Munere mortis: Studies in Greek literature in memory of Colin Austin

By Cambridge Philological Society

Colin Austin (1941–2010), Professor of Greek at Cambridge and distinguished editor of poetic texts, was renowned for the precision and brilliance of his scholarship. This collection of studies, offered by some of his pupils, aims to honor his memory. The papers combine philology and textual criticism with a strong interest in setting the works under examination in their literary and cultural context. Individual contributions are devoted to the establishment of the text of the comic poet Menander and the epigrammatist Posidippus of Pella, while one chapter offers a new critical edition of and the first detailed commentary on a number of erotic epigrams. Other essays explore poetic, performative and narratological features in Socratic works of Plato and Xenophon. The volume also includes an analysis of the trope of pathetic fallacy in the bucolic poem Epitaph for Bion and a study of the concept of ‘frigidity’ in ancient literary criticism.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Cambridge Philological Society
• Release date: Oct 31, 2022
• ISBN: 9781913701451

Book preview

Preface

More than ten years have passed since the death of the classical scholar and editor of Greek poetic texts Colin Austin (1941–2010), and the reader interested in appreciations of his contribution to scholarship, particularly to the study of comedy and of poetic works preserved on papyri, is already well provided for.¹ The current volume aims to honour his memory in a different manner. Τhe precision and brilliance of Austin’s scholarship, especially in his capacities as editor and textual critic, have inspired more than one generation of classical scholars. Although he officially had only three doctoral students over his long career, he mentored and taught many other students and visiting scholars at his home institution, the Faculty of Classics at Cambridge. In fact, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, Cambridge became the welcoming hub for many young classicists from European universities, who spent extended research stays at the Faculty of Classics; their singular status and Colin Austin’s friendliness and generosity gave them the privilege to work closely with Austin the scholar and to enjoy the warm friendship of Colin the man. A number of these scholars, together with some of Austin’s Cambridge students, came together desiring to honour both the teacher and the man by offering original studies in Greek literature which reflect their current research interests.

The book is in four parts, the first three of which are arranged in broadly chronological order. Parts I and III are dedicated to the two literary genres which benefited most from Austin’s work: comedy and epigrammatic poetry. In Part I, Menander, the comic poet to whose study Austin dedicated even the final evening of his life, has pride of place. Petrides discusses lacunose passages of the Dyskolos and proposes novel ways to understand and reconstruct them. Stigka works towards the reconstruction of text and plot in Acts I and II of the Misoumenos. Bathrellou reexamines the monologue of Charisios, the main protagonist of the Epitrepontes, in Act IV of that play. In Part III, the focus is on epigrammatic poetry. Garulli studies epigrams of Posidippus of Pella, the establishment of whose text owes much to the work of Colin Austin. Floridi offers a new critical edition of and detailed commentary on the erotic epigrams transmitted solely by the Sylloge Parisina. The essays in Part II use mostly prose works as their staple, but are interested in exploring their relationship with poetic genres, mainly drama and lyric poetry. The essays of Charalabopoulos and Capra, on Plato’s Phaedrus and on the Platonic and Xenophontic Symposia, respectively, examine some of the performative aspects of these works. Charalabopoulos studies the prayer closing the dialogue and argues for a poetic delivery of it; Capra looks at differing modes of narration in the two Symposia and examines how they affect the relationship between words and actions constructed in the two works. Xenophon’s Symposium is also the starting point of Hunter’s essay, which explores an ancient aesthetic category – ‘frigidity’ – by examining accusations of it in ancient humour and poetical and rhetorical criticism. In the volume’s last essay (Part IV), Di Nino offers a detailed study of the trope of pathetic fallacy in the bucolic poem Epitaph for Bion, whose anonymous eulogist presents himself as a former student of Bion’s and repeatedly praises his teacher’s poetic excellence. Focusing on a poem honouring the memory of its author’s master, the final chapter provides closure to the volume by alluding to the volume’s raison d’être: the desire of a group of scholars to offer their munus mortis to their teacher, in hope that his memory οὔ ποτ’ ὀλεῖται.

The idea for this volume was first conceived in 2013, at a London conference, which a few of the contributors happened to attend. Despite the initial enthusiasm, the volume, like many editorial projects, had to face a series of difficulties and setbacks, which delayed its completion. To the editors’ great regret, the price of the delay was high; Mishtu Austin, Colin’s wife and a most generous and warm hostess and friend, died on 1 February 2022 and so never saw the volume. It is of some consolation that, through the kindness of Teesta and Topun, the daughter and son of Colin and Mishtu, one of Mishtu’s batiks adorns the front cover.

We would like to thank the Cambridge Philological Society for agreeing to publish the volume as a supplement of the Cambridge Classical Journal and Christopher Whitton for being a most considerate and courteous series editor. Thanks also go to Barbara Docherty for her meticulous copy-editing. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Paola Bassino, for her useful insights into the Homeric Lives, and to Andrea Capra, Timo Christian, Lucia Floridi and Paolo Scattolin, for providing us with bibliographic material and offering encouragement and support.

February 2022

Eftychia B

ATHRELLOU

Margherita Maria D

I NINO

¹See Hunter 2010, Bastianini 2011, Handley 2011a, Tammaro 2011, Hunter and Parsons 2015. For Austin’s publications, see Esposito, Garulli and Neri 2011; they helpfully include Austin’s scholarly contributions which appeared in works published by other scholars.

PART I

Comedy

Textual notes on Menander’s Dyskolos

Antonis K. Petrides

Colin Austin had an incomparable knack for filling up ‘black holes’ and calling out scholars’ ‘hallucinations’ about comic and other texts.¹ He would enjoy this humble homage to his memory, I believe, not least because he would relish the opportunity to object to my suggestions with his kindly phlegm (and to be proven right in most if not all cases).

