^{page 47 note 1} Zur Darstellung Polyphems in der Aeneis (Athens, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} Virgil's Aeneid: A Critical Description (London and Ann Arbor, 1968), 133.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 3} The scanty and often confused evidence for the life of Epicharmus is conveniently presented and discussed by Pickard-Cambridge, A., Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy (Oxford², 1962), 230–9.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 4} Frgs. 81–2 in Kaibel, G., Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Berlin, 1899), 105.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 5} Ibid. frg. 83.

^{page 48 note 1} See Holland, G. R., Leipziger Studien zur classischen Philologie vii (1884), 165Google Scholar; Vierlinger, F., Die Gestalt des Kyklopen Polyphemos in der griechischen und römischen Dichtung (Ph.D. diss.; Univ. of Vienna, 1939), 40–2 and 43 n. 1Google Scholar; and Peachy, F., The Story of the Homeric Cyclops (Ph.D. diss.; Harvard Univ., 1948).Google Scholar

We can date Aristias only very generally as an early figure in Greek drama, since he competed against Aeschylus' Septem (467) according to the hypothesis of the Cod. Med.

^{page 48 note 2} Frg. 4 in Nauck, A., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Hildesheim³, 1964), 727.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 3} These terminal dates were first suggested by T. Bergk, whose argument is cited and summarized by Tanner, R., TAPA xlvi (1915), 204–5Google Scholar. Bergk has been followed by an overwhelming consensus, including Kock, T., Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, i (Leipzig, 1880), 55Google Scholar; Norwood, G., Greek Comedy (London, 1931), 129Google Scholar; and Mewaldt, J., AAWW lxxxiii (1946), 272.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 4} Kock, ibid. 56–60, frgs. 135–50 = Edmonds, J., The Fragments of Attic Comedy, i (Leiden, 1957), 64–71Google Scholar, frgs. 135–50. For detailed treatments of the fragments see Holland, op. cit. 158–65; Kaibel, G., Hermes xxx (1895), 71–80Google Scholar; Vierlinger, op. cit. 28–9. J. Mewaldt, op. cit. 272–7; and Brenner, G., Die Polyphemdichtungen des Euripides, Kratinos und Philoxenos und ihr Verhältnis zur Odyssee (Ph.D. diss.; Univ. of Vienna, 1949), 66–83.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 5} Phillips, E., G & R vi (1959), 64Google Scholar, takes the alternative view that these fragments pertain to the gluttony of Odysseus and his men.

^{page 49 note 1} Wetzel, W., De Euripidis fabula satyrica quae Cyclops inscribitur, cum Homerico comparata exemplo (Wiesbaden, 1965), 151–3Google Scholar, cites and briefly summarizes numerous opinions on this problem; to these add: Dale, A. M., WS lxix (1956), 105–6Google Scholar; Arrowsmith, W. in The Complete Greek Tragedies, ed. Grene, D. and Lattimore, R., iii (Chicago, 1959), 224–5Google Scholar n. 1; Ferrante, D., Dioniso xxxiv (1960), 180Google Scholar; and Conacher, D. J., Euripidean Drama (Toronto, 1967), 320 n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} Wetzel, ibid.; see esp. 134–8.

^{page 49 note 3} ⋯νόσιος: 26, 348, 378, 438 (and, by transference, 31); δυσσεβής: 30 (and, by transference, 289); see esp. the Cyclops' impiety in the agon (316–38). For the Homeric Cyclops' contempt for the gods see Od. ix. 269 ff.

^{page 49 note 4} Arrowsmith, op. cit. 230.

^{page 49 note 5} Cf. Od. ix. 345–74 and Eur. Cyc. 487–589.

^{page 50 note 1} The divergence is most easily explained by the sheer difficulties in staging an escape in the Homeric style. It is true that Aristophanes very effectively parodies the Homeric escape in his Wasps 175 ff., but here the problems of staging the scene were reduced considerably for two reasons: (1) Bdelycleon leads the ass (a model on rollers, no doubt), and (2) Aristophanes had to arrange only one escape, not the multiple escape of the Homeric-Euripidean version.

