¹ Wright, M.E., The Comedian as Critic: Greek Old Comedy and Poetics (London, 2012).Google Scholar

² For a couple of excellent critiques of these labels, see Sidwell, K., ‘From Old to Middle to New? Aristotle's Poetics and the history of Athenian comedy’, in Harvey, F.D. and Wilkins, J.M. (edd.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (London, 2000), 247–58Google Scholar; Csapo, E., ‘From Aristotle to Menander: genre transformation in Greek comedy’, in Depew, M. and Obbink, D. (edd.), Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society (Cambridge, MA, 2000), 115–33.Google Scholar

³ On all such matters see (e.g.) Gildenhard, I. and Revermann, M. (edd.) Beyond the Fifth Century (Berlin, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ford, A., The Birth of Criticism (Princeton, 2002)Google Scholar; Pfeiffer, R., A History of Classical Scholarship I (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar; Webster, T.B.L., Art and Literature in Fourth-Century Greece (London, 1956)Google Scholar; Yunis, H. (ed.), Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Cf. M. Heath's discussion of the shared repertoire of fifth-century comedians, in ‘Aristophanes and his rivals’, G&R 38 (1990), 143–58.Google Scholar

⁵ Note that all comic fragments are cited from the multi-volume edition of Kassel, R. and Austin, C., Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin and New York, 1983–)Google Scholar, with the exception of Menander, whose plays and fragments are cited from W.G. Arnott's Loeb edition (Cambridge, MA, 1979–2000).

⁶ On the importance of distinguishing between the audience as a whole and the ‘target’ audience of each comedian, see Wright (n. 1), 3–5, 55–60.

⁷ See Bloom, H., The Anxiety of Influence (New York, 1975)Google Scholar and now The Anatomy of Influence (New Haven, 2011).Google ScholarD'Angour's, A. excellent new book, The Greeks and the New (Cambridge, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar is also relevant for its depiction of ancient responses to the challenge (or problem) of novelty in all its forms.

⁸ The fragment is discussed by Wilson, P., The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia (Cambridge, 2000), 68–70Google Scholar; cf. Wright, M.E., ‘Literary prizes and literary criticism in antiquity’, ClAnt 28 (2009), 138–77, at 167–9.Google Scholar

⁹ See Kassel–Austin, ad loc. (2.326). The speaker may be a poet, though Edmonds, J.M., The Fragments of Greek Comedy II (Leiden 1957)Google Scholar, ad loc. (= fr. 29) suggested that it is the Muse, addressing the poet in the play's prologue.

¹⁰ As in several fifth-century comedies: e.g. Pherecrates, Cheiron fr. 155, id., Corianno fr. 84, Ar. Nub. 1353–65, etc., though these earlier references are less obviously approving in nature.

¹¹ Earlier jokes contrasting new and old material include: Callias fr. 26; Cratinus, Odysseis fr. 153; Metagenes, Philothytes fr. 15; Eupolis, Autolycus fr. 60, Helots fr. 148, frr. 326, 366; Platon, Peisander fr. 106; Ar. Eq. 518–25, Nub. 895–7, 1353–65, Ran. 1–20, etc.

¹² See especially B. Kawin, Telling it Again: Repetition in Film and Literature (Ithaca, NY, 1972). Repetition and recognition are key elements in several theoretical definitions of humour: see Bergson, H., Laughter (London, 1913)Google Scholar, Frye, N., The Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton, 1957)Google Scholar; cf. Wright (n. 1), 70–102.

¹³ So Nesselrath, H.-G., Die attische mittlere Komödie: Ihre Stellung in der antiken Literaturkritik und Literaturgeschichte (Berlin and New York, 1990), 239–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who discusses this fragment in detail; cf. Olson, S.D., Broken Laughter (Oxford, 2007), 172–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For this view cf. Diphilus, Elaionephrourountes fr. 29, where someone (a comedian?) complains that the tragedians alone have the licence to say or do anything they like.

¹⁵ See Hunter, R.L., The New Comedy of Greece and Rome (Cambridge, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 158.

¹⁶ Cf. the fourth-century tragedian Astydamas, who wrote an often-cited epigram expressing the wish that he had been born earlier, so as to compete on equal terms with the great fifth-century tragedians (TrGF 1.60 T 2a–b). Earlier poets had already bemoaned the fact that nearly everything worth saying had been said before: e.g. Choerilus fr. 1 Bernabé; Bacchyl. Paean fr. 5 Maehler; Ar. Danaides fr. 265.