In what follows, I discuss a selection of passages from Menander’s Dyskolos (ll. 39–44, 88–94, 96–7, 299–301, 352–5, 498–9, 596–600, 730, 836–8, 924–5 and 937–40) in relation to which I propose new supplements and/or endorse alternative readings suggested by others in recent decades, among them some of Austin’s own.²

Prologue, lines 39–44:

At the close of his prologue, the god Pan turns his attention to Sostratos, the rich young man from the city to whom he has inspired love for Knemon’s daughter as a reward for her devotion to the Nymphs. Papyrus Bodmer (B)³ has a gap of four to five letters at the beginnings of lines 41–5:

There is a young man whose father is a very wealthy farmer with land in this vicinity worth many talents. This fellow is versed in the ways of the city. When he came up here to hunt accompanied by another hunter and found himself at this place not by accident, I made him fall in love through divine inspiration.

42 ἀνιό]ν̣τ’ Austin: ἐπιό]ν̣τ’ Russo ap. Austin: ἰόν]τ᾽ Gallavotti, Marzullo: ἥκο]ν̣τ’ ed. pr.: ἐλθό]ν̣τ’ Diano, Mette, Kraus: ἰδόν]τ᾽ Sandbach: καλό]ν̣ τ’ van Groningen: φίλο]ν̣ τ’ Stoessl, JMartin: ἄρτι Gallavotti

43 καὶ δ᾽ ο]ὐ Marzullo: φίλο]υ ed. pr.: δούλο]υ Webster: ἄλλο]υ Peek: αὐτο]ῦ Barigazzi, Blake (αὑτοῦ Austin): ὁμο]ῦ Gallavotti: καί πο]υ Diano: ὁδο]ῦ van Groningen: μάλ᾽ ε]ὖ Austin: τότ᾽ ο]ὐ Bingen: εἶτ’ ο]ὐ Siegmann: χθές, ο]ὐ̣ Stoessl: κἀμοῦ Steffen: παραλαβοντ’ B, corr. ed. pr.

42 ἀνιό]ν̣τ’: Four different strategies for supplementation have been explored. Van Groningen 1960b looked for an adjective qualifying further the young man (καλό]ν̣ τ’, ‘and handsome, too’). Gallavotti 1976 supplemented an adverb signifying the time of the youth’s arrival (ἄρτι, ‘just now’). Stoessl 1962: 126–7, keeping B’s παραλαβόντ’ in line 43, printed φίλο]ν̣ τ’ here as its direct object (‘taking a friend with him as well’). Most editors, however, restore a participle dependent on νεανίσκον (l. 44). Many prefer Victor Martin’s ἥκο]ν̣τ’ over ἐλθό]ν̣τ’ proposed by Diano, Merkelbach and Kraus. The two are practically synonymous (‘when he came’), but the former seems relatively short for the gap. Gallavotti’s and Marzullo’s ἰόν]τ’ (‘who went’) fits even worse; nevertheless, Marzullo correctly pointed out that the proper Greek for ‘going hunting’ was not ἥκειν or ἔρχεσθαι but ἰέναι ἐπὶ θήραν (Hdt. 1.37, 4.114). Building on that, Austin’s ἀνιόν]̣τ’ giveṣ the appropriate sense (‘as he came up to hunt’) and fits the lacuna perfectly (2004b: 209–10). More importantly, Austin’s suggestion also conveys the topography of the play: to come from the city to Phyle, Sostratos has moved inland (ἄνω) and indeed upwards a mountainous terrain.

43 καὶ δ᾽ ο]ὐ̣: The plethora of suggested supplements can be categorised as follows: (a) A number of them qualify κυνηγέτου. Among these, Martin’s φίλο]υ is doubtful since Pyrrhias, his συγκυνηγός (ll. 42, 71), is Sostratos’ slave, not his ‘friend’. Thus, more cogently, Webster’s δούλο]υ (‘slave’) points to the character’s genus, which is not unfit for a New Comedy prologue (Barigazzi’s αὐτοῦ and Austin’s αὑτοῦ also underline that this second hunter is Sostratos’ property). Gallavotti’s ὁμο]ῦ (‘along with …’) reduplicates μετὰ κυνηγέτου τινός unnecessarily. Peek’s ἄλλο]υ keeps the qualification of κυνηγέτης neutral (‘some other hunter’). (b) The second group of supplements are linked with κατὰ τύχην. They make Pan assert that Sostratos’ arrival was either an accident (Diano’s καί π]ου κατὰ τύχην; van Groningen’s ὁδο]ῦ κατὰ τύχην, ‘au hasard de la route’; cf. l. 44), or a lucky accident (Austin’s μάλ᾽ ε]ὖ κατὰ τύχην), or not an accident at all. The last option, which accentuates the god’s involvement in the action, has attracted the most favour. Bingen’s τότ᾽ ο]ὐ, Siegmann’s εἶτ’ ο]ὐ (‘then/after that, as he had not come here by chance, I …’), and Stoessl’s χθές, ο]ὐ̣ (‘yesterday, when not accidentally he had come …’) present Sostratos’ possession by Pan as the outcome of his having been led to the god’s milieu. So does Marzullo’s connective καὶ δ᾽ ο]ὐ, which gives smoother syntax, linking the two participles (ἀνιόντ᾽, παραβαλόντ᾽) more tightly. All four of these supplements have the god present his role discreetly, as befits the action (Pan’s influence, such as it is, is never experienced directly after the prologue). On the contrary, Steffen’s κἀμοῦ κατὰ τύχην in a sense ‘meo impulsu, meo nutu’, appears too stiff (1966: 60). Marzullo’s solution is satisfactory. He cites no parallels but cf. Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica 2.985–6 καί νύ κε δηθύνοντες Ἀμαζονίδεσσιν ἔμειξαν / ὑσμίνην καὶ δ᾽ οὔ κεν ἀναιμωτὶ ἐρίδηναν.

