Πόλεις (fr. 40)

189

Discussion Morelius 1553. 110; Grotius 1626. 640-3, 979; Meineke 1840
III.181-2; Rehdantz 1845. 162 n. 107; Meineke 1847. 583-4; Bothe 1855.
426; Meineke 1857 V.clxxviii; Kock 1884 11.150; 1888 III.737; Paley 1889.
54-7; Blaydes 1890a. 82; Blaydes 1896. 123; Pickard-Cambridge 1900. 55, 186;
Herwerden 1903. 98; Edmonds 1959 11.60—3; Webster 1970. 40; Carriere 1979.
278-9; Long 1986. 14, 38; Kassel-Austin 1991 11.258—9; Sanchis Llopis et al.
2007. 258-9; Arnott 2010. 301; Rusten 2011. 465-6
Citation context In the course of discussing eels (7.297c-300d), Athenaeus
cites Antiph. fr. 145, which refers to the veneration of eels by the Egyptians;
this leads him to quote two additional fragments that mock Egyptians: this
fragment (which incidentally mentions eels) and Timocl. fr. 1 (which does
not). Eustathius, whose knowledge of the fragment presumably derives from
Athenaeus, quotes 10-11 only as evidence for the claim that Egyptian priests
were castrated and dedicated the amputated part as a first-fruit offering.
Interpretation Meineke 1840 III.181—2 plausibly summarized this fragment
and the context that immediately preceeded it as ‘Aegyptiorum legatos ... fo-
edus et auxilia Atheniensium petentes. ad horum preces Atheniensium civitas
respondisse videtur ea quae ex Athenaeo attulimus’ (i. e. fr. 40), but he declined
to connect it with a specific historical event. Rehdantz 1845. 162 n. 107, by
contrast, specifically connected it with an embassy sent to Athens by the
Egyptian king Tachos, apparently to gain help against the Persians, an event
that maybe commemorated at IGII2 119 (360/59 BC; revised to 367/6-364/3 in
addenda).75 Athens declined to form such an alliance, but the general Chabrias
did go to Egypt in 361 BC, although of his own volition and without official
Athenian sponsorship; cf. D.S. 15.92.3; Plu. Ages. 37.5; Nep. Chabr. 2.3. Even if
Rehdantz’ suggestion is accepted, the episode with the Egyptians must have
formed a small part of the play, partly because it seems to have been an
isolated incident but largely because the title suggests a broader context.
As Meineke noted, the speech presupposes a scene in which an alliance
with the Egyptians is mooted; the rejection of such an alliance implies that
the Egyptians were the impetus behind the attempt. Whether the speaker is a
representative of the Athenian state or a private individual acting on his own
behalf is unknowable and depends on the interpretation given to the play as
a whole (see the Introduction to Poleis above).
For the view that various Egyptian practices are an inversion of ‘prop-
er’ behaviour, cf. Hdt. 2.35.2; S. OC 337-41 with Jebb 1887 ad loc.; D.S. 1.27;

75 Dusanic 1980/1981. 14-15 denies on onomastic grounds that the men listed are
Egyptians and proposes that they are Anatolians instead.