136

Λυκούργος (fr. 28)

(e. g. κρεάδιον [Ar. Pl. 227; fr. 606 (where add iota ad/subscript)49a]; έλάδιον
[Sotad. Com. fr. 1.7; Arched, fr. 2.11]), but requires a long alpha.
The i in καρίς is generally long after the fifth century (see on fr. 23), but ac-
ceptance of Olson’s emendation in 4 requires that it be short in the diminutive;
the only other occurrence of καρίδιον, Arist. HA 547bl7, sheds no light on the
quantity. Even if placed early in Anaxandrides’ career, this would be the latest
example of short iota in the word. Nevertheless, the quantity of vowels, espe-
cially i, can vary; cf. Dover 1993 on Ar. Ra. 674-85; Kiihner-Blass 1890-1892
1.307-8 (§75.5). At 3.105e-f, Athenaeus quotes Arar. fr. 8.2-4 specifically for
καρίς with a long iota; this is followed by Eub. fr. 78; Anaxandr. frr. 28 (this
fragment with a crucial variant in 1); 38; 23; Eub. fr. 110; Ophel. frr. 2; 1. He
then quotes Eup. fr. 2 for the word with a short iota, followed by fr. 120. This
might be taken as support for reading καριδαρίοις in 1 or for reading καρίδων
(with long iota) here, but there is no complying reason to read Athenaeus’
catalogue as a strict twofold division between examples of the word with long
iota and with short iota.
If κωβώίων is read in 4, the quantity of the first i in κωβιδίων is short,
unlike at Sotad. Com. fr. 1.22 (the only other occurrence); in addition, the
formation of the word, from κωβιός and the diminutive suffix -ίδιον, normally
requires a long i. The short iota might be possible if the suffix was assumed to
be -διον (cf. Petersen 1910. 204 [§280], 207-8 [§§287-8]) or by (false) analogy
with καριδίων in the line above (if that is read there).
Schweighauser’s emendation of κωβιδαρίων to κωθαρίων in 3 is widely
accepted on the assumption that the two are synonyms; cf. Hsch. κ 4789
κώθος· κωβιός; Ath. 7.309c. But Nic. fr. 141 and Apollod. ap. Ath. 7.309c claim
that κώθος is the Sicilian word for κωβιός; if this is true (although note κωβιοί
at Epich. fr. 59), the emendation is more difficult, since there is no obvious
reason why Anaxandrides would use a Sicilian dialectal form here.
Interpretation Following Meineke’s comparison (1867. 48) with Homer’s
account of Lycurgus (see above), this fragment has been understood as re-
ferring to Dionysus after he has been driven into the sea by Lycurgus, who
may be the speaker; Nesselrath 1990. 272 aptly compared Nonn. 20.272-93.
While the connection with Dionysus is likely correct, the location could well
be a fishmarket or banquet instead of the sea. A banquet is perhaps the best
interpretation, given the tendency for runs of anapaestic dimeters to be used
in catalogues of food, ‘doubtless continuing a tradition of celebratory finales’
(Arnott 1996. 20, comparing inter alia Ar. Pax 974-1015). For the use of ana-
49aA point made already by Dobree 1820 on Ar. Pl. 227 but widely ignored by subse-
quent editors; cf. Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 27.5.