42

Αγροίκοι (fr. 2)

could have been used, emendation is uncalled for, since the transmitted text
makes sense, the alleged corruption is difficult to account for, and a parallel
is provided by Antiph. fr. 172.5 είτ’ έπεισήγεν χορείαν ή τράπεζαν δευτέραν
(although the latter is conceivably an example of zeugma). Possibly relevant
is the use of συνήγετο in fr. 72, but the obscurity of that fragment hinders
its useful here. The choice of an unusual word may contribute to the char-
acterization of the speaker as someone with little experience of elite dining/
symposiastic practice.
In 3, Hirschig’s ούδ’ εί γέγονεν was accepted in place of the paradosis
ούδ’ ένδον δντ(α) by Cobet 1858. 107 (who described the received text as
an ‘absurdam scripturam’) and enlarged upon by Nauck 1866. 732; cf. D.
18.70; 21.78; Isoc. 9.6; 12.70; Artemo Cass. FHG 4.342 fr. 12. The emendation is
unnecessary and more trite than the received text.
In 4, the transmitted χρηστώς ούκ does not scan. Suggested emendations
have focussed primarily on the metrical fault and have ignored one or more of
the following points: (1) coordination between the two verbs (παρέζων, εζων)
is lacking; (2) the meaning of χρηστός, whichever form is used and however
accented, remains difficult; (3) Plu. Mor. 13b (quoted in Interpretation) not-
withstanding, in comedy at least it is difficult to parallel ζάω without modifi-
cation meaning anything other than simply ‘live’. All these problems can be
corrected by assuming that χρηστώς ούκ is intrusive and has ousted a phrase
such as ώς κακώς which scans, provides a correlative for ούτως and supplies
modification for εζων. χρηστώς may represent a corruption of the beginning
of the next line, in which case reading άχρηστος (e. g. Men. fr. 315.3; Diph. fr.
37.3) there is possible, but emendation to αχάριστος (e. g. Ar. V. 451; Antiph.
fr. 235.4; Alex. fr. 267.6) is preferable; for confusion between άχρηστος and
άχάριστος, see Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 267.6. If ούκ is not simply a misguided
attempt to rectify an already corrupt line 4, it may be a remnant from the
badly truncated next line, in which case ούκ begins a new sentence following
a stop after άχάριστος.
Of the various emendations, Handley’s ώσπερ is the best, but it provides no
modification for εζων and no explanation for the intrusion of χρηστώς. Olson’s
suggestions provide coordination between the two parts of the sentence but
likewise do not help with εζων and the meaning of χρηστός. Villebrune’s
χρηστός, the simplest change, fixes only the metre and requires that the word
be understood sarcastically (thus Jacobs 1809. 340; cf. Ruhnken on Tim. Lex.
s.v. ήδύς p. 132). Such a sense is possible (e. g. Pl. Phdr. 352b; Tht. 124c; D.
18.30, 89, 318; Men. Asp. 75 with Beroutsos 2005 ad loc.) but is difficult without
some sort of marker. There is little force to Meineke’s objection that either
the definite article or ών is necessary; see Headlam-Knox 1922 on Herod.