168

Όδυσσεύς (fr. 35)

Citation context Although the fragment is quoted by Athenaeus in his
section on parasites (6.234c-48c), the primary reason for the citation is the
occurence of a nickname in Alex. fr. 238, which immediately precedes. For that
reason, there is no need to assume that all the figures mentioned are parasites,
and Gulick’s over-translation (‘epithets of this kind, applied to parasites by
Athenians in derisive jest...’) is inappropriate. Further, while some lines (e. g.
7, 8) might easily be said of a parasite, others (e. g. 2, 9) are decidedly out of
keeping with the usual depiction of them. For speculation on the speaker and
addressee of these lines, see on 1.
Text Although the sense of 4 seems complete, the line is metrically deficient,
lacking the final syllable of one metron and the first syllable of the next; the
gap could fall after either τις or, more likely, έξελήλυθ’. The best suggestion
is Scheighauser’s ευθύς (with a comma after έξελήλυθ’), which could have re-
sulted from a sort of haplography; in support, cf. Men. Dy sc. 494 with Handley
1965 ad loc. An alternative is an accusative of specification modifying λαμπρός,
e. g. είδος vel sim. or, better, αύδήν. The voice is often described as λαμπρός
(cf. LSJ s. v. 1.2), although the word usually refers to its clarity and does not
seem to be necessarily feminine in character (but cf. Arist. HA 544b32-545a22
for the differences between the voices of animals of either sex), αύδή occurs
in comedy only at Ar. Av. 241 (the call of the hoopoe) but does provide an
understandable connection with Όλολυς (see below). Also possible, if less
likely, is an interjection such as οίδ’ εύ γ’, although such a parenthetic remark
does not occur elsewhere in the body of this passage (but cf. 1).
In 9, Schweighauser’s καπνός fits well with Aristopho fr. 5.7, where some-
one receives this nickname for τούς καλούς πείράν, but less well with Eup. fr.
135, where Theogenes is called καπνός because πολλά ύπισχνούμενος ούδέν
έτέλει, and in any case is difficult together with Θεατροποιός.
Interpretation This is one of the longest extended catalogues of Attic nick-
names, but such humor is common (e. g. fr. 46; Ar. Av. 1291-8; Antiph. frr.
173; 193.10-11; Aristopho fr. 5; Alex. fr. 183.1-2; Timocl. fr. 6.13-16; cf. Men.
Dysc. 493-7; Wilkins 2000. 80-1). For nicknames in general, see Bechtel 1898;
Grasberger 1883, with addenda in 1888. 309-38.
Most similar humor consists of an isolated joke or, in the case of Ar. Av.
1291-8, a catalogue of variations on a single theme (nicknames derived from
birds) with little syntactic variation. This passage, by contrast, offers a cata-
logue of thematic groups combined with syntactic variety. 2-4 comment on
physical appearance, and the first and third examples, referring to attrac-
tiveness, unite the group. A pair of opposite extremes follows, namely the
excessive or inadequate use of oil. The next three lines, 7-9, describe various