Machon: The Fragments 0521609291, 9780521609296 [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

CAMBRIDGE CLASSICAL TEXTS AND COM M ENTARIES EDITORS

C. O. BRINK

D. W. LUCAS

1

MACHON

F. H. SANDBACH

MACHON THE FRAGMENTS E D I T E D W I T H AN I N T R O D U C T I O N AND COMMENTARY BY

A. S. F. G O W M.A., F.B.A. F E L L O W OF T R I N I T Y COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

C A M B RI DG E AT T H E U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS 1965

P U B L I S H E D BY T H E S Y N D I C S O P T H E C A M B R I D G E U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London, N.W . 1 American Branch: 32 Ease 57th Street, New York 22, N.Y, West African Office: P.O. Box 33, Ibadan, Nigeria

C A M B R I D G E U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

196 $

Printed in Great Britain at the University Printing House, Cambridge (Brooke Crutchley, University Printer)

D. L. P COLLBGAE ADI VTOR I AMICO

CONTENTS Preface

page ix

IN T R O D U C T IO N Machon ΧΡΕΙΑΙ

3

A. The Genre

12

B. Machon’s Book

15

(i) Contents

15

(ii) Sources (in) Style

19 22

(iv) Purpose

23

Athenaeus (i) Cod. Ven. Marc. 447 (ii) The Epitome

25 27

(iii) Editions o f Athenaeus

28

Sigla

34

TEXT

35

List o f Abbreviations

58

COM M ENTARY

59

IN D E X E S (i) Index Verborum (ii) Index to Introduction and Commentary

147 159

C O N C O R D A N C E TO ATHENAEUS

161

vii

PREFACE The collection of anecdotes to which Machon attached the name Χρείαι and with which this book is primarily concerned has not received much attention from scholars, yet it is o f con­ siderable interest both as a document o f social history and as representing a type o f literature o f which, though popular and extensive in antiquity, little has survived. Walter Headlam, a keen student o f Athenaeus to whom we owe all o f Machon that we possess, once told me that he thought o f working on it, but he died in 1908, not many months after this conversation and before he had had time to embark on a project for which he was very much better equipped than I am. Perhaps because I was an undergraduate at the time and had probably never pre­ viously heard the name o f Machon the remark lingered in my memory. W ork on other Hellenistic poets kept Machon inter­ mittently within my view, and when, more recently, I had leisure to consider him more attentively I found that though recent editors o f Athenaeus, particularly Meineke and Kaibel, had done a good deal to improve the text o f the Χρείαι, for a commentary one was driven back more than 150 years to Schweighäuser and a further 200 to Casaubon, that they had passed over many difficulties in silence, and that there were many problems which, if they defy solution, yet call for dis­ cussion. This short book is the outcome o f that discovery. The fragments o f the Comedies (here xix and xx) were in somewhat better case than the Χρείαι since they had been included by Meineke, Kock, and Edmonds in their editions o f the Comic Fragments, but one o f them at least was in need o f more detailed treatment than it had received there, and for that reason as well as for the sake of completeness they are included here. My thanks are due to various scholars for assistance, and first

PREFACE

to Professor D. L. Page who read my manuscript at an early stage and improved it by many acute and valuable suggestions, and to Mr F. H. Sandbach, from whose careful scrutiny o f the typescript the book has profited in many ways and many places. All three editors of the series have helped with the proofs, and Mr P. M. Fraser, besides modernising some o f the references in them, supplied me with several valuable new ones. I am indebted also to Dr W . G. Amott, who has met from a microfilm in his possession my questions about the manuscript o f Athenaeus; to Professor T. B. L. Webster, who has answered enquiries on the New Comedy; and to Professor R. P. Winnington-Ingram, who has enlightened my ignorance of Greek music. My other debts concern individual points and are all, I hope, acknowledged in the commentary. A.S.F.G. CAMBRIDGE

INTRODUCTION

I MACHON Outside the Deipnosophistae o f Athenaeus there are only one or perhaps two references1 to Machon in Greek literature; inside it are the substantial body o f fragments with which this book is concerned and two statements about their author. In 14.664A Aemilianus, one o f the interlocutors in the discussion, previous to quoting fi. xix, says : Μάχων S’ ό Σικυώνιος των μέν κατ’ ’Απολλόδωρον τον Καρύσπον κωμζρδιοποιώυ εις έση και αυτός · ονκ έδίδαξεν δ’ Άθήνησι τάς κωμωδίας τάς έαυτου άλλ’ έν Άλεξανδρείςι. ήν δ’ αγαθός ποιητής εΐ τις άλλος των μετά τούς Ιπτά, διόπερ ό γραμματικός Αριστοφάνης έσπούδασε συσχολάσαι αύτω νέος ών. In 6.241 f Plutarchus, another inter­ locutor, about to quote fi. 1, says: μνημονεύει 6s αύτου [sc. Φιλοξένου του Πτερνοκοπίδος] καί Μάχων ό κωμωδιοποιός ό Κορίνθιος μέν ή Σικυώνιος γενόμενος έν ’Αλεξανδρείρ: δέ τη Ιμή καταβιονς καί διδάσκαλος γενόμενος των κατά κωμωδίαν μερών Άριστοφάνους του γραμματικού* δς καί άπέθανεν έν τη ’Αλεξάνδρειά, καί έπιγέγραπται αύτοντφ μνηματι.. .and he appends the epitaph, to which I shall come back. Plutarchus says ‘in my Alexandria’, as he does also in 276 a,3 since he is cast in the dialogue as an Alexandrian γραμματικός. Aemilianus Maurus is also a γραμματικός as is Myrtilus, a Thessalian, who quotes Machon (fir. xn-xviu). The others who do so are Democritus, a philosopher o f Nicomedia (fir. vmf.), and Cynulcus, the nickname o f a Cynic philosopher named Theodorus (fi. xi). Since however one and all are merely 1 The epigram of Dioscorides discussed below and fr. xxi. a And probably in 12.541 a where the speaker is not identified. Cf. also Kaibel 1, p. xxv.

3

1-2

INTRODUCTION

mouthpieces for the erudition o f Athenaeus himself they need trouble us no more, but it is worth remembering that Athenaeus, a native o f Naucrads, was well placed for researches into the literary history o f Alexandria, and if, as he claims (8.3360), he had read and excerpted more than eight hundred plays of the Middle Comedy, it must surely have been in its library that he found them. When therefore ‘Plutarchus’ con­ tinues επιγέγραπται αύτοΰ τω μνηματι and quotes the lines, though he is probably drawing an inference from them, it is just possible that Athenaeus despite the long lapse of time had read them on the tomb. The epitaph is preserved not only in Athenaeus but also in the Palatine Anthology (7.708), where it constitutes the chief and perhaps the only mention o f Machon outside Athenaeus. Its author, there named, is Dioscorides, an epigrammatist whose known connexions are all Alexandrian, and the text constructed from the two sources is : Tcp κωμωδοχράφψ κούφη κόνι τον φιλάγωνα κισσόν υπέρ τύμβου 3ντι A 3 κύφωνα Gow κηφήνα A Α.Ρ. 4 άμφιέσαι A 6 Θύμον Bouhier -μός Α.Ρ. φυτόν A If, then, we put together the information derived from this with that contained in the passages quoted above we learn that 1 I have commented on this epigram elsewhere (GkAnth.: Hellenistic Epi­ grams 2.257 andAitre. Aless. in hon. A. Rostagni 527). It will probably suffice to say here that ivy in Hellenistic verse is often the symbol o f success in the theatre, and that though ιτσλίμιτλυτο?, much-washed, in the sense offaded, washed out, is possibly defensible o f persons it is evidendy incompatible with κηφήν, drone. The noun required should denote a garment, and κύφων is defined by Phorius as χιτωυοξ tTSos but also (from Archil, fr. 178) as ό εύτελής άνθρωποί.

4

MACHON

Machon (who bears a rare but uninformative name) was a native of Corinth or Sicyon who spent most o f his life, and lived to some age (6 πρέσβυ$), at Alexandria. His comedies were produced there and not in Athens,1 and though he was less esteemed than the Pleiad2 he enjoyed a considerable reputa­ tion. Dioscorides, whether his noun was θύμον or φυτόν, speaks of the ‘Attic thyme’ exhaled by the plays, using a figure which elsewhere connotes elegance.^ His adjective δριμύ how­ ever makes it plain that that it is primarily Machon’s pungency rather than his polish which he is commending, and his second couplet implies that he looks on him rather as a survival from the Old Comedy than as a representative of the New. The two fragments of the plays quoted by Athenaeus (xix, xx) are both gastronomic and might come from almost any dramatist o f the Middle or New Comedy, but it is perhaps significant that though Athenaeus too praises Machon as a dramatist, he quotes only two passages (compared with a round forty from Diphilus) as relevant to the themes o f the Deipnosophistae. The contents of the Χρεΐαι cannot be taken as evidence for the Comedies but, with due caution, it may be noted that their frequent and extreme coarseness is much more reminiscent o f Aristophanes than of Menander.4 There remain for consideration the sentences in Athenaeus which throw light on the date o f Machon. He was, we are told, els των κατά ’Απολλόδωρον τόν Καρύσπον κωμορδιοποιων. ‘About the time of Apollodorus ’»which seems to be the meaning, 1 Athenaeus's phrase τάζ κωμψδίοξ τάς εαυτοί/ taken at its face value would seem to imply that he had nevertheless been connected with the Athenian theatre though not as a playwright. 4 Nothing is known o f a Comic Pleiad and this perhaps means only that among dramatists the poets o f the Tragic Pleiad stood highest in estimation. * Q uindi i2.io.25, Luc. Hist. Consent. 15. 4 For coarseness in the N ew Comedy see Legratid Daos 612. Rostagni (Riv, Fil. 44.293 = Scr. Min. 2.2.19) suggested that Machon embellished plots of New Comedy type cantu et tnusicis numeris lasdvisque tods, but there is no evidence to suggest that he was in these respects a precursor o f Plautus.

INTRODUCTION

would not be very precise even if it referred to Machon alone and not, as it does, to a group o f dramatists, and even if Apollodorus o f Carystus were easier to date.1 Webster, on the strength of a reference in the Phormio, a version o f Apollodorus’s Επιδικαζόμενος, placed the original in the decade 280-270 b .c . and thought that its author, who was much in­ debted to Menander, ‘started to produce not long before 28ο’.2 Even however if this date were precise for Apollodorus it would not be so for Machon, and οί κατά ’Απολλόδωρον may not mean much more than the generation o f dramatists following Menander, who died according to a lost inscription (I.G. 14. 1184) έπ’ άρχοντας Φιλίππου (293/2 B.c.). However, a date for Machon towards the middle o f the century which may perhaps be inferred from the reference to Apollodorus would tally well enough with the implications o f the reference to Aristophanes o f Byzantium. It appears that Machon, like Callimachus and other Alexandrian literary men, was a scholar as well as a poet and that Aristophanes in his youth was glad to be instructed by him in matters pertaining to Comedy.3 In Suidas some sentences relating to this Aristophanes have seem­ ingly been transferred by accident to the comedian Aristonymus, where we read προέστη τής του βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης μετά Άπολλώνιον Ιτος άγων ξβ'. The implied sequence of librarians is wrong, for it appears from p.Ox. 1241 that between Apollonius and Aristophanes the librarianship was held by 1 On the dating o f later Greek comedies and their authors (a precarious enterprise) see Webster C.Q. 46.13, Studies in Later Greek Comedy 239, and passim, Schiassi in Riv. Fii. 79.217, Capps in AJ.P. 21.38. Capps has shown that Apollodorus o f Gela, with whom Kaibel (.RE 1.2852) wished to identify A. of Carystus, was au earlier poet, but that A. of Athens may be so identified. The statement o f Suidas that A. o f Gela was σύγχρονο? Μενάνδρου is there­ fore irrelevant here. * Studies 206. 3 The phrase τών κατά κωμωδίαν μερών is obscure. In later life Aristophanes was to edit the text o f his namesake and perhaps to compose a commentary on him. See J. W . White Scholia on iheAves xvm. The μέρη o f the Old Comedy may be Parodos, Parabasis, and so on.

6

MACHON

Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes died about 195 b . c ., and if, despite the detected mistake, we accept from Suidas the statement that Aristophanes was 62 when he was appointed, he will have been bom about 257 b . c . and may have sat at Machon’s feet in the late forties o f that century. According to Suidas Aristophanes was as a boy the pupil o f Zenodotus and as a young man o f Callimachus.1 The phrase νέος ών used both by Athenaeus and by Suidas is imprecise but it suggests that Machon and Calli­ machus were teaching in Alexandria at about the same time and may warrant a cautious conclusion that they were not far from contemporaries. Callimachus was bom perhaps in the closing years of the fourth century and lived into the reign o f Ptolemy Euergetes, and a floruit in the decade 260-250 b . c . would seem a reasonable guess for Machon. Beyond this there is little to go upon. The date o f Dioscorides depends on that of Machon, for except that the epitaph was presumably written shortly after Machon’s death there is no other evidence. The dates o f people mentioned in the Χρεΐαι may help a little to establish a terminus post quern, and the most promising seem to be the hetaerae Gnathaena2 and her daughter Gnathaenium, though it is important to stress at the outset that anecdotes attaching to such people may be devoid o f historical truth and that in Greece as in England jokes tend to attach themselves to ‘characters’ whom they seem to fit, and are often ascribed to more than one.3 1 The entry continues irpòs 5έ τούτοι* και Διονυσίου του *Ιάμβου καί Εύφρονίδου του Κοριν&ίου ή Σικυωνίου. Nauck, accepting the view that Euphronidas was the Aristophanic scholar Euphronius, wished from Ath. 6.241 ΐ (above) to read Εύφρονίου του (Χερρονησίτου καί Μάχωνο*) του K.f| Σ. a It is somewhat surprising that Gnathaena should be unknown to R E which devotes substantial space to each o f two Laises and no less than 13 columns to Phryne. 3 Thus a story told o f Zeno in Ath. 5.186D is attached in 8.344 A to Bion, and in 14.63ip Athenaeus recording an apophthegm o f Asopodorus adds that it is ascribed also to Antigenidas. The proposition that a way to Hades is open from anywhere is variously ascribed to Anaxagoras, Anaximenes, Aristippus, Bias, and Diogenes (see Gnomo/. Vat. 115). Other examples will be found below.

