DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52134#0313
Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 69)
309
Citation context The fragment is quoted near the beginning of Stobaeus’
chapter On ungraciousness’ (2.46) in the midst of a group of quotations from
Sophocles: OT611-12 (deleted by Lloyd-Jones and Wilson 1990a [cf. 1990b ad
loc.]\, Ai. 522-4, 1267 precede, and fr. 920 follows. The ascription of the frag-
ment to Anaxandrides is problematic. The lemmata for Stob. 2.46.4-8 all seem
to be displaced in the manuscripts; the universally adopted solution is to move
the lemma of 2.46.8 (τού αυτού) to 2.46.4, which results in the displacement of
the lemmata for 2.46.4-7 (cf. Wachsmuth ad loc.\ This transposition restores
2.46.4 (S. Ai. 1267) to Sophocles and 2.46.7 (Theocr. 5.38) to Theocritus; there
is some indirect evidence that 2.46.8 (Men. fr. 700) belongs to Menander,155 but
there is no external control on the authorship of the two other citations (this
fragment and S. fr. 920). The assignment of these quotations thus depends on
the plausible assumption that the section of Stobaeus is sound aside from a
slight dislocation of lemmata.
The question of the authorship of the fragment is further complicated by
the fact that the line is repeated at Stob. 2.46.21 (with ού in place of ούχί),
where the lemma reads Απολλώνιος Νουμηνίω. Van Herwerden 1868. 27-8
emended to Εύπολις Νουμηνίαις, since Eupolis alone is known to have written
a comedy with this title and no comic poet Apollonius is otherwise known;156
he does not note that the preceding lemma, Απολλώνιος Ήρωδιανώ (appar-
ently not included among the fragments of Apollonius Tyanensis [cf. below] or
any other Apollonius), may have contributed to the assumed corruption. The
obvious objection to van Herwerden’s arguments is that this Apollonius need
not be a comic poet, and a prose quotation with the attribution Απολλώνιος
Νουμηνίω is in fact cited at Stob. 4.56.35 (Ap. Ty. fr. 93); less likely is revers-
ing the word order to Νουμήνιος f Απολλωνίω f,157 converting this into a
155 Men. fr. 700 also occurs in a gnomology (POxy XLII 3005.2-3; cf. Men. fr. 907) that
appears to be composed entirely of quotations from Menander; such a gnomology
is poorly paralleled (cf. Parsons [ed. pr.] ad loc., but note the Appendix euripidea
from the florilegium of Orion [cf. Haffner 2001. 20-2]). The decision of Kassel-
Austin to print POxy XLII 3005 with the otherwise identifiable quotations removed
as Men. fr. 907 is unfortunate; it obscures the nature of the document and treats as
a single fragment what should be a score.
156 POxy XXXIII2659, a papyrus discovered subsequent to van Herwerden, attributes a
play entitled [-]επίκλητος to a certain [Άπο]λλώνιος; nothing more is known
about the man, and the possibility remains that the attribution is the result of
corruption (cf. Apollod. fr. 16).
157 The only known works of Numenius are Αλιευτικόν (SH 568-88), Θηριακόν (SH
589-94), a work περί δείπνων (SH 596), and possibly a work that discussed reme-
dies for gout (SH 595).
309
Citation context The fragment is quoted near the beginning of Stobaeus’
chapter On ungraciousness’ (2.46) in the midst of a group of quotations from
Sophocles: OT611-12 (deleted by Lloyd-Jones and Wilson 1990a [cf. 1990b ad
loc.]\, Ai. 522-4, 1267 precede, and fr. 920 follows. The ascription of the frag-
ment to Anaxandrides is problematic. The lemmata for Stob. 2.46.4-8 all seem
to be displaced in the manuscripts; the universally adopted solution is to move
the lemma of 2.46.8 (τού αυτού) to 2.46.4, which results in the displacement of
the lemmata for 2.46.4-7 (cf. Wachsmuth ad loc.\ This transposition restores
2.46.4 (S. Ai. 1267) to Sophocles and 2.46.7 (Theocr. 5.38) to Theocritus; there
is some indirect evidence that 2.46.8 (Men. fr. 700) belongs to Menander,155 but
there is no external control on the authorship of the two other citations (this
fragment and S. fr. 920). The assignment of these quotations thus depends on
the plausible assumption that the section of Stobaeus is sound aside from a
slight dislocation of lemmata.
The question of the authorship of the fragment is further complicated by
the fact that the line is repeated at Stob. 2.46.21 (with ού in place of ούχί),
where the lemma reads Απολλώνιος Νουμηνίω. Van Herwerden 1868. 27-8
emended to Εύπολις Νουμηνίαις, since Eupolis alone is known to have written
a comedy with this title and no comic poet Apollonius is otherwise known;156
he does not note that the preceding lemma, Απολλώνιος Ήρωδιανώ (appar-
ently not included among the fragments of Apollonius Tyanensis [cf. below] or
any other Apollonius), may have contributed to the assumed corruption. The
obvious objection to van Herwerden’s arguments is that this Apollonius need
not be a comic poet, and a prose quotation with the attribution Απολλώνιος
Νουμηνίω is in fact cited at Stob. 4.56.35 (Ap. Ty. fr. 93); less likely is revers-
ing the word order to Νουμήνιος f Απολλωνίω f,157 converting this into a
155 Men. fr. 700 also occurs in a gnomology (POxy XLII 3005.2-3; cf. Men. fr. 907) that
appears to be composed entirely of quotations from Menander; such a gnomology
is poorly paralleled (cf. Parsons [ed. pr.] ad loc., but note the Appendix euripidea
from the florilegium of Orion [cf. Haffner 2001. 20-2]). The decision of Kassel-
Austin to print POxy XLII 3005 with the otherwise identifiable quotations removed
as Men. fr. 907 is unfortunate; it obscures the nature of the document and treats as
a single fragment what should be a score.
156 POxy XXXIII2659, a papyrus discovered subsequent to van Herwerden, attributes a
play entitled [-]επίκλητος to a certain [Άπο]λλώνιος; nothing more is known
about the man, and the possibility remains that the attribution is the result of
corruption (cf. Apollod. fr. 16).
157 The only known works of Numenius are Αλιευτικόν (SH 568-88), Θηριακόν (SH
589-94), a work περί δείπνων (SH 596), and possibly a work that discussed reme-
dies for gout (SH 595).