Act I, lines 88–94:

Sostratos sent his slave Pyrrhias to speak to Knemon, his beloved’s father – a grave error of judgement, it turns out, because the old man is violently intolerant of trespassers. Pyrrhias dashes onstage, thinking that Knemon is hot in pursuit behind him. When he realises that this is not the case, he catches his breath and starts telling Sostratos the story of his abortive encounter with the misanthrope. His master believes that the slave is inebriated:

90 πρὸς ἣν van Groningen dubitanter

ἔπεμπ̣[ες Page, JMartin: ἔπεμψ[ας ed. pr.

in fin. Σώστρατ᾽. ὢ Austin: αἴτιος ed. pr.: ἄξιος Barrett Monaco Shipp: ἕνεκα δὴ Diano: ἵνα τύχω Kamerbeek: ἦρξέ μοι Handley: ἥψατο Steffen: Ἡράκλεις Arnott: ὦ θεοί Page: τάλας ἐγώ Barigazzi: αἲ τάλαν Gigante: ὄρθριον Gallavotti

91 ἀπώλεσα London: ἕαξα γὰρ ed. pr. (κατέαξα Barigazzi, Barrett, Thierfelder: κατεάξατο Gigante: γὰρ κατεάγην Olszaniec): συνέτριψα Shipp: ἔθραυσα Thierfelder: ἔρηξα γὰρ Austin dubitanter: κατεκοψάμην Gallavotti

92, 93, 94 paragr. sub ll. B. personarum vices incertae.

92 nonnulli versus lacunae Pyrrhiae continuant; quare ἅπα[ντας τῶν ποδῶν suppl. Bingen, Oguse: τοὺς ἐμούς ed. pr.: ἐκποδὼν (vel sim.) van Groningen. alii post ἅπα[ντας distinguentes Sostrato verba v. 92 ultima et v. 93 usque ad πεπαρώινηκε tribuunt. qua ratione in fine suppl. ἆρ᾽ ὁ παῖς Lloyd-Jones: ἀλλ’ ἴσως Kraus: μαίνετ᾽ ἢ Webster (Chaereae eadem Mette): Ἡράκλεις Gallavotti, Handley: οὑτοσὶ Barigazzi, Stoessl: ὦ θεοί van Groningen: ὄψομαι Shipp: πεύσομαι Quincey. post πεπαρ. (93) notam interrogationis postulat Lloyd-Jones: post δεῦ[ρο alii ἅπα[ντας fere omnes: ἀπέ̣[λθετε Stoessl aliter vv. 92–3 reconstruunt Monaco (ἅπα[ντας. δεῦρο δὲ] / ἐλθών τι πεπαρώινηκε δεύ[τερον βαλών) et Steffen (τοὺς δακτύλους [δ᾽ ἐγὼ τρέχων] / σχεδόν τι προσπταίων ἅπα[ντας ὤλεσα)

93 ἐλθών τι ed. pr.: ελθωντι B: ἐλθὼν τί van Groningen: ἐλθόντι Diano, Marzullo: ἐλθὼν δὲ Sherk πεπαρωνηκε B (πεπαρὼν ἧκε def. Eitrem, coll. Pind. Pyth. 2.51): πεπαρώινηκε Sherk: πάλλων ἧκε ed. pr.: πεπαλὼν ἧκε Diano: [μετ᾽ ἔμ᾽ ἀεὶ] / ἐλθών τι ἐπαίρων ἧκε Kraus: ἐλθὼν τί γ᾽ ἐπαίρων Kamerbeek δεῦ[ρο multi: δεῦ[τε Blake: (Σω.) δ᾽ εἴ[ς σε Foss: δεύ[τερον βαλών ed. pr. (βαλεῖ Diano) δεῦ[ρο (aut δεῦ[ρ᾽) accepto in fin. suppl. [Σω.] Πυρρία Blake: γοῦν φυγὼν Page: δ᾽ ἑπόμενος Kraus: δηλαδή JMartin: ἔφυγέν τινα. Lloyd-Jones: [Χαι.] παραφρονῶν (scil. εὔδηλός ἐστι) Mette: οὐ γὰρ φρονῶν Gallavotti: νῦν ἰὼν Sherk: ὃς ἐσβαλὼν Quincey: [Πυ.] ὀργὴν ἔχων Stoessl: ἐλεύσεται vel δ’ ἔρχεται Diano: προσβαλῶν van Groningen: προσιὼν Barigazzi: προσβαλεῖ.] / (Σω.) εὔδηλός ἐστι Lloyd-Jones

94 dicolon post εϲτι B

εὔδηλον Jacques

ἐξωλ̣[έστατος ego: ἐξώλ̣[ης multi: [Σω.] ἐξώλ̣[ης γενοῦ Stoessl (ἄρα Handley, olim μὲν οὖν: πάνυ Gallavotti, Mette, Diano): [Πυ.] ἐξώλ̣[ης γέρων van Groningen: ἐγὼ JMartin et al.: ἐξώλ[ης φρενῶν vel ἔξω π[εριπατεῖ Goerschen: ἐξώλ[εις ταχὺ Barrett, Lloyd-Jones: [Σω.] ἔξω [τῶν φρενῶν ed. pr., Foss, qui tamen cum πεπαρώινηκε tum ἔξω τῶν φρενῶν Pyrrhiam loqui putat: ἔξω [τῶν βελῶν Blake: ἐξώμ[ιζε δὴ Quincey

