Dicaearchus On Alcaeus A Peripatetic App PDF

Volume 144 2016, fascicolo 2
2 01 6
L O E S C H E R E D I TO R E
TO R I N O
Dicaearchus on Alcaeus: A Peripatetic
approach to archaic poetry
Abstract: This article discusses the fragments of the Peripatetic phi-

losopher Dicaearchus on Alcaeus. Most are found in Athenaeus, who
knows Dicaearchus indirectly, through a Homeric commentator, a lexi-
con and the grammarian Hegesander. The fragments deal with ancient
drinking habits, the kottabos game and a specific reading in Alcaeus.
A biographical discussion recurs in P.Oxy. XXIX 2506, but it is uncer-
tain whether Dicaearchus’ name should be restored in this papyrus. On
Alcaeus was probably a monograph and neither a lemmatized commen-
tary nor a full-scale biography.
Keywords: Alcaeus, Dicaearchus, Athenaeus, Περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα litera-

ture.
1. Introduction
Studies on poets and their poetry were popular in Aristotle’s
school, the Peripatos. One writer engaged in this type of research was
Dicaearchus. Compared to other Peripatetics, such as Chamaeleon,
Theophrastus and Aristoxenus, his work has received little atten-
tion1. Poets studied by him include Homer, Euripides and Alcaeus.
A title is attested only for the third. On Alcaeus is usually considered
either a commentary on Alcaeus’ poems or a biography2. In this ar-
1 The fragments of Dicaearchus have been edited by Wehrli 19672 and
Mirhady 2001. I cite the fragment numbers of the latter («M.»). The trans-
lations in this article are my own. For a brief introduction to Dicaearchus,
see Verhasselt 2015.
2 For On Alcaeus as a commentary, see Ionsius 1716, 104 and Fuhr
1841, 45-47. According to Müller 1848, 227; 246 and Martini 1903, 553,
it was prefaced by a biography. For On Alcaeus as a biography, see Ha-
ger 1771, 429 and Errante 1822, I 23-25. Wehrli’s opinion vacillated. In
Die Schule des Aristoteles, he attributed it to the «Gattung von Dichter-
biographien» and called it an «Alkaiosbiographie»: see Wehrli 19672, 73;
1969, 124. Elsewhere, however, he spoke of a «Monographie über Alkai-
RFIC, 144, 2016, 266-299
dicaearchus on alcaeus: a peripatetic approach 267
ticle, I will discuss the transmission of the fragments, the context in

which they are cited, the hypothetical context in Dicaearchus and
other problems of interpretation in order to elucidate what is known
of this work.
2. The fragments
2.1. Dicaearchus on ancient drinking habits (fr. 105 M.)
At the beginning of the eleventh book of Athenaeus’ Deipnoso-
phists, Ulpianus asks whether people used to drink in large cups and
cites Dicaearchus’ On Alcaeus and Chamaeleon’s On drunkenness
(fr. 10 Martano).
Ath. 11, 4, 460f-461a3:

ἄξιον δ’ ἐστὶ ζητῆσαι εἰ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι μεγάλοις ἔπινον ποτηρίοις.
Δικαίαρχος μὲν γὰρ ὁ Μεσσήνιος, (461a) ὁ Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητής,
ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ἀλκαίου μικροῖς φησιν αὐτοὺς ἐκπώμασι κεχρῆσθαι καὶ
ὑδαρέστερον πεπωκέναι.
It is worth exploring whether people of old drank using large cups. For
in the book On Alcaeus (461a), Dicaearchus of Messene, Aristotle’s stu-
dent, says that they used small drinking vessels and drank rather diluted
wine.
According to Zecchini, Athenaeus knows Dicaearchus from

Chamaeleon or from a lexicon4. However, Chamaeleon is unlikely
to have cited a fellow student. A lexicographical source is also im-
probable, since these Peripatetics are not cited for any specific word.
In fact, Ulpianus goes on to mention two Homeric problems (Ath.
11, 4, 461c-d): (1) why does the Cyclops in Homer become drunk
if people used small cups, and (2) why does Homer say that the old
Nestor can lift his famous cup with ease, whereas young men struggle
with this? The source may therefore have been a Homeric commenta-
tor (see also the verb ζητῆσαι, typically found in such Problemata
os» and the «Gattung der peripatetischen Dichtermonographien mit ihren

kulturgeschichtlichen Digressionen»: see Wehrli 1968, 532 and Wehrli –
Wöhrle – Zhmud 2004, 572. According to Schorn 2014, 702, the work
was «wohl primär musik- und literaturgeschichtlich ausgerichtet» but also
contained «Biographisches».
3 The text is that of Kaibel 1887-1890, III 3-4.
4 Zecchini 1989, 200.
268 gertjan verhasselt
literature)5, perhaps Asclepiades of Myrlea. In On Nestor’s cup, this

grammarian indeed discussed these two cups6.
Dicaearchus’ claim that people used to drink wine in small cups
and added a lot of water may have had a moralizing tone7. According
to Chamaeleon (fr. 10 Martano), for instance, large cups tended to
be used by people in power and were adopted from barbarians; one
exception were the large cups called ῥυτά, which archaic heroes used
because they wanted to associate their violence with their drunken-
ness instead of their character8. Chamaeleon also mentions barbarians
in connection with unmixed wine in fr. 11 Martano, where the Spar-
tan Cleomenes is said to have gone mad because the Scythians had
taught him the habit of drinking wine unmixed9.
Dicaearchus may have commented on ancient drinking habits in
connection with one of Alcaeus’ drinking songs. In fr. 346 Voigt, for
instance, the poet asks for large cups (2 κυλίχναις μεγάλαις) and
orders the wine to be mixed «one to two» (4 ἔγχεε κέρναις ἔνα καὶ
δύο), i. e. one portion of water and two portions of wine. This was
strong wine10. The standard proportions were three to one or five to
5 On Homeric problems and Problemata literature, see especially Gu-
deman 1927, 2511-2519, Apfel 1938, Buffière 19732, 13-25; 67-70; 101-
105; 123-154, Richardson 1975; 1992 and Pontani 2005, 25-42.
6 See fr. 4 Pagani = Ath. 11, 76-85, 487f-494b (on Nestor’s cup, called
νεστορίς) and fr. 5 Pagani = Ath. 11, 53, 477b (on Polyphemus’ cup, called
κυσσίβιον). At the end of the discussion of the κυσσίβιον, Athenaeus
cites Dionysius of Samos’ Commentary on the Cycle (FGrHist 15 fr. 4a),
where the cup is identified with the κυμβίον, a small drinking cup. At
Ath. 11, 63, 481e, Dionysius’ explanation is rejected in almost the same
words as the refutation of Chamaeleon at Ath. 11, 4, 461c-d. Therefore, the
rejection of Dionysius’ interpretation might also go back to Asclepiades.
7 See Wehrli 19672, 73.
8 There is a striking resemblance between Chamaeleon fr. 10 Martano
and Theophrastus fr. 575 FHS&G. See Fortenbaugh 2011, 724; 2012, 375-
376.
9 Drinking less mixed wine is therefore called «acting Scythian»
(ἐπισκυθίζω). The story is already found in Hdt. 6, 84. Anacreon, too (fr.
11 Page [PMG 356b]), calls drinking unmixed wine «Scythian drinking»
(Σκυθικὴ πόσις). Similarly, according to the Peripatetic Hieronymus (fr.
29 White), σκυθίζω means «get drunk» (μεθύω). See also Achae. TrGF
20 F 9 (†ἄγειν σκύθη† πιεῖν).
10 These lines of Alcaeus are also discussed by Chamaeleon (fr. 13
Martano). In order to make Alcaeus a moderate person (σωφρονικός), he

claims that the poet means the number of cups (instead of the proportions).
two (see Ath. 10, 28, 426e)11. Alternatively, the fragment might be-
long to Dicaearchus’ discussion of the kottabos game (see fr. 106-109
M.). On the possible connection with Alcae. fr. 72 Voigt, cfr. § 2.2.
Theophrastus, too (fr. 571 FHS&G), connects mixed wine with the
kottabos game12.
2.2. Dicaearchus on the kottabos game (fr. 106-109 M.)

Fr. 106-109 M. discuss the kottabos game, a form of entertain-
ment at symposia13. The best documented variant is the κότταβος
κατακτός «kottabos that can be broken down». Here, a pole (ῥάβδος
κοτταβική) was set up with a disc (πλάστιγξ) balanced on top. At
mid-height, there was another, larger disc (μάνης). While reclining,
the players had to shoot their wine lees at the small disc on top and
hit it in such a way that it fell onto the lower, larger one, making a
loud noise on impact14. The game is attested in various writers and
is depicted on fifth- and fourth-century BCE vases. Another variant
is the κότταβος ἐν λεκάνῃ «kottabos in a basin» or κότταβος δι’
ὀξυβάφων «kottabos with saucers». Here, a vessel was filled with
water, on which empty saucers floated. Whoever managed to sink the
most saucers won. There are no vase paintings of this variant, prob-
ably because it is difficult to depict in profile15.
Athenaeus cites Dicaearchus three times in book 15 for informa-
tion on the kottabos (= fr. 106-108 M.). At the start of the book, he
states that the game is of Sicilian origin, quoting two lines from an
elegy of Critias (fr. B 2, 1-2 West2 = fr. 1, 1-2 Gentili – Prato2) as evi-
dence16. The origin is also indicated by the Sicilian word for the wine
lees thrown at the kottabion, attested by Dicaearchus.
11 The first number in the proportion always refers to water and the
second number to wine. For the 3:1 proportion, see Hes. Op. 596 and Ion
Hist. FGrHist 392 fr. 2.
12 According to Theophrastus (fr. 572 FHS&G), unmixed wine was served
only after dinner when toasting the Good Daemon.

13 On the kottabos game, see especially Lafaye 1900, Schneider 1922,
Sparkes 1960, Hoesch 1990, Lissarrague 1990, 80-86, Jacquet-Rimassa

1995 and Schäfer 1997, 48-49.
14 The most extensive ancient description of the game is found in An-
tiph. fr. 57 Kassel – Austin. See also Ath. 15, 5, 667d-e, who confuses the
kataktos variant partly with the ἐν λεκάνῃ one: cfr. n. 28 infra.
15 See Sparkes 1960, 206.
Ath. 15, 2, 666b-c (= fr. 106 M.)17:

ἐπεὶ οὖν ἄπειρος εἶ τῆς τοιαύτης θεωρίας, μάθε παρ’ ἐμοῦ ὅτι πρῶτον
μὲν ἡ τῶν κοττάβων εὕρεσις Σικελική ἐστιν, <τὴν> παιδιὰν ταύτην
πρώτων εὑρόντων Σικελῶν, ὡς Κριτίας φησὶν ὁ Καλλαίσχρου ἐν τοῖς
Ἐλεγείοις διὰ τούτων·
«κότταβος ἐκ Σικελῆς ἐστι χθονὸς ἐκπρεπὲς ἔργον,
ὃν σκοπὸν ἐς λατάγων τόξα καθιστάμεθα.»
Δικαίαρχος δὲ ὁ Μεσσήνιος, Ἀριστοτέλους μαθητής, ἐν τῷ Περὶ
Ἀλκαίου καὶ τὴν λατάγην φησὶν εἶναι Σικελικὸν ὄνομα. λατάγη δ’
ἐστὶν τὸ ὑπολειπόμενον (c) ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐκποθέντος ποτηρίου ὑγρόν,
ὃ συνεστραμμένῃ τῇ χειρὶ ἄνωθεν ἐρρίπτουν οἱ παίζοντες εἰς τὸ
κοττάβιον.
Well, since you are unfamiliar with such a concept, let me inform you first
of all that the invention of the kottaboi is Sicilian, since the Sicels were the
first to invent that game, as Critias, son of Callaeschrus, says in his Elegies
in the following lines:
«the kottabos is a splendid thing from the Siculan land;
we set it up as a target to shoot wine lees (latages) at.»
Dicaearchus of Messene, a pupil of Aristotle, in the book On Alcaeus says
that the latage is also a Sicilian word. Latage is the liquid left (c) from
the cup after finishing it. People playing the game toss it upward onto the
kottabion by twisting their hand.
It is unclear whether Athenaeus/Dicaearchus used the word λατάγη

or λάταξ. The codex Marcianus gr. 447 (A), the main manuscript
of Athenaeus, reads λατάγην, which also recurs in the epitome18,
but schol. Ar. Pax 1244c Holwerda (which quotes Athenaeus) has
λάταγα αὐτήν19. The regular form is in any case λάταξ20. It can also
16 The elegy is also quoted in Ath. 1, 50, 28b.

17 The text is largely that of Kaibel 1887-1890, III 472. I accept his
conjecture ἐστιν, <τὴν> παιδιὰν ταύτην (suggested in his apparatus)
for ἐστιν παιδιά, ταύτην, as the text is read in A and the epitome.
18 For the independence of the epitome, see Kaibel 1887-1890, I xvi-
xix, Papenhoff 1954 and Arnott 2000, 47-50.

