Timokles: translation and commentary 3946317448, 9783946317449

Citation preview

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

Band 21 · Timokles

Kostas Apostolakis

Timokles Translation and Commentary

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

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

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

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.de abrufbar. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Umschlaggestaltung: disegno visuelle kommunikation, Wuppertal

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-946317-44-9

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Testimonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comedies and Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aἰγύπτιοι (Αigyptioi) (“The Egyptians”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Βαλανεῖον (Βalaneion) (“The Bathhouse”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Γεωργός (?) (Geōrgos) (“The Farmer”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Δακτύλιος (Daktylios) (“The Ring”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Δῆλος (Dēlos) (“Delos”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Δημοσάτυροι (Dēmosatyroi) (“The People’s Satyrs”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Διονυσιάζουσαι (Dionysiazousai) (“Women Celebrating the Dionysia”) . . . . . . . Διόνυσος (Dionysos) (“Dionysus”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Δρακόντιον (Drakontion) (“The Little Snake”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἐπιστολαί (Epistolai) (“Letters”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἐπιχαιρέκακος (Epichairekakos) (“The Spiteful Man”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἥρωες (Hērōes) (“The Heroes”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (Ikarioi Satyroi) (“Icarian Satyrs”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kαύνιοι (Kaunioi) (“Men of Caunus”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kένταυρος ἢ Δεξαμενός (Kentauros ē Dexamenos) (“The Centaur or Dexamenus”) . . . . . . . . . . . Koνίσαλος (Konisalos) (“Conisalus”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 9 17

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

17 22

. . . . . . . . . . .

22

. . . . . . . . . . .

28

. . . . . . . . . . .

32

. . . . . . . . . . .

33

. . . . . . . . . . .

36

. . . . . . . . . . .

45

. . . . . . . . . . .

50

. . . . . . . . . . .

68

. . . . . . . . . . .

78

. . . . . . . . . . .

91

. . . . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . . . . . . 111 . . . . . . . . . . . 135 . . . . . . . . . . . 168 . . . . . . . . . . . 173 . . . . . . . . . . . 177

6

Contents

Λήθη (Lēthē) (“Oblivion”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mαραθώνιοι (Marathōnioi) (“Men of Marathon”) . . . . . . . . . . Νέαιρα (Neaera) (“Neaera”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης (Orestautokleidēs) (“Orestautocleides”) . . . . . . . . . . . Πολυπράγμων (Polypragmōn) (“The Busybody”) . . . . . . . . . . . . Ποντικός (Pontikos) (“The Man from Pontus”). . . . . . . . Πορφύρα (Porphyra) (“Purple strip”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Πύκτης (Pyktēs) (“The Boxer”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Σαπφώ ( Sapphō) (“Sappho”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . † Συνεργικά “Synergika” (“Joint Labors?”). . . . . . . . . . . . . Φιλοδικαστής (Philodikastēs) (“The man who loved judge-duty”) . . Ψευδοληισταί (Pseudolēistai) (“Fake Robbers”) . . . . . . . . . . . . Ιncertarum fabularum fragmenta . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

7

Preface It was in 2011, when I was considering the possibility of a study on some poet of Middle Comedy, that Theodoros K. Stephanopoulos and Ioannis Konstantakos independently suggested that I undertake a commentary on Timocles. In 2012 I presented a sample of my work at a workshop entitled “Kommentierung der Fragmente der griechischen Komoedie”, organized by the Heidelberg Academy at Freiburg. The next year I was assigned the Timocles volume by the KomFrag committee. From some points of view, Timocles departs from the norm of his time, and in particular from near-contemporary comedians such as Alexis, Eubulus and Antiphanes, and appears to be the most ‘Aristophanic’ poet of the fourth century. More specifically, in a period when political satire seems to have lost its vigor, he employs acerbic attacks against major and minor Athenian politicians. The fact that at least sixteen of the forty-two surviving fragments of his poetry contain explicit or implicit references to politicians can hardly be attributed to chance. Timocles’ inventiveness and versatility are also demonstrated, inter alia, in his combination of different motifs, his association of mythical figures with contemporary personalities and his employment of a figurative language. The volume follows the principles and structure of the commentaries of the KomFrag project. It includes an introduction on Timocles and a detailed examination and commentary of the testimonies and the surviving fragments. Concerning the references to Greek texts, I follow the standard abbreviations of LSJ. I have provided a translation for the Greek and Latin passages, unless they are cited for reasons of style. The Loeb series is usually the basis for these translations, but in most cases I deviate from it either slightly or substantially. First and foremost, I am deeply grateful to Professor Bernhard Zimmermann, for his constant help, kindness and encouragement all these years. Thanks to his support I was able to visit Freiburg several times and present parts of my work at the colloquia of the KomFrag team. Stelios Chronopoulos was, from the very beginning to the end, extremely helpful, supportive and always ready to find solutions for every problem. I am especially indebted to Professor Douglas Olson, who was kind enough to read some chapters of the book when still in progress. His critique convinced me to abandon some arbitrary positions and try to restrict myself to more solid grounds (although I am not sure that I have always managed to do so). I feel the need to personally thank the members of KomFrag for their participation in the presentations of parts of my work in Freiburg all these years: Bernhard Zimmermann, Douglas Olson, Stelios Chronopoulos, Christian Orth, Andreas Bagordo, Anna Novokhatko, Franzesco Biancci, Virginia Mastellari and Elizabetta Miccolis. For me it was a great experience – and honor – to discuss, exchange opinions, get feedback and enjoy their company and friendship.

8

Preface

I also had the privilege of benefiting once more from the vast knowledge of Greek and the experience of Theodoros K. Stephanopoulos, especially with reference to textual criticism. Μy debt to Ioannis Konstantakos is multiple. His commentary on Antiphanes was for me the first motivation to engage with Middle Comedy. Moreover, he read this book at different stages of writing and I benefited from his valuable comments. Prof. Ernst A. Schmidt of the Academy committee read the proofs and made detailed suggestions; I am very grateful to him. I also want to thank Rosemary Tzanaki for checking my English and helping me in translating Greek passages into English. And of course, I must thank my family, for giving me the opportunity to work undistracted: my wife Vasso, who shouldered the main burdens of the family during my various absences, and our sons Manos and Konstantinos. Rethymnon, July 2018

9

Introduction 1. Name and Identity The comic poet Timocles (PAA 887000= LGPN II. Tιμοκλῆς Ἀθηναῖος n. 4.= PA 13726 = RE Τιμοκλῆς n. 3) was an Athenian (cf. test. 1,3). Athenaeus (9.407d) gives a confusing piece of information, which would mean that the comedian Timocles was also a tragic poet (cf. test. 2 and on fr. 14), and indeed a tragic poet Timocles is attested (PAA 887010), who is credited with a victory in the Dionysia in 340 BC1. A further indication might be the title Ikarioi Satyroi, which at first sight denotes a satyr play. But it is better to assume that Athenaeus has simply made a mistake, and is confusing the tragedian Timocles with the comedian.2 Moreover, Suda’s attestation that there were two comic poets by the name Timocles is obviously wrong (cf. on test. 1).3 A certain Timocles is mentioned in Alex. fr. 113 in a context which suggests that he was a notorious contemporary toper. The possibility that he was the comic poet cannot be excluded, and Alexis may actually have mentioned Timocles again in another context, the description of Chaerephilus’ sons as σκόμβροι (“common mackerels”) in fr. 77.4 If the “drunkard Timocles” was the comic poet,5 then Alexis’ mention recalls to mind similar descriptions of Cratinus by Aristophanes in Eq. 531–5. On the other hand, given that the name is common in the fourth century (and in Alexis’ lifetime at least 20 possible candidates are attested, cf. PAA s. v. [vol. XVI, pp. 381–9]) and that there is no other evidence on the supposed alcoholism of the comic Timocles, such an identification is impossible to ascertain.6

2. Chronology and Career Timocles’ activity dates to the second half of the fourth century. In the list of victors at the Lenaea, he appears twelve places after Alexis, two places before 1 2 3 4 5 6

He might also be the victorious tragic poet at the City Dionysia in 330/29 BC; cf. Millis–Olson 2012, 2320 col. II. 19 (p. 68). Cf. test. 2, and on Ikarioi Satyroi, esp. the chapter “The genre debate”. For the dispute concerning a supposed similar double activity of Autocrates cf. Orth 2014, 132. Probably a misrepresentation of the two namesake poets – the tragedian and the comedian. Concerning the authorship of the wording οὓς καὶ Τιμοκλῆς / ἰδὼν ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων δύο σκόμβρους ἔφη / ἐν τοῖς σατύροις εἶναι (Alex. fr. 77), cf. on Timocl. fr. 15. Bevilacqua 1939, 27 favors this identification, on the grounds that this Timocles may have been a well-known person in Athens, in order to work as a climax in that context. Cf. Meineke I (1839) 389; Bain 1977, 104, n. 3; Arnott 1996, 298, and below “Timocles and other poets”.

10

Timokles

Menander and three places before Philemon (IG II2 2325, 158; Millis–Olson 2012, n. 2325Ε.58).7 He must have been a younger contemporary of Alexis, with whom he has several kōmōidoumenoi in common,8 and belongs to the last phase of the Middle Comedy. He had apparently been established before the emergence of the great poets of New Comedy, Menander (his first appearance is in 317 BC with Dyskolos), Philemon, Diphilus and Philippides. None of Timocles’ surviving titles can be dated with certainty, but some contain mentions of or allusions to contemporary persons or events, and can be approximately dated. The dating of Orestautokleidēs, Neaera and Hērōes in the late 340s BC is probable, Ikarioi Satyroi can apparently be dated to the early 320s, Dēlos belongs to the late 320s, and almost certainly the latest play for which we have evidence is Philodikastēs (a terminus post quem is the reference to gynaikonomoi, an institution created by Demetrius Phalereus after 317 BC).9

3. Tradition and Reception Of Timocles’ dramatic production, 25 titles (plus two dubious: Geōrgos and Porphyra) and 42 fragments survive. The lion’s share of Timocles’ fragments (29 of 42) has been preserved by Athenaeus (late 2nd–early 3rd century AD), by far the most important source for Middle Comedy (frr. 1; 3–13; 15–18; 20–25; 27; 29; 32, 34–35; 39); four are cited in Stobaeus (frr. 30, 33, 36,37) and five in lexicographers (fr. 2 by Pollux, fr. 26 by Suda, fr. 28 by Harpocration, fr. 40 by Photius, and fr. 42 by Hesychius). Two fragments (14 and 19) are cited by Didymus, the commentator of Demosthenes, one (fr. 41) is cited by Pseudo-Plutarch,10 and one (fr. 38) by Clement of Alexandria. It is also worth noting that some fragments are transmitted (in whole or in part) by different sources (fr. 1 [Athenaeus, Philodemus], fr. 4 [Athenaeus, Syrianus], fr. 6 [Athenaeus, Stobaeus], fr. 33 [Stobaeus, Theophilus]). In all these cases, the question of independent survival arises. In the first half of the first century BC the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus cites part of Timocles’ fr. 1 (vv. 2–4), which contains a satire of Egyptian theriomorphism, in order to illustrate the ineffectiveness of the “established”, i. e. Stoic gods (P. Herc. 1428 col. 10 ll. 24–5). In the second half of the first century BC, Didymus Chalcenterus quotes Timocles twice: fr. 14 from Hērōes and fr. 19 from

7 8 9 10

According to Arnott 2010, 290, this position might indicate that this specific victory at the Lenaea came in the 330s. Cf. above, under “Name and Identity”, the satire of Chaerephilus’ sons in Alex. fr. 77 and Timocl. fr. 15. For details see the commentary of the relevant plays below, under “Date”. The same text is also attributed by Demetrius Phalereus to Demosthenes himself, without mentioning Timocles; cf. Plu. Dem. 9.4 and on Timocl. fr. 41.

Introduction

11

Ikarioi Satyroi, in the context of a rhetorical attack against the “thief ” Aristomedes. It is not clear whether Philodemus and Didymus had read Timocles at first hand. Concerning Athenaeus, it is also doubtful whether he himself had access to the plays from which he excerpts fragments, or whether he used them at second hand.11 Stobaeus (5th century AD) cites four fragments, but gives the title of the play in only one case (the problematic title Synergika). Οn the other hand, in the case of fr. 6 he cites only a short part of the text cited by Athenaeus. Given that Stobaeus’ main criterion for citing passages is the moral overtones which they convey, it is plausible that it was not necessary for him to know the whole play.12 The Byzantine lexicographers Hesychius (fr. 42) and Photius (fr. 40) most probably draw their material from the previous lexicographic tradition. Especially worth noting is the transmission of four fragments through sources which mainly contain “rhetorical” material, i. e. the Lexicon of Harpocration (fr. 28), Didymus’ commentary on Demosthenes (frr. 14 and 19) and pseudoPlutarch’s treatise on Attic orators (fr. 41). Moreover, part of fr. 4 from Dēlos (vv. 1–2) is transmitted by the Neoplatonic rhetorician Syrianus the “Sophist” (late 4th–early 5th century AD), in his commentary on Hermogenes’ rhetorical treatise On Types of Style. All these seem compatible with the assumption, based on the content of the overall preserved work, that Timocles tended to satirise the oratory and politics of his time.13

4. Themes and Motifs Timocles’ work is characterized by inventiveness, imagination and a variety of themes which occur in both Old and New Comedy. The feature which renders Timocles exceptional among the poets of Middle Comedy is his caustic political satire, which calls to mind methods and techniques of Old Comedy.14 The main targets of his satire are the anti-Macedonian orators Demosthenes and Hyperides, and minor Athenian politicians; e. g. Telemachus the orator is always associated with a pot and beans (frr. 7.4, 18.6, 23.3–4); the obscure admonition πέμπειν σαργάνας seems to be a current cliché (cf. on frr. 16, 23). One may suspect, with the appropriate reservation due to fragmentary evidence, that Timocles showed a special interest in current politics, an interest which may have been fomented by the increasing rivalry between Athenians and Macedonians. It has also been suggested that this rekindling of comedians’ interest 11 12 13 14

For the relevant discussion cf. Nesselrath 1990, 65–79. On the sources and the methodology of Stobaeus cf. Piccione 1994, 281–317. Cf. below, “Themes and Motifs”; Apostolakis 2014, 103–24; Orth HGL II (2014) 1043. Cf. Sommerstein 2016, 42: “it is … obvious that Timocles … had made a careful study of the work of Aristophanes, whose spirit and methods he made a remarkable effort to revive.”

12

Timokles

in politics may have been encouraged by possible repeat performances of “old comedies” in Attica since 339 BC. On the other hand, it is equally plausible that this revival of personal and political satire was achieved through reading plays of the Old Comedy, which apparently had survived in public archives or private collections.15 It is unclear, however, whether scenes containing political satire are central or peripheral to the plot. Besides, the courtesans typical of Middle Comedy are represented in Timocles’ corpus by titles such as Neaera16 and references to Pythionice in frr. 15,16, Phryne in fr. 25 and a group of eleven courtesans (including Pythionice and Phryne) who surround, like a chorus of Erinyes, the pederast Autocleides in Orestautokleidēs (fr. 27).17 It is in that context that the motif of the exluded lover (amator exclusus) appears: frr. 25.4–5; 10.1 (possibly). The figure of the parasite also appears in fr. 9 (Chaerephon), fr. 11 (the “uninvited” Corydus) and frr. 10, 20 (Tithymallus); and, most importantly, a long eulogy of the parasitic art is the subject of fr. 6 (from Drakontion). The poet shows considerable inventiveness and versatility in constructing comparisons: e. g. parasites with athletes (fr. 6.16); parasites with boxers (fr. 31); seagulls with Syrians (fr. 4.9); orators with Syrian slaves (the Acharnian Telemachus in fr. 7.4); orators with farting donkeys (fr. 18.8 Cephisodorus); desperate lovers with starving parasites (fr. 10). Other titles point to a parody of mythological themes and motifs typical of Middle Comedy (e. g. Dionysos, Konisalos, Kentauros ē Dexamenos). There are also titles alluding to a recognition comedy (Daktylios, Epistolai),18 and titles promising a comedy of characters (e. g. Epichairekakos, Polypragmōn, Philodikastēs). Timocles also seems to have been attracted to “Dionysian” themes; cf. the titles Dēmosatyroi, Dionysos, Dionysiazousai, Ikarioi Satyroi.19 Moreover, he has included in his satire a parody of the supposed beneficial effects of attending a tragic performance (the subject of fr. 6 of Dionysiazousai), and a paratragic scene in Orestautokleidēs, whereas the titles Ikarioi Satyroi and Dēmosatyroi may indicate some kind of osmosis with satyr drama, not unusual in the late fourth century.20 Metatheatrical language also occasionally occurs in fr. 19, where a character asks the spectators not to hiss at him for his frigid puns.

15 16 17 18 19

20

For this issue cf. Konstantakos 2011, 163–4; Apostolakis 2014, 121; Orth HGL (2014) 1045; Sommerstein 2016, 42. And possibly Drakontion, Lēthē, Sapphō (and Porphyra, a title also attributed to Xenarchus). Cf. also the content of fr. 24 of Marathōnioi, where a χαμαιτύπη, “a harlot”, is unfavorably compared with a young girl. And perhaps Drakontion; cf. the commentary of this play, under “Content”. Αlso cf. the verse μὰ τὸν Διόνυσον, 〈ὃν〉 σὺ λάπτεις ἴσον ἴσῳ (Dionysus as a metonym for wine), from the play Porphyra, which is doubtfully attributed by Athenaeus (10.431a) to Xenarchus (fr. 9) or Timocles. Cf. below the commentary on the Icarian Satyrs, esp. under “The genre debate”.

Introduction

13

The association of mythical figures with contemporary politicians is another typical feature of Τimocles’ comedy. In fr. 19 the satire of the notorious thief Aristomedes includes a pun on the names of Tereus and Procne, and Autocles is called Marsyas. In Hērōes Demosthenes is likened to Briareos, and Aristomedes is associated with Hermes, the patron of thieves. In Orestautokleidēs the pederast politician Autocleides is represented as Orestes surrounded by notorious hetaerae in the role of the Erinyes.21 These mythological figures are used to stress particular shortcomings of the satirized politicians, inevitably connected with their political ethos.

5. Κōmōidoumenoi An impressive characteristic of Timocles’ art in the preserved fragments is the existence of personal satire (onomasti kōmōidein). No fewer than 36 historical figures are mentioned (some of them more than once). – Politicians: the major anti-Macedonian orators and politicians Demosthenes (frr. 4, 12, 41) and Hyperides (frr. 4, 17), and the rather minor politicians, supposedly involved in the Harpalus affair, Moerocles, Demon and Callisthenes (fr. 4); the orator Telemachus the Acharnian (frr. 7, 18, 23); Callimedon, the so-called “Carabus” (fr. 29); and Aristomedes, the “thief ” (frr. 14, 19). – Public figures satirized for their effeminate style (Ctesippus the son of Chabrias, fr. 5) or as notorious homosexuals (Misgolas, fr. 32 and Autocleides, fr. 27). – The actor Satyrus (fr. 14). – Naturalized citizens: Chaerephilus (fr. 23), Pheidippus (fr. 23); cf. fr. 15 σκόμβροι, and fr. 16 σαπέρδαις δυσίν, probably an allusion to Pheidippus and his brother Pamphilus. – Persons of uncertain identity: Demotion (fr. 9); Anytus the “fat” (fr. 15); Thudippus (fr. 18); Dion (fr. 18); Cephisodorus (fr. 18); Autocleus (fr. 19); Cormus and Neilus (fr. 10). – Famous courtesans: Pythionice (frr. 16, 27); Neaera (title of comedy); Phryne (frr. 25, 27); Nannion (fr. 27); Plangon (fr. 27); Lyca (fr. 27); Gnathaena (fr. 27); Myrrhine (fr. 27); Chrysis (fr. 27); Conalis (uncertain, fr. 27); Hierocleia (fr. 27); Lopadion (fr. 27). – Known parasites: Chaerephon (fr. 9), Tithymallus (frr. 10, 20, 21) and Corydus (frr. 10, 11). Most of the politicians satirized by Timocles are known anti-Macedonians (Demosthenes, Hyperides, Callisthenes). However, we may assume that Timocles

21

This play is perhaps a mythological allegory. For the use of myth as allegory in political contexts see Nesselrath 1990, 240; Millis 2016, 194–5 (on Anaxandr. Prōtesilaos).

14

Timokles

places his art above political ideology, since he does not exclude professed proMacedonian politicians from his satire, like the squint-eyed Callimedon and the “thief ” Aristomedes, though he abuses them not for their political activities, but on account of some physical defect or moral vice.22

6. Language Timocles’ inventiveness and versatility are also manifested in constructing composite titles like Orestautokleidēs and Demosatyroi (cf. the title Ikarioi Satyroi) and the hapax eirēmenon ἰχθυόρρους (fish-teeming [river], said of the opsophagos Hyperides) and συνδιακτορεῖν (fr. 14.1, said of Hermes, apparently modelled on the stereotype adjective διάκτορος). Figurative language is another emblematic characteristic. The anti-Macedonian orator Demosthenes, a fervent champion of war, is called a false Briareos (fr. 12); the fish-river Hyperides is said to splash with boasts (fr. 17.1–3) and water the fields of his employer (μισθωτὸς ἄρδει πεδία τοῦ δεδωκότος); the sons of Chaerephilus, the importer of processed fish, are disparagingly called σκόμβροι (fr. 15) and σαπέρδαι (fr. 16.6). In fr. 19, by means of metaphorical language and puns, contemporary persons are named after legendary figures: Autocles is called Marsyas, Aristomedes is Tereus, and the last (false) etymology of Procne with knein draws the disapproval of the interlocutor. In fr. 37 money is considered the lifeblood and soul of mortals. Compatible with the domination of rhetoric and politics in Timocles’ poetry (cf. above, “Themes and Motifs”) is the presense of passages with rhetorical colour, e. g. fr. 1 (argumentum a fortiori); fr. 6.1 (prosexis technique); fr. 8 (a eulogy of the parasitic art, including rhetorical questions, a praeteritio, and an amplification); antiphrasis (frr. 4.6; 12.6,7). There are also some gnomic pronouncements (e. g. frr. 6.2–3; 30; 36; 37), and paratactic and asyndetic structure (frr. 6.13–16; 8.6–7; 24.2–3, in an exclamatory passage). The parody of contemporary political slogans, such as Demosthenes’ δοῦναι-ἀποδοῦναι concerning the Halonnesus Debate (frr. 12 ἀντίθετον and 20.4–5 ἀπεκαρτέρησε - ἐκαρτέρησε) and the charged oath on inanimate objects (fr. 41) are especially indicative of Timocles’ style. Parody of the “dithyrambic” periphrastic style is also applied in the description of a trapeza (fr. 13 from Hērōes), and a definite case of paratragedy is fr. 27 from Orestautokleidēs, recalling the speech of the priestess in the Prologue of Aeschylus’ Eumenides (πανάθλιος in 27.1 being an emblematic tragic word). Expressions recalling Aristophanes and Old Comedy: fr. 12.7 Ἄρη βλέπων; also crude words: fr. 18.2 βδέων; fr. 18.8 ἐπέρδετο, both in a

22

But cf. Webster 1970, 38, whο takes it as “a kind of insurance to ridicule mildly an unpopular member of your own party”.

Introduction

15

narrated scene in catalectic trochaic tetrameter (an epirrhēma? cf. on fr. 18, under “Interpretation”).23

7. Metre All but two of Timocles’ surviving fragments are written in iambic trimeter. In the surviving total of his 181 iambic trimeter lines, 129 resolutions of long or anceps syllables occur, and 31 divisions of short ones. The penthemimeral caesura is used more often (in 96 lines) than the hephthemimeral (in 59 lines). In 12 lines both a penthemimeral and a hephthemimeral caesura occur; a caesura proper is absent in 12 lines. In fr. 37.2 it is worth noting the synecphonesis in μὴ ἔχει, which is mainly tolerable in Old Comedy. Trochaic tetrameter catalectic is used in frr. 18 and 19. Especially notable is 18.6, one of the rarest trochaic tetrameters without a diairesis and the only known trisyllabic word (κυάμων) forming an anapaest in the sixth foot of a trochaic tetrameter (see on the commentary).

8. Timocles and other comic poets Timocles shares some titles with other poets of Old, Middle and New Comedy: Aigyptioi (Antiphanes); Balaneion (Amphis, Diphilus); Daktylios (Amphis, Alexis, Menander, Philemon); Hērōes (Chionides, Crates, Aristophanes and Philemon); Kaunioi (Alexis); Pontikos (Antiphanes, Alexis, Epigenes); Neaera (Philemon); Polypragmōn (Heniochus, Diphilus); Pyktēs (Timotheus); Sapphō (Ameipsias, Amphis, Antiphanes, Ephippus and Diphilus). The poet with whom Timocles seems to share some subjects is his older contemporary Alexis. Apart from the shared titles Daktylios, Kaunioi and Pontikos, the two poets include some common targets in their satire: the parasites Tithymallus (Τimocl. frr. 10,20,21; cf. Alex. frr. 155, 161,164), Chaerephon (Timocl. fr. 9; cf. Alex. frr. 213, 259) and Corydus (Timocl. frr. 10,11; cf. Alex. frr. 48,188); the allegedly homosexual Misgolas (Timocl. fr. 32; cf. Alex. fr. 3); Callimedon the “Carabus” (Timocl. fr. 29; cf. Alex. frr. 117,249). Also, though Alexis’ preserved fragments contain very few references to politics compared to Timocles,24 the “Halonnesus slogan” occurs in both poets (Timocl. frr. 12, 20; cf. Alex. frr. 7, 212), as do satirical references to existing laws (Timocl. fr. 34; Alex. frr. 130, 131). Most 23 24

Possible obscenities may also be traced in fr. 2 (cf. on γλωττόκομον) and fr. 19 (cf. δεδαρμένον); cf. also the promising “ithyphallic” title Konisalos. Cf. Constantinides 1969, 56–7, who notes that probably only six of Alexis’ plays may have dealt with politics or politicians.

16

Timokles

importantly, there is some evidence that Alexis mentions Timocles with reference to Chaerephilus’ sons (Timocl. frr. 15, 16; cf. Alex. fr. 77); see on fr. 15, under “Interpretation”. Alexis also mentions a “toper” Timocles (fr. 113), but his identification with the comic poet is difficult to prove (cf. under “Name and Identity”). Another poet of Middle Comedy who seems to share Timocles’ interest in politics, with regard to the Athenian conflict with Macedonia, is Mnesimachus. It is possible that Timocl. fr. 12 is an intertextual comment on Mnesim. fr. 7 (from the play Philippus); cf. my commentary on Timocles’ fr. It is also possible that Timocles’ Neaera has influenced Philemon’s later play of the same name; see Breitenbach, 1908, 136–8 and my chapter “Title” on Neaera. Another kōmōidoumenos, the effeminate Ctesippus the son of Chabrias, is treated in similar terms by Timocles, Menander and Philemon, and it is not impossible that at least Menander has borrowed the theme of Ctesippus’ obsession with his hair from Timocles, though it is equally probable that they were both influenced by another unknown source.25 Timocles also shares with Antiphanes a generalizing and theorizing interest in tragedy; cf. Timocl. fr. 6 and Antiph. fr. 189. Finally, given that the title Porphyra is doubtfully attributed to Timocles or Xenarchus by Athenaeus in two different passages (7.319a; 10.431a) and by Suda (see below on Test. 1.b), the possibility of some kind of collaboration between the two contemporary poets should not be excluded.26

9. Bibliography Εditions: Meineke ΙΙΙ (1840) 590–613; cf. Meineke ed. min. II (1847) 798–811; Βothe 1855, 612–23; Kock II (1884) 451–6; Demiańczuk 1912, 88; Edmonds II (1959) 600–627 (with English translation); CGFPR (1973) 218; PCG VII (1989) 754–781. Discussion: Wagner 1905, 56–66; Coppola 1927, 453–67; Koerte 1936, 1260– 62; Bevilacqua 1939, 25–64; Constantinides 1969, 49–61; Martino 1998, 8–16; Storey 2005, 201–218; Storey–Allan 2005, 220–21; Marchetti 2012; Orth HGL (2014) 1042–6; Apostolakis 2014, 103–124.

25 26

Or, perhaps, they both drew on actual reality, satirizing a real obsession with hair that Ctesippus had demonstrated in his life. E. g. one poet acting as didaskalos for the other, as in the case of Aristophanes’ collaboration with Callistratus and Philonides. For possible explanations of such alternate attributions cf. Orth 2014, 215–6; 2015, 184–6.

17

Commentary Testimonia test. 1 Sud. τ 623 Τιμοκλῆς, Ἀθηναῖος, κωμικός. τῶν δραμάτων αὐτοῦ ἐστι Δημοσάτυροι, Κένταυρος, Καύνιοι, Ἐπιστολαί, Ἐπιχαιρέκακος, Φιλοδικαστής, Πύκτης· ὥς φησιν Ἀθήναιος ἐν Δειπνοσοφισταῖς. Τimocles, an Athenian, a comic poet. Among his plays were Dēmosatyroi, Kentauros, Kaunioi, Epistolai, Epichairekakos, Philodikastēs and Pyktēs, as Athenaeus says in his Deipnosophists. Sud. τ 624 Τιμοκλῆς ἕτερος, καὶ αὐτὸς κωμικός. τῶν δραμάτων αὐτοῦ ἐστι Διονυσιάζουσαι, Πολυπράγμων, Ἰκάριοι, Δῆλος, Λήθη, Διόνυσος, Κονίσαλος, Πορφύρα (ἥτις καὶ δοκεῖ Ξενάρχου εἶναι), Ἥρωες, Δρακόντιον, Νέαιρα (ἑταίρας δὲ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἡ Νέαιρα), Ὀρέστης, Μαραθώνιοι. ταῦτα Ἀθήναιος λέγει ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις τῶν Δειπνοσοφιστῶν. εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλα. Another Timocles, also a comic poet. Among his plays were Dionysiazousai, Polypragmōn, Ikarioi, Dēlos, Lēthē, Dionysos, Konisalos, Porphyra (which also seems to be a play by Xenarchus), Hērōes, Drakontion, Neaira (Neaera is the name of a courtesan), Orestēs, Marathōnioi. Athenaeus mentions these plays in his Deipnosophists. There are also others.

Discussion Wagner 1905, 56–66; Bevilacqua 1939, 25–7; PCG VII (1989) 754; Lorenzoni 2012, 281–308; Orth HGL (2014) 1042–3. Interpretation Normally in Suda Ἀθηναῖος means “Athenian citizen”, not “poeta Atticus”; cf. Wagner 1905, 41; Bagordo 2013, 33 (on Telecl. test. 1). The wording τῶν δραμάτων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, which occurs in both entries, is typical in Suda, and introduces lists of plays. The genitive indicates that the following list includes only a part of his dramatic production. According to Wagner 1905, 50–51, this particular wording indicates that there is no direct dependence on Hesychius, in contradistinction to the wording τῶν δραμάτων αὐτοῦ, which always derives from Hesychius’ epitome. This assumption of independence seems to be supported by the fact that the titles in both entries are not in alphabetical order. It is almost certain that both catalogues derive from Athenaeus, and reflect, with slight divergences, the order in which they are mentioned in this author.27 27

Test. 1: Δημοσάτυροι (Ath. 4.165f), Κένταυρος (Ath. 6.240d), Καύνιοι (Ath. 6.240d-e), Ἐπιστολαί (Ath. 6.243b and 6.240e-f), Ἐπιχαιρέκακος (Ath. 6.241a), Φιλοδικαστής (Ath. 6.245a), Πύκτης (Ath. 6.246f). Test. 2: Διονυσιάζουσαι (Ath. 6.223b), Πολυπράγμων

18

Timokles

The reference to a second comic poet Timocles is apparently a mistake.28 Similar examples of such separate lists in Suda are the following entries: κ 2339 Κράτης, Ἀθηναῖος, κωμικός…δράματα δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰσιν ζʹ… κ 2340 Κράτης, Ἀθηναῖος, κωμικὸς καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας. φέρεται αὐτοῦ δράματα τρία … and μ 589 Μένανδρος, Ἀθηναῖος, κωμικὸς ἀρχαῖος. καὶ Μένανδρος ἕτερος, Ἀθηναῖος … κωμικὸς τῆς νέας κωμῳδίας. For the clarification that Neaera was an hetaira cf. Sud. φ 457 (Phillylius) Ἄντεια (ἑταίρας ὄνομα); δ 1155 (Diokles) τὸ δὲ Θάλαττα ἑταίρας ὄνομά ἐστιν, ὡς Ἀθήναιός φησιν; for ἑταίρας ὄνομα cf. also Sud. α 335 Ἀγωνίς ∙ ὄνομα ἑταίρας and κ 1743 Kλεψύδρα … καὶ ὄνομα ἑταίρας. Such explanations probably derive from Athenaeus.29 The play Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης appears in the second list of Suda as Ὀρέστης. Four plays do not appear in either list: Αἰγύπτιοι, Σαπφώ, Συνεργικά, Ψευδοληισταί. But it seems impossible either to find the origin of these split lists or to explain the inclusion of these particular titles in one or the other, or the omission of a title from both lists.30 The title Πορφύρα is also doubtfully attributed to Xenarchus; cf. Ath. 7.319a and 10.431a. Such alternate attributions were not uncommon in the sources; cf. Πόλεις (Philyllius, or Eunicus or Aristophanes); Ἀγαθοί (Pherecrates or Strattis); Ἄγνοια (Diphilus or Calliades); Ἀπολείπουσα (Diphilus or Sosippus); Ἀργυρίου ἀφανισμός (Epigenes or Antiphanes); Καμπυλίων (Araros or Eubulus); Ὕπνος (Alexis or Antiphanes), etc.; see above, ch. “Timocles and other comic poets”.

test. 2 Ath. 9.407d Τιμοκλῆς ὁ τῆς κωμῳδίας ποιητὴς (ἦν δὲ καὶ τραγῳδίας) ἐν μὲν δράματι Λήθῃ φησί Timocles the poet of comedy (but there was / he was also a writer of tragedy), says in his play Lēthē

28 29 30

(Ath. 8.339f), Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (Ath. 8.339d), Δῆλος (Ath. 8.341e), Λήθη (Ath. 9.407d), Διόνυσος (Ath. 9.407e), Κονίσαλος (Ath. 10.430f), Πορφύρα (Ath. 7.319a), Ἥρωες (Ath. 6.223d and 10.455f), Δρακόντιον (Ath. 6.237b-f), Νέαιρα (Ath. 13.567d-e), Ὀρέστης (Ath. 13.567e) and Μαραθώνιοι (Ath. 13.570d). Cf. Wagner 1905, 41–2; Lorenzoni 2012, 281–308; Orth, HGL (2014) 1042–3. For the entries on Attic comic poets in Suda, cf. Orth 2013, 18–20. First noted by J. Hertel (1560) and J. Meursius ap. Gronovius X (1735) 1621; cf. Summa 2004, 135. Cf. Orth 2015, 126–7. It might be worth nothing that among these titles are included Αἰγύπτιοι and Ψευδοληισταί, having as their initial letter the first and penultimate letter of the alphabet respectively.

Testimonia (test. 2)

19

Discussion Schweighäuser 1803, 260; Meineke I (1839) 430; Wilamowitz IV (1889/90) 23–5 (=Kl. Schr. IV [1962] 689); Wagner 1905, 62–5; Wilhelm 1906, 29; Koerte 1936, 1260–62; Wilamowitz, Kl. Schr.2 V. 1 (1937) 394; Coppola 1927, 453–67; Bevilacqua 1939, 50–56; Constantinides 1969, 49–61; Sutton 1980, 83–5; PCG VII (1989) 754; Martino 1998, 8–16; Cipolla 2003, 313–31; Storey 2005, 201–218; Summa 2009, 135–49; Orth HGL (2014) 1043. Interpretation Athenaeus’ testimony has often been considered with reference to the literary identity of Timocles. Depending on the interpretation of this passage, two different theories have been suggested: a) that Timocles wrote both comedies and tragedies; b) that there were two namesake poets in the same period, one a tragedian and the other a comedian. Wilamowitz 1889/90, 23–5 argued that the information that Timocles was both a comic and a tragic poet is compatible with the attested victory of a Timocles in the Great Dionysia of 340 BC with the satirical play Lycurgus (IG II2 2320 col.II.19; Wilhelm 1906, 40; Millis–Olson 2012, 67) and with the assumption that the play Icarian Satyrs is a satyr play (for this debate cf. the commentary on this play). In that case, Timocles would have followed to some degree the example of Ion of Chios, a poet credited with polyeideia (cf. Schol. Ar. Pax 835; Sud. δ 1029),31 and would have shared Socrates’ conviction that the same man could have the knowledge required for writing comedy and tragedy.32 This suggestion was approved by Wilhelm 1906, 29, but did not persuade Kaibel III (1890) viii-ix. Moreover, Wagner 1905, 65, refuted it on the grounds that it is based on an interpretation completely alien to Athenaeus’ diction (“a dictione Athenaei alienissima”). Wagner reads Timocles’ passage as follows: ἦν δὲ καὶ [scil. Τιμοκλῆς τις] τραγῳδίας [ποιητής] “there was also a tragic poet [of the same name]”.33 Wilamowitz himself admitted his mistake and concurred with Wagner’s position.34 However, this reading is not convincing either, and it is easier to assume that Athenaeus simply confused the comic Timocles with his tragic namesake. Moreover, the preserved fragments of Icarian Satyrs contain sharp personal satire 31

32

33

34

A similar piece of information on double activity is attested for the tragedian Agathon; cf. TrGF I 39 T 12 Ἀγάθων · οὗτος τραγῳδίας ποιητής (Ἀθηναῖος, υἱὸς Τισαμενοῦ) · κωμῳδεῖται δὲ εἰς θηλύτητα. (ἦν δὲ καὶ κωμῳδοποιός [sic Sud. exc. A, -διοπ. Α, κωμῳδοῦ υἱὸς V) τοῦ Σωκρατικοῦ [Σωκράτους Θ Sud.] διδασκαλείου; cf. Sud. α 124. Autocrates was also said to have written both comedies and tragedies (Sud. a 4500). Pl. Smp. 223c-d τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀνδρὸς εἶναι κωμῳδίαν καὶ τραγῳδίαν ἐπίστασθαι ποιεῖν “the same man could have the knowledge required for writing comedy and tragedy”. On a synkrisis between tragedy and comedy cf. Taplin 1986, 163–74. Cf. Schweighäuser 1803, 260, who translates this passage as follows: “Timocles comicus poeta (erat vero etiam tragicus) in dramate cui Lethe titulus, ait…”; also Meineke I (1839) 430 argued that Athenaeus’ wording denotes that there were two different poets: “Athenaeus … his verbis Timoclem tragicum a Timocle comico distinxisse putandus est”. Wilamowitz 1921, 343: “Die Freude an solcher Widerlegung überwiegt die eigene Beschämung”; cf. Kl. Schr.2 V.1 (1937) 394.

20

Timokles

and bold language, more compatible with comedy than with satyr play (cf. the Icarian Satyrs, ch. “The genre debate”.35

test. 3 IG II2 2325,153–164 (poetae Lenaeis victores) = V C 1 col. 4,7 Mette = 2325 E, col. IV, 53–64 Millis–Olson (p. 184) [---] Δι[ονύσι]ος I Κλέα̣[ρχ]ος I[I]I 155 (55) Ἀθηνο̣κλῆς Πύρ[ρος] I Ἀλκ̣[ήν]ωρ I Τιμοκλῆς I Προκλείδης I 160 (60) Μ[έν]ανδρος I Φιλ̣ήμων III Ἀπολλόδωρο[ς - - - ] Δίφιλος III Φιλιππίδης II [- - - ] Di[onysi]us 1 Clea[rch]us 3 ? Athenocles Pyr[rhus] 1 Alc[en]or 1 Timocles 1 Proclides 1 M[en]ander 1 Philemo 3 Apollodoru[s - - -] Diphilus 3 Philippides 2

35

Wilamowitz’s suggestion was rekindled by Coppola 1927, 453–67, who argued that the Icarians was a satyr play, and that Timocles wrote comedies, tragedies and satyr plays. For similar or slightly varied positions, mainly focusing on the Icarian Satyrs, cf. Bevilacqua 1939, 50–56, who suggested that Timocles wrote two plays on the same topic, a satyr play with the title Icarian Satyrs and a comedy with the title Icarians; Sutton 1980, 83–5, who credits Timocles with the ability to write both comedies and satyr plays, and speaks of a “maniera timoclea”; Summa 2009, 135–49. On the contrary, for the position that the comic Timocles is different to the tragic namesake and that the Icarian Satyrs is a comedy cf. Koerte 1936, 1260–62; Constantinides 1969, 49–61; PCG VII (1989) 766–9; Martino 1998, 8–16, who rejects the theory of “la nuova maniera timoclea”; Storey 2005, 201–218.

Testimonia (test. 3)

21

Discussion Wilhelm 1906, 180; Mette 1977, 175; Millis–Olson 2012, 184, 190; Orth HGL II (2014) 1042. Citation context The above catalogue comes from the inscriptional records for the Athenian dramatic festivals and is part of one of the surviving “Victors Lists”, which contains the names of comic poets victorious at the Lenaea, without titles or dates (IG II2 2325E= 2325.116–89). The list is arranged in chronological order, the criterion being the first victory of a poet. Each name is followed by a number indicating the total victories of each poet in the Lenaea. Interpretation This inscription records that Timocles was victorious at the Lenaea once. He is found twelve places after Alexis, two before Menander (whose prize for the first time at the Lenaea was probably in 317/6 BC with the Dyscolus, cf. test. 50; Millis–Olson 2012,190) and three before Philemon. The only certain inference from this list is that Timocles is one of the last poets of the period described as Middle Comedy and his career began earlier than those of Menander, Philemon and Diphilus. See above, under “Chronology and Career”.36

36

Also in PBerol. 13680 (CGFPR *80) in line 7 appears the inscription ]κλέου[ς, followed by line 8 ]ατων εκτον[…..]οφ. επει. The missing name is usually restored as Διο]κλέου[ς, but it might also be Tιμοκλέους; cf. Wilhelm 1906, 29: “[Φιλοκ]λῆς oder [Τιμοκ] λῆς zu ergänzen ist”; PCG V (1986) 18 (on Diocles test. *3): “possis etiam Εὐθυ]κλέου[ς vel Τιμο]κλέου[ς”; Orth 2014, 246, who favors Timocles (or even Sophocles) instead of Diocles.

22

Comedies and Fragments Aἰγύπτιοι (Αigyptioi) (“The Egyptians”) Discussion 219–228.

Edmonds II (1959) 59–60; PCG VII (1989) 755; Chirico 1995–6,

Title The title of the play is not included in either of Suda’s lists. The same title occurs in Antiphanes; cf. Callias’ Αἰγύπτιος. Tragedies with this title were written by Aeschylus (TrGF III T 78) and Phrynichus (TrGF I 3 T1). For comic titles associated with Egypt, cf. Cratinus’ Βούσιρις. Another title in the plural referring to nonGreek nations in Timocles is Kαύνιοι; cf. also Βαβυλώνιοι (Aristophanes), Κᾶρες (Antiphanes), Λυδοί (Magnes), Mυσοί (Eubulus), Πέρσαι (Epicharm, Chionides, Pherecrates), Σκύθαι (Xenarchus and perhaps Antiphanes), Ταραντῖνοι (Cratinus II and Alexis), Τρῶες (Epicharm). Race prejudices against the Egyptians are not uncommon both in comedy and in oratory. In Old Comedy the verb αἰγυπτιάζειν is considered a synonym for being sly and crafty; cf. Cratin. fr. 406 (=Eust. in Od. p. 1484 αἰγυπτιάζειν … τὸ πανουργεῖν καὶ κακοτροπεύεσθαι); Ar. Th. 922 αἰγυπτιάζετε (ἐπανουργεῖτε schol.); Sofia 2016, xxvi-xxix. Egyptians are also unfavorably mentioned in fourth-century forensic oratory, e. g. Isae. 5.7,8,40, where an Egyptian is disparagingly called ‘Black’ (Μέλας ὁ Αἰγύπτιος) and D. 21.163, where Meidias is implicitly considered to have contributed to the deterioration of the Athenian fleet, by avoiding embarking on the warship himself, and sending the Egyptian Pamphilus in his place. Content The plural in the title might indicate a chorus consisting of Egyptians, or men looking, dressed and behaving like Egyptians. The play might allude to some event in which Athenians and Egyptians were involved. But, unlike Anaxandrides’ Poleis, where συμμαχεῖν in fr. 40.1 encouraged different associations with specific historical events (cf. Millis 2016, 189), Timocles’ fragment does not provide any internal evidence for the specific historical or religious circumstances which might have inspired Timocles in composing this play. The only certain conclusion to be drawn from the unique surviving fragment is that the play included a satire of the Egyptian religion. It is also possible that Egyptian culture and customs were mocked. Alternatively, the play might deal with Egyptians living in Athens during that period. On the grounds of inscriptional evidence, it has been argued that Egyptian merchants were active in considerable numbers in fourth-century Athens.37 According to Athenaeus (15.685e), Nicostratus, another poet of Middle Comedy, in his Τοκιστής “The Money-Lender”, makes his central character an Egyptian: Αἰγύπτιον γὰρ ὑποστησάμενος τὸν τοκιστήν φησιν. Another interesting 37

IG II2337=Tod no. 189=Rhodes no. 16= Harding no. 111; cf. Reed 2003, 31.

Aἰγύπτιοι (fr. 1)

23

source concerning Egyptians living and working in Athens is Hyperides’ Against Athenogenes, delivered between 330 and 324 BC (cf. Whitehead 2000, 266–7). The Athenian farmer Epicrates brings a private suit for damage (δίκη βλάβης) against the metic Athenogenes, who is of Egyptian origin. Athenogenes was apparently a speech-writer and a trader of perfumes; cf. §3 … Ἀθηνογένην, ἄνθρωπον λογογράφον τε καὶ ἀγοραῖον, τὸ δὲ μέγιστον Αἰγύπτιον “…Athenogenes, a speechwriter and a man of the market and, worst of all, an Egyptian”. It is on the basis of such evidence that Simms 1989, 216–21 argues convincingly that the cult of Isis arrived in Athens in Lycurgus’ time for economic reasons, in order to satisfy the Egyptian merchants, who were important to the city thanks to their commercial activities.38 Finally, another less probable scenario is that Athenians with a taste for Egyptian customs and lifestyle are represented on stage as “Egyptians”; cf. Lycurgus, the so-called “Ibis” in Ar. Av. 1296 (below, on v. 1).39 Date

Unknown.

fr. 1 K.- A. (1 K.) πῶς ἂν μὲν οὖν σώσειεν ἶβις ἢ κύων; ὅπου γὰρ εἰς τοὺς ὁμολογουμένους θεοὺς ἀσεβοῦντες οὐ διδόασιν εὐθέως δίκην, τίν’ αἰελούρου βωμὸς ἐπιτρίψειεν ἄν; 1 μὲν οὖν Α: οὖν CE: με νῦν Meineke: τιν’ οὖν Kock πῶς δή τιν’ ἂν Richards Philod.: θεοὺς Ath. 4 α(ἰ)ε(λ)ούρου Philod., Ath. A: αἰλ- CE

2 τοὺς

How could an ibis or a dog save someone? If people who fail to respect the generally recognized gods do not very soon pay the penalty for it, who’s going to be destroyed by an altar dedicated to a cat? [1–4] Ath. 7.300a Τιμοκλῆς δ’ ἐν Αἰγυπτίοις ∙ πῶς – ἂν; And Timocles in The Egyptians: how – cat?

38

39

Edwards II (1959) 59 attempted to date Timocles’ play in ca 334/3 BC, on the grounds that a temple of Isis was erected in Athens during that period, but this suggestion is not convincing. For the interpretation of Anaxandrides’ Πόλεις, a play also including satire of Egyptian religion, cf. Millis 2016, 189. For Egyptians in Old Comedy cf. Sofia 2008.

24

Timokles

[2–4] Phld. Piet. 20,23 p. 87 Gomperz (=P. Herc. 1428 col. 10 ll. 24–5) [=XIII 29 Henrichs, Cron. ercol. 5 (1975) 8–9] ἔμοιγε τὸ Τιμοκλέους εἰρημένον ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ δράματι περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ θεῶν ἐπὶ τούτους ἐπέρχεται μεταφέρε[ι]ν ∙ ὅπο[υ] γὰρ, φησίν, εἰς – ἄν; In my opinion, he is coming to apply to them what Timocles has said in his drama Egypt; if, he says, people – a cat?

Metre Iambic trimeter

llwl llw|l wlwl wlwl l|wwwl wlwl wwlwl wwlw|l wlwl wlwl l|lw|ww llwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 590; Kock II (1884) 451; Bevilacqua 1939, 34–5; Edmonds II (1959) 602–3; PCG VII (1989) 755; Obbink 2002, 183–222. Citation context This fragment is cited by Athenaeus in his seventh book, in a section devoted to the Egyptian religion, and in particular to the worship of eels by the Egyptians (7.297c-300d). Before Timocles, Antiphanes’ fr. 145 (from Lycōn) and Anaxandrides’ fr. 40 (from Poleis) are cited. Verses 2–4 are also cited by the Epicurean author Philodemus, in a context where the Stoic theology is criticized and the ineffectiveness of Stoic gods is stressed. It has been suggested that in this particular context, Timocles’ fragment serves to illustrate the assumption that the “established gods”, i. e. the Stoic gods, are unable to deter people from wrongdoing.40 But it is better to assume that Philodemus’ point is that the Stoic gods are like the Egyptian animal divinities described by Timocles: totally ineffectual and unable to deter people from wrongdoing, even less respected than the conventional gods of standard Greek religion. Text 1 πῶς ἂν μὲν οὖν Βoth the sequence ἂν μὲν οὖν (unattested, to the best of my knowledge, in the classical period; on the contrary, the sequence μὲν ἂν οὖν is common) and the absolute σώσειεν seem difficult, and some attempts to improve the text and provide the verb with an object have been made. Meineke’s με νῦν instead of the transmitted μὲν οὖν requires the alteration of the unexceptionable οὖν to νῦν, and Richards πῶς δή τιν’ ἂν is not convincing either. Kock’s τιν’ οὖν (cf. in v. 4 τίν’ … ἐπιτρίψειεν ἂν) seems more attractive. On the other hand, σώσειεν with an implied object is not impossible in the context of such “theological” generalizations (cf. the omission of a specific subject of διδόασιν δίκην). Besides, a tacit completion is possible, perhaps from the preceding (and not preserved) lines.

40

Cf. Henrichs 1974, 5–32; Obbink 210–11, who observes that Cicero’s dementia Aegyptiorum (Nat. deor. 1.43) actually derives from his hasty reading of Philodemus’ passage as a reference to the impropriety of Egyptian religion.

Aἰγύπτιοι (fr. 1)

25

3 διδόασιν In most cases it is not clear whether –α of this particular ending in comedy should be counted as long or short (e. g. Ar. Ach. 53; Antiph. fr. 157.3; Dionys. Com. fr. 3.6), but in Ar. V. 715 is certainly long. For the third person plural endings cf. Kortlandt 1988, 63–9. 4 The αἰλούρου transmitted by C and E is unmetrical. The older form αἰελούρου is certain here. Moreover, cf. Phot. α 564 αἰέλουρος· τετρασυλλάβως; Moer. α 78 αἰέλουρος Ἀττικοί· αἴλουρος Ἕλληνες; cf. Millis 2016 (on Anaxandr. fr. 40.12–3). Interpretation The whole passage has a strong rhetorical colour, consisting of a rhetorical question and an argumentum a fortiori (cf. below, on. v. 2). Apparently the speaking character is somebody qualified in rhetoric and not a superstitious man. The context of this fragment might be illuminated by the double antithesis between σώσειεν (v. 1) and ἐπιτρίψειεν (v. 4) on the one hand (both verbs are used with either an implied object, or an indefinite τινά, cf. above, under “Text”), and between “generally recognized” (ὁμολογούμενοι) and zoomorphic (cf. ἶβις, κύων and αἰέλουρος) gods on the other. It has been suggested that this particular scene might include an attempt at wrongdoing in an Egyptian setting, which would be preceded by a speech (monologue or dialogue) encouraging the action, the main point being that the victim of wrongdoing can neither be saved nor the perpetrator punished by zoomorphic Egyptian gods.41 However, it is better to assume that somebody (apparently Greek) sneers at the Egyptian religion for some reason. For the worship of zoomorphic gods by the Egyptians cf. Hdt. 2.37; Isoc. 11.24–7; Cic. Nat. deor. 15.39 … omne fere genus bestiarum Aegyptioi consecraverunt “the Egyptians used to regard almost all kinds of beasts as divine”. Ιn fourth-century comedy, Egypt and the parody of its custom become a topos; cf. Long 1986, 140: “the most significant barbarian topic for Middle Comedy by far”; Livingstone 2001, 75. 1 πῶς ἂν μὲν οὖν σώσειεν Remarkably enough, this combination of the particles does not occur elsewhere in that order, but cf. Antipho Tetr. 3.2.5 ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν πῶς ἂν ἐπιβουλεύσαιμι αὐτῷ; For the absolute σώσειεν see above, under “Text”. For a context of disputing ‘new’ gods cf. Men. fr. 156 (from Hēniochos) τὸν δίκαιον δεῖ θεὸν οἴκοι μένειν σῴζοντα τοὺς ἱδρυμένους “a proper God should stay at home and protect the people who set him up”. For the structure of the argument cf. Ar. Ra. 1457–8 (Aeschylus is speaking) πῶς οὖν τις ἂν σώσειε τοιαύτην πόλιν, / ᾗ μήτε χλαῖνα μήτε σισύρα ξυμφέρει; “then how could anyone save a city like this, when neither a cloak nor a goatskin will fit?”; Εuphro fr. 4 (from Δίδυμοι) ὁ γὰρ τὸν ἴδιον οἰκονομῶν κακῶς βίον, / πῶς οὗτος ἂν σώσειε τῶν ἔξω τινά; “a person who regulates his own house badly, how could he save some of the outsiders?”

41

Cf. Obbink 2002, 211, who speculates that wrongdoing concerns the theft of a statue or the like from an Egyptian temple.

26

Timokles

ἶβις (feminine). There were different kinds of this bird; the sacred species (religiosa) is Ibis aethiopica, described in Hdt. 2.76. The ibis was sacred to Theuth (Thoth), the moon-god; cf. Pl. Phdr. 274c οὗ καὶ τὸ ὄρνεον ἱερὸν ὃ δὴ καλοῦσιν Ἶβιν· αὐτῷ δὲ ὄνομα τῷ δαίμονι εἶναι Θεύθ “he whose sacred bird is called ibis; the name of the god himself was Theuth.” This bird occurs in Hieroglyphic and was often mummified. According to Herodotus (2.75), this is due to its defence of the country against winged serpents. Cf. Ar. Av. 1296, where Lycurgus had the nickname Ἶβις, probably due to his Egyptian-like complexion, or, perhaps, his inclination to Egyptian manners. Cf. Meinertzhagen II (1930) 346–50; Kees 1956, 48; Lloyd 1994, 328–30; Scalf 2012, 33–40. ἢ κύων; Possibly feminine, like ibis. Dogs were commonly referred to as feminine by the end of the fifth century; cf. Millis 2016, 192. The word κύων is for the Greeks rather a general one, and includes species like wild dogs, foxes and jackals, as the mummies found in association with the Anubis cult indicate; cf. Lloyd 1994, 301. For the worship of dogs in Egypt cf. Hdt. 2.67 τὰς δὲ κύνας ἐν τῇ ἑωυτῶν ἕκαστοι πόλι θάπτουσι ἐν ἱρῇσι θήκῃσι “people bury dogs each in his own town in sacred coffins”; Anaxandr. fr. 40.8–9 κύνα σέβεις, τύπτω δ᾽ ἐγώ, / τοὖψον κατεσθίουσαν ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν λάβω “you worship a dog, but I beat it whenever I catch it devouring my prepared food”; Ael. NA 10.45. They were associated with the god Anubis (cf. Plu. Mor. 368e; Str. 17.1.40). Four cities are known by the name Cynopolis. For Egyptian animal-worship in fourth-century comedy, cf. Frankfort 1948, 8–14; Smelik–Hemelrijk 1984, 1881–3.42 2 ὅπου γάρ This particular combination (ὅπου denoting cause, “whereas”, cf. LSJ 2.A.) mainly occurs in orators, and introduces an a fortiori argument, the main clause being interrogative; cf. And. 2.27 ὅπου γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων αὐτοὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπείσθητε τὰ μέγιστα ἐξαμαρτεῖν … τί ἄν τις ὑμῶν θαυμάζοι καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ εἴ τι ἐπείσθητε ἐξαμαρτεῖν; “And, since you were persuaded by those men to do yourselves the greatest wrong, why should any of you wonder that you were persuaded to do me wrong too?”; Isoc. 1.49; 4.186; Isae. 4,19; D. 57.4; [D.] 40.57. εἰς τοὺς ὁμολογουμένους θεοὺς “those who are admitted (to be) gods”; cf. Pl. Smp. 202b ὁμολογεῖταί γε παρὰ πάντων μέγας θεὸς εἶναι; Diod. Com. fr. 2.6 (on Zeus Philios) ὁ τῶν θεῶν μέγιστος ὁμολογουμένως. 3 ἀσεβοῦντες Impiety is here mentioned in reference to contempt of the established gods (τοὺς ὁμολογουμένους θεούς). Ιn Socrates’ trial for impiety (γραφὴ ἀσεβείας) one of the official accusations by Meletus is that Socrates believes in other gods and not in the gods the state believes in: Pl. Ap. 24b … καὶ θεοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει οὐ νομίζοντα; cf. Plu. Is. et Osir. 360e. For the construction ἀσεβεῖν εἰς cf. [D.] 59.12 τὴν περιφανῶς εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς ἀσεβοῦσαν “the woman who is openly defiling the gods”; 59.107; D. 26.27 καταψηφίσασθε δὲ τῶν εἰς τὸ 42

“Ibis, κύων und αἰέλουρος … bei Timokles … offenbar der Verspottung aegyptischer Gottheiten dienten” (Helm 1906, 145).

Aἰγύπτιοι (fr. 1)

27

θεῖον ἀσεβεῖν προῃρημένων; “and vote against those who chose to commit impiety against the divine”. οὐ διδόασιν εὐθέως δίκην This is probably a parody of Egyptian piety; cf. Isoc. 11.25 (with Livingstone 2001, ad loc.) καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἕκαστον οἴεσθαι παραχρῆμα δώσειν δίκην, ἀλλ’ οὐ διαλήσειν τὸν παρόντα χρόνον, “and each thinks that he will immediately be punished for his wrongdoings, and he will not escape detection for the present”. Apparently this is not an expected Greek opinion; cf. Sol. 4.16 West (Δίκη) τῷ δὲ χρόνῳ πάντως ἦλθ’ ἀποτεισομένη “and (Justice) inevitably comes to exact full revenge in time”. For the combination ἀσεβεῖν εἰς – δίκην διδόναι cf. Com. adesp. fr. 707 οὐ δώσω δὲ κἀν Ἅιδου δίκην / ὡς ἠσεβηκὼς εἰς τάλαντον ἀργύρου; “shouldn’t I be punished even in Hades, as having committed impiety against a talent of silver?” 4 αἰελούρου βωμός αἰέλουρος or αἴλουρος is the Libyan cat (Felis maniculata), the ancestor of the modern domestic cat; cf. Anderson 1902, 171–2; Lloyd 1994, 298. For the Egyptians’ general reverence for cats cf. Αnaxandr. fr. 40.12–3 (with Millis 2016 ad loc.) τὸν αἰέλουρον κακὸν ἔχοντ᾽ ἐὰν ἴδῃς / κλάεις, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἥδιστ᾽ ἀποκτείνας δέρω “If you see a cat suffering, / you weep, while I kill and skin it with pleasure”; Hdt. 2.66 (with Lloyd 1994, 299), where cats are treated as sacred. A great number of cat statuettes, usually bronze or wooden, survives. For the animal’s deification cf. Langton, N.–Langton, B. 1940. For cats in antiquity cf. Engels 1999. αἰελούρου βωμός (βωμός being emphatically placed at the center of the line, between penthemimeral and hephthemimeral caesura) may echo an altar in a shrine of Bastet, an Egyptian goddess associated with (and always represented as) a cat after 1000 BC. The main cult center of the goddess was at Bubastis, in the north-east Delta; cf. Hart 2005, 45–7. ἐπιτρίψειεν ἂν ἐπιτρίβω lit. “rub on the surface”, is a metaphor meaning “afflict, destroy”; it is absent from tragedy and lyric poetry, but it appears often in comedy, denoting “completely destroy”, often in reference to gods who punish wrongdoers; Αr. Av. 96 Οἱ δώδεκα θεοὶ εἴξασιν ἐπιτρῖψαί σε; “the Twelve Gods seem to have ground you down”; Pl. 119–20 Ὁ Ζεὺς μὲν οὖν οἶδ’ ὡς, τὰ τούτων μῶρ’ ἔμ’ εἰ / πύθοιτ’, ἂν ἐπιτρίψειε “I know that Zeus would utterly destroy me if he discovered the foolishness of these people”; Ec. 776 (as a curse) ὁ Ζεύς σε γ’ ἐπιτρίψειεν “oh, Zeus blast you!”; Men. Epitr. 1089–90 καθ’ ἕνα τούτων οἱ θεοὶ / ἕκαστον ἐπιτρίβουσιν ἢ σώιζουσι; “can the gods destroy or save every single one of them?”; fr. 878 ἐπιτρίβουσι δ’ ἡμᾶς οἱ θεοὶ μάλιστα τοὺς γήμαντας; Αlex. fr. 76.6 (on expensive fish ruining the buyers) τεθνεῶτες ἐπιτρίβουσι τοὺς ὠνουμένους; “even in death they destroy their buyers”; also in comic curses: ἐπιτριβείης “damn you!” (Ar. Av. 1530; Th. 557). It also appears once in fourthcentury oratory (D. 18.104). Cf. the abusive cognate ἐπίτριπτος (Sannyr. fr. 11; And. 1.98 and Alex. fr. 110.1 with Arnott 1996, ad loc.).

28

Βαλανεῖον (Βalaneion) (“The Bathhouse”) Discussion Bevilacqua 1939, 32; PCG VII (1989) 755–6; Chirico 1996, 27–33; Marchetti 2012, 34–5. Title The title does not appear in either of Suda’s lists. Plays by the same title were written by Amphis and Diphilus. Other plays denoting relevant places are Alcaeus’ Palaistra (unless this is a courtesan’s name; cf. Orth 2013, 14) and Antiphanes’ Mylōn. Bathhouses were usually built near high-traffic areas, such as harbors, edges of settlements, and sometimes near agorai. It seems that they were associated with luxury; cf. Ar. Pl. 613–8 (Blepsidemus on wealth and poverty) Νὴ Δί’ ἐγὼ γοῦν ἐθέλω πλουτῶν / εὐωχεῖσθαι μετὰ τῶν παίδων / τῆς τε γυναικός, καὶ λουσάμενος / λιπαρὸς χωρῶν ἐκ βαλανείου / τῶν χειροτεχνῶν / καὶ τῆς πενίας καταπαρδεῖν. “Βy Zeus, I want to be wealthy and, bathed and anointed with oil, to be of good cheer with my wife and children and to fart in the faces of toilers and Poverty”. It is no surprise, therefore, that their avoidance was associated with an ascetic life and philosophers like the Socratics (cf. Ar. Nu. 835–7). For the bad reputation of bathhouses, and the bathmen in particular, cf. carm. conv. PMG 905 πόρνη καὶ βαλανεὺς τωὐτὸν ἔχουσ’ ἐμπεδέως ἔθος· ἐν ταὐτᾶι πυέλωι τόν τ’ ἀγαθὸν τόν τε κακὸν λόει “a whore and a bathman behave in precisely the same habit: they wash the good man and the bad in the same tub”; Hermipp. fr. 68 μὰ τὸν Δί’ οὐ μέντοι μεθύειν τὸν ἄνδρα χρὴ / τὸν ἀγαθὸν οὐδὲ θερμολουτεῖν “By Zeus, a good man should not get drunk or take hot baths”; Ar. Eq. 1400–01 μεθύων τε ταῖς πόρναισι λοιδορήσεται, / κἀκ τῶν βαλανείων πίεται τὸ λούτριον “when he is drunk he shall hurl abuse with the prostitutes and he shall drink used bathwater; adesp. com. fr. 133 ὧν ἐστι τὸ ζῆν οὐδὲν ἄλλ’ / ἢ κραιπάλη, / κῶμος, βαλανεῖ’, ἄκρατος, ἀμίδες, ἀργία, πότος “their whole life consists of nothing but hard drinking, revels, bathhouses, unmixed wine, chamberpots, laziness, carousal”. Frequenting bathhouses was also considered a practice detrimental to manhood and fighting spirit, both in peace and in war. Cf. the debate between Better Argument and Worse Argument in Ar. Nu. 1045–6 καίτοι τίνα γνώμην ἔχων ψέγεις τὰ θερμὰ λουτρά; / ὁτιή κάκιστόν ἐστι καὶ δειλὸν ποεῖ τὸν ἄνδρα. “‘For what reason do you blame the warm baths?’ ‘because they are very harmful and make men cowards’”. For a contradistinction of balaneion as a place of corruption with palaistra as exercising manhood, cf. Ar. Nu. 1053–4 (‘Better Argument’ is speaking) ἃ τῶν νεανίσκων ἀεὶ δι’ ἡμέρας λαλούντων / πλῆρες τὸ βαλανεῖον ποιεῖ κενὰς δὲ τὰς παλαίστρας “it’s arguments like these that make the young men chatter all day, and fill the bath house, leaving the wrestling schools empty”; cf. [ D.] 50.34, where the trierarch Apollodorus is criticized by Polycles, his appointed successor, that he corrupts the crew by allowing them to live in luxury and take baths in tubs (λοῦσθαι ἐν βαλανείῳ). For Greek public bathhouses and the associated social and urban contexts see Ginouvès 1962, 183–224; Hoffmann 1999; Winter 2006, 115–134; Trümper 2013, 33–72. For further references to balaneion

Βαλανεῖον (fr. 2)

29

in Attic comedy cf. Olson 2014, 250–51 (on Eup. fr. 490); Papachrysostomou 2016, 56–60 (on Amphis’ Balaneion). Content The unique surviving verse is not helpful for the reconstruction of the plot, although it has an association with the title (βαλανεύσατε). A bathhouse might be at the center of the plot (and at the center, or, at least, in the background of the stage, as well). Being a public place where meetings and encounters of whatever kind occurred, it was often the setting for awkward incidents which provided material for comedy, e. g. anti-social and country-bumpkin behaviors, such as singing (Thphr. Char. 4.12 [said of an agroikos] καὶ ἐν βαλανείῳ δὲ ἆισαι); quarrels with the bath-keeper (Thphr. Char. 9.8); resentment of fellow-bathers (Eup. fr. 490 [dubium; see Olson 2014 ad loc.] εἰς βαλανεῖον / εἰσελθὼν μὴ ζηλοτυπήσῃς τὸν συνεμβαίνοντά σοι / εἰς τὴν μάκτραν “when you enter a bathhouse, don’t be resentful of him who gets into the tub with you”). For the bathhouse as a noisy place cf. Amphis fr. 7 (with Papachrysostomou 2016 ad loc.) ἀνεβόησ’ ὕδωρ ἐνεγκεῖν θερμόν, ἄλλος μετάκερας “he shouted (to someone) to bring hot water, another man (asked for) lukewarm”. Date

Unknown.

fr. 2 K.-A. (2 K.)

alw καὶ τὸ γλωττόκομον βαλανεύσατε τὸ BCL: om. FS γλωττόκομον FS: -μεῖον BCL –ώσατε? Kassel-Austin

βαλανεύσατε FS: -εύεται BCL: an

and give the glōttokomon a drenching too Poll. 10.154 (codd. FS, BCL) τὸ μέντοι γλωττοκομεῖον εἴρηκε Λύσιππος ἐν Βάκχαις (fr. 5) … ὠνόμασται γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν γλωττῶν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγγείου γλωττόκομον (-κομεῖον codd., corr. Nunnesius ad Phryn. ecl. 70) παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις ἔστιν εὑρεῖν, ὡς ἐν τῷ Τιμοκλέους Βαλανείῳ ∙ καὶ – βαλανεύσατε. καὶ ἐν Ἀπολλοδώρου τοῦ Καρυστίου Διαβόλῳ (fr. 7) ∙ μέγα – γλωττόκομον κτλ. Lysippus in his Bacchants (fr. 5) … uses the word glōttokomeion; it is named after the tongues; however, it is possible to find it used of a vase in the later authors in the form glōttokomon, as in Timocles’ Bathhouse; and – too. Also in the play Diabolus of Apollodorus from Carystus; a big – glōttokomon, etc.

Discussion Kock II (1884) 451; Bevilacqua 1939, 32–3; Edmonds II (1959) 602–3; Henderson 1975, 186; PCG VII (1989) 756; Chirico 1996, 27–33; Marchetti 2012, 34–5.

30

Timokles

Metre Iambic trimeter

〈alw〉l llwwl wwlwl

Citation context The tenth book of Pollux’s Onomastikon is devoted to utensils used in houses, fields and workshops (Poll. 10.10 σκεύη τὰ κατ’ οἰκίαν χρήσιμα καὶ κατ’ ἀγροὺς ἢ τέχνας). In a special unit (10.153–4) he discusses the word γλωττοκομεῖον, and cites Lysipp. fr. 5, where the word occurs in the sense of “reedcase”; he then notes that in the “later” writers, like Timocles and Apollodorus from Carystus, both the form and the meaning of the word have been modified. The form γλωττόκομον is used by those authors in the broader meaning of “vase”. Text The γλωττοκομεῖον transmitted by BCL might originate from the antecedent confusing wording ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγγείου γλωττoκομεῖον παρὰ τοῖς νεωτέροις ἔστιν εὑρεῖν, where Nunnesius has convincingly corrected γλωττοκομεῖον into γλωττόκομον. For an interpretation supporting the paradosis γλωττοκομεῖον see below. Τhe diction transmitted by BCL (and adopted by Kock) καὶ τὸ γλωττοκομεῖον βαλανεύεται is sometimes compared with an asclepiadic minor (lwlwwllwwlwl),43 and thus would come from a choral part. However, the reconstruction of this metre seems quite uncertain; the combination γλ normally does not cause a Correptio Attica of the preceding syllable in Attic Comedy; e. g. Ar. Ach. 380; Eq. 216, 352; Nu. 51, 879 (but cf. Antiph. fr. 173.2); Arnott 1996, 237–8; Orth 2015, 105–6. The βαλανώσατε suggested by Kassel-Austin supports an obscene language; see below, under “Interpretation”. Interpretation The unique surviving verse presents special difficulties, since the meaning of both γλωττόκομον and βαλανεύσατε is uncertain. On the basis of Poll. 10.154, where it is said that later writers like Timocles use the form γλωττόκομον in the broader sense of “vase”, one can think of a vase used in bathhouses, e. g. one containing perfume or ointment, like an ἀρύβαλλος,44 since an ἀλειπτήριον “room for anointing” was an indispensable part of a bathhouse; cf. Alex. fr. 106; Ginouvès 1962, 138. It is worth noting that βαλανεύειν is also used with reference to a wine-jar in Pherecr. fr. 137.6 ὁ Ζεὺς δ’ ὕων οἴνῳ καπνίᾳ κατὰ τοῦ κεράμου βαλανεύσει “Meantime Zeus rains down fragrant wine on the roof-tiles, as if it were a bath”. Besides, it is not impossible that the verb βαλανεύσατε is used here latiore sensu, as in Ar. Pax 1103 (with Olson 1998 ad loc.): ἀλλ’ εἰ ταῦτα δοκεῖ, κἀγὼ ’μαυτῷ βαλανεύσω “If you like, I’ll arrange these for myself ”. Concerning the transmitted γλωττοκομεῖον, unlike Lysipp. fr. 5, where this form, in combination with the title and the context (probably Dionysian), denotes a case for the tongues or reeds of pipes (see below, in the commentary), it is difficult to understand in our passage an order that a flute-case should be drenched. The form γλωττοκομεῖον, however, might have been used as a slang expression, 43 44

Pretagostini 2011, 153; Chirico 1996, 30–31. Cf. Chirico 1996, 28–9.

Βαλανεῖον (fr. 2)

31

denoting the vagina; cf. Et. magn. p. 235.45 ‘γλωττοκομεῖον’: ἐν ᾧ οἱ αὐληταὶ ἀπετίθεσαν τὰς γλώττας. Εἴρηται δὲ καὶ τὸ γυναικεῖον αἰδοῖον ὑπὸ Εὐβούλου (fr. 140) φοινικιστὴν σκώπτοντος “glōttokomeion: the vase where pipe-players stored the tongues. So is also named the female pudendum by Eubulus, in a passage where he mocks a cunnilingus”; also Hsch. γ 696 alludes to the sexual practice of cunnilingus, based on the comparison of the flute-case which receives the musical instrument (cf. Poll. 2.108 καὶ γλωττοκομεῖον τὸ τὰς γλῶττας ὑποδεχόμενον ἀγγεῖον) with the vagina which receives the lover’s tongue.45 Alternatively, if Kock “nisi forte βαλανεύειν dixit pro βαλανοῦν” or Kassel-Austin “an βαλανώσατε?” are right, then the meaning “penetrate sexually” is possible; cf. Ar. Ec. 361 νῦν μὲν γὰρ οὗτος βεβαλάνωκε τὴν θύραν “now he has bolted the door”; Henderson 1975, 119.46 If the verse contains obscene language, then the speaking character might be a person of low reputation, like the bath-attendant; cf. Ar. Eq. 1403, where βαλανεῖς and πόρναι, classified together, are associated with shouting matches; Ra. 709–10 Κλειγένης ὁ μικρός, ὁ πονηρότατος βαλανεύς “Cleigenes the tiny, the most villainous bathman” with Dover 1993, ad loc. γλωττόκομον “case”; cf. Apollod. Car. fr. 7 μέγα, / ὦ Φορμίων, γλωττόκομον· οὐκ ὀφθαλμιῶ “a big glōttokomon, Phormion; I do not suffer from ophthalmia” (or, perhaps, “I am not jealous of it”); in a metaphorical sense in [Longin.] 44.5 ψυχῆς γλωττόκομον “the cage of the soul”. Both γλωττόκομον and the older form γλωττοκομεῖον belong in the group of composites with –κομεῖν as the last part, denoting care, as εἰροκόμος, γηροκόμος, ἱπποκόμος, etc.; cf. Chantrain, s. v. κομέω 3. For the evolution of its meaning cf. Phryn. PS 58.8, who disapproves of the use of the form γλωττόκομον: ‘γλωττοκομεῖον’: ἐπὶ μόνου τοῦ τῶν αὐλητικῶν γλωττῶν ἀγγείου. ὕστερον δὲ καὶ εἰς ἑτέραν χρῆσιν κατεσκευάζετο, βιβλίων ἢ ἱματίων ἢ ἀργύρου ἢ ὁτουοῦν ἄλλου. καλοῦσι δ’ αὐτὸ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς γλωσσόκομον “‘glōttokomeion’: “this word was used only for the vase where the tongues of the pipes were stored. But it was later applied to other uses as well, such as storing books, clothes, silver articles or whatever. The uneducated call it glōssokomon”; cf. Ec. 70; Hellad. apud Phot. Bibl. 279 p. 532a 6; Lobeck 1820, 98–9. βαλανεύσατε The verb describes the jobs of a βαλανεύς, i. e. heating the bath (Ar. Lys. 336–7 στελέχη φέροντας ὥσπερ βαλανεύσοντας) and assisting the bathers. The verb may also be used in the sense “drench like a bathman” (cf. Pherecr. 117.6), or in metaphorical sense, e. g. Ar. Pax 1103; cf. above, under “Interpretation”. 45

46

Cf. Henderson 1975, 186 (no 390): “Tongue-case is a playful term for the cunt”; Bagordo 2014b, 59 (on Lysippus fr. 5). For obscene connotations of the first part γλωττο- of the verb, cf. Ar. V. 1283 γλωττοποιεῖν εἰς τὰ πορνεῖ’ εἰσιόνθ’ ἑκάστοτε, “to lick them up every time he went into a brothel”, with the reference to Ariphrades, the supposed inventor of this practice. It is worth noting that Henderson 1987, on Ar. Lys. 337, ascribes similar obscene meaning to βαλανεύσοντες (a participle of βαλανεύω, said of the old men who head toward the women on the Acropolis).

32

Γεωργός (?) (Geōrgos) (“The Farmer”) Meineke, V. 1 (1857) 96 (Addenda et Corrigenda ad vol. III), cites Clem. Al. Strom. 4.7.1 αὐτίκα οἱ Στρωματεῖς ἡμῶν, κατὰ τὸν γεωργὸν Τιμοκλέους τοῦ κωμικοῦ (it follows fr. 38) and notes: “fabulam, ex qua haec derivata sunt, nunc non dubito quin Γεωργὸς inscripta fuisse”. All the following editors include the title with reservation in Timocles’ plays, but treat fr. 38 separately, as unidentified. The wording κατὰ τὸν γεωργὸν might well refer to a Timocles play with that title; cf. the homonymous comedy by Menander. It is also possible to think of a farmer as a speaking character in a play entitled Γεωργός; cf. Aristophanes’ Γεωργοί, and especially frr. 102 and 110, where the speaking persons are apparently farmers (fr. 102.1 (A.) ἐθέλω γεωργεῖν. (Β) εἶτα τίς σε κωλύει; “(A) I want to farm! (B) And who’s stopping you?”; fr. 110.1 lwl συκᾶς φυτεύω κάρτα πλὴν Λακωνικῆς “I plant figs of every kind except for Spartan ones”. On the other hand, it is also possible that Clement is referring to a comic hero of some unknown play by Timocles; cf. Ar. Ach. 1018–36, where a farmer appears on stage, eventually identified as Dercetes of Phyle.

33

Δακτύλιος (Daktylios) (“The Ring”) Discussion Bevilacqua 1939, 33; PCG VII (1989) 756. Title Comedies with the same title were written by Alexis, Amphis, Philemo, Menander and an unknown poet of the second century (IG II2 2323,133 =III B3 col. 2b22 Mette= 2323.175 Millis–Olson 2012, 96, 103). Cf. also Pomponius’ Anulus posterior and Plautus’ Condalium. In Aristophanes there occurs a “signet-ring”, which authorizes its bearer to arrange business on behalf of the person whose seal is engraved on it (Eq. 947–59).47 They also were used as betrothal gifts (Ter. Ad. 347); cf. Arnott 1996, 154. For rings having magic qualities cf. Eup. fr. 96 (from Baptai); Amips. fr. 26, where a δακτύλιος φαρμακίτης, probably a ring with magic power, is mentioned; cf. Orth 2013, 317–20; Ar. Pl. 883–4 (a ring supposedly providing supernatural protection); Th. 424–33; Antiph. fr. 175 (probably Heracles is speaking) ἐὰν δ’ ἄρα / στρέφῃ με περὶ τὴν γαστέρ’ ἢ τὸν ὀμφαλόν, / παρὰ Φερτάτου δακτύλιος ἔστι μοι δραχμῆς “But if I feel a twisting in my stomach or my gut, I have got a ring from Phertatus that cost a drachma”. But, above all, rings were typical recognition tokens in late comedy (see below, under “Content”), being used by their bearers for identification (e. g. in Plautus’ Bacchis), and sometimes their fraudulent use was an essential part of the plot (e. g. in Plautus’ Curculio, Miles Gloriosus and Pseudolus). Content The surviving fragment is not helpful for the reconstruction of the plot. It is possible that a ring was at the center of the play, perhaps as a token in a recognition scene. In Menander’s Epitrepontes (vv. 358–79), the exposed baby is found to bear Charisius’ ring, and is eventually identified as the child of Charisius and Pamphile. Sometimes rings are used to forge letters, contributing to the complexity of the plot, before a final anagnōrisis; for a play combining epistles and ring, cf. Plautus’ Curculio, where the slave Planesium is recognized by means of a ring as a freeborn woman (cf. below on Timocles’ Δρακόντιον and Ἐπιστολαί, under “Content”). For rings in recognition comedies cf. Αrnott 1996,153–4; Boardman 2001, 189–302; Papachrysostomou 2016, 82–3. Date Unknown.

fr. 3 K.-A. (3 K.)

al γαλεοὺς καὶ βατίδας ὅσα τε τῶν γενῶν ἐν ὀξυλιπάρῳ τρίμματι σκευάζεται 1 τε τῶν γενῶν codd.: τ’ αὐτῶν γένη Kock 47

For their use in sealing private documents in forensic practice cf. D. 37.42.

34

Timokles

dogfish and rays and whatever species like that is prepared in vinegar-and-oil sauce Ath. 7.295b Τιμοκλῆς δ’ ἐν Δακτυλίῳ (-ύλῳ Α, fab. nom. om. CE) φησί ∙ γαλεοὺς – σκευάζεται Timocles says in The Ring: “dogfish-sauce” Ath. 9.385a Τιμοκλῆς …ἔφη, ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν Δακτυλίῳ μέμνηται τοῦ ὀξυλιπάρου λέγων οὕτως ∙ γαλεοὺς – σκευάζεται Τhe comic poet Timocles in The Ring mentions vinegar-and-oil sauce, saying the following: “dogfish – sauce“

Metre Iambic trimeter 〈al〉wwl lwww|ww

wlwl wlwww l|lwl llwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 591; Kock II (1884) 451–2; Bevilacqua 1939, 33; Edmonds II (1959) 602–3; PCG VII (1989) 756. Citation context The first quotation is included in a section devoted to galeoi (dogfish). The second quotation is in a context on the meaning of oxyliparos. The meaning of akroliparoi “oily on top” is discussed in the following section. Interpretation Perhaps the fragment has been extracted from a series of dishes; both βατίς (e. g. Ar. fr. 333; Eup. fr. 174.2; Archestr. fr. 50. 1–2) and γαλεός (Anaxandr. fr. 42 with Millis 2016, 225) are included in banquet catalogues or food lists. The speaking character might be a person (a cook?) who refers to the practice of dressing food, fish in particular, with sauce. He might be speaking, therefore, about the Sicilian cooking tradition; see below, on σκευάζεται. Cook scenes including recipes are common in fourth-century comedy; cf. Alex. fr. 138 (with Arnott 1996, 399), where a cook apparently gives directions to another character to dress a fish: ἐπίστασαι τὸν σαῦρον ὡς δεῖ σκευάσαι; / Β. ἀλλ’ ἂν διδάσκῃς. Α. ἐξελὼν τὰ βραγχία, / πλύνας, περικόψας τὰς ἀκάνθας τὰς κύκλῳ, / παράσχισον χρηστῶς, διαπτύξας θ’ ὅλον / τῷ σιλφίῳ μάστιξον εὖ τε καὶ καλῶς, / τυρῷ τε σάξον ἁλσί τ’ ἠδ’ ὀριγάνῳ “ A. Do you know how you ought to dress a horse-mackerel? B. I shall, when you have taught me. A. First of all, take off the gills, then wash him, then cut off the spines all round, and split him open neatly; then when you’ve laid him flat, anoint him well and thoroughly with laserwort; sprinkle him then with cheese, and salt, and origan”; frr. 84, 129, 191, 192; Antiph. frr. 216, 221; Philem. fr. 82; Sotad. fr. 1; for the art of seasoning, which is also described as ὀψαρτυσία, cf. on Timocl. fr. 39. 1 γαλεούς γαλεός (e. g. Pl. Com. fr. 146; Ephipp. fr. 12.1; Anaxandr. fr. 42) is the thresher shark or dogfish; cf. Thompson 1947, 39–42; Dalby 2003, 120–1.

Δακτύλιος (fr. 3)

35

Like βατίς it was usually eaten both broiled (e. g. Ar. fr. 333.3) and stewed (e. g. Antiph. fr. 221.3–4). βατίδας βατίς “ray” or “skate” (Arist. HA 565a) is the feminine of βάτος. Cf. Epich. frr. 52.1; 79.1,3; Ar. V. 510 (with Biles–Olson 2016 ad loc., p. 246); Anaxandr. 42.51 (with Millis 2016, ad loc., p. 225); Olson–Sens 2000 (on Archestr. fr. 50.1); Thompson 1947, 26–8; Davidson 1997, 33–6; Dalby 2003, 304. βατίς was consumed either ἑφθή (“boiled”, cf. Metag. fr. 6.4) or ὀπτή (“broiled”, cf. Hermipp. fr. 46.2). It often appeared in seafood catalogues, e. g. Ar. fr. 333.4; Call. Com. fr. 6.1. ὅσα τε τῶν γενῶν Probably “species of fish”; cf. Henioch. fr. 3.1 ἰχθύων γένη; Diph. fr. 43.2–3 ὀστρέων γένη / παντοδαπά (also for the species of the flora, e. g. Epicr. fr. 10.15 λαχάνων γένη; Alex. fr. 263.3 ἐλαῶν γένη). 2 ὀξυλιπάρῳ τρίμματι ὀξυλίπαρον τρῖμμα is a spiced sauce of vinegar and oil; cf. Sotad. Com. fr. 1.19 ὀξυλίπαρον τούτοις ἔδωσα χυμίον “I gave them vinegarand-oil sauce”; Alex. fr. 193 τρῖμμ’ εὐρύθμως διειμένον ὄξει “sauce soaked evenly with vinegar”; Arnott 1996, 566–7. Depending on the ingredients, the flavor or the colour, there were different kinds of τρῖμμα: e. g. συκαμίνινον “made of mulberries” (Sotad. fr. 1.4); ἄνθινον “flavoured with flowers” (Sotad. fr. 1.17); cf. Axion. fr. 4.8 χλωρῷ τρίμματι “with fresh spice”. σκευάζεται The verb (on which cf. Ar. Eq. 53; Alex. fr. 50; fr. 138; Anaxil. fr. 28.2 σκεύαζε, παῖ, τοὐψάριον ἡμῖν; Euphro fr. 8; Eub. fr. 35.4) refers here to the practice of “dressing” foods, part of Sicilian cooking tradition; cf. φαρμακεύειν “season” (Hsch. φ 178 φαρμακεύεται ∙ σκευάζεται, ἀρτύεται) and ἐξανθίζειν “deck” (Philem. fr. 82.5–6 οὐ πεφαρμακευμένον / τυροῖσιν οὐδ’ ἄνωθεν ἐξηνθισμένον); see above, under “Interpretation”. In comedy, however, seasoning is sometimes considered by boastful chefs a menial task compared to the demanding work of a cook; cf. Dionys. Com. fr. 2. 15–20 σκευάσαι μὲν ἢ τεμεῖν / ἡδύσμαθ’ ἑψῆσαί τε καὶ φυσᾶν τὸ πῦρ / ὁ τυχὼν δύναιτ’ ἄν · ὀψοποιὸς οὖν μόνον / ἐστὶν ὁ τοιοῦτος, ὁ δὲ μάγειρος ἄλλο τι “anyone can manage to prepare or chop up seasonings or boil or kindle a fire. Such a man is only an opsopoios, though – a chef is something else”; cf. Nicom. Com. fr. 1 τὸ γὰρ παραλαβόντ’ ὄψον ἠγορασμένον / πότερον ἀποδοῦναι σκευάσαντα μουσικῶς / διακόνου ’στ’ οὐ τοῦ τυχόντος; “to take some opson that someone else has bought, and then to dress it suitably and offer it, is what any servant can do”.

36

Δῆλος (Dēlos) (“Delos”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 591 ; Kock II (1884) 452 ; Bevilacqua 1939, 47–9; PCG VII (1989) 756–7. Title Τitles associated with Δῆλος are Philostephanus’ Δήλιος, Cratinus’ Δηλιάδες and (possibly) Antiphanes’ and Sophilus’ Δηλία (cf. Ar. fr. 938). Meineke III (1840) 591 notes for Timocles’ play “rectius fortasse Δήλιος”. Given Philostephanus’ title and other comic titles containing ethnic names (see below), this suggestion is attractive, although not definitive. For islands as comedy titles cf. Demetrius’ Σικελία, Plato’s Ἑλλὰς ἢ Νῆσοι and Amphis’ Λευκάς.48 Other relevant titles are Λήμνιαι (Aristophanes, Antiphanes, Nicochares and Diphilus); Σαμία (Anaxandrides and Menander); Zακύνθιος (Antiphanes); Κύπριος (Alexis); Λημνία (Alexis); Σικελικός (Philemon and Diphilus). In the fourth century, Delos was a place of both religious and political importance. Concerning the relations between Athens and Delos, from 394 BC onwards Athens had control of the island and the temple of Apollo, but sometime in the 340s (probably about 345–3 BC) the Delians attempted to regain the administration of the sanctuary and a conflict arose between them and the Athenians. In this debate Hyperides was appointed spokesman by the Areopagus to represent the Athenian position (probably before the Amphictyonic Council at Delphi), instead of Aeschines who was initially elected; cf. D. 18.134; [Plu.] Vit. dec. Or. 850a καὶ ἔστιν ὁ λόγος Δηλιακὸς ἐπιγεγραμμένος (Hyp. frr. 67—75 Jensen). Ηyperides apparently won the case and the Athenians retained control of the sanctuary. It was in this speech that Hyperides, in his effort to associate his city with Delos, said that when Leto was pregnant with Zeus’ children, she was pursued by Hera and took refuge in Attica, in a place where she loosened her girdle on the spot called Zōstēr (fr. 67 Jensen; cf. schol. ad Arist. 1.157 Dindorf). In addition, throughout the classical period Delos was a site of ritual and sacrifice. 49 On festivals at Delos cf. Th. 3.104; Arist. Ath. Pol. 54.7; Plu. Nic. 3.5–8; Laidlaw 1933, 45–50; on Delos in the fourth century cf. Rhodes 1981, 693–5 (on Ath. Pol. 62.2); as εὔοψος ἀγορά and a good supply of cooks cf. Crito Com. fr. 3.7; Dalby 2013, 114. Content The surviving fragment contains personal satire against well-known anti-Macedonians. This satire might be either central or peripheral to the plot. Given Timocles’ inclination to political satire and onomasti kōmōidein, especially

48 49

Meineke also wanted to correct Amphis’ play Λευκάς to Λευκαδία, but cf. Papachrysostomou 2016, 163–4. However, although the anti-Macedonian Hyperides is one of the kōmōidoumenoi of this fragment, the political ambiance of those events and the relevant “Delian” speech are unlikely to have been mentioned in the context of the Harpalus affair, some twenty years later.

Δῆλος (fr. 4)

37

with reference to the pro-Macedonian and anti-Macedonian controversies (cf. “Themes and Motives”), a plot focused on contemporary politics should not be excluded. Concerning the title, one might think of a personification of the island of Delos on stage (cf. Pirotta 2009, on Plato’s Ἑλλὰς ἢ Νῆσοι and Orth 2014, 161–2 on Demetrius’ Σικελία). Date The Harpalus affair (324 BC) is the terminus post quem for Timocles’ play. It has, in fact, been suggested that it is the staging of the play sometime between September and February of 324 BC, i. e. before the completion of the Areopagus investigation (see below under “Interpretation”), which accounts for the inclusion of Hyperides in this catalogue of bribed politicians.50

fr. 4 K.-A. (4 K.)

5

(Α.) Δημοσθένης τάλαντα πεντήκοντ’ ἔχει. (Β.) μακάριος, εἴπερ μεταδίδωσι μηδενί. (Α.) καὶ Μοιροκλῆς εἴληφε χρυσίον πολύ. (Β.) ἀνόητος ὁ διδούς, εὐτυχὴς δ’ ὁ λαμβάνων. (Α.) εἴληφε καὶ Δήμων τι καὶ Καλλισθένης. (Β.) πένητες ἦσαν, ὥστε συγγνώμην ἔχω. (Α.) ὅ τ’ ἐν λόγοισι δεινὸς Ὑπερείδης ἔχει. (Β.) τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας οὗτος ἡμῶν πλουτιεῖ ὀψοφάγος † γὰρ ὥστε τοὺς λάρους εἶναι Σύρους

3 μοιροκλῆς Α: μϋρ-CE 5 εἴληφε Mus.: εἶτ’ εἴλ- ACE:εἶτ’ ἔλαβε Kock τι Dobree: τε ACE 9 om. CE ὀψοφάγος Α: οὑψ- Bergk γὰρ Α: del. Casaubon 〈ἔστ’〉 ὀψ. γάρ, ὥστε τ. λ. 〈δοκεῖν〉 / εἶναι Σύρους Tucker 〈10 παρ’ αὐτὸν〉 Κock

5

50

(A.) Demosthenes has fifty talents. (B.) He is lucky, if he doesn’t share with anyone. (A.) Moerocles also got a lot of gold. (B.) The one who gives is an idiot, whereas he who receives is lucky. (A.) Demon also got something; Callisthenes too. (B.) They were poor, so I forgive them. (A.) And Hyperides the excellent orator got a bit. (B.) He will make our fish-sellers rich; Because he is such a fish-eater† that he makes seagulls look like Syrians

On the estimated date of the play see Badian 1961, 43; Whitehead, 2000, 358.

38

Timokles

[1–9] Ath. 8.341e καὶ Ὑπερείδης δὲ ὁ ῥήτωρ ὀψοφάγος ἦν, ὥς φησι Τιμοκλῆς ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν Δήλῳ (fab. nom. om. CE) διηγούμενος τοὺς παρὰ Ἁρπάλου δωροδοκήσαντας. γράφει δὲ οὕτως Δημοσθένης – Σύρους The orator Hyperides was also an opsophagos, as Timocles the comic poet tells us in Dēlos, when talking about those bribed by Harpalus. He writes as follows: Demosthenes – Syrians. [1–2] Syrian. in Hermog. 1.50.6 Rabe κωμωδεῖ δὲ αὐτὸν Τιμοκλῆς ἐπὶ τοῖς Ἁρπαλ〈ε〉ίοις λέγων ∙ Δημοσθένης – μηδενί Timocles satirizes him on the Harpalus affair in these words: Demosthenes – anyone

Metre Iambic trimeter

5

llwl wlw|l llwl wwwwl l|wwwl wlwl llwl llw|l wlwl wwlwww l|lwl wlwl llwl llw|l llwl wlwl w|lwl llwl wlwl w|lw|ww llwl llwwl wlwl llwl lwww†wl wlwl llwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 591–2; Kock II (1884) 452; Bevilacqua 1939, 47–9; Edmonds II (1959) 603–5; PCG VII (1989) 756–7; Whitehead 2000, 10–11. Citation context The fragment is preserved by Athenaeus in a long unit, where Democritus, the persona loquens, deals with opsophagoi (8.340b–347b). The source of this material was probably Hegesander of Delphi; cf. Düring 1936, 9, who argues that he was also the source for Plutarch’s Quaestiones Convivales; Bianchi 2015, 364–5. This particular section (8.341f–342a) offers evidence that Hyperides was a notorious opsophagos. It follows fr. 17 from Icarian Satyrs, where Hyperides is described as a “fish-rich river”, and the information from Athenaeus that Philetaerus describes him as both an opsophagos and a dicer: 8.342a Φιλέταιρος δ’ ἐν Ἀσκληπιῷ (fr. 2) [τὸν Ὑπερείδην del. Wilamowitz] πρὸς τῷ ὀψοφαγεῖν καὶ κυβεύειν αὐτόν φησι. Text 5 The transmitted εἶτ’ εἴληφε is unmetrical. Kock’s εἶτ’ ἔλαβε is not convincing, since εἴληφε corresponds perfectly to the preceding form in v. 3. Therefore, Musurus’ correction is imperative. Also the absolute εἴληφε is difficult, and Dobrees’ τι instead of the transmitted τε is unexceptionable. 9 ὀψοφάγος † γὰρ The transmitted diction is unmetrical. Casaubon 1621, 594, followed by Kock II (1884) 452, deletes γάρ, but this is a desperate attempt. It is obvious that something is missing; cf. Kaibel II (1887) 250 (on Ath. 8.342a): “γάρ deleri nequit; verba mutila”. Bergk’s οὑψοφάγος attempts to save the meaning, but is

Δῆλος (fr. 4)

39

difficult three places after οὗτος. Slightly better seems Tucker’s (1908, 195, adopted by Olson 2007, 194) suggestion 〈ἔστ’〉 ὀψοφάγος γάρ, ὥστε τοὺς λάρους 〈δοκεῖν〉 / εἶναι Σύρους, who interprets “the cormorants will seem Syrians compared with him” (the Syrians refusing to eat fish); for a similar structure cf. Phoenicid. fr. 1 (A.) δύνασαι σιωπᾶν; (Β.) ὥστε 〈τοὺς〉 τὰς διαλύσεις / συντιθεμένους κεκραγέναι δοκεῖν “(A.) can you keep silence; (B.) so that those who arrange the settlements appear to cry”. Interpretation Two characters are discussing the Harpalus scandal on stage. The first (A) names the politicians supposedly bribed by Harpalus and the second (B) makes short comments (overt or allusive) on them. We do not know where these rapid exchanges (stichomythia, “line talking”) took place. Both are apparently Athenians (cf. v. 8 τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας… ἡμῶν). Τhe playful answers by (B) suggest a quick-witted character. Timocles’ satire here exploits a general prejudice against politicians participating in diplomatic legations. The dialogue focuses on the Harpalus affair, one of the most serious scandals in the fourth century. Harpalus, Alexander’s treasurer, defected to Athens in 324 BC, taking 700 talents with him. Hard on his heels came Macedonian envoys, demanding his immediate extradition. Demosthenes obviously believed that this was not the most opportune moment for a conflict with Macedonians, and so proposed that both treasurer and treasure be placed under guard. His motion was accepted, but only weeks later the arrested official managed to abscond with half the sum he had purportedly brought with him. Not unnaturally, it was believed that the remaining money had been spent on bribes; when some members of the anti-Macedonian party were accused, Demosthenes was fined fifty talents and sent into exile, though he was soon recalled. Harpalus was later assassinated in 324 BC by Thibron in Crete; see Badian 1961, 16–43. As far as the surviving evidence goes, Demon, Moirocles and Callisthenes were never officially accused of bribery, though they are stigmatized as corrupt politicians in the fragment. According to all other known sources Demosthenes was accused of accepting twenty talents, rather than the fifty recorded by Timocles.51 And, most importantly, Hyperides was considered so incorruptible (ἀδωροδόκητος) that he was selected as a state prosecutor in the ensuing trials against corrupt politicians, and even broke off a long-standing friendship with Demosthenes to deliver a speech against him, the prime defendant in the case.52

51

52

Hyp. Dem. fr. 1.2,7,10; cf. Din. 1.6 and passim. As Whitehead 2000, 359–61, argues, this accusation was never proved, and even if it had been, one cannot rule out the possibility of Demosthenes using the gift for patriotic ends. Hyp. Dem.; [Plu.] Vit. dec. Or. 848f Δημοσθένης δ’ ὡς παρ’ Ἁρπάλου δωροδοκήσας ἐκρίνετο, προχειρισθεὶς (sc. Hyperides) ἐξ ἁπάντων (μόνος γὰρ ἔμεινεν ἀδωροδόκητος) κατηγόρησεν αὐτοῦ. See Whitehead 2000, 355–64.

40

Timokles

The suggestion that the inaccuracies in fr. 4 are the product of comic exaggeration53 could of course stand, in which case we would be dealing with an attack on corrupt politicians comparable to the stereotypical Aristophanic slander mainly directed against Cleon. There is, however, one more parameter that may shed light on the issue. When the scandal broke, the Areopagus was instructed to investigate the matter and submit a report. The preliminary investigation lasted six months.54 This legal process would explain Timocles’ decision to include prominent orators like Hyperides, who had demonstrated an uninterrupted presence and a combative spirit in the anti-Macedonian party. It would also account for the inclusion of Demon, Moerocles and Callisthenes, all well-known anti-Macedonian politicians whose extradition Alexander demanded in 335 BC, after the revolt that followed the murder of Philip (cf. Plu. Dem. 23.4).55 1 Δημοσθένης Demosthenes, the son of Demosthenes of the deme Paeania (Δημοσθένης (ΙΙ) Δημοσθένους (Ι) Παιανιεύς, 384–322 BC; RE n. 6; PAA 318625; LGPN II, n. 16170) was born into an old wealthy Athenian family (APF 3597) and was by far the most eminent orator of the anti-Macedonian party. In 350s BC he entered public politics, and his strategy as a symboulos was to increase Athens’ military readiness, in order to oppose Philip and support the Greek cities in their resistance to him. After 350 BC, he delivered his four Philippics and three Olynthian speeches. In 342 BC, in particular, he delivered the Third Philippic, in which he depicts Philip as a serious threat to Athens and the whole of Greece; see Wooten 2008, 3–16. He managed to unite the major Greek cities against Philip at Chaeroneia in 338 BC, and even after that battle he continued to urge resistance against Philip, but his efforts were ineffectual. In the last years of his life he was involved in the Harpalus affair (see above, under “Interpretation”) and shortly afterwards, in 322 BC, the pro-Macedonian forces brought about his condemnation to death and he committed suicide. The most important sources for Demosthenes’ life are his own speeches and letters, and Plutarch’s biography; cf. Carlier 1990, 35–55, 75–87, 102–17. For Demosthenes as a stateman and an orator see Jaeger 1938; Sealey 1993; Worthington 2000a; MacDowell 2009, 314–77. He was a favourite target of Timocles (cf. fr. 12 from Heroes), along with Hyperides (cf. v. 7 and fr. 17 from Ikarioi Satyroi) and other anti-Macedonian orators (see Introduction, under „Kōmōidoumenoi“). τάλαντα πεντήκοντ’ This assertion seems incredible. It is indicative that such an enormous sum is not confirmed by either Hyperides or Dinarchus; for this issue cf. above, under „Interpretation“. Such comic exaggerations are not unusual. Perhaps fifty talents was a typical number for astronomical sums; cf. Ar. V. 669,

53 54 55

So Olson 2007, 223. Din. 1.45; Hyp. Dem. fr. 3 Jensen. On bribery in ancient Greece cf. Harvey 1985, 76–117; Wankel 1991, 34–6; Taylor, 2001a, 53–66 and 2001b, 154–72.

Δῆλος (fr. 4)

41

where Bdelycleon argues that Athenian politicians are bribed with the same sum: δωροδοκοῦσιν κατὰ πεντήκοντα τάλαντα; cf. Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc. ἔχει “has received and possesses” (LSJ A. 1). The same verb is used of Hyperides in v. 7 in what appears to be a circular formulation, whereas in between the verb εἰληφέναι is used (vv. 3,5). Normally the verb in that sense requires a qualification (ἔκ τινος, παρά τινος), but this is to be supplied by the audience (the giver is Harpalus). 2 μακάριος For the use of the adjective in a similar context cf. Μen. fr. 289 μακάριος / ἐκεῖνος lw δέκα τάλαντα καταφαγὼν “he is lucky, having devoured ten talents”. εἴπερ μεταδίδωσι μηδενί The speaker means that politicians who receive bribes are pressed to share them with other politicians; cf. the political satire in Ar. V. 914, in the Trial of Dogs, where Kyōn, i. e. Cleon, accuses Labes of refusing to share: κοὐ μετέδωκ’ αἰτοῦντι μοι; cf. 923 κυνῶν ἁπάντων ἄνδρα μονοφαγίστατον “the most eating alone canine man in the world”. For the idea cf. Men. Dysc. 799–800 (also about money) φύλαττε μηδενὶ / τοῦ σοῦ μεταδιδούς “keep it, do not give a share to anyone”. 3 Μοιροκλῆς Moerocles the son of Euthydemus of the deme Eleusis (PAA 658480) was a wealthy Athenian politician, involved in financial affairs. At some time before 340 BC he proposed a decree against those who wrong merchants (cf. [D.] 58.53 Against Theocrines, dated to 341–340 BC). He was also prosecuted (apparently in his euthynai as one of the ten pōlētai) by Eubulus for surcharging the cost of the mining concessionaries, either for the benefit of the city, or, more probably, for himself; cf. D. 19.293 with MacDowell 2000, 334. It was on that occasion that he is reported to have made a joke, that he was no more dishonest than a certain respectable citizen, whom he named, for that man was wicked “at thirty-three-and-a-third-percent interest”, while he himself “at ten percent”: Arist. Rh. 1411a16–8 καὶ Μοιροκλῆς οὐθὲν ἔφη πονηρότερος εἶναι, ὀνομάσας τινὰ τῶν ἐπιεικῶν· ἐκεῖνον μὲν γὰρ ἐπιτρίτων τόκων πονηρεύεσθαι, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιδεκάτων. In Plu. Dem. 23.4 Moerocles is mentioned as one of the hostages demanded by Alexander in 335 BC. εἴληφε χρυσίον πολὺ The same wording appears in Din. Dem. 4, where it is said that the Areopagus investigated if some men had taken gold from Harpalus: εἴ τινες εἰλήφασι παρ’ Ἁρπάλου χρυσίον; on this investigation cf. above, under “Interpretation”. For that common slander against politicians supposedly being bribed cf. D. 18.36; Aeschin. 3.149; Hyp. Dem. fr. 2, col. 3 Jensen. 4 ἀνόητος ὁ διδοὺς Probably because Moerocles is an untrustworthy profiteer; cf. above on v. 3. The near-contemporary orator Lycurgus, when accused of buying up a sycophant, in order to stop his mouth, was credited with the following answer: ἥδομαι γάρ… εἰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον πεπολιτευμένος παρ’ ὑμῖν, διδοὺς πεφώραμαι πρότερον ἢ λαμβάνων “I am glad indeed, …that after engaging in politics among you for such a long time, I have been caught giving rather than receiving money” (Plu. Comp. Nic. et Crass. 1.3; cf. De laude ipsius 541a).

42

Timokles

εὐτυχής δ’ ὁ λαμβάνων Τhe form of the speech might echo a marriage context, where the giver (διδοὺς) is the father- in- law and the receiver (λαμβάνων) is the son-in-law; cf. Posidipp. fr. 28.20 ὁ διδοὺς ἐπιφανής, ἐπιφανὴς ὁ λαμβάνων “the giver is illustrious, the receiver is illustrious too” and Meineke IV (1841) 523 (following Casaubon) ad loc.: “ὁ διδοὺς socer, ὁ λαμβάνων gener”; cf. Men. fr. 802.3 αὑτὸν δίδωσιν, οὐκ ἐκείνην λαμβάνει “he gives himself, he does not receive her”. If the same adjective μακάριος was used in the marriage context, i. e. μακάριος ὁ διδούς, μακάριος ὁ λαμβάνων, then the replacement of the first typical μακάριος by ἀνόητος would produce a comic effect. 5 Δήμων He is probably the Δήμων Δημομέλους Παιανιεύς (PAA 322735; APF 116–8), who brought a counter indictment (παραγραφή) against a certain Zenothemis (D. 32; on this speech see MacDowell 2004, 84–94) about 340 BC, concerning a forensic dispute on a bottomry loan (he speaks of Demosthenes as οἰκεῖος γένει “a relative of mine”, D. 32.31;). He is identified by Plutarch as an ἀνεψιός of Demosthenes, who had proposed the motion for Demosthenes’ recall in 323 BC (Dem. 27.6; cf. [Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 846d). He was apparently the same Demon whose extradition Alexander demanded in 335 BC (Plu. Dem. 23.4); see above, under “Interpretation”. Καλλισθένης (PAA 559815). He was an active politician, mentioned as a grain official (σιτώνης) in 357 BC (D. 20.33) and as the proposer of a decree in 346 BC forbidding citizens who were not manning armed outposts to remain outside the city (D. 18.37; 19.86). His anti-Macedonian stand is well demonstrated in a decree proposing alliance with Thracian kings in order to stop Philip’s advance in 356 BC (IG II2, 127, line 7= Tod no. 157). He was one of the politicians demanded by Alexander after the destruction of Thebes (Plu. Dem. 23.3), along with Demon and Moerocles. He is also a kōmōidoumenos in Antiph. fr. 27.10–11 (cf. the next line). 6 πένητες Most probably a comic antiphrasis, since both Demon and Callisthenes were quite wealthy; cf. in Timocl. fr. 12 the description of Demosthenes as a false Briareos. Konstantakos 2000, 80–81 alternatively suggests that Callisthenes might be described as a πένης, because he spent his money on fish and courtesans; cf. Antiph. 27.10–11 (from Halieuomenē), where the allusion is made that because of his love-affair with the courtesan Trigle he lost his property. For the assumption that poverty was a potential cause of wrongdoing, cf. on Timocl. fr. 30. συγγνώμην ἔχω The forgiving of Demon and Callisthenes due to their supposed poverty is based on a common understanding; cf. Lys. 31.11 καθέστηκε δέ τι ἔθος δίκαιον πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις τῶν αὐτῶν ἀδικημάτων μάλιστα ὀργίζεσθαι τοῖς μάλιστα δυναμένοις μὴ ἀδικεῖν, τοῖς δὲ πένησιν ἢ ἀδυνάτοις τῷ σώματι συγγνώμην ἔχειν διὰ τὸ ἡγεῖσθαι ἄκοντας αὐτοὺς ἁμαρτάνειν “a custom that has been accepted as just among all mankind, is that concerning the same offences, we should be angriest at those who are most able to avoid doing wrong, but should forgive those who are poor or weak in body, because of the presumption that they are committing crimes unwillingly”.

Δῆλος (fr. 4)

43

7 ἐν λόγοισι δεινὸς Ὑπερείδης Hyperides (PAA 902110) the son of Glaucippus of the deme Collytus was a reasonably wealthy Athenian and had undertaken several liturgies (APF, p. 30). He had a reputation for glibness and was a fierce enemy of Macedonia; cf. D.S. 18.13.5 Ὑπερείδῃ τῷ πρωτεύοντι τῶν ῥητόρων τῇ τοῦ λόγου δεινότητι καὶ τῇ κατὰ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἀλλοτριότητι “Hyperides, foremost among the speakers in eloquence and in hostility to the Macedonians”. The characterization δεινός here is probably ironical; cf. the allegorical description of Hyperides’ flamboyant and “ready for hire” rhetoric in Timocl. fr. 17. The wording δεινὸς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις is also attributed to Demosthenes by Aeschines, the leader of the pro-Macedonian party, in reference to his ineffective deliberative rhetoric: Aeschin. 2.114 ὁ γὰρ περιττὸς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις δεινὸς Δημοσθένης οὐδενὸς τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐμνήσθη “for the over-subtle and eloquent speaker Demosthenes mentioned none of the essential topics”; cf. 3.174 δεινὸς λέγειν, κακὸς βιῶναι; 3.215 δεινὸς δημιουργὸς λόγων. Alternatively, the wording may allude to the fact that Hyperides was a logographer before entering politics ([Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 848a) and it seems that he continued to undertake cases up to the late phase of his career.56 Logographers tended to inspire a certain distrust in their contemporaries; cf. D.H. Is. 4.13, where Isaeus is described as having a reputation for chicanery and deception: δεινὸς ἀνὴρ τεχνιτεῦσαι λόγους ἐπὶ τὰ πονηρότερα “being clever at devising speeches for the worse cause”. For “Hyperides of the glib tongue” see Whitehead 2000, 10–11. ἔχει has (a share); cf. v. 1. 8 τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας … πλουτιεῖ For the attitude of comic poets towards Attic fishmongers cf. Ath. 6.224c-228b, where 18 fragments are cited. They are mainly attacked for their arrogant ways and preposterous prices; cf. Arnott 1996, 98–9, 208, 216, 363, 377; Papachrysostomou 2016, 194–7. For the idea of “rich fishmongers” cf. Alex. fr. 204 νὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν, ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ τεθαύμακα / τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας, πῶς ποτ’ οὐχὶ πλούσιοι / ἅπαντές εἰσι λαμβάνοντες βασιλικοὺς / φόρους “Yes, by Athena, I am astonished that the fishmongers are not all wealthy men, such royal taxes they receive”. 9 ὀψοφάγος An ὀψοφάγος is a person inclined to eat excessive ὄψον, a term denoting the accompaniment to the main meal, but most often applied to fish. Opsophagoi in comedy: Ar. Pax 809 Γοργόνες ὀψοφάγοι (said of Morsimus and Melanthius, frigid tragic poets and notorious gluttons); Eub. fr. 87.3 ὀψοφάγος, ὀψωνῶν δὲ μέχρι τριωβόλου (a miser opsophagos); Antiph. fr. 188.5 ἄνδρες πάλαι ὀψοφάγοι (for Euthynus and Phoenicides); Sophil. fr. 8 ὀψοφάγος εἶ καὶ κνισολοιχός “you are an opsophagos and a fat-licker”; Axion. fr. 4.4–6 …γαλεοὺς  / σῖτον ὀψοφάγων καὶ λίχνων ἀνδρῶν ἀγάπημα “dogfish, a great dainty for fisheaters and gluttonous men”. For Hyperides’ inclination to fish-eating cf. fr. 17, where he is described as an ἰχθυόρρους ποταμός (“a river flowing with many 56

Cf. for instance the speech Against Athenogenes, dated to 330–24; cf. Worthington 2000, 266–7.

44

Timokles

fish”). Compulsive opsophagia was associated with lack of self-control and was also viewed by Aristotle as a form of dissoluteness (μόριον ἀκολασίας), alongside drunkenness, gluttony and lust (EE 1231a 19–21). Hyperides, indeed, was notorious for his love-affairs with courtesans; cf. [Plu.] Vit. Dec.Or. 849c ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἀφροδίσια καταφερής … ἐποιεῖτό τε τὸν περίπατον ἐν τῇ ἰχθυοπώλιδι ὁσημέραι ὡς εἰκός “He was much given to venery… and was rumored to go for a stroll in the fish-market every day.”57 τοὺς λάρους Seagulls (λάρoς and λαρίς, larus and gavia) were birds proverbial for their voracity (especially for fish) and thievishness; cf. Hom. Od. 5.51–3; Ar. Eq. 956; Nu. 591 (said of Cleon); in Ar. Av. 567 seagulls are mentioned as a counterpart of Heracles, the glutton par excellence in Attic Comedy. In Matro Conv. 10–11 a parasite is compared with a hungry seagull. Cf. Apostol. 10.48 λάρος κεχηνώς: ἐπὶ τῶν ἁρπακτικῶν καὶ κλεπτῶν “seagull opening his mouth; said of rapacious men and thieves”. See Thompson 1947, 192–3; Arnott 2007, 130–32. Σύρους Compared to the opsophagos Hyperides, seagulls, normally the most voracious fish-eating birds (cf. Hom. Od. 5.53 ἰχθῦς ἀγρώσσων) appear to be Syrians in their abstinence from fish. The Syrian devotees of Atargatis were not allowed to eat fish; cf. X. An. 1.4.9 οὓς (sc. ἰχθῦς) οἱ Σύροι θεοὺς ἐνόμιζον καὶ ἀδικεῖν οὐκ εἴων “the Syrians believed them (fish) to be gods, and would not allow anyone to harm them”; Luc. Syr. D. 14 ἰχθύας χρῆμα ἱρὸν νομίζουσιν καὶ οὔκοτε ἰχθύων ψαύουσι “they regard fish as sacred, and never touch fish”; Cic. Nat. deor. 15.39 pisce Syri venerantur “the Syrians worship fish”; Lightfoot 2003, 65–72; Olson 2007, 224. For other comic references to Syrians’ abstinence from fish cf. Men. fr. 631.1–4 παράδειγμα τοὺς Σύρους λαβέ· / ὅταν φάγωσ’ ἰχθὺν ἐκεῖνοι, διά τινα / αὑτῶν ἀκρασίαν τοὺς πόδας, τὴν γαστέρα οἰδοῦσιν “take the Syrians, for example: when they lose control and eat fish, their hands and bellies swell up”. Syrians are also mentioned in a different context in Timocles in fr. 7.1 (from Dionysos); cf. on the commentary of this play.

57

Cf. Davidson’s (1997) emblematic title “Courtesans and Fishcakes”, for the commonest consuming passions of classical Athenians (esp. 20–26; for opsophagi cf. also Olson– Sens, 2000, l-li; Olson 2007, 223). In Middle Comedy courtesans were often named after fish (Phryne, in particular, the most famous hetaera, whose name was inextricably bound up with Hyperides, was often called σαπέρδιον, “perch”); cf. Ath. 591c; McClure 2003, 63–74, 127. For food as a metaphor for sex in Old Comedy cf. Ar. Ach. 764–835, Pax 15–7, 883–5, Ec. 845–7; in Middle Comedy cf. Pl. com. fr. 43; Konstantakos 2000,79.

