² See von Fritz, K., Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes von Sinope (Leipzig, 1927), 30–3, 40Google Scholar; Livrea, E., ‘La morte di Diogene cinico’, Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi Della Corte (Urbino, 1987), 1.427–33, at 1.427–9Google Scholar, and n. 4 below.

³ See Gerhard, G.A., ‘Kerkidas’ 2, RE XI.1 (1921), 294–309Google Scholar; Goulet-Cazé, M.-O. and López Cruces, J.L., ‘Cercidas de Mégalopolis’, in Goulet, R. (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques 2 (Paris, 1994), 269–81Google Scholar.

⁴ Diog. Laert. 6.76–7 περὶ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου διάφοροι λέγονται λόγοι· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολύποδα φαγόντα ὠμὸν χολερικῶς ληφθῆναι καὶ ὧδε τελευτῆσαι· οἱ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα συγκρατήσαντα, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Κερκίδας ὁ Μεγαλοπολίτης ἢ Κρής, λέγων ἐν τοῖς μελιάμβοις οὕτως· ‘οὐ μὰν κ.τ.λ. (= Cercidas, fr. 54 Livrea = 60 Lomiento = 1 Powell = Diog. Cyn. SSR V B 97). Cercidas’ fragment on Diogenes’ death may reflect—according to Livrea (n. 2), 428—a version accepted in influential Cynic circles of the third century. (Cercidas is labelled as a Cynic in the colophon of P.Oxy. 1082 Κερκίδα κυνὸς [Με]λίαμβοι.) I reproduce the fragment as edited by Livrea (n. 2), 429, who in the last sentence accepts two divergences from the text as transmitted in the MSS of Diogenes Laertius, which read ἦς γὰρ ἀλαθέως Διογένης Zανὸς γόνος οὐράνιός τε κύων: 1. the name Διογένης, which may have appeared in the previous section of the poem, now lost, is regarded as an intrusion into the text of what had been an explanatory gloss of the phrase Zανὸς γόνος, and therefore must be deleted, and 2. Zανὸς γόνος must itself be transposed. These divergences were proposed by von Arnim, H., ‘Zu den Gedichten des Kerkidas’, WS 34 (1912), 1–27, at 6 and 25–6Google Scholar. Lomiento, Both L., Cercidas (Rome, 1993), 121, 308Google Scholar and Dorandi (n. 1), 452 have retained the unmodified text.

⁵ οὐ μὰν at the beginning of the fragment implies a contrast between Diogenes and somebody or something previously mentioned. At least three possibilities have been suggested. First, it may be a contrast with another philosopher, perhaps an elderly hedonist boorishly clinging to life (Webster, T.B.L., Hellenistic Poetry and Art [London, 1964], 231Google Scholar) or with a degenerate Cynic (Pohlenz, M., ‘Die hellenistische Poesie und die Philosophie’, Χάριτες Leo zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht [Berlin, 1911], 76–112Google Scholar [= repr. Hildesheim, 1965, 1–37], at 80 n. 4); see also Livrea, E., ‘Un frammento di Cleante ed i Meliambi di P.Oxy. 1082’, ZPE 67 (1987), 37–41, at 40Google Scholar. Second (and more speculatively), the contrast may be with Alexander the Great, who was sometimes considered a son of Zeus (F. Williams, forthcoming). Third and finally, if we assume that Cercidas’ poem was informed by Anth. Pal. 7.64 (see n. 8 below), the contrast may be between, on the one hand, the expectations of a traveller who, on visiting the tomb of Diogenes in Corinth, thinks that the Cynic lies in the Underworld and, on the other, the answer he receives from the dog that guards the tomb, who explains to him that Diogenes is no longer there but now in heaven (López Cruces, J.L., Les méliambes de Cercidas de Mégalopolis [Amsterdam, 1995], 239–40Google Scholar).

⁶ Translation by Frederick Williams.

