208

Πρωτεσίλαος (fr. 42)

of the line and thus treat it as a paroemiac. Although this offers a line that
observes diaeresis (unnecessary in the case of a paroemiac; cf. 5), a paroemiac
is not wanted here, since the other examples in this fragment (5, 22, 29, 69) all
coincide with structural divisions and a clausular ending. It is also possible
that φιάλην is an intrusive gloss on λεπαστήν (see below for the disputed
nature of the λεπαστή) that has ousted the true reading, as at e. g. Ar. Pax 916
as quoted at Ath. 11.485a, where κύλικα, originating as a gloss, has entered
the text and ousted νέου.
Dobree’s conjecture σιρόν in place of ACE’s χύτραν in 27, and the reverse
in the next line, is almost certainly correct, since a σιρός is more appropriate
for storing grain, just as a χύτρα is for bulbs (cf. Ar. Ec. 1092 βολβών χύτραν);
cf. Toup 1778. 371-2.
Bothe’s emendation to ελλείπει (εκλείπει ACE) in 34 has the double ad-
vantage of giving better sense and being able to govern both accusative (τί)
and genitive (ποιων αγαθών).
In 36, CE are missing a syllable, and A’s καί seems a clumsy stopgap.
The best solution is probably Casaubon’s ούχί σμύρνης (taking Συρίας an an
adjective); Kaibel’s ού σμύρνης έκ (printed by Kassel-Austin) is possible, but
virtually violates metron diaresis. For όσμαί (as opposed to όδμαί, the reading
of AE), cf. Phryn. Ecl. 62; Threatte 1980 1.567-8; Barrett 1964 on E. Hipp. 1391
(addenda p. 437); the same error occurs at Antiph. fr. 159.10; Alex. fr. 195.3
(cf. Arnott 1996 ad loc.\
In 49, Meineke 1840 III. 189 suggested making both fish in the line either
stewed (έφθαί; so CE) or broiled (όπταί). But the variation (found in A)
provides a suitable conclusion to the similar variation in this short section as
a whole (46-9; see ad loc.\
ACE’s οπτοί in 59 is metrically impossible; although Meineke’s όποί is
a paleographically trivial correction, the word seems not to occur normally
in the plural, and Dobree’s οπός is thus preferable. Dobree’s alternative
suggestion, τέττιξ οπτός, is possible only if τέττιξ refers to the fish of that
name; on the implausibility of that interpretation, cf. ad loc.
The end of 60 has often been doubted, but needlessly so; the transmitted
text ties together the list of condiments and the list of shellfish and facilitates
the transition between them. Meineke 1840 III. 189 was dissatisified with the
text (‘mirum est sal hoc loco commemorari’), but was disinclined to emend,
noting ‘at similiter vs. 58 [59 K-A] pisces τέττιγες commemorantur inter

procedure is common among the lexicographers and authors such as Athenaeus, it
is inappropriate for an author referring to what is apparently a relatively common
contemporary drinking vessel.