90–1 ἔπεμπ̣[ες, Σώστρατ᾽. ὢ] / μεγάλου κακοῦ: The apparatus lists twelve supplements proposed for the end of line 90. They fall into three categories: (a) The first category links the supplement to μεγάλου κακοῦ in the following line. The supplement includes alternatively: (i) a verb: ἵνα τύχω Kamerbeek (‘to encounter a great evil’); ἦρξέ μοι Handley (‘was the beginning of a great misfortune for me’), ἥψατο Steffen (‘is touched by a great evil’); (ii) an adjective: αἴτιος ed. pr. (‘is the cause of’), ἄξιος Barrett, Shipp (‘deserves’); or (iii) a preposition (ἕνεκα δὴ Diano, ‘because of’). (b) In the second category, the supplement is an exclamation or a vocative, which makes μεγάλου κακοῦ itself a genitivus exclamativus (Σώστρατ᾽. ὢ Austin; Ἡράκλεις Arnott, τάλας ἐγώ Barigazzi, αἲ τάλαν Gigante, ὦ θεοί Page). Finally, in category (c), Gallavotti’s ὄρθριον, an adverbial adjective (‘at dawn’), qualifies ἔπεμπες. I would disqualify Gallavotti’s suggestion because it repeats information already given to the audience at line 70. The supplements in category (a) are likely, but the dramaticality of an exclamative is hard to undervalue. Arnott’s Ἡράκλεις, ‘by Heracles!’, is tempting, as it recreates Chaereas’ reaction in the previous scene (l. 73), but if we are after symmetry, Austin’s Σώστρατ᾽. ὢ works much better: it makes Pyrrhias address his master by name twice (he will do so again in l. 95) like Chaereas did (ll. 51, 57) and in the same short interval.

92–4 ἅπα[ντας] … εὔδηλός ἐστι: The restoration of these lines and the distribution of speakers are uncertain. In my interpretation, Pyrrhias first complains that he nearly broke all his toes trying to escape Knemon. Then Sostratos turns to Chaereas, wondering if his slave is drunk. His friend expresses certainty that he is.

B gives paragraphoi under lines 92, 93 and 94, but no dicola. Scholars are divided around who delivers the words missing in line 92. Those who believe that it is Pyrrhias, ignoring the paragraphos, usually supplement a phrase that defines further what Pyrrhias broke or how he broke it: e.g. τῶν ποδῶν, lit. ‘[I broke] all the toes of my feet’, which sounds less objectionable in Greek than in English, but is still rather wordy; or τοὺς ἐμούς, ‘all my toes’ (though the definite article, τοὺς δακτύλους, already indicates possession); or ἐκποδὼν / ἐλθών, ‘trying to get out of the way’. Conversely, other scholars, whom I follow in part, place a full stop after ἅπα[ντας and a question mark after πεπαρώινηκε or δεῦ[ρο. Thus, they make Sostratos, turning to Chaereas as if Pyrrhias is not there, question the slave’s state of mind, e.g. Lloyd-Jones: … ἆρ’ ὁ παῖς (ἀλλ’ ἴσως Kraus)] / ἐλθών τι πεπαρώινηκε; (‘is it possible that the slave has come here rather drunk?’); Webster: μαίνετ’ ἢ (‘is he mad or … ?’). Alternatively, but in the same vein, the gap in line 92 is filled with an emphatic interjection or deixis spoken by Sostratos, and a full stop is posited after πεπαρώινηκε (Sostratos being certain that Pyrrhias is mad): … Ἡράκλεις (or οὑτοσὶ: ὦ θεοί: ὁ μιαρός vel sim.)] / ἐλθών τι πεπαρώινηκε (Handley, Gallavotti, Barigazzi, Diano; van Groningen prints τί). A third approach makes Sostratos, who is now the subject of ἐλθών, express a wish to investigate the matter further: … ὄψομαι or πεύσομαι] / ἐλθὼν τί πεπαρώινηκε, ‘I will see/find out what he is raving about’. Monaco, going a fourth way, keeps Pyrrhias as the speaker until line 102 and prints here: ἅπα[ντας. δεῦρο δὲ] / ἐλθών τι πεπαρώινηκε δεύ[τερον βαλών;] / εὔδηλός ἐστι, νὴ Δία …

93 ἐλθών τι πεπαρώινηκε: Such an idiomatic use of τι with a verb (‘a bit, somewhat᾽) appears again in line 107 (ἰδεῖν τί σε / σπεύδων). Diano’s … αὐτίκα] / ἐλθόντι, spoken by Sostratos as a dative ‘des zeitlichen Standpunktes’ (Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950: 152; cf. K–G i.424–5), with Pyrrhias as the subject, did not convince; neither did Sherk’s change of τι to δέ.

πεπαρώινηκε; ‘behaving like a drunken fool’, spoken by Sostratos to Chaereas, perhaps with a touch of irritation and disbelief. The verb makes excellent sense and is common in comedy and Menander (Men. Asp. 386, Epitr. 472, Perik. 988, fr. 736 K–A); hence, the various imaginative emendations listed in the apparatus (including Eitrem’s πεπαρὼν ἧκε) are moot. It is unlikely that with πεπαρώινηκε Sostratos speaks of Knemon, prompting ‘evidently’ as Chaereas’ reaction. The slave has not given enough details yet to justify such an impression of Knemon on the part of the two youths.

