Γεροντομανία (fr. 10)

75

must be given to his και τοϊς πολλοϊς. Although catalectic anapaestic tetram-
eters can be used in the parabasis, seemingly supporting Kaibel’s view, their
most common use, at least in the extant plays of Aristophanes, is in debates
(778 of 1235 lines as tabulated by White 1912 §305), which fits well with the
more plausible reading of this fragment; see Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1921.
367 n.l for their general absence in this period.
Aristotle’s citation of the phrase ‘Rhadamanthys and Palamedes’ seems
to imply that it was repeated several times in succession, since he claims that
variation in delivery is necessary when repeating the same phrase. It remains
difficult to see how the phrase could have been used repeatedly (much more so
than Aristotle’s second example, έγώ [fr. 13]); cf. Meineke ad loc.·, Burkert 1975.
69-70; Handley 2002. 167. Edmonds’ suggestion that the names were simply
reversed is possible but offers a less effective presentation, in addition to
failing to account for how έγώ might be repeated with variation. Nevertheless,
the alternate interpretation of the Aristotelian passage found e. g. in Kennedy
1991, ‘it is necessary to speak the same thought in different words’, is doubtful;
while this works with the imaginary example Aristotle provides, the phrases
‘Rhadamanthys and Palamedes’ and T can only with great difficulty be
imagined as expressing the same thought as a previous phrase. Cope-Sandys
1877 ad loc. attempt to remove the difficulty by understanding ‘Rhadamanthys
and Palamedes’ and T not as specific phrases to which Aristotle is referring,
but as well-known points in the play at which the repetition occurred; but
this is to stretch both ingenuity and Aristotle to the breaking point. For these
reasons, it seems clear that the phrase was repeated and that Philemon varied
his delivery each time, although it remains difficult to understand exactly
what the variation entailed (possibly polyptoton?). Possibly the repetition
of ‘Rhadamanthys and Palamedes’ involved the attribution of several more
inventions or discoveries to them (cf. A. fr. 182); cf. Ar. Pax 185-7 for the
repetition of μιαρότατος as the answer to a series of questions (for which
Epich. fr. 123 is adduced as a parallel by Σν ad loc.).
1 καίτοι... γε καίτοι is most often adversative, frequently offering an
objection to the previous statement (Denniston 1954. 556). The line of thought
was thus most likely ‘We have a reputation for idleness. And yet many of us
in fact do work.’
πονούμεν Probably ‘work’ rather than ‘suffer’ (so Gulick); physical work
can often be seen as a prerequisite for achieving success, particularly in love
(cf. Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 236), and something of the sort may be at work
here. If the speaker is equating himself on some level to a parasite, the claim
may be to forestall an argument similar to Philisc. fr. 4 dub. ούκ έστιν, ώ
μάταιε, συν ραθυμία / τα των πονούντων μή πονήσαντας λαβεϊν.