¹ Pfeiffer, R. in Sitz.Bay.Ak.Wiss. 1938 (pp. 23–62) and 1958 (pp. 3–41);Google ScholarCarden, R. J., The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles(de Gruyter, 1974: further bibliography is in Carden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² But cf. Hyginus, Fab. 145.

³ SIG ³ 1024; cf. Nilsson, , Gesch. Cried. Relig.³ i, 401 f.Google Scholar

⁴ Pauly–Wissowa, RE, s.v. Plouton, 1001 f.; West ad Hes. Erg. 465 then is not a separate deity but Zeus operating in the earth. This is not to say that a god so departrnentalised could not acquire a separate identity').

⁵ E. fr. 904.

⁶ CR H.S. 15 (1965), 241–3.

⁷ Their reference to recalls in the P. Oxy. (v. 30), which presumably refers to the stranger in the palace; cf. the titles (Paus. 3. 10. 6) and (Plut. Mor.394a) of Zeus-Plouton. And cf. Ov. Met. 1. 599: ‘cum deus inducta latas caligine terras/ occuluit tenuitque fugam rapuitque pudorem’.

⁸ RE; .

⁹ Schol. ad E. Or. 932.

¹⁰ Cf. the theory that the Thesmophoria (essentially an act of agrarian magic) was instituted at the end of Aesch. Suppl. trilogy to reconcile women to marriage (G. Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens, ch. 16). An act of creation (e.g. of wine or the lyre) to benefit mankind was a common theme of satyr-play. In A. Amymone the creation was of a stream: see below, p. 28.

¹¹ Cf. at S. Trach. 446 (also in Xen. Cyr. 14. 5. 52, 8. 4. 28; and in Plut. Mor. 610e, Aemil. 3).

¹² See Carden, op. cit., p. 53.

¹³ Cf. Ps. Plut. De Fluv. 18.

¹⁴ Klinz, A., IEPOσ γPAMOσ (Diss. Halle, 1933)Google Scholar and in Pauly-Wissowa, , RE, Suppl. vi. 110 f.;Google ScholarFrazer, , The Golden Bough ³ chs. 10–12; West ad Hes. Theog. 971; Paus. 5. 16. 6. Zeus and lo as sacred marriage: Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens, ch. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Waltz, , Rhet. Graec. 537.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Griffiths, J.Gwyn, comm. Plut. De Is. et Os., p. 443;Google ScholarThomson, G., Aeschylus and Athens,4 136, 285; id., The Prehistoric Aegean, pp. 284, 380 ff.;Google ScholarRoscher, , Myth. Lex., s.v. Io, p. 272;Google Scholar Hdt. Z. 41. For earlyfifth-century Greek (notably Athenian) knowledge of Isis see Witt, R. E., ‘Isis-Hellas’, PCPhS 192 (1966), 59.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Bergman, J., Ich Bin Isis (1968), p. 251; Hdt. 2. 153.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Archemachos and Heracleides Ponticus ap. Plut. De Is. et Os. 361e (cf. also the equation of Osiris with Plouton at 382e). For the blackness of Osiris ‘as a chthonic colour’ see Griffiths, J. Gwyn, op. cit., pp. 375 ff.Google Scholar, Kees, H., Farbensymbolik in ägyptischen religiösen Texten, pp. 418 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹ e.g. Osiris is called by Hdt. (2. 156) the father of Apollo.

²⁰ e.g. Isis, who was almost certainly associated with Io in the fifth century (see above, n. 16), was identified by Hdt. (2. 59) with Demeter, then by Heracl. Pont. (ap. Plut. De Is. et Os. 361e) with Persephassa, and by Callimachus (Ep. 57. 1) with Io.

²¹ Hes. fr. 128; Strabo 1. 2. 15; Pliny, H. N. 7. 195; etc.; cf. Hdt. 2. 171 (and G. Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens, 2 pp. 289, 450 n. 1 (and cf. p. 308)). For Greek familiarity in this period with the Egyptian ‘under-world’ see Luria, S. ‘Demokrit, Orphiker and Agypten’, Eos 51 (1961), 21 ff.Google Scholar

²² P. V. 806.

²³ See Pfeiffer and Carden ad loc. I notice that Carden mentions the possibility of a reference to dress at the end of his note.

²⁴ Cf. at P. Tebt. 692. 31, apparently after the metamorphosis, and perhaps of Io. Does the (fr. 291) belong to her (the satyrs would not be wearing .

²⁵ A. Sept. 1039; cf. e.g. S. Nausikaa fr. 439, E. Ba. 832 (and Dodds ad loc.)

²⁶ The Andrian Hymn to Isis, v. 1 (ed. Peek, Der lsishymnus von Andros (1930) ); Anth. Pal. 6. 231. 1; etc. (Griffiths, J.Gwyn, Comm. Plut. De Is. et Os., p. 270; Peek, pp. 26 f.)Google Scholar

²⁷ Ars. Am. 1.77.