19 In his apparatus, Kaibel 1887-1890, III 472 suggested accepting
λάταγα αὐτὴν.
20 After this fragment, Athenaeus cites Clitarchus’ Glossae, according
to which «Thessalians and Rhodians call the kottabos after the cups la-
tage.» Many scholars have interpreted κότταβος in Clitarchus as «clat-
ter»: see Schweighäuser 1801-1805, V 425, Gulick 1927-1941, VII 79,
Friedrich in Friedrich – Nothers 1998-2001, V 454 and Olson 2006-2011,
VIII 9. In this interpretation, Athenaeus uses Clitarchus to correct Dicaear-
be doubted whether Dicaearchus really called λατάγη/λάταξ a ‘Si-

cilian’ word (Σικελικός). Other sources actually derive the kottabos
game from the Σικελοί «Sicels», i. e. the indigenous people inhabiting
Sicily before the Greek colonists arrived (the adjective is Σικελός),
not the Sicilian Greeks, who were called Σικελιῶται (the adjective
is Σικελικός)21. Athenaeus, however, does not make this distinction.
When discussing the kottabos kataktos further on, Athenaeus
quotes two passages from the Birth of Aphrodite by the comic play-
wright Antiphanes (fr. 57 Kassel – Austin). In the second passage,
one person teaches someone else how to play the game. Athenaeus
digresses on the technique by citing Dicaearchus and Zeus abused by
Plato comicus (fr. 47 Kassel – Austin). Athenaeus summarizes the
scene in Plato comicus and notes that the specific throw of the kot-
tabos was called «from the wrist» (ἀπ’ ἀγκύλης).
Ath. 15, 5, 667b-c (= fr. 107 M.)22:

ἀγκυλοῦντα γὰρ δεῖ σφόδρα τὴν χεῖρα εὐρύθμως πέμπειν τὸν
chus: λάταξ/λατάγη does not denote the wine lees but the noise. Some
later lexicographers attest the meaning «noise» for λάταξ: see Poll. 6,
110, Hsch. λ 390 Latte and [Hdn.] Philet. 118 (cfr. EM. s. v. κοτταβίζειν,
p. 533 Kallierges ~ Et. Gen. s. v. κοταβίζω [sic], p. 194 Miller). How-
ever, κότταβος is not used in this sense. The lemma λάταξ· ψόφος,
κότταβος, ὁ ἀπὸ ποτηρίου γενόμενος «latax: noise, kottabos, which
came from a cup» in Hsch. λ 390 Latte (usually cited as evidence), could
mean κότταβος = ψόφος but also λάταξ = (1) ψόφος and (2) κότταβος.
The only unambiguous attestation is Suid. κ 2154 = μ 441 (ψόφον
ἀποτελέσαι, ὃς ἐκαλεῖτο κότταβος «produce a noise, which was called
kottabos»). Furthermore, the supposed meaning «noise» for λάταξ might
be based on a misinterpretation as well. According to Phot. κ 1021 Theo-
doridis, for instance, the liquid was called latax after the noise (ἐκάλουν
δὲ καὶ λάταγα ἀπὸ τοῦ ψόφου τὸ ἐφιέμενον ὑγρόν), i. e. it is an ono-
matopoeia. Therefore, like Dicaearchus, Clitarchus seems to mean wine
lees. In all likelihood, Athenaeus simply digresses on Dicaearchus’ as-
sociation of the word with Sicily and comments that in Clitarchus it is
connected with Thessaly and Rhodes.
21 See Anacr. fr. 70 Page (PMG 415) (Σικελὸν κότταβον), Critias fr.
B 2, 1-2 West2 = fr. 1, 1-2 Gentili – Prato2 (κότταβος ἐκ Σικελῆς ἐστι

χθονὸς; see Ath. 15, 2, 666b: <τὴν> παιδιὰν ταύτην πρώτων εὑρόντων
Σικελῶν) and Call. fr. 69 Pfeiffer2 = fr. 81 Asper (Σικελὰς ἐκ κυλίκων
λάταγας; see also Ath. 15, 7, 668e: ὁ Καλλίμαχος Σικελὴν τὴν λάταγα
προσηγόρευσεν).
22 The text is that of Kaibel 1887-1890, III 474-475.
κότταβον, ὡς Δικαίαρχός φησιν καὶ Πλάτων δ’ ἐν τῷ Διὶ [τῷ]

Κακουμένῳ. παρακελεύεται δέ τις τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ μὴ σκληρὰν ἔχειν
τὴν χεῖρα μέλλοντα κοτταβίζειν. (c) ἐκάλουν δ’ ἀπ’ ἀγκύλης τὴν
τοῦ κοττάβου πρόεσιν διὰ τὸ ἐπαγκυλοῦν τὴν δεξιὰν χεῖρα ἐν τοῖς
ἀποκοτταβισμοῖς.
For it is necessary to throw the kottabos while bending the hand very
rhythmically, as Dicaearchus and Plato say in Zeus abused. Someone advi-
ses Heracles not to keep his hand stiff when he is about to throw the kotta-
bos. (c) Throwing the kottabos was called «from the wrist» (ap’ ankyles)
because the right hand was bent (epankyloun) when shooting out the kot-
tabos.
At the end of his discussion of the kottabos, Athenaeus returns to

the connection with Sicily. He again cites Dicaearchus, according to
whom the people of Sicily built special rooms to play the game.
Ath. 15, 7, 668d-e (= fr. 108 M.)23:

ὅτι δὲ ἐσπούδαστο παρὰ τοῖς Σικελιώταις ὁ κότταβος (e) δῆλον
ἐκ τοῦ καὶ οἰκήματα ἐπιτήδεια τῇ παιδιᾷ κατασκευάζεσθαι, ὡς
ἱστορεῖ Δικαίαρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ Ἀλκαίου.
That the kottabos was taken seriously among the Sicilians (e) is seen from
the fact that they even built rooms suited for the game, as Dicaearchus
recounts in the book On Alcaeus.
A fourth fragment is found in Athenaeus’ catalog of cups in book

11. When discussing the κοτταβίς cup, he quotes the Hypomnemata
of Hegesander (FHG IV, 419 F 32), who himself cited Dicaearchus24.
Ath. 11, 58, 479d-e (= fr. 109 M.)25:

Ἡγήσανδρος δ’ ὁ Δελφὸς ἐν Ὑπομνήμασιν, ὧν ἀρχὴ «ἐν τῇ ἀρίστῃ
πολιτείᾳ», φησίν· ὁ καλούμενος κότταβος παρῆλθεν εἰς τὰ συμπόσια
τῶν περὶ Σικελίαν, ὥς φησιν Δικαίαρχος, πρῶτον εἰσαγαγόντων.
τοσαύτη δὲ ἐγένετο σπουδὴ περὶ τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα ὥστε εἰς τὰ
23 The text is that of Kaibel 1887-1890, III 478.

24 Hegesander was a mid-second-century BCE grammarian. His
Hypomnemata were a miscellaneous collection of antiquarian information
and entertaining stories. See Jacoby 1912 and Ippolito 2016.
25 The text is largely that of Kaibel 1887-1890, III 55-56. I have
not accepted his conjecture τὴν δεξιὰν ἀγκυλώσαντα for τῇ δεξιᾷ

κυκλώσαντα: cfr. infra.
συμπόσια παρεισφέρειν ἆθλα κοτταβεῖα καλούμενα. εἶτα κύλικες αἱ

πρὸς τὸ πρᾶγμα χρήσιμαι μάλιστ’ εἶναι δοκοῦσαι κατεσκευάζοντο,
καλούμεναι κοτταβίδες. (e) πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οἶκοι κατεσκευάζοντο
κυκλοτερεῖς, ἵνα πάντες εἰς τὸ μέσον τοῦ κοττάβου τεθέντος ἐξ
ἀποστήματος ἴσου καὶ τόπων ὁμοίων ἀγωνίζοιντο περὶ τῆς νίκης. οὐ
γὰρ μόνον ἐφιλοτιμοῦντο βάλλειν ἐπὶ τὸν σκοπόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ καλῶς
ἕκαστα αὐτῶν. ἔδει γὰρ εἰς τὸν ἀριστερὸν ἀγκῶνα ἐρείσαντα καὶ
τῇ δεξιᾷ κυκλώσαντα ὑγρῶς ἀφεῖναι τὴν λάταγα· οὕτω γὰρ ἐκάλουν
τὸ πῖπτον ἐκ τῆς κύλικος ὑγρόν· ὥστε ἔνιοι μεῖζον ἐφρόνουν ἐπὶ τῷ
καλῶς κοτταβίζειν τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ἀκοντίζειν μέγα φρονούντων.
Hegesander of Delphi in his Hypomnemata with the incipit «In the best
constitution» says: The so-called kottabos made its entry at the sympo-
sia, after the people of Sicily had first introduced it, as Dicaearchus says.
The activity attracted such great interest that prizes called kottabeia were
also introduced at the symposia. Next, cups that looked best suited for the
purpose were manufactured; they were called kottabides. (e) In addition,
circular rooms were built, so that, once the kottabos had been set up in the
middle, everyone could compete to win from the same distance and from
similar positions. For they endeavored not only to hit the mark but also to
do this in an elegant way for each of these. Players had to lean on their left
elbow and swing their right hand to toss the latax smoothly. That is how
they called the liquid that fell from the cup. By consequence, some people
took more pride in being good at the kottabos game than people who take
pride in hurling the javelin.
The fragment of Hegesander is paralleled by a scholion on Lucian.

schol. Luc. Lex. 46, 3 Rabe26:
παρῆλθε δὲ ὁ κότταβος εἰς τὰ συμπόσια ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ Σικελίαν
πρῶτον εἰσαγαγόντων. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις κυκλοτερεῖς ἐποιοῦντο †οἱ
δεῖπνοι†, ἵνα πάντες εἰς τὸ μέσον τεθέντος τοῦ κοττάβου ἔχοιεν
ἐξ ἴσων τῶν ἀποστάσεων ταῖς λάταξι βάλλειν καὶ περὶ νίκης
ἀγωνίζεσθαι. οὐ τῷ βάλλειν δὲ μόνον ἐφιλοτιμοῦντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ
καλῶς· ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ ἀγκῶνός τις ἑαυτὸν ἐπερείσας ὑγρῶς
ἀφίει τὴν λάταγα, ὡς ἐνίους †μέγα† φρονεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ κοτταβίζειν ἢ
ἐπὶ τῷ ἀκοντίζειν. δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ κοττίζειν ἀπὸ
τούτου βαρβάρως καὶ περικεκομμένως εἰρῆσθαι.
The so-called kottabos made its entry at the symposia from those who
had first introduced it in Sicily. In addition, †the dinners† were made
26 The text is that of Rabe 1916, 193-194. Unlike Rabe, however, I have
put οἱ δεῖπνοι and μέγα between cruces.

circular, so that, once the kottabos had been set up in the middle, every-
one would be able to hit it with the latages from the same distances and
compete to win. For they endeavored not only to hit it but also to do this
in an elegant way. For a player leaned on his left elbow to toss the latax
fluidly. By consequence, some people took †great† pride in playing the
kottabos game than in hurling the javelin. I think that the word kottizein
(«playing dice») in everyday language is an abbreviated solecism de-
rived from this.
Although the scholiast27 cites neither Hegesander nor Dicaearchus,

the verbal parallels show that he is relying on the same source as Athe-
naeus28.
Many scholars have considered Hegesander the source for the cita-
tions of Dicaearchus in Athenaeus’ book 1529. However, the parallel
sections in book 15 are more elaborate and contain numerous refer-
ences to archaic poetry, comedy and tragedy. The fragment of Hege-
27 The scholion belongs to Arethas’ collection, which was written by his
secretary Baanes. See Rabe 1902, 722; 1916, iii.

28 The preceding discussion in the scholia on the two variants of the
kottabos game might go back to Hegesander, as well. It matches Ath.

