¹ δ’ is Heath's emendation of the Laurentian's γ’. The latter is preserved by, for instance, Diggle in his OCT and Seaford in his commentary. But see n. 4 below.

² For a bibliography of recent studies of the priamel see my commentary on Soph. Tr. 498ff. Race's, W. H.The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius (Mnemos. Suppl. 74 [1982])Google Scholar is particularly helpful.

³ By West in his commentary on Hes. Op. 435–6. Cf. Race (n. 2), 9 and 43, n. 26.

⁴ We need δ⋯ (following on v. 3's μ⋯ν and completed by v. 10's κα⋯ νῠν) to clarify this paratactic pattern. Compare such priamels as Sappho 16.1–4 (other examples in Race [n. 2], 44–5, 53, 80, n. 109, and 90, n. 134). γ‘ has no parallel in such contexts, and the Platonic instances of πρ⋯τον μ⋯ν… ἒπειτά γε alluded to by Seaford ad loc. are irrelevant for the reason he cites (they span ‘intervention by another speaker’). Heath, whose sensitivity to the applications of γ’ had been whetted by his predilection for the remedium Heathianum, was right to emend. (Ussher's note ad loc., deeming γ’ ‘unnecessary’ regularization, shows how dangerous failure to recognize common literary patterns can be. Hermann's ἒπειϑ’ őτ’, adopted by Kovacs in the new Loeb Euripides, might be thought to provide a ‘when’ word to balance ⋯νίκα in v. 3. But in fact, in an elegant variatio, we already have a when-clause with βεβώς (Kassel: γεγώς) at the end of v. 6, and the last thing needful, especially after v. 2's őτε, is another word meaning ‘when’.)

⁵ For further instances see Race (n. 2), 31–2, 81, 112.

⁶ For further instances see Race (n. 2), 32 and n. 2, 36, 38, 75, 93. Cf. 88 and n. 131.

⁷ For further instances see Race (n. 2), 14, n. 43, 87ff. On the device of the rhetorical question see also below n. 24.

⁸ For a list of some other Euripidean priamels see Race (n. 2), 95–8 and 98, n. 158. Add e.g. Held. 892–7 (cf. Wilkins ad loc.). In the light of the following discussion we should note that Race (n. 2), 98 supplies from Euripides a satyric (or at least pro-satyric) example of a priamel ‘which has a Nachleben in Roman comedy’, with Ale. 747ff. (monologue opening of a servant's complaint about Heracles: for Plautine analogies see Race [n. 2], 114–15): πολλούς μέν ἢδη κ⋯πò παντοίας χϑονός / ξένους μολόντας οὒδ ςδμ⋯του δόμους, / οἲς δεîροὐϑηκ’.⋯λλà τοῠδ’ íω ξέυíu / κακίου’ ༐ς τ⋯υδ’ ༐στίαυ ༐δεξάμηυ. This is formally similar to the example from the Cyclops: both begin with references to many experiences in the past (Cycl. 1 μυρίoς…πóυoυς∽ Ale. 747–8 πoλλoςς…ξέυoυς) and both reach their climax with a comparative adjective (Cycl. 10 μείζoυ’ ∽ Ale. 750 κακίoυ’) taking us to the present. See further Ed. Fraenkel, ‘Eine Anfangsformel Attischer Reden’, Glotta 39 (1960), 2–3 = Kl. Beitr. 1.506–7 and Zagagi (as cited below, n. 10), 43.

⁹ At this point of transition from priamel to ‘mythological hyperbole’ it may be worth stressing that a ‘list of hyperbolic statements’ is identified by Race (n. 2) 58 as characteristic of the priamel. Cf. ibid., pp. 15–17 on superlatives (and comparatives) in priamels (cf. n. 25 below) and see my remarks in Hermes 113 (1985), 249 on superlatives in mythological paradeigmata.

¹⁰ Tradition and Originality in Plautus (Hypomnemata 62 [1980]). Cf. the same author in CQ 36 (1986), 267.

¹¹ 42–3. Cf. my commentary ad loc.

