Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:43:56.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pan's Prologue to the Dyskolos of Menander

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Penelope J. Photiades
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

About two years ago the papyrus of Menander's Dyskolos was seen in Alexandria, and was afterwards sent, in two instalments, to the library of M. Martin Bodmer, the famous collector, in Geneva. There it was decisively identified and its authenticity was established by Professor Victor Martin. This unique papyrus of a complete play by Menander, which was hitherto known only from the scanty fragments to be gleaned from anthologies, forms a beautifully preserved codex which may be dated around a.d. 200. (See Plates III–V.) At the time when this article was being written, the Dyskolos was about to be published by Professor Martin in the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana series, with the requisite textual reconstruction, translation, and notes, to which I have had the privilege of contributing. As will be seen from the editto princeps, out of a total of about 969 verses, there are only about 9 verses missing—in two places in the fourth act; but about 30 verses in the first and second acts are incomplete, and approximately 200 require some sort of emendation, usually to compensate for the scribe's metrical inaccuracies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , October 1958 , pp. 108 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 108 note 1 One page in a different hand, p. 19 in the papyrus, allows of a more precise dating, between a.d. 220 and 250. There were II known fragments of the Dyskolos (Koerte 115 to 125 inclusive) and five unidentified ones, as will be seen from the edition.

In this article the fragments of Menander are cited according to the numeration of the Teubner editions by A. Koerte, Leipzig, 1953 (fragments) and 1955 (larger fragments, 3rd ed.).

page 108 note 2 The indication Χορο⋯ occurs four times, following statements made by the characters which show that they are leaving the scene, so that one may, for the sake of convenience, refer to divisions of the play as ‘acts’. Cf. Dysk. 226–32Google Scholar (for details see below, p. 116, n. 2), 419 〈Σíĸ.〉 αίρο⋯ δ⋯ ταυτ⋯ ĸα⋯ φ⋯ρε | είσω. πο⋯μεν στιβάδας ένδον εύτρεττεῖς. | … XOPOY, 617 〈Γοργ.〉 μηδαμ⋯ς μόνην τ⋯ν μητέρα | οίκοι καταλείπων. 〈Σώστρ.〉 ⋯λλ' ⋯κείνης ⋯πιμελο⋯, | ν άν δ⋯ηται, ταχύ δ⋯ κ⋯γὼ παρέσομαι. | XOPOY, 782 (trochaic tetrameters) 〈Σώστρ.〉 ένδον περιμενείς, οὐ γ⋯ρ; 〈Γοργ.〉 οὐκ έξέρχ 〈ομαι〉 | ένδοθεν. 〈Σώστρ.〉 μικρ⋯ν διαλιπὼν παρακαλ⋯ τοίνυν 〈σ'〉 ⋯γώ. | XOPOY.

page 108 note 3 This is apparently the earliest example of such an attribution.

page 109 note 1 Wilamowitz thinks the speaker may be a god. But the explicit reference to an altar dedicated to a god who is not the speaker (Phasma 25 [έστιν δέ κα⋯ βωμός] τις ένδον τ⋯ς θεο⋯), and the familiar style of the opening lines, which relate a dialogue (Ibid. 6 'μ⋯ παραδῷς, πρ⋯ς τ⋯ν θε⋯ν, | [πρόφασιν κατ] ⋯ σαυτο⋯ μηδεμίαν. οůτω πόει', | [φησίν. ποήσω τ]ο⋯το), tend to invalidate this hypothesis.

page 109 note 2 The first lines on the papyrus of the Kolax, of which very little remains, may belong to a prologue or, as Koerte thinks, to a monologue.

page 109 note 3 Epikleros: Fr. 152; cf. Cornutus, Ars Rhet. 34 (προοίμιον). Thais: Fr. 185; cf. Plut. De aud. poet. 19 A (⋯ν τῷ προλόγῳ). Hydria: Fr. 401; cf. Quint. Inst. xi. 3. 91 (‘in Hydriae prologo’). Xenologos: Fr. 294; cf. Theon Progymn. p. 91. II Spengel (⋯ν ⋯ρχῇ … το⋯ ενολόγου). Plokion: Fr. 333; cf. Gell. ii. 23. 8 (‘a principio statim … acccsserat dehinc lectio ad eum locum’). The fragmentary prologue to Philemon's play, 'Aήρ, delivered by this spirit, is very personal in tone; and though 'Aήρ jokes about his own unsubstantiality he identifies himself with Zeus, a very real and potent god: Fr. 91 Kock.

