Προσπάλτιοι (fr. 264)

357

cholos: in reference to both the foot and the hand. Eupolis:-. Attic authors also use
kylloi indiscriminately in reference to feet and hands
XRVEr Ar. Av. 1379
ότι πολλάκις τό μέν κυλλόν έπι τού ποδός έτασσον, ώς ό ποιητής (17. 21.331)·-, τό
δέ χωλόν επί τής χειρός, ώς Ευπολις·-
They often applied kyllos to the foot, as the poet (does) (I/. 21.331):-, but cholos to
the hand, as Eupolis (does):-
Meter lambic trimeter.
Discussion Kock 1880 1.325; Nauck 1894. 73-4; Gerhard 1909. 200; Degani
1984. 97 n. 97; Storey 2003. 243
Citation context All this material appears to go back to a single source,
which Erbse (noting Eust. p. 206.42-3 = 1.315.16-17 ότι δέ τό χωλόν και έπι
χειρός τίθεται, ρητορικού λεξικού έστι παρασημείωσις, “That chdlos is also
applied to a hand is an observation made in a rhetorical lexicon”) identified as
Aelius Dionysius (k 43; χ 23). Hsch. κ 4519 κυλλός· χωλός must be from the
same source. The play-title is preserved only by Zenobius.
Text εύ (i. e. EY) is preserved only in Pollux, and appears to have been cor-
rupted into σύ (i. e. ΣΥ) in the common ancestor of the other witnesses to
the fragment, creating a problem with the third-person singular verb έστι.
In response to this difficulty, (1) the common source of Suda κ 2671 and Σ Ar.
emended to ού λέγεις; while of the other three witnesses, whose affiliation is
apparent from the fact that they all omit έτέραν, (2a) Suda κ 2670 wrote εΐ σύ ...
σφόδρα, while (2b) the common source of Suda χ 425 and Zenobius dropped the
offending verb and retained σύ σφόδρα. Kock dealt with the problem unhelp-
fully by positing the existence of two different fragments: fr. 247 Κ. ότι χωλός
τήν χεΐρα σύ σφόδρα (anapests; = the text offered by Suda χ 425 and Zenob.),
which he assigned to Prospaltioi, and fr. 343 Κ. ότι χωλός έστι τήν έτέραν χειρ’
ού λέγεις (iambic trimeter; = a combination of the readings offered by Pollux,
on the one hand, and Suda κ 2671 and Σ Ar., on the other), which he included
among the fragments preserved without play-title. See the discussion in Nauck.
Kassel-Austin note that a change of speaker might be inserted before εύ
σφόδρα, but that there is no compelling reason to do so.
Interpretation A description of a male character (note masculine χωλός), de-
pendent on some preceding construction (ότι). Gerhard (followed by Degani)
took this to be a mocking reference to a miser, whose hand is twisted because
he wraps it tight around his money, although it might just as well refer to a