Theopompus: Introduction, Translation, Commentary 3949189394, 9783949189395, 9783949189418

Citation preview

Titelei_VUR P0017071_FrC_14_Farmer.qxp_. 23.03.22 08:05 Seite 1

Titelei_VUR P0017071_FrC_14_Farmer.qxp_. 23.03.22 08:05 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 14 · Theopompos

Titelei_VUR P0017071_FrC_14_Farmer.qxp_. 23.03.22 08:05 Seite 3

Matthew C. Farmer

Theopompus Introduction, Translation, Commentary

Verlag Antike

Titelei_VUR P0017071_FrC_14_Farmer.qxp_. 23.03.22 08:05 Seite 4

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

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

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. © 2022 Verlag Antike, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen, ein Imprint der Brill-Gruppe (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland; Brill Österreich GmbH, Wien, Österreich) Koninklijke Brill NV umfasst die Imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike und V&R unipress. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Umschlaggestaltung: disegno visuelle kommunikation, Wuppertal Druck und Bindung: Hubert & Co. BuchPartner, Göttingen Printed in the EU Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-949189-41-8

To Anne Mahoney & Ralph Rosen

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

9

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

11

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

21

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

21

Play–titles and Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

Ἄδμητος (Admētos) (“Admetus”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

Ἀλθαία (Althaia) (“Althaea”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

Ἀφροδίτη (Aphroditē) (“Aphrodite”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

Βατύλη (Batylē) (“Batyle”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

Εἰρήνη (Eirēnē) (“Peace”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

Ἡδυχάρης (Hēducharēs) (“Lovejoy”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

Θησεύς (Thēseus) (“Theseus”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

Κάλλαισχρος (Kallaischros) (“Callaeschrus”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82

Καπηλίδες (Kapēlides) (“Women Shopkeepers”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

Μῆδος (Mēdos) (“The Mede”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Νεμέα (Nemea) (“Nemea”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Ὀδυσσεύς (Odysseus) or Ὀδυσσῆς (Odyssēs) (“Odysseus” or “Odysseuses”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Παῖδες (Paides) (“Children” or “Slaves”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Παμφίλη (Pamphilē) (“Pamphile”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Πανταλέων (Pantaleōn) (“Pantaleon”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Πηνελόπη (Pēnelopē) (“Penelope”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Σειρῆνες (Seirēnes) (“Sirens”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Στρατιώτιδες (Stratiōtides) (“Soldier Women”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Τεισαμενός (Teisamenos) (“Teisamenus”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Φινεύς (Phineus) (“Phineus”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

9

Preface This volume has taken me a number of years to complete, and I owe many debts of gratitude to the people who have helped and supported me during my time with dear old Theopompus. At the meeting of the SCS in Chicago in 2014, Douglas Olson heard me read a paper on Strattis’ Phoenician Women. Despite disagreeing with nearly everything I had to say about the fragments of that interesting play, he invited and encouraged me to consider joining the Fragmenta Comica project. From that moment on, Douglas became my chief mentor and guide through the (to me) surprisingly difficult work of commentary–writing. His generosity to me throughout my work on this volume has been unstinting, a form of hospitality on a Homeric scale, but expressed through patient, painstaking notes, nudges, corrections, and conversations; this in addition to many instances of hospitality of the more conventional, yet no less generous, variety. This volume simply would not exist without Douglas, and though he may yet find many arguments contained within it no more persuasive than my comments on Strattis were all those years ago in Chicago, I am nevertheless profoundly grateful to him. On the subject of hospitality there are few who could match Bernhard Zimmermann. My visit to Freiburg in January 2015, orchestrated by Bernhard and Douglas, remains one of the highlights of my professional career: very seldom have I had the opportunity to benefit from the concentrated focus of so many brilliant, kindly specialists gathered for the sole purpose of assisting me in my work. Anna Novokhatko, Christian Orth, Stelios Chronopoulos, Virginia Mastellari, Andreas Bagordo, and many others offered wonderfully helpful feedback and guidance at that time, as well as a great deal of friendly good cheer. Afterwards Christian, Stelios, Virginia, and later Francesco Paolo Bianchi critiqued portions or even the entirety of the commentary, and I have benefited enormously from their wisdom and experience. To return to Bernhard – I cannot truly express what a perpetual relief it was to request one extension after another to this volume, particularly during the chaos of the pandemic years, and to invariably have these requests met with unhesitating generosity and understanding. I have had the singular luck to have been a member of two lively, welcoming classics departments during my work on this project. First, at the University of Missouri, I had the wonderful good fortune to begin my career working alongside Mike Barnes, Jim Crozier, Rich Foley, Sean Gurd, Dan Hooley, Darcy Krasne, Sue Langdon, Ray Marks, Marcello Mogetta, Anatole Mori, Mariapia Pietropaolo, Marcus Rautman, David Schenker, Dennis Trout, Barbara Wallach, and Sergio Yona; the name “Theopompus” was often on my lips during our daily communal lunches and frequent gatherings around Columbia, and my colleagues never tired of hearing the latest update about his views on ivory sword–hilts or Platonic mathematics. In the years since, I have made my professional home here at Haverford College, where the kindness and patience of Bret Mulligan, Deborah Roberts, Ava

10

Theopompus

Shirazi, and Hannah Silverblank has buoyed me through to the end of this project; I recall with particular gratitude a long afternoon spent in close conversation on the various possible relationships, grammatical, physiological, and spiritual, between the women of Athens and the goddess of childbirth. Both Missouri and Haverford supported this book with years of research leave, time which was both wonderfully luxurious and deeply necessary to the work. The Loeb Classical Library Foundation and the University of Missouri Research Board further supported me with generous grants. Several audiences have heard pieces of this project delivered as papers: at Missouri’s 2015 Lane Occasional Papers; at the 2016 SCS panel on “Fragments: From Theory to Practice” and a 2018 panel on epic receptions; during a visit to my alma mater, Tufts University, in 2016; and at the Bryn Mawr Classics Colloquium in 2018. I’m grateful to the many people who listened to works–in–progress on those occasions and for the many helpful questions and comments they offered me. Over the course of my education I have been blessed with the guidance of several wonderful teachers. I have chosen to dedicate this volume to two of the best, each of whom, in their own ways, taught me to read Greek Comedy: Anne Mahoney of Tufts University, and Ralph Rosen of the University of Pennsylvania. Haverford, Pennsylvania November 2021

11

Introduction 1. Name and Identity Theopompus (PAA 509465; PA 7010) was (according to Suda θ 171) the son of either Theodoros (PAA 506190) or Theodektes (PAA 504647). We know almost nothing about his life beyond his career as a comic poet, unless Aelian is correct in claiming to have seen a relief set up by Theopompus to honor Asclepius in thanks for the god’s assistance in his recovery from a lung disease (see test. 2). The name “Theopompus” was exceptionally common in Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE; other prominent holders of it include: a 4th c. BCE dedicant at Brauron (PAA 509465); an archon of 411/410 BCE (PA 7011; PAA 509485); an ambassador honored by decree (PA 7016a; PAA 509515). Whether any of these men, or the many Theopompoi named on various Attic tombstones (e. g. PAA 509605 = PA 7016b) were identical with or related to our Theopompus we cannot say. The alternate names given by the Suda for Theopompus’ father were both born by prominent tragic practitioners of the 4th c. BCE: the actor Theodorus (PAA 506155; Stephanis 1157; TrGF 265) and the poet Theodektes PAA 504645; PA; TrGF 72). Our evidence strongly suggests, however, that tragic and comic families did not overlap; see Sutton 1987. Several names in the Victors List for the Lenaea festival of the 3rd century BCE have been plausibly, in one case certainly, restored as “Theodorus” (PAA 506064, 506065; see K.–A. VII.695–6); conceivably any or all of these could represent descendants of Theopompus, if Theodorus was indeed a family name.

2. Chronology and Career None of Theopompus’ plays can be dated securely to a specific year, but the range of historical references in his fragments suggests a career stretching from at least the 410s down into the 380s or 370s. This range is compatible with his appearances on the Victor List inscriptions; we know that he was first victorious at the City Dionysia sometime after Ameipsias won the festival between 421 and 415 BCE, and that his first victory at the Lenaea came sometime after Eupolis’ in 430–426, most likely quite a few years after. He was therefore probably a younger contemporary of Aristophanes, born or at least premiering a decade or two later and operating throughout, and perhaps somewhat beyond, Aristophanes’ lifetime. We do not know the total number of Theopompus’ victories, but we do know that he took first place at the Lenaea festival twice and the City Dionysia at least once. Twenty titles of his comedies are preserved; the Suda claims he wrote twenty–four. If we assume that he wrote something like twenty to twenty–four plays, and that his career did not begin or end substantially outside the dates suggested by the

12

Theopompus

fragments, then Theopompus staged a comedy in at least one of the two festivals every year or every other year during his career, taking first at least three times, and was thus a fairly active and reasonably successful poet. We have no specific evidence for double or alternate titles among Theopompus’ plays. One possible exception, however, is the set of plays Odysseus, Penelope, and Sirens: since all three must have dealt extensively with material from the Odyssey, and the title Sirens is almost certainly derived from the identity of the chorus, it is possible that Sirens is an alternate title for either Odysseus or Penelope, or indeed that all three are the same play. Since several sources (chiefly Photius, Athenaeus, and Pollux) cite two or even all three of these titles, however, I have chosen to treat them in what follows as distinct plays.

3. Transmission and Reception Theopompus’ fragments are transmitted exclusively as book fragments, which is to say quotations and references preserved in later authors whose texts come down to us through a manuscript tradition; there are no fragments of Theopompus found on papyrus. We have 108 fragments attributed to Theopompus, but 18 of these I have labeled dubia: in every case these are fragments where it is impossible to determine whether a citation is to the comic poet or, instead, to the historian Theopompus of Chios.1 Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae is the most frequent source (providing 28, over a quarter of the corpus), followed closely by Pollux’s Onomasticon (24); other sources that provide multiple fragments include Photius’ Lexicon (15), the scholia to Aristophanes (10), the Suda (7), Eustathius’ commentaries on the Iliad and Odyssey (5), the Etymologicum Genuinum (4), Orus’s lexicon as preserved by Zonaras (3), and Harpokration’s lexicon to the Attic orators (2). Single fragments are preserved by the Antiatticist, Clement of Alexandria, Cyrillus, Diogenes Laertius, Hephaestion, Phrynichus Atticista, Plutarch (with one fragment in a genuine work, and another in a spurious work), Priscian, the scholia to Pindar, and Zenobius. Among the dubia, Photius is our chief source (with 11 fragments), followed by the Suda (4). If even half of the dubia preserved by Photius were genuine, this would place him among the chief sources of Theopompus’ fragments. Few if any of these authors will have read intact texts of Theopompus’ plays. Instead, they draw on a variety of common sources (now almost entirely lost), including earlier Atticist lexica, other scholarly works produced in the Hellenistic period (especially at Alexandria), and catalogues of people mocked in comedy (komoidoumenoi). This selection process introduces, moreover, a number of biases, which in the case of Theopompus cannot be checked against the random 1

Kassel and Austin label only 11 fragments (98–108) as dubia; see below, on frr. 64–108.

Introduction

13

data given by papyri (as they can be in the case of Eupolis; see Olson 2017. 25) or of course against extant comedies (as with Aristophanes or Menander). The preponderance of fragments provided by Athenaeus, for example, gives food, wine, and the personnel and accoutrements of the symposium an outsize place in Theopompus’ remains; Pollux and Photius, in turn, are typically concerned only to prove a classical Attic usage for a given word or expression, rather than to understand the dramatic context (plot, characters, scene, etc.) from whence their quotations arise.

4. Themes and Motifs None of Theopompus’ comedies can be reconstructed in any detail. We cannot safely guess the plot of even a single play, and we only know the identity of the speaking character(s) in three fragments: a personification of Mt. Lycabettus in fr. 30, Odysseus in fr. 34, and two enslaved members of a household called Spinther and Theolyte in fr. 33. Nevertheless, a number of recurring topics can be traced across the surviving fragments and titles. In keeping with other comic poets of the late fifth and early fourth centuries, Theopompus seems to have composed a number of mythological comedies: the titles Admetus, Althaea, Theseus, Odysseus, Penelope, Sirens, and Phineus all strongly (though not definitively) suggest mythological plays, and we may perhaps add Aphrodite to that number. A number of gods and mythological figures are mentioned in the fragments, including Attis (fr. 28), Hestia (fr. 29), Rhadamanthys (fr. 32), Eileithuia (fr. 60), and Telamon (fr. 65). Divine rituals are also mentioned, including an offering of laurels (almost certainly to Apollo, in fr. 48) and the sacrifice of a bull (fr. 74). Like Aristophanes and many of his successors, Theopompus seems to have made women an important focus of several plays. The titles Kapelides (“Barmaids”) and Stratiotides (“Soldier Women”) both indicate choruses of women; the latter may indicate a group of women occupying a traditionally male occupation (as in Assemblywomen), unless instead it refers to a group of effeminate male soldiers. Other titles give the names of mythological women (Althaea, Aphrodite, Penelope, Sirens) or of contemporary women (Nemea, Pamphile, perhaps Eirene), suggesting prominent female characters in those plays. Nemea and Pamphile may have been the names of hetairai, and we see a number of other references to female sex–workers, including a reference to their expensive rates (fr. 22) and a character who bears the name of a famous hetaira (Theolyte, in fr. 33). Other references to women’s sexual behavior are more ambiguous: the attempted seduction of an older enslaved woman (the same Theolyte, in fr. 33); a joke about the invention of fellatio (fr. 36); and a (probably erotic) comparison of a woman to a ripe melon (fr. 76). Women’s drinking is a particular motif (with perhaps several of the

14

Theopompus

women in question being hetairai): we see an extended description of a woman’s drunken behavior (frr. 41 and 42, possibly different versions of the same text); a woman discussing the possibility of getting drunk (fr. 55); and a variety of terms for drunken women (frr. 80 and 94). More respectable aspects of women’s lives are referenced as well, including the role of the goddess Eileithuia in childbirth (fr. 60), a reference to the cost of maintaining a wife (fr. 56), and a term for a woman about to be married (fr. 95). Fr. 33, our longest preserved piece of dialogue in Theopompus, shows a conversation between two enslaved characters. The lives of the enslaved are also referenced in fr. 64 (an allusion to forced labor as a form of torture), perhaps in the title Paides, literally “children” but often meaning “slaves,” and in fr. 91, a word meaning “behavior befitting a slave.” Theopompus’ fragments contain several elements of allusion, parody, quotation, and other forms of engagement with literature beyond comedy, particularly with Homer. The titles Odysseus, Penelope, and Sirens, if they do refer to three distinct plays, suggest a marked interest in paraepic comedy. Homeric poetry is explicitly quoted in fr. 34, and imitated in the hexameters of fr. 32. Other allusions include a (probably fake) quotation from Euripides (fr. 35) and a garbled reference to Plato’s Phaedo (fr. 16), in addition to a claim about a word used by the dithyrambic poet Telestes (fr. 4). Popular literary or musical culture is seen in a reference to symposium songs sung about Telamon (fr. 65), and in proverbs mentioned in frr. 7 (an allusion to the Delphic maxims) and 70 (that the old are in a second childhood). Our evidence for political engagement by Theopompus is very limited. In fr. 32 we have an extended discussion of an attempt at bribery by the Athenian politician Callistratus; the titles Callaeschrus and Teisamenus may suggest political comedies targeting leaders of those names, but there are many other possible meanings for both titles. The fragments preserve a number of off–hand references to political figures; see the following section for full details.

5. Kōmōidoumenoi The following historical persons are referenced in the fragments of Theopompus: – – – – – – – –

Acestor the tragic poet: fr. 60 Anytos the general and politician: fr. 58 Callistratus the politician: fr. 32 Demophon, mocked as a boaster: fr. 44 Euripides the tragic poet: fr. 35 Isaeus the orator: fr. 19 Laespodias the general and ambassador: fr. 40 Leotrophides, probably the general: fr. 25

Introduction

– – – – – –

15

Lysander, unknown but probably a politician: fr. 32 Peron the perfume merchant: frr. 1, 17 Philonides, an Athenian prominent for his wealth: fr. 5 Plato the philosopher: fr. 16 Telestes the dithyrambic poet: fr. 4 Thrasymachus the politician: fr. 57

These references show the usual range of figures mocked in comedy (see Sommerstein 1996), including politicians, poets, and prominent, perhaps simply wealthy Athenians. All match the rest of our evidence for Theopompus’ dates, belonging primarily to the period from the 410s (Leotrophides) to the 380s or early 370s (Callistratus).

6. Language Theopompus’ fragments show little that is distinctive to his style, but many examples of the shared poetic repertoire of the comic poets. There are no primary obscenities in his fragments, but several euphemisms for obscene acts: Philonides’ mother is said to have “mingled” with a donkey (fr. 5); the people of Lesbos do a “famous trick with their mouths” (fr. 36); young men “do favors” for their lovers (fr. 30); a woman’s genitals are a “centaur” (fr. 92). Less obscene jokes include a reference to Laispodias’ skinny ankles (fr. 40), and perhaps a similar joke about the skinniness of Leotrophides (fr. 25). Theopompus shares in the mockery found elsewhere in comedy of Anytos as a shoemaker (fr. 58) and Acestor as a foreigner (fr. 61). Figurative language is frequent in the fragments: swords are “bitter” (fr. 8); deceit is an “unpleasant sauce” (fr. 9); a chorus or group of people is like a flock of geese (fr. 14); a woman sings like a chirping cicada (fr. 41); another woman is “as soft as a watermelon” (fr. 76); a group of old men are “the wrinkled councils of a beggar king” (fr. 78). Many of these comparisons were or became proverbial, especially “the taste of freedom” (fr. 66) and the claim that wine is a “mirror of character” (fr. 33). That Theopompus was interested in metaphor, and not simply a casual employer of it, is suggested by fr. 34, in which Odysseus praises Homer’s simile comparing a fine cloak to an onion skin, and credits Homer by name. In addition to Homer, several other authors are quoted by Theopompus’ characters and cited by name, including the dithyrambist Telestes (fr. 4), the philosopher Plato (fr. 16), and the tragedian Euripides (fr. 35). The latter two examples are quite garbled quotations that seem to reveal the pretensions of the speaker, a type of joke that was to become prominent in later fourth–century comedy. In other places Theopompus parodies elevated literature or speech without explicit citations, with language that is paratragic (fr. 18, perhaps fr. 72) or paraepic (fr. 31 certainly, with many other possibilities suggested by the comedies Odysseus,

16

Theopompus

Penelope, and Sirens). Wise, perhaps medical or philosophical advice is mocked in fr. 63, and quite a few proverbs are quoted or alluded to: the famous Delphic maxims (fr. 14); “you’re sacrificing to Hestia,” of one who is unwilling to share (fr. 29); “things from the time of Charixena,” of outmoded music (fr. 51); and the cliché that “the old are children for a second time” (fr. 70). Again, Theopompus seems to have been keenly interested in the humorous misuse of such proverbs, as when a parasite attributes to Euripides the pseudo–proverbial claim that the happiest man is the one who eats others’ food (fr. 36). Only once in Theopompus’ fragments does a character speak in a dialect other than Attic, a brief oath in which “Demeter” appears in its Doric form (fr. 24); our sources suggest, however, that Athenians sometimes swore by Demeter’s Doric name. Although the fragments are, like all comedy of this period, littered with colloquial speech, there is nothing very distinctive in Theopompus’ use of it, except perhaps in a fondness for diminutives (frr. 45, 47, 48, 65, 93). There are several words in the fragments that are hapax legomena, or very rare: ὄγκας, “brayer” (fr. 5); μητρυιός, “stepfather,” using the masculine form of “stepmother” (fr. 14); αὐτόκακος, “bad to oneself ” (fr. 21); ῥαχιστής, “spine–cutter,” meaning “braggart” (fr. 44); στρεψαύχην, “neck twister,” of a wineskin (fr. 55); μεθύστρια, “drunkard–ess”(fr. 94). Many, perhaps all of these are more likely ill–attested colloquialisms than new coinages.

7. Metrics and Form Metrics Iambic Trimeter In the remains of Theopompus there are 74 intact iambic trimeters: that is, lines that are transmitted complete and without serious textual difficulties (excluding partial lines and obelized lines). 90% of these lines feature either penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura; these are evenly distributed (that is to say, each accounts for 45% of the total), although a little over 10% of these lines could accommodate either. Compared to Eupolis, 55% of whose trimeters have penthemimeral caesura and only 38% hepthemimeral, Theopompus shows a surprisingly frequent use of the hepthemimeral caesura. Of the 8 trimeters without penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura, 3 have either tetrahemimeral or octhemimeral caesura (4% of the total). Only 2 lines have medial caesura: fr. 73, which features the unusual word αἱμασιολογεῖν; and fr. 6, a quotation spread across 3 lines whose text or colometry may in fact be even less certain than it appears. These figures seem to bear out Olson’s conclusion (2017. 28), noted in his discussion of Eupolis (where medial caesura is similarly rare), that comic fragments of the late fifth century BCE should not be restored with medial caesura except where a proper name or unusual word requires it.

17

Introduction

Comparison of Theopompus’ handling of trimeters with Eupolis’ (figures from Olson 2017. 28–29) and Aristophanes (figures from White 1912 § 96, converted to percentages by Olson) shows broad similarity with some interesting distinctions. First, we may note that Theopompus uses long for short in arsis roughly equally across the three available positions in the line, whereas both Aristophanes and Eupolis show a tendency to use do so more often in the third than in the first or fifth feet: Aristophanes i 60%

iii 68%

v 60%

i 54%

iii 69%

v 51%

i 58%

iii 61%

v 61%

Eupolis

Theopompus

Eupolis’ feet, especially in i and v, are rather more iambic than Aristophanes’, but Theopompus mirrors Aristophanes’ practice almost exactly in these positions. With a finer breakdown of metrical shapes by foot across the line, we can see that, for the most part, Aristophanes, Eupolis, and Theopompus all handle the iambic trimeter quite similarly. Aristophanes’ trimeters: Iamb Tribrach Spondee Dactyl Anapaest

i 25% 2% 54% 5% 13%

ii 75% 11%

14%

iii 25% 4% 59% 10% 3%

iv 78% 13%

iii 23% 5% 62% 9% 2%

iv 84% 13%

10%

v 35% 1% 58% 2% 4%

Eupolis’ trimeters: Iamb Tribrach Spondee Dactyl Anapaest

i 27% 2% 49% 6% 15%

ii 81% 10%

9%

4%

v 42% 1% 48% 3% 7%

18

Theopompus

Theopompus’ trimeters: Iamb Tribrach Spondee Dactyl Anapaest

i 22% 54% 4% 20%

ii 82% 8%

9%

iii 27% 9% 51% 9% 3%

iv 77% 20%

3%

v 34% 3% 58% 3% 3%

Theopompus seems to use a spondee in the third foot somewhat less often than either Aristophanes or Eupolis; both Aristophanes and Theopompus use spondees in the fifth foot rather more than Eupolis. Theopompus uses anapaests in the first foot slightly more often than the other poets; he admits a somewhat surprisingly high number of tribrachs in the third through fifth feet, especially in the fourth. Three lines of Theopompus contain no iambs whatsoever (frr. 3.2, 8.2, 64.2), a somewhat higher percentage (4%) than either Aristophanes (2%) or Eupolis (less than 1%); his fragments contain no wholly iambic lines. Other Standard Non–Lyric Meters Iambic tetrameter catalectic is preserved in frr. 56 and 57, constituting three intact lines. All three lines feature caesura in the central position of the line (between the second and third metra). Trochaic tetrameter catalectic can confidently be restored in fr. 78 (despite the missing two syllables at the start of the line). The line features caesura between the second and third metra. Four lines of dactylic hexameter are found in fr. 31. In two lines (31.1–2), caesura is found after the longum of the third metron (the so–called “masculine” caesura); in the other two (31.3–4), caesura falls after the first short of the third metron (the “feminine” caesura). Lyric Meters Fr. 36 as transmitted has the appearance of a series of dactylo–epitrites. This meter is relatively rare even in Aristophanes, however, and is found almost nowhere else in the comic fragments. If we posit a lacuna at the end of line 2, the fragment can be read as iambic trimeters, even featuring two instances of the hepthemimeral caesura of which Theopompus was evidently so fond. As noted below, if the fragment does represent an instance of dactylo–epitrites, it would closely resemble Ar. Av. 451–9, the ode which begins the play’s agon. Fr. 39 is a series of five cretics, a shape which Hephaestion claims is called the “Theopompeion.” This could represent either lyric or recitative; in either case, it could belong to a parabasis or elsewhere in the comedy. The term “Theopompeion” is not used elsewhere, and these are the only cretics preserved among Theopompus’ fragments.

Introduction

19

Fr. 77 is transmitted as a combination of an iambic dimeter and a syncopated trochaic dimeter; although Hephaestion labels this shape (without citing our fragment) the “Euripidean,” elsewhere the Euripidean is an iambic dimeter plus an ithyphallic. Either we have here a more unusual shape (found also in Eup. fr. 391), or a textual error for a proper Euripidean. Form We can say almost nothing about the structure of Theopompus’ comedies, beyond the fact that there is no evidence in the fragments to suggest that his comedies were markedly different in structure from Aristophanes’. Fr. 30, in which Mt. Lycabettus appears as a personification, seems likely to have belonged to a prologue; fr. 33, in which both characters make a point of identifying the other by name, may likewise have belonged to a prologue (and we may note that conversations between enslaved characters, as we have in fr. 33, belong to prologues in the extant comedies of Aristophanes). Frr. 56 and 57 of Stratiotides, both iambic tetrameter catalectic, may have belonged to the agon of that play. As noted above, three possibly lyric fragments are preserved: fr. 36 (if it is in dactylo–epitrites), fr. 39 (in cretics, either sung or chanted), and fr. 77 (possibly the “Euripidean”); although any of these, particularly the latter two, could conceivably form part of a parabasis, none preserves content that is markedly parabatic.

8. Theopompus and Other Comic Poets Theopompus’ fragments contain no explicit reference to his rival comic poets. In several places we can see him participating in “capping” games, in which several poets attempt to outdo one another with variations on the same joke: fr. 5, comparing Philonides to various disreputable animals (with Plato Com. fr. 65, Ar. Pl. 303–4, Philyllius fr. 22); fr. 61, accusing the tragedian Acestor of being a foreigner (with Ar. Av. 31, Callias fr. 17, Eup. fr. 172, Metag. fr. 14); and fr. 58, a joke implying that Anytos derived his wealth from leather (with Archipp. fr. 31). Theopompus gave quite a few of his comedies titles that had been or would later be used by other comic poets as well: Admetus (Aristomenes, possibly Phormios/Phormis); Eirene (Aristophanes, Eubulus); Theseus (Aristonymus, Anaxandrides, Diphilus); Callaeschrus (Ophelio); Odysses (Cratinus) or Odysseus (Anaxandrides, Amphis, Alexis, Eubulus); Paides (Philemon); Pamphile (Alexis); Seirenes (Nicophon); Stratiotides (possibly Hermippus).

20

Theopompus

9. Literature Editions and translations Bergk, T., 1838. Commentationum de reliquiis comoediae atticae antiquae, Leipzig. Meineke, A., 1839. Fragmenta poetarum comoediae antiquae. Berlin. Bothe, F. H., 1855. Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta post Augustum Meineke, Paris. Kock, T., 1880. Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1, Leipzig. Edmonds, J. M., 1957. The Fragments of Attic Comedy, Leiden. Kassel, R., and C. Austin, 1989. Poetae Comici Graeci, Vol. VII Menecrates – Xenophon, Berlin and New York. Storey, I. C., 2011. Fragments of Old Comedy Vol. III Philonicus to Xenophon, Adespota, Cambridge, MA. Rusten, J. (ed.), 2011. The Birth of Comedy, Baltimore.

Studies dedicated to Theopompus Sanchis Llopis, J. L., 2002. “La comedia mitológica de Teopompo”, in M. J. García Soler (ed.), Homenaje a P. A. Gainzaráin, Vitoria: 115–125. Farmer, M. C., 2020. “Theopompus’ Homer: Paraepic in Old and Middle Comedy”, CP 115: 339–64.

21

Commentary Testimonia test. 1 K.–A. Suda θ 171 Θεόπομπος, Θεοδέκτου ἢ Θεοδώρου, Ἀθηναῖος, κωμικός. ἐδίδαξε δράματα κδʹ. ἔστι δὲ τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας κατὰ Ἀριστοφάνην. δράματα δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰσὶ… καὶ ἄλλα πολλά. Theopompus, son of Theodektes or Theodorus, Athenian, a comic poet. He staged twenty–four plays. He belongs to Old Comedy like Aristophanes. His plays are… and many others.

Discussion 316–17

Meineke 1839 I. 236; Krause 1904; Wagner 1905. 34; Storey 2011.

Citation Context The Suda preserves a number of short biographies of poets (including eighty–six comic poets), derived ultimately from Hesychius of Miletus’ Catalogue of Names and Aristotle’s Didascaliae; see Wagner 1905. 30–55 and especially Orth 2013. 18–20. Test. 2 immediately follows this formulaic biography. Text Krause recognized a gap after δράματα δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰσί, where Hesychius’ standard format would call for a selection of representative titles. Interpretation Two key details in this biography clash with information about Theopompus provided in other sources. The name of Theopompus’ father is given later in the same Suda entry (really a quotation from Aelian) as Tisamenus (see test. 2); the first names given here, Theodektes or Theodorus, seem more likely to be correct, since the reference to Tisamenus probably arose from some confusion over a citation to Theopompus’ comedy of that name. The number of plays given here, twenty–four, contradicts the catalogue in test. 3 (= Koster VIII.1), which gives the number as seventeen. We know twenty titles, so a total of twenty–four plays is more likely correct. Dittmer 1923. 34, moreover, noting a similar discrepancy in the number given for Teleclides, concluded that the list in test. 3 originated as a pinax listing the number of plays contained in an unknown library; this would explain the discrepancy here as well. Since Theopompus was active in the fifth century, the assignment of him to Old Comedy may be taken to be correct; in the categorization used in these related biographies, this puts him in company with Apollophanes, Archippus, Aristomenes, Autocrates, Cephisodorus, Chionides, Crates, Cratinus, Diocles, Hermippus, Philonides, Philyllius, and of course Aristophanes, among others. For the expression κατὰ Ἀριστοφάνην, we may compare the fuller phrasing in the biography of Plato com. (Suda π 1708): γεγονὼς τοῖς χρόνοις κατὰ Ἀριστοφάνην

22

Theopompus

καὶ Φρύνιχον, Εὔπολιν, Φερεκράτην (“he lived in the same years as Aristophanes and Phrynichus, Eupolis, Pherecrates).

test. 2 K.–A. Aelian fr. 102 Domingo–Forasté (fr. 99 Herch.) = Suda θ 171 ὅτι Ἀσκληπιὸς καὶ τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ ἦν προμθής. φθόῃ γοῦν Θεόπομπον ῥινώμενόν τε καὶ λειβόμενον ἰάσατο καὶ κωμῳδίας αὖθις διδάσκειν ἐπῆρεν, ὁλόκληρόν τε καὶ σῶν καὶ ἀρτεμῃ ἐργασάμενος. καὶ δείκνυται καὶ νῦν ὑπὸ λίθῳ Θεοπόμπου (πατρόθεν ὁμολογοῦντος αὐτὸν τοῦ ἐπιγράμματος, Τισαμενοῦ γὰρ ἦν υἱός) εἶδωλον Παρίας λίθου. καὶ ἔστι τὸ ἵνδαλμα τοῦ πάθους μάλα ἐναργές. κλίνη καὶ αὐτὴ λίθου. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς κεῖται νοσοῦν τὸ ἐκείνου φάσμα, χειρουργίᾳ φιλοτέχνῳ· παρέστηκε δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ ὀρέγει οἱ τὴν παιώνιον χεῖρα, καὶ παῖς νεαρὸς ὑπομειδιῶν καὶ οὗτος. τί δὲ ἄρα νοεῖ ὁ παῖς; ἐγὼ συνίημι τοῦ φιλοπαίστην ποιητὴν ὑποδηλοῦν. γελᾷ γὰρ καὶ τῆς κωμῳδίας τὸ ἴδιον διὰ συμβόλων αἰνίττεται. εἰ δὲ ἄλλος νοεῖ ἑτέρως, κρατείτω τὴς ἑαυτοῦ γνώμης, ἐμὲ δὲ μὴ ἐνοχλείτω. κωμῳδίας Chalcondyles (ed. Suda a. 1499 = ed. pr.): κωμῳδίαν V ὑπὸ λίθῳ codd. : ἐπὶ λίθῳ Kuehn: ἐπὶ τάφῳ Toup: ἐν τῷ Ἀσκληπιείῳ Kaibel apud K.–A.: ὑπόλεπτον Wilamowitz Asclepius also cared about those in the arts. For when Theopompus was being worn down and melted with consumption (phthoē) he healed him and persuaded him to produce comedies again, making him whole and healthy and sound. And there is visible even now under stone an image of Theopompus (the inscription confirming him by his patronym, for he was the son of Tisamenus) in Parian marble. And the appearance of the disease is very clear. The bed is also of stone. On it his image lies ill, by ingenious artistic skill; the god stands by and reaches out to him his Paeonian hand, and a young smiling child is also there. But what does the child mean? I think it indicates that the poet was fond of playing, For he laughs and hints through symbols at the essence of comedy. If someone else thinks differently, let him prevail by his own opinion, but let him not trouble me.

Discussion Kuehn 1685. 805; Toup 1790 I. 286; Meineke 1839 I. 237; Ziehen 1892. 237–83; Rouse 1902. 216–18; Weinreich 1909. 1–8, 129–30; Wilamowitz 1931–32 II.232; Edelstein and Edelstein 1945 I. 262, II.211, 215–16; Hausmann 1948. 43; Storey 2011. 316–17; Marshall 2016. 203 Citation Context The Suda preserves numerous fragments of Aelian (see Wilson 1997. 18). The most complete text of this fragment is cited immediately after the Hesychian biography of Theopompus (test. 1), but without attribution to Aelian; at φ 505, however, the opening line of the anecdote is attributed to Aelian, and π 643 preserves a further segment of the anecdote with attribution as well. The partial citations of this anecdote in the Suda include the following:

Testimonia (test. 2)

23

Suda φ 505 Φθόη: φθίσις. ἢ ὄνομα πάθους ἐξ αἵματος ἀναγωγῆς. Πισίδης (George of Pisidia, Heraclias 3 fr. 30 Pertusi)· τὴν ἱππικὴν ὑπεῖχεν ὁ στρατὸς φθόην. καὶ Αἰλιανός· φθόῃ γοῦν Θεόπομπον τὸν Ἀθηναῖον ῥινώμενόν τε καὶ λειβόμενον ἰάσατο ὁ Ἀσκληπιός. phthoē: consumption, or the name of a disease arising from blood. The Pisidian (George of Pisidia, Heraclias 3 fr. 30 Pertusi): “The army endured phthoē among the cavalry.” And Aelian: “for when Theopompus was being worn down and melted with consumption (phthoē) Asclepius healed him.” Suda ε 2201 ἐπῇρεν: ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνέπεισεν, ἠρέθισεν. ὁ τοίνυν ἔρως συμπνεύσας καὶ κατὰ τοῦ τυράννου Φαλάριδος ἐπῇρεν αὐτούς. καὶ αὖθις· τοῦτον ἰάσατο, καὶ κωμῳδίαις διδάσκειν αὖθις ἐπῇρεν. epēren: meaning he persuaded him, he provoked. “And so love inspiring them also roused them against the tyrant Phalaris” (Aelian fr. 102 Domingo–Forasté = fr. 99 Herch.). And again: “he healed him, and persuaded him to produce comedies again.” Suda σ 824 σῷ: καὶ σῶν, μονοσυλλάβως, ἀντὶ τοῦ σῳζομένων, ὁλοκλήρων. ὁλόκληρόν τε καὶ σῶν καὶ ἀρτεμῆ ἐργασάμενον. sōi: also sōn, monosyllabically, meaning “those who have been saved, those who are whole.” “Making him whole and healthy and sound.” Suda π 643 Παρίας λίθου· Αἰλιανός· δείκνυται καὶ νῦν ὑπὸ λίθῳ Θεοπόμπου, πατρόθεν ὁμολογοῦντος αὐτὸν τοῦ ἐπιγράμματος, εἴδωλον Παρίας λίθου, καὶ ἔστι τὸ ἴνδαλμα τοῦ πάθους μάλα ἐναργές. κλίνη καὶ αὐτὴ λίθου. Of Parian marble: Aelian: And there is visible even now under stone an image of Theopompus (the inscription confirming him by his patronym) in Parian marble. And the appearance of the disease is very clear. The bed is also of stone.

This story seems likely to have formed part of a longer narrative about Asclepius, represented by frr. 101a–f, 103, 104, all preserved in the Suda; see Wilamowitz 1886. 36 n.6 Text In setting the text for the editio princeps of the Suda, Chalcondyles recognized that the singular noun in the phrase κωμῳδίαν αὖθις διδάσκειν ἐπῆρεν must be an error for the plural κωμῳδίας; Asclepius, in this anecdote, cannot have persuaded Theopompus to “write a comedy again,” but rather to return to writing comedies, plural. Although the phrase ὑπὸ λίθῳ occurs in both of the Suda’s versions of this text (θ 171 and π 643), the preposition ὑπό is not ordinarily used for committing a work of art to stone. Elsewhere ὑπὸ λίθῳ means literally “under a stone” (e. g. Ar. Th. 530), and it is unclear how it could produce the required meaning here, which must in some sense be that this work of art was carved in relief on Parian marble. It is possible that the parenthetical expression, which falls awkwardly between Θεοπόμπου and εἶδωλον, and contains a strange error about the name

24

Theopompus

of Theopompus’ father, has disrupted the text here beyond our ability to repair it. Nevertheless, a variety of emendations have been suggested: Kühn’s ἐπὶ λίθῳ “on stone” is the simplest, though it too lacks a clear parallel in classical Greek; Toup’s ἐπὶ τάφῳ “over the grave” would make the relief a tomb marker, but this does not fit clearly with Aelian’s tale, in which Theopompus sets up the marker while still alive. Kaibel’s more radical ἐν τῷ Ἀσκληπιείῳ would give the relief a more logical setting, as a thank offering in the temple of Asclepius, but it is difficult to see how the transmitted text could arise from such an expression. Finally, Wilamowitz, noting that the text seemed highly disordered here, offered ὑπόλεπτον, “somewhat fine,” as simply one possible correction; this word is not typically found outside medical texts, although Aelian himself does use it once of a cloak (NA 16.15). Interpretation Aelian claims to have seen a relief sculpture depicting Theopompus being healed by the god Asclepius, carved in Parian marble and identified by an inscription. Although some elements of Aelian’s interpretation of this sculpture are questionable, his overall description of it matches a number of similar monuments which survive from Athens in this period. Aelian describes a scene in which Theopompus reclines on a couch, while Asclepius stands nearby stretching out a hand, with a child attending them. Such a scene is entirely typical of relief sculptures of Asclepius; it particularly resembles an early 4th c. CE Attic relief (Ath. Mus. Nat. 2373) in which Asclepius reaches his hand out over the head of a man reclining on a couch, while several attendants, including Hygieia and two young men, surround them. Inscriptions with the name of the ill person are also found, e. g. Ath. Mus. Nat. 2455+2475, two fragments of a relief depicting a woman being healed by Asclepius with the inscription ΑΝ] ΤΙΚΛΕΙΑ at the base. Such monuments are ordinarily understood as votive offerings dedicated in thanks to the god after the patient’s recovery, and are especially typical of the Asclepeion at Athens (Holtzmann, LIMC III.1.891). Aelian’s interpretation of the monument is, however, suspect in several of its details; the defensive statement with which he closes this anecdote seems to suggest he was aware of this. Most prominently, his argument that the smiling child is a personification of comedy has been rejected since Weinreich (1909. 3 n.3); instead, this must either have been a mortal attendant of Theopompus, or one of the divine retinue of Asclepius, who are sometimes not clearly distinguished or identified. His claim that the inscription named Theopompus’ father as Tisamenus should also probably be rejected: the Suda’s identification of the father’s name as Theodektes or Theodorus plausibly follows Greek naming conventions, and the coincidence of this name with the title of a comedy by Theopompus is too great. Since reliefs of this type do not typically feature long inscriptions or depict the specific disease suffered by the patient, Aelian must presumably have drawn his knowledge of Theopompus’s identity as a comic poet and other such details from another biographical source; the name Tisamenus presumably crept into his description from a list of Theopompus’ titles in his source text.

Testimonia (test. 3)

25

For the healing cult of Asclepius, see Kerényi 1947; Riethmüller 2005; Wickkiser 2008; Petridou 2014; Steger 2016. For Asclepius in art, see Sudhoff 1926; Edelstein and Edelstein 1945 (with II.214–31 on votive relief sculptures of the kind Aelian describes here); Hausmann 1948; Holtzmann LIMC III.1.863–97 (with 877–88 on votive reliefs). For the establishment of a temple complex to Asclepius in Athens in the late fifth century, see Beschi 1967–66; Melfi 2007. 313–432.

test. 3 K.–A. Proleg. de com. VIII.1 (τῶν τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας ποιητῶν ὀνόματα καὶ δράματα) p. 18 Koster Θεοπόμπου δράματα ιζ´ Theopompus’ plays seventeen

Discussion

Meineke 1839 I. 238–39; Storey 2011. 316–17

Citation Context Theopompus’ name appears first in this short list of poets of Old Comedy, followed by Strattis (test. 2), Pherecrates (test. 3), Crates (test. 4), Plato (test. 3), Teleclides (test. 2), and Phrynichus (test 3); this order does not appear to correspond to the poets’ chronology or any other system. Noting that the numbers provided here tend to be smaller than the number of known titles and/or victories, Dittmer 1923. 34 concluded that this list originated as a catalogue of plays contained in a Hellenistic library, most likely the great library at Alexandria; see also Bagordo 2013. 34; Stama 2014. 30–31; Orth 2009. 35–36; Perrone 2019. 34–35. Interpretation Twenty titles of plays by Theopompus have been preserved, and the Suda gives the number of his plays as twenty–four (test. 1). There are similar discrepancies with the number of plays given for the other poets as well: only Plato’s count coincides with the number in the Suda; none of these figures match other data for their poets, and in the case of Teleclides in particular, we can firmly reject the figure given (five plays), since we know he won a total of eight victories in the Dionysia and Lenaea (see Bagordo 2013. 34–37). Rather than search for some other explanation to bring the number of Theopompus’ plays down to seventeen,2 therefore, we should conclude simply that seventeen of his plays survived into the collection of the library where this catalogue originated, possibly at Alexandria.

2

For example, that three of our known titles for Theopompus are alternate titles for three other known plays.

26

Theopompus

test. 4 K.–A. IG II2 2325.68 = 2325C.36 Millis–Olson Νικοφων̣[ – – – ] Θεόπομπ[ος – – – ] Κ̣[η]φισό[δωρος – – – ] Nikophōṇ[ – – – ] Theopomp[os – – – ] Ḳ[ē]phiso[dōros – – – ]

Discussion

Storey 2011. 318–19; Millis and Olson 2012. 169

Citation Context IG II2 2325, conventionally called “the Victors Lists,” is a set of inscriptions on panels of Pantelic marble that record the poets and actors who were victorious in the City Dionysia and Lenaea festivals at Athens. The inscriptions (which now exist as a collection of fragments) were originally made in the 280s or 270s BCE, and updated thereafter, but they seem to derive from earlier state records and may be taken as our most reliable source for the chronology of the Athenian dramatic festivals. Certain fully preserved lines make it clear that the inscriptions are ordered according to the date of the poet or actor’s first victory, and list, after the victor’s name, their total number of lifetime victories. Section C (in Millis and Olson’s terminology) preserves the names of the comic poets victorious at the City Dionysia; section E gives the comic victors at the Lenaea (see test. 5). Text The restoration of the final two characters of Theopompus’ name may be taken as secure here. In addition to our thorough knowledge of the names of the comic poets of the fifth century (among whom there is no other poet with a similar name to Theopompus’), we may note that no other name beginning ΘΕΟΠΟΜΠ– is attested at Athens in any period, and that the only other possibility, the name Θεοπομπίδας (IG VII 307.2) / Θεοπομπίδης (SEG XI 979.43), is found only at the very end of the 3rd century BCE, outside Athens. Unfortunately this portion of the Victors List does not preserve the total number of Theopompus’ victories, which would have followed the end of his name. Interpretation The names at the top of IG II2 2325 C column III must belong to the late fifth and early fourth centuries, after the victory of Ameipsias (IG II2 2325C.28) sometime between 421 and 415 BCE, and before the victory of Ararus in 388 BCE (which must have come shortly after these preserved names in the lost portion of the list).

Testimonia (test. 5)

27

test. 5 K.–A. IG II2 2325.129 = 2325E.20 Millis–Olson Πο[λίοχος] I Με[ταγέν]〈η〉ς ΙΙ Θεό[πομπ]ος ΙΙ Πολ[ύζηλο]ς IIII Νικοφ[ῶν – – – ] Po[liochos] I Me[tagen]〈ē〉s II Theo[pomp]os II Pol[uzēlo]s IIII Nikoph[ōn – – – ]

Discussion

Storey 2011. 318–19; Millis and Olson 2012. 188

Citation Context From the same set of Victors List inscriptions as test. 4; this portion preserves the victors at the Lenaea festival (on which see Millis and Olson 2012. 178–79), in the same format as the preceding City Dionysia list (giving the poet’s name by order of the date of his first victory at the festival, followed by his total number of lifetime victories at the festival). Text Theopompus’ name can again be securely restored here; although a greater number of other names could fit into this space, some even exampled in classical Athens (e. g. θεό[κριτ]ος), none belonged to a comic poet of this period. Interpretation Theopompus seems to have won the Lenaea festival shortly before his rival Nicophon, who immediately preceded him in the list of victors at the Dionysia. This does not, however, provide us with a very secure date. In the preceding column, the final preserved name is Eupolis, whose first Lenaea victory should belong to 430–426 BCE; five lost names follow, then Poliochus and Metagenes; Theopompus then appears before Polyzelus and Nicophon. Because poets are only listed in the year of their first victory, each line of the inscription represents a variable number of years; Theopompus’ first victory at the Lenaea could, therefore, conceivably belong to any year from the late 420s onward, but most probably fell in the 400s or 390s. Unlike the City Dionysia inscription, the Lenaea portion of the Victors List does preserve the number of Theopompus’ victories: two, putting him on par with Aristomenes, Pherecrates, Phrynichus, and Metagenes.

test. 6 K.–A. See fr. 39.

28

Play–titles and Fragments Ἄδμητος (Admētos) (“Admetus”)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 405–8; Meineke 1839 I.239, II.792; Bothe 1855. 303; Geissler 1969. 77; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 120–1; Storey 2011. 319–321 Title Admetus was the title of a comedy by Aristomenes that competed with Ar. Wealth (388 BCE), and probably the title of a comedy by Phormos/Phormis;3 Phrynichus (TrGF 3, F 1–3) and Euripides (438 BCE) wrote tragedies featuring Admetus but entitled Alcestis. Plutarch identifies Admetus as the speaker in a fragment of Sophocles from an unknown play (de Def. Orac. 15.417e = fr. 851). Admetus is first mentioned in the Iliad (2.713–15, 763–7), as the king of Pherae and father of Eumelus, who brought the fastest horses to Troy; Homer also names his wife as Alcestis. In Hesiod (frr. 51–7 MW) we see the first hints of the story, told in full by Euripides (Alc. 1–23), that Apollo was forced to spend a year in servitude to Admetus for having killed the Cyclopes or (in Pherekydes FGrH 3 F 39, 131) their sons (cf. Akousilaus 2 F 19; S. fr. 851; Apollod. 3.10.4); Eumelus’ horses in the Iliad are described as a gift from Apollo (2.763–7), perhaps alluding to this tradition. In Euripides’ Alcestis, this servitude culminated in a promise from Apollo that Admetus could avoid death if he could persuade someone to take his place on the fated day (Call. Ap. 49 has Apollo make this promise out of love for Admetus); only his wife Alcestis was willing, but after she died, Heracles wrestled Thanatos and rescued her. The hypothesis to Eur. Alc. tells us that this play was the first to tell this story; Phrynichus’ lost tragedy Alcestis must therefore have recounted some other aspect of Alcestis’ life. In Aeschylus’ Eumenides the Furies seem to allude to a version of the story in which Apollo helped Admetus by getting the Fates drunk (723–8); Phaedrus in Plato’s Symposium (179b) claims that Alcestis was returned from death to life because the gods were impressed by her courage. Pindar P. 4.125–7 connects Admetus with Jason (see Braswell 1988. 212), and Apollonius numbers him among the Argonauts (1.49–50; cf. S. fr. 386, Apollod. 1.9.16). Later sources have Admetus wooing Alcestis by driving a chariot drawn by wild beasts (Apollod. 1.9.15, Paus. 3.18.16), participating in the hunt for the Calydonian Boar (Apollod. 1.9.16), and competing at the funeral games of Pelias (Paus. 5.17.9–11, his description of the Chest of Kypselus). For the mythological Admetus, see further M. Schmidt, LIMC 1.1.218–221; Gantz 1993. 92, 195–6, 344; Parker 2007, xv–xix. Content Admetus is one of a number of comedies by Theopompus whose titles are the names of mythological characters (cf. Althaea, Aphrodite, Theseus, 3

See K.–A. I.174–5 and Orth 2014. 39–41.

Ἄδμητος (fr. 1)

29

Odysseus, Penelope, Sirens, Phineus), but the fragments give us no certain indication whether the play treated any particular myth from among the various stories concerning Admetus, or parodied any particular literary model. Admetus was also the name of the king of the Molossians who sheltered Themistocles when, after being ostracized, he was further suspected of collaborating with Persia (Th. 1.136–7), but it is difficult to see how this episode would be sufficiently topical to furnish the plot of a comedy in the 4th century. Date Peron (fr. 1) is mentioned elsewhere alongside Callistratus and Melanopus (Anaxandr. 41), politicians whose chief activity belongs to the 370s BCE; Geissler (1969.77) therefore dates the play to this decade, but it is possible that Peron became well–known even before this time. See also Millis 2015. 195.

fr. 1 K.–A. (1 K.) Ath. 15.690a μνημονεύει τοῦ μυροπώλου τούτου τοῦ Πέρωνος καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν Ἀδμήτῳ καὶ Ἡδυχάρει (fr. 17). Theopompus too mentions this perfumer Peron in Admetus and Hēducharēs (fr. 17).

Discussion Bergk 1838. 405–8; Meineke 1839 I.239, II.792; Bothe 1855. 303; Edmonds 1957 I.848–9; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 120; Storey 2011. 320–21 Citation Context In Book 15 of the Deipnosophistai Athenaeus provides a lengthy discussion of perfume (15.686b–692f), prompted in part by Theodorus’ complaints after a slave anoints him with perfume while he is asleep. After pointing out that Homer refers to perfume simply as oil or ambrosia (15.688d–e, though cf. 1.9e–f, where he says the Homeric heroes did not use myrrh or other perfumes), he cites a number of comic poets to prove that people in previous times were nevertheless interested in using perfume (15.689e–690a, with Antiph. fr. 105, Cephisod. fr. 3, and Anaxandr. fr. 41). Anaxandrides’ mention of the famous perfumer Peron prompts Athenaeus to note three other mentions of Peron in comedy (Theopomp. frr. 1 and 17, and Antiph. fr. 37), perhaps drawing on a catalogue of komoidoumenoi. Interpretation The repeated mentions of Peron (PAA 772900) in comedy of this period (Antiph. fr. 37; Anaxandr. fr. 41; Theopomp. fr. 1, 17; all cited here by Athenaeaus) suggest that he was prominent among perfume–sellers in Athens in the early 4th century. Anaxandr. fr. 41, which prompts Athenaeus’ mention of Theopompus, connects Peron with the politicians Melanopus (PA 9788; PAA 638765) and Callistratus (PA 8157; PAA 561575), prominent enemies in the first half of the 4th century (cf. Plu. Dem. 13 and see Scholtz 1996; Millis 2015 ad loc.); Theopompus’ allusion to Peron may, like Anaxandrides’, have had a political con-

30

Theopompus

notation (Theopompus mentions Callistratus also at fr. 31), or it may, like the quotation from Antiphanes which follows in Athenaeus’ discussion, simply have employed his name for the perfume–trade’s connotations of luxury. Theopompus’ reference to a contemporary Athenian figure does not preclude a mythological setting or a literary parody; Strattis, for example, mentions several historical perfume–sellers in his Medea (fr. 34), a play which also featured Creon as a character (fr. 35). The term myron, myrrh, seems to have referred to a wide variety of scented oils and unguents (most extensively discussed in antiquity by Theophrastus, Od. 7–60; see Lilja 1972. 58–96, Faure 1987. 147–206, Brun 2000. 281–2). Athenaeus claims the term myron was first used by Archilochus, who describes it as suitable only for young women (fr. 205 ap. Ath. 15.688c); in lyric, tragedy, and comedy its associations are with young women (Archil. fr. 205, Sapph. fr. 94, Semon. fr. 7.57–70), especially brides (Ar. Nu. 46–52, Pax 860–2 [the groom], Pl. 529, Anaxandr. fr. 47, Eub. fr. 107); with sex (Archil. fr. 48, Anacr. fr. 18, Semon. fr. 7.57–70, Ar. Lys. 47, 845–1013, Ec. 522–6, Alc. Com. fr. 23); with luxury (Semon. fr. 16, Alexis fr. 63, Eub. fr. 89), especially urban (Pherecr. fr. 70; Ar. Nu. 46–52, fr. 205; Antiphan. frr. 188, 233; cf. Thphr. Char. 4.1 with Diggle 2004. 208–9) or eastern (Eur. Or. 1109–1114, Alex. fr. 67) luxury (though Antiphan. 233 portrays myrrh as quintessentially Athenian); and with banquets or symposia (Alc. frr. 50, 362, Xenoph. fr. 1.3, Ar. Eccl. 841, Alex. fr. 63). Concern is often expressed about the use or sale of myrrh as an indication of effeminacy: Solon supposedly forbade men from selling myrrh (Ath. 13.612a, 15.687a = fr. 73a Ruschenbusch); a joke in Pherecrates seems to hinge on the notion that it would be as absurd for a man to sell myrrh as for a woman to be a butcher (fr. 70); and Xenophon has his Socrates reject an offer of myrrh before dinner on the grounds that olive oil is the appropriate anointment for men, myrrh for women (Smp. 2.3; cf. S. fr. 361, in which Aphrodite wears myrrh but Athena olive oil). Socrates goes on in Xenophon’s Symposium to state that perfumers, muropōlai, are to be avoided by good men, but both Lysias and Demosthenes suggest that perfume–shops were, like other shops in the market, social gathering places frequented by upstanding Athenians (Lys. 24.20, Dem. 51–2); Aristophanes in Knights has young men spouting sophistic vocabulary while hanging around the perfume market (1375–80, cf. Pherecr. fr. 2). Lysias’ fragmentary speech “Against Aeschines the Socratic,” quoted at some length by Athenaeus (Lys. fr. 1 = Ath. 13.611e–612f), suggests that perfume–sellers could even become wealthy businessmen, though the business in question eventually grew corrupt and indebted (cf. Hyp. Ath., featuring another initially successful but later indebted perfume business).

Ἄδμητος (fr. 2)

31

fr. 2 K.–A. (92 K.) Cyrill. (hZ) ap. Naoumides 1968. 281 = Suda λ 674 λοπάς· παρὰ Συρακουσίοις τὸ τήγανον. παρὰ δὲ Θεοπόμπῳ ἐν Ἀδμήτῳ (ἐν Ἀ. om. Suda) ἡ σορός, καὶ παρὰ τοῖς κωμικοῖς. lopas: Among the Syracusans a frying pan, but in Theopompus in Admetus4 a coffin, and in the comic poets. Phot. λ 398–399 λοπάς· σόρος. λοπάδα· τὴν †θεόν† (σορόν Meineke II.820). Θεόπομπος. lopas: coffin. lopada: the †goddess† (“coffin” Meineke II.820). Theopompus.

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.820; Bothe 1855. 315; Edmonds 1957 I.876–77; Naoumides 1968. 281–3; K.–A. I.307–8; Storey 2011. 321 Citation Context Closely related glosses of the word lopas, ordinarily a type of cooking pan, are given by the Lexicon of Cyril, the Suda, and Photius (where Meineke corrected θεόν, “god,” to σορόν, “coffin”). Naoumides suggests they are all originally derived from the lexicographer Pamphilus. In his discussion of the word lopas, Athenaeus (6.229a–b) gives the reverse explanation from the lexicographers: whereas they claim the Syracusans use lopas to refer to what others would call a tēganon, Athenaeus, citing Hegesander (FHG 4.420 = Gloss. Ital. 38 K.–A.), explains that the Syracusans use the word tēganon to refer to what others would call a lopas (and adds that they refer to the tēganon by the term xērotēganon). There must be some confusion in the transmission of these glosses, but in comedy it is clear the two vessels are not identical: Pl. Com. fr. 189.12 (a character supposedly quoting a cookbook) has “nor is a lopas a bad thing, but the tagēnon is better,” while Eub. fr. 108 describes a lopas boiling away while fish cook in a tagēnon. Cyril’s claim that the term is found in Theopompus and the comic poets probably stems from confusion between the comic poet and the historian. Interpretation A soros was a vessel for holding human remains (a coffin or an urn) mentioned once in Homer (Il. 23.91) but thereafter confined to prose (eg. Hdt. 1.68, 2.78, Aeschin. 1.149, discussing Il. 23, Thphr. Ign. 46) and comedy (Ar. Ach. 691, V. 1365, Lys. 600, Plut. 277; cf. Machon 16.301 with Gow 1965. 113–14). Α lopas was a clay dish (Men. Sam. 365; cf. Ar. Pl. 812–13, where one of the miracles caused by Plutus’ entry into Chremylus’ house is the transformation of a lopadion into bronze) with a raised rim (called ambon or lip; see Eup. fr. 60, Et. Mag. s. v. ἄμβων) and a lid (Arist. HA 627b, Diph. 43), used for boiling or poaching (Ar. V. 511, fr. 292, Antiph. 180, Eub. 108), particularly of fish (Ar. fr. 60, Anaxandr. 4

The title is omitted in the Suda’s transmission of the text.

32

Theopompus

34, Ephipp. 5, Eub. 43, Sotad. Com. 1); the meal could then be eaten or served directly out of the dish (Eub. fr. 8); Ar. Eq. 1034 suggests it would not have been unusual for a household to have multiple lopades. See Sparkes 1962. 130–31 (with plate IV.3), Arnott 1996.323–4 (on Alex. fr. 115.21–3); Olson and Sens 2000. 108 (on Archestr. fr. 24.7); Millis 2015.161 (on Anaxandr. fr. 34.3); Olson 2017.112–13 (on Eup. fr. 5). Theopompus, then, used the word lopas, “dish,” in place of the word soros, “coffin.” The fact that the lopas is a dish with a lid would make it an apt figure for a coffin, perhaps displaying a certain nonchalance about death or insulting the person who is or will be buried in the “frying pan.”

33

Ἀλθαία (Althaia) (“Althaea”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.238–9, II.792–3; Bothe 1855. 303–4; Roemer 1905. 634–5; Edmonds 1957 I.848–51; Geissler 1969. 71; Grossardt 2001. 106–11; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 121–2; Storey 2011. 321–3; Rusten 2011. 367 Title The title Ἀλθαία is attested in one source for the Italian comic poet Dinolochus (see fr. 1 K.–A.), but no other plays by this title are known. Tragedies entitled Meleager were composed by Sophocles (frr. 401–6), Euripides (frr. 515–39), Antiphon (TrGF 55 F 1b–2), and Sosiphanes (TrGF 92 F 1), and comedies by Antiphanes (fr. 148), Philetaerus (fr. 11), and the Italians Dinolochus (test. 3), Rhinthon (called Doulomeleagros, fr. 2) and Sciras (fr. 1). The tragedian Phrynichus (late 6th / early 5th c. BCE) wrote a Women of Pleuron (TrGF 3 F 5–6) which was, according to Pausanias (10.31.4, quoting fr. 6), the first tragedy to put the story of Althaea’s revenge on stage. Althaea was the daughter of the Aetolian king Thestius by Eurythemis; she married Oeneus the king of Calydon, and bore the hero Meleager. According to Homer (Il. 9.550–99), Althaea cursed Meleager because he murdered one of her brothers; this led him to recuse himself from a conflict between the Aetolians and the Curetes, despite the supplications of Althaea and others. Meleager finally rejoined the conflict, but (in the telling of Homer’s Phoenix, likely adapted to fit Achilles’ circumstances)5 too late to receive the rewards the Aetolians had promised him. In Bacchylides’ version (5.93–154), Althaea had been told that Meleager’s life would end when a certain piece of wood was destroyed; when Meleager accidentally killed two of Althaea’s brothers during the conflict with the Curetes, she burnt the stick and caused his death (cf. Phryn. TrGF 3 F 6, A. Ch. 602–12). In Euripides’ Meleager (frr. 515–39) Meleager’s love for Atalanta seems to have prompted the conflict that ultimately led to Althaea’s curse and his death (cf. Apollod. 1.8.2–3); other sources suggest that he was killed by Apollo, possibly in fulfillment of the curse (Hes. fr. 25). Diodorus Siculus (4.34.7) and Apollodorus (1.8.3) both have Althaea kill herself after Meleager’s death, a detail which may go back to Euripides’ tragedy (cf. fr. 533). For the mythological Althaea see further E. Simon, LIMC I.1.578–80; Gantz 1993. 196–7, 328–35; Collard and Cropp 2008. 613–17. John Malalas (6.21) attributes a version of the story to Euripides in which Althaea plays a more benevolent role; arguing that this attribution is incorrect, Roemer speculates that it may have derived from Theopompus’ comedy.

5

A long–debated issue; see (among many others) Howald 1924; Kakridis 1949, 11–64; Willcock 1964, 148–54; March 1987, 27–46; Hainsworth 1993, 130–32; Griffin 1995, 134–6; Grossardt 2001, 9–50.

34

Theopompus

Content The title seems to indicate a mythological or literary parody, but the fragments give no clear sense of the play; the references to a crowded house (fr. 3) and to a full wine–cup (fr. 4) would be at home in almost any comedy. If the play did tell some portion of the myths surrounding Althaea, it likely did so, like other potentially mythological comedies of Theopompus (Admetus, Aphrodite, Theseus, Odysseus, Penelope, Sirens, Phineus), by merging in some way the heroic past with the contemporary world of the audience: fr. 3 mentions Megara in what seems a contemporary context, and fr. 4 cites the dithyrambic poet Telestes. This is typical of mythological comedy generally (Nesselrath 1990. 188–240, Casolari 2003, Henderson 2012, Farmer 2020) and apparently of Theopompus’ practice of it (cf. frr. 1, 4, 19, 35, 36, 51, 63). Alternatively the play could have been set entirely in the contemporary world, with a woman somehow behaving like or caught in a situation analogous to the mythological Althaea (e. g. taking revenge on her own son), as in Timocles’ Orestautocleides (fr. 27) the contemporary Autocleides was apparently caught in a situation like Orestes’ in A. Eu. Date Geissler dates the play to 400 BCE or later, because of the reference to the dithyrambic poet Telestes in fr. 4. The imperfect tense of the verb in this reference to Telestes (ὠνόμαζε, “he used to call”) may indicate that the play was written after his death or retirement, but our evidence does not indicate when Telestes’ career ended.

fr. 3 K.–A. (2 K.) τὴν οἰκίαν γὰρ ηὗρον εἰσελθὼν ὅλην κίστην γεγονυῖαν φαρμακοπώλου Μεγαρικοῦ for when I entered the house, I found the whole place had become a Megarian drug–seller’s chest Poll. 10.180 κίσται δ’ οὐ μόνον ὀψοφόροι, οὐδ’ ἄλλως ἀγγεῖα εἰς ἐσθήτων ἀπόθεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ τῶν φαρμακοπωλῶν ἂν καλοῖντο, ὡς ἐν Ἀμφιαράῳ Ἀριστοφάνης· καὶ τοὺς μὲν ὄφεις οὓς ἐπιπέμπεις ἐν κίστῃ που κατασήμηναι καὶ παῦσαι φαρμακοπωλῶν (fr. 28) ὥσπερ που καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν Ἀλθαίᾳ· —— Kistai are not only for holding food, nor are they simply containers for storing clothes, but drug–sellers’ kistai can also be referred to in this way, as in Aristophanes’ Amphiaraus: “The snakes which you’re sending against us, seal them up in a kistē and stop drug–selling” (fr. 28), just as Theopompus says somewhere in Althaea: ——

Ἀλθαία (fr. 3)

35

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl k|lk|l llkl llrl l|lrl lrkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.792; Bothe 1855. 304; Blaydes 1890. 57; Suess 1905. 31; Edmonds 1957 I.848–49; Pickard–Cambridge 1962. 181; Grossardt 2001. 106; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 121; Storey 2011. 320–1; Rusten 2011. 367 Citation Context Pollux cites this fragment in the course of a discussion of articles of clothing; he mentions that some clothing is woven of phleōs, the “bark” or “skin” of plants such as reeds (10.178). This leads him to mention a few other items made of such materials, including the kistē (cf. Ptolemy Diff. Voc. κ 82). Pollux’s explanation suggests that the word kistē would more commonly refer to a container for food or clothes, but could also refer to the container of a pharmakopōlēs. Interpretation The speaker of this fragment is a man, explaining (γὰρ) his reaction to the state he found a certain house in when he entered it (εἰσελθὼν) on a previous occasion; this will have formed part of a longer story in which the house in question was already mentioned. Meineke thought these verses referred to Althaea’s house and indicated her use of magic to destroy Meleager. In contrast to earlier extant versions of the story, it is possible that Theopompus has assimilated Althaea to portrayals of witches in Greek poetry: pharmaka are the components of evil spells as early as Homer (e. g. Od. 10.236, 290, 317), and the witch’s kistē of magical ingredients features in Sophocles’ description of Medea in his Rhizotomoi (“Rootcutters,” fr. 534) and in Theocritus’ of the witch Simaetha (2.161). Sosiphanes’ 4th–century tragedy Meleager (TrGF 92 F 1) may also have depicted Althaea as a witch: the one preserved fragment refers to the ability of Thessalian women to call down the moon by magical incantations. Although Megarian merchants appear in comedy (e. g. Ach. 729–835), there is no other mention of a Megarian pharmakopōlēs. The placement of the words “Megarian pharmakopōlēs” at the end of the line raises the possibility that the reference may have been some sort of joke; Athenian comic poets routinely associate Megara with low, tasteless humor (e. g. Ar. V. 57, Eup. fr. 261, Ecphantid. fr. 3). In Wasps (60), Aristophanes mentions “Heracles cheated out of his dinner” as an example of the sort of Megarian comedy he rejects, and Pickard–Cambridge (1962. 180) understood this to indicate that mythological burlesque was a feature of Megarian farce; if this is correct, there may be some humor in mentioning Megara in the course of a mythological comedy. Suess, foregoing attempts to tie this fragment to an uncertain plot, instead suggested that the house was simply crowded with various items, like the crowded chest of an apothecary from Megara; he conjectured that such figures may have been known from this Megarian farce tradition, but they could also have been familiar from the daily life of the audience. 1 τὴν οἰκίαν Often the term in Aristophanes for the house represented by the stage door (e. g. V. 266, Εq. 4, Nu. 1497, etc.), but can also refer to a house

36

Theopompus

offstage (Lys. 806, Th. 402, Ec. 65). The definite article suggests that the house was already under discussion, or was at least a house familiar to the speaker. 2 κίστην A woven basket or chest, used especially for carrying food (Hom. Od. 6.76, Ar. Ach. 1086, 1098, Eq. 1211–19, Th. 284) or, according to Pollux, clothes; it is several times used as the word for a container of pharmaka or other similar ingredients (S. fr. 534; Hp. Ep. 15.12 = Littre 1839–1861, 9.340–41; Theoc. 2.161). φαρμακοπώλου Literally “drug–sellers,” these merchants are mentioned by this term in comedy only in the two fragments cited here by Pollux and at Ar. Nu. 766, where Strepsiades suggests one could buy a “burning glass” from a pharmakopōlēs. Both Aristophanes (fr. 28, cited alongside Theopomp. 3) and Aristotle (HA 7.4.594a) mention pharmakopōlai selling live snakes. If they did indeed sell such a wide miscellany of items, it is possible Suess’ explanation, that a drug–seller’s chest was proverbially stuffed, is correct; but it seems equally likely that a house which was full like the chest of a pharmakopōlēs was full specifically of pharmaka, drugs, poisons, magical ingredients. Pharmakopōlēs was the title of comedies by the 4th–century poets Mnesimachus (fr. 6) and Alexis (frr. 115–20; see Arnott 1996. 312–15). Elsewhere pharmakopōlai are sometimes treated as a species of charlatan ([Arist.] Oec. 2.2.1346b, Thphr. HP 9.8.5), although Theophrastus occasionally cites them by name as authorities on medicinal herbs (e. g. Eudemus and Aristophilos at HP 9.17–18).

fr. 4 K.–A. (3 K.) λαβοῦσα πλήρη χρυσέαν μεσόμφαλον φιάλην· Τελέστης δ’ ἄκατον ὠνόμαζέ νιν 1 χρυσέαν Pierson: –έων A: –εῶν (sc. στατήρων) Blaydes A ὠνόμαζέ νιν Porson: –εν ἵν’ A: –εν ἄν Nauck

2 ἄκατον Porson: ἄκρατον

she took a full golden phialē with a boss in the middle—Telestes used to call it an akatos— Ath. 11.501f = Telestes PMG 811 καὶ Θεόπομπος δ’ ἐν Ἀλθαίᾳ ἔφη· ——, ὡς τοῦ Τελέστου ἄκατον τὴν φιάλην εἰρηκότος. And Theopompus in Althaea as well said: ——, implying that Telestes called the phialē akatos. Phot. α 722 = Synag. α 786 ἄκατος· φιάλη, διὰ τὸ ἐοικέναι στρογγύλῳ πλοίῳ. οὕτω Θεόπομπος Akatos: phialē, because it resembles a round boat. So Theopompus

Ἀλθαία (fr. 4)

37

Meter Iambic trimeter

klkl l|lkl klkl rlkl l|rk|l klkl

Discussion Pierson 1759. 413; Porson 1824. 33–4; Bergk 1838. 408–9; Meineke 1839 I.238–9, II.793; Bothe 1855. 304; Nauck 1894. 89; Blaydes 1896. 90. 328; Edmonds 1957 I.850–51; Grossardt 2001. 106–7; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 121; Storey 2011. 321–3; Rusten 2011. 367 Citation Context Cited by Athenaeus in the course of his larger discussion of drinking cups, as an example of the type of phialē that bore a boss in its center. He cites the tragedian Ion (TrGF 19 F 20, from the satyr–play Omphalē), Cratin. fr. 54, and Pherecr. fr. 134, as examples of various ways of referring to these cups. Text For the word “golden” in the first line, the ms. gives a genitive plural, which would indicate that the cup was “full of golden things” (in Blaydes’ view “full of gold coins”) rather than “golden.” The adjective πλήρης is so often accompanied by a genitive that a scribe might readily supply one, and Ar. Pl. 809 does have vessels “full of gold”;6 it is perfectly sound Greek, however, to describe a vessel as “full” without indicating what it is full of (e. g. fr. 33.3, Eur. Ba. 221). In the second line, the ms. has ἄκρατον, “unmixed,” for ἄκατον, a word which can refer to a boat or to a type of cup. The text of Athenaeus records the fragment itself with this (unmetrical) ἄκρατον, but immediately below the fragment uses the word ἄκατον in discussing it; Athenaeus’ (and Photius’) reference to Theopompus using the word ἄκατος to mean φιάλη clearly indicates that ἄκατον, though a relatively rare word, must be the correct reading here. The ms. ἄκρατος, “unmixed,” is common throughout Athenaeus and could easily have suggested itself to a scribe given the context of wine–drinking in which this fragment is preserved. The ms. reading of the final phrase gives a cut–off sentence meaning something like “Telestes referred to a boat in order to…” but Porson has rearticulated it to produce “Telestes called it a boat.” The scribe’s confusion, no doubt compounded by the lack of syntactic connection with what follows in Athenaeus, will have arisen from the non–Attic pronoun νιν. Nauck’s alternative conjecture would instead mean “Telestes would have called (it) a boat.” Interpretation The word “taking” (labousa) describes a female character; Bergk, Meineke, and Kock thought this was Althaea, but it could describe any woman. The speaker is relating an anecdote about this woman, and interrupts it for a joking reference to Telestes, before presumably continuing the anecdote. Grossardt (2001. 106) notes the resemblance of this fragment to the description of Creusa’s attempt to poison Ion in Eur. Ion (1182 χρυσέας τε φιάλας; 1184 πλῆρες τεῦχος), but the vocabulary of these two passages is too common to speak of parody or allusion 6

Cf. Hdt. 3.130: when Democedes the physician saves Darius’ life, Darius’ wives reward him by each dipping a phialē into a chest of gold staters and pouring them out for him.

38

Theopompus

unless we assume (with Kock and Grossardt) that Althaea has been assimilated to the poisoning stepmothers of tragedy. The string of adjectives, a rising, asyndetic crescendo, gives the description of the phialē a grandiose quality; the word phialē itself is held back by its enjambment onto the following line, perhaps creating an effect of surprise. The style of the fragment is elevated, particularly the first line: it has no resolutions, uses the non–Attic form chrusean, and contains the word mesomphalos which is otherwise restricted in the 5th and 4th centuries to tragedy (A. Th. 747, Ag. 1056, Cho. 1036; S. OT 480; Eur. Ion 462, Ph. 237 Or. 331, 591, Agathon TrGF 39 F 4) and satyr–play (Ion TrGF 19 F 20). The rhythm of the second line, as the speaker interjects the reference to the contemporary Telestes, is more comic (with three consecutive shorts in the second metron, the punchline word akaton), but resumes its lofty tone with the final word, nin. Although Porson and Kock thought the language was paratragic, the reference to Telestes suggests that, if any generic style is being parodied, it may have been dithyramb (so Sanchis Llopis). The joke here may depend on Telestes having been known for refering to a phialē with the term akatos, or, as Nesselrath (1990. 248–9) points out, on the character speaking these lines believing that Telestes was the authority to cite for this usage. Although we do not possess an earlier instance of the term akatos meaning “cup,” the humor in the reference to Telestes could as easily be the absurdity of citing a poet to defend a commonly used word as it could be mockery of Telestes for a bold new coinage.7 By speaking in an elevated style and digressing to cite a dithyrambic poet in a discussion of vocabulary, this character appears in this moment as self–consciously eloquent. 1 χρυσέαν Attic would typically have the contracted form χρυσῆν; Ar. uses uncontracted forms of this word in elevated or parodic, often lyric, passages.8 Phialai, as Athenaeus notes in the discussion that follows this passage, were often made of gold (2n.); such golden vessels must indicate a wealthy or noble context. μεσόμφαλον Literally “mid–navel.” Athenaeus’ discussion makes clear that, with reference to cups, the term indicates a central boss; Cratinus evidently called such vessels “acorn–cups” (see test. 40, fr. 54, both stemming from this passage of Ath.). The term describes a standard type of phialē, which has an indentation in the center of the cup so that it can be gripped in one hand; see Cardon 1979. 131–2 for a concise description of this feature. Prior to Theopompus the word is attested only in tragedy, often referring to the “navel” (omphalos) of the world at Delphi, and thus by metonymy to anything having to do with the Oracle and its prophecies (cf. A. Th. 747, Ag. 1056, Ch. 1036, S. OT 480, Eur. Or. 331); there is some humor, then, in the speaker using such a grandiose word to describe a cup. 7 8

For humorous efforts to cite poetry cf. Antiph. frr. 1, 205, Diph. fr. 74. E. g. Nu. 272, Socrates’ elevated invocation of the Clouds, in anapestic tetrameters; Av. 1748, the chorus’ praise of Peisetairos in lyric dactyls; Th. 108, Agathon’s song; Th. 327, another cletic hymn, in a phrase possibly meant to echo Pi. P. 1.1.

Ἀλθαία (fr. 4)

39

2 φιάλην The vessel called phialē appears in Homer as a cinerary urn (Il. 23.243, 253) and a prize at the funeral games of Patroclus (Il. 23.270, 616); it is called “golden,” like later vessels of this name, but otherwise appears to be distinct from the later phialē: it is used for cooking (hence at Il. 23.270 the prize phialē is apurōtos, not yet exposed to fire), and its epithet amphithetos, although variously explained as meaning either “with handles on both sides” or “able to stand on either end,” prompts the scholiast on Il. 23.270 to comment that “this is not the cup of our times, but a kind of wide kettle.” From Pindar on, however, the phialē is a cup for drinking wine (Pi. I. 6.40, N. 9.51, 10.43, Eur. Ion 1182, X. Cyr. 1.3, 5.2–3, Smp. 2.23, Pl. Smp. 223c5) and pouring libations (Pi. P. 4.193, Hdt. 2.147, 2.151, 7.54, Ar. Pax 423–32), very often of gold (Pi. P. 4.193, I. 6.40, 1.20, O. 7.1, Eur. Ion 1182, Hdt. 2.151, 4.5–10, 7.54, 9.80, Critias fr. 2W, Ar. Pax 431, Pl. Crit. 120a–b, Lys. 19.25), sometimes bronze (Hdt. 2.147) or silver (Pi. N. 9.51, 10.43, Th. 6.46, X. An. 4.7, 7.3, Lys. 12.11), frequently mentioned in the context of symposia (Pi. O. 7.1, N. 9.51, Xenoph. fr. 1W, Eur. Ion 1182, X. Smp. 2.23, Cyr. 1.3, Pl. Smp. 223c5). Phialai are also commonly gifts (Ar. V. 677, Av. 975, X. An. 4.7, 7.3), athletic prizes (Pi. I. 1.20, N. 10.43), or votive offerings (Hdt. 1.5, 9.116, Th. 6.46, Ar. V. 1447). Phialē is by no means a purely colloquial, comic, or prosaic word – Pindar felt comfortable with it as the opening word of O. 7, and in addition to Homer and Hesiod (fr. 197 M–W) it appears also in dithyramb (Tim. fr. 797 PMG) – but it is avoided by the tragedians, probably for metrical reasons,9 again suggesting that the tone of this line, though elevated, is not specifically tragic. Numerous examples of the phialē are preserved, typically with the central boss indicated by Theopompus’ term mesomphalos; see Luschey 1939, Cardon 1979, Schütte–Maischatz 2011. Τελέστης Telestes of Selinus (frr. 805–12 PMG), a dithyrambic poet of the late 5th / early 4th century BCE, whose initial victory at the City Dionysia in Athens in 402/1 is recorded on the Parian Marble (FGrH 239 A 65). He is grouped by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Comp. 132) with Timotheus (frr. 777–804 PMG) and Philoxenus (frr. 814–35 PMG) as a practitioner of the free, innovative style of composition typical of dithyramb starting in the late fifth century (sometimes called the “New Music” and often mocked in comedy, e. g. Pherecr. fr. 155, with Olson 2007. 182–6; Ar. Av. 1373–1409 with Dunbar 1995, ad loc.). Only Theopompus refers to him in the extant remains of comedy. Dithyrambic poets of this period were notorious for their bold use of vocabulary – Telestes’ contemporary Timotheus, for example, used the phrase phialē of 9

Phialē appears in tragedy only at E. Ion 1182 and in the 4th–century Astydamas (TrGF 60 F 3, possibly from a satyr–play). More common words for cup in tragedy include the vague teuchos (A. Ch. 97, Eur. Ion 146, 1179, 1184, IT 168) and ekpōma (S. Ph. 35, fr. 378; E. Ion 1175), or terms such as kulix (S. Aj. 1200, frr. 42, 611; E. Tr. 823, fr. 468, [E.] Rh. 363) or skuphos (A. fr. 184; E. Alc. 798, El. 499, frr. 146, 379).

40

Theopompus

Ares (fr. 787 PMG) to mean “shield” – and this character’s citation of Telestes as an authority for the use of akatos to mean phialē may well depend on this reputation. ἄκατον The term akatos seems originally to have meant “boat” (Casson 1971. 159–60). Although it sometimes refers to a specific type of boat, an oared galley with as many as fifty rowers used both in commerce and in war (Hdt. 7.186, Ar. Eq. 762, Th. 7.25, 7.59, Critias fr. 2.11 W2), it could also be used vaguely for any sort of oared craft (Thgn. 457–60 W, Pi. P. 11.40, N. 5.2, E. Hec. 446, Tr. 1100, Or. 341), including Charon’s boat (Hermesian. fr. 7.4, p. 98 Powell, AP 7.464, 9.242). At some point, akatos came also to refer to a cup: Antiphanes uses akatos in the sense of “cup” without emphasizing the term as unusual (fr. 3), and Photius (quoted above) explains that the cup akatos resembles a round boat (i. e. a merchant vessel, as opposed to a warship). Porson (1824. 34) notes that a number of Greek terms referred both to types of ships and to particular serving vessels; he lists γαῦλος10 (boat: Hdt. 3.136–8, Ar. Av. 602; bowl: Antiph. fr. 223 [with a joke on the double meaning], Theoc. 5.104), κύμβη (boat: S. fr. 127; bowl: Nic. Al. 64, 389, Th. 948), κάνθαρος (boat: Ar. Pax 143, Sosicr. fr. 2, Nicostr. Com. fr. 9; bowl: Phryn. Com. fr. 15, Amips. fr. 2, Axionic. fr. 7), τριήρης (boat: Hdt. 2.158–9, Th. 1.14, etc.; bowl: Antiph. fr. 223, Epin. fr. 2), to which may be added σκάφη (boat: Α. Pers. 419, Ar. Eq. 1315, Plb. 1.23.7; bowl: Hdt. 4.73, Ar. Ec. 742, Antiph. fr. 224); cf. English “vessel,” “gravy–boat,” “schooner.” In a similar vein, Epicr. fr. 9 puns on various parts of ships which are also the names of cups or bowls (incl. ἀκάτειον, καρχήσιον). See Haupt 1875. 230–3, Olson 1998. 95–6, Slater 1976. 167 n. 22, Orth FC 9.2, 355–6.

10

Eust. p. 1626.8–10 = i.337.43–45 claims that the terms for boat and cup are distinguished by their accent, with γαῦλος, “boat,” and γαυλός, “cup.”

41

Ἀφροδίτη (Aphroditē) (“Aphrodite”)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 396–405; Meineke 1839 I, 239, II.793–4; Bothe 1855. 304; Edmonds 1957 I.850–51; Geissler 1969. 74; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 124–5; Storey 2011. 320–3 Title The title Aphroditē could indicate that this comedy was a mythological burlesque treating an episode from the life of the goddess Aphrodite;11 for other possible myth comedies by Theopompus, see Admetus, Althaea, Theseus, Odysseus, Penelope, Sirens, Phineus. Alternatively, “Aphrodite” could be the name of a hetaira who appeared in the play. Neither fragment suggests a mythological play, but a number of comedies were written about the birth of Aphrodite,12 and already in Homer stories about Aphrodite could provide comic relief (8.266–366). We possess no evidence of the name “Aphrodite” being used by a hetaira, although Bechtel 1902. 54 notes the hetaira–name “Aphrodisia” (see the discussion of Sanchis Llopis), and Nesselrath observes that several prominent hetairai are known to have modeled themselves after Aphrodite (1995. 4 n.12). The Aldine scholium that cites fr. 5 refers to this play by the title Ἀφροδίσια. In addition to the possibility that this could be the name of a hetaira, “Aphrodisia” was also the name of a festival of Aphrodite, celebrated around the Greek world and particularly famous at Corinth and Athens, in which Aphrodite was worshipped particularly by prostitutes (see Alex. 255 with Arnott 1996, ad loc.). The term ἀφροδίσια can also refer to sex (e.g. X. Mem. 1.2.29, Pl. Phd. 254a7, Diph. fr. 42.22). This was the title of a comedy by Menander, but since both MS E (otherwise also a superior text of fr. 5) and Athenaeus cite the title as Aphroditē, we may feel fairly certain that Aphroditē was the title of the comedy.13 Content In fr. 6 we see a woman invited to partake of various delicacies; she may be a hetaira at a symposium, or a member of a household celebrating the Amphidromia, and the fragment could represent either dialogue on stage or a description of such an event happening off stage. Fr. 5 appears to be spoken by an Athenian and refers to a contemporary Athenian (Philonides), but this would not

11

12 13

Other comedies whose titles are the names of major gods include Amphis’ Pan, Antiphanes’ Asklēpios, Diphilus Hekatē, Ephippus Artemis, Cratinus’ Nemesis, Menander’s Nemesis, Nicostratus’ Hekatē, Philetaerus’ Asklēpios, Phrynichus’ Kronos, Timocles’ Dionysos. In the majority of these plays we have no evidence for the role played by the titular god, though Cratinus’ Nemesis seems to have been one of the many “births of a god” comedies, on which see below. Ἀφροδιτής γοναί, by Nicophon, Polyzelus, Antiphanes, and Philiscus. See Nesselrath 1995. Pace early editors: Bergk 1838. 400; Meineke I (1839), 239; Bothe 1855. 304.

42

Theopompus

be incompatible with a broadly mythological play, particularly if the speaker were addressing the audience directly. Date Because of the reference to Philonides, Geissler dates the play to 390–370 BCE; Sanchis Llopis argues for 388, because of the extensive mockery of Philonides in Ar. Pl.

fr. 5 K.–A. (4–5 K.) ὧν εἷς μὲν ὀγκάς, ὁ Μελιτεὺς Φιλωνίδης, ὄνῳ μιγείσης μητρὸς ἔβλαστ᾽ ἐν πόλει 1 ὧν εἷς μὲν ὀγκάς E: ὄνος μὲν ὀγκᾶθ’ Ald. 2 ἔβλαστ᾽ ἐν Austin: ἔβλαστε τῇ E Ald

Μελιτεὺς Bentley: Μελίτου E Ald.

one of whom, a brayer, Philonides of Melite, was born on the Acropolis after his mother had sex with a donkey ΣEAld Ar. Plut. 179b Φιλωνίδην οὐ τὸν ποιητήν φησι τὸν ἐν τοῖς Ἀριστοφανείοις ἐγγεγραμμένον δράμασιν... ἀλλὰ παιδιᾶς ἕνεκα τὸν αἴσχιστον καὶ ἀπαίδευτον. κωμῳδεῖται δὲ καὶ ὡς εὔπορος καὶ ὡς μέγας τῷ σώματι καὶ ἠλίθιος. Νικοχάρης, Γαλατείᾳ (fr. 4). περὶ δἐ τοῦ μεγέθους Φιλύλλιός φησιν· —— (fr. 22). καὶ Πλάτων δἐ Λαίῳ φησίν (fr. 65). καὶ Θεόπομπος Ἀφροδίτῃ· ὧν εἷς… ἐν πόλει. He is not talking about Philonides the poet, the one written about in Aristophanes’ plays… but rather for the sake of amusement he mentions this most shameful and uncultured man. He is also mocked as wealthy and as physically large and foolish. Nicochares says in Galateia: —— (fr. 4). Regarding his size Philyllius says: —— (fr. 22). And Plato too in Laius says: —— (fr. 65). And Theopompus in Aphroditē: ——.

