τὸν βάκηλον; 212B.1 (if by Antiphanes) ὁ πόρνος οὗτος). References to contemporary political events and personalities are rare and vague (frr. 115 with n.; 122.14–15; 167; 194.8–12). And non-Athenian characters seem to have appeared onstage, but there is only one trace of such a person using non-Attic vocabulary (fr. 97 σφύραινα; contrast 127 and 170, seemingly words spoken by a Boiotian and a Persian, respectively). These impressions must to some degree reflect the nature of our sources (see § 3–4): we have no complete plays by Antiphanes and no papyri, and thus no truly broad and comprehensive view of his poetry, as a consequence of which the material preserved for us is limited by the specific cultural and philological interests of Athenaeus, Pollux and Stobaeus in particular. But chance selection may well also have played a role, in the sense that we have occasional hints that the plays included e. g. long comic catalogues of a typically 4th-century sort (frr. 66; 71–2; 90; 130–1; 140; 191; 233; 243; 273; 295), even if no extended examples survive to prove the point (contrast e. g. Mnesim. fr. 4; Anaxandr. fr. 42). Most of the language of the surviving fragments of Antiphanes can be described as colloquial or prosaic in character. Put another way, the language of the poet’s characters seems by and large to reflect—albeit in metrical form—a combination of important elements of how ordinary people actually spoke (e. g. compressed or incomplete but still readily comprehensible syntax; simple oaths; figurative meanings of words and homely expressions; formal diminutives given a wide range of other senses; casual greetings; informal intensifiers; insults; interjections and affirmation formulae; figures of speech; casual noun-formation strategies)14

13 14

Note a single riddling reference in fr. 196. e.g. (from Vol. I alone) frr. 4.2 ellipse; 5.2 ὀρτυγίου ψυχὴν ἔχων; 6 diminutive κραμβίδιον; 7 ῥαγδαῖος of a person; 10 μικρὸν μικρόν (asyndetic doubling); 21.2 εἰς εὐτέλειαν meaning “inexpensively”; 25.2–3 compression; 27.6 νὴ Δί(α); 27.12/13 ἤδη as intensifier and τουτονί with deictic iota; 27.18 σφόδρα; 35.1 ὦ τᾶν; 42.3 νοῦν ἔχειν meaning “be sensible”; 47.2 γεννικός; 51 impatient μανθάνεις; 54.6 κοινῇ in the sense “in common”; 57.17 adverbial τίνα τρόπον; used alone as a question; 57.18 〈ὦ〉 Πόσειδον; 57.20 αὐτόσ(ε); 69.14 βρῶμα (< βιβρώσκω); 75.12 κομιδῇ γε used as an affirmative response; 75.13 τὼ χεῖρε (υse of the dual for body parts); 79 vaguely summarizing ἢ τοιοῦτό τι; 82.2 ἴσως with numbers or numerical adverbs meaning “approximately, maybe, or so”; 82.3 σιτία; 83.1 περιπατέω; 85.1 οὐδὲ ἕν, οὐδὲ εἷς, μηδὲ ἕν and μηδὲ εἷς as emphatic forms;

24

Antiphanes

and seemingly “good” vocabulary, forms and constructions nonetheless generally omitted from poetic texts.15 But this simple, mostly everyday language also serves as a background for one of the most striking features of the fragments, which is the occasional irruption into ordinary situations of wild “dithyrambic” expressions, generally as descriptions of food or banqueting. Antiphanes’ characters are intensely aware of tragedy (esp. fr. 189; cf. fr. 38, on tragic costuming) and are capable not only of using elevated poetic language for their own purposes, but also of recognizing and commenting on its marked and sometimes absurd character (frr. 1, nominally quoting Sophocles; 110, quoting Timotheos; 205.6–10, nominally quoting Euripides, but then fathering the words on Philoxenos when an objection is raised; 207, offering a detailed post mortem analysis of Philoxenos’ stylistic tendencies; 228, adapting a passage from Sophocles’ Antigone; cf. the paratragic frr. 19; 104; the decorative poetic flourishes in fr. 174.3, 6; and the high-style language in fr. 172a.2–3, which coincides with one of only two lyric passages in the fragments (for which, see § 7)). The most fully developed example of this dynamic is found in fr. 55, where (A.)—seemingly a cook hired to prepare a dinner party—questions (B.)—probably his employer—about how he ought to describe the dishes he intends to serve: should he say “a hollow-bodied concavity, forged under the impulse of a wheel, moulded of earth, baked in a separate chamber formed from its mother, and pregnant with casseroled, milk-nourished tender-fleshed forms of a new-born flock within itself ”, for example, or will “a cookpot” do (vv. 1–5)? The humor of the encounter depends in the first instance on the contrast between (A.)’s extravagant, riddling descriptions and (B.)’s insistence on his preference for more straightforward, pedestrian vocabulary. But it also requires that the audience simultaneously appreciate (A.)’s elaborate language and recognize its arguably ridiculous character and thus the grounds for—if not necessarily the absolute justice of—(B.)’s objections to it.16 Frr. 51; 169; 180 appear to come from similar scenes; there is parallel material in the fragments of other late 5th/4th-century comic poets (Philyll. fr. 4; Anaxandr. fr. 6; Eub. fr. 75; Timocl. fr. 13; cf. Ar. Nu. 331–9; Av. 1373–57, 1386–95); and the implication is that this style of humor somehow went to the heart of contemporary popular poetics.

15

16

87.1 ἔνθεσις meaning “a mouthful of food”; 87.3 κατεσθίω; 89.5 insulting γάστρις; 97.1 συχνός. e. g. (from Vol. I alone) frr. 19.3 παραλαμβάνω; 20.2 οἰνοφλυγία; 21.4 κατὰ τ(ὰ) αὐτ(ά); 21.5 ἐπικαρπία; 27.10 ἔδεσμα; 27.24 ἀντίρροπος; 30.3 τολμηρός; 34.2 εὔρωστος; 35.1 κατανοέω; 35.2 ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως in the sense “on the basis of appearance”; 46.5 ἐπιζητέω; 47.2 δελεάζω; 54.4 προέρχομαι; 54.5 καταγωγεῖον; 54.6 συνδιατρίβω; 55.2 ῥύμη; 57.15 αὐλητικός; 80.5 πολυτελής; 80.6 συμπάρειμι; 80.10 ἐρωτικός; 86.3 γλίχομαι; 86.5 σιτίζω; 86.6 ἀθανασία; 87.2 ἐκ τοῦ πρόσθε; 100.3 πλέθρον. Put another way, (B.)’s remarks are reminiscent of those one might expect from an ἄγροικος (cf. fr. 69 with n.). But where the audience’s sympathies are supposed to lie betweem him and (A.) is not altogether clear.

Introduction

25

7. Metrics and Form Metrics Iambic Of what are by my count 906 complete or plausibly restorable iambic trimeters in the fragments of Antiphanes,17 871 (= 96.1 %) feature either penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura. There appears to be a strong preference for penthemimeral (492 = 54.3 %) over hepthemimeral (379 = 41.8 %) caesura; while many lines can accommodate both, even if the sense suggests that one of the two is to be preferred, the same preference for penthemimeral caesura is apparent when such cases are taken into account (642 lines = 70.8 % with possible penthemimeral caesura vs. 497 lines = 54.9 % with possible hepthemimeral caesura). Of the 35 textually sound iambic trimeters that lack either penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura, 27 (= 3 % of the total 906) feature tetrahemimeral, octhemimeral caesura or both. In 20 of these cases, medial caesura is also possible; medial caesura alone occurs in only in 8 lines (.9 % of the total 906). The most important practical implication of these observations is that partially preserved or textually problematic lines of Antiphanes—and by extension, of other 4th-century comic poets—should not be restored without a penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura, and certainly not with medial caesura alone. Comparison with the iambic trimeters of Aristophanes and Eupolis reveals a handful of seeming differences between the practices of Antiphanes and those of the 5th-century comic poets. Aristophanes and Eupolis use long for short in the arsis of iambic metra (White’s “irrational metra”) in the following proportions: Aristophanes

iii 68.2 %

v 60.2 %

i iii 54.3 % 69 % For Antiphanes, the corresponding figures are: i iii 57.8 % 51.5 %

v 50.7 %

Eupolis

17

i 59.6 %

v 54.3 %

For purposes of this count, I take account not only of complete lines and lines with minor, obvious gaps, but also of partial lines complete up to or after a caesura. Thus e. g. 〈xlkl x〉lk|l llkl and ll rl r|〈lkl xlkl〉 both count as complete for such purposes. Note the following corrections in the scansions offered in FrC 19.3: frr. 200.2 klkl l|lkl lrkl; 216.4 klkl k|lkl klkl; 219.2 lrk〈l l〉|lk|l krkl; 223.1 〈x〉rkl l|lkl klkl; 225.1 klkl k|lk|r klkl; 230.4 klkl k|rk|l llk〈l〉; 241.3 llkl l|lkl llkl; 247.3 llkl llk|r klkl; 266.1 llkl l|rkl klkl; 271.2 rlkl l|lkl rl〈kl〉.

26

Antiphanes

The central portions of Antiphanes’ lines are thus notably more iambic than those of Aristophanes and Eupolis, an impression supported by closer analysis. Overall figures for the metrical structure of Aristophanic iambic trimeters are as follows: i ii iii iv v Iamb 25 % 75 % 25.4 % 77.7 % 35 % Tribrach 2.35 % 10.9 % 3.5 % 12.5 % 0.8 % Spondee 54.4 % 58.6 % 58.4 % Dactyl 5.2 % 9.6 % 1.8 % Anapaest 13.1% 13.7 % 3.0 % 9.8 % 4.0 % Figures for Eupolis are: i ii Iamb 26.8 % 80.7 % Tribrach 2.9 % 9.8 % Spondee 48.6 % Dactyl 5.7 % Anapaest 14.6 % 8.8 %

iii 23.2 % 4.6 % 62.4 % 8.8 % 2.3 %

And figures for Antiphanes are: i ii iii Iamb 23.3 % 77.6 % 31 % Tribrach 2.5 % 12.8 % 4.2 % Spondee 57.8 % 51.5 % Dactyl 5.6 % 10.6 % Anapaest 10.8 % 9.6 % 2.6 %

iv 83.6 % 12.9 % 3.5 % iv 86.2 % 10.7 % 3%

v 42.3 % 0.7 % 47.6 % 3.1 % 6.6 % v 39.5 % 1.3 % 54.3 % 3.8 % 1.2 %

Iambic tetrameter catalectic is preserved in frr. 26; 293.2–6. All of the nine substantially complete lines feature diaeresis between the second and third foot. For the meter generally, see White 1912 § 167–89; Perusino 1968. Other standard non-lyric meters Anapestic dimeter is preserved in frr. 90–1; 110; 130.1–6, 8–9; 131.1–5, 7–9; 170.1– 7; 295.2–4. All thirty-one lines have a diaeresis between the first and the second foot. Fr. 170.8 is a catalectic anapestic dimeter, while fr. 131.6 is an anapestic monometer. For the use of this meter in mid-4th-century comedy, see in general Pretagostini 1987. 246–9; Arnott 2010. 310 (“The majority … are display pieces for virtuoso actors, comparable perhaps to songs in nineteenth-century operetta … One popular subject for these … displays was the description of a feast, with long catalogues of the food provided”). Trochaic tetrameter catalectic is preserved in frr. 42; 47; 51; 55; 72; 115; 140; 169; 172a.1–2; 172b.1; 177.1, 3–5; 179; 199; 202–3; 294 (a total of sixty-seven lines); only fr. 72 lacks a diaeresis between the second and third foot. That use of trochaic tetrameter catalectic serves any specific purpose in the fragments of

Introduction

27

Antiphanes beyond introducing a bit of metrical variety into the text, or introduces any particular tone or type of topic of discussion, is unclear.18 Dactylic hexameter is preserved in frr. 147.1 (the first half of an elegiac couplet); 192, 1–4, 7–8, 15–19 (a riddle and mock-riddle); 194.1–5 (a riddle). Nine of these lines (= 53 %) feature masculine caesura, eight (= 47 %) feature feminine caesura, and two of the lines in which sense suggests a feminine caesura also have word-break at the masculine caesura. See in general Pretagostini 1987. 249–54. These are also the three non-lyric meters (in addition to iambic trimeter) found in the fragments of Alexis. Anaxandrides uses in addition iambic tetrameter catalectic (thus precisely the same mix of non-lyric meters as Antiphanes). Lyric The only lyric meter in the fragments of Antiphanes are three dactylo-epitrite verses in frr. 172a–b (both D l D; combined with trochaic tetrameters catalectic, and thus not part of a choral song). Alex. fr. 137 (“a slice of sausage has arrived, and some mincemeat”; D l D) appears to be another example of the same phenomenon and to be used in a similar context; see Pretagostini 1987. 254–5; Arnott 1996. 397–8. See Form below.

Form The fragments of Antiphanes’ plays use a mix of male and female characters, including both slaves and free individuals. Gods must have appeared onstage in at least some of the mythological travesties (e. g. Ἀφροδίτης γοναί); they and similar figures may also have served in other plays as prologue-speakers (see Ἀσκληπιός Introduction). Settings can generally not be determined, although frr. 88 and 177 seem clearly to be spoken outside of Attica. Titles suggest that other plays may have been set in deme-centers rather than in Athens itself (Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων, Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων), and the action of some of the mythological travesties certainly took place abroad (e. g. Ἀνταῖος in Libya, Βούσιρις in Egypt). Bits and pieces of a number of prologues or likely prologues are preserved (frr. 116; 166; 210; cf. frr. 22; 25; 121; 142; 157; 159). Beyond this, it is difficult to say anything significant about the structure or content of individual scenes, except that onstage parties— i. e. action within a house somehow moved out into what ought properly to be the street— appear to have been a common features of the plays (e. g. frr. 57; 85).

18

Dedousi 1961 and Perusino 1962 review the evidence for the use of trochaic tetrameters catalectic in Menander, but come to no substantial conclusion except that they appear to increase the liveliness and excitement of the dialogue.

28

Antiphanes

Perhaps the most striking feature of the fragments in regard to dramatic form is the almost complete absence of lyric (only the three dactylo-epitrite verses in frr. 172a–b, which are embedded in trochaic tetrameters catalectic and are thus not part of a choral song). The same is true of Alexis, for whom we have only a single segment of dactylo-epitrite (fr. 137; see Metrics, Lyric above) and five Eupolideans perhaps addressed to the chorus by a character who is coming onstage for the first time (see Arnott 1996. 673), and of Anaxandrides as well. Had these poets written choral parts—or at least had those parts been included in the copies of their plays that made their way to Alexandria—it is very difficult to believe that we would not have a few bits and pieces of them, given that over 700 fragments of their comedies survive. That performances of the plays featured choruses, at least in Athens, is beyond doubt, since the Fasti (IG II2 2318) mention chorêgoi throughout this period.19 One obvious interpretation of the evidence is that already by the 380s or 370s BCE choruses merely offered scene-dividing interludes unconnected with the plot of the play, as in Menander’s comedies a few generations later.20 That this development is connected with the increasingly non-Athens-based nature of the genre—apparent in the enormous number of plays written by both Antiphanes and Alexis, which are far too many to have been intended for the local market alone— allowing dramas of all sorts to be produced using a local chorus performing songs of any appropriately amusing sort, is a reasonable if unprovable conclusion.21

8. Antiphanes and Other Comic Poets The Lenaia Victors List (IG II2 2325E) preserves the names of Philippus (Aristophanes’ son; 2 victories), Choregus (1 victory), Anaxandrides (3 victories), Philetaerus (probably another son of Aristophanes; 2 victories), Eubulus (3 victories) and Ephippus (1 victory) above the entry for Antiphanes, with Mnesimachus (1 victory), Nausicrates (3 victories), Euphanes (number of victories lost), Alexis (2–4 victories) and Aristophon (number of victories lost) below him. These men—all 4th-century, so-called “Middle Comic” poets—must have been among Antiphanes’ most significant rivals over the course of his career. He never mentions 19 20

21

See in general Jackson 2020. 113–37, esp. 131–7. Recent discussion in Jackson 2020. 44–8. Choral songs are notoriously largely absent already from the transmitted texts of Aristophanes’ two final comedies in the late 390s and early 380s BCE. Eub. frr. 102–3 appear to be lyric dactyls but not choral. Eub. frr. 34 and 137 are dactylic hexameters combined with ithyphallics, and are once again not choral. On this question, see generally Arnott 2010. 291–3, who does not confront the question of the significance of the contrast between what was clearly the continuing presence of a comic chorus and the striking absence of bits of genuine choral song in the remains of the mid-4th-century poets. See in general Zimmermann 2010. 462–3.

Introduction

29

any of them in the fragments of his plays preserved for us, although one of his characters does attempt to speak for the genre as a whole in fr. 189. We know that Antiphanes at least occasionally revised his plays (sc. for reperformance): when Athenaeus introduces fr. 69 at 8.358d, he calls Boutaliôn “a revised version of one of the Agroikoi”. At 7.304a–b, Athenaeus reports in addition that certain verses found in Kouris (fr. 127) also appeared in Akestria (fr. 24), Agroikos (fr. 12) and Boutaliôn (~ fr. 69.10–12). What is less clear is the extent to which Antiphanes and his rivals also borrowed themes, lines and whole scenes or parts of scenes from one another. Nor do we know how common it was to take a text by someone a generation or two earlier, revise, update and supplement it, and present it as one’s own. Given that Antiphanes was both enormously productive and highly successful, it is easy to believe that other playwrights stole from him occasionally. Nor is there any a priori reason why he should not have borrowed or adapted material from them in turn. The evidence we have suggests literary interaction of many different sorts and perhaps occasional scholarly confusion about who particular titles belonged to. The most intriguing cases involve Eriphus and Ephippus (Antiphanes’ contemporaries), on the one hand, and Epigenes and Xenarchus (likely from a generation or two later), on the other. In the case of the former pair of poets, there is clear and specific evidence of borrowing by one author from the other. In the case of the latter, appropriation on a larger scale appears to be in question. – After quoting fr. 59 (from Boiôtia), Athenaeus (3.84b–c) observes: “Eriphus in Meliboia (fr. 2) begins with these same iambic lines, as if they were his own, but continues …” , after which he quotes verses almost identical to fr. 59.6–9 and then adds six more that connect neatly to them. Eriphus appears to date to roughly the same period as Antiphanes; which of the two has borrowed from the other is unclear. – Fr. 66 βότρυς, ῥόας, φοίνικας, ἕτερα νώγαλα (from Bousiris) is very close to the first verse of Ephipp. fr. 24 κάρυα, ῥόας, φοίνικας, ἕτερα νώγαλα, / σταμνάριά τ’ οἴνου μικρὰ τοῦ Φοινικίκου, / ᾠάρια, τοιαῦθ’ ἕτερα πολλὰ παίγνια (from an unidentified play). Ephippus appears immediately before Antiphanes in the Lenaia Victors List; he too is known to have composed a Bousiris; and it is tempting to think that these lines are from that play, hence the appearance of a version of v. 1 in Antiphanes’ homonymous comedy. Once again, which poet has borrowed from the other is impossible to say. – When Athenaeus cites fr. 26, he reports (3.123b) that Aleiptria was also assigned to Alexis. This might be merely a labeling error, a slip of a scribe’s pen, or the like, although cf. below on Ἄντεια. – Immediately after quoting fr. 36 (from Anteia), Athenaeus notes (3.127c): “This same play is also assigned to Alexis with a very small number of differences”); cf. above on Aleiptria, although here the implication is that the texts were different, although not a great deal different.

30

Antiphanes

– When Athenaeus quotes fr. 41 (the only fragment of Argyriou aphanismos), he assigns (9.409d) the play to “Epigenes or Antiphanes”. Epigenes is largely obscure, although Poll. 7.29 (= his test. 2) calls him a “new comic poet”, seemingly putting him a number of decades later than Antiphanes; his other four titles include a Βακχίς that may actually be a Βάκχαι (“inscriptio incerta” Kassel– Austin; cf. Antiphanes’ Βάκχαι), a Μνημάτιον (cf. Antiphanes’ Μνήματα) and a Ποντικός (cf. Antiphanes’ Ποντικός).22 That Epigenes’ oevre consisted mostly of reworked plays by his mid-4th-century predecessor thus seems possible. – Fr. 81.5 (from Didymoi) contains a reference to a “beloved king”, who could be Alexander of Macedon only if the play comes from the very end of Antiphanes’ career. But Aristophon (just after Alexis on the Lenaia Victors List) and Xenarchus (undated) also wrote comedies entitled Didymoi; Xenarchus’ other seven titles include Βουταλίων, Σκύθαι, Στρατιώτης and Ὕπνος (all also titles of known comedies by Antiphanes);23 and he too may thus have made a career of revising and restaging Antiphanes’ plays, allowing the king in question to be e. g. Demetrius Poliorcetes. A similar reworking by Xenarchus or someone similar may explain the reference in fr. dub. 185.4 (from Parekdidomenê) to Seleukos I Nikator, which appears to be impossible before 306 BCE (thus far too late for Antiphanes). – Athenaeus (6.262c–d) first quotes fr. 89.1–4 (from Dyspratos), then follows this with a fragment from Epicrates’ Dyspratos that overlaps with the verses from Antiphanes but includes others both before and after them, and concludes with the onservation that “comparison of the lines makes it clear that Epicrates borrowed Antiphanes’ material”. Athenaeus (10.422f) elsewhere calls Epicrates a “Middle Comic” poet (= his test. 2), and the references to historical persons in his fragments suggest that he was more or less Antiphanes’ exact contemporary. Which poet borrowed from the other is thus once again obscure. – According to Porphyry (Eus. praep. ev. 10.3.13), Caecilius (fr. 164 Ofenloch) claimed “that Menander took an entire play by Antiphanes, his Oiônistês, and rewrote it from one end to the other into his Deisidaimôn”. In this case, the overall plot rather than the specific words it contained seems to be in question. – After Athenaeus (15.671c–d) quotes fr. 212A from Alexis’ Hypnos (= Alex. fr. 243), he comments that “The same iambic lines are found in Antiphanes’ Hypnos”. Athenaeus (13.572b–c) likewise cites fr. 212B as from “Alexis or Antiphanes in Hypnos”. If this is not merely all a consequence of scholarly confusion of some sort, the implication of the two passages combined is clearly that one poet lifted substantial portions of his play from the other.

22 23

The other title is Ἡρωίνη (not known for Antiphanes, although we have only about one-third of his titles). The other titles are Πένταθλος, Πορφύρα (a courtesan name?) and Πρίαπος (a divine prologue-speaker?).

Introduction

31

9. Literature Complete modern editions of all fragments of Antiphanes known at the time: A. Meineke (ed.), Fragmenta comicorum graecorum Vol. III (Berlin 1840), pp. 3–160 F. H. Bothe (ed.), Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta post Augustum Meineke (Paris 1855), pp. 345–418 T. Kock (ed.), Comicorum atticorum fragmenta Vol. II (Leipzig 1884), pp. 12–135 J. M. Edmonds (ed.), The Fragments of Attic Comedy Vol. II Middle Comedy (Leiden 1959), pp. 162–311 R. Kassel and C. Austin (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci Vol. II Agathenor—Aristonymus (Berlin 1991), pp. 312–481 Other fundamental studies: P. H. Koppiers, Observata philologica in loca quaedam Antiphanis, Theocriti, Pauli apostoli, Propertii, et Eratosthenis (Leiden 1771) H. F. Clinton, “The Comic Poet Antiphanes”, Philological Museum 1 (1832) 558– 608 A. Meineke (ed.), Fragmenta comicorum graecorum Vol. I (Berlin 1840), pp. 304–40 I. Konstantakos, A Commentary on the fragments of eight plays of Antiphanes (Diss. Cambridge 2000) For helpful recent surveys of Antiphanes’ career and the fragments, see also Konstantakos 2000b; Orth 2014b. 1012–22. Note also Amouroux 1995 (including synthetic studies of a number of important thematic and stylistic aspects of the poet’s work).

32

Testimonia test. 1 K.–A. Suda α 2735 Ἀντιφάνης, Δημοφάνους, οἱ δὲ Στεφάνου καὶ μητρὸς Οἰνόης, Κιανός, ὡς δέ τινες Σμυρναῖος, κατὰ δὲ Διονύσιον Ῥόδιος· κωμικὸς τῆς μέσης κωμῳδίας, ἀπὸ δούλων ὥς τινες. γέγονε δὲ κατὰ τὴν γ΄ (Bernhardy : ργ΄ Suda) Ὀλυμπιάδα (368/4 BCE) καὶ ἔγραψε κωμῳδίας τξε΄, οἱ δὲ σπ΄· νίκας δὲ εἷλε ιγ΄. παῖδά τε ἔσχε Στέφανον (test. 2) καὶ αὐτὸν κωμικόν. τελευτᾷ δὲ ἐν Κίῳ οδ΄ ἐτῶν ὑπάρχων κατά τινα τύχην ἀπίῳ βληθείς Antiphanes, son of Demophanês, but others say of Stephanos and of a mother named Oinoê; from Kios, but according to some authorities from Smyrna, and according to Dionysios from Rhodes; a comic poet of the Middle Comedy, the child of slaves, according to some authorities. His floruit was in the 83rd (thus Bernhardy : 93rd Suda) Olympiad (368/4 BCE) and he wrote 365 comedies, although others say 280; he was victorious 13 times. He had a child Stephanos (test. 2), who was also a comic poet. He dies in Kios at age 74 in an accident, after being hit by a pear

Citation context One of a number of mini-biographies of authors of various genres, including 86 comic poets, preserved in the Suda and apparently drawn in large part from the Ὀνοματολόγος ἢ Πίναξ τῶν ἐν Παιδείᾳ ὀνομαστῶν (“Catalogue of Names or List of Individuals Renowned in Learning”) of Hesychius of Miletus (see Suda η 611). Most of Hesychius’ material must in turn have been drawn from Aristotle’s work on the dramatic competitions and thus ultimately from official Athenian state archives and inscriptions. See in general Wagner 1905. 30–55, esp. 33–5; Orth 2013. 18–20. Some of the material in test. 2 appears to come from a similar source or set of sources. Discussion

Capps 1900. 54–8; Konstantakos 2000b. 178–83; Gelli 2007. 30–1

Text If Antiphanes was a so-called Middle Comic—i.e. post-Aristophanic—poet, he cannot have been active before the 380s BCE, a conclusion the anonymous de Com. (test. 2) and the inscriptional evidence (test. 4) both support. The Suda’s γέγονε κατὰ τὴν ργ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδα would then have to mean “he was born in the 93rd Olympiad” (= 408/4 BCE) rather than “he had his floruit in the 93rd Olympiad”, which is the normal sense of the verb in such notices (Arnott 1996. 4 with bibliography). Bernhardy accordingly emended the paradosis γ΄ to ργ΄, putting the date 40 years later, which fits with what we can deduce from the Victors List (test. 4) and the various individuals and events mentioned in the fragments (see General Introduction § 5), and allows γέγονε to be taken in the standard fashion, here probably referring to Antiphanes’ first victory at the City Dionysia. Gelli resolves the problem in a different way, suggesting reading ρη΄ and taking the text thus emended to mean “he was born in the 88th Olympiad” (= 488/4 BCE).

Testimonia (test. 2)

33

Interpretation The entry begins in a typical way, with the poet’s name followed by that of his father (Wagner element a), his ethnikon (Wagner element b) and his genre (Wagner element c). Alternative information from other sources is offered regarding elements a and b (including the claim in 2 that Antiphanes was the child of slaves). This is followed by his date in Olympiads (Wagner element d); the number of his plays, again with alternative information drawn from a different source, and of his victories (Wagner element e); the name of his son (Wagner element f); and an account of the circumstances of his death. An alphabetically organized list of plays (Wagner element g) often follows in such biographies, but is omitted here. Test 2.3 supports the claim that Antiphanes’ father was in fact called Stephanos (following a common Greek pattern of naming grandson after grandfather) rather than Demophanês. The Dionysios cited for Antiphanes hailing from Rhodes is taken by Kassel–Austin (following Otto Schneider) to be the Dionysios of Halicarnassus (RE 142, esp. p. 987) who dates to the time of Hadrian and wrote at length about the tragic and comic poets.24 Alternative sites for Antiphanes’ birth and death (Larissa in Thessaly and the Aegean island of Chios, respectively) are offered at test. 2.4–5, 7. There is no way to choose among these places or to know exactly what the references to them mean, although “Kios” looks like a confused reference to “Chios” (or vice versa); see General Introduction § 1. But Hesychius ap. Suda clearly imagines Antiphanes as coming from a very small place and returning there in old age. For the number of Antiphanes’ plays, cf. test. 2.8 (where the number is given as 260), as well as the almost equally astonishing 245 attributed to Alexis (test. 1.2). For the number of his victories, cf. test. 4 (eight at the Lenaia, meaning that the other five were at the City Dionysia). Suda α 1138 (= Alex. test. 1, from another Hesychian Life) claims that Stephanos was the son of Alexis rather than of Antiphanes; only one fragment of Stephanos’ own comedies is preserved. See test. 2 Interpretation. Whimsical accounts of how poets died are a common feature of ancient Lives: Aeschylus had a turtle dropped on his bald head by an eagle (test. 2.8–9), Sophocles choked on a grape sent to him as a gift by one of this actors (test. 1.55–8), and Euripides was torn apart by dogs in Macedon (test. 1.63–6). test. 2 K.–A. Anon. de Com. (Proleg. de com. III.45–52), p. 10 Koster τῆς μὲν οὖν μέσης κωμῳδίας εἰσὶ ποιηταὶ νζ΄, καὶ τούτων δράματα φέρεται χιζ΄. τούτων δέ εἰσιν ἀξιολογώτατοι Ἀντιφάνης καὶ † Στέφανος † (Ἄλεξις Dobree, 24

Alternatively, he might an earlier Dionysios of Halicarnassus (RE 113, esp. pp. 964–6), who dates to the time of Augustus and wrote at length about Demosthenes’ career; cf. test. 2.5.

34

Antiphanes Meineke). Ἀντιφάνης μὲν οὖν Στεφάνου Ἀθηναῖος, καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν μετὰ 〈τὴν〉 η΄ Ὀλυμπιάδα. καί φασιν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι μὲν τῶν ἀπὸ Θεσσαλίας ἐκ Λαρίσσης, παρεγγραφῆναι δὲ εἰς τὴν Ἀθηναίων πολιτείαν ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους. γενέσθαι δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτὸν εὐφυέστατον εἰς τὸ γράφειν καὶ δραματοποιεῖν. ἐτελεύτησε δὲ ἐν Χίῳ καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας μετηνέχθη. τῶν δὲ κωμῳδιῶν αὐτοῦ τινας καὶ ὁ Στέφανος ἐδίδαξεν. ἔστι δὲ αὐτοῦ δράματα σξ΄ There are 57 Middle Comic poets, and 617 of their plays are preserved. The most significant of them are Antiphanes and † Stephanos † (“Alexis” Dobree, Meineke). Antiphanes the son of Stephanos, then, was an Athenian, and he began to stage plays after the 88th Olympiad (388/4 BCE). They also say that he was one of those who were from Larissa in Thessaly, and that he was enrolled as an Athenian citizen by Demosthenes. They also report that he was extremely clever at writing and at composing plays. He died on Chios, and his bones were transferred to Athens. Stephanos staged some of his comedies. 260 of his plays are preserved

Citation context From a canned Byzantine history of the comic genre that pays much more attention to “Old Comedy” (9–41, beginning with Epicharmus), on the one hand, while treating a broader range of “New Comic” poets (Philemon, Menander and Diphilus), on the other (53–62). The entries for individual poets contain a mix of information about dates, number of plays preserved, alleged stylistic characteristics, various career details and the like, and may be drawn once again at least in part from Hesychius’ Onomatologos (test. 1 n.). Text The claim in 2 that the obscure Stephanos was among the “most significant” Middle Comic poets is perplexing, and Dobree and Meineke accordingly suggested emending to “Alexis”, to match test. 3. The confusion is perhaps to be traced to the mention of Stephanos and his involvement in staging some of Antiphanes’ plays, sc. after the latter’s death, in 7–8; see Interpretation. Interpretation The claim that Antiphanes “began to stage plays after the 88th Olympiad” (388/4 BCE) can coexist with the placement of his floruit in the 83rd Olympiad (368/4 BCE) in test. 1 as emended by Bernardy, but requires that—despite his enormous later success—he failed to take the prize during the first decade or more of his career. A first play in the 88th Olympiad (388/4 BCE) would in any case mean that Antiphanes was born in the 93rd Olympiad (408/4 BCE)—which is what test. 1 unamended says—or perhaps a bit earlier, and thus suggests that he lived until the late 330s BCE, suiting the dates of the individuals referred to in fr. 27 (nn.). Precisely what the author of de Com. means by saying that Antiphanes was “one of those who were from Larissa in Thessaly” is unclear. But the basic reference is clearly to Philip II’s interventions in Thessaly in the mid- to late 350s BCE (see in general Westlake 1935. 160–95; Hammond–Griffith 1979. 259–95; Martin 1981), and the implication is that Antiphanes could no longer return there but had been of sufficient service to the Athenian people (sc. as a comic poet) to be granted

Testimonia (test. 4)

35

citizenship. For Antiphanes associated with Thessaly, see also test. 8 and perhaps test. 7 as well. For possible confusion between Chios and Kios as a place of death, see test. 1 Interpretation. For a poet’s son staging his plays after his death, cf. Aristophanes’ son Araros staging Ploutos (Ar. test. 1.56) and Aeschylus’ son Euphorion supposedly taking the prize four times with new tragedies by his father (TrGF 12 T 1).

test. 3 K.–A. Canones comicorum, tab. M cap. IV = tab. C cap. 10, Kroehnert 1897. 6 = 12 κωμῳδοποιοῖ … μέσης κωμῳδίας β΄· Ἀντιφάνης, Ἄλεξις Θούριος Two Middle Comic poets: Antiphanes, Alexis of Thurii

Citation context From an unadorned Byzantine catalogue of canonical authors in various literary genres. Interpretation Perhaps an abbreviated version of the material that lies behind test. 2 (where see Text).

test. 4 K.–A. 35

40

45

50

IG II2 2325.146 = 2325E.41 Millis–Olson Φίλιπ[πος] ΙΙ Χόρηγ[ος Ι] Ἀναξα[νδρί]δης ΙΙΙ Φιλέτα[ιρο]ς ΙΙ Εὔβουλος ΠΙ Ἔφιππος Ι [Ἀ]ντιφάνη[ς] ΠΙΙΙ [Μ]νησίμα[χος] Ι Ναυσ[ικράτ]ης ΙΙΙ Εὐφάνη[ς - - - ] Ἄλεξις ΙΙ[ - ] [Ἀρ]ιστ[οφῶν - - - ] [---] [---] [---] [---] [ ca. 8 ]ρος Ι

35 Philip[pos] II Choreg[os I] Anaxa[ndri]des III

36

Antiphanes Phileta[iro]s II Euboulos VI 40 Ephippos I [A]ntiphane[s] VIII [M]nesima[chos] I Naus[ikrat]es III Euphane[s - - - ] 45 Alexis II[ - ] [Ar]ist[ophon - - - ] [---] [---] [---] 50 [ - - - ] [ ca. 8 ]ros I

Citation context Test. 4 is found in the middle of Column III of a portion of the so-called Victors Lists dedicated to the poets who took the prize at the Lenaia contest; the matching portion of the list for the City Dionysia contest (approximately the bottom of Column III and Column IV) is lost. The Victors Lists are an inscription (first cut around 280 BCE and updated periodically thereafter) that occupied the interior architrave blocks of a small rectangular building that must have stood somewhere in the sacred precinct of Dionysus on the south slope of the Acropolis. The inscription consists of eight separate lists (tragic and comic poets and tragic and comic actors, for both the City Dionysia and the Lenaia festivals), with individuals listed in the order of their first victory at the festival in question, followed by their lifetime total number of victories there. The columns all have 17 lines (with a few lines occasionally left empty at the bottom), making calculation of the approximate relative dates of initial victories straightforward. For discussion of the monument, see Millis–Olson 2012. 133–40 (with bibliography); Tracy 2015. 553–81. The Victors Lists are summaries stripped of any information about individual performances and absolute dates. Like the Aristotelian Dionysiac Victors at the City Dionysia and Lenaia and Didaskaliai, however, they were certainly based on material drawn from the Athenian state archives (for which, see Sickinger 1999, esp. 42–7). Discussion esp. 189

Capps 1900. 54–8; Gelli 2007. 28–31; Millis–Olson 2012. 178–92,

Interpretation Of the poets listed above Antiphanes in the inscription, Anaxandrides in line 37 is said by the Marmor Parium to have been first victorious, probably at the City Dionysia, in 376 BCE (test. 3), while another inscription shows that he then took the prize again at the City Dionysia in 375 BCE (test. 4), while Eubulus in line 39 is dated by the Suda (= test. 1) to the Olympiad 376/2 (= his first victory at the City Dionysia?). Of the poets mentioned below Antiphanes in the inscription, Alexis in line 45 was first victorious at the City Dionysia at the

Testimonia (test. 6)

37

very latest in 347 BCE (test. 6). Although a different festival is in question here, Antiphanes’ first victory at the Lenaia can thus reasonably be placed in the late 370s or 360s BCE, which fits with the date for his floruit in test. 1.3 as emended by Bernhardy (although see test. 2 Interpretation).

test. 5 K.–A. D.L. 5.81 (Demetrii Phalerii scripta, fr. 74.38 = 194 Wehrli = fr. 1.102 Stork–van Ophuijsen– Dorandi) Περὶ Ἀντιφάνους α (the works of Demetrios of Phaleron, fr. 74.38 = 194 Wehrli = fr. 1.102 Stork–van Ophuijsen–Dora) On Antiphanes, one Book

Citation context Part of a long list of works by Demetrios of Phaleron, near the end of Diogenes’ account of his life at 5.75–83, within his history of the school of Aristotle. The source of the material is uncertain, but similar catalogues are offered for most of the other Peripatetics. Interpretation Demetrios was born in the middle of the 4th century and died probably in the late 280s BCE, meaning that he may well have seen original stagings of some of Antiphanes’ comedies. This and two works on Homer (On the Iliad, in two books, and On the Odyssey, in four books) are the only studies of poetry that Diogenes attributes to Demetrios, although the list seems to be incomplete; see Sollenberger 2000. 326–8. On Demetrios as a literary critic, see Montanari 2000.

test. 6 K.–A. Herenn. Phil. ε 81 (εὐθύς, εὐθὺ καὶ εὐθέως διαφέρει) Ἀριστοφάνης ὁ γραμματικὸς (fr. 369 Slater) ἐν τῷ Πρὸς τοὺς πίνακας Καλλιμάχου (SH 292) περὶ Ἀντιφάνους διαστέλλει τὴν λέξιν Aristophanes the grammarian (fr. 369 Slater) in his In Response to the Pinakes of Callimachus (SH 292) draws distinctions regarding the word with reference to Antiphanes

Citation context A note from Ammonius’ epitome of a work on synonyms (here specifically on εὐθύς, εὐθὺ καὶ εὐθέως; see Slater 1976) by a late 2nd-century CE grammarian and historian also known as Philo of Byblos (FGrH 790). Interpretation For εὐθύς, fr. 25.2n. For εὐθέως, fr. 157.2–3 n. εὐθύ is not used anywhere in the fragments of Antiphanes preserved for us.

38

Antiphanes

test. 7 K.–A. Ath. 14.662f Δωροθέῳ … τῷ Ἀσκαλωνίτῃ σύγγραμμα ἐκδεδόσθαι ἐπιγραφόμενον Περὶ Ἀντιφάνους καὶ περὶ τῆς παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις κωμικοῖς ματτύης· ἣν Θετταλῶν φησιν εἶναι εὕρημα, ἐπιχωριάσαι δὲ κἀν ταῖς Ἀθήναις κατὰ τὴν Μακεδόνων ἐπικράτειαν A treatise has been published by Dorotheos of Askalon entitled On Antiphanes and On the Mattuê Mentioned by the New Comic Poets; he claims that the Thessalians invented the dish, which was a local delicacy in Athens during the period when the Macedonians were in control25

Citation context From very near the beginning of a discussion of ματτύη (Ath. 14.662e–4f) that seems to be drawn in considerable part from Artemidorus’ Culinary Vocabulary and that also preserves Alex. fr. 50; Philem. frr. 11; 8; Alex. fr. 208; Macho fr. 1; Nicostr. Com. frr. 7; 16.2–3 (more of which is quoted at Ath. 12.517a); adesp. com. fr. 125; Dionys. Com. fr. 1; Philem. fr. 71, in that order. Interpretation Dorotheos of Askalon (RE 20) was an Atticist lexicographer who likely dates to roughly the turn of the age. The essay referred to here may be an excerpt from his Λέξεων συναγωγή (“Collection of vocabulary”) or Ἀττικαὶ λέξεις (“Attic vocabulary”), which Athenaeus cites a number of times (e. g. 7.329d, where it is said to have consisted of at least 108 individual Books). The implication of the title On Antiphanes and On the Mattuê Mentioned by the New Comic Poets would at any rate appear to be that ματτύη was not referred to by name by Antiphanes, but that some authorities—not necessarily including Dorotheos—held that he nonetheless described it. For ματτύη, which Artemidoros in his Culinary Vocabulary (ap. Ath. 14.663d) claimed was a general term for expensive foods of all sorts, see Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 208. Ath. 14.663d–e (still dependent on Artemidoros) offers a recipe for a stewed chicken ματτύη, which includes vegetables and a broth seasoned with vinegar or unripe grapes, with wafer-bread crumbled on top.

test. 8 K.–A. Ath. 13.555a Ἀντιφάνης ὁ κωμῳδιοποιός, … ὡς ἀνεγίνωσκέ τινα τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ κωμῳδιῶν, ὃ δὲ δῆλος ἦν οὐ πάνυ τι ἀποδεχόμενος, “δεῖ γάρ”, ἔφησεν, “ὦ βασιλεῦ, τὸν ταῦτα ἀποδεξόμενον ἀπὸ συμβόλων τε πολλάκις δεδειπνηκέναι καὶ

25

I. e. in the aftermath of the Battle of Chaironeia in 338 BCE.

Testimonia (test. 9)

39

περὶ ἑταίρας πλεονάκις καὶ εἰληφέναι καὶ δεδωκέναι πληγάς,” ὥς φησι Λυκόφρων ὁ Χαλκιδεὺς ἐν τοῖς περὶ Κωμῳδίας (fr. 13 Strecker) When the comic poet Antiphanes was reading one of his comedies to King Alexander, and Alexander was obviously not much taken by it, Antiphanes said: “That’s because, your majesty, anyone who’s going to appreciate this material has to have repeatedly eaten dinners where the costs were split and have traded plenty of punches over prostitutes”. Thus Lycophron of Chalcis in his On Comedy (fr. 13 Strecker)

Discussion

Konstantakos 2011. 157

Citation context From the very beginning of Book 13, as “Athenaeus” (the internal narrator of the Deipnosophists) introduces the long discussion of women that follows. Interpretation Lycophron (RE 8) belongs to the first half of the 3rd century BCE and was the original Alexandrian editor of the Athenian comic poets. The Alexander in question is probably Alexander of Pherai (RE 5; ruled 369–early 350s BCE); cf. the connection of Antiphanes with Thessaly alleged in test. 2.4–5. For Alexander’s supposed interest in the theater, cf. Ael. VH 14.40. For dinner parties funded via συμβολαί, fr. 27.8 n. For prostitutes and prostitution, fr. 2 n.; the references to fist-fights suggests that Antiphanes is thinking specifically of a κῶμος (fr. dub. 197 n.).

test. 9 K.–A. Under this number Kassel–Austin collect references to Antiphanes in Athenaeus as Ἀντιφάνης … ὁ χαρίεις (“the witty Antiphanes”; 1.27d, citing fr. 233), κατὰ τὸν ἡδὺν Ἀντιφάνη (“according to the delightful Antiphanes”; 4.156c, citing fr. dub. 185) and κατὰ τὸν ἥδιστον Ἀντιφάνη (“according to the extremely entertaining Antiphanes”; 4.161d and 14.622f, citing fr. 87 and fr. 216, respectively).

40

Fragments Ἄγροικος (Agroikos) “The Rustic”

Introduction Discussion Casaubon 1664. 625; Konstantakos 2000a. 9–62; Konstantakos 2004; Orth 2014b. 1016 Title An ἄγροικος is a stock character—already on display in Strepsiades in Aristophanes Clouds (e. g. 135–8, 627–31), but doubtless even older than that—a countryman incapable of appreciating the subtleties of city life, and thus an easy target of fun. Cf. Men. Georg. fr. 5.1–3 = fr. 3.1–3 Körte εἰμὶ μὲν ἄγροικος, καὐτὸς οὐκ ἄλλως ἐρῶ, / καὶ τῶν κατ᾽ ἄστυ πραγμάτων οὐ παντελῶς  / ἔμπειρος (“I’m a rustic, and I myself won’t deny it; I don’t have much experience at all of city affairs”), and see in general Ribbeck 1888; Legrand 1910. 72–80; Ehrenberg 1943. 73–94; Dover 1974. 113–14; Amouroux 1995. 236–7; Diggle 2004 on Thphr. Char. 4; Konstantakos 2005a; Belardinelli 2016. In particular, Arist. EE 1230b20 (cited by Kassel–Austin on Anaxandrides’ Agroikoi) maintains with reference to comedy that such persons οὐδὲ τὰ μέτρια καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα πλησιάζουσι τοῖς ἡδέσιν (“keep pleasures at a distance even when moderate and necessary”). Cf. (Β.) in fr. 69 (from Boutaliôn, and probably to be identified with the title-character both here and there); (Γ.) in fr. 127; and perhaps the speakers of frr. 181; 222. For titles of comedies referring to a personal quality of what was perhaps a leading character, cf. Ἀντερῶσα, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, Ἀφροδίσιος, Βουταλίων (the revised version of this play), Δύσπρατος, Ἐνεά, Μισοπόνηρος, Ὄβριμος, Παιδεραστής, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ, Φιλοπάτωρ and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Μαλθάκη. Augeas, Anaxilas and Philemon all also wrote an Ἄγροικος, Menander a Ὑποβολιμαῖος ἢ Ἄγροικος, and Anaxandrides an Ἄγροικοι, while the Roman poets Plautus (late 3rd/early 2nd century BCE) and L. Pomponius (early 1st century BCE) wrote an Agroecus and a Rusticus (an Atellan farce), respectively. Content According to Ath. 8.358d, quoting fr. 69, Boutaliôn τῶν Ἀγροίκων ἐστὶν ἑνὸς διασκευή (“is a revision of one of the Agroikoi”). If correct, this means that at least three plays are in question: Agroikos I, Agroikos II and Boutaliôn (a revision of either Agroikos I or Agroikos II). But Agroikos is also cited three times as plural Agroikoi (Ath. 15.692f, quoting fr. 3; Ath. 10.445f, quoting fr. 4; Phot. ρ 16 = Suda ρ 8, quoting fr. 7), and Casaubon took the notice at Ath. 8.358d to be another reflex of that confusion and expelled ἑνὸς as a misguided addition to the text by an anonymous editor who believed the title was Agroikos and who accordingly invented a second play by that title, although what was meant was actually that Boutaliôn “is a revision of Agroikoi”.

41

Ἄγροικος (fr. 1)

A dozen fragments of Agroikos are preserved for us, far more than those of any other individual comedy by Antiphanes. Even if there were two plays by the title, this is still massive over-representation; perhaps a consequence of alphabetical order, this being the first play by the poet in the catalogues and thus the first one consulted. Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 1 K.–A. (1 K.) = S. fr. 754

5

(Α.) καὶ πρῶτα μὲν αἴρω ποθεινὴν μᾶζαν,26 ἣν φερέσβιος Δηὼ βροτοῖσι χάρμα δωρεῖται φίλον· ἔπειτα πνικτὰ τακερὰ μηκάδων μέλη χλόην καταμπέχοντα σάρκα νεογενῆ— (Β.) τί λέγεις; (Α.) περαίνω Σοφοκλέους τραγῳδίαν

3 Δηὼ Casaubon : Δημήτηρ Ath.A 5 χλόην Ath.A : χλόῃ Kock κλέους τραγῳδίαν Kock : τραγῳδίαν περαίνω Σοφοκλέους Ath.A

5

(A.) And first of all I serve a luscious barley-cake, which the giver of life Dêô grants to mortals as a welcome source of joy; then tender smothered bleater-haunches wearing fresh herbs about their new-born flesh— (B.) What are you saying? (A.) I’m reciting a tragedy by Sophocles

Ath. 9.396b Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ· —— And Antiphanes in Agroikos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

26

6 περαίνω Σοφο-

〈xlkl xlkl〉 llkl llkl l|lk|l klkl llkl k|lk|l llkl klkl k|rk|l klkl klkl klk|l krkl rlkl l|rkl klkl

Not “dough” (Rusten 2011. 488).

42

Antiphanes

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 678; Kock 1884 II.12–13; Gomperz ap. Pearson 1917 III.12; Konstantakos 2000a. 41–50; Hanink 2014a. 172–3 Text The paradosis Δημήτηρ in 3 is unmetrical and must be a gloss that drove out Casaubon’s Δηώ, a much less common form of the same divine name. Kassel–Austin place a comma at the end of 4, which merely confuses matters; see Interpretation on 4. 5 is difficult, and Kock suggested χλόῃ for the paradosis χλόην (“enfolding their new-born flesh with herbs” vel sim.). It is easier to follow Konstantakos in assuming that καταμπέχοντα takes a double accusative; see Interpretation. There is no reason to believe that (A.) is done with his catalogue at the end of 5, and I accordingly punctuate in a way that makes clear that (B.) interrupts him before he can go on any longer. The paradosis version of 6 lacks a caesura (rlkl klkl lrkl). This might be a subtle jab at Sophocles’ skill as a poet, or a pointed move out of the distinctly “tragic” trimeters of 2–5. But more likely the words have been passed down out of order, as Kock suggested. Citation context From a small collection of uses of πνικτός and cognates in comedy (citing before this Stratt. fr. 30; Eub. fr. 46; Ar. V. 511 (a lawsuit (sic) prepared ἐν λοπάδι); Cratin. fr. 29, in that order) within a larger discussion (Ath. 9.374d–403d) of meat of all sorts. Interpretation The combination of the subject-matter (a banquet catalogue) and the absurdly elegant style of 2–5 suggests that (A.) is a cook or banquet-manager, and (B.) his baffled and increasingly unhappy employer, as in frr. 55 (n.); 180. If so, αἴρω in 2 is probably (A.)’s description of how he normally handles the situation when he sets up a dinner; cf. Alex. fr. 192; Axionic. fr. 8; Arched. fr. 2; Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1.11–14; Damox. fr. 2.53–4, 57–61. But (A.) might also be e. g. the excited and expansive host himself, and (B.) e. g. one of his guests. The style of 2–5 is consistently elevated but—as Konstantakos 2000a. 41–2 notes—not specifically “dithyrambic”, as fr. 55 (n.), by contrast, is. For the assignment of 1–5 to “Sophocles”, 6 n. How much (if any) of the passage is drawn direct from tragedy, as (A.) insists in 6, is impossible to say. But certainly not all of it is, and this might easily be nothing more than a pastiche of high-poetic language, with the assignment to Sophocles a bold fabrication by an experienced ἀλαζών, as in fr. 205.7–10 (n.), where Euripides is in question. 1 καί provides a link to some previously described action, e. g. the acquisition of a contract; the gathering of ingredients, assistants or guests; the general organization of the facilities; or the preparation of the food itself. 1, 4 πρῶτα μέν introduces the first item in the list; cf. Denniston 1954. 377, with a collection of examples of the combination followed by ἔπειτα (as here and at e. g. Ar. Th. 189–90; Pl. 771–2) or εἶτα (as at e. g. Ar. Ach. 648–9, 995–6; Timocl. fr. 18.2–3). Cf. fr. 19.2–3 τέως μέν …· / … εἶτα with n.

Ἄγροικος (fr. 1)

43

2 αἴρω is literally “I raise”, i. e. “I pick up and offer (to the guests)”, as in fr. 3.2 (of offering a cup of wine to symposium guests). Cf. Pherecr. fr. 145 πρόσαιρε τὸ κανοῦν, εἰ δὲ βούλει, πρόσφερε (“Hand me the offering basket, or if you prefer, fetch it here!”) ap. Phot. α 648 = Suda αι 299 = Synag. B α 568; Ar. Pax 1 αἶρ’ αἶρε μᾶζαν (“Bring me a kneaded cake, bring it!”; one of the anonymous slaves in the prologue to his partner, as they attempt to keep the voracious dung-beetle satisfied); Av. 850 παῖ παῖ, τὸ κανοῦν αἴρεσθε καὶ τὴν χέρνιβα (“Slave! Slave! Fetch the offering basket and the washing-water!”); Pl. Com. fr. 46.4 αἶρ’ ὕδωρ (“Fetch water!”). Whether the point is that the cook himself does the serving (as at e. g. Alex. fr. 192.6), or whether he takes credit for labor done by subordinates to whom he issues orders, is unclear. ποθεινός is cognate with πόθος and is thus properly “longed-for (in its absence), much-missed”. In the 5th century and earlier, the adjective is almost exclusively poetic (e. g. Callin. fr. 1.16; Pi. O. 8.64; S. Ph. 1445; E. Hel. 623; Agathon TrGF 39 F 3.2)—the appearance of a comparative form in Pericles’ Funeral Oration at Th. 2.42.4 is the exception that proves the rule—and is used by Aristophanes only in emotional invocations (Ach. 886 (of an eel Dikaiopolis is delighted to welcome back into his … kitchen); Pax 556), as also at fr. 94.2, and in other highstyle contexts (Av. 696 (the Birds’ mock-theogony); Ra. 84 (Dionysus in reference to Agathon)). The word is attested occasionally in 4th-century prose (e. g. Lys. 2.73; X. Smp. 2.4; Pl. Lg. 932a; Aeschin. 1.147). But what follows here leaves little doubt that it is intended to sound distinctly grand. For μᾶζα, fr. 225.1 n. Despite the elaborate language used to characterize it, this is simple, basic food, and the contrast between the homely nature of the object itself and the way it is described is part of the humor. φερέσβιος (literally “life-bearing”, i. e. “life-giving”) is elevated poetic vocabulary attested elsewhere at Hes. Th. 693 γαῖα φερέσβιος;27 hAp. 341 γαῖα φερέσβιος; hDem. 450 φερέσβιον οὖθαρ ἀρούρης with Richardson 1974 ad loc., 469 [κα]ρπὸν ἄεξε φερέσβιον ἀνθρώποισιν; Emp. 31 B 6.2 D.–K. Ἥρη τε φερέσβιος; A. frr. 204b.12 (of Prometheus); 300.7 φερέσβιον Δήμητρος ἀντέλλει στάχυν; Ion TrGF 19 F 7 σάγη φερέσβιος (apparently “a sack in which provisions are carried”); hHom. 30.9 (late) ἄρουρα φερέσβιος. Here the adjective is applied to Dêô (i. e. Demeter, see 3 with n.) because she is responsible for the grain that keeps men alive when it is used to produce barley-cakes—although as the speaker presents the situation, the goddess herself is actually making the dish and offering it to those she favors. 3 Δηώ (hDem. 47 with Richardson 1974 ad loc., 211, 492; S. Ant. 1121 (lyric); E. Supp. 290; Hel. 1343 (lyric); fr. 370.34, 109) is used as an abbreviated, high-style equivalent of Δημήτηρ elsewhere in comedy at fr. 55.9 (riddling remarks

27

Seemingly quoted in a slightly altered form at Arist. Mu. 391b13 ἡ φερέσβιος … γῆ, παντοδαπῶν ζῴων ἑστία τε οὖσα καὶ μήτηρ, and then picked up in the Hellenistic period by A.R. at 3.164; 4.1509.

44

Antiphanes

of a very similar sort); Ar. Pl. 515 ἢ γῆς ἀρότροις ῥήξας δάπεδον καρπὸν Δηοῦς θερίσασθαι (“or to break the earth’s floor with plows and harvest Dêô’s fruit”; Penia launches momentarily into elevated poetic language at the end of her description of the alleged joys of manual labor); Xenarch. fr. 1.5 Δηοῦς σύνοικος (“co-resident with Dêô”; part of an absurd, over-the-top description of a bulb). βροτός (“subject to death”, i. e. “mortal”) is almost exclusively poetic vocabulary; cf. frr. 104.1 (paratragic?) with n.; 238.4; Anaxandr. fr. 34.10 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 107. χάρμα (< χαίρω) is exclusively poetic vocabulary (e. g. Il. 6.82; Hes. Op. 701; hDem. 268–9 εἰμὶ δὲ Δημήτηρ τιμάοχος, ἥ τε μέγιστον / ἀθανάτοις θνητοῖσί τ’ ὄνεαρ καὶ χάρμα τέτυκται; Thgn. 692; Pi. O. 2.99; A. Pers. 1034; E. Heracl. 637; Philox. Leuc. PMG 836e.5 μέγα χάρμα βροτοῖς (of marrow); Delphic oracle L56.2 Fontenrose ap. Ath. 6.232f); attested in comedy only here and at adesp. com. fr. *1102.2. δωρέομαι is < δῶρον and thus properly “make a gift of ” (e. g. Eup. fr. 89.2). φίλον serves to add a bit of additional—arguably unnecessary—emotional color to χάρμα (“that they find dear” vel sim.); cf. Theopomp. Com. fr. 31.2 κέρμα φίλον διαδούς (“by distributing welcome cash”). 4 ἔπειτα i. e. after the barley-cake appetizers have been consumed, the cook having thus gained a bit of time in which to get the next course ready, as in Arched. fr. 2. πνίγω (literally “choke, strangle”), whence πνικτός, is defined by Thphr. de Igne 43 and Gal. 6.707.1–8 K. as a form of wet-cooking (see fr. 6 n. on ἕψω/ἑφθός) done in a tightly closed pot, so that the food is steamed more than it is boiled; in addition to the other fragments cited in this section of Athenaeus (listed in Citation context), cf. frr. 55.4 (lamb or kid) with n.; 130.2 (electric ray); Pherecr. fr. 190.2 (saltfish); Metag. fr. 6.9 ((fish-)steaks); Ephipp. fr. 3.7 = Eub. fr. dub. 148.4 (a rack of lamb-ribs); Alex. fr. 129.2 (piglet); Sotad. Com. fr. 1.21 (conger eel); Athenio fr. 1.30 (hashed meat); Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.29 (kid); Hdt. 2.92.5 (papyrus prepared ἐν κλιβάνῳ διαφανέϊ); Nic. fr. 68.6–7 πνῖγε δὲ πῶμα / ἀμφιβαλών (“put a lid on it and ‘suffocate’ it”); Orth 2009 on Stratt. fr. 30; Bianchi 2016 on Cratin. fr. 29. τακερός (< τήκω) is properly “melting”, i. e. “tender”. The word is first attested in lyric poetry, where it always refers to love itself, tender skin or the like (Alcm. PMG 3 fr. 3.61; Anacr. PMG 459; Ibyc. PMG 287.2), as also at Philet. fr. 5.1. In Attic, the adjective is confined to comedy,28 where it is mostly applied to food one might otherwise expect to be too hard to eat (Pherecr. frr. 89 (chick-peas); 113.13 (beef ribs); Ar. frr. 4.2 (pigs’ trotters); 372 (beans); Dionys. Com. fr. 3.7 (chunks of meat); Crobyl. fr. 6.1 (pigs’ heads); adesp. com. fr. 125.2 (a stomach-sausage)); cf. fr. 55.5 τακερόχρωτ(α) (of lamb or kid); Athenio fr. 1.30 ἐρίφιον ἐτακέρωσε (“he stewed kid-meat until it was tender”). Hippocrates—the only other author from

28

Conjectural at E. fr. 370.38.

Ἄγροικος (fr. 1)

45

the classical period to use τακερός—also applies it consistently to food (Aer. 7.65–6 = 2.32.8–9 Littré; Aff. 56.3 = 6.266.13 Littré; Mul. 169.22–3 = 8.350.5–6 Littré). μηκάς (i. e. “goat”; onomatopoeic, from the sound the animal makes) is Homeric vocabulary (Il. 11.383; 23.31; Od. 9.124, 244, 341) and is attested elsewhere in the classical period only at fr. 55.8 μηκάδων αἰγῶν (“dithyrambic” style); S. fr. 509 (probably from Poimenes, which may have been prosatyric); E. Cyc. 189 μηκάδων ἀρνῶν (probably intended as a verbal reminiscence of Od. 9). For eating goat, cf. frr. 21; 131.3–4, 6 (kids). μέλη are in this period generally “songs” (LSJ s. v. II; cf. fr. 207.4, 9 with n.), and in the sense “limbs” (LSJ s. v. I) the word appears normally to be used only in reference to human beings except in the similarly over-the-top Eub. fr. 14.3 θερμὰ χηνίσκων μέλη (“warm goose limbs”; part of an elaborate banquet catalogue); Alex. fr. 83.1 γόγγρου δ’ ὁμοῦ σωρευτὰ πιμελῆς μέλη (“and along with that, heaped-up limbs of a fat conger eel”; characterized by Arnott 1996 ad loc. as “nonsensical grotesquerie” perhaps used “to characterize the ἀλαζονεία of a pretentious μάγειρος”). Konstantakos 2000a. 46 suggests that the mu-alliteration may be a deliberate para-tragic touch. 5 LSJ s. v. καταμπέχω suggests taking καταμπέχοντα χλόην to mean either “stuffed with herbs” or “fed on grass”. The first interpretation suits the Greek very poorly, while the second is too obscure to make sense even in (A.)’s mouth (and what else would the animals be fed on except for “greenery”?). Konstantakos, comparing Eub. fr. 36.3–4 ἐγχέλεις … / τεῦτλ’ ἀμπεχόμεναι (“eels wrapped in beet”) would thus seem to be right to suggest that καταμπέχοντα modifies μέλη in 4 and takes two objects, σάρκα νεογενῆ and χλόην. For χλόη in the sense “fresh herbs”, see frr. 140.3; 221.5; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.7, 9, 32; Archestr. fr. 19.3 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc., and cf. fr. 131.7–9 n. νεογενής (first attested at A. Ch. 530; [E.] IA 1623) appears in what seems to be a similar context at fr. 55.4 νεογενοῦς ποίμνης (n.) and is thus probably intended to have a high-style sound here as well. 6 τί λέγεις; is here probably just as much an expression of baffled exasperation (“What in the world are you talking about?”) as a request for further information and clarification (~ “What do you mean precisely?”); cf. frr. 192.5–6 with n.; 220.1 with n., and with varying combinations of the two ideas e. g. Ar. Ach. 768; Nu. 367, 1174; V. 216, 1378; Av. 1651; Archipp. fr. 15.1 with Miccolis 2018 ad loc.; Stratt. fr. 14.2 with Orth 2009 ad loc.; Alex. fr. 177.3; Plaut. Merc. 455 quid ais? For περαίνω in the sense “recite” (LSJ s. v. I.4), cf. fr. 85.4; Ar. Ra. 1170, 1283; Pl. Mx. 236b; D. 19.245. Contrast fr. 49.5 (“bring to an end, finish, accomplish”, = LSJ s. v. I.3). Σοφοκλέους τραγῳδίαν Whether the reference is to the 5th-century tragic poet (quoted in fr. 228, where see n.) or to his grandson Sophocles II (TrGF 62), who was active from the late 400s (when he was supposedly responsible for the posthumous production of Oedipus at Colonus (T 3) to at least the 380s and 370s BCE (IG II2 2318.1007, 1153 Millis–Olson = T 5–6), is impossible to say. Revived

46

Antiphanes

tragedies began to be performed at the City Dionysia in 387/6 BCE, and some of the plays of Sophocles I may thus have been familiar to average Athenians in this period. But Sophocles II was Antiphanes’ rough contemporary and apparently quite successful—the Suda (T 1) gives him a total of seven victories—and although he is almost entirely obscure to us, he was certainly well-known to the original audience of Agroikos. Konstantakos 2000a. 47 argues for a pair of interrelated puns: “the cook can indeed claim to be performing literally a τραγ-ῳδία (“goat-song”), because he has just recited a passage about goats’ meat”, and “μηκάδων μέλη (with meat in its other sense) can also mean ‘goats’ songs’, and thus is itself a kenning for τραγῳδία”. This is perhaps too complicated to be believable; but (B.) may have asked e. g. “What do you mean ‘a tragedy’?”, to which (A.) responded “Didn’t I just refer to μηκάδων μέλη?”

fr. 2 K.–A. (2 K.) ἔστιν δ’ ἑταίρα τῷ τρέφοντι συμφορά· εὐφραίνεται γὰρ κακὸν ἔχων οἴκοι μέγα A hetaira is a disaster for the man who supports her; because he’s delighted to have an enormous problem in his house Ath. 13.567d ἐστὶν δ’ ἑταίρα, ὡς Ἀντιφάνης φησὶν ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ, τῷ τρέφοντι —— A hetaira is, as Antiphanes says in Agroikos, a disaster ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl l|lkl klkl llkl l|rkl llkl

Discussion

Konstantakos 2000a. 50–1

Citation context From the very beginning of a discussion of prostitutes and courtesans by the Cynic Cynulcus that consists mostly of citations from comedy and extends to Ath. 13.587f. Timocl. frr. 25; 27 follow immediately after this. Interpretation As excerpted in Athenaeus, this is a bit of generalizing wisdom, with the individual referred to as τῷ τρέφοντι in 1 to be supplied as the subject of εὐφραίνεται in 2; cf. in general Anaxil. fr. 22; Alex. fr. 103.1–3; and for the poet’s sententiae generally, Menu 2014. In its original context, by contrast, the individual referred to in 2 may well have been a character in the play who is merely said to resemble the generic unfortunate described in 1. In any case, the words are probably relevant to a real situation within the play: someone—not necessarily the title-character—is not merely keeping a courtesan but keeping her in his own

Ἄγροικος (fr. 2)

47

house (implying in turn that he is either unmarried or exceptionally brave/reckless). Cf. fr. 210 (where the girl is a citizen but an orphan, and where what she is doing in the house is unclear from the limited amount of text preserved); Demeas and the ἑταίρα Chrysis with whom he lives in Menander’s Samia; Olympiodoros’ cohabitation with a ἑταίρα he bought out of slavery as described at [D.] 48.53; Apollodoros’ prediction that Stephanos will claim that he keeps Neaira (sc. in his house as his bed-mate) “not as a wife but as his ἑταίρα” ([D.] 59.119); and the speaker’s observation at [D.] 40.9 that his father did not settle the ἑταίρα Plangon in his house after his wife died, although he could have. On the most straightforward reading of the fragment, the συμφορά mentioned in 1 is that a man who keeps a courtesan is happy even though he should be in despair. Alternatively, the writing may be loose and the point may be that a courtesan is a κακὸν μέγα that a man takes upon himself because he fails to realize what he is getting into, which is to say that the tragedy is not his failure to grasp his situation once he is in it, but the fact that he enters into ruin voluntarily. Prostitutes and courtesans (1 n.)—for whom see in general Henry 1985; Brown 1990; Nesselrath 1990. 318–24, esp. 321–4; Amouroux 1995. 240–3 (these first four items all on the image of such persons in 4th-century comedy); Faraone–McClure 2006; Auhagen 2009; Glazebrook–Henry 2011—were notoriously grasping (e. g. Ar. Pl. 149–52; Anaxil. fr. 22.23–6; Epicr. fr. 3.11–12; Plaut. Truc. 50–6). But the sentiments expressed here are elsewhere applied to women generally; cf. [Sus.] fr. 1.3–4; Hes. Op. 57–8 τοῖς δ’ ἐγὼ ἀντὶ πυρὸς δώσω κακόν, ᾧ κεν ἅπαντες / τέρπωνται κατὰ θυμὸν ἑὸν κακὸν ἀμφαγαπῶντες (“But I will give them trouble in return for fire, in which they might all rejoice in their hearts, embracing their own trouble”; Zeus in reference to his plan to send men Pandora and thus by extension women generally), and more generally frr. 245–7; 270. 1 Cf. Alex. fr. 279.1 ὡς ἔστι κατακεῖσθαι πρὸ δείπνου συμφορά (also followed by a γάρ-clause) with Arnott 1996 ad loc. (citing other examples of the use of συμφορά as a predicate nominative or accusative in the sense “disaster”). For a definitive pronouncement introduced by ἔστιν δ’ and similarly followed by a γάρ-clause, cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 3.1 ἔστιν δ’ αὐτούς γε φυλάττεσθαι τῶν νῦν χαλεπώτατον ἔργον. In comedy, at least, the terms ἑταίρα (also frr. 101.2 (appreciative); 210.3, 6–7 (on the problematic character of the word)), πόρνη (fr. 293.3 with n.) and κασωρῖτις (fr. 310; abusive) all refer to what we would call “prostitutes” or “commercial sex-workers” of a wide variety of sorts. But πόρνη—which stresses the commercial nature of the relationship—is mostly used abusively, whereas ἑταίρα— which stresses the “companionship” the woman provides her customer—is not.29 Cf. in particular Alex. fr. 103.4 (brothel prostitutes described as ἑταῖραι); Anaxil. fr. 21 (the second speaker has fallen in love with a nice, sophisticated girl, and the

29

Rusten 2011. 488 “A prostitute is a misfortune to her keeper” thus gets the tone wrong.

48

Antiphanes

first speaker assures him that she is accordingly to be thought of not as a pornê but as a hetaira); Diph. fr. 42.39–40 πολυτελῶς Ἀδώνια / ἄγουσ’ ἑταίρα μεθ’ ἑτέρων πορνῶν χύδην (“a hetaira is celebrating the Adonia festival in a lavish fashion along with a bunch of other pornai”). For additional discussion of the relationship between the two terms, see the bibliography collected in Miner 2003. 21 n. 9. τῷ τρέφοντι The verb can be used of “rearing, keeping” any sort of creature, including a wife (e. g. [Epich.] fr. 247.5; Anaxandr. fr. 53.8), children (e. g. Ar. Nu. 1208; V. 1133; Ec. 461), domestic animals or birds (e. g. Eup. frr. 41; 226.1; Ar. Nu. 109; V. 835; Anaxandr. fr. 29.1), a parasite (Arar. fr. 16.2; Eub. fr. 114.1–2) or prostitutes in a brothel (Diph. fr. 87.5; perhaps Eub. fr. 87.1 (thus Kassel–Austin ad loc.), although a slave, a “kept woman” or a parasite might just as well be speaking there (Hunter 1983 ad loc.); cf. θρέμμα in reference to a prostitute at Men. Kith. 41); cf. fr. 227.5 τρέφειν τὸν δῆμον with n. 2 Forms of μέγα are similarly used to reinforce κακόν at e. g. frr. 121.2; 209.4; 235.1; Ar. Nu. 1060; Theopomp. Com. fr. 64.3; Axionic. fr. 3.3; Alex. fr. 44. A woman could certainly be “kept” (see 1 n.) for sexual purposes somewhere other than in one’s own house, and οἴκοι is accordingly added to keep what is being said clear.

fr. 3 K.–A. (4 K.) Ἁρμόδιος ἐπεκαλεῖτο, παιὼν ᾔδετο, μεγάλην Διὸς Σωτῆρος ἄκατον ᾖρέ τις 1 ἐπεκαλεῖτο Koppiers : εκαλεῖτο Ath.A : ἐκαλεῖτ , εἶτα Blaydes Ath.A 2 ηρε Ath.A : ᾖρε Kock

παιὼν Meineke : παιαν

Harmodios was being invoked; a paean was being sung; someone was lifting up a large cup dedicated to Zeus the Savior Ath. 15.692f Ἀντιφάνης μὲν γὰρ ἐν Ἀγροικίσιν ἔφη· —— Because Antiphanes said in Agroikides: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

lrkr klk|l llkl rlkl llk|r klkl

Discussion Koppiers 1771. 31; Meineke 1839–1857 III.47; Kock 1884 II.14; Blaydes 1896. 101; Konstantakos 2000a. 55–7

Ἄγροικος (fr. 3)

49

Text The paradosis παιάν (printed by Kassel–Austin) might be right in 1. But this is a late form of the word (cf. Men. Dysc. 192), whereas Meineke’s παιών is expected in Attic, at least in the 5th century and outside of tragedy (evidence reviewed in Wackernagel 1925. 61–2; Cromey 1978. 62–5; further bibliography at Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 310–11). Given that Παιῶνα is metrically guaranteed at 85.5 (n.), it thus seems perverse not to print it here as well. Citation context The first in a series of quotations referring to after-dinner cups of wine dedicated to various divinities; cf. fr. 85 with nn. Alex. fr. 234; Nicostr. Com. frr. 18–19; Xenarch. fr. 2; Eriph. fr. 4 follow, in that order. Interpretation A description of events at the beginning of a symposium, although in an unexpected order, with the paean seemingly sung first. Konstantakos 2000a. 57 suggests that the speaker may be confused (or drunk?), or that a group of ἄγροικοι may have got proper symposium procedures wrong. But perhaps this is instead merely a slightly jumbled retrospective account of events, hence the imperfects.30 For the rapid-fire narrative, cf. Eub. fr. 111; Ephipp. fr. 8.1–5. 1 Ἁρμόδιος ἐπεκαλεῖτο i. e. as a hero capable of offering protection and support; cf. Hdt. 8.64.2 (Aias and Telemon invoked as allies on the eve of the Battle of Salamis). The reference is to a well-known skolion (or set of closely related skolia = carm. conv. PMG 893–6) sung in honor of Harmodios of Aphidnai (PA 2232; PAA 203425), who along with his lover Aristogeiton son of Theotimos of Aphidnai (PA 1777; PAA 168195) assassinated Hipparchos son of Peisistratos (PA 7598; PAA 537615) in 514 BCE and were remembered —inaccurately—as having thus freed the Athenians from tyranny. See generally with further bibliography Brunnsaker 1955 (1973); Davies 1971. 473–7; Taylor 1981; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 978–9; Ober 2003; Schmidt 2009; Shear 2012; Azoulay 2014. For other references to the Harmodios-song, cf. fr. 85.5 (a conventional part of a symposium, along with a paean); Ar. Ach. 978–9 οὐδὲ παρ’ ἐμοί ποτε τὸν Ἁρμόδιον ᾄσεται / ξυγκατακλινείς, ὅτι παροινικὸς ἀνὴρ ἔφυ (“and [the personified War] will never lie down with me and sing about Harmodios, that he was a man who liked to drink”); V. 1225 ᾄδω δὲ πρῶτος Ἁρμοδίου (“first I sing about Harmodios”; part of the action at an imaginary symposium); Lys. 631–2 (a modified version of one of the skolia); fr. 444.2 Ἁρμοδίου μέλος (“the Harmodios-song”); Samons 2020. Konstantakos 2000a. 55–6 suggests that the custom may have been fading by this time, marking the proceedings here as distinctly old-fashioned. παιών is properly the name of a deity generally identified with Apollo (LSJ s. v. I.2; cf. fr. 85.5 (a Paiôn-hymn as a conventional part of a symposium)) and by extension a song sung in honor of the god (LSJ s. v. II) intended to enlist his support and protection at the beginning of any potentially significant undertaking, here the start of the drinking at a party; cf. Pherecr. fr. 138.5 ἔγχει κἀπιβόα τρίτον παιῶν’, ὡς νόμος ἐστίν (“Pour a drink, and invoke Paiôn for a third time, as is 30

Misleadingly treated as simple pasts at Rusten 2011. 488.

50

Antiphanes

customary!”); Ar. Pax 453 ἡμῖν δ’ ἀγαθὰ γένοιτ’. ἰὴ παιών, ἰή (“Might we get good things! Iê paiôn; iê!”; Trygaios and the chorus prepare to rescue Peace from the cave in which War has concealed her); Th. 310–11 ἰὴ παιών, ἰὴ παιών, ἰὴ παιών. χαίρωμεν (“Iê paiôn, iê paiôn, iê paiôn, let us rejoice (sc. in the certainty that our wish will be granted)!”; at the end of the prose prayer with which the women’s assembly begins); Ath. 15.696a–7b, 701c–f (a complicated discussion of various 4th- and 3rd-century “paeans”, many of them addressed to heroized human beings); Sjövall 1931. 90–3, 99–101; Rutherford 1993. 2 At the beginning of a symposium, after the guests’ hands had been washed and the so-called “first tables” had been removed (cf. fr. 172b.1 n.), everyone in attendance was offered a taste of unmixed wine called by the name of the Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων (“Good Divinity”; cf. fr. 135.1–2 n.), followed by a cup of wine mixed with water dedicated to Zeus the Savior, who sent the rain and thus, by making fresh water available to men, rendered safe drinking possible (Philoch. FGrH 328 F 5 ap. Ath. 2.38c–d and 15.693d–e; cf. Alex. fr. 234.2–3, where Zeus the Savior is called “far and away the most useful of all the gods for human beings”; Eriph. fr. 4 and Xenarch fr. 2, in both of which Zeus the Savior and the Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων seem to be distinguished). The most economical interpretation of this verse would accordingly seem to be that the cup is raised (ᾖρε < αἴρω/ἀείρω) in order to be offered to the group to pass around and drink from individually, as at fr. 172a.2–4 (n.); cf. fr. 1.2 n. See also fr. 163 with n., and in general Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 59.1 (with further primary references and bibliography).31 μεγάλην … ἄκατον An ἄκατος (literally “skiff ”; LSJ s. v. I) is identified at Ath. 11.782f (citing Epicr. fr. 9) as ποτήριον ἐοικὸς πλοίῳ (“a drinking-vessel that resembles a boat”; LSJ s. v. II); cf. Theopomp. Com. fr. 4, where the term is said to have been used by the lyric poet Telestes (PMG 811) for “a golden φιάλη with a central boss”. A φιάλη was a broad, generally shallow bowl and thus arguably better suited to pouring libations than to drinking; see frr. 110.1 with n.; 223.4 with n. But the presence of the adjective—irrelevant if all that is in question is dumping a bit of wine on the ground in honor of a god—strongly suggests that the ἄκατος is to be drunk from, presumably as it is passed around the company; cf. below. Διὸς Σωτῆρος For other references to drinking wine dedicated to Zeus the Savior, see fr. 172a.2–4; Eub. fr. 56.6–7; Alex. fr. 234.1–2; Xenarch. fr. 2.4–5, and cf. Alex. fr. 272.4–5, where the words Διὸς Σωτῆρος are actually supposed to be 31

There is also abundant evidence that the third bowl of wine as a whole was dedicated to Zeus the Savior (Pi. I. 6.7–9 with Σ, citing A. fr. 55 and S. fr. 425), but the action described in 1 seems clearly to be set at the beginning of the festivities. Zeus the Savior and the Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων are seemingly confounded at Diph. fr. 70 Ἀρχίλοχε, δέξαι τήνδε τὴν μετανιπτρίδα / μεστὴν Διὸς Σωτῆρος, Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος (“Archilochus, accept this after-washing cup full of Zeus the Savior, the Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων!”), which raises the—arguably self-evident— possibility that actual symposium practice was less consistent than our sources appear to make it out to be.

Ἄγροικος (fr. 4)

51

written or inscribed on a cup, with Arnott 1996 ad loc.32 For mention of the god or his cult elsewhere in comedy, see Ar. Th. 1009; Ra. 738; Ec. 79, 761, 1045; Pl. 877, 1175, 1189; Alex. fr. 234.4; Diph. fr. 42.24–5; Philem. fr. 82.21; Men. Dysc. 690; Epitr. 359, 907; Pk. 759; Sam. 310; frr. 420.7; 804.2; adesp. com. frr. 1017.107; 1089.10; 1115.10. For the “genitive of the toast”, cf. frr. 81.4–5; 172.2; Eub. fr. 56.7; Nicostr. Com. fr. 18.2; Poultney 1936. 44–5; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 59.1 (with numerous other examples). τις is probably an oblique way of referring to a slave charged with handling the cups at the symposium, as at e. g. fr. 81.2; Ar. fr. 174.2–3; Amphis fr. 18.

fr. 4 K.–A. (3 K.) (Α.) ὅλην μύσας ἔκπινε. (Β.) μέγα τὸ φορτίον. (Α.) οὐχ ὅστις αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἐμπείρως ἔχων 1 ὅλην Musurus : ὁληην Ath.A : ὄλπην Kock Lobeck

μυσας Ath.A : ἀνύσας Emperius : ἀμυστὶ

(A.) Close your eyes and drain the whole cup (fem.)! (B.) The load’s a big one. (A.) Not for someone who’s got experience with it (fem.) Ath. 10.445f–6a μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Οὐλπιανὸς προπιών τινι τῶν ἑταίρων ἔφη· ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀντιφάνην, ὦ φιλότης, ὃς ἐν Ἀγροίκοις φησίν· ——. πῖθι οὖν, ὦ ἑταῖρε. After this, Ulpian drank a toast to one of the other guests and said: To quote Antiphanes, my friend, who says in Agroikoi: ——. So drink up, companion!

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl llk|r klkl llkl l|lk|l llkl

Discussion Lobeck 1820. 310; Emperius 1847. 310; Kock 1884 II.13; Konstantakos 2000a. 51–5 Text Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus corrected Ath.A’s ὁληην μυσας in 1 (left unaccented as a mark of the scribe’s inability to make sense of the text) to ὅλην μύσας. Kock suggested ὄλπην (i. e. ΟΛΠΗΝ for the paradosis ΟΛΗΗΝ) rather than ὅλην; but the word is not used in comedy and appears to mean “pitch32

For a real example of such a cup (from Corinth and dating to sometime between the 4th and the 2nd century BCE), see Broneer 1954. 62–4.

52

Antiphanes

er” vel sim. at Ion TrGF 19 F 10.1 (ap. Ath. 11.495b). Emperius’ ἀνύσας (“hurry up and …!”; e. g. Ar. Eq. 119; Nu. 181; Anaxil. fr. 36) in place of μύσας might be right but is unnecessary, and the same is true of Lobeck’s ἀμυστὶ (“without pausing for a breath”); see Interpretation. Citation context A brief interruption in a section of the Deipnosophists (Ath. 10.444d–7d) devoted to various vocabulary items associated with drinking, which along with fr. 205 (quoted immediately after this) serves to introduce a discussion of the use of imperative πῖθι (Cratin. fr. 145; Antiph. fr. 161; Diph. fr. 20; Amips. fr. 17; Men. fr. 69, in that order). Interpretation From a symposium scene of some sort, with (B.)—a man; note masc. μύσας in 1—being a drinking-party novice, (A.) someone far more experienced at this sort of thing. For onstage symposia—apparently a common feature of Antiphanes’ plays—cf. frr. 57; 85; 111; 113; 137; 147; 161; 163; 205, and probably frr. 192; 194 (riddle scenes), and see in general Konstantakos 2005b. 186–94. 1 ὅλην sc. τὴν κύλικα, τὴν ἄκατον (cf. fr. 3.2) vel sim. For draining full cups of wine, e. g. Alex. frr. 5; 286.1–2; Diph. fr. 17.7–8. μύσας ἔκπινε To drink ἄμυστι(ν) is to drain a cup without closing (μύω) one’s mouth, i. e. at a single draught (e. g. Cratin. fr. 322 with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc.; Anacr. PMG 356a.2; E. Cyc. 417; the name of a specific type of cup at e. g. Amips. fr. 21.3; [E.] Rh. 419; cf. fr. 75.14 n.). But here the addressee’s mouth is patently to be kept wide open, and what he is to close must be his eyes, as he forces his way through a difficult task, hence the objection in the second half of the verse.33 Cf. Men. fr. 816 ἢ μὴ γαμεῖν γάρ, ἂν δ’ ἅπαξ λάβῃς, φέρειν / μύσαντα πολλὴν προῖκα καὶ γυναῖκα δεῖ (“for you ought not to marry, but once you do take a wife and a large dowry, you ought to close your eyes and put up with them”); Pl. Grg. 480c (how someone faces surgery or cauterization at the hands of a doctor); colloquial German “Augen zu und durch!”, and presumably Hermipp. fr. 42 ὁ Ζεὺς δὲ τούτων οὐδὲν ἐνθυμούμενος / μύων ξυνέπλαττε Θετταλικὴν τὴν ἔνθεσιν (“And Zeus, paying no attention to any of this, closing his eyes(?) was molding a Thessalian mouthful”).34 ἐκπίνω is here not just “drink” but “drink dry, drain” (LSJ s. v. 2), as at e. g. Ar. Ach. 199; Pl. 737; cf. frr. 47.3 with n.; 75.11. φορτίον (also fr. 270.1) is cognate with φέρω and thus “something one carries, load” (e. g. Ar. Ach. 211–13; Lys. 312), but normally “freight, merchandise” (e. g. Ar. Ach. 910, 957; Hes. Op. 643) and thus by extension “business, undertaking” (Ar. Pl. 352); coarse commercial vocabulary apparently judged too undignified for tragedy or 5th-century lyric poetry. LSJ s .v. 4 takes μέγα τὸ φορτίον to be 33 34

Colloquial English would say “grit your teeth”. At S. Ant. 421 μύσαντες δ’ εἴχομεν θείαν νόσον the messenger is not speaking figuratively, but means that he and the other guards set over Polynices’ body closed their eyes during the great wind-storm, as a consequence of which Antigone was able to approach undetected.

Ἄγροικος (fr. 5)

53

metaphorical (~ “It’s a big burden”, meaning a difficult and perhaps unwelcome task; cf. Anaxandr. fr. 54.2 (old age is “the biggest φορτίον there is”) with Millis 2015 ad loc.). But perhaps word-play of some sort is involved, the cup having previously been imagined as a ship or even having a name like ἄκατος (literally “skiff ”) or κάνθαρος (literally “beetle”, but also a type of boat), although both of these are themselves masculine. 2 οὐχ sc. ἐστι φορτίον αὐτῷ, “(It’s) not (a big burden for the man) who …”; a colloquial ellipse. Cf. Smyth 1956 § 2531. ἐστιν ἐμπείρως ἔχων = ἐστιν ἔμπειρος. For the periphrasis, cf. fr. 54.3 ἣν πᾶσιν ἐλθεῖν ἔστ’ ἀναγκαίως ἔχον; Anaxandr. fr. 57.4 ὁ γὰρ δίαυλός ἐστιν αἰσχύνην ἔχων with Millis 2015 ad loc. ἔμπειρος and cognates are first attested at Pi. fr. 110.1 (ἐμπείρων); A. Pers. 598; elsewhere in comedy at e. g. Ar. Ra. 811; Alex. fr. 162 ἐμπειρικῶς; Men. Dysc. 29 ἐμπειρία.

fr. 5 K.–A. (5 K.) ὡς δὴ σύ τι ποιεῖν δυνάμενος ὀρτυγίου ψυχὴν ἔχων 1 σύ τι Ath.A : τί σὺ Ath.CE : τίσυον Eust. : σὺ τί Musurus ὀρτυγίου ψυχήν 〈δ 〉 ἔχων

2 fort. ποιεῖν δυνάμενος,

as if you were actually capable of doing anything, given that you have the spirit of a little quail! Ath. 9.392e (ὄρτυγες) ὑποκοριστικῶς δὲ Εὔπολις ἐν Πόλεσιν αὐτοὺς κέκληκεν ὀρτύγια λέγων οὕτως (Eup. fr. 226)· ——. Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ ὀρτύγιον εἴρηκεν οὕτως· —— (quail) Eupolis in Poleis refers to them with the diminutive ortygia, putting it as follows (Eup. fr. 226): ——. And Antiphanes in Agroikos uses ortygion, as follows: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xlkl〉 llkl llkr k|lrl klkl

Discussion 57–8

Meineke 1839–1857 III.4; Kock 1884 II.14; Konstantakos 2000a.

Text Either σύ τι (Ath.A) or τι σὺ (Ath.CE) would do metrically, but the latter would require that τι be taken closely together with ὡς δή, leaving ποιεῖν without an (internal) object. Eustathius’ † τίσυον † (drawn from his own copy of the Epitome of Athenaeus) reflects a misunderstanding of the grave accent on σὺ as a ligature for -ον. Musurus in the editio princeps of the Deipnosophists retained

54

Antiphanes

the word-order of Ath.A but followed the Epitome in converting the words into a question. Citation context From a diverse collection of material on quail (Ath. 9.392a– 3c)—here the original source appears to be a grammarian—that makes up part of the extended catalogue of birds in Book 9 of the Deipnosophists. Interpretation Part of a hostile remark directed at an individual man (no main verb is preserved), who is accused of sharing some characteristic with a quail that renders him incapable of getting anything done. Cf. Eub. fr. 99 εἰ μὴ σὺ χηνὸς ἧπαρ ἢ ψυχὴν ἔχεις (“unless you have the liver or spirit of a goose”). Meineke, comparing Alex. Mynd. fr. I.16 Wellmann ap. Ath. 9.392f–3a (δειλή)—where the reference is to a different bird—suggested that cowardice was in question. Kock, by contrast, thought the addressee was being accused of litigiousness, perhaps because male quail fight one another during mating season (Arist. HA 536a26–7; 613b33–614a6). Konstantakos 2000a. 57 takes the point to be that the addressee (like a quail) is willing to fight initially, but then gives in once he suffers a reverse. “One of the participants”, sc. in the quarrel perhaps alluded to here, “could be the agroikos” (Konstantakos 2000a. 58). 1 δή “With participle … almost always ironical, sceptical, or indignant in tone” (Denniston 1954. 230; cf. Wilamowitz 1895 on E. HF 1407). Cf. Ar. Eq. 693 ὡς δὴ καταπιόμενός με; Men. Dysc. 776–7 καταβεβρωκότες δὴ τὸ πρόβατον φροῦδοι πάλαι / εἰσὶν εἰς ἀγρόν, and compare the similar use of the particle with an adjective at e. g. Ar. V. 1315 οὗτος δὲ διεμύλλαινεν, ὡς δὴ δεξιός.35 Contrast fr. 218.2 with n. 2 ὀρτυγίου ψυχὴν ἔχων Cf. Hermipp. fr. 47.4 ψυχὴ δὲ Τέλητος ὑπέστη (“while Teles’ spirit is inside of you”; of a supposed coward). ὀρτυγίου Quail (Coturnix coturnix) were doubtless eaten on occasion (fr. 295.3 with n.), but appear to have been kept primarily for bird-fighting and the game of “quail-tapping” (Eup. fr. 269 with Olson 2016 ad loc.). Cf. frr. 203.2 (described as extremely numerous, i. e. in contemporary Athens); 295.3 (in a catalogue of birds—or foodstuffs?; see n.); Ar. Pax 788–9 (domesticated and proverbially small); Av. 1298 (offered to boys as a love-gift); Pl. Ly. 211e (the sort of possession a man might covet, like a horse or a dog or even gold); Aeschin. 1.59 (a man fond of gambling games and the like owns both quail and fighting cocks), and see in general Thompson 1936. 215–19; Capponi 1979. 204–10; Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 704–7, 1297–9; Arnott 2007. 161–3; Mynott 2018. 81–4. The diminutive is also attested at Eup. fr. 226.2 μικρά γ’ ὀρτύγια (“little ortygia”; preserved in the same section of Athenaeus) and in an undated but patently late magical papyrus (PGM 12.145 (vol. II p. 67)), and may thus be colloquial. Here it is in any case deteri35

Fritzsche’s ἐπίθες λιβανωτὸν καὶ σὺ δὴ λαβών (printed by Dover) rather than the paradosis ἐπίθες λαβὼν δὴ καὶ σὺ λιβανωτόν (printed by Wilson) is thus likely to be right at Ar. Ra. 888.

Ἄγροικος (fr. 6)

55

orative, the point being that a quail is more cowardly than most other creatures (Petersen 1920. 125–6). For ψυχή meaning ~ “courage, heart”, e. g. Ar. Eq. 482–3 ἄγε δὴ σύ, τίνα νοῦν ἢ τίνα ψυχὴν ἔχεις, / νυνὶ διδάξεις (“Come on you! Now you’ll show what sort of mind or psychê is inside of you”; Slave II attempts to buck up the Sausage-seller for his confrontation with the Paphlagonian before the Council); Nu. 1048–9 τῶν τοῦ Διὸς παίδων τίν’ ἄνδρ’ ἄριστον / ψυχὴν νομίζεις; (“Which of the sons of Zeus do you consider the best man as regards psychê?”; answer: “I consider no one superior to Herakles”); Pax 675 ψυχήν γ’ ἄριστος (“best in psychê”; of someone nominally brave); Eub. fr. 99 (quoted and translated above); LSJ s. v. IV.5; and in general Darkus 1979; Claus 1981; Clarke 2000. 129–56.

fr. 6 K.–A. (6 K.) κραμβίδιον ἑφθὸν χαρίεν, ἀστεῖον πάνυ a bit of lovely stewed cabbage, very fancy Poll. 6.54 ἀσφάραγος ὁ ἀκανθίας, ὄρμενος ἥμερος ἀσφάραγος· καὶ πᾶν δὲ τὸ ὑπερεξηνθηκός, ὅπερ ἐκκεκαυληκὸς καλοῦσιν, ὄρμενον ὠνόμαζον … ῥάφανος ἡ κράμβη. τὸ δ’ ὄνομα τῆς κράμβης ἔστι μὲν καὶ παρ’ Ἀριστοτέλει ἐν τοῖς περὶ ζῴων (HA 551a15)· ῥάφανος, ἣν καλοῦσί τινες κράμβην. ἄντικρυς δ’ αὐτῷ κέχρηται Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ· —— Spiny asparagus, domesticated hormenos asparagus; and every plant that has bolted, which they refer to as ‘having run to stalks’, they called hormenos … Krambê is rhaphanos (‘cabbage’). The name krambê appears in Aristotle in his On Living Creatures (HA 551a15): rhaphanos, which some refer to as krambê. While Antiphanes uses it outright in Agroikos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

lrkl l|rk|l llkl

Discussion

Konstantakos 2000a. 58–9

Citation context From a brief discussion of the names of various vegetables, including asparagus, that send up shoots (ὅρμενοι/ὅρμενα), embedded in a larger discussion of words for food of all sorts. Poll. 1.247 appears to be drawn from the same source: ῥάφανος· ἡ κράμβη δὲ οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτο. ἣν δὲ οἱ πολλοὶ ῥάφανον καλοῦσι, ῥαφανίς … ἀσφάραγος ὁ ἀκανθίας λέγεται, ὄρμενος δὲ ὁ ἥμερος ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς κράμβης ἐκκαυλούμενος (“rhaphanos: krambê was referred to thus; whereas what most people call rhaphanos is rhaphanis … Spiny asparagus is mentioned, along with domesticated hormenos from cabbage stalks”). Cognate material is preserved at

56

Antiphanes

– Antiatt. κ 69 κράμβης τὸν ἀσπάραγον· καὶ ἰατροὶ οὕτως (“the asparagus of krambê: physicians as well (refer to it) thus”) – Hsch. κ 3938 κράμβη· ῥάφανος, καὶ ἕτερα λάχανα (“krambê: rhaphanos, also other vegetables”) – Hsch. ο 1249 ὅρμενος· … καὶ οἱ μὲν τῆς κράμβης τὸ ἐντὸς κύημα· οἱ δὲ τὸν ἄγριον ἀσπάραγον. ἄλλοι πᾶν τὸ ἐκκεκαυλημένον (“hormenos: … and some authorities use the term for the interior flower-shoot of krambê, whereas others (use it for) wild asparagus. Others (use it of) any plant that has run to stalks”) – Hsch. ρ 141 ῥαφάνη· κράμβη (“rhaphanê: krambê”) – Hsch. ρ 143 ῥαφανίς (καὶ) ῥάφανος διαφέρει παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς· ῥάφανος μὲν γὰρ ἡ κράμβη, ῥαφανὶς δὲ ἡ παρ’ ἡμῖν ῥάφαν(ος) (“rhaphanis (and) rhaphanos are different in Attic authors; because rhaphanos is krambê, whereas rhaphanis (‘radish’) is what we call rhaphanos”) – Phot. α 3038 = Synag. B α 2306 ἀσφάραγον … καὶ ἁπλῶς τὰ τῶν λαχάνων ὄρμενα ἀσπαράγους καλοῦσιν (“aspharagos … and they refer to vegetable shoots generally as asparagoi”; from the common source of Photius and the Synagoge conventionally referred to as Σ΄ ΄ ΄) – Phot. κ 1051 κράμβη· Ἀσιαγενὲς τὸ ὄνομα, ἣν Ἀττικοὶ ῥάφανον· τὴν δὲ ῥάφανον οἱ πολλοὶ ῥαφανίδα ἐκάλουν (“krambê: the word is of Asian origin, (referring to) what Attic authors (call) rhaphanos; but many authorities referred to rhaphanos as rhaphanis”) – Phot. ο 494 ὅρμενα· τὰ τῆς κράμβης. Ποσείδιππος Συντρόφοις (fr. 26)· ——. παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς οὐχ εὕρομεν. Νικοστράτῳ Ῥήτορι (fr. 24)· —— (“hormena: krambê-shoots. Posidippus in Syntrophoi (fr. 26): ——. We do not find the word in the ancient authors. Nicostratus in Rhêtôr (fr. 24): ——”) – Phot. ο 497 ὅρμενον· ἄγριόν τι λάχανον κυρίως οὕτως καλούμενον· καταχρηστικῶς δὲ καὶ πᾶν τὸ ἐκκεκαυληκὸς παντὸς λαχάνου καὶ ἄνθους (“hormenon: a type of wild vegetable properly referred to thus; but in improper usage any vegetable- or flower-stalk”) – Phot. ρ 49 ῥάφανος· κράμβη· ῥαφανὶς δέ, ἣν ἡμεῖς ῥάφανον (“rhaphanos: krambê. Whereas rhaphanis is what we (call) rhaphanos”) – Suda ρ 598 ὅρμενα· τῶν λαχάνων πάντα τὰ ἐκκεκαυληκότα. οἱ δὲ τῆς κράμβης τὸ ἐντὸς κύημα· οἱ δὲ τὸν ἄγριον ἀσπάραγον (“hormena: all vegetables that have run to stalks. But some authorities (use the word for) the interior flower-shoot of krambê, while others (use it of) wild asparagus”) – Suda ρ 55 ῥαφανίς· ῥαφανῖδα φασὶν Ἀττικοί, ἣν ἡμεῖς ῥέφανόν φαμεν· πάλιν δὲ ῥάφανον, ἣν ἡμεῖς κράμβην (“rhaphanis: Attic authors use rhaphanis for what we call rhephanos; and again (they use) rhaphanos for what we call krambê”). Interpretation Cabbage was used as a hangover cure (Alex. fr. 287; Anaxandr. fr. 59; Eub. fr. 124; cf. Amphis fr. 37), but κράμβη is an unusual term for it, described at Apollod. Car. fr. dub. 32 as typical of ξένοι (“foreigners”). Konstantakos accordingly suggests that the speaker may be a physician offering medical assistance

Ἄγροικος (fr. 6)

57

after the party referenced to in various ways in frr. 1; 3–4. Alternatively, given the mention of the manner in which the food has been prepared (ἑφθόν) and the appreciative adjectives attached to it (χαρίεν, ἀστεῖον πάνυ), this might be part of another banquet catalogue (cf. fr. 1). κραμβίδιον The diminutive—hypocoristic, reflecting a gourmand’s enthusiasm for the food-item in question, or a wheedling attempt to make it seem more appealing?; see Petersen 1910. 238–9; Dore 1964, and cf. frr. 21.4 αἰγίδιον; 35.4 πιλίδιον; 160 βιβλίδιον; 221.1 γλαυκίδιον, etc.—is attested only here. κράμβη (etymology uncertain; mentioned elsewhere in comedy at Telecl. fr. 29; Eup. fr. 84.2 (both examples of the oath ναὶ μὰ τὰς κράμβας, “By the cabbages!”); Polyzel. fr. 10; Apollod. Car. fr. dub. 32.2 (see above)) is more often referred to as ῥάφανος (e. g. fr. 181.6 with n.; Alc. Com. fr. 24 with Orth 2013 ad loc.). The descriptions of the plant in Theophrastus (HP 7.4.4) and the other early authorities quoted at Ath. 9.369e–f make it clear that heading varieties of the vegetable are not in question and that Greek cabbage more closely resembled modern kale; see de Saint-Denis 1980 (concentrating on the Roman evidence); García Soler 2001. 44; Maggioni et al. 2010, esp. 112–13; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 158–9. ἕψω (whence ἑφθός) is one of the two basic Greek culinary verbs and is used of all types of wet cooking, e. g. poaching, braising, boiling and stewing (frr. 95.2; 171.2; 175.2; 181.6; 183.3; 216.4; 221.2; 239.2; 248.1; cf. fr. 1.4 with n.); contrast ὀπτάω (fr. 55.3 n.), which is used of dry cooking. χαρίεν For the adjective applied to food, cf. Pl. Com. fr. 164 νάρκη γὰρ ἑφθὴ βρῶμα χαρίεν γίγνεται (“for a stewed electric eel is lovely food”); Axionic. fr. 4.18 χαρίεντος ὄψου (“a lovely dish”) (both cited by Kassel–Austin). ἀστεῖον is literally “typical of the city (ἄστυ)” and thus “sophisticated, neat, stylish” vel sim., i. e. the polar opposite of ἄγροικος. Cf. fr. 183.2–3 ἀστεῖον … / ἄριστον (“a fancy lunch”); Sotad. Com. fr. 1.15 ἀστεῖον ἑφθὴ τευθὶς ὠνθυλευμένη (“a stuffed, stewed squid is fancy food”); Alex. fr. 194.1–2 κρεΐσκον ἀστεῖον πάνυ / ὕειον (“a very fancy little piece of pork”); Ribbeck 1888. 46–8; Orth 2013 on Alc. Com. fr. 26; Olson–Biles 2015 on Ar. V. 1258–61. For the use of πάνυ as an intensifier with adjectives and adverbs, cf. frr. 47.1 πάνυ πάλαι; 55.6 γνωρίμως … πάνυ; 57.12 πάνυ πολύς; 97.1 πάνυ συχνή; 182.2 λίαν πάνυ; 188.8 δεινῶς … πάνυ; 206.2 εὐχάλκοις πάνυ; 238.1 ἐπαγωγὸν πάνυ; 268.2 πάνυ φροντιστικός. See in general Thesleff 1954 § 71–2, and cf. frr. 27.14–15 οὐ πάνυ / τούτων ἐδεστής with n.; 177.3–4 σῦκα … / πάνυ φέρει with n.

58

Antiphanes

fr. 7 K.–A. (7 K.) ῥαγδαῖος, ἄμαχος, πρᾶγμα μεῖζον ἢ δοκεῖς ἢ Suda : εἰ Phot.

furious, irresistible, something bigger than you expect Phot. ρ 16 = Suda ρ 8 ῥαγδαίους· κατὰ μεταφορὰν ἀπὸ τῶν ὄμβρων· τοὺς κεκινημένους καὶ σφοδροὺς καὶ βιαίους· Ἀντιφάνης Ἀγροίκοις· ——. Δίφιλος Πολυπράγμονι (fr. 68)· τί ποτ’ ἐστίν; ὡς ῥαγδαῖος ἐξελήλυθεν. ἔστι καὶ ἐν Πρυτάνεσι Τηλεκλείδου (fr. 32). τὸ ὄνομα καὶ ἐν Δαιταλεῦσιν Ἀριστοφάνους (fr. 254) furious (masc. pl.): metaphorical from rainstorms; referring to individuals who are agitated, impetuous and violent. Antiphanes in Agroikoi: ——. Diphilus in Polypragmôn (fr. 68): “What in the world is it? How furious he has come out!” It is also in Telecleides’ Prytaneis (fr. 32). The word is also in Aristophanes’ Daitaleis (fr. 254)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkr l|lk|l klkl

Discussion Text

Konstantakos 2000a. 59–60

Photius’ nonsensical εἰ (“if ”) is a simple aural error for the Suda’s ἤ.

Citation context From the common source of Photius and the Suda conventionally referred to as Σ΄ ΄, which must in turn be dependent on a lost Atticist lexicographer. Cognate material is preserved at – Phot. ρ 4 ῥαγδαῖον· ἄθρουν καὶ πολύ· ἀπὸ τοῦ καταράσσειν· καὶ μεταφορικῶς· ἄνθρωπον ῥαγδαῖον τὸν πολὺν καὶ ἄθρουν· καὶ ὁ ὀξὺς ἄνεμος καὶ πολὺς ῥαγδαῖος (“furious (neut. sing.): overwhelming and large; from katarassein (‘to break in pieces’). Also metaphorically: a person who is ‘furious’ is someone overwhelming and large, and a wind that is piercing and powerful is ‘furious’”) – Phot. ρ 15 = Synag. ρ 1 ῥαγδαῖος· ταχὺς ἢ σφοδρός (“furious (masc. sing.): swift or impetuous”; from the common source of Photius and the Synagoge conventionally referred to as Σ΄ ΄ ΄) – Hsch. ρ 12 ῥαγδαῖον· τὸ ὀξύ, ὁρμῆς μεστόν, ἢ ἄθρουν, σφοδρόν, ἰσχυρόν, φοβερόν, σκληρόν (“furious (neut. sing.): what is piercing, full of impetus, or impetuous, powerful, fearful, harsh”). Interpretation A warning about a third party (an individual man), whose vehemence, and thus whose ability to cause trouble or commotion, the addressee is at least allegedly underestimating. The first half of the line offers an abstract description of the man in question, the second half the practical significance of that description.

Ἄγροικος (fr. 8)

59

ῥαγδαῖος (< ῥάσσω, “strike, dash, beat”) is used of persons only here and at Telecl. fr. 32; Diph. fr. 68,36 and this must accordingly be an Attic colloquialism. Elsewhere the adjective is always applied to meteological phenomena such as rainstorms, winds and lighting (e. g. Men. Asp. 403 (metaphorical of a great disaster); Arist. Meteor. 349a6; Posidon. fr. 131a.35 ~ 131b.21; Luc. Tim. 3; [Luc.] Philopatr. 24; [Plu.] Mor. 898a), precisely as Photius = Suda suggests. For ἄμαχος—not necessarily purely metaphorical here—cf. Cratin. fr. 376 ἄμαχον πνῖγος (“overwhelming heat”) with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc.; Ar. Lys. 1014 οὐδέν ἐστι θηρίον γυναικὸς ἀμαχώτερον (“there’s no wild beast more difficult to fight with than a woman”); Eub. fr. 117.2 ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἄμαχοι (“irresistible at dinner”; of dangerously effective gluttons); Men. fr. 297.6 πρᾶγμ’ ἄμαχον λέγεις (“you’re talking about an impossible situation”); Thgn. 1157 (the earliest attestation of the word, although of dubious authenticity); A. Ag. 733 ἄμαχον ἄλγος (“irresistible grief ”); Pl. Euthd. 303a ὦ Πόσειδον, ἔφη, δεινῶν λόγων. ἀφίσταμαι· ἀμάχω τὼ ἄνδρε (“’Poseidon!’ he said, ‘What terrifying arguments! I give up; there’s no way to resist these two men’”). For the use of a neuter substantive—here πρᾶγμα—to describe a person, see Vendryes 1937, esp. 478, comparing Hdt. 3.132.2; X. Cyr. 6.1.36, and cf. Bergson 1967. 88–9.

fr. 8 K.–A. (8 K.) Antiatt. ε 120 ἐκ διαδοχῆς· τὸ ἐν μέρει. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀγροίκῳ in succession: in turn. Antiphanes in Agroikos

Meter The words taken together scan iambic trimeter.

lkkkl and are thus compatible with

Citation context An isolated note, probably responding to an assertion in some other authority to the effect that the phrase in question was not used in Attic. Interpretation ἐκ διαδοχῆς is also attested in 4th-century Attic at D. 4.21 ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἀλλήλοις (noted by Kassel–Austin); Aeschin. 2.168; Arist. SE 183b30 ἐκ διαδοχῆς κατὰ μέρος; Phys. 228a28, but is not found in the 5th century, suggesting that the scholar to whom the Antiatticist is responding (see Citation context) may have had a point about the pattern of use of the phrase. For a collection of similar uses of ἐκ, see Rehdantz–Blass 1886. 67 (cited by Kassel–Austin), and cf. κατὰ 36

Not necessarily in Ar. fr. 254, which Photius = Suda seems to treat as a separate case and where the word may accordingly have been used in a non-metaphorical sense of rainfall.

60

Antiphanes

διαδοχήν in the same sense at Th. 4.8.9; 7.27.3, 28.2, and simple διαδοχαῖς at e. g. A. Ag. 313 (the earliest attestation of the word).

fr. 9 K.–A. (9 K.) Antiatt. κ 95 καθαρὸς δοῦλος· οἱονεὶ ἀπηκριβωμένος. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀγροίκῳ a pure slave: a perfect one, as it were. Antiphanes in Agroikos

Meter The words as preserved by the Antiatticist—not necessarily in the case or number in which they appeared in Antiphanes—scan kkllx. Citation context An isolated note, probably responding to an assertion in another authority to the effect that the adjective was not used thus in Attic Greek. Interpretation Probably an insult, perhaps describing a man who was not a slave but nonetheless behaved “slavishly”. For καθαρός used in the sense “unadulterated”, i. e. “utter, out and out, absolute”, see Ar. Av. 1549 Τίμων καθαρός (“an utter Timon”; cited by Kassel–Austin); LSJ s. v. I.4.a, noting also Alciphr. 2.18.1 ζημία καθαρά (a deliberate Atticism?), and cf. Eub. fr. 30.2–3 καθαρώτερον γὰρ τὸν κέραμον ἠργαζόμην / ἢ Θηρικλῆς τὰς κύλικας, ἡνίκ’ ἦν νέος (“because I used to make my pottery more perfect than Theriklês did his cups, when I/he was young”).

fr. 10 K.–A. (10 K.) Antiatt. μ 21–4 μᾶλλον μᾶλλον· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀεὶ καὶ μᾶλλον. Ἄλεξις Πεζονίκῃ (fr. 186). μεῖζον μεῖζον· 〈 … 〉. μικρὸν μικρόν· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀεὶ κατὰ μικρόν. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀγροίκῳ. μίαν μίαν· ἀντὶ τοῦ κατὰ μίαν. Σοφοκλῆς Ἔριδι (fr. 201) More more: in place of ‘always even more’; Alexis in Pezonikê (fr. 186). Bigger bigger: 〈 … 〉. Little little: in place of ‘always little by little’; Antiphanes in Agroikos. One one: in place of ‘one by one’; Sophocles in Eris (fr. 201)

Meter The words together scan trimeter.

klkl and are thus compatible with iambic

Citation context A series of closely related notes, probably responding to an assertion in another authority to the effect that doubled words were not used this

Ἄγροικος (fr. 11)

61

way in Attic Greek. Cf. (probably going back at least in part to an unepitomized version of the Antiatticist): – Phot. μ 76 μᾶλλον 〈μᾶλλον〉· οὕτως λέγουσιν ἄνευ τοῦ καί συνδέσμου. οὕτω Μένανδρος (fr. 555) (“More more: they say it thus, without the conjunction. Thus Menander (fr. 555)”) – Phot. μ 77 = Suda μ 115 μᾶλλον μᾶλλον· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀεὶ καὶ μᾶλλον. Ἄλεξις Ἀτθίδι (fr. 29)· ——. Ἀναξίλας Ὥραις (fr. 31). Ἄλεξις Πεζονίκῃ (fr. 186) (“More more: in place of ‘always even more’. Alexis in Atthis (fr. 29): ——. Anaxilas in Hôrai (fr. 31). Alexis in Pezonikê (fr. 186)”; from the common source of Photius and the Suda conventionally referred to as Σ΄$΄). Interpretation The gloss on μεῖζον μεῖζον has fallen out of the text of the Antiatticist, but originally the words ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀεὶ μεῖζον (as in the other notes) and the name of a poet and the title of a play must have followed. The use of asyndetic doubling to produce emphasis is a colloquialism, hence the presence of the construction mostly in comedy; cf. Pearson 1917 on S. fr. 753; Stevens 1976. 17; Arnott 1996. 127 (with further parallels, including πλέον πλέον at Ar. Nu. 1288 and μᾶλλον μᾶλλον at Ar. Ra. 1001); Collard 2018. 51. For the more common alternative κατὰ μικρόν, e. g. Ar. V. 702; Th. 4.30.2; Isoc. 4.32; X. Mem. 4.3.9.

fr. 11 K.–A. (11 K.) Antiatt. ε 41 ἐπίδημος· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔνδημος. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀγροίκῳ epidemic: in place of endemic. Antiphanes in Agroikos

Meter The word scans kklx and is thus compatible with e. g. iambic trimeter, anapaestic tetrameter and dactylic hexameter. Citation context Probably a response to an assertion in another authority to the effect that the sense of the two adjectives was to be distinguished in Attic. Cf. Phot. ε 845 = EM p. 338.54–9 = Et.Sym. ε 406 ἔνδημος· ὁ μὴ ἀποδημῶν· ἐπίδημος δὲ ὁ ἐπιδημῶν ξένος. καὶ τὸ Ἀριστοφάνους ἐν Νήσοις (fr. 407)· ἀλλ’ οὐ τυγχάνει / ἐπίδημος ὤν. λέγει δὲ περὶ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ὅτι οὐκ ἐπιδημεῖ Ἰσθμοῖ· κυρίως δέ ἐστιν εἰρημένον· οὐ γὰρ Ἴσθμιος ὁ θεός, ὡς διὰ παντὸς ἐκεῖ διατρίβειν (“endêmos: someone who is not absent from the country. Whereas epidêmos is used of a foreigner resident in (epidêmôn) a country. Also the Aristophanic line in Nêsoi (fr. 407): but he happens not to be resident (epidêmos) in the country. He says regarding Poseidon that he is resident (epidêmei) at the Isthmus. The word is used correctly, since the god is not an Isthmian so as to always spend his time there”), which attempts to support the distinction the Antiatticist prefers to elide.

62

Antiphanes

Interpretation ἔνδημος and cognates are attested nowhere in the comic poets. But the distinction the source behind Phot. = EM = Et.Sym. is attempting to draw— ἔνδημος refers to someone native to a place, ἐπίδημος to a visitor there—seems in any case to be over-fine. For ἐπίδημος and cognates in Attic authors meaning “in (one’s own) country”, e. g. Men. Georg. 19; Pk. 360; Th. 1.136.3; Is. 2.12. Despite the anonymous grammarian’s attempt to argue this sense away, this is thus most likely the meaning in Ar. fr. 407 as well.

fr. 12 K.–A. Ath. 7.303f–4b τῆς θυννίδος τὸ οὐραῖον ἐπαινεῖ καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κουρίδι οὕτως (fr. 127)· ——. τούτων τῶν ἰαμβείων ἔνια ἔστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ (fr. 24) καὶ ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ ἢ Βουταλίωνι (cf. fr. 69.10–12) Antiphanes in Kouris recommends the tail-section of the thynnis, as follows (fr. 127): ——. Some of these iambic lines can also be found in Akestria (fr. 24) and in Agroikos or Boutaliôn (cf. fr. 69.10–12)

Meter Apparently iambic trimeter. Citation context From the discussion of the θύννις (“female tuna”) in the long, largely alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes up much of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and that is probably drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. Epich. fr. 91; Cratin. fr. 171.49–50; Archestr. fr. 38; Antiph. fr. 179, in that order, are cited immediately before this, Hippon. fr. 36; Stratt. fr. 13, in that order, immediately afterward. Interpretation See in general fr. 127 nn. One of the characters there, (Γ.), is an ἄγροικος (“rustic”) who is reluctant to eat most types of seafood, as the title-character of this play may have been as well. For Antiphanes’ use of stock characters and recycling of lines from his own plays, see Introduction § 4, 6.

63

Ἀδελφαί (Adelphai) “Sisters”

Introduction Title An unidentified poet staged an Ἀδελφαί in 198/7 BCE (IG II2 2323.173 Millis–Olson); Alcaeus Comicus wrote an Ἀδελφαὶ μοιχευόμεναι (“Sisters who are Seduced”); and the Roman poets Afranius and Laberius wrote plays entitled Sorores. Cf. the Ἀδελφοί (“Brothers”) of Alexis, Diphilus, Philemon, Menander (two plays), Apollodorus Comicus, Euphro and Hegesippus, as well as Πρόγονοι (“Step-sons”) and Menander’s Ἀνέψιοι (“Cousins”). Content The only preserved example of a comedy with a cognate title, Terence’s Adelphoe (modeled on Menander’s Ἀδελφοί), suggests that the subject of Antiphanes’ play was the tangled, overlapping affairs of two branches of a single family, like Ὁμοπάτριοι, Πρόγονοι and perhaps Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες (with the plural in that case referring to a family unit from the place in question; cf. Menander’s Σικυώνιος vel Σικυώνιοι). Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 13 K.–A. (12 K.) Antiatt. α 98 ἀνακάμψει· ἀντὶ τοῦ ὑποστρέψαι ποιήσει. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀδελφαῖς he/she/it will bend back: in place of “he/she/it will cause to return”. Antiphanes in Adelphai

Meter The word scans kkll and is thus compatible with e. g. iambs, anapaests or dactyls. Citation context

An isolated lexicographic note.

Interpretation κάμπτω is “bend, turn”. But when the compound ἀνακάμπτω is used with reference to a person, it seems generally to be intransitive and to mean “return, go back” (LSJ s. v. II.2; cf. the intransitive use of the simplex at Men. Mis. 569). The Antiatticist apparently cited Antiphanes to show that the compound could also be used transitively.

64

Ἄδωνις (Adônis) “Adonis”

Introduction Title and Content The beautiful young Adonis was Aphrodite’s lover until he was killed by a boar. His name is Semitic, and the story of how he was loved by a goddess and died young seems to have made its way to the Greek world by the 7th century BCE or so, although we have no substantial or connected account of him until the Hellenistic period. See Hes. fr. 139 M.–W. = fr. 106 Most; Panyassis fr. 27, p. 185 Bernabé; E. Hipp. 1420–2 (alluded to but not mentioned) with Barrett 1964 ad loc.; Theoc. 3.46–8; Bion, Lament for Adonis; [Apollod.] Bib. 3.14.4; Burkert 1979. 105–8; Burkert 1985. 176–7; Gantz 1993. 102–3, 729–31; Reed 1995 (with extensive bibliography); Jackson 1998. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνθρω]πογονία, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων, Φιλοκτήτης and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος. See in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6, and cf. Plautus’ Amphitryo (the only preserved example of a play of this sort). Araros, Plato Comicus, Nicophon and Philiscus also wrote plays entitled Ἄδωνις, while Aristophanes and Philippides both wrote an Adôniazusae (“Women Worshipping Adonis”), reinforcing the impression that the cult was well-known in Athens in this period (also e. g. Pherecr. fr. 181; Ar. Lys. 389–96; Pl. Phdr. 276b). Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 14 K.–A. (13 K.) Antiatt. α 86 ἀνὰ μέσον· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν μέσῳ. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀδώνιδι in the middle: in place of “in the midst”. Antiphanes in Adônis

Meter The words together scan kkkx and are thus easily accommodated in e. g. iambic trimeter. Citation context Other traces of the Antiatticist’s note, but without reference to Antiphanes, appear to be preserved at – Hsch. α 4440 ἀνὰ μέσον· ἐν μέσῳ (“in the middle: in the midst) – Suda α 1960 ἀνὰ μέσον (“in the middle”; the gloss has been lost).

Ἄδωνις (fr. 15)

65

Interpretation Aristotle (e. g. Cael. 288a20) and Aristoxenus (e. g. Harm. p. 56.8), another representative of the Peripatetic school, use ἀνὰ μέσον repeatedly, but the expression appears otherwise to be almost entirely foreign to Attic (earlier at e. g. Thgn. 839 in the form ἂν τὸ μέσον). Antiphanes’ use of it was probably driven by metrical considerations, as also at E. Tr. 1102 (lyric); cf. the more common ἐν μέσῳ in fr. 184.1 (at line end) with n.

fr. 15 K.–A. (14 K.) Antiatt. α 20 ἀκληρίαν· Ἀντιφάνης Ἀδώνιδι. portionlessness (acc.): Antiphanes in Adônis

Meter The word scans klkl and is thus easily accommodated in e. g. iambic trimeter. Citation context Fr. 307 follows. Cognate material is preserved at – Antiatt. α 19 ἄκληρος· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀτυχής (“portionless: in place of ‘unfortunate’”) – Phot. α 761 = Synag. B α 736 ἀκληρία· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀτυχία. οὕτω Σοφοκλῆς (fr. 989) (“portionlessness: in place ‘misfortune’. Thus Sophocles (fr. 989)”; from the common source of Photius and the Synagoge conventionally referred to as Σ΄ ΄ ΄) – Suda α 896 ἀκληρίας· δυστυχίας. ὁ δὲ ᾤετο πόρον ἐξευρεῖν τοῦ διώσασθαι τὰς ἀκληρίας (“portionlessness (acc. pl.): misfortunes. He was expecting to discover a means of pushing away his portionlessness”). Note also Poll. 6.197 ἀκληρία (in a collection of words meaning “impoverishment”). Interpretation κληρόω is “cast lots”, and κλῆρος is an “allotment” (cf. Ar. Pax 365; Ec. 1158) and thus “property” (LSJ s. v. II.2–3). ἀκληρία might accordingly be the condition of having nothing and being impoverished; see in general Pearson 1917 on S. fr. 989 (“it is probably accidental that the evidence of such usage in the classical age is so meagre”). But the parallel of εὐκλήρωμα in fr. 307 (n.) suggests that the word means instead a condition in which luck never goes one’s way, as the lexicographers quoted in Citation context suggest. Outside of S. fr. 989 (see Citation context) and the fragment of Antiphanes, the word is not attested before the Hellenistic period.

66

Antiphanes

fr. 16 K.–A. (15 K.) Antiatt. κ 46–7 καταγώγιον· ἀντὶ τοῦ κατάλυσιν. κατάλυσιν· καὶ ταύτην ἐπαιτιῶνται. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀδώνιδι lodging (katagôgion): in place of katalysis. katalysis (acc.): they also condemn this. Antiphanes in Adônis

Meter The word scans kklx and is thus easily accommodated in e. g. iambic trimeter. Citation context Cf. Moer. κ 65 καταγώγιον καὶ κατάγεσθαι Ἀττικοί· κατάλυμα καὶ καταλύειν Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers (say) katagôgion and katagesthai; Greeks generally say katalyma and katalyein”); Hsch. κ 1042 καταγωγή· κατάλυσις (“katagôgê: katalysis”), and note Poll. 1.73, where καταγώγιον, κατάλυσις, κατάλυμα and καταλυτήριον are all included in a list of terms for residences. Interpretation The notes in the Antiatticist and Moeris make it clear that some authorities regarded the use of καταλύω and cognates to refer to relaxing or resting, or to a place in which to do so, as foreign to the Attic dialect, arguing that the proper terms were κατάγομαι and καταγώγιον/καταγωγεῖον (for which, fr. 54.5 n.). But κατάλυσις in the sense “lodging-place” is used not just by Antiphanes but also by Euripides (El. 393), Plato (to the references in LSJ s. v. II, add Lg. 953a) and Alexis (fr. 2.2),37 which is enough to suggest that—as the Antiatticist must have argued in the more expansive original version of these notes—the word is fully at home in Attic.

37

Note also Macho 54.

67

Ἀθάμας (Athamas) “Athamas”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 167 n. j

Title and Content Athamas (a descendent of Deukalion and Pyrrha) was married first to Nephelê, who bore him Phrixos and Hellê, and then to Ino, who bore him Learchos and Melikertês. Phrixos and Hellê were threatened with destruction and forced to flee on a golden ram. Ino was driven mad by Hera after she fostered the infant Dionysus; Athamas accidentally killed Learchos; and Ino lept into the sea with Melikertês and was transformed into a sea-goddess. See Hyg. fab. 1–3; [Apollod.] Bib. 1.9.1; Gantz 1993. 176–80; Fowler 2013. 195–201. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνθρω]πογονία, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων, Φιλοκτήτης and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος. See in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Amphis also wrote an Athamas, and various portions of Athamas’ story were the subject of tragedies by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 17 K.–A. (16 K.) χλαμύδα καὶ λόγχην ἔχων, ἀσυνακόλουθος, ξηρός, αὐτολήκυθος 2 ἀσυνακόλουθος Lobeck : ξυν- codd. : ἀξυν- Salmasius

having (masc. sing.) a cloak and a spear, but without an attendant, unoiled, autolêlythos Poll. 10.62 καὶ αὐτοληκύθους δέ τινας Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Κόνωνος (54.14) ὀνομάζει, οὓς σαφέστερον ἄν τις ἐν τῷ Ἀντιφάνους Ἀθάμαντι κεκλῆσθαι λέγοι, εἰπόντος· —— Demosthenes in his Against Conon (54.14) also mentions certain autolêkythoi, whom one could say are referred to more clearly in Antiphanes’ Athamas, when the poet says: ——

68

Antiphanes

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl〉 klk|l llkl krkl l|lk|l klkl

Discussion Salmasius ap. Jungermann 1706. 1221; Lobeck 1829. 1037 n. 47; Henderson 1972. 142; Borthwick 1993. 35; Mangidis 2003. 85–7 Text In 2, the paradosis ξυνακόλουθος is unmetrical. ξυν- appears to have been almost entirely displaced by συν- in Attic by Antiphanes’ time, and there is accordingly no need to follow Kassel–Austin in printing Salmasius’ ἀξυν- rather than Lobeck’s more colloquial ἀσυν-. See Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 129.6. Citation context From a brief discussion of the λήκυθος within the long catalogue of σκεύη (“implements”) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of Pollux; Diph. fr. 51 is cited immediately before this. Like the parallel material cited below, Pollux’ note seems to have originated as a gloss on D. 54.14 (quoted and discussed in Interpretation on 2). Cf. – Harp. α 270 αὐτολήκυθοι· Δημοσθένης κατὰ Κόνωνος (54.14). ἤτοι ἀντὶ τοῦ εὐζώνους τινὰς καὶ ἑτοίμους πᾶν ὁτιοῦν ποιεῖν καὶ ὑπομένειν, ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ πένητας καὶ μηδὲν ἄλλο κεκτημένους ἢ ληκύθους, ἢ αὐτουργούς, ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰς πληγὰς ἑτοίμους καὶ οἷον τύπτοντας καὶ μαστιγοῦντας καὶ ὑβρίζοντας. ἢ λέγοι ἂν τοὺς ἐκ προχείρου διδόντας ἀργύριον καὶ ἑτοίμους πρὸς τὰς μίξεις· καὶ γὰρ εἶχον ἐν ταῖς ληκύθοις ἀργύριον. τὸ ὄνομα καὶ παρὰ Μενάνδρῳ ἔν τε Ἡνιόχῳ (fr. 100) καὶ Δακτυλίῳ (fr. 160). ὅτι δὲ εἶχον ἐν ταῖς ληκύθοις ἀργύριον ἐνίοτε, Δίφιλος τῷ Ἀποβάτῃ (fr. 15)· ὅτι δὲ λύσαντες τὴν λήκυθον ἐχρῶντο τῷ ἱμάντι πρὸς τὸ μαστιγοῦν, Μένανδρος Τροφωνίῳ (fr. 354) (“autolêkythoi: Demosthenes, Against Conon (54.14). Either in place of ‘individuals who are vigorous and prepared to do and endure anything whatsoever’38, or in place of ‘poor men possessing nothing except lêkythoi’ or ‘who do their own work’39, or in place of ‘ready to fight and as it were beating, whipping and treating other people outrageously’. Or one might refer (thus) to individuals who readily offer money and are prepared to have sex; because in fact they kept money in their lêkythoi. The word is also attested in Menander in Hêniochos (fr. 100) and Daktylion (fr. 160). And as for the fact that they sometimes kept money in their lêkythoi, Diphilus (says this) in Apobatês (fr. 15). But as for the fact that they used to unfasten their lêkythos and use the strap to whip people, Menander (says this) in Trophônios (fr. 354)”; cf. Synag. B α 2442, which is drawn in the first instance from the Epitome of Harpocration (= Phot. α 3227 ~ Suda α 4505) but adds at the end ἢ ὁ πένης, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑαυτῷ τὰς ληκύθους εἰς τὰ βαλανεῖα εἰσφέρειν. οἱ δὲ ἄσωτος, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν ταῖς ληκύθοις ἔχειν τὰ σύμβολα καὶ φέρειν εἰς τὰ συμπόσια (“or a poor man, from the fact that he 38 39

A euphemism for “sexually depraved”; cf. D. 18.130. i. e. “who lack slaves to do their work for them”.

Ἀθάμας (fr. 17)

69

carries his own lekythoi to the bathhouses. But other authorities (say it means) someone who is dissolute, from the fact that they keep their dinner-tokens in their lêkythoi and carry them to their drinking parties”) – Hsch. α 8433 αὐτολήκυθοι· οἱ πένητες, οἱ μόνην λήκυθον ἔχοντες· ἢ δι’ ἑαυτῶν βαστάζοντες τὴν λήκυθον, οὐ δι’ οἰκετῶν (“autolêkythoi: poor men, who have a single lekythos; or who carry their own lêkythos and do not use servants for this purpose”) – Phot. α 3230 = Suda α 4507 = Synag. B α 2448 αὐτόλυκοι· πένητες. οἷον αὐτοδιάκονοι (“autolykoi (sic): poor men; i. e. those who do their own service”; from the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge conventionally referred to as Σ΄) – EM p. 174.5–9 ~ Lex. Rhet. AB I.204.27–30 αὐτολήκυθος· ὁ πένης· ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑαυτοῖς τὰς ληκύθους φέρειν εἰς τὰ βαλανεῖα. οἱ δ’ ἄσωτοι παρὰ τὰς συμβολὰς ἐν ταῖς ληκύθοις ἔχειν καὶ φέρειν εἰς τὰ συμπόσια· ἢ ὡς αὐτὸ μόνον λήκυθον ἔχοντες (“autolêkythos: a poor man; from the fact that they carry their own lêkythoi to the bathhouses. But other authorities (say it means) those who are dissolute, from the fact that they keep their dinner-tokens in their lêkythoi and carry them to their drinking parties”). Interpretation A description of an individual man (note masc. ἔχων), who is outfitted like a cavalryman or soldier (1), but who simultaneously looks like he is very poor (2). 1 Cf. Men. fr. 242 χλαμύδα, καυσίαν, / λόγχην, ἀορτήν, ἱμάτια (“a chlamys, a Macedonian hat, a spear, a pack, robes”). The χλαμύς (no etymology; taken by Beekes 2010 s. v. to be cognate with χλαῖνα) is a male garment (Poll. 7.46) first mentioned at Sapph. fr. 54 (worn by Eros); Poll. 10.124 reports that the term was used by Attic-speakers specifically for a horseman’s cloak (cf. X. An. 7.4.4, of Thracian horsemen who surprisingly do not wear χλαμύδες). The χλαμύς was made of wool (Pl. Com. fr. 13) and was fastened at the right shoulder with a brooch; there appear to have been separate Thessalian and Macedonian styles, the former being rectangular, the latter cut to produce a round lower hem. Mentioned elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Lys. 987 (worn by a Spartan); Pl. Com. fr. 228; Philetaer. fr. 20 χλαμὺς ὁλόλευκος (“a purewhite chlamys”); Philem. fr. 34.1; Men. Asp. 88 (war booty); Sam. 687, 716 (part of a soldier’s costume); see also Bacch. 4.54 Θεσσαλὰν χλαμύδ’ (“a Thessalian chlamys”); [Ammon.] 513 Nickau (citing Didymus 2.5, p. 180 Schmidt); Tarbell 1906; Bieber 1928. 23–4; Lattimore 1975; Stone 1984. 169; Fredricksmeyer 1986. 222–4; Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1993. 143–5; Sens 2011. 138–9; Lee 2015. 116–18. A λόγχη (no etymology) is a spear-head (e. g. Ar. Ra. 1016 δόρυ καὶ λόγχας, “spear and spear-heads”) and by extension a spear (e. g. Ar. V. 1119; Men. Pk. 527 λόγχας ἔχοντες, “armed with spears”). The word is first attested in Pindar and is primarily poetic (absent from Thucydides; only once in Plato and the Attic orators; common in Xenophon, but mostly in the specific sense “spear-head”).