⁷ On Diogenes’ catasterism, see Pohlenz (n. 5), 80 n. 4; Livrea (n. 2), 432; and Lomiento (n. 4), 309; on Sirius, see Eratosth. [Cat.] 33 and Aratus, Phaen. 329–37, 340. Cf. Anth. Pal. 7.64 (= SSR V B 110), adesp.: εἰπέ, κύον, τίνος ἀνδρὸς ἐφεστὼς σῆμα φυλάσσεις; | —‘τοῦ Κυνός.’ —ἀλλὰ τίς ἦν οὗτος ἀνὴρ ὁ Κύων; | —‘Διογένης.’ —γένος εἰπέ. —‘Σινωπεύς.’ —ὃς πίθον ᾤκει; | —‘καὶ μάλα· νῦν δὲ θανὼν ἀστέρας οἶκον ἔχει.’ Auson. Epigr. 54 Green (= SSR V B 111) is a free adaptation of this epigram.

⁸ Cf. Diog. Laert. 6.78 ἐπέστησάν τε αὐτῷ κίονα καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ λίθου Παρίου κύνα. According to Häusle, H., Sag mir, o Hund—wo der Hund begraben liegt. Das Grabepigramm für Diogenes von Sinope (Hildesheim, Zürich and New York, 1989)Google Scholar, the epigram which originally accompanied the tomb is Anth. Pal. 7.64 (cited in the previous note). However that may be, this epigram is probably very old, dated to soon after the Cynic's death by Follet, S., ‘Les Cyniques dans la poésie épigrammatique à l’époque impériale’, in Goulet-Cazé, M.-O. and Goulet, R. (edd.), Le Cynisme ancien et ses prolongements (Paris, 1993), 359–80, at 363Google Scholar.

⁹ The two cola of the line where the three hymnic epithets appear form a perfect hexameter, with the second colon beginning with two short syllables instead of the regular enhoplian, which begins with a short or with a long syllable (cf. Heph. 15.6 p. 49 Consbruch). This may be a stylistic effect, through which Cercidas seeks to evoke the hexametric tradition of hymnic and epic poetry.

¹⁰ Cf. especially Ps.-Diog. Ep. 7.1 ἀμπέχομαι τρίβωνα διπλοῦν καὶ πήραν φέρω κατ’ ὤμων καὶ ῥάβδον ἔχω διὰ χειρός and Anth. Pal. 11.158.1–4 (Antipater) αἰάζει πήρη τε καὶ Ἡράκλειον ἔρεισμα (F. Williams : ἄριστον MS) | βριθὺ Σινωπίτου Διογένευς ῥόπαλον | καὶ τὸ χύδην ῥυπόεντι πίνῳ πεπαλαγμένον ἔσθος | διπλάδιον, κρυερῶν ἀντίπαλον νιφάδων. (ἔρεισμα, which has been proposed by Williams per litteras, is supported by the parallel of Eur. HF 108–9 ἀμφὶ βάκτροις | ἔρεισμα, 254 οὐ σκῆπτρα, χειρὸς δεξιᾶς ἐρείσματα.) On the Cynic's outfit, see Williams, F., ‘Two notes on Cercidas of Megalopolis’, EClás 87 (1984), 351–7, at 356 n. 40Google Scholar; Giannantoni (n. 1), 4.499–505; Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., ‘Le cynisme à l’époque impériale’, ANRW II 36.4 (1990), 2720–833, at 2738–46Google Scholar.

¹¹ It was proposed for the first time by Henricus Stephanus (sub diuo pastus) in his second edition of the Lives of Diogenes Laertius ([Geneva, 1593], 414); cf. Tomasso Aldobrandini's sub dio uescens in his translation of Laertius, posthumously published in Venice in 1594, on page 156. It has been supported with good arguments by Williams (n. 10), 354–7, who translates it as ‘eating out of doors’. An alternative interpretation is ‘feeding on ether’, which implies an understanding of αἰθέρι– as instrumental dative; this has been supported by Giangrande, G., ‘Cercidas, fr. 1 Powell’, REA 76 (1984), 213–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar from the parallels of Ar. Ran. 892 αἰθήρ, ἐμὸν βόσκημα and Soph. Aj. 558–9 τέως δὲ κούφοις πνεύμασιν βόσκου, νέαν ψυχὴν ἀτάλλων. The interpretation of the compound as ‘living under the open sky’ is not taken into account, in so far as it implies giving –βόσκας (see LSJ s.v. βόσκω) the vague meaning of ‘living’. It was first proposed by W. Crönert in his revision of Passow's, F. Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache (Göttingen, 1912), 1.52Google Scholar.

