74

Γεροντομανία (fr. 10)

Citation Context Athenaeus cites this fragment as part of a discussion of
jokes, laughter, etc.; Semus FGrHist 396 F 10 (a certain Parmeniscus is cured
of his inability to laugh) precedes and Xenophon Symposium 1.11 (about
Philippos the geldtopoios [Stephanis 1988 #2498]) follows. Far more important
is the citation by Aristotle, who uses the actor Philemon’s (Stephanis 1988
#2485) delivery of this fragment and of fragment 13 as examples of the sort
of variatio that is desirable in public speaking. He not only provides a hint
about the context (the phrase ‘Rhadamanthys and Palamedes’ was repeated
with some sort of variation) but also offers one of the very few contemporary
reports concerning (a part of) an ancient dramatic performance.
Text The lack of a connective in 2 has troubled some critics, hence Herwerden’s
τό 6’, although the lack of a parallel for the abstract weighs against his con-
jecture (for this use of the abstract, see Kuhner-Gerth 1898-1904 1.10-11;
Gildersleeve 1900-1911 §41). More likely, the asyndeton is explanatory; cf.
Kuhner-Gerth 1898-1904 11.344.
The accentuation of γελοίος (proparoxytone or properispomenon?) was dis-
puted already in antiquity, with some claiming that γελοίος = καταγέλαστος,
while γελοίος = γελωτοποιός (e. g. Ammon. Diff. 119; Ael. Dion, γ 4; cf. above
on Αγροίκοι). Et. Gud. p. 303, however, makes the opposite claim, and others
asserted that the difference was merely dialectal (e. g. Moer. γ 4; Σ Ar. Ra. 6
[adding that the meaning is the same for both forms]); see Arnott 1996 on
Alex. fr. 188.2; Chandler 1881 §384-5; Dyck 1995 on Epim. Hom. γ 22.
Interpretation If Athenaeus’ claim that Anaxandrides presents Rhadamanthys
and Palamedes as the inventors of jests relies solely on this passage, it must
be based on a misunderstanding or at least a sloppy paraphrase of it, un-
less Athenaeus means to imply that Rhadamanthys and Palamedes were the
first to discover the value of parasites for making jests. In this fragment,
Rhadamanthys and Palamedes ought probably to be associated (as archetypal
old men?) with the speakers of 1 and explain one way in which old men work
hard (i. e. by producing discoveries or inventions), although one might note
the paradoxical equation of work with the actions of parasites.
Since Aristotle explicitly states that the lines were spoken by the actor
Philemon (presumably the protagonist), the speaker is probably one of the old
men of the title. If so, it is easier to imagine them defending themselves (e. g. on
a charge that old men are a burden to society) than acting as the mouthpiece
of the poet, as Kaibel suggested (‘loquitur poeta de suo officio’ [reported by
K-A]). Nonetheless, support for Kaibel’s view might be found in the use of
πονοϋμεν; even if the language is difficult to parallel, the sense is not (e. g. Ar.
Nu. 523-4, 526). If Kaibel’s interpretation is accepted, serious consideration