¹⁷ Ar. Nub. 547–8; cf. Vesp. 1043–50.

¹⁸ e.g. Posidippus fr. 1, Euphron, Adelphoi fr. 1, Damoxenus, Syntrophoi fr. 2, Sosipater, Katapseudomenos fr. 1; Straton, Phoinicides fr. 1, Athenion, Samothracians fr. 1, etc.; see Nesselrath (n. 13), 257–8 and Wilkins, J.M., The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Greek Comedy (Oxford, 2000), 382–91, 396–408.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Xenarchus fr. 4 may also be relevant: it suggests that the author was interested in ‘generation gap’ comedy and the supposed depravity of modern youth. See Olson (n. 13), 342–4.

²⁰ e.g. Pherecrates, Krapataloi fr. 101; Callias fr. 26; Metagenes, Philothytes fr. 15; Ar. Eq. 537–9, Gerytades fr. 595; Cratinus, Pylaia fr. 182 (and many others). See Wright (n. 1), 129–39 for detailed discussion.

²¹ On the complex afterlife of the metaphor of ‘taste’, see esp. Gigante, D., Taste: A Literary History (New Haven, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Gowers, E., The Loaded Table (Oxford, 1993), 40–9.Google Scholar

²² See Wilkins (n. 18), esp. 387–408.

²³ e.g. Philemon, Stratiotes fr. 82; Eubulus, Oedipus fr. 72; Alexis, Phugas fr. 259; Archedicus, Thesauros fr. 2.

²⁴ Mithaecus, Heracleides, Glaucus and others started producing cookery books around the turn of the century: see Olson, S.D. and Sens, A., Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century bce (Oxford, 2000).Google Scholar

²⁵ Which Philoxenus? Several candidates are possible, all of whom are connected (somehow) with food in the ancient tradition. See Hunter, R. and Russell, D.A. (edd.), Plutarch: How To Study Poetry (Cambridge, 2011), 70–1Google Scholar for useful discussion.

²⁶ Cf. Antiphanes, Sappho fr. 194.17–21 with Olson (n. 13), 203; see also Alexis, Linus fr. 140 (discussed below). See Gavrilov, A.K., ‘Techniques of reading in classical antiquity’, CQ 47 (1997), 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Ar. Banqueters fr. 233 for γλῶτται in this sense (also the title of a work by Philitas). Another comic chef employs obscurely learned terminology (though without explicit reference to books) at Antiphanes, Aphrodisius fr. 55.

²⁸ On the alazoneia of the comic chef, see Ath. 7.288c–293e and 9.376c–383f, with Wilkins (n. 18), 408–9. Cf. Handley, E., The Dyskolos of Menander (London, 1965)Google Scholar, 199: ‘Cooks are experts, and like other experts ancient and modern, they can be amusing when they exaggerate their own skill and importance … Most of them, as seen by Comedy, have a dash of sophistry and pretentiousness.’

²⁹ This is more or less the view of G.W. Dobrov, who views the mageiros as the prototype of the servus callidus of later (especially Roman) comedy: ‘Μάγειρος ποιητής: language and character in Antiphanes’, in Willi, A. (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy (Oxford, 2002), 169–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ According to Athenaeus (4.164b–d), who cites the fragment.

³¹ So Olson (n. 13), 268.

³² Simus is normally assumed to be a real-life person: he is not attested elsewhere, but the manner in which he is discussed by Linus implies that he really did exist. The word τέχνη in the fragment, which I translated ‘art’, may have been the actual title of Linus' book (cf. the use of Techne as the title of rhetorical works by e.g. Antiphon, Aristotle, Isocrates and others).

³³ So Olson (n. 13), 267; cf. ibid. 61–3 on [Epicharmus], Gnomai frr. 244–73.