70

Antiphanes

For ἔχω in the sense “wear” vel sim., e. g. frr. 115.2; 188.1; Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 288.6. 2 For the three-word trimeter, cf. fr. 206.3. An ἀκόλουθος (copulative ἀ- + < κέλευθος; first attested in the late 5th century) is a slave attendant who “travels with” a person and inter alia carries whatever personal items he brings with him (e. g. Eup. fr. 172.3 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Ar. Av. 73; fr. 145 (attending boys on their way to the gymnasion); Men. Epitr. 473; X. Mem. 3.13.6); specifically of soldiers’ and cavalrymen’s attendants at e. g. Th. 7.75.5; X. HG 3.4.22. To be ἀσυνακόλουθος (a hapax legomenon) is thus to be in want (cf. Ar. Ec. 593) and also to have to deal with one’s own luggage, setting up the two words that follow. ξηρός is literally “dry, withered” (cf. fr. 131.7, of cheese) but by extension “lacking in oil” and thus “austere”; cf. Ar. V. 1452; Philetaer. fr. 4.2 ξηροῦ …, πενιχροῦ πάνυ (“dry …, extremely impoverished”); Hippon. fr. 30.1 λιμῷ … ξηρός (literally “dry with famine”); E. El. 239 with Denniston 1939 ad loc.; Or. 389 with Willink 1986 ad loc., and contrast λιπαρός (literally “well-oiled, sleek”) in the sense “luxurious, prosperous, rich” at e. g. Ar. Eq. 536; fr. 112.2. A λήκυθος is a flask used to hold or carry oil, especially perfumed oil (e. g. Ar. Av. 1589 ἔλαιον οὐκ ἔνεστιν ἐν τῇ ληκύθῳ, “There’s no oil in the lêkythos” (a cooking scene); Pl. 810–11 αἱ δὲ λήκυθοι / μύρου γέμουσι, “The lêkythoi are full of perfume”; fr. 210.1 τῆς μυρηρᾶς ληκύθου, “the lêkythos for perfume”; see in general Henderson 1972. 135–6), including on one’s way to and from the gymnasion (Poll. 10.62; Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 139).40 See in general Kanowski 1984. 94–9. αὐτολήκυθοι is used at D. 54.14 as a nickname for a wild group of wealthy young men, a rival group being called the ἰθυφάλλοι (literally “ithyphallics, those with erections”); the speaker makes it clear that these are nicknames applied by one group to the other, leaving little doubt that they are hostile and mocking.41 40 41

For the use of lêkythoi for funerary offerings, cf. Ar. Ec. 1032; Jubier-Galinier 2014. καὶ ἐρεῖν ὡς εἰσὶν ἐν τῇ πόλει πολλοί, καλῶν κἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν υἱεῖς, οἳ παίζοντες οἷ’ ἄνθρωποι νέοι σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ἐπωνυμίας πεποίηνται, καὶ καλοῦσι τοὺς μὲν ἰθυφάλλους, τοὺς δ’ αὐτοληκύθους, ἐρῶσι δ’ ἐκ τούτων ἑταιρῶν τινές, καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι τούτων ἕνα καὶ πολλάκις περὶ ἑταίρας καὶ εἰληφέναι καὶ δεδωκέναι πληγάς (“and he says that there are many individuals in the city, the sons of distinguished people, who make the kind of jokes that young men do and have given themselves nicknames; and that they call one group of them ithyphalloi, the other group autolêkythoi; and that some of them fall in love with prostitutes, and in fact his own son is a member of this group and has often given and received blows for the sake of a prostitute; and that behavior of this sort is typical of young people”). Cf. D. 54. 17 οὗτοι γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τελοῦντες ἀλλήλους τῷ ἰθυφάλλῳ, καὶ τοιαῦτα ποιοῦντες ἃ πολλὴν αἰσχύνην ἔχει καὶ λέγειν, μή τί γε δὴ ποιεῖν ἀνθρώπους μετρίους (“for these are the individuals who initiate one another in the rites of Ithyphallus, and they behave in ways that make modest people extremely ashamed even to mention them, to say nothing of acting this way”). For Athenian nicknames, fr. 20.2–3 n. For the aggressive, mocking rudeness of

Ἀθάμας (fr. 17)

71

αὐτολήκυθος is attested three times in the Roman period, once as the personal name of a barbarian slave seemingly used for sexual purposes by his master Favorinus (Philostr. VS 1.490.26–7), once as a term for κόλακες (“flatterers”; Plu. Mor. 50c), and once in an obscure description of an effeminate man (Luc. Lex. 10); that the use of the word in these passages implies anything more than an awareness of its appearance in Demosthenes is unclear, and it may well be nothing more than a bit of re-purposed Attic verbal color. Ancient scholars (see Citation context) found the sense of αὐτολήκυθος difficult, but located parallels for D. 54.14 in this fragment and in Menander (frr. 100; 160), and argued on the basis of the lines from Antiphanes that the word referred to someone who carried his own lêkythos to the bathhouse, i. e. who was impoverished. This might be right (cf. αὐτόσιτος, “bringing one’s own food”, at Crobyl. fr. 1.1) and is in any case apparently the best that could be done with the word. Harpocration, followed by many modern scholars (e. g. Penella 1973. 338–9; Anderson 1981. 130–1; Borthwick 1993; Steiner 2002. 367–8), offers as an alternative suggestion that the word has a sexual sense. This interpretation appears to rely primarily on the Roman-era uses of the word and on a belief that ληκύθιον at Ar. Ra. 1200ff functions as an obscenity, although the fact that Menander uses it twice strongly suggests that it lacked a sexual sense even if it was abusive. See in general Henderson 1972; Henderson 1974. 294–5.

young men in particular, fr. 193.10–11; Phryn. Com. fr. 3, and contrast the quaintly—or perhaps disturbingly—idealized treatment of Bryant 1907, whose professed topic is “the straight-limbed Athenian lad, with sunny ringlets and mantling cheeks, … very much the same sort of fellow as our own American boy” (73), by which he means in both cases “the boy of good family” (100).

72

Αἰγύπτιοι (Aigyptioi) “The Egyptians”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 168 n. a

Title Egypt was in this period a Persian satrapy. The Egyptians themselves had a reputation for treachery and cleverness (Cratin. fr. 406; Ar. Th. 920–2, where Kritylla connects her sense that Euripides and Inlaw are villains with the fact that they are “Egyptianizing”; A. fr. 373; Hyp. 3.3 with Whitehead 2000 ad loc.; Theoc. 15.48 with Gow 1952 ad loc.; St.Byz. α 112 αἰγυπτιάζειν τὸ πανοῦργα καὶ δόλια καὶ ὕπουλα πράττειν (“to act like an Egyptian is to perform wicked, deceitful and underhanded actions”); Taillardat 1965 § 409; Sofia 2016. Note also fr. 145 (the Egyptian fondness for theriomorphic deities mocked) with n. But perhaps the individuals in question are instead Greeks resident in Egypt (a family unit, as seemingly in Ἀδελφαί and similar plays? or a pair of friends, as in Menander’s Ἴμβριοι and perhaps Antiphanes’ Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων?). For ethnics and the like as play-titles, cf. especially plural Κᾶρες and singular Λυδός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός (all non-Greeks), as well as (Greek male characters) Βοιώτιος, Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ζακύνθιος, Λευκάδιος, Ποντικός and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (female characters) Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Καρίνη, Κορινθία, Λευκαδία. Timocles also wrote an Αἰγύπτιοι, Callias Comicus an Αἰγύπτιος or Αἰγύπτιοι. See Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (mostly referring to Greeks from other cities or regions rather than barbarians) in other 4th-century comic poets, and note in particular Eubulus’ Μυσοί and Apollodorus Comicus’ Γαλάται. Content

Unknown.

Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 18 K.–A. (17 K.) Antiatt. α 100 ἀναβῆναι (ἀναδῦναι Meineke)· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀναχωρῆσαι. Ἀντιφάνης Αἰγυπτίοις anabênai (anadynai Meineke): in place of anachôrêsai (“to go back, withdraw”). Antiphanes in Aigyptioi

Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 III.7

Αἰγύπτιοι (fr. 18)

73

Text Meineke, comparing Phot. α 1459 = Suda α 1863 = Synag. B α 1123 ἀναδῦναι· ἀναχωρῆσαι and Hsch. α 4287 ἀναδῦναι· ἐκκλῖναι. ἀναφυγεῖν. ἀναχωρῆσαι (probably from the same source), suggested that the Antiatticist actually attributed ἀναδῦναι (normally “emerge from the depths” vel sim.) to Antiphanes. But Kassel–Austin also compare Hsch. α 4218 ἀναβήμεναι· (Il. 1.210) … δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀναχωρῆσαι (“anabêmenai: (Il. 1.210) … But it also means anaxôrêsai”), and there is no reason why Antiphanes should not have employed ἀναβαίνω in an eccentric but readily comprehensible manner, this being precisely the sort of exceptional usage the Antiatticist tends to collect. Citation context

See Text.

Interpretation ἀναβαίνω in comedy normally has the concrete, specifically directional sense “go up on top of something/someone” (e. g. Ar. V. 905 (mounting a speaker’s stand); Aristopho fr. 5.5 (climbing a ladder); Mnesim. fr. 4.6 (getting up on a horse); Nicostr. Com. fr. 21.1 (getting up on a wagon or a horse)); cf. LSJ s. v. ἀνά F.1. At least as the Antiatticist would have it, by contrast, Antiphanes used the verb to mean “go back, withdraw” (LSJ s. v. ἀνά F.4); LSJ s. v. omits this sense of the word.

74

Αἴολος (Aiolos) “Aiolos”

Introduction Discussion

Nesselrath 1990. 205–9

Title and Content Aiolos son of Hippotês was the Homeric king of the winds, whose six sons were married to his six daughters. Euripides in his Aiolos gave the story what may have been a novel twist: the entire arrangement was driven by the fact that one of the sons (Makareus) had become infatuated with one of the sisters (Kanakê), had sex her, and when she became pregnant, wanted to cover the situation up.42 Makareus did not receive Kanakê when the sisters were divided up among the brothers; the story eventually came out; and Kanakê and Makareus ultimately committed suicide, the former at her father’s urging. The play was apparently viewed by some contemporaries as scandalous;43 Strepsiades in Aristophanes’ Clouds (1371–3) and Aeschylus in Frogs (850), tellingly, reserve their outrage for the incestuous nature of the sex rather than the rape. Note also the cynical E. fr. 19 (“What is ugly, unless it seems so to those who engage in it?”; from Aiolos) quoted at Ar. Ra. 1475 and Macho 410 (in each case as a capping remark to the outraged Euripides himself). For Aiolos and his family, see in general Od. 10.1–12; E. frr. 17 + 18; Ov. Her. 11; Plu. Mor. 33c; Gantz 1993. 169; XanthakiKaramanou–Mimidou 2014 (on Euripides). Given the content of fr. 19, the obvious conclusion is that Antiphanes’ play was a travesty of the Euripidean tragedy. For other likely mythological travesties (although without specific, identifiable tragic models), note Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα?, Ἀνθρω]πογονία, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς, and Ὕπνος; and see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Eriphus also wrote an Aiolos, Aristophanes an Aiolosikôn. Date

42

43

Unknown.

Stobaeus (E. Aiolos test. iiia.7) explicitly describes the encounter between Makareus and Kanakê as a rape (ἐβιάσατο). Neither the ancient hypothesis to Euripides nor the final verse in the fragment of Antiphanes is so explicit, and in either version of the story (or both) some degree of acquiescence after the fact, if not necessarily consent beforehand, may have been involved. On brother-sister incest in classical Athens—clearly regarded as behavior far beyond the pale—see Mülke 1996.

Αἴολος (fr. 19)

75

Fragments fr. 19 K.–A. (18 K.) = E. Aiolos test. viiib

5

Μακαρεὺς ἔρωτι τῶν ὁμοσπόρων μιᾶς πληγείς, τέως μὲν ἐπεκράτει τῆς συμφορᾶς κατεῖχέ θ’ αὑτόν· εἶτα παραλαβών ποτε οἶνον στρατηγόν, ὃς μόνος θνητῶν ἄγει τὴν τόλμαν εἰς τὸ πρόσθε τῆς εὐβουλίας, νύκτωρ ἀναστὰς ἔτυχεν ὧν ἠβούλετο

6 ἠβούλετο Ath.ACE : ἐφίετο Nauck

5

After Makareus was stung with love for one of his sisters, he maintained control of the disaster for a while and restrained himself. But then eventually he drafted as his general wine, which most effectively drives mortal recklessness out ahead of intelligent behavior, and he got up at night and obtained what he wanted

Ath. 10.444c–d ἐν δὲ Αἰόλῳ διαβάλλων ὅσα δεινὰ πράττουσιν οἱ πλέον πίνοντές φησι· —— And in Aiolos, expressing disgust for all the terrible behavior of people who drink large amounts, he says: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

rlkl k|lkl klkl llkl k|rkl llkl llkl k|lk|r klkl llkl k|lkl llkl llkl l|lk|l llkl llkl k|rk|l llkl

Discussion Valckenaer 1768 on E. Hipp. 1303; Meineke 1839–1857 III.7–8; Nauck 1888. 233; Leo 1912. 159; Schmid–Stählin 1940. 409; Nesselrath 1990. 205–6, 207–8; Mangidis 2003. 74–7; Stephanopoulos 2017. 246 Text The paradosis ἠβούλετο (in place of the expected ἐβούλετο) is not metrically guaranteed either in 6 or at Alex. fr. 263.1 (with Arnott 1996 ad loc.).44 But ἤμελλ- in place of the expected ἔμελλ- is guaranteed at Ar. Ra. 1038; Ec. 597, and 44

Note also E. Hel. 752 (expelled from the text by Cobet); fr. dub. 1132.28 (most likely Byzantine in date).

76

Antiphanes

forms such as these appear in inscriptions around 350 BCE or so (Threatte 1996. 474) and become normal thereafter, so that there is no need for Nauck’s ἐφίετο (“he was longing for”). Citation context From an extended denunciation of drinking (Ath. 10.443c–5b) delivered by Pontianus. Fr. 42 is cited immediately before this, Ar. fr. 613 immediately afterward. Interpretation A summary of the background to the action, doubtless drawn from the prologue and probably modeled at least in part (cf. below) on that of Euripides’ Aiolos, which began (fr. 13a) ἦ πολλὰ καὶ δύσγνωστα βουλεύει θεός (“The god certainly has many plans that are difficult to understand”) and must accordingly have been spoken by a human character rather than a divinity and probably by a member of the royal household. For 1–2, cf. the beginning of the ancient hypothesis to Euripides’ play (test. 1.23–5, immediately after an initial identification of Aiolos as King of the Winds and a description of his place of residence and the make-up of his family) ὁ νεώτατος Μακαρεὺς μιᾶς τῶν ἀδελ[φῶν … ἐ]ρασθεὶς διέφθειρεν (“Makareus, the youngest [of the children], fell in love with one of his sisters and took her virginity”). How much of the fragment is drawn direct from Euripides and how much is Antiphanes’ addition is impossible to say. Valckenaer took 1–2 to be direct quotation of the tragedy, with the reference to drunkenness in 3–5 to be understood as an innovation by the comic poet. Meineke seemed to think that 3–6 might be more or less Euripidean as well, although some of the language in 2–3 (nn.) in particular does not look to be at home in tragedy. If one takes Makareus’ drunkenness to be a standard part of the story, at least in the 4th century, the only surviving lines of Eriphus’ Aiolos (fr. 1), λόγος γάρ ἐστ’ ἀρχαῖος οὐ κακῶς ἔχων. / οἶνον λέγουσι τοὺς γέροντας, ὦ πάτερ, / πείθειν χορεύειν οὐ θέλοντας (“For there’s an ancient proverb that’s not badly put. They say, father, that wine convinces old men to dance even when they don’t want to”), might refer to Makareus (attempting to justify himself? or being described by someone else?) and have been followed by something like “whereas we know that wine drives younger men, by contrast, to sexual misbehavior”. Cf. also fr. 20 Interpretation. 1–2 ἔρωτι … / πληγείς Cf. Ephipp. fr. 14.4 πληγεὶς ἀνάγκῃ (seemingly also high-style parody in a poet precisely contemporary with Antiphanes); E. HF 1393 Ἥρας μιᾷ πληγέντες … τύχῃ. 5th-century tragedy tends to use the perfect rather than the aorist participle for expressions of this sort (A. Ag. 544 ἱμέρῳ πεπληγμένοι, 1203 ἱμέρωι πεπληγμένος; Ch. 31 ξυμφοραῖς πεπληγμένων; E. Alc. 856 βαρείᾳ συμφορᾷ πεπληγμένος; Med. 556 ἱμέρῳ πεπληγμένος; cf. Ar. Th. 179 καινῇ ξυμφορᾷ πεπληγμένος (Euripides speaking to Agathon)). 1 ὁμόσπορος is almost exclusively high-style poetic vocabulary (e. g. hDem. 85; Pi. N. 5.43; A. Th. 931 (lyric); Ag. 1509 (lyric); S. OT 460; Tr. 212 (lyric); E. Med. 596; IT 695; once in 4th-century prose at Lycurg. Leoc. 100). The adjective is otherwise absent from comedy.

Αἴολος (fr. 19)

77

2–3 τέως μέν is similarly answered by εἶτα in a description of a set of consecutive events in the past at Ar. Nu. 66. See LSJ s. v. τέως II for comparable constructions, and contrast fr. 1.1–4 πρῶτα μέν … / … / …· / ἔπειτα (much closer to a simple list of consecutive items), on the one hand, and fr. 164.1–3 (past vs. present) with n., on the other. τέως is very rare in tragedy (only S. Ai. 558; fr. 1101; E. Heracl. 725, in the first and the third cases in the sense “in the meantime” = LSJ s. v. I.1). ἐπεκράτει τῆς συμφορᾶς / κατεῖχέ θ’ αὑτόν describes the same action in two different ways, the former more abstract than the latter and (building on 1–2 ἔρωτι … / πληγείς) making Makareus at least as much of a victim of the situation as an agent. For ἐπικρατέω meaning “prevail over” + gen. (LSJ s. v. II.2), cf. Ar. Ra. 266 ὑμῶν ἐπικρατήσω. The verb is not attested in tragedy; in lyric only at Pi. N. 8.5, in a different sense (“be master of, possess, control”). 3 For κατεῖχε … αὑτόν, cf. Men. Sam. 327 κάτεχε σαυτόν, 583 κάτεχε δὴ σεαυτόν; Hdt. 6.129.4; Pl. Phdr. 254a; D. 21.73; [Arist.] Ath. 18.6, etc. The expression is not found in tragedy. παραλαβών The compound (also in Antiphanes at fr. 259.2) is first attested in the second half of the 5th century and is almost entirely prosaic. Euripides nonetheless uses it three times (Ion 814; Ph. 1611; Or. 553), although never of persons. 4–5 Like συμφορά in 2 (n.), the description of wine as a στρατηγός and the relative clause that follows implicitly excuse Makareus’ behavior: he was not responsible for his own actions and was instead driven to do something he knew he should not. For imagery of the sort employed here, see Short 2013, esp. 142–3, although this passage would seem to give the lie to the notion that going in the wrong direction as an image of intellectual error is characteristic of Latin rather than of Greek. ὃς μόνος κτλ Because he is drunk, Makareus acts as he previously had not intended to (2–3). τὴν τόλμαν is thus used proleptically; the point is not that Makareus is already recklessly audacious and therefore understandably carried off beyond the proper limits of sensible behavior (cf. below) by wine, but that the influence of wine transforms him into something new and uglier. For the toxic character of the combination, cf. Men. Sam. 340–2; Plaut. Aul. 745, 795; Cist. 158–9; Truc. 828; Ter. Adelph. 470–1; Hec. 138–40. See Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 247.10–11 on τόλμα45 as the vicious version of the much more positive ἀνδρεῖα (“manliness”; cf. fr. 30.3 τολμηρόν with n.), and contrast Theopomp. Com. fr. 63.4 “unfermented wine is best for εὐβουλία”. 4 Forms of μόνος routinely serve to add emphasis to declarations of praise or blame (e. g. frr. 25.3; 111.4; 229.2; Eup. fr. 102.6 with Olson 2017 ad loc.; Anaxandr. frr. 34.9; 60.2; Eub. fr. 8.2), including in descriptions of deities in hymns and prayers

45

Used interchangeably with τόλμη metri gratia.

78

Antiphanes

(see Barrett 1964 on E. Hipp. 1280–2; Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 590), a connection activated here by the use of θνητῶν (a high-style flourish; cf. fr. 204.4 n.).46 5 For the expression εἰς τὸ πρόσθε, e. g. Ar. Ach. 43 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Th. 645; Men. Dysc. 906; S. Ai. 1249; E. Hipp. 1228; Hdt. 4.72.4; X. HG 7.1.31; with a specifying genitive also at e. g. X. An. 3.1.33 εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν τῶν ὅπλων; Pl. R. 618a εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν σφῶν. εὐβουλία (late 5th-century vocabulary, first attested at Pi. Pae. fr. 52b.50) is defined by Protagoras at Pl. Prt. 318e as managing one’s own affairs to the greatest possible advantage; cf. Ar. Ach. 1008 (the leading item in the chorus’ praise of the now-blessed Dikaiopolis); S. Ant. 1050 (εὐβουλία as κράτιστον κτημάτων, “the best possession”); Pl. R. 428b; Isoc. 12.86. 6 In contrast to the elaborate account of the background to Makareus’ actions in 1–5, with the two parallel descriptions of his attempt at self-control in 2–3 and the extravagant image of “wine as general” in 3–5, the description of his rape of his sister is extremely curt and elliptical, omitting e. g. any explicit statement of where Makareus went after he got out of bed in search of his sister, of what it was he wanted, or of how Kanakê reacted to his attack or proposal. νύκτωρ (first attested at Hes. Op. 177 and Archil. fr. 49.7) is considerably more common in comedy (e. g. Eup. fr. 383 with Olson 2014 ad loc.; Ar. Av. 492; Alex. fr. 112.4; Men. fr. 660.2) than in tragedy (only S. Ai. 47, 1056; E. Ba. 469, 485, 486) and appears nowhere in lyric poetry or Thucydides, suggesting that it was regarded as somewhat undignified vocabulary. ἀναστάς sc. “from bed” (LSJ s. v. B.I.2), as at e. g. Cratin. fr. 55; Eup. fr. 328.2 with Olson 2014 ad loc.

fr. 20 K.–A. (19 K.) τοῦτον οὖν δι’ οἰνοφλυγίαν καὶ πάχος τοῦ σώματος Ἀσκὸν καλοῦσι πάντες οὑπιχώριοι Because of his wine-guzzling and how fat he is, therefore, all the locals call this man “Wineskin” Ath. 12.552f πολλῷ οὖν κάλλιόν ἐστι τοιοῦτόν τινα εἶναι τὴν ἰδέαν ἢ ὥς φησιν Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Αἰόλῳ· —— It is accordingly much better to look like this than what Antiphanes describes in Aiolos: ——

46

“the only one who” (Rusten 2011. 489) thus misses the point.

Αἴολος (fr. 20)

79

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xlkl x〉lkl klkr l|lkl llkl llkl k|lk|l klkl

Discussion

Nesselrath 1990. 208; Mangidis 2003. 77; Orth 2014b. 1017

Text Ἀσκόν in 3 appears to be treated as a mocking personal name (“they call him ‘Wineskin’”, not “they refer to him as a wineskin”), and I have accordingly capitalized the word. Citation context Quoted as the contrasting cap to a collection of references to emaciated individuals (Ath. 9.550f–2f) that also preserves Hermipp. fr. 36; Ar. fr. 156 and then further on Alex. fr. 93; Aristopho fr. 8; Men. fr. 266; Alex. fr. 148, in that order. Interpretation In light of the reference to Makareus’ drinking in fr. 19.3–4, he might be the individual under discussion. But given how little we know about the contents of Antiphanes’ play, this cannot be regarded as anything more than a shot in the dark. οὖν in 1 marks this in any case as a conclusion drawn on the basis of some preceding remark. 3 οὑπιχώριοι suggests that the speaker, the addressee or both are from somewhere other than where the action is set, but that the man the speaker is describing is a local. For the language overall, cf. fr. 223.5–6 τοὺς κάδους μὲν οὖν / καλοῦσι γαυλοὺς πάντες οἱ προγάστορες; Ar. Pax 837 Ἀοῖον αὐτὸν πάντες ἐκάλουν ἀστέρα; Xenarch. fr. 11.2–3 καπάνας Θετταλοὶ / πάντες καλοῦσι τὰς ἀπήνας; Alex. fr. 183.1–2 καλοῦσι δ’ αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ νεώτεροι / Παράσιτον ὑποκόρισμα; Pl. Lg. 680b δοκοῦσί μοι πάντες τὴν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ πολιτείαν δυναστείαν καλεῖν; Arist. Mete. 338a25–6 μέρος τῆς μεθόδου ταύτης ἔτι θεωρητέον, ὃ πάντες οἱ πρότεροι μετεωρολογίαν ἐκάλουν, all of which feature the seemingly superfluous emphatic πάντες, which seems almost to be formulaic in such expressions. 2 οἰνοφλυγία and cognate οἰνόφλυξ (< οἶνος + φλύω, thus “running over with wine”; e. g. X. Lac. 5.4; Hp. Int. 6.2 = 7.180.4 Littré; Arist. EE 1235b39, and X. Ap. 19; Arist. Phgn. 811b14, respectively) are prosaic 4th-century vocabulary. 2–3 An ἀσκός (etymology unknown) is an animal skin converted into a bag to hold wine (e. g. Il. 3.246–7; Od. 6.77–8; cf. fr. 148.1 ἀσκοπυτίνην with n.), whereas a sack (θύλακος) or the like is used for food (e. g. Ar. Pl. 763). The point of the comparison, and thus of the nickname, is accordingly not that the subject both drinks and eats a great deal, with his obesity standing in for the latter characteristic in a sort of zeugma with οἰνοφλυγίαν, but that he holds a large amount of wine and has a belly that bulges out like a well-filled skin, as in Strepsiades’ teasing of the overweight Creditor at Ar. Nu. 1237–8 (with Dover 1968 ad loc.). Cf. Alex. fr. 88.3–5 “as the proverb has it, this fellow is always a good wine-skin, on the one hand, and a good food-sack, on the other” (of Herakles, who both ate and drank enormous amounts). For mocking nicknames, cf. fr. 193.10–11; Ar. Av.

80

Antiphanes

1290–9; Alex. frr. 102.2–4; 173; 183.1–2; Anaxandr. frr. 35 with Millis 2015 ad loc. (with older bibliography); 46; Plaut. Capt. 69–70; Cist. 455–6; Curc. 413–16; Men. 77–8; Stich. 174, 176; Trin. 885–90; Od. 18.1–7 (the glutton Iros); Grasberger 1888. 309–38; Harris 1986 (on insults produced by re-purposing the names of notorious persons), and note fr. 216.1–2 with n. Whether there is a connection with the ἀσκὸν βοός containing the winds given to the Homeric Odysseus by Aiolos (Od. 10.19–20), is unclear. 2 πάχος is literally “thickness”, but cf. E. Cyc. 380 σαρκὸς … εὐτραφέστατον πάχος (literally “a very well-fed thickness of flesh”, in reference to individuals carrying a noticeable amount of flesh) and the use of the cognate adjective παχύς to mean “fat” at e. g. fr. 27.6; Ar. Pax 927, 1170. 3 For ἐπιχώριος, fr. 171.2 n.

81

Ἀκέστρια (Akestria) “The Seamstress”

Introduction Title According to a wide variety of lexicographic sources (e. g. Erot. p. 48.14; Ael. Dion. α 64; Moer. α 101; Hsch. α 2347; Phot. α 729 = Suda α 841 = Synag. α 226), ἀκέστρια (< ἀκέομαι, “mend”) was a specifically Attic term for someone who might elsewhere be described as an ἠπήτρια or ῥαφίς, i. e. a woman who repaired torn clothing.47 The Sicilian mime-author Sophron nonetheless composed a piece entitled Ἀκέστριαι (a name bestowed on the text by Hellenistic scholars rather than the poet himself?). For titles referring to a profession, occupation or the like, cf. Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Δραπεταγωγός, Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. In addition to Sophron’s Ἀκέστριαι (see above), the Roman mime-poet Laberius (1st century BCE) wrote a Belonistria. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 21 K.–A. (20 K.)

5

(Α.) κρέας δὲ τίνος ἥδιστ’ ἂν ἐσθίοις; (Β.) τίνος; εἰς εὐτέλειαν. τῶν προβάτων μὲν οἷς ἔνι μήτ’ ἔρια μήτε τυρός, ἀρνός, φίλτατε, τῶν δ’ αἰγιδίων κατὰ ταὔθ’ ἃ μὴ τυρὸν ποεῖ, ἐρίφου· διὰ τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν γὰρ τῶν ἁδρῶν ταῦτ’ ἐσθίων τὰ φαῦλ’ ἀνέχομαι

1 κρέας Meineke : κρέα Ath.ACE (Β.) τίνος; Dalechamp : τίνος; (Β.) Meineke 1–2 xlk κρέα δ ἥδιστ’ ἂν ἐσθίοις τίνος  / εἰς εὐτέλειαν; Richards 2 ἔνι Ath.ACE  : ἂν ᾖ vel ἔπι Herwerden 3 τυρός. (Α.) ἀρνός, φίλτατε. Dobree 4 δ’] δὲ Ath.ACE  : τ

47

Not one who manufactured it, Greek clothing generally not being assembled out of a variety of different pieces of cloth, as ours is, and therefore inter alia lacking pockets.

82

Antiphanes

5 (Α.) ἐρίφου. (Β.) Dobree Dobree αἰγιδίων Dobree : αἰγείων Ath.ACE A Ath.  : φαυλότατα Ath.CE : φαῦλα 〈φαύλως〉 Kock

5

6 φαῦλα

(A.) And as for meat, what kind’s your favorite? (B.) What kind? (What you can get) inexpensively! That of sheep that offer no wool or cheese, meaning a lamb, my friend. Likewise the type of goat that doesn’t produce cheese, meaning a kid; since the profits from the full-grown ones make me put up with eating this simple food

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

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

klkr llk|l klkl llkl l|lrl klkl lrkl k|lk|l llkl llrl r|lk|l llkl rlrl rlkl llkl llkl k|lkr l〈lkl〉

Discussion Dobree 1833. 323; Meineke 1839–1857 V.1.73; Meineke 1847. 494; Herwerden 1872. 82–3; Kock 1884 II.17–18; Richards 1909. 76 Text The paradosis κρέα in 1 means “chunks of meat” (see fr. 248.1 n.) and makes the first foot metrically deficient (krkk).48 Meineke’s κρέας (“flesh”) both mends the meter and makes better sense in context. Changes of speaker are disputed throughout the fragment; cf. on 3–5 below. At the end of 1, Dalechamp’s (Β.) τίνος; in his 1612 Latin translation of the Greek of Casaubon’s edition of Athenaeus has (Β.) echo the question before responding to it, whereas Meineke’s τίνος; (Β.) lends the line as a whole an agitated tone (“What kind of meat’s your favorite? What kind?“) not obviously appropriate to the seemingly pedestrian nature of the query. Richards removed τίνος1 as intrusive and wrote xlk κρέας δ ἥδιστ’ ἂν ἐσθίοις τίνος / εἰς εὐτέλειαν; (“What kind of meat would you eat to save money?”). This puts the interrogative uncomfortably far from the noun it modifies, while simultaneously producing an unwelcome lacuna at the beginning of 1. 48

For the final syllable in κρέα as short, see Teuffel–Kaehler 1887. 196 on Ar. Nu. 339 (cited by Kassel–Austin).

Ἀκέστρια (fr. 21)

83

οἷς ἔνι / μήτ’ ἔρια μήτε τυρός (literally “in which there is neither wool nor cheese”) in 2–3 is an odd way of saying “that provide no wool or cheese”. Herwerden accordingly suggested οἷς ἂν ᾖ / μήτ’ ἔρια μήτε τυρός (“any that lack wool or cheese”; approved but not printed by Kock), which does not match indicative ποεῖ in 4, or οἷς ἔπι / μήτ’ ἔρια μήτε τυρός (“on which there is no wool or cheese”), which is fine with ἔρια but difficult with τυρός, as Herwerden himself noted, making it no real improvement over the paradosis. Dobree reworked 3–5 to have (Α.) inject himself repeatedly into (Β.)’s remarks, solving the puzzles at which the latter’s long-winded responses merely hint (“That of sheep that offer no wool or cheese— (A.) A lamb, my friend! (B.) and likewise of the type of goat that produces no cheese— (A.) A kid!”). τῶν προβάτων μὲν κτλ in 2–3 is patently balanced by τῶν δ’ αἰγιδίων κτλ in 4–5, and the γάρ-clause in 5–6 serves as an explanation of both. I accordingly place a comma at the end of 3 rather than a full stop (as in Kassel–Austin, following Meineke and Kock). In 4, the paradosis adjective αἰγείων (“associated with goats”) is both unmetrical and nonsensical, and Dobree’s αἰγιδίων restores what appears to be a colloquial Attic form (see Interpretation). Regardless of whether one accepts φαῦλα (Ath.A) or φαυλότατα49 (Ath.CE) in 6, the line is metrically deficient at the end. Kock proposed τὰ φαῦλα 〈φαύλως〉 ἀνέχομαι (with φαύλως to be taken in the sense “easily”), which might be right but is only a guess. Citation context The first in a set of three comic fragments appended to an extended discussion of meats of all sorts, this section of which begins at Ath. 9.395f. Fr. 131 and Mnesim. fr. 4 follow immediately after this, in that order. Interpretation A conversation between two characters, both male (note 3 φίλτατε, referring to (Α.), and 6 ἐσθίων, referring to (Β.)); φίλτατε in 3 (n.) represents an attempt to appeal to conventional standards of friendship, if not necessarily to an established interpersonal relationship, so they must be something close to social equals rather than e. g. slave and master. That (A.) is concerned to find out what kind of meat (B.) would be happiest eating suggests that (A.) is involved in planning a banquet that (B.) will attend; see 1 n. for what appears to be the larger context of the question. (B.)’s thinking about such matters, however, is painfully constrained: although he knows that full-grown animals taste better than lambs and kids (5–6), he nonetheless prefers the latter, since when he thinks of the adults, he imagines in the first instance the cheese and wool they produce that he can sell. This in turn suggests that (A.) is not referring to buying meat from the market but to slaughtering an animal that belongs to (B.) himself. Perhaps (A.) is thus a cook, trying to discover the preferences of his

49

Yielding llkl

k|lr|r kl〈kl〉.

84

Antiphanes

typically difficult employer. (B.), on the other hand, is most easily understood as a typical comic ἄγροικος (cf. Agroikos introductory n.), whose worldview is so limited that he is at least initially unable to imagine truly enjoying himself; cf. fr. 69.6–12 (beginning ἰχθὺν τίν’ ἡδέως φάγοις ἄν;, “What fish is your favorite?”, and eliciting a similarly unimaginative, profoundly rustic reply). (B.)’s willingness to concede in 5–6 that he feels constrained by his own rules nonetheless suggests that he may eventually be convinced to have a better time than he originally intended. 1 The word order, with the initial declaration of the topic (κρέας) followed by the focus in interrogative form (τίνος), is unusual (cf. E. Ion 234 δμωαὶ δὲ τίνων κλῄζεσθε δόμων;, “You’re slaves—of what house?”; X. HG 3.1.26 εἰπέ μοι, ἔφη, Μανία δὲ τίνος ἦν; οἱ δὲ πάντες εἶπον ὅτι Φαρναβάζου. οὐκοῦν καὶ τὰ ἐκείνης, ἔφη, Φαρναβάζου;; “Tell me, he said, Mania—who did she belong to?’ And they all said that she belonged to Pharnabazus. ‘So then her property, as well—’, he said, ‘it belonged to Pharnabazus?’”) and likely reflects the fact that (A.) is moving on to a new subject (thus e. g. in the previous lines “(A.) What would you like to drink? (B.) …”, leading (A.) to ask “But as for meat …?”). τίνος δὲ κρέας would have done just as well metrically but would not build on what preceded it in the same fashion. Adverbial ἥδιστα is used in similar contexts at e. g. Ar. Eq. 707 ἐπὶ τῷ φάγοις ἥδιστ’ ἄν;; Pax 643 ταῦτ’ ἂν ἥδιστ’ ἤσθιεν; Crobyl. fr. 8.3 καὶ τὸν λάρυγγ’ ἥδιστα πυριῶ τεμαχίοις; Diph. fr. 80.2 ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦθ’ ἥδιστά γ’ ἐπιδορπίζομαι; cf. fr. 219.3 μήτραν … ἥδιστον κρέας with n.; Ar. fr. 448 ἀτταγᾶς ἥδιστον ἕψειν ἐν ἐπινικίοις κρέας; Pl. Com. fr. 27.2–3 πλὴν ὑῶν. τὰ γὰρ κρέα / ἥδιστ’ ἔχουσιν, and contrast fr. 123.3 μέλιτος γλυκυτέρας μεμβράδας with n. 2 εἰς εὐτέλειαν The same phrase (probably colloquial) appears at Ar. Av. 805 εἰς εὐτέλειαν χηνὶ συγγεγραμμένῳ (“a goose drawn on a limited budget”50) and repeatedly in Thucydides (8.1.3, 8.4.1, 8.86.6); cf. fr. 225.2 πρὸς εὐτέλειαν with n.; Ar. Ra. 404–5 ἐπὶ γέλωτι / κἀπ’ εὐτελείᾳ (“with an eye to laughter and to frugality”; the motivation for dressing a mystic/comic chorus in rags). εὐτέλεια (< τέλος in the sense “expenditure”, LSJ s. v. I.9) is not in itself ugly or contemptible, even if it makes it difficult to relax and have a good time in the way (A.) is presumably imagining. Instead, the word implies a careful, conservative circumspection regarding how one spends one’s money that is fundamentally admirable, even if this can be pushed too far51 or applied to situations where one might do better to let loose a bit (as here). Cf. fr. 162.1 ταῖς εὐτελείαις οἱ θεοὶ χαίρουσι γάρ (“for the gods are pleased by economies”) with n.; Th. 2.40.1 φιλοκαλοῦμέν τε γὰρ μετ’ εὐτελείας καὶ φιλοσοφοῦμεν ἄνευ μαλακίας (“for we are lovers of beauty, provided it comes with euteleia, and we are devoted to learning, provided no effeminacy attaches to it”; Pericles in the Funeral Oration, referring to the Athenians collec-

50 51

“Put together for cheapness” (Dunbar 1995 ad loc.) gets the tone wrong; see below on εὐτέλεια. Thus used mockingly of Pythagorean ascetics at Aristopho fr. 9.6.

Ἀκέστρια (fr. 21)

85

tively); 8.1.3 ἐς εὐτέλειαν σωφρονίσαι (“to moderate their expenses with an eye to euteleia”), 8.86.6 εἰ δὲ ἐς εὐτέλειάν τι ξυντέτμηται ὥστε τοὺς στρατευομένους μᾶλλον ἔχειν τροφήν, πάνυ ἐπαινεῖν (“if there had been any curtailment to allow the troops in the field to be better provisioned, he very much commended this”); X. Smp. 4.42 ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ πολὺ δικαιοτέρους γε εἰκὸς εἶναι τοὺς εὐτέλειαν μᾶλλον ἢ πολυχρηματίαν σκοποῦντας. οἷς γὰρ μάλιστα τὰ παρόντα ἀρκεῖ ἥκιστα τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ὀρέγονται (“Indeed, one can expect people who aim at frugality to be more just than those who aim at wealth; for those who are most content with what they have, feel less appetite for the possessions of others”); Ap. 25 τούς γε μὴν νέους πῶς ἂν διαφθείροιμι καρτερίαν καὶ εὐτέλειαν προσεθίζων (“How would I in fact be corrupting the young, if I accustom them to an empty stomach and frugality?”); Diog. Sinop. TrGF 88 F 6.3–4 διδάσκαλος γὰρ ηὑτέλεια τῶν σοφῶν / καὶ τῶν ἀρίστων γίγνεται βουλευμάτων (“Frugality is a teacher of the wise and of the best plans”). The noun and its cognates are 5th/4th-century vocabulary, first attested at A. Th. 491 ὁ σηματουργὸς δ’ οὔ τις εὐτελὴς ἄρ’ ἦν (“the man who produced the sign [on the fourth champion’s shield] was not hired on a limited budget”) but otherwise absent from elevated poetry. τῶν προβάτων As LSJ s. v. notes, πρόβατα (< προβαίνω, “walk in front”, sc. of a herdsman) is often used in comedy in ways that make it clear that the reference is specifically to sheep (as here) rather than to sheep and goats generally; cf. Προβατεύς introductory n.; Cratin. frr. 39.2 (sheared for wool); 45 making the sound βῆ βῆ, “bê bê”); Ar. Av. 714 (producing wool); Pl. 293–4 (described as bleating and distinguished from αἶγες, “goats”); Men. Theophor. fr. 1.3 (distinguished from a τράγος, “billy goat”), as routinely in non-Attic authors. For sheep as sacrificial victims, fr. 170.5 n. 3 For sheep supplying men specifically with wool, cheese and lambs, see X. Mem. 2.7.13. For sheep-farming generally, see Rosivach 1994. 79–81, 83–4, 88–90; important comparative material on sheep-farming in ancient Italy in Frayn 1984. ἔρια is raw wool before it has been converted into yarn. A typical rural product at fr. 177.4 (specifically an outstanding product of Attica); Ar. Nu. 50; X. Mem. 2.9.4. Sheared wool (for shearing, see Cratin. fr. 39) was sold to wholesalers by the herdsman or his master (cf. Ar. Ra. 1386 ἐριοπωλικῶς; Poll. 7.28 ἐριοπῶλαι, ἐριοπωλεῖν, 196) and was then bought in small lots and processed at home by individual women, who cleaned it, spun it into threads of various degrees of thickness and flexibility, and wove it into clothing (e. g. Ar. Lys. 574–86; Ec. 215–17). ἔριον— properly a diminutive of the much less common εἶρος—is an old Indo-European word attested already in Homer (e. g. Il. 3.388) and widely distributed in comedy (also e. g. Cratin. fr. 388; Ar. V. 1147; Ec. 215; Amphis fr. 27.1) and prose (e. g. Hdt. 3.106.3; X. Oec. 7.6; Pl. Ion 540c), but absent from lyric poetry and tragedy, presumably as too crude and simple a term to be judged appropriate there. τυρός For cheese and cheese-making, see frr. 51 n.; 131.7–9; 140.1 (in a list of kitchen supplies) with n.; 157.2–3 n.; 181.2 (in a list of simple foods); 183.3. For the cheese-market—probably controlled by middlemen, like most such markets

86

Antiphanes

in Athens, meaning that shepherds and goatherds brought their cheese into town occasionally and sold it all in a single lot—fr. 233.4 n. (on cheese imported from Sicily); Ar. Eq. 480 (a cheese-market in Boiotia, with the prices there of at least nominal interest in Athens), 854; Ra. 1369 (the “cheese-seller’s art” is weighing goods); Men. Pk. 284 [τυρ]οπ[ω]λεῖν ἐν ἀγορᾷ καθήμε[νος] (“to sit in the marketplace and sell cheese”), 290; Lys. 23.6 (the “green cheese market” in Athens); Ephipp. fr. 3.5 (cheese imported from the Chersonese); Poll. 7.196. Interesting modern comparative material in Kapetanios 2003. For φίλτατε, cf. frr. 36.1; 69.12 (fem.); 163.1 (fem.); 264.1 (fem.). Use of the word does not necessarily indicate that the speaker and the addressee are friends (e. g. Men. Leuc. 7, 49, where the characters clearly do not know one another well), and it may instead be wheedling, as at e. g. Ar. Ach. 1020; Eq. 148; Pl. 967. 4 αἰγίδιον (diminutive of αἴξ; cf. fr. 131.4 n.) is attested elsewhere in the classical period only at Pherecr. fr. 30 and seemingly as a personal name (a courtesan?) at Eub. fr. 103.1. That Ael. ep. 18.6 and Alciphr. 2.13.1 both pick it up suggests that in the Second Sophistic period it was taken to be an Atticism. For the ending, fr. 6 n. κατὰ τ(ὰ) αὐτ(ά) Cf. κατὰ τ(ὸ) αὐτό at Ar. Nu. 663 in the same sense. The expression is otherwise exclusively prosaic (e. g. Hdt. 1.120.1; Th. 5.18.9; X. HG 7.1.40; Is. 11.2). 5 ἐρίφου For kids and kid-meat, see frr. 131.6; 221.6–7; Pherecr. fr. 137.9 (made into sausages); Ar. fr. 449 (shanks); Eub. fr. 63.3 (made into sausages), 5 (jejunum); Alex. frr. 177.11 (a sacrificial victim); 263.9 (kids served at a banquet); [Men.] fr. spur. 1001.2 (sacrificial victims); Athenio fr. 1.30 (stewed); Euphro fr. 1.18–22 (sacrificial victims). τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν … τῶν ἁδρῶν Literally “the produce of the large ones”, i. e. “everything the adults produce”, meaning wool (in the case of sheep) and cheese— and presumably lambs and kids as well—that can then be sold. ἐπικαρπία is 4thcentury prosaic vocabulary (e. g. And. 1.92; Isoc. 8.125; Pl. Lg. 955d; D. 27.64). LSJ s. v. ἁδρός II.1–2 suggests “full-grown” in reference to human beings, but “fine, fat” in reference to animals (cf. fr. 27.21 n.). But the contrast with τὰ φαῦλ(α) in 6 brings out the real point, which is that (B.) would prefer to eat larger and thus implicitly meatier animals, but is too careful about money to do so. For ἁδρός, fr. 142.9 n. 6 Precisely how negative a judgment φαῦλ(α) represents, is impossible to say. But (B.) is not obviously expressing anything more than a sense that lambs and kids are acceptable if unexciting fare; cf. Cephisod. fr. 8 κρεᾴδιόν τι φαῦλον ἢ ταρίχιον (“a simple little piece of meat or a bit of saltfish”).

Ἀκέστρια (fr. 22)

87

fr. 22 K.–A. (21 K.) † εἰ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐργαστήριον οἰκίας τὸ κλίσιον † πρότερόν ποτ’ ἦν τοῖς ἐξ ἀγροῦ βουσὶ σταθμὸς καὶ τοῖς ὄνοις, πεπόηκεν ἐργαστήριον 1 εἰ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐργαστήριον οἰκίας Poll.FS : om. Poll.A : ὃ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐργαστήριον 〈τῆς〉 οἰκίας Wilamowitz : [εἰ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐργαστήριον] 〈τῆς〉 οἰκίας Meineke τὸ κλίσιον Poll.A : τὸ FS ἦν γάρ τι ἐργαστήριον τῆς οἰκίας; / 〈(Β.) οὐκ ἦν κλήσιον Poll.  : del. Wilamowitz μὰ τὸν Δί , ἀλλ ὁρᾷς;〉 τὸ κλίσιον “nonnemo” ap. Bekker 2 πρότερόν ποτ’ Poll.FS : ὃ πρότερόν ποτ’ Poll.A : ὃ πρότερον Bekker : ὃ πρίν ποτ’ Salmasius 3 πεποίηκεν Poll.FSA : πεποίηκε δ Wilamowitz

† For if the outbuilding of a house is an ergastêrion † at some point previously was a stable for the oxen from the field and the donkeys, he’s made (it) an ergastêrion Poll. 4.125 τὸ δὲ κλισίον ἐν κωμῳδίᾳ παράκειται παρὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, παραπετάσματι δηλούμενον. καὶ ἔστι μὲν σταθμὸς ὑποζυγίων, καὶ αἱ θύραι αὐτοῦ μείζους δοκοῦσι καλούμεναι κλισιάδες, πρὸς τὸ καὶ τὰς ἁμάξας εἰσελαύνειν καὶ τὰ σκευοφόρα. ἐν δ’ Ἀντιφάνους Ἀκεστρίᾳ καὶ ἐργαστήριον γέγονεν· φησὶ γοῦν· —— In comedy, the outbuilding is located next to the house and is marked out by a curtain. It serves as a stall for yoke-animals, and its doors, known as klisiades, are apparently oversize, so that they can drive their wagons and pack-animals inside. Whereas in Antiphanes’ Akestria it has been converted into an ergastêrion; at any rate, he says: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

† kklklllkklklkkkk †

rlkl l|lkl llkl llkl rlk|l llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 III.10; Bekker 1846. 172; Wecklein 1872. 460; Wilamowitz ap. Bethe 1900. 238 Text 1 is unmetrical, perhaps because it contains intrusive material, and the syntax of 2–3 is troubled. Various drastic attempts to mend the text—all of them too complicated to be convincing—have been made by Bekker building on an anonymous suggestion (Α.) ἦν γάρ τι ἐργαστήριον τῆς οἰκίας; / 〈(Β.) οὐκ ἦν μὰ τὸν Δί , ἀλλ ὁρᾷς;〉 τὸ κλίσιον / ὃ πρότερον [ποτ’] ἦν (“(A.) For did the house have a workshop? (B) There wasn’t one, by Zeus, but you see? The outbuilding that previously was etc.”), Meineke [εἰ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐργαστήριον] 〈τῆς〉 οἰκίας τὸ κλίσιον, / ὃ πρότερον [ποτ’] ἦν τοῖς ἐξ ἀγροῦ βουσὶ σταθμὸς καὶ τοῖς ὄνοις, πεποίηκεν ἐργαστήριον (”The household outbuilding, which previously was a stall for the oxen from the field and the donkeys, he’s made into a workshop”) and Wilamowitz

88

Antiphanes

ὃ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐργαστήριον 〈τῆς〉 οἰκίας / πρότερόν ποτ’ ἦν τοῖς ἐξ ἀγροῦ βουσὶ σταθμὸς / καὶ τοῖς ὄνοις, πεποίηκε δ ἐργαστήριον (“For what is the household workshop, was previously a stall for the oxen from the field and the donkeys; but he’s made it into a workshop”). τὸ κλήσιον (Poll.FS) for τὸ κλίσιον (Poll.A) at the end of 1 is a simple aural error dating to a time when iota and êta had come to be pronounced alike. The relative pronoun at the beginning of 2 in Poll.A makes the syntax easier, although at the price of rendering the text hypermetrical. Bekker (ὃ πρότερον [ποτ’]) and Salmasius (ὃ πρίν ποτ’) accordingly attempted to retain it. But πρότερόν ποτ’ is unobjectionable in and of itself; it is difficult to see why anyone would have deliberately added or altered either word; and ὅ probably represents an attempt by an industrious scribe to render a difficult text clearer by creating a syntactic connection between 1 and 2. Citation context Part of a discussion of fixed onstage structures in a theater. Partially overlapping material is preserved at – Poll. 9.50 σταθμὸς δ’ ἂν καλοῖτο ἡ τῶν ὑποζυγίων στάσις, καὶ κλείσιον παρὰ τὸ κεκλεῖσθαι· ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ αἱ θύραι κλεισιάδες (“The place where yoke-animals are stabled would be called a stathmos, or a kleision from kekleisthai [to have been locked]; whence the doors are kleisiades”) – Oros B 85 κλισίον (with additional material assembled there by Alpers) – Moer. κ 40 κλισιάδες αἱ δίθυροι πύλαι Ἀττικοί· κλίσια δὲ ὅπου τὰ ζεύγη ἵσταται (“Attic-speakers use klisiades for gates with double doors; but klisia are where the teams are stabled”). Interpretation As Wecklein (following Pollux) saw, these lines might be from the prologue, explaining what the various doors et sim. onstage represent. If so, perhaps the title-character worked inside the ἐργαστήριον. But the fragment might just as well (despite Pollux) be drawn from another point in the play and describe e. g. a spot one of the characters is to visit or where some significant event took place. ἐξ ἀγροῦ in 2 distinguishes the location of the stable/workshop from the fields in which the plowing is done, which does not mean that the setting is in the city itself. For the debate regarding the nucleated or non-nucleated nature of Athenian rural life, see Jones 2000. Whoever the master is, he must have been relatively well to do “at some point previously”, if he needed stalls for multiple donkeys and oxen; perhaps he has lost his land (or his taste for farming) in the meantime. For the ancient use of draft animals and carts, see now Raepsaet 2019. Although the text is too battered to be sure, it offers no obvious support for Pollux’ claim that a particular standard onstage structure known as the κλίσιον was used to store wagons and pack-animals; most likely this is instead a bad deduction from a single, seemingly suggestive passage. Cf. Pickard-Cambridge 1946. 238–9. 1, 3 ἐργαστήριον is a generic term for a space used for commercial or business purposes of any sort, as Aeschin. 1.124 says expressly: ἐὰν δ’ εἰς ἓν δήπου τούτων τῶν ἐπὶ ταῖς ὁδοῖς ἐργαστηρίων ἰατρὸς εἰσοικίσηται, ἰατρεῖον καλεῖται·

Ἀκέστρια (fr. 22)

89

ἐὰν δ’ ὁ μὲν ἐξοικίσηται, εἰς δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐργαστήριον χαλκεὺς εἰσοικίσηται, χαλκεῖον ἐκλήθη, ἐὰν δὲ κναφεύς, κναφεῖον, ἐὰν δὲ τέκτων, τεκτονεῖον· ἐὰν δὲ πορνοβοσκὸς καὶ πόρναι, ἀπὸ τῆς ἐργασίας εὐθὺς ἐκλήθη πορνεῖον (“If in fact a doctor moves into one of these ergastêria along the streets, it’s called a doctor’s office; but if he moves out and a bronze-smith moves into this same ergastêrion, it’s called a foundry, whereas if a fuller does, it’s a fuller’s shop, and if a carpenter does, it’s a carpenter’s shop, and if a pimp and whores do, from the work that goes on there, it’s immediately called a brothel”). Cf. fr. 26.1 (a bathhouse); Ar. Eq. 744 (a cook’s shop); Hdt. 4.14.1 (a fuller’s shop); Isoc. 7.15; 18.9 (ergastêria as common lounging-places in the city); D. 25.52 τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει κουρείων ἢ μυροπωλίων ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ἐργαστηρίων (“of the barber’s shops or perfumeries in the city or the other ergastêria”); 27.19–20 (a knife-making factory employing slave-labor); [D.] 59.67 (a brothel); Calderini 1924. 12–17 (material from Greco-Roman Egypt); Kapparis 2011. 253 (whose claim that this was “a widely used euphemism for brothel” does not seem to be supported by the ancient evidence, at least for the classical period). 1 Α κλίσιον (cognate with κλίνω) is a rough outbuilding of some sort (~ “shed”); cf. Od. 24.208–10 ἔνθα οἱ οἶκος ἔην, περὶ δὲ κλίσιον θέε πάντῃ, / ἐν τῷ σιτέσκοντο καὶ ἵζανον ἠδὲ ἴαυον / δμῶες ἀναγκαῖοι (“There was (Laertes’) house, and a klision ran about it on all sides, in which his bond-servants used to eat and sit and sleep”); Lys. 12.18 τριῶν ἡμῖν οἰκιῶν οὐσῶν 〈ἐξ〉 οὐδεμιᾶς εἴασαν ἐξενεχθῆναι, ἀλλὰ κλεισίον μισθωσάμενοι προὔθεντο αὐτόν (“Although we had three houses, they did not permit the funeral to originate in any of them, but they rented a kleision and laid him out there”); D. 18.129 ἢ ὡς ἡ μήτηρ τοῖς μεθημερινοῖς γάμοις ἐν τῷ κλεισίῳ τῷ πρὸς τῷ καλαμίτῃ ἥρῳ χρωμένη (“or how your mother engaged in mid-day couplings in the kleision next to the hero of the reeds”); Agora XIX, Poletai P 17.20–1 οἰκ[ίαν καὶ χωρί]ο[ν] καὶ [κ]λισ[ίο]ν (“a house and a field and a klision”); Frisk 1943. 59–64. 2 τοῖς ἐξ ἀγροῦ βουσί Presumably a team or more of plow-animals, as at e. g. Ar. Ach. 1022–6; fr. 402.4; Alc. Com. fr. 14 with Orth 2013 ad loc. For oxen, cf. frr. 131.3; 170.5; Hehn 1911. 476–80; Kitchell 2014. 35–7. For ἀγρός, cf. fr. 60.1 ἐξ ἀγροῦ*; Ar. Av. 111 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc. (noting that “the art(icle) (is) regularly omitted in Attic when sing. ἀγρός means rus, ‘country’, as opposed to ‘town’ (ἄστυ)”); Diph. fr. 89.1, and in prose e. g. X. HG 5.4.3; Pl. Tht. 142a; Lys. 1.11. For the role of cattle in the Greek cultural imagination generally, see McInerney 2010. For bulls as sacrificial victims in comedy, fr. 227.7 n. σταθμός (< ἵστημι) is used of stabling facilities for animals of various sorts (cf. LSJ s. v. A.I.1) at e. g. Il. 2.470 κατὰ σταθμὸν ποιμνήϊον (“in a stathmos for sheep and goats”); 5.556–7 τὼ μὲν ἄρ’ ἁρπάζοντε βόας καὶ ἴφια μῆλα / σταθμοὺς ἀνθρώπων κεραΐζετον (“the two [lions], snatching cows and fat sheep, plunder men’s stathmoi”); E. Or. 1448–9 ἐν / σταθμοῖσιν ἱππικοῖσι (“in horse-stathmoi”); X. Eq. 4.1 (a horse stall).

90

Antiphanes

3 τοῖς ὄνοις Donkeys were the basic transport-animals of the ancient world, since they are “economical to keep, requiring little in the way of food and water, and sure-footed on steep and rocky terrain”, even if they are also often routinely characterized as “lazy, obstinate, greedy and stupid”; cf. Gregory 2007 (quotes from 193); Griffith 2006; Kitchell 2014. 57–9; Mitchell 2018. fr. 23 K.–A. (22 K.) Ath. 13.586a μνημονεύει δ’ αὐτῆς (i. e. τῆς Σινώπης) Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἀρκάδι (fr. 43) καὶ ἐν Κηπουρῷ (fr. 114), ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ, ἐν Ἁλιευομένῃ (fr. 27.12), ἐν Νεοττίδι (fr. 168) Antiphanes mentions her (i. e. Sinôpê) in Arkas (fr. 43) and in Kêpouros (fr. 114), in Akestria, Halieuomenê (fr. 27.12) (and) in Neottis (fr. 168)

Citation context Part of a richly informed discussion of individual 4th-century Athenian prostitutes perhaps drawn from Herodicus’ Individuals Mentioned in Comedy (cited immediately before this for Sinôpê’s nickname Abydos), which may itself may have been dependent on the On Courtesans of Antiphanes of Berge or the homonymous work of Aristophanes of Byzantium (both cited in this same section of Athenaeus). Interpretation

For the courtesan Sinôpê (PAA 823225), fr. 27.12 n. fr. 24 K.–A. (23 K.)

Ath. 7.303f–4b τῆς θυννίδος τὸ οὐραῖον ἐπαινεῖ καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κουρίδι οὕτως (fr. 127)· ——. τούτων τῶν ἰαμβείων ἔνια ἔστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ καὶ ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ (fr. 12) ἢ Βουταλίωνι (cf. fr. 69.10–12) Antiphanes in Kouris recommends the tail-section of the thynnis, as follows (fr. 127): ——. Some of these iambic lines can also be found in Akestria and in Agroikos (fr. 12) or Boutaliôn (cf. fr. 69.10–12)

Meter Iambic trimeter. Citation context From the discussion of the θύννις (“female tuna”) in the long, largely alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes up much of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and that is probably drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. Epich. fr. 91; Cratin. fr. 171.49–50; Archestr. fr. 38; Antiph. fr. 179, in that order, are cited immediately before this, Hippon. fr. 36; Stratt. fr. 13, in that order, immediately afterward. Interpretation See in general fr. 127 nn. For Antiphanes’ use of stock characters and recycling of lines from his own plays, Introduction § 4, 6.

91

Ἀκοντιζομένη (Akontizomenê) “The Girl who is Hit by a Javelin”

Introduction Title An ἀκόντιον is in the first instance a weapon of war (fr. dub. 109.1 n.), and it is far easier to imagine how a man might be wounded by one than a woman. It is accordingly tempting to think that the title is actually Ἀκοντιζόμενος (also the name of a play by Dionysius Comicus), with the feminine form of the participle in Athenaeus reflecting the influence of the content of the fragment. For the form of the title as transmitted, cf. Ἁλιευομένη with Introduction, Ἀντερῶσα, Ἁρπαζομένη and Παρεκδιδομένη, as well as (masculine) Ἀνασῳζόμενος (or Ἀνασῳζομένη?), Ἀποκαρτερῶν and Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, as well as Anaxippus’ Κεραυνούμενος (“The Man who is Struck by a Lightning Bolt”). Parallel titles in partially preserved plays of Menander (esp. Theophoroumenê and Perikeiromenê; note also Synaristosai) suggest that the wounding took place in the course of the action or immediately before it began). For the theme, note also Τραυματίας. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 25 K.–A. (24 K.)

5

γείτων ἐστί τις κάπηλος. οὗτος εὐθύς, ὅταν ἔλθω ποτὲ διψῶσα, μόνος οἶδ’ ὥς γ’ ἐμοὶ κεράννυται. οὔθ’ ὑδαρὲς οὔτ’ ἄκρατον οἶδ’ ἐγώ ποτε πιοῦσα

2 ἔλθω Morelius : ἐλθὼν Ath.A 3 οἶδ’ Hertelius : οἶδεν Ath.A γ’ ἐμοὶ Schweighäuser : A γε μοι Ath.  : ἐμοὶ Blaydes 4 οἶδ’ ἐγώ Meineke : οἶδα δ’ ἐγώ Ath.A : (Β.) οἶδ’ ἐγώ Bothe : οὐδ’ ἀλγῶ Emperius

5

There’s a neighborhood bartender. Whenever I show up thirsty, this fellow alone immediately knows how it’s mixed for me. I don’t know that I ever drank it too diluted or overly strong

92

Antiphanes

Ath. 10.441b–c οἷαι δ’ εἰσὶ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι μεθύουσαι αἱ γυναῖκες παραδίδωσιν Ἀντιφάνης μὲν ἐν τῇ Ἀκοντιζομένῃ οὕτω· —— Antiphanes in his Akontizomenê conveys what Greek women are like when they get drunk, as follows: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xlk〉|l llkl klkl k|lk|r llkl llkr l|lkl klkl lrkl klk|l klkl klk〈l xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion Morelius 1553. 92; Hertelius 1560. 470; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 V.460–1; Meineke 1839–1857 V.1.73; Bothe 1844. 23; Emperius 1847. 349; Blaydes 1896. 101; Edmonds 1959. 171 n. d Text The paradosis ἐλθών in 2 (impossible with the feminine participle διψῶσα in 3) likely reflects the influence of οὗτος a few words earlier; Morelius’ ἔλθω is an easy and convincing fix. The unmetrical paradosis οἶδεν in 3 represents scriptio plena (with a nu added to avoid hiatus) for Hertelius’ οἶδ’. Schweighäuser’s γ’ ἐμοί in 3 is merely a redivision of the paradosis γε μοι to yield the emphatic rather than the unemphatic form of the pronoun. The point of γ(ε) is difficult to understand, and Blaydes accordingly dropped the word; but see Denniston 1954. 143 (“seems to become almost a stereotyped idiom, in which γε often retains little force”). The punctuation of 3–4 is Kassel–Austin’s. Previous editors put a comma at the end of 3 and (following Ath.A) a full-stop after ἄκρατον. But this makes the final comment both weak and inconsonant with what precedes it (“he alone knows how I like it mixed, neither too diluted nor overly strong. I know because I drank it at one point”—how else? and surely the point in any case is that the speaker is a regular customer). Bothe, followed by Kock, gave οἶδ’ ἐγώ ποτε / πιοῦσα to a second woman (“(B.) I know (that this is how he mixes wine,) because I drank it once”). The most natural reading of 1–3, however, is that the addressee has never heard of the bar-tender in question before, making a claim by him or her to have spent time in his establishment exactly what is not wanted here. See also below on οἶδ’ ἐγώ. The paradosis οἶδα δ’ ἐγώ in the second half of 4 is probably in origin another example of scriptio plena (cf. οἶδεν in 3), with the particle added to eliminate hiatus while also accommodating a stop after ἄκρατον (see above), hence Meineke’s οἶδ’ ἐγώ (although he himself retained the manuscript reading). Emperius’ οὐδ’ ἀλγῶ

Ἀκοντιζομένη (fr. 25)

93

(“and it causes me no grief to drink it”) represents a more radical way of addressing the problem with the sense of 4–5 discussed above. Citation context From a discussion of women’s alleged fondness for drinking wine (Ath. 10.440e–2a) that also preserves fr. 163; Alex. frr. 172; 56; Antiph. fr. 58; Xenarch. fr. 6; Pl. Com. fr. 188; Axionic. fr. 5, in that order, immediately after this. Interpretation The speaker is a woman (note 3 διψῶσα and 5 πιοῦσα). Whatever she is attempting to communicate by describing her local bartender, she effectively establishes that she is a regular customer and thus a typical female comic drunk. Cf. frr. 58; 144; 163 (two of these quoted in the same section of Athenaeus); Ar. Lys. 113–14 with Henderson 1987a ad loc.; Th. 737 ὦ μέγα καπήλοις ἀγαθόν (“O great benefit to bartenders!”; in reference to women); Pl. Com. fr. 188.3–4 ὑμῖν γὰρ οὐδέν, καθάπερ ἡ παροιμία, / ἐν τῷ καπήλῳ νοῦς ἐνεῖναί μοι δοκεῖ (“for your mind ought not to be, as the proverb has it, on the bartender, it seems to me”; of women); Alex. fr. 172.1–2 (the last two also quoted in the same section of Athenaeus); Men. Perinth. fr. 4 Sandbach = fr. 5 Körte. From an opening soliloquoy addressed to the audience and providing part of the setting/background for the action? 1–2 γείτων … τις / κάπηλος Cf. Ar. Pl. 435 ἡ καπηλὶς ἡ ’κ τῶν γειτόνων (“the bartender-woman from the neighborhood”); fr. 285 ἐν κωμήτισι καπήλοις (“among the local bartenders”); Nicostr. Com. fr. 22.1 ὁ κάπηλος … οὑκ τῶν γειτόνων (“the bartender among our neighbors”); Lys. 1.24 δᾷδας λαβόντες ἐκ τοῦ ἐγγύτατα καπηλείου (“getting torches from the nearest bar”). A κάπηλος (etymology unknown) is a retail merchant, i. e. someone who resells goods he purchases from others (cf. Pl. R. 371d καπήλους καλοῦμεν τοὺς πρὸς ὠνήν τε καὶ πρᾶσιν διακονοῦντας ἱδρυμένους ἐν ἀγορᾷ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις ἐμπόρους, “We refer to people who devote themselves to buying and selling while sitting in the marketplace as kapêloi, while those who travel to different cities are emporoi”); see in general Leese 2017. Beginning in the late 5th century, however, the word is often used in Attic specifically for bartenders (e. g. Ar. Lys. 466; Th. 347, 737 (quoted above); Pl. Com. fr. 188.4; Nicostr. Com. fr. 22.1); see Fauchier 2020. 35–6. A bar is accordingly a καπηλεῖον (e. g. Ar. Lys. 427; Ec. 154; Eub. fr. 80.2; S. fr. 711 (satyr play); Lys. 1.24; Isoc. 15.287; Agora XIX Horoi H 106.1–2), and one could not only drink but eat in one (e. g. Isoc. 7.49; Hyp. fr. 148 Jensen), as commonly today. The shops of sellers of various commodities tended to cluster in Athens (see Olson on Eup. fr. 327), but bars seem to have worked on a different model, attempting to control their own local neighborhood markets. Cf. Shear 1975. 357–9 (remains of a classical-period kapêleion beneath the Roman Stoa in the Athenian Agora); Margaritis 2014 (full discussion of what may have been a Hellenistic-era kapêleion at Krania in southern Macedonia). 2 εὐθύς is adverbial (LSJ s. v. II.1), as also at frr. 139; 159.4; 164.4; 177.5; 189.10. Cf. test. 6; fr. 157.2 εὐθέως with n.; Slater 1986. 136.

94

Antiphanes

2–3 οὗτος εὐθὺς … / … μόνος οἶδ’ ὥς γ’ ἐμοὶ κεράννυται A colloquial compression of thought; what the speaker means is “He immediately serves me wine mixed the way he alone knows I like it”. For the combination ὅταν … ποτέ (“whenever at any point”), e. g. E. Alc. 560 ὅταν ποτ’ Ἄργους διψίαν ἔλθω χθόνα; IA 377 ὅταν ποτ’ ἐμπέσωσιν εἰς ἔριν; Pl. Tht. 199b ὅταν θηρεύων τινά πού ποτ’; D. 23.126 ὅταν ποτὲ μείζονος πλεονεξίας ἑτέρωθεν ἐλπίδ’ ἴδωσιν. 3 διψάω (literally “be thirsty”) is here used euphemistically in the sense “need a drink”, as perhaps also at Eub. fr. 136.2. For the use of μόνος in exaggerated praise, fr. 19.4 n. ὥς γ’ ἐμοὶ κεράννυται For the various proportions used in mixing wine (sc. with water), see Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 228.2; Olson–Seaberg 2018 on Cratin. fr. 299. 4–5 οὔθ’ ὑδαρὲς οὔτ’ ἄκρατον οἶδ’ ἐγώ ποτε / πιοῦσα sc. “at his establishment”. For ὑδαρής used of mixed wine in which the proportion of wine is supposedly too large, Pherecr. fr. 76.2; Alex. frr. 228.3; 232.2; Diph. fr. 57.3; cf. Ephipp. fr. 11.2. ἄκρατος (literally “unmixed”) serves here as the polar opposite and must accordingly mean “not diluted enough”.

95

Ἀλείπτρια (Aleiptria) “The Female Anointer”

Introduction Discussion

Kann 1909. 71

Title ἀλείπτρια is the feminine form of the only slightly better attested ἀλείπτης. This seems like an inherently degrading service of the sort a slave or prostitute might be expected to deliver (cf. frr. 101; 152, both cited at Ath. 12.553b–d), be it for male or female customers; see Interpretation. But perhaps the reference is to a domestic servant parallel to a κουρίς (see Κουρίς Introduction), given the inclusion at Plaut. Trin. 252 of an unctor in a long list of individuals a woman living in great luxury tends to hire. Athenaeus in his citation of fr. 26 reports that Ἀλείπτρια was also assigned to Alexis, so the play ought perhaps to be treated as only dubiously by Antiphanes. For titles referring to a profession, occupation or the like (not necessarily that of a central character, but at least an individual who at one point helps drive the plot), cf. Ἀκέστρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δραπεταγωγός, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Δραπεταγωγός, Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Amphis and Diphilus are also supposed to have written plays entitled Ἀλείπτρια (thus Poll. 7.17 and Et.gen. AB s. v. ἀλείπτης, respectively). Content That the sole surviving fragment of the play appears to be set in a bathhouse does not mean that the play as a whole was. But being anointed with oil (sc. after one washed) does appear to be a standard service that such businesses provided; cf. Ar. Pl. 615–16 λουσάμενος / λιπαρὸς χωρῶν ἐκ βαλανείου (“after bathing, leaving the bathhouse shining with oil”); Alex. fr. 106 ἐν τῷ βαλανείῳ μήτε πῦρ ταῖς ἐσχάραις / ἐνὸν κεκλῃμένον τε τἀλειπτήριον (“there being no fire in the braziers in the bathhouse and the anointing-room being locked”); Hp. Epid. VII 46.1–2 = 5.414.10–11 Littré ἐν βαλανείῳ πρὸς πυρὶ χριόμενος (“while being anointed in a bathhouse beside a fire”); Diocl. Car. fr. 182.63–4 εἰς βαλανεῖον ἢ εἰς ἄλλην ἀλέαν χρίεσθαι (“into a bathhouse or another warm spot to be anointed”); Thphr. Char. 30.8 ἀλειφόμενος ἐν τῷ βαλανείῳ (“being anointed with oil in the bathhouse”). Date Unknown.

96

Antiphanes

Fragment fr. 26 K.–A. (25 K.)

5

ἐὰν δὲ τοὐργαστήριον ποιῆτε περιβόητον, κατασκεδῶ, νὴ τὴν φίλην Δήμητρα, τὴν μεγίστην ἀρύταιναν ὑμῶν ἐκ μέσου βάψασα τοῦ λέβητος ζέοντος ὕδατος· εἰ δὲ 〈μή〉, μηδέποθ’ ὕδωρ πίοιμι ἐλευθέριον

1 ποιῆτε Musurus : ποιῆται Ath.A

5

4 μή add. Casaubon

πίοιμι Pierson : ποιμ Ath.A

But if you try to make the establishment notorious, by my beloved Demeter, I’ll fill the largest pitcher with boiling water from the middle of the cauldron full and pour it over you; and if don’t, may I never drink the water of freedom

Ath. 3.123b–c ἐν δ’ Ἀλειπτρίᾳ—φέρεται τὸ δρᾶμα καὶ ὡς Ἀλέξιδος· —— And in Aleiptria—the play is also attributed to Alexis: ——

Meter Iambic tetrameter catalectic, as also in fr. 293.

klkl llkl | llkr kll klkl llkl | llkl kll rlkl llkl | llkl kll klkr klk〈l〉 | lrkl kll klkr 〈xlkl xlkl kll〉

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 236; Pierson 1759. 216; Kock 1884 II.19; Perusino 1968. 125–8; Arnott 1996. 814–17 Text The paradosis ποιῆται in 1 is unmetrical, and Musurus’ ποιῆτε (cf. ὑμῶν in 3) in the editio princeps of Athenaeus is an easy fix; a simple aural error dating to a period when αι and ε had come to be pronounced alike. In 4, Casaubon’s 〈μή〉 is needed for the meter and must have been omitted via haplography before μηδέποθ’. At the end of 4, the garbled and unmetrical paradosis ποιμ was emended by Pierson to πίοιμι, which both mends the meter and works well with ὕδωρ … ἐλευθέριον. Citation context From a brief discussion of water and how it was warmed (Ath. 3.122e–3e) that also preserves Eup. fr. 99.41–3 and Antiph. fr. 175, in that order, immediately before this.

Ἀλείπτρια (fr. 26)

97

Interpretation The speaker is a woman (note 2 νὴ τὴν φίλην Δήμητρα with n. and 3 βάψασα) and a slave (4–5 with n.), and thus perhaps the title-character (see Introduction, Title). She is addressing a group of individuals (note 1 ποιῆτε, 3 ὑμῶν) who might be either customers at the bathhouse (βαλανεῖον) or fellow slaves. Taking a bath involved not just sitting in a tub (πύελος; e. g. Ar. Eq. 1060 τὰς πυέλους … ἐν βαλανείῳ; Poll. 10.63) but calling out for water of the temperature one preferred (Amphis fr. 7) and having it poured over one’s head by the bathman or the bathman’s slave (e. g. Pl. R. 344d ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ Θρασύμαχος ἐν νῷ εἶχεν ἀπιέναι, ὥσπερ βαλανεὺς ἡμῶν καταντλήσας κατὰ τῶν ὤτων ἁθρόον καὶ πολὺν τὸν λόγον, “after he made these remarks, Thrasymachos had it in mind to leave, like a bathman who had poured down over our shoulders a substantial and abundant speech”; Thphr. Char. 9.8 with Diggle 2004 ad loc.); whether this is the speaker’s job or not, she proposes turning the process to her own hostile purposes (3–4). Whatever the individuals addressed are doing or proposing to do that will make the bathhouse notorious (1), it is probably going on at this very moment, since an immediate rather than an eventual punishment is in question. For bathing and bathhouses in comedy, cf. further fr. 239; Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. dub. 490, and in general Ginouvès 1962. 183–224; Yegül 1992. 6–29; Hoffmann 1999; Lucore and Trümper 2013 (collected papers); Papachrysostomou 2016. 56 (with further bibliography). For bathman (βαλανεύς) as a typical urban occupation, cf. Ar. Av. 491; IG II2 11804.3–4. The bathhouse stove (where the water the speaker is threatening to use must have been heated) is mentioned or alluded to at Ar. Pl. 535, 952–3; fr. 739. Why the slave feels such lively interest in the reputation of the place she is being forced to work is unclear. But in 4–5 she envisions the possibility that she will someday be set free, i. e. as a reward for good service, suggesting that similar hopes were dangled before real slaves to keep them pliant. 1 τοὐργαστήριον ποιῆτε περιβόητον For the expression, cf. Theopomp. Com. fr. 42.3 περίστατον βοῶσα τὴν κώμην ποεῖ; Men. fr. 406 βοῶν ποείτω τὴν πόλιν διάστατον. For (ἐ)ργαστήριον, fr. 22.1, 3 n. The verses that follow leave little doubt that the business in question is a bathhouse. To the examples of περιβόητος in the negative sense “notorious” collected at LSJ s. v. 2, add Men. fr. 296.3; Pl. Phlb. 45e, and see Wankel 1976. 1260. 2–4 There are three elements to the threat, with the most frightening reserved for the end as a climax: the speaker will use the biggest ladle or bucket (sc. because it holds the most water); she will fill it from the center of the pot (because this ensures that it holds as much as possible? or out of a folk-science conviction that the water must be hottest there?); and the water will be not just hot but boiling. Kassel–Austin (followed by Arnott) compare PEnteux. 82 = PMagd. 33 (from around 200 BCE), in which a woman complains that “as I was bathing in the bathhouse … (the attendant) who was pouring water in the women’s bath, after I had come out to wash myself with soap, brought in the pitchers of warm water

98

Antiphanes

and poured them over me, and he burnt my belly and my left thigh as far as the knee, so that I was in danger (sc. of dying)”. 2 νὴ τὴν φίλην Δήμητρα Although men swear routinely by Demeter in comedy (e. g. Ar. Eq. 435; Nu. 121; V. 629; Men. Dysc. 570; Pk. 505), only women add the adjective (also Men. Epitr. 955; Philippid. fr. 5.4–5; cf. Macho 293; Herod. 1.69). There is generally no obvious thematic connection between the goddess’ sphere of influence and the situation in which she is invoked; cf. fr. 192.19 n. 3 An ἀρύταινα (< ἀρύω, “draw water”) is a dipping-vessel of some sort, probably more like a pitcher than a ladle, given the repeated references in the Delian treasure lists to an ἀρύταιναν χαλκῆν μόνωτον (“bronze arytaina with a single handle”; e. g. ID 1428. 36–7). The word is also attested at Ar. Eq. 1091 τοῦ δήμου καταχεῖν ἀρυταίνῃ πλουθυγίειαν (“to pour health-and-wealth down over the people with an arytaina”); fr. 450 βαλανεὺς δ’ ὠθεῖ ταῖς ἀρυταίναις (“and a bathman thrusts with his arytainai”); Thphr. Char. 9.8 βάψας ἀρύταιναν … αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ καταχέασθαι (“dipping an arytaina (into the water) to pour it over himself by himself ”; of an indecent person in a bathhouse who wants to avoid paying the bathman’s fee); Phryn. PS p. 33.15–16 ἀρύταινα· σκεῦος τι, ᾧ οἱ βαλανεῖς χρῶνται πρὸς τὸ παρέχειν 〈τὸ ὕδωρ〉 (“arytaina: a utensil bathmen use to supply 〈the water〉”; implying that the word was taken to be an Attic colloquialism). For μέσος used to mean “the middle of ” (as opposed to “central”, i. e. located between two other objects of a similar sort), e. g. Eup. fr. 496 with Olson 2014 ad loc.; Ar. Ach. 1216 τοῦ πέους … μέσου; fr. 581.1 χειμῶνος μέσου; Eub. fr. 108.3 ἐν μέσοισι τηγάνοις; Nicol. Com. fr. 1.7 εἰς μέσην τὴν γαστέρα. For βάπτω in the sense “dip (and fill)”, cf. Men. Dysc. 200 βάψας ἐγώ σοι τ[ὴν ὑδρίαν ἥ]ξω φέρων (“I’ll dip (and fill) the water-jug for you and bring it back here”). 3–4 Arnott takes ζέοντος ὕδατος to be dependent on τοῦ λέβητος as a “genitive of contents or material” (“the basin full of boiling water”). It might just as easily go with βάψασα, as in the translation offered here (cf. E. Hec. 609–10 σὺ δ’ αὖ λαβοῦσα τεῦχος … / βάψασ’ ἔνεγκε δεῦρο ποντίας ἁλός, “You take this vessel and bring it back after you dip (and fill it with) sea-water”), or be instead a genitive absolute (“as the water is boiling”). 4–5 ὕδωρ πίοιμι / ἐλευθέριον Picking up on the reference to the boiling water the speaker threatens to pour over the addressees in 2–4. The image of “the water of freedom” is played upon at Xenarch. fr. 5.2 ἐλευθέριον πιοῦσαν οἶνον ἀποθανεῖν (“to drink the wine of freedom and die”), leaving little doubt that it was well-established by this time, and is picked up in the Roman period at Petr. 71.1 aquam liberam gustabunt (Trimalchio in reference to his slaves) and Ov. Am. 1.6.26 nec tibi perpetuo serva bibatur aqua. Arnott compares Paus. 2.17.1 (so-called ὕδωρ ἐλευθέριον flows alongside the road from Mycenae to the Temple of Hera and is used for cleansing rituals); Hsch. ε 2021 (s. v. ἐλευθέριον ὕδωρ; in Argos, slaves who are being freed drink water from the Kynadra spring); Eust. p. 1747.11 = ii.56.19–20 = Paus.Gr. κ 56 (the ἐλευθέριον ὕδωρ at Kynadra is used proverbially

Ἀλείπτρια (fr. 26)

99

ἐπὶ τῆς κατ ἐλευθερίαν ζωῆς, “in reference to a life lived in freedom”) and argues that the custom at Argos and/or Mycenae was sufficiently well-known that there is no reason to assume the existence of a similar but otherwise unattested custom at Athens (as Kock maintained52). For manumission rituals and procedures, cf. Henioch. 5.10; Zelnick-Abramowitz 2005; Kamen 2014 (with older bibliography).

52

“sine dubio etiam Athenis ille mos erat servos hausta fontis alicuius aqua in libertatem vindicandi”.

100

Ἁλιευομένη (Halieuomenê) “The Girl who Went Fishing”

Introduction Discussion Wagner 1905. 24–5; Schiassi 1951. 233–4; Webster 1952. 21; Edmonds 1959. 172 n. b; Konstantakos 2000a. 63–6; Orth 2014b. 1017; Shaw 2014. 571 Title As Konstantakos notes, titles of this sort seem to refer not to occupations but to unusual, generally temporary or transitory situations of some sort; cf. Ἀκοντιζομένη with Introduction, Ἀνασῳζόμενος (or Ἀνασῳζομένη?), Ἀντερῶσα, Ἀποκαρτερῶν, Ἁρπαζομένη, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν and Παρεκδιδομένη. This is accordingly not “The Fisherwoman” but perhaps ~ “The Girl who was Forced to Fish (sc. because her father and brothers died?)”. For the middle of the verb meaning “catch fish for oneself ” (normal in this period), cf. Pl. Com. fr. 44.1; Arist. HA 569b5. Content

Unknown.

Date Of the historical individuals mentioned or alluded to in this fragment and about whom we have any other substantial dating evidence: Kallimedôn (7) appears to have been active politically already in the 340s BCE, and went into exile in 319 BCE; Kallisthenês (10) was active in Athenian politics from the mid-350s until at least 335 BCE; Sinôpê (12) is mentioned by a number of mid-4th-century comic poets, as well as by Demosthenes, who was active in politics 354–322 BCE; Misgolas (14) was born in 390 BCE and is attested until ca. 330 BCE; Kôbios (19) is mentioned twice by Alexis; Pythionikê (20) must still have been young and attractive in the late 330s or early 320s BCE, when she left for Babylon; and the sons of Chairephilos of Paiania (22 with n.) were active by the 320s BCE and perhaps a bit earlier, since they were involved with Pythionikê before Harpalos removed her from Athens. This evidence combined suggests that Ἁλιευομένη belongs to the late 330s BCE or so, at the very end of Antiphanes’ career.

Fragments fr. 27 K.–A. (26 K.)

5

τὰς σηπίας δὸς πρῶτον. Ἡράκλεις ἄναξ, ἅπαντα τεθολώκασιν. οὐ βαλεῖς πάλιν εἰς τὴν θάλατταν καὶ πλυνεῖς; μὴ φῶσί σε † Δωριάς, ἀλλ ὀυε † σηπίας εἰληφέναι. τὸν κάραβον δὲ τόνδε πρὸς τὰς μαινίδας

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 27)

10

15

20

101

ἀπόδος· παχύς γε νὴ Δί’. ὦ Ζεῦ, τίς ποτε, ὦ Καλλιμέδων, σὲ κατέδετ’ ἄρτι τῶν φίλων; οὐθεὶς ὃς ἂν μὴ κατατιθῇ τὰς συμβολάς. ὑμᾶς δ’ ἔταξα δεῦρο πρὸς τὰ δεξιά, τρίγλας, ἔδεσμα τοῦ καλοῦ Καλλισθένους· κατεσθίει γοῦν ἐπὶ μιᾷ τὴν οὐσίαν. καὶ τὸν Σινώπης γόγγρον ἤδη παχυτέρας ἔχοντ’ ἀκάνθας τουτονὶ τίς λήψεται πρῶτος προσελθών; Μισγόλας γὰρ οὐ πάνυ τούτων ἐδεστής. ἀλλὰ κίθαρος οὑτοσί, ὃν ἂν ἴδῃ, τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἀφέξεται. καὶ μὴν ἀληθῶς τοῖς κιθαρῳδοῖς † ὡς σφόδρα ἅπασιν οὗτος ἐπιπεφυκὼς λανθάνει. ἀνδρῶν δ’ ἄριστον Κωβιὸν πηδῶντ’ ἔτι πρὸς Πυθιονίκην τὴν καλὴν πέμψαι με δεῖ· ἁδρὸς γάρ ἐστιν. ἀλλ’ ὅμως οὐ γεύσεται· ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχός ἐστιν ὡρμηκυῖα γάρ. ἀφύας δὲ λεπτὰς τάσδε καὶ τὴν τρυγόνα χωρὶς Θεανοῖ δεῦρ’ ἔθηκ’ ἀντιρρόπους

1 τὰς σηπίας δὸς Casaubon : τῆς σηπιάδος Ath.A 3 σε Ath.A : σου Kock 4 ἀλλ ὀυε A 5 τόνδε Musurus : τὸν Ath.A 6 ἀπόδος Ath.A : ἀπόθες Kock : Ath.  : ἀλούτους Jacobs ἐπίδος Coraes 7 κατέδετ’ ἄρτι τῶν φίλων Ath.A : κατέδετἄρα τῶν φίλων vel κατέδεται; τίς τῶν φίλων Meineke  : κατέδετ’ ἀριστῶν φίλος Cobet 8 οὐθεὶς scripsi  : οὐδεὶς Ath.A 13 τουτονὶ Schweighäuser : τοῦτον εἴ Ath.A τίς Porson : τις Ath.A 17– 18 del. Hirschig 17 ἀληθῶς Ath.A  : ἀεί πως Kock κιθαρῳδοῖς ὡς σφόδρα 18 ἐπιπεφυκὼς Ath.A : κιθαρῳδοῖσι σφόδρα vel κιθαρῳδοῖσιν σφόδρα Herwerden Ath.A : ἐμπεφυκὼς Hirschig : ἐπικεκυφὼς Meineke 19 ἀνδρῶν δ’ ἄριστον Casaubon : ἀνδρω τἄριστον Ath.A  : ἀνδρῶν τ’ ἄριστον Schweighäuser ἔτι Musurus  : ἔτι τι 24 Θεὰνοιδέυρεθη κ’ ἀντιρρόπους Ath.A : corr. Casaubon et Jacobs Ath.A

5

10

Give me the cuttlefish first! Lord Herakles, they’ve shot their ink everywhere! Throw them back in the sea and wash them, so that people don’t say you’ve got † Doric [corrupt] † cuttlefish! Hand over this crayfish, along with the sprats! It’s fat, by Zeus. O Zeus, which of your friends, Kallimedôn, is going to gulp you down momentarily? No one who doesn’t pay his share of the dinner expenses! I stationed you here on the right, red mullets, as food for the handsome Kallisthenês; he’s wasting all his property, at any rate, on one of you. As for this conger eel here, that’s got a backbone much fatter than Sinôpê — who’ll be the first to step up and buy it? Because Misgolas doesn’t eat

102

Antiphanes 15

20

these at all. But here’s a kitharos; if he sees it, he won’t keep his hands away. The fact is indeed that no one notices † how much time this guy spends with all the citharodes. While the distinguished Kôbios is still flopping around, I need to send him to the lovely Pythonikê; because he’s nice and big. But all the same, she won’t taste him; because she’s set off after the saltfish. As for these skinny small-fry and the sting-ray, I’ve set them aside here for Theano, since they weigh as much as she does

Ath. 8.338e–40a Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Ἁλιευομένῃ φιληδοῦντάς τινας καταλέγων ἰχθύσιν φησί· ——. πιθανώτατα ἐν τούτοις ὁ Ἀντιφάνης καὶ τὸν Μισγόλαν κεκωμῴδηκεν ὡς ἐσπουδακότα περὶ κιθαρῳδοὺς καὶ κιθαριστὰς ὡραίους. φησὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ ῥήτωρ Αἰσχίνης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Τιμάρχου λόγῳ (1.41) περὶ αὐτοῦ τάδε· ——. καὶ Τιμοκλῆς δ’ ἐν Σαπφοῖ (fr. 32) φησιν· ——. Ἄλεξις δ’ ἐν Ἀγωνίδι ἢ Ἱππίσκῳ (fr. 3)· ——. Πυθιονίκην δέ φησι φιληδεῖν ταρίχῳ, ἐπεὶ ἐραστὰς εἶχε τοὺς Χαιρεφίλου τοῦ ταριχοπώλου υἱούς, ὡς Τιμοκλῆς ἐν Ἰκαρίοις (fr. 15) φησίν· ——. καὶ πάλιν (fr. 16)· ——. πρὸ τούτων δ’ ἦν ἐραστὴς αὐτῆς Κωβιός τις ὄνομα. περὶ δὲ Καλλιμέδοντος τοῦ Καράβου ὅτι καὶ φίλιχθυς ἦν καὶ διάστροφος τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, Τιμοκλῆς ἐν Πολυπράγμονι (fr. 29)· —— Antiphanes in Halieuomenê lists some people who are fond of fish, saying: ——. Antiphanes is mocking Misgolas in a very convincing fashion for his interest in handsome young citharodes and cithara-players. Because the orator Aeschines in his speech Against Timarchus (1.41) says the following about him: ——. Timocles as well says in Sappho (fr. 32): ——. And Alexis in Agônis or Hippiskos (fr. 3): ——. As for Pythionikê, he claims that she has a taste for saltfish because the sons of the saltfish-seller Chairephilos were her lovers, as Timocles says in Ikarioi (fr. 15): ——. And again (fr. 16): ——. But before them, her lover was someone named Kôbios. As for the fact that Kallimedôn the Crayfish was fond of fish and was cross-eyed, Timocles (says) in Polypragmôn (fr. 29): —— Ath. 13.586a μνημονεύει δ’ αὐτῆς (i. e. τῆς Σινώπης) Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἀρκάδι (fr. 43) καὶ ἐν Κηπουρῷ (fr. 114), ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ (fr. 23), ἐν Ἁλιευομένῃ (v. 12), ἐν Νεοττίδι (fr. 168) Antiphanes mentions her (i. e. Sinôpê) in Arkas (fr. 43) and in Kêpouros (fr. 114), in Akestria (fr. 23), Halieuomenê (v. 12) (and) in Neottis (fr. 168)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llkl l|lk|l klkl klkr llk|l klkl llkl l|lkl llkl †lklllk † |lkl llkl llkl k|lk|l llkl

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 27)

10

15

20

103

rlkl k|lk|l llkl llrl k|rk|l klkl llkl l|rkl llkl llkl k|lk|l klkl klkl k|lkl llkl klkl l|rkl llkl llkl l|lk|l lrkl klkl l|lkl llkl llkl l|lkl klkl llkl l|lk|r klkl klkl l|lk|l klkl llkl l|lrl l†lkl klkl k|rkl llkl llkl l|lkl llkl lrkl l|lkl llkl klkl k|lkl llkl krkl k|lkl llkl rlkl l|lk|l llkl llkl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 589–90; Coraes ap. Schweighäuser 1801–1805 IV.528; Jacobs 1809. 185–6; Porson 1812. 102; Meineke 1839–1857 V.1.73; Hirschig 1849. 1–2; Cobet 1858. 136; Meineke 1867. 150; Herwerden 1878. 62; Kock 1884 II.20–2; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.244–5; Herwerden 1903. 76; Konstantakos 2000a. 66–93; Petrides 2005. 124–5; Caroli 2016. 74 Text In 1, the paradosis τῆς σηπιάδος is both unmetrical and nonsensical, and Casaubon’s τὰς σηπίας δὸς neatly mends both problems. Kock’s σου in place of the paradosis σε in 3 is to be taken with εἰληφέναι in 4, “lest they say that they’ve bought cuttlefish from you”. The repetition of σηπίας in 4 (cf. 1) is awkward unless a contrast is being drawn between what the speaker’s assistant should have have bought or stocked (i. e. cuttlefish) and something darker, making Jacobs’ ἀλούτους (“unwashed cuttlefish”) for the corrupt paradosis † ἀλλ ὀυε † unconvincing. If Δωριάς is taken to be the name of the assistant, the absence of a reference to a notorious contemporary in 1–4, as in the discussions of the other fish that follow, is also striking. Kaibel accordingly took ἀλλ ὀυε to conceal ἀλλ οὐ and suggested that † Δωριάς † was originally a contemptuous plural of the name of a woman known to be dirty (or simply dark-skinned), “Lest people say you’ve bought Dôriades rather than cuttlefish”. Konstantakos 2000. 73–4 suggests that Dôrias is instead a third party (cf. the address of Kallimedôn in 7–8), an otherwise unknown courtesan imagined buying a certain “Mr. Cuttlefish” (a lover). But the use of the plural in both 1 (where the noun

104

Antiphanes

is emphatically feminine) and 4 supposedly for a single person makes this difficult, as does the shift from one second-person addressee in 1–3 to another in 3–4, and the hypothesis is further weakened by the fact that it depends on the existence of two hypothetical individuals (“Mr. Cuttlefish” and the courtesan Dôrias). The paradosis τὸν in 5 is unmetrical and appears to make the word govern πρὸς τὰς μαινίδας. Musurus’ τόνδε in the editio princeps of Athenaeus resolves both problems. At the beginning of 6, Ath.A’s ἀπόδος (“hand over!” vel sim.) is odd with πρὸς τὰς μαινίδας at the end of 5, which specifies that the crayfish is not to be given to the speaker but set next to the μαινίδες. Kock, comparing the use of ἔταξα in 9 and ἔθηκα in 24, accordingly suggested ἀπόθες (“stow away!”). Given that the speaker elsewhere appears to be the one setting the fish out on the stall, this is perhaps better understood as a colloquial brachylogy (~ “Hand me the crayfish (so that I can place it) beside the μαινίδες!”). As Kock noted, Coraes’ ἐπίδος (“give me in addition!”) would seem to require πρὸς ταῖς μαινίσιν in 5,53 which is too much rewriting of the paradosis to be appealing. ἄρτι is not found elsewhere with the future in this period (as Phryn. PS p. 17.8–9; ecl. 11 observes), whence the conjectures of Meineke (“Who then of your friends will eat you?” or “Who will eat you? Who of your friends”54) and Cobet (“What friend will eat you as he’s having lunch?”) in 7. But Phrynichus also notes that some authorities regarded this use of the adverb as acceptable (PS p. 17.8), even if he could find no examples of it, suggesting that the line from Antiphanes should be printed as transmitted and regarded as exceptional but nonetheless legitimate usage. For οὐθείς in place of the paradosis οὐδείς in 8, see fr. 281 Text. τουτονί is Schweighäuser’s correction of the garbled paradosis τοῦτον εἴ in 13 and is obviously correct. Further on in 13, Porson added an acute accent to Ath.A’s τις, converting this into a question. A comma after ἴδῃ in 16 (not printed by Meineke, Kock or Kassel–Austin) makes the sense clearer. καὶ μήν is not what is wanted at the beginning of 17, particularly before ἀληθῶς (hence Kaibel’s ἀεί πως, for which cf. Ar. Ra. 414a; Alex. fr. 178.14, which does not however go to the heart of the problem). The syntax of 17–18 as a whole—printed seemingly without reservations by Kassel–Austin—is also difficult, and Herwerden accordingly attempted to eliminate ὡς in 17, where one would expect ὡς σφόδρα to be exclamatory, as at e. g. fr. 122.14 (although note that the text is problematic 53 54

The phrasing of Konstantakos 2000a. 76 (“I suggest rather emending πρὸς τὰς μαινίδας to πρὸς ταῖς μαινίσι”) inadvertently suggests that the reading is his own suggestion. The latter is endorsed by Konstantakos 2000a. 78, who suggests that “Duplication of the interrogative … adds liveliness”. But what the repetition would actually add is urgency, which seems inappropriate here.

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 27)

105

there as well); Ar. Eq. 714; Ra. 41; fr. 156.11. Nor is ἐπιφύω widely attested in the classical period in the sense required here (although see Interpretation for a parallel from Plato), leading Hirschig and Meineke to conjecture ἐμπεφυκώς and ἐπικεκυφώς, respectively, for the paradosis ἐπιπεφυκώς in 18. Be all this as it may, moreover, the verses appear to say the opposite of what one would have expected, viz. that no one realizes how interested Misgolas is in citharodes, whereas 16 is funny only if this is common knowledge. Hirschig (followed by Konstantakos 2000a. 85–7) therefore expelled the lines as a clumsy gloss on 15–16 converted into metrical form by an overly inventive scribe or editor. But the problem might be a lacuna instead, and I have inserted a single obel to indicate that a difficulty exists, but that precisely what is wrong with the text and where, is uncertain. The absence of an accent on the first word of Athenaeus’ ἀνδρω τἄριστον at the beginning of 19 makes it clear that the Ath.A-scribe regarded the text as corrupt and beyond his own powers to mend. Casaubon’s ἀνδρῶν δ’ ἄριστον is a slightly more substantial change than Schweighäuser’s ἀνδρῶν τ’ ἄριστον; but what is wanted is a particle that suggests contrast with what precedes, not addition. At the end of 19, the paradosis ἔτι τι is a simple dittography of ΤΙ; corrected by Musurus. The Ath.A-scribe could make no sense of the central portion of 24 as transmitted in his exemplar, and he therefore simply copied out what he saw. Casaubon (Θεανοῖ) and Jacobs (δεῦρ’ ἔθηκ’) divided and accented the letters as they have been printed in editions of the text since Schweighäuser. Citation context Ath. 8.338e–9d is part of a long discussion of individuals devoted to luxury and in particular to gluttony that also preserves frr. 50 (at 8.343d); 77 (at 8.340c); 117 (at 8.342c–d); 188 (at 8.342e–3b, where Phoinikidês and Taureas are again mentioned together). For Ath. 13.586a, see fr. 23 Citation Context. Interpretation The speaker is a fishmonger laying out his or her goods with the help of an assistant, addressed in 1–6, who is apparently unpacking seafood from a basket or the like (cf. Men. fr. 468.2, where an object of this sort is called a φέρνιον) and handing it to his master to arrange for sale on the stall. The oath in 1 is otherwise used in comedy exclusively by men, and the assumption must accordingly be that the character is male. That the assistant never speaks in the course of 24 lines suggests that he is a mute, the two other actors (not yet onstage) having been reserved to play customers, other fishmongers or the like. The first part of 7–24 is nominally addressed to the fish themselves, while the rest is witty banter that plays on the names of well-known contemporaries55 and is seemingly intended for 55

Konstantakos 2000a. 71 compares what he describes as similar “parallel lists” at Ar. Pax 242–54 (cities ~ foodstuffs); Av. 565–9 (sacrifices to gods matched by sacrifices to birds), 760–7 (human malefactors matched to bird malefactors), 1136–57 (birds as workmen on the wall of Cloudcuckooland); Archipp. frr. 15–18 (fish take on human

106

Antiphanes

the world at large, i. e. as a way of attracting the attention of passers-by and thus perhaps their business; note especially 13–14 τίς λήψεται / πρῶτος προσελθών; (“Who’ll be the first to step up and buy?”). As Konstantakos 2000a. 69 notes, this in turn suggests that the speaker is an urban character, not a rough fisherman who sells his own catch by the shore after he brings his boat into harbor. The anodyne observation in 1–3 that the cuttlefish need to be washed is best understood not as real criticism of the merchandise, but as an elaborate show of concern for its quality that simultaneously allows it to be doused with water to prevent it from drying out (cf. Xenarch. fr. 7.6–17). Virtually everything else said about the fish, at any rate, is unadulterated praise: the crayfish is fat (5–6), as are the conger eel (13–14), the goby (21) and the stingray (23–4); the goby is so fresh that it is still leaping around (19); the sprats are tiny and thus boneless (23); and Athens’ most notorious gourmands are imagined competing to get these particular fish or the punning equivalents thereof. πρῶτον in 1 makes it clear that this is the beginning of at least this section of the speech. Fishmongers are stock villains in 4th-century comedy due to the high prices they charged and their supposed rudeness, although this appears to be the only such character in a fragment of Antiphanes; cf. frr. 123; 145 n.; 157.8–10 n.; 159.5 with n.; 164; 204.4–8; 217; Amphis fr. 30; Alex. frr. 16; 130–1; 204; Diph. frr. 32; 67. The speaker is clearly running a small-scale business; he has multiple cuttlefish (1–2), μαινίδες (5) and τρίγλαι (10) for sale, along with an unspecified quantity of ἀφύαι (23). Βut these are all small, inexpensive fish, and aside from this, his stock includes only a single crayfish (5), one eel (12–13)—or part of an eel?—one κίθαρος (15), one goby (19) and one stingray (23). For the play on fish-names and those of human beings, cf. Archipp. fr. 27; Alex. fr. 173. Caroli takes the “fish” to be prostitutes and the “fishmonger” to be a brothel-owner, an interpretation of the fragment that gets no obvious support from the text itself. 1 σηπίαι (mentioned also at fr. 216.18 with n.; etymology uncertain, taken over into Latin as sepia) are cuttlefish, included in banquet-catalogues and the like (often in the diminutive) at Ar. Ach. 1041; frr. 258.2; 333.1; Philyll. fr. 12.1; Nicostr. Com. fr. 6.2; Anaxandr. fr. 42.47; Eub. frr. 109.2; 148.6; Ephipp. frr. 12.7; 15.4; Mnesim. fr. 4.43; Alex. fr. 159.3; Eriph. fr. 3.3; Anaxipp. fr. 1.33; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.14, 16; Archestr. fr. 56; Matro fr. 1.33–5. They are eaten both fried (Ar. Ach. 1041; Ec. 126–7; Nicostr. Com. fr. 6.2; Alex. fr. 192.4–6; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.16) occupations); Timocl. fr. 6 (spectators see tragic characters that appeal to them personally); Anaxipp. fr. 1.28–49 (character-types and the food appropriate for them); Anaxil. fr. 22 (courtesans ~ monsters). Of these, the passage from Peace, in which the food actually stands in for the city, is far and away the most similar to the fragment of Antiphanes. Konstantakos also compares Luc. Pisc. 47–51 (different fish stand in for different philosophical schools) and concludes that “Perhaps both Antiphanes and Lucian were inspired by a common comic source, like Archippos’ Fishes”, a clever suggestion that is at the same time pure hypothesis.

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 27)

107

and stewed (Anaxandr. fr. 42.47; Alex. fr. 192.2–3); cf. Edwards 2001. 261–2 (on Apicius’ recipe for peas and cuttlefish in their own ink). See Keller 1909–1913 II.513–16; Thompson 1928; Thompson 1947. 231–3; García Comer 2001. 138–9; Davidson 2002. 209–10; Olson–Sens 2000. 206. The courtesan (?) Σηπία (PAA 818990) mentioned in Archipp. fr. 27 (cf. Ar. fr. 411) is much too early to be in question here, and whether humor is already being generated via a confusion of persons and fish, is in any case unclear. Konstantakos 2000. 71–2 suggests that Σηπία might be a man’s nickname rather than a woman’s. But the combination of the corruption in 4 (rendering our understanding of these verses generally obscure) and the definite article τάς (which in the absence of other evidence strongly suggests that the cuttlefish/Cuttlefish in question are to be understood as feminine) makes the idea difficult to accept. δὸς πρῶτον Cf. 6 ἀπόδος. Ἡράκλεις ἄναξ Invocations of and oaths by Herakles are used routinely in comedy—seemingly only by men—to express shock, surprise or horror in response to something unexpected (e. g. fr. 55.5; Eup. fr. 261.1 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Ar. Nu. 184; Av. 814; Pl. 417; Pl. Com. fr. 131 with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; Anaxandr. fr. 12.2 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Eub. fr. 89.5; Men. Dysc. 621 Ἡράκλεις ἄναξ*). Aristophanes uses ὦναξ Ἡράκλεις rather than Ἡράκλεις ἄναξ in this metrical position (Ach. 94; Pax 180; Av. 277; Ra. 298; cf. Lys. 296). Cf. ἄναξ Ἄπολλον at e. g. Cratin. fr. 198.1; Ar. Pax 238; Av. 295; ἄναξ Πόσειδον at Ar. V. 143; ὦ Διόνυσ’ ἄναξ at Ar. Pax 442. 2 ἅπαντα The order that follows makes it clear that what is meant is not “They’ve covered everything (else) with their ink” but “They’ve covered themselves completely with ink”. θολόω is < θολός, which is used not just of cuttlefish ink (thus LSJ s. v. II.156) but also of that produced by squid and octopi (e. g. Hp. Morb. II 73.2 = 7.110.15 Littré πολύπου θολόν, “octopus ink”; Arist. HA 621b28–31 τῶν δὲ μαλακίων πανουργότατον μὲν ἡ σηπία, καὶ μόνη χρῆται τῷ θολῷ κρύψεως χάριν, καὶ οὐ μόνον φοβουμένη· ὁ δὲ πολύπους καὶ ἡ τευθὶς διὰ φόβον ἀφίησι τὸν θολόν, “the most treacherous of the soft-bodied creatures is the cuttlefish, and it alone uses its ink to conceal itself and not merely because it is frightened; whereas the octopus and the squid emit their ink out of fear”; PA 679a11–14). Cf. Matro fr. 1.34–5 “the cuttlefish, … the only fish who knows white from black” (apparently a reference to the contrast between the color of the creature’s flesh and its ink) with Olson–Sens 1999 ad loc. 2–3 A question containing οὐ + future is equivalent to an imperative (Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.176; Smyth 1956 § 1918). This appears to be a fish-market 56

Garbled in Montanari s. v. (citing the same small set of passages as LSJ) “stained with sepia Hp. Morb. 2.73 Aristot. H.A. 524a 13 | sack (for staining with sepia) Aristot. P.A. 679a 1, al.” The lexicographers (e. g. Hsch. ο 626) claim that ὀλός had the same sense, but this form of the word is not attested in the archaic, classical or Hellenistic periods.

108

Antiphanes

scene, not a fisherman scene, meaning that it ought to be set in the marketplace rather than on the shore. It is accordingly difficult to believe that this is a serious order as opposed to bit of drollery meaning “Drop them in a pail of water!”, which fish-sellers certainly kept around (Xenarch. fr. 7.6–17). καὶ πλυνεῖς amounts in any case to a gloss on βαλεῖς πάλιν / εἰς τὴν θάλατταν, making the point of the first order clear. Kassel–Austin compare Pl. Com. fr. 87 ἰχθύων … πλύμα (“rinsing-water for fish”) and Ar. fr. 708 τὸν σαπέρδην ἀποτῖλαι χρὴ / κᾆτ’ ἐκπλῦναι καὶ διαπλῦναι (“you have to clean the tilapia, and then wash it out and off ”), although neither passage sheds much specific light on these verses. 3 φῶσι probably refers to the world at large, i. e. the people who will judge the offerings at the fish-stall and speak badly of the proprietors if something appears to be wrong. 4 See Text. εἰληφέναι i. e. “have purchased (i. e. from a fisherman, with an eye to resale)”. 5 A κάραβος (also in catalogues of seafood and the like at e. g. fr. 191.3; Epich. fr. 50.2; Eup. fr. 174.2; Ar. fr. 164; Metag. fr. 6.6 with Pellegrino 1998 and Orth 2014a ad loc.; Anaxandr. fr. 42.46 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Ephipp. fr. 15.5; Mnesim. fr. 4.44; Timocl. fr. 11.7) is a crawfish/crayfish, langoustine or Norway lobster (Italian scampo). See in general Keller 1909–1913 II.491–3; Thompson 1947. 102–3; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 57; Olson–Sens 1999 on Matro fr. 1.66–7; García Soler 2001. 142–3; Davidson 2002. 179; Koutrakis et al. 2009. 1536–40. Use of the demonstrative τόνδε serves to make the speech livelier and seemingly more realistic; cf. 9 δεῦρο, 13 τουτονί with n., 15 οὑτοσί, 23 τάσδε. μαινίδες (also mentioned at frr. 69.7, 15; 130.8; 191.2 (from Karystos); Ar. Ra. 985; Philyll. fr. 26; Anaxandr. fr. 34.12; Eub. fr. dub. 148.6) are small, inexpensive fish of some sort, supposedly identical to the only slightly less obscure σμαρίδες (Speusipp. ap. Ath. 7.313a; Hsch. σ 1229); see Thompson 1947. 153–5; García Soler 2001. 183. Schweighäuser suggested that Kallimedôn “the Crayfish” (7 with n.) might have had a notorious relationship with a courtesan known as Μαινίς, hence the fishseller’s mocking decision to put his κάραβος next to his μαινίδες. If so, nothing more is made of the joke. 6 ἀπόδος See Text. 6 παχύς γε –11 The fishmonger momentarily addresses some of the fish themselves; contrast 1–6 ἀπόδος (addressed to the assistant), 12–24 (addressed to the world at large). 6 παχύς γε An appreciative comment, as the speaker gets his hands on the fish for the first time, having merely seen it in his assistant’s basket in 5. Cf. 1–2 (his reaction to the cuttlefish), 12–13 (appreciative remarks on the size of the eel, where the adjective takes on a different sense in reference to a human being). For adjective + exclamatory γε combined with an oath, see Denniston 1954. 128. νὴ Δί(α) A bland, common colloquial oath, also used by Antiphanes at frr. 69.8; 120.3; 122.15; 132.4; 157.4 μὰ Δί(α), 6, 7, 9; 177.3 νὴ τὸν Δία; 188.17. Cf. Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 270.2 and the considerably rarer oaths at frr. 26.2 νὴ τὴν

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 27)

109

φίλην Δήμητρα; 59.6 νὴ τὴν Φωσφόρον; 183.2 νὴ τὴν Ἑστίαν; fr. dub. 288 μὰ γῆν, μὰ κρήνας, μὰ ποταμούς, μὰ νάματα. ὦ Ζεῦ and expanded forms thereof are used in a similar way to add force to a question, assertion or comment at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 166.1 ὦ Ζεῦ πολυτίμητ’; Ar. Eq. 1188; Av. 223 ὦ Ζεῦ βασιλεῦ; fr. 336.1 ὦ Ζεῦ πολυτίμηθ’; Eub. fr. 105.1; Philetaer. fr. 17.1. The invocation seems artless immediately after νὴ Δί(α), particularly when followed by a reference to a more immediate addressee in 7 ὦ Καλλιμέδων. Perhaps there is some humor here that now evades us, as Zeus and Kallimedôn are seemingly confounded, or perhaps this is simply a mark of how little force the literal sense of such references to Zeus retained in this period. ποτε intensifies the question (LSJ s. v. III.3), as also in frr. 35.1; 36.1. 7 Καλλιμέδων (PA 8032; PAA 558185; see Davies 1971. 279) was a wealthy pro-Macedonian political opponent of Demosthenes and notorious lover of fish also mentioned or referred to at fr. 77.2; Alex. frr. 57 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; 117–18; 149.3; 173.1; 198.2–3; 249.2–3; Timocl. fr. 29; Theophil. fr. 4; Philem. fr. 43; Men. fr. 224.14; Euphro fr. 8.2–3. He was perhaps nicknamed Κάραβος—hence the mocking reference to him here as likely to be consumed by one of his friends— because his eyes had a strange cast (Timocl. fr. 29; Alex. fr. 117). According to Telephanes (FHG iv.507 ap. Ath. 14.614d–e), Kallimedôn was one of the group known as “The Sixty” who gathered in Herakles’ sanctuary in Diomeia in the 340s and 330s BCE to tell jokes. He went into exile from Athens in 319 BCE and was condemned to death in absentia in 318 BCE (Plu. Phoc. 33.4; 35.2, 5). κατέδετ(αι) < κατεσθίω, An undignified verb common in comedy (also e. g. 11 with n.; frr. 87.3; 159.3; 236.1; 242.1; Ecphant. fr. 1; Eup. fr. 386.4 with Olson 2014 ad loc.; Eub. fr. 88.2; Alex. fr. 15.12), but elsewhere generally used of wild animals, monsters and depraved human beings of various sorts (e. g. Od. 12.256; Hippon. fr. 36.4; Hdt. 1.78.1). Cf. fr. 138.5 n. on καταπίνω. For ἄρτι, fr. 92 n. For ἄρτι + future, see Text. The next verse makes it clear that τῶν φίλων means specifically “the social group with whom you habitually share dinners”.57 8 συμβολαί were tokens given by the members of a group who planned to dine together to the man charged with buying the supplies; the token could be reclaimed from the organizer when one reimbursed him for one’s share. Cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 60 “It’s nice to eat from a frying pan without συμβολαί” (i. e. without being asked to pay for the meal); Ar. Ach. 1211; Dromo fr. 1.5 συμβολὰς οὐ κατατιθείς; Eub. fr. 72.4; Timocl. fr. 8.18 τίθενται συμβολαί; Alex. frr. 15 (a 57

Konstantakos 2000a. 78–9 takes the reference to be to parasites. But the mention of symbolai in 8 rules this out—these are not free-loaders but fellow-diners who pay their own way—and his interpretation forces Konstantakos into a series of complicated and unlikely conclusions (“EIther the statement is ironical (the speaker means in fact the opposite) or it implies that Kallimedôn knew that his ‘friends’ were parasites seeking to exploit him and was determined not to let them”).

110

Antiphanes

settling-up scene) with Arnott ad loc.; 102.1; Diph. fr. 42.28; Men. Epitr. 504; Mis. 570; fr. 437 τίθημι συμβολάς; Diod. Com. fr. 2.13 καταβαλὼν συμβολάς; X. Smp. 1.16. But κατατίθημι normally means not “deposit” (appropriate in connection with a token offered in advance as a promise to settle a debt eventually) but “pay” (LSJ s. v. I.3; cf. fr. 122.14 οἱ τἀργύριον μὴ κατατιθέντες, “those who don’t pay their money”, with n.), and “pay one’s symbolai” must thus be an idiomatic way of saying “offer symbolai and in this way agree to pay”, sc. rather than trying to infiltrate the party as a free-loader. 9 δεῦρο πρὸς τὰ δεξιά I. e. in the place of honor, implicitly suggesting that the κάραβος and μαινίδες (5–6 with n.), by contrast, were placed on the left-hand side of the stall. For the demonstrative adverb serving to make the dialogue livelier and more realistic, 5 n. 10 τρίγλαι are “red mullets”, small fish mentioned in banquet catalogues and the like at e. g. fr. 130.8; Epich. fr. 122.5; Philyll. fr. 12.3; Ephipp. fr. 12.3; Henioch. fr. 3.5; Mnesim. fr. 4.38. Note also fr. 192.15 (a figure in a mock-riddle), and see below on τοῦ καλοῦ Καλλισθένους and in general Archestr. fr. 42 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; Hoffman–Jordan 1892. 268–9; Thompson 1947. 264–8; Pellegrino 2000. 255–6; García Soler 2001. 184–5. The word is in the accusative to agree with 9 ὑμᾶς, although what is really wanted is nominative = vocative. For aorist ἔταξα, cf. 24 ἔθηκ’. ἔδεσμα (also at fr. 82.1, where see Citation context) is late 5th/4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Hp. Morb. Sacr. 1.31 = 6.354.21 Littré; X. Hier. 1.23; Isoc. 8.109; Arist. HA 522a4–5); attested elsewhere in poetry only in Archestratus (frr. 17.3; 24.13; 39.5; 52.2) and Callimachus (h. 3.148). For nouns in -μα (typical 5th/4thcentury formations), fr. 249.1 n. τοῦ καλοῦ Καλλισθένους The reference is presumably to the Kallisthenês (Berve 1926 #I.410; PA 8090; PAA 559815) whose political career at Athens is known to have begun by the mid-350s BCE (D. 20.33; cf. IG II2 127.7) and who was among the men whose surrender was demanded by Alexander in 335 BCE (Plu. Dem. 23.4; the demand was subsequently withdrawn). Kallisthenês is mentioned in comedy also at Timocl. fr. 4.5–6, where he is mockingly described as a πένης (“pauper”) and accused of having been bribed by Harpalos. The adjective serves to set up the joke that follows, which is that Kallisthenês is wasting his property on an affair with a courtesan apparently known as Τρίγλη (thus Schweighäuser).58 11 κατεσθίει γοῦν … τὴν οὐσίαν For the image, fr. 236.1 n. For courtesans working to extort as much money as possible out of their customers, cf. Anaxil. fr. 22.18–19, 22–6. For ἐπί + dative indicating cause or occasion, LSJ s. v. B.III.1.

58

Konstantakos suggests that the point of the nickname may have been that Τρίγλη had red hair.

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 27)

111

12–14 τὸν … γόγγρον The conger eel is a large,59 scaleless marine eel, included in catalogues of seafood and the like at e. g. frr. 127.3; 130.4; 221.5 with n.; Ephipp. fr. 12.2; Eriph. fr. 3.3; Mnesim. fr. 4.32; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.20; Alex. frr. 15.15; 180.3; Arched. fr. 3.2; Archestr. fr. 19.1 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; Ter. Adelph. 377–9. See in general Hoffman–Jordan 1892. 246–7; Thompson 1947. 49–50; García Soler 2001. 164–5; Davidson 2002. 55. A conger has dorsal and anal fins but no large spines, and παχυτέρας / ἔχοντ’ ἀκάνθας is probably a recherché way of referring to the size of the steaks to be cut from its body, through which its backbone (LSJ s. v. ἀκάνθα 6) runs. One conger can thus accommodate many customers, hence the question that follows as to who will be the first to buy a piece of this one (τίς λήψεται / πρῶτος προσελθών;).60 For λαμβάνω in this sense (LSJ s. v. II.1.h), e. g. fr. 170.3; Pherecr. fr. 86; Ar. Pax 1263 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Phryn. Com. fr. 53 with Stama 2014 ad loc.; Fraenkel 1950 on A. Ag. 275; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 15.18–19; Caroli 2016. The courtesan Σινώπη (PAA 823225) was sufficiently notorious to be mentioned not just five times by Antiphanes (also frr. 23; 43; 114; 168) but also by Amphis (fr. 23.3), Anaxilas (fr. 22.12–13), Callicrates (fr. 1), Alexis (fr. 109 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.), Demosthenes (22.56) and pseudo-Demosthenes (59.116). Theopompus (FGrH 115 F 253) says that she was Thracian and came to Athens by way of Aegina. Little else is known of her, except that Anaxilas call her a γραῦς and that Herodicus (fr. IV.1, p. 125 Düring), almost certainly drawing on comedy, claims that she was known as Abydos “because she was an old woman”, which suggests that her career in the sex-trade lasted longer than some did. See Schiassi 1951. 233–4 (arguing that her birth-date was around 380 BCE). Theopompus also reports that Sinôpê owned a pipe-girl named Bacchis (PAA 261090), suggesting that she invested some of her money in slave-prostitutes and eventually lived in part off of their earnings. Bacchis repeated the pattern, becoming the owner of Pythionikê (20 with n.). The word order is odd, and Konstantakos 2000a. 82–3 proposes taking Σινώπης as an “appositive genitive” with γόγγρον (“this conger-eel, (that is) Sinôpê”) and understanding παχυτέρας as absolute (“quite thick”).61 But

59 60

61

A conger eel 20 feet long was caught off the English coast in 2015, although most are less than half that size. Konstantakos 2000a. 81 takes the supposed lack of appeal of both Sinôpê and the conger eel to be the point: “this is the only fish which finds no buyer: the speaker dismisses the possibility that Misgolas might be interested, can think of no other customer and quickly passes to his next fish, leaving the γόγγρος without a buyer”. But nothing disparaging is said about either: Misgolas likes neither conger eels nor women, and this one is accordingly available for the first taker (or first takers). On this basis, Konstantakos goes on to suggest that part of the point is that Sinôpê “has become hunchback because of her advanced age” and that she is simultaneously to be identified with the lower half of a conger eel, which no one wants to buy. There is no obvious trace of any of this in the text.

112

Antiphanes

this is even more awkward and unlikely than taking the personal name as a genitive of comparison with the comparative adjective, and to the extent there is a problem, it is probably to be traced to weak writing. Calling Sinôpê παχεῖα (“fat”) is not an insult, as it would be today (especially in reference to a woman), but an oblique way of describing her as wealthy (as also of men at e. g. Ar. Pax 639 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; cf. gravus with a similar sense at Plaut. Bacch. 519b), i. e. as successful in extracting funds from her customers; cf. 11, 23–4 with n. ἤδη appears to function as a colloquial intensifier with παχυτέρας; cf. Olson 2017 on Eup. fr. 60.2. Like other words with the deictic suffix -ί (e. g. 15 οὑτοσί; frr. 59.2 and 131.2 ταυτί; 122.7 νυνί), τουτονί is a colloquial Atticism of a sort common in comedy and prose but absent from elevated poetry. For the demonstrative used to render the speech livelier and seemingly more realistic, 5 n. 14–15 Μισγόλας γὰρ οὐ πάνυ / τούτων ἐδεστής The thought is colloquially compressed, and what the speaker means is “It won’t be Misgolas; because Misgolas …”. Cf. Denniston 1954. 61 (on uses of γάρ) “The connexion of thought is sometimes lacking in logical precision … Compression of thought is often the source of difficulty, and formal exactitude can then be achieved by supposing an ellipse.” Most of what is known about Μισγόλας son of Naukratês of the deme Kollyte (PA 10225; PAA 654265) is either preserved or quoted in this section of Athenaeus and matches the implication of 15–18, which is that he was an enthusiastic pederast62 particularly interested in musicians: Aeschines (1.41) claims that Misgolas was extremely enthusiastic (δαιμονίως ἐσπουδακώς) about citharodes and citharodes and made it a point to surround himself with them; the speaker of Timocl. fr. 32 says that Misgolas is excited (ἠρεθισμένος), i.e. sexually intrigued by, good-looking boys; and the speaker of Alex. fr. 3 asks his mother not to expose him to Misgolas’ attentions, “because I’m not a citharode”. In addition, we know that Misgolas was 45 years old when Aeschines gave his speech in 345 BCE, and he appears in IG II2 2825.2 (ca. 330 BCE) as the representative of his tribe on an official committee of some sort and in IG II2 1554.65 (= SEG XVIII 36.B.335, 339) as the manumittor of a pair of slaves. See Tod 1901/1902. 211–13; Arnott 1996. 63 (“Though gossip doubtless exaggerated the details, it seems unlikely that the charges were unfounded”—although there is no way to know that this is true, unless one adopts the problematic principle of assuming that all slander has a core of truth). For οὐ πάνυ (“not at all, not the least bit”; in elevated poetry only at S. OC 144), e. g. fr. 182.2; Alex. fr. 37.8; X. HG 3.1.16; Pl. Euthphr. 2b, and see in general Thesleff 1954 § 83; Dover 1985. 332–5 = Dover 1987. 53–7.

62

Konstantakos 2000a. 84–5 refers to this repeatedly as “homosexual” behavior, which gets the issue wrong.

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 27)

113

τούτων i. e. slices of conger eel (12–14 n.). ἐδεστής is late 5th/4th-century vocabulary (Hdt. 3.99.1; E. frr. 472.19 (anapests); 892.5; Hp. Superf. 4.12 = 8.478.15 Littré; Pl. Ti. 72e; Arist. PA 690b30, 691a1). Although the word—found only here in comedy—is relatively ill-attested, the fact that it is scattered across a wide variety of authors and genres suggests that this is primarily an accident of preservation and that we are not dealing with genuinely obscure vocabulary.63 The κίθαρος (literally “lyre-fish”; see 17–18 n.), mentioned in catalogues of seafood and the like at Epich. fr. 58; Call. Com. fr. 6.1; Archestr. fr. 32 (with cooking instructions); Feyel 1936. 28 ll. 14–16 (cf. Pherecr. fr. 43; Ar. fr. 591.60–1), is unidentified. Aristotle reports that it has many pyloric caeca (HA 508b16–17) and is “jag-toothed, solitary and an eater of seaweed” (fr. 519), none of which is compatible with the assertion at Plin. Nat. 32.145 and Gal. VI.724.3–6 K. that it is related to the ῥόμβος (turbot or brill). Opp. H. 1.95–8 claims that it frequents sandy bottoms. See Thompson 1947. 114–15; García Soler 2001. 192–3. οὑτοσί Cf. 12–14 n. on τουτονί. 16 τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἀφέξεται For the expression, which properly requires the genitive of that which one does not touch, cf. Crates Com. fr. 19.2; A. Supp. 756; Pl. Smp. 213d, 214d; D. 21.69; 25.55; Matro fr. 1.118 (also of food). Here the idea sets up 17–18 by implying that Misgolas has “wandering hands”. 17–18 See Text. καὶ μήν is apparently intended as “progressive”, “a very common use, particularly in prose, where καὶ μήν often introduces a new argument, a new item in a series, or a new point of any kind” (Denniston 1954. 351–2; cf. frr. 69.1 with n.; 181.6 with n.; 188.17 Text; contrast fr. 194.15 with n.), although what is really wanted is καὶ γάρ vel sim. (thus Konstantakos 2000a. 85). See in general van Erp Thalmann Kip 2009. 117–21. τοῖς κιθαρῳδοῖς For the kithara (a type of lyre) and citharodes (who sang along with the instrument), see Kitharôidos Introduction. For σφόδρα—used much less often with negatives than πάνυ (14 with n.) is—see Thesleff 1954 § 114–46 “The colloquial (but not really vulgar) character of σφόδρα is obvious. It grew gradually more familiar to living Attic from the last decade of the 5th century onwards (note the increasing use of it in 4th century comedy)” (quote from § 146); Dover 1985. 335–7 = Dover 1987. 57–9; Collard 2018. 55. Here the adverb (elsewhere in Antiphanes at e. g. frr. 36.5; 57.18; 58.1; 69.8; 122.14) might serve to intensify either ἅπασιν or, more likely, ἐπιπεφυκώς (figurative, “associates with, hangs around, trails after” vel sim., as at e. g. Pl. Lg. 937d).

63

Despite Konstantakos 2000a. 84 (“rare (Hdt. 3.99.1 and in grammarians”), seemingly dependent on LSJ s. v. and therefore missing the various other attestations of the word.

114

Antiphanes

19 Κωβιός —literally “Goby” (see below)—does not appear to be used as a real name in Athens, and is thus probably another nickname, like “Crayfish” for Kallimedôn (for whom, 7 n.). This is almost certainly the same man (PAA 588990) as the Kôbios mentioned in Alex. frr. 102.4 (note Κάραβος in 3); 173.2 (where Ath.A has Κωβίων, but the Epitome manuscripts transmit Κωβιός), but a different person from the Kôbios of Salamis (PAA 588995) referred to in Archipp. fr. 27 sometime around the beginning of the 4th century. A κωβιός is also a small, relatively inexpensive fish; cf. Anaxandr. frr. 28.4; 42.48; Alex. fr. 115.13 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Ephipp. fr. 12.8; Henioch. fr. 3.2; Mnesim. fr. 4.35; Men. fr. 151.4; Arist. HA 598a11, 16–17 (one of the so-called “rock fish”), 601b22 (it grows fat in rivers), 610b4 (a schooling fish); Macho 31 with Gow 1965 ad loc.; Hoffman–Jordan 1892. 274–5; Thompson 1947. 137–9; Davidson 2002. 135–6. As Arnott 1996. 270 notes, referring to Kôbios as ἀνδρῶν … ἄριστος “implies either noble Athenian lineage … or (by comic antiphrasis) very low birth”, although 21 (n.) suggests that he is rich and thus most likely well-born. In any case, the designation serves to set up what follows: because Kôbios is an excellent person/fish, he is an obvious choice to send to a discerning customer (20–1 with n.). If Kôbios is taken to have actually been Pythionikê’s now-rejected lover (see 20 n.), πηδῶντ’ ἔτι might be understood “still in a frenzy (of desire)”, although there seem to be no specific parallels for this sense of the verb in the classical period. 20 What the speaker appears to envision is sending Kôbios on approval to Pythionikê; cf. fr. 188.17–18 with n. (although fishermen rather than fishmongers are in question there). In 21–2, however, he drops the idea, realizing that fresh fish—or at least this particular fresh fish—no longer interests her. As Konstantakos 2000a. 88 notes, part of humor seems to consist in the fact that neither gobies nor saltfish (22) are expensive food of the sort one would expect to interest a person as grand and rich as Pythionikê. Contrast 13–14 (anyone may buy the conger eel who wants it), 23–4 (other fish is merely “set aside” for Theanô, the idea apparently being that she will certainly want it but can be expected to fetch it herself). The courtesan Πυθιονίκη (Berve 1926 #I.676; PAA 793690)—literally “Pythian Victory”—was originally a slave belonging to Sinôpê’s slave Bacchis (12–14 n.); according to Paus. 1.37.5, she spent time working in Corinth as well as in Athens. Most of what is known of Pythionikê is preserved at Ath. 13.594d–6b and involves her romance with Alexander’s treasurer Harpalos, who brought her to Babylon at some point after Alexander captured the place in 331 BCE and turned it over to him, and who treated her as his queen. Pythionikê bore Harpalos a daughter in Babylon and died before 324 BCE, and he erected enormously expensive grave monuments for her both there and in Athens and dedicated a sanctuary containing a temple and an altar of Πυθιονίκη Ἀφροδίτη.64 Cf. (mostly drawn from

64

He nonetheless soon replaced her with another imported Athenian courtesan named Glykera (Berve 1926 #I.231; PAA 277490).

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 27)

115

Athenaeus) Alex. fr. 143 (merely a notice that Alexis mentioned Pythionikê in the undated Lykiskos); Timocl. frr. 15–16; 27.3; Philem. fr. 15.2; Python TrGF 91 F 1.1–8; Theopomp. Hist. FGrH 115 F 253–4a; Dicaearch. fr. 21 Wehrli = fr. 81 Mirhady; Posidon. FGrH 87 F 14 = fr. 66 Edelstein–Kidd; Plu. Phoc. 22.1–2. τὴν καλήν describes Pythionikê as she can be expected to appear to Kôbios, adding a sting to the rejection in 21–2. Athenaeus (8.339e, quoted above), patently drawing on some older scholarly work, claims that Kôbios was Pythionikê’s lover before she took up with the sons of Chairephilos (22 n.). But this looks like a simple deduction from the text, and it might just as well be the case that Kôbios is the sort of man (well-born and rich) who ought supposedly to interest Pythionikê, even if he actually had nothing to do with her. 21 For ἁδρός, see fr. 142.9 n., and cf. fr. 21.5 with n.; also used to describe fish at Epich. fr. 59 μάλ’ ἁδροὶ κωβιοί; Stratt. fr. 45.1–2 ἁδροὺς / … μεγάλους τε φάγρους; Dionys. Com. fr. 3.9 ἰχθὺς ἁδρός; Alex. fr. 175.3 ἰχθῦς θ’ ἁδρούς. But here the word is probably intended to communicate “rich” as well, like παχύς in 12 (n.): Kôbios is the sort of man any courtesan would be happy to get her hooks into, at least under normal circumstances.65 22 ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχός ἐστιν ὡρμηκυῖα is identified by Athenaeus (8.339c–d), citing Timocl. frr. 15–16, as a reference to Pheidôn (PA 14184; PAA 919920), Pamphilos (PA 11555; PAA 762950) and Pheidippos (PA 14163; PAA 919290), the sons of the metic saltfish-dealer Chairephilos of Paiania (PA 15187; PAA 975710), with two of whom, according to Timocles, Pythionikê was involved. Chairephilos was apparently well-to-do, since he and his sons were awarded citizenship at some point, implying a substantial benefit bestowed on the Athenian people as a whole (probably a gift of grain or the like), and since Pamphilos and Pheidippos both performed liturgies in the 320s BCE (IG II2 417.14; 1631.d622–4; cf. IG II2 1557.68–71 (manumission of a slave ταριχοπώλης, “saltfish retail-merchant”, belonging to a certain Chairephilos son of Pheidôn of the deme Paiania (PAA 975715), who can scarcely be anyone else), placing them beyond any shadow of doubt among Athens’ economic elite. For what is known of the family, see Davies 1971. 566–8; Osborne 1983. 75–6 T75–8; Whitehead 2000. 475–6 (on Hyperides’ two speeches on Chairephilos’ behalf); Worthington 2000; Lytle 2016; Humphreys 2019. 904. τάριχος (in banquet catalogues, catalogues of cooking supplies and the like at e. g. frr. 126 with n.; 140.4; 179 with n.; 181.3 (presented as a delicacy); 184 (seemingly laudatory); Crates Com. fr. 19.2; Pherecr. fr. 190.2; Anaxandr. fr. 51.2 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Nicostr. Com. fr. 1.2; cf. fr. 176) is fish that has been 65

Konstantakos 2000a. 89 suggests that the word also has the sense “sexually full-grown/ mature”, and thus that “the phrase means ‘Kobios must go to Pythionike because he is sexually mature, ready for sex with her’”. But this scarcely seems the point; the question is why Pythionikê might want to have Kôbios, even though the speaker rapidly decides that she will not.

116

Antiphanes

preserved by smoking, salting or a combination of the two. When pickled, it was routinely transported in jars, whereas Timocl. frr. 16.4–6; 23.6–7 (both connected with the sons of Chairephilos) suggest that the dried variety was stored in baskets (σαργάναι). See in general André 1961. 111–16; Curtis 1991. 6–26; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 39.1–2; García Soler 2001. 207–15; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 967; Bianchi 2016 on Cratin. fr. 44; Marzano 2016. 89–122 (with particular attention to the Roman period). For specific references to saltfish as imported, fr. 78.1–2 with nn. For the ταριχοπώλης (different from an ἰχθυοπώλης), see above; fr. 126.1 (referred to as a τεμαχοπώλης) with n.; Alex. fr. 15.14. For ὁρμάω ἐπί + acc., cf. fr. 46.3 n.; Alex. fr. 140.8 ἐπὶ τί μάλισθ’ ὥρμηκε with Arnott 1996 ad loc. For the delayed position of γάρ, cf. fr. 162.1 with n.; Denniston 1954. 97 (calling this sixth position); Dover 1985. 339–40 = Dover 1987. 62–3 (more helpfully identifying ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχος and ἐστιν ὡρμηκυῖα as a total of two mobiles, putting the particle in third position). 23–4 ἀφύαι are tiny fish of a wide variety of species, which were caught in seine-nets (Opp. H. 4.491–506), in particular in the Bay of Phaleron (e. g. Ar. Ach. 901; fr. 521; Eub. fr. 75.4; Archestr. fr. 11.1–4 with Olson–Sens 2000 on 3–4; Poll. 6.63) and either fried or stewed. They were proverbially cheap (esp. Ar. Eq. 644–50) and are frequently included in banquet catalogues and the like (e. g. Epich. fr. 122.1; Pherecr. fr. 109; Metag. fr. 6.8; Anaxandr. fr. 42.41; Ephipp. fr. 12.8; Mnesim. fr. 4.44; Nicostr. Com. fr. 11; Alex. fr. 84.1). Cf. Thompson 1947. 21–3; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 11.1, 8–9; García Soler 2001. 195–6. But there were also a pair of Athenian courtesans known as the Ἀφύαι, according to Apollodorus (FGrH 244 F 210 ap. Ath. 13.586b) ὅτι λευκαὶ καὶ λεπταὶ οὖσαι τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς μεγάλους εἶχον (“because they were pale and thin, and had large eyes”). Meineke accordingly suggested that Τρυγών too might be understood as a courtesan’s name, in which case the joke might be either that Theanô (24) is as big as all three of these other women combined (but see below) or that she is only as big as each of them individually.66

66

Konstantakos 2000a. 91 argues that ἀντιρρόπους is to be taken as an attributive adjective modifying ἀφύας … τάσδε but not τὴν τρυγόνα, on the ground that “to throw in the sting-ray as well … obviously spoils the joke about Theano’s thinness”. But it is difficult to see how the Greek could be understood this way, meaning that the argument must be structured the other way around: since ἀντιρρόπους patently goes with both ἀφύας … τάσδε and τὴν τρυγόνα, the reference to Theano’s thinness cannot mean what Konstantakos takes it to. Alternatively, Konstantakos 2000a. 92 proposes not supplying Θεανοῖ with ἀντιρρόπους, so that what is said is that the aphyai and the sting-ray weigh the same amount, not that they weigh the same amount as Theano. As Konstantakos himself concedes, this means that the the humor must have come in the verses that follow and has been clumsily ruined by the exerptor, making this an interpretative strategy of last resort.

