46

Αγροίκοι (fr. 3)

Discussion Dobree 1831. 351; Meineke 1840 III.162; 1847. 574; Bothe 1855.
419; Naber 1880. 54; Kock 1884 11.136—7; Ribbeck 1885. 10 n. 2; Blaydes 1896.
121, 333; Blaydes 1898. 186; Edmonds 1959 11.46—7; Webster 1970. 44; Kassel-
Austin 1991 11.239; Sanchis Llopis et al. 2007. 239; Rusten 2011. 463
Citation context Athenaeus cites this fragment together with others men-
tioning kymbia as part of the long catalogue of cups that comprises most of
Book 11. In a similar context, Macrobius adduces this and other fragments
as evidence for kymbia in the course of his discussion (Sat. 5.21) of Vergil’s
use of Greek cup names (cf. Aen. 3.66 for cymbia). The text of the fragment in
Macrobius is lacunose and corrupt; this is largely due to unfamiliarity with
Greek on the part of Latin-speaking scribes, but Macrobius himself may have
cited only an abridged form of the fragment (see on 1). In any case, Macrobius
likely depends on Athenaeus, so his value as a witness for the text is limited.
Text Macrobius offers only the final metron in 1, with κυμβία in place of
Athenaeus’ ποτήρια. Naber 1880. 54 mistakenly took this as evidence that
Athenaeus’ ποτήρια is an interpolation and thus deleted the word. The text
of Macrobius is better explained the result of the accidental omission of-του
(< ακράτου; cf. ΑΚΡΑ P) κυμβία, and its mistaken insertion at the beginning
of the fragment (thus Jan), κυμβία may thus have ousted ποτήρια, or more
likely Macrobius cited only 2-3 (thus Willis).
Interpretation Speaker A is addressing a group or more likely its representa-
tive (Speaker B), presumably the rustic of frr. 1-2. This fragment may be part of
the same scene as fr. 1, in which case the two speakers here are probably to be
identified with those in that fragment. But this could instead be a subsequent
recounting of the symposium in fr. 1; in that case, Speaker B is probably iden-
tical in the two fragments, but Speaker A need not be. Regardless, reference
is made again to the rustic’s inexperience with the niceties of symposiastic
etiquette: he has been drinking unmixed wine (2) and became so drunk that
he fell off his couch (3).
1 μεγάλ(α)... ποτήρια ποτήpiov is the generic word for a drinking cup,
although its size, when noted, is uniformly large (e. g. Antiph. fr. 81; Eub. fr.
42; Timocl. fr. 22; cf. Pherecr. fr. 152). In comedy, the material, if specified, is
usually metal (e. g. Alex. fr. 60.2 [gold]; Philippid. fr. 28 [silver]), but in real life
ceramic must have been more common (Ath. 11.464a). Men. fr. 438 (ποτήριον
τορνευτόν [‘turned on a lathe’] και τορευτά) is odd, lending support to Korte’s
suggestion there of ποτήριον τορευτόν (‘chased’) και τορευτά <e.g. κυμβία>.
’ίσως Softens the claim by adding tentativeness (here false); cf. fr. 1.4-5,
where Speaker A likewise phrases a suggestion as a claim. Contrast the
response with μέν ούν (3).