INTRODUCTION

The name Γνάθαινα is akin to other masculine and feminine names known from inscriptions (Γvó0is, -Bios, -Öcov; -θη, -θυλλις1) and perhaps occurs in an Attic inscription.2 It may there­ fore have been given by her parents to the woman with whom we are concerned. When however Timocles in his Όρεσταυτοκλείδης [fr. 25) writes, apparently o f the paederast Autocleides of Aeschin. 1.52: περί δέ τόν πανάθλιον [ εϋδουσι γραες, Νάννιον, Πλάγγων, Λύκα, | Γνάθαινα, Φρύνη, Πυθιονίκη, Μυρρίνη, I Χρυσίς, Κοναλλίς, Ίερόκλεια, Λοπάδιον, there would be a chronological difficulty, particularly if yp&s is pressed, in identifying his Gnathaena with Machon’s. She might be a predecessor in the same trade, but the names are perhaps rather typical hetaera-names without reference to individuals.3 The same is true o f Anaxilasfr. 22, where again the name is one o f a long list o f hetaerae; and it is plain that Γναθαίνιον in Eubul. fr. 89, if a real person, cannot be the descendant o f Machon’s Gnathaena. I disregard therefore these Middle Comedy passages as irrelevant to the present enquiry/ Gnathaena and Gnathaenium are the subjects o f many anecdotes in frr. xvi and xvn and the former appears again in 211 ffi, 43 3 ff. Other examples o f Gnathaena’s wit are recorded by Athenaeus from Lynceus o f Samos (13.584B) and from Aristodemus3 (13.585A), and she is no doubt the Gnathaena pilloried for her immodest gluttony by Philippides, who calls 1 See Bechtel Hist, Personennamen 481, Attische Frauetniamen 40. Γνάθων is a parasite in Menander’s Κόλαξ and Gnatho thence in the Euttuchus. So is Gnathonides in Luc. Fug, 19. 2 Z.G. 2® 1534B247. e 3 Meineke very plausibly suggested that Autocleides was here represented as ringed by antiquated prostitutes as Orestes by Furies in the Eumenides. 4 Webster (C.Q, 46.21), supposing all references to concern the same Gnathaena, is obliged to assign her a date impossibly early for Machon’s hetaera. 3 Possibly to be identified with the Alexandrian scholar who was a pupil o f Aristarchus (RE 2.925).

8

MACHON

her, in his Άνανέουσα (fr. 5), άυδροφόνοζ. Tlie date o f the play is unknown but its author was victorious with a comedy in 311 b .C. and in 2851was the subject o f an honorific decree for his good offices with Lysimachus and for other public services. From Machon we leam (Jr. xvi) that Gnathaena was mistress o f the dramatist Diphilus, who survived the death ofMenander in 293 b .C. ;2 and she is (in 211 ff.) the victim o f a sharp riposte from Mania, mistress at some time o f Demetrius Poliorcetes,3 who died in 283 b .c . The data are imprecise but suggest as Gnathaena’s heyday the years around 310 b . c .4 Machon how­ ever pursues her far past her heyday ; in v. 382 she is ή ypctüs and in 301 ήδη τελέως όμολογουμένως σορός. Her relationship to Gnathaenium is not clear. She is addressed by her as μήτερ (384) and herself calls the younger woman θυγάτριον (348); Andronicus calls her Gnathaena’s Θυγάτηρ (381), and Gnathae­ nium is presumably the daughter mentioned in an anecdote o f Lynceus (Ath. 13.585a). Athenaeus however twice calls her θυγατριδή, granddaughter (13.581A, 583b), and DindorFs, Kaibel’s, and Gulick’s indexes accept that view. It is hard to guess on what grounds Athenaeus, with Machon and Lynceus before his eyes, should have placed Gnathaenium a generation later than they do, and it will be safer to assume, with suitable reservations, that the pair were mother and daughter. They followed the same profession, and Gnathaenium, who had a son by Andronicus (354), lived in some state in Athens {3870".). Gnathaena therefore, if not a great-grandmother, was at least a grandmother and it is reasonable to guess that the anecdotal history o f the pair stops little or not at all short o f 250 b . c . I 1 Dated, apparently wrongly, two yean earlier in Ditt. Sy//.s 374, R E 19.2204. 2 See 12 n* 3 See 227. The liaison may have started in 307 b . c . when Demetrius spent some time in Athens. 4 This conclusion, reached independently, agrees with that o f Schiassi {Riv. FiL 79.244), who says nata circa 330, floruit post 3ίο.

9

INTRODUCTION

shall not attempt to guess further how long it took for gossip about Gnathaenium to reach Alexandria from Athens, or how long thereafter Machon incorporated it in the Χρεϊαι, but it seems unlikely that this part o f the book at least can have been written before the middle o f the century. This is perhaps the most convenient place to consider the Ptolemy who is mentioned in fir. i, v, xvm (439 if.). It is not self-evident that the same Ptolemy is meant in all these pas­ sages for fi. I stands somewhat apart from the other two. Ptolemy is not there called king ; Corydus, the parasite with whom he is in contact, rather disclaims close acquaintance, nor is it implied in the anecdote o f Corydus at Ptolemy’s table recorded from Lynceus in Ath. 6.245 f . Corydus seems to belong mainly at any rate to the fourth century1 and this Ptolemy may perhaps therefore be Ptolemy I Soter. In frr. v and xvm however Ptolemy is called βασιλεύς; the date is therefore later than 305 b .c . when Ptolemy Soter assumed that title, and we must choose between him and his successors. Ptolemy, though he makes a joke in/r. xvm (448 f.), is not the hero of these anecdotes but the host with whom they are concerned. In v he is entertaining a parasite, having seemingly lost no time in inviting him to dinner on his arrival in Egypt. In xvm a courtesan and frequent boon-companion o f the king drops in on him for a late drink and addresses him as ‘Daddy’ (irooriria). W e do not know enough o f the private lives either o f Ptolemy I Soter or o f Ptolemy III Euergetes to say that such behaviour was impossible in either, but it does not sound very probable; moreover Ptolemy Soter, bom before 360 b .c ., was in advanced middle age before he assumed the title o f βασιλεύς and Euergetes, who did not succeed his father until 246 B.c., is perhaps too late to be probable. The picture however fits well enough the unwarlike and pleasure-loving Ptolemy II Phila1 See p. 59 and C.R. 68.199.

10

MACHON

delphus, whose many mistresses are enumerated by Athenaeus (13.57ÓE) andwhom Theocritus (14.Ó1) describes as Ευγνώμων, φιλόμουσοξ, ερωτικός, είς άκρον άδύς. His reign extended from 283 B.C. (or, if two years o f joint kingship with his father are counted, from 285) until his death in 246, and that period accords suitably with the tentative dating extracted from the anecdotes o f Gnathaena and Gnathaenium and with the indications of Machon’s date discussed above.I

II

II XPEI A l 1 A. T H E G E N R E

To the rhetors of the imperial age the word χρεΐαι had a technical and specific meaning, and Hermogenes, Theon, and Aphthonius all devote a section o f their προγυμνάσματα to the subject.2 Hermogenes says, χρεία έστίν άπομυημόνευμα λόγου τίνος ή πράξεως ή σνναμφοτέρου, σύντομον εχον δήλωσιν cos επί τό πλεΐστον χρησίμου xivòs ενεκα, apparently giving in the last three words the accepted explanation o f the name.3 The word was taken over into Latin,4 and Seneca (Epist. 33.7) defines the nature o f the utility: pueris et sententias ediscendas damns et has quas Graeci chrias meant quia complecti illas puerilis animus potest qui plus adhuc non capii. Rhetors were at pains to classify and subdivide χρεΐαι with meticulous, and, one may suppose, unnecessary, precision. Thus Theon : της δέ χρείας τα άνώτατα γένη τρία · α! μέν γάρ είσι λογικά! αί δε πρακτικά! αί δ! μικταί, and he goes on to subdivide the λογικά! χρεΐαι into αποφαντικοί and άποκριτικαί and then to dissect these again; and so with his other main categories. The word, then, denotes anecdote, apophthegm, and the like, and is only to be distinguished by precisians from other words of similar colour : 1 See R E 15.1483, Suppl. 6.74, 87. Gerhard Phoenix v. Kolophon 228 and especially 248 ff. G. von Wartensleben Begriffd.gr. Chreia (Heidelberg, 1901) is an enlarged doctoral dissertation. It contains a short preface defining the word, a collection o f ‘chrienformige Aussprüche* o f philosophers from the Seven Sages downward, and a text o f Machon without apparatus or com­ mentary. I have not found the book profitable. 1 Spengel Rhet. Gr. 2.5, 96, 23. 3 Aphthonius says χρειώδη? 5 è ούσα προσαγορεύεται χρεία, and his adj. may mean either useful or necessary. In any case the name Χρεία seems very odd and a more convincing explanation would be welcome. 4 e.g. Quindi. 1.9.

12

XPE1AI

παροικείται δέ αύτη (sc. χρείςί), says Theon, γνώμη καί άπομνημόνευμα · πασα γάρ γνώμη σύντομος είς πρόσωπον άναφερομένη χρείαν ποιεί, κα'ι τό άπομνημόνευμα 5έ πραξίς Ιστιν ή λόγος βιωφελής, and Athenaeus, who in 13.577D gives Χρείαι as the title of Machon’s book (εν ταΐς έπιγραφομέναις Χρείαις), in 579° calls the anecdotes it contains άπομνημονεύματα. The position χρείαι occupy at the beginning of the rhetors’ Progymnasmata shows no less than Seneca’s statement that in later times they formed part o f elementary instruction; they must be simple and memorable, convey a valuable maxim or principle, and be associated with known characters. The literary genre however had existed since at least the fourth century b . c . Diogenes Laertius, who makes much use of such collections, mentions works named Χρείαι, or describable as such, by Aristippus (2.85), Demetrius o f Phaleron (5.81), Hecaton, the Rhodian follower o f Panaetius (6.32), Metrocles o f Maronea, brother-in-law o f Crates (6.33),1 Diogenes (6.80), Zeno (6.91),2 Persaeus (7.36), and to Ariston o f Chios he assigns eleven books o f them (7.163). Whether any o f these were suitable for the elementary instruction o f children is perhaps doubtful, but if Theocritus wrote o f Epicharmus in reference to the collections o f maxims currently passing as his, πολλά γάρ ποττάν jóav τοΐς παισίν3 είπε χρήσιμα (Epigr. 18) it would indicate that some at least o f them were so used, and it may be noted that if the word χρεία is rightly explained πολλά χρήσιμα does not differ in meaning from πολλάς χρείας, for which indeed it may be a substitute. But however that may be, it is quite plain that some collections o f χρείαι served quite 1 K. v. Fritz (RE Suppl. 6.88) held, for no visible reason, that Metrocles invented the name Xpeicn, but it had apparently been used by Aristippus some time before. Stoics and Cynics were perhaps fonder of the book-title than others, but it was not confined to them. 1 Others are enumerated in Gerhard Phoenix 249. 3 TTcnofvTheocr. Ep. 18, TràuwAnth. Pai. 9.600. The def. art. favours παισίν. For the Pseudo-Epicharmea see Kaibel Com. Gr. Fr. 139, Page Gfe Lit. Pap. 438.

13

INTRODUCTION

a different purpose, Machon’s anecdotes o f parasites, gour­ mands, and courtesans, even when their contents are not scabrous, are highly unsuitable for the schoolroom, and the same is true o f many anecdotes contained in Diogenes Laertius’s account of his Cynic namesake (6.2off.), which is largely com­ posed of excerpts from some work or works o f similar anec­ dotes though they may not have been called Χρεία». Machon’s choice o f this title for matter so unedifying will be discussed below. It is clear however that there were once extant many collections o f χρεϊαι but unless Valerius Maximus or the Gnomologium Vaticauum1 and other Gnotnologia are to be counted, none survives intact,2 and fragments o f anthologies such as that associated with Cerddas^ do not attach their gnomic matter to particular people. It is however certain that unidentified collections o f such anecdotes were used by the authors o f various extant works. Oi Πλουτάρχειοι Βίο», says Menander Rhetor (392.29 Sp.), πλήρει; είσίν ιστοριών καί αποφθεγμάτων καί παροιμιών και χρειών, and the Plutarchean ’Αποφθέγματα Λακωνικά, Λακαινών, and Βασιλέων καί Στρατ­ ηγών (Mor. 172-242) might claim the name o f Χρεϊαι in their own right. O f other borrowers Diogenes Laertius has already been mentioned, and Lucian, in his life o f Demonax, is hardly less indebted than Diogenes in his o f the Cynic. Aelian and various other prose-writers must have drawn largely on books o f the kind; so did Stobaeus, and I should suspect that epigram­ matists also were borrowers. Callimachus’s highly unepigrammatic anecdote o f Pittacus (epigr. 1 Pf.), wherever 1 Published by L. Stembach in Wiener Studien vols 9-11, and recently reprinted by O. Luschnat in book-form (Berlin, 1963). References to other Gnotnologia will be found there (pp. v and 1) and in R E SuppL 6.74. %There is indeed a treatise entitled XpsTca among the works o f Libanius but the title is misleading. It is not a collection o f sayings but four homilies each on a χρεία which are drawn respectively from Alexander, Diogenes, Isocrates, and Theophrastus. 3 See A. D. Knox Thefirst Gk Anthologist, and Herodes 228, Powell Coll. AL 213.

14

X PE 1AI

Callimachus got the story, is simple, memorable, and im­ proving; less improving perhaps is the quatrain on Cleombrotus (23 Pf.) but both possess the qualities postulated in χρεϊαι. Other epigrammatists, many o f whom, unlike Calli­ machus, had few or no ideas o f their own but yet must needs be writing, could, so one may suppose, have found in χρεϊαι and similarly entitled books ample themes for epideictic and hortatory verses. Examples are Antipater o f Sidon on Hipparchia (A.P. 7.413), Aelius on his suicide (ib. 233 £), and some o f the epigrams on the battles o f Thyrea1and Thermopylae.2 Leonidas o f Tarentum (Stob. 4.52.28) versifies an apophthegm ascribed to Bion (Diog. L. 4.49). B.

m a c h o n ’s b o o k

(i) Contents It may occur to the reader o f Athenaeus whose attention has been caught by Machon to wonder what were the scope and arrangement of his Χρεϊαι and whether Athenaeus, besides quoting from it extensively, also used it as a source for anec­ dotes without quoting it; and I take the second question first since it comes nearer than the first to admitting o f an answer. Athenaeus in much o f his book is surprisingly punctilious in enumerating his sources. He regularly names the play as well as the author from which he cites, and he not infrequently tells us the book as well as the author and title o f a historical, anti­ quarian, or anecdotic work from which his information comes. There are o f course some statements for which the source is not given, but nearly all the quotations from Machon are safely insulated by references to other authors on either side of them and only once is a doubt permissible. Fr. ix records how 1 A.P. 7.430 f. a 9.293 f. Specimens probably not to be classed as xpslai since they do not con­ cern named persons but likely to be derived from sources o f a similar kind are A.P. 7.172,9.52, where an anecdote, probably fictitious, is followed by a moral·

15

INTRODUCTION

Philoxenus died after eating too much octopus. It is imme­ diately followed by fr. x, also about Philoxenus, and fr. x by a statement that Diogenes the Cynic died from eating raw octopus. No source is given for this story, which could there­ fore come from Machon; but if it did so one might expect Athenaeus to go on quoting, and his information here is much more likely to be derived from the book or books o f anecdotes mentioned above (p. 14) on which Diogenes Laertius drew extensively in his life o f the Cynic. I think it safe to say that there are no concealed Machoniana in those parts o f the Deipnosophistae in which his fragments are embedded; if there are any elsewhere they cannot be numerous.1 But if this question seems partially soluble, the first—the scope and arrangement ofMachon’s work—admits only o f not very satisfactory conjecture. If the Χρεΐαι had extended beyond one book it would have been in Athenaeus’s manner to indicate from which book he was quoting,2 and as he nowhere does so there was probably only one. If however, as seems reasonably certain (seep. 25), our Deipnosophistae is an abbrevia­ tion of a work originally something like twice as long, it is impossible to guess what further excerpts from the Χρεΐαι the unabbreviated text may have contained or what may have been their subjects. Frr. 1 and m-νπ concern parasites and are em­ bedded in Athenaeus’s disquisition on that theme; similarly frr. xii to xvm are in his treatise on hetaerae. Frr. vm to xi are however more ambiguously placed among the anecdotes o f όψοφάγοι. Frr. ix and x concern Philoxenus, the dithyrambic poet and musician, and though ix might have been in the long octopus-section o f the fish-catalogue in Bk 73 they are not out ' See p. 17 η. I. * Cf., e.g., 6.244p ’Αριστόδημο? έν β ' γελοίων άπομνημονευμάτων. 3 Anecdotes of Machonian type ate conspicuously rate in the book, but if the characters fell within his ambit Philip and Menecrates (289b) might have served him, and except for its anonymity so might the Epicurean and the eel (298 d ).