Meter Iambic trimeter

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

Discussion Bentley apud Küster 1710. 321; Bergk 1838. 306–405; Meineke 1839 I.295; Meineke 1839 II.793–4; Bothe 1855. 304; Wilhelm 1906. 127; Edmonds 1957 I.850–51; Chantry 1985; Sommerstein 2001,148; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 124–5; Pirrotta 2009. 158–9; Storey 2011. 322–3 Citation Context At Ar. Pl. 179, Chremes asks Wealth whether it is not because of wealth that the infamous prostitute Nais (or Lais) loves Philonides; later in Wealth (302–8) Philonides will again be mocked for his affair with the Corinthian courtesan. The scholiast here explains that this is not Philonides the comic poet (PA 14904, PAA 957415), who produced several of Aristophanes’ plays, but rather

Ἀφροδίτη (fr. 5)

43

the famously wealthy Philonides of Melite. In the series of comic fragments the scholiast quotes, probably from a list of komoidoumenoi, Nicochares has a character ask whether someone is really less cultured (ἀπαιδεύτερος) than Philonides; Philyllius has someone describe him as the son of a camel; and Plato’s character explains that the mother of “Philonides the donkey” gave birth to him without suffering harm. Text

The Aldine scholium gives the fragment as: ὄνος μὲν ὀγκᾶθ’, ὁ Μελίτου Φιλωνίδης, / ὄνῳ μιγείσης μητρὸς ἔβλαστε τῇ πόλει A donkey brays, Philonides son of Melitos, he was born on the Acropolis after his mother had sex with a donkey

This does not scan, and the whole was sufficiently awkward to cause Meineke and Kock to divide them into two separate fragments, and Bergk to seek to introduce a relative pronoun to connect the two lines. Chantry 1985, however, argued that MS E of the scholia to Ar. Pl. preserves a superior reading of the first line of this fragment which allows us to read these lines consecutively, as they are quoted in the scholia Although the term ὀγκάς is attested nowhere else, its formation from ὀγκάομαι (“bray”) is paralleled by the terms μηκάς and βληχάς, “bleater,” from μηκάομαι and βληχάομαι, “bleat,” respectively. Since we know from other evidence that Philonides was from Melite, Bentley’s emendation restores his proper demotic in place of a patronymic; Μέλιττος is a rare name, not attested in Attica, and there is reason to believe Philonides’ father’s name was Onetor (n.1). The reading of the final words of line two preserved in the MSS is metrically problematic, and would mean Philonides “was born for the city.” There would be some humor in the juxtaposition of jokes about Philonides’ parentage and behavior with a phrase indicating that he was of some benefit to the city, but the expression is awkward; it is ordinary to say in Greek that parents “bear children on behalf of the city” (e. g. Pl. Lg. 11.930b7, R. 5.460e6–461a6, 7.520b6) but not that a child “is born on behalf of the city.” Austin’s ἔβλαστ᾽ ἐν πόλει and Meineke’s ἔβλαστεν πόλει both restore the meter and would both mean “he was born in the city / on the Acroplis.” Interpretation This fragment forms part of a longer description of some group of men to which Philonides belonged; the expression εἷς μὲν suggests that the speaker will go on to describe at least one other member of this group. The speaking character should be an Athenian, since he refers to Philonides by his demotic. These lines contain a mixture of high and low vocabulary: ὀγκάς is a humorous label apparently invented by Theopompus; βλαστάνω meaning “be born” is an elevated usage, rare in prose and only in comedy in the mock–Hesiodic Ar. Av. 696; ὄνῳ μιγείσης describes an obscene act but with Hesiodic, euphemistic language.

44

Theopompus

The speaker thus appears to be adapting poetic vocabulary to make an obscene insult against a prominent citizen, not unlike Aristophanes’ mockery of Philonides with an obscene version of a tale from the Odyssey at Pl. 302–8. Philonides is compared to a donkey by Theopompus and Pl. Com. (fr. 65), to a pig by Aristophanes (Pl. 303–4), and to a camel by Philyllius (fr. 22). Theopompus’ mockery here thus appears to be part of a series of capping jokes, in which each comic poet attempts to outdo his predecessors with a more hilarious comparison of the supposedly dull and massive Philonides to some low animal. 1 ὀγκάς A noun meaning “brayer,” derived from the onomatopoetic verb ὀγκάομαι, “to bray,” properly of the noise made by a donkey (e. g. Arist. HA 8.609a.33); when used of humans it can also mean “boast” (e. g. X. Mem. 1.2.25). The word ὀγκάς appears only here;14 the parallel term related to sheep μηκάς (“bleater,” from μηκάομαι, “bleat”), however, appears as early as Homer (Il. 11.383, 23.31, Od. 9.124, 244, 341) and is found classical period in comedy (Antiph. frr.1, 55.8) and satyr play (S. fr. 509, Eur. Cyc. 189). Although μηκάς and the similar but later βληχάς are feminine, Chantry defends ὀγκάς as a masculine noun here on the model of the much more common φυγάς. ὁ Μελιτεὺς Φιλωνίδης Philonides of the urban deme Melite (PA 14907, PAA 957480,15 RE 20.1.61, Davies 1971. 422–3) was a wealthy Athenian of the early 4th century BCE; in addition to his frequent appearances as a komoidoumenos, he was the subject of a lost speech possibly by Lysias, Κατὰ Φιλωνίδου βιαίων.16 In Ar. Pl. (179, 303) he is mocked for his wealth and his dealings with the Corinthian prostitute Nais or Lais; Pl. Com. (fr. 65) jokes that his mother “bore the donkey Philonides and suffered no harm”; Nicochares (fr. 4) treats his ignorance as proverbial; Aristophon wrote a comedy Philonides, but the only fragment (fr. 13) does not indicate how he was mocked. He had both a son and a nephew named Onetor; Theopompus’ and Pl. Com.’s description of him as the son of a donkey (onos) seems likely therefore to depend on his father also having been named Onetor (Kirchner ad PA 11473, Wilhelm 1906. 127). 2 ὄνῳ The donkey (or ass) had been a beast of burden in Greece from at least the Mycenaean period; donkeys were used to haul materials, for personal transportation, and as guard animals. Despite their widespread utility for rural life, travel, and commerce, donkeys had a number of negative associations which were enshrined in proverbs: “a donkey listening to a lyre” is an uneducated person who does not understand music (Cratin. fr. 247, Men. Mis. 295, fr. 418); “a donkey’s shadow” is an object of no worth (S. fr. 331, Ar. V. 191, Pl. Phdr. 260c; cf. Archippus’ Ὄνου Σκιά); “a donkey in the rain” is a person who is oblivious to his circumstances 14 15 16

Σ Opp. H. 1.692, where the word is described as an adverb, must be a mistake. Where for “in Laios of comic poet Theopompos & in Aphrodite of comic poet Pl. Com.” read “in Aphrodite of comic poet Theopompos & in Laios of comic poet Pl. Com.” Doubts about the authenticity of this speech are recorded by Athenaeus (13.586e, 592c), who always cites it with the caveat εἰ γνήσιος, “if genuine.”

Ἀφροδίτη (fr. 6)

45

(Cratin. fr. 56; Cephisod. fr. 1); a particularly self–indulgent person is “more wanton than a donkey” (S. fr. 876, X. An. 5.8.3), a glutton has “a donkey’s jaws” (Eup. fr. 416), and a happy person is “like a little donkey feasted on bran” (Ar. V. 1306). Donkeys in literature and art are depicted as sexually voracious, male donkeys often having a particularly large penis (see Griffith 2006. 224 n.107). To claim that his mother had sex with a donkey is to accuse her not simply of bestiality, but of bestiality with a particularly grotesque and demeaning beast. For a full account of the donkey in ancient Greece, see Padgett 2000, Griffith 2006, Gregory 2007, Kitchell 2014. 57–59, Biles and Olson 2015. 141. ἔβλαστ᾽ The verb βλαστάνω properly refers to plants; its frequent metaphorical sense “be born” belongs to elevated poetry (e. g. Pi. N. 8.7; S. fr. 546, Ph. 1311, Tr. 401, OT 1376; Eur. Med. 1256, Andr. 664, HF 5, IT 3, Ion 267).17 Although Hesiod does not use it, Aristophanes includes it in a passage of Birds that broadly parodies Hesiod’s genealogical style (Av. 696); together with μείγνυμι (very frequent in Hes. Th.; cf. Ar. Av. 699–701, with three forms of the verb), then, it gives this line the flavor of a divine or heroic genealogy. ἐν πόλει In early days the Acropolis of Athens was called simply πόλις (Th. 2.15); in the formal language of treaties and inscriptions, the phrase ἐν πόλει thus refers specifically to the Acropolis (Th. 5.23, 47, IG 13 372.1). The expression is also frequent in Aristophanes, both in passages that imitate official language (Eq. 267, Nu. 69, Lys. 317) and in more colloquial speech (Lys. 245, 754, 758, 1182). It was generally forbidden to give birth in sanctuaries, hence the woman’s (fraudulent) concern at Lys. 742–3 to leave the Acropolis before she gives birth (see Henderson 1987a, ad loc, and for the general prohibition, Parker 1983. 33 with n.5). The phrase could also simply mean “in the city” as opposed to the country: see Alcaeus com. fr. 124 with Orth 2013.124.

fr. 6 K.–A. (6 K.) ἀλλ᾽ ἔντραγε τὴν σηπίαν τηνδὶ λαβοῦσα καὶ τοδὶ τὸ πουλυπόδειον 2 τηνδὶ λαβοῦσα CE: τὴν διαλαβοῦσα A

come on eat this cuttlefish here, having taken it, and this octopus meat

17

Though cf. Eup. 358 with Olson 2914.76–8

46

Theopompus

Ath. 7.324b Θεόπομπος Ἀφροδίτῃ· —— Theopompus in Aphrodite: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xlkl〉 llkl llkl llkl klkl klrl x〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.794; Bothe 1855. 304; Edmonds 1957 I.850–1; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 125; Storey 2011. 322–3 Citation Context At 7.323c Athenaeus begins a discussion of the eating of σηπία, cuttlefish, as part of a longer catalogue of seafood. He draws on a variety of sources, citing Aristotle for the behavior of the living cuttlefish, and Erasistratus (commenting on Hipponax fr. 21), Glaucis of Locris, and Archestratus for methods of cooking. The discussion culminates in a series of comic references to the cuttlefish: Ar. fr. 331.1 (from Thesmophoriazusae II), fr. 258.2, Theopomp. fr. 6, and Alexis fr. 192. Text Kassel and Austin prefer the reading of MSS CE, the epitome of Ath., which provides a deictic form here to match that in line 2 and avoids an ungrammatical repetition of the definite article before a participle. This still leaves the line with a medial caesura, however, suggesting that an older error has corrupted both versions of the line preserved in the mss. of Ath. Interpretation One character offers another, female character choice seafood delicacies, the deictic marker(s) suggesting that these were represented on stage. Elaborate meals in Aristophanes tend to happen off–stage, however; this fr. could therefore also belong to a direct quotation (as in the very similar Ar. V. 611–12) in a description of such a meal. The Amphidromia, a private family ritual of purification held five to seven days after the birth of a child, involved relatives of the family sending delicacies to the household (see Garland 1990. 93–4); Ephippus (fr. 3), Harpocration (α 97), and the Suda (α 1722) all specifically name the traditional gifts as cuttlefish and octopus (cf. Σ Pl. Tht. 160e). Meineke therefore suggested that this was the meal being celebrated here. Cuttlefish and octopus are, however, often mentioned together in comic descriptions of other meals (Epich. fr. 54, Ar. fr. 195, 333, Ephipp. fr. 12, Philyll. fr. 12, Mnesim. fr. 4.43). 1 ἀλλ(ὰ) regularly appears with imperatives, often at a point of “transition from arguments for action to a statement of the action required” (see Denniston 1954. 13–15).

Ἀφροδίτη (fr. 6)

47

ἔντραγε ἔτραγον is used as the aorist of τρώγω in Attic; ἔντρωγω tends to describe very pleasurable eating, particularly of delicacies (Ar. Eq. 51, V. 612, Pherecr. fr. 73, Phryn. Com. fr. 26; Antiph. fr. 137, 273, Diod. Com. fr. 2.12). 2 σηπίαν Cuttlefish is mentioned as a food item as early as Hippon. fr. 166, and appears frequently in catalogues of food in comedy (e. g. in addition to those mentioned above, Epich. fr. 73, Ar. Ach. 1041, Eup. fr. 338, Antiph. fr. 27, Anaxandr. fr. 42.47, Eriphus fr. 3 [listed among foods the poor cannot afford], Ephipp. fr. 15, Anaxipp. fr. 1.33). See Thompson 1947. 231–3, Olson and Sens 1999. 96, and 2000. 206, Davidson 2002. 209–10. 3 πουλυπόδειον Like the cuttlefish, the octopus is a delicacy often mentioned in comic catalogues of food (Epich. fr. 122, Hegem. fr. 1, Ar. fr. 333, Philyll. fr. 12, Ephipp. fr. 12, Mnesim. fr. 4.43); it was held to be an aphrodisiac (Alex. fr. 175.3, with Arnott; Xenarch fr. 1.8; Ath. 7.316c citing Diocles; 8.357d, citing Mnesitheus; Olson and Sens 2000. 203). This form is an adjective, modifying an implied (or simply missing) κρέας (thus LSJ sv., citing as parallels Philyll. fr. 1, Mnesim. 4.43). See Thompson 1947. 204–8, Olson and Sens 2000. 202–3. The latter also discuss the variety of possible spellings of this word; Ath. elsewhere insists that πουλ– is the Attic spelling (7.318f).

48

Βατύλη (Batylē) (“Batyle”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.239–40; Blaydes 1890. 58; Edmonds 1957 I.850–51; Storey 2011. 322–3 Title The only evidence for the existence of this play comes from notes on Ar. Pl. 1011: an old woman complaining about her unfaithful lover says that whenever she was upset he used to call her by certain pet–names; the MSS give these as νιττάριον or νιτάριον and βάτιον. Though Bentley later emended these to νηττάριον (“little duck”) and φάττιον (“little dove”), the scholiasts to Aristophanes and the Suda both record versions of a note attempting to explain the text as the MSS have it: Σ (VMEΘNBarb) Ar. Pl. 1011d Νιτάριον ἂν καὶ Βάτιον· Σύμμαχός φησιν· Νιτάριος πολὺς ἐπὶ μαλακίᾳ ὀνειδιζόμενος ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς δράμασιν· καὶ Βάτος. καὶ τὰς μικρὰς δὲ θηλείας βατύλας ἔλεγον· καὶ Θεοπόμπου δρᾶμά ἐστι Βατύλη. Nitarion and Bation: Symmachus says, “Nitarius was much accused of effeminacy in subsequent plays; also Batus.” And they used to call small females “batylas”; and there is a play by Theopompus, Batyle. Suda ν 430 Νιτάριον καὶ Βιτάριον· ὑποκοριστικὰ πρὸς γυναῖκας· νιτάριον, οἷον νεόττιον, τουτέστι κοράσιον. Σύμμαχος δέ φησι, Νίταρος πολὺς ἐπὶ μαλακίᾳ ὀνειδιζόμενος· καὶ Βάτος. καὶ τὰς μικρὰς καὶ θηλείας βατύλας ἔλεγον· καὶ Θεοπόμπου δρᾶμά ἐστι Βατύλη. οἱ δέ φασιν εἴδη φυτῶν. θέλει οὖν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὡς ἄνθη εἶχεν. Ἀριστοφάνης· —— (Pl. 1011) Nitarion and Bitarion: Terms of endearment for women: “Nitarion” is like “nestling,” that is little girl. Symmachus says, “Nitarus was much accused of effeminacy in subsequent plays; also Batus” And they used to call small females “batylai”; and there is a play by Theopompus, Batyle. Others say they are types of plants. So, he wants to say that she was like flowers. Aristophanes: —— (Pl. 1011)

The meaning of the term Batylē is unclear; there are several possibilities. – The Scholiast and Suda entries which provide the title notes understand the term batylē to mean “small female,” though the scholiast could mean to imply something other than small, female humans, such as fish (so Kaibel apud K.–A.; cf. Σ Ar. Pl. 1011h, which claims βάτος means ἰχθύδιον). – A further scholium to this line in Wealth claims that βάταλον was the name of a chair (1011g). – The term could, instead, be a proper name: Herod. 5.70 has Βατυλλίς as a girl’s name; the name Βατύλον also occurs on a defixion tablet (IG III App. 80.6). If the title of Theopompus’ play is another such proper name, it could be, as Kaibel suggests, the name of a prostitute (cf. Pamphilē). – Finally, Aeschines in On the False Embassy claims that Demosthenes had formerly been called “Batalus” because of αἰχρουργία and κιναιδία (2.99);

Βατύλη

49

Harpocration (72.3) and the scholia to Aeschines (1.126) claim that this is a reference to a joke in Eupolis, because Eupolis (probably in Baptai) used βάταλος (stutterer?) as a term for “asshole” (πρωκτός; see fr. 92 with Olson 2017. 277–9). Unless βατύλη was simply a colloquial word (perhaps meaning “dwarf ” or “small fish”) which has simply not been preserved outside these sources, therefore, the title of Theopompus’ comedy seems likely to be the name or nickname of a prominent female character in the play. Content Date

The title provides our only evidence for this play.

We have no evidence for the date of the play.

50

Εἰρήνη (Eirēnē) (“Peace”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.240, II.2.794–6; Bothe 1855. 304–5; Edmonds 1957 I.850–3; Geissler 1969. 78–9; Storey 2011. 319–21 Title The title of this play is both the common, abstract term for the absence of war and, as early as Hesiod, the name of a goddess, daughter of Zeus and Themis (Th. 902; cf. Pi. O. 13.7, Bacch. fr. 4.61–8, Ar. fr. 111, in addition to Pax). In Aristophanes’ Peace, both of these meanings are intended: the play celebrates the joys of peacetime in the countryside and depicts the personified goddess herself. Finally, Εἰρήνη was used as a personal name at Athens at least as early as the 4th century: IG II2 6347 (PAA 381975). Eirēnē is also recorded as the title of a second play by Aristophanes, and of one by Eubulus; the content of Aristophanes’ second Peace is unclear (see Olson 1998, xlviii–li), and Eubulus’ Peace probably did not exist (see Hunter 1983. 124–5). Content Fr. 8 shows a group of men delighted to abandon the implements of the soldier’s life; this so closely resembles passages in Aristophanes such as Pax 1127–9 that it is difficult to resist the impression that Theopompus’ play, like its Aristophanic namesake, celebrated the (apparent) end of a war. Fr. 11, in which a man puts a luxurious Laconian cloak on another man, would fit a context in which the characters are enjoying the freedom to trade and to enjoy civilian life at the conclusion of a conflict with Sparta, and frr. 10 and 12 could be respectively complaints about losses during war and feasting after a war has ended. None of these fragments, however, with the exception of fr. 8, require the play to depict a celebration of peace: there are many ways to lose a chicken or gain a Spartan cloak, and the reference to setting up a proverb about farmers at Delphi in fr. 7, the complaint about deceit in fr. 9, and the menu items in fr. 12 could fit a variety of different plots. Date If, as is by no means certain, the comedy was inspired by a specific peace treaty, there are several possibilities during Theopompus’ career. Storey suggests the end of the Peloponnesian War in 404 or the Peace of Antalcidas (also known as the King’s Peace), which ended the Corinthian War in 386/5; the latter is preferred by Geissler. Although (as both Geissler and Storey note) neither of these treaties were particularly favorable to Athens, that does not preclude the possibility of a poet putting a comic spin on such major events. Nevertheless, the best possibility seems to me to be the “Common Peace” of 375/4 BCE; although like other treaties it proved unsuccessful, it was at the time so highly regarded at Athens that a cult to the goddess Eirene was established for the first time (Isoc. 15.109–10, Philoch. FGrH 328 F 151, Nep. Timoth. 2.2; see Geissler, Olson 1998. 113). This date would make the comedy among Theopompus’ latest.

Εἰρήνη (fr. 7)

51

fr. 7 K.–A. (1 Dem.) ἔπειτα κἀν Δελφοῖσιν ἀνατέθηι γραφείς· ἀεὶ γεωργὸς † ὅτι χρηστὸς ἦν πρῶτον πολὺ τὸν λιμὸν ἀποφεύγων 1 ἀνετέθη Leo: ἀνατεθῇ codd. γραφείς Schwartz: γραφεῖσα codd. νέωτα Leo {ὅτι} χρηστὸς ἦν πρῶτον πολὺ / τὸν Schwartz

2 ὅτι codd.: εἰς

next even at Delphi it may be hung up inscribed: “Always a farmer † that he was good, first very much escaping hunger” Phot. (b, z) α 563 αἰεὶ γεωργὸς εἰς νέωτα πλούσιος· λέγεται καὶ χωρὶς τοῦ ι· “ἀεὶ γεωργός.” μέμνηται δὲ τῆς παροιμίας καὶ Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν τῇ Εἰρήνῃ ὡς καὶ ἐν Δελφοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένης· ——. ἔστι καὶ παρὰ ἄλλοις ἡ ὑπόμνησις, ὥς φησιν Εἰρηναῖος (fr. novum). “A farmer is always rich next year.” It is also said without the iota: “aei geōrgos.” Theopompus the comic poet also mentions the proverb in Peace, that it was displayed in Delphi: ——. It is also mentioned in other authors, as Eirenaios (fr. novum) says.

Meter Iambic trimeter

klkl klk|r klkl klkl k|†kklkl llrl l|rkl l〈lkl〉

Discussion Schwartz ap. Reitzenstein 1907. 49; Leo 1907. 154–5; Edmonds 1957 I.850–51; Storey 2011. 324–5; Rusten 2011. 368 Citation Context Photius cites this fragment as an example of a proverb whose meaning he explains earlier in his lexicon (α 421): “it refers to people always nurturing the hope of escaping terrible things, but always falling back into them.” In other words, the farmer is “always rich next year,” because he always hopes he will someday escape his poverty, but never does. The text of fr. 7 as Photius has it, however, does not cite the complete proverb; either we have here a mangled parody of it, or some portion of the proverb has been forced out by a gloss. Photius mentions Eirenaios, an Alexandrian Atticist grammarian of the 1st century BCE also known as Minucius Pacatus (RE Eirenaios (7); see also Suda ει 190, π 29); Photius’ mention of Eirenaios suggests that he may have derived this entry from the latter’s works (Theodoridis 1982. lxxiv–lxxv). Text Leo proposed the indicative (“it was dedicated”) instead of the subjunctive form of ἀνατεθῇ; this makes a more complete sentence of the fragment as preserved, but the subjunctive given by the manuscripts could easily depend on

52

Theopompus

the broader context and is the more unusual form. Schwartz emends γραφεῖσα to γραφεῖς to match an implied λόγος and to restore the scansion. The second and third lines of this fragment as they are transmitted by Photius have several problems: line two does not scan, and line three scans as an awkward and incomplete line; the third line is stylistically awkward and incomplete. The word ὅτι suggests that at some point a gloss may have intruded on the text. Leo restores the crucial phrase of the proverb, “next year,” preserving χρηστός, “good,” in place of the proverb’s usual πλούσιος, “rich,” to produce the following: ἀεὶ γεωργὸς εἰς νέωτα χρηστὸς ἦν, πρῶτον πολὺ τὸν λιμὸν ἀποφεύγων. he was a farmer who was always good for next year, first of all very much keeping hunger away In several other places, Photius uses the same verb (μέμνηται) to indicate that a cited author quotes a proverb (Phot. μ 438, with Arist. EN 1098a.18; Phot. π 1562, with Pl. Leg. 2.666a); typically in these instances the author does cite the proverb as contained in Photius’ lemma, suggesting that Leo may have been correct to try to restore a fuller version of the proverb to Theopompus’ text. But this cannot be guaranteed, since μιμνήσκω could also simply mean that Theopompus “alludes” to the proverb. Schwartz instead simply deletes ὅτι and renders the text a sort of epitaph: ἀεὶ γεωργὸς χρηστὸς ἦν, πρῶτον πολὺ τὸν λιμὸν ἀποφεύγων he was always a good farmer, first of all very much keeping hunger away But the third line as preserved in the mss. already scans; although ὅτι could have intruded from a gloss, the metrical phrases which follow cannot have been that gloss, making Schwartz’s project somewhat suspect. I therefore print Kassel and Austin’s text here, but with a great deal of uncertainty about what Theopompus – or even Photius – may have written. Interpretation The speaker describes some version of a proverb about farmers being displayed at Delphi. The opening ἔπειτα makes this part of a longer series of events, either narrated by the character who speaks these lines, or interrupted by the speaker. In Aristophanes’ comedies about peace, including Peace, he depicts farmers as disproportionately affected by war, and often portrays the longing for peace as a longing for a return to rural life; since fr. 8 of this play suggests a celebration of freedom from the implements of war, and fr. 10 may indicate a rural context, there may be a broader thematic significance in citing a proverb about farmers here. The πρῶτον in line 3 indicates that the speaker was beginning a list here, but given the uncertainty of the text, we cannot feel certain what the list would have contained. 1 (ἐ)ν Δελφοῖσιν There were evidently a set of three maxims on display in the temple of Apollo at Delphi: γνῶθι σαυτόν (“know thyself ”), μηδὲν ἄγαν

Εἰρήνη (fr. 8)

53

(“nothing in excess”), and ἐγγύη, πάρα δ᾽ ἄτα (“a pledge, and disaster is near”). Pausanias describes them as in the pronaos of the temple (10.24.1), Diodorus as on some sort of column near the entrance (9.10). The traditional story, as told by Plato (Prt. 343b) and Pausanias, was that the Seven Sages offered these sayings as “the first fruits of their wisdom” to Apollo; Plutarch has them being set up by the Amphictyones (Mor. 511a–b). The notion of a proverb being inscribed and displayed at Delphi suggests that the speaker was invoking the context of these existing proverbial inscriptions here. Elsewhere in comedy the presence of these maxims at Delphi is mentioned by Cratin. Jun. fr. 12 and Philem. fr. 139. ἀνατεθῇ The verb ἀνατίθημι is the vox propria for setting up dedications at a temple, including the dedication of the Delphic maxims (Pl. Prt. 343b, Chrm. 164d–165b, Paus. 10.24.1). We lack the context to identify the subjunctive usage of the form given here (3rd person singular aorist subjunctive passive). 2 γεωργός In Aristophanes’ early plays, he consistently portrays peace as something longed for particularly by farmers (e. g. Pax 556, 920–1); in the extant Peace the goddess Eirēnē is accompanied by a personification of Harvest (Ὀπώρα), and in the lost Peace II this figure was evidently replaced by Farming herself (Γεωργία; see Ar. fr. 305). Farmers made up the chorus of Ar. Peace, as well as of his Γεωργοί, a play sometimes felt to be identical to Peace II.18 The speaker’s mention of the good farmer here seems likely, therefore, to be intended to contrast with the sufferings of the farmer in wartime. λιμὸν ἀποφεύγων Hesiod repeatedly celebrates the competent farmer’s ability to keep off hunger (Op. 299–302, 361–36, 644–7; cf. Cratin. fr. 349, quoting Op. 299–300); under normal circumstances, this would be one of the most obvious advantages of the farmer’s life. For famine at Athens during and after the Peloponnesian War, see Garnsey 1988.120–49; Olson and Seaberg 2018.139.40.

fr. 8 K.–A. (7 K.) ἡμᾶς δ᾽ ἀπαλλαχθέντας ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθαῖς τύχαις ὀβελισκολυχνίου καὶ ξιφομαχαίρας πικρᾶς 1 ἀπαλλαχθέντας FSC: ἐπαλλ– L

and us in happy circumstances released from a lamp–spit and a bitter sword–knife

18

On this question see K.–A. III.2.77, Olson 1998. xlviii–li.

54

Theopompus

Poll. 10.118 τὸ δὲ ὀβελισκολύχνιον, στρατιωτικὸν μέν τι τὸ χρῆμα, εἴρηται δὲ ὑπὸ Θεοπόμπου τοῦ κωμικοῦ ἐν Εἰρήνῃ· —— The lamp–spit is a military item, and is mentioned by Theopompus the comic poet in Peace: —— Poll. 6.103 τὸ δὲ παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ τῷ κωμικῷ ὀβελισκολύχνιον, τὸ μὲν σκεῦος ἦν στρατιωτικόν, τὸ δὲ ὄνομα ὑπομόχθηρον. The lamp–spit in Theopompus the comic poet was a piece of military equipment, but the word is a bit harsh. Ath. 15.700e κ[... μνημο]νε[ύει δε Θεόπομπος ἐν Εἰρή]ν[ῃ λέγων οὑτωσί· ἡμᾶς δ᾽ἀ]παλ[λαχθέντας ἐπ᾽ἀγαθαῖς] τύχα[ις ὀβελισκολυχνίου] καὶ ξ[ιφομαχαίρας πικρᾶς] (Theopompus) mentions (it in Peace saying the following): (and us in happy) circumstances released (from a lamp–spit) and (a bitter) sword(– knife)

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl llk|r klkl rlkr l|lkr llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.794–5; Bothe 1855. 304–5; Edmonds 1957 I.852–3; Storey 2011. 324–5; Rusten 2011. 368 Citation Context Pollux cites this fragment in the course of a discussion of different words for “lamp” (10.115–19), including λύχνος, λύχνιον, λυχνία, λαμπτήρ, etc., as well as for the parts of lamps (e. g. for “wick” he mentions θρυαλλίς, ἐλλύχνιον, and φλόμος). This is an expanded version of a very similar discussion of lamps earlier in the lexicon (6.103), where he mentions but does not quote the fragment of Theopompus. Athenaeus also appears to quote this fragment at the badly damaged 15.700e, suggesting that both he and Pollux are drawing on a shared, earlier source. Text Although MS L has a form of the verb ἐπαλλάσσω, “change, alternate, overlap,” this is an isolated scribal error, and the reading of FSC is to be preferred: we want ἀπαλλάσσω here, the proper term in comedy for being released from military service and everything that accompanies it. Interpretation The speaker describes his group’s good fortune in being released from military service, combining the ordinary verb for release from service with several physical implements of the soldier’s life that stand in for such service by metonymy. The initial ἡμᾶς δ(έ) suggests this group is contrasted either with some previously mentioned group who were not freed from service or who received

Εἰρήνη (fr. 8)

55

some other benefit, or with a more general description of their circumstances. With the first person plural, this could be the chorus speaking, or a character speaking on behalf of his group of soldiers; if it is the former, then the chorus of this play will have been a group of adult male citizens. We are missing a main verb, of which ἡμᾶς is probably a direct object. 1 ἀπαλλαχθέντας Ar. often uses ἀπαλλάσσω to describe men being freed from the obligation to serve in the military (Ach. 201, 251, 269–70, Pax 293, 303, and esp. 1127–9, where the soldiers are freed from “helmet, cheese, and onions”). ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθαῖς τύχαις The phrase ἀγαθὴ τύχη, “good luck,” is very common, especially in wishes and prayers for good fortune, sometimes in the form ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ (e. g. Ar. V. 869, Men. Sam. 445). The phrase ἐπὶ τύχαις with an adjective X modifying τύχαις means “in X circumstances” (Hdt. 7.236.2 ἐπὶ τῇσι παρεούσῃσι τύχῃσι, “in the present circumstances”; Pl. Lg. 878a ἐπ’ ἀμείνοσι τύχαις, “in happier circumstances”). 2 ὀβελισκολυχνίου An ὀβελίσκος is a spit for roasting meat (e. g. Ar. Ach. 1007, V. 364, Sotad. fr. 1.10, and see Olson and Sens 2000. 136); a λύχνιον, λυχνίον, or λυχνεῖον is a lamp or lamp–stand (e.g Ar. fr. 573, Diph. fr. 2); an ὀβελισκολύχνιον is presumably therefore a spit that can also be used as a stand for a torch or candle. Aristotle (PA 4.683a.25) describes smiths creating this dual–purpose implement out of thrift or cheapness; he mentions it in the Politics as an analogy for officials in small states who are forced to hold multiple offices simultaneously (6.1299b). Xenophon similarly the ὀβελίσκος, ξίφος, and μάχαιρα together as tools that could also be used as weapons of war (HG 3.3.7). ξιφομαχαίρας Hesychius describes the ξιφομάχαιρα as a long knife (ξ 80); in literature the term is used only in comedy (fr. 26; Ar. Th. 1127), but it also appears in a number of Attic inscriptions (e. g. IG II2 1380, 1424–1426, 1428–29, 1456, 1489; see Austin and Olson 2004. 331). πικρᾶς The metaphor of sharp weapons as “bitter” goes back to Homer, who uses it to describe arrows and spear–tips (π. ὀιστός: Il. 4.134, 217, 5.99. 278, etc.; π. βέλεμνα: Il. 22.206); it also appears in later hexameters / elegiacs (e. g. Mimn. fr. 14.8, Theoc. 23.5) and in tragedy (e. g. S. Aj. 1024, of a sword, Tr. 681, of a spear–tip; E. HF 1288, of the “tongue’s barbs,” γλώσσης πικροῖς κέντροισι; cf. E. El. 160, the “bitter cuts of the axe”). In Aristophanes, however, this usage is not attested; instead, we often see πικρός used to describe things as literally or figuratively “distasteful” (e. g. Ar. Pax 781 the voice of tragic actor Melanthios; Av. 1045, of the law–seller’s unpleasant proposed laws; Th. 853, of the Inlaw’s performance of Helen); rather than invoking the “bitter weapons” of more elevated poetry, then, it seems likely the speaker here labels them bitter in this sense, that is, as unpleasant to those who were forced to wield them.

56 fr. 9 K.–A. (8 K.) ὁ μὲν ἄρτος ἡδύ, τὸ δὲ φενακίζειν προσὸν ἔμβαμμα τοῖς ἄρτοις πονηρὸν γίγνεται 1 ὁ μὲν ἄρτος ἡδὺ CE: ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἄρτος ἡδὺ A: ὁ μὲν γἀρ ἡδύς Jacobs

The loaf is a pleasant thing, but deceit in addition as a sauce on the loaves is wicked Ath. 9.368c οἱ δ’ Ἀττικοί, ὦ Συραττικὲ Οὐλπιανέ, καὶ ἔμβαμμα λέγουσιν, ὡς Θεόπομπος ἐν Εἰρήνῃ· —— The Attic authors, Syrο–Attic Ulpian, also say “dipping sauce,” as Theopompus does in Peace: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

rlkl k|rkl llkl llk|l llkl l|lkl

Discussion Jacobs 1809. 198; Meineke 1839 II.795; Bothe 1855. 305; Edmonds 1957 I.852–3; Storey 2011. 324–5; Rusten 2011. 368 Citation Context Book 9 of the Deipnosophistai begins with a discussion of words for side–dishes and dipping sauces served at symposia (366a); at 9.367b Zoilus asks Ulpian whether the term παροψίς, “side–dish,” refers to a vessel or a food, particularly a sauce. Ulpian does not respond, but Leonides provides a series of quotations involving παρόψιδες, and then adds that another Attic term for sauce is ἔμβαμμα, and cites this fragment to prove it. Quite a few of the quotations in this section (including this fragment) use the terms under discussion metaphorically (e. g. Magn. fr. 1; Ar. fr. 191; Pl. com. frr. 43, 190; Sotad. com. fr. 3); although the speakers occasionally comment on this (e. g. 9.367d), for the most part they seem content to cite metaphorical and literal uses without distinction. Text The reading of A, the unabridged text of the Deipnosophistai, is unmetrical; the mss. of the epitome (CE) lack γάρ, and thus scan correctly. The γάρ may have been written accidentally by a scribe who saw this fragment as proving Leonides’ claim, as just above at 368b γάρ introduces Pherecr. fr. 157; alternately, γάρ could be the correct reading (“since the bread is pleasant, but deceit…”), with μέν introduced by a scribe who saw the contrast being drawn between ὁ ἄρτος and τὸ φενακίζειν. Jacobs’ emendation preserves the γάρ and avoids the repetition of ἄρτος twice in two lines, but this is not compelling enough to prefer it to the perfectly sensible reading of CE, which confirmed an earlier rendering of the line by Porson.

Εἰρήνη (fr. 9)

57

Interpretation These lines have the neat balance, and moralizing quality of a maxim or sententia. The emphasis on bread suggests that the speaker may be criticizing someone for being deceptive in the context of a meal, or for offering the speaker actual bread for suspicious reasons; but the words could be intended as a more abstract comment, suggesting that deceit can spoil anything, even something as pleasant as wheat–bread. 1 ἄρτος The common term for a loaf of bread made from wheat flour, as opposed to the lower quality μᾶζα, made from barley (on which see fr. 12). The term is common in all genres and registers from Homer onwards; see Olson 1998. 67–68, 91; Olson and Sens 2000. 33–35. In Ar. Gēōrgoi, a lyric prayer for the return of Peace includes “a fat loaf ” (ἄρτον λιπαρόν) among the pleasures of peacetime. Elsewhere in comedy, abundant ἄρτος is a feature of utopia (Cratin. fr. 176; Telecl. fr. 1; Ar. Ec. 606, Pl. 190; Nicopho fr. 6); ἄρτος is often (as here) depicted as highly desirable (Ar. Eq. 282, 778, Lys 1207, Ra. 505, 551, Pl. 320, 1136; Pl. Com. fr. 92; Anaxandr. fr. 42; Eub. fr. 77), but (particularly in small amounts) can also represent the meager diet of Pythagoreans or other ascetics (Alex. fr. 223; Philem. fr. 88), or simply the daily sustenance of ordinary people (Ar. Nu. 1383, Pax 120, Ec. 307, Pl. 543; Diphil. fr. 60; Men. fr. 218). φενακίζειν, “cheat, deceive,” derives from the noun φέναξ, “swindler,” a term of uncertain etymology first attested in Aristophanes (Ach. 89).19 The speaker of this fragment seems to accuse another character of trying to swindle him (or her); φενακίζειν is not merely telling an untruth, but attempting to gain an unfair advantage or profit through such deception. The verb and its cognates (also incl. φενακισμός, “deception,” φενάκη, “wig,” etc.) are attested in the classical period in comedy (outside Ar. only at Men. Sam. 315), oratory, and Aristotle (Rhet. 4.1407a, where long–windedness is said to deceive, φενακίζει, the audience, and Top. 4.126b, where the φέναξ is defined as a person who has both the ability and the inclination to deceive).20 This sort of cheating is the work of politicians (Dem. 18.43, 23.162), flatterers (Isoc. 12.269), sophists (Isoc. 15.203), false prophets (Ar. Pax 1087, cf. Arist. Rhet. 4.1407a), and others who seek to profit by their deceptions (including Aeschylus, at Ran. 921); the orators complain particularly of the vulnerability of the common people to such deceptions (Isoc. 8.36, 15.133, Dem. 19.43; cf. Ar. Ach. 88–90).

19

20

Chantraine (1970, 4.1186–7) tentatively suggests that φέναξ represents the popular pronunciation of φαίναξ (a term attested only as a personal name in the ninth–century grammarian Theognostus, at Can. 41), and connects the term to φαίνομαι – the φέναξ would therefore be a person who is “nothing but an appearance.” Beekes (2010. 2.1561) prefers a pre–Greek origin. The word does not occur in tragedy, unless the problematic S. fr. 731 is genuine: this anonymous scholium claims Sophocles used the term φενακίζειν regarding the wild fig, φήληξ, and attributes the usage to an otherwise unattested play Iambe; see TrGF 4.519.

58

Theopompus

2 An ἔμβαμμα is a sauce in which other foods are dipped by hand during a meal. The noun is attested in classical Greek only here and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (1.3.4, also quoted in this passage of Athenaeus at 9.368b), but the cognate ἐμβάπτω is used of dipping food in sauce as early as Hipponax (fr. 26 W) and recurs in several comic descriptions of meals (e. g. Cratin. fr. 150, Ar. fr. 158 [metaphorically], Arched. fr. 2.10). Cf. Olson and Sens 2000. 102). πονηρόν The adjective πονηρός, very frequent in comedy, has primarily a moral valence, meaning something like “wicked” or “roguish” (see Whitman 1964, passim, esp. 29–36; Dover 1974. 52–3, Rosenbloom 2002, Storey 2008. 129–32), but can also describe bad food (Pl. Lg. 735b, Grg. 464e; the jokes at V. 193–5, 243 also seem to depend on this sense); it is therefore equally appropriate as a description of both “deceit” and “dipping sauce.”

fr. 10 K.–A. (9 K.) ἄχθομαι δ᾽ ἀπολωλεκὼς ἀλεκτρυόνα τίκτουσαν ᾠὰ πάγκαλα I’m annoyed to have lost a chicken, because it laid splendid eggs Ath. 9.374b καὶ Θεόπομπος δὲ ἐν Εἰρήνῃ ἐπὶ τῆς θηλείας ἔταξε τὸν ἀλεκτρυόνα λέγων οὕτως· —— And Theopompus in Peace used alektruōn in the feminine, saying the following: —— ΣVE Ar. Nu. 663b οἱ Ἀττικοὶ οὕτω καὶ τὰς θηλείας ἐκάλουν, ὡς καὶ Θεόπομπος. Attic authors used to refer also to the females this way, as Theopompus does also.

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl x|〉lkl rlkl klkr llk|l klkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.795; Bothe 1855. 305; Edmonds 1957 I.852–3; Storey 2011. 324–5; Rusten 2011. 368 Citation Context Athenaeus discusses chicken as a symposium food at 9.373f–74d, as part of a longer discussion organized by ingredient. He notes (373e) that Attic authors used to use the word alektruōn, ordinarily “rooster,” as a feminine noun to refer to hens, and cites Cratin. fr. 115, Stratt. fr. 61, Anaxandr. fr. 48, this fragment from Theopompus, and then Ar. frr. 193, 194, and Nu. 655–6. The passage from Clouds with which he concludes his discussion is from the scene in which Socrates tries to explain to Strepsiades that careful attention to language

Εἰρήνη (fr. 10)

59

should require an educated speaker to differentiate between masculine and feminine objects: the word alektōr, for example, should be used only for roosters, and alektruaina for hens. A scholium on this passage cites Theopompus as another author who uses a feminine version of alektruōn, but only Athenaeus quotes the fragment itself; both may have drawn on a common source, perhaps a Hellenistic commentary on this famous passage of Clouds. Interpretation A male character complains of the loss of a particularly valued hen. This complaint resembles the remarks of farmers in Aristophanes who have suffered from the enemy depredations of the countryside during war; Meineke notes Ach. 1022 (ἐπετρίβην ἀπολέσας τὼ βόε, “I’m worn away having lost my pair of oxen”), but it is also reminiscent of the conversation among Hermes, Trygaeus, and the Chorus about farmers’ losses at Pax 626–31, particularly the Chorus Leader’s comment “they threw rocks at my six–bushel grain bin and destroyed it” (κἀμοῦ λίθον / ἐμβαλόντες ἑξμέδιμνον κυψέλην ἀπώλεσαν). The opening words ἄχθομαι δέ suggest this is part of a longer speech; he may be continuing a list of grievances, or contrasting grief with another experience. The present tense of ἄχθομαι coupled with the perfect of ἀπολωλεκὼς indicates that the speaker is still grieving a loss experienced at an earlier time. 1 Literally “be burdened,” the verb ἄχθομαι is common in all periods and genres in this figurative meaning “be vexed, annoyed, exhausted” (e.g. the Homeric formula ἤχθετο γὰρ κῆρ at Il. 11.274, 11.400, 13.352; Hes. Th. 155; [A.] Pr. 390; Hdt. 2.18; Th. 1.84; Eur. Alc. 815; Eup. fr. 49; Isoc. 19.44; Pl. Ap. 23e; D. 18.4; etc.), often with a participle modifying its subject to indicate what the person is vexed by (e. g. Ar. Nu. 1441, Pl. 234; Th. 1.92.1). It is often used in comedy to describe a person who is “fed up” with some ongoing problem (e. g. Eup. fr. 49, Ar. Ach. 62, 1100, Av. 787, etc.). 2 ἀλεκτρυόνα Although Greek has distinct words for “rooster” (ὁ ἀλεκτρυών or ὁ ἀλέκτωρ) and “hen” (ἡ ἀλεκτορίς), comedy tends to use ἀλεκτρυών for both, with a feminine article to indicate a female chicken (see the examples cited alongside this passage by Athenaeus above).21 The conversation at Ar. Nu. 661–669 suggests that the use of ἀλεκτρών for both masculine and feminine was also colloquial, and distinctly feminine ἀλεκτρυών is not attested in the classical period outside comedy. See Arnott 2007. 16–19. τίκτουσαν ᾠὰ The verb τίκτω is the ordinary term for laying eggs in both prose (Hdt. 2.68, Arist. GA 718b23) and poetry (Hom. Il. 2.313, Cratin. 115, Ar. Av. 695, fr. 193, Eriph. fr. 7). Eggs are frequently mentioned as food in comedy (e. g. Ar. Lys. 856), particularly in lists of symposium foods (Philyll. fr. 24, Amphis fr. 9, Anaxandr. fr. 42.59, Antiph. fr. 140, Ephipp. fr. 8, Eriph. fr. 7). References to “slurping” (e. g. Nicom. Com. fr. 3: ᾠόν ῥοφῶν; Ath. 2.58b in citing this fragment 21

Phryn. ecl. 200 claims that ἀλεκτορίς is used in both comedy and tragedy, but outside Epicharmus it is not attested in drama; he may be confusing the term with ἀλεκτρυών.

60

Theopompus

calls them ᾠῶν ῥοφητῶν)22 eggs suggests they may at times have been consumed raw or perhaps soft–boiled (as at Hp. Acut. 53); Alexis’ reference to “eggs cut in half ” seems more likely to describe hard–boiled eggs (fr. 263.10). See Dalby 2003. 126–27. πάγκαλα A prosaic adjective (e. g. X. HG 3.1, Pl. Euth. 7a, D. 19.47, etc.), found in classical verse only here and at S. fr. 212, Eur. fr. 285, and Ar. Pl. 1018. Compounds beginning with πᾶς are very common from Homer onwards (e. g. παγχρύσεος, “all gold,” πανάπαλος, “all tender,” etc.), with the prefix intensifying the meaning of the root term; see Chantraine 1970. 859.

fr. 11 K.–A. (10 K.) χλαῖναν 〈δέ〉 σοι λαβὼν παχεῖαν ἐπιβαλῶ Λακωνικήν 1 δέ add. Bentley

2 παχεῖαν om. FS

ἐπιβαλῶ CL: ἐνεπιλαβών FS

I will take a thick Laconian cloak and put it on you Poll. 10.123–4 τὴν χλαῖναν δὲ οὕτως ἐκάλουν οἱ τῆς κωμῳδίας ποιηταί, μόνα τὰ παχέα ἱμάτια ταύτης τῆς προσηγορίας ἀξιοῦντες, ὥσπερ καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν Εἰρήνῃ· —— The poets of comedy used to refer to the chlaina this way, deeming only thick robes worthy of this term, as Theopompus too says in Peace: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xlkl〉 ll〈k〉l klkl k|rkl klkl

Discussion Bentley ap. Wordsworth 1842. 285; Meineke 1839 II.796; Bothe 1855. 305; Edmonds 1957 I.852–3; Storey 2011. 324–5; Rusten 2011. 368 Citation Context At 10.123–4 Pollux is discussing words for blankets and pajamas; he mentions that he has already discussed the topic, probably a reference to the list of terms for blankets at symposia at 6.10–11, and then cites some examples from Homer and the comic poets. He explans that Homer used the term chlaina to refer to robes of varying thickness, but that in Attic a chlaina was a thick cloth; he cites this fragment as an example of the latter usage. 22

ῥοφέω typically describes consuming liquid or semi–liquid substances, including blood (A. Eu. 264), gruel (Ar. fr. 208), lentil soup (Ar. V. 811–14, Antiph. fr. 185), broth (Ar. Pax 716), etc.

Εἰρήνη (fr. 11)

61

Text Bentley’s δέ in the first line is an easy way to restore it as the end of a trimeter. The rendering of the second line in mss. FS is nonsense produced by a careless scribe who omits παχεῖαν, having just written Pollux’s παχέα, then merges the end of the word with the following ἐπιβαλῶ, transposing β and λ to produce another form of λαμβάνω, and adding another ν to make it a participle like the first form; we certainly need the παχεῖαν CL provide, since Pollux cites these lines to demonstrate that in Attic the word chlaina indicates a thick robe. Interpretation A male character (λαβών) offers to put an opulent cloak on another character, gender unknown but probably also male, since the chlaina is a man’s garment. The expression here resembles closely Hom. Od. 14.520–21: ἐπὶ δὲ χλαῖναν βάλεν αὐτῷ / πυκνὴν καὶ μεγάλην, and Theopompus also uses ἐπιβάλλω in this sense in fr. 37 (from Odysseus); although it is hardly an allusion to this line of the Odyssey, Theopompus may therefore have used this expression to evoke a sense of vaguely Homeric hospitality. Α garment termed “Laconian” might simply be in the Spartan style (e. g. Λακωνικαί, a Spartan style of shoe popular in Athens), rather than imported from Sparta. Ιt was, however, possible in comedy to portray such “Laconian” garments as associated with the enemy: at Ar. V. 1157–69 Philocleon hesitates to put on Laconian boots, claiming he has a particularly anti–Spartan toe; see Biles and Olson 2015. 423. If the peace referred to in the title of this play was an actual, historical peace, all of the major possibilities for such an event during Theopompus’ career involved treaties between Athens and Sparta; the significance of the chlaina being Laconian, then, may be that it will be possible to obtain imports from Sparta or wear clothes in the Spartan style when the war with Sparta is over. 1 χλαῖναν The chlaina is mentioned as early as Homer as a thick cloak worn by men (e. g. Od. 14.529, Ar. Th. 142, Ec. 506–7), typically made of wool (Hom. Od. 4.50, Ar. V. 1146–9, Av. 493, Lys. 584–6), which could also be used as a blanket (Hom. Od. 14.520–22); it is a warm, winter garment (Hom. Od. 14.529, Hipp. fr. 34, Ar. V. 1151–6, Av. 712–15, 1089–90, Ec. 415–17). The use of the chlaina as a gift (Hom. Il. 16. 224, 24.230, Hdt. 2.91, Ar. V. 738) and its depiction as a beautiful or desirable item in comedy (Ar. Ach. 845 V. 738, V. 1132, Lys. 1150–6, Ec. 606, perhaps Pl. Com. 240) suggest that it was a relatively luxurious item. See Stone 1980. 160–62, Compton–Engle 2015. 61. 2 παχεῖαν Since the term chlaina seems to indicate an inherently warm, thick garment, its description as παχύς here serves to emphasize its luxury rather than to distinguish it from a thin chlaina. The word is often modified by such adjectives emphasizing its warmth and comfort, including ἀνεμοσκεπέων, “keeping off the wind” (Il. 16.224); καλήν, “beautiful” (Od. 8.455, 10.365; cf. 17.550); πυκνὴν καὶ μεγάλην, “thick and great” (Od. 14.520); ἀλεξάνεμον μάλα πυκνήν, “protective and very thick” (Od. 14.529); πορφυρέην οὔλην… διπλῆν, “purple,

62

Theopompus

woolen, double–thick” (Od. 19.225); μαλακῇς, “soft” (h.Ven. 158, cf. Hes. Op. 537, Theoc. 5.98), δασεῖαν, “shaggy” (Hipp. fr. 34), φανήν, “brilliant” (Ar. Ach. 845), etc. ἐπιβαλῶ The verb ἐπιβάλλω in this sense “to thrown on a garment” is rare in comedy (outside Theopompus only at Ar. Ec. 536), but common in Homer; see above. Λακωνικήν Spartans (and sometimes Athenian officers) were said to have worn red cloaks in battle (Ar. Ach. 320, Lys. 1140, Pax 330, X. Lac. 11.3, Plut. Lyc. 27.1), supposedly to hide bloodstains (Arist. fr. 542); this garment is ordinarily called φοινικίς. Eustathius claims that the Spartans’ purple robe was a type of χλαίνα (p. 1770.49–51 = ii.87.1–3); if he is correct, then this warlike garment may be what the speaker has in mind, but no contemporary source labels the φοινικίς a χλαίνα and other later sources describe it as a χλαμύς or other garment (ΣRVLh Ar. Pax 303c).

fr. 12 K.–A. (11 K.) μᾶζαι, πλακοῦντες, ἰσχάδες Τειθράσιαι 1 Τειθράσια Kock: Τιθρ– A

barley–bread, cakes, Teithrasian figs Ath. 14.652f Θεόπομπος δ’ Εἰρήνῃ τὰς Τιθρασίας ἐπαινῶν ἰσχάδας φησὶν οὕτως· —— Theopompus in Peace praising Teithrasian figs says the following: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl k|lkl llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.796; Bothe 1855. 305; Edmonds 1957 I.852–3; Storey 2011. 324–5; Rusten 2011. 368 Citation Context At 14.652b Athenaeus begins a discussion of figs as part of a longer catalogue of individual symposium foods. He claims that Theopompus was “praising” Teithrasian figs, but there is no reason to believe Athenaeus himself read the text of the play, and we cannot therefore conclude that these figs were mentioned positively. Text The mss spell the term Τιθράσιαι, but inscriptions guarantee Τειθράσιαι was the spelling in this period; see Meisterhans 1900. 52, Dover 1993. 254 (ad Ar. Ra. 477). Interpretation The items in this catalogue of foods are all relatively simple, plain foods that nevertheless frequently appear on the menus of comic feasts. Figs from

Εἰρήνη (fr. 13)

63

Teithras may have been well–regarded, as Attic figs generally were, or the adjective may simply have been included to create a threefold crescendo. μᾶζαι A sort of cake made from barley which ground into flour, mixed with liquid to form a thick paste, and then kneaded (μάσσω) into loaves or cakes, maza was a fundamental element of the Greek diet (see Blümner 1912. 3–98, Sparkes 1962. 128–29, Braun 1995, Olson 1998. 67–8, Dalby 2003. 47). Maza appears in a number of comic catalogues of food (Ar. Ec. 605–7, Pl. 191–2, Polioch. fr. 2, Nicophon fr. 6, Antiph. fr. 1, Anaxandr. fr. 42.38), often together with figs (Ar. Pl. 191–2, Polioch. fr. 2, Anaxandr. fr. 42.38) and plakountes (Ar. Pl. 191–2, Nicophon fr. 6, Anaxandr. fr. 42.38). πλακοῦντες The term πλακοῦς is a generic term for a variety of flat cakes; Athenaeus explains that the term is contracted from πλακόεις (ἄρτος), “flat (bread)” (14.643f–644c). They are mentioned frequently in comedy, often in catalogues of desirable food (e. g. Telecl. fr. 34, Ar. Ach. 1092, 1125–7, Plato Com. 188.8, Nicophon fr. 21, Antiph. 181, and see above). See Dalby 2003. 70. ἰσχάδες Dried figs were a desireable (Ar. fr. 681) but also relatively cheap food (Ar. Ach. 1217–23, V. 297, Philemon fr. 88), and, like mazai and plakountes, frequently mentioned in comic food catalogues (see above). Cf. Olson and Sens 2000. 234; Dalby 2003. 143–44. Τειθράσιαι Teithras was a rural deme near the coast east of Athens, of the phylē Aegeis. Elsewhere in classical literature the deme is mentioned only at Ar. Ra. 477 (where the doorkeeper threatens Dionysus with an attack by “Teithrasian gorgons”); but is frequently mentioned in inscriptions, e. g. IG I3 364, 442, 1510, IG II2 336, 678, 791. For the deme organization of Attica, see Traill 1975 (with 41 for Teithras), Whitehead 1986. Attica was famous for its figs (Antiph. fr. 177, Alex. fr. 122, Phoenicid. fr. 2), although the deme Teithras is not otherwise specified as a noteworthy producer. Figs from Rhodes (Hermipp. fr. 63.16) and the Cycladic island Kimolos (Amph. fr. 40) were also evidently well known; see Papachrysostomou 2016.255.

fr. 13 K.–A. (12 K.) Poll. 3.27 ἐπιπάτωρ· βέλτιον γὰρ τοὔνομα τοῦ πατρωοῦ, εἰ καὶ Κερκιδᾶς (fr. 13, p. 212 Powell) αὐτῷ κέχρηται. τοῦτον δ’ Ὑπερείδης Πατροκλέους ἐπὶ προαγωγείᾳ (fr. 140 J) κατηγορῶν μητρυιὸν κέκληκε, καὶ Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν Εἰρήνῃ. Epipatōr (stepfather): This word is better than patrōos, even if Cercidas (fr. 13, p. 212 Powell) uses the latter. Hyperides in his speech accusing Patrocles of procuring (fr. 140 J) called such a person “stepmother” (mētruios), as did Theopompus the comic poet in Peace.

64

Theopompus

Eust. p. 560.14 = II.97.10–13 ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι τε καὶ μητρυιὸν οἱ παλαιοί φασι τὸν πατρῷον, ἀρρενωνυμοῦντες τὴν μητρυιάν, καὶ λέγει οὕτω Θεόπομπος καὶ οἱ κωμικοὶ δὲ μάλιστα κατὰ τοὺς παλαιούς. It should be established that the ancients also say mētruios for patrōos, making the word mētruia masculine; Theopompus speaks this way, and especially the comic poets among the ancients. Phot. μ 427 μητρυιόν· Θεόπομπος τὸν πατρωόν. Mētruios: Theopompus [uses this word for] patrōos.

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.796; Bothe 1855. 305; Edmonds 1957 I.852–3; Storey 2011. 324–5 Citation Context Pollux here is discussing terms for certain family relationships; he explains that there are various words for a man who marries a woman who already has children, and claims that the term epipatōr is the superior one, although it is not attested elsewhere. The similar notes in Eustathius and Photius, as well as Moeris (μ 2: μητρυιόν τὸν πατρῷον) probably all share a common source; Theodoridis suggests Aelius Dionysius or another Αtticist lexicographer. Interpretation Classical Greek ordinarily refers to stepfathers with the term κηδεστής, a generic label for any male relative by marriage; μητρυιός occurs only here and in the fragment of Hyperides cited by Pollux, and is probably a colloquialism. The μητρυιά, “stepmother,” is proverbial already in Hesiod for unkindness (Op. 825; cf. A. Pr. 727, Eur. Alc. 309–10, Ion 1025, fr. 824; Hdt. 4.154), and so a stepfather might be called mētruios to emphasize this negative sense. Theopompus could also have used the term metaphorically, as e. g. Plato Mx. 237b (because the Athenians are authocthonous, they are nourished by a land that is a true mother and not a stepmother). See Watson 1995, Hübner 2009.

65

Ἡδυχάρης (Hēducharēs) (“Lovejoy”)23

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.240, II.796–7; Bothe 1855. 305–6; Haussleiter 1935. 189–90; Edmonds 1957 I.852–55; Geissler 1969. 77; Olson 2007. 243; Storey 2011. 324–27; Rusten 2011. 369; Farmer 2017a Title The name Ἡδυχάρης appears to be a compound of Theopompus’ invention, a combination of words like ἡδυεπής (“pleasantly speaking”), ἡδύλογος (“pleasantly speaking”), ἡδυμελής (“pleasantly singing”), or ἡδύπνοος (“pleasantly smelling”) with the common personal name ending –χαρης (e. g. Ἐπιχάρης, Κλεοχάρης, Λεωχάρης, Ξενοχάρης, Πολυχάρης, Φιλοχάρης, etc.). It is most likely the name or nickname of a prominent character in the comedy, along the lines of Aristophanes’ Gerytadēs (“The Man with a Singer’s Voice”), Phrynichus’ and Anaxilas’ Monotropos (“The Hermit”), Plato Com.’s Perialgēs (“The Man in Great Pain”). Meineke suggested that, in light of the mention of Plato in fr. 16, the title character was Plato; given Plato’s reputation for humorlessness, this nickname would necessarily be ironic, or would perhaps represent Plato after having undergone some sort of conversion to a pleasure–seeking life. As Kaibel points out, however, fr. 16 can be read more naturally as a reference to a famous person who is not a character in this comedy; it is probably a one–off, momentary joke which does not require the play to feature any sustained focus on Plato or his philosophy. For the accent on the penultimate syllable in names coined from compound adjectives, see Phot. π 631 (περιαλγής), Pirrotta 2009. 238. Content Fr. 14 shows a group of hungry people being told to assemble in order, as if to be given food or admitted to a feast. Fr. 15 refers to a ritual to welcome the bride into the groom’s household; this may indicate the play featured a wedding, but it may instead refer to the wedding ritual metaphorically. In fr. 16 we have a character citing Plato, probably in the course of an argument. Date Plato’s Phaedo, alluded to in fr. 16, is ordinarily dated to the late 380s or early 370s (Thesleff 1982. 140–44). The chronology of Plato’s dialogues is itself, however, perennially in dispute: see Brandwood 1990, Kahn 2002. Nevertheless, taken toogether with the mention of Peron in fr. 17 the most plausible date for this comedy would seen to be sometime soon after 380, towards the end of Theopompus’ career (so Geissler).

23

I have taken this translation of the title from Storey.

66

Theopompus

fr. 14 K.–A. (13 K.) καὶ στῆτ’ ἐφεξῆς, κεστρέων νῆστις χορός, λαχάνοισιν ὥσπερ χῆνες ἐξενισμένοι 1 καὶ στῆτ᾽ A: ἔστη δ᾽ Kock: κἄστητ᾽ Kaibel: ἕστηκ᾽ Blaydes

And stand in a row, you all, as a starving chorus of mullets, banqueted like geese on vegetables Ath. 7.308a ὑπολαβὼν δὲ Μυρτίλος· καὶ στῆτ’ ἐφεξῆς, ἔφη, κατὰ τὸν Θεοπόμπου Ἡδυχάρην· κεστρέων… ἐξενισμένοι. οὐ πρότερον γάρ τινος μεταλήψεσθε, ἕως ἂν ἢ ὑμεῖς ἢ ὁ συμμαθητὴς ὑμῶν Οὐλπιανὸς εἴπητε διὰ τί νῆστις μόνος τῶν ἰχθύων ὁ κεστρεὺς καλεῖται. And Myrtilus in reply said: “And you all, stand in a row,” as Theopompus puts it in Hēducharēs, “as a starving chorus of mullets, banqueted like geese on vegetables,” for you won’t get to share anything until either you all or your fellow–student Ulpian says why alone of all fish the mullet is called starving.

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl l|lkl llkl rlkl l|lkl klkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.796; Bothe 1855. 306; Blaydes 1896. 328; Haussleiter 1935. 189–90; Edmonds 1957 I.852–3; Kaibel ap. K.–A. VII.715; Storey 2011. 326–7; Rusten 2011. 369 Citation Context At 7.306d Athenaeus begins a discussion of the mullet–fish, kestreus; at 307d he starts to provide a series of quotations which describe the kestreus as nēstis, fasting or hungry. One of the guests, a Cynic, responds with another such quotation, and Myrtilus follows it up with this fragment from Theopompus. Ulpian at 308a–b goes on to explain that the fish is called nēstis because it does not eat live bait and will not eat anything when caught. Over the course of this discussion Ath. cites Hicesius, Dorion (the primary source of Ath. book 7), Aristotle, Euthydemus of Athens, and Polemon, but it is unclear which, if any, of these was the source of his quotation of Theopompus. Text Kock was suspicious that the initial imperative fit too neatly with the surrounding grammar of Myrtilus’ sentence, since he continues with another second person plural verb addressed to the assembled dinner guests in the same sentence; Kaibel and Blaydes suggested other ways to begin the line with indicative forms of ἵστημι. There is no metrical or grammatical problem with the line as Athenaeus quotes it (cf. Ar. Lys. 1122, fr. 72), however, and any difficulty in understanding precisely what it would mean to order a group of people to stand in line like

Ἡδυχάρης (fr. 14)

67

starving fish is at least as likely due to our lack of knowledge about this fragment’s original context as to Athenaeus altering the quotation to fit Myrtilus’ sentence. Interpretation A character tells a group of hungry people, perhaps but not certainly the chorus of the comedy, to get in line; he compares them both to the proverbially hungry mullet and to geese fed on vegetables, the latter either because the goose’s diet of greens would leave an actual human starving, or because an ideal domesticated goose would be fattened with grain. The opening καί should indicate that this is the second of a pair of commands issued by this character to the same group of people. There is a distinct element of metatheatricality in comparing a group of people in a comedy to a chorus, whether the group being addressed is the play’s actual chorus or not. In both comedy and tragedy, groups can be described metaphorically as choruses (e. g. S. fr. 762, Eup. fr. 239), so we cannot be certain whether the group being addressed here is the chorus of this comedy. If this group is the chorus, it is clearly a metatheatrical joke to describe them as being like a chorus; the speaker could even be criticizing them for acting like a chorus of hungry fish, rather than whatever sort of chorus they are really supposed to be. Even if they are some other group (e. g. mute characters hoping to receive a meal as part of the wedding festivities suggested by fr. 15), however, the use of the word “chorus” must call the audience’s attention to the play’s real chorus (whether currently present in the orchestra or merely anticpated). 1 στῆτ’ ἐφεξῆς The phrase ἐφεξῆς ἑστάναι is used to describe standing in rows or ranks; it can describe soldiers (Ar. fr. 72), servants standing ready (Ar. Ec. 842), people trying to sell things (Eub. fr. 67), or even inanimate objects (Pl. Grg. 472a7). κεστρέων The grey mullet, actually a family of related fish species (Mugilidae), often appears in comic lists of food (e. g. Philyll. fr. 12, Anaxandr. fr. 42.47, Ephipp. fr. 12.8, Antiph. frr. 130, 216.10, etc.); certain varieties were even considered delicacies (Archest. fr. 43, Ath. 7.306e–8b), though mullets are sometimes held to be poor eating (e. g. Pl. Com. fr. 28). See further Olson and Sens 2000. 176–7, 184, Davidson 2002. 140–44. The fish itself is proverbially hungry; in comic metaphor it is mentioned frequently in this sense (Ar. fr. 159, Amips. fr. 1, Archipp. fr. 12, Eub. fr. 68; though Diocl. fr. 6 has “jumping for joy like a mullet”). Ath. (7.307c) also cites a proverb κεστρεὺς νηστεύει, “a mullet is fasting,” which he claims refers to an honest person, because the mullet refuses to eat other fish. κεστρέων… χορός The term “chorus” sometimes has the sense of “group”: cf. S. fr. 762, χορὸς… ἰχθύων, “school of fish”; Eur. Her. 925, χορὸς...τέκνων, “band of children”; Pl. Prt. 315b, a choros of the students of Protagoras; etc. In comedy, however, χορός almost always has its literal meaning, “group of dancers/singers” (e. g. Callias fr. 17, Cratin. frr. 17, 276, Ar. Ach. 416, Nu 333, V 1060, Pax 801, Antiph. fr. 202, Men. Epit. 1120) or “dancing ground (e. g. Pherecr. fr. 182, Ar. fr. 348); two exceptions are Eup. fr. 239, “accountants of the auditors’ choruses,” and

68

Theopompus

Ar. Ra. 548, where Dionysus calls his teeth a chorus (and even here there must be a metatheatrical joke). The notion of a chorus of mullets or geese is probably therefore intended to have a metatheatrical resonance, possibly with reference to animal choruses; choruses of fish and birds are both attested for comedy (e. g. Magnes’ Ornithes, Archippus’ Ichthyes, Ar. Av., Pelargoi, Cantharus’ Aēdōnes, Crates II Ornithes). On animal choruses, see Sifakis 1971, Rothwell 2007. νῆστις Derived from νη– (not) ἔδω (eat). In Homer the adjective νῆστις refers to those deliberately avoiding food, fasting (Il. 19.156, 207, Od. 370); in later Greek it takes on a broader, often metaphorical sense “hungry” (e. g. A. Ag. 1016, Cho. 250, [A.] Pr. 573), but in comedy it is used exclusively in connection with the mullet fish (though often still as a way of describing someone as hungry, e. g. Ar. fr. 159, Antiph. fr. 136). Its association with the mullet is such that νῆστις can even be used as a substantive referring to the fish without the word κεστρεύς (Ar. frr. 333, 520, Antiph. fr. 226.8, Aristophon fr. 2, Eub. fr. 23, etc.). 2 λαχάνοισιν… ἐξενισμένοι The term λάχανα refers to a variety of cultivated green herbs and vegetables including radishes (Cratin. fr. 350), lettuce (Eub. fr. 13), basil (Eub. fr. 53) and others (including wild plants, with the adjective ἄγριος: Ar. Th. 456, Pl. 298). Epicrates makes a joke of the notion that scholars could discern the differences between types of λάχανα (Epicr. fr. 10, on which see Farmer 2017a; cf. Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1); elsewhere in comedy λάχανα are eaten by beggars (Ar. Pl. 298) and ascetics (Aristophon fr. 12–13). Such vegetables were, however, ordinary, basic foodstuffs (Cratin. fr. 204) presumably consumed by everyone and sold in their own section of the market in Athens (Ar. Lys. 557, Th. 456); see Olson and Sens 2000. 60, 113. The verb ξενίζω normally describes the lavish, generous hospitality ideally afforded to guests; when paired with foods these are typically the luxurious foods of a feast, meat or especially fish (e. g. Ar. Ach. 84–6; Timocl. fr. 15). It creates an ironic contrast, then, when paired with such basic food. χῆνες Both wild and domesticated geese are mentioned already in Homer (e. g. Il. 2.460, Od. 19.536); they were kept both for their eggs and to be eaten; see Olson and Sens 2000. 214–15, Dunbar 1995. 304, 1145, Arnott 2007. 49–50. Ideally geese kept for slaughter would be fattened (Archest. fr. 58; see Dalby 2003.141–42). Lucilius fr. 1106 M refers to an “anser herbilis,” and Paulus Diaconus explains that this was a term for a goose that had not been fattened on grain, a meager goose (see Marx 1963. 351–2).24

24

Although a command to stand in a line followed by a comparison to geese could suggest the orderly formation of geese during migration, our extant authors do not appear to notice this phenomenon; Homer compares waves of soldiers to landing flights of geese (Il. 2.460), perhaps evoking their movement in formation, and Aratus notes the regularity of their seasonal migration (1.1021–2), but they are never described specifically as flying in lines or rows.

69

Ἡδυχάρης (fr. 15)

fr. 15 K.–A. (14 K.) (A.) φέρε σὺ τὰ καταχύσματα ταχέως κατάχει τοῦ νυμφίου καὶ τῆς κόρης. (Β.) εὖ πάνυ λέγεις. 1 φέρε σὺ codd.: φέρε δὴ σὺ vel φέρε νῦν σὺ Dobree ταχέως κατάχεε NRs: κατάχεε ταχέως Tzetzes

2 ταχέως κατάχει ΕΘBarb, Suda:

(A.) Come on you, quickly, pour the katachusmata over the groom and the girl. (B.) Quite right! Σ (REΘNBarbRs, Suda κ878, Tzetzes 4.1.173) Ar. Pl. 768 τῶν γὰρ νεωνήτων δούλων τῶν πρῶτον εἰσιόντων εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, ἢ ἁπλῶς τῶν ἐφ᾽ ὧν οἰωνίσασθαί τι ἀγαθὸν ἐβούλοντο, καἰ τοῦ νυμφίου, παρὰ τὴν ἑστίαν τραγήματα κατέχεον εἰς σημεῖον εὐετηρίας, ὡς καὶ Θεόπομπός φησιν ἐν Ἡδυχάρει· —— Over newly purchased slaves first entering the home, or simply over those on whom they wished to confer a good omen, and over the groom, they used to pour out treats next to the hearth as a sign of prosperity, as Theopompus also says in Hēducharēs· —— Harp. κ 27 καταχύσματα· Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ Κατὰ Στεφάνου α᾽ . ὅτι τῶν νεωνήτων οἱ δεσπόται τραγήματα κατέχεον Ἀριστοφάνης Πλούτῳ δηλοῖ· ὅτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ θεωρίας ἐλθόντων25 καταχεῖτο δὲ καὶ τῶν νυμφίων, ὡς Θεόπομπος Ἡδυχάρει. katachusmata: Demosthenes in Against Stefanos I (D. 14.74). That masters used to pour treats over their newly purchased slaves Aristophanes shows in Peace (768–9); and that they used to be poured over people coming back from an embassy and over grooms, as Theopompus (says) in Hēducharēs.

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xk〉kkr rlkl rlrl llkl llkl lrkl 〈xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion Dobree 1831–3. 143; Meineke 1839 II.797; Bothe 1855. 306; Edmonds 1957 I.854–5; Storey 2011. 325–7; Rusten 2011. 369 Citation Context At Ar. Pl. 768–9 Chremylus’ Wife states her intention to shower Wealth with katachusmata (nuts, fruits, and other treats; lit. “things poured out”), to welcome his “newly–bought eyes” into the house. The scholiasts explain

25

Keaney prints ἐλθόνται without discussion, but this must be a transcription error for ἐλθόντων; cf. Phot. κ 398.

70

Theopompus

that this was ordinarily done with newly–bought slaves, and add that the ritual was also performed with a bride and groom to welcome the bride into the groom’s household; they cite these lines from Theopompus as evidence of this latter claim. The text of the scholium is also reproduced by the Suda and Tzetzes. Harpocration (followed by Photius κ 399) does not cite the fragment itself, but his reference to Theopompus confirms the scholiast’s assignment of it to this play. Βoth Harpocration and the Aristophanic scholia are probably drawing on earlier Atticist material. Text Dobree suggests adding δή or νῦν, both particles which frequently appear alongside φέρε,26 to allow the first line to scan as two iambic metra; both particles would emphasize the urgency of the command without substantially altering the meaning. Since some citations of this fragment omit the final line, Meineke voiced the suspicion that it had crept into the scholiast’s text from the identical Ar. Pl. 800, but εὖ πάνυ λέγειν is a common expression (e. g. Pl. Phd. 64b2, Aesch. 1.31, 92; cf. εὖ πάνυ as a response at Alex. fr. 168, Men. Sic. 356) appropriate to the context, and there is no reason it could not have featured in both passages. Interpretation If this fragment refers to a literal bride and groom, these lines would suggest that Theopompus’ play featured a wedding scene; a number of Ar.’s plays conclude with the comic hero obtaining a new bride (Pax, Av.) or otherwise participating in a ritualistic celebration (Ach.). In Ar. Pl. the characters decline to actually pour out the katachusmata, but Ar. several times suggests that such treats were sometimes scattered into the audience (e. g. V. 58–9), and this scene could have featured such a captatio benevolentiae. Ar. Pl. 768–9, 789–801 and the scholia to these passages supply our best evidence for the katachusmata ritual: newly–purchased slaves, people returning from a journey, or a new bride and groom were welcomed into the household (in the latter case, the groom’s household) by a member of the family pouring dried fruit and nuts over their heads next to the hearth; in the case of marriage, this ritual formed part of the broader γάμος ceremony. The references to the katachusmata ritual in Wealth make it clear that it should be performed indoors, by the hearth. For the ritual see Alexis fr. 168 with Arnott 1996. 495; D. 45.74;27 perhaps Plut. Amatorius 753d; Garland 1990. 221, Mactoux 1990. Since katachusmata can also be sauces poured over food, however, the speaker could instead be punning on the wedding ritual involving katachusmata to refer to pouring sauce over a pair of dishes. A purely metaphorical usage is also possible, as 26 27

δή: Pherecr. fr. 73, Ar. Ach. 1058, Nu. 940, etc.; νῦν/νυν: Hermipp. fr. 8, Cratin. fr. 58, Ar. V. 848, etc. Demosthenes seems to play on the two uses of this ritual here in criticizing Stephanus for marrying the woman who once welcomed him into the house as a slave with katachusmata.

Ἡδυχάρης (fr. 15)

71

in the passage of Ar. Pl. which prompts the scholiasts to cite this fragment, where Wealth’s eyes are treated like a newly–bought slave. 1–2 This use of φέρε as an intensifier meaning “come on,” “hurry up,” or the like is colloquial and ubiquitous in comedy (e. g. Hermipp. 1, Archipp. 47, Cratin. 4, Pherecr. 67, Ar. Ach. 898, Eq 113, V. 848, etc.); see Collard 2018. 95–97, with further bibliography. Together with ταχέως it gives the command a jostling urgency. The adv. ταχέως frequently appears beside imperatives in comedy in the sense of “right away” (Cratin. fr. 271, Hegemon fr. 1, Ar. fr. 516, Ach. 1006, Eq. 95, 495, 1227–8, V. 329, Lys. 830, Th. 277, 638, 731, Ra. 188, 605, 627, Ec. 1176, Pl. 71, 222, 644, 926, Amph. fr. 39, Antiph. fr. 75) often together with φέρε (Ar. Pax 959–61) or the similar ἄγε (Ar. Nu. 775, Pax 431, 957) or ἴθι (Ar. Ec. 121), sometimes (as per Dobree’s suggestion) with intensifying particles such as δή (Ar. Ach. 777, Ar. Nu. 775, Pax 431, 957, 959–61, Lys. 503, Ra. 498, Ec. 121) or νυν/νῦν (Ar. Nu. 345, Nicochar. fr. 8). σύ frequently appears in the context of such urgent commands: it specifies the person being commanded, either in contrast to a previous addressee who may (Ar. Pax 431, Th. 730–1, Ec. 1175–6) or may not (Ar. Ach. 777, Ra. 627, Pl. 222) have been commanded to do anything; or or it can distinguish what the addressee is being told to do from what the speaker himself intends to do (Ar. Pax 957, Ec. 121). καταχύσματα… κατάχει Literally “pour out the outpourings” (a cognate or internal accusative, on which see Smyth 1563–76), interpreted by the sources of this fragment as a ritualistic expression tied to welcoming a new member of a household. The term κατάχυσμα can also refer to sauces which are poured over food: Philon. fr. 9, Ar. Av. 535, 1637, Pl. Com. fr. 189.9, Archest. 57.8, on which see Olson and Sens 2000. 212. 2 τοῦ νυμφίου καὶ τῆς κόρης From Homer onwards (Il. 23.223, Od. 7.65), νυμφίος is the technical term for a man on the day of his wedding. In prose and verse the term is usually paired with νύμφη for the bride (e. g. Eur. Hec. 324, Ar. Av. 1057–60, Pl. R. 546d, Lg. 775b, 779e, 783d, Alex. fr. 168, Men. Dysc. 795) but in verse she is sometimes instead called κόρη (Pi. P. 9.117–18, A. fr. 43, Men. Dysc. 748), πάρθενος (Eur. Tro. 485), etc. Even without νύμφιος the term κόρη is used in the sense of “bride” already in Homer (e. g. Od. 18.279, Eur. Or. 1438). 3 εὖ πάνυ λέγεις An emphatic expression of assent, in which λέγεις is sometimes expressed (Alex. fr. 168, Men, Sic. 356), more often omitted (e. g. Eur. Phoen. 985, Or. 783, Ar. Nu. 1092, Pax 1051, Av. 1124, Ra. 1480, Ec. 279, Pl. Phd. 77c, Tht. 168c, Smp. 189b, Antiph. fr. 52, Men. Sam. 112, etc.). See Thesleff 1954. 56–80, Dover 1985. 332–5, Arnott 1996. 494.

72

Theopompus

fr. 16 K.–A. (15 K.) ἓν γάρ ἐστιν οὐδὲ ἕν, τὼ δὲ δύο μόλις ἕν ἐστιν, ὥς φησιν Πλάτων since one isn’t even one, and two is barely one, as Plato says D. L. 3.26 φησὶ δ᾽ Ἡρακλείδης ὅτι νέος ὢν οὕτως ἦν αἰδήμων καὶ κόσμιος ὥστε μηδέποτε ὀφθῆναι γελῶν ὑπεράγαν· τοιοῦτος δ᾽ ὢν ὅμως ἐσκώφθη καἰ αὐτὸς ὑπὸ τῶν κωμικῶν. Θεόπομπος γοῦν ἐν Ἡδυχάρει φησὶν οὕτως· —— Heraclides says (FHG 3.171) that when he [i. e. Plato] was young he was so shy and well– behaved that he was never seen laughing excessively. Despite being this sort of person, even he was nevertheless mocked by the comic poets. Theopompus at any rate says the following in Hēducharēs: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl x|〉lkl klkl lrkr klk|l llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.796–7; Bothe 1855. 305–6; Edmonds 1957 I.854–5; Olson 2007. 243; Storey 2011. 326–7; Rusten 2011. 369; Farmer 2017a Citation Context Diogenes Laertius devotes the third book of his Lives of the Eminent Philosophers entirely to Plato, and at 3.26–8 he preserves a set of references to Plato in comedy. He begins with Theopompus, and follows with Anaxandr. fr. 20, Alex. frr. 1, 151, 163, 185, Amph. frr. 6, 13, Cratin. Jr. fr. 10, Anaxil. frr. 5, 14, 26. Diogenes is probably relying either on a catalogue of komoidoumenoi, or on an earlier biography of Plato. For intellectuals as komoidoumenoi, see Sommerstein 1996; for ancient biographical treatments of Plato’s life, see Riginos 1976. Interpretation A character cites the philosopher Plato (PA 11845; PAA 775000) as the source for an absurd claim that one is not one, and even two may be less than one; since Meineke this has been understood as a garbled account of the doubts Socrates expresses about the nature of combination and growth in Plato’s Phaedo. The γάρ in the beginning of this fragment indicates that the speaker sees his reference to Plato a.s justifying some earlier claim or argument. The manner in which the character cites Plato as an authority suggests that this is a reference to a celebrity known to the audience, rather than to Plato as another character in the comedy (despite Meineke’s suggestion that this fragment indicates that Plato was the title character of the play, with an ironic nickname). Of the many fragments cited alongside this passage by Diogenes, only Amph. fr. 13 suggests that Plato was a character in the cited comedy; the rest treat him as a convenient name to attach to the sorts of absurd beliefs and behaviors ascribed to philosophers in comedy at least from the time of Clouds, sometimes with specific reference to his

Ἡδυχάρης (fr. 16)

73

teachings (e. g. Amph. fr. 6, perhaps Cratin. Jr. 10, Alex. 163), but often not, from which Olson concludes that the average audience member was unlikely to have had more than “a vague, nodding acquaintance with what was being discussed and written about in the academy” (2007. 243). For other comic references to Plato, see Ephipp. fr. 14, Alex. frr. 25, 98, 99, 247, Antiph. fr. 35, Epicr. fr. 10, Ophelio fr. 3, Philippid. fr. 6. In the Phaedo, Socrates introduces doubts about how two things combine to become one, not in order to investigate the matter, but simply as a rhetorical illustration of how natural philosophy led him into confusion in his youth. In its context in the dialogue, a broader discussion of the origin, growth, and destruction of matter, this statement is reasonable; but taken out of context, it is easy to make it appear that Plato is expressing doubt about whether one plus one equals two. It is striking that the speaker ascribes this view to Plato, rather than to Socrates, since in the Phaedo Socrates expresses these doubts as a phase of his own biography, and later overcomes his doubts; to conclude that Plato believed what Socrates says here requires either a very superficial or very sophistic reading of the text. For Plato in comedy, see further Helm 1906. 377–8; Fenk 1913. 19–62; Weiher 1913; Düring 1941. 139–142; de Vries 1956; Webster 1970. 54–56; Handley 1985; Brock 1990; Imperio 1998. 124–128; Olson 2007. 238–243; Arnott 2010. 305–8; Platter 2013; Farmer 2017a. The ascription of these words to Plato, rather than Socrates, also suggests that this character is referring to the Phaedo as a text composed by Plato, rather than a record of a historical discussion held by Socrates. Epicr. fr. 10 and Alex. fr. 247 may also imitate the language of Plato’s dialogues;28 taken together these fragments suggest that at least some of the audience may have been expected to have read Plato, but presumably the majority would understand a reference to Plato like the one in Hēducharēs as simply a joke about a celebrity intellectual rather than a specific allusion. 1–2 ἓν γάρ ἐστιν οὐδὲ ἕν, / τὼ δὲ δύο μόλις ἕν ἐστιν At Phd. 96a Socrates begins to describe to his interlocutors how in his youth he became interested in natural philosophy, but eventually realized that he was unfit for such investigation, because his inquiry into the origins of matter, thought, and so forth came to unsettle and confuse even things he had previously understood. As an example of something he used to understand but came to doubt, he says that he came to question “when one thing is added to another, whether the one to which something was added became two, or the one that was added, or whether both the one added 28

On Epicr. fr. 10, see Helm 1906, 378; Weiher 1913, 51–2; Fenk 1913, 36–38; Düring 1941, 140; Lever 1954, 177; de Vries 1956, 8–9; Wilamowitz 1959, 1.399; Webster 1970, 54; Stark 1972, 75; Nesselrath 1990, 198, 277; Brock 1990, 41; Imperio 1998, 125; Olson 2007. 238–42; Arnott 2010, 307. On Alex. fr. 247, see Fenk 1913, 27–29; Coppola 1923; Olivieri 1939, 291; Düring 1941, 141; de Vries 1956, 7; Webster 1970, 55; Gil 1970, 337–38; Hunter 1983, 132–3; Arnott 1996, 691–9; Imperio 1998, 125.

74

Theopompus

and the thing to which it was added by the adding of one to the other have become two” (96e–97a: ἐπειδὰν ἑνί τις προσθῇ ἕν, ἢ τὸ ἓν ᾧ προσετέθη δύο γέγονεν, 〈ἢ τὸ προστεθέν〉, ἢ τὸ προστεθὲν καὶ ᾧ προσετέθη διὰ τὴν πρόσθεσιν τοῦ ἑτέρου τῷ ἑτέρῳ δύο ἐγένετο). The speaker of this fragment simplifies Socrates’ words here: Socrates expresses confusion that it is possible to create “two” either by combining two things which are each individually “one,” or by dividing a single “one” in half; this character simply claims that Plato said one does not equal one and even two barely amounts to one, a considerably more absurd formulation of the paradox. 2 τὼ… δύο For the dual article with the numeral two, cf. Emp. fr. 96.18, Ar. V. 362, Is. 7.5, X. Cyr. 7.1.24, Pl. Soph. 235d4, etc.

fr. 17 K.–A. (16 K.) Ath. 15.690a μνημονεύει τοῦ μυροπώλου τούτου τοῦ Πέρωνος καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν Ἀδμήτῳ (fr. 1) καὶ Ἡδυχάρει. Theopompus too mentions this perfumer Peron in Admetus (fr. 1) and Hēducharēs.

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.797; Bothe 1855. 306; Edmonds 1957 I.854–5; Storey 2011. 325–7; Rusten 2011. 369 Citation Context

See above, on fr. 1.

Interpretation For the perfumer Peron and the significance of perfume in Greek culture see above, on fr. 1.

