^{page 112 note 1} Cf. Wentworth, and Flexner, , Dictionary of American Slang (New York, 1967), 380.Google Scholar For the Greek term, see Artem. 5. 65 (and Suda, s.v. ). Also the oracle in Pausanias 9.37.4: And Ael. N.A. 3. 9. All these passages suggest that Hermann, (Opuscula, ii. 327)Google Scholar has correctly identified the sense in the Greek wedding chant ( at Horapollo, , Hier. i. 8,Google Scholar in the scholion to Pind. Pyth. 3. 27) as , Deubner, (Hermes, xlviii [1913] 301)Google Scholar is undoubtedly correct in arguing that the obscene sense for developed from ‘to sweep out’. Cf. Anacr. 21 Page, , , with the Hesych. gloss and the use of at Aristoph. Pax 59. But there is probably a punning sense as well—cf. in Aristoph. Thesm. 760 (to ) and Pax 59 (to ). Cf. . Deubner, and Boeckh, (Pindarus, ii ². 257–9)Google Scholar try to make mean cunnus in the marriage chant; but their only real argument is from the gloss in Hesych. There is no context in which to check this unlikely sense; perhaps the gloss arose from a misunderstanding of some passage like in Eupolis' Poleis (fr. 233 Kock, v. 4).

^{page 113 note 1} So far as I know, the only one to suspect this sense in Phoenix was Riess, E. (CW xxxvii [1944], 178):Google Scholar ‘Phoenix makes the young, but marriageable, maid give the beggars a fig, the symbol of her secret hopes.’ But Riess still thinks this the song of a ritual group; and in that setting the poet's for wardness does not make sense. (Riess treats the reaction of the ‘maid’ as if it were dramatically given outside the poet's own words.)

^{page 113 note 2} McKay rightly defends the reading against Bergk's popular emendation But he does not use what seems to be the strongest argument. Bergk argued from v. 3 of the Samian begging song (Vita Homer. Herod. 469 Allen)——that the beggars should come along with Ploutos (i.e. with their blessing, to be bestowed upon the generous). But Phoenix makes it clear at v. 18 that he conceives of Ploutos as already present in the house:

^{page 113 note 3} Cf. Aristoph. Lys. 250, Aesch. Ag. 604. The image was used even in patristic litera ture; cf. Theodoras Studita description of the Virgin's birth from Anna, (Thdr. Stud, nativ. BMV $ [Migne 96.664c]).

^{page 113 note 4} The examples are taken from Copley, F. O., Exclusus Amator (A.P.A. Phil. Mon. xvii), pp. 8, 5,2.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 1} For Phoenix's relation to these models of his metre and his matter cf. Gerhard, G. A., Phoinix von Kolophon (Leipzig, 1909), 175, 202 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 2} See, for instance, Peppmüller, R., ‘Drei bei Umgängen in Griechenland gesungene Bittlieder’ (Fleck. Jarhbb. cxlix [1894], 15–25),Google ScholarDieterich, Albrecht, ‘Sommertag’ (Kl. Schr., Leipzig [1911], 324–52),Google ScholarMerkelbach, R., ‘Bettelgedichte’ (Rh. Mus. xcv [1952], 312–27).Google Scholar Also Nilsson, M. P., Gesch. der gr. Rel. i [1941], 113.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 3} Gerhard, , op. cit. 180–1.Google Scholar Against the Cynic interpretation of Phoenix, see Vallette, P., Rev. de Phil. N.s. xxxvii [1913], 162–82Google Scholar and New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature, ed. by Powell, J. U. and Barber, E. A. i (Oxford, 1921), 13–14.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 1} The main problem is with A. D. Knox and R. Peppmüller think sense can be made of the phrase—or, rather, senses: opposite ones. Knox, (Herodes, Loeb Lib., 1929, 246Google Scholar) thinks the phrase can mean ‘I fix my gaze on the Muses’ (though the basic notion of is that of change). Peppmüller (op. cit. 25, thinks it means ‘I shift my gaze’ (and so must emend ). Others (Haupt, Bergk) emend , or (Powell) suppose there is a lacuna after the word. Despite the apparent corruption, none of these interpretations calls in question the basic contrast between w. 15–17 (the lonely poet) and w. 10–14 (tne settled family): cf. Sitzler, J., Burs. Jahresb. 92 (1897), p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} Theocritus 16. 5–7. Merkelbach, (op. cit. 312–18Google Scholar) lecognized the dependence of the Charites-poem on traditional begging songs.

^{page 116 note 1} Athen. 360 b–d (Diehl, , Carm. Pop. 12).Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 2} More examples in Copley, , op. cit. 23–4Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 1} Another address to a real person, and further praise of poetry, would be added to the works of Phoenix if, with Knox, we took the fragment from a Strassburg papyrus as his (Knox, , op. cit. 253–9).Google Scholar But see New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature, ed. by Powell, J. U., and Barber, E. A., ii (Oxford, 1929), 63–4.Google Scholar