16

ΧΡΕΙΑΙ

o f place in Bk 6; fir. vili and xi are however intruders there. A work on fishes by Dorion has been cited and an interlocutor who was unaware o f its existence quotes fir. vm and other anecdotes to show that Dorion was a musician and όψοφάγος but the fragment o f Machon does not mention fish. Nor does fi. Xi, which contains anecdotes o f the citharode Stratonicus who has previously been mentioned in connexion with fish; Athenaeus says that as his name has cropped up in what pre­ cedes it willnot beinappropriate to record some ofhis witticisms. If, as seems possible, Machon arranged his anecdotes according to the trades or professions o f their heroes, musicians on this evidence should perhaps be added to parasites and hetaerae1 and in such a section, if it existed, firr. ix and x also (on Philoxenus) would have been appropriately placed. Fr. π is anoma­ lous. It is a joke at the expense o f a citharode, but the victim’s name is not given, and since Athenaeus is reduced to guessing that the citharode concerned was Polyctor, the butt o f a some­ what similar jest by Corydus, his name must have been absent also in Machon.2 Since Machon collected jokes by parasites that context seems somewhat more likely than one concerned with musicians. Whatever the larger plan o f the book, it appears from fin. xi, xv-xvn that anecdotes concerning the same person were in some places assembled together and might include incidents in which the person concerned came off second-best.3 Fr. xi embodies nine anecdotes o f Stratonicus, xv four o f Mania, xvi seven of Gnathaena, xvu four o f Gnathaenium, and it is not 1 The segregation o f these fragments from the catalogue of musical instru­ ments in Ath. 14.633 e is no more remarkable than that of/r. rxfrom the fishcatalogue. The catalogue of instruments is archaeological rather than anecdotal but apophthegms of musicians recorded without source in 629 A, 631F resemble those of Dorion and Stratonicus and may conceivably indeed be taken from Machon. * As in fir. v i £ 134 ff. al. 3 148 ff.; cf .fir. m and V.

I?

CM

INTRODUCTION

unnatural that in two o f these last Gnathaena, Gnathaenium s mother or grandmother (see p. 9), should appear. More disconcerting is her appearance (at 436) inJr. xvin,1 a fragment which provides other evidence that the principles o ffrr. xi, XV—xvii were not consistently maintained. Fr. xvni contains, in Machon’s order (as we are expressly told), seven anecdotes ofhetaerae who have nothing in common except their profes­ sion and perhaps the fact that four o f them have animal nick­ names.2 One might have conjectured that Machon had here put to­ gether anecdotes of persons concerning whom he had only one to relate, but, besides reverting to Gnathaena, fr. xvm includes two stories o f Nico (422, 456) which do not even stand next each other in the fragment, nor is it certain that frr. m and iv which deal with Chaerephon, or xiv and xv concerning Mania, come from the same context in Machon. In short, the unity of subject exhibited in frr. xi, xv-xvn cannot be shown to have been the dominant principle throughout the book. The clustering o f anecdotes round an individual may have beai due to the use of a source which so collected them3 and have therefore been, in Machon’s book viewed as a whole, adventitious. There is one more point which may deserve mention as indicating a possible limitation to the range o f Machon’s sub­ jects. His parasites and courtesans might find places in a study of social conditions in the later Greek world but they could score no more than passing mention in history or literary criticism. There are however exceptions. Berisades (146), Biothea (156), Demetrius Poliorcetes (frr. xn, xm, 226 if.), Ptolemy (frr. 1, v, 439 if.) belong to history; Diphilus [fr. m, 1 A$ the anecdote is told Callistium is its subject but the joke is Gnathaena’s. * Five if Lais is counted (see 168 n.). 3 This seems highly probable in fr. xi on Stratonicus; see p. 21«

18

ΧΡΕΙΑΙ

213, 258 ff.) and Euripides (403), to literature.1 If however the fragments in which they appear are examined it will be found that their subjects are not those princes and poets but the parasites and courtesans who are for the nonce in their com­ pany. In 447 ff. Ptolemy scores off Hippe, in fi. xiii, Demetrius off Lamia, in fi. in, Diphilus off Chaerephon, just as the old woman in 148 ff. scores off Stratonicus, Alcenor off Archephon in fi. v, but the shaping of.the anecdotes, and in 439 ff. the context also, show that their focus is on the victim not on the joker. There are many anecdotes in Athenaeus, especially in Bk 12, of which famous and eminent persons are the heroes, but none is culled from Machon and it seems a reasonable if uncertain guess that he concerned himself with such people only when they furnished a setting for his characters.* Parasites, hetaerae, and musicians were not the only inhabitants of the demi-monde (so to call it) who might have provided him with material. For instance, athletes, actors, or doctors (of whom there is little in Athenaeus) could presumably have served him, and since some at least o f his stories are long, he would, if he wrote no more than one book, have had ample material to fill it. However where there is so little to go upon it is perhaps unwise to pursue speculation even so far. (ii) Sources The question whence Machon derived his stories calls for brief consideration, though it is not much easier to determine than is the original extent o f his book. Machon, as was said above (p. 5), was a Corinthian or Sicyonian, who had possibly been comiected with the theatre in Athens but lived most o f his life 1 Philoxenus I omit here since he seems better treated, as was suggested above, as a musician. Sophocles (423) and Timotheus (8a) are merely men­ tioned and play no personal part in the anecdotes. * A dramatist is required for the anecdote in 258-84, a queen for that in 156 ff., and a prince forfi . xm ; elsewhere nonentities, if less glamorous, would serve the purpose o f the stories.

I?

2-Z

INTRODUCTION

and produced his comedies in Alexandria, and flourished there towards the middle o f the third century b .c . Three o f his anecdotes concern the Ptolemaic court (i, v, 439 ff.) and the last two at least probably that o f Ptolemy Philadelphus (see p. 10). If so, these stories, true or false, are not far removed in date from Machon and they may have been current in Alexandria and have been acquired by him in Egypt. The majority o f his characters belong however to Athens, which is expressly named as the scene o f some o f their exploits.1 Some o f the personages moreover belong to earlier generations, and until the establish­ ment o f Ptolemaic rule in Egypt they can have had no incentive as had Archephon (fr. v) and perhaps Corydus (fr . 1) to visit Alexandria. If Machon had gathered some o f his stories before he left Greece, those involving Sophocles (422 ff.), Euripides (402 ff.), and Philoxenus (fr. ix) might be as likely as any. Athens and Alexandria however are not the only settings reported. Philoxenus indeed was essentially Athenian and the report of his death in Syracuse (fr. ix) might have been current there or elsewhere, but the story looks like the invention of some Athenian wit. Dorion however (fr. vm) is found in Caria, and Stratonicus (fr. xi), who was apparently an Athenian (Ath. 8.352c), not only in Corinth (148) but far away in the north and east o f the Greek world. These last tales at least Machon must have derived from books. Athenaeus (6.347F), before citing_/r. ix, reports a saying o f Stratonicus from Clearchus and Theophrastus and he follows fr. ix in 349F ff. with other anecdotes o f this man from Clearchus, Capiton, and from Callisthenes’s Στρατονίκουάττομνημονεύματα. On Dorion he cites (8.337Dff.) Lynceus, Hegesander, and Aristodemus, and on Gnathaena Lynceus again (13.583F ff.).2 Machon may 1 310, 333. 349, 426; cf. 403. 1 In 13.567A we hear o f books on Athenian hetaerae by Ammonius, Antiphanes, Apollodorus, and Gorgias, and in 583 D that the last two extended the 20

ΧΡΕΙΑΙ

have versified what took his fancy from any o f these authors available to him. It is possible to distinguish in the Χρείαι two classes of anecdotes approximately equal in number. In the first the story is told without qualification, in the second it is qualified by a reservation—λέγεται, λέγουσι, (ώς) φασι1—as though Machon were disowning a responsibility which in the first class he accepted. It would be optimistic to suppose that Machon was consistent in distinguishing in this way one type o f source from another but perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that one type o f source was more liable to such qualification than another. It would not be immediately obvious which type, but since the nine anecdotes o f Stratonicus inJr. xi, which seem more plainly than any others to be o f literary origin, are nowhere so quali­ fied, one might conjecture that Machon accepted at least one written source as unimpeachable. I fear however that such a conjecture would be imprudent. O f the numerous tales of Gnathaena and Gnathaenium in frr. xvr and xvn four are so qualified4 and the rest not, yet the source for all is likely to have been the same. I cannot discern any pattem in the distribution o f these phrases elsewhere, and if Machon once had one in mind it is probable that he used them also as metrical stopgaps^ and thereby disrupted the pattem. To sum up, Machon’s sources cannot be determined; there is good reason to think that some o f them were literary and no strong reason to think that any were oral though the anecdotes relating to the characters o f the late fourth and the third centuries may occasionally have been so. list made by Aristophanes o f Byzantium; Machon can hardly have known some o f these but the subject was evidently popular, 1 I omit &s ίοικε (see Index I s.v, Ιοικε) which seems, like ws λέγουσι in 263, to qualify not the whole anecdote but a detail in it, if indeed it is not a metrical stopgap. 3 See p, 22. * 3 0 2 , 3 2 7 * 370» 376. 21

INTRODUCTION

(iii) Style The style of the ΧρεΙαι calls for no long discussion here since it is a New Comedy style indistinguishable from that employed by Machon in the two fragments o f his plays (xix, xx). His vocabulary is essentially prosaic and where words or con­ structions rise above that level they either call for explanation or arouse suspicion.1 He admits however a certain number o f forms which seem below the level and derived from colloquial, perhaps Alexandrian, speech.2 He writes 394ήττάω, 397 θοατον, 122 κηρύττω, 14, 266, 446 τέτταρ-, 272 φυλάττω, 315. 33^ πράττω (not -σσ-), and 354 αρρην (not άρσην), and the few places where thems, disregarding correptio Attica, presents a syl­ lable lengthened before mute and liquid are open to some doubt on other grounds. 3 His narrative in the Χρεΐαι, like the speech from a comedy {fr. xx), abounds in asyndeta which are com­ mon also in the plays o f other Comic dramatists4 but are some­ times so violent as to invite conjecture; and he retails the details necessary to his story in a manner in which seeming disorder is in effect neither incoherent nor lacking in luddity.5 In short his style is that o f a talker rather than o f a writer and he uses it effectively. His verse has no more pretensions than his language and syntax. It is metrical and thereby distinguished from prose but it is so often only by the intervention o f metrical stopgaps, of 1 See, e.g., 83, 136* 175. I have provided an Index Verborum not because Machon’s language intrinsically calls for one but because Comedy has been well supplied in this respect by Demianczuk, Körte, Lloyd-Jones, Meineke, and Todd, and the Χρεΐαι are an offshoot of Comedy. 3 εϊτεν, Ιπειτεν (see 370 η.), Ιξίνα; (302), ταρτημόριον (417)« 3 See 172 n. 4 See Legrand Daos 336. Demetrius {Ehe. 193) says that asyndetic (διαλελυμενη) speech is suitable for discussions and the stage, connected (σνμηρτημένη καί olov ήσφαλισμένη τοί* σννδέσμοι$) for readings; and that Menander is suitable for the first, Philemon for the second. 5 See, e.g., 188 ff., 349 ff. 22

ΧΡΕΙΑΙ

which ποτέ, τάλαν, φησί or Ιφη are the most conspicuous. They are no ornament but they pass muster sufficiently in the con­ versational tone in which he writes. (iv) Purpose of the book In 188 Machon answers a hypothetical question from τις των νυν ακροατών and is therefore envisaging an audience; no doubt like any other writer he envisaged readers too, but if he had expected or wished to be heard or read continuously he would presumably have put his anecdotes together very differently. In the surviving fragments where a series o f anec­ dotes of the same person is presented it is most unusual for that which follows to be connected syntactically with that which precedes1 and the name o f the person concerned is regularly repeated in the first sentence and often in the first line of the new anecdote. Thus in Jr. xt, which contains nine anecdotes of Stratonicus, there are no syntactical connexions, only once is the man’s name postponed beyond the first sentence (160),2 four times it appears in the first line, and in two consecutive stories we are told (141,149) that he was a citharode. Machon’s matter is necessarily episodic but it is not difficult to embed such episodes in a narrative which reads consecutively and can be so read without discomfort;3 and since Machon did not attempt so to embed them it follows that he had primarily some other end in view. W hat that end was must remain a matter of conjecture, but a modem reader o f the longer frag­ ments, whether like xi, xvi and xvn they contain numerous 1 Frr. m and rv on Chaerephon, ix and x on Philoxenus, look like excerpts from similar series and show the same characteristic. The connexions in a ir, 252 are exceptional; so may be those in 168, and 188 (where see n.), but what preceded is not preserved; 433 is the more surprising since the subject o f the story is not the same as in the previous lines. It is perhaps not uncharitable to remark that δέ is sometimes a metrical convenience. * Cf. 31Ö. 3 As they axe by such purveyors o f similar matter as Clearchus (Ath. 8.349 p) or Lynceus (Ath. 6.2480).