¹² The testimonies of this exclusively public dimension of the Cynic are numerous, including, for example, Diog. Laert. 6.69 (= SSR V B 147) εἰώθει δὲ πάντα ποιεῖν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ, καὶ τὰ Δήμητρος καὶ τὰ Ἀφροδίτης, 6.58 (= SSR V B 186), Arr. Epict. diss. 3.22.15 ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ, 16.87 ὕπαιθρος δίαιτα, Dio Chrys. Or. 6 (= SSR V B 583) passim, Max. Tyr. Diss. 36.5 (= SSR V B 299) συνήθης τῷ ἀέρι. (Parallels adduced by Williams [n. 10], 355 n. 33 and Livrea [n. 2], 431.) An especially illustrative testimony from the Arab tradition, Muntaḫab Ṣiwān al-Ḥikma, Diogenes 1 (= fr. 151.1 Gutas), may now be added to them: ‘He would eat from day to day; whenever he got hungry he ate bread wherever he would find it, regardless whether it was day or night, and regardless whether he was in the company of a king or commoners, not being ashamed of anybody.’ Translation by D. Gutas, ‘Sayings by Diogenes preserved in Arabic’, in Goulet-Cazé and Goulet (n. 8), 475–518, at 490.

¹³ Athenaeus (3.113f) directed this hexameter (inspired by Il. 16.235) against the Cynics, but there is no evidence for its original context; see Hunter, R.L., Eubulus The Fragments (Cambridge, 1983), 228–9Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Parallel adduced by Lomiento (n. 4), 307.

¹⁵ It would therefore have the same meaning as the first part of the compound αἰθριοκοιτεῖν in Theoc. Id. 8.78. In its favour is the fact that the Homeric distinction between ἀήρ as the lower layer of heaven and αἰθήρ as the upper one reaching the vault of heaven (cf. Schol. Il. 2.458 [Aristonicus] δι’ αἰθέρος] ὅτι καθ’ Ὅμηρον πρῶτος ἀπὸ γῆς ἐστιν ὁ ἀήρ, εἶτα μετὰ τὰ νέφη αἰθήρ, ὃν καὶ ὁμωνύμως τῷ στερεμνίῳ οὐρανὸν καλεῖ) was not always observed; see Livrea on Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.443. In fact, as Kahn, C.H., Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology (New York, 1960), 145Google Scholar pointed out, ‘The primary contrast between ἀήρ and αἰθήρ is a question of visibility, not of relative location’.

¹⁶ On the typically Alexandrian ambiguity of the compound, see Giangrande (n. 11), 216, according to whom αἰθερι– conveys two different meanings: αἰθήρ as the principle of existence, in so far as it allows breathing; αἰθήρ as the purity of a soul as spiritual as Diogenes’. My proposal also conveys two meanings, although not simultaneous but successive, in harmony with the transit from the human Diogenes to the heavenly one.

¹⁷ B. Brugnoli (ed.), Diogenes Laertius. De Vita et Moribus philosophorum (Venetiis: Nicolas Jenson, 1475). (I have used the edition dated to 1490; the translation is on fol. 60^v, 7.) In the Latin version by Ambrogio Traversari accompanying the text of Diogenes Laertius’ Lives, Brugnoli interpolated his own translation of the poetic passages. These had been entrusted by Traversari to Francesco Filelfo, but in the end they did not appear in the original publication (1424–1431); see Dorandi, T., Laertiana (Berlin and New York, 2009), 223–4Google Scholar.

¹⁸ As pointed out by Williams (n. 10), 356–7. For the formula αἰθέρι ναίων, cf. Il. 2.416, 4.166, Od. 15.523, Hes. Op. 18, fr. 343.9 M.–W., Thgn. 756; also Eur. fr. 487 ὄμνυμι δ’ ἱερὸν αἰθέρ’, οἴκησιν Διός (parodied in Ar. Thesm. 272 αἰθέρ’, οἴκησιν Διός and Ran. 100, 311 αἰθέρα Διὸς δωμάτιον), Bacch. 393–4 αἰθέρα ναίον|τες ὁρῶσιν τὰ βροτῶν Oὐρανίδαι. On the identification of Zeus with αἰθήρ, cf. Eur. frr. 941, 877 Kannicht.