page 109 note 4 There are delayed prologues following opening dialogues in the Knights of Aristophanes and the Kauris of Alexis; but both Demosthenes in the former and the father in the latter express their own personal reactions to events. The only other invitation to the spectators which has been preservad is Men. Perik. 50Google Scholar έρωσθ' εὐμενεīς τε γενόμενοι | ⋯μīν, θεαταί, κα⋯ τ⋯ λοιπ⋯ σῷʒετε. The invitation in the Dyskolos is even more polite, perhaps because Menander was very young at the time; cf. Dysk. 45–46.

page 110 note 1 The existence of a prologue by ‘Scrutiny’, or ἜΕλεγχος, is mentioned by Lucian, who associates it with two other abstractions, Ἀλήθεια and παρρησία, which may also have been personified as prologists by Menander, Pseudol. 4 (Men. Fr. 717): μ⋯λλον δ⋯ παρακλητέος ⋯μīν τ⋯ν Μενάνδρου προλ⋯γων εīς ⋯ Ἒλεγχος, φίλος Ἀληθείᾳ κα⋯ Παρρησίᾳ, θε⋯ς οὐκ ⋯σημότατος τ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ τῇ σκηνῇ ⋯ναβαινόντων. We also possess two lines of a prologue by Φόβος quoted by Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Dogm. iii. 188 (Fr. com. adesp. 154 Kock), which might be attributed to Menander: ⋯μορφότατος τ⋯ν όψιν, εἰμ⋯ γ⋯ρ Φόβος, | πάντων ⋯λ⋯χιστον το⋯ καλο⋯ μετ⋯χων θεός.

page 110 note 2 The prologues to the Perikeiromene and the Comoedia Florentina come after the opening dialogue, and contain references to it. Cf. Perik. 7 τεθραμμένης τ⋯ς παιδός, ἣν ν⋯ν εἴδετε, and 38 τ⋯ λοιπ⋯ δ' αὐ []. The other prologue, by Τ⋯χη, seems rather abrupt if there is only one line missing; and the reference to a μειράκιον, Com. Fl. 6 and 9, can be explained only if he had already appeared.

page 110 note 3 Ἣρως. τ⋯ το⋯ δράματος πρόσωπα Γέτας, Δ⋯ος, Ἣρως θεός, Μυρρίνη, Φειδίας, Σωφρόνη, Σαγγάριος, Γοργίας, Λ⋯χης.

page 110 note 4 iv. 2. 3.

page 110 note 5 iii. 37.

page 111 note 1 Quint. Inst. x. i. 69 ‘hunc [Euripidem] et admiratus maxime est, ut saepe testatur, et secutus, quamquam in opere diuerso, Menander.’ Cf. Satyros, Life of Euripides, on New Comedy in general: τα⋯τα γάρ ⋯στι δ⋯που τ⋯ συνέχοντα τ⋯ν νεωτέραν κωμῳδίαν, ἃ Πρ⋯ς ἂκρον ἤγαγεν Εὐριπίδης.

page 111 note 2 Pan's cult is described as being relatively recent, but nevertheless very venerable, Hdt. ii. 145: ⋯ν Ἓλλησι μέν νυν νεώτατοι τ⋯ν θε⋯ν νομίƷοται εīναι ‘Ηρακλέης τε κα⋯ Δι⋯νυσος κα⋯ Πάν … Παν⋯ δέ …ἒλάσσω ἒτεά ⋯στι τ⋯ν Τρωικ⋯ν, κατά ⋯κτακόσια μάλιστα ⋯ς ⋯μέ.

page 111 note 3 Dysk. 336 〈Γοργ.〉 τότε φησ⋯ν ⋯κδώσειν ⋯κείνην ⋯νίκ' ἂν | ⋯μότροπον αύτῷ νυμφίον λάβῃ.