23

INTRODUCTION

anecdotes o f the same person or like xvm move from one to another, is reminded o f those books o f jokes from which a public speaker or a raconteur with a reputation to sustain can refresh his memory or replenish his repertory. If ancient jesters enjoyed similar advantages they would have found Machon’s book, to judge from what we possess o f it, a valuable vademecum for such purposes and thus deserving o f the title Χρεΐοη in the accepted meaning o f that word (see p. 12).1 Two considerations may be thought to lend a little colour to this guess. First, Machon twice gives alternative versions o f a story, a shorter and a longer. Fr. vn is an abbreviated version of fr. vi, vv. 258-61 o f 262-84, and one version might suit a given occasion better than the other. Secondly, if the anecdotes were intended for some such purpose it is reasonable to suppose that the user would borrow from them their substance but not their metrical form, that they are in verse because verse is more easily remembered than prose, and that the sometimes clumsy patches by which Machon converts his essentially prosy narra­ tives to senarii are the more easily pardonable because irrelevant to the use to which he expects the stories to be put. It is perhaps worth adding that though rhetoric was not in Greece the essential discipline which it became in Rome,2 from the time of Corax and Tisias in the fifth century many treatises had been written on the subject, and Aristotle, to whom Diogenes Laertius (5.22 if.) ascribes several, devotes in the one survivor a substantial section (Rhet. 1410 b 36 ff.) to apo­ phthegms, puns, double entendres, and the like, which are the substance o f Machon’s book. 1 To judge from the elevating tone demanded of such books (see p. 12) one might wonder whether Machon selected the title with his tongue in his cheek. Anecdotes of Diogenes however, which may come from other ΧρΕΐοι, are hardly less scabrous. * For rival systems in Greece see v. Arnim Dio von Prusa 4 ff. Later, Seneca could say {Controv. 2 pref. 3) faciiis ab hac (sc. eloquenza) in omnes artes discursus est.

24

Ill

ATHENAEUS A.

COD. VEN. MARC. 447

As was said above, the fragments o f Machon are all derived from the Deipnosophistae o f Athenaeus, a work written probably in the third century A.D.1 and containing in 15 Books conversa­ tions over the dinner-table professedly ( i . i f ) modelled on Plato’s Symposium. In Bk 12 however all traces o f dialogue dis­ appear and there are many other signs that the book as we have it is an abbreviated version o f what Athenaeus wrote. Since in the margins o f the single ms there are references in eleven places to 30 books2 it is reasonable to assume that that was originally their number. 3 It is likely enough therefore, as was said above (p. 16), that a substantial number o f citations from Machon was discarded by the abbreviator. W hat remains o f our Athenaeus is preserved in a ms (A) brought by Giovanni Aurispa in 1423 from Constantinople to 1 Chief among the Banqueters and τω ν δείττνων ταμία* (2.58 b) is a Syrian, Ulpianus, who, shortly after his last speech (15.686c), coréGcrvsv ευτυχώ* ούδένα καιρόν νό σ φ παραδού*. Some o f the interlocutors in the book, though not to be identified with historical characters, borrow their names (e.g. Democritus, Galenus, Plutarchus), and Ulpianus presumably does so from the famous jurisconsult and praetorian prefect Domitius Ulpianus, who was a native of Tyre. It is generally but not universally held that the words quoted were written shortly after the death o f the jurist, who was murdered by praetorians before the eyes o f Alexander Severus in a .d . 228. See Gulick, voi. 7 p. 175. * E.g. at the beginning o f Bk 6 των si* λ ' αρχή του ία' and Bk 7 των eis λ* άρχή τοΟ ly7. * See on this whole question Kaibel, i.xxi £f., .RE 2.2027. Kaibel’s conclu­ sions were challenged by G. Wissowa (Gott. Nadir. 1913.325; cf. R E 14.190), who cast serious doubts on the view o f P. Victorius, accepted and elaborated by Kaibel, that the unabbreviated Athenaeus was used by Macrobius, from whom some o f its contents could be recovered. His further doubts as to the abbreviation o f the original work (pp. 331 ff ) seem less well founded, but except as mentioned above the problem has no relevance to Machon.

25

INTRODUCTION

Venice, where it belonged to Cardinal Bessarion and is now Cod. Ven. Marc. 447. A, Ven. Marc. 447, was apparently written in the early years of the tenth century.1 It is a finely-written ms with two columns to the page, each containing about 43 lines and each line 16-22 letters,2 but it had been damaged before it reached Venice. The beginning o f the book up to 3.74 a and the end from 15.702c are missing, and there are gaps in Bk 11, sub­ stantial after 466 d , smaller after 502 b , which may be due to later mishaps, for the first and the last three pages o f the ms are badly damaged as though the book had at some time lost its cover. Copies o f A were made in Italy, one o f which, now lost, served Musurus for the Aldine edittoprinceps of 1514. Two copies of this copy deserve passing mention because they were used and cited by Dindorf before he recognised them as descendants of A—Laurentianus LX 1 and Palatinus 47, which he called respectively B and P.3 Attention was first focused on A by Johann Schweighäuser, who saw it in Paris in 1798 and used for his edition an inaccu­ rate collation by his son Gottfried. It has since been collated by Dindorf, Kaibel, and S. P. Peppink. Dr W . G. Arnott tells me that Kaibel’s collation, though not impeccable, is on the whole accurate; Peppink, who paid lip-service to Kaibel before pro­ ceeding to somewhat waspish criticism o f him, is less flattering. I have corrected from him some o f KaibePs ascriptions o f emendations but otherwisehe touches the excerpts from Machon only in 257, where there is an omission in Kaibel’s apparatus. 1 So N. G. Wilson (/.H.S. 82.147), who claims that the hand is that of John the Calligrapher, scribe o f the Cod. Clarkeamis o f Plato. Wilson, from dated mss, sets his activities between 895 and 928 a .d . He reproduces (PL xi) a portion of a page beginning at Ath. 4.184E. * Kaibel i.viii. 3 See on them Kaibel i.viii, xiii.

26

ATHENAEUS

B. T H E E P I T O M E

In addition to the text o f the 15-book edition o f the Deipnosophistae presented by A there exists also an epitome o f the work which presents a certain number o f superior lections but is chiefly important because it preserves, though in abbreviated form, the contents o f the passages lost by the mutilation o f A. Cobet1 and Dindorf2believed the Epitome to have been made from A before it was mutilated, and this view has been revived more recently by P. Maas,3 who held that Eustathius (who frequently cites from it)4 was himselfits author. The commoner and I think the more plausible view has been that it derives from a ms closely resembling but in some respects superior to A. This question however it is fortunately needless to discuss in detail here for in the fragments o f Machon the variants o f the Epi­ tome are neither numerous nor important enough3 for it to matter much whether they are emendations or aberrations o f a Byzantine (Eustathius or another) or whether they derive from cleavage in the ms-tradition. From among a number o f mss o f the Epitome editors are agreed in selecting two—Parisinus Suppl. Gr. 841 (C) and Laurentianus LX 2 (E).6 Kaibel used both when they were 1 Brieven, p. 541. J Philol 30.79. 3 Byz. Zeitschr. 28.419, 35.299, 36.27, Gnomon 4.570. 4 C. Eldick, in a Münster dissertation o f 1928 which I have not seen, listed some 1700 such citations. Peppink (2,x), rejecting Maas’s views, argued that Eustathius sometimes presents a better lection than Ep. and derived from a better ms of it, 5 The most remarkable are in 51 and ι$ό and are hard to reconcile with the view that the Epitome was made from A. The relation o f die two seems to me to resemble closely that o f thePIanudean Anthology to the Palatine, from the one ms of which (P) it has often, but in my opinion wrongly, been held to derive. 6 I leam from the Introduction to the Budé Athenaeus (i.xxxix) that this ms is now 4place dans une reserve’. The editor, A. M. Desrousseaux, said (p. bevili) that these mss are of 15-16th cent, date, as is also a third in the same riserve as C, of which Desrousseaux, following Dindorf (who called it B), proposed to make use. The Bude edition has at present reached only the end o f Bk 2 and therefore contains nothing o f Machon.

27

INTRODUCTION

within his reach but in Bks 4-10 cites only C, in 11-15 only E; and he explained1 that they are so much alike that one witness is virtually enough. S. P. Peppink, who printed the Epitome2 (inexplicably omitting Bks 1 and 2, where it is o f real import­ ance) , also used these two mss. He provided his text with no apparatus criticus, but his prolegomena (voi. 1, pp. xxiiifF.; 2, xi ff.) record their disagreements, which seem to be, as he says (Pro!. 12), perparvi moment!.3 To the text o f Machon the Epitome contributes almost nothing which could not have been discovered without its aid, and I have cited it as Ep. from Peppink. Where my apparatus is silent the reader may infer that the Epitome, if it contains the passage, does not conflict with A.4 C.

E D I T I O N S OF A T H E N A E U S

As was said above, Athenaeus was first printed by Aldus at Venice in 1514, the editor being Marcus Musurus, some of whose corrections are recorded in this book.5 Codex A was unknown to scholars until it came to Paris as spoils o f war in 1798 and was used by Schweighäuser. All editions previous to his were based on apographa o f A (and the Epitome) and where their text diverges from these the lection is necessarily either an emendation or a mistake. Such editions are not numerous 1 i.xv. 1 Leyden, 1936-9. 3 C. Eldick (sec p. 27 n. 2 above) drew attention to a codex Erbacensis; see Gnomon 4.570. * The Epitome drops some anecdotes altogether, paraphrases or abbreviates others, and omits words or shuffles them with complete disregard for metre. It is impossible to display its vagaries profitably in an apparatus criticus but a summary o f its treatment o f the nine anecdotes in f i . xi may give some idea of its character. The first three (91-133) are paraphrased; the fourth, siseth, and ninth (134-6,141-7,163-71) omitted; the fifth and seventh (137-40; 148-55) abbreviated, the eighth mutilated, abridged, and inserted in a summary o f 350D. The distance o f paraphrase from original varies a good deal but Ιροοτώντοξ δέ τινο$ τί τό έξαττίνη^ περί τού$ πόδο$ ττάθο$ (for instance) can find no place in the app. crit. to vv. 128 f. 5 It is of course possible that some o f them were derived from the apograph of A from which the ed, princ. was printed.

28

ATHENAEUS

and only one o f them calls for mention here. The text o f Isaac Casaubon was printed at Geneva, where Casaubon was then living, but published in 1597 b y j. Commelinus at Heidelberg.1 It is a folio devoid o f preface or dedication printed with two columns to the page, a text side by side with a Latin version by J. Dalecampius, a French doctor. In 1597 Casaubon moved to Montpellier and his Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas were published in folio at Lyons in 1600. This famous and frequently reprinted2book contains a long and flattering (not to say fulsome) dedication to Henri IV,3 to whom Casaubon was looking for patronage,4 and the preface, missing from his text, in which he speaks o f his predecessors and o f the authorities to which he there had had recourse. The erudition o f die book is almost matched by its discursiveness and it is often by no means easy to find what Casaubon has to say on a given passage, but Schweighäuser transcribed in his notes the more immediately relevant comments. Schweighäuser’s edition in 14 volumes was published in 1801-7 at Strassburg. It contains the text with a Latin translation at the foot o f the page, and a copious commentary. Schweig­ häuser had previously edited Polybius, Epictetus, and Arrian, and he was not at home with verse,5 but he was learned and industrious, made many certain corrections in the text, and contributed usefully to the illustrative matter collected by his predecessors. Since Schweighäuser, and in addition to Peppink’s text o f the 1 See M. Pattison L Casaubon 108. Athenaeus is still cited by Casaubon's pages and marginal letters. * I have used the Leipzig reprint o f 1796-1843. 3 The work is dedicated, said Ebnsley in a review o f Schweighäuser’s first four volumes (Editi» Reu. 3.185) with much propriety, to Henry the Fourth, between whose character and that of Athenaeus, the author discovers a resemblance which, to common eyes9is certainly not very apparent. W hat Casaubon in fact said was that Athenaeus and the King were both laboriosi. 4 Pattison 107. 5 See 88 n.

29

INTRODUCTION

Epitome (see p. 28), four scholars have edited Athenaeus. W . Dindorf’s text (Leipzig, 1827) was based on a fresh inspec­ tion of A and o f three codices o f the Epitome. A. Meineke’s 3-volume Teubner text o f 1858-9 has neither preface nor apparatus criticus but in 1867 he supplemented it with a volume of Analecta Critica in which he says that failing health has pre­ vented him from writing an intended preface (he died in 1870) but that the Analecta indicate his departures from Dindorf’s text, which had been the basis o f his own. The Analecta, which extend to 376 Teubner pages, contain, as may be seen from the apparatus of his successors, many brilliant suggestions. A new Teubner text, undertaken by G. Kaibel at the instigation o f Wilamowitz, which appeared, also in 3 volumes, in 1887-90, contains, unlike its predecessor, an introduction and apparatus. It is based on a fresh examination o f A (ofwhich something was said on p. 26) and of two mss o f the Epitome (see pp. 27 f.), and includes, besides some corrections o f Wilamowitz, many o f the editor’s own. O f the scholars who have contributed to the improvement o f the text Casaubon, Meineke, and Kaibel are outstanding. The Loeb edition in 7 volumes, which first appeared in 1927-41, was edited by C. B. Gulick with a text based on Kaibel’s, an English translation not free from mis­ takes, and occasional footnotes on the subject-matter.1 Though Athenaeus has not been very frequently edited he has attracted a good deal o f attention from scholars whose animadversions have been separately published in one form or another. Since editors o f Athenaeus do not help one to find them it may be worth while to record here some o f those drawn upon in this book: P. P. Dobrce ‘Adversaria in Ath.’ in Dobraei Adversaria, ed. J. Scholefield, 1833, voi. 2 p. 292 (reprinted at end of Casaubon’s Animadversiones voi. 3, 1843, p. 363. 1 On the Bude edition see p. 27 n, 6.

ATHENAEUS

J. W. R. Fiorillo Observ. Crit. in Ath. (Göttingen, 1803). H. Grotius Excerpta e Trag, et Com. Graec. (Paris, 1626) p. 848 (contains frr. ι-m, vm-x, and portions ofxv and xvi). H. van Herwerden ‘Notulae ad Ath.’ Mnetnosyne n.s. 4.294. (C.) F. (W.) Jacobs Additamenta1 Animadv. in Ath. Deipnos. (Jena, 1809). A. Meineke Analecta Crit. ad Ath. Deipnos. (see p. 30). J. Palmerius Exercitationes in optimos fere autores Graecos (Leyden, 1668) p. 481. S. P. Peppink Observ. in Ath. Deipnos. (Leyden, 1936).1 R. Porson R. Porsotii Adversaria ed. J. H. Monk and C. J. Blomfield (Cambridge, 1812) p. 43. ----- Tracts and Mise. Crit. ed. T. Kidd (London, 1815) p. 232. E. Weston Hemesianax sive conject. in Ath. (London, 1784). My occasional references to Headlam are drawn from Walter Headlam’s brief notes on Athenaeus in J. Phil. 26.97 if·» from scattered references elsewhere, and from his copy of Kaibel’s text, which is in the Library o f King’s College, Cam­ bridge. It was Headlam’s habit to work pen in hand in an arm­ chair with his book and an ink-well on a board across his knee. Those acquainted with books he had used, particularly those which, like Athenaeus, he used much, will remember their appearance, the text underlined sometimes continuously for a whole page, many words jotted in the margins, and fly-leaves covered with thickets o f such jottings quite impenetrable except perhaps to the writer. His marginalia are, as Housman says, ‘guesses which we all jo t down in our margins, simply to help us take up the thread o f thought tomorrow where we drop it today’. N ot all o f them are decipherable, and when they are so, many o f them suggest nothing to another reader. They are hardly thicker clustered about the fragments of 1 Jacobs’s earlier Specimina Obs. (Altenburg, 1805) does not touch Machon. * Peppink published from books in the Leyden University Library a number of emendations o f Valckenaer, Hemsterhusius, and Cobet not previously recorded.