²⁸ Esp. the chorus's disorderly reaction to the invisible Hermes playing the syrinx, on which v. further Maia 28 (1976), 218 f.

²⁹ Carden, pp. 54–5; he adds further considerations in his commentary (see pp. 60, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 81, 86).

³⁰ Even in S. Colcbides, Tereus, and the plays entitled Andromeda and Oenomaos the seems to have been of secondary importance.

³¹ S. Helenes Gamos, Eris (?); A. Amymone, Diktyoulkoi (see esp. 821 ff.; despite which the eventual bridegroom may be Dictys or Polydectes: cf. Hygin. Fab. 63, Servius, Aen. 7. 372); Ion, Omphale; Achaios, Omphale; E. Syleus (see esp. fr. 693, 694 Nauck).

³² Satyric: P. Oxy. 2256 fr. 3; frs. 131, Mette; also the vase-paintings mentioned below.

³³ e.g. ARV ² 1155 no. 6 (see further Brommer, Satyrspiele,² pp. 24 f.); none of them is contemporary with Aeschylus: Brommer suggests that either A.'s son Euphorion produced his father's play or a later dramatist took up the theme.

³⁴ Seaford in Maia 28 (1976), 216 f. The transformation of Alope into a stream may have occurred in Choirilos' Alope (cf. Crusius, , Gött. Gelehr. Anz. 152 (1890), 696; Gow ad Theocr. 7.6 f.;Google ScholarSeaford, in Maia 29 (1977), 91 – also S. fr. 287?), which has been regarded as satyric (cf. Choiril. T6 Snell), but need not be.Google Scholar

³⁵ Calyx-crater Athens NM 12596 (Nicole, no. 1107); Brommer (fig. 16) regards it as influenced by drama.

³⁶ Wide, S., Lakonische Kulte, pp. 254 f.;Google ScholarNinck, M., Die Bedeutung des Wassers, pp.101, 175.Google Scholar

³⁷ See e.g. JHS 4 (1884), 21; Cook, , Zeus iii, 382, 386;Google ScholarCIL iii. 686; Matz, Die Dionysischen Sarkophage (passim; esp. i. 87 f.).

³⁸ See esp. fr. 377 Mette (it is though not impossible that A. wrote two Sisyphos plays, that one of them was tragic, and that this fr. is from this tragedy); see also frs. 378, 379.

³⁹ See Pearson, , The Fragments of sophodes, i. 167 f.;Google Scholar perhaps identical with S.'s satyric Herakles and his Kerberos.

⁴⁰ Fr. 371 Nauck.

⁴¹ The only fragment – e.g. E. Kyk. 398), in which case the satyrs were probably represented as the infernal (does this derive from the Anthesteria, in which both satyrs and were present?).

⁴² Fr. 11 Snell: .

⁴³ Sutton, (HSCP 78 (1974), 115 f.).Google Scholar And the only other Orpheus of which we know was a comedy (by Antiphanes) – though cf. A. Bassarids. The only fragment of Aristias' play may well refer to the underworld (cf. Pi, fr. 114.4; Austin ad V. Aen. 642 f.).

⁴⁴ The ancient ascription of fr. 677 (a greeting to Herakles) to the Sisyphos is questioned by Wilamowitz (An. Eur. 166) ‘cum Herculi in Sisyphi fabula aegre locus sit.’ But what better place for them to meet in than the underworld?

⁴⁵ Psychagogoi may be satyric (so J. van Leeuwen; Nauck, trag. dict. index, p. x); A. Psychostasia need not have concerned Hades; E.'s prosatyric Alcestis is effectively a satyr-play without satyrs. This leaves most obviously E. (or Critias?) Perithous –though there may have been others.

⁴⁶ Else, G., Comm. Poetics, p. 530Google Scholar (add Lesky, , Trag. Dicht. Hell.,³ pp. 76 f.);Google Scholar as of the same type Ar. mentions Prometheus and Phorkides; Aesch. wrote a satyric Promethr eus, but whether his Phorkides was satyric is unknown (a satyric Phorkides was produced in 339 B. C.: Snell, DID A2a31). Or was Ar. thinking of a contemporary tragic fashion now vanished without trace? (Cf. Lucian, , De Salt. 60.)Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Buschor, , Feldmailse (Sitz. Bay. Ak. Wiss. 1937, Heft. 1)Google Scholar, passim; S. Ichneutai (Kyllene); Snell, , Scenes from Greek Drama, p. 107Google Scholar (Python, Agen). The only known emergence from below in tragedy is the ghost of Darius in A. Persai (perhaps also S. Polyxena): Taplin, , The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford, 1977), p. 447.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ In Maia 28 (1976), 217 f. Another example of amazement at emergence from the underworld may be indicated by P. Oxy. 2455 fr. 7, a fragmentary hypothesis of E. Sisyphos (?) (fr. 17 Austin).

⁴⁹ I am very grateful to Professor John Baines for help with the Egyptological questions in this paper.