Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T02:48:32.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antiphanes fr. 46 K-A and the problem of Spartan moustaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

B. W. Millis
B. W. Millis
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lines 4–5 of Antiphanes fr. 46 KA, an Athenian view of the stereotypical Spartan life, present several difficult, interrelated problems. The text as printed by Kassel- Austin is grammatically intelligible, although problematic, since καταϕρονέω is used absolutely elsewhere in old or middle comedy only at Amph.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , December 1997 , pp. 574 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Although Men. Epit. 56 Korte may offer a grammatical parallel (cf. W. J. Verdenius, Mnemosyne IV 27 [1974], 21), the sense ‘don't be haughty’ is at odds with the typical Spartan aloofness (e.g. Ar. Pax 623; Av. 1012–14).

2 I. Casaubon, Animadversiones in Athenaei Dipnosophistamm Libri XV1 (Lyons, 1621), 269Google ScholarH. Richards, Aristophanes and Others (London, 1911), 76.Google ScholarH. Richards, 59:302 Athenaei Naucratitae Deipnosophistarum Libri Quindecim (Strasbourg, 1801–1807), although Schweighauser himself, v. 7 (1802), p. 472 rightly attributes it to Casaubon.Google Scholar

3 Ruhnken's emendation appears atD. Wyttenbach,Animadversiones in Plutarchi De sera numinis vindicta(Leiden,1772),25Google Scholar

4 The anonymous reader refers to com. adesp. fr. 1027.4 K-A (Men. fr. 722 Korte), although K-A rightly accept Wilamowitz' for the papyrus' .

5 Ruhnken supports his claim with Hsch. fi 1346 Latte, on which see below.

6 Observationes Criticae in Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum (Leiden, 1855), p. 46.

7 A. Emperius, Opuscula Philologica et Historica (Gottingen, 1847), p. 310.

8 The same is true, in addition to its being unmetrical, of Grotius' … (Excerpta ex Tragoediis et Comoediis Graecis [Paris, 1626], p. 605).

9 The only editor of whom I am aware who does not attempt to remove Spartan moustaches from the fragment is C. D. Yonge in his translation of Athenaeus (London, 1854). Yonge, translating ‘… and not disdain to wear fierce whiskers’, simply followed Schweighauser's (i.e. Casaubon's) text but ignored both his Latin translation and his endorsement of Casaubon's interpretation.

10 For Proclus’ reliance upon Plutarch for his commentary on Hesiod, cf. M. L. West (ed.),Hesiod, Works and Days (Oxford, 1978), p. 68; C. Faraggiana di Sarzana, Aevum 52 (1978), 17–40.

11 Plutarch's use of the present in Mor. 550b need not imply a current practice, since in the same passage the present is understood in reference to a law of Solon as well, and the present tense is probably due to the context.

12 The passage from Proclus echoes the wording () of Mor. 550b, but the tense () of Cleomen. 9.3. That Proclus followed the wording from the Moralia rather than from the Lives is not surprising since Plutarch's commentary on Hesiod, as presented by Proclus, offers numerous affinities with the Moralia but very seldom shows discernible interaction with the Lives. That Proclus’ choice of tense agrees with that of Cleomen. is probably simply fortuitous, and in any case Proclus would most naturally use a past tense in reference to Sparta.

13 ThusH. Frisk,Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch (Heidelberg, 1954–1972) s.v.; P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire etymologique de la tongue grecque (Paris, 1969–1980)s.v.Google Scholar

14 The evidence is mainly late and of little consequence, e.g. Hsch. v 535,539 Schmidt; S v All; Phot. Lex. p. 625.10–11 Porson; Eust. p. 1353.57–9. In general, the lexicographers treat the various sorts of facial hair as roughly synonymous, even producing such absurdities as Hsch. jS 1346 Latte [sic]: , although traces of an original distinction do appear (e.g. Poll. 2.80). Pollux and Eustathius claim that refers to both moustache and beard, but this assertion is probably as confused as the lexicographers’ other attempts to define the terms for facial hair.

15 At A. fr. 27 Radt is clearly distinguished from a beard, unless one unnecessarily assumes hendiadys; Eub. fr. 98 (cited by Chantraine) is similar. In PI. com. fr. 130 is usually assumed to refer to a beard because the fragment is cited by the Suda (n 2150; cf. e 2416) under the lemma and by i ^ r Ar. Ec. 71 in reference to the beard of Epikrates. In both cases, however, is used to explain is not the focus and is basically irrelevant to the discussion of beards.

16 Cf. Kuhner-Gerth ii.5; Hdt. 1.66.1; Th. 2.11.4; 3.83.4; X. H.G 4.5.12.

17 The corruption is easily paralleled; cf.A. E. Housman,Classical Papers(Cambridge,1972),220.Google Scholar

18 Cf. Dodds ad loc. and on 286 for the tendency of verbs compounded in Kara- to become transitive.

19 For their helpful criticism, I owe many thanks to S. D. Olson, D; Sansone, and the anonymous reader.