DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52134#0073
Γεροντομανία (fr. 9)
69
(Α.) τήν έκ Κορίνθου Λα'ίδ’ οίσθα, πώς γάρ ού,
τήν ήμετέρειον. (Β.) ήν εκείνη τις φίλη
Άντεια. (Α.) καί τοϋθ’ ήμέτερον ήν παίγνιον.
(Β.) νή τον Δί’ κτλ.
The fragment is traditionally punctuated as a dialogue between two speak-
ers, but it is also possible that only the first three lines are a two-person
dialogue and that a third speaker then enters the conversation, speaking 4-6
(Γ.) νή τον Δί’ ήνθει κτλ. The interjection would be an effective culmination:
after Speaker B has been acknowledging having known various courtesans
one by one in a relatively matter of fact manner, Speaker C interrupts and in
a rush claims knowledge of three (or four).
In 2, Abresh’s ήμετέρειον, though widely accepted and printed here, is
problematic, since the meaning of the word is not entirely clear. The word
appears elsewhere only at Anacr. PMG 392 (quoted by EM p. 429.50 = Hdn.
2.517.17) ούτε γάρ ήμετέρειον ούτε καλόν, where it seems to be simply a pos-
sessive adjective (at Hdn. 1.137 no distinction is made between ήμέτερος and
ήμετέρειος); for a similar pair of adjectives which are equivalent in meaning,
cf. καθαρός and καθάρειος (cf. Chantraine 1933. 53 for a brief discussion of
such adjectives). Lobeck’s assertion (1837. 322) that in Anaxandr. the word
‘nostratem potius significat quam nostrum’ cannot be supported despite the
claims of grammarians (e. g. EM p. 429.50; Choerobosc. ap. An. Ox. 2.216.16)
that it σημαίνει δέ τον τού ήμετέρου. Further, claiming that Lais originates
from the same locality as oneself is hardly an emphatic, or even expected,
manner in which to assert sexual knowledge of a prostitute. One would expect
an expression of beauty or desirability (thus Bothe’s ίμερόεσσαν) or, more
likely, an assertion of having had some sort of sexual encounter with her (it
is possible, however, to understand the latter as implicit in Lobeck’s interpre-
tation of the word). For this reason, understanding ήμετέρειον as a possessive
used as a euphemistic expression for having experienced someone sexually is
probably the best solution; cf. the use of έχειν (cf. Ar. Ach. 787; Men. Epitr. fr.
1.2, 681-2; Kolax fr. 4; Ter. And. 85; Henderson 1991. 156; Adams 1982.187-8).
Whether the name ought to be spelled Αντεια or Άνθεια in 3 was disputed
in antiquity (Harp. p. 37.5-6 Dindorf [a 141 Keaney]; Phot, a 1946; Suda a
2501); possibly the latter results from an attempt to have a name suggesting
her beauty (cf. for example ήνθει in 4). She was apparently the subject of
comedies by Eunicus, Philyllius, Antiphanes, and possibly Alexis (cf. Arnott
1996 ad loc. [pp. 817-18]); see further Kapparis 1999 on [D.] 59.19.
In 4, the received text ήν δέ τότε is impossible both because of the hiatus
before ήν and, more importantly, the final syllable of an iambic trimeter can
69
(Α.) τήν έκ Κορίνθου Λα'ίδ’ οίσθα, πώς γάρ ού,
τήν ήμετέρειον. (Β.) ήν εκείνη τις φίλη
Άντεια. (Α.) καί τοϋθ’ ήμέτερον ήν παίγνιον.
(Β.) νή τον Δί’ κτλ.
The fragment is traditionally punctuated as a dialogue between two speak-
ers, but it is also possible that only the first three lines are a two-person
dialogue and that a third speaker then enters the conversation, speaking 4-6
(Γ.) νή τον Δί’ ήνθει κτλ. The interjection would be an effective culmination:
after Speaker B has been acknowledging having known various courtesans
one by one in a relatively matter of fact manner, Speaker C interrupts and in
a rush claims knowledge of three (or four).
In 2, Abresh’s ήμετέρειον, though widely accepted and printed here, is
problematic, since the meaning of the word is not entirely clear. The word
appears elsewhere only at Anacr. PMG 392 (quoted by EM p. 429.50 = Hdn.
2.517.17) ούτε γάρ ήμετέρειον ούτε καλόν, where it seems to be simply a pos-
sessive adjective (at Hdn. 1.137 no distinction is made between ήμέτερος and
ήμετέρειος); for a similar pair of adjectives which are equivalent in meaning,
cf. καθαρός and καθάρειος (cf. Chantraine 1933. 53 for a brief discussion of
such adjectives). Lobeck’s assertion (1837. 322) that in Anaxandr. the word
‘nostratem potius significat quam nostrum’ cannot be supported despite the
claims of grammarians (e. g. EM p. 429.50; Choerobosc. ap. An. Ox. 2.216.16)
that it σημαίνει δέ τον τού ήμετέρου. Further, claiming that Lais originates
from the same locality as oneself is hardly an emphatic, or even expected,
manner in which to assert sexual knowledge of a prostitute. One would expect
an expression of beauty or desirability (thus Bothe’s ίμερόεσσαν) or, more
likely, an assertion of having had some sort of sexual encounter with her (it
is possible, however, to understand the latter as implicit in Lobeck’s interpre-
tation of the word). For this reason, understanding ήμετέρειον as a possessive
used as a euphemistic expression for having experienced someone sexually is
probably the best solution; cf. the use of έχειν (cf. Ar. Ach. 787; Men. Epitr. fr.
1.2, 681-2; Kolax fr. 4; Ter. And. 85; Henderson 1991. 156; Adams 1982.187-8).
Whether the name ought to be spelled Αντεια or Άνθεια in 3 was disputed
in antiquity (Harp. p. 37.5-6 Dindorf [a 141 Keaney]; Phot, a 1946; Suda a
2501); possibly the latter results from an attempt to have a name suggesting
her beauty (cf. for example ήνθει in 4). She was apparently the subject of
comedies by Eunicus, Philyllius, Antiphanes, and possibly Alexis (cf. Arnott
1996 ad loc. [pp. 817-18]); see further Kapparis 1999 on [D.] 59.19.
In 4, the received text ήν δέ τότε is impossible both because of the hiatus
before ήν and, more importantly, the final syllable of an iambic trimeter can