δεῦ[: δεῦ[ρο (or δεῦ[ρ᾽, ‘here’) is accepted by most scholars, but there is no agreement either on the missing content or the persona loquens of this last part of the line. Editors usually have Sostratos and/or Chaereas commenting on Pyrrhias’ frenzied conduct. Otherwise, some make the slave warn the others about the approaching Knemon. The latter option seems less plausible since Pyrrhias now understands that Knemon is no longer chasing him. Nearly all editors believe, as I do, that εὔδηλός ἐστι complements this line and is spoken by Chaereas. The only exception is Blake, who ends line 93 with a full stop (δεῦ[ρο, Πυρρία). Lloyd-Jones’ ἔφυγέν τινα, ‘he avoided somebody’, could be spoken by either of the youths. Its emphasis on Pyrrhias running away from someone would anticipate the anger soon to be expressed by Sostratos, who suspects that the slave has done something naughty.

94 εὔδηλός ἐστι: ‘clearly’. The papyrus places a dicolon after this phrase. εὔδηλός ἐστι is better assigned to Chaereas, who confirms Sostratos’ suspicion before the latter subscribes to the theory himself with an exasperated oath (νὴ Δί’). Sostratos has already regretted having sent Pyrrhias on a task for which his sort is unfit. The slave’s conduct now confirms his fears since he seems not only to have failed in his mission but to have caused damage to boot.

ἐξωλ̣[έστατος: ‘an utter scoundrel’. This is my supplement; cf. Lycophron fr. 2.1 Snell–Kannicht (1 Cipolla) παῖδες κρατίστου πατρὸς ἐξωλέστατοι (addressed by Silenus to the satyrs; on their relation to the New Comic slave, Wiles 1991: 102). Sostratos, speaking to Chaereas, uses a term of abuse for the slave. Sostratos is an affable character, but this does not prevent him from reverting momentarily to the typical master–slave pattern: he will do so again in lines 138–45. Stoessl’s ἐξώλ̣[ης γενοῦ (‘may you be utterly destroyed’) is also attractive, although the usual imprecation in comedy is ἐξώλης ἀπόλοιο (Men. Sam. 367). It is also conceivable but less likely, in my view, that νὴ Δία may mark the beginning of Pyrrhias’ second speech. In this case, ἐξώλ̣[ would be connected with ἀπολο̣[ύμεθ᾽ in the following line (ἐξώλ̣[εις ταχύ, / Σώ]στρατ᾽, ἀπολο̣[ύμεθ᾽, ‘we will soon be utterly destroyed, Sostratos!’, Lloyd-Jones, Barrett). On the contrary, making Pyrrhias say ἐξώλ̣[ης ἄρα] / ἀπολο̣[ίμην (‘may I be utterly destroyed!’, Kraus, Kamerbeek) makes little sense.

Act I, lines 96–7:

Pyrrhias interrupts his narrative shortly to catch his breath:

ἀλλ’ οὐ δύναμαι λ[έγειν, προ]έστηκεν δέ μοι

τὸ πνεῦμα.

But I cannot speak; I am short of breath!

προ]έστηκεν Prauscello: ]ϲἕϲτηκεν B: προσ]έστηκεν ed. pr.: ἕστηκεν Quincey

96–7 προ]έστηκεν δέ μοι / τὸ πνεῦμα: cf. Plautus Mercator 114 enicat suspiritus (uix suffero hercle anhelitum) (‘my breathing is so difficult it is killing me – I can hardly bear the shortness of breath’); Asinaria 327 non vides / me ex cursura anhelitum etiam ducere? (‘can’t you see that I’m still out of breath from running?’); Epidicus 204–5 sine respire quaeso … recipe anhelitum (‘let me breathe a little, please ... Catch your breath’). Martin’s προσ]έστηκεν was accepted almost universally by editors. Quincey attempted χ[ωρεῖν ὁμό]σ᾽. ἕστηκεν (‘I cannot march ahead with you, I am short of breath’), believing that φυλακτικῶς gives a military colour to the language. Roberts suggested λέγ᾽ εὐθύς]· ἕστηκεν, but, as Prauscello showed (2001: 8), his parallels for such an expression are inexact. Martin’s proposal, too, capitalises on B’s ]ϲἕϲτηκεν, but its textual foundations are weak: in [Aristotle] Problems 864a12 (προσιστᾶν τοὺς ἐμέτους, ‘to stop the vomit’) and 870a33 (τὸ πνεῦμα προσίστησιν, ‘causes shortness of breath’), the verb προσίστημι, contrary to Dyskolos, is active and transitive. Prauscello, whose supplement I print, interprets προΐσταται as ἐπιπολάζει, describing ‘short, superficial breath’ (Hesychius π 3509 Hansen) and brings to bear Hippocrates Epidemiae 5.42.3 ὀδύνῃ εἴχετο τὴν γαστέρα … πνεῦμα δὲ προΐστατο (‘he suffered from severe pain in his stomach … his breath was short’); [Hippocrates] De diaeta acutorum 4.2 Joly, pp. 69–70 (= Littré II, p. 400, 3.2) πνευμάτων προστάσιες (‘bouts of shortness of breath’); and the similar ἄνω ἔχειν τὸ πνεῦμα in Menander fr. 25.4 K–A μόλις λαλοῦντα καὶ τὸ πνεῦμ᾽ ἔχοντ᾽ ἄνω (‘barely able to speak and with his breath short’).

Act II, lines 299–301:

Suspecting that Sostratos has dishonourable, even criminal, intentions for his half-sister, Gorgias launched a vehement attack against the urban youth. Daos, Gorgias’ slave, cheered his master’s words. Sostratos now seeks to respond. As he turns to Gorgias asking for permission to speak, he is interrupted by Daos, to whom he replies rather curtly:

300 paragr. sub l. et dicolon post ἄκουσον B.

verba εὖ γε … γένοιτο Dao tribuunt plerique, Pyrrhiae ed. pr., Lloyd-Jones (haud recte): (Γο.) εὖ γε.