page 112 note 1 Hom. Hymns xix. 37 πολύκροτον ⋯δυγέλωτα, 47 Π⋯να δέ μιν καλέεσκον τι φρένα π⋯σιν ἒτερψε. Cf. also Soph. Aias 693 ff. ἒφριξ' ἒρωτι, περιχαρ⋯ς δ' ⋯νεπτάμαν. | ἰώ ἰώ Π⋯ν Πάν, | … φάνηθ', | θε⋯ν χοροποί' ἂναξ, πως | μοι Μύσια Κνώσι' ⋯ρ-| χήματ' αὐτοδα⋯ ξυνὼν ἰάψῃς. | ν⋯ν γ⋯ρ ⋯μο⋯ μέλει χορε⋯σαι.

page 112 note 2 i.e. to the stage right of the sanctuary. Cf. Dysk. 5 (prologue), and 938 [ο]ὐκ ⋯ηδ⋯ς διατ[ριβ]ή τις αὐτ⋯ν | [ἔσται γ' ἂ] νωθεν (iambic tetrameters). Here Sikon is referring to the women in the sanctuary.

page 112 note 3 The action of the Iphigenia in Tauris takes place before the temple of Artemis, but the prologue is recited by Iphigeneia.

page 112 note 4 Τύχη states the characteristics before explaining how they were realied in point of fact: Com. Fl. 2 καί Ʒῇ μονότροπος, γρα⋯ν ἒχων [δούλην μίαν], Ibid. 6 χρηστός τε τῷ τρόπῳ πάνυ | κα⋯ πλούσιος. Agnois's account, which is also well preserved, is much more factual, but it heightens the characterization by references to qualities: Perik. 23 ⋯ρ⋯σ' ⋯κεῖνον, εὐπρεπ⋯ [δέ] κᾳ[ì] νέαν | ταύτην.

page 113 note 1 This sudden thrill of passion, which would be considered as a sign of a visitation from Pan, is probably the feature which most needed to be explained, for it might seem startling as an opening to a plot which is otherwise characteristic of New Comedy. So it is fitting that it should be described in emphatic terms and placed last in the prologue.

page 113 note 2 Theon Progymn. p. 91. 11 Spengel τ⋯ καθ' ἒκαστον μέρος τ⋯ς διηγήαεως γνώμην ⋯πιλέγειν … ὠς παρ⋯ Μενάνδρῳ … ⋯ν ⋯ρχῇ δ⋯ το⋯ τε Δαρδάνου κα⋯ το⋯ ενολόγου. Only a fragment of the latter prologue is preserved.

page 113 note 3 Dysk. 83 〈Πύρ.〉 φεύγετε. 〈Σώστρ〉 τί ἔστι 〈Πύρ.〉 βάλλομαι βώλοις, λίθοις.

page 114 note 1 Dysk. 683 ⋯λλ' ⋯ Γοργίας “Ατλας … ⋯νενήνοχ' αὐτόν.

page 114 note 2 Ibid. 732 (trochaic tetrameters) 〈Κν⋯μ.〉 τ⋯νδε σο⋯ παρεγγ⋯ω. | ἄνδρα 〈τ'〉 αὐτῇ π⋯ρισον. εἰ γ⋯ρ σφ⋯δρ' ὑγιειν⋯ς ἔχω, | αὐτ⋯ς οὐ δυν⋯σομ' εὑρεῑν οὐ γ⋯ρ ⋯ρ⋯σει μο⋯ ποτε, 736 κηδεμὼ ν ε τ⋯ς ⋯δελφ⋯ς.

page 114 note 3 Ibid. 168 〈Κν⋯μ.〉 οἴμοι π⋯λιν τ⋯ς οὑτοτ⋯ πρ⋯〈ς〉 ταῑς θ⋯ραις | ἕστηκεν ⋯μῑν; 〈Σώστρ.〉 ἆρα τυπτ⋯σεις γ⋯ με; and 364 〈Γοργ.〉 τ⋯ οὖν; | ⋯ργαομ⋯νοις ⋯μῑν παρεστ⋯ξεις ἔχων | χλαν⋯δα; 〈Σώστρ.〉 τ⋯ γ⋯ρ δ⋯〈τ.〉 οὐχ⋯; 〈Γοργ.〉 ταῑς βώλοις βαλεῖ | εὐθ⋯ς σ', ⋯ποκαλεῖ τ' ⋯λεθρον ⋯ργ⋯ν ⋯λλ⋯ δεῑ | σκ⋯πτειν μεθ' ⋯μῷν σ' …, 375 〈Σώστρ.〉 ἔκφερε δ⋯κελλαν.