³⁴ e.g. in Antiphanes, Poiesis fr. 189 (quoted above); but on the question of generic rivalry more broadly see (e.g.) Foley, H., ‘Tragedy and politics in Aristophanes' Acharnians’, JHS 108 (1988), 33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Platter, C., Aristophanes and the Carnival of Genres (Baltimore, 2007)Google Scholar; Wright, M.E., ‘Comedy vs tragedy in Wasps’, in Bakola, E., Prauscello, L. and Teló, M. (edd.), Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genres (Cambridge, 2013), 205–24).Google Scholar

³⁵ Rusten, J. (ed.), The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents, and Art from Athenian Comic Competitions, 486–280 (Baltimore, 2011), 544.Google Scholar

³⁶ A close parallel is provided by Ar. Gerytades fr. 163, in which poets eat their own writing tablets.

³⁷ See (e.g.) Ar. Thesm. 148–72, with the commentary of C. Austin and S.D. Olson (Oxford, 2005), ad loc.; cf. Worman, N., The Cast of Character: Style in Greek Literature (Austin, 2002).Google Scholar

³⁸ e.g. Ar. Nub. 1353–65, Ran. 771–6; Eupolis, Helots fr. 148, incert. fab. frr. 326, 395.

³⁹ Men. Dyskolos 968–9, Misoumenos 465–6, Sikyonios 422–3, Samia 736–7, fr. 771; Posidippus, Apokleiomene fr. 6.

⁴⁰ See (most recently) Sidwell, K., Aristophanes the Democrat: The Politics of Satirical Comedy during the Peloponnesian War (Cambridge, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Biles, Z., Aristophanes and the Poetics of Comic Competition (Cambridge, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, I have argued elsewhere that the rhetoric of competition, though extremely prominent in fifth-century comedy, is not always to be taken at face value: see Wright (n. 1), 31–69.

⁴¹ One must beware of the argument from silence: the fact that we are dealing with fragments cannot be emphasized enough. Nevertheless, the total absence of references to festivals or prizes from the fragments of later comedy contrasts with the frequent presence of such material in the fragments of fifth-century comedy.

⁴² See esp. Slater, N.W., ‘The fabrication of comic illusion’, in Dobrov, G.W. (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy (Atlanta, 1995), 29–45Google Scholar; id., ‘Play and playwright references in Middle and New Comedy’, LCM 10 (1985), 103–5Google Scholar; Taplin, O.P., Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama through Vase-Painting (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar; id., Pots and Plays (Malibu, 2007)Google Scholar; Csapo, E., Actors and Icons of the Ancient Theatre (Oxford, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Note, however, Demetrius, On Style 193 for the intriguing (and seemingly unparalleled) suggestion that some comedies are naturally more suitable for a reading audience: he claims that actors prefer Menander but readers prefer Philemon.

⁴⁴ Chamaeleon fr. 43 Wehrli (quoted by Athenaeus 9.373f = Anaxandrides T2 K.–A.).

⁴⁵ See Arrighetti, G., Poeti, eruditi e biografi (Pisa, 1987), 141–59Google Scholar on ancient biography and the problems of Chamaeleon's evidence.

⁴⁶ Sometimes the joke also seems to depend on deliberate misattribution of a quotation, as in Antiphanes fr. 205 (is a certain phrase from Euripides or Philoxenus?); cf. Antiphanes fr. 1 (‘dithyramb sold as Sophocles’: so Dobrov [n. 29], 189); Diphilus, Synoris fr. 74 (a character questions whether a quotation is really from Euripides: see Olson [n. 13], 180, who thinks the quotation is fabricated).

⁴⁷ Ephippus fr. 10, Eubulus fr. 118, Philemon fr. 98, etc.

⁴⁸ Ephippus fr. 9, Eubulus fr. 128, etc.

⁴⁹ Alexis fr. 183, Anaxilas fr. 19, etc.

⁵⁰ Eriphus fr. 1, Antiphanes fr. 228, Alexis fr. 157, etc.

⁵¹ Nicostratus fr. 41.

⁵² Antiphanes fr. 111.

⁵³ Epicrates fr. 4, Menander, Leukadia fr. 1; Amphis, Antiphanes, Diphilus, Ephippus and Timocles all wrote plays called Sappho.

⁵⁴ Alexis fr. 19.

⁵⁵ See §§ IV and V below. Olson (n. 13), 178–9 supplies a useful list of comic references.

