248

Τηρεύς (fr. 46)

προς τής Εστίας Oaths by Hestia, apparently normally spoken by men
(contrast adesp. com. fr. 1000.39), seem to be confined to comedy: Ar. Pl. 395;
Antiph. fr. 183.2 νή τήν Εστίαν; Eub. fr. 60 νή τήν Εστίαν; Strato Com. fr.
1.28; adesp. com. frr. 1000.39; 1093.231. They are thus presumably colloqui-
al, as Cobet 1880. 60 recognized.115 The comment of Cunningham 1971 on
Herod. 7.120 that έστίη (i. e. εστία) is ‘frequent in oaths from Homer on’, is
true enough, but does not include the necessary qualification that the form
in Homer (e.g. Od. 14.158-9) is invariably ϊστω νυν Ζευς πρώτα θεών ξενίη
τε τράπεζα / ίστίη τ’ Όδυσήος άμύμονος, ήν άφικάνω and in other authors
refers to a particular hearth (e. g. Herod. 7.120 μά τήν Κέρδωνος έστίην; S. El.
881 μά τήν πατρώαν εστίαν) rather than to the personified goddess. For the
goddess Hestia generally, see Sarian in LIMCV. 1.407-12; Preuner in Roscher
1884-1937 1.2605-53 (2623 for Hestia in oaths). Of dubious relevance is Opp.
Cyn 3.118, where the cock is called δρνις ... συνέστιος.
2 καταφαγών τήν πατρώαν ουσίαν The image of eating or consum-
ing one’s own wealth or that of another is as old as Homer (e.g. Od. 1.375
ύμά κτήματ’ εδοντες, where meant literally) and is common in comedy (e.g.
Antiph. fr. 236.1; Alex. fr. 128.1-2; Anaxipp. fr. 1.32); for numerous further
examples of this and other metaphors for squandering wealth, cf. Arnott 1996
on Alex.fr. 110.2; Biles-Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1114-16. The connection between
being called ‘Bird’ and squandering one’s wealth remains obscure, unless it
hinged on wordplay involving Τηρεύς/τηρέω. Csapo 1993. 122 wondered if
there might be some connection with birds abusing fathers; cf. Ar. Eq. 496-7;
Av. 1347-8; Σ A. Eu. 861.
3 Πολύευκτος ό καλός Ruhnken 1768. Ixxxi (= 1828b. 344) suggested
that this Polyeuctus is the same man as the well-known orator and politician
of the third quarter of the fourth century, Πολύευκτος Σωστράτου Σφήττιος
(PA 11925 + 11934 + 11950; PAA 778285; LGPNII s. v. #49); this thesis has often
been accepted, e. g. by Meineke 1840 III. 192 and Nesselrath 1990.195, although
it was rejected early on by Bohnecke 1843. 643 n. 4. With this identification,
the description of the man as καλός may be a mocking reference to his un-
gainly appearance (cf. Plu. Phoc. 9.9, where he is described as ύπέρπαχυς), but
more likely it indicates simply that he is both young and well-born. The main
obstacle to the identification (aside from the lack of any obvious connection
between the man and the content of the fragment) is that the period of his
major political importance is probably after Anaxandrides’ career had come
to an end. Conceivably, he might have been already well-known enough in his

115

At Roscher 1884-1937 1.2623 the reference to Cobet is wrongly given as p. 1.