Fiori ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 ISSN 2159-3159 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Unripe Grapes in Ancient Lexica: A New Fragment of Attic Drama? Simone Fiori ANY FRAGMENTS of ancient literature are known to us only thanks to ancient scholarship. Among these, very little attention has been paid to a short anonymous quotation handed down by the Byzantine lexicon known as Pseudo-Zonaras:1 τρυγῷ καὶ τρυπῷ. Ὅµηρος· “ὡς δ’ ὅτε τις τρυπῷ δόρυ νήϊον ἀνήρ.” τὸ εὐκτικὸν τρυγάοιµι, τρυγῷµι, τρυγῷοι, τρυγῷ. “πῶς ἄν τις ὄµφακα τρυγῷ.” οὕτως Ὦρος ὁ Μιλήσιος. τρυγῷ (‘he/she/it would harvest’) and τρυπῷ (‘he/she/it would drill’): Homer: “Just as one man would drill a ship’s timber.” The optative [is] ‘I would harvest’ (τρυγάοιµι, τρυγῷµι), ‘he/she/it would harvest’ (τρυγῷοι, τρυγῷ). “How could one harvest unripe grapes?” Thus [says] Orus Milesius. The entry deals with two uncommon thematic optatives, τρυγῷ (from τρυγάω) and τρυπῷ (from τρυπάω). As the original thematic optatives of contract verbs were quickly replaced by athematic forms (e.g. τρυγῴην, τρυγῴης, τρυγῴη, instead of τρυγῷµι, τρυγῷς, τρυγῷ),2 it is easy to see why ancient gram- marians felt the need to take a closer look at thematic remnants such as τρυγῷ and τρυπῷ. Each of both forms is illustrated through an exemplum: while τρυπῷ can boast the ‘support’ of none 1 I. A. H. Tittmann, Iohannis Zonarae Lexicon (Leipzig 1808) II 1752. 2 P. Chantraine, Morphologie historique du grec (Paris 1984) 265. See also E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik I (Munich 1939) 796 (esp. n.1); A. Willi, Origins of the Greek Verb (Cambridge 2018) 10–11. M SIMONE FIORI 177 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 other than Homer himself (Od. 9.384, δίνεον, ὡς ὅτε τις τρυπῷ δόρυ νήϊον ἀνὴρ),3 τρυγῷ is represented by a far more obscure locus classicus, πῶς ἄν τις ὄµφακα τρυγῷ. Despite the complete lack of information about its context and authorship, the second pas- sage is also likely to be a poetic quotation. This is the thought of the editor of Pseudo-Zonaras, who comments on this passage: “Incerti poetae verba sunt, quae nescio nunc ubi legerim” (1752 n.39). In other words: the anonymous quotation should be con- sidered a poetic fragment, but no conclusion can be drawn as to which author (or even poetic genre) it comes from. No substantial progress has been made in this regard to date. The only significant novelty has come from Reitzenstein, who noted that the same entry is found in a still unpublished section of another Byzantine lexicon, the Etymologicum Genuinum.4 Here is the text that I have obtained by collating anew its two wit- nesses.5 τρυγῷ καὶ τρυπῷa· “ὡς δ’ ὅτε τις τρυπῷb δόρυ νήϊον ἀνήρ,” τῷ λόγῳc τῶν εὐκτικῶν τρυγάοιµι τρυγῷµιd, τρυγάοι τρυγῷe· “πῶς ἄν τις ὄµφακα τρυγῷf;” Ὦροςg. 3 This passage is also quoted by Apollonius Dyscolus (Constr. 298 Lallot), Pseudo-Draco (86.26 Hermann), and Eustathius (In Od. I 351.8 Stallbaum). To be precise, the reading transmitted by Pseudo-Draco is an indicative τρυπᾷ, adopted by von der Mühll in his edition of the Odyssey: see also C. J. Ruijgh, Autour de “τε épique.” Études sur la syntaxe grecque (Amsterdam 1971) 639. Van Thiel and West, on the other hand, stick to the optative τρυπῷ. 4 For a general account of the textual tradition of the Genuinum and its partial editions see E. Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship (Oxford 2007) 91–92, and K. Alpers, “Difficult Problems in the Transmission and Interrelation of the Greek Etymologica,” in G. A. Xenis (ed.), Literature, Scholarship, Philosophy, and History. Classical Studies in Memory of Ioannis Taifacos (Stuttgart 2015) 293– 314. 5 A = Vat.gr. 1818 (https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1818); B = Laur. S.Marc. 304. The entry τρυγῷ καὶ τρυπῷ is on f. 278r in A, on f. 242v in B. Moreover, the bare lemma is also found on f. 326r of L (= BN España 4559), whose ff. 324r–326r have recently been recognized as an excerpt copied from A: see S. Valente, “Konstantinos Laskaris, der Matrit. 4559 und das Etymolo- gicum Genuinum,” Parekbolai 14 (2024) 311–315. 