45

Δημοσάτυροι (Dēmosatyroi) (“The People’s Satyrs”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 592; Bevilacqua 1939, 39–40; Constantinides 1969, 57; PCG VII (1989) 758–9; Llopis–Gomez–Asensio 2007, 656–7; Orth HGL II (2014) 1045; Orth 2015, 296. Title Τhe only other title with Δημο- as the first component is Polyzelus’ Δημοτυνδάρεως. For the second component –σάτυροι in comedy cf. Timocles’ Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι and Σάτυροι in Ecphantides, Callias, Phrynichus and Cratinus; cf. also Timocles’ “Dionysian” titles Διονυσιάζουσαι and Διόνυσος and the composite title Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης. Similar compositions indicating a sort of double identity are Tιτανόπανες (Myrtilus), Διονυσαλέξανδρος (Cratinus), Aἰολοσίκων (Aristophanes), Ἀνθρωφηρακλῆς (Pherecrates), Ἀνθρωπορέστης (Strattis), Κωμῳδοτραγῳδία (Alcaeus, Anaxandrides), Mανέκτωρ (Menecrates), Θουριοπέρσαι (Metagenes) and Σφιγγοκαρίων (Eubulus). The first component – δημο of the title in Attic comedy may refer to the Athenian people (e. g. Ar. Ach. 626, 631; V. 41.706; Pax 683), to the Athenian Assembly (e. g. Ar. Nu. 432; V. 590; Ra. 1086), or to the demes of Attica (cf. Eupolis’ Δῆμοι). Τhe second component σάτυροι may allude to the cowardice and lust of these creatures. Deceptive Athenian demagogues, of the sort Aristophanes calls δημοπίθηκοι, may be represented on stage as dēmosatyroi: Ra. 1083–6 κᾆτ’ ἐκ τούτων ἡ πόλις ἡμῶν / ὑπογραμματέων ἀνεμεστώθη / καὶ βωμολόχων δημοπιθήκων / ἐξαπατώντων τὸν δῆμον ἀεί “and then, because of them, our state was filled with these under-clerks and ribald democratic apes always cheating the people”.58 It is worth noting that Pericles is called βασιλεὺς σατύρων in Hermipp. fr. 47, on the grounds that he delivers warlike orations, but is actually a coward who avoids battle. Timocles also seems to associate satyrs with corrupt Athenian politicians in his Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι, a play which contains personal satire of known Athenian citizens, including the politicians Hyperides (fr. 17), Thudippus, Telemachus and Cephisodorus (fr. 18), and Aristomedes (fr. 19); cf. on this play, under “Title” and “Content”. Content The title of the play strongly suggests a comedy focused on current politics. Compared to his contemporary comic poets, Timocles’ surviving fragments contain a higher degree of personal and political satire, untypical of the late fourth century; cf. “Introduction”, under “Themes and motifs” and “Kōmōidoumenoi”. The plural in the title might indicate a Chorus, in which case its members would share common “satyrical” qualities, although it seems more probable that the creatures which are represented as demosatyrs appear on stage as individual cha58

Cf. Meineke, ed. min. I (1847) 396: “demagogi significari videntur turpiter obsequiosi, quos δημοπιθήκους dixit Ar. Ran. 1085”; cf. Phryn. PS 61.12 “δημοπίθηκος”: ὁ ἐξαπατῶν τὸν δῆμον καὶ θωπεύων κολακικῶς “dēmopithēkos: he who deceives the people and flatters them”.

46

Timokles

racters (cf. on the plays Ἥρωες, Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι and Μαραθώνιοι). It is quite possible that the play is a political allegory, perhaps including the presence of Satyrs in the Athenian Assembly or in Athens; cf. Orth 2015, 296, on Polyzelus’ Δημοτυνδάρεως. Since the leading anti-Macedonian orators Demosthenes (cf. frr. 4 and 12) and Hyperides (frr. 4 and 17) are at the center of Timocles’ satire, it has been suggested that the comedy deals with them (e. g. Llopis–Gomez–Asensio 2007, 656). This is an attractive suggestion but difficult to prove. It seems more plausible that the play contains personal satire on prodigal citizens, who are associated with satyrs. Ctesippus might have been mentioned in such a context, due to his effeminate appearance and dissolute life; cf. Ath. 4.166b τάχ’ οὖν διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ταύτην ἀσωτίαν καὶ κιναιδίαν τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ παρέλιπε Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀτελειῶν “it was therefore probably on account of his great profligacy and sexual perversion that Demosthenes omitted his name in his speech On Exemptions from Taxation”. If Ctesippus was indeed treated as a potential δημοσάτυρος, his case would call to mind Autocles in Icarian Satyrs, who is compared with the satyr Marsyas, apparently on account of his dissolute life; see on fr. 19.1.59 Date Given that Ctesippus is the target of personal satire on similar matters in Timocles, Menander and Diphilus, it has been suggested that the three plays are contemporary (e. g. Webster 1952, 22). Wagner 1905, 19, 65 argues for the period 321–315 BC.60 However, such a late dating seems difficult on the grounds that the title alludes to a period when the democracy is still alive, i. e. before 323 BC.

fr. 5 K.-A. (5 K.) οὐδ’ ὁ Χαβρίου Κτήσιππος ἔτι τρὶς κείρεται, ἐν ταῖς γυναιξὶ λαμπρός, οὐκ ἐν ἀνδράσιν 1 ἔτι τρὶς Α: ἐπὶ τρὶς Bergk: ἐπιτρὶς Bothe

2 ἐν ταῖς Α: οὑν ταῖς Kock

And Ctesippus son of Chabrias no longer has his hair cut three times a day; he is distinguished among women but not among men Ath. 4.165f Τιμοκλῆς δ’ ἐν Δημοσατύροις φησίν· οὐδ’ – ἀνδράσιν Timocles says in The People’s Satyrs: “And Ctesippus – men” 59

60

Cf. the description of Pericles as a “satyr” in Hermipp. fr. 47 due to his supposed lascivious life and Plutarch’s relevant information that Aspasia had assisted Pericles in meeting and having sex with free-born women (Plu. Per. 32). Menander’s Ὀργή is dated to either 321 BC (e. g. Webster 1952, 22) or 315 (e. g. Capps 1900, 61).

Δημοσάτυροι (fr. 5)

47

Metre Iambic trimeter

lwwwl llw|ww llwl llwl w|lwl wlwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 592; Kock II (1884) 452–3; Bevilacqua 1939, 39–40; Edmonds II (1959) 604–5; PCG VII (1989) 758–9; Llopis–Gomez–Asensio 2007, 656–7. Citation context The fragment is cited by Athenaeus in a section containing notorious spendthrifts (4.165d–9a). Athenaeus reports that Ctesippus sold the stones of his father’s tomb in order to finance his sumptuous living; he was also effeminate and obsessed with his hair. As evidence for these allegations, apart from Timocles’ fr., he also cites Diph. fr. 37 (from Men Offering Sacrifice to the Dead) εἰ μὴ συνήθης Φαιδίμῳ γ’ ἐτύγχανεν / ὁ Χαβρίου Κτήσιππος, εἰσηγησάμην / νόμον 〈ἄν〉 τιν’ οὐκ ἄχρηστον, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, / ὥστ’ ἐπιτελεσθῆναί ποτ’ αὐτῷ τοῦ πατρὸς / τὸ μνῆμα, κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα 〈...〉 λίθον / ἁμαξιαῖον. καὶ σφόδρ’ εὐτελὲς λέγω “If Ctesippus, son of Chabrias, did not happen to be a relative of Phaedimus, I would have proposed a law that would not have been useless, I believe, in order to complete at last his father’s tomb, one massive stone… per year. And I mean very cheap” and Men. fr. 264 (from Wrath) καίτοι νέος ποτ’ ἐγενόμην κἀγώ, γύναι· / ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐλούμην πεντάκις τῆς ἡμέρας / τότ’, ἀλλὰ νῦν· οὐδὲ χλανίδ’ εἶχον, ἀλλὰ νῦν· / οὐδὲ μύρον εἶχον, ἀλλὰ νῦν· καὶ βάψομαι / καὶ παρατιλοῦμαι νὴ Δία καὶ γενήσομαι / Κτήσιππος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ, / κᾆθ’ ὡς ἐκεῖνος κατέδομαι καὶ τοὺς λίθους / ἁπαξάπαντας, οὐ γὰρ οὖν τὴν γῆν μόνην “And yet I too was once a young man, woman. But I didn’t bathe five times a day back then, as I do now, or wear a fine wool robe, as I do now, or wear perfume, as I do now. I’m going to dye my hair and pluck my beard, by Zeus, and soon become Ctesippus rather than a man. And then I’ll devour all the stones, as he did, and not just the land.” The section also includes other known spendthrifts (e. g. Diodorus [Alex. fr. 110], Epicharides [Alex. fr. 248], Pythodelus [Axionic. fr. 1]). Text 1 ἐπὶ τρὶς is suggested by Bergk (ap. Meineke V. 1 [1857] 224); cf. Bothe 1844, 65 ἐπιτρὶς. But the transmitted ἔτι is perfect; for the comparison of past and present activity or habit of a person in a context of personal satire in Timocles, cf. fr. 7.1 ὁ δ’ Ἀχαρνικὸς Τηλέμαχος ἔτι δημηγορεῖ; fr. 14.4 ἵνα μηκέτ’ αὐτὸν ὁ Σάτυρος κλέπτην λέγει; fr. 25.2–3 Φρύνης ἐρασθείς, ἡνίκ’ ἔτι τὴν κάππαριν συνέλεγεν. Interpretation The speaking character identifies Ctesippus by the name of his father (cf. Diph. fr. 37.2; for such identifications in Timocles cf. fr. 23.5–6 Φείδιππον… / τὸν Χαιρεφίλου). That indicates that Ctesippus is here introduced for first time – at least within this particular scene. The conjunction with οὐδὲ indicates that another negative clause precedes it, probably in a series of effeminate or dissolute Athenians who might be described as dēmosatyroi. It is also possible that this series includes contradistinctions between famous fathers and dissolute sons, perhaps in a frame alluding to the inadequacy of new politicians, who may be represented on stage as dēmosatyroi. It also seems as though the speaking person

48

Timokles

is giving information, probably answering questions by someone who lives outside Athens; cf. fr. 7.1 (from Διόνυσος) ὁ δ’ Ἀχαρνικὸς Διόνυσος ἔτι δημηγορεῖ; 1 ὁ Χαβρίου Kτήσιππος Κτήσιππος Χαβρίου Αἰξωνεὺς (PAA 587475; APF 15086). His father was the famous general Χαβρίας Κτησίππου Αἰξωνεύς (PAA 970820). Ctesippus had been a trierarch in 334/3 BC (IG II21623.72–3) and a victorious chorēgos in the boys’ dithyramb at the Dionysia in the 320s (IG II2 3040). He was a notorious spendthrift who wasted the patrimony of his father; cf. Men. fr. 264.4; Ael. NA 3.42 (he is compared with Lucullus and Hortensius). In 355/4 BC Ctesippus was involved in a trial concerning the repeal of Leptines’ law, which abolished all the exemptions from liturgies (D. 20 Against Leptines). In this speech, Demosthenes is a supporting speaker (synēgoros) of Ctesippus, whose exemption was threatened by the law. Apparently at that time he was too young, so he is never identified by his name, but always as ὁ Χαβρίου παῖς (or υἱός), though he might well have been present at the trial; cf. Kremmydas 2012, 35–6. Ctesippus is almost always mentioned as the prodigal son of an illustrious father. According to Plutarch, after Chabrias’ death it was the Athenian general Phocion who, having undertaken Ctesippus’ guardianship, had to deal with his capricious and intractable character (Plu. Phoc. 7.3–4). For his effeminacy and dissolution cf. above, under “Citation Context”. In Timocles’ fr. he is no longer young (cf. above, under “Date”), but still appears to lead an effeminate life. ἔτι τρὶς κείρεται The verb κείρεσθαι in this context probably means “has his hair cut”, e. g. Thphr. Char. 5.6 (on the obsequious man) καὶ πλειστάκις δὲ ἀποκείρασθαι καὶ τοὺς ὀδόντας λευκοὺς ἔχειν καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια δὲ χρηστὰ μεταβάλλεσθαι καὶ χρίσματι ἀλείφεσθαι “He cuts his hair frequently, keeps his teeth white, persistently changes his clothes, and anoints himself with unguents”. For avoiding hair-cutting as a characteristic of thrift cf. Ar. Nu. 835–7 ὧν ὑπὸ τῆς φειδωλίας / ἀπεκείρατ’ οὐδεὶς πώποτ’ οὐδ’ ἠλείψατο / οὐδ’ εἰς βαλανεῖον ἦλθε λουσόμενος “due to their thriftiness none of them has ever had his hair cut, or oiled himself, or visited the baths for a wash”; Μen. fr. 264.5–6 ἐλούμην πεντάκις τῆς ἡμέρας, cited above, under “Citation Context”. For the types of haircut, see Hermann–Blümner 1882, 204–7; Nicolson 1891, 41–56. Like constant hair-cutting, shaving or using pitch as a depilatory on the beard and other parts of the body was thought an indication of effeminacy; cf. Ar. Th. 191–2 (Euripides is remarking on Agathon’s effeminate appearance) σὺ δ’ εὐπρόσωπος, λευκός, ἐξυρημένος, / γυναικόφωνος, ἁπαλός, εὐπρεπὴς ἰδεῖν “whereas you are handsome, fair, close-shaven, with a woman’s voice, delicate, wellgroomed”; Alex. fr. 266; com. ad. fr. 137 ὥσπερ ἑτέρους ὁρῶ κιναίδους ἐνθάδε / πολλοὺς ἐν ἄστει καὶ πεπιττοκοπημένους; “as I see many other catamites in town, who have their hair removed by pitch-plasters” and the title Πιττοκοπούμενος of Philemon; Arnott 1996, 744–5. ἐν ταῖς γυναιξί λαμπρός It is a disparaging comment for a man to say that he is distinguished among women. In Euripides it is Menelaus who is described in such terms: Or. 754 (Orestes on Menelaus) οὐ γὰρ αἰχμητὴς πέφυκεν, ἐν γυναιξὶ δ’

Δημοσάτυροι (fr. 5)

49

ἄλκιμος “for he was not born a warrior, though strong among women!”; cf. Andr. 458 (Andromacha for Menelaus) ἐς γυναῖκα γοργὸς ὁπλίτης. The only other passage where the adjective λαμπρὸς is associated with effeminate behavior (perhaps on the grounds of physical attractiveness) is Anaxandr. fr. 35.4 (with Millis 2015 ad loc.) λαμπρός τις ἐξελήλυθ’ 〈lu〉 Ὄλολυς οὗτός ἐστι “someone has turned out radiant, this one is Ololys, (i. e. a Womanish)”. οὐκ ἐν ἀνδράσι The son of one of the most illustrious generals of the fourth century is not included in the category of real men. For a similar disparaging comment on Alcibiades’ effeminacy cf. Pherecr. fr. 164 οὐκ ὢν ἀνὴρ γὰρ Ἀλκιβιάδης, ὡς δοκεῖ, ἀνὴρ ἁπασῶν τῶν γυναικῶν ἐστι νῦν “for although Alcibiades isn’t a man, as it seems, he is now every woman’s man”. For excessive care for hair and beards as implicitly incompatible with braveness cf. Archil. fr. 114 West. For the contrast man / woman in contexts of bravery cf. A. Theōroi or Isthmiastai (Satyroi) F 87a 68 Radt γύννις δ’ ἄναλκις ουδενειμ. (οὐδέν εἰμι Cantarella: ἐν ἀνδράσι Reinhardt); Ε. Or. 1528 οὔτε γὰρ γυνὴ πέφυκας οὔτ’ ἐν ἀνδράσιν σύ γ’ εἶ “you weren’t born a woman, nor do you belong among men”; S. El. 301–2 (Electra is speaking on Aegisthus) ὁ πάντ’ ἄναλκις οὗτος, ἡ πᾶσα βλάβη, / ὁ σὺν γυναιξὶ τὰς μάχας ποιούμενος “that total impotent, that complete disaster, who fights his battles with the aid of women”.

50

Διονυσιάζουσαι (Dionysiazousai) (“Women Celebrating the Dionysia”) Discussion PCG VII (1989) 758–9; Olson 2007, 169–72; Hughes 2008, 1–22; Sommerstein 2009, 116–7; Orth, HGL II (2014) 1046. Title For comic titles signifying participation of women in religious celebrations cf. Aristophanes’ Θεσμοφοριάζουσαι “Women Celebrating the Thesmophoria” and Σκηνὰς Καταλαμβάνουσαι “Women Claiming Tent-Sites”, Platon’s Αἱ ἀφ’ ἱερῶν “Women from the Festival” and Philippides’ Ἀδωνιάζουσαι “Women Celebrating the Adonia”.61 Titles referring generally to a celebration are Epicharm’s Ἑορτά “Festival”, Eupolis’ Βάπται “Dyers”, Pherecrates’ Ἰπνός ἢ Παννυχίς “Kitchen or ΑllNight Festival” , Platon’s Ἑορταί “Festivals”, Αutocrates’ Τυμπανισταί “Drummers”, Lysippus’, Diocles’ and Antiphanes’ Βάκχαι “Bacchae”. Other ‘Dionysian’ titles in Timocles are Δημοσάτυροι, Διόνυσος and Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι. In Old Comedy, women participating in religious activities were associated with their taking the opportunity to dance, drink and indulge in ecstatic behavior; cf. Αr. Lys. 1–3 (with Henderson 1987, ad loc.) ἀλλ’ εἴ τις εἰς Βακχεῖον αὐτὰς ἐκάλεσεν, / ἢ ’ς Πανὸς ἢ ’πὶ Κωλιάδ’ εἰς Γενετυλλίδος, / οὐδ’ ἂν διελθεῖν ἦν ἂν ὑπὸ τῶν τυμπάνων “Now if someone had invited the women to a revel for Bacchus, or to Pan’s shrine, or to Genetyllis’s at Kolias, they would be jamming the streets with their tambourines”. Male concerns with women plotting against men during religious ceremonies are also depicted in Aristophanes’ Assembly Women (esp. vv. 17–29), where the women participating in the Skira take political initiatives and plan to take over the Assembly, and in Women Celebrating the Thesmophoria (esp. vv. 82–4), where the women plan to revenge themselves on Euripides because he defames them in his comedies. On the other hand, ecstatic initiation rites, practiced outside the established religious life of the city, and the persons involved in them were regarded with suspicion and hostility; cf. Parker 1996, 158–63. Also in Attic forensic oratory, participation in ecstatic rites was a means of slandering one’s opponent; cf. D. 18.59–60; 19.199, 249, 181. Content As the present participle of the title suggests, the play includes an action in progress; cf. Konstantakos 2000, 63; Orth 2013, 27 (on Αlc. Com. Ἀδελφαὶ Μοιχευόμεναι). A crucial matter for any speculation about the play is the question of the precise nature of the ‘Dionysiazousai’. Should we think, for example, of women officially participating in the whole program of the Dionysia, i. e. also attending theatrical performances? But this is a very controversial issue, and modern research has not provided a definite answer. Henderson 1991, 133–4 argues that the absence of any mention of women in theatre is compatible with the ‘conventional protocols of silence’ about women. On the contrary, Goldhill 1994, 347–69 61

Cf. Τheocritus’ fifteenth idyll entitled Συρακόσιαι ἢ Ἀδωνιάζουσαι “Syracusian Women or Women at the Adonia”.

Διονυσιάζουσαι

51

believes that in the Great Dionysia, as in Assembly and the courts, the city was represented exclusively by men.62 If Athenian women were indeed excluded from attending the theatre, as they were excluded from Assembly and other political institutions, then we might imagine women attempting to invade or seize control of the theatre, an area controlled by men. Drunken women, for example, in the frame of the Dionysia, would form an attractive comic spectacle. In that case, Timocles’ Dionysiazousai would have been modelled on Aristophanes’ Assembly Women and Lysistrata, where women also invade a space from which they were excluded in real life. Another title which seems to allude to a similar enterprise is Aristophanes’ Women Claiming Tent-Sites, where women participating in a festival attempt to seize tent-sites in order to attend a performance, which seems to be theatrical; cf. Henderson 2007, 343.63 A less plausible possibility is that the term ‘Dionysiazousai’ is used to describe women of low social status, associated with theatrical performance, i. e. musicians, women on stage or performing mute roles, of the sort examined by Alan Hughes (2008, 1–27; cf. 2012, 201–13). The preserved fragment, taken together with the title, seems to allude to tragedies currently being (re)performed at the Great Dionysia. An additional internal indication might be ὁρᾷ in v. 15, which, in the strict sense, means that the plays mentioned in the fragment are performed on stage. Indeed, there is inscriptional evidence that old tragedies were re-performed after 386 BC at the Dionysia. These reproductions might sometimes include only extracts of the original plays; cf. Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 99–101; Hanink 2014, 189–206. But it is also possible that the speaker has contemporary performances of new tragedies in mind, since it seems that the spectators especially liked to attend new tragedies; see below, under “Interpretation”. Concerning the dramatic context of the preserved fragment, it is highly possible that after the account of the benefits which tragedy offers to spectators, a section referring to the benefits of the other dramatic genres would follow (cf. v. 8 τοὺς γὰρ τραγῳδοὺς πρῶτον… σκόπει). That was most probably comedy, the other dramatic genre which was considered a rival of tragedy.64 It seems unlikely that the traditional satyr drama would receive equal treatment in Timocles’ time, although the genre reappeared in dramatic festivals in a modified form during that period.65 It might be indicative that in the famous comparison of the advantages enjoyed

62 63

64 65

Podlecki 1990, 27–43 has collected the ancient testimonia, which are also open to ambivalent interpretations; cf. Roselli 2011, 158–94. Plato’s Women from the Festival might contain a religious parody (cf. Pirotta 2009, 76–7) and the same might be true of Philippides’ Women Celebrating the Adonia, but the preserved fragments are not helpful for further speculation. Cf. Sommerstein 2009, 116–7, who notes that, with the exception of Ar. Th. 157–8 and com. ad. fr. 694, satyr drama is not mentioned in Attic Comedy. A representative sample of this form is Python’s Ἀγήν; cf. Sutton 1980, 75–94; Cipolla 2003, 333–61; Pretagostini 2003; O’Sullivan–Collard 2013, 448–55; Shaw 2014.

52

Timokles

by dramatic genres in Antiphanes’ Ποίησις (fr. 189), tragedy is compared with comedy, while satyr drama is not mentioned (at least in the surviving fragment). Date

Unknown.

fr. 6 K.-A. (6 K.)

5

10

15

ὦ τᾶν, ἄκουσον ἤν τί σοι δοκῶ λέγειν. ἅνθρωπός ἐστι ζῷον ἐπίπονον φύσει, καὶ πολλὰ λυπήρ’ ὁ βίος ἐν ἑαυτῷ φέρει. παραψυχὰς οὖν φροντίδων ἀνεύρετο ταύτας· ὁ γὰρ νοῦς τῶν ἰδίων λήθην λαβὼν πρὸς ἀλλοτρίῳ τε ψυχαγωγηθεὶς πάθει, μεθ’ ἡδονῆς ἀπῆλθε παιδευθεὶς ἅμα. τοὺς γὰρ τραγῳδοὺς πρῶτον, εἰ βούλει, σκόπει, ὡς ὠφελοῦσι πάντας. ὁ μὲν ὢν γὰρ πένης πτωχότερον αὑτοῦ καταμαθὼν τὸν Τήλεφον γενόμενον ἤδη τὴν πενίαν ῥᾷον φέρει. ὁ νοσῶν τι μανικὸν Ἀλκμέων’ ἐσκέψατο. ὀφθαλμιᾷ τις∙ εἰσὶ Φινεῖδαι τυφλοί. τέθνηκέ τῳ παῖς ∙ ἡ Νιόβη κεκούφικε. χωλός τις ἐστί∙ τὸν Φιλοκτήτην ὁρᾷ. γέρων τις ἀτυχεῖ ∙ κατέμαθεν τὸν Οἰνέα. ἅπαντα γὰρ τὰ μείζον’ ἢ πέπονθέ τις ἀτυχήματ’ ἄλλοις γεγονότ’ ἐννοούμενος τὰς αὐτὸς αὐτοῦ συμφορὰς ἧττον στένει

1 versum om. Ath. CE ὦ τᾶν Gesner: ὦ τάν Stob. δοκῶ Stob.: μέλλω Ath. A 2 ἅνθρωπός tacite Kaibel: ἄν- codd. 3 λυπήρ’ Stob. A: -ρά Stob. SM, Ath.: λυπρὰ Eust. 4 οὖν Stob.: γοῦν Ath. ἀνεύρετο Walpole: - ατο codd. 6 τε codd.: τ’ ὢν Richards ἀλλότρια … πάθη Headlam 7 ἅμα codd.: θ’ ἅμα Stephanus 9 ὁ μὲν ὢν Ath. CE: ὁ μένων Ath.A.: ὤν μὲν Stob. 11 ἤδη Ath.: οὕτω Stob. 12 τι μανικὸν Stob.: δὲ μανικῶς Ath. 15 ἐστιν Ath. A ὅρα Ath. C 18 ἄλλοις Stob., Ath. CE: ἢ ἄλλοις Ath. A 19 αὐτοῦ Ath. A ante corr., CE, Stob. MA: αὑτ- Ath. A post corr., Stob. S ἧττον στένει Stob.: ῥᾷον φέρει Ath.

5

Listen, my good sir, and see if what I say makes sense to you. Man is by nature a creature born to suffer and life brings many sorrows with it. He therefore invented these distractions from anxieties. For the mind, forgetting its own cares and entertained at someone else suffering, goes away pleased and at the same time educated. First consider, if you will, how the tragic poets benefit everyone. For someone who is poor,

Διονυσιάζουσαι (fr. 6) 10

15

53

once he realizes that Telephus was poorer than he is, then endures his poverty more easily. One who suffers from madness thinks of Alcmeon. Someone has an eye disease? Phineus’ sons are blind. Someone’s child has died? Niobe can console him. Someone is a cripple? he looks at Philoctetes. An old man falls in hard times? he learns about Oineus. For when a person understands that all the misfortunes that have happened to other people are worse than his own, will then groan less about his own calamities

[1–19] Ath. 6.223b Τιμοκλῆς ὁ κωμῳδιοποιὸς κατὰ πολλὰ χρησίμην εἶναι λέγων τῷ βίῳ τὴν τραγῳδίαν φησὶν ἐν Διονυσιαζούσαις (Tιμ. δὲ ὁ κωμικός φησιν CE) ∙ ὦ – συμφορὰς ῥᾷον φέρει (hinc [2–3] Eust. in Od. p. 1841,15). The comic poet Timocles, claiming that tragedy is of great use to one’s life, says in Women Celebrating the Dionysia: “Listen – calamities” Stob. 4.56.19 Τιμοκλέους ∙ ὦ – συμφορὰς ἧττον στένει Timocles’: “Listen – calamities”

Metre Iambic trimeter

5

10

15

llwl w|lw|l wlwl llwl l|lw|ww wlwl llwl l|wwwww llwl wlwl l|lwl wlwl llwl l|lwwl llwl wlwwl l|lwl llwl wlwl wlw|l llwl llwl l|lw|l llwl llwl w|lw|ww llwl lwwwl l|wwwl llwl wwwwl l|lwwl llwl wwlwww w|lwl llwl llwl w|lw|l llwl wlwl l|lwwl wlwl llwl w|lwl llwl wlwww l|wwwl wlwl wlwl wlw|w wlwl wwlwl l|www|l wlwl llwl l|lwl llwl

54

Timokles

Discussion Bernays 1879, 615–616; Kock II (1884) 453–4; Pohlenz 1920, 142–78 (= Pohlenz 1965, 462); Ziegler 1937, 2034 and 2054; Kassel 1958, 8–9, 70–72; PCG VII (1989) 758–9; Halliwell 2005, 394–412; Olson 2007, 169–72; Sommerstein 2009, 116–7; Rosen 2012, 177–86; Hanink 2014, 191–200. Citation context In the opening of the sixth book, Athenaeus says to Timocrates that he should not expect him to invent novelties (Ath. 6.222c καινά τινα νομίζων ἡμᾶς εὑρίσκειν), since he just sets out in his Deipnosophists what he has already experienced. In the following lines Athenaeus actually compares his own narrative with tragedy, in that both only have to recount known material rather than invent new stories from the beginning. He first quotes a fragment from Antiphanes’ Poetry (fr. 189), where a speaker, apparently on behalf of comic poets, argues that, compared to comedy, tragedy is much easier to compose, because it has only to exploit established plots and characters, whereas comedy must invent everything from the beginning. Then Athenaeus cites a fragment from Diphilus’ Olive-Grove Guards (fr. 29), asserting that tragedians alone have the power to do and say whatever they please. Timocles’ fragment, which follows, does not seem, at least at first sight, to bear any relation to the subject of the section, i. e. discovering new matters, but focuses on the consolatory function of tragedy.66 According to Wilkins 2000b, 31, Athenaeus means that the innovations are contained in the internal dialogues of the dinner companions rather than his own literary composition. The author, therefore, reports the speeches which he has heard at the dinners he describes and does not have to invent them himself. Concerning the citing of the Dionysiazousai, in particular, I would speculate that Athenaeus might simply quote it as only being associated with the two preceding fragments, the connecting link being their mention of the tragedians’ task. Alternatively, the tragic sufferings mentioned in the Dionysiazousai may be associated with the context of The Deipnosophists through the assumption that they are ready material taken by the tragedians from mythology, at the same time functioning as ready exempla available for the spectators to use them and alleviate their pains through comparison. Similarly, Athenaeus, like a tragic poet, has both received (probably from the books he has read in the library of Larensis, his patron; cf. Braund 2000, 3–22) and is now offering to his readers a ready material, not invented by himself. Text 12 The δὲ μανικῶς transmitted in Athenaeus produces the rather pleonastic (and unparalleled) combination νοσεῖν μανικῶς. Stobaeus’ τι μανικόν is much preferable; cf. Αr. Plu. 424 βλέπειν μανικόν (see below on v. 12). Ἀλκμέων’ Athenaeus’ codex A transmits Ἀλκμαίων’; Stobaeus’ codices SMA the obviously wrong Ἀλκμένων’. Τhe spelling Ἀλκμέων’ is guaranteed here by the metre, and Walpole’s (1805,100) emendation is obligatory. Moreover, the inscriptions confirm the spelling with –ε, which seems to be the Attic form of the name; 66

Cf. Rosen 2012, 184, n. 17 “In fact, it is nearly impossible to puzzle out exactly what Athenaeus’ motivation was for citing Timocles at 223b”.

Διονυσιάζουσαι (fr. 6)

55

cf. Threatte I (1980) 296. For the Doric form Ἀλκμαίων, which literary sources usually reserve for the philosopher Alcmaeon of Croton, see Papachrysostomou 2016, 35. 19 αὐτὸς αὐτοῦ The smooth breathing in αὐτοῦ in intensified forms of the reflexive pronouns seems to be supported by the best tradition among the grammarians; cf. Α. Αg. 836 τοῖς τ’ αὐτὸς αὐτοῦ πήμασιν βαρύνεται (with Fraenkel 1950, ad loc.); Schwyzer–Debrunner 1950, 196. συμφορὰς ἧττον στένει The diction ῥᾶιον φέρει (Ath. ACE) seems a clumsy repetition of the end of v. 11; moreover, συμφορὰς στένειν might add a new parameter to the comparison between tragic hero and spectator: the latter laments less than the character on stage. Interpretation We do not know either the speaker or the addressee of this speech. If it is part of a debate between comedy and tragedy (see above, under “Content”), then the speaking character might be presented as personified ‘Tragedy’, on the model of Cratinus’ allegorized ‘Comedy’ in his Pytinē (cf. Rosen 2012, 177), or as ‘Poetry’, first setting out the consolatory function of tragedy (cf. v. 8 τοὺς γὰρ τραγῳδοὺς πρῶτον, εἰ βούλει, σκόπει) and in the following lines the corresponding virtues of comedy. For such allegorized figures cf. Pherecr. fr. 155 (from Cheirōn), where the personified ‘Music’, presented as a courtesan, speaks with the also personified ‘Justice’. At the center of the discussion of this fragment are the didactic purposes of tragedy. The preceding lines may have contained an argument against tragedy, e. g. that it arouses emotions causing shame in real life, such as weeping (cf. Pl. R. 10.606a). A possible connection with the previous discussion is ταύτας in v. 5, which refers to comforting distractions (παραψυχὰς φροντίδων). The speaking character in our fragment defends the consolatory function of tragic performance and its ‘homoeopathic’ effect. With reference to real life, the idea that contemplating the sufferings of others and comparing them with our own misfortunes has a comforting function is explicitly stated in Plutarch (Consol. ad Apoll. 106c) ὥστε καταφανὲς εἶναι ὅτι ὁ παραμυθούμενος τὸν λελυπημένον καὶ δεικνύων κοινὸν καὶ πολλῶν τὸ συμβεβηκὸς καὶ τῶν καὶ ἑτέροις συμβεβηκότων ἔλαττον τὴν δόξαν τοῦ λελυπημένου μεθίστησι καὶ τοιαύτην τινὰ ποιεῖ πίστιν αὐτῷ, ὅτι ἔλαττον ἢ ἡλίκον ᾤετο τὸ συμβεβηκός ἐστιν “so it is clear that he who tries to console a person in grief, and demonstrates that the calamity is one which is common to many, and less than the calamities which have befallen others, changes the opinion of the one in grief and gives him a similar conviction – that his calamity is really less than he supposed it to be”.67

67

In a slightly different context, Democritus, the pioneer among the theorists of consolation (cf. Kassel 1958, 72; Rosen 2012, 185), suggests that one should consider the lives of those who are in distress, thinking of their grievous sufferings, so that he will appreciate what he has and possesses and will not desire more: B 191 D–K τῶν δὲ ταλαιπωρεόντων

56

Timokles

The vocabulary used in this fragment indicates the foundation on which the comic argument is built. Terms such as παραψυχάς (v. 4), ψυχαγωγηθείς, ἀλλοτρίῳ πάθει (v. 6), μεθ’ ἡδονῆς … παιδευθείς (v. 7), ὠφελοῦσι (v. 9) echo contemporary theorizing attitudes to tragedy (for more on these terms see below, under “Commentary”). Timocles, however, seems to parody these assumptions. This kind of parody consists in ‘literalizing’, and thus trivializing, a supposedly elevated idea, and in the substitution of purified sentiments with selfish motives. Rosen 2012, 179–82, aptly compares Timocles’ fr. with the agōn between Aeschylus and Euripides (936–91) in Aristophanes’ Frogs, and argues that both allude to a recognizable quasi-philosophical theory of tragedy, which is not promoted as a philosophical position, but as a parody.68 However, in order for this parody to be effective, it must echo aspects of contemporary literary criticism. Therefore, it is worth considering how such assumptions regarding poetry and tragedy are embedded in Timocles’ fragment. To begin with, the antithesis ἴδια vs ἀλλότρια πάθη with reference to poetics first appears in Gorgias, where it is stated that poetry audiences experience fearful shudders, tears of pity and a longing for grief; the sufferings of the characters become their own sufferings: Hel. 13 (fr. 11.9 D–K) ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίων τε πραγμάτων καὶ σωμάτων εὐτυχίαις καὶ δυσπραγίαις ἴδιόν τι πάθημα διὰ τῶν λόγων ἔπαθεν ἡ ψυχή. According to Gorgias, therefore, poetry (and, implicitly, tragedy) drives the audience to feel sentiments corresponding to the emotional condition of the characters. This would seem quite the opposite position to that taken by Timocles’ character, who insists that attending the woes of tragic heroes has a consolatory effect on the spectator, to the point that he compares (major) tragic misfortunes with his own. On a deeper level, however, the “paradoxical medium of insight” (Halliwell 2005, 396), with which Gorgias credits the audience, in combination with the riddling statement that “the deceived [spectator] is wiser than the undeceived’’ (fr. 23 D–K), seems to anticipate the position of Timocles’ character that the spectator leaves the theatre having been instructed (παιδευθεὶς ἅμα). Timocles’ fragment may also be compared with a passage from Plato’s Republic (10.606b), where Socrates states that poetry, and tragedy in particular, has the power to corrupt even the best citizens. It is worth noting that in both texts the speaker calls on his interlocutor to reflect on the function of tragedy; cf. the introductory prosexis techniques ἀκούων σκόπει “listen and reflect” ~ ἄκουσον ἤν τι σοι δοκῶ λέγειν “listen if I say something worth considering”. But in the Platonic text Socrates dissociates the alien sufferings on stage (ἀλλότρια πάθη, R. 606b) from

68

τοὺς βίους θεωρέειν, ἐννοούμενον ἃ πάσχουσι κάρτα, ὅκως ἂν τὰ παρεόντα σοι καὶ ὑπάρχοντα μεγάλα καὶ ζηλωτὰ φαίνηται, καὶ μηκέτι πλειόνων ἐπιθυμέοντι συμβαίνῃ κακοπαθεῖν τῇ ψυχῇ. “Timocles’ speaker …may ‘think’ he is presenting a serious theory of tragedy, but his audience would find his explanation of it humorous, not deep” (Rosen 2012, 183).

Διονυσιάζουσαι (fr. 6)

57

private misfortunes (οἰκεῖα κήδη, R. 605d) and argues that, although spectators praise as an excellent poet the one who drives them to feel pleasure, and abandon themselves and accompany the representation with sympathy and eagerness, when an affliction comes to them, they boast about the opposite, their ability to remain calm and endure. Moreover, whereas Socrates definitely insists that vicarious pleasure from the woes of others ultimately has depressive consequences for themselves, and actually increases the emotion of pity for their own sufferings, the speaking character in Timocles considers that watching alien misfortunes in tragic performances has a comforting function. The theory which seems to be more clearly echoed in Timocles’ fragment is that of Aristotle. Unlike Plato, who derides tragedy as a mimesis which cannot reflect the truth, the Stagirite philosopher acknowledges the appropriate pleasure for tragedy (οἰκεία ἡδονή), which is associated with the sentiments of fear (φόβος) and pity (ἔλεος) for the sufferings of the characters (and for the spectators themselves, should something similar happen): Arist. Po. 1453b οὐ γὰρ πᾶσαν δεῖ ζητεῖν ἡδονὴν ἀπὸ τραγῳδίας ἀλλὰ τὴν οἰκείαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου διὰ μιμήσεως δεῖ ἡδονὴν παρασκευάζειν τὸν ποιητήν, φανερὸν ὡς τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐμποιητέον “one should not seek every pleasure from tragedy but what is proper to it. And since the poet should produce the pleasure from pity and fear through imitation, it is apparent that a place must be made for this in the events”. Aristotle, however, believes that the appropriate pleasure should be produced through imitation, while Timocles’ character seems to rely on a superficial comparison of the suffering persons. However, the most striking point in Timocles’ fragment is the explicit statement that tragedy both enthralls and instructs the spectators (vv. 6–7). It is worth noting that Hellenistic literary criticism, which goes back to Plato, dissociates ‘instruction’ (διδασκαλία) and benefit (ὠφελία) from enthrallment (ψυχαγωγία) and pleasure (ἡδονή); cf. Str. 1.1.10 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀληθές ἐστιν, ὅ φησιν Ἐρατοσθένης, ὅτι ποιητὴς πᾶς στοχάζεται ψυχαγωγίας, οὐ διδασκαλίας “nevertheless, what Eratosthenes says is false, that the poets aim at amusement, not instruction”; cf. Plb. 2.56.11 τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἱστορίας καὶ τραγῳδίας οὐ ταὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ δεῖ διὰ τῶν πιθανωτάτων λόγων ἐκπλῆξαι καὶ ψυχαγωγῆσαι κατὰ τὸ παρὸν τοὺς ἀκούοντας, ἐνθάδε δὲ διὰ τῶν ἀληθινῶν ἔργων καὶ λόγων εἰς τὸν πάντα χρόνον διδάξαι καὶ πεῖσαι τοὺς φιλομαθοῦντας “The aim of tragedy and history is not the same, but the opposite. The tragic poet should thrill and charm his audience for the moment by the verisimilitude of the words, but it is the task of the historian to instruct and convince for all time serious students by the truth of the facts and the speeches he narrates”. Again, unlike Plato, who argues that emotions exclude the possibility of thought (e. g. Konstan 2001, 1–26), Timocles appears to be more in line with Aristotle, who seems to imply that mimesis and learning actually go hand in hand, in the sense that the sentiments of fear and pity presuppose a reflection on the human condition and are, therefore, instructive; cf.

58

Timokles

Ar. Po. 1448b5–9; Croally, 2005, 60.69 Moreover, Timocles seems to anticipate some later theorists, who advocated a compound function of poetry, by arguing that it offers a mixture of instruction and pleasure. More specifically, Philodemus in his On Poems (5 col. xiii [xvi] 9–14 Mangoni) mentions Neoptolemus’ statement that poetry aims to provide both benefit and psychagōgia, a term paraphrased below by the author as terpsis; cf. col. iv Mangoni, cited below, on v. 7. The same position is echoed in Horace’s utile and dulce (Ars Poetica 343); cf. Wigodski 1995, 65–8; Gutzwiller 2010, 340. 70 Three of the mythological figures mentioned in fr. 6 are particularly associated with Euripides: Philoctetes, Oeneus and Telephus appear as the most pitiful tragic heroes in Aristophanes’ Acharnians 410–34, where Dicaeopolis asks Euripides to lend him rags from his most pitiable tragedies.71 This may not be accidental, and it has actually been suggested that Timocles has probably been influenced by fourth-century repetitions of Euripides’ plays; cf. Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 99–100; Csapo–Slater 1995, 42. However, given that in both Antiphanes and Timocles it is not specific tragedies which are mentioned but emblematic tragic heroes in a generalizing and theorizing frame, the reference to those heroes almost as ‘stock’ characters should not be excluded. Moreover, both poets might well have in mind contemporary tragic productions, e. g. in the case of Alcmeon the recent Alkmeōn of Astydamas; cf. Hanink, 2014, 199–200. 1 ὦ τᾶν This colloquial form of address probably has a condescending tone here (cf. Stevens 1976, 42–3; Olson 2007, 170). It is frequent in comedy, Aristophanes in particular (e. g. Eq. 494, 1036, Νu. 1267, 1432, V. 373, 1161, etc.), but is never found in Homer or Aeschylus. It seems that it was thought indeclinable, and the Athenians used it to address one, two, or more persons equally; cf. on fr. 20.2. For its derivation see Szemerényi 1987, 576–7, who suggests that it comes from the Doric vocative ὦ ἐτάν, which is comparable with ἑταῖρε; see Dickey 1996, 159. ἄκουσον ἤν τι σοι δοκῶ λέγειν A colloquial formula ; cf. E. HF 279 γνώμης ἄκουσον, ἤν τι σοι δοκῶ λέγειν; Hel. 1392 Ἑλένη, σύ δ’, ἤν σοι μὴ κακῶς δόξω λέγειν; Ar. Eq. 1036 ὦ τᾶν, ἄκουσον, εἶτα διάκρινον τότε “Listen to this, my man, and then make your decision afterwards”; Ar. V. 1409 ἄκουσον, ἤν τι σοι δόξω λέγειν; Ec. 122–3 (Praxagora is wearing a garland before making a speech, as if 69

70 71

In a passage strongly reminiscent of Aristotle’s theory, Iamblichus, a philosopher of the third century AD, seems to credit both tragedy and comedy with comforting results, arguing that “when we behold the passions of others both in comedy and in tragedy, we stabilise our own passions, and render them more moderate, and purify them” (Iamb. Myst. 1, 11 Des Places διὰ τοῦτο ἔν τε κωμῳδίᾳ καὶ τραγῳδίᾳ ἀλλότρια πάθη θεωροῦντες ἵσταμεν τὰ οἰκεῖα πάθη καὶ μετριώτερα ἀπεργαζόμεθα καὶ ἀποκαθαίρομεν). For a comprehensive discussion of the history of ideas on tragedy presented in this fragment, cf. Halliwell 2005, 394–396. Euripides is also mentioned in a passage with a similar consolatory admonition: Philippid. fr. 18 (from Φιλάδελφοι); see below, on v. 16.

Διονυσιάζουσαι (fr. 6)

59

in a real Assembly) ἐγὼ δὲ θεῖσα τοὺς στεφάνους περιδήσομαι … ἤν τι μοι δόξῃ λέγειν; X. Cyr. 2.4.16 Ἄκουε τοίνυν, ἔφη ὁ Κῦρος, ἤν τί σοι δόξω λέγειν (where, if we remove the parenthetical ἔφη ὁ Κῦρος, a refined iambic trimeter remains; cf. Stephanopoulos 2015, 197); Pl. La. 201 σκέψασθε, ἄν τι δόξω συμβουλεύειν ὑμῖν. For λέγω τι in the sense “I say something worthwhile” and its opposite οὐδὲν λέγω (both common in Aristophanes and Plato), cf. Stevens 1976, 25. 2–3 A gnōmē often occurring in New Comedy; cf. Men. fr. 341 τρισάθλιόν γε καὶ ταλαίπωρον φύσει / πολλῶν τε μεστόν ἐστι τὸ ζῆν φροντίδων “life’s naturally thrice unhappy, miserable and full of many cares”; Philem. fr. 92.1–2 πολύ γ’ ἐστὶ πάντων ζῷον ἀθλιώτατον / ἄνθρωπος, εἴ τις ἐξετάζοι κατὰ τρόπον· / τὸν γὰρ βίον περίεργον εἰς τὰ πάντ’ ἔχων / ἀπορεῖ τὰ πλεῖστα διὰ τέλους πονεῖ τ’ ἀεί “man is by far the most wretched of all animals, if one looks into it properly. For his life is laborious in all things, and he wants for most things and toils forever”; fr. 121.3 τὸν ζῶντ’ ἀνάγκη πόλλ’ ἔχειν ἐστὶν κακά “it is necessary for the living man to have many misfortunes”; Naev. com. fr. 106 Ribbeck pati necesse est multa mortales mala “mortals inevitably have to suffer many misfortunes”. Related ideas occur in Euripides; cf. fr. 661.1 Kannicht οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πάντ’ ἀνὴρ εὐδαιμονεῖ, repeated in Philippid. fr. 18.3 and Nicostr. Com. fr. 29.1 (where the speaking character says that this line contains the whole of Euripides); Men. Asp. 407. For the construction cf. Konstant. Manass. fr. 17.1 Mazal ἔστι μὲν γὰρ καὶ φίλοικτον ἄνθρωπος φύσει ζῷον “man is by nature a compassionate creature”. 2 ἐπίπονον Τhis adjective occurs for persons in Ar. Ra 1370 ἐπίπονοί γ’ οἱ δεξιοί “the men of wit are taking trouble”; cf. Pl. Lg. 653d τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπίπονον πεφυκὸς γένος (cf. below on v. 4); E. Supp. 83–4 ἐπίπονον πάθος; Pl. R. 329d ἐπίπονον γῆρας; Isoc. 10.17 ἐπίπονος βίος (cf. X. Cyr. 2.3.11); Αrist. Pol. 1265a ἐπιπόνως ζῆν (οpp. of τρυφᾶν). Cf. also the wording διὰ τέλους πονεῖ (Philem. fr. 92.4, cited above). 3 πολλὰ … φέρει Actually a variation on the gnome of the previous line. Cf. Diph. fr. 106 ἄνθρωπός εἰμι, τοῦτο δ’ αὐτὸ τῷ βίῳ / πρόφασιν μεγίστην εἰς τὸ λυπεῖσθαι φέρει “I am a human being; that alone gives the greatest cause for distress to my life”; Posidipp. fr. 32.1–2 οὐδεὶς ἄλυπος τὸν βίον διήγαγεν / ἄνθρωπος ὤν “no human being has led a life free of sorrow”. For λυπηρά “painful, distressing”, cf. E. Ion 622–3 τἀν δόμοισι λυπηρά; [D.] 10.58 ἀνάγκη πολλὰ λυπηρὰ ἐκ τοῦ πολέμου γίγνεσθαι. In Pl. Lg. 733b the painful life (λυπηρὸς βίος) is compared with the pleasant life (ἡδὺς βίος); cf. Prt. 356b. 4 παραψυχὰς … φροντίδων The idea that humans are born to suffer, but have still invented some resorts for their sorrows, is common, both in poetry and in prose; cf. Trag. adesp. fr. 618.5–7 Kannicht–Snell θνητοὶ δὲ πολλά (Stephanopoulos 1988, 236: πολλοὶ codd.) καρδίᾳ πλανώμενοι / ἱδρυσάμεσθα πημάτων παραψυχήν / θεῶν ἀγάλματ’… “mortals, being utterly at a loss, have created statues of the gods as a resort for our calamities”; Pl. Lg. 653d, a passage which shares with Timocles’ fr. the collective formulation on human beings (cf. above on v. 2) and the idea of respite from pain (through feasts bestowed by gods):

60

Timokles

θεοὶ δὲ οἰκτίραντες τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπίπονον πεφυκὸς γένος, ἀναπαύλας τε αὐτοῖς τῶν πόνων ἐτάξαντο τὰς τῶν ἑορτῶν ἀμοιβὰς τοῖς θεοῖς “so the gods, pitying the human race which is born to pain, have ordained for them the feasts of thanksgiving as intervals in their troubles”. For the wording cf. Ε. Οr. 62 ἔχει δὲ δή τιν’ ἀλγέων παραψυχήν “for she (Helen) has a reason (i. e. Hermione) to forget her sorrows”; Hec. 279–80 (Hecuba on her daughter Polyxena) ταύτηι γέγηθα κἀπιλήθομαι κακῶν· / ἥδ’ ἀντὶ πολλῶν ἐστί μοι παραψυχή “In her I take delight and forget my ills; she is my consolation in place of many a loss”; [D.] 60.32 (in a funeral context) παραψυχὴν τῷ πένθει τὴν τούτων εὔκλειαν ἔχοντες “the glory of these men will console them in their mourning”; Isae. 2.13 παραψυχὴν τοῦ βίου. ἀνεύρετο (sc. ἄνθρωπος τῷ βίῳ); cf. E. Med. 195–7 στυγίους δὲ βροτῶν οὐδεὶς λύπας / ηὕρετο μούσηι καὶ πολυχόρδοις / ὠιδαῖς παύειν “but no mortal discovered the music and the many-toned songs, that might relieve the hateful pain”. For ἀνευρίσκειν cf. on Timocl. fr. 39.2. ταύτας See above, under “Interpretation”. 5 τῶν ἰδίων λήθην Personal sufferings (ἴδια πάθη) is contradistinguished from the ἀλλότρια of the next line. For forgetting personal misfortunes cf. Democr. fr. B 196 D-K λήθη τῶν ἰδίων κακῶν θρασύτητα γεννᾷ “forgetting personal misfortunes produces over-boldness”; Μen. Hydria col. 10.81–2 (ed. Gaiser) τῶν θ’ αὑτοῦ κακῶν / ἐπαγόμενον λήθην ἀνέμνησας πάλιν “while I am trying to forget my ills, you have reminded me of them again”. Timocles has written a comedy with the title Λήθη (see on that play, under “Title”). 6 ἀλλοτρίῳ … πάθει For ἀλλότρια πάθη cf. Iamblich. Myst. 1, 11 Des Places (cited above, under “Interpretation”). For a similar consolatory function of elegiac poetry cf. Antim. test. 7 Wyss (=[Plu.] Consol. ad Apoll. 106b) Ἐχρήσατο δὲ τῇ τοιαύτῃ ἀγωγῇ καὶ Ἀντίμαχος ὁ ποιητής. ἀποθανούσης γὰρ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτῷ Λύδης, πρὸς ἣν φιλοστόργως εἶχε, παραμύθιον τῆς λύπης αὑτῷ ἐποίησε τὴν ἐλεγείαν τὴν καλουμένην Λύδην, ἐξαριθμησάμενος τὰς ἡρωικὰς συμφοράς, τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις κακοῖς ἐλάττω τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ποιῶν λύπην “the poet Antimachus also employed a similar method. For after the death of his wife Lyde, whom he loved a great deal, he composed as a consolation for his grief the elegy called Lydē, enumerating the misfortunes of the heroes, and thus he reduced his own sorrow by other people’s ills”; Konstant. Manass. fr. 16 Mazal oἶδε καὶ γὰρ ἀναψυχῆς ψεκάδας ἐπιστάζειν / διηγηθὲν ἀλλότριον τῷ δυσπραγοῦντι πάθος “he also knows to shed drops of relief by narrating another’s misfortune to unfortunate persons”. On the contrary, it was thought that a tragedy fails, if spectators watch it and weep for their own sufferings, as in the case of Phrynichus’ The Fall of Miletus; cf. Hdt. 6.21 oἰκήια κακά; Halliwell 2005, 395. ψυχαγωγηθείς The verb refers to the quasi-magical effect that tragedy has on the spectators; it may hint at conjuring of souls, as in necromancy scenes (e. g. Hom. Od. 11.24–50; Aeschylus’ Ψυχαγωγοί “Ghost-Raisers” (TrGF V3. frr. 271– 278); Pers. 687; Ar. Av. 1554–5 ἄλουτος … / ψυχαγωγεῖ Σωκράτης, lit. “Socrates unwashed raises dead spirits”, possibly with the connotation “beguile or seduce

Διονυσιάζουσαι (fr. 6)

61

the mind of the living, young men in particular” (cf. Dunbar 1998 ad loc.); Pl. Phdr. 261a, where the art of rhetoric is described by Socrates as ψυχαγωγία τις διὰ λόγων “a certain winning of souls by means of speech”; X. Mem. 3.10.6. The verb ψυχαγωγεῖν is absent from Gorgias; instead, the verbs ἐκγοητεύειν “bewitch” and φαρμακεύειν “drug” are used for the (bad) influence of speech: Hel. 14 (fr. 11.92–3 D–K) οἱ δὲ πειθοῖ τινι κακῆι τὴν ψυχὴν ἐφαρμάκευσαν καὶ ἐξεγοήτευσαν “they poisoned and charmed the soul with a kind of evil persuasion”. The verb with reference to tragedy appears twice in Aristotle’s Ars Poetica, first in 1450a 33–5, attached to the components of a complex plot (πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὰ μέγιστα οἷς ψυχαγωγεῖ ἡ τραγῳδία τοῦ μύθου μέρη ἐστίν, αἵ τε περιπέτειαι καὶ ἀναγνωρίσεις “and furthermore, the most important elements by means of which tragedy enthralls, reversals and recognitions, are parts of the plot”) and secondly in 1450b 16–7, where the entertainment potential of spectacle is stressed (ἡ δὲ ὄψις ψυχαγωγικὸν μέν, ἀτεχνότατον δὲ καὶ ἥκιστα οἰκεῖον τῆς ποιητικῆς “spectacle, while highly bewitching, is completely without art and has nothing to do with poetry”. In Plb. 2.56.11 the historian criticizes Phylarchus and ascribes to tragedy the task of thrilling and charming (ἐκπλῆξαι καὶ ψυχαγωγῆσαι) the audience. Cf. Suess 1910, 79; Wigodski 1995, 65–8; Halliwell 2005, 395; Gutzwiller 2010, 340. For the combination of instruction and enthrallment cf. above, under “Interpretation”. 10–16 These lines contain a corresponding parallel list, consisting of human misfortunes and emblematic tragic heroes. For this sort of comic accumulation cf. Ar. Pax 242–54; Av. 565–9, 760–7, 1136–7; Archipp. frr. 15–18; Antiph. fr. 27, with Konstantakos 2000, 71; Anaxil. fr. 22. 7 μεθ’ ἡδονῆς Probably an allusion to contemporary literary criticism; cf. above, under “Interpretation”. ἀπῆλθε gnomic aorist; cf. Goodwin 1890, § 154–5. For ἀπέρχεσθαι cf. Ar. Ra. 16–8 (Dionysus, who was supposedly present at theatrical performances in his theatre) ὡς ἐγὼ θεώμενος, / ὅταν τι τούτων τῶν σοφισμάτων ἴδω, / πλεῖν ἢ ’νιαυτῷ πρεσβύτερος ἀπέρχομαι “since when I attend a performance and hear any of these clever jokes, I go away just older by a year”; Astyd. TrGF I 60 F 4.1–3 ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ δείπνου γλαφυροῦ ποικίλην εὐωχίαν / τὸν ποιητὴν δεῖ παρέχειν τοῖς θεαταῖς τὸν σοφόν, / ἵν’ ἀπίῃ τις τοῦτο φαγὼν καὶ πιών, ὅπερ λαβών / χαίρει 〈τις〉; “but as the varied good cheer of a splendid feast, so should the wise poet provide to the spectator, so that he should leave having eaten and drunk exactly what pleases him”; Luc. Nigr. 13 ὥστε κατὰ μικρὸν ἐσωφρονίσθη καὶ παρὰ πολὺ βελτίων ἀπῆλθε δημοσίᾳ πεπαιδευμένος “so he was disciplined little by little, and left very much improved by having been publicly educated”; Kassel 1963, 300–301. παιδευθεὶς ἅμα The idea that a tragic spectator is educated is compatible with the wider assumption that poets are teachers of their community; cf. Halliwell 2005, 395–6. The speaking character also seems to imply that pleasure and understanding are interlinked in the viewing of tragedy; cf. Phld. Po. 5 col. iv Mangoni “… wretched man, because though there are many ways of profiting, he did not define which of them we demand from the poet, and did not show by what means

62

Timokles

and what pleasure he pleases”; Hor. Ars 333–4 aut prodesse uolunt aut delectare poetae / aut simul et iucunda et idonea dicere uitae “poets wish to either to benefit or to delight, or to speak what is both enjoyable and helpful to living”; cf. 343–4 omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci, / lectorem delectando pariterque monendo “who can mix the useful and the sweet wins every vote, at once delighting and teaching the reader”; cf. Halliwell 2005, 395. For the combination of instruction and enthrallment cf. above, under “Interpretation”. 8 τοὺς γὰρ τραγῳδούς The word here seems to mean tragic poets; cf. LSJ s. v. III, where this meaning is attributed with reservation to our passage and Crates Com. fr. 28 τοῖς δὲ τραγῳδοῖς ἕτερος σεμνὸς πᾶσιν λόγος ἄλλος ὅδ’ ἔστιν; “for all the tragedians, there is another serious story, a different one”; Arist. Po. 1458b 31–3 ἔτι δὲ Ἀριφράδης τοὺς τραγῳδοὺς ἐκωμῴδει ὅτι ἃ οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴπειεν ἐν τῇ διαλέκτῳ τούτοις χρῶνται; “Ariphrades again made fun of the tragedians because they use phrases which no one would use in everyday speech”; Diph. fr. 29.4–5 ὡς οἱ τραγῳδοί φασιν, οἷς ἐξουσία / ἔστιν λέγειν ἅπαντα καὶ ποιεῖν μόνους “as the tragedians say, who are the only people with the authority to say and do everything”. However, the meaning ‘performance of tragedy’ (LSJ s. v. I.2, citing our passage along with Philem. fr. 105.4–5 τὰ δ’ ἀργυρώματ’ ἐστὶν ἥ τε πορφύρα / εἰς τοὺς τραγῳδοὺς εὔθετ’, οὐκ εἰς τὸν βίον “on the contrary, silver vessels and purple robes are well suited to tragic performers, not to life”) is not impossible, since the effect of tragedy is achieved by attending performance; cf. v. 15 ὁρᾷ under “Interpretation” and the following mention of tragic heroes and heroines but not of poets. Cf. also Phrynichus Comicus’ doubtful title Τραγῳδοὶ ἢ Ἀπελεύθεροι, and the relevant discussion in Stama 2014, 270–1. Equally ambiguous is the usage of κωμῳδοί. For this terminology see Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 127–130. εἰ βούλει, σκόπει In dialogues it usually introduces a specific issue which supports the demonstration of a larger point; cf. Philem. fr. 113.1; Olson 2007, 170. It is common in Plato (e. g. Phd. 70d; R. 430d; [Pl.] Min. 315e, where a more extensive version occurs: εἰ μὲν οὖν βούλει, πυνθανόμενός τι παρ’ ἐμοῦ κοινῇ μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκόπει) and in Plutarch (e. g. Mor. 328b; 395e). 9–10 πένης … πτωχότερον For the difference between a πένης “one who works for his living” and a πτωχός “destitute”, cf. Ar. Pl. 552–4 (Poverty is speaking) πτωχοῦ μὲν γὰρ βίος, ὃν σὺ λέγεις, ζῆν ἐστιν μηδὲν ἔχοντα· / τοῦ δὲ πένητος ζῆν φειδόμενον καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις προσέχοντα, / περιγίγνεσθαι δ’ αὐτῷ μηδέν, μὴ μέντοι μηδ’ ἐπιλείπειν “The life of the beggar, whom you speak of, is to live having nothing. The life of the poor man is to live thriftly and attentive to his work; he has nothing to spare, but he does not lack for anything”. 10 καταμαθών cf. on v. 16 κατέμαθεν. A favorite word in Plato (e. g. La. 191e; Tht. 198d; R. 475d; 529e; Ti. 90d); in comedy, cf. Μen. Ep. 750 τὸν ὄλεθρον τοῦ βίου καταμάνθανε. For καταμανθάνειν as an outcome of vision, in the sense “after seeing, he recognizes” cf. D. 23.122 ὁρᾶτε καὶ καταμανθάνετε. τὸν Τήλεφον The description of Telephus as πτωχός here is misleading, since Telephus was never actually a pauper; he only disguised himself as a beggar in or-

Διονυσιάζουσαι (fr. 6)

63

der to infiltrate the Achaean camp and approach Achilles. He was a king of Mysia, son of Heracles and Auge. In the Trojan War he assisted Priam against the Greeks, and when the Achaeans invaded his land by mistake, he was seriously wounded in the leg by Achilles. Telephus was informed by the oracle that he alone who had wounded him could also cure him. According to a plausible reconstruction of Euripides’ Telephus (cf. Olson 2002, liv-lxi), Telephus arrived before Agamemnon’s palace in Argos dressed in beggar’s rags (frr. 696–8 Kannicht), probably in order to meet Agamemnon and ask him to persuade Achilles to heal the wound. Apart from Euripides, Sophocles wrote the trilogy Τηλέφεια, and plays about Telephus were written by Aeschylus (he also wrote Mysians), Iophon, Cleophon, Agathon and Moschion. Cf. Arist. Po. 1453a 19–21; [Apollod.] Epit. 3.17–19; Ganz 1993, 428–31; 576–80; Preiser 2000, 71–97. In Aristophanic comedy, the Euripidean version of Telephus’ story was a favorite subject for parody and paratragedy; cf. Ach. 430–70; Nu. 921–4 (the beggar scene); Th. 689–775 (the parody of the scene with Orestes); cf. Olson 2002, liv-lxi. 11 γενόμενον For this participle as a tetrabrach in the initial position of the verse, cf. on fr. 11.4. ῥᾶον φέρει Τhe wording is reminiscent of medical vocabulary, implicitly referring to πενία as a disease; cf. Hp. Int. 12 ταῦτα ἢν ποιέῃ, ῥήϊον οἴσει τὴν νοῦσον “if you do these things, you will endure your disease more easily”; Theopomp. Com. fr. 63 ταῦτ’ ἢν ποῇς, ῥάιων ἔσῃ τὴν οὐσίαν “if you do this, your existence will be easier” and PCG VII, ad loc: “medicorum formulam agnovit Coraes”. For συμφορὰς φέρειν cf. Αr. Th. 197–8. In order to avoid monotony, Timocles varies the gnomic tenses both in the introductory section (v.3 φέρει and v. 7 ἀπῆλθεν) and in his series of mythical exempla; v. 12 ἐσκέψατο (aorist), v. 14 κεκούφικε (perfect), v. 15 ὁρᾷ (present), v. 16 κατέμαθεν (aorist). For similar variations cf. fr. 8; E. fr. 573.3–4 ἀλγηδόνας δὲ ταῦτα κουφίζει φρενῶν / καὶ καρδίας ἔλυσε τοὺς ἄγαν πόνους “these things relieve mental pain and alleviate the terrible pains of the heart”; Alex. fr. 103; Anaxandr. fr. 35; Antiph. fr. 202 with Konstantakos 2000, 238; Kühner–Gerth I (1898) 159–60; Sicking 1991, 36–7. 12 ὁ νοσῶν τι μανικόν The earliest attestation of the adjective, which is common in prose, is in Ar. V. 1496 μανικὰ πράγματα (Βiles-Olson 2016, ad loc.). For the association of mania with the Erinyes and tragedy cf. Ar. Plu. 423–4 Ἴσως Ἐρινύς ἐστιν ἐκ τραγῳδίας· / βλέπει γέ τοι μανικόν τι καὶ τραγῳδικόν “perhaps she is an Erinys from tragedy; she sees things with a mad and tragic eye”; in Anaxandr. fr. 29.1 it occurs in the broader sense of “crazy, extravagant” (Millis 2015, ad loc.). For adjectives in –ικός, a formation typical of the late fifth century, cf. Willi 2003, 139–45; Biles–Olson 2016, 106 (on Ar. V. 64–6). Ἀλκμέων’ ἐσκέψατο It is worth noting that Αlcmeon here has displaced Orestes, the matricide hero driven mad par excellence. Alcmeon’s father was the seer Amphiaraos, whom Eriphyle persuaded to participate in the expedition of the Seven against Thebes, although she knew that he would be killed. Alcmeon later

64

Timokles

participated with the ‘epigonoi’, the sons of the ‘Seven’, in the second expedition against Thebes. On his return, he murdered his mother Eriphyle to avenge his father. But like Orestes, he was persecuted and driven mad by his mother’s Furies, and was purified first by Phegeus, who gave him his daughter Alphesiboea in marriage. Alcmeon later divorced her and married Callirrhoe, the daughter of the god-river Acheloos, who also purified him. But he was murdered in turn in a chain of revenge by Alphesiboea’s brothers and his body was left prey to dogs and wild beasts. Cf. Pi. P. 8.41–47; Th. 2.102.5–6; [Apollod.] Bibl. 3.80–95; Paus. 8. 24.7–10; Ovid. Met. 9.397–417; Parker 1983, 377; Gantz 1993, 506–510, 522–528; Olson 2007, 171. For the spelling see above, under “Text”. Alkmeōn was the title of tragedies written by Sophocles, Euripides (two plays: Ἀλκμέων α΄: ὁ διὰ Ψωφίδος and Ἀλκμέων β΄: ὁ διὰ Κορίνθου), Agathon, Timotheus, Astydamas II, Theodectes and Nicomachus. Homonymous comedies were written by Amphis and Mnesimachus, and a satyr play Alcmeōn was written by Achaeus. For Alcmeon as an emblematic tragic figure, whose story was immediately recalled, cf. Antiph. fr. 189. 8–11 ἂν πάλιν / εἴπῃ τις Ἀλκμέωνα, καὶ τὰ παιδία / πάντ’ εὐθὺς εἴρηχ’, ὅτι μανεὶς ἀπέκτονεν / τὴν μητέρ’, ἀγανακτῶν δ’ Ἄδραστος εὐθέως / ἥξει πάλιν τ’ ἄπεισι “again, if someone says ‘Alcmeon’, even children can say everything straightaway, that he went mad and killed his mother, and that Adrastus is going to get annoyed and come straight home and go off again”; for Alcmeon’s story as plot of the best tragedies cf. Arist. Po. 1453a. 13–16 This paratactic and asyndetic structure, which functions as an if– (or when–) clause, adds a liveliness and rapidity to the speech. It is worth noting that this construction is metrically supported, since in all these verses the end of the first part falls in the penthemimeral caesura. It is very common in comedy; cf. fr. 8.6–7; Ar. Av. 78 ἔτνους δ’ ἐπιθυμεῖ, δεῖ τορύνης καὶ χύτρας (with van Leeuwen 1902, 19–20; Dunbar 1995, 123); Th. 405 κάμνει κόρη τις, εὐθὺς ἁδελφὸς λέγει; Ec. 179 ἐπέτρεψας ἑτέρῳ· πλείον’ ἔτι δράσει κακά; Anaxandr. fr. 35; Men. Dysc. 58–9 (Chaereas is speaking) παραλαμβάνει τις τῶν φίλων / ἐρῶν ἑταίρας· εὐθὺς ἁρπάσας φέρω; Aristopho fr. 5.5–7 (a parasite advertising his art) προσβαλεῖν πρὸς οἰκίαν δεῖ, κριός· ἀναβῆναί τι πρὸς / κλιμάκιον … Καπανεύς, ὑπομένειν πληγὰς ἄκμων, / κονδύλους πλάττειν δὲ Τελαμών, τοὺς καλοὺς πειρᾶν καπνός; Axionic. fr. 6.9–16; Alex. fr. 103.7–20 (with Arnott 1996, 275); Dionys. Com. fr. 3.5,9; Plaut. MG 664–5; Ter. Ad. 117–8.; see Arnott 1996, 275 (on Alex. fr. 103.7); Olson, 2007, 171. Also in prose: D. 18.274 ἀδικεῖ τις ἑκών· ὀργὴν καὶ τιμωρίαν κατὰ τούτου. ἐξήμαρτέ τις ἄκων· συγγνώμην ἀντὶ τῆς τιμωρίας τούτῳ “A man commits a crime intentionally: he meets with anger and punishment; a man makes a mistake unintentionally: he is pardoned, not punished”. For the mixing of tenses in the apodosis cf. above on v. 7 and Kock’s comment: “in apodosis praesens, perfectum, aoristum promiscue posuit”; Kühner–Gerth II (1904) 233 (cf. also the alternation in Timocl. fr. 8.6–7 (γίνεται –πράξει). Concerning the punctuation, it is always difficult to decide whether these protactic clauses are statements or questions. One may suppose that the actor could deliver them in either way.

Διονυσιάζουσαι (fr. 6)

65

13 ὀφθαλμιᾷ τις ὀφθαλμιάω “suffer from ophthalmia” is a generic term for various eye-infections, usually curable, contrasting here with being permanently blind; cf. Hdt. 7.229; Hp. Aph. 6.17; Ar. Ach. 1027 (with Olson 2002, ad loc.): ἀπόλωλα τὠφθαλμῷ; Ra. 192 ἔτυχον ὀφθαλμιῶν “I happened to suffer from ophthalmia”; X.HG 2.1.3; Pl. Alc. 2.139e; Antiph. fr. 252.1. Φινεῖδαι Plexippus and Pandion, the sons of Phineus ([Apollod.] Bibl. 3.200; but according to the scholia in Apollodorus Rhodius, they were named Parthenius and Carambis; cf. Σ LP 2.178–82b; S. fr. 704 Radt), the king of Salmydessus, were borne by his first wife Cleopatra. After Cleopatra’s death, Phineus married Idaea, the daughter of Dardanus. Both of Phineus’ sons were slandered by their stepmother as would-be killers of Phineus and usurpers of his crown, and were condemned to lose their eyes. That version is given in S. Ant. 970–3. Phineus was punished by Zeus for this cruelty, and became blind himself, while the Harpies were sent by the god to spoil his food on the table. His sight was restored by the Argonauts, who visited him and were instructed by him on the easiest way to Colchis; cf. Ganz 1993, 349–56; Olson 2007, 171. Φινεῖδαι seems to be the title of a tragedy by an unknown author (Trag. adesp. fr. 10a Kannicht–Snell), praised by Aristotle for the type of recognition (Po. 1455a 10–12).72 Φινεύς was the title of tragedies by Aeschylus and Sophocles (two plays; cf. Φινεύς α and β, frr. 700–717 Radt), and of a comedy by Theopompus. 14 ἡ Νιόβη Niobe was the wife of Amphion and had many children (six sons and six daughters according to Hom. Il. 24.603–4, or seven sons and as many daughters according to other sources). She insulted Leto when she boasted that she was more fortunate than the goddess in child-bearing. Leto entreated her children, Apollo and Artemis, to punish the arrogant Niobe, and all the sons of Niobe were killed by Apollo, all her daughters by Artemis. Niobe was then turned into stone; see [Apollod.] Bibl. 3.5; Gantz 1993, 536–7. Tragedies with the title Niobē were written by Aeschylus and Sophocles. One of them probably contained a famous lament-speech and its artistic interpretation by the actor Oiagros must have been impressive (cf. Ar. V. 579–80 with Biles–Olson 2015, ad loc.). κεκούφικε Unsurprisingly, the verb mainly occurs in tragedy, in particular in a consolatory context; cf. E. Med. 473; Or. 43; fr. 573.2–3 Kannicht … ὀδυρμοί δακρύων τ’ ἐπιρροαί · / ἀλγηδόνας δὲ ταῦτα κουφίζει φρενῶν “lamentations and floods of tears; these relieve mental pain”; but cf. Men. fr. 663 ἰατρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ἀνθρώποις νόσων· / ψυχῆς γὰρ οὗτος μόνος ἔχει κουφίσματα “speech is a physician for human disease; it is this alone which provides the soul with consolation”; Th. 2.44; D. 60.35. It also occurs in poetic contexts: Arist. Pol. 8.1342a 14 καὶ πᾶσι γίγνεσθαί τινα κάθαρσιν καὶ κουφίζεσθαι μεθ’ ἡδονῆς “and all (emotional people) must undergo a purgation and be pleasantly relieved.” A slightly different opinion is that misfortunes are more tolerable when shared with many: cf. Τh. 7.75.6 καὶ 72

Cf. Kannicht–Snell 1981, ad Trag. adesp. fr. 10a: “argumentum ‘Phineidarum’ ab Aristotele adumbratum prorsus obscurum”.

66

Timokles

μὴν ἡ ἄλλη αἰκία καὶ ἡ ἰσομοιρία τῶν κακῶν, ἔχουσά τινα ὅμως τὸ μετὰ πολλῶν κούφισιν, οὐδ’ ὣς ῥᾳδία ἐν τῷ παρόντι ἐδοξάζετο “This hardship and sharing of misfortunes, although alleviated by being suffered together with many others, was not seen as easy at the time”. 15 χωλός τις ἐστί The adjective often occurs in comedy, usually denoting the feet (“lame”; cf. Ar. Ach. 411, 427, 429; Pax 147; Av. 1293; Men. Dysc. 662; cf. Alc. Com. fr. 3 κατάχωλε, with Orth 2013, ad loc.), but sometimes associated with hands (Eup. fr. 264, with Olson 2016, ad loc.; cf. Hippon. fr. 180 χειρόχωλον; and the specification χωλὸς τῷ σκέλει in Ar. Th. 24). Here, as the comparison to Philoctetes indicates, it refers to feet.73 τὸν Φιλοκτήτην Philoctetes was one of the first to volunteer to accompany the Achaeans on the Trojan expedition, but he was prevented from doing so because he was bitten in the foot by a viper and the wound began to fester and smell. At the instigation of Odysseus, he was removed from the camp and abandoned on Lemnos. In the tenth year of the war the Greeks were informed that Troy would not be taken without Heracles’ bow, now in the possession of Philoctetes. Accordingly, Odysseus, accompanied by Neoptolemus (or, according to others, by Diomedes) persuaded him to go to Troy, where he was healed by Asclepius’ sons and killed Paris with his bow; cf. Hom. Il. 2.718–24; Gantz 1993, 589–90, 635–8; Olson 2002, on Ar. Ach. 424–5. In tragedy Philoctetes was one of the most famous ‘lame’ tragic heroes (the others being Bellerophon and Telephus). Though tragedies on the myth of Philoctetes and his escape from Lemnos were written by many tragedians (A. frr. 249–57 Radt, Sophocles [the only surviving play], Euripides [frr. 787–803 Kannicht], Philocles [ T 1 Kannicht] and Theodectes [TrGF I 72 F5b]), in Aristophanes it was mainly Euripides who was mocked for his fondness for lame heroes; cf. Ar. Ach. 411 (with Olson 2002, ad loc.) χωλοὺς ποιεῖς; Pax 146–8 Ἐκεῖνο τήρει, μὴ σφαλεὶς καταρρυῇς / ἐντεῦθεν, εἶτα χωλὸς ὢν Εὐριπίδῃ / λόγον παράσχῃς καὶ τραγῳδία γένῃ “be careful not to tumble off and then, being lame, afford Euripides a subject and get turned into a tragedy”; Ra. 846 (with Dover 1993, ad loc.) τὸν χωλοποιόν.74 Cf. Olson 1991, 269–83; Olson 2007, 172. ὁρᾷ A reference to a spectator rather than a reader. Cf. above, under “Interpretation”. 16 For a similar consolatory admonition cf. Philippid. fr. 18 (from Φιλάδελφοι): ὅταν ἀτυχεῖν σοι συμπέσῃ τι, δέσποτα, / Εὐριπίδου μνήσθητι, καὶ ῥᾴων ἔσει “Lord, when misfortunes happen to befall you, remember Euripides and you will feel better”. 73 74

Cf., however, Theodect. TrGF I 72 F 5b II κόψατε τὴν ἐμὴν χεῖρα, where it is said that Philoctetes was bitten by a snake in his hand. For the possible influence of Aristophanes on Timocles cf. vv. 10–16, where three of the tragic heroes mentioned (Oeneus, Philoctetes, Telephus) are also mentioned as emblematic miserable heroes in The Acharnians (vv. 418, 424, 430).

Διονυσιάζουσαι (fr. 6)

67

κατέμαθεν Cf. on v. 10 καταμαθών. τὸν Οἰνέα Due to his sufferings in old age, Oeneus was the emblematic miserable old man in Greek mythology; cf. Ar. Ach. 418–9 δύσποτμος γεραιός “the ill-fated old man”, in a list of the most pitiable of Euripides’ characters; Stob. 4.48b16, where under the heading ὅτι οἱ ἀτυχοῦντες χρήιζουσι τῶν συμπασχόντων “that the unfortunate need persons feeling sympathy”, the first exemplum comes from Euripides’ Oineus (fr. 563 Kannicht). Oeneus was the King of Calydon in Aetolia. He was driven from his kingdom by the sons of his brother Agrius, but was restored with the help of his grandson Diomedes. But the great misfortunes he suffered drove him into melancholy, and finally he left Calydon, died on the way to Argolis, and was buried by Diomedes in the town named Oenoe after him. For his story cf. Hom. Il. 2.641–2; 6.216–23; 9.533–99; 14.113–25; Pherecyd. FGrHist 3 F 122; [Apollod.] Bibl. 1.64–79. Tragedies entitled Oeneus were also written by Philocles, Ion, Sophocles (perhaps) and Chaeremon; a homonymous comedy was written by Dinolochus. Cf. Gantz 1993, 328–33; Olson 2002, on Ar. Ach. 418–9. 19 συμφορὰς … στένει στένειν συμφοράς is typical of tragic heroes, when bewailing their misfortunes on stage (e. g. A. Αg. 18 κλαίω τότ’ οἴκου τοῦδε συμφορὰν στένων “then I weep, sighing for the misfortunes of this house”; Ch. 931 στένω μὲν οὖν καὶ τῶνδε συμφορὰν διπλῆν “I lament even the double misfortune of these two”; S. El. 1179–80; E. IT 470). Τhe spectator compares (v. 18 ἐννοούμενος) his own misfortunes (ἀτυχήματα) with those of tragic heroes and realizes that he has to lament less than if he had not attended the suffering hero (and, perhaps, as the language indicates, less than the heroes themselves lament on stage).

68

Διόνυσος (Dionysos) (“Dionysus”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 504; Kock II (1884) 454; Coppola 1927, 457; Bevilacqua 1939, 44–5; Edmonds II (1959) 606–7; Webster 1970, 47; PCG VII (1989) 707. Title Dionysus is the god who appears in comedy titles more often than any other. Comedies with the same title were written by Magnes (Διόνυσος α΄ and β΄) and Alexander, with unknown content. We are also ignorant of the content of Epicharmus’ and Cratinus’ Διόνυσοι, Aristophanes’ Διόνυσος Ναυαγός and Aristomenes’ Διόνυσος Ἀσκητής. Eubulus’ Σεμέλη ἢ Διόνυσος probably concerned Dionysus’ birth and early career, and may have associated the god with symposia (cf. Hunter 1983, 183). Polyzelus and Anaxandrides also wrote Διονύσου Γοναί. Comedies entitled Βάκχαι were written by Diocles, Lysippus and Antiphanes. Relevant titles are Cratinus’ Διονυσαλέξανδρος, Phrynichus Comicus’ and Ameipsias’ Κωμασταί, and Lysippus’ Θυρσοκόμος. It is noteworthy that, apart from Timocles, in Middle Comedy only Eubulus’ and Anaxandrides’ titles contain the name of the god. It is also interesting that in Timocles, where the proportion of mythological titles is rather small,75 four titles seem to have an association with Dionysus (Διόνυσος, Διονυσιάζουσαι, Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι and Δημοσάτυροι).76 It also seems that with Timocles satyrs reappear on the comic stage; cf. on the plays Δημοσάτυροι, and Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι, under “Title”. Διόνυσος was the title of a tragedy by Chaeremon (4th c. BC) treating the same myth as Euripides’ Βάκχαι; see B. Snell in TrGF I, 218. Οther titles associated with Dionysus in tragedy are Βάκχαι (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Iophon, Xenocles, Cleophon), Πενθεύς (Aeschylus; perhaps another [alternative?] title for Βάκχαι) and Σεμέλη (Aeschylus, Carcinus, Diogenes). Aeschylus’ Διονύσου Τροφοί (or, more probably, Τροφοί: cf. St. Radt, TrGF III, 349) and Sophocles’ Διονυσίσκος Σατυρικὸς were satyr plays. Aeschylus’ Λυκούργεια is also a Dionysian trilogy (Ἡδωνοί, Βασσαρίδες, Νεανίσκοι). For the myth of Dionysus, see Dodds 1960, xi-xx; Dover 1993, 37–43; Seaford 2006, 98–103. Dionysus, the god in whose honor the dramatic festivals were held, is also associated with theatre, tragedy in particular. In Aristophanes’ Frogs (405 BC), one year after Euripides’ death, he appears disguised as Heracles and sets out on a journey to the underworld to bring the tragic poet back. The play includes the famous contest between Aeschylus and Euripides, where Dionysus finally chooses Aeschylus. The god of theatre also appears as a deus ex machina in Strattis’ Φοίνισσαι (ca 410 BC) fr. 46.3 ἥκω κρεμάμενος ὥσπερ ἰσχὰς ἐπὶ κράδης “I have come here hanging like a 75 76

Cf. Introduction, “Themes and Motifs”. Cf. also Xenarch. fr. 9 from Porphyra, a play which is also doubtfully attributed to Timocles (see below, under this title). In the surviving fragment Dionysus is mentioned as a metonym for wine.

Διόνυσος

69

dried fig from the branch” (probably an imitation of Euripides’ Ὑψιπύλη; see Orth 2009, 208–11). Timocles’ Διονυσιάζουσαι is another play associated with both Dionysus and tragedy; the title perhaps indicates a chorus consisting of women celebrating the Dionysia, while in fr. 6 the educational and consolatory function of tragedy is stressed. Dionysus is often associated in drama with wine: in E. Ba. 771–2 he is described as the creator of the vine: κἀκεῖνό φασιν αὐτόν, ὡς ἐγὼ κλύω, τὴν παυσίλυπον ἄμπελον δοῦναι βροτοῖς “and they also say this of him, as I hear, that he gives to mortals the vine that ends grief ”; cf. S. fr. 172 Radt (from Διονυσίσκος Σατυρικός). In comedy, in particular, Dionysus speaks about different kinds of wine in Hermipp. fr. 77; cf. Olson, 2007, 305–6; Gkaras 2009, 168–78; Commentale 2017, 313–5. In Alexis’ Συντρέχοντες, Dionysus and Aphrodite are compared, associated with wine and love respectively; see Arnott 1996, 618–20. Sometimes Dionysus is a metonym for wine in tragedy, satyr play and comedy: E. Ba. 284 οὗτος (Dionysus) θεοῖσι σπένδεται θεὸς γεγώς “Himself a god, he is poured out in libations to the gods”; Cycl. 525 θεὸς δ’ ἐν ἀσκῷ πῶς γέγηθ’ οἴκους ἔχων; “but why would a god delight in making his home in a wineskin?”; Eup. fr. 6; Amips. fr. 4 †ἐγὼ δὲ Διόνυσος† / 〈a〉 πᾶσιν ὑμῖν εἰμί, πέντε καὶ δύο “but I am Dionysus to all of you, five and two”; see Orth 2013, 132–5; Alex. fr. 225 Nάννιον δὲ μαίνεται ἐπὶ τῷ Διονύσῳ “Nannion is crazy for Dionysus”. Finally, Dionysus is sometimes represented as effeminate both in tragedy and in comedy; cf. E. Ba. 453–9; Ar. Ra. 45–6. For Dionysus in comedy see Pascal 1911, 25–7; Pellegrino 2000, 201–2; Casolari 2003, 112–26. Content A standard pattern of Dionysus myths is the arrival of the god at a particular place, the resistance of the local leaders and his ultimate victory.77 The emblematic development of this pattern occurs in Euripides’ Βάκχαι (407/6 Β.C.); this tragedy deals with the invasion of Thebes by the Dionysiac cult, Pentheus’ resistance and the god’s revenge. We can say with some confidence that Timocles’ Διόνυσος shows a clear interest in political satire. In the unique surviving fragment, two characters participate in a dialogue concerning current politics (see below, under “Interpretation”). Dionysus often appears, usually disguised, as a character in comedy (especially in the 5th century) with reference to political issues. In Cratinus’ Διονυσαλέξανδρος, mythological parody and political satire are combined. Dionysus is represented as a versatile divine figure in different transformations; he appears with divine regalia (fr. 40), as Paris (test. 1) and is transformed into a ram, presumably symbolizing Pericles (see Hypothesis vv. 31–33 and fr. 45).78 77

78

Cf. Aristophanes’ Ὧραι, where Sabazius and other foreign gods are put on trial; in Apollophanes’ Κρῆτες, Eupolis’ Βάπται and Plato Comicus’ Ἄδωνις foreign gods (θεοὶ ξενικοί) are satirized. For the play Dionysalexandros see Casolari 2003, 98–112, with additional bibliography; Bakola 2010, 81–102, 180–208, 253–72, 286–96; Bianchi, 2015, 198–308. For Hermippus see Gkaras 2009, 90–6; Commentale 2017, 181–94.

70

Timokles

Also, in a passage of Hermippus (fr. 47), Pericles is called βασιλεὺς σατύρων (sc. Dionysus); see on Timocles fr. 12, under “Interpretation”. Ιn Eupolis’ Ταξίαρχοι, Dionysus is trained in military life and practice by the general Phormion (Schol. Ar. Pax 348e; see Storey 2003, 246–60; Olson, 2016, 367–70). In Aristophanes’ Babylōnioi Dionysus is arrested and taken off for trial by the local authorities, obviously in a context of bribery: (Ath. 9.494d = Ar. fr. 75) ὅταν Διόνυσος λέγῃ περὶ τῶν Ἀθήνησι δημαγωγῶν ὡς αὐτὸν ᾔτουν ἐπὶ τὴν δίκην ἀπελθόντα ὀξυβάφω δύο “when Dionysus says of the demagogues at Athens that they asked him for ‘two shallow saucers’, as he was going away to trial”. It is also possible that Dionysus introduced himself in the very first scene of the play; cf. Orth 2017, 351–74, 459–60, who notes that Dionysus probably is the main character of the play; cf. E. Ba. 1–63; Stratt. fr. 46 from Φοίνισσαι (cited above). Date Dionysos has in common with Ikarioi Satyroi (fr. 18) and Lēthē (fr. 23) the orator Telemachus from Acharnae, who is satirized with reference to his pot of beans. Telemachus’ career seems to be attested from 342 to 329 BC; cf. Schwigert 1938, 292. A certainly datable initiative in his career is the decree he proposed in 329/8 BC in honor of Heracleides of Salamis, who had donated 3,000 drachmas to Athens to buy corn (see below, under “Commentary”). It has been suggested (Coppola 1927, 456–7; cf. Webster 1952, 20) that this official proposal in honor of Heracleides and his supposed initiatives concerning provisioning, which are alluded to by the catchphrase ‘pot and beans’, are associated, and, therefore, Dionysos (and Lēthē and Ikarioi Satyroi as well) should probably be dated around 329/8. This suggestion is unfounded, though the corn shortage period of 330–327 BC and Telemachus’ attested activity in this period might be compatible with this sort of satire. Cf. below, on the date of Ikarioi Satyroi and Lēthē.

fr. 7 K.-A. (7 K.) Α. ὁ δ’ Ἀχαρνικὸς Τηλέμαχος ἔτι δημηγορεῖ; Β. οὗτος δ’ ἔοικε τοῖς νεωνήτοις Σύροις. Α. πῶς; ἢ τί πράττων; βούλομαι γὰρ εἰδέναι. Β. θάργηλον ἀγκάλῃ χύτραν φέρει 1–2 Tηλέμαχος; (Β.) ἔτι δημηγορεῖ ∙ οὗτος Herwerden 4 θάργηλον Meineke: θανατηγὸν Α ἀγκάλῃ Jacobs: ἐν ταῖς ἀγκάλαις Herwerden: καλὴν Α 〈οὗτος〉 ἀγκ. Meineke, ἀγκ. 〈κυάμων〉 Kaibel

A. Is Telemachus the Acharnian still speaking in public? B. This one is like newly bought Syrians. A. In what way? What is he doing? I want to know. B. He is carrying around his thargēlos pot under his arm

Διόνυσος (fr. 7)

71

Ath. 9.407e ὅτι δὲ καὶ τῶν δήμων Ἀχαρνεὺς ὁ Τηλέμαχος ὁ αὐτὸς ποιητής φησιν ἐν Διονύσῳ οὕτως · ὁ δ’ Ἀχαρνικὸς Τηλέμαχος – χύτραν φέρει That Telemachus was from the deme of Acharnae is mentioned by the same poet in Dionysus as follows: Is Telemachus – his arm.

Metre Iambic trimeter

wwlwl lwwwww llwl llwl w|lwl llwl llwl l|lwl wlwl llwl llwl wl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 594; Kock II (1884) 454; Bevilacqua 1939, 44–5; Edmonds II (1959) 606–7; PCG VII (1989) 760; Apostolakis 2014, 117–8. Citation context The fragment is cited by Athenaeus in a culinary context, where Telemachus’ proverbial pot is discussed. Two more fragments of Timocles containing references to Telemachus are quoted in the same section: fr. 23 from Λήθη, where a person asks Telemachus to loan him the pot in which he cook beans, and fr. 18 from Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι, where Telemachus is again mentioned with reference to a heap of beans. The speaker Democritus, however, seems to take at face value and ‘literalize’ the last line of the fragment cited, and states that Telemachus had a permanent appetite for beans: cf. below, under “Interpretation”.79 Text 1–2 The distribution of the interlocutors Τηλέμαχος; :: ἔτι δημηγορεῖ, proposed by van Herwerden 1864, 36, invalidates the comic metaphor of v. 4 by admitting from the beginning that Telemachus is still an active politician. Meineke’s suggestion οὐκ ἀλλ’ instead of οὗτος δ’ would mean that Telemachus is no longer a δημηγόρος (cf. Crusius 1888, 624–5: “Telemachum igitur παυθῆναι δημηγοροῦντα dicere voluit poeta”); this also contradicts v. 4; see below, under “Interpretation”. 4 The transmitted θανατηγὸν καλὴν (Α) is unmetrical. Moreover, θανατηγός “death-bringing”, an epithet of Hecate (PMag. Par. 1.2865), is unattested in classical literature and makes no sense here. θάργηλον is Meineke’s emendation; cf. Hsch. θ 106.1 θάργηλος ∙ χύτρα ἱεροῦ ἑψήματος; θ 104.5 καὶ ὁ θάργηλος χύτρα ἐστὶν ἀνάπλεως σπερμάτων. ἀγκάλῃ is Jacobs’ emendation instead of the transmitted καλήν. For ἀγκάλῃ φέρειν cf. Hdt. 6.61 φορέειν ἐν τῇ ἀγκάλῃ. v. 4 is incomplete, so Meineke proposes 〈οὗτος〉 ἀγκάλῃ, but this is awkward after οὗτος in v. 2. Kaibel’s 〈κυάμων〉 χύτραν makes much better sense (cf. frr. 18.5 σωρὸν … κυάμων and 23.3–4 τὰς χύτρας / ἐν αἷς ἕψεις τοὺς κυάμους). Another suggestion is Blaydes’ ἐν ταῖς ἀγκάλαις (adopted by Edmonds, but not mentioned in PCG); cf. X. Cyr. 7.5.50 (cited below, on v. 79

Cf. Eust. in Od. p. 1394.24, who rightly speaks of the ‘pot of Telemachus’ as a proverb, but reproduces Athenaeus’ interpretation of its origin, stating that Telemachus himself would always eat a pot of beans: ὅς φασι κυάμων χύτραν ἀεὶ σιτούμενος ἦν.

72

Timokles

4). But the plural ἀγκάλαις for only one person is difficult. For the absence of a caesura cf. on. v. 1. Interpretation This particular scene in Dionysus might be set in either Athens or the Underworld (Underweltszene). The first speaker, who obviously lives outside Athens, does not know whether Telemachus is still an active orator (ἔτι δημηγορεῖ;), while the second one is well informed. One of the interlocutors may well be Dionysus himself, probably disguised, as usual in drama. A close parallel is found in Eupolis’ fr. 103 from Dēmoi, which contains a similar dialogue about Pericles and current orators: Α. ῥήτωρ γάρ ἐστιν νῦν τις; B. ὧν γ’ ἐστιν λέγειν / ὁ Βουζύγης ἄριστος ἀλιτήριος “(A.) But is there any real orator today? (B.) Of those one can call orators, the best is the Bouzyges—that god-damned rogue”; for an interpretation of this fragment cf. Olson 2016, 381–2. Similar questions concerning political leaders occur in Old Comedy, asked either by divinities visiting the Upper World or by dead persons who ask, either while still in the Underworld or after their ascent to the Upperworld, about current politics in Athens; the answer they get is routinely disappointing. In Ar. Pax 680–1, for example, the goddess Peace asks Hermes who is now in charge of the Pnyx, and Trygaeus answers that it is Hyperbolus: Ἑρ. Ἔτι νυν ἄκουσον οἷον ἄρτι μ’ ἤρετο· ὅστις κρατεῖ νῦν τοῦ λίθου τοῦ ’ν τῇ Πυκνί. Τρ. Ὑπέρβολος νῦν τοῦτ’ ἔχει τὸ χωρίον. In Ra. 1454–5 Aeschylus asks Dionysus about Athenian political leadership and the answer is that the state hates the good citizens and uses the bad ones instead: Aἰ.Τὴν πόλιν νῦν μοι φράσον / πρῶτον τίσι χρῆται· πότερα τοῖς χρηστοῖς; Δι. Πόθεν; / μισεῖ κάκιστα. A similar dialogue takes place between Pericles and the comic hero Pyronides, either in the Underworld or immediately after Pericles’ ascent, in Eupolis’ Dēmoi fr. 110: Πε. Ὁ νόθος δέ μοι ζῇ; / Πυ. Καὶ πάλαι γ’ ἂν ἦν ἀνήρ, / εἰ μὴ τὸ τῆς πόρνης ὑπορρώδει κακόν “Pe. And does my bastard son still live? Py. Yes, and he would have become a man long ago, if he weren’t a little afraid about having a whore for a mother”. The model in that scene is Hom. Od. 11.492–3, where Achilles asks Odysseus about his son; for this scene cf. Olson 2017, 403–4. The surviving fragment from Διόνυσος may come from the prologue, since this kind of information is likely to be provided on stage near the beginning of the play; cf. Ar. Ra. 73–85, where, before their descent to Hades, Heracles asks Dionysus about poetry and poets both dead and living. The discussion concerns Telemachus, a minor Athenian politician. Telemachus is identified both by the name of his deme (Acharnae) and by his pot, the hallmark of his political activity. He was an orator specializing in matters pertaining to corn and cereal provision; in 328/7 BC he proposed a decree in honor of the merchant Heracleides of Salamis, as an euergetēs, because he had donated 3,000 drachmas in total to Athens to buy corn (SIG3 304, 29.48): Τηλέμαχος Θεαγγέλου Ἀχαρνεὺς εἶπεν ∙ ἐπειδὴ Ἡρακλείδης Σαλαμίνιος ἐπέδωκεν τὸν σῖτον τῷ δήμῳ πεντέδραχμον πρῶτος τῶν καταπλευσάντων ἐμπόρων ἐπ’ Ἀριστοφῶντος ἄρχοντος, ἐψηφίσθαι τὸν δῆμον ἐπαινέσαι Ἡρακλείδην Χαρικλείδου Σαλαμίνιον καὶ στεφανῶσαι αὐτὸν χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ φιλοτιμίας ἕνεκα τῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον τῶν Ἀθηναίων “Telemachus the son

Διόνυσος (fr. 7)

73

of Theangelus of Acharnai proposed: since Heracleides of Salamina was the first of the merchants who sailed in and subsidized the corn for the Athenian deme with five drachmas, when Aristophon was archon, the Assembly should vote to praise Heracleides the son of Charicleides of Salamis and bestow on him a golden crown for his generosity towards the Assembly of the Athenians”; cf. SEG XVI 52. But it is not clear why Telemachus was repeatedly associated in Timocles with a pot and beans (cf. frr. 18 and 23). Apparently, this emblematic description came neither from some personal inclination to legumes, as Athenaeus’ deipnosophists believe (cf. above, under “Citation Context”), nor from some private business, as has sometimes been suggested.80 The context of our fragment, where he is described as a public speaker (cf. v. 1 δημηγορεῖ), is more compatible with a possible initiative in the context of his involvement in politics. According to Wilamowitz, Telemachus’ proverbial χύτρα might be associated with some suggestion of the orator to his fellow citizens to follow the traditional diet; instead of consuming corn in a period of shortage, they should prefer foods like beans, a home product of Attica, and imitate the practices followed in the Pyanopsia: “audire mihi videor Telemachum, stultum oratorem, … gravissimis verbis famelicos cives exhortantem, ut maiorum temperantiam imitati ad χύτραν Chytrorum et κυάμους Pyanopsiorum redirent” (Wilamowitz 1962, 690).81 Τhis suggestion is attractive, but it is impossible to prove. Even more interesting is the association of Telemachus with the orator and politician Lycurgus. In IG II2 3207, col. 2 (307/6 BC) twelve honouring decrees survive. The name of the honorand is not mentioned, but the Austrian epigraphist Adolf Wilhelm in 1911 identified convincingly the honorand as Lycurgus of Boutadai, and interpreted the stele as a posthumous honor to Lycurgus, whose career reached its peak in 336–325 BC. One of these decrees commemorates the award of a crown, the awarding body being “the tribesmen” and the proposer Telemachus of Acharnai.82 It is worth noting that Lycurgus and Telemachus were from the same tribe (Oineis); cf. Lambert 2015, 2. Besides, Lycurgus was associated with the Pyanopsia, a festival in honor of Apollo, where dishes of cooked beans (πύανα) were offered; cf. his speech Against Menesaichmus, fr. 14.2–3 Conomis. This view might find further support in v. 4 θάργηλος (Meineke’s almost certain correction of the unmetrical θανατηγόν), which is interpreted by Hesychius as “a pot of a sacred boiled food”: cf. θ 106.1 θάργηλος ∙ χύτρα ἱεροῦ ἑψήματος; cf. θ 104.5 καὶ ὁ θάργηλος χύτρα ἐστὶν ἀνάπλεως σπερμάτων. Telemachus might have attempted to contribute to Lycurgus’ plans concerning the reform of the Athenian

80 81 82

Cf. Coppola 1927, 457, who believes that Telemachus himself was a seller of beans, so he promoted his product in order to make a profit. Edmonds 1959, 607 suggests that Telemachus also organized soup kitchens at which legumes were served. But his suggestion is totally arbitrary and should be dismissed. Cf. Wilhelm 1911, 1030; for a full substantiation of this view see Wilhelm 1974, 463–6; cf. Lambert 2015, 1–11.

74

Timokles

festivals (for Lycurgus’ religious administration cf. Parker 1996, 242–55). In this context, Athenaeus’ comment that ἐκ τούτων δῆλόν ἐστιν ὅτι Τηλέμαχος κυάμων χύτρας ἀεὶ σιτούμενος ἦγε Πυανέψια πορδὴν ἑορτήν “it is clear from these incidents that Telemachus, always feeding himself on pots of beans, celebrated the Pyanepsia as a festival of farts” (9.407e) might echo some (probably ineffective) intervention of the orator with reference to this particular festival. Telemachus is associated with Syrian slaves, to the extent that his (supposedly) beloved beans are compared with καταχύσματα, i. e. sweetmeats, nuts, figs, etc., which were thrown over the heads of newly purchased slaves when they entered their new home (see below on νεωνήτοις). An additional implicit point might be that Syrians traditionally abstained from fish-eating for religious reasons (the Syrian goddess Atagartis was associated with ‘sacred’ fish); cf. above on fr. 4.9, where seagulls are compared with Syrians in a context where the orator Hyperides is satirized, the point being that he is such an opsophagos, that seagulls appear to be fish-avoiding Syrians compared to him. Telemachus, therefore, abstains from fish-eating like a Syrian, and instead collects like a newly bought slave the καταχύσματα, which in his case are miserable fare such as beans.83 1 Metrically, it is noteworthy that this verse does not have a caesura (cf. v. 4), containing five successive short syllables due to the name Τηλέμαχος (cf. fr. 23.1) and the rather rare pattern ww|l in ἔτι δημηγορεῖ. However, the adverb and the verb are closely connected and therefore the break caused by the split anapaest can be ignored; see Arnott 1957, 188–90. ὁ δ’ Ἀχαρνικὸς Probably a colloquial equivalent of the more formal Ἀχαρνεύς (St. Byz. Ethnica (epit.) 151.58 ὁ δημότης Ἀχαρνεύς καὶ Ἀχαρνίτης καὶ Ἀχαρναῖος καὶ Ἀχαρνικός); cf. Ar. Ach. 179–81 (with Olson 2002 ad loc.) πρεσβῦταί τινες / Ἀχαρνικοί, στιπτοὶ γέροντες, πρίνινοι, / ἀτεράμονες, Μαραθωνομάχαι, σφενδάμνινοι “some elders from Acharnae, stout old men, hearts of oak, tough, Marathon fighters, hearts of maple”; cf. also Μεγαρικὸς for Μεγαρεύς (Αr. Ach. 830) and Λακωνικὸς for Λακεδαιμόνιος (Ar. Nu. 186; Pax 212; Lys. 226). Τηλέμαχος Telemachus the son of Theangelus Acharneus; PA 13562; RE 2.9 Telemachos n. 5 [Fiehn]; PAA 881430; LGPN s. v. Tηλέμαχος (6). He appears for first time as a buyer of a confiscated property in the ‘polētai records’ P26, 496–7 (ed. M.K. Langdon, Hesperia XIX 1991), and also as the proposer of a decree honoring Heracleides Salaminius; he also appears as proposer on behalf of his tribe (apparently Oineis) of an honorary decree, probably for Lycurgus; cf. above, under “Interpretation”. Telemachus’ initiatives should not be considered entirely selfless. He may well have envisaged the crucial issue of corn supply as a politician striving to further his political ambitions.84 He was repeatedly satirized by Timocles (cf. frr. 18 and 23; see above, under “Interpretation”). 83 84

Cf. Apostolakis 2014, 115–9. It is worth noting that in 328 BC Demosthenes was a corn commissioner (σιτώνης); (cf. D. 34.38–9; 18.248; Aeschin. 3.159; Din. 1.80–1). Webster 1970, 47 suspects that

Διόνυσος (fr. 7)

75

ἔτι For the comparison of a person’s past and present activity in Timocles, in the context of personal satire, cf. fr. 5 οὐδ’ ὁ Χαβρίου Κτήσιππος ἔτι τρὶς κείρεται; fr. 14 ἵνα μηκέτ’ αὐτὸν ὁ Σάτυρος κλέπτην λέγει; fr. 25.2–3 Φρύνης ἐρασθείς, ἡνίκ’ ἔτι τὴν κάππαριν συνέλεγεν. δημηγορεῖ The verb occurs in both a positive (e. g. Ar. Ec. 400) and a negative sense (usually in Plato, e. g. Grg. 482c; LSJ s. v. δημηγορεῖν II “make popular speeches, use clap-trap”). Here a slight pejorative color is indicated by the following comic image; cf. Ar. Eq. 956 λάρος κεχηνὼς ἐπὶ πέτρας δημηγορῶν “a gaping seagull on a rock haranguing the people”; Nu. 1093. Political satire of orators and their speeches is common in Timocles, in particular against anti-Macedonian politicians; cf. frr. 12.5–7, 17.1–3, 18.8. oὗτος ἔοικεν This formulation alludes to an εἰκών; cf. Hsch. s. v. εἰκάζειν: σκῶμμα καθ’ὁμοιότητα, or τὸ λέγειν ‘ὅμοιος εἶ τῷδε’; Pl. Men. 80c ἐγὼ δὲ τοῦτο οἶδα περὶ πάντων τῶν καλῶν, ὅτι χαίρουσιν εἰκαζόμενοι—λυσιτελεῖ γὰρ αὐτοῖς “this I know about all good-looking people, that they are pleased to be likened to something – it benefits them”. The verb εἰκάζειν / ἀντεικάζειν describes this procedure, whereas the terms used more often in comedy are either εἰκάζω σε or ἔοικας, e. g. Eup. fr. 220.1; Ar. V. 1142, 1171, 1309, 1413; Av. 804; fr. 663.2 (forms of προσεοικέναι occur less frequently; e. g. Cratin. fr. 5; Ar. Ec. 1161; Stratt. fr. 35.1; Aristonym. fr. 2 with Orth 2014, 116; cf. κατεικάζειν in Eup. fr. 337).85 The mocking ‘likeness’ is a typical source of humor in Attic comedy; cf. Ar. V. 1170–2; 1308–10 εἶτ’ αὐτόν, ὡς εἶδ’, ᾔκασεν Λυσίστρατος· / “ἔοικας, ὦ πρεσβῦτα, νεοπλούτῳ τρυγὶ / κλητῆρί τ’ εἰς ἀχυρὸν ἀποδεδρακότι”. “Then Lysistratus, when he saw him, made a comparison: ‘Old man, you’re like a nouveau-riche, green young man, or a donkey that’s run away to a bran heap’”; 1412–4; Nu. 185–6; Arist. Rh. 1406b. In fact, the eikasmos is a sort of reversed riddle, in that in the riddle the metaphorical description is given first, while here it follows; cf. Konstantakos 2004, 128–30. For the play on εἰκάζειν see Monaco 1966, 12–41, 50–60, 71–112; Kassel 1991, 418–20. This mocking likeness is probably the source of taunting nicknames (e. g. Ar. Av. 1291–9; Alex. fr. 183.3; Anaxandr. fr. 35). νεωνήτοις Newly purchased slaves, when arriving at their master’s home for the first time, were received with katachysmata. The mistress of the house threw over their heads sweetmeats, nuts, figs, etc.; cf. D. 45.74, Plu. Mor. 753d, Sud. κ 878 ἔθος ἦν παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις τῶν νεωνήτων δούλων τῶν πρώτως εἰσιόντων εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, ἢ ἁπλῶς τῶν ἐφ’ ὧν οἰωνίσασθαί τι ἀγαθὸν ἐβούλοντο, καὶ τοῦ νυμφίου παρὰ τὴν ἑστίαν τραγήματα κατέχεον εἰς σημεῖον εὐετηρίας “It was a custom

85

Telemachus was collaborating with Demosthenes, and therefore the bitter criticism leveled by Timocles must be largely directed against the latter, who was also a target of satire in Timocles’ Dēlos and Hērōes (cf. on frr. 4 and 12). This is attractive but difficult to prove. For older comparisons concerning statemanship and citizenship cf. Ar. Lys. 574–86 and Ra. 718; Newiger 1957, 132; Αrnott 1996, 160–1.

76

Timokles

among the Athenians of newly bought slaves on first entering the house, or simply of those for whom they wished to presage something good, and they used to pour out sweetmeats for the bridegroom by the hearth as a symbol of plenty”; cf. Phot. κ 398. 399; Anekd. Bekk. 269.9–13. Cf. also Αr. Eq. 2, where Paphlagon is described as a newly -bought slave; Pl. 768–9 (with Sommerstein 2001 ad loc.) φέρε νυν ἰοῦσ’ εἴσω κομίσω καταχύσματα / ὥσπερ νεωνήτοισιν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἐγώ “So, I’ll go inside and bring sweetmeats as though to shower them on a newly bought pair of eyes”. The same practice was also applied to married couples on first arriving home; cf. Theopomp. Com. fr. 15; Mactoux 1991, 53–81; Cohen 1992, 73–81. Σύροις As νεωνήτοις declares, the Syrians mentioned here are slaves. Slaves were often named after their ethnic name; cf. Str. 7.3.12 ἐξ ὧν γὰρ ἐκομίζετο, ἢ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐκείνοις ὁμωνύμους ἐκάλουν τοὺς οἰκέτας, ὡς Λυδὸν καὶ Σύρον ἢ τοῖς ἐπιπολάζουσιν ἐκεῖ ὀνόμασι προσηγόρευον… “for they [the Athenians] either called their house-slaves by the names of the nations from which they were brought (such as ‘Lydus’ or ‘Syrus’), or called them by names that were common in their countries”; Fragiadakis 1988, 14–21. For Syrian slaves in comedy cf. Anaxandr. fr. 52; Antiph. fr. 166; Hegesipp. Com. fr. 1.4. For the association of Syrians with abstinence from fish-eating see above under “Interpretation”. 4 θάργηλον … χύτραν θάργηλος (=θαλύσιος) ἄρτος, LSJ s. v. θαλύσια) is bread baked from the first flour of the year, which was offered to Apollo at the spring festival of Thargelia; cf. Ath. 3.114a Κράτης δ’ ἐν δευτέρᾳ Ἀττικῆς διαλέκτου (FGrHist 362 F 6) θάργηλον καλεῖσθαι τὸν ἐκ τῆς συγκομιδῆς πρῶτον γινόμενον ἄρτον. At the autumn festival of Pyanopsia, a pot of cooked beans (πύανα) was offered to Apollo, and it seems that this pot was also called a θάργηλος; see Zaidman 1992, 37–8. Pot (χύτρα) is the standard keyword in a comic context referring to Telemachus, always associated with beans (cf. Timocl. fr. 23.3–4 [from Λήθη] and 18.5–6 [from Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι]). For speculations on this cf. above, under “Interpretation”. χύτρα is a narrow-mouthed earthenware pot, used to heat water or food; cf. Ar. Pax 202, with Olson 1998 ad loc.; Eup. fr. 218, with Olson 2016 ad loc. The word comes from the list of culinary utensils, and as such does not appear in lyric poetry or tragedy, but it does occur in Middle Comedy in passages containing ‘dithyrambic periphrasis’, such as Antiph. fr. 55 πότερ’, ὅταν μέλλω λέγειν σοι τὴν χύτραν, χύτραν λέγω, / ἢ τροχοῦ ῥύμαισι τευκτὸν κοιλοσώματον κύτος “when I am to mention the cookpot to you, should I call it a ‘cookpot’ or a hollow-bodied vessel, created by the force of a wheel” and Anaxandr. fr. 6.2–3, with Millis 2016, 59–61. ἀγκάλῃ … φέρει The literary meaning of ἀγκάλῃ φέρειν is that Telemachus is “hand in glove” with his beloved pot. Cf. X. Cyr. 7.5.50 ὥστε μόνον οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ἀγκάλαις περιεφέρομεν αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶντες “so that, loving them, we all but carried them around in our arms”. For similar expressions cf. E. Or. 463–4 τὸν Ἀγαμέμνονος παῖδ’ ἀγκάλαισι περιφέρων “carrying Agamemnon’s boy around his arms”.

77

Δρακόντιον (Drakontion) (“The Little Snake”) Discussion Breitenbach 1908, 168–9; Bevilacqua 1939, 45; Edmonds II (1959) 606–9; PCG VII (1989) 761–2; Llopis–Gómez-Asensio 2007, 65; Marchetti 2012, 45–52. Title Δρακόντιον literally means “little dragon”. More specifically, this word denotes: a) guinea worm (Dracunculus medinensis); this is a tiny carnivorous worm which causes unusual diseases. These worms are said to eat their way through human flesh and emerge from the skin: καὶ δρακόντια μικρὰ τὰς κνήμας διεσθίοντα καὶ τοὺς βραχίονας ἐξέκυψεν (Plu. Quaest. Conv. 8.733a); cf. Sor. ap. Paul. Aeg. 4.58; Gal. 19.449; b) a plant called δρακοντία, or δρακοντεία βοτάνη, Dracunculus vulgaris (Dsc. 2.166; [Dsc.] Gp. 13.8.7; Thphr. HP 7.12.2 ἡ δὲ τοῦ δρακοντίου, καλοῦσι γάρ τι δρακόντιον ἄρον διὰ τὸ τὸν καυλὸν ἔχειν τινὰ ποικιλίαν, ἄβρωτος καὶ φαρμακώδης “However, arum is called δρακόντιον because of its dappled stem; it is inedible and used as a medicine”; Gal. Aliment. Facult. 6.651; c) a kind of fish (Hp. Int. 21); cf. LSJ s. v. δράκων ΙΙ;86 d) in Ath. 3.78a, δρακόντια are included among various species of fig; e) δρακόντιον (also δράκων) is a serpent-shaped gold or silver bracelet or necklace (Alcm. 1.66 Page ποικίλος δράκων παγχρύσιος; Luc. Am. 41 τοὺς περὶ καρποῖς καὶ βραχίοσι δράκοντας, ὡς ὤφελον ὄντως ἀντὶ χρυσίου δράκοντες εἶναι; “the serpents around their wrists and arms, were they truly serpents rather than gold”; IG II2 203 B 44 (Delos, 3rd c. BC) στλεγγὶς χρυσῆ, ὁλκὴ δρακόντ[ιο]ν [ἀργυροῦν]; “a golden tiara, a trailing [silver] serpent”). Δρακόντιον might also be a diminutive of a proper name such as Δράκων (the famous law-giver); cf. the name Δρακόντιος in X. An. 4.8.25; 6.6.30, or Δρακοντίδης, Δράκαλος, Δρακαλίων (see Fick–Bechtel 1894, 103). Δρακοντίς, a feminine name, is also found in inscriptions (e. g. in Athens, LGPN v. ii. s. v. p. 135; in Crete, Euboia and Rhodes, LGPN v. i. s. v., p. 143). However, Δρακόντιον is not attested as a real name, and is most probably a nickname. Neuter diminutives of plants, animals or fish often occur as nicknames among courtesans; cf. Σισύμβριον “Mint”, perhaps a diminutive of σίσυμβρον (Theophil. fr. 11); Σαπέρδιον “Little Fish” (Phryne’s nickname, Ath. 13. 567e). Names like Leaena “Lioness”, Lyca “Shewolf ” and Hys “Sow” also belong to courtesans; see MacClure 2003, 59–78. Such nicknames usually derive from a real or supposed feature of the person so nicknamed. Courtesans, in particular, are often believed in comedy to consume their customers; e. g. Timocl. frr. 15 and 16 (cf. fr. Antiph. 27.20–22), where Pythionice is described as an insatiable courtesan who devours everything, even Chaerephilus’ sons; cf. also the courtesan called Αἴξ (Goat), because she consumed the tavernkeeper named Θαλλός “Sapling” (Ath. 13.587a); McClure 2003, 62–3.

86

A δρακαινίς is also a fish; cf. Ephipp. 12.6; Mnesim. 4.42; a δρακοντίς is a kind of bird, cf. Ant. Lib. 9.3.

78

Timokles

In particular, in Anaxil. fr. 22 courtesans are compared with different monsters, among them δράκαινα and ἔχιδνα: τίς γὰρ ἢ δράκαιν’ ἄμικτος, ἢ Χίμαιρα πύρπνοος, / ἢ Χάρυβδις, ἢ τρίκρανος Σκύλλα, ποντία κύων, / Σφίγξ, ὕδρα, λέαιν’, ἔχιδνα, πτηνά θ’ Ἁρπυιῶν γένη, / εἰς ὑπερβολὴν ἀφῖκται τοῦ καταπτύστου γένους; “for what savage she-dragon, what fire-breathing Chimaera, what Charybdis, what three-headed Scylla, dog of the sea, or Sphinx, hydra, lioness, viper or birds of the Harpy race, could go beyond that despicable breed?” On this basis, it has been suggested that Δρακόντιον is the nickname of a courtesan; see Breitenbach 1908, 168–9; Kock II (1884) 454: “fortasse mulieris nomen”; Edmonds II (1959) 606–9; PCG VII (1989) 761–2; Llopis–Gomez–Asensio 2007, 65, n. 1978; Olson 2008, 79 (on Ath. 6.237d). This suggestion is supported by further comparisons of courtesans with dangerous venomous fish, like sting-rays; cf. Antiph. fr. 27.23–4 ἀφύας δὲ λεπτὰς τάσδε καὶ τὴν τρυγόνα / χωρὶς Θεανοῖ δεῦρ’ ἔθηκ’ἀντιρρόπους “these scrawny whitebait and the sting-ray I’ve set apart for Theano: they suit her very well”; Κοnstantakos 2000, 91; cf. also AP 5.162 Borthwick (Asclepiades, 3rd c. BC), where a coquettish woman named Philainion is said to cause a deep cut on her lover: Ἡ λαμυρή μ’ ἔτρωσε Φιλαίνιον· εἰ δὲ τὸ τραῦμα / μὴ σαφές, ἀλλ’ ὁ πόνος δύεται εἰς ὄνυχα. If, therefore, Δρακόντιον is a courtesan’s nickname, it may originate from a similar activity of a courtesan so named, i. e. she who behaves like a snake towards her lovers. For courtesan titles in Timocles cf. Nέαιρα, and perhaps Πορφύρα, Σαπφώ, Λήθη. Cf. also fr. 27 from Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης, where eleven courtesans are named. Content In the only preserved fragment of the play, one of the services which a parasite offers to his patron is assistance in love affairs; v. 6 ἐρᾷς, συνεραστὴς ἀπροφάσιστος γίγνεται. This seems to be a topos in comedy; cf. Men. Dysc. 57–63, where Chaereas declares that when one of his friends is in love with a courtesan, he straight away snatches her up and carries her off; similarly, the parasite in Aristopho fr. 5.5–7 advertises his ability to support his patron in love affairs (see below, on v. 6). If, therefore, Δρακόντιον is a courtesan, the speaking parasite might be offering his assistance to her lover. Alternatively, given that a δρακόντιον is a serpent-shaped ornament (see under “Title”), one might suspect a recognition comedy. In Euripides’ Ion, in the recognition scene engineered by Apollo, Ion examines Creousa concerning the tokens contained in the basket in which he was exposed as a baby. Among other things, Creousa remembers that the basket contained “a pair of gold snakes, gleaming with jaws all of gold, the gift of Athena, who tells us to raise children, in imitation of the Ericthonius of old” (E. Ion 1427–9 δράκοντε μαρμαίροντε πάγχρυσον γένυν,/  δώρημ’ Ἀθάνας, οἷς τέκν’ ἐντρέφειν λέγει, /  Ἐριχθονίου γε τοῦ πάλαι μιμήματα). For titles denoting recognition tokens (δέραια; cf. E. Ion 1431; Men. Epit. 246, 303, or περιδέραια, Αrist. AP 1454b) cf. on Timocles’ Δακτύλιος “Ring”, under “Title”. Perhaps one might go a step further and suspect that the word δρακόντιον was exploited in the plot in its double meaning. On the one hand, it is a nickname

Δρακόντιον

79

alluding to courtesan-like behavior, i. e. a courtesan who metaphorically bites her lovers; for the description of lovers as men bitten by a snake cf. the narrative of Alcibiades’ declaration of love to Socrates in Plato’s Symposion (217e-218a): ἔτι δὲ τὸ τοῦ δηχθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἔχεως πάθος κἄμ’ ἔχει “I am in the same suffering as a man bitten by a snake”; cf. Pl. R. 5.474d (also in a homoerotic context). And, on the other hand, it is a serpent-shaped ornament, which became a recognition token in the course of the plot and identified Drakontion as a citizen and a marriageable woman. In such a story, a parasite might have played a crucial role, rendering assistance to his patron. Plots including courtesans, parasites and recognition tokens were not uncommon in New Comedy. In Plautus’ Curculio, the slave girl Planesium, who belongs to a pimp, is shown by a ring that she is a freeborn woman and therefore allowed to marry her lover Phaedromus; the parasite Curculio, acting from selfish motives, engineers the recognition scene. In Plautus’ Rudens, too, the courtesan Palaestra is identified as Daemones’ lost daughter, thanks to her birth tokens: a small golden sword and a small axe found in a box.87 Date

Unknown.

fr. 8 K.-A. (8 K.)

