464

Eupolis

Text This is Runkel’s division of speakers (accepted also by Kassel-Austin).
Kaibel proposed instead giving 1-4 to (A.); 5 εις ... έπτακαίδεκ’ to (B.); and
ϊσχε δή κτλ to (A.). On that division of the lines, (B.) would interrupt with his
own entry #17, and (A.) would tell him to stop and continue the catalogue. But
the δέ-clause does not seem witty enough for a bomolochic interjection, and
such remarks are routinely ignored in any case rather than being incorporated
into the discussion, as here.279
In 1, Runkel’s δωδέκατος for the paradosis δέκατος is required by the logic
of the fragment (since “thirteenth” and “fourteenth” follow) and fortuitously
also produces a complete trimeter.
Further on in 1, Emperius’ κάλην for the paradosis καλήν is merely a
matter of altering an accent, manuscripts having no authority in such matters.
For Meineke’s κωλήν (“haunch”), cf. fr. 54 n.
In 3, Kassel-Austin retain the paradosis ό πύργος, “the tower”, presumably
meaning “the man who is too tall”. But (1) the word is not used elsewhere in
this figurative sense, nor (2) is physical height treated as a source of embar-
rassment or even inconvenience. Runkel’s πυρρός is the obvious correction,
red hair being a sign of northern origins and thus of originally slavish status,
matching στιγματίας in 2. Cobet’s πηρός (“maimed”; cf. διεστραμμένος in the
second half of the line with n.) is also possible, but is further from the para-
dosis. Tammaro suggests γρυπός (“hook-nosed”), which is palaeographically
easy but does not seem like enough of a disfigurement to match the others
in the catalogue.
Kassel-Austin place a half stop at the end of 3 and full stops at the end of
4 and of 5, leaving εις τόν κτλ in 5 and όγδοος κτλ in 6 with no construction.
It seems better to place a full stop at the end of 3, a comma at the end of 4
(thus Meineke 1847, albeit with a half stop rather than a full stop at the end
of 3), and a dash after έπτακαίδεκ’ in 5 (showing that (A.) is interrupted and
then continues in 6).
The ordinary Attic εις rather than the poetic (and metrically indifferent)
ές (printed by Kassel-Austin) is wanted in 5; see Willi 2003. 234-5. Runkel’s
τόν δε for the paradosis δε τόν (the more typical position for the particle, and
thus probably an unthinking miscorrection by a scribe) is a matter of metrical
necessity.

279 Kaibel also suggested emending 4-5 to (B.) ές δ’ Άρχέστρατον / τόν φαλακρόν
Αίσιν} έπτακαίδεκ’. (Α.) ϊσχε δή, which is pointless, given that the text is both
metrical and comprehensible as transmitted. Storey 2003. 271 claims to print
Kassel-Austin’s text, but actually offers a different division of speakers, with 4
assigned to (B.) along with ϊσχε δή in 5.