⁵⁶ Gorg. B11, B23 DK; cf. Dissoi Logoi 90. 3.10 DK. See e.g. M. Pohlenz, ‘Die Anfänge der griechischen Poetik’, NGG 1920: 142–78 (reprinted in Kleine Schriften 2 [Hildesheim, 1965], 436–72); Segal, C.P., ‘Gorgias and the psychology of the logos’, HSPh 66 (1962), 99–155.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ar. Ach. 497–503, 651; Eq. 510–11; Nub. 575–94; Pax 736–58; Ran. 686–7, 1008–10 (and passim); Vesp. 1030–43, etc.; cf. Thesm. 372–458 and Ran. 1030–88 for the related idea that Euripidean tragedy has harmed the citizens. Eupolis, Maricas frr. 192, 205 also contains the idea of comic ‘teaching’. All such claims can be read either seriously or ironically, of course: see Wright (n. 1), 16–24.

⁵⁸ That is, unless P Köln VI.242A (= TrGF 2.F646a) is to be attributed to a comedy of c. 400 b.c., as suggested by A. Bierl, ‘Dionysus, wine, and tragic poetry: a metatheatrical reading of P. Köln VI.242A = TrGF II F646a’, GRBS 31 (1990), 353–84 (followed by Slater [n. 42], 42–4). Bierl interprets this fragment as a comic critique of theatrical illusion or realism in Euripidean tragedy, based on its allusion to a ‘bard from Salamis’ (ἀοιδὸς Σαλαμῖνος, 19) and references to some sort of ‘deception’ or ‘lies’ (ἀπάτας and ψευδομέναις, 20–1; cf. Gorgias' use of ἀπάτη to denote theatrical illusion: B23 DK). This interpretation is ingenious and attractive, but can hardly be regarded as certain.

⁵⁹ Arist. Poet. 6.1449b24–8. Gutzwiller, K., ‘The tragic mask of comedy: metatheatricality in Menander’, ClAnt 19 (2000), 102–37Google Scholar argues for a definite Aristotelian influence on comedians such as Timocles and Menander not just in respect of katharsis but also in their shared use of other vocabulary (hamartia, anagnorisis, etc.). Cf. Barigazzi, A., La formazione spirituale di Menandro (Turin, 1965)Google Scholar, who interprets Menander's plays specifically as dramatizations of problems in Peripatetic ethics, and Stockert, W., ‘Metatheatrikalisches in Menanders Epitrepontes’, WS 110 (1997), 5–18Google Scholar, whose focus is on pity and fear.

⁶⁰ See Halliwell, F.S., Aristotle's Poetics (London, 1986), 349–55Google Scholar for a useful summary and critique of several types of interpretation.

⁶¹ So Olson (n. 13), 169, with ref. to Stobaeus (4.56.19), who cites the fragment in a section ‘On sources of consolation’.

⁶² Kosak, J. Clarke, Heroic Measures: Hippocratic Medicine in the Making of Euripidean Tragedy (Leiden, 2004)Google ScholarPubMed is an excellent discussion of the way in which medical and non-medical writers in classical Greece shared the same patterns of thought.

⁶³ e.g. Ar. Vesp. 650–1; Janko, R., ‘A new comic fragment (Aristophanes?) on the effect of tragedy’, CQ 59 (2009), 270–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar suggests persuasively that Olympiodorus' commentary on Pl. Gorg. (33.3) preserves a fragment of comedy concerned with the cathartic power of tragedy.

⁶⁴ Gorg. Hel. (B11 DK §14); cf. n. 56 above.

⁶⁵ e.g. Hom. Od. 1. 325–52, 8.477–51; Stesich. fr. 210; Theognis 531–4; Hes. Theog. 98–103; Pl. Ion 536a, etc. Noted by Gutzwiller (n. 59), 114; cf. Walsh, G.B., The Varieties of Enchantment: Early Greek Views of the Nature and Function of Poetry (Chapel Hill, 1984).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Lucian, Hist. conscr. 59.1. This psychological condition, a morbid sense of being overcome by art or beauty, is now known as Stendhal's Syndrome, after the novelist who fell prey to it while travelling in Florence: see Magherini, G., La Sindrome di Stendhal (Florence, 1989).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ There is no explicit indication that Lucian had Axionicus in mind, but in general Lucian acknowledges the influence of Greek comedy on his own work: see Bis Accus. 33, Pisc. 25. On Lucian's use of comic material see Sidwell, K., ‘Athenaeus, Lucian, and fifth-century comedy’, in Braund, D.C. and Wilkins, J.M. (edd.), Athenaeus and His World (Exeter, 2000), 136–52.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Eur. fr. 661 (cf. P Oxy. 2455 = TrGF 5.T iia). The same line is quoted repeatedly throughout antiquity, e.g. (from comedy) Ar. Ran. 1217, Men. Aspis 407, etc. (see TrGF ad loc. for a complete list).

