Πρωτεσίλαος (fr. 42)

209

condimenta’;87 Kock 1884 III.155 was convinced that the text was unsound
(‘άλες vix sanum’) but neither emended nor marked as corrupt his printed
text; his abysmal suggestion άμης (‘milk-cakes’; cf. on 56 above) is far more
out of place than άλες. Bothe 1855. 428-9 did emend, but his κήρυκες άλός
(‘praecones maris, pisces’), although a possible locution, is inappropriate in
context (άλς, ‘sea’, occurs in comedy only at fr. 31.3, where it fits well with
the mock-epic tone; cf. ad loc.).
70 as transmitted is metrically deficient on two counts. The first half of
the line lacks one short syllable. The best suggestion is Dobree’s δε <γε>,
which is paleographically simple to account for and idiomatic (cf. Denniston
1954. 154: Tn Aristophanic and Platonic dialogue δε γε often picks up the
thread after a remark interpellated by another speaker. It thus connects ...
the speaker’s words with his own previous words, not with those of another
person.’). Erfurdt’s δ’ έτι, on the other hand, is far more rare in comedy (Ar. Ra.
1329; Men. Mis. 194) and less appropriate after an interruption, while Jacobs’
δ’ εσται and Kaibel’s δ’ είσίν are both flat and more difficult to account for
paleographically. The second half of the line lacks one anapaest, presumably
an adjective describing a type of wine. An obvious suggestion is another
wine designated by colour, in which case Meineke’s κιρρός is perhaps best,
given the association of white and yellow wines in Athenaeus. Less likely is
Erfurdt’s ερυθρός, which often describes wine in Homer (e. g. Od. 5.163) but
less so elsewhere.
Interpretation Long anapaestic catalogues of food are common in Middle
Comedy (e. g. Mnesim. fr. 4 [the only fragment which vies with this one in
length]; Antiph. frr. 130; 131; Eub. fr. 63; Ephipp. frr. 12; 13; Alex. fr. 167;
cf. Headlam-Knox 1922 on Herod. 7.57-61) and are perhaps the most easily
recognizable feature of fourth-century comedy (cf. Nesselrath 1990. 267-80;
Meineke 1839 1.302-3; Dohm 1964. 87 n. 1); the lack of context for such pas-
sages, however, leaves considerable doubt as to their position and use in plays.
Scholars normally associate them with the conclusion of a comedy (Arnott
1996. 20 describes them as ‘doubtless continuing a tradition of celebratory
finales that goes back at least to Aristophanes [e.g. Pax 974-1015]’; cf. the
song in dactylic tetrameters at Ar. Ec. 1169-76), and Webster 1970. 18 thus
suggested that this passage is from the exodos (cf. the wedding at the end
of Aristophanes’ Peace or Birds). But Alex. fr. 167 may belong instead to the
prologue (cf. Arnott 1996 ad loc. and pp. 20, 479-80), while Hunter 1983 on

87 Meineke’s final decision is sound, his reasoning is not; τέττιγες here are not fish,
but rather cicadas, and thus fit well in this mixture of condiments and finger-food.