15, 5-6, 668d-e nearly verbatim. Athenaeus confuses the kataktos var-
iant partly with the ἐν λεκάνῃ one by claiming that the disc had to stri-
ke the μάνης and then fall into a basin: see Lafaye 1900, 867 n. 2 and
Schneider 1922, 1537. Unlike Athenaeus, the scholiast calls the second
variant of the game δι’ ὀξυβάφων (not ἐν λεκάνῃ), quotes Ar. Pax 1244
and incorrectly identifies the μάνης as a mask (πρόσωπον). Perhaps he
means a figurine. Other late sources, too, erroneously identify the μάνης
as a statuette: see Suid. κ 2153; M 148, schol. Ar. Ach. 524 Wilson and
schol. Luc. Lex. 46, 3 (bis) Rabe. The scholiast also erroneously claims
that players spat their wine lees. This error recurs in schol. Luc. Lex. 46,
3 (bis) Rabe and schol. Ar. Ach. 525b Wilson. It is probably based on
the late use of the verb ἀποκοτταβίζω in the sense of «vomit» (compare
Ath. 15, 2, 665d-666a). See Lafaye 1900, 867 n. 2 and Schneider 1922,
1531. The scholiast also quotes a fragment of Antiphanes (fr. 57 Kassel
– Austin), absent from Ath. 15, 5-6, 668d-e. Athenaeus probably omits
it, since he has already quoted it when mentioning the kottabos kataktos
in Ath. 15, 4, 666f-667b. Another parallel with Ath. 15, 5-6, 668d-e and
schol. Luc. Lex. 46, 3 Rabe is found in Poll. 6, 109-111. Pollux and
Athenaeus indeed frequently rely on the same sources: see Nyikos 1941,
36-93.
29 See Brunk ap. Susemihl 1891, 489 n. 20; Nyikos 1941, 78; Cavallaro
1971, 225-226 and Zecchini 1989, 144 n. 58, 200, 220. This was rejected
by Jacoby 1912, 2602 and Wehrli 19672, 73.
sander also shows a few oddities. According to the grammarian, play-

ers had to swing their right arm or hand (τῇ δεξιᾷ κυκλώσαντα) in
order to toss the wine lees «fluidly» (ὑγρῶς); however, experienced
kottabos players actually threw the wine lees with a small flick of
the hand30. Hegesander’s source (probably Dicaearchus) also seems
to have argued that being good at throwing the kottabos was more
important than being good at throwing a javelin. This meaning is
lost, however, in the clumsy phrase ἔνιοι μεῖζον ἐφρόνουν ἐπὶ τῷ
καλῶς κοτταβίζειν τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ἀκοντίζειν μέγα φρονούντων31.
In consequence, Hegesander is unlikely to be the source of the more
accurate information in book 1532.
Another relevant parallel is Athenaeus’ discussion of ἀγκύλη
in his catalog of cups. Athenaeus argues that this cup is useful for
playing the kottabos game. He quotes Cratinus and Bacchylides
as supposed attestations of the word and cites Aeschylus for the
term ἀγκυλητοὶ κότταβοι. After digressing on the words δόρατα
ἀγκυλητὰ and μεσάγκυλα, he describes the kottabos game. The de-
scription is similar to Hegesander’s and echoes sections in book 15
where Dicaearchus is cited.
30 Kaibel 1887-1890, III 55 changed τῇ δεξιᾷ κυκλώσαντα (found in
both the codex Marcianus and the epitome) to τὴν δεξιὰν ἀγκυλώσαντα
on the basis of Ath. 15, 5, 667b = fr. 107 M. (ἀγκυλοῦντα γὰρ δεῖ
σφόδρα τὴν χεῖρα εὐρύθμως). The conjecture ἀγκυλώσαντα (or
ἀπαγκυλώσαντα) goes back to Osann 1835, 123 n. 31. It is also adopted
by Citelli in Canfora 2001, IV 532 and Olson 2006-2011, V 330. On the
basis of the same passage, Kaibel considered changing ὑγρῶς (again found
in both the codex Marcianus and the epitome) to εὐρύθμως, whereas Gu-
lick 1927-1941, V 124 n. 4 suggested εὐσχημόνως (compare Ath. 11, 22,
782e ἦν γὰρ τοῖς παλαιοῖς πεφροντισμένον καλῶς καὶ εὐσχημόνως
κότταβον προίεσθαι). However, ὑγρῶς is supported by schol. Luc. Lex.
46, 3 Rabe (ὑγρῶς) and Poll. 6, 110 (ὁ δ’ ὑγρᾷ τῇ χειρὶ τὸν κότταβον
ἀφείς), which might also go back to Hegesander (cfr. supra). Kaibel was
also suspicious of τὸ πῖπτον ἐκ τῆς κύλικος ὑγρόν and considered chang-
ing the participle to ῥιπτόμενον.
31 In ἐπὶ τῷ ἀκοντίζειν, Osann 1835, 124 n. 32 and Citelli in Canfora
2001, IV 532 added εὖ before ἀκοντίζειν on the basis of Ath. 11, 22,
782e. See also Fuhr 1841, 65 n. 45. However, the scholia on Lucian again
confirm the reading of the codex Marcianus and the epitome.
32 The circular shape of the Sicilian rooms is probably also Hegesan-
der’s own deduction; the parallel fragment of Dicaearchus (fr. 108 M.)
merely calls these «adapted to the game» (ἐπιτήδειος; see also Ath. 11,
22, 782f).
Ath. 11, 22, 782d-f33:

καὶ ἡ κύλιξ δὲ [ἡ] ἀγκύλη διὰ τὸ ἐπαγκυλοῦν τὴν δεξιὰν χεῖρα
ἐν τῇ προέσει. ἦν γὰρ τοῖς παλαιοῖς πεφροντισμένον καλῶς καὶ
εὐσχημόνως κότταβον προίεσθαι. καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ μᾶλλον
ἐφρόνουν μέγα ἢ ἐπὶ τῷ εὖ ἀκοντίζειν. ὠνομάσθη οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς
χειρὸς σχηματισμοῦ, ὃν ποιούμενοι εὐρύθμως ἐρρίπτουν εἰς τὸ
κοττάβιον. (f) καὶ οἴκους δὲ ἐπιτηδείους κατεσκεύαζον εἰς ταύτην
τὴν παιδιάν.
The cup, too, was called ankyle, because the right hand was bent
(epankyloun) during the throw. For the people of old cared about throwing
the kottabos in an elegant and graceful manner. And most people took
more pride in this than in being good at hurling the javelin. So it was
named after the position of the hand, with which they threw it rhythmically
to the kottabos stand. (f) They also built rooms suited for that game.
In view of the close resemblance to the lemma ἀγκύλη in the in-

terpolated Synagoge and in Hesychius34, Athenaeus’ source is in all
likelihood a pre-Diogenianean lexicographer, probably Zopyrion or
Pamphilus, whose lexica were compiled by Diogenianus, Hesychius’
main source35. Since this section of book 11 is preserved only in the
epitome, the names of the authorities have probably been dropped.
For the nominatim citations in book 15, Athenaeus probably does
not draw on Dicaearchus directly, either. Wehrli considered Callias
(also cited in the vicinity of Dicaearchus in fr. 110 M.) the intermedi-
ate source36, whereas Zecchini attributed fr. 106 M. to a lexicon (Cli-
tarchus?) or Hegesander37. Again, a parallel with Hesychius suggests
that Athenaeus relies on a lexicon38, probably the same as the one
used in book 11. It is uncertain, however, whether the references to
33 The text is that of Kaibel 1887-1890, III 20.

34 Synagoge versio B α 277 Cunningham and Hsch. α 566 Latte. The
lemma of the Synagoge recurs in Phot. α 185 Theodoridis.
35 See Suid. δ 1140. Athenaeus cites Pamphilus numerous times, espe-
cially in the eleventh book. This grammarian in fact also mentioned the
μάνης (see Ath. 11, 75, 487c). Erbse 1950, 153 attributed the lemma in the
Synagoge to Pausanias the Atticist, who in his turn supposedly relied on
Pamphilus or an anonymous onomasticon.
36 Wehrli 19672, 74.
37 Zecchini 1989, 200.
38 Hsch. α 575 Latte ἀγκύλη· <ἡ δεξιὰ> χεὶρ ἀπηγκυλωμένη καὶ
συνεστραμμένη εἰς ἀποκοτταβισμόν ~ fr. 106 M. ὃ συνεστραμμένῃ

τῇ χειρὶ ἄνωθεν ἐρρίπτουν οἱ παίζοντες εἰς τὸ κοττάβιον.
archaic poetry, comedy and tragedy in the vicinity of the citations of

Dicaearchus (especially Critias [fr. B 2, 1-2 West2 = fr. 1, 1-2 Gentili
– Prato2] in fr. 106 M. and Plato’s Zeus Abused [fr. 47 Kassel – Aus-
tin] in fr. 107 M.) are derived from him or have been added by the
intermediate lexicographer.
Finally, it remains to be asked in what context Dicaearchus dis-
cussed the game. Valckenaer (followed by Fuhr) connected the frag-
ments with Alcae. fr. 322 Voigt: λάταγες ποτέονται / κυλίχναν
ἀπὺ Τηίαν «wine lees (latages) fly from Teian cups»39; see the com-
ment on λατάγη/λάταξ in fr. 106 M. Alternatively, Dicaearchus
might have commented on fr. 72 Voigt (= P.Oxy. X 1234 fr. 2 col. 2
+ P.Oxy. XVIII 2166c add. 30)40.
λάβρως δὲ συν στε̣ί̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]ε̣ι̣α̣π̣ ̣ ̣

πίμπλεισιν ἀκράτω [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἐ]π’ ἀμέραι̣[
καὶ νύκτι π⟦λ⟧αφλάσδει λ̣ά̣τ̣αχθεν, 5
ἔνθα νόμος θάμ’ ἐν ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣νην·
κῆνος δὲ τούτων οὐκ ἐπελάθετο
ὤνηρ ἐπεὶ δὴ πρῶτον ὀνέτροπε,
παίσαις γὰρ ὀννώρινε νύκτας,
τὼ δὲ πίθω πατάγεσκ’ ὀ πύθμην· 10
σὺ δὴ τεαύτας ἐκγεγόνων ἔχης
τὰν δόξαν οἴαν ἄνδρες ἐλεύθεροι
ἔσλων ἔοντες ἐκ τοκήων.
violently…
they fill with unmixed wine … day
and night it splashes, thrown out as wine lees;
there, the custom often…
That man did not forget this,
when he first turned (them/it) over.
For all night long he stirred (them/it) up,
and the bottom of the wine jar made a clattering noise.
But you, son of such a woman, have
such a reputation like free men
born from noble parents.
39 Valckenaer 1799, 213-214; Fuhr 1841, 64 n. 45.

40 The content of this fragment was first elucidated by Friis Johansen
1986. I cite the fragment after Liberman 1999, 50-51 (from l. 3 onwards;
the first two lines of the papyrus are almost illegible). Liberman inter-
preted the last sentence as a question.
Alcaeus mentions someone’s habit of playing the kottabos game

(see 5 παφλάσδει λ̣ά̣τ̣αχθεν; 8 ὀνέτροπε; 9 ὀννώρινε; 10 τὼ δὲ
πίθω πατάγεσκ’ ὀ πύθμην), more specifically the ἐν λεκάνῃ vari-
ant. The implicit objects of the verbs ὀνέτροπε and ὀννώρινε are
probably the cups41. According to many scholars, Alcaeus refers to
Pittacus (either in σὺ δή at 11 or in κῆνος … ὤνηρ at 8-9)42. The
habit of drinking unmixed wine might be connected with Pittacus’
Thracian origin. The poem might also be relevant for fr. 105 M.,
where Dicaearchus argues that people used to add a lot of water to
their wine.
2.3. Dicaearchus on the limpet in Alcaeus fr. 359 Voigt (fr. 110 M.)
In the third book of the Deipnosophists, Athenaeus discusses vari-
ous kinds of seafood (Ath. 3, 30-46, 85c-94b). One species is the tel-
line, which is mentioned in Aristophanes’ On the mournful message-
staff (fr. 367 Slater). Here, Athenaeus digresses on the problem of the
word λεπάς in a poem of Alcaeus. He cites Callias’ On the limpet in
Alcaeus along with Aristophanes’ criticism of Dicaearchus.
Ath. 3, 31, 85f43:

μνημονεύων δ’ αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς τελλίνης) Ἀριστοφάνης ὁ γραμματικὸς
ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ἀχνυμένης σκυτάλης συγγράμματι ὁμοίας φησὶν εἶναι
τὰς λεπάδας ταῖς καλουμέναις τελλίναις. Καλλίας δ’ ὁ Μιτυληναῖος
ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς παρ’ Ἀλκαίῳ λεπάδος παρὰ τῷ Ἀλκαίῳ φησὶν εἶναι
ᾠδὴν ἧς ἡ ἀρχή·
«πέτρας καὶ πολίας θαλάσσας
τέκνον»,
ἧς ἐπὶ τέλει γεγράφθαι·
«ἐκ δὲ παίδων
χαύνοις φρένας ἀ θαλασσία λέπας.»
ὁ δ’ Ἀριστοφάνης γράφει ἀντὶ τοῦ «λεπάς» «χέλυς» καί φησιν οὐκ εὖ
Δικαίαρχον ἐκδεξάμενον λέγειν τὰς λεπάδας· τὰ παιδάρια δὲ ἡνίκ’
ἂν εἰς τὸ στόμα λάβωσιν, αὐλεῖν ἐν ταύταις καὶ παίζειν, καθάπερ
καὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν τὰ σπερμολόγα τῶν παιδαρίων ταῖς καλουμέναις
τελλίναις.
41 See Friis Johansen 1986, 97.