31

Machon than on many other parts o f Athenaeus and they con­ firm my belief (p. ix) that any intention he may have had o f devoting more attention to the fragments had not taken very serious shape before his death. It is particularly difficult to locate in periodicals references to fragments o f one author preserved only in the text o f another. I have found very few to Machon but no doubt there are many which I have failed to find.1 1 I have consulted Engelmann-Preuss Bibl. Script. Class., VAnnie Philologique, and the survey o f the years 1915-25 in Bursians lahresbericht 216.1 if.

32

TEXT

SIGLA A Codex Athenaei Ven. Marcianus 447 saec. x Ep. Epitome Athenaei Deipnosophistarum (codd. C, Paris. Suppl. fr. 841, et E, Laurentianus, olim LX.2) saec. xv-xvi Virorum doctorum nomina in apparatu decurtata: Cas(aubon, I.) Cob (et, C. G.) Din(dorf, W .) Dobr(ee, P. P.) Grot(ius, H.) Jac(obs, C. F. W.) Kai(bel, G.)

Mein(eke, A.) Mus(urus, M.) Por(son, R.) Scal(iger,J.J.) Schweig (häuser, J.) Valck(enaer, L. K.)

34

CORYDUS

I CORYDUS

Τον Κόρυδον ήρώτησεν Εύκράτη ιτοτέ τω ν συμπαρόντω ν π ώ ς κέχρητ* α υ τώ πο τέ Πτολεμαίος. Ούκ οίδ5, είπεν, ούδέπω σαφώς· πεπότικε μέν γ ά ρ ώ σπερ ιατρός μ’, εφη, 5 α δει, φαγεΐν δέ σιτί* ο ν δέδωκέ π ω .

242 Β

II [CORYDUS?]

Κακός τις, ώς εοικε, κιθαρφδός σφόδρα, •{•μέλλων οίκοδομεϊν τη ν oiKÌavf, φίλον αύτού λίθους ητησεν fcaroiaco δ ’ εγώ α υ τώ ν π ο λ ύ πλείονς, φησίν, έκ τη ς δείξεως.

245 Β

III CHAEREPHON

ίο

Ό δ ό ν μακράν έλθόντος επί δεϊπνόν πο τέ το ύ Χαιρεφώντος εις γόμ ους έξ άστεος εϊπεΐν λέγουσι τον π ο ιη τή ν Δίφιλον, Εις τό ς εαυτού, Χαιρέφων, σιαγόνας Ι· Ath. 6.242a b 6 δέ ούν Μάχων του Κορύδου μνημονεύει εν τούτος* ι Εύκράτη Grot, -τη* A | ττοτέ om. Ερ. (item ν. ζ) ττοθ* ε1$ Mein. 5 αρ. Ath. 4 ·Ι35 β)> μεμβράδε?, ττολιόχρωτε? (Ar. fr. 137) and χρυσοκέφαλοι (Phryn. Com. fr. 50). In Alex. fr. n o a cook makes a τάγηνον in which he puts five sorts o f fish ποικιλώτερον ταώ, and the fish served at Athenaeus’s banquet are said to be διάφοροι μεγέθει τε καί ποικιλία (7.276ε).

29 καρ. άληθινώ ν: sc. ττσρατιθέντων. Κάρσβοι are langoustes, Crayfish or Spiny Lobsters, mentioned together with lobsters (άστακοί), in Matron Conv. 66, and discussed with them zoologically in Arist. H .A. 526 a 12if., gastronomically in Ath. 3.104c. The adj. however presents grave difficulties. Prima facie it would suggest either that there was a crustacean known as ψευδοκάραβος or (better) one that was apt to be substituted for crayfish (e.g. lobster) if place or price made these difficult to serve. The latter seems a possible explanation, but doubt is thrown on it by Am phis fr . 261 δστι? άγορά^ων δψον. .. | έξόν άπολαύειν Ιχθύων αληθινών | ραφονίδο^ έτπθνμεΐ πρίασθαι μαίνεται, for genuine fish is either a technical term or nonsense. Kaibel courageously proposed to read Φαληρικών in Ampliis, and if emendation is required also in Machon an adj. denoting either place o f origin or size would seem die most suitable form o f substitute, but the two passages support each other against emendation. Κάραβο? is the nick­ name o f a parasite named Callimedon who appears more than once in Athenaeus though not in excerpts from Machon. Schweighäuser suggested that he had been mentioned just previously by Machon and diat αληθινών here distinguished the crustacean from the human so named. Since however Callimedon does not feature in the present anecdote, which seems to be $el£contained, this solution is more ingenious than plausible.

30 λοπάδος: a vessel used for boiling fish (e.g. Euphron fr. 8, Damox. fr. 2.50) as well as for serving it. Saucepan o r casserole therefore. 31 A very puzzling line. Casaubon s adj. τΕμσχιστό? occurs in the medical Athenaeus (ap. Oribas. ine. 23.27: ταρίχων τού? τεμαχιστού?) and this or τεμαχίσκοι κωβιοΟ (or -ιών) is no doubt right. Κωβιό? is identified as goby, o f which there are many Mediterranean species (see D. W . Thompson Gloss. G k Fishess,v,9R E 2 a 794), and κωβιοί, frequendy mentioned in Comedy in lists offish, provide the meal at a seemingly far from extravagant marriage feast in Antiphan.fr. 206. They do not however appear to be in Attica, as seemingly here, a particular delicacy. Another and not less difficulty is that gobies are quite small fish, and three o f them sliced are quite 1 The first line is incomplete in Ath. 7.277 c and the relevance of the quota­ tion to that context is, as Kaibel noted, not dear. 66

FRAGMENT V

inadequate as the crowning glory o f a dinner, evidently o f several persons, at which the king himself is present It is hard to think o f any explanation except that κωβιό$ here (and perhaps in Alexandria generally) is the name o f some larger and more highly esteemed fish. According to A tL 7.3091 Dorion spoke of κωβιοί ποτάμιοί, but gobies are found in fresh or brackish water (Arisi. H .A . 601 b 22) and it would be rash to think o f some delicacy from the Nile. It may be w orth noting that in Mnesim./r. 4.3 5 (*= Menand. fr. 299)1 κωβιό; is in company with θυννί*, ήλακοττήν, κύων—large fish; but in this enormous list the order is not likely to be systematic. 32 κ α τ ε π λ ά γ η σ α ν : cf. 280, 407. This pass. e. acc. is not uncommon; e.g. psephism ap. Dem. 18.185 μηδέν KOTcnrXayevres τόν Φίλιππον. 33 ff· The lines which follow resemble the fish-lists which are common in the Middle and N ew Comedy (e.g. Alex. fr. n o , Philem.jr. 79, Plaut. Cos. 493). It may be w orth mention that according to Ach. 2.49 D it was customary to hand the host when he had taken his place a menu showing what dishes were to be served. For the fish mentioned see 28 n. They are identified by D. W . Thompson as follows: σκάρο*, Parrot Wrasse; τρίγλη, Red Mullet; φυκίς (or -κης), a Wrasse; μαινί*, Sprat (see 420 η.); μ^μβρά?, Sprat, Anchovy, or Smelt; άφύη, Whitebait (the young o f various fishes). The first two, and to some extent the third, were highly esteemed. The remaining three, w ith which Archephon had been familiar in Attica, were o f small account See D. W . Thompson s.vu. The list confirms the view that Machon’s κωβιοί cannot be gobies for these were common at Athens. ά π έ λ α υ ε : was taking advantage of; helping himself to. ε π ί π λ ε ΐο ν : perhaps more and more, but the phrase is often used with little idea o f progression; see my note on Theocr. 1.20. Πάνυ appears to qualify i t It is unlikely to mean that he was going for the φυκί&$ more than for the other two species. I do not understand why Kaibel proposed έπΐ πσσιν. Φ α λ η ρ ικ ή ς ά φ ·: άφύσι are the subject o f a long disquisition in Ath, 7.284 f. For those from Phalerum see Ar.fr. 507 τ ά Φσληρικά τ α μικρά τάδ* άφύδια; Eubxd.fr. 75*4 » Sotad-jr. 1.30, Arch.esti.fi. 9» A rist Η.A. 569 b 22. According to the Aldine scholia on Ar. Equ. 642 άφύαι Φαληρικαί are a t μέγάλαι. εγκρατέστατα: with great self-control So Archestr. fr. 23.20 έγκρατέω* Trvöayopijeiv o f a vegetarian.

1 Where D. W . Thompson {Gloss. Gk Fishes 75) wished to substitute κυβfor κωβ-. This is either a variety or a preparation o f tunny and would be apt in sense, but the word is elsewhere neut., the first syll. is short in Alex./r. 15.9, and one would hesitate to alter κωβ- in three places here. 67

5 -a

COMMENTARY 39 τάλκήνορος: ehe name is not common and if the dates allow this may be die Alcenor who is recorded immediately before Timodes in LG. 22.2325.I58 as a having won a Comic victory at the Lenaca. 40 'Surely A. hasn’t overlooked.. .V The perf. έορ-, regular in Comedy, has been displaced by loop- contra metrum elsewhere; e.g. Alex. ft. 272. 41 ò κυρτός: perhaps Alcenor'$ nickname, presumably in reference to round shoulders or hunchback rather than convex stomach. πάνυ: Meineke, approved by Kaibel, wrote παν, which is the common use, but πολύ τούν. also occurs (Andoc. i.ii3 ,D ein . 54.17) and πάνυ seems natural enough. 44 f. A very puzzling couplet, ^σύμβολος is used both o f meals to which the guests have not contributed anything (e.g. Alcx.fr. 257 πορίχεταi ye τά δεϊπν* άσύμβολα) and o f the guest who does not contribute (e.g. Aeschin. 1.75 όταν μειράκιον.. .πολυτελή δείπνα δειπνή άσύμβολον). At this meal, at which Ptolemy is no doubt the host, presumably all the guests are άσύμβολοι (c£ EubuL^r. 72), Alcenor is speaking o f custom in Archephon’s native country (πάτριον), where the latter, as a παράσιτος, would often be in that position (c£ Diod. C om .fr. 2.13). In what follows ψήφον Ιχοντα must in the first instance be a contributing partidpant in the meal who is entided as o f right to be present and to be treated w ith respect by any άσύμβολοι present. Details o f such parties άπό συμβολών no doubt varied gready, and even Athenaeus (8.365 b- d ) is not very informative, or apparendy well-informed himself about them. It seems however that those contemplating such an entertainment sometimes deposited tokens with the host. In Ter. Eun. 539 ff, adulescentuli coiimus in Piraeo \ in hnne diem ut de symbolis essemus. Chaereatrt ei res | praefecimus ; dati anuli; locus, tempiis constitutumst, rings serve this purpose. W e are (I think) nowhere so told, but where the συμβολαί are not, as in 266 if , contributions in kind o f wine or food but in the nature o f tokens, they are pledges that when the cost o f the meal is reckoned up by the host the contributor will pay his scot or forfeit the pledge;1 and when Marcus Argentarius in A.P. 6.248, dedicating a flagon to Aphrodite, calls it ψήφου συμβολικής θύγατερ he means that he provided the wine it once contained as his share o f an entertainment which he had agreed to join as a contributor (c£ 3 1 2 η .). Ψήφος, i f this is right, will, however it comes by that meaning, denote die pledge given in 1 In an epigram by Hedylus (ap. Ath. 8.345 a ) a gluttonous woman who has just devoured a conger-eel costing a drachma is addressed with the words θές μόνον ή ^ώνην ή Ινώτιον ή τι τοιουτον | σύσσημον.

68

FRAGMENT V

such cases by the guest to the prospective host,1 and explains the primary meaning o f Machon’s phrase. In what sense however the fish Ιχει ψήφον is highly obscure. It cannot well mean is entitled to participate (flat as that would be) for all the other fish, which Archephou is eating, are equally so. Casaubon said didtur ψ. I. qui habet ius veniendi in comitia but produced no evidence, and that explanation would, if true, be open to the objection just mentioned. Dutheil suspected the fish to be o f a species in whose stomachs pebbles were found. Paimerius guessed ψήφος to mean scales. Schweig­ häuser (very obscurely) suspicari subierat ΙχβΟν for tasse ad άσύμβολον esse referendum, adeoque ad ipsum Archephonta, quern piscem, id est mutimi, dicat poeta. Gulick (adapting Dutheil) ‘apparently the goby was supposed to carry a jewel in its belly*; but granting that Machon’s unidentified κωβιοί may have carried pebbles, or have been supposed to carry jewels, about with them, I know o f no fish which emulate ostriches in this peculiarity. None o f these explanations is at all plausible nor can I solve the problem, but I suggest as a possibility, that as ψήφον άττοδιδόναι τινί (Aeschin, 1.93) means to vote in favour o f ψήφων μέρος μεταλαμβάνειν (Plat. Αρ. 36 b) to receive a share of the votes>ψ. Ιχειν may mean to have received the suffrage (of the other diners). If that is so, the jest is very far-fetched (as is however true o f other jokes in Machon) and perhaps if the meaning o f κωβιός in these lines were know n a simpler explanation based on the appearance or structure o f the fish would present itself. For instance the sturgeon (άκκπτήσιος and other names) and the maigre (σκιcava) are both o f them large and were esteemed as food. The bony plates o f the former or the large otoliths in the head o f the latter might qualify as ψήφοι (see D, W . Thompson s.vv.). Aristotle instances (H.A. 601 b 29) χρόμις, λάβραξ, σκίαινα, φάγρος as fish εχοντες λίδον έν τή κεφαλή (see D. W . Thompson s.vv.) and if Machon’s κωβιός is to be found here σκίαινα seems the most likely candidate*

VI 46 ύδροπώτην: in 2.44s Athenaeus enumerates from various sources other ύδροπσται and adds (d ) Μάχων δ* 6 κωμικός ύδροπότου ΜοσχΙωνος μέμνηται, which, unless the epitomator has there dropped another excerpt from Machon, is presumably a reference to this fragment. D indorf accord­ ingly w rote ύδροττότην here and has been followed by subsequent editors; 1 In Ath. 13.584F the connexion between ψήφοι and dinners perhaps explains why a hetaera says to a parasite who has fallen into some plaster (κον(αμα) σαυτόν Ιδωκας οδ ψήφοί rienv. 1 Otoliths in other fish are mentioned in Ath. 3.108 a , 7.3050, 315e on the authority o f Hegesander and Aristotle.

