Menander Comicus fr. 1

καὶ Μένανδρος δ’ ἐν Κιθαριστῇ περί τινος μουσικευομένου λέγων φησί φιλόμουσον εἶναι αὐτὸν

[                                                ]  πάνυ

ἀκούσματ’ εἰς τρυφήν τε παιδεύεσθ’ ἀεί.

Iambic trimeter

1 εἶναι codd. : εἶν’ Schweighäuser de trimetro <U-U-> φιλόμουσον εἶν’ αὐτὸν πάνυ cogitans, probb. Kaibel, Richards, Olson | post εἶναι <κἀγαπᾶν> e.g. Sandbach, <θαυμάσαντ’> Austin, ad trimetrum efficiendum | πάνυ ΑΒΜ : ἐκ πάνυ P || 2 ἀκούσματ’ AB : ἀκούσματα MP, ἠκούσατ’ Kaibel, ἀκούομεν Wilamowitz ap. eundem, τἀκούσματ’ (vel fort. τἀκούσματα v. 1 ad complendum) Richards (cf. Richards 1909) | ἀεί BMP : αἰεί A.

And Menander in the Kithara-player, speaking of one does music, says that he is a lover of the Muses

… entirely
the musical performances, and he is trained to softness always.

The reconstruction of the menandrean text behind this passage of the Deipnosophists is especially challenging. First of all, unlike other citations included in Athenaeus’ work, this one citation is not independent of Athenaeus’ text when it comes to its syntax. Therefore Meineke and Kock believed this to be a paraphrasis rather than a citation from Menander; according to them, the original text might have been φιλόμουσός ἐστι γὰρ πάνυ / ἀκούσματ’ εἰς τρυφὴν τ’ ἀεὶ παιδεύεται (FCG IV) or maybe φιλόμουσός ἐστι γὰρ πάνυ / παιδεύεται τ’ ἀκούσματʼ εἰς τρυφήν ἀεί (CAF II).
As more recent editors noticed, though, Athenaeus’ manuscripts have a perfectly good iambic trimeter in the section ἀκούσματ’-ἀεί: is it possible, then, that the infinitive form was already found in Menander’s text (where the infinite might have depended on a verb which Athenaeus replaced with φησί). The same thing cannot be said about the text before ἀκούσματα, which cannot be a trimeter, as it is found in the manuscripts: not only it is too short, but the syllables’ sequence is ametrical. Moreover, εἶναι seems to produce an iatus before αὐτόν, which is an issue, since there are no parallels in Menander allowing us to assume correptio, nor the elision of εἶναι. In light of all this, we might wonder if the text found in Athenaeus’ manuscripts between φησί and ἀκούσματα was actually meant to be a citation, as the subsequent section, or not. If this is the case, the text is corrupted, even if it preserves some elements of the original, such as φιλόμουσον and maybe πάνυ (it looks likely that the latter closed the verse preceding ἀκούσματ’-ἀεί: Menander uses it often as the last word of a trimeter). Since Athenaeus was mainly interested in the relation between music and τρυφή, which is the topic of the complete trimeter that we have, though, it cannot be ruled out that he meant to cite just that verse, while choosing to summarize and rephrase the preceding verse (or even verses).
Another issue concerns the particle τε. Though it appears as the fourth element of the trimeter, it is generally understood to link the text preceding ἀκούσματα with the trimeter itself. This implies that ἀκούσματα would be linked to the syntax of the subsequent sentence, as the direct object of παιδεύεσθαι (which would be transitive) or as accusativus relationis dependent on the same verb (which would be, in this case, reflexive); furthermore, the particle τε would be postponed, appearing as the fourth element of the sentence, rather than the second as usual. This is very uncommon and cannot be properly explained based on Denniston 1954, 515ss. Scholars tried to fix this issue supplementing a different verb to support ἀκούσματα, or moving the particle. On the other hand, if the text after φησί has in fact come to us as Athenaeus meant it, it is easier to understand ἀκούσματα in relation to what precedes it, rather than what follows: thereby, it should be understood as accusativus relationis, at least in Athenaeus’ text. His standing in Menander’s original, though, remains unclear.
It is natural to think that the φιλόμουσον described by the persona loquens is the kithara-player Phanias, the protagonist of Menander’s Kitharistēs. The fragment might belong to from the early part of the play: an indirect introduction of this kind, in which the rumors circulating around about Phanias are reported, may be well suited to pave the way for the first appearance of the kythara-player on the scene.
The interpretation of the word ἀκούσματα is unclear: in the only other two menandrean instances the term (always in the singular) means ‘sound, voice, news’, (Mis. 568, e in fr. 825 Κ-A); considering the context, though, it looks inevitable to make a connection with music and musicians. According to some scholars ἀκούσματα might refer to the Phanias’ students, according to others it might hint to his music, each interpretation implying a different value of παιδεύεσθαι (‘to train someone’ or ‘to practice’). Martina translates «(si dice) che sia amante della musica e istruisca musicisti per il diletto» (Martina III, p. 467); Coppola, on the other hand, suggests «(si dice) che sia amante della musica e sempre si eserciti nella musica sensuale» (Coppola 1938, p. 28).
Both interpretations could be consistent with what we know about Phanias, who was probably both a professional kithara-player and a teacher (see fr. 7, 2 Dardano, where he is called διδάσκαλος). The LSJ dictionary takes ἀκούσματα as accusativus rei with the passive verb («to be taught a thing»): the same does Sandbach 1973 («but the middle ‘caused to be trained’ not absolutely excluded»). Martina’s interpretation, endorsed by Blanchard, is based on a remark made by Körte-Thierfelder 1959, p. 284: «…dominus scilicet nescioquis φιλόμουσος narratur sibi deliciarum causa erudiendos curare fidicines, psaltrias etc., quod genus hominum vel ἀκροάματα vel ἀκούσματα vocari satis constat». In this view, ἀκούσματα are Phanias’ students. The shift from abstact to concrete in the plural is actually attested for ἀκρόαμα, -ατος, usually meaning «anything heard, esp. with pleasure, piece read, recited, played or sung», but in the plural also «lecturers, singers, or players, esp. during meals» (LSJ); it is also true that, according to some lexicographical sources, ἀκούσματα was used as a synonym for ἀκροάματα (see Thom.Mag. α 6, 16, Sud. α 994, 3, Et.Sym. 194, 21). Hence (probably) the idea of Körte-Thierfelder that ἀκούσματα, like ἀκροάματα, might be used to refer to «fidicines, psaltrias» and musicians in general. This meaning, nonetheless, does not seem to be attested in the texts, where ἀκούσματα is consistently associated to abstract terms (vd. e.g. Arist. EN 1174b, X. De re eq. IX 4, 3, Plu. Per. 1, 2, Mor. 457c, 519f); furthermore, nothing prevents us from thinking that ἀκούσματα and ἀκροάματα were used synonyms because of the shared abstract sense of the plural (for the abstract meaning of ἀκροάματα see e.g. Arist. EN 1173b e X. Smp. II 3). In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to suggest that ἀκούσματα might refer to Phanias’students: it is probably safer and more likely to think that it referred to the music of the musical performances.
Despite some doubts concerning the syntax (see above), the trimeter ἀκούσματ’-ἀεί is likely to hold a polemical nuance: εἰς τρυφήν παιδεύεσθαι appears to overturn, with some kind of aprosdoketon, expressions such as παιδεύεσθαι εἰς τέχνην τινά (X. Mem. 2, 1, 17) and παιδεύειν τινὰ εἰς ἀρετήν (Pl. Grg. 519e, but see also similar expressions with the verb παιδεύω and πρὸς ἀρετήν, as Pl. R. 492e, or ἐπʼἀρετήν, as X. Cyn. 13, 3). Which aspect of Phanias’ musical training calls out the mention of τρυφή is unclear. From Plu. Dem. 4, 6, 4 we learn that the compositions of the aulos-player Batalos were considered to be τρυφερὰ καὶ παροίνια: in this case, however, the adjective is likely to conceal a reference to the musician’s alleged homosexuality (cf. Harp. 72, 3 s.v. Βάταλος; Lib. Arg.D. 1, 5; Luc. Ind. 23; see Recchia 2022). There is no reason to believe that such suspicions could have concerned Phanias as well. It seems, on the other hand, that the wealthy and sophisticated kithara-player was disliked by some of the characters, who considered him pretentius and vain (cf. fr. 9, fr.dub. 14 and fr. 7, 1-4 Dardano): this fact might explain the mention of τρυφή. Moreover, one might suspect that the judgment of the persona loquens concerned not only Phanias himself, but also the music he performed (and probably also composed), in the style of the well-known Aristophanic polemic against the degenerations of the ‘new music’ and the new dithyramb (cf. Dobrov-Urios-Aparisi 1995): the other surviving fragments of the play, however, offer no clue in this regard.

