EXCURSUS A.

THEOGNIS (261 seqq.).

The great difficulty in the way of a satisfactory reconstruction of this passage lies in the fact that it is not certain whether it is to be regarded as simply a description of an erotic incident, or whether it is a γρῖφος; in the latter and, perhaps, more probable case, it is impossible to emend without first finding the solution, and to guess a riddle without knowing what that riddle is, rather requires a Daniel or some similar commentator. It is not quite so impossible, however, to improve the passage if it is looked upon as merely descriptive of an actual event, in which case the account of apparently similar scenes in the Romance of Eumathius may, perhaps, throw some light on the subject.

In the scene depicted in Theognis, the παῖς τέρεινα is fenced off from her lover, not only by an objectionable suitor, but also by the presence of her severe “water-drinking” parents. Under these circumstances, it does not seem very probable that the lover would (as the ordinary reading makes him do) throw his arms round her waist and kiss her on the neck; such behaviour on his part (and its natural consequences) might, it is true, account for the abrupt termination of the poem, but still would not be, as I have said, exactly probable, especially after he had been drinking only water. The scene actually described was, perhaps, rather somewhat of the following kind. When the time for drinking was come, the girl in question got up and went round, like the Hysmine of Eumathius, to hand the cup to the guests,[345] going, however, first to her parents;[346] as these were only drinking ψυχρόν, her office is contemptuously described as being that of a water-carrier. The last two lines I would then read:

ἔνθα μέσην περὶ παῖδα λαβὼν ἀγκῶν’ ἐφίλησα,

δειλήν, ἡ δὲ τέρεν φθέγγετ’ ἄνις στόματος.

i.e., as she came on her round to her lover, he put his arm on her waist and kissed her on the elbow; and she, though she said nothing with her lips, “her eyes were speaking.”[347]

Whether the actual words ought not to be still further emended, is questionable; but, anyhow, the general sense thus given is a little more complimentary to Greek “company” manners.

The chief objection to this interpretation is, of course, that it bestows on the epigram a decidedly erotic character, which is not elsewhere to be found in this book, and would certainly be an anachronism if the lines belong to the fifth century.