69

COMMENTARY

he also suggested that Athenaeus had intentionally dropped δέ after the word. Meineke and Gulick accepted this; Kaibel more prudently left a blank, for the connecting particle would be unusual in Machon (see p. 23). There may be a prosodiacal reason for altering the line (see 172 n.) but the form of this word affords none. Five times in Athenaeus himself (in 2.44) the form is -ποτ-, and it is natural that it should be so, for -πότης compounds are much commoner than -πώτης, and ύδροποτέω than -πωτέω though Anmionius (Diff. I l l ) says èv δέ συνθέτοις μόνον δια του ω μεγάλου* οϊον γαλακτοπωτεΤν καί ύδροπωτείν.1 Photius has Αίματοπώτης* οί ’Αττικοί μηκύνοντες τό ο προφέρουσι την λέξιν, ώσπερ και τό οινοπώτης και ύδροπώτης, and αιματοπότης occurs in Ar, Equ. 198, ύδατοπωτών by a certain restoration in C r a t i n 288. There is every reason why an Attic form should appear in Machon and the anecdote has an Attic setting, but αίμοπώτης in Lyc. 1403, γονοπώτης in Maneth. 4,311, cast doubt upon the restriction, and άκρητοπώτης has strong ms support in Hdt. 6.84. Μ οσχίωνα: this is presumably die Moschion whom Athenaeus calls a parasite in 6.242c, quoting A lexis/’. 236 sW* ό Μοσχίων | δ παραμασήτης Iv βροτοίς αύδώ μένος, It is not likely that παραμασήτης is a nickname since it is merely an ornamental variation on παράσιτος and resembles the synonyms recorded by Athenaeus in 6.247E and τρεχέδειπνοι, Alexis’s name for parasites in the fragment (168) which immediately follows, but if it is so Moschion may have had more than one (see 30 n.). A Moschion is mentioned in Axionic. fr. 4 (where he is called φίλανλος) and in Strato Com. fr. 1.13, and as both contexts are gastronomic this may be the same man again; but the name is common. 47 Aoxcitp: die gymnasium outside the walls o f Athens on the N.E., which was built according to Theopompus by Pisistratus but according to Philochorus was o f Periclean date (Suid. s,v,); it was improved or embel­ lished in the second half o f the fourth century by Lycurgus (Plut. Mor. 841 c). It figures in the opening scene o f Plato’s Lysis, was a resort o f Sophists (Antiphan, / . 122), and became, after the time o f Aristotle, who taught there, the headquarters o f the Peripatetic School. See J. E. Harrison Myths and Monuments 219, R E Suppl. 7.905. μ€τά τινα>ν: in company, u>ith others, as in 359 below. If the words have a point (c£ 157 n.) it is that Moschion is addressing the joke to an audience. 48 τρεφόμβνον: 236 η. 49 f· Ep. wrote είπεΤν before ό δείνα, and an inf. o f a verb o f speaking seems necessary and not likely to have preceded or followed these five lines. Kaibel proposed φήσαι or έπειπεϊν in place o f ποιείς, and it may be said

1 See Lobeck Phryn. 45.5.

F R A G M E N T VI

that in the circumstances πάσχεις would be a more appropriate verb than ποιείς. If however ποιείς is omitted one might expect the def. art. with πραγμα, as Ar. Thesm. 93 τό πραχμα κομψόν, Com. Adesp. 6 βδελυρόν μέν οδν τό πρδχμα.1 Perhaps παρ., λεγειν, τό πραγμα, though a violent change, should be considered. & δείνα: voc. or exclamatory—heus tu; Antiphan. Jr. 139 ό δεΐν*, Ίάπνξ, κερασον εν^ωρέστερον. π ο ιείς: Machon shortens the first syll. o f this verb in the next line as in 9 °. 93 >318, 343, and o f ποιητής in 12 and 65 ; and Et. M. s.v. (679.24) has Ιστεον οτι ot *Αθηναίοι άποβάλλουσι το ι λέχοντες ποώ. How they pronounced the syllable however and how they wrote it are not the same question, and it it difficult to believe that Machon wrote ποιείς here but ποεί in the next line. Inscriptions (Meisterhans Gr. Alt. Inschr? 37) and mss both vary hopelessly and editors differ, but as there is the same fluctua­ tion o f quantity in τοιόσδε, τοιουτος, where there is no alternative spelling, is is evident that the diphthong is not necessarily inconsistent with the short syllable nor is it so in a 5th cent, inscription from Attica (I.G. i 2.826) ΕΟφρων εξεποίησ* ούκ άδαής Πάριος. A writes the simple vowel in 90 but the diphthong consistently elsewhere and 1 have thought it better to restore uniformity. èv γ . λαμβάνειν: ambiguous— your belly or conceive: Hippocr. Prorrk. 2.24 (9.34 L.) οσαι μάλλον καί ήσσον Ιν γαστρί λαμβάνειν πεφύκασι, a l ; cf. Ath. 10.453 a. The original authorship o f this joke seems to be in dispute, for Athenaeus introduces the excerpt from Machon with the words τον ύπό της γραός τρεφόμενον παράσιτον ΤΤαυσίμαχος Ιλεχεν τουναντίον πάσχειν τη χραίςι συνάντα, αύτόν γάρ εν γαστρί λαμβάνειν άεί. Nothing is know n o f Pausimachus though i f he was a parasite the name would fit one less given to brawling than usual in the class. It may be noted that the definite articles (τον ύπό τ ή ς . . . ) imply either that the pair was notorious or, perhaps more probably, that the joke was so. Athenaeus does not say fiom whom he derives the anecdote o f Pausimachus but it was evidently not fiom Machon, and it seems possible that though Athenaeus was un­ aware o f it Pausimachus is another nickname—perhaps for Moschiom ό νδροπώτης, for peace-making and water-drinking are habits which could well go together. The joke is repeated w ith variations in the next fragment. 1 Similarly with χρήμα, as Ar. Vesp. 933 κλεπτον tò χρήμα τάνδρός, where see Blaydes.

71

COMMENTARY V II

The relation o f this fragment to the preceding, which it follows imme­ diately, is puzzling. The quotation is introduced by the words 6 δέ afrròs [ i r . Μοσχίων] παράσιτον άκούσα? O t t o γραίας τρεφόμενον συγγινόμευόν τε σύττ) έκάστη? ήμέρα$, the last five o f which supply a relevant though hardly necessary gloss on what follows,1 and may be paraphrased from Machon. It may be noted that the comment is here not, as in the preceding fragment, addressed to the parasite, and that ή μεν ού κύει is not only an addition but an improvement to the joke. Athenaeus does not expressly say that the couplet comes from Machon, but it is hardly possible to doubt it, and, if it does so, one may wonder why Machon retailed the same anecdote twice· Infr. xvi however the same joke is first told in four lines and then immediately repeated in twenty-three, I have suggested a possible explanation on p. 24; Athenaeus however was ill-advised to retail both versions in close proximity. 51 Ep. has καινά for γήμεσθ* but if γίνεθ* is correct πάντα γίνεται may well mean all things are nota possible? and the idea that in the course o f time anything may happen is a commonplace (e.g. Hdt. 5.9 γένοιτο δ* àv παν έν τ φ μακρφ χρόνερ, Pind. Ο. 2.17 χρόνο? ò πάντων πατήρ, Blaydes on Ar. Thesm. 528). The variants are however odd and γίνεθ* not alto­ gether convincing. Καινά, if thought preferable, could be made metrical by transposition, when νΟν π . καινά, φασιν would mean all is novelty, as they say. A verb however to which Athenaeus’s i ccvrós is subject is missing. It is easily supplied by writing φησί for φασί and so Schweighauser.3 The parenthetic φασί (at they say) is however too idiomatic to be lightly altered and the missing verb may have stood outside the couplet quoted. Iv γ . λαμβάνει: jon· V ili In Ath. 8.337B the speaker (Democritus) asks—rather oddly since Dorion έν τ φ περί ιχθύων has been cited in 3.118B and repeatedly in the fishcatalogue o f B k 7*—πόθεν δέ ύμΐν, ώ σοφώτατοι, έπηλθε καί ό όψολόγο? 1 They do not o f course mean, as Gulick translates, ‘went to see her everv day’. * Machon is more likely to have written γιν- than γιγν- but does not happen to have the present stem elsewhere. 3 Who however wrote πάντα (φησί) καινά γίνεθ*, regarding φησί as an addition by Athenaeus. e4 v .Ja n in JIE 3.1564, W ellm annin Herrn. 23.192, and D indorf (in his index) wished to distinguish the musician from the όψοφάγοί but they are plainly 72

FRAGMENT V ili Δωρίων ώ* και συγγραφεύ* τι* γενόμενο*, δν έγώ κρουματοττοιον οίδα ονομα^όμενον καί φίλιχθυν, συγγραφέα δέ ού; and after quoting these lines from Machon he goes on with anecdotes o f Dorion culled from the órroμνημονεύματα o f Lynceus, Hegesander, and Aristodemus, and also a refer­ ence to him in the Φίλιππο* o f Mnesimachus (/r. io), where he is called λοπαδοφυσήτη*. The Philip o f this play’s title will be Philip I o f Macedon, at whose court Dorion was present (presumably in 34.6 b.c.) during the reception o f an Athenian embassy (Theopompus ap. Ath. 10,435b). His fioruit lies therefore in the middle o f the fourth century. See on him further Haupt Herrn. 8.10 (=iC/. Sehr. 3.161), and on the fish-book Wellmann ih. 23.179. 53 xpo\>ματοπο ιός: «furici*«. The word is rare but is used o f Dorion by Athenaeus here and by Aristodemus in 338A. He was in fact a piper, αύλητή$, and is so called by Theopompus, Lynceus, and others. Κρουμα, which might be expected to be confined to instruments o f percussion, is used o f whistling by Eupolis J r . n o ) and not rarely o f wind-instruments by later writers: as, e.g., A . Plan. 8 (Alcaeus Mess, o f Marsyas) κρουμα 6Γ εύτρήτων φβεγγόμενο* δονάκων. Μ υλών: the last w ord in the line, written μυλωνά in A, μύλων in Ep., is very puzzling. Casaubon wrote Μύλων', and an Egyptian tow n Μύλων is mentioned by Stephanus Byz. from Hecataeus; but apart from the im­ probability in Machon o f elision between lines, one would expect the place to be in Caria since the cult o f Zenoposidon is not known elsewhere (see 60 n.). None o f the Carian towns mentioned by Stephanus1 offers a plausible emendation and very few o f them would even be metrical here, nor, if the w ord is gen. plur., is any Ιθνο* o f Μύλοι known. It is natural to think o f the important Carian town Mylasa, Μύλασα (τά), which Aeschylus Jr. 101) called either Μύλο* or -ασο*. Plutarch’s mss write (Mot. 302 a) Ik Μυλέων, and Ruge in R E 16.1049 said hierher gekört auch die Form et$ Μυλών apparendy regarding the w ord as indeclinable—as, if it is Carian or at least non-Greek, it might be. This solution, if there were more to support it, would be welcome, but it should be said that the quantity o f the first syllable of Μύλασα is unknown. Meineke, followed by Kaibel, preferred Μυλών and said Mylasa was meant. Gulick translated MiUtown\ and if the w ord has any connexion w ith μύλη it may be noted that there were towns called Μυλαί in Sicily and Thessaly and that Pliny (N.H. 4.61) lists two islands off the coast of Crete so named. The volcanic rock o f Nisyrus off the Cnidian peninsula was well known as a source for millstones,2 and another identified by Lynceus ap. Ath. 9.3 37 d and in Mnesimachus’s account (below), and Democritus himself calls Dorion οψολόγο*, not οψοφάγο*. 1 See the list in Steph. Byz. ed. Meineke p. 774. * A.P. 9.21 (anon.), Strab. 10.488, Eustath. ad Dion. Per. 525.

COMMENTARY such source on the mainland might well have been called Μυλαί. But whereas εις Μυλαίωυ or Μυλαΐτών would be quite normal Greek, sis Μυλών would not,1 and to alter ·ων to -ας in favour o f a hypothetical town would be rash. On the whole it seems likely that Mylasa is meant though how it should be so remains enigmatic. 54 κατάλυσιν: lodgings: c£ 350. μιοθωσίμην: a rare adj, used by Alexis (Jr. 257) o f the pots and pans hired for a party. 57 cx€i θύοντα: ετηθύοντα was defended by Schweighäuser with the sense hurrying up, which is very appropriate if the νεωκόρος did duty as doorkeeper; Ditt. Sytt? 981 (4th cent, Amorgos) μή εξεΐναι κατάγεσθαι είς τό ΉραΤον ξένω μηδενί, έπιμελεϊσθαι δε τον νεωκόρον καί έξείργειν (see Dittcnberger’s note), and so at Oropus (ib. 1004.6). It is very doubtful however whether Machon would have used this verb. Ίθύω occurs in Ionic prose (Hdt. and Hipp.); otherwise it and επιθ- are even in poetry almost confined to Epic and they are elsewhere transitive. To the vulgate Ικεί θύοντα, proposed independently by Fiorillo (Obs. Crìi. 107) and Porson,* Schweighäuser objected that a νεωκόρος was a temple-sweeper or sacristan, not a priest, and ought not to be sacrificing. Ion is not called νεωκόρος by Euripides, perhaps because the w ord is below the dignity o f Tragedy (in which it does not occur), but his description o f his tasks in Ion 94 ff. probably fits most people so called. On the other hand they seem sometimes to have discharged more important duties. In the Amphiareum at Oropus the νεωκόρος superintended the payment o f fees and wrote up the names o f suppliants (Ditt. S y lt3 1004); at Cos, when the women in Hdas 4 bring the cock to be sacrificed in the Asclepieum, it is the νεωκόρος who reports favourably on the sacrifice and is rewarded for his services; and though we are not so told one would naturally infer that he had performed the sacrifice himself. Θύειν does not necessarily imply more than a burning o f incense, possibly on a minor altar, and this would not seem, at least in some places, to have been outside the function o f a νεωκόρος.3 1 Stephanus catalogues in Egypt a place named ’Αγκυρών πόλις where anchor-stones were quarried, and there are many similar names in Egypt, e.g. Κυυών, Λεόντων, Λύκων ir. with ethnics Άγκνροπολίτης et stttu ’Αγκυρών πόλις would provide a pleasing parallel in sense to Μυλών πόλις, and it seems conceivable that in such cases, as with ethnics, πόλιν, -λει, might be ellipsed leaving the gen. to follow a preposition. Whether Μυλών πόλις existed and whether, if so, it was another name for Mylasa I will not guess. a Fiorillo’s notes were published in 1803; Por son’s posthumously in 1812. Recent editors o f Ath. disregard Fiorillo’s claim. Person died in 1808 and priority would be hard to determine. 3 On νεωκόροι see RE 16.2422, Headlam on Hdas 4.41.

