Αγροίκοι

35

fourth-century Agroikos/oi). Aristophanic parallels (e. g. Strepsiades, Trygaios
[esp. Ar. Pax 190-191) suggest that the figure can be used to attack supposed
urban vices or non-traditional behaviour as much as to mock the rustic him-
self. In general, see Ribbeck 1885; for comedy in particular, Legrand 1910.
72-80; Konstantakos 2005.
The plural title probably refers to the chorus; in this play, the main
character (or at least the addressee of fr. 1 and the speaker of frr. 2 and 3)
seems to belong to the same group (cf. on fr. 1.4). Other possible examples of
titles denoting the main character together with the chorus include Eusebeis
and Zdgraphoi e Gedgraphoi·, cf. Ar. Ec. and see introduction.
Content As has long been recognized, the three surviving fragments from
this play can produce an intelligible narrative (thus their traditional number-
ing, which disrupts the order of presentation in Athenaeus): participation in
a symposium (fr. 1), subsequent description of a feast/symposium, usually
assumed to be that of fr. 1 (fr. 2), recollection of heavy drinking (fr. 3). Fr.
59, describing a cure for hangovers, might belong as well; the fragment is
transmitted without title by the epitome of Athenaeus, and the absence of a
title probably reflects the activity of the epimator rather than evidence that
Athenaeus himself did not know it. Fr. 72, likewise transmitted without title
by the epitome, might also belong (see ad loc.\, if so, its narration of a past
event suggests associating it with fr. 2. Nonetheless, since the same scene
is unlikely to have been both acted out on stage and then subsequently de-
scribed, frr. 1 and 2 are best taken as referring to separate events. Moreover, if
both fragments are connected to the structure of the plot, their order is better
inverted. Fr. 2 belongs to an exposition by the rustic, in which he narrates a
past sympotic experience; possibly this event took place in the countryside
and motivated a sojourn in the city (see ad loc.\ Fr. 1 belongs to an (unsuc-
cessful) attempt on the rustic’s part (inspired by the symposium of fr. 2?) to
act out the part of the host. The latter fragment probably belongs to a scene
in which a variety of drinking methods were tried or discussed (see ad loc.\
Less likely, fr. 2 might be embedded within the scene to which fr. 1 belongs
or could be a recollection of the event that grossly mischaracterizes it (e. g. a
simple affair described as a magnificent banquet). That there were probably
several scenes portraying or recounting symposia may suggest that symposia
formed a structural element of the play, but more likely the contrast between
the rustics and urban sophisticates that runs through these fragments (cf.
Konstantakos 2005.11-13) was explored in various settings, perhaps resulting
in the rustics adopting an extreme version of urban manners or, conversely,
rejecting them entirely.