page 114 note 4 Ibid. 311 〈Σώστρ.〉 οὔτως μ' ⋯ Π⋯ν, μειρ⋯κιον, 〈αἱ.〉 ν⋯μφαι θ' ἅμα ⋯π⋯πληκτον αὐτο⋯ πλησ⋯ον τ⋯ς οἰκ⋯ας | ἣδη πα⋯σειαν, 347 οὐκ⋯τι | [το⋯τ' ἓσ]τιν ⋯π' ⋯μο⋯, τῷ θεῷ δ⋯.

page 114 note 5 Ibid. 384 〈Σώστρ.〉 εἰ μ⋯ γ⋯ρ ⋯ν γυναιξ⋯ν ⋯στιν ⋯ κ⋯ρη | τεθραμμ⋯νη, μηδ' οδε τ⋯ν ⋯ν τῷ β⋯ῷ | το⋯των κακ⋯ν, μηδ⋯ν ὑπ⋯ τηθ⋯δος τιν⋯ς | δεδιδαγμ⋯νη μα⋯ας τ', ⋯λευθερ⋯ως δ⋯ πως | μετ⋯ πατρ⋯ς ⋯γρ⋯ου μισοπονηρο⋯ τῷ τρ⋯πῳ. Cf. 34 (prologue).

page 115 note 1 Cf. above, p. 114, n.3; Dysk. 411 〈〉Σι.κ τ⋯ς 〈ε〉δεν [sc. ⋯ν⋯πνιον]; 〈Γ⋯τ.〉 ⋯ κεκτημ⋯νη. 〈Σ⋯κ.〉 τ⋯ πρ⋯ς θε⋯ν; | 〈Γ⋯τ.〉 ⋯πολεῖς ⋯δ⋯κει τ⋯ν π⋯να— 〈Σ⋯κ.〉 τουτον⋯ λ⋯γεις; | 〈Γ⋯τ.〉 το⋯τον. 〈Σ⋯κ.〉 τ⋯ ποιεῖν; 〈Γ⋯τ.〉 τῷ τροφ⋯μῳ τῷ Σωστρ⋯τῳ— | 〈Σ⋯κ.〉 διφθ⋯ραν Τε κα⋯ | σκ⋯πτειν κελε⋯ειν. In the papyrus ⋯ κεκτημ⋯νη was corrupted into ⋯κεισσημ⋯νη and π⋯δας into παῖδας.

page 115 note 2 Ibid. 545 〈Σώστρ.〉 [ἔγ]ει δ⋯ μ' αὐτ⋯ματον τ⋯ πρ⋯γμ'' εἰς τ⋯ν τ⋯πον, 560 κεκοινωνηκ⋯τες | ἱερ⋯ν γ⋯ρ εἰς τ⋯ λοιπ⋯ χρησιμώτεροι | ⋯μῑν ἔσονται σ⋯μμαχοι πρ⋯ς τ⋯ν γ⋯μον, 570 καλ⋯ς | ἔσται, Γ⋯τα, τ⋯ τ⋯μερον μαντευ{σ}ομαι | το⋯τ' αὐτ⋯ς, ὦ Π⋯ν, ⋯λλ⋯ μ⋯ν ποσεχ⋯ομαι | ⋯ε⋯ παριὼν σο⋯ κα⋯ φιλανθρωπε⋯{σ}ομαι.