75

Θησεύς (Thēseus) (“Theseus”)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 409; Meineke 1839 I.240, II.798–9; Bothe 1855. 306; Edmonds 1957 I.854–55; Geissler 1969. 74–5; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 122–3; Skempis 2010. 299; Storey 2011. 326–9; Orth 2014. 100 Title Theseus was the title of tragedies by Sophocles, Euripides, and Achaeus (TrGF 20 F18–18a), and comedies by Aristonymus (fr. 1), Anaxandrides (frr. 20–21), and Diphilus (frr. 48–9); Theseus was also prominent as a character in Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, Euripides’ Hippolytus, Suppliants, and Heracles, and probably in a number of fragmentary plays, including Euripides Aegeus (frr. 1–13) and Perithous (frr. 591–600), and perhaps Epicharmus’ Skiron (frr. 123–4), Alexis’ Skiron (fr. 210), Philyllius’ Aigeus (frr. 1–2) and Aristophon’s Perithous (fr. 7). The most famous hero of Athens, Theseus is mentioned as early as the first book of the Iliad (1.265); his exploits become particularly popular in the fifth century, when he begins to appear regularly on vase paintings and architectural decorations (see J. Neils and S. Woodford, LIMC 7.922–51) and becomes the subject of poetic works like Bacchylides Odes 17 and 18. Frequently depicted episodes from his life include: his adventures traveling from Troezen to Athens, and his near poisoning and subsequent recognition by Aegeus there; his defeat of the Marathonian Bull, journey to Crete to confront Minos and the Minotaur, and escape from Crete with Ariadne, whom he then abandons; his journeys to the land of the Amazons and to the underworld; and his combination of the villages of Attica into Athens (the synoikismos). See (among many others) Herter 1973, Davie 1982, Brommer 1982, Calame 1990, Gantz 1993. 248–98, Walker 1995, Arnott 1996. 602–4, Mills 1997, Dobrov 2001. 133–56, Servadei 2005, Skempis 2010. 197–301, and especially Orth 2014. 98–101. Content In fr. 18, a character is given directions which include a stop in Persia; fr. 19 mentions the orator Isaeus, fr. 20 a kind of apple, and fr. 21 an uncertain term likely to mean something like “bad to oneself ” or “wholly bad.” Only fr. 18 gives us any real sense of a scene in the play, since it has the look of an excerpt from a longer description of a journey, in mock–elevated, perhaps paratragic language. Despite the speculations of Dobree, Bergk, Skempis, and others, however, we cannot know whether the play treated any of the myths of Theseus, featured Theseus but only as a prologue speaker, or simply applied the name of Theseus to a contemporary character. Date Geissler dates the play to 390 BCE or later because of the reference to Isaeus; see fr. 19.

76

Theopompus

fr. 18 K.–A. (17 K.) ἵξῃ δὲ Μήδων γαῖαν, ἔνθα καρδάμων πλεῖστoν ποιεῖται καὶ πράσων ἀβυρτάκη 1 ἵξῃ Bekker: ξη Synag.: ἥξει Suda, Σ Luc., Eust., Cunningham: ἥξεις Meineke 2 πλείστων Suda (praeter A), Σ. Luc., Eust.: πλεῖστον Synag., Suda A: πλείστου Desrousseaux: πλείστη Kock: θλαστῶν Edmonds

You will come to the land of the Medes, where aburtakē is made mostly of cress and leeks Phot. (b, z) α 66 = Synag. α 61 ἀβυρτάκη· ὑπότριμμα βαρβαρικὸν ἐκ δριμέων σκευαζόμενον, φημὶ ἐκ καρδάμων καὶ σκορόδων καὶ σινάπεως καὶ σταφίδων, ᾧ πρὸς κοιλιολυσίαν ἐχρῶντο (deficit Phot.). Θεόπομπος Θησεῖ· —— aburtakē: a foreign sauce made of pungent ingredients, by which I mean of cress and garlic and mustard and stavesacre, which they used to use as a laxative. Theopompus (says) in Theseus: —— Suda α 103 = Σ(Δ) Luc. Lexiph. 6 ἀβυρτάκη· ὑπότριμμα βαρβαρκόν, κατασκευαζόμενον διὰ πράσων καὶ καρδάμων καὶ ῥόας κόκκων καὶ ἑτέρων τοιούτων, δριμὺ δηλονότι. Θεόπομπος Θησεῖ· —— aburtakē: a foreign sauce, prepared from leeks and cress and pomegranate seeds and other such things, obviously pungent. Theopompus says in Theseus: —— Eust. p. 1854.18 = ii.188.39–41 κεῖται, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς Διονύσιος λέγει (α8), καὶ παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ ἀβυρτάκη, ὑπότριμμά τι δριμύ, βαρβαρικόν, διὰ πράσων καὶ καρδάμων καὶ κόκκων ῥόας καὶ ἑτέρων τοιοῦτων. φησὶ γοῦν· ——. Παυσανίας δὲ (α4) καὶ ἀπὸ σινάπεως καὶ σταφίδων εἶναί φησι τὸ τῆς ἀβυρτάκης ὑπότριμμα, ῷ καὶ πρὸς κοιλιολυσίαν ἐχρῶντο. As that same Dionysius says, aburtakē is also found in Theopompus, a certain sauce (which is) pungent, foreign, (made) of leeks and cress and pomegranate seeds and other such things. At any rate he says: ——. And Pausanias says that from mustard and stavesacre there is the sauce aburtakē, which they used to use as a laxative.

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl llk|l klkl llkl l|lkl klkl

Discussion Bekker 1814. 323; Dobree 1831–3. 318; Bergk 1838. 409; Meineke 1839 II.798; Bothe 1855. 306; Doehring 1916. 4; Desrousseaux 1935. 146–147; Edmonds 1957 I.854–5; Schmitt 1984. 465–6; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 122–3; Cunningham 2003. 530; Storey 2011. 326–7; Rusten 2011. 369–70, 752 (s. v. “Persian Spice”).

Θησεύς (fr. 18)

77

Citation Context Eustathius’ references to the 2nd–century CE Atticist grammarians Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias Atticista suggest that an Atticizing lexicon was the original source of these closely related definitions (so Cunningham); the citations of Theopompus are included as proof that an Attic author associated the word aburtakē with Persia. Text Forms of ἵξομαι, the future tense of ἱκνέομαι, occur in comedy only here and at Polyzel. fr. 2, where the reading is also in doubt; Meineke therefore read both as forms of the more prosaic ἥκω and declared that the comic poets do not use ἵξομαι. Both fragments, however, parody elevated, tragic style, where this form would be more at home (e. g. A. Pers. 357; S. Aj. 1365, OT 1491, El. 953; E. Tr. 434, Ion 1037, IA 906); the Et. Magn. and Et. Gen. preserve forms of ἵξομαι for Polyzel. fr. 2. None of our sources give such a form for Theopompus; the Synagoge, however, gives the obviously truncated ξη, which must represent either ἵξῃ (from ἱκνέομαι) or ἡξῃ (from ἥκω), and classical authors do not use middle forms of ἥκω. In the context of line 2, πλείστων and πλεῖστον are metrically identical. Kassel and Austin accept the form πλείστων (genitive plural), given by most mss. of the Suda, the scholia to Lucian, and Eustathius, but I can find no parallel for such a usage (which would mean something like “made of the maximum amount of cress”). I have preferred the form πλεῖστον, neuter accusative singular, which the Synagoge and one ms. of the Suda preserve: this gives the very common adverbial usage (“for the most part”; see LSJ sv. πλεῖστος III), and it is easy to see how this form would have become assimilated in some mss. to the genitive plural καρδάμων that precedes it. At any rate, there is no need to emend to Kock’s πλείστη (“a lot of aburtakē), Desrousseaux’s πλείστου (“where aburtakē made of cress and leeks is also considered of great value”), or Edmonds’ θλάστων (“crushed cress”). Interpretation One character appears to give directions or to prophecy the details of a journey to another. The language begins in an elevated tone (cf. ἱκέσθαι γαῖαν or γῆν at Il. 15.505, Od. 1.21, 4.545, Eu. 3.8, Eur. IA 1627, Lyc. 588), but descends into a description of a bitter foreign sauce the traveler is likely to encounter. The fragment resembles tragic travel prophecies like [A.] Pr. 707–735, frr. 195–199, though the visit to the land of the Medes and the details about Persian food suggest a contemporary rather than a mythological setting for the journey. These speeches take the form of catalogues, where each new location or feature is introduced with some variation on the phrase “next you will come to…”. Many readers of this fragment have been tempted by hypotheses connecting this prophecy with the travels of Theseus: for example, his journey to the land of the Amazons (mentioned first at Pi. frr. 175–6 SM), his exile from Athens near the end of his life (Diod. Sic. 4.62; Plu. Thes. 35; so Bergk), or his return from the underworld (so Dobree). Unfortunately, however, there is no particular reason to assume that the character being given these directions is Theseus; we could just as easily have here Theseus sending some other character on a mission or into exile, or a pair of characters unconnected with any of the Theseus myths we know.

78

Theopompus

1 ἵξῃ Future forms of ἱκνέομαι alternate with those of ἥκω in the travel prophecies of [A.] Prometheus Bound (709: ἀφίξῃ) and Prometheus Unbound (frr. 195–199). The verb is very common in prose and poetry, but its use with the accusative for the destination is limited to elevated verse (e. g. Il. 1.317, 15.505, Od. 1.21, 4.545, h.Cer. 96, Stesich. fr. 15.3, Pi. O. 6.64–5, S. El. 32, Eur. Suppl. 618, Tro. 434); this usage never occurs in classical prose, and in comic poetry only in parodies of tragic or epic style (here, Polyzel. fr. 2, and Archest. fr. 46.1). Μήδων Although the Medes were technically only one ethnic group among the many comprising the Persian Empire (see Hdt. 1.95–107, 1.123–40, and cf. Helm 1981, Lanfranchi et al. 2003, Vannicelli 2012, Waters 2014. 31–34), Greek authors often use the term Μῆδος to mean “Persian” in a broad sense (e. g. Theogn. 764, 775; A. Pers. 236, 791; Hdt. 6.67; Th. 1.18, 1.93; Dem. 9.42); the “land of the Medes” could thus refer to Persia generally, rather than Media specifically. Aristophanes uses the word frequently (Eq. 478, 781, V. 12, 1099, Pax 108, Av. 277, 278, Lys. 1253, Th. 337, 365), but elsewhere in comedy it is attested only in Theopompus, whose interest in Persia is confirmed by his comedy Μῆδος (frr. 30–32). For Persia’s relations with Athens in this period, see below, on the title of The Mede. Without knowing the precise date of this comedy, we cannot say what the political sentiments of the Athenians towards the Persians would have been, but given Persia’s active interventions both for and against Athens in the years following the end of the Peloponnesian War, any reference to “the land of the Medes” is likely to have had political resonance. γαῖαν γαῖα is the poetic alternative to γῆ, very frequent in Homer and tragedy (e. g. Il. 1.245, Od. 1.21, A. Pers. 187, S. OT 456, Eur. Med. 32). In Aristophanes it appears only in lyric (Nu. 290, Av. 1064) and in the dactylic hexameter exodus of Frogs (1529), and elsewhere in comedy it is used only in elevated contexts (Antiphan. fr. 55.3, Eub. fr. 42); it thus contributes to the mock–elevated tone of the line. καρδάμων The herb cress and its seeds provided a relish for bread, noted for bitterness (cf. Ar. V. 455, where a bitter facial expression is described as “looking cress”); Greek authors associate cress with Persia (X. Cyr. 1.2.8–11, Strabo 15.3.18), and attribute to it a power of absorbing moisture (Ar. Nu. 231–6, Th. 616). It is often portrayed as plain food (Henioch. fr. 4, Plu. Mor. 466d), but it does appear in several fourth–century comic food catalogues (Anaxandr. fr. 42.60, Antiph. fr. 140.4, Eub. frr. 18.2, 35.4). In extant Greek it is first mentioned by Aristophanes, but Stol demonstrates that it was a staple food of the Near Eastern diet from a very early date (1985. 25–27); he also argues that the Greek κάρδαμον is derived from the Assyrian kuddimmu (1985. 29–30). See also Sancisi–Weerdenburg 1995. 2 πράσων Although πράσον, “leek,” occurs no earlier than Ar. Ra. 621, πρασιά, “garden–plot,” is found as early as Od. 7.127, and must originally have meant “bed of leeks.” Elsewhere in comedy Eubulus contrasts a girl daintily eating bites of leeks with other women who stuff their mouths with them (fr. 41), and

Θησεύς (fr. 19)

79

Alexis portrays a male sex worker who avoided leeks to keep his breath fresh (244); leeks also appear in comic food catalogues (Alex. fr. 132.8, Anaxandr. fr. 42.57). Athenaeus discusses a selection of terms for different varieties (8.371e–372b), including κεφαλωτόν, καρτόν, and ἀμβελόπρασο; if he is correct to include γήθυον and γηθυλλίς as terms for leek, then Epicharmus (fr. 132), Phrynichus (fr. 12), and Eubulus (fr. 88) also mention them. Leeks were evidently eaten frequently as a vegetable and flavoring in a variety of dishes. See Stol 1985, Arnott 1996. 390, Dalby 2003. 193–4. ἀβυρτάκη A relish compounded of dry, pungent ingredients, listed by some as “leeks, cress, and pomegranate seeds,” by others as “cress, garlic, mustard, and stavesacre” (see the citations quoted above); Antiphanes fr. 140 has it made from χλοή, fresh greens, and Polyaenus from pickled capers (4.3.32). It appears several times in comic food catalogues, often alongside the similar καρύκη (Pherecr. fr. 195, Antiph. fr. 140, Alex. fr. 145.13; cf. Luc. Lex. 6.6); Plutarch cites it as an example of decadent ποικιλία in cooking (QConv. 664a5, also mentioning καρύκη). See Dalby 2003. 293. fr. 19 K.–A. (18 K.) [Plut.] Vit. X Orat. 839e–f Ἰσαῖος Χαλκιδεὺς μὲν ἦν τὸ γένος… μνημονεύει δ’ αὐτοῦ Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν τῷ Θησεῖ. Isaeus was Chalcidian by birth… and Theopompus the comic poet mentions him Theseus.

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.240, II.799; Bothe 1855. 306; Edmonds 1957 I.854–5; Storey 2011. 328–9; Rusten 2011. 370; Roisman and Worthington 2015. 174 Citation Context This is the concluding statement of the brief life of Isaeus in the Lives of the Ten Orators falsely attributed to Plutarch. This work was composed sometime between the first century BCE and the early fourth century CE, and is largely derived from Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Caecilius (see Worthington and Roisman 2015. 10–12). This mention of Theopompus’ Theseus does not occur in earlier lives of Isaeus, however, and is probably derived from a catalogue of komoidoumenoi. Interpretation The earliest dateable speech of the orator Isaeus (PAA 539730) belongs to 390 or 389 BCE, and Theseus can thus probably be dated post–390 BCE. Known especially for his speeches on inheritance cases, Isaeus, either from Chalcis in Euboea or from Athens, was a student of Isocrates (and possibly Lysias), and teacher of Demosthenes. He is not mentioned elsewhere in comedy, and this is the only reference to a forensic orator in the fragments of Theopompus. This mention of Isaeus indicates that there was either a disruption in the mythological setting of the play, or that the play had a contemporary setting.

80

Theopompus

fr. 20 K.–A. (19 K.) Ath. 3.82c φαυλίων δὲ μήλων μνημονεύει Τηλεκλείδης (fr. 4)… καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν Θησεῖ. Teleclides (fr. 4) mentions phaulian apples… and so does Theopompus in Theseus.

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.799; Bothe 1855. 306; Edmonds 1957 I.854–5; Storey 2011. 329; Bagordo 2013. 87–92 Citation Context Athenaeus cites this fragment in the course of a discussion of μῆλα (3.80e–82e), a term encompassing a variety of tree fruits but which most often refers to apples. He cites Teleclides fr. 4, which features a pun on φαύλιος and φαύλος (bad or foolish), and then adds that Theopompus also mentions such apples. Interpretation The meaning of φαύλιος applied to apples is unclear. When used to describe olives it indicates the inedible wild olive (Thphr. HP 2.2.12), but Athenaeus twice cites a certain Glaucides to the effect that the three best kinds of apples are κυδώνια (quinces), φαύλια, and στρούθια (3.81a, d); he then cites Androtion On Agriculture (3.82c = FGrH 324 F 77) to distinguish the latter two on the grounds that στρούθια μῆλα do not fall off the stem. Hesychius defines them as “large apples” (φ 242), but this is probably just a guess; at any rate Athenaeus’ repeated assertion that φαύλια μῆλα are good to eat suggests that that LSJ’s “coarse” is probably incorrect when the term describes apples rather than olives. The term μῆλα can indicate, in addition to apples or quinces, citrons (Ar. V. 1056) and apricots or peaches (Ar. Nu. 978). They are mentioned in several comic food catalogues (e. g. Ephipp. fr. 13.5, Anaxandr. fr. 42.54). See Olson and Sens 2000. 234.

fr. 21 K.–A. (20 K.) Antiatt. a 134 αὐτόκακος· οἷον ἑαυτὸν κολάζων. Θεόπομπος Θησεῖ. autokakos: for example, a man punishing himself. Theopompus in Theseus.

Discussion Bergk 1838. 409; Meineke 1839 II.799; Bothe 1855. 306; Edmonds 1957 I.854–5; Storey 2011. 329 Citation Context The Ἀντιαττικιστής is an anonymous lexicon composed probably during or shortly before the work of Phrynichus the Atticist, that is in or before the 2nd century CE; it survives in an epitome (see Dickey 2007. 97–8). The label “Antiatticist” refers to the lexicon’s tendancy to argue against stricter Atticists that

Θησεύς (fr. 21)

81

any word attested in an Attic author is permissible in Atticizing Greek; the citation to Theopompus here may have originally been part of such an argument, but it is too abbreviated in the epitome for us to say anything further about its context. Interpretation In Classical Greek αὐτόκακος appears only here and in the dubious and obscure fragment com. adesp. 559 (αὐτόκακον ἔοικε τῷδε, which Phryn. Att. explains as meaning “it resembled it excessively,” arguing that the element –κακον is simply emphatic, like the adverb δεινῶς). If the Antiatticist’s definition here is correct, the term would resemble the titular description of Menander’s Ἑαυτὸν Τιμωρούμενος, “The Self–Tormentor”; in later Christian and Neoplatonic texts it comes to mean “inherently, absolutely evil” (e. g. Plot. 1.8.8, Isaac Comnenus De Malorum Substentia 4.4, Eust. De Emendanda Vita Monachica 187). The prefix αὐτο– is extremely productive in all periods, e. g.: αὐτόβουλος, “self–willing” (A. Th. 1053); αὐτογνωμονέω, “act of one’s own judgment” (X. HG 7.3.6); αὐτόδηλος, “self–evident” (A. Th. 848); αὐτοκασίγνητος / –γνήτη, “own brother / sister” (Il. 2.706 / Od. 10.137); αὐτοκέλευστος, “self–bidden” (X. An. 3.4.5); αὐτόπρεμνος, “roots and all” (A. Eu. 401); αὐτόφονος, “suicidal” (Opp. C. 2.480). Theopompus’ αὐτόκακος could thus have a range of meanings, not only “bad towards oneself ” but “completely bad,” “bad to one’s own,” “bad of one’s own accord,” etc. See Chantraine 1970. 144.

82

Κάλλαισχρος (Kallaischros) (“Callaeschrus”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.240–1, II.799–800; Bothe 1855. 306–7; Edmonds 1957 I.856–57; Storey 2011. 328–9; Rusten 2011. 370 Title Κάλλαισχρος was also the title of a comedy by Ophelio, of which the only fragment is a description of shrimp lying on the ground. The name was common at Athens: PAA cites roughly forty separate individuals with the name (552170–552370). If the title refers to a historical individual, there are several prominent candidates. Most particularly, there was the Callaeschrus who was a member of the oligarchic “Four Hundred” in 411 BCE (PA 7758; PAA 552220,), who may be identical with the father of Critias (PAA 585315), the author and member of the Thirty Tyrants; this Callaeschrus would also, therefore, be related to Plato (see Pl. Chrm. 153c, 157e, Prt. 316a, DL 3.1, Plu. Alc. 33.1). A Callaeschrus held the office of tamias in 412/11 (PA 7760; PAA 552275,); this person may or may not be identical with the member of the Four Hundred or the father of Critias. Several men of the name are mentioned in literary sources who may or may not be identical with any of the above: Pherecrates describes a Callaeschrus “sitting in the Theseion” (fr. 46); Lysias wrote a speech For Callaeschrus (PA 7755; PAA 552195; Lys. fr. 66 = Poll. 10.105); and in the mid–fourth century, Demosthenes also mentions a wealthy Callaeschrus (PA 7754; PAA 552190; D. 21.157). For all of these individuals see Davies 1971. 326–9; Nails 2002. 106–11, 334. The title may have been chosen, however, as a speaking name, like Lysistrata, Dicaeopolis, Strepsiades, Trygaeus, and perhaps Theopompus’ own Hēdychares, Pamphile. The oxymoronic name would presumably indicate a character who partook of both τὸ καλόν, the beautiful or noble, and τὸ αἰσχρόν, the ugly or shameful: Bothe imagines a character “elegantly vile”; Edmonds calls the play Fair Gone Foul; Kock proposes “physically beautiful but mentally corrupt”; Storey suggests a character “who is both kalos (attractive) and aischros (disgusting)”; Olson renders it Handsome Yet Ugly (2006–2012. 575 n.172). For such names, see Kanavou 2011. Content If the title indicates a historical person, the content of the play may have resembled demagogue comedies like Plato Comicus’ Cleophon, Hyperbolus, Peisander, and Archippus Rhinon; although there is no basis for Edmonds’ suggestion that the name was a nickname for Alcibiades, it could also be the comic version of a historical person, like the Paphlagon in Eq. and Marikas / Hyperbolus in Eupolis’ Marikas. On demagogue plays see Sommerstein 2000, Storey 2003. 342–4, Henderson 2003. The fragments themselves, however, do not enable us to determine whether the titular character was a historical individual or a comic invention: fr. 22 describes a place where fees for sex workers’ services are expensive; frr. 23 and 24 refer to eating, the latter possibly in a luxurious context.

83

Κάλλαισχρος (fr. 22)

Date If the titular Callaeschrus is the member of the four hundred or the father of Critias, we would expect this play to have been performed early in Theopompus’ career, sometime in the last decade of the fifth century. Others by that name, or a fictional Callaeschrus, would permit a date anywhere within Theopompus’ career.

fr. 22 K.–A. (21 K.) οὗ φησιν εἶναι τῶν ἑταίρων τὰς μέσας στατηριαίας 1 οὗ Salmasius: οὔ F στατηρίδας F

ἑταιρῶν Casaubon: ἑτέρων F

2 στατηριαίας Salmasius:

where he/she says the middling hetairai who cost a stater are Poll. 9.59 (codd. F, ABCL) τὰ δὲ στατῆρος ἄξια στατηριαῖα φαίης ἄν, ὡς Θεόπομπος (deficiunt ABCL) ἐν Καλλαίσχρῳ· —— You could call things worth a stater stateriaia, as Theopompus [does] in Callaeschrus: · ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl l|lkl llkl klkl l|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion Casaubon 1621. 530.58; Salmasius 1639. 259; Meineke 1839 II.799– 800; Bothe 1855. 307; Edmonds 1957 I.856–7; Storey 2011. 328–9 Citation Context At 9.51 Pollux takes up the topic of coinage, and at 9.57 he reaches the stater; as examples of references to this coin he cites Ar. Pl. 817, Eupolis frr. 123, 270, Anaxandr. fr. 5, and finally this fragment, before moving on to the drachma. He cites Theopompus here to demonstrate the adjective στατηριαῖος, “worth a stater.” Text The mss. of Pollux all mention Theopompus, but only F preserves the quotation of the fragment itself. It transmits: οὔ φησιν εἶναι τῶν ἑτέρων τὰς μέσας στατηρίδας which would mean something like “he/she denies that the middle women are staterides of the others.” The word στατηρίς, which also appears in the mss. of Pollux’s introduction to this fragment, is not otherwise attested, and his subsequent explanation of the term δραχμιαῖος as meaning “worth a drachma” (citing Ar. fr. 438) allowed Salmasius to correct both instances to the parallel form of στατη-

84

Theopompus

ριαῖος, which is also attested in a contemporary Attic inscription (IG II2 1184.14, see below). Better attested that στατηριαῖος or δραχμιαῖος is the parallel form ταλαντιαῖος: see e. g. Crates fr. 36, Dem. 27.64, Arist. Oec. 1350a, etc. The substitution of ε for αι becomes an easy mistake in later Greek, as they are pronounced identically; ἑτέρων does not scan, and since the fragment describes women who are for sale ἑταίρων is obviously correct.29 Medieval manuscripts have essentially no authority in the matter of diacriticals: once these other restorations are made, the sense of this fragment clearly requires οὗ φησιν (“where he/she says”) for the ms. οὔ φησιν (“he/she denies”); Interpretation The speaker reports a description of a location where the services of hetairai of middling status cost a stater. The speaking character attributes this knowledge to a third party whose identity was presumably made clear before the relative clause of this fragment; the speaker has evidently not been to the location being described. Epicr. fr. 3 (a description of the famous hetaira Lais in old age, who once charged by the stater but now accepts triobols) and Antiph. fr. 293 (a triobol is the cure for a pornē) suggest that, in comedy at least, a triobol was the standard sex worker’s fee, making a stater an exorbitant rate for a hetaira of the middle rank; for sex workers’ standard fees see Davidson 1997. 194–200, Cohen 2015. 162–71. Attic comedy often portrays Corinth as a site for famous and/or expensive sex work (Ar. Pl. 149, Strattis fr. 27, Anaxandr. fr. 9, Eriph. fr. 6, Eub. fr. 53, Alex. fr. 255 [with Ath. 8.574b], Pl. R. 404d, Strabo 8.6.20);30 see Salmon 1984. 398–400, Sommerstein 2001. 143. A number of other locations, however, are also subjected to jokes about their sex workers (e. g. Callias fr. 28, where sex workers from Megara are called “Megarean sphinxes”; Eup. fr. 247, where the citizens of Cyzicus are so desperate they will sell their services not for a stater but for for a kollubos, a very small bronze coin). 1 ἑταίρων Comedy sometimes draws a distinction between the higher–status hetaira and the low–status pornē: the hetaira engages is long–term relationships (Ar. Pax 440, Th. 346, Alex. fr. 281, Amph. fr. 1, Anaxil. frr. 21, 22, Antiph. frr. 2, 210), accepts gifts or favors rather than payments (Ar. Th. 346, Anaxil. fr. 21), has some agency in her choice of clients (Ar. Th. 346, Pl. 149, Aristophon fr. 4, Eub. fr. 122); characters praise good hetairai (Alex. fr. 255, Amph. fr. 1, Antiph. frr. 101, 210, Philet. fr. 5), and young men fall in love with them (Alex. fr. 281, Antiph. fr. 210); Menander’s Sikyonioi and Dyskolos, among many other examples in New Comedy, give a sense of this positive portrayal. At other times, however,

29 30

Cf. the identical mistake at Ar. Lys. 1153, where the mss. give ἑτέρους for the needed ἑταίρους, a reading confirmed by the Suda. Cf. κορινθιάζομαι (Ar. fr. 370), which the lexicographers define as meaning “to be a sex worker” or “to be a pimp,” and Κορινθιαστής, “pimp,” the title of comedies by Philetaerus and Poliochus.

Κάλλαισχρος (fr. 22)

85

the comic poets depict hetairai as every bit as mercenary as pornai (Ar. Pl. 149, Alex. fr. 103, Aristophon fr. 4), or deliberately conflate the two categories (Ar. Pl. 149–55, Anaxil. fr. 22, Diph. fr. 42). For comic references to sex work generally, see Olson 2007. 339–51, Cohen 2015. 15–18. Most scholars of ancient sex work today conclude that the distinction between the hetaira and the pornē is a rhetorical one dependent on the views of the speaker, rather than a legal or cultural reality: see Kurke 1997; Davidson 1997. 73–136; Cohen 2015. 31–38. For more on the importance of the hetaira in Theopompus’ comedies, see below, on Pamphile. τὰς μέσας Used to describe people, the adjective μέσος indicates those of the middle rank (e. g. Hdt. 1.107: μέσου ἀνδρὸς Μήδου, “a Mede of the middle rank”; Thuc. 6.54: Ἀριστογείτων… μέσος πολίτης, “Aristogeiton, a citizen of the middle rank”), the middle class (e. g. Arist. Pol. 1289b: ἔπειτα πάλιν τούτου τοῦ πλήθους τοὺς μὲν εὐπόρους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοὺς δ’ ἀπόρους τοὺς δὲ μέσους, “and again of this population it is necessary that there be wealthy men, poor men, and those in the middle”), or those who are mediocre (e. g. Pl. Prot. 346d: μοι ἐξαρκεῖ ἂν ᾖ μέσος καὶ μηδὲν κακὸν ποιῇ, “it is enough for me if a man is mediocre [in virtue] and does nothing evil”). 2 στατηριαίας The stater was originally an eastern coin, distinct from the Athenian system of obols and drachmas (see Kraay 1976. 317), but characters in comedy often refer to staters without depicting them as foreign (Ar. Nu. 1041, Pl. 816, Eup. frr. 123, 270). The only attestation of the adjective στατηριαίος outside Pollux occurs in an inscription from the Attic deme Cholargos, dated to 334/3, listing materials to be provided for the celebration of the Thesmophoria (IG II2 1184.13–17): τυροῦ δύο τροφαλίδας μὴ ἔλαττον ἢ στατηρια[ί]αν ἑκατέραν καὶ σκόρδων δύο στατῆρας καὶ δᾶιδ– [α] μὴ ἐλάττονος ἢ δυεῖν ὀβολοῖν καὶ ἀργυρίου δραχμάς two pieces of fresh cheese neither less than a stater, and two staters of garlic, and a torch worth no less than two obols and four drachmai of silver See Schwenk 1985. 136–40; though there is some dispute as to whether στατηριαῖος here refers to value or weight, in Theopompus and Pollux the reference must obviously be to value. Staters were also minted at Corinth in this period, possibly featuring an image of Aphrodite: see Smith 2005.

86

Theopompus

fr. 23 K.–A. (22 K.) ἠρίσταμεν· δεῖ γὰρ συνάπτειν τὸν λόγον we’ve had lunch; since it is necessary to abridge the story Ath. 10.422f–423a

καὶ ἠρίσταμεν δ᾽ εἴρηκεν Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Ταγηνισταῖς (fr. 513)… Θεόπομπος Καλλαίσχρῳ· —— Aristophanes also has said ēristamen in Tagēnistai (fr. 513)… Theopompus in Callaeschrus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.799; Bothe 1855. 307; Edmonds 1957 I.856–7; Szemerényi 1964. 25–27; Storey 2011. 328–9; Rusten 2011. 370 Citation Context At 422e Ulpian begins to remark that since they have finished eating, they should turn to drinking; he interrupts his statement, however, with a long digression inspired by the syncopated perfect form he has chosen to use (δεδείπναμεν), justifying the form with a variety of examples and then citing parallel forms of similar verbs, including this syncopated perfect of ἀριστάω, “eat lunch.” At 423b he finally concludes his opening statement “since we have eaten dinner” by adding “let us pray to the gods and mix some wine.” As examples of the perfect of ἀριστάω he cites (in addition to this fragment) Ar. fr. 513 and Hermippus fr. 60, which is corrupt but seems to have contained the syncopated perfect infinitive ἠριστάναι. Interpretation The meaning of the first word of this fragment is clear: a character or member of the chorus states that he or she, as part of some group, has eaten the midday meal called τὸ ἄριστον. The meaning of the remainder of the line is, however, less certain. The phrase συνάπτειν τὸν λόγον is translated by LSJ (συνάπτω I.2) as “abridge” and by Olson (2006–2012. V.15) as “keep the story short”; the phrase does not occur with this meaning elsewhere, however. Ordinarily it is accompanied by another noun in the dative or a prepositional phrase and means “connect the story/argument to something else”: e. g. Pl. Leg. 10.900b, συνάψαντες τὸν ἑξῆς λόγον ᾧ πρὸς τὸν τὸ παράπαν οὐχ ἡγούμενον θεοὺς, “connecting the following argument to the one [we made before] to the man who doesn’t believe in gods at all”; D. 60.12, ὡς τάχιστα συνάψαι τὸν λόγον πρὸς τὰ τοῖσδε πεπραγμένα, “to connect my story as quickly as possible to the deeds of these men.” If the phrase does mean “abridge the story,” then γάρ should indicate that “we have had lunch” is the abridgement of a longer account.

Κάλλαισχρος (fr. 24)

87

ἠρίσταμεν is a syncopated alternative to the expected perfect form ἠριστήκαμεν. As Szemerényi points out, ἠριστήκαμεν would fit only into the middle of an iambic trimeter, whereas ἠρίσταμεν fits either at the beginning (as here) or end (Ar. fr. 513) of the line; he argues that the syncopated perfects of ἀριστάω (as well as of δειπνέω), which do not occur outside comedy, are therefore comic coinages, modeled on the pattern ἕστηκα, ἕσταμεν, ἑστάναι. The verb ἀριστάω occurs first in Anacreon (fr. 28) but is otherwise confined to comedy (Canth. fr. 10, Eup. frr. 2, 114, 269, Pherecr. fr. 127, Ar. fr. 513, Eq. 815, Nu. 416, V. 436, Av. 788, Ra. 377, Ec. 470, Arar. fr. 11, Antiph. fr. 216, Drom. fr. 2, Alex. fr. 123, Diph. fr. 45, Men. Dysc. 778–9) and prose (e. g. X. HG 6.2, Mem. 2.7, Lys. 3.11, Hipp. VM 10.5–19, D. 54.3.6, Ar. Pr. 872b). The meal called ἄριστον is eaten in the morning in Homer (e. g. Il. 24.124, Od. 16.2) and tragedy (A. Ag. 331), but in the classical period ordinarily at midday (e. g. Hdt. 3.26, Thuc. 4.90); see Olson 1998. 308, Dalby 2003. 211–12. The word is derived from ἦρι, “in the morning,” and ἐσθίω, “eat”: Chantraine 1970. 1.109. συνάπτειν first appears in Pindar (P. 4.247) and occurs frequently in poetry (e. g. A. Pers. 336, Ag. 1609, S. Aj. 1317, Eur. Alc. 502, Med. 1232, Ar. Ach. 686, Strattis fr. 39, etc.) and prose (e. g. Hdt. 1.18, Thuc. 2.29, Isoc. 15.66, X. HG 3.4.23, etc.) thereafter. In addition to the possibilities discussed above, Edmonds and Storey understand the verb hear to mean “begin conversation.” Although certain expressions involving συνάπτειν and λόγος do mean “enter into conversation” (e. g. S. El. 21, ξυνάπτετον λόγοισιν, “enter into conversation you two”; Eur. Ph. 702, ἐς λόγους συνῆψα Πολυνείκει, “I entered into conversation with Polyneices”; Ar. Lys. 486, τί τοῖσδε σαυτὸν εἰς λόγον τοῖς θηρίοις συνάπτεις, “Why do you enter into conversation with these beastly men?”), we do not possess an example of such a phrase with accusative λόγον or λόγους, and so Edmonds’ “let’s have our talk” and Storey’s “we must begin the discussion” are probably not correct.

fr. 24 K.–A. (22 K.) ἰχθύων δὲ δὴ ὑπογάστρι’, ὦ Δάματερ 2 ὑπογάστρι᾽, ὦ Schweighäuser: ὑπογαστρίῳ A (9.399d): ὑπογάστριον ὦ ACE (7.203e): ὑπογάστρια CE (9.399d)

bellies, Demeter

indeed fishes’

Ath. 7.302e ὅταν δἐ καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν Καλλαίσχρῳ λέγῃ· ——, παρατηρητέον ὅτι ἐπὶ ἰχθύων μὲν ὑπογάστριον λέγουσι, σπανίως δ᾽ ἐπὶ χοίρων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων.

88

Theopompus

When Theopompus as well says in Callaeschrus: ——, it should be observed that they say hypogastrion regarding fish, but rarely of pigs and other animals. Ath. 9.399c–d ὑπογάστριον δὲ μόνον ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ἰχθύων λέγεται. Στράττις Ἀταλάντῃ· (fr. 5.1). Θεόπομπος Καλλαίσχρῳ· —— hypogastrion is only said regarding fish. Strattis in Atalanta: (fr. 5.1). Theopompus in Callaeschrus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xlk〉l klkl kklkl llk〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–7. 477; Meineke 1839 II.799; Bothe 1855. 306; Edmonds 1957 I.856–7; Storey 2011. 328–9; Rusten 2011. 370 Citation Context Athenaeus cites this fragment twice. In book 7, he begins a discussion of tuna (θύννος) at 301e; at 302d, he mentions that tuna bellies are considered a delicacy, and cites a series of comic fragments to prove it: Eub. fr. 36.1–2, Ar. fr. 380.2–3, Strattis frr. 5 and 32, and Eriph. fr. 3. Finally, he cites this fragment to demonstrate that the term ὑπογάστριον, belly, is used of fish generally, but rarely of other animals, before moving on at 303a to other edible parts of the tuna. At 9.399c–d, Athenaeus gives a brief discussion of the udder, οὖθαρ, and again cites our fragment to show that while οὖθαρ is the term for land animals, ὑπογάστριον is the term for fishes; he then cites fr. 52 to provide another example of a term Theopompus uses for fish bellies (ὑπήτρια), on which see below. Given that he also cites Strattis fr. 5 in both passages, it seems likely he is drawing on the same source for both. Text The mss of Ath. give ὑπογάστριον ὦ at 7.203e and ὑπογαστρίῳ οr ὑπογάστρια at 9.322d, but Schweighäuser realized the vocative particle ὦ had been mistaken for a dative ending by scribes who missed the elision at the end of ὑπογάστρι᾽. There are objections to each of the alternative readings. The singular forms of ὑπογάστριον are difficult with the plural ἰχθύων; the plural, ὑπογάστρια, is needed. The form ὑπογάστρια could stand on its own, but it is difficult to see how the erroneous readings ὑπογαστρίῳ and ὑπογάστριον ὦ could have arisen without the presence of the the vocative particle ὦ in the original text. It seems most likely therefore that at some point a scribe wrote ὑπογαστρίῳ for ὑπογάστρι᾽ ὦ, and that this error was preserved in A at 9.399d, but corrected elsewhere, with the restoration of the vocative particle but the incorrect singular ὑπογάστριον in all the mss of 7.203e, and with the correct plural but without the vocative particle at 9.399d in the Epitome.

Κάλλαισχρος (fr. 24)

89

Interpretation A character exclaims over a delicacy and emphasizes the exclamation with an apostrophe to Demeter. The Doric form of the goddess’ name could indicate that the character is a Peloponnesian or South Italian, but Athenians also occasionally use this form. The emphatic δή and the address to Demeter suggest that this is an exceptional item, or perhaps a climactic item in a longer feast description. 1 ἰχθύων This generic term for “fish” occurs from Homer onwards in all genres (e. g. Il. 16.407, Ibyc. fr. 40, A. Pers. 1382, S. Aj. 1297, Eur. Cyc. 265, Hdt. 1.141, Archipp. fr. 1, Eup. fr. 160, Ar. Eq. 816, X. HG 4.1.16, Pl. Phaed. 109e, etc.); Ἰχθύες was also the title of a comedy by Archippus. For other references to seafood in Theopompus, see frr. 6, 14, 52, 63. Fish was both a staple of the Greek diet and a highly sought–after, even, in some cases, luxurious food: see Thompson 1947, Purcell 1995, Sparkes 1995, Davidson 1997, passim, esp. 3–20, Garnsey 1999. 116–18, Olson and Sens 2000, l–liii and passim, Dalby 2003. 144–7, Wilkins and Hill 2006. 154–163. Fishes and fish–eating are ubiquitous in comedy; the eating of large quantities of expensive fish, in particular, is a common comic trope for suggesting corruption and gluttony (Ar. Eq. 353–4, V. 493–5, Antiph. fr. 188). Much of our fragmentary evidence for comedy’s fixation on fish comes from the extensive catalogue of quotations that makes up Athenaeus’ discussion of fishes in Book 7. 2 ὑπογάστρι The belly or underbelly, ὑπογάστριον, is (as Athenaeus states alongside this fragment) used almost exclusively of fish (Archest. fr. 23.2, 34.4), and among fish, mostly of tuna (Ar. fr. 380, Strattis frr. 5, 32, Eriph. fr. 3, Eub. fr. 36); this cut is always portrayed as a delicacy. It can also be used of humans (Arist. HA 10.635a, Hipp. Epid. 7.1.55; cf. Ar. V. 195, a joke which probably depends on the primary association of the term with fish), and Aristotle uses it of the chamaeleon (HA 2.503a, comparing it to a fish). See Thompson 1947. 88, Olson and Sens 2000, Dalby 2003. 335–37, Orth 2009. 72. Δάματερ is the Doric form of the Attic vocative Δήμητερ. In Ar. Pl. two different Athenian characters use this Doric form in exclamations of surprise: Chremylus at 555, reacting to Poverty’s insistence that the poor live a good life; and Carion at 872, reacting to the Sycophant’s claim that they’ve stolen his property. Later sources claim that Attic speakers use Δήμητερ when genuinely addressing the goddess, and Δάματερ for expressions of surprise, but this may extrapolated purely from these comic instances (Phot. δ 38, Et. Gud. δ 352; cf. Σ Ar. Pl. 555); even within Wealth, we see Chremylus swear μὰ τὴν Δήμητρα (64) but later exclaim ὦ Δάματερ (555). Elsewhere in comedy, however, characters are made to swear oaths peculiar to their places of origin (Ar. Ach. 774, V. 1438, Pax 214, Lys. 81, Epicr. frr. 8, 10), and it is possible that this character is using a Doric form because he or she is from a Doric speaking region. See Olson 2007. 238–9, 346, Sommerstein and Torrance 2014. 320. Exclamations involving Demeter, especially oaths, are very frequent in comedy of all periods (e. g. Pherecr. 9, Ar. Ach. 708, Philippid. fr. 5, Men. Dysc. 570, etc.),

90

Theopompus

and can be delivered by male (Ar. Eq. 833, Lys. 271, Men. Dysc. 666) or female characters (Antiph. fr. 26; cf. Ar. Th. 286, Kedestes disguised as a woman), whether enslaved (Ar. Eq. 435, Pl. 872, Antiph. fr. 26) or free (Ar. Eq. 1021, Men. Dysc. 570); the choice of this particular goddess does not therefore guarantee any particular information about this character.

91

Καπηλίδες (Kapēlides) (“Women Shopkeepers”)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 407–8; Meineke 1839 II.800–2; Bothe 1855. 307–8; Edmonds 1957 I.856–9; Storey 2011. 330–1; Rusten 2011. 370–1 Title Καπηλίς is the feminine form of κάπηλος; both terms can refer broadly to retail merchants (Hdt. 1.94, Ar. Pax 447, 1209, Pl. 1120, Archipp. fr. 23, X. Cyr. 4.5.42, Pl. Pol. 260c8) or specifically to bartenders or tavern–keepers (Ar. Lys. 466, Th. 347, 737, Pl. 435, Nicostr. fr. 22, Luc. Herm. 59). For such figures, see Ηenderson 1987b, 121–6; Brock 1994. 341; Davidson 1997. 53–61 (53: “in comedy and oratory, when [καπηλίς] is used without qualification, the latter sense [tavern–keeper] can almost always be assumed”); Austin and Olson 2004. 165–6. The feminine καπηλίς is relatively rare; outside Theopompus it occurs in classical Greek only in Aristophanes (Th. 347, Pl. 435, 1120) and Aeschines Socraticus (SSR IV A 45). Here it should identify the chorus, as in Παῖδες, Σειρῆνες, Στρατιώτιδες. Many comic titles specify the profession of their chorus (Crat. Βουκόλοι; Hermipp. Φορμοφόροι; Pherecr. Μεταλλῆς; Phryn. Τραγῳδοί; Plat. Com. Σοφισταί and perhaps Ποιηταί), sometimes in specifically feminine versions (Crat. Θρᾷτται, if it means “Thracian Slave–Women”; Hermipp. Ἀρτοπώλιδες; Phryn. Ποάστριαι). The grammarian Herodian (1.91) claims that the word was accented κάπηλις, and Kassel and Austin follow this accentuation in printing the title as Καπήλιδες. Elsewhere, however, the word seems always to have been written καπηλίς, and I print the title with this accentuation accordingly. Content A chorus of shopkeepers or bartenders suggests an urban setting. In Aristophanes, market women are often abrasive (though both the baker in Ar. V. 1388–1416 and the innkeeper in Ra. 549–78 have good reasons for their behavior; see Biles and Olson 2015. 93, with further bibliography on such characters), and tavern keepers in particular are repeatedly accused of trying to cheat their customers (Ar. Th. 347–50, Pl. 435–6). The presence of such a chorus at this play’s relatively early date prefigures the prominent role of fishmongers, chefs, and other marketplace professionals in fourth–century comedy (on which see Nesselrath 1990. 297–309; Wilkins 2000, esp. 156–201; Olson 2007. 271–86, 362–4; Wright 2013, 608); Theopompus’ interest in such characters is also suggested by his repeated references to the perfume–maker Peron (frr. 1, 17). Fr. 27 suggests the sort of commercial interaction that would accord with the activities of a chorus of bartenders or shopkeepers. The remaining fragments, however, provide no evidence for the comedy’s plot: fr. 25 gives an instance of ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν; fr. 26 describes expensive weaponry; frr. 28 and 29 both refer to cult figures, Attis and Hestia respectively, though “Attis” here may simply be the name of a character or a euphemism for “lover,” and “sacrificing to Hestia” may only describe a person acting selfishly.

92

Theopompus

Date Because of the reference to Leotrophides in fr. 25 (mentioned also in Ar. Av., 414 BCE, and Herm. Cercopes, 410s BCE, and possibly identical with the general Leotrophides of 409 BCE), Geissler (1969. 67) dates the play to the beginning years of Theopompus’ career, 410–400 BCE; cf. Schmid and Stählin 1929. 1.4.163 n.1.

fr. 25 K.–A. (24 K.) Λεωτροφίδης ὁ τρίμετρος ὡς †λεόντινος† εὔχρως †τε φάναι† καὶ χαρίεις ὥσπερ νεκρός 1 τρίμετρος RVE: τρίμερος Γ: τρίπεδος Hermann: τρίνεκρος Kaibel: τρίμνεως Kock (del. ὡς): κρουσίμετρος Herwerden (om. ὡς) ὡς λέοντινος V: ὡς λεοντῖνος EΓ: om. R: ὡς Λεόντιος Bergk: ὡς Λεοντίῳ Hermann: ὃς Λεοντίῳ Emperius: Λεοντίῳ Herwerden: ὡς Λεόντιχος Fritzsche 2 τε φάναι V: τε φᾶναι EΓ: πεφάνθαι Meineke: πέφανται Herwerden: πέφηνε Emperius: φανεῖται Edmonds: τις ἐφάνη Bothe: τ᾽ ἂν ἐφάνη Kaibel

Leotrophides the three–measure as †leontinos† (appeared?) good–complexioned and graceful like a corpse Σ (RVEΓ) Ar. Av. 1406 Λεωτροφίδῃ χορὸν· ἐπειδὴ καὶ οὕτος τῶν σφόδρα λεπτῶν. ἢ καὶ οὕτος διθραμβοποιὸς κοῦφος... τινές, ὅτι κοῦφος καὶ χλωρὸς ἦν, ὡς ἐοικέναι ὄρνιθι. Θεόπομπος δὲ ἐν ταῖς Καπηλίσι· —— A chorus for Leotrophides: since he too is one of the especially skinny. Or he is also a light dithyrambist... Some (say) that he was light and pale, so that he resembled a bird. And Theopompus (says) in Kapēlides: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

klrl krk|l †klkl† ll†kk l†lkkl llkl

Discussion Bergk 1838. 407–8; Meineke 1839 II.800; Emperius 1847. 310; Bothe 1855. 307; Herwerden 1857. 35–6; Hermann apud Meineke 1839 V.54; Fritzsche apud Toeppel 1857. 20; Edmonds 1957 I.856–7; Storey 2011. 330–1; Rusten 2011. 371 Citation Context At Ar. Av. 1405–7, Peisthetairos dismisses the dithyrambic poet Kinesias, who has come begging for enrollment in the birds’ new city and offering his poetic services, by offering to let him “train a chorus for Leotrophides.” The scholia understand the association between Kinesias and Leotrophides as predicated on their thinness; the scholiasts cite this fragment, alongside Herm. fr. 36, as evidence for Leotrophides’ thinness. At 12.551a–552f, Athenaeus provides a catalogue of comic fragments mocking men for their thinness, including Herm.

Καπηλίδες (fr. 25)

93

fr. 36 and several jokes about Kinesias; both he and the scholiasts may thus be drawing on the same source (not cited by either), or the scholiasts could be making use of an entry on Leotrophides in a catalogue of komoidoumenoi. Text The compounding effect of the series of corruptions in this fragment makes it difficult to restore a text with any certainty. The word τρίμετρος scans correctly, but there is no parallel for its use to describe a person; elsewhere it is used almost exclusively to indicate metrical trimeters (as τὸ τρίμετρον: Hdt. 1.12, Ar. Nu. 642, Pl. Leg. 7.810e, etc.), or as a measure of liquid volume (IG 14.422, SEG 4.49). The word is very frequent in the Aristophanic scholia, however, and may have intruded from elsewhere in the Birds scholia or in the original source being excerpted here, displacing one of the similar adjectives suggested above. MS V’s λεόντινος is not an attested word (except possibly as a variant reading λεόντινον for λεοντηδόν at 2 Ma. 11.11); although ΕΓ give Λεοντῖνος, a proper name and the adjective for citizens of Leontinoi, it does not scan. The dative of Leontios (Λεοντίῳ) does scan and fits grammaticaly if we restore some form of φαίνω in the next line; Plato describes a Leontios who desired to see corpses (see below), so the name may also make sense here. The word could, however, be entirely erroneous, perhaps some term related to lions being introduced under the influence of the name Leotrophides, which occurs repeatedly in the scholium; one or the other of the scholiasts’ versions of the word would then be intended as a correction on whichever came before, either correcting the unattested λεόντινος to the attested Λεοντῖνος, οr correcting Λεοντῖνος to the metrical but otherwise dubious λεόντινος. V’s φάναι (from φημί) does not scan; EΓ give φᾶναι, which does, but this infinitive would still require that either Leotrophides was already the subject of whatever verb φᾶναι complements (e. g. “Leotrophides thought that he seemed…”), or that Λεωτροφίδης be changed to an accusative. Instead, various finite forms of φαίνω have been proposed: Emperius’ πέφηνε, “has seemed,” Edmonds’ φανεῖται (“seems”), or Kaibel’s ἂν ἐφάνη (“would have seemed”) produce especially good sense, particularly if a name in the dative lies behind λεόντιος in line one. Interpretation Despite the fragment’s corruption, one aspect of the joke here remains clear: Leotrophides is described as handsome, but at the end of the couplet it is revealed that, para prosdokian, he is as handsome as a corpse. If the word leontinos conceals some form of the name Leontios, the joke would be as much on him as on Leotrophides: Plato tells a story of Leontios’ inability to tear himself away from the opportunity to view a corpse (Pl. R. 439e), and so these lines simultaneously remind us of Leontios’ interest in corpses and mock Leotrophides’ appearance, the association perhaps suggesting itself to Theopompus because of the similarity of their names. 1 Λεωτροφίδης (PA 9160, PAA 607070) may be identical with the only other documented person of that name, a strategos in 409 BCE (PA 9159, PAA 607065; see D. S. 13.65.1). There is no reason to believe the Birds scholiasts’ assertion that

94

Theopompus

he was a dithyrambic poet; rather he should have been an individual wealthy enough to serve as choregos. His assignment to the tribe Kekropis, accepted in PAA, is based on this passage in Birds, where the correct reading of the “tribe” may be Κρεκοπίς, a pun on the name of the bird κρέξ (possibly the corncrake; see Dunbar 1995 ad: 1138) which functions whether or not Leotrophides genuinely belonged to the tribe Kekropis. In all three comic references to Leotrophides, he is described as exceptionally thin, a characteristic often represented in comedy as typical of men unsuccessful in their profession, but also associated, as in the mockery of Kinesias in Birds, with the insubstantial nature of dithyrambic verse: see Cameron 1991, Dunbar 1995: ad Birds 915, Wilkins 2000. 27–8, and Orth 2009: ad Strattis 21.31 τρίμετρος appears first in Herodotus (1.12, 1.174), and in the classical period is used excusively to describe metrical trimeters (Ar. Nu. 642, Pl. Leg. 7.810e, Arist. Poet. 1447b, D. H. Comp. 25.56, 129, 144, etc.). It is also attested in an undated inscription from Tauromenium (IG XIV 422.xx; possibly also in SEG IV 49), where it is used as a measure of oil (e. g. face 3.44: ἐλαίου τρίμετρος). It is therefore unclear what it would mean applied to a person: like ὑπέρμετρος (Pl. Leg. 9.864d) or περίμετρος (Od. 2.95), it might mean excessively large, though this seems at odds with the description of Leotrophides as like a corpse; other adjectives combining –μετρος with a numerical prefix likewise apply only to the meters of verse (e. g. δίμετρος, πεντάμετρος, ἑξάμετρος, etc.). λεόντινος may conceal some form of the name Leontios, attested a handful of times in 5th and 4th century Athens (see PAA 603135, 603150, 603160, 603185, 603195). Plato (R. 4.339e–440a) tells the story of a certain Leontios, son of Aglaion (omitted from PAA), who once noticed some corpses lying outside the Long Walls on his way back from the Piraeus, and was torn between revulsion and fascination before finally giving in and telling his own eyes to “feast on the beautiful spectacle” (ἐμπλήσθητε τοῦ καλοῦ θεάματος); if this was a well–known anecdote, we could have another joke here about Leontios’ desire to see corpses. The form Λεοντίῳ could also be the dative of Λεόντιον, a female name also frequently attested, most famously the name of a fourth–century hetaira–turned–philosopher (PAA 603116). 2 εὔχρως, literally “good–complexioned,” can be used both literally of skin (X. Oec. 10.5) or bodily parts (Ar. Th. 644, of the Relative’s penis; Arist. PA 4.2.677a, of the livers of animals which lack a gall bladder), often indicating a bright though not necessarily healthy coloration (Hipp. De Morb. 2.12, 2.70, of the body in various diseased states), and figuratively of other items or materials (Ar. Eq. 1171, of lentil soup; Lys. 205, of blood; Pl. Leg. 2.655a, of song and dance, a metaphor which 31

Luc. Hist. Conscr. 34 compares “making a Leotrophides out of a Milo” to “making gold out of lead.” Since Milo of Croton was a wrestler with a famous physique, this reference too may allude to the thin stature of our Leotrophides, expecting the reader to be familiar with his mockery in comedy.

Καπηλίδες (fr. 26)

95

the speakers reject; Eub. fr. 101, of a gray cloak; Thphr. HP 3.9.7, of pine wood; IG 5(1).1390.67, a 1st–c. BCE inscription from Andania, of a ram). Its association with bright skin tones and colors sets up the joke in νεκρός – a corpse might have a clear complexion, but it cannot have a bright one. The word is absent from elevated verse. See Austin and Olson 2004. 234 χαρίεις is common in both verse (Il. 1.39, Od. 3.58, Hes. Th. 129, Archil. fr. 9, Alc. fr. 27, Pi. P. 5.107, Eur. fr. 453, Crat. fr. 199K, Eup. fr. 159K, Ar. V. 1400, etc.) and prose (Isoc. 13.18, X. Mem. 3.13.5, Pl. Parm. 127b, Arist. Div. Somn. 463a, Hipp. Praec. 12, etc.), describing both people (Hes. Th. 247, Tyrt. fr. 12, Alc. 159, Isoc. 2.41) and things (Il. 5.905, Theogn. 1.763, X. An. 3.5.12, Pl. Theaet. 174a). In Attic, in often describes people who are elegant (Ar. Lys. 1226, Isoc. 12.8) or accomplished (Pl. La. 180d, Arist. EN 1102a), but can also indicate a person’s physical grace (Pl. Phaed. 80c). In comedy it typically describes refined or elegant speech (Eup. fr. 159.12, Ar. V. 1400, Av. 1401), dress (Eup. fr. 159.5, Eub. fr. 103), behavior (Ar. Lys. 1226, Ra. 1491, Ec. 190), or food (Pl. Com. fr. 150, Antiph. fr. 6, Axion. fr. 4, Nicostrat. fr. 4, Alex. fr. 115); only at Ar. Th. 1210 is it used of physical appearance, where the Scythian uses it to describe the girl posing as Euripides’ “daughter.” νεκρός At 12.552d–e, Athenaeus cites a series of comic fragments in which Philippides (PAA 928850, not the comic poet) is mocked for his thinness, all of which compare him to the dead: Alex. fr. 93 (Philippides belongs to Hermes); Aristophon fr. 8 (someone skinnier than Philippides would be a νεκρός); Men. fr. 266 (hunger will make a man a skinnier νεκρός than Philippides); Alex. fr. 148 (a man who has “Philippidized,” i. e. lost weight, is almost dead); to these we may compare Pl. Com. fr. 200, where Kinesias is called a skeleton because of his thinness. Given that Leotrophides is mocked elsewhere for his thinness, this seems likely to be the implication of comparing him to a corpse here; Men. fr. 266 specifically contrasts being καλός with being as thin as a corpse.

fr. 26 K.–A. (25 K.) ἐλεφαντοκώπους ξιφομαχαίρας καὶ δόρη ivory–hilted sword–knives and spears Poll. 7.158 εἴρηται δὲ καὶ ξιφομάχαιρα ἡ μεγάλη μάχαιρα ἐν Θεοπόμπου Καπηλίσιν· —— The large knife is also called “sword–knife” in Theopompus’ Kapēlides: —— Poll. 9.145 Θεόπομπος δὲ ἐν Πόλεσιν ‘ἐλεφαντοκώπους ξιφομαχαίρας’ And Theopompus in Poleis: “ivory–hilted sword–knives”

96

Theopompus

Meter Iambic trimeter

rlkl l|rkl l|lkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.800–1; Bothe 1855. 307; Edmonds 1957 I.856–7; Storey 2011. 330–1; Rusten 2011. 371 Citation Context At 7.154 Pollux begins a discussion of technical terms for ὅπλα, arms and armor, and their constituent parts. He begins simply by listing compound terms built on ἄσπις, κράνος, θώραξ, μάχαιρα, etc., before transitioning (157) into a miscellany of terms for specific parts of different pieces of equipment; he mentions that the tip of a ξίφος is called a κνώδων shortly before this fragment, and follows it by explaining that δόρη is an alternate to δόρατα as the plural of δόρυ, but his specific motivation for quoting Theopompus here is obscured by the miscellaneous quality of the catalogue. He then moves (159) into terms related to peaceful crafts. Pollux quotes the first two words of the fragment again in Book 9, in another discussion of weaponry, presumably depending on the same source; he follows a discussion of spears (144) with terms for other kinds of weaponry (145), including ξίφος, which prompts a list of terms for the elements of the ξίφος, during which he cites Theopompus to illustrate the word κώπη, “hilt.” He attributes the citation there to Theopompus’ Πόλεις, but there is no other evidence for such a play (though comedies called Πόλεις were composed by Eupolis, Philyllius, Anaxandrides, and perhaps Heniochus); it would be relatively easy for a scribe to mistake the rare ΚΑΠΗΛΙΣΙΝ for a phrase like ΚΑΙ ΠΟΛΙΣΙΝ. Pollux’s earlier attribution of the fragment to Καπηλίδες seems therefore certain to have been correct. Interpretation Although metrically comic (with the violation of Porson’s bridge), the ivory hilt and the tragic form δόρη give this description an elevated quality. Sword and spear were the standard armamentation of the classical hoplite (Snodgrass 1967. 58; Anderson 1970. 13–42 and 1991; Hanson 1989. 83–8; Hunt 2007. 115; Couvenhes 2007), but the combination is also frequent in Homer and the tragedians (see Encinas Reguero 2010). True elephant ivory was necessarily an imported material in Greece (see Krzyszkowska 1990, Fitton 1992); in Homer it sometimes has exotic connotations (Carter 1985. 12–15), and in Alcaeus an ivory sword–hilt is brought back “from the ends of the earth” (fr. 350: ἦλθες ἐκ περάτων γᾶς ἐλεφαντίναν / λάβαν τὼ ξίφεος χρυσοδέταν ἔχων). Ovid and Seneca mention an ivory hilt on the sword left by Aegeus for Theseus (Ov. Met. 7.422–3, Sen. Phaedra 899–900); Desrousseaux restored ἐλεφαντόκωπον in a lacuna in Bacchylides’ version of the story (18.48), but it is by no means a certain emendation (see Snell and Maehler 1970: ad loc); an ivory–hilted sword (ξιφίδιον ἐλεφαντόκωπον) also appears among the recognition tokens in Longus (4.21.2). Lucian in turn describes tragic actors holding ivory– hilted swords (Gall. 26). The ivory sword–hilt here could thus indicate the wealth or status of an owner able to own an expensive, perhaps impractical (Snodgrass 1967. 15), imported weapon, or it could be intended to suggest an association with

Καπηλίδες (fr. 27)

97

elevated poetry, perhaps tragedy specifically; in the plural, together with spears, it seems less likely to be a recognition token, however . ἐλεφαντοκώπους Ivory was used to decorate sword hilts from the Bronze Age onwards; see Snodgrass 1967. 15; Poursat 1977. 35–6; Hood 1978. 122, 176–7; Carter 1985. 7–16; Carnap–Bornheim 1994. 29. ξιφομαχαίρας See above, on fr. 8. δόρη This is a rare alternate plural for the expected δόρατα, found only in tragedy (A. fr. 74, Eur. Rh. 274). Although δόρυ at its root simply means “tree” or “stem,” it is frequently used in this sense of “spear” in all genres and periods (e. g. Il. 13.247, Hdt. 7.89, Pi. O. 6.17, A. Pers. 304, Eur. Med. 249, Ar. Ach. 1118, Thuc. 6.58, X. HG. 4.3.17, Pl. Euthyd. 299c, Amips. fr. 16, Arist. EN 1111a, etc.). fr. 27 K.–A. (26 K.) ἢ μετάδος ἢ μέτρησον ἢ τιμὴν λαβέ either share some or measure some out or accept payment Σ Ar. Ach. 1021a (REΓ) τὸ δὲ μέτρησον οἷον δάνεισον. καὶ Ἡσίοδος· (Op. 349). καὶ Θεόπομπος Καπήλισιν· —— Metrēson (measure out), like daneison (lend). And Hesiod (says): (Op. 349). And Theopompus in Kapēlides: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

lrkl klk|l llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.801; Bothe 1855. 307; Headlam 1922. 361; Edmonds 1957 I.856–7; Storey 2011. 330–1; Rusten 2011. 371 Citation Context At Ar. Ach. 1021, Derketes asks Dikaiopolis to lend him a portion of the wine that represents Dikaiopolis’ private peace, and asks “measure me out a little peace, even if it’s only five years” (μέτρησον εἰρήνης τί μοι, κἂν πέντ᾽ ἔτη). The scholiast explains that “measure” here means “lend,” the notion being that the lender measures out the precise amount of whatever is being lent, so that the borrower can return the same amount. The scholiast first cites Hesiod’s Works and Days 349 as an example of this sense, and then this fragment. Interpretation In a play called Καπηλίδες, “Women Shopkeepers” or “Barmaids,” we would expect some amount of commerce to take place; this fragment may thus represent a commercial interaction with such a woman. Since a single person is being addressed, the speaker is probably not communicating with a member of the chorus, but perhaps with another character who is also a female merchant (parallel to characters like Mika and Kritylla in Ar. Th., characters who share a group identity with the chorus).

98

Theopompus

The three alternative requests presented in this fragment suggest the speaker is willing to accept whatever terms necessary to obtain whatever they are after, and the terms of the exchange are arranged from most to least favorable: first, as a free gift; second, as a loan to be repaid precisely; and only third, in exchange for payment. Whatever the speaker is requesting must be a substance such as grain, wine, or oil that could be portioned out. The verbs μεταδίδωμι and μετρέω also occur together in the scene of Ar. Ach. that prompted the scholiast to quote this fragment: first Derketes asks Dikaiopolis to measure some “peace” out (1021: μέτρησον), and when he refuses, the chorus comment that he seems unlikely to share with anyone (1039: μεταδώσειν). μετάδος The prefix μετα– gives δίδωμι the sense of “share” or “give a portion” of an object such as money (Eup. IFF fr. 7, Ar. Pl. 400, Timocl. fr. 4.2), food (Ar. Ach. 961, V. 914), or wine (Ar. Ach. 139). It appears first in Hesiod (fr. 37.14), and is common thereafter in elegy (Theogn. 1.104, 1.925), Euripides (Suppl. 58, IT 1030), comedy (see previous examples), and in prose (Hdt. 1.143, 4.145, Thuc. 1.39.3, 6.39.2, X. An. 3.3.1, Pl. Phaed. 63c, Isoc. 18.32). μέτρησον Hes. Op. 349–51 provide the full sense of this use of “measure” to mean “lend a specific amount”: “Have it measured out (μετρεῖσθαι) well from your neighbor, and give it back well, with the same measure, and better if you can, so that when you’re in need later on you’ll find him still reliable.” Cf. Hsch. μ 1122 (μετρεῖ· δανείζει. καὶ μετρεῖσθαι· δανείζεσθαι), and see Headlam 1922, ad 6.5; West 1978, ad 349. The verb μετρεῖν occurs only once each in Homer and Hesiod (Od. 3.179, Op. 349), but is frequent in both verse (A. Cho. 209, S. Aj. 5, OT 561, Eur. Phoen. 181, Ar. Eq. 1009, Pax 1254) and prose (Hdt. 1.68, 2.6, X. Mem. 1.1.9, Pl. Euthphr. 7c) of the classical period. λαβέ with a named price is the idiom for urging someone to accept an offer in the course of haggling (e. g. Ar. Ra. 177, Alex. fr. 16.11, Men. Pk. 280–2, Machon 452–3; cf. Q. S. 9.512). By substituting τιμήν for a specific amount, the speaker here indicates a willingness to some unspecified amount, or perhaps whatever price the seller chooses to name. See Headlam 1922, ad 7.101.

fr. 28 K.–A. (27 K.) καὶ τὸν σὸν Ἄττιν

κολάσομαί σ᾽ ἐγὼ

1 κολάσομαί σ᾽ ἐγὼ Porson: κολάσομαί γ᾽ ἔσω Suda: κολάσομεγ᾽ ἔσω Synag. Suda: Ἄττην Synag.

and your Attis

I will punish you

2 Ἄττιν

Καπηλίδες (fr. 28)

99

Suda α 4355 Ἄττιν, οὐχὶ Ἄττια. Δημοσθένης· (18.260). Θεόπομπος Καπηλίσι· —— Attin, not Attia. Demosthenes: (18.260). Theopompus in Kapēlides: —— Synag. α 2377 Ἄττην· οὐχὶ Ἄττεια. Δημοσθένης· (18.260). Θεόπομπος Καπήλισι· —— Attēn: not Αtteia. Demosthenes: (18.260). Theopompus in Kapēlides: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xlk〉|r klkl llkl u|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion Porson apud Toup 1790 IV.459; Meineke 1839 II.801–2; Schneidewin 1848. 254 n.5; Bothe 1855. 308; Hepding 1903. 99; Edmonds 1957 I.858–9; Theodoridis 1982. I.lxviii, 288; Sfameni Gasparro 1985. 25 n.24; Borgeaud 1996. 34; Bremmer 2004. 540; Storey 2011. 330–1; Rusten 2011. 371 Citation Context The lemmata of this related pair of glosses in the Suda and Synagoge provides a correction concerning the proper spelling of the accusative of the name Attis. Both also quote a phrase from Demosthenes (18.260: the ritual cry ὑῆς Ἄττης Ἄττης ὑῆς), but properly that quotation belongs as part of a different, closely related set of glosses, Harp. α 260 = Phot. α 3131 = Suda α 4354, which state: Ἄττις παρὰ Φρυξὶ μάλιστα τιμᾶται, ὡς πρόσπολος τῆς Μητρὸς τῶν θεῶν. Attis is greatly honored among the Phrygians, as attendant of the Mother of the Gods. The citation of Theopompus which follows these quotations from Demosthenes is the proper content associated with the headword, providing an illustration of the accusative of Attis.32 Text The Suda and Synagoge transmit the fragment with γ and σ transposed in the phrase σ᾽ ἐγὼ. Comedy uses the form εἴσω (which would not scan here), not ἔσω, and seems to use it only in the sense “to within,” not (as in other genres) as a synonym for ἔνδον, “within”; see Hunter 1983. 130. Ἄττις and Ἄττης are both documented spellings of the figure’s name, and both lemmata come close to reproducing the alternate accusative forms of these names, Ἄττιδα and Ἄττεα respectively (for the latter, cf. Luc. Syr. D. 15). Both seem to have been possible in 4th–century Athens: Demosthenes gives Ἄττης (and cf. Nic. Alex. 8), but a late 4th–century inscription has Ἄττις (see Vermaseren 1982. 92–3, Bremmer 2004. 553–4, and cf. Polyb. 21.37.5, D. S. 3.58.4–59.7).

32

The form Ἄττια, moreover, may just a majuscule transcription error for ΑΤΤΙΔΑ, an accusative one might expect for a name such as ΑΤΤΙΣ.

100

Theopompus

Interpretation One character threatens to punish another, along with the person’s “Attis.” If the name Attis refers literally to the cult figure, this could be a threat made against a worshipper of Cybele (cf. Plat. Com. fr. 136, where a fan of the tragedian Morsimus threatens to “trample your Sthenelus in an instant”). Meineke instead suggested “your Attis” might indicate “your lover,” citing the similar usage of the name “Adonis” in Lucian and other later authors (Luc. DMeretr. 7.3, Merc. Cond. 35, Aristaen. 1.8, Alciphr. 4.14); in some versions of his mythology, Attis is portrayed as a lover (though we have no parallel for a person referred to as “an Attis” in this manner), but usually a chaste or even impotent or castrated one, and it is unclear whether a 4th–century Athenian audience would understand such a reference unless it had been prepared earlier in the play. Attis is also attested as a personal name in 4th–century Athens (PAA 229040, 229050, 229060) and may thus simply have been the name of a character (listed doubtfully as PAA 229035), with no connection to the deity. 1 κολάσομαι Although Ar. twice uses a contracted middle κολάομαι for the future of κολάζω (Eq. 456, V. 244; see Biles and Olson 2015. 167), elsewhere forms derived from κολάσω are ordinarily used (e. g. X. HG 1.7.19, Pl. R. 9.575d Leg. 4.714d, etc.). The word is absent from archaic poetry, but occurs frequently in both verse (S. Aj. 1160, OT 1147, Eur. Andr. 740, Suppl. 575, El. 1028, Eup. fr. 203, Ar. Nu. 7, etc.) and prose (Thuc. 1.40, Antiphon 3.7, Isoc. 18.17, etc.) of the classical period. 2 Ἄττιν Attis was the companion, lover, or priest of the goddess Cybele; see Hepding 1903; Vermaseren 1982, esp. 2.3–109 for Attica; Sfameni Gasparro 1985. 26–63; Borgeaud 1996. 32–55; Roller 1999; Lancellotti 2002; Bremmer 2004; M. J. Vermaseren and M. B. De Boer, LIMC 3.1.22–44. If the Attis in this fragment is the cult figure, this is the first mention of him in extant Greek sources.33 Attis does not otherwise appear as a cult figure in the Greek world before the late 4th century BCE, when we find a votive from the Piraeus and an allusion to his worship in Demosthenes (18.260); see Vermaseren 1982. 2.92–3; Borgeaud 1996. 34; Roller 1999. 243; Lancellotti 2002. 63–4; Bremmer 2004. 540. For the treatment of “eastern” cults in comedy, see Delneri 2006.

33

Some scholars have seen an allusion to the cult figure Attis in Herodotus’ story of Atys the son of Croesus (1.34–45), who shares some characteristics with Attis (see Sfameni Gasparro 1985, 26 n.1, Borgeaud 1996, 32–3); this connecrtion is firmly rejected by Bremmer, however (2004, 536–40).

Καπηλίδες (fr. 29)

101

fr. 29 K.–A. (28 K.) Zenob. vulg. 4.44 Ἑστίᾳ θύεις· ἡ παροιμία τέτακται ἐπὶ τῶν μηδενὶ ῥαδίως μεταδιδόντων. δι᾽ ἔθους γὰρ ἦν τοῖς παλαιοῖς, ὁπότε ἔθυον Ἑστίᾳ, μηδενὶ μεταδιδόναι τῆς θυσίας. μέμνηται Θεόπομπος ἐν Καπήλισιν. You are sacrificing to Hestia: The proverb is applied to those who don’t readily share with anyone, since it was customary among the ancients, when they were sacrificing to Hestia, not to share the sacrifice with anyone. Theopompus mentions it in Kapēlides.

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.801; Bothe 1855. 307; Edmonds 1957 I.858–9; Lelli 2006. 164–65; Storey 2011. 331; Rusten 2011. 371 Citation Context In the early 2nd century CE, Zenobius compiled an epitome of the earlier collections of proverbs by Didymus and Lucillus of Tarrha; these collections in turn may derive from earlier Alexandrian or Peripatetic works on proverbs. See Bühler 1982, Lelli 2006. Although several other proverb collections, lexica, and other late scholarly works repeat the expression “sacrifice to Hestia” and its explanation (see especially Hsch. ε 6393, Phot. ε 2028, Suda ε 3214, Eust. In Od. 1579.44–6 = i.275.24–26) only Zenobius’ text cites Theopompus. Interpretation In varying forms, the paroemiographers and lexicographers who cite the proverb “sacrificing to Hestia” all indicate that it describes someone refusing to share something. The origins of the proverb may lie in the notion of a man sacrificing at home and not inviting in any neighbors (so Headlam 1922. 216, citing on Eup. fr. 301), or in the fact that certain sacrifices were made οὐκ ἐκφορά, that is with entrails or other leftovers forbidden to be carried away from the place of sacrifice (see below, on fr. 71). There is no evidence to support Meineke’s attempt to connect this fragment to the request in fr. 27 (reading “you are sacrificing to Hestia!” as an indignant response to someone’s refusal to share). If Theopompus is describing a literal sacrifice (as in Eup. fr. 301, which uses the expression “sacrifice to Hestia” literally, of a pig), fr. 27’s references to lending or selling could not apply to the same circumstance. For the cult of Hestia, see Merkelbach 1980, Malkin 1987. 114–134, Kajava 2004, Biles and Olson 2015. 339–40, Konstantinou 2016.

102

Μῆδος (Mēdos) (“The Mede”)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 240; Meineke 1839 II.802–3; Bothe 1855. 308; Edmonds 1957 I.858–9; Dover 1989. 87 n.48; Halperin 1990. 91; Hubbard 2003. 114; Storey 2011. 332–3; Rusten 2011. 371–2 Title Greek authors typically use the term Μῆδος to refer to the Persians generally; see above, on fr. 18. As stated above, the term appears in comedy only in Aristophanes and Theopompus. As a title it thus seems most likely to refer to a Persian character in the comedy (cf. Alexis and Menander’s Καρχηδόνιος, Plautus’ Poenulus), of whom the fragments preserve no evidence. In the fourth century, Μῆδος seems to have been used most frequently to refer to the Persians of the fifth–century Persian Wars (e. g. Isoc. 9.37, D. 12.21, Aesch. 3.183, Arist. Pol. 3.1284b, etc.), but there is no reason why it could not refer here to a contemporary Persian. After a period of more or less benign neutrality towards Athens, the Persian king Darius II established an alliance with Sparta in the aftermath of the failure of the Sicilian Expedition, that is in the years after 413 BCE; Persian support persisted for Sparta through the end of the war in 404, despite (and at times because of) the presence of the Athenian Alcibiades at the court of the Persian satrap Tissaphernes. In the years after Sparta’s victory over Athens, however, the Spartan–Persian alliance broke down, and Sparta actively campaigned in Persia on behalf of the Ionian Greeks, securing a number of victories before finally abandoning the effort after the Corinthian War forced Sparta to return its attention to the Greek mainland. A period of support for Athens and its allies followed, until growing tensions over Persian treatment of the Athenian exile Konon and over Athens’ interventions in Cyprus compeled the Persians to transfer their support back to Sparta through the end of the Corinthian war in 386. For a thorough reexamination of Greco–Persian relations throughout the period of Theopompus’ lifetime, see Hyland 2017, with copious bibliography. Μῆδος is also a personal name, both mythological (Jason’s or Aegeus’ son by Medea, Hes. Th. 1000–1002, DS 4.55.5–6, Hyg. Fab. 27) and historical (PAA 648160, 408/7 BCE). No other comedy bears this title, though cf. the Persai of Aeschylus and either Chionides or Pherecrates. Content Fr. 30 suggests that in the beginning of the play, a character representing Mt. Lycabettus appeared to deliver a prologue, which included a complaint about the behavior of young men on the hill. This further implies that the comedy was set in Athens. Frr. 31 and 32, however, tell us nothing about the content of the play; the comparison in fr. 31 of some behavior to Callistratus using bribes and wine to achieve an alliance and the reference to a particular cup in fr. 32 could fit a very broad range of circumstances. The title suggests that a prominent character in the play was a Persian, though in several earlier comedies particular Athenian citizens

Μῆδος (fr. 30)

103

were assimilated to Persian characters (e. g. Cleon as the Paphlagonian in Knights, Hyperbolus as the Persian “Marikas” in Eupolis’ play of that name). Date Geissler 1969. 77–8, dates the play to the years after 378 BCE, because of the reference to Callistratus’ negotiation of an alliance, probably the Second Athenian Confederacy, in fr. 31.

fr. 30 K.–A. (29 K.) παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ τὰ λίαν μειράκια χαρίζεται τοῖς ἡλικιώταις 1

λίαν codd.: λεῖα Bergk

at my place the excessively youthful do favors for their peers Σ (CDEFGPQ) Pi. P. 2.78a ἄνευ οἱ χαρίτων· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔξω συνουσίας. χαρίζεσθαι γὰρ κυρίως λέγεται τὸ συνουσιάζειν, ὥσπερ Θεόπομπος ἐν Μήδῳ εἰσάγει τὸν Λυκαβεττὸν λέγοντα· —— “Without favors”: instead of “without intercourse.” For “to do favors” is said properly to mean “to have intercourse,” as when Theopompus in The Mede brings on Lykabettos saying: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

rlkl l|lkr klkl llrl l|〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.803; Bothe 1855. 308; Bergk apud Meineke 1839 V.cxix; Edmonds 1957 I.858–9; Dover 1989. 87 n.48; Halperin 1990. 91; Hubbard 2003. 114; Storey 2011. 332–3; Rusten 2011. 371 Citation Context Although Pindar’s ἄνευ οἱ χαρίτων τέκεν γόνον probably means “she gave birth without the Graces,” the scholiast interprets the phrase to mean “she gave birth without favors,” interpreting “favors” as “sexual favors”; he justifies his reading with this fragment of Theopompus, in which “to do favors” does seem likely to have a sexual meaning. Text It must be admitted that the phrase τὰ λίαν μειράκια is strange and without precise parallel. The adverb λίαν can appear in comedy between an article and its noun (e. g. Crat. fr. 199, Men. fr. 670), and can scan with long ι (on which see Biles and Olson 2015: ad Ar. V. 877), so it is not impossible here and I have followed Kassel and Austin in printing the received text. Nevertheless, Bergk’s proposal to

104

Theopompus

change λίαν to λεῖα, “smooth–skinned” is attractive; λεῖος is often used of young– men in the sense “beardless” (see LSJ sv. 3). Interpretation A character representing Mt. Lykabettos complains of young men performing sexual favors for one another on her slopes.34 The character may be a personification of the mountain appearing to deliver a prologue, like the personifications Kalligeneia in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae II (fr. 331), Dorpia in Philyllius’ Herakles (fr. 7), Agnoia in Menander’s Perikeiromene (120ff), Tyche in Menander’s Aspis (97ff), or Luxuria and Inopia in Plautus’ Trinummus (1ff). His presence suggests that the play took place in Attica. Lykabettos is a large hill northeast of the Acropolis; it was considered barren and worthless by classical authors (X. Oec. 19.6, Pl. Erx. 400b), though it was one of the most distinctive topographical features of the area around the ancient city (Ar. fr. 394, Thphr. Sign. 4, Strab. 9.1.23, 10.2.11). Amelesagoras (fr. 1) relates an aetiological myth claiming that the mountain was dropped in its current location by Athena, who had intended to make it part of the fortifications of the Acropolis but tossed it aside when she heard that the Cecropids had opened the chest in which she was hiding the infant Ericthonius; Amelesagoras is not, however, a reliable witness to any earlier mythic tradition (Cromey 1991. 168). Plato instead has Critias claim that Lykabettos was once connected to the Acropolis, but rainstorms washed away the ground in between the two hills (Crit. 112a). Elsewhere in comedy Lykabettos is mentioned only by Aristophanes, once as a topographical marker (fr. 394) and a second time as an example of something huge (Ra. 1506). 1 παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ With X in the dative παρά X regularly indicates “at X’s house” (e. g. Il. 9.427, Hdt. 1.160, Ar. Pl. 393, Pl. Grg. 447b, X. Cyr. 1.2.15, Mem. 2.7.4, D. 18.82, etc.). If the speaker is literally Mt. Lykabettos, there is some humor in a physical location referring to himself this way. τὰ λίαν μειράκια is not precisely paralleled elsewhere. In this position, λίαν should indicate that the young men are excessively young (cf. Cratin. fr. 199, τοῦ λίαν πότου, “his excessive drinking”; [A.] Pr. 123, τὴν λίαν φιλότητα βροτῶν, “his too great love of mortals”).35 Hubbard understood this to indicate that the men being described take excessive measures such as shaving their beards in order to continue appearing young and therefore suitable for homosexual activities past the age when this would ordinarily be appropriate (cf. Dover 1989. 87 n.48). Lykabettos could instead be indicating that the men are too young for the sexual activities they are participating in. In post–Homeric Greek λίαν typically bears a sense of disapproval: see Thesleff 1954.334.

34 35

For isolated locations as places for homosexual activity, cf. Cratin. fr. 160 Pace LSJ, this use of λίαν between an article and noun without accompanying adjective is not confined to drama: cf. X. H. 2.1.9, D. 14.53.4, Arist. EN 4.1127b, Hp. Loc. Hom. 41, etc.

Μῆδος (fr. 31)

105

χαρίζεται In the sense “to grant sexual favors,” χαρίζεσθαι is frequent in comedy: Ar. Ach. 884, Eq. 517, 1368, Th. 1195, Ec. 629, Alex. fr. 170, Timocl. fr. 14; cf. Suda χ 110, and see Henderson 1991. 160, Arnott 1996. 501, Olson 2002. 294–5. Since the scholiasts understanding of the passage in Pindar is so erroneous, however, it seems possible that he has also misunderstood the meaning of this verb; the verb is also frequent in comedy in a non–sexual sense, e. g. Ar. Ach. 437, Eq. 54, etc. 2 ἡλικιώταις indicates that the young men are engaging in sexual activities with others their own age, rather than in the traditional pederastic arrangement consisting of an older erastēs and a younger erōmenos. For peer homosexuality, see Hubbard 2003. 5–6 with his collection of ancient testimonia, and for Greek homosexuality generally see Dover 1989, Halperin 1990 and 2002, Davidson 2007, Ogden 2011, Robson 2015. The term ἡλικιώτης is frequent in prose (e. g. Hdt. 5.71, X. H. 1.4.16, Isoc. 14.56, Pl. Charm. 156a, D. 53.4, Arist. Pol. 7.1335a), but relatively rare in comic poetry (Ar. Nu. 1006), and absent from elevated verse.

fr. 31 K.–A. (30 K.) ὥς ποτ᾽ ἐκήλησεν Καλλίστρατος υἷας Ἀχαιῶν κέρμα φίλον διαδούς, ὅτε συμμαχίαν ἐρέεινεν· οἶον δ᾽ οὐ κήλησε δέμας λεπτὸν Ῥαδάμανθυν, Λύσανδρον, κώθωνι, πρὶν αὐτῷ δῶκε λεπαστήν 2 διαδοὺς Dindorf: διδοὺς A A: κώθωνα Bergk

4 λύσανδρον A: λύσανιον Meineke ed. min.

as once Callistratus charmed the sons of the Achaeans by distributing dear money, when he was asking for an alliance: one alone he did not charm, a Rhadamanthys of slender form, Lysander, with a kōthōn, until he gave him a lepastē Ath. 11.485c Θεόπομπος Παμφίλῃ· (fr. 41). καὶ ἐν Μήδῳ· —— Theopompus in Pamphilē: (fr. 41). And in Mēdos: ——

Meter dactylic hexameter

lkk ll l|l lkk lkk ll lkk lkk l|kk lkk lkk ll ll ll lk|k ll lkk ll ll ll lk|k ll lkk ll

κώθωνι

106

Theopompus

Discussion Dindorf 1827 I.1988; Meineke 1839 II.802–3; Bothe 1855. 308; Bergk 1838. 240; Edmonds 1957 I.858–9; Storey 2011. 332–3; Rusten 2011. 372; Farmer 2020.341–44 Citation Context At 11.484f–486a, as part of a broader discussion of sympotic wares, Athenaeus begins a discussion of the cup called lepastē; he quotes a series of comic fragments including frr. 31, 41, and 42. Text The ms. διδούς does not scan (the ι being short); Dindorf restored διαδούς, the α no doubt having been dropped by a scribe expecting the more common δίδωμι in place of διαδίδωμι. The word λύσανδρον in line 4 is probably the proper name Lysander. Meineke, noting the lack of a known historical Lysander to fit this reference, considered emending to λυσάνιον, “ending sorrow,” citing Hesychius (λ 1439, where we have λυσανίας and δυσάνιος, but not λυσάνιος), but emendation is unnecessary and the form is dubious. Finally, Bergk suggested emending κώθωνι to κώθωνα, citing as a parallel the collocation κύλικα λεπαστήν recorded in the garbled version of Ar. Pax 916 at Ath. 11.485a; this is an unpersuasive basis for such a correction, however, and since (as Kaibel notes apud K.–A. ad loc.) a κώθων is a smaller cup than a λεπαστή, the ms. reading (Lysander failed with a κώθων but succeeded with a λεπαστή) is sufficiently intelligible. Interpretation A character or the chorus delivers a mock–Homeric description of the politician Callistratus administering bribes to secure an alliance, perhaps the formation of the Second Athenian Confederacy in 378/7 BCE. The intial ὥς ποτ’ indicates that the speaker is mentioning Callistratus’ activites as a comparison, perhaps to another historical event or to some occurrence in the plot of the comedy. Since Callistratus is an identifiable historical figure, the Lysander mentioned here is probably the real name of another prominent politician, perhaps the representative of a rival state. He is assimilated to the mythological judge Rhadamanthys, and called thin, but without a broader context it is impossible to determine the precise meaning of these references: he may be like Rhadamanthys in having served as a judge, or being known for his powers of judgment, but the joke could be precisely the opposite; he may truly have been of slender stature, but he may, like other figures mocked for thinness in comedy, be labeled thin as a sign of his professional failure, his inability to feed himself. For other examples of ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν in Theopompus, see frr. 1, 5, 16, 17, 19, 25, 40, 44, 57, 58, 61 (and perhaps Teisamenus as a whole). Callistratus may fail to persuade Lysander with a κώθων and then succeed with a λεπαστή simply because the latter is a larger vessel, but there may also be some play on the military associations of the κώθων in contrast to the sympotic, and thus peacetime, use of the λεπαστή. These are the only dactylic hexameters preserved in the remains of Theopompus. In Old and Middle Comedy, hexameters are used chiefly to parody

Μῆδος (fr. 31)

107

Homeric and Hesiodic poetry (Cratin. frr. 149, 150, 183, 222–3, 349; Hermipp. frr. 23, 77; Pherecr. fr. 162; Plato Com. fr. 173), for oracles and riddles (Cratin. fr. 94; Ar. Eq. 197–201, 1015–95, Pax 1063–1114, Av. 967–88, Lys. 770–76; Plato Com. fr. 3), and in the exodus (Cratin. fr. 255 and perhaps fr. 253; Ar. Ra. 1528–33); see West 1982. 98, Parker 1997. 53. Several words and phrases here evoke Homeric language (υἷας Ἀχαιῶν; ἐρέεινεν; οἶον; δέμας). Others are compatible with elevated verse generally, but lack Homeric parallels (ἐκήλησεν / κήλησε; διαδούς; συμμαχίαν). Some of the vocabulary, however, belongs exclusively to comic verse or prose: κέρμα; κώθων; λεπαστή. The humor in this fragment derives not so much from specific parody of any particular passage in Homer, as from the contrast between style and content, with heroic language and meter used to depict corrupt political activities). 1 ὥς ποτ’ occurs nine times in Homer at the beginning of a line, usually in phrases meaning “thus he once spoke” (Il. 14.45, 18.9) or “thus someone will say someday” (Il. 4.182=6.462=7.91, 8.150).36 Unlike the ending of this line, however, it is also common in other authors and genres; it thus fits the Homeric language of the line, but the audience will not necessarily have detected Homeric parody until the phrase υἷας Ἀχαιῶν. 1–3 ἐκήλησεν … κήλησε This verb is absent from Homer, who uses θέλγω for both magical (Il. 13.435, Od. 5.47) and rhetorical (Od. 1.57, 3.264) charming. In classical Greek, it is used chiefly in the sense of “charm” or “beguile” by music or magic (not always distinguishable): Pi. fr. 70b.22 (χορευοίσαισι, “by women dancing”); Eur. fr. 223.87 (μουσικῇ, “by music”), Alc. 359 (ὕμνοισι, “by hymns”), Pl. Phdr. 267d (ἐπᾴδων, “singing”). Eupolis, however, uses it to describe the effect of Pericles’ rhetoric on his audiences (fr. 102), and thereafter it is used frequently in this sense (e. g. E. IA 1213, X. Mem. 2.6.32, Aesch. 1.191), particularly by Plato, who often contrasts musical and rhetorical meanings of κηλεῖν (e. g. Smp. 215c–d, where Socrates is superior to an aulete because he charms without the use of an instrument; Lys. 206b, speech and song can be used either to charm or to enrage). The verb is rare in comedy (in addition to Eup. and Theopomp. only at Bato fr. 5, of philosophers persuaded to hedonism, and Charicl. fr. 1, where Hecate is described as “charmed” by fish offerings). 1 Καλλίστρατος Callistratus of Aphidna (PA 8157, PAA 561575) was one of the leading politicans of Athens during the 370s–360s BCE. He rose to prominence as strategos in 378/7 BCE, at which time he helped organize the Second Athenian Confederacy (DS 15.29, Theopomp. Hist. FGH 115 F 98). At different points in his career, he alternated supporting alliances with Thebes (Philoch. FGH 328 F 149a, prosecuting ambassadors to Sparta in 392/1) and with Sparta (DS 15.38, promoting an alliance with Sparta against Thebes 374; X. H. 6.3.3–10, am-

36

It also occurs at Il. 2.797, 23.643, and Od. 8.564, the last the only time it occurs elsewhere in the line.