178 UNRIPE GRAPES IN ANCIENT LEXICA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 aτρυγῷ καὶ τρυπῷ] τρυγῶ καὶ τρυπῶ AB | bτρυπῷ] τρυπῶ AB | cτῷ λόγῳ] τω λόγω A : τῶ λοΓ B | dτρυγῷµι] τρυγῶµι A | eτρυγῷ] τρυγῶ A | fτρυγῷ] τρυγῶ AB | gὮρος] ωρ B : om. A Even though the Etymologicum Genuinum (mid-ninth century) is about four centuries older than the Pseudo-Zonaras (first half of the thirteenth century) and therefore must be regarded as the source of the latter,6 the text of the Genuinum as it stands does not provide us with any additional details.7 If anything, it is even poorer, as the information on the ultimate source of the entry (i.e. the grammarian Orus) is less complete: while the Pseudo- Zonaras preserves the ethnic ὁ Μιλήσιος,8 both witnesses of the Genuinum omit it.9 Perhaps most interestingly, the text of the anonymous quotation in the Genuinum agrees perfectly with that 6 The compiler of the Pseudo-Zonaras—possibly Nicephorus Blemmydes, see P. Isépy and P. La Barbera, “Cyril’s Glossary as a Source for the Lexicon of Ps.-Zonaras,” GRBS 65 (2025) 246–267—drew extensively on the Genuinum for the entirety of the work. On the close relation between these two lexica see K. Alpers, “Zonarae lexicon,” RE 10A (1972) 732–763, at 741–743. 7 A shorter version of this entry can also be found in another lexicon dependent on the Genuinum, the Etymologicum Magnum (first half of the twelfth century): in turn, the Magnum itself passed down this content to the Magna Grammatica (MSS. CPV, s.v. τρύγη), a later etymological compilation including entries from both the Etymologicum Symeonianum and the Etymologicum Magnum: on this lexicon see D. Baldi, Etymologicum Symeonis Γ–Ε (Turnhout 2013) xxiv– xxvi and xxxii. However, the text we read in the Magnum and in the Magna Grammatica omits both quotations. 8 Since in the etymologica Μιλήσιος (‘Milesian’) is usually abbreviated as µελ/µιλ/µλ, it has been argued that the reading Μιλήσιος is only a later, wrong interpretation of such compendia: according to this reconstruction, they originally stood for µέλας, ‘black’ (thus meaning that Orus was not Milesian, but rather Egyptian). See A. Ippolito, “Orus,” in F. Montanari et al. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity (https://doi-org.ezproxy. uniroma1.it/10.1163/2451-9278_Orus_it). 9 The compiler of the Pseudo-Zonaras is thought to have used a very good witness of the Genuinum; instead, both A and B transmit an abridged (and often heavily corrupt) version. Thereby, the Pseudo-Zonaras sometimes pro- vides a better text than the direct tradition of the Genuinum. In this regard see Alpers, RE 10A (1972) 742–743. SIMONE FIORI 179 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 found in the Pseudo-Zonaras, thus enabling us to carry out on firmer ground a fresh investigation of its textual tradition and metrical structure. 2. A ‘dramatic’ source: Orus’ Orthography As already mentioned, the ultimate source of the whole entry is the grammarian Orus (fifth century). Even though the title of the work from which the entry τρυγῷ καὶ τρυπῷ was drawn is not explicitly stated, at least two arguments clearly point to Orus’ Orthography: a) among Orus’ works, only two are known to have been directly and extensively used by the compilers of the Genuinum, namely his Περὶ ἐθνικῶν (a treatise on adjectives derived from toponyms) and his Orthography. Since the entry τρυγῷ καὶ τρυπῷ does not include references of any kind to adjectives/topo- nyms, the work Περὶ ἐθνικῶν is not a suitable option. b) the short extant section of Orus’ Orthography, which is also known as Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto, deals extensively with problematic spellings involving iota.10 One of the topics dis- cussed is precisely the spelling of a verb form analogous to τρυγῷ and τρυπῷ: νικῷ, thematic optative of the contract verb νικάω.11 All in all, then, it seems fully safe to assume that the source of the entry τρυγῷ καὶ τρυπῷ is Orus’ Orthography.12 This fact is not with- out interest, especially if one takes a closer look at the extant part 10 The surviving section is nothing more than an anonymous excerpt written in the final folios of MS. Messina, S. Salvatore 118 (ff. 280v–283), first edited by H. Rabe, “Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto,” RhM 47 (1892) 404–413; a later refinement of the princeps is in H. Rabe, “Nachtrag zum Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto,” RhM 50 (1895) 148–152. The first editor was not able to identify the excerpted work with Orus’ Orthography, which instead happened few years later thanks to R. Reitzenstein, Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika (Leipzig 1897) 289–295. 