Αίγες (fr. 1)

105

specification πρός τον αίπόλον only in 3 is odd on that hypothesis, and the
individual asked to fetch a ray in 1-2 is perhaps someone else, the competence
or responsibility of the herdsman being confined to rural matters, in contrast
to visiting the marketplace; Storey suggests that αύτόν in 1 might be the ram
at the head of the flock, although asking another goat for fish seems odd. Nor
is it immediately believable that nanny-goats were offered fish to eat when
they were sick or tired, although this might be part of the humor, with the
goat in question acting like a combination of a pampered human being and a
normal herd-animal. Or perhaps an ordinary woman (the innkeeper-woman?)
rather than a goat is the subject of the verb, and the goat-herd is brought into
the narrative only because a wolf (with which he is professionally qualified
to deal) has somehow entered the picture.
Srebrny took these verses to come from the prologue, where in an Aristo-
phanic comedy the background situation is often sketched out for the audi-
ence, and hypothesized that the speaker was the individual accused in fr. *3 of
“nanny-goating”. But such a remark might be made at any point in the play in
reaction to a new plan, proposal or plot-development, and even if fr. *3 is from
Aiges (which is dubious; see n.), there is no reason to associate it with these
lines. That “the goatherd” is to be identified with the agroikos who speaks fr.
12 and performs the Athena-dance badly in fr. 18 is a similarly reasonable but
unprovable assumption.
Kock suggested that the same speaker might be assigned frr. 11-12, al-
though any character might in fact be given those lines.
1 κάμη might alternatively be translated “is tired”; cf. Ar. fr. 333, where
someone is criticized for failing to bring various delicacies, including seafood,
as assistance for “wearied women” (γυναιξι κοπιώσαισιν).
ευθέως serves a function similar to κεκράξετοα in 3, adding emotional
urgency to the description of the order that follows. The form is first attested
in the second half of the 5th century (e.g. fr. 172.13; Crates Com. fr. 17.6; Ar.
Nu. 490; S. Az. 31; Hp. Aer. 4 = 2.20.12 Littre; Th. 7.33.3; Antipho 1.20)—which
does not mean that no one used it before that.
2 πρίω μοι Cf. Hegemon fr. 1.1 (conjectural); Cephisod. fr. 3.1, 3 (to a
slave). For the verb, see fr. 385.1 n. on πριαίμην. On Meineke’s version of the
text, μοι must be an ethical dative (~ “please!”; cf. fr. 273.1-2 n.) rather than a
dative of interest (“for me”), which counts against the words being addressed
to a slave.
σελάχιον Despite Erotian, σελάχη is a generic term for sharks and rays
of all sorts; see Olson-Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 47.1. For the diminutive, cf.
Amips. fr. 8; Pl. Com. fr. 57.2.