^{page 50 note 2} Arrowsmith, op. cit. 228.

^{page 50 note 3} For the fragments and two testimonia see Page, D. L., Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford, 1962), 401–2Google Scholar, frgs. 4–7. Complete evidence for the dates of Timotheus will be found in Maas, P., RE xii (1937), 1331Google Scholar; for a summary see Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. 48.

^{page 50 note 4} Cf. Holland, op. cit. 180; Vierlinger, op. cit. 63–4; and Peachy, op. cit. 195–7, 200.

^{page 50 note 5} The three views which have been taken are: (1) dithyramb: Maas, op. cit. 1332–3, and Schmid, W., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, iv (Munich, 1959), 505 n. 12Google Scholar; (2) nome: Edmonds, J., Lyra Graeca, iii (London, 1927), 302–3Google Scholar, and Peachy, op. cit. 148; (3) nan liquet: Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit. 49.

^{page 50 note 6} Page, Poetae Melici Graeci, 401, frg. 5

^{page 50 note 7} Ibid. frg. 4.

^{page 51 note 1} See Plutus 290 ff. (with scholia).

^{page 51 note 2} For the testimonia see Page, Poetae Melici Graeci, 423–6, frgs. 3–6, and Edmonds, Lyra Graeca, iii. 382–5. Cf. also Diod. Sic. xv. 6. 1–3.

^{page 51 note 3} Athenaeus, i. 6E–7A = Page, PMG 424, frg. 3.

^{page 51 note 4} Peachy, op. cit. 200–3, is convinced that virtually every word of Athenaeus' account is true. With this extreme credulity we may contrast the excessive scepticism of Lesky, A., A History of Greek Literature (New York, 1966), 415Google Scholar, who doubts whether Philoxenus even intended Polyphemus as a caricature of Dionysius.

^{page 51 note 5} Lesky, ibid.

^{page 51 note 6} See esp. frgs. 8–9 in Page, PMG 427.

^{page 51 note 7} See esp. frgs. 5 and 7 in Page, PMG 425 and 427. For detailed discussions of all the fragments and testimonia see Holland, op. cit. 184–209; Vierlinger, op. cit. 66–79; and Brenner, op. cit. 111–26.

^{page 51 note 8} For a discussion of the two frgs. of Nicochares' Galatea ( = Kock, CAF i. 770–1), see Holland, op. cit. 210–12, and Vierlinger, op. cit. 80–4. On the three frgs. of Antiphanes' Cyclops (= Kock, CAF ii. 311), see Holland, op. cit. 212–18, and Vierlinger, op. cit. 85–9. On the four frgs. of Alexis' Galatea ( = Kock, CAF ii. 311) see Holland, op. cit. 218–23, and Vierlinger, op. cit. 90–6.

^{page 52 note 1} See Scherling, K., ‘Polyphemus’, RE xlii (1952), 1813Google Scholar; and Holland, op. cit. 228–31.

^{page 52 note 2} Frg. I in Powell, J. U., Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford, 1925), 96.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 3} For such a catalogue see Hermesianax, frg. 7 in Powell, ibid. 98–100.

^{page 52 note 4} For a recent study of Theocritus xi with references to earlier discussions see Spofford, E. W., AJP xc (1969), 22–35.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 5} See, for example, his humorously childish attitude at 67–9 and his naïve selfdelusion at 76–9.

^{page 52 note 6} On the surface the situation here is reversed: Galatea pursues Polyphemus. But between the lines we read something quite different. The whole tone shows us that Galatea's attention is playful and teasing, not a symptom of genuine love. Polyphemus' false front of confidence perfectly complements the nymph's playfulness: he sounds quite ludicrous when he says that Galatea is jealous and pining away for him (26–7).

^{page 53 note 1} See Pfeiffer, R., Callimachus, i (Oxford, 1953), 304–6Google Scholar, and Holland, op. cit. –9.

^{page 53 note 2} Frg. 16 in Gow, A. S. F., Bucolici Graeci (Oxford, 1952), 165.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 3} Ecl. iii. 64–5, 72–3; Ecl. ix. 39–43.

