Πρωτεσίλαος (fr. 42)

207

Macedonian ones). Athenaeus quotes only Antiph. fr. 170, which unfavourably
compares contemporary Greeks with their (?) ancestors and the Great King.
This fragment provides the impetus for quoting Ar. Ach. 85-9 (as an example
of the magnificence of the barbarians) and, presumably, this fragment. This is
followed by Lyne. fr. 1, Hegesander of Delphi fr. 10 (FHG 4.415), Diph. fr. 17
and Men fr. 351, all of which compare Athenian diners to other Greeks, but
also serve as a transition to the discussion of pre-dinner snacks that follows.
Text In 1, Kock’s ποιήθ’ or less likely Bergk’s ποιήσθ’ are possible, given
ύμάς in 2. But As ποιής is perfectly acceptable and ought to be retained; cf.
Arnott 2001a.
The boldness of the image in 7 and the lack of parallels have bothered many
scholars, and so Meineke emended to άκρας (‘inde a foro usque ad arcem, in
qua habitabat Cotys’), Kock to άκάτου (‘usque ad scapham Iphicratis’), while
Kaibel suggested that the corruption might reside instead in μέχρι τής. Both
emendations have some plausibility, Meineke’s more so, but neither convinces;
as for Kaibel’s proposal, it is difficult to imagine what emendation of μέχρι τής
could answer the supposed problems of the phrase.
Dindorf was the first to recognize that 26 contains a lacuna. The best
solution is to assume that 25 is not in fact a monometer (as is usually as-
sumed), that φιάλην belongs to 25 rather than 26 (as is usually assumed), and
that the lacuna occupies the end of 25 and the beginning of 26. The lacuna
thus consists of one anapaest at the end of 25 (plausibly filled by Diggle’s <0’
ύάλου» and two anapaests at the beginning of 26 (presumably to be filled by
an adjective modifying λεπαστήν, e. g. a compound of χρυσός vel sim.\ Aside
from occasional attempts at emendation (e. g. Bothe) or wholesale rewriting
of the passage (e. g. Edmonds), this lacuna has been placed at the beginning
of 26 (treating 25 as a monometer and assuming that φιάλην belongs to line
26). With such a placement, however, neither of the two possible ways of
interpreting the syntax is satisfactory. One option is to place a comma after
τε and treat λεπαστήν as joined asyndetically; but the asyndeton would be
out of place in this polysyndetic passage (contrast 37-66), and no editor has
so punctuated. The other possibility is to assume that λεπαστήν is in appo-
sition, presumably explanatory, to φιάλην, although the glossing also seems
out of place.86 Kassel-Austin mark a lacuna of one anapaest at the beginning

86 Kassel-Austin on Cratin. fr. 252 offer a number of apparent parallels for this con-
struction; but in the case of Cratin. fr. 252, Phryn. Com. fr. 42, and Pherecr. fr.
113.19, the word in apposition defines the given vessel in a necessary way, i. e. its
unusual size or use, while Theopomp. Com. fr. 31.4 is irrelevant. In contrast, the
text here, if sound, defines one drinking vessel in terms of another; although this