¹² Zagagi (n. 10) does mention (44–5) two other hyperbolic passages from the Cyclops: 320–1 where Polyphemus says Zηυòς δ’ ⋯γὡ κεραυυ⋯υ oὐ φρίσσω,ξ⋯υε, / oὐδ’ oἳδ’öτι Zεύς ῠστ’ ⋯μoῠ κρείσσωυ ϑεóς and 351–2 where Odysseus prays to Athena υῠυ υῠυ äρηξoυ κρείσσυας γàρ ’Ιλίoυ / πόυoυς φγμαι κπ κιυδύυoυ βáϑρα. And she observes that these verses stand near or at the beginning of the speech or section of a speech that contains them. But she overlooks our passage, which actually opens a monologue, in a manner characteristic of Plautine mythological hyperboles.

¹³ Soph. Tr. 1046ff. and Eur. Cycl. 1–10 share a strikingly large number of features: Cycl. 1 μυρίoυς ἒχω πόυoυς ∽ Cycl. 2 ∽ Tr. 1101 ἂλλωυ τε μόχϑωυ γευσάμην Cycl. 2 ∽ Tr. 1056 (δέμας at verse-end, of the speaker's own body), Cycl. 3 ∽ Tr. 1048–9 (Hera as the persecutor of her husband's bastard son), Cycl. 5 ⋯μφἱ γηγεν μάχην δορός ∽ Tr. 1058–9 ⋯ γηγεν⋯ς / Cycl. 6–7 Tr. 1058 (references to spears), Cycl. 10 κα⋯ νῠν ∽ Tr. 1103 νῠν δ’ (both in climactic statements: see above, n. 6), Cycl. 10 ⋯κείνων (sc. πόνων) ∽ Tr. 1091 ὑμε⋯ς ⋯κενοι (sc. βραχιόνες): in both cases of past and distant events. Euripides is making Silenus claim ‘heroic status’ (see below, n. 22) and may conceivably have drawn on Sophocles’ monologue for the appropriate colouring (absurd, of course, in its new context). Euripides’ own Heracles, indeed, also shares some features with the opening of the Cyclops (e.g. Cycl. 7 ∽ Her. 907) (Enceladus) and Cycl. 1 μυρίους ἒχω πόνους ∽ Her. 1275 μυρίων… πόνων [see n. 22 below]). But the concentration of the occurrences in Cycl. 1ff. and Tr. 1046ff. is very striking. Heracles often features in Plautine ‘mythological hyperboles’: see Zagagi's (n. 10) general index s.v. ‘Heracles… in hyperbolic comparisons καϑ’ ὑπεροχ⋯ν’. For Heracles as the ‘hero’ of many satyr plays see Dana F. Sutton, The Greek Satyr Play (Beitr. zur kl. Phil. 90 [1980]), 168.

¹⁴ Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin, 1922) ~ Elementi Plautini in Plauto (Florence, 1960).

¹⁵ 32ff. and 26ff. respectively.

¹⁶ See Zagagi (n. 10), 29.

¹⁷ CR 31 (1981), 192, in his notice of Zagagi.

¹⁸ Where Fraenkel got the term from is unclear: cf. ‘scurrill Plautus’ in Milton's Areopagitica (Complete Prose Works 2.510).

¹⁹ In the following paragraph all words within inverted commas (except ‘scurrility’ and ‘mythological hyperboles’) are quoted from Seaford's commentary on the relevant verses (Oxford 1984). The confirmation thus supplied is striking, since Seaford is not approaching the passage from the angle of ‘mythological hyperbole’, a term he does not use.

²⁰ ‘The enslavement and menial labour… of the satyrs in satyr-drame’ is discussed as a theme by Seaford, 33–5.

²¹ ‘Satyric humour is in large measure generated by the wildly ludicrous juxtaposition of the heroic and the comic’: Sutton (n. 13), 159. Cf. ibid., 169ff. on figures like Silenus as cunning ‘entrepreneur’, and 168 (‘satyric incongruity is profoundly subversive’). All this could be applied to the world of Plautine comedy.

²² See further n. 13 above. For the theme of πόνος in Euripides’ Heracles see C. W. Willink, CQ 38 (1988), 86–9. μυρίους ἒχω πόνους will therefore be ‘paratragic’ (like, perhaps, τοὐμòν εὐσϑένει δέμας in v. 2: see Seaford ad loc.). See in general P. Rau, Paratragodia (Zetemata 45 [1967]) and, for the phenomenon in our play, Seaford's commentary, index s.v. ‘Paratragedy’.

