Έπιστολαί (fr. 9)

93

5 ——t- -Pt-

citation context Ihe fragment is cited in a section devoted to Chaerephon,
the notorious parasite (6.242f-245f). The series of comic fragments in which
Chaerephon is satirized includes Men. fr. 265 from Orge; fr. 225 from Methe; Antiph.
fr. 197 from Skythes (Chaerephon as άδειπνος); Tim. Com. fr. 1 from Kynarion
(Chaerephon as parabystos, due to his shrewd invasion of feasts); Apollod. Car. fr.
29 (which, however, in all probability does not refer to Chaerephon, but to some
other person who adopts Chaerephons manners, i. e. by invading feasts uninvited,
άκλητος); fr. 31 (again on Chaerephon άκλητος); Macho frr. 3 and 4 Gow.
Interpretation The fragment refers to a known parasite and his spendthrift pa-
tron. The speaking character looks like an omniscient observer in the prologue of
a play. A parallel might be Aristophanes’ Knights 40-72, where a slave gives the
audience the information necessary to better follow the subsequent scenes: a de-
crepit old man named Demos has recently bought a slave named Paphlagon, who
has entranced his master with lies and flattery while hoarding his wealth. However,
in Timocles fragment, the use of historical tenses (v. 2 έφείδετο, παρέτρεφεν; v. 4
ώιετο) seems to place this setting in the prehistory of the play. Alternatively, the
speaking character might be, for instance, a durus senex, attempting to deter his
son from similar behavior, with the example of a notorious pair of patron and
parasite. The criticism of both the spendthrift and his parasite is compatible with
a person distanced from them and, perhaps, forecasting what will take place in
the course of time and plot.
Parasites who devour their masters’ property and are so clever at raising money
are typical in comedy. Terence’ Phormio in the homonymous comedy and Gnatho
in Eunuchus are representative of this class. Gnatho, in particular, shares with
Chaerephon (cf. v. 6 παραμασήτην) the description of a parasite who devours with
his jaws the property of the wealthy master, in return for the services he offers to
him. For the patron who incurs all the pains and expenses in order to provide his
parasite with food, receiving admiration for his wealth in return cf. Ter. Phormio
337-45 (where the emblematic eponymous parasite is mocking himself); Starks
2013, 144.
Text 1 Schweighauser’s παραμενεΐν makes better sense than the transmitted
παραμένειν: “Demotion believed that he would keep having money in the future
as well”. For a future infinitive governed by a verb of opinion cf. Timocl. 8.14 οΐμαί
γ’ έρεΐν (on the contrary, in v. 4 βαδίζειν, governed by ώιετο, if correct, expresses a
habitual activity of Chaerephon); the same combination in Plu. Aem. 36.8 νομίζω
τήν τύχην ύμΐν παραμενεΐν άβλαβή και βέβαιον.
4 The paradosis ώιετο ώ is both unmetrical and awkward. The text is conside-
red a locus desperatus in PCG VII (1989) ad loc. Bothe proposes ώιετ’ αν; cf. X. H.
6.2.7 ένθεν ώετ’ άν τά προσπλέοντα και προαισθάνεσθαι και διακωλύειν; Pl. Men.