(Δα.) δέσποθ᾽ … γένοιτο van Groningen

σοι ed. pr.: μοι Harsh, Quincey

301 paragr. sub l.B

σοι] / ἀγαθὰ γένοιτ᾽ <ἄν> Merkelbach

πρ[όσμενε ego dubitanter: πρ[ὶν μαθεῖν Sandbach: πρ[όσεχε δή (μοι Gallavotti) ed. pr.

300–1 εὖ γε … γένοιτο: I follow most editors in giving εὖ γε … γένοιτο to Daos, who thus intervenes to congratulate his master on his earlier speech, before Gorgias has the chance to concede to Sostratos’ request for a hearing. Van Groningen attributes εὖ γε to Gorgias, taking it as a ‘réponse affirmative à une demande ou une proposition précédentes’ (1960b: 47). But εὖ γε is nowhere equivalent to καλῶς; it can only denote ‘enthusiastic approval, not mild assent’ (Ritchie 1962: 40). Sostratos, too, interrupts, shooing Daos away; compare Terence Eunuchus 861 (Thais to Pythias): abin hinc, insana? (‘will you leave, crazy lady?’).

301 καὶ σύ γ’ ὁ λαλῶν: Delivered by Sostratos in a reprehending tone, implying that Daos speaks in excess; cf. line 96. Gomme and Sandbach assume that Sostratos is still addressing Gorgias (1973: 184). λαλῶν, however, would constitute too curt a reproach on the part of the urban youth, who has been nothing but courteous to Gorgias so far; καὶ σύ γ᾽ is a decisive marker of a change of addressee. The slave may not have done enough talking to be branded a ‘chatterbox’ (thus Gomme and Sandbach), but even this minimal interference feels cumbersome at such a grave moment.

πρ[όσμενε: The gap is approximately six to seven letters wide. Sandbach’s πρ[ὶν μαθεῖν (‘you, too’, scil. ἄκουσον, ‘who gab before learning all the facts’) is well paralleled (in Gomme and Sandbach 1973: 184), but it does not sit well with Daos as the addressee. Equally, an exhortation to the slave to pay attention, as restored by Martin’s πρ[όσεχε δή (μοι Gallavotti), seems out of order: it is not Daos whom Sostratos is trying to convince. I suggest a third possibility. Addressing Daos, Sostratos may be ordering him to ‘wait’, that is, to stay silent until he has made his point to his master: πρ[όσμενε would fit both the lacuna and the meaning. The usage is common; cf. Sophocles Electra 1236 and 1399 (ἀλλὰ σῖγ’ ἔχουσα πρόσμενε and ἀλλὰ σῖγα πρόσμενε, respectively: ‘be silent and wait’), Oedipus Tyrannus 620 ἡσυχάζων προσμενῶ (‘I will be quiet and wait’); from Menander, cf. Epitrepontes 364 πρόσμεινον, ἱκετεύω σ’ (‘wait, I beseech you’) and 858 μ̣ ι̣κ̣ρό̣ ν̣, γ̣ύν̣αι, πρ̣ό̣σ̣ μει̣νον (‘woman, wait a bit’); and from the Dyskolos itself, cf. 906–7 μικρὸν / πρόσμεινον, ἱκετεύω σε (‘wait a bit, I beseech you’).

Act II, lines 352–5:

Gorgias tries to dissuade Sostratos from pursuing the seemingly impossible ambition of marrying Knemon’s daughter. During their conversation, Gorgias casually proposes that Sostratos follows them to the fields. There, he will experience Knemon’s behaviour first-hand, especially the way the old man reacts every time the question of giving his daughter in marriage is brought up:

352 πῶς … ἐμβαλῶ Sostrato dat Merkelbach nota interrogationis distinguens. λόγον … ἄσμενος

(354) Sostrato van Groningen

353 αὐτῶι περὶ] van Groningen, περὶ iam ed. pr. (μάτην ed. pr.: ἐγὼ Blake, Kraus: εἰκῆι Barigazzi: τυχὸν Eitrem: ἤδη Bingen: οὕτω Fraenkel: οὔ τις vel οὐδεὶς Gallavotti: ἐκεῖ Peek): περὶ τοῦ] γάμου <τοῦ> Webster: (Δα). μήπω περὶ] γ. Merkelbach (olim (Γο.) ἀλλ᾽ οὐ περὶ] γ.)

354 οὐδέποθ᾽ ὁρῶ]ν ego: ἴδοιμι κἂ]ν Blake, Post: ἴδοιμ᾽ ἂ]ν αὐτὸς γενόμενόν <ποτ᾽> (vel <μάλ᾽>) ἄσμενος Barrett: ἂν ἠξίου]ν van Groningen: ἅπαξ μαθὼ]ν ed. pr. (ἤδη London: οἶδ᾽ ἂν Kraus): ἅπαξ ἰδὼ]ν Peek: ἅμ’ ἐκμαθὼ]ν Bingen: ἅμ’ ὑπονοῶ]ν αὔθ’ ὡς Barigazzi: οὔ πως ἔτλη]ν Gallavotti: (Δα.) αἴσθητ᾽ ἐπὰν] Merkelbach ἄσμενος. dist. van Groningen et al.

