456

Eupolis

fr. 295 K.-A. (273 K.)
ZAreth Pl. Ap. 23e (p. 422 Greene)
Εϋπολις δ’ έν Φίλοις καί επί τη γυναικί 'Ροδία κωμωδεϊ αύτόν
And Eupolis in Philoi also makes fun of (Lykon) in connection with his wife Rhodia
Discussion Sommerstein 1980b. 398-9 = Sommerstein 2009. 52; Storey 2003.
265; Sommerstein 2009. 66
Citation context From a biographical note on Socrates’ accuser Lykon—per-
haps a different man, despite PA and PAA—that also preserves fr. 61; Cratin. fr.
214; Ar. V. 1301; Metag. fr. 10, and that is presumably drawn from a catalogue
of kdmdidoumenoi. Σ1'1 Ar. Lys. 270 (quoting fr. 232) may well be dependent
on the same source.
Interpretation For Lykon (PA 9271; PAA 611820) the father of Autolykos (the
name-character of two of Eupolis’ plays), see fr. 61 n. That Lykon was mocked
for the allegedly shameless behavior of his wife is apparent from fr. 232 (n.)
and Ar. Lys. 270. As a free woman and not a priestess, she would never have
been named onstage (see in general Sommerstein 1980b = 2009. 43-69),274
however, and Rhodia is in any case not a personal name but an ethnic (“the
woman from Rhodes”; attested elsewhere as a name in Attica only for a metic
(PAA 800840) in the late 4th century). The reference to her name here and in ΣΡΙ
Ar. Lys. 270 (citing fr. 232) must accordingly be an ancient scholarly mistake
probably dependent on fr. 58 (where see n.); if the “Rhodian woman” referred
to there was in fact Lykon’s wife, part of the joke may have been that, like her
husband (fr. 61 with n.), she was supposedly a foreigner. Cf. Storey 2003. 91.

274 Essential general background to the issue is presented by Schaps 1977. Storey 2003.
91 suggests that this objection might be vitiated if Lykon’s wife was addressed by
name onstage by the character playing her husband (like Praxagora at Ar. Ec. 520)
or by another female character (like various women at e. g. Ar. Lys. 6, 70). But this
misses the point, which is that Lykon’s wife was a real person, not a fictional char-
acter, and that naming her in any way onstage would have been grossly insulting
to the male members of her family in a way that even the relatively unrestrained
“free speech” of comedy seemingly did not allow.