^{page 53 note 4} Recently Savage, J. J. H., TAPA xciii (1962), 413Google Scholar, has attempted to advance a rather farfetched allegorical interpretation of Polyphemus (and Galatea) in Virgil: ‘… the Theocritean folk-tale furnishes a basis for a symbolic expression of the attempt to win Sextus Pompey over to the side of Augustus.’ Cf. Savage, , TAPA lxxxix (1958), 152–6.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 1} Cartault, A., L'Art de Virgile dans l'Énéide (Paris, 1926), 295.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 2} Cited p. 47 nn. I and 2.

^{page 54 note 3} Floratos, op. cit. 6.

^{page 54 note 4} Ibid. 9–19.

^{page 55 note 1} Od. ix. 187–8, 237–9, 244–9, 308–9, 315–16, 337–8, 341–2, and 347–60.

^{page 55 note 2} Floratos, op. cit. 11–17.

^{page 55 note 3} Mackail, J. W. (ed.), The Aeneid (Oxford, 1930), ad loc.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 4} This is noted by Conington–Nettleship, ad loc.

^{page 56 note 1} See the app. crit. of Ribbeck, O. (ed.), P. Vergili Maronis Opera, i (Leipzig, 1894), ad loc.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} Vita Donati, 41, reports that this began soon after Virgil's death: ‘quos [sc. versus inperfectos] multi mox supplere conati non perinde valuerunt ob difficultatem …’. For a complete list of supplements generally considered spurious (including iii. 661) see Sparrow, J., Half-lines and Repetitions in Vergil (Oxford, 1931), 46–7.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 3} See Sparrow, ibid. 47.

^{page 56 note 4} Floratos, op. cit. 17–18. For some reproductions see Roscher, W., ‘Kyklopen’, Myth, Lex. ii. 2 (1890–1894), 2706 (fig. 6)Google Scholar; Reinach, S., Répertoire de peintures grecques et romaines (Paris, 1922), 172 (fig. 9)Google Scholar; Herrmann, P. and Herbig, R., Denkmäler der Malerei des Altertums, Plates II (Munich, 1934), pl. 206Google Scholar; and, most recently, Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome (Princeton, 1969), pl. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 5} This certainly seems to be true, at least, for the reproductions in Roscher, op. cit., and Galinsky, op. cit. The line-drawing in Reinach, op. cit., apparently depicts three eyes: two in the normal position and a third on the forehead but off-centre. The most recent photograph of which I am aware is that of Herrmann-Herbig, op. cit.: here the details of the eye(s) are difficult to distinguish, but there seem to me to be two eyes in the normal position. The important point, however, is that the Polyphemus of the painting definitely does not have the single huge eye which is emphatic in Virgil's description (Aen. iii. 636–7).

^{page 56 note 6} So Herrmann-Herbie, op. cit., Text II (Munich, 1939), p. 18.

^{page 57 note 1} Floratos, op. cit. 18–20.

^{page 58 note 1} Quinn, op. cit. 133. (The last sentence quoted appears as n. 2 on that page.)

^{page 58 note 2} Od. ix. 187–8, 219–23, 237–9, 347–60 etc.

^{page 59 note 1} Conway, R. S., Harvard Lectures on the Vergilian Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1928), 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} See, for example, Conington–Nettleship, ad Aen. iii. 660; Sidgwick, A. (ed.), P. Vergili Maronis Opera, i (Cambridge, 1890)Google Scholar, ad Aen. iii. 660; Hahn, E. A., TAPA lvi (1925), 197 n. 93Google Scholar; Cartault, op. cit. 295; and Williams, R. D., P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber tertius (Oxford, 1962)Google Scholar, ad Aen. iii. 660–1.

^{page 59 note 3} Heinze, R., Virgils epische Technik (Leipzig and Berlin, 1915), 112.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 4} Nawratil, K., AAHG v (1952), 255–6.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 5} Otis, B., Virgil: A Study in Civilized Poetry (Oxford, 1963), 262–3.Google Scholar