Όδυσσεύς (fr. 35)

171

qualification, so the word that has fallen out of the line may have specified
how the person being described was λαμπρός.
έξελήλυθ(ε) The use of the perfect implies a permanent state, so the
sense must be ‘turned out (to be)’; cf. S. OT1011 with Kamerbeek 1967 ad loc.·,
Diph. fr. 68; Ar. Eq. 430.
Όλολυς The word occurs elsewhere only at Theopomp. Com. fr. 62 and
Men. fr. 109 (although that fragment, composed of two entries from Photius,
seemingly refers to two different occurrences). Photius, the source for the frag-
ments, glosses the word differently each time; o 243 όλολυν· Μένανδρος τον
γυναικώδη και κατάθεον και βάκηλον; ο 245 όλόλψουψς·65 τούς δεισιδαίμονας
έκάλουν οίωνιζόμενοι. Μένανδρος Δεισιδαίμονι. Despite the difference in the
glosses, the word (< ολολύζω (see Frisk 1954-1972 s. v.) ‘cry aloud’, normally
used of women, often when they cry out to the gods) must mean something
like ‘womanish’ or ‘effeminate’ (cf. Schmidt 1876-1886 III.396); the two entries
in Photius show that it could refer to any number of characteristics of women,
depending on context.
5-7 For the parataxis, see Arnott 1996 on Alex. fr. 103.7-13, 16-20. For
the use of the perfect in the apodosis in contrast to 2-4 above and 8-10 below,
see Goodwin 1890 §49; Rijksbaron 1984 §10.1; cf. Timocl. fr. 6.13-16 with Kock
1884 II ad loc.
5 λιπαρός ... Δημοκλής λιπαρός describes someone’s appearance after
being oiled; cf. esp. Ar. Pl. 615-16 λουσάμενος / λιπαρός χωρών έκ βαλανείου;
Schmidt 1876-1886 IV.677-8. Here the context requires that the word refer to
excessive use of oil. Note the contrast with the following line.
περιπατεΐ The verb here need mean no more than ‘walk about’ (cf. Men.
Sam. 607 μέλας περιπατεΐ; Alex. fr. 164.3), although Hunter 1979. 183 cites
it as an example of the word implying ‘a degeneracy of sorts, being used to
describe the activities of drunkards, pimps, and the like’ (e.g. Alex. fr. 91.1;
Dromo fr. 1.4). For its use in later comedy generally, see Hunter 1979. 182-4.
Democles (PA 3485; PAA 315565; LGPNII s.v. 7) is otherwise unknown;
since LGPNII and FRA together list over 40 Athenians and foreigners by
this name resident in Athens in the fourth century, an attempt to identify
him with a specific known historical figure stands little chance of success.
Schweighauser identified the man mentioned here with the parasite Democles
(PAA 315570; LGPNII s.v. 67) known only from Hegesand. FHG 4.419 fr. 28,
who reports that he was a contemporary of Metaneira (for her dates, see

65 Printed by Kock (fr. 112), for example, as όλόλους, following the mss.; hence sep-
arate entries in LSJ for δλολυς and δλολοι. For the correct spelling όλόλυας, cf.
Hdn. 2.938.13-17.