⁶⁹ See Johansen, H. Friis, General Reflection in Tragic Rhesis: A Study of Form (Copenhagen, 1959).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Plutarch, How to Study Poetry for perhaps the best surviving example of this tendency, as well as the various instances of gnomologia from later antiquity. See Wachsmuth, K., Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien (Berlin, 1882)Google Scholar and, more recently, Konstan, D., ‘Excerpting as a reading practice’, in Reydams-Schils, G. (ed.), Thinking Through Excerpts: Studies on Stobaeus (Turnhout, 2011), 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ See Most, G.W., ‘Euripide Ο ΓΝΩΜΟΛΟΓΙΚΩΤΑΤΟΣ’, in Funghi, M.S., Aspetti di letteratura gnomica nel mondo antico (Florence, 2003), 141–66.Google Scholar

⁷² See (esp.) Scafuro, A., The Forensic Stage (Cambridge, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on the use of tragic texts by rhetoricians: cf. Perlman, S., ‘Quotations from poetry in the Attic orators of the fourth century bc’, AJPh 85 (1964), 155–72Google Scholar; Wilson, P.J., ‘Tragic rhetoric: the use of tragedy and the tragic in the fourth century’, in Silk, M.S. (ed.), Tragedy and the Tragic (Oxford, 1996), 310–31.Google Scholar

⁷³ e.g. Ar. Ran. 1050–88; Thesm. 177–8, 193–201, 383–432, 443–56.

⁷⁴ Cf., perhaps, the excessive (ironic?) enthusiasm shown by Daos in Men. Aspis 408: after quoting the same Euripidean fragment, he exclaims εὖ διαφόρως (‘Oh, jolly good!’; cf. ὑπέρευγε, ibid. 412).

⁷⁵ Cf. the very similar mode of citation, and wording, of Dem. Meid. 149–50.

⁷⁶ Gomme, A.W. and Sandbach, F.H., Menander: A Commentary (Oxford, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ad loc. suggest that Sophocles' Tyro is meant, but they point out that various other tragedies on the same theme existed (by e.g. Astydamas and Carcinus.).

⁷⁷ Cf. also Men. Samia 588–96 (Demeas' use of Danae as paradeigma); Aspis 407–33 (Daos quotes a long string of tragic gnomai in the context of a lament); Diphilus fr. 88 (consolatory use of the gnomic Euripidean fragment 916); Eubulus fr. 115 (paradeigmata from tragic myth used to compare good and bad sorts of women); Eriphus, Aeolus fr. 1 (parody of a Sophoclean gnome), etc.

⁷⁸ It is not just a comic theme: cf. Euripides' portrayal of several unusually well-educated female slaves with knowledge of literature and art: Alc. 445–54, 962–72; Hipp. 451–56.

⁷⁹ Gutzwiller (n. 59), 105. Cf. Goldberg, S.M., The Making of Menander's Comedy (Berkeley, 1980), 15–28Google Scholar, who sees a mixture of tragic and comic ‘modes’ as central to the overall effect of Menander's comedy. There have been numerous studies of Menander's use of tragic themes and topoi in general, notably Katsouris, A., Tragic Patterns in Menander (Athens, 1975)Google Scholar; Hurst, A., ‘Ménandre et la tragédie’, in Handley, E. and Hurst, A. (edd.), Relire Ménandre (Geneva, 1990), 93–122Google Scholar; Hunter, R. and Fantuzzi, M., Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry (Cambridge, 2004), 426–30Google Scholar. It is not clear how unusual or distinctive Menander will have been in this respect, but there is certainly plenty of evidence of paratragedy in the other comedians' remains.