42 See Voigt 1971, 210 with literature. In a scholion in P.Oxy. X 1234
fr. 3 (fr. 72 Voigt is preserved in fr. 2), Diels 1920, 4 n. 2 reconstructed
Pittacus’ name as [Πιττα]κός.
43 The text is that of Kaibel 1887-1890, I 198-199.
Μentioning it (sc. the telline) in his treatise On the mournful message-staff,

the grammarian Aristophanes says that limpets resemble the so-called tel-
linai. Callias of Mitylene in On the limpet in Alcaeus says that there is a
song in Alcaeus with the incipit
«Child of rock and grey sea»,
which ends with:
«may you enchant the minds of children: the limpet of the sea.»
But Aristophanes writes «tortoise» (chelys) instead of «limpet» (lepas)
and says that Dicaearchus misunderstood it when he spoke of the limpets.
Whenever children put them to their mouths, they blow on them like pipes
and make music, as guttersnipes do among us with the so-called tellinai.
Athenaeus then comments on limpets and tellinai as flutes and

quotes Sopater’s Eubulotheombrotus (fr. 7 Kassel – Austin). Ac-
cording to Wilamowitz, his direct source for all this information is
Pamphilus’ lexicon44. Since the fragment deals with the use of lim-
pets as musical instruments, it might belong to the Life of Greece: see
Dicaearchus’ comments on the krembala in fr. 72 M. Most scholars,
however, attribute it to On Alcaeus45, indeed the most likely source for
Aristophanes of Byzantium, who also made an edition of Alcaeus. The
communis opinio considers the Alcaic poem a riddle46. According to
Slater and Blank – Dyck, the final word gives the answer to the riddle,
revealing the «child of the rock and sea» as either a limpet or a tor-
toise47. However, riddles generaly do not give the answer at the end48.
The meaning of this fragment is much debated. What is certain
is that (1) Callias read λεπάς as the last word of the Alcaic poem,
(2) Aristophanes read χέλυς, and (3) Aristophanes criticized Dicae-
archus. The following interpretations have been advanced.
(1) Dicaearchus read χέλυς, which he interpreted as a flute; Aris-
tophanes’ alternative interpretation for χέλυς is unknown49
44 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1900, 74-75.

45 See Fuhr 1841, 46-47; Müller 1848, 247; Martini 1903, 553; Wehrli
19672, 34, 73-74; 1968, 532; Greselin in Canfora 2001, I 237 n. 6; Mirhady
2001, 5 and Cannatà Fera 2002, 106-108.
46 See von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1900, 75-76; Wehrli 19672, 74;
Slater 1982, 337-339; Blank – Dyck 1984, 18-19; West 1990, 6 and Liber-
man 1999, 244 n. 318.
47 Slater 1982, 337-339; Blank – Dyck 1984, 18-19.
48 For this reason, Neri 1996, 47-50 and Cadili 2009 considered the
poem a hymn instead.

49 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1900, 75-76; Wehrli 19672, 74; West
1990, 6; Liberman 1999, 244 n. 318.

(2) Dicaearchus read λεπάς, which he interpreted as a flute; Aris-

tophanes read χέλυς, which he interpreted as a lyre50
(3) Dicaearchus read λεπάς, which he interpreted as a percussion
instrument; Aristophanes read χέλυς, which he interpreted as a
flute51
(4) Dicaearchus read λεπάς, which he interpreted as a percussion
instrument; Aristophanes read χέλυς, which he interpreted as a
lyre52
(5) Dicaearchus read λεπάς, which he interpreted as a stringed in-
strument; Aristophanes replied that limpets are actually used as
flutes and read χέλυς, which he interpreted as a lyre53
ἐκδεξάμενον54 means «interpret» here, not «accept a reading»,
since «Dicaearchus was wrong to accept (the reading) ‘limpet’ and
speak of limpets» would be tautological. λέγειν τὰς λεπάδας can
only mean «Dicaearchus spoke of the limpets» (lit. «he said: the lim-
pets»)55. Other translations have attributed an erroneous meaning to
λέγειν or have ignored the plural τὰς λεπάδας56.
50 Blank – Dyck 1984, 18-19; Porro 1994, 8-10.

51 Greselin in Canfora 2001, I 238 n. 7.
52 Cannatà Fera 2002, 106-107.
53 Slater 1982, 338-339.
54 Ahrens’ conjecture ἐκδεξάμενον (for ἐκλεξάμενον) has rightly
been adopted by all scholars.

55 See Schweighäuser 1801-1805, I 336 = Müller 1848, 247 («non recte
interpretantem Dicaearchum de patellis dicere»); Slater 1982, 337 («Di-

caearchus in speaking of limpets interprets wrongly»); Porro 1994, 8 («Di-
cearco non interpretando bene parla di conchiglie») and Mirhady 2001,
107 («Dicaearchus had not understood well in saying ‘limpets’»).
56 Campbell 19902, 393 translated «Dicaearchus was wrong to ac-
cept tortoise in the sense of limpet», which ignores λέγειν and renders
ἐκδεξάμενον twice: once as «accept the reading» and a second time as
«understand». The same holds true for Salvagno’s translation in Canfo-
ra 2001, I 237 «non interpreta bene Dicearco, il quale accetta il termine
lepádes» and for Gulick’s translation «Dicaearchus was mistaken in ac-
cepting ‘limpets’ here» (Gulick 1927-1941, I 369). Neri 1996, 37-41 inter-
preted λέγειν as «definire», «spiegare» (a supposed mix of the meanings
of δηλοῦν and καλεῖν) and translated «Dicearco, non bene, accogliendo
<λεπάς>, definisce τὰς λεπάδας». However, in the scholia cited by Neri
1996, 40 n. 43 as attestations of this meaning, the verb always means «call
something so and so», not «explain something as so and so». Moreover, as
Neri acknowledged, Athenaeus does not use a second accusative here. It is
Wilamowitz attributed the explanation that «whenever children

put them to their mouths, they blow on them like pipes and make
music, as guttersnipes do among us with the so-called tellinai» to
Dicaearchus. In his view, Dicaearchus read χέλυς and interpreted it
as a metaphor for limpet, which was used as a flute (see interpreta-
tion 1 above); on the basis of Dicaearchus’ interpretation (rejected
by Aristophanes for whatever reason), Callias supposedly later intro-
duced λεπάς into the text57. However, Callias would not have written
a monograph entitled On the limpet in Alcaeus if this reading were
not yet found in Alcaeus. Moreover, Callias’ dates are uncertain58.
Contrary to all other scholars, Neri dated Callias before Dicaearchus.
A strong argument in favor of this is Strabo’s list of celebrities from
Lesbos (Str. 13, 2, 3-4, p. 617-618 C), where Callias is mentioned
alongside Hellanicus of Lesbos (13, 2, 4, p. 618 C). Strabo’s list
consists of groups of ὁμόχρονοι: Pittacus-Alcaeus-Sappho, Potamo-
Lesbocles-Crinagoras-Theophanes, Theophrastus-Phaenias, Arion-
Terpander59.
According to Cadili, Aristophanes criticized Dicaearchus for un-
derstanding limpets as flutes and contrasted these with bivalve telli-
nai60. However, Aristophanes actually stressed the similarity between
the two types of seashell. Moreover, such biological arguments would
fit a Peripatetic better than an Alexandrian grammarian61. Hence, the
also unclear what «define the limpets» would mean. Other shaky transla-
tions are those in Yonge 1854, I 143 «Dicaearchus made a great blunder
when he interpreted the line of limpets» and Liberman 1999, 244 n. 318
«Dicéarque a mal interprété la leçon χέλυς [ou ‘a eu tort d’accepter la
leçon χέλυς’] en la rapportant aux patelles». Edmonds 19282, 376-377
changed the text to οὐκ εὖ Δικαίαρχον ἐκδεξάμενον λέγειν τὸ λεπάς
and translated «Dicaearchus reads lepas without understanding what a le-
pas was». However, τὰς λεπάδας in the codex Marcianus is confirmed
by the epitome.
57 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1900, 75-76. See also Wehrli 19672,
74; West 1990, 6 and Liberman 1999, 244 n. 318.

58 For a Forschungsbericht, see Neri 1996, 29-34. To this survey Mon-
tana 2016 can be added, who tentatively dated Callias to the third or se-
cond century BCE. Callias might also be mentioned in P.Oxy. XXIX 2506
alongside Dicaearchus (but cfr. § 2.4 for the supplements).
59 Neri 1996, 33-34.
60 Cadili 2009, 71.
61 As Slater 1982, 341-342 pointed out, a similar lack of biological ac-
curacy is seen in Aristophanes’ epitome of Aristotle’s History of animals.

comment on limpets as flutes must be part of Aristophanes’ argument

against Dicaearchus.
If Dicaearchus read χέλυς (meaning «lyre» here instead of «tor-
toise»), he must have interpreted the «lyre of the sea» as a metaphor
for limpets (as Wilamowitz suggested). In that case, Aristophanes,
not understanding the metaphor, rejected the connection with lim-
pets, since these are used as flutes, whereas χέλυς is a lyre. This only
makes sense if Dicaearchus did not explain the metaphor but merely
said something along the lines of «χέλυς: Alcaeus is talking about
limpets» or «Alcaeus mentions limpets as a musical instrument in the
poem with the incipit etc.» Such a metaphorical interpretation might
be supported by the phrase «child of rock and sea» in Alcaeus, which
can apply to limpets but probably not to turtles.
According to Slater, Dicaearchus read λεπάς and interpreted this
as a literal lyre (see interpretation 5)62. However, although Aris-
tophanes’ comment that limpets are flutes would make sense in that
case, a limpet can never be made into a lyre63. Dicaearchus must have
been aware of this, especially given his knowledge of obscure musi-
cal instruments such as the krembala (see fr. 72 M.).
If Dicaearchus read λεπάς and both readings are old, it is possible
that λεπάς had disappeared by Aristophanes’ time. When consulting
Dicaearchus, Aristophanes may have found a comment on limpets
but was puzzled by the contradiction with χέλυς: limpets are used
as flutes, but Alcaeus clearly says tortoise/lyre. This interpretation is
only valid if Dicaearchus did not quote the relevant line in Alcaeus.
The most plausible scenario, however, is that Dicaearchus read
λεπάς and interpreted it as a percussion instrument (see interpreta-
tions 3 and 4)64. This may be supported by fr. 72 M. on the krembala
The epitome erroneously claims (contrary to Aristotle) that female deer

have horns (2, 488 Lampros). Whether Aristophanes deliberately changed
the text (as Slater thought) or introduced the biological error by jumping
from a section on male to one on female deer (as Blank – Dyck 1984, 19-
20 thought), it is clear that he was not much concerned with biological
details.
62 Slater 1982, 337-339; 1986, 132-133.
63 Pace Slater 1986, 133, according to whom «λεπάς could mean
clamshell, which would make just as good a sounding box for a lyre as
a turtleshell». See already Blank – Dyck 1984, 18-19 for a rejection of
Slater.
64 Greselin in Canfora 2001, I 238 n. 7; Cannatà Fera 2002, 106-107.
(a musical instrument similar to castanets or cymbals). Dicaearchus

probably knew that limpets could be used like that65. Aristophanes, by
contrast, rejected such an interpretation of λεπάς: equating limpets
with tellinai, he concluded that limpets, too, must be used as flutes
and adduced Sopater as additional evidence. On the basis of the rest
of the poem (now lost to us), Aristophanes may have considered such
an interpretation unlikely and concluded that the object must be a lyre
instead, therefore changing λεπάς to χέλυς or adopting χέλυς as an
alternative reading if it already circulated at that time. His argument
in favor of this interpretation must have been omitted by Athenaeus
(or his intermediate source), who was only interested in the word
τελλίνη and did not need the comments on χέλυς. Aristophanes’
interpretation of the poem may have also been led by existing rid-
dles of the tortoise and the lyre66. This interpretation of the passage
in Athenaeus fits Dicaearchus as a researcher of musical instruments
better. Contrary to Aristophanes, who merely derives his knowledge
from literary testimonia and his own analogy between limpets and
tellinai, Dicaearchus probably knew that limpets could not be used as
flutes, since they are univalve shells67. However, they can be struck
together, like krembala.
Another question is how Aristophanes came to discuss Alcaeus’
poem in a work on Archilochus. For the «mournful message-staff»
(ἀχνυμένη σκυτάλη) refers to a poem by Archilochus (fr. 185 West2),
which opened with Ἐρέω τιν’ ὕμιν αἶνον, ὦ Κηρυκίδη, / ἀχνυμένῃ
σκυτάλῃ «I shall tell you a story, Cerycides, with a mournful mes-
sage-staff»68. Apollonius of Rhodes in his work On Archilochus
(ap. Ath. 10, 74, 451d = fr. 22 Michaelis) explained the ἀχνυμένη
σκυτάλη as a reference to the Spartan message-staff69. Aristophanes
for reasons unknown connected the message-staff with shellfish and
65 See Hermipp. fr. 31 Kassel – Austin (quoted right after Dicaearchus
[fr. 72 M.] in Ath. 14, 39, 636d) and Hsch. κ 4049 Latte.
66 On this riddle, see Borthwick 1970.
67 This problem was also indicated by Slater 1982, 340; Porro 1994, 9;
Greselin in Canfora 2001, 237-238 n. 7 and Cadili 2009, 71. Moreover, as