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 28)

117

For λεπτός, fr. 120.4 n. For the demonstrative τάσδε serving to make the speech sound livelier and more realistic, 5 n. τὴν τρυγόνα For the stingray (in catalogues of food and the like also at Epich. fr. 59 τρυγόνες τ’ ὀπισθόκεντροι; Mnesim. fr. 4.39; Plaut. Capt. 851), see Thompson 1947. 270–1; García Soler 2001. 157; Davidson 2002. 33 (“not good to eat”), and cf. above on the possibility that this is a play on a woman’s name (or nickname). Θεανώ (PAA 501887) is also mentioned at Anaxil. fr. 22.20–1, where she is specifically identified as a courtesan and said to have “the appearance and voice of a woman, but the legs of a blackbird”, which would seem to imply that she was notoriously skinny rather than fat (i. e. that she was not noticeably prosperous and thus obviously successful at her business; cf. 12–14 n.); see above. ἀντίρροπος is first attested at S. El. 120 λύπης ἀντίρροπον ἄχθος, but is otherwise prosaic (X. HG 5.1.36; Oec. 3.15; [Pl.] Def. 412a; D. 1.10). Konstantakos 2000a. 68 takes this to be a hint that a set of scales was also visible onstage. This is likely enough—fish, like meat, was doubtless sold by weight (cf. fr. 204.5–6 n.; Diph. fr. 32.7–8)—but the text itself does not offer any solid ground for the conclusion. fr. 28 K.–A. (27 K.) Poll. 9.29 δεκατώνια· κέχρηται δὲ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἁλιευομένῃ· καὶ οἱ τούτοις ἐφεστηκότες τελῶναι, ἐκλογεῖς, ἐλλιμενισταί, δεκατηλόγοι ὡς Δημοσθένης (23.177), ὡς δὲ Ἀναξίλας ἐν Γλαύκῳ (fr. 7) δεκατῶναι, εἰκοστολόγοι, πεντηκοστολόγοι· καὶ πεντηκοστολογεῖν ἐν Φιλωνίδου Κοθόρνοις (fr. 5) ἔστιν εἰρημένον· ——67 dekatônia: Antiphanes uses the word in Halieuomenê. And the men in charge of these are telônai (“tax-farmers”), eklogeis (“tax-collectors”), ellimenistai (“harbor-tax-farmers”), dekatêlogoi (“10 %-tax-collectors”) as Demosthenes (23.177) (refers to them), but dekatônai (“10 %-men”) as Anaxilas (calls them) in Glaukos (fr. 7), eikostologoi (“5 %-collectors”), pentêkostologoi (“2 %-collectors”). And pentêkostologein (“to collect the 2 %-tax”) is used in Philonides’ Kothornoi (fr. 5): ——

Meter

The word scans kklkx and is thus compatible with e. g. iambic trimeter.

Citation context From a collection of terms for μέρη δὲ πόλεως τὰ μὲν ἐκ θαλάττης (“parts of a city near the sea”), with a distinctly commercial focus. Related material is preserved at Poll. 1.169. Interpretation A δεκάτη is a “tithe, 10 %-share”, most often referring to the portion of goods captured in war dedicated to a god (e. g. Hdt. 2.135.4), but also to the 10 % tax imposed by the Athenians at Byzantium on shipping in and out of 67

But the text as Pollux quotes it both here and at 7.202 has πορνοτελῶναι.

118

Antiphanes

the Black Sea (see D. 20.60; Gabrielsen 2007; Fawcett 2016. 160–1; Russell 2017. 81–90, 95–6, 98–104) and perhaps in other places with other objects of taxation as well (Alex. fr. 204.4–5 “they collect a 10 %-tax on personal property in the cities” (lacunose and obscure)). The individual referred to variously as a δεκατώνης (Anaxil. fr. 7), δεκατευτής (Antipho fr. 10 Thalheim) or δεκατηλόγος (D. 23.177) purchased the right to collect such taxes for a fixed period of time at auction from the city’s πωλῆται; cf. Ar. fr. 472 ἐλλιμενίζεις ἢ δεκατεύεις (“you’re collecting the harbor-tax or the 10 % tax”); Harp. δ 17–18 (citing Antipho and Demosthenes), and for tax-farming in general, [Arist.] Ath. 47.2 with Rhodes 1981 ad loc.; Olson 2017a. 87 (with further primary references and bibliography). δεκατώνια, the word Pollux offers for the offices of the δεκατώνης or δεκατῶναι, is not attested elsewhere, but cf. τελώνιον (“tax-office”, < τέλος LSJ s. v. I.8 “tax”) at Posidipp. Com. fr. 14.68

fr. 29 K.–A. (28 K.) Phot. ο 495 ὁρμιάν· Ἀντιφάνης Ἁλιευομένῃ fishing-line (acc.): Antiphanes in Halieuomenê

Meter The word scans lkl and is thus compatible with e. g. iambic trimeter. Citation context An isolated lexicographic note, although cf. Hsch. ο 1253 ὁρμιά· σχοινίον λεπτόν (“fishing-line: a thin piece of cord”). Interpretation For ὁρμιά (cognate with ὅρμος, “chain, necklace”), cf. Pl. Com. fr. 11 πόθεν ὁρμιὰ καὶ κάλαμος; (“Whence a fishing-line and a pole?”); E. Hel. 1615 ὁρμιατόνος (“line-stretcher”, i. e. “angler”), and to the other early attestations of the word in LSJ s. v. add Arist. PA 693a23; fr. 308; Poll. 10.133 (in a catalogue of terms for fishing equipment). The claim at LSJ s. v. that the word refers specifically to “fishing line of horse hair” (LSJ s. v.)—i. e. made from the long hairs from a horse’s tail—appears to go back to Plu. Mor. 915f–16a (“Why do they gather the hairs of stallions rather than mares for a fishing-line?”); Babr. 1.6 ὁρμιῆς ἀφ’ ἱππείης (“from a horse-hair fishing-line”); Opp. Hal. 3.75 ὁρμιὴν ἵππειον ἐΰπλοκον (“a well-woven horse-hair fishing-line”). It may nonetheless be over-precise, given Op. Hal. 4.364–5 λίνοιο / ὁρμιὴν πολιοῖο (“a fishing-line made of gray linen/string”); Ael. NA 1.23 ὁρμιᾷ λίνου λευκοῦ (“a fishing-line made of white linen/string”); Hsch. τ 537 τέρμινθος· φυτὸν ἐμφερὲς τῷ λίνῳ, ἐξ οὗ πλέκουσιν Ἀθηναῖοι [παρ] ὁρμιάς (“terebinth: a plant resembling flax, from which the Athenians weave fish68

Harp. δ 17 claims that Demosthenes uses δεκάτη in the sense τελώνιον at 20.60. But the word does not obviously mean anything other than “10 %-tax” there.

Ἁλιευομένη (fr. 29)

119

ing-lines”). See in general Gow 1950 on Theoc. 21.10, 11. A ὁρμιά is thus probably a (fishing)-line of any sort, regardless of the material from which it is made, even if some were in fact made of horse-hair.69

69

Montanari s. v. “fishing line or pole” avoids the issue of material, but gets the basic sense of the word (never obviously “pole”) wrong.

120

Ἄλκηστις (Alkêstis) “Alcestis”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.324; Edmonds 1959. 174–5 n. a

Title Alcestis was the daughter of Pheres, who required her suitors to yoke a boar and a lion to a chariot; Admetos did so with the help of Apollo and was thus able to marry her. Later she famously agreed to die in Admetos’ place, but was rescued from the Underworld and death by Herakles. See Eub. fr. 115.11 (Alcestis as a rare example of a good woman); Il. 2.714–15; Phryn. Trag. TrGF 3 F 3 (from his Alkêstis); A. Eu. 723–4; Pl. Smp. 179b; [Apollod.] Bib. 1.9.15; Gantz 1993. 195; Parker 2007. xv–xix. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνθρω]πογονία, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Phrynichus Tragicus and Euripides both wrote tragedies entitled Ἄλκηστις. Content See fr. 31 (which shows only that someone had his feet anointed with oil in the course of the action, and would thus better have been treated as a testimonium). Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 30 K.–A. (29 K.) ἐπὶ τὸ καινουργεῖν φέρου οὕτως, ἐκείνως, τοῦτο γιγνώσκων, ὅτι ἓν καινὸν ἐγχείρημα, κἂν τολμηρὸν ᾖ, πολλῶν παλαιῶν ἐστι χρησιμώτερον 1 καινουργεῖν Musurus : κενουργεῖν Ath.A φέρου Hermann : φέρ Ath.A 2 ἐκείνως A Hermann : ἐκεῖνος Ath. γιγνώσκων Dindorf : γινώσκων Ath.A 4 παλαιῶν ἐστι Musurus : ἐστι παλαιῶν Ath.ACE Eust.

Head off toward innovation one way or another, in the awareness that a single novel undertaking, even if it’s audacious, is more useful than many old ones

Ἄλκηστις (fr. 30)

121

Ath. 3.122d Ἀντιφάνης τ’ ἐν Ἀλκήστιδι ἔφη· —— And Antiphanes said in Alkêstis: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl x〉|rk|l llkl llkl l|lk|l llkl llkl llk|l llkl llkl l|lk|l klkl

Discussion Hermann 1824. xvii; Dindorf 1827 I.279–80; Meineke 1839–1857 III.15–16; Naber 1880. 44; Leo 1912. 239 n. 1; Conti Bizzarro 1993–1994. 146 Text The unmetrical paradosis κενουργεῖν in 1 is a simple aural error dating to a period when αι and ε had come to be pronounced alike; corrected by Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus. οὕτως, ἐκείνως in 2 are to be taken with 1 φέρου (for which, see below). A comma at the end of 1 (as in Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) thus obscures the sense. The end of 1 is metrically deficient, and ἐκεῖνος in 2 makes no sense; both errors look like desperate—and failed—attempts to improve a seemingly problematic original. Hermann emended the present imperative φέρ to the middle-passive form to add a long syllable at the end of 1, and converted ἐκεῖνος into another adverb to balance οὕτως. In 2, Dindorf ’s γιγνώσκων rather than the paradosis γινώσκων is the standard spelling of the word in this period (Threatte 1980. 562); the same error occurs in various forms of γιγνώσκω and γίγνομαι at frr. 57.9; 120.5–7; 164.4; 171.1; 173.1; 185.2; 194.21 (Ath.CE only); 198.1; 250.2; 265.1; 283. A comma after the participle makes the sense clearer. In 4, παλαιῶν and ἐστι have been transposed, rendering the line unmetrical; corrected by Musurus. As Kassel–Austin note, Eustathius knows the fragment from his own copy of the Epitome of Athenaeus and is not to be regarded as a separate witness to the text. Citation context Quoted by Cynulcus along with Timoth. PMG 796 οὐκ ἀείδω τὰ παλαιά· / τὰ γὰρ ἀμὰ κρείσσω. / νέος ὁ Ζεὺς βασιλεύει, / τὸ πάλαι δ’ ἦν Κρόνος ἄρχων. / ἀπίτω μοῦσα παλαι (“I do not sing the old songs, for mine are better. A new Zeus is king; Cronus was in power long ago. Away with the ancient Muse!”; thus Ath.A) in defense of his willingness to use the Latin loan-word δηκόκτα, of which the arch-Atticist Ulpian has just expressed vigorous disapproval. Interpretation Hermann thought that these might be the words of someone urging either Admetos or Herakles to discover a novel means of rescuing Alcestis from the Underworld, while Meineke suggested that the lines might come from the prologue and be part of a discussion between the poet and the comic Muse. Leo

122

Antiphanes

rejects the thesis, and as Meineke rightly observed, “all of this must be regarded as conjecture” in any case, the fact being that we know nothing of the context to which the fragment belongs except that the addressee is male (2 γιγνώσκων), and speculation makes us no wiser. For the contrast between new and old, cf. fr. dub. 327. 1 For the “pregnant” use of ἐπί, fr. 46.3 n. καινουργέω is late 5th/4th-century vocabulary; to the passages cited in LSJ s. v. 2, add X. Eq. Mag. 3.5.70 Lucian (e. g. Prom. 6), Aelian (VH 3.47), Athenaeus (14.621f) and Alciphro (1.13.1; 3.15.3) all pick the verb up, suggesting that it may have been regarded as an Attic colloquialism; Hippocrates (VM 21 = 1.624.15 Littré) also has it once. For the idea of “novelty” (generally regarded with suspicion; cf. 3, where καινόν apparently suggests almost automatically τολμηρόν); frr. 207.3 (which seems to be ironic on some level); 253; and see in general D’Anjour 2011. 190–202. For the formation, cf. κακουργέω (e. g. Ar. V. 961), θαυμασιουργέω (Χ. Smp. 7.2), σκαιουργέω (Ar. Nu. 994). For the use of the middle-passive of φέρω, cf. fr. 42.7 with n. 2 οὕτως, ἐκείνως (literally “in this fashion (or) in that fashion”) is probably colloquial, although no obvious parallels present themselves. τοῦτο γιγνώσκων, ὅτι Cf. fr. 122.7 τοῦτ’ ἔγνωχ’, ὅτι; Ar. Nu. 1254 τοῦτ’ ἴσθ’, ὅτι; Av. 1408 τοῦτ’ ἴσθ’, ὅτι; Dionys. Com. fr. *7.1 τοῦτο γιγνώσκεις, ὅτι /; S. Ant. 188 τοῦτο γιγνώσκων, ὅτι /; El. 988 τοῦτο γιγνώσκουσ’, ὅτι /; E. fr. 951.1 τοῦτο γιγνώσκωσ’, ὅτι /; [A.] PV 377 τοῦτο γιγνώσκεις, ὅτι /; Isoc. 8.39; D. 8.39. 3 ἓν καινὸν ἐγχείρημα is in essence a gloss on 1 καινουργεῖν. ἐγχείρημα is late 5th/4th-century vocabulary (S. OT 540; Pl. Plt. 290d (with the same sense as here); D. 27.35; Aen. Tact. 24.15). For nouns in -μα generally, fr. 249.1 n. τολμηρός is a primarily prosaic form, attested elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Nu. 445; Pax 182, 362; Ra. 465 (always abusive), and in tragedy only at E. Supp. 305; fr. 913.5. Homer (Il. 10.205; Od. 17.284), Pindar (P. 4.89) and Sophocles (Ph. 984) have τολμήεις/τολμάεις instead. Here the word patently has a negative coloring; see fr. 19.4–5 n. fr. 31 K.–A. (30 K.) Ath. 12.553b–d Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν μὲν Ἀλκήστιδι ἐλαίῳ τινὰ ποιεῖ χριόμενον τοὺς πόδας. ἐν δὲ Μητραγύρτῃ φησί (fr. 152)· ——. καὶ ἐν Ζακυνθίῳ (fr. 101)· ——. καὶ ἐν Θορικίοις (fr. 105)· —— Antiphanes in Alkêstis represents someone having his feet anointed with olive oil. Whereas in Mêtragyrtês he says (fr. 152): ——. And in Zakynthios (fr. 101): ——. And in Thorikioi (fr. 105): —— 70

Montanari s. v., for no obvious reason, omits both this fragment and Xenophon’s two uses of the word (also HG 6.2.16).

Ἄλκηστις (fr. 31)

123

Citation context From a collection of comic fragments (beginning at Ath. 12.553a and also preserving Cephisod. fr. 3.1–3; Eub. frr. 107; 89, before this, in that order, and frr. 152; 101; 105; Anaxandr. fr. 41, after this, in that order) intended to show that “It was an Athenian practice to rub the feet of people addicted to luxury with perfume”. Fr. 105 is also quoted at Ath. 15.689e–f, as evidence that “people in previous times … knew which type of perfume is appropriate for all the various parts of our bodies”, along with Cephisod. fr. 3 (the first three verses of which are also preserved at Ath. 12.553a) and Anaxandr. fr. 41 (also quoted at Ath. 12.553d–e, immediately after the various fragments of Antiphanes). All this material is thus probably drawn from a single pre-existing document, most likely a Hellenistic or Roman-era antiquarian treatise on perfumes and their use; see frr. 105 Citation context (on Philonides’ On Perfumes and Garlands); 115 Citation context (on Aelius Asclepiades’ Garlands). Interpretation As none of the original wording of Antiphanes’ play is preserved here, this would better have been treated as a testimonium to Alkêstis than as a fragment. In fr. 101 (n.), having one’s feet rubbed with perfume is specifically said to be a service provided by prostitutes.

124

Ἀνασῳζόμενος (Anasôizomenos) “The Man who is Being Rescued”

Introduction Title For the form of the title, cf. Ἀποκαρτερῶν and Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, as well as (feminine) Ἀκοντιζομένη with Introduction, Ἁλιευομένη, Ἀντερῶσα, and note Dionysius Comicus’ Σῴζουσα vel Σώτειρα. Diphilus, Hipparchus and Eubulus all also wrote plays entitled Ἀνασῳζόμενος or Ἀνασῳζόμενοι. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 32 K.–A. (31 K.) Antiatt. δ 16 διαφέρον· ἀντὶ τοῦ συμφέρον. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀνασωζομένῳ diapheron (neut. sing.): in place of sympheron. Antiphanes in Anasôzomenos

Meter The word as preserved scans iambic trimeter.

kkkx and is thus compatible with e. g.

Citation context An abbreviated version of the Antiatticist’s note, with the play-title dropped and the author’s name corrupted to something more obvious, is preserved at Phot. δ 484 διαφέρον· ἀντὶ τοῦ συμφέρον. Ἀριστοφάνης (“diapheron: in place of sympheron. Aristophanes”).71 Note also ΣABGc2 Th. 2.43.5 τὰ διαφέροντα· τὰ συμφέροντα (“ta diapheronta (neut. nom./acc. pl.): in place of ta sympheronta”). Interpretation τὸ διαφέρον is normally “the difference”, i. e. “that which divides/distinguishes two parties/objects” (LSJ s. v. διαφέρω III.3;72 cf. fr. 177.2), whereas τὸ συμφέρον is “what is expedient, useful, appropriate” (LSJ s. v. συμφέρω

71

72

See Tsantsanoglou 1984. 97. Aristophanes is not known to have written an Anasôizomenos, and there is accordingly no reason to suspect that the author’s name is corrupt in the Antiatticist instead. LSJ’s second definition here, “the odds”, must be a 19th-century idiom (cf. “they are at odds”) that no longer makes sense for the 21st-century reader, for whom “the odds” inevitably suggests gambling.

Ἀνασῳζόμενος (fr. 32)

125

II.3.b; cf. Ar. Pl. 49; Theophil. fr. 6.1). Antiphanes apparently used the neuter participle of διαφέρω instead in the sense of LSJ s. v. III.4 “be different from … generally, in point of excess, surpass, excel him” (as at Alex. fr. 37.6, but with a personal subject); perhaps his motivation was metrical (διαφέρον kkkx vs. συμφέρον lkx).

126

Ἀνδρομέδα (Andromeda) “Andromeda”

Introduction Title and Content Andromeda was the daughter of the Ethiopean king Kepheus. When her mother claimed to be as beautiful as the Nereids, Poseidon sent a sea-monster against the land, and Kepheus offered Andromeda to the monster to placate it. The hero Perseus, flying homeward with the Gorgon’s head (fr. 164 n.), saw Andromeda in chains and waiting to be eaten, and agreed with Kepheus that he would rescue her in return for her hand. Afterward, when Kepheus’ brother attempted to claim Andromeda instead, Perseus used the Gorgon’s head to turn him and all his backers to stone. See Hes. fr. 135.5–7 M.–W. = fr. 241.5–7 Most; Hdt. 7.61.3, 7.150.2; [Apollod.] Bib. 2.43–4; Gantz 1993. 307–10; Schauenburg, LIMC I.1.774–5. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνθρω]πογονία, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Sophocles and Euripides both wrote tragedies entitled Andromeda (the latter briefly parodied at Ar. Th. 1098–1127). The play is only conjecturally assigned to Antiphanes; see fr. dub. 33 n. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. dub. 33 K.–A. (32 K.) Antiatt. λ 17 λείψας· ἀντὶ τοῦ λιπών. Ἀντιφάνης (sic Meineke : Ἀριστοφάνης cod. : Ἀριστοφῶν Bergk) Ἀνδρομέδᾳ leipsas (“after leaving”; masc. nom. sing. 1st aorist): in place of lipôn (masc. nom. sing. 2nd aorist). Antiphanes (thus Meineke : “Aristophanes” cod. : “Aristophon” Bergk) in Andromeda

Meter The word as preserved scans ll. Discussion Bergk ap. Meineke 1839–1857 II.899; Meineke 1839–1857 I.325–6; Cobet 1854. 325; Kock 1884 II.23

Ἀνδρομέδα (fr. dub. 33)

127

Citation context Probably part of an ancient scholarly conversation to which Phryn. ecl. 343 ἐκλείψας οὐ δόκιμον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκλιπών (“ekleipsas is not acceptable, instead (one ought to say) eklipôn”) also belongs. Interpretation Aristophanes—to whom the Antiatticist attributes the fragment—did not write an Andromeda, but neither as far as we know did Antiphanes. Bergk suggested that Aristophon was meant (although he too is not known to have produced an Andromeda), or the problem might be with the play-title instead. The form in question can in any case only very tentatively be assigned to Antiphanes (see below), and this ought to be treated as a dubium. ἔλειψα is not attested elsewhere as the aorist of λείπω before the Roman period (e. g. Luc. Par. 42 λείψαντα), and it is accordingly difficult to believe that Antiphanes—or whoever the author in question here is—used the form. Perhaps the speaker was a barbarian with a weak command of Greek, like the Scythian archer in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae (thus Kock), particularly given that the play might have been set at least in part in Ethiopia, while his titles suggest that Antiphanes made at least occasional use of non-Greek characters. The alternative is to assume with Cobet73 that the Antiatticist was taken in by a bad manuscript reading, the legitimate classical form λιπών having been driven out by the much later λείψας.

73

“Antiatticista … tam parum iudicio valet et vitiosis libris tam saepe stulte deceptus est, ut eius fide stari non possit” (“The Antiatticist is so lacking in judgment, and so often stupidly taken in by books that contain errors, that it is impossible to put any trust in him”).

128

Ἀνθρω]πογονία (Anthrôpogonia) “The Birth of Mankind”

Introduction Title and Content The title (restored by Blass) is the only Greek word that fits the space available on the papyrus. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. See Θεογονία Introduction for other material (a description of a cosmogony, including the creation of human beings) that likely belongs to this play. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 34 K.–A. (1 Dem. = CGFPR 3) ] ἄνδρες οἱ γεγενημένοι ] πάντες εὐρώστως ἅμα ] βίον διάξετε 2 [ἡμῶν θεαταί,] Wilamowitz : [ἐὰν κροτῆτε] Austin (troch. tetr.) [εὐτυχῆ τὸ λοιπὸν ἤδη τὸν] Austin

] men who have been born ] all stoutly together ] you will lead a life POxy. 427 ——. [Ἀντιφ]άνους [Ἀνθρω]πογονία (suppl. Blass) ——. [From Antiph]anes’ [Anthrô]pogonia (suppl. Blass)

3 e. g. [εὐδαιμονοῦντες τὸν] vel

Ἀνθρω]πογονία (fr. 34)

129

Meter Probably either iambic trimeter

〈xlkl x〉|lkl rlkl 〈xlkl x〉|lkl llkl 〈xlkl xl〉kl klkl

or—especially given the close parallel at Men. Sam. 733–5 (quoted in Interpretation)—trochaic tetrameter catalectic

〈lklx lklx〉 | lklr lkl 〈lklx lklx〉 | lkll lkl 〈lklx lklx l〉klk lkl

Discussion Grenfell–Hunt 1903. 68–9, 73 (editio princeps); Blass ap. Grenfell– Hunt 1903. 68; Wilamowitz 1925. 116 Text The supplements suggested by Wilamowitz and Austin in 2 (both taking these to be iambic trimeters) are inspired in broad terms by Men. Sam. 734–5 (quoted in Interpretation), while Austin’s [εὐτυχῆ τὸ λοιπὸν ἤδη τὸν] in 3 (taking these to be trochaic tetrameters) depends on the parallels cited in Interpretation 3 n. These supplements effectively fill out the likely basic sense of the passage, but are not to be confused with what Antiphanes himself actually wrote. Citation context One of “a number of miscellaneous fragments in verse” preserved on papyri dated by Grenfell–Hunt to the 3rd century BCE. Seemingly from a florilegium Interpretation Men. Sam. 733–5 παῖδες καλοί, / μειράκια, γέροντες, ἄνδρες, πάντες εὐρώστως ἅμα  / πεμψ[α]τ’ εὐνοίας προφήτην Βακχίωι φίλον κρότον (“Handsome boys, young men, old men, adult men—all of you stoutly together offer friendly applause to the Bacchic god as a token of your goodwill!”; trochaic tetrameter), an address to the audience from the very end of the play, is a striking parallel to 1–2. Analogy thus suggests that that the passage of Antiphanes as well may be from the conclusion of the comedy and represent an appeal to the audience for their applause—combined in this case with what appears to be a promise that they will eventually be rewarded for it (3 with n.). Cf. the chorus’ promises of various forms of blessedness to their judges, depending on how the contest results turn out, at Ar. Nu. 1115–30; Av. 1102–17, and the conclusion of most Roman comedies. 1–3 ἄνδρες οἱ γεγενημένοι appears to allude to the title of the comedy, with ἀνήρ used in the generic sense “human being” (opp. “god”; LSJ s. v. II) rather than “man” (opp. “woman”). What follows suggests that the reference is to the audience (addressed in the second-person plural in 3), whose fate is somehow connected with that of the playwright and his play: if every one of them vigorously (applauds vel sim.), their lives will be (happy vel sim.)—and so, of course, will his. 2 εὔρωστος and cognates (4th-century prosaic vocabulary; e. g. Χ. HG 3.3.5; Isoc. 15.116; D. 60.26; Thphr. HP 4.8.3) are attested elsewhere in comedy only at Men. Sam. 734 (quoted above).

130

Antiphanes

ἅμα is to be taken closely together with πάντες, as at e. g. Ar. V. 606; Av. 1286 πάντες ἐξ εὐνῆς ἅμα; Damox. fr. 3.5–6. 3 For βίον διάγω (a combination attested in elevated poetry only at S. OC 1619 τὸ λοιπὸν ἤδη τὸν βίον διάξετον), e. g. Ar. Nu. 463–5 τὸν πάντα χρόνον μετ’ ἐμοῦ / ζηλωτότατον βίον ἀνθρώπων διάξεις (the Clouds’ promise to Strepsiades, should he accept their training); Pax 439–40 ἐν εἰρήνῃ διαγαγεῖν τὸν βίον,/ ἔχονθ’ ἑταίραν καὶ σκαλεύοντ’ ἄνθρακας (what awaits those who do their best to rescue Peace); Ec. 239–40 ταῦτ’ ἐὰν πίθησθέ μοι, / εὐδαιμονοῦντες τὸν βίον διάξετε (Praxagora’s promise in her practice speech, should the Athenians accept her proposal to turn over power to the city’s women); Apollod. Car. fr. 5.18; Posidipp. Com. fr. 32.1; Lys. 31.7 ἀκινδύνως τὸν βίον διάγειν; X. Hier. 7.10 ἀφόβως καὶ ἀνεπιφθόνως καὶ ἀκινδύνως καὶ εὐδαιμόνως τὸν βίον διάγοντα; Pl. R. 372d διάγοντες τὸν βίον ἐν εἰρήνῃ μετὰ ὑγιείας; Lg. 730b κάλλιστα διαγάγοι τὸν βίον; Isoc. 3.2 ὡς μετὰ πλείστων ἀγαθῶν τὸν βίον διάγωμεν, 59 ἥδιστ’ ἄν τις δύναιτο τὸν βίον διαγαγεῖν; 5.108 ἐν εὐδαιμονίᾳ τὸν βίον διαγαγόντα; 8.90 τὸν βίον ἥδιον τῶν ἄλλων διάγοντες.74 Cf. fr. 200.1–2 with n.

74

Kassel–Austin in their apparatus also quote S. Tr. 81 τὸν λοιπὸν ἤδη βίοτον εὐαίων’ ἔχειν, 168 τὸ λοιπὸν ἤδη ζῆν ἀλυπήτῳ βίῳ. But those lines represent parallels not to what we know Antiphanes wrote but to Austin’s attempt to reconstruct what has been lost from the text.

131

Ἀνταῖος (Antaios) “Antaios”

Introduction Discussion Webster 1952. 16; Schiassi 1955. 106–7; Edmonds 1959. 176 n. b; Mangidis 2003. 158–60; Orth 2014b. 1017 Title and Content Antaios was a son of Poseidon who lived in Libya and forced passersby to wrestle with him and, when they inevitably lost, used their skulls to roof Poseidon’s temple. Herakles defeated and killed him; the crucial detail that he did so by lifting Antaios off the ground, from which the giant drew his strength— meaning that whenever he was thrown down, he arose more powerful—is first attested in Ovid (Ib. 393–5; Met. 9.183–4). Cf. Pi. I. 4.52–4; Pherecyd. FGrH 3 F 17; 76; Pl. Tht. 169b; Lg. 796a; D.S. 4.17.4, 4.27.3; [Apollod.] Bib. 2.5.11; Magrath 1977; Gantz 1993. 416–18; Olmos–Balmaseda, LIMC I.1.800–1; Fowler 2013. 315–17. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς, and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Phrynichus Tragicus and Aristias wrote tragedies entitled Ἀνταῖος. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 35 K.–A. (33 K.)

5

(Α.) ὦ τᾶν, κατανοεῖς τίς ποτ’ ἐστὶν οὑτοσὶ ὁ γέρων; (Β.) ἀπὸ τῆς μὲν ὄψεως Ἑλληνικός· λευκὴ χλανίς, φανὸς χιτωνίσκος καλός, πιλίδιον ἁπαλόν, εὔρυθμος βακτηρία, † βεβαία τράπεζα. † τί μακρὰ δεῖ λέγειν; ὅλως αὐτὴν ὁρᾶν γὰρ τὴν Ἀκαδήμειαν δοκῶ

3 φανὸς Dobree  : φαιὸς Ath.ACE 4 πιλίδιον Ath.CE  : πολίδιον Ath.A 5 βεβαία τράπεζα Ath.ACE  : βαία τράπεζα Casaubon  : βαιά τε πέζα Kock  : κρούπεζα βαιά Emperius 6 Ἀκαδήμειαν Dindorf : Ἀκαδήμι(αν) Ath.ACE

(A.) Sir—do you recognize who in the world this old man is? (B.) He’s Greek, by the looks of him;

132

Antiphanes

5

a white mantle, a nice, luminous little cloak; a small, soft felt cap; a staff that fits him perfectly; † a secure table. † Why should I go on at length? In sum, I think I see the Academy itself

Ath. 12.544f–5a Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Ἀνταίῳ περὶ τῆς τῶν φιλοσόφων τρυφερότητος διαλεγόμενός φησιν· —— Antiphanes in Antaios discusses the luxurious life-style of the philosophers, saying: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llkr l|lk|l klkl rlrl k|lkl llkl llkl llkl llkl lrkr k|lkl llkl † kllklk † |rk|l klkl llkl l|lrl llkl

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 824; Dindorf 1827 II.1214–15; Dobree 1833. 340; Emperius 1847. 310; Kock 1875. 404–5; Mangidis 2003. 159 Text The paradosis φαιός (“gray”;75 retained by Meineke, Kock and Kassel– Austin) in 3 is awkward as a description of one of the elements in what otherwise seems to be a set of elegant clothing, especially after λευκή (“white”) in the first half of the line, hence Dobree’s φανός. Perhaps a deliberate correction intended to replace a rare word with a slightly more obvious one. πιλίδιον (preserved in the Epitome of Athenaeus) in 4 is very rare and apparently baffled the Ath.A-scribe, who ventured the entirely inappropriate πολίδιον (a diminutive form of πόλις) instead. The unmetrical paradosis βεβαία τράπεζα (“a secure table”) in 5 was emended to βαία τράπεζα (“a small table”) by Casaubon. But this fits oddly with the rest of the description of the old man, which otherwise focuses exclusively on his costume, and it is unclear how having a table would make him either obviously Greek (2) or a perfect representative of the Academy (6). Kock accordingly proposed instead

75

Defined at Pl. Ti. 68c and Arist. Col. 792a7–9 as a combination of white and black (cf. Pl. R. 585a, where the claim is made that someone who lacked any experience of the color white might think he saw it when he compared gray to black), and here most easily understood as the color of undyed wool worn on a day-to-day basis; used at Alex. fr. 125.4 (the only other appearance of the adjective in comedy) of bread made of flour filled with bran, which we would tend to describe instead as “brown”. The word is not attested before the 4th century; etymology uncertain.

Ἀνταῖος (fr. 35)

133

βαιά τε πέζα (“and a small border”, sc. on his χλανίς);76 but πέζα does not appear to be Attic vocabulary, τε is out of place after the asyndetic 3–4, and a mention of the decoration on the robe seems inappropriate after 4. Emperius’ κρούπεζα βαιά (“small clogs”; cf. Cratin. fr. 77 κρουπεζοφόρων (of swineherds) with Poll. 7.87 ἡ δὲ κρούπεζα ξύλινον ὑπόδημα (“the kroupeza [fem.] is a wooden shoe”); 10.153 κρουπέζια τὰ τῶν αὐλητῶν ὑποδήματα (“kroupezia are the shoes worn by auletes”) is inter alia much too far from the paradosis to inspire confidence. Dindorf ’s Ἀκαδήμειαν for the paradosis Ἀκαδήμι(αν) in 6 is metrically guaranteed at [Alex.] fr. 25.2 (with Arnott 1996 ad loc.) and seems in any case to be the correct form for this period (Threatte 1980. 128). Citation context From a brief discussion (Ath. 12.544a–6c) of philosophers and philosophical sects that advocated pleasure, as part of a much longer treatment of famous individuals devoted to luxury in one form or another. Alex. fr. 37 is cited immediately before this. Interpretation A conversation between two men, not necessarily strangers (see 1 n.), in regard to a third and older man (2 ὁ γέρων). The deictic οὑτοσί at the end of 1 is most easily taken to suggest that the old man is onstage along with (A.) and (B.), seated among the audience in front of them, or depicted in a painting or the like that is under examination. (B.) judges the old man entirely on the basis of his appearance and in particular his clothing, without regard to his bearing, grooming or how he speaks. Indeed, the fact that (B.) can only establish by conjecture that the person in question is Greek (2 Ἑλληνικός) makes it clear that the old man is either mute (i.e. because he exists only in a drawing?) or has not yet spoken onstage (having just arrived from elsewhere? or moving across the stage right now, in which case these verses serve to cover his appearance?). μέν in 2 is not answered by δέ in what survives of the text, and the process of excerption may accordingly have radically altered what (B.) seems to be saying, which was in fact that while the old man’s clothing makes him appear (2 ἀπὸ τῆς … ὄψεως, 6 ὁρᾶν) to be Greek, something else betrays him as a foreigner.77 The reference to the Academy in 6 is a way of strengthening the assertion in 2: the old man looks not just like a Greek but like “the Academy itself ”. Despite Athenaeus (or the source on which he is drawing) once again, therefore, the point of (B.)’s remark in the original was not to characterize the Academy as devoted to luxury, but in an off-handedly Athenocentric fashion to express the view that the Academy represents Greece in its purest and most essential form. This is thus praise, even if a bit of mockery of the wealthy and well-dressed young men who must have filled Plato’s school lies behind it; compare the rather more direct as76 77

Cf. Poll. 7.63 οἱ δὲ πεζοφόροι χιτῶνες ἢ οἱ ποδήρεις ἢ οἱ πέζας ἔχοντες (“pezophoroi tunics are those that extend to one’s feet or those that have borders”). As typified, in a closing punch-line balancing 6, by reference to another philosophical school, e. g. the ragged 4th-century Pythagoreans?

134

Antiphanes

sault on the fancy haircut, shoes, robe and staff of a νεανίας from the Academy at Ephipp. fr. 14. For “proper” dress in comedy, see the brief but suggestive remarks of Green 2001. 42–3. The χλανίς (3 with n.) is a luxury item, and the old man’s χιτωνίσκος is described as καλός (3). But neither item is said to be dyed a fancy color or the like, and a felt cap and a staff (4) are normal items of clothing, even if both of them as well earn an appreciative adjective. The individual described here thus appears to be elegantly rather than flashily dressed, a paragon of conservative Greek fashion. For Plato and the Academy elsewhere in 4th-century comedy, see Cratin. Jun. fr. 10.2 (“To quote Plato, ‘I don’t know it’s this way, but I suspect it is’”); Theopomp. Com. fr. 16 (an echo of Phd. 96e?); Epicrat. fr. 10 (mockery of “research” into questions such as what γένος—tree? grass? vegetable?—a gourd falls into); Amphis frr. 6 (“Plato’s ‘good’” as something incomprehensible); 13 (direct address of Plato, who is denounced as haughty78); Anaxandr. fr. 20 (Plato ate sacred olives; point obscure) with Millis 2015 ad loc. (with secondary bibliography); Alex. frr. 1 (“You’re discussing topics you don’t understand; run off and be with Plato!”); 99 with Arnott 1996. 261–2 (corrupting the city’s youth); 151.2 (Plato as a literally “peripatetic” thinker); 163 (discussion of the details of the separation of soul and body described as “Plato’s teaching”); 185 (“or to chatter in private with Plato”); Aristophon Platôn; Ophelio fr. 3 (“a thunderstruck”—i. e. insane—“book by Plato”); Philippid. fr. 6.2 (“Plato’s ‘good’”); Brock 1990; Olson 2007. 238–43; Farmer 2017. 1 ὦ τᾶν is a colloquial form of address (cf. English “buddy, pal, bro”; Turkish “abi”), polite although often conveying a sense of annoyance, as at fr. 205.10* (n.) but not obviously here. Use of ὦ τᾶν does not imply that characters are only meeting for the first time or are uncertain of one another’s names (e. g. Ar. Nu. 1267 (one of his creditors addresses Strepsiades); Av. 12 (Euelpides addresses Peisetairos)); that it is never definitely used to address a woman suggests that (A.) and (B.) are men, although the amount of evidence at our disposal is limited. ὦ τᾶν is widely attested in comedy (21 times in Aristophanes, including Pax 1264; Av. 12; Lys. 1178; also e. g. Cratin. fr. 307.2 with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc., with documentation of the ancient lexicographic discussion of the term; Pl. Com. fr. 224; Timocl. fr. 6.1; Alex. fr. 16.11; Men. Dysc. 247, 359; Sam. 547; adesp. com. fr. 1014.14), but is also found occasionally in tragedy (S. OT 200, 1145; Ph. 1387; E. Heracl. 321, 688; Ba. 802; in satyr play at S. fr. 314.104; E. Cyc. 536), in 4th-century prose (Pl. Ap. 25c; D. 1.26; 3.29; 18.312; 25.78) and in Doric in the form ὦ τᾶν (Epich. fr. 76.2, as printed by Kassel–Austin) or ὦ τάν (Pi. fr. 215a.4, as printed by Snell–Maehler). See in general Stevens 1976. 42–3; Szemerényi 1987. 569–78; Dickey 1996. 158–60; Collard 2018. 97–8. 78

Taken by Papychrysostomou 2016. 88 to suggest that “With all probability, Plato was a character in the play”, which goes far beyond what the evidence can reasonably be taken to show. Nothing else survives of the play, which was entitled Dexidêmidês (apparently an otherwise unattested personal name).

Ἀνταῖος (fr. 35)

135

For ποτ(ε) intensifying the question, cf. fr. 27.6 with n. οὑτοσί For deictic iota (an Atticism), fr. 27.13 n. κατανοέω is late 5th/4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Hp. Epid. II 3.1.11 = 5.100.12 Littré; Hdt. 2.28.5; Th. 2.102.6; Lys. 25.34; X. Cyr. 8.7.18; Pl. Phlb. 18b; Arist. Pol. 1259a10), attested elsewhere in comedy at e. g. Alex. fr. 232.2; Diph. fr. 61.2; Men. Sam. 522. 2 ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως in the sense “on the basis of appearance” is prosaic (e. g. Th. 1.10.2; Arist. HA 507b4; Thphr. HP 8.5.4). For the use of ἀπό, see LSJ s. v. III.6. Ἑλληνικός The adjective is first attested in Aeschylus (Pers. 409, 417; Th. 269), Euripides (e. g. Alc. 684)79 and Herodotus (e. g. 1.46.3; 4.77.2); elsewhere in comedy only at fr. 182.4 (adv.); Ar. Ach. 115; Av. 148; Alex. fr. 9.8; Men. Mis. 716; Pk. 279. 3 λευκὴ χλανίς “White” is often not merely a generic marker of color, but indicates clothing that has been freshly laundered or is reserved for use on special occasions, making it closely associated with attempts to produce a great appearance, as at e. g. Ar. Av. 1116–17 ὅταν ἔχητε χλανίδα λευκήν, τότε μάλισθ’ οὕτω δίκην / δώσεθ’ ἡμῖν, πᾶσι τοῖς ὄρνισι κατατιλώμενοι (“whenever you’re wearing a white chlanis, then in particular you’ll pay a penalty to us in the following fashion—by being pooped on by all the birds”; the chorus threaten any judges who fail to vote for their play); Th. 840–1 ἠμφιεσμένην / λευκά (“wearing white clothing”; of a wealthy and—nominally, at least—extremely respectable woman); fr. 505 τί οὖν ποῶμεν; χλανίδ’ ἐχρῆν λευκὴν λαβεῖν· / εἶτ’ Ἰσθμιακὰ λαβόντες ὥσπερ οἱ χοροὶ / ᾄδωμεν εἰς τὸν δεσπότην ἐγκώμιον (“What should we do, then? We ought to have got a white chlanis; and after we got Isthmian garlands, as choruses do, we should sing a song of praise to our master”). Cf. below on φανός. Α χλανίς (first mentioned at Simon. PMG 543.17, where the infant Perseus sleeps πορφυρέᾳ / κείμενος ἐν χλανίδι as a mark of his privileged background even in a moment of great danger) is a wool (note Hermipp. fr. 48.1 χλανίδες δ’ οὖλαι) ἱμάτιον (“outer garment”) of a sort routinely treated as a mark of luxury and thus occasionally of effeminacy; cf. Ar. V. 677 (in a catalogue of luxury goods); Av. 1693 (to be worn by a bridegroom); Ec. 848 (party clothes);80 fr. 505 (quoted above); Anaxil. fr. 18.2 (part of a display of enormous luxury); Ephipp. frr. 14.10 (included in the catalogue of items of fancy dress that distinguish a young man from the Academy); 19.4 (part of a life of parties and untroubled luxury); Men. Asp. 378 (part of a disguise for someone playing the part of a foreign doctor); Dysc. 257, 364–5 (part of the wealthy young Sostratos’ costume); fr. 264.3 (a mark of a life of great luxury); Posidipp. Com. fr. 33 (wearing a χλανίς as sufficient to inspire respect in those who see it); 79 80

Sophocles never uses the word, nor do the lyric poets. Despite LSJ s. v. 1, that an old man wears a χλανίς in Antiphanes and an individual named Γέρων also has one on at Ar. Ec. 848 is not obviously anything more than mere accident, and it is unhelpful to conclude on that basis that the garment was “used by old people”.

136

Antiphanes

Hdt. 3.139.2–3 (a χλανίς worn by an upper-class Samian and attractive enough that one of Cambyses’ bodyguards tries to buy it); D. 21.133; 36.45; IG II2 1514.39 (etc.) χλανὶς καρτὴ ἄγραφος παράβολον ἔχο[υσα (“a smooth-shorn chlanis with a border lacking a dedicatory inscription”; a dedication at the sanctuary at Brauron); Stone 1984. 163–4, and see in general Hughes 2009. 54–61; Llewellyn-Jones 2021. φανός Literally “shining”, as also at e. g. Ar. Ach. 845 χλαῖναν δ’ ἔχων φανήν (“wearing a shining robe”) with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Ec. 347 (of a σισύρα, a “rough cloak” of some sort); Phryn. Com. fr. dub. 91 with Stama 2014 ad loc. χιτωνίσκος is a diminutive < χιτών (“tunic”, i. e. an inner garment worn beneath the ἱμάτιον next to the skin; cf. fr. 151.1 n.).81 A χιτωνίσκος is worn by a slave at Ar. Av. 946 (the earliest attestion of the word, also at Av. 955), making it clear that there is nothing special about the garment itself (contrast the χλανίς), hence presumably the need to add the appreciative adjective καλός that follows. Cf. Men. Sic. 280; Apollod. Com. fr. 12 (the only other two attestations of the word in comedy); IG II2 1514.12, 14, 20 etc. (apparently a favorite garment to dedicate to Artemis at Brauron); Stone 1984. 172–4 (s. v. χιτών); Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 946. 4 πιλίδιον is a diminutive < πῖλος (“felt”) and is also used for a cap probably made of such material at Ar. Ach. 439 (worn by Dikaiopolis as part of his Telephos-disguise) with Olson 2002 ad loc. (on felt and felt-making); D. 19.255 (of the hat worn by Solon when he urged the Athenians to go to war with Megara over control of Salamis, as also at Plu. Sol. 8.1). Precisely what wearing a πιλίδιον is supposed to signal is unclear; in Rome, a pilleus/pilleum (cognate) served as a mark of free-born status. Cf. fr. 108.2 with n., where πῖλος is used by extension to mean “helmet”; and in addition to the bibliography cited in Olson 2002 (above), see Laufer 1930; Burkett 1977. The adjectives attached to the old man’s other items of clothing are generally appreciative rather than generic, and ἁπαλόν thus likely means “particularly soft”, i. e. “very comfortable looking”, rather than merely “soft (because of the material involved)”. εὔρυθμος I. e. precisely suited to the size of the owner’s body (cf. Thphr. Char. 2.7) and the use to which he will put the object in question (X. Mem. 3.10.10–15, where this quality is pointedly distinguished from mere decoration: personalized craftsmanship is fundamentally practical and well worth paying for).82 βακτηρία A staff of the sort carried by men of various ages and social statuses in comedy, including by a young man studying at the Academy in Ephipp. fr. 14.11, but often associated with older characters in particular (e. g. Ar. Ach. 682; 81 82

For the contrast specifically between χιτωνίσκος and ἱμάτιον, e. g. Lys. 10.10; 11.5; Pl. Hp.Mi. 368c; D. 21.216; 25.56; Thphr. Char. 19.7. LSJ s. v. 2, glossing this line “the nice conduct of a cane” (i. e. “wielding his staff nicely” vel sim. and thus presumably “a nicely wielded staff ”), misses the point, and Antiphanes’ use of the word would better have been included under s. v. 3 “well-proportioned, well-fitted”.

Ἀνταῖος (fr. 35)

137

Nu. 541), presumably because they needed one to walk; see Stone 1984. 246–8; Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 33. The word (cognate with Latin baculum) is first attested in Aristophanes (subsequently at Th. 8.84.2; Lys. 24.12 (a cripple explains that he walks with two staves, “whereas other men use only one”); X. HG 6.2.19, etc.) and is absent from elevated poetry, which uses βάκτρον instead.83 5 For the rhetorical question τί μακρὰ δεῖ λέγειν;, cf. Isoc. 12.270 τί γὰρ δεῖ μακρολογεῖν; (cited by Kassel–Austin); Plu. Mor. 166f τί δεῖ μακρὰ λέγειν;; Plaut. Rud. 85 quid verbis opust? with Marx 1959 ad loc., and see in general E. Or. 640–1 (on the virtues of brevity) with Willink 1986 ad loc. For the expression μακρὰ λέγειν, see also Pl. Plt. 286c; Prt. 334c, e; Grg. 461e; Lg. 890e; D. 14.41, and cf. fr. 217.6 οἰμώζειν μακρά with n. For ὅλως in this sense, e. g. X. Mem. 2.8.5; Isoc. 6.89; 15.18, cf. LSJ s. v. ὅλος III.2.

83

LSJ s. v. βάκτρον cites A. Ag. 202, Ch. 362; E. Ph. 1719 and notes “all lyr(ic)”, which is true but slightly misleading. The word—first attested in Aeschylus—is confined to tragedy in the 5th and 4th centuries (subsequently at e. g. Theoc. 25.207), and six of the nine uses of it there are in lyric (add E. HF 108; Tr. 276; Ion 217). βάκτρον thus clearly belongs to a particularly high-style register, but Euripides uses it in ordinary iambic trimeter as well (Hec. 281; Ion 743; Ba. 363).

138

Ἄντεια (Anteia) “Anteia”

Introduction According to Ath. 3.127c (immediately after fr. 36 has been quoted), τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δρᾶμα φέρεται καὶ ὡς Ἀλέξιδος ἐν ὀλίγοις σφόδρα διαλλάττον (“This same play is also assigned to Alexis with a very small number of differences”). Whether this represents wholesale theft by one poet or the other, or simple scholarly confusion (one poet’s name accidentally substituted for that of another poet more or less contemporary with him), is unclear. See Introduction § 8, and note the similar issue with Ἀλείπτρια. Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.322–3; Breitenbach 1908. 125–7; Kann 1909. 70–1; Webster 1952. 15; Edmonds 1959. 179 n. b; Gelli 2007. 32–3 Title and Content At Il. 6.160–4, Anteia is the wife of King Iobates, who falls in love with Bellerophon but fails to seduce him and then does her best to have him put to death. This might accordingly have been a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. But we also know from Ath. 13.567c, 586e and Poll. 10.100 that Eunicus or Philyllius wrote a courtesan comedy called Ἄντεια; cf. Μαλθάκη, Μέλιττα, Μύστις, Νεοττίς, Φιλῶτις and Χρυσίς, and perhaps Ἀρχεστράτη, Εὔπλοια and Ὀμφάλη. For courtesans generally, fr. 2 n. Meineke argued that Athenaeus’ failure to mention Antiphanes’ play in his list of courtesan-comedies in the passages noted above showed that he knew that the latter’s Anteia was the Homeric one. This demands too much consistency from Athenaeus and his sources, particularly since it is obvious that the lists are not comprehensive. Perhaps the two ideas were combined in any case; cf. Ὀμφάλη Introduction. Date Theopompus Comicus is called a contemporary of Aristophanes by the Suda (test. 1), and the inscriptional evidence (test. 4–5) seems to put his initial victories at the City Dionysia and the Lenaia contests around the beginning of the 5th century. If Theopompus and Antiphanes both mentioned the perfume-maker Peron (fr. 37 n.), this would suggest that Anteia belongs earlier rather than later in Antiphanes’ career. This also fits with the approximate dates of Eunicus and Philyllius, if one assumes that all the plays entitled Anteia referred to a single historical person (which need not be the case).

Ἄντεια (fr. 36)

139

Fragments fr. 36 K.–A. (34 K.)

5

(Α.) ἐν ταῖς σπυρίσι δὲ τί ποτ’ ἔνεστι, φίλτατε; (Β.) ἐν ταῖς τρισὶν μὲν χόνδρος ἀγαθὸς Μεγαρικός. (Α.) οὐ Θετταλικὸν τὸν χρηστὸν εἶναί φασι δέ; (Β.) 〈 〉 τῆς Φοινίκης 〈 〉 σεμίδαλις ἐκ πολλῆς σφόδρ’ ἐξεττημένη

1 ἔνεστι Meineke : ἐστιν Ath.A 2 τρισὶν Dindorf : τρισὶ Ath.A 3 δέ Ath.A : δεῖν Kock 4 〈δὲ〉 intra τῆς et Φοινίκης add. Meineke 〈καλὴ /〉 Meineke 5 πολλῆς Ath.A : πολλοῦ Coraes ἐξεττημένη Wackernagel : ἐξηττημένη Ath.A

5

(A.) What in the world is in the baskets, my dear friend? (B.) Fine Megarian groats are in three of them. (A.) Don’t they say that the good sort is from Thessaly? (B.) 〈 〉 of Phoenicia 〈 〉 durum wheat sifted extremely fine

Ath. 3.126f–7a, 127b τεθαύμακα δὲ καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἐζήτησας, ὁ δὲ χόνδρος πόθεν; Μεγαρόθεν ἢ Θετταλικός; … λέξω δὲ πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ χόνδρου Ἀντιφάνους παρατιθέμενος ἐξ Ἀντείας τάδε· —— I am astonished that you did not ask, “Where is the grain-pudding from? From Megara or from Thessaly?” … But I will first discuss grain-pudding by citing the following lines from Antiphanes’ Anteia: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llkr k|rkl klkl llkl l|lk|r lrkl llrl l|lk|l llkl e. g. 〈xlkl〉 l|lkl 〈klkl〉 krkl llk|l llkl

Discussion Coraes ap. Schweighäuser 1801–1805 II.383; Meineke 1814. 17; Dindorf 1827 I.289–90; Meineke 1867. 59; Kock 1884 II.24; Wackernagel 1955 I.604

140

Antiphanes

Text 1 as transmitted by Athenaeus is metrically deficient, and Meineke’s ἔνεστι (picking up ἐν at the head of the line) for the paradosis ἐστιν84 mends the problem at minimal cost. Dindorf ’s τρισὶν for the paradosis τρισὶ is needed in 2 to make the line scan; a trivial, uncontroversial correction. δέ at the end of 3 appears extremely—although not impossibly—late in its clause, hence Kock’s δεῖν (“Don’t they say that the good sort ought to be from Thessaly?”). Meineke proposed adding δέ (printed by Kassel–Austin) between τῆς and Φοινίκης in 4, and καλή at the end of the line (“and fine durum wheat sifted out from much of Phoenicia”; 〈xlkl l〉|lk|l klkl). This is merely guesswork, and it is better to acknowledge that the text is lacunose and we do not know what has been lost or precisely where what survives of the line ought to be placed within it. πολλῆς in 5 can be taken only very awkwardly with τῆς Φοινίκης in 4 (“from much of Phoenicia”), as Dindorf (followed by all subsequent editors) attempted to signal by adding an otherwise superfluous comma after σεμίδαλις. Coraes suggested writing πολλοῦ (“out of much [other grain]”?) instead, the adjective having on that thesis been attracted into the case of the noun. But if one takes the sifting of flour to be in question (see Interpretation), the paradosis can stand (πολλῆς [σεμιδάλεως]). For ἐξεττημένη in place of the paradosis ἐξηττημένη at the end of 5, cf. Pherecr. fr. 243 ἐττημένα, and see Wackernagel 1955 I.603–4; II.856–7; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 5.4. Citation context Cited by Aemilianus, one of the Deipnosophists, along with Alex. fr. 196; Ar. fr. 208; Stratt. fr. 2; Alex. fr. 102.4, in that order, as examples of the use of the word χόνδρος (for which, see also fr. 273.2 n.). Fr. 82 (where see Citation context) is cited just after this, as the final portion of Aemilianus’ speech. Interpretation A conversation between two characters. (B.) is a man (note 1 φίλτατε) and might be e. g. a σιτοπώλης. ἐν ταῖς σπυρίσι in 1 is lent emphasis by its position at the beginning of the line, and this may accordingly be only one of a series of similar questions (“And as for the spyrides—what’s in them?”). Whether (B.)’s baskets are being used for transport or for storage (cf. 1 n.) is unclear. But— assuming they are visible onstage and not merely a subject of conversation—they must be closed, since (A.) is forced to ask what is inside them (1). Whether (B.) tells the truth in his response in 2, is impossible to say. But φίλτατε at the end of 1 seems too friendly to allow for the possibility that (A.) is searching for something and believes that (B.) is hiding it, which might in turn allow 3 to be read as a suspicious follow-up question rather than an innocent request for further information. 84

The nu-moveable is not metrically problematic, but neither is it necessary to make the line scan, and it should accordingly be dropped.

Ἄντεια (fr. 36)

141

1 A σπυρίς (etymology uncertain; substrate vocabulary?) is a basket of some sort; cf. Thphr. HP 2.6.11 (woven from palm-fronds); Nic. fr. 74.21 σπυρίδεσσι νεοπλέκτοισι, “newly woven spyrides”; Poll. 6.94; 7.173–4. σπυρίδες are used inter alia to transport live seafood (Ar. Pax 1005) and birds (Apollod. Car. fr. 29.3–4), cakes (Diph. fr. 60.7) or other food (Ar. fr. 36), as well as to store fresh (Alex. fr. 275.3) or dried fruit (Ctes. FGrH 688 F 45.382). For φίλτατε—which does not show that (A.) and (B.) are friends, but does require that (A.) be acting in at least a nominally friendly fashion—fr. 21.3 n. 2 χόνδρος is rough-milled grain of various sorts (LSJ s. v. I.2, which runs together references to the grain itself and to the pudding made from it; for the latter, see fr. 273.2 with n., including corrections to Montanari s. v., which mistakenly glosses “cake” as well as “porridge”), as also at e. g. Hermipp. fr. 63.6 with Comentale 2017 ad loc.; Ar. fr. 428; Alex. fr. 196 with Arnott 1996 ad loc. ἀγαθός sets up the question in 3. Μεγαρικός Athens appears to have been a substantial export market for Megarian commodities of all sorts (cf. fr. 191.2 (seafood) with n.; Ar. Ach. 519– 22, where reference is made to textiles, live animals and agricultural products), hence the significance of Pericles’ infamous Megarian Decree, which attempted to ban such products from Athens’ marketplace and harbors on the eve of the Peloponnesian War (Ar. Ach. 532–4 with Olson 2002 ad loc.). No mention is made elsewhere of the import of Megarian grain. But the Athenians were actively bringing in wheat and barley from every corner of the Mediterranean world in this period (see in general Moreno 2007), and there is no reason to believe that they would have neglected the resources of a close neighbor, if there was anything to be purchased there. 3 Thessaly was famous for the amount of food it produced and thus the supposed gluttony of its people; cf. fr. 249.2–3 n. For Thessalian grain exports, see X. HG 6.1.11; Garnsey–Gallant–Rathbone 1984. 30–6. For χρηστός (a vague but emphatically positive adjective) applied to objects, cf. frr. 126.4 with n.; 269. 4–5 For Phoenician grain, cf. Hermipp. fr. 63.22 † Φοινίκη δ αὖ † καρπὸν φοίνικος καὶ σεμίδαλιν (in a catalogue of goods imported into Athens); Ar. Av. 505–6 (a reference to the Phoenicians harvesting wheat and barley—unnecessary in context, and more comprehensible if these were among the products for which the place was famous); A. Supp. 554–5 with Friis Johansen–Whittle 1980 ad loc.; Headlam 1966 on Herod. 2.17. σεμίδαλις (a Semitic loan-word; cf. Latin simila, meaning “high-quality wheat flour”, whence English “semolina”) is hard (“durum”) wheat or the flour produced from it (as here; see below), which was used to produce cakes and is to be distinguished from the soft wheat-flour used for bread; see Jasny 1944. 57–62; Sallares 1991. 317–32, esp. 323; García Soler 2001. 79, and in general Zohary– Hopf–Weiss 2012. 23–33. σεμίδαλις is also mentioned at e. g. Ar. fr. 428; Stratt. fr. 2 with Orth 2009 ad loc.; Men. fr. 409.8; Archestr. fr. 5.14 with Olson–Sens 2000

142

Antiphanes

ad loc., and is a mocking nickname (for a glutton? or a courtesan?) at Alex. frr. 102.4; 173.3. ἐκ πολλῆς σφόδρ’ ἐξεττημένη The point of sifting was to remove stalks, stones, weed-seeds and the like from grain, or bits of husk or grains that had not been ground sufficiently fine from flour. Assuming that the text is sound, the latter process must be in question here: the flour has been sifted in a highly discriminating fashion that has reserved only the most finely milled portion. The adverb (for which, fr. 27.17–18 n.) modifies πολλῆς (“sifted out of a very large quantity”) rather than the participle that follows it (“carefully sifted from a large quantity”).

fr. 37 K.–A. (35 K.) πρὸς τῷ μυροπώλῃ γευόμενον κατελίμπανον αὐτὸν μύρων μέλλει τε συνθείς σοι φέρειν τὰ κινναμώμινα ταῦτα καὶ τὰ νάρδινα 1 μυροπώλῃ Ath.A : Πέρωνι (ex 2 περὶ) Schweighäuser 2 αὐτὸν περὶ Ath.A : περὶ del. Edmonds 3 κινναμώμινα Schweighäuser : κιννάμωμα Ath.A

I left him with the perfume-seller sampling perfumes, and after he assembles these cinnamon and nard varieties for you, he’s going to bring them Ath. 15.690a μνημονεύει τοῦ μυροπώλου τούτου τοῦ Πέρωνος καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν Ἀδμήτῳ (fr. 1) καὶ Ἡδυχάρει (fr. 17). Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Ἀντείᾳ· —— Theopompus in Admêtos (fr. 1) and Hêdycharês (fr. 17) also mentions this perfume-maker Peron. And Antiphanes in Anteia: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llrl l|lrl rlkl llkl llk|l llkl klkl r|lk|l klkl

Discussion Canter 1564. 161; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 VIII.218; Herwerden 1855. 43–4; Kock 1884 II.24–5 Text Athenaeus says expressly that Perôn (named in Anaxandr. fr. 41.1) was also mentioned twice by Theopompus Comicus, after which he quotes this fragment of Antiphanes. Schweighäuser, followed by Kassel–Austin, assumed that Perôn must have been mentioned in the fragment of Antiphanes as well, and he accordingly replaced Athenaeus’ μυροπώλῃ in 1 with Πέρωνι, with μυροπώλῃ

Ἄντεια (fr. 37)

143

to be understood as a superlinear gloss that drove the proper name below it out of the text. αὐτὸν περὶ in 2 is hypermetrical, and the genitive is dependent on γευόμενον in 1 and does not require a preposition. Edmonds expelled περὶ, which might perhaps be interpreted as a remnant of the supposedly lost Πέρωνι in 1 (cf. Canter), hence Kassel–Austin’s Πέρ〈ων〉ι. But Kassel–Austin’s version of the text requires an elaborate series of interrelated errors; μυροπώλῃ in 1 scans, which counts against it being intrusive; and περὶ in 2 can alternatively—and arguably much more easily—be understood as a clumsy attempt to make sense of μύρων by an editor or scribe who failed to realize that the word is to be taken with the participle in 1. I therefore print the first verse as Athenaeus gives it to us, on the theory that his source must have made it explicit that “the perfume-seller” was to a reference to Perôn, but that he regarded the notice as superfluous and edited it out. Kock deals with the problem by offering the paradosis with a lacuna marked in the middle of 2; Meineke divides 2 into two separate lines with a lacuna between περὶ μύρον and μέλλει. In 3, the paradosis κιννάμωμα is a noun, and Schweighäuser restored the adjectival form κινναμώμινα. The word is a rarity in any case, but the error was probably facilitated by the confusing sequence of letters ΝΑΜΩΜΙΝΑ, which in Kassel–Austin’s apparatus has produced the independent error κινναμώνινα. Citation context Most easily understood as the closing portion of a comment on the reference to Perôn in Anaxandr. fr. 41 (cited just before this); seemingly drawn from a Hellenistic or Roman-era catalogue of kômôidoumenoi but incorporated into the discussion of perfumes of all sorts in Ath. 15.686c–92d that also includes frr. 105 (where see Citation context); 222. Interpretation From a conversation between two characters (gender uncertain, although the fact that the speaker has been in the Agora with other men (cf. fr. 251.1–2 n.) leaves little doubt that he, at least, is a man) about a third party (certainly male, note 2 αὐτόν).85 ταῦτα in 3 makes it clear that the cinnamon and nard perfumes have already been established as a topic of conversation: the addressee knows that this is what the anonymous man being discussed has gone off to buy (because he himself has sent him?), and the speaker is reassuring him that the process is well underway and the goods will soon be delivered. From a symposium-shopping scene, with the man under discussion a slave? These are in any case both exceptionally expensive perfumes, made with spices imported from the far East (see 3 n., and contrast fr. 105, cited by Athenaeus shortly before this); similarly paired at Plb. 30.26.2 (in a description of a great feast in Antioch); Plu. Mor. 990b; and note Plaut. Curc. 100–2. The perfume-maker Perôn (also known from Anaxandr. fr. 41 with Millis ad loc., who notes that there is no reason to think that that he was not Athenian, 85

Perfume was used by both sexes, and there are no grounds for assuming that the addressee is a woman.

144

Antiphanes

except that the name itself is borne by no other historical resident of the city of whom we know) is PAA 772900. 1 καταλιμπάνω (first attested at Sapph. fr. 94.2) is a rare variant of καταλείπω found elsewhere in the classical period at Th. 8.17.1; Ctes. FGrH 688 F 15.58 (from Photius); Aen. Tact. 8.3, and a number of times in Hippocrates (e. g. Mul. 145.10 = 8.320.9 Littré); nowhere else in poetry before Macho 77. For the middle of γεύω (properly “taste”) in the sense “sample”, cf. Ar. fr. 210.2 γεύσασθαι μύρου; LSJ s. v. II.3. 2 The active of συντίθημι does not appear to be used of striking deals (sc. between buyer and seller), and συνθείς must accordingly refer instead to the anonymous individual’s assembling of the set of perfumes he was sent off to fetch. σοι might accordingly just as easily be taken with the participle as with the infinitive that follows it, and is in any case a dative of advantage. 3 κινναμώμινα Despite LSJ s. v. (seemingly followed by Montanari s. v.), this is unlikely to be a reference to Ceylon cinnamon (“true cinnamon”, which comes from Sri Lanka), and the spice in question may instead be cassia (“aromatic cinnamon”, which grows throughout India and the far East and is what most people today think of as “cinnamon”). Cf. fr. 55.14 n., and see in general Miller 1969. 45–7, 74–7, 153–72; Dalby 2001, esp. 40–2. κιννάμωμον (from which the adjective is formed) is a Semitic loan-word; see Masson 1967. 48–50. νάρδινα is < νάρδος (“spikenard”, Nardostachys jatamansi), a plant native to mountainous regions of China, Nepal and India, from the root of which a sweet-smelling oil is pressed. The word is also sometimes used for citronella oil, which is produced from various sorts of lemon grass. Cf. Men. fr. 210 “(A.) The perfume’s wonderful, slave. (B.) Wonderful? Why wouldn’t it be? It’s made with nard”; Thphr. HP 9.7.2–4 (traced to India); Od. 28 (pressed from roots), 42 (expensive); Dsc. 1.7.1; Plin. Nat. 12.43–6; Hor. c. 2.11.16 Assyriaque nardo; 4.12.17–20; ep. 13.8–10; NT Mark 14:3 (expensive nard perfume with which Mariam anoints Jesus’ feet, eliciting a protest from Judas, who has a good point about the wastefulness of this choice but is nonetheless made to play the villain); Schoff 1923. 221–8; Steier 1935; Miller 1969. 88–92; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 309 (said to come from Babylon, a typical confusion) with further primary references and bibliography. νάρδος is another Semitic loan-word; see Masson 1967. 48. The cognate adjective is first attested here.

fr. 38 K.–A. (36 K.) τοὺς δ’ ἐνδύτοις στολαῖσι τετραγῳδημένους, σκελέαις, τιάραις 1 τοὺς δ’ Poll.FS : ταῖς δ’ Poll.AC ἐνδύτοις Porson : ἐν αὐτοῖς Poll.AC : ἐν αὐταῖς Poll.FS SΑ C στολαῖσι Poll.   : στόλεσι Poll.   : στολαῖς σοι Poll.F τετραγῳδημένους Poll.FS  :

Ἄντεια (fr. 38)

145

2 σκελέαις, τιάραις Meineke : σκελέαις καὶ τιάραις Poll.A : τετραγῳδημέναις Poll.AC C σκελέαι σπάραις Poll.  : καὶ ταῖς ἰτι άραῖς Poll.F : καὶ ταῖς ἔπι άραῖς Poll.S : fort. σκελέαισι τιάραις

and those (masc.) pompously decked out in donned clothing, in skeleai, in tiaras Poll. 7.59 τὰς δ’ ἀναξυρίδας καὶ σκελέας καλοῦσιν· τὸ μὲν ὄνομα καὶ παρὰ Κριτίᾳ ἔστιν ἐν ταῖς Πολιτείαις (88 B 38 D.–K.), Ἀντιφάνης δ’ αὐτὸ ἐν Ἀντείᾳ παρεξηγεῖται· ——. ἐν δὲ τοῖς Σκύθαις (fr. 199) Ἀντιφάνης ἔφη· —— They also refer to trousers as skeleai; the word is found in Critias, in his Politeiai (88 B 38 D.–K.), whereas Antiphanes in Anteia misinterprets it: ——. But in his Skythai (fr. 199) Antiphanes said: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl klk|r llkl rlrl 〈xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion

Porson 1812. 283; Meineke 1839–1857 III.19

Text In 1, Poll.FS offer τοὺς δ’ … τετραγῳδημένους, while Poll.AC have ταῖς δ’ τετραγῳδημέναις. Either reading would do, and Meineke and Kock retain the dative throughout. But ταῖς δ’ … τετραγῳδημέναις is easily explained as the product of assimilation to the case and gender of στολαῖσι, whereas τοὺς δ’ … τετραγῳδημένους (printed by Kassel–Austin) is not an easy, obvious error. Both readings are in any case most likely the products of a heavily abbreviated exemplar (τ() τετραγῳδημν() vel sim.). Further on in 1, the paradosis readings ἐν αὐτοῖς (Poll.AC) and ἐν αὐταῖς (Poll.FS) are in origin a majuscule error, ΕΝΑΥ- having been written or read for Porson’s ΕΝΔΥ-. The common exemplar of Poll.ACFS probably had ἐν αὐτ() vel sim., which was then expanded ad libitum by two separate scribes. Yet further on in 1, στολαῖσι (Poll.SΑ) has been corrupted in different ways in Poll.C (στόλεσι) and Poll.F (στολαῖς σοι). Both of these are aural errors dating to a period when αι and ε, on the one hand, and ι and οι, on the other, had come to be pronounced alike. In 2, Meineke’s σκελέαις τιάραις is a neat correction of Poll.A’s unmetrical σκελέαις καὶ τιάραις; cf. σκελέαι σπάραις in Poll.C, where the words have been misdivided and ΤΙ misread as Π. καὶ ταῖς was apparently offered as a variant reading for σκελέαις in the common exemplar of all four manuscripts: the common exemplar of Poll.SF accepted the words into the text, whereas the common exemplar of Poll.AC retained at least καὶ above the line (written between σκελέαις and τιάραις by the Poll.A-scribe, against the meter, but rejected or ignored by the Poll.C-scribe).

146

Antiphanes

Citation context From the end of a brief discussion of terms for Persian items of clothing that begins at Poll. 7.58. Parallel material is preserved at Poll. 10.168 ἐκ δὲ σκευῶν καὶ ἀναξυρίδες καὶ σκελέαι καὶ ποδίδες καὶ Περσικαί, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν ταῖς Νεφέλαις (151) τὰς ἀναξυρίδας ἔοικε καλεῖν, Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Σκύθαις ἢ Ταύροις (fr. 199)· —— (“The category of skeuê also includes trousers and skeleai and podides and Persikai, as Aristophanes in his Clouds (151) appears to refer to trousers,86 and Antiphanes in Skythai or Tauroi (fr. 199): ——”); probably from the same source, given that fr. 199 is cited at both places. Note also Hsch. σ 896 σκέλεαι· τὰ τῶν σκελῶν σκεπάσματα. Πάρθοι σαράβαρα (“skeleai: leg-coverings. Parthians (call them) sarabara”; seemingly a reference to either this fragment or fr. 199, where see n.). Interpretation The individuals in question are probably Persians (cf. 2 n.), who are mocked for dressing in what is—from a Greek perspective—ridiculous clothing of the sort one might otherwise expect to see only on the tragic stage. Cf. the opening scene of Aristophanes’ Acharnians (Athenian ambassadors to Persia return to the city wearing outlandish Persian outfits) and in general Olson 2021, and for Antiphanes’ characters reacting to tragedy, frr. 1.6; 189. 1 ἐνδύτοις στολαῖσι A high-style pleonasm that serves to set up the word that follows. Kassel–Austin compare A. Eu. 1028 φοινικοβάπτοις ἐνδυτοῖς ἐσθήμασι (thus the codd.; Headlam conjectured ἐνδυτούς) and S. Tr. 674 τὸν ἐνδυτῆρα πέπλον; note also E. Tr. 257–8 ἐνδυτῶν στεφέων (lyric), the only other example of the adjective before the Roman period. τετραγῳδημένους is “made into a tragedy”, i. e. “outfitted as if they were characters on the tragic stage” (as at Pl. Cra. 414c, 418d). The verb is first attested at Ar. Nu. 1091; Th. 85 (both in the active). 2 σκελέαι (cognate with σκέλος, “leg”; thus literally “leggings” vel sim.) is attested only in this fragment, Critias (d. 403 BCE) and the lexicographic sources noted in Citation context, but the term apparently served as an indigenous alternative to the more common Persian loan-word ἀναξυρίδες.87 The Greeks did not wear trousers, which are instead routinely presented as typical of Persians (Hdt. 1.71.2; 3.87; 5.49.3; 7.61.1; X. An. 1.5.8; Cyr. 8.3.13) or Skythians (Hp. Aer. 22.47 = 2.83.1 Littré; Hdt. 7.64.2) and treated with derision (Ar. V. 1087 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.). A τιάρα (an Oriental loan-word; cf. Hdt. 7.61.1) was “a high cap, apparently of felt, with a rounded peak which nods forward; to its lower edge a pair of lappets

86 87

References elsewhere in comedy show that Persikai are in fact some sort of slipper worn by women; see Dover 1968 ad loc. Despite LSJ s. v. fin, Poll. 7.58 does not claim that ἀναξυρίς is a Persian name for a head-covering, but restricts this definition to the tiara (καὶ Περσῶν μὲν ἴδια κάνδυς καὶ ἀναξυρίς, καὶ τιάρα, ἣν καὶ κυρβασίαν καὶ κίδαριν καὶ πῖλον καλοῦσιν).

Ἄντεια (fr. 38)

147

and a broad necklace were attached” (Young 1964. 29). The Greeks associated it closely with Persians and especially with the Persian king (A. Pers. 661–2; Hdt. 1.132.1; 7.61.1; 8.120; X. An. 2.5.23; Cyr. 3.1.13; 8.3.13; Pl. R. 553c; cf. Plaut. Pers. 460–3, and see in general fr. 170 n.); it is also mentioned at S. fr. 407a, in what seems to be a list of exotic clothing and accessories.

148

Ἀντερῶσα (Anterôsa)

“The Female Rival in Love”

Introduction Title ἀντέρως, ἀντεράω and cognates can refer to reciprocated love (e. g. A. Ag. 544; X. Smp. 8.3; Pl. Phdr. 255d). But they can also describe rivalry in love, i. e. when one love or lover opposes another (Ar. Eq. 733; [E.] Rh. 184; X. Cyn. 1.7; Pl. R. 521b; Arist. Rh. 1388a14), which seems like a more likely basis for a 4th-century comedy. For the title, cf. Ἀκοντιζομένη, Ἁρπαζομένη and Παρεκδιδομένη, on the one hand, and Ἀνασῳζόμενος and Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, on the other. Nicostratus Comicus also wrote an Ἀντερῶσα, while Anaxandrides wrote an Ἀντέρως. Note also Alexis’ Φιλοῦσα and the female character Anterastilis in Plautus’ Poenulus. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 39 K.–A. (37 K.) Antiatt. λ 4 λαγγάζει· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐνδίδωσιν. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀντερώσῃ laggazei: in place of “he slackens”. Antiphanes in Anterôsa

Meter The word as given by the Antiatticist scans lll. Text Whether λαγγάζει or λογγάζει ought to be written is uncertain (cf. Citation context). But this appears to be colloquial vocabulary, and both spellings/pronunciations may well have been in use (but see Interpretation). Citation context Related material is preserved at – Phryn. PS p. 87.12–14 λογγάζειν· τὸ διαδιδράσκειν τὸ ἔργον, προφασιζόμενόν τινα πρόφασιν. καὶ τοῦτο Ἀριστοφάνης (fr. 848) τίθησιν ἐπὶ ἵππων προσποιουμένων χωλεύειν (“loggazein: to shirk one’s work by offering an excuse. Aristophanes (fr. 848) also applies this word to horses that pretend to be lame”) – Poll. 9.136 καὶ στραγγεύεσθαι δὲ ἐν ταῖς Ἀριστοφάνους Νεφέλαις (132)· φαῦλον γὰρ τὸ λογγάζειν ἐν τοῖς Κήρυξι τοῖς Αἰσχύλου (fr. 112) (“straggeuesthai as well is used in Aristophanes’ Clouds (132); for loggazein in Aeschylus’ Kêrukes (fr. 112) is debased vocabulary”) – Hsch. λ 42 λαγγάζει· ὀκνεῖ. οἱ δὲ λαγγεῖ (“laggazei: he hesitates. But others (have the word in the form) laggei”)

Ἀντερῶσα (fr. 39)

149

– Hsch. λ 43 λαγγανώμενος· περιϊστάμενος, στραγγευόμενος (“lagganômenos: standing around, loitering”) – Hsch. λ 44 λαγγάσαι· περιφυγεῖν (“laggasai: to flee from something”) – Hsch. λ 45 λαγγεύει· φεύγει (“laggeuei: he flees”) – Hsch. λ 47 λαγγάζει· ἀποδιδράσκει (“laggazei: he runs away”) – Hsch. λ 1194 λογγάζει· ὀκνεῖ, διατρίβει (“loggazei: he hesitates, delays”). Note also λαγγάζει used to gloss ὀκλάζει (“he crouches”) at Phot. ο 179 = Suda ο 110 = Synag. ο 91 (from the common source conventionally referred to as Σ΄), and to gloss ὀκνῶν (“hesitating”) at Lex.Rhet. AB p. 315.26–7. Interpretation λαγγάζω / λογγάζω (etymology uncertain) is attested elsewhere before the lexicographers only in the fragments of Aeschylus (satyr play) and Aristophanes mentioned by Phrynichus and Pollux (see Citation context), and is clearly colloquial vocabulary. Phrynichus and Pollux give the word in the form λογγάζω, and the Antiatticist may well have been citing Antiphanes in an attempt to show that λαγγάζω was also acceptable.

150

Ἀποκαρτερῶν (Apokarterôn)

“The Man who is Starving Himself to Death”

Introduction Title and Content Philemon also wrote an Ἀποκαρτερῶν, while Apollodorus of Carystus wrote an Ἀποκαρτεροῦντες and Apollodorus of Gela a Φιλαδέλφοι ἢ Ἀποκαρτερῶν; note also Diphilus’ Σφαττόμενος and Apollodorus of Carystus’ Σφαττομένη (but both more likely passive than middle?).88 Cic. Tusc. I.84 reports Hegesiae liber est, quod a vita quidam per inediam discedens revocatur ab amicis, quibis respondens vitae humanae enumerat incommoda (“There is a book by Hegesias, where a person attempting to withdraw from life is called back by his friends, to whom he responds by listing the difficulties of human existence”);89 this is not obviously the report of the plot of a comedy, but it does suggest how an Ἀποκαρτερῶν might be structured.90 For suicide generally, see Hirzel 1908; van Hooff 1990; Garrison 1994; Garrison 1995; Dutsch 2012, esp. 188–9. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 40 K.–A. (38 K.) Poll. 10.138 καὶ στρωματεῖς δὲ Ἀπολλόδωρός τε ὁ Γελῷος ἐν Ψευδαίαντι (fr. 5) ἔφη· ——, καὶ ὁ Καρύστιος Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν Ἀντευεργετοῦντι (fr. 2)· ——. κέχρηται δὲ τῷ ὀνόματι καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἀποκαρτεροῦντι But Apollodorus of Gela used the word strômateis in Pseudaias (fr. 5): ——, as did Apollodorus of Carystus in Anteuergetôn (fr. 2): ——. Antiphanes also uses the word in Apokarterôn

88

89

90

Given the rarity of the title and the obvious possibility for confusion with the poets’ names, it is tempting to think that a single play by one Apollodorus or the other is in question. Note that Apollod. Gel. fr. 3 is not given specifically to him by Stobaeus, but simply to “Apollodorus” (although with the title in the singular, which must be why Kassel–Austin award the fragment unambiguously to Apollodorus Gelous). In the immediately preceding section, Cicero also reports that Hegesias was so convincing, that he had to be ordered to stop lecturing on the topic by King Ptolemy II of Egypt, on the ground that members of his audience had begun committing suicide. Cf. Cratin. Πυτίνη test. ii.

Ἀποκαρτερῶν (fr. 40)

151

Meter The word as given by Pollux (not necessarily what Antiphanes wrote) scans lkl. Citation context From a collection of words having to do with cloth or clothing, and in this section with clothing-storage in particular (ἵνα δὲ ἀποτίθενται αἱ ἐσθῆτες), from the long catalogue of σκεύη of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of Pollux. Fr. 128 is preserved shortly before this. The terms στρωματεύς and στρωματόδεσμος/στρωματόδεσμον appear to have been of considerable interest to the Attic lexicographers, additional fragments of whose discussions of the words are preserved at – Poll. 7.79 ἃ δὲ οἱ παλαιοὶ στρωματόδεσμα, ταῦθ’ οἱ νεώτεροι στρωματεῖς ἔλεγον, ἐν οἷς, ὡς μὲν τοὔνομα δηλοῖ, τὰ στρώματα ἀπετίθεντο, δῆλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἐσθῆτας (“More recent authors refer to the objects the ancients called strômatodesma as strômateis; as the name makes clear, they stored their bed-clothes in these, and obviously other clothing as well”; cf. Poll. 10.137, 146) – Phryn. ecl. 380 στρωματεὺς ἀδόκιμον· στρωματόδεσμος ἀρχαῖον καὶ δόκιμον. λέγεται οὖν καὶ ἀρσενικῶς καὶ οὐδετέρως (“strômateus is not approved vocabulary; strômatodesmos is ancient and approved. It is used as both masculine and neuter”) – Moer. σ 44 στρωματόδεσμος Ἀττικοί· στρωματεύς Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers (use) strômatodesmos; Greeks generally (use) strômateus”) – Antiatt. σ 7 στρωματόδεσμον· καὶ ἀρρενικῶς καὶ οὐδετέρως. Ἀμειψίας (fr. 39) (“strômatodesmon: both masculine and neuter. Amipsias (fr. 39)”) – Ael. Dion. σ 39 στρωματόδεσμα· ἃ καλοῦμεν ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ στρωματεῖς (“strômatodesma: what we conventionally refer to as strômateis”; drawn by Erbse from Lex.Rhet. AB p. 372.14–15, etc.) – Thom. Mag. p. 332.9–11 στρωματεύς· μὴ εἴπῃς ἐπὶ στρωμάτων, ἀλλὰ στρωματόδεσμος καὶ στρωματόδεσμον οὐδετέρως. Αἰσχίνης· ἄνθρωποι δύο στρωματόδεσμα φέροντες (“strômateus: Do not use the word in reference to bedding, but strômatodesmos and strômatodesmon in the neuter. Aeschines (2.99): ‘two persons carrying strômatodesma’”). Note also Ael. Dion. δ 3 δάπιδες· στρώματα ἄττα. Φερεκράτης (fr. 199)· ὁ χορὸς δ’ αὐτοῖς εἶχεν δάπιδας ῥυπαρὰς καὶ στρωματόδεσμα (“dapides: a type of strômata. Pherecrates (fr. 199): ‘the chorus had dirty rugs for them and strômatodesma’”; quoted by Eustathius). Interpretation Poll. 7.79 (quoted in Citation context) appears to believe that στρωματεύς (cognate with στόρνυμι, “spread a bed”) and στρωματόδεσμον (literally “bedding-binder” vel sim.) both refer to a container used for clothing, but that στρωματόδεσμον was the older term. The other lexicographers are divided as to which word was acceptable in “good Attic”, but have nothing to say about what either of them means. The other evidence preserved for us is more complicated than Pollux’ analysis implies, and suggests that στρωματεύς and στρωματόδεσμον

152

Antiphanes

could both be used to mean either “bedding/bedroll” or “bedroll-container”. How Antiphanes in particular used the former word is accordingly unclear. As for στρωματεύς: – At Apollod. Gel. fr. 5 (cited in the same section of Pollux) μάχαιρα, λόγχη, στρωματεύς (“dagger, spear, strômateus”), the στρωματεύς appears to be part of a soldier’s equipment, but might be either bedding or something to carry bedding in. – At Alex. fr. 120.3, a man is drinking with his στρωματεύς and γύλιος (soldier’s backpack; cf. Ar. Ach. 1097 with Olson 2002 ad loc.) beside him. The simplest explanation of the passage is that the στρωματεύς is here bedding, which will either be tied to or placed inside the pack when a march is underway. – Apollod. Car. fr. 2 (cited in the same section of Pollux) refers to opening strômateis (τοὺς στρωματεῖς λύοντα), which implies that they are containers of some kind. – Thphr. HP 4.2.7 mentions wooden eyelet holes for τοὺς στρωματεῖς τοὺς διαποικίλους (“the very elaborate strômateis”); the reference is probably to hardware that supports lacing used to keep containers closed.91 As for στρωματόδεσμον: – The precise sense of the word in Pherecr. fr. 199 (quoted in Citation context) is unclear, but the parallel at Ar. fr. 264.1 ὁ χορὸς δ’ ὠρχεῖτ’ ἂν ἐναψάμενος δάπιδας καὶ στρωματόδεσμα (“the chorus used to dance dressed in blankets and strômatodesma”) suggests that it means “bedding” in both passages. – At X. An. 5.4.13 χιτωνίσκους …, πάχος ὡς λινοῦ στρωματοδέσμου (“little chitons … of the thickness of a linen strômatodesmos”), the reference is to something made of fabric, i. e. bedclothes. – At Pl. Tht. 175e ὅταν εἰς δουλικὰ ἐμπέσῃ διακονήματα, οἷον στρωματόδεσμον μὴ ἐπισταμένου συσκευάσασθαι (“whenever he is reduced to performing services appropriate to a slave, for example not knowing how to prepare a strômatodesmon”), the reference would seem to be packing up a bedroll. – Aeschin. 2.99 (referenced and quoted in part by Thomas Magister) describes a pair of slaves who carry a pair of στρωματόδεσμα, “in one of which was a talent of silver”. These are thus most naturally taken to be storage- or transport-baskets or the like. – At Arist. Mu. 398a8–9 εἰ χρεὼν στρωματόδεσμον εἴη δῆσαι (“if it were necessary to tie up a strômatodesmon”), the reference seems to be to a bedroll.

91

Caryst. fr. 7, FHG iv.358 also treats στρωματεῖς as something to sleep on, but is not Attic dialect and thus of limited relevance here.

153

Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (Argyriou aphanismos) “The Disappearance of Money”

Introduction Discussion

Bergk 1838. 288; Kock 1884 ΙΙ.26; Edmonds 1959. 179 n. g

Title and Content Bergk suggested that fr. dub. 41 imagined a sort of Golden Age, and Kock tied that idea together with the title to suggest that this happy state was brought about by the abolition of money. Perhaps the plot was more pedestrian than this, and someone’s savings disappeared—only to be discovered later in the play in an unexpected place, making a happy resolution of the action possible; cf. Plautus’ Aulularia (in which the gold is actually stolen), on the one hand, and the title Θησαυρός (Anaxandrides, Archedicus, Dioxippus Comicus, Philemon, Menander and Diphilus), on the other. Athenaeus attributes the only surviving fragment of this play to “Epigenes or Antiphanes”, and it ought accordingly to have been assigned to both poets as a dubium. Perhaps another example of a reworking of one of Antiphanes’ comedies by a later poet; see Introduction § 8. For titles referring to events rather than persons or objects, cf. Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Γάμος vel Γάμοι, and perhaps Εὔπλοια and Λαμπάς. Strattis and Philippides also wrote comedies entitled Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (in the former case, seemingly an alternative title for a play also called Ἀγαθοί, “Good Men”). Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. dub. 41 K.–A. (39 K.) καὶ τότε † περιπατήσεις † κἀπονίψει κατὰ τρόπον τὰς χεῖρας εὐώδη λαβὼν τὴν γῆν 1–2 καὶ  / τότε V. Schmidt 2 περιπατήσεις Ath.A  : 〈καὶ〉 περιπατήσεις vel πτέριν πατήσεις Jacobs : πάτερ, σπαθήσεις Herwerden : in περι nomen plantae bene olentis, in πατήσεις autem latere susp. Kock 3 τὴν γῆν Ath.A : “omnino tollendum est τὴν” Kock : γῆν 〈σμηκτρίδα〉 Blaydes : τὴν χέρνιβα vel τὰ νίμματα Emperius : πηγὴν 〈ἐκεῖ〉 Jacobs

and then † you’ll walk around † and you’ll get the nice-smelling soap and wash your hands as you should

154

Antiphanes

Ath. 9.409d–e περὶ δὲ τοῦ εὐώδεσι χρίεσθαι τὰς χεῖρας Ἐπιγένης ἢ Ἀντιφάνης φησὶν ἐν Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμῷ οὕτως· —— Regarding anointing one’s hands with fragrant substances, Epigenes or Antiphanes says the following in Argyriou aphanismos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xlkl x〉lkl † kkkll † |lkl lrkl llkl llkl ll〈kl〉

Discussion Jacobs 1805. 50; Jacobs 1809. 219; Bergk 1838. 288; Emperius 1847. 349; Herwerden 1878. 62; Kock 1884 II.26; Blaydes 1896. 102; V. Schmidt ap. Kassel–Austin Text The paradosis περιπατήσεις in 2 is metrically deficient and also sits oddly with what follows. None of the various suggestions for mending the text is entirely convincing. Jacobs’ 〈καὶ〉 περιπατήσεις resolves the first problem but not the second. His πτέριν πατήσεις (“you’ll trample a fern”, i. e. “you’ll walk on ferns”; cf. Theoc. 5.55 ἁπαλὰν πτέριν ὧδε πατησεῖς, part of an invitation to a rustic drinking party) is better, but the rest of 2–3 seems to promise a sophisticated celebration rather than a simple event in the countryside. Herwerden’s πάτερ, σπαθήσεις (“father, you’ll weave it tight”) is offered without explanation, but the verb is apparently intended to mean “you’ll waste your property”, as at Ar. Nu. 55 with Dover 1968 ad loc.; Diph. fr. 42.27. Kock took περι to conceal the name of a fragrant plant and πατήσεις to an error for μασήσει (“you’ll chew”), the idea being that the addressee will improve not just the smell of his hands but that of his breath as well. In 3, τὴν γῆν is unexpectedly specific, and Kock argued that the definite article ought to be expelled from the text; Blaydes suggested that the end of the line might originally have read γῆν 〈σμηκτρίδα〉 (“detergent earth”; cf. Eup. fr. 412; Nicoch. fr. 7). But the context is lost, and there is no obvious reason why the substance in question should not have been referred to earlier, requiring “the soap” rather than “soap” (and see Interpretation). Emperius (τὴν χέρνιβα vel τὰ νίμματα, both “washing water”) and Jacobs (πηγὴν 〈ἐκεῖ〉, “a spring there”) resolve the issue by entirely rewriting the end of the line; Jacob’s πηγήν has the advantage of being close to the paradosis, although εὐώδης is peculiar in reference to water, and πηγή (for which, see fr. 55.12) would be an extremely unusual way of referring to poured water. The lack of a normal caesura suggests that the problem goes deeper than this, that the lacuna has been placed at the wrong point in the line, or the like; perhaps τὰς χεῖρας εὐώδη 〈k|l〉 τὴν γῆν λαβών. Citation context From an extended and occasionally wandering discussion of post-dinner hand-washing, hand-towels and the like (Ath. 9.408b–11a) that serves at least in part as a reply to arguments put forward in Aristophanes of

Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (fr. dub. 41)

155

Byzantium’s Response to Callimachus’ Tablets (Ar. Byz. fr. 368) and brings Book 9 of the Deipnosophists to a close. The claim that the fragment refers to “anointing one’s hands with fragrant substances”, sc. after one has one has washed them, appears to be a misunderstanding of the text. Fr. 134 is quoted shortly before this as evidence for the use of soap (σμῆμα). Interpretation Addressed to a man (note 3 λαβών) who is being promised a fine life—seemingly involving luxurious dining, if the quality of the washing-up materials is any indication—at some point in the future. 1 καὶ τότε I. e. in contrast to another time—perhaps the present—when the addressee is unable to engage in such appropriately refined behavior? 2 For † περιπατέω †, fr. 83.1 n. 2–3 The use of ἀπονίψει appears to support Aristophanes of Byzantium’s insistence (Ar.Byz. fr. 368, referred to several times in this section of Athenaeus) that ἀπονίπτομαι was used specifically of post-dinner washing of one’s hands, whereas κατὰ χειρός referred to the pouring of washing water over the guests’ hands at the beginning of a meal; cf. frr. 134.2 with n.; 280 (seemingly contradicting Aristophanes’ dictum regarding κατὰ χειρός) with n.; Ar. V. 1217; Dromo fr. 2.3; Alex. fr. 252.2. The specification τὰς χεῖρας, on the other hand, is unusual. 2 κατὰ τρόπον in the sense “in the appropriate manner” (LSJ s. v. τρόπος II.4.b) is a 4th-century idiom (e. g. Dionys. Com. fr. 2.6; Alex. frr. 130.10; 282.2; Philem. fr. 92.2; Men. Dysc. 134; Apollod. Com. fr. 18.2; Isoc. 13.16; Pl. Plt. 310c; R. 581b; Hp. Mul. 2.38 = 8.18.2 Littré; Hyp. 6.8; Arist. PA 639a5). The “appropriate manner” in question is defined in 3: with fragrant soap. 3 εὐώδη … τὴν γῆν A reference to calcium montmorillonite, “detergent clay” (γῆ σμηκτρίς or γῆ Κιμωλία), i. e. ~ “soap”, which was dug for on the island of Kimolos and used to wash both persons (cf. Ar. Ra. 710–13) and clothes (Thphr. Char. 10.14 with Diggle 2004. 313). Cf. fr. 146.3–5 (seemingly a description of a woman bathing; text and sense problematic); Plaut. Poen. 969–70; Plin. Nat. 35.196–8; Robertson 1996. 26–36, esp. 35–6; Orth 2014a on Cephisod. fr. 6; Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 412. For scented soaps, cf. Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.41 σμήμασιν ἰρινομίκτοις (literally “soaps mixed with iris”). For γῆ/γαίη in the sense “earth, clay”, cf. frr. 55.3; 180.3. For the adjective (absent from 5th-century Attic prose, although Herodotus and Hippocrates both use it, the latter repeatedly), see Olson 2017 on Eup. fr. 13.3.

156

Ἀρκάς (Arkas)

“The Man from Arkadia” or “Arkas”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.323; Edmonds 1959. 179 n. h

Title Athenaeus calls the play Ἀρκαδία (“Arcadia”) at 10.444b, but Ἀρκάς at 13.586a. As Meineke observes, none of the other comedies is called after a region or city, nor are similar names used for plays by other comic poets. Ethnics and local adjectives, on the other hand, serve routinely as titles (cf. Αἰγύπτιοι, Βοιώτιος vel Βοιωτία, Βυζάντιος, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ἐφεσία, Ζακύνθιος, Κᾶρες, Καρίνη, Κορινθία, Λευκάδιος vel Λευκαδία, Λήμνιαι (probably a mythical travesty; see Introduction), Λυδός, Ποντικός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός; see Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles in other 4th-century comic poets), as do the names of mythological figures (Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἄντεια, Ἀσκληπιός, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6). Ἀρκάς must accordingly be right, but the precise sense of the title remains unclear. For Arkas the son of Zeus and Kallistô, who almost killed his mother after she was transformed into a bear as a result of Hera’s anger, and who was then transformed along with her into a star, see Hes. fr. 163 M.–W. = fr. 115 Most; fr. 166 M.–W. = fr. 116 Most; [Apollod.] Bib. 3.9.1; Gantz 1993. 726–9. The Arkadians (for whom, see Nielsen 2002) were his descendants. Content

Unknown.

Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 42 K.–A. (40 K.)

5

οὔτε γὰρ νήφοντα δεῖ οὐδαμοῦ, πάτερ, παροινεῖν, οὔθ’ ὅταν πίνειν δέῃ νοῦν ἔχειν. ὅστις δὲ μεῖζον ἢ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ lkl μικρῷ πεποιθὼς ἀθλίῳ νομίσματι, εἰς ἄφοδον ἐλθὼν ὅμοιον πᾶσιν αὑτὸν ὄψεται, ἂν σκοπῇ τὰ τῶν ἰατρῶν τοῦ βίου τεκμήρια, τὰς φλέβας ὅποι φέρονται, τὰς ἄνω καὶ τὰς κάτω τεταμένας, δι’ ὧν ὁ θνητὸς πᾶς κυβερνᾶται βίος

Ἀρκάς (fr. 42)

157

4 del. L. Dindorf 〈δηλαδὴ〉 Grotius : 〈χρυσίῳ〉 2 οὐδαμοῦ Ath.A : οὐδαμῶς Ath.CE Herwerden : 〈καὶ τρυφᾷ〉 Richards post 5 lac. indic. Kaibel 6 ἂν Schweighäuser : ἐὰν Ath.ACE 7 τὰς φλέβας 〈θ’〉 Dindorf ὅποι Ath.ACE : ὅπῃ Casaubon καὶ τὰς Ath.ACE : τε καὶ Meineke

5

Because a man should nowhere act like a drunken boor when he’s sober, father, nor behave sensibly when he ought to be drinking. Anyone who’s prouder than a human being should be lkl because he relies on bit of nasty money, when he goes to the toilet, he’ll see that he’s like everyone else, if he examines the biological evidence the doctors discuss, where his veins head, some of them extending up and others down, which govern our entire mortal existence

Ath. 10.444b–c τὸ … παροινεῖν ἐκ τοῦ μεθύειν γίνεται· διὸ καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ φησίν· —— Getting drunk leads to boorish behavior. This is why Antiphanes in Arkadia says: ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

5

〈lklx lklx〉 | lkll lkl lklk lkll | lkll lkl lkll lklk | lkll lkl 〈lkl〉k lkll | lklk lkl lkrl lkll | lklk lkl lklk lkll | lklk lkl lklk lkll | lkll lkl rklk lkll | lkll lkl

Discussion Grotius 1626. 975; Casaubon 1664. 739; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 V.479–80; Meineke 1839–1857 III.20; Dindorf 1846. 1056D; Herwerden 1855. 44–5; Meineke 1867. 200; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.465–6; Richards 1909. 76; Mangidis 2003. 164–5 Text For the question of whether this ought to be treated as one fragment or two, and the problematic status of 4 in particular, see Interpretation. Either οὐδαμοῦ (Ath.A) or οὐδαμῶς (Ath.CE) might be right in 2, although the latter reading is most easily explained as a mis-expansion of an abbreviated οὐδαμ(). The various supplements proposed for 4 (“〈by which I mean〉” Grotius; “relying on bit of nasty 〈gold〉 money” Herwerden; “〈and lives a life of luxury〉” Richards) assume that the verse—printed here, as in Kassel–Austin, as if it were lacunose, but

158

Antiphanes

just as easily understood as in intrusive iambic trimeter, and accordingly expelled by Dindorf—belongs in the text. This may not be the case; see Interpretation. One might easily expect the point of 5 to be cruder than the verses that follow make it out to be, and Kaibel accordingly posited a lacuna before 6–8, the lost material having presumably been removed from the text by someone who found it offensive. But see Interpretation. The paradosis ἐάν at the beginning of 6 is unmetrical and was corrected by Schweighäuser to ἄν. In the transmitted version of the text (printed here), τὰς φλέβας in 7 is in apposition to τὰ τεκμήρια in 6 (“the evidence, that is his veins”). Dindorf ’s 〈θ’〉 (adopted by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) makes τὰς φλέβας instead a second object of σκοπῇ. But one does not need to go εἰς ἄφοδον to consider an intellectual matter, and 7–8 are a summary of the physicians’ teachings, which a man can understand most easily when he has pulled his robe up—i. e. in modern terms, his pants down—and can contemplate up close exactly how he is constructed. The paradosis ὅποι in 7 means “in which direction” and is expanded via ἄνω καὶ … κάτω (“up and down”), whereas Casaubon’s ὅπῃ (“in which way, how”) is taken up by τὰς ἄνω … τεταμένας as a whole (“that some of them extend up and others down”). This is less effective with φέρονται, which suggests movement rather than mere location, and there is in any case no positive reason to adopt the change. At the end of 7, Meineke’s τε καί for the paradosis καὶ τάς converts two sets of veins (“some extending up and others down”) into one (“which extend both up and down”). This does not improve the sense and arguably garbles it; see Interpretation. Citation context From an extended denunciation of drinking (Ath. 10.443c–5b) delivered by Pontianus. Fr. 19 and Ar. fr. 613 are cited immediately after this. Interpretation Initially a bit of conventional moralizing, which wanders off in an unexpected direction in 5–8. Addressed to an older man (2 πάτερ with n.), perhaps although not necessarily by a son to his father. The speaker is in any case confident that he (or she) is in the moral and intellectual right. But whether he is supposed to be obnoxiously sure of himself, as he offers a mix of platitudes and nominally sophisticated learning to an interlocutor who has already had a chance to absorb all these basic life lessons, or is intended to seem admirably wise for his years—and educated to boot—is unclear. 1–3 are offered in support of a previously articulated thesis, hence γάρ in 1. ὅστις δέ κτλ in 3 therefore probably responds not to the γάρ-clause but to whatever preceded it, which is to say that the process of excerpting has badly damaged the logic of the argument, which may originally have hung together better than it now appears to. The manuscripts transmit these as a single fragment, albeit with the beginning of 4 missing. The underlying point of 1–3 appears to be that a wise person matches his behavior to the occasion, whereas 4–8 are a meditation on the insignficance of wealth. Kock accordingly treated 1–3 and 4–8 as separate fragments, with only

Ἀρκάς (fr. 42)

159

the first definitely belonging to Antiphanes, while Dindorf expelled 4—which can be scanned as an iambic trimeter rather than a lacunose trochaic tetrameter catalectic—from the text, taking money or the lack of it out of the equation and allowing 1–3, 5–8 to be understood more easily together. The meter is rare enough to render unlikely Kock’s thesis, which requires that two separate passages in it originally stood next to one another in Athenaeus’ source92 and were then combined when a poet’s name dropped out of the text. Dindorf ’s suggestion is more compelling, the extra verse having in that case been added by someone who found the connection between 1–3 and 5–8 problematic (but see above) but was oblivious to meter. 1–3 νοῦν ἔχειν is gnomic; Kassel–Austin compare Thgn. 627–8 αἰσχρόν τοι μεθύοντα παρ’ ἀνδράσι νήφοσιν εἶναι, / αἰσχρὸν δ’ εἰ νήφων πὰρ μεθύουσι μένει (“It’s shameful to be drunk among men who are sober, and it’s shameful if someone remains sober among drunks”). 1 νήφω is first attested at Thgn. 628 (quoted in 1–3 n.); elsewhere at Ar. Lys. 1228, 1232; Bato fr. 2.6. The standard antonym is μεθύω (in addition to Thgn. 627 (quoted in 1–3 n.), e. g. Thgn. 478; Hp. Morb. I 26.6 = 6.192.16 Littré; X. Smp. 8.21; Isoc. 8.13; Pl. Smp. 214c; Arist. Plt. 1274b20; Asclep. ep. *XLIV.4 = AP 9.752.4). But Antiphanes substitutes the more judgmental παροινέω (2 with n.). 2 Vocative πάτερ (also fr. 194.13) is often used as a polite form of address for an older man and does not necessarily imply kinship (e. g. Ar. Eq. 725; V. 556; Anaxipp. fr. 1.11; Diph. fr. 17.5); used elsewhere in comedy where the family-relationship between the characters is unknown at e. g. Ar. fr. 360.1; Anaxandr. fr. 54.1; Eriph. fr. 1.2; Nicostr. Com. fr. 18.5). Cf. fr. 165.2 n. on μῆτερ; Gomme–Sandbach 1973 on Men. Epitr. 231; Dickey 1996. 78–81; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 1.4. παροινέω and cognates appear to be colloquial 5th/4th-century Attic vocabulary, although the first attestation is in early 5th-century tragic lyric (Pratin. TrGF 4 F 3.8); elsewhere at e. g. fr. 144 πάροινος with n. (with other examples of the use of the adjective); Ar. Ec. 143; Aristopho fr. 5.4; Alex. fr. 160.6; X. An. 5.8.5; Pl. Euthphr. 4c; D. 54.5.93 For the sense of the prefix, which suggests that the situation has gone wrong, thus distinguishing the compound from the more neutral μεθύω (1 n.), see LSJ s. v. παρά G.IV.1, and note e. g. X. An. 5.8.5 μεθύων ἐπαρῴνησα; (“Did I act like a boor when I was drunk?”); D. 23.114 μεθύων ἐπαρῴνει (“When he got drunk, he acted like a boor”); [Arist.] Pr. 871a8 διὰ τί οὐχ οἱ σφόδρα μεθύοντες παροινοῦσιν; (“Why do those who are extremely drunk act like boors?”). 3 For νοῦν ἔχειν in the colloquial sense “be sensible”, e. g. fr. dub. 318.1; Eup. fr. 260.27 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Ar. Av. 1371; Th. 291; Pl. Com. fr. 182.3; Alex. 92

93

Much less likely in Athenaeus himself, since the fragment is offered as evidence for the connection between drinking and bad behavior, but 4–8 have nothing to say about either the former or the latter. Also repeatedly in Antiphon’s Tetralogies, which may or may not be by Antiphon and thus may or may not date to the final decades of the 5th century.

160

Antiphanes

fr. 222.2; S. Ant. 68; E. Andr. 944; Ba. 252; X. Mem. 3.12.7; Isoc. 2.53, and cf. LSJ s. v. νοῦς I.2.a; Collard 2018. 163; Mathys 2019. 138–47. For μεῖζον ἢ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖν, cf. frr. 149.1 φρονεῖ μέγα with n.; 282 θνητὰ καὶ φρόνει; A. Th. 425 ὁ κόμπος δ’ οὐ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ; S. Ai. 761, 777 οὐ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον φρονῶν; E. Heracl. 933 μείζω τῆς δίκης φρονῶν; Andr. 700 φρονοῦσι δήμου μεῖζον, ὄντες οὐδένες; Pl. Ap. 20e μείζω τινὰ ἢ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον σοφίαν σοφοὶ εἶεν. 4 may be intrusive; see above. For references elsewhere to the meaninglessness of wealth, frr. 149 (a trader’s wealth easily snatched away by the wind, sc. that moves the boats he relies upon); 165 (it merely disguises problems) with n.; 202 (it is utterly insecure). Contrast fr. 142.8–10 (wealth as better than almost anything; a toady is speaking). LSJ s. v. II makes νόμισμα in the sense “money”94 appear to be confined to comedy and prose, but note E. frr. 362.29 κακοὶ … ἐμπλησθέντες … νομίσματος (“base persons well-supplied with money”); 542 (“It is not white silver and gold alone that is νόμισμα, but virtue too is νόμισμα in the eyes of all mortals”), and in satyr play E. Cyc. 160. 5–8 The logic of the argument is dense and difficult. ὄψεται in 5 seems to describe the man in question inspecting his own body (sc. after he pulls up his clothing to defecate), σκοπῇ in 6 a more abstract consideration, sparked by this inspection, of the physicians’ teachings about human anatomy generally. 7–8 τὰς φλέβας … τεταμένας, and especially τὰς ἄνω καὶ τὰς κάτω / τεταμένας, return to concrete concerns, and 8 δι’ ὧν κτλ again to theory. What the man learns, which shows him that he ought not to put any confidence in money (4, if original) or that he ought not to imagine himself as more than human (3), would seem at first to be that he is built like everyone else (5) and thus is not so special. But 6–8 go on to make a different point, which is that we are all dependent on our physical bodies and in particular the veins that carry our blood, and that if these fail, nothing else matters. What is said to govern human affairs is more often τύχη/Τύχη (“fortune/ Fortune”) (e. g. Men. fr. 372; cf. frr. 166.3–4 with n.; 202; Pi. O. 12.1–5, which is also the first attested use of κυβερνάω to refer abstractly to “governing” human affairs and the like95). 5 εἰς ἄφοδον ἐλθεῖν is literally “to go away”, sc. to defecate out of the sight of others; cf. Ar. Ec. 1059–60 εἰς ἄφοδον … / ἐλθόντα; Pl. Com. fr. 5 ἀφοδεῦσαι with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; Hp. Aff. 26.2 = 6.238.2 Littré; Haem. 2.50 = 6.438.18 Littré; Fist. 7.2 = 6.454.4 Littré (in all three cases “sit es aphodon”). Despite LSJ s. v. ἄφοδος II.1 and Montanari s. v., use of the word does not obviously imply the

94 95

Scarcely “little set of values” (Rusten 2011. 491). Also Pi. fr. 214.3 (of personified Ἐλπίς, “Hope”). Cf. Ar. Eq. 544 (where the literal and the figurative senses of the verb are both involved, as also with the cognate noun at e. g. Thgn. 675; Bacch. 3.22; 13.148; S. Ai. 35 with Finglass 2011 ad loc.

Ἀρκάς (fr. 43)

161

existence of an outhouse structure (LSJ “privy”; Montanari “latrine”).96 Cf. the very similar euphemism ἀποπατέομαι (literally “go off, go elsewhere”) at Cratin. fr. 53.1 with Bianchi 2016 ad loc.; Ar. Ec. 326, 354; Pl. 1184; ἀποπάτημα at Eup. fr. 306 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; ἀπόπατος at Ar. Ach. 81. πᾶσιν is picked up in 8 πᾶς (where the argument, at least as preserved, reaches its conclusion): the man in question is like everyone else, and every human life is dependent on the work our blood-vessels do. 6–8 τὰ τῶν ἰατρῶν τοῦ βίου τεκμήρια appears to be a crabbed way of saying “the arguments advanced by the physicians regarding life”, i. e. regarding how the body works, with the specific content of those arguments spelled out in various ways in the next two verses. Langholf 1986. 20 n. 68 (cited by Kassel–Austin) compares Hp. Epid. II 4.1 = 5.120.12–126.3 Littré, where the course of the veins is traced (“Description très-confuse” Littré ad loc.) But this is all part of a larger discussion of human existence generally (1–3), so perhaps the sense of βίος is not strictly and exclusively biological either here or, even more emphatically, in 8. If so, there might also be a larger significance—probably spelled out in the now-lost verses that followed—in the observation in 7–8 that some veins or arteries go up, others down (τὰς ἄνω καὶ τὰς κάτω / τεταμένας): so too with human fortunes. For physicians generally, see Ἰατρός Introduction. 7 For φέρομαι in the sense “direct oneself, tend, head” vel sim., e. g. fr. 30.1; Ar. Lys. 977; Diph. fr. 61.5; Sosip. fr. 1.42. fr. 43 K.–A. (41 K.) Ath. 13.586a μνημονεύει δ’ αὐτῆς (i. e. τῆς Σινώπης) Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἀρκάδι καὶ ἐν Κηπουρῷ (fr. 114), ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ (fr. 23), ἐν Ἁλιευομένῃ (fr. 27.12), ἐν Νεοττίδι (fr. 168) Antiphanes mentions her (i. e. Sinôpê) in Arkas and in Kêpouros (fr. 114), in Akestria (fr. 23), Halieuomenê (fr. 27.12) (and) in Neottis (fr. 168)

Citation context Part of a richly informed discussion of individual 4th-century Athenian prostitutes perhaps drawn from Herodicus’ Individuals Mentioned in Comedy (cited immediately before this for Sinôpê’s nickname Abydos), which may itself may have been dependent on the On Courtesans of Antiphanes of Berge or the homonymous work of Aristophanes of Byzantium (both cited in this same section of Athenaeus). Interpretation For the courtesan Sinôpê (PAA 823225), fr. 27.12 n. 96

A “privy” is etymologically a “private place”, while “latrine” (like “lavatory”) is < Latin lavare, “to wash” (cf. “bathroom”)—meaning that these words as well are in origin euphemisms.

162

Ἁρπαζομένη (Harpazomenê)

“The Girl who is Being Kidnapped”

Introduction Title For similar titles, note especially Ἀντερῶσα, Ἀκοντιζομένη and Παρεκδιδομένη. Philemon wrote a Ἁρπαζόμενος vel Ἁρπαζομένη, while the Roman poet Caecilius (2nd century BCE) wrote a comedy entitled Harpazomenos vel Harpazomenê. For other titles in which an individual female character is described as endangered, abused or the like, cf. Cratinus Junior’s Θηρωμένη (“The Girl who is Being Hunted”), Posidippus’ Ἀποκλειομένη (“The Girl who is Being Locked Up”), Philippides’ Βασανιζομένη (“The Girl who is Being Tortured”) and Menander’s Ἐμπιμπραμένη (“The Girl who is Being Burned”) and Ῥαπιζομένη (“The Girl who is Being Beaten”). Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 44 K.–A. (42 K.) λαβὼν ἐπανάξω σύαγρον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τῆς νυκτὸς αὐτῆς καὶ λέοντα καὶ λύκον 1 ἐπανάξω Ath.A : ἐπανήξω Cobet : μεγὰν ἄξω Kock

I’ll get a wild boar and bring it back into my house on the same night, and a lion and a wolf Ath. 9.401e–f ἵν’ οὖν μὴ καὶ σὺ ζητῶν τὸν σύαγρον ἀφαυανθῇς, μάθε ὅτι Ἀντιφάνης μὲν ἐν Ἁρπαζομένῃ οὕτως ὠνόμασε· —— To keep you from shriveling up as you inquire into the term syagros (“wild boar”), then, be aware that Antiphanes in Harpazomenë used it as follows: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klrl l|rk|l llkl llkl l|lkl klkl

Discussion

Cobet 1858. 129; Kock 1884 II.27; Weil 1885. 276

Ἁρπαζομένη (fr. 44)

163

Text In 1, the sense of the paradosis ἐπανάξω is unclear (see Interpretation), and Cobet suggested emending to ἐπανήξω (< ἐπανήκω, “I will return”; rare), with the accusatives and the prepositional phrase to be taken with λαβών. Kock’s μεγὰν ἄξω (“I’ll bring a large wild boar”) represents a more aggressive—and accordingly less likely—solution to the problem. The double compound is metrically unnecessary, and if the word is corrupt, it might be a product of variant readings ἐπάξω and ἀνάξω, with ἐπ written above ἀνάξω (or vice versa) and the alternative prefix later mistakenly brought down into the text. Citation context A response by Democritus to a question posed by Ulpian as to whether σύαγρος is properly used “as we do” (i. e. in the Roman period) for the wild boar, after a large example of the animal has been served to the dinner-guests; Dionys. Trag. TrGF 76 F 1 is preserved immediately after the fragment of Antiphanes. The reference to “shriveling up” follows up on Democritus’ claim just before this that Ulpian’s concern for philological trivia of this kind can be expected to make him waste away in the same way Philetas of Kos supposedly did. For the ancient controversy as to whether σύαγρος was acceptable in “good” Greek, from one strand of which the material in Athenaeus must be drawn, cf. Phryn. ecl. 359 σύαγρος οὐ ῥητέον· σῦν ἄγριον οἱ ἀρχαῖοι λέγουσιν (“syagros is not to be used; the ancient authors say sys agrios”), and see Interpretation 1 n. Athenaeus himself uses σὺς ἄγριος (9.401b). Interpretation The speaker is male (note λαβών in 1). Wild boars, lions and wolves are notoriously dangerous animals; for the absurd idea of bringing one into one’s house, cf. the fable at A. Ag. 717–36, esp. 717–18 ἔθρεψεν δὲ λέοντος ἶνιν δόμοις (“he raised a lion-whelp in his house”; a disastrous decision). The specification that this will be done at night—and on a specific night at that—raises the possibility that a wedding is in question and that the speaker is a misogynist faced with the prospect of marrying: if he is to add a woman to his household, he suggests, he may as well add every other savage and destructive creature as well.97 For ἐπ- in the sense “in addition to” (sc. a wife), see LSJ s. v. ἐπί G.I.4. For women as beasts, cf. Anaxil. fr. 22 (various individual prostitutes as monsters); Alex. fr. 291.1–2 οὐκ ἔστ’ ἀναισχυντότερον οὐθὲν θηρίον / εἰσορᾶν γυναικός (“there’s no wild animal more shameless to look upon than a woman”). For other hostile comments about women in Antiphanes, see frr. 58 (their tendency to drink too much); 87 with n. (their gluttony); 246; 270 with n. (the danger of a wife who has a dowry); 293.6. But ἐπανάγω and ἀνάγω are both normally “bring up” or—more likely here—“bring back” (LSJ s. v. II.3 and s. v. II, respectively), in which case the reference would seem to be fetching someone—not necessarily a woman—who has

97

Weil suggested that the reference might be to the story of Admetos, who was told he could marry Alcestis only after he yoked a lion and a boar (κάπρος) to a chariot ([Apollod.] Bib. 1.105; see Ἄλκηστις Introduction).

164

Antiphanes

left or been sent out of the house earlier, and whose possible return the speaker is denouncing. If so, the point of τῆς νυκτὸς αὐτῆς remains unclear. 1 εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν A common line-end formula in comedy (e. g. fr. 166.6; Ar. Eq. 4; V. 1475; Anaxandr. fr. 53.10; Philem. fr. 69.1). The compound σύαγρος in the sense “wild boar” is not attested before this— hence presumably Democritus’ notice of the word in Antiphanes—although note Σύαγρος as a Spartan personal name in Herodotus (e. g. 7.153.1) and apparently as a dog’s name at S. fr. 154 (both noted by Athenaeus), but in both cases probably meaning “Boar-hunter” (cf. μύαγρος, “mouse-hunter”, as a type of snake at Nic. Th. 480). For other compounds of this sort, cf. βόαγρος (“wild bull”), ἵππαγρος (“wild horse”) and ὄναγρος (“wild donkey”), all of which are attested only much later—which does not necessarily mean that the terms were unknown in the classical period. σὺς ἄγριος, on the other hand, is found already at Il. 8.338; 9.539; 11.293; E. Supp. 316, as is ὗς ἄγριος at Hdt. 4.192.2. For wild boars (Sus scrofa) and the domestication process generally, see Keller 1909–1913 I.389–93; Alexandri–Triantaphyllidis et al. 2012; Kitchell 2014. 150–3; Price 2021. 10–47. For discussion of genetic and other evidence for the process of domestication of the animal, Larson–Cooper et al. 2005; Larson–Cooper et al. 2007; Zeder 2008. 11598; Rowley-Conwy–Albarella–Dobney 2012. 2 τῆς νυκτὸς αὐτῆς ought to mean “during the night itself ”, but it is tempting to believe that this is an idiosyncratic—i. e. metrically driven—way of saying “during the same night” (properly τῆς αὐτῆς νυκτός), as in the translation offered above.98 καὶ λέοντα καὶ λύκον Added as a sort of afterthought. For wolves, see Keller 1909–1913 I.87–8; Marcinkowsky 2001; Olson 2012 on hAphr. 70–1; Kitchell 2014. 199–201. For lions (long extinct in Greece by Antiphanes’ time), see Keller 1909–1913 I.24–61; Yannouli 2003. 186–9; Olson 2012 on hAphr. 70–1; Kitchell 2014. 108–11. For lions and wolves mentioned together in comedy, also Anaxil. fr. 12.2–3 (apparently some of the animals into which Odysseus’ men will be transformed by Kirke, along with pigs and panthers99); elsewhere at e. g. Od. 10.212; hAphr. 70; hHom. 13.4.

98

99

Kassel–Austin assign this interpretation of the words, and the Latin gloss hac ipsa nocte, to Schweighäuser. I do not see it at Schweighäuser 1801–1805 V.218, but perhaps it lurks elsewhere. Cf. Od. 10.433 ἢ σῦς ἠὲ λύκους ποιήσεται ἠὲ λέοντας (“she’ll make them into pigs or wolves or lions”), although domestic swine rather than wild boars are in question there.

165

Ἀρχεστράτη (Archestratê) “Archestratê”

Introduction Discussion 127–8

Meineke 1839–1857 I.329; Brandt 1888. 124 n. 2; Breitenbach 1908.

Title Ath.A transmits Ἀρχιστράτῃ (only one example of which is known anywhere, but retained by Kock); corrected by Bedrot in the 1535 Basel edition of Athenaeus to Ἀρχεστράτῃ, which was very common in Athens (over 20 other classical examples in LGPN ii). Breitenbach (following Meineke) suggests that this may have been a courtesan’s working name—cf. Μαλθάκη, Μέλιττα, Μύστις, Νεοττίς, Φιλῶτις and Χρυσίς, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Εὔπλοια and Ὀμφάλη, and for courtesans generally, fr. 2 n.—and compares the nurse called Archestrata at Plaut. Curc. 643, on the one hand, and the courtesan names Καλλιστράτη (Ath. 5.220f), Νικοστράτη (Arched. fr. 1.1), Νικοστρατίς (Ath. 13.586b) and Φανοστράτη (D. 22.56; Ath. 13.586a), on the other. That the name is not rare, means that there is in any case no reason to detect a specific reference to the early 4th-century gastronomic poet Archestratos of Gela. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 45 K.–A. (43 K.) τίς δ’ ἐγχέλειον ἂν φάγοι ἢ κρανίον σινόδοντος; 1 τίς δ’ Musurus : τῆς δ’ Ath.A

ἐγχέλειον Schweighäuser : ἐγχέλιον Ath.A

But who would eat a slice of eel or a sea-bream head? Ath. 7.322c Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Ἀρχεστράτῃ (Bedrot : Ἀρχιστράτῃ Ath.A)· —— And Antiphanes in Archestratê (thus Bedrot : Archistratê Ath.A): ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl〉 l|lkl klkl llkl rlk|〈l xlkl〉

166 Discussion

Antiphanes

Schweighäuser 1801–1805 IV.415

Text At the beginning of the preserved portion of 1, the paradosis τῆς δ’ is nonsensical and was corrected to τίς δ’ by Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus; a simple aural error dating to a period when iota and êta had come to be pronounced alike. Further on in 1, the paradosis ἐγχέλιον is unmetrical and was corrected by Schweighäuser to ἐγχέλειον. The error is common in Athenaeus (e. g. frr. 127.9; 221.4; Pherecr. fr. 50.2–3; Theophil. fr. 4.2; Alex. fr. 159.5) and is to be traced to a period when ει and ι had come to be pronounced alike. Athenaeus has just cited Dorion and Archestr. fr. 18 (apparently drawn from Dorion) for the spelling of σινόδους with iota rather than upsilon. 2 as Ath.A preserves it also has the word with iota, and the most straightforward reading of the text of the Deipnosophists as we have it is that this is intended to represent another example of the variant form. But fr. 130.3 (from earlier in Book 7 of Athenaeus) has συνόδων instead, and it might just as well be the case that σινόδοντος here represents an error in the text of Antiphanes that Dorion had (see Citation context), or that the reference to Archestratοs’ spelling variant is merely an aside and Antiphanes’ original συνόδοντος was eventually corrupted to σινόδοντος under the influence of the material that preceded it. Citation context From the discussion of the σινόδους and the συαγρίς in the long catalogue of seafood that makes up most of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and is likely drawn in large part from Dorion’s otherwise now-lost On Fish. See also Text. Interpretation Both eel and sea-bream were delicacies, as were fish-heads (inter alia for the eyes; see fr. 117.1–2 n., cf. 2 n. below). The answer to the question ought thus presumably to be either “Anyone who has the opportunity” or alternatively “No one who has the option of eating a full-sized eel or a complete bream”. But perhaps this is only the first part of the query. 1 ἐγχέλειον might be either an adjective (sc. τέμαχος, “an eel-(steak)”, as at Pherecr. fr. 50.1–2; cf. fr. 216.2–3 ἔγχελυς Βοιωτία / τμηθεῖσα, “a Boiotian eel cut into steaks”; Ael. Dion. ε 6 ap. Phot. ε 89, 99) or a diminutive (as in frr. 127.9; 221.4), although the specific sense “little eel” is never obviously intended; cf. Petersen 1910. 203.100 Fresh-water eels (Anguilla anguilla), mentioned elsewhere in Antiphanes at frr. 50.3; 104.3 with n.; 127.9; 145.2; 191.1 with n.; 216.2; 221.4 (summary directions for how one is to be stewed); 233.5, are repeatedly referred to as a delicacy (also e. g. Pherecr. fr. 113.12; Ar. Ach. 881–2; fr. 333.7; Anaxandr. fr. 40.5–6; Ephipp. fr. 15.6–7). See in general Thompson 1947. 58–61; García Soler

100

The entry in LSJ s. v. ἐγχέλειον seems unable to decide which of the two senses is intended where. Montanari offers two separate lemmata (s. v. ἐγχέλειον, -ου, τό and s. v. ἐγχέλειος -ον), but otherwise fails to clarify the matter.

Ἀρχεστράτη (fr. 45)

167

2001. 162–4; Davidson 2002. 53; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 10; Schweid 2002. 2 κρανίον σινόδοντος The σινόδους—more often συνόδων, as in fr. 130.3 (see Text) or συνόδους—is a sea-bream of some sort. See in general Thompson 1947. 255–6; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 18; García Soler 2001. 182–3; Davidson 2002. 74–89; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 42.51. For eating fishheads, cf. frr. 77.2; 130.4; Archestr. frr. 19.1; 21.1; 23.3–6; 27.3; 34.1–2; Call. Com. fr. 6.1; Ar. fr. 380.1; Sannyr. fr. 3; Amphis fr. 35.2; Eub. fr. 109.4; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.5; Eriph. fr. 3.2–3; Alex. fr. 159.4–5; Arched. fr. 3.2; Anaxil. fr. 20.1; Matro fr. 1.53–5.

168

Ἄρχων (Archôn) “The Archon”

Introduction Title For the broad range of offices covered by the term ἄρχων in classical Athens, see Hansen 1980. For titles referring to a profession, occupation or the like, cf. Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Δραπεταγωγός, Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 46 K.–A. (44 K.)

5

ἐν Λακεδαίμονι γέγονας· ἐκείνων τῶν νόμων μεθεκτέον ἐστίν. βάδιζ’ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς τὰ φιδίτια, ἀπόλαυε τοῦ ζωμοῦ, φόρει τοὺς βύστακας. μὴ καταφρόνει, μηδ’ ἕτερ’ ἐπιζήτει καλά, ἐν τοῖς δ’ ἐκείνων ἔθεσιν ἴσθ’ ἀρχαιικός

3 φιδίτια Hertelius : φειδίτια Ath.A : φιλίτια Toup 4 lac. intra ζωμοῦ et φόρει susp. 5 μὴ καταφρόνει Ath.A : Meineke φόρει Ath.A : φόρειν Casaubon : ῥόφει Ruhnken μηκέτι φόρει Herwerden : μὴ καινοτόμει Kock 6 ἀρχαιικός Kock : ἀρχαϊκός Ath.A

You were born in Sparta; you need to participate in those customs. Go to their mess groups to get dinner, enjoy their broth, wear their moustaches! Don’t show contempt (for any of this), and don’t seek other pleasures, but act old-fashioned just like they do! Ath. 4.142f–3a διακωμῳδῶν δ’ Ἀντιφάνης τὰ Λακωνικὰ δεῖπνα ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ δράματι Ἄρχων φησὶν οὕτως· —— Antiphanes, satirizing Spartan dinner parties, says the following in his play entitled Archôn: ——

Ἄρχων (fr. 46)

169

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlkl xlk〉|l rlkl krkl l|lkl klkl llkl r|lk|l krkl rlkl llkl llkl lrkl l|rkl llkl llkl l|rk|l llkl

Discussion Hertelius 1560. 482; Casaubon 1664. 269; Runkhen ap. Wyttenbach 1772. 25–6; Toup 1790 III.79; Meineke 1839–1857 III.22; Emperius 1847. 310; Herwerden 1878. 63; Croenert 1903. 99; Kock 1884 II.28; Herwerden 1903. 77; Richards 1909. 76; Millis 1997 Text φειδίτια is a common misspelling in Ath.A of Hertelius’ φιδίτια and may ultimately reflect an attempt to etymologize the word as cognate with φειδώ (“thrift”). For Toup’s φιλίτια, see Interpretation. Something has gone desperately wrong in 4–5, although exactly where the problem is—and thus how it might be corrected—is unclear. Meineke not implausibly suggested that a line or more might have falled out of the text between ἀπόλαυε τοῦ ζωμοῦ and φόρει τοὺς βύστακας, in which case both original lines may have had a normal caesura.101 Kassel–Austin print 4 with an obel before φόρει, apparently because they accept Casaubon’s claim—probably erroneous (see Interpretation)—that the Spartans did not wear moustaches. They nonetheless rightly decline to print his φόρειν τοὺς βύστακας / μὴ καταφρόνει, which supposedly means ne ita mores Spartae asperneris, ut audeas in superiore labro pilos alere (“Do not show so much contempt for Spartan customs, as to dare to grow a moustache!”), although this is difficult to extract from the Greek. Ruhnken (followed by Meineke) proposed replacing φόρει with ῥόφει (for the verb, see fr. dub. 185.5 n.), with τοὺς βύστακας to be taken with μὴ καταφρόνει in 5 (“Don’t show contempt for their moustaches!”). But καταφρονέω never governs the accusative in comedy, and “Slurp up (their broth)!” is tautologous with “Enjoy their broth!” in the first half of the line. Herwerden’s μηκέτι φόρει for the paradosis μὴ καταφρόνει assumes the correctness of Casaubon’s theory about the Spartan disinclination to wear moustaches (see above, on 4), on the one hand, and Ruhnken’s ῥόφει in 4, on the other (thus “Slurp up (their broth)! No longer wear moustaches!”).102 Kock’s μὴ καινοτόμει, meanwhile, is to be taken absolutely, as parallel to what follows (“Don’t innovate, and seek no other pleasures!”). Neither change is necessary if μὴ καταφρόνει is

101 102

Richards believed that the lacuna might instead be located between 4 and 5. Something like this seems to lie behind “enjoy your bean soup, shave your upper lips” at Rusten 2011. 491.

