Όδυσσεύς (fr. 34)

159

to confusion: Phot, τ 3 τάγηνον· τούτο Ίώνων τινές τήγανον λέγουσι; Moer. τ
3 τάγηνον Αττικοί· τήγανον Έλληνες (cf. Hansen 1998 and Pierson 1830-1831
[p. 330] ad loc.y, Phryn. PSp. 112.11 τάγηνον οί Αττικοί· τήγανον οί Δωριείς;
Ath. 6.228d.56 Given the interchangeability of the forms, most likely both
were correct; against the claim that τήγανον is non-Attic, cf. IG II2 1491.38,
an inventory of 307/6 BC (cf. Threatte 1980 1.133).
Kock believed there was a deep-seated corruption in 5-6, arguing that
‘non recte se habet κατακάειν τά στόματα επί τι’; but the perceived problem
ought probably to be traced to a loose sentence-structure and a vivid image.
Although the sense of επί τίνα 6’ άλλην τέχνην in 5 seems generally cor-
rect, the line lacks one syllable, or, more precisely, one-half of one foot (note
τέχνη). The most reasonable approach is to insert the equivalent of a long
syllable after either τίνα or άλλην. Of the numerous suggested supplements,
perhaps the best is Tucker’s έπεί τίν’ άλλην διά τέχνην. For the force of έπεί,
cf. Diggle 1981. 61.
In 7, the omission of ή in A is presumably the result of haplography (if
A already read ήθισμός at the beginning of the line) or a conflation with the
following word.
The many suggested emendations of δακτύλων in 7 ignore the fact that
the text is sound, since the Greeks normally ate with their fingers, and only
serve to destroy the image; cf. Zacher 1886. 713-14; Matro fr. 1.14, 105-6 (SH
534) with Olson-Sens 1999 ad locc.
10-12 state that someone who acquires certain kinds of fish will not attract
others to his company, a sentiment that seems to be in direct conflict with
the rest of the fragment. The passage can be understood by assuming that the
relatively worthless fish mentioned here describe an agora that is not truely
εύοψος, hence that does not attract company; for small, bad fish, see Wilkins
2000. 301. But such this distinction between desirable and undesirable fish is
not made elsewhere in the fragment, where the products of the fisherman’s
art are extolled with little attention to specifics. In addition, the next line,
detailing the result of the absence of fish, ought to be in contrast to this line.
Emendation ought therefore to be considered. One possibility, admittedly
difficult, is to read δ’ άσυνδειπνεϊ; but the putative verb is nowhere attested,
and alpha-privative is comparatively rare in the formation of verbs. A better
solution is to write καταλαβών for καταβαλών, although the sense ‘reject’ or
‘cast aside’ is not easily parallelled; for examples of similar transpositions, cf.
Millis 1997. 578 with n. 17.

56 Ath. 6.229b adds an additional complication, reporting that χωρίς δέ τού τ στοι-
χείου Τωνες ήγανον λέγουσιν, ώς Ανακρέων (PMG 436).