108

Theopompus

bassador to Sparta). In 366/5 he was prosecuted over the loss of the city of Oropus (Arist. Rhet. 1.1364a, Plu. Dem. 5.1–4), but successfully defended himself; in 362/1, however, he was impeached and sent into exile (Hyp. Eux. 1, [Dem.] 50.48, Lyc. Leoc. 93). On the advice of the Delphic Oracle, he returned to Athens in 355, but was put to death (Lyc. Leoc. 93). As an orator, he was renowned during his lifetime and admired after (D. 18.219, Aesch. 2.124, Theopomp. Hist. FGH 115 F 97). Elsewhere in comedy, Callistratus is mocked as a cinaedus (Eub. frr. 10, 106.5, the latter in riddling hexameters), as either a glutton or a chef (Antiph. fr. 293.4), and for a relationship, perhaps erotic, with the politician Melanippus (Anaxandr. fr. 41). See Sealey 1967,133–163, Davies 1971. 277–8, Hunter 1983. 100, Olson 2007. 221–22, Hochschulz 2007. The formula υἷας Ἀχαιῶν occurs twenty–one times in the Iliad and three times in the Odyssey (e. g. Il. 1.240, Od. 2.115), always (as here) as a line ending after bucolic diaeresis; it is the first element of this fragment which would securely indicate to an audience that the speaker is mocking Callistratus with Homeric language, not simply in hexameters. In Homer, as here, the phrase has the meaning “all the Greeks.” The adjective Ἀχαιός would alone suffice to give the line a Homeric coloring; elsewhere in comedy it appears in a joke about Homer at Eub. fr. 118, in Euripides’ mockery of Aeschylus’ archaizing language at Ra. 1269. 1284, and in the hypothesis to Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros (test. 1.24, 37), perhaps suggesting its use in the play as well.37 2 κέρμα Literally “fragment” (Emp. fr. 101), from κείρω, “cut” (Chantraine 1970. 510), but most often “small coin,” a meaning first attested in Aristophanes and frequent in comedy (Ar. Av. 1108, Pl. 379, Amph. fr. 5, Antiph. fr. 129, Eub. fr. 67, 82, Alex. fr. 133, Diph. fr. 67.13) but rare in other genres (D. 21.107, Theopomp. Hist. FGH 115 F 89, Crates Theb. fr. 351.7 [also Homeric parody]; cf. Archil. fr. 328, a false attribution). Its use here may simply set a colloquial tone, or it may imply that Callistratus achieved his alliance with relatively meager bribes (i. e. small change and wine). διαδούς Although not incompatible with elevated poetry (e. g. Eur. Tro. 117, Phoen. 1371, Or. 1267; restored at Pi. fr. 52h.21), διαδίδωμι is common in prose (e. g. Thuc. 4.38, 8.29, Isoc. 16.20, 9.74, X. HG 2.1.15, etc.), not otherwise attested in comedy. συμμαχίαν Possibly the Second Athenian Confederacy, whose system of financial tribute was devised by Callistratus (DS 15.29, Theopomp. Hist. FGH 115 F 98) and which was called συμμαχία in the inscription documenting its establishment (IG II2.43); see Cargill 1981; Dreher 1995; Buckler 2003. 228–29. The word is compatible with elevated verse (e. g. Pi. O. 10.72, A. Ag. 213), and was also the title of comedies by Cantharus and Plato Com.

37

The word may also occur at Ar. Ach. 709, as a cult title of Demeter; see Olson 2002: ad loc.

Μῆδος (fr. 31)

109

ἐρέεινεν Restricted to Homeric poetry (e. g. Il. 3.191, Od. 1.220, h.Cer. 392) and its imitators (e. g. Batr. 172, A. R. 1.209, Theoc. 25.3). In Homer, it has the meaning “ask about something” (rather than “ask for something,” as here), and is restricted to the imperfect (ἐρέεινον, ἐρέεινε, ἐρεείνετο) and the 2nd pers. sg. pres. ind. act. (ἐρεείνεις); the 3rd sg. impf. does occur at the end of the line (e. g. Od. 7.31, 19.42). 3 οἶον Very frequent in Homer (e. g. Il. 4.397, Od. 3.362) and occasionally in later, elevated verse (e. g. Pi. O. 1.71, A. Ag. 131, S. Aj. 750); nowhere else in extant comedy. δέμας is confined to elevated verse (Il. 1.115, Od. 2.268, Hes. Th. 260, h.Ap. 400, Pi. O. 1.20, A. Pers. 209, S. El. 57, Eur. Alc. 348) and to parodies of such verse (Ar. fr. 364, Plato Com. fr. 189 [hexameters], Anaxandr. fr. 31, Archestr. fr. 32.5 [hexameters], Sopater fr. 8). Although λεπτόν does occur in Homer (e. g. Il. 9.661, Od. 2.95), it never modifies δέμας (though cf. Il. 5.801, Τυδεύς τοι μικρὸς μὲν ἔην δέμας). For jokes about thin men, see above, on fr. 25. Ῥαδάμανθυν Rhadamanthys in Homer is the son of Zeus and Europa (Il. 14.322) and an inhabitant of Elysium (Od. 4.563–5); in Hesiod (fr. 141.13), Pindar (O. 2.74–5, P. 2.73–5), and Theognis (1.701) he is noted for wisdom and justice, but it is not until Plato that we are explicitly told of his position as a judge in the underworld (Grg. 523e–526c). He was the titular character of a tragedy, alternately attributed to Euripides or Critias. Elsewhere in comedy he is mentioned only at Anaxandr. fr. 10, where he (along with Palamedes) is credited with inventing the rule that a person who does not contribute to dinner (an ἀσύμβολος) must tell jokes during the meal. Rhadamanthys is not attested as a personal name at Athens until the 2nd century BCE (PAA 800080, 800085, 800090). 4 Λύσανδρον Almost certainly not the famous Spartan commander, who died in 395 BCE (thus before Callistratus rose to prominence; see X. HG 1–3, DS 13–14, Plu. Lys.), but another historical person of that name, which was very common (over fifty entries in LGPN for the 5th and 4th centuries BCE). The name is attested as early as Homer, where an otherwise unknown Lysander is among the Trojans killed by Ajax (Il. 11.491). Rusten (following Edmonds) reads the name here as an adjective meaning “man–loosening.” κώθωνι A broad cup used for drinking wine and often depicted in military contexts (Archil. fr. 4, Ar. Eq. 600, Pax 1094 [also Homeric parody], Theopomp. fr. 55), first mentioned in Archilochus, not uncommon in comic texts (Eub. fr. 56, Henioch. fr. 1, Alex. fr. 181, Macho fr. 18.442), largely absent from classical prose (only at X. Cyr. 1.2.8, Critias 88 B 34, Hipp. Epist. 16). Athenaeus discusses the shape at 11.483b–484c, where he claims the κώθων was associated with Sparta and that it had a rim which would catch impurities in the drink. See Sparkes 1962. 128–29, Davidson 1997. 66, Olson 1998. 278. δῶκε This unaugmented aorist of δίδωμι is very frequent in Homer (over fifty examples), and appears in lyric (e. g. Pi. P. 4.222, Theog. 2.1319), but does not occur elsewhere in comedy.

110

Theopompus

λεπαστήν A large vessel, used either for drinking or pouring wine (or perhaps both), mentioned often in comedy (Ar. fr. 174, Hermipp. fr. 45, Telecl. fr. 27, Pherecr. fr. 101, Apolloph. fr. 7, Philyll. fr. 5, Theopomp. frr. 41, 42, Antiph. fr. 47, Anaxandr. fr. 42), never in classical prose. Later sources struggled to define the shape; it may have been a multipurpose vessel, or there may simply have been doubt about how to interpret the range of comic references to it: Poll. 10.75, Hsch. λ 663, λ 664, Σ Ar. Pax 916, Ath. 484f–486a. See Olson 1998. 244, Bagordo 2013. 151.

fr. 32 K.–A. (31 K.) Ath. 11.481d κυμβία… Νίκανδρος δ᾽ ὁ Θυατειρηνὸς τὸ χωρὶς ὠτίων ποτήριον ὠνομακέναι Θεόπομπον ἐν Μήδῳ. kymbia… Nicander of Thyateira (says that) Theopompus called a cup without handles (a kymbion).

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.803; Bothe 1855. 308; Edmonds 1957 I.858–9; Storey 2011. 333 Citation Context Athenaeus discusses the cup called κυμβίον at 11.481d–482e, as part of his longer catalogue of sympotic vessels. In addition to this fragment, he also quotes Philemon fr. 87, Anaxandr. frr. 3, 33, Alex. fr. 100, Ephipp. fr. 9. Interpretation The word κυμβίον is the dimunitive of κύμβη, a term which can refer either to a drinking vessel or to a type of ship; for this class of shapes, see above, on fr. 4. The was evidently a small drinking cup, sometimes used also (according to Ath. 11.482c) as a ladle. If, as seems to have been the case in other depictions of kumbion, it was ordinarily a cup with handles, then Athenaeus or his source has probably misunderstood the reference to Theopompus; that is to say, rather than proving that a kumbion lacked handles, Theopompus was probably cited originally because he (exceptionally) described even a cup without handles as a kumbion. The word appears regularly in comedy (in addition to Athenaeus’ citations, Dionys. Com. fr. 5, Ephipp. fr. 16, Epig. fr. 5, Alex. frr. 2, 111, Hipparch. fr. 1), rarely in other genres (D. 21. 133, 158; Astyd. fr. 3, possibly satyr–play).

111

Νεμέα (Nemea) (“Nemea”)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 408–12; Meineke 1839 II.803–4; Bothe 1855. 308–9; Breitenbach 1908. 159; Edmonds 1957 I.860–61; Geissler 1969. 79–80; Souto Delibes 2002. 174–77; Storey 2011. 334–35, Sells 2013. 98 Title Athenaeus alone refers to this play, citing fr. 33 with the phrase ἐν Νεμέᾳ; this could represent either a woman’s name, or the location between Argos and Corinth where the Nemean Games were held. Aeschylus too wrote a Νεμέα; if the tragic title is a woman’s name, it may an alternate name for the mother of Ophialtes / Archemorus mentioned in a Pindaric scholium (see TrGF 3.261–62). If the title of Theopompus’ comedy refers to the place Nemea, it should indicate that the play had some connection to that city, perhaps to the cult center there, to the games held there, or to the myth of the temple and games’ foundation by Heracles. If instead Nemea is a woman’s name, it should be the name of a prominent female character. There was a famous prostitute Nemeas (PAA 705950) mentioned by Athenaeus (and apparently in a speech by Hyperides; see Ath. 13.587c and Harp. ν 10); this, together with the presence of a character called Theolyte in the play (also the name of a famous prostitute), led Meineke, Breitenbach, and Geissler to suspect that the title of the play was instead Νεμεάς, and that it was therefore a hetaira–comedy (like, perhaps, Aphrodite, Pamphile). The title transmitted in the ms. of Athenaeus is perfectly plausible, however, and the evidence of the play’s sole fragment does not permit us to identify the character Theolyte with the prostitute of that name. Content Although we have no sense of the overall plot of this comedy, the lengthy fr. 33 does give us a reasonably clear sense of a single scene in the play, in which a slave called Spinther attempts to seduce an older fellow slave called Theolyte. The presence of cups and wine and Spinther’s ability to summon Theolyte from offstage suggest the scene may take place in the house of their owner. Spinther’s reference to himself as a “new fellow slave” suggests that he has only recently joined the househould of Theolyte’s owner, and this event seems likely either to precipitate some development in the plot, or to provide a pretext for the characters to reveal information to the audience about their circumstances. Date Geissler assigns the comedy to the years 370–360 BCE, but this is based on his dubious alteration of the title to Nemeas and the equation of his titular Nemeas and the Theolyte in fr. 33 with the two famous hetairai of those names. Athenaeus informs us that the potter Thericles was a contemporary of Aristophanes (11.470f); since the reference to Thericles at fr. 33.1 seems to take it for granted that the audience will recognize that a “son of Thericles” is a kylix, the play should belong to a period after Thericles had risen to prominence, in the late 5th or early 4th century BCE.

112

Theopompus

fr. 33 K.–A. (32 K.)

5

10

(Σπ.) χώρει σὺ δεῦρο, Θηρικλέους πιστὸν τέκνον, γενναῖον εἶδος· ὄνομά σοι τί θώμεθα; ἆρ᾽ εἶ κάτοπτρον φύσεος, ἢν πλῆρες δοθῇς; οὐδέν ποτ᾽ ἄλλο. δεῦρο δή, γεμίσω σ᾽ ἐγώ. γραῦ Θεολύτη, γραῦ. (Θε.) τί με καλεῖς σύ; (Σπ.) φιλτάτη, ἵν᾽ ἀσπάσωμαι. δεῦρο παρ᾽ ἐμέ, Θεολύτη, παρὰ τὸν νέον ξύνδουλον. οὑτωσὶ καλῶς. (Θε.) Σπινθὴρ τάλας, πειρᾷς με; (Σπ.) ναί, τοιοῦτό τι· φιλοτησίαν δὲ 〈τήνδε〉 σοι προπίομαι. δέξαι· πιοῦσα δ᾽ ὁπόσον ἄν σοι θυμός ᾖ, ἐμοὶ παράδος τὸ πρῶτον

2 τί θώμεθα Casaubon: το θωμεθα A 3 ἆρ᾽ εἶ Schweighäuser: ἀρει A φύσεος Porson: φυσεως A 4 γεμίσω σ᾽Abresch: γεμιῶ σ᾽ Bergk: γε μισῶ σε A 6 ἵν᾽ Porson: τίν᾽ A 8 τάλας, πειρᾷς με; ναί Villebrune: ταλα σπειρας μεναι A 9 τήνδε add. Meineke προπίομαι Musurus: προσπίομαι A

5

10

(Sp.) Come here, trusty child of Thericles, you noble form; what name shall we give you? Perhaps you are “a mirror of character,” if you’re given full? Surely nothing else. Come here, I say, let me fill you myself. Old Theolyte, old woman! (Th.) Why are you calling me? (Sp.) Beloved, so that I can greet you properly. Come over by me, Theolyte, by your new co–slave. That’s nice. (Th.) Spinther you wretch, are you trying to seduce me? (Sp.) Yes, something like that. And I drink this friendship toast to you. Take it: when you have drunk however much you desire, first of all give it back to me

Ath. 11.470f κατασκευάσαι δὲ λέγεται τὴν κύλικα ταύτην Θηρικλῆς ὁ Κορίνθιος κεραμεύς, ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ τοὔνομα ἔχει, γεγονὼς τοῖς χρόνοις κατὰ τὸν κωμικὸν Ἀριστοφάνη. μνημονεύει δὲ τῆς κύλικος Θεόπομπος μὲν ἐν Νεμέᾳ οὕτως· —— Thericles the Corinthian potter is said to have made this kylix, from whom it also takes its name; he lived at the time of the comic poet Aristophanes. Theopompus mentions this kylix in Nemea as follows: —— Phot. θ 168 = Et gen. AB = Suda θ 353 Θηρικλέους τέκνον· κύλιξ, ἣν λέγεται πρῶτος κεραμεῦσαι Θηρικλῆς. Child of Thericles: a kylix, which Thericles is said to have been the first to make.

Νεμέα (fr. 33)

113

Meter Iambic trimeter

5

10

llkl k|lrl llkl llkl k|rkl llkl llkl lrk|l klkl llkl k|lkl rlkl lrkl l|rkl llkl klkl l|lkr krkl rlkl llk|l llkl llkl llk|l llkl rlkl klk|l klkl llkl k|rkl llkl klrl klk〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Musurus 1514. 190; Casaubon 1621. 791; Abresch 1755. 97; Villebrune 1789. 241; Schweighäuser 1801–7. IV.242–43; Jacobs 1809. 252–54; Porson 1812. 124, 1820. 180; Bergk 1838. 408–12; Meineke 1839 II.803–4; Bothe 1855. 308–9; Fraenkel 1922. 72; Miller 1929–32. III.700; Edmonds 1957 I.860–61; Henderson 1987b. 119n104; Storey 2011. 334–35; Sells 2013. 98 Citation Context At 11.470e–473c Athenaeus discusses the variety of kylix, a kind of drinking cup, known as Thericlean, in the course of his larger discussion in Book 11 of different symposium wares. He presents a large number of citations to different authors who mention this cup, mostly from comedy: Alex. frr. 5, 88, 101, 124, Antiph. fr. 172.1–4, Eub. frr. 30, 42, 56, Men. Theophor. frr. 4 Körte– Thierfelder, 235, Dioxipp. fr. 4, Apollodor. fr. 4, Aristophon fr. 13, Theophil. frr. 2, 10. The presence in the ancient lexica of the phrase Θηρικλέους τέκνον and the similarity of their definitions to Athenaeus’ suggest that all may be drawing on a common, unidentified source. Text Causaubon’s correction of το into τί in line 2 restores the sense of what follows by making θώμεθα a deliberative subjunctive, and Schweighäuser’s division of the letters αρει into ἆρ᾽ εἶ in line 3 clarifies that what follows is the first potential answer to Spinther’s question; this answer proving however satisfactory, he leaves off proposing alternate names for the cup of wine. The spelling φύσεως is ordinary in comedy (Ar. Nu. 1075, V. 1458), but the alternative genitive in –εος for 3rd declension ι–stem nouns which ordinarily have the genitive in –εως is permissible (and necessary in line 3 here) for the sake of the meter (Smyth 1956. 68); cf. Ar. Pl. 1044, where the mss. are divided between ὕβρεος and ὕβρεως, but the former is metrically required. The ms. of Ath. gives δή γε in line 4, but Denniston describes this combination as “very rare… seldom textually above suspicion” (1954. 247), and the sense of what follows (“I hate you”) fits badly, whether taken as an address to the cup or to Theolyte. Instead, Abresch’s γεμίσω σ᾽ fits the context better and makes line 4 the conclusion to Spinther’s address to the cup before he shifts to addressing Theolyte

114

Theopompus

in line 5. Bergk corrected Abresch’s text to γεμιῶ, objecting that the more Attic future form should be used, but he misunderstands Abresch, whose γεμίσω is aorist subjunctive (“let me fill you”), not future indicative. Porson’s emendation of τίν᾽ to ἵν’ restores the sense of line 6: Spinther is not asking Theolyte whom he should kiss, but answering her question (“Why?... In order to…”). Line 8 is transmitted as near gibberish in the ms. (τάλα, an obscure word, possibly a kind of palm tree; σπείρας, “having sown”; μεῖναι, “to remain”), but Villebrune’s simple correction of word division produces a much more sensible line. Line 9 is missing a word metrically, and Meineke’s τήνδε is the simplest solution. Finally, the ms. προσπίομαι (“drink in addition”) does not scan; Musurus’ προπίομαι (“toast”) both scans and makes better sense. Interpretation This is the longest of Theopompus’ surviving fragments, and among the very few that make clear the names of multiple speakers, their identities, and the distribution of dialogue between them (cf. frr. 30, 35). The specification of both characters names suggests we may be meeting them for the first time; in Aristophanes, moreover, conversations between enslaved characters tend to be restricted to prologue scenes (Knights, Wasps, Peace). This may therefore be the opening scene of the play; if so, we may also compare the high–style address to the cup with the elevated address to the lamp in the opening lines if Assemblywomen. Spinther begins speaking with some elevated coloring (πιστὸν τέκνον, εἶδος) and quotes a proverb that may be of tragic origin (κάτοπτρον φύσεος); the rest of the conversation, however, is purely colloquial. Although the content of their conversation is sexual (Theolyte asks whether Spinther is attempting to seduce her, and he admits that he is), the characters’ language is euphemistic (ἀσπάσωμαι, πειρᾷς) rather than obscene. Spinther’s description of himself as a νέος ξύνδουλος suggests that he has only recently joined the household to which Theolyte belongs; his name is, however, a slave’s name, and he probably means that he has only recently become Theolyte’s fellow slave, not that he has only recently become enslaved at all. The focus on drinking is also typical of comic depictions of the enslaved, who are characteristically shown getting drunk in comedy when their masters are absent (e. g. Eq. 85–125). 1 χώρει… δεῦρο is a common collocation in Aristophanes (Nu. 889, Pax 301, Av. 1186, Lys. 738, Th. 229, Ra. 609, Ec. 730), but not found outside comedy. At Ec. 730, the Neighbor uses the same expression, with σύ, addressed to another inanimate object, in this case a bran–mill (κιναχύρα), as he arranges a series of household implements in a processional order. Θηρικλέους Thericles was a Corinthian potter of the fifth century (Cleanthes fr. 591 SVF, Ath. 11.470f) who lent his name to a distinctive variety of kulix, mentioned frequently in comedy but also in treasury inscriptions (e. g. SEG 28.53, 29.156, IG XI.2.124, 126, etc.); the reference in this fragment is probably the earliest, unless Θηρίκ]λειομ is the correct restoration in an inscription documenting

Νεμέα (fr. 33)

115

the Parthenon treasury ca. 421/20 BCE (IG I3.351). This kulix, often indicated simply by an adjective θηρίκλειον (sc. ποτήριον; e. g. Men. Theophor. fr. 4 Körte– Thierfelder, fr. 235) or θηρίκλειος (sc. κύλιξ; e. g. Epig. fr. 5, Dioxipp. fr. 4, Alex. fr. 5), was quite large (Aristophon fr. 13, Eub. frr. 42, 56, Theophil. fr. 10, Dioxippp. fr. 4, Alex. fr. 5, Men. fr. 235, Ath. 11.470e), had handles (Ath. 11.470e), was decorated a glossy black color (Eub. fr. 56, Thphr. HP 5.3.2), and was considered exceptionally fine (Dionys. fr. 5, Aristophon fr. 13, Eub. frr. 30, 56, Theophi. fr. 2, Thphr. HP 5.3.2, Alex. fr. 101, Timaeus FGrH 566 F 33, Plu. Aem. Paul. 33, Luc. Lexiph. 7). Shapes other than the kulix are also sometimes labeled Thericlean (Dionys. fr. 5, Dioxipp. fr. 5, Alex. fr. 124); presumably these are meant to be understood either as the works of Thericles himself, or as somehow partaking of the large yet elegant quality of the Thericlean kulix. The bulk of our evidence on Thericles is furnished by Ath. 11. 470e–473c; see Miller 1929–32, 2.544–49, 3.694–703. πιστὸν τέκνον has a mock–elevated quality. The adjective πιστός is common in all genres and periods, but τέκνον in comedy is typically used in parodic passages (e. g. Ar. frr. 478, 586, Ach. 891, Nu. 1165, V. 1519, Th. 1062; cf. LSJ s. v. τέκνον), and the phrase as a whole is evocative of tragic expressions such as S. OC 1322, πιστὸς Ἀταλάντης γόνος, or E. fr. 566, ὡς οὐδὲν ἀνδρὶ πιστὸν ἄλλο πλὴν τέκνων. 2 γενναῖον The vocative phrase here may have been suggested by the very common form of address ὦ γενναῖε (S. OT 1510, Ph. 801, Pl. Cra. 432d, Grg. 494), though γενναῖος is applied to objects rather than persons elsewhere as well (e. g. Pl. Leg. 8.844e). The word is frequent in comedy: Ar. Eq. 787, V. 506, Pax 76, Av. 285, Antiph. fr. 80, etc. It is often, as here, a generic term of praise, rather than bearing any specific meaning connected to lineage: see Dover 1993, ad Ra. 97, 615; Biles and Olson 2015, ad V. 504–6. εἶδος is relatively rare in comedy, and may belong to an elevated register: Crat. fr. 280 (hexameters), Ar. Th. 267 (on which see Austin and Olson 2004. 140), Pl. 317 (lyric), Alexis 247.9 (in a mock–Platonic description of Eros), Dionys. fr. 5 (also of Thericlean cups); the word occurs several times in the mock–elevated speech of cooks, including Antiph. fr. 55, Heges. fr. 1, Nicomach. fr. 1, the latter two of which Ath. introduces as examples of cooks speaking ἀλαζονικόν. ὄνομά σοι τί θώμεθα The expression ὄνομα τίθημι is the standard expression in prose and verse for bestowing a name on someone: Od. 19.406, A. fr. 6, Hdt. 1.107, Eur. IT 499, Ar. Av. 810, Is. 2.36, Pl. Cra. 374d, etc. 3 κάτοπτρον φύσεος Spinther’s expression here draws on the proverbial notion that wine reveals a person’s true character: Alc. fr. 333 (οἶνος γὰρ ἀνθρώπω δίοπτρον, “for wine is a window into man”), fr. 366 (οἶνος, ὦ φίλε παῖ, καὶ ἀλάθεα, “wine, dear boy, and truth”), A. fr. 393 (κάτοπτρον εἴδους χαλκός ἐστ᾽, οἶνος δὲ νοῦ, “bronze is a mirror for one’s appearance, wine for one’s mind”), Thgn. 500 (Ἐμ πυρὶ μὲν χρυσόν τε καὶ ἄργυρον ἴδριες ἄνδρες / γινώσκουσ’, ἀνδρὸς δ’ οἶνος ἔδειξε νόον, “the wise recognize gold and silver by fire, but wine reveals a man’s mind”). If A. fr. 393 is correctly ascribed by Stobaeus to Aeschylus (see TrGF 3.436–7), it

116

Theopompus

may be the direct source of Spinther’s expression, but the they may instead both simply be drawing on a shared proverbial tradition. 5 γραῦ is a somewhat demeaning form of address, as Theolyte’s indignant response suggests. Elsewhere in comedy the word typically appears in the vocative in insulting or hostile contexts: Ar. Lys. 506, 797, Th. 1973, Ec. 904, Pl. 422 (restored), Pl. Com. fr. 57, Axion. fr. 7, Alex. fr. 147, though cf. Ar. Lys. 637; see Dickey 1996. 82–84. In other uses γραῦς appears in all genres and periods (e. g. Il. 3.386, Od. 1.191, Archil. fr. 205, A. Eu. 38, Eur. Hec. 612, X. Cyr. 8.5.28, Pl. Grg. 527a, D. 19.283). Γρᾶες was also the title of a comedy by Phrynichus. Older women in comedy are frequently portrayed as sexual, bibulous characters; as Henderson 1987b argues, however, such characters, though the object of some degree of mockery, are often sympathetically drawn. See also Taillardat 1965. 49–53; Taaffe 1993. 123–29; McClure 1999. 253–8; Austin and Olson 2004. 165, 205. Θεολύτη is mentiond twice as a famous hetaira (PAA 508540), both times in jokes about her old age (Philetaer. fr. 9, Anaxandr. fr. 9). Our evidence does not permit us to conclude (pace PAA) that the old enslaved woman mentioned here is this hetaira; Theopompus may instead simply have intended to evoke the famous aging sex worker by naming an old woman in a sexualized scene “Theolyte.” The name is not otherwise attested, although the masculine Θεόλυτος is documented as early as 390 BCE (SEG XII 360.1.20), and as many as nine individuals bore the name thereafter (see LGPN s. v.). For sex workers in Theopompus, see above on the title of Aphrodite and on fr. 22, and below, on the title of Pamphile. 6 ἀσπάσωμαι Already in Homer ἀσπάζομαι tends to indicate a particularly warm greeting, often one involving physical signs of affection: e. g. Il. 10.542, “with right hand and soft words”; Od. 22.498–500, “and they kissed his head and took his hands.” This use is frequent in comedy: Ar. V. 607, where Philocleon’s daughter bathes and kisses him; Ec. 971–5, where the young man twice asks his girlfriend to open her door and “welcome” him; Pl. 752, the just citizens welcome Wealth and “take his right hand with pleasure.” See Dunbar 1995. 453; Sommerstein 2001. 161; Biles and Olson 2015. 277. Storey may thus be right to translate “so I may kiss you,” particularly since Theolyte’s reaction shows that she (correctly) understands Spinther’s speech and behavior to indicate a sexual interest in her. 7 ξύνδουλον is a relatively rare term, but does occur in Euripides (Med. 65, Andr. 64, Ion 1109), comedy (Ar. Pax 745, Men. Per. 5; cf. Herod. 5.56), and prose (Hdt. 1.110, 2.134, Arist. EN 1148b). Pollux (3.82) disguishes σύνδουλος from ὁμόδουλος, on the grounds that the former always refers to slaves who share a master, the latter simply to others living under the condition of slavery; in extant classical Greek, however, ὁμόδουλος is primarily still used to refer to slaves of the same master (e. g. Eur. Hec. 60, Pl. Theaet. 172e, etc.). For slaves in Greek comedy, see the essays in Akrigg and Tordoff 2013, with much bibliography. οὑτωσὶ καλῶς I take this phrase to indicate that Theolyte accedes to Spinther’s request to approach, the deictic iota suggesting that he is responding to her motions on stage.

Νεμέα (fr. 33)

117

8 The name Σπινθήρ, literally “spark,” belongs to a cook’s boy in Men. Asp. 222–30 (see Gomme and Sandbach 1973, ad loc.) and to a cook in Ariston AP 7.306; Theopompus’ Spinther may thus be part of the kitchen staff, but the name is also attested outside comedy (see PAA 830705–755, esp. 830705, a manumitted slave), and may have been chosen here to suggest some other association beside cooking. τάλας appears twice in Homer (Od. 18.327, 19.68), and is very frequent in tragedy (e. g. A. Pers. 445, Th. 262, Eur. Med. 34, 437, S. Aj. 340, 925). In comedy, however, only women use the word in addresses to other characters (e. g. Ar. Lys. 914, Men. Epitr. 260; cf. Σ Pl. Theaet. 178e); as Dedoussi puts it, “when used by women of or to someone else, this adjective does not have its literal meaning, but it appears as an expression of feminine tenderness and sympathy, which also implies either reproof or mockery” (1964. 2). Whether Theolyte’s use of the word is meant to convey any sympathy, or simply rejection, we cannot say without further context. See Dedoussi 1964. 1–6; Wilson 1971; Ussher 1973. 92; Dover 1993. 265; Bain 1984. 33–35; Henderson 1987b, 79; Chadwick 1996. 262–6; Arnott 1996. 266; Olson 2002. 123. πειρᾷς With a person as accusative object, πειρᾶν regularly means “seduce” in comedy and prose; see LSJ sv. IV.2, to whose examples may be added Ar. Pax 763, Aristopho fr. 5, Macho fr. 18.450. 9 φιλοτησίαν προπίομαι The φιλοτησία (sc. κύλιξ) is the “cup of friendship,” a toast that was a regular feature of symposium drinking (Ar. Ach. 983, Lys 203, D. 19.128, Luc. Smp. 15); προπίνω is the vox propria for offering such a toast (Alex. frr. 59, 202, 293, Luc. Gall. 12; cf. Harp. φ 21, Poll. 6.30, Ath. 502b). See Tolles 1943. 102–4; Arnott 1996. 181–3; Olson 2002. 314–15; and cf. below, on fr. 41. 10 From Homer onwards θυμός frequently indicates appetite or desire for food and drink (e. g. Il. 4.263, Od. 17.603). As Chadwick notes, this sense of θυμός as “desire” develops into a set of expressions of the type θυμός ἐστί μοι, meaning “I have a desire to, I wish to” (1996. 148); these expressions are present throughout classical Greek (e. g. S. El. 1319, Hdt. 1.1, Ar. Pax 559). 11 τὸ πρῶτον A common adverbial expression in lists of events or commands (e. g. S. Aj. 719, Hdt. 4.43, Th. 1.131.2, Ar. Nu. 1363), which probably indicates that Spinther continued with another imperative verb after our fragment breaks off.

118

Ὀδυσσεύς (Odysseus) or Ὀδυσσῆς (Odyssēs) (“Odysseus” or “Odysseuses”)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 412–13; Meineke 1839 I.241; Meineke 1839 II.805–7; Bothe 1855. 309–10; Schmidt 1888. 390–92; Favazza 1903. 81–94; Norwood 1931. 31–32; Edmonds 1957 I.860–63; Phillips 1959. 65; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 115–17; Sommerstein 2009. 284–5; Storey 2011. 334–37; Farmer 2017b. 111–13; Farmer 2020. 343–53 Title Athenaeus (fr. 35) and the Aristophanic scholia (fr. 36) record the title of this play as Ὀδυσσεύς; Pollux instead gives the title as Ὀδυσσῆς (fr. 37), and Erotian as Ὀδυσσεία (also fr. 37). This last can safely be dismissed: it is an easy error for any Greek scholarly text to make, given how frequently the Odyssey is cited in Greek scholarship; and Theopompus routinely calls plays after a leading character (e.g. Admetus, Althaea, Hēducharēs, Theseus, etc.) but is nowhere attested as re–using the title of a work from another genre of literature. Either the singular or the plural form of Odysseus’ name would, however, be a plausible title for this comedy. Ὀδυσσεύς was the title of comedies by Anaxandrides, Amphis, Alexis, Eubulus, and the Sicilians Epicharmus (Odysseus the Deserter and Odysseus Shipwrecked) and Dinolochus; the more unusual plural form Ὀδυσσῆς was the title of a comedy by Cratinus. Bergk preferred the plural title, on the grounds that it would be more likely for this unusual word to be corrupted into the much more common singular form of Odysseus’ name than the reverse. As Sommerstein points out, however, Cratinus’ Odysseuses seems to have occupied a relatively important place in Greek scholarship on comedy, and it is possible that Cratinus’ title has simply ousted Theopompus’ in Pollux’ reference; we may note that Pollux does cite Cratinus’ Odysseuses with its correct plural title elsewhere (10.32 = fr. 148). I have chosen to refer to this comedy primarily by the title Odysseus, as the more commonly cited title in our sources, but our evidence does not permit us to decide between these titles conclusively. Content The title (in either form) suggests that Odysseus was a character in this comedy. Cratinus fr. 151 indicates that the chorus of his Odysseuses were the companions of Odysseus; if Theopompus’ play had the same plural title, we might expect it to have the same meaning. Eustathius’ citation of fr. 34 mentions that the speaker of the fragment was Odysseus, but since Eustathius does not include the title of the play, we cannot be certain it belonged to Odysseus rather than to Penelope or Sirens. Beyond the presence of Odysseus, our fragments show us a joke about Euripides and parasites (fr. 35), a euphemistic reference to oral sex (fr. 36), and a brief mention of a shaggy wool garment (fr. 37). Comic (and satyric) treatments of Odysseus were very popular: in addition to the comedies entitled Odysseus or Odysseuses mentioned above, other possible appearances by Odysseus include Diocles’ and Callias’ Cyclopes, Euripides’ Cyclops, Epicharmus’ and Nikophon’s Sirens, Philyllius’ and Eubulus’ Nausikaa,

Ὀδυσσεύς (fr. *34)

119

Ephippus’ and Anaxilas’ Kirke, Anaxilas’ Kalypso. Theopompus himself seems to have had a strong interest in such plays, given his Penelope and Sirens. Where our evidence provides any indication, these plays seem to draw on a range of episodes from throughout the Odyssey, but our fragments provide no indication which, if any, such episodes Theopompus may have treated. For Odysseus in Greek comedy generally, see Schmidt 1888; Favazza 1903; Phillips 1959; Whitman 1964; Mastromarco 1998; Olson 2007. 47; Rosen 2007. 117–171; Bakola 2010. 234–46; Revermann 2013; Telò 2013; Biles and Olson 2015. 144; Farmer 2020; Perrone 2020. One other possible source of information on this play is the late antique scholar of comedy Platonius, who in his essay On the Different Forms of Comedy somewhat bizarrely assigns Cratinus’ Odysseuses to Middle Comedy, and claims that it lacked political content and choral passages. This, along with various other errors in Platonius’ historical data, led Sommerstein to suggest that in these references to a comedy about Odysseus Platonius has confused Cratinus’ Odysseuses with Theopompus’ Odysseus(es). If Sommerstein were correct, it would corroborate the suggestion that Theopompus’ play parodied Homer, and might have the added effect of leading us to reject the dactylo–epitrite analysis of fr. 36, since this would almost certainly indicate that the fragment belonged to a choral song. Even Sommerstein, however, admits that other explanations of Platonius’ error are plausible, and there may be no connection between his comments and Theopompus’ comedy. Date None of our fragments refer to dateable events or historical inviduals, except the reference to Euripides in fr. 35; this, however, so closely resembles quotations of Euripides made long after his death (e. g. Diph. fr. 74), that there is no reason to assume it would have needed to be said during the tragedian’s lifetime.

fr. *34 K.–A. (33 K.) χιτῶνά μοι φέρων δέδωκας δαιδάλεον, ὃν ᾒκασεν ἄρισθ᾽ Ὅμηρος κρομμύου λεπυχάνῳ 2 δαίδαλον Eust.: corr. Meineke

3 κρομύου Eust.: corr. Meineke

an elaborate chiton you brought and gave me, which Homer excellently compared to the skin of an onion Eust. p. 1863.50–52 = ii.201.8–10 Ἰστέον δὲ, ὅτι τε τὸ ῥηθὲν λέπυρον καὶ λεπύχανόν φασιν εὑρῆσθαι παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ τῷ κωμικῷ, εἰπόντι ὡς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως τό· ——

120

Theopompus

One should know that they say the words lepuron and lepuchanon are also found in Theopompus the comic poet, speaking as from the character Odysseus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xlkl〉 klkl klkl l|lkr klkl klkl l|lkl klkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.241; Meineke 1839 II.806; Bothe 1855. 309; Schmidt 1888. 390; Favazza 1903. 84–88; Norwood 1931. 31–32; Edmonds 1957 I.860–61; Phillips 1959. 65; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 116; Storey 2011. 336–37; Revermann 2013. 112–13; Farmer 2017b. 111–12; Farmer 2020. 344–48; Perrone 2020. 348 Citation Context Commenting on the simile at Od. 19.232–4, Eustathius explains that the comparison of a tunic to an onion skin must refer to a dried rather than a fresh onion, because the point of the simile is the almost transparent thinness of the tunic. He then lists various cognate terms for onion skin, since Homer uses λοπός but Theopompus λεπύχανον, and cites this fragment as evidence. He also seems to attribute the word λέπυρον to Theopompus, but does not provide a citation to demonstrate it. Text Eustathius gives the alternate form δαίδαλον for δαιδάλεον, and spells κρομμύου with a single μ; the latter is the Homeric spelling of the word, and the former is also attested in Homer. Neither of these spellings, however, produces correct scansion here, and Meineke’s emendations easily restore the meter without altering the sense. Interpretation Eustathius understood Odysseus to be the speaker of these lines; he cites them in the course of a discussion of the Homeric verses they parody. In Book 19 of the Odyssey, Odysseus addresses Penelope in his disguise as a beggar, and claims to have seen her husband twenty years earlier on Crete as he was making his way to Troy. At 19.215–19, Penelope seeks to test this claim by asking her guest to describe Odysseus’ appearance on that occasion; Odysseus responds with a long, detailed description of the clothing he wore when he set out for Troy (221–48). At 19.232–35, he mentions the tunic (chiton) Odysseus wore, and compares its translucent, thin cloth to the skin of an onion: τὸν δὲ χιτῶν’ ἐνόησα περὶ χροῒ σιγαλόεντα, οἷόν τε κρομύοιο λοπὸν κάτα ἰσχαλέοιο· τὼς μὲν ἔην μαλακός, λαμπρὸς δ’ ἦν ἠέλιος ὥς. ἦ μὲν πολλαί γ’ αὐτὸν ἐθηήσαντο γυναῖκες. I noted his chiton shining around his body, like the skin on a dried onion: that’s how soft it was, and it was shining like the sun. And indeed many women admired it.

Ὀδυσσεύς (fr. *34)

121

Theopompus recalls this simile with the words χίτων᾽ and κρομμύου, both in the same cases (accusative and genitive respectively) as in the Homeric original. Rather than imitating it directly with his own simile, however, he cites Homer as the author of it, replacing Homer’s λοπός with the equally rare λεπύχανον. The word δαιδάλεος is Homeric vacbulary as well; (although it is absent from the Homeric model, and is not used to describe ordinary clothing in Homer), but the rest of the language in this fragment is contemporary and prosaic; Theopompus’ speaker is content to reveal that he has read his Homer, without needing to imitate Homeric style (as Theopompus does elsewhere; see esp. fr. 31). Although Kassel and Austin hesitantly assign this fragment to Odysseus, there is no reason to prefer Odysseus to Penelope, particularly given that the source of Theopompus’ allusion here is a scene in which Odysseus speaks with Penelope. Odysseus cannot, however, be addressing Penelope directly in this fragment, as he is in the Odyssean model, since φέρων indicates that the person who gave Odysseus the tunic was male. The speaker’s citation of Homer by name puts him among a set of comic characters who are aware of the literary models of the comedies in which they appear, including Tereus in Birds (who knows he came from Sophocles’ Tereus) and Echo in Thesmophoriazusae (who knows she was created by Euripides). It is striking that this speaker is able not only to refer to such literary precedents but to evaluate them. At the same time, this self–awareness has its precedent already in Homer, since Odysseus is already exposed to – and experiences aesthetic and emotional reactions to – poetry about himself (e. g. Od. 8.62–95). 1 χιτῶνα The chiton is, from Homer onwards, one of the most basic articles of Greek clothing, a rectangular cloth arranged as a tunic by pinning at the shoulders, often worn with a belt and sometimes with other fastenings as well; the male version typically reaches to the mid–thigh, the female to the ankles (Stone 1980. 170–74; Compton–Engle 2015. 60). In Homer, men don the chiton when they wake up or leave a bath, and take it off immediately before sleep (e. g. Il. 2.42, Od. 1.437, 3.467), confirming its fundamental status in the heroic wardrobe. Vase imagery and terracotta figurines show that on the comic stage, men wore an absurdly short chiton which revealed the stage phallus; see Stone 1980. 170–80; Hughes 2012. 183–84, 187; Compton–Engle 2015. 60. 2 δαιδάλεον Elevated, epicizing vocabulary. This adjective (a synonym for ποικίλος; cf. Hsch. s. v.) is common in Homer (and once in genuine Hesiod, Th. 575), but afterwards is confined to lyric poetry (e. g. Pi. P. 4.296, Bacch. 5.140, Eur. Hec. 470) and epic imitations (e. g. Sc. 137, 334, 460, Theoc. 24.42, A. R. 3.237, Batr. 121); in comedy it occurs only here and at Alex. fr. 17, where it describes fish. In Homer the adjective is more frequent in the Iliad but also occurs in the Odyssey; it it used to describe a wide range of objects, including belts (Il. 4.135), armor such as helmets and shields (Il. 6.418, 8.195, 13.331, 719, 18.612, 19.380, 22.314), lyres (Il. 9.187), chests (Il. 16.222), chariots (Il. 17.448), pot handles (Il. 18.379), chairs (Il. 18.390, Od. 10.367, 17.32), and linen cloth (Od. 1.131).

122

Theopompus

2–3 ᾒκασεν ἄρισθ᾽ The verb εἰκάζειν in the sense of “compare” is attested from the Archaic Period onwards in all genres (e. g. Sappho fr. 104, A. Ch. 633, Hdt. 7.162, Ar. V. 1308, etc.). In the rhetorical tradition, the verb and its cognates (including εἰκών, εἰκασία) are used as early as Aristotle to describe Homeric similes (e. g. Arist. Rhet. 3.4.1406b, Plu. Mor. 726f, Luc. Char. 19, Philostr. VA 1.22). In later authors, a distinction is made between εἰκασία and παραβολή, with the former referring to shorter comparisons and the latter to expanded, epic similes (see esp. [Demetrius] On Style 89–90); although there is no reason to think the word had such a degree of technical specificity in Theopompus’ day, his use of it does foreshadow this development. For the treatment of Homeric similes in ancient literary criticism, see Clausing 1913; McCall 1969; Snipes 1988; Richardson 2006. 197–200, Nünlist 2009. 282–98. 3 Ὅμηρος Homer is frequently referred to by name in comedy, often when a character wishes to cite a Homeric quotation (Ar. Pax 1089, 1096, Av. 575, 910–14, Ra. 1034) or a Homeric usage (Ar. fr. 233, Nu. 1056, Strato fr. 1.50). Other comic references include Ar. Ra. 1034 (Aeschylus’ claim that Homer, like other early poets, was useful); Eub. fr. 118 (a discussion of the Homeric hero’s diet), and Philemo fr. 99 (a claim that eloquent speech is never considered too lengthy, with Homer cited as example). Several scholars have argued that he appeared as a character in Cratinus’ Archilochuses; see Bakola 2010. 70–79, Revermann 2013. 117, Bianchi 2016. 15–18, 65–71. The anachronistic humor of having Odysseus refer to Homer resembles that of a substantial fragment of Alexis’ Linus (fr. 140), in which Heracles and Linus peruse the volumes of the latter’s library, which includes Homer; see Wright 2013, 609–11. Theopompus several times has his character cite the authors of quotations or parodies: see frr. 4, 16, 35. κρομμύου Homer mentions onions twice, once in the simile Theopompus refers to in this fragment, and a second time in a somewhat puzzling reference at Il. 11.630 to onion as an accompaniment to wine drunk after dinner (see Hainsworth 1993. 292; Dalby 1996. 103). In classical Athens the onion was a cheap, accessible food that formed part of the standard rations carried by soldiers (and thus often had military connotations; Olson 1998.147, 284); Theophrastus documents a wide variety of onion types (HP 7.2.3, 7.4.7–10). See Harvey 1995. 276; Dalby 1996. 84, and 2003. 240–41. λεπυχάνῳ Theopompus’ substitute for the Homeric λοπός, λεπύχανον is a rare word, found nowhere else in classical Greek (where we have instead λέπος, λόπισμα, λεπυρόν, and other related forms). Chantraine (1970 sv. λέπω 2) suggests that the word was formed of a merger between λέπυρον and λάχανον. In later authors it is used as a generic term for the rind or skin of beans, pomegranates, and other plants (Dsc. Eup. 1.74.2, 1.92.1, 2.51.5; Plut. Mor. 684a; Gal. Comp. Med. 12.445, 13.256).

Ὀδυσσεύς (fr. 35)

123

fr. 35 K.–A. (34 K.) Εὐριπίδου τἄριστον, οὐ κακῶς ἔχον, τἀλλότρια δειπνεῖν τὸν καλῶς εὐδαίμονα 1 τ᾽ ἄριστον A: ᾽στ᾽ ἄριστον Bergk: τἄρ᾽ ἔστιν Meineke: τἀρεστὸν Bothe: τόδ᾽ ἔστιν Blaydes 1890: τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν: Blaydes 1896

Euripides’ best line, not at all bad: the truly happy man dines on others’ food Ath. 4.165b καὶ Θεόπομπος δ᾽ ἐν Ὀδυσσεῖ ἔφη· —— And Theopompus said in Odysseus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl llk|l klkl llrl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Bergk 1838. 412–13; Meineke 1839 II.806; Bothe 1855. 309; Blaydes 1890. 58; Blaydes 1896. 91; Favazza 1903. 88–96; Norwood 1931. 32; Edmonds 1957 I.862–63; Phillips 1959. 65; Nesselrath 1990. 310–11; Damon 1997. 28 n.18; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 116; Casolari 2003. 221; Sommerstein 2009. 285 n.51; Storey 2011. 336–37; Farmer 2017b. 112–13, 2020. 349–51 Citation Context At Ath. 4.160e–164e, Magnus delivers a diatribe against worldly philosophers in general and Cynulcus in particular, contrasting them with true ascetics and criticizing their parasitical behavior. At 4.164e–165b, Cynulcus responds in kind, comparing Magnus to various parasites; both speeches consist primarily of quotations from comedy. This fragment of Theopompus is the final quotation, and Athenaeus notes that the diners laughed together after it was delivered (165b: Γελασάντων οὖν πάντων ἐπὶ τούτοις…). Text A number of attempts have been made to improve the ms. reading of the first line of this fragment, most motivated by the interpretation that the letters ταριστον would represent τ(ε) ἄριστον, “and Euripides’ breakfast…”: Bergk adds a σ to render the line “Euripides’ best is”; Meineke gives “isn’t Euripides’ best…?”; Bothe changes the word to ἀρεστόν, “pleasant”; Blaydes provides two ways of making the line more directly introduce the quotation which follows. If, however, we understand these letters as τ(ὸ) ἄριστον, “the best,” there is no need to emend. Interpretation The speaker attributes a praise of the parasite’s life to Euripides, and claims it was the poet’s best work. Theopompus accomplishes several interesting things with these striking lines. First, he establishes an association between Euripides and parasitism that is picked up again later in the fourth century, when

124

Theopompus

Diphilus presents Euripides as a parasite himself or a patron of parasites: see frr. 60, 74, with Hanink 2014. 167–71; Farmer 2017b. 61–62. Second, the speaker claims to be citing Euripides here; if this is true, we probably have an act of parody (so TrGF 5.906) arguing that Theopompus’ τἀλλότρια δειπνεῖν (“to dine on other people’s 〈food〉”) must replace an original Euripidean expression such as τἀλλότρια φεύγειν (“to avoid other people’s 〈problems〉”). There are, however, two other possible explanations for this quotation: that it is quoted accurately, but from a satyr play instead of a tragedy (so Bergk and Meineke); or that the quotation is entirely false, and that the joke is simply the attribution to Euripides of a line that could not possibly belong to tragedy. If the quotation is satyric, it would constitute the only direct reference to satyr play in Theopompus’ remains.38 If the quotation is entirely false, it would resemble other falsely or questionably attributed quotations elsewhere in fourth–century comedy (e. g. Antiph. frr. 1, 205, Diph. fr. 74); Diphilus in particular will play with this same ambiguity in combining genuine and false quotations in a parasite’s praise of Euripides in his Synoris. Finally, there is a level of metapoetic play inherent in Theopompus’ language here: by explicitly citing Euripides as the source for his praise of parasitism, Theopompus in a sense figures his own act of paratragedy as itself parasitic. In a play that clearly marks itself as indebted to earlier literature, and in a genre that so frequently imitates other genres, especially Euripidean tragedy, there is a kind of delightful, ironic self–consciousness is simultaneously praising those who benefit from others’ work, and admitting (or claiming) that the language of that praise belongs to another poet. For a further development of this interpretation, see Farmer 2017b. 111–13. 1 Εὐριπίδου Euripides is mentioned by name very frequently in comedy, in poets of the generation before Aristophanes (Cratin. fr. 342, Telecl. frr. 41, 42), in Aristophanes himself of course (frr. 128, 392, 488, 596, 682, in addition to Euripides’ appearances in Ach., Th., Ra., and references in nearly every extant play) and in his contemporaries (Plat. Com. fr. 29, fr. 142, Strattis fr. 1), as well as in the fragments of poets writing after Euripides’ death (Antiph. frr. 111, 205, Axion. fr. 3, Ephipp. frr. 9, 16, Eub. fr. 26, Nicostr. fr. 29, Diph. fr. 74, Philemo frr. 118, 153, Philippid. fr. 18), including Menander (e. g. Asp. 425–7). Although during his own life Euripides was often the butt of mockery, after his death he becomes a figure of comic praise and even obsession, a notion that seems to reach its purest expression in comedies titled Phileuripides by Axionicus and Philippides; on these plays see Scharffenberger 2012; Hanink 2014. 176–83; Wright 2013, 620–22; Farmer 2017b. 41–45. This is Theopompus’ only explicit engagement with Euripides in his surviving fragments, but the titles of several of his comedies suggest that he may have treated

38

For the treatment of satyr play in comedy see Shaw 2014

Ὀδυσσεύς (fr. 35)

125

certain of the myths that furnished the plots of Euripidean tragedies: see Admetus, Althaea, Theseus. For the treatment of Euripides in comedy generally, see (among many others) Webster 1960. 153–98; Rau 1967; Katsouris 1975; Goldberg 1980; Zeitlin 1981; Porter 1999–2000; Silk 2000; Gutzwiller 2000; Dobrov 2001; Rosen 2006a and 2006b; Olson 2007. 178–180; Foley 2008; Hunter 2009. 10–52; Telò 2010 and 2016. 56–87; Halliwell 2011. 93–154; Ruffell 2011. 314–60; Wright 2012 and 2013b; Torrance 2013. 267–298; Hanink 2014. 159–190; Farmer 2017b. τἄριστον In later comedy, quotations from Euripides are often accompanied by such praise: Nicostr. fr. 29 (νὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν συντόμως γε, φίλτατε / Εὐριπίδη, τὸν βίον ἔθηκας εἰς στίχον, “By Athena, dearest Euripides, how concisely you’ve put all of life into a single line”); Diph. fr. 60 (εὖ γ’ ὁ κατάχρυσος εἶπε πόλλ’ Εὐριπίδης, “Gilded Euripides said many things quite well”); Philemo fr. 153 (Εὐρι[πί]δης πού [φη]σιν, οὕτος [ὃς] μόνος / δύ[να]ται λ[έ]γε[ιν, “Euripides says somewhere, he who alone is able to speak…”). The Homeric quotation in fr. 34 was also described with the adjective ἄριστος; whether they belong to the same play or not, we may at least recognize such praise as a pattern in Theopompus’ characters’ practice of literary quotation. 2 τἀλλότρια δειπνεῖν becomes a stock expression in comedy for describing the life of a parasite: Eub. fr. 72, Antiph. fr. 252, Nicol. fr. 1.16, Timocl. fr. 31 (and cf. similar expressions at Alex. fr. 213, Ephipp. fr. 20, Nicol. fr. 1.25, Plaut. Capt. 77, Pers. 58). For the expression see Hunter 1983. 162, Nesselrath 1990. 310–11, Damon 1997. 28 n.18, Arnott 1996. 611; and on parasites in comedy, see Nesselrath 1990. 309–17, Arnott 1996. 542–45, Damon 1997. 23–26, Mesturini 2001. 261–81. τὸν εὐδαίμονα The adjective εὐδαίμων appears first in Hesiod (Op. 826) and is very common in all genres thereafter (Alc. fr. 5.12, Thgn. 1.1013, Pi. O. 2.18, A. Pers. 767, S. Ant. 582, Eur. Med. 596, Hdt. 1.133, Th. 1.6.3, Ar. Ach. 656, X. HG 2.4.17, etc.). In prose it often has the specific connotation “wealthy” (e. g. Hdt. 1.133, Th. 1.6, Lys. 32.17, Pl. R. 3.406c), which would lend particular point to the praise of the parasite’s existence here: the proverb would suggest that true wealth consists in making use of the wealth of others. καλῶς often has a simple intensifying sense, equivalent to πανύ; see LSJ s. v. καλός II.3.

126

Theopompus

fr. 36 K.–A. (35 K.) ἵνα μὴ τὸ παλαιὸν τοῦτο καὶ θρυλούμενον δι᾽ ἡμετέρων στομάτων 〈 〉 εἴπω σόφισμ’, ὅ φασι παῖδας Λεσβίων εὑρεῖν 2 lac. stat. Dindorf esse coni. Blaydes

διἀ τῶν σφετέρων στομάτων sic scripta post εὑρεῖν (4) transponenda

so that I may not speak of that old famous trick we do with our mouths which they say the children of the Lesbians discovered Σ (RVΓ et Tricl. Lh) Ar. Vesp. 1346a μέλλουσαν ἤδη λεσβιεῖν τοὺς ξυμπότας· παρὰ τὸ ἱστορούμενον, ὅτι παρὰ Λεσβίοις τοῦτο πρῶτον ἡ γυνὴ ἔπαθεν. καὶ παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ ἐν Ὀδυσσεῖ· —— just as she was about to lesbizein the symposiasts: because it was discovered that a woman first experienced this among the Lesbians. And in Theopompus’ Odysseus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

or

rlrl l|lk|l llkl klrl rl〈kl xlkl〉 llkl klk|l llkl ll〈kl xlkl xlkl〉 Dactylo–epitrite

kklkkl l lkl l lkl l lkklkkl l lklklkl l lkl l l〈kklkkl〉

(^Dlele) (lD) (lEle) (lD?)

Discussion Bergk 1838. 413; Meineke 1839 II.805; Dindorf apud Dübner 1842. 461; Bothe 1855. 309; Blaydes 1896. 91; Favazza 1903. 81–84; Edmonds 1957 I.862–63; Henderson 1991. 183–84; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 117; Storey 2011. 336–37; Farmer 2020. 351–53 Citation Context At Ar. Vesp. 1341–63, Philocleon turns to address the auletris Dardanis, whom he has stolen from the symposium he disrupted and fled before entering the stage. He hauls her up onto the stage using his costume phallus, and then praises himself for stealing her away “just as she was about to lesbizein the symposiasts” (1346). The scholiasts make various attempts to explain the meaning

Ὀδυσσεύς (fr. 36)

127

of this verb, which they connect with oral sex; one scholium (1346a) provides a series of comic fragments illustrating this usage: Theopompus fr. 36 and Strattis frr. 41, 42. Text The restoration of this fragment depends on our interpretation of the meter. If it is in iambic trimeters, there is a gap in line 2 which led Dindorf to question whether this line even belonged to Theopompus, or was an intrusive gloss of some kind; since the use of the mouth is the essential point the scholiast wishes to prove (cf. Strattis fr. 41.2, also cited here: τῷ στόματι δράσω τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ, “I’ll do that very thing with my mouth…”), these words seem likely to be a genuine piece of the fragment. Bothe argues that the sense of the fragment seems to fit an iambic context; either the words would necessitate rearrangement, or Dindorf ’s gap in line 2 would need to be accepted. Another possibility, however, is that the lines should be understood as dactylo– epitrites. Their scansion fits with Aristophanes’ use of that meter (see Dale 1968. 178–94, Parker 1997. 85–90; these verses resemble most closely Ar. Av. 451–9), and it is the case that the logic and grammar of the fragment seem complete as they stand. This scansion has the benefit of eliminating the need to posit a lacuna in the fragment, but it does require us to attribute to Theopompus a meter which is not found elsewhere in his fragments, is somewhat rare even in the fifth century, and is largely absent from our evidence in the fourth century. On balance, it seems more likely that we have here iambic trimeters with a lacuna. Interpretation In this sentence fragment, the speaker makes a euphemistic reference to fellatio. The association of fellatio with Lesbos is common in comedy (hence the verb λεσβιάζειν or λεσβίζειν, which the scholiast who quotes these lines is explaining), but the speaker may intend to give these lines a slightly elevated flavor with the phrase παίδας Λεσβίων. For the association between fellatio and Lesbos, see Ar. V. 1346, Pherecr. fr. 159, Strattis frr. 41, 42, with Dover 1989. 182–4, Henderson 1991. 183, Orth 2009. 191–98, Gilhuly 2015, Biles and Olson 2015. 473. If these lines are in iambic trimeters, they simply represent a badly preserved snippet of dialogue from the play; they may even, as Dindorf suggests, be shared over two speakers (though see Bothe against this view). If, however, they are in dactylo–epitrites, they represent one of the few instances of lyrics preserved in the fragments of Theopompus (cf. fr. 39), as well as the only example of dactylo–epitrites in the comic fragments (with the possible exception of Cratinus frr. 258–59). Aristophanes was still employing dactylo–epitrites as late as Ecclesiazusae (571–80; see Parker 1997. 532–37), so their presence here is by no means out of the question. He tended to use dactylo–epitrites for parody or imitation of epinician, tragedy, and Stesichorus (Eq. 1264–73 ~ 1290–99, Vesp. 275–90 ~ 298–313, Pax 775–818, Av. 451–59 ~ 539–47, 904–52, Ra. 1362–4, Ec. 571–80), or occasionally for a general tone of elevation (Nu. 457–75, Ra 674–85 ~ 706–16; cf. Th. 312–30); although neither is in evidence here, these verses might have formed part of a longer song that would have justified such an association. Such songs in Aristophanes belong

128

Theopompus

predominantly to the chorus, but the Pindaric poet in Birds also makes use of them, so it remains possible that a character could perform these lines as well. See Parker 1997. 85–90. 1–3 ἵνα μὴ... εἴπω is an expression used regularly in prose used to justify generalizations and euphemisms (e. g. Pl. R. 6.487d, 6.507d, D. 19.100), or (in a sort of praeteritio) to justify a speaker’s reluctance to mention some topic while simultaneously mentioning it (e. g. Pl. Grg. 521b, D. 9.64). Purpose clauses with ἵνα often justify a speaker’s choice of expression, with an independent clause meaning “and I said that” or the like left implied: cf. S. Ph. 989, Pl. R. 6.507d, D. 45.5. παλαιὸν... καὶ θρυλούμενον Forms of θρυλέω are often used to describe rumors, common talk, and old sayings (Eur. fr. 285, Isoc. 4.89, 12.237, Pl. Phaed. 76d, D. 2.6, etc.). A chef in Anaxippus uses the same pair of adjectives to dismiss old–fashioned seasonings (fr. 1.3–4): οὗτοι τὰ μὲν παλαιὰ καὶ θρυλούμενα / ἀρτύματ’ ἐξήλειψαν ἐκ τῶν βυβλίων, “these men erased the old and famous condiments from their books.” Here the expression is not so much to dismiss the “trick,” but rather to emphasize that the other characters (and the audience) must undoubtedly be familiar with it already. 2 δι᾽ ἡμετέρων στομάτων These words create a humorous ambiguity, in that they could belong either with θρυλούμενον (so Rusten: “that old brilliant idea, kept popular among us by word of mouth”; cf. Ar. Av. 211, Pl. Soph. 238b) or with σόφισμα (so Storey: “that celebrated old trick of our lips”). Henderson’s translation neatly captures this ambiguity: “that old technique, much repeated by mouth.” When the speaker mentions that the trick was discovered on Lesbos, it becomes clear (if the preceeding lines had not already made it so) that the reference is to oral sex, so that even listeners who understood the phrase simply to be connected with θρυλούμενον now perceive a double entendre. 3 σόφισμ(α) is common in verse and prose from the fifth century onwards, often in a general sense of “invention” or “device” (Pi. O. 13.17, [A.] PV 459, Th. 6.77.1, Pl. Smp. 214a, etc.). Elsewhere in the comic fragments the word appears only at Pherecr. fr. 267, without context. In Ar. the word has a range of meanings: it can refer to elements of sophistic education (fr. 206, Nu. 205, Av. 430), to poetic devices, with or without a negative connotation (Ra. 17, 872, 1104), or as a kind of synonym for τέχνη, in the sense of “profession” (Pl. 160). παῖδας Λεσβίων Blaydes compares this phrase to the Homeric formula υἷας Ἀχαιῶν in fr. 31; although expressions of this type using the word παῖδες are not found in Homer,39 they are used by later authors, including Aeschylus (Pers. 402: παῖδες Ἑλλήνων) and Herodotus (1.27: οἱ Λυδῶν παῖδες; 5.49: Ἰώνων παῖδας). Here the expression is probably just a periphrasis for “people of Lesbos,” but it may

39

With the possible exception of Od. 11.547 (παῖδες Τρώων), a line athetized by Aristarchus; see Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989, 110.

Ὀδυσσεύς (fr. 37)

129

have the connotation “young women” or even “slave girls,” given the ambiguity of the word παῖς and the servile connotations oral sex often has in comic discourse. 4 εὑρεῖν The search for a definitive “first discover” (πρῶτος εὑρετής) becomes a topos in the fifth century, an interest Theopompus may be playing on here; see Kleingunther 1933, Baumbach 2001, Overduin 2014. 109–12.

fr. 37 K.–A. (36 K.) λάσιον ἐπιβεβλημένος having put on a lasion Poll. 7.73–74 ἐν δὲ τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν Σαπφοῦς μελῶν ἔστιν εὑρεῖν· ἀμφὶ δ’ ἄβροισ’... λασίοισ’ εὖ ἐπύκασσε… καὶ φασὶν εἶναι ταῦτα σινδόνια ἐπεστραμμένα. Θεόπομπος δ’ ἐν Ὀδυσσεῦσιν ἐπὶ διακόνου ἔφη· —— And in Sappho book 5 one can find (fr. 101): “he wrapped well… with soft lasia…” And they say that these are spun linens. Theopompus said in Odysseuses of a servant: —— Erot. Voc. Hipp. λ 22 λάσιον· ὀθόνιον, ὡς Θεόπομπος ἐν Ὀδυσσεῖ. lasion: cloth, as Theopompus 〈says〉 in Odyssey.

Meter Iambic trimeter? e. g.: or:

〈xlkl x〉|rkr llkl 〈x〉rk|r llkl 〈xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.806–7; Bothe 1855. 309; Blaydes 1896. 91; Favazza 1903. 93; Edmonds 1957 I.862–63; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 117; Storey 2011. 336–37; Farmer 2020. 353 Citation Context At 7.72, Pollux, in the course of a larger discussion of types of clothing, refers to a type of linen garment called σινδών; as a synonym for σινδών he mentions λάσιον, and cites these references in Sappho and Theopompus as examples. Text The scansion offered above is only one of a variety of possibilities. The sequence of five short syllables in a row is rare, but not impossible, in comic iambic trimeters: cf. Ar. Ra. 1353–55, with Parker 1997. 34, and fr. 38 below. For Pollux’s reference to this play under the title Odysseuses, and Erotian’s under Odyssey, see above.

130

Theopompus

Interpretation Pollux claims that these words are applied “to a servant” (ἐπὶ διακόνου). Homer and many later authors use the adjective λάσιος, “shaggy” or “rough” (e. g. Il. 1.189, S. Phil. 184, Hdt. 5.9, Pl. Crat. 420e, etc.), but the noun λάσιον appears only in these two fragments quoted by Pollux; he may simply have misunderstood a substantive use of the adjective whose meaning would have been clear in context. For the use of ἐπιβάλλω meaning “throw on a garment,” see above, on fr. 11.

131

Παῖδες (Paides)

(“Children” or “Slaves”) Discussion Bergk 1838. 413–16; Meineke 1839 I.241; Meineke 1839 II.807–8; Bothe 1855. 310; Edmonds 1957 I.862–63; Geissler 1969. xvi, 57; Storey 2011. 336–39 Title The term παῖς may refer either to a child (of either gender) or to an enslaved person (of either gender, or any age). The paides of the title should be the chorus, but they could be either slaves or children; the former seems more likely, given the relatively small role reserved for children in extant comedy, but the brief appearance of the chorus of children in Wasps suggests that such a thing would not have been impossible (see Biles and Olson 2015. 159–60, 168–69). Philemon, too, wrote a Paides; the only preserved fragment (fr. 59) concerns slaves and their masters, but it does not necessarily refer to the chorus. Content This comedy included a scene in which one character urges another to don a covering worn while bathing (fr. 38), a joke about the general and politician Laispodias (fr. 40), and a claim to be responsible for “everything good” which might seems likely to belong either to the chorus or to some kind of personification (fr. 39). This last fragment may derive from a parabasis; it is the only fragment in Theopompus’ remains that seems at all likely to be parabatic (though cf. fr. 77). Date The reference to Laispodias (fr. 40) likely indicates a date early in Theopompus’ career, perhaps in the 410s or 400s BCE. This may be corroborated by the metrical form of fr. 39 (cretics), which suggests the kind of lyric or epirrhematic form that seems to have declined after the end of the fifth century. See Meineke, Geissler, Storey.

fr. 38 K.–A. (37 K.) τηνδὶ περιζωσάμενος ᾤαν λουτρίδα κατάδεσμον ἥβης περιπέτασον 1 τηνδὶ ed. pr.1: τὴν δὴ Poll.1: τὴν δὲ Poll.2 προπέτασον Kock

2 περιπέτασον Poll.2: περιπέταστον Poll.1:

girding this sheepskin bathing–suit about yourself wrap it around as a band over your youth Poll.1 7.66 τὸ δὲ περὶ τοῖς αἰδοίοις, οὐ μόνον γυναικῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνδρῶν, ὁπότε σὺν ταῖς γυναιξὶ λούοιντο. ᾤαν λουτρίδα ἔοικε Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν Παισὶ καλεῖν, εἰπὼν· ——

132

Theopompus

The thing over one’s privates, not only of women but also of men (whenever they bathe with women). Theopompus seems to refer to it in Paides as a “sheepskin bathing–suit,” saying: —— Poll.2 10.181 τὸ μέντοι δέρμα ᾧ ὑποζώννυνται αἱ λουόμεναι γυναῖκες ἢ οἱ λούοντες αὐτάς, ᾤαν λουτρίδα ἔξεστι καλεῖν, Θεοπόμπου εἰπόντος ἐν Παισὶν· —— The skin with which bathing women gird themselves, or men who are bathing with them, it’s possible to call “sheepskin bath suit,” since Theopompus says in Paides: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl lrk|l llkl rlkl l|rkr 〈xlkl〉

Discussion Bergk 1838. 413–16; Meineke 1839 II.807–8; Bothe 1855. 310; Blaydes 1890. 58; Edmonds 1957 I.862–63; Storey 2011. 336–37 Citation Context At 7.54, Pollux, in the course of a longer discussion of Greek articles of clothing, discusses the names for various belts or wraps that women use to cover specific areas of their bodies: the wrap for the breasts is called tainia and the wrap for the abdomen perizōstra. This leads directly into his comment about the wraps used to cover genitals during bathing, and after the quotation of this fragment his discussion continues into 7.67. In book 10, his citation of this same fragment comes in a somewhat more miscellaneous section. He is again discussing articles of clothing here, but at 10.180, after mentioning clothes made of bark or the skin of plants, he also mentions other items made of such material, and cites Theopompus fr. 3 to illustrate the use of the term kistē, “chest.” He then moves without transition into this repetition of the citation of fr. 38, introduced in almost exactly the same language; it seems possible that the broader context of a discussion of clothing and his citation of Theopompus just above is what prompts him to mention fr. 38 here. Unlike in his first discussion of the fragment, however, here he also cites the very similar Pherecrates fr. 68: ἤδη μὲν ᾤαν λουμένῳ προζώννυτε immediately gird a sheepskin around him while he’s bathing Although this fragment does seem to confirm Pollux’s claim that these terms refer specifically to a kind of covering worn in the baths, he focuses here briefly on the term for sheepskin, before moving back into his catalogue of clothing words. Text In the first line, τὴν δὲ (as Pollux renders the fragment at 10.181) does not scan. His other reading, τὴν δὴ (at 7.66), does scan, but the δή is awkwardly placed: it should emphasize the preceding word, but this should not be a plain definite article (a combination which never occurs in Aristophanes); it can emphasize a following participle, but this usage is “almost always ironical, skeptical, or indignant” (Denniston 1954. 230), a sense which does not apply here. The emendation to τηνδὶ preserves the meter, and restores the sense which is required.

Παῖδες (fr. 38)

133

With the final word of the fragment there is more room for doubt. Kock’s emendation to προπέτασον is unnecessary, but both variations recorded by Pollux are possible: on the one hand, περιπέτασον provides the imperative verb that the rest of the fragment clearly expects; on the other, περιπέταστον, while leaving the fragment without a main verb, eliminates the unusual (though not impossible) run of five short syllables. With the latter reading, the fragment would mean, “girding this sheepskin bathing–suit about yourself, spread around as a band over your youth”. The adjective περιπέταστος is attested elsewhere only at Ar. Ach. 1201, but (in light of the scholia on that line) its reading there does appear secure, and so it is possible that the word appears here as well; I have followed K.–A. in preferring the verb, however, as providing fuller sense with a better attested word. Interpretation The speaker urges a male addressee to don a sheepskin covering, using an erotically charged euphemism to describe the person’s genitals (“his youth”). If Pollux’s explanation is correct that such suits were worn while bathing in mixed company, the speaker of this fragment would probably also be a man, since the speaker and the youth appear to be dressing together. The use of this euphemism in such a pederastic context would closely parallel Ar. Nu. 976, where the Stronger Argument, lasciviously describing the nude appearance of young students, also uses the term ἥβη as a euphemism for genitals. The fragment does not clearly indicate whether the covering is being put on because they are about to bathe, or simply as a convenient article to cover the young man’s nudity; given, however, the evident rarity of such a garment, a context related to actual bathing seems likely. 1 περιζωσάμενος This verb typically refers to the use of a belt to bind up the chiton out of the way before beginning an activity such as cooking or hard labor (e. g. Ar. Av. 1148, Alex. fr. 179.11, Anaxandr. fr. 42, [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 28.3, etc.; see Arnott 1996. 537–8). It is also, however, the proper term for belting on the ᾤα: Hermipp. fr. 76, Pherecr. 68. ᾤαν λουτρίδα The ᾤα is a sheepskin cloth (correctly derived from ὄις, sheep, by Pollux), mentioned in classical Greek only in comedy. A version worn by male bathers is mentioned here and at Pherecr. fr. 68; Hermippus mentions a version worn as part of an unknown religious ritual (fr. 76), and also refers to its use by soldiers as a kneeding trough (fr. 56). The adjective λουτρίς is extremely rare,40 but the obvious connection to λούω, “bathe,” the reference in Pherecr. to an ᾤα worn by bathers, and Pollux’s explanation of this fragment securely indicate that the ᾤα λουτρίς must have been a kind of covering worn in the baths. For Greek bathing culture, see Lucore and Trümper 2013, Fikret 1992.6–29. 2 κατάδεσμον The word appears in classical Greek only here and at Pl. R. 2.364c, where it evidently refers to magical spells (so also in later Greek: Artem. 40

It occurs only here and at Ar. fr. 849, where it supposedly refers to women who served Athena.

134

Theopompus

1.77, Plot. 4.4.40, etc.). Bergk therefore understood the word to mean “spell” here as well, and developed an interpretation of the whole comedy centered around the use of magic to restore youth, resembling Demos’ restoration at the conclusion of Knights. This interpretation is, however, unnecessary (and has been rejected by all subsequent editors); in all of the instances in which κατάδεσμος means “binding spell,” it is paired with other terms that more securely refer to magical acts (ἐπαγωγαί in Plato and Plotinus, φαρμακίαι in Artemidorus), and its fundamental meaning is simply “binding.” Given the parallel with Ar. Nu. 976, it seems clear that Pollux is correct here to understand ἥβης as a euphemism for genitals, thus necessitating that κατάδεσμος mean “wrap” here. ἥβης As a euphemism for genitals, ἥβη, “youth,” appears twice in comedy (here and Ar. Nu. 976, where Triclinius glosses ἥβης as τῶν αἰδοίων), but is common in medical and scientific texts (e. g. Hp. Epid. 3.4, Arist. HA 493b, Gal. 2.306; by Galen’s time this euphemism is so firmly established that he can refer to the pubic bone as ἥβης ὀστᾶ, 2.295). Aristophanes also uses it as a less specific euphemism at Lys. 591: τῆς ἥβης ἀπολαῦσαι, “to make use of her youth,” i.e. to have sex with a young woman. Henderson, writing of the passage in Clouds, describes this as a “hot euphemism,” part of the characterization of the Stronger Argument as a person who uses proper language that nevertheless reveals his sexual appetites (1991. 76); a similar dynamic may be at work here. Henderson is incorrect, however, when he describes this fr. of Theopompus as using the term ἥβη to refer to the genitals of both men and women; presumably this has been imported from Pollux’s explanation of the wool covering, but the fragment itself clearly refers to a young man. περιπέτασον A relatively rare word, used in both prose and verse to describe the spreading of cloths (Aesch. 3.76, D. S. 31.8.12) or plants (X. Oec. 19.18, Theoc. 1.55). The repetition of the prefix περι–, together with the deictic τηνδὶ, suggests that the speaker may be holding out the sheepskin and spreading it before the young man. fr. 39 K.–A. (38 K.) πάντ᾽ ἀγαθὰ δὴ γέγονεν ἀνδράσιν ἐμῆς ἀπὸ συνουσίας all good things have indeed come to men from being with me Heph. 40–42 Ἐπιτηδεύουσι δὲ ἔνιοι τῶν ποιητῶν τοὺς πρώτους καλουμένους παιῶνας παραλαμβάνειν πλὴν τῆς τελευταίας χώρας, εἰς ἣν τὸν κρητικὸν παραλαμβάνουσιν· οὕτω γοῦν τὸ πολυθρύλητον τετράμετρον συντιθέασιν… ᾯ δὴ ἔφαμεν τρόπῳ συνεχῶς κεχρῆσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ τετραμέτρου, ὥστε τοῖς τρισὶ παιῶσι τοῖς πρώτοις ἐπάγειν κρητικόν, τούτῳ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πενταμέτρου Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικὸς ἐχρήσατο ἐν Παισίν, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ Θεοπόμπειον καλεῖται· ——

Παῖδες (fr. 39)

135

Some of the poets are accustomed to use the so–called first paeonic without the final position, into which they instead place a cretic; this is how they make the famous tetrameter… The method by which (as I mentioned) they create continuous tetrameters, that is by adding a cretic to three first paeonics, Theopompus also used this method in Paides, because of which it is called the Theopompeion: ——

Meter Cretic

lkr lkr lkr lkr lkl

Discussion Bergk 1838. 416–17; Meineke 1839 II.807; Bothe 1855. 310; Goossens 1940. 160; Edmonds 1957 I.862–63; Renehan 1976. 85–86; Henderson 1991. 159; Parker 1997. 45; Storey 2011. 338–39 Citation Context At 40–43, Hephaestion discusses sequences of cretics (lkl) in which the final syllable is resolved (lkr), a rhythm which he and other ancient metricians label paeonic but which contemporary scholars recognize simply as a species of cretic. He provides a series of comic (Crat. fr. 237, Ar. frr. 112, 113, 348, V. 1275, Eup. fr. 160) and lyric (Alc. fr. 58, Bacch. fr. 16, Simias frr. 13, 14, 15, fr. lyr. adesp. 107) citations to illustrate these uses. Despite Hephaestion’s claim, this meter is never elsewhere referred to as the Theopompeion; see Parker 1997. 45, and for the passage in Hephaestion generally, van Ophuijsen 1987. 116–25. Interpretation The meter of this fragment indicates that it belongs to one of the lyric or recitative portions of the comedy. If it is lyric, it could belong to the ode / antode of a parabasis (cf. Ar. Ach. 971–99, where cretic pentameters feature prominently in a song that closely resembles a second parabasis) or to a freestanding ode (cf. Ar. Eq. 303–13 = 382–90, Ra. 133–63, where cretic pentameters appear at 1343 and 1360 in Aeschylus’ parody of Euripidean monody); if recitative, it might belong to the epirrhematic sections of a parabasis (cf. Ar. V. 1275–91, Eup. fr. 173). See Whittaker 1935. 190; Parker 1997. 45–47 and ad loc. If it does come from a parabasis, it might be the only parabatic fragment among Theopompus’ remains (though cf. fr. 77). The epirrhemata in particular are typically (in Aristophanes, at least) delivered by the chorus in character; thus the titular “children” or “slaves” of the chorus would be claiming to be the source of all good things in men’s lives. The boast this speaker makes closely resembles statements made elsewhere in comedy not only by choruses speaking in character (Ar. Av. 708, Eup. fr. 173 [in cretic tetrameter]), however, but also by choruses speaking on behalf of the poet or in the poet’s voice (Ar. Ach. 633–6, Pax 736, 749), and by individual characters (Ar. Pl. 468–70, where Penia is the speaker; Pherecr. fr. 100, where the speaker is Aeschylus). 1 πάντ᾽ ἀγαθὰ This phrase is very common from Herodotus onwards to describe a state of abundance or wealth (Hdt. 3.80, Ar. Pl. 593), especially of utopian or divine abundance (Hdt. 4.95, Pherecr. fr. 113.2, Ar. Ach. 976, Pax 1327, Av. 587, Pl. 1121, Pl. Euthphr.15a, Diph. fr. 14), often with particular reference to food (Hdt. 6.139, Mnesim. fr. 4.65).

136

Theopompus

συνουσίας The noun συνουσία has a broad range of meanings, from social intercourse (Hdt. 6.128, Ar. Nu. 649) to conversation (Pl. Tht. 150d, Isoc. 4.45) to the relationship between students and teachers (X. Mem. 1.2.60, Pl. Plt. 285c). Here it seems possible there is at least a play on the word’s common use as a euphemism for specifically sexual intercourse, as elsewhere in prose (Pl. Smp. 192c, X. Cyr. 6.1.31, Arist. HA 8.540a) and fourth–century comedy (Anaxandr. fr. 34.9; cf. σύνειμι in the same sense at Ar. Ec. 619); pace Henderson, however, we do not have enough context to be sure that the word has a primarily sexual meaning (cf. Renehan, who rejects the sexual connotation entirely).

fr. 40 K.–A. (39 K.) Σ (VE) Ar. Av. 1569 Λαισποδίας εἶ τὴν φύσιν: Ὅτι τὴν κνήμην εἶχε σαθρὰν ὁ Λαισποδίας καὶ μέχρι τῶν κάτω περιεβάλλετο... διὸ καὶ κατὰ σκελῶν ἐφόρει τὸ ἱμάτιον, ὡς Θεόπομπος ἐν Παισί. Are you a Laispodias in nature?: Because Laispodias had a diseased calf and he wore 〈his clothes〉 all the way down… Therefore he also wore his cloak down over his legs, as Theopompus says in Paides.

Discussion Bergk 1838. 415; Meineke 1839 II.808; Bothe 1855. 310; Edmonds 1957 I.862–63; Storey 2011. 338–39 Citation Context At Ar. Av. 1568–9, Poseidon orders the Triballian to make an adjustment to his cloak, and then asks “Are you a Laispodias in nature?” The scholiasts explain that this statement must indicate that the Triballian is wearing his cloak hanging down too low, because Laispodias was mocked in comedy for wearing his cloak low to cover some deformity of his legs. They cite Eup. fr. 107, Th. 8.86.9, Phryn. fr. 17, Philyll. fr. 8, and Strattis fr. 19, before concluding with this reference to Theopompus. As with other such catalogues of personal invective, the scholiasts are probably making use here of a catalogue of komoidoumenoi. Interpretation Laispodias the son of Andronymus or Andronymis (PA 8963, PAA 600730) was strategos in 414 BCE, sent on a mission to Epidaurus (Th. 6.105), ambassador to Sparta in 411 BCE (Th. 8.86, Σ Ar. Av. 1569), and, in the same year, involved in a legal dispute with the orator Antiphon (see frr. 21–24 of the lost speech Against Laispodias). He is mentioned repeatedly in comedy; the scholiast to Birds 1569 collects all the instances we know of. All of our dateable references to him (Eupolis’ Demes in the mid–410s, Birds in 414, Thucydides’ and Antiphon’s mentions in 414 and 411) belong to the 410s, suggesting that Theopompus’ Paides, as well as the undated comedies belonging to Phrynichus (Komastai), Philyllius (Pluntriai), and Strattis (Kinesias), belong to this period or the years immediately following.

137

Παμφίλη (Pamphilē) (“Pamphile”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.808–9; Bothe 1855. 310–11; Breitenbach 1908. 117–18; Edmonds 1957 I.864–65; Geissler 1969. 77; Webster 1970. 22; Arnott 1996. 513; Henderson 2002. 87; Auhagen 2009. 56–57; Storey 2011. 338–39 Title Pamphile was also the title of a comedy by Alexis (frr. 175–76). Like Aphrodite and Nemea, it may indicate that the play featured a title character who was a hetaira (so, with varying degrees of confidence, Breitenbach, Edmonds, Geissler, Webster, Arnott, Henderson, Auhagen). The meaning of the name would suit such a character; there was also a famous hetaira of that name (see Ath. 13.591e), who may have been the Pamphile of Alexis’ play but was probably active too late in the fourth century to have been the subject of Theopompus’. Athenaeus 13.567c gives a list of comedies whose titles were the names of hetairai (on which see Nesselrath 1990. 319); although Theopompus is not mentioned there, the title Pamphile would fit this convention. Nevertheless, although Theopompus is often mentioned as an early practitioner of the hetaira–comedy (e. g. Henderson 2000. 139), it must be admitted that there is no firm evidence for this claim in his fragments: several hetairai appeared or were described in his plays (see esp. frr. 6, 22, 33), but we cannot with confidence conclude that any of the possible hetaira– name titles definitely indicated a hetaira–comedy. For comedies about hetairai, see Webster 1970. 22–23; Nesselrath 1990. 318–24; Henderson 2000. 138–40, and 2002; McClure 2006. 15–18; Auhagen 2009; Cohen 2015, passim, esp. 15–18. For historical hetairai, see Davidson 1997; Hamel 2003; Faraone and McClure 2006; Cohen 2015. Pamphile was also, however, a common historical name (PAA 761845–761995), often held by free, respectable women (in addition to a number of citizen wives on gravestones, see e. g. PAA 761925, a priestess; 761965, the maker of a peplos for Athena); in New and Roman Comedy the name Pamphile is also given to respectable female characters (Men. Epitr., com. adesp. fr. 250?, Ter. Eun., Ad.). Presumably it was chosen as a speaking name, but our fragments cannot guarantee its meaning. Content Frr. 41–42 describe a woman behaving badly at a symposium, drinking to excess and singing or shouting loud enough to wake the town. Since respectable women do not participate in symposia in this way, this woman seems likely to be a hetaira, but we do not know whether she was actually a character in the play, let alone the titular Pamphile. Frr. 43 and 45 both also describe a woman, although without any clues to her identity. Finally, fr. 44 mocks a certain Demophon as a braggart; this may be one of several historical Demophons, or simply a character in the play. Frr. 41 and 42 resemble each other very closely. Some critics have taken this to indicate that there were two versions of the play, and that one of these fragments

138

Theopompus

represents a revised version of the other (for such play revisions, cf. Ar. Clouds, Thesmophoriazusae, Wealth, Aeolosicon, Eup. Autolycus, Antiph. Agroikos and Boutaliōn). There is no further evidence for a revision of Theopompus’ comedy, however, and it is possible that one of these fragments simply represents a garbled version of the other, or even that both belonged in their preserved forms to the same play. Date If the titular Pamphile were the famous hetaira mentioned by Athenaeus, or if the Demophon in fr. 44 were the relative of Demosthenes, Pamphile would need to belong to the latest period of Theopompus’ career, perhaps the late 370s (so Geissler). Neither of these identifications can be made securely, however, and there is no other internal evidence as to the date of the play.

fr. 41 K.–A. (40 K.) σπόγγος, λεκάνη, πτερόν, λεπαστὴ πάνυ πυκνή, ἣν ἐκπιοῦσ᾽ ἄκρατον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος τέττιξ κελαδεῖ 1–2 πυκνή, ἣν Schweighäuser: πυκνὴν A

sponge, basin, feather, a rather solid lepastē, and having drunk it off unmixed to the Good Spirit a cicada sings Ath. 11.485c Θεόπομπος Παμφίλῃ· —— Theopompus in Pamphile: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llrl klkl l|rkl llkl klk|r llkl llrl 〈xlkl xlkl〉

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–7. VI.199; Meineke 1839 II.808; Bothe 1855. 310; Edmonds 1957 I.864–65; Auhagen 2009. 56; Storey 2011. 338–39 Citation Context Athenaeus cites this fragment as part of the same discussion of the cup called lepastē (beginning at 11.484f) to which fr. 31 belongs (as well as fr. 42).

