Χρυσοϋν γένος (fr. 298)

465

The lack of an ordinary penthemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura in 6
suggests that the lacuna ought perhaps to be placed elsewhere in the line, e. g.
όγδοος ό τον τρίβωνα l<— x—} έχων
Interpretation (A.) is offering a catalogue of unattractive men; some were
born the way they are (1, 3), one may have been good-looking once but is no
longer (5), and some are repulsive as much for social as for physical reasons
(2, 6). Cobet (comparing Poleis frr. 245-7) took this to be a description of the
individual members of the chorus (which would make the title of the play
deeply ironic), while Crusius (comparing fr. 308 and Ar. V. 74-84) thought the
reference was to persons in the audience. Kaibel pointed out that the latter
thesis in particular sits badly with the lack of deictics in the text, and suggested
that this might instead be a list of potential—horrifyingly inappropriate—nom-
inees for the office of general, a man named Archestratus (PAA 211225) having
held the office around 433/2 BCE (Th. 1.57). The reference to Archestratus as
a member of the group in 4 (n.), at any rate, shows that these are supposed to
be real persons referred to via descriptions of their appearance; they might
all be e. g. members of his systematically ugly—and very large—family (adesp.
com. fr. 827).
Why (B.) expresses shock, horror or the like in 5 is unclear; perhaps he
cannot stand the sheer ugliness of the individuals he is being forced to exam-
ine, or the number of them has become overwhelming. But he fails to keep
(A.) from continuing with his catalogue in any case, suggesting that this is in
the first instance merely the poet’s way of breaking up (A.)’s list so as to lend
it variety and produce something closer to real conversation. In that case,
it is tempting to hypothesize that the verse preceding 1 included a similar
interruption by (B.).
For physical disability in antiquity, see Dasen 1993. 205-13; Garland 1995,
esp. 11-16, 18-44, 76-8; Grmek and Gourevitch 1998. 197-222; the essays
collected in Breitwieser 2012, and cf. fr. 264.
1 δωδέκατος LSJ s. v. δυώδεκα is somewhat misleading. Early epic uses
both δυώδεκα (e.g. II. 1.493 δυωδεκάτη; Od. 9.204; Hes. Op. 774 δυωδεκάτη;
in late 4th-century epic parody at Matro fr. 1.60 = SH 534.60) and δώδεκα
(e.g. II. 1.425 δωδέκατη; Od. 4.636; Hes. fr. 35.7; [Hes.] Sc. 162) metri gratia,
as does Pindar (δυώδεκα at e.g. N. 4.28; δώδεκα at e.g. P. 5.33). In the late
5th century, however, δυώδεκα is almost entirely confined to Herodotus (e. g.
1.16.1; 2.4.1), and δώδεκα is the standard Attic form; cf. Threatte 1996. 420 for
inscriptional evidence supporting this conclusion, δυωκαίδεκα (cf. έκκαίδεκα
and έπτακαίδεκα below) is not attested until well into the Roman period.
ό τυφλός Like English “blind”, the adjective is occasionally used of indi-
viduals who merely see very poorly (Ar. Pl. 747; Antiph. fr. 159.7).