11 Lexicon Messanense f. 281r.17–18: on this passage see further below (§3). 12 This conclusion was also reached by Reitzenstein, Geschichte 295, who included the entry τρυγῷ καὶ τρυπῷ among the certain fragments of Orus’ Orthography. 180 UNRIPE GRAPES IN ANCIENT LEXICA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 of Orus’ Orthography. The Lexicon Messanense provides a wealth of quotations from ancient literary texts, but some authors and some genres seem to be cited much more frequently than others. In detail (Table 1):13 Genre Number of quotations Sophocles Tragedy 7 Aristophanes Comedy 6 Cratinus Comedy 6 Homer Epic 6 Eupolis Comedy 4 Euripides Tragedy 4 Plato Comicus Comedy 4 Demosthenes Prose 2 Plato Prose 2 Thucydides Prose 2 Achaeus Tragedy 1 Aeschylus Tragedy 1 Alcaeus Comicus Comedy 1 Anacreon Lyric poetry 1 Archilochus Lyric poetry 1 Callias Comedy 1 Hermippus Comedy 1 Herodotus Prose 1 Menander Comedy 1 Nicochares Comedy 1 Nicomachus Tragedy 1 Pherecrates Comedy 1 Strattis Comedy 1 Theopompus Comicus Comedy 1 TABLE 1: Quotations of ancient authors in the direct tradition of Orus’ Orthography (= Lexicon Messanense) The data reveal an overwhelming majority of poetic quota- tions over prose quotations (50 : 7); of the former, more than 80% (42 out of 50) come from Attic drama, either tragedy (14 13 The figures in the table are based on the reliably identifiable quotations (both anonymous and explicit) already recognized by Rabe, RhM 47 (1892) 404–413 and 50 (1895) 148–152. SIMONE FIORI 181 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 out of 42) or, even more frequently, comedy (28 out of 42). Moreover, it should be noted that 6 out of 8 poetic quotations not pertaining to Attic drama are Homeric: this means that vir- tually all poetic citations that do not come from Homer are from drama, the only exceptions being one quotation from Anacreon (fr.364 PMG) and one from Archilochus (fr.278 West2). Although possibly influenced by the relative narrowness of the extant sample, these data are not unlikely to be somewhat repre- sentative of the original situation: a fondness for Attic drama is not at all surprising for Orus, who besides the already mentioned works also wrote an influential (if almost completely lost) Atticist lexicon.14 It follows that, from a merely statistical point of view, the adespoton quoted by Orus and thence transmitted to the etymologica most probably comes from the Attic playwrights. As a result, we should ask ourselves whether this scenario is con- sistent with the content, style, language, and metrical structure of the fragment. 3. A ‘dramatic’ metrical structure and a poetic parallel (with a conjecture) With regard to content, style, and language, nothing emerges that either truly confirms or disproves the hypothesis under con- sideration. Questions introduced by πῶς ἄν are fairly common in both prose and drama; in the latter they can also perform the function of expressing wishes,15 which means that another pos- sible translation for our passage is “oh, if only one could harvest unripe grapes!” Perhaps more interestingly, it can be observed that several examples of thematic optatives of contract verbs actually come from classical Attic: Schwyzer lists νοσοῖµ(ι) (Aesch. PV 978), χωροῖµ(ι) (Soph. OC 507), ποιοῖς (Ar. Eq. 1131, v.l.) and, more generically, Plato.16 It should also be noted that, in his Orthogra- 14 For more information on Orus as an Atticist and on his Atticist pro- duction see K. Alpers, Das attizistiche Lexicon des Oros (Berlin 1981). 15 See e.g. LSJ s.v. πῶς II.b; E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik II (Munich 1950) 327–328. 