Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

323

Interpretation The apparent echo of 32 [μη]δενί in 34 μηδενί [ε]ίπεΐν, together
with the extra letter-space left between ]δενί and γελοίως, suggest a transition
from lemma to commentary at the end of 32. Although Lobel restored [είπεΐν
μη]δενί in the text of Eupolis, [ε]ίπεΐν in 34 might just as well be paraphrase.
How much of the material in 35-40 refers to this lemma—which is to say,
at what point in the text another lemma must be recognized or assumed—is
impossible to say, although 37-8 in particular might easily be taken as moving
on to a new subject.
Two persons are involved, the speaker (who was asked to keep quiet about
something) and another individual (who made the request). The staging of
comedies is in question (36), so presumably the subject is a dispute over public
credit or blame for a production—i. e. the play under discussion in fr. 259a, in
which case the speaker is the poet/Eupolis and the other individual is the man
who dispatched the mysterious ambassadors?
For the κλοιός mentioned in 38, cf. fr. 172.16 with n., where a “collar” is
part of a punishment for bad behavior, as perhaps also here (sc. if the speaker
refuses to do what he is told? or if his sycophantic opponent gets what he
deserves?). An οβελίσκος is normally a spit used for roasting meat (see Olson
2002 on Ar. Ach. 794-6), which is difficult sense here; perhaps the reference
is instead to a similarly shaped piece of metal driven into the ground to help
restrain someone bound in a collar and chain.
fr. 259d = Eup. fr. 259.42 K.-A.
]γάζει
[όρ]γάζει Kassel-Austin, cf. fr. 266 : fort. [αύ]γάζει vel [έρ]γάζει
he/she/it is working(?)
Meter Unknown.
Context POxy. 2813 fr. Id col. II.1-27 = Eup. fr. 259.41-61 K.-A.
γάζει
η κωμωδ[ λαμ-
βάνειν αυ[
μ(έν)ους η ο[
45 δομ(εν)ον τρ[
τας όψεις [
πειων μη[