5

10

15

87

ἔπειτ’ ἐγὼ παράσιτον ἐπιτρέψω τινὶ κακῶς λέγειν; ἥκιστά γ’ · οὐδέν ἐστι γὰρ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις χρησιμώτερον γένος. εἰ δ’ἐστὶ 〈τὸ〉 φιλέταιρον ἕν τι τῶν καλῶν, ἀνὴρ παράσιτος τοῦτο ποιεῖ διὰ τέλους. ἐρᾷς, συνεραστὴς ἀπροφάσιστος γίγνεται. πράττεις τι, πράξει συμπαρὼν ὅ τι ἂν δέῃ, δίκαια ταὐτὰ τῷ τρέφοντι νενομικώς, ἐπαινέτης θαυμαστὸς οἷος τῶν φίλων. χαίρουσι δείπνων ἡδοναῖς ἀσυμβόλοις· τίς δ’ οὐχὶ θνητῶν; ἢ τίς ἥρως ἢ θεὸς ἀποδοκιμάζει τὴν τοιαύτην διατριβήν; ἵνα μὴ δὲ πολλὰ μακρολογῶ δι’ ἡμέρας, τεκμήριόν τι παμμέγεθες οἶμαι γ’ ἐρεῖν, ὁ τῶν παρασίτων ὡς τετίμηται βίος. γέρα γὰρ αὐτοῖς ταὐτὰ τοῖς τὠλύμπια νικῶσι δίδοται χρηστότητος οὕνεκα, σίτησις. οὗ γὰρ μὴ τίθενται συμβολαί, πρυτανεῖα ταῦτα πάντα προσαγορεύεται

For other plays including recognition of supposedly non-freeborn girls cf. Men. Epit., Pk.; Plaut. Vid.; Ter. HT, Hec. See Marshall 2006, 66–72; Arnott 1996, 154.

80

Timokles

3 ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις Α : ἐν τοῖς βροτοῖσι Herwerden: θνητοῖσι τούτων Kock 4 τὸ add. Casaub. 6 γίγνεται Morelius: γίν-Α (CE incert.) 7 πράττεις Dindorf: πράσσACE 9 θαυμαστὸς ΑCE: -ὸν Bothe 13 μὴ δὲ Scaliger: δὲ μὴ ACE 14–5 om. CE 16 γὰρ om. CE ταὐτὰ CE: ταῦτα Α τὠλύμπια Dindorf: τὰ ὀλΑCE 17 οὕνεκα Dindorf: εἵνεκα ΑCE 19 προσαγορεύεται ACE: -ευτέον vel -ευτέα Meineke

5

10

15

So shall I allow anyone to slander a parasite? Far from it! For in such matters there is no sort of people more useful. If attachment to comrades is one of the good things, a man who is a parasite does it to perfection. If you are in love, he becomes the most unrestrained fellow-lover. If you have some business, he will be at your side and do whatever necessary. He shares the same sense of justice as the man who feeds him. And what a marvellous praiser of his friends! They enjoy the pleasure of dining without paying for it. But what mortal does not? Or what hero or god rejects such a lifestyle? But to keep it short, rather than speaking all day, I think I will adduce a mighty bit of evidence to show how much honor the parasite lifestyle receives. The same prize is given to them as a reward for their excellence, as is given to victors at the Olympic games: free food. Because wherever contributions are not demanded, all these places are called prytaneia

Ath. 6.237b-f παρασίτων δ’ εἶναί φησι γένη δύο Ἄλεξις ἐν Κυβερνήτῃ διὰ τούτων … (fr. 121). χαρακτηρίζει δ’ οὐκ ἀρ〈ρ〉ύθμως τὸν παράσιτον ὁποῖός τις ἐστὶ Τιμοκλῆς ἐν Δρακοντίῳ οὗτως (fab. nom. et v. 1–5 om. CE) · ἔπειτ’ – προσαγορεύεται. καὶ Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν Διδύμοις φησίν … (fr. 80) Alexis in The Steersman says that there are two sorts of parasite, in the following passage … (fr. 121). Timocles in Little Snake offers a very neat image of a parasite, as follows: so – prytaneia. Antiphanes also says in Twins… (fr. 80)

Metre Iambic trimeter

5

wlwl ww-w|ww llwl wlwl llw|l wlwl wlwl l|lwl wlwl llwww wlw|l wlwl wlwwl l|lwl lwwwl llwwl l|wwwl llwl

Δρακόντιον (fr. 8)

10

15

81

llwwl l|lwl wwlwl wlwl w|lwl wwwwl wlwl llw|w llwl llw|l llwl wlwl llwl l|lwl llwl wwwwl l|lwl lwwwl wwlwl w|wwwl wlwl llwl w|lwww llwl wlwwl l|lwl llwl wlwl l|lwl llwl llwww l|lwl wlwl llwl l|lwl llwl wwlwl w|lwww wlwl

In v. 12 τοιαύτην, τοι is short; for correption of –οι in τοιοῦτος cf. e. g. Alex. fr. 4.3; 103.14; 113.2; 133.6; see MacDowell 1971, on Ar.V. 22; West 1982, 11; Arnott 1996, 304, 677, 695. Discussion Meineke ΙΙΙ (1840) 594–5; Kock II (1884) 454–5; Bevilacqua 1939, 45; Edmonds II (1959) 606–9; Nesselrath 1985, 52, 55, 326, 329, 432; PCG VII (1989) 761–2. Citation context In Athenaeus’ long section on parasites and flatterers in the sixth book (234c-262a), the deipnosophist Plutarch states that whereas ‘parasite’ is currently a disreputable term, it used to mean a respectable person in the past. Athenaeus (6.235e) questions the attribution of the word ‘parasitos’ to Alexis.88 In the preceding fragment (6. 237b) it is said that Alexis (fr. 121) distinguished two kinds of parasite, whereas in the following example (fr. 80) Antiphanes describes the parasite as a devoted friend. Τext 3 ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις This is a vague wording. Herwerden 1876, 304 suggests ἐν τοῖς βροτοῖσι, Kock II (1884) 454–5 θνητοῖσι τούτων, Bothe 1855, 615 ἐν τοῖς τοσούτοις “into spectators”. But these attempts, though they make sense, disregard the fact that in a fragment the speaking character may refer by such a generalization to a difficult situation described immediately before; cf. Schweighäuser 1802, ad loc. “ad aliquid quod praecesserit referens”. Cf. E. El. 426–7 ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις δ’ ἡνίκ’ ἂν γνώμη πέσηι, / σκοπῶ τὰ χρήμαθ’ ὡς ἔχει μέγα σθένος (a peasant is asking Electra to provide food for the Chorus, noting that in such cases wealth has great power); Tro. 302–3 κάρτα τοι τοὐλεύθερον / ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις δυσλόφως φέρει κακά (Talthybius wonders whether the Trojan women 88

Arnott 1968, 161–8 ascribes the joke by which the παράσιτος was consolidated as a comic type to Alexis, whereas Nesselrath 1985, 102 believes that it is Araros who must be credited with it.

82

Timokles

are setting themselves aflame in their longing for death, and comments that the free bear their troubles in cases like this). 9 θαυμαστός Βethe’s proposal θαυμαστὸν is grammatically possible (e. g. Men. Epit. 1081–2 τό θ’ ἅρπασμ’, Ἡράκλεις, / θαυμαστὸν οἷον), in which case the phrase οἷος ἐπαινέτης τῶν φίλων would be an indirect question. But οἷος makes better sense as an independent exclamatory expression: “what an excellent praiser of a friend!”; cf. A. Pers. 733 ὦ μέλεος, οἵαν ἄρ’ ἥβην ξυμμάχων ἀπώλεσεν; Pl. Tht. 142b οἷον ἄνδρα λέγεις ἐν κινδύνῳ εἶναι; Αr. V. 174 οἵαν πρόφασιν καθῆκεν, ὡς εἰρωνικῶς. 19 προσαγορεύεται Meineke’s [Ι (1857) 96] προσαγορευτέον and the alternative προσαγορευτέα are possible, but the sentence has a gnomic flavor, and therefore the transmitted προσαγορεύεται should be kept. Interpretation The speaking character declares that he is determined not to allow anybody to slander parasites. It may be indicative that the initial wording of the fragment is a very common one in comedy and almost always occurs in a dialogue, where the second speaker reacts to what the first is proposing, arguing, or, as possibly here, denouncing (cf. κακῶς λέγειν) as unacceptable; cf. the parallels cited in v. 1 where sometimes the very same wording is repeated by the second interlocutor. One might think, therefore, that this piece of speech is a defence against a preceding slander of parasites. Some traces of this supposed slander may actually survive in the cited text: v. 10 χαίρουσι δείπνων ἡδοναῖς ἀσυμβόλοις, which seems to repeat a slander in order to refute it in the following verse: nobody rejects the privilege of dining without contributing money, not even gods or heroes. Alternatively, the speaking character rejects possible accusations against parasites in advance (cf. v. 1 ἐπιτρέψω and v. 10) and then constructs a real eulogy of the parasitic art. The speech contains many recognizable rhetorical qualities, most of them occurring in epideictic speeches: rhetorical questions (vv. 1–2; 11–12), praeteritio (παράλειψις) in v. 13 ἵνα μὴ … μακρολογῶ; expressions typical of praise, e. g. v. 4 ἕν τι τῶν καλῶν; and the amplification in vv. 16–19, introduced by a sentence with a rhetorical vocabulary and flavor: 14 τεκμήριον … ἐρεῖν. A possible allusion to the context of the fragment seems to exist in the vague phrase ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις in v. 3. This might have been said with reference to a situation requiring a parasite’s assistance, e. g. a young man involved in a love affair with a courtesan (cf. the title and v. 6 ἐρᾷς, συνεραστὴς ἀπροφάσιστος γίγνεται). Parasites appear or are mentioned in various situations in Middle and New Comedy. In the preserved fragments of Timocles’ plays, the parasite seems to be a favorite subject. In fr. 9 (from Epistolai) it is Chaerephon who is mentioned, but the text is corrupt; in fr. 10 (from the same play) the speaker compares his erotic passion to the passion for eating felt by notorious parasites like Tithymallus, Cormus, Neilus and Corydus; in fr. 11 the parasite Corydus is described in a miserable situation in a fish-market; in fr. 20 Tithymallus is again mentioned in the context of a dinner; in fr. 21 Tithymallus is scornfully mentioned; in fr. 31 (from Pyktēs) parasites are slandered as gluttons who enjoy the food of others

Δρακόντιον (fr. 8)

83

(τἀλλότρια) and in fr. 34 perhaps an uninvited parasite mocks the duty of gynaikonomoi. Moreover, parasites speaking highly of their art are a common subject in Middle and New Comedy. The locus classicus is Antiph. fr. 193 (from Ancestors); cf. Axionic. fr. 6; Aristopho fr. 5; Diod. Com. fr. 2. Parasites as assistants in love affairs (συνερασταί), in particular, also occur in comedy; e. g. Chaereas in Men. Dysc. 57–68 (see above, under “Content”); cf. Ter. Eun. 232–53, where the parasite Gnatho advertises his art and his mediation between the courtesan Thais and his patron; see Nesselrath 1985, 28; Papachrysostomou 2008, 104–5. The speaking character might be a parasite.89 If so, then Timocles here introduces on stage a parasite eulogizing his own art in the third person. Characters speaking of themselves in the third person are quite common in New Comedy. A near parallel is Ter. Eun. 925, where Parmeno, Phaedria’s slave, is speaking triumphantly of himself and the services he has offered to his master: …quantam et quam veram laudem capiet Parmeno! “… how much praise will Parmeno receive and how deservedly!”; cf. Eun. 129 (Parmeno again is speaking) ne hoc quidem tacebit Parmeno “Parmeno won’t keep that quiet either”; see Büchner 1974, 236. Another, less plausible, possibility would be that the speaking character is not the parasite himself, but a person defending the parasitic art against another’s attack; e. g. a son in love seeking a parasite’s assistance, trying to overcome his father’s objections. The emphatic ἐγώ in v. 1 is compatible with both possibilities. 1 ἔπειτ’ ἐγὼ… ἐπιτρέψω For the function of this construction in rhetorical questions (a reaction to something said immediately before) see above, under “Interpretation”. Cf. Ar. Ach. 916–7 Nι. …ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων γ’ εἰσάγεις θρυαλλίδα. / Δι. ἔπειτα φαίνεις δῆτα διὰ θρυαλλίδα; Nu. 1247–9 Στ. ποῦ ’σθ’ οὗτος ἁπαιτῶν με τἀργύριον… ἔπειτ’ ἀπαιτεῖς ἀργύριον τοιοῦτος ὤν; V. 1133–4; Th. 636–7 Γυ. Α΄ ἀπόδυσον αὐτόν· οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς γὰρ λέγει. / Κη. κἄπειτ’ ἀποδύσετ’ ἐννέα παίδων μητέρα; Ε. Αlc. 821–2 ΘΕ.γυνὴ μὲν οὖν ὄλωλεν Ἀδμήτου, ξένε. / Ηρ. τί φήις; ἔπειτα δῆτά μ’ ἐξενίζετε; Cf. also the use of εἶτα in such questions: Pl. 40–6 Χρ. πεύσει. σαφῶς γὰρ ὁ θεὸς εἶπέ μοι τοδί· … Κα. εἶτ’ οὐ ξυνίης τὴν ἐπίνοιαν τοῦ θεοῦ / φράζουσαν, ὦ σκαιότατε; Ach. 312; Nu. 259, 1214, 1292; V. 52; Ra. 21, 138, 203; Pl. 45; E. Ba. 1207; see van Leeuwen 1898, 47 (ad Nu. 226). παράσιτον Athenaeus’ section on parasites and flatterers in the sixth book (234c-262a) is our main source for the origin of the parasite; see above, under “Citation Context”. The original meaning of the word παράσιτος was a priest who dines at the public expense, such as the priest of Heracles at Cynosarges, whereas in the fifth century the word for both the real-life and the dramatic character was κόλαξ (e. g. Eup. Κolakes); cf. Phryn. Ecl. 109 παρασίτους οὐκ ἔλεγον οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπ’ ὀνείδους, ὡς νῦν, ἀλλὰ κόλακας· καὶ δρᾶμα ἔστι Κόλακες τοιούτων ἀνθρώπων “the ancients did not use the term parasitoi in reproach, as (we do) now, but kolakes; and there is a play called Kolakes that involves people of this sort”. Over the course 89

Cf. Nesselrath 1985, 432: “ein Parasit des Timokles (8.11f) stellt in seiner Lobeshymne auf das Schmarotzen die generelle Frage: τίς … διατριβήν;”

84

Timokles

of time, however, the term κόλαξ was replaced by the term παράσιτος, which then became a typical character of Middle and New Comedy.90 According to Nesselrath, by the time of Anaxandrides the παράσιτος as a comic type was differentiated from the κόλαξ, and this distinction was sharpened in New Comedy. On parasites in Middle and New Comedy see Nesselrath 1985, 102–6; 1990, 309–311; Arnott 1968, 161–8; 1996, 542–5 and 2010, 322–4; Wilkins 2000, 71–86; Damon 1997, 1–22; Olson 2008b, 113–15, 137–9, 286–8. 2 κακῶς λέγειν For the construction κακῶς λέγειν τινά cf. A. Eu. 413; Ar. Ach. 502–3; Th. 85, 182, 538–9, 963–4; fr. 205.7; E. Med. 457–8. The passive construction is κακῶς ἀκούειν “be abused”, e. g. Ar. Th. 1167; E. Hel. 968; [X.] Ath. 2.18. However, in the course of the speech the speaking character actually proceeds to an encomium (cf. εὖ λέγειν) of parasites. ἥκιστά γ’ “far from it”. A typical negative answer to a preceding question, clearly a colloquial expression; cf. S. OT 1386; E. Hipp. 1014; Ar. Pl. 1157 (cf. ἥκιστα alone at E. Cycl. 124; Ar. Av. 126); a favorite expression in Plato, e. g. R. 340c, 449b, 486b; Hp. Mi. 371e. 3 χρησιμώτερον γένος For parasites as a special class cf. Nicol. Com. fr. 1.1–2 τὸ τῶν παρασίτων… γένος; Alex. fr. 121, where two kinds of parasite are distinguished: δύ’ ἐστί, Ναυσίνικε, παρασίτων γένη, / ἓν μὲν τὸ κοινὸν καὶ κεκωμῳδημένον, / οἱ μέλανες ἡμεῖς. θάτερον ζητῶ γένος / σεμνοπαράσιτον ἐκ μέσου καλούμενον, / σατράπας παρασίτους καὶ στρατηγοὺς ἐπιφανεῖς / ὑποκρινόμενον εὖ τοῖς βίοις “there are two types of parasite, Nausinicus. One is the common type made fun of in comedies; we dark ones. I seek out the other type, called the revered parasite which lives off satraps and prominent generals”; cf. Anaxandr. fr. 50, where the supremacy of flattery (κολακεία) is stressed: ἥδε μὲν γὰρ διαφέρει; see Nesselrath 1985, 55 and n. 134. For γένος in other contexts cf. Pl. R. 501e τὸ φιλόσοφον γένος; Arist. Pol. 1329a τὸ τῶν γεωργῶν γένος; Xenarch. fr. 7.4 τὸ τῶν ἰχθυοπωλῶν γένος. In a culinary context the word occurs in Timocl. fr. 2. τὸ φιλέταιρον Here as substantive = φιλεταιρία (in Alex. fr. 335 along with φιλαδελφία). Cf. Cratin. Jun. fr. 12.4 φιλέταιρον ἦθος (giving pledge for somebody as a proof of comradely feelings); Th. 3.82 τόλμα μὲν γὰρ ἀλόγιστος ἀνδρεία φιλέταιρος ἐνομίσθη (description of the way a civil war corrupts the meaning of words); Pl. Ly. 211e (Socrates is speaking) οὕτως ἐγὼ φιλέταιρός τίς εἰμι; Arist. Rh. 1364b καὶ τὸ φιλεταιρώτερον εἶναι τοῦ φιλοχρηματώτερον [μᾶλλον] κάλλιον, ὥστε καὶ φιλεταιρία φιλοχρηματίας “and to be fond of friends is better than to be fond of money; therefore, love of friends is also better than love of money”; Thphr. Char. 29.4 φῆσαι γὰρ αὐτὸν εὐφυῆ καὶ φιλέταιρον καὶ ἐπιδέξιον (a bad man is described as φιλέταιρος); Plu. Lys. 5 (Lacedaemonians nostalgically recall Lysander’s fondness for his comrades) ἐπόθουν δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου σπουδὴν καὶ τὸ φιλέταιρον. 90

See especially Nesselrath 1985, 102–6, who in his commentary on Lucian’s On the Parasite discusses the first appearance and the use of the terms κόλαξ and παράσιτος from Epicharmus to Lucian.

Δρακόντιον (fr. 8)

85

Besides, Philetairos is the title of plays by Philonides, Antiphanes, Amphis, Heniochus; cf. Hegesippus’ Philetairoi and Alexis’ Dēmētrios hē Philetairos. In Hegesippus’ play, a parasite is probably speaking (see below, on v. 10). ἕν τι τῶν καλῶν An appropriate wording in an eulogy; cf. [D.H.] Rh. 5.2, where, in a chapter including instructions for epideictic speeches, one of the recommended laudatory topoi for the eulogy of a king is so introduced: κατακλείσεις δὲ τὸ ἐγκώμιον εἰς τοῦτο, ὅτι ἕν τι τῶν καλῶν τῶν βασιλέως καὶ τοῦτο. ἀνὴρ παράσιτος ἀνὴρ can be used with all sorts of descriptive words; cf. e. g. S. OT 1118 ἀνὴρ νομεύς; Ηdt. 6.33.2 ἀνὴρ μάντις, ἀνὴρ στρατηγός; sometimes disparagingly, as in Crates Theb. fr. 6.3 Diels εἰς ἣν οὔτε τις εἰσπλεῖ ἀνὴρ μωρὸς παράσιτος (LSJ s. v. vi.1). διὰ τέλους i. e. from the beginning to the end; Alex. frr. 131.6; 239.4 δειπνεῖν ἐπιστάμενοι διὰ τέλους τὴν νύχθ’ ὅλην; Men. fr. 236.16; Hegesipp. fr. 2.3, Philem. fr. 92.4. It often occurs in tragedy, Euripides in particular, e. g. Hec. 1193; Supp. 270; Herc. 103; Ba. 1260. Cf. on v. 13 δι’ ἡμέρας; it also occurs in prose, but it is strikingly absent from fifth-century comedy and Thucydides. 6–7 ἐρᾷς… πράττεις For this paratactic and asyndetic structure cf. on. fr. 6. 13–16 (from Διονυσιάζουσαι). συνεραστὴς “adjuvans in amore” (Meineke 1867, 103); cf. Bion Bucolicus fr. 11 Gow ἀλλ’ ἐράω· καλὸν δέ γ’ ἐρασσαμένῳ συνέρασθαι (codd.: συναρέσθαι Meineke); X. Smp. 8.42 ἀγαθῶν γὰρ φύσει καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς φιλοτίμως ἐφιεμένων ἀεί ποτε τῇ πόλει συνεραστὴς ὢν διατελῶ (Socrates on being a joint lover with the city, in the sense that he shares with it his love of good and virtuous men). Cf. on Timocles’ Συνεργικά, under “Title”; also ἀντεραστής “rival in love”; Ar. Eq. 733; X. Cyn. 1.7; Pl. R. 521b; Men. Sam. 26 and see Dover 1978, 54–7; Olson 2015, 194–5 (on Eup. fr. 428). A parasite helping his patron in love affairs is a topos; cf. Aristopho fr. 5.7 τοὺς καλοὺς πειρᾶν καπνός “at tempting beautiful boys I am smoke”, where the parasite in his self-eulogy seems to mean that he is very capable in helping others to seduce young men; cf. vv. 5–6 ἀναβῆναί τι πρὸς κλιμάκιον … Καπανεύς (climbing up a ladder is often associated with wooing women); cf. Men. Dysc. 57–68, where Chaereas boasts of being ready to assist his patron in love affairs; see Papachrysostomou 2008, 104–5 and above, „Interpretation“. In Alciphr. Ep. 3.5, two parasites are planning to abduct the reluctant courtesan Clymene and take her to the upstart patron Therippides: λαβοῦσι Κλυμένην τὴν ἑταίραν ἀγαγεῖν παρὰ τὸν νεόπλουτον Θηριππίδην τὸν Αἰξωνέα. ἀπροφάσιστος “offering no excuse, unhesitating”; cf. φίλους ἀπροφασίστους (X. HG 6.5.41); ἀπροφασίστους συμμάχους (X. Cyr. 2.4.10); συναγωνιστὰς ἀπροφασίστους (Plb. 10.34.9; 16.31.2); cf. Th. 1.49.7 ἀπροφασίστως ἐπεκούρουν “they assisted unhesitatingly”; D.C. 38.39.5. 7 συμπαρών Cf. Antiph. fr. 80 μετέχειν δὲ τούτων εὔχετ’ αὐτῷ συμπαρών (a parasite is at hand to share his friend’s fortune); Trag. adesp. fr. 572a Kannicht– Snell οὐ συμπαρέστης, οὐ συνεργὸς εὑρέθης; X. HG 4.6.1 (in a context of war).

86

Timokles

8 ταὐτὰ … νενομικώς For νενομικέναι “persuasum habere”, meaning a strong conviction, cf. Ar. Eq. 714 ὡς σφόδρα σὺ τὸν δῆμον σεαυτοῦ νενόμικας; Axion. fr. 6.8 τὸ πρᾶγμά μοι λυσιτελὲς εἶναι νενόμικα. The expression calls to mind the formula τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ φίλους νομίζειν (Th. 1.44.1, 3.75.2, 7.33; cf. Isoc. 16.41), used in the context of an alliance. For parasites’ approval cf. Stob. 3.14.16 Κράτης τοὺς κόλακάς φησι συγκατανευσιφάγους (= Crates Theb. fr. 360 Diels); cf. Plaut. Men. 162 (the parasite Peniculus, i.e. “Sponge” declares that he is ready to approve whatever Menaechmus wishes) Egone? id enim quod tu vis, id aio atque id nego; Cic. Amic. 25.93 (here applying the absolute agreement of parasites to true friendship) Negat quis, nego; ait, aio; postremo imperavi egomet mihi omnia adsentari, ut ait idem Terentius, sed ille in Gnathonis persona, quod amici genus adhibere omnino levitatis est. τῷ τρέφοντι τρέφων is the normal term for “raising” anything in your house, be it a child, a dog or a parasite. For a parasite’s patron as a τρέφων e. g. Ath. 6.244d; Arar. fr. 16 οὐκ ἔσθ’ ὅπως οὐκ εἶ παράσιτος, φίλτατε· ὁ δ’ Ἰσχόμαχος ὁδὶ τρέφων σε τυγχάνει “there is no doubt you’re a parasite, my friend; Ischomachus here happens to be your patron”; Alex. fr. 205; Nicol. Com. fr. 1.11; Alciphr. 3.42, cf. Diodor. Com. 2.31–40; Nesselrath 1985, 23–4; 1990, 314; Arnott 1996, 595; Davidson 1997, 270–2. The same verb is used of procurers who feed prostitutes: Eub. fr. 87 τρέφει με Θετταλός τις, ἄνθρωπος βαρύς “my master is a Thessalian, an overbearing man”. Cf. on fr. 9 (from Epistolai) v. 2 παρέτρεφεν. 9 ἐπαινέτης θαυμαστός Flattery is typical among parasites: Epich. fr. 32.3–4 χαρίεις τ’ εἰμὶ καὶ ποιέω πολὺν / γέλωτα καὶ τὸν ἱστιῶντ’ ἐπαινέω “I am agreeable and make a lot of laughter and praise the host”; Eup. fr. 172.9 κἄν τι τύχῃ λέγων ὁ πλούταξ, πάνυ τοῦτ’ ἐπαινῶ “whatever the rich man happens to say, I praise above all else”; Macho fr. 15.235–6 Gow τῶν ἐπιγελᾶν εἰθισμένων / ἅπαντα τοῖς τρέφουσιν αἰεὶ πρὸς χάριν “of those accustomed to laugh approvingly at everything, always to delight those who feed them”; Antiph. fr. 80.9 ἂν σκώπτῃς, γελᾷ (“if you make a joke, he laughs”; Diod. Com. fr. 2.31–5 τὸν Ἡρακλέα μιμούμενοι / τῶν εὐπόρων τινὲς παρασίτους ἑλόμενοι / τρέφειν παρεκάλουν οὐχὶ τοὺς χαριεστάτους / ἐκλεγόμενοι, τοὺς δὲ κολακεύειν δυναμένους / καὶ πάντ’ ἐπαινεῖν “some rich men, imitating Heracles by choosing to maintain parasites, invited not the most agreeable, but those who could flatter and praise everything”; Luc. Par. 5 τὸ δέ γε ἐπίστασθαι λόγους λέγειν ἐπιτηδείους καὶ πράγματα πράττειν δι’ ὧν οἰκειώσεται καὶ εὐνούστατον ἑαυτὸν τῷ τρέφοντι ἀποδείξει, ἆρ’ οὐ συνέσεως καὶ καταλήψεως ἐρρωμένης εἶναί σοι δοκεῖ; “As for knowing how to speak suitably and to act in such a way as to become intimate and prove himself to be extremely well-minded towards his patron, do not you think that this shows understanding and a good grasp of things?”; cf. Thphr. Char. 2.4 (with Diggle 2004 ad loc.) where the reactions of a flatterer are described: καὶ λέγοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τι τοὺς ἄλλους σιωπᾶν κελεῦσαι καὶ ἐπαινέσαι δὲ ἀκούοντος … καὶ σκώψαντι ψυχρῶς ἐπιγελάσαι; “and when he [the host] is speaking he calls upon the others to be quiet and praises him so that he can hear … and laughing at a feeble joke”; Plu. De adulatore 51a (flatterers commend anything

Δρακόντιον (fr. 8)

87

which pleases others, with no moderation) … ἐπαινέτης δὲ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων οὐ μέτριος ἀλλ’ ὥσθ’ ὑπερβάλλειν σὺν ἐκπλήξει καὶ θαύματι φαινόμενος. In Roman comedy they are known as laudatores: Ter. Eun. 250–3 (the parasite Gnatho declares that he has ordered himself to consent absolutely to whatever his patron says: …et eorum ingenia admiror simul.  / quidquid dicunt laudo; id rursum si negant, laudo id quoque; / negat quis: nego; ait: aio; postremo imperavi egomet mihi / omnia adsentari; “…and I admire their wit at the same time. Whatever they say, I praise; if they then contradict themselves, I praise that too; if a man says no, I say no; if he says yes, I say yes, finally, I have given myself orders to agree to everything”; Nesselrath 1985, 25. For ἐπαινέτης used of poets who entertain their audience cf. Th. 2.41.4 (Pericles giving the funeral oration) oὐδὲν προσδεόμενοι οὔτε Ὁμήρου ἐπαινέτου “and we do not need a Homer to sing our praises”. τῶν φίλων It is typical of parasites to describe themselves as ideal friends of their patrons; cf. Antiph. 80.3–7 κἄστιν φίλος γενναῖος ἀσφαλής θ’ ἅμα; Men. Dysc. 58–9 (cited below), where Chaereas is speaking to Sostratus and advertises his assistance in friends’ (φίλοι) love affairs; ibid. 67; Nicol. Com. fr. 1.45; Diod. Com. 2.5; Luc. Par. 22. See Nesselrath 1985, 344–5; Κonstantakos 2000, 78. 10 It is not necessary to suppose that something has been dropped immediately before, e. g. τάχ’ ἂν λέξαις ὅτι vel ἴσως λέξεις ὅτι; Olson 2008, 80 puts v. 10 in inverted commas, essentially silently adopting Meineke III (1840) 595: “Ceterum haec obiiciuntur ab aliquot qui odisset parasites: at, inquit, nullo suo cum sumtu convivantur.” δείπνων ἡδοναῖς ἀσυμβόλοις This wording is an hypallagē, instead of the expected δείπνων ἡδοναῖς ἀσυμβόλων. The plural (instead of ἀσυμβόλῳ ἡδονῇ) might be due to the prevalent use of the plural (συμβολαί and δεῖπνον ἀπὸ συμβολῶν) by comedians, e. g. Antiph. fr. 27; Dromo fr. 1.5. In a δεῖπνον ἀπὸ συμβολῶν a company of friends has organized a dinner, and the members of the company must share the cost of the food and wine after the dinner. See Arnott 1996, 86. For ἀσύμβολα δεῖπνα (cf. v. 18 οὗ … μὴ τίθενται συμβολαί) denoting parasites’ participation in dinners without paying their share cf. Phryn. Com. fr. 60 (with Stamma 2015, 292–4) ἡδὺ δ’ ἀποτηγανίζειν ἄνευ συμβολῶν “it is pleasant to eat straight from the pan without paying any contribution”; Alex. fr. 213.3 οὕτω τι τἀλλότρι’ ἐσθίειν ἐστὶν γλυκύ “it is somewhat pleasant to eat another’s food”; Men. Sam. 603; Apollod. Car. fr. 29, 31; Eub. fr. 20; Diod. Com. fr. 2.13; Ephipp. fr. 20.3; Diph. fr. 74.8; Macho fr. 44 (with Gow 1965, ad loc.); Ter. Phorm. 339; Luc. DMeretr. 12.1; Arnott 1996, 725; Nesselrath 1985, 66. Sometimes parasites themselves are described as ἀσύμβολοι; cf. Timocl. fr. 10.4 Κόρυδος ἀσύμβολος. In Hegesipp. Com. fr. 2 the speaker, probably a parasite (cf. Nesselrath 1985, 58), exemplifies Epicurus’ statement that the most perfect good is pleasure (ἡδονή), by arguing that there is nothing better than a dinner which combines good and pleasure: τοῦ γὰρ μασᾶσθαι κρεῖττον οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ ἓν / ἀγαθόν· πρόσεστιν ἡδονῇ γὰρ τἀγαθόν. For ἀσύμβολος ἡδονή (disapproved of by Eraton) cf. Plu. Quaest. Conv. 646b δέδοκται μηδεμίαν ἡδονὴν ἀσύμβολον δέχεσθαι, ἀλλ’

88

Timokles

εὐφραινομένους δυσκολαίνειν “are we indeed decided not to accept any pleasure without paying a contribution, but to be discontented even when enjoying ourselves?” Sometimes dining without sharing the cost was thought to be an indication of offering in return other, shameful services, e. g. as a male prostitute; cf. Ephipp. fr. 20 ὅταν γὰρ ὢν νέος / ἀλλότριον † εἰσελθὼν ὄψον ἐσθίειν μάθῃ, / ἀσύμβολόν τε χεῖρα προσβάλῃ βορᾷ, / διδόναι νόμιζ’ αὐτὸν σὺ τῆς νυκτὸς λόγον “whenever some young man learns how to †gate-crash† and eat other people’s delicacies, and grabs the food with a freeloader’s hand, believe that he pays a reckoning for that night”; Ath. 6.239f (on Corydus); Fisher 2001, 212–3 (on Aeschin. 1.75). 11 This classification occurs in a similar context in X. Smp. 8.28 ὡς οὐ μόνον ἄνθρωποι ἀλλὰ καὶ θεοὶ καὶ ἥρωες τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς φιλίαν περὶ πλείονος ἢ τὴν τοῦ σώματος χρῆσιν ποιοῦνται “that not only mortals but also gods and demi-gods set higher value on the friendship of the spirit than on the enjoyment of the body”; cf. Antiph. fr. 204 (in a comic context); Antipho 1.27 (in a context of homicide law). τίς δ’ οὐχὶ θνητῶν; The same question occurs in E. Med. 85. ἢ τίς ἥρως Cf. on Timocles’ Hērōes, under “Title”. ἢ θεός Gods in comedy are often imagined to dine like common people (e. g. Eriph. fr. 3; Hermipp. fr. 77). In Diod. Com. fr. 2.5–12, it is said that it was Zeus who instructed his friends to live as parasites, and he himself is accustomed to enter men’s houses and eat and drink without paying his share: τὸ γὰρ παρασιτεῖν εὗρεν ὁ Ζεὺς ὁ φίλιος, / ὁ τῶν θεῶν μέγιστος ὁμολογουμένως. / οὗτος γὰρ εἰς τὰς οἰκίας εἰσέρχεται / … ἤδη συγκατακλιθεὶς κοσμίως / ἀριστίσας ἑαυτόν, ἐντραγών, πιών, / ἀπέρχετ’ οἴκαδ’ οὐ καταβαλὼν συμβολάς. For a comparison of the notorious parasite Chaerephon with a god cf. Men. Sam. 603 Χαιρεφῶν … ὃν τρέφουσ’ ἀσύμβολον, οὐ θεός σοι φαίνετ’ εἶναι; “Chaerephon, who eats without paying his bill, don’t you think that he is divine?” 12 ἀποδοκιμάζει in general sense “reject as unworthy”; cf. Thphr. Char. 4.11; Ar. Pol. 1321a 26. It is clearly prosaic; the only other occurrence in comedy is Archipp. fr. 14 (in a political sense, “reject a candidate for want of qualification”) αἱρουμένους τε πραγμάτων ἐπιστάτας / ἀποδοκιμάζειν, 〈εἶτα δοκιμάζειν〉 πάλιν; Miccolis 2017, 111–12. In combination with the wording τὴν τοιαύτην διατριβήν and the preceding τίς ἥρως ἢ θεός, the parasitic activity is described as almost a high art; cf. on the next line. For gods appreciating human activities in comedy cf. Eriph. fr. 3 … οὐδὲ σηπίας, / ἃς οὐδὲ μάκαρας ὑπερορᾶν οἶμαι θεούς; Luc. Par. 10 ὁ γὰρ σοφὸς Ὅμηρος τὸν τοῦ παρασίτου βίον θαυμάζων ὡς ἄρα μακάριος καὶ ζηλωτὸς εἴη μόνος “the wise Homer, admiring the parasite’s life because it alone is blessed and enviable”. τὴν τοιαύτην διατριβήν “such a (pleasant) pastime”; Alex. fr. 190.2 συμποσίου … διατριβήν; fr. 228 διατριβὴν τῷ πότῳ; Men. Dysc. 669 τῆς γλυκείας διατριβῆς; cf. also Luc. Par. (passim), where the parasitic art is called βασιλικωτάτη τῶν τεχνῶν.

Δρακόντιον (fr. 8)

89

13 Such parenthetical sentences (only here in comedy) have a rhetorical flavor: cf. [D.] 42.7, 12 (with Apostolakis 2009, 128); Aeschin. 1.155; 2.22,112; Hyp. Athen. 4; Pl. Grg. 465b. δι’ ἡμέρας This expression is widespread in comedy and prose; it is absent from elevated poetry and it only appears in the 5th century and later; cf. Pherecr. fr. 70.3 ἐλλαλεῖν δι’ ἡμέρας. For stressing the duration of speaking, in particular, cf. Ar. Nu. 1053 ἃ τῶν νεανίσκων ἀεὶ δι’ ἡμέρας λαλούντων; Ra. 258a-59 ἀλλὰ μὴν κεκραξόμεσθά γ’ / ὁπόσον ἡ φάρυγξ ἂν ἡμῶν / χανδάνῃ δι’ ἡμέρας; 265–6 κεκράξομαι γὰρ / κἄν με δῇ δι’ ἡμέρας; Telecl. fr. 30 (with Bagordo 2014, 158–9). Kühner–Gerth II.1 (1898) 482. 14 The whole line has a rhetorical flavor; τεκμήριον, a rhetorical term, is an inference from known facts, used by public speakers in the Assembly and by litigants in the law courts, e. g. Lys. 25.5 μέγα μὲν οὖν ἡγοῦμαι τεκμήριον εἶναι; D. 36.12 οἶμαι μέγιστον μέν ἐστιν ἁπάντων τεκμήριον. It is also found in Thucydides, concerning his historical enquiry about the past (e. g. 1.73.4 τεκμήριον δὲ μέγιστον) and in Plato (e. g. Pl. Prm. 128b τεκμήρια δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς πάμπολλα καὶ παμμεγέθη παρέχεται). Cf. similar wordings containing the word σημεῖον, another rhetorical term: D. 29.19 πάντων τῶν εἰρημένων οἶμαι μέγιστον ὑμῖν ἐρεῖν σημεῖον; D. 19.241 παμμέγεθες σημεῖον. Here this is actually a comic demonstration, built on a false comparison; cf. Ar. Av. 482 πόλλ’ ἐστὶ τεκμήρια τούτων, which is followed by a a long series of familiar facts, supposedly demonstrating Peisetaerus’ assertion of the birds’ former sovereignty; cf. 1437–46; fr. 101.2 φράσω δ’ ἐγὼ μέγα σοι τεκμήριον (a character associates the word “you sing” [ἄιδεις] in the sense “you speak emptily” with typical reactions of an Athenian audience in a law court). 15 ὡς τετίμηται βίος The participation of parasites in dinners is compared with that of victors at Olympia and is regarded as a great honor. Τhe highest honor is maintenance in the Prytaneion (see below on v. 19); cf. Luc. Par. 57 Ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία ὁ μὲν βίος τοῦ παρασίτου κρείττων ἐστὶν τοῦ τῶν ῥητόρων καὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων “But by Zeus, the life of a parasite is better than that of rhetoricians or philosophers”. But cf. Alex. fr. 262 κόλακος δὲ βίος μικρὸν χρόνον ἀνθεῖ· / οὐδεὶς γὰρ χαίρει πολιοκροτάφῳ παρασίτῳ “a flatterer’s life flourishes for a short time; for no one likes a grey-haired parasite”. 16–7 τοῖς τὠλύμπια νικῶσι The winners in the gymnastic games at Olympia, or Delphi or the Isthmia or the Nemea, among other honors, had public maintenance in the prytaneion; cf. IG I2, 77, 4–18 κα[ὶ ὁπόσοι νενικήκασι Ὀλυμπίασι] ἢ Πυθοῖ ἢ Ἰσμοῖ ἤ Νεμέ[ᾳ τοὺς γυμνικοὺς ἀγῶνας, εἶναι αὐτ]οῖσι τὴν σίτησιν ἐν πρυτανε[ίῳ καὶ ἄλλας ἰδίᾳ τιμὰς π]ρὸς τῇ σιτήσει κατὰ τα[ὐτὰ… For ὀλύμπια νικᾶν cf. Th. 1.126.5; Ath. 1.3e (said of Alcibiades); Paus. 5.15.12 τοὺς δὲ τὰ ὀλύμπια νικῶντας ἑστιῶσιν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ οἰκήματι (Eleans feasting the Olympic victors); Plu. Num. 1.3; Regum et Imper. Apophth. 180a; [D.] 58.6; Aeschin. Epist. 11.10; Plu. Arist. 27.3 καὶ ταύτῃ (i. e. Polycrite, Lysimachus’ daughter) σίτησιν ὅσην τοῖς

90

Timokles

Ὀλυμπιονίκαις ὁ δῆμος ἐψηφίσατο; De soll. animal. 970b. For the prizes of the winners in the Olympic games cf. Young 2004, 97–101 and 144–5. χρηστότητος οὕνεκα This construction often occurs in comedy at the end of an iambic trimeter, e. g. Ar. Ach. 958 συκοφαντῶν γ’ οὕνεκα; Nu. 6, 1508 πολλῶν οὕνεκα; Av. 1274 σοφίας οὕνεκα; Phryn. Com. fr. 1.2 ἀνδραγαθίας οὕνεκα. The form οὕνεκα is a poetic alternative of ἕνεκα (e. g. in Homer, tragedy and Aristophanes); cf. Threatte II (1996) 668–9. For the construction see Cooper IV (2002) 275. This particular formula occurs in Aristopho fr. 5, concerning the virtue of a slave woman. It has been remarked that in Attic tomb inscriptions the adjective χρηστός mainly refers to slaves or ex-slaves; e. g. CIA.2, 2942 Κρίτων χρηστὸς Ἡρακλεώτης; 3028 Μορφῆς Θρᾷξ χρηστός; 3406 χρηστοῦ Τέχνωνος μνῆμα τοῦ Φρυγὸς τόδε; Kumanudes 1890, 39; Schulze 1996, 420–1; Papachrysostomou 2008, 145–9. This might mean that the speaking character ironically subverts his claim, actually stressing an oxymoron: parasites are awarded the highest public prizes thanks to their servility. 18 σίτησις Eating at public expense is a provision sometimes ascribed to Solon: Plu. Sol. 24 ἴδιον δὲ τοῦ Σόλωνος καὶ τὸ περὶ τῆς ἐν δημοσίῳ σιτήσεως, ὅπερ αὐτὸς παρασιτεῖν κέκληκε. But Plutarch here refers to ritual parasitism, not to comic parasites; see Wilkins 2000, 178–9. However, criticisms against honoring athletes by allowing them to dine in the prytaneion in perpetuity were not unknown; cf. Xenoph. fr. 2 West; E. fr. 282 Kannicht (ap. Ath. 10.413c-414c); Pl. Ap. 36d; see Arnott 1996, 105–6; Wilkins 2000, 79. οὗ γὰρ μὴ For μὴ in relative clauses implying a general condition cf. Hdt. 4.74 ὅς δὲ μὴ εἶδε κω τὴν κανναβίδα; S. Ph. 583 λόγοις τοιούτοις οἷς σὺ μὴ τέρψῃ κλύων; Antipho 1.7 ὅπου μὴ ἠθέλησεν; Pl. R. 578e ὅπου αὐτῷ μηδεὶς μέλλοι βοηθήσειν; Kuhner-Gerth II (1904) 184–5. τίθενται συμβολαί Cf. on v. 10 ἀσυμβόλοις; Dromo fr. 1 (said of Tithymallus) οὕτως ἐρυθριᾷ συμβολὰς οὐ κατατιθείς; Antiph. fr. 27.8 οὐδεὶς ὃς ἂν μὴ κατατιθῇ τὰς συμβολάς (perhaps Callimedon declares his determination not to allow anybody to dine unless he pays his share; see Konstantakos, 2000 ad loc. (p. 78); Diod. Com. 2.12 ἀπέρχετ’ οἴκαδ’ οὐ καταβαλὼν συμβολάς. 19 πρυτανεῖα… προσαγορεύεται The Prytaneion was located on the north slope of the Acropolis (Paus. 1.18.3). One of its functions was to provide free meals to honored guests, ambassadors, foreign benefactors and victors in the Panhellenic Games. Here parasites are compared with Olympic victors, since both enjoy free meals. On the prytaneion see Miller 1978; Wycherley 1957, 166–74; Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 46–7; Rhodes 1981 (on Ath. Pol. 3.5); Wilkins 2000, 175, 105. For the use of the verb προσαγορεύεσθαι in similar contexts cf. Αnaxil. fr. 21.4 ἐκ τῆς ἑταιρείας ἑταίρα τοὔνομα προσηγορεύθη.

91

Ἐπιστολαί (Epistolai) (“Letters”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 596–7; Kock II (1884) 453–4; Edmonds II (1959) 608–9; PCG VII (1989) 762. Title Alexis and Macho wrote Ἐπιστολή, Euthycles Ἄσωτοι ἢ Ἐπιστολή, Caecilius Statius and Afranius Epistulam. The plural in the title may denote either several epistles (see below, “Content”), or a single letter, like γράμματα, lat. litterae; cf. E. IA 111, 314; Th. 1.132; LSJ s. v. ἐπιστολή 2. Letters played an important role, especially in New Comedy, contributing to the recognition of a character (e. g. Menander’s Sikyōnioi, where Stratophanes learns that he is an Athenian citizen thanks to a letter written by his stepmother on her deathbed), or to the communication between a lover and his mistress, or to confidence tricks (e. g. Plautus’ Bacchides, Curculio, Persa, Pseudolus, Trinummus); for its possible uses in comedy cf. Konstantakos 2015, 16. In Timocles, other titles signifying a recognition token are Δακτύλιος and (perhaps) Δρακόντιον (see my commentary on these plays). Content This may be a play where an anagnorisis takes place by means of letters. The plural might signify two contradictory epistles, one forged and one authentic, on the model of Plautus’ Pseudolus. Moreover, the plot apparently involves a notorious spendthrift (Demotion in fr. 9.1; it is striking that a play entitled Ἄσωτοι ἢ Ἐπιστολή is attested in Euthecles), an amator exclusus (cf. fr. 10), and the typical parasite (fr. 9.3 Chaerephon; cf. also the mention of Tithymallus and Corydus in fr. 10). A typical ‘epistle play’ including some of the above elements is Plautus’ Curculio. This play contains a love affair (the adulescens Phaedromus is in love with the courtesan Planesium), deception and anagnorisis. More specifically, the cunning eponymous parasite, in his attempt to secure the courtesan Planesium for his master Phaedromus, forges a letter with Therapontigonus’ signet ring (for the ‘epistolary parasite’ in Plautus cf. in particular Barbiero 2014, 147–182). Moreover, in the opening scene of the play Phaedromus serenades the door of the brothel, in the earliest extant paraklausithyron in Latin poetry. Another striking piece of information deserves a mention here, since notorious parasites are referred to in both surviving fragments of Timocles’ play. Whereas epistolary activity by a parasite is common in recognition comedies, it seems that the emblematic parasite Chaerephon, who is mentioned in fr. 9 as Demotion’s parasite, was probably himself a composer of letters on food and dinners. More specifically, a short prose essay describing a lavish dinner was supposedly written by him in the form of a letter addressed to a fellow parasite, with whom Chaerephon is said to have frequent correspondence. The title of this letter was Δεῖπνον, and it was included in Callimachus’ Pinakes (Call. fr. 434 Pfeiffer); cf. Ath. 6.245f τοῦ Χαιρεφῶντος καὶ σύγγραμμα ἀναγράφει Καλλίμαχος ἐν τῷ τῶν παντοδαπῶν πίνακι γράφων οὕτως · ‘δεῖπνα ὅσοι ἔγραψαν· Χαιρεφῶν Κυρηβίωνι.’ εἶθ’ ἑξῆς τὴν

92

Timokles

ἀρχὴν ὑπέθηκεν· ‘ἐπειδή μοι πολλάκις ἐπέστειλας ... στίχων τοε.’ “And Callimachus attributes to Chaerephon a treatise, in the catalogue of all sorts of subjects, writing thus: ‘Those who have written about feasts:—Chaerephon to Cyrebion;’ and then he quotes the first sentence—‘Since you have often written to me’ (and says that the work consisted) of three hundred and seventy-five lines.” Date Unkown.

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

5

ὁ Δημοτίων δὲ παραμενεῖν αὑτῷ δοκῶν τἀργύριον οὐκ ἐφείδετ’, ἀλλὰ παρέτρεφεν τὸν βουλόμενον. ὁ Χαιρεφῶν μὲν παντελῶς οἴκαδε βαδίζειν †ᾤετο ὦ† ταλάντατος. καὶ μὴν ἔτι †τοῦτ’ ἔστιν† ἄξιον μόνον, τὸν παραμασήτην λαμβάνειν δίκρουν ξύλον· οὔτ’ εὔρυθμος γάρ ἐστιν οὔτ’ ἀχρήματος

1 παραμενεῖν Schweighäuser: -μένειν A αὑτῷ Casaubon: ἀυτῷ Α 3 μὲν Α: οὖν Her werden: δὲ Blaydes 4 ὢιετο ὦ Α: ὢιετ’ ὢ Dindorf: ὤιετ’ ἂν, ὁ Bothe: διενοεῖθ’ ὁ Kaibel 5 ἔτι Α: ἔτι 〈γε〉 Dobree: ἔτι 〈καὶ〉 Headlam τοῦτ’ ἔστιν Α: τοῦτ’ 〈ἔν〉εστιν Κassel 7 ἀχρήματος Α: ἀγράμματος Toup: εὐχρώματος Herwerden: εὐχρήμvel εὐσχήμ- Headlam

5

Demotion, thinking that he will always have money, was far from thrifty, but he used to feed anyone who was willing. Chaerephon entirely †thought O† he was going to his house, the poor man! Indeed still †this is † the only thing he deserves, to get a forked stick as his chewing-companion. Because he’s neither suave nor out of money

Ath. 6.243b Τιμοκλῆς δ’ ἐν Ἐπιστολαῖς καὶ ὡς Δημοτίωνι τῷ ἀσώτῳ παρασιτοῦντος αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει ∙ ὁ – ἀχρήματος Timocles in The Letters refers to him as sponging off the spendthrift Demotion: “Demotion – out of money”

Metre Iambic trimeter

wlwwl lwwwl wlwww lwwwl

w|wwwl llwl wlw|l wwwwl wlwl llwl l†lwwl† wlwl

Ἐπιστολαί (fr. 9) 5

93

llww†l lw†l wlwl lwwwl l|lwl wlwl llwl w|lw|l wlwl

Citation context The fragment is cited in a section devoted to Chaerephon, the notorious parasite (6.242f-245f). The series of comic fragments in which Chaerephon is satirized includes Men. fr. 265 from Orgē; fr. 225 from Methē; Αntiph. fr. 197 from Skythēs (Chaerephon as ἄδειπνος); Tim. Com. fr. 1 from Kynarion (Chaerephon as parabystos, due to his shrewd invasion of feasts); Apollod. Car. fr. 29 (which, however, in all probability does not refer to Chaerephon, but to some other person who adopts Chaerephon’s manners, i. e. by invading feasts uninvited, ἄκλητος); fr. 31 (again on Chaerephon ἄκλητος); Macho frr. 3 and 4 Gow. Interpretation The fragment refers to a known parasite and his spendthrift patron. The speaking character looks like an omniscient observer in the prologue of a play. A parallel might be Aristophanes’ Knights 40–72, where a slave gives the audience the information necessary to better follow the subsequent scenes: a decrepit old man named Demos has recently bought a slave named Paphlagon, who has entranced his master with lies and flattery while hoarding his wealth. However, in Timocles’ fragment, the use of historical tenses (v. 2 ἐφείδετο, παρέτρεφεν; v. 4 ὤιετο) seems to place this setting in the prehistory of the play. Alternatively, the speaking character might be, for instance, a durus senex, attempting to deter his son from similar behavior, with the example of a notorious pair of patron and parasite. The criticism of both the spendthrift and his parasite is compatible with a person distanced from them and, perhaps, forecasting what will take place in the course of time and plot. Parasites who devour their masters’ property and are so clever at raising money are typical in comedy. Terence’ Phormio in the homonymous comedy and Gnatho in Eunuchus are representative of this class. Gnatho, in particular, shares with Chaerephon (cf. v. 6 παραμασήτην) the description of a parasite who devours with his jaws the property of the wealthy master, in return for the services he offers to him. For the patron who incurs all the pains and expenses in order to provide his parasite with food, receiving admiration for his wealth in return cf. Ter. Phormio 337–45 (where the emblematic eponymous parasite is mocking himself); Starks 2013, 144. Text 1 Schweighäuser’s παραμενεῖν makes better sense than the transmitted παραμένειν: “Demotion believed that he would keep having money in the future as well”. For a future infinitive governed by a verb of opinion cf. Timocl. 8.14 οἶμαί γ’ ἐρεῖν (on the contrary, in v. 4 βαδίζειν, governed by ὤιετο, if correct, expresses a habitual activity of Chaerephon); the same combination in Plu. Aem. 36.8 νομίζω τὴν τύχην ὑμῖν παραμενεῖν ἀβλαβῆ καὶ βέβαιον. 4 The paradosis ὤιετο ὦ is both unmetrical and awkward. The text is considered a locus desperatus in PCG VII (1989) ad loc. Bothe proposes ὤιετ’ ἂν; cf. X. H. 6.2.7 ἔνθεν ᾤετ’ ἂν τὰ προσπλέοντα καὶ προαισθάνεσθαι καὶ διακωλύειν; Pl. Men.

94

Timokles

84b τότε δὲ ῥᾳδίως ἂν καὶ πρὸς πολλοὺς καὶ πολλάκις ᾤετ’ ἂν εὖ λέγειν. However, this suggestion is not convincing, because the character is speaking in an assertive tone. On the other hand, ὢιετ’ ὢ (Dindorf, followed by Meineke, who, however, admits “sed aliud quid latet”) and the ὦ transmitted by A add an exclamatory tone to a text otherwise not emotionally charged. ταλάντατος at the end of the verse is better understood as a short comment on the parasite’s expectation (as wrong as his master’s), which may cause him problems; cf. Men. fr. 343 (from Synaristōsai) ὡς ἀεὶ στιφρὰς ἐσομένας καὶ νέας, ταλάντατος. 5 Τoup 1770, 217 (on Τheocr. 8.51) proposes ἔτι τοῦτ’ οὐκ ἔστ’ ἀνάξιον, approved by Schweighäuser (Edmonds’ ταῦτ’ 〈οὐκ〉 ἔστιν ἄξιον πόνου is quite arbitrary). Kassel suggests τοῦτ’ 〈ἔν〉εστιν, but cf. Ar. Ra. 73–4 τοῦτο γάρ τοι καὶ μόνον / ἔτ’ ἐστὶ λοιπὸν ἀγαθόν; besides, if we accept ἔνεστιν, a dative is missing; e. g. Α. Pr. 224 ἔνεστι γὰρ πως τοῦτο τῇ τυραννίδι. Dobree’s ἔτι 〈γε〉 and Headlam’s ἔτι 〈καὶ〉 are desperate. Perhaps a short word has been dropped out, e. g. καὶ μὴν 〈ἓν〉 ἔτι τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἄξιον μόνον. As it is, the line seems a locus desperatus; cf. Kock II (1884) ad loc.: “graviter corruptus”. 7 Τhe paradosis ἀχρήματος makes sense in combination with v. 2 (Demotion) τἀργύριον οὐκ ἐφείδετο. Demotion used to spend money on feeding men like Chaerephon who were not actually needy; for the adjective cf. A. Pers. 166–7 (cited below, on. v. 7). Toup 1770, 217 goes too far in changing ἀχρήματος into ἀγράμματος and interpreting it in combination with δίκρουν ξύλον in v. 6: “nam furca bifidum lignum est, et litteram Y representat”; (oὐκ) ἀγράμματος, i. e. litteratus, στιγματίας (cf. Ar. fr. 71 [from Babylōnioi] Σαμίων ὁ δῆμός ἐστιν, ὡς πολυγράμματος). Herwerden’s (oὐκ) εὐχρώματος, i. e. παντελῶς ἄμουσος, is unattested in Greek. 1 ὁ Δημοτίων (PAA 320135; LGPN no. 3). Apparently a notorious spendthrift, not certainly identified. A passage in Hyperides, however, might be helpful. In the speech Defence of Euxenippus (§31), the speaker counter-attacks the prosecutor of Euxenippus, and argues that he made slanderous remarks against his opponent, including that “he adopted Demotion’s way of life” (Δημοτίωνος δίαιταν ἔλαβεν). If the word δίαιτα here means “way of living” (as Babington 1853 ad loc. has already argued in the ed. pr. of the speech),91 then that Demotion (registered as PAA 320132) might be the person mentioned in our fragment, and accordingly Euxenippus is described by his opponent as sponging off his profligate patron; cf. Whitehead 2000, 238. παραμενεῖν αὑτῷ δοκῶν The latent opinion here is that wealth is ephemeral. For the uncertainty of wealth, cf. E. El. 941–4 ἡ γὰρ φύσις βέβαιος, οὐ τὰ χρήματα “it is nature that is secure, not wealth”; E. TrGF 32F 420.4–5 ὑπόπτερος δ’ ὁ πλοῦτος· οἷς γὰρ ἦν ποτε, / ἐξ ἐλπίδων πίπτοντας ὑπτίους ὁρῶ “wealth is winged; because I see those who possessed it before, to have fallen backwards 91

The other two possible meanings are “dwelling” and “arbitration”; cf. Whitehead 2000, 238.

Ἐπιστολαί (fr. 9)

95

due to their hopes” ; S. TrGF F 646.4–5; Antiph. fr. 202.1–3 ὅστις ἄνθρωπος δὲ φὺς / ἀσφαλές τι κτῆμ’ ὑπάρχειν τῷ βίῳ λογίζεται, / πλεῖστον ἡμάρτηκεν “any man who thinks that there is any sure possession in life, is very mistaken”. For the volatility of the human condition cf. Men. fr. 50 τὰ προσπεσόντα προσδοκᾶν ἅπαντα δεῖ / ἄνθρωπον ὄντα ∙ παραμένει γὰρ οὐδὲ ἕν “since you are a human, you have to expect that everything can befall you; for nothing lasts forever”. The same assumption, however, is sometimes the premise for the opposite practice, i. e. that one should not share one’s wealth with others; cf. Men. Dysc. 797–800 περὶ χρημάτων λαλεῖς, ἀβεβαίου πράγματος· / εἰ μὲν γὰρ οἶσθα ταῦτα παραμενοῦντά σοι / εἰς πάντα τὸν χρόνον, φύλαττε μηδενὶ / ἄλλῳ μεταδιδούς “You are talking about money, an uncertain thing; if you know that these riches will stay with you for ever, then keep it, giving none of it to anyone else”. Xαιρεφῶν Chaerephon of Athens (PAA 975770) is frequently mentioned in Middle and New Comedy as the typical parasite: Alex. frr. 213, 259; Antiph. fr. 197; Tim. Com. fr. 1; Macho frr. 3 and 4 Gow; Men. Sam. 603; frr. 51, 55, 225, 304. All these references are probably dated to 330–310 BC; Arnott 1996, 610; Sommerstein 2013, 284. The reason for his frequent presence in the plays of Middle Comedy might be his literary activity, i. e. the gastronomic work in 375 (prose) lines which he addressed to Cyrebion, a fellow parasite; cf. Gow 1965, 62; see above, under “Content”. 2 παρέτρεφεν Demotion receives Charephon in his house and feeds him next to himself, at his own expense; cf. Men. fr. 207 (on a parasite) σιτόκουρος ὁμολογῶν παρατρέφεσθαι “a sitokouros (lit. a person consuming bread and doing nothing else) who admits being fed at others’ expense”; fr. 632 ἵν’ οὐχ αὑτῷ παρετράφην, ἀλλὰ σοί; Lib. Decl. 32.1.6 ὥσπερ κηφῆνες ζῶντες ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων πόνων παρατρεφόμενοι “living like drones, being fed at other people’s expense”. For the preposition παρά in parasitic contexts cf. below on παραμασήτην. For a parasite’s patron as τρέφων cf. on fr. 8.8 (from Drakontion). 3 τὸν βουλόμενον For this particular participle with the article in nonpolitical contexts, as here, cf. And. 1.100 (on male prostitution) πραττόμενος δ’ οὐ πολὺ ἀργύριον τὸν βουλόμενον ἀνθρώπων… ἐπὶ τοῖς αἰσχίστοις ἔργοις ἔζης “you let anyone pay you not much money… and made a living from most disgraceful acts”. But normally ὁ βουλόμενος is used in public contexts, as a terminus technicus denoting a volunteer prosecutor, for offences regarded as affecting the community as a whole, e. g. D. 24.63; Aeschin. 2.65, 3.23; Hyp. Eux. col. 25, 23–8; Lycurg. Leoc. 121; MacDowell 1978, 57. 4 οἴκαδε βαδίζειν i. e. as if he were walking to his own house; cf. Αmmon. 349 οἴκαδε τοῦ εἰς οἶκον διαφέρει. οἴκαδε μὲν γὰρ τὸ εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν οἰκίαν βαδίζειν, εἰς οἶκον δὲ καὶ ἐφ’ ἕτερον “oikade is different from eis oikon; oikade means that one is going to his own house, whereas eis oikon may also denote that one is heading for another’s house”; cf. also on Timocl. fr. 11.4 ὠψώνει παρ’ αὑτὸν οἴκαδε. 6 παραμασήτην The fellow-chewer (from μασάομαι) is a stronger equivalent of the parasite. The only other attestation is Alex. fr. 238.2 ὁ παραμασήτης

96

Timokles

ἐν βροτοῖς αὐδώμενος “the so-called among mortals fellow-chewer”, where the juxtaposition of the high-style αὐδώμενος with the vulgar παραμασήτης contributes to a comic effect. The alternative form παραμασύντης (probably a coinage alluding to a point now lost; cf. Nesselrath 1990, 309; Arnott 1996, 644) occurs in Ephipp. fr. 8.6 and Alex. fr. 224.8 (cited below). Parasites are routinely associated with biting, chewing and swallowing food. μασᾶσθαι, in particular, in association with parasites occurs in Hegesipp. Com. fr. 2.5 τοῦ γὰρ μασᾶσθαι κρεῖττον οὐκ’ ἔστ’ οὐδὲ ἓν ἀγαθόν; Nicol. Com. fr. 1.25; Antiph. frr. 202 and 253; cf. Timocl. fr. 10.4 where Corydus is always ready to set his teeth in motion, and fr. 11 where the same parasite’s mouth is said to water (αἱμωδιᾶν) when seeing fish. Also cf. the emblematic parasite Γνάθων and passages with γνάθοι and σιαγόνες in reference to parasites: Alex. fr. 190, Anaxipp. 3.6, etc.; Konstantakos 2000, 235. For the composites with παρα-, typical in descriptions of parasitic activities, cf. v. 2 παρέτρεφεν. λαμβάνειν δίκρουν ξύλον This most probably means that Chaerephon deserves to be beaten with a forked stick, in order to feel double the pain; cf. Σ BD Pi. N. 6.85b δίκρουν γάρ, ὥστε δύο ἀκμὰς ἔχειν καὶ μιᾶι βολῆι [ὥστε del. Brunk] δισσὰ τὰ τραύματα ἀπεργάζεσθαι “a forked one, so as to have two points and by one stroke cause double wounds”; S. fr. 152 Radt ἢ δορὸς διχόστομον πλᾶκτρον∙ / δίπτυχοι γὰρ ὀδύναι μιν ἤρικον / Ἀχιλληΐου δόρατος “or the two-mouthed point of the spear; for the double pain of Achilles’ spear shattered him”. For ξύλον as an instrument of punishment cf. Ar. Pax 1121 παῖ’ αὐτὸν ἐπέχων τῷ ξύλῳ, τὸν ἀλαζόνα “hold tight and beat him, the impostor”; Lys. 357 οὐ περικατᾶξαι τὸ ξύλον τύπτοντ’ ἐχρῆν τιν’ αὐταῖς; “shouldn’t somebody break a log over his back?” fr. 620 ἵνα μὴ καταγῇς τὸ σκάφιον πληγεὶς ξύλῳ “so that you don’t get your pot (i. e. your head) cracked with a stick”. For the possibly similar combination λαμβάνειν πληγάς cf. on Timocl. fr. 24.6.92 A forked piece of wood (furca) was also used as an instrument of punishment; it was placed around a man’s neck, and his arms were fastened to the projecting ends; cf. D.C. Hist. Rom. vol. 1, p. 21 Boissevain οἱ δὲ ταύτας (sc. τὰς ἱερείας) αἰσχύνοντες εἰς ξύλον τὸν αὐχένα δίκρουν ἐμβάλλονται ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο γυμνοὶ αἰκιζόμενοι ἀποψύχουσιν. However, this type of punishment is unattested before the Roman period and it therefore seems improbable that the speaking character here means that Chaerephon deserves the treatment of a furcifer. For ξύλον as an instrument for punishing a parasite cf. Alex. fr. 224.8–10 ἀλλ’ ἐπὰν … τὸν παραμασύντην ἴδω τὸν ἀνόσιον / βαυκιζόμενον τὰ λευκά τ’ ἀναβάλλονθ’ ἅμα, / ἥδιστ’ ἂν ἀναπήξαιμ’ [ἂν αὐτὸν] ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου / λαβών “but when I see the wicked parasite dancing coyly and rolling his eyes so the whites show, I’d happily take him and clap him in the stocks”. However, the wording here rather suggests the method of apotympanismos; cf. Austin–Olson on Ar. Th. 930–1; Arnott 1996, 645 for a detailed comment on punishment including ξύλον. 92

Call. Aet. fr. 177.2 Pfeiffer δίκρον φιτρὸν ἀειραμένη (Εt. Gen. B δίκρον ξύλον) does not seem helpful for this sense; cf. Harder 2012, 440.

Ἐπιστολαί (fr. 10)

97

7 εὔρυθμος Probably a metaphor from music. For persons it means “orderly”, “graceful”; cf. Pl. R. 413e εὔρυθμόν τε καὶ εὐάρμοστον ἑαυτὸν ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις παρέχων, οἷος δὴ ἂν ὢν καὶ ἑαυτῷ καὶ πόλει χρησιμώτατος εἴη “displaying the true rhythm and harmony of himself in all those conditions, and the character that would make him most useful both to himself and to the city”; Prt. 326b. The adverb εὐρύθμως is also used (apparently ironically) with reference to the dissolute Autocles (cf. on Timocl. fr. 19.1) in Theophil. fr. 2.2; cf. Pl. Com. fr. 47 πέμπειν εὐρύθμως τὸν κότταβον. ἀχρήματος The adjective is comparatively rare in classical literature, but it often occurs in Plutarch and late authors. It is used both for individuals and for groups or nations; cf. A. Pers. 165–6 μήτε χρημάτων ἀνάνδρων πλῆθος ἐν τιμῇ σέβειν / μήτ’ ἀχρημάτοισι λάμπειν φῶς ὅσον σθένος πάρα “neither to hold in honor vast wealth without men, nor the light of success shines, in proportion to their strength, on men without riches”; Hdt. 1.89 Πέρσαι, φύσιν ἐόντες ὑβρισταί, εἰσὶν ἀχρήματοι “The Persians, being by nature insolent men, are poor”; Arist. Pol. 1271b τὴν μὲν γὰρ πόλιν πεποίηκεν ἀχρήματον, τοὺς δ’ ἰδιώτας φιλοχρημάτους “he has made the city poor and the individual citizens covetous”.

fr. 10 K.-A. (10 K.) οἴμοι κακοδαίμων, ὡς ἐρῶ. μὰ τοὺς θεούς, Τιθύμαλλος οὐδεπώποτ’ ἠράσθη φαγεῖν οὕτω σφόδρ’, οὐδὲ Κόρμος ἱμάτιον λαβεῖν, οὐ Νεῖλος ἄλφιτ’, οὐ Κόρυδος ἀσύμβολος κινεῖν ὀδόντας 4 Nεῖλος Musurus: νειλλος Α Α: -όλους Nauck, fort. recte

ἄλφιτ’ οὐ Schweighäuser: ἀλφίτου Α

ἀσύμβολος

Miserable me, how much in love I am! By the gods, Tithymallus never felt such overwhelming passion for eating, or Cormus for getting a cloak, or Neilus for barley groats, or Corydus for setting his teeth in motion without paying his contribution Αth. 6.240e–f ἐν δ’ Ἐπιστολαῖς · οἴμοι – ὀδόντας And in The Letters: ‘miserable – contribution’

98

Timokles

Metre Iambic trimeter

llwwl l|lwl wwlwl wlw|l llwl w|lwww llwl w|lwww llwl w

wlwl llwl wlwl wlwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 596; Kock II (1884) 456; Edmonds II (1959) 608–9; PCG VII (1989) 763. Citation context In a section devoted to the parasite Tithymallus (6.240c-f). Tithymallus is also mentioned in a series of comic fragments including Timocl. fr. 21 (Kentauros hē Dexamenos) and fr. 20 (Kaunioi). Text Νauck’s ἀσυμβόλους would produce the daring combination ἀσυμβ. ὀδόντας (cf. Ephipp. fr. 20 ἀσύμβολον χεῖρα). For a parasite called ἀσύμβολος cf. Dromo fr. 1.1–2 ὑπερῃσχυνόμην / μέλλων ἀσύμβολος πάλιν δειπνεῖν. Interpretation Probably an amator exclusus is expressing his frustration in a grandiloquent passionate monologue. A papyrus fragment might be instructive for the setting of such scenes: Com. adesp. fr. 1147.6–11 πᾶσαν ὥραν γάρ, μέσ[ων / νυκτῶν ἕωθεν ἑσπέρας, ἀποκλείομα[ι, / προσκαρτερῶ δὲ καὶ πορεύομ’ ἐπιμελῶς. / ἐρῶ γὰρ ὁ ταλαίπωρος ἀνθρώπων ἐ[γὼ / καινότα[τ]α πάντων [ο]ὐχ ἑορακὼ[ς lwl / τὴν ὄψιν [ἧ]ς ἐρῶ, μὰ τοὺς δώδεκα θε[ούς. :: / πῶς οὖν ἐρᾷς, ὦ τρισκακόδαιμον, τα llwl :: “‘for at every hour, at midnight, at dawn, in the evenings, I am shut out. But I persevere and make my way there with care. You see, I, the miserable one, alone among men, have fallen into the most novel love: I have not seen the face of the woman I love, by the twelve gods.’ ‘How, then, are you in love, you thrice unlucky man…’” For paraklausithyra in comedy cf. Barbiero 2014, 148. 1 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων A colloquial exclamatory expression of frustration or pain. Ιt always occurs at the beginning of a verse, e. g. Ar. Ach. 105, 473, 1036, 1081; Eq. 234, 752; Nu. 504; V. 207 with Biles–Olson 2016 ad loc.; Th. 232; Ra. 33; Stevens 1976, 14–15. Here it is compatible with the frustration of an amator exclusus; cf. above, under “Interpretation”. ὡς ἐρῶ The combination of an exclamation denoting frustration with ἐρᾶν occurs in the Theognidea (v. 1341 West), in a homoerotic context: αἰαῖ, παιδὸς ἐρῶ ἁπαλόχροος “alas, I am in love with a soft-skinned boy!” For the description of a passionate love cf. Ar. Pl. 992 λέγεις ἐρῶντ’ ἄνθρωπον ἐκνομιώτατα “you mean that he has been so terribly much in love”. μὰ τοὺς θεούς Usually at the end of a verse, e. g. Anaxandr. fr. 2.2; Stratt. fr. 1.2. This oath is also common in Demosthenes, e. g. 16.13,32; 18.13; [D.] 10.20. 2–3 ἠράσθη φαγεῖν The erotic context, which was introduced with ἐρῶ, is kept (although figuratively) with ἠράσθη through a series of obsessions of notorious persons. For this construction cf. Eup. fr. 355 ἠράσθη πιεῖν (with Olson

Ἐπιστολαί (fr. 10)

99

2014 ad loc.); Ar. Ach. 146 ἤρα φαγεῖν ἀλλᾶντας ἐξ Ἀπατουρίων “he desired to eat sausages at the feast of the Apaturia”; Ra. 1022 ἠράσθη δάϊος εἶναι “he wanted to be a fighting man”; S. Aj. 967 ἠράσθη τυχεῖν; E. Hec. 775 ἠράσθη λαβεῖν; Men. Samia 146 γαμεῖν ἐρῶ “I passionately long to marry”. For ἐρᾶν (which supplies the present and imperfect) and its cognates cf. Weiss 1998, 35–47. 2 Τιθύμαλλος Cf. on fr. 20.2 3 Kόρμος PAA 882825, nowhere else attested. Either a poor man (a beggar?) or a coat-thief (λωποδύτης), depending on the interpretation of the following ἱμάτιον λαβεῖν (see the next lemma). It might be a nickname, like Tithymallus and Corydus. ἱμάτιον λαβεῖν This wording may signify a poor person’s strong desire to cover himself, or, more probably, as the crucial word ἱμάτιον, i. e. “outer garment” indicates, refers euphemistically to the activity of a coat-thief; cf. the word ἱματιοκλέπτης (D.L. 6.52); D. 54.9 oὗτοι δ’ ὤιχοντο θοἰμάτιον λαβόντες μου “and these men went off with my cloak” and D. 54.24, where Conon is described as a λωποδύτης and the law περὶ τῶν λωποδυτῶν is mentioned. 4 Nεῖλος Neilus (PAA 705855); also mentioned in Euphanes fr. 1, again along with Corydus: ποῦ Κόρυδος ἢ Φυρόμαχος ἢ Νείλου βία; “Where is Corydus, Phyromachus, the forceful Neilus?” To my knowledge, this is the only person bearing this name in any surviving fourth-century source; all the other attestations date from the third century onwards. Τhe name might suggest an association with Egypt.93 3 σφόδρ’ For this colloquial intensifier (common in comedy and prose, but rare in tragedy) cf. e. g. Ar. V. 152 (with Biles–Olson 2016 ad loc.); Pherecr. fr. 14. 3; Eup. fr. 261. 2. 4 Kόρυδος Cf. on fr. 11.3. ἀσύμβολος Cf. fr. 8.10 on δείπνων ἡδοναῖς ἀσυμβόλοις and above, under “Text”. 5 κινεῖν ὀδόντας This particular activity (cf. also on fr. 9.6 παραμασήτην) is typical of a parasite; cf. Alex. fr. 185.3 ἀργοὺς ἔχειν μηδέποτε τὰς σιαγόνας “never having his jaws idle”; Ηerod. 3.49 (with Headlam 1922 ad loc.) ὥστε μηδ’ ὀδόντα κινῆσαι; Liban. Decl. 28.1.12 (a parasite, in anticipation of dinner) τὰς σιαγόνας κινῶν, τὰς γνάθους ἐξασκῶν; Aesop. (Perry n. 415) [a smith is speaking to his dog]: ὅταν μὲν τὸν ἄκμονα κρούω ὑπνοῖς, ὅταν δὲ τοὺς ὀδόντας κινήσω εὐθὺς ἐγείρῃ καὶ τὴν κέρκον μοι σείεις “While I am hammering on the anvil, you sleep; and when I begin to eat, you wake up at once and wag your tail (for food)”; Ovid. Met. 8.825 oraque vana movet, dentemque in dente fatigat “he moves his jaws in vain, wearies tooth upon tooth”.

93

Sofia 2008, 504–5 unconvincingly suggests that it is a nickname of a famished parasite, alluding to the fertilizing power of the River Nile.

100

Ἐπιχαιρέκακος (Epichairekakos) (“The Spiteful Man”)94 Discussion Meineke III (1840) 507–8; Kock II (1884) 456; Bevilacqua 1939, 43; Edmonds II (1959) 608–10; PCG VII (1989) 763–4. Title The title is unique in Attic drama. In Timocles there are also other titles presumably pointing to a defining characteristic of a major figure, such as Πολυπράγμων “Busybody” and Φιλοδικαστής “The Man Who Loved JuryDuty”. For other titles denoting a ruling sentiment cf. Μισοπόνηρος “Hater of Wickedness” (Antiphanes); Περιάλγης “Man in Great Pain” (Plato); Ἡδυχάρης “Sweetly Joyous”, probably an invented name formed from the adjective ἡδυχαρής (Theopompus); Φιλέταιρος “Loyal Comrade” (Alexis, Amphis, Antiphanes); Φιλομήτωρ “Mother’s Boy” and Φιλοπάτωρ “Father’s Boy” (Antiphanes). There are also titles which refer to the major character’s way of life or idiosyncrasy, such as Μονότροπος “Solitary Man” (Phrynichus), Mεμψίμοιρος “Fault-Finding Fellow” (Antidotus), Δύσκολος “Bad Tempered” (Mnesimachus and Menander), Ἄπληστος “The Insatiable Fellow” (Diphilus).95 ἐπιχαιρέκακος is a compound adjective accepted both by Atticists (e. g. Poll. 3.101 Bethe ὅ γε ἐπιχαιρέκακος ἀνεκτόν; Phryn. PS 71.1 de Borries; ἐπιχαιρέκακος ἄνθρωπος: ὁ ἐπιχαίρων τοῖς κακῶς πράττουσιν) and by the Anonymous Antiatticist: Lex. Seguer. 91.21 Bekker ἐπιχαιρέκακος εἶ καὶ φθονεῖς τοῖς πλησίον (= Alex. fr. 62); see Arnott 1996, 172–3. On the other hand, the simple adjective χαιρέκακος (also χαιρεκακῶ, χαιρεκακία) is mainly attested in post-classical texts. According to Eratosthenes (ap. Str. 1.3.22), the opposite would be ἐπιχαιράγαθος, but it was never used. On the other hand, ἐπιχαίρειν is mostly used of malignant joy, e. g. S. Aj. 961–2 oἱ δ’ οὖν γελώντων κἀπιχαιρόντων κακοῖς τοῖς τοῦδ’ “well, let them laugh and mock at his misfortunes”; Ar. Pax 1015; Men. fr. 860 ταῖς ἀτυχίαισι μὴ ’πίχαιρε τῶν πέλας “do not rejoice at others’ misfortunes”; Ar. Rh. 1379b 17; D. 9.61; 21.134; (but also rarely in a good sense, “rejoice at another’s joy”, e. g. Ar. Th. 314; S. Aj. 136). The use of ἐφήδεσθαι is similar; cf. D. 15.21; 18.18; X. HG 4.5.18 ἐφήδεσθαι τῷ δυστυχήματι; cf. (συν)ήδεσθαι ταῖς συμφοραῖς: Isoc. 8.87 οὐ συμπενθήσοντες τοὺς τεθνεῶτας, ἀλλὰ συνησθησόμενοι ταῖς ἡμετέραις συμφοραῖς (for certain neighbours of Athens and other Greeks, who attended public funerals at Athens every year not to grieve but to rejoice at the Athenians’ misfortunes).96 94 95 96

Cf. Rosen in Rusten 2011, 520: “Mr. Schadenfreude”. Arnott 2010, 317. A possible passive of ἐπιχαιρέκακος is ἐπίχαρτος (disapproved of by Poll. 3.101 Bethe); cf. Th. 3.67.4 οἴκτου τε ἀξιώτεροι τυγχάνειν οἱ ἀπρεπές τι πάσχοντες τῶν ἀνθρώπων, οἱ δὲ δικαίως, ὥσπερ οἵδε, τὰ ἐναντία ἐπίχαρτοι εἶναι; “for those who suffer undeserved misfortune pity is the proper response: but when men like these suffer their just deserts, that on the contrary is cause for rejoicing.” But cf. Philonid. fr. 13 τὸν ἐπιχαίροντα

Ἐπιχαιρέκακος

101

The earliest attestation of the adjective is probably in Anaxandr. fr. 60 ὦ πονηρὰ καρδία, / ἐπιχαιρέκακον ὡς εἶ μόνον τοῦ σώματος· / ὀρχεῖ γὰρ εὐθύς, ἂν 〈μ’〉 ἴδῃς δεδοικότα “O my wicked heart, how you are the only part of the body to rejoice in my evil! For you dance as soon as you see me frightened”; see Millis 2001, 270. ἐπιχαιρεκακία, “the malicious pleasure excited by another’s ill fortune”,97 as a moral vice is treated by Aristotle in various works. In Nicomachean Ethics he considers it a vice opposite to φθόνος, νέμεσις being the mean: 1108a–b 6 νέμεσις δὲ μεσότης φθόνου καὶ ἐπιχαιρεκακίας, εἰσὶ δὲ περὶ λύπην καὶ ἡδονὴν τὰς ἐπὶ τοῖς συμβαίνουσι τοῖς πέλας γινομένας· ὁ μὲν γὰρ νεμεσητικὸς λυπεῖται ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀναξίως εὖ πράττουσιν, ὁ δὲ φθονερὸς ὑπερβάλλων τοῦτον ἐπὶ πᾶσι λυπεῖται, ὁ δ’ ἐπιχαιρέκακος τοσοῦτον ἐλλείπει τοῦ λυπεῖσθαι ὥστε καὶ χαίρειν “just indignation is the mean between envy and malicious pleasure, and these concern pain and pleasure at the things that happen to one’s neighbors; the indignant person is pained at those who do well undeservedly; the envious person exceeds him because he is pained at everyone’s doing well; the malicious person is so deficient in feeling pain [at the misfortune of others] that he even rejoices in it”.98 However, in the Rhetoric the philosopher seems to change his view, since he regards φθόνος and ἐπιχαιρεκακία as two aspects of the same mental disposition: resenting your success and rejoicing in your failure are almost identical (Rh. 2.1386b34–1387a1 ὁ γὰρ αὐτός ἐστιν ἐπιχαιρέκακος καὶ φθονερός). See Cope-Sandys II (1877) 112; Stevens 1948, 171–89; Grimaldi II (1988) 152; Konstan 2006, 112–116. For the description of similar sentiments with ἐφήδεσθαι / ἥδεσθαι instead of ἐπιχαιρεκακεῖν cf. X. HG 5.2.2 … φθονοῦντας μὲν αὐτούς, εἴ τι σφίσιν ἀγαθὸν γίγνοιτο, ἐφηδομένους δ’, εἴ τις συμφορὰ προσπίπτοι “… they (the Mantineans) were envious if any good fortune came to them (the Lacedaemonians), and were delighted if any disaster befell them”; cf. HG 4.5.18 (again on the Mantineans) ἐφήδεσθαι τῷ δυστυχήματι; see Tamiolaki 2013, 32; Pl. Phlb. 48b …ὁ φθονῶν γε ἐπὶ κακοῖς τοῖς τῶν πέλας ἡδόμενος ἀναφανήσεται “the envious man will be seen delighting in the misfortunes of his neighbors”. Content A play by this title suggests a character comedy, and the central character was probably the Spiteful Man. Concerning the plot, nothing is certain. In the surviving fragment, somebody narrates Corydus’ visit to the fish market. Τhe speaking character gives some indication of a spiteful character (see below, under “Interpretation”). The fragment might come from a series of speeches or scenes

97 98

ἐπιχάρτην εἴρηκεν, where it is used in an active sense. A near opposite of ἐπιχαίρειν is συναλγεῖν; cf. Moschio Trag. fr. 9 Snell; E. HF 1202. D. L. 7.114 ἐπιχαιρεκακία δὲ ἡδονὴ ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίοις κακοῖς. Seneca, De tranquilitate animi 15.5 nam alienis malis torqueri aeterna miseria est, alienis delectari malis, voluptas inhumana “because to be tortured with others’ misfortunes is eternal misery, whereas it is an inhuman pleasure to rejoice at another’s sufferings”.

102

Timokles

illustrating his typical reactions to everyday situations, which reveal his malicious character; cf. Cnemon’s misanthropic behavior when seeing strangers around his house, such as the party guided by Sostratus’ mother to offer sacrifice at the shrine of Pan (Men. Dysc. 431–455; see Zagagi 1995, 103). A possible development of the plot might consist in a reversal of the initial situation, as often happens in New Comedy; e. g. that the Spiteful Man, at some point towards the end of the play, would himself become the target of others’ malevolence, when falling himself into a troublesome situation; cf. again the case of Cnemon, the misanthrope who finds himself in need of external help when he falls into the well (Men. Dysc. 625–702). Date There is no indication of the dating of the play. The existence of the parasite Corydus is not helpful, since he is often satirized by comic poets over a long period, perhaps between 345 and 305 BC,99 which exceeds Timocles’ known career (see under “Introduction”).

fr. 11 K.-A. (11 K.)

5

ἀγορὰν ἰδεῖν εὔοψον εὐποροῦντι μὲν ἥδιστον, ἂν δ’ ἀπορῇ τις, ἀθλιώτατον. ὁ γοῦν Κόρυδος ἄκλητος, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, γενόμενος ὠψώνει παρ’ αὑτὸν οἴκαδε. ἦν δὲ τὸ πάθος γελοῖον, οἴμοι, τέτταρας χαλκοῦς ἔχων ἅνθρωπος, ἐγχέλεις ὁρῶν, θύννεια, νάρκας, καράβους ᾑμωδία. καὶ ταῦτα πάντῃ μὲν περιελθὼν ἤρετο ὁπόσου, πυθόμενος δ’ ἀπέτρεχ’ εἰς τὰς μεμβράδας

4 ὀψωνεῖ ACE: corr. Schweighäuser παρ’ ΑCE: καθ’ Meineke αὑτὸν Α: αὐτ- CE 5 οἴμοι ACE: οἶμαι Dobree 7 ἡιμωδία Casaubon: ημωδια Α: om. C 8 πάντη μὲν Dindorf: πάντα ημεν Α: πάντα CE 9 ἀπέτρεχ’ εἰς Casaubon: ἀποτρέχεις Α: -εις εἰς E: -ει εἰς C: -ει ’ς Kock

5

99

For a wealthy man to see a marketplace full of fish is delightful, but if he is poor, it is most miserable. Corydus, for example, since he obviously had not been invited anywhere for dinner, was shopping for himself on his way home. What happened to him was ludicrous, alas! The man had only four coppers in his purse, and the sight of eels,

Cf. Breitenbach 1908, 70 n. 182; Webster 1952, 21–22; Gow 1965, 10, 599; Arnott 1996, 156.

Ἐπιχαιρέκακος (fr. 11)

103

tuna, rays and crayfish, made his mouth water. He went around and asked “How much are these fish?”; But when he found out, he went off to the anchovies Ath. 6. 241a ἦν δὲ καὶ ὁ Κόρυδος τῶν δι’ ὀνόματος παρασίτων. μνημονεύει δ’ αὐτοῦ Τιμοκλῆς ἐν Ἐπιχαιρεκάκῳ οὕτως· ἀγορὰν – μεμβράδας Corydus (= “the Lark”) was also one of the most notorious parasites. Timocles mentions him in The Spiteful Man thus: “for a wealthy – anchovies” (fr. 11)

Metre Iambic trimeter

5

wwlwl llw|l wlwl llwl wwlw|l wlwl wlwww wl|ww wlwl wwwwl llw|l wlwl lwwwl wlw|l llwl llwl llw|l wlwl llwl l|lwl llwl llwl ll|wwl llwl wwlwww l|www|l llwl

Lines 4 and 8 have neither penthemimeral nor hephthemimeral caesura, but there is instead a medial caesura after the first thesis of the second meter. This practice occurs more often in Menander (a normal caesura is absent from 15% of lines) than in Aristophanes (caesura absent in 7.5% of lines); see White 1912, 51–7; West 1982, 88. Discussion Bothe 1855, 616; Meineke III (1840) 507–8; Μeineke 1867, 105; Kock II (1884) 456; Bevilacqua 1939, 43; Edmonds II (1959) 608–10; PCG VII (1989) 763–4. Citation context Athenaeus’ sixth book includes a long section on notorious Athenian parasites (see on fr. 8). This particular sub-section (6.241a-e) is devoted to the parasite named Corydus. Apart from Timocles’ fr., it also includes Alex. fr. 48 (from Dēmētrios ē Philetaeros), fr. 229 (from Titthē), Cratin. Jun. fr. 8 (from Titanes) and Alex. fr. 188 (from Poiētai), where it is said that Lark used to tell jokes and was fond of being laughed at for them in response. Corydus is also mentioned in 6.240e (Timocl. fr. 10), 6.242d (Alex. fr. 173) and 7.343b (Euphanes fr. 1 and Macho fr. 1 Gow). The speaker in 6.241a-e is Plutarchus, one of the “deipnosophists”. He notes that it was Lynceus of Samos who wrote down the bons mots of Corydus, and adds the information that Corydus’ real name was Eucrates. It is, therefore, probable that at least some of Corydus’ stories derive from Lynceus’ work. Lynceus, a pupil of Theophrastus, was an author of comedies, letters and anecdotes; the only surviving

104

Timokles

fragment of his comedies comes from his play Kentauros.100 Athenaeus’ epitome includes Timocles’ name and fr. 8 but not the title of the play. Text 4 ὠψώνει παρ’ αὑτὸν οἴκαδε ὠψώνει is Schweighäuser’s emendation instead of the transmitted ὀψωνεῖ; cf. the following verbs ἦν (v. 5), ἡιμωδία (v. 7), ἤρετο (v. 8) and ἀπέτρεχ’ (v. 9). The construction seems to be elliptical; a verb denoting motion, such as βαδίζειν, is missing here; cf. fr. 9 ὁ Χαιρεφῶν μὲν παντελῶς / οἴκαδε βαδίζειν †ᾤετο ὦ† ταλάντατος; Ar. fr. 491 ἀλλ’ ἔχουσα γαστέρα / μεστὴν βοάκων ἀπεβάδιζον οἴκαδε; Luc. Gall. 33… ἀπίωμεν οἴκαδε παρ’ ἡμᾶς; Pl. Prm. 126c ἀλλ’ εἰ δεῖ, ἴωμεν παρ’ αὐτόν· ἄρτι γὰρ ἐνθένδε οἴκαδε οἴχεται; Grg. 447b Οὐκοῦν ὅταν βούλησθε παρ’ ἐμὲ ἥκειν οἴκαδε· παρ’ ἐμοὶ γὰρ Γοργίας καταλύει καὶ ἐπιδείξεται ὑμῖν. Meineke 1867, 105 instead of παρ’ αὑτὸν suggests καθ’ αὑτόν, by adducing Men. fr. 225.2–4 (Chaerephon) φάσκων ποιήσειν δευτέρᾳ μετ’ εἰκάδας / καθ’ αὑτόν, ἵνα τῇ τετράδι δειπνῇ παρ’ ἑτέροις. But it seems better to accept the transmitted text, on the grounds that ὠψώνει here is also supported by the adverb οἴκαδε “homewards”, in order to express both the shopping and the departure homewards, whereas παρ’ αὑτὸν emphasizes Corydus’ way to a solitary dinner. 5 οἴμοι At first sight oἴμοι seems difficult immediately after γελοῖον, and Dobree 1833, 311 prefers οἶμαι; cf. Pl. Lg. 801b γελοῖον γὰρ δὴ τὸ πάθος οἶμαι τοῦτ’ ἂν γίγνοιτο. It is true that οἴμοι usually precedes an adjective, like Timocl. fr. 10.1 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων. However, the passage gains in irony if we suppose that the speaker – perhaps adopting a spiteful disposition, see under “Content” – is ironically pretending to share Corydus’ desperation; cf. Ar. Ach. 1081 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων· καταγελᾷς ἤδη σύ μου; Pax 1245 οἴμοι, καταγελᾷς; Pl. 880 οἴμοι τάλας· μῶν καὶ σὺ μετέχων καταγελᾷς; For parenthetical οἴμοι cf. Men. Sam. 43 ἐγινόμην, οἴμοι, θεατής, where Photiades’ suggestion οἶμαι instead of οἴμοι is rightly rejected by Sommerstein 2013, 113 (ad loc.); Eur. Alc. 353 ψυχρὰν μέν, οἶμαι (οἶδα Elmsley: οἴμοι Βernardakis), τέρψιν. Interpretation Α comparable scene is mentioned in Macho fr. 16.300–307 Gow (=Αth. 13.580), where the courtesan Gnathaena is looking for fish and asking questions about the price of every opson; cf. on Timocl. fr. 29 (from Polypragmōn). Another similar scene occurs in Plautus’ Aulularia (371–87). Euclio, the miser father, is visiting the market to buy fish for his daughter’s wedding; cf. in particular vv. 373- 85 venio ad macellum, rogito piscis: indicant / caros; agninam caram, caram bubulam, / vitulinam, cetum, porcinam: cara omnia...accessit animus ad meam sententiam, / quam minimo sumptu filiam ut nuptum darem. / nunc Tusculum emi et hasc’ coronas floreas. “I went to the market and asked for fish. They told me it is expensive. Lamb is expensive, beef is expensive, veal, tuna, pork, all are expensive.... I made up my mind to give my daughter in marriage at the minimum expense. Now

100

See Dalby 2000, 372–394. For Lynceus and his works see also Funaioli 2004, 197–208; Ornaghi 2003, 49–79, who questions Athenaeus’ information that Lynceus was a comic poet; Konstantakos 2008, 102–104.

Ἐπιχαιρέκακος (fr. 11)

105

I bought a little incense and these flower garlands”. For other opsophagoi cf. Eub. fr. 88 (a miser procurer is described) ὀψοφάγος, ὀψωνῶν δὲ μέχρι τριωβόλου. Cf. also in fabula Atellana Pompon. 80 Ribb. (a parasite, being uninvited, has to buy cheap fish and dine alone) cenam quaeritat: / si eum nemo vocat, revortit maestus ad maenam miser “he is looking for a dinner; if nobody invites him, he sorrowfully returns to wretched sprats”. Descriptions of market-scenes (often with a gourmet or a parasite in the customer’s role) are commonplace in comedy; cf. Ar. V. 785–92; Pherecr. fr. 70; Stratt. fr. 45; Antiph. fr. 188; Alex. frr. 47, 259; Diox. fr. 3; Diph. fr. 42.28–32; Men. Sikyon. 8–10; Konstantakos 2000, 69–70. In our fragment, in particular, there is a clear allusion to the high price of fish (and perhaps to the profiteering of the fishmongers); cf. Alex. fr. 78 and Arnott 1996, ad loc. and 98–9. Gluttony aroused by looking at expensive fish and seafood is another topos; cf. Philoxenus’ anecdotes cited in Athenaeus (1.5d-6d). In Corydus’ case, gluttony and poverty are combined. His miserable situation derives from his lack of invitations to dinner-parties and his inability to afford expensive fish. Corydus, being a typical parasite, described in Alexis’ Pankratiastēs (fr. 173) among other notorious parasites as a τρεχέδειπνος “running to a banquet” (Ath. 6.242c), is now excluded from dinners and is running away (v. 9 ἀπέτρεχ’) to cheap fish. The parasite as opsophagos seems to be a variation on the typical opsophagos, the man “fond of fish to the point of obsession”, such as Phayllus, who is described as a storm bursting upon the market, buying up all the fish, and leaving nothing but vegetables; cf. Alex. fr. 47 τοὔψον πριάμενος οἴχεται / φέρων ἅπαν τὸ ληφθέν· ὥστε γίγνεται / ἐν τοῖς λαχάνοις τὸ λοιπὸν ἡμῖν ἡ μάχη “having bought up the whole catch of fish, he runs off with it; so that our battle now moves to the vegetable market”; fr. 249; Antiph. fr. 27.10–11.101 For the type of opsophagos see Davidson 1995, 204–213; Olson–Sens 2000, xlix-lii; Wilkins 2000, 69–70, 346–347. Moreover, it is perhaps worth noting that Corydus, a well-known buffoon or gelōtopoios (cf. Alex. fr. 229 ὁ τὰ γέλοι’ εἰθισμένος λέγειν), who used to entertain banquet participants in return for a meal (like Philippus in Plato’s Symposium, the most emblematic gelōtopoios), is now an uninvited solitary man, who offers himself as a subject for others to laugh at (cf. πάθος γέλοιον).102 Significantly enough, the narrator in this scene first hints at the relative nature of human blessedness, and in the following lines this statement is exemplified by Corydus’ πάθος in the fish market. However, in the course of the narration the focus shifts to the absurd behavior of a parasite whose mouth waters when looking at delicious seafood. The narrator of the scene seems to enjoy Corydus’ situation and adopt the reaction of 101

102

On the other hand, Archestratus advises prospective buyers even to steal the fish, if they cannot pay for it (frr. 15,21; cf. Ath. 8.342d-e; see Olson–Sens 2000 ad loc.; Wilkins 2000, 186–7. For parasites as gelōtopoioi cf. Anaxandr. fr. 10 with Millis 2015, ad loc.

106

Timokles

a spiteful man, rejoicing at Corydus’ poverty and using a sarcastic tone; cf. above, under “Content”. 1 ἀγορὰν ἰδεῖν εὔοψον Fish-markets were places devoted to the sale of fish, either in a generic market-place or separately. They probably consisted of temporary structures, so it is difficult to pinpoint their exact location. This fishmarket seems to have been in Athens, not Piraeus; cf. Wycherley 1957 (Agora III), 195–6; Millis 2016, 163 (on Anaxandr. fr. 34.9–10). For Athenian fish-markets, which were probably distinguished into ἰχθυοπώλια amd ταριχοπώλια, cf. Thphr. Char. 6.9; Olson 2007, 358. Both ἥδιστον and ἀθλιώτατον are predicates to ἰδεῖν. In comedy the adjective εὔοψος usually qualifies the noun ἀγορά: Αnaxandr. fr. 34.10; Crito Com. fr. 3.7; cf. Alciphr. 1.13.1 εὐοψία μὲν ἦν καὶ πλῆθος ἰχθύων “there was an abundance in opson and a lot of fish”. As usual, ὄψον here refers to fish; see below on vv. 6–7 and cf. Millis 2001, 137, on Anaxandr. frr. 34.10 and 40.6; Gow 1965, on Macho fr. 28; Arnott 1996, on Alex. fr. 39. εὐποροῦντι μὲν For the contrast εὐπορεῖν-ἀπορεῖν in comedy cf. Alex. fr. 78 ὅστις ἀγοράζει πτωχὸς ὢν ὄψον πολύ, / ἀπορούμενός τε τἄλλα πρὸς τοῦτ’ εὐπορεῖ, / τῆς νυκτὸς οὗτος τοὺς ἀπαντῶντας ποιεῖ / γυμνοὺς ἅπαντας “Whoever, being poor, buys a lot of fish, / and is prosperous in this, though he is poor in everything else, at night he strips naked all the people he meets”; Antiph. fr. 229.6–7; Apollod. Car. fr. 16.2–3. 2 ἥδιστον Cf. Men. Mon. 501 τὸν εὐποροῦνθ’ ἕκαστος ἡδέως ὁρᾷ “everybody sees a prosperous man with pleasure”. For the contrast ἡδύ -ἄθλιον cf. Antiph. fr. 185 ῥοφεῖν φακῆν ἐσθ’ ἡδὺ μὴ δεδοικότα, / μαλακῶς καθεύδειν ἄθλιον δεδοικότα “it is sweet to eat even lentils without fear, but sad to sleep on soft bedding in terror”. For the construction ἥδιστον ὁρᾶν cf. E. Heracl. 940 ἥδιστον ἐχθρὸν ἄνδρα δυστυχοῦνθ’ ὁρᾶν; cf. ἥδιστον βλέπειν (S. OT 999; E. IA 1250). ἄν δ’ ἀπορῇ τις For the combination of a conditional participle (εὐποροῦντι) with a subordinate clause, cf. X. An. 2.1.23 Ἢν μὲν μένωμεν, σπονδαί, ἀπιοῦσι δὲ καὶ προϊοῦσι (sc. ἡμῖν) πόλεμος. 3 ὁ γοῦν Kόρυδος The nickname of a parasite (Ath. 241d; Macho fr. 1 Gow);103 see Breitenbach 1908, 70, n. 182; Gow 1965, 10, 59; Arnott 1996, 166–7 (on Alex. fr. 48); Wilkins 2000, 85 and n. 140. On the use of such popular nicknames in Athens cf. Anaxandr. fr. 35 with Millis 2015. Concerning the origin of his nickname, different explanations have been suggested: according to Bechtel 1898, 39–40, a possible explanation might be a similarity with the crested lark (κόρυδος, κορύδαλος) due to Eucrates’ protruding tufts of hair. Another possibility is that Eucrates had a shrill voice like a lark; cf. Diosc. AP 11.195 (=36 Gow–Page) 5–6 ἐν γὰρ ἀμούσοις / καὶ κόρυδος φθέγξετ’ ἀοιδότερον. However, neither Eucrates’ supposed crest nor his voice is satirized in the surviving texts; therefore the origin 103

A similar form, Κορύδων, occurs in Theoc. Idyl. 4.1, probably as a genuine name; see Gow 1965, 59.

Ἐπιχαιρέκακος (fr. 11)

107

of his name is uncertain; cf. Arnott 1996, 167.104 The same nickname also occurs in the fifth century for the tragedian Philocles, Aeschylus’ nephew; cf. Ar. Av. 1295, with Dunbar 1995, ad loc. It seems that he was notoriously ugly (cf. Ar. Th. 169 ταῦτ’ ἄρ’ ὁ Φιλοκλέης αἰσχρὸς ὢν αἰσχρῶς ποεῖ), perhaps due to his unusually shaped, crest-like head or coiffure. By contrast, Kakridis 1982, 233 suspects that his nickname is due to his ἀμουσία.105 On the basis of the available sources, Corydus was a poor man (Timocl. fr. 11), yet an opsophagos “lover of good fish” (Timocl. frr. 10; 11; Alex. fr. 48), an entertainer (Alex. frr. 188; 229), and he was also satirized as a male prostitute (Ath. 6.239f). All these elements are known traits of the parasite; see RE VII,1 s. v. Γελωτοποιοί, 1019–1021; Bremmer 1997, 12–16; Arnott 1996, 167; Wilkins 2000, 85 and n. 140. ἄκλητος A term applied to parasites; cf. Antiph. fr. 193.7 δειπνεῖν ἄκλητος μυῖα, where a parasite is boastfully comparing himself with a fly; fr. 227.1–3. The emblematic ἄκλητος in Middle Comedy is Chaerephon: Apollod. Car. 29.31 καλῶ δὲ Χαιρεφῶντα· κἂν γὰρ μὴ καλῶ, / ἄκλητος ἥξει “I will also call on Chaerephon; because even if I call him not, he is sure to come”; Alex. fr. 213 ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς Κόρινθον ἐλθὼν Χαιρεφῶν / ἄκλητος; Lync. ap. Ath. 245a, 584e. Cf. Ar. Av. 982; fr. 284 (from Δράματα ἢ Κένταυρος); Plu. Mor. 706e–710a; Luc. Smp. 12; Macrob. Sat. 1.7.2; Plaut. Capt. 69 (the parasite Ergasilus is speaking) invocatus soleo esse in convivio (opp. vocare aliquem ad cenam, Ter. And. 453). ἄκλητος is also said of those who accompany an invited guest, without being invited themselves; cf. the discussion in Pl. Smp. 174b on ἄκλητον ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἰέναι.106 A relevant term is ἀσύμβολος (see above on fr. 10.4 Kόρυδος ἀσύμβολος); Arnott 1996, 611. However, in our passage Corydus no longer acts as a genuine gatecrasher (pace Arnott 1996, 611), but becomes a solitary eater due to his lack of an invitation to dinner (cf. ἄδειπνος in Timocl. fr. 34). For parasites as solitary eaters due to poverty see Wilkins 2000, 67. ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ Very common at the end of iambic trimeter, especially in New Comedy (e. g. Diph. frr. 37.3; 97.1; Men. Dysc. 179, 455; Epit. 308, 411; Pk. 266; Sam. 363). 4 γενόμενος For the specific participle (tetrabrach) in the first position of an iambic trimeter cf. Timocl. fr. 6.11; Athenio fr. 1.10.

104 105

106

Cf. Gow 1965, 59: “Speculation on the origin of his name is not very profitable, but in this case a tuft of hair would seem a better guess than would a sweet voice”. Corydus’ case might be similar to that of the politician Callimedon, who was named Κάραβος because he squinted, like the corresponding fish (cf. Arist. HA 4.2, 526a; Arnott 1996, 178–9). However, Callimedon’s conspicuous feature is well attested in comedy (Timocl. fr. 29; Alex. fr. 117), whereas Corydus’ supposed peculiar hairstyle is not. Cf. A. Pr. 1024 ἄκλητος ἕρπων δαιταλεὺς πανήμερος (Hermes is speaking).

108

Timokles

ὠψώνει ὀψωνέω, lit. “purchase as opson”, is mainly used with reference to fish, cf. on v. 1 ἀγορὰν εὔοψον and fr. 4.9 ὀψοφάγος. For similar occurrences with parasites in the market cf. Macho fr. 3 Gow (Chaerephon is buying meat). 5 πάθος γελοῖον The sense could be either “funny, amusing” or “absurd, ridiculous”; cf. καταγέλαστον. The accentuation is not helpful, since grammarians apparently attempted to distinguish between two separate meanings with two separate accents.107 For Corydus’ γέλοιον πάθος cf. the comparison made by a character in Alex. fr. 188 πάνυ τοι βούλομαι / οὗτος γελᾶσθαι καὶ γέλοι’ ἀεὶ λέγειν / μετὰ τὸν Κόρυδον μάλιστ’ Ἀθηναίων “I would love to be the one who is laughed at and always says comical things – the best of the Athenians after Lark”. For γέλοιον πάθος / πρᾶγμα as a result of an absurd happening cf. Ar. Lys. 559–60 (also in the fish-market) καὶ μὴν τό γε πρᾶγμα γέλοιον, / ὅταν ἀσπίδ’ ἔχων καὶ Γοργόνα τις κᾆτ’ ὠνῆται κορακίνους “But what a ludicrous thing, when someone with a Gorgon-shield just buys small black fish”; Pl. Lg. 801b; Smp. 174e; R. 536b; Luc. Hist. Conscr. 1. 5–6 τέτταρας χαλκοῦς ἔχων ἄνθρωπος i. e. half an obol, since a χαλκοῦς is a copper coin, 1/8 of an obol; cf. Ar. Ec. 815; [D.] 42.22; Alex. fr. 15.2; Philem. fr. 67.1–2. Bronze coins were reintroduced in Athens after the middle of the fourth century; cf. Head 1911, 374; Burns 1927, 262; Arnott 1996, 88. ἄνθρωπος constructed with a participle usually has a negative undertone in comedy: cf. Timocl. fr. 12.6 μισῶν λόγους ἄνθρωπος (ironically said of the orator Demosthenes); Macho fr. 5.34–6 Gow Ἀρχεφῶν πάνυ, / ἄνθρωπος ὑπὸ τῶν μαινίδων καὶ μεμβράδων / Φαληρικῆς ἀφύης τε διασεσαγμένος “Archephon, a man completely filled up with sprats and anchovies and the small fry of Phalerum”. For the use of ἄνθρωπος in combination with a noun denoting a profession, a quality or a foreign origin, cf. Lys. 30.28 ἄ. ὑπογραμματεύς; Aeschin. 2.152 ἄ. γόης; 2.183; X. Mem. 1.7.2 ἄ. ἀλαζών; Pl. Phd. 87b ἄ. ὑφάντης; D. 21.175 Μενίππου, Καρός τινος ἀνθρώπου (LSJ s. v. 4). 6 ἐγχέλεις ἔγχελυς, the common eel, was considered a delicacy: eels from Kopais, in particular, were celebrated; cf. Ar. Ach. 880–894 (the longest comic praise for eels); Lys. 36; fr. 380.2; Eub. fr. 36.3. Ancient Greek distinguishes between fresh-water eels (Anguilla anguilla), those fed in the sea but then returning to lakes and rivers, and marine eels or congers (μύραιναι or γόγγροι). Cf. also Cratin. fr. 171.50; Anaxandr. fr. 40.6, where ἔγχελυς is described as τῶν ὄψων μέγιστον παρὰ πολύ “by far the greatest of the opsa”; Antiph. fr. 216.2–3; Ath. 7.298b; see

107

According to Ael. Dion. p. 113.5 Erbse (cf. Ammon. Diff. 119, Et. Mag. 224.36, Sud. s. v. γέλοιος, Schol. Luc. Icar. 17, p. 105.5 Rabe), γελοῖος means “γελωτοποιός”, he who entertains others with funny stories. See Arnott 1996, 555, who notes that the distinction between the two accentuations is uncertain: “sometimes more plausible by dialect (proparoxytone Attic, properispomenon Koinē…) or period (properispomenon earlier Attic, proparoxytone late Attic).”

Ἐπιχαιρέκακος (fr. 11)

109

Thompson 1947, 58–61; Palombi–Santorelli 1969, 198–200; Davidson 1981, 53–5; Arnott 1996, 439; Olson–Sens 2000, 49 (on Archestr. fr. 10.1). 7 θύννεια lit. “pieces of tuna”, ready for cooking, as here, or already cooked (Ar. Eq. 354 θύννεια θερμὰ καταφαγών); cf. θύννου τεμάχη (Ephipp. fr. 12). For this nominal use of the neuter of an adjective in –ειος, deriving from the noun denoting the animal or fish cf. λαγῷα (Alex. fr. 168) and the use of ὕειος (Alex. fr. 115), δελφάκειος (Alex. fr. 129). For θύννος “tunny-fish” or θύννα “female tunny” see Steier in RE s. v. Thynnos 731.17–8; Thompson 1947, 88–9; Palombi–Santorelli 1969, 109; Campbell, 1982, 302–4.; Davidson, 1981, 125; Arnott 1996, 470 (on Alex. fr. 159). νάρκας νάρκη the “electric ray” (Torpedo marmorata) was considered a tasty dish; Pl. Com. fr. 164 νάρκη γὰρ ἑφθὴ βρῶμα χάριεν γίνεται “for stewed ray is a lovely food”; Alex. fr. 38 νάρκη πνικτή “baked ray”. For νάρκη in a catalogue of seafood cf. Epich. fr. 52.1; Anaxandr. fr. 42.52; Antiph. fr. 127.3; Mnesim. fr. 4.37. See Thompson 1947, 169–71; Palombi–Santorelli 1969, 245–7; Campbell 1982, 260–61; Arnott 1996, 148; Olson–Sens 2000, 195 (on Archestr. fr. 49.1). καράβους “crayfish” or “spiny lobster” (Palinurus elephas); often in lists of seafood, e. g. Eup. fr. 174.2 with Olson 2016 ad loc.; Call. Com. fr. 6.2; Ar. frr. 164, 333.7, 380.1, 640; Metag. fr. 6.6 with Orth 2014 ad loc.; Philyll. fr. 12.1; Pl. Com. fr. 102.3. They could be eaten roasted or broiled (Anaxandr. fr. 42.46 κάραβοι ὀπτοί with Millis 2015 ad loc.; Alex. fr. 57.4; Metag. fr. 6.6); cf. Thompson 1947, 102–3; Gossen and Steier in RE s. v. Krebs 1678; Palombi–Santorelli 1969, 369–70; Campbell 1982, 204–5; Davidson 1981, 180; Arnott 1996, 178; Olson–Sens 1999 (on Matro fr. 1.66–7); Konstantakos 2000, 75. Kάραβος was also the nickname of the politician Callimedon, due to his squint eyes; cf. on v. 3 Κόρυδος and on Timocl. fr. 29. ἡιμωδία Hesych. α 1970 αἱμωδιᾶν∙ τὸ τοὺς ὀδόντας ναρκᾶν ἀπὸ ὁράσεως (like Corydus here) ἢ ἀκούσματος (cf. Cratin. fr. 41 εὐθὺς γὰρ ἡμώιδεις ἀκούων τῶν ἐπῶν / τοὺς προσθίους ὀδόντας); also Moeris 198.15 ἡμωδίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ὀδόντων διὰ τοῦ η Ἀττικοί, αἱμωδίαν Ἕλληνες. Τhe verb αἱμωδιάω (Phryn. PS 14.3 αἱμωδεῖν ἀττικώτερον. λέγεται δὲ καὶ αἱμωδιᾶν; cf. Phot. α 629), first occurs in fifth-century Ionic prose, e. g. Hp. Int. 6.12 τοὺς ὀδόντας αἱμωδιᾷ; Morb. 2.55.5 (but cf. Hum. 5.490.1 ὀδόντες ἡιμώδησαν and Mul. 128.4 τοὺς ὀδόντας αἱμωδέειν ποιέει), passing from there into fourth-century Attic, e. g. Arist. Pr. 886b12 αἱμωδιῶμέν τε γὰρ τοὺς ὀξὺ ὁρῶντες ἐσθίοντας “for our teeth are set on edge when we see others eating something bitter”; cf. Bianchi 2015, 254 (on Cratin. fr. 41). Here the verb is used metaphorically for the gluttonous parasite, whose mouth waters when viewing desirable but expensive fish. 8 περιελθών Τhe verb describes the way Corydus moves around the part of the fish-market where different sorts of fish and shellfish are on view; cf. Eup. fr. 327 with Olson 2014 ad loc. περιῆλθον εἰς τὰ σκόροδα καὶ τὰ κρόμμυα / καὶ τὸν λιβανωτόν “I / they went around to the garlic and the onions and the frankincense”; Ar. Lys. 558 περιέρχονται κατὰ τὴν ἀγοράν “they circulate through the market”;

110

Timokles

Phryn. Com. fr. 3.4 κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν περιιόντες “circulating through the agora”; Pl. Com. fr. 211.1 καὶ περιὼν γ’ ἅμα / τιλτὸν τάριχος ἐπριάμην τοῖς οἰκέταις “and when hanging around, I bought salt fish stripped of its scales for the slaves”; Luc. Lex. 2. 8/9 ἤρετο / ὁπόσου The conversation between the parasite and the fishmongers is taken as an obvious background. In similar instances, the scenes and exchanges between fishmongers and buyers in the fish-market, and especially the buyer’s reaction when hearing the high price of fish, are very funny and reported in a lively manner; e. g. Amphis fr. 30; Alex. fr. 16. 8–11; Diph. fr. 32; Antiph. fr. 164 ἂν ἴδω γὰρ ἡλίκον ἰχθὺν ὅσου τιμῶσι, πήγνυμαι σαφῶς “for when I see how high a price they ask for such a little fish, I am motionless”; Xenarch. fr. 7; Diph. fr. 67. For such routine dialogues concerning the price of fish cf. Archestr. fr. 35.4 Olson–Sens ὀψωνεῖν ἃ πρέπει ταχέως καὶ μὴ περὶ τιμῆς “buy quickly and not (haggle) about the price”; Lync. ap. Ath. 7.313f–14a; Olson–Sens 1999, 141; Konstantakos 2000, 69–70. Cf. καὶ τoὔψον ἐφορᾶν καὶ πολυπραγμονεῖν ὁπόσου “and she looked at the fish and inquired closely about the price (said of Gnathaena in Macho fr. 16.302 Gow). For the genetivus pretii ὁπόσου in such transactions cf. Alex. fr. 16.8 and Antiph. fr. 164 (cited above); cf. ὀβολοῦ (Αristomen. fr. 7 with Orth 2015, 67); δραχμῆς Ar. Pl. 884; Stratt. fr. 5.2; Alex. frr. 15, 16. 9 ἀπέτρεχ’ The verb (usually constructed with οἴκαδε, cf. Sommerstein 2013, 247, on Men. Sam. 464) means “go away, depart”; cf. Alex. fr. 76 (fish destroy men in every possible way, especially due to their price) τῆς οὐσίας γάρ εἰσιν ἡμῶν ὤνιοι / ὁ πριάμενός τε πτωχὸς εὐθὺς ἀποτρέχει “for they cost a whole estate, and the purchaser comes off a beggar”; fr. 258 ἐγὼ δὲ κεστρεὺς νῆστις οἴκαδ’ ἀποτρέχω “so I, a hungry mullet, now run home”; Men. Asp. 217 εἶτ’ ἀποτρέχειν δεῖ μισθὸν οὐκ ἔχοντά με (a cook is speaking); Eub. fr. 131 καὶ μὴν οἴκαδε / πολλοστιαῖος ἀποτρέχω; Macho, fr. 9.85–6 Gow (on the opsophagos Philoxenus, who is about to die due to excessive consumption of octopus) ἵν’ ἔχων ἀποτρέχω πάντα τἀμαυτοῦ κάτω “in order to go below having all my goods”; and cf. Ar. Av. 1162. Sometimes the verb is also used in a context of training for a race, e. g. Ar. Nu. 1005; cf. the hapax ἐξ ἀποτρόχων “from the running track” (Ar. fr. 645). εἰς τὰς μεμβράδας μεμβράδες or βεμβράδες, Sprattus sprattus or Engraulis encrasicolus (sprat or anchovy). See Thompson 1947, 32; Arnott 1996, 578 (on Alex. fr. 200,3); Οlson 2007, 359; Orth 2015, 67 (on Aristomen. fr. 3) and 117; the alternative βεμβράδες is probably due to foreign importation of the word; see Arnott and Orth op. cit. It was a small, cheap fish, eaten by poor people; cf. Aristomen. fr. 7 βεμβράδας φέρων ὀβολοῦ; Alex. fr. 200 (the speaking person is a parasite): μεμβράδας μοι κρεῖττον ἦν / ἔχειν μετ’ Ἀττικιστὶ δυναμένου λαλεῖν “I would rather sup on membrades with somebody who could speak Attic Greek”; Macho fr. 5.35–6 Gow. For a comparison of μεμβραδοπῶλαι and μελιτοπῶλαι, cf. Antiph. fr. 123 (the latter are humorously imagined as claiming that they sell honey staler than the fishmongers’ anchovies): πωλοῦσι τὸ μέλι σαπρότερον τῶν μεμβράδων. See Arnott 1996, 578; Pellegrino 2006, 63. For an allusive comic association of μεμβράδαι, as a cheap fish, with political options cf. Ar. V. 493–5.

111

Ἥρωες (Hērōes) (“The Heroes”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 598–9; Kock II (1884) 457; Coppola 1927, 461–2; Bevilacqua 1939, 57; Edmonds II (1959) 611; PCG VII (1989) 764–6; Nesselrath 1997, 275–6. Title Plays with the title Ἥρωες were written by Chionides, Crates, Aristophanes and Philemo. Diphilus and Menander wrote Ἥρως, Epigenes Ἡρωίνη. Other titles in Timocles’ surviving corpus of works also employ the plural, such as Αἰγύπτιοι, Δημοσάτυροι, Διονυσιάζουσαι, Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι, Καύνιοι, Ψευδολῃσταί, Μαραθώνιοι. They thus resemble titles of Old Comedy and might indicate a Chorus (but see below, under “Content”). An ancient definition of the word ἥρως is provided by Luc. DMort. 10.2. Menippus questions Trophonius: ἀλλὰ πρὸς τῆς μαντικῆς, τί δαὶ ὁ ἥρως ἐστίν; ἀγνοῶ γάρ “but in the name of prophecy, what is a hero? Because I do not know”. 108 Trophonius’ answer ἐξ ἀνθρώπου τι καὶ θεοῦ σύνθετον, “some kind of compound of both human and god”, suggests a classification of ἥρως between men and gods. This classification occurs in fifth-century literature (e. g. in the context of homicide law, cf. Antipho 1.27 οὔτε θεούς, οὔθ’ ἥρωας οὔτ’ἀνθρώπους αἰσχυνθεῖσα “with no respect for gods or heroes or humans”) and also in fourth-century comedy. It is noteworthy that the same triadic model survives in Timocles’ comedy: cf. fr. 8 (from Drakontion) τίς δ’ οὐχὶ θνητῶν; ἢ τίς ἥρως ἢ θεὸς ἀποδοκιμάζει τὴν τοιαύτην διατριβήν; Ἥρωες are usually described as mortals with exceptional or even supernatural abilities. Three basic categories can be distinguished: a. Men of the Heroic Age, in particular the leaders of the Trojan War, e. g. Hom. Il. 2.110 ἥρωες Δαναοί; 19.34 ἥρωας Ἀχαιούς; Od. 7.44 ἡρώων ἀγοράς (of the Phaeacians); 8.483 ἥρῳ Δημοδόκῳ; cf. also the Fourth Age of men, between δαίμονες and ἄνθρωποι (Hes. Op. 172). b. Local deities, founders of cities and patrons of tribes, who became objects of worship, e. g. Th. 4.87.2 θεοὺς καὶ ἥρως τοὺς ἐγχωρίους; in Athens, in particular, there were ἐπώνυμοι ἥρωες, after whom the tribes were named; cf. Ηdt. 5.66 ἐπωνυμίας ἐπιχωρίων ἡρώων; D. 60.27–31, where the orator of the funeral speech names the ten Athenian eponymous heroes and the corresponding tribes; Paus. 1.5.1. c. Historical figures who were given divine honours after death (i. e. annual sacrifices), due to their exceptional achievements, like Brasidas, who was honored by the Amphipolitans as a hero after his death (Th. 5.11.1); cf. Hdt. 5.114; 7.117; D.S. 4.14.109

108 109

Cf. Nock 1944, 162: “Τhe heroes are highly disparate”; Nilson, 1967, 185: “ein sehr bunte und gemischte Gesellschaft”; see Κearns, 1989, 1–9. For the worship of heroes see Ekroth 2007, 100–14.

112

Timokles

Sometimes dead heroes are invoked by men as benevolent spirits, which can protect oaths and institutions, or aid in battle (e. g. [D.] Ep. 2.16). In comedy, however, their disposition towards mankind is often rather ambivalent. This is indicated in the best surviving example amongst the plays by this title: Aristophanes’ Heroes (frr. 310–330). In fr. 322 (Pap. Mich. Inv. 3690) a Chorus of heroes speak of their intervention in earthly affairs, probably in the Parabasis (so Merkelbach 1967, 161–2), and define themselves as “the custodians of evil and good” (ταμίαι τῶν κακῶν καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν).110 The “hero” par excellence in Aristophanes is Lamachus, who is portrayed as a miles gloriosus (Ach. 572–625) and as a revenger of wrongdoers; cf. the exclamation ὦ Λάμαχ’ ἥρως (Ach. 575; Ra. 1039). The use of the term “hero” is obviously ironic: the boastful general, who wears impressive armour, is sarcastically compared with an almost supernatural being or a demigod; see Olson 2002, 223. In Wasps, the hero Lycus is comically said to listen to trials taking place in the law-court close to his shrine (τὸ ἐπὶ Λύκῳ), sharing the same near-sadistic pleasure as the trial-addicted Philocleon: 389–90 ὦ Λύκε δέσποτα, γείτων ἥρως (σὺ γὰρ οἷσπερ ἐγὼ κεχάρησαι, / τοῖς δακρύοισιν τῶν φευγόντων ἀεὶ καὶ τοῖς ὀλοφυρμοῖς) “O lord Lycus, neighbour and hero (for you delight, just as I do, at the tears and lamentations of the defendants”. Heroes are also vindictive spirits or powers, with a bad influence on mankind: cf. Schol. Ar. Av. 1490b and Dunbar 1998, 472, where the hero Orestes causes an apoplectic stroke in passersby whom he meets in the streets: εἰ γὰρ ἐντύχοι τις ἥρῳ / τῶν βροτῶν νύκτωρ Ὀρέστῃ, / γυμνὸς ἦν πληγεὶς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ / πάντα τἀπὶ δεξιά “Should any mortal happen to meet the hero Orestes at night, he would soon be stripped naked by him and beaten up all over”; Men. fr. 348 οἱ γὰρ ἥρωες κακοῦν ἕτοιμοι (ἢ add. A) μᾶλλον ἢ εὐεργετεῖν (ὠφελεῖν Zen. Ath. L); Hp. Morb. Sacr. 1, where nightmares are imputed to heroes (ἡρώων ἐφόδους). Content The surviving fragments contain political satire and descriptions of the sympotic environment. Furthermore, here mythological figures are used as a vehicle for political satire. From this point of view, Heroes is a true representative sample of Timocles’ work. More specifically, frr. 12 and 14 contain references to two contemporary politicians, Demosthenes and Aristomedes respectively. In the first (fr. 12), Demosthenes, a prominent member of the anti-Macedonian party, is described as Briareos, who swallows spears and catapults and has a fierce fighting look.111 In fr. 14 Demosthenes’ attack on the corrupt politician Aristomedes is perhaps parodied. Aristomedes was also satirized in fr. 19 as a notorious thief. Fr. 13 contains parody of dithyrambic style, a typical feature of Middle Comedy. Α possible scenario is one in which dead politicians of past generations appear on stage as heroes, criticizing present leaders. Note that Timocles’ comedies 110

111

Kearns, 1989, 10 notes that “since these heroes are also stewards of ‘good things’, they may conversely send benefits to those who behave well, though this is not stated in the fragment we possess”. Demosthenes is also described as a corrupt politician in fr. 4 (Delos).

Ἥρωες

113

contain much satire against Athenian politicians, and that two out of three surviving fragments of the play involve political satire. For the stage appearance of legendary Athenian politicians as heroes cf. Eupolis’ Demes, where dead statesmen of previous generations (Miltiades, Aristides, Solon and Pericles) return from the Underworld to restore law and order to Athenian politics; see Storey 2003, 133; Olson 2017, 295–310. In Cratinus’ Cheirones, fr. 246, Solon returns from the Underworld and demonstrates that people do not keep his laws, in either private or public life; see Bakola 2010, 54–5. If heroes were represented as dead (spirits), at least some scenes might take place in the Underworld. This scenario finds some support in fr. 14, which possibly alludes to a katabasis of Hermes; cf. below, under “Interpretation” and on fr. 14. Furthermore, while enigmatic or riddle-scenes usually fulfill a peripheral function and frequently bring the action to a standstill (cf. Nesselrath 1990, 264; Konstantakos 2000, 150), an example such as fr. 13 might have a real integral connection with the plot. More specifically, a trapeza (table) was often used, along with a klinē (bed) in the context of sacrifices to minor divinities, especially heroes. It was a type of theoxenia, where the hero was supposedly invited to participate as an honoured guest.112 Significantly, D. L. 8.34 alludes to a similar participation of heroes in a passage from Ar. Heroes: Ἀριστοφάνης δὲ τῶν ἡρώων φησὶν εἶναι τὰ πίπτοντα, λέγων ἐν τοῖς Ἥρωσι ‘μηδὲ γεύεσθαι ἅττ’ ἂν ἐντὸς τῆς τραπέζης καταπέσῃ’ “Aristophanes says that what falls belongs to the heroes [it follows Ar. fr. 320] nor should one taste of anything that falls under the table”.113 Alternatively, eminent contemporary orators and politicians may have been ironically represented on stage as ‘heroes’.114 Demosthenes’ description, indeed, is similar to the archetype of the miles gloriosus Lamachus, who is repeatedly called hērōs sarcastically in Ar. Ach. 575. It is noteworthy that in 425 BC, when Acharnians was performed, Lamachus was at the height of his career, much like Demosthenes in 341 BC.115 Both Lamachus and Demosthenes / Briareos are described as typically bellicose and terrifying characters. Demosthenes’ fighting stare (Ἄρη βλέπων) is similar to Ach. 566 Ἰὼ Λάμαχ’, ὦ βλέπων ἀστραπάς. Another typical characteristic of heroes is their wrathful temper; cf. Schol. Ar. Av. 1407, οἱ ἥρωες δὲ δυσόργητοι καὶ χαλεποὶ τοῖς ἐμπελάζουσι γίνονται “the heroes become quick to anger and are harsh towards those who approach them”. Βoth Lamachus and Demosthenes are described as irascible characters. Lamachus’ description as a hero is not only

112 113

114 115

See Ekroth 2002, 137–9. For a connection of a riddle-scene with the comic plot cf. Alex. fr. 242, where a riddle concerning sleep is included in a play called Hypnos; cf. also Antiph. fr. 75, with Konstantakos 2000, 150. Cf. Kock 1884, 457: “fortasse Heroes dicit viros tum in administranda republica primarios”; Coppola 1927, 461–2. Lamachus is also called hērōs in Ar. Ra. 1039, when he was dead.

114

Timokles

due to his appearance, but mainly to his angry disposition against wrongdoers.116 Similarly, Demosthenes is described as habitually becoming angry with a character who participates in the dialogue in fr. 12; this character may reasonably represent a political opponent of Demosthenes. One would, therefore, suspect that Timocles connected contemporary politicians with mythical figures in his play (Briareos and Demosthenes are paralleled for their warlike appearance; the notorious thief Aristomedes is associated with Hermes, the patron of thieves). The poet might also have used comparable images and wordplay for other political figures, like those employed in Icarian Satyrs (Tereus / Aristomedes, Marsyas / Autocles). He may also have constructed hybrid names which would connect a contemporary politician with a hero, such as Orestautocleides. Besides, in the Heroes it is possible to trace some hints of Demosthenes’ hypokrisis. Timocles takes up recognizable rhetorical and theatrical effects of contemporary oratory, transferring them from the oratorical podium to the stage and parodying them. This parody is combined and infused with the sympotic environment typical of Middle Comedy, which may contain riddles (fr. 13) as well as wordplay (fr. 12). While plural titles in Aristophanic comedy always, so far as we can see, indicate a Chorus, in fourth-century comedy a plural title such as Hērōes may or may not suggest a Chorus. Aristophanes’ Hērōes appear indeed to have been named after their Chorus, whose members were perhaps separately identified (cf. fr. 311 with Henderson 2007, 257; Eupolis’ Poleis frr. 245–7; Ar. Birds 267–304). In the fourth century the choral elements are restricted, but the Chorus occasionally enters into dialogue with the actors.117 In Timocles, in particular, titles in the plural are attested; see above under “Title”. However, the only fragment in Timocles in which the existence of a Chorus has been suggested is fr. 27 from Orestautocleides. But this suggestion does not seem very convincing; cf. on the commentary of that play, under “Interpretation”. In short, we cannot know either whether heroes formed the Chorus of the comedy, or whether this Chorus played any part in the plot. Date Fr. 12 includes a clear reference to the ‘Halonnesus Debate’, held in Athens in 342 BC. Fr. 14 seems to allude to Demosthenes’ attack on Aristomedes in the Fourth Philippic, a speech most probably delivered early in 342, since it states that the Athenians had not intervened at Oreos against Philip (Athenian forces finally liberated Oreos at the end of 342 BC; see Hajdu 2002, 40; MacDowell 2009, 354). This is, therefore, a terminus post quem. Bevilacqua 1939, 57 believes that the entire fr. 12 with its warlike expressions (ὁ τοὺς καταπάλτας ἐσθίων and Ἄρη βλέπων) fits well with “l’influenza dell’energica violenza che infiamma la Terza Filippica”, and dates the play to 340 BC. It is reasonable to assume that the mockery against Demosthenes and Aristomedes in this play is compatible with the events and the 116 117

Cf. Olson 2002, 223. See Hunter 1979, 23–8; Rothwell 1995, 99–118; Konstantakos 2011, 175–82 with further bibliography.

Ἥρωες (fr. 12)

115

political ambiance of early 341 BC, and I would therefore date Heroes in the spring of this year, shortly after the delivery of the Fourth Philippic.118

fr. 12 K.-A. (12 K.)

5

οὐκοῦν κελεύεις νῦν με πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ προσόντα φράζειν. (Β.) πάνυ γε. (Α.) δράσω τοῦτό σοι. καὶ πρῶτα μέν σοι παύσεται Δημοσθένης ὀργιζόμενος. (Β.) ὁ ποῖος; (Α.) †ὁ Βριάρεως, ὁ τοὺς καταπάλτας τάς τε λόγχας ἐσθίων, μισῶν λόγους ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲ πώποτε ἀντίθετον εἰπὼν οὐδέν, ἀλλ’ Ἄρη βλέπων

1 με Elmsley : μετὰ Α 3 καὶ om. CE 4 ὁ ποῖος; :: ὁ ποῖος; ὁ Meineke: ὁ ποῖος, :: ὁποῖος; ὁ Dobree 5 καταπάλτας Herwerden: -πέλτας ΑCE 7 βλέπων ΑΕ: κλέπτων C (sic punctis supra λ positis)

5

(Α). I see what you mean; you ask me to tell anything except what is appropriate. (B.) Just the thing! (A). I will do it for your sake. This is the first: Demosthenes will stop being angry with you. (B). Who is Demosthenes? (A) Briareos, who swallows catapults and spears, this hater of discourse, who never used a single antithesis in his speech but has a martial stare

Ath. 6.223d ἀποδίδομέν σοι τὰ τῶν δειπνοσοφιστῶν λείψανα καὶ οὐ δίδομεν, ὡς ὁ Κοθωκίδης φησὶ ῥήτωρ Δημοσθένην χλευάζων, ὃς Φιλίππου Ἀθηναίοις Ἁλόννησον διδόντος συνεβούλευε μὴ λαμβάνειν, εἰ δίδωσιν ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀποδίδωσιν. ὅπερ Ἀντιφάνης ἐν Νεοττίδι παιδιὰν θέμενος ἐρεσχηλεῖ τόνδε τὸν τρόπον· (fr. 167) … Ἄλεξις δὲ ἐν Στρατιώτῃ· (fr. 212) … καὶ ἐν Ἀδελφοῖς (fr. 7) … Ἀναξίλας δὲ ἐν Εὐανδρίᾳ (fr. 8) …Τιμοκλῆς δ’ ἐν Ἥρωσιν (Τ. πού φησι CE, om. v. 1–2) · οὐκοῦν – βλέπων We are giving back the leftovers of the deipnosophists to you, and not simply giving them to you, as the orator from Cothoce says, deriding Demosthenes, who when Philip was offering Halonnesus to the Athenians, advised them not to accept it if Philip was simply giving it to them rather than giving it back. Antiphanes in The Nestling jocularly discusses in this manner (fr. 167); also Alexis in The Brothers (fr. 7); Anaxilas in Manliness (fr. 8); and Timocles in Heroes: I see-martial stare

118

Arnott 1996, 70–1 dates all the plays in which the Halonnesus slogan was ridiculed “to 342 or very shortly afterwards”. Cf. also Edmonds 1959, 611 and Nesselrath 1997, 275–6, who does not rule out 340. Webster 1952, 20 dates the play to 340 or soon after, on the grounds that Aristomedes is called καλός, which would mean that he is still young.

116

Timokles

Metre Iambic trimeter

5

llwl l|lw|l wlwl wwlwl l|wwwl llwl llwl l|lwl llwl llwww w|l†† wwwwl wlwwl l|lwl llwl wlwl llw|l wlwl lwwwl l|lw|l llwl

Discussion Casaubon 1612, 249; Schweighäuser 1802, 279; Meineke III (1840) 507–8; Kock II (1884) 457; Breitenbach 1908, 36–7; Bevilacqua 1939, 57; Edmonds II (1959) 612–3; PCG VII (1989) 764–5; Apostolakis 2014, 106–110. Citation context Athenaeus cites the fragment in a convivial context, where the reference to the slogan δοῦναι - ἀποδοῦναι appears as a sympotic reciprocal offer to his dinner companion Timocrates.119 The original circumstances, however, were eminently political and may also be indicative of Timocles’ inclination to political satire. He is the only poet who exploits this emblematic formulation in a political context, parodying Demosthenes’ bellicose rhetoric. On the contrary, the other poets allude to this slogan in non political contexts; cf. Alex. fr. 7; Anaxil. fr. 8; Antiph. fr. 167.120 Text 1–2 οὐκοῦν- φράζειν οὐκοῦν occurs very often in Plato (only in dialogue, never in continuous speech), Xenophon and drama, and is suited to intellectual discussion. The boundary between οὐκοῦν questions and οὐκοῦν statements is difficult to fix; there is certainly a tinge of interrogation even in οὐκοῦν statements; cf. Denniston 1934, 433. Cobet 1847, 64 inserts the question mark after φράζειν, but this is not quite compatible with the affirmative πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ. 4 ὁ ποῖος; Βριάρεως is unmetrical and therefore corrupt. Elmsley’s correction of the paradosis ὁ ποῖος ὁ into ὁ ποῖος οὗτος demands the correction of the transmitted Δημοσθένης into σοι Βριάρεως in line 3; cf. Ar. Th. 29–30 Ἀγάθων… ποῖος οὗτος Ἁγάθων; Pherecr. fr. 155. 19–21 ὁ δὲ Τιμόθεος… ποῖος οὑτοσὶ ὁ Τιμόθεος; But this is unnecessary; cf. E. IT 1318–20 Ἀγ. σώιζουσ’ Ὀρέστην … / Θο. τὸν ποῖον; ἆρ’ ὃν Τυνδαρὶς τίκτει κόρη; / Αγ. ὃν τοῖσδε βωμοῖς θεὰ καθωσιώσατο. Slightly better is Dobree’s ὁ ποῖος:: ὁποῖος;, adopted by Meineke and printed by Pickard-Cambridge 1900, 102. Dindorf ’s βριαρὸς or Meineke’s βριαρεὺς are not necessary. It is typical of Timocles to associate politicians with mythological fi-

119 120

Cf. Eust. in Od. p. 1434.62 τοῖς μέντοι κωμικοῖς οἷα ἐχορήγησε παίγνια τὸ Δημοσθενικὸν ἀποδοῦναι, ἱστορεῖ σὺν ἑτέροις καὶ ὁ Ἀθήναιος. See Konstantakos 2000, 140–4. Timocles also seems to parody this quip in another non-political context in Καύνιοι, with reference to the parasite Tithymallus (fr. 20 οὐκ ἀπεκαρτέρησε γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, ἀλλ΄ ἐκαρτέρησ’ ὦ φίλτατε, πεινῶν).

Ἥρωες (fr. 12)

117

gures, even to call them by mythological names; cf. Marsyas / Autocles (fr. 19), Tereus / Aristomedes (fr. 19). Olson 2008a, 11, in translating ‘the son of Briareos’, obviously adopts the text ‘ὁ Βριάρεω’ (genitive). This could be right, if this particular orator is compared in some way but not identified with the giant. In my opinion, the passage remains a locus desperatus. 5 καταπάλτας Τhis is Herwerden’s (1891, 207) correction of the transmitted καταπέλτας. Τhe καταπαλτ- form is the fourth-century spelling; cf. Meisterhans– Schwyzer 1900, 14–5 with n. 64; Rhodes 1981, on Ath. Pol. 42.3. Interpretation The fragment includes a dialogue between two characters. The two interlocutors are here participating in a peculiar game whose basic premise is to describe a subject (here a person), using qualities which are the very opposite of those it actually possesses. Such games sometimes occur in the prologues of comedies, in order to catch the audience’s attention; e. g. in Aristophanes’ Knights 19–29, where two slaves play with the word αὐτομολεῖν, and Wasps 73–88, where the slaves ask the audience questions about the supposed illness of their old master. In our context, interlocutor B has probably instructed A about the rules of the game in the previous verses (cf. v. 1 κελεύεις). Demosthenes, the famous Athenian orator and statesman of the fourth century, is certainly the person in this fragment. He was by far the most famous Demosthenes in those days (see below, on fr. 12.3). Moreover, he is a favorite target of Timocles (see Delos fr. 4, where he is described as a corrupt demagogue), as a leader of the anti-Macedonian party. The interlocutor (B) might be an opponent of Demosthenes (perhaps Aeschines, who opposed Demosthenes’ warlike policy, cf. σοι παύσεται Δ. ὀργιζόμενος). The interlocutor (A) describes Demosthenes as a bellicose Briareos. It seems that this name, which derives from βριαρός (strong; see LSJ s. v.) bears the connotation of a terrifying fighter; cf. the Lamachus of the Acharnians, an archetypal miles gloriosus, whose name derives from the intensifying prefix –λα and μάχη (see Ar. Ach. 269–70 πραγμάτων τε καὶ μαχῶν καὶ Λαμάχων ἀπαλλαγείς with Olson, 2002, 150).121 The game played by the two characters entails the ironical device classified in some rhetorical handbooks as κατ’ ἀντίφρασιν (Quint. Inst. or. 9.2.47).122 Demosthenes is here described as a warlike giant (Βριάρεως), who hates speech (μισόλογος) and rhetorical antitheses. But in the context of the ironical game, the spectator is invited to replace the elements of the description with their opposites, in order to arrive at the true qualities of the orator. Demosthenes, then, this fervent champion of war, is in fact a false Briareos, a battle-dodger, a coward and a 121 122

Edmonds’ (1959, 610–11) suggestion that by the hundred-handed giant Briareos Timocles is alluding to bribes accepted by Demosthenes is completely arbitrary. Cf. Anaximenes, Rh. Al. 21 εἰρωνεία δέ ἐστι … ἐν τοῖς ἐναντίοις ὀνόμασι τὰ πράγματα προσαγορεύειν. See Anderson 2000, 23, s. v. ἀντίφρασις. Cf. also in this comedy one more word-game, of a kind typical of Middle Comedy, in fr. 13, where a trapeza is described with successive periphrasis.

118

Timokles

braggart miles gloriosus, who exhausts his combative spirit by uttering warlike cries against the Macedonian king.123 On Demosthenes’ description as a miles gloriosus, see above, under “Context”; cf. also plays with the title Στρατιώτης written by Antiphanes, Alexis, Xenarchos, Philemon and Diphilus.124 This particular fragment recalls a scene by Mnesimachus, another Middle Comedy playwright, in which a character boasts of his tough military training by claiming that he eats sharpened swords for dinner, swallows live firebrands, chews shattered javelin fragments and wears catapults as garlands: fr. 7 (from Philippos) ἆρ’ οἶσθ’ ὁτιὴ πρὸς ἄνδρας ἐστί σοι μάχη, / οἳ τὰ ξίφη δειπνοῦμεν ἠκονημένα, / ὄψον δὲ δᾷδας ἡμμένας καταπίνομεν; / ἐντεῦθεν εὐθὺς ἐπιφέρει τραγήματα / ἡμῖν ὁ παῖς μετὰ δεῖπνον ἀκίδας Κρητικάς, / ὥσπερ ἐρεβίνθους, δορατίων τε λείψανα / κατεαγότ’, ἀσπίδας δὲ προσκεφάλαια καὶ / θώρακας ἔχομεν, πρὸς ποδῶν δὲ σφενδόνας / καὶ τόξα, καταπέλταισι δ’ ἐστεφανώμεθα. According to Meineke, the character speaking is Philip.125 If this is true, Timocles takes up Mnesimachus’ satirical portrait of Philip and ironically inverts it by applying it to Philip’s greatest Athenian detractor, Demosthenes. But it seems better to follow Breitenbach’s opinion that the words are spoken by Demosthenes himself, who boasts on stage that he eats Philip’s military equipment as an appetizer, including his characteristic catapults.126 This explanation is, I think, corroborated by the expression “this (i. e. well-known) warlike Demosthenes”, an expression which recalls the equivalent scene in Mnesimachus’ play. Timocles’ satire also has something of the flavor of Old Comedy, bringing to mind a fragment by Hermippus in which warlike rhetoric is ascribed to Pericles. The latter is accused of posing as an advocate of war against the Peloponnesians, though in fact he was a proverbial coward who avoided battle: fr. 47 βασιλεῦ σατύρων, τί ποτ’ οὐκ ἐθέλεις / δόρυ βαστάζειν, ἀλλὰ λόγους μὲν περὶ τοῦ πολέμου δεινοὺς παρέχεις, / ψυχὴ δὲ Τέλητος ὕπεστιν; “King of the satyrs, why do you not want / to carry a spear, but give us powerful speeches about the war, / while you have the soul of Teles”.127 The expression ἀντίθετον εἰπὼν οὐδὲν is a transparent allusion to the Halonnesus Debate and the corresponding rhetoric, mainly launched by Demosthenes. 123

124 125 126 127

According to Plutarch (Dem. 9.5), a comic poet called Demosthenes ῥωποπερπερήθραν (“empty braggart talk”). See Webster 1970, 45, n. 3, who notes that this peculiar word is “in Timocles’ manner”. See Konstantakos 2000, 211–4; Papachrysostomou 2008, 210–11. See also Webster 1970, 45; Coppola 1929, 454; and recently Konstantakos 2011, 167–8. Breitenbach 1908, 36–7; see also Papachrysostomou 2008, 210–16. Hermippus’ fr. has sometimes been considered as an intertextual comment on Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros (see the Hypothesis to that play, vv. 31–33, and fr. 45), where Dionysus (Pericles’ persona) is transformed into a ram, in order to save his skin during the Achaean invasion; but cf. Commentale 2017, 186–7; see below on Ikarioi Satyroi, “Content”. For a similar description of Pericles’ rhetoric cf. Cratin. fr. 300: πάλαι γὰρ αὐτὸ / λόγοισι προάγει Περικλέης, ἔργοισι δ᾿ οὐδὲ κινεῖ; Eup. fr. 102; com. adesp. fr. 701.

Ἥρωες (fr. 12)

119

More specifically, Halonnesos was a small island formerly belonging to Athens, that had been overrun by pirates. In 342 BC Philip expelled the pirates and offered to give the island to the Athenians, in a possible attempt to dispel the discontent arising from the terms of the peace of Philocrates achieved a few years earlier (346 BC). It would seem that Philip’s offer was announced in a letter delivered to the Assembly by his envoys. In the ensuing discussion, Demosthenes rejected the offer as hypocritical, claiming instead that Philip should not give (δοῦναι) the island but return it (ἀποδοῦναι), since it belonged to Athens de jure. It is quite possible that this rhetorical invention, formulated in a rhetorical figure known as epanorthōsis (see on v. 7), became a slogan among anti-Macedonian orators, but Demosthenes was obviously credited with coining it.128 Though the dispute was primarily a matter of prestige, it certainly did have a political dimension to it, since satisfaction of Demosthenes’ demand could have triggered similar claims over territories that previously belonged to Athens (most notably Amphipolis), leading to a Macedonian defeat in the political arena.129 As one would expect, Demosthenes’ provocatively couched demand was ideal fodder for contemporary satire. However, this passage does not seem to exhaust its satirical vigor in this particular matter. Specifically, this fragment is a satirical comment not only on the content of Demosthenes’ rhetoric, but also on his performance (hypokrisis): a crucial parameter of this consists in the eyes, in the sense that they reveal the orator’s feelings.130 According to v. 7, Demosthenes’ warlike and passionate rhetoric matches his martial stare (Ἄρη βλέπων). This supposedly warlike face is indeed suitable for theatrical effect, and may have been portrayed by the mask of Lamachus in Aristophanes’ Acharnians (v. 566 ἀστραπήν βλέπων, “whose eyes flash lightning”; cf. Ar. Av. 1169 πυρρίχην βλέπων “he has a fighting look”). It is also possible that this description in Timocles’ fr. prepares the appearance of Demosthenes (possibly as Briareos) on stage, since the question ὁ ποῖος sometimes precedes the entrance of a new character; cf. Th. 29–30 Ἀγάθων… ποῖος οὗτος Ἁγάθων; Cf. also Ephipp. fr. 2 (from Boύσιρις), where Heracles boasts of his courage in battle, but his interlocutor does not believe him: Ἡρ. οὐκ οἶσθά μ’ ὄντα πρὸς θεῶν Τιρύνθιον / Ἀργεῖον; οἳ μεθύοντες ἀεὶ τὰς μάχας / πάσας μάχονται; Β. τοιγαροῦν φεύγουσ’ ἀεί “Her. By the gods, don’t you know that I am a Tirynthian Argive? That race always fights battles while drunk. B. That’s why they always run away”. 128

129

130

Cf.[D.] 7.6–7 ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνό γε λανθάνει αὐτόν, ὅτι δι’ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ὀνομάτων, ὁποτέρῳ ἂν χρῆσθε, ὑμεῖς ἕξετε τὴν νῆσον, ἄν τε λάβητε ἄν τ’ ἀπολάβητε. τί οὖν αὐτῷ διαφέρει, μὴ τῷ δικαίῳ ὀνόματι χρησάμενον ἀποδοῦναι ὑμῖν, ἀλλὰ δωρεὰν δεδωκέναι, τῷ ἀδίκῳ; Aeschin. 3.83; Plu. Dem. 9.6; D. 18.69 with Wankel 1976, ad loc. On the Halonnesus affair cf. [D.] 7 On Halonnesus, a speech almost certainly delivered by Hegesippus, an anti-Macedonian orator and political ally of Demosthenes; the speech is dated in 343/2 BC; see Trevett 2011, 113–6. Cic. De Or. 3.222 oculi sunt, quorum tum intentione, tum remissione, tum coniectu, tum hilaritate motus animorum significemus apte cum genere ipso orationis.

120

Timokles

1 οὐκοῦν κελεύεις For similar constructions cf. Pl. Grg. 462a Σωκ. Οὐκοῦν καὶ σὺ κελεύεις… ; Πῶλ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν; cf. Luc. Cont. 12; see above, under “Text”. 2 πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ Τypical in contexts where something quite contrary to what is appropriate is said or done; cf. Isae. 11.6 ἀλλ’ ἀποκρίνεται πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ ὃ δεῖ μαθεῖν ὑμᾶς; Philem. fr. 74.5 πλέκουσι πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ τί τἀγαθόν. D. L. 2.118 ὡς πάντα μᾶλλον φθέγξῃ ἢ ἃ δεῖ; Com. adesp. fr. 357 πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ σαυτὸν προοῦ; D. 21.179 πάντα μᾶλλον πλὴν αὐτὸς ἅψασθαι τῇ χειρί; Herod. 5.24 πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ δεῦντα (with Headlam 1922 ad loc.). τὰ προσόντα Possibly a parody of a rhetorical exercise derived from epideictic oratory. The orator sets out both the virtues that suit the eulogized persons and the shortcomings they have avoided. Cf. Gorg. fr. 6 D–K τί γὰρ ἀπῆν τοῖς ἀνδράσι τούτοις ὧν δεῖ ἀνδράσι προσεῖναι; τί δὲ καὶ προσῆν ὧν οὐ δεῖ προσεῖναι; “for what attributes appropriate to men were these men devoid of? and what did they possess which they should not?”; Pl. Mx. 235a, οἳ οὕτως καλῶς ἐπαινοῦσιν, ὥστε καὶ τὰ προσόντα καὶ τὰ μὴ περὶ ἑκάστου λέγοντες … γοητεύουσιν ἡμῶν τὰς ψυχάς “they proclaim so successfully each man’s virtues, whether he had them or not, … that they bewitch our souls”; Isoc. 11.4 δεῖ τοὺς μὲν εὐλογεῖν τινὰς βουλομένους πλείω τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἀγαθῶν αὐτοῖς προσόντ’ ἀποφαίνειν, τοὺς δὲ κατηγοροῦντας τἀναντία τούτων ποιεῖν “everyone knows that those who want to eulogize people must point out more good attributes than they actually possess, and those who want to prosecute them must do the opposite”; 12.85; Anaximen. Rh. Al. 3.1 συλλήβδην μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἐγκωμιαστικὸν εἶδος προαιρέσεων καὶ πράξεων καὶ λόγων οἰκείωσις καὶ μὴ προσόντων συνοικείωσις; Tsitsirides 1998, 146–7. Here, in the context of the game of irony, the προσόντα (“quae ad rem proxime pertinent”, Schweighäuser 1802, 279) should be excluded, and only τὰ μὴ προσόντα included. πάνυ γε It often occurs in Aristophanes; cf. Ach. 360; Eq. 23, 971; V. 521; Ec. 760. For the noteworthy split anapaest w|w|l cf. Ar. Av. 1226 (with Dunbar 1998 ad loc.) ἄρχομεν, ὑμεῖς δ’ lww|l; Eub. fr. 6.9 ἀκροκώλιόν τε γεννικόν, ὀπτά δελφάκι’ (but the text is problematic and Kassel-Austin put a crux γεννικόν, †ὀπτὰ; see Hunter 1983 ad loc.). Cf. also Ar. Ach. 107, Th. 637, but in none of these is there a sense-pause, as after πάνυ γε; see Arnott 1957, 192. δράσω τοῦτό σοι For δράσω τοῦτο / τάδε as a response to a command in comedy cf. Ar. Nu. 436 δράσω ταῦθ’ ὑμῖν πιστεύσας· V. 380–5 δράσω τοίνυν ὑμῖν πίσυνος; Pax 428 ταῦτα δράσομεν; Av. 863 δράσω τάδε; Lys. 1028. Also in tragedy: E. Med. 927; Hipp. 1088; Cycl. 163. The Latin equivalent is also common in Plautus’ comedy; cf. Amph. 540 faciam ita ut vis; As. 367–9 faciam ut jubes; Men. 1152 faciam ut tu voles. For this type of answer see Fraenkel 1962, 81–3. 3 καὶ πρῶτα μὲν This expression, which mainly occurs in speeches (e. g. S. Ph. 1418; E. IT 1060) is usually followed by ἔπειτα (δέ) (e. g. E. Alc. 751–3) and may imply a sequence of topics. In the frame of this peculiar game a reference to another orator or politician might be included; cf. fr. 14 and the satire of Aristomedes.

Ἥρωες (fr. 12)

121

Δημοσθένης Δημοσθένης (ΙΙ) Δημοσθένους (Ι) Παιανιεύς (cf. on fr. 4.1) is certainly the person satirized here. He was by far the most eminent orator of the anti-Macedonian party.131 Besides, he was a favorite target of Timocles, along with Hyperides and other anti-Macedonian orators, in fr. 4 from Dēlos. 4 ὀργιζόμενος The verb describes Demosthenes’ inflammatory rhetoric against his political opponents, Aeschines in particular. His intense utterance and passionate rhetoric has been compared to a thunderbolt or flash of lightning ([Longin.] 12.4; 27.2). Cf. also the description of Demosthenes’ attempt to arouse the jury’s anger against Aeschines for supposed bribery in Aeschin. 2.3. ἀλλ’ οἶμαι Δημοσθένης … τὴν ὑμετέραν ὀργὴν ἐκκαλέσασθαι βεβούληται. For a possible association of the ‘angry Demosthenes’ with the title of the play, cf. Schol. Ar. Av. 1490 (cited above, under “Content”), where the heroes are described as “quick to anger” (δυσόργητοι). 4 ὁ ποῖος; With this question the speaker gives his interlocutor the opportunity to describe Demosthenes as a bellicose orator. This type of lively question is common in comedy; cf. Ar. Ach. 963 (with Olson 2002 ad loc.) ὁ ποῖος οὗτος Λάμαχος; Th. 30–33 ποῖος οὗτος Ἀγάθων; Pherecr. fr. 145.20 ποῖος οὑτοσὶ ὁ Τιμόθεος; see Headlam 1922, on Herod. 6.48 with more examples; Stevens 1937, 185–6. For the emphatic type with article (ὁ ποῖος) cf. Kyriakou 2006, on E. IT 1319–20; Mastronarde 1994, on E. Ph. 1704. Cf. above, under “Text”. (A.)+ὁ Βριάρεως Briareos was a giant with a hundred arms and fifty heads. He was born of Ouranos and Gaia. It is said that this was his divine name, the human one being Aigaion; cf. Hes. Th. 147–9; West 1966, 210; Gantz 1996, 44–5. His name probably derives from βριαρός “strong”. It is also said that when Hera, Poseidon and Athena attempted to dethrone Zeus, Briareos assisted his father by ascending to the heavens, sitting beside him and terrifying the conspirators by means of his terrifying look (Hom. Il. 1.404–7). It seems, therefore, that in describing Demosthenes as Briareos, the speaker emphasizes Demosthenes’ supposedly warlike rhetoric and the influence it had on the audience. For a fake Briareos as a metonymic description of a braggart soldier, cf. Posidipp. fr. 28.7–9 ξεναγὸς οὗτος ὅστις ἂν θώρακ’ ἔχῃ / φολιδωτὸν ἢ δράκοντα σεσιδηρωμένον, / ἐφάνη Βριάρεως, ἂν τύχῃ δ’ ἐστὶν λαγώς “he is the commander of mercenaries who wears a breastplate of mail or with a serpent in iron, he seems like Briareos, but he may be a hare”. Τhe expression seems to have the color of a proverb; see Apostol. 9.98 Κόττου ἰσχυρότερος καὶ Βριάρεω: φασὶ περὶ τούτων ὡς ἔσχον ἑκατὸν χεῖρας ἄνδρες ὄντες. Cf. also the braggart soldier compared to Achilles (Plaut. MG 61–2, 1054; Luc. DMeretr. 13.3), Heracles (Ephipp. fr. 17.2, Ter. Eun. 1027–8) and Mars (Plaut. MG 11–12, Truc. 515); see Konstantakos 2000, 213. According to Aeschines (1.131), Demosthenes was also nicknamed Batalos, due to his effeminacy and lewdness.

131

In LGPN II there are 72 more entries by this name, but none is known to bear any relationship to the characteristics attributed to the Demosthenes of Timocles’ fragment.

122

Timokles

5–7 ὁ ἐσθίων … μισῶν … οὐδεπώποτε εἰπών … ἀλλ’ Ἄρη βλέπων For the description of a terrifying character with accumulation of characteristics cf. Ar. Ach. 963–5 (Δικ.) ὁ ποῖος οὗτος Λάμαχος τὴν ἔγχελυν; / Ἄγγ. Ὁ δεινός, ὁ ταλαύρινος, ὃς τὴν Γοργόνα πάλλει κραδαίνων τρεῖς κατασκίους λόφους; Pax 240–1, where Polemos is described: ἆρ’ οὗτός ἐστ’ ἐκεῖνος ὃν καὶ φεύγομεν, / ὁ δεινός, ὁ ταλαύρινος, ὁ κατὰ τοῖν σκελοῖν; for a description of a person with more adjectives cf. Αr. Th. 31 μῶν ὁ μέλας, ὁ κάρτερος; fr. 578 τὸν Φρύγα, τὸν αὐλητῆρα, τὸν Σαβάζιον; Pl. Com. fr. 30 τὸν μαινόμενον, τὸν Κρῆτα, τὸν μόλις Ἀττικόν; Theophil. fr. 1.2 τὸν ἀγαπητὸν δεσπότην, τὸν τροφέα, τὸν σωτῆρα. 5 τοὺς καταπάλτας War engine for hurling bolts; cf. Hsch. κ 1314 καταπάλτης· βέλη 〈πέμπον〉 πολιορκητικὸν ὄργανον καὶ τὸ ἀφιέμενον βέλος; cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.3 καταπάλτην ἀφιέναι. It is said that Dionysius I of Syracuse was the first to use this siege engine, and that Philip of Macedonia took it and developed it further; see Hacker 1968, 34–50; Hammond–Griffith 1979, 212. τάς τε λόγχας ἐσθίων Obviously the warlike rhetoric of Demosthenes is likened to the art of conjurers, who make a show of swallowing swords. Casaubon (1612, 249; cf. Schweighäuser 1802, 279) notes: “vel praestigiator fuit de genere eorum, qui enses fingebant se vorare, … vel, quod potius putem, Thraso aliquis et miles gloriosus”. Cf. Plu. Lyc. 19.2, where conjurers are said to swallow short swords: ῥᾳδίως αὐτὰς (sc. τὰς λακωνικὰς μαχαίρας) οἱ θαυματοποιοὶ καταπίνουσιν ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις. For similar metaphorical descriptions of rhetoric cf. [Luc.] Dem. Enc. 38, where Demosthenes’ anti-Macedonian rhetoric is likened to battering rams and catapults which overpower Philip’s plans: Δημοσθένους, οὗ γε καὶ τοὺς λόγους ὥσπερ κριοὺς ἢ καταπέλτας Ἀθήνηθεν ὁρμωμένους διασείειν αὐτοῦ καὶ ταράττειν τὰ βουλεύματα; com. adesp. fr. 701: δεινὸν κεραυνὸν † ἐν γλώσσῃ φέρει (cited by Plu. Per. 8.4 in a context where Pericles’ rhetoric is described). 6 μισῶν λόγους ἄνθρωπος ‘the hater of discourse’ is of course ironically said of Demosthenes, considered the most gifted orator of his time; cf. Meineke III (1840) 598: “per ironiam dici apertum est”. Μισόλογοι is connected with μισάνθρωποι in Plato (Phd. 89d) and with ἄγροικοι in Plutarch (Her. Mal. 864b). See especially Pl. La. 188c καὶ γὰρ ἂν δόξαιμί τῳ φιλόλογος εἶναι καὶ αὖ μισόλογος. If, therefore, Demosthenes is described as a μισόλογος, then the opposite is true: he is a φιλόλογος ‘fond of talk, dispute’; on φιλόλογος cf. Pl. Tht. 161a φιλόλογός γ’ εἶ ἀτεχνῶς … ὅτι μ’ οἴει λόγων τινά εἶναι θύλακον; Phdr. 236e, La. 188c,e; Lg. 1.641e; Alex. fr. 285 with Arnott (1996, 782). 7 ἀντίθετον εἰπὼν οὐδέν Timocles ironically alludes to the famous formulation δοῦναι – ἀποδοῦναι; cf. Aeschin. 2.4 ἐφοβήθην μὲν γάρ, καὶ ἔτι καὶ νῦν τεθορύβημαι μή τινες ὑμῶν ἀγνοήσωσί με ψυχαγωγηθέντες τοῖς ἐπιβεβουλευμένοις καὶ κακοήθεσι τούτοις ἀντιθέτοις “I felt fear, and at this moment I am still bewildered, in case some of you may get the wrong impression of me, captivated by his insidious and vicious antithesis”. Demosthenes, however, unlike Isocrates, is not fond of pedantic symmetrical antithesis and prefers to vary the word order; see Denniston 1934, 371, who, however, has taken Timocles’ comment at face value

Ἥρωες (fr. 12)

123

and has not noticed the irony; cf. PCG VII (1989) ad loc.: “per ironiam dicta, quam non sensit Denniston.” The expression δοῦναι – ἀποδοῦναι is not stricto sensu an antithesis like λαβεῖν-δοῦναι; cf. the typical example in Zonaeus, Fig. III 169,23 Spengel = Anon. Fig. III 186, 16 Spengel σὺ μὲν ἔλαβες δῶρα, ἐγὼ δ’ οὐκ ἔλαβον; cf. also Hermog. Meth. 15, who cites another famous antitheton, “ἐδίδασκες γράμματα, ἐγὼ δ’ ἐφοίτων· ἐτέλεις, ἐγὼ δ’ ἐτελούμην· τριταγωνίστεις, ἐγὼ δ’ ἐθεώρουν· ἐγραμμάτευες, ἐγὼ δ’ ἐκκλησίαζον· ἐξέπιπτες, ἐγὼ δ’ ἐσύριττον”, from D. 18.265. It is, rather, an instance of paronomasia: a play on words which sound alike or are etymologically and semantically akin to each other; cf. D.H. Th. 48 καί μοι δοκοῦσιν οὐ Λεοντίνους βούλεσθαι κατοικίσαι, ἀλλ’ ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον ἐξοικίσαι; Alex. Fig. 10; cf. also the famous paronomasiai in the debate between Julian and Basil the Great: Julian: ἀνέγνων, ἔγνων, κατέγνων. Basil: ἀνέγνως, ἀλλ’οὐκ ἔγνως –εἰ γὰρ ἔγνως, οὐκ ἂν κατέγνως (Jul. Ep. 157 Bidez); Cic. De Or. 2.256; R.G. Czapla, in Ueding VI (2003) s. v. “παρονομασία, παρήχησις, παρηγμένον 3” (lat. adnominatio, denominatio, adfictio, assimilatio). Timocles’ description, therefore, is not accurate, unlike Aeschines’ more pointed description (3.83 Demosthenes περὶ συλλαβῶν διαφερόμενος; cf. Plu. Dem. 9.6). ἀλλ’ Ἄρη βλέπων This proverbial expression, which refers to Demosthenes’ martial stare, echoes Ar. Pl. 328 θάρρει∙ βλέπειν γὰρ ἄντικρυς δόξεις μ’ Ἄρη; Eup. fr. 268d Olson= 268.13–15 K.-A. [οὐ]κ̣ οἶσθ᾿ Ἄρη μοι τ̣οὔνο̣[μ -]α lwl “you’re unaware that my name is Ares” (Phormio apparently refers to his own bellicose character); for Ares see Ganz 1993, 78–81. For the warlike glance see also Αr. Pax 238–9 Ὦναξ Ἄπολλον, τῆς θυείας τοῦ πλάτους· / ὅσον κακόν· καὶ τοῦ Πολέμου τοῦ βλέμματος “(Tryg.). Divine Apollo! What a prodigious mortar! And how pernicious! and how terrible is the very sight of War!”, where Polemos must have worn a terrifying mask. For expressions using βλέπειν + internal accusative cf. Ar. Ach. 566 Ἰὼ Λάμαχ’, ὦ βλέπων ἀστραπάς, where a bellicose general is satirized; V. 643: σκύτη βλέπειν: “to look whips”; Av. 1169 εἰσθεῖ πρὸς ἡμᾶς δεῦρο πυρρίχην βλέπων; 1671 αἴκειαν βλέπων; Hom. Il. 1.148 ὑπόδρα βλέπων; Virgil. Aen. 6.467 torva tuens ‘looking daggers’ (said of Dido). As Sommerstein (2001, on Pl. 328) points out, this formulation is a variant of expressions in which somebody’s look is likened to an acrid herb or fluid; cf. Ar. Ach. 254 βλέπουσα θυμβροφάγον; Eq. 631 κἄβλεψε νᾶπυ; V. 455 βλεπόντων κάρδαμα; Pax 1184 βλέπων ὀπόν; Ra. 603 βλέποντ’ ὀρίγανον; Ec. 292 βλέπων ὑπότριμμα; Eq. 855 βλέψειας ὀστρακίνδα; Com. adesp. fr. 633 ὄμφακας βλέπειν. Cf. also Com. adesp. fr. 1062 θυμὸν πνέων; Taillardat 1965, 165, 216–8. On such kinds of synaisthesia cf. Clements 2013, 74–7. For Demosthenes’ delivery see above, under “Interpretation”.

124

Timokles

fr. 13 K.- A. (13 K.) ὡς δ’ ἦν ἠρμένη βίου τιθήνη, πολεμία λιμοῦ, φύλαξ φιλίας, ἰατρὸς ἐκλύτου βουλιμίας, τράπεζα. (Β.) περιέργως 〈γε〉 νὴ τὸν οὐρανόν ∙ ἐξὸν φράσαι τράπεζα συντόμως 4 τράπεζα ACE, Eust.: ‘alia aliqua eius periphrasis restituenda esse’ Kock γε add. Casaubon τετράπεζος. :: ὡς περίεργα Bothe 5 τράπεζα ACE: 〈σοι τὴν〉 τράπεζα〈ν〉 Grotius

And when they had removed the nurse of life, the enemy of hunger, the guard of friendship, the healer of unlimited bulimia, the table. (B) What a superfluous description, by heaven, when you could just say ‘table’ Ath. 10.455f Τιμοκλῆς δ’ ἐν Ἥρωσιν ὡς – συντόμως. And Timocles in Heroes: when – ‘table’.

Metre Iambic trimeter

〈alwl alw〉l llwl wlwl l|wwwl wlwl wwlwl w|lwl llwl wlwww llw|l wlwl llwl wlw|l wl〈wl〉

Discussion Casaubon 1612, 249; Schweighäuser 1802, 279; Kock II (1884) 457; Edmonds II (1959) 612–3; PCG VII (1989) 765. Citation context The fragment is included in the section on γρῖφοι (10.448b– 459c). This particular riddle-scene belongs to the type where somebody propounds a riddle, but gives his interlocutors no opportunity to answer; instead, he provides the answer immediately; cf. Anaxandr. fr. 6; Antiph. frr. 51; 55.7–11; Konstantakos 2000, 146–7. Τext 4 Ιnstead of the τράπεζα, Grotius prefers 〈σοι τὴν〉 τράπεζα〈ν〉, which supplies a full verse. This is an attractive suggestion; cf. Ar. fr. 927 τὴν σκάφην σκάφην λέγω〈ν〉; Antiph. fr. 55.12 οἶνον εἰπὲ συντεμών; fr. 551. πότερ’ ὅταν μέλλω λέγειν σοι τὴν χύτραν, 〈χύτραν〉 λέγω. On the other hand, the nominative in this context seems to be more appropriate, if it repeats exactly the same grammatical form from the previous line and so supports the interlocutor’s impatience.

Ἥρωες (fr. 13)

125

Intepretation For the context of the scene cf. Antiph. fr. 280 ἐπειδὴ δ’ ὁ τρίπους [ἡ τράπεζα, cf. PCG II (1991) ad loc.] ἤρθη. In our fragment a character, perhaps a cook, is narrating the removal of the first table during a symposion. He describes in four successive pompous periphrasis a table (trapeza). The second interlocutor reacts as a real literary critic (cf. περιέργως), and disapproves of this style. The first part of a symposion included the dinner (δεῖπνον). After the dinner, the table was removed and the guests washed their hands; cf. Achae. TrGF I 20 F 17.4–5 (from the satyr play Ἥφαιστος Σατυρικός) Β. ὕδωρ δὲ νῖψαι χεῖρας οὐ πρόσθεν δίδως; Α. ἡνίκα τράπεζά γ’ ἐκποδὼν ἀπαίρεται. Then garlands and μύρον were distributed, wine was mixed in a κρατήρ, and a spondē took place. In the socalled δεύτεραι τράπεζαι snacks were offered (cf. Matr. fr. 1.111 with Olson–Sens 2000, 138; Ar. Pax 769–70 with Olson 1998, 224) and the symposion proper began with mixed wine. For the procedure followed at an Athenian drinking party and the sequence of the associated ritual, many passages from comedy are available: cf. Ar. V. 1216; Anaxandr. fr. 2; Antiph. fr. 172; Clearch. Com. fr. 4; Dromo fr. 2; Ephipp. fr. 8; Philyll. fr. 3; Nicostr. fr. 19; Pl. Com. fr. 71; Men. fr. 209. Sometimes, after the removal of the table, a theatrical performance took place; cf. Plu. Crass. 33.3, where an actor performs a section from Euripides’ Bacchai. On the whole procedure cf. Mühll 1976, 483–505; Murray 1996, 255–94; Arnott 1996, 713; Konstantakos 2000, 51–2; Konstantakos 2005, 183–217. The scene is clearly constructed on the pattern of a ‘riddle-scene’. Such scenes with riddles propounded and solved on stage occur very often in Middle Comedy, e. g. Antiph. frr. 192,194; Eub. fr. 106; Alex. fr. 242; Diph. fr. 49; Schultz 1914, 99–101; Hunter 1983, 200–01; Konstantakos 2000, 146. Riddle scenes decline in New Comedy. In proper ‘riddle scenes’ there are three basic types. The first interlocutor propounds the riddle and the second a) gives the correct solution (e. g. Antiph. fr. 55), or b) is unable to find the solution (in which case the first reveals it, e. g. Alex. fr. 242), or c) gives a false answer, which is then corrected by the first (e. g. Antiph. fr. 194); for a full discussion see Konstantakos 2000, 146–56. Our scene is a variation on the b) type. The first interlocutor starts by describing an object (usually in a sympotic context) in a high-flown manner, full of obscure circumlocutions, and reveals the true name himself, before the second has time to interrupt him. Then the second makes a comment; cf. Nesselrath 1990, 257–9, 263–4; Arnott 1996, 505. In this fragment there is also a parody of the dithyrambic style, typical in Middle Comedy, which occurs mainly in the context of a dinner. Dobrov 2002, 183 lists 43 passages of Middle Comedy that feature “dithyrambic diction”; cf. Nesselrath 1990, 254. For the dithyrambic style cf. Le Ven 2013, 44–64; Zimmermann, 2008, 116–33; Ford 2013, 313–31. ἠρμένη The removal of the table was the sign that the meal was over (the opposite term is τράπεζαν κεῖσθαι / παρακεῖσθαι, e. g. S. El. 361–2 σοί… τράπεζα κείσθω, Χ. An. 7.3.22–3; Vit. Aesop. (W) 71–72; Ath. 4.143c; Hom. Il. 24.476; Xenoph. 1.9 West; Crates Com. fr. 16.5; Konstantakos 2000, on Antiph. fr. 202).

126

Timokles

Slaves were usually instructed to remove the table; cf. Alex. fr. 252 ἀρτέα τράπεζα; Nikostr. Com. fr. 19 ἀπενεγκάτω μοι τὴν τράπεζαν ἐκποδὼν … λαβοῦσ’ ἀπένεγκε ταύτην ἐκποδών; Plaut. Trunc. 364 auferte mensam. πολεμία λιμοῦ This vocabulary may be an adaption of Hes. Op. 404 λύσιν λιμοῦ τ’ ἀλεωρήν; cf. the alliteration and the warlike vocabulary; for the periphrasis cf. E. Cycl. 134 ἀλλ’ ἡδὺ λιμοῦ καὶ τόδε σχετήριον. Such successive alliterations (cf. the following φύλαξ φιλίας) are common in ‘dithyrambic’ banquet descriptions: Antiph. fr. 1 ἔπειτα πνικτὰ τακερὰ μηκάδων μέλη (with Konstantakos 2000, 46); frr. 172.3; 216.3–4; Pl. Com. fr. 205.2; Eub. frr. 56.6; 108; Henioch. fr. 1.2; Axionic. fr. 4.10; Alex. fr. 124.5. φύλαξ φιλίας On the wording cf. Pl. Lg. 640c; Plu. Μoralia (Aitia Romana et Graeca) 267c. That the table was a guardian of friendship was a common opinion; cf. Plu. Cat. Mai. 25.4 τὴν δὲ τράπεζαν ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα φιλοποιὸν ἡγεῖτο “he held the table to be the greatest maker of friends”; [Luc.] Am. 27 ὅθεν εὑρέθη τράπεζα κοινή· καὶ φιλίας μεσῖτιν ἑστίαν παραθέμενοι γαστρὶ τὴν ὀφειλομένην ἀπομετροῦμεν ἀπόλαυσιν “from which invented the public table; and, setting before us the table that is the mediator of friendship, we measure out to our belly the enjoyment due to it”; Luc. Par. 22 Ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐχθρὸν ἢ ἀγνῶτα ἄνθρωπον ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ συνήθη μετρίως ἐπὶ δεῖπνον καλεῖ, ἀλλὰ δεῖ πρότερον οἶμαι τοῦτον γενέσθαι φίλον, ἵνα κοινωνήσῃ σπονδῶν καὶ τραπέζης καὶ τῶν τῆς τέχνης ταύτης μυστηρίων “that nobody invites an enemy or an unknown person, or a person he is not well acquainted with to dinner, but, I believe, he must first become a friend, in order to participate in the spondai and the table and the mysteries of this art”. The same idea occurs in philosophy; cf. Epicur. fr. 542 Usener=Sen. Epist. 19,10. In similar terms is also described the potērion / kylix (πίστωμα φιλίας, Clearch. Com. fr. 1). ἰατρός –ι is short; cf. E. fr. 1072 Kannicht; Ar. Ec. 363; Pl. 406; Men. fr. 282; in tragedy it is usually long (cf. also Macho fr. 9.76 Gow). The word is also used metaphorically in Pi. N. 4.2 εὐφροσύνα πόνων κεκριμένων ἰατρός; A. fr. 255 θάνατε, … τῶν ἀνηκέστων κακῶν ἰατρέ; S. fr. 698 Radt ὁ θάνατος λοῖσθος ἰατρὸς νόσων; Α. Pr. 380 ὀργῆς νοσούσης εἰσὶν ἰατροὶ λόγοι; Ch. 699; Th. 6.14; Diph. fr. 117 λύπης ἰατρὸς χρόνος; Ath. 14.627c τῆς ὕβρεως ἰατρός (LSJ s. v. ἰατρός II). ἐκλύτου βουλιμίας ἔκλυτος occurs as medical term in the sense “diluted, watery” in ἔκλυτος γαστήρ Gal. 6.577; 6.603. Also boulimia is described as a disease in Orib. 1.503. For medical vocabulary in Timocles cf. on fr. 42. τράπεζα The food on table rather than the table itself. περιέργως The adverb describes an over-elaborate expression, where excessive care is taken in selecting the words and the construction. In our fragment, the περίεργον mainly consists in the four successive periphrasis. Cf. Pl. Plt. 286e περίεργα καὶ μακρὰ λέγειν; Plu. Tuend. Sanit. (129b) μὴ σοφιστικῶς μηδὲ περιέργως. Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes Lysias’ language as πιθανήν and ἀπερίεργον (Lys. 9) and Thucydides’ style as γλωσσηματικόν καὶ περίεργον (Imitat. 31.3.2) ; cf. supervacua operositas (Quintil. 8. 3.55); Aristid. 2.13.1 περιεργάζεσθαι

Ἥρωες (fr. 14)

127

καὶ διατρίβειν; [Longin.] 3.4, where περιεργασία is connected with ψυχρότητα; Quint. Inst. Or. 8.6.61 quicquid significari brevius potest, et cum ornate latius ostenditur, περίφρασις est, cui nomen latine datum est circumlocutio; Ernesti, s. v. περίεργον. νὴ τὸν οὐρανόν This particular formula also appears in Aristophanes, usually at the end of a line (Eq. 705; Pl. 129; 366; 403; 1043). It is rare in fourth-century comedy, occurring only once, in Men. Dysc. 629 (Menander prefers νὴ τὸν ἥλιον, six times); cf. Philippid. fr. 28.2; Com. adesp. fr. 1084.2 μὰ τὴν Δήμητρα καὶ τὸν Οὐρανόν. It is not clear whether this particular choice of oath is due to the context (as e. g. in Ar. Pl. 129, where Chremylus swears νὴ τὸν οὐρανόν in order to support his assertion that Wealth is stronger than Zeus). ἐξὸν φράσαι τράπεζα συντόμως Similar remarks by an impatient interlocutor are made e. g. in Antiph. fr. 55.12 and fr. 180. For συντόμως (here the opposite of περιέργως) in the meaning “concise language” cf. A. Pers. 698; E. Heracl. 784.

fr. 14 (CGFP 222a) (1 Dem.) Ἑρμῆς δ’ ὁ Μαίας ταῦτα συνδιακτορεῖ ἂν ᾖ π[ρ]όθυμος∙ καταβέβηκεν ἄσμενος χαριζόμενός γ’ Ἀριστομήδῃ τῷ καλῷ, ἵνα μηκέτ’ αὐτὸν ὁ Σάτυρος κλέπτην λέγῃ 1 δ’ ὁ Μαίας Bücheler: δ[ε]ομᾳιασ pap. συνδιακτορεῖ Wilamowitz: -κτονει pap.: -κονεῖ Koerte 2 ἂν ᾖ πρόθυμος Wilamowitz: αντιπ[ρ]οθυμως pap. 3 γ’ Wagner: γὰρ pap.

Hermes, the son of Maia, aids in conducting these affairs, on condition that he is eager to do so. He has descended with pleasure, showing favor to Aristomedes the Handsome, so that Satyros will no longer call him a thief Didym. in Dem. 10.70 col. 9,70 (ed. Pearson–Stephens) Ἕτερος δ(ὲ), πρὸς ὃν ν(ῦ)ν ὁ Δημοσθένης διέξεισιν, Ἀθηναῖος ὁ Χαλκοῦς λεγ(ό)μενος, περὶ οὗ ἄλλοι τε κ(αὶ) Δείναρχος ἐν τῇ Δοκίμου Ἀπολογίᾳ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἵππου φησὶν οὕ(τως) ∙ “Ἐπεὶ δ’ ὑπ’ Ἀριστομήδους τοῦ Χαλκοῦ κ(αὶ) Χαιρεστράτου τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ θείου προήχθης οὐ δίκ(αι)α ποιῶν ἐγκαλεῖν ἐμοί, τηνικαῦτα δ(ὲ) κ(αὶ) τῷ μ(ὲν) δίκην ἔρημον ἀπεγράψατο κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἀποδημοῦντος κ(αὶ) ταῦτ’ ἐν Θετταλίᾳ.” κ(αὶ) οἱ κωμικοὶ δ’ αὐτοῦ μνημονεύουσι, καθάπερ Φιλήμων μ(ὲν) ἐν Λιθ[ο]γλύφῳ (fr.41 = CGFPR 206), Τιμοκλῆς δ’ ἐν Ἥρωσιν ∙ Ἑρμῆς – λέγηι. Sequitur fr. 19 There is another Aristomedes, whom Demosthenes is assailing here. He was an Athenian nicknamed ‘the Brazen’. Others have written about this Aristomedes, Dinarchus in particular, who in the Defence of Docimus, Concerning the Horse, speaks as follows: “Since you were persuaded by Aristomedes the Brazen and his uncle Chaerestratus to act unjustly and formulate an accusation against me, at that time through one of them he brought against me

128

Timokles

a suit that he won by default, since I was out of the city, and, at that, in Thessaly”. Comedians mention him, for example Philemo in Sculptor (fr. 41 = CGFPR 206) and Timocles in Heroes: “Hermes – a thief ”

Metre Iambic trimeter

llwl l|lwl wlwl llwl l|wwwl wlwl wlwwl wlwl llwl wwlwl w|wwwl llwl

Discussion Koerte 1905, 400, 411; Wendland 1906, 366; Demiańczuk 1912, 88; Bevilacqua 1939, 57–8; Page 1941, 240–1; Edmonds II (1959) 612–3; Gibbson 2002, 122; Hajdu 2002, 44–8, 425–38; Harding 2006, 202, 204; Apostolakis 2014, 119–20. Citation context This fragment is transmitted by Didymus, in his comment on Dem. 10.70 καίτοι λοιδορίας εἴ τις χωρὶς ἔροιτο ‘εἰπέ μοι, τί δὴ γιγνώσκων ἀκριβῶς, Ἀριστόμηδες, (οὐδεὶς γὰρ τὰ τοιαῦτ’ ἀγνοεῖ) τὸν μὲν τῶν ἰδιωτῶν βίον ἀσφαλῆ καὶ ἀπράγμονα καὶ ἀκίνδυνον ὄντα, τὸν δὲ τῶν πολιτευομένων φιλαίτιον καὶ σφαλερὸν καὶ καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἀγώνων καὶ κακῶν μεστόν, οὐ τὸν ἡσύχιον, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐν τοῖς κινδύνοις αἱρεῖ;’ τί ἂν εἴποις; “And yet, if one should ask without raillery, ‘Tell me, why, when you know perfectly well, Aristomedes (for no one is ignorant of such things) that the life of a private citizen is safe and free of trouble and without danger, but the life of a politician is liable to blame and precarious and full of trials and misfortunes each and every day, why do you not choose the quiet life instead of the life of dangers?’ What would you say?” Didymus also cites fr. 19 (= CGFPR 222b), from Ikarioi Satyroi, where the speaking character connects Aristomedes with the legendary figures Tereus and Procne, in order to make a pun on τηρεῖν and κνᾶσθαι, both alluding to Aristomedes’ notorious habit of stealing. Aristomedes is also referred to as ‘the Brazen’ in Dinarchus’ otherwise unattested speech Defence of Docimus, Concerning the Horse (frr. VXXI-VXXII n. 4 Konomis),132 and in Philemon’s Sculptor (fr. 41= CGFPR 206). Concerning the nickname ‘the Brazen’, in particular, there is no convincing explanation. Given, however, that Aristomedes is always described as a corrupt politician, one might think of the famous comparison between citizens and coins in the Parabasis of Aristophanes’ Frogs (718–37), where the poet complains that the Athenians do not turn the honest citizens to their advantage, but prefer the inferior bronze ones instead (τούτοις τοῖς πονηροῖς χαλκίοις), minted with the basest stamp. 132

But it is almost certain that the titles Concerning the Horse (D. H. Din. 12) and Against Antiphanes, Concerning the Horse (Harpocration s. v. ὀχεῖον) refer to the same speech. See Harding 2006, 204 with further bibliography. Hajdu 2002, 438 points out that in IG II2 1541.3 an Archestratus from the deme Collytus is mentioned, who could be the uncle of Aristomedes in the above fragments of Dinarchus.

Ἥρωες (fr. 14)

129

Text 1 Ἑρμῆς δ’ ὁ Μαίας Wilamowitz initially proposed δρομαίως (‘on the run’), but later adopted Bücheler’s reading δὲ ὁ Μαίας, printed in PCG as δ’ ὁ Μαίας; see Harding 2006, 205–6. συνδιακτορεῖ This is Wilamowitz’s correction of the pap. συνδιακτονεῖ. Koerte 1905, 411 prefers συνδιακονεῖ, citing Posidipp. fr. 28.1–2 μαθητὰ Λεύκων oἵ τε συνδιάκονοι ὑμεῖς. Wilamowitz’s correction, although otherwise unattested, is very plausible and is rightly adopted by most editors, since διάκτορος is an epithet of Hermes in Homer (e. g. Od. 12.390; 15.319), mainly in the formula διάκτορος Ἀργειφόντης, and συνδιάκτορος is used for Hermes, in an underworld context, in Luc. Cont. 1 καὶ ταῦτα ἑταῖρος καὶ σύμπλους καὶ συνδιάκτορος ὤν. 2 ἂν ᾖ πρόθυμος “wenn er geneigt ist” is Wilamowitz’s correction of the unmetrical ἀντιπ[ρ]οθύμως of the papyrus. Koerte attempted to defend the transmitted writing on the grounds that –ι before the mute and liquid –πρ can be long in later comedians, but it seems improbable in such a context, which has an archaic color. Also Page 1941, 240–1 retains the transmitted text and translates “an eager enemy”. Though Wilamowitz’s correction is paleographically plausible, the sense is not quite clear (cf. the awkward translations “esser premuroso a rovescio” by Bevilacqua 1939, 57 and “however he wishes” by Gibbson 2002, 92). Moreover, συνδιακτορεῖ would perhaps demand a dative, like συλλαμβάνειν in the sense “aid”. In that case, instead of ἂν ᾖ πρόθυμος it might be e. g. ἡμῖν προθύμως; cf. Ar. Pax 417, where Hermes is called to assist (ξύλλαβε) in rescuing Eirene from the cave: ὦ φίλ’ Ἑρμῆ, ξύλλαβε / ἡμῖν προθύμως (this latter phrase placed again in the first two positions of the line). For the combination of ταῦτα, προθύμως and a construction with dative cf. X. Cyr. 7.5.49 εἰ ταῦτα προθύμως σοι συλλάβοιμι; cf. Ar. Ec. 861 τὰ δυνατὰ γὰρ δεῖ τῇ πόλει ξυλλαμβάνειν; X. Oec. 13.10 διδάσκω οὓς ἂν ἐπιτρόπους βούλωμαι καταστῆσαι καὶ τάδε συλλαμβάνω αὐτοῖς; for a construction with dat. and gen. cf. E. Or. 1230 σὺ δ’ ἡμῖν τοῦδε συλλήπτωρ γενοῦ; Pl. Leg. 968. However, συνδιακτορεῖν is a hapax eirēmenon, so it may well be used absolutely. 3 The papyrus transmits γάρ, and Wendland 1906, 366, followed by Demiańczuk 1912, 88, defended the transmitted diction, the so-called ‘γὰρ pleonasticum’. But it is better to see here a product of dittography and adopt Wagner’s correction: γε here is intensive; see Denniston 1934, 115–8 and Harding 2006, 206, who translates “a real favor to Aristomedes”. Ιnterpretation Hermes in this fragment combines different traditional elements: a) the introductory formula Ἑρμῆς ὁ Μαίας is certainly post-Homeric (only in tragedy and in Lucian); b) the hapax eirēmenon συνδιακτορεῖ (v. 1) clearly refers to the Homeric epithet διάκτορος, sometimes connected with his activity as ψυχοπομπός; c) καταβέβηκεν (v. 2) implies a κατάβασις to the Underworld, and Hermes, being an intermediary between gods and mortals, is often described crossing such boundaries (cf. the Hymn to Demeter); d) Hermes is also connected with erotic abductions (mainly as an assistant in Zeus’ love affairs (e. g. Luc. Dear. Iud. 6) and in this fragment his κατάβασις is described as a χάρις to his protégé

130

Timokles

Aristomedes ‘the handsome’ (v. 3); e) Hermes is traditionally the god of theft (cf. the Hymn to Hermes), so he is the obvious protector of the notorious thief Aristomedes (v. 4). It has been suggested that this fragment be divided between two characters; see Demiańczuk 1967, 88. But there is no indication of a dialogue, and it is better to accept one speaker. Concerning the context of the fragment, it is possible that a scheme is in progress, and Hermes is deemed by the speaker to be an eager assistant to it (cf. ταῦτα). The following verses (2–4) may shed light on this scheme. Hermes is said to have already descended to the Underworld (καταβέβηκεν), in order to rescue Aristomedes from being slandered.133 This may be used as an example of Hermes’ previous assistance, and it is hoped that he will act in the same way again. One might think, therefore, of a scenario involving the return of dead politicians from the Underworld; cf. Eupolis’ Dēmoi, esp. frr. 110 and 115 (on this play cf. Storey, 2003, 115; Olson 2017, under “Content”). Although Timocles most frequently targets anti-Macedonians, he does not exclude even professed pro-Macedonian politicians from his satire, if they leave themselves open to abuse on account of some moral vice.134 One such case is that of Aristomedes the orator.135 As D. 10.70 indicates, Aristomedes was a politician, a contemporary of Demosthenes and obviously a pro-Macedonian one. Both his alleged thievery and the nickname ‘the Brazen’ should rather be connected with the typical abuse (loidoria)136 prevalent both in Old Comedy and in Αthenian political oratory. Contemporary comedy, by representing him on stage as a habitual thief, presumably exaggerated this slander.137 Aristomedes had proposed that the Assembly should take no action against Philip, which earned him a lambasting in the Fourth Philippic (D. 10.70–74). Although the authenticity of that speech is a matter of some controversy, its historical and rhetorical value is beyond doubt.138 The most interesting part of Timocles’ passage is the final verse, where the well-known comic actor Satyrus is said to

133

134 135 136 137 138

Edmonds 1959, 612–3 suggests that this scene is conducted in the Underworld and the speaker is Charon, given that he refers to Hermes as a ‘fellow conductor’ (συνδιάκτορος). Another example is Callimedon ‘the Carabus’, though he is satirized on account of a physical defect (his squint), not for his political activity (see on fr. 29). For Aristomedes’ identity see below the comment on v. 3. Pace Gibbson 2002, 122, who takes Aristomedes to be a habitual thief: “a well-known thief, who is nicknamed ‘Brazen’”. Cf. Harding 2006, 202, who notes that this nickname reflects “the standard charge that he was dipping into the public purse”. The authenticity of the Fourth Philippic (D. 10) was questioned by nineteenth-century scholars, on the grounds that the speech contains certain parts which are quite similar to a relevant part from the speech On the Affair in the Chersonese (D. 8). However, since the discovery in the twentieth century of the papyrus fragment of Didymus’ work On Demosthenes, where Didymus seems not to doubt the authenticity of the speech, most

Ἥρωες (fr. 14)

131

call Aristomedes a thief. Satyrus was a highly skilled actor, credited with training Demosthenes in speech delivery (hypokrisis); cf. Plu. Dem. 7.4.139 It is possible, therefore, that Timocles is here referring to an onstage attack by Satyrus against Aristomedes, which would have become emblematic on account of this actor’s masterly delivery. We may go a step further and assume that it was Demosthenes, Satyrus’ student, who inspired theatre performers to launch the attack. This suggestion is supported by considerable evidence from the Fourth Philippic (D. 10.73), a speech which belongs in early 341 (see the discussion above). In this speech the orator, using the rhetorical figure of apostrophē, calls Aristomedes a thief by family tradition: τοῦθ’ οὕτως ἔχει· σοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἦν κλέπτης ὁ πατήρ, εἴπερ ἦν ὅμοιος σοί. This passage must have been especially famous, since Hermogenes (Inv. 195 Rabe and Id. 261,15 Rabe) cites it as a model of circular composition (κύκλος).140 This rhetorically colored formulation was well tailored to the impressive delivery with which Demosthenes himself was credited.141 It is also noteworthy that Plutarch, in a context where he comments on Demosthenes’ inventiveness, ascribes to him a wordplay again combining Aristomedes’ nickname Chalkous with his reputation as a thief: Life of Demosthenes 11.4–6 ὑμεῖς δ’ ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι μὴ θαυμάζετε τὰς γινομένας κλοπάς, ὅταν τοὺς μὲν κλέπτας χαλκοῦς, τοὺς δὲ τοίχους πηλίνους ἔχωμεν; see Gibson 2002, 122. We may therefore suspect that, by ridiculing Aristomedes, Timocles is here parodying Demosthenes’ rhetorical skills on stage, in a manner that would have been especially effective if Satyrus had impersonated Demosthenes. In this way Timocles kills two birds with one stone. He both satirizes Demosthenes’ theatrical anti-Macedonian warlike policy, and at the same time denigrates Aristomedes, whose conduct is a discredit to pro-Macedonian rhetoric. 1 Ἑρμῆς δ’ ὁ Μαίας This formula never occurs in Homer, but is often used in drama; cf. E. Med. 758; Andr. 274; El. 461; fr. 223.66 Kannicht; cf. ὁ Μαίας παῖς (A. Ch. 812; E. Rh. 215; S. El. 1394); Ἑρμῆς ὁ Μαίας λίθινος (Eub. fr. 95). Hermes appears as an agent of the gods in Aristophanes’ Peace and Wealth. He is also often mentioned in different contexts (e. g. Av. 572–3; Ra. 1140, 1144). For his traditional features see Roscher, “Hermes” in Roscher–Ziegler I.2 (1890) 2373–6, and under “Interpretation” and below, on συνδιακτορεῖ. ταῦτα See above, under “Interpretation”.

139 140 141

scholars accept that this speech is authentic. For the authenticity of this speech and the relevant discussion see Hajdu 2002, 44–8; MacDowell 2009, 354–5. Other sources, however, report that Demosthenes’ teacher on this matter was Andronicus ([Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 845a–b; Quint. Inst. or. 11.7.3). For a rhetorical analysis of the passage see Hajdu 2002, 425- 438. Cf. [Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 845b; Dem. 7.6. Demosthenes’ hypokrisis is once more – at least – parodied by Timocles, in the famous invocation μὰ γῆν, μὰ κρήνας, μὰ ποταμούς, μὰ νάματα (fr. 41, a parody attributed by Athenaeus both to Timocles and Antiph. fr. 288) reminiscent of the orator’s famous oath of the Marathon fighters (D. 18.208 μὰ τοὺς Μαραθῶνι προκινδυνεύσαντας τῶν προγόνων).

132

Timokles

συνδιακτορεῖ Cf. under “Text”. The epithet διάκτορος is obscure. West 1978, 160 notes that Hesiod, and also later poets, may have understood it as “messenger” (διάγω ἀγγελίας). For Hermes as a ‘Guide of Souls’ cf. A. fr. 273a v. 8 Radt (from Psychagōgoi) χθόνιόν θ’ Ἑρμῆν πομπὸν φθιμένων; Raingeard 1934; Kerenyi 1944; Nilsson 1967, 508–9. For Hermes as συλλήπτωρ (assistant) cf. A. Ch. 818 ξυλλάβοι δ’ ἐνδίκως παῖς ὁ Μαίας, ἐπεὶ φορώτατος πρᾶξιν οὐρίσαι θέλων. 2 ἂν ᾖ πρόθυμος For Hermes’ prompt response (προθυμία) to a request cf. Ar. Th. 977–9 Ἑρμῆν τε νόμιον ἄντομαι / καὶ Πᾶνα καὶ Νύμφας φίλας / ἐπιγελάσαι προθύμως; Th. 981. καταβέβηκεν Τhe verb alludes to a katabasis. In order to protect Aristomedes from Satyrus’ attack, the god takes his protégé back to earth. For the use of this verb in the context of a journey to the underworld cf. Ar. fr. 508; Amips. fr. 22 (with Orth 2013 ad loc.); Aristopho fr. 21.1 (with Papachrysostomou 2008 ad loc.). Cf. also Hom. Od. 23.252; Hes. Th. 917, 974, 1014; E. Heracl. 913. In comedy Hermes is the god who transgresses the boundaries between the upper world and the underworld. His most emblematic katabasis is that described in Hymn to Demeter 344, when he rescued Persephone from Hades: Ἑρμῆς δ’ οὐκ ἀπίθησεν, ἄφαρ δ’ ὑπὸ κεύθεα γαίης / ἐσσυμένως κατόρουσε λιπὼν ἕδος Οὐλύμποιο; Richardson 2010, 264; Dowden–Livingstone 2011, 285–6. Alternatively, Hermes acts as a psychopompos and accompanies the dead to Hades (fr. 14 συνδιακτορεῖ). Journeys to the underworld were dramatized on the comic stage by Aristophanes (Frogs, Gerytades) and, less probably, Eupolis (Dēmoi). See Edmonds 2004, 111–56. ἄσμενος This word is a stronger variation of the preceding πρόθυμος. The formulation is similar to a prayer-formula, where Hermes is described as an eager assistant; cf. the couple θέλων / χρήιζων in A. Ch. 812–4 ξυλλάβοι δ’ ἐνδίκως παῖς ὁ Μαίας, ἐπεὶ φορώτατος πρᾶξιν οὐρίσαι θέλων. ἀλλὰ πολλὰ δ’ ἀμφανεῖ χρήιζων. See Garvie 1988 ad loc. 3 Τhis line has no proper caesura. χαριζόμενος γ’ Ἀριστομήδῃ τῷ καλῷ The expression alludes to an erotic relationship between the patron Hermes and the protégé Aristomedes. The formulation may suggest that Aristomedes is still young (cf. Pl. Prt. 362a ἀλλὰ Καλλίᾳ τῷ καλῷ χαριζόμενος παρέμεινα, where Callias must be very young at the dramatic time of Protagoras), unless the reference is ironical. Cf. also X. HG 2.3.56 Κριτίᾳ τοῦτ’ ἔστω τῷ καλῷ, said ironically by Theramenes when flicking away the last drops of the hemlock, as in a cottabus game. For χαρίζεσθαι in an erotic context cf. Pl. Phdr. 273b ὡς μὴ ἐρῶντι πρὸ τοῦ ἐρῶντος δέοι χαρίζεσθαι. In LGPN II sixteen men named Aristomedes are listed; cf. PAA 173470 “Politician nicknamed Brazen and Thief, 350–325”. It was usually believed that Timocles’ target here is Aristomedes Azanieus (LGPN II, n. 9019), who followed in the footsteps of his father Aristophon. But when Demosthenes in the Fourth Philippic attacks both Aristomedes and his father, the latter is described as if dead (σοὶ μὲν ἦν κλέπτης ὁ πατὴρ). Yet Aristophon was still alive at that time; moreover, Demosthenes refers to him with respect both in The False Embassy (19.291,

Ἥρωες (fr. 14)

133

297), delivered in 333 BC, and in The Crown (18. 70,162, 219), delivered in 330 BC. It therefore seems better to accept Koerte’s suggestion (1905, 400; cf. APF n. 2108) that this person is Aristomedes from Collytus (LGPN II, n. 9020; cf. IG II2 1924.9).142 Hermes is most appropriate here, because he was the god of thieves, being himself the archetypical thief, as he is depicted in the fourth Homeric Hymn ( h. Merc. 18 ἑσπέριος βοῦς κλέψεν ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος); cf. Hippon. fr. 3a West, where Hermes is called ‘companion of thieves’: Ἑρμῆ κυνάγχα, μῃονιστὶ Κανδαῦλα, φωρῶν ἑταῖρε, δεῦρο μοι σκαπαρδεῦσαι; Ar. Eq. 297–8 Πα. Ὁμολογῶ κλέπτειν· σὺ δ’ οὐχί. / ’Aλ. Νὴ τὸν Ἑρμῆν τὸν Ἀγοραῖον. For Hermes’ involvement in love affairs, especially homosexual ones, cf. Luc. Dear. Iud. 6, where he is Zeus’ accomplice in the rape of Ganymede. He also specializes in abductions; e. g. E. Hel. 44–8; h. Ven. 117–30; see Konstantakos 2000, 99–100. For another association of Hermes with a politician cf. Alex. fr. 93, where Hermes is called “Philippides’ holder by allotment”, due to Philippides’ resemblance to a corpse: Ἑρμῆ θεῶν προπομπέ και Φιλιππίδου / Κληροῦχε, Νυκτός τ’ ὄμμα τῆς μελαμπέπλου; see Arnott 1996, 245. 4 Σάτυρος Satyrus is a common name in Greece;143 cf. LGPN s. v.; cf. e. g. D. 22.63 Σάτυρος ὁ τῶν νεωρίων ἐπιμελητής (ca 357 BC, PA 12577); [D.] 59.45 Σάτυρος Ἀλωπεκῆθεν ὁ Λακεδαιμονίου ἀδελφός, (343–40, PA 12590); [D.] 59.58 Σάτυρος ὁ Μελιτέως (ca 341/0, PA 12605). Most scholars plausibly identify this Σάτυρος with the well-known comic actor, who was included in the list of Lenaean victors before Philemo and Callistratus; cf. Mette 1977, V C col. 3 v. 1 (p. 179)= IG II2 2325 v.190; O’Connor 1908, 429; Stephanis 1988, n. 235 Σάτυρος Ὀλύνθιος; MacDowell 2000, 286; Harding 2006, 206. Satyrus was a comic actor specializing in slave roles; cf. Aeschin. 2.156–7 καὶ Σάτυρον τὸν κωμικὸν ὑποκριτὴν … τοὺς Καρίωνας καὶ Ξανθίας ὑποκρινόμενον. Demosthenes (19.193–5) introduces Satyrus as a κωμικὸς ὑποκριτής, who asked Philip to release the daughters of a dead friend and his request was accepted. Aeschines, on the other hand, narrates that Satyrus requested the release of some captives who were working in Philip’s vineyards (2.156–7).144 Ιt is said that Satyrus taught Demosthenes the art of delivery (hypokrisis); cf. Plu. Dem. 7. See above, under “Interpretation”. κλέπτην Allegations of theft were common in Attic oratory, forensic oratory in particular (e. g. Isae. 4.28; D. 57.65). Thievery was also associated with politics in Attic comedy. In Aristophanes’ Knights the would-be politician Paphlagon boasts 142

143 144

Harding 2006, 204 prefers Aristomedes the son of Meton the astronomer, who is satirized as an impostor in Aristophanes’ Birds; but since this Aristomedes is listed as Councilor in 371 (SEG 28, 148.29), it would be difficult to appear in the late 340s as still desirable. Bevilacqua 1939, 57–8 (quite arbitrarily) suspects that we can read σάτυρος, in which case Timocles is alluding to a satyr play. For these two divergent accounts of the incident see Carey 2000, 147, n. 201 (on Aeschin. 2. 156), who suspects that either Demosthenes altered the details before publication or Aeschines is purposely misrepresenting Demosthenes’ allegation.

134

Timokles

of being a habitual thief (296–8, 418–28, 1239); cf. Pl. Com. fr. 14 (with Pirotta 2009), where the politician Pamphilus is described as both a thief and a sycophant: κλέπτειν τὰ κοίν’ ἅμα τε συκοφαντεῖν; Ar. Ec. 438. For the treatment of theft in ancient Athens see MacDowell 1978, 147–9; Todd 1993, 283–4. There is a comic incongruity in Hermes’ activity in this fragment, since the expectation raised by the high-brow expression of the first line (συνδιακτορεῖ) is subverted by the low-brow result: the god offers his assistance to thieves. For Aristomedes as a thief see above, under “Interpretation”.

135

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (Ikarioi Satyroi) (“Icarian Satyrs”) Discussion Casaubon 1621, 591–5; Meineke III (1840) 600–604; Kock II (1884) 458–60; Wagner 1905, 56–65; Coppola 1927, 453–67; Bevilacqua 1939, 58–62; Edmonds II (1959) 612–7; Constantinides 1969, 49–61; PCG VII (1989) 766–9; Sutton 1980, 83–5; Xanthakis-Karamanos 1997, 135–6; Cipolla 2003 316–31; Storey 2005, 207–8; Orth HGL II (2014) 1043, 1046. Τitle The play is mentioned four times in ancient sources as Ἰκάριοι (Ath. 8.339d and 342a, Did. in Dem. 10.70 col. 10,3; cf. Sud. τ 623, based on Athenaeus) and once as Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (Ath. 9.407f). Three more ‘Dionysiac’ titles occur in Timocles: Δημοσάτυροι, Διονυσιάζουσαι and Διόνυσος. When the word Σάτυροι in a title is preceded by a plural adjective, it usually denotes a satyr play; e. g. Παλαισταὶ Σάτυροι (Pratinas), Αὐλωδοὶ Σάτυροι (Iophon), Ἰσθμιασταὶ Σάτυροι (Aeschylus), Ἰχνευταὶ Σάτυροι (Sophocles).145 On the other hand, plays entitled Σάτυροι denote a comedy (Old Comedy: Ecphantides, Cratinus, Callias and Phrynichus; Middle Comedy: Ophelion).146 The title Σάτυροι also survives in a papyrus containing comic words (P.Oxy. 1801, s. v. βδύλλειν= CGFPR fr. 343.17). In the following lines I will attempt to offer a series of alternative explanations for the title. Ἰκάριοι is normally used of the inhabitants of the island of Icaria. The citizens of the Attic deme Icaria, on the contrary, are always called Ἰκαριεῖς; e. g. IG Ι3 254Β; 270C; 462A; cf. St. Byz. 329.9–12 Ἰκαρία, δῆμος τῆς Αἰγηίδος φυλῆς … ὁ δημότης Ἰκαριεύς … Ἴκαρος, νῆσος μία τῶν Κυκλάδων … ὁ πολίτης Ἰκάριος “Ikaria, a deme of the Aegeis tribe … the member of the deme is called Ikarieus … Ikaros is an island in the Cyclades … the citizen is called Ikarios”. For islanders in comedy titles cf. Cratinus’ Σερίφιοι, Philostephanus’ Δήλιος and Timocles’ Δῆλος, with Meineke’s attractive suggestion ‘rectius fortasse Δήλιος’. Dionysus’ connection with the island of Icaria is attested in [Apollod.] Bibl. 3.37–8, where it is said that, as he was travelling from Icaria to Naxos, he was captured by Tyrrhenian pirates, who planned to sell him into slavery. But the god in his anger transformed the mast of the ship into snakes, and filled the ship with ivy and the sound of flutes. The pirates went mad and dove into the sea, where they were transformed into dolphins.147 The capture of the god is represented in the interior of a black-figure kylix by Exekias (540–530 BC, München, Staatlich 145 146 147

Also in inscriptions, e. g. IG II2 23.20.16. But it seems that this title is wrongly ascribed to Ophelion and probably belongs to Phrynichus Comicus; see PCG VII (1989) 97. However, this is the only source which names the island Icaria; in the other surviving sources the place where this incident occurred is not named (e. g. in the Homeric Hymn to Dionysus), or a different place is mentioned (e. g. Chios in Ovid. Met. 3.597), or another version is given, such as in Philostr. Jun. Im. 1. 19, where the pirates attack the god’s ship at sea.

136

Timokles

Antikensammlungen 2044). Dionysus’ connection with the island of Icaria is also attested in another tradition, according to which the god was born at Drakanon (Theoc. 24.33).148 A different tradition connects Dionysus with the hero Icarius, an Athenian who received the god on his arrival in Attica. The god rewarded Icarius by teaching him viniculture, and the hero distributed the gift to the people. Then some shepherds killed him and his daughter Erigone hanged herself ([Apollod.] Bibl. 2. 191 – 192; Paus. 1.2.5; Ael. NA 7. 28; Clem. Al. Strom. p. 366; [Plu.] Parall. min. 307e). If the title of the play derives from the myth of Icarius, the plot probably takes place in the homonymous deme, although the Satyrs of the title might not be associated with that particular deme; cf. St. Byz. 329.9–12 (cited above); Orth HGL II (2014) 1046, n. 400. In this case, Ikarioi might just mean “Icarius and his followers”; see below, under “Content”. Finally, in the fifth century all plays containing the plural ‘Satyroi’ in the title usually denote a chorus of Satyrs; these may also appear in other comedies with a Dionysiac plot, e. g. Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros. In the course of the fourth century the chorus is restricted but does not totally disappear.149 In Timocles, in particular, titles in the plural such as Hērōes, Aigyptioi, Dēmosatyroi, Dionysiazousai, Kaunioi, Marathōnioi, Pseudolēistai may denote a chorus.150 The existence of a chorus in Ikarioi Satyroi is not supported by the surviving fragments, but is, nevertheless, plausible. If there is a chorus, some open questions remain, e. g. concerning the members and costumes (did they retain satyr costumes, or the adapted comic ones; see Storey 2005, 208–9). The genre debate The classification of the play as a comedy or a satyr play is a very controversial issue and has given rise to a lengthy debate among scholars.151

148 149 150 151

For titles denoting Dionysus’ birth see Timocles’ Dionysos in this volume, under “Title”. See Hunter 1979, 23–8; Rothwell 1995, 99–118; Konstantakos 2011, 175–82 with more bibliography; see also my note on Heroes, under Content. Cf. fr. 27 from Orestautokleidēs, where the eleven courtesans named in fr. 27 are probably part of a chorus (so Hunter 1979, 34). a. Satyr play: Wilamowitz 1889, 23–5, who later (1937, 394) revised his theory and accepted Wagner’s argumentation; Coppola 1927, 469–70; Sutton 1980, 83–5; Xanthakis-Karamanos 1997, 135; Summa 2009, 135–49. b. Comedy: Wagner 1905, 62–5; Koerte1936, 1260–62; Constantinides 1969, 49–61; PCG VII (1989) 766–9; Storey 2005, 201–218; Arnott 1996, 212, with n. 1. There were also compromises. Meineke III (1840) 600 suspects that there are two plays: one entitled Ἰκάριοι and a second entitled Ἰκάριοι ἢ Σάτυροι; Bevilacqua 1939, 62 supposes that Timocles wrote two plays: one entitled Ἰκάριοι (frr. 15,16,17) and a satyr play entitled Σάτυροι (frr. 18,19). Snell, TrGF I 82 F 2, includes in his Dubia Satyrica only the fr. 18. Cipolla 2003, 326–31, includes the Ikarioi Satyroi in his collection of the fragments of minor satyr poets, although he admits that the aggressive tone and the obscenities are compatible with comedy rather than satyr drama. Also Marchetti 2012, 129–30 thinks that in a period when satyr play has adopted some characteristics of the fifth century comedy, Timocles might have

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι

137

Apart from the title, some external testimonies would seem to support the suggestion that Ikarioi Satyroi is a satyr play. Ιn didaskaliai of the Dionysia (ca 341–340 BC) a certain Timocles appears as the author of the satyr play Lykurgos, which opened the festival and won first prize (IG II2 2320 col. II.19; Millis–Olson 2012, 67). In an inscription from the 330–329 BC Dionysia (IG II2 2318, col. xiii), the surviving text ]κλῆς ἐδίδασκεν, according to Koerte, should be restored as Τιμοκλῆς ἐ.152 Furthermore, the vague formulation of Athenaeus (9.407d) Τιμοκλῆς ὁ τῆς κωμῳδίας ποιητὴς (ἦν δὲ καὶ τραγωδίας)… has been interpreted by some scholars as evidence that this poet wrote both tragedies and comedies, following the (ideal) model of Plato (Smp. 223d; see on test. 2).153 Finally, Alex. fr. 77 οὓς καὶ Τιμοκλῆς / ἰδὼν ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων δύο σκόμβρους ἔφη / ἐν τοῖς σατύροις εἶναι was taken by Bergk and Hirschig as a reference to Timocles’ play as a satyr play (see on fr. 15). It seems that there is a clear borderline between Old Comedy and Satyr Play during the fifth century. In Aristotle’s Ars Poetica (1449a 19–20) there is no connection between the two genres, since the satyr play is included in the genre of tragedy.154 Νevertheless, it seems that sometimes in plays containing Dionysiac material, such as Dionysalexandros and comic titles including satyrs, the boundaries of the two genres come very close and an overlap should not be totally excluded; cf. Bakola 2005, 58, who speaks of ‘hybrid’ satyr comedies; Bagordo 2014, 189. In the course of the fourth century, however, the situation seems to change. In the Dionysia, by 340 BC satyr plays were performed separately from tragedies.155 Moreover, references to notable personalities also occur in contemporary satyr plays; in Python’s Agēn, which was staged at the banks of the river Hydaspes, Harpalus and his mistresses are satirized; moreover, in Lycophron’s Menedēmos the well-known philosopher is the main target of satire.156 The courtesan Pythionice is satirized in both Ikarioi Satyroi and Agēn: in Ikarioi Satyroi she is satirized in the context of a prophecy, but in Agēn she is dead and appears through necromancy. Furthermore, there is a notable tendency of the fourth-century satyr play to admit a greater licence and variety of metres – even comic ones (e. g. Eupolidean metre in Astydamas’ Hēraklēs). The question, therefore, unavoidably arises, whether comic poets could write satyr plays.157

152 153

154 155 156 157

written a satyr play such as Icarians. For more details on the history of the debate, see Constantinides 1969, esp. 50–53 and Cipolla 2003, 326–7. See Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 71–2 and 110–1. A similar puzzle might be the case of a playwright named Demetrius, who appears on the Pronomus Vase (ca 400 BC) as the author of a satyr play; since the only known poet from this period is the namesake comedian, Storey 2011, 435 wonders if this could be a case of a poet who wrote both tragedy and comedy. See Dobrov 2007, 251–65. See Storey–Allan 2005, 163–8. See Constantinides 1969, 51. For possible overlaps between comedy and satyr play already in the fifth century see Storey 2005, 203–5. For the relationship between Middle Comedy and satyr play cf. van

138

Timokles

On the other hand, the surviving fragments of fourth-century satyr plays do not constitute a sufficient sample of the shape and content of the particular genre, making comparisons with contemporary comedy very difficult. Python’s Agēn (324 BC), the first known satyr play to draw its plot from contemporary politics, is probably not a representative example, since it was staged under special circumstances and is mentioned as a σατυρικὸν δραμάτιον (short satyr play) in Ath. 13.596d, while Lycophron’s Menedēmos (dated to the early third century) does not have the same sharpness. More significantly, all surviving fragments of Ikarioi Satyroi include pointed personal satire of known personalities and politicians of the moment. Some of these politicians are also satirized in other plays by Timocles: Hyperides in Dēlos, Aristomedes in Hērōes, Telemachus in Lēthē and in Dionysos. Timocles’ satire resembles that of Old Comedy in many points: e. g. Hyperides’ description brings to mind the satire of Cleon in Aristophanes’ Knights; cf. also the vulgarity of the jokes in fr. 18 (βδέων, ἐπέρδετο, and the “ass” Cephisodorus). Also typical of Timocles’ comedy is the association of contemporary personalities with legendary figures in fr. 19 (Autocles-Marsyas and Tereus-Aristomedes; cf. Demosthenes-Briareos in fr. 12 and Autocleides-Orestes in fr. 27). The courtesan Pythionice, satirized in fr. 16 in connection with Chaerephilus’ sons, also appears in Antiph. fr. 27 in the very same way: she is ready to devour the τάριχος, i. e. she has love affairs with Chaerephilus’ sons. Also, the metres in the surviving fragments (iambic trimeter in frr. 16 and 17 and trochaic tetrameter in frr. 18 and 19) are more compatible with comedy than satyr play.158 Moreover, σκόμβροι ἐν τοῖς σατύροις in Alex. fr. 77 do not seem to allude to a specific satyr play composed by Timocles, but should rather be taken as an ironical comment; see below, on fr. 15. Finally, concerning Timocles’ activity, it seems that Athenaeus’ note, that he had written both comedies and tragedies, is wrong (see above, Commentary on test. 2) and, therefore, it is not necessary to connect titles of tragedy and satyr play with the comic Timocles. To sum up, the close examination of the surviving fragments, in combination with the interpretation of the external indications, seems to support the opinion that Icarian Satyrs is a comedy, not a satyr play. Content The title and the surviving fragments indicate a plot including both mythological elements and satirical attacks on contemporary Athenians, especially politicians. Frr. 16 and 17 probably belong to the same context. In both a character is given instructions (in iambic trimeter) for a journey he has to undertake, and is informed that he has to confront two voracious figures: the courtesan Pythionice

158

Rooy 1965, 124–202; Constantinides 1969, 49–61; Sutton 1980, 75–85; Storey 2005, 201–218; Bakola 2010, 81–112; Shaw 2010, 1–22. Wilamowitz’s reconstruction of fr. 15 into ionics, a metre appropriate to a satyr drama, is arbitrary; see below on fr. 15, under Interpretation. Also the metatheatrical apostrophe in 19.6–7 ἐπίσχητε, μηδὲ συρίξητε, which is comparable with a passage in Sophocles’ Ichneutai (Zagagi 1999, 187–8), is more typical of comedy than satyr play.

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι

139

and the opsophagos orator Hyperides. The traveller might be Dionysus; cf. Orth HGL II (2014) 1046.159 Both fragments seem to contain parodic, possibly paratragic, passages. The context in fr. 18 is different: it contains a scene in which a famished person is described and four politicians are satirized in the manner of Old Comedy. In fr. 19 two further notorious Athenians, Aristomedes and Autocles, are ironically named after legendary figures, perhaps in a sympotic context. It seems worth considering a possible connection between the title and the content of the play. Frr. 16 and 17 contain directions to the traveller, including the encounter with emblematic Athenian personalities such as Pythionice, Chaerephilus’ sons and Hyperides. Besides, in all the preserved fragments, contemporary Athenians (politicians, merchants) are satirized through their description as legendary figures (Marsyas, Tereus) or are attributed zoological (mostly fishy) characteristics: in fr. 15 Chaerephilus’ sons are called common mackerels, in the next fr. 16 they are called perches, the orator Hyperides is called a fishriver, the orator Cephisodorus is termed an ass.160 On the basis, therefore, of the available indications, Ikarioi in the title probably does not mean the inhabitants of the island Icaria, nor “the people of the deme of Icaria”, for they would be called Ikarieis; rather, it may be an equivalent to Attikoi or ‘Athenians’ (after the eponymous hero Icarius, who was instructed by Dionysus in the use of wine).161 A parallel might be Telecleides’ Amphiktyones “Amphictyon and his followers”; see Storey 2011, 288. Interestingly, an Attic tradition (Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 5b) associates Amphictyon, the early king of Attica, with Dionysus; the god came to Attica and instructed Amphictyon how to mix wine with water.162 Also cf. titles consisting of the plural of a singular entity, such as Cratinus’ Archilochoi, Odysseis, Ploutoi and Telecleides’ Hēsiodoi. Concerning the Satyroi of the title, an interpretative key could be fr. 19.1, where a certain Autocles is called Marsyas, the Satyr who is said to have invented the flute and contested with Apollo.163 Satyrs and flutes are the emblems of his dissolute

159

160

161

162

163

Cf. on fr. 7 from the play Dionysos, where a character, who might be the eponymous god, asks for information on current Athenian politics. It has also been suggested that the instructions in frr. 16 and 17 are spoken by Silenus (Crusius 1889, 228). For a description of Satyrs as animals given to transforming themselves cf. Pl. Plt. 291a-b πολλοὶ μὲν γὰρ λέουσι τῶν ἀνδρῶν εἴξασι καὶ Κενταύροις καὶ τοιούτοισιν ἑτέροις, πάμπολλοι δὲ Σατύροις καὶ τοῖς ἀσθενέσι καὶ πολυτρόποις θηρίοις· ταχὺ δὲ μεταλλάττουσι τάς τε ἰδέας καὶ τὴν δύναμιν εἰς ἀλλήλους. Schweighäuser IX (1807) 442 first notes that Ikarioi are normally the islanders, and continues: “verum tamen Ἰκάριοι illi, a quibus fabulae titulum fecit Timocles, ab oppido Attico nominati videntur”. Bagordo 2013, 45 with n. 34, however, doubts whether Amphiktyones means “Amphictyon and his followers”, on the grounds that this would render the comedy a mythological burlesque, of a kind which Telecleides is not likely to have written. Constantinides 1969, 55 suspects that Autocles is the short name of the notorious pederast Autocleides; cf. below, Commentary on fr. 19.1.

140

Timokles

life. The name Autocles may also connect him with the notorious Autocles and Epicles, who appear in Athenaeus as voluptuous and dissolute persons.164 In the same way, people like Chaerephilus’ sons, as well as Hyperides, Thudippus and Cephisodorus, are described as being inclined to sex and food or uncontrolled behavior. Hyperides is rich in fish (and courtesans) and corrupt, Chaerephilus’ sons are unsalted (ἀπειρόκαλοι) and debauched, Thudippus and Cephisodorus fart with no regard for anybody and so on.165 In this light, Alex. fr. 77 σκόμβροι ἐν σατύροις may also allude to those corrupt Athenians; see below on fr. 15. Besides, if we may Τιμοκλέα ἐκ Τιμοκλέους σαφηνίζειν, the play Dēmosatyroi, “demagogi … turpiter obsequiosi, quos δημοπιθήκους dixit Ar. Ran. 1085” (Meineke ΙΙ [1840] 396), might also exploit a similar idea. It is indicative that in the unique surviving fragment, the effeminate Ctesippus seems to be described as a potential δημοσάτυρος; cf. on fr. 5. For other titles in Timocles’ corpus, which perhaps represent on stage Athenian contemporary politicians as legendary figures, see on Hērōes, under “Content” (cf. in particular Demosthenes / Briareos in fr. 12). For descriptions of politicians as ‘satyrs’ the emblematic passage is from Hermipp. fr. 47, where Pericles is called βασιλεὺς σατύρων, ‘king of the satyrs’.166 It is, therefore, highly possible that the Ikarioi Satyroi contains a certain criticism of Athenian politics,167 though the personal insults may have been scattered and not necessarily connected with the main plot. On the other hand, it seems that a combination of personal and political satire with mythological burlesque is quite possible. The scenes in frr. 16 and 17, where a character is given directions in view of a long itinerary, call to mind traditional journeys with prophecies, predictions of dangerous fords and intermediate stops. More specifically, these scenes are reminiscent of Promētheus Desmōtēs (700–849) and Promētheus Lyomenos (frr. 195–6 Radt), and also of Homer (Od. 12.39–139); see below, under “Commentary”. Instead of typical legendary figures, notable personalities like the courtesan Pythionice, Chaerephilus’ sons and the orator Hyperides appear, and one may suspect that the traveller is also a known figure. Furthermore, such scenes are also reminiscent of Cratinus’ Seriphioi, a comedy in which the myth of Perseus is dramatized (the same story is exploited in Aeschylus’ Diktyoulkoi, a satyr play where Danae and Perseus are hauled up by Satyrs). In Cratinus’ comedy, contemporary Athenians are also satirized: in fr. 227 Amynias as a flatterer and sycophant, and in fr. 223 Androcles as a slave and 164 165 166

167

Ath. 12.536f πάντ’ ἐν ἐλάττονι ποιούμενοι τῆς ἡδονῆς; see below, on fr. 19. Cf. also Meineke, 1840, 600: “Num forte piscium helluones eo nomine significare voluit poeta?” This fragment is usually considered an intertextual comment on Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros, but this opinion has recently been questioned; see Commentale 2017, 186–7. Cf. Henderson 2014, 185: “Titles like Kαπήλιδες (Theopompus), Γυναικοκρατία (Amphis and Alexis), Δημοσάτυροι, Διονυσιάζουσαι (Timocles), and Ἀδωνιάζουσαι (Philippides) suggest criticism of (democratic) institutions…”

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 15 )

141

poor.168 In this comedy, Perseus is given directions for a journey (frr. 222, 223 and 343), in a way that evokes the scenes between Prometheus and Io (A. Pr. 707–849). Moreover, while in Cratinus’ comedy the theme of nouveau riche (νεόπλουτοι) politicians is introduced,169 in Ikarioi Satyroi the personal satire is mostly aimed at notable – and notorious – dissolute and corrupt Athenians. Date A terminus ante quem is the reference to the courtesan Pythionice, who is represented as still having an affair with Chaerephilus’ sons; she was, therefore, not yet a mistress of Harpalus, by whom she was called to Babylon after 329 BC and to whom she bore a daughter, dying in childbirth (Plu. Phoc. 22.1). This must have occured before 424 BC, in which year the satyr drama Agēn (TrGF 91 F 1), containing a reference to her monument, was most probably performed by the Hydaspes (for the date cf. Storey–Allan 2005, 166). Actually it has been suggested that Python may have drawn inspiration from Timocles’ Ikarioi Satyroi, in bringing satyrs on stage (Schaw 2014, 143 ). But this suggestion is impossible to prove.

fr. 15 K-A (17 K) Ath. 8.339d Πυθιονίκην δέ φησι (Antiph. fr. 26.22) φιληδεῖν ταρίχῳ, ἐπεὶ ἐραστὰς εἶχε τοὺς Χαιρεφίλου τοῦ ταριχοπώλου υἱούς, ὡς Τιμοκλῆς ἐν Ἰκαρίοις φησίν · Ἄ ν υ τ ο ς ὁ π α χ ὺ ς π ρ ὸ ς Π υ θ ι ο ν ί κ η ν ὅ τ α ν ἐ λ θ ὼ ν φ ά γ ῃ τ ι . κ α λ ε ῖ γ ὰ ρ α ὐ τ ό ν , ὥ ς φ α σ ι ν (φησιν Α, corr. Musurus), ὁ π ό τ α ν Χ α ι ρ ε φ ί λ ο υ τ ο ὺ ς δ ύ ο σ κ ό μ β ρ ο υ ς ξ ε ν ί σ ῃ μ ε γ ά λ ω ς (Stephanopoulos: μεγάλας codd.) ἡ δ ο μ έ ν η. sequitur fr. 16 But Antiphanes says that Pythionice is fond of salt fish, since she had for lovers the sons of Chaerephilus, the seller of salt-fish, as Timocles says in his Icarians: That fat Anytus, after he visits Pythionice and eats something. For she invites him, so people say, whenever she receives with great joy the two mackerels of Chaerephilus.

Discussion Hermann 1827, 51; Meineke III (1840) 601; Kock II (1884) 459–60; Wilamowitz 1889 (=1962, 688–9); Coppola 1927, 454–5; Bevilacqua 1939, 59; Edmonds II (1959) 612–3; PCG VII (1989) 766–7; Arnott 1996, 211; Cipolla 2003, 322, 328–9. Citation context The fragment derives from a chapter of Athenaeus, where wellknown Athenian opsophagoi (φιληδοῦντες ἰχθύσιν, ‘fond of fish’) are named after or connected with special kinds of fish. The connection is established through word-play on the fish and the names or popular nicknames of the persons. In most of these fragments a taste for fish alludes to love affairs. Our passage is the first of the two Timocles fragments cited by Athenaeus (the second is fr. 16, on which 168 169

For the plot see Bakola 2010, 158–167. See Bakola 2010, 163.

142

Timokles

see below) in order to substantiate Pythionice’s penchant for fish. It is preceded by Antiph. fr. 27 (from Halieuomenē), where it is said that Pythionice has love affairs with Chaerephilus’ sons, Timocl. fr. 32 (from Sapphō) and Alex. fr. 3 (from Agōnis), where Misgolas is said to be fond of kitharos (a flatfish; this is an allusion to his homosexuality); cf. on fr. 32. In both fragments from Timocles (15 and 16) Pythionice is described as an insatiable courtesan who relished fish / lovers: fr. 15 ἡδομένη; fr. 16 σύνεστι σαπέρδαις δυσίν; cf. Antiph. fr. 27.22 ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχός ἐστιν ὡρμηκυῖα; Ath. 8.339d φιληδεῖν ταρίχῳ. Text Athenaeus apparently paraphrases the passage, with no regard for metre. The reconstruction of both the original text and metre is quite uncertain. As it stands, the fragment seems to contain traces of anapaests, but the division of verses requires the adaptation of the transmitted text. Hermann 1827, 51 and n. 7 revised his earlier suggestion that the fragment is composed of anapaestic tetrameters and adapted them into short strophic verses: Ἄνυτος θ’ ὁ παχὺς πρὸς Πυθιονίκην / ὅταν ἐλθών τι φάγῃ · / καλεῖ γὰρ αὐτόν, ὥς φασ’, / ὁπόταν Χαιρεφίλου / τοὺς δύο σκόμβρους ξενίσῃ / μεγάλοις ἡδομένη. Wilamowitz, who initially believed Icarian Satyrs to be a satyr play (see above, “The genre debate”), reconstructed the fragment into ionics, a metre appropriate to a satyr drama.170 More attractive is Kaibel’s suggestion, who reconstructed the fragment into iambic trimeters, although he was compelled to adapt the text in order to render it metrical: καλεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν, φασίν, ὁπόταν τοὺς δύο / σκόμβρους ξενίσῃ τοὺς Χαιρεφίλου 〈alwl〉 / μεγάλοισιν ἥδεται γὰρ. The transmitted μεγάλους is difficult in that position. Th. K. Stephanopoulos, per litteras, suggests to me μεγάλως; for the combination μεγάλως ἥδεσθαι / ἡσθῆναι cf. J. AJ. 2.167; Hermod. Plat. fr. C col. v. 12; cf. Hdt. 3.123 μεγάλως ἱμείρεσθαι. Interpretation Fr. 15, in combination with Alex. fr. 77, has been used in the “genre debate” on Ikarioi Satyroi. More specifically, Ath. 3.119f runs as follows: … τοὺς Χαιρεφίλου τοῦ ταριχοπώλου υἱούς, ὥς φησιν Ἄλεξις ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ οὕτως· τοὺς Χαιρεφίλου δ’ υἱεῖς Ἀθηναίους, ὅτι / εἰσήγαγεν τάριχος, οὓς καὶ Τιμοκλῆς / ἰδὼν ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων δύο σκόμβρους ἔφη / ἐν τοῖς σατύροις εἶναι “the sons of Chaerephilus the saltfish-seller, as Alexis says in Epidauros, thus; made the sons of Chaerephilus Athenians, because he imported saltfish. Timocles, seeing them on their horses, said that two mackerels were among the satyrs”. This Timocles is obviously the comic poet, since he called Chaerephilus’ sons σκόμβρους in our fragment. The crucial question is whether the phrase οὓς καὶ Τιμοκλῆς ἰδὼν ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων δύο σκόμβρους ἔφη ἐν τοῖς σατύροις εἶναι belongs to Alexis (so Meineke, Kaibel, Gulick, Edmonds, Kassel-Austin) or is Athenaeus’ own scholarly

170

Wilamowitz 1962, 689: “memorabiles hi numeri non longe a sotadeis distantes in scaena attica”. This view was rejected by Wagner 1905, 64, as an “incertissima et artificiosa coniectura”; see Constantinides 1969, 51–2.

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 15 )

143

comment (Schweighäuser, Hirschig, Kock and Bevilacqua). Hirschig, in particular, following T. Bergk (suggestion per epistulam to Schiller 1835, 156), printed σατύροις as Σατύροις and accordingly identified Timocles’ Ikarioi Satyroi as a satyr play. Most of Hirschig’s arguments were refuted by Arnott 1996, 211–3, who convincingly demonstrates, inter alia, that the phrase ἐν τοῖς σατύροις must be part of the quip, which otherwise becomes pointless, and therefore does not refer to the genre of the play. It remains unclear, however, whether the entire phrase οὓς καὶ Τιμοκλῆς… ἐν τοῖς σατύροις εἶναι derives from Alexis or from Athenaeus. As Arnott 1996, 213 points out, against Alexis’ authorship is the argument that it is unusual for a poet to borrow quips from a rival and then to admit it openly. His alternative explanation, that this quip was made by Timocles as an impromptu witticism out of theatre, is attractive but difficult to prove. On the other hand, the absence of penthemimeral or hephthemimeral caesura in vv. 3 and 4, which is emphatically stressed by Hirschig (in his aforementioned epistle), seems to support the assumption that the words under discussion are Athenaeus’ own comment on Timocles’ Ikarioi Satyroi. In that case, σκόμβροι ἐν σατύροις might refer either to Timocles’ fr. 15 or to another passage of this play, alluding to the comic contrast produced by the association of two incompatible figures, like ὄνος ἐν πιθήκοις (Men. fr. 296).171 According to Arnott 1996, 213, “satyrs were chosen because they indicated somewhat derisively the idea of equitation, but partly also perhaps for the sigmatic alliteration with σκόμβρους.”172 Anytus of Athens (PAA 139455 and 139465; cf. LGPN [3]), the wealthy patron of Pythionice, cannot be certainly identified. According APF p. 42, he is probably Anytus II Εὐωνυμεύς. His namesake grandfather (PAA 139460) was a prosecutor of Socrates (Pl. Ap. 23e and passim). He was one of the nouveaux riches of the last decades of the fifth century, thanks to a tannery his family owned (X. Ap. 29), but lost his property under the Thirty (X. HG 2.3.42, 44). Ἄνυτος II Εὐωνυμεύς is recorded as syntrierarch in three ships in 322 BC (IG II2 224, 229–30 and 237). If Ἄνυτος in Timocles fr. 15 is the same person, then his undertaking of that liturgy, in combination with his description as παχύς, which seems to allude to his prosperity (see below), indicates that the family had recovered its property by the 320s. παχύς means “wealthy, man of substance”; cf. Ar. Eq. 1139 ὅς ἂν ᾖ παχύς; V. 287 ἀνὴρ παχύς; Pax 639 τοὺς παχεῖς καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους; Hdt. 5.30,77; 6.91; see LSJ s. v. II. It is remarkable that Pheidippus, one of the sons of Chaerephilus and probably one of the two so-called σκόμβροι (cf. on fr. 16.6 σαπέρδαις δυσίν) is also called παχύς in fr. 23.5–6 (from Lēthē).

