Τηρεύς (fr. 46)

247

Theopomp. Hist. FGrHist 115 F 110 (Eubulus the politician); 233 (people of
Tarentum); 224 (Philip II) and various other fragments of historians on a vari-
ety of persons follow. Despite the hesitation sometimes expressed (e. g. Arnott
1996 on Alex. fr. 110.1 for Diodorus), all the men mentioned in Athenaeus’
catalogue of spendthrifts appear to be historical persons of the fourth century.
Interpretation In accord with his general interpretation of the play (see
Introduction there), Nesselrath takes Speaker B to be Tereus, despite the fact
that Itys was traditionally the one slaughtered by the women. Such disregard
for the traditional account is possible (cf. on fr. 35.10), but seems more probable
in a passing joke than as a structural feature; for possible support for Tereus
as Speaker B, see on 1. Speaker B could be interpreted as Itys if the fragment
contains a conflation of the traditional story of his death and the version
known from later sources (Serv. Ecl. 6.78 ~ Myth. Vat. 1.4) according to which
he, like Tereus, Procne, and Philomela, was transformed into a bird. The allu-
sion to a squandered patrimony may point to a conflict between generations
and so perhaps suggests that the dysfunctional family dynamic was even more
complicated than Nesselrath and the traditional myth itself allowed for; for
the possibility that the reference to squandered patrimony is a passing joke,
see on 1.
Structurally, the fragment is similar to fr. 1 (cf. ad loc.\ Speaker A makes
a statement (here 1); Speaker B misunderstands the content and reaches a
conclusion radically different from the one intended (2-3); the first speaker
then offers a correction, clarifying what was meant (3-4).
1 Όρνις For nicknames in general, see on fr. 35; for specific birds as
nicknames, cf. Ar. Av. 1290-99 with Dunbar 1995 ad loc. The generic word
όρνις seems not to have normally functioned as a nickname, although it was
occasionally used to characterize people as flighty (cf. Ar. Av. 169-70 with van
Leeuwen 1902a ad loc.\ This seems to have led to Meineke’s claim (1840 III. 192)
that ‘ceterum in Anaxandridis verbis ita demum acumen inest, si Polyeuctum
ludibrii causa’Όρνις appellatum fuisse statuas, quod nomen Athenienses vol-
aticis et inconstantis animi hominibus indidisse constat,’ but this behaviour is
not really what Polyeuctus is criticized for here. If Tereus is addressed, there
may be a play on words similar to that at Timocl. fr. 19.3-4 (B.) διά τί Τηρέα
λέγεις; / (Α.) διότι τηρ[ε]ΐν δει παρόντος τοϋδε τά σκεύη σφόδρα, although for
the joke to work here, there must have been some sort of set-up to facilitate
the connection with τηρεϊν.
κεκλήση For this termination for the 2nd singular future passive (as
well as present passive), as opposed to -ει, cf. fr. 38.1 with n.; Kuhner-Blass
1890-1892 11.60; Mayser 1938 1.2.90; Ihreatte 1996 II.451-2.