353–4 τὸ τοιοῦτο γὰρ / [οὐδέποθ᾽ ὁρῶ]ν αὐτὸς γενόμενον ἄσμενος: As many as ten letters can be supplemented at the beginning of line 354. What is Gorgias saying here? Scholars treat this gap in two ways: (a) ἄσμενος refers to Gorgias, who expresses his eagerness to see his sister married (‘because I would be very pleased to see such a thing happen’). Strong punctuation is posited after ἄσμενος, and the lacuna is filled with expressions such as ἴδοιμι κἂν (Blake, Post), ἴδοιμ᾽ ἂ]ν αὐτὸς γενόμενόν <ποτ᾽> or <μάλ᾽> ἄσμενος (Barrett), ἂν ἠξίου]ν (van Groningen). (b) ἄσμενος refers to Knemon and qualifies μαχεῖται. Gorgias would be describing how mentioning the girl’s marriage would prompt Knemon to launch another one of his harangues: ἅπαξ μαθών (Martin; ἅπαξ ἰδών Peek), ‘as soon as he realises’, what Gorgias is about, ἄσμενος / εὐθὺς μαχεῖται πᾶσι (‘he will gladly start berating everyone’). A third option would be to assume that ἄσμενος still refers to Knemon but qualifies a word contained in the gap; I suggest οὐδέποθ᾽ ὁρῶ]ν.

Act III, lines 498–9:

Act III is dominated by the attempts of the slave Getas and the cook Sikon to borrow from Knemon small utensils for the sacrifice. Getas’ first foray is a miserable failure, as Knemon, who has neither respect nor patience for social protocols, viciously repels him. The self-important cook steps in to save the day. He believes that Getas’ débâcle was due to the slave’s uncouth way of asking rather than Knemon’s character. Sikon is in for a shock.

ὢ τῆς ἀμαθίας. παιδίον παῖ[δ᾽ οὐ καλῶ

ἐγώ.

Oh, the ignorance! I, for one, do not address anyone as ‘little boy’ or ‘boy’!

498 παῖ[δ᾽ οὐ καλῶ suppleam: παῖ [παῖ καλῶ ed. pr.: παῖ [παῖ καλεῖν Winnington-Ingram: παῖ[δες καλεῖς; van Groningen

499 ἐγώ (sine puncto) van Groningen

498–9 παιδίον παῖ[δ᾽ οὐ καλῶ] / ἐγώ: The emphatic personal pronoun is meant to accentuate Sikon’s superiority over those he is criticising. The ed. pr.’s παιδίον παῖ [παῖ καλῶ contradicts this sense. Winnington-Ingram’s καλεῖν (an exclamatory infinitive) conveys the correct meaning (‘I to use this boy-boy address!’) but leaves ἐγώ rather loose syntactically. Sikon seems to be saying that, knowing better, he would abandon the generic address for a more appropriate blandishment. Sure enough, he uses πατρίδιον (in l. 499); I suggest παιδίον παῖ[δ᾽ οὐ καλῶ] / ἐγώ.

Act III, lines 596–600:

596 [τάλας Winnington-Ingram: [γύναι ed. pr.: [τρέχε Gigante, Diano: [μόνον vel [τί νῦν Gallavotti: [σὺ γραῦ Lloyd-Jones

597 ἐγώ, τάλας ἐρημίας τῆς νῦν, [τάλας Bingen, Winnington-Ingram: εγωταλαϲτηϲερημιαϲτηϲνυν B: [γε δή Diano: [ὅμως Mette: [φιλεῖ vel [φίλος Post: [ὕπο vel [ἔπι van Groningen: οἴμοι τάλας τῆς νῦν ἐρημίας [ἐγὼ Shipp: ἐρημία ’σθ’ ἧς νῦν [ἐρῶ Kraus: ἧς νῦν ἐρημίας [ἔχω Ferrari: ἐγ. τάλ. ἐρ. τίς νῦν φθονεῖ vel τίς ἐρ. τῆς νῦν φθ. Gallavotti: (Σιμ.) ἐγὼ τάλαιν᾽ ἐρημίας τῆς νῦ[ν. (Γε.) ἐγὼ ed. pr.

598 εἰ[ς τὸ φρέαρ· suppl. Handley, τί δή; ego (fin. τί γὰρ Handley: τί μοι Barrett: πέδηι Gallavotti): εἴ[τ᾽ ἐς βόρβορον Diano: εἴ[τ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸν κάδον ed. pr: εἴ[τ᾽ ἔστιν κάδος] / εἴτ᾽ … Barigazzi: εἰ[κότως ἐγώ Post: εἴ[σω σχοινίον Bingen

599 paragr. sub l. B

ειτ’ B, corr. Handley, def. ed. pr: εἶτ᾽ Post: εἴ γ᾽ Bingen: ἔνεστιν vel ἔξεστιν Barrett

ἄλλ᾽ Winnington-Ingram

ποριοῦ[μεν Barrett, Thierfelder: ποριού[μεθα ed. pr.

in fin. κρεάγριον ego: ἁρπάγην Shipp: κλίμακα Bingen: σοι κάδον Thierfelder, Winnington-Ingram: ἄσμενοι ed. pr.: γ᾽ ἡδέως Diano: αὐτίκα Eitrem: ὕστερον Stoessl: οὐ γὰρ ἂν Gallavotti: σοι βρόχον Post: σοι σαπρὸν van Groningen: πάτταλον Merkelbach