170

Antiphanes

understood as suggested in Interpretation, but little confidence can be felt in the text of 4–5 in any case. In 6, ἀρχαϊκός in Ath.A is a simple—probably ancient (see below)—misspelling of Kock’s ἀρχαιικός. For a similar error, cf. Ar. Nu. 821 (cited by Kassel–Austin, who also note Phryn. ecl. 191 ἀρχαιϊκὸν λέγε ἐν δυοῖν ι ὡς Ἀλκαιϊκὸν καὶ τροχαιϊκόν, “Say archaiïkon with two iotas, like Alkaiïkon and trochaiïkon”, apparently echoed in Phot. α 2919 ~ Synag. B α 2192, all of which combines to make it clear that there was an ancient controversy about how the word was spelled. The use of two iotas, as recommended by Phrynichus, is rejected in LSJ and Montanari s. v. ἀρχαϊκός for reasons that are left unspecified.) Citation context From the very end of an extended discussion of Spartan dining customs that begins at Ath. 4.138b and also preserves e. g. Cratin. fr. 175; Eup. fr. 147; Epilyc. fr. 4. βύσταξ in 4 is a hapax, and Phot. β 318 (quoted in Interpretation 4) is thus almost certainly another reference to this fragment. Note also Hsch. β 1346 βύσταγα· πώγωνα (“bystax (acc.): beard”). Interpretation A mocking, dismissive address to an individual man (note masculine ἀρχαιικός in 6) at least allegedly born in Sparta (1–2) who nonetheless wants to enjoy a more modern—i. e. easier and more luxurious—lifestyle, with particular attention to his food and grooming. The general exhortations in 2–3 and 5–6 frame the more specific suggestions in 3–4, with 5–6 notably more hostile and judgmental than 2–3. 1 ἐν Λακεδαίμονι is * at Eup. fr. 221.2; Ar. Av. 1012. 2 μεθεκτέον For the form (< μετέχω), see Bishop 1899; Poultney 1963. 373–6; Olson–Seaberg 2018 on Cratin. fr. 362. 3 βάδιζ’ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον For the “pregnant” use of ἐπί (LSJ s.v. A.I.3.b “denoting the goal of motion”), e. g. frr. 27.22; 30.1; 197.1; Ar. Ach. 1085–6 ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ταχὺ / βάδιζε; Ec. 855–6 (Α.) καὶ ποῖ βαδιεῖ …; / (Β.) ἐπὶ δεῖπνον. βαδίζω is exceedingly common in comedy (e.g frr. 201.1; 202.8; Cratin. fr. 45; Pherecr. fr. 57.2; Ar. Lys. 899; Pl. Com. fr. 204.3; Eub. fr. 93.6; Alex. fr. 265.2; also hHerm. 210, 320 (strong evidence in support of a post-Archaic date for the poem)) and prose (e. g. Hp. Aer. 8.11 = 2.34.2 Littré; Lys. 1.24; X. Mem. 2.1.11; Pl. Smp. 190d; Isoc. 19.39; Is. 3.62; only once in Thucydides, in the compound διαβαδίζω at 6.101.3; absent from Herodotus), but is rare in tragedy (S. OC 589; E. Ph. 544 with Mastronarde 1994 ad loc.) and thus apparently colloquial. Most of what is known about φιδίτια (Spartan mess-groups) comes from material preserved in this section of Athenaeus (7.140c–3a, esp. 140c–1e), supplemented by X. Lac. 5.4–6; Arist. Pol. 1271a26–32; Plu. Lyc. 12; 26.4; Comp. Agis et Cleom. 8.4; 34.5; Mor. 272c; 1067e. The groups supposedly consisted of about 15 Spartiates, in addition to an unknown number of underage boys and helots. Meals consisted of barley-cakes, wine, figs and cheese; the famous black broth (4 n.); and ὄψον of some sort contributed by one of the members, e. g. meat from his herds or from wild game he had taken. After the meal was over, traditional songs were

Ἄρχων (fr. 46)

171

sung and the heroic deeds of brave citizens were praised. See in general Figuera 1984, esp. 87–98. The etymology is uncertain; occasional attestations of the word in the form φιλ- probably represent a combination of majuscule errors (Λ for Δ) and attempts to make sense of it as cognate with φίλος. See Croenert 1903. 98–100. 4 ἀπόλαυε τοῦ ζωμοῦ For the genitive with verbs meaning “enjoy” vel sim., see Poultney 1936. 88–9 (examples from Aristophanes), and add e. g. fr. 82.1; Amphis fr. 26.2. ζωμός is “meat broth” generally (e. g. Ar. Eq. 1178; Nu. 386; fr. 702; Nicopho fr. 21.3; Pl. Ly. 209d), but here probably refers to the ζωμὸς μέλας (“black broth”), also known as αἱματία (Poll. 6.57; < αἷμα, “blood”, referring to one of the ingredients), that Plutarch repeatedly associates with Spartan mess-groups (Lyc. 12.6–7; Alc. 23.3; Cleom. 13.5). Cf. Epilyc. fr. 4.4 (preserved earlier in the same section of Athenaeus), where the speaker uses the Doric form δωμός and is thus himself probably a Spartan, and see in general Olson–Sens 1999 on Matro fr. 1.94. The etymology of the word is uncertain; perhaps connected with ζέω. φόρει τοὺς βύστακας According to Plu. Comp. Agis et Cleom. 30.3, citing Arist. fr. 539 Rose, when Spartan ephors entered office, they told the citizens κείρεσθαι τὸν μύστακα καὶ προσέχειν τοῖς νόμοις (“to crop their moustaches and pay attention to the laws”) as a way of getting the young men accustomed to obeying them in even minor matters; at Mor. 550b, which appears to be an abbreviated version of the same material, the order is represented as μὴ τρέφειν μύστακα (literally “not to keep a moustache”). But Ar. V. 475–7; Lys. 1072–3; Pl. Com. fr. 132.2, leave little doubt that Spartans were known for having even bushier beards than other Greeks, so whatever Plutarch’s ephors meant, it must not have been that Spartan men were expected to keep their upper lips permanently shaved. For the verb (commonly used in comedy not just in reference to clothing one wears or accessories one carries about with one, but also of body-parts or the like), see Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 158.2. βύσταξ is attested only here and in what were probably originally glosses on this line at Hsch. β 1346 (quoted in Citation context) and Phot. β 318 βύσταξ· ὁ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν μύσταξ103 (“bystax: what we refer to as a mystax, ‘moustache’”); perhaps intended as mocking use of a bit of Laconian dialect. The normal Greek word for “moustache” is ὑπήνη. 5–6 μὴ καταφρόνει A humble, accepting attitude is nowhere characterized as typically Spartan, and what the speaker means must accordingly be not “Avoid displays of contempt!” but “Don’t show contempt (for the behaviors and styles just described)!”, i. e. for going to the common mess, dining on broth and wearing a moustache, with μηδ’ ἕτερ’ ἐπιζήτει καλά serving to bring out the point of the first half of the line. ἐν τοῖς δ’ ἐκείνων ἔθεσιν ἴσθ’ ἀρχαιικός then sums the argument up, echoing the sentiment of 2–3 ἐκείνων τῶν νόμων μεθεκτέον / ἐστίν, although

103

The Greek word is the source of English “moustache”, via Italian mostaccio.

172

Antiphanes

in a more overtly judgmental fashion. Note the rising structure (two words to penthemimeral caesura; then four words to line-end; then seven words filling an entire line). 5 καταφρόνει The compound (also at fr. 237.1, 3; fr. dub. 319.2, in both cases with a genitive) is first attested at the end of the 5th century (e. g. Hdt. 1.59.3; E. Ba. 199). ἐπιζητέω (first attested in Herodotus) is otherwise exclusively prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Hdt. 5.24.3; X. Cyr. 2.4.25; Pl. Men. 92c; D. 18.133; Arist. Metaph. 995a24). 6 ἀρχαιικός For being “old-fashioned” as a negative quality, fr. 248.3 n.

173

Ἀσκληπιός (Asklêpios) “Asklepios”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 182–3 n. b

Title and Content Asklepios was a son of Apollo who was trained by the centaur Cheiron not only in the healing arts but also in hunting with dogs. Eventually he attempted to heal the dead and was blasted by Zeus with a lightning bolt. Cf. Il. 2.731–2; 4.194 ~ 11.518; Hes. fr. 51 M.–W. = fr. 56 Most; Stesich. PMG 194 = fr. 92a–e Finglass; Pi. P. 3.1–7, 38–58; Pherecyd. FGrH 3 F 3, 35 with Fowler 2013. 78; E. Alc. 3–4; X. Cyn. 1.1–2, 6; hHymn 16; [Apollod.] Bib. 3.118–22; Gantz 1993. 91–2. Asklepios had a sanctuary on the south slope of the Acropolis, founded in 420 BCE (SEG XXV 226 = IG II2 4961 + 4960), in which some of the offstage action in Ar. Pl. takes place, and another in Piraeus. See in general Reithmüller 2005; for the shrine on the south slope, Aleshire 1989; and for the sanctuary in Piraeus, Lamont 2015. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος. See in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Or was the god merely the divine prologue speaker (thus a physician-comedy?; cf. fr. 47), like e. g. the title-character in Menander’s Hêrôs?; cf. Ποίησις Introduction; Ὕπνος Introduction. This is the only comedy by Antiphanes with an unadorned divine name as its title; but cf. Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, on the one hand, and Nicostratus Comicus’ and Diphilus’ Ἑκάτη, Amphis’ Πάν, Timocles’ Διόνυσος and the anonymous Μήτηρ θεῶν (adesp. com. fr. 9), on the other. Philetaerus also wrote an Ἀσκληπιός, as did the 5th-century tragic poet Aristarchos (TrGF 14 F 1), while Alexis wrote an Ἀσκληπιοκλείδης. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 47 K.–A. (45 K.) τὴν δὲ γραῦν τὴν ἀσθενοῦσαν πάνυ πάλαι, τὴν βρυτικήν, ῥίζιον τρίψας τι μικρὸν δελεάσας τε γεννικῇ τὸ μέγεθος κοίλῃ λεπαστῇ τοῦτ’ ἐπόησεν ἐκπιεῖν

174

Antiphanes

2 τι μικρὸν Ath.A : πικρόν τι 1 βρυτικήν Ath.A : Βρεττικήν Meineke : Βρυττικήν Kock A Naber γεννικῇ Casaubon : γεννητικῇ Ath. 3 ἐποίησεν Ath.A : ἐποίησ’ Schweighäuser : ἔπεισεν Naber

And as for the old woman who’d been sick for a very long time, the one who drinks a lot of beer, he ground up a tiny little root, lured her with a hollow, generously proportioned lepastê, and got her to drink it up Ath. 11.485b Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν Ἀσκληπιῷ· —— And Antiphanes in Asklêpios: ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lkll lkll | rkll lkl lkll lkll | rklk lkl rkll lkll | lrlk lkl

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 805; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 VI.198; Meineke 1867. 225; Naber 1880. 44; Kock 1884 II.28–9 Text βρυτικός at the end of 1 is attested nowhere else, although cf. βρύτινος at Cratin. fr. 103 ap. Hsch. β 1273. Meineke conjectured Βρεττικήν (formed from the name of an island in the Adriatic), while Kock proposed Βρυττικήν (formed from the name of a region in Sicily). But neither adjective is attested, making the proposals problematic on methodological grounds, and Βρεττιανός and Βρούττιος, respectively, are expected in any case according to St.Byz. β 169, 176. μικρόν in 2 after the diminutive ῥίζιον seems weak, and Naber compared Il. 11.846–7 ἐπὶ δὲ ῥίζαν βάλε πικρὴν / χερσὶ διατρίψας ὀδυνήφατον (“he ground up a bitter root that kills pain, and applied it with his hands”; of Patroklos dealing with Eurypylos’ arrow wound) and conjectured ῥίζιον … πικρόν τι (“a slightly bitter little root”). This adds more point to what follows: the old woman must be tricked into consuming the ground root specifically because it does not taste good. But the change amounts to an arbitrary improvement of the text rather than correction of a genuine defect, and it should accordingly not be printed. γεννικῇ at the end of 2 is Casaubon’s emendation of the unmetrical and nonsensical paradosis γεννητικῇ (“generative”) and is obviously correct. Schweighäuser’s ἐποίησ’ for the paradosis ἐποίησεν in 3 avoids double-short for long. Antiphanes might have written either, and since the sense is unaffected, there is no real incentive to emend (as Schweighäuser himself concedes). Naber’s ἔπεισεν (“he persuaded”) is possible but similarly unnecessary. Kassel–Austin are inconsistent in their handling of οι where the diphthong has been shortened via internal correption, printing ἐποίησεν here but e. g. ποεῖς at fr. 101.3. I print ο in such situations.

Ἀσκληπιός (fr. 47)

175

Citation context From an extended discussion of the λεπαστή (Ath. 11.484f–6a) within the long, roughly alphabetical catalogue of cups and related vessels that makes up most of Book 11 of the Deipnosophists. Ar. frr. 615; 174 are preserved immediately before this, Philyll. fr. 5; Theopomp. Com. frr. 41; 31, immediately afterward, in that order. Interpretation Identified by Casaubon as a description of a physician—Kock suggested that the individual in question might be Asklepios himself—tricking a reluctant patient into consuming medicine he has prepared for her; from a catalogue of healings like the one at Ar. Pl. 716–38? The use of the definite article suggests in any case that the old woman has already been referred to earlier. For physicians, see Ἰατρός Introduction. 1 γραῦς is a primarily poetic word, used by Euripides in particular to evoke pity (e. g. Andr. 612; Hec. 810), as also seemingly at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 122. In comedy, it does not appear to have any implicitly hostile sense (thus “old woman” rather than “hag”), except to the extent that old women are almost automatically taken to be less attractive than younger ones. A speaker accordingly applies it to herself at Alex. fr. 167.1–2. For older women in comedy generally, see Henderson 1987b. That this one is a drunk merely reflects the fact that comic women by and large incline in this direction (Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 630); for other examples, e. g. fr. 161; Ar. Nu. 555 γραῦν μεθύσην (a character in a comedy); Theopomp. Com. fr. 33; Dionys. Com. fr. 5; Xenarch. fr. 5; Men. Perinth. fr. 4; Sam. 302–3; Oeri 1948. 13–18, 39–46. For πάλαι + a form of the present tense used to describe an action that began in the past but has continued into the present (equivalent to a perfect and a present tense combined), see Kühner–Gerth 1898 I.134–5; Goodwin 1875 § 26. With the aorist main verb that follows, this becomes equivalent to the combination of a pluperfect and an imperfect. τὴν βρυτικήν (if correct; see Text) sets up the joke that follows, by making it clear why the trick with the λεπαστή is successful: the old woman takes what she is offered to be beer. βρυτικός is < βρῦτος/βρῦτον, a Thracian loan-word meaning “(barley) beer”, a beverage drunk with straws and consistently associated with barbarians; cf. Archil. fr. 42 (consumed by Thracians or Phrygians); A. Supp. 953 (Egyptians derided as πίνοντας ἐκ κριθῶν μέθυ, “drinking wine made of barley”); fr. 124.1 (from Lykourgos, the title-character of which was a Thracian); Hellanic. FGrH 4 F 66 (connecting beer with Thracians); S. fr. 610; Hdt. 2.77.4 (Egyptians drink beer “because they have no vines in their country”); X. An. 4.5.26–7 (calling it οἶνος κρίθινος, putting it in Armenia, and making it clear that it was unfamiliar to the Greeks); Thphr. HP 4.8.12; CP 6.11.2 (calling it ζῦθος); García Soler 2001. 311–14; Nelson 2003; Nelson 2005a; Nelson 2005b (an overall history of the beverage in the ancient world); Goupil 2010 (general remarks); Bouby–Boissinot– Marinval 2011 (evidence for beer-brewing in 5th-century BCE Celtic communities with close cultural contacts with their Greek neighbors in south-eastern France).

176

Antiphanes

But Hellanicus also refers to βρῦτον made ἔκ τινων ῥιζῶν (“from certain roots”), which must be the idea: the old woman assumes that what she is being offered is not (barley) beer but (root) beer. Cf. Hsch. β 1276 βρυτονία· ῥίζα τις (“brytonia: a type of root”). For adjectives in -ικος as typical late 5th/4th-century formations, fr. 268.2 n. 2 ῥίζιον τρίψας τι μικρόν The speaker apparently has no idea what root in particular was used, this being one of the secrets of the doctor’s art; he has, however, been able to see how it was handled. The combination of the diminutive form and the adjective perhaps serves to bring out by contrast the extraordinary nature of the cure produced by only “a tiny little root” (or “a tiny little bit of root”, if the sense is similar to οἶνον … μικρόν in fr. 57.16, where see Text).104 “Grinding” roots and the like, often along with wine, water or another liquid to produce a potion (as here), is a basic technique for preparing medicines in the Hippocratic corpus (e. g. Mul. 190.3 = 8.370.8 Littré, 192.4 = 8.372.1 Littré; Superf. 33.3 = 8.502.1 Littré; Morb. II 42.3 = 7.58.24 Littré, 47.28 = 7.66.23 Littré; Nat. Mul. 32.5 = 7.346.16 Littré); cf. Asklepios himself at Ar. Pl. 716–17 φάρμακον / καταπλαστὸν ἐνεχείρησε τρίβειν (“he undertook to grind a plaster”), and the ῥιζοτόμοι (literally “root-cutters”, i. e. herbalists) repeatedly mentioned by Theophrastus (e. g. HP 9.1.7, 9.8.1). ῥίζιον is used of the magic root that gives Peisetairos and Euelpides wings at Ar. Av. 654 and repeatedly in Theophrastus (e. g. HP 4.2.3; 9.16.6); probably a common word despite its limited attestation. δελεάζω is prosaic vocabulary (first attested at Hdt. 2.70.1, in the sense “use as bait”, of men trying to catch crocodiles). 2–3 γεννικῇ is to be taken with τὸ μέγεθος, “noble as regards its size”, i. e. “generously proportioned, large”; cf. Eub. fr. 6.9 ἀκροκώλιόν τε γεννικόν (“a noble trotter”, i. e. a large one); Dover 1993 on Ar. Ra. 97 γενναῖον; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 11.5 γενναῖος (of a sardine). The adjective—first attested at Ar. Eq. 457; Lys. 1070, and found twice in Plato (Phdr. 279a; Tht. 144d) and once in Aeschines Socraticus (fr. 45), but otherwise confined to comedy, including in adverbial form in fr. 190.4—is colloquial; cf. βρυτικός in 1, and see in general fr. 268.2 n. 3 λεπαστή is attested only in comic authors (e. g. Cratin. fr. 468; Telecl. fr. 27.2; Pherecr. fr. 101; Hermipp. fr. 45.1; Ar. Pax 916 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; fr. 174.2; Apolloph. fr. 7; Philyll. fr. 5.5; Theopomp. Com. fr. 42.1; Anaxandr. fr. 42.26 with Millis 2015 ad loc.) and appears everywhere to be a drinking vessel of some sort. The fragments of ancient scholarly discussions of its shape preserved by Athenaeus (see Citation context) make it clear that its exact shape—and indeed whether it might instead have been a pouring vessel—was obscure already in the Hellenistic period. The name is in any case cognate with λέπω (“peel”; see in general Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 275.2), leaving little doubt that it refers to a broad,

104

LSJ s. v. μικρός I.2 (“in Quantity”) cites “Antiph. 44”, which must be intended as a reference to this fragment.

Ἀσκληπιός (fr. 47)

177

shallow vessel reminiscent of a λοπίς (“[fish-]scale”), λοπάς (“stewing pan”) or λεπάς (“limpet” and by extension “limpet-shell”). κοίλῃ is thus in one sense purely decorative, but also brings out the crucial point, that the belly of the bowl holds a substantial quantity of something the old woman thinks she wants to drink. Cf. fr. 216.3 with n. τοῦτ(ο) ought properly to be the ῥίζιον (2), but must refer by extension to whatever liquid the root was ground into (cf. 2 n.) to make the resulting product look—or smell?—like something a γραῦς βρυτική would be interested in drinking. For ποιέω in the sense “cause (someone to do something)”, see LSJ s. v. A.II.1.b, and add to the examples from comedy cited there e. g. frr. 57.6 ποιήσῃ πεσεῖν; 89.4 χολᾶν ποεῖ; 101.3 ποεῖς παθεῖν; Hermipp. fr. 74.2–3 αἱμορυγχιᾶν ποιήσω; Epicr. fr. 5.7 χολᾶν ποεῖ; Nicopho fr. 20.4 ποιεῖ ἐμεῖν; Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1.14 ἐποίησα … γελᾶν; Eub. fr. 93.10 βάλλειν ποεῖ. ἐκπίνω can be used to mean either “swallow down” (of a liquid, as here and at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 152.8 τὸν οἶνον αὐτὰς αἰτιώμεθ’ ἐκπιεῖν) or “drain dry” (of a cup, as at e. g. Hermipp. fr. 45.1 τήνδε τὴν λεπαστὴν ἐκπιών; Theopomp. Com. fr. 42.1–2 λεπαστή …, / ἣν ἐκπιοῦσ’). Cf. frr. 4.1 with n.; 142.9 Text.

178

Ἄσωτοι (Asôtoi)

“The Spendthrifts”

Introduction Title An ἄσωτος (< privative α + σῴζω) is someone who is profligate with his money; cf. Pl. Lg. 743b (the very bad man is generally ἄσωτος and thus quite poor); Arist. EE 1221a33–4 ἄσωτος ὁ πρὸς ἅπασαν δαπάνην ὑπερβάλλων (“an asôtos is a man who goes overboard on every expense”). For titles that refer to a personal quality of one or more characters (elsewhere in Antiphanes always singular), cf. Ἄγροικος, Ἀντερῶσα, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, Ἀφροδίσιος, Βουταλίων, Δύσπρατος, Ἐνεά, Μισοπόνηρος, Ὄβριμος, Παιδεραστής, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ, Φιλοπάτωρ and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Μαλθάκη. Euthycles wrote an Ἄσωτοι ἢ Ἐπιστολή (“The Spendthrifts or The Letter”), Timostratus an Ἄσωτος, and Alexis an Ἀσωτοδιδάσκαλος (authenticity disputed). Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 48 K.–A. (46 K.)

Antiatt. γ 2 γαμῶ ἡ γυνὴ λέγει, οὐ γαμοῦμαι. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀσώτοις. ἐγημάμην ὁ ἀνὴρ λέγει ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔγημα The woman says “I marry” not “I give myself in marriage”. Antiphanes in Asôtoi. The man says “I gave myself in marriage” in place of “I married”

Meter γαμῶ scans kl, ἐγημάμην klkl; both words could easily be accommodated in iambic trimeter. Citation context Seemingly a response to the standard doctrine regarding the use of the verb (for which, see Interpretation). Interpretation As other ancient authorities note, active γαμέω is normally used of the man, who takes a wife (external accusative; e. g. fr. 58.2; Ar. Ach. 49; Lys. 597; Ra. 1193; Philippid. fr. 29.1) or enters into a marriage (absolute: e. g. frr. 220.1–2; 285; Alex. fr. 264.2, 7; sometimes with γάμον as an internal accusative, as at e. g. Ar. Av. 1725). Middle γαμέομαι, by contrast, is used of the woman, who gives herself in marriage to a man (in the dative, as at e. g. Ar. Th. 900; fr. 144.2): Poll. 3.45 γῆμαι δ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς λέγεται, γήμασθαι δ’ ἐπὶ τῆς γυναικός, οὐ γαμηθῆναι (“gêmai (act.) is used in reference to the man, but gêmasthai (mid.), not gamêthênai

Ἄσωτοι (fr. 48)

179

(pass.), in reference to the woman”); Ammon. 120 γῆμαι τοῦ γήμασθαι διαφέρει, ὅτι γαμεῖ μὲν ὁ ἀνήρ, γαμεῖται δὲ ἡ γυνή (“gêmai (act.) is different from gêmasthai (mid.), since the man marries, whereas the woman gives herself in marriage”), citing Anacr. PMG 424 = fr. iamb. 7 West2 (quoted below) and A. fr. 13 σοὶ μὲν γαμεῖσθαι μόρσιμον, γαμεῖν δ ἐμοί (“It is your fate to give yourself in marriage, mine to marry”); ΣBI E. Med. 606 σεσημείωται τὸ γαμοῦσα … γαμεῖ μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ, γαμεῖται δὲ ἡ γυνή (“The word gamousa (act.) has drawn attention … for the man marries (act.), whereas the woman gives herself in marriage”), commenting on Medea’s ironic query as to whether she has done Jason wrong γαμοῦσα καὶ προδοῦσά σε (“by marrying and betraying you”, sc. as he has done to her). The Antiatticist takes the passage from Antiphanes to represent an exception to this rule. As Kassel–Austin (citing parallels from Latin literature) note, however, this seems more likely to have been a joke describing a marriage in which the proper power structure was reversed and the woman was in charge; cf. fr. 270 n.; Anacr. PMG 424 = fr. iamb. 7 West2 καὶ θάλαμος ἐν † ᾧ κεῖνος οὐκ ἔγημεν ἀλλ’ ἐγήματο (“and the bed-chamber in † which that man did not marry but gave himself in marriage”; taken by Kassel–Austin to be instead a reference to passive homosexuality). Whether both γαμῶ and ἐγημάμην are to be attributed to Antiphanes (as Kassel–Austin’s use of expanded spacing for the latter as well as the former suggests), is unclear.

180

Αὐλητής (Aulêtês) “The Piper”

Introduction Discussion Meursius (1633) 1744 II.618d; Meineke 1839–1857 I.333–6; Edmonds 1959. 183 n. f Title Plu. Dem. 4.6, as part of an explanation of why the orator was nicknamed Βάταλος, reports ἦν δ’ ὁ Βάταλος, ὡς μὲν ἔνιοί φασιν, αὐλητὴς τῶν κατεαγότων, καὶ δραμάτιον εἰς τοῦτο κωμῳδῶν αὐτὸν Ἀντιφάνης πεποίηκεν (“(The real) Batalos, according to some authorities, was one of the effeminate pipers, and Antiphanes is the author of a comedy that mocks him for this”). Cf. Eup. fr. 92 ap. Harp. p. 72.3–5 = β 8 Keaney ~ Phot. β 91 and ΣVxLS Aeschin. 1.126 (275 Dilts) with Olson 2017 ad loc.; Phot. Bib. 495a40–b1 (patently dependent on a similar source) ἱστόρηται … τις Ἐφέσιος Βάταλος αὐλητὴς γενέσθαι, ὃς πρῶτος ὑποδήμασι γυναικείοις ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ἐχρήσατο καὶ μέλεσι κατεαγόσι, καὶ ὅλως τὴν τέχνην ἐμαλάκισεν· ἀφ’ οὗ τοὺς ἐκλύτους καὶ ἀνάνδρους Βατάλους ἐπονομάζουσιν (“Batalos is said to have been an Ephesian piper who was the first to employ women’s shoes and effeminate melodies onstage, and he was generally depraved in his art; via reference to him, they call individuals who are dissolute and unmanly Bataloi”). The man in question is Stephanis #519, and that Αὐλητής is the play in question—thus already Meursius—is a reasonable hypothesis. But the word βάταλος (“effeminate”) goes back to at least the late 5th century, if Eupolis used it, and the ancient scholarship that preserves this information may represent a bundle of confusion, with an anonymous piper referred to in a comedy as βάταλος and then historicized into the effeminate piper Βάταλος (thus approximately Meineke). In contrast to an αὐλητρίς (see Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι Introduction), there appears to be no obvious reason to expect an αὐλητής to be a slave; note Lys. fr. 356, from a speech “Against Nikarchos the αὐλητής”. For the pipes themselves, fr. 49.3 n. For a musician of one sort or another as the name-character for a play, cf. variously Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Θαμύρας, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός and Ὀρφεύς. For titles referring to a profession, occupation or the like, cf. also Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Δραπεταγωγός, Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Anaxilas and Philemon both also wrote an Αὐλητής. Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Αὐλητής (fr. 49)

181

Fragment fr. 49 K.–A. (47 K.)

5

ποίαν, φράσον γάρ, † ηδετὴν συναυλίαν ταύτην ἐπίσταται γάρ † ἀλλ’ ηὔλουν ἔτι μαθόντες 〈 l k 〉 ὥστε τοὺς αὐλοὺς σύ τε αὕτη τε λήψεσθ · εἶθ ἃ μὲν σὺ τυγχάνεις αὐλῶν πέραινε, δέξεται δὲ τἄλλά σοι † ἡδύ τι † κοινόν ἐστιν· οὗ χωρὶς πάλιν συννεύματ’ οὐ προβλήμαθ’ οἷς σημαίνεται ἕκαστα

1 ηδετὴν Ath.A  : ᾖδε τὴν Musurus  : ᾐδέτην Scaliger  : ἥδε τὴν Cobet 2 (Β.) ταύτην· Blaydes ἐπίσταται Ath.A : ἐπίστασαι Scaliger : ἐπίστανται Blaydes (Β.) ἀλλ’ Bothe 3 〈ἑτέραν〉 Blaydes  : 〈ἄλλην〉 Herwerden  : plura interdicisse susp. Meineke 4 αὕτη τε λήψεσθ Meineke  : αυτη τελετη ψεθ Ath.A εἶθ ἃ μὲν σὺ 6 ἡδύ τι Ath.A  : ἤδη τι Dindorf, τυγχάνεις Dindorf  : ειθαμεν συντυγχάνεις Ath.A Dobree : ἡδύ τι τὸ Meineke : ἥδ . οὗ τι Gulick : ἥδ . εἴ τι Kaibel οὗ Ath.B : ου Ath.A : A οὐ Dobree  : εἰ Kaibel 7 συννεύματ’ Ath.   : οὐ νεύματ’ Cobet προβλήμαθ’ οἷς Casaubon : προβλημαθοις Ath.A

5

What sort—for tell me this— † êdetên group-performance this for he/she knows † but they were still playing the pipes after they (masc.) learned 〈 l k 〉 so that both you and her will take the pipes, and then get on with the songs you (masc. sing.) happen to be playing, and she’ll take up the rest for you † something pleasant † is in common, apart from which by contrast are nods of assent rather than puzzles, by which every point is signaled

Ath. 14.618a–b τὴν δὲ συναυλίαν τί ποτ’ ἐστὶν ἐμφανίζει Σῆμος ὁ Δήλιος ἐν ε΄ Δηλιάδος (FGrH 396 F 11) γράφων οὕτως· ἀγνοουμένης δὲ παρὰ πολλοῖς τῆς συναυλίας, λεκτέον. ἦν τις ἀγὼν συμφωνίας ἀμοιβαῖος αὐλοῦ καὶ ῥυθμοῦ, χωρὶς (χωρὶς λόγου Ath.A : λόγου del. Kaibel) τοῦ προσμελῳδοῦντος. ἀστείως δὲ αὐτὴν Ἀντιφάνης φανερὰν ποιεῖ ἐν τῷ Αὐλητῇ λέγων· —— Sêmos of Delos in Book V of the History of Delos (FGrH 396 F 11) brings out what a synaulia is when he writes as follows: Since many people do not know what a synaulia is, the matter requires discussion. This was a musical competition that alternated between pipe-music (aulos) and dance, with no one (“with no word” Ath.A : “word” del. Kaibel) singing along. Antiphanes offers a witty description of this in his Aulêtês, when he says: ——

182

Antiphanes

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

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

Discussion Scaliger ap. Cant. ms. II p. 60v; Dindorf 1827 III.1374; Dobree 1833. 347; Meineke 1839–1857 III.24–5; Bothe 1844. 24; Cobet 1858. 11; Kock 1884 II.29–30; Blaydes 1890. 67; Kaibel 1887–1890 III.363; Blaydes 1896. 103; Herwerden 1903. 77; Gulick 1936. 180–1; Barker 1984. 274–5 Text The textual situation is generally desperate. For issues not discussed below, see Interpretation (opening section) The Ath.A-scribe—or the scribe who produced his exemplar—was clearly baffled by this fragment at several points and simply reproduced the letters he saw on the page without attempting to convert them into intelligible words (1 ηδετὴν, 4 αυτη τελετη ψεθ and ειθαμεν, 6 ου, 7 προβλημαθοις). Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus converted the garbled paradosis ηδετὴν in 1 into a form of ἀείδω followed by a definite article (~ “What sort was the synaulia he/she was singing?”). But τήν is very awkward, and Scaliger suggested instead the 3rd-person dual ᾐδέτην (“What sort of synaulia were the two of them singing?”). Both interpretations stumble on the fact that Sêmos specifically says that a synaulia involved no singing and the fragment is supposed to illustrate his definition. Cobet’s ἥδε τὴν is an easy interpretation of the letters (~ “Of what sort was the synaulia she …?”), but requires that a lacuna be marked afterward and is thus not really an improvement. In 2, Scaliger’s ἐπίστασαι (“you know”) for the paradosis ἐπίσταται matches 2nd-person singular φράσον in 1 and thus makes the transition from 1 to 2 easier. Alternatively, Blaydes suggested that a change of speaker might be placed at the beginning of the line, or that ἐπίστανται, matching the 3rd-person plural ηὔλουν, might be read (“for they know (what sort of a synaulia this is); but they were still playing the pipes after they learned (this)”). In 3, Blaydes’ 〈ἑτέραν〉 (“a different”) and Herwerden’s 〈ἄλλην〉 (“another”) are both seemingly intended to suggest ἀοιδήν (“song”) as the internal object of 2 ηὔλουν. The corrections by Meineke and Dindorf in 4, and by Casaubon in 6, all involve little more than redividing and accenting the letters preserved in Ath.A. The fact that the text as printed here (as in Kassel–Austin) remains difficult to understand

Αὐλητής (fr. 49)

183

does not inspire much confidence in its soundness. Meineke and Kock both retain the manuscript’s gibberish in 4, where the corrections are the most complicated, Κassel–Austin place a comma after λήψεσθ in 4 and (following Meineke and Kock) a full stop after πέραινε in 5. But the μέν-δέ contrast requires a comma in 5, and a half-stop is better in 4. At the beginning of 6, the paradosis ἡδύ τι κοινόν is unmetrical. Of the numerous attempts at correction recorded in the apparatus—ἤδη τι κοινόν, “now something in common” (Dindorf and—seemingly independently—a few years later Dobree); ἡδύ τι τὸ κοινόν, “what is in common is something pleasant” (Meineke); ἥδ’. οὗ τι, “this woman will take up the rest from you; where something is to be played together” (Gulick); ἥδ . εἴ τι κοινόν, “this woman (nom.); if something is in common” (Kaibel)—none succeeds in making effective sense of 6–8 as a whole. In the middle of 6, the Ath.B-scribe (late 15th century) converted Ath.A’s ambiguous ου to οὗ (dependent on χωρίς). Dobree suggested οὐ instead, Kaibel εἰ; neither emendation makes good sense of the passage, and Kaibel’s proposal has the additional disadvantage that it cannot be traced to any easy, obvious mechanical error. At the beginning of 7, Cobet proposed οὐ νεύματ’ (“no nods”) for the paradosis συννεύματ’, which is not attested elsewhere. But the sense of σύννευμα is clear, and what is wanted is a contrast with οὐ προβλήμα(τα), not a parallel to it; see Interpretation. Citation context From a discussion of pipes (αὐλοί) at Ath. 14.616e–18c within the larger treatment of music and dance that makes up much of Book 14 of the Deipnosophists. This is all Athenaeus has to say about the term synaulia, and the quotation of Antiphanes may be drawn from Sêmos, whose definition it is in any case apparently supposed to illustrate. Related material, which combines to make it clear that the meaning of the word was obscure already in the Roman period, is preserved at – Poll. 4.83 Ἀθήνησι δὲ καὶ συναυλία τις ἐκαλεῖτο· συμφωνία τις αὕτη τῶν ἐν Παναθηναίοις συναυλούντων. οἱ δὲ τὴν συναυλίαν εἶδος προσαυλήσεως οἴονται ὡς τὴν αὐλῳδίαν (“In Athens there was something called a synaulia; this was a concert by those who synauleô at the Panathenaia.105 But other authorities believe that a synaulia was a type of pipe-accompaniment, like an aulôidia (song sung to pipe-music)”) – Poll. 4.107 ἐπὶ δὲ χοροῦ καὶ συμφωνία καὶ συνῳδία καὶ συναυλία (“The terms symphônia, synôidia and synaulia are used in reference to a chorus”) – Hsch. ξ 125 ξυναυλίαν· πᾶν πρᾶγμα δισσόν. τὴν ὑπὸ δύο ἐπιτελουμένην αὔλησιν· ὅταν γὰρ δύο αὐλῶσι, ξυναυλία λέγεται (“xynaulia (acc.): anything two-fold. Pipe-music produced by two (pipers); because when two people play pipes, the word xynaulia is used”) 105

Nothing else is known of this supposed event.

184

Antiphanes

– ΣVEΓΘ Ar. Eq. 9 ~ Suda ξ 117 ξυναυλία καλεῖται ὅταν δύο αὐληταὶ τὸ αὐτὸ αὐλῶσιν … ἄλλως· ξυναυλία λέγεται ὅταν κιθάρα καὶ αὐλὸς συμφωνῇ (“The term xynaulia is used when two pipers play the same song … Alternatively: the word xynaulia is used when a lyre and a pipe give a joint performance”) – Phot. ξ 50 = Suda ξ 116 ξυναυλία· αὔλησίς τις σύμφωνος ὑπὸ δύο περαινομένη. αὐλῳδία (“xynaulia: a joint pipe-performance carried out by two musicians; singing to pipe-music”) – Suda ξ 119 ξύναυλον· παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει (Ra. 212) ξύναυλον βοάν, τὴν μετὰ αὐλῶν κοινήν (“xynaulon: in Aristophanes (Ra. 212) a xynaulos boa, one accompanied by pipes”). Interpretation The fragment is corrupt, lacunose and obscure; Kock commented horum omnium nihil ego, ut libere profitear, intellego (“I freely confess that I understand none of this”). That almost all the lines can be made to scan with limited amounts of editorial intervention raises the possibility that what we have inherited from Athenaeus is the product of clumsy ancient editing, not necessarily all by a single hand, which produced metrical lines (or at least lines that are close to metrical) at the price of altering the paradosis in now undetectable ways. Modern correction and conjecture has made the textual situation seem a bit less desperate, but has simultaneously failed to restore good sense. This in turn suggests that these efforts may ultimately not have brought us any closer to what Antiphanes wrote. As restored and printed here (largely following Kassel–Austin), the thought in 1–5 is partially coherent. An individual (note singular φράσον)—hereafter (Γ.)—is asked a question in 1 (ποίαν, with which συναυλίαν is probably to be taken, “what sort of synaulia?”); γάρ in 1 suggests that the question follows up on a previous remark. On the most straightforward interpretation of the position of the second γάρ, in 2, ἐπίσταται begins another clause (“for he/she knows”). “He/she” might refer to another party; or it might refer to (Γ.), if ἐπίσταται γάρ belongs to a second speaker, as Blaydes—putting the change from (A.) to (B.) at the beginning of 2— believed, or if ἐπίσταται is emended to Scaliger’s ἐπίστασαι (“you know”). ἀλλ(ά) in the second half of 2 suggests that ηὔλουν κτλ is set in contrast to ἐπίσταται γάρ (“for he/she knows”—or “for you know”—“but they were still playing the pipes”); Bothe accordingly placed a change of speaker before ἀλλ(ά) rather than earlier in 2, while Blaydes proposed emending ἐπίσταται to ἐπίστανται (“they know”), to make it easier to keep all of this together. The pipe-playing is set in the past, and the subject is plural and includes at least one man (thus 3 μαθόντες). 3 ὥστε κτλ represents a prediction which involves two individuals, a man (note 5 αὐλῶν) and a woman (4 αὕτη) and is a consequence of what has just been said. This is difficult, if the lacuna is as brief as the one indicated in Kassel–Austin, and Meineke accordingly suggested that a full line or more has fallen out of the text at this point. σύ near the end of 3 might in any case be either (A.) (assuming that two speakers are involved) or (Γ.). On the first thesis, in 2 (B.) steps in to answer the question addressed by (A.) to (Γ.); goes on

Αὐλητής (fr. 49)

185

in 2–3 to make a remark to (A.) about (Γ.) and (Γ.)’s fellow piper (Δ.); and then in 3 ὥστε–5 turns to address (A.) and (Γ.) together. On the second thesis—which is moderately less difficult, although nothing is easy here—ὥστε κτλ are addressed to (Γ.), or to (Γ.) and (Δ.) together, if both characters are onstage. If (Γ.) and (Δ.) were mutes, this would explain (B.)’s intervention in the conversation on behalf of the former and would fit with the claim that the fragment supports the thesis that a synaulia was performed by a pipe-player and a dancer, who would then be specialized performers rather than actors. The sense of 6–8 is unclear, due in part to corruption at the beginning of 6 and the obscurity of Ath.A’s ου in the middle of the line, and the verses are difficult to integrate with 1–5. If this is a definition of a synaulia of another sort—i. e. something shared that functions via covert communication rather than direct statement—this might originally have been a separate fragment or represent metricized prose material. 1 Interjected or appended φράσον is common in impatient demands for information (e. g. Cratin. fr. 40.1 with Bianchi 2016 ad loc.; Eup. fr. 99.72; Ar. Nu. 314; Pl. 83, 401, 843; Amphis fr. 36.1; Anaxandr. fr. 34.14 φράσον γάρ*; Men. Carch. 32). Cf. fr. 200.3 λέγε γάρ with n. At Lg. 764d–e, 765b, Plato contrasts contests in μονῳδία and συναυλία, on the one hand, with choral performances, on the other; describes συναυλία in particular as “mimetic”; and associates it with aulos-players “and other persons of this sort”. A συναυλία was thus apparently a joint performance (therefore distinguished from monody) that represented action (therefore “mimetic”), but on a small scale (therefore distinguished from dithyramb), and that might or might not involve pipe-music. Pyrrhic dancing (for which, see Olson 2017. 139, and to the bibliography cited there, add Poursat 1968 #19–21) or the like may well be in question, in accord with Sêmos of Delos’ explanation of the term. LSJ offers two separate definitions of συναυλία, deriving one (s. v. A) from αὐλός (“pipe”), the second (s. v. B) from αὐλή (courtyard”), and follows most of the ancient scholarship listed in Citation context in taking Antiphanes’ use of the word to be an example of s.v. A.106 σύναυλος and cognates could certainly be used to mean “accompanied by a pipe”; cf. Ar. Av. 858 συναυλείτω δὲ Χαῖρις ᾠδᾷ (“let Chairis play his pipes in accompaniment to the song!”); Ra. 212 ξύναυλον ὕμνων βοάν (“a cry of hymns accompanied by pipe-music”). But at S. OT 1126 χώροις μάλιστα πρὸς τίσι ξύναυλος ὤν; (“Being most often resident in what spots?”) the adjective is better taken as derived from αὐλή (as LSJ s. v. B notes); at other points the intended sense is ambiguous (S. Ai. 611 θείᾳ μανίᾳ ξύναυλος ~ “coincident with divinely inspired madness”; E. El. 879 ξύναυλος βοὰ χαρᾷ ~ “cry coincident with joy”, the latter connected by LSJ

106

Cf. LSJ s. v. ὅμαυλος I “living together, companion” or “neighbouring” (< αὐλή) vs. s. v. II “playing together on the flute, sounding together in concert” (< αὐλός).

186

Antiphanes

with αὐλός, the former ignored);107 and in most of its other classical attestations, συναυλία is either unambiguously or at least more convincingly derived from αὐλή (A. Th. 839 ξυναυλία δορός, “concert of the spear”; Myrtil. fr. 4 Φέρωνος ἆρά πού ’στιν ἡ ξυναυλία;, “Is Pheron’s group anywhere then?”; Anaxandr. fr. 72 τρίκλινον δ’ εὐθέως συνήγετο / καὶ συναυλίαι γερόντων, “a three-man dinner party was quickly drawn together and assemblies of old men”, with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Arist. Pol. 1335a38 συναυλίαν ποιεῖσθαι, “to establish a joint residence”, = LSJ’s sole citation in s. v. B). The adverbial use of accusative ξυναυλίαν at Ar. Eq. 9 ξυναυλίαν κλαύσωμεν Οὐλύμπου νόμον (“we might wail a tune by Olympos xynaulian”), meanwhile, appears to mean “in unison” (as if < αὐλή); cf. the obscure S. fr. 60 ὡς ἐπιψάλλειν βίδην τε καὶ ξυναυλίαν (“so as to play the lyre both bi-style108 and xynaulian”), which in any case does not refer to pipe-music. 3 For αὐλoί (“pipes”), wind instruments voiced by a reed and resembling a modern clarinet, which were routinely played in pairs by a single musician in theatrical contexts—which may or may not be part of the point of the use of the plural here—see in general West 1992. 81–107; Wilson 1999; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 862–3; Wallace 2003; Hagel 2009. 327–43: Leven 2010; Ulieriu-Rostás 2013. Cf. frr. 57.15 with n.; 233.3 with n. 5 For πέραινε in the sense “Get on with it!”, cf. Ar. Ra. 1170, 1283; Pl. 648; Men. fr. 64.5, and for the verb in general, fr. 1.6 n. τ(ὰ) ἄλλα i. e. everything but pipe-playing, and in particular the dancing that is to accompany it? 6 The material collected in LSJ s. v. χωρίς II, esp. 1–2, seems to suggest that use of the word as a preposition + genitive (contrast the adverbial use at fr. 27.24), with the noun often coming first, was a high-style mannerism (e. g. Pi. O. 9.41 χωρὶς ἀθανάτων; A. Ag. 926–7 χωρὶς ποδοψήστρων τε καὶ τῶν ποικίλων / κληδών; S. Ai. 158 μεγάλων χωρίς, 166 σοῦ χωρίς; OT 550 τοῦ νοῦ χωρίς; E. Andr. 18 χωρὶς ἀνθρώπων; IA 1023 ἐμοῦ χωρίς, 1107 παρθένου χωρίς; in comedy only at Ar. Ach. 894 σοῦ χωρίς (parody of E. Alc. 368); Ra. 1164 χωρὶς … ἄλλης συμφορᾶς (Aeschylus is speaking); fr. dub. 976.2 (= Antiph. fr. dub. 330 K.)). In fact, Thucydides, Andocides, Antiphon and Lysias all avoid the prepositional use of χωρίς, but it is otherwise widely distributed in 5th- and especially 4th-century prose (e. g. Hdt. 2.45.2; X. Cyr. 6.1.7; Pl. Phlb. 63b; Is. 11.43; D. 29.43). For πάλιν, fr. 80.11 n. 7 σύννευμα is not attested elsewhere, but note S. OT 1510 ξύννευσον (“Nod your head in assent!”; seemingly the only use of the compound in this sense (= LSJ 107 108

Note also Anacreontea 60.10 ἀνέμου σύναυλος ἠχῇ (of a swan’s song; the only other attestation of the adjective before the Byzantine period). βίδην is patently an adverb but is otherwise obscure, being attested only at Hsch. β 601 βίδην·εἶδος. κροῦμα, which also preserves the fragment of Sophocles. The gloss in Hesychius ought probably to be emended to εἶδος κρούματος (“a type of note (played on a lyre)”; cf. Ar. Th. 120 κρούματά τ’ Ἀσιάδος with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.).

Αὐλητής (fr. 49)

187

s. v. II.3) before the Roman period); cf. LSJ s. v. νεύω Ι.2 “nod or bow in consent”, s. v. σύν D.I.1 “metaph(orical) of agreement or unity”. For προβλήμα(τα), see Problêma introductory n. Unless the thought is deliberatively obscure, οἷς more likely refers back to συννεύματ(α) (which have a clear communicative function) than to προβλήμα(τα) (which merely hint darkly at the truth).

188

Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι (Aulêtris ê Didymai) “The Pipe-girl or Twin Girls”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 185 n. c; Webster 1970. 68, 77

Title A female pipe-player was often hired to provide entertainment at symposia and sometimes sexual services as well (e.g. Metag. fr. 4.3–4; Ar. Ach. 551; V. 1345–7 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; X. Smp. 2.1–2; Pl. Smp. 176e; [Arist.] Ath. 50.2; cf. Shapiro 1988, a bronze statuette of an aulêtris seemingly based on a late 4thcentury original). Perhaps the woman in question one was one of the twin sisters (and thus actually a free person, like e. g. Casina in Plautus’ Casina, Planesium in Plautus’ Curculio, and Thais’ supposed sister in Terence’s Eunuch). For the pipes themselves, fr. 49.3 n. The alternative title suggests a comedy of mistaken identities, like Plautus’ Amphitryo, Bacchides and Menaechmi, and most likely Antiphanes’ Δίδυμοι (where see Introduction), Διπλάσιοι, Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι and Ὁμώνυμοι. For the combination of two titles, both referring to persons, but one in the singular and the other in the plural, cf. Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων, Alexis’ Λευκαδία ἢ Δραπέται and Φιλόκαλος ἢ Νύμφαι, Apollodorus of Gela’s Φιλάδελφοι ἢ Ἀποκαρτερῶν, and Eubulus’ Λάκωνες ἢ Λήδα. For a musician of one sort or another as a central character in the play, cf. Αὐλητής, Θαμύρας, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός and Ὀρφεύς. For titles referring to a profession, occupation or the like, cf. also Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Δραπεταγωγός, Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Diodorus Comicus and Alexis also wrote an Αὐλητρίς, Menander an Ἀρρηφόρος ἢ Αὐλητρίς, and Phoenicides an Αὐλητρίδες, while the Roman poet Titinius (probably a rough contemporary of Plautus) wrote a Tibicina. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 50 K.–A. (48 K.) ὁ 〈μὲν〉 Μενέλεως ἐπολέμησ’ ἔτη δέκα τοῖς Τρωσὶ διὰ γυναῖκα τὴν ὄψιν καλήν, Φοινικίδης δὲ Ταυρέᾳ δι’ ἔγχελυν

189

Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι (fr. 50) 1 〈μὲν〉 add. Koppiers ἐπολέμησεν Ath.ACE

Μενέλεως Ath.P : Μενέλαος Ath.ACE

ἐπολέμησ’ Morelius :

Menelaus waged war for ten years on the Trojans for the sake of a beautiful woman, whereas Phoinikidês (wages war on) Taureas for the sake of an eel Ath. 8.343d Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Αὐλητρίδι ἢ Διδύμαις Φοινικίδην τινὰ ἐπ’ ὀψοφαγίᾳ κωμῳδῶν φησιν· —— Antiphanes in Aulêtris ê Didumai makes fun of a certain Phoenikidês on account of his gluttony and says: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

k〈l〉kr l|rkl klkl llkr klk|l llkl llkl k|lkl klkl

Discussion

Morelius 1553. 97; Koppiers 1771. 31–2

Text 1 as transmitted by the manuscripts of Athenaeus is metrically deficient, and Koppier’s addition of μέν (lost via haplography before Μενέλαος/Μενέλεως) neatly solves the problem while simultaneously producing a contrast with the δέ-clause in 3. Further on in 1, the alpha in the paradosis Μενέλαος is long, and a metrically-aware late 15th-century editor emended to Μενέλεως (for which, cf. Ar. Th. 867*, 901, 910; Kannicht 1969 on E. Hel. 131, 564 (cited by Kassel–Austin)). Yet further on in 1, the paradosis ἐπολέμησεν is easily diagnosed as scriptio plena ἐπολέμησε with moveable nu added by a scribe or editor concerned to eliminate hiatus. Morelius emended to ἐπολέμησ’, although the paradosis is also metrical (if unnecessarily complicated) and might be retained. Citation context From a long discussion of gluttons and gluttony that also preserves frr. 27 (at Ath. 8.338e–9b); 77 (at Ath. 8.340c); 116–17 (at Ath. 8.342d); and 188 (at Ath. 8.342e–3b, where Phoinikidês and Taureas are again mentioned together). Interpretation As the fragment is preserved, πολεμεῖ must be supplied in 3 from ἐπολέμησ(ε) in 1. If the point is to bring out the absurdity of the contrast between the objects of the two quarrels—Menelaus waged war for a beautiful woman, whereas Phoinikidês does so for an eel!—ἔτη δέκα undermines the logic of the argument, for if a beautiful woman is worth ten years of war, an eel is arguably worth a few seconds of much less dangerous combat. Perhaps the contrast is ill-structured, and the length of the Trojan War is mentioned simply because it is a standard meme, in which case the fault lies with the author. Alternatively, the speaker may be attempting to praise Phoinikidês as a nominally heroic figure, or

190

Antiphanes

be asserting that Phoinikidês and Taureas have engaged in a decade-long running quarrel over a single hostile dinner-table or marketplace encounter (see 3), or even be mocking Menelaus instead. But most likely the problem is to be traced to the process of excerpting, and the δέ-clause originally had something to balance ἔτη δέκα and perhaps its own verb as well. In that case, the extravagant τὴν ὄψιν καλήν in 2 may also have been answered in what followed: Phoinikidês’ eel was καλός in regard to e. g. size or flavor. Kassel–Austin compare Eub. fr. 6.1–2 θερμότερον ἢ κραυρότερον ἢ μέσως ἔχον, / τοῦτ’ ἔσθ’ ἑκάστῳ μεῖζον ἢ Τροίαν ἑλεῖν (“Whether the food’s a bit hot, or a bit dry, or perfectly done, is more important to each of us than sacking Troy”; said by a greedy dinner-guest). For the Trojan War in the comic imagination, see Wright 2007 (speculative and concentrating on the 5th century), and for Troy as a referent, note also Eub. fr. 118 (Homer’s heroes ate no fish and had no access to prostitutes throughout the course of the hostilities, but were instead forced to subsist on roast beef while resorting to masturbation and mutual buggery). 1–2 For Menelaus, see Pirrotta 2009 on Pl. Com. Meneleôs (pp. 179–80); LIMC VIII.1 pp. 834–5; Stelow 2009; Stelow 2020. 1 πολεμέω is first attested at Stesich. fr. S18 col. I.8 = fr. 19.8 Finglass; Hippon. fr. *117.8, but in the classical period is largely restricted to comedy (also e. g. Ar. Pax 1080; Av. 1591; Ephipp. fr. 9.2; Apollod. Car. fr. 5.3) and prose; attested in tragedy only at S. OC 191; E. Hipp. 263; Ion 1386 (in all three cases metaphorical). 3 The glutton Phoinikidês (PAA 962335) is also mentioned in fr. 188.4 (n.); Euphan. fr. 1; Ath. 8.345e (“When Phoinikidês served fish to the people who had contributed to the dinner expenses, he used to say that the sea belongs to everyone, but that the fish it contained were the property of those who purchased them”), in the first two cases along with Taureas (PAA 875865). Nothing else certain is known about either man. δι’ ἔγχελυν For eating eel (a delicacy), fr. 45.1 n. For gluttons competing for or quarreling over particularly delicious food, cf. Ar. Pax 1009–15; Alex. fr. 47 (in both cases in the marketplace), and fr. 77; Euphan. fr. 1 (also in reference to Phoinikidês); Bion fr. 81 Kindstrand; Ath. 8.345c–d, drawing at least in part on Aristodêmos’ Humorous Memoirs (sc. of things said and done at the dinner table).

191

Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν (Hautou erôn)

“The Man who is in Love with Himself ”

Introduction Title ἔρως is erotic love, not simple liking or admiration. The title character is accordingly a narcissist in the ancient sense (cf. Paus. 9.31.7; Ov. Met. 3.402–36) but not the modern one (for which, see 45). Cf. the similarly paradoxical Αὑτὸν τιμωρούμενος of Menander and Αὑτὸν πενθῶν of Damoxenus, on the one hand, and other titles that refer to a personal quality of what must have been a leading character (Ἄγροικος, Ἀντερῶσα, Ἀφροδίσιος, Βουταλίων, Δύσπρατος, Ἐνεά, Μισοπόνηρος, Ὄβριμος, Παιδεραστής, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ, Φιλοπάτωρ, and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Μαλθάκη, and in the plural Ἄσωτοι), on the other. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 51 K.–A. (49 K.) τροφαλίδας τε λινοσάρκους, μανθάνεις; τυρὸν λέγω 1 τροφαλίδας Ath.CE Eust. : τροφαλινδας Ath.A λινοσάρκους Ath.ACE Eust. : λιτοσάρκους Lobeck  : λειοσάρκους Naber  : λιπαροσάρκους Meineke  : χιονοσάρκους Kock (B.) τυρὸν λέγεις Naber And linen-fleshed wheels, do you understand? I’m referring to cheese Ath. 10.455e–f Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶντί φησι· —— And Antiphanes in Hautou erôn says: —— Eust. p. 1339.17–18 = IV.869.19–22 (= Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1.90.37–91.3) τροφαλίς, ἧς χρῆσις παρὰ τῷ κωμικῷ Ἀντιφάνει ἐν τῷ ——, ἵνα εἴη αἰνιγματωδῶς λέγων λινοσάρκους, ἤγουν λεπτὰς (λευκὰς Kock) καὶ ἁπαλάς, τροφαλίδας τὸν τοιοῦτον τυρόν trophalis, which is used in the comic poet Antiphanes in his ——, which allows him to refer in a riddling fashion to cheese of the same sort as linosarkoi wheels, i. e. as light (“white” Kock) and soft

192

Antiphanes

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

rklk lkll | lkll lkl

Discussion Lobeck 1843. 111 n. 13; Meineke 1867. 207; Νaber 1880. 45–6; Kock 1884 II.30–1 Text τροφαλινδας in Ath.A is not the right spelling of the word—the Epitome’s τροφαλίδας is correct; see Interpretation—and is in any case unmetrical. The reference to cheese as “linen-fleshed” seems odd (see Interpretation), and various alternatives to Athenaeus’ λινοσάρκους have been advanced. Lobeck’s λιτοσάρκους (“simple-fleshed” or “thin-fleshed”) requires a change of only one letter but does not obviously improve the sense, and Naber’s λειοσάρκους (“smoothfleshed”) is much better. Meineke proposed λιπαροσάρκους (“oily-fleshed, sleek-fleshed”), but this seems an odd term for cheese. Kock’s χιονοσάρκους (“snowy-fleshed”, i. e. “with flesh as white as snow”) makes good sense but is even further from the paradosis. Naber suggested placing a change of speaker after μανθάνεις; and emending λέγω to λέγεις (thus “(B.) You’re referring to cheese”). This converts the interlocutor into less of a hapless victim; but the self-gloss makes perfect sense, and there is no positive reason to make the change. Citation context Cited by Athenaeus as an example of a γρῖφος (“riddle”), like fr. 55 earlier in the same discussion, much of which seems to be drawn from Clearchus of Soli’s On Riddles. Anaxandr. fr. 6 and Timocl. fr. 13, which involve similar circumlocutions for a cookpot and a table, respectively, are quoted immediately after this. Eustathius knows the verse from his own copy of the Epitome of Athenaeus and is thus not an independent witness to the text. Interpretation The parallel in fr. 55 suggests that the speaker may be a grandiloquent cook or the like addressing a less-than-enthusiastic employer. τε makes clear that the cheese is only one item in a catalogue. A τροφαλίς is some common unit of cheese (e. g. Eup. fr. 299.1; Ar. V. 838 τροφαλίδα τυροῦ Σικελικήν, “a Sicilian trophalis of cheese”; Alex. fr. 178.12 (diminutive); Arist. HA 522a15, 31; Hermias fr. 2, FHG ii. 80). ΣR Ar. V. 838 defines it as κυρίως ὁ κύκλος τοῦ τροχοῦ (“properly a circle of a wheel”, i. e. “a round wheel”), while ΣΓ* Ar. V. 838 suggests τὸν ἐπιμήκη τυρόν (“a very long cheese”) or alternatively τροχὸν τυροῦ Σικελικοῦ (“a wheel of Sicilian cheese”); both appear to be guessing. The word is cognate with τρέφω (“curdle”; thus e. g. Philox.Gramm. fr. *282 τροφαλίς· … παρὰ τὸ τρέφω, τὸ πήσσω, “trophalis: … from ‘curdle, clot’”; Phryn. PS p. 113.5–6 τροφαλὶς τυροῦ· εἴρηται ἀπὸ τοῦ θρέψαι, ὅ ἐστι πῆξαι, “a trophalis of cheese: derived from ‘to curdle’, which is ‘to clot’”) and is identified as an Atticism at Moer. τ 24, hence presumably its presence in Phrynichus (above) and at Luc. Lex. 13 τυροῦ τροφαλίδας. The word itself does not obviously mean anything more than “a curdled mass”, sc. of fresh, soft cheese, regardless of the shape; cf. Nausicr. 1.12 (seemingly a riddling reference to cheese as “the milk-skinned

Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν (fr. 52)

193

substance a Sicilian mob curdles”); Erot. p. 85.12 τρόφαλιν τὸν πεπηγότα τυρόν (“a trophalis is clotted cheese”); Apollon. p. 130.14–15 τροφαλὶς τὸ πεπηγμένον γάλα (“a trophalis is clotted milk”); Hsch. τ 1281 τράφαλλος· ὁ χλωρὸς τυρός (“traphallos: fresh cheese”), 1573 τρυφαλίδες· τὰ τμήματα τοῦ ἁπαλοῦ τυροῦ (“tryphalides: slices of soft cheese”); Demont 1978. 358.109 λινοσάρκους An absurd, high-style (“dithyrambic”) compound, like e. g. κοιλοσώματον and γλακτοθρέμμονα at fr. 55.2, 4 (nn.) and λιμνοσώματοι (of eels) at Eub. fr. 36.2; if sound (see Text), most easily interpreted as a reference to the color of the cheese, which must be a dull, grayish white. Linen was produced from flax, which was first immersed in water (“retting”) and then beaten (“skutched”) to separate the flax fibers from the woody material in which they are embedded; combed (“hackled”); and spun. For the technology, see Boase 1919. 373–5, 378; Turner 1947, esp. 611–14 (although his interest is primarily in modern practices); Forbes 1964 iii.27–43. For the evidence for flax cultivation in Greece, see Valamoti 2011; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 101–6. μανθάνεις; is here seemingly impatient, as also at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 74.2; Crates Com. fr. 22; Ar. Av. 1003 (“Are you following me?”); Eub. fr. 101; Alex. frr. 98.3; 129.15; Anaxipp. fr. 8.2; Men. Dysc. 949 ταῦτα μανθάνεις σύ;; Sam. 378; Damoxen. fr. 2.23, 53. Colloquial and therefore absent e. g. from tragedy. τυρόν Cheese (a basic foodstuff) is included in banquet catalogues and the like at e. g. fr. 131.7–9 n. (from Kyklôps); Pherecr. fr. 50.6–7 (in honey); Ar. V. 676; Anaxandr. fr. 42.44; Ephipp. frr. 3.5 (sliced and roasted); 13.3; Alex. frr. 201.2; 263.3; Men. fr. 224.5. Cf. frr. 21.3–4 (on the cheese-market generally); 51 n.; 63.1; 140.1 (in a list of kitchen supplies) with n.; 181.2 (in a list of simple foods); 233.4 n. (on cheese imported from Sicily); Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 14.5.

fr. 52 K.–A. (50 K.) Poll. 10.152 ἀρύβαλλος δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ συσπάστου βαλαντίου ἐν Ἀντιφάνους Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶντι καὶ ἐν Στησιχόρου Κερβέρῳ (PMG 206 = fr. 165 Finglass) aryballos (is used) in reference to a purse with a draw-string in Antiphanes’ Hautou Erôn and in Stesichorus’ Kerberos (PMG 206 = fr. 165 Finglass)

Meter The word as preserved in Pollux scans rlx and is easily accommodated in e. g. iambic trimeter. Citation context From a brief discussion of words for money-sacks and the like that also preserves fr. 155. Parallel material is preserved at 109

In any case, scarcely “nurturess” (Rusten 2011. 491).

194

Antiphanes

– Moer. α 168 ἀρύβαλλον· ἔστι δὲ ποτηρίου εἶδος στενόστομον (“aryballos (acc.): this is a type of cup with a narrow mouth”) – Ath. 11.783f ἀρύβαλλος ποτήριον κάτωθεν εὐρύτερον, ἄνω δὲ συνηγμένον, ὡς τὰ συσπαστὰ βαλάντια, ἃ καὶ αὐτὰ διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα ἀρυβάλλους τινὲς καλοῦσιν (“an aryballos is a cup that is wider at the bottom and narrow at the top, like draw-string purses, which some authorities also refer to as aryballoi on account of the resemblance”; from the long, roughly alphabetical catalogue of cups and related vessels that makes up most of Book 11 of the Deipnosophists) – Hsch. α 7548 ἀρύβαλλοι· τὰ μαρσύππια. ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρύειν καὶ βάλλειν εἰς αὐτούς (“aryballoi: money-pouches; from the fact that aryein (they draw, sc. them closed) and ballein (they throw) money into them”) (~ Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.1 p. 158.22 (only the first three words); Et.Gen. p. 1248.1–6, also quoting Ar. Eq. 1094) – Suda α 3870 = Synag. B α 2123 ἀρύβαλλος· οὐ μόνον παρὰ Στησιχόρῳ (PMG 206 = fr. 165 Finglass) καὶ ἄλλοις Δωριεῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν Ἱππεῦσιν Ἀριστοφάνους (1094)· —— … Θεόπομπος (fr. 87) (“aryballos: not only in Stesichorus (PMG 206 = fr. 165 Finglass) and other Doric authors, but also in Aristophanes’ Knights (1094): —— … Theopompus (Theopomp. Com. fr. 87)”; from the common source of the Suda and the Synagoge conventionally referred to as Σ΄, and likely drawn from the same original source as the material in Pollux, given the shared reference to Stesichorus) – Phot. α 2911 = Synag. B α 2184 = Lex.Rhet. p. 148.8 ἀρύβαλλος· τὸ ἑλκυστὸν βαλάντιον (“aryballos: a purse that is drawn closed”; from the common source of Photius and the Synagoge conventionally referred to as Σ΄ ΄ ΄) – ΣVEΓΘM Ar. Eq. 1094 (~ Suda α 4057) πλεκτόν τι βαλλάντιόν ἐστιν ὁ ἀρύβαλλος, ὅπερ ἑλκόμενον κλείεται καὶ ἀνοίγεται, παρὰ τὸ ἀρύειν καὶ βάλλειν (“an aryballos is a woven purse that is closed and opened by being drawn; from aryein (to draw) and ballein (to throw)”). Interpretation At Ar. Eq. 1094, an ἀρύβαλλος is used to pour perfume over one man’s head, but brine-sauce over another’s. Pollux twice associates the vessel with bathhouses (7.166; 10.63 (both passages seemingly drawing on the same source)), perhaps merely because it is used to pour liquid over someone in the line from Aristophanes, which he quotes at 10.63 (and cf. Eq. 1091). Despite Hesychius and the scholia to Aristophanes (see Citation context), the etymology of the word is obscure (cognate with βαλλάντιον?). For the vessel itself, see Kanowski 1984. 26–9. For purses closed with a draw-string, cf. Pl. Smp. 190e συνέλκων πανταχόθεν τὸ δέρμα ἐπὶ τὴν γαστέρα νῦν καλουμένην, ὥσπερ τὰ σύσπαστα βαλλάντια, ἓν στόμα ποιῶν ἀπέδει κατὰ μέσην τὴν γαστέρα, ὃ δὴ τὸν ὀμφαλὸν καλοῦσι (“pulling the skin together from all sides toward what is now called the ‘belly’, just like drawstring purses, he made a single mouth, which people today call the ‘navel’, and tied it off in the middle of the belly”; Apollo repairs human beings after they have

Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν (fr. 53)

195

been split into two parts by Zeus110). For purses and money-sacks (βαλλάντια) generally, e. g. Ar. Eq. 707; Av. 1107–8; Lys. 1053/4; Crito Com. fr. 3.1; Olson 2002 on Ar. Ach. 130–1.

fr. 53 K.–A. (51 K.) Ath. 15.678e (κυλιστὸς στέφανος) μνημονεύει δ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Ἑαυτοῦ ἐρῶντι (kylistos garland) Antiphanes in Heautou erôn also mentions it

Citation context Cited along with Archipp. fr. 42; Alex. frr. 4; 210; Eub. fr. 73, in that order, as part of a question—never answered—as to what a κυλιστὸς στέφανος is, within the catalogue of wreaths offered by Ulpian at Ath. 15.677b–80e. Perhaps drawn from Philonides’ On Perfumes and Garlands (cited at Ath. 15.691f), Apollodorus’ work by the same title (cited at Ath. 15.675e) or Aelius Asclepiades’ Garlands (cited at Ath. 15.676f, 679b). Interpretation Nothing is known about κυλιστοί (literally “round, circular”) garlands except what is said about them in the comic fragments preserved in this passage of the Deipnosophists and in Alex. fr. 274.4–5 ἐδόκει στεφανοῦν γυμνὸς προσελθὼν 〈 … 〉 / στεφάνῳ κυλιστῷ κοκκυμήλων (in a dream, an athletic opponent “seemed to come up to me naked and crown me with a kylistos garland of plums”): they can be hung up (Alex. fr. 210); they can be made of—i. e. decorated with?—both figs (Alex. fr. 4.2) and plums (Alex. fr. 274.5); and they can be made to go in circles (Eub. fr. 73 “περιφοραῖς κυκλούμενος like a kylistos garland”). Whether the κυλιστὸς στέφανος is to be identified with the ἐκκυλιστὸς στέφανος mentioned in Archipp. fr. 42 (worn by a man who gives up his himation “and goes off home scot-free”), which Nicander of Thyateira in his Attic Words (FGrH 343 F 7), cited immediately after this by Athenaeus, claimed was made of roses in particular, is unclear. It is in any case tempting to think that the adjective is purely decorative and that the existence of a specific variety of garland known as κυλιστός is a figment of the ancient lexicographic imagination. For garlands generally, see frr. 83.2 n.; 238.2 n.; Blech 1982. The adjective does not appear anywhere except in these fragments and the sources that preserve them before the late Byzantine period.

110

Galen picks up Plato’s image repeatedly (e. g. 2.424.11 K.; 4.381.14 K.).

196

Ἀφροδίσιος (Aphrodisios) “The Man who Loves Sex”

Introduction Discussion

Casaubon 1664. 754; Meineke 1839–1857 I.324–5; Kock 1884 II.31

Title Stobaeus (quoting fr. 54) refers to this play as Ἀφροδίσιος (literally “The Man Devoted to Aphrodite”, i. e. to sex; ~ LSJ s. v. I), as does the Antiatticist (quoting fr. 56). But one manuscript of Stobaeus before correction calls it Ἀφροδίσια (“The Festival of Aphrodite”; cf. Alex. fr. 255.1; LSJ s. v. II.2), while Ath.A (quoting fr. 55) calls it Ἀφρόδισος (neither an ordinary Greek word nor a personal name). Similar confusion—most easily explained as the result of varying responses to exemplars reading Ἀφροδι vel sim.—reigns with a play by Menander, which is variously referred to as Ἀφροδίσια (Stob.MA, quoting Men. fr. 86), Ἀφροδίσιος (Suda, citing Men. fr. 87, and Phot. = Suda = Synagoge, quoting Men. fr. 88) and Ἀφροδίδιον (sic; catal. fab. = test. 42.13).111 “The Festival of Aphrodite” has no parallels among Antiphanes’ surviving titles (although cf. Menander’s Χαλκεῖα), and more likely Ἀφροδίσιος was a colloquial term for a person whose main interest in life was sex (Synag. α 1174).112 Cf. Μοιχοί and Παιδεραστής, on the one hand, and Ἄγροικος, Ἀντερῶσα, Ἀποκαρτερῶν, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, Βουταλίων, Δύσπρατος, Ἐνεά, Μισοπόνηρος, Ὄβριμος, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ, Φιλοπάτωρ and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Μαλθάκη, on the other. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 54 K.–A. (53 K.) πενθεῖν δὲ μετρίως τοὺς προσήκοντας φίλους· οὐ γὰρ τεθνᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν ἣν πᾶσιν ἐλθεῖν ἔστ’ ἀναγκαίως ἔχον, 111

112

DGE s.v. Ἀφροδίσιον III.2 (in the plural) “tít. de una comedia de Teopompo, Theopomp. Com.4”, seemingly in reference to fr. 5 K.–A. But the play appears to have been called Ἀφροδίτη, with Ἀφροδίσια merely being an emendation in the scholia contained in the Aldine edition of Aristophanes. Kock (comparing Synag. B α 2568 Ἀφροδίσιον· … ἢ ἰδίως τὸ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἕδος, with ἕδος to be taken as in LSJ s.v. I.3) suggests that the title may actually have been Ἀφροδίσιον meaning “The Statue of Aphrodite”. This would be more convincing, were there better parallels.

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 54)

5

197

προεληλύθασιν. εἶτα χἠμεῖς ὕστερον εἰς ταὐτὸ καταγωγεῖον αὐτοῖς ἥξομεν κοινῇ τὸν ἄλλον συνδιατρίψοντες χρόνον

1 πενθεῖν] πένθει Naber 4 προεληλύθασιν ed. Froben. : προσεληλύθασιν Stob.SA : M πρὸς ἐληλύθασιν Stob. 5 καταγωγεῖον Stephanus  : καταγώγιον Stob.SM  : def. Stob.A 6 συνδιατρίψοντες ed. Froben. : συνδιατρίψαντες Stob.SMA

5

to grieve in moderation for the relatives we love; for they have not died, but have preceded us on the same journey that everyone must make. Then later on we too will come to the same lodging place as them to spend the rest of time together

Stob. 4.56.27 ac Ἀντιφάνους ἐξ Ἀφροδισίου (Stob.MA : Ἀφροδισίων Stob.A  : om. Stob.S)· —— From Antiphanes’ Aphrodisios: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

llkr l|lkl llkl llkl k|lk|l llkl llkl l|lkl llkl rlkl k|lk|l llkl llkr llk|l llkl llkl l|lrl llkl

Discussion

Naber 1880. 46; Stephanopoulos 2017. 246

Text The paradosis προσεληλύθασιν (thus Stob.SA : divided πρὸς ἐληλύθασιν in Stob.M) in 4 is metrical but distorts the sense; corrected to the more appropriate προεληλύθασιν in the 1516 Basel edition of the text. πρ with an omicron in superscript is a common way of writing προς and may be the source of the error. In 5, Stephanus’ καταγωγεῖον in place of the paradosis καταγώγιον (thus Stob.SM and the various prose-authors who use the term; Stob.A is defective at this point) is a matter of simple metrical necessity, as also at Macho 62 (the only other attestation of the word in verse). In 6, the paradosis aorist participle συνδιατρίψαντες (“after passing time together”) is metrical but nonsensical. The future συνδιατρίψοντες (a change of a single letter), first printed in the 1516 Basel edition of Stobaeus, is patently correct. Citation context Quoted by Stobaeus (5th century CE) in a section entitled παρηγορικά (“Consolatory material”) that also includes the passages from Philemon, Sophocles and Euripides cited at the beginning of Interpretation. Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material

198

Antiphanes

he quotes, which must instead be drawn from one or more pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. Interpretation The passage plays with conventional consolatory motifs, including the pointlessness of bewailing those who have passed (e. g. Philem. fr. 77; S. fr. 557) and the universality of death (E. Andr. 1270–2). But it also makes the unusual claim that the dead are not really dead but have merely preceded us to a place where we will soon be together with them, removing any reason to mourn too much. Cf. [Plu.] Mor. 113c–d καθάπερ γὰρ τῆς εἰς καινὴν πατρίδα πορείας προκειμένης πᾶσιν ἀναγκαίας καὶ ἀπαραιτήτου οἱ μὲν προπορεύονται, οἱ δ’ ἐπακολουθοῦσι, πάντες δ’ ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν ἔρχονται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον τῶν εἰς τὸ χρεὼν ὁδευόντων οὐδὲν πλέον ἔχοντες τυγχάνουσιν οἱ βραδύτερον ἀφικνούμενοι τῶν θᾶττον παραγιγνομένων (“for just as, when an obligatory and unavoidable migration to a new country lies ahead for everyone, some people make the journey first and others follow, but everyone goes to the same place, in this same fashion, of those who make their way to what must be, those who come later have no advantage over those who arrive more rapidly” (of the “journey” to death); cited by Kassel–Austin). Stobaeus probably took—or was willing to take—the blessed spot in question to be Heaven. Antiphanes, by contrast, must have been referring to the Underworld, which makes this much colder comfort. For death as a journey, cf. Ar. fr. 504.10 πᾶς γὰρ λέγει τις, ὁ μακαρίτης οἴχεται (“For everyone says, ‘The deceased goes away’”); Taillardat 1962 § 58 (“Ces métaphores sont banales”). For a wide-ranging collection of such material, see Lattimore 1942. The accusative-infinitive construction in 1 must originally have been governed by δεῖ vel sim. 1 Kassel–Austin compare E. fr. 43 πάντων τὸ θανεῖν· τὸ δὲ κοινὸν ἄχος / μετρίως ἀλγεῖν σοφία μελετᾷ (“Everyone must die; but wisdom takes care to grieve over our common burden only in moderation”). Appeals for and commendations of moderate behavior, not just in grief (e. g. Isoc. 1.42 χαῖρε μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς συμβαίνουσιν τῶν ἀγαθῶν, λυποῦ δὲ μετρίως ἐπὶ τοῖς γιγνομένοις τῶν κακῶν, “Take pleasure in the good things that happen, but feel (only) moderate grief at what goes wrong!”), but in anything in which excess is possible, are commonplace (e. g. E. HF 709; X. An. 2.3.20). τοὺς προσήκοντας φίλους For the expression, cf. E. fr. 834 καὶ γὰρ πέφυκε τοῦτ’ ἐν ἀνθρώπου φύσει· / ἢν καὶ δίκῃ θνῄσκῃ τις, οὐχ ἧσσον ποθεῖ / πᾶς τις δακρύειν τοὺς προσήκοντας φίλους (“For this in fact is part of human nature: even if a person deserves to die, everyone nonetheless longs to weep for his relatives”; compared by Stephanopoulos). More often προσήκοντες (“relatives”) and φίλοι (“friends”) are distinguished from one another (e. g. Hdt. 2.90.2 οὔτε τῶν προσηκόντων οὔτε τῶν φίλων; Is. 5.35 καὶ εἰς τοὺς προσήκοντας καὶ εἰς τοὺς φίλους; 8.18 τρεῖς αὑτοῦ φίλους μετὰ τῶν αὑτοῦ προσηκόντων). 2–3 For ὁδὸν ἔρχομαι in the sense “make a journey” (internal accusative), e. g. Ar. Ach. 1144; Eq. 621; Il. 1.151; A. Th. 714; E. Tr. 235–6; X. HG 7.4.17; Pl. Prt.

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 54)

199

317b, and cf. fr. 118.2 τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδόν with n.; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.25 πέμπω τε … τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδόν (“I send them on the same journey”). 3 For ἔστ’ ἀναγκαίως ἔχον, cf. A. Ch. 239*; Ar. Pax 334. The simpler ἀναγκαίως ἔχει is far more common (e. g. Ar. V. 261; Diph. fr. 31.13; Hdt. 7.51.1; E. Cyc. 32; HF 502 θανεῖν γάρ, ὡς ἔοικ’, ἀναγκαίως ἔχει; Pl. Lg. 771e). For the periphrasis, cf. fr. 122.12 with n. 4 The compound προέρχομαι is almost exclusively prosaic (first attested in comedy here; subsequently in Menander at e. g. Dysc. 2, 397). For εἶτα … ὕστερον, e. g. Ar. Pax 1009–10; E. Andr. 756; Hp. Int. 48.27 = 7.286.13 Littré; Hyp. Ath. col. 3.3; Arist. Pol. 1304b11; Po. 1453b30; Archestr. fr. 22.3–4. For εἶτα modified by another adverb generally offering a more precise description of the point in time in question, e. g. Ar. V. 1291 εἶτα νῦν; Lys. 978 κᾆτ’ ἐξαίφνης; Ra. 238 κᾆτ’ αὐτίκ’; Ec. 397 κᾆτ’ εὐθέως, 789 εἶτα τηνικαῦτ’ ἤδη; Anaxandr. fr. 4.4 εἶτ’ εἰς τρίτην; Epicr. fr. 10.23 κᾆτ’ ἐξαίφνης. Contrast fr. 69.9 εἶτα καὶ νῦν with n.; fr. dub. 328.2 ἔπειτα δ ὕστερον. 5 A καταγωγεῖον is a “lodging place”; cf. LSJ s. v. κατάγω I.4.b “turn in and lodge in a person’s house”, citing inter alia Eup. fr. 373; X. Smp. 8.39. The noun (prosaic late 5th/4th-century vocabulary) is rare. But Thucydides (3.68.3) and Xenophon (Vect. 3.12) both use it to refer to large public dormitories—the one Thucydides describes in Plataia was “200 feet in diameter, with rooms on all sides on upper and lower levels” and associated with a temple, while Xenophon’s is intended for merchants visiting the city and is apparently designed to generate revenue, sc. via lodging-charges—in implict contrast to small private inns. Cf. Pl. Phdr. 259a (a καταγώγιον as a place to sleep); Clearch. fr. 7.6 Wehrli (the soul enters and leaves the body as if it were a καταγώγιον, i. e. a temporary place of residence); Macho 62 (a visitor to a foreign city complains to a temple-attendant making a sacrifice to Zenoposeidon, literally “Zeus-Poseidon”, about the impossibility of finding a καταγωγεῖον in a place where even gods must apparently share quarters). 6 implicitly makes clear the ground for the grief described (and disapproved) in 1, which is the loss of the dead person’s company. The adverbial use of κοινῇ in the sense “in common” is widespread in 5th- and th 4 -century comedy (e. g. Ar. Nu. 67; Ec. 874; Cratin. Jun. fr. 8.3; Ephipp. fr. 3.9; Alex. fr. 293.2) and especially in prose (e. g. Hdt. 1.151.3; Th. 1.3.1; Andoc. 3.25; X. HG 2.4.35; Pl. Cr. 46d), but is attested in elevated poetry only at S. OT 606; OC 1339; E. fr. 823.2, suggesting that it was felt to be colloquial. τὸν ἄλλον συνδιατρίψοντες χρόνον sc. αὐτοῖς; cf. Cratin. fr. 1.4–5 Κίμωνι … / αἰῶνα πάντα συνδιατρίψειν (“that I would spend forever with Cimon”; the earliest attestation of the compound, which is otherwise prosaic); Isoc. 15.300 οἷς … ἄν τις τὸν ἅπαντα βίον συνδιατρίψειεν; Pl. Ly. 204c ἐὰν δ’ … καὶ σμικρὸν χρόνον συνδιατρίψῃ σοι. For the specific phrase τὸν ἄλλον … χρόνον + future in the sense “forever”, cf. Lys. 14.4.

200

Antiphanes

fr. 55 K.–A. (52 K.)

5

10

15

(Α.) πότερ’, ὅταν μέλλω λέγειν σοι τὴν χύτραν, 〈χύτραν〉 λέγω ἢ τροχοῦ ῥύμαισι τυκτὸν κοιλοσώματον κύτος πλαστὸν ἐκ γαίης, ἐν ἄλλῃ μητρὸς ὀπτηθὲν στέγῃ, νεογενοῦς ποίμνης δ’ ἐν αὑτῇ πνικτὰ γλακτοθρέμμονα τακεροχρῶτ’ εἴδη κύουσαν; (Β.) Ἡράκλεις, ἀποκτενεῖς ἆρά μ’, εἰ μὴ γνωρίμως μοι πάνυ φράσεις κρεῶν χύτραν. (Α.) εὖ λέγεις. ξουθῆς μελίσσης νάμασιν δὲ συμμιγῆ μηκάδων αἰγῶν ἀπόρρουν θρόμβον, ἐγκαθειμένον εἰς πλατὺ στέγαστρον ἁγνῆς παρθένου Δηοῦς κόρης, λεπτοσυνθέτοις τρυφῶντα μυρίοις καλύμμασιν, ἢ σαφῶς πλακοῦντα φράζω σοι; (Β.) πλακοῦντα βούλομαι. (Α.) Βρομιάδος δ’ ἱδρῶτα πηγῆς; (Β.) οἶνον εἰπὲ συντεμών. (Α.) λιβάδα νυμφαίαν δροσώδη; (Β.) παραλιπὼν ὕδωρ φάθι. (Α.) κασιόπνουν δ’ αὔραν δι’ αἴθρας; (Β.) σμύρναν εἰπέ, μὴ μακράν, μηδὲ τοιοῦτ’ ἄλλο μηθέν, μηδὲ τοὔμπαλιν λέγων· ὅτι δοκεῖ τοῦτ’ ἔργον εἶναι μεῖζον, ὥς φασίν τινες, αὐτὸ μὲν μηθέν, παρ’ αὐτὸ δ’ ἄλλα συστρέφειν πυκνά

1 πότερ’ Koppiers : πότερον Ath.A 〈χύτραν〉 add. Casaubon 2 ῥύμαισι Koppiers : τυκτὸν Naber  : τευκτὸν Ath.ACE ῥύμασι Ath.C Eust.  : ρυμασι Ath.A  : ῥήμασι Ath.E ἄλλῃ Ath.ACE Eust. 3 γαίης Ath.ACE Eust. : γαίας Meineke : γῆς, εἶτ ἐν ἄλλῃ Kaibel Eust. : ἁγνῆς Kock 4 νεογενοῦς Ath.ACE : νεογενῆ Grotius δ’ ἐν αὑτῇ Meineke : πνικτὰ δ’ ἐν αὐτῇ Ath.ACE  : δὲ ταύτην vel δ’ ἐν ὕδατι Herwerden  : ἔπαυλιν Kock Ath.ACE  : τέκνα Grotius γλακτοθρέμμονα Meineke  : γαλακτοθρέμμονα Ath.ACE  : γαλατοθρέμμονα Dindorf 5 τακεροχρῶτ’ εἴδη κύουσαν Porson  : τακεροχρῶτι δη 6 ἆρα Grotius : ἄρα Ath.A 7 συμμιγῆ Casaubon : συμμιγὴς Ath. κτύουσαν Ath.A ACE Eust. 8 ἀπορρουν θρόμβον Ath.A : ἀπόρρους θρόμβος Ath.CE ἐγκαθειμένον 10 λεπτοσυνθέτοις Herwerden  : ἐγκαθήμενον Ath.A  : ἐγκαθήμενος Ath.CE Eust. τρυφῶντα Casaubon : λεπτοσυνθέτους τρυφῶντας Ath.A καλύμμασιν Ath.A : ἀλείμμασιν Wilamowitz : ἀρτύμασιν Kock 13 νυμφαίαν Meineke : νῦν φαιαν Ath.A : φαίαν Ath.CE 14 μὴ Grotius  : μοι Ath.A 15 (Α.) παραλιπὼν Morelius  : παραλιπὸν Ath.A μηδὲ … μηδέν; Dobree τοιοῦτ’ Erfurdt : τοιοῦτον Ath.A μηθέν scripsi : μηδέν μηδὲ τοὔμπαλιν λέγων Ath.A : μὴ ἀλλὰ τοὔμπαλιν λέγε (vel λέγω) Dobree : Ath.A e. g. (Α.) μηδὲ κομπάσῃς (vel ποικίλῃς) λέγων Kaibel : (Α.) μηδὲ κάμπυλον λόγον Kock : μηδὲ τοὐγκύκλῳ (vel τἀγκύκλῳ) λέγων Kassel : (Α.) μηδ ἐροῦ πάλιν λέγων Lumb ap. Gulick 16 ὅτι … φασίν τινες Ath.A : ὡς … φασίν, λέγειν Kock 17 μηθέν scripsi : A μηδέν Ath.

(A.) Two options: when I’m about to mention the cookpot to you, should I say 〈”cookpot”〉 or “a hollow-bodied concavity, forged under the impulse of a wheel, moulded of earth, baked in a separate chamber formed from its mother, and pregnant with casseroled, milk-nourished tender-fleshed forms

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 55) 5

10

15

of a new-born flock within itself ”? (B.) Herakles! You’ll be the death of me then, if you don’t refer in a perfectly intelligible way to “a cookpot full of meat”. (A.) Very good. Should I refer to “a curdled mass that flows from bleeting she-goats, mingled with streams spawned by a tawny honeybee, nested in a broad wrapper belonging to Deo’s sacred virgin daughter, and luxuriant with countless delicately composed veilings”? Or should I describe it clearly to you as “a cake”? (B.) I want (you to say) “cake”. (A.) “The sweat of a Bromian spring”? (B.) Keep it short—say “wine”! (A.) “A dewy nymphaic font”? (B.) Drop that and use the word “water”! (A.) “A cassia-breathing, trans-ethereal waft”? (B.) Say “incense! Don’t stretch it out, not saying anything else like that, or the opposite either; because this looks like a lot of work, as some people say, to (make no mention of) the thing itself but put together a mass of other words that allude to it

Ath. 10.449b–d ἐν δὲ Ἀφροδισίῳ (Casaubon : Ἀφροδισῳ Ath.A)· —— And in Aphrodisios (thus Casaubon : Aphrodisos Ath.A): —— Hsch. τ 690 ~ Phot. τ 216 = Suda τ 428 = Synag. τ 133 (v. 2) τευκτόν· χειροποιητόν, κατασκευαστόν (v. 2) forged: made by hand, prepared

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

5

10

201

rkll lkll | lkl〈k l〉kl lklk lkll | lklk lkl lkll lkll | lkll lkl rkll lkll | lklk lkl rkll lklk | lklk lkl lkll lkll | rklk lkl lkll lkll | lklk lkl lkll lkll | lklk lkl lklk lkll | lkll lkl lklk lklk | lklk lkl lklk lkll | lklk lkl rklk lkll | lklk lkl

202

Antiphanes

15

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

Discussion Morelius 1553. 100; Grotius 1626. 605, 975–6; Casaubon 1664. 754–5; Koppiers 1771. 34; Erfurdt 1812. 465; Porson 1812. 121; Meineke 1814. 8; Dindorf 1827 I.582; Dobree 1833. 328; Meineke 1839–1857 III.26–9; Herwerden 1855. 46–7; Wilamowitz 1873. 154; Herwerden 1876. 312; Naber 1880. 46; Kock 1884 II.31–2; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.476–7; Richards 1895. 76; Lange 1937; Kassel ap. Kassel–Austin; Grandjouan 1989. 58, 61, 65; Nesselrath 1990. 257–8; Dobrov 2002. 171–3; Pütz 2003. 245–8 Text The paradosis πότερον at the beginning of 1 is unmetrical and must represent a unsuccessful attempt to add an appropriate scriptio plena ending to Koppier’s πότερ(α). A word with the metrical value kl is missing near the end of 1, and Casaubon’s 〈χύτραν〉 (omitted via haplography) neatly fills the gap while also restoring sense. In the first half of 2, ῥύμασι (thus Ath.C Eust.; the word is left unaccented in Ath.A, the scribe apparently having found it incomprehensible; ῥήμασι in Ath.E is an aural error reflecting Byzantine pronunciation), as if < neuter ῥῦμα, is unmetrical, hence Koppiers’ ῥύμαισι. Further on in 2, τευκτόν (thus Ath.ACE Eust.) is attested elsewhere only in the lexicographers (going back to the common source conventionally referred to as Σ΄, and probably referring to this verse). Naber’s metrically indifferent τυκτόν appears to be the proper form of the word, although Naber does not make the point specifically; see Interpretation. If the reference in Hsch. ~ Phot. = Suda = Synag. is to Antiphanes, the fact that the word is attested with the epsilon there shows only that Athenaeus was likely drawing on the same authority or a related one, and that the error occurred early on. But see Citation context. In 3, Meineke’s γαίας rather than the paradosis γαίης is expected in tragedy in particular (e. g. A. Pers. 618; S. Ai. 235; E. Hipp. 973). But the form in êta is standard in epic (e. g. Il. 1.270; Od. 1.59; Hes. Th. 300; hDem. 340), meaning that either γαίης or γαίας can be regarded a high-style and there is no advantage in emending. Further on in 3, Kock’s ἁγνῆς (“in a chamber sprung from its sacred mother”; cf. 9) in place of the paradosis ἄλλῃ is not only unnecessary but diminishes the power of the comparison of the pot to the kiln in which it was baked (or the oven in which the dish has been prepared; see Interpretation). At the beginning of 4, Grotius’ νεογενῆ in place of the paradosis νεογενοῦς allows the adjective to be taken with εἴδη in 5. This flattens the sense without improving it, and δ’ as the third word in the line is easier if the first two function as a single idea.

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 55)

203

In the middle of 4, the manuscripts—which lack authority in such matters— have a smooth breathing on αὑτῇ; corrected by Meineke. Herwerden proposed replacing δ’ ἐν αὑτῇ with either δὲ ταύτην (“this”, in reference to the cookpot) or ἐν ὕδατι (“in water”), while Kock—misleadingly maintaining that κύουσαν in 5 lacks a noun—suggested ἔπαυλιν (“residence” of a sort appropriate for a lamb or kid). None of the suggested emendations makes the text read more smoothly. The same is true of Grotius’ τέκνα for Athenaeus’ πνικτὰ, which has the further disadvantage of being an unlikely error from a palaeographic perspective. Further on in 4, the iota in πνικτός is naturally long (cf. frr. 1.4; 130.2), and the two initial alphas in the paradosis γαλακτοθρέμμονα are both naturally short. Dindorf ’s γαλατοθρέμμονα (printed by Kock) and Meineke’s γλακτοθρέμμονα113 assume that κτ makes position, as it does routinely in Antiphanes (e. g. frr. 1.4; 44.2; 46.2), as well as in cognate words at Philyll. fr. 4.2; Eub. fr. 89.5; Nausicr. fr. 1.12; Diph. fr. 75.3. Kassel–Austin retain γαλακτο-, noting that κτ does not make position at Pherecr. fr. 113.18, where rk is needed and the manuscripts have γάλακτι, although Dindorf conjectured γάλατι, while Gulick suggested γάλακι (cf. Call. SH 288.57 = Hec. fr. 260.57) there. That the problematic readings in Pherecrates and Antiphanes should be allowed to support one another is unclear, given that in both cases the apparent error is easily diagnosed as an example of a common form of a word driving out a much rarer one and both are easily emended. I accordingly adopt Meineke’s γλακτοθρέμμονα, which finds support in Homeric γλάγος (Il. 2.471 = 16.643) and γλακτοφάγων (Il. 13.6) and seems sufficiently recherché to appeal to (A.)’s taste in vocabulary. Kassel–Austin place a comma (not in Meineke or Kock) at the end of the 4, muddying the sense. In 5, the Ath.A-scribe (or the man who produced the Ath.A-scribe’s exemplar) was unable to make adequate sense of the letters before him and wrote the desperate τακεροχρῶτι δη κτύουσαν. Porson’s τακεροχρῶτ’ εἴδη κύουσαν, which assumes an aural error (ι for ει) and a single intrusive tau, mends the line at minimal cost. In 6, Grotius’ reaccentuation of the paradosis ἄρα as ἆρα is necessary for metrical reasons. The sense is not affected; see Interpretation. At the end of 7, the paradosis συμμιγὴς (as if agreeing with the subject of φράζω in 11, but probably better understood as merely reflecting the influence of ξουθῆς μελίσσης a few words earlier) is incoherent and was corrected by Casaubon to συμμιγῆ to agree with ἀπόρρουν θρόμβον in 8. 11 makes it clear that 7–10 are all an elaborate periphrasis for a single cake (πλακοῦς). The Epitome’s ἀπόρρους θρόμβος in place of Ath.A’s ἀπορρουν θρόμβον (sic) in 8 thus cannot be right and must instead represent a half-hearted effort to sort out the sense of the text by making the first word agree with λεπτοσυνθέτους

113

So too Lange, seemingly unaware that Meineke had proposed the emendation almost a century earlier.

204

Antiphanes

τρυφῶντας in 10 (see below) and the second agree with συμμιγὴς in 7 (see above and below). At the end of 8, Ath.A’s ἐγκαθήμενον (corrected to ἐγκαθήμενος in the Epitome, to agree with θρόμβος … συμμιγὴς in 7; see above) is < ἐγκάθημαι, “sit among”, and is not demonstrably wrong. But Herwerden’s easy ἐγκαθειμένον (< ἐγκαθίημι) yields more interesting sense, by putting the emphasis on the process of construction of the cake rather than on the resulting structure. At the beginning of 10, the paradosis masculine accusative plural λεπτοσυνθέτους τρυφῶντας is difficult to integrate into the syntax and was corrected by Casaubon to λεπτοσυνθέτοις τρυφῶντα (just obscure enough to have encouraged an easy but misguided correction). At the end of 10, Wilamowitz’s ἀλείμμασιν (“unguents”, presumably intended as a reference to something poured on top of the cake, such as honey, although this goes badly with λεπτοσυνθέτοις) and Kock’s ἀρτύμμασιν (“seasonings”; not a word normally associated with cakes) in place of the paradosis καλύμμασιν merely flatten the sense by stripping (A.)’s language of a bit of its extravagance. In 12, the Kassel–Austin text has the identity of the first speaker wrong, reading “(B.)” in place of “(A.)”, one of a very small number of typographical errors in a work by and large disguished by extremely high editorial standards. In the first half of 13, the Ath.A-copyist (or the copyist who produced his exemplar) was baffled by letters before him, which he rendered νῦν φαιαν. The copyist of the common exemplar of the Epitome manuscripts, meanwhile, dropped νῦν and attempted φαίαν (as if from φαιός?). Meineke’s νυμφαίαν assumes a single defective letter (Μ written or read Ν). In the second half of 13, the paradosis παραλιπὸν (assimilated to the gender of ὕδωρ) is unmetrical and was corrected by Morelius to παραλιπὼν. In 14, the paradosis σμύρναν εἰπέ μοι μακράν (“Say ‘incense’ to me at length!”) is expressed in a conventional manner (see Interpretation), but makes no sense. Grotius’ neat σμύρναν εἰπέ, μὴ μακράν mends the situation. Dobree suggested giving the first half of 15 to (A.) as a question (“And nothing else of this sort?”). This does not improve the sense or the coherence of the passage, particularly since the words are flat after (A.)’s previous verbal theatrics. The unmetrical paradosis τοιοῦτον in the first half of 15 represents scriptio plena τοιοῦτο of Erfurdt’s τοιοῦτ’ with a nu-moveable added at some point to eliminate hiatus. For μηθέν in place of the paradosis μηδέν in 15 and 17, see fr. 281 Text. In the second half of 15, the participle λέγων is awkward, hence the various conjectures recorded in the apparatus. These are all too far from the paradosis to be convincing. A half-stop at the end of 15, rather than a comma (as in Kassel–Austin), makes the sense—problematic in any case—clearer. ὥς φασίν τινες at the end of 16 is weak, and αὐτὸ μὲν μηδέν at the beginning of 17 is awkward without its own infinitive. Kock accordingly suggested ὡς … φασίν,

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 55)

205

λέγειν (“since this looks like a lot of work, as they say, to make no mention of the thing itself ”), although this amounts to little more than an arbitrary rewriting of the text. Citation context The second in a series of long passages from comedy involving what Athenaeus calls γρῖφοι (“riddles”) offered by Larensius, who has been drawing above at least in part on Clearchus’ On Riddles. Fr. 122 is cited immediately before this, Alex. fr. 242; Eub. fr. 106; Antiph. frr. 192; 194; Diph. fr. 49 (paraphrase), in that order, immediately after this. Frr. 51 and 57 are also preserved later on in the same discussion. As is often the case, the Epitome manuscripts preserve only a truncated version of the text, hence the reference Ath.ACE at some points in the apparatus, but to Ath.A alone at others. Eustathius offers portions of 2–3, 7–9 at p. 1167.9 = IV.271.17, and the first half of 12 at p. 865.15 = III.261.2–3, but is merely drawing on his own copy of the Epitome of Athenaeus and should not be regarded as an independent witness to the text. The manuscripts’ τευκτός (see Text) is attested nowhere else, and Kassel– Austin accordingly take Hsch. τ 690 as a reference to the use of the word in 2; Phot. τ 216 = Suda τ 428 = Synag. τ 133 (from the common source conventionally referred to as Σ΄) is a slightly abbreviated version of the same note. Apollon. p. 156.2 τυκτόν κατεσκευασμένον· τυκτὸν κακόν, ἀλλοπρόσαλλον (Il. 5.831), taken together with Hsch. τ 1618 τυκτόν· κατεσκευασμένον, 1621 τυκτῷ δαπέδῳ (Od. 4.627 = 17.169)· εὖ κατεσκευασμένῳ; Phot. τ 540 = Suda τ 1149 = Synag. τ 286 τυκτόν· χειροποίητον, on the other hand, raises the possibility that the primary text in question is actually Homer. Interpretation Obnoxious, self-important hired cooks appear to have been stock characters in 4th-century comedy (cf. Posidipp. frr. 28–9; Euphro fr. 9; Sosip. fr. 1; Alex. fr. 153; Euphro fr. 1; Strato Com. fr. 1; Alex. fr. 129, quoted in that order at Ath. 9.376e–83e; Nesselrath 1990. 297–309; Wilkins 2000. 387–408), and (A.)— who wants to develop a mutually agreeable fashion to discuss cooking vessels (1–6), cakes (7–11), wine (12), water (13) and incense (14) with (B.), and who must accordingly not know him well—might be an example. But nothing is said about ingredients, cooking techniques or the like here (contrast fr. 221), and (A.) is perhaps more easily identified as a τραπεζοποιός (“banquet-manager” vel sim.), who is charged specifically at fr. 150 (n.) with washing utensils, getting lamps and libations ready, “and everything else associated with (the occasion)”, i. e. with all the incidental organizational matters that allow a dinner party and symposium to progress smoothly.114 If this is right, (B.) might be the man who has employed him, although he might just as easily be e. g. a slave who has been ordered to work under the direction of the τραπεζοποιός, or even a cook with whom the τραπεζοποιός is expected to cooperate. (A.) is in any case most naturally taken to 114

See also the catalogue of banquet-related goods in fr. 71, where the mention of “lamps” in v. 1 is inappropriate for a cook but would still make sense for a trapezopoios.

206

Antiphanes

be preparing for a joint public appearance with (B.); what matters to him is not the specific words he will use, but the impression he and (B.) will make when they use them in the presence of others (presumably the guests at the banquet). (B.), by contrast, has no use for such pretensions; cf. Ar. fr. 927 ἄγροικός εἰμι· τὴν σκάφην σκάφην λέγω (“I’m a rustic; I call a basin ‘a basin’”; cited by Kassel–Austin along with Metzger 1938).115 For (A.)’s riddling, high-style (“dithyrambic”) language, to which comedy repeatedly resorts in descriptions of banquets and symposia in particular, cf. frr. 1 (part of a banquet catalogue, although supposedly quoting Sophocles); 90 n.; 127.7 with n.; 148 (a description of a flask or canteen); 169 (obscure) with n.; 172.2–3 (post hoc description of the wine served at a symposium); 174.3–7 (a description of Thearion’s amazing bread); 180 (a description of a stewing pot, from a banquet catalogue); 216.3, 17–23 (a description of food served at a banquet, offered by someone other than the cook himself); 234.1–3 (a description of wine served apparently at a symposium); cf. frr. 110 (an over-the-top phrase borrowed from Timotheos); 207 (on Philoxenos’ style); Philyll. fr. 4 (loaves of bread described as πυρῶν ἐκγόνους τριμήνων / γαλακτοχρῶτας, “milk-skinned offspring of threemonth wheat”); Pl. Com. fr. 205.1–2 (a post hoc description of drinking, presumably at a symposium); Anaxandr. fr. 6 (quoting Timotheos describing meat cooked in a pot; said in reference to a cook and thus probably not by one) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Nausicr. fr. 1 (a banquet catalogue or the like); Axionic. fr. 4.8–11 (a description of techniques for cooking a fish, perhaps by a cook); Alex. fr. 124.2 (from a description of symposium drinking by one of the participants); Timocl. fr. 13 (a description of a banquet table); Men. Dysc. 946–53 with Gomme–Sandbach 1973 ad loc.; Xenarch. fr. 1 (inter alia an elaborate description of several foods thought to cure impotence); Dobrov 2002. 182–90. Cf. Strato Com. fr. 1, where a cook speaks in ostentatiously Homeric style; Themist. or. 21.262c on the cook Kariôn in the lost opening of Men. Epitr.: “The words of this comic cook did not benefit the enquirer at all, but he irritated the guests by using recherché language to describe his sauces” (trans. Arnott). Although the notion that such language is typical of cooks in particular (cf. Handley 1965. 300 “poetizing diction is part of their stock-in-trade”) has hardened into dogma, there appears to be little specific evidence to support it, the identities of almost all the speakers in such fragments being obscure. Even in Plautus, however, such language continues to be associated with descriptions of food: Curc. 10–11 egon apicularum opera congestum non feram / ex dulci oriundum melliculo dulci meo? (“Shouldn’t I bring to my sweet little honey the product of the bees’ industry coming from stores of sweet?”; trans. de Melo); Men. 210–11 glandionidam suillam, laridum pernonidam, / aut sincipitamenta porcina aut aliquid ad eum modum (“sweetbreads the pig’s daughters, bacon the son of ham, or pigs’ heads or something of that sort”; trans. de Melo), 330 dum

115

This is the origin of English “call a spade ‘a spade’”, via Plutarch and Erasmus.

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 55)

207

ego haec appono ad Volcani uiolentiam (“while I’m subjecting this to the violence of Vulcan”; trans. de Melo). (A.)’s extended initial circumlocution (1–5) begins with a partial solution to the puzzle (χύτρα), allowing the audience to find its feet in the exchange, after which (B.) offers a complete explanation at the end (6 κρεῶν χύτραν). In the second circumlocution (8–11), by contrast, the answer (πλακοῦς) is reserved for the end, allowing the spectators to try to work out (A.)’s meaning for themselves, as again in the series of one-line exchanges at 12–14—by which point the joke has run its course and/or (A.) has begun to realize he will never win approval to talk as he would like. The general order and complaint in 15–17 appear to bring this phase of the dialogue to an end, as (B.) takes over control of the exchange. 1 πότερ(α) and πότερον are used interchangeably, depending on metrical convenience, most often to introduce two mutually exclusive possibilities, as here and at fr. 75.4 (also e. g. Axionic. fr. 4.8; Ephipp. fr. 22.1), but occasionally more (e. g. Eub. fr. 104.1; Nicostr. Com. fr. 9.1; cf. LSJ s. v. II.2 “sometimes a third clause … is inaccurately added”). ὅταν μέλλω λέγειν κτλ is an odd—presumably colloquial—way of expressing something ~ “When a situation arises in which the next word out of my mouth must be either ‘cookpot’ or an elaborate periphrasis, which should I use?” λέγω is subjunctive (not indicative). For the χύτρα, fr. 243.3 n. Used specifically to boil water at fr. 175.1–2; to stew meat at e. g. Ar. fr. 606; Anaxandr. fr. 6; to stew vegetables at e. g. Crates Com. fr. 16.8; Ar. frr. 606; 693; Alc. Com. fr. 24; and to make soup or porridge at e. g. Epich. fr. 30; Ar. Av. 78; Ra. 505–6. The word was seemingly too undignified for lyric or tragedy, hence Timotheos’ alleged resort to a periphrasis (Anaxandr. fr. 6.2–3 with Millis 2015 ad loc.) and (A.)’s reluctance to employ it—at least in a public setting—here. 2–3 The τροχός (“wheel”) in question is a potter’s wheel (LSJ s. v. I.2, and to the passages cited there add Critias fr. Β2.12; X. Smp. 7.2 τροχὸς τῶν κεραμεικῶν; Pl. Euthd. 294e (apparently a reference to the same sort of acrobatic trick as in Xenophon, for which see Dearden 1995. 81–4); R. 420e τὸν τροχὸν παραθεμένους, ὅσον ἂν ἐπιθυμῶσι κεραμεύειν; Arist. Mech. 851b20–1 ὁ κεραμεικὸς τροχός, and cf. Xenarch. fr. 1.9 τροχηλάτου (cited more fully and translated below; rota at Plaut. Epid. 371; Pers. 442–3); the γαίη (literally “earth”) is potter’s clay (LSJ s. v. γαία I.2, citing also Eub. fr. 42.1 ὦ γαῖα κεραμί and Sannyr. fr. 4 κεραμικὴν γαῖαν; note also Critias fr. B2.12 (quoted in 3 n.); for the prosaic γῆ in the same sense, cf. fr. 180.3 γηγενής (also of a cookpot); Anaxandr. fr. 6.2 with Millis 2015 ad loc.); and the ἄλλῃ … στέγῃ (“other chamber”) is either a kiln (κάμινος) that is itself also made of clay, i. e. the μήτηρ (“mother”) of the pot, or perhaps the κρίβανος (fr. 174.5 n.), likewise also made of clay, in which the pot full of meat has been put to bake. Cf. the similarly high-style Ar. Ec. 4 τροχῷ … ἐλαθεὶς κεραμικῆς ῥύμης ἄπο (“whirled on a wheel by a potter’s impulse” vel sim.; of a terracotta lamp); Xenarch. fr. 1.9–10 τῆς τροχηλάτου κόρης / … λοπάδος στερροσώματον κύτος (“the solid-bodied

208

Antiphanes

hollow of the wheel-formed maiden, the casserole-dish”). For στέγῃ, see fr. 174.2 στέγης with n. For a useful general discussion of Athenian potting techniques, see Noble 1966. For the visual evidence for Athenian kilns and potters’ workshops, see Eisman and Turnbull 1978. 2 Despite its presence here, ῥύμη (first attested at Ar. Nu. 407; V. 1487; < ἐρύω, “drag, draw”) is absent from elevated 5th-century poetry (subsequently at [E.] Rh. 64) and in the 4th century is exclusively prosaic.116 τυκτός (< τεύχω) is epic vocabulary (Il. 5.831; 12.105; Od. 4.627; 17.169, 206; subsequently at e. g. Theoc. 22.210; A.R. 3.1325; Nic. Th. 108). For the over-the-top “dithyrambic” compound κοιλοσώματος (here simply meaning “hollow, concave”), cf. 4 γλακτοθρέμμονα; frr. 51 λινοσάρκους with n.; 174.3 λευκοσωμάτους with n.; Ar. fr. 778 ἁπαλοσώματος; Eub. fr. 36.2 λιμνοσώματοι (of eels; despite Hunter 1983 ad loc., there is no good reason to suspect the word, deliberately “surprising” though it may be); Xenarch. fr. 1.10 στερροσώματος, and (with no obvious parodic intent) Χ. Smp. 8.30 ἡδυσώματος. κύτος is poetic vocabulary (e. g. Alcm. PMG 17.1 τρίποδος κύτος; A. Ag. 322; S. El. 1142; E. Cyc. 399 λέβητος ἐς κύτος χαλκήλατον; elsewhere in comedy only at Ar. Pax 1224 θώρακος κύτει = high-style parody?; Xenarch. fr. 1.10, quoted above); first attested in prose in Plato and Aristotle. 3 γαίη is poetic (see LSJ s. v.) in place of the more common γῆ (frr. 41.3; 127.3; fr. dub. 288); attested elsewhere in comedy only at Ar. Nu. 290 (lyric); Av. 1064 (lyric); Ra. 1529 (a solemn prayer); Theopomp. Com. fr. 18.1 (paratragic?); Eub. fr. 42.1 (parody of elevated style). For ὀπτάω used of firing pottery and the like, see LSJ s. v. 2, citing inter alia Hdt. 1.179.1 πλίνθους … ὤπτησαν … ἐν καμίνοισι, and to the passages collected there add Cratin. fr. 273; Arist. GA 743a19–20; Thphr. Lap. 54; Call. fr. 268; D.S. 3.14.3, and note cognate ὀπτός used of bricks at e. g. Ar. Av. 552; X. An. 2.4.12. For the verb in culinary contexts, fr. 248.1–2 n. μητρός must be a genitive of material or source (“formed from its mother” vel sim.). For family relationships used to produce images of this sort, e. g. 9 with n.; Eub. fr. 75.10 μεμαγμένη … Δήμητρος κόρη (“the kneaded daughter of Demeter” = a barley-cake); Critias fr. B2.12–13 γαίας τε καμίνου τ ἔκγονον … / … κέραμον (“pottery, the child of clay and a kiln”); Archestr. fr. 5.14 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; Matro fr. 1.117 Δήμητρος παῖδ(α) (“child of Demeter”, of a cake); here perhaps with an allusion to the idea of “Earth, Mother of all” (Hes. Op. 563; cf. Men. fr. 247.1 ὦ φιλτάτη Γῆ μῆτερ). 4–5 Cf. the modestly more straightforward description of what appears to be a similar dish at fr. 1.4–5 πνικτὰ τακερὰ μηκάδων μέλη / χλόην καταμπέχοντα σάρκα νεογενῆ (“tender smothered goat-haunches wearing herbs about their new-

116

Used in the extended sense “street” at Philippid. frr. 14; 22.

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 55)

209

born flesh”) and the less detailed fr. 181.3–4 ἡδύσμασιν / ἄρνεια καταπεπασμέν’ (“lamb sprinkled with seasonings”). 4 νεογενοῦς ποίμνης i. e. of recently-born flock-animals. In the 5th century, the adjective—attested elsewhere in comedy only at fr. 1.5 (quoted above)—is rare and poetic (A. Ch. 530; [E.] IA 1623), although Xenophon (Cyn. 10.23) and Plato (e. g. Lg. 790d) both pick it up in the 4th. For other seemingly high-style adjectives in -γενής in comedy, e. g. γηγενής (fr. 180.3 with n.); παλαιγενής (fr. 234.1 with n.); πρεσβυγενής (Cratin. fr. 258.1); αὐθιγενής (Anaxandr. fr. 42.71 with Millis 2015 ad loc.); πυριγενής (Henioch. fr. 1.2). ποίμνη (from an Indo-European root, and attested already at Od. 9.122; Hes. Th. 446, where the word is used specifically of flocks of sheep, as opposed to αἰπόλια of goats117) is found in comedy only in this fragment, but is common in tragedy (e. g. A. Supp. 642 (lyric); S. Ai. 1061; E. El. 495 ποίμνης νεογνὸν θρέμμ’, of a lamb) and appears once in Pindar (fr. 238). Herodotus also has it three times, twice in a formula having to do with curses of infertility (3.65.7; 6.139.1 with Olson 2017 on Eup. fr. 99.34; also 1.126.2, where ποῖμναι are again distinguished from αἰπόλια). Perhaps the word had a high-style feel, hence (A.)’s use of it here. ἐν αὑτῇ … κύουσαν i. e. “having in its belly” and thus “contained within it”. For πνικτός as a culinary term, frr. 1.4 with n.; 130.2. γλακτοθρέμμονα i. e. “nourished on milk”, and thus appropriate to describe lambs or kids and by extension their flesh. The adjective is attested nowhere else, but cf. γαλακτόχρως (literally “milk-skinned”, i. e. “white as milk”) in similarly parodic high-style passages at Philyll. fr. 4 (of loaves of bread); Nausicr. fr. 1.12 (of cheese?), on the one hand, and ὀλβοθρέμμων (“nourished on/amid wealth”) at Pi. fr. 223.2 and ὑδατοθρέμμων (“nourished in water”) at Emp. 31 B 21.11 ~ 23.7 D.–K., and with the initial element supplying a direct object for the second πελειοθρέμμων (“dove-nurturing”) at A. Pers. 309 with Garvie 2009 ad loc. and χιονοθρέμμων (“snow-fostering”) at E. Hel. 1323 (lyric), on the other. 5 τακερόχρως is attested only here. For similar mock high-style adjectives in comedy, e. g. ἀλφιτόχρως (Ar. fr. 553); γαλακτόχρως (4 n.); εὔχρως (Ar. Eq. 1171); λευκόχρως (Eub. fr. 34.2); ξανθόχρως (Nausicr. fr. 1.7); τερενόχρως (Anaxandr. fr. 42.37). For τακερός (“tender”) used to describe stewed foods of various sorts, fr. 1.4 n. Ἡράκλεις For oaths by Herakles (expressing shock, surprise or horror in response to something unexpected, here (A.)’s proposal for how he might refer to a cookpot), fr. 27.1 n. 5–6 ἀποκτενεῖς / … μ(ε) Cf. Ar. Ach. 1044; Men. Sam. 528, and the use of ἀπολεῖς μ(ε) et sim. in similarly hyperbolic expressions of frustration at Pherecr. fr. 113.20; Ar. Ach. 470; V. 1202, 1449; Th. 1073; Ra. 1245 with Dover 1993 ad loc.; Pl. 390; Pl. Com. fr. 208.1; Men. Dysc. 412, and of ἀποπνίξεις με at fr. 169.2 with n.

117

Cf. Il. 11.678–9 ~ Od. 14.101–2, where the term used for “flock of sheep” is instead πώυ.

210

Antiphanes

6 ἆρα is equivalent in sense to ἄρα and serves to mark a logical connection between what (A.) has just been saying and the prediction (B.) offers on that basis (Denniston 1954. 44–5). To the examples of γνωρίμως (first attested at E. El. 946) collected at LSJ s. v. γνώριμος III, add from the classical period D. 4.2; [D.] 33.5; Arist. Metaph. 1078b5. πάνυ is to be taken with γνωρίμως, μοι with φράσεις; but the enclitic pronoun has moved as far forward in the clause as possible, as routinely in Greek. 7 εὖ λέγεις represents not so much praise for what (B.) has just said (“Correct!” vel sim., as at e. g. Ar. Nu. 1092) as assent to it, as at e. g. Ar. Pax 1051; Ec. 279. The expression apparently came to be regarded as an Atticism and therefore appears repeatedly in Plutarch (e. g. Mor. 418d; 575f) and especially Lucian (e. g. Nigr. 8; Cat. 22). 7–10 The item referred to here is patently a cheese-and-honey cake (πλακοῦς; see 11 n., and cf. Ar. Ach. 1125 πλακοῦντος τυρόνωτον … κύκλον, literally “a cheese-backed circle of a plakous”; AP 6.155.3–4 πλακόεντα / τυροφόρον) of some sort. But what the “countless wrappings” mentioned in 10 might be, is unclear (multiple layers of a thin, phyllo-type dough enclosing a filling of honeyed cheese?). 7 ξουθῆς μελίσσης νάμασιν i. e. honey, for which see frr. 79 n. (on honey-cakes); 140.2 n.; 177.3 n. (on honey produced specifically in Attica); 273.1 n. (on both honey-comb and honey-cakes), 2 n. For the high-style description, cf. A. Pers. 612 τῆς τ’ ἀνθεμουργοῦ στάγμα, παμφαὲς μέλι (literally “and the dripping of the flower-worker, radiant honey”). ξουθός (sense obscure, although used routinely of flying creatures; also of bees at S. fr. 398.5; E. HF 487–8 with Wilamowitz 1895. 328; IT 165, 635; fr. 467.4–5) is exclusively poetic vocabulary. Whether anyone knew what the word meant even by the late 5th century, is unclear; cf. Ar. Ra. 930–2 (Dionysus’ bafflement regarding the Aeschylean ξουθὸς ἱππαλεκτρυών); Kannicht 1969. 284–5; Silk 1983. 317–19; Dunbar 1995 on Ar. Av. 214. μελίσσα is cognate with μέλι (“honey”); use of the word with double-sigma as opposed to the normal Attic double-tau (as at e. g. Ar. Av. 748) is a high-style gesture, as also at Epin. fr. 1.7. For bees generally, see Davies–Kathirithamby 1986. 47–72; Kitchell 2014. 16–17; Berrens 2018. 67–87. For bee-keeping and honey-production, see Jones–Graham–Sackett–Geroulanos 1973; Crane 1983, esp. 45–51; Anderson-Stojanovic–Jones 2002; Ferrence–Shank 2006; Francis 2009; Francis 2012; Harissis 2017 (with attention to the prehistoric period); Mavrofridis 2017; Mavrofridis 2018. νᾶμα (< νάω, “flow”; attested elsewhere in comedy only at fr. dub. 288; Ar. Ec. 14) is in the 5th century exclusively high-style vocabulary (in tragedy at e. g. A. fr. 300.6; S. Ant. 1130 (lyric); E. Med. 1187; [A.] PV 806; elsewhere only at Choeril. fr. 24.5, p. 206 Bernabé), although both Xenophon (Cyn. 5.34) and Plato (e. g. Phdr. 235d) pick it up in the 4th. In the 5th century, συμμιγής is almost exclusively tragic vocabulary (A. Th. 741 (lyric); S. OT 1281; Tr. 762; fr. 398.3; E. Cyc. 226; [E.] Rh. 431; once in comic

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 55)

211

lyric at Ar. Av. 771), although Plato uses it three times in the 4th (Phdr. 239c; Lg. 895c; Tim. 60b). 8 μηκάδων αἰγῶν is an adaptation of the declinable Homeric formula μηκάδες αἶγες (Il. 11.383; 23.31; Od. 9.124, 244 = 341 (acc.)); cf. frr. 1.4 μηκάδων (also “dithyrambic” style) with n.; 131.4 αἴξ with n. ἀπόρρους (literally “out-flow”; < ἀπορρέω) is attested before this only at E. fr. 223.113 κρήνης [ἀπό]ρρους. θρόμβος (literally “clot”; etymology uncertain, but perhaps < τρέφω in the sense “curdle”) is used by Aeschylus (Ch. 533, 546; Eu. 184), Herodotus (1.179.4) and in the 4th century Plato (Criti. 120a), but is primarily attested in this period in Hippocrates (e. g. Morb. II 53.3 = 7.80.22 Littré; Int. 1.11 = 7.166.12–13 Littré); presumably intended here not as bathetic but as an odd, quasi-technical term. 9 πλατύ is probably intended in the first instance as a decorative adjective. στέγαστρον (< στέγω in the sense “contain, hold”) is attested before this only at A. Ch. 984 (of the robe in which Agamemnon was wrapped when he was killed); fr. 367 (“a stegastron of bones”, i. e. a pot to hold cremated funerary remains). ἁγνῆς παρθένου Δηοῦς κόρης i. e. Korê/Persephone, the daughter of Dêô/ Demeter and Zeus, but here figuratively the grain that Demeter provides and that can be made inter alia into cakes. Cf. Eub. fr. 75.10 μεμαγμένη δὲ Δήμητρος κόρη (“a kneaded daughter of Demeter”; of a barley-cake). For a single figure (usually a deity) described simultaneously as παρθένος and κόρη, Ar. Th. 1138–9; Autocr. fr. 1.2; E. Tr. 552–4; Hel. 168 (all lyric); Call. fr. dub. 782; cf. Thgn. 1288; E. Ph. 1730 (lyric; corrupt). For the divine name Δηώ, fr. 1.3 n. For ἁγνός (uncommon in comedy, which prefers the less elevated ἅγιος), fr. 145.7 n. 10 Although the object in question is masculine (thus τρυφῶντα), it is nonetheless imagined—under the influence of the description of Korê = flour/groats in 9 as a “virgin daughter”?—as veiled, like a respectable woman out in public (e. g. A. Ag. 1178–9 ἐκ καλυμμάτων / … δεδορκὼς νεογάμου νύμφης δίκην, “looking out from veils like a newly-married bride”). The “luxury” referred to consists of the countless number (μυρίοις; cf. fr. 81.3 n.) and exquisite fineness (λεπτοσυνθέτοις) of the veils in which the cake-filling is wrapped. λεπτοσύνθετος is attested only here and is probably an over-the-top nonce-formation intended to recall poetic compounds such as λεπτόθριξ (Bacch. 5.28), λεπτόμιτος (E. Andr. 831 (lyric)), λεπτόπηνος (Eub. frr. 67.5 = 82.4), λεπτόπρυμνος (Bacch. 16.119), λεπτόσπαθητος (adesp. tr. fr. 7.1) and λεπτοψάμαθος (A. Supp. 3 (anapaestic)), on the one hand, and more technical terms such as εὐσύνθετος (Arist. Rhet. 1406a36),118 on the other.

118

This is the only other attestation of a compound in -σύνθετος in the classical period, but is enough to make it clear that such terms (common in later grammarians in particular) were already in the air in Antiphanes’ time.

212

Antiphanes

For the use of τρυφάω, cf. Aristopho fr. 13.3 (of a cup full to the brim of wine); Alc. Com. fr. 2.2 (of loaves of bread) with Orth 2013 ad loc. Late 5th/4th-century vocabulary, first attested in Euripides (e. g. Supp. 552) and Aristophanes (e. g. Nu. 48). κάλυμμα (literally “covering”; < καλύπτω) in the sense “veil” is poetic vocabulary (e. g. Ar. Lys. 530; Il. 24.93; hDem. 42; S. Ai. 245). 11 ἢ σαφῶς πλακοῦντα φράζω σοι; echoes 6 εἰ μὴ γνωρίμως μοι πάνυ φράσεις κρεῶν χύτραν. For σαφῶς … φράζω, fr. 75.2 n. A πλακοῦς (that is, a πλακόεις (ἄρτος); also mentioned in frr. 143.2; 181.2) is a “flat”, i. e. “unleavened cake”, which is fried or baked and then ideally served hot; cf. Telecl. fr. 34.1 φιλῶ πλακοῦντα θερμόν (“I love a warm plakous”); Ar. Pax 869 ὁ πλακοῦς πέπεπται (“the plakous is being baked”) with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Men. fr. 409.10 πλακοῦντας ὀπτᾷ (“(the cook) is roasting plakountes”). Cognate with Latin placenta (for which, see Cato RR 76: multiple layers of pastry-leaves and of cheese and honey). Phaen. fr. 44 Wehrli = fr. 49 Engels ap. Ath. 2.58d–e suggests that a πλακοῦς consisted of several sections with a central knot on top, making it a good match for a bossed shield at Ar. Ach. 1124–7. See in general Grandjouan 1989. 57–65; Brumfield 1997. 151–2 (with miniature terracotta representations of what appear to be plakountes in the plates); García Soler 2001. 379; Pellegrino 2013 on Nicopho fr. 6.3. πλακοῦντα βούλομαι sc. φράζειν σε. 12–14 Sc. φράζω σοι (as in 11) with each of (A.)’s questions. The wine and water are presumably to be mixed for drinking, while whatever substance is in question in 14 is to be burnt and thus released to the breezes. 12 For (A.)’s Βρομιάδος δ’ ἱδρῶτα πηγῆς, cf. fr. 234.1–2 with n.; E. Cyc. 496 βοτρύων φίλαισι πηγαῖς. For the image, cf. Emp. 31 B 55 D.–K. γῆς ἱδρῶτα θάλασσαν (“the sea, the sweat of the earth”); E. Ion 1175 σμύρνης ἱδρῶτα (literally “the sweat of myrrh”, i. e. myrrh-tree gum); Ion TrGF 19 F 40.1 δρυός … ἱδρώς (literally “tree-sweat”, i. e. mistletoe-berry juice), all of which are apparently supposed to sound elegant rather than ugly and unappealing. Βρομιάς is < Βρόμιος, an epithet of Dionysus at e. g. Ar. Th. 991; Alex. fr. 285.2; Pi. fr. 75.10; A. Eu. 24; E. Ba. 66. For συντέμνω (Attic vocabulary) in the figurative sense “cut short (a speech vel sim.)”, cf. fr. 182.2 with n.; Ar. Th. 178; Anaxil. fr. 22.30; Mnesim. fr. 3.4; Timocl. fr. 13.4–5 περιέργως 〈γε〉, νὴ τὸν οὐρανόν, / ἐξὸν φράσαι τράπεζα συντόμως (“Oddly (put), by heaven, when it was possible to say ‘table’ in a summary manner”; in response to a “dithyrambic” description of a banquet-table), and in addition to the other passages cited in LSJ s. v. II, E. IA 1249; frr. 28.2; 696.8; D. 24.14; 45.5. 13 λιβάς (< λείβω) is elevated poetic vocabulary (A. Pers. 613; fr. 72; S. Ph. 1216 (lyric); E. Andr. 116 (elegiac lament), 534 (lyric); IT 1106 (lyric); fr. 116); first attested in prose at Thphr. HP 2.4.4. νυμφαῖος is attested before this only at E. El. 447; Ion TrGF 19 F 52; subsequently at Thphr. HP 9.13.1 (νυμφαία as a type of sweet-smelling root that grows in marshy spots); Men. Dysc. 2, 400 (a νυμφαῖον as a cave sacred to the local

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 55)

213

nymphs).119 For the nymphs, minor female nature-deities associated with rocks, trees, caves, springs (as here) and the like, see in general Larson 2001, esp. 126–38 (on the nymphs in Attica); Halm-Tisserant–Siebert, LIMC VIII.1 pp. 891–2; Kopestonsky 2016 (with particular attention to the cult at Corinth). δροσώδης is attested before this only at Pherecr. fr. 114.2 (high-style lyric); E. Ba. 705, and is found elsewhere before the Roman period only at Alex. fr. 129.12, where it is again apparently intended to represent elevated style (thus Arnott 1996 ad loc.). 14 For aromatic substances of various sorts burnt as part of the standard proceedings at the beginning of a symposium, cf. Pl. Com. fr. 71.9; Nicostr. Com. fr. 27.4; Alex. fr. 252.3 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Mnesim. fr. 4.57–63; Men. Sam. 158 (a wedding celebration); Archestr. fr. 60.4–5 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc. κασιόπνους is not attested elsewhere and may well be a nonce-formation intended to call to mind other high-style compounds such as εὐθύπνοος (Pi. N. 7.29), καλλίπνοος (Telest. PMG 806.1), πύρπνοος (e. g. A. Th. 511; E. Med. 478; picked up at Anaxil. fr. 22.3) and ἡδύπνοος (Pi. O. 13.22; I. 2.25; S. El. 480 (lyric); E. Med. 840); cf. ῥοδόπνοος at Ephipp. fr. 26.2, and later on μελίπνους and μυρόπνους, as well as λιβάνου … πνοαί at Anaxandr. fr. 42.37. κασία (an Oriental loan-word) is an aromatic substance mentioned elsewhere in comedy at Mnesim. fr. 4.58–9 (said to come from the Syrian coast) and referred to at Sapph. fr. 44.30; Melanippid. PMG 757.5–6; Hdt. 2.86.5; 3.110; Thphr. HP 4.4.14; 9.4.2, 9.5.3, 9.7.2 (repeatedly described as an exotic import from the East) along with “cinnamon” (fr. 37.3 n.), σμύρνα (with which (B.) misleadingly identifies κασία in the second half of this line) and λίβανος (“frankincense”; fr. 162.4 n.). LSJ s. v. takes the plant in question to be cassia (Cinnamomum iners), although its exact identity and thus the origin of the name are matters of dispute; see in general Olck 1899; Schoff 1920; Masson 1967. 48–50; Miller 1969. 42–7; Amigues 1996; De Romanis 1996. 33–70, 97–117; Goyon 1996; Dao 2004. 156–64. αὔρα (also used in the similarly high-style fr. 216.22, where see n.) is primarily poetic vocabulary (e. g. Od. 5.469; Pi. O. 9.97; A. Ag. 692 (lyric); S. Tr. 953 (lyric); E. Med. 840 ἡδυπνόους αὔρας), although Herodotus and Xenophon both have it three times, Plato once. αἴθρα is epic vocabulary (Il. 17.646; Od. 6.44; 12.75); absent from lyric poetry, tragedy and prose, but attested elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Av. 778 (lyric); Anaxil. fr. 22.30 (an over-the- topic denunciation of courtesans as monsters; also trochaic tetrameter catalectic); Alex. fr. 153.17 (a grandiose, high-style cook’s speech) with Arnott 1996 ad loc. σμύρνα or μύρρα (“myrrh”) is a gummy resin gathered by producing incisions in the bark of certain trees native to Arabia and Somalia; see in general

119

Kassel–Austin compare νυμφαίου νάματος at AP 14.71.2 = or. dub. 592.2 Parke– Wormell (late).

214

Antiphanes

Steier 1933; Howes 1950. 310–12; Masson 1967. 54–6 (on the word itself); Miller 1969. 104–5; Tucker 1986. 429–30. Mentioned elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Eq. 1332 (poured over a man’s head as an unguent); Anaxandr. fr. 42.36 (Syrian myrrh—presumably referring to the place from which the item was imported, not where it originated—at the beginning of a banquet/symposium catalogue); Eub. fr. 125.2 (obscure, but supposedly to be ground up with other substances and drunk); Mnesim. fr. 4.61 (seemingly to be burnt at a symposium). To the examples of μακράν used adverbially in the sense “at length” with λέγω and similar verbs cited in LSJ s. v. I.2 (all from tragedy), add Ar. Th. 382; Men. Georg. 57; S. Tr. 317; Ph. 26; E. Med. 1351; Or. 850–1; fr. 757.832, and cf. Fraenkel 1950 II.414–15 (cited by Kassel–Austin). 15 If μηδὲ τοὔμπαλιν meant anything specific (and the text is sound), it would have to be that (A.) is also not to use any puzzling shorthand for objects that ought to be described at length. But it is tempting to think that (B.) is merely blustering, doing his desperate best to shut (A.) down completely by covering all his bases and saying “Don’t do what I told you not to—and don’t do the opposite either!” 16 For ὅτι in the sense “because, seeing that”, LSJ s. v. V.B. ὥς φασίν τινες The point of the appeal to anonymous authority (cf. fr. 216.15; Philem. fr. 118.2) in regard to a matter that appears self-evident, is unclear. 17 παρ’ αὐτό is ~ “that approximate it” (cf. LSJ s. v. παρά C.I.8). LSJ s. v. VII.b gives the use of συστρέφω here and at fr. 216.17 (a mocking description of another “dithyrambic” description of a dinner menu) a separate sub-entry (“speak or write in an involved style, twist one’s words”). Both passages are more easily understood as straightforward examples of the basic sense of the word, “twist together”, i. e. “form into a complicated knot” vel sim. (LSJ s. v. I); cf. συστροφή of yarn at Pl. Plt. 282e.

fr. 56 K.–A. (54 K.) Antiatt. ε 91 εὐειματεῖν· Ἀντιφάνης Ἀφροδισίῳ eueimatein (“to dress well”): Antiphanes in Aphrodisios

Meter The verb as preserved in the infinitive scans llkl, and many forms of it fit easily in e. g. iambic trimeter. Citation context An isolated lexicographic entry, probably responding to some other, now-lost authority who maintained that the verb was not attested in the “good Greek” of the classical period.

Ἀφροδίσιος (fr. 56)

215

Interpretation εὐειματέω is well-attested in the late Roman and early Byzantine periods, but is otherwise found in nominally classical and Hellenistic sources only in the proem to the pseudo-Aristotelian Rh. Al. 2 τὴν ἕξιν τοῦ σώματος ὁρᾶν εὐειματοῦσαν (author and date uncertain) and at Sotad. fr. 9.3, p. 241 Powell ἂν εὐειματῇς, ταῦτα πρὸ σοῦ προβάτιον εἶχεν (“if you try to dress well, a sheep has an advantage over you in these matters”; from Stobaeus and probably late) and Phoen. col. IV.121 Gerhard εὐειματει, where the sense is clearly negative (see Gerhard 1909. 149;120 early 3rd century BCE). But Homer has εὖ εἱμένοι at Od. 15.331 and A. Pers. 181 offers the cognate adjective εὐείμων, while E. El. 1107 has δυσείματος and Plutarch has the cognate verb δυσειματέω (Mor. 299f), and there is accordingly no compelling reason to doubt the Antiatticist’s citation of Antiphanes.

120

Miscited as “n. ad l. p. 146” in Valente’s edition of the Antiatticist.

216

Ἀφροδίτης γοναί (Aphroditês gonai) “The Birth of Aphrodite”

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.278–82; Edmonds 1959. 187 n. c; Nesselrath 1990. 234; Nesselrath 1995. 3–4, 20–2 Title and Content According to Hes. Th. 188–202, the goddess Aphrodite was born of foam (ἀφρός) produced in the sea by Ouranos’ severed genitals, and the waves carried her to shore on the island of Cyprus, with which she was closely associated (see fr. 124.3 n.). See hHymn 6 with Olson 2012 for more details of her reception there and afterward among the gods (with all the male Olympians eager to marry her); Gantz 1993. 99–100; Delivorrias et al., LIMC II.1.2–5, 113 and #1158–88. Doubtless a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Βάκχαι, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος, in this case with the action probably set in the divine world (i. e. with no human characters). See in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Nicophon, Polyzelus and Philiscus also wrote an Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, while Theopompus Comicus wrote an Ἀφροδίτη. Similar titles include Ἀθηνᾶς γοναί (Hermippus); Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος 〈γοναί〉 (Philiscus); Διονύσου γοναί (Polyzelus, Anaxandrides and perhaps Demetrius Comicus I); Διὸς γοναί (Philiscus); Ἑρμοῦ γοναί (Philiscus); Μουσῶν γοναί (Polyzelus); and Πανὸς γοναί (Araros, Philiscus).121 See in general Nesselrath 1995. Date Nesselrath 1995 suggests that all the θεῶν γοναί plays belong between circa 410 and 370 BCE, and connects them with a transitional period in Athenian comedy in which mythological parody became increasingly important. There is no evidence, however, for placing Ἀφροδίτης γοναί at any specific point in Antiphanes’ career, most of which belongs well after 370 BCE.

