Αγροίκοι (fr. 1)

39

with Handley 1965 ad loc.; Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 55; Murray 1990 passim·,
also e. g. Schmitt-Pantel 1990. 24-5; Cooper and Morris 1990. 77-9; Schmitz
1978. 293-4.
The suggestion is phrased as a question for the sake of politeness, δήπου (T
suppose’; predominantly late fifth/fourth-century ‘colloquial’ vocabulary) has
a suggestion of tentativeness, but implies an affirmative answer; cf. Denniston
1954. 267. Cobet’s δήτα is common in comedy (esp. Ar. Av. 1689; Ra. 416 [both
adduced by Cobet]), but is too strong for the tone here.
τον έπιδέξι(α) επιδέξια is properly ‘from left to right’, with a secondary
sense of ‘correctly, dexterously, cleverly’ (cf. esp. Hdt. 2.36.4 with Lloyd
1975-1988 ad loc.); see Darbishire 1890 [= 1895. 65-87]); Braunlich 1936.
The directional sense is operative here, although the second sense is evoked,
in that the man speaking is expected to do so cleverly (cf. Pl. Tht. 175e for
the simultaneous use of both senses). The latter contrasts with the evident
ignorance of Speaker B and his failure to understand its use. The noun to be
supplied with τον επιδέξια is άνδρα, as at Pl. Smp. 214c και τούτον (sc. είπεϊν)
τω έπιδέξια και ούτως τούς άλλους, 222e, although this has been needlessly
disputed. Schweighauser suggested the superficially obvious τρόπον, but this
would mean that λέγειν ... πίνοντι must be in apposition to the understood
τρόπον, a construction occurring only in Homer and prose (see Kuhner-Gerth
1898-1904 II.4 for examples). Reitzenstein 1893. 40 preferred λόγον, comparing
Eup. fr. 354 όταν δέ δή πίνωσι τήν έπιδέξια (sc. κυλίκην Reitzenstein, although
Schweighauser’s πόσιν or even his πρόποσιν deserve mention). Aside from
other difficulties, it is difficult to understand λόγον before hearing λέγειν,
since ellipses of this sort immediately precede the verb and are unambiguous
(e.g. Η. II. 2.379 ές γε μίαν βουλεύσομεν; cf. Kuhner-Gerth 1898-190411.558).
ώ πάτερ Dickey 1996. 78-81 claims that when πάτερ used for non-
relatives, it is ‘a general polite address for older men, one which certainly
indicates some respect and/or affection’ (p. 79). This is generally true for
Homer (e.g. Od. 7.28) and tragedy (e.g. A. Ag. 1305; S. OC 1700) but less so
for comedy, and Dickey’s own examples from Aristophanes (Eq. 725, 1215; V.
556) are better understood in light of Gomme-Sandbach 1973 on Epitr. 231:
‘Common as an ingratiating form of address by slaves to an elderly man, ...
but not confined to slaves’ (cf. esp. Men. Dy sc. 492-7; for further examples,
Headlam-Knox 1922 on Herod. 1.60; Handley 1965 on Men. Dy sc. 494). For
the voc. sing, with pl. verb (βούλεσθε) used to address the representative of
a group, e.g. Ar. Ra. 1479; Men. Sam. 252; Herod. 3.87 with Headlam-Knox
1922 ad loc.; cf. Kuhner-Gerth 1898-19041.85; Diggle 1994. 506. For ώ with the
vocative, see Dickey 1996. 199-206 (with earlier bibliography), who suggests
that its use reached a highpoint in the late fifth/early fourth century (Ar. uses