Fragmenta dubia (fr. 83)

327

instance of Anaxandrides mockingly referring to the same line of Timotheus;
for Anaxandrides and Timotheus, see on fr. 6. For comparisons between cups
and shields (as seems to be the case here), cf. Aristopho fr. 13.2; Theopomp.
Com. fr. 4.
fr. 83
νόμους μέν αγαθούς είχεν, ούκ έχρήτο δε
had good laws but did not use them

Comm. inArist. Graeca 20.444.1-4
ώσπερεί ό Άναξανδρίδης ό ποιητής άποσκώπτων πόλιν τινά, ή νόμους μέν
αγαθούς είχεν, ούκ έχρήτο δ έ αύτοϊς, είπεν· ή πόλις, ή οΰδέν μέλει των
νόμων των αγαθών (« fr. 66), ήβούλετο νόμους έχειν αγαθούς καί ψηφίσματα αγαθά
ψηφίζεσθαι
Just as the poet Anaxandrides said, mocking a certain city that ‘had good laws
but did not wish to use t h e m’, ‘The city, to which none of the good laws
matter (« fr. 66), wished to have good laws and to pass good decrees’
Metre lambic trimeter.
Discussion Browne 2001
Interpretation Browne 2001 noted that this anonymous commentator on
Aristotle’s Rhetoric, while offering a garbled version of fr. 66, the text on which
he is ostensibly commenting, also includes an iambic trimeter. The same line
seems to occur at Σ Ov. Ib. 523 (= Anaxandr. test. 2a) bonas leges habere (di-
ceret), sed male (Browne : malis cod.) uti, which Browne translates into Greek
as νόμους μέν αγαθούς είχεν, ούκ έχρήτο δ’ εύ; he further postulates that
the discrepancy between the two versions is the result of an ancient variant.
Finally, the line also appears at Arist. Rh. 1152a21, where it is paraphrased
as νόμους έχει σπουδαίους, χρήται δέ ούδέν. Thus, in accord with Browne’s
interpretation, Aristotle knew the line, but chose to paraphrase rather than
quote it, whereas the anonymous commentator and the scholiast to Ovid,
presumably independently, had access to the original. If this is a genuine
fragment, the fact that it is quoted together with fr. 66 and has similar content
suggests that it appeared in close proximity to that fragment (possibly in
Poleis·, cf. on fr. 66). Browne’s hypothesis is clever but difficult to accept, par-