Ηρακλής (fr. 16)

95

Text Disruptions in the syntax and thought can be explained by assuming
that this passage is in fact two fragments (1-3 and 4-6) which have been been
conflated. There might simply be a lacuna after 3 (cf. on 1 ό μέν). But more
likely these are unrelated fragments, and an attribution after line 3 has fallen
out of the text. In that case, 1-3 are from Anaxandrides’ Herakles but are
presumably spoken about Argas himself, whereas 4-6 are from an unknown
play by an unknown author who mentions Argas.
The change from present in 1 to past in 2-3 is awkward; one obvious solu-
tion is to emend to (έ)φαίνετο (for the prodelision, cf. Platnauer 1960. 143-4).
In place of the unmetrical jumble ενπαπαι in 3, one iambic metron is
needed. Casaubon’s παπαϊ παπαϊ seems flat (for the repetition, cf. Ar. Nu.
390 παππάξ παππάξ; V. 235 άππαπαϊ παπαιάξ) and fails to account for the
intrusion of εν. Meineke’s εύ μάλα, παπαϊ is better, and his comment that
‘in talibus omnia sunt incerta’ is true enough. Edmonds 1933. 5, ingeniously
suggested Εΰ<γ’, εί>πα, παϊ which places the whole fragment in the context
of a narrative of a past event; nevertheless, while useful as an exempli gratia
reconstruction, it ought not to be accepted in the absence of clearer evidence
for the context. Note as well the slight difficulty of having both παϊ and ώ
φίλε addressed to the same person in the same sentence. The best solution is
Olson’s έν· παπαπαπαϊ (cf. Ar. Th. 1191) vel sim., which provides the requisite
sense and satisfactorily accounts for the corruption (via haplography).
Interpretation According to Kock ad loc., ‘videntur duo pueri artis musicae
magistro in disciplinam tradi, quorum alter ei magnopere probatur. alter for-
tasse Hercules fuit.’ Schenkl 1891. 327 (see above) suggests that the speaker is
Linus and the other student Thamyras or Orpheus. There do seem to be two
students, the first talked about in 1-3, the second addressed in 4-6, unless
Edmonds’ emendation (vel sim.) is accepted, making the whole fragment a
narration of a past event concerning a single student.
1 ό μέν In the text as transmitted, the contrast is with the addressee of
4-6, and indeed μέν without answering 6έ or another particle is unproblematic
(6(έ) in 2 is continuative). If the fragment is lacunose between 3 and 4, the
sense might be: ‘The one (ό μέν) had a good appearance but played badly, <and
so the other (ό δέ) won. And so) after testing you, I will send you also (καί σύ)
off to defeat the sophists.’
είναι φαίνεται Normally, φαίνομαι ών means ‘be manifestly so,’ while
φαίνομαι είναι means ‘have the appearance of being so’ (Kuhner-Gerth 1898-
1904 11.53; Goodwin 1890 §914.5). There do seem to be exceptions, however,
notably Hdt. 7.137.1; Th. 4.47.1 (although Kuhner-Gerth state that here the
participle appears ‘vielleicht um den Zusammenstoss zweier Partizipe zu
vermeiden’; cf. Kruger on Th. 4.38.1). In the absence of compelling evidence