171 172

See Cipolla 2003, 329. Besides, σκόμβροι ἐν σατύροις may allude to the contrast between well-known Athenian profligates and newcomers through naturalization, who ape traditional emblems of aristocracy, such as horse riding, and also adopt their inclination for courtesans.

144

Timokles

σκόμβρος “common mackerel, Scomber scombrus” is a cheap fish, usually caught in the Hellespont and the Black Sea; cf. Epich. fr. 55.1; Hermipp. fr. 63.5 ἐκ δ’ Ἑλλησπόντου σκόμβρους καὶ πάντα ταρίχη; Ar. Eq. 1008; frr. 189, 430; Archestr. fr. 39.7 Olson–Sens; Opp. Hal. 3.576f ἀφροσύνη καὶ σκόμβρον ἕλεν (said of mackerels which attempt to enter fishing nets already full of caught fish). Like σαπέρδαι (on which see on fr. 16.6), σκόμβροι were fish suitable for τάριχος; cf. Alex. fr. 77.3; Thompson 1947, 243–5; Olson–Sens 2000, 166; Garcia Soler 2001, 170. Χαιρέφιλος Παιανιεύς (PAA 975710; APF 15187; Osborne, Naturalization T 75; LGPN 6) was a large-scale importer of processed fish, and was called a ταριχοπώλης in Ath. 3.119f; 8.339d. Chaerephilus and his sons were awarded citizenship, probably due to their services to Athens during a period of corn shortage (330–327 BC; see on fr. 18, on the activity of the orator Telemachus);173 cf. Ath. 3.119f τοσαύτην δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι σπουδὴν ἐποιοῦντο περὶ τὸ τάριχος, ὡς καὶ πολίτας ἀναγράψαι τοὺς Χαιρεφίλου τοῦ ταριχοπώλου υἱούς, ὥς φησιν Ἄλεξις ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ (fr. 77) “the Athenians were so eager for saltfish that they enrolled the sons of Chaerephilus the saltfish-seller as citizens, as Alexis says in Epidauros”. Chaerephilus and his sons were naturalized thanks to Demosthenes, who proposed the relevant decree. It is noteworthy that they were registered in the deme of Paiania, according to the established practice of recording new citizens in the deme of their patron. Hyperides, on the other hand, who is satirized in fr. 17 as a fish-rich river, seems to have written two speeches in defence of Chaerephilus and his activities entitled Ὑπὲρ Χαιρεφίλου περὶ τοῦ ταρίχους (orr. 61 and 62, frr. 181–191 Jensen); cf. Harp. s. v. καταχειροτονία: παρά τε Δημοσθένει … καὶ Ὑπερείδῃ ἐν τῷ Ὑπὲρ Χαιρεφίλου περὶ τοῦ ταρίχους. Moreover, the pro-Macedonian Dinarchus, in a speech composed for the Harpalus trial, accused Demosthenes of accepting bribes to perform the task.174 The accusation refers to Demosthenes downgrading the citizens’ body for personal gain, by naturalizing metics who plied humble trades. Also POxy 2686, line 7, preserves a decree of acquittal for this Chaerephilus.

fr. 16 K.-A. (14 K.) ἡ Πυθιονίκη δ’ ἀσμένως σε δέξεται καί σου κατέδεται τυχὸν ἴσως ἃ νῦν ἔχεις λαβὼν παρ’ ἡμῶν δῶρ’· ἄπληστός ἐστι γάρ. 173 174

Arnott 1996, 69; cf. Worthington 2000b, 296–8. Din. 1.41–3 ἀπὸ ποίων ψηφισμάτων οὗτος ἢ ποίων νόμων οὐκ εἴληφεν ἀργύριον; … εἴπατέ μοι πρὸς Διὸς ὦ ἄνδρες, προῖκα τοῦτον οἴεσθε … ποιῆσαι πολίτας ὑμετέρους Χαιρέφιλον καὶ Φείδωνα καὶ Πάμφιλον καὶ Φείδιππον “From what decrees or what laws has he not made money? … Men, tell me, by Zeus, do you think he was not paid … to make Chaerephilus, Pheidon, Pamphilus and Pheidippus your fellow-citizens?”

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 16)

5

ὅμως δὲ δοῦναί σοι κέλευσον σαργάνας αὐτήν· ταρίχους εὐπόρως γὰρ τυγχάνει ἔχουσα καὶ σύνεστι σαπέρδαις δυσὶν καὶ ταῦτ’ ἀνάλτοις καὶ πλατυρρύγχοις τισί

4 κέλευσον Α: -σει Crusius ἐπεὶ Kock

5

145

5 ταρίχους Α: τάριχος Bothe

6 ἔχουσα καὶ Α: σ’,

Pythionice will welcome you gladly and she will probably devour the presents you have got from us; for she is insatiable. Nonetheless, ask her to give you baskets; she has at her disposal a lot of salt fish and keeps company with two Nile-perches, though they are unsalted and wide-mouthed

Ath. 8.339d (post fr. 15) καὶ πάλιν · ἡ Πυθιονίκη –τισί. πρὸ τούτων δ’ ἦν ἐραστὴς αὐτῆς Κωβιός τις ὄνομα. and again ‘Pythionice – wide-mouthed’. Before them, she had a lover named Cobius.

Metre Iambic trimeter

5

lwwwl l|lwl wlwl llwww l|wwwl wlwl wlwl l|lwl wlwl wlwl l|lwl llwl llwl l|lwl llwl wlwl wlw|l llwl llwl l|lwl llwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 600–601; Kock II (1884) 458; Coppola 1927, 454–5; Bevilacqua 1939, 59; Edmonds II (1959) 612–3; PCG VII (1989) 767; Cipolla 2003, 317–8 and 322–3. Citation context See on fr. 15. Immediately after fr. 16, the information is added that in the past Pythionice had another lover, whose name was Cobius (a real name which also means a type of fish). Text Ιn v. 4 Crusius’ alteration of the imperative κέλευσον into κελεύσει is not necessary, if we consider that the ‘prophetic’ statements (expressed with the future tense δέξεται [v. 1] and κατέδεται [v. 2]) are over by the middle of v. 3 δῶρ’, and specific instructions to the traveller follow; a parallel might be the imperative πέρα (Jacobs’ correction of the transmitted πέρασον) in the next fr. In v. 5 Bothe prefers τάριχος instead of the transmitted ταρίχους (neuter genitive). The position is metrically anceps, and both forms are grammatically possible;

146

Timokles

the periphrasis εὐπόρως ἔχειν is construed with the accusative (Th. 8.36.1), but it can also take the genitive, like εὐπορεῖν (e. g. Lys. 19.25; Pl. Ion 536c; Smp. 209b; X. HG 1.6.19) or, on the pattern of the construction of εὖ / κακῶς ἔχειν τινός (e. g. Ar. Lys. 1125; cf. PCG VII [1989] ad loc.). Therefore it is not necessary to correct the transmitted diction. Interpretation In this fragment it seems that someone, probably a host, is sending off his guest and giving him gifts (cf. v. 3 δῶρα) and instructions concerning a journey, probably towards Athens; it is possible that the context is the same as in the following fr. 17, where the speaker foretells that the traveller must cross the fish-river Hyperides.175 It recalls to mind the instructions given to Odysseus by Circe in Odyssey (12.39–139) or to Io by Prometheus in Prometheus Bound; see on fr. 17. Such instructions also occur in comedy, e. g. Theopomp. Com. fr. 18 ἵξει δὲ Μήδων γαῖαν, ἔνθα καρδάμων πλείστων ποιεῖται καὶ πράσων ἀβυρτάκη “you will come to the land of the Medes, where they make a sour sauce of many cardamom seeds and leeks”; Polyzel. fr. 2 ἵξει πρὸς Ἐννεάκρουνον, εὔυδρον τόπον “you will come to Nine Fountains, a well-watered place”. Much of the vigour of this passage relies on the antithesis between the solemn tone of the prophetic futures (δέξεται in v. 1 and κατέδεται in v. 2) and the common expression δοῦναι σαργάνας in v. 4. Pythionice is described as an insatiable prostitute who devours the property of Athenian merchants. In this fragment the motif of the opsophagos Athenian, who consumes fish and courtesans (e. g. Hyperides in fr. 17), is reversed: the courtesan is said to “consume” her lovers / perch. The word ταρίχους (v. 5) alludes to Chaerephilus’ sons; see above, on fr. 15. 1 ἡ Πυθιονίκη (PAA 793690). She is also mentioned in Antiph. fr. 27.20 and AP 164.2. In Ath. 13.595b she is described as μὴ μόνον τρίδουλος ἀλλὰ καὶ τρίπορνος, since she was a slave of Bacchis, who had been a slave of Sinope. But in Diodorus (17.108.5) she is mentioned as ἐπιφανεστάτη τῶν ἑταιρῶν. It seems that, when Ikarioi Satyroi was produced, she was at the height of her career.176 After her death, Harpalus constructed three magnificent monuments in her honor: the first in Babylon; cf. Python, Agēn 1.2–3 Snell ὅδε πόρνης ὁ κλεινὸς ναός; the second in Athens on the way to Eleusis; and a third, dedicated to Aphrodite Pythionice, in the area of modern Chaidari; cf. Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F253; Paus. 1.37.5; McClure 2003, 137–8, 146–8, 153–4; Kapparis 2018, 329–332, with a detailed account of the older and recent archaeological evidence concerning Pythionice’s monuments in Attica. ἀσμένως σε δέξεται For the ‘prophetic future’ (cf. κατέδεται in the next line) cf. Hom. Od. 12.39 Σειρῆνας μὲν πρῶτον ἀφίξεαι… 12.127 Θρινακίην δ’ ἐς νῆσον

175 176

See Meineke 601: “Ceterum haec ad eundem hominem dici vedentur, ad quam proximum fragmentum (17) spectat”. For calculations of her age at that time cf. Konstantakos 2000, 66; Coppola 1927, 459–60; Schiassi 1951, 239.

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 16)

147

ἀφίξεαι; Od. 10.530 ψυχαὶ ἐλεύσονται νεκύων κατατεθνηώτων; 11.134–5; Cratin. fr. 343 κανθένδ’ ἐπὶ τέρματα γῆς ἥξεις καὶ Κισθήνης ὄρος ὄψει. 2 κατέδεται “eat up, devour”. The verb often occurs in comedy (e. g. Ecphantid. fr. 1; Pherecr. fr. 1.1; Ar. Pax 6; Pl. Com. fr. 76.3; Antiph. fr. 87.3), but never in Thucydides and tragedy; cf. Olson 2014 (on Eup. fr. 386.4).177 It is normally used in a negative sense, with reference to persons who devour the property of a wealthy householder; e. g. the suitors of Penelope: Hom. Od. 2.37 κατέδουσι βιαίως οἶκον Ὀδυσσῆος; 11.116 οἳ τὸν βίοτον κατέδουσι; parasites: Ath. 6.254b = Diog. Sinop. SSR V B 425 οἳ (sc. κόλακες) ζῶντας ἔτι τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς τῶν ἀνδρῶν κατεσθίουσιν; courtesans, as here and in Αnaxipp. fr. 1.31–2 μειράκιον ἐρωμένην / ἔχον πατρῴαν οὐσίαν κατεσθίει; Macho fr. 18.424–6 Gow (on the courtesan Nico, the so-called ‘Goat’) ἐπεκαλεῖτο δ’ Αἴξ / ὅτι τὸν μέγαν 〈δὴ〉 κατέφαγεν ἐραστήν ποτε / Θαλλόν; profligates: Antiph. fr. 27.11 κατεσθίει γοῦν ἐπὶ μιᾷ τὴν οὐσίαν; fr. 236 οὐδεὶς τὰ πατρῷά πω γέρων κατεδήδοκεν; Anaxandr. fr. 46.2 καταφαγὼν τὴν πατρῴαν οὐσίαν; D. 38.27 τὰ μὲν ὄντα κατεσθίοντας καὶ παροινοῦντας; also for dogs: Anaxandr. fr. 40.8 τύπτω δ᾽ ἐγώ, / τοὖψον κατεσθίουσαν ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν λάβω; and Ameipsias’ title Katesthiōn, with Orth 2013, 137–41. 2 τυχὸν ἴσως The first appearance of this combination, which is common in Menander: Aspis 233, Dysc. 125, Epit. 504, Kol. 8, Pk. 337, Sam. 543, 544; see Gomme-Sandbach 1973, 336. Cf. D. Prooem. 28.2 ἐὰν δ’ ἀκούσητε, τυχὸν μὲν ἴσως κἂν μεταπεισθείητε; [Luc.] Ocyp. 76 εἰ γὰρ μάθοιμι, τυχὸν ἴσως ἰάσομαι τὸ δεινὸν ἄλγος. 4 δοῦναί σοι κέλευσον σαργάνας In contradistinction with the preceding high-style verses, this seems to be a vulgar expression. That the parody is over is indicated by the infringement of Porson’s Law. For such infringements in similar contexts cf. Timocl. fr. 23.7 (from Lēthē) ἐπόππυσ’ εἶτ’ ἐκέλευσε πέμπειν σαργάνας; fr. 4.8 (from Dēlos) τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας οὗτος ἡμῶν πλουτιεῖ.178 σαργάνη is a basket, “πλέγμα τι ἀπὸ σχοινίου γινόμενον· εἰς ὑποδοχὴνἰχθύων“ (ΕΜ p. 708.24–5); cf. Schol. Ar. Th. 346 ὁρκάνη τὸ θηρατικὸν δίκτυον, ὃ καὶ σαργάνη καλεῖται; for the plural σαργάναι cf. Hsch. σ 197 σαργάναι· δεσμοί, καὶ πλέγματα γυργαθώδη σχοινίων ἀγχυράγωγα; Amyx 1958, 273–4. They were sometimes associated with salt-fish (τάριχος: cf. Poll. 27.2 ὡραῖαι ταρίχους σαργάναι). Ιt seems that the formulation δοῦναι σαργάνας (cf. also πέμπειν σαργάνας on Timocl. fr. 23.7), denotes that fish is sent to a rich customer, like the sumptuous courtesan Pythionice; cf. Antiph. fr. 27 (from Halieuomenē) ἀνδρῶν δ’ ἄριστον κωβιὸν πηδῶντ’ ἔτι / πρὸς Πυθιονίκην τὴν καλὴν πέμψαι με δεῖ; Pl. Com. fr. 28; Men. fr. 468. Here it is ironically indicated that Pythionice has a lot of fish in her 177 178

Εqually undignified for serious poetry and elevated genres is the compound ἐπεσθίω; cf. Olson 2016, 414 (on Eup. fr. 275.1). See Arnott 1959, 190–1, who notes that in Antiphanes (9 times) and Eubulus (6 times) such violations are comparatively rare, because those poets engage more often in paratragic bombast.

148

Timokles

house, like a fishmonger; but this impression is undermined in the following lines, since she only has τάριχος, a vile food. 5–6 ταρίχους εὐπόρως… ἔχουσα The word τάριχος (L. salsamentum) is probably of Armenian origin; see Bianchi 2015, 272–3 with more bibliography. ταρίχους is a neuter genitive; cf. Antiph. fr. 27.22 ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχος; Poll. 6.48.7–9 καὶ οὐδετέρως μὲν τὸ τάριχος οἱ Ἀττικοί. Ἴωνες δὲ καὶ Δωριεῖς ἀρσενικῶς καὶ τῶν Ἀττικῶν ἐν Διονυσαλεξάνδρῳ Κρατῖνος ∙ ὁ δὲ ταρίχους Ποντικούς; but cf. Ath. 3.119b (εἰ καὶ ἀρσενικῶς ὁ τάριχος λέγεται παρ’ Ἀττικοῖς) Κρατῖνος μὲν ἐν Διονυσαλεξάνδρῳ. τάριχος is processed fish (usually salted or smoked). It was a cheap food, mainly consumed by poor people (cf. Ar. V. 491 ταρίχους ἀξιωτέρα, “cheaper than kippers”; Pherecr. fr. 26; Pl. Com. fr. 211; Philippid. fr. 9.4; Luc. Fug. 14), not a favourite of gluttons; cf. Antiph. fr. 176 οὐ φιλοτάριχος οὐδαμῶς εἰμ’ ὦ κόρη (probably said by Heracles). Most was imported from Pontus; cf. Cratin. fr. 44 (from Dionysalexandros) ἐν σαργάναις ἄξω ταρίχους Ποντικούς; Ηermipp. fr. 63.5 ἐκ δ’ Ἑλλησπόντου … πάντα ταρίχη (sc. Διόνυσος) δεῦρ’ ἤγαγε νηὶ μελαίνη; Poll. 6.48.4 ταρίχη Ποντικά; Columella 12.55; see Arnott 1996, 214; Konstantakos 2000, 87–90; Olson–Sens 2000, 164 (on Archestr. fr. 39.1–2). The contemptuous tone of this word matches the following ἀνάλτοις and πλατυρρύγχοις; for τάριχος as a metaphor for worthless persons cf. Ar. fr. 207; Alex. 43; Ath. 3.119e. The superiority of fresh fish to fish pickled in salt is also indicated in the metaphorical language of D. 25.61, where a brawl is described in the jail between the old jail-bird Aristogeiton and a newly caught man: νεαλὴς δὲ καὶ πρόσφατος ὢν ἐκεῖνος περιῆν αὐτοῦ τεταριχευμένου καὶ πολὺν χρόνον ἐμπεπτωκότος “since he was fresh and recently caught, this man dominated over Aristogeiton, who was pickled in salt by having been there a long time”. 6 σύνεστιν The verb and its cognates usually mean “keep company with somebody”; cf. Anaxandr. fr. 34.9–10 ἀλλ’ οὐ μόνη γὰρ τὰς συνουσίας ποιεῖ / εὔοψος ἀγορά; “but does not a market well-stocked with fish alone produce socializing?” Here, however, it apparently means “have sexual intercourse” (LSJ II.2), cf. Ar. Pax 863, 898; Ec. 619; Ra. 57 with Dover 1993 ad loc.; Εup. fr. 192z Olson = fr. 192.100–2 K.-A. καὶ γὰρ αἱ γυναῖκ[ε]ς / ὅσαι μ[ὲν ἂν] νεανίαις ξυνῶσ[ι] καταγελῶνται “for also those women who spend their time with young men are laughed at”; Anaxil. fr. 22.12,24; Arist. Ath. Pol. 1262a 33 τὸ συνεῖναι μόνον ἀφελεῖν τῶν ἐρώντων; also of animals (to copulate), Arist. HA 540a 13; and cf. Antiph. fr. 27 (said of Pythionice in a similar context) ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχός ἐστιν ὡρμηκυῖα. For the alternative construction with μετὰ + genitive cf. Aristomen. fr. 2.2 μετ’ ἐμοῦ ξυνέσῃ with Orth 2014, 46. σαπέρδαις δυσίν Cf. on fr. 15 τοὺς δύο σκόμβρους; σαπέρδης is the Nileperch (Tilapia nilotica), which is also called κορακῖνος; cf. Archestr. fr. 38.3 with Olson 2000, ad loc.; Archipp. fr. 26; Varr. Sat. Men. 312b omnes videmur nobis esse belli, festive, saperdae cum simus σαπροί. Σκόμβροι and σαπέρδαι, imported from the Black Sea, were presumably the raw material for the τάριχος imported

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 17)

149

by Chaerephilus; see Konstantakos 2000, 90. It is noteworthy that a σαπέρδης, also called τάριχος, was a present given to Gnathaena by a Syrian lover in Macho fr. 16. 269–76 Gow. Cf. also σαπερδίς and σαπέρδιον, the nickname of Phryne, the most famous hetaera, whose name was inextricably bound up with Hyperides.179 Chaerephilus had three sons, Pheidon, Pamphilus and Pheidippus (on whom cf. fr. 23 from Lēthē). It is not said which of the three are the two σαπέρδαι here (cf. on fr. 15 σκόμβροι; see above, “Interpretation”). But, since Pheidon probably died relatively young, in the early 320s (see APF p. 567; Worthington 2000, 297), while Pamphilus and Pheidippus were well known and certainly involved in politics (in IG II2 417, 14 Pamphilus is said to have undertaken the eutaxia liturgy, while Pheidippus was again satirized by Timocles in fr. 23 and had been trierarch before 322 BC, since in IG II2 1631, d622–4 he appears as owing 1,200 drachmas for a trierarchy), it is probable that Pamphilus and Pheidippus are the two σαπέρδαι in our fragment. 7 καὶ ταῦτ’ ἀνάλτοις ἄναλτος, also ἄναλος “not salted”; though these σαπέρδαι are the sons of a merchant of salted fish, they themselves are ‘unsalted’. Lit. unsalted fish (ἄναλτοι ἰχθύες) are recommended for the sick (Hp. Aff. 22). Metaphorically it means ἀπειρόκαλοι (lat. insulsi), ‘tasteless’, ‘insipid’; cf. Hom. Od. 18.114 ὃς τοῦτον τὸν ἄναλτον ἀλητεύειν ἀπέπαυσας ἐν δήμῳ. Possibly an allusion to the “Attic salt”, the kind of humor with which Hyperides’ jokes are thought to be dressed; cf. [Longin.] 34.2 σκώμματα οὐκ ἄμουσα οὐδ’ ἀνάγωγα, κατὰ τοὺς Ἀττικοὺς ἐκείνους ἅλας (Τucker: ἀλλά codd.) ἐπικείμενα. 180 πλατυρρύγχοις Τhis adjective, in combination with the preceding ἀνάλτοις, is obviously disparaging. In fact, πλατύρρυγχοι is the opposite of ὀξύρρυγχοι, a high-quality fish (cf. [Hes.] fr. 372.5 Merkelbach-West οὐκ ἀκλεὲς θνητοῖς γένος ὀξυρρύγχου). We may suggest that Chaerephilus’ sons had distinctive ‘snouts’, i. e. noses.181 Moreover, both ἄναλτος and πλατύρρυγχος may have a connotation of stupidity; cf. fr. 15 on σκόμβροι.

fr. 17 K.-A. (15 K.) τόν τ’ ἰχθυόρρουν ποταμὸν Ὑπερείδην πέρα ὃς ἠπίαις φωναῖσιν ἔμφρονος λόγου κόμποις παφλάζων †ἠπίοις† πυκνώμασι 179

180 181

Ath. 13.591c. See McClure 2003, 63–74, 127. The word τσαπερδόνα “vivacious young girl”, derived from σαπερδίς, has also survived in Modern Greek. See Babiniotis 2009, s. v. Cf. the modern Greek adjective ανάλατος, used of tasteless people or insipid jokes. It might also denote the indolence of those who bear this feature; cf. Polem. Phgn. 78 Οἱ τὴν ῥῖνα ἄγαν βραχεῖαν ἔχοντες ῥᾴθυμοι· ἀναφέρεται ἐπὶ τοὺς βοῦς ἢ τῶν ὀρνίθων τοὺς πλατυρύγχους.

150

Timokles

5

πρὸς παν wlalwl δυσας ἔχει, μισθωτὸς ἄρδει πεδία τοῦ δεδωκότος

1 πέρα Jacobs apud Schweighäuser: πέρασον Α, -άσον CE: περᾷς Fiorillo 2 ἠπίαις Jacobs: σηπίαις Α 3 κόμποις Α: κομψὸς Dobree: βομβεῖ Kock ἠπίοις Α: νηπίοις Hermann: ὑπτίοις Kaibel 4 προς πανδυσας ἐχει Α: πρὸς παν〈τὸς ὅστις χρυσὸν ἐν〉 δύσας ἔχῃ Hermann

Then cross the fish-rich river Hyperides, who with mild sounds of prudent speech, blustering boastfully with † wheedling † rhetorical aggregations … as a hired servant he waters his employer’s fields Ath. 8. 341f-342b καὶ Ὑπερείδης δὲ ὁ ῥήτωρ ὀψοφάγος ἦν, ὥς φησι Τιμοκλῆς ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν Δήλῳ διηγούμενος τοὺς παρὰ Ἁρπάλου δωροδοκήσαντας. γράφει δὲ οὕτως (fr. 4)· καὶ ἐν Ἰκαρίοις δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς ποιητής φησι · τόν τ’ – δεδωκότος The orator Hyperides was also a gourmet, as the comic poet Timocles narrates in Delos, when he names the politicians who were bribed by Harpalus. He writes as follows (fr. 4); Also in Icarians the same poet says: “then – fields”

Metre Iambic trimeter

llwl wlwl llwl llwl llwl

l|www|ww llwl llw|l wlwl l†lwl† llwl alwl llwl l|wwwl wlwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 602–3; Kock II (1884)) 458–9; Bevilacqua 1939, 58–9; Edmonds II (1959) 614–5; PCG VII (1989) 768; Cipolla 2003, 318–9 and 323–4; Apostolakis 2014, 112–5. Citation context The fragment is cited by Athenaeus – as usual in a deipnological context – in order to substantiate Hyperides’ penchant for fish (opsophagia) in a section where famous opsophagoi are discussed. The fragment is preceded by Timocles’ fr. 4 from Dēlos, where Hyperides is described as an opsophagos, who will make the fish-sellers rich and the seagulls like fish-abstinent Syrians. In the following paragraph Philetaerus is cited, who in his Asclēpios adds that Hyperides, in addition to being a gourmet, also used to play dice. This piece of satire of the prominent orator and politician comes, therefore, from a deipnological context, very typical of Athenaeus, and is not instructive as regards the overall plot of this particular comedy. However, it constitutes one more indication of Timocles’ tendency to combine material typical of Middle Comedy (gluttons, courtesans, wordplay) with personal satire aimed at contemporary politicians.

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 17)

151

Text 1 πέρα Fiorillo’s (1803, 5) περᾷς (περᾷς ὃς as been corrupted into the unmetrical πέρασον) is attractive; for the use of the ‘prophetic’ present in oracular utterances cf. Cratin. fr. 222 ἐς Συρίαν δ’ ἐνθένδε ἀφικνῇ μετέωρος ὑπ’ αὔρας; fr. 223 εἶτα Σάβας ἀφικνῇ καὶ Σιδονίους καὶ Ἐρεμβούς (both in dactylic hexameter). However, Jacobs’ πέρα, adopted by Kassel-Austin, is supported by fr. 16.4 κέλευσον; cf. the prohibitive subjunctive in A. Pr. 717 ὃν μὴ περάσῃς (said of the ‘arrogant’ river). 2 ἠπίαις Hermann’s (1838, 50) ἱππίαις is a bold metaphor; cf. Ar. Ra. 821 ῥήματα ἱπποβάμονα; 818 ἱππολόφων λόγων. Βut the apparently corrupted ἠπίοις in the next verse (v. 3) might be influenced by the transmitted ἠπίαις in v. 2. 3 † ἠπίοις Kaibel’s ὑπτίοις accords neither with the stormy river, since it denotes flatness, stagnant water (cf. Str. 8.3.19) nor with Hyperides’ vivid style (cf. Hermog. Id. 315.7 ὑπτιάζων λόγος, “ungrateful, boring speech”). Dobree’s αἱμύλοις “versutis strophis” is much better; cf. A. Pr. 206 αἱμύλας μηχανάς; fr. 4.7 λόγοισι δεινὸς Ὑπερείδης. The adjective often has the connotation of deceit. 4 πρὸς παν wlalwl δυσας ἔχει The text is obviously corrupt. Dobree understood πρὸς πᾶν ἀναιδεύσαιτ’ ἄν, εὐφυῶς τ’ ἔχει μισθωτὸς ἄρδειν, Hermann proposed πρὸς παν〈τὸς ὅστις χρυσὸν ἐν〉δύσας ἔχῃ, “in cuiusvis gratiam qui aurum immerserit”, while Kaibel suggested πρὸς πᾶν 〈ἀπαντῶν κλῇθρ’ ὅταν〉 λύσας ἔχῃ. In my opinion it is pointless to attempt any improvement by introducing a relative clause; there is probably a major gap in the transmitted text, in which the river Hyperides might be metaphorically described as ‘covering’ his huge payments with his boss’s money; e. g. δυσας ἔχει might be ἐπικλύσας / ἔχει; cf. Aeschines’ wording when describing the bribes purportedly accepted by Demosthenes: 3.173 νῦν μέντοι τὴν δαπάνην ἐπικέκλυκεν αὐτοῦ τὸ βασιλικὸν χρυσίον; Plu. Dem. 14.1 χρυσίῳ κατακεκλῦσθαι, where the same accusation is reproduced. In both formulations, the prevailing idea is that Persian gold waters (ἄρδειν, ἐπικλύζειν) the expenditures of a hireling orator. Cf. also E. Tr. 994–5 τὴν Φρυγῶν πόλιν χρυσῶι ῥέουσαν ἤλπισας κατακλύσειν δαπάναισιν. The word ἐπικλύζειν is suitable both for a river (cf. Ael. NA 10.43 … τὰ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων πεδία ὁ Νεῖλος ἐπικλύσας) and for the stormy rhetoric of Hyperides. Interpretation Hyperides the River uses tumultuous anti-Macedonian rhetoric (παφλάζειν), which yields big profits (μισθωτός) in order to satisfy his appetite for fish and (perhaps) courtesans (ἰχθυόρρους). He was a notable Athenian bon viveur, rumoured to visit the fish market every day and also to have maintained relations with several courtesans at the same time ([Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 849c). He is also called opsophagos in fr. 4.9 of Dēlos, again with reference to his rhetorical ability and supposed involvement in the Harpalus affair. Aristotle regards compulsive fish-eating (opsophagia) as a form of dissoluteness,182 alongside drunkenness, gluttony and lust. 182

EE 1231a 19–21 οἰνοφλυγία γὰρ καὶ γαστριμαργία καὶ λαγνεία καὶ ὀψοφαγία καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα περὶ τὰς εἰρημένας ἐστὶν αἰσθήσεις, εἰς ἅπερ μόρια ἡ ἀκολασία διαιρεῖται. For opsophagia see Davidson 1997, 20–6.

152

Timokles

The particle τε in v. 1 suggests that more instructions preceded it concerning the intermediate landmarks on this particular journey; cf. on fr. 16.1 ἡ Πυθιονίκη σε δέξεται. A possible parallel is a passage from Promētheus Desmōtēs, where Prometheus foretells to Io her wanderings and the mythical places and monsters she is about to meet. The traveller in our fragment is informed that he will meet strange monsters, such as the fish-river Hyperides. However, while in the tragedy Io is counseled against crossing the ‘Arrogant River’, in fr. 16.1 the traveller is encouraged to cross the fish-rich Hyperides. In vv. 2–3 Hyperides’ rhetoric is described. An intelligent orator, he was able to adapt his rhetoric to the matter in hand, speaking either in undertones (cf. v. 2 ἠπίαις φωναῖσιν) or passionately (v. 3 παφλάζων). For Hyperides’ adaptiveness cf. D.H. Din. 6 διηγεῖται δὲ πολλαχῶς, ποτὲ μὲν κατὰ φύσιν, ποτὲ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ τέλους ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν πορευόμενος; cf. Timocl. fr. 4.7 ὅ τ’ ἐν λόγοισι δεινὸς Ὑπερείδης; Whitehead 2000, 10–18, under the chapter ‘Hyperides of the glib tongue’. It is worth noting the connection between the ‘plopping’ Hyperides and Aristophanes’ Cleon who appears as Paphlagon, a nickname connected through erroneous etymology with paphlazein, in order to connote the rhetorical delivery used by the Athenian demagogue (see below, on v. 3). At first sight, the adjective μισθωτός might refer to Hyperides’ rhetorical services as a speechwriter in his early days.183 But, judging from its use in fourthcentury forensic speech, μισθωτός occurs almost exclusively in political contexts to indicate treacherous behavior by politicians who accept money in order to act against their city (μισθωτός και προδότης; see below, on v. 4). Hyperides’ employer is not, of course, Philip, as in Aeschines’ case, nor can there be any reference to the Harpalus affair here (as in fr. 4 of Dēlos), since the Ikarioi Satyroi, the play to which this fragment belongs, is dated to the first half of the 320s; cf. above, under „Date“.184 On the other hand, anti-Macedonian politicians were often accused of accepting bribes from the Persian King, in order to incite war against the Macedonians and prevent their advance towards the Persian Empire.185 Demosthenes, in particular, was repeatedly accused of taking Persian gold in order to rouse the rabble against Philip (Din. 1.10; Hyp. Ath. 25; Plu. Dem. 14.1 ἀλλὰ τῷ μὲν παρὰ Φιλίππου καὶ ἐκ Μακεδονίας ἀνάλωτος ὤν, τῷ δ’ ἄνωθεν ἐκ Σούσων καὶ Ἐκβατάνων ἐπιβατὸς χρυσίῳ γεγονὼς καὶ κατακεκλυσμένους; [Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 847f). There was also a rumor that Hyperides was bribed to help the citizens of Byzantium when they were besieged by Philip ([Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 848a). We should not, therefore, exclude the possibility that Timocles is here alluding to Hyperides’ venality in the context of exaggerated comic slander. This suspicion is 183 184 185

[Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 848a τὸ δὲ πρῶτον μισθοῦ δίκας ἔλεγε. See Bevilacqua 1939, 58. Cf. frr. 15–16; Paus. 1.37.5; Plu. Phoc. 22; Constantinides 1969,55; Whitehead, 2000, 11. Cf. Aeschin. 3.239, where it is said that when Alexander invaded Asia, Darius III attempted to send the Athenians three hundred talents to organize a campaign against the Macedonians, but this offer was rejected.

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 17)

153

reinforced by the entirely unfounded accusation concerning the Harpalus affair, which the same poet leveled against Hyperides some years later in his play Dēlos (see on this play, under “Interpretation”). For the connection between a taste for fish and courtesans and treacherous action cf. D. 19.229, where an opponent of Hyperides, the pro-Macedonian Philocrates, is said to have sold his city and to have gone about buying whores and fish with the money: ὁ δ’ (Φιλοκράτης) ὧν τὰ τῆς πόλεως πράγματα χρημάτων ἀπέδοτο, τούτων πόρνας ἠγόραζε καὶ ἰχθῦς περιιών; cf. Davidson 1997, 258. 1 τόν τ’ ἰχθυόρρουν ποταμὸν Hyperides is here described as a fish-rich river. This looks like an inversion of the ascription of a human characteristic to a river, e. g. A. Pr. 717–8 ἥξεις δ’ ὑβριστὴν ποταμὸν οὐ ψευδώνυμον / ὃν μὴ περάσῃς ∙ οὐ γάρ ἐστιν εὔβατος; Hdt. 1.189, where the river Cyndes is described as an outrageous person (ὑβρίσας). For the hapax eirēmenon ἰχθυόρρους cf. ἰχθυόεις πόντος (Hom. Il. 16.747) and βαθύρρους ποταμός / ὠκεανός (Hom. Il. 7.421; S. Tr. 560). It is equivalent to ἰχθύσι ῥέων, cf. Telecl. fr. 1.4 οἴνῳ γὰρ ἅπασ’ ἔρρει χαράδρα. Rivers flowing full of food, including fish, also appear in Μetag. fr. 6.1–10 ὁ μὲν ποταμὸς ὁ Κρᾶθις ἡμῖν καταφέρει / μάζας μεγίστας αὐτόματος μεμαγμένας, / ὁ δ’ ἕτερος ὠθεῖ κῦμα ναστῶν καὶ κρεῶν τὰ δὲ μικρὰ ταυτὶ ποτάμι’ ἐνμεντευθενὶ ἑφθῶν τε βατίδων εἰλυομένων αὐτόσε / ῥεῖ τευθίσιν ὀπταῖς καὶ φάγροις καὶ καράβοις, / ἐντευθενὶ δ’ ἀλλᾶσι καὶ περικόμμασιν, / τῃδὶ δ’ ἀφύαισι, τῇδε δ’ αὖ ταγηνίαις / τεμάχη δ’ ἄνωθεν αὐτόματα πεπνιγμένα εἰς τὸ στόμ’ ᾄττει “the river Crathis carries down to us great self-kneaded barley loaves, while the other river [Sybaris] drives a wave of well-kneaded cakes and meats and boiled skates still wriggling along there. The little streams on the far side here run with roast squid and sea bream and crawfish, and on this side with sausages and minced meat, over here with minnows, over there with pancakes. Slices that stew themselves shoot from above into the mouth”; cf. Telecl. fr. 1.8 ζωμοῦ δ’ ἔρρει παρὰ τὰς κλίνας ποταμὸς κρέα θερμὰ κυλίνδων “a river of broth flowed by the couches, rolling along pieces of hot meat”; Pherecr. fr. 113.3–4 ποταμοὶ μὲν ἀθάρης καὶ μέλανος ζωμοῦ πλέῳ / διὰ τῶν στενωπῶν τονθολυγοῦντες ἔρρεον “rivers full of porridge and black broth ran gurgling through the narrow ways”; fr. 137.3–5. For the motif of opsophagia as a symbol of τρυφή in Old Comedy (with reference to Cleon and Cleophon) cf. Ar. Eq. 353–5, 929–40, 1030–4; Pl. Com. fr. 57; Davidson 1997, passim; Pirotta 2009, 147–8. 2 ἠπίαις φωναῖς Cf. Quint. Inst. Or. 10.2.77 dulcis in primis et acutus Hyperides, sed minoribus causis, ut non dixerim vilioribus, magis par “Hyperides is extraordinarily gracious and acute, but is better qualified, not to say more useful, for cases of minor importance”; 2.15.9. For the simplicity and charm of Hyperides’ style cf. [Longin.] 34.2 τό τε ἠθικὸν ἔχει μετὰ γλυκύτητος [ἡδύ,] λιτῶς ἐφηδυνόμενον. 3 † ἠπίοις† πυκνώμασι For the corrupt ἠπίοις cf. above, “Text”. πύκνωμα must be a term signifying conciseness, terseness. It is indicative that Lysias’ style is described in a similar way: D.H. Lys. 5 συνέστραπται δὲ εἴ τις καὶ ἄλλος καὶ

154

Timokles

πεπύκνωται τοῖς νοήμασι, καὶ τοσούτου δεῖ τῶν οὐκ ἀναγκαίων τι λέγειν, ὥστε καὶ πολλὰ καὶ τῶν χρησίμων ἂν δόξειε παραλιπεῖν “there is no author who expresses his ideas with greater terseness and concentration. Far from introducing inessential material, he may sometimes appear to have omitted much that might have helped the case”. For Hyperides’ style cf. [Longin.] 34; Whitehead 2000, 10–18. κόμποις The word κόμπος „boast“ is almost always used in a negative sense: as opposed to truth, in Th. 2.41 οὐ λόγων …κόμπος τάδε μᾶλλον ἢ ἔργων … ἀλήθεια; in contradistinction to works, in Alex. 25.9 κόμποι κενοὶ ψοφοῦσιν ἀντ’ ὀνειράτων; Aeschin. 3.237; S. Ant. 127–8 Ζεὺς γὰρ μεγάλης γλώσσης κόμπους ὑπερεχθαίρει. For κόμποι κενοί cf. E. HF 148; for the combination of tumult and boast cf. Epict. 2.6.19 ψόφος ἐστὶ πάντα ταῦτα καὶ κόμπος κενῶν ὀνομάτων. παφλάζων In Aristophanes it is always said of Cleon: Eq. 919 ἁνὴρ παφλάζει “the man is blowing his top”; Pax 313–5 παφλάζων καὶ κεκραγώς “plopping and screaming”. For rivers and streams denoting Cleon’s tumultuous rhetoric cf. Ach. 381 κἀκυκλοβόρει with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Eq. 136–7 βυρσοπώλης ὁ Παφλαγών, / ἅρπαξ, κεκράκτης, Κυκλοβόρου φωνὴν ἔχων “a hide-seller is Paphlagon, a robber, a screamer, with a voice like the Cycloborus”; V. 1033 φωνὴν δ’ εἶχεν χαράδρας ὄλεθρον τετοκυίας “he had a voice like a roaring torrent”. The verb is also metaphorically used in Cratin. fr. 220 οὕτω σταθερῶς τοῖς λωποδύταις ὁ πόρος πεινῶσι παφλάζει “the strait froths so constantly with starving robbers”. 4 μισθωτός In fifth-century comedy the word implies that a politician has not inherited wealth, but rather is a νεόπλουτος; see Bakola 2010, 226–7. In fourthcentury oratory, on several occasions Demosthenes calls Aeschines an ‘employee of Philip’; cf. 18.38; 18.52 μισθωτὸν ἐγώ σε Φιλίππου πρότερον καὶ νῦν Ἀλεξάνδρου καλῶ “But I call you a hireling, formerly of Philip, now of Alexander”; 19.110 μισθώσας αὑτὸν καὶ λαβὼν ἀργύριον ταῦτ’ εἶπε καὶ προὔδωκεν ἐκείνῳ “having hired himself out and taken money he made the speech and betrayed us to him [Philip]”. Dinarchus also calls Demosthenes ‘ready for hire’ (1.29 μισθωτὸς οὗτος, ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι, μισθωτός οὗτός ἐστι παλαιός). For the connotations of this adjective see Harvey 1985, 84, n. 33 and 82–9; Worthington 1992, 279–80; Harding 1994, 214–6. ἄρδει πεδία ἄρδει is both literal (for the river rich in fish) and metaphorical (for the hireling orator). For metaphorical uses of ἄρδειν cf. Pi. O. 5.23 ὑγίεντα δ’ εἴ τις ὄλβον ἄρδει “if a healthy man cultivates prosperity”; Pl. Phdr. 276d συμποσίοις τε ἄρδοντες αὐτούς “and refreshing themselves with banquets”. τοῦ δεδωκότος Cf. fr. 4.4 ἀνόητος ὁ διδούς, εὐτυχὴς δ’ ὁ λαμβάνων (in a similar context, where Demosthenes, Hyperides and other pro-Macedonian orators are criticized).

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 18)

155

fr. 18 K-A (16 K)

5

ὥστ’ ἔχειν οὐδὲν παρ’ ἡμῖν. νυκτερεύσας δ’ ἀθλίως πρῶτα μὲν σκληρῶς καθηῦδον, εἶτα Θούδιππος βδέων παντελῶς ἔπνιξεν ἡμᾶς, εἶθ’ ὁ λιμὸς ἥπτετο. † ἐφέρετο πρὸς Δίωνα τὸν διάπυρον · ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνος οὐδὲν εἶχε. πρὸς δὲ τὸν χρηστὸν δραμὼν Τηλέμαχον Ἀχαρνέα σωρόν τε κυάμων καταλαβὼν ἁρπάσας τούτων ἐνέτραγον. 〈ὁ〉 δ’ ὄνος ἡμᾶς ὡς ὁρᾷ ὁ〈 〉 Κηφισόδωρος περὶ τὸ βῆμα ἐπέρδετο

1 οὐδὲν Schweighäuser: οὐδὲ ἓν Α 2 καθεύδω Α: corr. Jacobs βδέων Meineke: ὁ λέων Α 3 ἔπνιξεν Meineke: ἔπηξεν Α 4 ἐφέρετο Α: ἐφερόμεσθ’ οὖν vel εἶτ’ ἐφερόμην Meineke 7 ὁ add. Musurus 8 ὁ Α: ὡσπερεὶ Meineke: εὐθέως Herwerden: ‘possis ὁ μιαρὸς sim.’ K.-A.

5

So that we had nothing with us. In addition, I spent a miserable night. First I was trying to sleep on a hard bed; then Thudippus was farting and completely suffocated us; and I was starving. Then, † it was brought to the red-hot Dion, but even he did not have anything. Afterwards I ran to Telemachus, that Acharnian who is a bit simple, I found a heap of beans, I grabbed some and ate them. But the donkey, when he saw us, 〈 〉 Cephisodorus started farting around the speaker’s platform

Ath. 9.407f (post fr. 7) ἐν δ’ Ἰκαρίοις Σατύροις φησίν · ὥστ’ – ἐπέρδετο. ἐκ τούτων δῆλόν ἐστιν ὅτι Τηλέμαχος κυάμων χύτρας ἀεὶ σιτούμενος ἦγε Πυανέψια πορδὴν ἑορτήν (Com. adesp. fr. 118). Also in Icarian Satyrs he says: so – platform. From the previous verses it is obvious that Telemachus, who was always eating pots of beans, celebrated the Pyanepsia as a farting festival.

Metre Trochaic tetrameter catalectic

5

lwll lwll | lwll lwl lwll lwlw | lwll lwl lwll lwll | lwlw lwl †wwww lwlw | lwwww lwl lwlw lwlw | lwll lwl lwwww lwll lwwwl wwwl lwll lwwww| wwwll lwl w〈 〉lwll | wwwlw lwl

156

Timokles

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 603–4; Kock II (1884) 459; Coppola 1927, 455–6; Bevilacqua 1939, 60–1; Edmonds II (1959) 614–5; PCG VII (1989) 768–9; Cipolla 2003, 318–21 and 324–5. Citation context Fr. 18 comes from a section of Athenaus’ Deipnosophists (9.407d- 408a), where Democritus explains to his fellow-diner Ulpianus the meaning of Telemachus’ pot. Our fragment is preceded by Timocles’ fr. 23 (from Lēthē) and fr. 7 (from Dionysos), where the focus is “the so-called ‘pot of Telemachus’”, and is followed by Com. adesp. fr. 118 and Henioch. fr. 4. All Timocles’ fragments mention Telemachus and his pot of beans (see on Dionysos and here, “Interpretation”). Our fragment, however, is also closer to the two following, which seem to deal with flatulence (and farting), as a side-effect of excessive consumption of beans (cf. the comment πορδὴν-ἑορτήν and Heniochus’ fr. 4.7–8 ἔτνος κυάμινον διότι τὴν μὲν γαστέρα / φυσᾷ, τὸ δὲ πῦρ οὔ; “why does bean-porridge blow the belly but not the fire?” Text 4 ἐφέρετο is both unmetrical and ill-composed. Meineke’s εἶτ’ἐφερόμην seems the best solution, unless the abrupt change of persons (καθηῦδον, ἔπνιξεν ἡμᾶς, ἐφέρετο, ἡμᾶς ὡς ὁρᾷ) is due to a major gap. 6 Metrically, this verse is especially interesting; it is unique in Timocles, in that there is no diairesis, the only other certain instance in Middle Comedy trochaic tetrameters being Antiph. fr. 72 κογχίον τε μικρὸν ἀλλᾶντός τε προστετμημένον (Eub. fr. 1.2–3 and Alex. 291.2 are not certain; see Hunter 1983, 86–7; Arnott 1996, 786). The only case in Menander is v. 484 from Samia, παντελῶς οὕτως ἀπεγνωκώς με τυγχάνεις;186 Also the word κυάμων forms the only known anapaest in the sixth foot of a trochaic tetrameter, which consists of a trisyllabic word. Finally, for the resolution of the long in the seventh foot, which forms a tribrach, cf. Men. Sam. 607 πράττεται, μέλας περιπατεῖ, λευκὸς οὐκ ἂν ἀποθάνοι; Rubenbauer 1913, 221–2; West 1987, 28. 8 Crusius 1888, 627 connects Telemachus with the ass, citing the proverbial Acharnian donkeys (Hermipp. fr. 7; Pherecr. fr. 16). But this connection seems difficult and is not supported by Timocles’ descriptions of Telemachus in frr. 7 and 23. On the other hand, Meineke’s ὡσπερεί Κηφισόδωρος is an attractive suggestion, provided that it does not require the ὄνος to be taken metaphorically, but to explain παρὰ προσδοκίαν the ἐπέρδετο in place of ὀγκήσατο; the speaking character reveals that while he (and his company?) invaded Telemachus’ house, the ass from the stable began farting like Cephisodorus. Ιn this inversed comparison, an ass adopts the orator’s supposed crude behavior. This would be supported by Harp. s. v. Κηφισόδωρος ∙ Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ Κατὰ Μενεσαίχμου. Κεκωμώιδηται οὗτος ὡς ὀνώδης; but ὀνώδης exists only in the epitome, while most mss have νωθής. Since we do not know this person’s identity, it does not seem possible to 186

Sommerstein 2013 ad loc. mentions Sandbach’s suggestion that this metrical abnormality supports the depiction of Demeas’ seething mind.

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 18)

157

insist on this conjecture further. In my opinion, the best solution is to adopt KasselAustin’s μιαρὸς and interpret the phrase πέρδεσθαι περὶ τὸ βῆμα metaphorically; see below in the commentary. Interpretation The structure of the narrative indicates successive moves from one place to another. At least three different places are mentioned. The first (vv. 1–3) is a place where people seem to sleep (apparently at night) in awkward conditions. The second (vv. 4–5) includes a visit to a person called Dion, and the third (vv. 5–8) a move to another place, perhaps in the Assembly, as the mention of the platform (v. 8) and the politicians Telemachus and Cephisodorus suggests. The setting of vv. 1–3 is strongly reminiscent of a scene of enkoimesis in the temple of Asclepius, described in Aristophanes’ Wealth (668–700). Carion, who serves as a comic messenger, reports back from Asclepius’ shrine, where he has accompanied with Cremylus and Blepsidemus the blind Plutus, in the hope that Asclepius will restore his sight. The similarities between the Aristophanic and Timoclean scenes are striking. Both are reported by a character who finds it difficult to sleep (cf. Ar. Pl. 663, 672 and Timocl. fr. 18.2). In Aristophanes, the temple-priest pops the cakes into a bag, a pilgrim attempts to eat and takes a pot of porridge from an old maid, and finally both the narrator and the old woman are farting in the shrine, like Thudippus, annoying the people sleeping around them, and like Cephisodorus on the podium. The verbs are also similar: βδέειν and πέρδεσθαι both occur, in defiance of the official place they are in and the people around. In this fragment of political satire, personal abuse (ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν), the subject of hunger and, perhaps, a parasite coexist. This fragment and the following (fr. 19) are noteworthy, in that they are trochaic tetrameters with lively comic scenes and obscene language, in a way which brings to mind trochaic epirrhemata of Old Comedy parabasis; cf. Ar. V. 488–502 and 1275–83; Telecl. fr. 44; Bagordo 2013, 215.187 It is not certain whether the leader of the chorus is speaking (cf. v. 1 παρ’ἡμῖν, v. 3 ἡμᾶς), or whether an actor (a parasite? cf. Sciassi 1951, 240–1) is narrating his adventures. The scene is compatible with the corn shortage in Athens after 330 BC. The price of corn in this period had reached 16 drachmas a medimnus (cf. Dem. 34.39, ca 330 BC), and in 329/8 it seems that the Assembly decided that the price should be no higher than six drachmas a medimnus (IG II/III2 360,9). A parallel could be fr. 23 from Lēthē, where a starving person addresses first Pheidippus and then Telemachus, asking for pots of beans and baskets of fish. For the corn shortage in the period 330–320 see Isager–Hansen 1975, 200–204; Garnsey 1988, 154–62. 1 ὥστ’ ἔχειν οὐδὲν παρ’ἡμῖν Perhaps “nothing to eat”; cf. Python, Agēn (TrGF I 91 F 1.12–3) νῦν δὲ τὸν χέδροπα μόνον / καὶ τὸν μάραθον ἔσθουσι, πυροὺς

187

Trochaic tetrameter utterances occurring in Middle Comedy: Aristopho fr. 5, Antiph. frr. 42, 202, 203, Alex. fr. 103, Philetaer. fr. 9, Anaxil. fr. 22; Arnott 1972, 65–80; Konstantakos 2000, 237.

158

Timokles

δ’ οὐ μάλα “But now they only eat pulse and fennel, and just a little corn”. The construction indicates that what precedes it is the reason for the situation described. 2 σκληρῶς καθηῦδον For such an inconvenient situation cf. Ar. Pl. 662–3 κατεκλίναμεν τὸν Πλοῦτον, ὥσπερ εἰκὸς ἦν· / ἡμῶν δ’ ἕκαστος στιβάδα παρεκαττύετο “we made Wealth lie down, as was correct, while each of us laid out a mat”; v. 672. For the opposite μαλθακῶς / μαλακῶς “on soft coverlets” cf. Ar. Ach. 70 ἐφ’ ἁρμαμαξῶν μαλθακῶς κατακείμενοι; Antiph. 185.6 μαλακῶς καθεύδειν; Eub. fr. 107.1 ἐν θαλάμῳ μαλακῶς κατακείμενον· Theoc. 7.67–9; Propert. 1.14.1 molliter abicere. εἶτα A colloquial usage, here denoting successive experiences; cf. the preceding πρῶτα and εἶτ’ in the next line; for this adverb cf. Dover 1970, 20; Stama 2014, 119 (on Phryn. Com. fr. 15). Θούδιππος (PAA 514700, APF 7253). A political associate of Phocion. His grandfather Thudippus (I) of Araphen (APF 7252; LGPN II.1) was a politician who took Cleon’s daughter in marriage; one of his two sons was Cleon, the treasurer of Athena in 377/6 BC (IG II2 1410.1; IG II2 1411.6) and a litigant in the case in which Isae. 9 was delivered. Cleon’s son was our Thudippus (II). He was from a wealthy family, since he had been a trierarch before 323/2 BC (IG II2 1631, 470–3, 592 and 678–9). He was condemned to death by the Macedonians along with Phocion in Athens in 318 BC; cf. Plu. Phoc. 35.5 and 36.3; Ael. VH 13.41; Plu. Mor. 189a; Bayliss 2011, 76, 148–9, 227. It is not clear how Thudippus was involved in the narrative of the fragment. βδέων cf. v. 8 ἐπέρδετο. The vocabulary is comic; cf. Ar. Eq. 897–8 κἄπειτ’ ἐν ἡλιαίᾳ / βδέοντες ἀλλήλους ἀποκτείνειαν οἱ δικασταί “and then in court the jurors would kill each other off by farting” (there because of silphion, here because of beans). For another Old Comedy context, where hunger and farting are also combined, cf. Eup. frr. 99.9–10 (in iambic dimeter, probably from parabasis, antode) λ]υτὸς δ’ ἔκειθ’ ὁ Θεαγένης / τ]ὴν νύχθ’ ὅλην πεπορδώς “And Theogenes lay unconscious there all night long farting”. For farting while sleeping in Old Comedy, cf. Ar. Eq. 115; Nu. 9; Ec. 464. 3 παντελῶς ἔπνιξεν ἡμᾶς The verb πνίγω means “choke”, “stifle”, whether by throttling or heat, e. g. Ar. Ra. 122 (with a play on both senses); Th. 2.52 πνιγηραί καλύβαι; Plu. Per. 34 πνιγηραί νύκτες. For a metaphorical use cf. Ar. Nu. 1036 ἐπνιγόμην τὰ σπλάχνα. 4 Δίωνα τὸν διάπυρον The identity of this person is uncertain. A possible candidate might be Δίων Διαίτου Φρεάρριος, a trierarch in 334 BC (PAA 370840; D. 18.129; PA, Dion 4; Coppola 1927, 456; Schiassi 1951, 241; Cipolla 2003, 324). The word διάπυρος, when qualifying a person, means “energetic”, or “inventive, full of bright ideas”; cf. Men. Dysc. 183 ἔχειν 〈τι〉 διάπυρον (with Gomme-Sandbach 1973 ad loc.); or “ardent, fiery”, e. g. Pl. R. 615e ἄνδρες ἄγριοι, διάπυροι ἰδεῖν; Plu. Mor. 805a ἀνδρὸς διαπύρου καὶ θάρσος ἅμα ἔχοντος; Plaut. Epid. 673 ille quidem Volkani iratist filius. But διάπυρος, as a comic sobriquet, might refer to his fiery face, being an adaptation of πυρρός “flame-coloured” for reasons of assonance,

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 18)

159

i. e. Δίων (Διαίτου) διάπυρος; cf. the word-play πυρροὶ-Πυρράνδρου in Ar. Eq. 900–1: ΑΛ. Οὐ γὰρ τόθ’ ὑμεῖς βδεόμενοι δήπου γένεσθε πυρροί; / ΔΗ. Καὶ νὴ Δί’ ἦν γε τοῦτο Πυρράνδρου τὸ μηχάνημα “And didn’t you all fart each other and turn brown?/ Yes, by Zeus, and that was Pyrrhander’s trick”.188 5 χρηστόν The adjective is a general term for a good citizen (opp. πονηρός), e. g. Ar. Ach. 595; Pax 909–10; Th. 832; Dover 1974, 296–9. Here it is probably disparaging; cf. LSJ II.4.b “simple, silly, like εὐήθης”, and the ironical uses in Pl. Phdr. 264b χρηστὸς εἶ, ὅτι με ἡγῇ ἱκανὸν εἶναι τὰ ἐκείνου οὕτως ἀκριβῶς διιδεῖν; Dem. 18.318 ὦ χρηστέ; cf. Meineke 1840, 604: “χρηστόν dicit fort. fatuum”. Should we suspect that this adjective alludes to his ineffective policy concerning food supplies, perhaps associated with his emblematic pot? See above, “Interpretation”. 6 σωρόν τε κυάμων Τhe absence of diaeresis (which normally would have been within the word σωρόν, in combination with the anapaest in the sixth foot in κυάμων (see above, “Text”) is perhaps Timocles’ device to stress Telemachus’ strong association with beans. 7 τούτων (sc. κυάμων) ἐνέτραγον ἐνέτραγον is second aor. of ἐντρώγω (in Attic always τρώγω, “eat dessert”); sometimes with gen. (e. g. ἐντραγεῖν ἰσχάδων, μήλου, καρύων), as here; cf. Luc. Merc. Cond. 24; Hld. 2.23. Beans were normally chewed while doing monotonous work; cf. Ar. Lys. 536–7 κᾆτα ξαίνειν ξυζωσάμενος / κυάμους τρώγων. The word κυαμοτρώξ (Ar. Eq. 41 ἄγροικος ὀργήν, κυαμοτρώξ, ἀκράχολος) might have “associations with rusticity, low social status, and / or low intellect” (Sommerstein 1981, 147). In our passage, however, beans are used as a substitute for staple food in a period of corn shortage. Cf. the consumption of lupins, another cheap legume, by the starving parasite Tithymallus in fr. 20.4. For the tribrach in the fourth foot of a trochaic tetrameter, consisting of the last three syllables of a polysyllabic word (ἐνέτραγον), cf. Men. Sam. 550 τραχὺς ἄνθρωπος, σκατοφάγος, αὐθέκαστος; see Rubenbauer 1913, 212–3. 〈ὁ〉 δ’ὄνος In Old Comedy it is not rare for a politician to be called an ass. The best-known cases are Philonides (Theopomp. Com. fr. 5 ὧν εἷς μὲν ὀγκὰς (Ε: ὄνος μὲν ὀγκᾶθ’ Ald.) ὁ Μελιτεὺς Φιλωνίδης, / ὄνῳ μιγείσης μητρὸς ἔβλαστεν πόλει; cf. Pl. Com. fr. 65.5–6 Φιλωνίδην δ’ οὐ τέτοκεν ἡ μήτηρ ὄνον / τὸν Μελιτέα, κοὐκ ἔπαθεν οὐδέν;)189 and Peisander (Hermipp. fr. 7 ἐνέβαινε σιγῇ Πείσανδρος μέγας αὐτός ὥσπερ Διονυσίοισιν οὑπὶ τῶν ξύλων, ἐλαίας ἔρεισιν ὄνον κανθήλιον; cf. Eup. 195 οὐκ ἀλλ’ ὁ μέγας, οὑνοκίνδιος). The main characteristics of the ass

188

189

Gulick 1969, 347 suspects another word-play in διάπυρος: “the last part of διάπυρον may have been pronounced in such a way, disregarding quantity, as to suggest πυρός, “wheat”, quasi well-supplied with wheat” (since in πυρός “wheat” –πυ is long); this seems to me implausible. Where there is perhaps a connection due to false etymology between ὄνος and Philonides and Onetor, both names being used in that particular family; see PCG VII, 1989, 711.

160

Timokles

in proverbs are its enormous size (cf. Πείσανδρος μέγας), its stupidity and its lack of taste (ἀπειροκαλία); cf. the proverb ὄνος λύρας [ἤκουεν] (Men. Mis. 295); see Pirotta, 2009, 158–9. 8 Κηφισόδωρος (PAA 568060). This person is hard to identify. LGPN II s. v. lists 150 people with this name. However, four of them are possible candidates, on the basis of chronological and other characteristics: a) an Athenian orator, Isocrates’ pupil (D.H. Isoc. 18.4; Ath. 2.60d-e, 3.122b-c; PA 8343; LGPN II 9; PAA 568030); b) the person mentioned in Harp. s. v. Κηφισόδωρος (Lycurg. fr. 14.9 Conomis) Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ Κατὰ Μενεσαίχμου. κεκωμώδηται δὲ οὗτος ὡς νωθής (codd.: ὀνώδης in epitome); PA 8344; LGPN II 22; PAA 568035; c) the so-called Κηφισόδωρος ὁ πλάνος (the impostor); cf. Nicostr. Com. fr. 24; Dionys. Com. fr. 4; PA 8349; LGPN II, 20; and d) an eponymous archon in 323/2 BC (PA 8347; LGPN II 26; PAA 568050). Coppola, 1927, 456 notes that our Cephisodorus must be a politician or an orator, since he speaks on the podium, and accordingly prefers the identification with the eponymous archon of 323/2; cf. Cipolla 2003, 325, who does not exclude the student of Isocrates (see above, Kηφισόδωρος a.); Llopis–Gomez–Asensio 2007, 664, n. 2007. On the other hand, Cephisodorus (c) is not probable, since we would expect him to be identified as the πλάνος; besides, he seems to be a marginal figure (cf. PCG VII (1989) 87 “de Cephisodoro scurra”) and not a politician.190 I believe that Cephisodorus (b) is most likely to be the character in this passage. Apart from the information given here that he had been a κωμῳδούμενος, and thus probably a well-known orator / politician like the target of Timocles’ satire, the speech Κατὰ Μενεσαίχμου, from which this information derives, seems to concern religious matters, as far as we can gather from the surviving fragments. Lycurg. fr. 14.9 Conomis, in particular, contains a mention of the Πυανόψια, the festival in honor of Apollo, where πύανα, “cooked beans”, were offered: καὶ ἡμεῖς Πυανόψια ταύτην τὴν ἑορτὴν καλοῦμεν, οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι Ἕλληνες Πανόψια, ὅτι πάντας εἶδον τοὺς καρποὺς τῇ ὄψει. If, therefore, Cephisodorus was somehow connected with this celebration, his being mentioned together with Telemachus (for Telemachus’ possible association with that festival cf. on Timocl. fr. 7 from Dionysos) and his crude habit (v. ἐπέρδετο) would confirm Athenaeus’ comment that Pyanopsia was turned into a farting festival. περὶ τὸ βῆμα ἐπέρδετο βῆμα is the platform on which a speaker stands to address his audience. It is usually mentioned with reference to Assembly debates.191 The stereotypical usage for the speakers is ἀναβαίνειν / παριέναι ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα (e. g. Aeschin. 2.59, 71, 84, 127; Ιsoc. 12.11; Dem. 1.8). The construction περὶ τὸ βῆμα perhaps alludes to rivalry for political leadership; cf. Plu. Per. 11.2 190 191

Pace Sciassi 1951, 242. E. g. Ar. Eq. 77; Pl. Com. fr. 201.3; X. Mem. 3.6.1. However, cf. Antipho 6.40, where it is mentioned in the context of the Boule and Lys. 10.15 (law-courts). On the platform see Lipsius 1905, 172–3.

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 19)

161

Θουκυδίδην τὸν Ἀλωπεκῆθεν…, οἰκουρῶν ἐν ἄστει καὶ περὶ τὸ βῆμα τῷ Περικλεῖ συμπλεκόμενος…; “Thucydides of the deme Alopece … by staying in the city and wrestling with Pericles at the podium…” Alternatively, it may allude to orators acting as hirelings in the Assembly; cf. Aeschin. 2.71 τοὺς περὶ τὸ βῆμα καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μισθοφόρους, and the similar construction παρὰ το βῆμα in a forensic context: [D.] 59.43 ἀλλ’ ἔτι συκοφάντης τῶν παραβοώντων παρὰ τὸ βῆμα καὶ γραφομένων μισθοῦ καὶ φαινόντων “but he was a sycophant, one of those men who stand around the podium shouting, and is paid to indict people”.192 πέρδεται as a crude comic word is reserved at the end of the line; cf. Eup. fr. 99.10 (cited above). For allegorical descriptions of orators on the podium in comedy cf. Eup. fr. 220 Συρακόσιος δ’ ἔοικεν, ἡνίκ’ ἂν λέγῃ, / τοῖς κυνιδίοισι τοῖσιν ἐπὶ τῶν τειχίων· / ἀναβὰς γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμ’ ὑλακτεῖ περιτρέχων “but whenever Syrakosios speaks, it seems, he resembles the puppies on the walls; for after he gets up on the podium, he runs around barking”.

fr. 19 K-A (CGFP 222b)

5

Μ[α]ρσύαν δὲ τὸν φ[ί]λαυλον Αὐτοκλέα δεδαρμέν[ο]ν γυμνὸν ἑστάναι καμίνῳ προσπεπατταλευμένον, Τηρέα τ’ Ἀριστομήδην. (B.) διὰ τί Τηρέα λέγειϲ; (Α.) διότι τηρ[ε]ῖν δεῖ παρόντοϲ τοῦδε τὰ σκεύη ϲφόδρα∙ εἰ δὲ μή, Πρόκνη γενήσῃ, κνώμενος τὸ κρανίον, ἂν ἀπολέσηιϲ. (Β.) ψυχρόν. (Α.) ἀλλὰ πρὸς θεῶν ἐπί[σ]χετε μηδὲ συρίξητε

2 καμει|νῳ pap. D-S

5

6 ἃν Pearson–Stephens: ἄν D-S

7 συρίξητε pap.: συρίζητε leg.

that the flute-lover Autocles, a naked Marsyas, stood nailed on the chimney. And Aristomedes is Tereus. B. Why do you call him Tereus? A. Because, when he is present, you must be very careful of the vessels. Otherwise, you will become Procne, scratching your head, if you lose them. B. that is a frigid joke. (A) By the gods, hold and don’t hiss at me

Didym. in Dem. 10.70 col. 10.3 (post fr. 14) καὶ ἐν Ἰκαρίοις ∙ Μ[α]ρσύαν – συρίξητε also in Icarians he says: ‘Marsyas – don’t hiss at me’ 192

Major 2002, 549–557 compares this passage with Ar. Pl. 176 Ἀγύρριος δ’ οὐχὶ διὰ τοῦτον πέρδεται and suspects that this is an allusion to corruption; but this seems difficult to prove here.

162

Timokles

Metre Trochaic tetrameter catalectic

5

lwlw lwlw| lwlw lwl lwlw lwll| wwwlw lwl wwwll lwll| lwll lwl lwll lwll| lwlw lwl lwwwl lwlw| lwll lwl lwll lw

Citation context This fragment is transmitted by Didymus, in his comment on D. 10.70. In this passage Demosthenes attacks Aristomedes as a thief and asks him why he chose the precarious life of a politician, which is open to trials and problems, instead of a quiet life. Apart from our fragment, Didymus also cites fr. 14 from Timocles’ Hērōes (where Aristomedes is also described as a notorious thief and is associated with Hermes, the patron of thieves), Dinarchus’ otherwise unattested speech Defence of Docimus, regarding the Horse (frr. VXXI-VXXII n. 4 Konomis, where he is referred to as ‘the Brazen’), and Philemon’s Lithoglyphos (fr. 41= CGFPR fr. 206); for more details see on the Hērōes. Discussion Demiańczuk 1912, 88; Coppola 1927, 461; Bevilacqua 1939, 59–60; Edmonds II (1959) 614–7; CGFPR 218; PCG VII (1989) 769; Cipolla 2003, 320–1 and 325–6; Gibson 2002, 123–4; Harding 2006, 207–8. Interpretation This lively scene culminates in the metatheatrical apostrophe to spectators, who are requested not to express their disapproval of the frigid jokes. Therefore it is highly probable that it comes from the prologue of the play; cf. e. g. Ar. Eq. 37–9 (the second slave, named in some mss as Nicias, asks the spectators to approve their performance) ἓν δ’ αὐτοὺς παραιτησώμεθα, / ἐπίδηλον ἡμῖν τοῖς προσώποισιν ποιεῖν, / ἢν τοῖς ἔπεσι χαίρωσι καὶ τοῖς πράγμασιν “but let us entreat them to make it obvious to us by their faces whether they are enjoying our words and actions”. Such games by the characters, usually slaves, are also compatible with the prologue; cf. Ar. Eq. 21–9 which includes wordplay on automolōmen and V. 73–85 where the slave calls upon the spectators to guess Philocleon’s disease.193 It seems that the context of this scene is a convivial game (v. 4 τὰ σκεύη; cf. Thphr. Lap. 42 ἐπιτράπεζα σκεύη). It was typical at banquets to describe through comparisons (εἰκάζειν). One might consider the Platonic Symposium, where Socrates is compared to Marsyas (see below, on v. 1). In this fragment, a character compares contemporary personalities with legendary figures, the connecting elements being either an inclination or a (false) etymological link. This contest in invented comparisons would probably include more figures (cf. Μαρσύαν δέ). Another similar scene is possibly that in Hērōes fr. 12, where Demosthenes is named Briareos due to his warlike rhetoric. Such puzzling wordplay sometimes 193

It has been suggested that the request in fr. 19.6 ἀλλὰ πρὸς θεῶν ἐπίσχετε μηδὲ συρίξητε is addressed by Silenus to the untamed Satyrs (Coppola 1927, 460).

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 19)

163

occurs, probably in a sympotic context, in Middle Comedy; cf. the dithyrambic (and puzzling) description of a trapeza in fr. 13 (from Hērōes). For the Athenians’ fondness of mockery, cf. Anaxandr. fr. 35.1 ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἀλλήλους ἀεὶ χλευάζετ’, οἶδ’ ἀκριβῶς “you always mock each another, I know well” (the most extensive catalogue of nicknames, see Millis 2016, 168–9). For the association of a legendary figure with well-known contemporary personalities cf. Cratin. fr. 259, where Aspasia is called Hera: Ἥραν τέ οἱ Ἀσπασίαν τίκτει Καταπυγοσύνη / παλλακὴν κυνώπιδα “and Lewdness gives birth to Hera, Aspasia, a dog-eyed concubine”, and fr. 73, where Pericles is called Zeus: ὁ σχινοκέφαλος Ζεὺς ὅδε προσέρχεται / Περικλέης, τὠιδεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ κρανίου ἔχων “here comes the onion-headed Zeus, Pericles, with the Odeion on his head”. 1 Mαρσύαν δὲ τὸν φίλαυλον … δεδαρμένον Marsyas was a mythical satyr, considered the inventor of the flute (for this instrument cf. West 1992, 81–109). He challenged Apollo to a competition, lost and was flayed alive by the god; cf. Hdt. 7.26; X. An. 1.2.8; [Apollod.] Bibl. 1.4.2; Ovid. Met. 6.382–400. The flayed Marsyas was often represented on monuments, hanging from a tree, while Apollo stands before him with his lyre; cf. Philostr. Jun. Im. p. 865–6. Marsyas was considered to be a misshapen figure; in Plato’s Symposium (215b) Alcibiades compares Socrates with this satyr: καὶ φημὶ αὖ ἐοικέναι αὐτὸν τῷ σατύρῳ τῷ Μαρσύᾳ. Philaulos was a play by Philetaerus; cf. fr. 17 ὦ Ζεῦ, καλόν γ’ ἔστ’ ἀποθανεῖν αὐλούμενον· / τούτοις ἐν Ἅιδου γὰρ μόνοις ἐξουσία / ἀφροδισιάζειν ἐστίν “O Zeus, it is good to die while playing the flute; for flute-players are the only men who have the power to enjoy sexual pleasures in Hades”; cf. ὁ φίλαυλος δελφίς (E. El. 435; Ar. Ra. 1317) and φιλαύλους Μούσας (S. Ant. 965). The verb δέρω in this sense in comedy is also attested in Ar. Ra. 1106, Archipp. fr. 23, Anaxandr. fr. 40.13; it also occurs in the sense “give a hard blow”, e. g. Ar. V. 485, Ra. 619, Men. Sent. 571 Jaekel. Page 1941, 240 suspects that δεδαρμένος here alludes to a ψωλός, “circumcised” or, rather, “in erection” (Austin 1973, 218; Harding 2006, 207); cf. Ar. Ach. 161 ἀπεψωλημένος with Olson 2002 ad loc. Αὐτοκλέα This person is difficult to identify, as the name is not uncommon (80 registrations in LCPN) and the patronymic is missing. According to Edmonds (1959, 615; cf. Schiassi 1951, 241), this may be Autocles the son of Strombichides (APF 4386), an active general and politician from ca 370 BC onwards (X. HG 6.3.2,7; D. 23.104; D.S. 15.71.3 and Hyp. Against Autocles (frr. 55–65 Jensen; cf. Whitehead 2000, 10 n. 38). But the date of the Icarioi Satyroi is against this identification, because Autocles’ activity would have taken place some forty years earlier and would therefore be out-of-date; see Harding 2006, 207. Another Autocles is the dissolute person who is mentioned in Heraclid. Pont. fr. 58 Wehrli οὐκ Αὐτοκλέης καὶ Ἐπικλέης οἱ μετ’ ἀλλήλων 〈ἀσωτεύεσθαι πρὸ τοῦ κατ’ ἐγκράτειαν〉 ζῆν προελόμενοι καὶ πάντ’ ἐν ἐλάττονι ποιούμενοι τῆς ἡδονῆς, ἐπειδὴ πάντα κατανάλωσαν, κώνειον πιόντες ἅμα τὸν βίον ἐτελεύτησαν; cf. Theophil. fr. 2 οὐδ’ ἂν Αὐτοκλῆς / οὕτως μὰ τὴν γῆν εὐρύθμως τῇ δεξιᾷ / ἄρας ἐνώμα. Constantinides 1969, 59–60, suggests that Timocles’ Autocles must be the notorious homosexual Autocleides (PAA 238785),

164

Timokles

mentioned in Aeschines Against Timarchus (delivered in 345 BC) along with other notorious pederasts; cf. Harp. s. v. Αὐτοκλείδης. That would be compatible with Timocles’ Orestautokleidēs (fr. 27), where a certain Autocleides (possibly the same person as in Aeschines) with the hybrid (and expanded) name Orestautocleides is represented on stage surrounded by eleven prostitutes. Autocles, then, would be the short name of Autocleides, in order to emphasize his perversion through association with a notorious Athenian profligate. But this seems complicated, since the association of Autocles with the satyr Marsyas renders an additional association of Autocles with Autocleides superfluous. As the available evidence stands, it seems impossible to identify this kōmōidoumenos. 2 γυμνὸν ἑστάναι Apparently an allusion to Autocles’ dissolute life; cf. Lys. 1.24 γυμνὸν ἑστηκότα (said of Eratosthenes, when caught red-handed in adultery) and the next lemma. καμίνῳ προσπεπατταλευμένον A furnace (κάμινος) is used in smelting or for firing earthenware and bricks; cf. Hdt. 1.179.1; 4.164.3; also for heating baths (Ar. fr. 739 κάμινος βαλανείου; Ginouvès 1962, 205). In comedy, it is metaphorically used in Crobyl. fr. 8.4 κάμινος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος “(you are) an oven, not a man” and in com. adesp. fr. 619 κάμινον ἔχειν ἐν τῷ πνεύμονι (perhaps for some drinker); see Bagordo 2016, 102 (on Ar. fr. 607). For prospattaleuein, ‘nail fast to’ cf. A. Pr. 19–20 δυσλύτοις χαλκεύμασι / προσπασσαλεύσω τῷδ’ ἀπανθρώπῳ πάγῳ; Men. fr. 718 εἶτ’ οὐ δικαίως προσπεπατταλευμένον / γράφουσι τὸν Προμηθέα πρὸς ταῖς πέτραις; Ar. Pl. 943 ὥσπερ κοτίνῳ προσπατταλεύσω τουτῳί; Luc. DMar. 14.3 τὴν Ἀνδρομέδαν ἐπί τινος πέτρας προσπεπατταλευμένην. Τhe expression καμίνῳ προσπεπατταλευμένον alludes to the blacksmiths’ practice of hanging a dummy in front of their workshops, in order to avert the evil eye; cf. Ar. fr. 607 πλὴν εἴ τις πρίαιτο δεόμενος / βασκάνιον ἐπικάμινον ἀνδρὸς χαλκέως “unless one asked to buy a forge amulet from a blacksmith”; cf. Poll. 7.108 πρὸ δὲ τῶν καμίνων τοῖς χαλκεῦσιν ἔθος ἦν γελοῖά τινα καταρτᾶν ἢ ἐπιπλάττειν ἐπὶ φθόνου ἀποτροπῇ· ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ βασκάνια, ὡς καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης λέγει; “it was the custom to hang up or plaster on the front of blacksmiths’ forges certain humorous amulets to avert malice; they were called baskania, as Aristophanes says”; Phryn. PS 53.6, where these βασκάνια are ἀνθρωποειδῆ κατασκευάσματα “constructions in human shape”. If Marsyas / Autocles is described as a βασκάνιον, then this may refer to a depiction of a naked man with an erection (cf. γυμνὸν ἑστάναι above); a tablet with an ithyphallic figure in front of an oven is actually on display in Berlin (Staatlichen Μuseen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, F683/757/829/822 = Zimmer 1982, 31; cf. Bagordo 2016, on Ar. fr. 607). 3 Τηρέα Tereus was a legendary king of Thrace. Procne was his wife, and Itys their son. Sophocles produced a tragedy entitled Tereus, probably based on the version given by [Apollod.] Bibl. 3.14.8, which included Philomela’s rape by Tereus, the revealing of the crime through an embroidery made by Philomela, the killing of Itys and finally the transformation of Tereus into a hoopoe, Procne into a nightingale and Philomela into a swallow; cf. Ovid. Met. 6.424–674.

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 19)

165

Comedies with the title Tereus were written by Anaxandrides,194 Cantharus and Philetaerus. Tereus became the Hoopoe (Ἔποψ) in Aristophanes’ Birds; see Dunbar 1995, 139–41. The myth of Tereus was obviously chosen by Timocles in order to support two puns: Τηρεύς –τηρεῖν and Πρόκνη –κνῆν; see below and Harding 2006, 207. τ’ Ἀριστομήδην Cf. on fr. 14.3 χαριζόμενός γ’ Ἀριστομήδῃ τῷ καλῷ, where Aristomedes is associated with Hermes, the patron of thieves. For his identification see on Heroes, where we adopt Koerte’s suggestion (1905, 400; cf. Davies, 1971, APF 2108) that this person is Aristomedes of Collytus (LGPN II, n. 9020; cf. IG II2 1924.9). The pun on Tereus seems to be metrically supported by the pattern wwwl (resolution of the first long syllable of a trochaic foot), repeated by the second interlocutor in the next line: διὰ τί Τηρέα – διότι τηρεῖν. For the association of contemporary thefts with mythical figures cf. Anaxandr. fr. 35.10–11 ὑφείλετ’ ἄρνα ποιμένος παίζων, Ἀτρεύς ἐκλήθη ∙ / ἐὰν δὲ κριόν, Φρῖξος ∙ / ἂν δὲ κωδάριον, Ἰάσων “if someone took a shepherd’s lamb in jest, he was called Atreus; if a ram, Phrixos; if a fleece, Jason”. Cf. also Anaxandr. fr. 247, where Millis 2015, ad loc., suspects a similar joke. 4 τὰ σκεύη Gear, equipment, vessels, cookware (e. g. Ar. V. 939, Ec. 728). Here the word may refer to sympotic vessels; cf. above, “Interpretation”. τηρεῖν… σφόδρα Τhe combination τηρεῖν τὰ σκεύη recalls Ηermes’ wording in Ar. Pax 201–2 τὰ λοιπὰ τηρῶ σκευάρια τὰ τῶν θεῶν / χυτρίδια καὶ σανίδια κἀμφορίδια. For the postponement of the adverb cf. Ar. Pl. 234–5 Ἀλλ’ ἄχθομαι μὲν εἰσιὼν νὴ τοὺς θεοὺς / εἰς οἰκίαν ἑκάστοτ’ ἀλλοτρίαν πάνυ. 5 Πρόκνη γενήσῃ The pun is πρόκνη (πρό and κνῆν, ‘the scratches at the front’, Harding 2006, 207) and κνώμενος τὸ κρανίον (‘scratching your skull’). Procne, on whom see Dunbar 1995, 149–50 and 286–8, is mentioned because she also lost her son, Itys. For wordplay on legendary figures cf. Ar. Ec. 1017–21 where the pun is between προκρούειν (beat, here met. ‘screw’) and Προκρούστης: …πρὶν ἂν / τὴν γραῦν προκρούσῃ πρῶτον … / οἴμοι, Προκρούστης τήμερον γενήσομαι; “… until he knocks an older woman first … Alas! I shall become a Procrustes!”; for similar associations cf. Ar. fr. 957 [dub.] εὐθὺς δὲ Φοῖνιξ γίγνομαι · τῇ μὲν δίδωμι χειρί, τῇ δὲ λαμβάνω “I immediately become a Phoenician: with one hand I give, with the other I take”; Anaxandr. fr. 33.3 Εὐριπίδης τις τήμερον γενήσεται (on Euripides’ supposed drunkenness); Eq. 529 Δωροῖ συκοπέδιλε (Δωρώ being ‘Goddess of bribery’ and συκοπέδιλε modelled on the epic χρυσοπέδιλε, a pun on the word sycophant). Puns on places: Ar. fr. 629 ὑπὸ γέλωτος εἰς Γέλαν ἀφίξομαι; Fraenkel 2007, 39–40; Kanavou 2011, 65, 194–6. κνώμενος τὸ κρανίον ‘scratching the head’ seems to be a sign of stress (cf. the metaphorical use of ἀποκναίω / ἀποκνάω, ‘worry to death’, e. g. Ar. Ec. 1087; Thpr. Char. 7.4 and the passive ‘to be worn out’, Pl. R. 406b; X. HG 6.2.1) rather than a 194

In fr. 46 the speaking character (probably Tereus) satirizes Polyeuctus, an Athenian profligate; see Nesselrath 1990, 214–5; Millis 2015, ad loc.

166

Timokles

sign of effeminacy (Luc. Rh. Pr. 11 τῷ δακτύλῳ ἄκρῳ τὴν κεφαλὴν κνώμενον; cf. Plu. Caes. 4.9 ἑνὶ δακτύλῳ κνώμενον). 6 ψυχρόν With reference to rhetoric, strained metaphors are considered to belong to the ‘frigid style’, which also includes the abuse of compound words, odd vocabulary, and peculiar epithets; cf. Arist. Rh. 1406b 15–9, where, notably, Philomela, Procne’s sister, is mentioned in a similar metaphorical way. For frigid jokes cf. Eup. 261 Ἡράκλεις, τοῦτ’ ἔστι σοι / τὸ σκῶμμ’ ἀσελγὲς καὶ Μεγαρικὸν καὶ σφόδρα / ψυχρόν; Theophil. fr. 4 (for the orator Callimedon, the so-called κάραβος) πῶς ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κάραβον; / «ψυχρός ἐστιν, ἄπαγε», φησί · ῥητόρων οὐ γεύομαι; Thphr. Char. 2.4, where it is said that σκώψαντι ψυχρῶς ἐπιγελάσαι is typical of a κόλαξ; Ath. 5.220d φορτικὰ σκώπτοντος καὶ ψυχρά; Plaut. Poen. 759–60 os frigefactare, ‘you tell frigid things’. For ψυχρὸν as literary term cf. the mention of the emblematic ‘frigid’ poet Theognis in Aristophanes: Ar. Ach. 138– 140; Th. 170 ὁ δ’ αὖ Θέογνις ψυχρὸς ὢν ψυχρῶς ποεῖ; Alex. fr. 184 ψυχρότερον Ἀραρότος; Arist. Rh. 1405b; Demetr. Eloc. 2.114, [Longin.] 4; Gutzwiller 1969, 18; Wankel II (1976) 1119 (on D. 18.256); Arnott 1996, 549. πρὸς θεῶν This formula is common in comedy, usually at the end of a verse, e. g. Ar. Pax 9; Av. 663; Ec. 1095; Stratt. fr. 63.1; Antiph. frr. 57.12; 226.1; Men. Dysc. 201, 411. Ιt is less common than πρὸς τῶν θεῶν (which, however, in trochaic tetrameter occurs five times, compared to six πρὸς θεῶν). It supports a request, a demand or a question; cf. Barrett 1964, 202 (on E. Hipp. 219); Orth 2015, 277 (on Polioch. fr. 1). ἐπίσχετε For the absolute use in the imperative cf. Α. Ch. 896; S.OC. 856; for a similar vague order, followed by a more specific one (cf. the next lemma), cf. S. Ph. 539 ἐπίσχετον, μάθωμεν; E. Hipp. 567 ἐπίσχετ’, αὐδὴν τῶν ἔσωθεν ἐκμάθω. 7 μηδὲ συρίξητε συρίττω is used here in the sense “disapprove”. It is probably metatheatrical, addressed both to the interlocutors and to the spectators. For the verb in theatrical contexts, cf. Antiph. fr. 189 21–2 ἄν ἕν τι τούτων παραλίπῃ / Χρέμης τις ἢ Φείδων τις, ἐκσυρίττεται “if he omits something like Chremes or Pheidon, he’s hissed off the stage”; cf. X. Smp. 6.5 τῷ μὲν ἐλεγχομένῳ οἶμαι ἄν, ἔφη, πρέπειν συριγμόν “for the discomfited disputant, (Antisthenes) said, I think the appropriate music would be a hissing”; D. 18.265; ἐξέπιπτες, ἐγὼ δ’ ἐσύριττον “you were hissed offstage, I was hissing”; Aeschin. 3.76 καὶ ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡγεῖτο τοῖς πρέσβεσιν εἰς τὸ θέατρον, ὥστε καὶ συρίττεσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην καὶ κολακείαν “and at daybreak he led the ambassadors into the theatre, with the result that he was hissed for his disgraceful and fawning conduct”; Arist. Po. 1455a 28–9 ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς σκηνῆς ἐξέπεσεν δυσχερανάντων τοῦτο τῶν θεατῶν “the audience was annoyed at this and the work was hissed off stage”; Pl. Lg. 3.700c3 οὐ σύριγξ ἦν οὐδέ τινες ἄμουσοι βοαὶ πλήθους “there was not a pipe nor the mob’s unmusical shoutings”; Bain 1977, 102, n. 1. Sometimes συρίττειν is accompanied by the onomatopoeic κλώζειν, e. g. D. 21.226 Ὑμῶν οἱ θεώμενοι τοῖς Διονυσίοις εἰσιόντ’ εἰς τὸ θέατρον τοῦτον ἐσυρίττετε καὶ ἐκλώζετε “those of you who attended the Dionysia hissed and crowed as he entered the theater”; Plu. Mor. 813e; Alciphro 3.35.3;

Ἰκάριοι Σάτυροι (fr. 19)

167

Poll. 4.122; Olson 2016, 329–30 (on Eup. fr. 259.79). For a possible metatheatrical appeal to the audience in satyr plays cf. S. Ichn. 83–5 (col. III.24–6 Snell) [τ]ῶν εἴ τις ὀπτήρ ἐστι[ν] ἢ κατήκοος, / [ἐ]μοί τ̣’ [ἂ]ν [ε]ἴ̣η προσφιλὴ[ς] φράσας τόδε / [Φοίβῳ τ]’ ἄνακτι παντελ̣ὴς εὐεργ[έ]τ̣ης; see Zagagi 1999, 187–8.195 For the construction (imperative + μηδὲ +subjunctive) cf. Hom. Il. 23.407 ἵππους δ’ Ἀτρεΐδαο κιχάνετε, μὴ δὲ λίπησθον; Od. 3.55 “κλῦθι, Ποσείδαον γαιήοχε, μηδὲ μεγήρῃς; in reversed order, Dem. 18.10 μηδὲ φωνὴν ἀνάσχησθε…, ἀλλ’ ἀναστάντες καταψηφίσασθ’ ἤδη; Schwyzer II (1950) 343.

195

The suggestion that, since σύριγξ is connected with satyrs, the speaking character is addressing the satyr chorus (Coppola 1927, 461 “un dialogo tra Sileno e i Satiri”; cf. Llopis–Gomez–Asensio 2007, 664, 2014: “fluta propria de los satires”) is not supported by the context.

168

Kαύνιοι (Kaunioi) (“Men of Caunus”) Discussion Bevilacqua 1939, 40; PCG VII (1989) 770. Τitle The same title occurs in Alexis. For other comic titles in the plural referring to non-Greek nations, cf. Epicharm’s Τρῶες, Μagnes’ Λυδοί, Aristophanes’ Βαβυλώνιοι, Αntiphanes’ Κᾶρες, Timocles’ and Antiphanes’ Αἰγύπτιοι, Xenarchus’ (and perhaps Antiphanes’) Σκύθαι. Caunus was an ancient city of Caria, first mentioned in Herodotus (1. 172; cf. 1.176; 5.103; Strb. 14.2.3), who notes that in his opinion its inhabitants were indigenous, although they assert that they have come from Crete, and that their lifestyle and customs were quite different from those of other peoples, even their fellow Carians. Herodotus also reports that the Caunians used to assemble for drinking-bouts in groups according to their age and gender. When certain foreign rites were established among them, all Caunian men of full age put on their armor and went as far as the boundaries of Calynda, striking the air with their spears and saying that they were casting out the alien gods. For the history and cultural characteristics of the Caunians see Bryce et alii 2009, 154–5. The founder of the city was the mythical Caunus. Parthenius in his Love Romances (11) sets out various versions of the incestuous love affair of Caunus and Byblis. First he cites Nicaenetus (fr. 1 Powell), who says that Caunus fell in love with his sister, and, being unable to rid himself of his passion, left his home and traveled far from his native land. Then he mentions another version of the myth, in which it was Byblis who fell in love with Caunus and propositioned him. Her brother was horrified at what she said and decided to go into exile. Byblis hanged herself from an oak. For the story cf. also Ovid. Met. 9.450–665. For the proverbial Καύνιος ἔρως cf. Arist. Rh. 1402b 2–3 οὐκ ἂν ἐλέγετο Καύνιος ἔρως, εἰ μὴ ἦσαν καὶ πονηροὶ ἔρωτες “it would not be called ‘Caunian passion’ unless there were also bad passions”; Sud. κ 1138 s. v. Καύνιος ἔρως: ἐπὶ τῶν μὴ κατορθουμένων ἐπιθυμιῶν· Καῦνος γὰρ καὶ Βυβλὶς ἀδελφοὶ ἐδυστύχησαν “Caunian passion: in reference to unfulfilled desires; for the siblings Kaunos and Byblis were ill-fated”. Content The title seems to allude to either a mythological or a historical setting. The subject of the play might be a Καύνιος ἔρως (a mythological burlesque?). For possible incestuous love affairs in Attic comedy cf. Aristophanes’ Αἰολοσίκων, where probably the love affair between Aeolus’ son Macareus and his sister Canace and the marriages of Aeolus’ sons and daughters were comically treated; cf. Euripides’ Aeolus and Aristophanes’ criticism of the tragic poet for introducing incestuous relationships to his art: Ar. Nu. 1371–2; Ra. 850; Orth 2017, 14–20. Alternatively, the plot might involve a comic exploitation of the lifestyle of the Caunians, i. e. men or women drinking wine in company (perhaps in a symposion). However, the only surviving fragment is not helpful for the reconstruction of the plot. The plural in the title may or may not suggest a Caunian chorus.

Kαύνιοι (fr. 20)

169

Date The antitheton ἀπεκαρτέρησε / ἐκαρτέρησε most probably alludes to the famous quibble δοῦναι / ἀποδοῦναι, delivered by Demosthenes in the context of the Halonnesus Debate in 342 BC (cf. on fr. 12). It seems, therefore, that this play, as is the case with all plays in which the Halonnesus slogan was satirized, was staged in 342 BC or shortly afterwards; cf. Webster 1952, 19; Arnott 1996, 70–1; Nesselrath 1997, 275–6.

fr. 20 K.-A. (18 K.)

5

ἤδη προσενήνεκται. τί μέλλει; σπεύδετε, ὦ τᾶν. ὁ γὰρ Τιθύμαλλος οὕτως ἀνεβίω κομιδῇ τεθνηκώς, τῶν ἀν’ ὀκτὼ τοὐβολοῦ θέρμους μαλάξας. οὐκ ἀπεκαρτέρησε γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, ἀλλ’ ἐκαρτέρησ’, ὦ φίλτατε, πεινῶν

1 προσενήνεκται τι Α: -αι; τι Kock: -αί τι. 〈τι〉 Jacobs μέλλει; σπεύδετε Α: -εις; σπεῦδε δὴ Jacobs 2 οὕτως Α: οὗτος Dalechamp 3 ὀκτώ Α: ἑκατὸν Herwerden 4 μαλάξας Α: ἀνακάψας Herwerden 5 ἐκαρτέρησεν Α 6 πεινῶν Meineke: πίνων Α

5

The food has been served now. What are you waiting for? Hurry up, my friends! For Tithymallus returned to life, despite being stone-dead, when he softened up some of the eight-obol lupin-seeds. He didn’t starve to death, my friend; instead, starvation became his life

Ath. 6.240 d-e ἐν δὲ Καυνίοις ∙ ἤδη – πεινῶν and in Men of Caunus; “the food – life”

Metre Iambic trimeter

5

llwwl llw|l llwl llwl wwlw|l lwwwl wwlwl l|lwl llwl llwl l|lwwl wlwl wlwl wlwl llwl ll

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 604–5; Kock II (1884) 460; Bevilacqua 1939, 40; Edmonds II (1959) 616–7; PCG VII (1989) 770.

170

Timokles

Text 1 The paradosis μέλλει; σπεύδετε suggests that the following ὦ τᾶν is indeclinable. Indeed, it seems that the Athenians used this grammatical form to address one, two, or more persons equally; cf. Cratin. fr. 307.2 ἆρά γε, / ὦ τᾶν, ἐθελήσετον; Nicopho fr. 30 (with Pellegrino 2013, 75); Sud. ω 260 πολλάκις δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ πλήθους φασὶ τὸ ὦ τᾶν, ὡς παρὰ Νικοφῶντι “and often also they say ὦ τᾶν in reference to a group of people, as in Nicophon”. Ηere, however, it is quite uncertain that the persons addressed are two or more; cf. v. 5 ὦ φίλτατε. While Kassel-Austin print the paradosis text, they elsewhere (on Cratin. fr. 307.2) admit that the text in our fragment is dubious. I think that one can profitably follow Jacobs’ (1809, 147) plausible correction σπεῦδε δὴ “festina dum”; (σπεῦδέ νυν would also be possible; cf. Ar. Pl. 414). 2 The transmitted οὕτως has been questioned by Dalechamp, who proposes οὗτος instead; Jacobs 1809, 147–8 prefers ὄντως. Βut oὕτως is unexceptionable in the latent comparison of the person / persons addressed and Tithymallus; cf. Meineke III (1840) 605 (ad loc.): “cum fecisset quod te nunc facere jubeo”. 4 Ηerwerden 1864, 36 notes “omnino totum illud de emollientibus lupinis non intellego” and wonders whether instead of μαλάξας we should read ἀνακάψας “gulp down”, cf. e. g. Ar. Av. 579. But the verb very often occurs in medical prescriptions, in the process of preparation of medicines by kneading different components together; e. g. Gal. Sanit. tuend. 6.445 Kühn; Simpl. Medic. 11.391 Kühn; 130.140; Aët. 3.101; 6.72; Hippiatr. Berolin. 22.20; 130.140. The sense is that thanks to lupins, which are treated almost as medicines, Tithymallus escaped death by starvation. 5 The paradosis πίνων does not give a satisfactory meaning. Wilamowitz II (1932) 271, n. 1 thinks that Tithymallus stayed alive by drinking some special drink. But the whole context is about hunger, and Meineke’s III (1840) 605 correction in πεινῶν is rightly followed by most editors; for Tithymallus’ notorious hunger cf. Aristopho fr. 10.1–2 πρὸς μὲν τὸ πεινῆν ἐσθίειν τε μηδὲ ἓν νόμιζ’ ὁρᾶν Τιθύμαλλον ἢ Φιλιππίδην “when it comes to starving or eating nothing, you’d think you were looking at Tithymallus or Philippides”. Citation context The fragment is included in a section devoted to Tithymallus the parasite (6.240c-f), cited alongside Alexis’ Olynthia (fr. 164), Dromo’s Psaltria (fr. 1), Timocles’ Kentauros hē Dexamenos (fr. 21) and Epistolai (fr. 9), and Antiphanes’ Tyrrhēnos (fr. 208). Interpretation The opening phrase seems to refer to a dinner where the participant / participants is / are invited (probably by the host) to begin, since the meal is already served. In other words, the table is ready (cf. τὴν τράπεζαν παρακεῖσθαι; Konstantakos 2000 on Antiph. fr. 202 and the opposite τὴν τράπεζαν αἴρειν and the following procedure on Timocl. fr. 13). The story about Tithymallus seems to satirize some notorious preference of the parasite for lupins, a cheap food easily accessible to starving persons. One might associate Tithymallus’ described survival here with his description as “immortal” in Alex. fr. 164.3 (cited below, on v. 2). In our fragment, the language might have an underlying medicinal flavor (cf. on v. 1 προσενήνεκται and on v. 4 μαλάξας) and lupins are treated almost as medicinal.

Kαύνιοι (fr. 20)

171

In Timocles’ poetry, another sort of beans, κύαμοι, and the relevant pot are also permanently associated with Telemachus the orator (frr. 18 and 23). Ιt is also worth noting that a similar story is ascribed to Hegesias, in his book entitled Ἀποκαρτερῶν: Cic. Tusc. 1.34.84 Hegesiae liber est Ἀποκαρτερῶν, quod a vita quidam per inediam discedens revocatur ab amicis, quibus respondens vitae humanae enumerat incommoda “The book of Hegesias is ‘A Man Who Starves Himself ’, in which a man is represented as killing himself by starvation, until he is prevented by his friends, in replying to whom he enumerates all the troubles of human life”. Cf. also D.L. 6.94, where Metrocles, the brother of Hipparchia, who floruit ca 325 BC, was about to die (ἀποκαρτερεῖν); he is said to have been saved by the Cynic philosopher Crates, by means of a scheme involving the consumption of lupins. The wordplay ἀπεκαρτέρησεν-ἐκαρτέρησεν probably echoes Demosthenes’ famous quibble δοῦναι / ἀποδοῦναι in the Halonnesus Debate (342/341 BC); cf. on fr. 12.7 under “Interpretation”. For the application of this political slogan to non-political settings cf. Alexis (fr. 7 δέδωκα…ἀπέδωκας), Anaxilas (fr. 8 δῷς… ἀπόδος), and Antiphanes fr. 167 (ἀπέλαβεν … ἔλαβεν). 1 προσενήνεκται The verb (passive perfect of προσφέρω) is especially used of food and drink; cf. Pl. Com. fr. 56 πρόσφερε δεῦρο δὴ τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆς δέλφακος; Macho fr. 2.7 Gow ἅλας οὐκ ἔχει· προσένεγκ’; Damox. fr. 2.28 τὸ προσφερόμενον βρῶμα; X. Mem. 3.11.13; Pl. Lg. 792a; also of medicine: Hp. Acut. 26 π. τὰ ῥοφήματα καὶ τὰ πόματα; Aff. 3; Epid. 7.1.11; Pl. Chrm. 157c π. τὸ φάρμακον τῇ κεφαλῇ; Gal. Consuet. 108.14 Dietz; cf. above, “Interpretation”. For serving legumes, as here, cf. Αth. 4.157f εἶτα πάλιν φακοὶ προσηνέχθησαν ὄξει βεβρεγμένοι “then lentils were served again, soaked in vinegar”. τί μέλλει; Middle voice, second-person singular present. For this use, with the infinitive omitted, cf. A. Pr. 36; Pers. 407; Ag. 908, 1353; S. fr. 917; Th. 8.78. 2 ὦ τᾶν Cf. above, “Text” and on Timocl. fr. 8.1. Τιθύμαλλος (PAA 882825). Α starving parasite, also mentioned in Timocles’ Ἐπιστολαί (fr. 10.2) and Kένταυρος ἢ Δεξαμενός (fr. 21), Dromo fr. 1, Alexis’ Μιλήσιοι (fr. 155), Ὀδυσσεὺς Ὑφαίνων (fr. 161), Antiphanes’ Τυρρηνός (fr. 208) and Aristophon’s Πυθαγoριστής (fr. 10.1–2). Τιθύμαλλος was a nickname, probably due to the similarity of his complexion to the plant τιθύμαλλος; cf. Thphr. HP 9.11.7–9; Bechtel, 1898, 41; Arnott 1996, 458. He is mentioned along with other parasites who lived in the second half of the fourth century, but attempts to estimate his floruit on the basis of plays in which he is mentioned are desperate; cf. Arnott 1996, 449–50. ἀνεβίω The verb ἀναβιόω is usually used for persons almost or only in appearance dead; cf. Eup. fr. 101.4 οὐκ ἀνεβίων οὐδ’ ἅπαξ; Pl. Com. fr. 139 ἀναβιῶν ἐκ τῆς νόσου; Sannyr. fr. 12 with Orth 2015, 418; Pl. Hp. Ma. 281d εἰ δ’ ἄρα νῦν ἡμῖν … ὁ Βίας ἀναβιοίη; R. 10.614b μέλλων θάπτεσθαι δωδεκαταῖος ἐπὶ τῇ πυρᾷ κείμενος ἀνεβίω, ἀναβιοὺς δ’ ἔλεγεν ἃ ἐκεῖ ἴδοι “and as he was about to be buried, on the twelfth day as he lay upon the pyre, he revived, and having coming to life related what, he said, he had seen there”. Tithymallus is also described as

172

Timokles

‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’ in Alex. fr. 164.3 ὁ γοῦν Τιθύμαλλος ἀθάνατος περιέρχεται “Tithymallus, at any rate, is walking around immortal”; cf. above, “Interpretation”. 3 κομιδῇ τεθνηκώς “quite dead”; for the colloquial κομιδῇ in comedy, cf. Ar. Nu. 390; Th. 3 (with Austin–Olson 2004, ad loc.); Pax 820; Antiph. 189.14. ἀν’ ὀκτὼ τοὐβολοῦ τοὐβολοῦ (normally with krasis in comedy) is a genitive of price; cf. Eup. fr. 255 δέκα τοὐβολοῦ “ten for an obol” with Olson 2016, 310; Ar. Eq. 649 τὰς ἀφύας ὠνοῖντο πολλὰς τοὐβολοῦ “to be able to buy lot of sprats for an obol”; 662 ἑκατὸν τοὐβολοῦ “a hundred for an obol”; Av. 1079 τοὺς σπίνους πωλεῖ καθ’ ἑπτὰ τοὐβολοῦ “he sells the chaffinches at seven for an obol”; Antiph. fr. 133.2; Men. Epitr. 130; Poultney 1936, 104. θέρμους Four species of lupin thrive in Greece: Lupinus micranthus, L. albus, L. varius and L. angustifolius. Lupins were eaten mainly by the poorer population (e. g. Alex. fr. 167.11, with Arnott 1996, 487; fr. 268.2; Alciphr. 3.24.2; Luc. VH 2.28), and were associated with the Cynics; cf. Luc. Pisc. 45; D.L. 6.94 (discussed above, “Interpretation”). μαλάξας Since lupins are slightly poisonous when raw, μαλάξας obviously refers to the process of softening them, perhaps by straining, in order to remove the bitter taste before eating; cf. Cobley 1956, 160–61. 4 oὐκ ἀπεκαρτέρησε The verb means “starve oneself to death”; cf. Hp. Acut. 56; Plu. Num. 21; Luc. Macr. 19; Phld. Mort. 6; cf. ἀποκαρτέρησις (Quint. Inst. Or. 8.5.23). Comedies entitled Ἀποκαρτερῶν were written by Antiphanes and Philemon; Apollodorus of Gela wrote Φιλάδελφοι ἢ Ἀποκαρτερῶν, Apollodorus of Carystus Ἀποκαρτεροῦντες; and Hegesias’ book was entitled Ἀποκαρτερῶν; cf. above, “Interpretation”. For the antithesis ἀποκαρτερεῖν / καρτερεῖν cf. Com. adesp. fr. 247.7–8 ὥστε μᾶλλον ἂν θέλειν / ἀποκαρτερεῖν ἢ ταῦτ’ ἀκούων καρτερεῖν “so that I would prefer to starve myself to death rather than endure to hear these things”; Hirzel 1895, 348; Wilamowitz II (1932) 271, n. 1. ὦ φίλτατε A mostly poetic address; less frequent in Plato and in late prose. It is common at the end of an iambic trimeter, e. g. Ar. Eq. 147; Nu. 1463; Lys. 949; Pl. 1033; Epicr. fr. 3.20.

173

Kένταυρος ἢ Δεξαμενός (Kentauros ē Dexamenos) (“The Centaur or Dexamenus”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 605–6; Kock II (1884) 460; Bevilacqua 1939, 41; PCG VII (1989) 770; Orth HGL II (2014) 1044. Title Κένταυρος is also the alternative title of one of Aristophanes’ Δράματα (Δράματα ἢ Κένταυρος), perhaps staged before 422 BC; cf. Henderson 2007, 241; Orth 2013, 373. Comedies with the title Κένταυρος are also attested in Nicochares (early 4th c. BC; in Suda ν 407 this play is attested as Κένταυροι), Ophelion (4th c. BC; cf. Caroli 2014, 204–5), Lynceus (4th/3rd c. BC) and Theognetus (3rd c. BC); also Apollophanes (late 5th – early 4th c. BC) wrote Κένταυροι. Α play with the title Κένταυρος is ascribed to Chaeremon (TrGF 71 F 9a-11; cf. Arist. Po. 1447b20 μικτὴ ῥαψωδία ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν μέτρων). Pherecrates wrote a Χείρων. Centaurs were hybrid creatures with the upper body of a man and the lower body of a horse. Their ancestor was Centaurus, the offspring of Ixion’s union with the Hera-shaped cloud created by Zeus (Pi. P. 2.21–48) or, alternatively, Chiron, who was produced by the intercourse of Cronus and Philyra ([Apollod.] Bibl. 1.9). They lived in mountain forests (cf. e. g. E. HF 364–5). In Greek mythology Centaurs appear as creatures without respect for institutions, who violate wedding feasts or abduct women. Such behavior led to the Centauromachies, a popular subject in Greek art. The battle between Centaurs and Lapiths, in which Theseus participated, was the subject of the south metopes of the Parthenon, and also of a metope of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (5th c. BC); cf. Roman L. and Roman M. 2010, 113–4. For the drunkenness of Centaurs cf. Hom. Od. 21. 295–304 οἶνος καὶ Κένταυρον, ἀγακλυτὸν Εὐρυτίωνα, / ἄασ’ ἐνὶ μεγάρῳ μεγαθύμου Πειριθόοιο, / ἐς Λαπίθας ἐλθόνθ’· ὁ δ’ ἐπεὶ φρένας ἄασεν οἴνῳ, / μαινόμενος κάκ’ ἔρεξε δόμον κάτα Πειριθόοιο “Wine befuddled even the centaur, the glorious Eurytion, in the house of the magnanimous Perithous, when he had gone to the Lapiths. Afterwards, when wine had befuddled his mind, madly drunk he committed evil acts in Perithous’ home”. The alternative title Δεξαμενός apparently refers to the episode involving the centaur Eurytion and Dexamenus, the king of Olenos in Achaia. Heracles had decisively intervened in the margin of his labours. The story is known from different sources; cf. [Apollod.] Bibl. 2.5.5 Ἡρακλῆς δὲ εἰς Ὤλενον πρὸς Δεξαμενὸν ἧκε, καὶ κατέλαβε τοῦτον μέλλοντα δι’ ἀνάγκην μνηστεύειν Εὐρυτίωνι Κενταύρῳ Μνησιμάχην τὴν θυγατέρα· ὑφ’ οὗ παρακληθεὶς βοηθεῖν ἐλθόντα ἐπὶ τὴν νύμφην Εὐρυτίωνα ἀπέκτεινεν “Heracles arrived at Dexamenus in Olenus, and found him about to forcibly betrothe his daughter Mnesimache to the centaur Eurytion; and being called upon by him to help, he killed Eurytion when he came for his bride.” Bacchylides also treats this story: fr. 66.9–14 Maehler ἐραννὰν ἐπὶ δ[αῖτα / ὀρικοίτας Κένταυρ[ος / αἰτεῖ δε με παίδατα[ / ἐθέλων ἄγεσθαι / πρὸς Μαλέαν ∙ ἐμοί δ’[ / ἀέκοντι δ’; cf. fr. 44 Maehler (Schol. Od. φ 295) …φησὶ γὰρ (Βακχυλίδης) ἐπιξενωθέντα Δεξαμενῷ ἐν Ἤλιδι ὑβριστικῶς ἐπιχειρῆσαι; D.S. 4.33.1; Paus. 7.18.1.

174

Timokles

Content The alternative title of the play strongly indicates a plot with a mythological background. However, it is quite possible that this mythological figure alludes to a contemporary of Timocles’, due to this person’s aggressive sexuality or a violation of the rules of hospitality, the kind of behavior for which Centaurs were notorious. For persons satirized as ‘Centaurs’ in Attic comedy due to their uncontrolled sexual pursuit of both women and boys cf. Ar. Nu. 348–50 κᾆτ’ ἢν μὲν ἴδωσι κομήτην / ἄγριόν τινα τῶν λασίων τούτων, οἷόνπερ τὸν Ξενοφάντου, / σκώπτουσαι τὴν μανίαν αὐτοῦ κενταύροις ᾔκασαν αὑτάς “and if they see some long-haired, unkempt and shaggy type, such as the son of Xenophantus, they mock his madness by assuming the form of centaurs”; Schol. Aeschin. 1.52 (Cedonides, Autocleides and Thersander are described as over-enthusiastic pederasts) οὗτοι παιδερασταί, ἐπωνυμίας ἔχοντες ἄγριοι καὶ Τριβαλλοὶ καὶ Κένταυροι “they are pederasts, and have the nicknames ‘wild’ and ‘Triballoi’ and ‘Centaurs’”; Dover 1978, 37–8 and Henderson 1991, 252. For other associations cf. Com. adesp. fr. 221 (Eust. in Od. p. 1522.66) πικρώτερον δὲ τούτου εἰς σκῶμμα τὸ εἰρῆσθαι κένταυρον, ὃς κεντεῖ ὄρρον τὸν παρὰ τῷ κωμικῷ “more bitter than this is to be called ‘centaur’ as a joke, who in comedy ‘pricks the rump’”; Hsch. κ 2224 κένταυροι · λῃσταί. καὶ οἱ Τιτᾶνες. καὶ οἱ παιδερασταί, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄῤῥου. Timocles is fond of such associations; cf. fr. 12 (Briareos / Demosthenes), fr. 19 (Marsyas / Autocles), fr. 27 (Orestes / Autocleides); “Introduction”, under “Themes and Motifs”. Date

Unknown.

fr. 21 K.-A. (19 K.) Τιθύμαλλον αὐτὸν καὶ παράσιτον ἀποκαλῶν calling him Tithymallus and a parasite Αth. 6.240d Tιμοκλῆς Κενταύρῳ ἢ Δεξαμενῷ ∙ Τιθύμαλλον – ἀποκαλῶν Timocles in The Centaur or Dexamenus: calling – a parasite

Metre Iambic trimeter

wwlwl l|lwwl wwwwl

Citation context In the ‘Tithymallus’ section, on which cf. above, on Καύνιοι, “Citation context”. Discussion Meineke III (1840) 605–6; Kock II (1884) 460; PCG VII (1989) 770. Interpretation The speaking character narrates a scene which has taken place some time ago, perhaps in a dinner or a banquet setting. Apparently, the reference is not to the real Tithymallus, but to a person (probably identified in the preceding

Kένταυρος ἢ Δεξαμενός (fr. 21)

175

lines) who behaved in this particular instance like Tithymallus, i. e. like a parasite, probably invading a dinner uninvited. The subject of the participle ἀποκαλῶν (either first or third person) reacts to this practice and stigmatizes the intruder as a typical parasite. A similar scene might be that described in Apollod. Car. fr. 29, where somebody who imitated schemes of the notorious parasite in order to gain his supper is called a ‘new Chaerephon’: καινόν γέ φασι Χαιρεφῶντ’ ἐν τοῖς γάμοις / ὡς τὸν Ὀφέλαν ἄκλητον εἰσδεδυκέναι. / σπυρίδα λαβὼν γὰρ καὶ στέφανον, ὡς ἦν σκότος, / φάσκων παρὰ τῆς νύμφης ὁ τὰς ὄρνεις φέρων / ἥκειν, δεδείπνηχ’, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἰσπεσών “they say that a new Chaerephon infiltrated the wedding feast of Ophelas uninvited. For carrying a basket and a garland, when it was dark, he said that he had come to bring birds by order of the bride, and he fell on and dined on this pretext, as it seems”.196 In any case, the word παράσιτος is here a well-established disparaging term (cf. below, “Commentary”). In an earlier period, the term was used for the first time as a nickname, probably invented by Alexis the comedian; cf. fr. 183 καλοῦσι δ’ αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ νεώτεροι / Παράσιτον ὑποκόρισμα· τῷ δ’ οὐδὲν μέλει; see Arnott 1996, 542–5, and on Timocl. fr. 8.1. Tιθύμαλλον On Tithymallus cf. on fr. 20.2. For calling a person by a (mocking) nickname cf. Aeschin. 1.131, where Aeschines calls Demosthenes Batalus for his supposed effeminacy and cowardice (cf. on fr. 12). In Timocles, in particular, the identification of satirized persons both by their real name and by that of an emblematic mythological figure is common; cf. above, “Interpretation” and “Introduction”, under “Themes and Motifs”. καὶ παράσιτον ἀποκαλῶν The additional καὶ παράσιτον functions as an explanatory intensifier; in a metaphorical sense in D.L. 10.26 (Carneades on Chrysippus) παράσιτον αὐτὸν τῶν βιβλίων ἀποκαλῶν. For ἀποκαλῶ in a disparaging sense, “stigmatize as…”, cf. Pl. Grg. 512c (Socrates to Callicles on the craft of engineer) ἀλλὰ σὺ οὐδὲν ἧττον αὐτοῦ καταφρονεῖς καὶ τῆς τέχνης τῆς ἐκείνου, καὶ ὡς ἐν ὀνείδει ἀποκαλέσαις ἂν μηχανοποιόν “but you nonetheless despise him and his craft, and you would disparagingly call him ‘engineer’”; X. Mem. 1.2.57 τοὺς δὲ κυβεύοντας ἤ τι ἄλλο πονηρὸν καὶ ἐπιζήμιον ποιοῦντας ἀργοὺς ἀπεκάλει; D. 21.211 oὓς νῦν ὑβρίζει καὶ πτωχοὺς ἀποκαλεῖ; Pl. Tht. 168d (Socrates on Protagoras) καὶ χαριεντισμόν τινα ἀποκαλῶν; Arist. EN 1168a 30 ἐπιτιμῶσι γὰρ τοῖς ἑαυτοὺς μάλιστ’ ἀγαπῶσι, καὶ ὡς ἐν αἰσχρῷ φιλαύτους ἀποκαλοῦσι “they censure those who put themselves first, and call them ‘self-lovers’ as a term of reproach”. On the contrary, καλῶ has a neutral sense; cf. Luc. Par. 2 (p. 145.1), where Tychiades addresses Simon, the supposed inventor of parasitic art: οὐκ ἐρυθριᾷς παράσιτον σαυτὸν καλῶν (ἀποκαλῶν Ψ).

196

For this interpretation cf. Meineke ap. PCG II (1991) ad loc.: “de alio quodam homine Chaerephontis mores et institutum aemulante… nomen hominis in superioribus indicatum fuisse probabile est”.

176

Timokles

Nesselrath, 1985, 264 considers the variant of Ψ attractive, but defends the major paradosis, on the grounds that the disparaging ἀποκαλῶν is not compatible with Simon’s boastful self-description.

177

Koνίσαλος (Konisalos) (“Conisalus”) Discussion Kock II (1884) 461; Bevilacqua 1939, 33; PCG VII (1989) 771. Title Τitles of phallic demons in Attic comedy are Xenarchus’ Πρίαπος, Εubulus’ Ὀρθάνης, and Posidippus’ Ἑρμαφρόδιτος. Οne more may be Τύχων, the alternative title of Antiphanes’ Στρατιώτης (cf. Olson 2007, 139). Cf. also Plato’s Φάων (the homonymous hero was sexually irresistible to women thanks to Aphrodite’s reward). Livius Andronicus wrote a Verpus (gr. ψωλὸς, ἀπεψωλημένος). Conisalus was an Attic phallic creature, a δαίμων Πριαπώδης (Sud. 2039), associated with Hermaphrodite, Orthanes, Priapus, Tychon, Gigon and others (cf. Phot. α 3404). It seems that these demons predated Priapus; cf. Str. 13.1.12 οὐδὲ γὰρ Ἡσίοδος οἶδε Πρίαπον, ἀλλ’ ἔοικε τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς Ὀρθάνῃ καὶ Κονισάλῳ καὶ Τύχωνι καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις “nor did Hesiod know Priapus, but he resembles the Attic Orthanes, Conisalus, Tychon, and others such as these”. For phallic deities cf. Herter 1932; Schuddeboom 2009, 43–4. The word Kονίσαλος is probably derived from κόνις “dust” and σάλος “toss”, cf. Chantrain 2009, s. v. As a common noun it occurs in Homer in the sense “cloud of dust”, e. g. Hom. Il. 3.13; 5.503; 22.401. In Old Comedy, Conisalus’ appearance has obscene connotations; cf. Ar. Lys. 982 Τίς δ’ εἶ; πότερον ἄνθρωπος ἢ Κονίσαλος (allusion to the erection of the Spartan herald); Pl. Com. fr. 188.12–3, where Conisalus is mentioned in a sexual context with Orthanes, with his two “sidekicks”, i. e. his testicles: βολβῶν μὲν Ὀρθάννῃ τρί’ ἡμιεκτέα, / Κονισάλῳ δὲ καὶ παραστάταιν δυοῖν / μύρτων πινακίσκος χειρὶ παρατετιλμένων “for Orthanes three pecks of bulbs, and for Conisalus and his two sidekicks a little dish of myrtle berries plucked by hand”. It also seems that Κονίσαλος was an indecent ancient dance; cf. Ηesch. κ3527 σκίρτησις σατυρικὴ ἡ τῶν ἐντεταμένων τὰ αἰδοῖα ; IG XII 3. 540 (in a Theran rock inscription) Κρίμων πράτιστος κονιάλῳ Σιμίαν ἴανε τὸ (vel ἰάνετο), where probably a dance is meant; cf. Wilamowitz I (1931) 279, n. 1.197 Content Such a title might allude to a character satirized on stage as the homonymous phallic demon; cf. Hsch. κ 3521 Kονίσαλοι · ἀφροδισιακοί “pluralis dictus de hominibus Κονισάλου similibus” (Latte, II, 508). For Timocles’ practice of associating notorious contemporary profligates and sexually perverse persons with mythical figures cf. on fr. 18 (Marsyas / Autocles).198 The only surviving fragment might refer to a setting not incompatible with such a character’s activities. It may be no coincidence that in Xenarchus’ Πρίαπος the surviving fr. 10 includes an interlocution clearly activated in a sympotic context: σὺ δὲ μηκέτ’ ἔγχει, παιδάριον,

197 198

Conisalus’ name is probably attested in SIG 1027.10 (Cos) τᾷ αὑτᾷ ἁμέρᾳ ∙ Ἡρακλεῖ | [ἐς Κονί] σαλον βοῦς; Herter 1932, 23, 59. Cf. Bevilacqua 1939, 33, who suspects a plot involving homoerotic affairs.

178

Timokles

εἰς ἀργυροῦν· / εἰς τὸ βαθὺ πάλιν ἄγωμεν. εἰς τὸν κάνθαρον, / παιδάριον, ἔγχει. Β. νὴ Δία, εἰς τὸν κάνθαρον.199 Alternatively, one might think of an obscene dance associated with this particular demon. The only surviving fragment alludes to a sympotic context, which might well be compatible with dances and entertaining spectacles; cf. Xenophon’s Symposium (9.2–7). For indecent dances in Attic comedy cf. the parabasis of Aristophanes’ Clouds, where the poet accuses his rival Eupolis that he spoiled by altering his Knights, having added to it, for the sake of the kordax, a drunken old woman (554–6). A possible parallel would be the word μόθων, meaning both the “god of Cheek” (Ar. Eq. 635) and an obscene dance (Ar. Eq. 697 ἀπεπυδάρισα μόθωνα “I dance the fling”; cf. Schol. Ar. Pl. 279). Date

Unknown.

fr. 22 K.- A. (20 K.) πατάξω τ’ ἴσον ἴσῳ ποτηρίοις μεγάλοις ἅπασαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν φράσαι πατάξω Α: μαλάξω Kock: παράξω Herwerden

I’ll beat you into speaking the whole truth by using big cups mixed one to one Ath. 10.430f ἴσον ἴσῳ δὲ Τιμοκλῆς ἐν Κονισάλῳ (-άδῳ Α, corr. Musurus) ∙ πατάξω – φράσαι Timocles in Conisalus (mentions) a mix of one-to-one: “I’ll beat – to one”

Metre Iambic trimeter

〈al〉wl l|wwwl wlwl wwlwl l|lwl llwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 606; Kock II (1884) 461; Edmonds II (1959) 616–7; PCG VII (1989) 771. Τext 1 Instead of the transmitted πατάξω, Kock II (1884) 461 prefers μαλάξω, i. e. “soften” him. The suggestion is attractive; cf. E. Or. 1201, Alc. 771. On the other hand, Herwerden 1893, 164 proposes παράξω “lead him into something”, a verb mostly used in the negative sense of “deceive” (e. g. A. Pers. 98; D. 22.34). 199

Webster 1970, 83 speculates that Conisalus, like Tychon (if a fertility spirit) and Orthannes in the eponymous comedies of Antiphanes and Eubulus respectively, might have delivered the prologue of the play.

Koνίσαλος (fr. 22)

179

However, the paradosis πατάξω may be correct; for similar descriptions of the effects of wine, cf. Eub. fr. 48 ἀλλὰ παραλαβὼν ἀκράτῳ κροῦε καὶ δίδου πυκνὰς; 136.3 οἶνον γάρ με ψίθιον γεύσας / ἡδὺν ἄκρατον, διψῶντα λαβὼν / ὄξει παίει πρὸς τὰ στήθη; Amph. fr. 18 ὁ παῖς σοβείτω τοῖς ποτηρίοις συχνοῖς, where the verb σοβέω has the meaning “ply someone with wine”; Plaut. Cas. 639 meraclo se … percussit flore Liberi. For the verb in a metaphorical sense cf. Ar. Ra. 54; S. Ant. 1097 ἄτῃ πατάξαι θυμόν. Citation context In section 10.429f-431c, which resumes Democritus’ main topic on ancient mixing-proportions (περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων κράσεων), after a digressive general discussion on wine and drunkenness. Interpretation The context of the preserved fragment is apparently sympotic. It appears that a character is challenging a drinking companion to consume strong wine in big cups, so as to disclose the whole truth. The mixture “one to one”, in combination with “big cups” suggests drunkenness and loss of control. For the idea in vino veritas cf. Ath. 2.37e Φιλόχορος δέ φησιν ὅτι οἱ πίνοντες οὐ μόνον ἑαυτοὺς ἐμφανίζουσιν οἵτινές εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον ἀνακαλύπτουσι παρρησίαν ἄγοντες. ὅθεν ‘οἶνος καὶ ἀλήθεια’ λέγεται καὶ ‘ἀνδρὸς δ’ 〈οἶνος〉 ἔδειξε νόον’; “Philochorus says that drinkers not only show themselves as they really are, but also reveal other people’s secrets by speaking freely. Hence the sayings (Alc. fr. 366.1) ‘wine and truth’ and (Thgn. 500) ‘wine showed a man’s mind’”; Plu. Quaest. Conv. 715f ἔστι δὲ (sc. οἶνος) παρρησίας καὶ δι’ αὐτὴν ἀληθείας γονιμώτατος “it is the most fertile begetter of licence of tongue and thereby of truthfulness”; Diogenian. 4.81 ἐν οἴνῳ ἀλήθεια: παρόσον οἱ οἴνῳ χρώμενοι τὰ ἀπὸ καρδίας λαλοῦσιν. For other possible ‘sympotic’ scenes in Timocles cf. fr. 12 (from Heroes) and fr. 19 (from Icarian Satyrs). 1–2 ποτηρίοις / μεγάλοις ποτήριον is the common word for a drinking cup, which is routinely described as big; e. g. Antiph. fr. 81; Eub. fr. 42. Big cups were often associated with excessive consumption of wine, and therefore with drunkenness; cf. the relevant discussion in Ath. 11.460f-461e. The opposite of ποτήρια μεγάλα is κύλικες μικραί (recommended by Socrates); cf. Ath. 11.504f καὶ ὃ μέν, ὡς πρόκειται παραιτεῖται πίνειν μεγάλοις ποτηρίοις, ὃ δὲ τὸν Σωκράτην παράγει τῷ ψυκτῆρι πίνοντα μέχρι τῆς ἕω “and one, as has been already said, refuses to drink out of big cups, but the other represents Socrates as drinking from a psycter till dawn”. For similar expressions in sympotic contexts cf. Amph. fr. 18 (cited above) with Papachrysostomou 2016, 129; Aristopho fr. 13.5 βαπτίσας ἐρρωμένως “having dunked me vigorously in wine;” Alex. fr. 88.2–3 ἤιτησε κύλικα, καὶ λαβὼν ἑξῆς πυκνὰς ἕλκει καταντλεῖ “(Heracles) demanded a cup, seized it, and drank long draughts, pouring them out thick and fast”; Theopomp. frr. 41 and 42. 1 ἴσον ἴσῳ The expression (cf. Cratin. fr. 196; Alex. fr. 232.2) is adverbial, originating from a wording such as οἶνον ὕδατι ἴσον ἴσῳ κεκραμένον (ἴσον as internal accusative, ἴσῳ instrumental dative). It signifies a mixture of equal parts of water and wine, which was considered quite strong; cf. Com. adesp. fr. 101.12 ἂν ἴσον ἴσῳ δὲ προσφέρῃ, μανίαν ποιεῖ. For this mixture cf. also Ar. Pl. 1132;

180

Timokles

Stratt. frr. 23.2; 64.2 (with Orth 2009, 136); Alex. frr. 59; 264.4. Other mixtures include πέντε καὶ δύο (e. g. Hermipp. fr. 24), τέτταρα καὶ δύο (e. g. Diocl. Com. fr. 7.2), τρία καὶ δύο (e. g. Ar. Eq. 1187), τρία καὶ τέτταρα (e. g. Ephipp. fr. 11.2); cf. Wilkins 2000, 216–7. 2 ἅπασαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν φράσαι The construction seems elliptical; one should complete (αὐτὸν ὥστε) φράσαι. For the old formula ἅπασαν / πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν φράζειν / λέγειν, which is common in oratory, cf. Hom. Il. 24.407; Od. 11.507; 17. 122; Th. 6.87.1; Pl. Ap. 20d; 33c; D. 23.187; Lycurg. Leoc. 87.

181

Λήθη (Lēthē) (“Oblivion”) Discussion Meineke ΙΙΙ (1840) 606–7; Kock II (1884) 461; Edmonds II (1959) 616–9; Webster 1970, 38; PCG VII (1989) 772. Title Λήθη as a title is unique in Attic drama (but cf. Pherecrates’ Ἐπιλήσμων ἢ Θάλαττα). The word is related to the verb λανθάνω “to escape notice” and literally means “forgetfulness” or “oblivion” (and in an eschatological sense the “Place of Oblivion” in the Underworld, see below). Relevant titles taken from abstract notions by means of personification or deification are Eἰρήνη (Aristophanes, Eubulus and Theopompus), Ἄγνοια (Diphilus, Μacho), Ὕπνος (Alexis, Antiphanes and Xenarchus), Ποίησις (Antiphanes), Ἠχώ (Eubulus), Παννυχίς (Eubulus, Alexis), Ἀντέρως and Ὕβρις (Anaxandrides), Eὐανδρία (Anaxilas), Ὀργή (Menander).200 As a proper name, Lethe is a deity in Hesiod; see Th. 227, where she is said to be Eris’ daughter and a personification of oblivion. Another tradition associates Lethe with the Graces: Schol. Hom. Il. 14.276 καὶ Λήθης γενεαλογοῦσι τὰς Χάριτας. It seems that Lethe as a deity had at times a cult in Athens, and an altar was dedicated to her in the Acropolis; see Plu. Quaest. Conv. 741a. Moreover, she is mentioned in tragedy, as a deification of the corresponding abstract entity; cf. E. Or. 213 (cited below); S. fr. 670 Radt Λήθην τε τὴν πάντων ἀπεστερημένην, / κωφήν, ἄναυδον; cf. West 1966, on Hes. Th. 227. Lethe is also a place in the Underworld (Λήθης πεδίον), first mentioned in Ar. Ra. 186 τίς ἐς τὸ Λήθης πεδίον; cf. Λήθης δόμοι in Ps.-Simonides, AP 7.25 (= Gow–Page 2.519). Λήθης πεδίον is the opposite of ἀληθείας πεδίον (Pl. Phdr. 248b). This field was crossed by a river, also called Λήθη (alternately Ἀμέλης ποταμός “Care-not river”, cf. Pl. R. 621a, or Lethaeus, cf. V. Aen. 5. 854). The dead drank water after their arrival and lost all memory of their previous life: Paus. 9.39.8 ἐνταῦθα δὴ χρὴ πιεῖν αὐτὸν Λήθης τε ὕδωρ καλούμενον, ἵνα λήθη γένηταί οἱ πάντων ἃ τέως ἐφρόντιζε “Here he must drink the so-called ‘Water of Forgetfulness’, in order to forget all his previous concerns”; Luc. Luct. 5 … ποτὸν μνήμης πολέμιον· Λήθης γοῦν διὰ τοῦτο ὠνόμασται; DMort. 13.6; 28.2. The “Water of Forgetfulness” is often contrasted with the “Water of Memory” (Plin. Nat. Hist. 31.15).201 In Orphic poems, the souls of the dead were routinely instructed to avoid the Water of Forgetfulness and proceed instead to the Lake of Memory; see C.I.G n. 5772; Frazer 1913, on Paus. 9.39.8; Kroll, RE s. v. Lethe, 2142.47–2143; Stoll, in Roscher–Ziegler II (1894–7) 1956–8; Bernabé–Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008, 9–59.202 200 201 202

See Webster 1952, 23; 1970, 83; Arnott 2010, 316; Henderson 2014, 195. It is equally possible to take lēthē as a common noun, in the sense “water that leads to forgetfulness” or the like. Lethe in late literary sources: A. R. Arg. 1. 645; Ov. Met. 11. 602; Verg. A. 6. 705; G. 1. 78; 4.545; Prop. 4. 7; Sen. Her. F. 679; 762: Oed. 559; Phaed. 147;1201; V. Fl. Argonautica 8. 84;

182

Timokles

Moreover, Lethe is associated with Dionysus (and wine); cf. Plu. Quaest. Conv. 705a ἀλλά μοι δοκοῦσιν οὐκ ὀρθῶς οἱ παλαιοὶ παῖδα Λήθης τὸν Διόνυσον (ἔδει γὰρ πατέρα) προσαγορεύειν “but I think the ancients were wrong to call Dionysus the son of Lethe; they should rather call him her father”; 612c …ἡ λήθη τῷ ὄντι σοφὴ κατ’ Εὐριπίδην εἶναι, τὸ δ’ ὅλως ἀμνημονεῖν τῶν ἐν οἴνῳ… “that oblivion is indeed wise according to Euripides, and those who are drunk forget everything”; De sera num. vind. 566a. Besides, Dionysus in the form of wine offers sleep and forgetfulness of everyday problems (ὕπνον τε λήθην τῶν καθ’ ἡμέραν κακῶν, E. Ba. 282), since Dionysus’ epithet was λαθικηδής “banishing care”; cf. Alc. fr. 161.3–4 Page οἶνον γὰρ Σεμέλας καὶ Δίος υἶος λαθικάδεον / ἀνθρώποισιν ἔδωκ’; AP 9.524.12. Λήθη both as a common name and as a divinity often occurs in connection with personal suffering. Forgetting personal pain by attending the sufferings of others is the function of tragedy in Timocles’ Διονυσιάζουσαι, fr. 6.5–7. For λήθη τῶν ἰδίων κακῶν (Democr. fr. B 196 D-K) cf. E. Or. 214 ὦ πότνια Λήθη τῶν κακῶν, ὡς εἶ σοφὴ / καὶ τοῖσι δυστυχοῦσιν εὐκταία θεός “O mistress Oblivion of ills, how wise you are, and for the unfortunate a goddess invoked in prayer”; S. Ph. 877–8; Men. fr. 357. Content The scene in the surviving fragment is not helpful for the reconstruction of the plot. It might come from a peripheral episode. The incident described clearly takes place in the market, where Athenians met. It concentrates on ridiculing well-known personalities of fourth-century Athens, the minor politician Telemachus (cf. on frr. 7 and 18) and the merchant and fish-importer Pheidippus (cf. on frr. 15 and 16). Concerning the plot, if Λήθη is a deity, being the figure who gives the play its title, she might have given an informative speech at the beginning of the play, explaining the background of the action or even engineering the whole plot, in the dramatic manner of the divine figure Agnoia in Menander’s Perikeiromenē (121–71). In that play, Agnoia claims that she herself has provoked Polemon’s misguided fury (the starting-point of the story) and reveals her influence on the plot; see Zagagi 1995, 150–1. Divinities delivering a prologue as personified abstracts are Τύχη in Menander’s Aspis and Auxilium in Plautus’ Cistellaria. There are also other (though less likely) possibilities for the meaning of the title. Sometimes abstract feminine names might be used as nicknames of courtesans, e. g. Σιγή “Silence” (Ath. 13.583e), Γνώμη “Judgement” (Ath. 6. 245d) and Εἰρήνη “Peace” (Ath. 13. 593b). Thus, Lethe might be the (invented) nickname of a courtesan, a name perhaps deriving from side-effects associated with sympotic Stati. Theb. 1. 295; Silv. 3.3.21; 3.4.37; 5.3.24; Opp. C. 2. 410; Nonn. D. 4. 152–3; 12. 213; 17.300; 36.200. Λήθη is also a modern Greek sonnet by Lorentzos Mavilis (1860– 1912) “Lucky are the dead; the dead forget the bitterness of life…” In this sonnet the water of Lethe is referred to as “the crystal springs of forgetfulness” (στης λησμονιάς την κρουσταλλένια βρύση).

Λήθη (fr. 23)

183

activities and love affairs; cf. Pherecrates’ Ἐπιλήσμων ἢ Θάλασσα, where Θάλασσα is probably the nickname of an hetaera; see Kaibel, apud PCG VII (1989) ad loc. (p. 129). This suggestion also might be supported by Αth. 13. 578a (= Macho fr. 14 Gow). There is the courtesan Mania, whose name is attributed, in Machon’s anecdote, to the effects she had on the men with whom she consorted. It is also worth noting that Μνησίς, the opposite of Λήθη, is mentioned as a flute girl (αὐλητρίς) in Ath. 13.576f.203 Courtesans bearing names denoting an abstract concept offered interesting possibilities in comic plays. One might think of the courtesan Gnome and the wordplay on her name (Gnome = opinion delivered publicly, especially in the Assembly, cf. γνώμην ἀποφαίνειν) in a sympotic context: when the wine ran short and every participant in the dinner-party had to contribute two obols, the parasite Corydus asked Gnome to contribute whatever the people thought fit: Ath. 6.245d Κορύδῳ συμπινούσης τινὸς ἑταίρας, ᾗ ὄνομα ἦν Γνώμη, καὶ τοῦ οἰναρίου ἐπιλιπόντος εἰσφέρειν ἐκέλευσεν ἕκαστον δύο ὀβολούς, Γνώμην δὲ συμβάλλεσθαι ὅ τι δοκεῖ τῷ δήμῳ. Also Menander’s Methē might be titled after a courtesan; cf. the Naples relief (1st century AD), which is supposed to reproduce a scene from this play: a female piper is depicted between other male characters; cf. Nervegna, 2013, 164. Date The only indication is the mention of Telemachus the orator, who is also ridiculed by Timocles in Dionysos (fr. 7) and Icarioi Satyroi (fr. 18), always with reference to his pot of beans. This kind of satire might be compatible with the wellknown period of corn shortage in Athens in 330–327, but, given that Telemachus’ career seems to extend at least from 342 until 329 BC, any dating is far from certain; cf. on the “Date” of Dionysos and Icarioi Satyroi.

fr. 23 K.-A. (21 K.)

5

μετὰ τοῦτον αὐτῷ Τηλέμαχος συνετύγχανε. καὶ τοῦτον ἀσπασάμενος ἡδέως πάνυ ἔπειτα “χρῆσόν μοι σύ, φησί, τὰς χύτρας ἐν αἷσιν ἕψεις τοὺς κυάμους.” καὶ ταῦτά τε εἴρητο καὶ παριόντα Φείδιππον πάνυ τὸν Χαιρεφίλου πόρρωθεν ἀπιδὼν τὸν παχὺν ἐπόππυσ’, εἶτ’ ἐκέλευσε πέμπειν σαργάνας

4 αἷσιν ἕψεις Boethe: ἁῖς συνῆψας Α: αἷσιν ἧψες Dindorf 5 εἴρητο Porson: -ται Α: ἔφη τε Kaibel Φείδιππον Porson: φίλ- Α πάνυ Α: πάλιν Meineke

203

It is also interesting that courtesans were sometimes named after rivers, e. g. Tigris (Ath. 13.589f-590a).

184

Timokles

5

After this man, Telemachus chanced to meet him. He embraced him with great pleasure, and then said, ‘You loan me the pots, in which you cook your beans’. That’s what he said; and then he beheld from a long distance away Chaerephilus’ fat son Pheidippus passing by, and he smacked his lips at him and ordered him to send baskets

Ath. 9.407d καὶ ὁ Οὐλπιανός· ἀλλά με ἀνέμνησας, καλὲ Δημόκριτε, μνησθεὶς χύτρας ποθοῦντα μαθεῖν πολλάκις τίς ἡ Τηλεμάχου καλουμένη χύτρα καὶ τίς ὁ Τηλέμαχος. καὶ ὁ Δημόκριτος ἔφη· ‘Τιμοκλῆς ὁ τῆς κωμῳδίας ποιητὴς (ἦν δὲ καὶ τραγῳδίας) ἐν μὲν δράματι Λήθῃ φησί ∙ μετὰ τοῦτον – σαργάνας And then Ulpian said: Dear Democritus, when you mentioned a cookpot, you reminded me that I often wished to know what the so-called “cookpot of Telemachus” is and who this Telemachus was. And Democritus replied: “The comic poet Timocles (who was also a writer of tragedy), says in his play Oblivion “After – baskets”

Meter Iambic trimeter

5

wwlwl l|lwwl wwlwl llwl wwww|l wlwl wlwl llw|l wlwl wlwl l|lwwl llwl llwl wwlw|l llwl llwwl llw|ww llwl wlwl wwlw|l llwl

Discussion Porson 1812, 114; Meineke ΙΙΙ (1840) 606–7; Bothe 1855, 619; Kock II (1884) 461; Bevilacqua 1939, 44; Edmonds II (1959) 616–9; APF, p. 56; PCG VII (1989) 772; Apostolakis 2014, 118–9. Citation context Fr. 23 comes from a chapter of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists (9.407d- 408a), where Democritus explains to his fellow-dinner Ulpian the meaning of the phrase “Telemachus’ pot”. Our fr. is followed by fr. 7 (from Dionysus), where Telemachus is said to be carrying his pot around, and fr. 18 (from Icarian Satyrs), where a famished character runs to Telemachus to find a heap of beans, some of which he grabs and eats. For the vague formulation ἦν δὲ καὶ τραγωδίας, which has been interpreted by some scholars as evidence that this poet wrote both tragedies and comedies, cf. on Test. 2. Text 4 ἐν αἷσιν ἕψεις τοὺς κυάμους αἷσιν ἕψεις is Bothe’s (1855, 619) palaeographically easy correction of the transmitted ἁῖς συνῆψας. Dindorf prefers αἷσιν ἦψες; cf. the historical tense εἰώθεις in Demad. fr. 44 de Falco (cited below). However, Phocion was no longer a general when Demades supposedly addressed him in the anecdote, whereas Telemachus is usually described as carrying around

Λήθη (fr. 23)

185

his pot or his beans during that period (cf. frr. 7, 18), and therefore the historical tense is less plausible. 5–6 πάνυ … πόρρωθεν The transmitted πάνυ is at first sight difficult, and Meineke III (1840) 607 wonders if it is better to correct into πάλιν (Bothe 1855, 616 would prefer πάλαι). But Kock II (1884) 461 is right: “πάνυ coniungendum cum πόρρωθεν”; for πάνυ πόρρωθεν cf. Men. Dysc. 104–5; Pl. Smp. 221b; Plu. Pomp. 2.5; Aet. Rom. Gr. 289f; Quaest. Conv. 681c. Οn the position of the intensifying adverbs πάνυ and σφόδρα see Dover 1971, 56; Willi 2002, 24. Interpretation A character narrates a scene involving successive encounters of an unidentified person with two well-known personalities of the time, the orator Telemachus (cf. frr. 7, 18) and Chaerephilus’ son Pheidippus (cf. Alex. fr. 221). He has also met someone else previously. The character described may be looking for utensils related to provisions and preparations for a dinner (hence his requests for cooking pots and fish baskets). This might be comparable with fr. 18 from Icarioi Satyroi, where a famished person is looking for food and, again, has recourse to Telemachus and his stock of beans. The humorous manner in which the character of the present fragment addresses Telemachus and Pheidippus (note the familiar tone in the wording of his requests for the pot and baskets, as well as in the gesture of smacking his lips) is compatible with the attitude of a parasite. Cf. fr. 11 from Ἐπιχαιρέκακος “The Spiteful Man”, where the well-known parasite Corydus is visiting the market and, after asking about the cost of all the expensive species of fish, finally runs to buy cheap sprats (the only ones he can afford with his little money). However, neither the joke about Telemachus’ pot nor that about Pheidippus’ baskets are original in structure. Both of them offer variations on a standard comic pattern or formula of expression, by which particular objects are associated with specific personalities as personal or professional emblems. This pattern already occurs in Nicostratus, a poet of the early fourth century (cf. Nicostr. Com. test. 2); see below, on v. 7. Both Telemachus and Pheidippus were probably involved in some way in the critical process of food provisioning in Athens; on Telemachus cf. on frr. 5 and 18. Concerning Pheidippus, his father Chaerephilus and his brothers were awarded Athenian citizenship on Demosthenes’ proposal (cf. Osborne 1983, 75–6 [= Naturalisation T 75]), probably due to their services during the famine period in 330–327 BC; cf. Garnsey 1988, 244–5; 150–54; Arnott 1996, 69–70. Both the proposer Demosthenes and Chaerephilus’ family faced Athenian suspicion (cf. Din. 1.43 with Worthington 1992 ad loc., p. 203), and it might not be accidental that they are repeatedly satirized by Timocles.204

204

Pheidippus and his brothers: Timocl. frr. 15 and 16. For Demosthenes see on Timocl. fr. 12 (from Heroes).

186

Timokles

On the other hand, Telemachus was involved in the process of corn provision in 328/7 BC, when he moved an honorary decree for the Cyprian Heracleides, on the grounds that he had facilitated the provisioning of Athens (cf. on frr. 7, 18 and 23). μετὰ τοῦτον Obviously an encounter with another person, presumably including dialogue, has previously been described; cf. the next line καὶ τοῦτον. For such successive meetings cf. Timocl. fr. 18 from Icarian Satyrs, where a famished person is narrating his successive encounters with well-known people (again including Telemachus) in his search for food. Tηλέμαχον Cf. on Timocl. fr. 7.1 (from Dionysus) and fr. 18 (from Icarian Satyrs). 2 ἀσπασάμενος “kindly welcome, greet”, used as a common term of address in meetings, e. g. Ar. Nu. 1145 Στρεψιάδην ἀσπάζομαι; Pl. 752–3 αὐτὸν ἠσπάζοντο καὶ ἐδεξιοῦνθ’; Hdt. 1.122 μεγάλως ἠσπάζοντο αὐτόν “received him with great joy”. For saluting from a distance cf. Pl. Chrm. 153b εὐθὺς πόρρωθεν ἠσπάζοντο ἄλλος ἄλλοθεν. ἡδέως πάνυ A typical fourth-century prosaic / colloquial construction, common in Xenophon and Plato : X. Mem. 3.6.9; Oec. 7.4; 11.2; Smp. 2.16; Eq. Mag. 3.8; Pl. Cra. 397a; Tht. 161c; Smp. 193e; D. 21.198. Also in comedy: com. adesp. fr. 479 μάλ’ ἡδέως; Men. Dysc. 270; cf. Macho 13.176 Gow; and further σφόδρ’ ἡδέως in Men. Pk. 324. 3 ἔπειτα Τhis adverb as a purely temporal conjunction (cf. also εἶτα on v. 7 and on Timocl. fr. 18.2,3) often occurs in comedy, but is rare in prose and tragedy. It is probably colloquial; see Dover 1968, 84–5; Olson–Sens 2000, 73. Here it may be compatible with a naive speaking character. For the construction of a participle followed by ἔπειτα and a finite verb cf. Ar. Ach. 498; Eub. fr. 72.3–4; E. Ion 1523–5 (κἄπειτα in Nu. 624–5); Kühner–Gerth II (1904) 83; Olson 2002, 74 (on Αr. Ach. 23–4). χρῆσόν μοι σύ The structure of the joke with reference to the pot seems to have been a common one, the pattern being “loan me this … which you used to…”; cf. Demad. fr. 44 de Falco (= Ael. VH 14.10) προείλοντο τοῦ Φωκίωνος Ἀθηναῖοι τὸν Δημάδην στρατηγεῖν. ὁ δὲ προτιμηθεὶς καὶ μέγα φρονῶν, προσελθὼν τῷ Φωκίωνι, ‘χρῆσον μοι, ἔφη, τὴν ῥυπαρὰν χλαμύδα, ἣν εἰώθεις φορεῖν παρὰ τὴν στρατηγίαν’. καὶ ὃς ‘οὐδέποτε’ εἶπεν ‘οὐδενὸς ῥυπαροῦ σὺ ἀπορήσεις, ἔστ’ ἂν ᾖς τοιοῦτος’ “The Athenians preferred Demades to Phocion as a general. Demades, conceited to be put forward, approached Phocion and said, ‘Lend me that foul cloak which you used to wear in your generalship.’ And he answered, ‘You will never be short of anything foul, as long as you are what you are.’” The same type of joke, which refers to an article emblematic of a certain quality or activity of the person associated with it, is common in comedy; cf. Ar. Ach. 410–78, where Dicaeopolis asks of Euripides the most pitiful dress from his tragic characters; Th. 218–9 Ἀγάθων, σὺ μέντοι ξυροφορεῖς ἑκάστοτε, / χρῆσόν τί νυν ἡμῖν ξυρόν, where the razor alludes to Agathon’s effeminacy (see Austin–Olson 2004, 126–7). For the wording cf. Pl. com. fr. 228 χρῆσόν 〈w〉 μοι τὴν χλαμύδα σου. For borrowing

Λήθη (fr. 23)

187

utensils, especially among friends and neighbors, cf. Ar. Ra. 1158–9 ὥσπερ γ’ εἴ τις εἴποι γείτονι· / “χρῆσον σὺ μάκτραν, εἰ δὲ βούλει, κάρδοπον”; “as if one said to his neighbor, ‘Lend me a dish, or, if you please, a saucer’”; the disjunction here seems to reflect another type of joke (cf. Pherecr. fr. 145 πρόσαιρε τὸ κανοῦν, εἰ δὲ βούλει, πρόσφερε), the standard pattern being e. g. “loan me a mina or a hundred drachmas”. See further Th. 249–51 Ἀγάθων, ἐπειδὴ σαυτὸν ἐπιδοῦναι φθονεῖς, / ἀλλ’ ἱμάτιον γοῦν χρῆσον ἡμῖν τουτῳὶ καὶ στρόφιον; Ec. 446; Thphr. Char. 10 and 30; Plaut. Aul. 95–6 cultrum, securim, pistillum, mortarium, quae utenda vasa vicini rogant “as for knife, axe, pestle, mortar, the utensils neighbors always ask for”; cf. Ηeadlam 1922 (on Herod. 6.82); Olson 1998 (on Pax 261). τὰς χύτρας For Telemachus’ χύτρα cf. on fr. 7.4 (from Dionysus) θάργηλον ἀγκάλῃ χύτραν φέρει. In connection with beans (or with ἔτνος, boiled bean mash) also Ar. Ach. 284 with Olson 2002 ad loc.; Hippon. fr. 118 Degani; Epich. fr. 30 (χύτρα with lentils). For χύτραι in ritual contexts cf. Ar. Pax 923–4 with Olson 1998 ad loc; Av. 43 with Dunbar 1996 ad loc.; Pl. 1197–1207; fr. 256. Χύτρα also occurs as the object of comic descriptions in dithyrambic style: Antiph. fr. 55.1 πότερ’, ὅταν μέλλω λέγειν σοι τὴν χύτραν, χύτραν λέγω. For the construction cf. Ar. fr. 606 τὴν χύτραν, / ἐν ᾗ τὰ κρεάδι’ ἕψετ’ ἐζωμευμένα. 4 ἐν αἷς ἕψεις τοὺς κυάμους For Telemachus’ supposed obsession with beans cf. on frr. 7, 18 and under “Interpretation”.205 For the association of ἕψειν κυάμους with Πυανέψια cf. Plu. Thes. 22 πύανον ἕψειν; cf. Paus. Att. ε 17 διὸ καὶ Πυανέψια δοκεῖ λέγεσθαι οἷον Κυαμέψια· τὸ γὰρ πρότερον τοὺς κυάμους πυάνους ἐκάλουν; Chantrain 2009, s. v. κύαμος. For cooking beans in χύτραι, in order to prepare mash or broth (χύτραι ἔτνους) in a ritual context cf. Ar. Ec. 845 χύτρας ἔτνους ἕψουσιν αἱ νεώταται; Ra. 505–6, where Persephone prepares for Heracles his favorite dish: ἧψε κατερικτῶν χύτρας / ἔτνους δύ’ ἢ τρεῖς. For beans cf. also Ar. fr. 2 Λῆμνος κυάμους τρέφουσα τακεροὺς καὶ καλούς; Dalby 2003, 49–50; cf. on fr. 18. καὶ ταῦτά τε / εἴρητο καί … For the construction τε…καὶ in a temporal sequence in a narrative “when… then”, cf. S. Ant. 1186–8 καὶ τυγχάνω τε κλῇθρ’ ἀνασπαστοῦ πύλης / χαλῶσα, καί με φθόγγος οἰκείου κακοῦ / βάλλει δι’ ὤτων; Pl. Phdr. 254b καὶ πρὸς αὐτῷ τ’ ἐγένοντο καὶ εἶδον τὴν ὄψιν τὴν τῶν παιδικῶν ἀστράπτουσαν; X. An. 4.2.12 καὶ τοῦτόν τε παρεληλύθεσαν οἱ Ἕλληνες καὶ ἕτερον ὁρῶσιν ἔμπροσθεν λόφον κατεχόμενον; 4.6.2; 7.4.12; see Denniston 1934, 515. 5 Φείδιππον Pheidippus (Raubitschek, RE s. v. Pheidippos 2; Osborne, Naturalisation T 75; PAA 919290; LGPN s. v. Φείδιππος (14); Din. 1.43) was one of the three sons of the salt-fish dealer Chaerephilus (for whom see on fr. 15), the other two being Pheidon and Pamphilus. Pheidippus was probably one of the two σκόμβροι in fr. 15 (cf. the σαπέρδαι of fr. 16) who are said to have love affairs 205

Telemachus’ supposed κυαμοφαγία would seem unacceptable to the Pythagoreans (for the Pythagorean κυάμων ἀπέχεσθαι cf. Arist. fr. 157 Gigon; Luc. VH 2.24; Gall. 4.7) and the Egyptians (e. g. Hdt. 2.37).

188

Timokles

with the courtesan Pythionice, the other being Pamphilus. Both had undertaken liturgies. Pheidippus, in particular, was a trierarch in 323 BC (IG II2.1631.622). In Alex. fr. 221 he is called a foreigner, an importer of salted fish: Φείδιππος ἕτερός τις ταριχηγὸς ξένος. However, we should not assume that this reference was made before his admission to Athenian citizenship, since it was possible for a comic poet to allude to his origin even after citizenship had been awarded; see Arnott 1996,70.206 The same prejudice might underlie the description of Chaerephilus’ sons as σκόμβροι ἐν τοῖς σατύροις in Alex. fr. 77 (see on fr. 15). 6 τὸν παχύν Pheidippus’ family belonged to the liturgical class, so here παχύς (fat) means “wealthy”, “prosperous” (LSJ s. v. II); cf. Ath. 8.339D (=Timocl. fr. 15), where Anytus is also described as ‘fat’, in a context involving Chaerephilus’ sons and Pythionice; Ar. Pl. 288–9 καὶ γὰρ ἀνὴρ παχὺς ἥκει / τῶν προδόντων τἀπὶ Θρᾴκης; Pax 639 τοὺς παχεῖς καὶ πλουσίους (with Olson 1998 ad loc.); Eq. 1139 ὅς ἂν ᾖ παχύς; Hdt. 5.30,77; 6.91; 7.156; Hsch. π 1165. 7 ἐπόππυσεν Onomatopoeic word, lit. “he made the sound “ποππύ”. It seems that the character addresses Pheidippus in a familiar way, by popping at him, as animals or children were usually addressed. Greeks used this kind of sound to attract the attention of children or horses (Ar. Pl. 732 and Schol.; X. Eq. 9.10… ὁ ἵππος ποππυσμῷ μὲν ἐγείρεσθαι, κλωσμῷ δὲ πραΰνεσθαι); Thphr. Char. 20.5 (with Diggle 2004, ad loc.) παιδίον ὑποκορίζεσθαι ποππύζων; Sud. π 2058 πόππυζε -ἀντὶ τοῦ κολακεύει, κήλει∙ ποππύσματα, κολακεῖαι εἰς τοὺς ἀδαμάστους ἵππους. ποππύζειν was also an apotropaic response to lightning (Ar. V. 625, with Biles– Olson 2016, ad loc., and Schol.; cf. Plin. HN 28.25 poppysmus, of the sound made on seeing lightning; Tichy 1983, 261–3). Ποππύζουσα was also the alternative title of Alexis’ Δορκίς, the titular heroine probably being a courtesan (Arnott 1996, 178). εἶτα ἐκέλευσε πέμπειν σαργάνας For εἶτα cf. above on ἔπειτα (v. 3). The wording πέμπειν σαργάνας “send baskets” would literally mean that somebody is ordering baskets of (salt) fish from a dealer; in that case, the expression here would probably reflect market vocabulary. But perhaps the phrase is a kind of catchword or slogan with unknown undertones; cf. 16.4 ὅμως δὲ δοῦναί σοι κέλευσον σαργάνας (said of Pythionice, who was thought to be well set up with salt-fish, due to her affairs with Charephilus’ sons). It might be a derogatory one, since it is combined with ἐπόππυσεν (see above).207 In any case, the phrasing playfully refers to an object as an emblem denoting someone’s profession. Cf. Nicostr. Com. fr. 20, in a context where a speaker is giving directions to a woman: ἔπειτα τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ / πρὸς Ἀερόπην ἐλθοῦσα πέμψαι στρώματα / αὐτὴν κέλευε, φησί, 206

207

In fourth-century Attic oratory such allusions and slanders regarding supposed foreign origin were common even for major Athenian politicians; cf. Demosthenes’ and Aeschines’ reciprocal accusations (e. g. D. 18.129–30; Aecshin. 2.180; 3.171–2). Bevilacqua 1939, 42 detects a derogatory tone in this allusion to the profession of Pheidippus, the naturalized metic.

Λήθη (fr. 23)

189

καὶ παρ’ Ὠκίμου / χαλκώματα. The speaker alludes to the profession of the two prostitutes by means of objects associated with them (στρώματα “bedclothes”, at least, are easily associated with courtesans; on the other hand, χαλκώματα “metal plates” seem to allude to something obscure).

190

Mαραθώνιοι (Marathōnioi) (“Men of Marathon”) Discussion PCG VII (1989) 772–3; Orth, HGL II (2014) 1045. Title Μαραθώνιοι was the title of a tragedy by Lycophron (TrGF I 100 T 3). Comedies named after men from individual Attic demes are Aristophanes’ Ἀχαρνῆς, Εupolis’ Προσπάλτιοι, Strattis’ Ποτάμιοι, Αntiphanes’ Θορίκιοι, Philippides’ Λακιάδαι, Menander’s Ἁλαεῖς; unknown poets wrote Ἐρχιεῖς (ca 204 BC, cf. com. adesp. fr. 7), and, perhaps, Θυμοιτάδαι (cf. com. adesp. fr. 8). The only relevant singular title is Antiphanes’ Φρεάρριος. Cf. also Hermippus’ and Posidippus’ Δημόται, Eupolis’ Δῆμοι, and the title Ἀνάγυρος (Aristophanes and Diphilus). The deme of Marathon is a coastal deme of Aiantis, and was represented in the Council with 10 bouleutai. The old Marathonians dwelled in a tetrapolis (Marathon, Oenoe, Probalinthus and Tricorynthus), which was a confederacy existing before the unification of Attica under Theseus. For location and archaeological and inscriptional material cf. Whitehead 1986, 190–94; Goette–Weber 2004; Csapo et alii 2014, 103. In Euripides’ Hērakleidai a Chorus consisting of old men from Marathon is ready to protect the children of Heracles from Eurystheus: 80–2 Χο. σὺ δ’ ἐκ τίνος γῆς, ὦ γέρον, τετράπτολιν ξύνοικον ἦλθες λαόν; “But you, old man, from what land have you come to this people who live together in four cities?” In Aristophanes, on the other hand, Marathon normally appears as the emblem of the victorious Athenian resistance against the Persians. Not surprisingly, it is always old men who recall the glorious days of the famous battle. In fact, the term ‘Marathon fighters’ is conventionally applied not only to the actual Μαραθωνομάχαι of 490 BC, but also to all those belonging to the oldest living generation, who established the Athenian empire after the repulse of the Persians; cf. Ar. Ach. 180–1 (the old Acharnians are described by Amphitheus as Marathon fighters) Ἀχαρνικοί, στιπτοὶ γέροντες, πρίνινοι, / ἀτεράμονες, Μαραθωνομάχαι, σφενδάμνινοι “elders from Acharnae, stout old men, hearts of oak, tough, Marathon fighters, hearts of maple”; 697–8 ἄνδρ’ ἀγαθὸν ὄντα Μαρα- / θῶνι περὶ τὴν πόλιν “when he was a brave fighter at Marathon for city”; Eq. 781 (the Sausage Seller addressing Demos) σὲ γάρ, ὃς Μήδοισι διεξιφίσω περὶ τῆς χώρας Μαραθῶνι “you, who crossed swords with the Medes at Marathon to defend your country”; 1334 τῆς γὰρ πόλεως ἄξια πράττεις καὶ τοῦ ’ν Μαραθῶνι τροπαίου “for you act worthily of the city and the trophy at Marathon”; Nu. 986 ἐξ ὧν ἄνδρας Μαραθωνομάχας ἡμὴ παίδευσις ἔθρεψεν; V. 711; 1060–1110 (the jurors recall their participation in the battle of Marathon); Th. 806. For the battle of Marathon in Attic comedy cf. Kακριδής 2011, 111–120; Papadodima 2013, 143–54. Content The title may recall either mythological (cf. above) or historical memories. It is uncertain whether the plural in the title echoes an Old Comedy treatment

Mαραθώνιοι (fr. 24)

191

or the existence of a Chorus. It is also likely that specific characteristics of the members of the deme are comically exploited.208 For the demes in Attic comedy cf. Whitehead 1986, 327–345. Date Unknown.

fr. 24 K.-A. (22 K.)

5

ὅσον τὸ μεταξὺ μετὰ κορίσκης ἢ μετὰ χαμαιτύπης τὴν νύκτα κοιμᾶσθαι. βαβαί, ἡ στιφρότης, τὸ χρῶμα, πνεῦμα, δαίμονες. τὸ μὴ σφόδρ’ εἶναι πάνθ’ ἕτοιμα, δεῖν δέ τι ἀγωνιᾶσαι καὶ ῥαπισθῆναί τε καὶ πληγὰς λαβεῖν ἁπαλαῖσι χερσίν· ἡδύ γε νὴ τὸν Δία τὸν μέγιστον

1 ὅσον Jacobs: θεὸν Α ἢ Α: καὶ Blaydes 3 τὸ χρῶμα πνεῦμα Α: τὸ χρῶμα, πνεῦμ’, ὦ Gulick: τὸ χρῶμα, τὸ πνεῦμα Jacobs: ὁ χρώς, τὸ πνεῦμα Wilamowitz 5 τε Jacobs: γε Α 6 :: ἡδύ Kock

5

What a big difference there is between spending the night with a young girl and with a prostitute! Damn! The firmness of her flesh! Her complexion and breath! Ye gods! The fact that everything’s not too ready for you, and you have to struggle a little, and get slapped and beaten by her soft hands. That’s sweet, by Zeus the greatest!

Ath. 13.570f ἢ ἥδιστόν ἐστι σοι, ὡς ἐν Μαραθωνίοις φησὶ Τιμοκλῆς ∙ ὅσον – μέγιστον or is what you like best, as Timocles puts in Men from Marathon; “what – the greatest!”

Μetre

5

208

Iambic trimeter

wlwwl w|wwwl llwl wlwl llw|l llwl llwl wlw|l wlwl wlwl l|lwl wlwl wlwl l|lwl llwl llwl wwlw|l wlwl llwwl wlw

E. g. that the Marathonians of the title are represented on stage as backward farmers, cf. Ar. Ra. 1296–7 with Dover 1993 ad loc.

192

Timokles

Citation context In the preceding lines, the deipnosophist Cynulcus addresses his table companion Myrtilus and quotes (actually distorts; cf. PCG VII (1989) 325 and Olson on Ath. 8.570e) Philetaerus’ fr. 6 (from The Huntress), where he seems to dissuade an old man from having sex at such an age. But immediately afterwards, Cynulcus ironically offers a counter-argument on the privileges enjoyed by the partner of a free young girl, by citing Timocles’ fragment from Men of Marathon. The thread of Athenaeus’ thought is not totally apparent. At first sight, there is a shift of focus here, in the sense that in Timocles’ fragment the contrast is no longer with old age, but having sex with a free young girl instead of a prostitute. However, the citation of Timocles’ fr. might be taken as an answer to the arguments set out previously in the section through the citation of other poets (Xenarchus fr. 4 from the Pentathlete and Eubulus fr. 67 from Nannion), i. e. that indulging in adultery is a great risk, when prostitutes are available. If so, Timocles’ fr. enrich the subject of the section by providing one more contradistinction. More specifically, given that the girl’s firmness of flesh, her color and the smell of her breath are tacitly contrasted with those of the prostitute, one may suppose that the latter is not a young woman, and, therefore, the contrast is built on both status and age. Text 1 The paradosis θεὸν does not give sense; Wyttenbach, on Plu. Mor. 5b suggests θεῖον μεταξύ “divinum intervallum, i. e. infinitum quantum distat…”, which is equally difficult. The emendation of Jacobs to ὅσον is certain. For the palaeographical confusion θεὸν / ὅσον and θεῖον / ὅσον in the uncial script cf. Cobet 1873, 357–8. For the expression ὅσον τὸ μεταξύ cf. Oenom. fr. 14 Μullach. 3 The definite article is missing before πνεῦμα. Jacobs suggested τὸ χρῶμα, τὸ πνεῦμα, and Wilamowitz ap. Kaibel ad Ath. 13.570f ὁ χρώς, τὸ πνεῦμα (cf. E. Med. 1075). But χρώς is mainly an epic word (in Aristophanes only in Lys. 127, which is paratragic). It seems better to assume with Olson 2007, 345 that the omission is colloquial and the article may tacitly be supplied from the preceding structure. Discussion Meineke III (1840) 607; Kock II (1884) 461–2; Edmonds II (1959) 618–9; PCG VII (1989) 772–3; Olson 2007, 345–6. Interpretation A man is apparently speaking to somebody (a friend?) about a sexual experience he has just enjoyed. The situation seems similar to that in Terence’s Eunuchus, when Chaerea triumphantly narrates to his friend Antipho how he entered Thais’ brothel disguised as a eunuch and had sexual intercourse with a virgin, the young girl Pamphila (vv. 549–606). We only eventually learn that it was actually a rape of a free girl, whom Chaerea believed to be a slave in the house of a prostitute. Kock attributes the last wording ἡδύ … μέγιστον to a second character; but this intensified comment is more likely to come from the person who has himself enjoyed this special experience, than from an interlocutor. The physical differences between a young girl and a prostitute are the flesh, the complexion and the breath, and are stressed in v. 3 in an asyndetic exclamatory structure. Kock II (1884) 462 notes that he does not understand the function of colour, especially at night. Herwerden 1886, 192 interprets it as the difference

Mαραθώνιοι (fr. 24)

193

between the natural and healthy skin of young virgins and the artificial and sagging skin of (mature) prostitutes (see above, “Context”). However, these characteristics are almost inseparable from the image of a young girl and a prostitute, and, therefore, it is not necessary to assume with him that at night they are only visible by the light of an oil-lamp. For beauty and sex appeal in Attic comedy see Robson 2013, 43–66. 1–2 μετὰ κορίσκης … κοιμᾶσθαι koimasthai in the sense “have sex” is rare in comedy (only in Ar. Ec. 722 ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῖς δούλοισι κοιμᾶσθαι μόνον), the common verb for either “sleeping” or “having sex” being καθεύδειν; e. g. Ar. Ach. 1146–7 καθεύδειν / μετὰ παιδίσκης ὡραιοτάτης, “to sleep with a blooming young girl” where, however, παιδίσκη is a prostitute, whom Dikaiopolis will have the opportunity to enjoy during his private peace; Ec. 699; 893; 938; 1038. For diminutives such as παιδίσκη in erotic contexts cf. Ar. Ra. 409–10 παραβλέψας τι μειρακίσκης νυνδὴ κατεῖδον καὶ μάλ’ εὐπροσώπου “just now I glanced sidelong at a girl with a very pretty face”. 2 βαβαί Exclamation expressing admiration; cf. Ar. Av. 272 βαβαῖ, καλός γε καὶ φοινικιοῦς; cf. the intensifying form βαβαιάξ (e. g. Pl. Com. fr. 46.9 with Olson 2007, 314). 3 The exclamatory tone, introduced in the previous line by βαβαί, is preserved through three successive exclamatory asyndetic nominatives, supported by the vocative δαίμονες at the end of the line. ἡ στιφρότης Cognate with the substantive στῖφος “body of men in close array” and the adjective στιφρός, it denotes the firm flesh of young girls; cf. Αr. fr. 148.2–3 ἢ σὺ τὰς ὑποπαρθένους, ἁλμάδας ὡς ἐλάας, στιφράς; “or the demi-vierges, firm as salted olives?”; Men. fr. 343 ὡς ἀεὶ στιφρὰς ἐσομένας καὶ νέας, ταλάντατος “(thinking) that they will remain firm and young for ever, the great fool”. τὸ χρῶμα The word is first attested in Aristophanes and Herodotus and belongs to the colloquial vocabulary; cf. Austin–Olson 2004, 182 (on Ar. Th. 406). Here apparently the natural colour of the young girls’ skin is contrasted with the artificial color of the prostitutes; cf. Peisetaerus’ reaction to the appearance of Procne: Ar. Av. 667–8 ὡς ἁπαλόν, ὡς δὲ λευκόν “how soft, how white!” In brothels, prostitutes are encouraged by pimps to use cosmetics, in order to be more attractive; cf. Alex. fr. 103.17–8 συμβέβηκ’ εἶναι μέλαιναν, κατέπλασε ψιμυθίῳ. / λευκόχρως λίαν τίς ἐστι, παιδέρωτ’ ἐντρίβεται “it happens that she is dark; she plasters herself with white lead. One is too white; she rubs rouge on herself ”. 2 χαμαιτύπης lit. “a cheap whore who services her clients on waste ground”. In comedy the word occurs also only in Men. Sam. 348 (see Sommerstein 2013, 210); fr. 472; cf. Theopomp. Hist. FGrHist 115 F 225. For prostitution in ancient Athens cf. Davidson 1997, 78–91; Glazebrook 2011, 34–59; Robson 2013, 67–89; McClure 2003; Biles–Olson 2016, 243; Kapparis 2018. 3 πνεῦμα For the fresh and sweet breath of young women cf. the way Trygaeus addresses the courtesan-like Theoria, with an introductory exclamatory οἷον: Αr. Pax 524–6 οἷον δ’ ἔχεις τὸ πρόσωπον, ὦ φίλη θεός, / οἷον δὲ πνεῖς, ὡς

194

Timokles

ἡδὺ κατὰ τῆς καρδίας, / γλυκύτατον, ὥσπερ ἀστρατείας καὶ μύρου “what a face you have, beloved goddess! And what an aroma, how delightful to my heart, most sweet, like exemption from service and perfume!”; in non-erotic contexts cf. E. Μed. 1075 ὦ μαλθακὸς χρὼς πνεῦμά θ’ ἥδιστον τέκνων; Tro. 758–9 (Αndromache embraces Astyanax before he is thrown from the ramparts of Troy) ὦ χρωτὸς ἡδὺ πνεῦμα. 4 πάνθ’ ἕτοιμα As in the case of a χαμαιτύπη. Cf. Xenarch. 4.16–7 καὶ τῶνδ’ ἑκάστην ἔστιν ἀδεῶς, εὐτελῶς, / μεθ’ ἡμέραν, πρὸς ἑσπέραν, πάντας τρόπους “and you can (have sex with) any of them with no fear and cheaply, during the day, in the evening, in any way”; Philem. fr. 3.9 κοινὰς ἅπασι καὶ κατεσκευασμένας “available to all and in a state of readiness”; fr. 3.15 ἀλλ’ εὐθύς, ὡς βούλει σὺ χὢν βούλει τρόπον. However, cf. Ar.V. 499–501, where the prostitute is reluctant to satisfy a customer’s special order. 5–6 For love as a fight cf. Cat. 66.13 dulcia nocturnae portans vestigia rixae / quam de virgineis gesserat exuviis “bearing the sweet vestiges of nightly contests, in which he had carried away the spoils of her virginity”; Ovid. Ars Amatoria 233–6 Militiae species amor est… / nox et hiems longaeque viae saevique dolores / mollibus his castris et labor omnis inest “Love is a kind of warfare… Night, winter, long expeditions, savage pains and every labor exists in this soft camp”. 5 ἀγωνιᾶσαι “struggle” (cf. Pl. Prt. 333e; Chrm. 162c; Isoc. 4.91). It is mitigated by the internal accusative τι of the preceding verse. 6 πληγὰς λαβεῖν “πληγῆναι”; cf. Cratin. fr. 92.1–2; Philyll. fr. 9.2–3; Ar. V. 1298, 1325; Pax 493; Ra. 673, 747; Ec. 324; Th. 5.50.4; Pl. Hp. Ma. 292c; D. 21.1; Men. Dysc. 205. And cf. on fr. 9.6 λαμβάνειν δίκρουν ξύλον. 6 ἁπαλαῖσι χερσίν Softness of hands and legs, as a characteristic of young girls and women in general, often has erotic overtones; cf. Ar. Ec. 901–4 μὴ φθόνει ταῖσιν νέαισι· / τὸ τρυφερὸν γὰρ ἐμπέφυκε / τοῖς ἁπαλοῖσι μηροῖς, / κἀπὶ τοῖς μήλοις ἐπαν- / θεῖ· “Don’t be jealous of young girls; for voluptuousness is rooted in tender thighs and blooms in firm breasts”; Alex. fr. 49.2–3 ὅτι δεῖ γυναικὸς ἐπιφερούσης δακτύλους / ἁπαλούς, ὑπ’ ἀκάνθης μηδὲ ἓν τούτους παθεῖν “that when a woman places her soft fingers on it, / they shouldn’t suffer any harm from its thorn”. ἡδύ γε Αt the end of a trimeter also in Alex. fr. 129.2, as an elliptical comment by an interlocutor on a preceding statement. 6–7 For this eruption of joy cf. Chaereas’ celebrations immediately after his successive intrusion in Thais’ home and his intercourse with Pamphila: Ter. Eun. 550–2 iamne erumpere hoc licet mi gaudium? pro Iuppiter, / nunc est profecto interfici quom perpeti me possum, / ne hoc gaudium contaminet vita aegritudine aliqua “Can I at last let my joy burst out? By Jupiter! Now is truly the time for me to suffer death, so that life cannot spoil this joy with any sorrow!” 7 νὴ τὸν Δία τὸν μέγιστον This formula, and also the simple νὴ τὸν Δία (unlike νὴ Δία and μὰ τὸν Δία), always appears in the initial position of a trimeter; cf. the formulas νὴ τὸν Ποσειδῶ (e. g. Ar. Eq. 366, 899, 1035) and νὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν

Mαραθώνιοι (fr. 24)

195

(e. g. Nicostr. 29.2). Here it intensifies the preceding ἡδύ γε, as in Men. Sik. 157 ὀλιγαρχικὸς εἶ καὶ πονηρὸς, Σμ[ικρίνη, / νὴ τὸν Δία τὸν μέγιστον; it is far more common to introduce a statement, e. g. Men. Dysc. 835; Sam. 641; Philem. fr. 98.1; it can also lie in the middle of an expression, as in CGFPR com. adesp. fr. 256.1–2 ἀλλ’ ἀγωνιῶ, / νὴ τὸν Δία [τ]ὸν μέγιστον, οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνως.

196

Νέαιρα (Neaera) (“Neaera”) Discussion Kock II (1884) 462; Edmonds II (1959) 618–9; Breitenbach 1908, 136–8; Bevilacqua 1939, 46–7; Schiassi 1951, 237–8; PCG VII (1989) 773–4; Kapparis 1999, 44; McClure 2003, 41–2 and 69–70; Auhagen 2009, 68–9. Τitle The name ‘Neaera’ is probably a corrupted type of the older form νείαιρα, which as an adjective means “the lower part” (cf. Hom. Il. 5.539 νειαίρῃ ἐν γαστρί; Simon. fr. 244 νέαιραν γνάθον), and as a substantive denotes the abdominal region (Hp. Coac. 579 βάρος ἐν νειαίρῃ). There is a comedy with the same title by Philemon (fr. 49) and a Neaera by Licinius Imbrex (235 Ribbeck).209 In Timocles, titles probably referring to courtesans are Δρακόντιον, Λήθη and Πορφύρα (also attributed to Xenarchus). Apart from these titles, in the surviving fragments the well-known courtesans Phryne (fr. 25) and Pythionice (frr. 15 and 16) are named, whereas in Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης (fr. 27) eleven notorious courtesans (including Phryne) are named; cf. on this fr., under “Interpretation”. In the thirteenth book of Athenaeus more than forty names of courtesans occur, as titles of plays of Middle and New Comedy. These titles may well refer either to historical or to invented persons. Webster (1952, 23–4) has convincingly argued that the title of a play refers to a historical person, if the existence of that person is well attested. On the basis of this assumption, both Timocles’ and Philemon’s Neaera may be associated with the trial of the historical Neaera (cf. [D.] 59 and see below, “Date”).210 Other titles which probably refer to historical persons are Antiphanes’ Μαλθάκη, Eubulus’ Κλεψύδρα, Νάννιον and Πλαγγών.211 Neaera was born and raised a slave in Corinth, probably in the first decade of the fourth century, and later acquired her freedom. In her youth she had been a notorious courtesan, and is often mentioned in the comic poets. In the course of time, she stopped having ephemeral lovers and chose the safer life of a concubine. It was precisely her new status which caused her to be put on trial. More specifically, in 342 BC the orator Apollodorus, acting as an advocate of his kinsman Theomnestus, argued that Neaera was living as a concubine with Stephanus, but pretended to be his wife. As a result, her sons and her daughter Phano had usurped the right of Athenian citizenship, an act considered illegal. In fact, Apollodorus spends a third of his speech in dealing with Neaera’s career as a courtesan and 209

210

211

Philemon’s play (on which Licinius Imbrex’s Neaera was perhaps based) was later than, and possibly related to, Timocles’ Νέαιρα; see Breitenbach, 1908, 136–8 and Kapparis 1999, 44. This might also be the case for Epicrates’ Antilais, a play which was apparently associated with a trial involving the famous courtesan Lais; cf. Lys. XCV Against Lais, fr. 208 Carey; McClure 2003, 40. See Hauschild 1933, 14; Webster 1970, 22–3 and 63–4; Arnott 1996, 52; Henderson 2014, 191–3.

Νέαιρα

197

in focusing on her slavish origin; moreover, he systematically defames Phano, her daughter. Neaera is also mentioned in Philetaerus’ Κυναγίς fr. 9, in a context where Lais, Isthmias and Neaera are described as well on in years, but still practicing prostitution: οὐχὶ Λαῒς μὲν τελευτῶσ’ ἀπέθανεν βινουμένη, / Ἰσθμιὰς δὲ καὶ Νέαιρα κατασέσηπε καὶ Φίλα; “Then didn’t Lais die while being fucked? and Isthmias, Neaera too, and Phila, became completely rotten.” For Neaera see ΜcClure 2003, 14–7, 24–5, 40–41, 75–6; Kapparis 1999, 29–41; Kapparis 2018, 177–84, 243–7, 252–6, 268–73, 300–304. Content The title of the comedy, in combination with the content of fr. 25, where the motif of the amator exclusus appears, indicates a plot with an erotic subject, probably an affair between a young man and a courtesan; it is equally possible that this particular comedy includes more courtesans, as the mention of Phryne in the same fragment suggests. Both courtesans shared a poor starting-point. Phryne is described as collecting herbs (capers), while Neaera had grown up as a slave in Corinth, before her emancipation; cf. [D.] 59.18–49, with Kapparis 1999 ad loc. Moreover, both Phryne and Neaera were placed on trial in cases involving the well-known orators Apollodorus and Hyperides, the first as an advocate of Neaera’s prosecutor Theomnestos, and the second speaking in Phryne’s defence. It is less probable that the plot of the play is totally invented, lacking any association with the well-known incidents involving the two courtesans. Moreover, if the person described as ἀναρίστητος in fr. 26 is a parasite, then this particular comedy would include the indispensable assistant of an amator exclusus; cf. Timocl. fr. 8.6 ἐρᾷς, συνεραστὴς ἀπροφάσιστος γίγνεται; Men. Dysc. 57–68, where Chaereas promises to help his enamoured patron; see Nesselrath 1985, 28; Papachrysostomou 2008, 104–5. Courtesans, excluded lovers and parasites are stereotypical characters in Greek and Roman New Comedy. Indicative examples are Terence’s Eunuchus, which includes courtesans (Thais, Pythias and Dorias), young excluded lovers (Phaidrias, vv. 46–9) and gluttonous parasites such as Gnathon (e. g. vv. 232–64), who promises to mediate between Thrason, his patron, and Thais. A comparable example is Plautus’ Curculio, where the main character of the play is a voracious parasite, who offers to help Phaedromus win Planesium’s heart. Date An exact dating of the play is impossible. However, if the staging of the play is associated with the trial of Neaera, then a dating shortly after 343 BC seems probable; see Breitenbach 1908, 137, who believes that Timocles’ play was older than Philemon’s Neaera; PCG VII (1989) 773.212

212

Schiassi 1951, 237–8 calculates the career of Phryne as courtesan and dates Timocles’ comedy to 335–330 BC. But his argument is based on very precarious calculations.

198

Timokles

fr. 25 K.- A. (23 K.) ἀλλ’ ἔγωγ’ ὁ δυστυχὴς Φρύνης ἐρασθείς, ἡνίκ’ ἔτι τὴν κάππαριν συνέλεγεν οὔπω τ’ εἶχεν ὅσαπερ νῦν ἔχει, πάμπολλ’ ἀναλίσκων ἐφ’ ἑκάστῳ τῆς θύρας ἀπεκλειόμην 4

τῆς θύρας Α: τῇ θύρᾳ Blaydes

5 ἀπεκλειόμην Α: -κλῃόμην Κοck

But unlucky me who fell in love with Phryne, when she was still picking capers and did not own as much property as she does now, and though I spent a fortune on every visit, I was shut out from her door Metre Ιambic trimeter

〈alwl a〉lwl wlwl llwl l|lwww llwl wwwwl llw|ww llwl llwl llwwl llwl wwlwl

Αth. 13.567 d-e διόπερ καὶ θρηνῶν τις αὑτὸν παράγεται ὑπὸ Τιμοκλέους ἐν Νεαίρᾳ ∙ ἀλλ’ – ἀπεκλειόμην… 13.591d εἴρηκεν δὲ περὶ τοῦ πλούτου αὐτῆς Τιμοκλῆς ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν Νεαίρᾳ— πρόκειται τὸ μαρτύριον (567e)—καὶ Ἄμφις ἐν Κουρίδι (fr. 24). that is why a man lamenting his own fate is brought onstage by Timocles in Neaera; “but – her door”… and Timocles the comic poet, in his Neaera, has mentioned her wealth (the passage has already been cited), and also Amphis in his Kouris.

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 607–8; Kock II (1884) 462; PCG VII (1989) 773–4; Auhagen 2009, 68–9. Citation context The fragment comes from the thirteenth book of Athenaeus, which is devoted to courtesans. In this particular section, courtesans are described as a disaster for their lovers. This statement is supported, inter alia, by the preceding fragment from Antiphanes’ Agroikos (fr. 2), while in the following (Timocl. fr. 27), eleven courtesans have encircled the notorious homosexual Autocleides. Text τῆς θύρας Βlaydes 1890, 127 proposes the correction ταῖς θύραις, or alternatively, τῇ θύρᾳ. The verb ἀποκλείειν with dative (τῇ θύρᾳ “with the door”) can be used either in the sense “exclude somebody from”, as e. g. in Αr. Ec. 420–1 ἢν δ’ ἀποκλῄῃ τῇ θύρᾳ / χειμῶνος ὄντος, τρεῖς σισύρας ὀφειλέτω (in a context

Νέαιρα (fr. 25)

199

with legal connotations, see Ussher 1973 ad loc.; and cf. Lys. 10.17, where the archaic ἀπίλλειν occurs in the same sense; Isae. 6.40 οὐδὲ τότε εἴων εἰσιέναι, ἀλλ’ ἀπέκλεισαν τῇ θύρᾳ), or “imprison somebody in a house”, e. g. Ar. V. 333 τίς γάρ ἐσθ’ ὁ ταῦτά σ’ εἴργων κἀποκλήιων τῇ θύρᾳ; however, in the context of an amator exclusus, the genitive seems to be more to the point: “the door was slammed in his face”; cf. Ar. Lys. 423 ὑπό τῶν γυναικῶν ἀποκέκλειμαι τῶν πυλῶν; X. HG 5.2.42 δείσαντες μὴ ἀποκλεισθεῖεν τῶν πυλῶν; Hdt. 5.104.2 …ἀπεκλήισε τῶν πυλέων. Therefore, the transmitted τῆς θύρας is unexceptionable. Interpretation A character is complaining that Phryne, the famous courtesan, treated him cruelly in the past (cf. the imperfect ἀπεκλειόμην). Ιt is not clear whether he is narrating his misfortunes to others or addressing the audience, perhaps in the Prologue. Nor is it clear how this past traumatic experience influences his present condition. It is possible that he is contrasting a happy period of his life with an unhappy one, or with the happiness of other lovers (cf. ἀλλ’). Or he may be discussing his past experiences with other men, as in Anaxandrides’ Gerontomania (fr. 9). Moreover, changes in the lives of courtesans were not uncommon. They often escaped poverty and became immensely rich by extracting money from wealthy customers, as Phryne here, and they often found themselves in a difficult situation when they grew old; cf. Epicr. fr. 3 (from Antilais). For the greedy and heartless courtesan cf. Antiph. fr. 2 ἐστιν δ’ ἑταίρα τῷ τρέφοντι συμφορά, with Konstantakos 2000, 51; Aristopho fr. 4 αἱ τῶν ἑταιρῶν γὰρ διοπετεῖς οἰκίαι ∙ / γεγόνασιν ἄβατοι τοῖς ἔχουσι μηδὲ ἕν “the houses of the courtesans are (like statues) fallen from Zeus; for they are inaccessible to those who have no money”. For courtesans in comedy see Hauschild 1933, 14–22; ΜcClure 2003; Auhagen 2009. 1 ἔγωγ’ ὁ δυστυχής Cf. Μen. Pk. 348 [778] ὁ δυστυχὴς ἐγώ; Dysc. 919 ὢ δυστυχὴς ἐγώ. For similar wording in an erotic context, cf. Timocl. fr. 10 οἴμοι κακοδαίμων, ὡς ἐρῶ (perhaps said by an amator exclusus). For lovers complaining of heartless hetaerae cf. Men. Dis exap. 91–102; Sam. 335–56; Plaut. Asin. 127–52; Trucul. 22–76; Konstantakos 2000, 51. 2 Φρύνης ἐρασθείς Phryne was one of the most famous courtesans in Ancient Greece (cf. Posidipp. fr. 13 ἐπιφανεστάτη πολὺ τῶν ἑταιρῶν; Lucil. 263 Phryne nobilis illa) and Athenaeus devotes a long section to her in his thirteenth book (590d -591f). She was born in Thespiae in 370s BC and her father was called Epicles. Her real name was probably Mnesarete, but she was mainly known as Phryne, “toad”, apparently due to her pale complexion (ἔνωχρον, cf. Arist. PA 673b31). Athenaeus mentions two courtesans by this name: the first was also called Κλαυσίγελως “Laughing through tears” and the second Σαπέρδιον, which is the diminutive of an unidentified fish; cf. on Timocl. fr. 16.6. However, it has been convincingly argued that they are one and the same person, and that it is the portraitists of the Hellenistic era who are responsible for this separation (Raubitschek 1941, 893–901; McClure 2003, 127). Βy means of her profession, she managed to escape poverty and acquired wealth (cf. v. 3 ὅσα νῦν ἔχει and Ath. 13.591d ἐπλούτει δὲ σφόδρα). But it seems that the most critical incident of her life was the trial

200

Timokles

for impiety (graphē asebeias), like that of Pericles’ Aspasia. In that trial she was defended by Hyperides, one of her lovers, who managed to rescue her by means of revealing her breast, perhaps the most theatrical gesture in the history of Attic oratory (Ath. 13.590d-591e and [Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 849d-e). She was believed to have been used as a model by Praxiteles for the Aphrodite of Melos and by Apelles for the painted image of Aphrodite Anadyomene (Ath. 13.590f-591a). In comedy, Phryne is also mentioned in Timocl. 27 (in Orestautocleides, as an Erinys among another ten courtesans), Amphis frr. 23, 24, Posidipp. fr. 13 (in a scene referring to her trial) and Anaxil. fr. 22 (as Charybdis). See Schiassi 1951, 237; Cooper 1995, 303–18, who questions the reliability of the tradition about the trial of Phryne; McClure 2003, 41–2, 54–5, 126–36; Kapparis 2018, 258–61, 439–41. 2–3 τὴν κάππαριν συνέλεγεν For the caper (Capparis spinosa, cf. Thphr. HP 3.2.1), which is included in Antiph. fr. 140, in a catalogue of ἀρτύματα (seasonings) such as lasewort (σίλφιον), thyme and oregano, cf. Philem. fr. 100.5; Alex. fr. 132–6. For caper as a worthless food, placed in expensive vessels by some nouveaux riches, cf. Philippid. fr. 9.6–7 καὶ κάππαριν χαλκῶν τριῶν ἐν τρυβλίῳ / ἄγοντι πεντήκοντα δραχμὰς ἀργυρῷ “or three coppers’ worth of capers on a silverplate worth fifty drachmas”; cf. com. adesp. fr. 733 πρὸς κάππαριν ζῇς δυνάμενος πρὸς ἀνθίαν “you live on caper although you could enjoy anthias”. Such self-sown plants were mainly consumed by poor, rural people. For references to lower-class women occupied in rural and commercial activities in comedy, cf. Magnes’ Ποάστρια (Bagordo 2014, 104–5), Phrynichus’ Ποάστριαι (Stama 2014, 229–30), Hermippus’ Ἀρτοπώλιδες and Theopomus’ Καπήλιδες. Country women usually belonged to the lower social strata or were of foreign origin, and were favorite targets of the comedians. Cf. Aristophanes’ mocking allusion to Euripides’ mother, who is described as an impoverished hawker of wild herbs: Ach. 478 (said by Dikaiopolis) σκάνδικά μοι δός, μητρόθεν δεδεγμένος “give me some chervil from your mother’s store”; Th. 387 (from Mika) Εὐριπίδου τοῦ τῆς λαχανοπωλητρίας; see Roselli 2005, 1–49. ὅσα περ νῦν ἔχει For Phryne’s establishment as a wealthy courtesan cf. the story by Callistratus, cited in Ath. 13.591d ἐπλούτει δὲ σφόδρα ἡ Φρύνη καὶ ὑπισχνεῖτο τειχιεῖν τὰς Θήβας, ἐὰν ἐπιγράψωσιν Θηβαῖοι ὅτι ‘Ἀλέξανδρος μὲν κατέσκαψεν, ἀνέστησεν δὲ Φρύνη ἡ ἑταίρα’ “Phryne was extremely rich, and promised to build a wall around Thebes, if the Thebans would inscribe on the wall, ‘Alexander destroyed this wall, but Phryne the courtesan restored it’”; cf. Prop. 2.6.1–6. For prices, costs and profits of prostitution cf. Kapparis 2018, 302–13. πάμπολλ’ ἀναλίσκων For Phryne as a notorious courtesan who sucks her lovers’ blood, cf. what Athenaeus says in his Deipnosophists (13.591c): Ἡρόδικος δὲ ἐν ἕκτῳ Κωμῳδουμένων τὴν μὲν παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσί φησιν ὀνομαζομένην Σηστὸν καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ ἀποσήθειν καὶ ἀποδύειν τοὺς συνόντας αὐτῇ, τὴν δὲ Θεσπικήν “Herodicus in Book VI of Individuals Mentioned in Comedy says that the Phryne referred to by orators as Sestos was so called because she robbed and stripped the men who slept with her, whereas the other one was from Thespiae.” For avid courtesans cf. also Timocl. fr. 16 (Pythionice); Davidson 2003, 290–7.

Νέαιρα (fr. 26)

201

ἡνίκ’ ἔτι The combination of these particular adverbs is very rare in the classical period (cf. X. HG 5.3.4). Much more common is ὅτε ἔτι, which, remarkably, is used by Apollodorus when he mentions Neaera’s past, when she was hired by Nicarete to offer her services to customers: [D.] 59.108 μισθωθεῖσα ὑπὸ τῆς Νικαρέτης, ὅτε ἔτι ἐκείνης ἦν. Also common is the use of the simple ἡνίκα, which introduces the description of a period which has passed; cf. Cratin. fr. 57 (Δραπετίδης) ἦν γὰρ ἐξελεύθερός μοι πατρικός, ἡνίκ᾽ αὐτὸς ἦν; Ar. Ach. 708 ἐκεῖνος ἡνίκ’ ἦν Θουκυδίδης “when he was a real Thucydides, i. e. at his height”; Pax 314 ἡνίκα ἐνθάδ’ ἦν (for Cleon). 4 ἐφ’ ἑκάστῳ “every time I visited her”, cf. Kock II (1884) 462 (ad loc.) “ad singulos coitus obtinendos”. 4–5 τῆς θύρας ἀπεκλειόμην The motif of the amator exclusus, which first occurs in Euripides’ Cyclops (495–502), is also found in Aristophanes (Ec. 938–75) and in Roman comedy; cf. Ter. Eun. 49 exlusit; revocat: redeam? non si me obsecret “She shut me out, she calls me back; should I go back? Not if she begged me!”; Ad. 119, Andr. 386. See Copley 1956, 140; Tromaras 2005, 188–9. This motif should perhaps be traced in Timocl. fr. 10 [ Epistolai] οἴμοι κακοδαίμων, ὡς ἐρῶ; com. adesp. fr. 1147. 6–7 πᾶσαν ὥραν γάρ, μέσ[ων / νυκτῶν ἕωθεν ἑσπέρας, ἀποκλείομα[ι.

fr. 26 K.-A. (24 Κ.) ἔπειτα διά τε ταῦτ’ ἀναρίστητος ὤν διά τε Kuster: τὸ διά τε codd.: διά γε Bernhardy

and then, not having a lunch for these reasons Metre Iambic trimeter

wlwww wlwl llwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840); Kock II (1884) 462; PCG VII (1989) 774. Sud. α 2048 ἀνάριστος, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀναρίστητος … Τιμοκλῆς Νεαίρᾳ (-αν codd., corr. Leopardus) ∙ ἔπειτα – ὤν anaristos or rather anaristētos; Timocles in Neaera; and – reasons

Citation context The fragment is transmitted by Suda, under the entry ἀνάριστος, where it is noted that the form ἀναρίστητος is preferable; this is corroborated by the citation of Ar. fr. 470 and Antiph. fr. 139, whereas for ἀνάριστος Μen. fr. 821 and Plb. 3.71.10 are cited (but the latter author is not named); see Arnott 1996, 663.

202

Timokles

Interpretation Since the subject of the participle ὢν is not included in the verse, it is not clear whether the person described as ἀναρίστητος is the speaking character, who is narrating his adventures to others (e. g. as in Eup. fr. 347 ἐγὼ δ’ ἄδειπνος ἑσπέρας ηὐλιζόμην), or another person, to whom the speaking character refers. The participle might be modal (e. g. Αr. fr. 470 διὰ τῆς ἀγορᾶς τρέχων, ἀναρίστητος ὤν) or adversative (Philonid. fr. 1 ἐγὼ δ’ ἀπόσιτος ὢν τοιαῦτ’ οὐκ ἀνέχομαι). The διά τε ταῦτα, in combination with the adverb ἔπειτα, seems to refer to an incident which must have taken place immediately before, perhaps in addition to other ones (cf. the particle τε), and prevented the subject of the participle from having lunch. It might be an extraordinary situation, like that described in fr. 25 by an amator exclusus, in front of the door of a heartless courtesan. Given, however, that in other passages the adjective ἀναρίστητος is associated with a parasite asking for a meal before undertaking an activity for his patron (cf. Alex. fr. 235 πάντως ἀναρίστητος οὐ δυνήσομαι / διακαρτερῆσαι τηλικαύτην ἡμέραν [with Arnott 1996, 655]; Luc. Par. 49 οὐχὶ πρῶτον μὲν ὁ τοιοῦτος (sc. ὁ παράσιτος) ἀριστοποιησάμενος ἔξεισιν ἐπὶ τὴν παράταξιν [with Nesselrath 1990, 315]), it is possible that here also the person described as anaristētos is a parasite. In Timocl. fr. 11 [Epichairekakos] the parasite Corydus, who had not been invited to a dinner, is depicted as having his mouth water when seeing expensive fish, but finally buying cheap membradai; and cf. Ar. fr. 470 (cited above), where perhaps a parasite wanders around the market without lunch. ἔπειτα For the colloquial use of this adverb see Olson 2016, 473. ἀναρίστητος “without an ariston, i. e. without a lunch”. ἄριστον was initially breakfast, but in the classical period it usually means the midday meal (cf. Ath. 1.11b-f), breakfast being called ἀκράτισμα. For ἄριστον in comedy cf. Ar. Eq. 815; Nu. 416; Pax 1281, Av. 1602; Ra. 376; Eup. fr. 384; Hermipp. fr. 60; Theopomp. Com. fr. 23; Alex. fr. 123.2. For the difference between ariston and akratisma cf. Canthar. fr. 10 οὐκοῦν ἀκρατισώμεθ’ αὐτοῦ. (Β.) μηδαμῶς· / Ἰσθμοῖ γὰρ ἀριστήσομεν “so, we’ll have our akratisma here. (B.) Absolutely not; we’ll have our ariston at Isthmus”. The form ἀναρίστητος (occurring only in 5th and early 4th-century comedy) is apparently considered more Attic, while ἀνάριστος occurs more often in the Ionic dialect (e. g. Hp. Ac. 3.78) and in Koinē (e. g. Plb. 3.71.10), although Xenophon also uses it (An. 1.10.19; HG 4.5.8). For ἀναρίστητος cf. Antiph. fr. 139 ἐνταῦθα ἀναρίστητος εὐθὺς κιθαριεῖ ; Εup. fr. 77 ἀναρίστητος ὢν / κοὐδὲν βεβρωκώς, ἀλλὰ γὰρ στέφανον ἔχων, where Winkelmann 1833, xl-xli suggests that this is a reference to the musician Connus.

203

Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης (Orestautokleidēs) (“Orestautocleides”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 608–9; Kock II (1884) 462–3; Breitenbach 1908, 33–6; Bevilacqua 1939, 47; Schiassi 1951, 230–45; Webster 1970, 59, 63, 82; PCG VII (1989) 774–5; Auhagen 2009, 71; Olson 2007, 175–6; Orth HGL II (2014) 1046. Title In Sud. τ 623 (cf. test. 1) the comedy is (apparently wrongly) referred to as Ὀρέστης. The title denotes the name of a person consisting of two composites. For such ‘hybrid’ names as comedy titles cf. Polyzelus’ Δημοτυνδάρεως, Strattis’ Ἀνθρωπορέστης (cf. Orth 2009, 43–54), Cratinus’ Διoνυσαλέξανδρος (cf. Bianchi 2015, 198–301), Aristophanes’ Αἰολοσίκων (cf. Orth 2017, 90–93), Alexis’ Ἀσκληπιοκλείδης (cf. Arnott 1996, 115–6), Eubulus’ Σφιγγοκαρίων (cf. Hunter 1983, 199–208), Μenecrates’ Μανέκτωρ, Pherecrates’ Ἀνθρωφηρακλῆς and Pacuvius’ tragedy Dulorestes (‘Orestes as slave’); cf. also Lucian’s Ἰκαρομένιππος, Ar. Ra. 499 Ἡρακλειοξανθίας and Cratin. fr. 502, where the comic poet Ekphantides is called Χοιριλεκφαντίδης. For other composite titles cf. Alcaeus’ and Anaxandrides’ Kωμῳδοτραγῳδία; Metagenes’ Θουριοπέρσαι, perhaps a description of the Thurians living the luxurious life of Persians; cf. Orth 2014, 410; the comic descriptions of Bdelycleon as Δημολογοκλέων (Ar. V. 342b) and Κομηταμυνίας (Ar. V. 466) by the Chorus; and the mysterious composite Κολακοφοροκλείδης in Phrynich. Com. fr. 18, perhaps a construction alluding to a certain Athenian officer (πάρεδρος Ἑλληνοταμιῶν) Pherecleides; cf. Chronopoulos 2006, 140–43; Stama 2014, 128–31. For plays with both composite titles and homoerotic subject in comedy cf. Myrtilus’ Tιτανόπανες; cf. Meineke I (1839) 100–1: “argumentum fabulae ad παιδεραστὰς spectasse dicas”; Bagordo 2014, 131. In such composite titles it is difficult to tell which part denotes the most significant character of the play. It seems, however, that in Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης (and probably in Αἰολοσίκων and Σφιγγοκαρίων, cf. Orth 2013, 88), the second part denotes the actual character of the play, or, to put it another way, the first part denotes the person who is imitated, while the second is the imitator. Other comic titles which recall Aeschylus are Nicochares’ Ἀγαμέμνων, Cratinus’ Εὐμενίδες, Aristophanes’ Δαναΐδες, Strattis’ Μυρμιδόνες, Theopompus’ Νεμέα, Alcaeus’ Καλλιστώ, Αmphis’ and Alexis’ Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας; see Orth 2015, 27. In Aristophanes, Aeschylus is an example of old-fashioned poetry, cf. Ar. Ach. 10, Nu. 1364–7, Lys. 188–9; Ra. passim, Ec. 391–3. For Aeschylus in fourth-century comedy, cf. Anaxil. fr. 19.1–2; Olson 2007, 175. Otherwise, Orestes in fourthcentury comedy appears in parody scenes of Euripides’ homonymous play, the most interesting being Alex. fr. 3 (cited below, “Interpretation”; see on Timocl. fr. 32.1); cf. Alc. Com. fr. 19 (from Kōmōidotragōidia); Men. Asp. 424, 432; and Sik. 176–7, 182; Arnott 1996, 62–3; Orth 2013, 14–5. For Orestes as a favourite hero of comedy cf. Willink 1986, lvi–lvii; Orth 2009, 45–6; Orth 2013, 87–8. It is also worth noting that in comedy the name Orestes sometimes appears as a nickname for muggers and criminals; cf. Ar. Ach. 1164–8; Av. 712; Dunbar 1996, 306–7;

204

Timokles

Fisher 1999, 71–2; Fisher 2001, 184 (on Aeschin. 1.52). For parody of tragedy in general in Middle Comedy cf. Anaxandrides’ title Κωμῳδοτραγῳδία (the same title is already found in Alcaeus Com.; cf. Orth 2013, 14–5). Concerning the second component of the title, the only certain thing is that Autocleides is the name of a person. A strong candidate might be the Autocleides mentioned in Aeschines (PA 2079; LGPN 2; PAA 238785), as a man of uncontrolled sexual habits and an associate of Timarchus and other notorious pederasts (Aeschin. 1.52); cf. Harp. A 267 Kenney= 67.3–5 Dindorf Αἰσχίνης κατὰ Τιμάρχου “Κηδωνίδην καὶ Αὐτοκλείδην καὶ Θέρσανδρον.” οὗτοι παιδερασταὶ σφοδροί, ὡς καὶ Ἀριστογείτων κατὰ Τιμάρχου “Aeschines Against Timarchus “Cedonides and Autocleides and Thersandrus. They were passionate pederasts, as Aristogeiton reports in his Against Timarchus”.213 Content The title, in combination with the surviving fragments, indicates a plot based on a parody of the Orestes myth, and in particular of the opening scene of Aeschylus’ Eumenides; cf. below, “Interpretation” and on v. 1. Apparently the title character is a figure that combines Orestes’ and the historical Autocleides’ characteristics, perhaps modelled along the lines of Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros. Like the matricide Orestes pursued by the Furies, the eponymous character is harried by eleven aged courtesans.214 Moreover, the word παράβυστον in fr. 28 supports the scenario that Orestautocleides was tried by the eleven courtesans in the court where the Eleven had the power to try and execute certain sorts of criminals, especially kakourgoi; cf. Maidment 1935, 13; Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 13; Webster 1970, 59; Hunter 1979, 34; Fisher 2001, 184; Olson 2007, 176. It would be attractive to suppose that Orestautocleides was brought to trial in the Parabyston as a kakourgos, with the specific accusation that he, being a pederast, usurped the courtesans’ privileges. Hunter 1979, 34, n. 58, compares Ar. Th. 203–5, where the effeminate tragic poet Agathon is unwilling to assist Euripides by intruding in the Thesmophoria, arguing that the celebrating women believe that he usurps their appropriate works, and he will be therefore punished if revealed: κάκιον ἀπολοίμην ἂν ἢ σοί … / δοκῶν γυναικῶν ἔργα νυκτερήσια / κλέπτειν ὑφαρπάζειν τε θήλειαν Κύπριν. If Autocleides is here satirized as a pederast (cf. Harp. A 267), then the play might be thematically close to Diphilus’ Παιδερασταί and Antiphanes’ Παιδεραστής.

213

214

Arnott 1996, 116 considers the possibility that Timocles’ title-character is the same as Alexis’ Ἀσκληπιοκλείδης (he even wonders whether we may rule out a corruption from an original Ἀσκληπι〈αυτ〉οκλείδης), but he admits that there is no evidence of any association of Timocles’ Autocleides with medical or gastronomic activities, such as those ascribed to Alexis’ character. Cf. Meineke I (1839) 432: “haud levis oboritur suspicio, ut apud tragicos poetas Orestem a Furiis propter parricidium, ita in Timoclea fibula Autoclidem propter puerorum amores a meretricibus acerrime fuisse vexatum”.

Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης (fr. 27)

205

Date The date of the play is uncertain. Breitenbach 1908, 33–6 proposes 340 BC, Schiassi 1951, 230–45 prefers 345/4 BC, whereas Webster 1970, 63 dates it in the early twenties, on the grounds that the eleven courtesans are presented in old age. However, all these elaborate attempts to estimate the date of the play on this basis are not convincing. The description of the courtesans as ‘old women’ cannot support any argument for the dating of the play; the term ‘γρᾶες’ might not be completely accurate, since both the ages and the careers of these hetaerae probably varied significantly. Besides, Fisher 2001, 184 rightly observes that it is the transformation of the courtesans into Furies which accounts for their aged appearance. On the other hand, the staging of the play has been associated with the time of the delivery of Aeschines’ Against Timarchus (e. g. Koerte, BPhW 26, 1906, 900–3), i. e. around 346/5 BC (for the date of the speech cf. Carey 2000, 19), on the grounds that Autocleides is mentioned in that speech. But, as Hunter 1979, 34, n. 59 notes, Autocleides is mentioned in 1.52 in passing, and his period of notoriety is uncertain, so any attempt to date Timocles’ play on such a basis is doubtful.215

fr. 27 K.- A. (25 K.) περὶ δὲ τὸν πανάθλιον εὕδουσι γρᾶες, Νάννιον, Πλαγγών, Λύκα, Γνάθαινα, Φρύνη, Πυθιονίκη, Μυρρίνη, Χρυσίς, † Κοναλίς †, Ἱερόκλεια, Λοπάδιον 4 κοναλις Α: ‘forsan Κοβαλίς’ Meineke : Κονισαλίς Kaibel: Κομαλλίς Schmidt

around the miserable man old women are sleeping: Nannion, Plangon, Lyca, Gnathaena, Phryne, Pythionice, Myrrhine, Chrysis, Conalis, Hierocleia, Lopadion Ath. 13.567e καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ δ’ Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης 〈ὁ add. Schweighäuser〉 αὐτὸς Τιμοκλῆς φησι ∙ περὶ – Λοπάδιον and in the play by the title Orestautocleides the same Timocles says; “around – Lopadion”

Metre Iambic trimeter

〈alwl al〉www lwwwl llwl l|lwl llwl wlwl l|lwwl llwl ll†www†|wwwl lwwwl

215

“…it cannot be dated more precisely than to some time in the 330s or 320s.”

206

Timokles

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 608–9; Kock II (1884) 462–3; Bevilacqua 1939, 47; Edmonds II (1959) 620–1; Hunter 1979, 34; PCG VII (1989) 774–5; Olson 2007, 175–6. Citation context The fragment is preserved by Athenaeus in a section devoted to courtesans, as a source of problems and distress for their lovers. Cynulcus mentions a series of comic fragments which substantiate this assumption. Our fragment is preceded by Timocles’ Neaera fr. 25, where the courtesan Phryne is mentioned, and followed by Amphis’ Kouris fr. 23, where Lyca and Nannion are included among others. Text The transmitted Κοναλίς renders the verse unmetrical and, besides, is unattested. Meineke III (1840) 608 and Kock II (1884) 462 print Κοναλλίς, which is also unattested. Meineke, ed. min. II (1847) 807, suggests the unattested Κοβαλίς (wlw), the feminine of Κόβαλος, the demon of deception (Ar. Eq. 635, plural), while Schmidt suggests Κομμαλίς (cognate with κόμη; cf. Bechtel 1902, 22). Kaibel’s Κονισαλίς, i. e. a dancer of konisalos seems more attractive to me (cf. on Timocles’ play Κονίσαλος “Title” and Alexis’ Ὀρχηστρίς). Interpretation The fragment apparently belongs to the prologue of the play. A character paratragically imitates the scene from the prologue of Aeschylus’ Eumenides, where Pythia introduces to the spectators a person surrounded by the Furies in the center of the orchestra. The particle δέ and the definitive article (cf. τὸν πανάθλιον) in Timocles’ fr. may indicate a context similar to that of Eumenides, where the tragic hero is described as ‘abominable before the gods’: 40–48 ὁρῶ δ’ ἐπ’ ὀμφαλῷ μὲν ἄνδρα θεομυσῆ / ἕδραν ἔχοντα προστρόπαιον, αἵματι / στάζοντα χεῖρας καὶ νεοσπαδὲς ξίφος / … πρόσθεν δὲ τἀνδρὸς τοῦδε θαυμαστὸς λόχος / εὕδει γυναικῶν ἐν θρόνοισιν ἥμενος. / οὔτοι γυναῖκας, ἀλλὰ Γοργόνας λέγω “and there I see a man sitting at the navel-stone as a suppliant for purification, a man polluted in the eyes of the gods, his hands dripping blood, holding a newly-drawn sword … And in front of this man there is an extraordinary band of women, asleep, sitting on thrones – no, not women, but rather Gorgons I call them”.216 It is worth noting that Misgolas, another notorious pederast (cf. on fr. 32), is also mentioned in such a paratragic context recalling the Furies; cf. Alex. fr. 3 ὦ μῆτερ, ἱκετεύω σε, μὴ ʼπίσειέ μοι / τὸν Μισγόλαν· οὐ γὰρ κιθαρῳδός εἰμ’ ἐγώ “O mother, do not set Misgolas upon me, I pray, for I am not a singer to the cithara”. It has been suggested (e. g. Maidment 1935, 13) that the eleven courtesans formed the Chorus of Orestautocleides. It is true that the evidence on the fourthcentury chorus is not clear, and indeed an ancient source notes the possibility of a mixed chorus consisting of eleven women and thirteen men: Schol. Ar. Eq. 216

It is less probable that this scene is not visible to the spectators, at least at the same time, but is reported by the speaking character; cf. e. g. Ar. Eq. 115–7, where the slave reports to the spectators how he infiltrated Paphlagon’s room and stole the oracles while he was asleep.

Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης (fr. 27)

207

589a 5–7 ἐν δὲ τοῖς τοιούτοις χοροῖς, εἰ μὲν ἐξ ἀνδρῶν εἴη καὶ γυναικῶν ὁ χορός, ἐπλεονέκτει τὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν μέρος καὶ ἦσαν ιγʹ, αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες ιαʹ. But the reliability of this source is not very great, and, besides, stage conditions in the fifth century may differ from those in the fourth. It would be better, therefore, not to infer that the eleven courtesans perform the part of the Chorus in the play; cf. Webster, 1970, 59; Hunter 1979, 34; Rothwell 1995, 109. The scene representing Orestes surrounded by the Furies was apparently familiar in the course of the fourth century, through both paintings and reperformances. The suppliant Orestes was depicted on a fourth-century Attic pelike, flanked by two Furies in long robes holding torches. It is dated to the 370s or 360s and is now in Perugia, Museo Etrusco-Romano; cf. Taplin 2007, no. 6; Nervegna 2018, 109–28. Moreover, it is possible that Timocles was inspired by a reperformance of the Eumenides; for Aeschylus in the fourth century cf. Nervegna 2014, 172–6. For lists of courtesans in comedy cf. Ar. Eq. 765, Anaxil. fr. 22, Philetaer. fr. 9; Hauschild 1933, 14–22; Henry 1985, 33–40; Krieter-Spiro 1997, 43–54; Auhagen 2009.217 1 τὸν πανάθλιον Tragic vocabulary, e. g. A. Ch. 428, S. Ph.1026, OC 1110, E. Andr. 67. The only other attestation in comedy is Ar. Th. 1107 (with Austin– Olson 2004 ad loc.), also paratragic; cf. E. fr. 128 Kannicht (from Andromeda). εὕδουσι γρᾶες Paratragic; cf. Α. Eu. 46–7 (cited above, under “Interpretation”), and vv. 68–70 ὕπνῳ πεσοῦσαι δ’ αἱ κατάπτυστοι κόραι, / γραῖαι παλαιαὶ παῖδες, αἷς οὐ μείγνυται / θεῶν τις οὐδ’ ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲ θήρ ποτε “fallen asleep, these abominable old maidens, these aged virgins, with whom no god or man or beast ever mingles”. The presentation of the eleven courtesans as old women within the plot of the play should not be considered an indication of the date of the play cf. above, “Date”. Νάννιον (PAA 700568). A famous courtesan whose floruit is the middle of the fourth century. She is mentioned with Lyca in Amphis fr. 23.3. In Anaxil. fr. 22.15–7 she is accused of monstrous behavior towards her lovers: ἡ δὲ Νάννιον τί νυνὶ διαφέρειν Σκύλλης δοκεῖ; / οὐ δύ’ ἀποπνίξασ’ ἑταίρους τὸν τρίτον θηρεύεται / ἔτι λαβεῖν; “and how is Nannion any different from Scylla? Didn’t she choke two companions, and isn’t she on the trail of the third?”. In Ath. 13.587b (=Antiphanes’ On Courtesans, FGrHist 349 F 2a) she is nicknamed Προσκήνιον “False Front”, because she had an attractive face and wore expensive jewelry and clothing, in order to cover her ugliness: Ἀντιφάνης δὲ ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἑταιρῶν ‘Προσκήνιον, φησίν, ἐπεκαλεῖτο ἡ Νάννιον, ὅτι πρόσωπόν τε ἀστεῖον εἶχε καὶ ἐχρῆτο χρυσίοις καὶ ἱματίοις πολυτελέσι, ἐκδῦσα δὲ ἦν αἰσχροτάτη. In Alex. fr. 225 she is presented as a drunkard (fr. 1–2 μαίνεται ἐπὶ τῷ Διονύσῳ). For Nannion see Breitenbach 1908,131–3; Hunter 1983, 152–3; Olson 2007, 176. Πλαγγών A famous courtesan of the fourth century. According to Athenaeus (13.594b) she was from Miletus. The name properly denotes a wax puppet (cf. 217

Gow 1965, 8 believes that these names are rather typical generic names of courtesans, without reference to individuals.

208

Timokles

Call. Cer. 91), and was probably a pet name; cf. Carey-Reid 1985, 175 (on D. 39.9). Plangon was a title-character in Eubulus, and is described as a mythical monster in Anaxil. fr. 22.8–9 … τὴν Πλαγγόνα, / ἥτις ὥσπερ ἡ Χίμαιρα πυρπολεῖ τοὺς βαρβάρους “Plangon, who burns with fire the barbarians, like the Chimaera”; As a typical name for courtesans, it also appears in late literature, e. g. Asclep. AP 5.202. Plangon was also the name of a woman known from two speeches from the Demosthenic corpus, both entitled Against Boeotus (D. 39 and [D.] 40) and delivered in 348 and 347 BC respectively (cf. Carey-Reid 1985, 160). Although she seems to be of low character, and is named several times in both speeches by the speaker, it is not plausible that she is the same as the courtesan (cf. Hunter 1983, 178–9), otherwise the speaker Mantitheus would exploit her past to attack her, as e. g. Apollodorus in Against Neaera; cf. Schaps 1977, 323–30. It is also remarkable that the name is used in Menander’s Hēros, Samia and Synaristōsai for free maidens. Λύκα (PAA 610040). In Amphis fr. 23.3 (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016, 155–6), she is described, along with Sinope and Nannion, as παγίς τοῦ βίου “trap of life”. This is apparently a nickname, indicating the predatory character of the individual courtesan; an hetaera Λύκαινα also occurs in Lucian, DMeretr. 12.1; cf. Bechtel 1902, 95. Γνάθαινα This might be a real name (cf. IG II2. 1534b 247), cognate to Γνάθις, Γνάθη and Γνάθων; cf. Bechtel, 1898, 481 and 1902, 40; Gow 1965,8. Γνάθων and Gnatho were emblematic parasites in Menander’s Κοlax and Terence’ Eunuchus respectively; Gnathonides is a character in Lucian’s Timōn; cf. Fug. 19. Γνάθαινα also appears in Anaxil. fr. 22.13 and Philippid. fr. 5.3–6, where she is described as a man-slayer (ἀνδροφόνος). Macho devotes a section to Gnathaena and Gnathainion which includes a series of anecdotes (frr. 16 and 17 Gow); also Lynceus (ap. Ath. 13.584b-e) records some of her witty responses. Φρύνη Cf. on Timocl. fr. 25.2. Πυθιονίκη Cf. on Timocl. frr. 15 and 16.1. Μυρρίνη (PAA 662210). Mυρρίνη means ‘myrtle’. Other courtesans named after plants are Ὤκιμον “basil” (Anaxandr. fr. 9.6 with Millis 2015 ad loc.); Pherecrates’ Κοριαννώ (cognate with coriander) and Πετάλη “crown of leaves”; Theophilus’ Σισύμβριον “bergamot mint” and Μηκωνίς “wild lettuce” (fr. 11.2). Αthenaeus (13.590c-d) reports that she was πολυτελεστάτη ἑταίρα “a very expensive courtesan”, whom Hyperides had taken into his home. In Old Comedy Μυρρίνη is a character in Aristophanes’ Lysistratē. In Schol. Ar. Nu. 109 (=Eup. fr. 50), the otherwise unattested courtesan Myrrhina (supposedly a foreigner; cf. the Doric form of her name, printed by Olson, pace Kassel-Austin, in Eup. fr. 50) is associated with Leagoras, the father of Andocides the orator. Χρυσίς Probably a generic name; cf. the title-character in Antiphanes (frr. 223–4) and Menander’s Chrysis as a character in Samia, which may reflect a common female name, easily recognized as a fictional hetaera; cf. Webster 1974, 94; McClure 2003, 40. In Plautus’ Pseudolus (v. 659) a courtesan Chrysis is called anus,

Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδης (fr. 28)

209

doliaris, clauda, crassa “old woman, shaped like a barrel, limping, lumbering” and she might be the same as the one mentioned in Orestautocleides; cf. Webster 1970, 190. † Κοναλίς † See above, “Text”. Ἱερόκλεια (PAA 531792). Otherwise unattested; but a Θεόκλεια is mentioned in a list of courtesans in Ath. 13.583e; cf. Lys. fr. 208 Carey. Λοπάδιον Lit. a small dish for boiling fish (cf. Ar. Pl. 812; Eub. fr. 8; Amyx 1958, 210, n. 76). For similar nicknames cf. Πλαθάνη (a baking-woman in Ar. Ra. 549, from πλάθανον, a dish in which bread was baked); Μαγίδιον (apparently a diminutive of Μαγίς “kneading trough”, the name of a ψάλτρια “female harper” in Luc. DMetetr. 12.1); Scapha “Τrough”, a servant-girl in Plaut. Mostell. 158, 162. Cf. also Πατανίων (from πατάνιον “little flat dish”), a cook in Philetaer. fr. 14.1; Bechtel 1902, 120–21. Olson 2007, 176 supposes that Lopadion implies that the woman used to work in a kitchen, or, alternatively, that she was delectable. I would add yet another possibility: that she was thought to be a greedy courtesan, like those described by Eub. fr. 41 (the opposite of a κοσμία ἑταίρα), and fond of eating straight from the pan, like the opsophagos Callimedon, the so-called Carabus: cf. Eub. fr. 8.2–4 ὃς μόνος βροτῶν / δύναται καταπιεῖν ἐκ ζεόντων λοπαδίων / ἅθρους τεμαχίτας “who alone of men is able to swallow down whole salt-fish out of boiling dishes”; Euphanes fr. 1.2.

fr. 28 K.- A. (26 K.) Harp. Π 21 Keaney= 237.1–4 Dindorf Παράβυστον. οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτό τι τῶν παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις δικαστηρίων, ἐν ᾧ ἐδίκαζον οἱ ἕνδεκα· Ἀντιφῶν ἐν τῷ πρὸς Νικοκλέα περὶ ὅρων (fr. 42 Blass). μνημονεύουσι δ’ αὐτοῦ ἄλλοι τε τῶν κωμικῶν καὶ Τιμοκλῆς ἐν Ὀρεσταυτοκλείδῃ (Αὐτοκλεῖ codd., corr. Maussac). Parabyston. This was the name of one of the courts in Athens, in which the Eleven used to judge. Antiphon (mentions it) in his speech in reply to Nicocles concerning the boundaries. Timocles, among other comedians, mentions it in his Orestautocleides.

Discussion PCG VII (1989) 775; Boegehold 1995, 178–81; Orth HGL II (2014) 1046. Citation context Harpocration mentions parabyston as a special Athenian court, indicating that the word also has a second meaning, as it denotes a supplementary couch in a nuptial room (κλίνη παράβυστος). Also Hesychius (π 468) preserves the same information, but in a more abridged version, omitting the references to Antiphon and Timocles. Interpretation The Parabyston was probably a roofed building in the Agora, where trials for matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Eleven took place, e. g. cases in which kakourgoi were involved. The earliest attestation of the Parabyston

210

Timokles

appears in Antiphon the orator, whose known career began in the 420s and ended in 411 BC (Against Nicocles, XI.42 Blass); the latest dates in 346/5 BC: IG II2 1646,12 (tab. amphict. Deliacorum) δικα]στήριον τὸ Παράβυ[στον; cf. Lys. fr. 499 Carey; Lipsius I (1905) 137, 170, 172; Harrison II (1971) 17–18; Boegehold 1995, 181. Concerning the meaning and function of this court, we have a confusing piece of information. According to LSJ, the verb παραβύειν is used in the sense “stuff ” or “force in”. In that sense, the word is used of parasites and servants who intrude uninvited into discussions and banquets; cf. Tim. Com. fr. 1.3 (from Κυνάριον) πειρώμεθ’ ὑποδύντ’ ἐς τὸ δεῖπνον ἀπιέναι· / εἰς ἑπτάκλινον δ’ ἐστίν, ὡς ἔφραζέ μοι, / ἂν μὴ παράβυστός που γένηται Χαιρεφῶν “Let us start off to go to supper now, this one of seven seats, as he told me; though Chærephon perhaps may force himself in”; Αth. 6.257a (Clearch. fr. 19, p. 15,22 W.) “καλεῖται δ’ οὗτος ὑπὸ τῶν ἐγχωρίων Παράβυστος διὰ τὸ καὶ τῶν μὴ παραδεχομένων ὅμως τεχνικώτατα παρεμπίπτειν ἐς τὰς ὁμιλίας “And he is called by the natives Parabystus, because he skilfully creeps into the companies of men, even those who do not willingly receive him”.218 The second meaning “push aside” or “push into a corner” is first attested in Pausanias (1.28.8) τὸ μὲν οὖν καλούμενον παράβυστον καὶ τρίγωνον, τὸ μὲν ἐν ἀφανεῖ τῆς πόλεως ὂν καὶ ἐπ’ ἐλαχίστοις συνιόντων ἐς αὐτό, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ σχήματος ἔχει τὰ ὀνόματα. “The courts called Parabystum and Trigonon are so named, because the first is in an obscure part of the city, and citizens resort to it only in the most trivial cases, while the second gets its name from its shape”. It is believed, however, that Pausanias’ information is misleading, since it is unlikely that the Parabyston was established in an obscure part of the Agora or that citizens resorted to it for the most trivial cases.219 First of all, all ancient sources associate this court with the Eleven, and the defendants tried there, if condemned, were executed. It is indicative that Antiphon’s On the Murder of Herodes (or. 5) was delivered in a case probably tried in the Parabyston, since the defendant Euxitheus was arrested by the Eleven by the procedure of apagōgē; cf. Gagarin, in Gagarin– MacDowell 1998, 52 (on Antipho 5.9). Moreover, an inscription from a stele (IG II2 1646) contains in line 12 the phrase [..δικα]στήριον τὸ παράβυ[στον..], and in line 8 it is recorded that 443 jurors participated. If the restoration is correct, such a number is incompatible with the information that this court was located in an obscure part of the city.220 218

219 220

Cf. Arist. Top. 157a, where it is said that sometimes the questioners escape notice when they propose things by stuffing them in, which if proposed by themselves would not be admitted: διὸ καὶ λανθάνουσιν ἐνίοτε οἱ ἐρωτῶντες ἐν παραβύστῳ προστιθέντες ἃ καθ’ αὑτὰ προτεινόμενα οὐκ ἂν τεθείη. For a detailed discussion on the Parabyston, the surviving testimonia and a convincing refutation of Pausanias’ statement cf. Boegehold 1995, 178–81. To the best of my knowledge, the only reference in the classical period which might be compatible with the late use “secretly” is D. 24.47, where the prosecutor Diodorus claims that Timocrates did not bring any proposition before the Council or before the

211

Πολυπράγμων (Polypragmōn) (“The Busybody”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 609; Kock II (1884) 463; Bevilacqua 1939, 45–6; PCG VII (1989) 775. Title The same title occurs in Ηeniochus and Diphilus; cf. Criton’s Φιλοπράγμων “Fond of Business” and Timocles’ Φιλοδικαστής “The Man Who Loved Jury-Duty”. For titles signifying a dominant sentiment or feature of a character cf. on Timocles’ Ἐπιχαιρέκακος, under “Title”. In Greek literature, the word πολυπράγμων is used to describe a person of restless activity, a meddler who interferes in others’ affairs. The term and its cognates πολυπραγμονέω and πολυπραγμοσύνη are loaded words, mainly used in a negative sense in private life and also in a social context, in the forensic environment and in politics. The opposite of polypragmōn is apragmōn “not meddling in other’s affairs”. In Attic oratory polypragmosynē is a typical attribute of sycophants, and is therefore disapproved of by Athenian litigants; cf. Lys. 1.16 with Todd 2007 ad loc.; D. 40.32 ἀπράγμων καὶ οὐ φιλόδικος; Christ 1998, 66, 146–7. In Aristophanes and Old Comedy, the term is also mainly associated with sycophancy. In Plutus (913–5), the Just Man wonders whether meddling can be a benefit, and the sycophant answers that it might be, provided that whoever wishes can support the laws against wrongdoers; cf. Ar. Ach. 381 μολυνοπραγμονούμενος, probably an Aristophanic coinage, imitating πολυπραγμονέω and describing the results of sycophantic activity of Cleon; Eup. fr. 238 (with Olson 2014 ad loc.) οὐ γὰρ πολυπράγμων ἐστίν, ἀλλ’ ἁπλήγιος “for he’s not meddlesome, but uncomplicated”; Pherecr. fr. 163.2 μὴ πολυπραγμόνει “Don’t meddle!” Rarely, however, it has a positive meaning, e. g. Ar. Av. 471 (Peisetaerus is speaking, the pre-eminent polypragmōn) ἀμαθὴς γὰρ ἔφυς κοὐ πολυπράγμων “because you are ignorant and not energetic”.221 For the Aristophanic polypragmōn cf. Leigh 2013, 30–33. On the other hand, Plutarch devotes a long section (Mor. 515b-523b= De curiositate) to polypragmosynē, which is treated mainly with reference to private life and is defined as φιλομάθεια ἀλλοτρίων κακῶν “curiosity concerning others’ misfortunes”. In Greek and Roman New Comedy, the equivalent of polypragmōn is periergos and curiosus respectively. In Menander’s Samia (299–300) Demeas calls Parmeno “the most periergos man”, since nothing escapes his notice. In Epitrepontes Onesimus renounces any meddlesome activity: 573–6 χαιρέ[τω / τὸ πολλὰ πράττειν, ἄν δὲ τις λάβῃ μ[έ τι] / περιεργασάμενον ἢ λαλήσαντ’, ἐκτεμεῖν / δίδωμ’ ἐμαυτοῦ τὰς γονάς

221

Assembly, but instead opted to bring his bill surreptitiously (ἐν παραβύστῳ… λάθρᾳ τὸν νόμον εἰσήνεγκεν). Βut even in this passage the speaker feels the need to use the adverb λάθρᾳ, and ἐν παραβύστῳ may mean “on the sly” (cf. the Loeb translation by J.H. Vince). Pace Ehrenberg 1947, 54–5, who considers polypragmosynē to be a totally negative characteristic, ascribed to demagogues by Aristophanes.

212

Timokles

“Goodbye to meddling! If anybody finds that I have interfered or gossiped, I will let him cut my balls off ”. In Plautus’ Stichus 198–208 (the first occurrence of curiositas in comedy) the parasite Gelasimus complains of the existence of many wicked busybodies (curiosi complures), who meddle in other people’s business, since they do not have anything of their own to meddle with. Possible polypragmones in Ancient Comedy are also Megaronides in the Trinummus and perhaps Smicrines in the Epitrepontes; cf. Webster 1949, 100. For the association of polypragmosynē and epichairekakia cf. Plu. Mor. (De curios.) 518a ὁ πολυπράγμων ὀρεγόμενος ἐπιχαιρεκακίας συνέχεται πάθει. It might be interesting that Timocles wrote both an Epichairekakos and a Polypragmōn. For polypragmosynē cf. Jocelyn 1973, 14–46; Adkins 1976, 301–27; Ehrenberg 1947, 46–67. We may have an idea of the mask of a polypragmōn thanks to Pollux’s description: 4.145 ὁ δὲ Λυκομήδειος οὐλόκομος, μακρογένειος, ἀνατείνει τὴν ἑτέραν ὀφρύν, πολυπραγμοσύνην παρενδείκνυται “the Lycomedian is curly-haired, longbearded, with one eyebrow raised, and indicates polypragmosynē”. Content The title is apparently a sobriquet attached to the main character, who may also have his own proper name; cf. Menander’s Bad-Tempered Man (Δύσκολος), a title referring to the fictitious character Cnemon, and Plato’s The One in Great Pain (Περιάλγης), with Pirotta 2009, 238–42. Given that the word polypragmōn may well be used either in the private sphere (denoting a litigious person, e. g. Ar. Ach. 379–82; Isoc. 15.230), or a meddlesome citizen (e. g. Lys. 24.24) or in public life, referring to a restless or intriguing politician (e. g. Hdt. 3.15; X. An. 5.1.15), it would be interesting to know which aspects of polypragmosynē are presented in the play. The main character of the play is unknown. The unique surviving fragment does not seem to contain any allusion to meddlesomeness. However, one might think that the kōmōidoumenos Callimedon the so-called Carabus manifests some of the qualities of a busybody in the public sphere: he was actively involved in politics as a supporter of the Macedonians and Antipater and an opponent of Demosthenes and Phocion; he had participated in embassies to the Macedonians and plotted against democracy; he was involved in litigations with his political opponents and was exiled and condemned in absentia; he also engaged in enterprising activities, as a lessee of public mines (cf. below, on v. 1). On the other hand, it is easier to think of a plot constructed around everyday life, perhaps including a series of episodes in which meddlesomeness is manifested. It might be indicative that Callimedon is mentioned, apart from Timocles, in no fewer than thirteen fragments (see below on v. 1), always in connection with opsophagia or his squint, while nothing is said about his public life. For example, given that Callimedon was a notorious opsophagos, he might have participated in a scene in the fish-market. For the description of a dialogue between buyers and fishmongers as polypragmonein, cf. Macho fr. 16.300–307 Gow (=Αth. 13.580), in a context where the aged courtesan Gnathaena in the market place is busily

Πολυπράγμων (fr. 29)

213

inquiring how much every kind of opson costs: εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν λέγουσιν αὐτὴν ἐξίναι / καὶ τοὔψον ἐφορᾶν καὶ πολυπραγμονεῖν πόσου / πωλεῖθ’ ἕκαστον. On further possible activities of a comic polypragmōn cf. Mette 1962, 398–406. Date A precise dating for the staging of the play is impossible to define. Given that the surviving fragment does not contain any recognizable allusion to some historical or political incident, any date within the period 340–318 BC, when Callimedon was active in Athenian politics, is possible.

fr. 29 K.-A. (27 K.)

5

εἶθ’ ὁ Καλλιμέδων ἄφνω ὁ Κάραβος προσῆλθεν. ἐμβλέπων δ’ ἐμοί, ὡς γοῦν ἐδόκει, πρὸς ἕτερον ἄνθρωπόν τινα ἐλάλει · συνιεὶς δ’ οὐδὲν εἰκότως ἐγὼ ὧν ἔλεγεν ἐπένευον διακενῆς. τῷ δ’ ἄρα βλέπουσι χωρὶς καὶ δοκοῦσιν αἱ κόραι

2 δ’ ἐμοί Meineke: δε μοι ACE: ἐμοί Porson 3 γοῦν Schweighäuser: δ’ οὖν ACE πρὸς ACE: πρὸς δ’ Porson 4 συνιεὶς Dindorf: συνείς ACE 5 ::τῷ Kock 6 καὶ ACE: ἢ Bothe

5

Then suddenly Callimedon the Crayfish arrived. He seemed to be looking at me, but he was talking to someone else. Naturally I understood nothing he was saying; but I kept nodding my head vacantly. You see, his eyes look in a different direction than they seem to

Ath. 8.339f περὶ δὲ Καλλιμέδοντος τοῦ Καράβου ὅτι καὶ φίλιχθυς ἦν καὶ διάστροφος τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, Τιμοκλῆς ἐν Πολυπράγμονι (φησι Τιμ. CE) · εἶθ’ – κόραι As for the fact that Callimedon the Crayfish was both fond of fish and squint-eyed, Timocles (says) in The Busybody: then-seem to

Μetre: Iambic trimeter

〈alwl a〉lwl wwlwl wlwl wlw|l wlwl llwwl wwww|l llwl wwlwl l|lw|l wlwl lwwwww llwww llwl wlwl l|lwl wlwl

214

Timokles

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 609; Kock II (1884) 463; Bevilacqua 1939, 45–6; Edmonds II (1959) 620–1; PCG VII (1989) 775. Citation context From a long chapter in the eighth book of the Deipnosophists, where special kinds of fish and shellfish are associated with men (and women) known as opsophagoi. This particular section (3.100c-d) is devoted to Callimedon, both as squint-eyed (Timocl. fr. 29 and Alex. fr. 117) and as an opsophagos (e. g. Alex. frr. 87, 118, Eub. fr. 8). Athenaeus also mentions Callimedon as an opsophagos in 3.100b, in a section “on uteres” (περὶ μήτρας) and in 3.104c-d in a section on crayfish. Text 2 Τhe emphatic δ’ ἐμοὶ (Meineke’s correction of the transmitted δέ μοι) at the end of the line is certainly preferable, since it supports the contrast with the following πρὸς ἕτερον (v. 3); cf. also the ἐγὼ at the end of v. 4. 3 γοῦν (Schweighäuser’s correction of the transmitted δ’ οὖν) makes better sense; cf. below, “Commentary”. 4 The transmitted συνεὶς produces an unmetrical verse. Moreover, the present participle συνιεὶς (Dindorf ’s correction) is more compatible with the associated imperfect ἐπένευον; cf. the immediately preceding ἐμβλέπων -ἐλάλει. 5–6 τῷ δ’ ἄρα… κόραι Kock ascribes these words to a different character. Such reactions are indeed possible when an interlocutor comically distorts or plays on words spoken immediately before (e. g. Ar. Ach. 90; V. 20; Av. 475). But in this particular case it looks like an explanation of the absurd incident just reported; the meaning is “you see, he is squint-eyed”. 6 Instead of καὶ after χωρίς, Bothe prefers ἤ. But this is not necessary; cf. S. OC 808 χωρὶς τό τ’ εἰπεῖν πολλὰ καὶ τὸ καίρια; and E. Alc. 528 χωρὶς τό τ’ εἶναι καὶ τὸ μὴ νομίζεται. Ιnterpretation The narrated scene may have taken place at a banquet; for such a sudden invasion, cf. Alex. fr. 224.5 (from Tarantinoi); or, more probably, in a marketplace. It may come from a series of similar entertaining encounters (cf. εἶθ’), of the sort that is sometimes narrated in Timocles; cf. on fr. 18 from Icarian Satyrs and on fr. 23 (from Lēthē). Τhe whole fr. is constructed on successive antitheses producing absurd results (ἐμβλέπων ἐμοί … πρὸς ἕτερον ἐλάλει [vv. 2–4]; συνιείς οὐδέν … ἐπένευον διακενῆς [vv. 4–5]), culminating in the final description of Callimedon’s squint stare βλέπουσι χωρὶς και δοκοῦσι (v. 6). Citizens with conspicuous deformities were very likely to be the target of comic satire, since the spectators might have experienced such amusing encounters themselves. A cross-eyed orator, in particular, when addressing the audience of the Assembly, might have been an entertaining spectacle. For a possible example of personal satire on such a matter cf. Eup. fr. 298.3 πέμπτος δ’ ὁ πυρρός, ἕκτος ὁ διεστραμμένος “fifth the redhead, next the cross-eyed”, where a cross-eyed person seems to be included in a list of deformed politicians; fr. 195 (A.) ἄκουε νῦν Πείσανδρος ὡς ἀπόλλυται./(Β.) ὁ στρεβλός; (Α.) οὐκ ἀλλ’ ὁ μέγας, οὑνοκίνδιος “(A). Hear now how Peisander was destroyed. (B). The squint-eyed man? (A). No,

Πολυπράγμων (fr. 29)

215

the big man, the donkey driver”; cf. Olson 2016, 466. For further discussion on personal abuse on strabismus cf. below, on v. 6. 1–2 Καλλιμέδων … ὁ Κάραβος (PA 8032=RE 10. 1647–55 = APF 8157= PAA 558185). He was a pro-Macedonian orator and politician of the second half of the fourth century, who opposed Demosthenes during the period 330–322 BC. He was brought to trial by Demosthenes by the procedure called eisangelia (impeachment), for scheming with the exiled oligarchs at Megara in order to overthrow democracy, but he soon refuted the impeachment (Din. 1.94). In 323 BC he and Pythias fled Athens, joined Antipater’s party and travelled to different Greek cities with the regent’s ambassadors, in order to discourage Greek cities from joining Athens, in contrast to Demosthenes’ attempts to unite the cities against the Macedonians (Plu. Dem. 27.2). In 322 BC Callimedon participated in an embassy to Antipater and opposed Phocio before the regent (Plu. Phoc. 27.5). He was also involved in mining operations at Thoricos in 320/19 BC (IG II 1587, line 12). He was finally condemned to death by default along with Demetrius of Phalerum and Charicles in 318 BC (Plu. Phoc. 35.2). Callimedon was also a member of the dining club of sixty (Ath. 6.260a-b; 14.614d-e), who were famous for their jokes. He was a popular kōmōidoumenos in the comedy of the fourth century; apart from Timocles, he was also satirized in Alex. frr. 57, 117, 118, 198, 249; Euphro fr. 8; Diox. fr. 3 (if Kock’s suspicion is correct); Antiph. frr. 27, 77; Eub. fr. 8; Philem. fr. 43; Theophil. fr. 4; Men. fr. 224. The origin of his nickname Κάραβος is a matter of dispute. Athenaeus reports that he was so nicknamed due to his passion for this particular lobster (on κάραβος “crayfish”, Palinurus elephas, cf. Thompson 1947, s. v.; Palombi–Santarelli 1969, 369–70): 3.104d ὃς (Καλλιμέδων) διὰ τὸ φιληδεῖν τῷ βρώματι Κάραβος ἐπεκλήθη; Euphro fr. 8 οὑμὸς διδάσκαλος δὲ μήτραν σκευάσας / παρέθηκε Καλλιμέδοντι, κἀσθίονθ’ ἅμα / ἐποίησε πηδᾶν, ὅθεν ἐκλήθη Κάραβος “my teacher prepared a womb and served it to Callimedon. It made him leap about as he ate it, whence he was called Crayfish”.222 On the other hand, Bechtel 1898, 23–4, is also convincing in arguing that Callimedon was so nicknamed because of his squint eyes (in addition to Timocles’ fr. under discussion, cf. Alex. fr. 117), a characteristic of the crayfish (cf. Arist. HA 4.2, 526a). One may consider, therefore, that Κάραβος suitably recalls both his deformity and his opsophagia, and was therefore a convenient nickname, inseparably associated with him; cf. Arnott 1996, 178–9. 2 ἐμβλέπων δ’ ἐμοί Lit. “while looking me in the face”; cf. Pl. R. 608d καὶ ὃς ἐμβλέψας μοι καὶ θαυμάσας εἶπε; Chrm. 155c ἐνέβλεψέν τε μοι τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀμήχανόν τι οἷον; Ar. fr. 473 ἔρημον ἐμβλέπειν “to have a vacant look”; Macho frr. 11.150; 16.324 Gow; Μen. Sam. 105 ἀπόπληχθ’, ἕστηκας ἐμβλέπων ἐμοί; 520 ἐμβλέπεις μοι, βάρβαρε, Θρᾷξ ἀληθῶς. 222

It was for his notorious inclination to fish-eating that fishmongers are said to have honoured him by passing a decree that a bronze statue of him be erected in the fish-market (Alex. fr. 57).

216

Timokles

3 ὡς γοῦν ἐδόκει sc. oὗτος ἐμβλέπειν ἐμοί “or, at least, he seemed to be looking at me”; for this personal construction of δοκεῖ cf. v. 5 δοκοῦσιν (βλέπειν) αἱ κόραι; alternatively, ὡς γοῦν ἐδόκει (ἐμοί) “at least so I thought”. 4 συνιείς δ’ οὐδὲν εἰκότως ἐγώ For this verb in the context of a dialogue cf. Philem. fr. 114.2–3 ἁπλῶς γὰρ οὐδὲ ἕν … / ὧν 〈ἂν〉 λέγῃ συνίημι; Pl. Grg. 463d (Γοργ.) Μὰ τὸν Δία, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς συνίημι ὅτι λέγεις. 5 ἐπένευον διακενῆς The absurd situation is underlined by the absence of a caesura: the speaking character reports that he was nodding his head non-stop without understanding anything. Cf. Men. fr. 186.6, also in an awkward scene of boring toasts (προπόσεις): ὁ δ’ ἐπινεύει πᾶσι τούτοις. The alternative spelling διὰ κενῆς might be more correct; cf. Ar. V. 929 ἵνα μὴ κεκλάγγω διὰ κενῆς ἄλλως ἐγώ; E. Tr. 758–9; Pl. Com. 188.21 ἔξεστιν ὑμῖν διὰ κενῆς βινητιᾶν; LSJ s. v. διακενῆς; Arnott 1996, 536 (on Alex. fr. 179.10 διακενῆς δ’ ἕστηκ’ ἐγὼ ἔχων μάχαιραν) notes that in this phrase (and also in the similar διὰ πάσης, ἀπὸ πρώτης, ἐκ καινῆς etc.) a feminine noun is normally assumed. 6 βλέπουσι χωρίς καὶ δοκοῦσιν “aliorsum spectant ac videntur spectare” (Kock). Callimedon was apparently cross-eyed. The appropriate verb for strabismus was διαστρέφομαι. This particular condition was sometimes exploited by comic poets; cf. Ar. Eq. 175 and Av. 177; Εup. fr. 298.3 (cf. above, “Interpretation”); cf. also Hp. Epid. 5.40 = 5.232.3–4 Littré διεστραμμένα ἔχων τὰ ὄμματα “his eyes were out of alignment”. The word for a squint-eyed person is also στρεβλός (cf. Eup. fr. 195.2; Hp. Aer. 14 = 2.60.3–4 Littré καὶ ἐκ διεστραμμένων στρεβλοί “and from (parents) with their eyes out of alignment (are born) squint eyed children”) or ὁ στραβὸς τὰς ὄψεις (of Menander the comic poet, in Sud. μ 589). αἱ κόραι For Callimedon’s squint eyes cf. Alex. fr. 117 (from Φαρμακεύτρια) τῷ Καλλιμέδοντι γὰρ θεραπεύω τὰς κόρας / ἤδη τετάρτην ἡμέραν. Β. ἦσαν κόραι / θυγατέρες αὐτῷ; Α. τὰς μὲν οὖν τῶν ὀμμάτων, / ἃς οὐδ’ ὁ Μελάμπους, ὃς μόνος τὰς Προιτίδας ἔπαυσε μαινομένας, καταστήσειεν ἄν. “A. I’ve been looking after Callimedon’s pupils (korai) for three days now. B. You mean he had daughters (korai thygateres)? A. No – the pupils (korai) of his eyes. Not even Melampus, the only person who cured Proetus’ daughters of their madness, could set them right”.

217

Ποντικός (Pontikos) (“The Man from Pontus”) Discussion Meineke I (1839) 330, 431; Bevilacqua 1939, 30; PCG VII (1989) 776. Τitle The same title occurs in Antiphanes, Alexis and Epigenes. Οther ‘ethnic’ titles are Diphilus’ and Philemon’s Σικελικός; for titles in –ικός cf. Alexis’ Ἐρετρικός, which, however, may denote a follower of the philosopher Menedemus; cf. Arnott 1996, 224. For titles denoting non-Greek nations cf. on Timocles’ Αἰγύπτιοι and Καύνιοι. The best-known Pontikos in fourth-century Athens by far was the philosopher and astronomer Heracleides from Heraclea of Pontus (ca 390–310 BC), a distinguished Platonist, who was sent to Athens by his father. He is sometimes mentioned by Athenaeus. Content The surviving fragment does not offer any indication of the plot. The title, however, might suggest a man from Pontus as resident in Athens, perhaps a merchant of salt-fish, for which Pontus was so famous (e. g. Cratin. fr. 44 [from Dionysalexandros] ἐν σαργάνοισιν / ἄξω ταρίχους Ποντικούς [with Bianchi 2015, 273]; Poll. 6.48 ταρίχη Ποντικά). It may be worth noting that in Timocl. frr. 15, 16 and 23 are satirized Chaerephilus’ sons, who were naturalized metics and imported salt-fish, perhaps from Pontus; cf. on fr. 15, s. v. σκόμβρος. An alternative scenario would be based on the Athenian inclination to ridicule men from Pontus as naive or stupid; cf. Macho fr. 16.327–332 Gow Λέγουσι Ποντικόν τι μειρακύλλιον / ἀναπαυόμενον μετὰ τῆς Γναθαίνης ἀξιοῦν / πρωὶ γενόμενον ὥστε τὴν πυγὴν ἅπαξ / αὐτῷ παρασχεῖν, τὴν δὲ τοῦτ’ εἰπεῖν· Τάλαν, / ἔπειτα τὴν πυγήν με νῦν αἰτεῖς ὅτε / τὰς ὗς ἐπὶ νομὴν καιρός ἐστιν ἐξάγειν; “It is said that a young boy from Pontus was sleeping with Gnathaena, and when it was daylight, he asked her to have anal sex with her just once. She answered the following: “Poor dear, you are asking me for my ass now, when it is the time to drive the pigs out to feed?”; Men. Sam. 98–9 Πόντος· παχεῖς γέροντες, ἰχθῦς ἄφθονοι, / ἀηδία τις πραγμάτων “Pontos! Nothing but fat old men, heaps of fish and boring business affairs!”; Luc. Alex. 17; D.L. 6.3; Meineke 1839, 330; Arnott 1996, 573 (on Alexis’ Pontikos). Date

Unknown.

fr. 30 K.-A. (28 K.) πολλοὺς γὰρ ἐνίοθ’ ἡ πενία βιάζεται ἀνάξι’ αὐτῶν ἔργα παρὰ φύσιν ποεῖν 1 ἐνίοθ’ ΜΑ: εὖ ἴσθ’ Kock

2 ἀνάξια αὐτῶν ΜΑ

ποεῖν Α: ποιεῖν Μ

218

Timokles

Poverty forces many people to do works unworthy of themselves, against nature Stob. 4.32b 44 Tιμοκλέους Ποντικοῦ · πολλοὺς – ποεῖν of Timocles’ Man from Pontus; “poverty – against nature”

Metre Iambic trimeter

llwww w|wl llwl wlwl l|lwww wlwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 609; Kock II (1884) 463; Edmonds II (1959) 620–1; PCG VII (1989) 776. Τext In v. 1 Kock suggests εὖ ἴσθ’ instead of ἐνίοθ’, but cf. PCG III.2 (1984) 118 on Ar. fr. 194 ἐνίοτε (Et. Gen., Sud. Schol. Ar.: ἓν ἴστε Porson: εὖ ἴστε Meineke) πολλαὶ τῶν ἀλεκτρυόνων βίᾳ / ὑπηνέμια τίκτουσιν ᾠὰ πολλάκις; Ach. 313 πόλλ’ ἂν ἀποφήναιμι ἐκείνους ἔσθ’ ἃ κἀδικουμένους. In v. 2 ποιεῖν (Μ) instead of ποεῖν (Α) is also possible; for similar instances of ‘shortening in hiatus’ regarding ποιεῖν cf. e. g. Ar. Eq. 38 (iambic trimeter); Av. 1502 (anapaestic tetrameter). Citation context From Johannes Stobaus’ Anthologium 4.32b 1–45, a section inscribed Πενίας Ψόγος “Blame of Poverty”. Gaisford 1824, 305 thought that the wording Τιμοκλέους Ποντικοῦ indicates that the poet was from Pontus. But this is certainly wrong; cf. Introduction, on Test. 1.3. Ιnterpretation In the surviving fragment the speaking character seems to explain (cf. the particle γὰρ) the actual or potential behavior of a person or persons under the pressure of poverty. We would need to know the meaning of ‘works undeserving of themselves’. Are they humble tasks and practices, such as manual occupations, οr the debasing practices of a parasite, which are inappropriate for a man of otherwise noble birth and / or good character (cf. ἀνάξι’ αὐτῶν and παρὰ φύσιν)? Cf. e. g. D. 57.45, where the speaker excuses his mother for being a nurse, due to poverty: πολλὰ δουλικὰ [καὶ ταπεινὰ] πράγματα τοὺς ἐλευθέρους ἡ πενία βιάζεται ποιεῖν, ἐφ’ οἷς ἐλεοῖντ’ ἄν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δικαιότερον ἢ προσαπολλύοιντο “Poverty forces free people to do many servile and humble things, for which more rightly they would deserve pity, men of Athens, than be pushed further into ruin”. The idea that poverty forces men to become involve in humble activities also occurs in late antiquity; cf. Philo, Omn. Prob. Lib. ch. 6.34 ἔστι δέ τις καὶ κατ’ εἰρήνην πόλεμος τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις οὐκ ἀποδέων, ὃν ἀδοξία καὶ πενία καὶ δεινὴ σπάνις τῶν ἀναγκαίων συγκροτοῦσιν, ὑφ’ οὗ βιασθέντες ἐγχειρεῖν καὶ τοῖς δουλοπρεπεστάτοις ἀναγκάζονται, σκάπτοντες, γεωπονοῦντες, βαναύσους ἐπιτηδεύοντες τέχνας, ὑπηρετοῦντες ἀόκνως ἕνεκα τοῦ παρατρέφεσθαι, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ κατὰ μέσην ἀγορὰν ἀχθοφοροῦντες ἐν ἡλικιωτῶν καὶ συμφοιτητῶν καὶ

Ποντικός (fr. 30)

219

συνεφήβων ὄψεσιν “On the other hand, there is also war in peace-time, no less serious than those fought with arms, a war set on foot by disrepute and poverty and terrible lack of the necessaries of life, a war by which men are forced under duress to undertake the most servile tasks, digging and toiling on the land and practising menial crafts, labouring unceasingly to earn a meagre a subsistence; often too carrying burdens in the midst of the marketplace before the eyes of their fellows in age who were their associates in boyhood and in youth”. Alternatively, these acts may be wrongdoings, given that poverty is likely to produce offences. For the corrupting power of poverty throughout the archaic and classic period, cf. Hom. Od. 14.156–7; Thgn. 386–92 and 649–52; Th. 3.45.4; E. El. 375–6 ἀλλ’ ἔχει νόσον / πενία, διδάσκει δ’ ἄνδρα τῇ χρείᾳ κακόν “Yet poverty is unhealthy, and instructs a man to do evil things through his need”; D. 45.67; Lys. 7.14 οὗτος μέντοι οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι ἀποδεῖξαι οὔθ’ ὡς ὑπὸ πενίας ἠναγκάσθην τοιούτοις ἔργοις ἐπιχειρεῖν “this man cannot demonstrate that I was forced by poverty to attempt such deeds”. That is why Demosthenes, introducing the former arbitrator Straton, explains that though a poor man, he is nevertheless not a scoundrel and extremely honest: D. 21.83 Στράτων Φαληρεύς, ἄνθρωπος πένης μέν τις καὶ ἀπράγμων, ἄλλως δ’ οὐ πονηρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ χρηστός; Cf. Pl. Lg. 679b οὐδ’ ὑπὸ πενίας ἀναγκαζόμενοι διάφοροι ἑαυτοῖς ἐγίγνοντο “nor were they forced by stress of poverty to quarrel one with another”. For poverty and wealth cf. Dover 1974, 109–12; for poverty and inequality in fourth-century Athens, cf. Taylor 2017, 235–48. 1 ἡ πενία In Aristophanes’ Wealth (553–4) the eponymous goddess Penia defends herself by arguing that poverty means to live frugally, keeping at your own work and having neither a surplus nor a shortfall. On the contrary, in Middle and New Comedy poverty always appears as a misfortune, e. g. in Aristopho fr. 1; Men. Dysc. 209–11; cf. Papachrysostomou 2016 (on Amph. fr. 17.3a). 2 ἀνάξι’ αὑτῶν The corrupting power of poverty is a topos; cf. above, “Interpretation”. Poverty is even capable of corrupting the nature of noble men (cf. the following παρὰ φύσιν), urging them to behave in a way unworthy of themselves. For the combination ἀνάξια αὑτοῦ ποιεῖν / πράττειν (common in Plato and fourth-century oratory, e. g. Pl. R. 3.396d; D. 60.31; Aeschin. 3.88), cf. Pl. Com. fr. 203 (said of Hyperbolus’ ostracism, on the basis that the particular institution was not invented for men of [supposedly] slave origin) καίτοι πέπραγε τῶν τρόπων μὲν ἄξια, / αὑτοῦ δὲ καὶ τῶν στιγμάτων ἀνάξια “what he has suffered suits his character, but not his brand-marks”. παρὰ φύσιν “against one’s nature”, “against one’s character”; Stob. 4.32a9 Ἀπολλώνιος Λύκῳ (epist. p. 127a Herch.) oὐ τὸ πένεσθαι κατὰ φύσιν αἰσχρόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ δι’ αἰσχρὰν αἰτίαν πένεσθαι ὄνειδος; Crantor fr. 14 Mullach (ap. Stob. 4.32b33) oὐκ ἔστι πενίας οὐδὲν ἀθλιώτερον / ἐν τῷ βίῳ σύμπτωμα· καὶ γὰρ ἂν φύσει / σπουδαῖος ᾖς, πένης δέ, κατάγελως ἔσῃ “there is no misfortune worse than poverty; because even if you are an excellent person by nature, but also needy, you will become a laughing stock”. Μen. fr. 854 πολλοὺς δι’ ἀνάγκην γὰρ πονηροὺς

220

Timokles

οἶδ’ ἐγὼ / ὅταν ἀτυχήσωσιν γεγονότας, οὐ φύσει / ὄντας τοιούτους “because I know that many become rogues out of necessity, when they fall into misfortune, although they are not such by nature”. βιάζεται… ποεῖν Cf. Thgn. 649–652 West ἆ δειλὴ πενίη, τί ἐμοῖς ἐπικειμένη ὤμοις / σῶμα καταισχύνεις καὶ νόον ἡμέτερον; / αἰσχρὰ δέ μ’ οὐκ ἐθέλοντα βίῃ καὶ πολλὰ διδάσκεις, / ἐσθλὰ μετ’ ἀνθρώπων καὶ κάλ’ ἐπιστάμενον “Ah wretched Poverty, why do you lie upon my shoulders and dishonor both my body and mind? You teach me, forcibly and against my will, much that is shameful, although I know what is noble and honourable among them”; Clem. Al. Strom. 4.5.21.1 ἐπεὶ καὶ αὕτη (sc. ἡ πενία) τῶν ἀναγκαίων … ἀπασχολεῖν βιάζεται τὴν ψυχήν. For the assumption that violence (βία) is contrary to nature (φύσις), cf. Pl. Prt. 337d ὁ δὲ νόμος, τύραννος ὢν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πολλὰ παρὰ τὴν φύσιν βιάζεται “but law, being a tyrant over mankind, violently compels many things contrary to nature”; Arist. MM 1.1188b ὅσοις μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἐκτὸς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ παρὰ φύσιν τι ἢ παρ’ ἃ βούλονται ποιεῖν, ἐροῦμεν βιαζομένοις ἃ ἂν ποιῶσι ποιεῖν; “whenever the cause of people’s doing something contrary to their nature or contrary to their wish is outside of them, we will say that they are forced to do what they do”; Antipho Tetr. B.3.1 αὐτὴ ἡ χρεία παρὰ φύσιν καὶ  λέγειν  καὶ δρᾶν  ἅπαντας  ἀναγκάζει “need itself compels anyone to speak and act against his nature”; Tetr. B.2.1 αὐταὶ αἱ συμφοραὶ καὶ χρεῖαι τούς τε ἀπράγμονας εἰς ἀγῶνας 〈καταστῆναι〉 τούς τε ἡσυχίους τολμᾶν τά τε ἄλλα παρὰ φύσιν λέγειν καὶ δρᾶν βιάζονται “misfortune and need force even those who mind their own business to be involved in trials, and those who are quiet to take courage to speak and act against their nature”. For the construction with infinitive cf. X. An. 1.3.1; 5.7.8; Isae. 7.40; D. 25.37.

221

Πορφύρα (Porphyra) (“Purple strip”) The play is sometimes doubtfully ascribed to Xenarchus or Timocles (Ath. 7.319a and 10.431a, quoting frr. 8 and 9 respectively and Sud. test 1b) and once (Ath. 6.225c, quoting fr. 7) without reservation to Xenarchus. For the possibility of a collaboration between Timocles and Xenarchus, cf. Introduction, “Timocles and other comic poets”. The play and the fragments are commented in Xenarchus’ volume.

222

Πύκτης (Pyktēs) (“The Boxer”) Discussion 776–7.

Meineke III (1840) 610; Kock II (1884) 463–4; PCG VII (1989)

Title Timotheus has written a comedy with the same title, while Caecilius Statius wrote a Pugil. Other titles associated with athletic activites are Ἐπινίκιος (Epicharm), Ἀποβάτης (Alexis, Diphilus), Παγκρατιαστής (Alexis, Philemon, Theophilus), Πένταθλος (Eubulus, Xenarchus) and Ἰσθμιονίκης (Mnesimachus). For boxing in ancient Greece cf. Philostr. Gym. 3, 9–10, 11, 12, 16, 20, 29, 32, 34–36, 50, 57–8. For possible reactions of spectators at a boxing match cf. Philipp. Com. fr. 2.3–4 πύκτῃ τ’ ἐπιτιμᾶν οὐδὲν ἔργον μαχομένῳ, / αὐτὸν μάχεσθαι δ’ οὐκέτ’ ἐστὶ ῥᾴδιον “it is not difficult to rebuke a struggling boxer, but it is not easy to struggle yourself ”. Boxers getting a black eye (ὑπώπιον) was a common spectacle; cf. Antiph. fr. 293.1–5. Content The title suggests a boxer at the center of the plot. Comic athletes may share typical characteristics, like ‘big eating – small thinking’, which provide good comic material (cf. Hunter 1983, 178, on Εubulus’ Pentathlos). The surviving fragment associates boxers’ punching-bags with parasites’ bellies. This comparison may be indicative of Timocles’ versatility in combining different subjects within a play. Parasites, who are a favorite subject in Timocles’ poetry (cf. on frr. 8, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21), are favorably compared with athletes in fr. 8.14–7 (from Drakontion), since both dine without paying their contribution. For boxers and wrestlers as laughing-stocks in comedy and in live performances through mimicry cf. Men. fr. 167.137 (from Kolax) ]Ἀστυάνακτος· τοῦ Μιλησίου [Ἀσ]τυάν[ακτ]ος πολλοὶ σφόδρα τ]ῶν κωμωιδιογρ(άφων) μέμν[ην)τ(αι). ἐγένετο γ(ὰρ) παγκρατιαστ(ὴς) κρά[τ(ιστος) τῶ]ν καθ’ αὑτόν, ἠγω[νί]σατο δ(ὲ) κ(αὶ) πυγμῆι. “… Astyanax; a large number of comic playwrights have mentioned Astyanax from Miletus. He was the best athlete of his time in the pancration, and he also participated in boxing matches”; Ath. 1.19f Εὔδικος δὲ ὁ γελωτοποιὸς ηὐδοκίμει μιμούμενος παλαιστὰς καὶ πύκτας, ὥς φησιν Ἀριστόξενος (fr. 135 Wehrli) “Eudicus the clown won his reputation by imitating wrestlers and boxers, as Aristoxenus reports”. Scenes including boxing were sometimes represented on stage; e. g. in Ar. V. 1382–6 (with MacDowell 1971 ad loc.; Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.), Philocleon narrates an unexpected reversal in a pankration at Olympia between the older Ephoudion and the younger Askondas, where the older man did surprisingly well; at the same time Philocleon suits his action to the story and gives Bdelycleon a punch-up: Ὀλυμπίασιν, ἡνίκ’ ἐθεώρουν ἐγώ, / Ἐφουδίων ἐμαχέσατ’ Ἀσκώνδᾳ καλῶς / ἤδη γέρων ὤν· εἶτα τῇ πυγμῇ θενὼν / ὁ πρεσβύτερος κατέβαλε τὸν νεώτερον. / πρὸς ταῦτα τηροῦ μὴ λάβῃς ὑπώπια. Date

Unknown.

Πύκτης (fr. 31)

223

fr. 31 K.-A. (29 K.) εὑρήσεις τε τῶν ἐπισιτίων τούτων τιν’, οἳ δειπνοῦσιν ἐσφυδωμένοι τἀλλότρι’, ἑαυτοὺς ἀντὶ κωρύκων λέπειν παρέχοντες ἀθληταῖσι 1 εὑρήσεις τε om. CE 2 τιν’ Herwerden: τινὰς ACE 3 λέπειν Meineke: λέγειν Α: om. CE 4 ἀθληταῖσι om. CE

ἐσφυδωμένοι om. CE

You will also find one of these food-seekers, who sup even to bursting on the food of others, offering themselves to athletes to pummel as substitutes for punching-bags Ath. 6.246f κοινῇ δὲ περὶ παρασίτων εἰρήκασι Τιμοκλῆς μὲν ἐν Πύκτῃ (fab. nom. om. CE), ἐπισιτίους καλῶν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖσδε · εὑρήσεις – ἀθληταῖσι (Authors) who discuss parasites as a group include Timocles in The Boxer, who calls them episitioi, in the following passage: you will – punching-bags

Μetre: Iambic trimeter

〈alwl〉 llw|l wwwwl llwl llw|l wlwl lwwwl l|lwl wlwl wwlwwl la

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 610; Kock II (1884) 463–4; Edmonds II (1959) 622–3; PCG VII (1989) 776–7. Citation context Within the long section on kolakes and parasites (6. 234c-262a), in subsection 6.246f-248a, episitioi are treated as those “who do any service for their keep”; along with our fr., Pherecrates (fr. 37 from Graes), Aristophanes (fr. 452 from Pelargoi) and Eubulus (fr. 20 from Daidalos) are cited. Text 2 The transmitted τινὰς gives perfect meaning, but it produces a split anapaest (τινάς, οἵ ww|l); hence Herwerden 1872, 5 makes the easy correction into τιν’ (depended from τούτων), which means that the person to whom the information is addressed will encounter one parasite. 3 λέπειν is a palaeographically easy emendation of the transmitted λέγειν, which makes no sense. Interpretation It looks as if a character is giving information to a person asking whom he will meet at his destination, perhaps a deipnon or a banquet, the most obvious place for a parasite having a meal. The wording ἀντὶ κωρύκων λέπειν

224

Timokles

clearly refers to the boxer’s training instruments. This comparison seems to be a variation of the assumption that these parasites deserve a good beating; cf. on fr. 9.6 (from Epistolai) τὸν παραμασήτην λαμβάνειν δίκρουν ξύλον; Alex. fr. 224.8–10. It is worth noting that in another play Timocles makes his speaking character compare parasites favorably to victors at the Olympia, in that both earn free meals (fr. 6 from Drakontion). For comparisons of boxing techniques with oratory cf. Aeschin. 3.206, where Aeschines exhorts the jurymen to fight with Demosthenes about the disposition of his arguments and not let him step outside the limits of the issue under discussion, like boxers competing with each other for position: ὥσπερ οὖν ἐν τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσιν ὁρᾶτε τοὺς πύκτας περὶ τῆς στάσεως ἀλλήλοις διαγωνιζομένους, οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως περὶ τῆς τάξεως αὐτῷ τοῦ λόγου μάχεσθε. 1 τῶν ἐπισιτίων The word literally signifies persons who work for their food alone, and do not get a wage (Ath. 6.246f ἐπισίτιοι γὰρ καλοῦνται οἱ ἐπὶ τροφαῖς ὑπουργοῦντες; Nesselrath 1985, 98); cf. Crat. Com. fr. 37 ποιμαίνει δ’ ἐπισίτιον; Pl. R. 4.420a ἐπισίτιοι καὶ οὐδὲ μισθὸν πρὸς τοῖς σιτίοις λαμβάνοντες ὥσπερ οἱ ἄλλοι; Eub. fr. 20 ἐθέλει δ’ ἄνευ / μισθοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῖς καταμένειν ἐπισίτιος. The term is here applied to parasites; cf. Ar. fr. 452 ἤν γὰρ ἕν’ ἄνδρ’ ἄδικον σὺ διώκῃς, ἀντιμαρτυροῦσι / δώδεκα τοῖς ἑτέροις ἐπισίτιοι “if you prosecute one wrongdoer, twelve of his hangers-on will bring a countersuit”. 2–3 δειπνοῦσιν … τἀλλότρια Α stereotyped phrase on the way of life of parasites; cf. Eub. fr. 72 ὁ πρῶτος εὑρὼν τἀλλότρια δειπνεῖν ἀνὴρ / δημοτικὸς ἦν τις, ὡς ἔοικε, τοὺς τρόπους “it appears that the man who invented dining on someone else’s food, was on the popular side”; Antiph. fr. 252 βίος θεῶν γάρ ἐστιν, ὅταν ἔχῃς ποθὲν / τἀλλότρια δειπνεῖν, μὴ προσέχων λογίσμασι “for this is the life of the gods, when you can eat someone else’s food, without worrying about the bills”; Nicol. Com. fr. 1.15–6; Nicom. Com. fr. 1.32–3; Theopomp. Com. fr. 35; Plaut. Persa 58 alienum cibum (edere). 2 ἐσφυδωμένοι The only other attestation in literature of the verb σφυδόω is in Carm. Pop. fr. 851 (a) Page, in reference to a wooden phallus borne into the theatre: ἀνάγετ’ εὐρυχωρίαν / τῷ θεῷ ποιεῖτε ·θέλει γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὀρθὸς ἐσφυδωμένος / διὰ μέσου βαδίζειν “keep back, make way for the god; he wants to pass straight through erect and bursting”; cf. Hsch. δ 1357 διασφυδῶσαι · αὐξῆσαι (ἀπὸ τοῦ σφύζειν). 3 ἀντί κωρύκων “leather sack”; κώρ- is probably pre-Greek, with the suffix –υκ; cf. Beekes 2010, s. v. For the comparison cf. Com. adesp. fr. 99 ὥσπερ Φιλάμμων ζυγομαχῶν τῷ κωρύκῳ “like Philammon struggling with a punchingbag; Diogenian. 7.51 πρὸς κώρυκον γυμνάζεσθαι (proverb on laboring in vain); Antiphanes’ title Κώρυκος. Plaut. Rud. 721–2 Tr. extemplo hercle ego te follem pugilatorium / faciam, et pendentem incursabo pugnis, peiiurissime “I’ll make you a punch ball at once and attack you with my fists while you hang, you monstrous perjurer”; Philostr. Gym. 57 κώρυκος δὲ ἀνήφθω μὲν καὶ πύκταις, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸ παγκράτιον φοιτῶσιν. ἔστω δὲ καὶ κοῦφος μὲν ὁ πυκτικός, ἐπειδὴ κωρύκου

Πύκτης (fr. 31)

225

γυμνάζονται μόναι αἱ τῶν πυκτῶν χεῖρες, ὁ δὲ τῶν παγκρατιαστῶν ἐμβριθέστερος καὶ μείζων, ἵνα γυμνάζοιντο μὲν τὴν βάσιν ἀνθιστάμενοι τῇ τοῦ κωρύκου ἐπιφορᾷ. “A punching-bag should be hung up also for boxers, but all the more so for those who compete in the pankration. The punching bag for the boxers should be light, since the hands of the boxers are to be trained only for opportune punching, but the punching bag for pankratiasts should be heavier and bigger, so that they might be trained to keep their footing by standing up to the impact of the bag”. 3 λέπειν The verb lit. means “peel”, “strip off the husks” (e. g. Hom. Il. 1.236; Eup. fr. 465), but here it is used metaphorically in the sense of “pummel”; cf. Eup. fr. 99.5–8 (from Dēmoi) [with Olson 2017 ad loc.] Παύσων δὲ προσστὰς Θεογένει / δειπνοῦντι πρὸς τὴν καρδίαν / τῶν ὁλκάδων τιν’ αὑτοῦ / λ̣έψας (Jensen: [κ]λέψας ed. pr.) ἅπαξ διέστρεφεν; “And Pauson stood next to Theogenes, as the latter was dining to his heart’s content on one of his own trading vessels, and struck him once and tried to twist him”; Apollod. Car. fr. 5.10–11 λεπομένους ὁρᾶν / αὐτοὺς ὑφ’ αὑτῶν καὶ καταπίπτοντας νεκρούς “to see them striking themselves and falling down dead”; Pl. Com. fr. 12 λέπε τραχεῖαν ἔχων “get a thick (whip) and strike!”; Antiatt. λ 21 λέπει· ἀντὶ τοῦ τύπτε. 3–4 ἑαυτοὺς … παρέχοντες For the construction cf. Ar. Nu. 340–41 τουτί το γ’ ἐμὸν σῶμ’ αὐτοῖσιν / παρέχω τύπτειν, πεινῆν, διψῆν; 422 θαρρῶν εἵνεκα τούτων ἐπιχαλκεύειν παρέχοιμ’ ἄν (sc. ἐμαυτόν); S. Aj. 1146 πατεῖν παρεῖχε τῷ θέλοντι ναυτίλων; Pl. Phdr. 228e ἐμαυτόν σοι ἐμμελετᾶν παρέχειν οὐ πάνυ δέδοκται; Tht. 191a παρέξομεν (sc. ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς) ὡς ναυτιῶντες πατεῖν τε καὶ χρῆσθαι ὅ τι ἂν βούληται; Men. Dysc. 286–7 τοῦ διευτυχεῖν δ’ ἀεὶ / πάρεχε σεαυτὸν τοῖς ὁρῶσιν ἄξιον.

226

Σαπφώ (Sapphō) (“Sappho”) Discussion Kock II (1884) 464; Bevilacqua 1939, 38–9; Webster 1952, 21; PCG VII (1989) 777; Konstantakos 2000, 160–61. Title The same title occurs in Ameipsias (the earliest occurrence, cf. Orth 2013, 268–70), Amphis (cf. Papachrysostomou 2016, 207–8), Antiphanes (cf. Konstantakos 2000, 157–61), Ephippus and Diphilus. Early comedies named after poets in the plural were Ἀρχίλοχοι (Cratinus), Κλεοβουλῖναι (Cratinus), Ἡσίοδοι (Telecleides); from the end of the fifth century onwards we have titles in the singular: Κινησίας (Strattis, cf. Orth 2009, 100–129), Ὅμηρος ἢ Ἀσκηταί or Σοφισταί (Μetagenes, cf. Orth 2014, 435–40), Ἡσίοδος (Nicostratus), Ἀρχίλοχος (Alexis, cf. Arnott 1996, 112–4), Κλεοβουλίνη (Alexis, cf. Arnott 1996, 293–4). Sappho was considered the poetess of love. Over the course of time she came to be regarded as an authority on ἐρωτικά (matters of love); cf. Pl. Phdr. 235c; Clearch. fr. 33 Wehrli; Plu. Mor. 406a and 762f-763a; Paus. 9.27.3; [Longin.] 10.1–3; Demetr. Eloc. 132; Hor. Carm. 4.9.10–12; Konstantakos 2000, 158; Papachrysostomou 2016, 207–8. But in comic fiction it was not difficult for a subject of her poems to be transformed into a subject ‘about her’; it might be helpful to recall Aristophanes’ Wasps, where Bdelyclon advises his father to tell a story by Aesop in order to escape condemnation (V. 1258–9); Philocleon later thinks that Αἰσωπικόν means ‘about Aesop’ and invents a story where the protagonist is Aesop himself! (V. 1401–5). Cf. Ath. 13.599d Δίφιλος ὁ κωμῳδοποιὸς πεποίηκεν ἐν Σαπφοῖ δράματι Σαπφοῦς ἐραστὰς Ἀρχίλοχον καὶ Ἱππώνακτα “Diphilus the comic poet in his play Sappho has represented Archilochus and Hipponax as Sappho’s lovers”. According to ancient tradition, the best-known lover of Sappho was Phaon, for whom Sappho was said to feel a fierce passion before finally committing suicide on the island of Leucas (cf. Plaut. Mil. 1246–7; Str. 10.2.9; Luc. DMort 19.2; Ael. VH 12.18–9; Ov. Her. 15). However, it is quite uncertain whether the comedies entitled Phaon (Plato Comicus and Antiphanes) and Leukadia (Amphis, Alexis, Antiphanes, Menander, Diphilus) included the love affair of Sappho and Phaon; cf. Konstantakos 2000, 159. For Sappho in comedy cf. Konstantakos 2000, 157–61; Orth 2013, 268–70; Yatromanolakis 2007, 293–307; Olson 2007, 303–4. For the reception of Sappho in antiquity see Konstantakos 2000, 157 and Papachrysostomou 2016, 208. Content Given that female homosexuality is completely absent from Attic comedy (apparently it was a ‘taboo’ subject, the only references in classical Attic literature being Pl. Smp. 191e 2–5 and Lg. 1.636c 5–7; cf. Schmidt 2016, 191 with n. 66–8), a possible scenario would be that Sappho is here represented either as a lubricious woman running after young boys (a subject reminiscent of Aristophanes’ Wealth; cf. the version of the Phaon story) or as a comic

Σαπφώ

227

hetaera.223 Apart from the surviving comic fragments, further evidence that Sappho may have been treated as an hetaera in fourth-century comedy is the phlyax-vase Trendall 1967, no. 19, on which Alcaeus is depicted approaching Sappho with a full purse, apparently in a context of hired sexual services; cf. Konstantakos 2000, 161–4. A possible representation of Sappho on stage as a comic hetaera and the relevant tradition which was created later (e. g. Did. ap. Sen. Ep. 88.37; Tatianus Apol. Or. ad Gr. 33.2 καὶ ἡ μὲν Σαπφὼ γύναιον πορνικὸν ἐρωτομανές, καὶ τὴν ἑαυτῆς ἀσέλγειαν ᾄδει “and Sappho is an erotomanic prostitute, who sings her licentiousness”) may explain the attempts of later authors (Ael. VH 12.19, Nymphodoros FGrHist 572 F6=Ath. 13. 596e, Sud. σ 108) to defend her reputation by contradistinguishing the poetess Sappho from a synonymous hetaera; cf. Konstantakos 2000, 160–63. It is interesting that Sappho and Misgolas might appear on stage as contemporaries, though the historical Sappho was over two centuries older than Misgolas; cf. Ath. 13.599d (cited above), where Sappho is represented as having as lovers Archilochus, who was at least one generation older, and Hipponax, who was two generations younger.224 It has been suggested that all Sappho-plays share many characteristics of mythological comedies, since over the course of time the poetess from Lesbos was shrouded in almost mythical mists (cf. Konstantakos 2000, 160–1). She could coexist on stage both with other mythological or historical figures regardless of age (e. g. Archilochus and Hipponax), as well as everyday Athenians, such as Misgolas in our fragment. However, we cannot know whether the whole plot had a mythological construction or if it just included quasi-mythical figures such as Sappho associating with known fourth-century Athenians. Date Despite scholars’ attempts to associate the play with the trial in which Aeschines’ Against Timarchus was delivered, and accordingly to date it around 345 BC or immediately afterwards, along with Alexis’ Agōnis (e. g. Meineke I (1839) 386; Wagner 1905, 60; Bevilacqua 1939, 38–9, Webster 1952, 21), it seems much wiser to reserve opinion, with Fisher 2001, 172: “ Unfortunately we cannot date any of these plays precisely, and cannot decide therefore whether Misgolas’ predilections were well known to theatre audiences and hence to many jurymen before the trial, or whether the comic poets fed off famous trials and accompanying gossip about them for their next topical jokes”.

223 224

Pace Yatromanolakis 2007, 299, who argues that the surviving comic fragments do not support the view that Sappho was ever depicted as a courtesan in Attic Comedy. Cf. also Hermesian. fr. 7.47–56 Powell, where a supposed love affair between Sappho and Anacreon is mentioned.

228

Timokles

fr. 32 K.-A. (30 K.) ὁ Μισγόλας οὐ προσιέναι σοι φαίνεται ἀνθοῦσι τοῖς νέοισιν ἠρεθισμένος Misgolas doesn’t seem to be approaching you; he gets excited by young men in their bloom Ath. 8.339c καὶ Τιμοκλῆς δ’ ἐν Σαπφοῖ φησιν · ὁ – ἠρεθισμένος and Timocles says in his Sappho: “Misgolas – bloom”

Metre Iambic trimeter

wlwl l|wwwl llwl llwl wlw|l wlwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 610–11; Kock II (1884) 464; Bevilacqua 1939, 38– 9; PCG VII (1989) 777; Konstantakos 2000, 84; Fisher 2001, 170; Yatromanolakis 2007, 297–8. Citation context From a section devoted to well- known Athenian opsophagoi. In section 338d-339c Misgolas is mentioned for his notorious homosexual habits. The starting -point is Antiph. fr. 27 (from Halieuomenē), where he is said to be fond of kitharos (a flatfish), a wordplay on young lyre-players, whom he was said to be fond of. This preference is also mentioned in the following fr. (Alex. fr. 3 from Agōnis), which is a parody of Euripides’ Orestes. In associating fish with lovers, Misgolas’ case is comparable with that of the courtesan Pythionice, who is mentioned in the same section for her penchant for salt-fish, i. e. for the sons of the importer of salt-fish Chaerephilus, with whom she had love affairs (cf. on frr. 15 and 16). Interpretation The participle ἠρεθισμένος may be either adversative “although he gets excited by young men”, in which case the addressee is probably another man, or causative “because he …”, compatible with a woman (Sappho?) rejected by a homosexual man. The second alternative finds a strong parallel in Antiphanes, where there is the allusion that Misgolas dismisses the hetaera Sinope and opts for kitharos: cf. Antiph. fr. 27.12–6 καὶ τὸν Σινώπης γόγγρον ἤδη παχυτέρας / ἔχοντ’ ἀκάνθας τουτονὶ τίς λήψεται πρῶτος προσελθών; Μισγόλας γὰρ οὐ πάνυ / τούτων ἐδεστής. ἀλλὰ κίθαρος οὑτοσί, / ὃν ἂν ἴδῃ τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἀφέξεται “and here is the mighty conger from Sinope, with his stout spines; the first who comes shall have him; for Misgolas is not very fond of eating them. But here’s a citharus, and if he sees him, he never will keep his hands off him”. If Sappho is represented on stage as an hetaera, perhaps a psaltria, due to her association with poetry and music, then the speaking character could be another hetaera (cf. Lucian’s Dialogues of the Courtesans), or a pimp giving her an explanation of the reasons why Misgolas does not approach her: he only pursues love

Σαπφώ (fr. 32)

229

affairs with young boys, probably cithara-players. It is telling that both male and female musicians, who also offered sexual services to the banqueters, participated in Athenian symposia. Such a rejection of famous hetaerae by a notorious homosexual might also be included in the plot of Orestautokleidēs (cf. on Timocl. fr. 27). In any case, the image of blooming young men tacitly provides a contrast with the middle-aged pederast Misgolas. 1 ὁ Μισγόλας (PAA 654265). Son of Naucrates of Collytus. His name appears in two inscriptions: in IG II22825,2 (ca 350 BC), in a list of ten men, probably a college responsible for a dedication to Artemis, and in IG II21554 (SEG 18, 36, 335, 339), where Misgolas and his brother Naucles are named in the context of the manumission of two slaves. Misgolas was a well-known figure. Aeschines in his Against Timarchus treats him very carefully, perhaps because he did not want to break off relations with him, for personal or political reasons; cf. Fisher 2001, 170–71. Notwithstanding, he clearly alludes that Misgolas had homosexual inclinations: Aeschin. 1.41 Μισγόλας ἔστι τις Ναυκράτους, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Κολλυτεύς, ἀνὴρ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καλὸς κἀγαθός, καὶ οὐδαμῇ ἄν τις αὐτὸν μέμψαιτο, περὶ δὲ τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτο δαιμονίως ἐσπουδακώς, καὶ ἀεί τινας εἰωθὼς ἔχειν περὶ αὑτὸν κιθαρῳδοὺς καὶ κιθαριστάς. “There is a man named Misgolas, son of Naucrates of Collytus, men of Athens, a man in all other respects fine and good, and one would not in any way find fault with him, except that he is phenomenally devoted to this pursuit, and is always in the habit of having male singers and lyre-players around him.” The name Misgolas (probably from μίσγω, cf. Threatte II (1996) 647) supports the comic exaggeration of his (real or supposed) sexual inclinations (cf. below, on v. 1). For more details for Misgolas cf. Dover 1978, 73–5; Arnott, 1996, 63. προσιέναι σοι The verb πρόσειμι denotes an approach with erotic intentions; cf. Hp. Epid. 6.3.4; X. Smp. 4.38 ἂν δέ ποτε καὶ ἀφροδισιάσαι τὸ σῶμά μου δεηθῇ, οὕτω μοι τὸ παρὸν ἀρκεῖ ὥστε αἷς ἂν προσέλθω ὑπερασπάζονταί με διὰ τὸ μηδένα ἄλλον αὐταῖς ἐθέλειν προσιέναι; “if ever my body wants sex, my present means are so adequate, so that the women I approach greet me with enthusiasm, because nobody else is willing to approach them”; Pl. Smp. 209e; D.S. 1.72; 10.9.3; Plu. Mor. 140c. 2 ἀνθοῦσι τοῖς νέοισιν Probably young musicians of the sort described in Aeschin. 1.41 and alluded to in Alex. fr. 3 and Antiph. fr. 27.15 (see above, “Interpretation”); for the same construction cf. Plu. Arat. 54.3 καίπερ ὄντι νέῳ καὶ ἀνθοῦντι (said of Aratus’ son, who died in the flower of life). The use of the cognate substantive ἄνθος (whose original sense is probably ‘growth’; cf. Aitchison 1993, 271–8) to describe young men is common in epic (e. g. ἥβης ἄνθος, Ηom. Il. 13.484; Hes. Th. 988) and lyric poetry (e. g. Sol. 25.1 West τέρεν ἄνθος ἐρικυδέος ἥβης: Pi. P. 4.158b ἄνθος ἥβας [with Braswell 1988 ad loc.]). 2 ἠρεθισμένος Passive construction, τοῖς νέοισιν being a dative of agent. The verb is normally used to denote physical or mental irritation, e. g. Ar. V. 1103 (said of the wasps); Lys. 475; Euphanes fr. 1.3 ἐπίσχετ’ ὀργῇ χεῖρας ἠρεθισμένας;

230

Timokles

Hp. Aph. 4.54. To the best of my knowledge, this is the earliest surviving passage where sexual desire is described in this verb; it mostly occurs in this sense in later literature; cf. Ach. Tat. 5.25.7; Ath. 13.560d ἡσθεὶς οὖν ὁ Καμβύσης τῇ Νειτήτιδι καὶ σφόδρα ἐρεθισθεὶς… “Cambyses, being much pleased and very violently in love with Nitetis…”; [Luc.] Amor. 37; Aristaenet. 1.27 ἕτερα δὲ τοῦ σώματος ἐγύμνωσε μέρη τὰ δυνατά, ὅπως ἂν πολλαχόθεν τὸ μειράκιον ἐρεθίσῃ “and she bared other parts of her body, in order to excite the boy in many ways”; 2.13; Nonn. D. 15.219–20; AP 1.105.2 (figurative) ὑπ’ εὐσεβοῦς ἔρωτος ἠρεθισμένη.

231

† Συνεργικά “Synergika” (“Joint Labors?”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 611; Kock II (1884) 464; Edmonds II (1959) 622–3; PCG VII (1989) 777. Title The (otherwise unattested) word Συνεργικά in the title is apparently corrupt. Meineke I (1839) 433 suspects Συνεργοί (adopted by Kock); in his ed. min. (ΙΙ, 1847 ad loc.) he suggests Συνέριθοι “(female) weavers jointly working”; cf. Amphis’ Ἔριθοι and Alexis’ Παννυχίς ἢ Ἔριθοι; Μoer. σ 43 συνέριθοι Ἀττικοί · συνυφαίνουσαι Ἕλληνες.225 Τhese women were usually slaves or prostitutes (on “spinning Hetaerae” cf. Davidson 1997, 83–91; Cohen 2006, 106, n. 92; Papachrysostomou 2016, 121, with further bibliography), but it is also possible that such manual labour, although considered undignified, was sometimes performed by women of free status due to poverty; cf. D. 57.45: πολλαὶ καὶ τιτθαὶ καὶ ἔριθοι καὶ τρυγήτριαι γεγόνασ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς πόλεως κατ᾿ ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους συμφορῶν ἀσταὶ γυναῖκες “many women of citizen status have become wetnurses and wool-workers and labourers in the vineyards, because of the misfortunes of the city in those days”. An attractive correction of the title into Συνερῶσα has been made by M.L. West per litteras to Kassel-Austin (cf. PCG, VI.2 [1998] 219). There is indeed a play by Μenander entitled Συνερῶσα, where perhaps a young lover is being assisted by a bona meretrix (so Dietze 1901, 17); cf. Lyr. Adesp. 1.11–14 p. 117 Powell Ἄστρα φίλα καὶ πότνια Νὺξ συνερῶσά μοι / παράπεμψον ἔτι με νῦν πρὸς ὃν Κύπρις / ἔκδοτον ἄγει με χὠ / πολὺς Ἔρως παραλαβών; also on Timocl. fr. 8.6 συνεραστής “assistant in love-affairs”; Plu. Alex. 41 συνερῶντες. Helping friends or patrons in love-affairs is typical of New Comedy; cf. Chaereas’ boastful statements in Men. Dysc. 57–68. In a slightly different context, Andromache asserts that she even helped Hector in his dalliances: E. Andr. 222–3 ὦ φίλταθ’ Ἕκτορ, ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ τὴν σὴν χάριν / σοὶ καὶ ξυνήρων, εἴ τί σε σφάλλοι Κύπρις “my dearest Hector, I even assisted you in your love-affairs, to please you, if ever Aphrodite seduced you”. Also cf. Antiphanes’ and Nicostratus’ Ἀντερῶσα, Anaxandrides’ Ἀντέρως. Date Unknown.

225

It seems that the older meaning of the word συνέριθος was “collaborator”; cf. Hom. Od. 6.31; Αr. Pax 785–6; Pl. R. 533d.

232

Timokles

fr. 33 K.- A. (31 K.) τοῖς μὲν τεθνεῶσιν ἔλεος ἐπιεικὴς θεός, τοῖς ζῶσι δ’ † ἕτερον ἀνοσιώτατον φθόνος 1 τεθνεῶσιν Stob. A, Theophilus: τεθνηκόσιν Stob. SM, Mac. 2 ἕτερον ἀνοσιώτατον SM, Mac.: ἕτερον -ος Α: τέρας -ον Emperius: ἔργων -ος Herwerden: ὁ θεῶν -ος Meineke: ἕτερος -ος Haupt; ἑτέρων ἕτερος Richards: ἔφεδρος -ος Meineke: ἐχθρὸς -oς Kock: ἐχθρῶν -ος Headlam

for the dead, pity is a gentle god, whereas for the alive envy is the most unholy sentiment Stob. 4.57.8 (ὅτι οὐ χρὴ παροινεῖν εἰς τοὺς τετελευτηκότας), vol. V p. 1138 H. (codd. SMA, Mac.) Τιμοκλέους συνεργικά (om. S, Mac., Συνερίθων Meineke, Συνεργάταις idem in ed. Stob. IV [1857] p. xxv) · τοῖς – φθόνος. (that we must speak no evil of the dead). Timocles’ Synergika†; ‘for the dead – sentiment’. Τheophil. In Autol. 2.38 (p. 96 Gr.; ὅτι φροντίζει ὁ θεὸς … καὶ τῶν τεθνεώτων) τούτοις ἀκόλουθα εἴρηκεν καὶ Τιμοκλῆς λέγων · τεθν. – θεός (that God takes care even for dead men) Timocles also says in the following lines, ‘for the dead – god’.

Metre Iambic trimeter

llwwl w|wwwww llwl llw†wwwwww wlwl

Citation context The fragment is preserved in both Stobaeus and Theophilus. Stobaeus includes it in a section where the idea de mortuis nil nisi bonum dominates. In Athens, in particular, blaming the dead was considered a punishable crime; cf. Lipsius 1905, 648. On the other hand, Theophilus accumulates a series of passages in order to support his case for divine providence and punishment. Apart from Timocles, he cites Malachi (3.19), Isaiah (30.30, 28) Solomon (Prov. 3.8), David (Ps. 50.10), Homer (Od. 11.222; 16.856=22.362; Il. 23.71) and Hosea (14.10); cf. Parsons 2015, 103. The reason why Theophilus cites only the first line of Timocles’ couplet is probably because the second line (God’s malevolence toward the living) is not relevant to his argument; cf. Zeegers–Vorst 1972, 129–32. Text The transmitted text in v. 2 is apparently corrupt. Ηaupt 1876, 608 proposes ἕτερος ἀνοσιώτατος; Κassel and Austin (PCG VII [1989] ad loc.) wonder whether in that case the verse should be understood like Pi. P. 3.34 δαίμων δ’ ἕτερος / ἐς κακὸν τρέψαις ἐδαμάσσατό νιν or Call. fr. 191.63 Pfeiffer οὐ πάντες, ἀλλ’ οὓς ἔσχεν οὓτερος (Brink: ἕτερος codd.) δαίμων; but none seems to be an exact parallel, since

† Συνεργικά (fr. 33)

233

they are not qualified by an adjective, such as ἐπιεικής and ἀνοσιώτατος. Besides, neither Kock’s ἐχθρὸς nor Ηeadlam’s ἐχθρῶν seems suitable. Richards 1909, 89 prefers ἑτέρων ἀνοσιώτατος, in the sense “the most unholy of adverse powers”, which is not convincing. The most interesting proposition seems to me Meineke’s (ed. min. [1847] xix) ἔφεδρος ἀνοσιώτατος “the most unholy reserve” (or, alternatively, Headlam’s ἐφέδρων ἀνοσιώτατος), on the grounds that envy, like pity, is personified here as a god (cf. Call. Ap. 105, 107; on φθόνος and its personifications see Gisler 1997, 992–6). For the description of envy as a ‘sitting upon’ sentiment cf. Phil. Jud. Spec. leg. 3.3 ἐφήδρευε δ’ ἄρα μοι τὸ κακῶν ἀργαλεώτατον, ὁ μισόκαλος φθόνος; Socr. Schol. Hist. Eccl. 1.22 φθόνος γὰρ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἐφεδρεύειν φιλεῖ. For the construction cf. D. 5.15 τοῖς δ’ ἀγαθοῖς ἐφεδρεύων ἕτερος καθεδεῖται. Interpretation The surviving lines have the color of a gnomē. In Timocles similar sayings, probably delivered by a person of some authority, also occur in frr. 30, 36, 37 (all transmitted by Stobaeus; cf. Introduction, “Tradition and Reception”). For the relationship between pity and envy cf. Ar. Rh. 1386b 16–20 δόξειε δ’ ἂν καὶ ὁ φθόνος τῷ ἐλεεῖν τὸν αὐτὸν ἀντικεῖσθαι τρόπον, ὡς σύνεγγυς ὢν καὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ νεμεσᾶν, ἔστι δ’ ἕτερον· λύπη μὲν γὰρ ταραχώδης καὶ ὁ φθόνος ἐστὶν καὶ ἐπὶ εὐπραγίᾳ, ἀλλ’ οὐ τοῦ ἀναξίου ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἴσου καὶ ὁμοίου “it might seem that envy is also opposed to feeling pity in the same way, as being closely related and much the same thing as feeling just resentment; and yet it is different. Envy also is disturbing pain and directed at success, but of an equal and a like, not of one who is unworthy”. Possibly the idea of ‘divine envy’ (e. g. Ε. Alc. 1135; IA 1097; Hdt. 1.32 (Solon) τὸ θεῖον πᾶν … φθονερόν τε καὶ ταραχῶδες; 3.4; cf. Pl. Mor. 857f-858a) is also implied here. 1–2 τοῖς μὲν τεθνεῶσιν … τοῖς ζῶσι δ’ In this passage a double contrast is drawn between pity and envy, dead and alive. For the idea cf. Th. 2.45.1 φθόνος γὰρ τοῖς ζῶσι πρὸς τὸ ἀντίπαλον, τὸ δὲ μὴ ἐμποδὼν ἀνανταγωνίστῳ εὐνοίᾳ τετίμηται “The living are exposed to the envy of the rivalry; on the contrary, anything no longer present meets with uncompetitive recognition”; D. 18.315 τίς γὰρ οὐκ οἶδε τῶν πάντων, ὅτι τοῖς μὲν ζῶσι πᾶσιν ὕπεστί τις ἢ πλείων ἢ ἐλάττων φθόνος, τοὺς τεθνεῶτας δ’ οὐδὲ τῶν ἐχθρῶν οὐδεὶς ἔτι μισεῖ; “ Who on earth does not know that every living person is exposed more or less to envy, whereas the dead are no longer hated even by their enemies?”; Theopomp. Hist. FGrHist 115 F 395 ἐπίσταμαι γάρ, ὅτι τοὺς μὲν ζῶντας πολλοὶ μετὰ δυσμενείας ἐξετάζουσι, τοῖς δὲ τετελευτηκόσι διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἐτῶν ἐπανιᾶσι τοὺς φθόνους “I know that many examine with ill will the living, whereas in the passage of time they give up the envious sentiments towards the dead”; Dionys. Trag. fr. 7.2 τοῖς οὐδὲν οὖσιν οὐδὲ εἷς ὅλως φθονεῖ; Stob. 4.57.12 δεινοὶ γὰρ ἀνδρὶ πάντες ἐσμὲν εὐκλεεῖ ζῶντι φθονῆσαι, κατθανόντα δ’ αἰνέσαι (Snell, TGrF I p. 328, believes that it is an adespot tragic fragment). 1 ἔλεος Aristotle (Rh. 1385b) defines pity as a certain pain at a destructive or painful evil happening to one who does not deserve it. As opposite to envy, pity is sometimes felt for the dead; cf. Ε. Or. 968–9 ἔλεος ἔλεος ὅδ’ ἔρχεται / τῶν

234

Timokles

θανουμένων ὕπερ “This is the pity, the pity that goes up for those who are about to die”; Antipho 1.21 οὗτος δὲ τοῦ μὲν τεθνεῶτος πέρι οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς αἰτήσεται, ὃς ἄξιος καὶ ἐλέου καὶ βοηθείας καὶ τιμωρίας παρ’ ὑμῶν τυχεῖν “he requests from you nothing for the dead man, who deserves your pity and help and revenge”; on the emotion of pity cf. Walton 1997; Sternberg 2005. ἐπιεικὴς θεὸς Apollodorus (Bibl. 2.8.1 and 3.7.1) reports that the Heracleidae had approached the altar of Mercy in Athens; also Adrastus, who was one of the Seven in the expedition against Thebes, had found refuge at the altar of Mercy in Athens after the war; cf. Paus. 1.17.1 (with Frazer 1913 ad loc.) Ἀθηναίοις δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καὶ ἄλλα ἐστὶν οὐκ ἐς ἅπαντας ἐπίσημα καὶ Ἐλέου βωμός, ᾧ μάλιστα θεῶν ἐς ἀνθρώπινον βίον καὶ μεταβολὰς πραγμάτων ὄντι ὠφελίμῳ μόνοι τιμὰς Ἑλλήνων νέμουσιν Ἀθηναῖοι “in the Athenian market-place, amongst other objects which are not generally known, there is an altar of Mercy, to whom, though he is of all gods the most useful in human life and in the vicissitudes of fortune, the Athenians are the only Greeks who pay honour”; cf. D.S. 13.22.7; Philostr. VS 212.3. 2 ἀνοσιώτατον φθόνος For the association of envy with unholy behavior cf. X. Cyr. 4.6.4; Pl. R. 580a; Hippoth. TrGF I 210 F 2 φθόνος κάκιστος κἀδικώτατος θεός; cf. TrGF II fr. adesp. 6b; Cyrillus Alexandr. Epist. Pasch. 77.809 ἀνοσίῳ φθόνῳ διακεκαυμένος τὸν νοῦν; Glaph. in Pentat. 69.304 ἀεὶ ὁ φθόνος ἀνοσίαν ἔχει τὴν ἔφοδον. For the contradistinction of envy with pity in a forensic context cf. Lys. 24.2 καίτοι ὅστις τούτοις φθονεῖ οὓς οἱ ἄλλοι ἐλεοῦσι, τίνος ἂν ὑμῖν ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀποσχέσθαι δοκεῖ πονηρίας; “and yet, if somebody feels envy for those whom others pity, what wickedness do you think such a man would abstain from?”.

235

Φιλοδικαστής (Philodikastēs) (“The man who loved judge-duty”) Discussion Meineke III (1840) 611–2; Kock II (1884) 465; Bevilacqua 1939, 26, 49–50; Edmonds II (1959) 622–5; PCG VII (1989) 778; Orth HGL II (2014) 1045. Title Thugenides, a poet of Old Comedy, wrote a play entitled Δικασταί. Composite titles with φιλο- mainly belong to fourth-century comedies; cf. Φιλαθήναιος (Alexis, Philippides), Φίλαρχος (Sophilus, Philippides), Φιλευριπίδης (Axionicus, Philippides), Φιλοδέσποτος (Τheognetus, Timostratus, Sogenes), Φιλοθηβαῖος (Αntiphanes), Φιλοθύτης (Metagenes), Φιλοκλίνης (Epicharm), Φιλέταιρος (Philonides), Φιλάργυρος (Crates II, Philippides, Theognetus), Φιλοτραγῳδός (Alexis), Φιλοπάτωρ (Antiphanes, Poseidippus), Φιλολάκων (Stephanus), Φιλοπράγμων (Criton); and cf. the plural title Φιλάδελφοι (Philippides). The Greek word dikastēs combines the meanings of ‘juror’ and ‘judge’, since he performed functions associated with both tasks. Throughout the classical period the Athenian dikastēs is a non-professional citizen at least thirty years old. The whole body numbered 6,000 members, possibly 600 from each tribe. Their pay was initially two obols; later, after 425 BC, Cleon raised it to three obols. For the Athenian dicasts cf. MacDowell, 1978, 34–40; Ober 1989, 141–7; on the social composition of an Athenian jury cf. Todd 1990, 146–73; Lanni 2006, 38–9. In Aristophanes the emblematic φιλοδικαστής is Philocleon in the Wasps; his very name denotes his relation to the demagogue Cleon, who was considered the patron of jurors; cf. Arg. I ad Ar. V. (ed. Biles–Olson 2015, 1–2) Φιλοκλέων Ἀθηναῖος φιλοδικαστὴς ὢν τὴν φύσιν ἐφοίτα παρὰ τὰ δικαστήρια συνεχῶς “the Athenian Philocleon, being a philodikastēs by nature, always frequented the courts”. The first component φιλο- apparently implies a kind of addiction to litigation. In the prologue of Aristophanes’ Wasps, the slave Xanthias calls on spectators to guess the strange disease from which his master suffers. It follows a series of jokes in vv. 77–88, which begins with the explanation that this name is the start of the trouble (v. 77 “φιλο—” μέν ἐστιν ἀρχὴ τοῦ κακοῦ), and ends with the disclosure that Philocleon is a φιληλιαστής “fond of serving on juries” (v. 88). For the name philos and its derivatives cf. Landfester 1966, 155–71; Willi 2003, 66–7. The most typical characteristic of an Athenian dikastēs, vividly represented in the Wasps, is extreme severity (e. g. 403–4). At the same time, however, he could be misled in his verdict by compassion, as Philocleon did in the trial of Dogs (V. 982–4). Content Timocles’ Φιλοδικαστής was staged at a time when Athens was under Macedonian rule, almost certainly after 317 BC, under the regime of Demetrius of Phaleron; cf. below, “Date”. Demetrius ruled Athens on behalf of his personal friend Cassander during the period 317–307 BC. He imposed a mild oligarchy, under which the Assembly, the Council and the courts continued to function, although the property qualification of 1000 drachmas had reduced the number of the participants in these institutions. For Demetrius’ reforms cf. Lape 2004, 39–52.

236

Timokles

It is not impossible, therefore, that the political setting of the play recalls that of the democratic period, and the main character might be a man who passionately longed to be a dicast. However, the surviving fragment includes a piece of satire within the private sphere, and a comedy of characters seems more plausible. In that case, if philodikastēs means “litigious” (cf. Timocles’ Polypragmōn, under “Title”), then one might think of a man involved in forensic disputes with fellow citizens, or, perhaps, an uncompromising litigant who refuses to go to arbitration; for litigiousness in New Comedy cf. Scafuro 1997, 25. For a possible parody of forensic procedure in Timocles cf. fr. 27 and fr. 28 on παράβυστον (from Neaira). Date It is the only known play of Timocles which is definitely dated after 322 BC. More specifically, there is a strong terminus post quem, the office of gynaikonomoi, an institution created by Demetrius after 317 BC; cf. below, on v. 3; Nesselrath 1990, 200.

fr. 34 K.-A. (32 K.)

5

ἀνοίγετ’ ἤδη τὰς θύρας, ἵνα πρὸς τὸ φῶς ὦμεν καταφανεῖς μᾶλλον, ἐφοδεύων ἐὰν βούληθ’ ὁ γυναικονόμος †λαβεῖν ἀριθμόν†, κατὰ τὸν νόμον τὸν καινὸν ὅπερ εἴωθε δρᾶν, τῶν ἑστιωμένων. ἔδει δὲ τοὔμπαλιν τὰς τῶν ἀδείπνων ἐξετάζειν οἰκίας

3 λαβεῖν ἀριθμόν Α: τὸν ἀρ. καταλαβεῖν Schweighäuser: τὸν ἀρ. λαμβάνειν Dobree: ἀπολαβεῖν τὸν ἀρ. Dindorf

5

Now open the doors, so we can be more visible in the light, in case the Supervisor of Women is going the rounds and wants †to take a count† of those attending the feast, as he is in the habit of doing, following the new law. Contrariwise, he would do better to inspect the houses of those who have no dinner

Ath. 6.245a Χαιρεφῶν … ὁ παράσιτος εἰς γάμον ἄκλητος εἰσελθὼν καὶ κατακλιθεὶς ἔσχατος καὶ τῶν γυναικονόμων ἀριθμούντων τοὺς κεκλημένους καὶ κελευόντων αὐτὸν ἀποτρέχειν ὡς παρὰ τὸν νόμον ἐπὶ τοῖς τριάκοντα ἐπόντος «ἀριθμεῖτε δή,» ἔφη, «πάλιν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ἀρξάμενοι.» ὅτι δ’ ἦν ἔθος τοὺς γυναικονόμους ἐφορᾶν τὰ συμπόσια καὶ ἐξετάζειν τῶν κεκλημένων τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἰ ὁ κατὰ νόμον ἐστί, Τιμοκλῆς ἐν Φιλοδικαστῇ φησιν οὕτως · ἀνοίγετ’ – οἰκίας. Chaerephon … the parasite got into a wedding celebration uninvited and lay down on the very last couch. The Supervisors of Women were counting the guests, and when they ordered him to leave, since he was violating the law by exceeding the limit of thirty people, he said: “Count again – but start with me!” That it was standard practice for the Supervisors

Φιλοδικαστής (fr. 34)

237

of Women to supervise drinking parties and check the number of guests to be sure it was within the legal limit, is asserted by Timocles in The Man Who Loved Judge-Duty, as follows: Now open – no dinner.

Metre Iambic trimeter

5

wlwl l|lwl wwlwl llwww llw|ww llwl llwwl www†wlwwl† wwlwl llw|ww llwl llwl wlwl wlwl llwl l|lwl llwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 611–2; Kock II (1884) 465; Edmonds II (1959) 622–5; Garland 1981, 170–6; PCG VII (1989) 778; Bayliss 2011, 87–8. Citation Context Athenaeus reports that Aristodemus (fr. 7, FHG iii.310) in his second book of geloia apomnēmoneumata “humorous memoirs” mentions several parasites. At first sight, this particular fragment is rather cited in passing, the connecting subject with the preceding lines being not parasites but the board of gynaikonomoi. But it might be associated with the theme of the section, if the speaking character is himself a parasite; cf. below, “Interpretation”. Text The transmitted λαβεῖν ἀριθμόν is unmetrical. A further difficulty is that the genitive τῶν ἑστιωμένων seems too remote from τὸν ἀριθμόν. Schweighäuser’s τὸν ἀριθμὸν καταλαβεῖν and Dindorf ’s ἀπολαβεῖν τὸν ἀριθμόν “set apart the appropriate number (probably of thirty persons, cf. Ath. 6.245a, cited above), in order to find out whether there are redundant dinner guests, are desperate attempts. Dobree’s, 1833, 311 τὸν ἀριθμόν λαμβάνειν is the lection which provides better Greek; but it is difficult to explain how it was corrupted into the transmitted text. Α major lacuna or corruption of the text should not be excluded. Interpretation The scene in question, which seems to include a dinner, might come from the beginning of the play, like Menander’s Synaristōsai. The speaking character may be either the host or a parasite, whose participation at the dinner is affected by the restrictions concerning the number of participants and the relevant supervisions of the gynaikonomoi. The order “now open the doors”, given from inside, might be associated with the staging of the scene. Dinners and banquets took place indoors, so the opening of the doors is a convention in order to set in motion the action on stage, and in order for the participants in the dinner to be visible to the spectators. It might be an innovation of Timocles, who, instead of representing the characters dining (and, apparently, drinking) outdoors, as usually happens in comic symposia by convention (cf. e. g. Ar. Nu. 1 9 κἄκφερε; 632 καλῶ θύραζε δεῦρο; 634 ἐξενεγκεῖν; cf. Antiph. fr. 113.4–5; Plaut. Per. 737 foras egredere; 758 ite foras), renders the interior space visible and actually allows the rest of the

238

Timokles

action to take place on stage. For other solutions concerning the ‘staged symposia’ in Greek Comedy cf. Konstantakos 2005, 200–206. The fragment clearly satirizes the new institution of gynaikonomoi (on whom cf. on v. 3), which was introduced by Demetrius of Phaleron. It might be indicative that even Timocles, who in other cases was especially fond of personal satire (cf. on frr. 4, 12, 17, etc.), focuses his satire on the private sphere and avoids mentioning Demetrius by name. Philippides, a poet involved in politics himself, satirized Demetrius Poliorcetes and his spokesman Stratocles around 303/2 BC (frr. 25, 26), but in general only safe targets were satirized in comedy after 322 BC, especially persons with no political power or not favoured by the current regime; cf. Phillip 1973, 496; Sommerstein 2013, 6–7. For Demetrius of Phaleron and his regime cf. Fortenbaugh - Schütrumpf 1999. 1 ἀνοίγετ’ ἤδη τὰς θύρας Such requests are usually addressed by persons coming from outside to the residents of a house, e. g. Αr. Ach. 1189; Nu. 183. On the possible function of the particular order as a stage direction, see above, “Interpretation”. 1–2 πρὸς τὸ φῶς … καταφανεῖς Apparently the dinner takes place during daylight; cf. Ar. Nu. 631–2 (Socrates to Strepsiades) ὅμως γε μὴν / αὐτὸν καλῶ θύραζε δεῦρο πρὸς τὸ φῶς; 771 πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον; X. An. 7.2.18 οἱ δὲ προσιόντες μὴ λανθάνοιεν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ φῶς καταφανεῖς εἶεν. 2 ἐφοδεύων “do the rounds of, inspect”. The verb, which is usually used in military contexts (e. g. Ar. Av. 1160, X. HG 2.4.24, 5.3.22, Cyr. 8.6.16) is here adapted for the office of gynaikonomoi; for a similar figurative use cf. Thphr. Char. 6.9 (said of the aponenoēmenos “the man who has lost all sense”) πράττεσθαι καὶ ἐφοδεύειν τὰ μαγειρεῖα, τὰ ἰχθυοπώλια, τὰ ταριχοπώλια “and do the rounds of the butchers, the fishmongers, and the kipper-sellers”. 3 ὁ γυναικονόμος The board of gynaikonomoi was created by Demetrius of Phaleron, within the frame of legislation on matters concerning private life. It appears that the competency of the particular institution was not restricted to superintending the moral behaviour of women, but included a variety of functions. Philochorus reports that the gynaikonomoi, along with the members of the Areopagus, had undertaken the office to supervise meetings and feasts in private houses, mainly wedding feasts and other rituals. It is noteworthy that in the surviving comic fragments the gynaikonomoi are mentioned not as inspectors of women, but in their capacity as inspectors of private gatherings, ensuring that the number of the guests does not exceed that permitted; cf. Men. fr. 208 παρὰ τοῖς γυναικονόμοις δὲ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς γάμοις / διακονοῦντας ἀπογεγράφθαι πυθόμενος / πάντας μαγείρους κατὰ νόμον καινόν τινα, / ἵνα πυνθάνωνται τοὺς κεκλημένους ἐὰν / πλείους τις ὧν ἔξεστιν ἑστιῶν τύχῃ, / ἐλθών “Learning that a list of all cooks who cater weddings had been made by the gynaikonomoi, in accordance with a certain new law, in order to know whether anyone happens to be entertaining more guests than the law allows, he came…”; Αth. 6.245a καὶ Φιλόχορος δ’ ἐν ἑβδόμῃ Ἀτθίδος ‘οἱ γυναικονόμοι’, φησί, ‘μετὰ τῶν Ἀρεοπαγιτῶν ἐσκόπουν τὰς ἐν ταῖς

Φιλοδικαστής (fr. 34)

239

οἰκίαις συνόδους ἔν τε τοῖς γάμοις καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις θυσίαις “Also Philochorus in the seventh book of the History of Attica (FGrHist 328 F 65) says: The Supervisors of Women, accompanied by the members of the Areopagus, used to inspect gatherings in the houses, as well as at wedding feasts and other sacrificial rites”; cf. Poll. 8.112 γυναικονόμοι δὲ ἀρχὴ ἐπὶ τοῦ κόσμου τῶν γυναικῶν. However, it is quite possible that in the comedy the gynaikonomoi did inspect women, since this institution is also mentioned in Latin New Comedy, e. g. Plaut. Aul. 503–4 (the eavesdropper Euclio is speaking) “ut matronarum hic facta pernovit probe. / moribus praefectum mulierum hunc factum velim “how thoroughly he knows the deeds of married women! I would wish him to be prefect of women’s morals”; cf. Fraenkel 2007, 93–4. Besides, outside Athens the gynaikonomoi are attested as controlling women. In Syracuse, for example, they are said to supervise women in their public appearances (cf. Ath. 521b-e= Phylarch. FGrHist 81 F45), whereas funerary and festive ceremonies were the sphere of activity in other Greek cities, e. g. at Methymna on Lesbos and in Magnesia; cf. Dillon 2002, 191. Moreover, this institution was thought to be incompatible with democracy, where women had to go outside to work: Arist. Pol. 1300a 4–7 παιδονόμος δὲ καὶ γυναικονόμος, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος ἄρχων κύριός ἐστι τοιαύτης ἐπιμελείας, ἀριστοκρατικόν, δημοκρατικὸν δ’ οὔ (πῶς γὰρ οἷόν τε κωλύειν ἐξιέναι τὰς τῶν ἀπόρων;). In any case, it has been suggested that this institution was invented by Demetrius in order to monitor activities in the private sphere and to discourage meetings, gatherings and collective activities which might be subversive to his regime; cf. Lape 1004, 52; for the fears of Demetrius regarding his fellow citizens cf. Plu. Dem. 9.3. For the gynaikonomoi and their role in Athenian private life cf. Boerner 1912, 2089–90, s. v. γυναικονόμοι; Garland 1981, 154–76; Habicht 1997, 55–6; Bayliss 2011, 87–8; Lape 2004, 43–52; Wallace 2005, 357–73; Rosenbloom 2014, 300–301. 4 κατὰ τὸν νόμον τὸν καινὸν In comedy a “new law” normally seems to have a negative undertone; cf. Αr. Nu. 1423–4 ἧττόν τι δῆτ’ ἔξεστι κἀμοὶ καινὸν αὖ τὸ λοιπὸν / θεῖναι νόμον τοῖς υἱέσιν, τοὺς πατέρας ἀντιτύπτειν; Alex. fr. 131.4–6 (νυνί τε καινὸν εἰσφέρει [Ἀριστοφῶν] νόμον τινὰ / χρυσοῦν, τὸ μὴ πωλεῖν καθημένους ἔτι / τοὺς ἰχθυοπώλας, διὰ τέλους δ’ ἑστηκότας; fr. 130; Men. fr. 298 κατὰ νόμον καινόν τινα. 5 τῶν ἑστιωμένων Apparently with ἀριθμόν; the ἑστιώμενοι are the guests participating in the dinner; cf. Ath. 6.245a, where they are described as κεκλημένοι. Antipho 1.26 παρά τε ἀνδρὶ φίλῳ αὑτοῦ εἱστιᾶτο; Lys. 1.8; Pl. R. 345c; Tht. 178d; Alex. fr. 177.9. τοὔμπαλιν Τhe adverb ἔμπαλιν “on the contrary” occurs very often with the article; cf. Αr. Lys. 1044–6 φλαῦρον εἰπεῖν οὐδὲ ἕν, / ἀλλὰ πολὺ τοὔμπαλιν πάντ’ ἀγαθὰ καὶ λέγειν / καὶ δρᾶν; 6 τῶν ἀδείπνων For the (colloquial) adjective ἄδειπνος cf. Eup. fr. 347; Ar. Ach. 1152; Antiph. fr. 197.3; Alex. fr. 243.4; Men. Asp. 232; Anaxandr. fr. 34.8, apparently said of a parasite; cf. Millis 2016, 174 (ad loc.).

240

Timokles

ἐξετάζειν Like ἐφοδεύων in v. 2, ἐξετάζειν τὰς οἰκίας in the sense “inspect, review” is commonly used of troops (e. g. Th. 7.33.6; 7.35.1; Hell. Oxy. 10.1; Plu. Cat. Mi. 56.8; LSJ I.2) and may ironically recall a general’s inspection; cf. X. Oec. 9.15, where, however, it is the mistress of the house who is metaphorically described as a phrourarchos: νομίσαι οὖν ἐκέλευον, ἔφη, τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ αὐτὴν νομοφύλακα τῶν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ εἶναι, καὶ ἐξετάζειν δέ, ὅταν δόξῃ αὐτῇ, τὰ σκεύη, ὥσπερ ὁ φρούραρχος τὰς φυλακὰς ἐξετάζει; “so I charged my wife to consider herself guardian of the laws to our household, and just as a garrison commander inspects his guards, so must she inspect the equipment whenever she thought it well to do so”; cf. Ath. 4.58 (Cynulcus is speaking about the deipnosophist Magnus) καὶ μετὰ τὰς καλὰς ταύτας ἀμουσολογίας περιέρχεται τὰς οἰκίας ἐξετάζων ὅπου δεῖπνα λαμπρὰ παρασκευάζεται “and after these lovely displays of inelegance, he goes around from one house to the next, checking to see where brilliant dinner parties are being prepared”.

241

Ψευδοληισταί (Pseudolēistai) (“Fake Robbers”) Discussion Bevilacqua 1939, 33–4; Edmonds II (1959) 624–5; PCG VII (1989) 778–9. Title Cf. Cratinus Junior’s and Crobylus’ Ψευδυποβολιμαῖος, Νicostratus’ Ψευδοστιγματίας, Pherecrates’ and Menander’s Ψευδηρακλῆς; and Αr. Ach. 99 Ψευδαρτάβας and Lucianus’ title Ψευδοσοφιστής. Content The title, in combination with the surviving fragment, points to a plot involving false robbers. It seems unlikely that these supposed robbers form a chorus. Most probably, individuals described as fake robbers commit or narrate on stage actions described as fake robberies, e. g. grabbing food or the like, as the surviving fragment indicates. Date

Unknown.

fr. 35 K.-A. (33 K.)

alw καταμαθὼν δὲ κειμένην {θερμὴν} σκάφην θερμῶν ἰπνιτῶν ἤσθιον 1 om. CE

θερμὴν del. Toup

2 ἤσθιον CE: εἴσ- Α

… learning that a pan of warm oven bread was lying there, I ate some Ath. 3.109c παρὰ δὲ τὰς ὀπτήσεις ὀνομάζεσθαι ἰπνίτην, οὗ μνημονεύειν Τιμοκλέα ἐν Ψευδολῃσταῖς οὕτως ∙ ‘καταμαθὼν – ἤσθιον’ ‘Oven bread’ gets its name from the fact that it is baked. Timocles mentions it in his Fake Robbers as follows: learning – some

Metre Iambic trimeter

〈alw〉ww wlw|l wlwl llwl l|lwu

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 612; Kock II (1884) 465; Edmonds II (1959) 624–5; PCG VII (1989) 778–9. Citation context In a section where types of bread are mentioned. The material derives from a treatise of Tryphon; cf. Ath. 3.109c ἄρτων γένη ex Tryphone ἐν τοῖς φυτικοῖς ἐπιγραφομένοις, fr. 117 von Velsen.

242

Timokles

Text θερμὴν (probably due to a copyist’s mistake) is obviously out of place. Bevilacqua’s (1939, 33) reservation that it might be an (unclear) wordplay on θερμός “hot” and θέρμος “lupin” is not convincing. Dobree’s κειμένην σκάφην / θερμὴν ἰπνιτῶν and Kock’s κειμένην / μεστὴν σκάφην θερμῶν seem desperate attempts. Interpretation Most probably, the speaking character (a supposed robber addressing his companions?) narrates his enterprise, but in the course of the speech, para prosdokian he reports a very poor haul. The incident described is reminiscent of Ar. V. 236–7, where a member of the Chorus recalls an old fake bravado, when mounting guard with a fellow at Byzantium: κᾆτα περιπατοῦντε νύκτωρ / τῆς ἀρτοπώλιδος λαθόντ’ ἐκλέψαμεν τὸν ὅλμον “and then we walking around in the night secretly stole the kneading trough of a baker’s wife”. The occasion seems similar to that of fr. 18.6–7 where a famished person finds and devours Telemachus’ beans; the structure of the language is also similar: καταμαθὼν ~ καταλαβὼν, ἤσθιον ~ἐνέτραγον. Grabbing bread or food seems to be a favourite comic theme; cf. Philem. fr. 82.14–6. Incidents with bread-sellers (women in particular) are not uncommon in comedy; cf. Ar. V. 1388–1414. 1 καταμαθών For the construction of this verb with a participle, in the meaning “observe that…” cf. Hdt. 4.614; X. Cyr. 1.1.1; Mem. 1.4.2; HG 1.6.4; Macho 11.94–6 Gow. In the sense “perceive, realize” it is used in Timocl. fr. 6.10–11 … πτωχότερον αὐτοῦ καταμαθὼν τὸν Τήλεφον / γενόμενον. κειμένην This particular verb calls to mind a table laid ready for a meal; for τράπεζαν κεῖσθαι / παρακεῖσθαι cf. Ar. Ach. 1155; X. An. 7.3.22–3; Konstantakos 2000, on Antiph. fr. 202. σκάφην Either a kneading trough or a baker’s tray, depending on the context of this particular scene. Poll. 10.102–3 reports two sorts of equipment, a long and a round one: ἐν δὲ τοῖς Δημιοπράτοις εὑρίσκεται σκάφη μακρὰ καὶ σκάφη στρογγύλη; cf. Crob. fr. 2 καὶ σκάφην λαβών τινα / τῶν ἐσχαριτῶν τῶν καθαρῶν “I took a platter of hot clean hearth-loaves from the baker’s tray”. θερμῶν ἰπνιτῶν Hot bread was considered more pleasant than cold, but was also apt to cause flatulence. Ipnitēs and kaminitēs, in particular, were hard to digest; cf. Ath. 3.115c ὁ δὲ ἰπνίτης καὶ καμινίτης δύσπεπτοι καὶ δυσοικονόμητοι. For a similar context cf. Antid. fr. 3 λαβόντα θερμοὺς ἐσχαρίτας, πῶς γὰρ οὔ; “I took the hot hearth-loaves, how could I not?”

243

Ιncertarum fabularum fragmenta fr. 36 K.-A. (34 K.) ὅστις φοβεῖται τὸν πατέρα κᾀσχύνεται, οὗτος πολίτης ἀγαθὸς ἔσται κατὰ λόγον καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους δυνάμενος κακῶς ποιεῖν 1 καὶ αἰσχύνεται SMA

2 οὗτος SM: οὕτως Α

whoever fears his father and feels shame before him, that man is likely to become a good citizen, and able to harm his city’s enemies Stob. 4.25.17 Τιμοκλέους ∙ ὅστις – ποιεῖν and Timocles’; ‘whoever – enemies’

Cf. Arsenius Paroemiogr. Apophthegmata 13.10g (not mentioned in PCG) Metre Iambic trimeter

llwl l|lwww llwl llwl l|wwwl lwwwl llwwl l|wwwl wlwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 612; Kock II (1884) 465; Edmonds II (1959) 624–5; PCG VII (1989) 779. Citation context The fragment is included in the section under the title ὅτι χρὴ τοὺς γονεῖς τῆς καθηκούσης τιμῆς καταξιοῦσθαι παρὰ τῶν τέκνων “that parents must be deemed worthy of receiving the honor due from their children” (4.25.1– 34). The section contains a long series of aphorisms on this issue, mainly derived from tragedy and comedy, including Antiph. fr. 261 and Men. fr. 821; cf. on v. 1. Text 2 For οὗτος after ὅστις in such sententious aphorisms cf. fr. 37.2–3 below and E. HF 105; frr. 37.2 Kannicht; 952 Κannicht ὅστις πατὴρ πρὸς παῖδας ἐκβαίνει πικρός, τὸ γῆρας οὗτος τερματίζεται βαρύ; Alex. fr. 78.1–4. Interpretation It looks like a counsel (hypothēkē) to a young man, apparently by a person of some authority. A similar counsel is addressed by Peisetaerus to the young father-beater (patraloias) in Aristophanes’ Birds. Peisetaerus’ short speech concludes with the suggestion that the young would-be killer should respect his father’s life and, moreover, fight the enemies of his city (1368–9). Τὸν πατέρ’ ἔα ζῆν. Ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ μάχιμος εἶ, / εἰς τἀπὶ Θρᾴκης ἀποπέτου κἀκεῖ μάχου. Disagreements and conflicts between fathers and sons are particularly common both in Old and in New Comedy, often constituting a keystone of the plot;

244

Timokles

for instances in Old Comedy cf. the couple Strepsiades and Philippides in the Clouds, and Philocleon and Bdelycleon in the Wasps. For the stereotype of senex durus in New Comedy, cf. e. g. the couple Menedemus and Clinia in Terence’s Heautontimoroumenos. For the relations of fathers and sons in Athens cf. Strauss 1993, esp. 61–99; for the ‘war of the generations’ in Attic comedy cf. Sutton 1993. The fragment under discussion recalls Menander’s Samia, where Moschion is ashamed before his (adoptive) father and does not confess his crime, i. e. the rape of a girl (cf. v. 67 αἰσχύνομαι τὸν πατέρα). In fact here it is the mutual shame of father and son which drives the plot. It is worth noting that Moschion, in the prologue of the play, associates his dependence on and respect for his father with public benefactions and liturgical services vv. 13–7 τῶι χορηγεῖν διέφερον / καὶ τῆι] φιλοτιμίᾳ · κύνας παρέτρεφέ μοι, / ἵππο]υς· ἐφυλάρχησα λαμπρῶς· τῶν φίλων / τοῖς δεομένοις τὰ μέτρι’ ἐπαρκεῖν ἐδυνάμην. / δι’ ἐκεῖνον ἦν ἄνθρωπος. For this issue cf. Lape 2004, 145–6. 1 φοβεῖται κἀισχύνεται Cf. Ε. ΙΤ 683 ταῦτ’ οὖν φοβοῦμαι καὶ δι’ αἰσχύνης ἔχω; Men. fr. 821 αἰσχύνομαι τὸν πατέρα, Κλειτοφῶν, μόνον. / ἀντιβλέπειν ἐκεῖνον οὐ δυνήσομαι / ἀδικῶν “I am only ashamed before my father, Cleitophon. I shall not be able to face him if I do wrong”; cf. Sam. 67 αἰσχύνομαι τὸν πατέρα; X. HG 5.4.27 ἐγὼ τῷ ἐμῷ πατρὶ οὐδ’ ἀντιβλέπειν δύναμαι; com. adesp. fr. 1017.42; Ιsoc. 1.16 τοὺς μὲν θεοὺς φοβοῦ, τοὺς δὲ γονεῖς τίμα, τοὺς δὲ φίλους αἰσχύνου, τοῖς δὲ νόμοις πείθου; Antiph. fr. 261 ὅστις δ’ ἐρυθριᾷ τηλικοῦτος ὢν ἔτι / πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ γονέας, οὐκ ἔστιν κακός “Whoever still blushes before his parents at that age is not evil”. For the unwritten law dictating that one should honor his own parents cf. X. Mem. 4.4.20 οὐκοῦν καὶ γονέας τιμᾶν πανταχοῦ νομίζεται; A. Supp. 707–9; Ar. Ra. 145–51. 2 πολίτης ἀγαθός For this general term, which signifies social and political commendation, cf. Phryn. fr. 62; Eup. fr. 129.2 ἀνὴρ δ’ ὅταν τις ἀγαθὸς ᾖ καὶ χρήσιμος πολίτης (with Olson 2017, ad loc.). Τhe opposite is πονηρός (cf. Rosenbloom 2002, 313 n. 118); also κακός; cf. E. Ba. 271 κακὸς πολίτης γίγνεται νοῦν οὐκ ἔχων. The obligation of adult sons to look after their elderly parents was thought an unwritten law. In the routine scrutiny before undertaking public offices, caring for one’s parents was considered crucially important. Thus a son who was devoted to his parents was also expected to be a good and accountable citizen. It is indicative that all public officials, both those elected by lot and those elected by show of hands, had to be tested in the Council of Five Hundred, and among the questions they had to answer was “whether he treats his parents well, and whether he pays his taxes, and whether he has done his military service” ἔπειτα γονέας εἰ εὖ ποιεῖ, [καὶ] τὰ τέλη 〈εἰ〉 τελεῖ, καὶ τὰς στρατείας εἰ ἐστράτευται (Arist. Ath. Pol. 55.3). 3 δυνάμενος Ιn the grammatical position of a predicate adjective. This periphrastic construction is attested in Attic oratory; cf. D. 19.53 ἦσαν ἀπιστοῦντές τινες αὐτόθι τῷ Φιλίππῳ καὶ νοῦν ἔχοντες; with participle of aorist: Antipho Tetr. B.4.5 τὸ μὲν μειράκιον οὐδενὸς μᾶλλον τῶν συμμελετώντων ἐστὶ τοῦ σκοποῦ

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 37)

245

ἁμαρτόν; [Lys.] 20.1 οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιβουλεύσαντες ἦσαν αὐτῶν (with Apostolakis 2003, ad loc.); Aerts 1965, 32–3. τοὺς πολεμίους … κακῶς ποιεῖν cf. Hdt. 8.130 εἴ  τι  δυναίατο  κακὸν  τοὺς  πολεμίους  ποιέειν; X. HG 4.8.23; An. 3.3.13; Cyr. 1.6.28; Mem. 2.3.14 καὶ  μὴν  πλείστου  γε  δοκεῖ ἀνὴρ ἐπαίνου ἄξιος εἶναι, ὃς ἂν  φθάνῃ  τοὺς  μὲν  πολεμίους κακῶς ποιῶν, τοὺς δὲ φίλους εὐεργετῶν. For the duty of a good citizen to defend his city and participate in war cf. above on the institution of dokimasia.

fr. 37 K.-A. (35 K.) τἀργύριόν ἐστιν αἷμα καὶ ψυχὴ βροτοῖς. ὅστις δὲ μὴ ἔχει τοῦτο μηδ’ ἐκτήσατο, οὗτος μετὰ ζώντων τεθνηκὼς περιπατεῖ 2 ἔχει SM, Mac.: ἔχη Α

3 οὗτος τεθν. περιπ. ζ. μέτα Nauck

money is lifeblood and soul for mortals. A man who doesn’t have it or hasn’t got it is a corpse walking among the living Stob. 4. 31a.16 , vol. V p. 738 H. Τιμοκλέους ∙ τἀργ. – περιπατεῖ Timocles’; money – living

Metre Iambic trimeter

lwwwl w|wl llwl llwl l|lwl llwl llwl llwl lwwwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 612–3; Kock II (1884) 466; PCG VII (1989) 779. Citation context In a long series of passages from a section devoted to the praise of wealth (ἔπαινος πλούτου). Text The v. 3 does not have a caesura proper, and Nauck 1894, 100 proposes οὗτος τεθνηκὼς περιπατεῖ ζώντων μέτα (the suggestion is approved by Hense). But the absence of caesura is not impossible in Timocles; cf. on frr. 7.1,4; 11.4,8; 14.3. Interpretation The speaking character in our fragment seems to be a person with some experience, e. g. an old father (durus senex), admonishing his spendthrift son. The passage seems to echo Hes. Op. 686 χρήματα γὰρ ψυχὴ πέλεται δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσιν “for property is life for wretched mortals”. Apparently said in a context where shortage of money is the point; cf. Timocles’ passages where there is a need for money: fr. 9.2 (the spendthrift Demotion does not save money, as if he

246

Timokles

always has it); fr. 11 (the parasite Corydus looks for the cheapest fish due to lack of money): fr. 30 (a gnome that poverty urges people to commit acts unworthy of them). 1 αἷμα For the metaphor ‘money as blood’ cf. Artem. 1.61 καὶ αἷμα ἀποκρίνεται, ὅπερ ἀργύριον εἶναι νενόμισται “and also blood is shed, which is thought to be money”; Cic. Verr. II.3.83 detrahere de sanguine aerari “to deduct from the blood of the treasury”; Att. 6.1.2 sanguinem mittere “be drained of ” (metaphorically); Hsch. α 8534 ἀφαιμάσαι · δαπανῆσαι, ἀπολειτουργῆσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι. ψυχή As a predicate; cf. Hes. Op. 686 (cited above); E. Andr. 418–9 πᾶσι δ’ ἀνθρώποις ἄρ’ ἦν / ψυχὴ τέκνα. Money is also considered the first priority in Thgn. 230 (a variant of Sol. 13.74) χρήματά τοι θνητοῖς γίνεται ἀφροσύνη; Pi. fr. 222; S. fr. 354.2–5 Radt καὶ γὰρ οἳ μακρὸν βίον / θνητῶν ἔχουσι, τοῦ γε κερδαίνειν ὅμως / ἀπρὶξ ἔχονται, κἄστι πρὸς τὰ χρήματα / θνητοῖσι τἄλλα δεύτερα; “for even mortals who have great wealth grasp at making gains, and for human beings all other things rank after money”; Ε. Ph. 439 τὰ χρήματ’ ἀνθρώποισι τιμιώτατα; Μed. 965 χρυσὸς δὲ κρείσσων μυρίων λόγων βροτοῖς; Antiph. fr. 229.1 ἆρ’ ἐστί λῆρος πάντα πρὸς τὸ χρυσίον. For the opposite argument cf. Alex. fr. 341 (dubium) ψυχὴν ἔχειν δεῖ πλουσίαν· τὰ δὲ χρήματα / ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ὄψις, παραπέτασμα τοῦ βίου “you must have a well-endowed soul; concerning money, that is just what it seems, a screen for life” (perhaps somebody is advising an impoverished friend, cf. Arnott 1996, ad loc.). 2 For the synecphonesis (-η and –ε running together) in μὴ ἔχει cf. E. fr. 326 Kannicht (from Danaē) κακὸς δ’ ὁ μὴ ἔχων, οἱ δ’ ἔχοντες †ὄλβιοι; West 1987, 14–5. ἔχειν is not identical in meaning with κτῆσθαι; the first means “hold in one’s hands”, the second “store in the house”; cf. S. Ant. 1277–9 Ὦ δέσποθ’, ὡς ἔχων τε καὶ κεκτημένος, / τὰ μὲν πρὸ χειρῶν τάδε φέρων, τὰ δ’ ἐν δόμοις / ἔοικας ἥκειν καὶ τάχ’ ὄψεσθαι κακά “Master, you seem like one with goods both present and in store: you have come bearing these sufferings in your arms, but will soon see others inside your house”; Αnd. 1.74 τὰ μὲν σώματα ἄτιμα ἦν, τὴν δ’ οὐσίαν εἶχον καὶ ἐκέκτηντο “they themselves were disenfranchised, but retained possession of their property”. The difference is exemplified in Plato: Tht. 197b Οὐ τοίνυν μοι ταὐτὸν φαίνεται τῷ κεκτῆσθαι τὸ ἔχειν. οἷον ἱμάτιον πριάμενός τις καὶ ἐγκρατὴς ὢν μὴ φορῶν, ἔχειν μὲν οὐκ ἂν αὐτὸν αὐτό, κεκτῆσθαί γε μὴν φαῖμεν “(Socrates) Well, then, having does not seem to me the same as possessing. For instance, if a man bought a cloak and has it under his control, but does not wear it, we should certainly say, not that he has it, but that he possesses it”; but cf. D. 4.6 πάντα κατέστραπται καὶ ἔχει “(Philip) has conquered and now possesses all (these places)”. 3 For a metaphorical use of νεκρός cf. Sannyr. fr. 2 Μέλητον τὸν ἀπὸ Ληναίου νεκρόν “Meletus, the corpse from the Lenaea”, with Orth 2014, ad loc.; Ar. fr. 156 (from Gērytadēs) 4–5 οὓς ᾖσμεν ὄντας ᾁδοφοίτας “those we knew as Hades-Haunters”; Aristopho fr. 8 ἐν ἡμέραις τρισὶν / ἰσχνότερον αὐτὸν ἀποφανῶ Φιλιππίδου. / :: οὕτως ἐν ἡμέραις ὀλίγαις νεκροὺς ποιεῖς; “in three days I will show

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 38)

247

forth him thinner than Philippides! B. You create corpses so quickly?”; Men. fr. 266 ὁ λιμὸς ὑμῖν τὸν καλὸν τοῦτον δακὼν / Φιλιππίδου λεπτότερον ἀποδείξει νεκρόν; Men. Kol. 50 ἄνθρωπε, πέρυσιν πτωχὸς ἦσθα καὶ νεκρός, / νυνὶ δὲ πλουτεῖς “fellow, last year you were a beggar and a corpse, and now you are rich”; Ph. Fug. et Inv. 55 καὶ ζῶντες ἔνιοι τεθνήκασι καὶ τεθνηκότες ζῶσι.226

fr. 38 K.-A. (36 K.) σῦκ’, ἔλαιον, ἰσχάδας, μέλι. (Β.) σὺ μὲν εἰρεσιώνην, οὐ γεωργίαν λέγεις figs, olives, dried figs, honey. (B.) But you are speaking about a harvest-wreath, not husbandry Clem. Al. Strom. 4.2.7 αὐτίκα οἱ Στρωματεῖς ἡμῶν, κατὰ τὸν γεωργόν (Γεωργὸν Meineke V.1, 1857, 96) Τιμοκλέους τοῦ κωμικοῦ, σῦκα – μέλι προσοδεύουσι, καθάπερ ἐκ παμφόρου χωρίου. δι’ ἥν εὐκαρπίαν ἐπιφέρει ∙ σὺ – λέγεις Just so our Stomateis, according to the farmer of the comic poet Timocles, will produce figs – honey, as from an all-productive field, on account of which exuberance he adds: but – husbandry

Metre Iambic trimeter

〈alw〉l wlw|l wlwl wwlwwl l|lwl wlwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 613; Kock II (1884) 466; PCG VII (1989) 780. Citation context In a section where the meaning of the name strōmata or miscellanies is explained. The author states that his treatise is large in a small space, as the “universal herbage of the field,” of the kind described in Sophocles (TrGF 398 (from Μάντεις) ἦν μὲν γὰρ οἰὸς μαλλός, ἦν δ’ 〈ἀπ’〉 ἀμπέλων / σπονδή 〈τε〉 καὶ ῥὰξ εὖ τεθησαυρισμένη, / ἐνῆν δὲ παγκάρπεια συμμιγὴς ὀλαῖς / λίπος τ’ ἐλαίου καὶ τὸ ποικιλώτατον / ξανθῆς μελίσσης κηρόπλαστον ὄργανον “for there was a sheep’s fleece, and also a vine, and a libation, and grapes well stored; and there was mixed with it fruit of all kinds, and the fat of the olive, and the most curious wax-formed work of the yellow bee.” Τherefore the strōmateis are compared with the oblation culled from all kinds of things of the sort contained in both Sophocles’ and Timocles’ fragments.

226

Cf. the metaphorical use of the modern Greek ψόφιος “gutless”, “lifeless”.

248

Timokles

Interpretation Agriculture personified (Γεωργία) probably appears on stage and is speaking with some Attic farmer, perhaps with Trygaeus himself (so Bergk, apud PCG VII [1989] ad loc.). In Aristophanes she is associated with Peace: fr. 305 (from Εἰρήνη β΄) (Γε.) τῆς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποισιν Εἰρήνης φίλης / πιστὴ τροφός, ταμία, συνεργός, ἐπίτροπος, / θυγάτηρ, ἀδελφή · πάντα ταῦτ’ ἐχρῆτό μοι. / (Β.) σοὶ δ’ ὄνομα δὴ τί ἐστιν; (Γε.) ὅ τι; Γεωργία “(Agr.) Of Peace, so dear to all mankind, a faithful nurse, housekeeper, helper, administrator, daughter and sister: all these she had in me. (B.) So what is your name? (A.) Mine? Agriculture”. For the association of this fragment with a supposed Timocles’ Γεωργός see under that title. The brief list of food contains domestic products of Attica. Perhaps an antithesis is expressed, between an idealized rich production and real agricultural conditions, which is usually depicted in late comedy, e. g. Philem. fr. 100 ἐγὼ τὸν ἀγρὸν ἰατρὸν ἐλελήθειν ἔχων· / τρέφει γὰρ οὗτος ὥσπερ ἀρρωστοῦντά με, / σιτάρια μικρὰ προσφέρων οἴνου θ’ ὅσον / ὀσμήν, λαχάνων τ’ ἀεί τι καὶ νὴ τὸν Δία / τὰ πετραῖα ταῦτ’ ὀψάρια, κάππαριν, θύμον, / ἀσπάραγον, αὐτὰ ταῦτα· καὶ δέδοικα μὴ / λίαν ἀπισχναίνων με ποιήσῃ νεκρόν“ “I didn’t realize Ι had my farm for a physician: for it nurtures me as though I were unwell, bearing little bits of grain, no more than a whiff of wine, forever a bit of vegetables and by Zeus these stony foodstuffs, capers, thyme, asparagus, such things; and I’m afraid lest by trimming me down too much it make a corpse of me”. 1 σῦκ’ Figs were fruits traditionally associated with Attica; cf. Antiph. fr. 177.1–4 (A.)οἷα δ’ ἡ χώρα φέρει / διαφέροντα† πάσης, Ἱππόνικε, τῆς οἰκουμένης, / τὸ μέλι, τοὺς ἄρτους, τὰ σῦκα. Β. σῦκα μέν, νὴ τὸν Δία, πάνυ φέρει “(A.) The products of this land, Hipponicus, better than those in the † whole inhabited world: honey, bread, figs! (B.) By Zeus, it indeed produces figs”. Fresh figs, which were distinguished from ἰσχάδες (on which see below) often appear in food lists; cf. Ar. Pax 575; Anaxandr. fr. 42.54; Demetr. Com. Vet. fr. 5; Antiph. fr. 177.3; Eub. fr. 74.2. ἔλαιον The same order occurs in Diphilus, in a passage where an ass carrying all kinds of products is compared with a basket: fr. 89.4 ἔλαιον, ἰσχάδας, μέλι; also in food lists in Philem. fr. 113. For olive oil, the most emblematic product of Attica, cf. Ar. Pl. 809; Dalby 2003, 237–40; Foxhall 2007. ἰσχάδας Dried figs, sometimes used as a luxury, e. g. in Ar. V. 296; in comedy also cf. Ach. 804–6; Pax 634; Lys. 647; Pl. 677, 798; Diph. fr. 89.4; Philem. fr. 105.3 πυρούς, ἔλαιον, οἶνον, ἰσχάδας, μέλι; García Soler 2001, 111–15. μέλι Mainly used with cheese, meat and cakes; it often appears in food lists, e. g. Antiph. fr. 177.3 (cited above); Philem. fr. 113.2. 2 εἰρεσιώνην An eiresiōnē was an olive or laurel branch wreathed with bands of wool and decorated with seasonal products, bread, olive oil and honey; it was dedicated to Apollo every year at the Pyanopsia and hung on the door; cf. carm. pop. 2 Diehl: εἰρεσιώνη σῦκα φέρει καὶ πίονας ἄρτους / καὶ μέλι ἐν κοτύλῃ καὶ ἔλαιον ἀναψήσασθαι / καὶ κύλικ’ εὐζώροιο, ὅπως μεθύουσα καθεύδῃ “eiresiōnē brings figs and fat loaves of bread and honey in a pot and olive oil to rub on one’s

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 39)

249

body and strong wine too in a cup, so that she can get drunk and go to sleep”; Ar. Pl. 1054, with Sommerstein 2001 ad loc.; Eup. fr. 131, with Olson 2017, 452–3; Schönberger 1941; Deubner 1932, 198–200; Parke 1977, 75–82. 2 οὐ γεωργίαν λέγεις Agriculture in comedy is ambivalent. It is sometimes associated with peace and wealth (e. g. Ar. fr. 305, cited above), but usually, especially in Middle and New Comedy, it is a synonym for difficulties and poverty, e. g. Philem. fr. 85 ἀεὶ γεωργὸς εἰς νέωτα πλούσιος “a farmer is always rich next year”; fr. 100 (cited above). For the interlocutor’s comment cf. Alex. fr. 249.4 ἔργον τυράννων, οὐκ ἀγορανόμων λέγεις; 224.3 συμφορὰν λέγεις ἄκραν; Men. fr. 334.6 πρᾶγμ’ ἄμαχον λέγεις.

fr. 39 K.-A. (37 K.) Χῖοι πολύ ἄριστ’ ἀνευρήκασιν ὀψαρτυσίαν 2 ἄριστ’ … ὀψαρτυσίαν Austin (-ας Desrousseaux): ἄρϊστ’ … ὀψαρτς C: ἄριστ’ … -τυτικήν Casaubon: ἄριστ’ … -κά vel πρώτιστ’ … -κήν Meineke

the Chians have made the finest innovations in the art of cookery Αth. Epit. 1.25f μαρτυροῦνται γὰρ καὶ Χῖοι οὐκ ἔλαττον τῶν προειρημένων ἐπὶ ὀψαρτυτικῇ. Τιμοκλῆς · Xῖοι – ὀψαρτυσίαν For Chians also are credited with fine dining no less than the people just mentioned; Timocles: the Chians – art of cookery

Μetre Iambic trimeter

〈alwl alwl〉 llwl wlwl llw|l llwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 613; Kock II (1884) 31; Bevilacqua 1939, 33; Edmonds II (1959) 624–5; PCG VII (1989) 780. Citation context In this passage of Athenaeus, Chians, along with Sicilians and Sybarites, are credited with the tradition of seasoning food, and therefore with luxurious life. Also Eustathius (in Iliad. 4.936) reproduces Athenaeus’ information almost verbatim, but without mentioning Timocles. For this sort of information cf. Ath. 12.516c πρῶτοι δὲ Λυδοὶ καὶ τὴν καρύκην ἐξεῦρον, περὶ ἧς τῆς σκευασίας οἱ τὰ Ὀψαρτυτικὰ συνθέντες εἰρήκασιν “And the Lydians were also the first people to invent the use of the sauce called caruca, on

250

Timokles

the preparation of which all those who have written cookery books have spoken a good deal”. Text ὀψαρτυσίαν is Austin’s reading of the transmitted abbreviated word. Βut Casaubon’s ὀψαρτυτικὴν (cf. Meineke 1867, 12; 1840, 613 and Kock 1884, 466) may well be correct, given that the word seems to refer to the art of cookery rather than to a cookery book; cf. below on v. 2. Interpretation The fragment shares with Timocl. fr. 3 (from Daktylios) the mention of the art of seasoning food, and it may be delivered by a cook (cf. e. g. Diphil. fr. 17), perhaps in the context of the preparation of a luxurious dinner. Xῖοι The Chians traditionally had a reputation for luxury and effeminacy; cf. Petron. 63.3, where Trimalchio is said to have lived a Chian life from his youth up (nam a puero vitam Chiam gessi). A famous chef from Chios was Semonactides, who is said to have written cookery books; cf. Bato Com. fr. 4.3–5 καὶ βιβλί’ ἐν ταῖς χερσί, καὶ φροντίζομεν / τί Σόφων καταλέλοιπ’ ἢ τί Σημωνακτίδης / ὁ Χῖος “and we hold books in our hands, and we consider what Sopho has left behind, or Semonactides of Chios”; Poll. 6.70–71, who includes Semonactides in a list of authors of cookery books, who have written on the art of dressing food (περὶ τὴν ἡδυντικὴν σκευασίαν). A Chian cook named Nereus is also mentioned in Euphro (fr. 1.1–6 Nηρεὺς δ’ ὁ Χῖος γόγγρον ἦψε τοῖς θεοῖς “the Chian Nereus set on fire a conger-eel for the gods”). He might be the same Nereus to whom Anaxandrides has devoted a whole play (so Kassel-Austin ad Euphro fr. 1.6); but cf. Millis 2016, 145 who rejects this identification. 1–2 πολὺ / ἄριστα An intensive combination of an adverb with a superlative; cf. E. Alc. 442 πολὺ δὴ πολὺ δὴ γυναῖκ’ ἀρίσταν “much much the best woman”; Ar. Av. 539 πολὺ δὴ πολὺ χαλεπωτάτους λόγους; Hermipp. fr. 77.4 τούτων ἐγὼ κρίνω πολὺ πάντων εἶναι ἄριστον; Archestr. fr. 35.9–10 Olson–Sens πολὺ δή, πολὺ πάντων / ἐνταῦθ’ εἰσὶν ἄριστοι ἔχουσί τε τέρματα νίκης. 2 ἀνευρήκασιν Most probably in the sense “have made innovations in an already existing art”; cf. Antiph. fr. 11.4 ὁ τὴν Θεοδέκτου μόνος ἀνευρηκὼς τέχνην; Pl. Phdr. 273c δεινῶς γ’ ἔοικεν ἀποκεκρυμμένην τέχνην ἀνευρεῖν ὁ Τεισίας; Phlb. 16c; 57b; cf. also on Timocl. fr. 6.4. ὀψαρτυσίαν The term here probably denotes ‘the art of seasoning’; cf. on Timocl. fr. 3.2 σκευάζεται. The same word is also used of a cookery-book (usually in fourth-century in verse; cf. the parodic Hēdypatheia by Archestratus); cf. Pl. Com. fr. 189.4 Φιλοξένου καινή τις ὀψαρτυσία (a new cookery book by Philoxenus); Alex. fr. 140, where the musician Linus is represented as Heracles’ teacher; from among Linus’ books the glutton Heracles picks up a cookery manual. For cookery books cf. Ath. 12.516c and 7.308f and Poll. 6.70–1; Arnott 1996, 412; Pirotta 2009, 358–9.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 40)

251

fr. 40 K.-A. (3 Dem.) θεὸς μὲν δηλαδὴ ἀγαθὴ τύχη τ’ ἔνεστιν manifestly there is god and good luck in it Phot. α 70 Τheodoridis ἀγαθὴ τύχη (Ἀγαθῇ Τύχῃ Reitzenstein) · τοῦτο προγραφόμενον οἴονταί τινες 〈***〉 ἔνιοι δὲ προστιθέασι τὸ καὶ θεός, ὡς Πλάτων ἐν τρίτῳ Νόμων … καὶ Τιμοκλῆς · θεὸς – ἔνεστιν Good fortune; some think that this (i. e. the adjective ἀγαθή) must be written first; others add the “and God”, as Plato in the third book of The Laws … and Timocles; “manifestly – in it”.

