¹ A. Meineke, Athenaei Deipnosophistae Vol. IV: Analecta Critica (Leipzig, 1867), 281.

² Hesych. α6298 Latte gives ἀπόδεσμος· κόσμιόν τι γυναικεῖον. περικεφάλαιον. While the word has other meanings, there is nothing beyond the gloss from Hesychius to suggest it was ever used of a headband.

³ I have preferred the plural on the strength of Ar. frr. 332 and 338 K.-A., though the singular is found at Luc. Dial. meretr. 12.1.

⁴ Cf. also Perses II.2 G.-P.; ‘Simonides’ I G.-P. At Hedylus II.5 G.-P. μαλακαὶ μαστῶν ἐκδύματα μίτραι (also a dedication to Aphrodite), G.-P. question the identification by the corrector of Anth. Pal. (on Anth. Pal. 5.199) of the girl as a hetaira, though what sort of woman they imagine would have accompanied her lover at a symposium they do not say.

⁵ Notable recent discussions include E. Fernández-Galiano, Posidipo de Pela (Madrid, 1987), 114–19; Angiò, F., ‘Posidippo di Pella, l'ep. XVII Gow-Page e l’Αἰθιοπία ’, MH 56 (1999), 150–8Google Scholar; Lidov, J., ‘Sappho, Herodotus, and the Hetaira ’, CPh 97 (2002), 203–37Google Scholar, at 222–3; P. Bing, ‘The politics and poetics of geography in the Milan Posidippus, section one: On Stones (AB 1–20)’, in K. Gutzwiller (ed.), The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book (Oxford, 2005), 119–140, at 131–2; Garulli, V., ‘Mollia ossa: a proposito di GVI 859’, ARF 7 (2005), 109–18Google Scholar, at 113–16; D. Yatromanolakis, Sappho in the Making: The Early Reception (Cambridge, MA, 2007), 326–7; B. Acosta-Hughes, Arion's Lyre: Archaic Lyric into Hellenistic Poetry (Princeton, 2010), 2–4.

⁶ (n. 5), 222–3.

⁷ The relevant testimonia are collected at fr. 254 V (= 202 L.-P.). The fragments of Sappho that dealt with Charaxus and/or Doricha are 5, 7, 15, possibly 20, and the new ‘Brothers’ poem in P.Sapph.Obbink.

⁸ Yatromanolakis (n. 5), 329–37; Dale, A., ‘Sapphica’, HSPh 106 (2011 [2012]), 47–74 Google Scholar, at 67–71; Obbink, D., ‘Two new poems by Sappho’, ZPE 189 (2014), 32–49 Google Scholar. Still useful is D.L. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford, 1955), 45–51, though he takes the stories as straightforward biographical information. As for Lidov's (n. 5) interpretation, now in many respects invalidated by the publication of P.GC inv. 105 and P.Sapph.Obbink, see Yatromanolakis (n. 5) and Dale (this note).

⁹ The MSS of Athenaeus show a punctuation mark after σελίδες; cf. F. Jacobs, Animadversiones in Epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae (Leipzig, 1799), 2.157 and A.-B. ad loc. Taking οὔνομα as object of φθεγγόμεναι is attributed by G.-P. ad loc. to J. Geffcken, Griechische Epigramme (Heidelberg, 1916), 105–6, but was already taken as such in Dalecampius's (Jaques d'Alechamp) translation accompanying Casaubon's edition of 1597 and following him Jacobs post Brunk. The full stop after σελίδες is observed by (in addition to G.-P.) Meineke (n. 1); G. Kaibel, Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum (Leipzig, 1887–90), 3.314; Fernández-Galiano (n. 5), 114 and 118; σελίδες without following punctuation is preferred by (in addition to Jacobs and A.-B.) J.W. Mackail, Select Epigrams from the Greek Anthology (London, 1890), 164 and S.D. Olson, Athenaeus The Learned Banqueters (Cambridge, MA, 2007–2012), 7.12.

¹⁰ A.-B. ad loc. cite Callim. fr. 92 Pf. = Harder Λε]α̣νδρίδες εἴ τι παλαιαὶ | φθ̣[έγγ]ο̣νται̣[⏔‒⁝‒]υ̣φαν ἱστορίαι, though a transitive use, with τι as the object, cannot be guaranteed. Cf. also Eur. Hipp. 879–80 οἷον οἷον εἶδον γραφαῖς μέλος | φθεγγόμενον τλάμων. For the motif of the talking or singing book in Hellenistic literature, see P. Bing, The Well-Read Muse: Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets (Göttingen, 1988), 33.

¹¹ For the tripartite structure with concluding envoi in funerary epigram, cf. Posidippus 45 and 52 A.-B.

¹² Rosenmeyer, P.A., ‘Her master's voice: Sappho's dialogue with Homer’, MD 39 (1997), 123–49Google Scholar, at 131–2.

¹³ (n. 5).

¹⁴ Bing (n. 5), 132 n. 32 cites Pind. Nem. 5.1–5 as a parallel for the ‘easy dissemination of written verse’, though the idea that Pindar's words refer specifically to the dissemination of texts (certainly not unique to Bing) seems to allow scant credit to Pindar's capacity for metaphor. For a judicious account of secondary audiences and the reperformance of Pindar, see A.D. Morrison, Performances and Audiences in Pindar's Sicilian Victory Odes (London, 2007), passim and 12–13 on Nem. 5.

¹⁵ (n. 5).

¹⁶ For the hetairai of Naucratis, see Hdt. 2.134–5; Ath. 13.596b–d. Scholtz, A., ‘Aphrodite Pandemos at Naukratis’, GRBS 43 (2002/3), 231–42Google Scholar, at 240–2 argues that the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos might have been a focal point for the sex trade at Naucratis.

¹⁷ A difficulty felt by Jacobs (n. 9), 157, who suggested emending to οὔνομα σὸν μάλα πυστόν.

¹⁸ There is no reason not to simply take φίλης as an inherent epithet, and Sappho's ‘dear song’ need not imply any qualitative judgement with specific reference to what was said about Doricha. While G.-P. found it ‘surprising’, it is in no way problematic (and Lidov [n. 5] certainly reads far too much into it). Cf. in a similar vein Fernández-Galiano (n. 5), 118.

¹⁹ The text of line 8 is not as insecure as G.-P. ad loc. imply. The MSS read ἔστ’ ἂν ειη Νείλου ναῦς ἐφαλος γεγανη. While Jacob's τενάγη ‘lagoons’ might be appealing (with Νείλου ‘the lagoons of the Nile’), ἔφαλος, which invariably means ‘by/at the sea’, can hardly be used of a seagoing ship, and thus Meineke's ἐφ’ ἁλὸς πελάγη is the only emendation that both provides suitable sense (ναῦς ἐφ’ ἁλὸς τενάγη would be nonsensical) while being anywhere near the transmitted reading.

²⁰ κατ’ ἐμπορίαν at Ath. 13.596b, and cf. the many references to ships and sea voyages in the fragments of Sappho that mention Charaxus and Doricha.