Greselin pointed out, the reading χέλυς in the sense of tortoise does not go
well with «child of the rock and sea».
68 An alternative reading is ἀχνυμένη σκυτάλη, either a nominative or
a vocative (referring to the addressee, Cerycides). On Archilochus’ Mes-

sage-staff, see also West 1988.
69 The explanation recurs in schol. vetera Pi. O. 6, 154b Drachmann.
in this context seems to have digressed on a similar problem involving

shellfish in Alcaeus. Slater suggested that Aristophanes interpreted
σκυτάλη as a musical instrument (a pipe; compare σκυταλεία in
Iuba [FGrHist 275 fr. 81] and σκυτάλια in Poll. 4, 82 and Hsch. σ
1192 Hansen [σκυτάλια]) and Cerycides as «son of κῆρυξ», where
κῆρυξ refers to a spiral sea shell (see Antiph. fr. 293 Kassel – Aus-
tin)70. Incidentally, σκυτάλιον can also denote a small crustacean (see
Hsch. σ 1194 Hansen71. According to Neri, by contrast, Aristophanes
actually refuted the interpretation of σκυτάλη as a pipe and likewise
refuted a similar interpretation of an Alcaic poem72.
Finally, Cadili claimed that the ‘real’ polemic in Aristophanes con-
cerned the authenticity of the poem. Aristophanes supposedly found
fault with its un-Alcaic vocabulary and proposed changing the clos-
ing line to ἐκ δ’ ἐπᾴδων πραΰνοις φρένας ἀ θαλασσία χέλυς73.
However, there is nothing that supports this speculative conjecture
of Cadili; moreover, it is unclear why Aristophanes would discuss
limpets and tellinai at all then or why he would comment on the au-
thenticity of an Alcaic poem in a work on Archilochus.
2.4. Dicaearchus in P.Oxy. XXIX 2506 (fr. 111 M.)

P.Oxy. XXIX 2506 preserves fragments of an anonymous trea-
tise on lyric poets (Alcman, Stesichorus, Sappho and Alcaeus)74, in
which several Hellenistic authorities are cited: Aristotle (fr. 6a)75,
70 Slater 1982, 339-341; 1986, 133.

71 See EM. s. v. σκυταλωτοὺς τροχούς, p. 720 Kallierges: Καὶ
σκυταλίδες (…) παρὰ Ἀλεξανδρεῦσί τε εἶδος καρίδων.
72 Neri 1996, 27-28.
73 Cadili 2009, 67-70.
74 Although the author frequently quotes lyric poets (fr. 1c col. ii
[Alcman?]; fr. 5 col. ii [Alcman]; fr. 26 col. i-ii [Stesichorus]; fr. 42a
[Sappho]; fr. 48 [Sappho]; fr. 77 [Alcaeus]; fr. 82 [Alcaeus?]; fr. 115 [?]),
the work is no lemmatized commentary. Instead, these quotations are used
for information on the poets’ life and art. Pfeiffer 1968, 222 and Vetta
1982, 13 considered it a specimen of Περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα literature. See also
Arrighetti 1977, 47-48; 1987, 188. Davison’s view that it is a fragment
of Satyrus’ Lives, however, should be rejected: see Montanari 1986 and
Schorn 2004, 21-22.
75 Barner 1967, 5 n. 2 reconstructed Aristotle’s name in two additional
fragments. He suggested joining fr. 31, 2 (]ρ̣ιστ̣[) to fr. 32, 1 (] ̣τ̣ελ̣[) and
conjectured a citation of Aristotle in fr. 126, 3 [λέγε]ι γὰρ Ἀ̣ρ̣[. He also
suggested Ἀρισ̣[τ- (Aristotle or Aristarchus?) in fr. 139, 9.
Chamaeleon (fr. 26 col. i, 11 = fr.32 Martano), Aristarchus (fr. 6a,

6; perhaps also fr. 79, 7) and perhaps also Satyrus (fr. 26 col. ii, 27 =
fr. 7 Schorn) and the grammarian Callias (fr. 79, 2). Page suggested
supplementing Dicaearchus’ name in fr. 6a, 3 (ὑπὸ Δικα[ιάρχου]),
fr. 77, 5 (ὑπὸ Δικ[αιάρχου]), fr. 79, 6 ([Δι]καια[ρχ-) and fr. 137b
(Δικαί|[αρχος])76. I re-edit these pieces here, which I examined un-
der a microscope in the Papyrology Room of the Sackler Library in
Oxford77. The most plausible supplement is that in fr. 6a.
Fr. 6a
. . . . .
δ̣η̣κ̣α ̣ ̣[ c. 10
προσα[ c. 12
ὑποδικα[ c. 10
ταυτα μα̣[ c. 8 Ἀ-
ριστοτέ[λ- c. 9 ὑ- 5
π’ Ἀριστάρ[χου c. 7
τον Ὕρ[ρ]α̣ ̣[ c. 10
π ̣[ c. 15
μη[ c. 15
κεφ[ c. 14 10
. . . . .
1 Perhaps δ̣ὴ̣ κ̣αὶ̣ 3 ὑπὸ Δικα[ιάρχου] Page 4 ταῦτα or ταὐτὰ ||

μα̣[ρτυρ- Barner, perhaps μα̣[θητοῦ τοῦ Ἀ]|ριστοτέ[λους] 5-6 [ὑ]|π’
Ἀριστάρ[χου Page : Πάρις τ’ ἀρ[ Davison 7 τὸν Ὕρ[ρ]ας or τὸν
Ὕρ[ρ]αο[ν] Page τὸν ῎Υρρα̣ον δὲ πα[ῖδ]α Holford-Strevens ap.
Janko on the basis of Alc. fr. 129, 13 Voigt
1 ̣ ̣[ : feet of two uprights with a hook to the right (the former probably ι,̣ the
latter τ̣, π̣, γ̣ or ρ̣) 7 ̣[ : upper trace of left-hand arc (compatible with ο̣, σ̣, ε̣)
8 ̣[ : left-hand arc (compatible with ο̣ or ω̣)
… By Dica[earchus] (?) … Aristotle … by Aristarchus … Hyrrhas …
Theoretically, υποδικα[ could be analyzed as ὑπόδικα ‘liable

things’ or as ὑπό with a form of δίκαιος, δικαστήριον, δικαιοσύνη
or δικαστής. The supplement ὑπὸ Δικα[ιάρχου] seems more like-
ly, however, since other authorities associated with Dicaearchus are
cited in the vicinity: Aristotle (4-5: [Ἀ]|ριστοτέ[λ-) and Aristarchus
76 Page 1963, 35, 42, 44, 48. See also Montanari 1992.
77 I tried to join other pieces of P.Oxy. XXIX 2506 but without success.
(5-6: [ὑ]|π’ Ἀριστάρ[χου])78. The fragment mentions Pittacus’

father, Hyrrhas, whose name should be supplemented as either
Ὕρ[ρ]α̣ς̣ or Ὕρ[ρ]α̣ο̣[ν]79. In the latter case, it might be a quotation
of Alcae. fr. 129, 13 Voigt (τὸν ῎Υρραον δὲ πα[ῖδ]α)80. Similar quo-
tations from Alcaeus for historical or biographical information are
found in fr. 7781.
Page placed fr. 6b and fr. 6c vertically with respect to fr. 6a on the
basis of the papyrus fibres of the back82, but it is unclear how much
text has been lost between these three pieces. Fr. 6c must be placed
below the other two fragments, since it preserves the lower margin.
The position of fr. 6a and fr. 6b with respect to each other, however,
is uncertain. Fr. 6b is too fragmentary to give an idea of its content.
Fr. 6c is also difficult to read: it mentions retribution (9 ]κολασεω[)
and perhaps refers to someone whose name was cleared (6 [ἔγκλη]-
μα ἀπολυσ[α-)83.
Pittacus is also mentioned alongside Alcaeus in fr. 7784.
Fr. 77
. . . . .
c. 8 ] ̣ ̣[ ̣]λ ̣[ c. 9
c. 6 Φι]τ̣τακο ̣[ c. 8
c. 8 ]ν̣α συμφ[ c. 8
c. 7 ]η̣ν Ἀλκαιο[ c. 7
c. 7 ]α̣ρ ὑποδικ[ c. 7 5
c. 8 ] ̣τον αλ ̣[ c. 7
c. 8 ]ουτε̣φ̣[ c. 8
c. 8 ]μου φον ̣[ c. 7
78 Aristotle was Dicaearchus’ master. Aristarchus is said to have adopt-
ed a certain reading in Homer from Dicaearchus (Apollonius Dyscolus

Pron. p. 48 Schneider = p. 60b-c Bekker = p. 354 Brandenburg = fr. 94 M.).
According to Davison 1966, 99, παρισταρ[ at l. 6 could also be analyzed
as Πάρις τ’ ἀρ[. However, the odd connection between Paris and Hyrrhas
is much less probable than a reference to Aristarchus, especially in view of
his edition of Alcaeus (see Heph. De signis 3, p. 74 Consbruch).
79 Page 1963, 35.
80 See Holford-Strevens ap. Janko 2011, 478; 535.
81 Compare also the similar quotations from Alcman in fr. 5 col. ii and
from Sappho in fr. 42a.

82 Page 1963, 34. For the vertical alignment of the separate pieces, Page
relied on Barns: see Page 1963, v.

83 See Page 1963, 35.
84 Pittacus is also mentioned in fr. 102.
c. 8 ]ς μελεδα̣[ c. 6
c. 8 ] ̣αμα ̣[ c. 5 ] ̣γ ̣[ c. 3 10
c. 9 ] ̣ ταῦτα δηλοῖ ̣[ c. 1
c. 9 ]α̣· vac. «πὰρ δ’ ὀ κάλο[ς
c. 9 ]ος εστο δαφν[ c. 2
c. 8 ] ̣τεσ̣τεφανωμε[( ̣)
c. 14 ]ωικελ̣ο ̣[( ̣) 15
c. 14 ] ̣ος»· vac. ὅτι δ’ α[( ̣)
c. 13 ] ̣ ̣ ̣σαν ὡσ
c. 13 ] ̣ ̣υ̣μεν ἀμ
c. 3 ] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ι̣ν· πόης γὰρ ου
c. 2 ] ̣ κάκον θάνων, ἔπει βέ- 20
βα]κ̣ας α[ἴ]νως πλάγαισιν ὐ-
π’ Ἀλλιήνων»· vac. ὅτι δὲ τοῦ θα-
νάτου τὸν Ἀλκαῖον Ἄμαρδις
ὑπενόησεν· «κἄπειτ’ ἀπέθυ-
σας, ὦ πόνηρε παίδων, καιτ ̣[( ̣) 25
c. 2 ]οτ’ Ἀμάρδιος μὲν χαιρω̣[( ̣)
c. 3 ]σοθεν δὲ συμπόταις τα[( ̣)
c. 3 ]θα τ̣ὸ πλῆον vac. ἐπασχαλλ̣ ̣[( ̣)
c. 3 ]δ’ αἴματος ἔμμι τῶ σκ[ c. 2
c. 2 ] ̣ιν οὐδ’ ἒν vac. ἐπαίτιος ε[ c. 2 30
c. 3 ] ̣τ[ ̣] ̣στωι ̣[ ̣]οι̣ ταδε[ c. 3
c. 14 ] ̣δ ̣[ c. 4
. . . . .
2 [Φι]ττάκο[υ] Tarditi 3 [δυσδαίμο]να συμφ[οράν] or [τάλαι]να