Metre Iambic trimeter

〈alwl al〉wl wwlwl wlw

llwl

Discussion Demiańczuk 1912, 89; PCG VII (1989) 780. Citation context Timocles’ fragment is cited as an example that the invocation of good fortune sometimes includes an invocation to the gods. Reitzenstein notes a lacuna of 1/3 of a line in b; Thodoridis notes: “post τινες signum :- (=finis glossae) et spatium unius lineae in z” and suggests a praeceptum grammaticorum like Helladius ap. Phot. Bibl. 529b 33 καίτοι λέγοντες ἀγαθὴ τύχη λέγουσι καὶ τύχη ἀγαθή. Interpretation The adverb δηλαδὴ suggests an explanatory remark (perhaps an answer to something said earlier, or a conclusion drawn after some reasoning in a (comically perverse?) theological context; cf. Procl. Theol. Plat. 5.67 πρῶτον μὲν δηλαδὴ τὸ θεοὺς αὐτοὺς εἶναι θεῶν. 1 δηλαδή Colloquial (cf. Stevens 1976, 46), also used in elliptical answers (e. g. Ar. V. 441 [with Biles–Olson 2015 ad loc.] οὐ πόλλ’ ἔνεστι τῷ γήρᾳ κακά; δηλαδή); Ec. 1157 (in a parenthetical sentence); Alex. fr. 177. 6; Epig. fr. 6. 5; Com. adesp. fr. 1093. 119. 2 ἀγαθὴ τύχη Demiańczuk 1912, 89 prints ἀγαθὴ Τύχη; cf. Reitzenstein on Phot. α 70 (cited above). This common formula is used in different contexts, both public, e. g. Th. 4. 118. 11; IG I3 40. 40, and private, e. g. in personal prayers: Ar. Th. 283; Pl. Cri. 43d; cf. Olson 2015, on Ar. V. 869. Ιt is also interesting that the worship of the deity Ἀγαθὴ Τύχη is attested in Athens in the fourth century; cf. IG II2 1195, 13–15 (= pl. 53, fr. c, 28–30, ed. Walbank 1994), dated after 327/6 BC, which mentions sacrifices offered by the demesmen of Collytus for the safety of the Athenians, the first recipient being Ἀγαθὴ Τύχη: τὰς δὲ πρ[ώτας θυσίας τ]ὰς τῶν δη[μότων ὑ]πάρχειν Ἀγαθῇ Τύ[χῃ εἰς σω]τηρίαν τοῦ δ[ήμου το]ῦ Ἀθηναίων. The same deity is also mentioned in IG

252

Timokles

II2 333c, 19–20, in a decree proposed by Lycurgus, within the frame of regulations concerning the Athenian cults. For the coexistence of god and this deity in inscriptions cf. IG II2 4627 (in Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek in Copenhagen), where Agathē Tychē is mentioned as the wife of Zeus Epiteleios Philios. Tracy 1994, 243 notes the rapid development of the worship of Agathē Tychē during the period 360–320 BC and argues that the frequency of references to that deity in inscriptions preserving decrees of the same period might be more than accidental. For the combination θεὸς and ἀγαθὴ τύχη cf. Pl. Lg. 757e … θεὸν καὶ ἀγαθὴν τύχην καὶ τότε ἐν εὐχαῖς ἐπικαλουμένους ἀπορθοῦν αὐτοῖς τὸν κλῆρον πρὸς το δικαιότατον “calling upon God and good luck to guide for them the lot aright towards the highest justice”; Ep. vi (322c) ἐμοὶ φαίνεται θεῶν τις ὑμῖν τύχην ἀγαθήν, ἂν εὖ δέξησθε, εὐμενῶς καὶ ἱκανῶς παρασκευάζειν “some God, as it seems to me, is preparing for you fortune in a gracious and bountiful way, if only you accept it with grace”; Cri. 43d; D.H. 3.48.1 (Λοκόμων) εὐξάμενος τοῖς θεοῖς ἐπιτελῆ γενέσθαι τὰ μαντεύματα καὶ σὺν ἀγαθαῖς εἰσελθεῖν τύχαις “he besought the gods that the prediction might be fulfilled and that his arrival might be attended with good fortune”; Cf. Men. Mon. 247 θεῷ μάχεσθαι δεινόν ἐστι καὶ τύχῃ.

fr. 41 K.-A. (38 K.) μὰ γῆν, μὰ κρήνας, μὰ ποταμούς, μὰ νάματα by earth, by springs, by rivers, by streams [Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 845b προελθὼν δὲ πάλιν εἰς τὰς ἐκκλησίας, νεωτερικῶς τινα λέγων διεσύρετο, ὡς κωμῳδηθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπ’ Ἀντιφάνους (fr. 288) καὶ Τιμοκλέους ∙ μὰ – νάματα· ὀμόσας δὲ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐν τῷ δήμῳ θόρυβον ἐκίνησεν Later, when he spoke again in the Assembly, he was ridiculed (as we find in comedies by Antiphanes and Timocles) for certain novel expressions such as: ‘By Earth – by streams’. It was by swearing in this way that he caused an uproar in the assembly. Plu. Dem. 9.4 ὧν Ἐρατοσθένης (FGrHist 241 F 32) μέν φησιν αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις πολλαχοῦ γεγονέναι παράβακχον, ὁ δὲ Φαληρεὺς (FGrHist 228 F 16: fr. 163,164 W) τὸν ἔμμετρον ἐκεῖνον ὅρκον ὀμόσαι ποτὲ πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ὥσπερ ἐνθουσιῶντα ∙ μὰ – νάματα. Of these, Eratosthenes says that often in his speeches Demosthenes was like a Bacchanal, while the Phalerean says that once, as if under inspiration, he swore the famous metrical oath to the people: ‘by earth – by streams’. Schol. Ar. Av. 194 (μὰ γῆν, μὰ παγίδας, μὰ νεφέλας, μὰ δίκτυα) oὕτω δὲ τὰ προστυχόντα ὤμνυον · μὰ κρήνας (-ης R), μὰ γῆν, μὰ ποταμούς.

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 41)

253

(by earth, by traps, by networks, by nets) they used to swear ex tempore; by springs, by earth, by rivers.

Metre Iambic trimeter

wlwl l|wwwl wlwl

Discussion Meineke III (1840) 613; Kock II (1884) 466; Fraenkel 1962, 71–5; PCG VII (1989) 781; Dunbar 1996, 148. Citation context This oath is cited in different sources. The only one attributed to Timocles is from pseudo-Plutarch, who also mentions Antiphanes. According to Photius (Bibl. 493b Bekker), such oaths delivered by Demosthenes caused an uproar in the Assembly, and it is said that Demosthenes corrected his delivery with the help of a tutor: Ὤμνυ δέ, ὡς ὁ Φαληρεύς φησι, «Μὰ γῆν, μὰ κρήνας, μὰ ποταμούς, μὰ νάματα». Καὶ δὴ καί ποτε ὀμόσας τοὺς ὅρκους τούτους τῷ δήμῳ θόρυβον ἐνεποίησεν. Photius’ statement is almost identical to pseudo-Plutarch’s mention, with the exception that the lexicographer attributes the information on Demosthenes’ famous oath to Demetrius of Phalerum rather than Antiphanes and Timocles. It is worth noting that Plutarch, in the biography of Demosthenes, also associates the oath with Demetrius of Phalerum. Should we believe that Photius critically used pseudo-Plutarch as his main source, correcting it in some points with the help of supplementary sources? For the relevant problems cf. Roisman 2015, 31–2. Besides, Plutarch in the Life of Demosthenes (9.4) reports that Eratosthenes has also called Demosthenes a “Bacchanal”; Also the papyrus P.S.I. 144.8–10 seems to repeat that mention: καὶ Ἐρατοσ[θένης δέ φη]σι τὸν Δη[μοσθένην ὅρκον ὀ] μωμοκέν[αι ἔμμετρον, παράβακ]χον δ’ ἐν π[ολλοῖς γεγονέναι “and Eratosthenes reports that Demosthenes has sworn a metrical oath, and that he often spoke like a Bacchanal”. West 1979, 428 misses the oath itself in the text of the papyrus and wonders whether Eratosthenes denied the Demosthenian authorship of that oath. She also notes that it would be easy to insert a negative in the restored papyrus text. But this suggestion seems unconvincing to me. The Byzantine writer Michael Choniates (12th cent. AD), in Or. 1.5.15 cites the Demosthenic oath as an example of ῥητορευόντων παράβακχα “theatrical devices of those practicing oratory” and διθυράμβων φορτικώτερα “more vulgar than dithyrambs”. Interpretation According to the sources, Demosthenes in his passionate enthusiasm had once delivered this pompous oath. This was parodied by contemporary comedians, either Timocles or Antiphanes or both (pace Blass 1880, 67, who blames both Meineke and Kock for including this verse in the fragments of Antiphenes and Timocles; on subjects common to the two comedians cf. Introduction, under “Themes and Motifs“). We should take into account Demosthenes’ inclination to such bombastic expressions, pathetic oath formulas in particular; cf. the famous oath to the Marathonians in D. 18.208, which includes an anadiplōsis and

254

Timokles

an invocation to dead heroes: ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἡμάρτετ’, ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁπάντων ἐλευθερίας καὶ σωτηρίας κίνδυνον ἀράμενοι, μὰ τοὺς Μαραθῶνι προκινδυνεύσαντας τῶν προγόνων, καὶ τοὺς ἐν Πλαταιαῖς παραταξαμένους, καὶ τοὺς ἐν Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχήσαντας καὶ τοὺς ἐπ’ Ἀρτεμισίῳ, καὶ πολλοὺς ἑτέρους … ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας “But you were not wrong, no, you were not, men of Athens, to take on danger for the sake of the freedom and safety of all—I swear it by our forefathers who led the fight at Marathon, by those who stood in array of battle at Plataea, by those who fought aboard ship at Salamis and Artemisium, and by the many other brave men”; also the information that he often caused an uproar in the Assembly when swearing to Asclepius with the stress on the ‘ē’ rather than the ‘o’, suggesting by his pronunciation that the god was ēpios “gentle” ([Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 845a); and finally, the description of his style as “empty braggart talk” by some comedian, who might be Timocles himself (Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 9.5 τῶν δὲ κωμικῶν ὁ μέν τις αὐτὸν ἀποκαλεῖ ῥωποπερπερήθραν). That Antiphanes or Timocles or both parodied this oath is strong proof that it was indeed delivered by Demosthenes. But its origin is a more difficult matter. Especially interesting is the final colon μὰ νάματα, a word which belongs to high poetry. In comedy it only occurs in passages with tragic colour, e. g. Ar. Ec. 14 Βακχίου τε νάματος; Antiph. fr. 55.7 ξουθῆς μελίσσης νάμασιν, within the context of parody of the dithyrambic style; Fraenkel 1962, 73. It seems that μὰ νάματα was added by some comedian to the oath actually or supposedly delivered by Demosthenes, for the sake of parody. Concerning the source of such an invention, it might well be drawn from real life, as an old-fashioned formula surviving even at a late age; cf. the oath of the Ephebes of Dreros (3rd cent.) SIG3 527: l.15 ὀμνύω τὰν Ἑστίαν … 31 καὶ τὰγ Γᾶν καὶ τὸν Οὐρανὸν … 34–36 καὶ κράνας καὶ ποταμούς καὶ θεοὺς πάντας καὶ πάσας; Austin 2006, 208–9. On the other hand, as Fraenkel 1962, 74–5 has convincingly pointed out, it seems more plausible that Demosthenes’ oath was an otherwise unattested tragic verse of the fifth century. Evidence for this is its parodic use in Ar. Av. 194 μὰ γῆν, μὰ παγίδας, μὰ νεφέλας, μὰ δίκτυα, in order to adapt it to bird conditions. The verse is included by Kannicht–Snell in TrGF II as Trag. adesp. fr. 123a; cf. Wankel II 1166 (on D. 18.123); Dunbar 1996, 148. It might be indicative that Demosthenes cites a long passage from Sophocles’ Antigonē (vv. 175–90) in the speech On the False Embassy (D. 19.247). For the use of poetry by Athenian orators cf. Dorjahn 1927, 85–93; Perlman 1964, 155–72; Apostolakis 2007, 179–92. Moreover, Fraenkel 1962, 74 notes that a satyr-play origin should not be excluded. The distortion of similar solemn oath formulas does occur in this genre, e. g. in E. Cyc. 262–5 (Silenus is speaking) μὰ τὸν Ποσειδῶ τὸν τεκόντα σ’, ὦ Κύκλωψ, / μὰ τὸν μέγαν Τρίτωνα καὶ τὸν Νηρέα, / μὰ τὴν Καλυψὼ τάς τε Νηρέως κόρας, / μὰ θαἰερὰ κύματ’ ἰχθύων τε πᾶν γένος “I swear by your father Poseidon, by those stalwarts, Triton and Nereus, by fair Calypso and Nereus’ daughters, by the waves themselves, by all sorts of fish”. However, if Demosthenes intended to emotionally charge his audience, as he did in the case of the oath to the Marathon

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 42)

255

fighters, it is unlikely that he would subvert his attempt by using a verse derived from a satyr play. Such oaths intend to emotionally load the audience and are probably supported by appropriate gestures and delivery. Demosthenes repeatedly denounces Aeschines, his major rival, for uttering tragic invocations on the oratorical platform; cf. D. 18.127 ὥσπερ ἐν τραγῳδίᾳ βοῶντα ‘ὦ γῆ καὶ ἥλιε καὶ ἀρετὴ’ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα “shouting as if on the tragic stage, ‘O earth and sun and virtue’ and suchlike”. On the other hand, Demosthenes himself was famous for his actio; cf. Serafim 2017, esp. pp. 60–64; 83. Timocles, in particular, seems to satirize this aspect of his oratorical art; cf. on frr. 12 and 14. 1 Cf. Hom. Il. 3.276–80 Ζεῦ πάτερ Ἴδηθεν μεδέων κύδιστε μέγιστε, / ἠέλιός θ’, ὃς πάντ’ ἐφορᾷς καὶ πάντ’ ἐπακούεις, / καὶ ποταμοὶ καὶ γαῖα, καὶ οἳ ὑπένερθε καμόντας / ἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ, / ὑμεῖς μάρτυροι ἔστε, φυλάσσετε δ’ ὅρκια πιστά “Zeus, Father, Lord of Ida, most glorious in power, and you Sun, who see and hear all, Rivers and Earth, and you who in the realms below chastise those mortals who have broken their oath, witness and protect these sacred Oaths”. For the reiteration μὰ …μὰ cf. Call. fr. 194.105–6 Pfeiffer ]ς οὐ μὰ Φοῖβον, οὐ μὰ δέσποιναν, / … οὐ μὰ Πακτ[ωλόν; Aeschrio 7.345 οὐ γάρ, μὰ τὸν Ζῆν’, οὐ μὰ τοὺς κάτω κούρους. Men. Dysc. 666–7 μὰ τὴν Δήμητρα, μὰ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν, / μὰ τοὺς θεούς; Sam. 309–10 μὰ τὸν Διόνυσον, μὰ τὸν Ἀπόλλω τουτονί, / μὰ τὸν Δία τὸν Σωτῆρα, μὰ τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν. For similar repeated oaths with νή cf. S. fr. 957 Radt νὴ τὼ Λαπέρσα, νὴ τὸν Εὐρώταν τρίτον, / νὴ τοὺς ἐν Ἄργει καὶ κατὰ Σπάρτην θεούς. This line is exceptional for the omission of the article; apart from oaths to Zeus, everywhere else in such ‘informal’ oaths the article is obligatory. The only other passage where the article is omitted in the classical period in such oath formulas is Pl. Smp. 219c μὰ θεοὺς, μὰ θεὰς, where Alcibiades swears that Socrates demonstrated incredible continence and refused to meet his young pupil’s desire; cf. Sommerstein 2014a, 315, who defines as ‘informal’ the oaths occurring in prose texts or in less-elevated poetry.

fr. 42 K.-A. (39 K.) Hsch. α 6887 Latte † ἀπυξῖνος † ∙ ἀπὸ νευρᾶς. Τιμοκλῆς † apyxinos †; apo neuras. Timocles

Intepretation The Hesychian gloss mentions Timocles without further explanation. The transmitted ἀπυξῖνος is obviously corrupt. H. Stephanus, ThesLG (1572) V. p. 520C, may be right in correcting into ἀπεξίνου · ἀπενεύρου, rather than Ellis’ (1885, 291) ἀπεξινοῖ · ἀπονευροῖ; for the historical tense cf. Ηsch.α 5985 Latte

256

Timokles

ἀπεξινησάμην · ἀπεξεφόρησα. ἢ ἐξεκένωσα. ἢ ἀπεθέμην “apexinēsamēn; ‘I carried out from’; or ‘I evacuated’; or ‘I deposited’. The verb literary means “carry away the sinews through evacuation”; cf. Poll. 4.179 τὸ δὲ κενῶσαι διὰ καθάρσεως καὶ ἐξινῶσαι λέγουσιν, καὶ ἐξινωμένον ἡ κωμωδία (com. adesp. fr. 778) τὸν κεκαθαρμένον φησίν, ὡς ἐκ τῶν ἰνῶν φερομένης τῆς χολῆς · τὸν δ’ αὐτὸν καὶ ὑπερινωμένον φασὶ καὶ ὑπέρινον “carrying off through evacuation is also called ‘stripping of sinews’ (exinōsai); and comedy calls stripped of sinews (exinōmenon) the person who has evacuated by purgatives, on the grounds that sinews carry off the gall; the same is also called violently purged (hyperinōmenon and hyperinon)”; cf. Hsch. ε 3904 Latte ἐξινώμενον (ἐξινούμενον Blaydes)· ἐκκενούμενον · ἐκστραγγιζόμενον · λέγεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν χολὴν καθαιρομένων “exinōmenon (exinoumenon Blaydes); ‘evacuated’; ‘strained out’; it is said of those who are purged by the removal of gall”; Phot. ε 1238 Theod. ἐξινωμένος · κεκαθαρμένος. καὶ ὑπέρινος ὁ ὑπερκεκαθαρμένος “exinōmenos; ‘purged’; and hyperinos ‘the overpurged’; Phot. ι 134 Τheod. ἰνᾶσθαι · καθαίρεσθαι, ἐκκενοῦσθαι. καὶ ὑπέρινος · ὁ ὑπερκεκαθαρμένος; “inasthai; ‘to be purged’, ‘to be evacuated’; and hyperinos; “the overpurged”; cf. υ 123 Theod. (= Ael. Dion. ι 13; cf. Phryn. PS 120.12) ὑπέρινος · ὑπερκεκαθαρμένος· οὕτως Δημήτριος (Demetr. II fr. 4); “hyperinos; ‘overpurged’; so Demetrius”; Gal. Ling. seu dict. exol. 19.98 ἐξινοῖ: ἐκκενοῖ; “exinoi: “(he) evacuates”. Cf. Lyc. Alex. 841 (said of Medousa) φάλαινα δυσμίσητος ἐξινωμένη “the hateful whale, whose sinews are slashed to pieces”. The word might belong to the medical vocabulary (for medical terms in Timocles cf. on fr. 11.7 ἡιμωδία), e. g. in a context of preparing medicines; cf. Gal. Compos. Medic. 12.672 ἔστι γὰρ ἄλυπόν τε καὶ ἄδηκτον φάρμακον … εἰ παλαιὸν στέαρ ὑὸς ἄναλον ἐξινίσας μίξειεν “one can prepare a harmless and not repulsive medicine, by mixing (with the ashes of shellfish) old unsalted pork suet, after slashing its sinews to pieces”. Cf. the quasi-technical μαλάξας in Timocl. fr. 20.4 (with reference to straining lupins to remove their bitter taste, before using them as a medicine against starvation).

257

Bibliography Adkins, A. W. H. (1976): “Polupragmosune and ‘Minding One’s Own Business’”, CPh 71, 301–27. Adler, A. (1928–1938): Suidae Lexicon, I–V, Leipzig. Aerts, W. J. (1965): Periphrastica, Amsterdam. Aitchison, J. M. (1963): “Homeric ἄνθος”, Glotta 41, 271–78. Amyx, D. A. (1958): “The Attic Stelai, Part III. Vases and Other Containers”, Hesperia 27.3, 163–254. Anderson, J. (1902): Zoology of Egypt. Mammalia, rev. by W.E. de Winton, London. Anderson, R. D. (2000): A Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms, Leuven. APF= Davies, J. K. (1971): Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C., Oxford. Apostolakis, K. (2003): [Λυσίου] Ὑπὲρ Πολυστράτου. Εἰσαγωγή, Κείμενο, Μετάφραση, Ἑρμηνευτικό Ὑπόμνημα, Athens. Apostolakis, K. (2007): “Tragic patterns in forensic speeches”, C&M 58, 179–92. Apostolakis, K. (2009): [Δημοσθένους] Πρὸς Φαίνιππον περὶ ἀντιδόσεως, Athens. Apostolakis, K. (2014): “Στο λυκόφως της πολιτικής σάτιρας: Ο Τιμοκλής και οι ρήτορες”, in Ταμιωλάκη M. (ed.) Νέες τάσεις στην έρευνα της Αρχαίας Κωμωδίας, Rethymno, 103–24. Arnott W. G. (1957): “Split Anapaests with special emphasis to some passages of Alexis”, CQ 7, 188–98. Arnott, W. G. (1959): “Porson’s Law and Middle Comedy”, RM 102, 190–1. Arnott, W. G. (1972): “From Aristophanes to Menander”, G&R 19, 65–80. Arnott, W. G. (1996): Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary, Cambridge. Arnott, W. G. (2007): Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z, London / New York. Arnott, W. G. (2010): “Middle Comedy”, in G.W. Dobrov (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, Leiden / Boston, 279–331. Auhagen, U. (2009): Die Hetäre in der griechischen und römischen Komödie (Zetemata 135), Munich. Austin, C. / Olson, S. D. (2004): Aristophanes. Thesmophoriazusae. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Austin, M. M. (2006): The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, Cambridge. Babington, C. (1853): Ὑπερείδου λόγοι. β. The orations of Hyperides for Lycophron and Euxenippus (ed. pr.), Cambridge. Babiniotis, G. (2009): Ετυμολογικό Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Athens. Badian, E. (1961): “Harpalus”, JHS 81, 16–43. Bagordo, A. (2013): Telekleides. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 4), Heidelberg. Bagordo, A. (2014a): Alkimenes–Kantharos. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 1.1), Heidelberg. Bagordo, A. (2014b): Leukon–Xenophilos. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 1.2), Heidelberg. Bagordo, A. (2016): Aristophanes fr. 590–674. Übersetzung und Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 10.9), Heidelberg. Bain, D. (1977): Actors and Audience: A Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek Drama, Oxford. Bakola, E. (2010): Cratinus and the Art of Comedy, Oxford.

258

Bibliography

Barbiero, E. A. (2014): Reading between the lines: Letters in Plautus, diss. Toronto. Bayliss, A. J. (2011): After Demosthenes. The Politics of Early Hellenistic Athens, London / New York. Bechtel, B. (1898): Die einstämmigen männlichen Personnamen des Griechischen die aus Spitznamen hervorgegangen sind, Berlin. Bechtel, B. (1902): Die attischen Frauennamen nach ihrem Systeme dargestellt, Göttingen. Beekes, R. (2010): Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden. Bernabé, A. / Jiménez San Cristóbal (2008): Instructions for the Netherworld. The Orphic Gold Tablets, Leiden and Boston. Bernays, J. (1879): “Timokles und Lessing”, RhM 34, 615–616. Bevilacqua, V. (1939): “Timocle”, Dioniso 7, 25–62. Bianchi, F. P. (2015): Cratino. Archilochoi–Empipramenoi. Introduzione, Traduzione, commento (Fragmenta Comica 3.2), Heidelberg. Biles, Z. / Olson, D. S. (2015): Aristophanes. Wasps. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Blass, F. (1880): Die attische Beredsamkeit, III.2, Leipzig. Blaydes, F. M. (1890), Adversaria in Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, I, Halle. Boardman, J. (1970): Greek Gems and Finger Rings, London. Boegehold, A. (1995): The Lawcourts at Athens. Sites, Buildings, Procedure and Testimonia (The Athenian Agora XXVIII), Princeston. Boerner, R. (1912): “Γυναικονόμοι”, RE VII, 2089–90. Bothe, F. H. (1855): Poetarum Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Paris. Braswell, B. K. (1988): A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar, Berlin / New York. Braund, D. (2000): “Learning, Luxury and Empire: Athenaeus’ Roman Patron” in Braund, D. / Wilkins, J. (edd.) Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 3–22. Breitenbach, Η. (1908): De genere quodam titulorum Comoediae Atticae, Basel. Bremmer, J. (1997): “Jokes, Jokers and Jokebooks in Ancient Greek Culture” in J. Bremmer / H. Roodenburg (edd.), A Cultural History of Humour, Malden, 11–28. Bryce, T. et alii (2009): The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia, London / New York. Burns, A. R. (1927): Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times, London. Campagner, R. (2001): Lessico agonistico di Aristofane, Rome / Pisa. Campbell, A. C. (1982): The Hamlyn Guide to the Flora and Fauna of the Mediterranean Sea, London. Capps, E. (1900) : “Chronological Studies in the Greek Tragic and Comic Poets”, AJPh 21, 38–61. Carey, C.-Reid, R. A. (1985): Selected Private Speeches, Cambridge. Carey, C. (2000): Aeschines, Austin. Carlier, P. (1990): Demosthène, Paris. Caroli, M. (2014): Cratino il Giovane e Ofelione: Poeti della Comedia di mezzo, Bari. Casaubon, I. (1621): Animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas Libri XV, Lyon. Casolari, F. (2003): Die Mythentravestie in der griechischen Komedie, Münster. CGFPR= Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta in Papyris Reperta (ed. C. Austin, 1973), Berlin / New York. Chantraine, P. (2009): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, nouvelle édition, Paris.

Bibliography

259

Chirico, M. L. (1995–6): “Timocle fr. 1 K.-A.”, Museum Criticum 30–31, 219–228. Chirico, M. L. (1996): “Timocle fr. 2 K.-A.”, in G. Germano / S. Monti (edd.), Classicita, Medioevo e Umanesimo. Studi in onore di S. Monti, Napoli, 27–33. Chronopoulos, S. (2006): “Hierokleides oder Pherekleides? Hermipp. fr. 39 und Phryn. fr. 18 K.-A.”, Eikasmos 17, 137–143. Cipolla, P. (2003): Poeti minori del drama satiresco. Testo critico, traducione e comment. Supplemento di Lexis XXIII, Amsterdam. Clements, A. (2013): “Looking Mustard”: Greek Popular Epistemology and the Meaning of δριμύς” in S. Butler / A. Purves (edd.), Synaesthesia and the Ancient Senses, Durham, 74–7. Cobet, C. G. (1847): Oratio de arte interpretandi Grammatices et Critices Fundamentis innixa Primario Philologi officio, Lyon. Cobet, C. G. (1873): Variae Lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores Graecos, Lyon. Cobley, L. S. (1956): An Introduction to the Botany of Tropical Crops, London. Cohen, E. (1992): Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective, Princeton. Cohen, E. (2006): “Free and Unfree Sexual Work. An Economic Analysis of Athenian Prostitution”, in C. A. Faraone / L. K. McClure (edd.) Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, Madison, 95–124. Commentale, N. (2017): Ermippo. Introduzione, traduzione e commento (Fragmeta Comica 6), Heidelberg. Constantinides, E. (1969): “Ikarioi Satyroi: A Reconsideration”, TAPhA 100, 49–61. Cooper, C. (1995): “Hyperides and the Trial of Phryne”, Phoenix 49, 303–18. Copley, F. (1956): Exclusus Amator. A Study in Latin Love Poetry, Ann Arbor. Coppola, G. (1927): “Per la Storia della Commedia Greca: Timocles Ateniese e Difilo di Sinope”, RFIC 55.5, 453–67. Christ, M. (1998): The Litigious Athenian, Baltimore / London. Croally, N. (2005): “Tragedy’s Teaching”, in J. Gregory (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy, Oxford, 55–70. Crusius, O. (1889): “Der homerische Dionysushymnus und die Legende von der Verwandlung der Tyrsener”, Philologus 48, 193–228. Csapo, E. / Slater, W. J. (edd. 1995): Context of Ancient Drama, Michigan. Csapo, E. / Rupprecht G. / Green, R. J. / Wilson P. (edd.) (2014): Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century, Berlin / Boston. Cunningham, M. P. (1950): “Didactic Purpose in the Oresteia”, CP 45.3, 183–5. Dalby, A. (2000): “Lynceus and the anecdotists”, in D. Braund / J. Wilkins (edd.), Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 372–94. Dalby, A. (2003): Food in the Ancient World from A to Z, London. Damon, C. (1947): The Mask of the Parasite, Michigan. Davidson, J. (1997): Courtesans and Fishcakes, London. Demiańczuk, I. (1912): Supplementum Comicum, Krakau. Denniston, J. D. (1934): The Greek Particles, Oxford. Deubner, L. (1932): Attische Feste, Berlin. Dickey, E. (1996): Greek Forms of Address from Herodotus to Lucian, Oxford. Dillon, M. (2002): Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, Oxford, New York. Dindorf, W. (1853): Harpocrationis Lexicon in decem oratores Atticos. Tomus II. Annotationes interpretum, Oxford. Dindorf, W. (1855): Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam, Oxford.

260

Bibliography

Dobree, P. P. (1833): Adversaria. Edente Jacobo Scholefield, II, Cambridge. Dobrov, G. W. (2002): “Μάγειρος ποιητής : Language and Character in Antiphanes” in A. Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy, Oxford / New York, 169–190 . Dobrov, G. W. (2007): “Comedy and the Satyr-Chorus”, CW 100.3, 251–65. Dodds, E. R. (1960): Euripides. Bacchae. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Dover, K. (1970): “Lo stile di Aristohane”, QUCC 9, 7–23. Dover, K. (1974): Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford. Dover, K. (1978): Greek Homosexuality, London. Dover, K. (1993): Aristophanes. Frogs. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Dowden, K. / Livingstone, N. (2011): A Companion to Greek Mythology, Oxford. Dunbar, N. (1995): Aristophanes: Birds. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Düring, I. (1936): “Athenaios och Plutarchos”, Eranos 34, 1–13. Edmonds, J. M. (1959): The Fragments of Attic Comedy, II, Leiden. Edmonds, R. G. III. (2004): Myths of the Underworld Journey: Plato, Aristophanes and the ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets, Cambridge. Ehrenberg, V. (1947): “Polypragmosyne: A Study in Greek Politics”, JHS 67, 46–67. Ekroth, G. (2002): The sacrificial rituals of Greek hero-cults in the Archaic to the early Hellenistic periods (Kernos Suppl. 12), Liege. Ekroth, G. (2007): “Heroes and Hero-Cults”, in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion, Oxford, 100–14. Ellis, R. (1885): “Remarks on vol. II of Kock’s Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta”, AJPh 6, 285–95. Engels, D. (1999): The Rise and Fall of the Sacred Cat, London. Ernesti, I. (1795): Lexicon Technologiae Graecorum Rhetoricae, Leipzig. Fick, A. / Bechtel, F. (1894): Die griechischen Personnamen, 2nd ed., Göttingen. Fiorillo, R. (1803): Observationes Criticae in Athenaeum, Göttingen. Fisher, N. (2001): Aeschines Against Timarchos, Oxford. Fontaine, M. / Scafuro, A. (edd.) (2014): The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, New York / Oxford. Ford, A. (2013): “The Poetics of Dithyramb” in B. Kowalzic–P. Wilson (edd.), Dithyramb in Context, Oxford, 313–31. Fortenbaugh, W. W. / Schütrumpf, E. (1999): Demetrius of Phalerum: Text Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick / London. Foxhall, L. (2007): Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the Ancient Economy, New York. Fraenkel, E. (1962): Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes, Roma. Fraenkel, E. (2007): Plautine Elements in Plautus (transl. T. Drevikovsky), Oxford. Fragiadakis, C. (1988): Die attischen Sklavennamen von der spätarchaischen Epoche bis in die römische Kaiserzeit: eine historische und soziologische Untersuchung, Athens. Frankfort, H. (1948): Ancient Egyptian Religion. An Interpretation, Columbia. Funaioli, M. P. (2004): “Linceo di Samo”, in E. Cavallini (ed.), Samo: storia, letteratura, scienza: Atti delle giornate di studio, Ravenna, 14–16 novembre 2002, Pisa / Rome, 197–208. Gagarin, M. / Cohen, D. (edd.) (2005): The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, Cambridge. Gagarin, M. / MacDowell, D. M. (1998): Antiphon and Andocides, Texas. Gaisford, T. (1824): Joannis Stobei Florilegium. Ad Manuscriptorum fidem emendavit et supplevit Th. Gaisford, Ed. auctior, Leipzig.

Bibliography

261

Gantz, T. (1993): Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore / London. Garnsey, P. (1988): Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge. García Soler, M. J. (2001): El arte de comer en la antigua Grecia, Madrid. Garland, B. J. (1981): Gynaikonomoi: An Investigation of Greek Censors of Women. Baltimore. Garvie, A. F. (1988): Aeschylus Choephori, Oxford. Gibson, C. A. (2002): Interpreting a Classic. Demosthenes and his Ancient Commentators, Berkeley. Ginouvès, R. (1962): Balaneutikè. Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque, Paris. Gisler, J.-R. (1997) : “Phthonos”, LIMC 8.1, 992–6. Gkaras, C. (2009): Hermippos. Die Fragmente. Ein Kommentar, diss. Freiburg. Glazebrook, A. (2011): “Porneion: Prostitution in Athenian civic space” in A. Glazebrook / M. M. Henry (edd.), Greek Prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean, 800 BCE–200 CE, Madison, 34–59. Goette, H. R. / Weber, T. M. (2004): Marathon, Mainz. Goldhill, S. (1994): “Representing Democracy: women at the Great Dionysia”, in R. Osborne / S. Hornblower (edd.), Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to Davies Lewis, Oxford / New York, 347–69. Goldhill, S. (1997): “The Audience of Athenian Tragedy,” in P. E. Easterling (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, Cambridge, 54–68. Gomme, A. W. / Sandbach F. H. (1973): Menander: A Commentary, Oxford. Goodwin W. (1890): Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, Boston. Gow, A. S. F. (1965): Machon. The Fragments, Cambridge. Gow, A. S. F. / Page, D. L. (1965): The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams, II, Cambridge. Griffith, M. (1983): Aeschylus Prometheus Bound, Cambridge. Grimaldi, W. M. A. (1988): Aristotle, Rhetoric II. A Commentary, New York. Gronovius, J. (1735) : Thesaurus Graecarum antiquitarum contextus et designates, 13 vol., Amsterdam. Gutzwiller, K. (1969): ψυχρὸς und ὄγκος. Untersuchungen zur rhetorische Terminologie, diss. Basel. Gutzwiller K. J. (2010): “Literary Criticism”, in J. J. Clauss / M. Cuypers (edd.), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature, Malden, 337–365. Habicht , C. C. (1997): Athens from Alexander to Antony (translated by D. L. Schneider), Cambridge. Hacker, B. C. (1968): “Greek Catapults and Catapult Technology: Science, Technology and War in the Ancient World Author(s)”, Technology and Culture 9.1, 34–50. Hajdu, I. (2002): Kommentar zur 4. Philippischen Rede des Demosthenes, Berlin / New York. Halliwell, S. (2005): “Learning from Suffering: Ancient Responses to Tragedy”, in J. Gregory (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy, Malden, 394–412. Ηamel, D. (2003): Trying Neaira. The true story of a Courtesan’s scandalous Life in Ancient Greece, New Haven. Hammond, N. G. L–Griffith, G. T. (1979): A History of Macedonia, II 550–336 B.C., Oxford. Hanink, J. (2014): “Literary Evidence for New Tragic Production: The View from the Fourth Century”, in E. Csapo / H. R. Goette / J. R. Green / P. Wilson (edd.), Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century B.C., Berlin / Boston, 189–206. Hansen, M. H. (1983): “The Athenian Politicians 403–322 B.C.”, GRBS 24, 33–55. Harder, A. (2012): Callimachus Aitia, Oxford.

262

Bibliography

Harding, P. (1994): “Comedy and Rhetoric”, in I. Worthington (ed.), Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, London, 196–221. Harding, P. (2006): Didymos: On Demosthenes, Oxford. Harrison, A. R. W. (1971): The Law of Athens. II. Procedure, Oxford. Hart, G. (2005): The Routledge Dictionary of the Egyptian Gods and Godesses, 2nd ed., London / New York. Harvey, F. D. (1985): “Dona ferentes: Some aspects of bribery in Greek politics”, in P. Cartledge / F. D. Harvey (edd.), Crux. Essays in Greek History presented to G.E.M. de Sainte Croix, Exeter / London, 76–117. Haupt, M. (1876): Opuscula III (edited by U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff), Leipzig. Hauschild, Η. (1933): Die Gestalt der Hetäre in der griechischen Komödie, Leipzig. Head, B. V. (1991): Historia Numorum, Oxford. Headlam,W. (1922): Herodas: The Mimes and the Fragments, Cambridge. Helm, R. (1906): Lucian und Menipp, Leipzig. Henderson, J. (1987): Aristophanes. Lysistrata. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Henderson, J. (1991): The Maculate Muse. Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, 2nd ed., New York / Oxford (1st ed. 1975). Henderson, J. (1991): “Women and the Athenian dramatic festivals”, TAPhA 121, 133–4. Henderson, J. (2007): Aristophanes V, Fragments (Loeb 502), Cambridge MA. Henderson, J. (2014): “Comedy in the Fourth Century II: Politics and Domesticity” in M. Fontaine / A. Scafuro (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, 181–98. Henrichs, A. (1974): “Die Kritik der Stoischen Theologie im P.Herc. 1428”, CErc 4, 15–32. Henry, M. M. (1985): Menander’s Courtesans and the Greek Comic Tradition, Frankfurt am Main. Hense, O. / Wachsmuth, C. (1884–1912): Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium, I–V, Berlin. (vols I–II ed. by Wachsmuth 1884; vols III–V ed. by Hense 1894–1912). Hermann, G. (1839): Opuscula, I, Leipzig. Hermann, K. F. / H. Blumner (1882): Lehrbuch der griechischen Privatalterthümer, Freiburg / Tübingen. Herter (1932) : “De Priapo”, RVV 23, 59. Herwerden, H. van (1886): “De fragmentis Comicorum Graecorum Commentatio altera”, Mnemosyne 14, 158–196. Herwerden, H. van (1893): “Ad Fragmenta Comicorum”, Mnemosyne 21, 149–79. Herwerden, H. van (1864): Nova addenda critica ad Meinekii opus, quod inscribitur Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, Lyon. Herwerden, H. van (1872): Studia Critica in Poetas Scenicos Graecorum, Amsterdam. HGL II = Zimmermann B. / Rengakos A. (2014): Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike, II. Die Literatur der klassichen und hellenistischen Zeit, München. Hoffmann, M. (1999) : Griechische Bäder (Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 32), München. Hughes, A. (2008): “Ai Dionysiazousai: Women in Greek Theatre”, BICS 51, 1–27; Hughes, A. (2012): Performing Greek Comedy, Cambridge. Hunter, R. (1979): “The Comic Chorus in the Fourth Century”, ZPE 36, 23–38. Hunter, R. (1983): Eubulus. The Fragments, Cambridge. Isager S. / Hansen, M. H. (1975): Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century B.C., Odense.

Bibliography

263

Jacobs, F. (1809): Additamenta Animadversionum in Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Jena. Jaeger, W. (1938): Demosthenes: The Origin and Growth of his Policy (trans. E. Robinson), Berkeley. Jocelyn, H. (1973): “Homo sum: Humani nil a me alienum puto (Terence, Heauton timoroumenos 77)”, Antichthon 7, 14–46. Kaibel, G. (1890): Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, 3 vol., Leipzig. Kakridis, F. I. (1982): Αριστοφάνους Όρνιθες. Ερμηνευτική έκδοση, Giannena. Kakridis, F. I. (2011): «Η μάχη του Μαραθώνα στην Αττική Κωμωδία», Logeion 1, 111–20. Kanavou, N. (2011): Aristophanes’ Comedy of Names. A Study of Speaking Names in Aristophanes, Berlin / New York. Kannicht, R. / Snell, B. (1981): Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Vol. 2: Fragmenta adespota, Göttingen. Kannicht, R. (2004): Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Vol. 5: Euripides, Göttingen. Kapparis, K. (1999): Apollodorus “Against Neaira” [D.59], Berlin. Kapparis, K. (2018): Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World, Berlin / Boston. Κassel, R. (1958): Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur, Münhen. Kassel, R. (1963): “Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten”, RhM 106, 298–306. Kassel, R. (1991): Kleine Schriften, Berlin. Kearns, E. (1989): The Heroes of Attica, London. Kees, H. (1956) : Der Götterglaube im alten Ägypten, II, Berlin. Kerenyi, K. (1944): Hermes der Seeienführer, Zurich. Kock, T. (1884): Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta II, Leipzig. Koerte, A. (1905): “Zu Didymos’ Demosthenes-Kommentar”, RhM 60, 388–416. Koerte, A. (1936): “Timokles 3”, RE VI A 1, 1260–2. Konstan, D. (2001): Pity Transformed, London / New York. Konstantakos, I. (2000): A Commentary on the Fragments of Eight Plays of Antiphanes, diss. Cambridge. Konstantakos, I. (2004): “Trial by Riddle: The Testing of the Councellor and the Contest of Kings in the Legend of Amasis and Bias”, Classica et Mediaevalia 55, 128–130. Konstantakos, I. (2005): “The Drinking Theatre: Staged Symposia in Greek Comedy”, Mnemosyne 58.2, 183–217. Konstantakos, I. (2011): “Conditions of Playwrights and the Comic Dramatist’s Craft in the Fourth Century”, Logeion 1, 145–82. Konstantakos, I. (2014): “Comedy in the Fourth Century I: Mythological Burlesques”, in M. Fontaine / A. Scafuro (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, New York / Oxford, 160–80. Konstantakos, I. (2015): “Machon’s Alexandrian Comedy and Earlier Comic Tradition”, Aevum 89, 13–36. Kortlandt, F. (1988): “The Greek third person plural endings”, MSS 49, 63–69. Kremmydas, C. (2012): A Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines, Oxford. Krieter-Spiro, M. (1997): Sklaven, Köche und Hetären, Stuttgart. Kwapisz, J. / Petrain, J. D. / Szymansky, M. (edd.) (2013): The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry, Berlin / Boston. Kühner, R. / Gerth, B. (1898; 1904): Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre (II.1; II.2), 3rd ed., Hannover / Leipzig. Laidlaw, W. A. (1933): A History of Delos, Oxford.

264

Bibliography

Lambert, S. D. (2015): “The Inscribed Version of the Decree Honouring Lykourgos of Boutadai (IG II2 457 and 3207)” Attic Inscriptions Online (Papers 6) [14 February 2015]. Landfester, M. (1966): Das griechische Nomen ‘philos’ und seine Ableitungen (Spudasmata 11), Hildesheim. Langton, N. / Langton, B. (1940): The Cat in Ancient Egypt, illustrated from the collection of cat and other Egyptian figures formed, Cambridge. Lanni, A. (2006): Law and Justice in the Courts of Classical Athens, Cambridge. Lape, S. (2004): Reproducing Athens: Menander’s Comedy, Democratic Culture and the Hellenistic City, Princeton. Leeuwen, J. van (1898): Aristophanis Nubes. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis, Lyon. Leigh, M. (2013): From Polypragmon to Curiosus. Ancient Concepts of Curious and Meddlesome Behaviour, Oxford. LGPN= A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Edited by P.M.Fraser and E.Matthews, Oxford 1987–2010. Le Ven, P. A. (2013): “You Make Less Sense than a (New) Dithyramb”: Sociology of a Riddling Style”, in J. Kwapisz / D. Petrain / M. Szymansky (edd.), The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry, Berlin / Boston, 44–64. Lipsius, J. H. (1905): Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren, I, Leipzig. Lightfoot, J. L. (2003): Lucian: On the Syrian Goddess, Oxford, New York. Livingstone, N. (2001): A Commentary on Isocrates’ Busiris, Leiden. Llopis, J. S. / Gomez, R. M. / Asensio, J. P. (2007): Fragmentos de la Comedia Media, Madrid. Lloyd, A. B. (1994): Herodotus Book II. Commentary 1–98, Leiden. Lobeck, A. (1820): Phrynichi Eclogue, Leipzig. Long (1986): Barbarians in Greek Comedy, Carbondale. Lorenzoni, A. (2012): “Ateneo nella Suda (specimina dai bio-bibliographica comicorum)”, Eikasmos 23, 321–347. LSJ = A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by H.G. Liddell and R. Scott. A New Edition, revised and augmented throughout by H.S. Jones, Oxford 1940; Revised Supplement, edited by P.G.W. Glare and A.A. Thompson, Oxford 1996. MacDowell, D. M. (1978): The Law in Classical Athens, London. MacDowell, D. M. (2000): Demosthenes on the False Embassy (Or. 19), Oxford. MacDowell, D. M. (2004): Demosthenes. Speeches 27–38, Austin. MacDowell, D. M. (2009): Demosthenes the Orator, Oxford. McClure, L. K. (2003): Courtesans at Table. Gender and Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus, New York / London. Mactoux, M.-M. (1990): “Esclaves et rites de passage”, MEFRA 102, 53–81. Maidment, K. J. (1935): “The Later Comic Chorus”, CQ 29.1, 1–24. Major, W. (2002): “Farting for Dollars: Agyrrhios in Aristophanes’ Wealth 176”, AJPh 123, 549–557. Marchetti, G. (2012): Le ambiguita della tradizione: Il “caso” Timocle, diss. Rome. Marshall, C. W. (2006): The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy, Cambridge. Martino, G. (1998): “Sofocle, gli abiti di porpora, il drama satiresco e la nuova maniera timoclea” SIFC 16, 8–16. Meineke = Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum. Collegit et disposuit Augustus Meineke. Volumen I–V, Berolini 1839–1857. Meineke, ed. min. = Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum. Collegit et disposuit Augustus Meineke, 2 vol., Berolini 1847. Meineke, A. (1839): Historia Critica Comicorum Graecorum, Berlin.

Bibliography

265

Meineke, A. (1857): Joannis Stobaei Florilegium. IV, Leipzig. Meineke, A. (1867): Analecta Critica ad Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Leipzig. Meinertzhagen, R. (1930): Nicoll’s Birds of Egypt, II, London. Meisterhans, K. / Schwyzer, E. (31900): Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, Berlin. Merkelbach, R. (1967): “Eine Versreihe aus der Parabase der “Heroes” des Aristophanes?” ZPE 1, 161–2. Mette, H.-J. (1962): “Die περιεργία bei Menander”, Gymnasium 69, 398–406. Mette, H.-J. (1977): Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Griechenland, Berlin / New York. Miccolis, E. (2017): Archippos. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 12), Heidelberg. Millis, B. W. (2015): Anaxandrides. Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 17), Heidelberg. Millis, B. W. / Olson, S. D. (2012): Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens. IG II2 2318–2325 and Related Texts. Edited, with Introduction and Commentary, Leiden, Boston. Monaco, G. (1966): Paragoni burleschi degli antichi, Palermo. Mühll, P. von der (1976): “Das griechische Symposion” in P. von der Mühll, Ausgewählte kleine Schriften, Basel, 483–505. Murray, O. (1996): “Der griechische Mensch und die Formen der Geselligkeit”, in J-P. Vernant (ed.), Der Mensch der griechischen Antike, Frankfurt, 255–94. Nauck, A. (1894): “Bemerkungen zu Kock Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta”, Mel. Gr.-R. 6, 53–180. Nervegna, S. (2013): Menander in Antiquity: The Contexts of Reception, Cambridge. Nervegna, S. (2014): “Performing Classics: The Tragic Canon in the Fourth Century and Beyond”, in E. Csapo / G. Rupprecht / R. J. Green / P. Wilson (edd.), Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century B.C., Berlin / Boston, 157–88. Nervegna S. (2018): “Aeschylus in the Hellenistic Period”, in R. F. Kennedy (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aeschylus, Leiden / Boston, 109–28. Nesselrath, H. G. (1985): Lukians Parasitendialog. Untersuchungen und Kommentar, Berlin / New York. Nesselrath, H. G. (1990): Die attische Mittlere Komoedie. Ihre Stellung in der antiken Literaturkritik und Literaturgeschichte, Berlin / New York. Nesselrath, H. G. (1997): “The polis of Athens in Middle Comedy”, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.), The City as Comedy. Society and Representation in Athenian Drama, North Carolina, 271–88. Newiger, H.-J. (1957): Metapher und Allegorie. Studien zu Aristophanes, Münich. Nicolson, F. W. (1891): “Greek and Roman barbers”, HSCPh 2, 41–56. Nillson, M. P. (1967): Geschichte der Griechischen Religion, I, München. Nock, A. D. (1944): “The Cults of Heroes”, HThR 37, 141–73. Obbink, D. (2002): “ ‘All Gods are True’ in Epicurus”, in D. Frede / A. Laks (edd.), Traditions of Theology. Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, Leiden, 183– 222. Ober J. (1989): Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens, Princeton. O’Connor, J. B. (1908): Prosopographia Histrionum Graecorum, Chicago. Olson, S. D. (1998): Aristophanes’ Peace. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Olson, S. D. (2002): Aristophanes. Acharnians. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford.

266

Bibliography

Olson, S. D. (2007): Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy, Oxford. Olson, S. D. (2008a): Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Books 8–10.420e. Edited and Translated (Loeb 235), Cambridge MA / London. Olson, S. D. (2008b): Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Books 6–7. Edited and Translated (Loeb 224), Cambridge MA / London. Olson, S. D. (2009): Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Books 10.420e–11. Edited and Translated (Loeb 274), Cambridge MA / London. Olson, S. D. (2014): Eupolis frr. 326–497. Fragmenta incertarum fabularum. Fragmenta dubia. Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 8.3), Heidelberg. Olson, S. D. (2016): Eupolis. Ηeilotes–Chrysoun Genos, frr. 147–325. Translation, Commentary (Fragmenta Comica 8.2), Heidelberg. Olson, S. D. (2017): Eupolis. Testimonia and Aiges–Demoi , frr. 1–146. Introduction, Translation, Commantary (Fragmenta Comica 8.1), Heidelberg. Olson, S. D. / Sens, A. (1999): Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE, Atlanta. Olson, S. D. / Sens A: (2000): Archestratos of Gela. Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE, Oxford. Ornaghi, M. (2003): “Linceo di Samo in Ateneo e Ateneo in Suda: casi di amplificazione della tradizione indiretta”, Ouaderni del Dipartimento di Filologia Linguistica e tradizione Classica “Augusto Rostagni” 2, 49–79. Orth, C. (2009): Strattis. Die Fragmente. Ein Kommentar, Berlin. Orth, C. (2013): Alkaios–Apollophanes. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta comica 9.1), Heidelberg. Orth, C. (2014): Aristomenes–Metagenes. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 9.2), Heidelberg. Orth, C. (2015): Nikochares–Xenophon. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 9.3), Heidelberg. Orth, C. (2017): Aristophanes, fr. 1–100: Aiolosikon–Babylonioi. Übersetzung, Kommentar (Fragmenta Comica 10.3), Heidelberg. O’Sullivan, P. D. / Collard, C. (2013): Euripides: Cyclops and Major Fragments of Greek Satyric Drama, Oxford. PA = J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica, 2 vol., Berlin 1901–3. PAA = J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens, 21 vol., Toronto 1994–2012. Packman, Z. M. (2013): “Family and Household in the Comedies of Terence”, in A. Augoustakis / A. Trail, A Companion to Terence, Malden, 195–210. PCG = Poetae Comici Graeci. Ediderunt R. Kassel et C. Austin, I–VIII, 1983–2001. Page, D. L. (1941): Greek Literary Papyri, Cambridge. Palombi, A. / Santarelli, M. (1969): Gli Animali Commestibili dei Mari d’Italia, Milan. Papachrysostomou, A. (2008): Six Comic Poets. A Commentary on Selected Fragments of Middle Comedy, Tübingen. Papachrysostomou, A. (2016): Amphis (Fragmenta Comica 20), Heidelberg. Papadodima, E. (2013), “The Battle of Marathon in Fifth-Century Drama” in M. Edwards–C. Carey (edd.), Marathon 2500 Years, London, 143–54. Parke, H. W. (1977): Festivals of the Athenians, London. Parker, R. (1983): Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford. Parker, R. (1996): Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford. Parsons, S. E. (2015): Ancient Apologetic Exegesis: Introducing and Recovering Theophilus’s World, Cambridge.

Bibliography

267

Pearson, L. / Stephens, S. (1983): Didymi in Demosthenem Commenta, Stuttgart. Philipp, G. B. (1973): “Philippides, ein politischer Komiker in hellenistischer Zeit”, Gymnasium 80, 493–509. Piccione, R. M. (1994): “Sulle fonti e le metodologie compilative di Stobeo”, Eikasmos 5, 281–317. Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. (1900): Select Fragments of the Greek Comic Poets, Oxford. Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. (1968): The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd ed. Oxford. Pirotta, S. (2009): Plato Comicus. Die fragmentarischen Komödien, Berlin. Podlecki, A. J. (1990): “Could Women Attend the Theater in Ancient Athens? A Collection of Testimonia,” AncW 21, 27–43. Pohlenz, M. (1920): “Die Anfänge der griechischen Poetik”, NGG (1920) 142–78. Pothecary, S. (1999): “Strabo the Geographer: His Name and Its Meaning” Mnemosyne 52.6, 691–704. Poultney, J. W. (1936): The Syntax of the Genitive Case in Aristophanes, Baltimore. Preiser, C. (2000): Euripides: Telephos. Einleitung, Text, Kommentar (Spudasmata 78), Zurich / New York, 71–97. Pretagostini, R. (2011): Scritti di metrica, a cura di M.S. Celentano, Roma. Raingeard, P. (1935) : Hermes Psychagogue. Essai sur les origines du culte d’Hermès, Paris. Raubitschek, A. (1941): “Phryne” RE 20.1, 893–901. Reed, C. M. (2003): Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge. Rhodes, P. J. (1981): A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford. Rhodes, P. J. / Osborne (edd.) (2003): Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404–323 BC, Oxford. Richards, H. (1909): Aristophanes and Others, London. Richardson, N. (2010): Three Homeric Hymns: To Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite, Cambridge. Robson, J. (2013): “Beauty and Sex Appeal in Aristophanes”, EuGeStA, n°3, 43–66. Robson, J. (2013): Sex and Sexuality in Classical Athens, Edinburgh. Roisman, J. / Worthington, I. / Waterfield, R. (2015): Lives of the Attic Orators. Texts from Pseudo-Plutarch, Photius and the Suda, Oxford. Roman, L. / Roman M. (edd.) (2010): Greek and Roman Mythology, New York. Rooy, C. A. van (1965): Studies in Classical Satire and Related Literary Theory, Leiden. Roscher, W. H. / Ziegler, K. (1886–1937): Ausfürliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, I–VI, Leipzig. Roselli, D. Κ. (2005): “Vegetable-Hawking Mome and Fortunate Son: Euripides, Tragic Style, and Reception”, Phoenix 59, 1–49. Roselli, D. K. (2011): Theatre of the People. Spectators and Society in Ancient Athens, Texas. Rosen, R. M. (2012): “Timocles’ fr. 6 K-A and the Parody of Greek Literary Theory”, in C. W. Marshall–G. Kovacs (edd.), No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy, London, 177–86. Rothwell, K. S. (1995): “The Continuity of the Chorus in Fourth Century Attic Comedy”, in G. W. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes. Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta, 99–118. Rubenbauer, H. (1913): “Der Bau des trochäischen Tetrameters in der neueren Komödie”, Philologus 72, 206–24. Rosenbloom, D. (2014): “The Politics of Comic Athens”, in M. Fontaine / A. Scafuro (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, New York / Oxford, 297–320. Rusten, J. (2011): The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents, and Art from Athenian Comic Competitions, 486–280, Baltimore.

268

Bibliography

Scafuro, A. (1997): The Forensic Stage. Settling Disputes in Graeco-Rpman New Comedy, Cambridge. Scalf, F., (2012): “The Role of Birds Within the Religious Landscape of Egypt”, in R. B. LeSuer (ed.), Between Heaven and Earth: Birds in Ancient Egypt, Chicago, 33–40. Schaps, D. (1977): “The Woman Least Menationed: Etiquette and Women’s Names”, CQ 27.2, 323–30. Schmidt, E. A. (2016): Das süssbittre Tier. Liebe in Dichtung und Philosophie der Antike, Frankfurt am Main. Seaford, E. (2006): Dionysos, London / New York. Serafim, A. (2017): Attic Oratory and Performance, London / New York. Shaw, C. (2010): “Middle Comedy and the ‘Satyric’ Style”, AJPh 131, 1–22. Shaw, C. (2014): Satyric Play: The Evolution of Greek Comedy and Satyr Drama, Oxford. Schiassi, G. (1951): “De temporum quaestionibus ad Atticas IV saeculi meretrices et eiusdem comicas fabulas pertinentibus”, RFIC 79, 217–45. Schiller, C. (1835): Andocides, Leipzig. Schuddeboom, F. L. (2009): Greek Religious Terminology–Telete & Orgia. A Revised and Expanded English Edition of the Studies by Zijderveld and Van der Burg , Leiden / Boston. Schultz, W. (1924): “Ratsel”, RE IA (1) 62-125. Schultze, W. (1966): Kleine Schriften, II, Göttingen. Schweigert, E. (1938): “Inscriptions from the North Slope of the Acropolis”, Hesperia 7, 292–4. Schweighäuser, I. (1801–7): Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas post Isaacum Casaubonum, I–IX, Strassburg. Schwyzer, E. / Debrunner, A. (1950): Griechische Grammatik: II. Syntax und Syntaktische Stilistik, München. Seaford, E. (2006): Dionysos, London / New York. Sealey, R. (1993): Demosthenes and His Time, Oxford. Sicking, C. M. J. (1991): “The Distribution of Aorist and Present Tense Stem Forms, Especially in the Imperative”, Glotta 69, 14–43. Simms, R. (1989): “Isis in Classical Athens”, CJ 84.3, 216–21, Smelik, K. A. D. / Hemelrijk, E. A. (1984): Who knows not what monsters demented Egypt worships?: Opinions on Egyptian animal worship in Antiquity as part of the ancient conception of Egypt, Berlin. Sofia, A. (2008): “Egiziani ad Atene. Discriminazione razziale ed integrazione politico-culturale nei commediografi attici del V e IV sec. a.C.”, Mediterraneo antico 1, 477–507. Sofia, A. (2013) Sfingi e sirene : la presenza egizia nella Sicilia greca del V sec. a.C.: Testimonianze nella commedia dorica e nel mimo, Roma. Sofia, A. (2016): Aigyptiazein. Frammenti della Commedia Attica Antica, Milano. Sommerstein, A. H. (1981): The Comedies of Aristophanes: Knights, Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. (1997): “The Theatre Audience, the Demos, and the Suppliants of Aeschylus,” in C. Pelling (ed.) Greek Tragedy and the Historian, Oxford, 63–79. Sommerstein, A. H. (2001): The Comedies of Aristophanes: Wealth, Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. (2009): Talking about Laughter, Oxford 16–7. Sommerstein, A. H. (2013): Menander. Samia (The Woman from Samos), Cambridge. Sommerstein, A. H. (2014a): “The informal oath” in A. H. Sommerstein / I. C. Torrance, (edd.), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 307) , Berlin / Boston, 315–47.

Bibliography

269

Sommerstein, A. H. (2014b): “The Politics of Greek Comedy” in M. Revermann (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, Cambridge, 291–305. Sommerstein, A. H. (2016): “Greek Comedy and its Reception, c. 500–323 BC”, in B. van Zyl Smit (ed.), A Handbook to the Reception of Greek Drama, Blackwell, 29–44. Stama, F. (2014): Phrynichos. Introduzione, tratuzione e commento (Fragmenta Comica 7), Heidelberg. Starks, G. H. (2013): “opera in bello, in otio, in negotio: Terence and Rome in the 160s BCE 132”, in A. Augoustakis / A. Traill (edd.), A Companion to Terence, Malden, 132–55. Stefanis, I. (1988): Διονυσιακοί Τεχνίται, Heraklion. Stephanopoulos, T. K. (1988): “Tragica I”, ZPE 73, 207–47. Stephanopoulos, T. K. (2015): “Marginalia Tragica III”, Logeion 5, 197–204. Sternberg, R. H. (2005): Pity and Power in Ancient Athens, Cambridge. Stevens, P. T. (1976): Colloquial Expressions in Euripides (Hermes Einzelschriften 38), Wiesbaden. Storey, I. C. (2003): Eupolis. Poet of Old Comedy, Oxford. Storey, I. C. (2005): “But Comedy Has Satyrs Too,” in G. W. M. Harrison (ed.), Satyr Drama: Tragedy at Play, Swansea, 201–218. Storey, I. C. (2011): Fragments of Old Comedy, III, Cambridge. Storey, I. C. / Allan, A. (2005): A Guide to Ancient Greek Drama, Oxford. Strauss, (1993): Fathers and Sons in Athens. Ideology and Society in the Era of the Peloponnesian War, London. Suess, W. (1910): Ethos, Berlin. Summa, D. (2009): “Il caso Timocle: per un riesame delle fonti”, in: A. Martina /A.-T. Cozzoli (edd.), La tragedia greca. Testimonianze archeologiche e iconografiche, Roma, 135–149; Sutton, D. F. (1980): The Greek Satyr Play, Maisenheim am Glan. Sutton, D. F. (1993): The War of the Generations, New York. Szemerényi, O. J. L. (1987): “Etyma Graeca VI (33–34)”, Minos 20–2, 569–80. Taillardat, J. (1965): Les Images d’Aristophane: études de langue et de style, Paris. Tamiolaki, M. (2013): “Emotions and historical representations in Xenophon’s Hellenica”, in A. Chaniotis–P. Ducrey (edd.), Unveiling Emotions II, Stuttgart, 15–22. Taplin, O. (1986): “Fifth-century tragedy and Comedy: A synkrisis”, JHS 106, 163–74. Taplin, O. (2007): Pots and Plays. Interactions between Tragedy and Greek Vase-Paintings of the Fourth Century B.C., Los Angeles. Taylor, C. (2001a): “Bribery in Athenian Politics Part I: Accusations, Allegations, and Slander”, G&R 48.1, 53–66. Taylor, C. (2001b): “Bribery in Athenian Politics Part II: Ancient Reaction and Perceptions”, G&R 48.2, 154–172. Taylor, C. (2017): Poverty, Wealth and Well-being: Experiencing Penia in Democratic Athens, Oxford. Thompson, D. W. (1947): A Glossary of Greek Fishes, London. Threatte L. (1980, 1996): The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, I, II, Berlin / New York. Tichy, E. (1983): Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen, Vienna. Tod, M. N. (1946): A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the end of the Fifth Century BC, Oxford. Todd, S. C. (1990): “Lady Chatterley’s Lover and the Attic orators: the social composition of the Athenian jury”, JHS 110, 146–73. Todd, S. C. (1993): The Shape of Athenian Law, Oxford. Todd, S. C. (2007): A Commentary on Lysias. Speeches 1–11, Oxford.

270

Bibliography

Τoup, J. (1770): Theocriti Syrakusii quae supersunt, Oxford. Tracy, S. V. (1994): “IG II2 1195 and Agathe Tyche in Attica”, Hesperia 63, 241–4. TrGF = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, edited by B. Snell, S. Radt und R. Kannicht, 5 vol., Göttingen 1977–2004. Trevett, J. (2011): Demosthenes, Speeches 1–17. Translated with Introduction and notes, Texas. Tromaras, L. (2005): P. Terentius Afer. Eunuchus, Thessalonica. Trümper, M. (2013): “Urban Context of Greek Public Baths”, in S. K. Lucore / M. Trümper (edd.), Greek Baths and Bathing Culture: New Discoveries and Approaches, Leuven / Walpole, 33–72. Tsitsirides, S. (1998): Platons Menexenos : Einleitung, Text und Kommentar, Stuttgart. Tucker (1908): “Emendations in Athenaeus”, CQ 2, 184–209. Ueding, G. (1992–2003) Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, I–VI, Tübingen. Ussher, R. G. (1973): Aristophanes, Ecclesiazousae. Edited with introduction and commentary, Oxford. Wagner, T. (1905): Symbolarum ad Comicorum Graecorum Historiam Capita quattuor, Leipsig. Walbank, M. B. (1994): “A Lex Sacra of the State and of the Deme of Kollytos”, Hesperia 63, 233–9. Wallace, R. W. (2005): “Law, Attic Comedy, and the Regulation of Comic Speech” in M. Gagarin / D. Cohen (edd.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, Cambridge, 357–73. Walpole, R. (1805): Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Quaedam, Cambridge. Walton, D. (1999): Appeal to Pity: Argumentation Ad Misericordiam, Albany. Wankel, H. (1976): Demosthenes, Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz, I–II, Heidelberg. Wankel, H. (1991): “The Hyperides Principle”? Bemerkungen zur Korruption in Athen”, ZPE 85, 34–6. Webster, T. B. L. (1949): “The masks of Greek Comedy”, BJRL 32, 97–133. Webster, T. B. L. (1952): “Chronological Notes on Middle Comedy”, CQ 46.2, 13–26. Webster, T. B. L. (1970): Studies in Later Greek Comedy, Manchester. Weiss, M. (1998): “Erotica: On the Prehistory of Greek Desire”, HSCPh 98, 31–61. Wendland, P. (1906): Göttinsche Gelehrte Anzeigen, Göttingen. West, M. L. (1982): Greek Metre, Oxford. West, M. L. (1987): Introduction to Greek Meter, Oxford. West, S. (1979): “Frammenti biografici da papyri I: La biografia politica by Italo Gallo”, Gnomon 51, 424–8. White, J. W. (1912): The Verse of Greek Comedy, London. Whitehead, D. (2000): Hypereides. The Forensic Speeches, Oxford. Whitmarsh, T. (2000): “The Politics and Poetics of Parasitism. Athenaeus on Parasites and Flatterers”, in D. Baund / J. Wilkins (edd.), Athenaus and his World, Exeter, 304–15. Wigodski, M. (1995) “The Alleged Impossibility of Philosophical Poetry” in D. Obbink (ed.), Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus and Horace, Oxford, 65–8. Wilamowitz 1921 = Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1921): Griechische Verskunst, Berlin. Wilamowitz 1931–2 = Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1931–2): Der Glaube der Hellenen, I, II, Berlin. Wilamowitz 1937 = Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1937): Kleine Schriften V,1. Geschichte, Epigraphik, Archaeologie, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1962): Kleine Schriften, IV, Berlin = (1889): Commentariolum Grammaticum IV (Ind. Schol. Acad. Geo. Aug.), Göttingen.

Bibliography

271

Wilhelm, A. (1906): Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, Wien. Wilhelm, A. (1974): Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (1895–1951), Wien. Wilkins, J. (2000a): The Boastful Chef: The discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy, Oxford. Wilkins, J. (2000b): “Dialogue and Comedy: The Structure of the Deipnosophistae”, in D. Baund / J. Wilkins (edd.), Athenaus and his World, Exeter, 23–38. Willi, A. (2003): The languages of Aristophanes. Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek, Oxford. Willink, C. W. (1986): Euripides. Orestes. With Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Winkelmann, A. (1833): Platonis dialogi selecti. I. Euthydemus, Leipzig. Winter, F. E. (2006): Studies in Hellenistic Architecture (Phoenix suppl. 42), Toronto. Wooten, C. (2008): A Commentary on Demosthenes’ Philippic I, Oxford. Worman, N. (2008): Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens, Cambridge. Worthington, I. (1992): A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus. Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth Century Athens, Michigan. Worthington, I. (ed. 2000a): Demosthenes. Statesman and Orator, London / New York. Worthington, I. (2000b): “The date of Chaerephilus’ Citizenship”, ZPE 130, 296–8. Worthington, I. / Cooper, C. / Harris, E. (2001): Dinarchus, Hyperides and Lycurgus, Texas. Wycherley, R. E. (1957): The Athenian Agora, Vol. III: Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, Princeton. Xantakis-Karamanos G. (1997): “Echoes of Earlier Drama in Sositheus’ Daphnis and Lycophron’s Menedemus”, AC 66, 121–43. Yatromanolakis, D. (2007): Sappho in the Making. The Early Reception, Cambridge / London. Young, D. (2004): A Brief History of the Olympic Games, Oxford. Zagagi, N. (1999): “Cοmic patterns in Sophocles’ Ichneutae”, in J. Griffin (ed.), Sophocles Revisited: Essays Presented to Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Oxford, 177–217. Zaidman, L. B. (1992): Religion in the Ancient Greek City, Cambridge. Zeegers, N. / Vorst, V. (1972): Les citations des poètes grecs chez les apologists chrétiens du IIe siècle, Louvain. Ziegler, K. (1937): “Tragoedia”, RE VI A, 1899–2075. Zimmer, G. (1982): Antike Werkstattbilder (Bilderheft der Staatlichen Museen preußischer Kulturbesitz 42), Berlin. Zimmermann, B. (1992): Dithyrambos. Geschichte einer Gattung, (Hypomnemata 98) Göttingen.

273

Indices 1. Index fontium Ath. 1.25f (epit.): fr. 39 Ath. 3.109c: fr. 35 Ath. 4.165f: fr. 5 Ath. 6.223b: fr. 6 Αth. 6.223d: fr. 12 Ath. 6.237d: fr. 8 Ath. 6.240d: fr. 21 Ath. 6.240d-e: fr. 20 Ath. 6.240e: fr. 10 Ath. 6.241a: fr. 11 Ath. 6.243b: fr. 9 Ath. 6.245a: fr. 34 Ath. 6.246f: fr. 31 Ath. 7.295b: fr. 2 Ath. 7.300a: fr. 1 Ath. 8.339c: fr. 32 Ath. 8.339d: fr. 15 Ath. 8.339d: fr. 16 Ath. 8.339f: fr. 29 Ath. 8.341e: fr. 4 Ath. 8.342a: fr. 17 Ath. 9.385a: fr. 2 Αth. 9.407d: test. 2 Ath. 9.407d: fr. 23 Ath. 9.407e: fr. 7 Ath. 9.407f: fr. 18

Ath. 10.430f: fr. 22 Ath. 10.455f: fr. 13 Ath. 13.567 d-e: fr. 25 Ath. 13.567e: fr. 27 Ath. 13.570f: fr. 24 Clem. Al. Strom. 4.2.7: fr. 38 Didym. In Dem. 10.70: fr. 14 Didym. In Dem. 10.70: fr. 19 Harp. Π 21 Κeaney: fr. 28 Hsch. α 6887: fr. 42 Phld. Piet. 20,23 p. 87 G.: fr. 1.2–4 Phot. α 70: fr. 40 Plu. Dem. 9.4: fr. 41 [Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 845b: fr. 41 Poll. 10.154: fr. 2 Stob. 4.25.17: fr. 36 Stob. 4.31a 16: fr. 37 Stob. 4.32b 44: fr. 30 Stob. 4.56.19: fr. 6 Stob. 4.57.8: fr. 33 Sud. α 2048: fr. 26 Sud. τ 623: test. 1 Sud. τ 624: Syrian. In Hermog. 1.50.6: fr. 4.1–2 Theophil. In Autol. 2.38: fr. 33.1

2. Index verborum ἀγαθός (πολίτης): 244 ἀγκάλη: 76 ἀγορά (fish-market): 106 ἀγωνιάω (in erotic context): 194 ἄδειπνος: 239 αἰέλουρος / αἴλουρος: 25, 27 αἷμα (figuratively): 246 αἱμωδιάω: 109 αἴρω (τράπεζαν): 125–6 αἰσχύνομαι: 244 ἄκλητος: 107 ἀκούω: 58

ἀλήθεια (ἅπασαν τὴν ἀ. φράζειν): 180 ἀλλότριος (ἀ. πάθος): 60 ἀναβιόω: 171–2 ἀναλίσκω: 200 ἄναλτος: 149 ἀνάξιος: 219 ἀναρίστητος: 202–3 ἀνευρίσκω: 60, 250 ἀνήρ (allusion to effeminacy): 49 ἀ. παράσιτος: 85 ἀνθέω: 229 ἄνθρωπος (disparaging): 108

274

Index verborum

ἀνόητος: 41 ἀνοίγω: 237–8 ἀνόσιος: 234 ἀντίθετον: 122 ἁπαλός: 194 ἀπέρχομαι: 61 ἀποδοκιμάζω: 88 ἀποκαλέω: 175 ἀποκαρτερέω: 172 ἀποκλείομαι: 201 ἀπορέω: 106 ἀποτρέχω: 110 ἀπροφάσιστος: 85 † ἀπυξῖνος †: 255–6 ἄρδω: 154 ἀσεβέω: 26 ἄσμενος / ἀσμένως: 132, 144 ἀσπάζομαι: 186 ἀσύμβολος: 87 ἀχρήματος: 97 βαβαί: 193 βαδίζω: 95 βαλανεύω 30, 31 βατίς: 35 βδέω: 158 βῆμα: 160 βιάζομαι: 220 βίος (παρασίτου): 89 βλέπω: 123, 216 βουλιμία: 126 βούλομαι: 95 βωμός: 27 γαλεός: 34–5 γελοῖος: 108 γένος “species”: 35 “class”: 84 γεωργία: 249 γλωττόκομον: 30,31 γραῦς: 207 γυμνός: 164 γυναικονόμος: 238–9 γυνή (in a context of effeminacy): 48–9 δεινός (λόγοισι): 43 δειπνέω (τἀλλότρια): 224 δέρω: 163 δηλαδή: 251 δημηγορέω: 75 διακενῆς: 216 διάπυρος: 158

διὰ τέλους: 85 διατριβή: 88 δίδωμι (bribe): 41, 154 δ. σαργάνας: 147 δ. (δίκην) “pay the penalty”: 25 δι’ ἡμέρας: 89 δίκρους: 96 δοκέω: 58–9, 107, 216 δράω: 120 δυστυχής: 199 ἔγχελυς: 108–9 εἰρεσιώνη: 248 εἶτα: 158 ἔκλυτος (βουλιμία): 126 ἔλαιον: 248 ἔλεος: 233–4 ἐμβλέπω: 215 ἐνίοτε: 218 ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις: 81 ἐντρώγω: 159 ἔξεστι: 127 ἐξετάζω: 239 ἔοικα: 75 ἐπαινέτης: 86 ἔπειτα (in rhet. questions): 83 temp. conj.: 186 ἐπέχω: 166 ἐπιεικὴς (θεός): 234 ἐπινεύω: 216 ἐπίπονος: 59 ἐπισίτιος: 224 ἐπιτρίβω: 27 ἐράω: 98 ἐρεθίζω: 229–30 ἐρωτάω: 110 ἐσθίω (λόγχας): 122 ἑστιάω: 239 ἔτι: 75 εὕδω: 207 εὔοψος: 106 εὔρυθμος: 97 εὐτυχής: 42 ἐφοδεύω: 238 ἔχω (οὐδέν): 157 (I have got and possess): 41 ἔ. (συγγνώμην) “forgive”: 42 ἔ. “hold in hands” (of money): 246 ἕψω (κυάμους): 187 ζῷον (said of human being): 59

Index verborum ἡδέως πάνυ: 186 ἡδονή: 57, 61 ἡ. ἀσύμβολος: 87–8 ἡδύς: 106, 194 ἥκιστα: (negative answer): 84 ἡνίκ’ ἔτι: 201 ἤπιος: 151, 153–4 ἥρως: 88, 111–2 θάργηλος: 76 θαυμαστός: 82, 86 θεός: 88, 251 θέρμος: 172 θνήισκω (participle τεθνηκώς): 246–7 θνητός: 88 θύννειος: 109 θύρα: 201 ἰατρός (figurative): 126 ἶβις: 26 ἰπνίτης (θερμός): 242 ἴσον ἴσῳ (adverbial): 179–80 ἵστημι (γυμνός): 164 ἰσχάς: 248 ἰχθυοπώλης: 43 ἰχθυόρρους: 153 καθεύδω: 158 καινός (νόμος): 239 καί … τε … καί: 187 κακοδαίμων: 98 κακῶς ποιέω: 245 καλός: 132 κάππαρις: 200 καταπάλτης: 117, 122 κάραβος: 109 καταβαίνω: 132 καταμανθάνω: 62, 242 καταφανής: 238 κατεσθίω: 147 κεῖμαι: 242 κείρομαι: 48 κελεύω: 120, 147 κινέω (ὀδόντας, said of a parasite): 99 κίχρημι (imper. aor. χρῆσον): 186 κλέπτης: 133 κνάω: 165–6 κοιμάομαι (have sex): 193 κομιδῇ: 172 κόμπος: 154 κόρη (of the eye): 216 κορίσκη: 193

275

κουφίζω: 65 κτάομαι (possess): 246 κύαμος: 159 κύων: 26 κώρυκος: 224–5 λαμβάνω (be bribed): 42 λ. ἀριθμόν: 237 λ. δίκρουν ξύλον: 96 λ. ἱμάτιον: 99 λ. πληγάς: 194 λαμπρός: 48–9 λάρος: 44 λέγω κακῶς: 84 λέγω τι (say something remarkable): 58 λέπω: 225 λήθη (τῶν ἰδίων): 60 λιμός: 126 λόγχη: 122 λυπηρός: 59 μακάριος: 41 μαλάττω: 172 μανικός: 63 μὰ (in repetition): 252–5 μὰ τοὺς θεούς: 98 μέλι: 248 μέλλω: 171 μεταδίδωμι: 41 μισέω (λόγους): 122 μισθωτός: 154 νᾶμα: 254 νάρκη: 109 νεώνητος: 75–6 νὴ τὸν Δία τὸν μέγιστον: 194–5 νὴ τὸν οὐρανόν: 127 νικάω: 89 νομίζω: 86 ξύλον: 96 oἴκαδε: 95 οἴμοι: 98, 104 oἷος (exclamatory): 82 ὀλύμπιος (ὀλύμπια νικᾶν): 89 ὁμολογέω (ὁμολογούμενοι θεοί “recognized gods”): 26 ὄνος (Cephisodorus): 159–60 ὀξυλίπαρος: 35 ὁπόσος: 110 ὅπου γὰρ (introducing an arg. a fort): 26 ὁράω: 66, 106 (ἰδεῖν) ὀργίζομαι: 121

276 ὀφθαλμιάω: 65 οὐδ(έ): 47 οὐκοῦν: 116, 120 οὗτος (after ὅστις): 243 ὀψαρτυσία: 250 ὀψοφάγος: 43–4 ὀψωνέω: 104, 108 μεμβράς: 110 παιδεύομαι: 61–2 πάθος: 108 πανάθλιος: 207 παντελῶς: 158 πάνυ γε: 120 παράβυστον: 209–10 παραμασήτης: 95–6 παραμένω: 94 παράσιτος: 83, 175 παρατρέφω: 95 παρὰ φύσιν: 219 παραψυχή (φροντίδων): 59–60 παρέχω: 225 πατάσσω: 178–9 παφλάζω: 154 παχύς: 143, 188 πεινέω: 172 πέμπω (σαργάνας): 188–9 πένης: 42, 62 πενία: 219 περάω: 151 πέρδομαι: 160 περιέργως (on style): 126–7 περιέρχομαι: 109–110 πλατύρρυγχος: 149 πλουτίζω: 43 πνεῦμα: 193 πνίγω: 158 ποέω: 218 πολέμιος (figurative): 12 πολὺ ἄριστα: 250 ποππύζω: 188 ποτήριον (μέγα): 179 πρόθυμος: 129 προσαγορεύω: 90 πρόσειμι (participle, προσόν): 120 in erotic sense: 229 πρὸς θεῶν: 166 προσφέρω: 171 πρυτανεῖον: 90

Index verborum πρῶτα μέν: 120 πτωχός: 62 πύκνωμα: 154 πῶς ἂν μὲν οὖν: 24, 25 ῥάδιος (in comparative): 63 σαπέρδης: 148 σαργάνη: 147 σίτησις: 90 σκάφη: 242 σκόμβρος: 144 σκευάζω: 35 σκεῦος: 165 σκληρῶς: 158 σκοπέω (in imperative): 62 στιφρότης: 193 σύνειμι: 148 Σύρος: 44, 76 στένω: 67 σῦκον: 248 συμβολή: 90 συμπάρειμι (said of a parasite): 85 συμφορά: 67 συνδιακτορέω: 129 συνεραστής: 85 συνίημι: 216 συντόμως (opp. περιέργως): 127 συρίττω: 166–7 σφόδρα: 99, 165 σφυδόω: 224 σώιζω: 25 τάριχος: 148 τεκμήριον: 89 τηρέω: 165 τίθεμαι (συμβολήν): 90 τιμάω: 89 τοὔμπαλιν: 239 τραγῳδός: 62 τράπεζα: 125–6 τρέφω: 86 τρῖμμα: 35 τύχη (ἀγαθή): 251 τυχὸν ἴσως: 147 φέρω “endure”:63 “carry around”: 76 φίλαυλος: 163 φιλέταιρος: 84–5 φιλία: 126 φίλος (parasite): 87

Index locorum φθόνος: 234 φοβέομαι: 244 φύλαξ (figurative): 126 φύσις: 52 χαλκοῦς (coin): 108 χαμαιτύπη: 193 χαρίζομαι: 132 χείρ (ἁπαλή): 194 χρήσιμος (in comparative):84 χρηστός: 159 χρηστότης: 90

χρυσίον: 41 χρῶμα: 193 χύτρα: 76, 187 χωλός: 66 χωρὶς και: 216 ψυχαγωγέω: 60–1 ψυχή (246 ψυχρός: 166 ὦ τᾶν: 58, 171 ὦ φίλτατε: 172

3. Index locorum Achaeus fr. 17.4–5: 125 Aelianus NA 3.42: 48 NA 7.28: 136 NA 10.43: 151 NA 10.45: 26 VH 12.18–9: 226 VH 12.19: 227 VH 13.41: 158 VH 14.10: 186 Aelius Dionysius p. 113,5: 108 (n. 107) Aeschines 1.41: 229 1.131: 122, 175 2.3: 121 2.4: 122 2.71: 161 2.114: 43 2.156–7: 133 3.76: 166 3.206: 224 3.239: 152 (n. 185) Aeschrio 7.345: 255 Aeschylus Ag. 18: 67 Ch. 812–4: 132 Ch. 818:132 Eu. 40–48: 206, 207 Eu. 68–70: 207

Aeschylus [cont.] Pers. 165–6: 97 Pers. 753: 82 Pr. 19–20: 164 Pr. 206: 151 Pr. 700–849: 140 Pr. 717–8: 153 Pr. 1024: 107 (n. 106) fr. 87a 68: 49 fr. 273a: 132 Aesopus fab. 415 P.: 99 Alcaeus Comicus fr. 3: 66 fr. 19: 203 Alcaeus Lyricus fr. 161.3–4: 182 Alciphro Ep. 3.5: 85 Alcman 1.66: 77 Alexis fr. 3: 206, 228 fr. 25.9: 154 fr. 47: 105 fr. 49.2–3:194 fr. 57: 215 (n. 222) fr. 62: 100 fr. 76: 110 fr. 76.6: 27 fr. 77: 9 (n. 4), 137, 138, 140 fr. 78: 106

277

278 Alexis [cont.] fr. 88.2–3: 179 fr. 93: 133 fr. 101–2: 89 fr. 103.17–8: 193 fr. 113: 9 fr. 117: 216 fr. 121: 84 fr. 131.4–6: 239 fr. 138: 34 fr. 140: 250 fr. 164.3: 172 fr. 179.10: 216 fr. 183: 175 fr. 184: 166 fr. 185.3: 99 fr. 193: 35 fr. 200: 110 fr. 204: 43 fr. 213: 107 fr. 213.3: 87 fr. 221:188 fr. 224.5: 214 fr. 224.8–10: 96 fr. 225: 69, 207 fr. 235: 202 fr. 238.2: 95 fr. 249.4: 249 fr. 242: 113 (n. 113) fr. 252: 126 fr. 262: 89 fr. 341 (dubium): 246 Ameipsias fr. 4: 69 fr. 22: 132 fr. 26: 33 Amphis fr. 7: 29 fr. 18: 179 Anaxandrides fr. 9: 199 fr. 33.3: 165 fr. 34.9–10: 148 fr. 35.1: 163 fr. 35.4: 49 fr. 35.10–11: 165 fr. 40.1: 22 fr. 40.8–9: 26, 147 fr. 40:12–3: 27

Index locorum Anaxandrides [cont.] fr. 46.2: 147 fr. 46.3: 108 fr. 50: 84 fr. 60: 101 Anaxilas fr. 21.4: 90 fr. 22: 78, 200 fr. 22.8–9: 208 fr. 22.15–7: 207 Anaximenes Rh. Al. 3.1: 120 Rh. Al. 21: 117 (n. 122) Anaxippus fr. 1.31–2: 147 Andocides 1.74: 246 1.100: 95 2.27: 26 Antidotus fr. 3: 242 Αntiphanes fr. 1: 126 fr. 11.4: 250 fr. 27: 142, 147, 147 fr. 27.8: 90 fr. 27.10–11: 42 fr. 27.12–6: 228 fr. 27.23–4: 78 fr. 55: 76, 187 fr. 55.7: 254 fr. 72: 156 fr. 80: 85, 86, 87 fr. 123: 110 fr. 140: 200 fr. 164: 110 fr. 175: 33 fr. 176: 148 fr. 177: 248 fr. 185: 106 fr. 188.5:43 fr. 189.8–11: 64 fr. 189.21–2: 166 fr. 193.7: 107 fr. 202.1–3: 95 fr. 229.1: 246 fr. 252: 224 fr. 261: 244

Index locorum Antipho 1.21: 234 1.26: 239 1.27: 111 Tetr. B.2.1: 220 Tetr. B.3.1: 220 Tetr. B.4.5: 244 Apollodorus Carystius fr. 5.10–11: 225 fr. 7: 31 fr. 29: 93, 107, 175 Apollodorus Mythographus Bibl. 1.9: 173 Bibl. 2.5.5: 173 Bibl. 3.14.8: 164 Bibl. 3.37–8: 135 Apostolius 9.98: 121 10.48: 44 Araros fr. 16: 86 Archestratus fr. 35.4 O-S: 110 fr. 35.9–10 O-S: 250 Archilochus fr. 114 W: 49 Archippus fr. 14: 88 Aristaenetus 1.27: 230 Aristophanes Ach. 180–1: 190 Ach. 269–70: 117 Ach. 381: 211 Ach. 411: 66 Ach. 410–34: 58 Ach. 418–9: 67 Ach. 478: 200 Ach. 566: 113, 119 Ach. 572–625: 112 Ach. 708: 201 Ach. 916–7: 83 Αch. 963–5: 122 Ach. 1018–36: 32 Ach. 1146: 193 Av. 78: 64 Av. 96: 27 Av. 179–81: 74 Av. 194: 254

Aristophanes [cont.] Av. 471: 211 Av. 482: 89 Av. 539: 250 Av. 567: 44 Av. 667–8: 193 Av. 1169: 119 Av. 1296: 26 Αv. 1368–9: 243 Av. 1554–5: 60 Ec. 17–29: 50 Ec. 122–3: 58 Ec. 179: 64 Ec. 361: 31 Ec. 420–1: 198 Ec. 722: 193 Ec. 776: 27 Ec. 901–4: 194 Ec. 1017–21: 165 Eq. 19–29: 117 Eq. 21–9 and 37–9: 162 Eq. 40–72: 93 Eq. 41: 159 Eq. 136–7: 154 Eq. 297–8: 133 Eq. 531–5: 9 Eq. 697: 178 Eq. 714: 86 Eq. 781: 190 Eq. 897–8: 158 Eq. 900–1: 159 Eq. 956: 75 Eq. 1036: 58 Eq. 1334: 190 Eq. 1400–01: 28 Eq. 1403: 31 Lys. 1–3: 50 Lys. 336–7: 31 Lys. 357: 96 Lys. 536–7: 159 Lys. 559–60: 108 Lys. 982: 177 Lys. 1044–6: 239 Nu. 340–1: 225 Nu. 348–50: 174 Nu. 554–6: 178 Nu. 631–2: 238 Nu. 835–7: 48 Nu. 1045–6: 28

279

280 Aristophanes [cont.] Nu. 1053–4: 28, 89 Nu. 1247–9: 83 Nu. 1423–4: 239 Pax 146–8: 66 Pax 201–2: 165 Pax 240–41: 122 Pax 238–9: 123 Pax 417: 129 Pax 524–6: 193 Pax 680–81: 72 Pax 809: 43 Pax 1103: 30 Pax 1121: 96 Pl. 40–6: 83 Pl. 119–20: 27 Pl. 129: 127 Pl. 176: 161 Pl. 288–9: 188 Pl. 328: 123 Pl. 423–4: 63 Pl. 552–4: 62, 219 Pl. 613–8: 28 Pl. 662–3: 158 Pl. 668–700: 157 Pl. 768–9: 76 Pl. 883–4: 33 Pl. 913–5: 211 Pl. 992: 98 Ra. 16–8: 61 Ra. 73–85: 72 Ra. 186: 181 Ra. 409–10: 193 Ra. 505–6: 187 Ra. 709–10: 31 Ra. 718–37: 128 Ra. 846: 66 Ra. 936–91: 56 Ra. 1058–9: 89 Ra. 1083–6: 45 Ra. 1158–9: 187 Ra. 1296–7: 191 Ra. 1454–5: 72 Ra. 1457–8: 25 Th. 29–30: 116 Th. 31: 122 Th. 82–4: 50 Th. 169: 107 Th. 191–2: 48

Index locorum Aristophanes [cont.] Th. 203–5: 204 Th. 218–9: 186 Th. 249–51: 187 Th. 387: 200 Th. 405: 64 Th. 636–7: 83 Th. 922: 22 Th. 974: 132 V. 73–88: 117, 235 V. 236–7: 242 V. 389–90:112 V. 403–4: 235 V. 499–501: 194 V. 579–80: 65 V. 914: 41 V. 923: 41 V. 982–4: 235 V. 1033: 154 V. 1258–9: 226 V. 1283: 31 (n. 45) V. 1308–10: 75 V. 1382–6: 222 V. 1388–1414: 242 V. 1401–5: 226 fr. 75: 70 fr. 102.1: 32 fr. 110.1: 32 fr. 148.2–3: 193 fr. 322: 112 fr. 452: 224 fr. 470: 202 fr. 578: 122 fr. 606: 187 fr. 607: 164 fr. 620: 96 fr. 629: 165 Aristopho fr. 4: 199 fr. 5.5–7: 64, 78, 85, 90 fr. 8: 246 fr. 10.1–2: 170 Aristoteles EN 1108a-b 6: 101 EN 1168a 30: 175 MM 1.1188b: 220 Po. 1449a 19–20: 137 Po. 1450a 33–5: 61 Po. 1450b 16–7: 61

Index locorum Aristoteles [cont.] Po. 1453b: 57 Po. 1455a 10–12: 65 Po. 1455a 28–9: 166 Po. 1458b 31–3: 62 Pol. 1271b: 97 Pol. 1300a 4–7: 239 Pol. 1342a 14: 65 Rh. 1364b: 84 Rh. 1386b 16–20: 233 Rh. 1386b 34: 101 Rh. 1402b 2–3: 168 Rh. 1406b 15–9 Rh. 1411a 16–8: 41 Top. 157a: 210 Asclepiades AP 5.162: 78 Astydamas fr. 4.1–3: 61 Athenaeus 1.19f: 222 2.37e: 179 3.104d: 215 3.114a: 76 3.115c: 242 3.119f: 142 4.58: 240 4.157f: 171 4.166b: 46 6.245a: 238 6.245d: 183 6.246f: 224 6.257a: 210 8.342a: 38 9.407d: 9 10.431a: 12 11.504f: 179 12.516c: 249 13.560d: 230 13.576f: 183 13.591c: 200 13.591d: 200 13.599d: 226 15.685e: 22 Axionicus fr. 4.4–6: 43 fr. 6.8: 86

Bacchylides fr. 44 Maehler: 173 fr. 66.9–14 Maehler: 173 Bion Bucolicus fr. 11 G: 85 Callimachus fr. 194.105–6 Pf.: 255 Cantharus fr. 10: 202 Carmina Popularia fr. 851a Page: 224 Catullus 66.13: 194 Cicero Am. 25.93: 86 De Or. 3.222: 119 Nat. Deor. 1.43: 24 (n. 40) Nat. Deor. 15.39: 25, 44 Tusc. 1.34.84: 171 Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. 4.5.21.1: 220 Comica adespota fr. 99: 224 fr. 101.12: 179 fr. 133: 28 fr. 221: 174 fr. 247.7–8: 172 fr. 701: 122 fr. 707: 27 fr. 733: 200 fr. 778: 256 fr. 1147.6–11: 98, 201 Crantor fr. 14 Mull.: 219 Crates Com. fr. 28: 62 fr. 37: 224 Crates Thebanus fr. 6.3 D: 85 fr. 360 D: 86 Cratinus fr. 41: 109 fr. 57: 201 fr. 73: 163 fr. 220: 154 fr. 222: 151 fr. 223: 151 fr. 259: 163

281

282 Cratinus [cont.] fr. 300: 118 (n. 127) fr. 406: 22 Cratinus Junior fr. 12.4: 84 Crobylus fr. 2: 242 fr. 8.4: 164 Democritus B 191 D-K: 55 B 196 D-K: 60 Demosthenes 5.15: 233 10.73: 131 18.127: 255 18.265: 166 18.274: 64 18.315: 233 19.53: 244 19.193–5: 133 19.229: 153 21.83: 219 21.163: 22 21.211: 175 21.226: 166 25.61: 148 26.26: 26 57.45: 218, 231 60.27–31: 111 [Demosthenes] 7.6–7: 119 (n. 128) 50.34: 28 54.9, 24: 99 58.53: 41 59.12: 26 59.18–49: 197 59.43: 161 59.108: 201 60.32: 60 Dinarchus Dem. 4: 41 Dio Cassius Hist. Rom. 1, p. 21 B.: 96 Diogenes Laertius 8.34: 113 Diodorus Comicus fr. 2.5–12: 88 fr. 2.6: 26, 86 fr. 2.12: 90

Index locorum Diogenes Laertius 6.94: 171 8.34: 113 Diogenes Sinopensis SSR V B 425: 147 Dionysius Halicarnassensis Din. 6: 152 Lys. 5: 154 [Dionysius Halicarnassensis] Rh. 5.2: 85 Dionysius Comicus fr. 2.15–20: 35 Dionysius Halicarnassensis Is. 4.13: 43 Th. 48: 123 Dionysius Tragicus fr. 7.2: 233 Diphilus fr. 29.4–5: 62 fr. 37: 47 fr. 89.4: 248 fr. 105.3: 248 fr. 106: 59 Dromo fr. 1: 90, 98 Ephippus fr. 2: 119 fr. 20: 88 Epicharmus fr. 32.3: 86 Eriphus fr. 3: 88 Eubulus fr. 8.2–4: 209 fr. 48: 179 fr. 67: 192 fr. 72: 224 fr. 87.3: 43, 86 fr. 88: 105 fr. 136.3: 179 fr. 140: 31 Εuphanes fr. 1: 99, 229 Euphro fr. 4: 25 fr. 8: 215 Eupolis fr. 99.5–8: 225 fr. 99.9–10: 158

Index locorum Eupolis [cont.] fr. 103: 72 fr. 110: 72 fr. 172.9: 86 fr. 192.100–02 (= 192z Ols.):148 fr. 195: 159, 214 fr. 220: 161 fr. 238: 211 fr. 298.3: 214 fr. 347: 202 fr. 490: 29 Euripides Alc. 353: 104 Alc. 442: 250 Alc. 528: 214 Alc. 821–2: 83 Andr. 222–3: 231 Andr. 458: 49 Ba. 284: 69 Ba. 771–2: 69 Cycl. 134: 126 Cycl. 262–5: 254 Cycl. 495–502: 201 Cycl. 525: 69 El. 375–6: 219 El. 426–7: 81 El. 941–4: 94 Hec. 279–80: 60 Hel. 1392: 58 Heracl. 80–2: 190 HF 279: 58 Ion 1427–9: 78 IT 683: 244 IT 1318–20: 116 Med. 85: 88 Med. 195–7: 60 Med. 1075: 194 Or. 62: 60 Or. 214: 182 Or. 463–4: 76 Or. 754: 48 Or. 968: 233 Or. 1528: 49 Ph. 439: 246 Tro. 302–3: 81 Tro. 758–9: 194 fr. 420.4–5 Kann.: 94 fr. 573.2–3 Kann.: 65 fr. 661.1 Kann.: 59

Eustathius in Od. p. 1434,62: 116 Galenus Compos. Medic. 12.672: 255 Gorgias Hel. 13 (fr. 11.9 D-K): 56 Hel. 14 (fr. 11.92–3 D-K): 61 fr. 23 D-K: 56 Harpocratio α 267 K.: 204 Hegesippus Comicus fr. 2: 87, 96 Ηeniochus fr. 4.7–8: 156 Heraclides Ponticus fr. 58 W.: 163 Hermogenes Meth. 15: 123 Hermippus fr. 47: 45, 70, 118, 140 fr. 63.5: 144 fr. 68: 28 fr. 77.4: 250 Herodotus 1.32: 233 1.89: 97 1.189: 153 2.67: 26 Hesiodus Op. 404: 126 Op. 686: 245 Τh. 227: 181 Hesychius α 5985: 255–6 δ 1357:224 ε 3904: 256 θ 104.5: 73 θ 106.1: 73 κ 1314: 122 κ 2224: 174 κ 3527: 177 σ 197:147 φ 178: 35 Hippocrates Aer. 14: 216 Epid. 5.40: 216 Morb. Sacr. 1: 112 Hipponax fr. 3a W: 133

283

284 Homerus Od. 2.37: 147 Od. 10.530: 147 Οd. 18.114:149 Od. 21.295–304: 173 Horatius Ars 333–4, 343–4: 62 Hymni Homerici h. Cer. 344: 132 Hypereides Ath. 3 Euxen. 31: 94 frr. 55–65 J.: 163 frr. 181–191 J.: 144 Iamblichus Myst. 1,11: 58 (n. 69) Isaeus 5.7, 8, 40: 22 Isocrates 8.87: 100 11.4: 120 11.25: 27 Libanius Decl. 28.1.12: 99 Decl. 32.1.6: 95 [Longinus] 34.2: 149, 154 Lucianus Cont. 1: 129 DMar. 14.3: 164 Luct. 5: 181 Nigr. 13: 61 Par. 2: 175 Par. 5: 86 Par. 10: 88 Par. 22: 126 Par. 57: 89 Syr. D. 14: 44 [Lucianus] Am. 27: 126 Am. 41: 77 Dem. Enc. 38: 122 Lycurgus fr. 14.9 Con.: 160 Lyrica Adespota 1.11–14 Powell: 231 Lycophron Alex. 841: 256

Index locorum Lysias 1.24: 164 7.14: 219 24.2: 234 31.11: 42 [Lysias] 20.1: 245 Lysippus fr. 5: 30 Macho fr. 5.34–6 G: 108 fr. 14 G: 183 fr. 15.235–6 G: 86 fr. 16.300–307 G: 212 fr. 16.327–332 G: 217 frr. 16 and 17 G: 208 fr. 18.424 G: 147 fr. 16.300–307 G: 104, 110 Matro Conv. 10–11: 44 Menander Dysc. 57–63: 78, 85, 87, 197 Dysc. 57–68: 231 Dysc. 58–9: 64 Dysc. 286–7: 225 Dysc. 431–55: 102 Dysc. 625–702: 102 Dysc. 797–800: 95 Dysc. 799–800: 41 Epitr. 358–79: 33 Epitr. 573–6: 211 Epitr. 1089–90: 27 Kol. 50: 247 Mon. 247: 252 Mon. 501: 106 Pk. 121–71: 182 Sam. 13–7: 244 Sam. 43: 104 Sam. 67: 244 Sam. 105: 215 Sam. 299–300: 211 Sam. 484: 156 Sam. 603: 88 Sam. 607: 156 fr. 50: 95 fr. 167.137: 222 fr. 186.6: 216 fr. 207: 95

Index locorum Menander [cont.] fr. 208: 238 fr. 225.2–4: 104 fr. 264: 47, 48 fr. 266: 247 fr. 341: 59 fr. 343: 94, 193 fr. 348: 112 fr. 854: 219 fr. 631.1–4: 44 fr. 663: 65 fr. 718: 164 fr. 802.3: 42 fr. 878: 27 Metagenes fr. 6.1–10: 153 Mnesimachus fr. 7: 118 Nicomachus Comicus fr. 1: 35, 84 Nicostratus Comicus fr. 20: 187 Oppianus Hal. 3.567f: 144 Ovidius Ars Amat. 233–6: 194 Parthenius 11: 168 Pausanias 1.17.1: 234 1.28.8: 210 9.39.8: 181 Petronius 63.3: 250 Pherecrates fr. 70.3: 89 fr. 113.3–4: 153 fr. 114.2–3: 216 fr. 137.6: 30 fr. 145: 187 fr. 155: 55 fr. 155.19–21: 116 fr. 164: 49 Philemo fr. 3.9: 194 fr. 9: 197 fr. 82.5–6: 35 fr. 92.1–2: 59

Philemo [cont.] fr. 100: 248 fr. 105.3: 248 fr. 105.4–5: 62 fr. 121–3: 59 Philetaerus fr. 6: 192 fr. 17: 163 Philippides fr. 9.6–7: 200 fr. 18: 66 Philippus Comicus fr. 2.3–4: 222 Philo Judaeus Omn. Prob. Lib. 6.34: 218 Spec. leg. 3.3: 233 Philodemus Po. 5 col.iv Mang.: 58, 61 Po. 5 col. xiii Mang.: 58 Philonides fr. 1: 202 Philostratus Gym. 3.9–10: 222 Phoenicides fr. 1: 39 Phrynichus Atticista Ecl. 109: 83 PS 58.8: 31 Plato Comicus fr. 12: 225 fr. 14: 134 fr. 18: 203 fr. 30: 122 fr. 65.5–6: 159 fr. 164: 109 fr. 188.12–3: 177 fr. 203: 219 fr. 211.1: 110 Plato Ap. 24b: 26 Chrm. 153b: 186 Grg. 447b: 104 Grg. 463d: 216 Grg. 512c: 175 La. 201: 59 Lg. 653d: 59 Lg. 679b: 219 Lg. 733b: 59

285

286 Plato [cont.] Lg. 757e: 252 Lg. 801b: 104 Ly. 211e: 84 Men. 80c: 75 Phdr. 254b: 187 Phdr. 261a: 61 Phdr. 273b: 132 Phdr. 273c: 250 Phdr. 274c: 26 Phlb. 48b: 101 Prm. 126: 104 Prm. 128b: 89 Prt. 337d: 220 Prt. 362a: 132 R. 413e: 97 R. 606a: 55 R. 606b: 56 R. 608d: 215 Smp. 174b: 107 Smp. 202b: 26 Smp. 215b: 163 Smp. 217a-218a: 79 Smp. 219c: 255 Smp. 223c-d: 19 (n. 32) Tht. 197b: 246 Plautus Aul. 95–6: 187 Aul. 371–87: 104 Aul. 503–4: 239 Capt. 69: 107 Cast. 639: 179 Men. 162: 86 Pers. 58: 224 Pseud. 659: 208 Rud. 721–2: 224 Stich. 198–208: 212 Plutarchus Aem. 36.8: 93 Arat. 54.3: 229 Arist. 27.3: 89 Cat. Mai. 25.4: 126 Consol. ad Apoll. 106c:55 Comp. Nic. et Crass. 1.3: 41 Crass. 33.3: 125 De adulatore 51a: 86 Dem. 11.4–6: 131 Dem. 14.1: 152 Dem. 27.2: 215

Index locorum Plutarchus [cont.] Lyc. 19.2: 122 Lys. 5: 84 Phoc. 7.3–4: 48 Phoc. 22.1: 141 Phoc. 27.5: 215 Phoc. 35.2: 215 Sol. 24: 90 Quaest. Conv. 612c: 182 Quaest. Conv. 646b: 87 Quaest. Conv. 705a: 182 [Plutarchus] Consol. ad Apoll. 106b: 60 Vit. dec. Or. 848a: 43 Vit. dec. Or. 848f: 39 (n. 52) Vit. dec. Or. 849c: 44 Pollux 2.108: 31 3.101: 100 4.145: 212 4.179: 256 6.70–71: 250 7.108: 164 8.112: 239 10.102–3: 242 Polybius 2.56.11: 57, 61 Polyzelus fr. 2: 146 Pomponius 80 Ribb.: 105 Posidippus fr. 13: 199, 200 fr. 28.7–9: 121 fr. 28.20: 42 fr. 32.1–2: 59 Pytho Agēn, fr. 1.2–3 Sn.: 146 Agēn, fr. 1.12–3 Sn.: 157 Quintilianus Inst. Or. 8.6.61: 127 Inst. Or. 10.2.77: 153 Scholia in Aeschinem 1.52: 174 Scholia in Aristophanem Av. 1407: 113 Av. 1490: 112, 121 Eq. 589: 207 Nu. 109: 208

Index locorum Scholia in Aristophanem [cont.] Th. 346: 147 Scholia in Homerum Il. 14.276 Seneca Tranqu. Anim. 15.5: 101 Solon fr. 4.16 W: 27 fr. 25.1 W: 229 Sophilus fr. 8: 43 Sophocles Ant. 127–8: 154 Ant. 175–90: 254 Ant. 1186–8: 187 Ant. 1277–9: 246 Aj. 961–2: 100 El. 301–2: 49 Ichn. 83–5 Sn.: 167 OC 808: 214 fr. 152: 96 fr. 354.2–5: 246 fr. 398: 247 fr. 670: 181 Sotades Comicus fr. 1.19: 35 Stephanus Byzantius 329.9–12: 135 Strabo 1.1.10: 57 7.3.12: 76 13.1.12: 177 Strattis fr. 46.3: 68 Suda κ 878: 75 κ 1138: 168 π 2058: 188 ω 260: 170 Teleclides fr. 1.4,8: 153 Terentius Eun. 49: 201 Eun. 129, 232–53: 83 Eun. 232–64: 197 Eun. 250–3: 87 Eun. 549–606: 192 Eun. 550–2: 194 Eun. 925: 83,192

Terentius [cont.] Phorm. 337–45: 93 Theognis 649–652 W.: 220 Theognidea v. 1341 W: 98 Theophilus fr. 1.2: 122 fr. 2: 163 fr. 4: 166 Theophrastus Char. 2.4: 86, 166 Char. 4.12: 29 Char. 5.6: 48 Char. 9.8: 29 Char. 29.4: 84 HP 7.12.2: 77 Theopompus Comicus fr. 5: 159 fr. 18: 146 Theopompus Historicus FGrHist 115F 395: 233 Thucydides 2.41.4: 87, 154 2.45.1: 233 3.82: 84 7.75.6: 66 Timotheus Comicus fr. 1: 93 Tragica Adespota fr. 10a: 65 fr. 618. 5–7: 59 Varro Sat. Men. 312b: 148 Xenarchus fr. 4: 192 fr. 4.16–7: 194 fr. 10: 177 Xenophon An. 1.4.9: 44 An. 2.1.23: 106 An. 4.2.12: 187 Cyr. 2.4.16: 59 Cyr. 7.5.49: 129 Cyr. 7.5.50: 76 Eq. 9.10: 188 HG 5.2.2: 101 Mem. 1.2.57: 175 Mem. 2.3.14: 245

287

288

Index rerum et nominum notabiliorum

Xenophon [cont.] Mem. 4.4.20: 244 Oec. 9.15: 240 Oec. 13.10: 129 Smp. 4.38: 229

Xenophon [cont.] Smp. 6.5: 166 Smp. 8.28: 88 Smp. 8.42: 85

4. Index rerum et nominum notabiliorum accumulation (comic): 61 adverbs colloquial: 186, 251 combination of: 201, 250 position: 185 postponement: 165 Aeschylus in 4th cent. comedy: 203 Aigyptios: 22 Diktyoulkoi: 140 Psychagōgoi: 60 agora bathhouses near: 28 meeting place: 182 aigyptiazein: 22 Alcaeus Comicus Palaistra: 28 Alcmeon: 63–4 Alexis: 10 Daktylios: 15, 33 Epistolē: 91 Kaunioi: 15, 168 Pankratiastēs: 105 Pontikos: 15 Poppyzousa: 188 Syntrechontes: 69 amator exclusus: 12, 91, 98, 197, 199, 201, 202 Ameipsias Katesthiōn: 147 Sapphō: 15, 226 Amphis Balaneion: 15, 28 Daktylios: 15, 33 Sapphō: 15, 226 anagnorisis: see recognition Anaxandrides Poleis: 22

Antiphanes Aigyptioi: 15 Apokarterōn: 172 Mylōn: 28 Pontikos: 15 Poiēsis: 52, 54 Sapphō: 15, 226 Skythēs: 93 antiphrasis: 14, 42, 117 Antiphon On the Murder of Her.: 210 Anubis: 26 Anytus: 13, 143 apagōgē: 210 apostrophē: 131, 162 argumentum a fortiori: 14, 25 Aristomedes: 13, 14, 45, 112, 114, 130, 131, 134, 138, 139, 162, 165 Aristophanes Aiolosikōn: 168 Babylōnioi: 70 Ranae: 68 Herōes: 15, 111, Hōrai: 69 Skēnas Katalambanousai:50, 51 Thesmophoriazousai: 50 Astydamas Alcmeōn: 58 Atagartis: 44 Athenogenes (metic, Egypt. origin): 23 Autocles: 13, 46, 139, 163, 164 Autocleides: 12, 13, 14, 198 Autocrates (comic poet): 9, 19 (n. 31) Bastet: 27 bathhouses bad reputation of: 28 meeting place: 29 place of corruption: 28

Index rerum et nominum notabiliorum Briareos: 14, 117, 121 Callias Comicus Aigyptios: 22 Satyroi: 45 Callimedon (the so-called “Carabus”) 13, 14, 107, 166, 212, 214, 215 Callisthenes (politician): 13, 39, 40, 42 Caunus: 168 Centaurs: 173 Cephisodorus: 13, 45, 138, 140, 157, 160 character (comedy of): 12, 100–102 Chaerephilus: 13, 14, 140, 143, 144 Chaeremon Dionysos: 68 Kentauros: 173 Chaerephon: 12, 13, 82, 91, 93, 95, 107, 156 Deipnon: 91 Chians: 250 chorus: 114, 136 Chrysis: 13, 208 Chionides Hērōes: 15, 111 comparisons: 12, 75, 162, 222 Conalis (?): 13 Conisalus: 177 Cormus: 13, 82, 99 Corydus: 12, 13, 82, 103, 106, 183 courtesans: 12, 196–200, 204, 206–9, 226–7 Crates Hērōes: 15, 111, Cratinus Bousiris: 22 Cheirōnes: 113 Dēliades: 36 Dionysalexandros: 69, 137, 204 Pytinē: 55 Satyroi: 45 Seriphioi: 140 Ctesippus: 13, 47–8 Delos: 36 Demetrius Comicus Sikelia: 37 Demetrius od Phaleron: 235 Demon (politician): 13, 39, 40, 42 Demosthenes (orator): 11, 13, 14, 40, 112, 116, 121 (as miles gloriosus): 113–4, 117, 118

289

Demosthenes (orator) [cont.] Third Philippic (or. 9): 40 Fourth Philippic (or. 10): 114, 130 Against Leptines (or. 20): 48 Against Zenothemis (or. 32): 42 Demotion: 13, 94 Dexamenus: 173 Diodorus Siculus 18.13.5: 43 Dion (unknown): 157 Dionysus: 68–9, 139 Dionysian themes: 12, 68 Dioscorides fr. 36 G-P: 106 Diphilus Balaneion: 15, 28 Elaiōnēphrourountes: 54 Polypragmōn: 15 Sapphō: 15, 226 dithyrambic diction: 125, 163 Ecphantides Satyroi: 45 Egypt parody of custom: 25 eikasmos: (see comparison) enkoimesis: 157 epanorthōsis: 119 Epigenes Pontikos: 15 Ephippus Sapphō: 15, 226 Eupolis Dēmoi: 113 Taxiarchoi: 70 Euripides Aiolos: 168 Bacchae: 69 Oineus: 67 Telephus: 63 Eurytion (centaur): 173 figurative language: 14, 98, 238 fish abstinence from (said of Syrians): 44 fishmongers: 43 fish-market: 106 Gnathaena: 13, 208 gnomic pronouncements: 14, 59 gynaikonomoi: 10, 237 hair-cutting: 48

290

Index rerum et nominum notabiliorum

Halonnesus debate: 114, 118–9, 169, 171 hapax eiremēnon: 14, 110, 129, 153 Harpalus: 13, 37, 39 Hegesippus Philetairoi: 85 Heniochus Polypragmōn: 15 Heracleides of Salamis (honorand): 70, 72 Hermes: 129, 132, 133 hypallagē: 87 hypokrisis: 119, 123, 131, 133 Hierocleia: 13, 209 Hyperides: 11, 13, 14, 36, 39, 43–4, 45, 138, 140, 150, 151, 153, 208 katabasis: 132 katachysmata: 74 kaunios erōs: 168 Lamachus: 113, 117 loidoria: 130 Lopadion: 13, 209 Lyca (courtesan): 13, 206, 208 Lycophron Marathōnioi: 190 Menedēmos: 137 Lycurgus (so-called “Ibis”): 23 Lycurgus (orator): 252 Against Menesaichmus: 73 Lynceus: 103–4 Macho Epistolē: 91 Magnes Dionysos: 68 Marsyas (Autocles): 14, 163, 164 Menander Geōrgos: 32 Daktylios: 15, 33 Dyskolos: 10, 21, 212 Methē: 183 Sikyōnioi: 91 Synaristōsai: 237 fr. 156: 25 medical vocabulary: 63, 126, 170 metatheatrical language: 12, 166 metre absence of caesura (in iamb. trim.): 15, 74, 103, 132, 143, 245 absence of diairesis (in troch. tetr.): 156, 159 anapaest in trochaic tetrameter: 15

metre [cont.] asclepiadic minor: 30 correptio Attica: 30 διδόασιν (quantity of –α): 25 Porson’s law (infringement): 147 resolution of long: 165 split anapaest: 74, 120 synecphonesis: 15, 246 trochaic tetrameter: 15, 138, 156 Misgolas: 13, 206, 227–9 Mnesimachus Philippos: 16 Moerocles (politician): 13, 39, 40, 41, Myrrhine: 13, 208 Myrtilus Titanopanes: 203 mythological themes: 12, 13, 174 Nannion: 13, 206, 207 Neaera: 13, 196–7 Neilus: 13, 82, 99 naturalization of metics: 144 nicknames: 26 (Lycurgus the ‘Ibis’), 77–8 (Drakontion), 106–7 (Corydus), 109 and 215 (Carabus), 127–130 and 132 (Aristomedes the ‘Brazen’), 149 (Phryne), 163, 171 and 175 (Tithymallus), 182–3 (of hetaerai), 207 (Nannion), 208 (Lyca), 209 (Lopadion), 131 (Brazen) Nicochares Kentauros: 173 Nicostratus Tokistēs: 22 Niobe: 65 oaths: 127, 166, 194 Oineus: 58, 67 Old comedy (reperf.): 12 crude vocabulary: 14 obscene vocabulary resembling of: 14, 15, 30–31 onomatopoeia: 188 Ophelio Kentauros: 173 opsophagoi: 38, 43, 44, 107, 141, 146, 150, 151, 153, 212, 214, 215, 228 Pamphilus (Egyptian): 13, 22 Parabyston: 209–10 paraklausithyron: 91, 98

Index rerum et nominum notabiliorum parasites: 12, 82–4, 89, 91, 95–6, 107, 185 197, 210, 222, 224, 237 compared with gods: 88 epistolary parasite: 91 fellow-lovers: 85 in the market: 108–110 paratragedy: 12, 63, 207 paretymology: 14 paronomasia: 123 parody of Egyptian piety: 27 periphrasis: 125, 126 Pheidippus: 13, 143, 185, 187 Pherecrates Epilēsmōn hē Thalassa: 183 Philemo Apokarterōn Daktylios: 15, 33 Hērōes: 15, 111, Neaera: 15, 196, 197 Philippides Adōniazousai: 50, 51 (n. 63) Philippus (gelōtopoios): 105 Philoctetes: 66 Philostephanus Dēlios: 36 Phineus and his sons: 65 Phryne: 12, 13, 44 (n. 57), 196, 197, 199, 208 Phrynichus Atticista PS 61.12: 45 (n. 58) Phrynichus Tragicus Aigyptios Milētou Halōsis: 60 Phrynichus Comicus Satyroi: 45 Plangon: 13, 207 Plato Comicus Ai aph’ hierōn: 50, 51 (n. 63) Hellas or Nēsoi: 37 Plautus Curculio: 33, 79, 91, 197 Pseudolus: 91 Rudens: 79 Poetae Melici Graeci fr. 905: 28 polyeideia: 19 polypragmosynē: 211 and epichairekakia: 212

291

Polyzelus Dēmotyndareōs: 45 Procne: 14, 164 parody: 14 praeteritio (rhetorical technique): 14, 82 prophetic future: 146 prosexis (rhetorical technique): 14, 56 Pythionice: 12, 13, 137, 138, 143, 146, 147, 188, 208, 228 Python Agēn: 51, 137, 138 recognition comedy: 12, 33, 78–9, 91 riddle scenes: 113, 114, 125 Sappho: 226–7 satire personal: 12–14, 45–6, 141, 157, 238 satire political: 11, 16, 36–7, 45–6, 157 satyr drama: 12 Satyrus (actor): 13, 130, 131, 133 Sophilus Dēlia: 36 starving persons: 12, 155, 157, 159, 170, 171 Stoic gods: 24 Strattis Anthrōporestēs: 203 Suda (dependence from Athenaeus): 17 symposion: 125, 237 synaisthēsia: 123 Syrians (abstaining from fish): 44 and Telemachus: 74 slaves newly-bought: 76 Telecleides Amphiktyones: 139 Telemachus (orator): 11, 13, 45, 70, 72–4, 138, 156, 157, 183, 185, 186 Telephus: 58, 62–3 Terentius Eunuchus: 93 Tereus (Aristomedes): 14, 164, 165 Theognetus Kentauros: 173 Thudippus: 13, 45, 140, 158 Τimocles (comic poet) (a toper?): 9, 16 and Alexis: 15 and Aristophanes: 11–12, 66 and Mnesimachus: 16 and Antiphanes: 16 and Philemon: 16

292

Index rerum et nominum notabiliorum

Τimocles (comic poet) [cont.] and Xenarchus: 16 plays doubtfully attributed to: 18 Timocles (tragic poet): 9, 19 Timotheus Pyktēs: 15 Tithymallus: 12, 13, 82, 170, 171, 175 tragedy old trag. reproduced in 4th c: 51, 58 consolatory function of: 55–8

tragedy [cont.] and mania: 63 psychagōgia and instruction: 57–8 variatio: 63 women (in ecstatic rites): 50 attending theatre: 50–51 wordplay: 114, 131, 151, 162–3, 165, 171, 183, 228 zoomorphic religion: 24, 25

© 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783946317418 — ISBN E-Book: 9783946317425