424
Eupolis
<X— χ-^Ι-
—<- x— x-^_>
Or these might be iambic tetrameters catalectic (thus Luppe), like fr. 281,
although this requires positing a lacuna in the first line, making it a solution
of last resort.
e.g. <x— x— x>— —<-> or <x— x—>-
— <—>
Discussion Lobeck 1820. 507; Meineke 1830 Π.529; Cobet 1856. 107 = 1858.
155; Herwerden 1872. 56; Kock 18801.326-7; Luppe 1980. 46 n. 20; Storey 1991.
2-3; Storey 2003. 247-8, 255
Citation context From a collection of words having to do with bathhouses
and bathing. Fr. 490 is cited a few lines earlier. Cf. Hsch. a 3258 άλουσία· τό
μή λούεσθαι. καί άλουτεΐν ομοίως (“alousia: not to wash oneself. Also aloutein
in the same sense”; presumably drawn from the same source).
Text Stephanus (followed by Lobeck, Meineke, Kock and Kassel-Austin)
printed άλουτία in 2 for the divided reading άλουσία Poll.AF : άλουσία
λουτίαν Poll/, but there appears to be little reason to make the change; cf.
fr. 70 άπρασία (cognate with άκρατος); Ar. Th. 904 αφασία (cognate with
άφατος); Aristopho fr. 12.9; Alex. fr. 201.6 with Arnott 1996 ad loc., citing
Kiihner-Blass 1892 ii.275 to the effect that “a tan-sound generally turns into
a sigma before -ία” (translated); adesp. com. fr. 859.3;* * 248 E. Or. 225-6 (quoted
under Interpretation).
Interpretation A high-style lament—note not just the vocabulary (for which,
see individual nn. below) but also the elaborately interlaced word-order249—for
someone no longer able to dress beautifully and keep his250 hair clean, but
instead reduced to filth and rough peasant clothing. Perhaps part of an abuse-
an awkward shift from accusative here to nominative (δτ’ ήν μέντοι νεώτερος
κτλ) there, and subsequent editors have declined to adopt the proposal.
248 In Aristopho, Alexis and the adespoton fragment, Kassel-Austin decline to adopt
Lobeck’s change, despite having done so in the case of Eupolis here.
249 Cobet insisted that a τριβών could not be πιναρός, and treated this as evidence
that the verses were “depravata ... et mutilata”. But surely this slight absurdity is
merely another part of the parody of elevated style, hence the presence of τρίβωνα
only at the very end of 3.
250 Note masculine εχοντ(α).
Eupolis
<X— χ-^Ι-
—<- x— x-^_>
Or these might be iambic tetrameters catalectic (thus Luppe), like fr. 281,
although this requires positing a lacuna in the first line, making it a solution
of last resort.
e.g. <x— x— x>— —<-> or <x— x—>-
— <—>
Discussion Lobeck 1820. 507; Meineke 1830 Π.529; Cobet 1856. 107 = 1858.
155; Herwerden 1872. 56; Kock 18801.326-7; Luppe 1980. 46 n. 20; Storey 1991.
2-3; Storey 2003. 247-8, 255
Citation context From a collection of words having to do with bathhouses
and bathing. Fr. 490 is cited a few lines earlier. Cf. Hsch. a 3258 άλουσία· τό
μή λούεσθαι. καί άλουτεΐν ομοίως (“alousia: not to wash oneself. Also aloutein
in the same sense”; presumably drawn from the same source).
Text Stephanus (followed by Lobeck, Meineke, Kock and Kassel-Austin)
printed άλουτία in 2 for the divided reading άλουσία Poll.AF : άλουσία
λουτίαν Poll/, but there appears to be little reason to make the change; cf.
fr. 70 άπρασία (cognate with άκρατος); Ar. Th. 904 αφασία (cognate with
άφατος); Aristopho fr. 12.9; Alex. fr. 201.6 with Arnott 1996 ad loc., citing
Kiihner-Blass 1892 ii.275 to the effect that “a tan-sound generally turns into
a sigma before -ία” (translated); adesp. com. fr. 859.3;* * 248 E. Or. 225-6 (quoted
under Interpretation).
Interpretation A high-style lament—note not just the vocabulary (for which,
see individual nn. below) but also the elaborately interlaced word-order249—for
someone no longer able to dress beautifully and keep his250 hair clean, but
instead reduced to filth and rough peasant clothing. Perhaps part of an abuse-
an awkward shift from accusative here to nominative (δτ’ ήν μέντοι νεώτερος
κτλ) there, and subsequent editors have declined to adopt the proposal.
248 In Aristopho, Alexis and the adespoton fragment, Kassel-Austin decline to adopt
Lobeck’s change, despite having done so in the case of Eupolis here.
249 Cobet insisted that a τριβών could not be πιναρός, and treated this as evidence
that the verses were “depravata ... et mutilata”. But surely this slight absurdity is
merely another part of the parody of elevated style, hence the presence of τρίβωνα
only at the very end of 3.
250 Note masculine εχοντ(α).