FRAGMENT Vili

6o Ζηνοποσειδώνος: this cult, mentioned as Carian in Ath. 2.42 A, is otherwise known only from inscriptions.1 Comparable formations— Έρμαθήνη, Έρμέρως, Έρμηρακλής—denote double-headed herms; ’Ερμαφρόδιτος derives his name from his parents. 62 καταγω γεΐον: the form was restored by Gaisford in Andphan. fr. 53,where the mss o f Stobaeus,like Ahere,have-yiov, C f προσαγωγεϊον. 63 σύνδυο: whether or not in //. 10.224, σύν té δύ* Ιρχομένω, σύν is in tmesis with the part., later writers plainly treat σύνδυο and σύντρεις as single words; e.g. Hdt. 4.66, Xen. An. 6.3.2, Gal. 6.214; Plat. Tim. 54E κατά σύντρεις επιπέδους γωνίας. Dorion’s joke is somewhat far-fetched, for in the first place this temple is dedicated to one deity, Zenoposidon, not jointly to Zeus and Posidon; and in the second, shared temples were to be found elsewhere. In Greece, for instance (to say nothing o f the Erechtheum), Ares and Aphrodite shared a temple near Argos (Paus. 2.25.1), Alcaeus (Jr. 129 L.P.) mentions a τέμενος with altars o f Zeus, Hera, and Dionysus, and at Omeae was ναός θεοϊς πασιν έν κοινφ άνει μένος (Paus. 2.25.6; cf. 4.12.1); in Egypt die deified Ptolemaic queens either shared temples with Aphrodite, or, like Zeus and Posidon in Caria, joined names with hers as Aphrodite Arsinoe, Aphrodite Berenice.2 Zeus and Posidon are indeed in close quarters here but the congestion is rather in the name than in the shrine.

IX 64 Philoxenus, the dithyrambic poet, was a native o f Cythera but enslaved on the capture o f the island by Athens in 424 B.c. The Marmor Partum dates his life 435-380b.c. ύπερβολη: qualifying δνροφάγον. 66 όψ οφ άγον: other anecdotes o f the gourmandise o f Philoxenus are retailed in Ath. 1.5off., where however he and other Philoxeni are im­ perfectly distinguished. See also fr. x. πουλύποδα: octopus, poulpe. The form, not preserved in 86, is regular in earlier Greek from Homer onwards and in Comedy, πολ- appearing first in Aristotle. C£ Ath. 7.316 A. π η χ ώ ν : but in 88 πηχέων. δυεΐν : again 224. On À e form, which replaces δυοίν in Attic inscriptions in the late fourth cent., see K.B.G. 1.1.633, Meisterhans Gr. Ait. Inschr? 157· 1 The name is discussed in Cook Zeus 2.582. 2 See my note on Theocr. 17.50, Visser Götter u. Kulte 16, and on σύνναοι θεοί in Ptolemaic Egypt Harv. Stud. 41.1.

75

COMMENTARY 67 Συρακούσαις: Philoxenus’s residence in Syracuse is amply attested by the well-known stories o f his relations with Dionysius I (Diod. 15.6, Ath. i.óE,$chol. Ar. Pìut 290, a i).Whether, as Machon here implies,he died there is more doubtful, for this whole story sounds apocryphal and Suidas says that he died at Ephesus, a town with which an anecdote in Ath. 1.6 A con­ nects him. Hermesianax (fi. 6.72) apparently associates him with Colophon, αύτόν: perhaps with his own hands, since a pronoun is not wanted; but cf, 98 n. 68 σκευάσαντα: Athenaeus’s disquisition on octopuses (7.316 fr.) is zoological, not gastronomical, but in 1.5 b he cites from the Phaon o f Plato Com. (fi. 173), where a speaker, apparently reading from Φίλο§lvou καινή τι* όψαρτνσία, gives a number o f recipes in hexameters and recommends boiling for large octopuses but says he would much prefer two small ones baked. The relationship o f this όψαρτνσία to the dithyrambic Δεπτνον o f which Athenaeus preserves extensive fragments (Philox. fir. 1-5 Bgk) is uncertain, and Athenaeus, who ascribes the latter in 11.487 A and 15,6850 to Philoxenus 6 διθνραμβοποιό*, and in 11476E, 14.642 F to Ph. o f Cythera, is in doubt in 4.146F whether it and the ’Οψαρτνσία are not rather by Ph, ό Λενκάδιο$. It is highly uncertain therefore whether either is by the subject o f this anecdote, and if Plato’s fioruit is rightly placed in Ol. 88 (427-4: &E 20.2538) the Όψαρτνσία at least is unlikely to be his. See Wilamowitz Textg. gr. Lyr. Exk. 7, 71 f. φ α ύλω ς π ά ν υ . . .φερόμενον: very ill, as Kipp, Aphor. 2.32 (4.480 L.) ol φαύλο** Ιχοντε*, invalids, Plat. Legg. 839E. Φερόμενο* with such adw . as ε\5, καλώ*, κακώ* (Thuc. 5.15, 2.60, P lu t Ale. 14) is not rare but in reference to prosperity rather than health, 73 άνοικονόμητον: not in order. διατίβον: arrange, dispose, but, as the answer shows, Philoxenus under­ stands him o f making a will (διαθήκη) and the verb is common in that sense. 74 ώρας Ιβ δ .: the prognosis evidently turns upon the belief that in illness odd numbers are critical: Hipp, Morb. 4.47 (7.574 L.) w v δε Ιρέω διότι θνήσκονσιν εν τήσι περισσήσι των ημερών, Epid. 2.6.10 (5.134 L.) οσα θνήσκει ανάγκη γονίμφ (odd-numbered) ήμερη καί γονίμφ μηνί καί γονίμφ Ιτει, Aph. 4.61 (4.524 L.), GaL 9*821. Celsus, who has much on this subject in 34, says o f dies κρίσιμοι: hi erant dies tertius quintas Septimus nonus undecitnus quartos decimus onus et uicesimus, ita ut summa potentia septimo, deinde quartodetim deinde uni et uicesimo àaretnr (cf Lue. Philops. 25, Geli. 3. 10.14), and explains that Asclepiades would have none o f this lore. The belief that every seventh year o f life, or, as some held, the odd multiples o f

76

FRAGMENT IX seven, is climacteric and culminates in the Grand Climacteric at 63 lingers into modem times but is also andent (Geli 15.7). Hippocrates does not mention hours but no doubt the seventh was as critical there as with day, mondi, and year. The hour o f day will be meant (not seven hours after the prognosis), and it will be some time in the early afternoon dependent on the time o f year and the consequent length o f the day. The English belief which associates death with the ebb o f the tide is no better founded; see for it Falstaff’s death in Hen. V act 2, sc. 3 : (V parted even just between twelve and one even at the turning o’ the tide*) and Dickens David Copperfield ch. 30 subfin . τέλος ίχ€ΐ=τττέλεσται: IL 18.378 ot δ* ήτοι τόσσον μέν εχου τέλοί, were nearly complete. Cf. 413ft τα π ά ντα : as Aesch. Eum, 415 πεύση τά πάντα, Thuc. 4-81 δραστήριου ès τά πάντα. More usually τά π . is adverbial ( —πάντω*): e.g. H d t 5.97* Theocr. 7.98. Cf. 390. 75

76 δ€διφ κηται: set in order, administered. The form with augment as well as reduplication is expressly attested in Bekk. A n . 88.18 from Antiphanes J r . 155) and occurs in Menand. Peril?. 82,Philod. Rhet. 2.266. The peift in Plat. Tim. 19 e, Dem. 18.178, [22.74], Arist. Aih. P. 25.2 is SicpKwithout reduplication. 77 σύν θεοίς: by gods9grace, as Menand. fi. 399, and σ. to Ts Θ. Dysc. 736. In such phrases the sing, (συν 9εψ, δαίμονι, etc.) is commoner; cf. my note on Theocr. 7.12. 78 Le. his dithyrambs are no longer new and have been successful in competitions. Πάντα$ applies to both participles. 79 συντράφοις: companions o f my childhood. He means that he has been a poet from early youth. So in A P . 7.26 (Antipater Sid.) Anacreon is φιλακρήτου σύντροφοί ‘Αρμονίη?. 80 Meineke, followed by Kaibel, marked a lacuna after Μούσαΐί and said, rather hypercritically, that the dithyrambs being adult would not need guardians. B ut έπίτροπος, though it may mean guardian, covers any kind o f trustee or administrator, and τά πάντα in 75 includes his property as well as his poetry. Since ίπιτρόττον? has no verb to govern it I have indicated an aposiopesis after the word. Philoxenus is in a hurry to get back to his octopus while there is still time, and ταυτα no doubt includes the nomination o f Επίτροποι among his testamentary arrangements. Dionysus is an obvious choice for a property which includes dithyrambs.

COMMENTARY Aphrodite is less so. In later Greek at any rate (Dion. Hal. Comp· 3, Luc. Scyth. 11) *Αφροδίτη is used o f literary charm, b ut Machon may be thinking o f the most famous o f the dithyrambs, the Κύκλωψ, which concerned Galatea and the Cyclops. O f the two other known titles, Σύρο* and Υμέναιοί, the latter is possibly relevant. 82f. Τιμοθέου: Timotheus o f Miletus, whose dates are approxi­ mately 450-360 B.c., was active in Athens, and, with Philoxenus, the principal representative o f the younger school o f dithyrambic poets and much better known to us than the rest owing to the recovery in 1902 o f substantial remains o f his Persae in a papyrus o f the fourth cent. B.c. See on him Wilamowitz Timotheos, Maas in R E 6 A 1331. Ν ιόβης: no detail is known o f this dithyramb but the two fragments assigned to it may be relevant here: 4 Diehl ίμβα ττορθμίδο* Ιρυμα,1 5 Ιρχοματ τί μ* αύει*; Fr. 5 is preserved in Diog. L. 7.28 and Stob. 3.7.44, who say that Zeno fell, broke a finger or toe, smote the ground with these words, and, going home, killed himself. Stobaeus does not disclose the source quoted, Diogenes says τό Ικ τη$ Νιόβη?, and both Aeschylus and Sophocles have competed with Timotheus for this Niobe. Fr. 4 comes from Teles ap. Stob. 3.98 (p. 46 H.) without credentials and is somewhat doubt­ fully assigned to Timotheus on the evidence o f Machon here. The combi­ nation is plausible, and though Niobe is turned to stone and her body needs no passage to Hades, her ψυχή might be addressed in the singular in fi . 4 and implied either as speaker or addressee m fr . 5. Plainly however neither fragment can be used with confidence to elucidate Machon. 83 πορθμόν: Casaubon’s πορθμίδ*, proposed, apparently indepen­ dently, by Meineke, was accepted by Kaibd, Gulick, and Wilamowitz (Timotheos p. 109). Casaubon said it meant abire suam cymbam; Gulick, orders ine to board his barque. Xcopeiv is used elsewhere o f embarkation, as Aesdi. Pers. 378 πα* άυήρ κώπη* άναξ | Is νανν Ιχώρει, Ar. Lys. 605 χώρη ’s τήν ναΟν *è Χάρων erg κοΛεϊ, Eut. H el 1548. I do not know it o f a ship putting to sea, and used o f a ship at Eur. F T . 1392 it means sail onward. The alteration however, though somewhat favoured by vaöv, is unnecessary. Philoxenus means is shouting for me to come to the ferry (the place, not the boat). For the noun (and incidentally for the omission o f a prep.) see Eur. Hec. 110$ tòv is Ά ΐδα μελάγχρωτα πορθμόν $ξω : for the inf. o f command after άναβοάω, Xen. H ell 4.2.22 λέγεται άρα τι$ άναβοησαι παρειναι τού* πρώτον*. If this interpretation is correct Philoxenus is probably 1 Nauck’s 2ρμα was accepted by Bergk but justly rqected by Wilamowitz, who suggested that Ιρνμα meantfortress, refuge. I should have thought it more likely to mean bulwarks, τοίχοι. 78

FRAGM ENT IX quoting either from Tim otheus or from him self for Machon w ould other­ wise hardly om it the prep, after the verb o f motion. 84 κ α λ εί; Eur. A le . 253 νεκύων δέ ττορ6 με0 $ | ίχω ν χέρ* ìtt! κοντφ Χάρων I μ’ ήδη καλεΐ, Τί μέλλει; | im iyou· σύ Korreipysis, Ar. R a n . 185fr. μοίρα ν ύ χ ιο ς : for the adj., which is attached to Hades in Eur. H e l. 177, see J . H . S . 48.155. Damasc. Princ. 273 has v. teós b u t here it is no doubt in the dithyrambic style and this phrase also is presumably borrow ed or parodied from one or other o f the tw o poets—a conclusion reinforced by κλυων, for the verb is unknow n to prose and only para tragic in Comedy. Χρεών is also alien to later Comedy. 86 άπά δοτε: as the plur. shows, he turns from the doctor and addresses the servants in attendance. After the next fragment, which follows imme­ diately, Athenaeus records that the Cynic Diogenes died o f eating raw octopus.

X This apophthegm o f Philcxenus, which Athenaeus appends t o f i . ix, seems to have enjoyed some notoriety and Athenaeus had already, in i.6 b , recorded it on the authority o f Theophilus:1 ekeTvoj γά ρ [Φ. 6 Έρύξιδο$], Ιοικεν, ίτπμεμφόμενο$ την φύσιν sis τη ν άπόλαυσιν ηΟξοττό ττοτε y εράνου τή ν φ ά ρυγγα σχεϊν. Suidas has, in his life o f Philoxenus, ηΰξοττο yepàvou τράχηλον εχειν ίν* liri ττολύν χρόνον κατοπινώ ν ήδηται, and the anecdote even found its way into Aristotle (see 88 n.). The tragic and elegiac poet Melanthius, another όψοφάχοί somewhat older than Philoxenus, is reported by Clearchus (ap. Ath. 1.6 c) to have prayed τής μακραύχενοϊ όρνιθο^ τόν τράχηλον ίχειν Ιν* ότι ττλεΐστον τοΐς ήδέσιν Ινδιατρίβη, b u t this is the sort o f joke which m ight have been made independently by m ore than one person or have been fathered by gossip on any jester to w hom it seemed appropriate. It is hardly relevant that the sense o f taste resides in the m outh and n o t in the throat. 87

Φ ιλό ξενο ς: 64η.

88 τ ρ ι ώ ν . . . λ ά ρ υ γγα π ή χ ε ω ν : the jest is better w hen connected w ith storks or cranes and w ould be appreciated by anyone w ho had seen these birds (or herons) swallowing food. 1 I f this is the w riter characterised in schoL Nie. T/i. 11 as ό Ζηνοδότειος he will be about a generation later than Machon, who, like Zenodotus, instructed the youthful Aristophanes; see F .H .G . 4.515, R E 5A2I37.

79

COMMENTARY σχειν seems the simplest remedy for the metre and the a or. inf. is usual with εύχομαι; cf. 177. Casaubon proposed to omit τόν, which however is desirable if not essential1 λάρυγγα: properly windpipe. He should have said φάρυγγα, gullet but others had made the same mistake (Crobyl. ft . 8 τόν λάρυγγ’ ήδιστα πυριώ τεμαχίου, Pherecr./r. ιο8, Eur. Cyci 158) and the reverse confusion occurs even in Aristotle (P.A. 664a16, al.)9who however, in reporting this wish (Eth. i n 8 a 3 2 ) , gets the anatomy right: ηύξατό τι* όψοφάγοί ών τον φάρυγγα αύτω μακρότερον γεράνου γενέσθαι ώ$ ήδομενος τη αφή. In the Eudemian Ethics (1230 a 17) Philoxenus is named as the οψοφάγο*, and so Probi 95022. 89 £ He wants his victuals to take as long a time as possible to swallow, and (unless άμα means άμα tois καταττινομενοΐζ) the tastes o f different foods to be simultaneously pleasurable. Καταπίνω is however frequently used o f food as well as drink, ποιη: see 49 n.

