Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 259)

331

fr. 259i = Eup. fr. 259.106-7
[εύ]ρύκρειο [v]
[εύ οί]δ’ δτι τι. [
1 suppl. Lobel 2 suppl. Lobel ex 108 [ε]ύ οϊδ’ δτι
wide-ruling
I am well aware that τι. [

Meter Unknown.
-x
—-x

Context POxy. 2813 fr. 5.4-7 = Eup. fr. 259.106-9 K.-A.
106 [εύ]ρύκρειο[ν]
[εύ οί]δ’ δτι τι. [
[ε]ύ οίδ’ δτι π[
] έχθραν πα[
107 suppl. Lobel ex 108

106 wide-ruling
I am [well] aware that τι. [
I am well aware that π [
enmity (acc.) πα[

Interpretation It is unclear whether these are two separate lemmata—the
first of which must then have been provided with only a very short gloss—or
fragments of a single, longer lemma. The echo of 107 [εύ οί]δ’ δτι in 108 [ε]ύ
οίδ’ δτι, at any rate, leaves no doubt that the former is a lemma, the latter
commentary on it. I follow Austin 1973 in treating 110 as a fragment of a new
lemma. If the next three lines instead continue the note, 110 likely represents
part of the commentator’s paraphrase of what the speaker (“I”) claims to be
well aware that the addressee (“you”) does, with the speaker (or the poet
himself) returning as the subject of the verb in 111.
[εύ]ρύκρειο[ν] (or [εύ]ρύ κρεΐο[ν]) is likely a parody of the Homeric
line-end formula εύρύ κρείονν Αγαμέμνων (e.g. II. 1.102; Od. 3.248)169 and thus

169 Thus Lobel (“presumably in a quotation or parody”), citing as a parallel Cratin. fr.
355, where the words κρείων Διομήδης, however, seem to belong to Antimachus
rather than Cratinus.