121

Kassel–Austin on Hermipp. Ἀθηνᾶς γοναί refer to an Ἄρεως γοναί by Polyzelus, for which there seems to be no evidence.

Ἀφροδίτης γοναί (fr. 57)

217

Fragment fr. 57 K.–A. (55 K.)

5

10

15

20

(Α.) τονδὶ λέγω, σὺ δ’ οὐ συνιεῖς; κότταβος τὸ λυχνεῖόν ἐστί. πρόσεχε τὸν νοῦν· ᾠὰ μὲν 〈xlklx〉 πέντε νικητήριον. (Β.) περὶ τοῦ; γελοῖον. κοτταβιεῖτε τίνα τρόπον; (Γ.) ἐγὼ πιδείξω· καθ’ ὅσον ἂν τὸν κότταβον ἀφεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν πλάστιγγα ποιήσῃ πεσεῖν— (Β.) πλάστιγγα; ποίαν; (Γ.) τοῦτο τοὐπικείμενον ἄνω, τὸ μικρόν—(Β.) τὸ πινακίσκιον λέγεις; (Γ.) τοῦτ’ ἔστι πλάστιγξ—οὗτος ὁ κρατῶν γίγνεται. (Β.) πῶς δ’ εἴσεταί τις τοῦτ’; (Γ.) ἐὰν θίγῃ μόνον αὐτῆς, ἐπὶ τὸν μάνην πεσεῖται καὶ ψόφος ἔσται πάνυ πολύς. (Β.) πρὸς θεῶν, τῷ κοττάβῳ πρόσεστι καὶ μάνης τις ὥσπερ οἰκέτης; (Β.) ᾧ δεῖ λαβὼν τὸ ποτήριον δεῖξον νόμῳ. (Γ.) αὐλητικῶς δεῖ καρκινοῦν τοὺς δακτύλους οἶνόν τε μικρὸν ἐγχέαι καὶ μὴ πολύν· ἔπειτ’ ἀφήσεις. (Β.) τίνα τρόπον; (Γ.) δεῦρο βλέπε· τοιοῦτον. (Β.) 〈ὦ〉 Πόσειδον, ὡς ὑψοῦ σφόδρα. (Γ.) οὕτω ποήσεις. (Β.) ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ μὲν σφενδόνῃ οὐκ ἂν ἐφικοίμην αὐτόσ’. (Γ.) ἀλλὰ μάνθανε

1 τονδὶ Schweighäuser : τονδει Ath.(1)A συνιεῖς Schweighäuser : συνιεὶς Ath.(1)A : 3 〈καὶ μῆλα θήσω〉 συνίης Musurus 2 λυχνεῖον Blaydes  : λυχνίον Ath.(1)ACE Blaydes : καὶ πέμμα καὶ τράγημα pro 〈xlklx〉 πέντε Casaubon ex Ath.(2) : 〈πέντ ἐστί, πεμμάτια δὲ πέντε κείμενα, / τραγημάτια δὲ〉 Edmonds 4 κοτταβιειτε τινα Ath.(1)A : CE κοτταβιῇ τίνα Ath.(1)  : κοτταβιῶ δὲ τίνα Kock : κοτταβιῇ δὲ τίνα Kaibel 5 ἐπιδείξω καθ’ ὅσον Ath.(1)A  : καθόσον Ath.(1)CE (3)A  : Ath.(3)A Σ Luc.  : διδάξω Ath.(1)ACE καθὼς Σ Luc. : καθ’ ὅν. ὃς Schweighäuser : κᾆθ’ ὃς Dobree : πάνθ · ὃς Meineke : μάθε δ · ὃς Kock : καθ ἕν122· ὃς Kaibel 6 ἀφεὶς Ath.(1)A Σ Luc. : ἀφῆς Ath.(1)CE : ἀφης Ath.(3)A 6–7 ποιήσῃ … / πλάστιγγα Σ Luc. : om. Ath.(1, 3) 6 ποιήσῃ Toup : ποιήσῃς Σ Luc.Δ : E ACE ΔE ποιήσεις Σ Luc. 7 ποίαν τοῦτο Ath.(1) Σ Luc.  : ποῖον ἂν τοῦτο Ath.(3)A : δὲ Σ V τοὐπικείμενον Ath.(1)ACE : τὸ ὑπικείμενον Ath.(3)A Σ Luc. 7–8 personas Luc. distinxit Cobet 9 οὗτος Ath.(1)ACE : ἵν οὗτος Ath.(3)A γίγνεται Dindorf : γίνεται 10 τοῦτο ἐὰν Ath.(3)A : τοῦτο ἂν Ath.(1)ACE τύχῃ Ath.(1)ACE (3)A Ath.(1)ACE (3)A A CE Σ Luc. : θίγῃ Jacobs 12 ἔσται Ath.(1, 3)  : ἐστὶ Ath.(1) 14 λαβὼν Ath.(1)A : A λαβεῖν Bergk νόμω Ath.(1)   : τρόπῳ Herwerden 15 δεῖ καρκινοῦν Ath.(1)CE : δικαρκινοῦν Ath.(1)A 16 οἶνον Ath.(1)ACE : οἴνου Bothe πολύν Ath.(1)ACE : πολύ CE A Kock 17 ἔπειτ’ ἀφήσεις Ath.(1)  : ἔπειτα φήσεις Ath.(1) 18 τοιοῦτον. (Β.) 〈ὦ〉

122

Misaccented in Kassel–Austin.

218

Antiphanes

Musurus : τοιουτονί. (Β.) Kaibel (1)A : αὐτό γε Ath.(1)CE

5

10

15

20

ὑψοῦ Ath.(1)CE : ὑψοῦς Ath.(1)A

20 αὐτόσε Ath.

(A.) I’m talking about this; but you don’t understand? The “lampstand” is the cottabus-equipment. Pay attention! Eggs, on the one hand, 〈xlklx〉 five … as a prize. (B.) For what? This is ridiculous. How are you (pl.) going to play cottabus? (C.) I’ll show you. To the extent that someone throws his kottabos onto the plastinx— (B.) Plastinx? What do you mean ‘plastinx’? (C.) This object balanced on top, the little one—(B.) Do you mean the little plate? (C.) That’s the plastinx;—he’s the winner. (B.) How’s anyone going to know this? (C.) If he merely grazes it, it’ll fall onto the manês, and there’ll be an enormous clatter. (B.) By the gods—does the kottabos in fact have a manês, like a slave? (B.) Take the cup and show me the right way! (C.) You have to curl your fingers like a crab’s claws, as if you were playing pipes; pour in123 a little wine, not too much; and then let it go! (B.) How? (C.) Look here! Like this. (B.) By Poseidon! How incredibly high it went! (C.) Do it just like that! (B.) I wouldn’t reach there if I was using a sling. (C.) But try to learn!

Ath.(1) 15.666e–7b ἐκάλουν δὲ καὶ κατακτούς τινας κοττάβους. ἐστὶν δὲ λυχνία ἀναγόμενα πάλιν τε συμπίπτοντα. Εὔβουλος Βελλεροφόντῃ (fr. 15)· ——. Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Ἀφροδίτης γοναῖς· (vv. 1–13) ——. καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα· (vv. 14–20) —— They also referred to items known as kataktoi kottaboi; these are lampstands that are set up and then can be broken down again. Eubulus in Bellerophontês (fr. 15): ——. Antiphanes in Aphroditês gonai: (vv. 1–13). ——. And shortly thereafter (vv. 14–22): —— Ath.(2) 15.667d ὅτι δὲ ἆθλον προὔκειτο τῷ εὖ προεμένῳ τὸν κότταβον προείρηκε μὲν καὶ ὁ Ἀντιφάνης (vv. 2–3)· ᾠὰ γάρ ἐστι καὶ πεμμάτια καὶ τραγήματα That a prize was set for the man who threw his kottabos well was noted earlier by Antiphanes (vv. 2–3); because (the prizes) were eggs, pastries and snacks

123

Not “pour out” (Rusten 2011. 493).

Ἀφροδίτης γοναί (fr. 57)

219

Ath.(3) 11.487d–e καλεῖται δὲ μάνης καὶ τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ κοττάβου ἐφεστηκός, ἐφ’ οὗ τὰς λάταγας ἐν παιδιᾷ ἔπεμπον· ὅπερ ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Σαλμωνεῖ (fr. 537) χάλκειον ἔφη κάρα λέγων οὕτως· ——. Ἀντιφάνης Ἀφροδίτης γοναῖς· (vv. 5–13) —— The term manês is also used for the object that rests on top of the cottabus-stand, at which they aimed their wine-lees in the course of the game. Sophocles in Salmoneus (fr. 537) called this a “bronze head”, putting it as follows: ——. Antiphanes in Aphroditês gonai: (vv. 5–13) —— Ammon. Diff. 305 λυχνίον λυχνού〈χου〉 διαφέρει· λυχνίον μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ λυχνία, ὡς Ἀντιφάνης φησὶν ἐν Ἀφροδίτης γοναῖς (v. 2), λυχν〈οῦχ〉ος δὲ ὁ φανός. Μένανδρος ἐν Νομοθέταις (fr. 251)· —— A lychnion is different from a lychnouchos; because a lychnion is a lampstand, as Antiphanes says in Aphroditês gonai (v. 2), whereas a lychnouchos is a torch. Menander in Nomothetai (fr. 251): —— ΣEVφΔ Luc. Lexiph. 3, p. 194.7–14 Rabe Ἀντιφάνης Ἀφροδίτης γοναῖς· (vv. 5–11) —— Antiphanes in Aphroditês gonai: (vv. 5–11) —— Poll. 10.84 ἐν δ’ Ἀντιφάνους Ἀφροδίτης γοναῖς (v. 8) καὶ πινακίσκιον ἔστιν εἰρημένον And in Antiphanes’ Aphroditês gonai (v. 8) mention is made of a pinakiskion

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

10

15

llkl k|lkl llkl rlkl k|rk|l llkl e. g. 〈xlkl x〉|lk|l llkl rlkl l|lkl krkl klkl l|rk|l llkl klrl llk|l llkl llkl l|lk|l klkl klkl l|rkl klkl llkl l|lk|r llkl llkl l|lkl klkl llrl llkl llkl llkr l|lkl llkl klkl llk|l klkl llkl rlkl llkl llkl l|lkl llkl llkl k|lkl llkl klkl l|rkl llkl

220

Antiphanes

20

llk〈l〉 klk|l llkl llkl l|lkl llkl lrkl l|lk|l klkl

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 945–6; Toup 1790 II.472; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 VIII.22; Jacobs 1809. 272–3; Dindorf 1827 III.1483–4; Dobree 1833. 334; Bergk ap. Meineke 1839–1857 V.1.clxiii; Meineke 1839–1857 III.29–31; Bothe 1855. 358–9; Cobet 1858. 19; Herwerden 1876. 322; Kock 1884 II.33–4; Kaibel 1887–1890 III.474; Blaydes 1896. 103; Edmonds 1959. 186–9; Nesselrath 1990. 234; Nesselrath 1995. 20–2; Konstantakos 2005a. 16–17; Olson 2007. 311–13 (H13); Shaw 2010. 9–10; Orth 2014b. 1017 Text At the beginning of 1, the Ath.A-scribe was unable to make sense of the corrupt τονδει in his exemplar and accordingly left the word unaccented; corrected by Schweighäuser to the colloquial deictic form τονδί. Further on in 1, συνιεῖς is Schweighäuser’s correction—building on Musurus’ συνίης in the editio princeps of Athenaeus—of the reading in Ath.A, in which the word is accented not as a finite verb (as also at Diph. fr. 31.13; Philonid. II fr. 3, where the manuscripts of Stobaeus are confused in a similar way) but as a participle (as at e. g. Timocl. fr. 29.4). The first syllable of λυχνεῖον scans short (cf. fr. 109.2; Pherecr. fr. 90), hence Blaydes’ correction of Athenaeus’ λυχνίον. The change is supported by inscriptional evidence (e. g. IG I3 422.109, 240; 1455.2; II2 1414.40; 1424a.255, 269–70) and by Phryn. ecl. 288 λυχνίαν· ἀντὶ τούτου λυχνεῖον λέγε, ὡς ἡ κωμῳδία (“lychnia (acc.): say lychneion in place of this, as comedy does”).124 The various supplements proposed in 3 reflect what else is known about cottabus-prizes (see Interpretation 3 n.) and in particular the assertion at Ath.(2), citing 2–3, that they consisted of “eggs, pastries and snacks” .125 In 4, the paradosis κοτταβιεῖτε (which puzzled the Ath.A-scribe, who left the word unaccented, and which the Epitomator emended unconvincingly to κοτταβιῇ) does not require correction, provided one assumes either that three characters are onstage, as in the text offered here, or that (B.) is referring to a group to which he himself does not belong. The fact that Ath.(3)A and Σ Luc. agree in reading scriptio plena ἐπιδείξω in 5 leaves no doubt that this is what the assumed common source (see Citation context) offered. The use of ἐπιδείκνυμι is somewhat unexpected, and Ath.(1)ACE’s

124

125

Cf. Phryn. PS p. 87.21 λυχνίον· οἱ ἀμαθεῖς λυχνίαν αὐτὸ καλοῦσιν (“lychnion: uneducated people referred to this as a lychnia”), where the first word ought probably to be emended to λυχνεῖον. The source of the eccentric supplement “[and some dried fruit]” at Rusten 2011. 493 is unclear.

Ἀφροδίτης γοναί (fr. 57)

221

διδάξω (printed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) must represent a deliberate attempt to normalize the text. καθ’ ὅσον (thus Athenaeus, although with the letters divided in different ways; simplified to καθὼς in Σ Luc.) further on in 5 is a prosaic way of expressing an idea roughly equivalent to “if ” which finds no parallels in comedy but does not obviously require correction on that account. The absence of an explicitly expressed subject for what follows is nonetheless awkward, and the proposed emendations all include a relative pronoun to provide one. Dobree’s κᾆθ’ ὃς (“And then whoever …”) is bad sense, while Meineke’s πάνθ · ὃς (“everything. Whoever …”) and Kock’s μάθε δ · ὃς (“Learn! Whoever …”) are too far from the paradosis to inspire confidence. Kaibel’s καθ ἕν· ὃς (“point by point. Whoever …”) is better. In 6, ἀφεὶς in Ath.(1)A and Σ Luc. must be both right and what appeared in the assumed common source (see Citation context); the nonsensical ἀφης in Ath.(3)A and ἀφῆς in Ath.(1)CE represent a crude aural error. In 6–7, ποιήσῃ … πλάστιγγα fell out of the text not just of Athenaeus (since the same error occurs in both Books 11 and 15) but of Athenaeus’ source (see Citation context), when the scribe’s eye jumped from πλάστιγγα in 6 to the same word in 7. The missing words are preserved in Σ Luc., which appears to have been drawing on a separate version of the same material. The subject of ποιήσῃ in 6 is the anonymous person referred to as οὗτος in 9, and the scholion’s second-person ποιήσῃς/ποιήσεις is an easy error that assumes that the subject must be (B.) instead; corrected by Toup. In the middle of 7, Ath.(1)ACE and Σ Luc.ΔE support one another in reading ποίαν τοῦτο; Cobet is responsible for the indications of change of speaker that help make sense of the dialogue. ποῖον ἂν τοῦτο in Ath.(3)A appears to be a deliberate if confused attempt to make sense of the syntax; the reading perhaps originated with a superlinear αν intended to suggest the alternative reading ποίαν, which was then taken down into the text as the modal particle ἄν. Σ Luc.V disposed of all such problems via the straightforward expedient of replacing ποίαν τοῦτο with δὲ. At the end of 7, τοὐπικείμενον in Ath.(1)ACE is merely a properly articulated version of the same sequence of letters as the garbled τὸ ὑπικείμενον in Ath.(3)A Σ Luc. In 9, the addition of ἵν before οὗτος in Ath.(3)A probably represents a deliberate attempt by a scribe to make sense of the syntax scrambled by (B.)’s interruptions and (A.)’s attempts to respond to them in 7–9. For Dindorf ’s γίγνεται (the proper form of the word in this period) in place of the paradosis γίνεται at the end of 9, see fr. 30.2 Text. In 10, τοῦτο ἐὰν in Ath.(3)A and τοῦτο ἂν Ath.(1)ACE are both scriptio plena; regularized to match modern printing conventions by Schweighäuser. Ath.(1)ACE’s ἂν is unmetrical and likely reflects confusion regarding the syntax of a generally difficult passage. Further on in 10, Jacobs’ θίγῃ (< θιγγάνω, “touch”; printed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) is the mot juste. But the paradosis τύχῃ—found not just in

222

Antiphanes

Athenaeus but in Σ Luc. as well, confirming that this was the reading in the assumed common source (see Citation context)—makes reasonable sense, and given the arguably clumsy writing elsewhere (see on 5, 14), there is no compelling reason to emend. In 12, ἐστὶ in the Epitome’s version of Ath.(1) is unmetrical, and the readings in Ath.A in Books 11 and 15 support one another in any case. In 13, Kassel–Austin capitalize μάνης as a way of making the point of (B.)’s witticism clearer; cf. fr. 226.4 n. In 14, Bergk’s λαβεῖν in place of the paradosis λαβών is designed to give the verse a more normal syntactic structure (“Show me how I need to hold the cup!”). But the seeming pecularities most likely merely reflect the absence of the preceding lines, which would have allowed the original audience to fill out the sense; see Interpretation. At the end of 14, the paradosis νόμῳ (transmitted without the iota in Ath.(1)A, as such words often are) ought properly to mean “customary manner” vel sim. (cf. fr. 46.2; “law” at frr. 188.15; 281), hence Herwerden’s τρόπῳ (“way, fashion, style”; cf. 17). But (B.) is interested not just in how to handle the cup, but in how to handle it properly, and it is unclear that hyper-correct usage should be imposed on a text of this sort in any case when the sense is apparent. In 15, Ath.(1)CE’s δεῖ καρκινοῦν is correct, whereas Ath.(1)A offers the corrupt δικαρκινοῦν. Depending on one’s view of the stemmatic situation, the reading in the Epitome represents either an independent correction of that in Ath.A or reliance on a different and slightly better exemplar; cf. 17. In 16, οἴνου … μικρὸν … πολύ (Bothe, Kock) would be more elegant than the transmitted οἶνον … μικρὸν … πολύν, which does not mean that the text requires correction. Cf. frr. 42.4 (μικρῷ … ἀθλίῳ νομίσματι meaning ~ “a bit of wretched money”); 47.2 (ῥίζιον … τι μικρόν meaning ~ “a tiny bit of root”), on the one hand, and e. g. Alex. fr. 82 πολὺς … οἶνος (“wine in large quantities” ~ “a lot of wine”), on the other. In 17, the Epitome’s ἔπειτ’ ἀφήσεις merely represents a different division of letters than Ath.(1)A’s ἔπειτα φήσεις. Whether this is a mark of independent thinking on the Epitomator’s part (sc. as he worked with Ath.A itself) or suggests that his exemplar was not Ath.A but a closely related manuscript, is unclear, as again in 18 (and cf. 15 n.). 18 is metrically deficient, and either Musurus’ τοιοῦτον. (Β.) 〈ὦ〉 (printed by all subsequent editors; cf. Ar. Pax 564) or Kaibel’s τοιουτονί. (Β.) would do. Against Kaibel’s suggestion is the fact that deictic iota seems superfluous after 17 δεῦρο βλέπε, which serves the same purpose of attracting (B.)’s attention to precisely how (A.) throws the wine upward. At the end of 18, the Epitome’s ὑψοῦ (adv.) rather than Ath.(1)A’s ὑψοῦς (gen. sing.) is clearly correct; see 17 n.

Ἀφροδίτης γοναί (fr. 57)

223

In 20, Ath.A’s αὐτόσε and the Epitome’s αὐτό γε (a deliberate correction by a copyist who failed to recognize the adverb?) are both scriptio plena; regularized to αὐτόσ to match modern printing conventions by Casaubon. Citation context Athenaeus quotes the entire fragment at 15.666e–7b (with a brief follow-up reference at 15.667d) as part of a long discussion of the symposium-game cottabus at 15.665d–8f drawn at least in part from Dicaearchus of Messene’s On Alcaeus; 5–13 are cited separately at 11.487d–e, as part of the treatment of different sorts of drinking vessels that fills most of that Book. Hermipp. fr. 48 is also quoted in both places (in an abbreviated version at 11.487e–f), as well as at ΣVbisΓ Ar. Pax 1242 (vv. 5–6 only), which cites Athenaeus Book 15 and is thus presumably dependent on him. The Epitome omits large parts of the fragment at Ath. 15.666e–7b, hence the references to Ath.(1)ACE at some points in the apparatus, but to only Ath.(1)A at others. The material in the scholion to Lucian is a gloss on the words λαταγεῖν κοττάβους and is clearly drawn not from Athenaeus but from a separate copy of Athenaeus’ source, a Hellenistic or Roman-era antiquarian scholarly treatise most economically taken to be the one by Dicaearchus noted above. Pollux’ reference to 8 comes at the end of a brief discussion (10.82–4) of πίναξ and cognates within a larger treatment of vessels of all sorts as part of the long catalogue of σκεύη (“implements”) that makes up his Book 10. Ar. fr. 547 (also referenced at Phryn. PS p. 23.6–7 ~ Phot. α 2754); Isoc. 15.2; Il. 6.169; and the Dêmiopratai are cited, in that order, in the same section. Cognate material is preserved at Poll. 6.84–5. Interpretation Two fragments of one or more symposium-education scenes (cf. Ar. V. 1174–1264) dealing in particular with the game of cottabus (on which, see below). 1–13 concentrate on the target-apparatus, which is visible onstage (note 1 τονδί), 14–20 on the throwing, for which the characters are equipped with cups and wine. Athenaeus is unlikely to have had the complete original of Antiphanes’ play before him, which is to say that his vague καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα probably has no substantial authority behind it, so that how much time has elapsed onstage between 13 and 14, is uncertain. Perhaps the characters move more or less direct from examining the cottabus-stand in 1–13 to trying it out within the same scene in 14–20. Alternatively, these might be fragments of two separate scenes, in the first of which (B.) sees a cottabus-stand for the first time and gets an explanation of the game, after which he is invited to a party, in which he is participating in the second set of verses.126 Kassel–Austin (following earlier editors) divide the scene between two speakers. But the second-person plural κοτταβιεῖτε in 4 is most economically understood as suggesting that three characters are onstage; if so, (A.) would seem to be the symposiarch or the like, since he sets the prize for the game (2–3), and the 126

In the latter case, (A.) in 1–13 need not be the same character as (A.) in 14–20.

224

Antiphanes

obvious point for (Γ.) to break into the conversation is with the emphatic ἐγώ in 5. Whether some of the subsequent lines assigned to (Γ.) are actually spoken by (A.), is impossible to determine. (Γ.) as presented here is in any case the straight man, who in both sections of the fragment is familiar with symposium-practices and patiently prepared to offer (B.) training in them (esp. 5, 20). (B.) for his part asks for instruction in 14, and is thus not merely playing along with his interlocutors in a detached and passive fashion. But (B.) also comes across as a consistently cloddish, vaguely hostile buffoon—perhaps specifically an ἄγροικος of the sort found in other fragments of Antiphanes; see 19–20 n. and Introduction § 4—who interrupts (A.) and (Γ.) insistently, in part because he has trouble following their explanations; is self-consciously an outsider (4); must be told to pay attention to what (A.) is saying (2); makes fun of things he cannot understand (4), while at other times expressing slack-jawed astonishment at what he sees (18) and hears (12–13); and offers foolishly amusing remarks (12–13, 19–20). (A.) and (Γ.) dominate both sections, since their role is to offer information and demonstrate cottabus-techniques, whereas (B.)’s role is to comment and react to what the other characters say and do. Nesselrath (followed by Shaw 2010. 10) conjectured that (B.) might be Aphrodite. But this is merely a shot in the dark based on the title of the play, and the suggestion deserves no deference. The fragment begins in media res: (B.) has just failed to understand (A.)’s reference to a κότταβος, and (A.) must explain to him that this is the proper term for the object in front of them (note deictic iota on τονδί in 1) that resembles a lampstand (or that is in fact a temporarily re-purposed lampstand?). If both sections of the fragment come from a single scene, discussion of the award of prizes perhaps took place in the gap between 13 and 14, following up on 2–3. So too at 20 (n.), (Γ.) is not yet done with (B.), but is ready to have him try his own hand at throwing wine at the target. Cottabus was a symposium-game (esp. Pl. Com. fr. 71.11), allegedly Sicilian in origin (Critias 88 B 2.1 D.–K.; cf. Dicaearch. Hist. fr. 94 Wehrli = 108 Mirhady; Call. fr. 69), that involved flipping small quantities of wine or wine-lees known as the λάταξ or λάταγες (e. g. Hermipp. fr. 48.7) from one’s cup at a target set in the center of the circle of couches. For the prizes for success, see 2–3 n. The ancient discussions (Ath. 15.665d–8f; ΣRV Ar. Pax 343; ΣVΓ Ar. Pax 1244; Σ Luc. pp. 193.25–195.14 Rabe; Poll. 6.109–11) are late and confused, but agree that there were two basic variants of the game: (1) κότταβος κατακτός (referred to in this fragment), in which a rod—the ῥάβδος κοτταβική (Hermipp. fr. 48.5), here described as a lampstand—was set up, and a small disk (the πλάστιγξ, referred to in 6–9) balanced on top of it. The object was to throw one’s λάταγες high in the air (cf. 18–20), so that on their way down they hit the πλάστιγξ and knocked it onto a mysterious object known as the μάνης, a bronze (Critias 88 B 1.9 D.–K.) vessel (Ath. 11.487c, quoting Nico fr. 1; Phot. μ 94) also known as the χάλκειον κάρα (literally “bronze head”: S. fr. 537.3; cf. A. fr. 179.1–3; E. fr. 562.1–2) perhaps to be identified with the ring often seen

Ἀφροδίτης γοναί (fr. 57)

225

about half-way up the ῥάβδος in vase-paintings (thus Schneider 1922. 1535–6), producing a loud noise (10–12). (2) κότταβος ἐν λεκάνῃ or δι ὀξυβάφων, for which a basin (λεκάνη) was filled with water and smaller vessels (ὀξύβαφα) floated in it; the object was to sink as many of the smaller vessels as possible (Pl. Com. fr. 46.3–5; Ath. 15.667e–f, citing Amips. fr. 2, Cratin. fr. 124 and Ar. fr. 231, in that order). See in general Hayley 1894; Pearson 1917 on S. fr. 277; Schneider 1922; Sparkes 1960; Csapo–Miller 1991; Jacquet-Rimassa 1995; Campagner 2002; Pouyadou and Jacquet-Rimassa 2003. 62–8; Pütz 2003. 221–41; Jacquet-Rimassa 2008; Pirrotta 2009. 127–9; Costanza 2019. 63–76, 180–6. The etymology of the word is obscure. 1 σὺ δ’ marks a strong contrast with the subject of λέγω; cf. fr. 69.1–2 n. 2 τὸ λυχνεῖον For lampstands, fr. 109.2 n. Whether the reference is to an actual lampstand, or what is meant is “the object that resembles a lampstand” (cf. [Arist.] Ath. 68.4, where the reference is to something that holds voting tokens in a lawcourt), which is being used momentarily as a cottabus-stand, is unclear; see 8 n. For πρόσεχω τὸν νοῦν in the sense “pay attention” (a late 5th/4th-century Attic idiom), e. g. Cratin. fr. 315; Pherecr. fr. 84.1; Eup. fr. 381; Ar. Eq. 1014; Alex. fr. 274.2; Antipho 6.14; X. Smp. 8.25; Pl. Euthd. 273b; Isoc. 15.124; Is. 17.33. 2–3 ᾠὰ μὲν / … πέντε νικητήριον Eggs (for which, see in general fr. 140.4 n.) were commonly served hard-boiled as symposium snacks (fr. 273.1 n.) and are thus available here to be repurposed as cottabus-prizes. Other cottabus-prizes appear to have included bands to wrap around one’s head, apples, cakes and kisses (Pl. Com. fr. 46.5–9 with Pirrotta 2009 ad loc.; Eub. frr. 1.1; 2.3–4; S. fr. 537; X. Smp. 6.1 τὰ νικητήρια φιλήματα; Call. fr. 227). νικητήριον is late 5th/4th-century Attic vocabulary (in addition to the passages cited above, e. g. Ar. Eq. 1253; E. Alc. 1028 (pl.); X. HG 4.2.5; Pl. Lg. 943c; D. 51.17 (pl.)). 4 For the adverbial use of τίνα τρόπον;, see LSJ s. v. II.2, and cf. 17 with n. γελοῖος appears to be used here in the sense “ludicrous, absurd” (LSJ s. v. II, and add to the passages cited there e. g. Ar. Av. 802; Lys. 559; Ra. 542a; Men. Sam. 686), as also in fr. 124.2 (similarly rejecting an idea put forward by another party). Contrast fr. 80.10 (n.), where the word means “funny” in a positive sense (LSJ s. v. I). 5 τὸν κότταβον is here used of the wine that is thrown rather than of the target-stand, as in 1. 6–9 A πλάστιγξ (etymology uncertain) is normally a scale-pan (LSJ s. v. I.1. citing from comedy Ar. Pax 1248; Ra. 1378), but is also used of a cottabus-target at Hermipp. fr. 48.8. 7 ποίαν; is “a scornful exclamation, not a question” (Dover 1968 on Ar. Nu. 247), as also at e. g. Ar. Ach. 761 ποῖα σκόροδ’;; Eq. 32 ποῖον βρετέτετας;, 1082 ποίαν Κυλλήνην;; Lys. 971 ποία γλυκερά;; Pl. 392 σὺ Πλοῦτον; ποῖον;; Anaxandr. fr. 52.2 ποῖον μόναυλον;; Men. Sam. 468 ποίαν χάριν;; fr. 246.5; Stevens 1976. 38–9; Diggle 1981. 50–1; López Eire 1996. 114. Contrast genuine questions at frr. 127.4; 200.5.

226

Antiphanes

8 πινακίσκιον is attested elsewhere only at Poll. 10.115 τοῦ δὲ λυχνίου τὸ ἀπευρυνόμενον, ᾧ ἐπιτίθεται ὁ λύχνος, πινάκιον ἢ πινακίσκιον (“the widened portion of the lampstand, upon which the lamp is placed, (is) a pinakion or pinakiskion”), which suggests that (B.) is still working to process the comparison of the cottabus-stand to a lampstand in 2–3. For nouns in -ίσκιον, cf. fr. 205.3 μελίσκιον with n. For the use of λέγεις;, cf. fr. 127.7 with n. 11–13 Μανῆς (fem. Μανία) was a common personal name in Asia Minor (Zgusta 1964 § 858), especially among Phrygians (X. HG 3.1.10; Macho 189–91 with Gow 1965 on 191; Str. 7.304; IG I3 1361.1–3), and is frequently used for slaves in the comic poets (Pherecr. frr. 10.1; 130; Ar. Pax 1146; Av. 523 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc., 1311, 1329; Lys. 908, 1211; Ra. 1345 with Dover 1993 on 965; Amips. fr. 2.1; Mnesim. fr. 4.2; Alex. fr. 25.6) and occasionally elsewhere (D. 45.86; 53.20). The word μάνης refers to the cottabus-target also at Hermipp. fr. 48.7. 12 For πρὸς θεῶν, fr. 226.1 n. 14 The sense of 14 (“how (to use it)!” vel sim.) depends on something said by (A.) in the preceding lines but eliminated as inessential for his own purposes by the excerptor. ποτήριον (< πίνω) is first attested in lyric and elegiac (Semon. fr. 26; Sapph. fr. 44.10 (conjectural); Alc. fr. 376) and is common in the comic poets (e. g. frr. 75.10; 81.1; 113.4; 132.6; Pherecr. fr. 152.10; Ar. Eq. 124; Pl. Com. fr. 46.4; Anaxandr. fr. 3.1 with Millis 2015 ad loc., who rightly calls this “the generic word for a drinking cup”, but fails to note the seeming generic—i. e. register-oriented—restrictions on its use) and inscriptions (e. g. IG I3 47.12; II2 840.7, 15, 39–40). But the term is systematically avoided in the classical period by the tragic poets, on the one hand, and by prose authors other than Herodotus (e. g. 2.37.1; 4.65.8), on the other (once in Xenophon, at An. 6.1.5, for an unusual barbarian drinking vessel for which no proper name is apparently available). 15–16 might easily be taken as hysteron-proteron, since it is unclear why one would put wine in the cup only after one has it balanced in throwing position. But (A.) certainly knows what he is doing—and indeed is probably carrying out both actions onstage as he speaks 15–17, since he makes his throw at the beginning of 18—and we are not in a position to question his description of the procedure. 15 The action referred to—hooking two or more fingers of one’s right hand into a handle of one’s cup, so as to be able to flip it forward and then stop it at the crucial moment with one’s thumb, sending whatever liquid is in it flying out—is alternatively described as ἀγκυλοῦν τὴν χεῖρα (“to crook one’s hand” vel sim.); cf. Cratin. fr. 299.3 with Kassel–Austin and Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc. αὐλητικῶς (literally “in a fashion appropriate for pipe-playing”) and cognates are 4th-century prosaic vocabulary; elsewhere in poetry only at Pl. Com. fr. 209.2 δακτύλους αὐλητικούς (“fingers suited for playing the pipes”). For the αὐλός, fr. 49.3 n.

Ἀφροδίτης γοναί (fr. 57)

227

καρκινόω is “make crab-like” and thus here, in reference to fingers, “curl like a crab’s claws”, similar to how a pipe-player wraps his hands around his instrument. For the very limited distribution outside of comedy of δάκτυλος—seemingly regarded as a crude (because over-specific?) term—see Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 94–5. 16 For the fussy polar expression μικρὸν … καὶ μὴ πολύν, cf. μικρόν, οὐ πολύ at fr. 200.14; μὴ πολυτελῶς, ἀλλὰ καθαρείως at e. g. Ephipp. fr. 15.3; and “keeping track of the moment it will be roasted—and don’t burn it!” at Archestr. fr. 36.9–10. ἐγχέω is here “pour into (a cup)”, as also at e. g. frr. 81.2 (n.); 138.1; Ar. Eq. 118; V. 616–17; Xenarch. fr. 10.1, 3; Alex. fr. 129.5. 17 ἀφήσεις For a second-person form of the future used as equivalent to an imperative, cf. 19; Goodwin 1875 § 69. For adverbial τίνα τρόπον; (4 n.) used alone as a question (patently colloquial), cf. Ar. Nu. 170; Av. 180; Ra. 26; Anaxandr. fr. 1.1–2; Men. Dysc. 362; Sam. 65; Athenio fr. 1.8; D. 19.167. 18 There must be a brief pause in the dialogue after τοιοῦτον, as (A.) flips his wine in the air and (B.) tracks its course before responding with an admiring oath and comment. 〈ὦ〉 Πόσειδον Oaths by Poseidon in comedy (e. g. Ar. Eq. 144; V. 143; Pax 564; Av. 287, 294; Men. Dysc. 633, 777; elsewhere at Pl. Euthd. 301e, 303a, establishing their colloquial character) appear generally to have no special significance beyond their metrical utility at points where an oath e. g. by Zeus is impossible. Contrast the curse invoking the god at fr. 190.3 with n. ὑψοῦ (already in early epic) is strikingly rare in prose (Hdt. 2.95.1, 2.138.2; 9.79.1; Arist. HA 619b5) and absent from inscriptions, and is attested elsewhere in comedy only at Hermipp. fr. 55.1 (anapestic dimeter); Anaxil. fr. 22.30 (trochaic tetrameter catalectic with numerous high-style touches). 19 ποήσεις See 17 n. ἐγὼ μέν is balanced by an implied σὺ δέ (“although you (certainly did)” vel sim.). σφενδόνῃ Slings and slingers (in this period primarily throwing almond-shaped shot made of lead, with a range of up to several hundred yards) are mostly referred to in military contexts; cf. Ar. Av. 1185, 1187; Mnesim. fr. 7.8; E. Ph. 1142 ἐμαρνάμεσθα σφενδόναις θ’ ἑκηβόλοις, and in prose sources e. g. Th. 2.81.8; 4.32.4; X. An. 3.3.15–18; discussion in Korfmann 1973 (a general survey of slinging as an ancient military technology); Foss 1975. 25–8; Pritchett 1991. 1–67. For actual examples of slingballs/slingshot, see Foss 1974–5; Kelly 2012 (material from Crete, with particular attention to inscriptions on the balls). But the most common everyday use of the technology was probably by shepherds protecting their flocks, and if (B.) is not merely employing a generally available image, there might be a hint here that he is specifically a countryman.

228

Antiphanes

20 αὐτόσ(ε) is colloquial late 5th/4th-century Attic vocabulary (e. g. Metag. fr. 6.4; Ar. Th. 202; Th. 4.53.2; X. An. 4.7.2; Pl. Phd. 68b127); absent from both elevated poetry and inscriptions, unlike the more widely distributed (ἐ)κεῖσε (frr. 88.1 with n.; 200.15). ἀλλὰ μάνθανε must set up the next stage of the action, in which (B.) does his best to imitate (A.)’s performance. If 15–16 are any indication, he likely holds his cup wrong and pours in too much wine, and then (cf. 18–20) makes a cast that goes in some direction other than straight up.

127

Montanari s. v. merely takes over the small selection of uses of the word in LSJ s. v. (although excluding this fragment), suggesting inter alia that it is rarer than it is. Richards conjectured αὐτόσε for the paradosis αὐτοῦ at Hdt. 2.178.1, but the fact that the adverb is otherwise exclusively Attic makes the suggestion unlikely. Wilson prints αὐτοῦ, 〈ἐκεῖσε〉.

229

Βάκχαι (Bakchai) “The Bacchants”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 189 n. d

Title Diocles Comicus and Lysippus also wrote plays entitled Bakchai, as did the tragic poets Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Iophon, Xenokles and Kleophon. This may accordingly have been a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἀρκάς, Ἄντεια and Ὕπνος. See in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Alternatively, the play might have featured a group of normal female celebrants similar to those who gave the titles to Aristophanes’ Θεσμοφοριάζουσαι, Philippides’ Ἀδωνιάζουσαι and Timocles’ Διονυσιάζουσαι. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 58 K.–A. (56 K.) ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτ’ οὐκ ἔστι, κακοδαίμων σφόδρα ὅστις γαμεῖ γυναῖκα, πλὴν ἐν τοῖς Σκύθαις· ἐκεῖ μόνον γὰρ οὐχὶ φύετ’ ἄμπελος 1 δὲ Musurus : δὴ Ath.A

3 οὐχὶ Dobree : οὐ Ath.ACE : οὐδὲ Kaibel

But since that’s impossible, anyone who gets married is in terrible trouble—except in Scythia, since that’s the only place grapevines don’t grow Ath. 10.441d Ἀντιφάνης Βάκχαις· —— Antiphanes in Bakchai: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lk|r llkl llkl klk|l llkl klkl k|lk|l klkl

230

Antiphanes

Discussion Dobree 1833. 327; Meineke 1839–1857 III.22; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.450; Reinhardt 1974. 97–8; Mangidis 2003. 170 Text In 1, A’s δὴ is unmetrical, and Musurus’ δὲ in the editio princeps of Athenaeus is an easy, obvious fix. 3 as transmitted is metrically deficient, and Dobree’s οὐχὶ for the paradosis οὐ mends the text at a negligible price. Kaibel’s οὐδὲ is no easier and produces an unlikely alteration in the meaning (“not even grapevines grow”, as if Scythia were a barren wasteland). Citation context From a discussion of women’s alleged fondness for drinking wine (Ath. 10.440e–2b) that also preserves frr. 25; 163, cited together shortly before this, with Alex. frr. 172 and 56, in that order, in between. The first half of 1 is not preserved in the Epitome manuscripts, hence the variation between Ath.A and Ath.ACE in the apparatus. Interpretation For women imagined as notoriously heavy drinkers, see fr. 25 Interpretation and the other fragments collected in this section of Athenaeus (including Axionic. fr. 5; Xenarch. fr. 6). Meineke offered the reasonable suggestion that the impossibility referred to in 1 is keeping women away from wine. 1 κακοδαίμων is Attic vocabulary; particularly common in comedy and seemingly colloquial (e. g. fr. 277 with n.; Pherecr. fr. 118; Ar. Nu. 268; E. Hipp. 1362; Antipho 1.128; Pl. Men. 78a); cf. Collard 2018. 48. 2 For the expression γαμεῖ γυναῖκα, e. g. Ar. Th. 412; Od. 15.241; Hdt. 4.78.5; Isoc. 15.156. 2–3 Cf. Arist. APo. 78b30–1 = Anacharsis fr. A23A Kindstrand τὸ τοῦ Ἀναχάρσιος, ὅτι ἐν Σκύθαις οὐκ εἰσὶν αὐλητρίδες, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄμπελοι (“Anacharsis’ saying, that among the Scythians there are no pipe-girls, and not even grapevines”); Anacharsis fr. A24 Kindstrand ap. Ath. 10.428d–e Ἀνάχαρσίς τε ὁ σοφὸς ἐπιδεικνύμενος τὴν τῆς ἀμπέλου δύναμιν τῷ τῶν Σκυθῶν βασιλεῖ καὶ τὰ κλήματα αὐτῆς δεικνὺς ἔλεγεν ὡς εἰ μὴ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἔτος ἔτεμνον οἱ Ἕλληνες τὴν ἄμπελον, ἤδη κἂν ἐν Σκύθαις ἦν (“When the wise Anacharsis explained the power of the grapevine to the Scythian king, he showed him its tendrils and said that if the Greeks did not cut their vines back every year, they would already have made their way to Scythia”). For the Scythians (who were nomadic pastoralists rather than farmers) and their relations with the Greeks generally, see fr. 157.1–3 (similarly idealized in contrast to contemporary Athenians) with n.; Braund 2000; and the essays collected in Braund 2005. For the history of the cultivation of the grapevine, see Hehn 1911. 65–95; Terral–This et al. 2010; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 121–6. 3 ἄμπελος is attested already in Homer (e. g. Od. 9.110); etymology uncertain (substrate vocabulary?).

231

Βοιώτιος vel Βοιωτία (Boiôtios vel Boiôtia)

“The Man from Boiotia” or “The Girl from Boiotia”

Introduction Discussion Salmasius 1629. 650; Meineke 1839–1857 I.329; Kock 1884 II.35; Edmonds 1959. 191 n. f Title Boiotia is a large, fertile area located northwest of Attika on the Greek mainland; the dominant city there was Thebes. Thebes and the Boiotian League were the dominant power in Greece in a brief period between the Battle of Leuktra in 371 BCE and the Battle of Mantineia in 362 BCE. See in general Buck 1979; Buckler 1980; Buck 1994; Hansen 2004. 431–3; Schachter 2016. 113–27 (Thebes after Mantinea). Boiotian men, at any rate, are stereotypically gluttonous (Eub. frr. 11.3; 33; 38; 52.1–2; 66; Mnesim. fr. 2; Alex. fr. 239.1–4; Demonic. fr. 1.1–2; Achaeus Trag. TrGF 20 F 3) and stupid (Cratin. fr. 77; Pi. O. 6.90; Isoc. 15.248; D. 5.15; 18.43; cf. Pherecr. fr. 171); see Goebel 1915. 57–62; Arnott 1996. 673–4. Athenaeus twice (3.84a, quoting fr. 59; 9.367f, quoting fr. 61) refers to Antiphanes’ Βοιώτιος and twice to his Βοιωτία (11.474e, quoting fr. 62; 14.650e, quoting fr. 60); Pollux for his part assigns fr. 61 to the Βοιωτία. Meineke calls the play Βοιωτία (so too Kassel–Austin), while acknowledging in the Historia critica that either title might be right; that Eriphus’ seemingly related play (see fr. 59 n.) was called Meliboia, after a female character, arguably counts in favor of Βοιωτία, as does the fact that the (default) masculine form of the adjective seems more likely to have driven out the (marked) female form than the other way around. Alternatively, Antiphanes may have written both a Βοιώτιος and a Βοιωτία. Kock suggested that the title ought actually to be Βοιωτίς (cf. X. HG 5.1.36; St.Byz. β 116.24; ε 133.5), which in the dative would be ΒΟΙΩΤΙΔΙ ~ ΒΟΙΩΤΙΑΙ); cf. Δωδωνίς Introduction. For ethnics and the like as play-titles, cf. especially (Greek male characters) Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ζακύνθιος, Λευκάδιος, Ποντικός, and perhaps Ἀρκάς, as well as (non-Greek male characters) Λυδός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός; (male plurals, both non-Greek) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; (Greek female characters) Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Κορινθία, Λευκαδία; (non-Greek female character) Καρίνη; (female plural) Λήμνιαι with Introduction (but probably a mythological travesty); note Μέτοικος; and see in general Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4thcentury comic poets. Parallel titles for Boiotia in Menander (Perinthia, Samia) and Terence (Andria; largely based on the homonymous comedy by Menander) suggest that the girl in question is involved in a complicated network of love-relationships, even if she is not necessarily a major participant in the on-stage action, and that she perhaps turns out to be Athenian. Theophilus and Menander also wrote plays

232

Antiphanes

entitled Βοιωτία, while Diphilus wrote a Βοιώτιος.128 The Roman comic playwright Plautus supposedly wrote a Boeotia (see Aul. Gell. 3.3.4–6), and Gellius preserves a fragment of it in which a parasite(?) complains about the tyranny of sundials in regard to setting dinnertime. But what Greek play this is adapted from, and indeed who the Roman adapter actually is, is unclear; see in general Gratwick 1979 (who canvases for Menander as author of the original). From what we can tell of Plautus’ handling of the titles of the plays he adapted, an original called Boiotia would appear to be among the least likely possibilities; see Introduction § 4. Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 59 K.–A. (58 K.)

5

(Α.) καὶ περὶ μὲν ὄψου γ’ ἠλίθιον τὸ καὶ λέγειν ὥσπερ πρὸς ἀπλήστους, ἀλλὰ ταυτὶ λάμβανε, παρθένε, τὰ μῆλα. (Β.) καλά γε. (Α.) καλὰ δῆτ’, ὦ θεοί· νεωστὶ γὰρ τὸ σπέρμα τοῦτ’ ἀφιγμένον εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας ἐστὶ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως. (Β.) παρ’ Ἑσπερίδων ᾤμην γε. (Α.) νὴ τὴν Φωσφόρον, φησὶν τὰ χρυσᾶ μῆλα ταῦτ’ εἶναι. (Β.) τρία μόνον ἐστίν. (Α.) ὀλίγον τὸ καλὸν ἐστὶ πανταχοῦ καὶ τίμιον

1 ἠλίθιον τὸ Musurus  : ἠλιθοντο Ath.A 7 φησὶν] fort. φασὶν

5

128

6 Φωσφόρον] Ἄρτεμιν Eriph. fr. 2.1

(A.) To go on discussing delicacies is foolish, as if one were addressing gluttons; but take these apples here, young lady! (B.) They’re lovely! (A.) They should be, by the gods; for this seed has only recently made its way to Athens from the King. (B.) I was thinking (they came) from the Hesperides. (A.) By the light-bearer, he claims that these are the golden apples. (B.) There are only three. (A.) What is good is rare everywhere— and expensive

Thus Athenaeus, whose loose handling of similar titles opens up the possibility that this play too may actually have been entitled Βοιωτία.

Βοιώτιος vel Βοιωτία (fr. 59)

233

Ath. 3.84a–b ὅτι δ’ ὄντως ἐκ τῆς ἄνω χώρας ἐκείνης κατέβη εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας τὸ φυτὸν τοῦτο, ἔστιν εὑρεῖν λεγόμενον καὶ παρὰ τοῖς τῆς κωμῳδίας ποιηταῖς, οἳ καὶ περὶ μεγέθους αὐτῶν τι λέγοντες τῶν κιτρίων μνημονεύειν φαίνονται. Ἀντιφάνης μὲν ἐν Βοιωτίῳ· —— That this plant in fact made its way to the Greeks from the upper country there can also be found asserted by the comic poets who, when they refer to their size, are patently thinking of citrons. Antiphanes in Boiôtios: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

lrkl l|lrl klkl llrl l|lk|l llkl lrkl k|rk|r llkl klkl k|lk|l klkl llkl l|lk|r lrkl klrl llk|l llkl llkl l|lk|l llkl rlkr l|rk|l klkl llkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion

Hehn 1911. 446; Reinhardt 1974. 192–4

Text In 1, the paradosis ἠλιθοντο (left unaccented by the Ath.A-scribe, who was unable to make sense of what seems at first glance to be a third-person plural form of an unknown verb) was neatly corrected by Musurus in the editio princeps of Athenaeus to ἠλίθιον τὸ. In 6, αὐτὰ εἶναι is to be supplied with παρ’ Ἑσπερίδων, and the comma printed before ᾤμην γε by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin is accordingly unnecessary. Citation context From a discussion of the citron at Ath. 3.83a–5b within the catalogue of tree-fruit of all sorts that makes up part of Book 3. Interpretation After quoting the fragment of Antiphanes, Athenaeus (3.84b–c) continues: Ἔριφος δ’ ἐν Μελιβοίᾳ (fr. 2) αὐτὰ ταῦτα τὰ ἰαμβεῖα προθεὶς ὡς ἴδια ἐπιφέρει (“Eriphus in Meliboia (fr. 2) begins with these same iambic lines, as if they were his own, but continues”), after which he quotes verses almost identical to 6–9 and then: 5

5

(Β.) τούτων μὲν ὀβολόν, εἰ πολύ, τίθημι· λογιοῦμαι γάρ. (Α.) αὗται δὲ ῥόαι. (Β.) ὡς εὐγενεῖς. (Α.) τὴν γὰρ Ἀφροδίτην ἐν Κύπρῳ δένδρον φυτεῦσαι τοῦτό φασιν ἓν μόνον. (Β.) † βέρβεαι † πολυτίμητε· κᾆτα τρεῖς μόνας καὶ τάσδ’ ἐκόμισας; (Α.) οὐ γὰρ εἶχον πλείονας (B.) I’m setting the price for these at an obol, even if it’s a lot; because I’ll calculate the cost. (A.) Here are pomegranates.

234

Antiphanes

(B.) How nice! (A.) (Yes,) because they say that Aphrodite planted only this one tree on Cyprus. (B.) By much honored † berbeai † ! So you only brought these three as well? (A.) (Yes,) because they didn’t have any more. Eriphus is mostly obscure, but a reference to the famous courtesan Lais (for whom, see Orth 2009. 151) in his fr. 6.1 suggests that he is somewhat earlier than Antiphanes, and thus allows for the possibility that Antiphanes has borrowed here from him rather than the other way around, as Athenaeus seems to suggest. In the absence of other information, it is in any case a reasonable assumption that the two poets used the lines in a similar on-stage situation. If so, (A.) is an intermediary of some sort between a fruit-vendor (or the fruit-market generally) and a customer, and (B.) is accepting a delivery.129 If Athenaeus—more likely Athenaeus’ source—had complete texts of both Boiôtios and Meliboia in front of him, something different from the above, although perhaps similar to it, must have followed in Antiphanes. It might nonetheless alternatively be the case that both passages had already been excerpted by the time they reached Athenaeus or whoever he was drawing on; that Eriph. fr. 2.4–9 is also taken direct from Antiphanes; and that the claim that Eriphus produced the additional material himself is a misjudgment based on the fact that those lines were not preserved in the shorter passage quoted from Antiphanes. παρθένε (3 with n.) makes it clear that (B.) is a woman, and also that she is younger than (A.) and perhaps (A.)’s social superior or is at least being momentarily treated as such. The oath (A.) uses in 6 (n.) suggests that she too is a woman. The individual (A.) refers to obliquely in 7 via φησίν is presumably the man from whom she has got the fruit rather than the King (cf. 5 with n.); if so, he must have been mentioned before this to allow the sense to be clear. The goods (A.) hands over to (B.) are exotic and of extremely high quality (4–7; Eriph. fr. 2.6–7), and (A.) is much concerned to praise their virtues, resorting at least in part to hyperbole (3–5, 7; Eriph. fr. 2.6–7). (B.), meanwhile, is open to the charms of the items (A.) has brought (3, 6; Eriph. fr. 2.6), but is also concerned that there are only three of each type of fruit (6–7; Eriph. fr. 2.8–9). This deficiency is patently (A.)’s fault in (B.)’s eyes, at least in Eriphus’ version of the scene (Eriph. fr. 2.8–9). But (A.) in turn passes the blame on to her suppliers, insisting in the case of the pomegranates that she brought all she could get (Eriph. fr. 2.9). καὶ τίμιον in 9 hints at the commercial background to the exchange, which again becomes clearer in what follows in Eriphus, where (B.) apparently intends to charge someone else—guests at a party (cf. fr. 27.8 n.)?—for the fruit (Eriph. fr. 2.4–5). 129

Rusten 2011. 493–4 suggests that (A.) and (B.) are instead a young man and the girl he is courting, part of the humor being that he thinks she is praising the beauty of the fruit in 6, whereas what she really means is that she is only being offered a few pieces. This requires assuming no connection with the material from Eriphus.

Βοιώτιος vel Βοιωτία (fr. 59)

235

Athenaeus (or his source) takes Antiphanes to be referring to the citron, a large citrus fruit admired for its fragrance but not eaten, that probably originated in southern China or northeast India and was the first such fruit to reach the Mediterranean, being followed in the Roman period by the lemon. Thphr. HP 4.4.2–3 (also cited in this section of the Deipnosophists) calls the citron “the Persian or Median apple”, which agrees with what is probably a mention of the Persian King in 4–5 (see 5 n.), although Aristophanes seems to refer to citrons simply as μῆλα at V. 1055–7a already in the 420s BCE, which sits awkwardly with the presentation of Antiphanes’ “apples” as a novelty. For citrons and the history of citrus fruit in the Graeco-Roman world, see in general Hehn 1911. 442–56; Tanaka 1933, esp. 486–9; Tolkowsky 1938. 1–111; Andrews 1961, esp. 37–40; Ramón-Laca 2003 (but mishandling the Greek evidence); Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 146–7; Pagnoux et al. 2013. 1–2 The loss of the original context makes (A.)’s initial comment difficult to interpret. But it must refer back to what has gone on onstage immediately before this: (A.) has had enough of (B.)’s arguments and objections, which ὥσπερ πρὸς ἀπλήστους suggests involved the quantity of food fetched from the marketplace (cf. the parallel complaints in 7–8; Eriph. fr. 2.8–9), and wants to hand over the goods she has brought. For μέν balanced by ἀλλά, see Denniston 1954. 5–6. For ὄψον, fr. 69 n. For ἠλίθιος (etymology uncertain), see Fraenkel 1950 on A. Ag. 366; Austin– Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 289–90; Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 172.7–8. Kassel–Austin suggest that καὶ λέγειν has the same sense as at Ar. Nu. 528 (glossed by Dover 1968 ad loc. “even to mention them 〈let alone to know them personally and hear their praise〉”), so that the sense here would be “Even discussing delicacies 〈let alone having direct knowledge of them〉 is foolish, as if one were addressing gluttons”. This is difficult, and it is easier to believe that καί is emphatic (Denniston 1954. 316–21, esp. 320–1) and that what (A.) means is something like “Talking about food, as in a conversation with gluttons, is pointless; instead, take what I’ve purchased!” For ἄπληστος meaning “insatiable, gluttonous”, cf. in comedy Timocl. fr. 16.3. For colloquial ταυτί, fr. 27.12–14 n. 3 Vocative παρθένε is a respectful form of address for a woman younger than the speaker. Confined in the classical period to poetry, and sometimes used to address virgin goddesses as well as mortals (e. g. Stesich. PMG 193.11 = fr. 90.10 Finglass; S. Tr. 1275; E. HF 834; Hel. 375; Ph. 1539; Or. 92; Praxill. PMG 754.2; Arist. PMG 842.3); elsewhere in comedy only at Diph. fr. 29.3, as part of an extended, explicitly paratragic address of Artemis. A μῆλον is most often specifically an “apple” (for which, fr. 186.3 with n.). But the word is occasionally used for tree-fruit of other sorts, including citrons (as seemingly here), quinces (Ath. 3.81a) and apparently apricots or peaches (Ar. Nu. 978; Nic. fr. 50). Cf. English melon (ultimately from the Greek μηλοπέπων);

236

Antiphanes

pineapple (“pine tree-apple”, i. e. pinecone; later transferred to a fruit that resembles a pinecone); Old French pome granate (“apple with many seeds”) > pomegranate; Finnish appelsiini (“Chinese apple”, i. e. “orange”); García Soler 2001. 102–8. The Germanic word that lies behind English apple, German Apfel and Dutch appel was originally similarly ambiguous. γε is exclamatory (Denniston 1954. 126–7). For δῆτ(α) “In affirmative answers, echoing a word, or words, of the previous speaker”, see Denniston 1954. 276–7 (“Common in verse and prose dialogue, particularly in Aristophanes, where the particle is often reinforced by an oath”, as here and at e. g. Ar. Eq. 725–6). In the classical period, the bland oath ὦ θεοί is confined to poetry (e. g. frr. 161.2; 181.6*; Chionid. fr. 5; Cratin. fr. 335.1; Ar. Ec. 1122; Alex. fr. 168.7; S. Ph. 737; E. Hipp. 1060; Hel. 560), with the exception of Pl. Lg. 922d, where it must accordingly be a literary affectation rather than a colloquialism. 4–5 Citrus fruit can be propagated by means of seeds and seedlings or via cuttings. The latter method seems to be what is imagined here, unless σπέρμα is used in an elevated way to mean “family (of fruit)” (cf. LSJ s. v. II.2–3); it can take up to a decade for a seedling to produce fruit. Citrons were still grown in Greece on a large scale e. g. on the island of Naxos up through the middle of the last century. 4 νεωστί (attested elsewhere in comedy only at Men. Dysc. 15) is late 5th/4thcentury vocabulary (e. g. S. El. 1049; E. Cyc. 251; Med. 366; Hdt. 1.196.5; Th. 1.95.1; X. An. 4.1.12). For the formation, cf. μεγαλωστί (e. g. Il. 16.776), ἱρωστί (Anacr. PMG 478; Semon. fr. 24.2), ἁπλωστί (A. Ch. 121), ταχεωστί (Pherecr. fr. 273). 5 τοῦ βασιλέως “The King” with no further qualification is generally the Persian king (e. g. Ar. Ach. 61, 98, 647; Pl. Com. fr. 127.2); cf. “the Great King” in the same sense at fr. 170.7 with n. The reference to Cyprus in Eriph. fr. 2.6 nonetheless raises the possibility that the reference is instead to a king from there, with whatever preceded these verses having made his identity clear, allowing a shorthand reference to him now, as at fr. 200.7 (n.). 6–7 For the Hesperides, the Golden Apples and the dragon that guarded them (mentioned nowhere else in comedy), cf. Hes. Th. 215–16 Ἑσπερίδας θ’, αἷς μῆλα πέρην κλυτοῦ Ὠκεανοῖο / χρύσεα καλὰ μέλουσι φέροντά τε δένδρεα καρπόν, 275; Pherecyd. FGrH 3 F 16–17 with Fowler 2013. 291–9; Stesich. fr. S8.3 = fr. 10.3 Finglass; Pi. fr. 288 μάλων χρυσῶν φύλαξ; Panyass. fr. 11, pp. 177–8 Bernabé with Matthews 1974. 68–71; Asclep. Trag. FGrH 617 F 1; E. Hipp. 742 Ἑσπερίδων δ ἐπὶ μηλόσπορον ἀκτάν; Isoc. 10.24; A.R. 4.1398–9; D.S. 4.26.2; Brommer 1942 (visual evidence); Gantz 1993. 410–13; McPhee, LIMC V.1 pp. 394–6 (mistakenly referring to this passage as fr. 55 K.). For παρ’ Ἑσπερίδων ᾤμην γε, see Text. Antiphanes, like the other comic poets, uses forms of both οἴομαι and contracted οἶμαι indifferently metri gratia (note e. g. ᾠόμην at frr. 122.2; 164.1; 194.15, where in each case the manuscripts offer the unmetrical ᾤμην). οἶμαι dominates in the manuscripts of 4th-century prose-authors and is accordingly taken by LSJ s. v. to have been the normal Attic form in

Βοιώτιος vel Βοιωτία (fr. 60)

237

this period. The word is uncommon in inscriptions, but the uncontracted form seems to be used by preference in the classical period (Threatte 1996. 648), perhaps because it sounded more formal. νὴ τὴν Φωσφόρον “The light-bearer” might be either Artemis (E. IT 21 with Cropp 2000 ad loc.; AP 6.267.1) or Hekate (Ar. Th. 858; fr. 608.2; Nausicr. fr. 1.9–10; E. Hel. 569 with Kannicht 1969 ad loc.; fr. 62h), but is more likely Artemis here, given Eriphus’ substitution of that name for Antiphanes’ epithet. In Attic drama, only women seem to swear by either deity in any case; cf. Ar. Lys. 443 with Henderson 1987a ad loc.; Th. 524–6b, 858 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad locc. 8–9 ὀλίγον τὸ καλὸν ἐστὶ πανταχοῦ sounds like a gnome being used by (A.) to justify her failure to fetch more than three citrons, with καὶ τίμιον adding another, more unexpected and less traditional point. 9 τίμιος in the sense “high-priced” (LSJ s. v. II.2) appears to be 5th/4thcentury usage; attested elsewhere in comedy at Ar. V. 253; Diph. fr. 32.1; Men. fr. 267.1. Cf. frr. 143.2 n.; 145.3 (playing on the traditional sense “venerable”) with n.; 284 (“valuable”).

fr. 60 K.–A. (59 K.) ἐνεγκεῖν ἐξ ἀγροῦ μοι τῶν ῥοῶν τῶν σκληροκόκκων 1 ῥοῶν Schweighäuser : ῥοιῶν Ath.A

to bring me some of the pomegranates with hard seeds from the countryside Ath. 14.650e Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Βοιωτίᾳ· —— Antiphanes in Boiôtia: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xl〉kl l|lkl llkl llkl l|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion

Schweighäuser 1801–1805 VII.595

Text In 1, Schweighäuser’s ῥόα is the old Attic form of the word, which is gradually replaced by epic-Ionic ῥοιά toward the end of the 4th century; cf. fr. 66 (where Athenaeus once again offers the form in οι), and see Arnott 1996 on Alex fr. 73. Citation context From a brief discussion of pomegranates at Ath. 14.650e–1b that also preserves Ar. frr. 120 (supposedly a reference to ἀπύρηνοι ῥόαι, those

238

Antiphanes

“without seeds”); 52; 188; Hermipp. fr. 37 before this fragment, in that order, and Epilyc. fr. 2; Alex. fr. 73; Men. fr. 83 after this fragment, in that order, within a much longer treatment of symposium snacks of all sorts that makes up a substantial portion of Book 14. Interpretation Pomegranate bushes are a cultivated plant already at Od. 7.115. In addition to the passages from comedy preserved by Athenaeus in this section of the Deipnosophists (listed in Citation context), note fr. 66 (in what is probably a catalogue of symposium snacks); Ar. V. 1268b/9a; Pax 1001 (sold in the marketplace); Epilyc. fr. 2; Anaxandr. fr. 42.55, and see in general Hehn 1911. 240–8; García Soler 2001. 108–9; Ward 2003 (with particular attention to evidence for the fruit in the Bronze Age); Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 134–5. 1 ἐξ ἀγροῦ See fr. 22.2 n. 2 σκληροκόκκων is attested elsewhere only in the lemma for this section of Athenaeus, which probably echoes Antiphanes. For κόκκος (etymology uncertain) meaning “seed, kernel”, with the specification “of a pomegranate” vel sim. routinely added to make clear what sort of a κόκκος is in question, cf. hDem. 372 ῥοιῆς κόκκον (the earliest attestation of the word); A. fr. 363 = Ar. fr. 623 ὀξυγλύκειάν τἄρα κοκκιεῖς ῥόαν; Hdt. 4.143.2 ὅσοι ἐν τῇ ῥοιῇ κόκκοι; Hermipp. fr. 37 ἤδη τεθέασαι κόκκον ἐν χιόνι ῥόας;.

fr. 61 K.–A. (60 K.) καλέσας τε παρατίθησιν ἐν παροψίδι βολβούς 1 καλέσας τε Poll.CL  : καλέσασά τε Ath.A  : καλέσασθαι Poll.FS παροψίσιν Poll.

παροψίδι Ath.A  :

and when he issues an invitation, he serves bolboi in a side-dish vessel Poll. 10.88 τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ Μεταγένους Φιλοθύτῃ (fr. 15)· ——, οἶδ’ ὅτι ἔστιν ἀμφίβολον· τὸ δὲ ἐν τῇ Ἀντιφάνους Βοιωτίᾳ σαφέστατα ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγγείου ἐστὶν εἰρημένον· —— Because as for the use (of paropsis) in Metagenes’ Philothytês (fr. 15): ——, I am aware that it is ambiguous. Whereas in Antiphanes’ Boiôtia the term is very clearly applied to the vessel: —— Ath. 9.367e–f ἐπὶ τοῦ σκεύους οὖν εἴρηκεν, ὦ φιλότης Μυρτίλε· προήρπασα γάρ σου τὸν λόγον· Ἀντιφάνης Βοιωτίῳ· (v. 1) ——

Βοιώτιος vel Βοιωτία (fr. 61)

239

Antiphanes in Boiôtios, my dear friend Myrtilus—because I know I snatched the word out of your mouth—applies the term to a serving implement: (v. 1) ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkr klk|l klkl ll〈kl xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion

Crusius 1888. 607

Text In 1, either καλέσας τε (Poll.CL) or καλέσασά τε (Ath.A) would do; καλέσασθαι (Poll.FS) is unmetrical. The text printed here (and by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) takes it to be inherently more likely that a man would be described as inviting guests (sc. to his house for dinner) than that a woman would. Against this one might argue that καλέσασά τε is patently the lectio difficilior and ought accordingly to be preferred; in that case, the subject is most likely a courtesan. If the interpretation of the fragment offered by the sources is correct, Athenaeus’ παροψίδι (also printed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) is better than Pollux’ παροψίσιν, since only with the singular is it tolerably clear that the end of 1 means “in a side-dish vessel” rather than “among the side-dishes”. But this is a sufficiently odd sense of the word to raise the possibility that the reading in Pollux is right and the ancient scholarly interpretations of the fragment are in error; see Interpretation. Citation context Pollux and Athenaeus both cite this fragment—Athenaeus has only the first verse—as an exceptional example of the use of παροψίς to refer to a serving-vessel. Athenaeus too quotes Metag. fr. 15 at 10.459b, and both authors may accordingly be relying on the same source. That this use of παροψίς was acceptable in what eventually came to be regarded as “good Greek” (i. e. Attic Greek of the classical period) is disputed by other Roman-era scholars; cf. – Phryn. PS p. 103.10–11 παροψίδες· τὰ ὄψα τὰ ποικίλως κεκαρυκευμένα καὶ οὐχ, ὡς οἱ νῦν, ἐπὶ τῶν λεκανίων (“paropsides: elaborately prepared opsa and not, as people today (use the term), in reference to small pots”) ~ ecl. 147 παροψὶς τὸ ὄψον, οὐχὶ δὲ τὸ ἀγγεῖον· τοῦτο δὲ τρύβλιον ἢ λεκάριον καλοῦσιν (“A paropsis is opson, not the vessel; they refer to the latter as a tryblion [‘cup’] or lekarion [‘dish’]”) – Moer. π 15 παροψίδα τὴν ποιὰν μᾶζαν Ἀττικοί· παροψίδα τὸ σκεῦος Ἕλληνες (“Attic-speakers (use) paropsis to refer to a certain type of barley-cake, whereas Greeks generally (use) paropsis for a vessel”) – Hsch. π 1001 = Phot. π 447 = Suda π 712 ~ Synag. π 232 παροψίς· ὀξυβάφιον ἢ ἐμβάφιον (“paropsis: a vinegar cruet or a dipping vessel”; from the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge conventionally referred to as Σ΄) – Phot. π 448 παροψίς· οὐ τὸ ἀγγεῖον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὄψον καὶ † μακα (“paropsis: not the vessel, but both opson and † maka”).

240

Antiphanes

Pollux quotes the fragment near the end of a section treating names of vessels that makes up part of the long catalogue of σκεύη (“implements”) of all sorts that comprises his Book 10. Athenaeus cites v. 1 in the course of a discussion of the term παροψίς at 9.367b–8c that also preserves Pl. Com. frr. 32; 43; 190; Ar. fr. 191; Alex. fr. 89; Magnes fr. 1; Achae. TrGF 20 F 7; Sotad. Com. fr. 3; Pherecr. fr. 157; Nicopho fr. 22; Ar. fr. 191; Pl. Com. fr. 32 (cited a second time, suggesting that several sources are being merged), in that order. Didymus (On Corrupt Vocabulary, p. 19 Schmidt) is cited at Ath. 9.368b for the view—rejected—that παροψίς also refers to a vessel at Pherecr. fr. 157.1, and some of this material may thus go back to him or more likely to a source responding to him. Interpretation One in a series of actions (hence τε), perhaps part of an unflattering description of a person who inter alia invites company to his or her house and then serves limited quantities of bitter, inexpensive food. For the problem of the gender of the individual in question (masculine in the version of the text given here), see Text. 1 For καλέω alone (i. e. without ἐπὶ δεῖπνον vel sim.) in the sense “invite (to dinner)”, e. g. Pherecr. fr. 198; Ar. Ec. 1146; fr. 714; Alex. fr. 48.4; LSJ s. v. I.2. παρατίθημι (literally “set beside”; cf. frr. 143.1; 172b.2, both of dinner tables placed beside a symposiast) is the vox propria for serving food, especially the main course in a meal (e. g. frr. 170.8; 212A.4 with n.; Pherecr. frr. 32; 60; Ar. Ach. 85; Pl. Com. fr. 189.16; Aristopho fr. 9.8; Alex. fr. 260.1; cf. Plaut. Amph. 804 cena apposita est). LSJ s. v. cites Alex. fr. 89.2 and Archestr. fr. 9.2 as supposed additional examples of παροψίς used to refer to a vessel, while Montanari s. v. cites Archestr. fr. 9.1, Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.4 and NT Matt. 23:25 οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι καθαρίζετε τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τῆς παροψίδος, ἔσωθεν δὲ γέμουσιν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας (“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you wash the outside of your cup and of your paropsis; but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence”). Of all of these, in only the final passage (late 1st century CE) and at Alciphr. 2.17.2 (~ “cup”; 2nd/3rd century CE?) does the sense appear to be anything other than the normal “secondary opson, side-dish” (fr. 225.3 n.). Assuming that the end of this verse as printed above is sound (see Text), therefore, this fragment is the unique classical example of the word meaning “vessel for serving side-dishes”. 2 For βολβοί (purse-tassel hyacinth bulbs), fr. 225.3 n.

Βοιώτιος vel Βοιωτία (fr. 62)

241

fr. 62 K.–A. (61 K.) Ath. 11.474e ὅτι δὲ καὶ γυναικεῖον κοσμάριόν ἐστιν κάνθαρος Ἀντιφάνης εἴρηκεν ἐν Βοιωτίᾳ Antiphanes in Boiôtia says that a kantharos is also a minor item of jewelry worn by women

Citation context From the very end of Athenaeus’ discussion of the drinking vessel called a kantharos (citing also Amips. fr. 2.1; Alex. fr. 120; Eub. fr. 80; Xenarch. fr. 10; Epigen. fr. 4; Sosicr. fr. 2; Phryn. Com. fr. 15; Nicostr. Com. fr. 9; Men. fr. 246; Philetaer. fr. 4, in that order) as part of the long, roughly alphabetical catalogue of cups and related vessels that makes up most of Book 11 of the Deipnosophists. Interpretation This is the only attestation of κάνθαρος—properly “dung beetle”, whence by extension a boat that somehow resembles a dung beetle, and a cup that somehow resembles such a boat—in this sense. LSJ s. v. VI suggests “a gem in scarab-form”; or perhaps Antiphanes is referring to a scarab-type seal-stone worn on a string or fitted to a ring and thus reasonably understood as a bit of personal jewelry; see fr. 188.2 n. (on seal-rings generally). The etymology of the word is uncertain. A recognition token?

242

Βομβυλιός (Bombylios) “The Growler”

Introduction Discussion Koppiers 1771. 28–9; Meineke 1839–1857 I.311–12; Kock 1884 II.37 Title A βομβυλιός is a bumblebee or the like (Ar. V. 107) but also, according to Hp. Morb. III 16.73 = 6.148.11 Littré, Poll. 6.98 (citing Ion TrGF 19 F 64) and Ath. 11.784d (citing Antisth. SSR V A 64), a narrow-necked cup seemingly called after the noise it produced when liquid emerged from it.130 For other comedies by Antiphanes called after a physical object of some sort (often but seemingly not necessarily a recognition token or an vessel that contained them), cf. Κώρυκος, Μνήματα, Ὑδρία and perhaps Λαμπάς, and for examples in other poets, Arnott 2010. 317–18. The title has been subject to rough handling in the manuscripts: Ath.A actually offers θομβυκίῳ at 4.161e (quoting fr. 63), while Poll. 10.179 (quoting fr. 64) has βομβυκιῷ, and only Ath. 3.125f (quoting fr. 65) preserves Βομβυλιῷ. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 63 K.–A. (62 K.) σκόροδα, τυρόν, κρόμμυα, κάππαριν 〈klx〉 πάντα ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν δραχμῆς 1 σκόροδα Ath.ACE : σκορόδια Jacobs 1–2 σκορόδια … κάππαριν, 〈θύμον〉, / ἅπαντα Meineke 2 〈ἄνηθον〉 vel 〈ἐλαίας〉 Dobree : 〈ἔλαιον〉 Kock : 〈ἅλας καὶ〉 Weiher 〈καὶ〉 κάππαριν 〈γ 〉· ἅπαντα ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν δραχμῆς Jacobs : κάππαριν, 〈ἁπαξ〉άπαντα ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν δραχμῆς Nauck : κάππαριν· ἅπαντα ταῦτα 〈μιᾶς〉 ἐστὶν δραχμῆς Herwerden

garlic, cheese, onions, a caper 〈klx〉 all these cost a drachma Ath. 4.161d–e τούτων δ’ ὑμεῖς, ὦ φιλόσοφοι, οὐδὲν ἀσκεῖτε, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ πάντων χαλεπώτατον λαλεῖτε περὶ ὧν οὐκ οἴδατε καὶ ὡς κοσμίως ἐσθίοντες ποιεῖτε τὴν ἔνθεσιν κατὰ τὸν ἥδιστον 130

Kock, comparing Eubulus’ Κορυδαλλός (“Crested Lark”) and Timotheus Comicus’ Κυνάριον (“Puppy”) argued that the title of Antiphanes’ play might actually mean “The Bumblebee”. Perhaps someone was stung or chased by the insect.

Βομβυλιός (fr. 63)

243

Ἀντιφάνη· οὗτος γὰρ ἐν Δραπεταγωγῷ λέγει (fr. 87)· ——, ἐξὸν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον ποιητὴν ἐν Βομβυλιῷ (Casaubon  : θομβυκίῳ Ath.A) λέγοντα δραχμῆς ὠνήσασθαι  τὰς προσφόρους ὑμῖν τροφάς· —— But you, my philosophers, practice none of this; and what is worst of all, you instead chatter about topics you are ignorant of, and you “put your food in your mouths in a decent manner”, to quote the extremely entertaining Antiphanes, who says in Drapetagôgos (fr. 87): ——, although it is possible for you, as this same poet says in Bombylios (thus Casaubon : thombykios Ath.A) to purchase the provisions that suit you for a drachma: ——

Meter Probably iambic trimeter (the default assumption in comedy), as printed above and in Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin.

〈xlkl x〉|rk|l llkl lr〈kl l〉|lk|l llkl

But Kassel–Austin note that this might be trochaic tetrameter catalectic instead.

〈lklx lklx〉 | rkll lkl lkl〈cx lklx〉 | lkll lkl

Discussion Jacobs 1809. 103; Dobree 1833. 306; Nauck 1851. 416; Herwerden 1864. 19; Meineke 1867. 77; Kock 1884 II.37; Weiher 1914. 61 Text This is the text as given by Kassel–Austin. Meineke (followed by Kock) took more of the material in Athenaeus to belong to Antiphanes and—adopting also Jacobs’ σκορόδια for the paradosis σκόροδα—printed τὰς προσφόρους / ἡμῖν131 τροφάς, σκορόδια, τυρόν, κρόμμυα, / κάππαριν 〈 k l x 〉 πάντα ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν δραχμῆς. Diminutive σκορόδιον is attested elsewhere only at Ar. Pl. 818 and in notes on that verse, which generally take it to mean “garlic greens”. A comma is needed at the end of 1 after κρόμμυα (as in Meineke and Kock; omitted by Kassel–Austin). 2 is metrically deficient, and the conjectures recorded in the apparatus represent various exempli gratia means to fill out the line; none is obviously any more convincing than the others. Citation context From an attack on philosophers by Myrtilus that begins at Ath. 4.160d and also includes frr. 158; 133, in that order, at Ath. 4.161a. Interpretation Garlic, cheese and onions are rough, simple food repeatedly described as soldiers’ rations (Ar. Ach. 550, 1099; Eq. 600; Pax 1129; workmen’s rations at Hdt. 2.125.6). But capers are a much less obvious item to be shoved into a rucksack, and more likely this is part of a kitchen-supply shopping scene (cf. fr. 71 n.), with the words perhaps to be divided between two speakers, with one character offering a list of what is needed, and the other predicting or reporting the cost. For garlic and onions sold in the Agora, cf. Eup. fr. 327.2; Ar. Pl. 167.

131

Thus Meineke. Kock prints ὑμῖν, as in Athenaeus.

244

Antiphanes

1 σκόροδα For garlic in banquet catalogues and the like, see also fr. 181.2 (a simple food; see below on cheese); Ar. Ra. 555; Anaxandr. fr. 42.41; Mnesim. fr. 4.30; Alex. fr. 179.6; Lync. fr. 1.7, and in general García Soler 2001. 361–2; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 156–7. Comedy at least seems never to refer to frying or baking it, as we generally would; for μυττωτός (garlic paste, often incorporating e. g. cheese, leeks or honey), see Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 242–59. τυρόν For cheese, cf. frr. 21.3–4 (on the cheese-market generally); 51 n.; 131.7–9 (from Kyklôps) with n.; 140.1 (in a list of kitchen supplies) with n.; 181.2 (in a list of simple foods, along with bread, garlic and plakountes, i. e. fried or baked unleavened cakes). κρόμμυα For onions, cf. fr. 71.2; fr. dub. 330.2 = Eub. fr. 18.2; Philem. fr. 113.3 (in all three cases in a list of kitchen supplies); Plin. Nat. 19.101–5; García Soler 2001. 57–8; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 157. Like garlic, onions are seemingly often eaten raw rather than fried; cf. Eup. fr. 275; Ar. Lys. 798 (where the point would seem to be “because I’m going to knock your teeth out”); Ec. 308 (a snack parallel to olives and a bit of bread); Anaxandr. fr. 42.57. 2 κάππαριν Capers—the seed-filled fruit of a small Mediterranean tree or shrub, traces of which are frequently detected in archaeological excavations; always referred to in the singular—are mentioned elsewhere in comedy at fr. 140.4 (in a catalogue of kitchen supplies); Nicostr. Com. fr. 1.2 (in a catalogue of appetizers); Philippid. fr. 9.6 (food consumed by a wealthy man in a silver bowl); Timocl. fr. 25.2–3 (“picking capers” as a mark of poverty). [Arist.] Pr. 924a1–23 and Thphr. CP 1.16.9; 3.1.4; HP 6.5.2 describe capers as difficult to cultivate, and they were presumably gathered wild, as often today; see in general García Soler 2001. 344–5; Rivera et al. 2002. In the Mediterranean region, capers are today generally eaten pickled or packed in salt (see Rivera et al. 2003, esp. 516–18), which does not necessarily mean that the Greeks consumed them that way in the classical period.

fr. 64 K.–A. (63 K.) ἀγγεῖον ἀλφιτηρὸν ὁ κόιξ ἐστίν 〈l〉 ἀλφιτηρὸν Poll.FS : ἀλφιτήριον Poll.ABC Poll.A : ἐστίν; 〈(Β.) ναί〉 Kassel

ὁ Poll.ABC : ἢ Poll.FS

ἐστιν Poll.FSBC : καλεῖται

The koïx is a vessel for barley-meal Poll. 10.179 εἴη δ’ ἂν καὶ κόιξ ἕν τι τῶν πλεγμάτων, ὃν οἱ μὲν Δωριεῖς κόιν καλοῦσιν, ὡς Ἐπίχαρμος Πίθωνι (fr. 112)· ——, οἱ δὲ Ἀττικοὶ κόικα, ὡς Φερεκράτης Κοριαννοῖ (fr. 83)· ——. σαφῶς δὲ αὐτὸ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Βομβυλιῷ (Meineke : βομβυκιῷ Poll.) δηλοῖ εἰπών· ——

Βομβυλιός (fr. 64)

245

Among the items that are woven would be a koïx, which Doric-speakers call a koïn, as Epicharmus (does) in Pithôn (fr. 112): ——, whereas Attic-speakers (call it) a koïx, as Pherecrates (does) in Koriannô (fr. 83): ——. Antiphanes in Bombylios (thus Meineke : Bombykios vel sim. Poll.) offers a clear description of it when he says: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl klk|r llk〈l〉

Discussion

Kock 1884 II.37; Kassel ap. Kassel–Austin

Text ἀλφιτηρόν is attested elsewhere only at Herod. 7.73—which is enough to support the reading in Poll.FS over ἀλφιτήριον in Poll.ABC. Pollux’ paraphrase would seem to guarantee ὁ (Poll.ABC) rather than ἢ (Poll.FS), since it is difficult to see how “It’s a vessel for barley-meal or a koïx” could be taken to offer a clear account of what a koïx is. Kassel’s 〈(Β.) ναί〉 at the end of the line, with the first part punctuated as a question (“Is a koïx a vessel for barley-meal?” “Yes.”) is merely an exempli gratia supplement. Citation context From the end of a brief discussion of woven objects, as part of a larger discussion of storage vessels within the long catalogue of σκεύη (“implements”) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of Pollux. Interpretation The resolution of a puzzle, as in fr. 194.17–18? Or decipherment of a bit of gastronomically-oriented “dithyrambic” language (for which, cf. frr. 55 with nn.; 180)? Kock was dubious of the status of the fragment (verba poetae ea esse quae Pollux tradit credere non possum, “I am unable to believe that the words Pollux passes on belong to a poet”), but does not explain how he thinks the words came to be attributed to Antiphanes. For ἀγγεῖον (seemingly a very general term), fr. 180.8 n. ἀλφιτηρόν For ἄλφιτα—roughly ground barley groats, used inter alia to produce μᾶζαι (fr. 225.1 n.)—see Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 368; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 5.7; García Soler 2001. 78–9; Pellegrino 2013 on Nicopho fr. 6.1. For the adjective, see Headlam 1966. 351 (on Herod. 7.73). A κόιξ is a type of palm-tree (Thphr. HP 1.10.5; 2.6.10), and the word was apparently extended to baskets woven from its fronds, as Hesychius says expressly (κ 3231 κόϊκες· ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ φοινίκων εἶδος. καὶ τὰ πεπλεγμένα ἐκ τῶν φύλλων τοῦ δένδρου σκεύη, φορμοί, “koïkes: a type of palm-tree found in Ethiopia. Also the vessels woven from the tree’s branches, baskets”). Cf. Epich. fr. 112 ἢ θύλακον βόειον ἢ κόιν φέρειν / ἢ κωρυκίδα (“to be carrying an ox-skin sack or a koïx or a leather bag”); Pherecr. fr. 83 πᾶς δ’ ἀνὴρ ἔσαττε τεῦχος ἢ κόικ’ ἢ κωρύκους (“and every man was filling a pot or a koïx or leather bags”), both of which are cited in the same section of Pollux; Youtie 1979. 111–12. LSJ s. v. I takes the plant in question to be the doum palm (seemingly called κουκιόφορον at Thphr. HP 4.2.7, with reference to its edible fruit; note also Peripl.M.Rubr. 33 γλώσσῃ δὲ Ἀραβικῇ

246

Antiphanes

χρῶνται καὶ περιζώμασι φύλλων κουκίνων (“they speak Arabic and wear skirts of koukinos leaves”), which grows inter alia in Egypt, and whose leaves continue to be used to produce baskets, mats, brooms, roof-thatching and the like; see Wallert 1962. 18–19. For the name, see in general Joret 1892.

fr. 65 K.–A. (64 K.) Ath. 3.125f τοῦ κνισολοιχοῦ δὲ καὶ Ἀντιφάνης μνημονεύει ἐν Βομβυλιῷ Antiphanes as well mentions the knisoloichos in Bombylios

Meter The iota in κνῖσα is long. κνισολοιχός thus scans lklx (with the length of the final syllable depending on case and number), and the word is easily accommodated in e. g. iambic trimeter. Citation context From a discussion of κνισολοιχός and cognates offered by Myrtilus at Ath. 3.125d–f in response to a query by Ulpian. Asius fr. 14 (κνισοκόλαξ); Sophil. frr. 8; 6, are cited before this, in that order. Interpretation κνισολοιχός is < κνῖσα (“fatty smell of roasting meat”; cf. Olson–Sens 1999 on Matro fr. 1.82) + λείχω (“lick”). The word is attested exclusively in comedy (in addition to the passages noted in Citation context, all from the same section of Athenaeus, only at Amphis fr. 10.1) and is most likely colloquial.132 Cf. Eup. fr. 190 ταγηνοκνισοθήρας (“skillet-κνῖσα-hunter”; better regarded as an adespoton comic fragment) with Olson 2016 ad loc.; adesp. com. fr. *622 κνισοτηρητής (“one who keeps an eye out for κνῖσα”), on the one hand, and ματιολοιχός (Ar. Nu. 451 with Dover 1968 ad loc., who notes that “this may be one of many colloquial words of which we catch only a glimpse”) and τραπεζολοιχός (e. g. Suet. Blasph. 11.6), on the other. Whether the idea is that the individual in question is eager to lick up fat (sc. from the dinner table or the like; cf. αἱματολοιχός at A. Ag. 1478; Taillardat 1962 § 131, who glosses the verb “savourer” and notes “Cet emploi de λείχειν appartenait à la langue familière”) or that he is willing to 132

Papachrysostomou 2016. 77 argues that “The adjective is a coinage by either Amphis, Antiphanes or Sophilus, since its usage is limited to these three comic poets”. This is to confuse accidents of attestation with innovation, which is to say that the simplest and thus most likely conclusion is that κνισολοιχός is a common witticism used by all three poets rather than invented by one of them and then borrowed from him by the others. The further conclusion at Papachrysostomou 2016. 78 that κνισολοιχός “is probably a coinage by Amphis (rather than Antiphanes or Sophilus)” because Amphis fr. 11 contains the hapax ὀλβιογάστωρ has no logical force behind it, particularly since this word as well may just as easily be an ill-attested colloquialism rather than an ad hoc invention by a comic poet.

Βομβυλιός (fr. 65)

247

do anything to get a meal (cf. κωμῳδολοιχέω at Ar. V. 1318 with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.; English “suck up”) is unclear. But the parallel κνισοκόλαξ (i. e. “a man who flatters in the hope of getting a meal”) argues for the latter.

248

Βούσιρις (Bousiris) “Bousiris”

Introduction Discussion

Schiassi 1955. 105–6

Title and Content Bousiris son of Poseidon was an Egyptian king who sacrificed strangers who came to his country. When he attempted to put Herakles to death, Herakles killed him instead. Cf. Hdt. 2.45.1 (but without mention of the king’s name); Pherecyd. FGrH 3 F 17; Isoc. 11; Call. fr. 44; [Apollod.] Bib. 2.5.11; Gantz 1993. 418; Laurens, LIMC III.1.147–8; McPhee 2006 (publishing a Attic bell-krater dating to 380–370 BCE that illustrates the myth, with extensive discussion of the visual and literary evidence); Fowler 2013. 317; Bianchi 2016. 144–5. The action was presumably set in Egypt. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Epicharmus, Cratinus, Mnesimachus and Ephippus also wrote comedies entitled Bousiris, while Euripides produced a satyr play with the same title. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 66 K.–A. (65 K.) βότρυς, ῥόας, φοίνικας, ἕτερα νώγαλα ῥόας Phot. : ῥοίας Ath.

νώγαλα Ath.C Eust. : νωγαλεύματα Ath.E : νωταλαῖν Phot.

bunches of grapes, pomegranates, dates, other snacks Phot. ν 318 νωταλεύματα· Ἀραρὼς Καμπυλίωνι (fr. 8.1)· ——. Ἀντιφάνης Βουσίριδι· —— nôtaleumata (~ “snacks”): Araros in Kampyliôn (fr. 8.1): ——. Antiphanes in Bousiris: ——

Βούσιρις (fr. 66)

249

Ath. 2.47d ὅτι νωγαλεύματα ἐκάλουν τὰ ἡδέα βρώματα. Ἀραρώς (fr. 8.1)133· ——. Ἄλεξις (fr. 277)· ——. Ἀντιφάνης· —— They called delicious foods nôgaleumata. Araros (fr. 8.1): ——. Alexis (fr. 277): ——. Antiphanes: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl llk|r klkl

Discussion

Mangidis 2003. 173

Text For Photius’ ῥόας (seemingly the proper form in this period) in place of ῥοίας in the Epitome of Athenaeus, see fr. 60.1 Text. νωγαλεύματα at the end of the line in Ath.E is unmetrical, and νώγαλα in Ath.C is confirmed by the same reading in Eustathius (from his own copy of the Epitome). The variant may have originated as a false expansion of what appears to have been a heavily abbreviated exemplar (offering νώγαλα vel sim.), but in any case reflects the influence of the initial lemma. Photius’ garbled νωταλαῖν includes a majuscule error (Τ for Γ), other examples of which appear in the lemma and in his version of Arar. fr. 8.1 (both νωταλεύματα for νωγαλεύματα). Citation context The material in Athenaeus is part of a brief collection (2.47a–e) of unusual Attic vocabulary having to do with eating that also includes a citation of fr. 249 (for ὀξύπεινος). This portion of the Deipnosophists is preserved only in the Epitome, which routinely omits the titles of the plays it cites. Photius’ awareness that the play in question is Bousiris thus shows either that he is drawing on a copy of Athenaeus’ source or—perhaps more likely—that his note goes back to the complete original version of the Deipnosophists. Eustathius expressly assigns his knowledge of the fragment to his own copy of the Epitome (p. 1163.24 = IV.256.7–8). Cognate material (probably drawing at least in part on a single Atticist lexicographer) is preserved at – Hsch. ν 760 νωγαλεύματα ἢ νωγαλίσματα· τὰ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἐδέσματα. οἱ δὲ τὰ μὴ εἰς χορτασίαν, ἀλλὰ τρυφερὰ ἀρτύματα (“nôgaleumata or nôgalismata: insubstantial foods. But other authorities (gloss the words as meaning) things that are not (eaten) with an eye toward getting full, but delicate seasonings”) – Phot. ν 304 νωγαλεύματα· τὰ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἐδέσματα· τὰ ἐπιδορπίσματα (“nôgaleumata: insubstantial foods; desserts”). Interpretation Probably part of a catalogue of symposium-foods; cf. frr. 273; 295; Ephipp. fr. 24 κάρυα, ῥόας, φοίνικας, ἕτερα νώγαλα, / σταμνάριά τ’ οἴνου μικρὰ τοῦ Φοινικίκου, / ᾠάρια, τοιαῦθ ἕτερα πολλὰ παίγνια (“nuts, pomegranates, dates, 133

Photius and Athenaeus both cite most of the first three verses of the fragment. Other, overlapping portions of the same fragment are preserved at Ath. 3.86d, 105e. Whether the citations ultimately all go back to the same source, is unclear.

250

Antiphanes

other nôgala, and small jars of Phoenician wine, little eggs,134 many other such baubles”, from an unidentified play; cited by Kassel–Austin); Plaut. Stich. 689–91 hoc conuiuium est / pro opibus nostris satis commodule nucibus, fabulis, ficulis, / olea, enthryptillo, lupillo comminuto, crustulo (“This banquet is good enough for our means, with nuts, little beans, little figs, olives, little cakes, tiny lupine seeds, and pastries”; trans. de Melo). Perhaps the reference to dates (for which, see below) is intended to add a bit of local flavor appropriate to the likely setting of the play in Egypt. Whether Ephippus modeled his v. 1 on Antiphanes (or vice versa; the two poets were rough contemporaries, see Test. 4 with n.), is impossible to say. But Ephippus also wrote a Bousiris, to which the echo of Antiphanes suggests that the fragment might be assigned, and his vv. 2–3 may thus also have appeared in the text of Antiphanes’ play.135 βότρυς also appear in symposium catalogues or the like at Anaxandr. fr. 42.53; Men. fr. 409.11. See in general García Soler 2001. 116–17. ῥόας For pomegranates, fr. 60 n. φοίνικας For dates—the product of one of the first fruit trees domesticated in the Mediterranean area, but not cultivated in Greece, where the climate was too wet and cold—cf. fr. 173.1–2 (called typical of Heliopolis in Egypt); Hermipp. fr. 63.22 (imported into Greece from † Phoenicia †). For date-palms and cultivation methods, see Hdt. 1.193.4–5; Thphr. HP 2.6.2–8; 3.3.5; Pruessner 1920 (with particular attention to the evidence from early Babylon); Wallert 1962. 11–17; Georgi 1982, esp. 224–5; García Soler 2001. 119; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 131–4. νώγαλα (no etymology) and cognates are attested exclusively in 4th-century comedy (νώγαλα also at Ephipp. fr. 24 (quoted above); νωγαλεύματα at Arar. fr. 8.1; νωγαλίζω at Eub. fr. 14.7 (of a slice of sausage at a party)136 and Alex. fr. 277.3 (of someone who is simultaneously getting drunk on fine wine)) and in lexicographic sources ultimately dependent on comedy (see Citation context),137 and must be colloquial Athenian vocabulary.

fr. 67 K.–A. (66 K.) τὸ χερνιβεῖον πρῶτον· ἡ πομπὴ σαφής

134 135 136 137

Or “little egg-cups”?; cf. Dinon FGrH 690 F 4 ap. Ath. 11.503f, where the Persian King is said to drink from an ᾠόν. The reference to “Phoenician wine” in v. 2 might then be another deliberately Oriental touch. νενωγάλισται σεμνὸς ἀλλᾶντος τόμος. Arnott 1996. 771 mistakenly cites Hunter 1983 in support of the claim that “the food eaten is a black pudding”. Note also Zon. p. 1412.15 νωγαλέως· λαμπρῶς (“nôgaleôs: brightly”), 25 νωγαλέον· † πυρρόν † λαμπρόν (“nôgaleon: † tawny † bright”).

Βούσιρις (fr. 67)

251

ἡ πομπὴ τὸ χερνιβεῖον Bentley : καὶ τὸ χερνίβιον Poll.CL : καὶ τὸ χερνίβιον τοῦτο Poll.FS σαφής Poll.FSCL : (Β.) ἦν πομπὴ σαφῶς vel (Β.) ἢν πομπὴ σαφής Blaydes : ἦ πομπὴ σαφής vel (Β.) ἦ πομπὴ σαφής Herwerden

The washing-basin is first; the procession is apparent Poll. 10.65 καὶ κανοῦν δὲ ἀναγκαῖον ὑπεῖναι καὶ χέρνιβας καὶ χερνιβεῖον, εἰπόντος Ἀντιφάνους ἐν Βουσίριδι· —— A sacrificial basket must also be available, and washing-water and a washing-basin, given that Antiphanes says in Bousiris: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl l|lk|l llkl

Discussion Bentley ap. Wordsworth 1842 I.278; Blaydes 1896. 104; Herwerden 1903. 78; Mangidis 2003. 173 Text The line as transmitted by Pollux is unmetrical, and Bentley’s χερνιβεῖον for the paradosis χερνίβιον (similarly transmitted at Ath. 9.409c = Ar. fr. 330) is confirmed by inscriptional evidence (e. g. IG I3 1459.12–13; II2 1400.41, 51; 1413.1; 1415.1–2 (bis); 1474B.18 with Harris 1988. 334; 1638.54). Bentley also expelled Pollux’ initial καὶ and Poll.FS’s τοῦτο from the text. Alternatively, καὶ might be understood as the final word in the preceding line, and τοῦτο can be retained if one assumes that these are fragments of two (or three) lines rather than of one (καὶ / τὸ χερνιβεῖον τοῦτο πρῶτον 〈lkl / xlkl xlk〉 ἡ πομπὴ σαφής). Were the sense of the second half less odd, this might seem a desperate hypothesis. But editors have often taken something to be wrong there, hence the emendations recorded in the apparatus, none of them overly convincing (“(B.) It was obviously a procession” or “(B.) Look! A patent procession” Blaydes; “Certainly a patent procession” or “(B.) Certainly a patent procession” Herwerden). Citation context This is the only text cited by Pollux in a brief discussion of items necessary for a sacrifice, as part of the long catalogue of σκεύη (“implements”) of all sorts that makes up Book 10. Interpretation Assuming that the text is sound, the second half of the line must mean something like “The procession can be clearly seen”, in which case—if Pollux is right about the general context—the point of the first half is that whoever is carrying the water-basin is in the lead as the group approaches the altar. That Bousiris attempted to sacrifice Herakles (see the general introduction to the play) provides an obvious context for the fragment, which does not mean that the line actually comes from such a scene. Washing-water is χέρνιψ (< χείρ , “hand”, + νίζω/νίπτω, “wash”). But the word is often used by extension for the basin that contains such water (e. g. Ar. Pax 956; Av.

252

Antiphanes

850, 958; Lys. 1129; Lys. 6.52; D. 22.78 = 24.186; cf. Sparkes 1975. 132; Olson 2016. 133, on what appears to be another extended sense of the word, “hand-washing”, in Eup. fr. 14), hence probably the rarity of χερνιβεῖον in literary sources (elsewhere only at Ar. fr. 330, which is merely a notice that the poet used the word). For sacrificial handwashing, see in general van Straten 1975. 31–43. For πομπή in the sense “solemn procession” (LSJ s. v. II.a), e. g. Ar. Ach. 248; Av. 849; Men. fr. 337.2; Hdt. 2.45.1; Th. 6.56.1; Is. 6.50. Comedy does not use the word in the Homeric sense “escort” (LSJ s. v. I.a). For σαφής in the sense “patent, obvious”, cf. Amphis fr. 17.4.

fr. 68 K.–A. (67 K.) Antiatt. δ 38 δρᾶμ’ ἀκοῦσαι (Bekker : δραμακοῦσαι cod. : δραματοῦσαι Bothe : δραμακοῆσαι vel δραμηκοῦσαι Koppiers)· ἀντὶ τοῦ δράματος ἀκοῦσαι. Ἀντιφάνης Βουσίριδι to listen to a drama (acc.) (thus Bekker, dividing the manuscript reading into two words : “dramatizing” (fem. nom. pl. part.) Bothe : “to drama-listen” Koppiers) in place of “to listen to a drama (gen.)”. Antiphanes in Bousiris

Meter As preserved, the words scan lkll, which is readily accommodated in e. g. iambic trimeter. Discussion

Koppiers 1771. 12; Bothe 1855. 361

Text The text as articulated by Bekker in the editio princeps of the Antiatticist makes good sense. There is accordingly no need for the emendations of Bothe and Koppier, both of which are fatally weakened in any case by the fact that they assume the existence of otherwise unattested verbs (δραματέω and δραμακούω, respectively). Citation context An isolated lexicographic note apparently responding to a claim by another scholar that with ἀκούω the person or thing to which one lends an ear ought always to be in the genitive; see Interpretation. Interpretation The elision in the text as printed suggests direct quotation of Antiphanes. But it is difficult to put much confidence in the paradosis, which is the final product of a long history of excerpting and epitomizing, and which the scribe who produced our copy of the Antiatticist patently found difficult. δρᾶμα ἀκοῦσαι might thus easily be right, in which case this is a report of how Antiphanes used the words but not necessarily exactly what he wrote. In Attic comedy, at least, when one listens to a person talking, or hears an animal or an instrument make noise or the like, the genitive is expected with ἀκούω (e. g. fr. 194.21; Ar. Nu. 291 ἠκούσατέ μου καλέσαντος; V. 1477 ἤκουσέ τ’ αὐλοῦ; Ra. 1042 σάλπιγγος ἀκούσῃ; see Poultney 1936. 98–9 for a complete collection

Βούσιρις (fr. 68)

253

of Aristophanic examples). When one hears something mentioned, described or said, on the other hand, or hears a noise or the like, the accusative is expected (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 166.1 ἆρ’ ἀκούεις ἅ σε λέγει;; Eup. fr. 250 τάδε νῦν ἄκουσον; Ar. V. 490 ἤκουσα τοὔνομ’; Ra. 603b–4 ἀκούω / … τῆς θύρας … ψόφον; Amphis frr. 9.1 ἤκουσας βίον; 27.4–5 ἀκήκοας … / τὸ θυμίαμα τοῦτο). This distinction breaks down when what is heard are words or something similar, which are often put in the genitive, seemingly because they are so closely associated with the person who produces them (e. g. Ar. Eq. 624 ἀκοῦσαι … τῶν πραγμάτων with Neil 1901 ad loc., 961 τῶν χρησμῶν ἀκούσῃς τῶν ἐμῶν; V. 907 τῆς μὲν γραφῆς ἠκούσαθ’; Av. 381 λόγων ἀκοῦσαι; Pl. 1008–9 τῆς φωνῆς … / … ἀκοῦσαι; Epicr. fr. 10.12 ἤκουσα λόγων ἀφάτων, ἀτόπων; Men. fr. 520 ἤκουσα τῶν ἐκκραγγανομένων; see Poultney 1936. 99–100 for a complete collection of Aristophanic examples). δρᾶμ’ ἀκοῦσαι—or whatever Antiphanes wrote—appears to be an example of the converse phenomenon, with the text, story or the like that might normally be thought of as doing the speaking, and thus be put in the genitive, being treated instead as the utterance of an unspecified speaker (here the poet) and therefore put in the accusative. Cf. Cratin. fr. 316 ἄκουε … τήνδε τὴν ἐπιστολήν (“Hear this letter!”; cited by Kassel–Austin); Ar. Lys. 781/2 μῦθον … ὅν ποτ’ ἤκουσ’ (“a story that I once heard”).

254

Βουταλίων (Boutaliôn) “Boutaliôn”

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.331–2; Breitenbach 1908. 75–7; Konstantakos 2000a. 9–15; Konstantakos 2004; Humphreys 2019. 1154 Title and Content Ath. 8.358d (introducing fr. 69) calls Boutaliôn “a revised version of one of [Antiphanes’] Agroikoi” and elsewhere twice (Ath. 7.304a–b, 313b) refers to lines from this fragment as found ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ ἢ Βουταλίωνι (“in Agroikos or Boutaliôn”). See in general Agroikos Introduction. Xenarchus (test. 1) seemingly also wrote a Boutaliôn138 (a further revised version of this play?), the sole surviving fragment of which is a lament in absurdly elevated style for the impotence of (the master of) a house and the inability of normally aphrodisiac foods to remedy the situation. According to ΣRMEΘBarb Ar. Ra. 900 (cf. Suda β 468)—the only other evidence we have—Βουταλίων was a term for a fool (ἐπὶ μωρίᾳ διεβάλλοντο); cf. Metagenes’ Αὔραι ἢ Μαμμάκυθος and Aristagoras’ Μαμμάκυθος (this being another word for a simpleton; cf. Ar. Ra. 990). For titles of comedies referring to a personal quality of what must have been one of the leading characters, cf. Ἄγροικος (the original of this play), Ἀντερῶσα, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, Ἀφροδίσιος, Δύσπρατος, Ἐνεά, Μισοπόνηρος, Ὄβριμος, Παιδεραστής, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ, Φιλοπάτωρ and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Μαλθάκη. Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 69 K.–A. (68 K.)

5

138

(Α.) καὶ μὴν ἑστιάσω τήμερον ὑμᾶς ἐγώ· σὺ δ’ ἀγοράσεις ἡμῖν λαβών, Πίστ’, ἀργύριον. (Πι.) ἄλλως γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταμαι χρηστῶς ἀγοράζειν. (Α.) φράζε δή, φιλούμενε· ὄψῳ τίνι χαίρεις; (Β.) πᾶσι. (Α.) καθ’ ἕκαστον λέγε· ἰχθὺν τίν’ ἡδέως φάγοις ἄν; (Β.) εἰς ἀγρὸν ἦλθεν φέρων ποτ’ ἰχθυοπώλης μαινίδας καὶ τριγλίδας, καὶ νὴ Δί’ ἤρεσαν σφόδρα ἡμῖν ἅπασιν. (Α.) εἶτα καὶ νῦν, εἰπέ μοι,

The manuscripts of the Suda have Βουκαλίων, for which Casaubon wrote Βουταλίων.

Βουταλίων (fr. 69) 10

15

255

τούτων φάγοις ἄν; (Β.) κἄν τις ἄλλος μικρὸς ᾖ· τοὺς γὰρ μεγάλους τούτους ἅπαντας νενόμικα ἀνθρωποφάγους ἰχθῦς. (Α.) τί φής, ὦ φιλτάτε; ἀνθρωποφάγους; πῶς; (Πι.) οὓς ἂν ἄνθρωπος φάγοι, δῆλον ὅτι· ταῦτα δ’ ἐστὶν Ἑκάτης βρώματα, ἅ φησιν οὗτος, μαινίδας καὶ τριγλίδας

3 Πίστ’ Porson : πίστε Ath.A 4 φιλούμενε Konstantakos, ducente Meineke Φιλούμενε : Φιλούμενον Ath.A 7 ἦλθεν Casaubon  : ἦλθες Ath.A ποτ’ Musurus  : πουτ’ 8 ἤρεσαν Schweighäuser : ἤρεσεν Ath.A 10 κἄν τις Musurus : κὰν εἴ τις Ath.A Ath.A 12 φίλτατε Ath.A : φιλτάτη Porson 13 οὓς ἂν Cobet : ὡς Ath.(1) : ὀῦν Ath. (2) : ὧν γ ἂν Dobree ἄνθρωπος φάγοι Ath.(2) : ἄνθρωποφάγοι Ath.(1) 14 ἐστιν Ἑκάτης Ath.(2) et 8.358f  : ἐστιν Ἑλένης Ath.(1)  : ἐστι Σελένης Crusius  : οὐ Σελένης; Herwerden 15 ἅ φησιν οὗτος,] ἅς φησιν οὗτος Cobet οὗτος] fort. αὕτη (cf. 4, 12)

5

10

15

(A.) Indeed, I’ll host you (pl.) today myself; whereas you, Pistos, will take money and do our shopping. (Pistos) (Right;) because I don’t know any other way to shop properly! (A.) Tell me please, darling — what side-dish do you like? (B.) Every type. (A.) Be specific: what fish would you enjoy eating? (B.) A fish-monger came out to the country once with sprats and little red mullets, and by Zeus we all liked them very much. (A.) In that case, tell me: would you like to eat some of those now as well? (B.) Also if there’s anything else tiny; since I consider all these big fish people-eaters. (A.) What are you talking about, my dear? “People-eaters”? What? (Pistos) The ones a person would eat, obviously; but this is Hekate’s food this guy’s referring to, sprats and little red mullets

Ath.(1) 8.358d–f ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ οὕτως εἰμὶ φίλιχθυς ὡς ὁ παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ποιητῇ ἐν Βουταλίωνι, ὅπερ δρᾶμα τῶν Ἀγροίκων ἐστὶν ἑνὸς διασκευή· φησὶ γάρ· ——. ἐν δὲ τῷ Ἀγροίκῳ Ἑκάτης βρώματα ἔφη τὰς μαινίδαςεἶναι καὶ τὰς τριγλίδας Even so, I am not as much of a fish-lover as the character in the same poet’s Boutaliôn, which play is a revised version of one of his Agroikoi; for he says: ——. In his Agroikos, on the other hand, (Antiphanes) said that sprats and little red mullets are Hekate’s food139 Ath.(2) 7.313b–c Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ ἢ Βουταλίωνι Ἑκάτης βρώματα καλεῖ τὰς μαινίδας διὰ τὴν βραχύτητα, λέγων οὕτως· (vv. 11–15) ——

139

Sc. rather than “Helen’s food”, as in Ath.(1).

256

Antiphanes

Antiphanes in Agroikos ê Boutaliôn refers to sprats as Hekate’s food because of how tiny they are, putting it thus: (vv. 11–15) —— Ath.(3) 7.303f–4b τῆς θυννίδος τὸ οὐραῖον ἐπαινεῖ καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Κουρίδι οὕτως· (fr. 127) ——. τούτων τῶν ἰαμβείων ἔνια ἔστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ ἐν Ἀκεστρίᾳ (fr. 24) καὶ ἐν Ἀγροίκῳ (fr. 12) ἢ Βουταλίωνι (~ vv. 10–12) Antiphanes in Kouris recommends the tail-section of the thynnis, as follows: (fr. 127) ——. Some of these iambic lines can also be found in Akestria (fr. 24) and in Agroikos (fr. 12) or Boutaliôn (~ vv. 10–12)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

10

15

〈xlk〉l l|lkl llkl llkl k|rkl llkl llkr llk|l klkl llrl l|lk|l klkl llrl l|lk|r llkl llkl klkl klkl llkl k|lrl llkl llkl l|lk|l klkl llkl k|lk|l llkl llkl l|lk|l llkl llrl llkl lrkl llrl llkl llkl llrl l|lkl llkl lrkl k|lk|r llkl klkl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–1805 IV.336–8; Jacobs 1809. 178; Porson 1812. 107; Dobree 1833. 320; Meineke 1839–1857 III.36–9; Cobet 1858. 15; Crusius 1888. 607; Crusius 1889. 183; Herwerden 1903. 78; Nesselrath 1990. 288–91; Konstantakos 2004. 9, 18–29 Text In 3, the paradosis πίστε is scriptio plena; Porson removed the final syllable and capitalized to convert the word into a personal name. In 4, Kassel–Austin (following Kock) retain Athenaeus’ Φιλούμενον, which must be a woman’s personal name, and accordingly print Porson’s feminine φιλτάτη in 12 in place of the paradosis masculine φίλτατε (retained by both Meineke and Kock). As Konstantakos 2014. 20–1 points out, this is impossible with 15, where Pistos observes that οὗτος (“this guy”) has just mentioned “sprats and little red mullets”, referring back to 7–8, where the speaker is Kassel–Austin’s Philoumenon. The third speaker is thus a man, and what is wanted in 4 must be φιλούμενε (a term of endearment; “darling” or “my love” if (A.) is taken to be a woman; see

Βουταλίων (fr. 69)

257

Interpretation). The alternative is to print φιλτάτη in 12 and emend οὗτος in 15 to αὕτη, which is more complicated and also makes what is going on in the fragment more difficult to understand (see Interpretation). In 7, Athenaeus’ ἦλθες—referring to (A.), who must then also be the ἰχθυοπώλης mentioned further on in the line—likely reflects confusion on the part of a copyist who had lost the thread of the conversation. Casaubon in his 1597 edition of the Deipnosophists emended to ἦλθεν, which is patently correct; see on 8. Further on in 7, the garbled paradosis πουτ’ might represent either a superlinear upsilon indicating a variant reading που brought down into the text or an attempt to deal with ΠΟΤΤ written accidentally for ΠΟΤ by converting the first Τ into Υ. Musurus’ ποτ’ in the editio princeps of Athenaeus must be right in any case. In 8, the point is not that the fishmonger appealed to (B.) and his fellow rustics, but that the fish he sold them did. I accordingly print Schweighäuser’s ἤρεσαν in place of the paradosis ἤρεσεν, which is most easily explained as agreeing with what must at that point have been the reading ἦλθεν in 7 by someone who failed to see that the subject has shifted. In 10, κὰν εἴ τις in Ath.A probably originated as a superlinear indication of a variant reading κεἴ τις. Musurus corrected to κἄν τις (i. e. κα(ὶ ἐά)ν τις). Meineke and Kock punctuate the beginning of 13 thus, as two separate questions; Kassel–Austin instead place a comma between ἀνθρωποφάγους and πῶς, but seem to intend approximately the same sense. The alternative is to keep the words together and supply e. g. λέγεις (“What do you mean ‘people-eaters’?”). In the second half of 13, Ath.(1)’s unmetrical ὡς ἄνθρωποφάγοι reflects the influence of ἀνθρωποφάγους; πῶς; just before it. Cobet’s οὓς ἂν ἄνθρωπος φάγοι merely adds two letters (omitted via haplography of αν) to Ath.(2)’s garbled † ὀῦν † ἄνθρωπος φάγοι and is thus a less complicated correction than Dobree’s ὧν γ ἂν ἄνθρωπος φάγοι, which yields similar if more awkward sense (“(some) of those a person would eat”). In 14, “Hekate’s food” (as in Ath.(2) and the cross-reference to that version of the text at Ath. 8.358f) makes far better sense than “Helen’s food” (as in Ath.(1)); see Interpretation. Kassel–Austin (following Meineke and Kock) nonetheless print ἐστιν Ἑλένης rather than ἐστιν Ἑκάτης, apparently on the ground that the verses in Ath.(1) are supposed to come from a revised version of the play quoted in Ath. (2), and Konstantakos 2004. 25–7 defends Ἑλένης by arguing that this revision was intended for a non-Athenian audience who would have been puzzled by a reference to food-offerings for Hekate. Against Kassel–Austin’s explanation of the situation, even if 11–15 as quoted at Ath.(1) are drawn from a different version of Agroikos ê Boutaliôn than the one referenced more briefly at Ath.(2), that is no reason to believe that the verses themselves must have been altered. Nor is there any positive reason to think that informal aspects of Hekate cult would have been unfamiliar outside of Attica; and if they were, one would have expected her name to be replaced by a more obviously panhellenic deity rather than with an even more obscure reference to Helen. Ἑλένης in Ath.(1) is thus most likely a clumsy

258

Antiphanes

error of some sort,140 and Ἑκάτης should be printed. The alternative is to adopt Crusius’ ἐστι Σελένης, with the reworking taken to reflect the fact that Hekate is sometimes represented as a moon-goddess (see Interpretation), even if she is never called “the Moon” (already a deity at Hes. Th. 371–4), who is instead sometimes identified with Artemis (A. fr. 170; see in general Olson 1998 on Ar. Pax 406). The variant in Ath.(1) in any case remains the least plausible option. μαινίδας καὶ τριγλίδας in 15 is a further description of ταῦτα in 14 and ought therefore arguably to be in the nominative, hence Cobet’s ἅς φησιν οὗτος μαινίδας καὶ τριγλίδας (“which this guy’s referring to as sprats and little red mullets”). Cobet’s emendation makes much less sense than the paradosis, however, and μαινίδας καὶ τριγλίδας has probably been drawn colloquially into the case of ἅ, as if what Pistos were saying “but this is Hekate’s food that this guy’s referring to, when he mentions sprats and little red mullets”. Kassel–Austin compare Alex. fr. 175 “What’s more useful for a man who’s in love, Ktêsôn, than what I’ve brought you: whelks, scallops, hyacinth bulbs, a big octopus and a nice fat fish?”, where the list of foods is again in the accusative, although it ought properly to be in the nominative. Citation context The complete text of the fragment is quoted by Daphnos (a physician), along with fr. 182 just before, and Ephipp. frr. 21; 15; Mnesim. fr. 3 immediately afterward, in that order, as an apologetic coda to a pair of long medical texts treating the digestive qualities and the like of various sorts of seafood (Ath. 8.355a–8c). 11–15 are quoted separately within the long alphabetical catalogue of fish in Book 7 of the Deipnosophists in the discussion of μαινίδες (“sprats”) that also includes Epich. fr. 26 (quoted shortly before this) and Polioch. fr. 1 (quoted just after this). Much of Book 7 probably comes more or less direct from Dorion’s otherwise lost On Fish. The fact that Athenaeus also notes the Book 7 variant in 14, when he quotes a longer version of the text in Book 8, makes it clear that he is drawing on two separate sources and has no reason to think that one is more authoritative than the other. Eustathius perhaps refers to 11–12 at pp. 1630.11–15 = i.343.15–17; 1720.51 = ii.23.7, and to 14–15 at p. 87.32 = I.138.19–20, but in all these cases is merely drawing on his own copy of the Epitome of Athenaeus. He should accordingly not be treated as a separate witness to the text (as implicitly in Kassel–Austin).

140

Although Konstantakos 2004. 26–7 defends “Helen’s food”, he is unable to make plausible sense of it and instead falls back on the argument that the expression may have had some specific local significance in the place the play was re-performed. This is to explain obscurum per obscurius. Nor is the general argument persuasive in any case, for part of the attraction of Athenian comedies outside of Athens was probably that they were specifically Athenian comedies, and it is difficult to believe that they were (or were expected to be) reworked on the level Konstantakos imagines for other audiences.

Βουταλίων (fr. 69)

259

Interpretation A three-way dialogue between (A.) (sex uncertain), who is proposing to throw a party for at least two other people (2 ὑμᾶς), including (B.); (A.)’s slave Pistos, who is male (note 2 λαβών) and as a servile character is unlikely to be the other guest imagined by (A.); and (B.), who in the version of the text printed here is a man (note 15 οὗτος, and see Text). The contrast in 6 with “the country”, where (B.) is from (8–9), suggests that the action is set in the city, presumably in (A.)’s house (hence the invitation in 1–2). (A.) is very eager to make (B.) happy (esp. 5–6) and addresses him as both φιλούμενε (4) and φιλτάτε (12). These terms sit far more easily in a woman’s mouth than in a man’s, and Konstantakos 2004. 21–2 suggests that (A.) may be a courtesan who is in the process of getting her hooks into (B.). (B.) for his part is not just from the country but a stereotypical rustic boor, as is apparent in particular from his almost complete ignorance of fine dining: he initially has difficulty naming a favorite side-dish (5); he knows fish in particular only as a consequence of a visit to the countryside by a peripatetic fish-monger, whose simple offerings left everyone there agog (6–9);141 and he prefers the smallest varieties of fish, since he imagines that anything larger must inevitably have consumed human flesh in the course of its life (10–12). In 5–6 and 9–10, (A.) reacts in a neutral fashion to (B.)’s odd responses to her questions, although in 12–13 she expresses open bafflement as to what he might be talking about. Pistos, meanwhile, first (3–4) offers a clever response to (A.)’s announcement that he will be doing the marketing for the meal (sc. after a shopping-list has been established, which is the point of what follows),142 and then (13–15) gives 141

142

Konstantakos 2004. 24 suggests that (B.)’s naïveté is further exposed by his positive attitude toward the man who sold him this fish, whereas “The spectators can easily see through the fishmonger’s intentions: he tours the countryside selling small, cheap fish, which are scorned by the city gourmets and would fetch low prices at the city market; but the ignorant rustics, who have little experience of fresh seafood and of the fishmonger’s tricky ways, could be persuaded to pay much higher prices for them. This ἰχθυοπώλης is in fact as covetous and deceitful as the other comic fishmongers; but his agroikos customer … is completely taken in, and far from realizing that he has been cheated, he actually praises the deceiver”. This is all very amusing and might—or might not—have been the case, were the fragment a report of historical events in the real world. But this is instead invented action that exists only insofar as it is described onstage; none of the deep, lively background Kostantakos presents, and in particular his allegations of over-charging and deceit, is attested to in the text itself or required to make sense of it; and it is methodologically problematic to generate such narratives even when they sit comfortably in an imaginary, metatextual “world of 4th-century Athenian comedy”. (B.) and his fellow rustics bought small, unremarkable fish in the countryside and were nonetheless thrilled by it; this is laughable in and of itself and is all the text can safely be taken to be saying. For a slave sent to market to buy fish, Nesselrath 1990. 288 and 293 n. 21 compares also frr. 79 (obscure, but nothing supports this reading of the text); 121 K. (= 119 K.–A.; a bad reference); 126; 201 (no evidence that the subject of the participles is a slave). See in general Nesselrath 1990. 288–9.

260

Antiphanes

a mocking answer to the question (A.) has just addressed to (B.) about what he means by ἀνθρωποφάγους that makes it clear that the slave, at least, knows the difference between large, remarkable fish and more pedestrian varieties. Whether Pistos was ultimately sent to the market to buy the “sprats and little red mullets” that (B.) claims to prefer, or whether (A.) convinced her guest to try something more adventurous, is unclear; for how the scene may have continued, see below. Nor is it apparent from what survives whether the reference in 2–4 to money and the impossibility of shopping effectively without it is a seed setting up the idea that (B.) will in the end be the one who pays for the meal, as Konstantakos 2004. 22 suggests, or if Pistos is simply a smart-aleck. It is in any case difficult to believe that a banquet scene involving (A.), (B.) and the other guest referred to in passing in 1–2 did not follow in the play (or at least in a narrative of offstage action presented e. g. by Pistos). ὄψον (5) is anything eaten in addition to the barley-cakes or bread that were at the center of an ordinary Greek meal (cf. frr. 132.2; 212B.2 n.; 238.1 n.). Although the word is often used in 4th-century comedy in reference to fish in particular (e. g. Amphis fr. 26 with Papachrysostomou 2016 ad loc.; Anaxandr. fr. 34.10 εὔοψος with Millis 2015 ad loc.; cf. fr. 188.5, 8),143 however, its sense is not necessarily so restricted; cf. fr. 132.1–2 (of salt); Ar. frr. 23 (lentil soup); 402.7 (birds); Mnesim. fr. 3.5–7 (fish specifically treated as only one variety of ὄψον); Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 365. At 5–6, when (B.) informs (A.) that he likes every kind of ὄψον, she requests a more detailed answer and then asks “What fish would you enjoy eating?” If one assumes that this fragment is in a certain sense self-contained, as the process of excerpting has made it appear to be, one might easily take (A.) to be interested in (B.)’s taste in fish and fish alone, so that by 15 this stage of the action would be complete and Pistos would be ready to be sent off to the market. But καθ’ ἕκαστον λέγε (“Be specific!”) at the end of 5 is at least as easily understood as introducing only the first in a series of parallel queries, with “What fish would you enjoy?” in 6 to be followed by e. g. “Do you like roast birds as well?”, “What about a slice of sausage and some sow’s womb?”, and eventually “What shall we drink?”, with each such question setting up further bumbling answers from (B.) and further snide side-remarks from Pistos. If so, the scene might easily have extended for many more verses than those preserved for us, which would seem to make more sense from the playwright’s perspective than throwing away its substantial comic potential after only 15 lines. 1–2 The loss of whatever came before this makes it impossible to say whether καὶ μήν is progressive (moving on to another point; cf. fr. 27.17 n.) or adversative (drawing a contrast with what has just been said, perhaps by someone other than (A.); cf. Denniston 1954. 357–8); see in general van Erp Thalmann Kip 2009 (whose discussion, however, ignores that fact that καὶ μήν can often stand in a verse

143

Hence Modern Greek ψάρι (“fish”) via the ancient diminutive ὀψάριον.

Βουταλίων (fr. 69)

261

at points where καὶ δή cannot, as for example here, raising the possibility that the distinction between the two is not always as clear as she suggests). ἑστιάω is “have to one’s hearth (ἑστία)” and thus by extension “entertain, feast”. 5th/4th-century vocabulary, first attested in the non-Attic form ἱστιάω at Epich. fr. 32.4; subsequently at e. g. Hdt. 5.20.4 (Ionic, and thus again ἱστιάω); E. Alc. 765–6 καὶ νῦν ἐγὼ μὲν ἐν δόμοισιν ἑστιῶ / ξένον; Ar. Nu. 1360; Lys. 1058/9 ἑστιᾶν δὲ μέλλομεν ξένους; X. Cyr. 1.3.10; Demonic. fr. 1.1. For actual hearths and kitchens (problematic terms), see Foxhall 2007b. ἐγώ at the end of (A.)’s offer is emphatic. Whether the point is to distinguish the speaker from another person who will not be hosting “you” today, or merely from Pistos, who will be doing the shopping, is unclear, although the first possibility lends the remark more point: (A.) has a rival whom he or she is attempting to show up. σὺ δ(έ) in any case marks an emphatic shift of attention to the person being given the order; cf. frr. 57.1; 161.1 (similarly introducing an order); 180.5; Eup. fr. 339.1 with Olson 2014 ad loc. ἀγοράζω is literally “hang about the Agora” (as at Pi. fr. 94d, the only example of the verb in elevated poetry in the classical period) and thus by extension “do one’s shopping”, as in comedy at e. g. 4; fr. 204.1; Ar. Ach. 750; Pl. 984; Amphis fr. 26.1; Anaxil. fr. 28.1; Ephipp. fr. 21.2; Nicostr. Com. fr. 4.1, and in prose at e. g. Hdt. 2.35.2; X. An. 1.3.14; Is. 8.23; D. 32.14. 3–4 Πίστος (“Trustworthy”), used for a slave also at Herod. 7.6; Plaut. Merc. 278 Pistus (an overseer of other slaves; the play is based on an original by Philemon, from which the name may come direct), is a “character name”, i. e. one that reflects a quality—or desired quality—of the individual to whom it is given, like the slave-names Παρμένων (“Who remains by one’s side”) at e. g. Ar. Ec. 868; adesp. com. fr. 1089.12; Γλύκη (“Sweet (fem.)”) at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 76.1; Ar. Ra. 1343b; Φιλίστη (“Dearest (fem.)”) at Ar. Th. 568; Ὀνήσιμος (“Useful (masc.)”) in Men. Epitr.; and Γάστρων (“Glutton”) in Herodas 5 (and perhaps Antiphanes’ Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων; see the Introduction to the play). For real Athenian slave-names and their less-than-exact relationship to those used in comedy, see Vlassopoulos 2010. For ἀργύριον (“a bit of silver”) in the sense “money”, cf. frr. 122.14; 155; the title Argyriou aphanismos with Introduction; and see Olson 2016 on Eup. fr. 162.2. ἄλλως κτλ A witty, throw-away remark (intended in the first instance for the audience in the Theater, and accordingly overlooked by the other characters?; thus Nesselrath 1990. 289). χρηστῶς is “effectively, well” vel sim. (e. g. Ar. Ec. 638; Alex. fr. 138.4; Men. Georg. 48), and what is meant here is thus “in such a way as to return with goods that are χρηστά”. Konstantakos 2004. 23 suggests that Pistos means instead “Without money, I don’t know how to shop in a morally proper way”, i. e. except by stealing. But the adverb is not used in that sense in comedy, and the remark is clever enough as it is. For γάρ in the sense “(Yes;) for” or “(No;) for”, see Denniston 1954. 73–4, and cf. fr. 127.5.

262

Antiphanes

Konstantakos 2004. 23 suggests that ἐπίσταμαι puns on Πίστος. This cannot be disproven, but there is simultaneously no apparent point to the alleged word-play, which makes it more difficult to believe in. φράζε δή suggests an earnest eagerness to have an answer; cf. Ar. Pax 186; Pl. 199; fr. 929; S. Ant. 1099; OT 654; E. Med. 693; Ion 1430; fr. 602; Denniston 1954. 216–18. See also 9 εἰπέ μοι with n. 5–6 For the sense of ὄψῳ τίνι χαίρεις; and the significance of the follow-up question about fish in particular, see above. 5 καθ’ ἕκαστον (‘individually’) is a late 5th/4th-century idiom, attested in comedy also at Ar. Av. 564; Ec. 837; Epig. fr. 6.3 καθ’ ἕκαστον … λέγειν; Diph. fr. 89.2; adesp. com. fr. 1008.10, and in prose at e. g. And. 3.9; Th. 1.36.3; Lys. 13.65 καθ’ ἕκαστον λέγειν; X. Cyr. 8.3.33; Pl. Tht. 188a; Isoc. 18.10; Is. 3.11, but absent from elevated poetry. 6 ἡδέως φάγοις ἄν is a more specific equivalent of χαίρεις, albeit in the optative (as again in 10), as (A.) edges closer to asking (B.) to imagine a feast (sc. “If I were to buy it”). The adverb (also at frr. 101.2; 202.10) is first attested at S. Ant. 436 and is common in comedy (e. g. Ar. Eq. 440; Ephipp. fr. 6.2; Eub. fr. 53.1), Euripides (e. g. Cyc. 523; Tr. 406) and 4th-century prose (e. g. Lys. 14.14; X. Cyr. 8.7.5; Pl. Ap. 39e), but absent from Herodotus and Thucydides. For the combination specifically with a form of ἐσθίω, e. g. Ar. V. 1367; Diph. fr. 18.8; X. Mem. 1.3.5; 2.1.30; Arist. HA 603b31–2. 6–9 Fishmongers are standard villains in 4th-century comedy; see frr. 27 n.; 157.9–10 n. But here there is no reference to the man’s rapacity or rudeness, the dubious quality of his merchandise, or the like, and the joke is entirely on (B.) and his fellow rustics, who are too unsophisticated to realize—as the audience in the Theater is clearly expected to—that the fish they got from him and loved were thoroughly undistinguished. Cf. 10–12 n. 7 For μαινίδες, fr. 27.5 n. ἰχθυοπώλης is attested before the Roman period only in comedy (first at Ar. fr. 402.10; elsewhere in Antiphanes at frr. 157.10; 159.5; 204.6) and is a good example of what must have been a very common lexical item that most other types of literature preserved for us ignore. 8 Precisely what variety of fish τριγλίδες are is unclear; see in general García Soler 2001. 184–5; Miccolis 2018. 185–6. But Dorion ap. Ath. 7.300f includes small ones among the ἑψητοί (literally “stewers”), making it clear that they were of no particular culinary interest. καὶ νὴ Δί’ κτλ The combination of the oath (for which, fr. 27.6 n.), the adverb (for which, fr. 27.17–18 n.), and the addition of ἅπασιν to ἡμῖν makes this a particularly enthusiastic endorsement. 9 For εἶτα καὶ νῦν, cf. Alex. fr. 287.1 εἶτα νυνὶ κραιπαλᾷς (“as a consequence, you now have a hangover”). For εἰπέ μοι, fr. 228.1 n.

Βουταλίων (fr. 69)

263

10–12 ring another change on the way (B.) makes a fool of himself in 6–9 (n.): it turns out that he is well aware that μαινίδες and τριγλίδες are relatively small fish, but he deliberately wants to avoid anything larger because he is convinced that big fish must have fed on human flesh (sc. when sailors die in shipwrecks). (Γ.) in fr. 127.5–6 (quoted below), who is expressly described as “brought up in the country” (fr. 127.1), is reluctant to eat what are there referred to as “(deep)-sea fish” on the same grounds, and Archestratos knows of the idea and mocks it as ridiculous and unsophisticated already in the first quarter of the 4th century (fr. 24.14–17 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.), suggesting that it must have been well-established among certain portions of the population. 10 κἄν τις ἄλλος μικρὸς ᾖ ~ “Yes, and any other small fish that might be available”. 11–12 τοὺς γὰρ μεγάλους … νενόμικα / ἀνθρωποφάγους ἰχθῦς Cf. fr. 127.5–6 τοὺς γὰρ ἄλλους νενόμικα / ἀνθρωποφάγους ἰχθῦς (seemingly from a very similar scene, in which two other characters discuss a rustic’s preferences in food with him). Aristotle (HA 501b1), Aelian (NA 4.21) and Photius (Bibl. 72) all quote Ctesias (FGrH 688 F 45), writing around the same time as Archestratos, as using ἀνθρωποφάγος of a dangerous wild animal, and the word was thus apparently well-established in this period even if it is today relatively ill-attested. Cf. ἀνδροφάγος (“man-eating”) at Od. 10.200 (of the Kyklôps), on the one hand, and e. g. βουτυροφάγος (“butter-eating”) at Anaxandr. fr. 42.8, γλακτοφάγος (literally “milk-eating”) at Il. 13.6, and φυκιοφάγος (“seaweed-eating”) at Arist. HA 602a20–1, on the other. 12 For baffled τί φής;, fr. 242 n. 13 For πῶς; used thus, see Eup. fr. 60.2 with Olson 2017 ad loc., and cf. fr. 132.5. οὓς ἂν ἄνθρωπος φάγοι i. e. “the fish a normal person would eat”, sc. by preference; Pistos unpacks (B.)’s remark in a way it was not intended but that is actually more sensible. 14–15 Kassel-Austin quote Eust. p. 87.32 = I.138.19–20 “They say that μαινίδες are sacrificed to Artemis, i. e. Hekate” seemingly as if they regard this as additional evidence for the ritual referred to here. But Eustathius is merely referring to Antiphanes via his own copy of the Epitome. 14 Interjected δῆλον ὅτι in the sense “obviously”—here λέγει vel sim. is to be supplied after the phrase—is a 4th-century idiom (e. g. X. HG 6.4.27; 7.1.12; Mem. 2.8.2; Pl. Euthphr. 7a; Cri. 53a; Phd. 86c; Is. 3.36; D. 8.37). Ἑκάτης βρώματα For Hekate and her cult, cf. Sophr. fr. 4; Kraus 1960, esp. 84–94; Johnston 1990. 21–8; LIMC VI.1 pp. 984–8, esp. 986; Zografou 2010, esp. 203–23. τριγλίδες are described as sacred to Hekate at Chariclid. fr. 1 (corrupt); Nausicr. fr. 1.6–11 (expressly referred to as served to the goddess for dinner), and the reference may well be to the meals set out for her at crossroads (Ar. Pl. 594–7; fr. 851; S. fr. 734; Philoch. FGrH 328 F 86b ap. Ath. 14.645a–b; D. 54.39;

264

Antiphanes

see Johnston 1991. 219–20), which probably consisted of the least expensive food possible in any case. βρῶμα (< βιβρώσκω; first attested at Anan. fr. 5.7) is colloquial vocabulary, common in comedy (e. g. frr. 186.3; 240.1; Ar. Eq. 605; Pl. Com. fr. 164; Anaxandr. fr. 2.2; Aristopho fr. 7.4; Eub. fr. 13.5) and prose (e. g. Hp. Ep. II 3.17.13 = 5.118.5 Littré; Th. 4.26.5; X. Mem. 3.11.13; Pl. Lg. 638c), but absent from elevated poetry except at Philox. Leuc. PMG 836e.13 (dithyramb). 15 Quoting 7–8.

265

Βυζάντιος (Byzantios)

“The Man from Byzantium”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 195 n. c

Title Byzantium (IACP #674) was a member of the Delian League and was loyal to Athens throughout the Peloponnesian War years, with the exception of the period between 411 and 408 BCE. In the 4th century, it was a founding member of the Second Athenian League (IG II2 43.83; cf. IG II2 41), but seceded in the Social War in 357 (D. 15.3) and thereafter became an ally of Philip II of Macedon (D. 9.34; 11.3; 18.87, 93). See in general Loukopoulou–Laitar 2004. 915–18; Russell 2017. For ethnics and the like as titles, cf. (Greek male characters, as here) Βοιώτιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ζακύνθιος, Λευκάδιος, Ποντικός and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (non-Greek male characters) Λυδός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός; (male plurals; both barbarian) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; (Greek female characters) Βοιωτία with Introduction, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία, Κορινθία, Λευκαδία; (non-Greek female character) Καρίνη; (female plural) Λήμνιαι with Introduction (but probably a mythological travesty); note also Μέτοικος; and see Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 70 K.–A. (69 K.) πορφύρας ὀκτὼ κύκλοι πορφύρας Poll.FS : πορφύροις Poll.A

κύκλοι om. Poll.A

eight kykloi of purple dye Poll. 7.170 Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν Βυζαντίῳ κατὰ τὴν νῦν χρῆσιν εἴρηκε· —— But Antiphanes in Byzantios matching current usage says: ——

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

llkl

266 Discussion

Antiphanes

Bothe 1855. 362; Kaibel ap. Kassel–Austin; Kassel–Austin ad loc.

Text Despite its obscurity, the version of the text in Poll.FS both scans and hangs together syntactically. There is no accordingly no reason to consider the more difficult πορφύροις (the result of a misread ligature?) in Poll.A, which has also shortened the quotation by omitting κύκλοι, saving space on the page by sacrificing sense. Citation context From the end of a brief discussion of words associated with dyeing. Precisely what Pollux means by “matching current usage”, is unclear. Interpretation As Kassel–Austin note, the fundamental problem with making sense of the fragment is that we do not know what the κύκλοι (literally “rings, circles”) are. Bothe suggested that the fringe on a robe (limbi vestis) might be in question, while Kaibel took these to be balls (globuli) of purple-dyed wool (better “wreathes, rings, loops” or the like, since the word does not appear to be used of circular masses). Perhaps they are instead e. g. dyed circles on fabric, or the reference is to groups of individuals dressed in purple and participating in a dance. κύκλος is also used of a section of the Agora where slaves were sold; cf. fr. 166.1–4; Alex. fr. 104 with Arnott 1996 ad loc. πορφύρας For purple dye (made from shellfish and imported from Phoenicia) and the industry that produced it (well established already by the middle of the 2nd millenium BCE), see in general Jensen 1963; Reese 1987. 203–4; Stieglitz 1994; Koren 2005; Alfaro–Mylona 2014; Marzano 2016. 143–60 (with particular attention to the Roman period); Brøns 2017 (and other chapters in the same volume); Edmonds 2017; Koren 2018; Miccolis 2018. 171–2. For purple fabric used for garments and the like, e. g. frr. 115.2 (a mark of luxury); 289 (fringe on garments); fr. dub. 325; Archipp. fr. 41; Pl. Com. fr. 230.1; Philem. fr. 105.4; Men. frr. 26.2; 94; [Men.] fr. spur. 1001.4; Plaut. Aul. 168, 500; Men. 121; Il. 3.126; 8.221; 9.200; 24.796; Od. 4.115; 7.337; 13.108; hHom. 7.5–6; Sapph. fr. 54; Anacr. PMG 447; Pi. P. 4.114; A. Ag. 957; E. Hipp. 126; Or. 1436; Hdt. 1.50.1; 3.20.1; X. Cyr. 1.3.2; Reinhold 1970, and see in general Stulz 1990. πορφύρα is probably a loan-word (attested already in Linear B); see Gipper 1964; Astour 1965. 349–50 (speculative); Rodríguez-Piedrabuena–Jiménez Delgado 2021. English “purple” is another form of the same word (via Latin purpura).

267

Γάμος vel Γάμοι (Gamos vel Gamoi)

“The Marriage or The Wedding Celebration”

Introduction Title For plural γάμοι meaning “wedding celebration”, fr. 188.20–1 n. For the occasion itself—an opportunity inter alia for a feast; cf. frr. 71–3—see Oakley– Sinos 1993. For other titles referring to events rather than persons, cf. Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί and perhaps Λαμπάς. Diphilus and Sophilus both wrote comedies entitled Γάμος, Philemon a Γάμος vel Γαμῶν (“The Marriage or The Man who was Getting Married”), while the Roman poets Caecilius (2nd century BCE) and Pomponius (1st century BCE) wrote a comedy entitled Gamos and an Atellan farce entitled Nuptiae, respectively. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 71 K.–A. (70 K.) πατάνια, τεῦτλον, σίλφιον, χύτρας, λύχνους, κορίαννα, κρόμμυ’, ἅλας, ἔλαιον, τρύβλιον 1 πατάνια Ath.B : πατάνεια Ath.ACE : βατάνια Antiatt. τεῦτλον V. Schmidt : σεῦτλον 2 ἅλας Schweighäuser : ἅλες Ath.A τρύβλιον Ath.A : fort. τρύβλια Ath.ACE

casserole-dishes (patania), a beet, silphium, cookpots, lamps, cilantro, onions, salt, oil, a bowl Ath. 4.169d–e πατάνιον δὲ διὰ τοῦ π Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Γάμῳ· —— But Antiphanes uses patanion (“casserole-dish”) with a pi in Gamos: —— Antiatt. β 7 βατάνια· τὰς λοπάδας, ὡς Ἀλεξανδρεῖς. Ἀντιφάνης Γάμοις batania: casserole-dishes, as the Alexandrians (write the word). Antiphanes in Gamoi

Meter Iambic trimeter.

krkl l|lkl klkl rlkl k|rkl llkl

268 Discussion

Antiphanes

Schweighäuser 1801–1805 II.601; V. Schmidt ap. Kassel–Austin

Text Whether the word for a casserole-dish was to be spelled πατάνιον (as Athenaeus claims it was in this fragment) or βατάνιον (as in the Antiatticist, as well as supposedly in fr. 95.2, quoted just before this in the same section of Athenaeus, although Pollux has πατάνιον there) in the classical period, was a matter of ancient scholarly dispute, and the textual waters appear to have been muddied early on by scribal error. But the word is supposed to be Sicilian in origin (thus Hsch. β 318 (quoted in Citation context), where it is spelled with bêta; but cf. Sophr. fr. 12 πατάνη, and note Eub. frr. 46; 130; Alex. fr. 24.2–3), whence Latin patina, confirming the early pi; the Antiatticist says that βατάνιον was the Alexandrian (i. e. later and non-Athenian) spelling; and the easiest interpretation of the evidence is that when the word appears in that form in earlier authors, the pi has been driven out by the later bêta—which is to say that what the Antiatticist wants to take as an exceptional example of pre-Alexandrian evidence for βατάνιον in Antiphanes is probably a careless mistake by someone who habitually pronounced the word that way. See in general Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 24.3, who notes an Athenian pot-sherd dating to around 300 BCE with the word inscribed in the form βατάνιον (Agora XXI B 12.6, in a list of vessels, cooking equipment and the like that also includes λοπάδια and a τρύβλιον), showing that this was not so much the “Alexandrian” spelling/pronunciation as the post-classical one. Ath.ACE have πατάνεια, a form of the word that would scan here but not at e. g. fr. 95.2; Eub. fr. 46; corrected to πατάνια by a 15th-century editor (= Ath.B). Further on in 1, V. Schmidt’s τεῦτλον rather than the paradosis σεῦτλον (printed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) is the proper Attic form of the word, as at fr. 179.2 and the other passages from comedy cited in Interpretation. Nothing else suggests that these verses belong to a dialect-speaker (cf. Alex. fr. 146.5–6 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Euphro fr. 3.2), and this is instead best treated as another simple error and regularized. In 2, Ath.A has nominative ἅλες. But χύτρας and λύχνους at the end of 1 are accusative, as must therefore be all the other words (mostly neuters); corrected by Schweighäuser. For the possibility that τρύβλια ought to be read at the end of 2, matching the plurals πατάνια, χύτρας and λύχνους in 1, see Interpretation. Citation context Athenaeus cites the fragment as part of a brief discussion (4.169b–f) of cooks’ utensils that also includes Anaxipp. fr. 6; Ar. frr. 495; 224; Antiph. frr. 216.1–4 (for κακκάβη; see ad loc.); 95 (for the spelling βατάνιον); Alex. fr. 24, before this and in that order, and Philetaer. fr. 14; Antiph. fr. 180 (for κάκκαβος and λοπάς); Eub. fr. 37, after this and in that order. His discussion recognizes the dispute over the proper spelling of πατάνιον/βατάνιον (below), but does not focus on it. The Antiatticist, by contrast, cites βατάνια (sic) in 1 specifically in defense of that spelling, presumably against someone who argued that it was unacceptable in “good Greek”. Related material is preserved at

Γάμος vel Γάμοι (fr. 71)

269

– Poll. 6.90 κακάβη, πατάνιον ἢ πατάνα· οὕτω γὰρ Σώφρων εἴρηκεν (fr. 12)· ——, ὥστε καλοῖτ’ ἂν πατάνη. … εἴη δ’ ἂν ἡ πατάνη λοπάδιον ἐκπέταλον, ὃ νῦν ἴσως ἀπὸ τούτου καλοῦσι πατέλλιον (“a kakabê [sic], a patanion or patana; because this is the form Sophron uses (fr. 12): ——, as a consequence of which it would be referred to as a patanê … A patanê would be a small stewing-pan with an outspread lip (ekpetalon), which people today perhaps refer to on that account as a patellion”); from a discussion of cooks’ equipment – Poll. 10.107–8 καὶ πατάνη δὲ καὶ πατάνιον τὸ ἐκπέταλον λοπάδιον, ὅ τινες καλοῦσι πατέλλιον, ἡ μὲν πατάνη Σώφρονος εἰπόντος ἐν Νυμφοπόνῳ (fr. 12)· ——, τὸ δὲ πατάνιον Εὐβούλου ἐν Κατακολλῶντι (fr. 46)· ——, καὶ Ἀντιφάνους ἐν Εὐθυδίκῳ (fr. 95)· ——. Ἄλεξις δὲ ἐν Ἀσκληπιοκλείδῃ (fr. 24.3) πατάνια εἴρηκεν· ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ἱππάρχου Παννυχίσιν (fr. 5) εὑρῆσθαί φασι κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἰδιωτῶν συνήθειαν εἰρημένον βατάνιον (“Also a patanê or patanion is a small stewing-pan, which some authorities refer to as a patellion; Sophron uses patanê in Nymphoponos (fr. 12): ——, whereas Eubulus uses patanion in Katakollôn (fr. 46): ——, as does Antiphanes in Euthydikos (fr. 95): ——. Alexis in Asklêpiokleidês uses patania (fr. 24.3), but in Hipparchus’ Pannychides (fr. 5), they say, one finds batanion being used in accord with vulgar style”); from a discussion of cooking utensils within the long catalogue of σκεύη (“implements”) of all sorts that makes up Book 10 of Pollux – Hsch. β 318 βατάνια· τὰ λοπάδια. ἡ δὲ λέξις Σικελική (“batania: small stewing-pans. The word is Sicilian”; = gloss. Ital. 197) – Hsch. π 1094 πάτανα· τρύβλια (“patana: tryblia (‘bowls’ vel sim.)”) – Hsch. π 1095 πατάνια· τὰ ἐκπέταλα λοπάδια, καὶ τὰ ἐκπέταλα καὶ φιαλοειδῆ ποτήρια, ἃ πέδαχνα καλοῦσι. τινὲς δὲ διὰ τοῦ β βατάνια λέγουσιν (“patania: small stewing-pans with an outspread lip, also drinking cups that have an outspread lip and resemble phialai, which they refer to as pedachna. But some authorities pronounce the word batania with a bêta”; = [Hdn.] Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 564.19–20) – Phot. β 93 βατάνια· τὰς λοπάδας. οὕτως Ἄλεξις (frr. 24.3; 178.9, 18) (“batania: stewing-pans. Thus Alexis (frr. 24.3; 178.9, 18)”) – Phot. π 478 πατάνια· τὰ ἐκπέταλα καὶ τὰ ἀναπεπταμένα λοπάδια· οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ διαστρέφουσιν ὡς Ῥωμαϊκὸν τὸ ὄνομα (“patania: small stewing-pans with an outspread, upward-extending lip; but many people misunderstand the word as being Roman”). Interpretation An eccentric catalogue of items that might be needed e. g. for a dinner party; see fr. 55 n. (on the trapezopoios, who would have charge of the lamps (1 with n.), as a cook would not). The food-items in questions are mostly spices and basic cooking equipment, as in frr. 63; 140, so this is not an ordinary grocery shopping-list like the one that e. g. fr. 69 (n.) appears to be setting up. Why only one bowl (2 τρύβλιον) is wanted when (1) multiple casserole-pans and cookpots are is unclear; τρύβλια would also do metrically, and the singular may have been written under the influence of the immediately preceding ἔλαιον.

270

Antiphanes

1 The lexicographers (cited in Citation context) agree that a πατάνιον (mentioned elsewhere in comedy at fr. 95.2; Eub. frr. 37.1–2 (both forms of the word); 46; 130; Alex. frr. 24.3; 178.9, 18; Hipparch. fr. 5; cf. Philetaer. fr. 14, where Πατανίων is a cook’s name) is a type of broad λοπάς or “stewing-pan” (cf. fr. 180.4–5 n.). τεῦτλον Beets or beet-greens are mentioned elsewhere in comedy at fr. 179.2 (used as a wrapper for baked fish, which probably explains the presence of the item in this list as well); Crates Com. fr. 16.8 (stewed); Pherecr. fr. 113.12 (used to wrap eel); Ar. Pax 1014 (used to wrap eel); Anaxandr. fr. 42.40 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Eub. frr. 34.1; 36.4 (in both cases used to wrap eel); Alex. fr. 146.5–7 (a medical use of some sort, perhaps simply dietetic). See in general García Soler 2001. 54–5; Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 159–60. σίλφιον An unidentified species of Ferula native to Libya and generally taken to have been driven into extinction by over-harvesting by late Roman times; mentioned elsewhere in comedy at frr. 88.3 (treated as a typical product of Cyrene) with nn.; 140.1 (another list of basic kitchen supplies); 216.13–14 (grated over a roasted fish, and specifically traced to Libya); fr. dub. 330.3–4 = Eub. fr. 18.3–4 (imported from Carthage); Ar. Eq. 894–5 (normally expensive); Av. 534, 1579–85 (grated over roasting birds, along with cheese, olive oil and vinegar); Anaxandr. fr. 42.58 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Axionic. fr. 8.3 (paired with salt as a seasoning for entrails); Eub. fr. 6.3; Alex. frr. 132.5 (in a catalogue of seasonings) with Arnott 1996 ad loc. (with extensive bibliography); 138.5 (seasoning for a fish); 191.10 (a post-stewing glaze for fish); 193.4 (added as the final ingredient to a marjoram sauce that also includes vinegar and grape-must); Anaxipp. fr. 1.7 (decried by a verbosely self-serving cook as an old-fashioned spice, along with cumin, vinegar, cheese and cilantro); Philem. fr. 113.3 (in a catalogue of seasonings supposedly applied to hyacinth bulbs); adesp. com. fr. 1073.13 (in a brief list of cooking supplies). See also Thphr. HP 6.3.1–6; Chamoux 1953. 246–63; Koerper–Kolls 1999. 135–9 (a basic, non-specialist summary of what is known of the plant); García Soler 2001. 365–7; Amigues 2002. 195–208. Etymology uncertain; perhaps a loan-word. χύτρας See fr. 243.3 n. λύχνους “Preparing lamps”—i. e. filling them with oil and making sure they have wicks—is included in a list of duties for a trapezopoios at fr. 150.2–3; lamps also appear in comic catalogues at Eup. fr. 218.4 (household goods?); Axionic. fr. 7.2 (ceramic vessels of all sorts). For Athenian lamps in the classical period, see Howland 1958; Olson on Ar. Pax 688–92. 2 κορίαννα For cilantro, mentioned elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Eq. 676, 682 (seasoning for fish); Alc. Com. fr. 17.1 (used with salt to season hare); Anaxandr. fr. 51.2 (used with various other seasoning on saltfish); Alex. fr. 132.6 (“dried”, presumably in reference to the seeds, i. e. coriander, in a catalogue of seasonings); Anaxipp. fr. 1.8 (see 1 n.), see in general García Soler 2001. 350–1; Zohary–Hopf– Weiss 2012. 163–4. Etymology uncertain; perhaps substrate vocabulary. κρόμμυ(α) For onions, fr. 63.1 n.

Γάμος vel Γάμοι (fr. 72)

271

ἅλας Salt—in catalogues of seasonings and the like also at frr. 132.2; 140.1; 221.4 with n.; Axionic. fr. 8.3; Anaxandr. fr. 42.60; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.7; Alex. frr. 138.6; 179.7; Men. Dysc. 506—was purchased by consumers in small chunks (χόνδροι; cf. Hdt. 4.181.2; Hsch. χ 629), which were then ground in a mortar to produce λεπτοὶ ἅλες (“fine salt”; e. g. Alex. fr. 192.5; adesp. com. fr. 1146.24; Archestr. fr. 37.8), sometimes with herbs ground in as well (Ar. Ach. 772, 1099; Alc. Com. fr. 17; Archestr. fr. 14.7); cf. Arist. Mete. 359a32–3; Phoen. fr. 2.5, p. 233 Powell; Gow–Page 1965 on HE 1175. The plural is normal in the 4th century; contrast the singular at e. g. Crates Com. fr. 16.10; Ar. Ach. 835 (perhaps for the sake of a pun); Axionic. fr. 8.3, and see fr. 132.2 Text. For ancient production methods, see Forbes 1964 iii.164–81; Carusi 2008 (an exhaustive treatment of the subject), and in general Potts 1984 (with particular attention to ancient Mesopotamia, but broadly relevant to the Mediterranean world as well); García Soler 2001. 357–9; Kurlansky 2002 (popular); Moinier–Weller 2015; Marzano 2016. 123–41 (with particular attention to the Roman period). For specific culinary uses of salt, fr. 140.1 n. ἔλαιον Olive oil—also mentioned in fr. *212.2 (n.)—is included in recipes, catalogues of kitchen supplies and the like at e. g. Cratin. fr. 136; Ar. Av. 533; Timocl. fr. 38.1; Alex. frr. 179.5; 191.9; Anaxipp. fr. 1.11; Philem. fr. 113.3. It was also used as fuel in lamps (e. g. Ar. Nu. 56; V. 252; cf. 1 λύχνους) and to anoint one’s skin after bathing (e. g. Aristopho fr. 10.7, and cf. Ἀλείπτρια Introduction). See in general Pease 1937; Foxhall 2007a; Margaritis–Jones 2008a; Margaritis–Jones 2008b (archaeological evidence from a Hellenistic olive-processing site). τρύβλιον Regularly used to hold and/or consume thick liquids of all sorts (e. g. fr. 143.3 (honey); Crates Com. fr. 11.1 (bean-soup or porridge); Ar. fr. 136 (porridge); Alex. fr. 146.2 (gruel); Diph. fr. 64.2 (bean-soup); note also Ar. Av. 77 (used to fetch small fish from the marketplace)), and thus apparently a bowl of some sort; in catalogues of vessels at Eup. fr. 218.2; Axionic. fr. 7.1; Eub. fr. 37.1. No etymology. The accent is disputed (see LSJ s. v.), but Kassel–Austin consistently print τρύβλιον except at Diph. fr. 64.2, where τρυβλίον must be a typo.

fr. 72 K.–A. (71 K.) κογχίον τε μικρὸν ἀλλᾶντός τε προστετμημένον κογχίον τε Ath.A : κογχίου τι Meineke (κογχίου iam Schweighäuser)

and a tiny little kogchos and a slice cut from a sausage Ath. 4.160d κόγχος παρὰ προτέρῳ μνήμης τετύχηκεν Ἐπιχάρμῳ ἐν τᾷ Ἑορτᾷ (fr. 38) καὶ Νάσοις (fr. 94) Ἀντιφάνει τε τῷ κωμικῷ, ὃς ὑποκοριστικώτερον αὐτὸν ὠνόμασεν ἐν Γάμῳ οὕτως· ——

272

Antiphanes

kogchos appears in an earlier author, Epicharmus, in his Heorta (fr. 38) and Nasoi (fr. 94), as well as in the comic poet Antiphanes, who used a diminutive form of the word in Gamos, as follows: ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic.

lklk lkll lklk lkl

Discussion

Schweighäuser 1801–1805 II.549; Meineke 1867. 76

Text Schweighäuser emended κογχίον to κογχίου, making the structure of the first item match that of the second (“and a bit of a little kogchos and a slice cut from a sausage”). Meineke expanded on the change by converting τε to τι (“a tiny bit of a little kogchos and a slice cut from a sausage”). Both changes are possible but unnecessary. Citation context After Cynulcus at Ath. 4.159f–60b is laughed at for using κόγχος and cites Timon SH 777 (quoted in Interpretation) for the word, Larensius responds by calling him a fool for being unaware of the presence of the term also in Epicharmus and (in the diminutive) in Antiphanes. Interpretation Two items from a catalogue of what appear to be minor items of food. κογχίον τε μικρόν A κόγχος is normally a small shellfish of some sort (LSJ s. v. I), as at A. fr. 34; Epich. frr. 40.8; 84—all of which are preserved in Athenaeus, making the derision directed at Cynulcus at Ath. 4.159f difficult to understand, if he is supposed to be using a diminutive of the word in that sense. Nor does Timon SH 777 οὔτε μοι ἡ Τεΐη μᾶζ’ ἁνδάνει οὔτε καρύκκη / ἡ Λυδῶν, λιτῇ δὲ καὶ αὐαλέῃ ἐνὶ κόγχῳ / Ἑλλήνων ἡ πᾶσ ἀπερισσοτρύφητος ὀιζύς (“I take no pleasure in either Tean barley-cake or Lydian karukkê; in a simple, dry kogchos consists the entire, scarcely luxurious woe of the Greeks”), which Cynulcus cites in his own defense, fit easily with this meaning of the word,144 and Antiatt. κ 102, presumably drawing on a 5th- or 4th-century text, reports κόγχος ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ λέγεται βρωμάτιόν τι λοπαδευόμενον (“in common usage, kogchos is a term for a small dish prepared in a stewing-pan”). Despite LSJ s. v. κογχίον I, this is thus probably the sense of the

144

Whence LSJ s. v. κόγχος III has got “soup of lentils boiled with the pods” is unclear. Montanari s. v. d doubles down on the explanation (“pod, of lentils, hence soup of lentils with their pods, food of the poor Timo 3”), again with no explanation (and using the old Wachsmuth number for the fragment). Note also that, despite Montanari s. v. κόγχη b, at Pherecr. fr. 152.3 κοὐχὶ χωροῦντ’ οὐδὲ κόγχην the word does not mean “a vessel shaped like a shell, used as a measure for liquids” but “a shellful” (LSJ s. v. I.2), while at Ar. V. 585 it refers not to “a box shaped like a shell, for keeping seals” but to a shell placed over a seal on a document to keep it from being damaged (thus ΣRVΓ, followed by LSJ s. v. III).

Γάμος vel Γάμοι (fr. 73)

273

word in Antiphanes as well;145 whether Epicharmus also used κόγχος this way or simply meant “a whelk” vel sim. is impossible to say. See in general García Soler 2001. 136–7. ἀλλᾶντός τε προστετμημένον Despite LSJ s. v. προστέμνω “a slice of sausage also” (cf. Montanari s. v. “to cut also”), the genitive is best understood as dependent on προσ-; cf. the references to “a slice of sausage” in the comic passages cited below. Sausages (also called χορδαί; see fr. 73 n.) are included in banquet catalogues and the like at e. g. Crates Com. fr. 19.4; Ar. Ach. 146; Metag. fr. 6.7; Eub. fr. 63.7, and are often served in slices (e. g. fr. 73 with n.; Cratin. fr. 205 ὁ τῆς χορδῆς τόμος; Pherecr. fr. 113.8 ἀλλάντων τόμοι; Axionic. fr. 8.4 ἀλλᾶντα τέμνων, παραφέρων χορδῆς τόμον; Eub. fr. 14.7 ἀλλᾶντος τόμος; Alex. fr. 137 χορδαρίου τόμος; Mnesim. fr. 4.14 τόμος ἀλλᾶντος). For the sausage-manufacturing process, cf. Ar. Eq. 160 (washing the intestines that will serve as casings), 213–15 (chopping up and mixing together meat and other ingredients to fill the casings), 208 (mixing in blood with the other ingredients); Frost 1999; García Soler 2001. 237–9. The word is first attested at Hippon. fr. 84.17; etymology uncertain.

fr. 73 K.–A. (72 K.) ἐκτεμὼν χορδῆς μεσαῖον after cutting a middle slice from a sausage Ath. 3.95a Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Γάμοις· —— Antiphanes in Gamoi: ——

Meter Trochaic tetrameter catalectic. e. g. lkll lklx | 〈lklx

lkl〉

Citation context From a brief collection of passages from comedy that refer to χορδή (“sausage”) within a larger collection of texts referring to boiled meat of all sorts (Ath. 3.94c–6d) that also preserves frr. 124; 183. Ar. Nu. 455–6; Cratin. fr. 205; Eup. fr. 34; Alex. fr. 137, are cited immediately before this, in that order. Interpretation Perhaps from a description of a glutton (assuming that the center of a sausage is the best part or the thickest) or of a thievish cook (who will join the remaining parts together, so that nothing appears to be missing. The individual in question is in any case a man (note masc. ἐκτεμών). 145

Note also also Aristonym. fr. 1 (obscure). Montanari s. v. κογχίον appears to mistake the word for a diminutive of κόγχος in the sense “apse of a church” (= s. v. κόγχος d).

274

Antiphanes

χορδή—properly “gut”, and thus a term for the gut-strings used for lyres and the like at e. g. Chionid. fr. 4.2—is another word for ἀλλᾶς (fr. 72 with n.); mentioned also at e. g. Epich. fr. 71 ; Pherecr. fr. 137.9 χορδαῖς ὀπταῖς ἐριφείοις (“roasted kid-meat sausages”); Ar. Ach. 1040 (eaten with honey); fr. 702; Eub. fr. 63.3 χορδαί τ’ ἐρίφων (“and sausages of kid-meat”), 6; Mnesim. fr. 4.15; Sophil. fr. 6.2 χορδήν τιν’ αἱματῖτιν (“a blood-sausage”); Euphr. fr. 1.32 χορδῆς ὀβελίσκους (“spits of sausages”, i. e. “spitted sausages”); Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.33; García Soler 2001. 238. Indo-European vocabulary, cognate e. g. with the first element in Latin haruspex (literally “entrail-examiner”). μεσαῖος is attested in the classical period only here and at fr. 179.1 (of a slice of fish, presumably cut “from the middle” of the creature’s body; also trochaic tetrameter catalectic); a mock-elevated formation?

275

Γανυμήδης (Ganymêdês) “Ganymêdês”

Introduction Discussion Schiassi 1955. 110–11; Konstantakos 2000a. 94–7; Nesselrath 1990. 209–12; Mangidis 2003. 113–51 Title At Il. 5.265–7; 20.231–5 and hAphr. 202–17, Ganymêdês is a son of the Trojan king Trôs and an uncle of Laomedôn, and was snatched up by the gods due to his beauty, in return for which Trôs was given divine horses. Authors from Theognis (1345–8) on agree that Zeus’ interest in the boy was pederastic (Pi. O. 1.43–5; 10.104–5; S. fr. 345; E. Cyc. 582–9 (myth travesty); Or. 1391–2; IA 1049–53; X. Smp. 8.30; Pl. Phdr. 255c), as probably in Antiphanes’ play. Already at Il.parv. fr. 29, pp. 84–5 Bernabé, on the other hand, Ganymêdês is instead Laomedôn’s son (as also at E. Tr. 822), as seemingly here (fr. dub. 74). See in general Gantz 1993. 557–60; Sichtermann, LIMC IV.1.154–5. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γλαῦκος, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Alcaeus Comicus and Eubulus both also wrote a Ganymêdês. Content Fr. dub. 74 (if it belongs to this play) suggests that the setting was Troy. Fr. 75 shows that Ganymêdês’ disappearance was a major issue in the play. Kassel–Austin are sufficiently convinced by Hermann’s assignment of fr. dub. 74 (n.) to this play, and by his suggestion that it must be from the prologue, to alter their normal policy of presenting fragments in order of length (which would have fr. 75 printed first). Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. dub. 74 K.–A. (73 K.) ὁρᾷς; ἐν τῇδε μὲν ὁ τῶν Φρυγῶν τύραννος οἰκῶν τυγχάνει, γέρων ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς Λαομέδων καλούμενος 1–2 μὲν / ὁ τῶν Meineke : μενόντων cod. 2 οἰκῶν Meineke : ὤκων cod. 3 ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς Seidler : ἀπ’ ὀργῆς cod. : ἀποργής L. Dindorf : ἀπ’ ἔργου Emperius : alia alii

276

Antiphanes

Do you (sing.) see? In this one (fem.), the king of the Phrygians is living, an old man called Laomedôn because of the dominion he exercises ΣA E. Tr. 822, II.365 Schwartz καὶ Ἀντιφάνης (Hermann : Ἀριστοφάνης codd.) Λαομέδοντος παῖδα τὸν Γανυμήδην φησί· διὰ τὰς τῶν οἰκιῶν . . 5–6 . . · —— Antiphanes (thus Hermann : “Aristophanes” codd.) as well says that Ganymêdês is the child of Laomedôn; on account of the (fem. pl.) . . 5–6 . . of the houses: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xl〉kl llkl klkl klk|l llkl klkl l|rkl klkl

Discussion Meineke 1830. 34; Seidler ap. Hermann 1834. 187; Hermann 1834. 186–8; Meineke 1839–1857 III.40; Emperius 1847. 310; Leo 1912. 219; Radermacher 1924. 19, 43; Webster 1970. 83; Nesselrath 1990. 209–10; Konstantakos 2000a. 97–109; Mangidis 2003. 113–15, 146 Text διὰ τὰς τῶν οἰκιῶν at ~ the end of what is here treated as Athenaeus’ introduction of the fragment might conceal the missing portion of 1.146 If so, it may be significant that οἰκία is distinctly non-tragic vocabulary. In 1–2, Meineke’s μὲν / ὁ τῶν produces a coherent, metrical text out of the problematic paradosis μενόντων (written under the influence of Φρυγῶν, with which the participle is seemingly supposed to be taken as a genitive absolute). In the second half of 2, Meineke emended the manuscript’s nonsensical ὤκων to οἰκῶν (a supplementary participle with τυγχάνει); cf. Ar. Th. 29 οἰκῶν τυγχάνει* (cited by Kassel–Austin). γέρων κτλ in 3 is in apposition to ὁ τῶν Φρυγῶν τύραννος in 2, and the two lines ought accordingly to be divided by a comma. Kock’s comma after γέρων,147 on the other hand, merely makes the line choppier without altering its sense. In 3, the paradosis ἀπ’ ὀργῆς (“from wrath”, i. e. “as a result of his bad temper”)—printed without obels by Meineke, and with them by Kassel–Austin— makes no sense as an etymology of Λαομέδων (literally “He who rules the people”). I therefore follow Kock in printing Seidler’s easy ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, which picks up 1 ὁ …

146

147

Schwartz reports that οἰκιῶν is followed by “spatium V vel VI vocabularum vacuum”, which Konstantakos 2000a. 101 takes to mean “five or six words”, but which must actually mean “five or six letters”. Retained by Kassel–Austin, despite the obel that follows, which ought to exclude punctuation, since the point of inserting it is that the editors take the text to be uncertain at this point.

Γανυμήδης (fr. dub. 74)

277

τύραννος. Dindorf ’s ἀποργής supposedly means “wrathful” (cf. LSJ s. v.), but the adjective is attested nowhere else and the suggestion must accordingly be rejected on methodological grounds. Emperius’ ἀπ’ ἔργου (“from his work”, i. e. “as a result of his employment as king”) is both less pointed than Seidler’s emendation and further from the manuscript reading. Citation context A gloss on E. Tr. 822 Λαομεδόντιε παῖ (“Laomedontian child” (voc.); addressed to Ganymêdês) that also quotes Il.Parv. fr. 29, pp. 84–5 Bernabé. See Konstantakos 2000a. 97–8, who notes that the fragment of Antiphanes does not actually say what the scholion claims it does (viz. that Ganymêdês was Laomedôn’s son), suggesting that more of the text was originally quoted and that the note has been cut down. Interpretation The title of the play is not given in the scholion, which also assigns the fragment not to Antiphanes but to Aristophanes. The mention of Laomedôn in 3, combined with the manner in which it is quoted (see Citation context), led Hermann to assign these lines to Antiphanes’ Ganymêdês, and this ought accordingly to be treated as at best a dubium. Leo (followed e. g. by Webster) took the lines to be from the prologue, as the setting is described by one character to another—as well as to the audience in the Theater. Cf. Ar. Nu. 92–104; Th. 26–30. Meineke hypothesized that the speaker is Hermes offering directions to another person who has been charged by Zeus with abducting Ganymêdês, while Radermacher suggested that the second character might instead be Zeus himself.148 But for all we know, Ganymêdês had already been snatched by Zeus or one of his agents (or had run off to his lover voluntarily) when the action began, so that the plot of the play was entirely occupied with Laomedôn’s attempts to recover his son. The addressee is patently a stranger to the area, since he or she needs to be introduced to the neighborhood. Beyond this, everything is conjecture. The easiest interpretation of 1 ἐν τῇδε μέν is that at least two doors are visible onstage and that a now-lost δέ-clause identifying another house followed. If Laomedon’s neighbor is Zeus, Ganymêdês is either already next door or soon will be. But a third party might also be involved, which is to say that Ganymêdês might already be far away in the divine realm. The lack of resolution, except for in the personal name in 3, and the etymologizing perhaps hint at paratragedy; cf. Ar. fr. 373 ἐνταῦθα 〈δ’〉 ἐτυράννευεν Ὑψιπύλης πατὴρ / Θόας, βραδύτατος ὢν ἐν ἀνθρώποις δραμεῖν (“Here ruled as 148

Despite titles such as Plato Comicus’ Zeus kakoumenos, there is little explicit textual evidence that Zeus ever appeared onstage as a comic character, even if lines such as those of the first speaker in Pl. Com. fr. 43 (from Europa) are sometimes boldly assigned to him. But note Alc. Com. fr. 3 (an individual most easily taken to be Zeus mocks Hephaestus by saying “Hurry up, cripple, or you’ll be struck with a lightning bolt!”)—from a play entitled Ganymêdês!

278

Antiphanes

tyrant Hypsipyle’s father Thoas (~ ‘Swifty’), who was the slowest among human beings at running”; “ex prologo” Kassel–Austin ad loc.) ~ E. IT 330–3. 1 ὁρᾷς; might be meant literally (the speaker has just pointed out the two doors to the addressee and wants to be sure that the latter understands what he is talking about) or could be a colloquial way of asking “Do you understand?” (e. g. Ar. Nu. 355, 691; Ra. 1234; cf. Stevens 1976. 36–7; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 9.8; Collard 2018. 85) in reference to some more substantial point that has just been made. What is to be supplied with ἐν τῇδε is generally taken to be τῇ θύρᾳ (“in this [door]”; cf. Ar. Pax 179 τίς ἐν Διὸς θύραισιν;, “Who is in the doors of Zeus?”, i. e. “Who is in Zeus’ house?”). But it might just as easily be τῇ οἰκίᾳ (“in this [house]”; cf. Pl. Phdr. 227b) or—more disruptive of the standard interpretation of the lines (above)—e. g. τῇ πόλει (“in this [city]”; cf. Eup. fr. 247.2; Pl. Smp. 183c; Grg. 517a) or τῇ χώρᾳ (“in this [land]”; cf. X. An. 7.3.19; Pl. Criti. 110c). 2–3 The order in which the information is presented makes it clear that the addressee is expected to know who the “Phrygians” are, but to be unfamiliar with Laomedôn. 2 ὁ τῶν Φρυγῶν τύραννος For the conversion in the 5th century of the Trojans (by this point a purely mythical people) into “Phrygians” (a well-known non-Greek ethnic group from the same general area of Asia Minor), supposedly attested already in Aeschylus (fr. 446; cf. Ar. fr. 696.2) but common at any rate in Euripides (e. g. Cyc. 200, 284; Andr. 194; Hec. 4; Tr. 994), if not elsewhere, see Hall 1988 (cited by Kassel–Austin). Konstantakos 2000a. 105 suggests that use of the word alone represents a quick whiff of paratragedy. τύραννος and cognates are first found in lyric and elegiac poetry (e. g. Archil. frr. 19.3; 23.20; Semon. fr. 7.69; Alc. frr. 34A.6; 75.13; 348.3); the word—common as a synonym for ἄναξ in tragedy, but not in comedy, where it is mostly confined in this sense to lyric (e. g. Ar. Nu. 564)—appears to be of non-Greek origin.149 See in general Rosivach 1988 (on the ideological function of the concept tyrannos in 5th/4th-century Athens); Anderson 2005, esp. 203–14 (attempting to normalize the phenomenon as “not so much unconstitutional as extra-constitutional” (p. 202)), with further bibliography. For periphrastic τυγχάνω + participle (a very common construction in Antiphanes), also frr. 127.8; 136.1; 158.1–2; 193.9; 194.20–1; 202.13; 217.1–2. 3 Laomedôn, the king of Troy and father of Priam, managed to have his city’s wall built by Apollo and Poseidon, but then refused to pay them. As punishment, Poseidon sent a sea-monster to ravage the land, and Laomedôn prepared to offer his daughter Hesionê to it. Before the monster could take the girl, Herakles rescued her, but when Laomedôn refused to turn over his reward of a team of divine horses, Herakles sacked the city. Cf. Il. 5.638–42; 7.452–3; 20.145–8; 21.442–57

149

Bibliography at Anderson 2005. 203 n. 78.

Γανυμήδης (fr. 75)

279

with Richardson 1993. 91; Boardman, LIMC VI.1 pp. 201–2, and Γανυμήδης Introduction. Here Laomedôn’s name is etymologized as “ruler” (μέδων) of the “people” (λαός) in another paratragic touch (cf. Ar. fr. 373). γέρων shows only that Laomedôn was cast as old enough to have a son of something approaching adult age. But the word may also hint at the irrascibility for which old men were notorious; cf. fr. 75. fr. 75 K.–A. (74 K.)

5

10

(Α.) οἴμοι περιπλοκὰς λίαν ἐρωτᾷς. (Λα.) ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ σαφῶς φράσω· τῆς ἁρπαγῆς τοῦ παιδὸς εἰ ξύνοισθά τι, ταχέως λέγειν χρὴ πρὶν κρέμασθαι. (Α.) πότερά μοι γρῖφον προβάλλεις τοῦτον εἰπεῖν, δέσποτα, τῆς ἁρπαγῆς τοῦ παιδὸς εἰ ξύνοιδά τι; ἢ τί δύναται τὸ ῥηθέν; (Λα.) ἔξω τις δότω ἱμάντα ταχέως. (Α.) οἷον οὐκ ἔγνων ἴσως. ἔπειτα τοῦτο ζημιοῖς με; μηθαμῶς· ἅλμης δ’ ἐχρῆν τι προσφέρειν ποτήριον. (Λα.) οἶσθ’ οὖν ὅπως δεῖ τοῦτό σ’ ἐκπιεῖν; (Α.) ἐγώ; κομιδῇ γε. (Λα.) πῶς; (Α.) ἐνέχυρον ἀποφέροντά 〈σου〉. (Λα.) οὐκ ἀλλ’ ὀπίσω τὼ χεῖρε ποιήσαντα δεῖ ἕλκειν ἀπνευστί

5 προβάλλεις Musurus : προβαλεῖς Ath.A 6–7 τι / ἢ Dindorf et Dobree : τιν Ath.A A  8 ταχέως οῖον Ath. : ταχέως. (Α.) ποῖον; Dobree  : ταχὺ βόειον Kock  : ταχέως. (Α.) εἶἑν Schenkl (A.) οἷον οὐδ Kaibel 9 μηθαμῶς scripsi  : μηδαμῶς Ath.A 10 Laomedonti tribuit Radermacher προσφέρειν Kaibel  : περιφέρειν 11 τοῦτό σ’ Casaubon  : σε τοῦτ Ath. A Ath. ACE  : παραφέρειν Ville brune 12 ἀποφέροντά σου Hermann  : ἀποφέροντα Ath.A  : ἀποφέρων τάχα Radermacher  : ἀποφέροντά σοι Konstantakos 13 χεῖρε ποιήσαντα Ath.A : χέρε ποιήσαντα Ath.CE : χεῖρ ἀποστρέψσαντα Kock

5

10

(A.) Miserable me! You’re asking far too complicated questions. (Laomedon) Then I’ll speak clearly: If you’re aware of anything having to do with the kidnapping of my child, you need to tell me quickly, before you’re hung up. (A.) Are you posing this as a riddle for me to answer, master, if I’m aware of anything having to do with the kidnapping of your child, or what’s the point of what you said? (Laomedon) Someone hurry up and bring me out a strap! (A.) Because I didn’t figure it out perhaps. So you’re punishing me this way? No, no, no! You should have brought me a bowl of saltwater. (Laomedon) Well, do you know how you have to drink it? (A.) Me?

280

Antiphanes

Certainly. (Laomedon) How? (A.) I have to get a guarantee of safety from you. (Laomedon) No, you have to put both hands behind your back and empty it without taking a breath Ath. 10.458f–9b λεκτέον ἤδη καὶ τίνα κόλασιν ὑπέμενον οἱ μὴ λύσαντες τὸν προτεθέντα γρῖφον. ἔπινον οὗτοι ἅλμην παραμισγομένην τῷ αὐτῶν ποτῷ καὶ ἔδει μὴ προσενέγκασθαι τὸ ποτήριον ἀπνευστί, ὡς Ἀντιφάνης δηλοῖ ἐν Γανυμήδει διὰ τούτων· —— Something must now be said about what punishment people who were unable to solve the riddle set for them endured. Those in this situation drank saltwater that was mixed into their wine and were obliged to empty the cup without taking a breath, as Antiphanes makes clear in Ganymêdês by means of the following verses: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

10

〈xlkl xlk〉|l lrkl klkl l|lkl klkl llkl l|lk|l klkl rlkl l|lkl lrkl llkl l|lk|l llkl llkl l|lk|l klkl lrkl k|lk|l llkl klkr l|lk|l llkl klkl k|lkl klkl llkl k|lkl klkl llkl l|lk|l klkl rlkl krk|r klk〈l〉 llrl l|lk|l llkl llkl x|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion Casaubon 1664. 772; Villebrune 1789. 178; Dindorf 1827 II.1018; Dobree 1833. 329; Hermann 1834. 188–9; Meineke 1839–1857 III.41–2; Kock 1884 II.41–2; Kaibel 1887–1890 II.497; Schenkl 1891. 325; Radermacher 1924. 20–4; Nesselrath 1990. 211–12; Konstantakos 2000a. 109–21; Mangidis 2003. 117, 149–51; Olson 2007. 133–4 (C8) Text In 5, future προβαλεῖς in Ath.A is both unmetrical and difficult sense (since Laomedôn has already asked the question) and was accordingly corrected by Musurus in the editio princeps of the Deipnosophists to present tense προβάλλεις. At the end of 6 and beginning of 7, Ath.A has the garbled τιν (i. e. ΤΙΝ), which Dindorf and Dobree independently corrected to τι / ἢ (i. e. ΤΙΗ). 8 is a crux. I retain the paradosis οἷον (οῖον Ath.A) and give the word to (A.) as part of a supposed explanation of Laomedôn’s immediately preceding call for

Γανυμήδης (fr. 75)

281

a whip (“(You’re doing this) because …”); see LSJ s. v. οἷος II.2. Cf. Radermacher, who also assigns the word to (A.) but argues that his question in the first half of 7 continues after Laomedôn’s interruption, so that what he says is ~ “or what’s the point of what you said … such that perhaps I didn’t figure it out?”, which is awkward at best; and Kock, who takes the word with ταχέως (“as quickly as possible”), although οἷον seems to be used thus only with superlatives (e. g. Ar. Ach. 384 οἷον ἀθλιώτατον with Olson 2002 at loc.). Of the conjectures recorded in the apparatus, Schenkl’s ταχέως. (Α.) εἶἑν (printed by Kassel–Austin), with εἶἑν150 (“So!”) marking recognition of the situation as Laomedôn’s remark has helped define it but moving on to another point, is an Attic colloquialism; cf. Stevens 1976. 34; López Eire 1996. 92–3; Labiano Ilundain 1998; Nordgren 2015. 180–5 (“proposed information equivalent … [I comply with the preceding utterance]”), 221–2, and add to the examples of the word in comedy (Aristophanes only) collected there Eup. fr. 385.5; Pl. Com. fr. 188.1; Eub. fr. 2.1; Henioch. fr. 5.9; Nicostr. Com. fr. 26.3; Men. Asp. 250; Dysc. 909; Mis. 988; Sam. 452; Epinic. fr. 2.11); Collard 2018. 80–1. Dobree’s ταχέως. (Α.) ποῖον; would mean “What sort of (whip)?”, i. e. “What do you mean by calling for a whip?”, while Kock’s βόειον (“an ox-hide strap”) seems pointless and is in any case even further from the paradosis. For μηθαμῶς in place of the paradosis μηδαμῶς in 15 and 17, see fr. 281 Text. In 10, the paradosis περιφέρειν ought to mean “serve” in the sense “take around the circle of couches from one guest to the next” (e. g. Diph. fr. 25; adesp. com. fr. 125.1), whereas here the idea is that only one person is to be required to drink the brine. Villebrune accordingly conjectured παραφέρειν, which means simply “bring and set beside” (e. g. Alex. fr. 176.1; Axionic. fr. 8.4), for which sense Antiphanes, however, appears to prefer Kaibel’s προσφέρειν (cf. frr. 81.1; 150.1). In 11, σε τοῦτ in Ath.A is unmetrical, and Casaubon’s τοῦτό σ’ solves the problem by reversing the order of the words. An anceps syllable is missing at the end of 12, and Hermann wrote ἀποφέροντά σου (with the genitive dependent on the prefix of the participle) for the paradosis ἀποφέροντα. For the genitive of the person from whom the surety is taken, cf. Hermipp. fr. 29 (quoted in Interpretation 12). If this is right, οὐκ at the beginning of 13 likely bears some of the responsibility for the loss of the word. Radermacher’s ἀποφέρων τάχα is considerably further from the paradosis and does not work well with what precedes, since the participle ought properly to agree with accusative σ(ε) in 11 rather than with nominative ἐγώ in 12. Konstantakos proposed ἀποφέροντά σοι (“I have to hand it over as a pledge to you”), as if the cup were something the slave was betting and would lose if he failed to empty it; but if the slave is drinking from the cup, it is difficult to see how it can simultaneously be something Laomedôn hangs onto to see if the challenge can be met.

150

For the internal aspiration, see Finglass 2011 on S. Ai. 101.

282

Antiphanes

In 13, the paradosis ὀπίσω χεῖρε ποιήσαντα (Ath.A; the Epitome manuscripts have χέρε for χεῖρε) is not a graceful way of saying “putting both hands behind your back”. But this is no excuse for arbitrarily rewriting the text, which is what Kock’s χεῖρ ἀποστρέψσαντα amounts to. Citation context From the very end of the long discussion of γρῖφοι (“riddles”) of all sorts that begins at Ath. 10.448b and represents the final portion of Book 10 of the Deipnosophists. This material seems to be drawn in large part from the περὶ Γρίφων οf Clearchus of Soli (4th/3rd century BCE), to whom the claim that Athenians who failed to solve a riddle they were set were punished by being forced to drink a mixture of wine and saltwater is expressly attributed at Ath. 10.457c. Cf. Poll. 6.107 ὁ μὲν λύσας γέρας εἶχε κρεῶν τινὰ περιφοράν, ὁ δ’ ἀδυνατήσας ἅλμης ποτήριον ἐκπιεῖν (“the man who solved (a riddle) got some meat that was brought around, whereas the one who was unable (to solve one was obliged) to drink a cup of saltwater”; cited by Kassel–Austin), which may ultimately be dependent on the same source. Frr. 122; 55; 192; 194 (all four together at Ath. 10.448e–50b, in that order, although interspersed with other material) and 51 (at Ath. 10.455e–f) are preserved in the same section of the Deipnosophists. Interpretation The second speaker, whose child has been taken, is unlikely to be anyone other than Ganymêdês’ father, who is upset about what has happened to his son (esp. 3). If fr. dub. 74 belongs to this play, this must be Laomedôn; otherwise, one would most naturally assume that he is Trôs. Meineke suggested that (A.)—a slave in any case (esp. 5 δέσποτα)—might be the boy’s paedagogue, whose responsibilities would naturally include keeping close tabs on his whereabouts; cf. fr. 157.5 n. The first two verses show that the interrogation of (A.) has already been underway for some time, but that Laomedôn’s questions up to this point have been oblique (perhaps ~ “Do you have anything you’d like to tell me?”), in contrast to the direct query and associated threat in 3–4. Laomedôn’s reference to ἁρπαγή in 3 (n.) makes it clear that the problem as he understands it is not just that Ganymêdês has vanished, as that someone has carried him off and presumably had sex with him. The fundamental point at issue must accordingly be who that person is and how he got access to the boy. That (A.) is entirely ignorant of what has happened to Ganymêdês seems unlikely, given his request for immunity from punishment in 12, which implies that he has information but is worried about his master’s reaction if he reveals it. (A.) is nonetheless such a consistently difficult and obstructive interlocutor that it is impossible to feel any certainty about what he is going to say next. Nor is it apparent whether (A.) is exclusively concerned about his own negligence or active misconduct, or is—in addition?—trying to protect his young change, who in that case may have entered into the affair with Zeus voluntarily. In any case, (A.) plays the fool beginning at 8 at the very latest, in an attempt to avoid answering Laomedôn’s questions—which does not rule out the possibility that in the verses that follow he abruptly changed course and told his master most or all of what he knew about Ganymêdês and Zeus.

Γανυμήδης (fr. 75)

283

Radermacher assigned 10 to Laomedôn, with the bowl of saltwater to be understood as additional equipment for the torture of (A.). But ἐχρῆν does not appear to be used elsewhere to issue an indirect order (“You should [already] have …”, i. e. “Hurry up and …!”); δ(έ) is inappropriate with what is on this interpretation of the line functionally an imperative; and drinking saltwater is mentioned nowhere else in such a context, so that the line most likely belongs to (A.). This may be a variant on a stock scene (cf. Anaxandr. fr. 23 with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Men. Sam. 304–25), with the slave’s suffering treated as amusing good fun rather than horrifyingly dehumanizing and thus a bad reflection on the man who applies the torture. 1 For οἴμοι, an inarticulate cry of grief and despair—here probably feigned, as (A.) pretends to be baffled by the nominally impossible questions he is being set—cf. frr. 257.1; 277, and see in general Nordgren 2015. 114–19. For περιπλοκάς (internal accusative), cf. Strato Com. fr. 1.35 περιπλοκὰς λέγεις; adesp. com. fr. *554 αἰσχυνόμενος 〈 x 〉 περιπλέκει τὴν συμφοράν; E. Ph. 494–5 περιπλοκὰς / λόγων (the earliest attestation of the noun) with Mastronarde 1994 ad loc.; LSJ s. v. περιπλέκω II “complicate, entangle”. 2 λίαν (also fr. 182.2) is a less elevated equivalent of ἄγαν (not attested in Antiphanes); see in general Lockwood 1938; Thesleff 1954 § 195–7. The adverb modifies ἐρωτᾷς (literally “you ask complicated questions to excess”), whereas English would emphasize the object (“you ask overly complicated questions”). ἀλλά “In contrast (now, assuming that’s true)”; cf. Denniston 1954. 7 “ἀλλά simply expresses opposition, and it is left undetermined whether the opposite ideas are, or are not, incompatible. These examples occur most often in answers”. σαφῶς with a form of φράζω appears to be something approaching a fixed phrase (e. g. frr. 55.11 σαφῶς … φράζω; 192.5*; Ar. Eq. 1042 ἔφραζεν … σαφῶς; Men. Sam. 566 φράσαι σαφῶς*; Pi. P. 4.117; S. Tr. 349 σαφῶς … φράζε; E. Med. 691 σαφῶς … φράσον, 693 φράζε … σαφέστερον; Hdt. 2.31.1; Pl. Euthphr. 10a σαφέστερον φράσαι). 3 Echoed in (A.)’s description of the question he has been asked in 6. τῆς ἁρπαγῆς τοῦ παιδός comes first in both places, as the focus of Laomedôn’s interest. Athenian terminology for sexual assault does not map neatly onto ours; see Cole 1984, especially 98–9; Omitowoju 1997. 2–13. But in contrast to ὕβρις, which emphasizes the transgressive nature of the treatment of the immediate victim and thus of the victim’s family, whether violence is involved or not, ἁρπαγή focuses on the forceful nature of the “carrying off ” that leads to intercourse; cf. Sophocles’ and Alexis’ Ἑλένης ἁρπαγή (better “The Abduction of Helen” than “The Rape of Helen”); A. fr. 451k.(a)5 τὴν βίαιον ἁρπαγήν (“the violent abduction”; of Paris’ treatment of Helen); Hdt. 1.2.2–5.2, esp. 1.5.2 οὐ γὰρ ἁρπαγῇ σφέας χρησαμένους λέγουσι ἀγαγεῖν αὐτὴν ἐς Αἴγυπτον, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐν τῷ Ἄργεϊ ἐμίσγετο τῷ ναυκλήρῳ τῆς νεός (“for they say they did not resort to abduction when they took her to Egypt, but that she had sex [voluntarily and previous to this] with the owner of the ship in Argos”; of the Phoenicians’ treatment of Io); [And.] 4.10 (μοιχεία contrasted with

284

Antiphanes

γυναικῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἁρπαγή); Fraenkel 1950 on A. Ag. 534 (on the difference between ἁρπαγή, “robbery”, and κλοπή, “theft”, the former being a much more serious crime); and see in general Omitowoju 2002. For ἁρπάζω used specifically of the abduction of Ganymêdês by Zeus, hAphr. 203; Thgn. 1347; E. Cyc. 586. Laomedôn’s use of compound ξύνοισθα rather than simple οἶσθα suggests that he is not accusing (A.) of having snatched Ganymêdês himself, but instead suspects that the slave has information regarding who it was that did; cf. fr. 237.2 n. 4 For ταχέως in the sense “hurry up and …” (with reference to how soon, rather than how rapidly the action in question is to be performed; particularly common with imperatives), e. g. 8; Cratin. fr. 271.2 πτερὸν ταχέως τις καὶ λεκάνην ἐνεγκάτω; Ar. Ach. 777 φώνει δὴ τὺ ταχέως, 1073–4 ἰέναι σ’ ἐκέλευον οἱ στρατηγοὶ τήμερον / ταχέως λαβόντα τοὺς λόχους καὶ τοὺς λόφους; Nu. 345 λέγε νυν ταχέως ὅτι βούλει, and the similar use of ὡς τάχιστα at e. g. Ar. Pax 973; Lys. 181, and of ταχύ at e. g. fr. 225.10 with n.; Ar. Ach. 1029. πρὶν κρέμασθαι For “hanging” slaves up to be whipped, cf. Ar. Ra. 619; Men. Dysc. 248–9 [ἐ]ὰν γὰρ τῇ θύρᾳ προσιόντα με / λάβῃ, [κρ]εμᾶι παραχρῆμα (“for if he catches me approaching the door, he’ll hang me up immediately”); Pk. 79 κρέμασον εὐθύς, εἰ [πλανῶ]; (“Hang (me) up right away, if I’m steering you wrong!”); Plaut. Amph. 280; Asin. 301–5, 617; Aul. 643; Poen. 146; Truc. 777; Ter. Eun. 1021; Phorm. 220; Dover 1968 on Ar. Nu. 870, and note Ar. V. 449–50 (Philokleon recalls taking a slave to an olive tree in order to beat him); Pl. 312 τῶν ὄρχεων κρεμῶμεν (“let’s hang him up by his testicles!”; the chorus mockingly threaten Kariôn). 4–5 At fr. 192.14, εἰπεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς βούλομαι γρῖφον patently means “I wish to offer you a riddle”. But here the sense of μοι / γρῖφον προβάλλεις τοῦτον εἰπεῖν can scarcely be anything other than “you propose me this riddle to explicate”, a sense of λέγω seemingly not recognized by LSJ s. v., but also attested at fr. 122.1. γρῖφος has no etymology, but is generally taken to be identical to γρῖφος/ γρῖπος, which LSJ s. v. 1 glosses “fishing basket, creel”, i. e. a wicker container in which fish are kept or transported after having been caught. The ancient evidence, however, shows that this is instead some sort of fishing net (thus rightly Montanari s. v. “rete da pesca, giacchio”) and perhaps a casting-net in particular, and thus by extension “something difficult to find one’s way out of ”: – Theon Gramm. fr. 42.9–11 γριπεὺς γὰρ ὁ ἁλιεύς. καὶ γρῖπος τὸ ἁλιευτικοῦ δίκτυον, οἷον ἄγριπον. ἀγρεῖν δὲ τὸ λαμβάνειν (“because a gripeus is a fisherman. And a gripos is a fishing net, i. e. an agripos; agrein is to catch”; a gloss on Theoc. 1.39 τοῖς δὲ μετὰ γριπεύς, where the man is said (40) to be preparing to cast a μέγα δίκτυον, “great net”151)

151

Gow 1950 ad loc. notes that the lines appear to rework [Hes.] Sc. 213–14, where a casting-net—in this case referred to as an ἀμφίβληστρον—is again in question.

Γανυμήδης (fr. 75)

285

– Artemid. 2.14 σαγήνη καὶ γρῖπος καὶ ἀμφίβληστρον καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ἐκ λίνων πέπλεκται ἐπιτήδεια πρὸς ἁλιείαν, ταὐτὰ τοῖς λίνοις τοῖς κυνηγετικοῖς (“a dragnet, gripos, casting-net or any other objects woven from cord to be used for fishing (mean) the same thing as hunting-nets (do)”, sc. if seen in a dream) – Plu. Mor. 471d (hunting deer with γρῖφοι and σαγηναι, i. e. rather than with hunting nets, as a mark of folly) – Plu. Mor. 977f τὰ δὲ βολιστικὰ καλούμενα … γρίποις τε καὶ σαγήναις σύρουσι περιλαμβάνοντες (“They surround the fish known as bolistika … with gripoi and drag-nets, and haul them (out of the water)”) – Erot. fr. 6 γρῖφον τὸ ἁλιευτικὸν δίκτυον ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν πλοκὴν σκολιώσεως (“a griphos is a fishing net, from the crookedness of its weaving”) – Gal. ΙΙΙ.4.15–16 K. (in a list of hunting and fishing nets of various sorts) – Gal. XVI.728.14–729.1 K. καλεῖται δ’ οὕτως τι τῶν ἁλιευτικῶν δικτύων (griphomena etymologized as from griphos: “a type of fishing net is referred to thus”) – Gal. XIX.91.14–15 K. γριφόμενα· ἐπανειλούμενα, παρὰ τὸν γρῖφον τὸ ἁλιευτικὸν δίκτυον (“caught in a griphos: done away with, by reference to the griphos which is a fishing net”; a Hippocratic gloss) – Opp. Hal. 3.79–80 δίκτυα δ’ αὖτ’ ἄλλοισι μέλει πλέον ἐντύνεσθαι· / τῶν τὰ μὲν ἀμφίβληστρα, τὰ δὲ γρῖφοι καλέονται (“others prefer to lay out nets; some of these are referred to as casting-nets, while others are griphoi”) – Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.2 p. 488.32–3 γρῖπος τὸ δίκτυον, γριπεὺς ὁ ῥάπτων τὰ ἁλιευτικὰ δίκτυα, γρῖφος τὸ δύσλυτον αἴνιγμα (“a gripos is a net, a gripeus the man who weaves fishing nets, a griphos a puzzle that is difficult to solve”). Cf. Poll. 1.97; 10.132 (γρῖφος in two closely related lists of fishing equipment); Ohlert 1912. 1–22; Beta 2016. 34–5. The word is first attested at Ar. V. 20; elsewhere in Antiphanes (the only other author to use it before Clearchus) also at frr. 122.2, 11; 192.11, 14 (quoted above). Cf. fr. 192.1 n. on ἀμφίβληστρον. For προβάλλω in the sense “propound (a question, task, problem, riddle)”, see LSJ s. v. A.II.5 (and add to the passages cited there e. g. Ar. Nu. 489; Pl. Plt. 286d; Hp. Acut. 3.13–14 = 2.240.7–8 Littré), and cf. Problêma Introduction. δέσποτα See fr. 86.2 n. 6 ~ 3. 7 For δύναμαι in the sense “signify, mean” (of words), see LSJ s. v. II.3.a, and add to the passages collected there e.g. Ar. Pl. 842–3 τὸ τριβώνιον δὲ τί δύναται … / ὃ φέρει μετὰ σοῦ τὸ παιδάριον τουτί;; Diph. fr. 39.1–2 ὁ δὲ κανδυτάνης / οὗτος τί δύναται, καὶ τί ἐστιν;; Strato Com. fr. 1.44 σκοπεῖν ἕκαστα τί δύναται τῶν ῥημάτων; Macho 223–5 μαθεῖν γὰρ αἰσθέσθαι θ’ ἅμα  / Ὀλυμπιονικῶν νυκτὸς ἀθλητῶν δυεῖν / πληγὴν 〈 … 〉 τί δύναταί ποτ’ ἤθελον. 7–8 ἔξω τις δότω / ἱμάντα ταχέως Laomedôn ignores (A.)’s nonsense and prepares to make good on his threat in 4. The leather strap (ἱμάς) may be intended to beat (A.) with, as at Men. Dysc. 502 τὸν ἱμάντα δός, γραῦ (“Give me my leather

286

Antiphanes

strap, old woman!”); Sam. 321 ἱμάντα παίδων τις δότω / ἐπὶ τουτονί μοι τὸν ἀσεβῆ (“Let one of the slaves give me a leather strap to use on this bastard!”), 662–3; D. 19.197. If so, the singular perhaps stands in for the plural, since a whip would be made by weaving a number of straps together; cf. Ar. Ach. 724 τρεῖς τοὺς λαχόντας τούσδ’ ἱμάντας ἐκ Λεπρῶν (a riddling description of a whip); Poll. 3.79 αἱ δὲ μάστιγες … ἱμάντες; the use of the singular to mean “well-rope” (Poll. 10.31); and in general Headlam 1966 on Herod. 5.11 (p. 236; cited by Kassel–Austin). Konstantakos 2000a. 117–18 suggests that it is instead used to bind the slave’s hands; cf. 13 n.; Plaut. Capt. 657–9, 667. But given 4 (n.), it seems more likely that it will be used to tie his hand up above his head in such a way that he cannot resist when he is beaten. For orders intended for household slaves addressed to an unspecified τις, e. g. Ar. Ach. 805 ἐνεγκάτω τις ἔνδοθεν τῶν ἰσχάδων with Olson 2002 ad loc.; V. 860 ἀλλ’ ὡς τάχιστα πῦρ τις ἐξενεγκάτω; Pax 1149; Av. 464 κατὰ χειρὸς ὕδωρ φερέτω ταχύ τις, 1579 τὴν τυρόκνηστίν τις δότω; Men. Asp. 387; Dysc. 963–4 ἐκδότω / στεφάνους τις ἡμῖν; Kith. 52; Sam. 321 ἱμάντα παίδων τις δότω (from a scene very similar to this); Chrysipp. Com. fr. 1.1 ἀλλὰ δᾷδας ἡμμένας μοι ταχὺ δότω τις ἔνδοθεν; cf. Plaut. Merc. 910–11 aliquis actutum huc foras / exite, illinc pallium mi efferte. For the specification that the object or person in question be brought or summoned ἔξω, e. g. Ar. Ach. 1097 ~ 1098, 1118; Pl. 1196; Men. Pk. 751–2, and cf. ἔνδοθεν and ἐξενεγκάτω in some of the passages cited above; Plaut. Amph. 770 intus pateram proferto foras, “bring forth outside the bowl from within!” For ταχέως, 4 n. For οἷον, see Text. οὐκ ἔγνων For the verb used thus, cf. fr. 194.16 with n. 9 For ἔπειτα in the sense “So …?, In that case …?, As a consequence?” elsewhere in comedy at the beginning of a (generally shocked or unhappy) question, e. g. fr. 124.1; Eup. fr. 226.2; Ar. Ach. 126, 917; V. 1133; Av. 123, 963, 1217; Lys. 985; Th. 637; Ra. 786; Dionys. Com. fr. 7.2; Ephipp. fr. 3.1; Philippid. fr. 16.2; Timocl. fr. 8.1; Alex. frr. 125.1; 150.4; Men. Sam. 479; cf. Fornieles Sánchez 2014. 109–11. τοῦτο must be an internal accusative with ζημιοῖς, as at Men. Asp. 264 σὺ μηδὲν ζημιοῦ, in reference to the upcoming whipping implied by the order in 7–8. For bare μηθαμῶς as an abrupt, vigorous rejection of a course of action under consideration by another party, e. g. Ar. Ach. 296, 324, 334; V. 1252; Pax 385; Lys. 822; Clearch. Com. fr. 4.1; Alex. fr. 177.5. 10 ἅλμης … ποτήριον Drinking saltwater—a generally bad idea—will at the very least greatly increase one’s thirst, but can also lead to vomiting (in a symposium context, presumably regarded as amusing by everyone other than the victim) or even death. ἅλμη does not necessarily mean “seawater” (as in Homer) but simply “salted water”, as in fr. 221.2 (for stewing fish) with n. Brine was sometimes mixed with wine, to give it a bit of extra flavor (e. g. Plaut. Rud. 588 quasi uinis Graecis Neptunus nobis suffudit mare, “Neptune doused us in seawater as if we were Greek wines”; Cato agr. 24; Ath. 1.32d–e), which was presumably why it

Γανυμήδης (fr. 75)

287

was available at symposia for other purposes; cf. fr. 135 Text (on Emperius’ ἅλμη). For ποτήριον, fr. 57.14 n. For riddles at symposia as challenges, with punishments for those who fail to solve them, cf. fr. 122 with nn. For προσφέρειν, see Text. For ἐχρῆν expressing unfulfilled obligation, see Goodwin 1875 §§ 415–17; Kühner–Gerth 1898 i.204–5; Gildersleeve 1900 § 364; Smyth 1956 §§ 1774–5. 11 For ἐκπιεῖν, fr. 4.1 n. 12 κομιδῇ γε is also used repeatedly as an affirmative response in Plato (e. g. Sph. 245d, 255b; La. 198c; R. 468b) and is apparently a 4th-century colloquialism. Cf. κομιδῇ μὲν οὖν at e. g. Ar. Pl. 833; Pl. Tht. 155a; Sph. 221c; Parm. 164d. For κομιδῇ as an adverbial intensifier (LSJ s. v. 2, where this passage is wrongly included), fr. 239.2 n. ἐνέχυρον (< ἐχυρός = ὀχυρός, “strong, secure”) is a 5th/4th-century legal term (“pledge, surety”, i. e. a deposit of funds or the like that guarantees that something will or will not be done) first attested in Hermippus (fr. 29), Herodotus (2.136.8, 11), Aristophanes (Nu. 35 ἐνεχυράσεσθαι, 241 τὰ χρήματ’ ἐνεχυράζομαι) and Antiphon (5.76; 6.11), and found elsewhere in comedy at Ar. Ec. 755; Pl. 451; Alex. fr. 7.2 with Arnott 1996 ad loc. (with secondary bibliography on the legal details); Men. Epitr. 502. See in general Fine 1951. 61–2 n. 4. The noun is not governed by ἀποφέρω elsewhere, but cf. the use of the simplex φέρω at Hermipp. fr. 29 ἤνεγκ’ ἐνέχυρον τῶν γειτόνων. 13 Captives routinely had their hands bound behind their backs (Ar. Lys. 434 ξυλλάμβαν’ αὐτὴν κὠπίσω τὼ χεῖρε δεῖ; Il. 21.30 δῆσε δ’ ὀπίσσω χεῖρας ἐϋτμήτοισιν ἱμᾶσι; Hdt. 4.69.1 χεῖρας ὀπίσω δήσαντες; X. An. 6.1.9 ὀπίσω τὼ χεῖρε δεδεμένον ἐλαύνει; D. 19.47 παραδόντες … Φωκέας, μόνον οὐκ ὀπίσω τὼ χεῖρε δήσαντες). τὼ χεῖρε Use of the dual for body parts is typical of colloquial Attic; see Bers 1984. 59. For duals generally, cf. fr. 80.2 ἀμφοῖν, and see Cuny 1906 (with no discussion of the comic fragments, but with an extended treatment of Aristophanes on pp. 162–244). 14 ἕλκειν ἀπνευστί For ἕλκω used of drinking deep draughts of liquid, normally wine (LSJ s. v. II.4), cf. frr. 205.2; 234.3; Cratin. fr. 269.2 (perhaps corrupt); Telecl. fr. 27.1; Ar. Eq. 107; fr. 111.3 (a compound); Stratt. fr. 23.1; Eub. fr. 56.7; Alex. fr. 88.3; E. Cyc. 417; Ion 1200. For drinking ἀπνευστί, i. e. without pausing to take a breath, cf. Alex. fr. 246. 3 ἀπνευστί τ’ ἐκπιών; Hp. Int. 12.21 = 7.194.16 Littré κέλευε ἀπνευστὶ τοῦτο πιεῖν. The same custom can apparently be referred to alternatively as drinking ἄμυστιν (e. g. Ar. Ach. 1229 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; cf. fr. 4.1 n.).

288

Γλαῦκος (Glaukos) “Glaukos”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 III.43; Edmonds 1959. 199 n. a

Title and Content The only evidence for Antiphanes’ Glaukos is Poll. 3.42–3 (citing fr. dub. 76), where two of the manuscripts offer Ἀριστοφ, while a third has expanded this to Ἀριστοφάνου. Aristophanes is not known to have written a Glaukos, and Meineke (followed by Kock and Kassel–Austin) assigned the fragment to Antiphanes. Since Antiphanes as well is not known to have written a Glaukos, there is no force to the conjecture, and the reading in Pollux is more economically explained as a reference to Ἀριστοφῶν, a rough contemporary of Antiphanes who produced inter alia a Peirithous, showing that he had an interest in mythological comedy. This play should accordingly be treated as a dubium. Greek mythology knows a Glaukos of Anthedon (a fisherman who somehow became immortal and was transformed into a merman and a prophet), a Glaukos of Potniai (a son of Sisyphos who owned flesh-eating horses) and a Glaukos of Crete (who died in a jar of honey and was revived by the seer Polyidos). See Corsano 1992; Gantz 1993. 173–5, 270–1; Pötscher 1998; Beaulieu 2013 (with further bibliography). Only Glaukos of Potniai (the subject of a play by Aeschylus) and Glaukos of Crete (seemingly central to the plot of Aeschylus’ Kressai and Sophocles’ and Euripides’ Polyidos, and thus perhaps of Aristophanes’ Polyidos as well) are referenced before the Hellenistic period. It is thus more likely that one of them was the subject of the play to which fr. dub. 76 belongs, and the reference to the sea points to Glaukos of Anthedon. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Δευκαλίων, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Eubulus and Anaxilas both wrote a Glaukos; Beaulieu 2013. 128 assumes that the title-character of both plays was Glaukos of Anthedon, but in fact we know nothing substantial about the subject or contents of either.

Fragment fr. dub. 76 K.–A. (75 K.) καλύψας κύματος τριβωνίῳ διεπαρθένευσα

Γλαῦκος (fr. dub. 76)

289

1 καλύψας κύματος Poll.FS : καλύψας κύμματος Poll.A : καλυψάμενος vel κεκαλυμμένος Dobree 2 διεπαρθένευσα Poll.A : διεπαρθένευσε Poll.FS : καὶ διεπαρθένευσεν Poll.BC

I hid her in a robe composed of a wave and took away her virginity Poll. 3.42–3 τὸ δὲ τῆς παρθένου παρθενίαν ἀφελέσθαι διακορεῦσαι λέγουσιν, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης (Th. 480)· ——. καὶ διαπαρθενεύεται δ’ Ἡρόδοτος (4.168.2) εἴρηκεν, διαπεπαρθενευμένη καὶ διαπεπαρθενευκότα, τὸ μὲν πρότερον Διοκλῆς (fr. 16) τὸ δὲ δεύτερον Ἄλεξις (fr. 315) οἱ κωμικοί. Ἀριστοφῶν (scripsi : Ἀριστοφ δὲ Poll.FS : Ἀριστοφάνου ἐν Poll.A : Ἀντιφάνης Meineke) Γλαύκῳ· —— The term they use for deflowering a girl is diakoreusai, as Aristophanes (does) (Th. 480): ——. And Herodotus (4.168.2) says diapartheneuetai (“she is deflowered”), while as for diapepartheneumenê (“having been deflowered”; fem. nom. sing.) and diapepartheneukota (“having been deflowered”; neut. nom./acc. pl.), Diocles (fr. 16) has the former, Alexis (fr. 315) the latter, both comic poets. Aristophon (my emendation : Aristoph- Poll.FS : in Aristophanes’ Poll.A : Antiphanes Meineke) in Glaukos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xl〉kl l|lkl klkl rlkl x|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion Dobree 1833. 251; Meineke 1839–1857 III.43; Edmonds 1959. 199 n. b; Mangidis 2003. 174; Beaulieu 2013. 128 Text In 1, Dobree suggested substituting καλυψάμενος (“I concealed myself ”; approved by Meineke and printed by Kock) or κεκαλυμμένος (“having concealed myself ”) for καλύψας κύματος in Poll.FS (closely followed by Poll.A), which makes this into something more like a straightforward stranger-rape. The paradosis is not particularly difficult to make sense of (see Interpretation), however, and Dobree’s proposals have the disadvantage of lacking a normal caesura, a feature of some comic iambic trimeters but one that ought not as a matter of policy to be admitted via conjecture. In 2, both διεπαρθένευσε(ν) (Poll.BCFS; printed by Kock, as well as by Bethe in his edition of Pollux) and διεπαρθένευσα (Poll.A; printed by Meineke and Kassel– Austin) are metrical. But Poll.A otherwise seems to offer a slightly more careless version of the text, and there is accordingly no reason not to follow the majority of the manuscripts. The common exemplar may well have offered only διεπαρθένευσ or the like in any case. Citation context From a collection of words having to do in one way or another with marriage. Poll.BC preserve only the second verse, with καὶ added to make the syntax of their version of the Onomastikon run more smoothly. Cognate material is preserved at

290

Antiphanes

– Antiatt. δ 2 διαπαρθενεῦσαι (“to take someone’s virginity”; the gloss has been lost, and Meineke suggested supplying Ἀντιφάνης Γλαύκῳ, “Antiphanes in Glaukos”) – Hsch. δ 1065 διακορεύει· τὴν κόρην διαφθείρει (“he deflowers: he ruins the girl”) – Hsch. δ 1202 διαπαρθενεύει· φθείρει κόρας (“he takes someone’s virginity: he ruins girls”) – Phot. δ 397 = Suda δ 683 = Synag. δ 191 διαπαρθενεῦσαι· μιγῆναι παρθένῳ (“to take someone’s virginity: to have sex with a virgin”; from the common source conventionally referred to as Σ΄)152 – Phot. δ 345 = Suda δ 591 = Synag. δ 159 διακορεῦσαι· διαπαρθενεῦσαι, οἱονεὶ διατεμεῖν (“to deflower: to take someone’s virginity, to split her in two, as it were”; from the common source conventionally referred to as Σ΄). – Note also – Phot. δ 333 = Synag. δ 160 διακεκορῆσθαι· διαπεπαρθενεῦσθαι, τετμῆσθαι τῇ μίξει (“to have been deflowered: to have lost your virginity, to have been split by means of intercourse”) – Phot. δ 525 ~ Synag. δ 252 διεκόρησας τὴν παῖδα· διέφθειρας (“you deflowered the girl: you ruined her”) – Suda δ 594 διακορῶ· κόρην διαφθείρω (“I deflower: I ruin a girl”) – Suda δ 904 διεκόρησας τὴν παῖδα· διεπαρθένευσας (“you deflowered the girl: you took her virginity”). Interpretation If the text printed here is right, the individual referred to is probably a sea- or river-god taking advantage of a mortal girl, as at Od. 11.238–44 (cited by Kassel–Austin, who trace the reference to Cassio), where Tyro is said to have described how she fell in love with the river Enipeus and how in the end πορφύρεον δ’ ἄρα κῦμα περιστάθη οὔρεϊ ἶσον, / κυρτωθέν, κρύψεν δὲ θεὸν θνητήν τε γυναῖκα (“a deep blue wave stood around them, high as a mountain, curling over, and concealed the god and the mortal woman”, sc. as they had sex); perhaps from a prologue. If διεπαρθένευσα in Poll.A is accepted instead, the god himself is speaking. A τριβώνιον is in any case an odd garment for a deity to wear (see below); but this may simply be part of the process of cutting him down to size for the comic stage. 1 καλύψας κτλ Cf. Archil. fr. 196a.44–5 μαλακῇ δ[έ μιν] / [χλαί]νῃ καλύψας (“hiding her in my soft robe”; part of the narrator’s sexual adventure with a young woman; cited by Kassel–Austin); Ath. 13.604d–e ὁ μὲν οὖν παῖς τὸ ἴδιον ἱμάτιον ἐπὶ τῇ πόᾳ ὑπέστρωσεν, τὴν δὲ τοῦ Σοφοκλέους χλανίδα περιεβάλοντο (“the boy 152

Suda δ 687 διαπεπαρθενεῦσθαι· τετμῆσθαι τῇ μίξει (“to have been deflowered: to have been split by means of intercourse”) is merely an abbreviated version of Phot. δ 333 = Synag. δ 160 (quoted below).

Γλαῦκος (fr. dub. 76)

291

spread his own robe on the grass beneath them, and they put Sophocles’ mantle about them”; of an open-air pederastic encounter). κύματος is a genitive of material (Poultney 1936. 82–3, with reference to Aristophanes). A τρίβων or τριβώνιον is a poor man’s outer garment, worn e.g. by a member of the chorus of misfits in Eupolis’ Chrysoun genos (fr. 298.6 with Olson 2016 ad loc.); by the starving, filthy Cleomenes when he was finally driven out of Athens at Ar. Lys. 278; by the newly rich man when he was impoverished at Ar. Pl. 842, 882, 897; and by wretched, shoeless urchins at Lys. 32.16. See in general Stone 1984. 162–3. 2 παρθενεύω is “bring up as an unmarried girl”, and διαπαρθενεύω is thus apparently “give the full maiden treatment to” (cf. LSJ s. v. διά D.4), i. e. “have sex with”.153 The verb is attested before the Hellenistic and Roman periods only in the passages cited by Pollux and at Herodor. FGrH 31 F 18, which does not appear to be direct quotation. Alciphro picks it up at 4.17.4, further supporting the notion that it came to be regarded as an Atticism. Cf. Amphis fr. 48 διαπαρθένια, which Poll. 3.36 glosses “the gifts made for the taking of someone’s virginity” and LSJ explains—perhaps a bit naively—as “presents made to the bride on the morning after the wedding”.154

153 154

A number of the lexicographers quoted in Citation context clearly find the prefix difficult and take it to suggest splitting of some sort (cf. LSJ s. v. διά D.2). Despite Papachrysostomou 2016. 271, the fact that the word is a hapax does not support the notion that it is a “resourceful coinage” on Amphis’ part.

292

Γόργυθος (Gorgythos) “Gorgythos”

Introduction Discussion Meineke 1839–1857 I.327; Breitenbach 1908. 55–6; Webster 1952. 22 Title Gorythos is a real name borne by an Athenian more or less contemporary with Antiphanes (IG II2 2370.5). As Breitenbach observes, however, here this seems more likely to be a “speaking name” for an individual distinguished for his γοργότης, i. e. his terrible, grim character (thus a soldier?). For similar titles, many of which seem to straddle the line between personal names and descriptions, cf. Εὐθύδικος, Κλεοφάνης, Λεπτινίσκος, Λεωνίδης, Λύκων, Μητροφῶν, Μίδων, Τίμων, Φάων and Φιλίσκος, and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 77 K.–A. (76 K.) ἧττόν τ’ ἀποσταίην ἂν ὧν προειλόμην ἢ Καλλιμέδων γλαύκου πρόοιτ’ ἂν κρανίον 2 πρόοιτ’ Ath.ACE : προοῖτ’ Kaibel : προεῖτ’ Blaydes

I’d no more abandon the things I chose than Kallimedôn would give up a glaukos-head Ath. 8.340c Ἀντιφάνης δ ἐν Γοργύθῳ· —— Antiphanes in Gorgythos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llk|l klkl llrl llkl llkl

Discussion

Kaibel 1887–1890 II.247; Blaydes 1890. 68

Text In 2, the paradosis accent on πρόοιτ’ (aor. opt. mid. < προίημι) is sanctioned by EM p. 126.15–17 ~ Et. Gud. p. 518.48–55, which also approves πρόοιντο in place of προοῖντο. Editors are inconsistent in their handling of the question (e. g.

Γόργυθος (fr. 77)

293

προοῖντ’ in Butcher’s text at D. 5.15, but πρόοιντ’ at D. 21.212), which in any case has no effect on the sense. For the form, cf. Th. 1.120.2 πρόοιντο; X. An. 1.9.10 προοῖτο [sic]; Pl. Grg. 520c προοῖτο [sic]. See in general Lautensach 1911. 13–14, whose “Erst in der mittleren Komödie taucht … die thematische Flexion mit zurückgezogenem Akzent … auf ” refers only to the corpus of the comic and tragic poets. Blaydes’ προεῖτ’ is a pluperfect middle-passive indicative < προίημι, “send forth” and thus in the middle “let go of, release”. Citation context One item in a collection of texts (also Timocl. fr. 29; Alex. frr. 117; 218; 249 = 87; 149; 118, immediately before this, in that order, and Eub. fr. 8; Theophil. fr. 4; Philem. fr. 43, immediately after this, in that order) at Ath. 8.339e–40e that refer in one way or another to Kallimedôn; patently drawn from a Hellenistic or Roman-era catalogue of kômôidoumenoi. Frr. 27 (at Ath. 8.338e–9d); 50 (at Ath. 8.343d); 77 (at Ath. 8.340c); 117 (at Ath. 8.342d); 188 (at Ath. 8.342e– 3b) are all part of the same long discussion of gluttony and gluttons. Interpretation A nominally brave declaration by someone under pressure to retreat from a decision he has made, supported by a bathetic comparison in the second verse. Whether ὧν in 1 refers to objects or to persons is unclear, although the reference to fishheads as the parallel case in 2 would seem to support the first possibility. τ(ε) in 1 shows that this is only one item in a series (sc. of statements by the speaker regarding things he might or might not be willing to do?). 1 προειλόμην Prosaic 5th/4th-century vocabulary, attested elsewhere in comedy at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 74.1; Ar. Th. 419; Men. Sam. 230; Apollod. Car. fr. 5.9, but absent from tragedy and lyric poetry. 2 For the allegedly gluttonous politician Καλλιμέδων (PA 8032; PAA 558185), fr. 27.7 n. γλαύκου … κρανίον Cf. frr. 130.4 γλαύκου προτομή (“a head-section of a glaukos”); 191.2 (in what seems to be a list of local delicacies); 221.1–2 (a glaukidion stewed in brine); Sannyr. fr. 3 ὦ βατίδες, ὦ γλαύκων κάρα (“O skates! O glaukos-heads!”); Amphis fr. 35.2 γλαυκινιδίου κεφάλαια (“glaukinidion-heads”); Anaxandr. fr. 31.1–2 πολυτελὲς τμητὸν μέγα / γλαύκου πρόσωπον (“a large and expensive severed glaukos-head”) with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Bato fr. 5.16–18; Sotad. Com. fr. 1.5 γλαύκου φέρω κεφάλαια παμμεγέθη δύο (“I have two enormous glaukos-heads”); Archestr. fr. 21.1 ἀλλά μοι ὀψώνει γλαύκου κεφαλὴν ἐν Ὀλύνθῳ (“I urge you to buy a glaukos-head in Olynthos”). For eating fishheads (a delicacy) generally, fr. 45.2 n. The glaukos (also mentioned as a desirable food at e. g. Cratin. fr. 336; Ar. fr. 380.2; Amphis fr. 22) cannot be securely identified, but it is clearly a large fish (thus cut into steaks at Axionic. fr. 6.14) and probably some sort of shark. See Thompson 1947. 48; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 115.8; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 21.1; García Soler 2001. 197–8.

294

Δευκαλίων (Deukaliôn) “Deukaliôn”

Introduction Title Deukaliôn (the first man) was the son of Prometheus and married Pyrrha (the first woman), who was the daughter of Prometheus’ brother Epimetheus (Hes. fr. 2 M.–W. = fr. 3 Most; fr. 4 M.–W. = fr. 5 Most). After the great Flood, Deukaliôn and Pyrrha produced new human beings out of stones (Hes. fr. 234.3 M.–W. = fr. 251.3 Most; Pi. O. 9.43–6, 49–55; [Apollod.] Bib. 1.7.2; 3.14.5; Ov. Met. 1.313–415). Among the children of Prometheus and Pyrrha was Hellene (Hes. frr. 2–4 M.–W. = frr. 3–5 Most; fr. 9 M.–W. = fr. 9 Most), from whom the Greeks were descended. See Gantz 1993. 164–6; Fowler 2013. 113–21. The story of the Flood is Near Eastern in origin; for general discussion of the connections between the biblical and Greek versions, see Griffin 1992 (with particular attention to the reception in Ovid); West 1994. 132–9; West 1999. 489–93. For the name Deukaliôn itself, see Janko 1987. Probably a mythological travesty, like Ἄδωνις, Ἀθάμας, Αἴολος, Ἄλκηστις, Ἀνδρομέδα, Ἀνταῖος, Ἀσκληπιός, Ἀφροδίτης γοναί, Βούσιρις, Γανυμήδης, Γλαῦκος, Θαμύρας, Θεογονία, Καινεύς, Κύκλωψ, Λήμνιαι, Μελανίων, Μελέαγρος, Μήδεια, Μίνως, Οἰνόμαος ἢ Πέλοψ, Ὀμφάλη, Ὀρφεύς, Φάων and Φιλοκτήτης, and perhaps Ἄντεια, Ἀρκάς and Ὕπνος; see in general Arnott 2010. 294–300, esp. 295–6. Eubulus and Ophelio also wrote comedies entitled Deukaliôn, while Epicharmus produced a Πύρρα καὶ Προμαθεύς (“Pyrrha and Promatheus”) that survives only in tatters but seemingly mentioned an ark (Epich. fr. 113.6, 9). Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 78 K.–A. (77 K.) τάριχος ἀντακαῖον εἴ τις βούλετ’ ἢ Γαδειρικόν, Βυζαντίας δὲ θυννίδος 〈ἐν〉 εὐφροσύναις ὀσμαῖσι χαίρει 3 εὐφροσύναις ὀσμαῖσι χαίρει Ath.A : ὀσμαῖσι χαίρει Ath.CE : 〈ἐν〉 εὐφροσύναις ὀσμαῖσι χαίρει Schmidt : εὐφραίνετ ὀσμαῖς Meineke : ὄσφαισι χαίρει Naber

if anyone wants sturgeon-saltfish or Gadeiric, and takes pleasure at festivities in the smell of Byzantine tuna

Δευκαλίων (fr. 78)

295

Ath. 3.118d ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ὁ ποιητὴς ἐν Δευκαλίωνι ταρίχων τῶνδε μέμνηται· —— Well, the poet Antiphanes too in Deukaliôn mentions the following sorts of salt-fish: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl klk|l llkl klkl llkl klkl 〈l〉lrl llk|l l〈lkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1847. 510; Naber 1880. 46; V. Schmidt ap. Kassel–Austin; Mangidis 2003. 175 Text In 3, εὐφροσύναις ὀσμαῖσι χαίρει in Ath.A is both nonsensical and unmetrical. Ath.CE omit εὐφροσύναις, leaving only ὀσμαῖσι χαίρει and solving both problems. But the omission likely means only that the Epitomator found the first word in the line impossible to understand, not that it was missing from his exemplar and is thus intrusive in Ath.A. Schmidt’s 〈ἐν〉 (easily omitted before εὐ-) at the head of the line mends the text in a more elegant fashion and yields a proper hepthemimeral caesura. Of the other suggestions recorded in the apparatus, Meineke’s εὐφραίνετ ὀσμαῖς seemingly takes χαίρει to be an intrusive gloss on εὐφραίνετ(αι), but requires at least one additional error to yield the paradosis, which strains credulity. Naber—who mistakenly believed that Ath.A had only εὐφροσύναισι χαίρει—compared Ach. Tat. 2.38.3 and suggested ὄσφραισι χαίρει. But ὄσφρα is not attested elsewhere until the late Byzantine period, and if one is going to expel εὐφροσύναις, it is easier simply to retain the reading in the Epitome. Citation context From a long collection of texts (Ath. 3.116a–21e), including selections from various medical writers, having to do in one way or another with saltfish; perhaps drawn from Euthydemos of Athens’ otherwise unknown On Saltfish, which is cited at Ath. 3.116a–d, where Euthydemos is charged with authoring SH 455, a nominally Hesiodic dactylic hexameter catalogue of places that produced and exported the commodity. Fr. 184 follows immediately after fr. 78, along with Nicostr. Com. fr. 5. Interpretation A two-part protasis, the second part more richly developed. Saltfish is not always treated as a particularly desirable commodity, at least in comparison to fresh fish, and LSJ s. v. notes that ὀσμή is used “freq(uently) of foul smells”. This overstates the case, at least in regard to comedy (3 n.). These may nonetheless be sneering rather than positive comments (“if anyone likes saltfish and enjoys the stench of (preserved) Byzantine tuna at banquets”), in which case what followed in the apodosis was perhaps “he is a fool” vel sim. 1 For τάριχος ἀντακαῖον, cf. frr. 27.22 n. (on τάριχος); 184.1; Sopat. fr. 11; Hdt. 4.53.3 with Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007 ad loc., and probably Lync. fr. 1.9 (ἀντακαῖος served with other appetizers, although not specifically said to be salt-

296

Antiphanes

ed). For the ἀντακαῖος, see Thompson 1947. 16–17. The adjective is not attested elsewhere. 2 Γαδειρικόν Gadeira (modern Cádiz) was an 8th-century BCE Phoenician colony located on the Spanish Atlantic coast just outside the Straits of Gibraltar (e. g. Pi. N. 4.69 Γαδείρων τὸ πρὸς ζόφον οὐ περατόν, “what lies to the west of Gadeira cannot be crossed”; fr. 256; Hdt. 4.8.2 Γηδείροισι τοῖσι ἔξω Ἡρακλέων στηλέων ἐπὶ τῷ Ὠκεανῷ, “Gêdeira located outside the Pillars of Herakles on the Ocean”; Pl. Crit. 114b). See in general Ramirez Delgado 1982, esp. 21–7 (literary evidence), 95–131 (archaeological evidence); Lomas Salmonte 1991. For Gadeira as a source of saltfish, cf. Eup. fr. 199 πότερ’ ἦν τὸ τάριχος Φρύγιον ἢ Γαδειρικόν; (“Was the saltfish Phrygian or Gadeiric?”); Nicostr. Com. fr. 5.1–2 Βυζάντιόν 〈τε〉 τέμαχος ἐπιβακχευσάτω, / Γαδειρικόν θ’ ὑπογάστριον παρεισίτω (“and let a slice of Byzantine fish burst in like a bacchant, and a belly-slice from Cadiz enter next to it!”); Hp. Int. 25.20 = 7.232.1 Littré, 30.20–1 = 7.244.25–246.1 Littré τάριχος Γαδειρικόν (“Gadeiric saltfish”); [Hes.] = Euthydem. SH 455.10–12 (referenced in Citation context); Theodorid. SH 744 θύννοι τε † δὴ οἴστρησοντι † Γαδείρων δρόμον (“and tuna † in fact [corrupt] † a Gadeiran course”); Poll. 6.48; Ponsich–Tarradell 1965; Ponsich 1988; Muñoz Vicente–de Frutos Reyes–Berriatua Hernández 1988. 488–90; Lomas Salmonte 1991. 87–9; Lagóstena Barrios 2001. 98–119 (with extensive references to archaeological evidence and modern secondary literature); Munn 2003, esp. 207–9 (on the saltfish trade between Spanish producers and the major trading and distribution center of Corinth, noting that the fish used appears to have been primarily sea-bream, gilthead bream and tuna). The adjective is of a typical late 5th-century sort; see fr. 268.2 n.; Chantraine 1956. 122–3 (an extensive collection of adjectives in -ικος in Herodotus referring to a place or a people). Βυζαντίας … θυννίδος Tuna are large, carnivorous fish of the mackerel family, which migrate from the Atlantic Ocean through the Mediterranean into the Black Sea, where they spent the summer and spawned (esp. Arist. HA 598a26–b7). Ancient names for tuna included not only θυννίς (also mentioned in comedy at fr. 179.1 θυννίδος Βυζαντίας; Epich. fr. 55.2; Cratin. fr. 171.49; Eup. fr. 159.2; Ar. fr. 430; Anaxandr. fr. 42.49; Mnesim. fr. 4.35; cf. Archestr. fr. 38.1–2 τὴν θυννίδα … / τὴν μεγάλην, ἧς μητρόπολις Βυζάντιόν ἐστιν, “the big thynnis, whose mother-city is Byzantium”) and θύννα (fr. 127.4 with n.), but also θύννος (e. g. frr. 130.5; 191.2; 221.6), ὄρκυς/ὄρκυνος (in comedy at Anaxandr. fr. 42.62155) and πηλαμύς (in comedy at Phryn. Com. fr. 36); see Strömberg 1943. 126–9. The θυννίς is distinguished from the θύννος at Arist. HA 543a12–13 by the observation that it has a πτερύγιον (“small fin” vel sim.) on its underbelly that the θύννος lacks. Epicharmus (fr. 91),

155

Millis 2015 ad loc. notes that the word seems out of place in a portion of Anaxandrides’ catalogue devoted to shellfish; perhaps the reference is actually to salted tuna (τάριχος), which makes better sense in the company of other appetizers.

Δευκαλίων (fr. 78)

297

Cratinus (fr. 171.49–50) and Speusippus (fr. 13 Tarán), all ap. Ath. 7.303d, allegedly distinguished between the two, as seemingly does Anaxandrides (fr. 42.49, 62). But precisely what species of tuna are in question, is impossible to say, and Ath. 7.303c οὓς ἔνιοι θύννους καλοῦσιν, Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ θυννίδας (“which some call thynnoi, but the Athenians call thynnides”) suggests that the distinction was not always apparent even in the ancient world, and raises the possibility that this may have been at least in part a question of dialect—or, in the case of the comic poets, of occasional metrical convenience. For tuna and how they were caught, cooked and consumed, see Keller 1909–1913 II.382–93; Thompson 1947. 79–90; Sparkes 1995; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 35.2; Pellegrino 2000. 247–9; García Soler 2001. 171–4; Davidson 2002. 125–9; Mylona 2003 (already being exploited and perhaps preserved in the Mesolithic period, although obviously on nothing like the scale of such operations in classical times); Lytle 2012. 24–36; Marzano 2016. 66–79. For saltfish from the Black Sea region, see also Cratin. fr. 44 (“Pontic”), and cf. Hermipp. fr. 63.5 (“from the Hellespont”). For Byzantium (IACP #674), see Byzantios Introduction. 3 εὐφροσύνη is poetic vocabulary (e. g. Od. 9.6; Sol. fr. 4.10; Pi. P. 4.129), but is not obviously used in the plural to mean “festivities”, i. e. “a party”, before the 5th century (Bacch. 11.12; E. Ba. 376–7 καλλιστεφάνοις εὐφροσύναις). The word is attested nowhere else in comedy and is largely absent from Attic prose-authors with the exception of Xenophon, who uses it freely (e. g. Oec. 9.12; Smp. 8.21; probably best read as evidence of the author’s insensitivity to stylistic level).156 ὀσμαῖσι χαίρει Despite the implication of LSJ s. v. (quoted above), in comedy at least ὀσμή seems to be an essentially neutral term (neither “fragrance” nor “stench”) whose specific sense must be clarified either by context or by the use of a modifier; e. g. frr. 159.10 (“stench”); 200.11 (“fragrance”); Hermipp. fr. 77.3 μήλων … ὀδμή (“the [sweet] smell of apples”), 9 ὀσμὴ θεσπεσία (“a divine fragrance”; of wine); Ar. V. 1035 = Pax 758 φώκης δ’ ὀσμήν (“the stench of a seal”); Pax 753 βυρσῶν ὀσμὰς δεινάς (“nasty stenches of hides”); Ec. 1124 (used without a modifier in commendation of wine, and thus clearly “fragrant”); Pl. Com. fr. 188.15 λύχνων γὰρ ὀσμὰς οὐ φιλοῦσι δαίμονες (“for divinities are not fond of the stench of lamps”); Anaxandr. fr. 42.36 σμύρνης ἐκ Συρίας ὀσμαί (“[fragrant] scents of Syrian myrrh”); Alex. fr. 224.3–4 οἴνου … / ὀσμήν (“the [delicious] smell of wine”). For associated vocabulary, see Poll. 2.74–6, who also observes (2.75–6) ἡ γὰρ ὀδμὴ καὶ εὐοδμία δοκεῖ μὲν τοῖς πολλοῖς εἶναι καλὰ τὰ ὀνόματα, ἔστι δὲ ποιητικά, ἐν δὲ τοῖς καταλογάδην Ἰωνικὰ καὶ Αἰολικά· παρὰ μόνῳ δ’ Ἀντιφῶντι ὀδμὰς καὶ εὐοδμίαν εὕροι τις ἄν (“odmê and euodmia seem to many people to be elevated words, and they are poetic, as well as in prose-authors who write in Ionic and Aeolic; but one

156

Hippocrates has the word twice (Lex 4.5 = 4.640.17 Littré; Morb.Sacr. 14.2 = 6.386.16 Littré), while Plato clearly knows it, but treats it as a normal vocabulary item only once (Tim. 80b; the subject of etymologizing word-play at Cra. 419d).

298

Antiphanes

would only find odmai and euodmia in Antiphon (sc. of Attic prose-authors)”). For the cultural history of the sense of smell, see in general Classen–Howes–Synnott 1994; Reinarz 2014; and the essays collected in Bradley 2015.

fr. 79 K.–A. (78 K.) σησαμίδας ἢ μελίπηκτον ἢ τοιοῦτό τι σησαμίδας Ath.A : σησαμίδες Kassel–Austin μελίπηκτα; (Β.) ναί, Meineke

μελίπηκτον ἢ Dindorf : μελίπηκτα ἢ Ath.A :

sesame-cakes or a honey-cake or something like that Ath. 14.646f σησαμίδες. ἐκ μέλιτος καὶ σησάμων πεφρυγμένων καὶ ἐλαίου σφαιροειδῆ πέμματα. Εὔπολις (fr. 176)· ——. Ἀντιφάνης Δευκαλίωνι· ——. μνημονεύει αὐτῶν καὶ Ἔφιππος ἐν Κύδωνι (fr. 13.3)· πρόκειται τὸ μαρτύριον (14.642e) sêsamides. Round pastries made of honey, roasted sesame seeds and olive oil. Eupolis in Kolakes (fr. 176): ——. Antiphanes in Deukaliôn: ——. Ephippos too mentions them in Kydôn (fr. 13.3); the passage was cited earlier (14.642e)

Meter Iambic trimeter.

lrkl rlk|l llkl

Discussion 175

Dindorf 1827 III.1438; Meineke 1839–1857 III.44; Mangidis 2003.

Text Kassel–Austin inexplicably print nominative σησαμίδες at the head of the line in place of Athenaeus’ accusative σησαμίδας (most easily understood as the object of some now lost verb). The hiatus between μελίπηκτα and ἢ2 in Ath.A will not do, although Meineke and Kock print the text as transmitted. Kassel–Austin add an obel between the words. But Dindorf ’s μελίπηκτον ἢ (the paradosis μελίπηκτα probably representing the influence of plural σησαμίδας at the head of the line) solves the problem so easily that there is no reason not to adopt it. Meineke’s more venturesome μελίπηκτα; (Β.) ναί, τοιοῦτό τι (“(A.) Sesame-cakes or honey-cakes? (B.) Yes, something like that”; cf. Theopomp. Com. fr. 33.8 ναί, τοιοῦτό τι*) is accordingly unnecessary. Citation context One of the individual entries in the catalogue of cakes—perhaps drawn more or less direct from Iatrocles’ περὶ Πλακούντων (On Cakes)—that extends from Ath. 14.644e–7c. Cf. Interpretation on σησαμίδας; EM p. 697.27–8 πυραμίς· ἡ ἐκ πυρῶν καὶ μέλιτος, ὥσπερ σησαμὶς ἡ ἐκ σησάμων καὶ μέλιτος (“pyramis: a cake made of wheat (pyros) and honey, just as a sêsamis is a cake made of sesame-seed and honey”).

Δευκαλίων (fr. 79)

299

Interpretation The casual close of the line (colloquial) suggests both that this is the end of the list and that the speaker’s point has more to do with the action in question than with its specific object. Cf. Demetr. Com. fr. 5 ἢ σῦκον ἢ φάσηλον ἢ τοιοῦτό τι (“either a fig or a bean or something like that”); Men. Dysc. 631 ὅλμον τιν’ ἢ λίθον τιν’ ἢ τοιοῦτό τι (“a mortar or a stone or something like that”); D. 45.21. σησαμίδας Mentioned elsewhere only in the other passages referenced in Athenaeus along with this fragment and in Stesich. PMG 179a.1 = fr. 3 Finglass, which is quoted at Ath. 4.172d–e as part of a discussion of the history of the word πέμματα that may come from the same source. Suda σ 341 attempts to distinguish between a σησαμοῦς (Ar. Ach. 1092; Th. 570 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.) and a σησαμῆ (Ar. Pax 869 with Olson 1998 ad loc.) by defining the former as “a type of πλακοῦς (cake)” and the latter as “what we call a σησαμίς”; cf. the abbreviated version of the note at Hsch. σ 529. That there is any actual difference between the two is unclear. For the cakes themselves, see Brumfield 1997. 154–5; García Soler 2001. 390. For sesame generally, see fr. 140.2 n.; Masson 1967a. 57–8 (on the word itself); Nayar–Mehra 1970; Bedigian–Harlan 1986; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 132.3; García Soler 2001. 359; Morelli 2004 (on sesame oil, with further bibliography); Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012. 112–13; Hawkins 2013. 145–9; Biles–Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 676; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 42.60. μελίπηκτον is < μέλι (“honey”) + a form of πήγνυμι, and is thus literally “a cake held together by honey”; mentioned also at fr. 138.4; Men. fr. 409.16; Philox. Leuc. PMG 836e.17, in contexts that suggest that it often served as a symposium snack (τράγημα), as Athenaeus says explicitly at 14.649a in reference to Clearch. fr. 87 Wehrli. See also frr. 224.3; 273.1 n., 2 n. (specifically on honey, with further cross-references); García Soler 2001. 387. τοιοῦτό τι is * in all the passages cited above and in Text, as well as at Men. Epitr. 881.

300

Δηλία (Dêlia)

“The Girl from Delos” The only evidence for the existence of this play is fr. dub. 323 (n.) ap. Ath. 9.373a, where the manuscripts report that “Aristophanes in Dêlia” referred to minced vegetables as κνιστὰ ἢ στέμφυλα. Because Aristophanes is not known to have written a Dêlia, Valckenaer and Dindorf suggested that the poet’s name might be emended to “Antiphanes”. For the title, cf. especially Βοιωτία, Δωδωνίς, Ἐφεσία and Κορινθία.

301

Δίδυμοι (Didymoi) “Twin Brothers”

Introduction Title and Content Perhaps a comedy of mistaken identities, like e. g. Plautus’ Amphitryo, Bacchides and Menaechmi, and most likely Antiphanes’ Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Διπλάσιοι, Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι and Ὁμώνυμοι. Aristophon and Xenarchus also wrote comedies entitled Δίδυμοι, while the Roman poets Decimus Laberius (mid-1st century BCE) and Q. Novius (late 1st century BCE) wrote a mime entitled Gemelli and an Atellan farce entitled Gemini (two different ways of expressing “Twin Brothers”), respectively. See also Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι Introduction, and note in addition Plautus’ lost Trigemini (“Triplets”) and Lenones Gemini (“Twin Pimps”). Five fragments is a strikingly large number to be cited from a single comedy by Antiphanes, raising the possibility that lines from two or more plays once distinguished by alternate titles (like Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι), perhaps also including one or more Δίδυμαι, are collected here. Cf. fr. 81 n. (from what was actually a revised version of the same play by Xenarchus? or a homonymous comedy by some other poet?). Date

Seemingly from the late 330s or early 320s BCE; see fr. 81 n.

Fragments fr. 80 K.–A. (80 K.)

5

10

ὁ γὰρ παράσιτός ἐστιν, ἂν ὀρθῶς σκοπῇς, κοινωνὸς ἀμφοῖν, τῆς τύχης καὶ τοῦ βίου. οὐδεὶς παράσιτος εὔχετ’ ἀτυχεῖν τοὺς φίλους, τοὐναντίον δὲ πάντας εὐτυχεῖν ἀεί. ἐστὶν πολυτελὴς τῷ βίῳ τις· οὐ φθονεῖ, μετέχειν δὲ τούτων εὔχετ’ αὐτῷ συμπαρών. κἀστὶν φίλος γενναῖος ἀσφαλής θ’ ἅμα, οὐ μάχιμος, οὐ πάροξυς, οὐχὶ βάσκανος, ὀργὴν ἐνεγκεῖν ἀγαθός· ἂν σκώπτῃς, γελᾷ· ἐρωτικός, γελοῖος, ἱλαρὸς τῷ τρόπῳ· πάλιν στρατιώτης ἀγαθὸς εἰς ὑπερβολήν, ἂν ᾖ τὸ σιτάρχημα δεῖπνον εὐτρεπές

1 ὁ γὰρ Wakefield : ὅρα γὰρ Ath.ACE : ὅρα· Grotius : ὁρᾷς; Clinton 3 παράσιτος Ath.ACE : γὰρ ἄσιτος Meineke  : γὰρ αὐτῶν vel γὰρ ἡμῶν Kock 9 γελᾷ Ath.ACE  : γελᾶν

302

Antiphanes

Herwerden Bothe

5

10

12 σιτάρχημα Ath.ACE : σιτάρκημα Cobet

δεῖπνον Ath.ACE : δεῖπνων

But the parasite, if you consider the matter correctly, shares both things, our luck and our lifestyle. No parasite prays for his friends to be unlucky, but quite the opposite, that they’re all eternally prosperous. Suppose someone leads an extravagant life; the parasite’s not jealous, he just prays to be there with him and share what he’s got. A parasite’s also a simultaneously good and reliable friend; he’s not quarrelsome or prickly or malicious; he’s good at dealing with your anger; if you tell a joke, he laughs; he’s inclined to love, good humor and cheer; on top of that, he’s an extremely fine soldier— provided his rations consist of an attractive dinner

Ath. 6.237f–8b καὶ Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν Διδύμοις φησίν· —— Antiphanes as well says in Didymoi: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

10

klkr k|lk|l llkl llkl l|lkl llkl llkr k|lk|r llkl llkl k|lk|l klkl llkr l|lkl klkl rlkl l|lk|l llkl llkl llk|l klkl lrkl klk|l klkl llkl l|rk|l llkl klkl klk|r llkl klrl l|rk|l klkl llkl llk|l klkl

Discussion Grotius 1626. 976; Wakefield 1792. 78; Clinton 1832. 571 n. 33; Bothe 1855. 365; Cobet 1858. 129; Meineke 1867. 103; Herwerden 1876. 304; Kock 1884 II.44; Scott 1928a. 151–2; Scott 1928b. 233–4; Nesselrath 1990. 311; Konstantakos 2000b. 189–91 Text In 1, the paradosis is unmetrical, and it is easier to see how Wakefield’s ὁ γὰρ might have been corrupted into Ath.A’s ὅρα γὰρ than why γὰρ would have

Δίδυμοι (fr. 80)

303

been added to the text (Grotius). Clinton’s ὁρᾷς; (“Do you see?”; cf. S. El. 628157) might be justified on the theory that a badly written ς was mistaken for a ligature for γάρ, but is awkward with ἂν ὀρθῶς σκοπῇς at the end of the line. In 3, Meineke’s γὰρ ἄσιτος (i. e. ΓΑΡ-) for the asyndetic paradosis παράσιτος (i. e. ΠΑΡ-) provides an explicit logical connection with 1–2, but is unnecessary. Kock’s γὰρ αὐτῶν or γὰρ ἡμῶν is too far from the manuscript reading to deserve consideration. In 9, Herwerden’s ὀργὴν ἐνεγκεῖν ἀγαθός, ἂν σκώπτῃς, γελᾶν (“and is good at dealing with your anger, (and) if you make fun of him, at laughing”) is no easier than the paradosis and thus no improvement on it. 11–12 seem out of place in the argument, since the speaker has carefully avoided mentioning the parasite’s true motivation and has made no fun of him. These lines might thus alternatively be assigned to a second character, who interrupts the speech with a mocking, cynical side-remark. See Interpretation. The paradosis σιτάρχημα in 12 is a hapax. But σιταρχέω, from which it is derived, is attested in a number of Roman-era sources as meaning “serve as provision-master” (< σῖτος, “grain > bread > food and fodder” (see in general Janse 2019. 188–90) + -αρχεω (routinely used to create verbs from the names of offices, here seemingly the otherwise unattested σίταρχος)), i. e. “provision (an army)”; see LSJ s. v., which goes a step too far in glossing the verb “pay an army”. σιταρκέω (whence Cobet’s unattested σιτάρκημα), by contrast, is attested only at Eust. p. 626.55 = II.250.20–1, where it is glossed σῖτον ἐπαρκεῖν (“to furnish food”). This may be a mistake for σιταρχέω but in any case offers no substantial rationale for emending the text of Antiphanes. Citation context From a long discussion (Ath. 6.234c–40c) of the history of parasites and toadies (κόλακες) seemingly drawn at least in part from Polemon of Ilium (cited at Ath. 6.234d), which preserves numerous fragments of comic poets including Epich. frr. 31–2; Diph. fr. 61; Eup. fr. 172; Arar. fr. 16; Alex. fr. 121; Timocl. fr. 8, in that order, before this, and Aristopho frr. 5; 10; Antiph. fr. 193; Diph. fr. 62; Eub. fr. 72; Diod. Sin. fr. 2; Axionic. fr. 6, in that order, after this. Interpretation An explanation or justification of some previous assertion (hence γάρ in 1) that must have touched on “life and luck” (hence the vague reference to these as ἀμφοῖν in the first half of 2), i. e. on how the luck one has affects the way one lives, as well as the parasite’s relationship to all of this. The speaker never claims to be a parasite himself, but is in any case eager to argue in their favor. The second-person singulars in 2 and 9 suggest an onstage addressee (a host or potential host?), who nonetheless fails to get a word in, at least as the text is preserved for us, and thus either is being harangued or is caught in the middle of a dispute between two other people. Alternatively, this might be a soliloquy, as the speaker 157

Contrast colloquial parenthetic ὁρᾷς/ὁρᾶτε (Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 490; Millis 2015 on Anaxandr. fr. 18.4).

304

Antiphanes

talks his way through a complicated question with an imaginary interlocutor ~ the world at large. But the end of 1 sounds argumentative, and the case made in what follows seems to respond to contrary claims that parasites have no interest in the welfare of their patrons (esp. 3), are jealous of their prosperity and success (5), and are generally of no use (7–11). Just as 1 is patently not the beginning of the speech, nothing obviously suggests that 12 is the end, except for the final witty comment at the parasite’s expense (better taken as suggesting that 11–12 are a mocking interjection by another party?). After the introductory 1–2, 3–4 are concerned with how a parasite shares his patron’s τύχη, 5–6 with how he shares his βίος. 7–12 make the slightly different case that there are also strong positive reasons to have a parasite around: he is a good friend (stated in both positive and negative fashion in 7–8) and good company, inter alia because of his fundamental orientation toward hedonism and hilarity (9–10). He is also an extremely good soldier (11–12; an aggressively phrased claim, but also seemingly a less serious one, given the immediate deflation of it in the second verse). The transitions at 2–3 and 4–5 are awkward, which may be a mark of weak writing, but might alternatively suggest the existence of a gap or gaps in the text (e. g. where additional, parallel examples were cut out by an editor; perhaps also between 6 and 7). For parasites, see Parasitos Introduction. 1 ἂν ὀρθῶς σκοπῇς i. e. “if you look at it my way”; cf. the similar use of ἐὰν/ ἂν σκοπῇς at Philem. frr. 31.5; 104.2; 122.1; Men. frr. 451.2; 761.4. The adverb is first attested in the 5th century (e. g. A. Th. 405; Hdt. 1.51.3; Ar. Eq. 1027; E. Hipp. 94; Th. 1.70.9). 2 κοινωνός + genitive is first attested in the 5th century (e. g. A. Supp. 344 πραγμάτων κοινωνός; E. Med. 1361 κακῶν κοινωνός; Th. 8.46.3 κοινωνοὺς … τῆς ἀρχῆς; elsewhere in comedy only at Men. Epitr. 920 κοινωνὸς … τοῦ βίου, although note Philemon’s Koinônoi). For βίος in this sense, cf. 5; frr. 142.7; 225.6. 3–4 For the structure, cf. Stratt. fr. 60 οἶνον γὰρ πιεῖν / οὐδ’ ἂν εἷς δέξαιτο θερμόν, ἀλλὰ πολὺ τοὐναντίον / ψυχόμενον ἐν τῷ φρέατι 〈καὶ〉 χιόνι μεμιγμένον. ἀτυχεῖν and εὐτυχεῖν both pick up 2 τῆς τύχης. But εὐτυχέω is not just “be fortunate” but also by extension “be rich”, setting up 5–6. ἀτυχέω is late 5th-century vocabulary, first attested at Eup. fr. 125; Ar. Nu. 427; Hdt. 9.111.1; Hp. Loc.Hom. 46.16, 18 = 6.342.19, 21 Littré, and absent from tragedy and lyric poetry. εὐτυχέω is both attested earlier (first at Semon. fr. 7.83) and much more widely distributed (in tragedy at e. g. A. Th. 625; S. Ai. 1011; E. Andr. 888; in lyric at Pi. O. 7.81). 5 πολυτελὴς τῷ βίῳ Literally “is extravagant in his life/lifestyle” (LSJ s. v. πολυτελής II; cf. 2 with n.), i. e. “spends extraordinary amounts of money on himself ”; cf. Diph. fr. 31.10 ζῇ πολυτελῶς (“he lives extravagantly”). πολυτελής is late 5th-c. prosaic vocabulary, first attested at Eup. fr. 365 (adverb) and in Herodotus

Δίδυμοι (fr. 80)

305

(e. g. 4.79.2) and Thucydides (e. g. 6.31.1); absent from elevated poetry, but found in comedy also at e. g. fr. 204.1 πολυτελῶς; Anaxandr. fr. 31.1; Ephipp. fr. 15.10. οὐ φθονεῖ To feel φθόνος is not just to resent the fact that another person has something or is doing something he should not (sc. because he “doesn’t deserve it”), but also to be unwilling to allow him something he can reasonably be said to have a right to; cf. Cairns 2003; Konstan 2006. 111–28, esp. 118–23, noting (p. 121) that “It was never a compliment to characterize someone as phthoneros”; Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 341.2; Sanders 2014. 6 συμπάρειμι (< εἰμί, sum) is late 5th/4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Hp. VM 17.9 = 1.612.15 Littré; And. 1.12; Th. 4.83.3; X. Oec. 11.24; D. 24.158); attested elsewhere in comedy at Timocl. fr. 8.7; Men. Sam. 42, 162, 472. 7 γενναῖος ἀσφαλής θ’ ἅμα i. e. his γενναιότης (the specific nature of which is spelled out in 8) is unshakable (a point expanded on in 9). γενναῖος is properly “well-born, noble” and by extension, in reference to character, conduct or the like, “good” (e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 71; cf. Dover 1974. 95 “an extremely general term”). In comedy, it most often means ~ “generous” (e. g. Ar. Nu. 532; Th. 220; Ra. 615; Ec. 1144; Heraclid. Com. fr. 1.5; Men. Dysc. 806) or “brave” (e. g. Ar. Eq. 577; Ra. 1019). Here the sense is clarified by the various more specific characterizations in 8–10. 8 μάχιμος (generally “warlike”) is here “belligerent, looking for a fight”, as at Ar. Av. 1368 μάχιμος εἶ (to a young man who wants to beat his father); Ra. 281 μάχιμον ὄντα (Dionysus vain-gloriously describing himself); S. fr. 658.1. οὐ πάροξυς i. e. he does not become angry (LSJ s. v. ὀξύς III.1) at the wrong time (LSJ s. v. παρά G.IV.1), “he doesn’t take things the wrong way”. The adjective is attested in the classical period only here and at Hp. Fract. 31bis.19 = 3.530.4 Littré (in a different sense) and is probably colloquial; cf. Stob. 3.1.194.120–1, where one of the marks of irascibility (ὀργιλότητος) is said to be τὸ πάροξυ τοῦ ἤθους καὶ εὐμετάβολον (“a prickly and unstable temperament”). βάσκανος and cognates properly refer to an object or person associated with witchcraft or sorcery (e. g. Ar. fr. 607.2; E. fr. 379a; Pl. Phdr. 95b). But the adjective is also used, as here, as an abusive term for someone annoying, loathsome or treacherous (e. g. fr. 157.4; Pherecr. fr. 189; Ar. Eq. 103; Pl. 571; Men. Pk. 529; D. 18.119, 242). The etymology is unknown, but the word is restricted in the classical period to comedy, prose and satyr play, and appears to be an Attic colloquialism. 9 ὀργὴν ἐνεγκεῖν ἀγαθός momentarily exposes the dark side of the seemingly positive description in 8: a parasite never expresses anger because he will put up with any sort of treatment, sc. so long as he is fed. Cf. Axionic. fr. 6.9–11; Diph. fr. 75.1 ὀργίζεται; παράσιτος ὢν ὀργίζεται; (“He’s angry? He’s a parasite—and he’s angry?”). For ὀργὴν φέρω in the sense “put up with someone’s displays of bad temper”, cf. Thgn. 97–8 ἀλλ’ εἴη τοιοῦτος ἐμοὶ φίλος, ὃς τὸν ἑταῖρον / γινώσκων ὀργὴν καὶ βαρὺν ὄντα φέρει (“Might I have the sort of friend who knows his companion and puts up with his temper even when it is harsh!”); E. Med. 870 τὰς δ’ ἐμὰς ὀργὰς φέρειν (“to put up with my temper-tantrums”; Medea duping Jason);

306

Antiphanes

[Men.] Sent. 604 ὀργὴν ἑταίρου καὶ φίλου πειρῶ φέρειν (“Try to put up with the temper of a companion and friend!”). Without a direct object, as in fr. 142.9 (n.), σκώπτω simply means “tell a joke, be funny” (e. g. Ar. Eq. 525; Nu. 296; V. 567, 1320; Pax 173; Ra. 392; Men. Dysc. 54). 10 ἐρωτικός is prosaic late 5th/4th-century Attic vocabulary (e. g. Th. 6.54.1; X. Smp. 4.62; Pl. Smp. 216d; Aeschin. 1.136); absent from elevated poetry, but attested elsewhere in comedy at Epicr. fr. 4.1; Men. Mis. 3; Sam. 166. For adjectives in -ικος as typical of this period, fr. 268.2 n. For a willingness to get involved in love affairs—i. e. to support his patron in the latter’s amatory adventures—as characteristic of a parasite, cf. Aristopho fr. 5.5–7; Timocl. fr. 8.6 ἐρᾷς, συνεραστὴς ἀπροφάσιστος γίγνεται (“If you’re in love, he’s the most unrestrained fellow-lover possible”). γελοῖος means “inspiring laughter”, but is generally used in the sense “laughable, ludicrous” (e. g. fr. 57.4 with n.) rather than “full of jokes”, as here and at E. fr. 492.3–4 γελοίους, οἵτινες … / ἀχάλιν’ ἔχουσι στόματα (“jokers, whose mouths run out of control”). For generating laughter as one of a parasite’s basic duties, cf. Epich. fr. 32.3–4 χαρίεις τ’ εἰμὶ καὶ ποιέω πολὺν / γέλωτα (“I’m on my best behavior, and I generate a lot of laughs”; a parasite describes his modus operandi); Eup. fr. 172.12–13 δεῖ χαρίεντα πολλὰ / τὸν κόλακ’ εὐθέως λέγειν, ἢ ’κφέρεται θύραζε (“A toady has to make lots of clever remarks immediately, or he’s kicked out”). For γελοῖος as the polar opposite of σπουδαῖος (“serious”), cf. (in addition to the passages cited at LSJ s. v. I) Ar. Ra. 389–90 πολλὰ μὲν γελοῖά μ’ εἰπεῖν, πολλὰ δὲ σπουδαῖα (“that I say many things that are funny, and many that are serious”); Isoc. 1.31; Arist. EN 1177a3–4. For ἱλαρός defined by contrasting terms, cf. Ephipp. fr. 6.6–7 ἐποίησέ θ’ ἱλαρὸν εὐθέως τ’ ἀφεῖλε πᾶν / αὐτοῦ τὸ λυποῦν (“she makes him cheerful and immediately banishes everything that’s causing him grief ”); Alex. fr. 280.4 ὁ μὲν δάκνει γάρ, ὁ δ’ ἱλαροὺς ἡμᾶς ποεῖ (“the former causes us grief, the latter makes us cheerful”); X. Mem. 2.7.12 ἱλαραὶ δὲ ἀντὶ σκυθρωπῶν ἦσαν (“they were cheerful rather than scowling”); Arist. Phgn. 808b16–17 οἱ ἀνιώμενοι σκυθρωπότεροί εἰσι καὶ οἱ εὐφραινόμενοι ἱλαροί (“people who are distressed are more inclined to scowl, while those who are enjoying themselves are cheerful”). For the use of τῷ τρόπῳ, cf. Men. fr. 831 ὡς ἡδὺ πρᾷος καὶ νεάζων τῷ τρόπῳ / πατήρ (“How sweet, mild and youthful in his manner father is!”); X. Cyr. 8.3.21 Δαϊφέρνης δέ τις ἦν σολοικότερος ἄνθρωπος τῷ τρόπῳ (“a certain Daïphernês was a rather boorish person in his manner”). 11 For πάλιν used to indicate a contrast with the preceding point (not well documented or explained in LSJ s. v.), e. g. fr. 189.8; Ar. Pl. 247–8 χαίρω τε γὰρ φειδόμενος ὡς οὐδεὶς ἀνὴρ / πάλιν τ’ ἀναλῶν (“because I like both saving money like no one else and, on the other hand, spending it”); Crobyl. fr. 4.1–2; Alex. fr. 146.5 καὶ πάλιν ἐὰν μὲν “τευτλίον” (“And on the other hand, if (he says) ‘teutlion’”), and perhaps fr. 49.6 (obscure). For στρατιώτης, fr. 136.1 n.

Δίδυμοι (fr. 81)

307

For εἰς ὑπερβολήν used adverbially (here modifying ἀγαθός), e. g. Anaxipp. fr. 1.39–40 ἀδηφάγον τὸ ζῷον εἰς ὑπερβολήν / ἔστιν (“The creature is enormously gluttonous”); E. fr. 494.28; Aeschin. 2.24; Arist. Pol. 1323b3. 12 τὸ σιτάρχημα See Text. εὐτρεπής is normally used of persons (e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 35.2 with Millis 2015 ad loc.), but cf. Pherecr. fr. 113.10–11 τεμάχη … / … εὐπρεπῆ (“attractive steaks”).

fr. 81 K.–A. (81 K.)

5

τὸ ποτήριόν μοι τὸ μέγα προσφέρει λαβών· ἐπεχεάμην ἄκρατον. “ἔγχει, παιδίον, κυάθους θεῶν τε καὶ θεαινῶν μυρίους· ἔπειτ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσι τῆς σεμνῆς θεᾶς καὶ τοῦ γλυκυτάτου βασιλέως διμοιρίαν”

1 προσφέρει λαβών Ath.A  : πρόσφερ ἐκλαβών Meineke  : προσφερέτω λαβών Kock ἔγχει, 2 ἐπεχεάμην Ath.A : ὑπεχεάμην Meineke : ἐνεχεάμην Kock : fort. ἐπεχεάμην 〈δ 〉 παιδίον Meineke : οὐχὶ παιδίον Ath.A : οὐχὶ παιδίου Koppiers : οὐχὶ παιδίων Jacobs : οὐχὶ παιδικὸν Dobree : οὐχὶ παιδιᾷ Kock 4 ἔπειτ’ Koppiers : εἶτ’ Ath.A

5

He gets the big cup and hands it to me; I added some unmixed wine for myself. “Pour countless ladlesful into (our cups) in honor of the gods and goddesses, slave! Then, after all of those, (pour us a drink) that’s twice as large in honor of the sacred goddess and our beloved king!”

Ath. 10.423c ἀλλ’ ἀκρατέστερόν μοι, ὦ παῖ, τῷ κυάθῳ πληρῶν ἔγχει εἰς τὴν κύλικα, μὴ κατὰ τὸν κωμῳδιοποιὸν Ἀντιφάνην, ὃς ἐν Διδύμοις φησί· —— But fill your ladle with unmixed wine, slave, and pour it into my cup! Don’t imitate the comic poet Antiphanes, who says in his Didymoi: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

rlkl krkl rlkl klrl llkr

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

Discussion Koppiers 1771. 37; Jacobs 1809. 230; Dobree 1833. 326; Meineke 1847. 511; Meineke 1867. 192; Kock 1884 II.44–5; Bethe 1902. 381; Wilhelm 1906.

308

Antiphanes

57–8; Scott 1928a. 151–2; Scott 1928b. 233–4; Nesselrath 1990. 311; Di Marzio 1999. 175–9; Konstantakos 2000b. 190–1 Text Athenaeus’ present tense προσφέρει in 1 is odd with aorist ἐπεχεάμην in 2. Meineke accordingly conjectured πρόσφερ ἐκλαβών (“Get the big cup out and hand it to me!”),158 while Kock proposed προσφερέτω λαβών (“Let (someone) get the big cup and hand it to me!”), in both cases transforming the line into a quotation of a speech that continues with 2 ἔγχει, παιδίον κτλ, as the text is printed here, although neither Meineke nor Kock understood 2–5 this way (below). The compound ἐκλαβών (i. e. “out of the κυλικεῖον”?) is a bit of metri gratia desperation. Kock’s suggestion is better and allows the slave hailed indirectly and anonymously in 1 to be addressed in the second person in 2 (once again, as the text of the line is printed here), once he is, as the narrative would have it, standing next to the speaker. There is nonetheless no compelling reason to emend, since προσφέρει can simply be understood as a vivid, “historical” present (see Interpretation). The paradosis ἐπεχεάμην (literally “I poured over”, i. e. “I added to (what was already there)”) in 2 appears to be sound; see Interpretation. Meineke proposed a form of ὑποχέω, but this is the verb for ladling wine into a mixing-bowl as the “lower” layer of liquid, over which water will then be poured (Sophil. fr. 5.3; Alex. fr. 116.1 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.; Diph. frr. 5.1; 107.2; Men. fr. 2.1). For Kock’s ἐνεχεάμην, see Interpretation on 2 ἔγχει. The lack of a particle is odd, and ἐπεχεάμην 〈δ 〉 ἄκρατον would have no metrical implications, while the loss of majuscule Δ could easily be explained as an example of haplography, given the Α that comes immediately after it. It might nonetheless alternatively be the case that something has been lost between 1 and 2–5. In the second half of 2, the paradosis οὐχὶ παιδίον (“not a child”) makes no sense, and one word or the other must be emended. παιδίον seems the obvious target for correction, and Koppiers’ οὐχὶ παιδίου, Jacobs’ οὐχὶ παιδίων and Dobree’s οὐχὶ παιδικὸν all yield something ~ “no child’s portion” (in reference to the wine), while Kock’s οὐχὶ παιδιᾷ means “not as a jest”, i. e. “earnestly” and thus by extension “in substantial quantities”. If that is right, 3–5 appear to say that the speaker then ladled enormous additional quantities of wine into his cup (perhaps with the act of drinking between each new cupful left unmentioned). The most substantial problem with this interpretation of the text is that the ladling ought to be done by the slave whose presence in the narrative seems guaranteed by 1. Meineke’s ἔγχει, παιδίον (printed by Kassel–Austin and adopted here), by contrast, transforms everything that follows into an order. If this is right, intonation must have been used to help the audience in the Theater understand that ἔγχει, παιδίον κτλ was a quotation of the speaker’s own words; this might have been easier if 1 was 158

Meineke also suggested προσφόρει λαβών. But προσφορέω is attested nowhere in comedy; the change does not improve the text; and the conjecture would better have been excluded from Kassel–Austin’s apparatus.

Δίδυμοι (fr. 81)

309

preceded by a similar command, or if that verse itself was a command (see above) and ἐπεχεάμην ἄκρατον was a parenthetic interjection in an account of a series of orders issued to the slave and their consequences. In 4, the paradosis is missing one anceps syllable at the beginning of the line. Koppiers’ ἔπειτ’ for Ath.A’s εἶτ’ is an obvious, easy fix. Citation context A remark by Ulpian that serves to introduce a discussion of wine-mixing and -pouring and the associated equipment. Frr. 147; 137; Ephipp. fr. 10, in that order, are preserved just after this. Interpretation Like fr. 82 (also from Athenaeus), part of a retrospective account of a symposium attended by the speaker (who in fr. 82 is certainly a man). Cf. in general Alex. fr. 116.1–5 παῖ, τὴν μεγάλην δός, ὑποχέας / φιλίας κυάθους † τῶν † παρόντων τέτταρας, / τοὺς τρεῖς δ’ Ἔρωτος προσαποδώσεις ὕστερον· / 〈ἕν’〉 Ἀντιγόνου τοῦ βασιλέως νίκης καλῶς, / καὶ τοῦ νεανίσκου κύαθον Δημητρίου (“Slave! Give me the big cup, after you pour in(to the mixing bowl) four ladlesful of friendship in honor of † those † present! You can add the three in honor of Love later: one, appropriately, in honor of King Antigonus’ victory, and a ladle in honor of the young Demetrius”). Regardless of when Antiphanes’ career is taken to have begun (cf. test. 1 with n.), the “beloved king” mentioned in 5 can scarcely be anyone other than Alexander “the Great”, putting the play in the late 330s or early 320s BCE (thus Meineke) and thus at the very end of the poet’s life. The alternative is to give Didymoi (or at least one play by that title) either to the almost entirely obscure Antiphanes II (see Konstantakos 2000b. 192–4) or Xenarchus (reworking Antiphanes) and assume that the king in question is e. g. Demetrius Poliorcetes (thus Wilhelm). The speaker is not only (1) drinking out of “the big cup” (having perhaps called for it in the immediately preceding verses, just as he issues orders for the handling of the wine in 2–5) but (2) consuming his wine stronger than usual, by adding ἄκρατος to increase the proportion of wine to water, and (2–5) calling for many more cupfuls to come. Perhaps the party ended badly for him. 1 For ποτήριον (a generic term, hence the specification τὸ μέγα), fr. 57.14 n. Assuming that προσφέρει λαβών is what Antiphanes wrote (see Text), this must be a “vivid” historical present; the subject is most easily taken to be the slave addressed in 2. For προσφέρω (“offer, serve”) in similar contexts, e. g. fr. 138.4 (a cake); Ar. V. 610 (a cake); fr. 174.3 (a cup); Aristopho fr. 13.4 (a cup). 2 ἐπιχέω means to pour one thing on top of another (e. g. Magnes fr. 2.2 (honey on top of cakes); Stratt. fr. 47.2 (perfume on top of bean-soup); Ar. Pax 252 (honey on top of a cake); Alex. fr. 191.8 (white wine on top of a fish, as part of a recipe); Sotad. Com. fr. 1.31 (water on top of a minnow, as part of a recipe); Euphro fr. 10.9 (olive oil on top of a turnip, as part of a recipe)), whereas ἐγχέω is to pour liquid into a vessel, as in ἔγχει in the second half of the line and at e. g. frr. 57.16 (n.); 138.1; Crates fr. 16.7; Pherecr. frr. 45.2; 76.2–3; Ar. Ach. 1068, 1229; Eq. 118; V. 617; Pax 1102; Nicostr. Com. frr. 3; 19.1; Xenarch. fr. 10.1; Alex. frr.