R. KASSEL – S. SCHRÖDER, Poetae comici graeci, VI.1: Menander. Dyskolos et fabulae quarum fragmenta in papyris membranisque servata sunt, Berolini  2022; V. DARDANO, Menandro. Il Citarista. Edizione critica, traduzione e commento, in press.

C. AUSTIN, Menander: Eleven Plays, Cambridge 2013; W. G. ARNOTT, Menander, II, Cambridge, MA 1996; A. BLANCHARD, Ménandre, III: Le Laboureur; La Double Tromperie; Le Poignard; L’Eunuque; L’Inspirée; Thrasyléon; Le Carthaginois; Le Cithariste; Le Flatteur; Les Femmes qui boivent la ciguë; La Leucadienne; Le Haï; La Périnthienne, Paris 2016; G.W. DOBROV – E. URIOS-APARISI, The Maculate Music: Pherecrates and Comedy’s Evolving Response to the Dithyramb, in G.W. DOBROV (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes. Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta 1995, 164-174; A. W. GOMME – F. H. SANDBACH, Menander. A Commentary, Oxford 1973; A. MARTINA, Menandrea. Elementi e strutture della commedia di Menandro, III, Pisa-Roma 2016; M. RECCHIA, Beffeggiare il musicista: auleti e citarodi di V-IV secolo nella commedia attica, in A. GOSTOLI – B. ZIMMERMANN (edd.), Nuove volute di versi: poesia e musica nella commedia greca di V e IV secolo a. C., Göttingen 2022, 173-198.

Menander, Kitharistēs, comedy, Nea, Athenaeus of Naucratis, softness

[Valentina Dardano]