συμφ[ορά] Barner || ὑπὸ Δικ[αιάρχου] Page ὑπόδικ[ος] Davison 6
τὸν Ἀλκ̣[αῖον] Porro 7 ]ουτε φ[ησί(ν)] or ]ουτ’ ἔφ[η] Barner 10
Ἀμαρ[δι- Page 12 [ψευσθέντ]α or [ἐψευσμέν]α or [καταψευσθέν-
τ]α Barner || κάλο[ς] Treu 13 ἐς τὸ Treu ἔστο Page || δάφν[αι] or
δάφν[αισι(ν)] Barner 14 τ’ ἐστεφανωμε[ν- or τε στεφάνωμε- or τε
στεφανωμε[ν- Page [ἔλθ]ε̣τε στεφανώμε[νοι] Treu 15 κελομ̣[αι]
Treu, perhaps ]ωι κε δ̣οκ̣[ 16-17 α[ὐ|τὸν] or Ἀ[λ|λιηνοί] or Ἀ[λ|και-
Barner 17-18 ὡς | [ἐχθρὸν ὄντα] Barner 18 σ̣ὺ̣ μὲν Page 19 [ἄμ]-
μιν Page ἄμμι{ν} West || 19-20 οὐ | [δ’ ὤ]ς Treu οὔ | [πω]ς West, perhaps
οὔ|[τω]ς̣ 20 κάκον <τι> West 20-21 βέ|[βα]κ̣ας Barner 25 καὶ τὸ
Treu καίτο̣[ι] Führer 26 [π]ότ’ Treu [π]οτ’ Führer [πρ]οτ’ West [τ]οτ’
Tarditi || χαίρω Treu χαίρων Barner 27 [ἀπά|ται]σ’ †ὄθεν† (error for
ὄταν) Treu [μέ]σοθεν Führer 28 [ἔφ]θα Treu || ἐπασχάλ{λ}α̣[μι] Treu
ἐπασχάλλω̣[ν] Barner ἐπασχαλ{λ}άῳ Führer on the basis of P.Turner
2, perhaps ἐπασχάλα̣μ̣[ι] 29 [οὐ]δ’ Davison [τῶ] δ’ Treu [τῶ]δ’ Barner
29-30 Σκ[άμω] Hommel ap. Barner σκ[όπω] Tarditi σκ[ύρω] West 30
[ὔμμ]ιν Tarditi [σφ]ιν Führer || ἔ[γω] Tarditi 31 ἔ̣[μ]οι Führer
1 ] ̣ ̣[ : foot of upright, followed by upright with a hook at the foot and a hor-
izontal bar at maximum height (compatible with τ̣ or π̣) || ̣[ : part of rising
oblique at line level (compatible with λ̣ or α̣) 2 ̣[ : speck slightly above
mid-height (probably belonging to υ̣) 6 ] ̣ : speck slightly below mid-height
|| ̣[ : speck at line level 8 [̣ : lower left-hand arc (compatible with ο̣ or ε̣) 10 ] ̣
α : right-hand loop at maximum height (belonging to ρ̣ or β̣) || α [̣ : upright || ] γ
̣ ̣[ :
before γ specks at mid-height and line level, after γ speck slightly below mid-
height 11 ] ̣ : trace at maximum height of letter touching the horizontal bar
of τ (perhaps σ̣) || ̣[ : trace of slightly slanting stroke at mid-height followed
by small trace of upright or oblique near line level (perhaps punctuation sign
or space-filler) 14 ] ̣ : before the first trace a small rising oblique above
the line (perhaps accent), then letter top continuing in horizontal bar of τ, ei-
ther containing a bar (perhaps τ̣ or υ̣) or a curve (σ̣ or ε̣) 15 ̣[ : remains of
horizontal stroke at line level and tip of upright at maximum height, followed
by upper and lower part of left-hand arc (perhaps κ̣) 16 ] ̣ : thick descend-
ing oblique 17 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ : lower descending oblique, then lower left-hand arc,
followed by dot at maximum height : κ̣ε̣ι̣ Page 18 ] ̣ ̣ : speck at maximum
height, followed by upper traces of letter touching υ̣ (possibly σ̣) 19 ] ̣ ̣[̣ :
speck at line level, followed by lower left-hand arc || ] ̣[ : rising oblique at line
level followed by right-ward curving foot (perhaps belonging to α̣ or λ̣) || ] ̣ :
small traces of rising and descending oblique strokes at line level (compatible
with μ̣) 20 ] ̣: descending curve above mid-height (compatible with ε̣ or σ̣)
25 ̣[ : left-hand arc (belonging to ο̣ or ω̣) 28 ̣[ : lower part of rising stroke
(perhaps α̣ or μ̣) 30 ] ̣ : specks at mid-height 31 ] ̣τ[ : before τ speck at
maximum height || ] ̣στωι : before στωι lower right-hand arc || ̣[ : lower left-
hand arc 32 ] ̣ : remains of slanting upright or right-hand arc || ̣[ : remains
of left-hand arc (ε̣, ο̣ or ω̣)
… Phittacus … Alcaeus … by Dic[aearchus] (?) … care … is shown by

the following: «The beautiful … is present … laurel … crowned …» And
that … (is shown by the following): «You do … harm by dying, since you
have perished in a horrible way under the blows by the Allieni.» And that
Amardis suspected Alcaeus of being responsible for his death (is shown
by the following): «And next you sacrificed, worthless boy, … rejoice …
of Amardis … fellow drinkers … more indignant … for the blood of … I
am in no way to be blamed …» …
The beginning of the fragment is damaged. Pittacus and Alcaeus

are mentioned, probably in the context of a certain disaster (3 συμφ[,
perhaps a form of συμφορά). This disaster may concern a murder
(8 φον[, probably a form of φόνος, φονεύς or φονεύω), the topic
in the subsequent lines85; the dead person is probably mentioned in
the genitive (8 ]μου)86. Alcaeus was apparently blamed for this. The
85 See Barner 1967, 5.

86 See Barner 1967, 6 and Porro 1994, 207.
anonymous writer quotes lines from Alcaeus (fr. 306a b Voigt) as

attestations of this episode, which he introduces with ὅτι δέ … (sc.
δηλοῖ ταῦτα) «(the following lines show) that …» at l. 16 and l.
2287; a construction with ὅτι μέν should probably be reconstructed
somewhere in l. 10-11.
In the first quotation (12-16), Alcaeus mentions a beautiful man
who carries a laurel and is crowned, in all likelihood the murdered
man. The lines seem to belong to a sympotic poem88 and are prob-
ably quoted to show that the man was (or used to be) a friend of
Alcaeus89. In the second quotation (19-22), Alcaeus addresses a de-
ceased man who died at the hands of the Allieni. Page and Barner in-
terpreted it as a threnos on the same murdered man, quoted to prove
Alcaeus’ innocence90. Other scholars have read a negation οὐ at l.
19 («you do no harm by dying») and have interpreted the poem as
an invective91. The last quotation (24-30)92 illustrates the accusa-
tions by a certain Amardis93: Alcaeus mentions that man along with
fellow drinkers and claims that he himself is not responsible for the
bloodshed. The object of this bloodshed is probably mentioned in
87 The quotations are separated by a space at l. 12 and by a smaller space
at l. 16 and l. 22. Other small spaces appear at l. 28 and l. 30: according to

Barner 1967, 4 n. 3, these are used to isolate rare compounds (ἐπασχάλλω
and ἐπαίτιος). According to Vetta 1982, 15, however, the scribe merely
had trouble connecting a final ny with the subsequent letters (these spaces
are preceded by πλῆον and ἔν respectively).
88 See Barner 1967, 7.
89 See Page 1963, 42 and Barner 1967, 6-7.
90 Page 1963, 42; Barner 1967, 7.
91 Treu 1966, 23-24; West 1990, 4-5; Liberman 1999, 115.
92 It is uncertain where the last quotation ends. Führer 1984; West 1990,
5 and Liberman 1999, 117 considered l. 31 part of the poetic quotation.

Treu 1966, 22 and Vetta 1982, 15 assumed a fourth quotation, introduced
by καὶ τό at l. 25. However, P.Turner 2, which preserves a fragment of
this poem, shows that the lines quoted in l. 26 belong to the same poem:
see Porro 1994, 205-206; 2004, 207. Of course, the anonymous writer may
have separated two quotations from this poem by καὶ τό. Incidentally,
the second quotation (19-22), too, may be derived from the same poem,
especially if it is an invective instead of a threnos, since it appears to have
the same meter. See Führer 1984; West 1990, 4-5 and Liberman 1999,
116-117.
93 This Amardis might already be mentioned at l. 10, where Page 1974,
91 suggested supplementing Ἀμάρ̣[δι- (rho is compatible with the trace).

Perhaps Amardis is also mentioned in fr. 93, a scrap which reads ]αμαρ[.
the genitive l. 29 τῶ σκ[94. The lines of Alcaeus are thus quoted

in ‘chronological’ order: (1) Alcaeus was a friend of the deceased
man95; (2) the man was killed by the Allieni; (3) Alcaeus was blamed
by Amardis96.
According to Barner, the dead man was an exiled citizen, who
served as a mercenary for the Lydians and died in a war between
Lydia and the Allieni97. Barner identified the Allieni with the Phry-
gian Alieni (spelled Ἀλιηνοί or Ἀλιανοί with a single lambda)98.
However, the Ἀλλιανοί (with a geminate) living in Mysia and Caria99
are more plausible, especially in view of Alyattes’ expedition against
Caria (see Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 fr. 65). If the deceased man was
indeed a mercenary in the Lydian army, fr. 77 may be connected with
fr. 98 and fr. 102, which mention Alyattes and Croesus in connection
with Alcaeus and his brother Antimenidas100. Pittacus’ part in the af-
fair, however, is unclear (he is also mentioned in fr. 102). Treu identi-
fied Pittacus with the deceased man101, but this is contradicted by the
positive depiction in the first quotation102.
94 Barner 1967, 6. Hommel ap. Barner 1967, 6 n. 3 assumed that the

murdered man was called Σκάμος.
95 According to Vetta 1982, Alcaeus was his erastes.
96 Barner 1967, 9 n. 5.
97 Barner 1967, 13-14. See Tarditi 1984, 91.
98 Barner 1967, 10-12. In Phrygia, two settlements of Alieni are found.
One (spelled Ἀλιανοί with alpha) lived near Kyrgyl in north Phrygia, the
other (spelled Ἀλιηνοί with eta) probably in Asar, near Kozviran: see
Drew-Bear 1980 and Zgusta 1984, 59-60. According to Tarditi 1984, 85
and Porro 1994, 206; 2004, 210, Ἀλλιήνων is an error for Ἀλυήνων, i. e.
the man was supposedly killed by inhabitants of the Halys region. The
supposed ethnic *Ἁλυηνός is unattested, however.
99 On the Alliani, see Zgusta 1984, 61.
100 Fr. 98 discusses the death of Alcaeus and his brother Antimenidas.
The writer argues that Antimenidas did not die before the second exile and
a certain battle at the bridge, since Alcaeus still mentions him. Alcaeus
himself, he claims, is generally believed not to have died at that battle.
The writer then mentions Alcaeus’ return to Mytilene and a war between
the Lydian king Alyattes and the Mede Astyages. Fr. 102 treats the Lydian
king in connection with Alcaeus and Antimenidas: Croesus (son of Alyat-
tes) and Pittacus are mentioned at the end. For a discussion of fr. 98 and
fr. 102, see Treu 1966, 30-36, Barner 1967, 15-28, Tarditi 1984 and Porro
1994, 208-212; 2004, 208-210.
101 Treu 1966, 20-30.
102 See Tarditi 1984, 90-91 and Porro 1994, 206.
Page’s conjecture ὑπὸ Δικ[αιάρχου] is possible, although υποδικ[

could also be supplemented with Davison as ὑπόδικ[ος] «liable to
trial», especially since the subsequent text says that Alcaeus was
blamed for somebody’s death103.
In fr. 79, Page’s supplement [Δι]καία[ρχ- is highly conjectural.
Fr. 79
top
]ν πρ ̣[
]αλλια̣[
]νε ̣[
]κτιδ̣[
]τ̣αυτα̣[ 5
]καια[
] ̣αρχο[
] ̣νπ̣[
]οκι[
]τα̣[ 10
. . . . .
2 [Κ]αλλία̣[ς] Barner Ἀλλια̣[ν- Liberman 4 [ανα]κτιδ̣[ Barner 6 [Δι]-

καια[ρχ- Page 7 [Ἀρισ]ταρχο[ Page 9 [δ]οκι[μ- Barner
1 ̣[ : tip of upright or oblique at maximum height (perhaps α̣) 3 ̣[ : lower

left-hand arc (compatible with σ̣, ο̣, ε̣) 7 ] ̣ : right-end part of horizontal bar
at maximum height with a hooked foot below (belonging to τ̣ or π̣) 8 ] ̣:
right-hand arc (belonging to ο̣ or ω̣)
]καια[ could also be analyzed e. g. as ] καὶ α[. The conjecture

may find some support if [Ἀρισ]τ̣αρχο[ is supplemented with Page
at l. 7 (tau is compatible with the trace)104 and [Κ]αλλία̣[ς] (another
grammarian associated with Dicaearchus) with Barner at l. 2105.
Page also tentatively supplemented Dicaearchus’ name in fr. 137b.
103 Davison 1966, 105. Barner 1967, 5-6 objected that the term is not
found in archaic poetry. However, this is no quotation of Alcaeus and there-
fore does not require poetic vocabulary. Page 1974, 91 later no longer
mentioned his conjecture for fr. 77.
104 Page 1963, 44.
105 Barner 1967, 5 n. 2. The grammarian Callias is cited in the vicinity
of Dicaearchus in Ath. 3, 31, 85f (= fr. 110 M.): see § 2.3. According to
Liberman 1999, 116 n. 215, however, ]αλλια̣[ could refer to the Alliani
(mentioned in fr. 77).
Fr. 137b
. . . . .
]ον[
]ν νεω
]εται εισ̣
]τοις αλ-
]νεικοσ 5
]ρ̣ δικαι
]ηοσ
]νος προσ
]γυναι
]οσεν 10
] ̣ ̣γαρ̣
. . . . .
6-7 Δικαί|[αρχος] Page

11 ] ̣ ̣ : triangular apex (compatible with δ̣, λ̣, α̣), followed by remains of
upright at maximum height
However, a form of δίκαιος/δικαιοσύνη or perhaps a Lesbian da-

tive form δίκᾳ are equally possible. In short: the supplement of Dicae-
archus is plausible in fr. 6a but doubtful in the other three fragments.
3. What was Dicaearchus’ On Alcaeus?