²³ For such ‘inflation’ of a mythical role in Plautine hyperboles cf. Bacch. 946 where, in the context of the sack of Troy, the slave Chrysalus boasts miles Menelaust, ego Agamemno, idem Ulixes Lartius (on the ‘grotesque amplification’ of Chrysalus’ character thus achieved cf. G. Williams, Hermes 84 [1957], 452).

²⁴ So e.g. Plaut. Merc. 469f. Pentheum diripuisse aiiunt Bacchus: nugas maxumas / fuisse credo, praeut quo pacto ego divorsus distrahor; Bacch. fr. 15 Lindsay Ulixem audivi fuisse aerumnosissumum, 925 Atridae duo fratres cluent fecisse facinus maxumum. Cf. Zagagi (n. 10), 37, n. 79; 40, n. 86. Since Cycl. 8 talks (idiomatically: see Seaford ad loc.) of seeing a dream, one might also compare the mythological hyperbole at Capt. 998ff. vidi ego multa saepe picta, quae Accherunti fierent / cruciamenta etc. (cf. Aesch. Eum. 50–1 ποτ’ ἣδη ψιέως γεγραμμένας / δεπνον φερούσας [sc. ‘Aρπυίας]). See further Zagagi (n. 10), 28 concerning the rhetorical question in the context of such hyperboles.

²⁵ The verb in ⋯κείνων μ⋯ίζον’ ⋯ξαντλ πόνων is with its adverb equivalent to that in αὖται δ’ ⋯πάντων τ⋯ν κακ⋯ν (Anaxilas fr. 22.7 KA [PCG 2.288]) and such Plautine examples as Bacch. fr. 15 Lindsay Ulixem audivi fuisse aerumnosissimum, / quia annos viginti errans a patria afuit; / verum his adulescens multo Ulixem anteit <fide> etc. Cf. Zagagi (n. 10), 29ff., 71–2 for other relevant Plautine verbs (antecedere, superare, etc.). For the force of the comparative μείζον’ cf. from the start of the same fragment of Anaxilas őστις νϑρώπων ταίραν γάπησε πώποτε, / οὖ γένος τίς ἂν δύναιτο φράσαι; Eubulus fr. 6.1–2 KA (PCG 5.191) ἢ ἢ μέσως ἒχον / τοῠτ’ ἒσϑ ⋯κάστωι ἢ Тροίαν ⋯λεῖν, Cf. Zagagi (n. 10), 28ff. It is significant (see n. 13 above) that Heracles is the speaker in the second passage (cf. Hunter ad loc. [his fr. 7]).

²⁶ See Seaford's note on v. 273: Silenus’ ‘position of trust… is a measure of his master's insensitivity’. Cf. on 539. This is already a significant step towards the world of Plautine oslaves and masters.

²⁷ It may be significant that, like Heracles (see n. 13), Odysseus features in Plautine ‘hyperbolic comparisons καϑ’ ὑπεροχ⋯ν’: see Zagagi's (n. 10) general index s.v., Euripides’ Silenus represents a sort of debased and comic version of Odysseus (cf. G. Wetzel, De Euripidis fabula satyrica, quae Cyclops inscribitur, cum Homerico comparata exemplo [Wiesbaden, 1965], 44, n. 7 etc.). For ‘clever men and tricksters… as the heroes of satyr plays’ see Sutton (n. 13), 162.

²⁸ Sutton (n. 13), 195, n. 525 has some speculation about ‘instances of satyric influence on classical literature’ (‘evidently rare’).

²⁹ Zagagi (n. 10), 45–6. The same scholar on 19–20 expresses the view (in criticism of H. H. Law, ‘Hyperbole in mythological comparisons’, AJP 47 [1926], 372) that ‘it would be extremely unsafe to attribute to Euripides (or to any other poet) any significant influence on Hellenistic Literature in the matter of the use of hyperboles in mythological comparisons, although Euripides may possibly have inspired the use of these in comparative or superlative form in monologue possibly have inspired the use of these in comparative of superlative form in monologue openings in New Comedy.’ For a more general treatment of the issue of Euripides’ influence upon New Comedy, see her later book The Comedy of Menander (London 1994), subject index s.v. ‘Euripides: and New Comedy’.