DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.53734#0042
- Startseite des Bandes
- Alle zugehörigen Werke
- Bibliographische Information
- Sonstige kunstwissenschaftliche Literatur
38
Timokles
[1-9] Ath. 8.341e
και Υπερείδης δε ό ρήτωρ όψοφάγος ήν, ως φησι Τιμοκλής ό κωμικός έν Δήλω (fab.
nom. cm. CE) διηγούμενος τούς παρά Άρπάλου δωροδοκήσαντας. γράφει δε ούτως
Δημοσθένης - Σύρους
The orator Hyperides was also an opsophagos, as Timocles the comic poet tells us in Delos,
when talking about those bribed by Harpalus. He writes as follows: Demosthenes - Syrians.
[1-2] Syrian, in Hermog. 1.50.6 Rabe
κωμωδεΐ δέ αύτόν Τιμοκλής έπι τοΐς Άρπαλ<ε>ίοις λέγων · Δημοσθένης - μηδενί
Timocles satirizes him on the Harpalus affair in these words: Demosthenes - anyone
Metre lambic trimeter
5
— t— —-—
Discussion Meineke III (1840) 591-2; Kock II (1884) 452; Bevilacqua 1939,
47-9; Edmonds II (1959) 603-5; PCG VII (1989) 756-7; Whitehead 2000, 10-11.
Citation context The fragment is preserved by Athenaeus in a long unit, where
Democritus, the persona loquens, deals with opsophagoi (8.340b-347b). The source
of this material was probably Hegesander of Delphi; cf. During 1936,9, who argues
that he was also the source for Plutarch’s Quaestiones Convivales; Bianchi 2015,
364-5. This particular section (8.341f-342a) offers evidence that Hyperides was
a notorious opsophagos. It follows fr. 17 from Icarian Satyrs, where Hyperides is
described as a “fish-rich river”, and the information from Athenaeus that Phile-
taerus describes him as both an opsophagos and a dicer: 8.342a Φιλέταιρος δ’
έν Άσκληπιω (fr. 2) [τόνΎπερείδην del. Wilamowitz] προς τω όψοφαγεΐν και
κυβεύειν αύτόν φησι.
Text 5 The transmitted ειτ’ εϊληφε is unmetrical. Kock’s εΐτ’ έλαβε is not
convincing, since εϊληφε corresponds perfectly to the preceding form in v. 3.
Therefore, Musurus’ correction is imperative. Also the absolute εϊληφε is difficult,
and Dobrees’ τι instead of the transmitted τε is unexceptionable.
9 όψοφάγος f γάρ The transmitted diction is unmetrical. Casaubon 1621,
594, followed by Kock II (1884) 452, deletes γάρ, but this is a desperate attempt. It
is obvious that something is missing; cf. Kaibel II (1887) 250 (on Ath. 8.342a): “γάρ
deleri nequit; verba mutila”. Bergks ούψοφάγος attempts to save the meaning, but is
Timokles
[1-9] Ath. 8.341e
και Υπερείδης δε ό ρήτωρ όψοφάγος ήν, ως φησι Τιμοκλής ό κωμικός έν Δήλω (fab.
nom. cm. CE) διηγούμενος τούς παρά Άρπάλου δωροδοκήσαντας. γράφει δε ούτως
Δημοσθένης - Σύρους
The orator Hyperides was also an opsophagos, as Timocles the comic poet tells us in Delos,
when talking about those bribed by Harpalus. He writes as follows: Demosthenes - Syrians.
[1-2] Syrian, in Hermog. 1.50.6 Rabe
κωμωδεΐ δέ αύτόν Τιμοκλής έπι τοΐς Άρπαλ<ε>ίοις λέγων · Δημοσθένης - μηδενί
Timocles satirizes him on the Harpalus affair in these words: Demosthenes - anyone
Metre lambic trimeter
5
— t— —-—
Discussion Meineke III (1840) 591-2; Kock II (1884) 452; Bevilacqua 1939,
47-9; Edmonds II (1959) 603-5; PCG VII (1989) 756-7; Whitehead 2000, 10-11.
Citation context The fragment is preserved by Athenaeus in a long unit, where
Democritus, the persona loquens, deals with opsophagoi (8.340b-347b). The source
of this material was probably Hegesander of Delphi; cf. During 1936,9, who argues
that he was also the source for Plutarch’s Quaestiones Convivales; Bianchi 2015,
364-5. This particular section (8.341f-342a) offers evidence that Hyperides was
a notorious opsophagos. It follows fr. 17 from Icarian Satyrs, where Hyperides is
described as a “fish-rich river”, and the information from Athenaeus that Phile-
taerus describes him as both an opsophagos and a dicer: 8.342a Φιλέταιρος δ’
έν Άσκληπιω (fr. 2) [τόνΎπερείδην del. Wilamowitz] προς τω όψοφαγεΐν και
κυβεύειν αύτόν φησι.
Text 5 The transmitted ειτ’ εϊληφε is unmetrical. Kock’s εΐτ’ έλαβε is not
convincing, since εϊληφε corresponds perfectly to the preceding form in v. 3.
Therefore, Musurus’ correction is imperative. Also the absolute εϊληφε is difficult,
and Dobrees’ τι instead of the transmitted τε is unexceptionable.
9 όψοφάγος f γάρ The transmitted diction is unmetrical. Casaubon 1621,
594, followed by Kock II (1884) 452, deletes γάρ, but this is a desperate attempt. It
is obvious that something is missing; cf. Kaibel II (1887) 250 (on Ath. 8.342a): “γάρ
deleri nequit; verba mutila”. Bergks ούψοφάγος attempts to save the meaning, but is