¹⁹ Knowledge of the tradition was widespread because of writers from the Imperial era; cf. e.g. Diog. Laert. 6.20–1 (= SSR V B 2), Ps.-Diog. Ep. 7.1 (= SSR V B 537) καλοῦμαι … κύων ὁ οὐρανοῦ, οὐχ ὁ γῆς, Arr. Epict. diss. 3.22.23 (= SSR V B 27) ἄγγελος ἀπὸ Διὸς ἀπέσταλται πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, 38.69 ὅλον πρὸς τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ …, τὸν ἄγγελον καὶ κατάσκοπον καὶ κήρυκα τῶν θεῶν, Max. Tyr. Diss. 36.5 (= SSR V B 299) ἐλευθερωθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ Διὸς καὶ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, Julian, Or. 9 (6).8.188a–c (= SSR V B 8), 7.7.211b–d (= SSR V B 10). See Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., ‘Le livre VI de Diogène Laërce: analyse de sa structure et réflexions méthodologiques’, ANRW II 36.6 (1992), 3880–4048, at 3913–14Google Scholar, and M. Billerbeck, ‘Le cynisme idéalisé d’Épictète à Julien’, in Goulet-Cazé and Goulet (n. 8), 319–38, at 320.

²⁰ Diogenes may have been influenced by the works devoted to the hero by Antisthenes the Socratic. Among his works (cf. Diog. Laert. 6.15–18 = SSR V A 41) were Heracles the Greater or On Strength (Book 4), Heracles or Midas, and Heracles or On Intelligence, or On Strength (Book 10); cf. SSR V A 92–9. On Heracles in the literary tradition, especially in Cynicism, see R. Höistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King (Diss., University of Uppsala) (Lund, 1948), 22–73. According to Diog. Laert. 6.80 (= SSR V B 117), Diogenes the Cynic composed a tragedy called Heracles, now lost.

²¹ Translation by Jebb, R.C., Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments (Cambridge, 1892), 5.161Google Scholar. See López Cruces, J.L., ‘Sófocles, Diógenes y Cércidas’, in Jiménez, A. Pérez et al. (edd.), Sófocles el hombre, Sófocles el poeta (Málaga, 2004), 245–57, at 253–5Google Scholar. The other passage is Soph. Trach. 956 τὸν Zηνὸς ἄλκιμον γόνον, where Triclinius’ Zηνός, although seeming the correct reading, has been replaced in all the MSS by Διός, which will not scan; see Easterling ad loc.

²² Cf. Eratosth. [Cat.] 3 and 4; Avienus, Arat. 175–90. See Hard, R. (trans.), Eratosthenes and Hyginus: Constellation Myths, with Aratus's Phaenomena (Oxford, 2015), 26–31Google Scholar, and Dorda, E. Calderón, ‘Heracles: mito y astronomía. A propósito de Arato, Phaen. 63–70’, in Pérez-Jiménez, A. (ed.), Estudios en honor del Profesor Carlos García Gual (Saragossa, 2014), 203–12Google Scholar.

²³ The remote ether is the space between the celestial dome where the stars lay (cf. Eur. Ion 1147 οὐρανὸς ἀθροίζων ἄστρ’ ἐν αἰθέρος κύκλῳ) and the flat surface that men distinguish from below; see Graz, L., Le feu dans l'Iliade et l'Odyssée. ΠΥΡ: champ d'emploi et signification (Paris, 1965), 82Google Scholar. Cf. Eur. Or. 1636 ἐν αἰθέρος πτυχαῖς (see Willink ad loc.), Hel. 866 αἰθέρος μυχούς, Med. 1297 ἐς αἰθέρος βάθος (with Page ad loc.), fr. 978.3 Kannicht ἐκ βαθείας … αἰθέρος. Assaël, J., Euripide, philosophe et poète tragique (Louvain, Namur, Paris and Sterling, Victoria, 2001), 45–72Google Scholar has compiled all the poetic uses of αἰθήρ up to the time of Euripides.

