Όδυσσεύς (fr. 35)

175

θεάομαι, although the exact point is unclear; or this may be topical humor
now lost to us. One obvious possibility would seem to be a reference to one
of the men responsible for the reconstruction of the Theatre of Dionysus who
also had a reputation as a pederast, but the work on the Theatre is probably
too late (ca. 350 BC; see Papastamati-von Moock 2014) for Anaxandrides’
play (see Introduction above). Although the work is traditionally attributed
to Lycurgus, it is now clear that his achievement was in fact the completion
of a project begun earlier by others; see Papastamati-von Moock 2014; Csapo-
Wilson 2014, esp. 395-7; Pickard-Cambridge 1946. 136-7. Lycurgus himself is
clearly too late to be mocked by Anaxandrides, but the same also seems true
of his predecessors, notably Eubulus. The word could refer to some official
connected with the administration of the Theatre or performances in it, e. g.
the office of άρχιτέκτων (cf. Csapo 2007; Pickard-Cambridge 1968. 46-7, 266),
but these may well also be too late.
For the force of καινός, see Headlam-Knox 1922 on Herod. 4.57; Nock
1948. 35-6 with n. 73 (= 1972. 149).
10-11 Conceivably, the passage could continue in the same vein beyond
these lines, but the point has been made at length and the tripartite structure
of these verses has the feel of a culmination; see Introduction to this fragment.
All three stories mentioned in these lines were handled to a greater or
lesser degree by Euripides and occur in fourth-century tragedy as well (e. g.
Atreus: Diogenes Sinopensis; Thyestes: Apollodorus; Chaeremon; Diogenes
Sinopensis; Phrixus: Timocles; Jason: Antiphon; Medea: Dicaeogenes; Carcinus
II; Diogenes Sinopensis).
10 ύφείλετ άρνα ποιμένος παίζων Since all the other people de-
scribed in this fragment represent plausible, whether or not historically ac-
curate, situations, there is no reason to think that that is not the case here as
well, despite the lack of parallels. For theft and its consequences in Athens,
see Cohen 1983; for the social significance of stealing sheep in modern Crete
(perhaps of some relevance to classical Greece as well), see Herzfeld 1985. But
note that 10-11 conclude by extending further and further into mythology
and thus may be meant to give an absurd or fantastic ending to this passage.
Ατρεύς έκλήθη For the story of Atreus, Thyestes and the golden lamb,
see Robert 1920. 294-7; LIMC III. 1.17-18; as noted by Meineke, however, one
would expect Thyestes here instead of Atreus. Rather than evidence for an
otherwise unknown variant of the story, the mention of Atreus is best taken
as simply the name that most readily springs to mind in connection with the
story; cf. Plant. Pseud. 869; Fraenkel 1922. 82; Tierney 1944/1945. 28.
The switch to the aorist seems odd, but see on 5-7.