Άθάμας (fr. 1)

25

the sophistic tradition. There is a sub-genre of epideictic oratory devoted to
praise of seemingly unpraiseworthy subjects, known as the paradoxical en-
comium, which is exemplified by Gorgias in Helen’s Encomium. This arguing
of a seemingly unwinnable case finds its way into Comedy with the speech
of personified Penia in Aristophanes’ Wealth 418-609 (see Kennedy 1963:
167-173; Papageorgiou 2000: 19-34, 196-205; Newiger 1957: 155-164), while
the term παίγνιον {entertainment, diversion, amusement) is often applied to it;
cf. Gorg. Hel. 21: έβουλήθην γράψαι τον λόγον 'Ελένης μέν έγκώμιον, έμόν
δέ παίγνιον (I -wished to write this speech as an encomium for Helen and as a
personal amusement; cf. Giombini 2012:126,142-144); [Demetr.j Eloc. 120: εγώ
δέ Πολυκράτει μέν τώ ρήτορι συγχωρώ έγκωμιάζοντι... καί αυτός τής γραφής
ό όγκος παίγνιόν έστι (I for one acquiesce to the orator Polycrates composing
encomia ...for the lofty majesty of style is a form of entertainment in itself. In
general, arguing either a paradox or the impossible was a particularly popular
motif during the fourth century BC. This tendency is distinctively described
in the prologue of Isocrates’ Encomium of Helen (oratio no. 10) §1: είσί τινες
οϊ μέγα φρονοϋσιν, ήν ύπόθεσιν άτοπον καί παράδοξον ποιησάμενοι περί
ταύτης άνεκτώς είπεΐν δυνηθώσι {there are some who boast if after setting up
an absurd and paradoxical subject, they succeed in discussing it in a tolerable
way). Such singularum rerum laudes (Cic. Brut. 47) include encomia of death
by Alcidamas (Men. Rh. 3,346 Spengel), of the hetairai Nais and Lagis by
Alcidamas and Cephalus respectively (Ath. 13.592c), of pebbles, cauldrons,
and mice by Polycrates the Sophist (Alex. Rh. 3, 3 Spengel; cf. Chroust 1957:
254 n. 382; Nightingale 1995: 100-101), etc. This sub-genre of paradoxical
encomia experiences a later reemergence during the Second Sophistic; cf.
Lucian’s Fly’s Encomium.
Taking all the above into consideration, one can legitimately interpret this
fragment as a comic exercise in rhetorical paradox, on the basis of its pecu-
liarly strange argumentation that departs from and contradicts the commonly
accepted norms of (social) behaviour. It is conceivable that Amphis conscious-
ly applied the language and posture of rhetoric to the dramatical content of his
comedy, here and elsewhere in his work (cf. comm, on Amphis fr. 8).
la είτ’ οΰ The particle είτα is commonly used (in both poetry and prose)
as a forceful way of introducing a question or an exclamation, which is meant
to communicate some strong feeling, e.g. surprise, indignation, contempt,
sarcasm, and the like (cf. LSf s. v. II). είτα can be followed by negation (as in
the present fragment), especially in rhetorical texts, to add emphasis within
an emotionally intense context; e.g. D. 1.24 (είτ’ ούκ αίσχύνεσθε;), Id. 19.250
(είτ’ ού σύ σοφιστής;), Id. 23.61 (είτ’ ού δεινόν, ώ γή καί θεοί, καί φανερώς
παράνομον...), Id. 24.137 (είτ’ ού καταγέλαστος δόξει ή πόλις είναι, εί τοίς