Παμφίλη (fr. 41)

139

Text The ms. of Athenaeus has combined the relative pronoun ἣν with the adjective πυκνή, but this neither scans nor fits the grammar; Schweighäuser corrects this haplography by restoring the relative pronoun. Interpretation A feather and basin are the standard equipment used by Greeks to induce vomiting; the sponge is presumably required to clean up the mess. The woman described in this fragment is thus equipped to begin an immoderate version of the usual wine–drinking phase of a symposium: this phase ordinarily commenced with a drink of unmixed wine offered to the “Good Spirit,” but the symposiasts would not normally proceed on the assumption that they would drink until vomiting. The present tense of the verb κελαδεῖ could indicate that this is a description of the woman’s habitual behavior, perhaps in a prologue speech introducing a major character, or it could be a historical present, describing the woman’s behavior in a messenger–style description of an off–stage symposium. Much of the humor of this fragment derives from Theopompus’ arrangement of the items: when the sponge appears first, it could simply mean that the woman intends to do some cleaning; the basin could also fit this purpose; but the feather revises the meaning of these two items, as we discover that she expects to vomit and then clean up after herself. Only with the lepastē, then, do we discover that the cause of her vomiting will be excessive drinking, and finally the toast to the Good Spirit reveals that this will occur in a formal, symposium–type context. This image is then coupled to a description of her singing like a cicada; elsewhere this comparison is one of praise, but here it becomes a grotesque picture of a woman carrying on in a state of high intoxication; the elevated register of the final word of the fragment, κελαδεῖ, underscores the irony of this typically poetic comparison. For the question of this fragment’s relationship to the very similar fr. 42, see below. 1 σπόγγος Sponges are used for household cleaning and bathing from Homer onwards (e. g. Il. 18.414, Od. 1.111, A. Ag. 1329 Ar. V. 600, Th. 247, Ra. 482–5, fr. 59, Crates fr. 17.7, Pherecr. fr. 58); see Ginouvès 1962. 143 n.5, Austin and Olson 2004. 135. λεκάνη, πτερόν Although the λεκάνη could be used as a serving dish, wine bowl, or washing basin, together with the πτερόν it becomes a basin for vomiting. Both items are often mentioned in comedy for this purpose, together or separately: Cratin. fr. 271 (πτερόν and λεκάνη), Ar. Ach. 585–6 (πτίλον, with Lamachus’ shield as λεκάνη), Nu. 907 (λεκάνη), Pl. Com. fr. 201 (πτερόν and λεκάνη, in Plutarch’s citation); cf. Nic. Alex. 361–2 (πτερόν), and see Sparkes 1962. 128–9, Dover 1968. 211, Olson 2002. 225, Biles and Olson 2015. 274–5. λεπαστή See above, on fr. 31.4; in relation to this fragment we should note again that the lepastē is a large vessel, mentioned often in comedy but never in prose. πυκνή When applied to man–made objects, πυκνός has the sense of “solidly built,” and tends to be applied more to sturdy, fortified practical objects than

140

Theopompus

to luxury items: Il. 12. 301 (building), 15.529 (breastplate), Od. 7.340 (bed), Ar. Th. 1032 (bonds), X. An. 4.7.15 (rope). The lepastē here is thus more a durable, workmanlike object than a fancy or luxurious one; in the context of the woman’s unbridled behavior, there may be some humor in calling for a sturdy, rather than an elegant, wine bowl. 2 ἐκπιοῦσ᾽ The verb is very common in all genres from Homer onwards (e. g. Od. 9.353, A. Ag. 1398, Eur. Cyc. 217, Hdt. 4.199, Antipho 1.20, Ar. Ach. 199, etc.). The prefix gives it the sense of “quaff ” or “drink off,” which, coupled with the large volume of wine held by the lepastē, emphasizes the woman’s immoderate intentions (cf. Hermipp. fr. 45). ἄκρατον Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος At the beginning of the drinking phase of a symposium, the participants drank a serving of unmixed wine (Ar. Eq. 85, 106–8, V. 525, Pax 300, Theopomp. fr. 99 [dubium], Antiph. fr. 135, Nicstr. fr. 19, Eriph. fr. 4, Xenarch. fr. 2, Poll. 6.100) and offered a toast to Dionysus in his guise as “The Good Spirit,” that is the discoverer of wine ([Arist.] Oec. 1353b, Philoch. FGrH 328 F 5b, D. S. 4.3.4, Ath. 15.675b). Theopompus’ reference to this drink here indicates that the setting of this description is a formal banquet or symposium, signals the woman’s focus on drinking (since we hear of her preparations for this part of the meal, but skip over any reference to food), and, with the detail of the lepastē, enables him to depict her drinking a large quantity of unmixed wine. See Tolles 1943. 77–90; Olson 1998. 131–2; Biles and Olson 2015. 249. 3 τέττιξ The cicada is frequently mentioned in Greek poetry as an emblem of the singer (Il. 3.151–2, Hes. Op. 582–4, Alc. 347a, Ar. Nu. 1360, Av. 1095–6). Comparisons to the cicada are tend to be positive, but already in Hesiod it is the ceaseless nature of its song that is emphasized, rather than its beauty (Op. 583–4: ἀοιδὴν / πυκνὸν). In the Phaedrus (259a–c), Socrates relates or invents an aetiological myth for cicadas, claiming that they were originally men so utterly devoted to singing that they forgot to eat or drink, and died; the Muses then granted them the gift to sing eternally, albeit in their withered form. The comparison here thus suggests that the woman’s drunken singing is ceaseless, rather than necessarily beautiful. See Dover 1968. 254; Stanford 1969; Sibson 1979; Kirk 1985. 283–84; Beall 2004. κελαδεῖ This verb can be used to describe a variety of noises, including water (Sapph. fr. 4, Ar. Th. 44), birds (Ar. Pax 801, Ra. 684, Theoc. 18.57), and musical instruments (E. El. 716, [E.] Rh. 384). Used of humans, it sometimes indicates shouting and crying (Il. 23.869, A. Ch. 609), but mostly refers to singing (Terp. fr. 5, Pi. O. 11.14, Pae. 2.101, E. Ion 93). It seems to belong to an elevated register: it is absent from classical prose, and in Aristophanes only in lyrics (Nu. 284, Pax 800) and anapests (Th. 44, Ra. 385, 1527); it appears nowhere else in the comic fragments.

Παμφίλη (fr. 42)

141

fr. 42 K.–A. (41 K.) λεπαστὴ μάλα συχνή, ἣν ἐκπιοῦσ᾽ ἄκρατον Ἀγαθου Δαίμονος περίστατον βοῶσα τὴν κώμην ποεῖ a very large lepastē, which having drunk off unmixed to the Good Spirit she makes the whole village stand around with her shouting Ath. 11.485f Θεόπομπος Παμφίλῇ· —— Theopompus in Pamphile: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xl〉kl lrkl llkl klk|r llkl klkl klk|l llkl

Discussion Schweighäuser 1801–7. 6.201–2; Meineke 1839 II.808; Bothe 1855. 310; Edmonds 1957 I.864–65; Auhagen 2009. 56; Storey 2011. 338–39 Citation Context Cited in the same discussion of the lepastē as frr. 31 and 42; see above on fr. 31. It is striking (as Schweighäuser notes) that Athenaeus cites both frr. 41 and 42 in close proximity without appearing to note their similarity; it seems likely that he (or his source) has somewhat carelessly combined multiple lists of references to the lepastē, failing to note the presence of these two quotations from Pamphile. Interpretation The text of this fragment is so close to that of fr. 41 that it seems unlikely that both simply belong to the same play in their present state. Schweighäuser suggested that one or the other may derive from a partially revised text of the play; with the plays of Aristophanes that were revised or presented under identical titles we do often see fragments cited from the revised or second version without any indication of this in the citation (e. g. frr. 305–9 [Pax], 331–33, 335–47 [Th.], 392–401 [Nu.]). It is also possible, however, that the two fragments were once a single passage, quoted in two different abbreviated or excerpted forms by different authors, and then cited separately by Athenaeus. Kassel and Austin propose the following as an example of such a merged fragment: σπόγγος, λεκάνη, πτερόν, λεπαστὴ μάλα συχνή, ἣν ἐκπιοῦσ᾽ ἄκρατον Ἀγαθου Δαίμονος τέττιξ κελαδεῖ 〈καὶ lkl xlkl〉 περίστατον βοῶσα τὴν κώμην ποεῖ

142

Theopompus

sponge, basin, feather, a very large lepastē, and having drunk it off unmixed to the Good Spirit she’s a chirping cicada, 〈and… 〉 she makes the whole village stand around with her shouting In this case, either πάνυ πυκνή or μάλα συχνή has entered the text erroneously (perhaps as a gloss on the correct phrase) and a few words are missing in the description of the woman singing like a cicada. A third possibility is that these two fragments represent conflicting or alternate descriptions of the same scene. In the parados of Ar. Pl. (290–315), Carion and the Chorus engage in a singing contest, in which Carion offers parodic accounts of two scenes from the Odyssey, and the chorus respond to each with a revised version of the song. In both instances, the chorus’ songs begin and end with very nearly the same language as Carion’s songs. Although these lines are spoken, a similar context in which contrasting versions of the same story are offered in some kind of contest could be imagined here: fr. 42 would then outdo fr. 41 by replacing the description of her singing like a cicada (presumably in the symposium itself) with the description of her gathering the whole village around her with her racket (presumably outside). For commentary on words which appear in both fragments, see above, on fr. 41. 1 συχνή First attested in the fifth–century, συχνός is very frequent in prose and comedy thereafter (e. g. Hdt. 1.125, Th. 2.52, Ar. Ach. 350, Stratt. fr. 30, X. An. 1.8.8, Plato Crito 44e), never in elevated poetry. Modifying a singular noun it means “large” (e. g. D.59.42, Antiph. fr. 97, D. S. 2.11.3). 3 περίστατον Relatively rare, this adjective is used to describe a crowd gathering in admiration or wonder: Isoc. 6.95 (ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ περίστατος ὑπὸ πάντων δι’ ἀρετὴν εἶναι περίβλεπτος ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐπὶ κακίᾳ γενησόμενος, “Instead of being surrounded by everyone because of his excellence, he would be gazed at by them for his evil”), 15.269 (ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀνοήτων περιστάτοις γιγνομέναις, “becoming surrounded by the mindless”). Elsewhere in comedy it is attested only at Eup. fr. 188, without context. βοῶσα If frr. 41 and 42 are to be combined, this verb may suggest a harsh quality to the woman’s singing, as it is typically used to describe yelling (Il. 17.86, A. Ag. 1106, D. 13.20), calling for help (Pi. P. 6.36, Hdt. 8.92, E. Med. 205), or the roaring of loud natural sounds (Il. 14.394, [A.] Pr. 431). It is sometimes used, however, to describe singing, without any necessarily negative connotation: S. Aj. 976, Ph. 216, E. Tr. 335. κώμην The term κώμη originally refers to an unwalled village (Hes. Sc. 18, Th. 3.94.4); Aristotle claims it is the Doric equivalent of Attic δῆμος (Po. 1448a). The term is sometimes used to describe instead the neighborhoods of a city (e. g. Isoc. 7.46, Pl. Leg. 5.746d). The woman’s shouting thus attracts the attention of all her neighbors, whether the context here is urban or rural.

Παμφίλη (fr. 43)

143

fr. 43 K.–A. (42 K.) αὐτὴ δ᾽ ἐκείνη πρότερον ἐξηπίστατο παρὰ τῆς ἐπιτήθης she herself previously used to learn thoroughly from her great–grandmother Phot. ε 1757 = Et. Gen. AB 1757 ἐπιτήθη· ὡς ἐπίπαππος Θεόπομπος Παμφίλῃ· —— 1757: epitēthē: Theopompus in Pamphile (uses it) like epipappos (“great–grandfather”): ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl l|rkl llkl rlrl l〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.809; Bothe 1855. 310; Edmonds 1957 I.864–65; Storey 2011. 338–39 Citation Context In addition to the entry which includes this fragment, Photius and Et. Gen. provide two other closely related glosses: 1756 ἐπιτήθη· ἡ τῆς τήθης μήτηρ… οὕτως Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ πρὸς Δωρόθεον. 1756 epitēthē: The mother of one’s grandmother… Thus Isaeus in Against Dorotheos (fr. 35 S). 1758 ἐπιτήθη· ἡ μήτηρ τῆς μάμμης. 1758 epitēthē: The mother of one’s grandma. Erbse attributed this series of entries to Aelius Dionysius’ 2nd–century CE dictionary of Attic Greek. Interpretation A woman is described as having learned something thoroughly, or memorized something, from her great–grandmother. Lack of evidence prevents us from speculating whether this woman is the same as, or in any way related to, the woman symposiast described in frr. 41–42, or the Pamphile of the play’s title. 1 ἐξηπίστατο Τhis verb is common in all genres beginning in the fifth century (e. g. A. Ag. 838, S. Aj. 316, Hdt. 1.193, E. Alc. 511, Ar. Nu. 1228, V. 1249, Pl. Phaedr. 228b, D. 19.250, etc.). Without an object, we cannot say whether the meaning here is “learn thoroughly (as in Hdt. 2.43, S. OC 1584), or “memorize” (as in Pl. Phaedr. 228b), but the imperfect indicates that the woman’s learning from her great–grandmother was not restriced to a single, specific occasion. 2 ἐπιτήθης Although τήθη meaning “grandmother” is attested in classical Greek (e. g. Αr. Ach. 49, Lys. 549, Pl. R. 5.461d, D. 57.20; see Olson 2002. 86), ἐπιτήθη is restricted to the lexicographers mentioned here and the fragments they cite. The comparandum cited by Photius, epipappos, is found in later Greek (Jul. Or. 2.82b, Lib. Or. 1.3; see LSJ s. v.); its meanings include “grandfather,” “great grand-

144

Theopompus

father,” and even “great great grandfather,” so we cannot be certain that Photius is correct in asserting that ἐπιτήθη always means “great grandmother.”

fr. 44 K.–A. (43 K.) τούτων ἁπάντων ὁ ῥαχιστὴς Δημοφῶν The rachistēs of all these things is Demophon Phot. ρ 56 = Suda ρ 62 ῥαχίζειν· τὸ ἀλαζονεύεσθαι· καὶ ῥαχιστὴς ὁ ἀλαζών. Θεόπομπος Παμφίλῃ· —— rachizein: to boast; and rachistēs (means) boaster. Theopompus in Pamphile: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl l|lkl llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.809; Bothe 1855. 310–11; Edmonds 1957 I.864–65; Auhagen 2009. 56; Storey 2011. 340–41 Citation Context Photius and the Suda relate that the verb ῥαχίζειν and the noun ῥαχιστής can have the senses respectively of “brag” and “braggart”; these and a series of related entries (Hsch. ρ 156, 160; Phot. ρ 57; Suda ρ 63, 65) may share a common source in the Antiatticista (see Cunningham 2020.232). Interpretation It is unclear whether the Demophon mocked in this fragment with a slang term for “braggart” is one of the several prominent historical figures who held this name in the late fifth and early fourth centuries, or whether it is simply the name of a character in the play. The τούτων at the beginning of the fragment suggests that Demophon’s boasts (or, alternately, people to whom or among whom Demophon has boasted) have just been described. 1 Outside this fragment the nouns ῥαχιστής and ῥαχιστήρ appear only in lexica. The verb ῥαχίζω from which they derive is ordinarily connected with the act of severing the spine (ῥάχις) of a sacrificial animal (A. Pers. 426, S. Aj. 56, 299). Although the lexica never explain these figurative usages, we may perhaps compare them to κόπις, “babbler or orator” (Suda κ 2058, on Eur. Hec. 132), from κόπτω, “beat” or “strike”; Hesychius κ 3556 glosses the derived verb κοπίζειν as “to lie.” See Chantraine 1970. 968. Δημοφῶν Several historical Athenians bore the name Demophon. If the name here refers to one of them, the most prominent candidates are: the son of Demon, the guardian Demosthenes accused of stealing his inheritance (PA 3698; PAA 321715); the author mocked in Ephipp. fr. 16, a catalogue of curses which involves being made to “memorize the tragedies of Dionysius and what Demophon wrote against Kotys” (PAA 321650; PAA assigns this fragment here, but we cannot

Παμφίλη (fr. 45)

145

be sure these komoidoumenoi are the same); or a general of 379/8 BCE who led an expedition against Thebes (PA 3693; PAA 321635). We also know of a Demophon son of Hippocrates, mocked at Ar. Nu. 1001 according to the scholia, but this individual is probably too early for our comedy (PA 3701; PAA 321750; see Dover 1968. 221). Alternately, Demophon may be the name of a fictional character in the comedy. Demipho is a common old man’s name in Roman comedy (Plaut. Cist., Merc., Ter. Phorm.; see Suess 1905. 102). Choricius of Gaza records a story (5.17) about a young man called Demophon who is at first dissolute and lascivious, but who reforms his ways when he is married to a respectable young woman; the resemblance of this story to a (New) comic plot led Foerster to connect it with our fragment (1972. 85), but the frequency of the name Demipho in Roman comedy suggests that there may have been any number of Greek sources for Choricius’ story as well (though we should note that these Roman comic characters are always old men). Finally, there are two mythological Demophons: the infant nursed by Demeter in the Homeric Hymn (see 231ff), and a son of Theseus (E. Heracl. 115ff). fr. 45 K.–A. (44 K.) Poll. 10.49 Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν Παμφίλῃ σανδάλια εἴρηκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ γυναικός. Τheopompus the comic poet has mentioned sandalia in Pamphile, but in reference to a woman.

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.809; Bothe 1855. 311; Edmonds 1957 I.864–65; Storey 2011. 341 Citation Context Pollux adds a few notes here in Book 10 to his earlier discussion of the types of shoes (7.85–94), noting this reference to sandalia and a related word in Menander. In the earlier discussion of shoes he does distinguish some according to whether they were worn by men or women (esp. at 7.90–91), but he does not specifically mention sandalia there in such terms; nevertheless his reference here suggests that his readers will have understood the term to refer ordinarily to a man’s shoe. Interpretation Σανδάλιον is the diminutive of σάνδαλον, both words evidently referring to the sandal. The terms are relatively rare; in classical Greek they appear once in Herodotus (2.91) and once in Anacreon (fr. 22.15), but are otherwise restricted to comedy (Crat. fr. 139, Cephisodor. fr. 4, Eup. fr. 312, Antiph. fr. 192; freq. in Lucian, incl. Philops. 28, Hist. Conscr. 22, DDeor. 15.1, etc.). Though Pollux may be correct in suggesting that the term ordinarily referred to men’s sandals specifically, we have no other evidence for this usage. See Stone 1980. 234–35, Morrow 1985. 182, and cf. fr. 52.

146

Πανταλέων (Pantaleōn) (“Pantaleon”)

Discussion Bergk apud Schiller 1835. 136–37; Meineke 1839 II.809; Bothe 1855. 311; Breitenbach 1908. 95–96; Edmonds 1957 I.864–66; Storey 2011. 340–41 Title The title Pantaleon could refer to one of several historical individuals with that name, the most prominent being: a traveling acrobat (PA 11599, PAA 764430, Stephanis 1988. 1996) mentioned by Chrysippus (SVF 3.199) and Theognetus (fr. 2) according to Athenaeus (14.616a); and a man (PAA 764425) criticized in a speech of Lysias for robbing his ward of his rightful patrimony (10.5). Breitenbach is rightly skeptical of these identifications, however, since there is nothing in the fragments to support either connection, and the name is not uncommon at Athens (see PAA 764390–764520, some 17 examples for the 5th and 4th centuries BCE). The title could also be a speaking name for a brave or savage character (or the ironic opposite of such a person), as perhaps with Kallaischros, Hēdychares, and Pamphilē. Pollux alone mentions this title, and in his citation of fr. 46 he expresses doubt as to whether it was genuine. Content Fr. 46 describes someone purchasing the hide of a wild beast to make into a pillow, and fr. 47 mentions a “small cave”; neither provides any real purchase on the plot. Date Without any secure identification of the titular Pantaleon, we have no evidence as to the date of this comedy within the bounds of Theopompus’ career.

fr. 46 K.–A. (45 K.) ὠνητιῶν τὸ δέρμα τοῦ θηρός ῥάψας ὅλον σάξαι κνεφάλλων 1 ὠνητιῶν τὸ FS: ὠνῆτο CL 3 κνεφάλλων FS: γναφάλλῳ CL

δέρμα τοῦ θηρός CL: δέρμα του F: δέρματος S

wanting to buy the skin of the animal having stitched it completely stuff it with knephalla Poll. 10.41 εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ κνέφαλλον μὴ ἐπὶ τοῦ τυλείου τις ἀκούειν βούλοιτο, ὥσπερ ἡ πολλὴ χρῆσις ἔχει, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐμβαλλομένου πληρώματος, ὃ γνάφαλον καλοῦσι, προσχρήσεται τῷ ῥηθέντι ἐν Πανταλέοντι Θεοπόμπου, εἰ καὶ ἀμφισβητεῖται τὸ δρᾶμα· προειπὼν γὰρ ὁ ποιητὴς ‘ὠνητιῶν… θηρός’ ἐπήγαγε ‘ῥάψας… κνεφάλλων.’

Πανταλέων (fr. 46)

147

If someone should wish to understand knephallon not to mean tuleion (“little pillow”), as is the normal usage, but the stuffing that is placed inside, what they call gnaphalon, he will use what is said in Theopompus’ Pantaleon, even though there is a dispute about this play. For the poet having said first, “wanting… animal” added “having… knephalla.”

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl klk|l ll〈kl〉 〈xlkl xlkl〉 llkl llkl l〈lkl xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.809; Bothe 1855. 311; Edmonds 1957 I.864–65; Storey 2011. 340–41 Citation Context At 10.38 Pollux begins a catalogue of different kinds of pillows and pads that might go on the couch in a symposium. He focuses on two words for pillows which may or may not be identical, the τύλη (often in the diminutive form τυλεῖον) and the κνέφαλλον. Pollux makes a distinction between κνέφαλλον and γναφαλον; although these are etymologically the same word, he believes that the former is used to refer to the pillow itself, the latter to its stuffing. He somewhat hesitantly (note the indefinite τις, optative βούλοιτο, and reference to the doubted authenticity of the play) suggests, however, that κνέφαλλον could also be used to describe the stuffing, and cites this fragment to demonstrate it. He quotes the fragment in two parts, with an undeterminable gap between them; presumably he or his source believed these phrases belonged to the same description of the pillow. Text The mss. of Pollux record three versions of the fragment, all quite similar but each flawed in some way: F S CL

ὠνητιῶν τὸ δέρμα του ῥάψας ὅλον σάξαι κνεφάλλων ὠνητιῶν τὸ δέρματος ῥάψας ὅλον σάξαι κνεφάλλων ὠνῆτο δέρμα τοῦ θηρός ῥάψας ὅλον σάξαι γναφάλλῳ

None of these texts scans, but each preserves important elements of the text. In line 1, F’s reading lacks θηρός, a sufficiently unusual word that it seems unlikely to have entered C and L by mistake. The erroneous versions in S and F seem likely to have arisen from a scribe’s eye skipping from one omicron to the next in the phrase τὸ δέρμα τοῦ θηρός and thus producing τὸ δέρματος, an ungrammatical expression which was then corrected to F’s τὸ δέρμα του, “his skin” in later Greek.

148

Theopompus

In line 2, CL give the aorist of ὀνίνημι, a much more common verb than ὠνητιάω, but this does not scan, and is probably an error merging the participle of the uncommon ὠνητιάω with the definite article τό which followed. S and F’s more intelligible ὠνητιῶν should therefore be preferred. Finally, line 3, C and L give γναφάλλῳ, presumably under the influence of this word’s appearance just above in Pollux’s discussion; the whole point of the citation, however, is the use of κνέφαλλον (the form in F and S), which must therefore be kept here. Given the imperfections of all of these mss., however, and Pollux’s citation of the fragment in two halves which may or may not have had a gap between them in the original text, there is no justification for the more radical emendations recorded by Meineke and Bergk which attempted to produce an unbroken series of trimeters out of Pollux’s words. Interpretation The definite article in τοῦ θηρός may suggest that the action being described here involves an animal already mentioned, which someone has purchased and made into a pillow. The phrase τὸ δέρμα τοῦ θηρός should properly describe the “hide of a wild beast,” but the term θήρ could be used as a humorously elevated term for a more prosaic animal (cf. Epicr. 7, where a σιδηρότευκτον ἐναλίων θηρῶν βέλος is simply a fish–spear); this would then contrast with the tone of σάττω and κνέφαλλον, both quite rare in serious poetry. 1 ὠνητιῶν The verb ὠνέομαι, “buy” (itself common from Hes. Op. 341 onward) produces two desiderative forms, ὠνητιάω and ὠνησείω; these forms appear in classical Greek only at Thphr. Char. 23.7 and in Cassius Dio (45.23.7, 47.14.5, 73.11.3). δέρμα is the term for skins of all kinds, including human, from Homer onwards (e. g. Il. 16.341, Od. 13.431); it very frequently refers, as here, to the hide of an animal taken to be made into leather (Od. 2.291, Pi. I. 6.47 [δέρμα... θηρός], Hdt. 1.202, Hermipp. fr. 63, Ar. Eq. 316, Pl. Pol. 288e, etc.), although βύρσα is the term of art for such a hide. For leatherworking in antiquity, see Forbes 1966. 46–58, Leguilloux 2004 (esp. 10, on wild animals), Dercy 2015 (esp. 138–43, on leather cushions and furniture coverings). θηρός This term indicates a beast, whether a wild animal (Il. 15.586, S. El. 572), a monster (A. Th. 558, S. Tr. 556, E. Cyc. 624), or, by extension, a bestial human (E. Or. 1272); it is often in contrast with birds or fish (e. g. Od. 24.291, Hes. Op. 277, Ar. Th. 47). It is an elevated term, found sometimes in comic verse (Ar. Av. 777, 1064, Th. 47, Alex. fr. 247.12, Epicr. fr. 7) but very seldom in prose (Hdt. 3.129, Pl. R. 8.559d, Soph. 235a), where the diminutive θηρίον is more typical (e. g. Hdt. 1.37, Isoc. 13.12, Pl. Phaed. 82a, X. HG 4.1.33; cf. Ar. Ach. 808, Eq. 273, Nu. 184, etc.). 2 ῥάψας In all periods and genres this is the standard verb for sewing or stitching (Ar. Eq. 784, of a pillow, Ec. 24, X. Eq. 12.9, Alex. fr. 108), including

Πανταλέων (fr. 47)

149

stitching of leather (Il. 12.296, Hdt. 3.9, 6.2 [of a metaphorical shoe], Ar. Nu. 538, Thphr. Piet. fr. 18.25, Callixenus FGrH 627 F 2.172, Herod. 6.18–51, etc.). 3 σάξαι The verb σάττω, “stuff,” is attested from Semonides onward in less elevated poetry (Semon. fr. 21b, Eup. fr. 86, Pherecr. fr. 83, fr. 162, Ar. Lys. 1256) and in prose (Hdt. 7.3, Arist. Meteor. 365b); it appears once in tragedy (A. Ag. 644, “a paean stuffed with pains”), never in epic or lyric. It can govern a genitive of the material being used to stuff, as probably here: A. Ag. 644, Ar. Ec. 840, X. Oec. 8.8, Pl. Com. fr. 104, Hipp. Mul. 1.230 (cf. πίμπλημι, “fill,” with accusative for the object being filled and genitive for the material being used to fill it). This verb is attested only once in tragedy (A. Ag. 644, “a paean stuffed with pains”), never in epic or lyric. κνεφάλλων Derived from κνάπτω, “card” or “comb” wool, κνέφαλλον refers originally to a “flock” or clump of wool torn off a fleece by this process (Alc. fr. 338.8, Pl. Com. fr. 104 [also with σάττω]), typically then used to stuff pillows; by synechdoche, the term comes to refer to the pillow itself (Eup. fr. 218, Ar. fr. 18, Strab. 15.1.20). For the many variations in the spelling of this word, see Chantraine 1970. 546–7; although mss. generally tend to confuse them, as in this fragment, Pollux’s discussion here makes clear that he is focused on the more ancient κνέφαλλον, and the mss. present the correct forms without variation in his own discussion of the terms.

fr. 47 K.–A. (46 K.) Poll. 9.16 ἔξω δὲ πόλεως καὶ ἄντρα καὶ σπήλαια καὶ σπηλαιώδεις ὑποφυγαί· καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν Πανταλέοντι καὶ σπηλάδιον εἴρηκεν. Outside a city there are grottos and caves and cave–like refuges; and Theopompus in Pantaleon also said spēladion (“little cave”).

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.809; Bothe 1855. 311; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Storey 2011. 341 Citation Context Book 9 of Pollux’s Onomasticon begins with a discussion of the regions of a city; at 9.14 Pollux begins to discuss words for the areas around a city, and cites this fragment in his discussion of caves. Several later grammatical texts (Eust. p. 1552.31–2 = i.239.31–2, Et. Gen. A s. v. κεφάλαιον) mention σπηλάδιον as an example of the phenomenon by which words with αι or ᾳ lose the iota in their diminutive form (e. g. ἔλαιον and ἐλάδιον); although none of these cite Theopompus, it seems possible they and Pollux are deriving their information from a common source.

150

Theopompus

Interpretation This fragment is the only known instance of the word σπηλάδιον in classical Greek, although σπήλαιον (of which this word is the diminutive) is used in classical prose (e. g. Pl. R. 7.514a, 515a, 539e).

151

Πηνελόπη (Pēnelopē) (“Penelope”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.810; Bothe 1855. 311; Schmidt 1888. 390–92; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Mikalson 1972. 293; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 118; Storey 2011. 342–43; Farmer 2020. 353–55 Title Penelope was the title of tragedies by Aeschylus and Philocles. Nothing is known of Philocles’ play, but Aeschylus’ featured a character (presumably Odysseus) claiming to be from Crete (fr. 187), and seems to have been part of a trilogy centered around Odysseus’ wanderings and return to Ithaca (see Gantz 1980. 151–53). Penelope’s role in the Odyssey as patient wife of Odysseus, fending off the suitors, attempting to raise Telemachus, testing Odysseus upon his return and then finally welcoming him home seems the most likely source of inspiration for a comedy with this title. A number of post–Homeric myths, however, also concerned Penelope. Sophocles’ Euryalus (according to Parth. 3) has one of Odysseus’ sons by Circe return to Ithaca while Odysseus is away; Penelope then attempts to contrive his death. Various late sources may include details from an earlier cyclic epic Telegoneia in which Odysseus’ son Telegonus by Circe kills Odysseus, brings his corpse along with Penelope to Circe, and either marries Penelope himself or has Odysseus brought back to life, after which they all become immortal; some of these sources also mention a second son Penelope bore Odysseus after he returned from Troy (Procl. Chr. 2, Apollod. Epit. 7.34, Paus. 8.12.6; see Gantz 1993. 710–13). Several authors attest to a tradition that Penelope was the mother of the god Pan by Apollo (Hecat. FrGH 1 F 371, Pi. fr. 100), Hermes (Hdt. 2.145, Cic. ND 3.22.56, Luc. DD 2, Apollod. Epit. 7.38), one or all of the suitors (Douris FrGH 76 F 21, Apollod. Epit. 7.38). Finally, Apollodorus’ account of the oath sworn by Helen’s suitors has Odysseus proposing the oath to Tyndareus in exchange for the latter’s help winning Penelope from her father Icarius, perhaps suggesting that there was an earlier account of Odysseus’ courtship of Penelope (3.10.8). For Penelope’s depiction in Greek art, largely in keeping with her Homeric portrayal, see C. Hausmann, LIMC 7.290–95. Content None of the fragments of this play securely indicate that it concerned one of the mythological stories about Penelope: we see a group of characters promising offerings to Apollo at the new moon (fr. 48), a character complaining that someone is slaughtering a sacred pig (fr. 49), and a reference to a type of harp (fr. 50). Given that the suitors eat pigs belonging to Odysseus’ household in the Odyssey and are killed during a festival for Apollo held at the new moon, the fragments are compatible with the most obvious plot of a play called Penelope, one concerning the return of Odysseus to Ithaca. Despite these suggestive coincidences, however, a number of other interpretations of the fragments of this comedy remain possible.

152

Theopompus

There is also the possibility that the play’s title describes a woman who is a “modern Penelope,” that is a particularly faithful wife, rather than the mythological Penelope herself. At Ar. Th. 547–50, for example, the woman Mika complains that Euripides never writes tragedies about Penelope, and the In–Law responds that “you could never call one of today’s women a Penelope”; Theopompus’ comedy could thus concern just such “a Penelope.” For a full discussion of this play’s relationship to Theopompus’ other two Odyssey–plays (Odysseus and Sirens), see below, on Sirens. Fr. 34, discussed above, could be ascribed either to Odysseus or to Penelope with equal plausibility; if the latter ascription were correct, it would suggest that Penelope does indeed concern the return of Odysseus to Ithaca. Date The fragments contain no discernible references to contemporary events or individuals.

fr. 48 K.–A. (47 K.) καί σε τῇ νουμηνίᾳ ἀγαλματίοις ἀγαλοῦμεν ἀεὶ καὶ δάφνῃ and at the new moon we will always offer you little offerings and laurel Phot. α 163 = Synag. α 145 Ἀγῆλαι· τιμῆσαι θεόν, ἀγλαΐσαι. Εὔπολις Δήμοις· (fr. 131). Ἀριστοφάνης Εἰρήνῃ· (396–99). Ἕρμιππος Ἀρτοπώλισι· (fr. 8). Θεόπομπος Πηνελόπῃ· —— Agēlai: to honor a god, to glorify. Eupolis in Demes: (fr. 131). Aristophanes in Peace: (396–99). Hermippus in Artopolides: (fr. 8). Theopompus in Penelope: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl x〉lkl llkl klrl rlk|l llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.810; Bothe 1855. 311; Schmidt 1888. 390; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Mikalson 1972. 293; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 118; Storey 2011. 342–43; Farmer 2020. 353–54 Citation Context Photius and the Synagoge cite this fragment to illustrate the verb ἀγάλλω, to “honor” or “exalt” a god. The series of comic citations may suggest that these entries originated with an earlier Atticizing dictionary (so Cunningham 2003. 534). Interpretation A group of characters or the chorus proclaim that in the future they will always honor a certain god on the first day of the month, the day of the

Πηνελόπη (fr. 48)

153

new moon, probably in exchange for the fulfilment of some divine request. The mention of laurel suggests that this god is probably Apollo; our evidence suggests that a variety of gods were honored on the day of the new moon, a day of both private and public religious observance. 1 τῇ νουμηνίᾳ The pledge to honor a god at the start of the lunar month seems likely at least to allude to Odysseus’ return at the new moon. At Od. 19.306– 7, Odysseus in disguise prophecies that Odysseus will return to Ithaca “as the one moon is fading, and the other rising,” which is to say at the new moon; the festival of Apollo during which the suitors are killed does, thus, appear to coincide with this new moon (see Od. 19.306–7, 20.156, 276–78, 21.258–68, with Russo et al. 1992, ad locc. and Austin 1975. 239–53). The day new moon was, however, also a holy day in contemporary Athens (Plut. Mor. 828a), featuring special markets (Ar. Eq. 43–44, V. 169–171), feasting (Ar. Ach. 999, Lys. fr. 195), and private (Ar. V. 94–96, Luc. Lex. 6) and public (Hdt. 8.41, D. 25.99) religious observances. For the noumenia festival see Mikalson 1972, Olson 2002. 318, Biles and Olson 2015. 117. Our evidence does not connect Apollo with the Athenian noumenia; the epic context, in which Apollo was celebrated at the new moon, seems therefore the likelier significance of the date here. 2 ἀγαλματίοις This noun is the diminutive of ἄγαλμα, which can have a broad range of meanings connected with “glory” or “joy” but which most often refers to offerings to the gods (as early as Od. 3.438) often in the form of statues other artworks (Od. 8.509, A. Th. 258, Hdt. 1.164.3, Lys. 6.15). The diminutive seems to have been used solely to refer to physical offerings; it appears very rarely in classical Greek (only here and at Polycharm. FGrH 640 F 1), but more frequently later (Plut. Lyc. 25.2, Sull. 29.6, App. BC 5.12.109, Luc. Somn. 3). ἀγαλοῦμεν Like its cognate noun ἄγαλμα, the verb ἀγάλλω has a wide range of possible meanings, including “adorn,” “enjoy,” or “exult in,” but often has the sense of “glorify a god” (e. g. Eur. Bacch. 157, Ar. Pax 399 [also in the fut., with ἀεί], Th. 128, Hermipp. fr. 8, etc.). The noun and verb occur together at Pl. Leg. 11.931a (and cf. Eur. Tro. 451–2). δάφνῃ The laurel tree is described as sacred to Apollo from the Archaic Period onwards (h.Ap. 395–6, Eur. Ion 420–3, Ar. Pl. 213). Worshippers of Apollo wore laurel garlands or carried laurel branches (Eur. Ion 420, Hec. 458, Ar. Pax 1044, Plut. Arist. 20.4, Syll.3 436.8 [one of numerous examples of laurel crowns in inscriptions at Delphi]), and tripods sacred to Apollo were decorated with laurel (the στέμματα mentioned at Eur. Ion 522, 1310, Ar. Pl. 39). Since no other god is associated with the laurel, the offer of worship this speaker makes is thus most likely addressed to Apollo. See Ogle 1910, Olson 1998. 268, Sommerstein 2001. 150, Austin and Olson 2004. 202.

154

Theopompus

fr. 49 K.–A. (48 K.) καὶ τὴν ἱερὰν σφάττουσιν ἡμῶν δέλφακα and they are slaughtering our sacred pig Ath. 14.657a Θεόπομπος Πηνελόπῃ· —— Theopompus in Penelope: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llrl llk|l llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.810; Bothe 1855. 311; Schmidt 1888. 390–91; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 118; Storey 2011. 342–43; Farmer 2020. 354–55 Citation Context At 14.656f, Athenaeus segues from a pair of fragments concerning “grain–fattened” animals into a discussion of words for “pig” which evidently continues his prior treatment of the topic at 9.374d–375b. He quotes a series of tragic and comic citations exhibiting forms of δέλφαξ, including dimunitive, masculine, and (as here) feminine forms. At 657b he resumes his discussion of grain–fattened animals. Interpretation The speaker complains of a group of people who are slaughtering (or did slaughter, with a historical present) a sacred pig which belonged to the speaker and some larger group of people. The word σφάττω, “slaughter,” can be used in a sacrificial context, but the emphatic position of the word ἱερός, “holy,” suggests that the speaker’s complaint is that the pig is being slaughtered purely to be eaten, rather than for its intended, religious purpose. At Od. 14.80–82, Eumaeus complains that the suitors are eating the household’s fatted swine (σιάλους σύας μνηστῆρες ἔδουσιν), but his complaint is that the best pigs are kept for the suitors, while he and others are permitted only to eat piglets (rather than that they eat animals intended for particular sacrifices). 1 τὴν ἱερὰν… δέλφακα Homer depicts pig–sacrifice as a religious ritual observed on Ithaca at Od. 14.419–32. In contemporary Greek religion, pigs were frequent victims of sacrifice: because they were easily maintained, bred quickly, and were kept almost exclusively for their meat, they were ideal, if not always prestigious, sacrificial animals. The sacrifice of pigs was associated particularly with the cult of Demeter, but was not exclusive to her worship. See Burkert 1983. 256–9, Detienne 1990. 133–35, Cole 1994. 203–4, Dalby 2003. 268–9, Clinton 2005, Parker 2005. 342–3, Griffith 2015–16. Greek possesses a number of terms to describe pigs of particular ages and genders, including χοῖρος (piglet), ὗς (adult pig, often a sow), κάπρος (boar, not

Πηνελόπη (fr. 50)

155

always a wild boar); among these δέλφαξ seems to indicate an adolescent pig, larger than a χοῖρος but not yet full–grown, when the term is used precisely (cf. Ar. Byz. fr. 3 Nauck). It occurs first in Hipponax (fr. 145 W), is restricted to low poetry (S. fr. 671 [satyr–play], Cratin. fr. 155, Eup. fr. 301, Ar. fr. 520, etc.), and prose (Hdt. 2.70, Arist. HA 6.573b). See Schaps 1991 and 1996. σφάττουσιν This verb, σφάζω in Archaic and sometimes in Classical Greek (Hdt. 2.39, E. Tr. 134 [lyric]), σφάττω in Attic prose and in comedy, properly means “kill by cutting the throat” (cf. ἐπισφαγίς and παρασφαγίς, parts of the throat). It is often used of sacrificial killing (Il. 1.459, E. El. 813, Hdt. 2.39, 2.48 [of a pig]), but can also be used of the secular slaughter of animals (Pl. Euthyd. 301c, D.Chr. 4.44) or the murder of humans (Pi. P. 11.23, A. Cho. 904, E. Cyc. 243, Th. 2.92.3).

fr. 50 K.–A. (49 K.) Ath. 4.183e μνημονεύει δὲ τοῦ τριγώνου τούτου… καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν Πηνελόπῃ. Theopompus too mentions this trigōnon, in Penelope.

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.810; Bothe 1855. 311; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 118; Storey 2011. 342–43 Citation Context At 4.174a the sound of a water organ prompts Athenaeus’ banqueters to begin a discussion of musical instruments. They briefly consider the trigōnon or trigōnos at 175c–d, and then return to it here with a series of comic citations in which the instrument is mentioned. Interpretation The trigōnos or trigōnon was a triangular harp, held to have been imported from the east and often mentioned alongside other similar instruments, such as the pektis or sambuke; see West 1992.72–77; Maas and Snyder 1989.150–51. Eupolis associates the instrument with adulterers (fr. 148; cf. Pl. Com. fr. 71.13 [a performing girl at a symposium], and see Arist. Pol. 8.1341a), but elsewhere in comedy it is simply mentioned alongside other musical devices without evident moral judgment (Eup. fr. 88, Pherecr. fr. 47).

156

Σειρῆνες (Seirēnes) (“Sirens”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.811; Bothe 1855. 311–12; Weicker 1884. 613; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 118–20; Casolari 2003. 215–17; Storey 2011. 342–45; Farmer 2020. 355–58 Title Sirens was also the title of comedies by Epicharmus (frr. 121–22) and Nicophon (frr. 20–22). Epicharm. fr. 121 commands a group of “archers” to listen to the Sirens, but is not specifically attributed to his Sirens; fr. 122, and all the fragments of Nicophon’s Sirens (on which see Pellegrino 2013), simply concern food. In literature the Sirens make their most famous appearance in Od. 12, where Circe first warns Odysseus of these beautiful singers who lure men to their deaths, and then later Odysseus himself has his encounter with them. Alcman, too, mentions them as famous singers (fr. 1.96–99), and later literary references all seem to refer back to the Homeric treatment, most often comparing contemporary singers or speakers with the Sirens (e. g. Pi. Parth. 94b, S. fr. 777, E. Hel. 167–8, Pl. R. 10.617, X. Mem. 2.6.11, Arist. Eth. Eud. 1230b, Aesch. 3.228, etc.). In vase painting, however, we see from an early date figures with the heads of human beings and the bodies of birds who come to be labeled “Sirens”; how early these figures were associated with Homer’s Sirens is difficult to say (not least because early versions often wear beards), but by at least the 6th century BCE we have unmistakeable illustrations of Odysseus’ encounter with Sirens who have this half–bird form, sometimes even with labels. In these images, the Sirens are not merely singers, but sometimes also musicians with lyres or auloi; fr. 51 could thus conceivably describe the piping of such a Siren. For Sirens in Greek art, see Buitron and Cohen 1992. 108–135; E. Hofstetter and I. Krauskopf, LIMC 8.1.1093–1104. For Sirens in literature and myth, see Weicker 1884 (with much earlier bibliography); Marót 1958; Pollard 1965. 137–45; Gresseth 1970; Gantz 1993. 150, 708–9; Doherty 1995; Peponi 2012. 70–94. Content Fr. 51 shows a character complaining about a female aulos–player playing out–of–date music; given that Sirens in art are sometimes depicted playing instruments, this could be a description of a Siren, but it could equally well describe a “flute–girl” at a symposium or other such figure. Fr. 53 has one character commanding another to put on a type of shoe usually associated with women, and frr. 52 and 54 are concerned with food; these could suit too wide a variety of circumstances to warrant speculation.41

41

Pace Sanchis Llopis, following Weicker, there are no grounds whatsoever for the notion that the Homeric encounter with the Sirens was replaced in Theopompus with a scene of the Sirens serving Odysseus and his companions a meal.

Σειρῆνες (fr. 51)

157

The title should indicate a chorus of Sirens. These seem most likely to have been the mythological Sirens, but they could instead have been simply contemporary characters compared to Sirens; singers and enchanting orators are often likened to Sirens, for example, and in a fragment of Anaxilas, “Siren” is used to describe a famous sex worker (fr. 22.20–21). The Sirens in myth are typically depicted as two in number, but there is no real objection to a comic chorus of twenty–four: Plato, for example, changes the number to eight when he wishes to use the Sirens to describe the music of the spheres (R. 10.617); and a number of other comedies featured choruses, presumably always the standard twenty–four in number, of mythological beings or personifications who would ordinarily be found in fewer numbers (e. g. Phrynichus’ Muses, Hermippus’ Fates, Cratinus’ Seasons, etc.). Date Since Charixena was considered out of date already by the time of Cratinus, we have no indication in the fragments of this play as to its date.

fr. 51 K.–A. (50 K.) αὐλεῖ γὰρ σαπρὰ αὕτη γε κρούμαθ᾽ οἷα τἀπὶ Χαριξένης 2 κρούμαθ᾽ οἷα Meineke: κρουμάτια codd.: κρουμάτι᾽ ἄττα Cobet ἐπί codd.

τἀπὶ Meineke: τὰ

since that woman’s piping rotten tunes like those from the time of Charixena Phot. ε 1797 = Et. Gen. B ἐπὶ Χαριξένης· αὐλητρὶς ἡ Χαριξένη ἀρχαία καὶ ποιήτρια κρουμάτων· οἱ δὲ καὶ μελοποιόν. Θεόπομπος Σειρῆσιν· ——. Κρατῖνος Ὀδυσσεῦσιν (fr. 153). Ἀριστοφάνης Ἐκκλησιαζούσαις· (943). From the time of Charixenα: Charixena was an ancient pipe–girl and a composer of tunes; some say she was also a lyric poet. Theopompus in Sirens: ——. Cratinus in Odysseuses: (fr. 153). Aristophanes in Ecclesiazusae: (943).

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xlk〉|l llkl llkl k|lkl rlkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.98, 811; Cobet 1840. 20; Bothe 1855. 311; Weicker 1884. 613; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 119; Casolari 2003. 215–17; Storey 2011. 342–43; Farmer 2020. 355–58

158

Theopompus

Citation Context Photius’ Lexicon provides this fragment alongside Cratin. fr. 153 and Ar. Ec. 943 as illustrations of the proverb “from the time of Charixena.” Similar entries are found in the Et. Gen. (copying Photius, in the view of Theodoridis), Hesychius (ε 5413), a scholium to Ar. Ec. 943, Suda χ 116, Prov. Bodl. 427. Theodoridis (1998. 173) does not speculate as to the ultimate source of the entry; given the proverb’s presence in Aristophanes, these notes may have arisen in a commentary on Ecclesiazusae (despite the lack of substantial comment in the extant scholia), or they may derive from a collection of proverbs. Text The text preserved in the lexica has the diminutive of κροῦμα, which is attested elsewhere (e.g. Ach. Tat. 1.5), but which does not scan. Cobet’s emendation preserves the diminutive, but Hesychius (ε 5413) records the proverb as οἷα τἀπὶ Χαριξένης, suggesting that Meineke’s solution should be preferred. Once a metrical reading is restored in that portion of the line, the mss. τὰ ἐπί introduces an extra syllable; once again, Meineke’s correction to τἀπί restores the meter and brings the expression into harmony with the versions attested in Cratinus, Aristophanes, and Hesychius. Interpretation A character criticizes a woman’s musical performance for being outdated. The γὰρ in the first line suggests this criticism is an explanation of a prior comment (e. g. “I can’t stand her, since she pipes rotten tunes…” vel sim.); the pronoun together with γέ in the second line may suggest that she is being distinguished from some larger group (e. g. “I can’t stand them, since that one at least keeps piping rotten tunes…”), but this cannot be pressed too far without a broader context. Although in Homer and elsewhere in literature the Sirens are singers, in art they often play instruments, including the aulos (see Weicker 1884. 612; Buitron and Cohen 1992. 116.38, 127–28 Gantz 1993. 708–9); it is thus possible, though by no means certain, that the aulos–player here is a Siren. “Things from the time of Charixena” seems to have been a proverbial expression for something outdated or past its prime. If the play is set in the mythological context of Odysseus’ encounter with the Sirens, there would be a humorous anachronism to this expression, since the Charixena in question, however out of date by the time of the play’s production, would have been far in the future from the perspective of the Heroic Age. 1 αὐλεῖ The term aulos encompasses a range of Greek musical pipes, sounded with a reed and typically played as a pair. They were used to accompany a wide spectrum of activities, including choral and dramatic performances, military actions, religious ceremonies, and as entertainment at events like symposia. They are mentioned as early as Homer (e. g. Il. 10.13), but the verb αὐλέω appears first in Alcman (fr. 126); it is common thereafter in both verse (Hippon. fr. 118, Eur. IT 367) and prose (Hdt. 1.141, X. An. 6.1.11, Pl. Smp. 176e). In comedy, references to the aulos often have a metatheatrical force (Cratin. fr. 254, perhaps Eup. fr. 5, Ar. V. 582 [with Farmer 2017b. 128], Th. 1186; cf. Taplin 1993. 67–78, 105–9, who notes the importance of the aulos as a visual marker of performance in vase illustrations

Σειρῆνες (fr. 51)

159

of comedy), but can also simply describe ordinary aulos–playing within the fiction of the play (Cratin. fr. 308, Phrynich. fr. 2, Ar. Ach. 551–5, Pax 531). See West 1992. 81–109, OCD sv. Music. σαπρά Properly “rotten” (from σήπω, “to make rotten”), this adjective often has the sense “old” (e. g. Ar. Pax 698, Ec. 884, Hermipp. fr. 19; cf. Σ Ar. Pax 554a, Eup. fr. 478) and can therefore mean, as it does here, “out of date, old fashioned” (also at Ar. Pl. 323). See Taillardat 1965. 53. 2 κρούμαθ᾽ From κρούω, “hit,” κροῦμα becomes the term for the sound produced when one strikes or strums a stringed instrument (e. g. Ar. Th. 120 with Austin and Olson 2004. 94), and thus a general term for “note” or “melody”; despite its evident inapplicability to the mechanism of playing a wind instrument, the term does come to be applied to such music (e. g. Eup. fr. 121, Ach. Tat. 8.6, AP 16.8.2). Plutarch calls the sounds made by an aulos κρούματα (Mor. 2.638c); Pollux (4.83) claims that κρούματα are merely one among several types of sounds an aulos can produce, distinguishing them from συρίγματα, τερετίσματα, νίγλαροι (all terms which suggest whistling, humming, hissing; it is unclear whether these were truly distinct noises for Pollux and his readers, or whether Pollux is simply collecting other examples of words that have been used to describe the sound of the aulos). At any rate Photius, in citing this fragment, calls Charixena ποιήτρια κρουμάτων, “a composer of tunes”; although there is no reason to assume he has independent evidence for this assertion, it clearly indicates that he understood the term κρούματα in this fragment to bear such a meaning. τἀπὶ Χαριξένης This expression occurs three times in the exant remains of comedy: Cratin. fr. 153 (“She doesn’t know that these things are no longer how things were in the time of Charixena”); Ar. Ec. 943 (“for these things are not things from the time of Charixena”); and this fragment. The lexica provide a variety of speculations about the identity of this Charixena (PAA 984495; see Σ Ar. Ec. 943, Hsch. ε 5413, Phot. ε 1797, Suda χ 116): that she was famous for her stupidity, or for thinking she was attractive into old age; that she was a flute–girl or a hetaira; that she was an author of lyric or erotic poetry; and that there was a proverbial expression, “like things were in the time of Charixena.” Whoever Charixena was, the proverb does seem, from its repeated use in comedy, to be a genuine one; in all three instances, it refers to the outmoded customs of the distant past (Ussher compares it to similar expressions such as τὰ ἐπὶ Κρόνου). The rest of these biographical details about Charixena, however, all manifestly guesses inspired by the circumstances of these comic references to her: in Cratinus, the proverb is deployed to describe a foolish woman; in Theopompus, it is cited in a complaint about a woman playing the aulos; and in Aristophanes, it is used by an old woman interested in sex with a younger man. None of this, however, requires that Charixena herself have been a foolish woman, an aulos–player, or a hetaira who persisted in her work into old age. See Ussher 1973. 207; West 1996. 42; RE s. v. Charixene.

160

Theopompus

fr. 52 K.–A. (51 K.) θύννων τε λευκὰ Σικελικῶν ὑπήτρια white paunches of Sicilian tuna Ath. 9.399d ἐν δὲ Σειρῆσιν ὑπήτρια καλεῖ τὰ ὑπογάστρια λέγων οὕτως· —— And in Sirens he calls bellies paunches, saying the following· ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl k|rkl klkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.811; Bothe 1855. 311; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 119–20; Storey 2011. 344–45; Farmer 2020. 358 Citation Context Athenaeus cites this fragment in a discussion of terms for animals’ bellies, immediately after fr. 24; see there for further discussion. Interpretation The belly was considered the most desirable cut of the tuna, and Sicily was famous for its tuna harvest; we have here a description, then, of a delicacy. These are most probably salted bellies: it seems unlikely the speaker would bother to specify “Sicilian” if he were in Sicily (unless perhaps this reference occurred in a narration of past travels), and they cannot have been transported fresh; Athenaeus (3.116a–117b), moreover, specifically mentions salted tuna from Tarentum. 1 θύννων The tuna (or tunny) is a large fish whose regular migration makes it relatively easy to catch in large numbers; it was then eaten fresh, or salted for export. Among the many terms for tunas of different ages and species, θύννος seems to have been the most general; it occurs first in Semonides (fr. 15), and appears regularly in prose (Hdt. 1.62, Arist. HA 1.1.488a) and verse (e. g. A. Pers. 424, Lyc. Alex. 381) thereafter. In comedy, it is frequently mentioned in menu catalogues (Call. fr. 6, Cratin. fr. 171.49–50, Pl. Com. fr. 189, Anaxandr. fr. 31, Antiph. frr. 191, 221, Ephipp. fr. 12, etc.); the belly is often specified (Ar. fr. 380, Stratt. frr. 5, 32, Eub. fr. 36, perhaps Anaxandr. fr. 130), although the term used elsewhere is usually ὑπογάστριον. See above, on fr. 24, for fish in antiquity, with full accounts of the tuna in Thompson 1947. 79–90, Dalby 2003. 333–37. Σικελικῶν Sicily is mentioned frequently in comedy as a source of culinary delicacies, especially cheese, as well as an exporter of chefs (Ar. V. 838, Antiph. fr. 233, Cratin. Jr. fr. 1, Alex. fr. 54, Diphil. fr. 118, Philemon fr. 79 [in a comedy entitled Σικελικός]). Archestratus, moreover, twice mentions Sicilian tuna as a particular delicacy (frr. 35.6–7, 39.1–2, with Olson and Sens ad locc.). Although the specification of Sicilian tuna here may, then, simply accord with the realities of the audience’s culinary life offstage, there may be a particular point in naming

Σειρῆνες (fr. 53)

161

Sicily in a comedy about the Sirens: an early tradition, found in Thucydides (6.2.1; cf. 3.88.1) and Euripides (Cyc. 95, 106, 114, 703), located Odysseus’ wanderings in and around Sicily; Strabo (1.2.12–13) specifically places the Sirens in Sicily. For Sicilian foods, see Dalby 1996. 108–21, and 2003. 302, Davidson 1997. 4–6, Collin–Bouffier 2000, Olson and Sens 2000, xx–xi, Wilkins 2000. 312–68, Wilkins and Hill 2006. 45–8. ὑπήτρια This is the only extant example of this word, outside of its appearance in Athenaeus’ citation and the lexica (Hes. υ 457, Suda υ 434). Its meaning would have been immediately clear, however, even if it were a new coinage, since ἦτρον, “lower belly,” was in use in the Classical Period (e. g. Ar. Th. 509, X. An. 4.7.15, Pl. Phaed. 118a). fr. 53 K.–A. (52 K.) ὑποδοῦ λαβὼν 〈xlk〉 τὰς περιβαρίδας ὑπ᾽ ὁδοῦ Σ Γ

take the shoes and put them on Σ (RΓ) Ar. Lys. 45 = Suda π 1080 ὑποδήματος εἶδος αἱ περιβαρίδες, ὡς Θεόπομπος ἐν Σειρῆσιν· —— Peribarides are a type of shoe, as Theopompus (uses the word) in Sirens: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

rlkl 〈xlk〉|l rlkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.811; Bothe 1855. 312; Cobet 1858. 144; Blaydes 1890. 59; Blaydes 1896. 91; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 119; Storey 2011. 344–45 Citation Context At Ar. Lys. 42–5 Kalonike objects to Lysistrata’s plan on the grounds that Greek women spend all of their time sitting around their houses, beautifying themselves in order to seduce their husbands; in the course of this she describes them putting on peribarides. A scholion to this line explains that these were a type of shoe, and quotes this fragment of Theopompus to illustrate the point. This scholion is then absorbed into a larger entry in the Suda. Text The scholion in ms. Γ records the reading of the first words of this fragment as ὑπ῾ ὁδοῦ, “under the road.” The reading of R (followed by the Suda) must, however, be correct: Theopompus would certainly have written ὑφ᾽ ὁδοῦ, for one, but more importantly, the presence of the verb ὑποδέω (“put on a shoe”) is the only thing in the fragment which guarantees that περιβαρίδες must be shoes; without it the scholiast would not be providing any further evidence by citing this fragment.

162

Theopompus

Cobet, Blaydes, and Kock, among others, have suggested various ways to fill the short gap in this line, but there are simply too many possible solutions for speculation to be fruitful here. Interpretation The speaker instructs a man (λαβών) to put on a type of shoe ordinarily associated with women; he may thus be donning a disguise. Given that these are contemporary shoes, there may be an element of anachronism if these characters are conversing in a Homeric context. 1 ὑποδοῦ This verb, literally “bind underneath,” is the proper term for putting on shoes; it is common in prose (e. g. Hdt. 1.155, Thuc. 3.22.3, Pl. Smp. 174a, X. An. 4.5.14, etc. ) and comedy (Av. 492, Ec. 36, 269, Eub. fr. 29; possibly Ar. V. 1158–68, but see Biles and Olson 2015, ad loc.) but absent from other verse (except once, at Alc. fr. 318). λαβών Whereas in English we would normally express an idea of this kind with two imperatives (e. g. “take these shoes and put them on”), Greek very frequently uses an infinitive followed by an aorist participle (so, “taking them, put them on them”): e.g. Ar. Ach. 953 (αἴρου λαβὼν τὸν κέραμον, “take the pot and pick it up”); Ar. Eq. 493 (ἐπέγκαψον λαβὼν ταδί, “take these and slurp them down”). See Fraenkel 1962. 142 for discussion of this construction, with further examples. περιβαρίδας The lexica uniformly describe these as women’s shoes (see Poll. 7.92, Hsch. π 1585, Phot. π 415, Suda π 1080, etc.), but their exact nature is obscured by a lack of classical evidence. In the passage of Ar. Lys. (45–53) on which the scholiast who provides our fragment is commenting, they are repeatedly characterized as part of a seductive outfit a woman might put on while waiting for her husband. In Cephisod. fr. 4, however, a woman describes a pair of ornate sandals she’s interested in, then contrasts them with the peribarides she’s currently wearing “like my own slavegirl” (νῦν δ’ ὥσπερ ἡ θεράπαιν’ ἔχω περιβαρίδας; undoubtedly the source of Pollux’s definition περιβαρίς· θεραπαινίδων μᾶλλον τὸ ὑπόδημα). It seems most likely, therefore, that the term is a generic one for shoes generally, rather than a specific type of shoe, and that the lexica provide further details simply based on whichever citation they have before them (for the etymology, obscure and possibly non–Greek in the second element, see Chantraine 1970 s. v.). See Stone 1980. 233, Morrow 1985. 181 (who confesses that among the many known Greek terms for types of shoes, only 14 can be connected with specific depictions in art; περιβαρίδες are not among them), Compton–Engle 2015. 65–7 for shoes in comedy generally; cf. fr. 45.

Σειρῆνες (fr. 54)

163

fr. 54 K.–A. (53 K.) φρυγεύς, θυεία, λήκυθος φρυγεύς 1A, 2CL: φρυγές 2F: καὶ φρυγεύς 1FS

θυεία ed. pr.: θυΐα 1A, 2FCL: καὶ 1FS

roasting pan, mortar, flask Poll.1 7.181 (FS, A) ἀγγεῖον δὲ ᾧ ἐνέφρυγον ὁ φρυγεύς· Θεόπομπος γοῦν ἐν Σειρῆσι ‘φρυγεύς’ φησι ‘θυΐα λήκυθος’ The vessel in which they use to roast things is the roasting pan (phrygeus); for example, Theopompus says in Sirens: —— Poll.2 10.109 (F, CL) τὸν δὲ φρυγέα καὶ αὐτὸν ὡς σκεῦος μαγειρικόν, εἴτε τὸ ἀγγεῖον ἐν ᾧ ἔφρυγον, εἴτε τὸ φρύγετρον, ἐν Σειρῆσι ὁ κωμικὸς Θεόπομπος ὑποδηλοῖ λέγων ‘φρυγεὺς θυΐα λήκυθος.’ The roasting pan (phrygeus) is also the cooking tool itself, whether the vessel in which they roasted things, or the phrygetron, and Theopompus makes this clear in Sirens when he says: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter or

ll〈kl xl〉kl klkl llkl l|lkl 〈xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.811; Bothe 1855. 312; Edmonds 1957 I.866–67; Nesselrath 1990. 96–97; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 119–20; Storey 2011. 344–45; Farmer 2020. 358 Citation Context At 7.180, in the course of a broader discussion of terms for different professions and the cognates of those terms, Pollux introduces μυλωθρός, “miller.” In cataloguing various phrases connected to this term, he lists ways to grind barley; this leads him into a series of words connected to roasting barley, including φρύγειν (roast), φρύγετρον (roasting pan), and φρυγεύς. He then (at 7.181) cites this fragment of Theopompus, adding that φρυγεύς can be either the roasting pan or the person who does the roasting, before moving on to other sets of cognates. At 9.104, Pollux begins to list various terms for a chef ’s equipment, providing comic citations to demonstrate the terms he mentions. At 9.109 he introduces the φρύγετρον, and again cites this fragment in the course of his discussion of the term and its cognates.

164

Theopompus

Text The mss. of Pollux give four variations of this fragment across his two citations of it: 1A (φρυγεύς, θυΐα, λήκυθος), 1FS (καὶ φρυγεύς καὶ λήκυθος), 2CL (φρυγές, θυΐα, λήκυθος), and 2F (φρυγές, θυΐα, λήκυθος). The spelling θυΐα in all the mss. is a late iotacism for the classical θυεία, corrected in Manutius’ first edition of Pollux; see Chantraine 1970. 448. Mss. FS of Poll. 7.181 give a version which could scan but which drops θυεία for καὶ; it is difficult to see how θυεία could have intruded into such a fragment, however, and even F at Poll. 10.109 includes θυεία. The context in Pollux’s discussion of words derived from φρύγω rules out the variant φρυγές (Phrygians). Ms. A at Poll. 7.181 and mss. CL at 10.109 must, therefore, have the correct text, once the spelling θυεία is restored. Interpretation Similar catalogues of cooking utensils (all including the θυεία) occur at Ar. V. 938 (the preparations for the trial of the dog, during which cooking utensils are brought out from the kitchen as potential witnesses), Ar. fr. 7 (from Aeolosicon; the fr. is without context, but the title of the play does suggest a plot concerned with cooking), Antiph. fr. 243 (a catalogue of what look like items for a symposium), Axionic. fr. 7 (a remarkable catalogue of ceramic wares), Anaxipp. fr. 6 (a chef ’s equipment). 1 Pollux states that the term φρυγεύς can refer either to the chef who does the roasting, or the pan in which the food is roasted; we might expect a noun of this form ordinarily to refer to the former, but in this fragment the latter seems more likely, given that the other two elements of the list as we have it are both unambiguously cooking objects. In classical Greek the term occurs only here, but it is clearly connected (as Pollux states) with the verb φρύγω, which is used particularly for the roasting of grains (Thuc. 6.22.1, Cratin. fr. 274, Pherecr. fr. 197) or beans (Hdt. 2.94, Pherecr. fr. 170, Theoc. 7.66); cf. the noun φρύγετρον (a pan for roasting barley), on which see Poll. 1.264, 10.109, and Sparkes 1962. 128. θυεία A broad, shallow bowl, which could serve as a mortar or a mixing bowl. The word is limited to comedy (Ar. fr. 7, Nu. 676, V. 924, Pax 228–38, Ra. 124, Pl. 719, Pl. Com. fr. 46, Antiph. fr. 243, Axionic. fr. 7, Anaxipp. frr. 1, 6, Diph. fr. 43) and prose (Lys. fr. 212, Hipp. Int. 48, Thphr. HP 1.9.3 etc.); its wide variety of possible uses perhaps explains the frequency with which it recurs in comic catalogues of drinking wares and kitchen implements (see above). See Moritz 1958. 22–28, Sparkes 1962. 125, Olson 1998. 114, Biles and Olson 2015. 357. λήκυθος This term was used from Homer onwards to describe a wide variety of containers, large and small, used primarily to hold oil (Suda λ 438: Λήκυθον·… τὰ ἐλαιοδόχα ἀγγεῖα), either for cooking (Ar. Av. 1589, Sotad. fr. 1.33), or for anointing the body (Od. 6.79, 6.215, Ar. frr. 218, 222, Th. 139, Ec. 538, 1101, Pl. 810–11, Pl. Hipp. Min. 368c; for perfumed oil, see above, on fr. 1). For the lekythos shape see Beazley 1927–28, Elferink 1934, Quincey 1945, Henderson 1972 (esp. 135–37), Richter and Milne 1973. 14–16.

165

Στρατιώτιδες (Stratiōtides) (“Soldier Women”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.812–13; Bothe 1855. 312; Schmid and Stählin 1929. I.4.163 n.2; Whittaker 1935. 182, 185; Tod 1947. 9, 15; Gelzer 1960. 280; Geissler 1969. 67 n.3; Pritchett 1971. 18–19; White 1995. 324; Gavrilov 1996; Davidson 1997. 66; Tordoff 2007. 244; Roselli 2011. 247 n.107; Storey 2011. 345–7; Miccolis 2017. 202–5 Title Stratiōtides may have been the title of an earlier comedy by Hermippus, although it is also cited under the masculine Stratiōtai (see Comentale 2017. 207); Stratiōtai is also the title of a comedy by Menander, and possibly of one by Teleclides (see Bagordo 2013. 39–40). The term στρατιῶτις is typically used either as a feminine adjective equivalent to στρατιωτική (A. Ag. 47) or as a substantive (with implied ναῦς) for a troop– carrying ship (Th. 1.116.1, 6.43.1; X. Hell. 1.1.36); Lucian claims that the term also refers to a particular biting fly (Musc. Enc. 12). In Eup. fr. 272, the phrase λεχὼ στρατιῶτις ἐξ Ἰωνίας seems to mean “a female soldier from Ionia who has just given birth”; Comentale, discussing the title of Hermippus’ play, interprets this as a reference to the supposed effeminacy of Ionians (cf. fr. 57, which strongly suggests the play was concerned with effeminate male soldiers). A number of other comedies had choruses of effeminate men or even effeminate soldiers, including Cratinus’ Malthakoi and Drapetides, Eupolis’ Astrateutoi or Androgynoi and Baptai. Frr. 55 and 57 both suggest characters who are identified as feminine behaving in soldierly ways; the title seems most likely, therefore, to mean “soldier women,” but whether the chorus so indicated were female soldiers or effeminate male soldiers is uncertain. Content All interpreters of this play have assumed that the title and fr. 57 (perhaps also 56) indicate a play along the lines of Ar. Ecclesiazusae: that some crisis faced by the city is resolved by allowing or requiring women to serve in the military. Our fragments are compatible with this notion, and Plato’s Republic suggests that the idea of women serving in the military was a topic of discussion in Athens at this time (e. g. 5.456a–b). Given the uncertain meaning of the fragments, however, and the ambiguity of the title, we can only safely conclude that the comedy played with ideas of gender in the context of military service. Date Schmid and Gavrilov argue that the reference to Anytos in fr. 58 suggests a date during the period of his political prominence, ca. 410–404; another Anytos held office in 388/7, however, and there is, moreover, no reliable contemporary evidence for the date of Anytos’ death.

166

Theopompus

fr. 55 K.–A. (54 K.) ἐγὼ γὰρ 〈ἂν〉 κώθωνος ἐκ στρεψαύχενος πίοιμι τὸν τράχηλον ἀνακεκλασμένη; 1 γὰρ ἂν Jacobs: γὰρ ACE

2 πίοιμι τὸν Schweighäuser: πιόμαν τὸν CE: ποιμαντὸν A

would I really drink from a throat–twisting kōthōn with my neck bent back? Ath. 11.483e Θεόπομπος Στρατιώτισιν· —— Theopompus in Soldier Women: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

klk〈l〉 llk|l llkl klkl klk|r klkl

Discussion Jacobs 1809. 261; Meineke 1839 II.812; Bothe 1855. 312; Whittaker 1935. 182; Davidson 1997. 66; Storey 2011. 345 Citation Context At 483b Athenaeus begins a discussion of the kōthon, citing Arch. fr. 4, Ar. Eq. 599–600, Heniochos fr. 1, this fragment, and finally Alexis fr. 181; he then continues into a catalogue of compound words and other uses of the term. Text The text as transmitted does not scan; Jacobs’ restoration of ἄν in line 1 helps make sense of the optative form of πίνω in line 2, restored by Schweighäuser. A’s ποιμαντόν is an unattested word; presumably it would be the opposite of the attested word ἀποίμαντος, “un–shepherded” (e. g. AP 6.239). Interpretation A woman describes the possibility of guzzling wine. The military associations of the kōthōn suggest that she may be envisioning the way she would drink if she were to become one of the titular “soldier women.” Our understanding of the fragment hinges on the interpretation of γάρ. Initial γὰρ can express “ironic surprise and incredulity at the preceding suggestion” (Biles and Olson 2015. 424, on the very similar Ar. V. 1160), see also Denniston 1954. 77–8 (where he suggests translating this usage as “What!”). In this case, we would have something like a respectable woman rejecting the possibility that she would drink like a soldier in the camp. Whittaker, however, objects to editors’ inclusion of a question mark in this fragment, and suggests instead that the speaker is eager to engage in the drinking she describes. If the sentence is not a question, then γὰρ, together with the optative verb, should indicate that this statement is instead an explanation of what the speaker would be capable of doing if the circumstances of whatever was described

167

Στρατιώτιδες (fr. 56)

immediately before this sentence came to pass (e. g. “I would make a great soldier, for I would guzzle wine from a kōthōn just like the men do”). In this case, we would have an example of the typical comic woman’s lust for wine (see Austin and Olson 2004. 231, ad Th. 630, for an exhaustive list of comic references). 1–2 γὰρ … πίοιμι For πίνω without an object meaning “drink wine,” see Austin and Olson 2004. 253. 1 κώθωνος For this cup, see fr. 31.4; note particularly its military associations (most clearly expressed at Plut. Lycurgus 9.4, quoting Critias). στρεψαύχενος Attested only here in Classical Greek; elsewhere only in the 4th c. CE translation of Psalm 78.60 by [Apollinaris]. Presumably a nonce formation, emphasizing either the eagerness or the indignation of the speaker while imagining twisting (LSJ s. v. IX.B) or even injuring (III.A) her neck to guzzle wine. 2 τράχηλον Τhe 10th–c. Geoponica attempts to distinguish τράχηλος from αὐχήν, claiming that the latter is only the back of the neck, the former the entire neck (19.2.3). In classical Greek, however, the terms seem to be used interchangeably (see Galen’s commentary on Hp. Prog. 23 at 18.264). The term τράχηλος appears first in Hipponax (fr. 103) and is thereafter common in both poetry (e. g. Eur. Suppl. 716, Teleclid. fr. 53) and prose (e. g. Hdt. 2.40, X. An. 1.5.8). ἀνακεκλασμένη Applied to the neck, this can be a rather violent gesture: e. g. Eur. Or. 1471 (of Orestes grabbing Helen’s hair and bending her neck back to cut her throat); Aretaeus SA 1.6 (of the neck bending back during opisthotonos); it can also, however, simply describe a luxuriously reclined posture (D.Chr. 5.25).

fr. 56 K.–A. (55 K.) καίτοι τίς οὐκ ἂν οἶκος εὖ πράττοι τετρωβολίζων, εἰ νῦν γε διώβολον φέρων ἀνὴρ τρέφει γυναῖκα; 1 οἶκος Fritzsche: εἰκὸς F Kuehn: φέρειν… τρέφειν F

πράττοι Jungermann: πράττει F

2 φέρων… τρέφει

and yet what household wouldn’t do well making four obols, since even now by earning two obols a husband maintains a wife? Poll. 9.64 παρὰ μέντοι Θεοπόμπῳ ἐν Στρατιώτισι καὶ τὸ τετρώβολον λαμβάνειν τετρωβολίζειν ὠνόμασται· —— Nevertheless in Theopompus, in Soldier Women, to receive four obols is also called tetrobolizein: ——

168

Theopompus

Meter iambic tetrameter catalectic

llkl klkl | llkl kll llrl klkl | klkl kll

Discussion Jungermann and Kuehn apud Lederlin and Hemsterhius 1706; Fritzche 1839. 19; Meineke 1839 II.812; Bothe 1855. 312; Whittaker 1935. 185; Tod 1947. 9, 15; Gelzer 1960. 280; Pritchett 1971. 18–19; Storey 2011. 345 Citation Context At 9.51, Pollux begins a brief discussion of terminology related to coinage; by 9.60 he has reached the drachma and its division into obols, and at 9.63 he narrows his focus to compound nouns for set numbers of obols, primarily the triobol. Text Fritzsche’s emendation of εἰκός to οἶκος seems secure, since εἰκός appears either with an infinitive (e. g. Ach. 703, Nu. 393, 418) or in parthentical expressions with ὥσπερ or οἷον (e. g. Nu. 1374, Th. 723, 975). The optative πράττοι is obviously needed with ἄν here, and the correction of the meaningless pair of infinitives to a participle and an indicative in the second line restores sense to the fragment. Interpretation The speaker imagines how well a household might live on four obols a day, given that (the speaker claims) it is already possible for a husband to maintain his wife on half that sum. In a comedy which must have taken up the notion of female soldiers, one obvious interpretation of this fragment is that, with both husband and wife serving in the army, a household could earn twice the usual wage. The use of iambic tetrameters may suggest an agon (so Whittaker 1935. 185; Gelzer 1960. 280); if so, this and the following fragment may be from a speech outlining the nature and benefits of women serving in the military. The evidence for soldier’s pay in classical Athens is limited and ambiguous. The typical daily wage of a soldier or sailor in this period seems to have been three obols at the lowest, and possibly considerably higher (Pritchett 1971. 14–24, with 18–19 on this fragment). Demosthenes seems to indicate that two obols was a standard amount for the σιτηρέσιον, the amount soldiers were given to enable them to purchase their own supplies before departing on a campaign (see Griffith 1935. 272–3, 298; Pritchett 1971. 21); since this payment, sometimes distinguished from a full wage to be paid later, was made in advance, the speaker could be imagining an immediate receipt of four obols instead of two, if both husband and wife were to enlist. In a passage of Wasps (1188–9), Philocleon seems to claim that he was paid two obols per day serving in the military escort of an embassy; we might then have a speaker here who imagines, if women were able to serve in the military, the opportunities for income beyond ordinary service on campaign. Finally, there was in this period a somewhat poorly understood public dole known as the διωβελία (IG Ι3 377, Arist. Pol. 1267b2; see Buchanan 1962. 35–48); the speaker could thus be extrapolating from the notion of women becoming soldiers, to conclude that they would become eligible for other kinds of state payments as well.

Στρατιώτιδες (fr. 57)

169

1 ἂν… πράττοι… εἰ τρέφει For the apodosis in ἄν with the optative combined with a simple indicative protasis, see Smyth 2300e; typically this expresses an inference. τετρωβολίζων There is no other documented use of this term in classical Greek, but nouns and adjectives formed from such coin values are common (e. g. τριώβολον, τριωβολιμαῖος, etc.) and would be readily understood (for epigraphic evidence for these terms, see Tod 1947). There are several possibilities for the meaning of “four–obol–ing”: Jury service: the lexicon of Pausanias Atticista glosses τετραβωλίζων as follows (τ 24 = Phot. τ 204): τὸ δικαστικὸν τετρώβολον λαμβάνων. ἐγένετο γὰρ καὶ τοσοῦτόν ποτε. (“receiving the jury–man’s four obols; since that’s how much it was at one time”). There is no other evidence, however, for a four obol payment to jurors (Tod 1947. 15–16); probably this is a confusion with the much more common references to the three obol pay instituted for jury service under Cleon (e. g. Eq. 255, where the Paphlagonian calls on the “old men of the jury, brothers of the three–obol”). Military Service: Eustathius (who also cites Pausanias’ definition), defines the “four–obol life” (τετρωβόλου βίος) as “the soldier’s wage” (ἀντὶ τοῦ στρατιώτου μισθὸς). Since our evidence from classical Attica does not otherwise set soldiers’ pay at four obols, Eustathius is instead probably reasoning backwards from our fragment. Expensive living: The scholia to Aristophanes (Σ. Ar. Pax 253) and the Suda (τ 413) claim that describing something as “worth four obols” is a proverbial way of implying that it is expensive. 2 διώβολον A coin worth two obols, or two obols worth of coinage (see Tod 1947. 9–12). Although a three–obol coin existed earlier, the first coins of two– (or for that matter four–)obol denomination seem to have been struck sometime after 393 BCE (Head 1911. 372–4). φέρων The standard idiom for drawing a wage; cf. Ar. Ve. 691 with Biles and Olson 2015. 303. ἀνὴρ τρέφει γυναῖκα This expression, meaning “to maintain a wife,” is uncommon (nowhere else in comedy, or in prose), but Euripides’ repeated use of it (Alc. 1049, IA 749) suggests that it was, at least, not an obscene expression.

fr. 57 K.–A. (56 K.) ἡ Θρασυμάχου 〈δ᾽〉 ὑμῶν γυνὴ καλῶς ἐπιστατήσει Θρασυμάχου Scaliger apud K.–A.: ΟΡ– VR: ΕΡ– M καλός VRM

δ᾽ add. Porson

Thrasymachus’ wife will preside well over you all

καλῶς Scaliger:

170

Theopompus

Priscian. Inst. Gramm. 18.213 Attici… ἐπιστατήσει ὑμῶν καὶ ἡμῖν. Θεόπομπος Στρατιώτισιν· ἡ Θρασυμάχου… ἐπιστατήσει. The Athenians (said both) she will preside over ὑμῶν (“you” pl. genitive) and ἡμῖν (“us” pl. dative).

Meter iambic tetrameter catalectic

llrl llkl | klkl kll

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.813; Bothe 1855. 312; Whittaker 1935. 185; White 1995. 324; Storey 2011. 347 Citation Context Priscian cites this fragment in a catalogue of examples of verbs in Greek and Latin that take objects in the dative and genitive. It is followed by a parallel example with the noun ἐπιστάτης from Plato’s Laws (12.949a), and Cratinus fr. 79 (where, however, the verb is ἐφίστημι, and there is no dative or genitive object); he concludes by citing the Latin parallel expression insto illi et illum. Text The misspellings of Thrasymachus’ name are common mistakes for a capital theta; Scaliger’s correction is secure, since the names Ὀρασύμαχος (Orasymachus) and Ἐρασύμαχος (Erasymachus) do not exist. Porson’s δ(έ) is necessary to avoid hiatus and the possibility of correption, not needed for the meter here. There is neither grammatical nor metrical room for καλός, since we have a feminine nominative subject, and a long syllable is required, so Scaliger’s correction to the adverb is easy and necessary. Interpretation The speaker explains that the wife of Thrasymachus will make a good commander to a group they are addressing. The name Thrasymachus is probably chosen here for its obvious aptness, as with the titular Lysistrata (so K.–A.) or the names at Th. 802–10 (Ναυσιμάχη, Ἀριστομάχη, Στρατονίκη, Εὐβούλη; cf. Austin and Olson 2004. 267; Storey 1988 and 2011. 345). The meter suggests that this fragment may belong to an agon, along with fr. 56, in which the details and benefits of women’s military service are outlined. Θρασυμάχου This was a real, though not common, name, held at Athens in the classical period by several known persons: two people mentioned in court speeches of which nothing further is known (PA 7349 = PAA 517860 in Lys. 8.14–16; PA 7350 = PAA 517880 in Is. 4.2–6, 25); a Thrasymachus of Hippothontis, whose death in battle ca. 425 BCE is commemorated in an inscription (PA 7352 = PAA 517890 at IG I2 949.26); and Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, the orator and sophist made famous by Plato in Republic book 1. A person is also addressed as “Thrasymachus” in Aristophanes’ Daitales (fr. 205); Storey has argued (reviving an argument that originated in Meineke’s edition) that this is the name of a fictional character in the comedy (1988). Menander invents several names using θρασύς (the titular Thrasyleon, as well as Thrasonides in Misoumenos), and invented

Στρατιώτιδες (fr. 58)

171

names with the suffix derived from μάχη are common (e. g. Pax 992, Lys. 554, Th. 804–6, perhaps fr. comic. adesp. 712). Rather than seeking to identify this Thrasymachus with any historical person, therefore, we should probably understand the name as a fitting one for the husband of a woman who is to be put in charge of the female soldiers. ἐπιστατήσει In the general sense “to be in charge of,” the verb ἐπιστατέω and the cognate noun ἐπιστάτης are common in both verse (Pi. N 7.49, A. Ag. 1248, S. OT 1028) and prose (X. Mem. 2.8.3, Isoc. 4.104, Pl. Phaed. 62d); they can be used with any group of subordinates, but often occur in military contexts (e. g. A. Th. 815–16, Hdt. 7.22, X. An. 2.3.11). At Athens the verb sometimes also had the technical sense “to preside, to serve as ἐπιστάτης” in the Council or Assembly (e. g. Th. 4.118, Andoc. 27.96, Ath. Pol. 18.1), a usage parodied in the women’s assembly at Ar. Th. 374.

fr. 58 K.–A. (57 K.) Σ Areth. (B) Pl. Apol. p. 18B 〈οὗ〉τος ὁ Ἄνυτος Ἀνθεμίωνος ἦν υἱός, Ἀθηναῖος γένος, Ἀλκιβιάδου ἐραστής, πλούσιος ἐκ βυρσοδεψικῆς… Θεόπομπος δὲ Στρ〈ατι〉ώτισιν ἐμβαδᾶν αὐτὸν εἶπεν παρὰ τὰς ἐμβάδας, ἐπεὶ καὶ Ἄρχιππος Ἰχθύσιν εἰς σκυτέα αὐτὸν σκώπτει (fr. 31). This Anytos was the son of Anthemion, an Athenian, a lover of Alcibiades, rich from leather–tanning. Theopompus in Strotides called him embadas (boot–maker) from embadas (boots), because Archippus also mocked him in Ichthyes as a leather–worker (fr. 31).

