DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52134#0257
Τηρεύς (fr. 48)
253
Text The lacuna in 1 is normally assumed to fall at the beginning of the
line. But placing it after δέ or, less good, at the end of the line preserves
Anaxandrides’ normal penthemimeral caesura.
The text has often been doubted; the fragment is not obviously corrupt, but
it is difficult to make sense of, probably due in large part to the lack of context.
If emendation is warranted, the best solution is Bothe’s όχευομένας δέ τάς
κάπρους (1855. 430; followed by Edmonds 1959); ή κάπρος is unparalleled,
but the formation is not difficult. Needlessly drastic is Herwerden 1893. 178,
who conjectured όχευομένας δέ τάς κύνας, ‘cum tamen manifesto sermo fiat
de bestia femina, nec fere praeter canes et gallos animalia coeuntia saepe
spectentur.’ Similarly unnecessary, and unhelpful, are judgements of hopeless
corruption, e. g. Kaibel’s simple ‘verba corrupta’ (quoted by Kassel-Austin ad
loci) or Kock’s despairing ‘quid faciam nescio’ (1884 11.156).
Interpretation The fragment obviously refers to some group taking plea-
sure in watching animals having sex. Difficulty in imagining a context was
probably the driving force behind most attempts at emendation (see above),
although changing the text to refer to female animals in both has satisfied
many. Nesselrath believed the fragment could support his general interpre-
tation of the play as that of a man dominated by women (cf. Introduction
to this play); since it does not really accomplish this, he asserts that, ‘man
vermifit bei τάς άλεκτρυόνας eine partizipiale Erganzung wie bei όχευομένους
δέ τούς κάπρους; vielleicht ist hinter άλεκτρυόνας eine Lucke anzusetzen, in
der vielleicht ebenfalls stand, wer diejenigen sind, die dergleichen άσμενοι
θεωροΰσιν.’
1 όχευομένους The normal, generally prosaic (in poetry only at Theoc.
5.147), term for sex between animals;122 as expected, the active is regularly
used for the male, the passive for the female (e. g. Pl. R. 454d τό μέν θήλυ
τίκτειν, τό δέ άρρην όχεύειν; Arist. HA 540a21-3 οχεύεται δ’ ή μέν θήλεια ...,
ό δ’ άρρην ... οχεύει).
τούς κάπρους The wild boar is known as the victim in an oath-sacrifice
(Η. II. 19.250-5; Ar. Lys. 20 2123) and is common is Homeric similes reflecting
122 The word is used for people at Suda χ 73 χαμαιτυπεϊον· πορνεϊον. καί χαμαιτύπη, ή
πόρνη, άπό τού χαμαί κειμένην όχεύεσθαι and the reputed inscription on the tomb
of Sardanapalos έσθιε, πίνε, όχευε (Hellanic. FGrHist 4 F 63; Callisthenes FGrHist
124 F 34; Apollod. FGrHist 244 F 303), although note that Aristobul. fr. 6 gives the
text as έσθιε, πίνε, παίζε. Cf. also Ale. Com. fr. 18.
123 ^RBar repOrt μ μ usej «ντί τού αιδοίου; this gloss is expanded at Suda κ
348 κάπρος· τό αίδοϊον τού άνδρός. This interpretation is almost certainly incor-
rect.
253
Text The lacuna in 1 is normally assumed to fall at the beginning of the
line. But placing it after δέ or, less good, at the end of the line preserves
Anaxandrides’ normal penthemimeral caesura.
The text has often been doubted; the fragment is not obviously corrupt, but
it is difficult to make sense of, probably due in large part to the lack of context.
If emendation is warranted, the best solution is Bothe’s όχευομένας δέ τάς
κάπρους (1855. 430; followed by Edmonds 1959); ή κάπρος is unparalleled,
but the formation is not difficult. Needlessly drastic is Herwerden 1893. 178,
who conjectured όχευομένας δέ τάς κύνας, ‘cum tamen manifesto sermo fiat
de bestia femina, nec fere praeter canes et gallos animalia coeuntia saepe
spectentur.’ Similarly unnecessary, and unhelpful, are judgements of hopeless
corruption, e. g. Kaibel’s simple ‘verba corrupta’ (quoted by Kassel-Austin ad
loci) or Kock’s despairing ‘quid faciam nescio’ (1884 11.156).
Interpretation The fragment obviously refers to some group taking plea-
sure in watching animals having sex. Difficulty in imagining a context was
probably the driving force behind most attempts at emendation (see above),
although changing the text to refer to female animals in both has satisfied
many. Nesselrath believed the fragment could support his general interpre-
tation of the play as that of a man dominated by women (cf. Introduction
to this play); since it does not really accomplish this, he asserts that, ‘man
vermifit bei τάς άλεκτρυόνας eine partizipiale Erganzung wie bei όχευομένους
δέ τούς κάπρους; vielleicht ist hinter άλεκτρυόνας eine Lucke anzusetzen, in
der vielleicht ebenfalls stand, wer diejenigen sind, die dergleichen άσμενοι
θεωροΰσιν.’
1 όχευομένους The normal, generally prosaic (in poetry only at Theoc.
5.147), term for sex between animals;122 as expected, the active is regularly
used for the male, the passive for the female (e. g. Pl. R. 454d τό μέν θήλυ
τίκτειν, τό δέ άρρην όχεύειν; Arist. HA 540a21-3 οχεύεται δ’ ή μέν θήλεια ...,
ό δ’ άρρην ... οχεύει).
τούς κάπρους The wild boar is known as the victim in an oath-sacrifice
(Η. II. 19.250-5; Ar. Lys. 20 2123) and is common is Homeric similes reflecting
122 The word is used for people at Suda χ 73 χαμαιτυπεϊον· πορνεϊον. καί χαμαιτύπη, ή
πόρνη, άπό τού χαμαί κειμένην όχεύεσθαι and the reputed inscription on the tomb
of Sardanapalos έσθιε, πίνε, όχευε (Hellanic. FGrHist 4 F 63; Callisthenes FGrHist
124 F 34; Apollod. FGrHist 244 F 303), although note that Aristobul. fr. 6 gives the
text as έσθιε, πίνε, παίζε. Cf. also Ale. Com. fr. 18.
123 ^RBar repOrt μ μ usej «ντί τού αιδοίου; this gloss is expanded at Suda κ
348 κάπρος· τό αίδοϊον τού άνδρός. This interpretation is almost certainly incor-
rect.