310

Antiphanes

228.1; 234.1; Diph. fr. 57.1. Kock proposed ἐνεχεάμην ἄκρατον, “I poured unmixed wine into (the cup) for myself ”, for Athenaeus’ ἐπεχεάμην ἄκρατον.159 But what the speaker seems to be saying is that he added unmixed wine to what was already in his cup, making his drink stronger; cf. Ar. Lys. 197 ὀμόσωμεν εἰς τὴν κύλικα μὴ ’πιχεῖν ὕδωρ, where Lysistrata proposes swearing that the women will not add water to a cup of wine. Diminutive παιδίον is used in place of an equivalent form of παῖς also at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 132.1; Ar. Nu. 132; Ra. 37; Men. Dysc. 459, 463, 498; Epitr. 1076. Cf. παιδάριον at e. g. Xenarch. fr. 10.1, 3; Men. Asp. 222; Epitr. 473 τὸ παιδάριον … ἁκόλουθος; Mis. 989. For the history of the form (properly παιδ-ίον rather than παι-δίον), see Petersen 1910. 203–4, 207. 3 A κύαθος is a ladle, typically made of bronze and used in a symposium context to dip wine out of the mixing bowl and pour it into cups (e. g. Crates Com. fr. 16.7; Crobyl. fr. 5.4; Epigen. fr. 5.3 (in a catalogue of symposium equipment); Alex. fr. 116.2 (quoted above); Men. fr. 2.2; Diod. Com. fr. 1.1; Macho 109, 278; Anacr. PMG 356a.5); cf. fr. 113.3 κυαθίζειν; Plaut. Pers. 772a; and see Sparkes 1975. 135 and pl. XVIIf. For a luxury example of a ladle made of silver with the word itself inscribed, see Crosby 1943. θεῶν τε καὶ θεαινῶν is properly “belonging to the gods and goddesses”, because dedicated to them; cf. frr. 3.2 n.; 172.2, as well as the additional genitives in 4–5. The generic combination “gods and goddesses” is formulaic ritual language seemingly restricted to prayers, oaths, invocations, offerings of various sorts and the like; cf. fr. 204.2–3 λιβανωτὸν ὀβολοῦ τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ ταῖς θεαῖς / πάσαισι (“incense costing an obol for the gods and all the goddesses”) with n.; Men. Sam. 399–400 τουτὶ τὸ πρόβατον τοῖς θεοῖς μὲν τὰ νόμιμα / ἅπαντα ποιήσει τυθὲν καὶ ταῖς θεαῖς (“You’re to sacrifice this sheep to the gods and goddesses, following all the proper rituals”); A. Th. 87–8 ἰὼ ἰὼ θεοὶ θεαί τ’ ὀρόμενον / κακὸν ἀλεύσατε (“O, O, gods and goddesses, save us from the on-rushing evil!”), 93–4 τίς ἄρα ῥύσεται, τίς ἄρ’ ἐπαρκέσει / θεῶν ἢ θεᾶν; (“Who of the gods or goddesses will rescue us, who will save us?”); X. An. 6.6.17 ἐγώ, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὄμνυμι θεοὺς καὶ θεάς (“I swear, gentlemen, by the gods and goddesses”); Pl. Smp. 219c εὖ γὰρ ἴστε μὰ θεούς, μὰ θεάς (“For you’re well aware, by the gods, by the goddesses”); Ti. 27c ἀνάγκη θεούς τε καὶ θεὰς ἐπικαλουμένους εὔχεσθαι (“It is necessary to call on the gods and goddesses when we pray”); D. 19.67 μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ τὰς θεάς (“by the gods

159

A small amount of unmixed wine (ἄκρατος οἶνος) was typically consumed immediately after a meal, before the symposium proper began, in honor of the Ἀγαθος Δαίμων who had discovered it, i. e. Dionysus (cf. fr. 135 with n.). But consumption of straight wine was otherwise generally avoided, so that this would be relatively wild behavior. For drinking unmixed wine in comedy, cf. Theophil. fr. 8.5–6 (Β.) ἐπέπιες δὲ πόσον; (Α.) ἀκράτου δώδεκα / κοτύλας (“(B.) How large a toast did you drink? (A.) Twelve cups of unmixed wine”); Men. Sam. 394 with Sommerstein 2013 ad loc.

Δίδυμοι (fr. 81)

311

and the goddesses”); 54.41 ὀμνύω τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ τὰς θεὰς ἅπαντας καὶ πάσας (“I swear by the gods and the goddesses, all and every”). θέαινα is epic vocabulary (to the passages cited in LSJ s.v., add Il. 8.20; 19.101; hAp. 311; picked up later at IG VII 113.6 (dactylic hexameter;160 undated), Call. h. 3.29 and Luc. JTr 14 κέκλυτέ μευ πάντες τε θεοὶ πᾶσαί τε θέαιναι, where Zeus himself is speaking) and thus adds a bit of additional elevation to the speaker’s words. μυρίοι is properly “tens of thousands”, but the colloquial sense “countless”161 is already well established in Homer (e. g. Il. 2.468; Od. 10.120; elsewhere in comedy at e. g. fr. 55.10; Ar. Nu. 685; Th. 927; Ec. 576; Amphis fr. 30.1; Philem. fr. 31.2). 4–5 seem to represent the climax of the catalogue, with the king in 5 (whoever he may be) allotted even more attention than the similarly anonymous goddess in 4, and with “a double share” at the end of the second verse serving as something like a final punch-line. 4 σεμνός can be used of a wide variety of deities, in comedy generally in elevated or mock-elevated passages such as this one; cf. Ar. Nu. 265 (the Clouds), 570 (Aither); Pax 974 (Peace); Th. 117 (Artemis; in Agathon’s song); Pl. 772 σεμνῆς Παλλάδος. For the adjective, see also fr. 101.5 n.; Austin–Olson 2004 on Ar. Th. 117–19. Who the σεμνῆς θεᾶς referenced here is, is impossible to say, although in an Athenian comedy and with no further specification the most obvious possibility is Athena (thus Casaubon). Dalechamp (followed by Scott) took her to be Demeter on no very substantial ground. 5 γλυκύτατος is not normally used to describe persons in their absence. As a form of address, however, it appears to function as a straightforward term of affection, sympathy or the like, admittedly sometimes feigned or manipulative (Ar. Ach. 462, 467, 475 (all wheedling); Lys. 79, 872, 889; Ec. 124, 241, 1046; Pl. Com. fr. 208.2; Men. Epitr. 143, 888, 953; Heros fr. 5 = fr. 4 Körte; fr. 350.2 (pl.); Apollod. Car. fr. 5.13; cf. Men. fr. 448 “the shepherd is pitied and called γλυκύτατος”; [Pl.] Hipparch. 227d; Hld. 1.26.5 (used in the latter two cases as a perceived Atticism?)). διμοιρία is attested elsewhere in the classical period only in Xenophon (An. 7.2.36 (company-commanders offered a “double share” in contrast to the single Cyzicene stater to be given to common soldiers, sc. as a monthly wage); 7.6.1 (company-commanders offered a “double share” in contrast to the single Daric to be given to common soldiers as a monthly wage); HG 6.1.6 (apparently “double pay”); Lac. 15.4 (a “double share”, sc. of food, at banquets); Ages. 5.1 (a “double share”, sc. of food, at banquets). Xenophon also has τριμοιρία and τετραμοιρία (both attested nowhere else). The word is picked up at Poll. 4.176, on the one hand, and at Luc. Tim. 57 διμοιρίαν ἢ τριμοιρίαν, on the other, leaving no doubt that it

160 161

οἱ δ’ εὖ γεινάμενοι μ’ ἔδοσαν ἱερηΐδα τῇδε θεαίνῃ (hypermetrical, unlike the other verses). Cf. the colloquial English use of “millions”.

312

Antiphanes

eventually came to be understood as a bit of specifically Attic vocabulary, as its presence in Antiphanes also suggests.

fr. 82 K.–A. (82 K.) ἀπέλαυσα πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν ἐδεσμάτων· πιών τε προπόσεις τρεῖς ἴσως ἢ τέτταρας ἐστρηνίων πως καταβεβρωκὼς σιτία ἴσως ἐλεφάντων τεττάρων 1 ἀπέλαυσα πολλῶν Ath.ACE : πολλῶν ἀπολαύσας Kaibel 2 τρεῖς Ath.CE : τρεῖς εἰς Ath.A τέτταρας Ath.A  : τέσσαρας Ath.CE 4 ἐλεφάντων Ath.A  : ἐλεφάν() Ath.E  : τεττάρων Ath.A : τεσσάρων Ath.CE ἐλεφάντινα Ath.C

I enjoyed many fine foods; and after I drank three or four toasts or so, I began to run a bit wild, since I’d consumed enough food for four elephants or so Ath. 3.127d τὰ δὲ ἐδέσματα ὠνόμασεν Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Διδύμοις οὑτωσί· —— Antiphanes used the word edesmata in Didymoi as follows: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

rlkl l|lkl klkr l|lkl llkl l|rkl klrl l|lkl

Discussion

klkl llkl llkl 〈xlkl〉

Kaibel 1887–1890 I.290; Nesselrath 1990. 311

Text In 1, there is no difficulty with the paradosis ἀπέλαυσα πολλῶν and thus no need to consider Kaibel’s πολλῶν ἀπολαύσας, which alters the syntax to make it match 2. In 2 and 4, Ath.A offers the proper Attic τέτταρας/τεττάρων, whereas the much later Epitome manuscripts have the common τέσσαρας/τεσσάρων. In 2, τρεῖς εἰς in Ath.A is both unmetrical and nonsensical, and appears to represent a dittography (ΤΡΕΙΣΕΙΣ) perhaps facilitated by ΙΣ- at the beginning of the next word.

Δίδυμοι (fr. 82)

313

In 4, the common exemplar of the Epitome manuscripts likely had the abbreviated ἐλεφάν() vel sim., as in Ath.E, which the Ath.C-script expanded incorrectly to ἐλεφάντινα162 to match σιτία at the end of 3. Citation context A follow-up to an exchange between Aemilianus and Ulpian at Ath. 3.127a–b, where Aemilianus uses τὰ ἐδέσματα and Ulpian challenges him to show that the word is attested (sc. in an “ancient author”). Fr. 36 is cited in the first half of Aemilianus’ answer (for χόνδρος, “wheat pudding”). Why Ulpian regards ἐδέσματα (also used e. g. by Xenophon and Plato) as potentially problematic is unclear, although the word is relatively rare overall and particularly rare in poetry; see fr. 27.10 n. But the quotation of fr. 82 effectively brings Book 3 to a close—the words that follow belong to the framing characters “Athenaeus” and Timocrates— and Ulpian’s question is thus perhaps ultimately driven by Athenaeus’ own desire to use the verses as a valedictory summary of the action in his narrative up to this point. Interpretation Like fr. 81 (also from Athenaeus), part of a retrospective account of a symposium—here perhaps a dinner party followed by a symposium—attended by the speaker. In the form in which we have it, the narrative has a ring-structure: (A) I ate a lot, (B) and after I drank a lot, I ran wild, (A) because I’d eaten a lot. What interests the speaker (a man; note 3 καταβεβρωκώς) is the quantity rather than the quality of what he consumed and the consequences for his own behavior (a result of limited exposure to dinner parties and symposia, making him a typical agroikos?), the bland καλῶν in 1 being the only evaluative term he offers. 1 ἀπολαύω is late 5th/4th-century vocabulary, absent from Aeschylus, Sophocles and lyric poetry, although found four times in Euripides (Andr. 543 [anapaests]; HF 1224; IT 526; Ph. 1205 with Mastronarde 1994 ad loc. (“prosaic”); cf. ἀπόλαυσις at Hel. 77), but common in comedy; see fr. 46.4 n. (with specific reference to use of the verb with the genitive). πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν A bland combination of adjectives, used routinely in this order (e. g. Phryn. Com. fr. 32.3; Ar. Av. 705, 918; Il. 21.301; Od. 6.86–7; 10.40; A. Pers. 244; E. Supp. 339; HF 287; fr. 316.4). πολύς and ἀγαθός behave together in the same way (e. g. Ar. Ach. 633, 641; Pax 423, 968–9; Ra. 1039; Pl. 546–7; Hdt. 7.10.2; E. Andr. 611; Th. 5.69.1; Isoc. 4.73; 15.101; 16.16), with the opposite arrangement apparently marked as having the sense “good, and in large amounts” (Eup. fr. 85). For ἐδέσματα, fr. 27.10 n. 2 The use of ἴσως with numbers or numerical adverbs to mean “approximately, maybe, or so”—again in 4, and thus seemingly a mark of the speaker’s personal verbal style—is first attested at Ar. Pl. 1058 and appears to be a purely 4th-century colloquialism; see LSJ s. v. IV, and to the two comic passages cited there (also 162

Elsewhere always “made of ivory”, unless the sense “made of elephant-meat” is part of the joke at the obscure Crates Com. fr. 32.1 τάριχος ἐλεφάντινον.

314

Antiphanes

Damox. fr. 3.2) add Alex. frr. 2.6–7 κυμβίον δὲ τέτταρας / ἴσως ἑτέρας; 206.4–5 διδασκάλους … / ἴσως τριάκοντ’; Arched. fr. 2.12 τρίκλινα πεντήκοντ’ ἴσως; Men. Asp. 84 ὁλκὴν ἴσως μνῶν τετταράκοντ’, 350 τάλαντα … ἑξήκοντ’ ἴσως; Dysc. 327 ταλάντων … ἴσως … δυεῖν, 683 ἴσως τρίς; Epitr. 243–4 τριακοστὴν ἴσως / … ἡμέραν; Nico fr. 1.3 κοτύλας πέντ’ ἴσως, and from prose D. 19.209 δύ’ ἢ τρί’ ἴσως ῥήματα; 20.21 ἑξήκοντ’ ἴσως ἢ μικρῷ πλείους; 21.154 ἔτη περὶ πεντήκοντ’ ἴσως ἢ μικρὸν ἔλαττον; 22.44 τάλαντα τριακόσι’ ἢ μικρῷ πλείω; 36.38 ἐτῶν ἴσως εἴκοσι τῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς νεμηθείσης οὐσίας; [Arist.] Ath. 33.1 μῆνας μὲν οὖν ἴσως τέτταρας, and perhaps Hp. Epid. VII 43.19 = 5.410.22 Littré μηνὶ δὲ δευτέρῳ ἴσως ἢ τρίτῳ. μάλιστα in the same sense (LSJ s.v. μάλα III.5) is attested already in Herodotus (e.g. 1.119.2, 1.209.2; 5.83.2) and Thucydides (e. g. 1.13.3; 2.86.3; 3.20.2), but is entirely confined to prose (also e. g. And. 1.38; X. An. 6.4.3; Pl. Criti. 112d; D. 27.17) with the exception of Stratt. fr. 14.1–2 τεττάρων / δραχμῶν μάλιστα and perhaps Cratin. fr. 299.2 ἀλλ’ ἴσον ἴσῳ μάλιστ’ ἀκράτου δύο χοάς. πρόποσις (literally “drinking before (someone)”, and thus apparently “in their honor, ‘to’ them”) is almost exclusively poetic vocabulary (Mnesim. fr. 4.18; Alex. fr. 50.2; Simon. fr. 25.6; Critias fr. B6.3–4 μηδ’ ἀποδωρεῖσθαι προπόσεις ὀνομαστὶ λέγοντα, / μηδ’ ἐπὶ δεξιτερὰν χεῖρα κύκλωι θιάσου (“not to make a toast by calling the person by name, or (passing the bowl) to the right in the circle of the party”; the supposedly unseemly fashion in which the Spartans do not behave), 6–7 καὶ προπόσεις ὀρέγειν ἐπιδέξια, καὶ προκαλεῖσθαι /  ἐξονομακλήδην ᾧ προπιεῖν ἐθέλει (“and to urge the toasts on to the right, and to call forth by name the man to whom you want to drink”), 22; subsequently in epigram at e. g. Asclep. ep. XVIII.2 = AP 12.135.2; in prose only at Thphr. fr. 572, where it is treated as something approaching a technical term). The cognate verb προπίνω is attested already at Hippon. fr. 22.3; subsequently at e. g. Anacr. PMG 356a.3; 407.1; Pi. O. 7.4; Dion. Chalch. fr. 1 δέχου τήνδε προπινομένην / τὴν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ποίησιν· ἐγὼ δ’ ἐπιδέξια πέμπω / σοὶ πρώτῳ, Χαρίτων ἐγκεράσας χάριτας. / καὶ σὺ λαβὼν τόδε δῶρον ἀοιδὰς ἀντιπρόπιθι, / συμπόσιον κοσμῶν καὶ τὸ σὸν εὖ θέμενος (“Accept this poem offered as a toast from me! I am sending it to the right to you first, after mixing in the grace of the Graces. Take this gift and toast songs back to me, adorning our symposium and doing good for yourself!”); [E.] Rh. 405; in 4th-century prose at e. g. X. An. 4.5.32 ὁπότε δέ τις φιλοφρονούμενός τῳ βούλοιτο προπιεῖν (“and whenever someone was being friendly and wanted to drink to another person”); D. 19.128. 3 στρηνιάω is wild behavior or a bad attitude somehow driven by overeating in particular, as here; cf. Sophil. fr. 7.2–3 χορτασθήσομαι. / νὴ τὸν Διόνυσον, ἄνδρες, ἤδη στρηνιῶ (“I’m going to be stuffed. By Dionysus, gentlemen, now strêniô”); Lyc. TrGF 100 F 2.2–5 στρηνιῶ· / δεῖπνον γὰρ οὔτ’ ἐν Καρίᾳ, μὰ τοὺς θεούς, / οὔτ’ ἐν Ῥόδῳ τοιοῦτον οὔτ’ ἐν Λυδίᾳ / κατέχω δεδειπνηκώς (“strêniô; because I’ve never eaten a dinner like this in Caria, by the gods, or in Rhodes or in Lydia”); Diph. fr. 133 ap. Antiatt. σ 6 (little more than a notice that the poet used the word, but in origin perhaps a response to Phrynichus (below)); NT Rev. 18:7 (the behavior of the great whore Babylon), 9 πορνεύσαντες καὶ στρηνιάσαντες

Δίδυμοι (fr. 82)

315

(“whoring and strêniasantes”; what the kings of the earth did with her); Phryn. ecl. 358 στρηνιᾶν· τούτῳ ἐχρήσαντο οἱ τῆς νέας κωμῳδίας ποιηταί, ᾧ οὐδ’ ἂν μανείς τις χρήσαιτο, παρὸν λέγειν τρυφᾶν (“strênian: the New Comic poets used this word, which not even a madman would use, since you can say tryphan [to run riot, be extravagant]”); Hsch. σ 2002 στρηνιῶντες· πεπλεγμένοι. δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ διὰ πλοῦτον ὑβρίζειν καὶ βαρέως φέρειν (“strêniôntes: driven mad. But it also refers to arrogant behavior due to wealth and to handling it badly”); Orion ap. EM p. 730.17–18 στρηνιᾶν· παρὰ τὸ στερεῖν καὶ ἀποσπᾶν τὰς ἡνίας. καὶ εἴρηται ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν ἀλόγων ζώων (“strênian: derived from ‘sterein [to take away] and pull back the hêniai [reins]’. It said as a metaphor from horses”), and note the use of the verb in definitions in lexicographic glosses at Hsch. σ 641 σιληπορδεῖν· σιληπορδῆσαι, στρηνιᾶν, ἁβρύνεσθαι, θρύπτεσθαι, χλιδᾶν (“to be farting like a silen: to fart like a silen, strênian, to be extravagant, to grow conceited, to live in luxury”), 1764 † στερηναῖα· † … ἢ ἀπειθής, ἀπὸ τῶν στρηνιώντων ἵππων († sterênaia: † … or disobedient, from horses that strêniaô”); Phot. υ 125 = Suda υ 321 = Synag. υ 79 ὑπερμαζᾷ· ὑπερτρυφᾷ, πλουτεῖ, στρηνιᾷ (“he’s had too much barley-cake: he’s living a life of excessive luxury, he’s rich, strêniai”). καταβιβρώσκω is not obviously anything other than a metri gratia variant of the undignified κατεσθίω (for which, see Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 386.4). First attested at hAp. 127 and found elsewhere in comedy at Men. Dysc. 776; Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1.30, but otherwise prosaic in the classical period. σιτία (colloquial 5th/4th-century vocabulary, absent from elevated poetry) is always plural in Herodotus, Thucydides and the comic poets (also e. g. Cratin. fr. 116.1; Pherecr. fr. 1.4 τριήρους σιτία, “enough food for (the crew of) a trireme”; Ar. Lys. 868; Eub. fr. 19.3; Alex. fr. 28.2), but often singular in 4th-century prose authors (e. g. X. Mem. 4.2.17; Pl. Phdr. 241c) and Hippocrates (e. g. Morb. II 67.16 = 6.102.19 Littré). 4 ἐλεφάντων African elephants were sufficiently well-known to the Greeks already in the late 5th century that Herodotus can twice refer to them in passing without offering any explanation of what sort of animal they are (3.114; 4.191.4); substantial knowledge of the Indian elephant seems to be a 4th- and 3rd-century phenomenon. See in general Keller 1909–1913 I.372–83; Scullard 1974, esp. 32–63; Romm 1989; Bigwood 1993; Schmul 2010; Kitchell 2014. 64–7; Charles 2016. 55–7; Cobb 2016; Charles 2020. For the creature’s enormous appetites, cf. Epinic. fr. 2.4–7 † (Α.) † ἐστιν δ’ ἐλέφας. (Β.) ἐλέφαντας περιάγει; (Α.) ῥυτὸν / χωροῦντα δύο χοάς, ὃν οὐδ’ ἂν ἐλέφας ἐκπίοι. / (Β.) ἐγὼ τοῦτο πέπωκα πολλάκις. † (Α.) οὐδὲν ἐλέφαντος γὰρ διαφέρεις οὐδὲ σύ (“† (Α.) It’s an elephant. (B.) He’s carrying around an elephant? (A.) It’s a drinking horn that holds two choes, more than even

316

Antiphanes

an elephant could drink. (B.) I’ve drunk that much many times. † (A.) Because you’re no different from an elephant”).163 fr. 83 K.–A. (83 K.)      οἰνογευστεῖ, περιπατεῖ     ἐν τοῖς στεφάνοις he samples wine, he walks around in the wreath-market Ath. 9.380e–f περὶ δὲ τῶν γευμάτων ἃ σαυτῷ προὔπιες ὥρα σοι λέγειν, Οὐλπιανέ· τὸ γὰρ γεῦσαι ἔχομεν ἐν Εὐπόλιδι ἐν Αἰξί (fr. 10)· ——. καὶ ὁ Οὐλπιανός, Ἔφιππος, ἔφη, ἐν Πελταστῇ (fr. 18)· ——, Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Διδύμοις· —— It is time for you to discuss these geumata (“samples”) of yours that you mentioned in your toast; because we have geusai (“to taste”) in Eupolis in Aiges (fr. 10): ——. And Ulpian said, Ephippus in Peltastês (fr. 18): ——, and Antiphanes in Didymoi: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl x〉|lkl lrkl llrl 〈xlkl xlkl〉

Citation context Magnus’ demand is a reference back to Ath. 9.380d, where Ulpian announces “I am the sole authority on geumata” (τὰ γὰρ γεύματα ἐγὼ οἶδα μόνος). Cf. Hsch. γ 459 γεῦμα· γεῦσις, ἔδεσμα (“sample/taste: sampling/tasting, food”). Interpretation A description of an anonymous third party. Perhaps the individual in question is simply killing time in the Agora, although the specific articles he is inspecting both have to do with symposia. 1 οἰνογευστεῖ Part of the process of buying wine was—and properly still is—trying samples of it provided by the seller; cf. Ar. Ach. 187–99, where Dikaiopolis tries and rejects five-year and ten-year libations/treaties before finally approving a thirty-year variety; Ephipp. fr. 18 † ἔνθ’ ὄνων ἵππων τε στάσεις καὶ γεύματα οἴνων † (“where the donkey- and the horse-stalls are, and the wine-samples”; also from this section of Athenaeus); Diph. fr. 3.3 ἔχον βαδίζειν εἰς τὰ γεύμαθ’ ὑπὸ μάλης (“to go to the ‘wine-samples’ with a flask under your arm”); 163

Note also Damox. fr. 1.1–3 (Α.) εἰ δ’ οὐχ ἱκανόν σοι, τὸν ἐλέφανθ’ ἥκει φέρων / ὁ παῖς. (Β.) τί δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πρὸς θεῶν; (Α.) ῥυτὸν / δίκρουνον ἡλίκον τι τρεῖς χωρεῖν χοάς (“(A.) And if that’s not enough for you, the boy has arrived carrying an elephant. (B.) What’s that, by the gods? (A.) A drinking horn with two spouts, big enough to hold three choes”).

Δίδυμοι (fr. 84)

317

E. Cyc. 149–50 (Οδ.) βούλῃ σε γεύσω πρῶτον ἄκρατον μέθυ; / (Σι.) δίκαιον· ἦ γὰρ γεῦμα τὴν ὠνὴν καλεῖ (“(Odysseus) Do you want me to give you a sample of unmixed wine first? (Silenos) Right; because a taste produces the sale”); [Pl.] Hipparch. 228e (figurative, the commodity in question being not wine but wisdom); Luc. Herm. 58 (Ἑρ.) ἤδη ποτὲ οἶνον ἐπρίω αὐτός; (Λυ.) καὶ μάλα πολλάκις. (Ἑρ.) ἆρ’ οὖν περιῄεις ἅπαντας ἐν κύκλῳ τοὺς ἐν τῇ πόλει καπήλους ἀπογευόμενος καὶ παραβάλλων καὶ ἀντεξετάζων τοὺς οἴνους; (Λυ.) οὐδαμῶς. (Ἑρ.) χρὴ γὰρ οἶμαί σοι τῷ πρώτῳ χρηστῷ καὶ ἀξίῳ ἐντυχόντι ἀποφέρεσθαι. (Λυ.) νὴ Δία. (Ἑρ.) καὶ ἀπό γε τοῦ ὀλίγου ἐκείνου γεύματος εἶχες ἂν εἰπεῖν ὁποῖος ἅπας ὁ οἶνός ἐστιν; (Λυ.) εἶχον γάρ (“(Hermotimos) Did you ever buy wine personally? (Lykinos) Lots and lots of times. (Hermotimos) So did you then walk around all the retailers in the city, sampling and contrasting and comparing the wines? (Lykinos) Absolutely not. (Hermotimos) Because it’s enough for you, I think, to take the first good and deserving one you encounter. (Lykinos) Yes, by Zeus. (Hermotimos) And from that little sample you would be able to judge the quality of the wine generally? (Lykinos) Yes, I would be able to”; clearly based on a detailed classical-period discussion of the wine-buying process); Engelmann 1986. περιπατεῖ Colloquial 5th/4th-century vocabulary (absent from elevated poetry and Thucydides, as well as—more strikingly—from Herodotus); first attested at Epich. fr. 1.2, and found elsewhere in comedy at e. g. frr. 41.2 (corrupt); 220.2; Ar. Eq. 744; Anaxandr. fr. 35.5; Timocl. fr. 37.3. As in fr. 275.1 περιόντα (n.), actual circular motion is not in question. 2 ἐν τοῖς στεφάνοις For the garland-market, where garlands for use in e. g. symposia were both produced and sold, cf. Pherecr. fr. 2.2; Ar. Th. 447–8 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc., 457–8 (bespoke garlands); Ec. 303b. Many goods had specific sections in the Agora dedicated to and called after them; cf. frr. 123.1 “the fish”; 201 with n.; and see in general Poll. 10.19; Harp. δ 9; ΣVat.Laur.Fgmq Aeschin. 1.65; Olson 2014. 17 on Eup. fr. 327 (“the garlic, the onions, the frankincense, the spices, the trinkets”) with additional examples. For garlands, fr. 269.1–2 n. fr. 84 K.–A. (84 K.) Antiatt. σ 15 συμπάσχειν· τὸ ἐλεεῖν. Ἀντιφάνης Διδύμοις sympaschein: to pity. Antiphanes in Didymoi

Citation context An isolated lexicographic note, probably intended as a response to some other authority who claimed that the verb was not used in “good” (i. e. pre-Hellenistic and especially Attic) Greek. Interpretation συμπάσχω is normally “undergo the same thing” as someone or something else (LSJ s. v. I–II). According to the Antiatticist, however, Antiphanes

318

Antiphanes

used the verb to refer to what we would call compassion (LSJ s. v. III, where the only other example offered of this meaning of the verb is Pl. R. 605d, where the emotion in question is not sympathy but empathy, i. e. recognizing another person’s situation but not necessarily feeling sorry for him). Cf. Pl. Com. fr. 210 οὐδεὶς ὁμαίμου συμπαθέστερος φίλος, / κἂν ᾖ 〈 … 〉 τοῦ γένους μακράν (“no friend is more sympathês than a relative, even if the connection is a distant one”), where a desire for assistance (i. e. sympathy) rather than mere understanding (i. e. empathy) appears to be in question, suggesting that the Antiatticist was right that συμπάσχω could have the sense ~ “to pity” already in the classical period; and see in general Konstan 2001.

319

Διπλάσιοι (Diplasioi) “The Doubles”

Introduction Title and Content Although Διπλάσιοι means literally “Doubles”, the sense is probably “Men who Could Pass for One Another”, suggesting a comedy of mistaken identities, like Plautus’ Amphitryo, Bacchides and Menaechmi, and most likely Antiphanes’ Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Δίδυμοι, Ὅμοιαι vel Ὅμοιοι and Ὁμώνυμοι. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 85 K.–A. (85 K.)

5

(Α.) τί οὖν ἐνέσται τοῖς θεοῖσιν; (Β.) οὐδὲ ἕν, ἂν μὴ κεράσῃ τις. (Α.) ἴσχε, τὸν ᾠδὸν λάμβανε. ἔπειτα μηδὲν τῶν ἀπηρχαιωμένων τούτων περάνῃς, τὸν Τελαμῶνα, μηδὲ τὸν Παιῶνα, μηδ’ Ἁρμόδιον

1 ἐνέσται τοῖς θεοῖσιν Ath.A  : ἔτ ἔσται τοῖς θεοῖσιν Kaibel  : ἐνέστι τοῖς σκύφοισιν Kock 2 ἂν Dindorf : ἐὰν Ath.A ἴσχε Ath.A : ἔχε Dobree

5

(A.) What will be in it, then, for the gods? (B.) Not a thing, unless someone mixes (wine). (A.) Hold on. Take hold of the ôidos; then don’t recite one of these old-fashioned pieces, the Telamon-song, or the Paiôn-song, or the Harmodios-song

Ath. 11.503d–e ᾠδός. οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτο τὸ ποτήριον, φησὶ Τρύφων ἐν τοῖς Ὀνοματικοῖς (fr. 115 Velsen) τὸ ἐπὶ τῷ σκολίῳ διδόμενον, ὡς Ἀντιφάνης παρίστησιν ἐν Διπλασίοις· —— ôidos: According to Tryphon in his Onomastika (fr. 115 Velsen), this was the term for the cup that was offered when a skolion was sung, as Antiphanes establishes in Diplasioi: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

klkl l|lkl klkl llrl k|lrl llkl klkl l|lkl llkl llkl l|lrl klkl llkl lrk|〈l xlkl〉

320

Antiphanes

Discussion Dindorf 1827 II.1131; Dobree 1833. 336; Kock 1884 II.45–6; Kaibel 1887–1890 III.112; Olson 2007. 314–15 (H15) Text In 1, τί … ἐνέσται τοῖς θεοῖσιν; can scarcely mean “what will be in the gods”, which is to say that the dative cannot be taken with the prefix ἐν- but must be a dative of interest or the like. This is awkward and obscure—what the gods have to do with the action is unclear, as is why mixing wine will solve the problem—and Kaibel’s emendation deals with the problem by converting ἐν- into ἔτ , while Kock more aggressively (and less convincingly) replaced “the gods” with “the cups”.164 At the beginning of 2, the paradosis ἐὰν is unmetrical, and Dindorf ’s ἂν is an easy, obvious correction. Further on in 2, Dobree suggested replacing Athenaeus’ ἴσχε with ἔχε (cf. Ar. Eq. 490, 493, 948; Nu. 1244), which does not however improve the text. Citation context An item in the long, alphabetically organized catalogue of cups and related vessels that makes up much of Book 11 of Athenaeus. Interpretation From a symposium scene featuring at least two characters. οὖν in 1 marks a reference back to some preceding remark, with that topic perhaps wrapped up in (B.)’s response and (A.) in 2 then moving onto a new topic. What (B.) was to recite in place of a traditional song was probably specified in the verses that followed. 1 For τί … ἐνέσται τοῖς θεοῖσιν;, see Text. οὐδὲ ἕν, οὐδὲ εἷς, μηδὲ ἕν and μηδὲ εἷς are generally taken to be emphatic forms (for οὐδέν, οὐδείς, μηδέν and μηδείς, respectively), and their absence from tragedy suggests that they were felt to be colloquial. See in general Moorhouse 1962. 245–6; Olson 2014 on Eup. fr. 392.4. 2 κεράννυμι is not normally used by itself to mean “mix (wine)” or “mix (a cup of wine)”, and an object was probably to be supplied from whatever preceded this. The ᾠδός (literally “singer”) is mentioned nowhere else, and this is just as likely a term for any cup passed around when symposium songs were sung (“the song-cup”) as for a specific vessel-shape. ἴσχε is used absolutely in the sense “Hold on!, Wait!, Stop!” also at Eup. fr. 298.5; Sopat. fr. 7.1; A. Ch. 1052; S. fr. 314.101 (satyr play); Hdt. 3.36.1; [E.] Rh. 687. 3 ἀπαρχαιόομαι is attested only here before the Roman period. 4 For περάνῃς, fr. 1.6 n. τὸν Τελαμῶνα Telamôn (mentioned elsewhere in comedy at Aristopho fr. 5.7, as a prototypical pugilist) was the father of Aias (e. g. Od. 11.553) and by a different mother of Teuker, and apparently a son of Aiakos (Pi. N. 5.11–12; Bacch. 13.64–6). He is frequently associated with Herakles, with whom he served in the expedition against the Amazons to capture Hippolyte’s belt (Pi. N. 3.38–9), but

164

For the σκύφος, see Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 135.

Διπλάσιοι (fr. 86)

321

above all else in the first expedition against Troy in the time of Laomedôn, as part of the return voyage of the Argo, in which he was awarded the prize for outstanding valor (Pisandr. fr. 11, p. 170 Bernabé; Pi. N. 3.36–9; 4.25–6; I. 5.35–7; 6.27–35; X. Cyn. 1.9; Isoc. 9.16; Theoc. 13.37–8; [Apollod.] Bib. 2.6.4; D.S. 4.49.3–6; Paus. 8.15.7; cf. Ganymêdês Introduction; Pi. fr. 172 (specifically of Peleus, Telamôn’s brother)). He also took part in the Calydonian boar-hunt (E. fr. 530; see in general Μελέαγρος Introduction). For the murder of Telamôn’s half-brother Phokos, in which Telamôn and Peleus both participated, see Alcmaeon. fr. 1.1–2, p. 33 Bernabé; Paus. 2.29.2, 9–10. See in general Gantz 1993. 221–5; Canciani, LIMC VII.1 p. 852; Fowler 2013. 311, 313, 478–9. The Telamôn-song is mentioned in comedy also at Ar. Lys. 1237; Theopomp. Com. fr. 65.3, and Athenaeus preserves what is at least a version of it (carm. conv. PMG 899) τὸν Τελαμῶνα πρῶτον, Αἴαντα δὲ δεύτερον / ἐς Τροΐαν λέγουσιν ἐλθεῖν Δαναῶν μετ Ἀχιλλέα (“They say that, after Achilleus, Telamôn ranked as first, Aias as second of the Danaans who went to Troy”). For other such symposium songs, cf. Cratin. fr. 254 (Kleitagoras and Admetos); Ar. V. 1238 (Admetos); Lys. 1237 (also Kleitagoras); and cf. Hadjimichael 2019. 74–5. 4–5 For the Paiôn-song (i. e. a paean) and the Harmodios-song, see fr. 3.1 (where the two are mentioned together) with n. For Παιών as a variant form of Παιάν, S. Ph. 832; Herod. 4.26.

fr. 86 K.–A. (86 K.)

5

οὐθεὶς πώποτε, ὦ δέσποτ’, ἀπέθαν’ ἀποθανεῖν πρόθυμος ὤν, τοὺς γλιχομένους δὲ ζῆν κατασπᾷ τοῦ σκέλους ἄκοντας ὁ Χάρων ἐπὶ τὸ πορθμεῖόν τ’ ἄγει σιτιζομένους καὶ πάντ’ ἔχοντας ἀφθόνως. ὁ δὲ λιμός ἐστιν ἀθανασίας φάρμακον

4 τὸ πορθμεῖον Valckenaer : τόπον θεῖον Stob.SA

5

No one ever, master, died when he was eager to die, but Charon drags off men who want to live by the leg against their will and marches them onto his ferry when they are gorging and enjoying everything in abundance. Starvation is a magical source of immortality

Stob. 4.53.3 Ἀντιφάνους ἐκ Διπλασίων· —— From Antiphanes’ Diplasioi: ——

322

Antiphanes

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlkl llkr lrkl klkr klrl rlkl

xlk〉|l llkl k|rkl klkl k|lkl llkl l|rkl llkl l|lkl klkl k|lrl llkl

Discussion Grotius 1623. 497; Valckenaer 1767. 280a; Kock 1884 II.46; Crusius 1888. 608; Nesselrath 1990. 293 n. 22 Text In 4, Valckenaer’s τὸ πορθμεῖον yields much better sense (see 4 n.) than Stobaeus’ τόπον θεῖον (“a sacred place”) at the price of altering only two letters, and the emendation has accordingly been universally adopted by editors. Grotius proposed treating 6 as a separate fragment. Citation context Quoted by Stobaeus (5th century CE) near the beginning of a section entitled σύγκρισις ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου (“Comparison of life and death”) that also includes Men. frr. 398; 869–70; 373; 871; Philem. fr. 172; Men. frr. 872; 130; Apollod. Com. frr. 1; 6; Ar. fr. 504; Men. fr. 133, in that order, after this. Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material he quotes, which must instead be drawn from pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. Interpretation Part of a speech of consolation or encouragement delivered by a slave to his master. The point is that death is only interested in those who have everything they want, making poverty a guarantee of immortality, the underlying idea perhaps being that even if the master has apparently lost everything, there is at least one bright side. 1 οὐθείς (rather than οὐδείς), as also in fr. 281 (similarly from Stobaeus), is the standard 4th-century form of the word. Enough examples of forms of οὐδείς/ μηδείς are preserved in inscriptions before 300 BCE (after which only οὐθείς/ μηθείς are used) to allow for the possibility that Antiphanes’ personal practice was mixed; see Threatte 1980. 472–4. A case could nonetheless be made for emending to theta in frr. 27.8; 55.15, 17; 175.2; 200.6, all of which are from Athenaeus and may accordingly reflect his practice (or the practice of an individual editor at some point in the tradition). πώποτε reinforces negations also at e. g. Pherecr. fr. 70.4; Eup. fr. 236; Ar. V. 1047; Stratt. fr. 34.2; Timocl. fr. 12.6. 2 δέσποτ(α) is similarly used by a slave to address his master at e. g. frr. 75.5; 124.4; Ar. Eq. 960; V. 142, 420; Pax 257, 875; Ra. 1; Pl. Com. fr. 182.1; Amphis frr. 6.3; 27.4. πρόθυμος ὤν Unlike behavior driven by one’s φύσις (fr. 235.4), which is inborn and subject only to control and perhaps some modest modification, προθυμία (~ “eagerness”) is volitional, a matter of choosing to act when one might easily hang back (e. g. Ar. Ra. 203 (Dionysus told to stop dawdling and row προθύμως); Pl.

Διπλάσιοι (fr. 86)

323

324 (friends praised for coming προθύμως in response to a summons they might have ignored); [A.] PV 341 (Okeanos’ foolhardy eagerness to assist Prometheus described as προθυμία)). 3 γλιχομένους Prosaic 5th/4th-century vocabulary (e. g. Hdt. 3.72.4; Pl. Phd. 117a γλιχόμενος τοῦ ζῆν; Isoc. 12.16; D. 19.226), constructed either with the genitive or with an infinitive, as here; attested elsewhere in comedy at Ar. fr. 104 (+ gen.); Pl. Com. fr. 268; Alex. fr. 145.7 (+ acc. and ~ infin.). The desire to which the verb refers is very blandly conceived and seemingly untinged by images of lust, hunger or the like. κατασπᾷ τοῦ σκέλους might suggest “into the Underworld”, to which one routinely “descends” (e.g. Ar. Ra. 69, 118, 136), as if Charon’s hand reached up from the netherworld to grab his victims (thus implicitly Kassel–Austin, citing Luc. DMort. 4.1 κατέσπασα τοῦ ποδός, of Kerberos). Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, the image is borrowed from wrestling and means “tackles (and subdues)” vel sim.; cf. Ar. Lys. 705 τοῦ σκέλους ὑμᾶς λαβών τις ἐκτραχηλίσῃ φέρων (“someone grabs you by the leg and throws you, and thus pins you”) with Campagner 2001. 129–30. For the genitive of the body-part by which a person is seized, hung or dragged, see Poultney 1936. 86 (examples from Aristophanes). For σκέλος, fr. 183.2 n. 4 For ἄκων, ἕκων and cognates, see Mathys 2019. 112–29. ὁ Χάρων ἐπὶ τὸ πορθμεῖόν τ(ε) ἄγει For Charon, the ferrymen who conveys the dead over to their final place of residence in the Underworld (first referenced in the 5th century BCE, but probably part of popular folk-belief much earlier), cf. Ar. Lys. 605–6 χώρει ’ς τὴν ναῦν· / ὁ Χάρων σε καλεῖ (“Go to the ship! Charon summons you!”); Ra. 137–40 (where the body of water across which the dead are transported is expressly described as a lake, λίμνη, not a river), 180–208, 269–70; Pl. 278; Minyas fr. 1, p. 137 Bernabé ἔνθ’ ἦ τοι νέα μὲν νεκυάμβατον, ἣν ὁ γεραιὸς / πορθμεὺς ἦγε Χάρων, οὐκ ἔλλαβον ἔνδοθεν ὅρμου (“Then in fact they found the ship onto which the dead go, which the old ferryman Charon used to steer, not at its mooring-place”); A. Th. 856–7 (a reference only to the ship, which crosses Acheron); E. Alc. 253–5 νεκύων δὲ πορθμεὺς / ἔχων χέρ’ ἐπὶ κοντῶι Χάρων / μ’ ἤδη καλεῖ· τί μέλλεις; (“Charon, the ferryman of the dead, with his hand on his boatman’s pole, is calling me now: ‘Why do you delay?’”), 361, 439–44; HF 432; Call. fr. 628 πορθμέα νεκρῶν; Macho 82–3 = Timoth. PMG 786.2–3; Hermesian. fr. 7.3–5, p. 98 Powell ἔπλευσεν δὲ κακὸν καὶ ἀπειθέα χῶρον, / ἔνθα Χάρων κοινὴν ἕλκεται εἰς ἄκατον / ψυχὰς οἰχομένων (“he sailed to an evil place where persuasion has no force, where Charon drags the souls of the departed into a skiff we all share”); Paus. 10.28.2 (describing a mid-5th-century painting by Polygnotos and quoting the Minyas fragment); Luc. Kataplous and Charon; Sullivan 1950, esp. 11–13; Hermann 1954. 1040–8; Lincoln 1980; Stevens 1991 (on “Charon’s obol” and the diverse burial practices involving coins that lie behind the idea); Gantz 1993. 124–5; Sourvinou-Inwood, LIMC III.1 pp. 210–12; Alföldy-Găzdac–Găzdac 2013. 287–91. For ferries and ferrymen, cf. Ar. Ec. 1086–7 (seemingly imagined as

324

Antiphanes

“hauling” their passengers, i. e. using cables and a raft across a narrow stretch of water?); Od. 20.185–8 (how a herdsman and his animals, or anyone who has need of transport, gets from the mainland to an island); Hdt. 1.24 (working between the Italian mainland and Sicily); Aeschin. 3.158 (working between the mainland and Aegina); Kröger 2012 (evidence from Germany from a much later period, and regarding river-ferries, but hinting at the political and economic complexity that may have been involved in some aspects of the business in Greece as well). 5 σιτιζομένους is literally “feeding themselves”, but the sense is probably something more like “stuffing themselves”, as at Men. fr. 316.2–4 διαρρηγνύμενον ἀγαθῶν μυρίων / σιτιζόμενον τὴν νύκτα καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν / διάγειν (“to spend your life bursting with everything good, stuffing yourself day and night”). Prosaic 5th/4thcentury vocabulary, first attested at Hdt. 6.52.6; Hp. Vict. 70.19 = 6.608.9 Littré; also in comedy at Ar. Eq. 716 (active). πάντ’ ἔχοντας ἀφθόνως Cf. in other descriptions of extraordinary abundance e. g. Ar. Ec. 690 πᾶσι γὰρ ἄφθονα πάντα παρέξομεν; Hes. Op. 118 αὐτομάτη πολλόν τε καὶ ἄφθονον (the earliest attestation of any form of ἄφθονος); hAp. 536 τὰ δ’ ἄφθονα πάντα παρέσται; Sol. fr. 38.5 πάντα δ’ ἀφθόνως πάρα; X. An. 4.5.29 ἐν πᾶσιν ἀφθόνοις πάντες; Oec. 3.5 ἀφθόνως καὶ καλῶς πάντα ἔχοντας ὅσων δέονται; Pl. Criti. 114e πάντα φέρουσα ἄφθονα; D. 18.89 ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ἀφθονωτέροις καὶ εὐωνοτέροις διῆγεν ὑμᾶς. 6 Crusius compares Alex. fr. 164.1–2 “Your husband is a pauper, my sweet; this is the only sort of person Death is afraid of, they say”, and see Arnott 1996. 482. λιμός (“starvation, famine”), which is imposed from without, is properly a more extreme and dangerous phenomenon than mere πεῖνα (“hunger”), which is primarily an internal experience: one dies of λιμός, whereas one merely suffers from πεῖνα. Cf. frr. 216.23 (hyperbolic use of the word for comic effect); 286; Olson–Seaberg 2018. 139–40 (where the translation misses the actual point of this verse). ἀθανασίας Prosaic 4th-century vocabulary (e. g. Pl. Smp. 207a; Isoc. 10.61), attested elsewhere in comedy at Philem. fr. 82.25; Men. fr. 218.5. Kassel–Austin compare Alex. fr. 163.2 and Amphis fr. 8.2 for the long first syllable, but this is always the case with ἀθάνατος and derivatives. For φάρμακον + genitive in the sense “magical means of producing something” (attested nowhere else in comedy), LSJ s. v. II.2.

325

Δραπεταγωγός (Drapetagôgos) “The Slave-catcher”

Introduction Discussion

Kock 1884 II.46; Edmonds 1959. 201 n. b

Title δραπεταγωγός is not attested elsewhere, but patently means “catcher of runaway slaves (δραπέται)”, i. e. either a man who made a profession of hunting them down and bringing them back for a reward, or (more commonly?) one who attempted the recovery himself (as at Pl. Prt. 310c and [D.] 59.9, where the situation turned violent); cf. E. Heracl. 139–40 ἄγω / … τούσδε δραπέτας. It is difficult to believe that the character was presented sympathetically, and the plot might easily have involved e. g. identical twins, one of whom had been enslaved and was a runaway, while the other was free and looking for his/her twin. For other comedies whose title refers to enslavement in one way or another, cf. Δύσπρατος and Μυλών, and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων, as well as Amphis’ Ἔριθοι and Alexis’ Παννυχὶς ἢ Ἔριθοι. For plays called after a profession, occupation or the like (not necessarily of a central character, but at least of someone who drives the plot at a crucial point), cf. Ἀκέστρια, Ἀλείπτρια, Ἄρχων, Αὐλητής, Αὐλητρὶς ἢ Δίδυμαι, Ζωγράφος, Ἡνίοχος, Ἰατρός, Κηπουρός, Κιθαριστής, Κιθαρῳδός, Κναφεύς, Κοροπλάθος, Κουρίς, Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, Οἰωνιστής, Παράσιτος, Προβατεύς, Στρατιώτης ἢ Τύχων and perhaps Θορίκιοι ἢ Διορύττων and Τριταγωνιστής, and see in general Arnott 2010. 311–14. Cratinus wrote a Δραπέτιδες (“Runaway Slave-women”), Alexis a Λευκαδία ἢ Δραπέται (“The Girl from Leukas or Runaway Slaves”), and the Roman comic playwright Plautus a Fugitivi. Content Unknown. Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 87 K.–A. (87 K.) κοσμίως ποῶν τὴν ἔνθεσιν μικρὰν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πρόσθε, μεστὴν δ’ ἔνδοθεν τὴν χεῖρα, καθάπερ αἱ γυναῖκες, κατάφαγε πάμπολλα καὶ ταχύτατα 1 ποῶν (ποιῶν cod.) fort. delendum 2 τοῦ πρόσθε Schweighäuser (πρόσθεν 3 κατάφαγε scripsi : καταφάγετε vel κατάφαγέ τε Ath.A : Musurus) : τοὔμπροσθε Ath.A κατεφάγετε Ath.CE : κατέφαγε Dindorf 4 ταχύτατα Ath.A : παχύτατα Kock : τάχιστα Herwerden

326

Antiphanes

By making what you eat look decently small from the front, but filling the interior of your hand, like women do, gobble down a lot of food very rapidly! Ath. 4.161d–e τούτων δ’ ὑμεῖς, ὦ φιλόσοφοι, οὐδὲν ἀσκεῖτε, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ πάντων χαλεπώτατον λαλεῖτε περὶ ὧν οὐκ οἴδατε καὶ ὡς κοσμίως ἐσθίοντες ποιεῖτε τὴν ἔνθεσιν κατὰ τὸν ἥδιστον Ἀντιφάνη· οὗτος γὰρ ἐν Δραπεταγωγῷ λέγει· ——, ἐξὸν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον ποιητὴν ἐν Βομβυλιῷ (fr. 63) λέγοντα δραχμῆς ὠνήσασθαι τὰς προσφόρους ὑμῖν τροφάς· —— But you, my philosophers, practice none of this; and what is worst of all, you instead chatter about topics you are ignorant of, and you “put your food in your mouths in a decent manner”, to quote the extremely entertaining Antiphanes, who says in Drapetagôgos: ——, although it is possible for you, as this same poet says in Bombylios (fr. 63), to purchase the provisions that suit you for a drachma: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlk〉l klkl llkl klkl llk|l llkl llkr k|lkl lrkl llklr krk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–1805 II.555–6; Dindorf 1827 I.361; Herwerden 1868. 34; Nesselrath 1990. 311 Text The lack of a caesura in 1 is unfortunate, and the problem could be corrected by assuming that ποῶν is a fortuitously metrical prosaic intrusion into the text.165 Alternatively, one might print e. g. 〈x〉 κοσμίως ποῶν 〈k|lx〉 τὴν ἔνθεσιν. At the beginning of 2, Kassel–Austin’s μακρὰν (“large”) in place of the paradosis μικρὰν (“small”) appears to be a typographical error. Further on in 2, the paradosis ἐκ τοὔμπροσθε (printed by Kassel–Austin) ought to mean something like “from forward” (cf. Eup. fr. 87 ὕπαγ’ εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν, “move forward! advance!”). This is very difficult sense, hence Schweighäuser’s ἐκ τοῦ πρόσθε (“from the front”, as at X. Hipparch. 2.8; Cyn. 5.30; 10.10; Pl. Plt. 273e; also printed by Meineke and Kock, and partially anticipated by Musurus in the editio princeps of the Deipnosophists). At the end of 3, καταφάγετε or κατάφαγέ τε in Ath.A and κατεφάγετε in the Epitome manuscripts are all hypermetrical and must reflect the influence of the second-person plural forms that precede the fragment in Athenaeus. Dindorf

165

As throughout, I print πο- where the syllable is short, ποι- where it is long. Kassel– Austin appear to have no policy on the matter and merely reproduce whatever early editors or the manuscripts offer.

Δραπεταγωγός (fr. 87)

327

(followed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) conjectured κατέφαγε, to match the participle in the singular in 1, in which case this might be e. g. a description of a parasite (thus Nesselrath). It is easier to believe that the Epitomator converted the potentially confusing imperative καταφάγετε/κατάφαγέ τε (as in Ath.A) to indicative κατεφάγετε (as in Ath.CE), however, than the other way around, and I print instead the second-person singular imperative κατάφαγε. In 4, adverbial ταχύτατα (thus Ath.A) is unexpected. But Apollonius Dyskolos vouches for the form (Grammatici Graeci II.1 p. 169.4–5), which Hippocrates (Epid. VI 7.1.37 = 5.334.18 Littré) and Plutarch (Fab. 19.3) both use once, and there is accordingly no real need to emend to Herwerden’s far more common and metrically indifferent τάχιστα (routinely preceded by ὡς or the like, although note Xenarch. fr. 2.4). Kock proposed παχύτατα (“the thickest”, in reference to fishsteaks or the like?; cf. fr. 27.6, 12–13 with n.), with the paradosis to be understood as the result of a majuscule error (Π for Τ); but this is no easier or more obvious than what Athenaeus offers. Citation context From an attack on philosophers by Myrtilus that begins at 4.160d and also includes frr. 158; 133 (in that order) at 4.161a. Only part of the text is preserved in the Epitome, hence the reference to Ath.CE at some points in the apparatus but not at others. Interpretation As printed here (see Text), this is an order—i. e. emphatic advice—to a man (note the masculine participle ποῶν in 1 (although see Text), as well as the contrast with “what women do” in 3) about how to be a discreet glutton: make it seem that you are taking tiny bits of food from the common bowl, but scoop up as much as you can inside your hand and swallow it down. 1–3 set the joke up, with the knowing reference to women’s gluttony in καθάπερ αἱ γυναῖκες in 3 as a sort of side-comment and 3–4 κατάφαγε κτλ serving as the punchline. Kassel–Austin compare Eub. fr. 41 ὡς δ’ ἐδείπνει κοσμίως, / οὐχ ὥσπερ ἄλλαι τῶν πράσων ποιούμεναι / τολύπας ἔσαττον τὰς γνάθους καὶ τῶν κρεῶν / ἀπέβρυκον αἰσχρῶς, ἀλλ’ ἑκάστου μικρὸν ἂν / ἀπεγεύεθ’ ὥσπερ παρθένος Μιλησία (“With what nice manners she ate her dinner, not like other women, who roll their leeks into balls and stuff their cheeks with them, and gnaw on the meat in a disgusting manner! Instead, she took a little taste of everything, like a young woman from Miletos”). For women and their allegedly endless appetite for food, fr. 89.4 with n. 1 For κοσμίως ποῶν, cf. adesp. com. fr. 1103.48–9 οὐ γὰρ μεθύω, μὰ τὸν [ … / πέπωκα κοσμίως (“because I’m not drunk, by … I’ve drunk κοσμίως”); Pl. Phd. 68c ἡ σωφροσύνη … τὸ περὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας μὴ ἐπτοῆσθαι ἀλλ’ ὀλιγώρως ἔχειν καὶ κοσμίως (“Sound behavior is to not become excited by one’s desires, but to treat them with contempt and act κοσμίως”); Chrm. 159b εἶπεν ὅτι οἷ δοκοῖ σωφροσύνη εἶναι τὸ κοσμίως πάντα πράττειν καὶ ἡσυχῇ, ἔν τε ταῖς ὁδοῖς βαδίζειν καὶ διαλέγεσθαι, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὡσαύτως ποιεῖν (“He said that, in his opinion, sound behavior meant doing everything κοσμίως and calmly, both the way one walks in the street and the way one speaks, and to do everything else in a similar

328

Antiphanes

fashion”); Grg. 493c ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπλήστως καὶ ἀκολάστως ἔχοντος βίου τὸν κοσμίως καὶ τοῖς ἀεὶ παροῦσιν ἱκανῶς καὶ ἐξαρκούντως ἔχοντα βίον ἑλέσθαι (“in place of a life that is never satisfied and undisciplined, to choose one that is κόσμιος and that is satisfied and content with whatever it happens to have”). The adverb is first attested in comedy at the end of the 5th and throughout the 4th centuries (also Ar. Th. 573, 853; Pl. 671, 709, 978; Eub. fr. 41.1 (quoted above); Men. Pk. 349; Diod. Com. fr. 2.11) and is found in prose in the same period (e. g. Lys. 3.6; X. Mem. 3.14.7; Pl. Smp. 182a; Isoc. 15.144); absent from elevated poetry.166 ἔνθεσις (literally “insertion”) is apparently a colloquial term for “a mouthful of food” (< ἐντίθημι in the sense “put in (someone’s mouth)”, as at Ar. Eq. 51; V. 790); confined before the Roman period to comedy (also fr. 202.12; Pherecr. fr. 113.6; Telecl. fr. 1.10; Hermipp. fr. 42.2; Ar. Eq. 404; Stratt. fr. 49.7) and to a single appearance in Plato, where the word is used in a different sense, to refer to the “injection” or “addition” of a letter into a word (Cra. 426c; cf. ἔνθεμα at Thphr. CP 1.6.7–8, of a shoot grafted into a plant). 2 For ἐκ τοῦ πρόσθε (prosaic), see Text. 2–3 μεστὴν … / τὴν χεῖρα The Greeks ate without silverware from a shared serving vessel or set of serving vessels (often those in which the food had been cooked), hence the emphasis on handwashing both before and after meals (see fr. 280 n.) and the repeated mentions of “hands” in accounts of dinner parties and the like (in comedy also at e. g. Cratin. Jun. fr. 8.4; Ephipp. fr. 20.3; Alex. fr. 263.11). 3 For κατεσθίω (coarse, colloquial vocabulary), fr. 242.1–2 n. 4 For πάμπολυς, fr. 246.2 n.

166

The cognate adjective is attested in tragedy at S. El. 872, but is otherwise likewise restricted in the classical period to comedy and prose. Note also εὐκοσμία at E. Ba. 693.

329

Δυσέρωτες (Dyserôtes)

“Men for Whom Love Proved Dangerous”167

Introduction Discussion

Casaubon 1664. 198

Title δύσερως generally has a negative valence, referring to an infatuation with something or someone one cannot or should not have, or a love with negative consequences (E. Hipp. 193; Th. 6.13.1; X. Oec. 12.13); perhaps “unlucky in love” at Dionys. Chalc. fr. 3.1. Cf. Ἀντερῶσα and Παρεκδιδομένη. Casaubon suggested that the title was actually singular Δύσερως; but pairs of young men involved in complicated, overlapping love-affairs are a standard feature of the comedies of Menander, Plautus and Terence. Content Unknown. Fr. 88 (n.) suggests a setting in Cyrene (which the speaker plans to leave, although whether he actually does so in the course of the action, is unclear). Date

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 88 K.–A. (88 K.) (Α.) ἐκεῖσε δ οὖν πλέω ὅθεν διεσπάσθημεν, ἐρρῶσθαι λέγων ἅπασιν, ἵπποις— (Β.) σιλφίῳ, (Α.) συνωρίσιν— (Β.) καυλῷ, (Α.) κέλησι— (Β.) μασπέτοις, (Α.) πυρετοῖς— (Β.) ὀπῷ 1 διαπλέω Schweighäuser : διου πλεω Ath.A : δ οὐ πλέω Kock : δ οὖν πλέω Desrousseaux : δ αὖ πλέω Blaydes 2 ὅθεν Musurus : θεν Ath.A 3–4 sic divisit Lennep 3 ἅπασιν A Ath.  : ἀλλᾶσιν Meineke 4 μασπέτοις Dalechamp : μαστοῖς Ath.A : μαζίοις Meineke : μαστροποῖς Kock πυρετοῖς Ath.A : διφροῖς Lennep : πυροῖς Meineke : πυργοῖς Kock : πυρροῖς Palmer ὀπῷ Toeppel : ὀπίσω Ath.A : ὀποῖς Musurus

(A.) And I’m therefore sailing to the place we were torn away from, saying a glad farewell to everything, horses— (B.) silphium, (A.) teams of horses— (B.) silphium-stalk, (A.) riding-horses— (B.) silphium-leaf, (A.) fevers— (B.) silphium-sap 167

Or “The Couple for whom Love Proved Dangerous”?

330

Antiphanes

Ath. 3.100f τοῦ δὲ ὀποῦ μέμνηται Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Δυσέρωσι περὶ Κυρήνης τὸν λόγον ποιούμενος· —— Antiphanes in Dyserôtes mentions silphium-sap in a speech about Cyrene: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xl〉kl klkl klkl llk|l llkl llkl l|lkl klkl llkl k|lkl rlkl

Discussion Dalechamp 1583. 73; Lennep 1777. 321; Schweighäuser 1801–1805 II.106; Meineke 1839–1857 III.48–9; Toeppel 1851. 12–13; Meineke 1867. 45; Palmer 1883. 338; Kock 1884 II.46–7; Blaydes 1896. 105; van Leeuwen 1900 on Ar. Eq. 1007–8; Desrousseaux 1942. 34 Text The Ath.A-scribe was baffled by what he found in his exemplar at the end of 1 and beginning of 2 and simply wrote διου πλεω θεν. Musurus’ ὅθεν (coordinated with 1 ἐκεῖσε) for the paradosis θεν at the beginning of 2 in the editio princeps of the text is easy and obviously right. The letters that precede it are more difficult. Kock’s δ οὐ πλέω (“But I am not sailing”) is the simplest correction of Athenaeus’ διου πλεω, but sits awkwardly with 3 ἐρρῶσθαι λέγων κτλ, which suggests that the speaker is—or would be—glad to leave behind all the items he goes on to list (see Interpretation). I accordingly print instead Desrousseaux’s δ οὖν πλέω, which requires the addition of only a single letter and converts all of this into a conclusion drawn on the basis of something the speaker has already said. Meineke and Kassel–Austin adopt Schweighäuser’s διαπλέω168 (“I’m sailing across”), which (like Blaydes’ δ αὖ πλέω) is a more substantial change that yields no better sense. Most of 3–4 go back and forth between two themes, horses and silphium. Lennep—followed here, although not by previous editors—accordingly suggested that the lines should be divided between two speakers with very different interests, as at Ar. Pl. 190–2, Eub. fr. 74 and perhaps Ar. fr. 332: (A.) is a rich man and apparently an unsuccessful horse-owner, while (B.) is a parasite, who is interested only in food—and who may thus be less enthusiastic about the move from Cyrene than his patron is. This division of lines has the additional advantage of explaining the contrast between the first-person singular in 1 and the first-person plural in 2: (A.) and (B.) have come to Cyrene together because (B.) is (A.)’s dependent, but (A.) makes the decisions and (B.) merely follows behind. 168

Late 5th/4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Hp. Aer. 15.6 = 2.60.14 Littré; Lys. 12.17; Th. 4.120.2; 7.29.2; X. HG 1.5.14; Isoc. 19.31; D. 19.163); attested elsewhere in comedy at Ar. V. 122 διέπλευσεν εἰς Αἴγιναν (“he sailed across [sc. from Athens] to Aegina”); Alex. fr. 214.1 ὅστις διαπλεῖ θάλατταν (“whoever sails across the sea”) and as the title of a play by Alexis (Diapleuousai).

Δυσέρωτες (fr. 88)

331

Meineke’s ἀλλᾶσιν (“sausages”) for Athenaeus’ ἅπασιν at the beginning of 3 is not just unnecessary, but introduces an item into the list that has no obvious connection to Cyrene. The suggestion can accordingly be rejected on multiple counts. In the middle of 4, the paradosis μαστοῖς (“breasts”) is unmetrical, and Dalechamp’s μασπέτοις—a rare word, and thus easily driven out by a far more common one—is precisely what is wanted after σιλφίῳ and καυλῷ. Meineke’s μαζίοις (“little barley-cakes”) and Kock’s μαστροποῖς (“pimps”) lack any obvious relevance to Cyrene. Toeppel’s similarly rare ὀπῷ (an improvement on Musurus’ ὀποῖς, which Meineke and Kock both print) for Athenaeus’ ὀπίσω at the end of the line is thus most likely also right. Athenaeus’ πυρετοῖς (“fevers”) near the end of 4, where another word related to horses is expected, seems out of place (although see Interpretation), particularly since—as Kassel–Austin note—nothing in the ancient sources suggests that Cyrene was thought of as a place where malarial fevers and the like were common. Of the proposed emendations, Palmer’s πυρροῖς (“bay, chestnut-colored”, and thus by extension “chestnut-colored (horses)”; cf. Theoc. 15.53) is the best, although it stumbles on the fact that the word is nowhere used thus in the classical period, nor is it clear why “chestnut-colored (horses)” would suggest “race-horses”, which is what is wanted after “teams of horses” and “riding-horses”. Lennep’s διφροῖς (“chariots”) makes good sense but is too far from the paradosis to be convincing. Meineke’s πυροῖς (“watch-fires”) and Kock’s πυργοῖς (“towers”), meanwhile, are palaeographically easy but do not fit the context. Citation context Quoted as an incidental observation within a catalogue of references to eating sow’s womb (Ath. 3.100b–1e), in response to a question posed by the speaker himself (Ulpian) at Ath. 3.96f, that also preserves fr. 219, as well as (immediately before fr. 88) Alex. fr. 198; Euphro fr. 8; Dioxipp. frr. 1; 3; Eub. fr. 23; in that order, and (immediately after fr. 88) Hipparch. SH 496; Sopat. frr. 8; 20; 17, in that order. Interpretation For the division of the text between two speakers and its implications, see Text on 3–4. Where (A.) (a man; note 2 λέγων) is sailing to is not specified, although the obvious destination in an Athenian comedy would seem to be Athens. 2 makes it clear in any case that he left that place involuntarily, and thus that something about his situation has changed. Both Athenaeus’ comment on the fragment and the list of items (A.) and (B.) associate with their current location in 3–4, on the other hand, leave no doubt that where (A.) is sailing from is Cyrene, which he seems happy to leave. At least part of Dyserôtes must thus have been set in that city, and either all of it took place there or the setting shifted in the course of the play. How—if at all—the speaker’s temporary exile in Cyrene and departure from there is connected with the title of the comedy is impossible to say, although it is not difficult to imagine that part of someone’s “difficulties in love” had to do with absence from where his partner was and the resulting complications. For parasites as assistants in love-affairs, cf. fr. 80.10 with n.

332

Antiphanes

Cyrene (IACP #1028) was the largest Greek city in Libya and enormously wealthy, due in large part to the enormous, fertile territory it controlled; by the classical period the place was a nominal democracy, although perhaps dominated by a wealthy hereditary nobility (in some ways like e. g. the United States today). Intermarriage with indigenous Libyans seems to have been common from the first, and about a quarter of the city’s territory was likely occupied by them. See in general SEG IX 1 (the diagramma of Ptolemy I, intended to put an end to a period of internal political unrest; 322/1 BCE); Chamoux 1953. 11–17, 213–45; Goodchild 1971. 11–29; Laronde 1987. 15–17, 27–39; Austin 2004. 1243–7. 1 ἐκεῖσε refers back to a place specified in the immediately preceding lines, apparently Cyrene. Homer has only κεῖσε (e. g. Il. 23.145; Od. 15.119); no form of the word is attested in lyric; and trisyllabic ἐκεῖσε appears first at A. Pers. 717 and is common thereafter in all genres, including at fr. 200.15 μήτ’ ἐκεῖσε μήτε δεῦρο. Cf. fr. 57.20 n. on αὐτόσε. For δ οὖν (marking this as a conclusion based on some previous statement), see Text. 2 διασπάω serves here as a vivid metaphor for violent separation, as at e. g. Hdt. 1.59.1; X. Cyr. 2.1.28; Pl. R. 462b; D. 4.48. The compound is attested elsewhere in comedy only in the literal sense “tear into shreds” (Ar. Av. 367; Ra. 477; Ec. 1076). Imperative forms of ῥώννυμι meaning literally “be strong!” are common in the sense “farewell!” i. e. “goodbye”, in Menander (Dysc. 213; Grg. 84; Pk. 170) and at the end of letters (e. g. X. Cyr. 4.5.33). But ἐρρῶσθαι λέγω appears to be an example of a cognate but slightly different idiom very similar to colloquial χαίρειν λέγω et sim. (e. g. Ar. Ach. 200; Th. 64 with Austin–Olson 2004 ad loc.; E. Hipp. 113 with Barrett 1964 ad loc.; Collard 2018. 65–6), in which “I say farewell to” means ~ “I say to hell with” (also Men. Dysc. 264–5 ἐρρῶσθαι δὲ τῇ / θυσίᾳ φράσας, 520–1 ἐρρῶσθαι λέγω / Φυλασίοις; D. 5.22 ἐγὼ δὲ τούτοις μὲν ἐρρῶσθαι λέγω; 18.152 ἐρρῶσθαι φράσας πολλὰ Κιρραίοις καὶ Λοκροῖς; 21.39 ἐρρῶσθαι πολλὰ τοῖς νόμοις εἰπὼν καὶ ὑμῖν). 3–4 ἅπασιν sets up the list that follows, which alternates between horses and items having to do horses, on the one hand (introduced by the simple ἵπποις, which is followed by the slightly more recherché συνωρίσιν and κέλησι and finally the problematic πυρετοῖς (?)), and portions of the silphium plant (introduced by the generic σιλφίῳ, followed by words for the stalk, leaves and sap of the plant). For silphium generally, see fr. 71.1 n. σίλφιον and καυλός (“[silphium-]stalk”; cf. fr. 216.13–14 Λίβυς τε καυλὸς … / … σιλφίου (added to seafood post-roasting); fr. dub. 330.3 = Eub. fr. 18.3 καυλὸν ἐκ Καρχηδόνος; Ar. Eq. 894–5 τὸν καυλὸν … / τοῦ σιλφίου) are routinely distinguished in catalogues (fr. 216.13–14 with n.; Anaxandr. fr. 42.58 καυλοί, σίλφιον; Eub. frr. 6.3 οὐ καυλοῖσιν οὐδὲ σιλφίῳ; 18.3–4 καυλὸν ἐκ Καρχηδόνος / καὶ σίλφιον; Alex. fr. 132.5 καυλόν, σίλφιον; [Hp]. Acut. 10.7 ἢ σίλφιον ἢ ὀπὸς ἢ καυλός), suggesting that the former word can also be used for some specific portion of the plant, perhaps its root, which Thphr. HP 1.6.12

Δυσέρωτες (fr. 88)

333

claims is “the essential part” (ταῖς ῥίζαις μᾶλλον ἡ φύσις; thus Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 9.1) or its seed (thus Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 132.5). μάσπετον (attested nowhere else in comedy and patently a loan-word) is specifically identified at Thphr. HP 6.3.1 and Poll. 6.67 as the leaves of the silphium-plant, although Dsc. 3.80.1 claims this was instead the term for the stalk, only to backtrack at 3.80.3 and concede that some authorities used it for the leaves; cf. Hsch. μ 338 μάσπετα· τοῦ σιλφίου τὰ πρῶτα πέταλα, ἢ τὸ τοῦ καυλοῦ ὀπτόν (“maspeta: the first leaves of the silphium plant, or the roasted portion of the stalk”). The seed (not mentioned here) was supposedly called μαγύδαρις (Poll. 6.67; Dsc. 3.80.1; Plaut. Rud. 633; another loan-word), although Thphr. HP 1.6.12; 6.3.7 seems to regard this as the name of a different plant, while Thphr. HP 6.3.4 ἐξ ἧς δὴ φύεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ τὸν καυλόν, ἐκ δὲ τούτου μαγύδαριν τὸ καὶ καλούμενον φύλλον· τοῦτο δ’ εἶναι σπέρμα (“from the root-bulb after this also grows the stalk, and from the stalk the magydaris, which is also called ‘the leaf ’; this is actually the seed”) suggests confusion either on the author’s part or in the manuscript tradition. ὀπός, finally, is the “sap” or “juice” of any plant (Thphr. HP 1.2.3),169 but in this context must be specifically silphium-sap, which was tapped from either the stalks or the roots of the living plant (Thphr. HP 9.1.7, comparing the process to the way frankincense and myrrh were obtained; cf. fr. 162.4 n.). Cf. fr. 140.4 (in a catalogue of kitchen supplies); Anaxandr. fr. 42.59 (in a banquet catalogue);170 Marx 1959. 143 on Plaut. Rud. 629ff; and ὀποῦ σιλφίου repeatedly in Hippocrates (e. g. Epid. VII 68.6 = 5.432.2 Littré; Morb. III 16.86= 7.150.1 Littré).171 ἵπποις For Cyrene as rich in horses, sc. due to the enormous amount of pasturage it had available, and for the people in the area as skilled in chariot-driving in particular, cf. Alex. fr. 241; Pi. P. 4.2 εὐίππου … Κυράνας with Braswell 1988 and Gentili 1995 ad loc., citing e. g. Hdt. 4.189.3; S. El. 701–2 with West 2012 (although there is no reason to adopt her conclusion that the two “Libyan” charioteers at Orestes’ Pythian Games are indigenous Libyans rather than Greeks from the region) and Finglass 2007 ad loc.; Call. fr. 716.

169 170

171

To be distinguished from χυλός/χυμός, which is the product of pressing (cf. Ar. Ra. 943 χυλὸν διδοὺς στωμυλμάτων, ἀπὸ βιβλίων ἀπηθῶν) or decoction. Millis 2015 ad loc., noting the mention of σίλφιον in v. 58, takes ὀποί in Anaxandrides to be a reference not to silphium-juice but to fig-juice. But nothing else suggests that figjuice (which is intensely bitter) had any culinary use, and the fact that silphium-stalks (καυλοί) are also mentioned in v. 58 leaves little doubt that “silphium” there means “silphium-root” (see above), which is thus something different from both [silphium]-stalks and [silphium]-sap. Cf. the separate mentions of σίλφιον and ὀπός in a recipe at adesp. com. fr. 1073.13–14. LSJ s. v. ὀπός II takes Ar. Ec. 404; Pl. 719 to be additional references to silphium-sap. But in both cases the substance in question is intensely bitter, and some other substance—e. g. fig-sap, which was used to curdle milk to make cheese—must be in question.

334

Antiphanes

A συνωρίς (< ἀείρω) is a “pair” (exclusively tragic vocabulary in this sense in the 5th century, e. g. A. Ag. 643; E. Med. 1145; Ph. 448 with Mastronarde 1994 ad loc.; S. OC 895) and thus a “team” of two horses rather than of four (= a full ζεῦγος, “yoke”, pulling a τέθριππος, “four-horse chariot”); cf. Ar. Nu. 15 ξυνωρικεύεται,172 1302; E. fr. 675.1–2; Pl. Phdr. 246b; Ap. 36d ἵππῳ ἢ συνωρίδι ἢ ζεύγει (“one horse or a team or a yoke of four”; adesp. tr. fr. 163a ἕξιππα καὶ τέθριππα καὶ ξυνωρίδας (“six-horse chariots and four-horse chariots and synôrides”). A κέλης is a horse on whose back a jockey rides, as opposed to one yoked to a cart; cf. Eup. fr. 164 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Od. 5.371 ἀμφ’ ἑνὶ δούρατι βαῖνε, κέληθ’ ὡς ἵππον ἐλαύνων (“he got astride a timber, like a man riding a racehorse”); Hdt. 7.86.1 κέλητας καὶ ἅρματα· ὑπὸ δὲ τοῖσι ἅρμασι ὑπῆσαν ἵπποι καὶ ὄνοι ἄγριοι (“riding-horses and wagons; horses and onagers were yoked to the wagons”); Lys. 29.63; Pl. Lys. 205c νίκας Πυθοῖ καὶ Ἰσθμοῖ καὶ Νεμέᾳ τεθρίπποις τε καὶ κέλησι (“victorious at Delphi and the Isthmus and Nemea with both four-horse chariots and riding-horses”); Bell 1989, esp. 177–81. πυρετοῖς Perhaps it is not (A.) who is suffering from fevers but his horses, hence both his mention of the problem and his eagerness to be gone from Cyrene and everything it represents. But see Text.

172

Dover 1968 ad loc. defines a συνωρίς as “a racing-chariot drawn not by four horses but by two”, which is not a normal meaning of the word in the classical period (although see adesp. tr. fr. 163a, quoted below) and is in any case lent no support by Paus. 5.8.10 δρόμος δὲ δύο ἵππων τελείων συνωρὶς κληθεῖσα (“a race of two adult horses called the synôris”), which Dover cites.

335

Δύσπρατος (Dyspratos)

“The Man who was Difficult to Sell”

Introduction Discussion

Kock 1884 II.47; Nesselrath 1990. 287–8

Title δύσπρατος is a hapax, and the sense is probably “difficult to sell (because worthless)”, although it might alternatively be “difficult to sell (because too valuable)”, making the word the opposite of εὔωνος (Hsch. ε 7312, where one of the glosses is εὔπρατος). The reference is in any case certainly to a slave; cf. Δραπεταγωγός Introduction, Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων Introduction, and for other titles referring to a key aspect of a character’s personality, Ἄγροικος, Ἀντερῶσα, Ἀποκαρτερῶν, Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶν, Ἀφροδίσιος, Βουταλίων, Ἐνεά, Ὄβριμος, Παιδεραστής, Φιλέταιρος, Φιλοθήβαιος, Φιλομήτωρ, Φιλοπάτωρ and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Μαλθάκη, and see in general Arnott 2010. 317. Epicrates also wrote a Dyspratos, which Athenaeus, after quoting fr. 89, suggests was taken at least in part direct from Antiphanes, although the situation might actually be the other way around. For the title, cf. in general Alexis’ Κηρυττόμενος (perhaps The Man who Was Auctioned Off as a Slave) and Menander’s Πωλούμενοι (Men who are Being Sold). Content Unknown, but the title suggests that a problematic slave similar to the resentful speaker of fr. 89 played a part in the action. Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 89 K.–A. (89 et 334 K.)

5

ὁρᾶν τε κείμενα ἄμητας ἡμιβρῶτας ὀρνίθειά τε, ὧν οὐδὲ λειφθέντων θέμις δούλῳ φαγεῖν, ὥς φασιν αἱ γυναῖκες. ὃ δὲ χολᾶν ποεῖ, γάστριν καλοῦσι καὶ λαμυρὸν ὃς ἂν φάγῃ ἡμῶν τι τούτων

2 ἡμιβρῶτας ex Epicr. fr. 5.5 : ἡμιβρώτους Ath.A 4 post γυναῖκες ex Epicr. fr. 5.7–9 ὃ δὲ χολᾶν ποεῖ κτλ add. Meineke 5–6 ἡμῶν ὃς ἂν / φάγῃ Porson : ὃς ἂν φάγῃ ἡμῶν Ath.A :

And to see half-eaten milk-cakes and bird-meat lying there, which a slave isn’t allowed to eat even if it’s left over,

336

Antiphanes

5

according to the women. But what makes me crazy is that if one of us takes some of this food, they call him a glutton and shamelessly greedy

Ath. 6.262c–d καὶ Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Δυσπράτῳ φησίν· (vv. 1–4 γυναῖκες) ——. Ἐπικράτης δ’ ἐν Δυσπράτῳ (fr. 5) ἀγανακτοῦντα ποιεῖ τινα τῶν οἰκετῶν καὶ λέγοντα· τί γὰρ ἔχθιον ἢ “παῖ παῖ” καλεῖσθαι παρὰ πότον, καὶ ταῦτ’ ἀγενείῳ μειρακυλλίῳ τινί, 〈ἢ〉 τὴν ἀμίδα φέρειν ὁρᾶν τε κτλ. ἐκ τῆς παραθέσεως τῶν ἰαμβείων δῆλός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐπικράτης τὰ τοῦ Ἀντιφάνους μετενεγκών Antiphanes as well says in Dyspratos: (vv. 1–4 the women) ——. And Epicrates in Dyspratos (fr. 5) represents one of the servants as being annoyed and saying: Because what’s nastier than being summoned with “Slave! slave!” to where they’re drinking, and to serve some beardless little boy at that? Or to bring the pisspot and to see etc. Comparison of the lines makes it clear that Epicrates borrowed Antiphanes’ material Antiatt. χ 3 χολᾷν· τὸ ὀργίζεσθαι. Ἀντιφάνης cholan: to be angry. Antiphanes

Meter Iambic trimeter.

5

〈xlkl xl〉kl klkl klkl klk|l klkl llkl llkl llkl llkl klk|r klkl llkl k|lkr klkl llkl l|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion Koppiers 1771. 23; Porson 1815. 238; Meineke 1839–1857 V.1.75; Kock 1884 II.135; Kann 1909. 76–7; Nesselrath 1990. 287–8 n. 11 Text In 2, ἡμιβρώτους (< ἡμίβρωτος, -ον) in Ath.A is unmetrical, and Epicrates’ ἡμιβρῶτας (< ἡμιβρώς, -ῶτος) must be correct. Antiatt. χ 3 reports that Antiphanes used χολᾶν (= fr. 334 K.) in the sense “to be angry”, on which basis Meineke, followed by Kock and Kassel–Austin, gave ὃ δὲ χολᾶν ποιεῖ κτλ from Epicr. fr. 5.7–9 to Antiphanes. Meineke did not also give Epicr. fr. 5.1–4 φέρειν to Antiphanes because the Epitome of Athenaeus reports μετήνεγκε δὲ τὰ ἰαμβεῖα ταῦτα ἐξ Ἀντιφάνους ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁρᾶν τε κείμενα καὶ ἑξῆς (“[Epicrates] borrowed these lines from Antiphanes starting with ‘and to see lying there’ etc.”). This is merely a crude summary of what the main text says and is

Δύσπρατος (fr. 89)

337

not to be taken as suggesting that the Epitomator had additional information regarding the relationship between the two poets (as he almost certainly did not). If Epicrates lifted the entire passage from his rival (or vice versa; see Interpretation), and Athenaeus or his source was aware of that, he has nonetheless organized the material in a very peculiar fashion: why not simply quote one poet or the other, or specify that Epicrates’ borrowings were more substantial than they might at first glance appear to be? The material in the Deipnosophists thus seems to represent a combination of two sources, one of which preserved the Antiphanes fragment, the other the Epicrates fragment, and which drew conclusions on the basis of comparison of the two. Perhaps the initial portion of the Epicrates fragment also belongs to Antiphanes, therefore, but we have no way of being sure of this. At the same time, Meineke’s claim that the Antiatticist’s note refers to the second half of 4, and thus that more of the Epicrates-material should be assigned to Antiphanes, remains compelling: χολάω is very rare in 5th/4th-century Attic (attested elsewhere only at A. fr. 451r.5; Ar. Nu. 833 (in a different sense)), and the infinitive is preserved nowhere else before Poll. 2.214. ἡμῶν τι τούτων at the beginning of 6 is awkward, and Porson’s ἡμῶν ὃς ἂν / φάγῃ improves the text considerably without altering its meaning. (The reference in Kassel–Austin’s apparatus to “8–9” is a garbled reference to Epicr. fr. 5.7–8 and ought to have read “5–6”.) Citation context The material in Athenaeus is from a diverse collection of texts having to do with slaves and food that also preserves Pherecr. fr. 10 and Anaxandr. fr. 4 (at Ath. 6.263b–c). The note in the Antiatticist is probably a response to a claim by some now-lost lexicographer that χολάω in Attic always meant “be crazy”, as at Ar. Nu. 833. Interpretation One item in a list (hence 1 τε). According to Athenaeus, in Epicrates the words were spoken by a disgruntled slave, as likely here as well, given both the general setting in which the verses are quoted (see Citation context) and—much less substantial evidence—the title of the play from which they are drawn. What the speaker complains about must be more or less precisely the system by means of which food was distributed in a prosperous Greek household: the men and their guests ate first and separately; the women and children got first crack at whatever was left, if the slaves did not manage to grab some of it as they carried it out of the dining-room; the slaves then picked through the remains or ate other, very simple provisions intended to keep them from starving; and any scraps, peelings or the like were thrown to the dog, the chickens or the pig. Epicrates appears to have been a somewhat earlier contemporary of Antiphanes; Athenaeus calls him a “Middle Comic” poet (test. 2), and he mentions Plato, Speusippos and Menedemos (fr. 10), on the one hand, and the courtesan Lais (fr. 3), on the other. Whether he borrowed from Antiphanes, as Athenaeus would have it, or the other way around, is accordingly unclear, although the source that lies

338

Antiphanes

behind the comment may have had access to performance records (didaskalia) that showed which Dyspratos was staged first. 1 κείμενα sc. on the so-called “second tables” (fr. 172b with n.). 2 An ἄμης (etymology uncertain) is a baked (Men. fr. 381.1 τὸν ἄμητα, Χαίριππ’, οὐκ ἐᾷς πέττειν τινά;, “Chairippos, are you not letting anyone bake the amês?”) cake of some sort also mentioned at fr. 297; Ar. Pl. 999; Amphis fr. 9.3 (in a list of symposium-goods); Anaxandr. fr. 42.56; Ephipp. fr. 8.3 (in a list of symposium-goods, where it is specifically described as a τράγημα); Clearch. fr. 87 Wehrli (in what is called a list of τραγήματα); cf. Telecl. fr. 1.12 ἀμητίσκων; Poll. 6.77 τὰ δὲ πλακούντων εἴδη ἄμης ἀμητίσκος (“the types of cakes are amês, amêtiskos …”), 78 ὁ δ’ ἐχῖνος νησιωτικὸς πλακοῦς, ἄμητι προσεοικώς (“the echinos is a sort of cake made in the islands that resembles an amês”); Ath. 14.644f ἄμης· πλακοῦντος γένος (“amês: a type of cake”; introducing fr. 297); Hsch. α 3643 ἄμητες· πλακοῦντος εἶδος (“amêtes: a sort of cake”); Phot. α 1195 ~ Suda α 1581 ἄμης· γένος πλακοῦντος (“amês: a type of cake”), to which the Suda adds γαλακτώδους (“containing milk”). See also García Soler 2001. 380. The length of the first syllable of the word is ambiguous here, but is guaranteed short at e. g. Teleclid. fr. 1.12; Anaxandr. fr. 42.56; Ephipp. fr. 8.3. ἡμιβρώς This form of the adjective is attested before the Byzantine period only in Antiphanes = Epicrates and may be a metri gratia innovation. For the only slightly more common ἡμίβρωτος, see Axionic. fr. 8.2 ἡμίβρωτα λείψανα (“half-eaten leftovers”). ὀρνίθεια sc. κρέα, as at e. g. Ar. Nu. 339; Ra. 509–10; Hp. Morb. II 56.11–12 = 7.88.13–14 Littré; Poll. 6.33, in reference to the wild birds of all sorts that were trapped and cooked in various ways and then eaten at symposia (e. g. thrushes at Telecl. fr. 1.12 κίχλαι μετ’ ἀμητίσκων, “thrushes with amêtiskoi”; Nicostr. Com. fr. 4.3–5; Archestr. fr. 60.9 with Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.). Cf. fr. 295 with nn.; Mynott 2018. 73–87. For the adjective (absent from elevated poetry), see also Pherecr. fr. 50.5–6 (from a banquet catalogue; the earliest attestation); Ar. Av. 1590; X. An. 4.5.31 ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τράπεζαν κρέα ἄρνεια, ἐρίφεια, χοίρεια, μόσχεια, ὀρνίθεια (“upon the same table mutton, kid, pork, beef, ornitheia”). 3 For λειφθέντων, cf. Axionic. fr. 8.2 (quoted above in 2 n.), where the word used is λείψανα. In the 5th century, θέμις (ἐστί) is almost exclusively elevated poetic language (in prose once, at Hdt. 1.199.4) with what we would call strong religious overtones; cf. Dover 1968 on Ar. Nu. 140,173 noting that this represents a narrowing of the earlier sense of the word, which is often something more like “custom”. In the 4th century, the expression migrates into prose and frequently has a bland sense ~ “it

173

For the word in comedy, note also Ar. Nu. 295; Pax 1018; Th. 1150–1 (all in similar contexts).

Δύσπρατος (fr. 90)

339

is right, appropriate, possible”, as at e. g. X. Oec. 11.11; Pl. Sph. 258b; Isoc. 4.92; 5.105, and seemingly here. 4 ὥς φασιν αἱ γυναῖκες is probably a joke, perhaps set up by the (haughty?) θέμις in 3: the household’s women say that the slaves are not permitted to eat the leftover food … because they intend to eat it themselves; cf. fr. 87; Plaut. Cas. 775–9. 5 γάστρις (< γαστήρ, “belly”) is a colloquial Attic insult attested also at Ar. Av. 1604; Th. 816; Pl. Com. fr. 219; glossed by Ael. Dion. γ 3 γάστρις· ὁ περὶ γαστέρα ἀκρατής (“gastris: someone who lacks any control over his belly”); Phryn. PS p. 57.14 γάστρις· ὁ ἄπληστος (“gastris: someone who is never full”); Hsch. γ 200 γάστρις· ὁ πολυφάγος, ἢ ἀκρατὴς περὶ τὴν γαστέρα (“gastris: a glutton, or someone who lacks any control over his belly”); and picked up repeatedly by Aelian (e. g. VH 1.28). Cf. Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων Introduction. For λαμυρός (4th-century vocabulary; etymology unclear), which seems to suggest a sort of shamelessness expressed most commonly in greed, cf. X. Smp. 8.24 (a man stirred up by wine speaks λαμυρώτερον, as he normally would not); Theoc. 25.234 λαμυροὺς δὲ χανὼν ὑπέδειξεν ὀδόντας (“opening his mouth wide, he displayed his lamyros teeth”); Timo SH 781 γαστρὶ χαριζόμενος τῆς οὐ λαμυρώτερον οὐδέν (“favoring the belly, than which nothing is more lamyros”; of Epicurus, and recalling Od. 7.216, where the adjective is κύντερον, literally “more dog-like”); Asclep. ep. VIII.1 with Sens 2011 ad loc. (full, careful discussion of the word); Phryn. ecl. 256, offering the gloss ἰταμὸς καὶ ἀναιδής (“reckless and shameless”); Ael. NA 1.14. fr. 90 K.–A. (90 K.) Σικελῶν δὲ τέχναις ἡδυνθεῖσαι δαιτὸς διὰ † θρυμματίδες 2 vel {δαιτὸς} vel δαιτὸς 〈tt〉 Dindorf : δαιτὸς 〈λιπαρᾶς〉 Meineke διὰ † θρυμματίδες] διὰ θριμματίδες Ath.A : διαθρυμματίδες Casaubon : fort. δύο 〈t〉 θρυμματίδες

and seasoned by Sicilians’ arts of a banquet through † thrymmatides (nom.) Ath. 14.661f καὶ Ἀντιφάνης δ’ ἐν Δυσπράτῳ ἐπαινῶν τοὺς Σικελικοὺς μαγείρους λέγει· —— So too Antiphanes in Dyspratos says in praise of Sicilian cooks: ——

Meter Anapaestic dimeter.

rlrl | llll llr†lrl

340 Discussion III.49

Antiphanes

Casaubon 1664. 941; Dindorf 1829 III.1472; Meineke 1839–1857

Text 2 is metrically deficient and corrupt. Casaubon wrote διαθρυμματίδες (printed by Meineke, Kock and Kassel–Austin) for the paradosis διὰ θριμματίδες, and Dindorf ’s δαιτὸς 〈tt〉 διαθρυμματίδες allows for a normal diaeresis between the two feet, as placing the lacuna at the end of the line, as implicitly in the text printed by Kassel–Austin, does not. (Meineke’s δαιτὸς 〈λιπαρᾶς〉 is merely an exempli gratia supplement. Dindorf ’s alternative suggestion that δαιτὸς might be expelled from the text represents an overly aggressive approach to a text we know is lacunose.) Although θρυμματίδες are known from other sources (see Interpretation), however, διαθρυμματίδες are not, nor is the sense of the prefix apparent. Casaubon’s emendation is thus problematic on two counts, and it is probably better to insert an obel in the line and admit that we do not know how to mend it convincingly. Citation context From a collection of comic quotations—a number of them strikingly long—embedded within a long discussion of cooks (Ath. 14.658e–62e) delivered not by a guest at the party but by one of the “sophist cooks” (σοφιστῶν μαγείρων) who have been preparing the dinner. Cratin. Jun. fr. 1 is preserved immediately before this, fr. 221 shortly after this. Perhaps fr. 216 (preserved at Ath. 14.622f–3c, immediately after Eub. fr. 14), which is similarly assigned to a cook named Sophon rather than to one of the banqueters, is from the same source.174 Interpretation 4th-century comic poets routinely use anapaestic dimeter for lists, especially of foodstuffs (cf. Arnott 1996. 20; Arnott 2010. 310), as in frr. 130–1; 295 and by analogy probably here as well. Σικελῶν … τέχναις in 1 looks like a high-style periphrasis for Σικελῇ … τέχνῃ, and δαίς in 2 is poetic vocabulary (see LSJ s. v., and add to the prose references there Hdt. 1.207.6; 2.40.4; 4.26.1; Hp. Mul. 181.9 = 8.364.5 Littré; X. Cyr. 4.2.37), so there may be “dithyrambic” coloring (cf. fr. 55 n.) here as well. 1 Σικελῶν … τέχναις is a reference to the new “Sicilian” style of cooking that apparently arrived in Athens around 400 BCE and was characterized by the heavy use of spices and cheese; cf. Alex. fr. 24.1–2; Ephipp. fr. 22.3; Epicr. fr. 6.2–3; Anaxipp. fr. 1.1–3, 19–20; Archestr. fr. 46.10–18; Pl. Grg. 518b (Mithaikos, author of a Sicilian cookbook, as nominally one of the greatest benefactors of the human body); R. 404d–e (on the elaborate character of Sicilian cooking); Olson–Sens 2000. xxxvi–xxxix.

174

Within the text of Athenaeus, these cook-scenes appear to play the same role they likely did in the plays from which these fragments have been, as a light-hearted intermezzo after which the action proper begins again.

Δύσπρατος (fr. 90)

341

ἡδυνθεῖσαι i. e. prepared with ἡδύσματα, “spices” (fr. 181.3 n.). The verb (first attested at Epich. fr. 122.8) is absent from elevated poetry and 5th-century prose; elsewhere in comedy at Diph. fr. 23.3 (figurative). 2 θρυμματίδες (presumably < θρύπτω, “break into pieces, crumble”) are mentioned also at fr. 181.4–5 θρυμματὶς  / τεταραγμένη (literally “a disturbed thrymmatis”; in a list of allegedly over-dainty foods); Philox. Leuc. PMG 836b.17– 18 θρυμματίδες … εὐπέταλοι (“thronging thrymmatides”, i. e. packed tight together like leaves on a tree?); Nicostr. Com. fr. 1.3 (in a catalogue of foods to be served “on the first platter”); Lync. fr. 1.8 θρυμματῖδα γλυκεῖαν (“a sweet thrymmatis”; to be served on one of the multiple platters among which a meal, or perhaps only the appetizer course, is to be divided); Luc. Lex. 6 (in a catalogue of archtypically “Attic” delicacies); Poll. 6.77 θρυμματίδες· ἦν δὲ καὶ κρηπὶς ἐξ ἀλεύρου καὶ μέλιτος, ᾗ ἐνέκειντο ἀμπελίδες τινὲς ἢ συκαλίδες ὀπταί, ὧν βρωθεισῶν τὴν κρηπῖδα ζωμῷ ὀρνιθείῳ ἐνθρύψαντες ἤσθιον (“thrymmatides: this was a krêpis (‘boot[-cake]’) made of flour and honey, inside of which were some ampelides [songbirds of some sort] or roasted warblers; after the birds were consumed, they broke the cake up (enthrypsantes) into bird-meat broth and ate it”); Phot. θ 238 θρυμματίς· σκεύασμα διὰ στέατος καὶ σεμιδάλεως καὶ συκαλλίδων (“thrymmatis: a dish made of beef-fat and flour and warblers”). See also García Soler 2001. 390–1.

342

Δωδωνίς (Dôdônis)

“The Girl from Dodone”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.330; Edmonds 1959. 202–3 n. a

Title Dodone (IACP #93), located near modern Ioannina in Epirus in northwestern Greece, “was the religious, political and cultural centre of the Molossian League” (Funke–Moustakis–Hochschulz 2004. 343). The place is mentioned already at Il. 2.750; 16.234; Od. 14.327 ~ 19.296; Hes. frr. 240.5; 319 M.–W. = frr. 181.5; 270 Most, as well as at Ar. Av. 716 (with reference to its famous prophetic shrine of Zeus). See in general Hammond 1967. 367–72, 489–93, 508–11; Funke– Moustakis–Hochschulz 2004. 343–4. For ethnics, local adjectives and the like as titles, cf. (Greek female characters, as here) Βοιωτία with Introduction, Δηλία, Ἐφεσία, Κορινθία, Λευκαδία; (nonGreek female character) Καρίνη; (female plural) Λήμνιαι with Introduction (but probably a mythological travesty);(Greek male characters) Βοιώτιος, Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ζακύνθιος, Λευκάδιος, Ποντικός and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (non-Greek male characters) Λυδός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός; (male plurals; both barbarian) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; note also Μέτοικος; and see Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. Ath.A cites fr. 91 as from Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Δωδώνῃ. Meineke (probably relying on St.Byz. δ 146.94–6 καὶ τὸ θηλυκὸν Δωδωνίς ἀπὸ τοῦ Δωδώνη, ὡς Παλλήνη Παλληνίς, cited by Kassel–Austin) corrected the title to ἐν Δωδωνίδι, as in e. g. S. fr. 456 τὰς θεσπιῳδοὺς ἱερέας Δωδωνίδας. But there was also a three-termination adjective Δωδωναῖος, -α, -ον, and if one is going to follow Stephanus of Byzantium and use ethnics rather than local adjectives for titles, one ought probably also to print Βοιωτίς (cf. St.Byz. β 116.24, ε 133.5; = Kock’s title for the play) rather than Βοιωτία, Κορινθιάς (cf. St.Byz. κ 161.6) rather than Κορινθία, and perhaps Λημνιάδες rather than Λήμνιαι. Content Unknown. Date Unknown

Fragment fr. 91 K.–A. (91 K.) πόθεν οἰκήτωρ; ἤ τις Ἰώνων τρυφεραμπεχόνων ἁβρὸς ἡδυπαθὴς ὄχλος ὥρμηται;

Δωδωνίς (fr. 91)

343

Whence its founder? Or has some pampered, luxury-loving host of daintily clothed Ionians set forth? Ath. 12.526d κοινῶς δὲ περὶ πάντων τῶν Ἰώνων τρυφῆς Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Δωδώνῃ (cod.  : Δωδωνίδι Meineke) τάδε λέγει· —— Antiphanes in Dôdônê (thus the manuscript : Dôdônis Meineke) says the following about the luxury of all the Ionians generally: ——

Meter Anapaestic dimeter.

rlll | lrll rlrl | rlrl rlll | 〈tyty〉

Discussion 2010. 310

Pickard-Cambridge 1946. 164; Nesselrath 1990. 91, 270; Arnott

Text These appear to be two separate questions (the second incomplete), with ἐστί to be supplied with the first. 1 is thus better punctuated with a question mark (as in Meineke) rather than a comma in the middle (as in Kock and Kassel–Austin). Citation context From very near the end of a discussion of Ionian luxury (Ath. 12.524f–6d) that begins with Call. Com. fr. 8 and Ar. fr. 556 and makes up part of a much longer treatment (beginning at Ath. 12.513e) of the history of luxury and the supposed addiction to it of various peoples. Interpretation Seemingly said of a place where the living is easy, and thus scarcely of Epirus. Kassel–Austin (following Pickard-Cambridge), by contrast, compare Alex. fr. 112 and implicitly suggest that the second question amounts to a description of the chorus, who are here entering the Theater for the first time.175 For the theme of luxury, cf. fr. 142.7 (a feature of the toady’s life), and see in general Bernhardt 2003 (19–22 on ἁβρός and ἁβρότης); Gorman–Gorman 2014. 1 οἰκήτωρ is properly “inhabitant”, but what follows suggests that the word is used here to mean οἰκιστήρ/οἰκιστής (“founder (of a colony)”). 5th/4th-century vocabulary (first attested at A. Supp. 952; subsequently at e. g. S. Tr. 282; [A.] PV 351; E. Supp. 658; Hdt. 4.35.1; Th. 1.2.3; X. Cyr. 3.3.21; Timoth. PMG 791.142; IG II2 2291b.26; nowhere else in comedy), but particularly common in tragedy and thus perhaps intended to sound elevated. Cf. οἰκητήρ (attested before the Roman period only at A. Th. 19; S. OC 627; to be emended to the considerably more common and metrically indifferent οἰκήτωρ in both passages?) and οἰκητής (S. OT 1450 (metri gratia); Pl. Phd. 111b). 175

Thus also Arnott.

344

Antiphanes

Ἰώνων For “Ionian” as a by-word for softness, effeminacy, sexual wantonness and the like, e. g. Cratin. fr. 460 with Olson–Seaberg 2018 ad loc.; Call. Com. fr. 8 (quoted below); Ar. Pax 933 with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Th. 159–63; Ec. 918; fr. 556; Hermipp. fr. 57.7–8; Asius fr. 13, pp. 130–1 Bernabé; Xenoph. fr. 3 with Bowra 1941. 123–4 = Bowra 1970. 116 (cited by Kassel–Austin); Democr. Eph. FGrH 267 F 1; Goebel 1915. 105–7. 2 τρυφεραμπέχονος (< τρυφερός + ἀμπέχω) is a hapax and most likely a high-style coinage; cf. Call. Com. fr. 8 ἡ τρυφερὰ καὶ καλλιτράπεζος Ἰωνία (“dainty, fair-tabled Ionia”); ἀναμπέχονος at Euphor. fr. 53.1, p. 40 Powell. ἁβρός is primarily elevated poetic vocabulary (elsewhere in comedy at adesp. com. fr. 123.1 Ἀλκιβιάδην τὸν ἁβρόν, “the dainty Alcibiades”; in classical prose at Hdt. 1.71.4; 4.104; X. Smp. 4.44; Pl. Smp. 204c), used occasionally in the classical period in praise of girls and women (A. fr. 313.1) but not of men, for whom such “delicacy” is unmanly (e. g. E. Ba. 968–9, where the maddened Pentheus imagines the ἁβρότης and τρυφή that will in fact be his destruction). ἡδυπαθής is first attested here; cf. ἡδυπαθεία at X. Cyr. 7.5.74; Lac. 7.3; Oec. 5.1, and as the supposed title of Archestratos’ gastronomic poem (test. 2). 3 ὄχλος in the positive sense “host” (rather than the negatively-tinged “mob, crowd”, and by extension “annoyance”) is relatively uncommon in comedy and is perhaps intended here as a poeticism, particularly with the defining genitive; cf. Ar. V. 540 πρεσβυτῶν ὄχλος (lyric); Ra. 219b and 676 λαῶν ὄχλος (both lyric); Nausicr. fr. 1.12 Σικελὸς … ὄχλος (riddling “dithyrambic” language); A. Pers. 41–2 ἁβροδιαίτων δ’ ἕπεται Λυδῶν / ὄχλος; Th. 234 δυσμενέων δ’ ὄχλον (both lyric). ὥρμηται sc. “to settle there”.

345

Ἐνεά (Enea)

“The Girl who was Dumb”

Introduction Discussion

Tsantsanoglou 1984. 81–2

Everything that is known of this play comes from Phot. ε 887 〈ἐ〉νεός· οὐχ ὁ ἠλίθιος, ἀλλ’ ὁ ἄφωνος· καὶ τὸ θηλυκὸν ἐνεά. καὶ δρᾶμα Ἀντιφάνους ἐπιγέγραπται Ἐνεά (“〈e〉neos: not a fool, but someone unable to speak; and the feminine is enea. In addition, a play by Antiphanes is entitled Enea”). As LSJ s. v. 1 notes, the adjective generally means “dumb, unable to speak” (to the references collected there, add Pl. Cra. 422e; [Arist.] Prob. 895a16, 899a5, 16), although at X. An. 4.5.33 it seems to mean “both deaf and dumb”. Here the confusion driven at least in part by the girl’s inability to speak—i. e. her need to gesture to communicate—may have been a basic element of the plot. Tsantsanoglou suggests that this was perhaps an act: the girl played dumb, but was not. For the title, cf. Ἀκοντιζομένη with Introduction, as well as (more distant parallels) Ἁρπαζομένη and Παρεκδιδομένη. Apollodorus of Carystus also wrote an Ἐνεά.

346

Ἐπιδαύριος (Epidaurios)

“The Man from Epidauros”

Introduction Discussion

Meineke 1839–1857 I.330

Title Epidauros (IACP #348), mentioned already at Il. 2.561 and Hes. fr. 204.46 M.–W. = fr. 155.46 Most, was a small city located east of the Saronic Gulf on the Argive peninsula. It was a loyal member of the Peloponnesian League in the 5th and early 4th centuries BCE (Th. 5.57.1; X. HG 4.2.16; 6.2.3; 7.2.2; cf. Ar. Ra. 364), but was aligned with Thebes in 366/5 BCE (Isoc. 6.91). In Antiphanes’ time, it seems to have been a democracy. See in general Piérart 2004. 606–8. For ethnics, local adjectives and the like as titles, cf. (Greek male characters, as here) Βοιώτιος, Βυζάντιος, Ζακύνθιος, Λευκάδιος, Ποντικός and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (non-Greek male characters) Λυδός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός; (male plurals; both barbarian) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; (Greek female characters) Βοιωτία, Δηλία, Ἐφεσία, Κορινθία, Λευκαδία; (non-Greek female character) Καρίνη; (female plural) Λήμνιαι with Introduction (but probably a mythological travesty); note also Μέτοικος; and see Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. The Antiatticist (quoting fr. 93) offers a form of the proper noun Ἐπίδαυρος rather than of the local adjective Ἐπιδαύριος, as in Synag. B and Pollux (quoting fr. 92). The latter fits the standard pattern of Antiphanes’ titles and those of the other 4th-century comic poets, and is obviously correct; cf. Αἰγύπτιοι, Ἀφροδίσιος, Βοιωτία, Βυζάντιος, Δηλία, Ἐφεσία, Ζακύνθιος, Κορινθία, and see Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other poets. Alexis and Theophilus both also wrote an Ἐπιδαύριος. Content

Unknown.

Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 92 K.–A. (92 K.) ἐπαίζομεν μὲν ἀρτίως τοῖς ἀστρίχοις we for our part were playing just now with little knucklebones Synag. B α 2269 (= Ael. Dion. α 190 = Phryn. PS fr. 269* = Suet. περὶ παιδιῶν 1.79) ἀστράγαλος· ἀστραγάλους δὲ οἱ Ἀττικοί· τὸ γὰρ θηλυκὸν Ἰακόν … λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ἀστρίχους. Ἀντιφάνης Ἐπιδαυρίῳ· ——

Ἐπιδαύριος (fr. 92)

347

astragalos (“knuckle-bone”): Attic-speakers (referred to them as) astragaloi; because the feminine form of the word is Ionic … But they also say astrichoi. Antiphanes in Epidaurios: —— Poll. 9.99 τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀστραγάλοις παίζειν καὶ ἀστραγαλίζειν καὶ ἀστρίζειν ἔνιοι τῶν ποιητῶν εἰρήκασιν, ὅτι τοὺς ἀστραγάλους καὶ ἀστρίας εἰσὶν οἳ ὠνόμαζον, Ἀντιφάνης δὲ καὶ ἀστρίχους Some of the poets refer to playing with knucklebones as astragalizein or astrizein, since there are those who referred to knuckle-bones as astriai, whereas Antiphanes (calls them) astrichoi

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl k|lkl llkl

Citation context Eustathius p. 1289.50 = IV.690.4–8 attributes some of the material preserved in the Synagoge to what he refers to vaguely as a rhetorical lexicon, apparently meaning Aelius Dionysius, although de Borries gave the passage from the Synagoge to Phrynichus, while Taillardat assigned it to Suetonius. Cognate material is preserved at – Hdn. Grammatici Graeci III.2 pp. 205.18–19, 206.10 ὥσπερ ἀστράγαλος ἄστρις … οὕτω καὶ ὁ ἀστράγαλος ἄστρις (“just like astragalos astris … so also astragalos astris”; on abbreviated words) – Hsch. α 7904 ἄστριες· ἀστράγαλοι. ἄστριχοι· τὸ αὐτό (“astries: knuckle-bones. astrichoi: the same”) – Synag. B α 2270 ἀστρίχους· τοὺς ἀστραγάλους λέγουσιν, ὡς ἀνωτέρω εἴρηται (“astrichoi: They use this term for astragaloi, as is noted above”) – ΣAreth. Pl. Lys. 206e ἀστραγαλίζειν τὸ ἀστραγάλοις παίζειν, ὅπερ καὶ ἀστρίζειν ἔλεγον, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοὺς ἀστραγάλους ἄστριας ἐκάλουν. Καλλίμαχος (fr. 676). ἔνιοι δὲ ἀστρίχους φασίν (“astragalizein means ‘to play with knuckle-bones’, which they also expressed as astrizein, since they also referred to knuckle-bones as astriai. Callimachus (fr. 676). But some authorities say astrichoi”) – Et.Gen. α 1312 ἄστρις· Καλλίμαχος, οἷον (fr. 276)· ——. εἴρηται δὲ ὑποκοριστικῶς· ὡς γὰρ ὁ Παρθένιος Πάρθις καὶ ὁ Χαλδαῖος Χάλδις καὶ ὁ λάσταυρος λάστις καὶ ὁ Ἀμφιάραος Ἄμφις, οὕτως ὁ ἀστράγαλος ἄστρις. Δίδυμος ἐν τῷ Περὶ παθῶν (“astris: Callimachus, for example (fr. 276): ——. This is a hypocoristic form; because like Parthenios Parthis and Chaldaios Chaldis and laustauros lastis and Amphiaraos Amphis, so astragalos astris. Didymus in his On Modifications of Forms”). Pollux’ mention of knuckle-bones being called ἄστριες is apparently a reference to Call. fr. 276 and/or 676. The fact that he as well cites the passage from Epidaurios nonetheless suggests that his note may ultimately go back to the same source as what we have in the Synagoge and some of the other authorities cited above (Didymus?).

348

Antiphanes

Interpretation The first part of a multi-item (hence μέν) account of the behavior of the speaker and at least one other person at some point in the recent past, probably at a symposium, where gambling of various sorts was likely a common activity (Olson–Sens on Archestr. fr. 16.6–9). On gambling, see also Κυβευταί Introduction. ἀρτίως (first attested at Sapph. frr. 98a.10; 123, but otherwise absent from archaic lyric) is in the 5th century confined to Sophocles (e. g. Ant. 561; Tr. 1130), Euripides (e. g. Alc. 531; Hipp. 433) and comedy (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 122; Ar. Ach. 337; Nu. 1149); ἄρτι (first attested at Thgn. 998; in Antiphanes at frr. 27.7; 161.4) is much more widespread (e. g. A. Th. 534; Pi. P. 4.158; S. Ai. 720; Hdt. 3.72.3; Th. 1.61.2). In the 4th century, the manuscripts of Xenophon offer ἀρτίως once (Oec. 2.11), those of Plato five times (Plt. 282c; Phlb. 15a, 66d; R. 440c; Lg. 792e), and in all these cases it is tempting to think that the word ought to be emended to the shorter and much more common ἄρτι. The attraction of the longer form for the poets was presumably its metrical utility. ἄστριχος is attested nowhere else outside of the sources quoted in Citation context, but is probably a hypocoristic form of ἀστράγαλος (cognate with ὀστέον, “bone”), precisely as the grammarians insist. For knucklebones—used much like dice, although they had four side instead of six—and playing knucklebones, cf. Cratin. fr. 176.2; Telecl. fr. 1.14; Menecr. fr. 1; Pherecr. fr. 48; Ar. V. 294–6; Il. 23.87–8; Anacr. PMG 398.1; Pl. Lys. 206e; Herod. 3.7 (an example of the Ionian feminine form to which the Synagoge refers) with Headlam 1966 ad loc.; Laser 1987. 118–22; Lynch–Lawall–Little 2011. 160–1 (preserved examples); Costanza 2019. 104–15, 197–209.

fr. 93 K.–A. (93 K.) Antiatt. η 14 ἠκροᾶσο (Bekker : ἠκρόασο Antiatt.)· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠκροῶ. Ἀντιφάνης Ἐπιδαύρῳ êkroaso (“you were hearing”) (Bekker  : “you had heard” Antiatt.): in place of êkroô. Antiphanes in Epidauros

Meter The word as the Antiatticist understood it, and as it is printed above, scans lklk. The form the manuscripts offer—likely what Antiphanes actually wrote (see Text)—on the other hand, scans lkkk (easily accommodated in iambic trimeter as either lrk or lkr). Discussion

Cobet 1854. 325; Cobet 1858. 134–5

Text The Antiatticist’s comment makes sense only if he intended Bekker’s ἠκροᾶσο. What the manuscript actually has, however, and what Antiphanes likely wrote, is pluperfect middle-passive ἠκρόασο (“you had heard”; thus also Cobet,

Ἐπιδαύριος (fr. 93)

349

who thought he was correcting the lemma in the Antiatticist, although he was in fact merely correcting Bekker’s text). Citation context An isolated lexicographic note, but patently responding to another authority who had insisted—rightly—that uncontracted second-person singular middle-passive forms of verbs in -άω are not found in Attic. Note ἠκροῶ at Philostr. VA 5.7 and Lib. ep. 585.1, both clearly making it a point to use the approved form. For the Antiatticist’s Ἐπιδαύρῳ in place of the correct Ἐπιδαυρίῳ, see Introduction. Interpretation The Atticist might be right that Antiphanes wrote ἠκροᾶσο where ἠκροῶ would be expected in Attic for the second-person singular imperfect middle-passive indicative of ἀκροάομαι. As Cobet saw, however, it is far more likely that the poet wrote pluperfect middle-passive ἠκρόασο and that the Antiatticist misunderstood how the word was intended to be accented. ἠκροῶ is attested nowhere in what is preserved for us of Attic literature, but see Citation context. For the verb itself, fr. 134.1 n.

350

Ἐπίκληρος (Epiklêros) “The Heiress”

Introduction Title An ἐπίκληρος (a technical Athenian legal term) was a girl whose father died having produced no sons, leaving her as his sole heir (Poll. 3.33; Harp. ε 95). The right to marry her and take control of the property fell to the man’s nearest male kin in a prescribed order, with disputes resolved via a procedure known as ἐπιδικασία (referenced at Ar. V. 583–6, the earliest attestation of ἐπίκληρος or any of its cognates, along with Ar. V. 589; Av. 1653). See in general MacDowell 1962 on And. 1.119; Harrison 1968. 9–12, 108–11, 132–8; MacDowell 1978. 102–8; Schaps 1979. 25–47; Karabélias 2002; Cudjoe 2010. 191–202. For the title referring to the problematic marital status of a girl—in this case unambiguously Athenian—cf. Ἀντερῶσα, Ἁρπαζομένη and Παρεκδιδομένη, and note also Γάμος vel Γάμοι and Δυσέρωτες. Heniochus, Alexis, Diphilus, Menander, Diodorus Comicus and Euetes all also wrote an Ἐπίκληρος, while the Roman comic poets Caecilius and Turpilius (both 2nd century BCE) both wrote an Epiclerus. Cf. also Euphro’s Παραδιδομένη (“The Girl who was Handed over to Another Man”) and (a more distant parallel) Apollodorus of Carystus’ Προικιζομένη ἢ Ἱματιόπωλις (“The Girl who is Given a Dowry or The Woman who Sold Robes”). Content Unknown, but the title leaves little doubt that the plot turned on machinations having to do with two claimants to the title character’s hand, as in e. g. Menander’s Aspis (114–46, esp. 138–43; see MacDowell 1982; Brown 1983; Traill 2008. 56–62, and cf. Terence’s Phormio). Fr. 94 is probably spoken by an old man (someone to whom the title character is due to be married? or the uncle or father of a younger man who wants the girl instead?). Date Unknown.

Fragment fr. 94 K.–A. (94 K.) ὦ γῆρας, ὡς ἅπασιν ἀνθρώποισιν εἶ ποθεινόν, ὡς εὔδαιμον· εἶθ’ ὅταν παρῇς ὡς ἐχθρόν, ὡς μοχθηρόν· εὖ λέγει τέ σε οὐθείς, κακῶς 〈δὲ〉 πᾶς τις, ὃς σοφός, λέγει 3 ὡς ἐχθρόν, ὡς Heimsoeth  : ἀχθηρόν, ὡς Stob.SMA  : ἤχθηραν ὡς Bothe  : ὀχληρὸν εἶ Hense 4 οὐθείς scripsi  : οὐδείς Stob.SMA δὲ add. Gesner σοφός Stob.SMA  : σοφῶς Gesner

Ἐπίκληρος (fr. 94)

351

Old age, how everyone longs for you and counts you happy! But then when you arrive, how hateful, how miserable! and no one speaks well of you, but everyone, if he’s wise, speaks ill Stob. 4.50b.58 Ἀντιφάνους ἐξ Ἐπικλήρου· —— From Antiphanes’ Epiklêros: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl klkl llkl llkl

llk|l llkl llk|l klkl llk|l klkl 〈k〉|lk|l klkl

Discussion Gesner 1543. 506; Bothe 1855. 367; Heimsoeth 1866/1867. xvi; Hense ap. Wachsmuth–Hense 1884–1912 V.1042–3 Text At the beginning of 3, Stobaeus’ ἀχθηρόν, ὡς (echoing the structure of the beginning of 2 ποθεινόν, ὡς εὔδαιμον) is metrical but extremely awkward, and the adjective is a hapax and accordingly suspect. Kassel–Austin place a single obel at the beginning of the line, but the problem is patently with the first word, and I print Heimsoeth’s ὡς ἐχθρόν, ὡς, a modest change that allows 3 to echo ὡς … ὡς in 1–2. Bothe’s ἤχθηραν ὡς (“they hate you as …”; a timeless gnomic aorist) is no further from the paradosis and might be right, although it alters the argumentative structure by moving the emphasis explicitly to the reactions of the people Old Age offends. Hense’s ὀχληρὸν εἶ is another step further from the reading in Stobaeus, which counts against it. 4 as preserved by Stobaeus is metrically deficient, and Gesner’s 〈δὲ〉 (in one of the first printed editions of the text) is a simple and convincing supplement. Further on in 4, Meineke and Kock print Gesner’s σοφῶς (“everyone who speaks wisely”) in place of the paradosis σοφός. This eliminates the interjected clause, but at the price of weakening the antithesis, and thus is no improvement. Citation context From a section of Stobaeus entitled ψόγος γήρως (“Censure of old age”). Frr. 250–1; 255–6 are all cited shortly before this, fr. 236 shortly afterward. Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material he quotes, which must instead be drawn from one or more pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. Interpretation A complaint, nominally directed to the personified Old Age himself but in fact clearly intended for the world at large, and most easily understood as expressed by someone who finds himself not just old but unhappy, and who argues that everyone else—or at least everyone with any sense—ought to share his feel-

352

Antiphanes

ings. Kassel–Austin compare E. fr. 1113b ὦ γῆρας, οἵαν ἐλπίδ’ ἡδονῆς ἔχεις, / καὶ πᾶς τις εἰς σὲ βούλετ’ ἀνθρώπων μολεῖν· / λαβὼν δὲ πεῖραν μεταμέλειαν λαμβάνει, ὡς οὐδέν ἐστι χεῖρον ἐν θνητῷ γένει (“Old age, what hopes of pleasure you offer, and everyone wants to reach you! But after they get a taste of you, they recognize instead that nothing is worse for mortal creatures”); Men. fr. 867 ὀχληρὸν ὁ χρόνος ὁ πολύς. ὦ γῆρας βαρύ, / ὡς οὐδὲν ἀγαθόν, δυσχερῆ δὲ πόλλ’ ἔχεις / τοῖς ζῶσι καὶ λυπηρά. πάντες εἰς σὲ δὲ / ἐλθεῖν ὅμως εὐχόμεθα καὶ σπουδάζομεν (“Lots of time brings trouble. O difficult Old Age, how you offer nothing good, but lots of problems and griefs instead for those who are alive! But nonetheless we all pray and are eager to reach you”) (both from the same section of Stobaeus); Plaut. Men. 758–60 ut aetas mala est! merx mala aegro est. / nam res plurumas pessumas, quom aduenit, fert, / quas si autumem omnis, nimis longus sermo est (“How bad old age is! It’s a bad lot for an ill man: it brings countless troubles when it comes. If I were to speak about all of them, my talk would be far too long”; trans. de Melo). Note also Pherecr. fr. dub. 283.1–2 ὦ γῆρας, ὡς ἐπαχθὲς ἀνθρώποισιν εἶ / καὶ πανταχῇ λυπηρόν, οὐ καθ’ ἓν μόνον (“Old Age, how burdensome you are for human beings and how unpleasant in every way, not in one only!”; from the same section of Stobaeus), although the argument is taken in a different direction in the verses that follow. For the image of old age in comedy, see fr. 235 n.; the argument advanced here is summarized and nominally refuted in vv. 3–4 there (death as “something we all desire, but if it ever comes, we find it irksome”). The speech is highly rhetorical in structure: opening vocative; two sets of symmetrical opposed clauses; repetition of double exclamatory ὡς; exaggerated πᾶς (twice) and οὐθείς; dismissive interjection of ὃς σοφός. A prologue soliloquy? 2 For ποθεινός (seemingly adding a bit of emotional color), see fr. 1.2 n., and cf. Theodect. TrGF 72 F 10.2 (cited by Kassel–Austin) ποθεινόν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. εὔδαιμον is here apparently to be taken “capable of producing happiness”, so that the second adjective provides the ground for the first: one longs for old age because one thinks it is what one wants. 3 μοχθηρός (first attested at A. Th. 257) is a “low-register insult” (Dickey 1996. 168), as at e. g. Eup. fr. 60.1; Ar. Ach. 165; Ra. 1175; Pl. Com. fr. 180. Here it balances εὔδαιμον in 2, while simultaneously providing the ground for ἐχθρόν (old age is hateful because it is miserable to experience). τε “and (at that point)”, i. e. after they are old, the point of 1–2 εὔδαιμον being that everyone praises old age before he has to deal with it. 3–4 For εὖ λέγω or κακῶς λέγω with an external accusative of the person praised or abused, e. g. Ar. Th. 785; fr. 205.7; Od. 1.302; Thgn. 796; A. Ag. 445; S. El. 523–4; E. Med. 457–8; fr. 36.1; Isoc. 3.3. Cf. εὖ ἀκούω/κακῶς ἀκούω at e. g. Ar. Th. 1167; Hdt. 3.120.4; E. Alc. 726; Pl. Cri. 50e.

353

Εὐθύδικος (Euthydikos) “Euthydikos”

Introduction Discussion 203 n. e

Meineke 1839–1857 I.326–7; Breitenbach 1908. 56; Edmonds 1959.

Title Meineke tentatively suggested a reference to the physician Euthydikos (PA 5551; PAA 432495) mentioned at D. 40.33; Aeschin. 1,40, 50, while acknowledging that there were other men called by this name in Athens in the mid-4th century. Εὐθύδικος is in fact a relatively common personal name in Athens in the classical period (over 20 additional examples in LGPN ii), and as Breitenbach notes, this seems more likely to be a “speaking name” for a fictional character distinguished by his concern for “righteous judgment”;176 cf. Γόργυθος, Κλεοφάνης and Λύκων with Introductions. Other non-mythological male names used as titles for Antiphanes’ plays are Λεωνίδης, Μητροφῶν, Μίδων, Τίμων, Φιλίσκος and perhaps Κνοιθιδεὺς ἢ Γάστρων and Φάων. Content Unknown. Fr. 96 is most naturally taken to suggest that the cast included a mercenary soldier back from a war somewhere. Date Unknown.

Fragments fr. 95 K.–A. (95 K.) ἔπειτα πουλύπους τετμημένος ἐν βατανίοισιν ἑφθός 1 πουλύπους Bentley : πολύπους Ath.ACE Poll. 1–2 τετμημένος ἐν βατανίοισιν ἑφθός Stephanus : τετμημένος ἐν πατανίοισιν ἑφθός Poll.FC : τετμημένος ἐν πατανίοισιν ἑφθῶν Poll.L : τετμημένος ἐν βατανίοισιν ἑφθὸς ἐν τετμημένοις Ath.ACE : ἑφθὸς ἐντετμημένος (del. τετμημένος) Kock

then diced octopus stewed in casserole-pans

176

The word is rare and exclusively poetic when used as an adjective (A. Ag. 761; Bacch. 5.6; fr. 3.7), meaning that the title is less likely to be taken as a simple description of someone’s personality, like e. g. Μισοπόνηρος.

354

Antiphanes

Ath. 4.169d βατάνιον δ’ εἴρηκεν Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Εὐθυδίκῳ· —— But Antiphanes uses batanion (“casserole-pan”) in Euthydikos: —— Poll. 10.107 καὶ Ἀντιφάνους ἐν Εὐθυδίκῳ· πουλύπους τετμημένος … ἑφθός And in Antiphanes’ Euthydikos: diced octopus … casserole-pans

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xl〉kl k|lkl klkl lrkl k|lk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Stephanus 1572 V.619E; Bentley ap. Wordsworth 1842 I.284; Kock 1884 II.49–50; Blaydes 1896. 106 Text In 1, the paradosis late form πολύπους in both Athenaeus and Pollux is unmetrical and was corrected by Bentley to the proper Attic πουλύπους. In 2, Athenaeus’ βατάνοισιν (as if < *βάτανον) is not just a vox nihili but unmetrical, as Pollux’ πατανίοισιν is not. Athenaeus insists that Antiphanes used the form of the word in beta here (in contrast to fr. 71.1—where the Antiatticist, however, has βατάνια), hence Stephanus’ βατανίοισιν (printed by Meineke and Kock as well as Kassel–Austin). These may just as well be random variants, which is to say that either βατανίοισιν or πατανίοισιν might be correct here. Ath.ACE add ἐν τετμημένοις (or ἐντετμημένοις) at the end of 2, producing repetitive nonsense (“diced octopus in diced casserole-pans”); perhaps a variant reading for 1 τετμημένος that has made its way into the text and been metricized via addition of the preposition. Kock suggested expelling τετμημένος from the end of 1 and emending ἑφθὸς ἐν τετμημένοις to ἑφθὸς ἐντετμημένος; but there is no point in altering a perfectly sensible reading shared by Athenaeus and Pollux in order to accommodate a problematic variant found in Athenaeus alone. ἑφθῶν in Poll.L is probably the result of mis-expansion of an abbreviated ἑφθ() vel sim. Citation context

See fr. 71 Citation context.

Interpretation One in a series of items (hence 1 ἔπειτα) probably served (or to be served) at a dinner party. Cf. fr. 216.2–3 ἔγχελυς … / τμηθεῖσα κοίλοις ἐν βυθοῖσι κακκάβης. The word-order mirrors the process by which the octopus is prepared: it is first cut into pieces (1 τετμημένος) and then put in the pan (2 ἐν βατανίοισιν) and stewed (ἑφθός). 1 πουλύπους Octopus appears in banquet-catalogues and the like at e. g. Epich. frr. 54.1; 122.2; Ar. fr. 333.2; Hegemo fr. 1.1; Anaxandr. fr. 42.29; Pl. Com. fr. 189.17–19; Eub. fr. 109.3; Alex. fr. 175.3; and is eaten both stewed and roasted. For beating octopi before cooking to make them soft, cf. Ar. fr. 197; Ephipp. fr. 3.10; Amphis fr. 30.10. For the creature itself, see Keller 1909–1913 II.507–13; Thompson 1947. 204–8; Olson–Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 54.1; García Soler 2001.

Εὐθύδικος (fr. 96)

355

140–1; Davidson 2002. 213–15. The etymology of the word is unknown, but it is connected to neither πολύς (“many”) nor ποῦς (“foot”), despite the popular etymologies that must have produced the Attic form. τετμημένος For cutting seafood into chunks for cooking, cf. fr. 216.2–3 (eel; quoted above); Pl. Com. fr. 189.14–16. 2 ἐν βατανίοισιν See fr. 71.1 n. ἑφθός See fr. 6 n.

fr. 96 K.–A. (96 K.) ἐγὼ ξενιτευόμενος ἐστρατευόμην I was serving on a campaign as a mercenary Harp. p. 215.17 = ξ 3 Keaney ξενιτευομένους· ἀντὶ τοῦ μισθοφοροῦντας, ξένοι δὲ οἱ μισθοφόροι· Ἰσοκράτης Φιλίππῳ (5.122) κἄν τινι τῶν πρὸς Φίλιππον ἐπιστολῶν (2.19). Ἀντιφάνης Εὐθυδίκῳ· —— xeniteuomenoi (masc. acc. pl.): in place of “earning a wage” [i. e. “serving as a mercenary”], and foreigners are “wage-earners” [i. e. “mercenaries”]. Isocrates (in) Philip (5.122) and in one of his Letters to Philip (2.19). Antiphanes in Euthydikos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

klkl lrk|l klkl

Citation context An abbreviated version of the same material is preserved at Phot. ξ 20 = Suda ξ 39 = An. Ox. II.497.10–11 (from the Epitome of Harpocration). Interpretation For Greek mercenary soldiers, see frr. 121.4–5; 264 (also perhaps a character in the play) with n., and add to the bibliography cited there Bettalli 2013; Major 2019 (a fast survey of the evidence from comedy); Rop 2019; Major 2022 (on soldiers in Menander). In the 4th century, ξένος (literally “stranger”) is sometimes used to mean “mercenary” (LSJ s. v. IV), as Harpocration suggests, and middle ξενιτεύομαι—attested before the late Byzantine period only in the three passages cited by Harpocration, although note ξενιτεία at Democr. 68 B 246 D.–K.—appears to have been coined to accommodate that sense of the word; contrast the older passive ξενόομαι (“play the role of a guest, reside abroad, go into exile”). ἐστρατευόμην In Attic, at least, middle στρατεύομαι is the proper form of the verb to refer to participation in a military campaign as an individual soldier (elsewhere in comedy at e. g. Eup. fr. 35.1; Ar. Ach. 1052; Nu. 692), whereas active στρατεύω μeans “lead an expedition” or “mount an expedition”.

356

Antiphanes

fr. 97 K.–A. (97 K.) (Α.) πάνυ συχνὴ σφύραινα. (Β.) κέστραν Ἀττικιστὶ δεῖ λέγειν (A.) an absolutely enormous sphyraina. (B.) You should refer to it in Attic style, as a kestra Ath. 7.323b καὶ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τὴν σφύραιναν καλοῦσι κέστραν, σπανίως δὲ τῷ τῆς σφυραίνης ὀνόματι ἐχρήσαντο … Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Εὐθυδίκῳ· —— Attic authors as well generally refer to the spet as a kestra and rarely used the name sphyraina … Antiphanes in Euthydikos: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter.

〈xlkl xlkl x〉rkl klkl l|lkl klkl

Citation context From the discussion of the spet (Ath. 7.323a–c) in the long alphabetical catalogue of fish that makes up most of Book 7 of the Deipnosophists and is perhaps drawn more or less direct from Dorion’s On Fish (and here perhaps by him in turn from Speusippus, who is also cited). Epich. fr. 86; Sophr. fr. 64; Stratt. fr. 29 (quoted in Interpretation); Nicopho fr. 14; Epich. fr. 43.1, in that order, are preserved in the same section. Cf. Poll. 6.50 σφύραινα· ταύτην δὲ καὶ κέστραν ὠνόμαζον (“sphyraina; they also used to refer to this as a kestra”; in a catalogue of fish-names). Interpretation Cf. Stratt. fr. 29 (quoted by Athenaeus just before this) (Α.) ἡ σφύραινα δ’ ἐστὶ τίς; / (Β.) κέστραν μὲν ὕμμες ὡττικοὶ κικλήσκετε (“(Α.) What’s a sphyraina? (B.) You Attic-speakers call it a kestra”); Men. fr. 229 (Α.) οἱ δ’ ἁρπάσαντες τοὺς κάδους 〈τοὺς〉 στρογγύλους / ὕδρευον ἀνδρειότατα † κἠπόλις † πάλιν. / (Β.) ἤντλουν λέγειν δεῖ, καὶ κάδους οὐ δεῖ λέγειν, / ἀλλ’ ἀντλιαντλητῆρας (“(A.) They snatched up the round jars and starting vigorously bailing † kêpolis † again. (B.) It’s correct to say ‘they started bailing’, but it’s not correct to say ‘jars’, rather ‘bailing vessels’”). Whether Antiphanes’ (A.) is not Athenian, or (B.) is merely insisting that an Athenian ought to use the proper Attic terms for things, is unclear. 1 For the use of πάνυ, fr. 6 n. συχνός —first attested in Herodotus (e. g. 1.58) and Hippocrates (e. g. Aer. 8.44 = 2.36.13 Littré),177 on the one hand, and in Eupolis (fr. 99.50) and Aristophanes (e. g. Ach. 350; Av. 1014), on the other—is colloquial 5th/4th-century vocabulary (e. g. Th. 2.52.4; X. HG 2.4.3; Pl. R. 544c; D. 39.27), absent from elevated 177

Thus Ionic in origin?

Εὐθύδικος (fr. 97)

357

poetry and Attic inscriptions, but found elsewhere in 4th-century comedy at e. g. frr. 200.10; 208.4; Stratt. fr. 30.1; Theopomp. Com. fr. 42.1; Amphis fr. 18. 2 σφύραινα, κέστρα The spet, a type of barracuda (Sphyraena sphyraena; see Thompson 1947. 108, 256–7; García Soler 2001. 168–9; Davidson 2002. 138); the tail is implicitly treated as a delicacy at fr. 130.6, and the fish is eaten in steaks at Ar. Nu. 339 and sold in the fish-market for eight obols at Amphis fr. 30.13. In addition to the passages referring to the creature collected by Athenaeus (also the medical authority Hikesios, who disparages the spet as food, and Speusipp. fr. 20), note Arist. HA 610b5 (σφύραινα in a catalogue of fish names). According to Poll. 10.160, citing S. fr. 20, κέστρα also means “hammer”, as does σφῦρα, and the spet’s two different names would seem to involve word-play of some sort, although it is difficult to say much more than that; despite Papachrysostomou 2016. 203, the fish does not obviously resemble a hammer physically. Ἀττικιστί (consistently used in the classical period of language, whereas some of the other words collected below can be used of “styles” of other sorts) is first attested here and at Alex. fr. 200.4; Pl. Cra. 410c; D. 16.2. For the form, cf. Ἰαστί (e. g. Pl. R. 398e), Δωριστί (e. g. Ar. Eq. 989), Λυδιστί (e. g. Cratin. fr. 276.4), Περσιστί (e. g. Hdt. 8.85.3), Σκυθιστί (e. g. S. fr. 473), Συριστί (e. g. X. Cyr. 7.5.31), Φρυγιστί (e. g. Pl. La. 188d). δεῖ λέγειν Used in a similar context at Men. fr. 229.3 (quoted above).

358

Εὔπλοια (Euploia)

“Euploia” or “Smooth Sailing”

Introduction Title An εὔπλοια is an “easy voyage” already in Homer (Il. 9.362; subsequently rare and exclusively poetic); this would be an odd style of title for Antiphanes (cf. only Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός and Γάμος/Γάμοι, both of which describe events that might much more easily generate conflict and complications and thus drive a comic plot). Kassel–Austin follow Kock in noting that Paus. 1.1.3 identifies Εὔπλοια as the local Knidian name for the goddess known elsewhere as Ἀφροδίτη Κνιδία (“Aphrodite Knidia, Aphrodite of Knidos”), e. g. in Athens, where she had a shrine that commemorated a naval victory off Knidos early in the 4th century BCE. This too would be an usual title for Antiphanes, although one might imagine a plot connected with the goddess’ cult or her story; cf. Ἀσκληπιός, Βάκχαι and Ἀφροδίτης γοναί with Introductions. Or perhaps Εὔπλοια is instead a courtesan’s working name (~ “Easy to spend time with”), like the similarly variously suggestive names Μαλθάκη (literally “Soft”), Μέλιττα (literally “Honeybee”) and Νεοττίς (literally “Nestling”). Content Unknown. Date

Unknown.

Fragments fr. 98 K.–A. (98 K.) λυπὴ γὰρ ἀνθρώποισι καὶ τὸ ζῆν κακῶς, ὥσπερ πονηρὼ ζωγράφω, τὰ χρώματα πρώτιστον ἀφανίζουσιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος 1 λυπὴ γὰρ Toup : λυπηρὸν Stob.SMA corp. Par. : 〈τὸ γὰρ〉 / λυπηρὸν Hense 2 πονηρὼ ζωγράφω Morelius : πονηρῶ ζωγράφω Stob.M corp. Par. : πονηρῷ ζωγράφῳ Stob.SA

for grief and an unhappy life, like a pair of bad painters, first of all drain the colors from people’s skin Stob. 4.35.28 Ἀντιφάνους ἐξ Εὐπλοίας· —— From Antiphanes’ Euploia: ——

Εὔπλοια (fr. 98)

359

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl llk|l klkl llkl l|lkl klkl llkr llk|l llkl

Discussion

Morelius 1553. 96; Toup 1790 I.173; Hense 1920/1. 101

Text ἀφανίζουσιν in 3 requires more than one subject, and the paradosis λυπηρὸν at the beginning of 1 is very difficult as the first of these, hence Toup’s λυπὴ γάρ; e. g. λυπὴ μὲν would do just as well. The error in any case reflects the influence of neuter τὸ ζῆν κακῶς at the end of the line, perhaps facilitated by a ligature for γάρ (or μέν) being misunderstood as an abbreviated ending on what was taken to be the adjective (λυπη()). Hense’s 〈τὸ γὰρ〉 / is not impossible (cf. Diph. fr. 57.2), but 〈τὸ〉 λυπηρὸν is an awkward way to say λυπή, and Stobaeus does not generally begin his excerpts with the tail-end of a line. I have added commas at the end of 1 and in 2 to make the syntax clearer. The common exemplar of the manuscripts of Stobaeus took πονηρὼ ζωγράφω in 2 to be a dative singular parallel to ἀνθρώποισι in 1 (“just as they do for a bad painter”); corrected by Morelius to the nominative dual. Citation context From a section of Stobaeus entitled περὶ λύπης (“On grief ”) that also preserves Philem. frr. 106; 6; 146; 171; Men. fr. 848; Alex. fr. 298; Apollod. Com fr. 11; Men. fr. 849; Philem. fr. 147; Amphis fr. 34; Apollod. Com. fr. 3; Antiph. fr. 287; Alex. fr. 294; Posidipp. Com. frr. 20–1; 32; Antiph. fr. 106, all before this and in that order. Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material he quotes, which must instead be drawn from one or more pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. “corp. Par.” is Parisinus graecus 1168, a 13th-century gnomologium that contains excerpts from Stobaeus Books 3–4. Interpretation If Millis 2020 is correct that Stobaeus’ excerpts from comedy are generally to be taken as originally having had a concrete referent within the action, these lines are most easily understood as a generalizing observation in connection with a man who is known to be have personal trouble and to have grown pale as a consequence. If 1 γάρ is right, the conclusion is drawn on the basis of some preceding—probably more specific—remark; but see Text. 3 πρώτιστον makes it clear that a description of what happens to unhappy people after they lose their color—most likely something worse—followed. 1 τὸ ζῆν κακῶς here clearly means “leading an unhappy existence”, as at Men. fr. 787 ὡς κρεῖττόν ἐστι δεσπότου χρηστοῦ τυχεῖν / ἢ ζῆν ταπεινῶς καὶ κακῶς ἐλεύθερον (“How much better it is to get a good master than to lead a debased and unhappy existence as a free man!”) and—a slightly more distant parallel—Philetaer. fr. 13 θνητῶν δ’ ὅσοι / ζῶσιν κακῶς ἔχοντες ἄφθονον βίον, / ἐγὼ μὲν αὐτοὺς ἀθλίους εἶναι λέγω· / οὐ γὰρ θανὼν δήπουθ ἂν ἔγχελυν φάγοις, / οὐδ’ ἐν νεκροῖσι πέττεται γαμήλιος (“as for any mortals who lead an unhappy existence”—i. e. without pleasure; see the final two verses—“although they have

360

Antiphanes

endless money, I for my part say that they are miserable; because you clearly can’t eat an eel after you’re dead, nor is a wedding cake baked among the dead”). Cf. the Homeric εὖ ζώουσι καὶ ἀφνειοὶ καλέονται (“they live well and are called rich”; Od. 17.423 = 19.79), and contrast the sense “to lead a (morally) bad life” in tragedy at e. g. S. fr. 488 τὸ μὴ γὰρ εἶναι κρεῖσσον ἢ τὸ ζῆν κακῶς (“for not to exist is better than to lead a bad life”); E. IA 1252 κακῶς ζῆν κρεῖσσον ἢ καλῶς θανεῖν (“to lead a bad life is better than to die well”); Critias TrGF 43 F 12 οὔκουν τὸ μὴ ζῆν κρεῖσσόν ἐστ’ ἢ ζῆν κακῶς; (“Isn’t not being alive better than leading a bad life?”). 2 πονηρὼ ζωγράφω For the adjective (bland), fr. 230.1 n. For painters and painting, see Zôgraphos Introduction. 2–3 τὰ χρώματα / … ἀφανίζουσιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος Cf. Ar. Pl. 422 (the personified Poverty is pale); Alex. fr. 167.8–9 χρῶμα δ’ ἀσίτων ἡμῶν ὄντων / γίγνεται ὠχρόν (“when we have nothing to eat, our color becomes pale”). 3 Adverbial πρώτιστον (also e. g. Ar. Lys. 555; Alex. fr. 193.2; Philem. fr. 168) and πρώτιστα (e. g. fr. 207.2; Pherecr. fr. 28.1; Ar. V. 595; Apolloph. fr. 5.1) are used interchangeably in comedy metri gratia. The form is attested already in Homer (e.g. Il. 2.228; Od. 14.220) and is poetic (outside of comedy also e. g. Hes. Th. 24; hAp. 407; hDem. 157; Pi. P. 2.32; S. Tr. 1181; E. Supp. 430). ἀφανίζω is 5th/4th-century vocabulary; first attested in Sophocles (e. g. Ant. 255), Aristophanes (e. g. Pax 614) and Herodotus (e. g. 4.95.4).

fr. 99 K.–A. (99 K.) Harp. pp. 216.9–217.3 = ξ 6 Keaney γυναικεῖόν τι ἔνδυμά ἐστιν ἡ ξυστὶς πεποικιλμένον, ὡς δῆλον ποιοῦσιν ἄλλοι τε τῶν κωμικῶν καὶ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Εὐπλοίᾳ· † ὥσπερ ξυστίδα ὥσπερ τὸ ποικίλον † (sic Harp.Q : τῷ ποικίλως Harp.MK) ἠμφιεσμένῳ. ἔστι μὲν καὶ τραγικόν τι ἔνδυμα οὕτω καλούμενον, ὡς Κρατῖνος ἐν Ὥραις (fr. 294), ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἱππικὸν ἔνδυμα, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης Νεφέλαις (70) A xystis is an elaborate woman’s garment, as various comic poets make clear, including Antiphanes in Euploia: † just like a xystis just like the elaborate (neut.) for someone (masc.) who wears it † (thus Harp.Q : “for the elaborately worn/wearing” Harp.MK). There is on the one hand a tragic garment by this name, as Cratinus (says) in Hôrai (fr. 294), while on the other hand there is a garment worn when driving a horse, as Aristophanes (says) in Clouds (70)

Discussion

Dobree 1831. 588; Meineke 1839–1857 III.52; Sauppe 1850. 201

Text The text is so corrupt that little can be said about it except that some form of ξυστίς must be retained and one ὥσπερ ought probably to be expelled. Dobree suggested ὥσπερ ξυστίδα / τῶν ποικίλων τιν ὑφασμένων (“just like one of the elaborate, woven xystides”); Meineke altered this slightly to ὥσπερ ξυστίδα / τῶν ποικίλως ὑφασμένων (“just like one of the elaborately woven xystides”); and Sauppe proposed τὸν ποικίλ ὥσπερ ξυστίδ ἠμφιεσμένον (“the one (masc. acc.) who is

Εὔπλοια (fr. 99)

361

as elaborately ornamented as someone (masc.) wearing a xystis”). All of these are too far from the paradosis to inspire confidence, and Dobree’s and Meineke’s suggestions lack a normal caesura in the second verse (unacceptable on general methodological grounds; see Introduction § 7. Citation context An isolated gloss referring in the first instance to Lys. fr. 256 ξυστίς. An abbreviated version of the same note appears at Phot. ξ 71 (from the Epitome of Harpocration; cf. Suda ξ 169.7–8). For the reference to the ξυστίς as tragic clothing, cf. Suda ξ 169.5 χρῶνται δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ τραγικοὶ βασιλεῖς (“Tragic kings also make use of it”); Phot. ξ 72 = Suda ξ 169.1–3 = Lex.Rhet. p. 284.17 (quoted below). Cognate material, much of it probably in origin glosses on Ar. Nu. 70, Pl. R. 420e or Theoc. 2.74, appears at e. g. – Tim. ξ 3 ~ Hsch. ξ 195 ξυστίδες· ποδήρη ἐνδύματα· οἱ δὲ χλαμύδας κωμικάς φασιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐξέσθαι καὶ εἰργάσθαι ἐπιμελῶς (“xystides: garments that cover the feet. Some authorities say that they are comic mantles, from their having been carefully scraped and worked”, i. e. as if < ξέω; a note on Pl. R. 420e) – Hsch. ξ 194 ξυστίδα· τὸ λεπτὸν ὕφασμα. ἢ εἶδος ἐνδύματος (“xystis (acc. sing.): a light woven garment. Or a type of clothing”) – Σ Pl. R. 420e = Phot. ξ 70 = Suda ξ 167 = Synag. ξ 27 ξυστίδα· λεπτὸν ὕφασμα, περιβόλαιον (“xystis (acc. sing.): a light woven garment, something one throws about one”; from the common source of Photius, the Suda and the Synagoge conventionally referred to as Σ΄) – Phot. ξ 81 = Synag. ξ 28 ξυστίς· περισκελὲς ἔνδυμα (“xystis: a garment that covers one’s legs”; from the common source of Photius and the Synagoge conventionally referred to as Σ΄ ΄ ΄) – Phot. ξ 72 = Suda ξ 169.1–3 = Lex.Rhet. p. 284.14–17 ξυστίς· χιτὼν ποδήρης γυναικεῖος. οἱ δὲ τραγικὸν ἔνδυμα ἐσκευοποιημένον καὶ ἔχον ἐπιπόρπημα. οἱ δὲ τὸ λεπτόν, παρὰ τὸ ἐξύσθαι. ἰδίως δὲ τὸ τῶν τραγῳδῶν ἔνδυμα (“xystis: a tunic that extends to one’s feet, worn by women. Some authorities (say that it is) an elaborately made tragic garment fastened with a brooch. But others (say that it is) light, from exysthai (to have been scraped). And properly it is a tragic garment”; from the common source of Photius and the Suda conventionally referred to as Σ΄ ΄) – ΣVENM Ar. Nu. 70 = Suda ξ 169.3–4 ξυστὶς λέγεται τὸ κροκωτὸν ἱμάτιον, ὃ οἱ ἡνίοχοι μέχρι νῦν φοροῦσι πομπεύοντες (“xystis is a term for a saffron-colored robe that charioteers wear when they ride in processions up to the present day”). Interpretation As Harpocration and the other lexicographers (collected in Citation context) make clear, a ξυστίς (< ξύω, “scratch, scrape”, and thus presumably something “shaved”, i. e. extremely thin) was a long, light, fancy garment worn by men and women alike; cf. Ar. Nu. 70 (worn by an extremely wealthy man driving a chariot in a public procession to the Acropolis); Lys. 1189–90 (among the luxury goods the chorus offers to loan anyone whose daughter is scheduled

362

Antiphanes

to carry the basket of sacrificial equipment at the head of a procession); fr. 332.7 (in a list of women’s accessories); Eub. frr. 89.3 (to be used as a blanket to cover a pampered dog); 132 (spangled with gold and used to cover a bed or couch); Pl. R. 420e (something a farmer would not normally wear to work, like gold); Theoc. 2.74 with Gow 1950 ad loc.; Poll. 4.116; 6.10; 10.42 (used as bedding or the like). ΣKUEA Theoc. 2.74 claims that a ξυστίς was made of linen, ΣVENM Ar. Nu. 70 = Suda ξ 169.3–4 that it was dyed saffron-color.

363

Ἐφεσία (Ephesia)

“The Girl from Ephesus”

Introduction Discussion

Edmonds 1959. 205 n. c

Title Ephesus (IACP #844), located on the coast of what is today Turkey near modern Izmir, was one of the twelve Ionian cities (Hdt. 1.142.3). In the 5th century, it was a member of the Delian League until it revolted from Athens in 414/13 BCE or so; it seems to have remained a democracy throughout most of the classical period, and to have been under Persian control during the period when Antiphanes was writing. See in general Rubinstein 2004. 1070–3. For ethnics, local adjectives and the like as play-titles, cf. (Greek female characters, as here) Βοιωτία with Introduction, Δηλία, Δωδωνίς, Κορινθία and Λευκαδία; (non-Greek female character) Καρίνη; (female plural) Λήμνιαι with Introduction (but probably a mythological travesty); (Greek male characters) Βυζάντιος, Ἐπιδαύριος, Ζακύνθιος, Λευκάδιος and Ποντικός; (non-Greek male characters) Λυδός, Σκύθης and Τυρρηνός, and perhaps Ἀρκάς; (male plurals) Αἰγύπτιοι and Κᾶρες; and cf. Μέτοικος. See Arnott 2010. 318–19 for similar titles (common) in other 4th-century comic poets. Posidippus Comicus and Simylus also wrote plays entitled Ἐφεσία, Menander an Ἐφέσιος, Crito Comicus an Ἐφέσιοι, and the Roman poet Caecilius (late 3rd/early 2nd century BCE) an Ephesio. In addition, a girl from Ephesus appears to have played an important part in Menander’s Κιθαριστής (Kith. 92–101), as the daughter of the title-character and the love-interest of his neighbor’s son. Meineke 1839–1857 III.53 assigned fr. 290 (n.) to this play as well. Content Date

Unknown.

Unknown.

Fragment fr. 100 K.–A. (100 K.) δύστηνος ὅστις ζῇ θαλάττιον βίον· τῶν γὰρ πλεόντων † ζητεῖν ἑκατὸν στάδια ἐλθεῖν που δὴ † κρεῖττον ἢ πλεῦσαι πλέθρον. πλεῖς τὴν θάλατταν σχοινίων πωλουμένων; 2–3 (Β.) τῶν γὰρ πλεόντων ζῆν τιν οἴει; στάδια γὰρ (vel δὲ) / ἑκατὸν περιελθεῖν κρεῖττον Dobree 3 που δὴ Stob.S : ποῦ δὴ Stob.M : σπουδῇ Stob.A : ποσὶν δὴ Jacobs 4 versum

364

Antiphanes

a prioribus seiunxit Meineke. “sed videtur Antiphanis esse et ipse lemmate non iterato” Hense πλεῖς τὴν Salmasius : πλείστην Stob.SMA

Unfortunate is anyone who lives the life of the sea; because of those who are sailing † to seek a hundred stades to go somewhere in fact † better than to sail a hundred feet. Do you sail the sea, when ropes are being sold? Stob. 4.17.6 Ἀντιφάνους Ἐφεσίας· —— From Antiphanes’ Ephesia: —— Hsch. π 2513 πλεῖς τὴν θάλασσαν (Schmidt : πλείστη· ἡ θάλασσα codd.) 〈 … 〉 You sail the sea (thus Schmidt : “the most: the sea” codd.) 〈 … 〉

Meter Iambic trimeter.

llkl k|lkl klkl llkl l|†llkklkkk llll†|lkl llkl llkl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Salmasius ap. Grotius 1623. 537; Jacobs 1809. 186; Dobree 1833. 358; Meineke 1839–1857 III.52–3; Hense ap. Wachsmuth–Hense 1884–1912 II.401; Nauck 1888. 233; Headlam 1907. 313–14 Text The general sense of 2–3 may be something like “it is better to go 100 stades”—i. e. a number of miles—“by some other means”— walking?—“than to sail 100 feet”. But how the genitive τῶν … πλεόντων fits into this is unclear, and the text is so corrupt that there is little hope of mending it. Dobree’s (Β.) τῶν γὰρ πλεόντων ζῆν τιν οἴει; στάδια γὰρ/δὲ / ἑκατὸν περιελθεῖν (“(B.) (You call him unfortunate) because you think any sailor’s (really) alive? Because wandering about for 100 stades is better …”) is so far from the paradosis as to stand almost no chance of being what Antiphanes wrote. In 3, σπουδῇ (“in haste”) in Stob.A is an individual scribe’s attempt to make sense of the nonsensical που δὴ vel sim. preserved in the other manuscripts. Jacob’s ἐλθεῖν ποσὶν δὴ would mean “to go by foot in fact”, in contrast to the sailing referenced in 2. For Meineke’s suggestion that 4 should be separated from the first three verses, see Interpretation. At the beginning of 4, Salmasius’ πλεῖς τὴν is not an emendation but merely a rearticulation of Stobaeus’ πλείστην, which reflects the influence of the feminine accusative singular that follows. For Schmidt’s correction of what seems to be the quotation of the first half of the verse in Hesychius, see Citation context.

Ἐφεσία (fr. 100)

365

Citation context From a section of Stobaeus entitled περὶ ναυτιλίας καὶ ναυαγίου (“On sailing and shipwreck”) that also preserves Alex. fr. 214, before this, and Archipp. fr. 45; Men. frr. 183; 784; Antiph. frr. 290; 149, in that order, after this. Stobaeus is unlikely to have had personal access to full versions of all the material he quotes, which must instead be drawn from one or more pre-existing (now lost) florilegia. Schmidt emended Hesychius’ obscure πλείστη· ἡ (i. e. ΠΛΕΙΣΤΗΗ) θάλασσα to πλεῖς τὴν (i. e. ΠΛΕΙΣΤΗΝ) θάλασσαν (with the gloss—or the second half of the verse plus the gloss—lost), and Nauck identified this as a reference to 4 πλεῖς τὴν θάλατταν. That the expression is attested nowhere else lends the thesis some plausibility and might be read as further evidence in favor of separating 1–3 from 4, since 4 is on this view of things being cited independently from what precedes it in Stobaeus, and since “Do you sail the sea, when ropes are being sold?” could easily stand alone under the heading “On sailing and shipwreck”. Interpretation 1–3 are a generalization which may in its original context have been e. g. an introductory comment to a description of the situation of a particular sailor; cf. Millis 2020. Alternatively, this might have been the first term in a comparison, the second part of which made clear that another group had it even worse, as in Philem. fr. 28.1–3 (“Storms aren’t experienced only by those who sail the seas, but also by people walking around in the colonnade” etc.; cited by Kassel–Austin). The fourth verse is directed instead to a second person (a sailor), hence Meineke’s suggestion that it ought to be separated from 1–3, in which case it might (as Hense thought) or might not belong to Antiphanes. For the sentiment of 1–3, cf. fr. 290; Alex. fr. 214.1–2 ὅστις διαπλεῖ θάλατταν ἢ μελαγχολᾷ / ἢ πτωχός ἐστιν ἢ θανατᾷ (“Whoever sails across the sea is either mad, or a beggar, or has a death-wish”); also Posidipp. Com. fr. 23 ὁ μὴ πεπλευκὼς οὐδὲν ἑόρακεν κακόν· / τῶν μονομαχούντων ἐσμὲν ἀθλιώτεροι (“A man who hasn’t sailed hasn’t seen trouble; we’re more wretched than gladiators”); Philem. fr. 51 τεθαύμακ’, οὐκ ἐπεὶ / πέπλευκεν, ἀλλ’ εἰ δὶς πέπλευκεν (“I’m not astonished that he’s sailed, but if he’s sailed twice”); S. fr. 555 (a lament for the hard life of those who make their living by sea-trade); Plaut. Rud. 485–6 qui homo sese miserum et mendicum uolet, / Neptuno credat sese atque aetatem suam (“A man who wants to be wretched and a beggar should entrust himself and his life to Neptune”; trans. de Melo); West 1978 on Hes. Op. 618. 1 For δύστηνος ὅστις, cf. E. Supp. 362*; fr. 1035.1*. θαλάττιον βίον Kassel–Austin compare Archil. fr. 116 Πάρον καὶ σῦκα κεῖνα καὶ θαλάσσιον βίον (“Paros and its famous figs and the life of the sea”, i. e. “the sailor’s life”) and Plaut. Bacch. 342 censebam me effugisse a vita marituma (“I thought I had escaped from the sailor’s life”). For the expression, cf. Ar. Nu. 43 ἄγροικος … βίος (= “a rustic life”). 2 ἑκατὸν στάδια An Attic στάδιον (“stade”; etymology obscure) was around 185 meters in length, so that 100 stades = 18.5 kilometers ~ 11.5 miles.

366

Antiphanes

But this is in any case merely a generically large number whose main purpose is to stand in contrast to πλέθρον (“100 feet”) at the end of 3. 3 πλέθρον (etymology obscure) is late 5th/4th-century prosaic vocabulary (e. g. Hdt. 2.134.1; Th. 7.38.3; X. An. 2.5.1); attested nowhere else in comedy, and in elevated poetry only at E. Ion 1137. Homer has πέλεθρον (Il. 21.407; Od. 11.577) and ἀπέλεθρος (“immeasurable”; e. g. Il. 7.269). 4 σχοινίων πωλουμένων i. e. “when you could just as easily hang yourself (since apparently you want to die)”. The same words appear at adesp. com. fr. 156.1, suggesting that this may be a colloquial set-phrase. σχοινίον (first attested at Pi. fr. 248 δυσφόρων σχοινίον μεριμνᾶν, “a rope”—we would say “a string”—“of oppressive thoughts”, but otherwise absent from elevated poetry, as well as from Thucydides) is itself in any case colloquial 5th/4th-century vocabulary (e. g. Ar. V. 1342; Stratt. fr. 51; Men. Dysc. 600; Hdt. 1.26.2; Arist. Mech. 853b5). For primitive rope-making technology, see McGee 1987. 115–18 (on a simple machine used in rural late 19th-century Mexico); Teeter 1987 (on tomb-painting evidence from ancient Egypt, but the techniques used in Greece were likely similar).

367

Addenda et Corrigenda in Vols. II–III For various corrections to scansions, see Introduction § 7 n. 17. In the introductory note on Μηναγύρτης vel Μητραγύρτης, for the cult of Kybele, see now also the essays collected in Kerschner 2020. frr. 205, 207 On Philoxenus and Antiphanes, see also Conti Bizzarro 1993–1994; Lamagna 2004; Fongoni 2005. fr. 228 On the reuse of S. Ant. 712–14, see now Starkey 2018. 142–4. On the text of Eustathius quoting line 7, see Liverani 2002–2003. 204. fr. 231 On ball-playing, see also Plaut. Curc. 296–7; Truc. 706; O’Sullivan 2012.

369

Bibliography Aleshire 1989: S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, Their Dedications and Their Inventories (Amsterdam) Alexandri–Triantaphyllidis et al. 2012: P. Alexandri, C. Triantaphyllidis et al., “The Balkans and the colonization of Europe: the post-glacial range expansion of the wild boar, Sus scrofa”, Journal of Biogeography 39: 713–23 Alfaro–Mylona 2014: C. Alfaro and D. Mylona, “Fishing for Purple Shellfish (Muricidae) in Ancient Greece: Acquisition Technology and First Steps in Purple Dye Production”, in Alfaro–Tellenbach–Ortiz 2014, pp. 149–65 Alfaro–Tellenbach–Ortiz 2014: C. Alfaro, M. Tellenbach and J. Ortiz (eds.), Production and Trade of Textiles and Dyes in the Roman Empire and Neighbouring Regions (Purpureae Vestes IV: València) Alföldy-Găzdac–Găzdac 2013: A. Alföldy-Găzdac and C. Găzdac, “‘Who pays the Ferryman?’ The Testimony of Ancient Sources on the Myth of Charon”, Klio 95: 287–91 Amigues 1996: S. Amigues, “Un cinnamome fantomatique”, Topoi. Orient-Occident 6: 657–62 Amigues 2002: S. Amigues, Études de botanique antique (Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Tome XXV: Paris) Amouroux 1995: I. Amouroux, Antiphane et les themes de la comedie moyenne (Diss. Montpelier) Anderson 1981: G. Anderson, “ΛΗΚΥΘΙΟΝ and ΑΥΤΟΛΗΚΥΘΟΣ”, JHS 101: 130–2 Anderson 2005: G. Anderson, “Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History”, CA 24: 173–222 Anderson-Stojanovic–Jones 2002: V. R. Anderson-Stojanovic and J. E. Jones, “Ancient Beehives from Isthmia”, Hesperia 71: 345–76 André 1961: J. André, L’alimentation et la cuisine a Rome (Études et Commentaires XXXIX: Paris) Andrews 1961: A. C. Andrews, “Acclimatization of Citrus Fruits in the Mediterranean Region”, Agricultural History 35: 35–46 Arnott 1996: W. G. Arnott, Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 31: Cambridge) Arnott 2010: W. G. Arnott, “Middle Comedy”, in Dobrov 2010, pp. 279–332 Asheri–Lloyd–Corcella 2007: D. Asheri, A. Lloyd and A. Corcella, A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV (Oxford) Astour 1965: M. C. Astour, “The Origin of the Terms ‘Canaan,’ ‘Phoenician,’ and ‘Purple’”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24: 346–50 Auhagen 2009: U. Auhagen, Die Hetäre in der griechischen und römischen Komödie (Zetemata 135: Munich) Austin 2004: M. Austin, “From Syria to the Pillars of Herakles”, in Hansen–Nielsen 2004, pp. 1233–49 Austin–Olson 2004: C. Austin and S. D. Olson (eds.), Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae (Oxford) Azoulay 2014: V. Azoulay, Les Tyrannicides d’Athènes (Paris) Bakker–Wakker 2009: S. J. Bakker and G. C. Wakker (eds.), Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 16: Leiden and Boston) Barker 1984: A. Barker, Greek Musical Writing Vol. I (Cambridge and New York) Barrett 1964: W. S. Barrett (ed.), Euripides. Hippolytus (Oxford)

370

Bibliography

Beaulieu 2013: M.-C. Beaulieu, “The Myths of the Three Glauci”, Hermes 141: 121–41 Bedigian–Harlan 1986: D. Bedigian and J. R. Harlan, “Evidence for Cultivation of Sesame in the Ancient World”, Economic Botany 40: 137–54 Beekes 2010: R. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (2 vols.: Leiden) Bekker 1846: I. Bekker (ed.), Iulii Pollucis Onomasticon (Berlin) Belardinelli 2016: A. M. Belardinelli, “A proposito dell’agroikos. Riflessioni su una figura della scena comica nel IV secolo”, Maia 68: 17–35 Bell 1989: D. Bell, “The Horse Race (κέλης) in Ancient Greece from the Pre-classical Period to the First Century B.C.”, Stadion 15: 167–90 Bergk 1838: T. Bergk, Commentationum de Reliquiis Comoediae Atticae Antiquae Libri Duo (Leipzig) Bergson 1967: L. Bergson, “Zum periphrastischen χρῆμα”, Eranos 65: 79–117 Bernhardt 2003: R. Bernhardt, Luxuskritik und Aufwandsbeschränkungen in der griechischen Welt (Historia Einzelschriften Heft 168: Stuttgart) Berrens 2018: D. Berrens, Soziale Insekten in der Antike. Ein Beitrag zu Naturkonzepten in der griechisch-römischen Kultur (Hypomnemata 205: Göttingen) Bers 1984: V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (New Haven and London) Berve 1926: H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (2 vols.: Berlin) Beta 2016: S. Beta, Il labirinto della parola. Enigmi, oracoli e sogni nella cultura antica (Torino) Bethe 1900: E. Bethe (ed.), Pollucis Onomasticon (Leipzig) Bethe 1902: E. Bethe, “Die Zeit des Heauton Timoroumenos und des Kolax Menanders”, Hermes 37: 278–82 Bettalli 2013: M. Bettalli, Mercenari. Il mestiere delle armi nel mondo greco antico (Rome) Bianchi 2016: F. P. Bianchi (ed.), Cratino, Archilochoi—Empipramenoi (frr. 1–68): Introduzione, Traduzione, Commento (FrC 3.2: Heidelberg) Bieber 1928: M. Bieber, Griechische Kleidung (Berlin and Leipzig) Bigwood 1993: J. M. Bigwood, “Aristotle and the Elephant Again”, AJP 114: 537–55 Biles–Olson 2015: Z. P. Biles and S. D. Olson (eds.), Aristophanes. Wasps (Oxford) Bishop 1899: C. E. Bishop, “The Greek Verbal in -ΤΕΟ”, AJP 20: 1–21, 121–38, 241–53 Blaydes 1890: F. H. M. Blaydes, Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta Pars I (Halle) Blaydes 1896: F. H. M. Blaydes, Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta Pars II (Halle) Blech 1982: M. Blech, Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten Band 38: Berlin and New York) Boase 1919: W. N. Boase, “FLAX: Cultivation, Preparation, Spinning, Weaving”, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 67: 369–82 Borthwick 1993: E. K. Borthwick, “Autolekythos and lekythion in Demosthenes and Aristophanes”, LCM 18: 34–7 Bothe 1855: F. H. Bothe, Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta post Augustum Meineke (Paris) Bouby–Boissinot–Marinval 2011: L. Bouby, P. Boissinot and P. Marinval, “Never Mind the Bottle: Archaeobotanical Evidence of Beer-brewing in Mediterranean France and the Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages During the 5th Century BC”, Human Ecology 39: 351–60 Bowra 1941: C. M. Bowra, “Xenophanes, Fragment 3”, CQ 35: 119–26 Bowra 1970: C. M. Bowra, On Greek Margins (Oxford)

Bibliography

371

Bradley 2015: M. Bradley (ed.), Smell and the Ancient Senses. The senses in antiquity (London and New York) Brandt 1888: P. Brandt (ed.), Corpusculum poesis epicae graecae ludibundae fasc. I (Leipzig) Braswell 1988: B. K. Braswell, A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Texte und Kommentare Band 14: Berlin and New York) Braund 2000: D. Braund, “The Movement of Scythian Nomads Nuancing ‘Otherness’”, Journal of Mediterranean Studies 10: 21–30 Braund 2005: D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks: Cultural Interactions in Scythia, Athens and the Early Roman Empire (sixth century BC – first century AD) (Exeter) Breitenbach 1908: H. Breitenbach, De genere quodam titulorum comoediae Atticae (Diss. Basel) Brock 1990: R. Brock, “Plato and Comedy”, in Craik 1990, pp. 39–50 Brommer 1942: F. Brommer, “Herakles und die Hesperiden auf Vasenbildern”, JdI 57: 105–23 Broneer 1954: O. Broneer, Corinth i. 4: The South Stoa and its Roman Successors (Princeton) Brøns 2017: C. Brøns, “Sacred Colours: purple textiles in Greek sanctuaries in the second half of the 1st millennium BCE”, in Enegren–Meo 2017, pp. 109–17 Brown 1983: P. G. McG. Brown, “Menander’s Dramatic Technique and the Law of Athens”, CQ NS 33: 412–20 Brown 1990: P. G. McG. Brown, “Plots and Prostitutes in Greek New Comedy”, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6: 241–66 Brumfield 1997: A. Brumfield, “Cakes in the Liknon: Votives from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth”, Hesperia 66: 147–72 Brunnsåker 1955 (1973): S. Brunnsåker, The Tyrant-slayers of Kritios and Nesiotes (Athens and Stockholm, 1955; 2nd edition 1973) Bryant 1907: A. A. Bryant, “Boyhood and Youth in the Days of Aristophanes”, HSCP 18: 73–122 Buck 1979: R. J. Buck, A History of Boiotia (Edmonton) Buck 1994: R. J. Buck, Boiotia and the Boiotian League 432–371 B. C. (Edmonton) Buckler 1980: J. Buckler, The Theban Hegemony 371–362 B.C. (Cambridge Mass. and London) Burkert 1979: W. Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley) Burkert 1985: W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge Mass.) Burkett 1977: M. E. Burkett, “An Early Date for the Origin of Felt”, Anatolian Studies 27: 111–15 Cairns 2003: D. L. Cairns, “The politics of envy: envy and equality in ancient Greece”, in Konstan–Rutter 2003, pp. 235–52 Calderini 1924: A. Calderini, ΘΗΣΑΥΡΟΙ: Ricerche di topographia e di storia della pubblica amministrazione nell’Egitto greco-romano (Studi della Scuola Papirologica IV.3: Milan) Campagner 2001: R. Campagner, Lessico agonistico di Aristofane (Lessici 3: Rome and Pisa) Campagner 2002: R. Campagner, “Il gioco del cottabo nelle commedie di Aristofane”, QUCC 72: 111–27 Canter 1564: G. Canter, Novarum lectionum libri quatuor (Basel) Capponi 1979: F. Capponi, Ornithologia Latina (Pubblicazioni dell’Instituto di filologia classica e medievale dell’Università di Genova 58: Genoa) Capps 1900: “Chronological Studies in the Greek Tragic and Comic Poets”, AJP 21: 38–61 Caroli 2016: M. Caroli, “Su un valore semantico del gr. λαμβάνω”, Glotta 92: 68–85

372

Bibliography

Carusi 2008: C. Carusi, Il sale nel mondo greco (VI a.C.-III d.C.): Luoghi di produzione, circolazione commerciale, regimi di sfruttamento nel contesto del Mediterraneo antico (Bari) Casaubon 1664: I. Casaubon, Animadversionum in Athenaei Dipnosophistas libri quindecim (Leipzig) Chamoux 1953: F. Chamoux, Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome Fascicule 177: Paris) Chantraine 1956: P. Chantraine, Études sur le vocabulaire grec (Études et commentaires XXIV: Paris) Charles 2016: M. B. Charles, “Elephant Size in Antiquity”, Historia 65: 53–65 Charles 2020: M. B. Charles, “The African Elephants of Antiquity Revisited: Habitat and Representational Evidence”, Historia 69: 392–407 Clarke 2000: M. Clarke, Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer. A Study of Words and Myths (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Classen–Howes–Synnott 1994: C. Classen, D. Howes and A Synnott, Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell (New York) Claus 1981: D. B. Claus, Toward the Soul: An Inquiry into the Meaning of ψυχή before Plato (New Haven and London) Clinton 1832: H. F. Clinton, “The Comic Poet Antiphanes”, Philological Museum 1: 558–608 Cobb 2016: M. Cobb, “The Decline of Ptolemaic Elephant Hunting: An Analysis of the Contributing Factors”, G&R 63: 192–204 Cobet 1854: C. G. Cobet, Varia Lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores graecos (Leiden) Cobet 1858: C. G. Cobet, Novae Lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores graecos (Leiden) Cole 1984: S. G. Cole, “Greek Sanctions against Sexual Assault”, CP 79: 97–113 Collard 2018: C. Collard, Colloquial Expressions in Greek Tragedy. Revised and enlarged edition of P.T. Stevens’s Colloquial Expressions in Euripides (Hermes Einzelschriften 113: Stuttgart) Comentale 2017: N. Comentale, Ermippo: Introduzione, Traduzione et Commento (FrC 6: Heidelberg) Conti Bizzarro 1993–1994: F. Conti Bizzarro, “Una testimonianza su Filosseno nella commedia di mezzo : Antifane fr. 207 Kassel-Austin”, RAAN 64 (1993–1994) 143–57 Corsano 1992: M. Corsano, Glaukos. Miti greci di personaggi omonimi (Rome) Costanza 2019: S. Costanza, Giulio Polluce, Onomasticon: excerpta de ludis. Materiali per la storia del gioco nel mondo greco-romano (Hellenica 81: Alexandria) Craik 1990: E. M. Craik (ed.), Owls to Athens (Festschrift K. J. Dover: Oxford) Crane 1983: E. Crane, The Archaeology of Beekeeping (London) Croenert 1903: W. Croenert, Memoria graeca herculanensis (Leipzig) Cromey 1978: R. D. Cromey, “Attic Παιανία and Παιονίδαι”, Glotta 56: 62–9 Cropp 2000: M. J. Cropp (ed.), Euripides Iphigenia in Tauris (Warminster) Crusius 1888: O. Crusius, “Coniectanea”, Philologus 46: 606–31 Crusius 1889: O. Crusius, review of Kock 1884 vol. III, in GGA 1889. 163–85 Csapo–Miller 1991: E. Csapo and M. C. Miller, “The ‘Kottabos-Toast’ and an Inscribed Red-Figured Cup”, Hesperia 60: 367–82 Cudjoe 2010: R. V. Cudjoe, The Social and Legal Position of Widows and Orphans in Classical Athens (Athens) Cuny 1906: A. L. M. Cuny, Le nombre duel en grec (Paris)

Bibliography

373

Curtis 1991: R. I. Curtis, Garum and Salsamenta: production and commerce in materia medica (Studies in Ancient Medicine: Leiden) Dalby 2001: A. Dalby, “Christopher Columbus, Gonzalo Pizarro, and the Search for Cinnamon”, Gastronomica 1: 40–9 Dalechamp 1583: J. Dalechamp, Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV (Leiden) D’Anjour 2011: A. D’Anjour, The Greeks and the New: Novelty in Ancient Greek Imagination and Experience (Cambridge) Dao 1964: N. K. Dao, “Chinese Cassia”, in Ravindran–Babu–Shylaja 2004, pp. 156–84 Darkus 1979: S. M. Darkus, “A Person’s Relation to ψυχή in Homer, Hesiod, and the Greek Lyric Poets”, Glotta 57: 30–9 Davidson 2002: A. Davidson, Mediterranean Seafood3 (Berkeley and Toronto) Davies 1971: J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C.E. (Oxford) Davies–Kathirithamby 1986: M. Davies and J. Kathirithamby, Greek Insects (New York and Oxford) Dearden 1995: C. W. Dearden, “Pots, Tumblers and Phlyax Vases”, in Essays in Ancient Drama in Honour of E. W. Handley (BICS Supplement 66), pp. 81–6 Dedousi 1961: C. Dedousi, “The Trochaic Tetrameter in Menander”, Platon 13: 59–65 Demont 1978: P. Demont, “Remarques sur le sens de τρέφω”, REG 91: 358–84 Denniston 1939: J. D. Denniston (ed.), Euripides: Electra (Oxford) Denniston 1954: J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles2 (rev. K. J. Dover: London) De Romanis 1996: F. De Romanis, Cassia Cinnamomo Ossidiana (Saggi di storia antica 9: Rome) de Saint-Denis 1980: E. de Saint-Denis, “Éloge du chou”, Latomus 39: 838–49 Desrousseaux 1942: A. M. Desrousseaux, Observations critiques sur les livres III et IV d’Athénée (Paris) Dickey 1996: E. Dickey, Greek Forms of Address (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Diggle 1981: J. Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides (Oxford) Diggle 2004: J. Diggle (ed.), Theophrastus: Characters (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 43: Cambridge) Di Marzio 1999: M. Di Marzio, “Brindisi e libagioni nei frammenti della Μέση: testimonianze di interpolazioni in commedia e un confronto con Platonio”, MD 42: 167–86 Dindorf 1827: G. Dindorf (ed.), Athenaeus (3 vols.: Leipzig) Dindorf 1846: L. Dindorf (ed.), Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (Paris) Dobree 1831: P. P. Dobree, Adversaria Vol. I (ed. J. Scholefield: Cambridge) Dobree 1833: P. P. Dobree, Adversaria Vol. II (ed. J. Scholefield: Cambridge) Dobrov 2002: G. W. Dobrov, “Μάγειρος ποιητής: Language and Character in Antiphanes”, in Willi 2002, pp. 169–90 Dobrov 2010: G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy (Leiden and Boston) Dore 1964: G. Dore, “Il suffisso -ιδιον nella commedia greca”, RFIC 92: 304–19 Dover 1968: K. J. Dover (ed.), Aristophanes: Clouds (Oxford) Dover 1974: K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford) Dover 1985: K. J. Dover, “Some Types of Abnormal Word-Order in Attic Comedy”, CQ NS 35: 324–43 Dover 1987: K. J. Dover, Greek and the Greeks: Collected Papers Volume I: Language, Poetry, Drama (Oxford and New York) Dover 1993: K. J. Dover (ed.), Aristophanes: Frogs (Oxford and New York) Dunbar 1995: N. Dunbar (ed.), Aristophanes: Birds (Oxford)

374

Bibliography

Dutsch 2012: D. Dutsch, “Genre, Gender, and Suicide Threats in Roman Comedy”, CW 105: 187–98 Edmonds 1959: J. M. Edmonds (ed.), The Fragments of Attic Comedy Vol. II Middle Comedy (Leiden) Edmonds 2017: J. Edmonds, “Imperial purple, dye and pigment”, in Kirby 2017, pp. 118–21 Edwards 2001: J. Edwards, “Philology and Cuisine in De Re Coquinaria”, AJP 122: 255–63 Eisman and Turnbull 1978: M. M. Eisman and L. Turnbull, “Robinson’s Kiln Skyphos”, AJA 82: 394–9 Emperius 1847: A. Emperius, Opuscula philologica et historica (Göttingen) Enegren–Meo 2017: H. L. Enegren and F. Meo (eds.), Treasures from the Sea: Sea Silk and Shellfish Purple Dye in Antiquity (Ancient Textile Series 30: Oxford and Philadelphia) Engelmann 1986: H. Engelmann, “Degustation von Götterwein (I.v.E. 2076)”, ZPE 63: 107–8 Erfurdt 1812: C. G. A. Erfurdt, “Observationes criticae maxime in Athenaei Deipnosophistas”, Königsberger Archiv für Philosophie, Theologie, Sprachkunde und Geschichte 1: 424–72 Faraone–McClure 2006: C. A. Faraone and L. K. McClure (eds.), Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (Madison) Farmer 2017: M. C. Farmer, “Playing the Philosopher: Plato in Fourth-Century Comedy”, AJP 138: 1–42 Fauchier 2020: L. Fauchier, “Καπηλεία et vente à crédit dan l’Athènes classique”, REA 122: 29–54 Fawcett 2016: P. Fawcett, “‘When I Squeeze You with Eisphorai’: Taxes and Tax Policy in Classical Athens”, Hesperia 85: 153–99 Ferrence–Shank 2006: S. C. Ferrence and E. B. Shank, “Evidence for Beekeeping”, in The Chrysokamino Metallurgy Workshop and Its Territory (Hesperia Supplements 36), pp. 391–2 Feyel 1936: M. Feyel, “Nouvelles inscriptions d’Akraiphia”, BCH 60: 11–36 Figuera 1984: T. J. Figuera, “Mess Contributions and Subsistence in Sparta”, TAPA 114: 89–109 Fine 1951: J. V. A. Fine, Studies in Mortgage, Real Security, and Land Tenure in Ancient Athens (Hesperia Supplement 9: Princeton) Finglass 2007: P. J. Finglass (ed.), Sophocles Electra (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 44: Cambridge and New York) Finglass 2011: P. J. Finglass (ed.), Sophocles Ajax (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 48: Cambridge and New York) Fongoni 2005: A. Fongoni, “Antifane e Filosseno”, QUCC NS 81: 91–8 Forbes 1964: R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology2 (9 vols.: Leiden) Fornieles Sánchez 2014: R. Fornieles Sánchez, “Εἶτα y ἔπειτα en a tragedia griega: de adverbios de tiempo a marcadores del discurso”, Minerva 27: 97–118 Fortenbaugh–Schütrumpf 2000: W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf (eds.), Demetrius of Phalerum. Text, Translation and Discussion (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities Vol. IX: New Brunswick and London) Foss 1974–1975: C. Foss, “Greek Sling Bullets in Oxford”, Archaeological Reports 21: 40–4 Foss 1975: C. Foss, “A Bullet of Tissaphernes”, JHS 95: 25–30 Fowler 2013: R. L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography Vol. II Commentary (Oxford) Foxhall 2007a: L. Foxhall, Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the Ancient Economy (Oxford)

Bibliography

375

Foxhall 2007b: L. Foxhall, “House clearance: unpacking the ‘kitchen’ in Classical Greece”, BSA Studies 15 Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond, pp. 233–42 Fraenkel 1950: E. Fraenkel (ed.), Aeschylus: Agamemnon (3 vols.: Oxford) Francis 2009: J. Francis, “Ancient Ceramic Beekeeping Equipment at the University of Ottawa”, Mouseion III.9: 159–70 Francis 2012: J. E. Francis, “Experiments with an Old Ceramic Beehive”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31: 143–59 Frayn 1984: J. M. Frayn, Sheep-rearing and the Wool Trade in Italy during the Roman Period (ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 15: Liverpool) Fredricksmeyer 1986: E. A. Fredricksmeyer, “Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Kausia”, TAPA 116: 215–27 Friis Johansen–Whittle 1980: H. Friis Johansen and E. W. Whittle (eds.), Aeschylus The Suppliants (3 vols.: Copenhagen) Frisk 1943: H. Frisk, “Zur griechischen Wortkunde”, Eranos 41: 48–64 Frost 1999: F. Frost, “Sausage and Meat Preservation in Antiquity”, GRBS 40: 246–52 Funke–Moustakis–Hochschulz 2004: P. Funke, N. Moustakis and B. Hochschulz, “Epeiros”, in Hansen–Nielsen 2004, pp. 338–50 Gabrielsen 2007: V. Gabrielsen, “Trade and Tribute: Byzantion and the Black Sea straits”, in Gabrielsen–Lund 2007, pp. 287–324 Gabrielsen–Lund 2007: V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Aarhus) Gantz 1993: T. Gantz, Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources (Baltimore and London) García Soler 2001: M. J. García Soler, El arte de comer en la Antigua Grecia (Madrid) Garnsey–Gallant–Rathbone 1984: P. Garnsey, T. Gallant and D. Rathbone, “Thessaly and the Grain Supply of Rome during the Second Century B.C.”, JRS 74: 30–44 Garrison 1991: E. Garrison, “Attitudes toward Suicide in Ancient Greece”, TAPA 121: 1–33 Garrison 1995: E. Garrison, Groaning Tears: Ethical and Dramatic Aspects of Suicide in Greek Tragedy (Mnemosyne Supplement 145: Leiden) Garvie 2009: A. F. Garvie (ed.), Aeschylus Persae (Oxford) Gawronski–van Holk–Schokkenbroek 2012: J. Gawronski, A. van Holk and J. Schokkenbroek (eds.), Ships and Maritime Landscapes: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology (Amsterdam) Gentili 1995: B. Gentili (ed.), Pindaro. Le Pitiche (Scrittori greci e latini: Bologna) Georgi 1982: L. Georgi, “Pollination Ecology of the Date Palm and the Fig Tree: Herodotus 1. 193. 4–5”, CP 77: 224–8 Gerhard 1909: G. A. Gerhard (ed.), Phoinix von Kolophon: Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig and Berlin) Gesner 1543: C. Gesner (ed.), Keras Amalthaias, Ioannis Stobei Sententiae (Zurich) Gildersleeve 1900: B. L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes (New York, Cincinnati and Chicago) Ginouvès 1962: R. Ginouvès, Balaneutikè: recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque (Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome: Paris) Gipper 1964: H. Gipper, “Purpur”, Glotta 42: 39–69 Glazebrook–Henry 2011: A. Glazebrook and M. M. Henry (eds.), Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE-200 CE (Madison)

376

Bibliography

Goebel 1915: M. Goebel, Ethnica Pars Prima: De Graecarum Civitatum Proprietatibus Proverbio Notatis (Diss. Breslau) Goldhill–Osborne 1999: S. Goldhill and R. Osborne (eds.), Performance culture and Athenian democracy (Cambridge) Gomme–Sandbach 1973: A. W. Gomme and F. H. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary (Oxford) Goodchild 1971: R. G. Goodchild, Kyrene und Apollonia (Zurich) Goodwin 1875: W. W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (Boston) Gorman–Gorman 2014: R. J. Gorman and V. B. Gorman, Corrupting Luxury in Ancient Greek Literature (Ann Arbor) Goupil 2010: S. Goupil, “Le bière aux marges du banquet”, Ktèma 35: 27–38 Gow 1950: A. S. F. Gow (ed.), Theocritus Vol. II Commentary, Appendix, Indexes and Plates (Cambridge) Gow 1965: A. S. F. Gow (ed.), Machon (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 1: Cambridge) Gow–Page 1965: A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page (eds.), The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge) Goyon 1996: J.-C. Goyon, “Remarques sur l’ouvrage de F. de Romanis, Cassia, cinnamomo, ossidiana”, Topoi. Orient-Occident 6: 651–5 Grandjouan 1989: C. Grandjouan, “Appendix 1: The Food of the Gods”, in Hellenistic Relief Molds from the Athenian Agora (Hesperia Supplement 23: Princeton), pp. 57–67 Grasberger 1888: L. Grasberger, Studien zu den griechischen Ortsnamen (Würzburg; reprint Amsterdam 1969) Gratwick 1979: A. S. Gratwick, “Sundials, Parasites, and Girls from Boeotia”, CQ NS 29: 308–23 Green 2001: J. R. Green, “Comic Cuts: Snippets of Action on the Greek Comic Stage”, BICS 45: 37–64 Gregory 2007: J. Gregory, “Donkeys and the Equine Hierarchy in Archaic Greek Literature”, CJ 102: 193–212 Griffin 1992: A. H. F. Griffin, “Ovid’s Universal Flood”, Hermathena 152: 39–58 Griffith 2006: M. Griffith, “Horsepower and Donkeywork: Equids and the Ancient Greek Imagination”, CP 101: 185–246, 307–58 Grotius 1623: H. Grotius, Dicta poetarum quae apud Ioannem Stobaeum exstant (Paris) Grotius 1626: H. Grotius, Excerpta ex tragoediis et comoediis (Paris) Gulick 1936: C. B. Gulick, “Notes on Athenaeus”, in Classical Studies presented to Edward Capps on his Seventieth Birthday (Princeton), pp. 174–81 Hadjimichael 2019: T. A. Hadjimichael, The Emergence of the Lyric Canon (Oxford) Hagel 2009: S. Hagel, Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical History (Cambridge) Hall 1988: E. Hall, “When Did the Trojans Turn into Phrygians? Alcaeus 42.15”, ZPE 73: 15–18 Hammond 1967: N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus. The Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History, and the Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas (Oxford) Hammond–Griffith 1979: N. G. L. Hammond and G. T. Griffith, A History of Macedon Vol. II 550–336 B.C. (Oxford) Handley 1965: E. W. Handley (ed.), The Dyskolos of Menander (Cambridge Mass.) Hansen 1980: M. H. Hansen, “Seven Hundred Archai in Classical Athens”, GRBS 21: 151–73 Hansen 2004: M. H. Hansen, “Boiotia”, in Hansen–Nielsen 2004, pp. 431–61

Bibliography

377

Hansen–Neilsen 2004: M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford) Harissis 2017: H. V. Harissis, “Beekeeping in Prehistoric Greece”, in Harjina–Mavrofridis– Jones 2017, pp. 18–39 Harjina–Mavrofridis–Jones 2017: F. Harjina, G. Mavrofridis and R. Jones (eds.), Beekeeping in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Present (Nea Moudania) Harris 1986: E. M. Harris, “The Names of Aeschines’ Brothers-in-Law”, AJP 107: 99–102 Harris 1988: D. Harris, “Nikokrates of Kolonos, Metalworker to the Parthenon Treasurers”, Hesperia 57: 329–37 Harrison 1968: A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens Vol. I The Family and Property (Oxford) Hawkins 2013: S. Hawkins, Studies in the Language of Hipponax (Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft Band 14: Bremen) Hayley 1894: H. W. Hayley, “The κότταβος κατακτός in the Light of Recent Investigations”, HSCP 5: 73–82 Headlam 1907: W. Headlam, “Emendations and Explanations”, Journal of Philology 30: 290–319 Headlam 1966: W. Headlam (ed.), Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (ed. A. D. Knox: Cambridge) Hehn 1911: V. Hehn, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere in ihren Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie in das übrige Europa8 (Berlin) Heimsoeth 1866/1867: F. Heimsoeth, “Commentatio critica de diversa diversorum mendorum emendatione”, in Index Scholarum (Bonn), pp. iii–xxi Henderson 1972: J. Henderson, “The Lekythos and Frogs 1200–1248”, HSCP 76: 133–43 Henderson 1974: J. Henderson, “ΚΩΙΔΑΡΙΟΝ: a reply”, Mnemosyne IV.27: 293–5 Henderson 1987a: J. Henderson (ed.), Aristophanes’ Lysistrata (Oxford) Henderson 1987b: J. Henderson, “Older Women in Attic Old Comedy”, TAPA 117: 105–29 Henry 1985: M. M. Henry, Menander’s Courtesans and the Greek Comic Tradition (Frankfurt am Main) Hense 1884: O. Hense (ed.), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium Vol. II (Berlin) Hense 1912: O. Hense (ed.), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii Libri Duo Posteriores Vol. V (Berlin) Hense 1920/1: O. Hense, “Zu den Bruchstücken der griechischen Komiker II”, WSt 42: 97–102 Hermann 1824: G. Hermann (ed.), Euripidis Alcestis (Leipzig) Hermann 1834: G. Hermann, Opuscula Vol. V (Cambridge) Hermann 1954: A. Hermann, “Charon”, Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum Band II, pp. 1040–61 Hertelius 1560: I. Hertelius, Vetustissimorum et sapientissimorum comicorum quinquaginta (Basel) Herwerden 1855: H. van Herwerden, Observationes criticae in fragmenta comicorum graecorum (Leipzig) Herwerden 1864: H. van Herwerden, Nova addenda critica ad Meinekii opus, quod inscribitur Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum (Leiden) Herwerden 1868: H. van Herwerden, Analecta critica ad Thucydidem, Lysiam, Sophoclem, Aristophanem et comicorum graecorum fragmenta (Utrecht) Herwerden 1872: H. van Herwerden, Studia critica in poetas scenicos graecorum (Amsterdam) Herwerden 1876: H. van Herwerden, “Notulae ad Athenaeum”, Mnemosyne NS 4: 294–323 Herwerden 1878: H. van Herwerden, “Curae Criticae in poetis scenicis Graecorum”, Mnemosyne NS 6: 55–84

378

Bibliography

Herwerden 1903: H. van Herwerden, Collectanea critica, epicritica, exegetica sive Addenda ad Theodori Kockii opus Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta (Leiden) Hirzel 1908: R. Hirzel, “Der Selbstmord”, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 11: 75–104, 243–84, 417–76 Hoffmann 1999: M. Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder (Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt Band 32: Munich) Hoffman–Jordan 1892: H. A. Hoffman and D. St. Jordan, “A Catalogue of the Fishes of Greece, with Notes on the Names Now in Use and Those Employed by Classical Authors”, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 44: 230–86 Howes 1950: F. N. Howes, “Age-old Resins of the Mediterranean Region and Their Uses”, Economic Botany 4: 307–17 Howland 1958: R. H. Howland, The Athenian Agora IV Greek Lamps and their Survivals (Princeton) Hughes 2009: A. Hughes, “The Costumes of Old and Middle Comedy”, BICS 49: 39–68 Humphreys 2019: S. C. Humphreys, Kinship in Ancient Athens. An Anthropological Analysis (Oxford) Hunter 1983: R. L. Hunter (ed.), Eubulus: The Fragments (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 24: Cambridge) Jacobs 1805: F. Jacobs, Spicilegium observationum et emendationum ad novissimam Athenaei editionem (Altenburg) Jacobs 1809: F. Jacobs, Additamenta animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (Jena) Jackson 1998: S. Jackson, “Callimachus’ Pupils and Adonis”, MH 55: 9–13 Jackson 2020: J. C. M. M. Jackson, The Chorus of Drama in the Fourth Century BCE (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Jacquet-Rimassa 1995: P. Jacquet-Rimassa, “ΚΟΤΤΑΒΟΣ. Recherches iconographiques. Céramique italiote. 440-300 av. J.C.”, Pallas 42: 129–70 Jacquet-Rimassa 2008: P. Jacquet-Rimassa, “L’Image en Jeu ou l’Offrande Dionysiaque (le kottabe dix ans après…)”, Pallas 76: 67–80 Janko 1987: R. Janko, “Polydeukes and Deukalion”, Glotta 65: 69–72 Janse 2019: M. Janse, “The ancient, the medieval and the modern in a Greek-English Lexicon or : how to get your daily ‘bread’ in Greek through the ages”, in Stray–Clarke– Katz 2019, pp. 181–99 Jasny 1944: N. Jasny, The Wheats of Classical Antiquity (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Series LXII, No. 3: Baltimore) Jensen 1963: L. B. Jensen, “Royal Purple of Tyre”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22: 104–18 Johnston 1990: S. I. Johnston, Hekata Soteira (American Classical Studies 21: Atlanta) Johnston 1991: S. I. Johnston, “Crossroads”, ZPE 88: 217–24 Jones 2000: N. F. Jones, “Epigraphic Evidence for Farmstead Residence in Attica”, ZPE 133: 75–90 Jones–Graham–Sackett–Geroulanos 1973: J. E. Jones, A. J. Graham, L. H. Sackett and M. I. Geroulanos, “An Attic Country House below the Cave of Pan at Vari”, ABSA 68: 355–452 Joret 1892: C. Joret, “Des noms de palmier: κόιξ, κύκας et κυκιοφόρον”, REG 5: 415–19 Jubier-Galinier 2014: C. Jubier-Galinier, “‘Τοῖς νεκροῖσι … τὰς ληκύθους’: l’évolution des usages du lécythe dans le rituel funéraire athénien aux époques archaïque et classique”, Pallas 94: 39–59 Jungermann 1706: G. Jungermann (ed.), Iouliou Polydeukous Onomastikon en bibliois deka (Antwerp)

Bibliography

379

Kaibel 1887–1890: G. Kaibel (ed.), Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum Libri XV (Leipzig) Kamen 2014: D. Kamen, “Sale for the Purpose of Freedom: Slave-prostitutes and Manumission in Ancient Greece”, CJ 109: 281–307 Kann 1909: S. Kann, De iteratis apud poetas antiquae et mediae comoediae atticae (Diss. Giessen) Kannicht 1969: R. Kannicht (ed.), Euripides Helena Band II Kommentar (Heidelberg) Kanowski 1984: M. G. Kanowski, Containers of Classical Greece (St. Lucia, London and New York) Kapetanios 2003: A. Kapetanios, “The ‘socialisation’ of animals in Epirus, Ikaria and Crete: the material and symbolic role of man-animal relations of production in the process of social formation”, BSA Studies 9, Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, pp. 283–90 Kapparis 2011: K. K. Kapparis, “The Terminology of Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World”, in Glazebrook–Henry 2011, pp. 222–55 Karabélias 2002: E. Karabélias, L’epiclérat attique (Athens) Keller 1909–1913: O. Keller, Die antike Tierwelt (2 vols.: Leipzig) Kelly 2012: A. Kelly, “The Cretan Slinger at War—A Weighty Exchange”, ABSA 107: 273–311 Kerschner 2020: M. Kerschner (ed.), Der Kult der Meter/Kybele in Westanatolien und in der Ägäis (Vienna) Killin–Melena–Olivier 1987: J. T. Killin, J. L. Melena and J.-P. Olivier (eds.), Studies in Mycenean and Classical Greek Presented to John Chadwick (= Minos 20–22: Salamanca) Kirby 2005: J. Kirby (ed.), Dyes in History and Archaeology 20 (London) Kitchell 2014: K. F. Kitchell, Jr., Animals in the Ancient World from A to Z (London and New York) Kock 1875: T. Kock, “Comicorum graecorum emendationes”, RhM 30: 398–418 Kock 1884: T. Kock (ed.), Comicorum atticorum fragmenta Vol. II (Leipzig) Koerper–Kolls 1999: H. Koerper and A. L. Kolls, “The Silphium Motif Adorning Ancient Libyan Coinage: Marketing a Medicinal Plant”, Economic Botany 53: 133–43 Konstan 2001: D. Konstan, Pity Transformed (London) Konstan 2006: D. Konstan, The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks (Toronto, Buffalo and London) Konstan–Rutter 2003: D. Konstan and K. Rutter (eds.), Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions of Ancient Greece (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 2: Edinburgh) Konstantakos 2000a: I. Konstantakos, A Commentary on the fragments of eight plays of Antiphanes (Diss. Cambridge) Konstantakos 2000b: I. Konstantakos, “Note on the Chronology and Career of Antiphanes”, Eikasmos 11 (2000) 173–96 Konstantakos 2004: I. M. Konstantakos, “Antiphanes’ Agroikos-Plays: An Examination of the Ancient Evidence and Fragments”, Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 46: 9–40 Konstantakos 2005a: I. M. Konstantakos, “Aspects of the figure of the ἄγροικος in ancient comedy”, RhM 148: 1–26 Konstantakos 2005b: I. M. Konstantakos, “The Drinking Theatre: Staged Symposia in Greek Comedy”, Mnemosyne 58: 183–217 Konstantakos 2011: I. M. Konstantakos, “Conditions of Playwriting and the Comic Dramatist’s Craft in the Fourth Century”, Logeion 1: 145–83 Kopestonsky 2016: T. Kopestonsky, “The Greek Cult of the Nymphs at Corinth”, Hesperia 85: 711–77

380

Bibliography

Koppiers 1771: P. H. Koppiers, Observata philologica in loca quaedam Antiphanis, Theocriti, Pauli apostoli, Propertii, et Eratosthenis (Leiden) Koren 2005: Z. C. Koren, “The First Optimal All-Murex All-Natural Purple Dyeing in the Eastern Mediterranean in a Millenium and a Half ”, in Kirby 2005, pp. 136–49 Koren 2018: Z. C. Koren, “Scientific Research on Purple Mollusc Pigments on Archaeological Artifacts”, in Les arts de la couleur en grèce ancienne… et ailleurs (BCH Supplément 56), pp. 35–47 Korfmann 1973: M. Korfman, “The Sling as a Weapon”, Scientific American 229: 35–42 Koutrakis et al. 2009: E. Koutrakis, Y. Machino, D. Mylona and C. Perdikaris, “Crayfish Terminology in Ancient Greek, Latin, and Other European Languages”, Crustaceana 82: 1535–46 Kraus 1960: T. Kraus, Hekate (Heidelberger kunstgeschichtliche Abhandlungen NF 5: Heidelberg) Kröger 2012: L. Kröger, “Crossing the river. Ferries as part of the maritime landscape of the river Main (Germany)”, in Gawronski–van Holk–Schokkenbroek 2012, pp. 95–101 Kroehnert 1897: O. Kroehnert, Canonesne poetarum scriptorum artificum per antiquitatem fuerunt? (Diss. Königsberg) Kühner–Gerth 1898: R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache3 II Satzlehre (rev. B. Gerth; 2 vols.: Hannover) Kurlansky 2002: M. Kurlansky, Salt: a World History (New York) Labiano Ilundain 1998: J. M. Labiano Ilundain, “Griego εἶἑν. Sobre un uso concreto y su distribución”, in López Eire–Labiano Ilundain–Seoane Pardo 1998, pp. 15–24 Lagóstena Barrios 2001: L. Lagóstena Barrios, La producción de salsas y conservas de pescado en la Hispania Romana (II a.C. – VI d.C.) (Biblioteca de la Universitat de Barcelona: Barcelona) Lamagna 2004: M. Lamagna, “Da Filosseno a Euripide in una mossa: Antifane, fr. 205 K.-A.”, in Mathesis e mneme: studi in memoria di Marcello Gigante (Naples), pp. 33–44 Lamari–Montanari–Novokhatko 2020: A. Lamari, F. Montanari and A. Novokhatko (eds.), Fragmentation in Ancient Greek Drama (Trends in Classics Supplementary Vol. 84: Berlin) Lamont 2015: J. Lamont, “Asklepios in the Piraeus and the Mechanisms of Cult Appropriation”, in Miles 2015, pp. 37–50 Lange 1937: S. Lange, “Emendation of Antiphanes, Frag. 52”, CP 32: 159–60 Langholf 1986: V. Langholf, “Kallimachos, Komödie und hippokratische Frage”, Medizinhistorisches Journal 21: 3–30 Laronde 1987: A. Laronde, Cyrène et la Libye hellénistique. Libykai Historiai de l’époque républicaine au pricipat d’Auguste (Paris) Larson 2001: J. Larson, Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore (New York) Larson–Cooper et al. 2005: G. Larson, A. Cooper et al., “Worldwide Phylogeography of Wild Boar Reveals Multiple Centers of Pig Domestication”, Science 307 no. 5715: 1618–21 Larson–Cooper et al. 2007: G. Larson, A. Cooper et al., “Ancient DNA, Pig Domestication, and the Spread of the Neolithic into Europe”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 n. 39: 15276–81 Laser 1987: S. Laser, Sport und Spiel (Archaeologia Homerica T: Göttingen) Lattimore 1942: R. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Illinois Studies in Language and Literature XXVII.1–2: Urbana) Lattimore 1975: S. Lattimore, “The Chlamys of Daochos I”, AJA 79: 87–8 Laufer 1930: B. Laufer, “The Early History of Felt”, American Anthropologist NS 32: 1–18

Bibliography

381

Lautensach 1911: O. Lautensach, Die Aoriste bei den attischen Tragikern und Komikern (Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik Heft 1: Göttingen) Lee 2015: M. M. Lee, Body, Dress, and Identity in Ancient Greece (Cambridge) Leese 2017: M. Leese, “Kapêloi and Economic Rationality in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Athens”, ICS 42: 41–59 Legrand 1910: P. E. Legrand, Daos. Tableau de la comédie grecque pendant la période dite nouvelle (Lyons and Paris) Lennep 1777: J. D. van Lennep, Phalaridis epistolae (Groningen) Leo 1912: F. Leo, Plautinische Forschungen zur Kritik und Geschichte der Komödie2 (Berlin) Leven 2010: P. A. Leven, “New Music and its Myths: Athenaeus’ Reading of the Aulos Revolution (Deipnosophistae 14.616E–617F)”, JHS 130: 35–47 Lincoln 1980: B. Lincoln, “The Ferryman of the Dead”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 8: 41–59 Liverani 2002–2003: I. A. Liverani, “Minima Eustathiana”, Sileno 1/2: 203–4 Llewellyn-Jones 2021: L. Llewellyn-Jones, “Body and Clothing”, in Wharton 2021, pp. 81–102 Lobeck 1843: C. A. Lobeck, Pathologiae sermonis Graeci prolegomena (Leipzig) Lockwood 1938: J. F. Lockwood, “ΑΓΑΝ and ΛΙΑΝ in Attic”, CR 52: 7–8 Lomas Salmonte 1991: F. J. Lomas Salmonte, “Cádiz en la Antigüedad”, in Lomas Salmonte– Javier–Sánchez Saus 1991, pp. 15–146 Lomas Salmonte–Javier–Sánchez Saus 1991: F. J. Lomas Salmonte, F. Javier and R. Sánchez Saus (eds.), Historia de Cádiz. Entre la leyenda y el olvido (Cádiz) López Eire 1996: A. López Eire, La lengua coloquial de la Comedia aristofánica (Murcia) López Férez 2014: J. A. López Férez (ed.), La comedia griega en sus textos (Madrid) Loukopoulou–Laitar 2004: L. Loukopoulou and A. Laitar, “Propontic Thrace”, in Hansen– Nielsen 2004, pp. 912–23 Lucore and Trümper 2013: S. K. Lucore and M. Trümper (eds), Greek Baths and Bathing Culture (Babesch Supplements 23 (Leuven) Lynch–Lawall–Little 2011: K. M. Lynch, M. L. Lawall and L. M. Little, The Symposium in Context: Pottery from a Late Archaic House near the Athenian Agora (Hesperia Supplements 46: Princeton) Lytle 2012: E. Lytle, “Ἡ θάλασσα κοινή: Fishermen, the Sea, and the Limits of Ancient Greek Regulatory Reach”, CA 31: 1–55 Lytle 2016: E. Lytle, “Chaerephilus & Sons: Vertical Integration, Classical Athens and the Black Sea Fish Trade”, Ancient Society 46: 1–26 MacDowell 1962: D. M. MacDowell (ed.), Andocides, On the Mysteries (Oxford) MacDowell 1978: D. M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life: London) MacDowell 1982: D. M. MacDowell, “Love versus the Law: An Essay on Menander’s Aspis”, G&R 29: 42–52 Maggioni et al. 2010: L. Maggioni, R. von Bothmer, G. Poulsen and F. Branca, “Origin and Domestication of Cole Crops (Brassica oleracea L.): Linguistic and Literary Considerations”, Economic Botany 64: 109–23 Magrath 1977: W. T. Magrath, “The Antaios Myth in Pindar”, TAPA 107: 203–24 Major 2019: Wilfred E. Major, “The Pre-History of the Miles Gloriosus in Greek Drama”, in Marshall–Marshall 2019, pp. 215–24 Major 2022: Wilfred E. Major, Love in the Age of War: Soldiers in Menander (Hellenic Studies Series 93: Cambridge Mass. and London)

382

Bibliography

Mangidis 2003: T. Mangidis, Antiphanes’ Mythentravestien (Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe XV Band 88: Frankfurt am Main) Marcinkowsky 2001: A. Marcinkowsky, “Le loup et les grecs”, Ancient Society 31: 1–26 Margaritis 2014: E. Margaritis, “The Kapeleio at Hellenistic Krania: Food Consumption, Disposal, and the Use of Space”, Hesperia 83: 103–21 Margaritis–Jones 2008a: E. Margaritis and M. Jones, “Crop processing of Olea europaea L.: an experimental approach for the interpretation of archaeobotanical olive”, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17: 381–92 Margaritis–Jones 2008b: E. Margaritis and M. Jones, “Olive oil production in Hellenistic Greece: the interpretation of charred olive remains from the site of Tria Platania, Macedonia, Greece (fourth–second century B.C.)”, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17: 393–401 Marshall–Marshall 2019: H. Marshall and C. W. Marshall (eds.), Greek Drama V: Studies in the Theatre of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE (London) Martin 1981: T. R. Martin, “Diodorus on Philip II and Thessaly in the 350s B.C.”, CP 76: 188–201 Marx 1959: F. Marx (ed.), Plautus Rudens. Text und Kommentar (Amsterdam) Marzano 2016: A. Marzano, Harvesting the Sea. The Exploitation of Marine Resources in the Roman Mediterranean (Oxford) Masson 1967: E. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec (Études et Commentaires LXVII: Paris) Mastronarde 1994: D. J. Mastronarde (ed.), Euripides: Phoenissae (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 29: Cambridge) Mathys 2019: A. Mathys, Adverbes et participes en grec ancien. Morphologie et syntaxe des formes en -ως dérivés de participes d’Homère à Polybe (Cahiers de l’ERIAC 16: Rouen) Matthews 1974: V. J. Matthews, Panyassis of Halikarnassos: Text and Commentary (Mnemosyne Supplement 33: Leiden) Mavrofridis 2017: G. Mavrofridis, “Traditional Wax and Honey Presses of Southeastern Europe”, Ethnoentomology 1: 73–82 Mavrofridis 2018: G. Mavrofridis, “Urban beekeeping in Antiquity”, Ethnoentomology 2: 52–61 McGee 1987: W. J. McGee, “Primitive Rope-Making in Mexico”, American Anthropologist 10: 114–19 McInerney 2010: J.y McInerney, The Cattle of the Sun: Cows and Culture in the World of the Ancient Greeks (Princeton) McPhee 2006: I. McPhee, “Herakles and Bousiris by the Telos Painter”, Antike Kunst 49: 43–56 Meineke 1814: A. Meineke, Curae criticae in comicorum fragmenta ab Athenaeo servata (Berlin) Meineke 1830: A. Meineke, Quaestionum scenicarum specimen tertium (Berlin) Meineke 1839–1857: A. Meineke (ed.), Fragmenta comicorum graecorum (ed. maior) (Berlin) Meineke 1847: A. Meineke (ed.), Fragmenta comicorum graecorum (ed. minor) (Berlin) Meineke 1867: A. Meineke, Analecta critica ad Athenaei Deipnosophistas (Leipzig) Menu 2014: M. Menu, “Les sentences chez Antiphane”, in López Férez 2014, pp. 199–221 Metzger 1938: B. M. Metzger, “‘To Call a Spade a Spade’ in Greek and Latin”, CJ 33: 229–31 Meursius (1633) 1744: I. Meursius, Opera (Florence) Miccolis 2018: E. R. Miccolis (ed.), Archippos (FrC 12: Heidelberg)

Bibliography

383

Miles 2015: M. M. Miles (ed.), Autopsy in Athens. Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica (Oxford and Philadelphia) Miller 1969: J. I. Miller, The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire 29 B.C. to A.D. 641 (Oxford) Millis 1997: B. W. Millis, “Antiphanes fr. 46 K-A and the Problem of Spartan Moustaches”, CQ NS 47: 574–8 Millis 2015: B. W. Millis (ed.), Anaxandrides. Introduction, Translation, Commentary (FrC 17: Heidelberg) Millis 2020: B. W. Millis, “Fragments of Menander in Stobaeus”, in Lamari–Montanari– Novokhatko 2020, pp. 647–61 Millis–Olson 2012: B. W. Millis and S. D. Olson (eds.), Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II2 2318–2325 and Related Texts (Brill Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy: Leiden and London) Miner 2003: J. Miner, “Courtesan, Concubine, Whore: Apollodorus’ Deliberate Use of Terms for Prostitutes”, AJP 124: 19–37 Mitchell 2018: P. Mitchell, The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective (New York) Moinier–Weller 2015: B. Moinier and O. Weller, Le sel dans l’antiquité, ou les cristaux d’Aphrodite (Paris) Montanari 2000: F. Montanari, “Demetrius of Phalerum on Literature”, in Fortenbaugh– Schütrumpf 2000, pp. 391–411 Moorhouse 1963: A. C. Moorhouse, “The Origin and Use of Ο, Η, ΤΟ ΔΕΙΝΑ”, CQ NS 13: 19–24 Morelius 1553: G. Morelius, Ex veterum comicorum graeccorum fabulis, quae integrae non extant, sententiae (Paris) Morelli 2004: F. Morelli, “Il λαχανόσπερμον, il ῥαφανέλαιον, e i sesamo: olii e oleaginose fantasma”, ZPE 149: 138–42 Moreno 2007: A. Moreno, Feeding the democracy: the Athenian grain supply in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. (Oxford Classical Monographs: Oxford) Morgan 2003: K. A. Morgan (ed.), Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece (Austin) Mülke 1996: C. Mülke, “ποίων δὲ κακῶν οὐκ αἴτιός ἐστι;: Euripides’ Aiolos und der Geschwisterinzest im klassischen Athen”, ZPE 114: 37–55 Munn 2003: M. L. Z. Munn, “Corinthian Trade with the Punic West in the Classical Period”, Corinth 20: 195–217 Muñoz Vicente–de Frutos Reyes–Berriatua Hernández 1988: A. Munoz Vicente, G. de Frutos Reyes and N. Berriatua Hernández, “Contribución a los orígenes y difusión comercial de la industria pesquera y conservera gaditana a través de las recientes aportaciones de las factorías de salazones de la Bahía de Cádiz”, in Actas del Congreso Internacional “El Estrecho de Gibraltar I,” Ceuta 1987 (Madrid), pp. 487–508 Mylona 2003: D. Mylona, “The exploitation of fish resources in the Mesolithic Sporades: fish remains from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra”, BSA Studies 10: 181–8 Mynott 2018: J. Mynott, Birds in the Ancient World (Oxford) Naber 1880: S. A. Naber, “Ad Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum”, Mnemosyne NS 8: 21–55 Nauck 1851: A. Nauck, “Zu den fragmenten der griechischen komiker”, Philologus 6: 411–26 Nauck 1888: A. Nauck, “Kritische Bemerkungen IX”, in Mélanges gréco-romains V, tirés du Bulletin de l’Académie imperiale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg (Saint Petersburg), pp. 98–252

384

Bibliography

Nayar–Mehra 1970: N. M. Nayar and K. L. Mehra, “Sesame: Its Uses, Botany, Cytogenetics, and Origin”, Economic Botany 24: 20–31 Neil 1901: R. A. Neil (ed.), The Knights of Aristophanes (Cambridge; reprint Hildesheim 1966) Nelson 2003: M. Nelson, “The Cultural Construction of Beer among Greeks and Romans”, Syllecta Classica 14: 101–20 Nelson 2005a: M. Nelson, “Did Ancient Greeks Drink Beer?”, Phoenix 68: 27–46 Nelson 2005b: M. Nelson, The Barbarian’s Beverage: A History of Beer in Ancient Europe (London and New York) Nesselrath 1990: H.-G. Nesselrath, Die attische mittlere Komödie. Ihre Stellung in der antiken Literaturkritik und literaturgeschichte (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte Band 36: Berlin and New York) Nesselrath 1995: H.-G. Nesselrath, “Myth Parody, and Comic Plots: The Birth of Gods and Middle Comedy”, in Dobrov 1995, pp. 1–27 Nielsen 2002: T. H. Nielsen, Arkadia and its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods (Hypomnemata 140: Göttingen) Noble 1966: J. V. Noble, “The Forming of Attic Vases”, Archaeology 19: 173–81 Nordgren 2015: L. Nordgren, Greek Interjections: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs Volume 273: Berlin and Boston) Nørskov–Hannestad–Isler-Kerenyi–Lewis 2009: V. Nørskov, L. Hannestad, C. Isler-Kerenyi, S. Lewis (eds.), The world of Greek vases (Rome) Oakley–Sinos 1993: J. H. Oakley and R. H. Sinos, The Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison and London) Ober 2003: J. Ober, “Tyrant-killing as Therapeutic Stasis: A Political Debate in Images and Texts”, in Morgan 2003, pp. 215–50 Oeri 1948: H. G. Oeri, Der Typ der komischen Alten in der griechischen Komödie, seine Nachwirkungen und seine Herkunft (Basel) Ohlert 1912: K. Ohlert, Rätsel und Rätselspiele der alten Griechen (Berlin) Olck 1899: Olck, “Casia”, RE III.2 pp. 1638–50 Olson 1998: S. D. Olson (ed.), Aristophanes: Peace (Oxford and New York) Olson 2002: S. D. Olson (ed.), Aristophanes: Acharnians (Oxford and New York) Olson 2007: S. D. Olson, Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy (Oxford and New York) Olson 2012: S. D. Olson (ed.), The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts: Text, Translation and Commentary (Texte und Kommentare 39: Boston and Berlin) Olson 2014: S. D. Olson (ed.), Eupolis frr. 326–497. Translation and Commentary (FrC 8.3: Heidelberg) Olson 2016: S. D. Olson (ed.), Eupolis: Heilotes—Chrysoun genos (frr. 147–325). Translation and Commentary (FrC 8.2: Heidelberg) Olson 2017: S. D. Olson (ed.), Eupolis. Testimonia and Aiges—Dêmoi (frr. 1–146). Translation and Commentary (FrC 8.1: Heidelberg) Olson 2017a: S. D. Olson, “Some overlooked Athenian economic vocabulary (ἀγοραί and λιμένες)”, Prometheus 43: 87–8 Olson 2021: S. D. Olson “Dressing like the Great King: Amerindian perspectives on Persian fashion in classical Athens”, Polis 38: 9–20 Olson–Seaberg 2018: S. D. Olson and R. Seaberg (eds.), Cratinus. Fragmenta incerta (FrC 3.6: Heidelberg)

Bibliography

385

Olson–Sens 1999: S. D. Olson and A. Sens (eds.), Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE (American Classical Studies 44: Atlanta) Olson–Sens 2000: S. D. Olson and A. Sens (eds.), Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE (Oxford) Omitowoju 1997: R. Omitowoju, “Regulating rape: soap operas and self-interest in the Athenian courts”, in Deacy–Pierce 1997, pp. 1–24 Omitowoju 2002: R. Omitowoju, Rape and the Politics of Consent in Classical Athens (Cambridge Classical Studies: Cambridge) Orth 2009: C. Orth (ed.), Strattis: Die Fragmente. Ein Kommentar (Studia Comica Band 2: Berlin) Orth 2013: C. Orth (ed.), Alkaios—Apollophanes. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (FrC 9.1: Heidelberg) Orth 2014a: C. Orth (ed.), Aristomenes—Metagenes. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (FrC 9.2: Heidelberg) Orth 2014b: C. Orth, “Drama”, in Zimmermann–Rengakos 2014, pp. 887–1099 Osborne 1983: M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens Vol. III (Verhandlingen van de koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Lettern en schone Kunsten van Belgie; Klasse der Lettern Jaargang 45 Nr 109: Brussels) O’Sullivan 2012: L. O’Sullivan, “Playing Ball in Greek Antiquity”, G&R II.59: 17–33 Pagnoux et al. 2013: C. Pagnoux, A. Celant, S. Coubray, G. Fiorentino and V. Zech-Matterne, “The introduction of Citrus to Italy, with reference to the identification problems of seed remains”, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 22: 421–38 Palmer 1882: A. Palmer, “Some Notes on the Greek Comic Fragments”, Hermathena 4: 334–9 Papachrysostomou 2016: A. Papachrysostomou (ed.), Amphis: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (FrC 20: Heidelberg) Parker 2007: L. P. E. Parker (ed.), Euripides: Alcestis (Oxford) Pearson 1917: A. C. Pearson (ed.), The Fragments of Sophocles (3 vols.: Cambridge) Pease 1937: A. S. Pease, “Oleum”, RE XVII.2 pp. 2454–74 Pellegrino 2000: M. Pellegrino, Utopie e immagini gastronomiche nei frammenti dell’ archaia (Eikasmos Studi 4: Bologna) Pellegrino 2013: M. Pellegrino, Nicofonte: Introduzione, Traduzione et Commento (FrC 15: Heidelberg) Penella 1973: R. J. Penella, “ΚΩΙΔΑΡΙΟΝ in Aristophanes’ Frogs”, Mnemosyne IV.26: 337–41 Perusino 1962: F. Perusino, “Technica e stile nel tetramctro trocaico di Menandro”, Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 4: 45–64 Perusino 1968: F. Perusino, Il tetrametro giambico catalettico nella commedia greca (Rome) Petersen 1910: W. Petersen, Greek Diminutives in -ιον: A Study in Semantics (Weimar) Petrides 2005: A. K. Petrides, “Machon, fr. 5. 44–5, Gow: A Fish with a ψῆφος”, CQ NS 55: 121–9 Pickard-Cambridge 1946: A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens (Oxford) Piérart 2004: M. Piérart, “Argolis”, in Hansen–Nielsen 2004, pp. 599–619 Pirrotta 2009: S. Pirrotta (ed.), Plato comicus. Die fragmentarischen Komödien. Ein Kommentar (Studia Comica Band 1: Berlin) Ponsich 1988: M. Ponsich, Aceite de oliva y salazones de pescado: Factores geo-economicos de Betica y Tingitania (Madrid)

386

Bibliography

Ponsich–Tarradell 1965: M. Ponsich and M. Tarradell, Garum et industries antiques de salaison dans la Méditerranné occidentale (Université de Bordeaux et Casa de Velásquez, Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études Hispaniques 36: Paris) Porson 1812: R. Porson, Adversaria. Notae et emendationes in poetas graecos (Cambridge) Pötscher 1998: W. Pötscher, “Γλαύκη, Γλαῦκος und die Bedeutung von γλαυκός”, RhM 141: 97–111 Potts 1984: D. Potts, “On Salt and Salt Gathering in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 27: 225–71 Poultney 1936: J. W. Poultney, The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Aristophanes (Baltimore) Poultney 1963: J. W. Poultney, “Studies in the Syntax of Attic Comedy”, AJP 84: 359–76 Poursat 1968: J.-C. Poursat, “Les représentations de danse armée dans la céramique attique”, BCH 92: 550–615 Pouyadou–Jacquet-Rimassa 2003: V. Pouyadou and P. Jacquet-Rimassa, “Cratère et Kottabe, objets symposiaques?… Certes, mais aussi dionysiaques”, Pallas 63: 55–70 Pretagostini 1987: R. Pretagostini, “I metri della commedia postaristofanea”, Dioniso 57: 245–65 Price 2021: M. D. Price, Evolution of a Taboo: Pigs and People in the Ancient Near East (Oxford) Pritchett 1991: W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War Part V (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford) Pruessner 1920: A. H. Pruessner, “Date Culture in Ancient Babylon”, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 36: 213–32 Pütz 2003: B. Pütz, The Symposium and Komos in Aristophanes (Drama Beiheft 22: Stuttgart and Weimar) Radermacher 1924: L. Radermacher, Zur Geschichte der griechischen Komödie (Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte 202 Band, 1. Abhandlung: Vienna and Leipzig) Raepsaet 2019: G. Raepsaet, “Énergies animales mises en oeuvre : charges et poids voiturés dans le monde gréco-romain”, Ancient Society 49: Ramirez Delgado 1982: J. R. Ramirez Delgado, Los primitivos nucleos de asentamiento en la ciudad de Cádiz (Cádiz) Ramón-Laca 2003: L. Ramón-Laca, “The Introduction of Cultivated Citrus to Europe via Northern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula”, Economic Botany 57: 502–14 Ravindran–Babu–Shylaja 2004: P. N. Ravindran, K. N. Babu and M. Shylaja (eds.), Cinnamon and Cassia: The genus Cinnamomum (Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Industrial Profiles Vol. 36: London) Reed 1995: J. D. Reed, “The Sexuality of Adonis”, CA 2: 317–47 Reese 1987: D. S. Reese, “Palaikastro Shells and Bronze Age Purple-Dye Production in the Mediterranean Basin”, ABSA 82: 201–6 Rehdantz–Blass 1886: C. Rehdantz, Demosthenes, neun Philippische Reden II.2 Indices (rev. Friedrich Blass: Leipzig) Reinarz 2014: J. Reinarz, Past Scents: Historical Perspectives on Smell (Urbana and Chicago) Reinhold 1970: M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity (Collection Latomus 116: Brussels) Reithmüller 2005: J. Reithmüller, Asklepios: Heiligtümer und Kulte (Heidelberg) Rhodes 1981: P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford) Ribbeck 1888: O. Ribbeck, Agroikos. Eine ethologische Studie (Leipzig) Richards 1909: H. Richards, Aristophanes and others (London)

Bibliography

387

Richardson 1974: N. J. Richardson (ed.), The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford) Richardson 1993: N. J. Richardson, The Iliad: A Commentary Vol. VI: books 21–24 (Cambridge) Rivera et al. 2002: D. Rivera, C. Inocencio, C. Obón, E. Carreño, A. Reales and F. Alcaraz, “Archaeobotany of capers (Capparis) (Capparaceae)”, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 295–313 Rivera et al. 2003: D. Rivera, C. Inocencio, C. Obón, E. Carreño and F. Alcaraz, “Review of Food and Medicinal Uses of Capparis L. Subgenus Capparis (Capparidaceae)”, Economic Botany 57: 515–34 Robertson 1986: R. H. S. Robertson, Fuller’s Earth: A History of Calcium Montmorillonite (Hythe, Kent) Rodríguez-Piedrabuena–Jiménez Delgado 2021: S Rodríguez-Piedrabuena and J. M. Jiménez Delgado, “On the etymology of πορφύρα, ‘purple’”, Glotta 97: 246–61 Romm 1989: J. S. Romm, “Aristotle’s Elephant and the Myth of Alexander’s Scientific Patronage”, AJP 110: 566–75 Rop 2019: J. Rop, Greek Military Service in the Ancient Near East, 401–330 BCE (Cambridge) Rosivach 1988: V. J. Rosivach, “The Tyrant in Athenian Democracy”, QUCC NS 30: 43–57 Rosivach 1994: V. J. Rosivach, The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens (American Classical Studies 34: Atlanta) Rowley-Conwy–Albarella–Dobney 2012: P. Rowley-Conwy, U. Albarella and K. Dobney, “Distinguishing Wild Boar from Domestic Pigs in Prehistory: A Review of Approaches and Recent Results”, Journal of World Prehistory 25: 1–44 Rubinstein 2004: L. Rubinstein, “Ionia”, in Hansen–Neilsen 2004, pp. 1053–1107 Russell 2017: T. Russell, Byzantium and the Bosporus: A Historical Study, from the Seventh Century BC until the Foundation of Constantinople (Oxford) Rusten 2011: Jeffrey Rusten et al. (trans.), The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents, and Art from Athenian Comic Competitions, 486–280 (Baltimore) Rutherford 1993: I. Rutherford, “Paeanic Ambiguity: A Study of the Representation of the παιάν in Greek Literature”, QUCC NS 44: 77–92 Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1993: C. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, “Aspects of Ancient Macedonian Costume”, JHS 113: 122–47 Sallares 1991: R. Sallares, The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World (Ithaca) Salmasius 1629: C. Salmasius, Plinianae exercitationes in C. Iulii Solini Polyhistora (Paris) Samons 2020: L. J. Samons II, “Who Sang ‘the Harmodios’?”, Historia 69: 2–16 Sanders 2014: E. Sanders, Envy and Jealousy in Classical Athens. A Socio-Psychological Approach (New York) Sauppe 1850: H. Sauppe (ed.), Oratores attici Vol. II (Turici) Schachter 2016: A. Schachter, Boiotia in Antiquity. Selected Papers (Cambridge) Schaps 1979: D. M. Schaps, Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh) Schenkl 1891: C. Schenkl, “Adnotatiunculae ad comicorum Atticorum fragmenta”, in Commentationes Woelfflinianae (Leipzig), pp. 323–8 Schiassi 1951: G. Schiassi, “De temporum quaestionibus ad Atticas IV saeculi meretrices et eiusdem comicas fabulas pertinentibus”, RFIC 79: 217–345 Schiassi 1955: G. Schiassi, “Parodia e travestimento mitico nella commedia attica di mezzo”, Rendiconti, Reale Istituto lombardo di scienze e lettere 88: 99–120 Schmid–Stählin 1940: W. Schmid and O. Stählin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur I.3 (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft VII: Munich)

388

Bibliography

Schmidt 2009: S. Schmidt, “Images of Statues on Attic Vases: The Case of the Tyrannicides”, in Nørskov–Hannestad–Isler-Kerenyi–Lewis 2009, pp. 219–39 Schmul 2010: Y. Schmul, “Gepanzert in die Ewigkeit: Der Elefant als Symbol”, Antike Welt 3: 14–20 Schneider 1922: Schneider, “Kottabos”, RE XI.2 pp. 1528–41 Schoff 1920: W. H. Schoff, “Cinnamon, Cassia and Somaliland”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 40: 260–70 Schoff 1923: W. H. Schoff, “Nard”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 43: 216–28 Schweid 2002: R. Schweid, “Consider the Eel”, Gastronomica 2: 14–19 Schweighäuser 1801–1805: J. Schweighäuser, Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (8 vols.: Strasbourg) Scott 1928a: K. Scott, “The Deification of Demetrius Poliorcetes: Part I”, AJP 49: 137–66 Scott 1928b: K. Scott, “The Deification of Demetrius Poliorcetes: Part II”, AJP 49: 217–39 Scullard 1974: H. H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life: Ithaca) Sens 2011: A. Sens (ed.), Asclepiades of Samos: Epigrams and Fragments (Oxford) Shapiro 1988: K. D. Shapiro, “The Berlin Dancer Completed: A Bronze Auletris in Santa Barbara”, AJA 92: 509–27 Shaw 2010: C. A. Shaw, “Middle Comedy and the ‘Satyric’ Style”, AJP 131: 1–22 Shaw 2014: C. A. Shaw, “‘Genitalia of the Sea’: Seafood and Sexuality in Greek Comedy”, Mnemosyne IV.67: 554–76 Shear 1975: T. L. Shear, Jr., “The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1973–1974”, Hesperia 44: 331–74 Shear 2012: J. L. Shear, “The Tyrannicides, their Cult and the Panathenaia”, JHS 132: 107–19 Short 2013: W. M. Short, “Getting to the Truth: The ‘Wandering’ Metaphor of Mistakenness in Roman Culture”, Arion 21: 139–68 Sickinger 1999: J. Sickinger, Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens (Chapel Hill) Silk 1983: M. S. Silk, “LSJ and the Problem of Poetic Archaism: From Meanings to Iconyms”, CQ NS 33: 303–30 Sjövall 1931: H. Sjövall, Zeus im altgriechischen Hauskult (Lund) Slater 1976: W. J. Slater, “Aristophanes of Byzantium on the Pinakes of Callimachus”, Phoenix 30: 234–41 Slater 1986: W. J. Slater (ed.), Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 6: Berlin and New York) Smyth 1956: H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar2 (rev. G. M. Messing: Cambridge Mass.) Sofia 2016: A. Sofia, AIGYPTIAZEIN. Frammenti della commedia attica antica (Vita e pensiero: Milan) Sollenberger 2000: M. J. Sollenberger, “Diogenes Laertius’ Life of Demetrius of Phalerum”, in Fortenbaugh–Schütrumpf 2000, pp. 311–29 Sparkes 1960: B. A. Sparkes, “Kottabos: An Athenian After-Dinner Game”, Archaeology 13: 202–7 Sparkes 1975: B. A. Sparkes, “Illustrating Aristophanes”, JHS 95: 122–35 Sparkes 1995: B. Sparkes, “A pretty kettle of fish”, in Wilkins–Harvey–Dobson 1995, pp. 150–61 Starkey 2018: J. S. Starkey, “Sophoclean Moments in Greek Comedy”, CP 113: 134–61 Steier 1933: Steier, “Myrrha”, RE XVI.1 pp. 1134–46 Steier 1935: Steier, “Nardus”, RE XVI.2 pp. 1705–14

Bibliography

389

Steiner 2002: A. Steiner, “Private and Public: Links between Symposium and Syssition in Fifth-Century Athens”, CA 21: 347–90 Stelow 2009: A. Stelow, “The ‘Aristeia’ of Menelaos”, CJ 104: 193–205 Stelow 2020: A. R. Stelow, Menelaus in the Archaic Period: Not Quite the Best of the Achaeans (Oxford) Stephanus 1572: H. Estienne (ed.), Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (6 vols.: Geneva) Stevens 1976: P. T. Stevens, Colloquial Expressions in Euripides (Hermes Einzelschriften Heft 38: Wiesbaden) Stevens 1991: S. T. Stevens, “Charon’s Obol and Other Coins in Ancient Funerary Practice”, Phoenix 45: 215–29 Stieglitz 1994: R. R. Stieglitz, “The Minoan Origin of Tyrian Purple”, Biblical Archaeologist 57: 46–54 Stone 1984: L. M. Stone, Costume in Aristophanic Comedy (Salem NH) Stray–Clarke–Katz: C. Stray, M. Clarke and J. T. Katz (eds.), Liddell & Scott: The History, Methodology, and Languages of the World’s Leading Lexicon of Ancient Greek (Oxford) Strömberg 1946: R. Strömberg, Greek Prefix Studies on the Use of Adjective Particles (Götesborgs Högskolas Årsskrift LII, 1946.3: Göteborg) Stulz 1990: H. Stulz, Die Farbe Purpur im frühen Griechentum beobachtet in der Literatur und in der bildenden Kunst (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 6: Stuttgart) Sullivan 1950: F. A. Sullivan, “Charon, the Ferryman of the Dead”, CJ 46: 11–17 Szemerényi 1987: O. J. L. Szemerényi, “ETYMA GRAECA VI (33–34)”, in Killin–Melena– Olivier 1987, pp. 569–80 Taillardat 1962: J. Taillardat, Les images d’Aristophane: études de langues et de style2 (Paris) Tanaka 1933: T. Tanaka, “Acclimation des Citrus hors de leurs pays d’origine”, Journal d’agriculture traditionnelle et de botanique appliquée 143: 480–94 Tarbell 1906: F. B. Tarbell, “The Form of the Chlamys”, CP 3: 283–9 Taylor 1981: M. W. Taylor, The Tyrant Slayers (New York) Teeter 1987: E. Teeter, “Techniques and Terminology of Rope-Making in Ancient Egypt”, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 73: 71–7 Terral–This et al. 2010: J.-F. Terral, P. This et al., “Evolution and history of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) under domestication: new morphometric perspectives to understand seed domestication syndrome and reveal origins of ancient European cultivars”, Annals of Botany 105: 443–55 Teuffel–Kaehler 1887: W. S. Teuffel (ed.), Die Wolken des Aristophanes2 (rev. Otto Kaehler: Leipzig) Thesleff 1954: H. Thesleff, Studies on Intensification in Early and Classical Greek (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum XXI.1: Helsinki) Thompson 1928: D’A. W. Thompson, “How to Catch Cuttlefish”, CR 42: 14–18 Thompson 1936: D. W. Thompson, A glossary of Greek birds (Oxford) Thompson 1947: D. W. Thompson, A glossary of Greek fishes (London) Threatte 1980: L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions Vol. I Phonology (Berlin and New York) Threatte 1996: L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions Vol. II Morphology (Berlin and New York) Tod 1901/1902: M. N. Tod, “Some Unpublished ‘Catalogi Paterarum Argentearum’”, ABSA 8: 197–230 Töppel 1851: J. Töppel, De fragmentis comicorum Graecorum quaestionum criticarum specimen I (Programm des Gymnasiums zu Neubrandenburg: Neubrandenburg)

390

Bibliography

Tolkowsky 1938: S. Tolkowsky, Hesperides. A History of the Culture and Use of Citrus Fruits (London) Toup 1790: J. Toup, Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium et alios lexicographos Graecos (4 vols.: Oxford) Tracy 2015: S. v. Tracy, ‘The Dramatic Festival Inscriptions of Athens: The Inscribers and Phases of Inscribing’, Hesperia 84: 553–81 Traill 2008: A. Traill, Women and the Comic Plot in Menander (Cambridge) Tsantsanoglou 1984: K. Tsantsanoglou, New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photius (Πραγματεια της Ακαδημιας Αθηνων, Τομος 49: Athens) Tucker 1986: A. O. Tucker, “Frankincense and Myrrh”, Economic Botany 40: 425–33 Turner 1947: A. J. Turner, “Flax Utilisation”, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 95: 610–23 Ulieriu-Rostás 2013: T. E. Ulieriu-Rostás, “Music and Socio-Cultural Identity in Attic Vase Painting: Prolegomena to Future Research (Pt 1)”, Music in Art 38: 9–26 Valamoti 2011: S. M. Valamoti, “Flax in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece: archaeobotanical evidence”, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20: 549–60 Valckenaer 1767: L. C. Valckenaer, Diatribe in Euripidis Perditorum Dramatum (Leipzig) Valckenaer 1768: L. C. Valckenaer, Euripidis Tragoedia Hippolytus (Leipzig) van Erp Thalmann Kip 2009: A. M. van Erp Thalmann Kip, “καὶ μήν, καὶ δή and ἤδη in Tragedy and Comedy”, in Bakker–Wakker 2009, pp. 111–34 van Hooff 1990: A. J. L. van Hooff, From Autothanasia to Suicide: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity (London) van Leeuwen 1900: J. van Leeuwen (ed.), Aristophanis Equites (Leiden) van Straten 1975: F. T. van Straten, Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden, New York and Cologne) Vendryes 1937: J. Vendryes, “Sur les substantifs neutres valeur indefinie”, in Mélanges offerts a A.-M. Desrousseaux par ses amis et ses élèves (Paris), pp. 475–80 Villebrune 1789: L. de Villebrune, Banquet des savans par Athénée Vol. IV (Paris) Vlassopoulos 2010: K. Vlassopoulos, “Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History”, ZPE 175: 113–44 Wachsmuth–Hense 1884–1912: C. Wachsmuth and O. Hense (eds.), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium (Berlin) Wackernagel 1925: J. Wackernagel, “Griechische Miszellen”, Glotta 14: 36–67 Wackernagel 1955: J. Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften (Göttingen) Wagner 1905: R. T. J. Wagner, Symbolarum ad comicorum Graecorum historiam criticam capita quattuor (Leipzig) Wakefield 1792: G. Wakefield, Silva Critica, sive in auctores sacros profanosque commentarius philologus III (Cambridge) Wallace 2003: R. W. Wallace, “An Early Fifth-Century Athenian Revolution in Aulos Music”, HSCP 101: 73–92 Wallert 1962: I. Wallert, Die Palmen in altem Agypten (Münchner ägyptologishe Studien I: Berlin) Wankel 1976: H. Wankel (ed.), Demosthenes. Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz (Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und lateinischen Schriftstellern: Heidelberg) Ward 2003: C. Ward, “Pomegranates in Eastern Mediterranean Contexts during the Late Bronze Age”, World Archaeology 34: 529–41 Webster 1952: T. B. L. Webster, “Chronological Notes on Middle Comedy”, CQ NS 2: 13–26

Bibliography

391

Webster 1970: T. B. L. Webster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy2 (Manchester; original Manchester 1953) Wecklein 1872: N. Wecklein, “Studien zur scenischen archäologie”, Philologus 31: 435–63 Weiher 1914: A. Weiher, Philosophen und Philosophenspott in der attischen Komödie (Diss. Munich) Weil 1885: H. Weil, review of Kock 1884, in Revue critique d’histoire et de littérature 20: 275–8 West 1978: M. L. West (ed.), Hesiod: Works and Days (Oxford) West 1992: M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music (Oxford and New York) West 1994: S. West, “Prometheus Orientalized”, MH 51: 129–49 West 1999: M. L. West, The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford) West 2012: S. West, “African Charioteers: A Note on Sophocles, Electra 701–2”, CQ NS 62: 502–9 Westlake 1935: H. D. Westlake, Thessaly in the Fourth Century B.C. (Groningen) Wharton 2021: D. Wharton (ed.), A Cultural History of Color in Antiquity (London) White 1912: J. W. White, The verse of Greek comedy (London) Whitehead 2000: D. Whitehead, Hypereides. The Forensic Speeches (Oxford) Wilamowitz 1873: U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, “Observationes Criticae in Comoediam Atticam”, Hermes 7: 140–58 Wilamowitz 1895: U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Euripides Herakles (3 vols.: Berlin) Wilamowitz 1925: U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Das Schiedsgericht (Epitrepontes) (Berlin) Wilhelm 1906: A. Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen (Vienna) Wilkins 2000: J. Wilkins, The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy (Oxford) Wilkins–Harvey–Dobson 1995: J. Wilkins, D. Harvey and M. Dobson (eds.), Food in antiquity (Exeter) Willi 2002: A. Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy (Oxford) Willink 1986: C. W. Willink (ed.), Euripides: Orestes (Oxford and New York) Wilson 1999: P. Wilson, “The Aulos in Athens”, in Goldhill–Osborne 1999, pp. 58–95 Wordsworth 1842: C. Wordsworth (ed.), The correspondence of Richard Bentley, D.D., master of Trinity college, Cambridge (London) Worthington 2000: I. Worthington, “The Date of Chaerephilus’ Citizenship”, ZPE 130: 296–8 Wright 2007: M. Wright, “Comedy and the Trojan War”, CQ NS 57: 412–31 Wyttenbach 1772: D. Wyttenbach, Animadversiones in Plutarchi De Sera Numinis Vindicta (Leipzig) Xanthaki-Karamanou–Mimidou 2014: G. Xanthaki-Karamanou and E. Mimidou, “The Aeolus of Euripides: Concepts and Motifs”, BICS 57: 49–60 Yannouli 2003: E. Yannouli, “Non-domestic carnivores in Greek prehistory: a review”, BSA Studies 9 Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, pp. 175–92 Yegül 1992: F. Yegül, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge Mass.) Young 1964: J. H. Young, “Commagenian Tiaras: Royal and Divine”, AJA 60: 29–34 Youtie 1979: H. C. Youtie, “New and Rare Words in P.Laur. II 24”, ZPE 35: 111–14 Zeder 2008: M. A. Zeder, “Domestication and Early Agriculture in the Mediterranean Basic: Origins, Diffusion, and Impact”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 11597–11604

392

Bibliography

Zelnick-Abramovitz 2005: R. Zelnick-Abramovitz, Not Wholly Free: The Concept of Manumission and the Status of Manumitted Slaves in the Ancient Greek World (Mnemosyne Supplement 266: Leiden) Zgusta 1964: L. Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prague) Zimmermann 2010: B. Zimmermann, “Structure and Meter”, in Dobrov 2010, pp. 456–69 Zimmermann–Rengakos 2014: B. Zimmermann and A. Rengakos (eds.), Handbuch der griechische Literatur der Antike Band II Der Literatur der klassischen und hellenistischen Zeit (Munich) Zografou 2010: A. Zografou, Chemins d’Hécate. Portes, routes, carrefours et autres figures de l’entredeux (Kernos Supplement 24: Liège) Zohary–Hopf–Weiss 2012: D. Zohary, M. Hopf and E. Weiss, Domestication of Plants in the Old World4 (Oxford)

393

Indices Index fontium Ael. Dion. α 190: fr. 92 Anon. de Com. (Proleg. de com. III.45– 52), p. 10 Koster: test. 2 Antiatt. α 20: fr. 15 Antiatt. α 86: fr. 14 Antiatt. α 98: fr. 13 Antiatt. α 100: fr. 18 Antiatt. γ 2: fr. 48 Antiatt. δ 16: fr. 32 Antiatt. δ 38: fr. 68 Antiatt. ε 41: fr. 11 Antiatt. ε 91: fr. 56 Antiatt. ε 120: fr. 8 Antiatt. η 14: fr. 93 Antiatt. κ 46–7: fr. 16 Antiatt. κ 95: fr. 9 Antiatt. λ 4: fr. 39 Antiatt. λ 17: fr. dub. 33 Antiatt. μ 21–4: fr. 10 Antiatt. σ 15: fr. 84 Ath. 3.84a–b: fr. 59 Ath. 3.95a: fr. 73 Ath. 3.100f: fr. 88 Ath. 3.118d: fr. 78 Ath. 3.122d: fr. 30 Ath. 3.123b–c: fr. 26 Ath. 3.125f: fr. 65 Ath. 3.126f–7a, 127b: fr. 36 Ath. 3.127d : fr. 82 Ath. 4.142f–3a: fr. 46 Ath. 4.160d: fr. 72 Ath. 4.161d–e: frr. 63; 87 Ath. 4.169d: fr. 95 Ath. 4.169d–e: fr. 71 Ath. 6.237f–8b: fr. 80 Ath. 6.262c–d: fr. 89 Ath. 7.303f–4b: frr. 12; 24 Ath. 7.313b–c: fr. 69.11–15 Ath. 7.322c: fr. 45 Ath. 7.323b: fr. 97 Ath. 8.338e–40a: fr. 27 Ath. 8.340c: fr. 77 Ath. 8.343d: fr. 50 Ath. 8.358d–f: fr. 69

Ath. 9.380e–f: fr. 83 Ath. 9.392e : fr. 5 Ath. 9.396b: fr. 1 Ath. 9.401e–f: fr. 44 Ath. 9.402d–e: fr. 21 Ath. 9.409d–e: fr. dub. 41 Ath. 10.423c: fr. 81 Ath. 10.441b–c: fr. 25 Ath. 10.441d: fr. 58 Ath. 10.444b–c: fr. 42 Ath. 10.444c–d: fr. 19 Ath. 10.445f–6a: fr. 4 Ath. 10.449b–d: fr. 55 Ath. 10.455e–f: fr. 51 Ath. 10.458f–9b: fr. 75 Ath. 11.474e: fr. 62 Ath. 11.485b: fr. 47 Ath. 11.503d–e: fr. 85 Ath. 12.526d: fr. 91 Ath. 12.544f–5a: fr. 35 Ath. 12.552f: fr. 20 Ath. 12.553b–d : fr. 31 Ath. 13.555a: test. 8 Ath. 13.567d: fr. 2 Ath. 13.586a: frr. 23; 27.12; 43 Ath. 14.618a–b: fr. 49 Ath. 14.646f : fr. 79 Ath. 14.650e: fr. 60 Ath. 14.661f: fr. 90 Ath. 14.662f: test. 7 Ath. 15.666e–7b: fr. 57 Ath. 15.667d: fr. 57.2–3 Ath. 15.678e: fr. 53 Ath. 15.690a: fr. 37 Ath. 15.692f: fr. 3 Canones comicorum, tab. M cap. IV = tab. C cap. 10, Kroehnert 1897. 6 = 12 : test. 3 D.L. 5.81: test. 5 Harp. p. 215.17 = ξ 3 Keaney: fr. 96 Harp. pp. 216.9–217.3 = ξ 6 Keaney: fr. 99 Herenn. Phil. ε 81: test. 6 Hsch. π 2513: fr. 100.4 Hsch. τ 690 : fr. 55.2

394

Indices

IG II2 2325.146 = 2325E.41 Millis–Olson: test. 4 Phot. ν 318: fr. 66 Phot. ο 495: fr. 29 Phot. ρ 16: fr. 7 Phot. τ 216 : fr. 55.2 Phryn. PS fr. 269* : fr. 92 Poll. 3.42–3: fr. dub. 76 Poll. 4.125 : fr. 22 Poll. 6.54: fr. 6 Poll. 7.59: fr. 38 Poll. 7.170: fr. 70 Poll. 9.29 : fr. 28 Poll. 10.62: fr. 17 Poll. 10.65: fr. 67 Poll. 10.88: fr. 61

Poll. 10.138: fr. 40 Poll. 10.152: fr. 52 Poll. 10.179: fr. 64 POxy. 427: fr. 34 ΣA E. Tr. 822, II.365 Schwartz: fr. dub. 74 Stob. 4.17.6: fr. 100 Stob. 4.35.28: fr. 98 Stob. 4.50b.58: fr. 94 Stob. 4.53.3: fr. 86 Stob. 4.56.27 : fr. 54 Suda α 2735: test. 1 Suda ρ 8: fr. 7 Suda τ 428 : fr. 55.2 Suet. περὶ παιδιῶν 1.79: fr. 92 Synag. τ 133 : fr. 55.2 Synag. B α 2269: fr. 92

Index verborum graecorum ἁβρός: 344 ἄγαν: 283 ἀγοράζω: 261 ἄγροικος: 40, 57 ἁδρός: 115 ἀθανασία: 324 αἰγίδιον: 86 αἴθρα: 213 αἰπόλια: 209 αἴρω: 43 ἄκατος: 50 ἀκέστρια: 81 ἀκληρία: 65 ἀκόλουθος: 70 ἀκόντιον: 91 ἀκούω: 252–3 ἄκρατος: 94 ἀκροάομαι: 349 ἀλείπτρια: 95 ἀλλᾶς: 273, 274 ἅλμη: 286 ἀλφιτηρός and ἄλφιτα: 246 ἄμαχος: 59 ἄμης: 338 ἄμπελος: 230 ἄμυστι(ν): 52, 287 ἀναβαίνω: 73 ἀνακάμπτω: 63

ἀνὰ μέσον: 65 ἀνθρωποφάγος: 263 ἀντακαῖος: 295–6 ἀντέρως, ἀντεράω and cognates: 148 ἀντίρροπος: 117 ἀπαρχαιόομαι: 320 ἄπληστος: 235 ἀπνευστί: 287 ἀπολαύω: 313 ἀπόρρους: 211 ἀργύριον: 261 ἁρπαγή and ἁρπάζω: 283–4 ἄρτι: 104 ἀρτίως: 348 ἀρύβαλλος: 194–5 ἀρύταινα: 98 ἀσκός: 79–80 ἀστεῖος: 57 ἄστριχος and ἀστράγαλος: 348 ἀσυνακόλουθος: 70 ἄσωτος: 178 Ἀττικιστί 357 ἀτυχέω: 304 αὐλητής: 180 αὐλητικῶς and cognates: 226 αὐλητρίς: 188 αὐλοί: 186 αὔρα: 213

Index verborum graecorum αὐτολήκυθοι: 70–1 αὐτόσε: 228 ἀφανίζω: 360 ἄφοδος: 160–1 Ἀφροδίσιος: 196 ἀφύαι: 116 βαδίζω: 170 βακτηρία: 136–7 βάκτρον: 137 n. 83 βάπτω: 98 βάσκανος: 305 βατάνιον/πατάνιον: 268, 270 βίδην: 186 n. 108 βίον διάγω: 130 βομβυλιός: 242 Βουταλίων: 254 βροτός: 44 βρυτικός and βρῦτος/βρῦτον: 175–6 βρῶμα: 264 βύσταξ: 171 γαίη: 208 γαμέω: 178–9 γάρ: 261 γάστρις: 339 γελοῖος: 225, 306 γενναῖος: 305 γεννικός: 176 γεύω: 144 γλακτοθρέμμων: 203, 209 γλαῦκος: 293 γλίχομαι: 323 γλυκύτατος: 311 γνωρίμως: 210 γόγγρος: 111 γραῦς: 175 γρῖφος/γρῖπος: 284–5 δάκτυλος: 227 δεκάτη: 117–18 δεκατώνια: 118 δελεάζω: 176 δέσποτα: 322 δή: 54 δῆλον ὅτι, interjected: 263 δῆτα: 236 Δηώ: 43–4 διαπαρθενεύω: 291 διαπλέω: 330 n. 168 διασπάω: 332 διαφέρω: 124–5

395

διμοιρία: 311–12 δροσώδης: 213 δύναμαι: 285 δωρέομαι: 44 ἐὰν/ἂν σκοπῇς: 304 ἐγχέλειον or ἐγχέλειος: 166–7 ἐγχέω: 227, 309 ἔδεσμα: 110 ἐδεστής: 113 εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν: 164 εἰς τὸ πρόσθε: 78 εἰς ὑπερβολήν: 307 εἶτα καὶ νῦν: 262 εἶτα … ὕστερον: 199 ἐκ διαδοχῆς: 59–60 ἐκεῖσε/κεῖσε: 332 ἐκπίνω: 52, 177 ἕλκω: 287 Ἑλληνικός: 135 ἔμπειρος and cognates: 53 ἔνδημος: 61–2 ἐνεός: 345 ἐνέχυρον: 287 ἔνθεσις: 328 ἐπανάγω: 164 ἔπειτα: 286 ἐπί, pregnant use of: 170 ἐπίδημος: 61–2 ἐπιζητέω: 172 ἐπίκληρος: 350 ἐπιχέω: 309 ἐργαστήριον: 88–9 ἔρια: 85 ἐρωτικός: 306 ἔστ’ ἀναγκαίως ἔχον and ἀναγκαίως ἔχει: 199 ἑστιάω: 261 ἑταίρα: 47–8 εὐβουλία: 78 εὐειματέω: 215 εὐθύδικος: 353 n. 176 εὐθύς, εὐθέως, εὐθύ: 37 εὖ λέγεις: 210 εὖ λέγω: 352 εὔπλοια: 358 εὔρωστος: 129 εὐτέλεια: 84–5 εὐτρεπής: 307 εὐτυχέω: 304

396

Indices

εὐφροσύνη: 297 ἐχρῆν: 287 ἕψω and ἑφθός: 57 ζωμός: 171 ἡδέως: 262 ἤδη: 112 ἥδιστα, adverbial: 84 ἡδύνω: 341 ἡδυπαθής: 344 ἠλίθιος: 235 ἡμιβρώς: 338 θέαινα: 311 θέμις: 338–9 θεῶν γοναί plays: 216 θολός and θολόω: 107 θρόμβος: 211 θρυμματίς: 341 θυννίς and θύννος: 296–7 -ί (deictic suffix): 112 ἱδρώς: 212 ἱλαρός: 306 ἱμάς: 285 ἴσχε: 320 ἴσως: 313–14 ἰχθυοπώλης: 262–3 καθαρός: 60 καθ’ ἕκαστον: 262 καθ’ ὅσον: 221 καὶ μήν: 113, 260–1 καινουργέω: 122 κακοδαίμων: 230 κακῶς λέγω: 352 καλέω: 240 κάλυμμα: 212 κάνθαρος: 241 κάπηλος: 93 κάραβος: 108 καρκινόω: 227 κασία and κασιόπνους: 213 καταβιβρώσκω: 315 κατάγομαι and καταγώγιον/καταγωγεῖον: 66, 199 καταλιμπάνω: 144 καταλύω and κατάλυσις: 66 κατανοέω: 135 κατατίθημι: 110 κατὰ τρόπον: 155 καταφρονέω: 172 κατεσθίω: 109

καυλός: 332–3 κέλης: 334 κέστρα: 357 κίθαρος: 113 κινναμώμινος: 143, 144 κλίσιον: 89 κνισολοιχός: 246–7 κογχίον and κόγχος: 272–3 κοιλοσώματος: 208 κοινῇ (adverbial): 199 κοινωνός + genitive: 304 κόιξ: 245–6 κόκκος: 238 κομιδῇ γε: 287 κορίαννα: 270 κοσμίως: 327–8 κράμβη and κραμβίδιον: 57 κύαθος: 310 κύκλοι: 266 κυλιστὸς στέφανος: 195 κύτος: 208 λαγγάζω/λογγάζω: 149 λαμυρός: 339 λείπω, aorist of: 127 λεπαστή: 176–7 λεπτοσύνθετος: 211 λευκός: 135 λήκυθος: 70–1 λίαν: 283 λιβάς: 212 λιμός: 324 λινόσαρκος: 193 λόγχη: 69 λυχνεῖον: 220 μαγύδαρις: 333 μαινίδες: 108 μακράν: 214 Μανῆς/μανῆς and Μανία: 226 μανθάνεις; 193 μάσπετον: 333 ματτύη: 38 μεθύω: 159 μεῖζον ἢ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖν: 160 μέλη: 45 μελίπηκτον: 299 μελίσσα: 210 μεσαῖος: 274 μέσος: 98 μηδὲ ἕν and μηδὲ εἷς: 320

Index verborum graecorum μηθαμῶς: 286 μηθείς/μηδείς: 322 μηκάς: 45 μῆλον: 235–6 μόνος used to add emphasis to praise or blame: 77–8 μοχθηρός: 352 μυρίοι: 311 μύω: 52 νᾶμα: 210 νάρδινος and νάρδος: 144 νεογενής: 45, 209 νεωστί 236 νὴ Δία: 108–9 νήφω: 159 νικητήριον: 225 νόμισμα: 160 νοῦν ἔχειν: 159–60 νύκτωρ: 78 νυμφαῖος: 212–13 νώγαλα: 250 ξενιτεύομαι and ξένος: 355 ξηρός: 70 ξουθός: 210 ξυστίς: 361–2 οἰκήτωρ and οἰκητήρ: 343 οἰνοφλυγία and οἰνόφλυξ: 79 οἴμοι: 283 οἴομαι and οἶμαι: 236–7 ὁμόσπορος: 76 ὀπός: 333 ὀπτάω: 208 ὀργὴν φέρω: 305–6 ὀρθῶς: 304 ὁρμιά: 118–19 ὀρνίθειος: 338 ὀσμή: 295, 297 ὅταν … ποτέ: 94 οὐδὲ ἕν and οὐδὲ εἷς: 320, 322 οὐθείς/οὐδείς: 322 οὐ πάνυ: 112 ὄχλος: 344 ὄψον: 260 παιδίον: 310 παιών: 49–50 πάλαι + present tense: 175 πάλιν: 306 πάνυ: 57 παραλαμβάνω: 77

397

παρατίθημι: 240 παρθένε: 235 παροινέω: 159 πάροξυς: 305 παροψίς: 239, 240 πατάνιον/βατάνιον: 268, 270 πάτερ: 159 πάχος and παχύς: 80, 112 πεῖνα: 324 περαίνω: 45, 186 περιβόητος: 97 περιπατέω: 317 περιπλοκή: 283 πιλίδιον: 136 πινακίσκιον: 226 πλακοῦς: 212 πλάστιγξ: 225 πλέθρον: 366 πνίγω and πνικτός: 44 ποθεινός: 43 ποίαν; et sim.: 225 ποιέω: 177 ποίμνη: 209 πολεμέω: 190 πολὺς καὶ καλός: 313 πολυτελής: 304–5 πομπή: 252 πόρνη: 47–8 πορφύρα: 266 πότερα and πότερον: 207 ποτήριον: 226 πουλύπους: 354–5 προαιρέω: 293 προβάλλω: 285 πρόβατα: 85 προέρχομαι: 199 πρόθυμος and προθυμία: 322–3 πρόποσις and προπίνω: 314 πρόσεχω τὸν νοῦν: 225 προσήκοντες vs. φίλοι: 198 πρῶτα μέν: 42 πρώτιστον and πρώτιστα (adverbial): 360 πώποτε: 322 ῥαγδαῖος: 59 ῥύμη: 208 ῥώννυμι: 332 σαφής: 252 σαφῶς with form of φράζω: 283 σεμίδαλις: 141–2

398

Indices

σεμνός: 311 σηπία: 106–7 σησαμίς: 299 σίλφιον: 270, 332–3 σινόδους/συνόδων: 166–7 σιτάρχημα and σιταρχέω: 303 σιτία: 315 σκελέαι: 146 σκληρόκοκκος: 238 σκώπτω: 306 σμύρνα/μύρρα: 213–14 σπυρίς: 141 στάδιον: 365–6 σταθμός: 89 στέγαστρον: 211 στρατεύομαι: 355 στρηνιάω: 314–15 στρωματεύς and στρωματόδεσμον: 151–2 σύαγρος: 164 συμβολαί: 109–10 συμμιγής: 210–11 συμπάρειμι: 305 συμπάσχω: 317–18 συναυλία: 183–4, 185–6 σύννευμα: 186–7 συντέμνω: 212 συντίθημι: 144 συνωρίς: 334 συστρέφω: 214 συχνός: 356–7 σφόδρα: 113 σφύραινα: 357 σχοινίον: 366 τακερός: 44–5 τακερόχρως: 209 τάριχος: 115–16 ταχέως: 284 ταχύτατα (adverbial): 327 τέως μέν … εἶτα: 77 τιάρα: 146–7 τί λέγεις;: 45 τί μακρὰ δεῖ λέγειν;: 137 τίμιος: 237 τίνα τρόπον; 227 τις for orders to household slaves: 286 τολμηρός: 122 τὸν ἄλλον … χρόνον + future: 199

τραπεζοποιός: 269 τρέφω: 48 τριβώνιον and τρίβων: 290, 291 τρίγλη: 110 τριγλίς: 263 τροφαλίς: 192 τροχός: 207 τρύβλιον: 271 τρυγών: 117 τρυφάω: 212 τρυφεραμπέχονος: 344 τυγχάνω + participle: 278 τυκτός: 208 τύραννος: 278 τῷ τρόπῳ: 306 ὕβρις: 283 ὑδαρής: 94 ὑψοῦ: 227 φαιός: 132 n. 75 φανός: 136 φερέσβιος: 43 φέρομαι: 161 φθόνος: 305 φιδίτια: 170–1 φορτίον: 52–3 φράζε δή: 262 φράσον: 185 Φωσφόρος: 237 χαρίεις: 57 χάρμα: 44 χερνιβεῖον and χέρνιψ: 251–2 χιτωνίσκος: 136 χλαμύς: 69 χλανίς: 134, 135–6 χολάω: 337 χόνδρος: 141 χορδή: 274 χρηστῶς: 261 χυλός/χυμός: 333 n. 169 χύτρα: 207 χωρίς: 186 ψυχή: 55 ᾠδός: 320 ὦ θεοί: 236 ὦ τᾶν: 134 ὦ Ζεῦ: 109

399 Index rerum et personarum Academy: 133–4, 134 Admetos (mythical figure): 118, 121 Adonis (mythical figure): 64 Aiolos (mythical figure): 74, 76 Alcestis (mythical figure): 120, 121 Alexander of Pherai (king): 39 Alexis (comic poet): 13, 14, 29, 30 anapaestic dimeter: 340 Andromeda (mythical figure): 126 Antaios (mythical figure): 131 Anteia (mythical figure): 138 Antiphanes characters: 27 chronology: 14–15, 32, 34, 36–7 death and burial: 32, 33 family and personal background: 13–14, 34–5 kômôidoumenoi: 21–2 language: 22–4 lyric, lack of evidence for: 27, 28 metrics: 25–7 prologues: 27 revisions of plays: 29–30 sources of fragments: 15–16 themes: 17–21 titles: 13, 17–18 victories: 13 Aphrodite: 224 birth of: 216 of Knidos: 358 Apollo: 49 Aristogeiton son of Theotimos of Aphidnai (tyrannicide): 49 Aristophon (comic poet): 127, 288 Arkas (mythical figure): 156 Artemis: 237 Asklepios: 173, 175 asyndetic doubled words: 60–1 Athamas (mythical figure): 67 Athenaeus of Naucratis (author of Deipnosophists): 15, 16–17 banquet: see dinner party banquet-manager: 205 barley: 245 bartender: 93 Batalos (musician): 180

bathhouse: 71, 95, 97, 98 beer: 175–6 bees and beekeeping: 210 beet: 270 birds, as food: 338 Boiotia: 231 Bousiris (mythical figure): 248 Byzantium: 117–18, 265 cabbage: 56–7 calcium montmorillonite: 155 capers: 244 captives, binding of hands: 287 casserole-dish: 268 cassia: 144, 213 Chairephilos of Paiania (saltfish dealer) and sons: 100, 115 Charon: 323–4 cheese: 85–6, 86, 192–3, 193, 210, 243, 244, 340 chorus: 28 cilantro and coriander: 270 cinnamon: 144 citron: 235 citronella oil: 144 citrus fruit, propagation of: 236 colloquialism: 23, 53, 54, 59, 61, 84, 94, 98, 104, 108, 112, 113, 122, 134, 148, 149, 159, 170, 176, 193, 196, 199, 207, 220, 227, 228, 230, 235, 246, 250, 264, 278, 281, 287, 299, 303 n. 157, 305, 311, 313, 315, 320, 328, 332, 339, 356, 366; see also prosaic vocabulary conger eel: 111 consolatory motifs, conventional: 198 cook: 16, 24, 42, 43, 44, 83–4, 192, 205–7, 269, 273, 340 cottabus: 223–5 prizes: 225 courtesan: 46–8, 110, 111–12, 116, 117; see also prostitute and prostitution crawfish/crayfish: 108 cuttlefish: 106–7 Cyrene: 332, 333 date: 250 deaf-mute: 345 death as a journey: 198

400

Indices

Demeter: 43–4, 211 oaths by: 98 Demetrios of Phaleron (scholar), study of Antiphanes: 37 Deukaliôn (mythical figure): 294 dinner party: 16–17, 20, 24, 42, 57, 83, 109–10, 155, 206, 240, 269, 313, 354 dithyrambic language: 24, 193, 206–7, 208, 211, 212, 214, 245, 340, 344; see also poetic language, tragic (or otherwise elevated) language Dodone: 342 donkey: 90 Dorotheos of Askalon (scholar): 38 dual: 287 eel: 166–7 egg: 225 Egypt and Egyptians: 72 elephant: 315–16 Ephesus: 363 Ephippus (comic poet): 29 Epicrates (comic poet): 30, 336–7, 337–8 Epidauros: 346 Epigenes (comic poet): 30, 153 Eriphus (comic poet): 29, 234 Euripides: 76 fishhead, as delicacy: 166, 167, 293 fishing line and fishing: 118–19 fishing net: 284–5 fishmonger: 105–6, 262 flax: 193 Flood story: 294 Gadeira: 296 Ganymêdês (mythical figure): 275, 277, 282 garland and garland-market: 195, 317 garlic: 243, 244 Glaukos (mythical figure): 288 gluttons, competing for food: 190 gnome: 159, 237 goat: 45 “gods and goddesses”: 310–11 Golden Apples: 236 Good Divinity: 50 grain, imported into Athens: 141 grape and grapevine: 230, 250 hand-washing, post-dinner: 154, 155, 328 Harmodios of Aphidnai (tyrannicide) and Harmodios song: 49

Hekate: 237, 257–8, 263–4 Helen (mythical figure): 257–8, 283 Herakles (mythical figure): 118. 121, 131, 248, 278–9, 320 oaths by: 107 Hermes: 277 Hesperides: 236 Hipparchos son of Peisistratos (tyrant): 40 Homeric vocabulary or phrasing: 45, 202, 203, 208, 211, 213, 311 horse: 118, 334 hyperbole: 209 incest: 74 n. 43 inn: 199 Ionian luxury: 344 javelin: 91 Kallimedôn (politician and glutton): 100, 109 Kallisthenês (politician): 100, 110 Kanakê (mythical figure): 74, 76 kid-meat: 86 knuckle-bone: 347, 348 Kôbios (glutton): 100, 114, 115 Korê/Persephone: 211 ladle: 310 lamp: 270 Laomedôn (mythical figure): 275, 277, 278–9, 282 legal and legislative language: 287, 350 lemon grass: 144 Library at Alexandria: 15, 28 linen: 193 lion: 163, 164 Lycophron (scholar and poet): 39 Makareus (mythical figure): 74, 76, 77, 79 manumission: 98–9 Megara: 141 Menelaus (mythical figure): 190 Menander (comic poet): 18–19, 20–1, 28, 30 mercenary soldier: 353, 355 Misgolas son of Naukratês of the deme Kollyte (pederast): 100, 112 moustache, in Sparta: 171 myrrh: 213–14 neuter substantive used of a person: 59 nickname: 70, 79–80 novelty as suspicious: 122 oath: 108–9

Index rerum et personarum octopus: 354–5 old age: 351–2 old woman: 175 olive oil: 271 onion: 243, 244 paean: 49–50 palm-tree: 245–6 parasite: 17, 109 n. 57, 232, 303–6, 327, 330 paratragedy: 277–8 pederasty: 112, 275 perfume: 123 Persia and Persians: 147, 236 Phoenicia and Phoenicians: 141 Phoinikidês (glutton): 189–90, 190 Phrygians: 278 physician: 175 pipes and piper: 186, 188 Plato: 134 Plautus: 19–20 poetic language: 24, 42, 43, 44, 69, 76, 175, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 297, 314, 338, 340, 344. 353 n. 176, 358, 360; see also dithyrambic language, tragic (or otherwise elevated) language pomegranate: 238 Poseidon, oaths by: 227 potter’s wheel and potting: 207–8 prologue: 76, 121, 173, 275, 277, 290, 352 prosaic vocabulary: 23–4, 77, 79, 86, 110, 117, 122, 129, 135, 172, 176, 199, 207, 208, 221, 226, 293, 304–5, 305, 306, 313, 315, 323, 324, 328, 330 n. 168, 366; see also colloquialism prostitute and prostitution: 46–8, 123; see also courtesan purple dye and purple clothing: 266 purse: 194–5 Pythionikê (courtesan): 100, 114–15 quail: 54–5 rape: 78, 290 red mullet: 110 riddle: 192, 205, 282, 284–5, 287 ritual language: 310–11 roots, ground for medicine: 176 sailing, horrors of: 365 salt: 271 saltfish and saltfish dealer: 115–16, 295, 296

401

saltwater, drinking of: 286–7 sausage: 273, 274 sea-bream: 166, 167 second-person future equivalent to imperative: 227 sexual assault, Athenian terminology for: 283–4 sheep: 85, 86, 209 “Sicilian” cooking: 340 sifting grain: 152 silphium: 270, 332–3 Sinôpê (courtesan): 100, 111–12 slave: 13, 17, 19, 27, 32, 33, 48, 51, 60, 68 n. 39, 70, 95, 97, 98–9, 111, 112, 114, 143, 180, 188, 205, 226, 259–60, 261, 266, 282, 283, 284, 286, 308–9, 322, 325, 335, 337, 339 punishment of: 284, 285 slave-catcher: 325 slings and slinger: 227 smell: 297–8 soap: 155 Sophocles: 45–6 Spartan mess-groups: 170–1 spet: 357 spikenard: 144 staff: 136–7 Stephanos (comic poet and supposed son of Antiphanes): 13–14, 33 stingray: 117 suicide: 150 symposium: 16, 20, 49, 50, 51, 52, 143, 188, 205, 206, 213, 214, 223, 224–5, 249, 286–7, 310, 313, 316, 317, 320, 321, 338, 348 Taureas (glutton): 189–90 Telamôn (mythical figure) and Telamôn song: 320–1 Terence: 19–20 Theanô (courtesan): 117 Theopompus Comicus (comic poet): 138 Thessaly: 141 tithe: 117–18 toast and toasting: 50, 314 tragic (or otherwise elevated) language: 24, 42, 43–4, 45, 74, 76, 78, 137 n. 83, 146, 186, 202, 209, 210, 213, 277, 278, 279, 334, 340, 343, 344; see also dithyrambic language, poetic language

402 Tros (mythical figure): 275, 282 Troy, Trojans and Trojan War: 189, 190, 275, 278–9, 321 tuna: 62, 296–7 Underworld: 198, 323 “water of freedom”: 98–9 wealth, meaninglessness of: 160 wheat: 141–2 wild boar: 163, 164

Indices wine, wine-drinking and drunkenness: 49, 50, 52, 76, 77, 79, 94, 159, 175, 223, 224, 230, 282, 286–7, 309–10, 313, 316– 17, 320; see also cottabus, symposium wool and wool-working: 85, 86 wrestling: 323 Xenarchus (comic poet): 30, 301 Zeus onstage: 277 n. 148 the Savior: 50–1