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.813; Bothe 1855. 312; Gavrilov 1996; Storey 2011. 347; Miccolis 2017. 202–5 Citation Context This notice is provided in the scholia to Plato’s Apology by Arethas, Archibishop of Caesarea in the late 9th and early 10th centuries; these scholia are “primarily exegetical and seem to be derived from lost Neoplatonic commentaries” (Dickey 2007. 46; see also Kougeas 1913). The lemma is the first mention of Anytos, whom Socrates claims to fear less than his “many accusers from before,” that is, the comic poets and those who believed their jokes about him. Arethas tells us that Lysias (fr. 274) and Xenophon (Ap. 29–31) also mention Anytos in their version of Socrates’ defense speech, as does Aristoxenus in his life of Socrates, before citing Theopompus and Archippus. Interpretation Anytos (PA 1324; PAA 139460; Davies 1971. 41), son of Anthemion and almost certainly of the deme Euonymon, was a prominent politician, elected strategos in 409/8 BCE; a number of sources mention that his family’s wealth came from leather manufacturing (e. g. X. Apol. 30). Shortly after serving as one of Socrates’ accusers in 399, he was exiled (X. Hell. 2.3.42–44); later tradition holds that he fled to Heraclea but was either rejected or stoned to death (Diog. Laert. 2.43; Them. Or. 20.239c). He appears as an interlocutor in Plato’s Meno; the

172

Theopompus

story that he was among the lovers of Alcibiades is also mentioned by Plutarch (Alc. 4.4–6, Mor. 762c) but no earlier. Another Anytos, possibly the son of Socrates’ accuser, was sitophylax in the Piraeus in 388/7 BCE (PA 1322; PAA 139450; see Lys. 22.8–9 and Davies 1971. 41); the reference to leather worker strongly suggests that Theopompus is referring to this family here, but we cannot be certain which Anytos is the subject of this joke. Theopompus seems likely to have invented Anytos’ nickname ἐμβαδᾶς, “boot– maker,” which appears nowhere else (Gavrilov 1996, Miccolis 2017. 204). The term derives from the ἐμβάς, a type of leather boot frequently mentioned in comedy and associated typically with poor old men (Stone 1980. 223–5; Compton–Engle 2015. 65–69; Biles and Olson 2015. 120); the termination in –ᾶς is used to form similar nicknames elsewhere in comedy (e. g. Cratin. fr. 499, Ar. Av. 288; see Peppler 1902. 41–2, and Gavrilov 1996 n. 4–7 with further bibliography). Gavrilov interprets Theopompus’ mockery here as a reference to ideological or generational divides embodied by the ἐμβάς (as a shoe worn by older and/or populist Athenians); at the very least, we can probably see here another example of comedy’s tendency to accuse prominent figures of having banausic or even servile professions or sources of wealth (so Miccolis 2017. 203, with further examples), best known from Aristophanes’ frequent mockery of Cleon as a leather maker (often using invented nicknames, e. g. Eq. 47 βυρσοπαφλαγών, 197–209 βυρσαίετος).

fr. 59 K.–A. (58 K.) Poll. 2.10 προφερὴς δὲ λέγεται ὁ τῷ μὲν χρόνῳ νεώτερος, τῇ δὲ ὄψει δοκῶν πρεσβύτερος· σκληφρὸς δὲ ὁ ἐκείνῳ πεφυκὼς ὑπεναντίος, τοῦτον δὲ καὶ νεοειδῆ ἂν εἴποις. Θεόπομπος δὲ αὐτὸ ἐν Στρατιώτισιν ἐπὶ γυναικὸς εἴρηκεν ὁ κωμικός. Propherēs is the word for someone who is younger in age but seems in appearance to be older; sklēphros is for the person who is by nature the opposite, whom you could also call neoeidēs (young–looking). Theopompus the comic poet said it in Stratiotides of a woman.

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.813; Bothe 1855. 312; Storey 2011. 347

Citation Context In the opening lines of Plato’s Euthydemus, Crito asks Socrates to identify someone Crito saw him speaking with the day before; he specifies that between Socrates and this other person (later revealed as the titular Euthydemus) sat the son of Axiochus, whom Crito describes by distinguishing him from his own son, Critoboulos: ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνος μὲν σκληφρός, οὗτος δὲ προφερὴς καὶ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς τὴν ὄψιν (“but he [sc. Critoboulos] is sklēphros, whereas this one [sc. the son of Axiochus] is propherēs and handsome and noble in appearance”). The scholia to this passage explain:

Στρατιώτιδες (fr. 59)

173

σκληφρὸς  ὁ  τῷ  μὲνχρόνῳ  πρεσβύτ ερος, τῇ  δὲ  ὄψει νεώτερος δοκῶν· προφερὴς δὲ ὁ τῷ μὲν χρόνῳ νεώτερος, τῇ δὲ ὄψει πρεσβύτερος. sklēphros: one older by age, but seeming younger in appearance; propherēs: one younger in age, but seeming older in appearance. Pollux includes this language (probably drawing on the same source as the Platonic scholia) in his larger examination of terms for different types of people. Book 2 of the Onomasticon begins with a discussion of human beings: words for “human” and other compounds of ἄνθρωπος (2.5); and words connected with procreation (2.6–8); words for people of different ages (2.9–16); terminology for people of different genders (2.17ff). He interrupts his discussion of words for young people at 2.10 with his discussion of sklēphros and propherēs,appending his citation from Theopompus. From Pollux’s manner of citation it is unclear which of the two words under discussion (sklēphros and propherēs) Theopompus used. In several similar entries (e. g. 7.138, 10.109), Pollux uses versions of the expression δὲ αὐτὸ εἴρηκεν to refer to the most immediately proximate term being discussed rather than back to an earlier word, which would suggest that he is citing Theopompus with νεοειδῆς in mind; but I can find no other example in Pollux with quite the same degree of ambiguity, and K.–A. (followed by Storey) viewed σκληφρός as the term that belonged to Theopompus. Interpretation A speaker in this comedy evidently described a woman as looking younger than she really was, or perhaps simply as thin. The term νεοειδῆς occurs nowhere else before Pollux. The term σκληφρός is rare but classical; although it is part of a broad set of related terms (e. g. σκέλλομαι, “to parch”; σκελετός, “dried,” often “dried body”; σκέλος, “leg”; etc.), its etymology is obscure (see Chantraine 1970 s. v. σκέλλομαι). The Platonic scholium’s definition of the term is clearly based on the context in which Plato uses it, distinguishing a boy who looks good for his age from one who does not. Aristotle, however, uses it to describe melancholic people who “are not large” but are instead “voracious,” suggesting that “thin” rather than “young–looking” is the meaning he has in mind; this meaning would also be sufficient explanation for Plato’s use of the word. Later lexica also define it as simply meaning “thin” (Hsch. σ 1041), when they do not confuse it with the much more common (and etymologically related) σκληρός, “hard” (e. g. Suda σ 639). If Pollux means therefore that σκληφρός was the term used to describe a woman in Theopompus, it could simply have meant “thin,” rather than anything connected to age; if νεοειδῆς is the term from Theopompus, its meaning must have been the more narrowly restricted one suggested by Pollux.

174

Τεισαμενός (Teisamenos) (“Teisamenus”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.815–16; Bothe 1855. 313; Breitenbach 1908. 21–23; Geissler 1969. 65 with xvii n. 65.15; Sommerstein 2000. 444; Storey 2011. 347–9 Title Τεισαμενός or Τισαμενός was the name of a prominent politician in late fifth–century Athens (PAA 877610), the author of a decree to reestablish the Solonian constitution after the fall of the Thirty Tyrants (Andoc. 1.83, Lys. 30.28), possibly identical with the tamias of 414/13 and/or the man mocked at Ar. Ach. 603. This was not an uncommon name, however, and may instead refer to the father of the tragedian Agathon (PAA 877635); Aelian claims that Teisamenus was also the name of Theopompus’ own father (see test. 2). There is also a mythological Teisamenus, the son of Orestes who became king of Argos after his father’s death (Pol. 2.41.4, 4.1.5; Strabo 8.7.1, Paus. 2.18.6–8, 3.1.5–6, 7.1.7, [Apollod.] 2.8.2–3). Content If the title refers to the politician Teisamenus, it would most probably indicate a demagogue comedy, like Plato’s Peisander, Hyperbolus, and Cleophon (see Sommerstein 2000). As indicated above, however, the title could also belong to a mythological comedy, or simply to a fictional character in the play. The fragments include a reference to childbirth (fr. 60) and a joke about the tragedian Acestor (fr. 61); neither of these gives any indication as to the comedy’s plot, or to its political content, if any. Date Geissler, Breitenbach, and Sommerstein date the play to the final decade of the 400s, assuming that it was a satire of the political Teisamenus. The reference to Acestor in fr. 61 suggests at the least that it must have been among Theopompus’ earlier plays, since other comic references to him belong to the 420s and 410s.

fr. 60 K.–A. (59 K.) ἀλλ᾽ ἡ μὲν Ἰλείθυα συγγνώμην ἔχει ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν οὖσα καταπλὴξ τὴν τέχνην 1 Ἰλείθυα Herwerden: Εἰλείθυια codd., prob. K.–A.: εἰ] pap. ἔχει codd. et pap.: ἔχοι Blaydes 2 τὴν τέχνην codd. et pap.: τῇ τέχνῃ Richards: τὴν γ᾽ἐμὴν Meineke

but Eileithuia deserves forgiveness being stunned by the women concerning her art Harp. κ 26 = Phot. κ 381 = Suda κ 712 Καταπλήξ· ὁ συνεχῶς πεπληγμένος· Λυσίας ἐν τῷ Πρὸς Αἰσχίνην τὸν Σωκρατικὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ Κατ’ Ἀνδοκίδου ἀσεβείας, εἰ γνήσιος ὁ λόγος. Θεόπομπος Τισαμενῷ (om. Phot. et Suda)· ——

Τεισαμενός (fr. 60)

175

Kataplex: One who has been continuously struck. Lysias in To Aeschines the Socratic and in Against Andocides for Impiety, if the speech is genuine. Theopompus in Teisamenos (title omitted by Photius and Suda): ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl llk|l llkl rlkl l|lk|r llkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.815; Bothe 1855. 313; Storey 2011. 347

Citation Context Harpokration cites this fragment in his Lexicon to explain the term kataplēx. There is no independent source for the example he cites from To Aeschines the Socratic, but the passage he refers to from the extant Against Andocides (Lys. 50.4) has the term used metaphorically (ὑπὸ τῶν τούτου ἁμαρτημάτων ἤδη καταπλῆγες, “already stunned by this man’s crimes”). Photius and the Suda repeat Harpokration’s note, though without the examples from Lysias or the title of Theopompus’ comedy. Text The difficult sense of this fragment led several editors to attempt emendation: Blaydes suggested an optative verb to make it a prayer, Richards and Meineke both sought to explain the dangling final words, the former by introducing a causal dative, the latter by making replacing the reference to art with a possessive adjective modifying the earlier συγγνώμην. Harpokration’s version of the text was, however, confirmed by the discovery of a papyrus of his Lexicon dated to the 2nd or 3rd century CE; see Roberts 1938. I have accepted Herwerden’s suggested spelling of the name of the goddess, against K.–A. here: as Threatte 1980–96, 1.342–4 notes, although Attic gives a wide variety of spellings, there is no evidence for the termination –υια in the Classical period; Wilson 2007. 141 (ad Lys. 742) adds that vases regularly spell her name with the ending –θυα (e. g. Berlin F1704 = Beazley 310014), and accepts this spelling for his text of Ar. Interpretation The speaker describes the goddess of childbirth, Eileithyia, as needing or giving forgiveness related to her role in the lives of women. This statement can be construed in several distinct ways: it is unclear if Eileithyia is forgiving the women, being forgiven by them, or involved in forgiveness with someone else entirely; the phrase ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν (“by the women”) could belong with the reference to forgiveness or with καταπλήξ, “stricken”; and finally, καταπλήξ can mean “stricken” or “reticent.” Τhe presence of μέν suggests that the speaker is preparing to contrast Eileithyia’s experience with that of some other god or mortal. 1 Ἰλείθυα The goddess of childbirth. She is mentioned on a Linear B tablet (Kn Gg 705) in connection with Amnisos on Crete, a location she is also associated with in Homer (Od. 19.188); her worship thus dates to at least the Mycenaeans, although a Minoan origin has also been posited (see Willetts 1958; Tyree 1974. 24–27). In myth, she is the daughter of Zeus and Hera (Hes. Theog. 921–3); she

176

Theopompus

assists at the births of heroes and gods, but sometimes also prolongs them (Il. 16.187, 19.103, Hom. Hymn Ap. 97). Her name sometimes occurs in the plural (e. g. Hom. Il. 11.270), and in vase imagery she may appear as a single figure or a group (see R. Olmos, LIMC 3.1 686–99). In Athens she had a shrine mentioned by Isaeaus (39.7) and described by Pausanias (1.8.15). Elsewhere in comedy she is mentioned twice by Ar. (Lys. 742, where a woman pretends to need her assistance giving birth; Ec. 369, where Blepyrus invokes her in a joke likening constipation to labor); her name was the title of a comedy by the 3rd c. BCE Nikomachos (but is not mentioned in the sole fragment). See (in addition to Willetts and Tyree, cited above) Scheid 2016, Mehl 2009, Bruno 1990, OCD s. v. “Eileithyia.” 1–2 συγγνώμην ἔχει A common idiom that can mean either “to forgive” (e. g. Hdt. 1.116, E. Or. 661, Ar. Pax 668) or “to need / be entitled to forgiveness” (e. g. S. Trach. 326–7, Th. 3.44). Although several translators have construed the phrase here with ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν to mean “be forgiven by” (Storey, Edmonds), there is no parallel for such an expression; the proper idiom would instead be συγγνώμην τυγχάνειν παρά τινος (e. g. Lys. 24.17, Isoc. 12.38). The expression συγγνώμην ἔχειν is, however, commonly accompanied by a participle explaining what is being forgiven (e. g. Isoc. 10.60, [Plut.] Reg. et imp. apophthegm. 203d); we should almost certainly, therefore, understand οὖσα as a participle expressing the cause for which Eileithyia is forgiving or being forgiven. For forgiveness in Greek culture, see Konstan 2018 and 2010, Griswold and Konstan 2012, Dover 1991. 2 καταπλήξ LSJ s. v. glosses this adjective as “stricken, struck,” (citing this fragment). In classical Greek, however, the adjective, as well as the much more common cognates καταπλήσσω (e. g. Il. 3.31, Th. 1.81.6, X. HG 4.4.15, Isaeus 8.27 etc.) and κατάπληξις (e. g. Th. 7.24, Polyb. 1.16.4), are used only in a metaphorical sense, “struck with amazement,” never for literal, physical striking. Because the adjective has a passive sense, it can express an agent with ὑπό, e. g. Lys. 42.50: ἀλλ’ ἐστὲ γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν τούτου ἁμαρτημάτων ἤδη καταπλῆγες, “but you all are already stunned by this man’s failures.” The phrase ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν may belong with καταπλήξ, therefore, rather than with συγγνώμην ἔχει. Aristotle sometimes uses this and related terms (e. g. κατάπληξις) to mean “reticent” or “shy,” and portrays it as the opposite of “shamelessness” (ἀναισχυντία; EN 1108a, EE 1233b, MM 1.29.1); it is thus possible, instead, that the speaker here is claiming that Eileithyia needs forgiveness for being reticent about sharing her knowledge of childbirth with women. τὴν τέχνην The work of the μαῖα or midwife was considered a τέχνη in the classical period, as Plato’s Theaetetus makes clear (161e, 184b, 210b); Demand (1994. 67) argues that some Hippocratic gynecological treatises even had a literate female audience in mind. For the work of the midwife in classical Athens, see Garland 1990. 61–4; Demand 1994. 63–70 and 1995.

Τεισαμενός (fr. 61)

177

fr. 61 K.–A. (60 K.) τὸν δὲ Μύσιον Ἀκέστορ᾽ ἀναπέπεικεν ἀκολουθεῖν ἅμα and Mysian Acestor he has persuaded to follow along Σ (VΓ) Ar. V. 1221 τὸν Ἀκέστορα ξένον κωμῳδοῦσι τὸν τραγικόν, ὃς ἐκαλεῖτο Σάκας. Θεόπομπος Τισαμενῷ οὐ κοινῶς ξένον, ἀλλὰ Μυσόν· ——. καὶ Μεταγένης Φιλοθύτῃ ὁμοίως (fr. 14). They mock Acestor the tragedian as a foreigner, who used to be called “Sakas.” Theopompus in Teisamenus (sc. calls him) not generically foreign but Mysian: ——. Metagenes also (mocks him) the same way in Philothutes (fr. 14). Σ (VEΓ2) Ar. Av. 31 Σάκας· οὗτός ἐστιν Ἀκέστωρ, τραγῳδίας ποιητής. ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ Σάκας διὰ τὸ ξένος εἶναι. Σάκαι δὲ ἔθνος Θρᾳκικόν. Θεόπομπος δὲ καὶ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ Σάκαν προσηγόρευσεν Τισαμενῷ (Τισαμενόν codd.). ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς καὶ Μυσὸν ἐκάλεσεν. εἰς δὲ τὴν ποίησιν αὐτὸν κεχλευάκασι Καλλίας μὲν ἐν Πεδήταις (fr. 17), Κρατῖνος δὲ ἐν Κλεοβουλίναις (fr. 92). Sakas: This is Acestor, the poet of tragedy, who used to be called Sakas because he was a foreigner. The Sakai are a Thracian tribe. Theopompus also labeled his father Sakas in Teisamenus. The same poet also called him Mysian. Callias mocks him for his poetry in Pedetai (fr. 17), and Cratinus in Kleoboulinai (fr. 92).

Meter Iambic trimeter

l〈xlkl xlk〉|l klkl klkr klk|r llkl

Discussion 2011. 347

Meineke 1839 II.815; Bothe 1855. 313; Breitenbach 1908. 22; Storey

Citation Context The scholia to Aristophanes refer to this fragment twice. In Aristophanes’ Wasps, Bdelycleon names Acestor as one of the guests at an imaginary symposium; the scholiasts note that he is often mocked as a foreigner, especially with the nickname “Sakas,” before quoting our fragment and another from Metagenes. In Aristophanes’ Birds, Euelpides introduces himself and his companion Peisetairos as suffering from “the opposite of the disease of Sakas,” that is, that while he is a foreigner pretending to be an Athenian, they, as Athenians, want to emigrate and become in a sense foreigners. Although Acestor is not named, the scholiasts clarify that he is the butt of the joke here; they describe (but do not quote) our fragment, and then cite fragments from Callias and Cratinus. An issue in the text of the Birds scholium creates an interpretive problem for our fragment. The mss. have the name Teisamenus in the accusative (Τισαμενόν), which would mean “Theopompus also labeled his father Sakas as Tisamenus.”

178

Theopompus

Kuster corrected this to the dative, making it a citation with the title of our play: this emendation seems likely, since a dative play title is standard in such a scholiastic citation; although προσαγορεύειν can be used to mean “call X by the name Y,” we would expect the word order to be reversed, since Teisamenus would be the proper name and Sakas the nickname. Nevertheless the mss. reading is not impossible; Kaibel accepted it, and interpreted it to mean that Teisamenus was the name of Acestor’s father, and that the tragic poet’s family was the focus of this play. Interpretation Theopompus participates here in the mockery of the tragedian Acestor as a foreigner that is widespread in comedy (TrGF 25 test. 1–5): Aristophanes (Av. 31) and Callias (fr. 17) call him “the Scythian” (Σάκας); Eupolis calls him “tattooed,” often an indication of slave status but also a practice associated with the Scythians (fr. 172); Metagenes takes “the Scythian” as a nickname and calls him “Scythian the Mysian” (fr. 14). The speaker describes someone having persuaded or tricked Acestor into following him; in extant comedy and the more substantial fragments, these references to Acestor are always oft–hand mentions of his name among mockery of others, and this fragment seems to resemble that style of reference. 1 Μύσιον The term “Mysian” does not seem to have been a stable reference to a single, distinct group of people over the course of its use in Greek. In Homer, Mysians appear both in the catalogue of Trojan allies next to the Phyrgians (2.858) but are also mentioned as neighbors of the Thracians (13.5); later authors sought to explain this contradiction with stories of migration (Herodotus 7.20, Strabo 12.4); archaic poetry also mentions Mysia in connection with the story of Telephus (e. g. Hes. fr. 165.14–15; see Olson 2002, liv). Mysia may have become at some point the name of a satrapy or sub–satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire (see DS 15.90.3, with Stylianou 1998 ad loc); in fifth– and fourth–century Athens, the region of Mysia was considered the location of the city Kios (Hdt. 5.122, X. Hell. 1.4.7), but Attic sources give no sense of an awareness of the Mysians as a distinct, real people. Proverbs portrayed them as notoriously weak (e. g. Μυσῶν λεῖα, meaning “prey to anyone”; see Orth 2009. 174, on Strattis fr. 36). See Debord 2001 for a comprehensive discussion of the Greek awareness of Mysia. 2 Ἀκέστορ᾽ Acestor the tragic poet (PAA 116685, TrGF 1.143–4); no deme or patronym is known, and no fragments of his poetry survive. A fragment of Cratinus (fr. 92) mocks him for his plotting (see Farmer 2017b, 21, 27–30); all other references to him are jokes about his ethnicity (see above). Biles and Olson (2015. 440) interpret these jokes as “ethnic slave–names”; invective portraying Athenians as secretly foreigners is frequent in comedy (see MacDowell 1993, Sommerstein 1996. 348). The anecdote reported by Valerius Maximus (3.7 ext. 1b), in which Acestor’s prolific rate of composition is contrasted with Euripides’ more deliberate pace, may have had its origins in comedy. ἀναπέπεικεν Frequent in prose (e. g. Hdt. 1.37, Th. 1.84, Pl. Ap. 18d, X. Hell. 7.4.16, Lys. 42.55) and comedy (e. g. Ar. Eq. 68, Nu. 77, Antiph. fr. 188.18), al-

Τεισαμενός (fr. 62)

179

most never found in elevated poetry (only at Eur. Hel. 825). Often its meaning is indistinguishable from the simplex πείθω, but occasionally it bears the negative connotation “mislead” or “bribe” (e. g. Hdt. 3.148, Ar. Pax 622; see Biles and Olson 2015. 118, on Ar. V. 101). ἀκολουθεῖν ἅμα A passage of Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1.1362a) explains this meaning of this collocation: one thing can follow another in two ways, either simultaneously (ἅμα) or subsequently (ὕστερον). The phrase here and at Ar. Pl. 701 should thus be understood to mean something closer to “accompany” than “follow.” fr. 62 K.–A. (61 K.) Phot. ο 245 Ὀλόλυας: τοὺς δεισιδαίμονας ἐκάλουν οἰωνιζόμενοι· Μένανδρος Δεισιδαίμονι (fr. 109 K.–A.)· Θεόπομπος Τισαμενῶι καὶ ἄλλοι. Ololuas: They used to call superstitious people this, shunning them as ill–omened. Menander in Deisidaimon (“The Superstitious Man”); Theopompus in Teisamenus; and others.

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.816; Bothe 1855. 313

Citation Context At ο 243 Photius gives the following (Men. fr. 109): ὄλολυν· Μένανδρος τὸν γυναικώδη καὶ κατάθεον καὶ βάκηλον (“ololun: Menander [sc. used this to mean] womanish and superstitious and effeminate”). Our citation is clearly related, defining the same term with reference to Menander and its use to describe a superstitious person; Photius then adds the citation to Theopompus. The text of Photius ο 245 gives the form ὀλόλους; there is, however, no evidence for a noun *ὄλολος, and so Naber corrected to ὀλόλυας, since Phot. ο 243 and Hdn. Gr. 2.938 indicate that ὄλολυς was a real word and an accusative plural is called for by the gloss. This form of the accusative plural is rare but not impossible (see Smyth 251a); West argued instead for ὀλόλυς (see K.–A. ad Men. fr. 109). Interpretation The meaning of the exceedingly rare term ὄλολυς is somewhat in doubt. Photius ο 243 would seem to suggest that the primary valence is “effeminate,” and that his association of this quality with superstition there and in our citation is under the influence of Menander’s Deisidaimon, “The Superstitious Man.” Its only other occurrence is at Anaxandr. fr. 35, a catalogue of humorous nicknames; there is a textual problem in the relevant line, but the name seems to be applied to a man who is λαμπρός, “gleaming,” a term usually used to describe handsome or well–dressed people and with no particular connotation of effeminacy (e. g. Ar. Pax 859, Pl. 144, X. Cyn. 2.4, etc.). The verb ὀλολύζω, however, from which our noun probably derives, is primarily used of women crying to the gods; ὄλολυς used of a man might, then, always seek to capture the combination of superstition and effeminacy claimed by Photius by indicating a man who frequently cries out in fear or alarm.

180

Φινεύς (Phineus) (“Phineus”)

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.813–15; Bothe 1855. 313; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 123–4; Storey 2011. 349 Title Phineus was the title of a tragedy by Aeschylus (TrGF 3.359–61, frr. 258– 260), part of the trilogy of 472 BCE to which Persians belonged; Sophocles wrote two plays with this title (TrGF 4.484–89, frr. 704–717), although it has been argued that these may have been the same play, or that one or both were satyr plays (see TrGF 4.484–5). Aristotle (Poet. 1455a10) mentions a tragedy entitled Phineidai (“Children of Phineus”), on which see TrGF 2.22 (ad fr. adesp. 10a). Timocles (fr. 6.13) mentions the blinding of Phineus’ children in a catalogue of examples of typical tragic suffering. Two major groups of myths surround Phineus, a seer and king of Thrace. In one, he is persuaded by a new wife to blind (or allow to be blinded) his children by an earlier marriage to Cleopatra, daughter of Boreas (Σ Ap. Rhod. 2.178; cf. S. Ant. 966–76); this probably formed the plot of at least one of Sophocles’ tragedies (see esp. frr. 704–5 = Σ Ap. Rhod. 2.178–82). In the other, he is encountered by the Argonauts while enduring a cursed existence, blind and harassed by harpies; in exchange for rescue by the sons of Boreas, he foretells the path of their journey (Ap. Rhod. 2.177–492). Various accounts are given of the reasons for his blinding: that he was given a choice between long life and sight by Zeus, chose long life, and was blinded (Σ H. Od. 12.69); that he was blinded for giving Phrixus directions during his journey to Colchis (Hes. fr. 254); that he was blinded for revealing the gods’ plans to humankind (Ap. Rhod. 2.181–84). Phineus’ story is not infrequently depicted in vase paintings; see L. Kahil, LIMC 7.387–91, Taplin 2007. 82, Kefalidou 2008. Content The title suggests a mythological comedy, perhaps a parody of one of the homonymous tragedies by Sophocles or Aeschylus, but the sole fragment neither confirms nor disproves this hypothesis. In it, we see a character giving extended advice to a younger man (or possibly someone who is simply addressed with contempt as “young man”); although the fragment does end with a prediction, it has much more the flavor of a doctor’s confident prognosis than of a prophet’s foresight. Date We have no indication of the play’s date. fr. 63 K.–A. (62 K.) παῦσαι κυβεύων, μειράκιον, καὶ τοῖς βλίτοις διαχρῶ τὸ λοιπόν. κοιλίαν σκληρὰν ἔχεις· τὰ πετραῖα τῶν ἰχθυδίων ἀπέσθιε.

Φινεύς (fr. 63)

181

ἡ τρὺξ ἄριστόν ἐστιν εἰς εὐβουλίαν. ταυτ᾽ ἢν ποῇς, ῥαίων ἔσει τὴν οὐσίαν 1 σκληρὰν ACE: ξηρὰν Eust. 3 ἰχθυδίων A: ἰχθύων CE, Eust. Scaliger apud K.–A.: ταύτην ποης A

5 ταυτ᾽ ἢν ποῆις

Stop gambling, young man, and stick to amaranth in the future. You’re constipated: eat away from (apesthiein) rock fish. New wine is best for sound judgment. If you do these things, you’ll be better in your substance Ath. 14.649b (ὁ Δημόκριτος ἔφη·) ἀπέχεις, ὦ καλέ μου λογιστὰ Οὐλπιανέ, τὴν κοπτήν· ἧς συμβουλεύω σοι ἀπεσθίειν.’ καὶ ὃς οὐδὲν μελλήσας ἀνελόμενος ἤσθιεν. γελασάντων δὲ πάντων ἔφη ὁ Δημόκριτος· ‘ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐσθίειν σοι προσέταξα, καλὲ ὀνοματοθήρα, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐσθίειν· τὸ γὰρ ἀπεσθίειν οὕτως εἴρηκεν ἐν Φινεῖ ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς Θεόπομπος· ——. χρῶνται δὲ τῷ ἀπεσθίειν καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπό τινος ἐσθίειν, ὡς Ἕρμιππος ἐν Στρατιώταις (fr. 51).᾽ (Democritus said,) “You’ve received your ‘sesame cake,’ my noble auditor Ulpian, and I advise you to eat away (apesthiein) from it.’ And he, hesitating not a moment, took it up and ate it. Everyone laughed, and Democritus said, “but I didn’t order you to eat it, noble word–hunter, but to not eat it. For that’s how Theopompus the comic poet used ‘eat away’ (apesthiein) in Phineus: ——. They also use ‘eat away’ (apesthiein) to mean ‘eat away at something,’ as Hermippus does in Soldiers (fr. 51).”

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl l|lkr llkl rlkl l|lkl llkl rlkl llkl klkl llkl k|lk|l llkl llkl llkl llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.813–15; Bothe 1855. 313; Sanchis Llopis 2002. 123–4; Storey 2011. 349 Citation Context At 14.648e, Ulpian asks the assembled diners if anyone knows what a κοπτή is, presumably meaning the κοπτὴ σησαμίς, a kind of pounded sesame–cake. Democritus responds with a series of illustrative quotations, and concludes by commanding Democritus to apesthiein; the word can mean either “avoid eating” or “eat up.” Ulpian chooses the latter interpretation and eats the cake, which the diners interpret as a joke; Democritus insists that he meant the former, and provides a pair of comic quotations to illustrate the two possible meanings, first our fragment, then Hermippus fr. 51.

182

Theopompus

Text Eustathius (p. 1753.26–27 = ii.64.40–41, presumably reading his copy of the epitome) records ξεράν “dry” in place of Ath.’s σκληράν, “hard”; both are metrically possible and both, describing the bowel, mean “constipated” (e.g. Hipp. Epid. 1.43), so Eust.’s reading is not impossible, but since the extant mss. of Athenaeus and of the epitome both give σκληράν it is to be preferred. Mss. CE and Eusathius give the unmetrical ἰχθύδων; ms. A, which records the metrically sound diminutive must be preferred. The subjunctive ποῇς, coming before the future ἔσει, is clearly part of a conditional statement, so Scaliger corrected the ms.’s ταυτὴν to ταυτ᾽ ἢν, a simple rectification of word division. Interpretation The speaker gives advice on diet and lifestyle to an addressee who is either a younger man or who is contemptuously addressed as one. The references to gambling in line 1, and to prudence and money in lines 4–5, suggest that the advice about diet here may have come in the context of a longer speech about lifestyle (unless perhaps “gambling” is meant purely metaphorically, that is, that the addressee is gambling with his health by eating poorly). The speaker uses one phrase which is otherwise confined to medical texts (“hard bowel,” meaning constipation), and his advice is otherwise in accord with Hippocratic treatments, since both rockfish and new wine are prescribed for constipation; the speaker could thus be a doctor (so Sanchis Llopis 2002. 123), or could simply be speaking in accordance with commonly known medical advice, but his instructions are, at least, not inherently absurd or buffoonish. 1 κυβεύων Greek moralists rail against the corrupting effects of such gambling; see Theopomp. hist. 115 F121, Lys. 16.11 Aeschin. 1.53, Isoc. 15.287. In comedy, gambling is associated with brothels and corrupt or deviant persons (Cratin. fr. 208, Pl. Comicus fr. 46, Diphil. fr. 47). The verb is confined to comedy and prose; in elevated poetry, only at [Eur.] Rhesus 446. For Greek dicing and gambling generally, see also Austin 1940; Kurke 1999. 247–98; Fisher 2004; Kidd 2017. μειράκιον This term for “young man” may be affectionate (e. g. Χ. Mem. 1.2.42; note the repeated use as the two Logoi curry favor at Ar. Nu. 990, 1000, 1071) or contemptuous (Plb. 2.68.2, Plu. Phil. 6); it is exceptionally common in classical prose (Antipho 1.1.7, Pl. Ap. 17c, X. Smp. 4.17) and comedy (Eup. fr. 104, Ar. Nu. 990, Ephipp. fr. 7, Nicostrat. fr. 31, Men. Samia 718), never in elevated verse. As a form of address, it does not seem to have been used by parents to their own sons, suggesting that the speaker here is addressing a younger man who is not his own child. Although there is no clear rule, Pl. Charm. 154b makes it clear that it could designate a young man in contrast to a mere child (παῖς); the upper limit seems to have been around age twenty: X. Mem. 40–42, Plu. Brut. 27, Luc. DMort. 9.4. τοῖς βλίτοις Amaranthus blitum (see Smith and Anthon 1843. 161 s. v. BLETON), commonly known as “purple amaranth” or “pigweed,” is a leafy green plant grouped by Theophrastus (HP 7.1–4) among the edible greens Greeks called

Φινεύς (fr. 63)

183

λάχανα (see above, on fr. 14.2). Hippocrates recommends it as a food suitable for an ill patient who has been given medication (Aff. 41), or in larger doses as a laxative (Aff. 55); Galen devotes a section of his de Alimentorum facultatibus to it (8). A fragment of Diphilus draws the same contrast as our speaker does here, between rich, desirable foods, and the plain fare represented by greens such as this (fr. 14). 2 διαχρῶ This verb, meaning “to use habitually or continuously,” typically takes (as here) a dative object; it belongs to prose (Th. 3.36.4, Antipho 1.23, X. Mem. 4.2.17), especially Herodotus (over twenty times, e. g. 7.9. 7.102, etc.), and comedy (Ar. Ec. 609, Pl. Comic. fr. 229), but is absent from elevated verse (no instances before Theoc. 15.54). As an imperative it typically occurs, as it does here, in recommendations of regimen (e. g. X. Cyr. 1.5.12, Hp. Ep. 2.5.14, Morb. 2.67) κοιλίαν σκληρὰν This expression, meaning “constipated,” occurs elsewhere only in medical and scientific texts (e. g. Hp. Aër. 4.12, Ep. 7.1.118, Aph. 3.25; Arist. PA 3.670b, Gal. de placitis Hippocratis et Platonis 8.6.27). On its own, κοιλία is common in prose (Hdt. 2.40, Th. 2.49.6, Pl. Tim. 73a) and comedy (Ar. Eq. 160, V. 794), absent from elevated texts; it is thus a technical anatomical term. 3 τὰ πετραῖα τῶν ἰχυδίων Aristotle distinguishes three types of sea life: τὰ πελάγια (those who live out at sea), τὰ αἰγιαλώδη (those who live at the shore), τὰ πετραῖα (those who live among the rocks). A fragment of Diocles describes and gives examples of the type (fr. 229 apud Ath. 7.305b): οἱ δὲ πετραῖοι… καλούμενοι μαλακόσαρκοι, κόσσυφοι, κίχλαι, πέρκαι, κωβιοί, φυκίδες, ἀλφηστικός (in Olson’s translation: “the so–called rockfish have soft flesh: blackbird–wrasses, thrush–wrasses, perch, gobies, phykis–wrasses, and wrasse”); cf. Galen’s discussion of “soft–fleshed fish” at de alimentorum facultatibus 6.720. See Thompson 1947. 276–8. The interpretation of this line depends on how wide–spread we imagine to have been the view expressed in medical texts that rock–fish are good for the health and easily digested (e. g. Hp. Vict. 2.48, Gal. loc. cit.); if this was common knowledge, we might interpret ἀπεσθίε here to mean “eat up,” taking the mild rock–fish as a cure for constipation; if not, the speaker may be adducing rock–fish simply as an example of fish considered more broadly as a luxury food, and urging his addressee to avoid them. ἀπέσθιε Athenaeus claims that this verb can mean either “eat up” or “avoid eating”; for the prefix ἀπο– in this double sense, see Humbert 1954, s. 591; Comentale 2017. 211 (ad Hermipp. fr. 51). Nevertheless, in every other instance in classical Greek the verb means “eat up” (e. g. Ar. Eq. 497, Pax 1205; Hp. Ep. 4.1.41; D. 25.61; Arist. HA 554b; etc.), and even in this fragment there is room for some doubt regarding Athenaeus’ interpretation (see previous comment). 4 ἡ τρύξ can be either, as here, new or even unfermented wine, or it can refer to the lees or dregs left after wine is drawn off for drinking; see Edwards 1991. 159–63; Olson 1998. 244 (ad Pax 916). The Hippocratic Regimen recommends it for constipation (2.52).

184

Theopompus

εὐβουλίαν This abstract concept of “good council” or “deliberative thought” is invoked occasionally by the orators (Isoc. 7.34, Aeschin. 2.75), but takes on a grander importance in Plato and Aristotle: for the former, it is the key form of knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) for the “guardians” whose education emerges as a central focus of Republic (4. 428b–429a); for the latter (EN 4.9), it is not a form of knowledge, but of “correctness” (ὀρθότης), which underpins “prudence” (φρόνησις). After the intimately physical focus of the speaker’s advice so far, it may come as something of a surprise here, returning to the theme of morality raised by the earlier reference to gambling and preparing for the joke in the final line. 5 ῥαίων ἔσει A relatively common idiom meaning “to recover, to get better, feel more at ease,” present in medical texts (Hp. Int. 6) but also in ordinary prose (D. 45.57, Luc. Lexiph. 20, Artem. 5.71) and poetry (Eur. Ion 875, Philippid. fr.18). For forms of ῥᾴδιος with an accusative of respect, cf. Alciphr. 1.6, Luc. Merc. Cond. 40. τὴν οὐσίαν Common in all genres in this sense of “money” or “inheritance” (e. g. S. Tr. 911, Ar. Ec. 729, Lys. 18.17, etc.). Coming as a surprise after the speaker’s advice about diet, this reference to οὐσία may have been inspired by the common image of the profligate “eating up” his inheritance, on which see Millis 2015. 248 (ad Anaxandr. fr. 46.2); or, in the context of the larger speech, it may simply represent a return to the theme of monetary prudence raised in line 1, with these comments on diet a digression within a larger moralizing address.

185

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia Although Kassel and Austin distinguish frr. 64–97 as “fragments without titles,” and label only frr. 98–108 as dubia, in fact a number of the fragments without title could belong either to the comic poet or to the historian Theopompus of Chios. In what follows, I mark a number of fragments attributed simply to “Theopompus” without further specification of the author as dubia. Of course metrical fragments must belong to the comic poet, and so (in my view) must fragments cited by stricter Atticist authors, who rejected Theopompus of Chios as an authority on style (see especially Pollux 3.58 = 115 F 338, with Morison 2014 ad loc.). A number of Atticist lexicographers who advocated for a more expansive sense of proper Greek, however, cited Theopompus the historian: 115 F 1–3, 264 from the Antiatticist; 4, 314 from Photius; 311 from Moeris. Since we can seldom tell when such references first entered the lexical tradition, an Atticizing citation from these authors cannot, without further evidence, be used as grounds for assigning fragments to the comic poet. fr. 64 K.–A. (63 K.) ὥς σοι δοκεῖν εἶναι τὸ πρόθυρον τοῦτο βασανιστήριον τὴν δ᾽ οἰκίαν ζητρεῖον ἢ κακὸν μέγα 1 ὡς σοι Et. gen.: ὥσσοι Et magn.: ὥστε μοι Herw.: ὥστ᾽ ἄν σοι Kaibel apud K.– A. 2 πρόθυρον Et. magn.: πρόθυμον Et. gen.

so it may seem to you that this vestibule is a torture chamber and this house a zētreion or something very evil Et gen. A (Et. magn. 411.36) ζήτρειον: σημαίνει τὸ τῶν δούλων δεσμωτήριον, ἤγουν τὸν μύλωνα, παρὰ Χίοις καὶ Ἀχαιοῖς· ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἐδεσμεύοντο οἱ δοῦλοι. Εὔπολις (fr. 387). καὶ Θεόπομπος · —— Zētreion: it means a prison for slaves, that is a mill, among the Chians and Achaeans; for slaves used to be imprisoned there. Eupolis (fr. 387). And Theopompus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xlkl〉 llkl llkr l|lk|r llkl llkl llk|l klkl

186 Discussion

Theopompus

Meineke 1839 II.816; Storey 2011. 349; Olson 2014. 136–7

Citation Context Lexica cite this fragment and/or Eup. fr. 387 and Ar. fr. 95 to explain the rare word ζητρεῖον or ζώντειον. See Olson 2014. 136 (ad Eup. fr. 387) for the possible origins of this network of related glosses in Didymus’ Comic Vocabulary. Text Although the incomplete state of line 1 makes it impossible to definitively settle the matter, K.–A.’s ὥς σοι accepts the ms. reading in the Et. Gen. without recourse to the more complicated emendations of other editors, and a dative pronoun alongside δοκεῖν is highly likely. The Et. Magn.’s reading in line 2 is in turn to be preferred over Et. Gen’s τὸ πρόθυμον: τὸ πρόθυμον is possible as an expression meaning προθυμία, “eagerness” (e. g. Hdt. 9.91, E. Ba. 829), but it would make nonsense of the clause, which clearly requires a name for a place or area of a building. Interpretation The speaker begins in mid sentence with a natural result clause; their previous words must have explained why their addressee would mistake a (presumably normal) house for a torture chamber, e. g. “You are so afraid that it seems to you that this vestibule is a torture chamber” (many such reconstructions could be imagined). The demonstratives and definite articles suggest that the house being considered is known to both characters. In classical Athens, only the enslaved were supposed to be subject to torture or liable to be condemned to hard labor in a mill, but it is unclear whether the speaker’s addressee is in fact enslaved or is simply being accused of experiencing a “servile” fear. 1 ὥς… δοκεῖν For ὥς with an infinitive in natural result clauses, see Smyth 2260, 3000. τὸ πρόθυρον A covered vestibule or portico, leading from the street to the inner courtyard of a typical Greek house; see Rees 1915. 24–5 for a catalogue of literary and vase painting evidence, with archaeological examples and discussion in Ault 2000. 485–6; Cahill 2002. 148–193. For the argument that the theatrical skene itself had a prothyron, see Rees 1915; Allen 1924. 95–106; Pickard–Cambridge 1946. 75–100; Dearden 1976. 29–30; Taplin 1978, fig. 2; Ashby 1999. 71–74. 2 βασανιστήριον This is the only fifth–/fourth–century example of this term, which in later Greek can mean either “torture chamber” (cf. LXX 4 Ma. 6.1, Phalar. Ep. 82) or “implements of torture” (e. g. Charito 4.2.10 and, pace LSJ, Polyaen. 8.62). The verb βασανίζω (“test”), however, already has the connotation “torture” in classical Greek (Th. 7.86, Ar. Ra. 616–18, Antipho 2.4.8, Lys. 4.14) so this term, even if not in common usage, would have been readily understandable in context. For torture in classical Athens, see duBois 1993, Gagarin 1996, Mirhady 1996 and 2000, Sternberg 2006. 146–73, Ballengee 2009; and cf. Olson 2014. 137. 3 ζητρεῖον This word, and the variant form ζώντειον, are attested only in the passages cited by the lexicographers: in addition to our fragment, Eup. fr. 387, Ar. fr. 93, and Herodas 5.32–4. Theopompus and Herodas clearly use it to indicate a place of torture; Pollux associates it particularly with mills (3.78, 7.19)

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 65)

187

and Hesychius’ cites ζειά, a type of wheat, as its etymology (ζ 150). For assignment to the mill as a punishment for enslaved persons, see E. Cyc. 240, Lys. 37.18, etc. and cf. Olson 2014. 137. κακὸν μέγα This phrase, in the sense “a great evil,” is common in all genres and registers from Homer onwards: H. Il. 13.120, Od. 9.423, Semond. fr. 7.72, Hdt. 1.65, Th. 2.12.3, S. Aj. 268, E. Med. 330, Ar. Nu. 1060, etc.

fr. 65 K.–A. (64 K.) ἐπίνομεν μετὰ ταῦτα 〈l xlkl〉 κατακείμενοι μαλακώτατ᾽ ἐπὶ τρικλινίῳ Τελαμῶνος οἰμώζοντες ἀλλήλοις μέλη 1 τὴν ἐπιδέξια suppl. Toeppel, ἄκρατον ἡδέως Kaibel

2 τρικλινίου Blaydes

we were drinking after that… lying down very softly on a set of three couches singing lament–songs of Telamon to each other Αth. 1.23c–e κατακεῖσθαι δὲ λέγεται καὶ κατακεκλίσθαι… Θεόπομπος· —— katakeisthai (“to lie down”) and katakeklisthai (“to recline”) are also said… Theopompus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

klkl rlk|〈l xlkl〉 rlkl rlk|r klkl rlkl llk|l llkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.816–17; Bothe 1855. 314; Toeppel 1867. 5; Reitzenstein 1893. 27; Blaydes 1896. 92; Storey 2011. 349 Citation Context At 1.23c in the epitome of Athenaeus, a discussion of various verbs with the prefix ἀνα– mentions the verb ἀνάκειμαι, “to lie back”; the diners then note that κατάκειμαι, which should in theory have the opposite meaning, can also describe the same reclining motion. As examples they mention X. Smp. (e. g. 1.13) and Plato Smp. (e. g. 175a), then cite Alexis fr. 279, S. fr. 756, Aristot. Tyrrh. Pol. fr. 472, and finally this fragment. Text The first line is incomplete: Toeppel suggested τὴν ἐπιδέξια, “the left to right toast,” citing Eup. fr. 354 as a parallel (on which see Olson 2014. 71–2); Kaibel proposed ἄκρατον ἡδέως, “unmixed wine sweetly.” The verb πίνω can, however, be used absolutely (e. g. Pl. Smp. 176e), so we cannot be certain that such an object is what has dropped out of the line.

188

Theopompus

Blaydes, citing the very similar phrasing of Ar. Ach. 70, suggested a genitive form of τρικλίνιον at the end of line 2, but we do not have enough examples of such an idiom to conclude that the ms.’s dative is incorrect; in their article on the uses of ἐπί, LSJ conclude that the genitive and dative are used interchangeably in verse, but the dative favored in prose (s. v. ἐπί, B.I) Interpretation The speaker describes a symposium, where a group of men reclined to drink and sang skolia. The phrasing of the first line suggests that this was part of a longer description of a dinner party, perhaps along the lines of the extended description of Ar. V. 1299–1325, though in this case from the perspective of one of the participants. His description of the setting as μαλακώτατ(α), “exceedingly soft,” suggests that the tone of the account was laudatory, perhaps even boastful (cf. Alexis fr. 63, with Farmer 2017a. 79–80). 1 ἐπίνομεν μετὰ ταῦτα The formal Greek dinner party in the archaic and classical periods began with food before proceeding to the drinking of wine, the συμπόσιον proper; ταῦτα here may thus indicate that the speaker had previously been describing the food eaten in the earlier phase of a party, or events that occurred during the meal. See Tolles 1943; Murray 1990; Murray and Tecusan 1995; Slater 1991. 2 κατακείμενοι Very common in all periods and genres (e. g. H. Il. 1.606, Hes. Op. 31, Pi. N. 4.52, Hdt. 3.29, Ar. Ach. 70, Lys. 37.24, Pl. Smp. 174e, etc.); among various other connotations (lying down to sleep, putting something into storage, etc.), in sympotic contexts this is the vox propria for reclining in the conventional formal posture: Ar. Ach. 983, Hdt. 3.121, Pl. Smp. 185d, X. Smp. 14, Luc. Smp. 43. μαλακώτατ᾽ Adverbial forms of μαλακός or μαλθακός, “soft,” are commonly found alongside verbs of reclining or sleeping, suggesting the softness of the bedding or cushions: H. Od. 3.350; Ar. Ach. 70, Eq. 785; X. Mem. 2.1.24 (the same superlative form); Theoc. 15.28; cf. Luc. Smp. 13, where Aristaenetus makes a grand gesture of refusing to recline softly. For a survey of the many connotations of these words, see Skoda 2003. ἐπὶ τρικλινίῳ In classical Greek, this diminutive appears only here. The standard form τρίκλινος (an adjective with οἶκος understood) or τρίκλινον (a neuter substantive) refers either to a dining room with three couches (Anaxandr. fr. 72, Plb. 30.26.3) or a set of three couches (Antiph. fr. 292). For the term itself, see Boardman 1994; for similar adjectives describing dining rooms with other numbers of couches, see Papachrysostomou 2016. 266. 3 Τελαμῶνος… μέλη Telamon was the mythological king of Salamis, brother of Peleus and father of Ajax and Teucer; he was an Argonaut and participated in the hunt for the Calydonian Boar, and was Heracles’ companion on his journey to Troy (see Pi. N. 4.22–30, I. 6.37–54, E. Tro. 799–839, DS 4.72, Apollod. 3.12; cf. F. Canciani, LIMC 7.1.852–4; Gantz 1993. 221–5). Herodotus mentions a hero cult for him (8.64). The songs mentioned here are skolia, short lyric songs

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 66)

189

sung at drinking parties (see Martin 2017; Jones 2014; Reitzenstein 1893. 3–44, with 27 on “songs of Telamon”). In the collection of examples quoted by Athenaeus at 15.693e–696a, two mention Telamon: one names him as the father of Ajax (PMG 898), the other mentions his trip to Troy with Heracles (PMG 899). Ar. Lys. 1237 also mentions these songs for Telamon. οἰμώζοντες Literally, “to cry οἴμοι,” this verb is very is common from Homer onwards (Il. 3.364, Od. 9.395, A. Ag. 1599, S. Aj. 940, Hdt. 7.159, E. M. 791); in comedy, it occurs most often in the future tense idiom “you’ll cry οἴμοι,” that is, “you’ll regret it” (see Austin and Olson 2004. 135; Olson 2014. 19). For cognate accusative like μέλη, see Lyr. adesp. fr. 11.10, p. 188 Powell and cf. S. Ant. 1210. This fragment and the joke at Ar. Lys. 1237 have sometimes been taken to suggest that there was a well–known skolion whose title was “The Song of Telamon,” a lament for Ajax; see Eust. p. 285. 2–5 = I.438.26–30, with Henderson 1987a, 209 (ad. Lys. 1237).

fr. 66 K.–A. (65 K.) τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἥδιστον ποτὸν ἐλευθερίας γεύσαντες ὄξος ἐνέχεαν 1 ἡδίστου ποτοῦ Madvig

2 τῆς ἐλευθερίας codd.: articulum del. Porson

having given the Greeks a taste of the sweetest drink of freedom, they poured in sour wine Plut. Lys. 13.7 οὔτε γὰρ ἀριστίνδην οὔτε πλουτίνδην ἀπεδείκνυε τοὺς ἄρχοντας, ἀλλ’ ἑταιρείαις καὶ ξενίαις χαριζόμενος τὰ πράγματα καὶ κυρίους ποιῶν τιμῆς τε καὶ κολάσεως, πολλαῖς δὲ παραγινόμενος αὐτὸς σφαγαῖς καὶ συνεκβάλλων τοὺς τῶν φίλων ἐχθρούς, οὐκ ἐπιεικὲς ἐδίδου τοῖς Ἕλλησι δεῖγμα τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων ἀρχῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ κωμικὸς Θεόπομπος ἔοικε ληρεῖν ἀπεικάζων τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ταῖς καπηλίσιν, ὅτι· ——. εὐθὺς γὰρ ἦν τὸ γεῦμα δυσχερὲς καὶ πικρόν, οὔτε τοὺς δήμους κυρίους τῶν πραγμάτων ἐῶντος εἶναι τοῦ Λυσάνδρου, καὶ τῶν ὀλίγων τοῖς θρασυτάτοις καὶ φιλονεικοτάτοις τὰς πόλεις ἐγχειρίζοντος. He (sc. Lysander) did not choose rulers (for conquered cities) according to excellence or wealth, but made their affairs a favor to his partisans and companions, putting them in charge of reward and punishment. He participated himself in many slaughters and helped drive out the enemies of his friends. Thus he gave to the Greeks a not inaccurate example of Lacedaemonian rule; but even the comic poet Theopompus seems to speak foolishly, when he compares the Lacedaemonians to barmaids: ——. For right away the taste was unpleasant and bitter, since Lysander not only did not permit the peoples to be in charge of their own affairs, but also put the cities into the hands of the boldest and most quarrelsome of the oligarchs.

190

Theopompus

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlk〉l llk|l llkl klrl llk|l krkl

Discussion Meineke 1839 I.240, II.819; Mueller FHG I.333; Bothe 1855. 315; Madvig 1871. 588; Storey 2011. 349 Assignment to known plays Meineke 1839 I.240 initially assigned this fragment to Eirene, presumably because of its references to “freedom” and Sparta, but later expressed doubt about this suggestion; Mueller, interpreting the reference to “barmaids” as a citation, assigned it to Kapēlides (cf. Storey). If Plutarch’s understanding of this fragment as a reference to Lysander is correct, it should probably belong to a play from the period 404 (Battle of Aegospotami) to 395 BCE (Lysander’s death at the Battle of Haliartus) Citation Context According to Plutarch, after the Battle of Aegospotami (405 BCE) Lysander traveled among Athens’ various allies and tributaries, sending home any Athenians he found and establishing Spartan rulership (X. Hell. 1–3 passim, e. g. 3.11.2–4). Plutarch concludes that this gave the Greeks a taste of the Spartan hegemony that was to follow in the wake of the defeat of Athens, exchanging the rule of Athens not for freedom but simply for the rule of another power, Sparta. Plutarch objects to Theopompus’ reference to these events evidently on the grounds that the “taste” of freedom was made bitter by Lysander’s choices immediately, rather than later on. There is some possibility that a citation to Kapēlides lies behind Plutarch’s claim that this fragment compares the Spartans to “barmaids”; as noted in the discussion above of that play’s title, καπηλίς is a rare word and not the ordinary way to refer to servers of wine. Text Madvig sought to change the accusative ποτόν to genitive ποτοῦ, since γεύω often takes a genitive of the thing tasted alongside an accusative of the person being given the taste; but γεύω can also take a double accusative (e. g. Hdt. 7.46, E. Cyc. 149, Eub. fr. 136), so there is no need to emend here. Plutarch’s text has the definite article τῆς with ἐλευθερίας, but this would create an impossible metrical series; the presence of this article in Plutarch’s source is likely what prevented him from recognizing this quotation as verse. Interpretation Plutarch indicates that this fragment described the behavior of the Spartans in establishing what would become their hegemony in the late fifth and early fourth centuries. The speaker compares them to barmaids who first offer a sample of good wine (“freedom”), but then serve sour wine (Spartan rule). Plutarch objects that the Spartans’ “wine” was bitter from the first. The image of the warlike Spartans as “barmaids” is no doubt humorous, but there is also a certain genuine bitterness in the speaker’s remarks here: the value–laden abstraction ἐλευθερία, for example, is found elsewhere in comedy only once, but is common in serious oratory.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 66)

191

1 τοὺς Ἕλληνας As Thucydides famously notes (1.3), in Homeric poetry the terms “Hellene” or “Hellas” refer only to a specific group of Greeks from the valley of the river Spercheios (Il. 2.681–85, 9.395, 447, 478–80; Od. 11.495–96); references to “panhellenes” in archaic poetry (Hes. Op. 528, Archil. fr. 102, Pi. I. 2.38, 4.29) may suggest that the term had begun to take on a broader meaning in the 7th and 6th centuries, but by the fifth century it had distinctly come to refer to the Greeks as a whole (e. g. A. Pers. 338, Hdt. 1.0, Th. 1.1.2, Ar. Ach. 529, etc.). See Hall 2002. 125–34. ἥδιστον ποτόν Although it can refer to any drink (e. g. water at A. Pers. 487), ποτόν nearly always refers to wine (Il. 1.470; A. Pers. 615, S. Tr. 703); in comedy this is its invariable meaning: Ar. fr. 6, Pl. Comic. fr. 195, Anaxil. fr. 10, Mnesim. fr. 4, Men. fr. 736.42 Good wine is “sweet” from Homer onwards: Od. 2.348, 3.50, etc.; E. El. 497 (ποτόν); Panyassis fr. 7 (ποτόν); Ar. Ach. 73; X. Mem. 1.3.5; etc. 2 ἐλευθερίας From its first appearances, this abstraction often, as here, has the broad political connotation of freedom from the rule of outside conquerors or from tyranny (as opposed to, for example, an individual’s freedom from slavery): Pi. P. 1.61, Hdt. 1.62, Th. 2.62, etc. Elsewhere in comedy it is found only at Men. Epitrep. 558, in a metaphor comparing love to slavery; its frequency in oratory (e. g. Antipho 5.31, Isaeus 8 frr. 1–2, Isoc. 4.95, Andoc. 1.142, Lys. 38.14, etc.), in contrast to its absence from comedy, suggests that it may have been too heavily value–laden a term for most comic discourse. γεύσαντες The active, transitive form of this verb means “offer someone a taste of something” (see LSJ s. v. γεύω). The metaphor of “a taste of freedom,” though by no means common enough to be considered proverbial, was present already in Herodotus (6.5). ὄξος Vinegar made from sour wine (Ar. Av. 534, Antiph. fr. 140.3, Anaxandr. 42.58), or sometimes, colloquially, bad wine itself (Eub. fr. 136, Alex. fr. 286). The latter is probably the meaning here (so Olson 2014. 73); bartenders in comedy are often portrayed as attempting to pass off inferior wine (Ar. Th. 347–50, Pl. 435–6); see above, on Kapēlides. ἐνέχεαν This verb often indicates pouring wine into a cup, with (e. g. Od. 3.40; Hdt. 4.70) or without (e. g. Ar. V. 616; X. An. 4.3.13) mention of the cup itself.

42

Τhe one exception, Anaxipp. fr. 1.18, proves the rule: it describes a Rhodian drinking brine and dying, and labels it “a drink [ποτόν] against nature.”

192

Theopompus

fr. 67 K.–A. (66 K.) ἄφωνος ἐγένετο ἔπειτα μέντοι πάλιν ἀνηνέχθη he became voiceless then nevertheless was again restored Eust. in Od. 1604.4–5 = i.307.21–22 Ὅτι δὲ καὶ (sc. ἀνηνέχθη) ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνέπνευσε κεῖται κατὰ Παυσανίαν (α 122) δηλοῖ Θεόπομπος εἰπών · —— That (anēnechthē) is used to mean anepneuse (he breathed again) according to Pausanias (α 122), Theopompus shows when he says: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

〈xlkl xl〉kl krkl klkl l|rkl ll〈kl〉

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.819; Storey 2011. 51; Morison 2014. 115 F 353

Citation Context Eustathius cites this fragment as part of a discussion of the verb ἀναφέρω, which means, among other things, “to restore.” Related entries occur in other lexica as well: Hesychius α 5063 ἀνηνέχθη· ἀνήνεγκεν. ἐξ ἀφωνίας καὶ λειποψυχίας ἐφθέγξατο. anēnechthē: he brought back. After voicelessness and fainting he spoke. Photius α 1925 Ἀνηνέχθη· ἀνήνεγκε καὶ ἀνελάμβανεν αὑτόν. Ῥαπιζομένῃ Μένανδρος (fr. 331) anēnechthē: he brought him back and restored himself. Menander in Rapizomenē (fr. 331).

Neither cites Theopompus; Photius, instead, attributes the usage to Menander. Their definition, “to have a voice again after being voiceless,” is so specific (in contrast to the broad possible meanings of this verb) that it probably originated in a comment on this fragment. Eustathius does not specify which Theopompus he is quoting; Morison includes this in the fragments of the historian Theopompus, but it scans without emendation, and thus almost certainly belongs to the comic poet. Interpretation The speaker describes another person’s experience of temporary voicelessness, followed by recovery. The third–person description indicates that this is a piece of a longer narrative of events, perhaps even a messenger speech; the progression from voicelessness to recovery suggests this description would have been followed by a quotation or summary of the person’s subsequent speech.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 68)

193

1 ἄφωνος ἐγένετο “To become voiceless” was for the Greeks a way to convey extreme surprise or distress (Pl. R. 1.336d, D. 25.47, Plb. 20.10.9; cf. Sapph. fr. 31.8–9); Hippocratic texts warn of sudden voicelessness as a sign of imminent death (Aph. 5.5, Coac. 489, etc.). 2 ἔπειτα μέντοι A common phrase in prose, occasional in tragedy, but not found elsewhere in comedy; it typically, as here, expresses a substantial change in the direction of a narrative (e. g. Th. 3.93.1, X. Hell. 5.2.33, S. Phil. 352, E. Med. 1147, etc.) ἀνηνέχθη Contrary to the implications of the lexica, there is nothing inherently related to voice or breathing in this verb, which can mean “restore” or “be restored” from injury (D. H. 4.67), shock (Hdt. 1.116, where the recovery also comes after a moment of being voiceless, ἄφθογγος), trouble (Th. 8.97), etc.

fr. 68 K.–A. (67 K.) τρώγουσι μύρτα καὶ πέπονα μιμαίκυλα they are nibbling myrtle berries and ripe arbutus–fruit Ath. 2.50e ταῦτα ὁ Ἀσκληπιάδης, φησί, μοι δοκεῖ λέγειν περὶ τῶν μιμαικύλων. τό τε γὰρ φέρον αὐτὰ δένδρον τοιοῦτον καὶ ὁ πλέον τῶν ἑπτὰ τοῦ καρποῦ φαγὼν κεφαλαλγὴς γίνεται. Ἀριστοφάνης (fr. 698). Θεόπομπος · —— Asclepiades seems to me, he says, to be making these remarks about arbutus–fruit trees, since the tree that bears them is of that sort and whoever eats more than seven of this fruit gets a headache. Aristophanes (fr. 698). Theopompus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl k|lkr klkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.817; Storey 2011. 351

Citation Context At 2.50b, Athenaeus begins a discussion of varieties of cherry trees; at 2.50d, he mentions a discussion in Asclepiades of Myrlea (FGrH 697 F 4) of the “bush–cherry tree” (χαμαικέρασος). Athenaeus identifies the tree described by Asclepiades as instead the arbutus or strawberry–tree (κόμαρος), and goes on to provide a number of comic references to it: Ar. fr. 698, our fragment, Crates fr. 43, Amphis fr. 38, and finally a reference to Theophrastus (HP 3.16.4). Eustathius (p. 211.14 = I.321. 34–35) quotes the fragment as well, without Theopompus’ name, no doubt having read it in his own epitome of Athenaeus (on which see Olson 2006–2012. 1.xvi).

194

Theopompus

Interpretation The speaker describes a group enjoying delicate fruits; the phrasing is reminiscent of other, longer catalogues of delicacies (cited below). τρώγουσι This verb belongs primarily to prose and comedy; before Theocritus (4.45, 9.11), it appears in serious poetry only once, describing mules at Od. 6.90. It is often used of animals (Od. 6.90, Hippon. fr. 66, Ar. Ach. 801, Theoc. 9.11 [of cattle eating arbutus]); when referring to humans, it tends to refer to the eating of fruits, desserts, or other dainty or delicate foods (Hippon. fr. 26; Hdt. 1.71, 2.92; Eup. fr. 25, Pherecr. fr. 85, etc.). Although I have translated this form as a 3rd–person plural indicative, it could also be a dative plural participle: “to those nibbling myrtle berries…” μύρτα Myrtle berries, the fruit of Myrtis communis, were eaten as a delicacy: Ibyc. fr. 34, Pherecr. fr. 158 (also alongside arbutus–fruit), Ar. fr. 581.6, Pax 575, Av. 82, 160, 1100, Pl. R. 2.372d, etc. μιμαίκυλα The fruit of the arbutus tree (Arbutus unedo), Greek κέραμος (cf. Amphis fr. 38). Theophrastus describes the tree at HP 3.16.4, where he notes (correctly) that the fruit takes an unusually long time to ripen, so that it is only just ready on the tree as the next year’s flowers appear; hence the importance of waiting for πέπονα μιμαίκυλα, “ripe arbutus–fruit.” Like myrtle–berries, they were eaten as a delicacy: Pherecr. fr. 158, Ar. fr. 698 (where their appearance without labor is probably a feature of utopia; cf. Ov. Met. 1.103). There is no trace in earlier discussions of Athenaeus’ claim (attributed to Asclepiades) that arbutus–fruit could produce intoxication; this is in any case not true.

fr. 69 K.–A. (68 K.) κἄπειτ᾽ ἰδὼν ἀσφάραγον ἐν θάμνῳ τινί and then having seen aspharagos in some thicket Ath. 2.62e (ΑΣΠΑΡΑΓΟΙ). Κρατῖνος δὲ (fr. 363) διὰ τοῦ φ ἀσφάραγον ὀνομάζει. καὶ Θεόπομπος· —— (On asparagus): Cratinus (fr. 363) calls it aspharagus with the letter “phi.” And Theopompus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

klkl lrk|l llkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.817; Storey 2011. 351

Citation Context The epitome of Athenaeus cites this fragment in a brief discussion of the spelling of aspharagos, alongside Cratin. fr. 363 and Amips. fr. 24. Very similar, probably related, material is found in several other sources:

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 69)

195

Phryn. PS 41.8–42.3 ἀσφάραγος: διὰ τοῦ φ. βοτάνης εἶδος ἀσφάραγος πρὸς τὰς καθάρσεις ἐπιτήδειον. οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ τὰ ὄρμενα τῶν λαχάνων διὰ τοῦ π ἀσπαράγους καλοῦσιν, δυσὶ περιπίπτοντες ἁμαρτήμασιν, ὅτι τε διὰ τοῦ π λέγουσιν, δέον διὰ τοῦ φ, καὶ ὅτι τὸ ἰδίως καλούμενον ἐπί τινος πόας ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν ἐξορμενιζόντων τίθενται τὴν φωνήν. aspharagos: with phi. Aspharagos is a type of blant useful for purges. Many people refer to the vegetable shoots using pi, asparagos, but they fall into two errors: they say it with pi, although it should be with phi; and they apply the word to all shoots, although it is the name of a single plant. Phot. α 3038 (= Suda α 4297 = Synag. B α 2306) ἀσφάραγον· φάρυγα, στόμαχον, λαιμόν. λέγεται δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐξ ἀκανθῶν φυόμενον. ἔστι δέ τι καὶ βοτάνης εἶδος ἀσφάραγος πρὸς τὰς καθάρσεις ἐπιτήδειον. οὕτω μὲν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ διὰ τοῦ φ προφέρουσιν, οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ μὴ ἀκριβοῦντες διὰ τοῦ π λέγουσι. καὶ ἁπλῶς τὰ τῶν λαχάνων ὄρμενα ἀσπαράγους καλοῦσιν. aspharagon: throat, stomach, neck. It is also said of what grows from thorns. There is also a type of plant, aspharagos, useful for purges. The Attic writers pronounce it this way, with phi, but many people being imprecise say it with pi. And they simply call the shoots of the vegetables asparagos. Gal. 4.641.11 Κühn εἴτε διὰ τοῦ φ λέγειν ἐθέλοιϲ τὴν δευτέραν ϲυλλαβὴν τῶν ἀϲπαράγων εἴτε διὰ τοῦ π, καθάπερ ἅπαντεϲ, οὐ νῦν πρόκειται ϲκοπεῖν· οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῖϲ ἀττικίζειν τῇ φωνῇ ϲπουδάζουϲιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖϲ ὑγιαίνειν ἐθέλουϲι γράφεται ταῦτα, κἄν, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ τοῦ Πλάτωνοϲ, μήτε γράμματα μήτε νεῖν ἐπίϲτωνται. καλούντων οὖν τῶν νῦν Ἑλλήνων ϲχεδὸν ἁπάντων τοὺϲ ἁπαλοὺϲ καυλούϲ, ὅταν αὐξάνωνται πρὸϲ τὴν τοῦ καρποῦ τε καὶ ϲπέρματοϲ ἐκβολήν, ἀϲπαράγουϲ διὰ τοῦ π, τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν ἐροῦμεν, ἐπιτρέψαντεϲ ὅπωϲ ἂν ὀνομάζειν ἐθέλωϲιν οἱ χρώμενοι. It is not our current topic to investigate whether you should want to say with phi the second syllable of asparagos or with pi, like everyone does; for these things are written not for those who wish to Atticize in their speech, but for those who wish to be healthy, even if, as in Plato, “they know neither their letters nor how to swim.” Given that nowadays almost all the Greeks call the soft stems, when they grow towards the extension of the fruit and seed, asparagos with pi, I will discuss their power, yielding to however those who use them want to name them. Eust. p. 899.23–4 = III.373.8–9 λέγεται δὲ Κρατῖνος καὶ Θεόπομπος καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἀσφαράγους γράφειν διὰ τοῦ φι. It is said that Cratinus and Theopompus and similar authors write aspharagos with phi.

Several separate traditions become interwoven in these notes: the Homeric usage, glossed as “throat,” which seems to originate in the Homeric scholia (see Cunningham 2003.130, on Synag. α 1026); the Atticizing tradition, focused on the question of the spelling with φ or π; and the scientific tradition, focused on the botanical reference of the term and the use of the plant in medicine. The ultimate source of the fragments of Cratinus and Theopompus seems to have been in an Atticist discussion of spelling.

196

Theopompus

Interpretation The speaker describes a male character, or conceivably himself, having seen wild asparagus in a copse or thicket. There is some debate as to whether the Greeks cultivated asparagus at all, but they certainly foraged for and ate wild asparagus. The speaker here thus seems to be describing a lucky happenstance; the phrase ἐν θάμνῳ τινί, “in some thicket,” rather than (e. g.) ἐν τῷ θάμνῳ, suggests that he simply happened upon the asparagus, rather than going to the thicket knowing that it was there. Finally, κἄπειτ(α) shows this is one step in an ongoing narration; the aorist participle ἰδών must precede a main verb describing the person’s next action (e. g. gathering the asparagus, exclaiming in delight, etc.). ἀσφάραγον Some variety of asparagus, probably Asparagus officinalis. As Olson and Seaberg note (2018. 178 ad Cratin. fr. 363.2), the lexica seem to believe that this term can refer to the shoots of any wild plant (so also LSJ), but Theophrastus’ description clearly refers to asparagus (HP 6.4.2). It is often mentioned in comic food catalogues: Amphis fr. 24, Anaxandr. fr. 51.1, Antiph. fr. 294, Aristopho fr. 15.2, Philem. fr. 100.6; cf. Matro of Pitane fr. 1.16 with Olson and Sens 1999, ad loc. For the consumption of this plant in Greece and the question of whether it was ever cultivated, see Frayn 1975. 33–4; Hünemorder 1997; Dalby 2003. 31–2; Zohary et al. 2012. 161–2; and cf. Seaberg and Olson 2018. 177–78 (ad Cratin. fr. 363); Orth 2013. 312–313 (ad Amips. fr. 24). ἐν θάμνῳ Athough a θάνμνος can simply be a bush (e. g. Il. 22.191, with ὑπό; Archil. fr. 6, with παρά), with ἐν it typically refers to a thicket or copse of trees: Od. 5.470, 7.284, 22.469; Ap. Rhod. 1.1027, Nic. Alex. 568 fr. 70 K.–A. (69 K.) δὶς παῖδες οἱ γέροντες ὀρθῷ τῷ λόγῳ old people are children for a second time, in the correct saying Clem. Alex. Strom. 6.19.5–8 Θεοπόμπου ποιήσαντος· ——, καὶ πρό γε τούτου Σοφοκλέους ἐν τῷ Πηλεῖ (fr. 487), Ἀντιφῶν ὁ ῥήτωρ λέγει (fr. 136), ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ φιλόσοφος Πλάτων· (Leg. 1.646a) Theopompus having written: ——, yet even before him Sophocles in Peleus (fr. 487); Antiphon the orator says (fr. 136), but also the philosopher Plato (Laws 1.646a).

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl klk|l llkl

Discussion

Bergk 1838. 414–15; Meineke 1839 II.818; Storey 2011. 349

Assignment to known plays Bergk attributed the fragment to Paides, but the word παῖδες is a standard element of this proverb, not a thematically important addition by Theopompus. The proverb could be quoted in any play.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 71)

197

Citation Context In the sixth book of his Stromata, Clement of Alexandria sets out to prove that the Greeks are plagiarists, by citing groups of related passages, where authors allude to one another, reuse the same imagery, or repeat the same proverbs. At 6.19.5 he cites this proverb from Theopompus, and then a series of similar quotations: S. fr. 487, Antipho fr. 136, Pl. Leg. 1.646a. Although he claims that Theopompus was imitating Sophocles, there is no reason to accept this claim at face value; cf. the much closer parody at Ar. Eq. 1098–99. This same series of quotations is also given in Musurus’ notes on the Aldine edition, discussing Ar. Nu. 1417; although Meineke initially identified this scholium as the source of this fragment, there is no reason to regard it as anything other than an uncited quotation of Clement. Interpretation The speaker quotes approvingly a well–known proverb. Although this particular phrasing eventually emerges as the standard form of the proverb (Ar. Nu. 1417, [Pl.] Axioch. 367b, Men. fr. 408; cf. Diogen. 4.18), earlier texts provide variations of the same notion (Cratin. fr. 28, S. fr. 487, Pl. Leg. 1.646a, Antipho fr. 136; cf. Luc. Sat. 9). As Bianchi notes (2016. 172 ad Cratin. fr. 28), this expression has particular resonance in a scene of generational conflict; regardless, it is probably spoken in criticism of an elderly character. For Theopompus’ explicit deployment of quotations, see also frr. 4, 34, 35, and see Farmer 2020. 349–51. οἱ γέροντες In the plural, this can refer to elderly people in general: e. g. Hp. Prorrh. 2.30, where the author repeatedly clarifies that he is speaking of both men and women, but uses γέροντες by itself in contrast to the pairings ἄνδρες / γυναῖκες, νεανίσκοι / παρθένοι. We should not, therefore, assume the proverb is being deployed here to describe an old man, as opposed to an old woman. ὀρθῷ τῷ λόγῳ Proverbs are often introduced with similar expressions attesting to their veracity: e. g. Cratin. fr. 28 (the same proverb); S. Tr. 1–3, Aj. 664–5; E. fr. 75; Stesimbr. fr. 11.16 (with ὀρθός), Pl. Phaedo 94a (with ὀρθός), etc. On its own, the phrase ὀρθῷ λόγῳ can also simply mean “truly” (e. g. Hdt. 2.17, 6.53, 6.68; Hp. de Arte 6), but the definite article here makes it clear the speaker has the specific proverb in mind; for λόγος meaning “proverb,” see LSJ s. v. VII, esp. VII.2.

fr. 71 K.–A. (70 K.) εἴσω δραμὼν αἴτησον. (Β.) ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐκφορά run inside and ask! (B.) But it’s not ekphora Σ. (VEΘNBarb.) Ar. Pl. 1138c ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔκφορα: ὡς ἐν ἐνίαις θυσίαις λεγομένου τούτου. καὶ χρῶνται αὐτῷ οὐ κατ’ οὐδέτερον πληθυντικόν, ἀλλ’ ἑνικῶς κατὰ θηλυκόν· ὡς Θεόπομπος · ——. καὶ εἰ μὲν οὐδέτερον εἴη πληθυντικόν, προπαροξύνουσιν· εἰ δὲ θηλυκὸν, ὀξύνουσιν.

198

Theopompus

but it’s not ekphora: this is being said as in certain sacrifices. they also use it not in the neuter plural but in the feminine singular, as Theopompus (does): ——. And if it happens to be neuter plural, they accent the antepenult; if feminine, they accent ultima.

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl llk|l llkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.801; Bothe 1855. 314; Storey 2011. 351.

Assignment to known plays Meineke and Bothe (followed, hesitantly, by Storey) tie this fragment to fr. 29, but the connection is far too tenuous to assign it to Kapelides. Citation Context At Wealth 1134, Hermes asks Karion to do him a favor; Karion says he will oblige if he is able; Hermes then specifies that he would like Karion to go inside and bring him out some of the food from the sacrifice taking place inside. Karion replies, “ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐκφορά,” meaning, that this is not the variety of sacrifice where one is permitted to take the food away. The scholiast commenting on the text here explains that the word ekphora can appear in two forms, either neuter plural, with accent on the antepenult (which the scholiast evidently read in Aristophanes), or feminine singular, with accent on the ultima; the scholiast cites Theopompus to illustrate the latter. Wilson, however, prefers the reading of the Venetus ms. and prints ἐκφορά at Ar. Pl. 1138. Interpretation One character bids another to enter a building and make some request; the second character’s reply, referring to sacrifices in which nothing can be taken away from the ritual, suggests the request would be for food. The hurried immediacy of this request makes it probable that these are characters discussing entering the skene building behind them. εἴσω In Aristophanes, very nearly always a reference to the inside of the stage building (18 times; the one exception, Lys. 1066, has the chorus imagining inviting the audience into their own homes); the speaker is almost certainly, therefore, referring to a sacrifice being carried out inside the stage building, and urging the second speaker to go inside it. δραμὼν αἴτησον Forms of τρέχω as circumstantial participles alongside imperatives have the force of “hurry up and do X” (like ἁνύσας, on which see Smyth 2062a): e. g. Ar. Nu. 1163–4, Pl. 222, 1103. For αἰτέω without an object, cf. Od. 18.49, where Antinous proclaims that they will never let a beggar come inside (ἔσω) and beg (αἰτέω). Sacrifices conducted οὐκ ἐκφορά had a prohibition against carrying away the ritual food. For the genuine practice (often expressed οὐ φορά or οὐκ ἀποφορά), see SIG3 1004.31, 1026.10, SEG xxi 541; for comic references to it, see (in addition to Ar. Pl. 1038), Euphro fr. 1.20–21 and possibly Dionys. Com. fr. 3.6; for the lexicographers’ comments, see Hesychius ε 6393, Photius ε 2028, Diogen. 2.40,

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 72)

199

4.68. Goldstein 1978. 322–55 provides a full catalogue of the evidence for this practice; see also Scullion 1994. 99–112, and Versnel 2011. 356.

fr. 72 K.–A. (71 K.) ἄπνους, ἄνευρος, ἀσθενής, ἀνέντατος 1 ἄνευρος, ἄπνους Poll. FS

breathless, sinew–less, strengthless, tension–less Poll. 2.234 νεῦρα δ’ ἐστὶ σύνδεσμος ὀστῶν εἴκων τε καὶ τεινόμενος... ταμιεύουσι δὲ μάλιστα τὰς κώλων κάμψεις τε καὶ ἐκτάσεις καὶ τὰς τῶν ἄρθρων συγκαμπάς. ὅθεν καὶ τὸ ἰσχύειν νεῦρα ἔχειν λέγουσι… Θεόπομπος δ’ ὁ κωμικὸς καὶ ἄνευρον εἴρηκεν· —— νeura (sinews) are the binding of bones that yields and is stretched. Τhey regulate especially the joints of the limbs and their extensions and the bendings of the joints. Because of which they say “to have neura” for “to be strong”… Theopompus the comic poet also said aneuron (“sinew–less”): —— Synag. α 1353 ἀνέντατος· Θεόπομπος· —— anentatos (tension–less): Theopompus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl k|lkl klkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.818; Storey 2011. 351

Citation Context As part of a larger discussion of words related to the human body, after “flesh” (σάρξ) and “fat” (πιμελή) and before “marrow” (μυελός), Pollux discusses neura, sinews or ligaments, and related terms. After explaining the literal function of the sinews, he claims that they are used figuratively to describe a person’s strength; he then gives two variations, first, that the orators used to call money “sinews” (Aeschin. 3.166; D 3.31), and second, our fragment, an example of “sinew–less” meaning “weak.” Text The mss. of Pollux differ as to the order of the first two words; either arrangement scans, but the agreement between mss. ABC of Pollux and the text of the Synagoge suggests that the arrangement printed above is correct. Interpretation A person (gender unknown) is described in terms that suggest weakness, injury, or shock. The insistent anaphora of alpha privatives, arranged as a crescendo of longer and longer words, gives the line an emphatic quality,

200

Theopompus

perhaps of invective. Similar lists of alpha privative adjectives are found also in epic (Il. 9.63: ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιός, “brotherless, lawless, homeless”) and in satyr–play (S. fr. 314, from Ichneutae: ἄνευρα κἀκόμιστα κἀνελεύθερα, “sinew–less and slovenly and slavish”). ἄπνους In classical Greek, this word is otherwise confined to technical prose (Hp. Ep. 3.3.2, Arist. Met. 354a, etc.); it reentered the poetic lexicon, however, in the Hellenistic period (Call. Ep. 5.9, Ap. Rhod. 4.1403, Herod. 8.74). It appears also in an undated epitaph from Rome, IGUR III.1255, alongside ἄναυδον, “speechless.” ἄνευρος Also in a catalogue of alpha privatives at S. fr. 314 (from Ichneutae): ἄνευρα κἀκόμιστα κἀνελεύθερα, “sinew–less and slovenly and slavish.” Otherwise another technical term: Hp. Vect. 40.20, Arist. HA 4.11.538b, etc. ἀσθενής Much more frequent than the other terms in the catalogue, first in Pindar (P. 1.55), then found in both prose (nearly 30 times in Hdt., eg. 1.58.3; 30 times in Th., eg. 1.5.1; etc.) and poetry ([A.] PV 514; S. OC 1033; E. Cyc. 432, Med. 739). Elsewhere in comedy it is used especially to describe the elderly (Ar. Pl. 258, Philippid. fr. 27) and women (Ar. Ec. 539, Pl. Com. fr. 1, Men. Dysc. 579). ἀνέντατος Before Pollux’s citation, this word occurs only here and in the 4th–c. CE magical compilation Cyranides (2.25). Its meaning, however, would be clear: the adjective ἐντατός, though elsewhere used only of instruments (e. g. Str. 7.5.7, Ath. 4.182e), derives from ἐντείνω, which often has the sense “to be primed for action” or “to be vehement” (see Luján 2007 and cf. LSJ s. v. ἐντείνω II–III).

fr. 73 K.–A. (72 K.) ὃς αἱμασιολογεῖν ἄριστ᾽ ἠπίστατο who knew best how to haimasiologein Phot. α 632 = Synag. α 636 αἱμασιολογεῖν· Θεόπομπος· —— haimasiologein: Theopompus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

klkr kl|kl llkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.819; Storey 2011. 351.

Assignment to known plays Meineke suggested this fragment could belong to Odysseus, citing its resemblance to the description of Laertes at Od. 24.224; even if this fragment did describe Laertes, it could still belong to any of Theopompus’ Odyssey–inspired plays, and we cannot be certain even of that

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 74)

201

Citation Context Identical glosses of the word haimasiologein occur in Photius and the Synagoge; they must share their source in an earlier Atticizing lexicon. Interpretation A description of a man who knew well how to “build walls,” with an otherwise unattested compound verb involving an obscure term for walls with perhaps a Homeric flavor. The relative pronoun indicates this is part of a larger statement about the man; the past tense verb may indicate that he is deceased (since the other possible implication, that he is still alive but no longer knows how to build walls, seems unlikely). αἱμασιολογεῖν This verb occurs nowhere else. The meaning of αἱμασίη in Homer appears to be “stones for a wall”; it occurs in two passages. In the first (18.359), the suitor Eurymachus mocks Odysseus in his beggar disguise by claiming that he prefers begging to hard work; as examples of such work he says, αἱμασιάς τε λέγων καὶ δένδρεα μακρὰ φυτεύων, “gathering haimasiai and planting tall trees.” In the second (24.224–5), Odysseus goes to find Laertes in the country, but discovers that αἱμασιὰς λέξοντες ἀλῳῆς ἔμμεναι ἕρκος ᾤχοντ’, / αὐτὰρ ὁ τοῖσι γέρων ὁδὸν ἡγεμόνευε, “they had gone to gather haimasiai to be a wall for the orchard, and the old man [sc. Laertes] led the way for them.” In 24.224–5 it seems clear that the word must mean stones that could be assembled into a dry–built wall, and this meaning is compatible with its usage at 18.359. Ancient scholars commenting on these passages, however, understood the term to refer to the wall itself (Σ Od. 13.359, Eust. p. 1959.41–5 = ii.320.28–33, Suda. α 189), and other 5th and 4th century authors use the term refer to an actual wall (e. g. Hdt. 1.180: αἱμασιὴ πλίνθων ὀπτέων, “a haimasia of baked bricks”; cf. Th. 3.43.3, D. 55.12). Theopompus’ verb must in any case mean “to gather stones to build a wall,” but his use of a compound with λέγω, “gather,” rather than a root meaning “build” (as at D. 5.12, τὴν αἱμασιὰν περιῳκοδόμησεν ταύτην, “he built this wall all around”), suggests that he had in mind the archaic sense of “wall stones” rather than the classical usage, “wall.” See further Gow 1952. 10 (ad Theoc. 1.47), Russo 1992. 70 (ad Od. 18.359), Heubeck 1992. 386 (ad Od. 24.224–5). ἄριστ᾽ ἠπίστατο The verb ἐπίσταμαι with an infinitive (X) means “to know how to do X” from Homer onwards (e. g. Il. 21.320, Od. 13.207, [A.] Pr. 982, Ar. V. 989, Pl. Smp. 223d, etc.); with ἄριστα, the construction often has the connotation “be the best at X” or “know how to do X better than others”: X. Mem. 3.14.6, D.Chr. 13.17. fr. 74 K.–A. (2 Dem.) ὁ δὲ ταῦρός ἐστιν ἀγόμενος πρὸς τῷ νεῷ the bull is being led toward the temple

202

Theopompus

Orus Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας fol. 281r νεῷ σὺν τῷ ι, ἡ ἑνικὴ δοτική. Θεόπομπός φησιν· —— neōi with the letter iota, the dative singular. Theopompus says: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

rlkl k|rkl llkl

Discussion

Rabe 1892. 406; Storey 2011. 351.

Assignment to known plays In the ms. of Orus, φησιν is written as what Demiańczuk describes as “φ with horizontal line and η”; Rabe and Kaibel both suspected that a scribe mistook the title of a play in Orus’ citation for φησιν and replaced it with this ligature. Rabe (followed hesitantly by Storey) thought the play was Phineus (as the only title of a play by Theopompus beginning with Φ), Kaibel of Theseus (Φ and Θ being relatively easy to confuse; he identified the bull in this fragment as the Bull of Marathon in the Theseus legend). Rabe claimed that Orus does not use φησι(ν) in citations; at 283r, however, Orus cites Theon’s Περὶ τῆς κατὰ διάλεκτον προσῳδίας by giving the author’s name, the title, and then φησί. He does not, moreover, invariably provide the play title in his comic citations; at 280v, for example, he cites Aristophanes’ Pax 1012 without title; at 281r, a few lines below the citation from Theopompus, he quotes Menander fr. 505 without title. There is therefore no reason to think he could not have quoted Theopompus’ play with φησιν and no play title. Citation Context Orus, the fifth–century CE grammarian of Alexandria, composed a manual on spelling, of which one substantial excerpt survives, his discussion of the iota–subscript. Here he cites Theopompus to show (correctly) that in Attic the dative singular of ναός, “temple,” can take the form νεῷ. This entry then cites another example, Demosthenes Against Aristogeiton (25.34), followed by the equivalent plural in Pl. Comic. Nikai (fr. 88). Interpretation The speaker describesa bull is being led towards a temple; the definite articles suggest that both the bull and the temple in question had been specified earlier in the dialogue. If the periphrastic construction is emphatic (see below), the speaker may be responding to a suggestion that the bull was not being led to the temple. ταῦρός Bulls, in addition to their role as work animals (mostly in the form of the castrated bull, “ox,” on which see Arist. HA 8.632a14), were particularly important to the Greeks as sacrificial victims; this is presumably the reason a bull is being led to the temple here. Bull sacrifices, sometimes on a monumental scale, were a prominent feature of religious practice at Athens, including the “bouphonia” (cow–slaughter) ritual of the Dipolieia and the hecatombs of the Panathenaea (held, significantly, in the month of Hecatombaeon). See Burkert 1983. 136–158; Osborne 1987. 165–92; Howey 2008; McInerney 2010. 123–216; Kitchell 2014. 35; Ekroth 2018. Kaibel’s association of this fragment with the myth of Theseus

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 75)

203

depends on the bull in question being the Marathonian Bull (on which see Gantz 1993. 255–56), but there is no evidence for this assumption. ἐστιν ἀγόμενος The periphrastic construction with participle and εἰμί is not uncommon, but its precise force has been the subject of intense debate; without broader context, we cannot be certain whether it has here an emphatic force (“the bull really is being led”) or simply an adjectival one (“the bull being led” as opposed to some other bull). For a thorough survey of such periphrastic constructions in Greek, see Bentein 2012, with 10–13 on this specific combination (present participle + present tense of εἰμί). τῷ νεῷ Outside tragedy, Attic authors use νεώς in place of ναός, in the so– called “Attic Declension” (see Smyth 237–8). Orus correctly identifies the dative singular form as νεῷ: e. g. IG ΙΙ2 341.5, 1388.2, 1400.5, 1425.7 (in the phrase πρὸς τῷ νεῷ) and 1425.10; cf. Alexis fr. 41. See also Alpers 1981. 184–5; Pirrotta 2009. 195 (ad Pl. Com. fr. 88).

fr. 75 K.–A. αἰσχρῶς ἀτιμώσαντες ἐξελαύνετε shamefully dishonoring, you drive out Phot. (Sz) α 3097 ἀτίμωσις· Λυσίας εἴρηκε (fr. 480 Carey) καὶ ἀτιμοσύνην Σοφοκλῆς (fr. 1026a) καὶ ἀτιμῶν Δημοσθένης (45.84) ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀτιμάζων. ἀτιμοῦντι Φρύνιχος (fr. 63)· “τιμοῦντι καὶ ἀτιμοῦντι τοὺς βελτίονας.” ἀτιμώσαντες δὲ Θεόπομπος · —— atimōsis (dishonoring): Lysias says it (fr. 480 Carey), and Sophocles (says) atimosynē (fr. 1026a), and Demosthenes (45.84) atimōn (dishonoring) meaning atimazōn (treat as dishonorable). Phrynichus (says) atimounti (to the one dishonoring) (fr. 63). Theopompus (said) atimōsantes: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter

llkl llk|l klkl

Discussion

Storey 2011. 353.