596–8 τάλας] / ἐγώ, τάλας ἐρημίας τῆς νῦν, [τάλας,] / ὡς οὐδὲ εἷς: B’s text is unmetrical. The ed. pr. wrongly divides lines 597–600 between Simiche and Getas. The speaker is Knemon until ἔτ’ ἐστιν ἄλλ’. Bingen and Winnington-Ingram supply the simplest and most effective solution by dropping the first τῆς and supplementing another τάλας at the end of the line (more suggestions are collected in the apparatus). Knemon exclaims ‘o wretched me’ three times, echoing Simiche’s threefold δυστυχής (l. 574). The standard tragic interjection τάλας ἐγώ, τάλας is also found in Menander Samia 532. For the tripling, Sophocles Ajax 981–3 Τευ. ὢ τάλας ἐγώ, τάλας. / Χο. πάρα στενάζειν. Τευ. ὦ περισπερχὲς πάθος. / Χο. ἄγαν γε, Τεῦκρε. Τευ. φεῦ τάλας. Knemon’s outburst is so pathetic it even causes Getas to change his attitude. It may seem strange that Knemon is decrying his isolation, but it is an understandable moment of weakness at a crucial plot turning point: even Knemon realises that this task is beyond him. In the end, the fall will shatter both his body and his worldview. Knemon’s words here anticipate Gorgias’ in lines 694–5: τοιοῦτόν ἐστ’ ἐρημία κ[ακόν,] / ὁρᾶις; ἀκαρὴς νῦν παραπόλωλας ἀ⸤ρτίως (‘living all alone is such an evil, do you see? You nearly died just now’).

598–9 εἰ[ς τὸ φρέαρ. τί δή;] / ἔτ’ ἐστιν ἄλλ’;: I print Handley’s supplement adding τί δή, instead of his τί γάρ, with a question mark for extra theatricality: ‘what, is there anything else I could do?’. τί δή would be a syncopated form of e.g. Euripides Supplices 1094 εἶἑν· τί δὴ χρὴ τὸν ταλαίπωρόν με δρᾶν (‘well, what is there for wretched me to do?’); Ion 1332 τί δή με δρᾶσαι νουθετούμενον χρεών (‘what then? What do you advise I should do?’); or Phoenissae 927 τί δή με δράσεις; παῖδά μου κατακτενεῖς; (‘what are you going to do to me then? Are you going to kill my child?’).

599 ποριοῦ[μεν κρεάγριον: What else, if anything, will Getas provide apart from a rope (σχοινίον, l. 600)? Some thought of tools that would help Knemon retrieve the lost mattock and bucket. Bingen suggested κλίμακα, a ladder: this would make descending easier, but for what purpose would Knemon need the rope then? Shipp’s ἁρπάγην (a hook), supported by Menander fr. 421 K–A with the comment of Ammonius, De adfinium vocabulorum differentia 73 ἐν ᾗ ἐκ τῶν φρεάτων τοὺς κάδους ἐξαίρουσιν (‘with which they haul up the buckets from the wells’), is more appealing: using a rope and a hook the old man could retrieve the bucket from the surface. In this vein, one could also suggest κρεάγριον (diminutive of κρεάγρα); cf. IG ii² 1541.13–14 (357/6 BC) κάδοι / οὐ στέγοντες· κρεάγρια / κατεαγότα (‘buckets not covered, hooks broken’); cf. also Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae 1002–4 τί δῆτα κρεάγρας τοῖς κάδοις ὠνούμεθα, / ἐξὸν καθέντα γρᾴδιον τοιουτονὶ / ἐκ τῶν φρεάτων τοὺς κάδους ξυλλαμβάνειν (‘why do we buy hooks for our buckets, when we could run a hag down the well and haul those buckets up?’).

Differently, Thierfelder’s (et al.) ποριοῦ[μέν σοι κάδον (‘we will bring you a bucket’) imagines Getas offering to replace the lost tools to save Knemon from the danger and the indignity of having to retrieve them at all. A third group of scholars think that σχοινίον is all that Getas offers (he is away from home with limited resources); thus, they supplement adverbial expressions: ἄσμενοι ed. pr.; γ᾽ ἡδέως Diano; αὐτίκα Eitrem; ὕστερον Stoessl. Finally, some would make Getas taunt Knemon by offering a noose (σοι βρόχον, Post), a rotten rope (σοι σαπρὸν / σχοινίον, van Groningen) or a peg (σοι πάτταλον), ‘daran kannst du dich aufhängen’ (Merkelbach 1960: 171; he could have added that πάτταλος is also a term for the membrum virile, which would make Getas’ offer a sexual double entendre, as well). For the slave to move from spiteful to sympathetic (ll. 602–6) within a few dramatic seconds would be humorous, but he is more likely sincerely compassionate all the way here.

Act IV, line 730:

The immediate effect of Knemon’s rescue from the well is a long speech by the old man (conventionally called apologia pro vita sua), which dominates Act IV. On the cusp of death, as he believes, the misanthrope reflects on his ways and makes some concessions; for instance, he finally adopts Gorgias and transfers unto him the kyriotês of his daughter.

Whether I die now – I think I might, I am probably in bad shape – or whether I live, etc.

ιϲωϲ Bpc: οιον B: οἵως Diano: ἴσθ᾽ ὡς Kassel: ἔσθ᾽ ὡς van Groningen: an οἶδ᾽ ὡς ἔχω?

730 ἴσως ἔχω: This is the reading of B’s corrector in place of ΟΙΟΝ. The correction makes good sense, but one wonders if οἶδ᾽ὡς ἔχω (‘I know I am in bad shape’) could have been Menander’s original.

Act V, lines 836–8:

On stage are Sostratos, his father Kallippides and Gorgias. Kallippides has already agreed to betroth his daughter to Gorgias. Still, this goal, energetically pursued by Sostratos, faces unforeseen resistance from Gorgias, who will not ‘receive so much having so little’ (l. 834). He cannot ‘luxuriate in another man’s labours’ (l. 830). Kallippides is impressed by the rustic’s pride: