312

Incertarum fabularum fragmenta (fr. 70)

of δή is to retain εχειν (with FS) and understand this as a consecutive clause
(cf. Goodwin 1890 §§608-9).
Interpretation The line may belong to a cook cataloguing his equipment or
specifying his needs, although this depends on interpreting the word perizds-
tra as ‘apron’, which is not unproblematic. It might also belong to a scene in
which characters describe what will be necessary for a disguise (as a woman
or a cook?).
ώς δει... εχειν The line could be construed in several different ways (see
on Text). As printed, it is perfectly intelligible as either an independent or a
dependent sentence.
παχεΐαν παχύς with a positive sense is used frequently to describe
food (e. g. Ephipp. fr. 3.7; Nicostr. Com. fr. 13.2; Archestr. fr. 18.1 [SH 148]
with Olson-Sens 2000 ad loc.) and occasionally people (e. g. Ar. Pax 639; cf.
Taillardat 1965 § 543).159 Far less common is the application of the word to
clothing (Theopomp. Com. fr. 11 χλαϊναν <δέ> σοι / λαβών παχεΐαν έπιβαλώ
Λακωνικήν; Pl. Cra. 389b λεπτώ ίματίω ή παχεΐ; Thphr. Char. 19.6), although
in this case too it presumably refers to desirable qualities. The predicative
position of the word makes it emphatic, so the point is not so much that it
is necessary to have an apron, but that one ought to have one that is thick.
την περιζώστραν The word appears only here and in the discussion
of Pollux, who is vague and apparently confused about precisely what the
garment is. At 7.65 he distinguishes the περιζώστρα from the ταινία, which
is wrapped around women’s breasts, and equates it with the περίζωμα, which
is wrapped around the belly; he does not specify that the περιζώστρα is a
woman’s garment, but that seems to be the implication. At 2.166, he equates
it with the Latin fascia, which can refer to two distinct items. The first, a band
wrapped around a woman’s breasts (cf. TLL s. v. I.A.b), is ruled out by Pollux’
statement at 7.65, whereas the second, a band wrapped around the lower
legs of men (cf. TLL s. v. I.A.c), does not correspond to the implication that
it was worn by women and, more important, the claim that it was wrapped
around the belly. Perhaps the best way to reconcile the conflicting evidence
is to assume that the word refers to something wrapped around the waist but
coming down over the legs, i. e. an apron; for the problems associated with
this interpretation, see on fr. 42.12.160

159 For its use with a pejorative sense, cf. Ar. Nu. 842; Taillardat 1965 §469.
160 Pickard-Cambridge 1953. 222 n. 6 understands the fragment as a reference to pad-
ding worn by the comic actor; cf. Beare 1954. 68-9. Such metatheatrical self-ref-
erentiality is very uncommon in the remains of comedy from this period, but cf.
Alex. fr. 103.12-15 with Arnott 1996 ad loc.