16 Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik I 796 n.1. 182 UNRIPE GRAPES IN ANCIENT LEXICA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 phy, Orus himself makes reference to an optative of this type, namely the aforementioned νικῷ, and explicitly ascribes it to the Athenian Old Comedy poet Cratinus (fr.52 PCG).17 Even more significantly, however, the hypothesis of a dra- matic origin is also supported by the very metrical structure of the fragment (πῶς ἄν τις ὄµφακα τρυγῷ: – – ◡ – × –? ◡ –). All in all, this sequence seems to fit quite well into an iambic verse, that is to say, the most common rhythm in both tragedy and comedy. We can interpret this fragment as an iambic dimeter, which in turn might be, for instance, the beginning or the ending of an iambic trimeter. Only one aspect seems to require further scrutiny, namely the prosodic value of the last syllable of the accusative ὄµφακα. The iambic meter here requires long scansion, but the last syllable of ὄµφακα is short by nature: the subsequent muta cum liquida (τρ-) regularly ‘lengthens’ the preceding syllable in epic poetry, but such a lengthening is generally not expected in Attic drama. More precisely, long scansion before initial muta cum liquida is possible in tragic lyrics, but highly uncommon in tragic dialogues and, even more so, in comedy.18 Even this difficulty, however, could easily be overcome by taking into account a hitherto ignored textual parallel in a Greek metrical inscription from Naples. The text, written on a figured marble stele datable to the first century, is a funerary epigram in 17 Lexicon Messanense f. 281r.17–18 (as perfected by Rabe, RhM 50 [1895] 149 and by the editors of the PCG): καὶ νικῷ [νικῶ cod.] δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ η τὸ εὐκτικὸν ἔχει τὸ ι· Κρατῖνος Διονύσοις “νικῷ [νικῶ cod.] µὲν ὁ τῇδε πόλει λέγων τὸ [Kock: ποδὶ λέγω τὸν cod.] λῷστον.” On the constitutio textus of this passage see also F. P. Bianchi, Cratino. Archilochoi - Empipramenoi (frr. 1–68) (Heidelberg 2016) 304–305. 18 See M. L. West, Introduction to Greek Metre (Oxford 1987) 17; A. Willi, The Languages of Aristophanes (Oxford 2003) 238, with further bibliography. The observance rate of correptio Attica in iambic trimeters and tetrameters is 76.5% in Aeschylus, 69.7% in Sophocles, 69.2% in Euripides, and 86.5% in Ari- stophanes; however, since these data include groups that regularly break the rule (βλ-, γλ-, γµ-, γν-, δµ-, δν-), the observance rate for other groups such as τρ- should be regarded as even more significant. SIMONE FIORI 183 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 elegiac couplets lamenting the mors immatura of the 7-year-old Ariston (IG XIV 769 = GVI 1883 = IG Napoli 95):19 ἄγγελε Φερσεφόνης, Ἑρµῆ, τίνα τόνδε προπονπεῖς εἰς τὸν ἀµείδητον Τάρταρον Ἀΐδεω; — µοῖρά τις ἀεικέλιος τὸν Ἀρίστων’ ἥρπασ’ ἀπ’ αὐγῆς ἑπταέτηι· µέσσος δ’ ἐστὶν ὁ παῖς γενετῶν. — δακρυχαρὴς Πλούτων, οὐ πνεύµατα πάντα βρότεια σοὶ νέµεται; τί τρυγᾶις ὄµφακας ἡλικίης; What seems most interesting to us is the last couplet, which is a series of two questions addressed to Pluto. Here the god of the underworld is openly blamed for taking away such a young life: since every soul is bound to fall into the power of Pluto sooner or later, the god could at least avoid “picking the unripe grapes of youth.” The resemblance to our fragment is quite striking: not only do both passages show the iunctura τρυγάω ὄµφακα(ς), which does not seem to be found in any other passage of Greek ‘pagan’ literature,20 but they are also both formulated as questions.21 This leads to two further considerations: (1) The textual parallel suggests that the metrical anomaly in our fragment could be amended by making a minimal integration, that is to say, by writing just as in the epigram ὄµφακας (plural) instead of ὄµφακα (singular).22 While having no 19 A recent and in-depth discussion with further bibliography is in F. Rigido, “L’epigramma per il fanciullo Aristone in un ipogeo funerario di Neapolis (IG XIV 769 = GVI 1883),” Polygraphia 5 (2023) 67–86. 