Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 260)

343

to Propaltioi is based on the mention in 15 of Prospaltians (referred to nowhere
else in comedy except at fr. 259.13); the original editors were uncertain of the
identification, which is now generally taken for granted. POxy. 4301 (= adesp.
com. fr. 1151), which mentions Cleonymus (cf. fr. 352 with n.) and Demaratus
(cf. Th. 6.105.2) and is thus almost certainly from a play dating to the 420s or
early 410s BCE, was apparently produced by the same scribe, although that
text includes indications of change of speaker and is accordingly most likely
from a different comedy.
Text A handful of paragraphoi and dicola marking change of speaker have
been added to the papyrus by a second hand. These indications are not neces-
sarily accurate or complete, and likely represent nothing more than guesses
by a reader. Precisely how the lines are to be divided among the various
speakers is accordingly a matter of dispute (discussion of individual points
under Interpretation); the assignment of 27-31 is particularly problematic.
The line-numbers offered here are those of Austin 1973 (taken over in
Kassel-Austin);177 Norsa-Vitelli 1935 did not number (and indeed did not even
print) the remains of col. i.
Interpretation Seemingly a conversation among three parties:178
(A.), who has stubbornly set his mind on a course of action (articulated in
10-12?) of which (B.) disapproves, as seemingly does (C.) as well (27 with
n.);
(B.), who has been arguing with (A.) before this (18, cf. 26) and continues to
do so in 22-6, but who momentarily breaks off the conversation with him
to issue orders to (C.) in 13-18; and
(C.), who is consistently referred to in the plural by himself and others (13-14,
16,19, 31?), and who is thus perhaps the coryphaeus but at least represents
some group. 15 Προσπαλτίοισιν is too far removed from 14 φράζεθ’ to
be comfortably taken with it, and is better taken with 16 πέμπειν. In that
case, the point is not that (C.) is to deliver his report to the Prospaltians,
but that he is to seek aid or support for them, and the simplest (and thus
most likely) hypothesis is that he is a Prospaltian himself.

177 I also retain the identification of Speakers (A.), (B.) and (C.) from Austin 1973 (not
printed in Kassel-Austin, who simply offer “( ? )” at a number of likely points in
the text). Storey 2003. 234-6 reverses the identification of the first two speakers, so
that his (A.) is Austin’s (B.) and vice versa. Storey 2011. 193 in his initial discussion
of the play maintains the designations in Storey 2003, but then at Storey 2011. 205,
207 reverses course again to follow Austin 1973.
178 Rusten 2011. 263 reduces the conversation to two speakers, which makes for far
more difficult sense.