Citation Context Photius’ entry collects various nouns and verbs formed from τίμη and τιμάω with alpha privatives. Most of the forms he notes are found elsewhere: ἀτίμωσις; ἀτίμαω; ἀτιμάζω; ἀτιμόω (the form used by Theopompus); ἀτιμοσύνη, by contrast, is attested only here and (according to Poll. α 3097 = S. fr. 1026a) in Sophocles. Interpretation The speaker accuses a group, perhaps the chorus or the audience, of having disenfranchised and exiled someone. Although the language evokes legal

204

Theopompus

and political contexts, precisely the same language is used by Aristophanes of himself in the parabasis of Peace, when he claims to have “dishonored and banished” hackneyed comic routines like the gluttonous Herakles; these words could easily, therefore, describe either a real or a metaphorical punishment. αἰσχρῶς This adverb is often used in comedy to condemn another’s actions: e. g. Ar. Nu. 920, Pax 624, Th. 168, Eub. fr. 41. It is also possible, however, that the adverb is meant here to indicate that the person being dishonored and exiled is also rendered “shameful”; we might compare the verb common comic idiom “to destroy badly” (ἀπόλλυμι or ἐξόλλυμι κακῶς, e. g. Ar. Ach. 1151, Nu. 899), where the adverb indicates, not that the act of destroying is “bad,” but that the victim of destruction will be left in a “bad” state. ἀτιμώσαντες In post–Homeric Greek, the standard verb is ἀτιμάζω, as Photius notes; Homer sometimes uses ἀτιμάω (e. g. Od. 16.307, Il. 1.11), whose forms are sometimes identical with those of ἀτιμάζω. Here we have unambiguously a form of ἀτιμόω, which is less common than ἀτιμάζω but still found in Attic in both verse (A. Supp. 645, Cho. 636; E. Hel. 455; Ar. Pax 743) and prose (Hdt. 4.66, 7.231, 7.233; Antipho 4.7, Isoc. 4.47, etc.). In Athenian political contexts, this complex of verbs often bears the technical meaning “punish with ἀτιμία,” that is, disenfranchisement: And. 1.33, D. 18.82, Lys. 6.25; for ἀτιμία as a legal practice, see And. 1.73–79, with Harrison 1971. 169–76; Joyce 2018. ἐξελαύνετε This verb is often paired with ἀτιμόω: Ar. Pax 743, Pl. Ap. 30d, Lys. 61.26, [X.] Ath. Rep. 1.14, [D.] 59.10, D. C. 38.25.1; cf. D. S. 4.31.3 (with ἀτιμία), E. Phoen. 626 (with ἄτιμος). The combination, “to disenfranchise and exile,” has a legal or political flavor; see Joyce 2018, who argues that exile in classical Athens was conceived of as a form of ἀτιμία. The verb can be used without an object (see LSJ sv. 3b) in the sense “ride out,” but here, paired with ἀτιμόω, we should assume an object was stated immediately before or after our fragment.

fr. 76 K.–A. (72 K.) πέπονος σικυοῦ μοι γέγονε 1 μαλθακωτέρα C, Eust. : μαλακωτέρα E

μαλθακωτέρα 2 γέγονε CE: γέγονας Eust.

softer than a pepōn sikuos to me she has become Ath. epit. 2.68d ὅτι τοὺς πέπονας Κρατῖνος μὲν σικυοὺς σπερματίας κέκληκεν ἐν Ὀδυσσεῦσι (fr. 147). Πλάτων Λαίῳ (fr. 65.1–4). Ἀναξίλας (fr. 35). Θεόπομπος· ——

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 76)

205

Cratinus in Odyssēs called the sikuos pepon by the name spermatias (seed melon). Plato in Laius: (fr. 65.1–4). Anaxilas (fr. 35). Theopompus: ——

Meter Iambic trimeter?

〈xlkl xlk〉|l klkl rlrl l|rk|〈l xlkl〉

Discussion Meineke 1839 II.817; Bothe 1855. 314; Andrews 1956. 371; Henrichs 1980. 21; Storey 2011. 353 Citation Context Athenaeus cites the fragment in a brief discussion of comic references to the fruit sikuos, whose identity is discussed below. Eustathius (Eust. p. 211.15 = I.322.2) also quotes the passage in a discussion of the metaphorical use of the word πέπων, “ripe,” at Il. 2.235; he is, however, clearly drawing on this passage of the epitome of Athenaeus, since he quotes Theopompus fr. 68 (cited earlier in the epitome) and then Anaxilas fr. 35 and Thepompus fr. 68 together, which appear in this same order in this passage of Athenaeus. Text Ms. C of Athenaeus, followed by Eustathius, gives μαλθακωτέρα as the term for “soft” here; μαλθακός and μαλακός have very similar meanings and are often confused, but μαλακωτέρα doesn’t scan here if this is an iambic trimeter, and the coincidence of C and Eustathius favors the form printed. Eusathius gives the second person instead of the third person of the final verb; the agreement of Ath.’s mss. suggests the third person is correct, but without the rest of the line we cannot be certain. Interpretation A speaker describes a woman who has become very gentle to them, with a comparison to a fruit which is probably a watermelon. The language is highly gendered: both the adjective “soft” and the image of the fruit are used as insults against men but as praise, sometimes erotically charged, when applied to women. For erotic comparisons of women to fruits in comedy and in Greek poetry generally, see Taillardat 1965. 69–78; Littlewood 1968; Gerber 1978; Henderson 1991. 45–47; Petropoulos 2003. 61–73; Perrone 2019. 199. 1 μαλθακωτέρα Applied to men, this adjective typically has a negative connotation, suggesting weakness or effeminacy: Il. 17.588; A. Eu. 74; Ar. V. 714; Pl. Phaed. 85c; cf. the title of Cratinus’ Malthakoi. Here, applied to a woman, it should bear the positive connotation “gentle” or “mild” it often has when applied to objects or concepts: Sappho fr. 46 (pillow), Theogn. 1.470 (sleep), Pi. O. 2.90 (mind), E. Med. 1075 (a child’s skin), Ar. Av. 233 (voice); cf. Μαλθακή, a hetaira name (Theophil. fr. 11, Men. Sic. 145, 386, Luc. Rh.Pr. 12) and possibly the titular character of a comedy by Antiphanes. See Skoda 2003 for a survey of the uses of μαλθακός, and its distinction from or confusion with the similar μαλακός. πέπονος σικυοῦ Andrews (1956) provides an exhaustive discussion of this phrase; although it is often translated “ripe cucumber,” he concludes that it refers to the watermelon, with σικυός on its own or σικυὸς ὠμός referring to the cucumber.

206

Theopompus

This identification also makes better sense of Pl. Com. fr. 65 and Anaxilas fr. 35, which both compare an ugly man’s lower legs to this fruit; if the man’s shins or ankles are to be portrayed as over–large, a watermelon makes a much better point of comparison than a cucumber. When it is not part of the name of this fruit, the adjective πέπων (and cognates πέπειρα and πέπειρος) applied to persons typically means “gentle”: e. g. H. Il. 5.109, Od. 9.447, A. fr. 264, Ar. Eq. 260 (opposed to ὠμός, “harsh”). It can also have erotic connotations: Ar. Ec. 895 (of a sexually experienced woman), Xenarch. fr. 4.9 (of a hetaira), or suggest effeminacy in a man (e. g. Il. 2.235); see Henrichs 1980. 20–23.

fr. 77 K.–A. (74 K.) ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δοκεῖ, χρὴ ταῦτα δρᾶν· εὐοδεῖν πορεύομαι εὐοδεῖν πορεύομαι codd.: εὐοδῶν Meineke: :: εὐόδει :: Fritzsche: εὐοδεῖν δ᾽ἐπεύχομαι Kock

but if it seems right, it is necessary to do these things: to prosper I go Zonar. pg. 920–21 (Orus fr. A 50 Alpers) εὐοδεῖν εὑρίσκω παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς. Θεόπομπος· —— euodein I find in Attic authors. Theopompus: ——

Meter iambic dimeter + syncopated trochaic dimeter

llkl llkl | lklk lkl

This metrical shape is also found at Eupolis fr. 391, which Hephaestion cites (15.16) and describes as the union of “an acatalectic iambic dimeter” and a “trochaic hepthemimeris,” that is, a syncopated trochaic dimeter. He claims the meter is called “Euripidean,” but then cites a different shape (iambic dimeter + ithyphallic) by the same name, which is much more common, e. g. Ar. Eq. 757–8 = 837–8, Lys. 256–57 = 272–73; see Parker 1997. 172–3; Olson 2014. 144–46. Since this meter is only one syllable away from the proper Euripidean (it would require lkl kll instead of lklk lkl in the second half of the line) and the meaning of the final two words is obscure, it is possible that corruption has obscured the true meter here. Discussion Meineke 1839 II.818; Fritzsche 1857–58, 7; Kock 1875. 403–4; Storey 2011. 353 Citation Context A fragment of Orus’ Atticist lexicon, cited in the lexicon of Zonaras, to illustrate the relatively rare word euodein, “to fare well.” Orus’ lexicon, composed in the 5th century, was written in counterpoint to the work of the atticist

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 77)

207

Phrynichus; see Dickey 2007. 99, and cf. fr. 74, preserved in Orus’ manual on orthography. Text The last two words of the fragment as transmitted are meaningless. Meineke suggested the infinitive εὐοδεῖν should become a participle; Fritzsche objected to this solution, however, on the grounds that “a man who is only just beginning a journey may desire to know, but cannot already know, that it will go well.” He proposed instead the imperative εὐόδει, noting that ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δοκεῖ is frequently followed by a command; this would need to be spoken by another character, with the original speaker then replying “I’m going.” Textually this is an easy solution: although it requires both the lemma and the quotation to be in error, it would nevertheless be quite easy for a scribe to mistake the imperative of a contract verb for the much more common infinitive, and once the mistake occurred in one place, it could be reproduced in the other. Such a change of speaker, however, would be easier to imagine in an ordinary iambic conversation than in the lyric or recitative we have here. Finally, Kock proposed a more radical alteration; noting that ἐπεύχομαι, “I pray for,” is frequently accompanied by a verb with the prefix εὐ, he suggested replacing πορεύομαι entirely. Both the rarity of the meter and the clearly unfinished nature of the sentence make it impossible to emend this line with certainty, but it seems unlikely to me that the text as printed is correct. Interpretation The speaker reluctantly agrees to some measure that has already been proposed. The language here suggests dialogue, but the meter may indicate a parabasis (as Schneidewin argued of Eup. fr. 391; see Olson 2014. 146); for similar phrasing in an imagined conversation, see Pherecr. fr. 163 (and for other such conversations, cf. Pax. 34–49, Cratin. fr. 342). For the parabasis in Theopompus, see fr. 39. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δοκεῖ A common idiom in dialogue, found in tragedy (A. Ag. 944; S. Ant. 98, Phil. 526, 645; E. Med. 742, El. 420), comedy (Pherecr. fr. 163, Ar. Nu. 11, Av. 665, Lys. 1176), and Plato (Crat. 416a, Charm. 169d, etc.); it indicates the conclusion of a discussion or debate, with a proposed shift to action, expressed with optatives or jussive subjunctives (e. g. Ag. 944, S. Phil. 526, Pl. Crat. 416a), future indicative (E. El. 420, Pl. Charm. 169d), or imperative (S. Ant. 98, Pherecr. fr. 163). The tone is typically one of reluctance or hesitation; see Olson 2002. 165 (on Ach. 338–9); Fraenkel 1950 (on A. Ag. 944); Barrett 1964 (on E. Hipp. 507–8). Phrases of the type χρὴ ταῦτα δρᾶν commonly accompany this idiom: E. Med. 742 (ἀλλ’, εἰ δοκεῖ σοι, δρᾶν τάδ’ οὐκ ἀφίσταμαι); Ar. Av. 665 (ἀλλ’ εἰ δοκεῖ σφῷν, ταῦτα χρὴ δρᾶν); Ar. Lys. 1176 (ἀλλ’ εἰ δοκεῖ δρᾶν ταῦτα βουλεύσασθε). εὐοδεῖν Elsewhere in extant classical authors, this verb is used to mean “have room to travel,” especially of liquids: D. 55.10 (water), Hp. Coac. 380 (urine), Arist. GA 752a (sperm). Here it seems more likely to have the meaning “do well” or “fare well” it often has in later authors, e. g. Ph. 1.430 (and some twenty other times), J. AJ 10.51. Since πορεύομαι accompanied by a plain infinitive is not possible, one

208

Theopompus

of these two words is almost certainly corrupt; although a verb in what originally followed this text could set up the infinitive here, it would be strange to have the indicative πορεύομαι stand in between.

fr. 78 K.–A. (75 K.)

lk δεσπότου πενέστου ῥυσὰ βουλευτήρια shriveled councilors of a poor master Ath. 6.264a Θετταλῶν δὲ λεγόντων πενέστας τοὺς μὴ γόνῳ δούλους, διὰ πολέμου δ’ ἡλωκότας, Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικὸς ἀποχρησάμενος τῇ φωνῇ φησι · —— Since the Thessalians call penestai those who are slaves not by birth but are captured in war, Theopompus the comic poet misuses the word when he says: ——

Meter trochaic tetrameter catalectic

〈lk〉lk lkll | lkll lkl

Discussion Dobree 1831 II.313; Bergk 1838. 405; Meineke 1839 II.817–18; Bothe 1855. 314; Olson 2006–12. III.214 n.337; Storey 2011. 353 Assignment to known plays Assigned to Admetus by Bergk, “because it would be quite witty and clever if δεσπότης πενέστης was said of the Thessalian king, as if he were inferior to slaves, even though he was a master.” Citation Context At Athenaeus 6.262b, a group of enslaved attendants enters the banquet hall, and Democritus uses their arrival to make enslavement the topic of conversation; regional and dialect terms for enslaved persons are a major theme of the conversation. Athenaeus introduces this fragment of Theopompus with the explanation that he misuses the word penestēs, which evidently bears a technical meaning in Thessaly (distinguishing those enslaved as prisoners from those born into slavery). This explanation has caused several interpreters either to suggest entirely unnecessary emendations to the line (including Kock and Dobree), or to concoct elaborate explanations for it, but it is more likely that Athenaeus is simply misled here, since other Attic authors do use the term to mean “poor” or “impoverished,” the probable meaning here. Interpretation The speaker gives a harsh description of a ruler and his advisors; the ruler is labeled “poor,” and the councilors (by metonymy) “wrinkled.” Although LSJ (s. v. βουλευτήριον) labels this fragment paratragic, it is not necessarily so; all four words are attested in prose and comedy, and even the metonymic use of βουλευτήρια is found in prose. The words πενέστης and ῥυσός are relatively rare, however; we can say, at least, that the line does not have a colloquial tone.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 79)

209

Trochaic tetrameters in catalexis are very common in Aristophanes, especially for a vigorous entrance by the chorus (Ach. 204–40, mixed with creto–paeonics [and cf. Σ ad loc.]; Eq. 247–301, mixed with lyrics; V. 403–525, mixed with lyrics; Pax 299–345; Av. 268–326), in other types of action (Av. 336–42, 352–99; Th. 686–784, mixed with lyrics; Ra. 1370–1413; Ec. 1154–62), and in the epirrhematic syzygy of the parabasis (Ach. 676–91, 703–18; Eq. 565–80, 595–610; Nu. 575–94, 607–626, 1115–1130; V. 1080–90, 1102–21; Pax 1140–85, 1172–90; Av. 753–68, 785–800, 1072–87, 1102–1117; Th. 830–45; Lys. 626–35, 648–57; Ra. 686–705, 717–36). This fragment could belong in any of these contexts. δεσπότου Not found in Homer, but very common in both verse (Archil. fr. 3, A. Pers. 666, E. Alc. 631) and prose (Hdt. 1.8.12, Th. 6.76.4) from the archaic period onward. It can refer to the master of a household (E. Alc. 776, Ar. Eq. 20), especially the master of enslaved persons, or to a political ruler (Archil. fr. 3, A. Pers. 666, Hdt. 1.8.12); sometimes in Attic authors it is used specifically to label a ruler who treats his subjects as if they are enslaved, as in the modern use of “despot” (e. g. Th. 6.76.4, 77.1, 80.5). It is also frequent in addresses to gods (E. Bacch. 582, Pherecr. fr. 92, Ar. Ach. 247, Th. 989, Telecl. fr. 35). πενέστου Athenaeus rightly notes that this was a technical term (sometimes spelled Μενέσται) for the serfs of Thessaly, analogous to the Spartans’ Helots; see D. 23.199, X. HG 2.3.36, Pl. Lg. 6.776d, Arist. Pol. 2.6.1269a.34–39, Strabo 12.3.4, with Westlake 1935. 31–7 and Ducat 1994. In Attic, however, the term is also used simply as a synonym for πένης, “poor man”: E. Heraclid. 639, Ar. V. 1274, and see Biles and Olson 2015. 453 (ad Ar. V. 1274). The latter usage is probably the sense here. ῥυσά A relatively rare word (attested only around a dozen times by the end of the 1st century BCE), though found in all genres (Il. 9.503, E. Supp. 49, Ar. Pl. 266, Pl. Tim. 71b); it nearly always describes elderly persons (Il. 9.503, E. El. 490, Tro. 495, Ar. Pl. 266, Pl. R. 452b, Arist. Probl. 958b). βουλευτήρια Technically the chamber where a βουλή or council meets (A. Eu. 570, Hdt. 7.148, Th. 1.141.6, Antipho fr. 40); by metonymy the council or the councilors (A. Th. 575, E. And. 446, D. H. 2.12.4). Since a council chamber could not itself be “wrinkled,” this is almost certainly the usage here.

fr. 79 K.–A. (77 K.) τοὺς βιβλιοπώλας † λεύσομαι βιβλιοπώλας codd.: βυβλιωπόλας Kock λεύσομαι codd.: πεύσομαι Meineke: δ᾽ εἴσομαι Kaibel πρὸς βιβλιοπώλας θεύσομαι Cobet

the booksellers † I will stone

210

Theopompus

Zonar. pg. 388 (Orus fr. A 19 Alpers) βιβλιοπώλην, οὐχὶ βιβλοπώλην λέγομεν. Θεόπομπος · —— We say bibliopōlēn, not biblopōlēn. Theopompus: ——

Meter Unknown

lkkklllkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.821; Bothe 1855. 315–16; Storey 2011. 353

Citation Context From Orus’ Atticist lexicon, on which see fr. 77; here he is clearly writing in rejoinder to Phrynichus Prae. Soph. 52.13, which claims both βιβλιοπώλης and βιβλοπώλης are used. Text Although Kock universally preferred to write βυβλ– instead of βιβλ– for all words having to do with “books,” the evidence from inscriptions of the period and from manuscripts is muddled; etymologically, the spelling with υ should have occurred earlier (from βύβλος, “papyrus”), before becoming assimilated to ι, but the spelling with ι is found in inscriptions from at least 403 BCE (IG II2 1.61), and it is possible that both spellings were used interchangeably. We cannot therefore be certain which Theopompus would have written. See Arnott 1996. 407–8; Threatte 1980–96, 1.263. In extant Greek neither λεύω nor its more common prefixed form καταλεύω is used in the middle voice. Editors have suggested various emendations: πεύσομαι (“I will ask”), θεύσομαι (“I will run,” also requiring a preposition at the start of the phrase); Kaibel suggested εἴσομαι “I will go,” but only as one example among many. Interpretation A reference to book–sellers or the book market, presumably to its incarnation at Athens. Textual difficulties obscure the context of this reference; if λεύσομαι is somehow correct, the speaker plans to attack them, but this is uncertain. βιβλιοπώλας This fragment, Aristomen. fr. 9, and Nicopho fr. 10 are the first extant examples of this term for “book merchant,” alongside references to Athens’ book market at Eup. fr. 327, Ar. Av. 1288–9, Cratin. Jr. fr. 11 (and perhaps Pl. Apol. 26d–e). These references seem to indicate that by the late fifth century there was an area of the agora in Athens where booksellers operated, comparable to the similar groupings of other merchants found around the marketplace (see Olson 2014. 17); what sorts of books (properly, book–rolls) were available to buy is unclear, though Ar. Ra. 52–3, 1113–14 may indicate that literary texts were on offer; see Mastromarco 2006 and 2012. For the book trade in this period, see also Kleberg 1969; Cavallo 1994; Del Corso 2003; Nieddu 2004; Blanck 2008; Caroli 2010; Pellegrino 2013. 51–52 (ad Nicopho fr. 10); Orth 2014. 69 (ad Aristomen. fr. 9), Olson 2014. 17 (ad Eupolis fr. 17). λεύσομαι From λᾶας, “stone,” this verb appears first in Hipponax (fr. 37), and is found thereafter rarely but occurs in both prose (Hdt. 9.5, Th. 5.60.6, Hp. Epist. 27) and verse (S. OC 435, E. El. 328, IA 1356); it comedy and prose it often

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 80)

211

has the prefix κατα– (Hdt. 1.167; Th. 1.106; Ar. Ach. 285; X. HG 1.2.13; D. 19.66). Although it does take an accusative object of the person being stoned, there is no other extant example in the middle voice.

fr. 80 K.–A. (78 K.) Poll. 2.18 (FS, A, BC) γραῦς, καὶ ὡς Ἰσαῖος (fr. 151) γεραιτέρα, γραῖα, καὶ ὡς Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικὸς π ρ ε σ β ῦ τ ι ς φ ί λ ο ι ν ο ς, μ ε θ ύ σ η, ο ἰ ν ο μ ά χ λ η, κ ο χ ώ ν η graus (old woman), and as Isaios (writes), geraitera, graia, and as Theopompus the comic poet (writes) presbutis philoinos (“old woman fond of wine”), methusē (drunkard), oinomachlē (wine–lusting), kochōnē (perineum)

Discussion

Bergk 1838. 410, Meineke 1839 II.822; Storey 2011. 353

Citation Context From the same discussion in Pollux as fr. 59, his catalogue of terms for people of different ages. It is unclear where the citation from Theopompus ends; although Meineke thought only the first word, πρεσβῦτις, was being attributed to him, Kaibel included φίλοινος, and Kassel and Austin saw the entire list of terms as belonging to Theopompus. If the entire list does belong to Theopompus, as it stands it is not metrical, and thus may have been a compilation of terms used by Theopompus in different passages. Text Only ms. A has οἰνομάχλη, the rest giving οἰνοκάχλη, but this is word is not attested outside Pollux. The same word appears at 6.21 (in a discussion of words related to wine, with no reference to Theopompus and none of the other terms that appear here); the mss. are divided identically in their spelling there, with A giving οἰνομάχλη and the rest οἰνοκάχλη. The word κοχώνη is spelled a variety of different ways in the mss. of Pollux: C: κοχώνη B: κωχόνη FS: κοχόνη A: κοχλώνη The spelling in C is the version attested elsewhere (see below). Meineke instead suggested κορώνη, “crow”, as perhaps a more obvious term of abuse. Interpretation Pollux seems to attribute to Theopompus a catalogue of terms of abuse for an old woman, the first three all concerning drunkenness, the last an obscene reference to the perineum or hindquarters. For the tendency of comedy to portray women as drunkards, see above on frr. 41, 42, and 55. Greek authors often conceptualized habitual drunkenness primarily as a moral failing; see Aristotle’s

212

Theopompus

discussion in the Problems cited above, as well as Ath. 1.36a–38f, with Rolleston 1927, Villard 1984, Sournia 1987, Davidson 1997. 36–69, Dalby 2003. 123–24. πρεσβῦτις As the feminine form of masculine πρεσβύτης / πρέσβυς, this is a respectful term for an older woman, found in classical prose (Aeschin. 3.157, Hp. Nat. Mul. 1) and verse (A. Eu. 731, E. Hec. 842), though not elsewhere in comedy. φίλοινος Found primarily in prose (Pl. Lys. 212d, R. 475a, Arist. Prob. 871– 78), once in tragic verse (E. fr. 183), nowhere else in comedy. For the freedom with which Greek authors form new φιλο– compounds; see Landfester 1966. 155–71, and cf. Ar. V. 77 (with Biles and Olson 2015. 110). μεθύση A person who is habitually intoxicated, rather than simply intoxicated at a given moment; the term is applied first to women in our evidence (Pherecr. fr. 186, Ar. Nu. 555, V. 1402), and only later to men (Men. fr. 66). See also fr. 94, where Theopompus evidently calls a woman μεθύστρια. οἰνομάχλη From οἶνος, “wine,” and μάχλος, a term for a lustful or indulgent woman (e. g. Hes. Op. 586). Clement of Alexandria is the only other author to use this compound; discussing LXX Si. 26.8 (ὀργὴ μεγάλη γυνὴ μέθυσος, “a drunken woman… causes great anger”), he uses the term to gloss μέθυσος (Paed. 2.2.33.2). Clement cites Theopompus elsewhere (fr. 70), and may thus have read this combination in Pollux or another similar source. Compounds with οινο– as a prefix are frequent from Homer onwards: e. g. οἰνοβαρής (Il. 1.225), οἰνοπότης (Anacr. fr. 97), οἰνοπίπας (Ar. Th. 393), etc. κοχώνη For the use and meaning of this term, see Olson 2016.54–55. In comedy it refers to the buttocks (Crates fr. 34; Ar. Eq. 424, frr. 496, 558; Eup. frr. 88, 159, Eub. fr. 96; cf. Poll. 2.183); pace Henderson (1991.200), it does not connote anal intercourse.

fr. dub. 81 K.–A. Phot. α 3483 Ἁ ψ ί μ α χ ο ς ἄ ν θ ρ ω π ο ς· οἷον ὁ πάντα τρόπον ἁπτόμενος μάχης τῆς διὰ χειρῶν. οὕτως Θεόπομπος. h a p s i m a c h o s a n t h r ō p o s: Someone who in every way engages in hand to hand combat. Thus Theopompus.

Discussion

Tsantsanoglou 1984.152

Citation Context Photius’ gloss may be related to similar material in other lexica: Phryn. Prae. Soph. 11.11, commenting on Ar. Ach. 180: τούτοις προσῆπτεν Ἀριστοφάνης καὶ τὸ Μαραθωνομάχος. καὶ σημαίνει οἷον ἀνδρεῖος καὶ ἁψίμαχος καὶ θυμικός, διὰ τὴν τούτων κατὰ τῶν βαρβάρων νίκην.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 82)

213

To these words Aristophanes added also “Marathonomachos.” And it means brave and hapsimachos and sprited, because of their victory against the barbarians. Hsch. α 8965 ἁψίμαχος· ἐπίμαχος. ἐπίφορος μάχης hapsimachos: equipped for battle, suitable for battle. Antiatt. α 57 ἁψιμαχεῖν· Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν ὁρίων (fr. 131)· καὶ “ἁψίμαχον γερόντιον”. hapsimachein: Hyperides in On the boundaries (fr. 131); and “hapsimachon little old man.”

Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet There is no firm reason to reject the possibility that this fragment belongs to the historian. Photius cites the historian elsewhere (e. g. 115 F 4 = Phot. σ 476), and although the adjective ἁψίμαχος is not found elsewhere, cognate terms are found in other prose authors (see below). Interpretation Although the adjective ἁψίμαχος does not appear elsewhere in classical Greek, the verb ἁψιμαχέω (Plb. 18.8.4, DS 11.52.2, DH 9.48.3, Plut. Pelop. 24.10) and the noun ἁψιμαχία (Aeschin. 2.176, Plb. 5.49.5, DS 20.29.7, DH 1.79.12) are both found. Both have the sense “fight hand to hand”; in Greek this is normally expressed as ἐκ χειρὸς μάχεσθαι (e. g. X. HG 7.2.14, Cyr. 6.2.16, Plb. 2.19.10, etc.), likely the sense Photius intends by his μάχης τῆς διὰ χειρῶν. Both the noun and the verb can be used metaphorically as well: Aeschines calls a conflict between speakers ἁψιμαχία ῥητόρων (2.176); Polybius describes the speeches of negotiators as λόγοι… ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἁψιμαχούντων (18.8.4). Other lexicographers, however, suggest that the adjective did not simply describe a person who fought hand to hand, but one who was eager for battle: Phrynichus glosses it as ἀνδρεῖος and θυμικός (“brave / manly” and “spirited”), Hesychius as ἐπίμαχος and ἐπίφορος μάχης (“battle–ready” and “inclined to battle”). The verb ἅπτομαι, from which the prefix of our adjective derives, can mean “eagerly engage in” or (as LSJ puts it, s. v. ἅπτω III), “prosecute vigorously”; such a meaning is thus not out of the question, but is not suggested by the usage of the cognate noun and verb in extant Greek.

fr. 82 K.–A. (79 K.) Poll. 7.190 Θεόπομπος δὲ γυναῖκας ν α υ τ ί δ α ς Theopompus (calls) women n a u t i d a s (“sailoresses”). Phot. ν 57 ναυτίδας: γυναῖκας ὡς ναύτας. nautidas: women as sailors.

214 Discussion

Theopompus

Meineke 1839 II.823; Redard 1949. 7

Assignment to known plays Wilamowitz (evidently in a ms. notation on the edition of Meineke, cited by K. A.) suggested it could belong to Stratiōtides. Citation Context Pollux cites this fragment as part of a discussion of terms for a ship’s personnel, immediately after Aristophanes fr. 892; Photius’ gloss must derive from a common source, since it is nearly identical but drops the citation to Theopompus. Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Meineke questioned whether this fragment belonged to Theopompus the comic poet or the historian, on the grounds that Pollux often uses the title ὁ κωμικός when referring to our poet; but this is not always the case, as for example fr. 3 (= Poll. 10.180) or fr. 11 (= Poll. 10.123–4), both of which he cites with titles that ensure they belong to our poet but without the epithet ὁ κωμικός. Because Pollux firmly rejects Theopompus as an authority on usage (3.58 = 115 F 338), moreover, it is safe to attribute this fragment to the comic poet; it is difficult to imagine, moreover, the historian having need for a word for “female sailors.” Text Although the mss. of Pollux accent ναυτίδας as printed, it is possible that the accent belongs instead on the antepenult (ναύτιδας); see Redard. Interpretation Theopompus seems likely to have coined this distinctly feminine alternative to ναύτης, “sailor.” According to Pollux (7.139), Aristophanes instead used the word ναύτρια (fr. 858), also evidently a new coinage or at least a hapax legomenon. For the comic depiction of women entering into exclusively male professions, see above, on Stratiōtides. Pollux’s and Photius’ glosses of this term suggest that it was used to describe women sailors, but feminized versions of masculine nouns could also be used to insult men, as for example in Thersites’ famous remark Ἀχαιΐδες οὐκέτ’ Ἀχαιοὶ (Il. 2.235). For the lives and work of Athenian sailors, see Casson 1971. 81–115.

fr. 83 K.–A. (80 K.) Poll. 6.85 τὰς δὲ καλουμένας πατέλλας λεκανίδας ὀνομαστέον, εἰ καὶ ἐξ ἀργύρου εἶεν· Θεόπομπος μὲν γὰρ ὁ κωμικὸς εἴρηκεν ὀ ρ ν 〈 ε 〉 ι θ ί ω ν λ ε κ ά ν η ν, Ἀριστοφάνης (fr. 805) δὲ λεκανίσκην, ἀλλαχοῦ δὲ λεκάνην (fr. 383) καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ· —— (Ach. 1110). The things called patellai (dishes) should be referred to as lekanides, if they are of silver; for Theopompus the comic poet on the one hand has said o r n < e > i t h i o n l e k a n ē n (dish of bird–meat), Aristophanes on the other lekaniskēn (fr. 843), elsewhere lekanēn (fr.383), and elsewhere: —— (Ach. 1110).

Discussion

Nauck 1851. 416

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. dub. 84)

215

Citation Context Pollux cites this fragment in a list of reference to the bowl called lekanē, as part of a broader discussion of serving wares; he cites it alongside a series of references to Aristophanes (some of which give diminutive forms of the term), as a gloss on πατέλλα, a Latin loan word (see Meyer 1895. 52). Text Pollux’s spelling would mean “a dish of small birds,” but we want a term for the food here, rather than the animal, so Nauck suggested the simple addition of an ε to render it “a dish of bird–meat.” Interpretation A λεκάνη is a large dish, often mentioned in comedy, which could contain a variety of foods (Ach. 1110, quoted by Pollux here; Pherecr. fr. 113.19, Ar. fr. 402.6), as well as being used for other purposes; see above, on fr. 41.1. Here the dish is of birds’ meat, ὀρνιθείων (sc. κρεῶν); this adjective is often used in this sense, sometimes with a word for meat (Ar. Nu. 339, Ra. 510, Hp. Morb. 2.69, X. An. 4.5.31, Arist. EN 1141b20), but also without (Ar. Av. 1590, Pherecr. 50); both usages often occur in lists of delicacies. Archestratus describes eating birds indiscriminately as they were in season (62.9, with Olson and Sens 2000, ad loc.), which may be the sense intended here by the collective reference to “bird’s–meat”; on the other hand, ὄρνις can sometimes mean specifically “chicken” (see LSJ s. v. III). For Greek bird–eating generally, see Dalby 2003. 51–52. fr. dub. 84 K.–A. Phot. (z) α 2807 ἀρίδακρυς καὶ ἀ λ ί δ α κ ρ υ ς· ὁ ἐπίφορος εἰς τὸ δακρύειν. οὕτως Θεόπομπος aridakrus and a l i d a k r u s: someone inclined to crying. Thus Theopompus.

Discussion

Tsantsanoglou 1984. 150–52

Citation Context Similar, though not identical, material occurs in various lexica and scholia: Σ Il. 1.349b δακρύσας ἑτάρων: ἕτοιμον τὸ ἡρωϊκὸν πρὸς δάκρυα. καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς· —— (Od. 8.523), καὶ ἡ παροιμία “ἀεὶ δ’ ἀριδάκρυες ἀνέρες ἐσθλοί.” crying for his comrades: Heroes are prompt to tears. And Odysseus: —— (Od. 8.523), and (there is) the proverb “noble men are swift to cry.” Σ A. Pers. 947b ἀρίδακρυν] πολύδακρυν. aridarkun: very tearful. Diogenian. 1.9 ἀγαθοὶ δ’ ἀριδάκρυες ἄνδρες: ἡ παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς ἔλεον ῥεπόντων. good men are swift to cry: the proverb is about those who are inclined towards pity.

216

Theopompus

Zenob. 1.14 = Paus. Atticista α 5 = Phot. α 81 = Suda α 126 ἀγαθοὶ δ’ ἀριδάκρυες ἄνδρες: ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα πρὸς ἔλεον ῥεπόντων. good men are swift to cry: about those who are strongly inclined towards pity. Poll. 2.63 καὶ ὁ παρὰ τοῖς ποιηταῖς ἀρίδακρυς. and in the poets (is found) aridakrus. Hsch. α 7197 ἀριδάκρυσι· πολυδάκρυσιν aridakrusi (masc / neut dat pl): very tearful.

Among these, only Photius attributes the word to Theopompus. Tsantsanoglou notes that the gloss has some odd features suggestive of a disordered correction by a scribe, and concludes that we cannot tell whether Photius intended to attribute alidakrus or aridakrus to Theopompus Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Because this is a rare, poetic word, it seems more likely to belong to the comic poet. It is not impossible, however, that Theopompus the historian could have quoted the proverb cited by several of the sources above. Text Despite Photius claim of alternate spellings, Tsantsanoglou argued that either ἀλίδακρυς is simply an error for ἀρίδακρυς, or that it must be an entirely separate word, ἁλίδακρυς, derived from ἅλς, “salt” or ἅλις “in plenty.” Interpretation The word ἀλίδακρυς (or ἀρίδακρυς) is exceptionally rare, found in classical Greek only at A. Pers. 947, twice in Aristotle (HA 608b, Prob. 953b), and in a fragment of Callimachus (fr. 700 Pf.). Aeschylus uses it to describe a song of lament; Aristotle uses it as a personality characteristic, distinguishing men from women as more “inclined to cry” (HA) or simply in a list of types of people (Prob.) alongside “chatty” (λάλος) and “excited” (κεκινημένος). Its rarity, and the fact that it is only exampled in Aeschylus prior to Theopompus’ use of it, suggest that it may have been intended to have an elevated tone. For the prefix ἀρι–, see LSJ sv. ἀρι–, Pokorny 1959, s. v. “al–1, ol–”.

fr. dub. 85 K.–A. (82 K.) Ael. Dion α 135 = Phot. (b, z) α 1903 = Suda α 2361 = Synag. α 1336 ἄ ν ε χ ε · ἀντὶ τοῦ πάρεχε. Θεόπομπος a n e c h e (hold up): meaning pareche (make way). Theopompus.

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.821; Biles and Olson 2015. 469

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 86)

217

Citation Context These identical glosses may share a common source, possibly the entry in the Attic lexicon of Aelius Dionysius (see Cunningham 2003, ad loc.). Since ἄνεχε πάρεχε is a common collocation (see below), the original gloss may have been intended to explain that in such a context, the two verbs do not have distinct meanings. The Suda’s entry appends a quotation: ἄνεχέ μοι τὴν χεῖρα. Since this is not obviously metrical and is missing from earlier lexica, Adler concluded it was not intended to be read as a quotation from Theopompus, but simply a further illustration of the verb; she suggests Symeon Metaphrastes. Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Although this ritual cry is found only in verse in extant sources, there is no reason why it could not have been mentioned by a historian. Aelius Dionysius cites the historian Theopompus elsewhere: α 111 = 115 F 313; although he sometimes provides a play title (e. g. α 8 = fr. 18), he does not otherwise distinguish between the two authors. Interpretation Although ἀνέχω can have a wide variety of meanings, this imperative occurs in extant Greek only in the ritual cry ἄνεχε, πάρεχε (E. Cyc. 202, Tro. 307; Ar. V. 1326); that the lexica cite Theopompus to prove that these words mean the same things suggests that he, too, likely used them both. Originally this cry may have referred specifically to the torches held in wedding or kōmos processions (so explicitly at E. Tro. 307), but πάρεχε (with or without ἐκποδών) can also mean “make way” (e. g. Ar. V. 949) and it is possible that by the fifth century the original association with torches was not always in a given speaker’s mind. See Seaford 1984. 142–3; Biles and Olson 2015. 469.

fr. 86 K.–A. (84 K.) Poll. 3.124 (FS, A) ἀ π ω ν η θ ή σ ε τ α ι δὲ τὸ πεπράσεται Θεόπομπος εἴρηκεν ὁ κωμικός Theopompus the comic poet uses a p ō n ē t h ē s e t a i to mean “he will sell”

Meter Iambic trimeter?

kl llkl

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.822; Rutherford 1881. 213

Citation Context Pollux cites this fragment in a catalogue of words related to buying and selling; his citation most likely shares the same source as several other related glosses: Hesychius α 6911 ἀπονηθήσεται· πεπράσεται aponēthēsetai: he will sell

218

Theopompus

Synag. α 946 = Photius α 2761 ἀπωνηθήσεται· περιπραθήσεται apōnēthēsetai: it will be thoroughly sold

Text Meineke accepted ms. A’s reading ἀπωνηθήσεται δὲ καὶ πεπράσεται, which would suggest that everything up to Theopompus’ name was a quotation; but it does not scan, and the related entries in the lexica cited above indicate that the forms of πέρνημι (Pollux and Hesychius’ πεπράσεται, the Synagoge and Photius’ περιπραθήσεται) are glosses, not quotations. Interpretation There seems to be some confusion in the lexica over the mood of ἀπωνηθήσεται; it is passive, but several of the glosses, including Pollux’s reference to Theopompus, explain it with middle forms of the verb πέρνημι (sell). The verb ἀπωνέομαι is a middle deponent, but perhaps these lexicographers mistook it for a passive deponent, and therefore glossed it with verbal forms that did not have a passive meaning; or perhaps they were simply confused by the (admittedly very complex) forms of πέρνημι. The compound ἀπωνέομαι occurs only here, but the simplex ὠνέομαι is common in all types of literature from Hesiod onward (e. g. Op. 341, Hdt. 1.1.15, E. Alc. 59, Antipho 6.13, Ar. Ach. 815, X. HG 2.1.27, etc.).

fr. dub. 87 K.–A. (85 K.) Synag. α 2123 = Suda α 3870 ἀ ρ ύ β α λ λ ο ς· οὐ μόνον παρὰ Στησιχόρῳ (fr. 206 PMG) καὶ ἄλλοις Δωριεῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν Ἱππεῦσιν Ἀριστοφάνους (1094) · ——. Θεόπομπος a r y b a l l o s: not only in Stesichorus (fr. 206 PMG) and other Doric authors, but also in the Knights of Aristophanes (1094): ——. Theopompus

Citation Context Among the lexica and similar texts that seek to explain the term aryballos, only the Synagoge and Suda cite Theopompus, but several texts that cite the same passage of Knights are clearly related to this entry: Poll. 10.63 καὶ μέντοι τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ βαλανείῳ σκευῶν ὀνόματα ἀσάμινθος, πύελος, κρουνός, ἀρύταινα, ἀρύβαλλος, κατάχυτλον… Ἀριστοφάνους μὲν εἰπόντος · —— (fr. 450) καὶ αὖ πάλιν · —— (Eq. 1094). And moreover the names of the vessels in the same bathing–area (include) asaminthos, puelos, krounos, arutaina, aryballos, katachutlon… Aristophanes says: —— (fr. 450) and again: —— (Eq. 1094).

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. dub. 87)

219

Poll. 10.152 ἀρύβαλλος δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ συσπάστου βαλαντίου ἐν Ἀντιφάνους Αὑτοῦ ἐρῶντι (fr. 52) καὶ ἐν Στησιχόρου Κερβέρῳ (fr. 206 PMG). aryballos also (refers) to a draw–string bag in Antiphanes’ The self–lover (fr. 52) and in Stesichorus’ Cerberus (fr. 206 PMG). Ath. 11.783f ἀρύβαλλος· ποτήριον κάτωθεν εὐρύτερον, ἄνω δὲ συνηγμένον, ὡς τὰ συσπαστὰ βαλάντια, ἃ καὶ αὐτὰ διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα ἀρυβάλλους τινὲς καλοῦσιν. Ἀριστοφάνης Ἱππεῦσι (1094)· ——. οὐ πόρρω δέ ἐστι τοῦ ἀρυστίχου ὁ ἀρύβαλλος, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρύτειν καὶ βάλλειν. aryballos: a cup wider on the bottom, narrower at the top, like draw–string purses, which on account of their similarity some people even call aryballoi. Aristophanes in Knights: —— (1094). The aryballos is not very different from the arustichos; (the word is formed) from arutein (to draw liquid) and ballein (to throw). Et. Gen. α 1248 ἀρύβαλλος· τὸ καλούμενον μαρσίππιον καὶ βαλλάντιον· Ἀριστοφάνης · —— (Eq. 1094–95). εἴρηται παρὰ τὸ ἐρύειν, τουτέστιν ἑλκύειν, ἐρύβαλλος καὶ ἀρύβαλλος. ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀρύειν. aryballos: the so–called little bag and little purse. Aristophanes: —— (Eq. 1094–95). It comes from eruein, which means “to drag,” both eruballos and aryballos. Or from aruein (to draw liquid).

Presumably these all share a common source in an earlier Atticizing lexicon Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet This word is found only in verse, never in inscriptions or in prose before Athenaeus; nevertheless, there is no clear reason why it could not have been used by the historian, who is often cited by the Suda (e. g. λ 655 = 115 F 37), and possibly by the Synagoge (frr. 88, 101). Text Although the ms. of the Synagoge spells the word ἀρίβαλλος here, it uses ἀρύβαλλος elsewhere (e. g. α 2184), as do the mss. of classical examples of the word (see below) and other works of ancient scholarship (e. g. Poll. 7.166, 10.63; Ath. 11.783f). Interpretation Athenaeus explains that the term ἀρύβαλλος referred to a vessel that was wider at the bottom and narrower at the top, so that it resembled a purse with the drawstring tightened; both Pollux and Athenaeus mention that such a purse could itself be called aryballos. Richter and Milne argue that aryballos was primarily a Doric term, as the lexica suggest, and that the Attic equivalent was λέκυθος (1973. 16); for the shape art historians calls “aryballos,” primarily a vessel for perfume, see Neeft 1987.

220

Theopompus

fr. dub. 88 K.–A. (86 K.) Phot. (z) α 3263 = Synag. α 2481 α ὐ τ ό χ ε ι ρ α· οὐ τὸν ἑαυτὸν ἀνελόντα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πράξαντος ὁτιοῦν τῇ αὑτοῦ χειρί. οὕτως Θεόπομπος, Ἀριστοφάνης (Av. 1135, Lys. 269) καὶ Πλάτων (Leg. 9.865b), ἀλλὰ καὶ Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ἀριστογείτονος (25.57). a u t o c h e i r a: not just someone who kills himself, but also (applies) to someone doing something with his own hand. Thus Theopompus, Aristophanes (Av. 1135, Lys. 269) and Plato (Leg. 9.865b), but also Demosthenes in Against Aristogeiton (25.27).

Citation Context The lemma is the accusative singular of αὐτόχειρ, a form which occurs only a handful of times in extant classical Greek; it may thus have arisen as a gloss on: S. OT 231, 266 (cf. Σ Thomae ad loc.: τὸν αὐτόχειρα· τὸν αὐτόχειρα πράξαντα), Ant. 306, Trach. 1194, El. 955; E. Phoen. 332; Antipho 5.47; D. 21.106, 119. Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet There are no grounds to assert that this fragment must belong to the comic poet: the word belongs to both prose and verse, the list of citations mingles authors of both kinds, and Photius cites the historian elsewhere (see above on fr. 81). Interpretation The lexicographers’ explanation of the term αὐτόχειρ(α) is correct here: although it often has associations with suicide (S. Ant. 1175, E. Or. 1040) or murder (S. OT 231, Antipho 5.47, D. 21.116, Pl. Leg. 9.865b, Men. Sam. 561), it can also be used simply to describe something one did with one’s own hands: A. Supp. 592, in addition to the examples cited by the lexica. Since the lexica correctly provide examples where the term is not connected with suicide (although Pl. Leg. 9.865b is concerned with murder), they are presumably correct in also citing Theopompus as an example of this use of the term. For suicide among the Greeks, see van Hooff 1990; Garrison 1991; Garland 2001. 95ff.

fr. dub. 89 K.–A. Phot. β 34 β ά κ χ ο υ ς· τοὺς κλάδους. οὕτως Θεόπομπος b a k c h o u s: branches. Thus Theopompus.

Discussion

Tsantsanoglou 1984.152–53

Citation Context This entry shows significant overlap with several related glosses:

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. dub. 89)

221

Σ (VEΓΘM) Ar. Eq. 408a Βακχέβακχον ᾆσαι: εὐφημῆσαι τὸν Διόνυσον καὶ ἀνυμνῆσαι. Βάκχον δὲ οὐ τὸν Διόνυσον ἐκάλουν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντας τοὺς τελοῦντας τὰ ὄργια βάκχους ἐκάλουν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς κλάδους οὓς οἱ μύσται φέρουσι. μέμνηται δὲ Ξενοφάνης ἐν Σίλλοις οὕτως· “ἑστᾶσιν δ’ ἐλάτης 〈βάκχοι〉 πυκινὸν περὶ δῶμα” (fr. 17). ἔστι δὲ καὶ στεφάνης εἶδος, ὡς Νίκανδρος ἐν τῷ περὶ γλωσσῶν ἱστορεῖ· φησὶ γὰρ οὕτως· “βάκχοισιν κεφαλὰς περιάνθεσιν ἐστέψαντο” (fr. 130 Schneider) to sing “bakchebakchon”: to shout and sing for Dionysus. Not only did they used to call Dionysus “Bakchos,” but they also used to call all those performing his rituals “Bakchoi,” and not only that but also the branches which the initiates carry. Xenophanes in Silloi writes: 〈bakchoi〉 of fir stand around the compact house” (fr. 17). It’s also a kind of garland, as Nicander recounts in The Glossary, for he says: “they crowned their heads with flowering bakchoi” (fr. 130 Schneider) Hsch. β 127 βάκχος· ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διονύσου. καὶ κλάδος ὁ ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς, οἱ δὲ φανὸν λέγουσιν· οἱ δὲ ἰχθύν. bakchos: The priest of Dionysus. And a branch used in the rituals; some say it is a torch, others a fish. Et. Mag. s. v. βάκχος βάκχος… λέγεται δὲ ὁ ἱερὸς Διονύσου ἀνήρ· καὶ κλάδος, ὁ ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς· ἢ στεφανός. The priest of Dionysus is called bakchos; and the branch, in the rites; or a garland. Suda β 57 βάκχος: οὕτως οὐ μόνον τὸν Διόνυσον ἐκάλει, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντας τοὺς τελοῦντας τὰ ὄργια· οὐ μὴν καὶ τοὺς κλάδους οἱ μύσται φέρουσιν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ στεφάνου εἶδος. Βάκχοισιν κεφαλὰς πολυανθέσιν ἐστέψαντο ” (Nicander fr. 130 Schneider). καὶ Πισίδης· πολλοὺς δὲ Βάκχους ἦν ὁρᾶν ἀκουσίως τὴν ἐσχάτην ὄρχησιν ἐξορχουμένους (George of Pisidia, Heraclias 3 fr. 40). bakchos: this is what they used to call not just Dionysus, but also all those performing his rituatls: and not only that but also the branches the initiates carry. There is also a type of garland. “They crowned their heads with flowering bakchoi” (Nicander fr. 130 Schneider). And the Pisidian: “you could see many bakchoi unwillingly dancing the last dance” (George of Pisidia, Heraclias 3 fr. 40).

Presumably these all share a common source or sources in earlier Atticist lexicography. Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet The use of the word βάκχος in the sense of “branch” seems most likely to belong to verse. Nevertheless, we do know that Theopompus the historian discussed Dionysus at some length: see 115 F 75b, 276–77, 281, 352. Interpretation M. L. West argues (1978. 373–5) that the original meaning of the term βάκχος (here given in the accusative plural βάκχους) was “branch”; because the early worshippers of Dionysus bore branches (before they carried

222

Theopompus

the thyrsus) in imitation of the nymphs who reared the god, they were called βάκχοι, and the term was then transferred to the god himself. The term, however, is of obscure, possibly non–Greek etymology (Chantraine 1970 s. v.), and West’s argument, though plausible, rests primarily on the lexicographers cited above and on Xenophanes fr. 17, where the word is not actually attested but is supplied by emendation. Nevertheless, whether because “branch” was the original meaning of the word, or because it could mean “branch” by metonymy (cf. E. Ba. 308, βακχείος κλάδος), it remains plausible that the lexicographers are correct in their claim that Theopompus used the word bakchos to mean branch. See also Burkert 1983. 109–10; Schauber 2001; and the essays of Ford, Horster, and Versnel in Schlesier 2011.

fr. dub. 90 K.–A. Phot. γ 20 Γα λ ή ν η· ἑταίρας ὄνομα. οὕτω Θεόπομπος G a l ē n ē: a hetaira’s name. Thus Theopompus.

Discussion

Tsantsanoglou 1984.153

Citation Context Hesychius gives a similar gloss, without the citation from Theopompus: γ 99 Γαλήνη· ὄνομα κύριον ἑταίρας (Galēnē: the proper name of a hetaira). These may both share a common origin, perhaps commenting either on Philetaer. fr. 9.6, or on the name of the nereid Galene at Hes. Th. 244; or they may trace their origin to Aristophanes of Byzantium’s On Hetairai Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Theopompus the historian discusses hetairai in several extant fragments (e. g. 224, 285a), so there is every possibility that he could have mentioned the name of Galēnē. Interpretation The name Γαλήνη belongs to a hetaira in a list of such names in Philetar. fr. 9; elsewhere Galēnē is the name of is one of the daughters of Nereus (after Hesiod, also at Luc. DMar. 7, Mnaseas at Ath. 7.301d), and of the author of a book on flowers (according to Ath. 15.679c). Although the name originally stemmed from the adjective γαληνός, “calm,” often applied to weather or the sea, lexica connect it with γελᾶν, “to laugh” (e. g. Et. Gud. γ 295), a connection that may also have been felt with the hetaira’s name. For hetairai and their names in Theopompus and Greek comedy generally, see above, on the titles Aphrodite, Pamphile, and Nemea, and on frr. 6, 22, 33.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 92)

223

fr. 91 K.–A. (87 K.) Poll. 3.75 δουλοπρεπὲς δὲ (Ap. 30) καὶ δουλοπρεπέστερον Ξενοφῶν (Mem. 2.8. 4), καὶ δουλοπρεπέστατα Κρατῖνος (fr. 440), καὶ δ ο υ λ ο π ρ έ π ε ι α Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικός. Xenophon (uses) “slavish” (Ap. 30) and “more slavish” (Mem. 2.8.4), and Cratinus (uses) “most slavishly” (fr. 440), and Theopompus the comic poet (uses) d o u l o p r e p e i a (“slavishness”)

Citation Context Pollux cites this list of cognate terms meaning “befitting a slave” as part of a larger discussion of terms related to slavery that begins with words for “master” at 3.74. Interpretation The adjective δουλοπρεπής and the abstract noun δουλοπρέπεια tend to be used to described free people who are felt to resemble enslaved persons: because of their labor work (Hdt. 1.126, both references from Xenophon cited by Pollux; Pl. Grg. 518a; Luc. Merc. Cond. 40) or behavior (Pl. Grg. 485b; [Pl.] Alc. 1.135c; Luc. Ap. 4); or because of their physical appearance (Arist. Physiogn. 813a). The noun δουλοπρέπεια is found before Lucian only here and in the pseudo– Platonic First Alcibiades, but the frequency of the adjective δουλοπρεπής would have made it easily understood even if it were a neologism. Compounds with the prefix δουλο– were, moreover, freely formed: e. g. δουλαπατία (Arist. EN 1131a7), δουλόβοτος (Philostr. VS 1.21.4), δουλοκρατεῖσθαι (DC 60.2), δουλοφανής (J. BJ 2.7.2), etc. For compounds ending in –πρεπής, which often have a lofty or elevated feel, see Olson and Seaberg 2018. 273 (ad Cratin. fr. 440); these include this term’s opposite abstract noun ἐλευθεροπρέπεια and adjective ἐλευθεροπρεπής, first found also in First Alcibiades.

fr. 92 K.–A. (89 K.) Eust. p. 1910.10–11 = ii.260.18–19 ὅτι δὲ καὶ γυναικεῖον μόριον σημαίνει ὁ κ έ ν τ α υ ρ ο ς , δηλοῦσιν οἱ παλαιοί, φέροντες καὶ χρῆσιν Θεοπόμπου εἰς τοῦτο. πικρότερον δὲ τούτου εἰς σκῶμμα τὸ εἰρῆσθαι κένταυρον, ὃς κεντεῖ ὄρρον τὸν παρὰ τῷ κωμικῷ (Ar. fr. 972). That “c e n t a u r ” means the female body part, the ancients make clear, citing a passage of Theopompus for this point. A harsher joke than this is to be called “centaur,” (meaning) he who stings (kentei) the rump (orros) in the comic poet (Ar. fr. 972). Ael. Dion. κ 20 = Phot. κ 569 κ έ ν τ α υ ρ ο ν· τὸ μόριον· ἢ τὸ γυναικεῖον αἰδοῖον. οὕτω Θεόπομπος c e n t a u r: the body part, or the female genitals. Thus Theopompus.

Discussion

Henderson 1991. 133

224

Theopompus

Citation Context Eustathius appears to owe at least some of his discussion of this term (which goes on to cite another comic fragment, Ar. dub. fr. 972) to the Περὶ βλασφημιῶν attributed to Suetonius (on which see Taillardat 1967, Wardle 1993). His claim for the pederastic meaning of “centaur” is paralleled elsewhere: Hsch. κ 2225 κένταυροι· λῃσταί. καὶ οἱ Τιτᾶνες. καὶ οἱ παιδερασταί, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρρου centaurs: robbers. Also the Titans. And pederasts, from orros (“rump”). Phot. α 259 ἄγριοι· τοὺς παιδεραστὰς οὕτως ἐκάλουν, ἤτοι ὅτι ἄγριον τὸ πάθος, ἢ ὅτι ὁ Πὰν ἔνοχός ἐστι τοῖς τοιούτοις. καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ Κενταύρους. δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἀνήμερα τῶν ζῴων ἄγρια καλεῖται. καὶ Ἄγριος ὁ τὸ ἦθος δύσκολος καὶ ὀργίλος. agrioi (“wild men”): they used to call pederasts this, either because the emotion was wild (agrion), or because Pan is connected with such people. They also call them “centaurs.” Clearly this is because untamed animals are called agria (“wild things”). And Agrios is (a name for) one who is difficult and irascible by nature.

Eustathius’ comments probably originate from notes on Aristophanes’ use of the term (e. g. Nu. 346–50, on which see Henderson 1991. 202–3). Aelius Dionysius is the earliest, and only, evidence for the notion that “centaur” can refer to the female genitalia. Interpretation Centaurs, as Photius notes in his discussion of “wild men,” were infamous for their sexual aggression: see Gantz 1993. 278–9, for the frequent, early artistic depiction of the centaurs attacking Lapith women, and cf. Pi. P. 2.25–48 for their origin in Ixion’s attempted rape of Hera and subsequent mating with female horses. Aristophanes seems to use the term to refer to aggressive pederasty at Nu. 346–50, and coins κενταυρικῶς as a general term for aggressive behavior at Ra. 38. In the right context, therefore, κένταυρος could be understood in various sexually suggestive ways even if the lexicographers’ claim of a pun on κέντει ὄρρον (“sting the rump”) was a later invention unknown to Theopompus’ audience. Henderson (1991. 133) argues that the use of the term κένταυρος to refer to female genitalia is a pun on κέντει, “pierce” or “sting,” and ταῦρος, as another slang term for “vulva.” This meaning of ταῦρος exists only in the lexica (Hsch. τ 253, Photius σ 74); it is not impossible, given the similar use of other animal terms,43 but this is not sufficient grounds to reject the interpretation of the lexica, which much more consistently connect the word “centaur” with a pederastic meaning in reference to the buttocks.

43

Words for pig especially, including χοῖρος (Ar. Ach. 781–2), δέλφαξ (Ach. 786, Lys. 1061, Th. 237), and ὗς (Lys. 683), but also dog, κύων (Lys. 158); there may also be an obscene pun on ταῦρος at Lys. 447.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 93)

225

Kentauros or Kentauroi was the title of comedies by Apollophanes, Nicochares, Ophelion, Timocles, Linceus, and Theognetus; we have no evidence, however, for obscene play titles, and these were probably all intended to evoke other meanings of the term.

fr. 93 K.–A. (90 K.) Phryn. Ecl. 151 κυνίδιον λέγε. Θεόπομπος δὲ ὁ κωμῳδὸς ἅπαξ που κυνάριον εἶπεν. say kynidion (doggy). But Theopompus one time said kunarion somewhere. Thom. Mag. κ 201 κυνίδιον, οὐ κυνάριον· εἰ καὶ Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμῳδὸς ἅπαξ τοῦτό φησιν. kynidion, not kunarion: even if Theopompus the comic poet says it one time.

Discussion

Bergk 1838. 410–11

Citation Context Both here and at Ecl. 398 the Atticist lexicographer Phrynichus advises against diminutives formed from the suffix –αριον, though at 84 he claims both κυνάριον and κυνίδιον are appropriate. Interpretation Although Bergk accepts Phrynichus’ preference for diminutives in –ιδιον, forms in –αριον were very common in colloquial Attic: γυναικάριον (Diocl. fr. 11), μισθάριον (Eup. fr. 470), βιβλιδάριον (Ar. fr. 795), ζῳδάριον (Alex. fr. 144); Παιδάριον was the title of a comedy by Philemon, and Κυνάριον itself the title of a comedy of Timotheus; Plato (Euthydem. 298d), Xenophon (Cyr. 8.4.20), and Theophrastus (Char. 21.9) use κυνάριον as the diminutive of κύων, as does Alc. Com. fr. 33. Since Xenophon wrote an entire treatise on dogs (the Cynegetica), we may take his willingness to use the term as decisive; doubtless like other diminutives it had a playful, informal quality, but κυνάριον cannot be called bad Attic. For Greek diminutives of this type, see Petersen 1910, especially 131–83 (usage), 212–240 (–ιδιον), 260–71 (–αριον). Dogs played an extensive part in the real lives of the Greeks, as companions, guards, and hunters, and in their symbolism, with traits both positive (loyalty, willingness to fight) and negative (shamelessness, abjection); see the very thorough overview at Kitchell 2014. 47–53, to whose bibliography can be added Scodel 2005, Iozzo 2012, Anagnostou–Laoutides 2015, Dutsch 2015, Petrakova 2015, and Steeves 2015. As Henderson notes (1991. 127, 133), the lexicographers sometimes record obscene meanings of κύων (e. g. Hsch. κ 4763 κύων· δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀνδρεῖον μόριον, “kuōn: it can also refer to the male member”); his conclusion that it was an obscene euphemism in the 5th and 4th centuries is not, however, clearly supported by any contemporary evidence.

226

Theopompus

fr. 94 K.–A. (93 K.) Poll. 6.25 μέθη μεθύειν μεθύσκεσθαι μεθυστικός, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ μεθύση καὶ μ ε θ ύ σ τ ρ ι α παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ τῷ κωμικῷ. drunkenness, to be drunk, to become drunk, drunken, a drunk woman is also (called) m e t h u s t r i a (female drunkard) in Theopompus the comic poet

Citation Context As part of a broader discussion of the symposium, Pollux begins to list terms related to wine and drinking at 6.15; at 6.20 he turns to words related to excessive drinking; terms for unmixed wine–drinking lead to this list of words for drunks and drunkenness, in which he also refers to (but does not quote) Menander fr. 66. Phrynichus Praep. Soph. 122 (μέθυσος ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἐρεῖς, ἀλλὰ μεθυστικός· γυναῖκα δὲ ἐρεῖς μέθυσον καὶ μεθύσην, “methusos man you will not say, but methustikos; but you will call a woman methusos and methusē) shows that there was concern in Pollux’s day with the correct application of the various adjectives derived from μέθη, and with the question of whether or not μέθυσος was an adjective that distinguished masculine and feminine endings; Phrynichus and Pollux may have shared a common source, but disagreed about proper usage, since Pollux cites Menander to show that μέθυσος could apply to a man, but Phrynichus advises restricting it to women and using μεθυστικός for men. Interpretation The noun μεθύστρια, feminine equivalent to μεθυστής (Epict. Arr. 4.2.7, Philostr. Gymn. 25) appears only here in classical Greek. Since this is yet another word to describe a drunken woman, cited by Pollux, it may belong with Pollux’s earlier list of such terms; see above, on fr. 80. For the formation of feminine agent nouns in –τρια, see Smyth 839.b.2, Silk 1985; since these nouns (e. g. ψάλτρια, ποιήτρια) normally indicate the practitioner of a skill or profession, Theopompus may have formed or used μεθύστρια for the humorous implication that this woman is not just habitually drunk but makes drunkenness her business; but it may simply be an otherwise unattested word that was in colloquial usage.

fr. 95 K.–A. (94 K.) Poll. 3.39 ἡ δ’ ἐκ παρθενίας τινὶ γεγαμημένη πρωτόποσις ἐκαλεῖτο… καὶ π ρ ω τ ό π ε ι ρ ο ν δ’ ὠνόμασε Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικός A women married from virginity used to be called protoposis (“first spouse”)... and Theopompus the comic poet called her p r o t o p e i r o n (“first–timer”).

Discussion

Bergk 1838. 410; Meineke 1839 II.822; Storey 2011. 353

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. 96)

227

Citation Context As part of a miscellaneous discussion of vocabulary related to marriage, Pollux adduces these words related to virgin marriage in between a list of goddesses involved in marriage ceremonies and terms for the day before or after the wedding. Although other, later lexica gloss πρωτόπειρος (e. g. Suda π 2972, see below), none associate the term with marriage as Pollux does here. His citation of Theopompus is found only in mss. FS, A. Interpretation Theopompus is the first author in extant Greek to use the term πρωτόπειρος (here in the accusative singular, πρωτόπειρον, probably only to match Pollux’s syntax); Alexis (fr. 103) and Achilles Tatius (2.37.5) also use it in sexual contexts, the former of a hetaira new to the profession, the latter of an unmarried man. Polybius, however, uses it without any sexual connotation (1.61.4), and the Suda (π 2972) claims it can apply to anyone new to an activity, giving “war” as an example; it seems likely, therefore, that Theopompus employs here an existing term that does not ordinarily have a sexual connotation, but in a context (like those in Alex. and Ach. Tat.) that makes its sexual implication clear. For “inexperience” as the defining quality of a virgin, see Men. Sic. 372–3. The term πρωτόποσις, presumably women who have only been married once (πρῶτος, “first,” and πόσις, “spouse”), is found only in this passage of Pollux, and in Athenaeus (6.235a), who attributes to the historian Themison (FGrH 374 F 1) an Athenian law according to which the Archon Basileus has some unspecified responsibility to such women. In Athenaeus, the character Plutarch who delivers this quotation challenges Ulpian to explicate the term, but the challenge is never taken up; perhaps Athenaeus intended at one time to draw on Pollux’s or another similar discussion. For Greek marriage customs, see above, on fr. 15.

fr. 96 K.–A. (95 K.) Poll. 5.98 τὰ δὲ περὶ τῷ τραχήλῳ οὑτωσὶ μὲν εἰπεῖν… καὶ τ α ν θ α ρ υ σ τ ο ὶ (κανθειρυστοὶ C, καθειρυστοὶ FS, ρυστοὶ post lacunam A, corr. Kuehn) ὅρμοι παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ τῷ κωμικῷ, ὧν κατεκρέμαντο λίθοι τινές, ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς κινήσεως ὠνομάσθαι For things (worn) around the neck say the following… also t a n t h a r u s t o i, necklaces in Theopompus the comic poet, from which certain gems were hung, from whose motion they get their name

Discussion

Valckenaer 1739. 120, Bonanno 1968

Citation Context At 5.95, Pollux takes up the topic of women’s jewelry; at 5.98, he gives a list of terms for necklaces, citing also Antiphan. fr. 309, Menander fr. 618 and Nicostr. Com. fr. 32.

228

Theopompus

Text The mss. of Pollux give variously κανθειρυστοί, καθειρυστοί, or ρυστοι (after a blank space) for the word attributed to Theopompus here; the first two are not attested elsewhere and the third is obviously incomplete. Valckenaer argued that the verb κανθαρίζειν, found in the mss. of [Ammon.] Diff. 259, was an error for τανθαρύζειν, and suggested that all appearances of κανθαρίζειν and related words found in later lexica traced back to this confusion; he emended the text of [Ammon.] Diff. 259 to read: τανθαρύζειν καὶ τονθορίζειν διαφέρει. τανθαρύζειν μὲν γὰρ λέγουσιν οἱ Ἀττικοὶ τὸ τρέμειν, τονθορίζειν δὲ τὸ ψιθυρίζειν καὶ γογγύζειν. tantharuzein and tonthorizein are different: tantharuzein the Attic authors say for “to tremble,” tonthorizein for “to whisper” and “to mutter.” Valckenaer also noted that the definition of τανθαρυστός in Hesychius describes trembling, perhaps the same sort of motion under discussion in Pollux: Hsch. τ 138 τανθαρυστός· ὁ τρόμου παρασκευα〈σ〉τι〈κ〉ός tantharustos: causing trembling

He therefore saw these parallels as confirming Kuehn’s earlier emendation to τανθαρυστοί as the word attributed by Pollux here to Theopompus. The verb τανθαρύζω and adjective τανθαρυστός are not attested outside the lexicographers, however, and given the range of textual errors that plague nearly all these entries, I have accepted τανθαρυστοί here somewhat tentatively. For further discussion, see Bonanno. Interpretation Although we have no classical Greek examples to confirm the meaning of Theopompus’ τανθαρυστοί, the lexica consistently gloss the set of adjectives and verbs related to τανθαρύζω as meaning “tremble”; in addition to those cited above, we have: Hsch. ε 1689 ἐκτανθαρύ〈ζ〉ω· τρέμω ektantharu⟨z⟩ō: I tremble Hsch. ε 6504 ἐτανθάριζον· ἔτρεμον etantharizon: they were trembling Phot. τ 53 = Suda τ 97 τανθαρύζειν· τρέμειν.

Since Pollux cites Theopompus here as an example of ways a necklace could be described, it seems likely that Theopompus’ use of the term was indeed applied to such jewelry; Pollux’s explanation that Theopompus used the term to evoke the trembling motion of a string of jewels is, however, almost certainly just a guess.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. dub. 98)

229

Many ancient authors mention expensive necklaces, especially as a objects desired by women or given to women as gifts: Hes. Op. 74; H.Ven.163; E. El. 175–8; Ar. Lys. 408–13. Although these are typically described simply as “golden,” a number of later authors do also mention necklaces of gemstones: Paus. 9.41.5, Clem. Alex. Paed. 2.12.118, Philostr. VA 3.27, Her. 40.5, Imag. 2.5, 2.8, Heliodor. 2.31.1, 8.11.8. See Ruxer 1938, Ogden 1992 (with a late 4th–c. gold necklace at 48 = plate 33); Calinescu 1996; Boardman and Wagner 2012; Lapatin 2015 (incl. a 4th–c. golden necklace illustrated at 65 = plate 26).

fr. 97 K.–A. (96 K.) Poll. 2.122 παρὰ δὲ Θεοπόμπῳ τῷ κωμικῷ ὑ π ο λ ο γ ε ῖ ν. in Theopompus the comic poet, h y p o l o g e i n

Citation Context At 2.119, as part of a larger discussion of terms related to speech, Pollux begins a catalogue of words derived from λόγος and λέγω. Text Mss. FS, A give ὑπολογεῖν, but BC ὑπολέγειν. Since the word appears in a list of terms with the syllable λογ, and ὑπολέγειν is the more common verb, it is more likely that Pollux found ὑπολογεῖν in Theopompus; B and C also attribute the quotation simply to Θεοπέμπτῳ (sic), with no epithet, suggesting they were working from an inferior model here. Interpretation The verb ὑπολογεῖν presumably, like ὑπολογίζομαι (Isoc. 19.169, X. Hiero 8.6, Pl. Ap. 28b, etc.) or ὑπόλογoν ποιεῖσθαι / τιθέναι (Pl. Lach. 189b, Prot. 349c; D. 25.66, Arist. Pol. 1325a.39), means “take account of ” or “deduct.” It is not found elsewhere in literary texts but is found in an early 3rd–century BCE inscription from Euboean Eretria, IG. XII.9.207.73, where it describes fines being subtracted from the wages owed to artists.

fr. dub. 98 K.–A. Gellius 15.20.1 Euripidi poetae matrem Theopompus agrestia olera vendentem victum quaesisse dicit. Theopompus says that Euripides’ mother made a living selling wild vegetables.

Discussion

Morison 2014. 115 F 397

Citation Context Aulus Gellius in his late 2nd–century CE Attic Nights gives a brief and miscellaneous biography of Euripides at 15.20. He seems to have worked

230

Theopompus

from a lost earlier archetype that was also the model for the vita which is attached to the mss. of Euripides’ plays and for the Suda’s life of Euripides (ε 3695); see Schorn 2004; Bing 2011; Lefkowitz 2012. 87–103, with 102 on this passage of Gellius; Watson 2014 Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Morison accepts this as a fragment of the historian (115 F 397), noting that he was in the habit of criticizing the parentage of persons under discussion (e. g. 115 F 95, on Hyberbolus). Since many such criticisms must have originated in comedy, however, and the mockery of Euripides’ mother is widespread in Aristophanes, it is impossible to determine whether this comment originated with Theopompus the comic poet or the historian. Interpretation Aristophanes repeatedly claims that Euripides’ mother was a vegetable seller: Ach. 473–9, Eq. 19, Th. 383–8, Ra. 480. This seems unlikely, given his obviously high degree of education; the historian Philochorus (328 F 218) claims that he was from one of the best families (see Morison ad loc. for an extended discussion of the tradition), and Ath. 10.424e–f cites further evidence for his noble status as a young man. Austin and Olson conclude, citing the parallel treatment of Cleon, that if there is any truth to this attack, it must be that Euripides’ mother came from a family who derived significant wealth from some element of the produce trade conducted on a large scale (2004. 177, ad 386–8, following Dover 1993. 297, ad Ra. 840). See also Ruck 1975; Brock 1994, with 339 on Euripides’ mother; Borthwick 1994. 37–41; Olson 2002. 196–7 (ad Ach. 478); Roselli 2005; Scodel 2017. 29–30.

fr. dub. 99 K.–A. (76 K.) Σ (VΓ) Ar. V. 525b (ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος) ἔθος δὲ ἦν, ὁπότε μέλλοι ἡ τράπεζα αἴρεσθαι, ἀ γ α θ ο ῦ δ α ί μ ο ν ο ς ἐ π ι ρ ρ ο φ ε ῖ ν, ὡς Θεόπομπός φησιν. (of the Good Spirit): it was the custom, whenever the table was about to be cleared, to gulp down some of the Good Spirit, as Theopompus says. Suda α 122 Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος· ἔθος εἶχον οἱ παλαιοὶ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον πίνειν Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος ἐπιρροφοῦντες ἄκρατον, καὶ τοῦτο λέγειν Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος, χωρίζεσθαι δὲ μέλλοντες Διὸς Σωτῆρος. Good Spirit: The ancients had the custom after dinner to drink by gulping down unmixed wine of the Good Spirit, and to call this “of the Good Spirit,” intending to distinguish it from “of Zeus Soter”.

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.821; Morison 2014. 115 F 406

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. dub. 100)

231

Citation Context At Ar. V. 525, Philocleon swears that if he fails to accept the results of the coming debate, he will never again offer a toast of unmixed pay to the Good Spirit, substituting a reference to jury pay for the expected “wine.” Seeking to explain the joke, the scholiasts cite this fragment. The Suda entry, which does not mention Theopompus, seems likely to derive directly from this scholion, since it gives the same lemma Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος in the genitive and repeats much of the same language, including Ar. V. 525’s ἄκρατον and the rare ἐπιρροφεῖν Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet The verb ἐπιρροφέω is not found in the Greek historians; it belongs to technical prose (Hp. Morb. 3.16, Aff. Int. 22; Dsc. 3.1.3) and comedy (Clearch. fr. 1). Given the variation in the form of the verb between the scholia and the Suda, however, we cannot be certain that ἐπιρροφέω was part of what Theopompus said; the scholiast may, for example, simply have been influenced by the frequent use of the simplex ῥοφεῖν in Wasps (812, 814, 906, 982). Even if ἐπιρροφέω was used by the comic poet here, it is not impossible that Theopompus the historian would have used such a term. Theopompus the historian, moreover, was deeply interested in wine–drinking customs: see 115 F 27, 75a, 123a, 215, 276–278 (from an extended discussion of the origins of viticulture), 283. Meineke thought this was simply a reference to Theopompus’ use of the phrase “Good Spirit” in frr. 41–42. Interpretation For the toast to the Good Spirit, see above, on frr. 41–42.

fr. dub. 100 K.–A. (98 K.) Phot. t 378 τὸ νῦν εἶναι· παρέλκει τὸ εἶναι. Θεόπομπος to nun einai (“to be now”): the einai (“to be”) is redundant. Theopompus.

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.820; Morison 2014. 115 F 315

Citation Context Although Photius labels the infinitive εἶναι in the phrase τὸ νῦν εἶναι pleonastic, it is commonly used in Attic authors; Morison concludes that Photius has simply “missed the nuance added by the temporal adverb.” Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Although Photius often cites Theopompus with an epithet or title to clarify his identity, he is not consistent: e. g. frr. 73 (only the meter to indicate it is a comic fragment), 4, 85 (known from other sources). The same is true of his citations of the historian: e. g. 115 F 309, cited alongside a reference to Thucydides but with no other identifying term. The phrase in question could easily belong either to comedy or prose.

232

Theopompus

Interpretation Although Photius is correct that the phrase τὸ νῦν can be used without εἶναι (e. g. Arist. Ph. 218a6), it often appears with εἶναι and is used adverbially to mean “for the present moment” or “in the present circumstances”: X. An. 3.2.37, Cyr. 3.2.38, Pl. R. 6.506d, Isoc. 19.270, etc.

fr. dub. 101 K.–A. (81 K.) Phot. α 1057 = Synag. α 999 ἄλυπος· ὁ μὴ λυπούμενος. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ἀλύπητος. Θεόπομπος alypos (painless): someone who is not pained. alupetos is also said. Theopompus

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.821; Morison 2014. 115 F 399

Citation Context Photius and the Synagoge give only one of several meanings of the term ἄλυπος here, in a form and sense appropriate to (inter al.) S. El. 1002 or E. IA 163; the note may (as Theodoridis thought) have originated in the Atticist lexicon of Aelius Dionysius (α 83), or in a note on such a passage in the tragedians (though no extant scholion glosses the term, and indeed the scholiasts to Euripides often use ἄλυπος as a gloss on rarer terms, e. g. Σ Hec. 538, Ph. 891 etc.). Pollux, in a discussion of terms meaning “happy,” also preserves some related material, though without mentioning Theopompus (3.98): ἴσως δ’ ἂν αὐτοῖς προσήκοι καὶ τὸ ἄλυπος καὶ ἀλύπως· Πλάτων (Leg 12.958E) δὲ καὶ ἀλυπήτως ἔφη, ὥσπερ Σοφοκλῆς (Tr. 168, OC 1662) ἀλύπητον to these words you could add also alupos and alupōs; Plato (Lg. 12.958E) also said alupētōs, just as Sophocles (said) alupēton (Tr. 168, OC 1662). As Kock notes (pace K. A.), it is not possible to determine whether the lexica claim that Theopompus used ἄλυπος or ἀλύπητος. They are both rare, and although Theopompus’ name stands next to ἀλύπητος, this word also became more common in later Greek (Vett. Val. 6.9.44, Porph. Abst. 3.27, Man. 4.103, Procl. in R. 1.123), and is used by Photius in his own writings, e. g. Bibl. 454b; it may therefore simply be a gloss, with Theopompus’ name intended to illustrate the use of the primary lemma Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Either word could belong to either Theopompus: ἄλυπος is found in both prose (X. Oec. 8.2, Pl. Phileb. 43c) and comedy (Hermipp. fr. 77.5; Men. Dysc. 663); ἄλυπητος is not found in comedy, but is in tragedy (S. Tr. 168, OC 1662) and prose (Pl. Lg. 10.958e; also Alypetos, the name of the Spartan polemarch mentioned by Xenophon at HG 5.4.52). Interpretation The adjective ἄλυπος can mean either “feeling no pain” (S. El. 1002, E. Alc. 475) or “giving no pain” (S. OT 593, E. Ba. 423); as mentioned above, it

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. dub. 102)

233

belongs to both verse and prose, though not before the fifth century. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that ἀλύπητος functions the same way; in the few surviving classical examples, however, it always means “giving no pain” (S. Tr. 167–8, where, pace LSJ, τὸ λοιπὸν ἤδη ζῆν ἀλυπήτῳ βίῳ must mean “to live out the rest of my time in a life that gives no pain”; cf. Pl. Lg. 10.958e).

fr. dub. 102 K.–A. (3 Dem.) [Hdn.] Philet. 84 καὶ ἀμύνεσθαι λέγοντες, οὐκέτι καὶ τὴν ἄ μ υ ν α ν, εἰ μὴ Θεόπομπος ἅπαξ, καὶ ἔχειν ἄμυναν, ὥσπερ καὶ Σοφοκλῆς. καὶ ἔχειν ἄμυναν K. A.: κἄχειν ἄμυναν Demianćzuk, seq. Cohn: καὶ χειμάμυνα Radt and although they say amynesthai (to defend), they never (say) amyna (defense), except Theopompus once, kai echein amynan (also to have defense), as Sophocles also (says).

Discussion

Cohn 1888. 414

Citation Context Several Atticist texts concern themselves with the question of whether the noun ἄμυνα was classical: Phryn. Ecl. 13 Ἄμυναν μὴ εἴπῃς, ἀλλ’ εἰς ῥῆμα μεταβάλλων ἀμύνασθαι· πάντα γὰρ τὰ 〈τοῦ〉 ῥήματος δόκιμα, ἀμυνοῦμαι, ἀμύνασθαι, ἠμυνάμην, ἀμυνοῦμεν, ἀμύνομαι· τὸ δὲ ὄνομα ἀδόκιμον. amuna you shouldn’t say, but change it to the verb amunasthai; for all the forms of this verb are acceptable, amunoumai, amunasthai, ēmunamēn, amunoumen, amunomai; but the noun is unacceptable. Moeris α 151 ἄμυναν· ἡ κοινὴ συνήθεια· λέγει δὲ τῶν Ἀττικῶν οὐδείς. amunan: the common customary usage; but none of the Attic authors say it. Phot. α 1263 ἄμυνα· ὡς ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ λέγομεν οὐδέπω εὕρομεν παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, τὸ δὲ χειμάμυνα παρὰ πολλοῖς. amuna: as we ordinarily say I have never found in the ancients, but cheimamuna in many.

This note in the Philetaerus attributed to Herodian seems likely to have shared a common source with these entries; it too rejects the term, but notes examples from Theopompus and Sophocles that are absent from the other lexica Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Although Cohn favored assigning this fragment to the comic poet and Morison omits it, there is really no grounds for deciding between the two.

234

Theopompus

Text Editors have varied in their understanding of this text. K. A. understand ἄμυνα as the word that is being attributed to Theopompus, but Demianćzuk, following Cohn, prints κἄχειν ἄμυναν as a quotation illustrating Theopompus’ singular use of the noun ἄμυνα. Radt instead (S. fr. 1112) saw καὶ ἔχειν ἄμυναν as a scribal error for καὶ χειμάμυνα, since this word is also attributed to Sophocles by the Synagoge (χ 66). Interpretation The noun ἄμυνα is found first in Philo (2.31) and Plutarch (Thes. 30); the Atticists may therefore be right to suggest that it was rare or absent from classical Greek. If Theopompus used such a term, however, it could have been readily understood, on the analogy ἀμύνω : ἄμυνα :: εὐθύνω: ἔυθυνα. Theopompus may instead have used the word χειμάμυνα, literally “winter–defense” and evidentally meaning “cloak” (A. fr. 449 = Poll. 7.61, S. fr. 1112 = Synag. χ 66, Phot. α 1263).

fr. dub. 103 K.–A. (83 K.) Phot. α 1957 = Synag. α 1530 = Suda α 2507 ἀνθήλιος· ἡ σελήνη καὶ τὸ ἀποσκίασμα τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνταυγείας. ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ τὸ μίμημα ἢ ἀντάλλαγμα, ὡς Θεόπομπος. σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐπισκοτοῦντα τῷ ἡλίῳ νέφη, ἃ καὶ ἀνθήλεια καλεῖται anthelios: The moon, and the shadow from the light cast by the sun. Sometimes also an imitation or exchange, as Theopompus (uses it). It also indicates the clouds blocking the light of the sun, which are also called anthēleia

Discussion

Morison 2014. 115 F 400

Citation Context The identical entries in this lexica probably share a common source or sources with a series of short entries in Hesychius: α 5134 ἀνθήλιον· τῆς σελήνης anthēlion: of the moon α 5360 ἀντήλιοι θεοί· οἱ πρὸ τῶν πυλῶν ἱδρυμένοι. Εὐριπίδης Μελεάγρῳ (fr. 538) antēlioi gods: those positioned before the doors. Euripides in Meleager (fr. 538). ἀντήλιος· ὁ ἴσος καὶ ὅμοιος ἡλίῳ φαινόμενος, καταχρηστικῶς δὲ ὁ ἀντικρὺ ἡλίου ἱδρυμένος βωμὸς ἢ θεός antēlios: one who appears equal and the same as the sun, misapplied to a god or altar positioned opposite the sun

Photius records another meaning of the same term as well:

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. dub. 104)

235

Phot. α 2075 ἀντήλιος· ἡ ἀνακλωμένη ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου αὐγή. γίνεται δὲ περί τε δυσμὰς καὶ ἀνατολάς, καὶ οὔτε ἄνωθεν οὔτε κάτωθεν οὔτε ἐκ πλαγίου. antēlios: the reflected light of the sun. It happens during sunsets and sunrises, neither from above nor from below nor from the side.

The Synagoge (α 1530) provides the same definition, adding citations to Menander (fr. 402) and Aristotle (Mete. 372a16) to prove the Attic usage. Earlier works of Atticism take up the question of whether the word should be spelled ἀντήλιος or ἀνθήλιος (e. g. Phryn. PS fr. 249, Ael. Dion. α 157), which Photius and the Synagoge address under the lemma ἀπηλιώτης (Phot. α 2047 = Synag. α 1779); in classical Greek only ἀντήλιος is used, but since all examples are tragic, it is unclear what Theopompus would have written. Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Morison is as equivocal on the assignment of this fragment as K. A.; the word appears both in comedy (Men. fr. 402) and in Hellenistic prose (Eratosth. Cat. 1.30). Interpretation Before Theopompus this word appears only in tragedy, and means “facing the sun,” either in the sense “looking east” (S. Aj. 805, E. Ion 1550) or in reference to statues of gods who stood before the house doors (A. Ag. 519, E. fr. 538). Although later the term takes on the various meanings attested in the lexica, in no other text does it appear to mean either “imitation” or “exchange”; if this was indeed the meaning it had in Theopompus, it must have been in a context that made this meaning clear, e. g. an extended metaphor about sunlight or moonlight.

fr. dub. 104 K.–A. Phot. τ 213 τετύχηκεν: οἷον συμβέβηκεν· τέτευχεν δὲ ἐπιτέτευχεν· τὸ μέντοι γ ε γ ρ ά φ η κ ε ν παρὰ Θεοπόμπω καὶ ἑτέροις βάρβαρον. tetuchēken: it has happened; but teteuchen (means) epiteteuchen (it has befallen); g e g r a p h ē k e n (he has written) in Theopompus and others, however, is barbarous.

Discussion

Morison 2014. 115 F 403

Citation Context Phrynichus (ecl. 374) also comments on the proper perfect tense forms of τυγχάνω, recommending τετύχηκε instead of τέτευχε. Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet This form of the perfect of γράφω is not otherwise found before the 3rd century BCE (Archimed. Spir. 2.11, P.Hib. 1.78.2); the citation could therefore belong to either author. For Photius’ use of the name Theopompus in citations, see above on fr. 100.

