94

Timokles

84b τότε δέ ραδίως άν και προς πολλούς και πολλάκις ώετ’ αν εύ λέγειν. However,
this suggestion is not convincing, because the character is speaking in an assertive
tone. On the other hand, ώιετ’ ώ (Dindorf, followed by Meineke, who, however,
admits “sed aliud quid latet”) and the ώ transmitted by A add an exclamatory tone
to a text otherwise not emotionally charged, ταλάντατος at the end of the verse is
better understood as a short comment on the parasite’s expectation (as wrong as
his masters), which may cause him problems; cf. Men. fr. 343 (from Synaristosai)
ώς άε'ι στιφράς έσομένας και νέας, ταλάντατος.
5 Toup 1770, 217 (on Theocr. 8.51) proposes έτι τοΰτ’ ούκ έστ’ ανάξιον,
approved by Schweighauser (Edmonds’ ταΰτ’ <ούκ> έστιν άξιον πόνου is quite
arbitrary). Kassel suggests τοΰτ’ <έν>εστιν, but cf. Ar. Ra. 73-4 τούτο γάρ τοι και
μόνον / έτ’ έστι λοιπόν άγαθόν; besides, if we accept ένεστιν, a dative is missing;
e. g. A. Pr. 224 ένεστι γάρ πως τούτο τή τυραννίδι. Dobree’s έτι <γε> and Headlam’s
έτι <κα'ι> are desperate. Perhaps a short word has been dropped out, e. g. και μην
<έν> έτι τοΰτ’ έστιν άξιον μόνον. As it is, the line seems a locus desperatus; cf. Kock
II (1884) ad loc.: “graviter corruptus”.
7 The paradosis άχρήματος makes sense in combination with v. 2 (Demotion)
τάργύριον ούκ έφείδετο. Demotion used to spend money on feeding men like
Chaerephon who were not actually needy; for the adjective cf. A. Pers. 166-7
(cited below, on. v. 7).
Toup 1770,217 goes too far in changing άχρήματος into άγράμματος and inter-
preting it in combination with δίκρουν ξύλον in v. 6: “nam furca bifidum lignum
est, et litteram Y representat”; (ούκ) άγράμματος, i. e. litteratus, στιγματίας (cf. Ar.
fr. 71 [from Babylonioi] Σαμίων ό δήμος έστιν, ώς πολυγράμματος). Herwerden’s
(ούκ) εύχρώματος, i. e. παντελώς άμουσος, is unattested in Greek.
1 ό Δημοτίων (PAA 320135; LGPN no. 3). Apparently a notorious spend-
thrift, not certainly identified. A passage in Hyperides, however, might be helpful.
In the speech Defence of Euxenippus (§31), the speaker counter-attacks the pro-
secutor of Euxenippus, and argues that he made slanderous remarks against his
opponent, including that “he adopted Demotions way of life” (Δημοτίωνος δίαιταν
έλαβεν). If the word δίαιτα here means “way of living” (as Babington 1853 ad loc.
has already argued in the ed. pr. of the speech),91 then that Demotion (registered
as PAA 320132) might be the person mentioned in our fragment, and accordingly
Euxenippus is described by his opponent as sponging off his profligate patron; cf.
Whitehead 2000, 238.
παραμενεϊν αύτώ δοκών The latent opinion here is that wealth is epheme-
ral. For the uncertainty of wealth, cf. E. El. 941-4 ή γάρ φύσις βέβαιος, ού τά
χρήματα “it is nature that is secure, not wealth”; E. TrGF 32F 420.4-5 ύπόπτερος
δ’ ό πλούτος- οίς γάρ ήν ποτέ, / έξ έλπίδων πίπτοντας ύπτιους όρώ “wealth is
winged; because I see those who possessed it before, to have fallen backwards

91 The other two possible meanings are “dwelling” and “arbitration”; cf. Whitehead 2000,
238.