20 Outside of pagan literature, a noteworthy occurrence of this syntagm is in Job 15:33.1 (τρυγηθείη δὲ ὥσπερ ὄµφαξ πρὸ ὥρας, said of the wicked: a sentence often quoted by later authors). At any rate, our fragment cannot have a Christian origin: the pagan grammarian Orus never quotes Christian authors. 21 Also phrased as a question is a remarkably similar passage in the Appendix Tibulliana, where the young Lygdamus, feeling that death is approaching, wonders why the grapevine should be stripped of its unripe fruits: [Tib.] 3.5.19–20, Quid fraudare iuvat vitem crescentibus uvis / et modo nata mala vellere poma manu? 22 As rightly suggested by the anonymous reviewer(s), particular emphasis 184 UNRIPE GRAPES IN ANCIENT LEXICA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 real consequence on the meaning of the sentence (singular and plural are equally suitable for expressing indeterminacy), this emendation produces a closed syllable, -κα⟨ς⟩, and thus pro- vides a perfectly sound metrical structure. Furthermore, it should be noted that in the epigram the plural is precisely used as a collective: while lamenting the loss of a specific person, the epigram adopts the plural to give the unfortunate story of Ariston a universal connotation (that is, Pluto’s insensitivity to the young age of his victims). In any case, it should also be emphasized that the emendation ὄµφακα⟨ς⟩ is not strictly neces- sary, especially if we assume that these words were uttered by a tragic Chorus. In this respect, it is important to point out that several occurrences of πῶς ἄν in tragedy actually come from lines attributed to the Chorus.23 (2) Whether or not the correction ὄµφακα⟨ς⟩ hits the mark, the parallel apparently hints at a sorrowful, possibly mournful con- text: the iunctura τρυγάω ὄµφακα(ς) seems to be a metaphor for young lives prematurely cut short (or at least in danger). It is tempting to speculate that our fragment was spoken either by the Chorus or by a close relative of a youth who was facing a serious threat or had even already died. The danger-scenario is perhaps more likely than the death-scenario: compared to the τί τρυγᾷς of the epigram, our πῶς ἄν τις … τρυγῷ seems to show a hypothetical nuance that is better suited to a fore- shadowed event. 4. Final remarks: tragedy or comedy? If the above reconstruction is correct, the evidence clearly points to a dramatic origin of the fragment: more specifically, should be placed on the words “in our fragment”: even if we deem ὄµφακα to be a corruption, we cannot rule out that this reading goes back to Orus (or even to his source), who may have been indifferent to such metrical issues. Therefore, from an editorial point of view, the emendation ὄµφακα⟨ς⟩ does not apply to Orus’ Orthography, but only to the poetic fragment taken by itself. 23 E.g. Aesch. Pers. 788, Ag. 1198; Eur. Alc. 96, 142, Med. 173. SIMONE FIORI 185 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 several clues seem to suggest a context of a tragic nature (perhaps a choral ode). It must be said, however, that some other elements lead to considering a comic origin also possible: (1) τρυγάω is unattested in extant tragedies but occurs com- paratively often in comedy. A particular fondness for words in τρυγ- can be detected in Aristophanes’ plays,24 where τρύξ/ τρυγάω (and especially some of their derivatives such as τρυ- γῳδία) are consistently linked to the positive values of country life, abundance, and peace.25 (2) While ὄµφαξ is never said metaphorically of people in extant tragedies, an occurrence of this figurative meaning is possibly attested in Aristophanic comedy,26 as the etymologica attribute to Aristophanes the iambic trimeter ὁρῶ γὰρ ὡς ὄµφακα διασαυ- λούµενον (PCG fr.635: “I see [him] squandering like an unripe grape”).27 Although the editors of the PCG followed Gaisford in emending ὄµφακα to ⟨στ⟩όµφακα (accusative of στόµφαξ, ‘ranter’), the recent commentary to the fragment of Aristoph- anes by A. Bagordo suggests that the transmitted reading 24 In addition to τρυγάω (7 occurrences) and τρύξ (6), we also find the name Τρυγαῖος (the well-known protagonist of the Peace) and other words such as τρυγικός (Ach. 628), τρυγοδαίµων (Nub. 296), τρύγοιπος (Pax 535, Plut. 1087), τρυγῳδός (Vesp. 650, 1537, fr.156.9 PCG), τρυγῳδία (Ach. 499, 500), τρυγῳδικός (Ach. 886), and τρυγῳδοποιοµουσική (fr.347.1 PCG). 