page 115 note 3 Sikon the cook declares that he will remember what an odious neighbour Knemon is for the god and his worshippers, Ibid. 663 ὑπ⋯στατος γ⋯ρ τῷδε γε⋯των τ' [⋯στ⋯] μοι | κα⋯ τοῖς ⋯ε⋯ θ⋯ουσιν. Knemon wishes to move house, as the presence of the Nymphs seems to him to bring misfortune, that is, to attract crowds of worshippers who deprive him of his beloved solitude: 444 〈Κν⋯μ.〉 αἱ δ⋯ ν⋯μφαι μοι κακ⋯ν | ⋯[ε⋯] παροικο⋯σ' ὥστε μοι δοκ⋯ π⋯λιν | [με]τοικοδομ⋯σειν καταβαλὼν τ⋯ν οἰκ⋯αν. Sikon ascribes Knemon's fall to Pan's anger, and prays that he may break a leg, just before Sostratos announces that he has done so, 639 εἰσ⋯ν θεο⋯, μ⋯ τ⋯ν Δι⋯νυσον …, 661 εὔχεσθε τ⋯ν γ⋯ροντα σωθ⋯ναικακ⋯ς, | ⋯ν⋯πηρον ⋯ ντα χωλό〈ς〉 οὅτω γ⋯νεται, 666–90.

page 116 note 1 Chaireas wishes to delay the issue by proposing further discussion, so as not to aggravate Knemon's anger at the time, Dysk. 126 τυχ⋯ν ἴσως ὠδυνωμ⋯νος τι ν⋯ν | τετ⋯χηκε δι⋯περ⋯ναβαλ⋯σθαι μοι δοκεῖ | αὐτῷ προσελθεῑν.

page 116 note 2 Ibid. 230 〈Δ⋯ος〉 κα⋯ γ⋯ρ προσι⋯ντας {το⋯σδε} πα{ια}νι〈α〉στ⋯ς 〈ν⋯ν〉 τινας | εἰς τ⋯ν τ⋯πον δε⋯ρ' ὑποβεβρεγμ⋯νους ⋯ρ⋯ | οἱς μ⋯' νοχλεῖν εὕκαιρον ενα⋯ μοι δοκεῑ. | ΧΟΡΟΥ. The first of these lines is emended by me to read κα⋯ γ⋯ρ προσι⋯ντας πανιαστ⋯ς ν⋯ν τινας, since πᾱνιστα⋯ is a late word which will not scan, but πᾱνιαστα⋯ are a guild of Pan's worshippers, mentioned in several inscriptions, as in one from Rhodes, I.G. xii (i). 155. 75.

There is a striking resemblance here to the end of the first act of the Epitrepontes; in fact the last line is identical in both plays. Appatently Menander did not mind repeating what seems to have been a conventional ta. Cf. Epitr. 33 [ἴωμ]εν ὡς κα⋯ μειρακυλλ⋯ων ὅχλος | [εἰς τ]⋯ν τ⋯πον τις ἔρχεθ' ὑποβεβρεγμ⋯ν[ων], | [ος] μ[⋯] 'νοχλεῑν εὕκαιρον εἶν[α]⋯ μο[ι δοκεῑ]. Solo in the fifth act: Dysk. 878 Αὐλεῑ (i.e. ‘Short musical interlude’).

page 116 note 3 Ibid. 955–60, 964 εν συνησθ⋯ντες κατηγωνισμ⋯νοις | ⋯μῑν τ⋯ν ⋯ργώδη γ⋯ροντα, φιλοφρ⋯νως | μειρ⋯κια, παῑδες, ἅνδρες, ⋯πικροτ⋯σατε.| ⋯ δ' εὐπ⋯τειρα φιλογ⋯λως τε παρθ⋯νος | Ν⋯κη μεθ' ⋯μ⋯ν εὐμεν⋯ς ἕποιτ' ⋯ε⋯. The last two lines are quoted by schol. Aristid. p. 301 Dindorf, and referred to in Himerios, , Or. xix. 3Google Scholar, and Bekker, , Anecd. 368. 7Google Scholar, Where it is stated that the last line was repeated by Meanander's imitator, Dioskoros; they were formerly attributed by Wilamowitz and Koerte (Epitr. Fr. 11) to the end of the Epitrepontes.

page 117 note 1 P1. Phdr. 238 D θεῖος ἕοικεν ⋯ τ⋯πος εναι,ὥστ' ⋯⋯ν νυμφ⋯ληπτος … γ⋯νωμαι, μ⋯ θαυμ⋯σῃς, Iambl. Myst. iii. 122. 5 Παν⋯ς κ⋯τοχος, Νυμφ⋯ν ἣ Παν⋯ς ⋯πιπνο⋯ας, Arist. Eth. Eud. 1214a23 οἱ νυμφ⋯ληπτοι κα⋯ θε⋯λητι τ⋯ν ⋯νθρώπων, ⋯πιπνο⋯ᾳ δαιμον⋯ου τιν⋯ς ⋯σπερ ⋯νθουσι⋯οντες, Mim. Oxy. 413. 179 Μ⋯λακε, λαβ⋯ ἰδο⋯ οἰνομ⋯λι. τ⋯λας, δοκ⋯ Παν⋯λημπτος γ⋯γονεν ⋯ παρ⋯σιτος.

page 117 note 2 Hom. Hymns xix. 35 ff. According to a later version, Serv. Verg. Georg. i. 17, Pan was the son of Apollo and Penelope; cf. Schol. Lucan iii. 42.

page 117 note 3 Plut. Arist. 11 τ⋯ν Σφραγιτ⋯δων νυμφ⋯ν ἅντρον, ⋯ν μ⋯ᾳ κορυφῇ το⋯ κιθαιρ⋯νος … κα⋯ πολλο⋯ κατε⋯χοντο τ⋯ν ⋯πιχωρ⋯ων.

page 117 note 4 Wrede, W., ‘Phyle’, Ath. Mitt., xlix (1924), 152–224Google Scholar; Wiesner, J., R.E. xviii. 1663 ff.Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Parnes’; Gruppe, O., Griechische Mythologie und Religions-geschichte (München, 1906), ii. 258 ff.Google Scholar

page 117 note 5 Cf. above, p. 111, n. 2.

page 117 note 6 Pind. Fr. 85 ὦ π⋯ν … | Ματρ⋯ς μεγαλ⋯ς ⋯παδ⋯, σεμ-| ν⋯ν Χαρ⋯των μ⋯λμα τερπν⋯ν Cf. id. Pyth. iii. 137 φιλ⋯κροτος.

page 117 note 7 Plut. Mor. 499 A προσι⋯ναι τῇ ⋯ργολαβ⋯ᾳ τ⋯ν Τ⋯χην κα⋯ τ⋯ν Κακ⋯αν …τ⋯ν μ⋯ν … εἰς ⋯περγασ⋯αν κακοδα⋯μονος ῳ⋯ς …π⋯δας περικρο⋯οσαν, κα⋯ περιοικοδομο⋯σαν εἱρκτ⋯ς …κα⋯τοι το⋯των τ⋯ πλεῖστα τ ⋯ς Κακ⋯ας μ⋯λλον ἥ τ⋯ς Τ⋯χης, Hesych. Παν⋯ς κ⋯τος⋯ ποι⋯ν νυκτερριν⋯ς φαντασ⋯ας, Phot. s.v. Παν⋯ς, Etym. Mag. Π⋯ν φα⋯νειν … φαντασ⋯αι.

page 118 note 1 Porph. Antr. Nymph. 20 παλαι⋯ το⋯νυν ἅντρα … ⋯φοσιο⋯ντων ⋯ν Ἅρκαδ⋯ᾳ δ⋯ Σελ⋯νῃ κα⋯ Παν⋯ Λυκε⋯ῷ, Orph. Fr. 235 Π⋯ν αἵολε, Orph Hymns viii. 12 φώσφορος κ⋯ρπιμε Παι⋯ν, Prokl. in Tim. iv. 279 F (iii. 131 Diehl) τ⋯ν Π⋯να τ⋯ν ⋯λιακ⋯ν, Plut. De aud. poet. 13 Παι⋯ν σ⋯νθρονος ωραις.

page 118 note 2 P. Mag. Par. 1. 2306, 2996, P. Mag. Wien. 1887. 5. 33Google Scholar Παν⋯ς γ⋯νος, π⋯ρ ⋯λιωτ⋯δος βολ⋯ς. Cf. Ps.-Dioskorides, iii. 140.

page 118 note 3 Soph. O.T. 1098 τ⋯ς σε, τ⋯κνον, τ⋯ς σ' ἕτικτε | τ⋯ν μακραιώνων ἄρα | Παν⋯ς ⋯ρσσιβ⋯τα πα-| τρ⋯ς πελασθεῑσ';

page 118 note 4 Herakleit. Incred. 25; cf. Luc. Bis Acc. 9 τ⋯⋯ν Διον⋯σου θεραπ⋯ντων βακχιώτατος, Hesych. π⋯νες τοὺς ⋯σπουδακ⋯τας σφοδρ⋯ς περ⋯ τ⋯ς συνουσ⋯ας ἕλεγον.