⁸⁰ Many of the book fragments of later comedians come from gnomic anthologies. The subject of comic maxims requires further study; but (for Menander) see Pompella, G. (ed.), Menandro sentenze: introduzione, traduzione, e note (Milan, 1997)Google Scholar; Liapis, V., Menandrou gnomai monistichoi: eisagoge, metaphrase, scholia (Athens, 2002).Google Scholar

⁸¹ This is more or less the view of Webster, T.B.L., Art and Literature in Fourth-Century Athens (London, 1956), 135–45Google Scholar, though it seems to me that he veers between claiming that Menander is and is not a serious ethical writer. Webster's view that comedy was the only ‘live’ fourth-century drama, and that tragedy ‘had practically ceased to be a live art’ (135–6), is also highly questionable: see Easterling, P.E., ‘The end of an era? Tragedy in the early fourth century’, in Sommerstein, A.H. et al. (edd.), Tragedy, Comedy, and the Polis (Bari, 1993), 559–69.Google Scholar

⁸² Silk, M.S., Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy (Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar; cf. Foley (n. 34), Platter (n. 34). Nevertheless, S. Miles, ‘Strattis, tragedy, and comedy’ (Diss., Nottingham, 2009) has shown that Aristophanes was not unique in his preoccupation with tragedy or Euripides: her work adds valuable depth and detail to our understanding of generic interplay in fifth-century drama.

⁸³ See Arnott, W.G., ‘From Aristophanes to Menander’, G&R 19 (1972), 65–80, at 73–6.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ For detailed discussion of these topics, see (on Menander) Hurst (n. 79), Katsouris (n. 79); the commentaries of R. Hunter on Eubulus (Cambridge, 1983) and W.G. Arnott on Alexis (Cambridge, 1996) are also full of excellent material on individual fragments and their context.

⁸⁵ One finds scattered references to (e.g.) Chaeremon (Ephippus, Epheboi fr. 9, Eubulus fr. 128), Dionysius (Ephippus fr. 16, Eubulus' Dionysius), Theodectes (Antiphanes, Kares fr. 111), Theodorus (Ephippus fr. 16).

⁸⁶ This attitude is called ‘nostalgic adoration’ by J. Hanink, ‘The classical tragedians from Athenian idols to wandering poets’, in Gildenhard and Revermann (n. 3), 39–67.

⁸⁷ Vit. Eur. 31. See Hanink, J., ‘The Life of the author in the letters of “Euripides”’, GRBS 50 (2010), 537–64, at 547.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Aristophanes' portrait is not to be taken at face value; but the comedian had a huge influence on the subsequent reception of Euripides: see Hunter, R., Critical Moments in Classical Literature (Cambridge, 2009), 29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michelini, A.N., Euripides and the Tragic Tradition (Madison, 1987).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Poetics 13.1453a30 (though Aristotle seems to be talking about Euripidean endings in particular).

⁹⁰ So Silk (n. 82), passim; cf. Wright (n. 1), 143–62 on the essentially non-hostile nature of Aristophanic parody.

⁹¹ Csapo (n. 42), 171–2 sees this fragment as reflecting the fourth-century ‘privatization’ of tragedy, i.e. private, sympotic performances at court. I wonder whether Euripides' unpopularity as a dinner guest may be connected to another fragment (Ephippus, Epheboi fr. 9) in which someone called Euripides is seen as having a problem with heavy drinking. There is some uncertainty about which Euripides is denoted (see Ath. 11.482b–c), but the fact that he appears in the company of another tragedian (Chaeremon) is significant. Antiphanes, Traumatias fr. 205 also mentions the tragedian Euripides in connection with drinking.

⁹² Hunter (n. 84) prints Eubulus fr. 26 as two separate fragments (26.1–2 and 26.3–4), suggesting that Euripides himself is the speaker of the second part, defending himself against his critics' mockery: see his commentary ad loc. for detailed discussion.

⁹³ Most recently by Hanink (n. 86), 43–4; cf. Hunter (n. 88).

⁹⁴ Rosen, R., ‘Aristophanes, fandom, and the classicizing of Greek tragedy’, in Kosak, L. and Rich, J. (edd.), Playing Around Aristophanes (Oxford, 2006), 27–47Google Scholar. Cf. recent studies suggesting that particular comedians had their own favourite author whose work they helped to popularize: e.g. Silk (n. 82) on Aristophanes and Euripides; Bakola, E., Cratinus and the Art of Comedy (Oxford, 2010), 24–9Google Scholar on Cratinus and Aeschylus.