25 On τρυγῳδία see now A. Mura, “An Epic Source for Aristophanes’ τρυγῳδία (Ach. 497–500 and Σ, 565–572),” Journal of Greco-Roman Studies 58.3 (2019) 1–13. 26 Outside of drama, more metaphorical occurrences of ὄµφαξ (without τρυγάω) are found in inscriptions, epigrams (Anth.Gr. 5.20.3, 12.205.4), and epic poetry (Triphiod. 42; Nonnus Dion. 1.71, 48.957). All of them refer to young (living) girls not yet ripe for marriage or even to the unripe breasts of a young (living) girl. See also LSJ s.v. 27 Etym.Gen. AB s.v. διασαυλούµενος; Etym.Sym. EFCPV δ 217 Baldi; Etym. Magn. MOPR 270.42–43 Gaisford. Pseudo-Zonaras (I 539 Tittmann) also preserves the Aristophanic quotation but omits the name of the playwright. 186 UNRIPE GRAPES IN ANCIENT LEXICA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 ὄµφακα is to be preserved.28 The emendation ⟨στ⟩όµφακα was proposed for purely metrical reasons: in poetry the second syl- lable of ὄµφακα does not count elsewhere as long. However, as pointed out by Bagordo, the grammarian Herodian included ὄµφαξ in his list of words whose alpha can be either short or long (anceps):29 therefore, ὄµφᾱκα in Aristophanes could well be genuine and perhaps regarded as a pun on words formed with the much-used pejorative suffix -αξ, -ᾱκος (ὄµφᾱκα = ‘bad un- ripe grape,’ ‘deplorable immature boy’).30 In light of this, the possibility of a comic origin cannot be ruled out. In particular, since πῶς ἄν in drama often has a real optative function (see §3), we might venture to imagine that with these words a mature, positive character reproached one or more young debauchees deserving of an ‘early harvest’ (“oh, would to heaven that even unripe grapes could be harvested!”).31 Ob- viously, in case of a comic origin, a direct relation between our fragment and the funerary epigram should be excluded: rather, we would have to think that both texts independently reworked in different ways and with different purposes the same tragic/ elegiac hypotext (now completely lost) or at least the same topos. Of course, the comic hypothesis also has some weaknesses, and above all the need for the (minimal) emendation ὄµφακα⟨ς⟩, just about inevitable unless a parodic license is assumed. At present, given the high uncertainty, the most sensible solution could be to regard our fragment both as a tragicum adespotum dubium and as a comicum adespotum dubium. More precisely, a re- 28 A. Bagordo, Aristophanes fr. 590–674 (Heidelberg 2016) 167–168. 29 Hdn. Περὶ διχρόνων 5.1 Sandri: τὰ εἰς αξ λήγοντα καὶ ἐκτείνει τὸ α καὶ συστέλλει. ὅσα µὲν οὖν δισύλλαβα ὄντα ἔχει ⟨τὴν⟩ πρὸ τέλους µὴ φύσει µακράν, ἀλλ’ ἢ βραχεῖαν ἢ θέσει µακράν, ἀδιάφορον ἔχει τὸν χρόνον τοῦ α· κόρᾰξ, κόλᾰξ, φύλᾰξ, ἄνᾰξ, βόᾱξ, νέᾱξ, ὄµφᾱξ, φόρτᾱξ. 30 It should be noted that a scansion ὄµφᾱκα is also possible in our fragment: if we regard it as an iambic verse, -φα- is the anceps of the second metron. 31 A similar construction with a comparable optative meaning is found e.g. in Ar. Ach. 990–991, πῶς ἂν ἐµὲ καί σέ τις Ἔρως ξυναγάγοι λαβών, / ὥσπερ ὁ γεγραµµένος, ἔχων στέφανον ἀνθέµων; SIMONE FIORI 187 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 65 (2025) 176–187 edition of TrGF could easily retain the transmitted textual facies (πῶς ἄν τις ὄµφακα τρυγῷ), while the editors of a new PCG should seriously consider changing it to πῶς ἄν τις ὄµφακα⟨ς⟩ τρυγῷ. To date, this is the most that can be done to ripen the “unripe grapes” preserved by the ancient etymologica.32 January, 2025 Dipartimento di Antichità, Filosofia e Storia University of Genoa simone.fiori@edu.unige.it 32 This paper was produced as part of the PRIN 2022 project “Laugh Tracks. Greek Comedy in Ptolemaic Egypt” (20228SERKN). I wish to thank my supervisor, Prof. Serena Perrone, for her valuable guidance and advice; I am also grateful to the anonymous reader(s) of GRBS for their helpful obser- vations. In any case, the responsibility for what is stated in this work is solely and exclusively mine.