376

Eupolis

-εις is likely a verbal ending with viv as its object. Lobel took the partially
preserved letter before ε to be θ and suggested [προ]θείς.201 But the connecting
tail expected with θ is absent, and rho seems more likely.
The use of viv for the expected αύτόν/αύτήν is tragic style (e.g. A. Th.
415; S. Ai. 82; E. Med. 1285 (lyric); attested in comedy only at Ar. Ach. 775 (a
Megarian speaking what is supposed to be his local dialect); Th. 104/5 (the
tragic poet Agathon is performing); Theopomp. Com. fr. 4.2 (dithyrambic style,
but the text is disputed); Eub. fr. 107.1 (obscure, and the text is again disputed));
perhaps to be connected with the speaker’s previously expressed concern
about whether a word or line is from Sophocles. Alternatively, this might
simply be a scribal error for νυν.
ές φθόρ[ον]202 (cf. A. Th. 252 ούκ ές φθόρον; with Hutchinson 1985 ad
loc.; Ag. 1267 ϊτ’ ές φθόρον; Epich. fr. 154.2 άπαγ’ ές τον φθόρον), a frozen ex-
pression, seems to be a more elevated equivalent of the colloquial ές κόρακας
(fr. 359 with n.), and like it “comes dangerously near ‘go to hell’” (Fraenkel
1950. 585). The speaker thus remains in an elevated register.

fr. 268c = 268.12 K.-A.
]°ς
λόγω
e.g. [πέ]ος Luppe : [πλήθ]ος Austin
]θς
two words
Meter Unknown.
Context POxy. 2740 fr. 1.12-13 = fr. 268.12-13 K.-A.
12 ος· αρκετόν. λόγω[ άν]
τι του άμφότεροι[
12-13 λόγω[ τώδ(ε)· άν]|τί τοϋ άμφότεροι, [δυικώς] suppl. Luppe
12 ος: sufficient, two words [ in]
place of “both” (nom.)

201 Adopted by Austin 1973. Kassel-Austin withdraw the conjecture, but nonethe-
less print ]είς rather than ]εις. Storey 2011. 210-13 prints προ] είς and translates
“abandoning”, as if the text read [ά]φείς (Austin).
202 Not φθορ[άν], as in Lobel and in Austin 1973.