XI In 4.163 £ Athenaeus records from Timaeus an anecdote about the harper Stratonicus. The nine stories o f the same man here put together by Machon are embedded in a context o f similar anecdotes o f him which extends from 8.347 f to 352D and mentions, among others, Clearchus, Capiton, and Hegesander as sources. Most o f them appear to derive immediately from a Στρατό νίκου άττομνημονεύματα which a lemma at 3JOD ascribes to Cailisthenes, possibly but not certainly the well-known historian (see R E 10.1685). As was said above (p. 20), Machon, in this excerpt more obviously than elsewhere, is using literary sources, but there is no means o f telling which, if any, o f these authors were available to him, and twice his version o f a story differs from that recorded by another writer (see 153, 161 nn.). It may be said however that i f in fact Machon is indebted to one o f the authorities mentioned in the neighbouring context, Athenaeus may well have preferred his version to theirs, for his anecdotes usually have a setting whereas they, at least as presented in Athenaeus, are for the most part content to record an apophthegm and to pass at once to another. There is an ambiguous reference to Stratonicus in Philetaerus^. 15 (cited by Athenaeus in 4.169ε), which may indicate that he had many pupils, 1 Schweighauser wished to write λάρυγα (on die analogy o f φάρνγα) though die form is unattested, and bade his readers view with calm (neque nos turbare debuti) a dactyl in the 4th foot. ‘The Professor’s ignorance o f metre’, saidElmsley o f Schweighäuser, ‘continuously exposes him to mistakes o f the most ridiculous kind’ (Edinb. Rev. 3.194). 80

F R A G M E N T XI though an anecdote at Ath. 8.348 D finds him w ith no more than two. Philetaerus, who was perhaps a son o f Aristophanes, was one o f the earlier Middle Comedy poets (see R E 19.2103). Anecdotes in Ath. 8.3 52 a and b show Stratonicus at least overlapping with Timotheus (see 82 n.) and with Polyidus, another contemporary dithyrambic poet; others suggest that he lived to the middle o f the 4th century.1 His reputation did not depend solely on his w it for he was also an innovator in music: Ath. 8.352c Φαινία* δ’ ό περιπατητικό* έν δευτέρορ περί ποιητών, Στρατόνικός, φησιν, 6 ’Αθηναίο* δοκεΐ τήν πολυχορδίαν ei* την ψιλήν κιθάρισιν πρώτο* είσενεγκεΓν καί πρώτο* μαθητές τών άρμονικών ίλαβε καί διάγραμμα συνεστήσατο. Professor R. Ρ. Winnington-Ingram kindly tells me that the claims here made, righdy or wrongly, for Stratonicus are, (i) that he introduced to solo dthara-playing the multiplicity o f strings (or notes) employed by Timotheus and other citharodes o f the younger dithyrambic school, and (ii) that he was the first to take pupils in harmonics and set out a scale or scales in diagrammatic form. 91 άπεδ. €ΐς Π .: the pregnant use o f the prep, here and in 119, 333, as Hdt. 6.1 παρήν ε$ Σάρ&ι*, and often. 92 παρά: as Dem. 6.26 ταΟτ* άκούσαντε*.. .παρά τών πρέσβεων. 93 σπληνικούς: an enlarged spleen is the well-known indication o f chronic malaria. Pella, says Livy (44.46), was situated on a hill facing S.W., but he goes on, cingunt paludes inexsuperabilis altitudini cesiate et kieme quas restagnantes faciunt ***2 {arx) Phacus in ipsa palude qua proxima urbi est uelut insula erninet aggeri operis ingenti imposita qui et murum sustineat et umore circumßsae paludis nihil laedatur; cf. Strab. 7.330 (23). Malaria therefore was no doubt endemie there. Hippocrates, having no reason to suspect mos­ quitoes, had noticed (Air. 7: 2.26 L.) that those who drank waters &ώδεα καί στάσιμα καί λιμναία had σπλήνα* αεί μεγάλου*, and Galen (16.436) reports his words. 94 f. οδν: for the late position o f this w ord see Denniston Gk Part. 427. τ ω π υ ρ ί: Dobree (and Meineke), retaining τό πΟρ, wrote μειρακίσκων. Παρά c. acc. is very freely used in Hellenistic Greek in the sense o f beside, but if μειρακίσκων is accepted, npos (Headlam on Hdas 7.123) niight be preferable, for it is the idiomatic prep, in this context. See Ar. Ach. 751, Pax 1131, P lat Rep. 372c, M enand./r. 832. 1 See R E 4A326, and notes on 141,156 below. In evaluating such evidence it is again well to bear in mind that a notorious joker is apt to attract to himself jokes made by other people (seep. 7). The rejoinder reported {8.350c) from Capiton cannot have been made by Stratonicus to Ptolemy, for Ptolemy Soter only assumed the title o f βασιλεύ* in 305 B.c. 2 armes seems a likely supplement. 6

8l

CM

COMMENTARY

Unless γυμνα2ομένους-γυμνουμενους, undressing, which seems unlikely,1 the scene is probably a bath attached or adjacent to a gymnasium. Suidas glosses γυμνάσια* άλειπτήρια ή βαλανεΐα ή λουτρά (cf. E t^M . r.t'.); Pollux (7.166, citing Alex. Tr. 101) says μέρος δε βαλανείου έσχάρα καί άλειπτήριον, and in [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 2.10 we hear o f παλαίστρσς πολλάς, αποδυτήρια, λουτρώνας. The youths, who have left their cloaks at the door, are doing physical exercises before or after their athletics in the gymnasium, or perhaps wrestling, like the άψιμαθής in Theoplir. Char. 27. 96 The language is somewhat surprising. One would expect him to say that they were in good health, but whereas κομψώςίχειν may mean to he in good health (p.Par. 18.3 ; Epictet. 3.10.13 ; Ev.Jo. 4.32; L. Robert Hellenica 10.102), ήσκηκότας should naturally refer to fitness produced by training (σωμασκία) or to elegance due to care with the toilet. These difficulties may be met by writing έσχη κότας (Coraes) or, as that tense seems wrong, κομψούς with χρώμα as an acc. o f reference, as I have preferred. Probably he infers from their physical condition that they cannot be unwell. In connexion with χρώμα it may be worth noting that Galen frequently tells us that complaints o f the spleen cause a darkening o f the skin (8.377 τα τής χρόας όλου τού σώματος Ιπί τό μ&άντερον βέπει 5.127, 7 ·74> 8.47)· Another anecdote o f Stratonicus at Pella reported by Athenaeus from S/s άπομνημονεύματα (8.352a) is also relevant: εν Πέλλη δέ προς φρέαρ προσελθών ήρώτησεν ε! ττότιμόν έστιν είττόντων δέ τώυ Ιμώντων, ‘Ημείς γε τούτο πίνομεν, Ούκ άρ*, &ρη, ττότιμόυ έστιν. Ιτύγχανον δ* ot άνθρωποι χλωροί όντες. A pale or livid complexion is induced by malaria.4 97 f. αύτω : said his informants were quite wrong. Editors, rightly or wrongly, agree in aspirating carrcp; the word is however quite super­ fluous and should be regarded with suspicion though the reflexive in 316 is hardly more purposeful. 99 The lacuna following this line must have contained a verb o f speaking and may have been something like ού Θαυμ’, Ιφη, τούς Ινδόν ύγιεινούς δοκεϊν. Since Ιχοντα would be the better for τινά o r a noun to agree with, it is possible that a line is missing before as well as after 99. Stratonicus pretends to think that the athletes have left their distended spleens as well as their cloaks w ith the attendant.

1 The sense may receive a little support from Et. M. 243.5 but is cited by LSJ only from a 6th-cent. papyrus (P.S.J. 1.70). * Cf. Hipp. Affect. 20 (6.228 L.) όκόσοι δε σπλήνα Ιχουσι μέγαν, óaot μέν εισι χολώδεις, κσκόχροοί τε γίνονται καί κακελκέες καί δυσώδεες έκ τού στόματος καί λεπτοί. 82

F R A G M E N T XI too f· This is the earliest reference to an attendant known in legal Latin as eapsarius and in English as a ‘cloak-room attendant’. A dressing-room in Luc, Hipp. 8 has ίματιοφυλακονντες. The ίμάτιον, being an outer garment w orn over the χιτών, is often discarded, and often stolen in consequence, and there are many references to λωποδύτου. Baths, gymnasia, and such places offered easy opportunities, and thefts from them were more severely punished than those from private premises. Diogenes, ίδών ίματιοκλέπτην έν τω βαλανείψ, contented himself with a jesting question—έπ* άλειμμάτιον ή επ’ άλλ’ ίμάτιον; (Diog. L. 6.52)—but Demosthenes (24.114) says εϊ τίς y* έκ Λυκείου ή ίξ Άκα&ημείας ή Ικ Κυνοσάργονς ίμάτιον ή ληκύθιον ή άλλο τι φαυλότατον, ή εΐ των σκευών τι των έκ των γυμνασίων ύφέλοιτο ή έκ τω ν λιμένων, ΰτττέρ δέκα δραχμάς, καί τούτος Θάνατον ένομοθέτησαν είναι τήν ζημίαν, whereas thefts from premises incurred only a fine o f twice the value o f the property stolen, with a possible addition o f five days in chains. Arist. Prob. 952 a 17 discusses the reasons for the remarkable disparity o f these penalties and gives as one reason that in βαλανεΐα the moment the owner takes his eyes off his ίμάτιον it is at the mercy o f a thief. 102 £ ευθέω ς: Casaubon, punctuating before this word, wished it (vainly) to mean primo sive exempli gratia velputa. Kaibel and Gulick follow his punctuation and the latter translates to make sure immediately that9which is very poor sense. Despite its position the word, if sound, seems to qualify λαμ(3άνων or possibly είσιόντων—taking, immediately they enter. . . . Jacobs’s εύθέτως, handily, tidily, is however attractive, Stratonicus means that if the athletes all had swollen spleens like the doorkeeper there would be no room to move in the changing-room. For στενοχώρια c£ 396. 104 ψ ά λ τη ς: an inscription o f the second cent. 3.C. from Teos (Diet. Syll? 578) prescribes as an instructor in a school κιθαριστήν ή ψάλτην, and if, as seems likely, Machon is using words carefully, it is plain that Stratoni­ cus’s host is not, like himself, a citharode or citharist, He will be a performer on some instrument the strings o f which were plucked with the fingers, not with a plectrum—for instance magadis or pectis1 which Aristoxenus (ap. Ath. 14.Ó35B) says χωρίς πλήκτρου διά ψαλμου παρέχεσθαι τήν χρείαν. The man is a bad performer but it is not suggested that Stratonicus dis­ approves o f his instrument. 105 παρά τ . π . during the drinking, as παρ* οίνον (Hedylus ap, Ath. 11. 473 a, Plut. Mot. 143 c; cf. Eur. H,F, 682). Cf. 157,175, 377· 106 «ριλοτίμου: ambitious, lavish. The adj. is transferred from the host 1 See on these instruments Susemihl and Hides Arist. Pol. p. 632.

83

6-2

COMMENTARY

to the entertainment. The gen. abs. is concessive—*though the entertain­ ment was lavish - . Λ 107 ψαλλόμενος · ό άκροώμενος ψάλτον* καί κιθαρ^όμενος, ά κιθάρας (Suid.) ; similarly αύλούμενος. It appears from what follows that Stratonicus is being entertained alone by his host, who wishes to display his skill to an expert. I08f. This and the following incident are obscure. Greek custom, which surprised Anacharsis (Diog. L. 1.104), was to begin with small cups and proceed to larger. A t the end o f the Symposium (223 c) Agathon, Aristophanes, and Socrates are left passing round a big one, and guests were at liberty to call for larger, as Stratonicus does here, guests in Menand. fr . 510, and Leonidas at Athenaeus’s banquet (Ath. 11.504 b).1 In 447 Hippe, who has arrived late and is thirsty, calls at once for την μεγάλην. See Headlam on Hdas 1.81. W hether Stratonicus smashes the one he has been using in impatience, or to call attention to his need, or for some other reason, does not appear. The imperi, would seem to be descriptive as he smashed the cup he calledfor a larger (cf. Gildersleeve C k Synt. §211), but the following asyndeton is remarkably abrupt even for Machon, and, if it needs cure, one remedy would be to write συγκαταθλών; another, since κ and η are easily confused, to substitute κήτησε. In 109 κνάθους will be ladles o f wine as drawn from the crater, not the small fraction o f a pint which the word denotes when used as a measure (e.g. Nie. Th. 582, A l 58); cf. 279 n. n o ήλ(ιρ: Casaubon thought that δεικνύναι (c. dat.) here was equi­ valent to the Homeric δειδίσκεσθαι (c. acc.) in the sense o f toast>but even if this equation were probable the action would still require as much explanation as before. Possibly, like Prometheus in Aesch. Prom. 9, and somebody in Theodect./r. 10, he is calling on the sun to witness his unhappy plight (cf. Eut. Med. 57, Page ad loc,). I think it more likely however that the phrase is colloquial and means in effect draining the cup. He raises it above his face (and so may be said to show it to the sun) and rips it up to drain it; Antiphzn.fr. 237 δέπας.. .παντελώς εστραμμένον | t 5vco κάτω δεικνύντες, Headlam on Hdas 3.61. συντόμως: probably with τπών—hastily. i l l τβΛτβ: i.e. the whole situation. Jacobs's τάλλα would resemble H on C. 1.9.9 permitte diuis cetera, but is unnecessary, for phrases o f the kind are not uncommon: Archil, ^τ. 56τοΤς θεοίς τίθει τα πάντα, Theogn. 1048 1 So also in Rome (Hor. 5 .2-8.3 5, Housman onjuv. 11.148), but the custom was recognised as Greek: Cic. Verr. 1.66 fit inuitatio ut Graeco more biberetur; hortatur hospes; poscuut maioribus poculis. 84

FRAGMENT XI

δσσα δ* εττειτ* Ισται ταΟτα θεοϊοι μέλει, Aesch. Pers. 229 ττάντ* Ιφήσομεν θεοΐσι Tots τ* ενερθε yfjs φίλοι*. If change is needed ττάντ’ would seem better than τάλλ*. 113 ώ ς ίο ixe seems to qualify γνωρίμων radier than κατά τύχην and I have punctuated accordingly; cf. 163. 114 The situation seems to be that when Stratonicus and his host are joined by a party ο£κωμά3οντε$ they setde down to a symposium together, and the newcomers, knowing nothing o f Stratonicus’s earlier potations, are surprised that anybody with a reputation for heavy drinking (ττολ. ττίν. αεί) should succumb so soon. ίξο ινο ς: drunk. In Ath. 14.613 c Ulpianus asks one o f the guests who has used the w ord where it was to be found and is answered by Alex. Jr. 63 (cf. 15.685F), but it and its congeners (·ν!