^{page 44 note 1} The scene is exhaustively studied by Roos, E., Die tragische Orchestik im Zerrbild der altattischen Komijdie: Die Tanzbwrleske des Philokleon in der Exodos der ‘ Wespen’Google Scholar. See also Platnauer, in C.Q. N.S. i (1951), 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Dover, in Lustrum ii (1957), 84 f.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 2} is the reading of R: V has (schol. .

^{page 44 note 3} Cf. lines 220, 269. On the Phrynichus problem, see Roos, , op. cit., pp. 122 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 4} Argum. Soph. Ant.

^{page 44 note 5} Cf. Nub. 987–9 (on which see my article ‘Trojan Leap and Pyrrhic Dance in Euripides’ Andromache 1129–41’, JHS lxxxvii [1967], 18–23).Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 1} Mor. 762 f., Alc. 4, Pelop. 29.

^{page 45 note 2} See below, p. 46.

^{page 45 note 3} Ar. Av. 70–71, Ion Trag. fr. 53, Plin. N.H. 10. 47: cf. Theoc. 22. 71–72.

^{page 45 note 4} So too Av. 707, Cratin. fr. 259, Suid. s.v. cf. Hsch. and Plut. (Artox. 10) mentions the carrying of a golden cock in the Persian army. In a story which Aelian tells (V.H. 6. 14) of Dareius’ personal bravery he says where the choice of a verb, not at all common of humans in prose writers, but used by Aelian himself in recounting the Phrynichus story in V.H. 13. 17 (see above), may be influenced by the comparison commonly made of the crested cock and the Persian king with his (Av. 487).

^{page 45 note 5} Cf. Argum. Aesch. Pers.

^{page 45 note 6} Philo quod omnis probus 132 has the same story about Miltiades. Cf. also Diog. L. 2. 30.

^{page 45 note 7} Cf. Plat. Symp. 184 b

^{page 45 note 8} Cf. Plut. Them. 5.

^{page 46 note 1} Cf. Ar. Thesm. 1175 and schol., Xen. Cyr. 8. 14. 12, Poll. 4. 100, and see Roos, , op. cit., pp. 66–69.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} Athen. 16 a quotes this passage with (used in Dem. 54. 9 and Babr. 5. 6 of victorious fighting cocks flapping their wings).

^{page 46 note 3} See my article ‘Trojan leap, etc’ cited above (p. 44, n. 5).

^{page 46 note 4} Cf. the Homeric warriors’ technique of advancing (II. 13. 158, 807; 16. 609), and Odysseus’ party lying (Od. 14. 474) where (pace Page, The Homeric Odyssey, p. 113) must be their shields–it is the of Eur. Rhes. 740–as in Eur. Androm. 1130 The verb occurs of cowering (apparently) behind the shield in an anonymous tragic fragment about Hector (Page, Select Literary Papyri, no. 29b, p. 162).

^{page 46 note 5} Or at least by one of the servants: the ascription of lines to minor characters is often in some doubt.

^{page 47 note 1} I owe the Latin examples to Mr. D. A. West, who refers me to Rudd, N., The Satires of Horace, p. 298.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} Nicole, , Le Poéte tragique Carcinus et ses fils (Mélanges Graux, pp. 163–7).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 3} Taillardat, (Les Images d'Aristophane, p. 125) also thinks must be some ‘minuscule animal’ such as the prawn.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 4} Also. Av. 102 Ec. 1072–3 cf. also Crobylus fr. 8 Long. 2.7 .

^{page 48 note 1} So at least Hall (Companion to Classical Texts, p. 159) states, referring to Dawes, , Misc. Crit., p. 472Google Scholar, Cobet, , Var. Led., p. 120.Google Scholar But it is fair to say that, apart from the very common confusion (for which there are other psychological reasons apart from similarity of the letters), perhaps the only certain example they cite is Xen., Cyr. 3. 1. 21 (Cobet) for (codd.). Cobet also conjectures in Luc. Im. 4 (cf. id., Herm. 48) and makes similar proposals in other passages which do not appear to have won general acceptance. Although no comment is necessary on con- fusion of o, ω (both R and V have for three lines earlier), I note that is also spelled (refs. in LSJ)— in Mod. Gk. .Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} See Athen. 629 f, Poll. 4. 103, and cf. Xen., Symp. 6. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 3} So Suid. s.v. ( = Callim. fr. 326). I suspect that, in this gloss, is not the subject of the verbs, and that one should read Cf. Ael. N.A. 1.29 (on owl capturing) .

^{page 48 note 4} Ael N.A. 1. 29, who uses of the transformations of the owl's appearance in attracting its victims.

^{page 49 note 1} Cf. Com. Adesp. 47, Ael. Dion. fr. 336, Suet. p. 422 Miller. The pejorative applica- tion, ‘booby’, to Xenocles would also be incidentally relevant in Vesp. 1509.

^{page 49 note 2} e.g. Arist., H.A. 597^b24, Plut. Mor. 52 b (where the odd variant arises presumably because it too is (Ael. N.A. 5. 26)), Mor. 961 e.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 3} Schol. 1510 For a comparison of crab and parasite, cf. the lines quoted by Plut. Mor. 54 b (III, p. 669 Bergk). It is odd that Pliny (N.H. 10. 68) calls the otus ‘parasita’.

^{page 49 note 4} Loc. cit., pp. 485, 496 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} Pan is common in literature and art–see Plin. N.H. 35. 138, Sil. Ital. 13. 341–2, Roscher, Lex. Myth. iii. 1401.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} For her speculation on the ‘searching’ motif as a recurrent theme of the satyr-play, see pp. 498–501. It might be noted that the obscure line of Sophocles (fr. 113) referring to the comes from a satyr-play, the Amphiaraus.

^{page 50 note 3} On this difficult allusion, see Taillardat, , op. cit., pp. 463–5.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 4} The crab is itself in A.P. 6. 196. 2.

^{page 51 note 1} In view of the comparison of the Carcinites to ‘quails bred in the house’ (Pax 787), another resemblance to this same theme may be observed, since in Av. 1297–9 Midias the quail-breeder is said to merit the name because of his dazed appearance, (Cf. the description of the owl above (p. 48, n. 3)).

^{page 51 note 2} It happens that the only other reference to the mole in Aristophanes juxtaposes it to the echinus (Ach. 879 .

^{page 51 note 3} In Schol. Pax 794 we find (where must be Xenocles, not Carcinus—cf. in the previous words: Schol. 795 is doubtful- For the nonsensical expression I am tempted to substitute (‘short-sighted’). Meineke proposed referring to the description of Eupolis by Platonius but this should apparently be —cf. id. and the confusion of occurs also in Schol. Eq. 92.

Miss N. V. Dunbar (to whose criticisms of this article I am indebted) rightly objects that in Schol. 794 is at least relevant to the theme of the thievish weasel (although in this case seems to defy interpretation or emendation), whereas my emended version is not. But it is not uncharacteristic of Aristophanes-scholia to contain biographical details culled from other references to the persons in question elsewhere: e.g. Schol. Ran. 151 (on Morsimus) not only says that he is a tragedian (relevantly), but —which details, if not invented (which would be pointless), must come from other passages about Morsimus in the comic poets. So too Schol. Thesm. 168 (on Philocles) adds to the fact he too was a tragedian, that he was Even the use of in Schol. Pax need not refer to the lines immediately under discussion, for Schol. Ran. 791 (on Cleidemides) gratuitously informs us I conclude there-fore that of Xenocles, could have been inserted here either from a source which understood the reference in Vesp. as I interpret it, or from some other lost passage about the physical disabilities or peculiarities of the Carcinus family.