^{page 19 note 2} Demetrius, On Style 169.

^{page 19 note 3} This was wrongly queried by Walker, R. J., The Ichneutai of Sophocles (London, 1919), 348–52Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 4} For the latter, one no longer has to cite Alcibiades' comparison of Socrates with a satyr or Vergil's eclogue: cf. P. Oxy. viii. 1083.

^{page 19 note 5} Cf., for instance, Eur. Cyclops 84 and Soph. Ichneutai 47.

^{page 19 note 6} Fr. 464 M. of the Dictyulci almost certainly comes from the prologue; cf. Werre-deHaas, M., Aeschylus' Dicyulci (Leiden, 1961), 32 f. But Werre-deHaas refuses to concede the presence of Silenus in this scene on the grounds that he cannot appear apart from the chorus, and invents a hypothetical pld man to replace him. This is astonishing, as Silenus appears in the prologues of other;atyr plays, and there is no reason to exclude him from this scene. Those, such as H. Lloydlones, Loeb Library Aeschylus, ii. 531–41, who wish to identify him as a participant, ire more likely correct.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 7} It is far likelier that the satyrs quarrel with Dionysus than with Silenus in the principal fragment of the Isthmiastai, Oxy, P.. cviiiGoogle Scholar. 2162, as their antagonist is termed a γúvvts., an epithet more appropriate of Dionysus, and used of him by Aeschylus in the Edonians, fr. 72 M.; so Snell, B., ‘Aeschy;us' Isthmiastai’, Hermes, lxxxiv (1956), 1–II and Lloyd-Jones, op. cit. 545.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 1} The Inachus is shown to be satyric by a violation of Porson's Law at P. Tebt. 692 i. 7, as I will show in a forthcoming article ‘A Handlist of Satyr Plays’ in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.

^{page 20 note 2} Cf. Sir Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens ² (Oxford, 1968), 180.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 3} So Werre-deHaas, op. cit. 74; cf. also N. E. Collinge, ‘Some Reflections on Satyr-Plays’, P.C.Ph.S. N.S. v (1958–9), 29.

^{page 20 note 4} There is a new discussion of the coryphaeus in Greek drama by Kaimio, Maarit, The Chorus of Greek Drama within the Light of the Person and Number Used (Helsinki, 1970), 157–78.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 5} I will limit myself to citing some recent opinions. Among those identifying Silenus with the coryphaeus are Schmid-Stallin, G.G.L. 59 no. 2 and Werre-deHass, op. cit. 74; among those claiming that he was played by an actor are Kaimio, op. cit. 174. no. 4, Lloyd-Jones, op. cit. 535 n. 1, Buschor, E., Satyrtänze und frühes Drama (Munich, 1943), 81, and A. M. Dale, Oxford edn. of the Alcestis, xix n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 6} 1st edn., Oxford, 1953; 2nd edn., Oxford, 1968.

^{page 20 note 7} That the substitution is the work of the editors is shown by the preface to the 2nd edn., viii.

^{page 21 note 1} Since Aristotle in the Poetics held both that the second actor was only introduced by Aeschylus, and that tragedy evolved out of the satyr play, or at least something satyr play-like, it is conceivable that the proposition that Silenus is played by an actor might cause difficulties for our understand ing of the evolution of drama.

^{page 21 note 2} See Snell, op. cit. and Lloyd-Jones, op. cit. 546–8.

^{page 21 note 3} So Werre-deHaas, op. cit. 74 f.

^{page 21 note 4} Suggested for the Dictyulci by Lloyd-Jones, op. cit. 535 11. 1.

^{page 21 note 5} Collinge, op. cit. 29 f.

^{page 22 note 1} It has been suggested to me that the evidence of Aristotle, who is talking specifically about tragedy, is not conclusive for the number of actors available in satyr plays, and that the question remains open, since on the one hand the analogy of comedy, with its considerably freer handling of extra parts, might suggest that it was not conclusive, while on the other the fact that satyr plays were part of the same group of performances in the festival might tie it more closely to the conditions prevailing for tragedy. My response would be, first, to question whether it is really clear that Aristotle is talking specifically about tragedy; second to reply that since the satyr play is so intimately connected with tragedy both historically and within the context of the festival, it seems a reasonable assumption that it would march very closely with tragedy in such dramaturgic respects; and third, that the fact that no known satyr play of any period requires more than three onstage speakers tends to support this assumption, by placing the satyr play with tragedy, not comedy, in this respect. Aristotle gives evidence at Poetics 4. 1449^a15; for other authorities giving (independent ?) corroboration, cf. Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. (1968) 130–2.

^{page 22 note 2} For this vase cf. Trendall, A. D. and Webster, T. B. L., Illustrations of Greek Dramadotbl (London, 1971), 29 with ref. and pl.II, I.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 3} Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. (1968) 186.

^{page 22 note 4} For the possibility of a play having more than one coryphaeus, cf. Kaimio, op. cit. 158.

^{page 23 note 1} In an article ‘Timocles Satyricus’ forthcoming in Dioniso, I have suggested that Timocles' Icarioi Satyroi, commonly considered a Middle Comedy, was another such play.

^{page 23 note 2} Fragments in Steffen, V., Satyrographorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Poznaa, 1952),Google Scholar and now in Snell, B., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta i (Göttingen, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} Snell, B., Scenes from Greek Drama (Cambridge, 1964), 106 f.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 4} The only conceivable evidence to the contrary is Diomedes, P. 490, 20, ‘Latina Atellana a Graeca satyrica differt, quod in satyrica fere satyrorum personae inducuntur aut si quae sent ridiculae similes satyris, Autolycus, Busiris’, a passage on which I would scarcely base any such argument.