Many scholars have considered On Alcaeus a commentary. Some
Περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα works were indeed commentaries, but these usu-
ally comprised more than one book106. Dicaearchus’ On Alcaeus, by
contrast, consisted of only one book, as the citations ἐν τῷ Περὶ
Ἀλκαίου instead of ἐν τοῖς Περὶ Ἀλκαίου or ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ
Ἀλκαίου vel sim. show (see fr. 105, 106 and 108 M.). A systematic
commentary on Alcaeus’ entire oeuvre, like those found in papyri107,
is also unlikely, since there was probably no collected edition of Al-
caeus at that time; the poems seem to have been first edited by Aris-
tophanes of Byzantium and later by his pupil Aristarchus108.
106 E. g. Didymus’ Περὶ Δημοσθένους (P.Berol. inv. 9780 = BKT I)

and Apollodorus’ Περὶ Ἐπιχάρμου (FGrHist 244 fr. 213) and Περὶ
Σώφρονος (FGrHist 244 fr. 214-218). See Schorn 2012, 417 with n. 29.
107 P.Oxy. XXI 2306; P.Oxy. XXI 2307; P.Oxy. XXXV 2733; P.Oxy.
XXXV 2734; P.Oxy. LIII 3711.

108 Both editions are attested in Heph. De signis 3, p. 74 Consbruch
Other Περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα works were biographies or biographically

oriented monographs. The best known example is Chamaeleon, who
discussed anecdotes, the poets’ character and their achievements109.
Dicaearchus’ fragments, however, do not immediately point to a
biography of Alcaeus.: fr. 105 M. deals with the ancient custom of
drinking diluted wine in small cups, whereas fr. 106-108 M. discuss
the kottabos game. Alcaeus is not even explicitly mentioned in those
fragments. As I have argued above, these fragments are probably
connected with certain poems. A connection with Alcaeus’ poetry
is also seen in fr. 110 M. Therefore, Dicaearchus’ work may have
been a monograph dealing with cultural phenomena in Alcaeus’ po-
ems. Admittedly, our impression of this work is one-sided, since all
fragments are cited in Athenaeus. Some may originally have had a
link with Alcaeus’ life. Perhaps fr. 105-109 M. were connected with
his drinking habits: compare Aeschylus’ propensity for drinking in
Chamaeleon’s On Aeschylus (fr. 43a). Fr. 110 M. might present the
poet as a riddler: compare the lasismata and Simonides’ riddles in
Chamaeleon’s On Lasus (fr. 33 Martano) and On Simonides (fr. 37
Martano), respectively. Similarly, Chamaeleon’s Περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα
works contained several digressions, as well110. Such biographical
discussions might be supported by fr. 111 M., if Dicaearchus’ name
may be restored there. For a fully-fledged biography, however, the
fragments give no unambiguous evidence.
Gertjan Verhasselt
(= Ar. Byz. fr. 383a Slater): ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν Ἀλκαίου (…) κατὰ μὲν τὴν
Ἀριστοφάνειον ἔκδοσιν (…) κατὰ δὲ τὴν νῦν τὴν Ἀριστάρχειον etc.
109 See especially Schorn 2012.
110 In On Stesichorus (fr. 30 Martano), Chamaeleon stated that the po-
etry of Homer, Hesiod, Archilochus, Mimnermus and Phocylides was set

to music. According to Schorn 2012, 433, the context may have been the
relation between text and music and the educational value of music. In
On Pindar (fr. 35 Martano), Chamaeleon digressed on the old Corinthian
custom of including as many prostitutes as possible in prayers to Aphro-
dite. According to Schorn 2012, 434-435, Chamaeleon may have wan-
ted to show that Pindar’s praise of prostitutes is therefore in no way ob-
scene. In On Simonides (fr. 38 Martano), Chamaeleon said that many cities
(especially Sparta) banned philosophy and rhetoric. In On Aeschylus (fr.
42 Martano), he quoted lines from a play on cooking a piglet. These last
two digressions have little to do with the life and personality of the poets
in question.
Bibliography
Apfel 1938 = H. V. Apfel, Homeric criticism in the fourth century B.C.,
«TAPhA» 69, 1938, 245-258.
Arnott 2000 = G. Arnott, Athenaeus and the epitome. Texts, manuscripts
and early editions, in Athenaeus and his world. Reading Greek culture
in the Roman Empire, edited by D. Braund, J. Wilkins, Exeter 2000,
41-52.
Arrighetti 1977 = G. Arrighetti, Fra erudizione e biografia, «SCO» 26,
1977, 13-67.
Arrighetti 1987 = G. Arrighetti, Poeti, eruditi e biografi. Momenti della
riflessione dei Greci sulla letteratura, Pisa 1987.
Barner 1967 = W. Barner, Zu den Alkaios-Fragmenten von P.Oxy. 2506,
«Hermes» 95, 1967, 1-28.
Blank – Dyck 1984 = D. L. Blank – A. R. Dyck, Aristophanes of Byzan-
tium and problem-solving in the Museum. Notes on a recent reassess-
ment, «ZPE» 56, 1984, 17-24.
Borthwick 1970 = E. K. Borthwick, The riddle of the tortoise and the lyre,
«Music & Letters» 51, 1970, 373-387.
Buffière 19732 = F. Buffière, Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque,
Paris 19732.
Cadili 2009 = L. Cadili, L’Inno alla patella è davvero di Alceo? Struttu-
re innografiche e simposio tra esegesi antica e moderna (Alc. fr. 359
Liberman [Voigt], Aristoph. Byz. fr. 367 Slater), «Paideia» 64, 2009,
49-72.
Campbell 19902 = Greek Lyric. I, Sappho and Alcaeus, edited and transla-
ted by D. A. Campbell, Cambridge (Mass.)-London 19902.
Canfora 2001 = Ateneo. I deipnosofisti. I dotti a banchetto, prima tradu-
zione italiana commentata su progetto di L. Canfora, introduzione di C.
Jacob, I-IV, Roma 2001.
Cannatà Fera 2002 = M. Cannatà Fera, Gli studi letterari di Dicearco, in
Messina e Reggio nell’antichità. Storia, società, cultura. Atti del Con-
vegno della S.I.S.A.C. (Messina-Reggio Calabria 24-26 maggio 1999),
a cura di B. Gentili – A. Pinzone, Messina 2002, 97-110.
Cavallaro 1971 = M. A. Cavallaro, Dicearco, l’Ineditum Vaticanum e la
crisi della cultura siceliota, «Helikon» 11, 1971, 213-228.
Davison 1966 = J. A. Davison, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2506, in Atti dell’XI
Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. Milano 2-8 settembre 1965,
Milano 1966, 96-106.
Diels 1920 = H. Diels, De Alcaei voto: scheda gratulatoria quam ad Udal-
ricum de Wilamowitz-Moellendorff virum doctum fortem strenuum col-
legam sibi coniunctissimum amicum per plus X lustra probatum die
festo A. D. XIII Kal. Aug. MCMXX quo ante L annos ab ordine philoso-
phorum Berolinensi doctoris philosophiae iura et honores accepit grati
animi testem misit H. D. Berlin 1920.
Drew-Bear 1980 = T. Drew-Bear, Problèmes de la géographie historique

en Phrygie. L’exemple d’Alia, in «ANRW» 2, 7, 2, 1980, 932-952.
Edmonds 19282 = Lyra Graeca being the remains of all the Greek lyric
poets from Eumelus to Timotheus excepting Pindar, newly edited and
translated by J. M. Edmonds, London-Cambridge (Mass.) 19282.
Erbse 1950 = H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika, Ber-
lin 1950.
Errante 1822 = I frammenti di Dicearco da Messina, raccolti e illustrati
dall’avvocato d. C. Errante, Palermo 1822.
FHS&G = Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his life, writings, thought
and influence, edited and translated by W. W. Fortenbaugh – P. M.
Huby – R. W. Sharples – D. Gutas, Leiden 1992.
Fortenbaugh 2011 = Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his life, writings,
thought and influence. Commentary volume 6, 1, Sources on ethics by
W. W. Fortenbaugh, with contributions on the Arabic material by D.
Gutas, Leiden 2011.
Fortenbaugh 2012 = W. W. Fortenbaugh, Chamaeleon on pleasure and
drunkenness, in Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea.
Text, translation, and discussion, edited by A. Martano – E. Matelli –
D. C. Mirhady, New Brunswick-London 2012, 359-386.
Friedrich – Nothers 1998-2001 = Athenaios, Das Gelehrtenmahl, einge-
leitet und übersetzt von C. Friedrich, kommentiert von T. Nothers, I-V,
Stuttgart 1998-2001.
Friis Johansen 1986 = H. Friis Johansen, Alcaeus and the kottabos game,
in Studies in honour of T.B.L. Webster, edited by J. H. Betts – J. T. Hoo-
ker – J. R. Green, Bristol 1986, I 93-101.
Fuhr 1841 = Dicaearchi Messenii quae supersunt, composita, edita et illu-
strata a M. Fuhr, Darmstadt 1841.
Führer 1984 = R. Führer, Das Metrum von Alkaios Fr. 306 A b Voigt ( = S
280 Page), Zeile 24 ff. und P.Turner 2, «ZPE» 54, 1984, 40.
Gudeman 1927 = A. Gudeman, Λύσεις, in RE 13.2, 1927, 2511-2529.
Gulick 1927-1941 = Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, with an English trans-
lation by C. B. Gulick in seven volumes, Cambridge (Mass.)-London
1927-1941.
Hager 1771 = I. G. Hager, De primis geographiae scriptoribus, in Geo-
graphischer Büchersaal zum Nutzen und Vergnügen der Liebhaber der
Geographie eröfnet. Zweiter Band nebst einem nötigen Register über die
zweiten Zehn Stücke, edited by I. G. Hager, Chemnitz 1771, 403-434.
Hoesch 1990 = N. Hoesch, Das Kottabosspiel, in Kunst der Schale. Kul-
tur des Trinkens, edited by K. Vierneisel – B. Kaeser, München 1990,
272-275.
Ionsius 1716 = I. Ionsius, De scriptoribus historiae philosophiae libri IV.
Nunc denuo recogniti atque ad praesentem aetatem usque perducti
cura Io. Christophori Dornii cum praefatione Burcardi Gotthelfii Stru-
vii, Jena 1716.
Ippolito 2016 = A. Ippolito, Hegesander [1], in Lexicon of Greek gram-