²⁴ Cf. Od. 11.601–4, Hes. Theog. 950–5, Cat. fr. 25.26–33 M.–W. Although the authenticity of these passages was challenged in antiquity (cf. Schol. Od. 11.385, 11.604 and Il. 2.4; for Hesiod, see West on Hes. Theog. 947–55), the artistic tradition actually shows that at the beginning of the sixth century b.c.e. the hero's apotheosis, his wedding with Hebe, and his abode on Mt Olympus were all bona fide pieces of information; see Gantz, EGM 460–3, Wilkins on Eur. Heracl. 910–18, and Hard (n. 22), xiv.

²⁵ Cf., after Cercidas’ time, Lucian, De mort. Peregr. 33 χρῆναι γὰρ τὸν Ἡρακλείως βεβιωκότα (sc. Περεγρῖνον) Ἡρακλείως ἀποθανεῖν καὶ ἀναμιχθῆναι τῷ αἰθέρι, and, in the fifteenth century, the Anon. Exegesis in Hes. Theog. 394.11–13 Flach ὁ Ἡρακλῆς, ἤτοι ὁ ἥλιος, ὁ τοῦ ἀέρος ὢν κλέος, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Διός, ἤτοι ὁ ὅμοιος τῷ αἰθέρι.

²⁶ See Gantz, EGM 318–28 and Walker, H.J., The Twin Horse Gods (London and New York, 2015), 126–96Google Scholar.

²⁷ In Homeric Hymn 33 they already appear as skilful riders hurtling through the ether (13 δι’ αἰθέρος ἀΐξαντες) to protect sailors from the perils of the stormy sea, perhaps in the guise of St Elmo's Fire (see below). Cf. Eur. El. 1349 διὰ … αἰθερίας στείχοντε πλακός.

²⁸ Cf. Eratosth. [Cat.] 10; Hor. Carm. 1.3.2 sic fratres Helenae, lucida sidera. See Burian on Eur. Hel. 140; in favour of the catasterism, see Pearson and Calderón Dorda ad loc., and against it, see Kannicht ad loc.

²⁹ Translation by Allan, W., Euripides Helen (Cambridge, 2008), 326Google Scholar. On the meaning of the expression, see Kannicht on Hel. 1495–511.

³⁰ On this cult, see Willink on Or. 1635–7.

³¹ Assuming that Lomiento, L., ‘Nota a Cercida, fr. 2, 11–12 D. (= 2, 1112 Livrea)’, QUCC 27 (1987), 97–100Google Scholar is right in retaining the transmitted word order of lines 2.11–12 (where the name of Euripides appears), the predilection Cercidas had for the tragedian led him even to break the alternation of regular meliambic cola precisely at this point in order to introduce a metrical sequence recurrent in Euripides’ plays.

³² See López Cruces, J.L., ‘Cércidas y la Antíope de Eurípides’, Emerita 80 (2012), 275–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar (DOI: 10.3989/emerita.2012.14.1111).

³³ The same uncertainty that Teucer in Hel. 137–43 manifests in the presence of Helen about the whereabouts of the twins, who may have died or may have turned into gods, is found in the dialogic epigram on Diogenes’ catasterism by Auson. 54.5–6 Green (= SSR V B 111): —obiit? —non obiit sed abit … clari flagrat qua stella Leonis, | additus est iustae nunc canis Erigonae.

³⁴ On the reception of these plays up to the third century b.c.e., see Carrara, P., Il testo di Euripide nell'Antichità (sec. IV a.C. – sec. VIII d.C.) (Firenze, 2009), 97–9Google Scholar (no. 14 = P.Duke inv. MF 74.18 [615], including Or. 939–54), 114–16 (no. 18 = P.Vindob. inv. G 2315, incl. Or. 338–44), 116–19 (no. 19 = P.Leid. inv. 510, incl. IA 1500?–9, 784–93?), 120–2 (no. 20–1 = P.Hib. I, 7 and P.Berol. inv. 12319, incl. El. 367–79 and 254–6), 124–6 (no. 24 = P.Yale I, 20, incl. Hel. 1688–92).