Λυκούργος (fr. 28)

135

Citation Context Athenaeus quotes the fragment twice: at 3.105f all four
lines are included in a discussion of shrimp (3.105d-6e; see on fr. 23), while
at 7.329e only the first two lines appear in a discussion of thraittai (7.329b-e).
The text of the first line differs significantly between the two citations.
Text The context of Ath. 3.105f makes it clear that a word for shrimp must
appear somewhere in the fragment, as it does in 1; at Ath. 7.329e, however,
the line has κορακινιδίοις (‘little raven-fish’) instead of καριδαρίοις. 3 begins
with a corrupt word, but that has no larger ramifications and is discussed
below. More seriously, the endings of 3 and 4 seem to be variants of one
another, implying that the true reading has been ousted in one line or the
other: κωβιδαρίων (3; unmetrical) and κωβιδίων (4). Most solutions retain
καριδαρίοις in 1 and emend the final word in 3 or 4; this leaves unexplained
the corruption at 7.329e (unless influenced by Pherecr. fr. 62, quoted at 7.309a,
or Archipp. fr. 27, quoted at 7.329b) and, a lesser matter, the length of the quo-
tation at 3.105f. Perhaps better is retaining κορακινιδίοις in 1 and emending
either 3 or 4 to a form of the word for shrimp. The obvious word to replace
is the unmetrical κωβιδαρίων of line 3 (thus Olson), which might have been
written as a variant above κωβιδίων in 4 and thus intruded on 3. Alternatively,
this pair of variants could have belonged to 3 and ousted the text of 4; this
would explain the length of Athenaeus’ quotation (from the verb until the
key word). The corruption can be reconstructed as follows: κωβιδαρίων/
κωβιδίων, variants in 3 or 4, ousted καρίδων/καριδίων from 4 or 3. Once the
fragment no longer mentioned shrimp (the reason for quoting it), a reference
was introduced by emendation in the first available place (perhaps aided by
the similar beginnings κορ- and καρ-). A similar conclusion was reached by
Bothe, although with different choices as to what to read in 3 and 4. Meineke
suggested, but did not print, και συμπαίζει / καριδαρίοις μετά περκιδίων /
κορακινιδίοις μετά θραττιδίων / κτλ, thus explaining the variants in 1; Kock
objected with some force to the asyndeton in light of the connectives in 3-4.
None of the suggestions are without difficulties, and much about the text
remains uncertain.
In 3, Lobeck’s emendation (1820. 74; cf. 1843. 354; 1853. 281) of the trans-
mitted ψιτταδίοις to ψητταρίοις is commonly and probably rightly accepted
(although not by K-A, who obelize all of 3-4). ψιττ- is almost certainly simply
an example of iotacism that ought to be changed to ψηττ-; Phot. p. 655.9 ψίτται·
ιχθύων είδος is the same. The more difficult problem is the diminutive in
-αδιον. The form is far more prevalent in late antiquity than in the Classical or
even Hellenistic and Roman periods; further, the examples from the Classical
period are formed from third declension nouns in -ας (e.g. ίσχάδιον [Ar. Pl.
798]; λαμπάδιον [Ar. Ach. 1177]; λοπάδιον [Ar. Pl. 812]). ψηττάδιον is possible