page 118 note 5 Dysk. 58–68.

page 118 note 6 W. Wrede, op. cit.; cf. above, p. 117, n. 4.

page 119 note 1 Cf. above, p. 116, n. 3. There may be a play on words, in a reference to the full comic ⋯γών, whose value could not be compared with that of a local musical one in honour of Pan alone, though he too triumphs in this case over Knemon.

page 119 note 2 J. Wiesner, I.c.

page 119 note 3 Dysk. 432 αὐλεῑ, Παρθ⋯νι, | Παν⋯ς σιωπῇ, φασ⋯, το⋯τῳ, τῷ θεῷ | οὐ δεῖ προι⋯ναι. Cf. above, p. 116, n. 2.

page 119 note 4 Diod. Sic. xiv. 32. 2 f.

page 119 note 5 Dysk. 447 〈Κν⋯μ.〉 ὡς θ⋯ουσι δ' οἱ τοιχώρυχοι | [κο⋯τ] αι φ⋯ρονται, στ⋯μνι' οὐχ⋯ τ⋯ν θε⋯ν | [ἕνεκ]' ⋯λλ' ⋯αυτ⋯ν.

page 119 note 6 Ibid. 718 (trochaic tetrameters) 〈Κν⋯μ.〉 τρ⋯πον | πρ⋯ς τ⋯ κερδα⋯νειν ἔχονσιν. Grogias answers (728), οὐ προσ⋯ρχομ,' οὐδ⋯ν ⋯μῑν γ⋯γονας αὐτ⋯ς χρ⋯σιμος, | οὐδ' ⋯γ⋯ σοι ν⋯ν.

page 119 note 7 Ibid. 699 ὡς ἔνι μ⋯λιστα, τ⋯ κακ⋯ παιδε⋯ειν μ⋯να | ⋯π⋯σταθ' ⋯μ⋯ς, 713 (trochaic tetrameters) ἓν δ' ἴσως ἣμαρτον ὅτι 〈τε〉 τ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ντων ὠ 〈⋯〉μην | αὐτ⋯ς αὐ[τ⋯]ρκης τις εἰναι κα⋯ δε⋯σε〈σ〉 θ' οὐδεν⋯ς. Cf. above, 114, n. 2.

page 119 note 8 Ibid. 930 〈Κν⋯μ〉 τ⋯ν Σιμικ⋯ν ⋯ποκτεν⋯, answered (931), by 〈Γ⋯τ.〉 φε⋯γεις ⋯χλον, μισεῑς γυναῑκας.

page 120 note 1 Dysk. 746 〈Κν⋯μ.〉 ⋯κποδὼν ὑμῑν 〈⋯〉 χαλεπ⋯ς δ⋯σκολ⋯ς τ' ἔσται γ⋯ρων. | ⋯λλ⋯ δ⋯χομαι τα⋯τα π⋯ντα.

page 120 note 2 Plut. Mor. 854 C αἱ Μεν⋯νδρου κωμῳδ⋯αι ⋯φθ⋯νων ⋯λ⋯ν κα⋯ ἱερ⋯ν μετ⋯χουσιν ὥσπερ ⋯ξ ⋯κε⋯νης γεγον⋯των τ⋯ς θαλ⋯ττης, ⋯ξ ς Ἀφροδ⋯τη γ⋯γονεν.

page 120 note 3 The original reads αὐτ⋯ς, which will not scan.

page 120 note 4 The original reading is corrupt: ⋯π⋯ Διδυμογ⋯νης ἄρχοντ. We know that Demogenes was archon in 317/16 b.c.

page 120 note 5 The mention of the actor's name is unusual, even in the hypothesis of a comedy; but there are other examples, as in the hypothesis to the Peace of Aristophanes.

page 121 note 1 For the scansion of Χωρ⋯διον cf P.Oxy. 1803. 23.

page 122 note 1 The text has παραλαβ⋯ντ', which if construed with [αὐτ⋯ν] would force the meaning of this verb and leave ⋯νθεαστικ⋯ς without an objective genitive.