marians of antiquity (LGGA), edited by F. Montanari – F. Montana –
L. Pagani, BrillOnLine (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/
lexicon-of-greek-grammarians-of-antiquity), 2016.
Jacoby 1912 = F. Jacoby, Hegesandros 4, in RE 7.2, 1912, 2600-2602.
Jacquet-Rimassa 1995 = P. Jacquet-Rimassa, Κότταβος. Recherches ico-
nographiques. Céramique italiote. 440-300 av. J.-C, «Pallas» 42, 1995,
129-170.
Janko 2011 = Philodemus, On poems. Books 3-4 with the fragments of Ari-
stotle On poets, edited with introduction, translation, and commentary
by R. Janko, with an unpublished edition by C. Mangoni, Oxford-New
York 2011.
Kaibel 1887-1890 = Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, re-
censuit G. Kaibel, I-III, Leipzig 1887-1890.
Lafaye 1900 = G. Lafaye, Kottabos, in Dictionnaire des antiquités grec-
ques et romaines d’après les textes et les monuments, edited by C. Da-
remberg – E. Saglio, Paris 1900, III 1, 866-869.
Liberman 1999 = Alcée, Fragments, texte établi, traduit et annoté par G.
Liberman, Paris 1999.
Lissarrague 1990 = F. Lissarrague, The aesthetics of the Greek banquet.
Images of wine and ritual (Un flot d’images), translated by A. Szegedy-
Maszak, Princeton 1990.
Martini 1903 = E. Martini, Dikaiarchos 3, in RE 5, 1903, 546-563.
Mirhady 2001 = Dicaearchus of Messana, The sources, text and transla-
tion, ed. by D. C. Mirhady, in Dicaearchus of Messana, Text, transla-
tion, and discussion, edited by W. W. Fortenbaugh – E. Schütrumpf,
New Brunswick-London 2001, 1-142.
Montana 2016 = F. Montana, Callias, in Lexicon of Greek grammarians
of antiquity (LGGA), edited by F. Montanari – F. Montana – L. Pagani,
BrillOnLine (http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/lexicon-of-
greek-grammarians-of-antiquity), 2016.
Montanari 1986 = F. Montanari, Satiro in P.Oxy. 2506 (fr. 26 II)?, «ZPE»
62, 1986, 46-48.
Montanari 1992 = F. Montanari, 44. Dicaearchus. 1T (?), in Corpus dei
papiri filosofici greci e latini (CPF). Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura
greca e latina. Parte I, Autori noti. Vol. 1**, Firenze 1992, 30-32.
Müller 1848 = Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, ed. K. Müller, II, Pa-
ris 1848.
Neri 1996 = C. Neri, Poeti, filologi e patelle (Alc. fr. 359 V., Dicaearch. fr.
99 Wehrli, Ar. Byz. fr. 367 Sl.), «Eikasmos» 7, 1996, 25-55.
Nyikos 1941 = L. Nyikos, Athenaeus quo consilio quibusque usus subsidi-
is Dipnosophistarum libros composuerit, Basel 1941.
Olson 2006-2011 = Athenaeus, The learned banqueters, edited and trans-
lated by S. D. Olson, I-VIII, Cambridge (Mass.)-London 2006-2011.
Osann 1835 = F. Osann, Beiträge zur Griechischen und Römischen Litte-

raturgeschichte, Darmstadt 1835.
Page 1963 = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Part XXIX, edited with a commen-
tary by D. Page, London 1963.
Page 1974 = Supplementum lyricis Graecis. Poetarum lyricorum Graeco-
rum fragmenta quae recens innotuerunt, edidit D. Page, Oxford 1974.
Papenhoff 1954 = H. Papenhoff, Zum Problem der Abhängigkeit der Epi-
tome von der venezianischen Handschrift des Athenaios, Diss. Georg
August-Universität zu Göttingen, 1954.
Pfeiffer 1968 = R. Pfeiffer, History of classical scholarship from the be-
ginning to the end of the Hellenistic age, Oxford 1968.
Pontani 2005 = F. Pontani, Sguardi su Ulisse. La tradizione esegetica gre-
ca all’Odissea, Roma 2005.
Porro 1994 = A. Porro, Vetera Alcaica. L’esegesi di Alceo dagli Alessan-
drini all’età imperiale, Milano 1994.
Porro 2004 = A. Porro, Alcaeus 13, in Commentaria et lexica Graeca in
papyris reperta (CLGP). Pars I, Commentaria et lexica in auctores.
Vol. 1, Aeschines-Bacchylides. Fasc. 1, Aeschines-Alcaeus, edited by
G. Bastianini – M. Haslam – H. Maehler et al., München-Leipzig 2004,
197-211.
Rabe 1902 = H. Rabe, Die Ueberlieferung der Lukianscholien, «Nach-
richten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttin-
gen. Philologisch-historische Klasse» 1902, 718-736.
Rabe 1916 = Scholia in Lucianum, edidit H. Rabe, Leipzig 1916.
Richardson 1975 = N. J. Richardson, Homeric professors in the age of the
sophists, «PCPhS» n.s. 21, 1975, 65-81.
Richardson 1992 = N. J. Richardson, Aristotle’s reading of Homer and its
background, in Homer’s ancient readers. The hermeneutics of Greek
epic’s earliest exegetes, edited by R. Lamberton – J. J. Keaney, Prince-
ton 1992, 30-40.
Schäfer 1997 = A. Schäfer, Unterhaltung beim griechischen Symposion.
Darbietungen, Spiele und Wettkämpfe von homerischer bis in spätklas-
sische Zeit, Mainz 1997.
Schneider 1922 = K. Schneider, Kottabos, in RE 11.2, 1922, 1528-1541.
Schorn 2004 = S. Schorn, Satyros aus Kallatis. Sammlung der Fragmente
mit Kommentar, Basel 2004.
Schorn 2012 = S. Schorn, Chamaeleon. Biography and literature Peri tou
deina, in Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea. Text,
translation, and discussion, edited by A. Martano – E. Matelli – D.
Mirhady, New Brunswick-London 2012, 411-444.
Schorn 2014 = S. Schorn, Biographie und Autobiographie, in Die Litera-
tur der klassischen und hellenistischen Zeit, edited by B. Zimmermann
– A. Rengakos, München 2014, 678-733.
Schweighäuser 1801-1805 = Ἀθηναίου Ναυκρατίτου Δειπνοσοφισταί.
Athenaei Naucratitae Deipnosophistarum libri quindecim, ex optimis
codicibus nunc primum collatis emendavit ac supplevit, nova latina

versione et animadversionibus cum I. Casauboni aliorumque tum suis
illustravit commodisque indicibus instruxit J. Schweighäuser, I-V,
Strasbourg-Zweibrücken 1801-1805.
Slater 1982 = W. J. Slater, Aristophanes of Byzantium and problem-solv-
ing in the Museum, «CQ» 32, 1982, 336-349.
Slater 1986 = Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta, post A. Nauck collegit,
testimoniis ornavit, brevi commentario instruxit W. J. Slater, Berlin-
New York 1986.
Sparkes 1960 = B. A. Sparkes, Kottabos, an Athenian after-dinner game,
«Archaeology» 13, 1960, 202-207.
Susemihl 1891 = F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in
der Alexandrinerzeit, Leipzig 1891.
Tarditi 1984 = G. Tarditi, Alceo e la volpe astuta, in Lirica greca da Archilo-
co a Elitis. Studi in onore di Filippo Maria Pontani, Padova 1984, 81-92.
Treu 1966 = M. Treu, Neues über Sappho und Alkaios (P.Ox. 2506),
«QUCC» 2, 1966, 9-36.
Valckenaer 1799 = Callimachi elegiarum fragmenta, cum elegia Catulli
Callimachea, collecta et illustrata a L. K. Valckenaer, Leiden 1799.
Verhasselt 2015 = G. Verhasselt, Dicaearchus, in The encyclopedia of
ancient history. Online additions, Wiley Online Library (http://online-
library.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26229/abstract)
2015.
Vetta 1982 = M. Vetta, Il P. Oxy. 2506 fr. 77 e la poesia pederotica di
Alceo, «QUCC» n.s. 10, 1982, 7-20.
Voigt 1971 = Sappho et Alcaeus, Fragmenta, edidit E.-M. Voigt, Amster-
dam 1971.
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1900 = U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,
Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker, Berlin 1900.
Wehrli 19672 = Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. I, Dikai-
archos, hrsg. von F. Wehrli, Basel 19672.
Wehrli 1968 = F. Wehrli, Dikaiarchos, in RE Supplementband 11, 1968,
526-534.
Wehrli 19692 = Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. X,
Hieronymos von Rhodos, Kritolaos und seine Schüler. Rückblick. Der
Peripatos in vorchristlicher Zeit. Register, hrsg. von F. Wehrli, Basel
19692.
Wehrli – Wöhrle – Zhmud 2004 = F. Wehrli – G. Wöhrle – L. Zhmud,
Dikaiarchos aus Messene, in Die Philosophie der Antike. III, Ältere
Akademie. Aristoteles. Peripatos, hrsg. von H. Flashar, Basel 2004,
568-575.
West 1988 = S. R. West, Archilochus’ message-stick, «CQ» 37, 1988,
42-48.
West 1990 = M. L. West, Notes on Sappho and Alcaeus, «ZPE» 80, 1990,
1-8.
Yonge 1854 = The Deipnosophists or Banquet of the learned of Athe-

naeus, literally translated by C. D. Yonge with an appendix on poetical
fragments, rendered into English verse by various authors, and a gener-
al index, in three volumes, London 1854.
Zecchini 1989 = G. Zecchini, La cultura storica di Ateneo, Milano 1989.
Zgusta 1984 = L. Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen, Heidelberg 1984.

Dicaearchus On Alcaeus A Peripatetic App PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dicaearchus On Alcaeus A Peripatetic App PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Volume 144 2016, fascicolo 2

Abstract: This article discusses the fragments of the Peripatetic phi-

Keywords: Alcaeus, Dicaearchus, Athenaeus, Περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα litera-

1 The fragments of Dicaearchus have been edited by Wehrli 19672 and

ticle, I will discuss the transmission of the fragments, the context in

Ath. 11, 4, 460f-461a3:

According to Zecchini, Athenaeus knows Dicaearchus from

os» and the «Gattung der peripatetischen Dichtermonographien mit ihren

literature)5, perhaps Asclepiades of Myrlea. In On Nestor’s cup, this

5 On Homeric problems and Problemata literature, see especially Gu-

Martano). In order to make Alcaeus a moderate person (σωφρονικός), he

2.2. Dicaearchus on the kottabos game (fr. 106-109 M.)

only after dinner when toasting the Good Daemon.

Sparkes 1960, Hoesch 1990, Lissarrague 1990, 80-86, Jacquet-Rimassa

Ath. 15, 2, 666b-c (= fr. 106 M.)17:

It is unclear whether Athenaeus/Dicaearchus used the word λατάγη

16 The elegy is also quoted in Ath. 1, 50, 28b.

xix, Papenhoff 1954 and Arnott 2000, 47-50.

be doubted whether Dicaearchus really called λατάγη/λάταξ a ‘Si-

Ath. 15, 5, 667b-c (= fr. 107 M.)22:

B 2, 1-2 West2 = fr. 1, 1-2 Gentili – Prato2 (κότταβος ἐκ Σικελῆς ἐστι

κότταβον, ὡς Δικαίαρχός φησιν καὶ Πλάτων δ’ ἐν τῷ Διὶ [τῷ]

At the end of his discussion of the kottabos, Athenaeus returns to

Ath. 15, 7, 668d-e (= fr. 108 M.)23:

A fourth fragment is found in Athenaeus’ catalog of cups in book

Ath. 11, 58, 479d-e (= fr. 109 M.)25:

23 The text is that of Kaibel 1887-1890, III 478.

not accepted his conjecture τὴν δεξιὰν ἀγκυλώσαντα for τῇ δεξιᾷ

συμπόσια παρεισφέρειν ἆθλα κοτταβεῖα καλούμενα. εἶτα κύλικες αἱ

The fragment of Hegesander is paralleled by a scholion on Lucian.

put οἱ δεῖπνοι and μέγα between cruces.

Although the scholiast27 cites neither Hegesander nor Dicaearchus,

27 The scholion belongs to Arethas’ collection, which was written by his

secretary Baanes. See Rabe 1902, 722; 1916, iii.

kottabos game might go back to Hegesander, as well. It matches Ath.

sander also shows a few oddities. According to the grammarian, play-

30 Kaibel 1887-1890, III 55 changed τῇ δεξιᾷ κυκλώσαντα (found in

Ath. 11, 22, 782d-f33:

In view of the close resemblance to the lemma ἀγκύλη in the in-

33 The text is that of Kaibel 1887-1890, III 20.

συνεστραμμένη εἰς ἀποκοτταβισμόν ~ fr. 106 M. ὃ συνεστραμμένῃ

archaic poetry, comedy and tragedy in the vicinity of the citations of

λάβρως δὲ συν στε̣ί̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]ε̣ι̣α̣π̣ ̣ ̣

39 Valckenaer 1799, 213-214; Fuhr 1841, 64 n. 45.

Alcaeus mentions someone’s habit of playing the kottabos game

Ath. 3, 31, 85f43:

41 See Friis Johansen 1986, 97.

Μentioning it (sc. the telline) in his treatise On the mournful message-staff,

Athenaeus then comments on limpets and tellinai as flutes and

44 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1900, 74-75.

poem a hymn instead.

1990, 6; Liberman 1999, 244 n. 318.

(2) Dicaearchus read λεπάς, which he interpreted as a flute; Aris-

50 Blank – Dyck 1984, 18-19; Porro 1994, 8-10.

been adopted by all scholars.

interpretantem Dicaearchum de patellis dicere»); Slater 1982, 337 («Di-

Wilamowitz attributed the explanation that «whenever children

74; West 1990, 6 and Liberman 1999, 244 n. 318.

curacy is seen in Aristophanes’ epitome of Aristotle’s History of animals.

comment on limpets as flutes must be part of Aristophanes’ argument

The epitome erroneously claims (contrary to Aristotle) that female deer

(a musical instrument similar to castanets or cymbals). Dicaearchus

65 See Hermipp. fr. 31 Kassel – Austin (quoted right after Dicaearchus