236

Theopompus

Interpretation In Attic, the perfect of γράφω is normally γέγραφα: Cratin. fr. 132, Th. 5.26.1, Isoc. 10.1, X. Ap. 1.3, IG I3 34.59 (448/7 BCE), I3 61.10 (424/3 BCE). The alternative form γεγράφηκα is found in a handful of inscriptions (in addition to its use by Archimedes): IG XI 4.1026 (Delos, early 2nd c. BCE), Smyrna 10.101 (Ionia, 245–243 BCE). Given these 3rd–century examples, it is unnecessary to suppose (following Morison) that the word was delivered by a barbarian. See Curtius 1883. 265, who notes that γεγραφηκότος also appears in several of the best mss. of X. An. 7.8.1.

fr. dub. 105 K.–A. Eust. p. 368.37–41(I.581.27–31) = Paus. Att. κ 14 = Ael. Dion. κ 11 ἰστέον δὲ καί, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἡ τῶν καρβάνων ἤτοι βαρβάρων λέξις ἐκ τῶν Καρῶν εἰλῆφθαι δοκεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ παρὰ τῷ Παυσανίᾳ κάρδακες, ὅ ἐστι στρατιῶται περὶ Ἀσίαν. Αἴλιος Διονύσιος οὕτω φησί· “κ ά ρ δ α κ ε ς οὐ δίκαιόν τι γένος, ἀλλὰ οἱ μισθοῦ στρατευόμενοι βάρβαροι, παρὰ Θεοπόμπῳ”. ἁπλῶς δέ, φησίν, οἱ Πέρσαι πάντα τὸν ἀνδρεῖον καὶ κλῶπα κάρδακα ἐκάλουν. You should know that karbanoi, that is “barbarians,” is not the only word that seems to have been taken from the Carians, but also (the word) kardakes in Pausanias, that is mercenaries around Asia. Aelius Dionysius says the following: “K a r d a k e s are not a proper ethnicity, but rather barbarians serving in an army for pay, in Theopompus.” He says that the Persians simply used to call any brave bandit a kardax.

Discussion

Erbse 1950. 44, 248–49; Charles 2012. 16

Citation Context Prompted by the mention of the mountain Mykale at Il. 2.869, Eustathius mentions that there is a city in Caria of the same name, and then launches into a discussion of place names and other words that have made their way into Attic from the language and dialects spoken in Caria. One of these, he claims, is the word kardakes. He cites the Atticists Pausanias and Aelius Dionysius; similar entries in Hesychius (κ 788) and Photius (κ 177) must also draw on the early Atticists or share a common source with them. The ultimate source of this information may have been Hecataeus by way of Strabo (15.3.18); he who claims (in a passage with some textual difficulties, on which see Bremmer and Horsfall 1987 39 n.59) that groups of young Persian men in military training were called kardakes: καλοῦνται δ’ οὗτοι Κάρδακες, ἀπὸ κλοπείας τρεφόμενοι· κάρδα γὰρ τὸ ἀνδρῶδες καὶ πολεμικὸν λέγεται these men were called kardakes, since they supported themselves by theft: for karda means bravery and warlike spirit

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. dub. 106)

237

Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Bosworth (1980. 208) and Tuplin (1996. 147 n.32) identify this Theopompus as the historian, but Erbse (1950. 44, 248–49) argued for the comic poet. Although Morison omits this fragment, Theopompus Historicus does discuss Caria and the Carians a number of times (115 F 103, 299, 305, 391 [where he discusses Mykale]), and shows a distinct interest in mercenaries (e. g. 115 F 105–112, fragments of Book 13 in which he recounts the work of the mercenaries Chabrias and Agesilaus in Egypt). Interpretation The word kardakes was evidently a Persian term used in Greek to refer to foreign mercenaries, originally (or perhaps always) in reference to bands of young Persian men who were in training as soldiers and available for hire: Strabo 15.3.18 (possibly drawing on Hecataeus; see Bremmer and Horsfall 1987. 38–39); Arrian 2.8.6 (where the word is spelled καρδάκκες); Plb. 5.79.11; Nepos Datam. 8.1. See Charles 2012, with extensive bibliography..

fr. dub. 106 K.–A. (88 K.) Antiatt. κ 73 κ α τ ᾶ ρ α ι · ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν. Θεόπομπος. k a t a r a i (to come down): for elthein (to come). Theopompus.

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.821; Morison 2014. 115 F 265

Citation Context From the epitome of the 2nd c. CE lexicon known as the “Antiatticist,” for its broader definition of Attic, contained among the lexica Segueriana. Since κατᾶραι can mean ἐλθεῖν in particular circumstances, but also has a broader set of possible meanings, this gloss probably originated in a commentary on a particular use of the term, in the aorist infinitive. Hesychius provides a similar gloss, but in the aorist first person plural (κ 1772: κατήραμεν· ἤλθομεν) and without a citation to Theopompus; both lexica may have shared a common source Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Morison notes that historians often use the verb in this sense, including in the narration of events also covered by Theopompus Historicus; it is, however, also used by the comic poets in this sense, e. g. Ar. Av. 1288. Interpretation The verb καταίρω is often used either to mean “descend” (E. Ba. 1294, Ar. Av. 582, 1288, X. Eq. 12.7) or “enter port” (Th. 8.39, Plb. 1.38.7). The gloss ἐλθεῖν is much more general; Meineke suggested it should be understood in the sense κατελθεῖν, “to come down.” See Morison on Theopompus Historicus 115 F 265, with Bruce 1967. 134.

238

Theopompus

fr. dub. 107 K.–A. (91 K.) Phot. λ 1 λάβδα· ἐπὶ ταῖς ἀσπίσιν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐπέγραφον, ὥσπερ οἱ Μεσ〈σ〉ήνιοι Μ. Εὔπολις (fr. 394) “ἐξεπλάγη γὰρ ἰδὼν στίλβοντα τὰ Λάβδα.” οὕτως καὶ Θεόπομπος. Labda: The Lacedaemonians used to paint it on their shields, like the Mes〈s〉enians painted (the letter) mu. Eupolis (fr. 394): “for he was panic–struck when he saw the labdas shining.” So also Theopompus.

Discussion

Olson 2014. 155–6; Morison 2014. 115 F 402

Citation Context Photius’ explanation here clearly shares a common source with Eust. in. Il. 293.39–41, which provides the same details but omits the mention of Theopompus. Hesychius λ 8 (λάβδα· ὅπλον, “labda: shield”) probably represents an abbreviated version of the same source. Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Photius and Eustathius both mention the Messenians, a comparison which is otherwise without obvious motivation; Olson therefore suggests that they were drawing on an earlier account of an incident recorded in Pausanias (4.28.5–6), when a group of Messenians painted over the mu on their shields with a “distinctly Spartan mark” and were thus able to disguise themselves as Spartans. These Messenians, Pausanias tells us, were allies of Philip II of Macedon, the subject of Theopompus’ grandest historical work, the Philippika; Olson concludes, therefore, that the shared source of Pausanias, Photius, and Eustathius was the historian Theopompus, and that this fragment refers to that account. Since the name Theopompus is cited here, however, simply as a parallel to the citation from Eupolis, it is also possible that Photius had the comic poet in mind. Interpretation The supposedly Spartan custom of painting a Λ on their shields is attested only in these passages of Photius and Eustathius, and perhaps in Pausanias. Other Greeks, however, did paint the first letter of their ethnonym on their shields, e. g. the Σ of the Sikyonians (X. HG 4.4.10). See Chase 1902, Anderson 1970. 18–20; Lazenby 1985. 30 (though contrary to his citation, which is reproduced by Morison, Xenophon does not provide evidence for the Spartan Λ, only for the Sikyonian Σ); Olson 2014. 156.

fr. dub. 108 K.–A. (97 K.) Priscian. Inst. 7.7 Theopompus (posuit) Χ ά ρ η pro Χάρης. Theopompus (used) C h a r ē (as the vocative) for Charēs.

Discussion

Meineke 1839 II.821; Brown 1987. 200

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta et fragmenta dubia (fr. dub. 108)

239

Citation Context At Institutiones Grammaticae 7.6, Priscian (the early 6th c. CE grammarian) begins a discussion of vocatives of the first declension; as he does elsewhere, he provides both Latin and Greek examples. His citation of Theopompus follows Alcaeus fr. 419 LP. Assignment to the Historian or the Comic Poet Since we know from Athenaeus (12.532b–d) that Theopompus the historian discussed the Athenian general Chares (PAA 979280; cf. X. HG 7.2–4) at length (see also Morison 2014. 115 F 213, 249), it seems mostly likely that he is the Theopompus Priscian had in mind. An epigram by Asclepiades (AP 6.308), however, refers to “the old comic man Chares” (τὸν κωμικὸν… Χάρητα / πρεσβύτην); if we take this to indicate that “Chares” was a stock comic name, then Priscian’s citation could perhaps refer to the comic poet instead. Interpretation The name Χάρης was a common one at Athens; LGPN gives a dozen examples in the fifth and fourth centuries. In comedy, a Charēs is mentioned at Ar. Ach. 604 (see Olson 2002. 229) and at Heraclides fr. 1; the latter was probably the general mentioned above, who was active too late to be the object of a reference in Theopompus comicus. If the name did appear in Asclepiades’ epigram, it developed at some point into a stock comic name, but Bergk emended it there to the known comic name Chremes (Χρέμητα); see Brown. Although Priscian is correct that Χάρη would be the standard vocative of this name, X. HG 7.2.20 shows that Χάρης was also used.

240

Bibliography Abresch, F. J., 1755. Dilucidationum Thucydidearum Pars Prima, Utrecht. Akrigg, B., and R. Tordoff (eds.), 2013. Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Greek Comic Drama, Cambridge. Allen, J. T., 1924. The Greek Theatre of the Fifth Century Before Christ, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Alpers, K., 1981. Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros, Berlin and New York. Anagnostou–Laoutides, E., 2015. “Herodas’ Mimiamb 7: Dancing Dogs and Barking Women”, CQ 65: 153–66. Anderson, J. K., 1970. Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Anderson, J. K., 1991. “Hoplite Weapons and Offensive Arms”, in V. D. Hanson (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London and New York: 15–37. Andrews, A. C., 1956. “Melons and Watermelons in the Classical Era”, Osiris 12: 368–75. Arnott, W. G., 1996. Alexis: The Fragments, Cambridge. Arnott, W. G. 2007. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z, London. Arnott, W. G., 2010. “Middle Comedy”, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden: 279–332. Ashby, C., 1999. Classical Greek Theatre: New Views of an Old Subject, Iowa City. Auhagen, U., 2009. Die Hetäre in der griechischen und römischen Komödie, Munich. Ault, B. A., 2000. “Living in the Classical polis: The Greek House as Microcosm”, CW 93: 483–96. Austin, C., and S. D. Olson, 2004. Aristophanes Thesmophoriazusae. Oxford. Austin, N., 1975. Archery at the Dark of the Moon, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Austin, R. G., 1940. “Greek Board–Games”, Antiquity 14: 257–71. Bagordo, A., 2013. Telekleides: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Heidelberg. Bain, D., 1984. “Female Speech in Menander”, Antichthon 18: 24–42. Bakola, E., 2010. Cratinus and the Art of Old Comedy, Oxford. Bakola, E., L. Prauscello, and M. Telò (eds.), 2013. Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genres, Cambridge. Ballengee, J. R., 2009. The Wound and the Witness: The Rhetoric of Torture, Albany. Barrett, W. S. 1964. Euripides Hippolytus, Oxford. Baumbach, M., 2001. “Protos Heuretes”, NP 10: 466–67. Beall, E. F., 2004. “Overtures of the Peasant’s, Poets, and Later Arias: Voiced Creatures in Hesiod and Others”, CML 24: 95–120. Beazley, J. D., 1927–28: “Aryballos”, BSA 29: 187–215. Bechtel, F., 1902. Die attischen Frauennamen, Göttingen. Beekes, R., 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden. Bekker, I., 1814. Anecdota Graeca, vol. 1, Lexica Segueriana, Berlin. Belardinelli, O., O. Imperio, G. Mastromarco, M. Pellegrino, and P. Totaro (eds.), 1998. Tessere: Frammenti della commedia greca, Bari. Bentein, K., 2012. “Verbal Periphrasis in Ancient Greek”, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 90: 5–56. Bergk, T., 1838. Commentationum de reliquiis comoediae atticae antiquae, Leipzig. Beschi, L. 1967–68. “Il monumento di Telemachos, fondatore dell’ Asklepieion ateniese”, ASAA 45–46: 381–436. Bianchi, F. P., 2016. Kratinos, Archilochoi – Empipramenoi, Heidelberg.

Bibliography

241

Biles, Z. P., and S. D. Olson., 2015. Aristophanes Wasps, Oxford. Bing, P., 2011. “Afterlives of a Tragic Poet: Image and Hypothesis in the Hellenistic Reception of Euripides”, in F. Montanari and A. Rengakos (eds.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar, Berlin: 199–206. Blanck, H., 2008. Il libro nel mondo antico, edizione rivista e aggiornata a cura di R. Otranto, prefazione di L. Canfora, Bari. Blaydes, F. H. M., 1890. Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta, secundum editionem Meinekianam, Halle. Blaydes, F. H. M., 1896. Adversaria in Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta, secundum editionem Kockianam, Halle. Blümner, H., 1912. Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern I, 2nd edn., Leipzig. Boardman, J., 1994. “Symposion Furniture”, in Murray 1994: 122–31. Boardman, J., and C. Wagner, 2012. “Luxury Arts”, in T. J. Smith and D. Plantzos (eds.), A Companion to Greek Art, Oxford and Malden. Bonanno, M. G., 1968. “Hesychiana”, Quaderni dell’ Istituto di Filologia Greca 3, 88–98. Borgeaud, P., 1996. Mother of the Gods: From Cybele to the Virgin Mary, Baltimore. Borthwick, E. K., 1994. “New Interpretations of Aristophanes Frogs 1249–1328”, Phoenix 48: 21–41. Bosworth, A. B., 1980. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, Vol. 1: Commentary on Books I–III, Oxford. Bothe, F. H. (ed.), 1855. Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta post Augustum Meineke, Paris. Brandwood, L., 1990. The Chronology of Plato’s Dialogues, Cambridge. Braswell, B. K., 1988. A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar, Berlin and New York. Braun, T., 1995. “Barley cakes and emmer bread,” in Wilkins et al. 1995: 25–37. Breitenbach, H., 1908. De Genere Quodam Titulorum Comoediae Atticae, Basel. Bremmer, J. N., 2004. “Attis: A Greek God in Anatolian Pessinous and Catullan Rome”, Mnemosyne 57: 534–73. Bremmer, J. N., and N. M. Horsfall, 1987. Roman Myth and Mythography, Oxford. Brock, R., 1994. “The Labour of Women in Classical Athens”, CQ 44: 336–46. Brock. R., 1990. “Plato and Comedy”, in E. M. Craik (ed.), Owls to Athens, Oxford: 39–50. Brommer, F., 1982. Theseus: Die Taten des griechischen Helden in der antiken Kunst und Literature, Darmstadt. Brown, P. G. McC., 1987. “Masks, Names, and Characters in New Comedy”, Hermes 115: 181–202. Bruce, I. A. F., 1967. A Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, Cambridge. Brun, J–P., 2000. “The Production of Perfumes in Antiquity: The Cases of Delos and Paestum”, AJA 104: 277–308. Bruno, M., 1990. “L’ accouchement dans la Grèce antique: Eileithyia : une nouvelle lecture iconographique de la naissance d’Athéna”, Connaissance Hellénique 42: 11–20. Buchanan, J. J., 1962. Theorika, New York. Buckler, J., 2003. Aegean Greece in the Fourth Century BC, Leiden. Bühler, W. 1982. Zenboii Athoi proverbia, Göttingen. Burkert, W., 1983. Homo Necans (transl. by P. Bing), Berkeley and Los Angeles.

242

Bibliography

Buitron, D., and B. Cohen., 1992. “The Odyssey and Ancient Art”, in D. Buitron et al. (eds.), The Odyssey and Ancient Art: An Epic in Word and Image, Annandale–on–Hudson, NY: 13–178. Cahill, N. 2002. Household and City Organization at Olynthus, New Haven. Calame, C., and P. Vidal–Naquet, 1990. Thésée et l’imaginaire athénien: Légende et culte en Grèce antique, Lausanne. Calinescu, A. 1996. Ancient Jewelry and Archaeology, Bloomington. Cameron, A., 1991. “How Thin Was Philitas?”, CQ 41: 534–38. Cardon, C., 1979. “Two Omphalos Phialai”, J.Paul Getty Museum Journal 6–7: 131–38. Carnap–Bornheim, C. von., 1994. “Some Observations on Roman Militaria of Ivory”, JRMES 5: 27–32. Caroli, M., 2010. “‘Un acquisto per l’eternità’: La pubblicità dei libri nel mondo antico”, Kleos 21: 107–76. Carter, J. B., 1985. Greek Ivory–Carving in the Orientalizing and Archaic Periods, New York. Casaubon, I., 1621. Animadversionum in Ath. Dipnosophistas Libri XV, Lyons. Casolari, F., 2003. Die Mythentravestie, Münster. Casson, L., 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton. Cavallo, G., 1994. Discorsi sui libri, in G. Cambiano (ed.), Lo Spazio Letterario della Grecia Antica, vol. 1, Roma: 622–39. Chadwick, J., 1996. Lexicographica Graeca, Oxford. Chantraine, P., 1970. Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque, Paris. Chantry, M., 1985. “Note sur deux vers de Théopompe”, REG 98: 133–34. Charles, M. B., 2012. “The Persian ΚΑΡΔΑΚΕΣ”, JHS 132: 7–21. Chase, G. H., 1902. “The Shield Devices of the Greeks”, HSCP 13: 61–127. Clausing, A., 1913. Kritik und Exegese der hom. Gleichnisse im Altertum, Freiburg. Clinton, K., 2005. “Pigs in Greek Rituals”, in R. Hägg and B. Alroth (eds.), Greek Sacrifice Ritual, Olympian and Cthonian, Stockholm: 167–79. Cobet, C. G., 1840. Observationes Criticae in Platonis Comici Reliquias, Amsterdam. Cobet, C. G., 1858. Novae Lectiones, Leiden. Cohen, E. E., 2015. Athenian Prostitution, Oxford. Cohn, L., 1888. “Unedirte Fragmente aus der atticistischen Litteratur”, RhM 1888: 405–18. Cole, S. G., 1994. “Demeter in the Ancient Greek City and its Countryside”, in S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the Gods, Oxford: 199–216. Collard, C., 2018. Colloquial Expressions in Greek Tragedy: Revised and Expanded Edition of P. T. Stevens’s Colloquial Expressions in Euripides, Stuttgart. Collard, C. and M. Cropp, 2008. Euripides: Fragments, Cambridge, MA. Collin–Bouffier, S, 2000. “La cuisine des Grecs d’Occident, symbole d’une vie de tryphé?”, Pallas 52: 195–208. Comentale, N. 2017. Hermippos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Heidelberg. Compton–Engle, G., 2015. Costume in the Comedies of Aristophanes, Cambridge. Coppola, G., 1923. “Il ΦΑΙΔΡΟΣ DI ALESSIDE”, RIGI 7: 55–59. Couch, H. N., 1934. “Swimming Among the Greeks and Barbarians”, CJ 29: 609–12. Couvenhes, J.–C., 2007. “La fourniture d’armes aux citoyens athéniens du IVe au IIIe siècle avant J.–C.”, in P. Sauzeau and T. van Compernolle (eds.), Les armes dans l’Antiquité, Montpellier: 521–540. Cox, C., 2013. “Coping with punishment: The social networking of slaves in Menander”, in Akrigg and Tordoff 2013: 159–72.

Bibliography

243

Cromey, R. D., 1991. “History and Image: The Penelope Painter’s Akropolis (Louvre G372 and 480/79 BC)”, JHS 111: 165–74. Cunningham, I. C., 2003. Synagoge: Texts of the Original Version and MS B, Berlin and New York. Cunningham, I. C., 2020. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. II.1: E–I, Berlin. Curtius, G. 1883. The Greek Verb (transl. by A. S. Wilkins and E. B. England), 2nd edn., London. Dale, A. M., 1968. The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama, Cambridge. Dalby, A., 1996. Siren Feasts: A history of food and gastronomy in Greece, London and New York. Dalby, A., 2003. Food in the Ancient World from A to Z, London and New York. Damon, C., 1998. The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage, Ann Arbor. Davidson, A., 2002. Mediterranean Seafood, 3rd edn., Berkeley and Toronto. Davidson, J. N., 1997. Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, Chicago. Davidson, J. N., 2007. The Greeks and Greek Love, London. Davie, J. N., 1982. “Theseus the King in Fifth–Century Athens”, G&R 29: 25–34. Davies, J. K., 1971. Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B. C., Oxford. Dearden, C. W., 1976. The Stage of Aristophanes, London. Debord, P. 2001. “Les Mysien: du mythe al’histoire”, in V. Fromentin and S. Gotteland (eds.), Origines Gentium, Pessac: 135–46. Dedoussi, C., 1964. “Studies in Comedy”, Hellenika 18: 1–10. Del Corso, L., 2003. “Materiali per una protostoria del libro e delle pratiche di lettura nel mondo greco”, S&T 1: 5–78. Delneri, F., 2006. I Culti Misterici Stranieri nei Frammenti della Comedia Attica Antica, Bologna. Demand, N. H., 1994. Birth, Death, and Motherhood in Classical Greece, Baltimore. Demand, N. H., 1995. “Monuments, Midwives, and Gynecology”, Clio Medica 27: 257–90. Denniston, J. D., 1954. The Greek Particles, 2nd edn., Oxford. Dercy, B., 2015. Le travail des peaux et du cuir dans le monde grec antique, Naples. Desrousseaux, A. M., 1935. “Sur quelques fragments des Comiques”, in Mélanges offerts a M. Octave Navarre, Toulouse: 139–158. Detienne, M., 1990. “The Violence of Wellborn Ladies: Women in the Thesmophoria”, in M. Detienne and J.–P. Vernant (eds.), The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks (trans. by P. Wissing), Chicago: 129–47. de Vries, G. J., 1956. “De Filosoof in de Komedie”, Hermeneus 17: 2–9. Dickey, E., 1996. Greek Forms of Address, Oxford. Dickey, E, 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship, Oxford. Diggle, J, 2004. Theophrastus: Characters. Cambridge. Dindorf, W., 1827. Athenaeus, Leipzig. Dittmer, W. A., 1923. The Fragments of Athenian Comic Didascaliae Found in Rome, Leiden. Dobree, P. P. 1831–3. Adversaria, vol. 2, Cambridge. Dobrov, G. W., 2001. Figures of Play: Greek Drama and Metafictional Poetics, Oxford. Doehring, P., 1916. De Luciano Atticistarum irrisore, Berlin. Doherty, L. E., 1995. “Sirens, Muses, and Female Narrators in the Odyssey”, in B. Cohen (ed.), The Distaff Side: Representing the Female in Homer’s Odyssey, Oxford: 81–92. Dombrowski, D. A., 1984. “Was Plato a Vegetarian?”, Apeiron 18: 1–9. Dover, K., 1968. Aristophanes Clouds, Oxford.

244

Bibliography

Dover, K., 1974. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Indianapolis. Dover, K., 1985. “Some Types of Abnormal Word–Order in Attic Comedy”, CQ 35: 324–43. Dover, K., 1989. Greek Homosexuality, Cambridge, MA. Dover, K., 1991. “Fathers, Sons, and Forgiveness”, ICS 16: 173–82. Dover, K., 1993. Aristophanes Frogs, Oxford. Dübner, J. F., 1842. Scholia graeca in Aristophanem, Paris. duBois, P., 1993. Torture and Truth. New York. Ducat, J., 1994. Les Pénestes de Thessalie, Paris. Dunbar, N., 1995. Aristophanes Birds, Oxford. Düring, I., 1941. Herodicus the Cratetean: A Study in the Anti–Platonic Tradition, Stockholm. Dutsch, D. 2015. “Dog–Love–Dog: ‘Kynogamia’ and Cynic Sexual Ethics”, in M. Masterson, N. S. Rabinowitz, and J. Robson (eds.), Sex in Antiquity, London: 245–59. Edelstein, E., and L. Edelstein, 1945. Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, Baltimore. Edmonds, J. M., 1957. The Fragments of Attic Comedy, Leiden. Edwards, A. T., 1991. “Aristophanes Comic Poets: ΤΡΥΞ, Scatology, ΣΚΩΜΜΑ”, TAPA 121: 157–79. Ekroth, G. 2018. “Vernant et les os : théorie et pratique du sacrifice grec”, in S. Georgoudi and F. de Polignac (eds.), Relire Vernant, Paris: 83–115. Elferink, L. J., 1934. Lekythos, Amsterdam. Emperius, A. C. W., 1847. Opuscula philologica et historica, Göttingen. Encinas Reguero, M. del C., 2010. “Ξίφος y δόρυ en la tragedia y la épica griegas”, AC 79: 1–16. Erbse, H., 1950. Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika, Berlin. Faraone, C. A., and L. K. McClure (eds.), 2006. Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, Madison, WI. Farmer, M. C., 2017a. “Playing the Philosopher: Plato in Fourth–Century Comedy”, AJP 138: 1–41. Farmer, M. C., 2017b. Tragedy on the Comic Stage, Oxford. Farmer, M. C., 2020. “Theopompus’ Homer: Paraepic in Old and Middle Comedy”, CP 115: 339–64. Faure, P., 1987. Parfums et aromates de l’antiquité. Paris. Favazza, S., 1903. Di Alcune Commedie Antiche di Fonte Omerica, Catania. Fenk, R., 1913. Adversarii Platonis quomodo de indole ac moribus eius iudicaverint, Jena. Fikret, Y. K., 1992. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, MA. Fisher, N., 2004. “The Perils of Pittalakos: Settings of Cock Fighting and Dicing in Classical Athens,” in S. Bell and G. Davies (eds.), Games and Festivals in Classical Antiquity, Oxford: 65–78. Fitton, J. L. (ed.), 1992. Ivory in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Period, London. Foerster, R., and E. Richtsteig., 1972. Choricii Gazae Opera, Leipzig. Foley, H. P., 2008. “Generic Boundaries in Late Fifth– Century Athens”, in M. Revermann and P. Wilson (eds.), Performance, Iconography, Reception, Oxford: 15–36. Forbes, R. J., 1966. Studies in Ancient Technology, vol. 5, Leiden. Fraenkel, E., 1922. Plautinisches im Plautus, Berlin. Fraenkel, E., 1950. Aeschylus Agamemnon, Oxford. Fraenkel, E., 1962. Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes, Rome.

Bibliography

245

Frayn, J. M., 1975. “Wild and Cultivated Plants: A Note on the Peasant Economy of Roman Italy,” JRS 65: 32–9 Fritzsche, F. V., 1839. De Mercede Iudicum, Rostock. Fritzsche, F. V., 1857–58: De comicae graecae fragmentis, Rostock. Gagarin, Michael 1996. “The Torture of Slaves in Athenian Law”, CP 91: 1–18. Gantz, T., 1980. “The Aischylean Tetralogy: Attested and Conjectured Groups”, AJP 101: 133–64. Gantz, T, 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore. Garland, R., 1990. The Greek Way of Life, Ithaca. Garland, R, 2001. The Greek Way of Death, 2nd edn., Ithaca. Garnsey, P., 1988. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco–Roman World, Cambridge. Garnsey, P., 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge. Garrison, E. P., 1991. “Attitudes toward Suicide in Ancient Greece”, TAPhA 121: 1–34. Geissler, P., 1969. Chronologie der altattischen Komödie, 2nd edn., Dublin and Zürich. Gelzer, T. 1960. Der epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes, Munich. Gerber, D. E., 1978. “The Female Breast in Greek Erotic Literature”, Arethusa 11: 203–12. Gil, L., 1970. “Alexis y Menandro”, EClás 14: 311–345. Gilhuly, K., 2015. “Lesbians Are Not From Lesbos”, in R. Blondell and K. Ormand (eds.), Ancient Sex: New Essays, 143–76, Columbus. Ginouvès, R., 1962. Balaneutikè: Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque, Paris. Goldberg, S. M., 1980. The Making of Menander’s Comedy, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Goldstein, M. S., 1978. The Setting of the Ritual Meal, Diss. Berkeley. Goossens, R., 1940. “Sur quelques fragments de la Comédie Ancienne”, REA 42, 157–60. Gow, A. S. F., 1952. Theocritus, Cambridge. Gow, A. S. F., 1965. Machon: The Fragments, Cambridge. Gavrilov, A. K., 1996. “Anytos–ΕΜΒΑΔΑΣ und der Prozess des Sokrates”, MH 53; 100–105. Gregory, J., 2007. “Donkeys and the Equine Hierarchy in Archaic Greek Literature”. CJ 102: 193–212. Gresseth, G. K., 1970. “The Homeric Sirens”, TAPA 101: 203–18. Griffin, J., 1995. Homer Iliad IX, Oxford. Griffith, G. T., 1935. The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World, Cambridge. Griffith, R. D. 2015–16: “Cannibal Demeter (Pind. Ol. 1.52) and the Thesmophoria Pigs”, CJ 111: 129–39. Griffith, M., 2006. “Horsepower and Donkeywork: Equids and the Ancient Greek Imagination”, CP 101: 181–246, 307–58. Griswold, C. L. and D. Konstan (eds.), 2012. Ancient Forgiveness: Classical, Judaic, and Christian, Cambridge. Grossardt, P., 2001. Die Erzählung von Meleagros: Zur literarischen Entwicklung der kalydonischen Kultlegende, Leiden. Gutzwiller, K., 2000. “The Tragic Mask of Comedy: Metatheatricality in Menander”, ClAnt 19: 102–37. Hainsworth, B., 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 3, Cambridge. Hall, E., 2006. The Theatrical Cast of Athens, Oxford. Hall, J. M., 2002. Hellenicity, Chicago. Halliwell, S., 2011. Between Ecstasy and Truth: Interpretations of Greek Poetics from Homer to Longinus, Oxford. Halperin, D. M., 1990. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, New York. Halperin, D. M., 2002. How to Do the History of Homosexuality, Chicago.

246

Bibliography

Hamel, D., 2003. Trying Neaira: The True Story of a Courtesan’s Scandalous Life in Ancient Greece, New Haven. Handley, E. W., 1985. “Comedy.” In P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox (eds.), Cambridge History of Classical Literature, Cambridge: 1.355–425. Hanink, J., 2014. Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy, Cambridge. Hanson, V. D., 1989. The Western Way of War, New York. Harrison, A. R. W., 1971. The Laws of Athens vol. 2, Oxford. Harvey, D., 1995. “Lydian Specialties, Croesus’ golden baking–women, and dogs’ dinners,” in Wilkins et al. 1995: 273–85. Harvey, D., and J. Wilkins (eds.), 2000. The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London. Haupt, M., 1875. Opuscula, vol. 1, Leipzig. Hausmann, U. 1948. Kunst und Heiltum: Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Asklepiosreliefs, Potsdam. Haussleiter, J., 1935. Der Vegetarismus in der Antike, Berlin. Headlam, W. G., 1922. Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments, Cambridge. Helm, P. R., 1981. “Herodotus’ Mēdikos Logos and Median History”, Iran 19: 85–90. Helm, R., 1906. Lukian und Menipp, Leipzig and Berlin. Henderson, J., 1972. “The Lekythos and Frogs 1200–1248”, HSCP 76: 133–43. Henderson, J., 1987a. Aristophanes Lysistrata, Oxford. Henderson, J., 1987b. “Older Women in Attic Old Comedy”, TAPA 117: 105–29. Henderson, J., 1991. The Maculate Muse, 2nd edn., Oxford. Henderson, J., 2000. “Pherekrates and the Women of Old Comedy”, in Harvey and Wilkins 2000: 135–50. Henderson, J., 2002. “Strumpets on Stage: The Early Comic Hetaera”, Dioniso 1, 78–87. Henderson, J. 2003. Aristophanes V: Fragments, Cambridge, MA. Henderson, J., 2012. “Pursuing Nemesis: Cratinus and Mythological Comedy”, in Marshall and 2012: 1–12. Henrichs, A., 1980. “Riper than a Pear: Parian Invective in Theokritos”, ZPE 39: 7–27. Hepding, H., 1903. Attis, seine Mythen und sein Kult, Giessen. Herter, H., 1973. “Theseus (1)”, RE Suppl. XIII: 1045–1238. Herwerden, H. van., 1855. Observationes Criticae in Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, Lyons. Heubeck, A. 1992. XXIII–XXIV, in Russo et al. 1992: 313–418. Hochschulz, B., 2007. Kallistratos von Aphidnai, Munich. Hood, S., 1978. The Arts in Prehistoric Greece, New York: Penguin. Howald, E., 1924. “Meleager und Achill”, RhM 73: 402–25. Howey, T., 2008. Pastoral Politics: Animals, Agriculture, and Society in Ancient Greece, Claremont, CA. Hubbard, T. K., 2003. Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Hübner, S. R., 2009. “Callirhoe’s Dilemma: Remarriage and Stepfathers in the Greco–Roman East”, in S. R. Hübner and D. M. Ratzan (eds.), Growing Up Fatherless in Antiquity, Cambridge: 61–82. Humbert, J., 1954. Syntaxe grecque, Paris. Hünemörder, C., 1997. “Asparagos”, DNP 2: 103. Hunt, P., 2007. “Military Forces”, in P. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Cambridge: 1.108–46. Hunter, R. L., 1983. Eubulus, Cambridge.

Bibliography

247

Hunter, R. L., 2009. Critical Moments in Classical Literature, Cambridge. Hughes, A., 2012. Performing Greek Comedy, Cambridge. Hyland, J. O., 2017. Persian Interventions: The Achaemenid Empire, Athens, and Sparta, 450–386 BCE, Baltimore. Imperio, O., 1998. “La figura dell’intellettuale nella commedia greca”, in Belardinelli et al. (eds.) 1998: 43–130. Iozzo, M. 2012. “The Dog: A Dionysiac Animal?”, RA 36: 5–22. Jacobs, F., 1809. Additamenta animadversionum in Athenei Deipnosophistas, Jena. Jacoby, F., 1923. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin. Jones, G. S., 2014. “Voice of the People: Popular Symposia and the Non–Elite Origins of the Attic Skolia”, TAPA 144: 229–62. Joyce, C. 2018. “Atimia and Outlawry in Archaic and Classical Greece”, Polis 35: 33–60. Kahn, C., 2002. “On Platonic Chronology”, in J. Annas and C. Rowe (eds.), New Perspectives on Plato, Modern and Ancient, Cambridge, MA: 93–128. Kajava, M., 2004. “Hestia: Hearth, Goddess, and Cult,” HSCP 102: 1–20. Kakridis, J. T., 1949. Homeric Researches, Lund. Kanavou, N., 2011. Aristophanes’ Comedy of Names: A Study of Speaking Names in Aristophanes, Berlin and New York. Katsouris, A. G., 1975. Tragic Patterns in Menander, Athens. Kefalidou, E., 2008. “The Argonauts Krater in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki”, AJA 112: 617–24. Kerényi, C., 1947. Der göttliche Arzt: Studien über Asklepios und seine Kultstätten, Basel. Kidd, S. E., 2017. “How to Gamble in Greek: The Meaning of Kubeia”, JHS 137: 119–34. Kirk, G. S., 1985. The Iliad, A Commentary, I, Cambridge. Kitchell, K. F., Jr., 2014. Animals in the Ancient World from A to Z, London. Kleberg, T., 1969. Buchhandel und Verlagswesen in der Antike, Darmstadt. Kleingünther, A. 1933. Protos Heuretes: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung, Leipzig. Kock, T., 1875. “Comicorum graecorum emendations”, RhM 30: 398–418. Kock, T., 1880. Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1, Leipzig. Konstan, D., 2018. “Pity vs. Forgiveness in Pagan and Judaeo–Christian Narratives”, in M. P. Futre Pinheiro, Konstan, and B. D. MacQueen (eds.), Cultural Crossroads in the Ancient Novel, Berlin: 305–14. Konstan, D., 2010. Before Forgiveness: The Origins of a Moral Idea, Cambridge. Konstantinou, A., 2016. “Hestia and Eos: Mapping Female Mobility and Sexuality in Greek Mythic Thought”, AJP 137, 1–24. Kougeas, S. V., 1913. Ὁ Καισαρείας Ἀρέθας καὶ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ, Athens. Kozak, L., and J. Rich (eds.), 2006. Playing Around Aristophanes, Oxford. Kraay, C. M., 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, Berkeley. Krause, E. F., 1904. “Zu Suidas”, BZ 13: 113. Krzyszkowska, O., 1990. Ivory and Related Materials. BICS Suppl. 59, London. Kuehn, J. 1685. Cl. Aeliani Variae historiæ libri XIV, Strassburg. Kurke, L., 1997. “Inventing the “Hetaira”: Sex, Politics, and Discursive Conflict in Archaic Greece”, ClAnt 16: 106–50. Kurke, L., 1999. Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece, Princeton. Küster, L., 1710. Aristophanis Comoediae Undecim, Amsterdam. Landfester, M., 1966. Das griechische Nomen ‘philos’ und seine Ableitungen, Hildesheim.

248

Bibliography

Lanfranchi, G. B., M. Roaf, and R. Rollinger (eds.), 2003. Continuity of Empire: Assyria, Media, Persia, Padova. Lancellotti, M. G., 2002. Attis between Myth and History: King, Priest, and God, Leiden. Lapatin, K. 2015. Luxus: The Sumptuous Arts of Greece and Rome, Malibu. Lazenby, J. F., 1985. The Spartan Army, Warminster. Lederlin, J. H., and T. Hemsterhuis, 1706. Julii Pollucis Onomasticon, Amsterdam. Lefkowitz, M. 2012. The Lives of the Greek Poets, 2nd edn., Baltimore. Legouilloux, M., 2004. Le cuir et la pelleterie à l’époque romaine, Paris. Lelli, E., 2006. I proverbi greci: Le raccolte di Zenobio e Diogeniano, Soverìa Mannelli. Leo, F., 1907. “Zu den Neuen Fragmenten bei Photios”, Hermes 42: 153–55. Lever, K., 1954. “Middle Comedy, Neither Old nor New but Contemporary”, CJ 49: 167–80. Lilja, S., 1972. The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity, Helsinki. Littlewood, A. R., 1968. “The Symbolism of the Apple in Greek and Roman Literature”, HSPh 72: 147–181. Littre, É. 1839–61. Oeuvres Complètes d’Hippocrate, Paris. Lucore, S. K., and M. Trümper (eds.), 2013. Greek Baths and Bathing Culture, Leuven. Luján, E. R. 2007. “Una nota subre Heródoto V 25”, in A. Bernabé and R. Alfageme (eds.), Φίλου σκιά: studia philologiae in honorem Rosae Aguilar, Madrid: 31–36. Luschey, H., 1939. Die Phiale, Munich. Maas, M., and J. M. Snyder, 1989. Stringed Instruments of Ancient Greece, New Haven. MacDowell, D. M., 1993. “Foreign Birth and Athenian Citizenship in Aristophanes”, in Sommerstein et al. 1993: 359–71. Mactoux, M–M., 1990. “Esclaves et rites de passage”, MEFRA 102: 53–81. Madvig, J. N., 1871. Adversaria Critica ad Scripotres Graecos et Latinos, Cophenhagen. Malkin, I., 1987. Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece, Leiden. March, J. R., 1987. The Creative Poet: Studies on the Treatment of Myths in Greek Poetry, London. Marót, K., 1958. “The Sirens”, Acta Ethnographica 7: 1–59. Marshall, C. W., 2016. “Aelian and Comedy: Four Studies”, in C. W. Marshall and T. Hawkins (eds.), Athenian Comedy in the Roman Empire, London: 197–22. Marshall, C. W., and G. Kovacs (eds.), 2012. No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy, Bristol. Martin, R. P., 2017. “Crooked Competition: The Performance and Poetics of ‘Skolia,’”, in E. J. Bakker (ed.), Authorship and Greek Song, Leiden: 61–79. Marx, F. 1963. C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae, Amsterdam. Mastromarco, G., 2006. “La paratragodia, il libro, la memoria,” in E. Medda, M. S. Mirto, M. P. Pattoni (eds.), Komoidotragoidia, Pisa: 137–91. Mastromarco, G., 2012. “Commercio librario e testi teatrali attici nel quinto secolo a. C.”, in P. Fioretti (ed.), Storie di cultura scritta, Spoleto: 585–604. Mastromarco, M., 1998. “La degradazione del monstro: La maschera del Ciclope nella commedia e nel drama satiresco del quinto secolo a. C.”, in Belardinelli et al. (eds.) 1998: 9–42. McCall, M., 1969. Ancient Rhetorical Theories of Simile and Comparison, Cambridge, MA. McClure, L. K., 1999. Spoken Like a Woman: Speech and Gender in Athenian Drama, Princeton. McClure, L. K., 2006. “Introduction”, in Faraone and McClure 2006: 3–20. McInerney, J. 2010. The Cattle of the Sun, Princeton. Mehl, E., 1931. “Schwimmen”, RE Suppl. 5: 847–64.

Bibliography

249

Mehl, V. 2009. “Le temps venu de la maternité”, in L. Bodiou and V. Mehl (eds.), La religion des femmes en Grèce ancienne, Rennes: 193–206. Meineke, A. (ed.), 1839. Fragmenta poetarum comoediae antiquae. Berlin. Meisterhans, K., 1900. Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, 3rd edn., Berlin. Melfi, M., 2007. I Santuari di Asclepio in Grecia, Rome. Merkelbach, R., 1980. “Der Kult der Hestia im Prytaneion der griechischen Städte”, ZPE 37: 77–92. Mesturini, A. M., 2001. Rhythmos: Percorsi (alternativi) della tradizione classica, Genoa. Meyer, G., 1895. Neugriechische Studien III: Die lateinischen Lehnworte in Neugriechischen, Vienna. Miccolis, E. 2017. Archippos: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Heidelberg. Mikalson, J. D., 1972. “Noumenia and Epimenia in Athens”, HThR 65: 291–96. Miller, W. 1929–32. Daedalus and Thespis: The Contributions of the Ancient Dramatic Poets to Our Knowledge of the Arts and Crafts of Greece, Columbia, MO. Millis, B. W., 2015. Anaxandrides: Introduction, Translation, Commentary, Heidelberg. Millis, B. W., and S. D. Olson, 2012. Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens, Leiden. Mills, S., 1997. Theseus, Tragedy, and the Athenian Empire, Oxford. Mirhady, D. C., 1996. “Torture and Rhetoric in Athens”, JHS 116: 119–31. Mirhady, D. C., 2000. “The Athenian Rationale for Torture”, in J. C. Edmondson and V. J. Hunter (eds.), Law and Social Status, Oxford: 53–74. Morison, W. S., 2014. “Theopompos of Chios”, in I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby, Leiden. Moritz, L. A., 1958. Grain–Mills and Flours in Classical Antiquity, Oxford. Morrow, K. D., 1985. Greek Footwear and the Dating of Sculpture, Madison, WI. Müller, K. 1841–73. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Paris. Murray, O. 1990. Sympotica, Oxford. Murray, O., and M. Tecusan (eds.), 1994. In Vino Veritas, Oxford. Musurus, M., 1514. Athenaei Deipnosophistarum libri XV Graece, Venice. Naber, S. A., 1864. Prolegomena, Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, Leiden. Nails, D. 2002. The People of Plato, Indianapolis. Naoumides, M., 1968. “New Fragments of Ancient Greek Poetry”, GRBS 9, 267–90. Nauck, A., 1851. “Zu den fragmenten der griechischen Komiker”, Philologus 6: 412–426. Nauck, A., 1894. “Bemerkungen zu Kock Comicorum Atticorum fragm.”, Mél. Gr.–Rom. 6: 53–180. Neeft, C. W., 1987. Protocorinthian Subgeometric Aryballoi, Amsterdam. Nesselrath, H.–G., 1990. Die attische mittlere Komödie, Berlin and New York. Nesselrath, H.–G., 1995. “Myth, parody, and comic plots: the birth of gods and Middle Comedy,” G. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta: 1–27. Nieddu, G. F., 2004. La scrittura ‘madre delle Muse’, Amsterdam. Norwood, G., 1931. Greek Comedy, London. Nünlist, R., 2009. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia, Cambridge. Ogden, D., 2011. “Homosexuality”, in M. Golden and P. Toohey (eds.), A Cultural History of Sexuality, Volume 1: A Cultural History of Sexuality in the Ancient World, Oxford: 37–54. Ogden, J., 1992. Ancient Jewelry, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Ogle, M. B., 1910. “Laurel in Ancient Religion and Folk–Lore”, AJP 31, 304–7.

250

Bibliography

Olivieri, A., 1939. “Il Comico Alessi di Turii”, Dioniso 7: 279–95. Olson, S. D., 1998. Aristophanes Peace, Oxford. Olson, S. D., 2002. Aristophanes Acharnians, Oxford. Olson, S. D., 2006–2012: Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, Cambridge, MA. Olson, S. D., 2007. Broken Laughter, Oxford. Olson, S. D., 2014. Eupolis: Fragmenta incertarum fabularum, fragmenta dubia, Heidelberg. Olson, S. D., 2016. Eupolis: Heilotes – Chrysoun Genos, Heidelberg. Olson, S. D., 2017. Eupolis: Introduction, Testimonia, Aiges – Heilotes, Heidelberg. Olson, S. D., and A. Sens., 1999. Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE, Atlanta. Olson, S. D., and A. Sens., 2000. Archestratus of Gela. Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE, Oxford. Olson, S. D., and R. Seaberg 2018. Kratinos frr. 299–514: Translation and Commentary, Heidelberg. Ophuijsen, J. M. van., 1987. Hephaestion on Metre, Leiden. Orth, C. 2009. Strattis: Die Fragmente. Heidelberg. Orth, C. 2013. Alkaios – Apollophanes, Heidelberg. Orth, C. 2014. Aristomenes – Metagenes, Heidelberg. Osborne, R. 1987. Classical Landscape with Figures: The Ancient Greek City and its Countryside, London. Overduin, F., 2014. Nicander of Colophon’s Theriaca: A Literary Commentary, Leiden. Painter, C. M., 2013. “The Vegetarian Polis: The Just City in Plato’s Republic and Ours”, Journal of Animal Ethics 3: 121–132. Padgett, J. M., 2000. “The Stable Hands of Dionysos: Satyrs and Donkeys as Symbols of Social Marginalization in Attic Vase Painting”, in B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal, Leiden: 43–70. Papachrysostomou, A. 2016. Amphis: Introduction, Translation, Commentary, Heidelberg. Parker, R., 1983. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford. Parker, R., 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford. Parker, L. P. E., 1997. The Songs of Aristophanes, Oxford. Parker, L. P. E., 2007. Euripides Alcestis, Oxford. Pellegrino, M., 2013. Nicofonte: Introduzione, Traduzione, e Commento, Heidelberg. Peponi, A.–E., 2012. Frontiers of Pleasure, Oxford. Peppler, W., 1902. Comic Terminations in Aristophanes and the Comic Fragmetns, Baltimore. Perrone, S. 2019. Krates: Introduzione, Traduzione, e Commento, Heidelberg. Perrone, S. 2020. “Homer on the Comic Stage”, in A. Rengakos et al. (eds.), More Than Homer Knew: Studies on Homer and His Ancient Commentators, Berlin: 339–62. Petersen, W. 1910. Greek Diminutives in –ιον. Weimar. Petrakova, A. 2015. “The Emotional Dog in Attic Vase–Painting: Symbolical Aspects and Instrumental Narrative Function”, in C. Lang–Auinger and E. Trinkl, Pflanzen und Tiere auf griechischen Vasen, Vienna: 291–98. Petridou, G. 2014. “Asclepius the Divine Healer, Asclepius the Divine Physician: Epiphanies as Diagnostic and Therapeutic Tools”, in D. Michaelides (ed.), Medicine and Healing in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford: 297–307. Petropoulos, J. C. B., 2003. Eroticism in Ancient and Medieval Greek Poetry, London. Phillips, E. D., 1959. “The Comic Odysseus”, G&R 6: 56–67. Pickard–Cambridge, A., 1946. The Theatre of Dionysus at Athens, Oxford. Pickard–Cambridge, A., 1962. Dithyramb, Tragedy, and Comedy, 2nd edn., Oxford.

Bibliography

251

Pierson, J., 1759. Moeris Atticista, Lexicon Atticum, Leiden. Pirrotta, S. 2009. Plato Comicus: Die fragmentarischen Komödien, Berlin. Platter, C., 2013. “Plato’s Aristophanes”, in S. D. Olson (ed.), Ancient Comedy and Reception: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Henderson, Berlin and Boston: 133–65. Pokorny, J. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Munich. Pollard, J., 1965. Seers, Shrines, and Sirens, London. Porson, R., 1812. Adversaria, Cambridge. Porson, R., 1820. Notae in Aristophanem, Cambridge. Porson, R., 1824. Euripidis Medea, Leipzig. Porter, J.R., 1999–2000. “Euripides and Menander: Epitrepontes, Act IV”, ICS 24/25: 151–73. Poursat, J.–C., 1977. Les Ivoires Mycéniens, Paris. Pritchett, W. K., 1971. The Greek State at War, Part I, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Purcell, N., 1995. “Eating Fish: The Paradoxes of Seafood”, in Wilkins et al. 1995: 132–49. Quincey, J. H., 1945. “The Metaphorical Sense of Lekythos and Ampulla”, CQ 43: 32–44. Rabe, H., 1892. “Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto”, RhM 47: 404–13. Rau, P., 1967. Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes, Munich. Redard, G., 1949. Les Noms grecs en –της, –τις et principalement en –ιτης, –ιτις: Étude philologique et linguistique, Paris. Rees, K., 1915. “The Function of the ΠΡΟΘΥΡΟΝ in the Production of Greek Plays”, CP 10: 117–38. Reitzenstein, R., 1893. Epigramm und Skolion, Geissen. Reitzenstein, R., 1907. Der Anfang des Lexikons des Photios, Leipzig and Berlin. Renehan, R., 1976. Studies in Greek Texts, Göttingen. Revermann, M., 2013. “Paraepic comedy: Point(s) and practices”, in Bakola et al. 2013: 101–28. Richards, H., 1909. Aristophanes and Others, London. Richardson, N. J., 2006. “Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch”, in A. Laird (ed.), Oxford Readings in Ancient Literary Criticism, Oxford: 176–210. Richter, G. M. A., and M. J. Milne, 1973. Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases, New York. Riethmüller, J. W., 2005. Asklepios: Heiligtümer und Kulte, Heidelberg. Riginos, A. S., 1976. Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato, Leiden. Roberts, C. H., 1938. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Vol. 3: Theological and Literary Papyri, Manchester. Robson, J., 2015. Sex and Sexuality in Classical Athens, Edinburgh. Roemer, A., 1905. “Zur Kritik und Exegese von Homer, Euripides, Aristophanes und den alten Erklären derselben”, Abhandlungen der philosophisch–philologischen Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 22: 557–56. Roisman, J., and I. Worthington (eds.), 2015. Lives of the Attic Orators: Texts from Pseudo– Plutarch, Photius and the Suda, translated by Robin Waterfield, Oxford. Roller, L. E., 1999. In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Rolleston, J. D., 1927. “Alcoholism in Classical Antiquity”, British Journal of Inebriety 24: 101–20. Roselli, D. K. 2005. “Vegetable–Hawking Mom and Fortunate Son: Euripides, Tragic Style, and Reception”, Phoenix 59: 1–49. Roselli, D. K. 2011. Theater of the People: Spectators and Society in Ancient Athens, Austin.

252

Bibliography

Rosen, R. M. 2006a. “Aristophanes, Fandom, and the Classicizing of Greek Tragedy”, in Kozak and Rich 2006: 27–47. Rosen, R. M. 2006b. “Aristophanes, Old Comedy, and Greek Tragedy”, in R. Bushnell (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Tragedy, Oxford: 251–68. Rosen, R. M. 2007. Making Mockery: The Poetics of Ancient Satire, Oxford. Rosenbloom, D., 2002. “From Ponēros to Pharmakos: Theater, Social Drama, and Revolution in Athens, 248–404 BCE”, ClAnt 21: 283–346. Rothwell, K. S., 2007. Nature, Culture, and the Origins of Greek Comedy: A Study of Animal Choruses, Cambridge. Rouse, W. H. D., 1902. Greek Votive Offerings, Cambridge. Ruck, C. 1975. “Euripides’ Mother: Vegetables and the Phallos in Aristophanes”, Arion 2: 13–57. Ruffell, I. A., 2011. Politics and Anti– Realism in Athenian Old Comedy: The Art of the Impossible, Oxford. Russo, J., 1992. “Books XVII–XX”, in Russo et al. 1992: 3–130. J. Russo, M. Fernandez–Galiano, and A. Heubeck (eds.), 1992. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey vol. 3, Oxford. Rusten, J. (ed.), 2011. The Birth of Comedy, Baltimore. Rutherford, W. G., 1881. The New Phrynichus, London. Ruxer, M., 1938. Histoire du collier en Grèce, Poznań. Salmasius, C., 1639. De Modo Usurarum Liber, Leiden. Salmon, J. B., 1984. Wealthy Corinth, Oxford. Sanchis Llopis, J. L., 2002. “La comedia mitológica de Teopompo”, in M. J. García Soler (ed.), Homenaje a P. A. Gainzaráin, Vitoria: 115–125. Sancisi–Weerdenburg, H., 1995. “Persian Food: Stereotypes and Political Identity”, in Wilkins et al. 1995: 286–302. Sealey, R., 1967. Essays in Greek Politics. New York. Schaps, D., 1991. “When Is a Piglet Not a Piglet?”, JHS 111: 208–9. Schaps, D., 1996. “Piglets Again”, JHS 116: 169–71. Scharffenberger, E., 2012. “Axionicus, The Euripides Fan”, in Marshall and Kovacs 2012: 156–76. Schauber, H. 2001. “Der Thyrsos und seine pfanzliche Substanz”, Thetis 8: 35–46. Scheid, J. 2016. “‘Moerae”, ‘Ilithyiae’, ‘Terra mater’, des Grecques très Romaines”, in Bonnet et al. (eds.), Dieux des Grecs, dieux des Romains, Rome: 37–43. Schiller, C., 1835. Andocidis Orationes Quattor, Leipzig. Schlesier, R. 2011. A Different God? Dionsyos and Ancient Polytheism, Berlin. Schmid, W. and O. Stählin, 1929. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. Munich. Schmidt, J., 1888. “Ulixes Comics”, Jarbücher für classische Philologie Suppl. 16: 375–403. Schmitt, R., 1984. “Perser und Persisches in der Attischen Komödie”, in Orientalia J. Duchesne–Guillemin Emerito Oblata, Leiden: 459–72. Schneidewin, F. G., 1839. Coniectanea Critica, Göttingen. Schneidewin, F. G., 1848. “Hymnorum in Attin fragmenta inedita”, Philologus 3: 247–66. Scholtz, A., 1996. “Perfume from Peron’s: The Politics of Pedicure in Anaxandrides Fragment 41 Kassel–Austin”, ICS 21: 69–86. Schorn, S., 2004. Satyros aus Kallatis: Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar, Basel. Schütte–Maischatz, A., 2011. Die Phiale  – zur zeichenhaften Funktion eines Gefäßtyps, Münster.

Bibliography

253

Schweighäuser, J. 1801–7. Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas post Isaacum Casaubonum, Strasbourg. Schwenk, C. J., 1985. Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws and Decrees of ‘The Lykourgan Era’ 338–322 B. C., Chicago. Scodel, R., 2005. Odyssues’ Dog and the Productive Household, 401–8. Scodel, R., 2017. “The Euripidean Biography”, in L. McClure (ed.), A Companion to Euripides, Oxford and Malden: 27–41. Scullion, S., 1994. “Olympian and Cthonian”, ClAnt 13: 75–119. Seaford, R., 1984. Euripides Cyclops, Oxford. Sells, D., 2013. “Slaves in the fragments of Old Comedy”, in Akrigg and Tordoff 2013: 91–110. Servadei, C., 2005. La Figura di Theseus nella Ceramica Attica, Bologna. Sfameni Gasparro, G. 1985. Soteriology and Mystic Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and Attis, Leiden. Shaw, C. A., 2014. Satyric Play: The Evolution of Greek Comedy and Satyr Drama, Oxford. Sibson, R., 1979. “Some Thoughts on Cicadas”, Prudentia 11: 105–7. Sifakis, G. M., 1971. Parabasis and Animal Choruses, London. Silk, M. S., 1985. “Greek –τρια and the inauthenticity of Archilochus 331”, Eos 73, 239–46. Silk, M. S., 2000. Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy, Oxford. Skempis, M., 2010. Kleine Leute und große Helden in Homers Odyssee und Kallimachos’ Hekale, Berlin and New York. Skoda, F. 2003. “L’expression de qualités physiques et de propriétés efficientes: les emplois médicaux de μαλακός et μαλθακός”, REG 116: 73–90. Slater, W. J., 1976. “Symposium at Sea”, HSCPh 80, 161–70. Slater, W. J., 1991. Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor. Smith, D. R., 2005. “New Evidence for the Identification of Aphrodite on Staters of Corinth”, Numismatic Chronicle 165: 41–43. Smith, W., and C. Anthon, 1843. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, New York. Snell, B, and H. Maehler, 1970. Bacchylidis carmina cum fragmentis, Leipzig. Snipes, K., 1988. “Literary Interpretation in the Homeric Scholia: The Similes of the Iliad”, AJP 109: 196–222. Snodgrass, A. M., 1967. Arms and Armor of the Greeks, Baltimore. Sommerstein, A. H., 1996. “How to Avoid Being a Komodoumenos”, CQ 46: 327–56. Sommerstein, A. H., 2000. “Platon, Eupolis, and the ‘Demagogue–Comedy,’ in Harvey and Wilkins 2000: 439–52. Sommerstein, A. H. 2001. Aristophanes Wealth. Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H., 2009. Talking About Laughter, Oxford. Sommerstein, A. H., S. Halliwell, J.. Henderson, and B. Zimmermann (eds.), 1993. Tragedy, Comedy, and the Polis, Bari. Sommerstein, A. H., and I. C. Torrance (eds.), 2014. Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, Berlin and Boston. Sournia, J. C., 1987. “L’alcooisme dans la Grèce antique”, in Archéologie et medicine, Antibes: 523–30. Souto Delibes, F., 2002. “El rol de la prostituta en la comedia: De Ferécrates a Menandro”, CFC(G) 12: 173–91. Sparkes, B. A., 1962. “The Greek Kitchen”, JHS 82: 121–37. Sparkes, B. A., 1995. “A Pretty Kettle of Fish”, in Wilkins et al. 1995: 150–161. Stama, F., 2014. Frinico: Introduzione, Traduzione, e Commento, Heidelberg.

254

Bibliography

Stanford, W. B., 1969. “The Lily Voice of the Cicadas (Il. 3.152)”, Phoenix 23: 3–8. Stark, R., 1972. Aristotelesstudien: Philologische Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der aristotelischen Ethik, 2nd edn., Munich. Steeves, H. P., 2015. “The Dog on the Fly”, in J. Bell and M. Naas, Plato’s Animals, Bloomington: 96–11. Steger, F. 2016. Asklepios: Medizin und Kult, Stuttgart. Stephanis, I. E. 1988. Διονυσιακοὶ Τεχνῖται, Herakleion. Sternberg, R. H. 2006. Tragedy Offstage: Suffering and Sympathy in Ancient Athens, Austin. Stevens, P. T., 1976. Colloquial Expressions in Euripides, Wiesbaden. Stol, M., 1985. “Cress and its mustard”, Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch–Egyptisch Genootschap 28: 24–32. Stone, L. M., 1980. Costume in Aristophanic Poetry, Salem. Storey, I. C., 1988. “Thrasymachos at Athens: Aristophanes fr. 205 (‘Daitales’)”, Phoenix 42: 212–18. Storey, I. C. 2003. Eupolis: Poet of Old Comedy, Oxford. Storey, I. C., 2008. “‘Bad’ Language in Aristophanes”, in I. Sluiter and R. M. Rosen (eds.), Kakos: Badness and Anti–Value in Classical Antiquity, Leiden: 119–142. Storey, I. C., 2011. Fragments of Old Comedy: Vol. 3, Philonicus to Xenophon, Adespota. Cambridge, MA. Stylianou, P. J., 1998. A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus Book 15, Oxford. Sudhoff, K. 1926. “Handanlegung des Heilgottes auf attischen Weihetafeln”, Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 18: 235–50. Suess, G., 1905. De personarum antiquae comoediae Atticae usu atque origine, Bonn. Sutton, D. F., 1987. “The Theatrical Families of Athens”, AJP 108: 9–26. Szemerényi, O., 1964. Syncope in Greek and Indo–European, Naples. Taaffe, L. K., 1993. Aristophanes and Women, London and New York. Taillardat, J., 1965. Les images d’Aristophane, Paris. Taillardat, J., 1967. Περὶ Βλασφημιῶν, Περὶ Παιδιῶν, Paris. Taplin, O., 1978. Greek Tragedy in Action, London. Taplin, O., 1993. Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drma through Vase–Paintings, Oxford. Taplin, O., 2007. Pots & Plays: Interactions Between Tragedy and Greek Vase–Painting of the Fourth Century B. C., Malibu. Telò, M., 2010. “Embodying the Tragic Father(s): Autobiography and Intertextuality in Aristophanes”, ClAnt 29: 278– 326. Telò, M., 2013. “Epic, nostos, and generic genealogy in Aristophanes’ Peace”, in Bakola et al. 2013: 129–54. Telò, M., 2016. Aristophanes and the Cloak of Comedy, Chicago. Theodoridis, C., 1982. Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, vol. 1, Berlin and New York. Theodoridis, C., 1998. Photii Patriarchae Lexicon, vol. 2, Berlin and New York. Thesleff, H., 1954. Studies on Intensification in Early and Classical Greek, Helsinki. Thesleff, H., 1982. Studies in Platonic Chronology, Helsinki. Thompson, D. W., 1947. Glossary of Greek Fishes, London. Threatte, L. 1980–1996. The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, Berlin abd New York. Tod, M. N., 1947. “Epigraphical Notes on Greek Coining: III. ΟΒΟΛΟΣ”, NC 7: 1–27. Toeppel, J., 1857. De Fragmentis Comicorum Graecorum Quaestionis Criticae Specimen II, Neubrandenburg.

Bibliography

255

Toeppel, J., 1867. De Fragmentis Comicorum Graecorum Quaestionis Criticae Specimen III, Neubrandenburg. Tolles, D., 1943. The Banquet–Libations of the Greeks, Ann Arbor. Tordoff, R. 2007. “Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae and Plato’s Republic”, in R. Osborne (ed.), Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution, Cambridge: 242–63. Torrance, I. 2013. Metapoetry in Euripides, Oxford. Toup, J., 1790. Emendationes in Suidam et Hesychium et alios lexicographos Graecos, Oxford. Traill, J. S., 1975. The Political Organization of Attica: A Study of the Demes, Trittyes, and Phylai, and Their Representation in the Athenian Council, Princeton. Tsantsanoglou, K., 1984. New Fragments of Greek Literature from the Lexicon of Photius, Athens. Tuplin, C., 1996. Achaemenid Studies, Stuttgart. Tyree, E. L. 1974. Cretan Sacred Caves, Columbia, MO. Ussher, R. G., 1973. Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae, Oxford. Valckenaer, L. C., 1739. Animadversionum ad Ammonium Grammaticum, Leiden. van Hooff, A. J., 1990. From Autothanasia to Suicide: Self–killing in Classical Antiquity, London and New York. Vannicelli, P., 2012. “The Mythical Origins of the Medes and the Persians”, in E. Baragwanath and M. de Bakker (eds.), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus, Oxford: 255–68. Vermaseren, M. J., 1982. Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque, Leiden. Versnel, H. S., 2011. Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology, Leiden and Boston. Villard, P., 1984. “Pathologie et thérapeutique de l’ivresse dans l’antiquité classique”, Cahiers de nutrition et diététique 19: 225–27. Villebrune, L. de., 1789. Banquet des Savans par Athénée, v. 4, Paris. Wagner, R. J. T., 1905. Symbolarum ad Comicorum Graecorum Historiam Criticam Capita Quattor, Leipzig. Walker, H. J., 1995. Theseus and Athens, New York and Oxford. Wardle, D., 1993. “Did Suetonius Write in Greek?”, Acta Classica 36: 91–103. Waters, M., 2014. Ancient Persia, Cambridge. Watson, P. A., 1995. Ancient Stepmothers: Myth, Misogyny, and Reality, Leiden. Watson, S. B., 2014. “Euripides: A Guide to Selected Sources”, Living Poets (https://livingpoets.dur.ac.uk/w/Euripides:_A_Guide_to_Selected_Sources). Webster, T. B. L., 1960. Studies in Menander, 2nd edn., Manchester. Webster, T. B. L., 1970. Studies in Later Greek Comedy, 2nd edn., Manchester. Weicker, G., 1884. “Seirenen”, in W. H. Roscher (ed.), Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie, Leipzig: 4.601–39. Weiher, A., 1913. Philosophen und Philosophenspott in der attischen Komödie, Munich. Weinreich, O. 1909. Antike Heilungswunder, Giessen. West, M. L., 1978. Hesiod Works and Days, Oxford. West, M. L., 1992. Greek Music, Oxford. West, M. L., 1996. Die griechische Dichterin, Berlin and New York. Westlake, H. D., 1935. Thessaly in the Fourth Century B. C., London. White, J. W., 1912. The Verse of Greek Comedy, London. White, S. A., 1995. “Thrasymachus the Diplomat”, CP 90: 307–27. Whitehead, D., 1986. The Demes of Attica 508/7–ca. 250 BC: A Political and Social Study, Princeton. Whitman, C. H., 1964. Aristophanes and the Comic Hero, Cambridge, MA.

256

Bibliography

Whittaker, M., 1935. “The Comic Fragments in their Relation to the Structure of Old Attic Comedy”, CQ 29: 181–91. Wickkiser, B. L., 2008. Asklepios, Medicine, and the Politics of Healing in Fifth–Century Greece, Baltimore. Wilamowitz–Moellendorff, U. von., 1886. Isyllos von Epidauros, Berlin. Wilamowitz–Moellendorff, U. von., 1931–32. Der Glaube der Hellenen, Berlin. Wilamowitz–Moellendorff, U. von., 1959. Platon: Sein Leben und seine Werke. 5th edn., Berlin. Wilhelm, A., 1906. Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, Wien. Wilkins, J.M, D. Harvey, and M. Dobson (eds.), 1995. Food in Antiquity, Exeter. Wilkins, J. M., 2000. The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy, Oxford. Wilkins, J. M., and S. Hill., 2006. Food in the Ancient World, Malden. Willcock, M. M., 1964. “Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad”, CQ 14: 141–54. Willetts, R. F. 1958. “Cretan Eileithyia”, CQ 52: 221–23. Wilson, J. R., 1971. “Tolma and the Meaning of Talas”, AJP 92: 292–300. Wilson, N. G. 1997. Aelian: Historical Miscellany, Cambridge, MA. Wilson, N. G., 2007. Aristophanea: Studies on the Text of Aristophanes, Oxford. Wordsworth, C., 1842. The Correspondence of Richard Bentley, London. Wright, M., 2012. The Comedian as Critic: Greek Old Comedy and Poetics, Bristol. Wright, M., 2013. “Poets and Poetry in Later Greek Comedy”, CQ 63: 603–22. Zeitlin, F. I., 1981. “Travesties of Gender and Genre in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae”, in H. P. Foley (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity, New York: 169–219. Ziehen, J., 1892. “Studien zu den Asklepiosreliefs”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 17: 229–51. Zohary, D., M. Hopf and E. Weiss. 2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 4th edn., Oxford.

257

Indices Index Fontium Ael. Dion α 135: fr. dub. 85 κ 11: fr. dub. 105 κ 20: fr. 92 Aelian fr. 102 Domingo–Forasté: test. 2 Antiatt. a 134: fr. 21 κ 73: fr. dub. 106 Ath. 1.23c–e: fr. 65 2.50e: fr. 68 2.62e: fr. 69 3.82c: fr. 20 4.165b: fr. 35 4.183e: fr. 50 6.264a: fr. 78 7.302e: fr. 24 7.308a: fr. 14 7.324b: fr. 6 9.368c: fr. 9 9.374b: fr. 10 9.399c–d: fr. 24 9.399d: fr. 52 10.422f–423a: fr. 23 11.470f: fr. 33 11.481d: fr. 32 11.483e: fr. 55 11.485c: fr. 31 11.485c: fr. 41 11.485f: fr. 42 11.501f: fr. 4 14.649b: fr. 63 14.652f: fr. 12 14.657a: fr. 49 15.690a: fr. 1 15.690a: fr. 17 15.700e: fr. 8 Ath. Epit. 2.68d: fr. 76 Clem. Alex. Strom. 6.19.5–8: fr. 70 Cyrill. ap. Naoumides 1968. 281: fr. 2 D.L. 3.26: fr. 16 Erot. Voc. Hipp. λ 22: fr. 37

Et. Gen. A: fr. 64 AB: fr. 33 AB: fr. 43 B: fr. 51 Eust. p. 368.37–41: fr. dub. 105 p. 560.14: fr. 13 p. 1604.4–5: fr. 67 p. 1854.18: fr. 18 p. 1863.50–52: fr. *34 p. 1910.10–1: fr. 92 Gell. 15.20.1: fr. dub. 98 Harp. κ 26: fr. 60 κ 27: fr. 15 [Hdn.] Philet. 84: fr. dub. 102 Heph. 40–42: fr. 39 IG II2 2325.68: test. 4 II2 2325.129: test. 5 Orus Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας fol. 281r: fr. 74 Paus. Att. κ 14: fr. dub. 105 Phot. α 66: fr. 18 α 163: fr. 48 α 563: fr. 7 α 632: fr. 73 α 722: fr. 4 α 1057: fr. dub. 101 α 1903: fr. dub. 85 α 1957: fr. dub. 103 α 2807: fr. 84 α 3097: fr. 75 α 3263: fr. dub. 88 α 3483: fr. dub. 81 β 34: fr. dub. 89 γ 20: fr. dub. 90 ε 1757: fr. 43 ε 1797: fr. 51 θ 168: fr. 33 κ 381: fr. 60

258 Phot. (cont.) κ 569: fr. 92 λ 1: fr. dub. 107 λ 398–399: fr. 2 μ 427: fr. 13 ν 57: fr. 82 ο 245: fr. 62 ρ 56: fr. 44 τ 213: fr. dub. 104 t 378: fr. dub. 100 Phryn. Ecl. 151: fr. 93 Plut. Lys. 13.7: fr. 66 [Plut.] Vit. X Orat. 839e–f: fr. 19 Poll. 2.10: fr. 59 2.18: fr. 80 2.122: fr. 97 2.234: fr. 72 3.27: fr. 13 3.39: fr. 95 3.75: fr. 91 3.124: fr. 86 5.98: fr. 96 6.25: fr. 94 6.85: fr. 83 6.103: fr. 8 7.66: fr. 38 7.73–74: fr. 37 7.158: fr. 26 7.181: fr. 54 7.190: fr. 82 9.16: fr. 47 9.59: fr. 22 9.64: fr. 56 9.145: fr. 26 10.41: fr. 46 10.49: fr. 45 10.109: fr. 54 10.118: fr. 8 10.123–4: fr. 11 10.180: fr. 3 10.181: fr. 38 Priscian. Inst. 7.7: fr. dub. 108 Inst. 18.213: fr. 57 Proleg. de com. VIII.1: test. 3

Index Fontium Suda α 103: fr. 18 α 122: fr. dub. 99 α 2361: fr. dub. 85 α 2507: fr. dub. 103 α 3870: fr. dub. 87 α 4355: fr. 28 θ 171: test. 1–2 θ 353: fr. 33 κ 712: fr. 60 κ 878: fr. 15 λ 674: fr. 2 π 1080: fr. 53 ρ 62: fr. 44 Synag. α 61: fr. 18 α 145: fr. 48 α 636: fr. 73 α 786: fr. 4 α 999: fr. dub. 101 α 1336: fr. dub. 85 α 1353: fr. 72 α 1530: fr. dub. 103 α 2123: fr. dub. 87 α 2377: fr. 28 α 2481: fr. dub. 88 Thom. Mag. κ 201: fr. 93 Zenob. vulg. 4.44: fr. 29 Zonar. pg. 388: fr. 79 pg. 920–21: fr. 77 Σ Areth. Pl. Apol. p. 18B: fr. 58 Σ Ar. Ach. 1021a: fr. 27 Nu. 663b: fr. 10 V. 525b: fr. dub. 99 V. 1221: fr. 61 V. 1346a: fr. 36 Av. 31: fr. 61 Av. 1406: fr. 25 Av. 1569: fr. 40 Lys. 45: fr. 53 Pl. 768: fr. 15 Pl. 1138c: fr. 71 Pl.. 179b: fr. 5 Σ Luc. Lexiph. 6: fr. 18 Σ Pi. P. 2.78a: fr. 30

Index Verborum

Index Verborum ἀβυρτάκη: 76–78 ἀγαλμάτιον: 153 αἱμασιολογέω: 201 ἄκατος: 40 ἀλεκτρυών: 59 ἀλίδακρυς: 216 ἄλυπος: 232–33 ἀναφέρω: 193 ἀνέχω: 217 ἀνθήλιος: 234–35 ἀπαλλάσσω: 55 ἀπεσθίω: 183 ἀριστάω: 87 ἄρτος: 57 ἀρύβαλλος: 219 ἀσπάζομαι: 116 ἀσφάραγος: 196 ἀτιμόω: 204 αὐλέω: 158–59 αὐτο–: 81 αὐτόκακος: 81 αὐτόχειρ: 220 ἄχθομαι: 59 ἁψίμαχος: 213 βάκχος: 221–22 βασανιστήριον: 186 βατύλη: 48–49 βιβλιοπώλης: 210 βλαστάνω: 45 βλίτον: 182–83 γενναῖος: 115 γραῦς: 116 γράφω: 235–36 δαιδάλεος: 121 δέλφαξ: 154–55 δέρμα: 148 δεσπότης: 209 διαχράομαι: 183 δόρυ: 97 δουλοπρέπεια: 223 εἰκάζω: 122 ἐκπίνω: 140 ἐλευθερία: 191 Ἕλλην: 191 ἐπιρροφέω: 231 ἐπιστατέω: 171

ἐπιτήθη: 143 ἐρεείνω: 109 εἰμί with participle: 203 ἑταῖρος: 84–85 εὐβουλία: 184 εὐδαίμων: 125 εὐοδέω: 207–8 εὔχρως: 94–95 ζητρεῖον: 186–87 ἥβη: 134 θήρ: 148 θυεία: 164 ἰχθύς: 89 καπηλίς: 91 κάρδακες: 237 κάρδαμον: 78 κατάδεσμος: 133–34 καταίρω: 237 καταπλήξ: 176 κατάχυσμα: 69–71 κελαδέω: 140 κένταυρος: 224 κέρμα: 108 κηλέω: 107 κνέφαλλον: 149 κροῦμα: 159 κυμβίον: 110 κυνάριον: 225 κώθων: 109 κώμη: 142 λάχανον: 68 λεκάνη: 139, 215 λεπαστή: 110 λεπύχανον: 122 λεύω: 210–11 λήκυθος: 164 λοπάς: 31–2 μάζα: 63 μαλθακός: 205 μειράκιον: 182 μεσόμφαλος: 38 μεταδίδωμι: 98 μετρέω: 98 Μῆδος: 78, 102 μητρυιός: 64 μύρον: 30

259

260 Μύσιος: 178 ναυτίς: 214 νῆστις: 68 νυμφίος: 71 ξιφομάχαιρα: 55 ὀβελισκολύχνιον: 55 ὀγκάς: 44 οἰμώζω: 189 οἰνο–: 212 ὄλολυς: 179 ὄνος: 44–45 οὐσία: 184 παῖς: 131 πενέστης: 209 πέπων σικυός: 205–6 περιβαρίδες: 162 περιζώννυμι: 133 πικρός: 55 πλακοῦς: 63 πόλις: 45 πονηρός: 58 πράσον: 78–79 πρόθυρον: 186 προφερής: 173 πρωτόπειρος: 227 πυκνός: 139–40 ῥαχιστής: 144 σανδάλιον: 145 σάττω: 149 σκληφρός: 173 σόρος: 31

Index Locorum σόφισμα: 128 στατηριαῖος: 85 στρατιῶτις: 165 συνάπτω: 87 σύνδουλος: 116 συνουσία: 136 σφάττω: 155 τάλας: 117 τανθαρυστός: 228 τετρωβολίζω: 169 τράχηλος: 167 –τρια: 226 τρίγωνον: 155 τρίμετρος: 94 τρύξ: 183 τρώγω: 194 ὑπογάστριον: 89 ὑπολογέω: 229 φάρμακον: 35–36 φαρμακοπώλης: 35–36 φαύλιος: 80 φενακίζω: 57 φιάλη: 39 φρυγεύς: 164 χαρίεις: 95 χαρίζομαι: 105 χιτών: 121 χλαῖνα: 61 χορός: 67–68 ᾤα: 133

Index Locorum A. Eum. 723–28: 28 Alex. fr. 140: 122 fr. 244: 79 Amelesagoras fr. 1: 104 Anaxandr. fr. 35: 179 fr. 41: 29–30 Anaxilas fr. 35: 205–6 Anaxipp. fr. 1.3–4: 128 Antiatt. α 57: 213 Antiph. fr. 293: 84

Ap. Rhod. 2.177–492: 180 Apollod. 3.10.8: 151 Ar. Ach. 1021–39: 97–98 Nu. 661–669: 59 Nu. 976: 133–34 V. 1157–69: 61 V. 60: 35 Av. 31: 178 Av. 915: 94 Lys. 45–53: 162 Ec. 943: 158–59

Index Locorum Ar. (Cont.) Ec. 179, 303: 44 Ec. 290–315: 142 Ec. 303–4: 44 Ec. 768–9, 789–801: 70–71 fr. 205: 170 fr. 858: 214 Archestr. 62.9: 215 Arist. EN 4.9: 184 HA 488b: 183 Po. 1448a: 142 Rhet. 1.1362a: 179 Ath. 6.235a: 227 11.783f: 218–19 12.552d–e: 95 15.693e–696a: 189 B. 5.93–154: 33 Call. Ap. 49: 28 Callias fr. 17: 178 Cephisod. fr. 4: 162 Choricius of Gaza 5.17: 145 Cratin. fr. 92: 178 fr. 148: 118 fr. 151: 118 fr. 153: 158–59 Diogenian. 1.9: 216 Diph. fr. 74: 124 E. Alc. 1–23: 28 Cyc. 95–114: 160–61 frr. 515–39: 33 Ephipp. fr. 16: 144 Epicr. fr. 3: 84 fr. 10: 68 Et. Gen. α 1248: 218–19 Et. Mag. s.v. βάκχος: 220–21 Eub. fr. 41: 78 Eup. fr. 102: 107 fr. 172: 178 fr. 272: 165 fr. 387: 186–87

Eust. p. 211.15: 205 p. 293.39–41: 238 p. 899.23–4: 195 Gal. 4.641.11 Κühn: 195 Geoponica 19.2.3: 167 Harp. α 260: 99 Hes. frr. 51–7 MW: 28 Hp. Aff. 41, 55: 183 Prorrh. 2.30: 197 Hsch. α 5063: 192 α 5134: 234–35 α 5360: 234–35 α 6911: 217–18 α 7197: 216 α 8965: 213 β 127: 220–21 ε 1689: 228 ε 6504: 228 ζ 150: 186–87 κ 2225: 224 κ 4763: 225 τ 138: 228 IG II2 1184.13–17: 85 H. Il. 2.235: 214 Il. 2.713–15, 763–7: 28 Il. 9.550–99: 33 Od. 12: 156 Od. 14.419–32: 154 Od. 14.80–82: 154 Od. 18.359: 201 Od. 19.215–35: 120–22 Od. 19.306–7: 153 Od. 24.224–25: 201 Lucilius fr. 1106 M: 68 Metag. fr. 14: 178 Moeris α 151: 233 Nicochares fr. 4: 44 Paus. 4.28.5–6: 238 Paus. Att. α 5: 216 τ 24: 169 Pherecyd. FGrH 3: 28 Philyllius fr. 22: 44

261

262 Phot. α 81: 216 α 259: 224 α 1263: 233 α 1925: 192 α 2075: 234–35 α 2761: 217–18 α 3038: 195 α 3131: 99 ε 1756–58: 143 τ 53: 228 τ 204: 169 Phryn. Ecl. 13: 233 PS 11.11: 212 PS 41.8–42.3: 195 PS 122: 227 Pl. Charm. 154b: 182 Crit. 112a: 104 Phd. 96a: 72–74 Phdr. 259a–c: 140 Prt. 343b: 53 R. 2.364c: 133–34 R. 4.428b–429a: 184 R. 4.439e: 93 R. 10.617: 157 Symp. 179b: 28 Pl. Com. fr. 65: 44, 205–6 Poll. 2.63: 216 3.58: 185 3.98: 232 10.63: 218–19 10.152: 218–19 Sosiphanes TrGF 92 F 1: 35 Strabo 1.2.12–13: 160–61 15.3.18: 236–37

Index Rerum et Personarum Stratt. fr. 21: 94 Suda α 126: 216 α 4297: 195 α 4354: 99 β 57: 220–21 ε 2201: 23–24 θ 171: 11 π 643: 23–24 σ 824: 23–24 τ 97: 228 φ 505: 23–24 Synag. α 153: 235 α 946: 217–18 α 2306: 195 Telecl. test. 2: 25 Telestes PMG 811: 36–40 Theopomp. Hist. 115 F 265: 237 115 F 315: 231–32 115 F 338: 185 115 F 353: 192–93 115 F 397: 229–30 115 F 399: 232–33 115 F 400: 234–35 115 F 403: 235–36 115 F 406: 230–31 Thphr. HP 3.16.4: 194 Thuc. 1.3: 191 6.2: 160–61 X. Smp. 2.3: 30 Xenophan. fr. 17: 222 Zenob. 1.14: 216 Σ A. Pers. 947b: 216 Σ Ap. Rhod. 2.178: 180 Σ Ar. Eq. 408a: 220–21 Σ Il. 1.349b: 216

Index Rerum et Personarum Acestor: 19, 174, 177–79 Admetus: 28–29 Alcestis: 28–29 Althaea: 33–35, 37–38

Amphidromia: 46 Anytos: 165, 171–72 Aphrodite: 30, 41, 85 Apollo: 52–53, 151–53

Index Rerum et Personarum Aristophanes: 11, 21–22, 43–44, 50, 52–53, 91, 114, 127, 141, 172, 177–78, 198, 230 Asclepius: 11, 22–25 Athens: 45, 68, 102–5, 153, 168, 176, 186, 210 Attis: 91, 98–100 banquet catalogues: 47, 58, 59, 62–63, 78–79, 80, 89, 160, 164, 194, 196 bathing: 131–34, 139 boats: 38–39 bread: 56–58, 62–63, 78 bulls: 201–3 cakes: 62–63, 181 Callaeschrus: 82–83 Callistratus: 29, 102–3, 105–9 Charixena: 157–59 chickens: 58–60, 215 children: 126, 131, 175–76, 180, 182, 196–97 chorus: 55, 66–68, 91, 92, 118, 131, 135, 156–57, 165 cicadas: 138–42 clothing: 35, 60–62, 119–22, 129–30, 131–34, 136, 234 coins: 83–85, 108, 167–69 cooking: 31–32, 117, 163–64, 214–15 Corinth: 41, 44, 50, 84–85, 102, 111, 114–15 Delphi: 38, 51–53, 108 Demeter: 87–90, 145, 154 Demophon: 144–45 diminutives: 16, 145, 149–53, 158, 182, 188, 225 Dionysus: 140, 220–22 dithyramb: 39–40, 92–94 dogs: 225 donkeys: 42–45 drinking vessels: 38–40, 109–10, 114–15, 139, 141–42, 166–67 eggs: 58–60, 68 Eileithuia: 174–76 euphemism: 15, 128, 133–34, 136, 225 Euripides: 123–25, 229–30 farmers: 51–53, 59 figurative language: 15, 55, 105–9, 120–22, 190–92 fish: see seafood

263

fruit: 62–63, 69–71, 80, 193–94, 205–6 gambling: 180–84 geese: 66–68 Hestia: 101 hetaira: see sex workers Homer: 15–16, 105–9, 118–22, 128–29, 151–55, 156–62, 178, 200–1 Isaeus: 75, 79 ivory: 95–97 Laispodias: 136 leather: 146–49, 171–72 Leotrophides: 92–95 Lesbos: 126–29 Lysander: 109, 189–91 marriage: 70–71, 217, 226–27 Media: see Persia medicine: 16, 180–84, 195 Megara: 34–36, 84 merchants: 29–30, 34–36, 74, 91, 97–98, 209–11 metaphors: see figurative language military service: 54–55, 106, 109, 122, 165–71, 236–37 music: 107, 140, 155, 156–59 myrrh: 29–30, 74, 219 Mysia: 177–79 mythological comedy: 13, 28–30, 33–35, 41–42, 75, 77, 111, 118–19, 151–55, 156–58, 174, 180 older people: 112–16, 196–97, 211–12 Pantaleon: 146 parabasis: 19, 135, 207 parasites: 123–25 parody: 14, 51–53, 105–9, 119–22, 123–25 peace treaties: 50, 107–8 Penelope: 119–22, 151–52 perfume: see myrrh Peron: 29–30, 74 Persia: 76–79, 102–3, 236–37 Philonides: 42–44 Phineus: 180 pigs: 151, 154–55, 224 n.43 Plato: 65, 72–74 pornē: see sex workers prologue: 19, 102–105, 114 proverbs: 15–16, 44–45, 51–53, 101, 114–16, 125, 157–59, 191, 196–97, 215–16

264

Index Rerum et Personarum

Rhadamanthys: 105–109 sacrifice: 16, 101, 154–55, 197–99, 201–3 sauces: 56–58, 70–71, 76–79 seafood: 45–47, 66–68, 87–89, 160–61, 180–84 sex and sexuality: 15, 30, 42–45, 48–49, 99–100, 103–5, 126–28, 133–34, 204–6, 223–24 sex workers: 13–14, 41–42, 83–85, 94, 111, 116, 137–38, 159, 222 shoes: 145, 161–62, 171–72 Sicily: 160–61 simile: see figurative language skolia: 187–89 slaves and slavery: 14, 69–71, 112–17, 131, 178, 185–87, 191, 208–9, 223 Socrates: 30, 72–74, 140, 171–72 Sparta: 60–62, 102, 107–9, 189–91, 238 speaking names: 65, 82, 137, 146

stepparents: 37–38, 63–64 Teisamenus: 174 Teithras: 62–63 Telamon: 187–89 Telestes: 39–40 Theolyte: 111–116 Thericles: 111–115 Theseus: 75, 77–78, 96, 145 Thrasymachus: 169–71 toasts: 112, 117, 139–40, 187–91, 230–31 torture: 185–87 tragedy: 28, 33, 49, 124, 144–45, 152, 177–78, 180 vegetables: 68, 78–79, 122, 180–84, 194–96, 204–6, 229–30 weapons: 55, 95–97 wine: 37–39, 107–10, 115–16, 138–40, 141–42, 166–67, 183, 187–89, 189–91, 211–12, 226, 230–31