Metadaten

Olson, S. Douglas; Eupolis
Fragmenta comica (FrC) ; Kommentierung der Fragmente der griechischen Komödie (Band 8,1): Eupolis: Testimonia and Aiges - Demoi (frr. 1-146) — Heidelberg: Verlag Antike, 2017

DOI Seite / Zitierlink: 
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.53729#0283
Lizenz: Freier Zugang - alle Rechte vorbehalten
Überblick
Faksimile
0.5
1 cm
facsimile
Vollansicht
OCR-Volltext
Βάπται (fr. *93)

279

by Beekes 2010 s. v.) associates it with σπάταλός (“lascivious”) and takes
the variation in the form to mark it as substrate (i. e. pre-Greek) vocabulary.
Further discussion of the word and its cognates at Holst 1926. 12-15; Masson
1970; Wankel 1976. 888-91; Lambin 1982; Delneri 2006. 335-8.
For a personal name allegedly used in a similarly abusive fashion, cf.
Cratin. fr. 160 and Ar. fr. 242 (both from a scholion on Lucian, which claims that
“Aristodemos was utterly debased and a passive homosexual, as a consequence
of which ‘Aristodemos’ was a word for an asshole”) with Kassel-Austin ad
loc.; adesp. com. frr. 337 and 351 (the names Exekestos and Theodoros used in
the same way) with Tammaro 1975-1977b. 287-8.

fr. *93 K.-A. (83 K.)
Hsch. k 3820
Κοτυτώ· ό μέν Εύπολις κατ’ έχθος τό προς τούς Κορινθίους φορτικόν τινα δαίμονα
διατίθεται
Kotyto: Eupolis, on the one hand, on account of his hatred of the Corinthians presents
(her as) a vulgar deity
Discussion Buttmann 1828 11.163; Delneri 2006. 341-3
Citation context The absence of a balancing δέ-clause makes it clear that
this is only a fragment of what was originally a longer note on the goddess.
Interpretation Assigned to Baptai on the basis of the reference to Kotyto
(for whom, see the general introduction to the play); the entry in Hesychius
does not preserve any specific traces of Eupolis’ language and might better
have been treated as a testimonium. That Eupolis deliberately targeted the
Corinthians is possible. Alternatively, this may simply be a deduction by
Hesychius’ source, which knew that Kotyto was worshipped in Corinth (cf.
Σκ Theoc. 6.40; Suda κ 2171; Steiner 1992. 387 (pushing the evidence to its
limits and arguably beyond)) and drew further conclusions on the basis of
what was taken to be the hostile depiction of the cult (or at least its celebrants)
in Baptai (esp. test. ii). Nor does the entry in Hesychius offer a solid basis for
believing that Kotyto herself appeared onstage in the course of the play; cf.
the general introduction to the comedy (Content). For the goddess’ name (a
hypocoristic form), cf. Δεξώ (Cratin. fr. 435) with Olson-Seaberg 2018 ad loc.,
Δωρώ (Cratin. fr. 70.1), Έμβλώ (Cratin. fr. dub. 510), Ίασώ (Ar. Pl. 701) and
Κερδώ (Ar. Eq. 1068), as well as the Muses ’Ερατώ and Κλείω and Seasons and
Graces such as Αύξώ, Θαλλώ, Καρπώ and Πειθώ. For the proper spelling (two
 
Annotationen
© Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften