² The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XXVII (London, 1962), pp. 104–10Google Scholar; see the important complements by Lloyd-Jones, H., Gnomon 35 (1963), 449–50Google Scholar.

³ Cited by Bachmann, L., Lycophronis Alexandra (Lipsiae, 1830), pp. 81, 466Google Scholar, who sees that Scaliger depends on Hesychius, s.v. ταν⋯γρα, cf. below, p. 146), and Pollux 10.165 for his ‘imaginific’ translation: ‘namque in capacis ventre mactans naviae / bovem infulatam draco cupencus inpius, / iugulae tripatris caedet hanc clunaculo, / priora confedusta dans hirpis sacra.’

⁴ This is ⋯πιτ⋯μβιον αἷμα (Triphiodorus 686, cf. Quintus Smyrnaeus 14.316–19): i.e. the blood was collected in a trench dug around Achilles' tomb, according to the normal practice in sacrifices for the dead. Here I would like to underline that the analogy, noted by Maas, Paul, CQ 44 (1951), 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar [ = Kleine Schriften, p. 421], between the sacrifice of Iphigeneia in Aeschylus, , Ag. 231ffGoogle Scholar., and the sacrifice of Polyxena on an Attic amphora of 550 B.C. supports my argument that Lycophron superimposed these two myths.

⁵ Ποιμανδρ⋯αν means Aulidensem, cf. 195 Γραῖαν: ‘Die beiden Elektren’, Hermes 18 (1883), 225–6Google Scholar. This interpretation can claim a precedent in the tradition of the Lycophron scholia, p. 130.30 Scheer. The doubts expressed by von Holzinger, C., Lycophron Alexandra (Leipzig, 1895), p. 21Google Scholar, will not bear critical scrutiny.

⁶ Here naturally Lycophron translates the Homeric βαθεῖαν…τ⋯φρον (Il. 7.341). On Aulis βαθεῖα see Oberhummer, RE 2.2409 (still today the two ports are called Mικρ⋯ κα⋯ Mεγ⋯λο Bαθ⋯). It appears quite normal that Aulis should be felt to form a part of Tαναγρα⋯α, cf. the semantic link between Aὐλ⋯ς and Ποιμανδρ⋯τ⋯φρος, cf. Call, . Del. 37Google Scholar βαθ⋯ν ἤλαο τ⋯φρον with the comment of Mineur (pp. 84–5) and my remarks RFIC 115 (1987), 81Google Scholar.

⁷ The garland recalls the nuptial destiny of the two heroines, both promised brides of Achilles, as well as the use of garlands in funeral sacrifice. Note how the image of the heifer evokes the animal metamorphosis of Iphigeneia.

⁸ Agamemnon appears as δρ⋯κων κ⋯ρα βεβροτωμ⋯νος ⋯κρον in Stesichorus, fr. 219 Page; even if agreement is lacking on the interpretation of Clytaemnestra's dream (Vürtheim, J., Stesichorus [Leiden, 1919], pp. 52–4Google Scholar), it is probable that Lycophron alludes to a less widespread version of the premonitory apparition.

⁹ In Vergil, , Aen. 2.471Google Scholar, Neoptolemus is compared to a ‘coluber…mala gramina pastus’; perhaps the Virgilian simile depends on the same now lost material that suggested the serpent image to Lycophron.

¹⁰ The sword with which Tantalus butchers his son Pelops and with which Atreus cuts the throats of Thyestes' sons; this weapon, handed down through the Atreid generations, very likely had in epic or tragedy a tradition of its own, like that of the sceptre inherited by Agamemnon (Paus. 3.40.11).

¹¹ The sword of Acastus, forged by Hephaestus and conveyed by Chiron to Peleus, hence inherited by Achilles and Neoptolemus, cf. Hes. fr. 209 Merkelbach–West; Pind. N. 4.59 (and schol. 3.80.23–81.5 Drachmann); schol. Aristoph. Nub. 1063 Koster; schol. Ap.Rh. 1.224, p. 27.20–8.11 Wendel; Apollod. 3.1.13. Styling it ⋯μφ⋯χρυρον Euripides, , Hec. 543Google Scholar, also surely recalls this tradition. Along the same lines, Kανδ⋯ων would be Hephaestus κα⋯ων κα⋯ δα⋯ων, see Holzinger, pp. 218–19. According to Wilamowitz, the ‘wolves of Candaon’ are instead the bellicose Greeks (938, 1410), which is not to rule out, if one wants to avoid the enjambement, that Kανδ⋯ονος is the Boeotian epithet for Orion (schol. p. 130. 19ff. Scheer), son of lrieus, with whose sword Diomedes sacrificed Polyxena (vers. b).

¹² Gnomon 57 (1985), 593Google Scholar; cf. ‘Callimaco e la Beozia’, ZPE 67 (1987), 31–3Google Scholar.

¹³ Already Rea, p. 107, had observed that Amphitryon appears in Hyginus 161, in a chapter devoted to those ‘qui suos cognatos occiderunt’. From a comparison between Apollodorus 2.4.5 (see my article cited above) and Plutarch. Quaest.Gr. (cited below) a clear parallelism emerges between the destiny of Amphitryon and that of Poimander: (a) unintentional manslaughter (SH 257.4 ὡς ⋯⋯κων, cf. Pherecydes, FGrHist 3 F 13 ⋯κουσ⋯ως ˜ Plutarch ὑπ⋯ ⋯γνο⋯ας); (b) exile and supplication, SH 257.6 λ⋯νεα? ˜ Plutarch ⋯φ⋯στιον κα⋯ ⋯κ⋯την (C) purification, performed for Amphitryon by Creon, for Poimander by Elpenor: see Parker, R., Miasma (Oxford, 1983), pp. 378Google Scholar and 390; (d) founding exploit (of Amphitryon against the Teleboians, of Poimander against the Achaeans at Tanagra just after its founding). It all suggests that the local, Tanagran, version of the Theban Amphitryon was Poimander, who was later connected with the Theban founder by means of genealogy and myth (the same myth taken up by Callimachus in SH 256–7). The fragments of cantharoi found at Tanagra bear the inscription HIAPOΣ and/or HEPAKΛEOYΣ (Andreiomenou, A., ADelt 32 [1977: 1984]Google Scholar, B' 1.97; cf. Schachter, A., The Cults of Boiotia, 11 [London, 1986], p. 12)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ In the Hellenistic age, Aὐλ⋯ς is treated as a κώμη Tαναγρα⋯ων (Strabo 9.403, Paus. 9.19.8). Poimander's figure appears to be attested no earlier than the fourth century B.C., see Schachter, , op.cit., pp. 204–5Google Scholar, with the timely note that ‘if Poimandros is to be associated with any historical event, it might be with one during the period when parts of the Tanagraia… were brought finally under Tanagran control’ and to this period might be traced the process of relating him to Amphitryon and Heracles. How Callimachus came to mention Tanagra in the verses now lost may perhaps be imagined with the aid of two inscriptions from Delos, I. Délos 2552 Π]οιμανδρ⋯αν γαῖαν, IG vii.580 Ποιμ⋯μδρου…γαῖα, 581 Ποιμ⋯νδρου [γ]ενε⋯. Callimachus must have found a further hint to connect Poimander and Amphitryon the Cowherd in the most important Tanagran cult, that of Hermes Kριοφ⋯ρος (Fiehn, , s.v. ‘Tanagra', RE 4.a, 2159)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ The decisive aid of Hermes in the war against the Eretrians was recalled in a local legend, reported by Paus. 9.23 (cf. also Strabo 9.404, Steph.Byz. s.v. Γ⋯φυρα): cf. Herodot. 5.57, Plut, . De Herod, mal. 23Google Scholar.

¹⁶ The new Callimachean evidence can now be added to the magisterial discussion of the Plutarchan quaestio in Halliday, W. R., The Greek Questions of Plutarch (Oxford, 1928), pp. 159–64Google Scholar. The copious genealogies furnished by the commentary in P. Oxy. 2463 are meant precisely to point out the family connection between Amphitryon and Poimander, unfortunately lost also in the poetic text that prompted the scholiastic digression. This part of the poem might also have contained, too, a hexameter fragment νυκτελ⋯οις ⋯εροῖς ⋯πικε⋯μενος (⋯ποκε⋯μενος con. Wyttenbach) that found its way into Plutarch, if the excellent conjecture of A. D. Nock, mentioned by Halliday, p. 160, is confirmed by my reconstruction.

¹⁷ Therefore it seems impossible to accept the meaning registered for καταλογ⋯ by Rea, p. 107 (‘conscription’ Dio Chrys. 43.10; ‘respect’ Polyb. 22.12.10, Phryn. p. 398 Rutherford and perhaps Hesych. κ 1244 Latte; Dittenberger 328.8, 334.3, P. Oxy. 787, etc; Preisigke-Kiessling, Wörterbuch s.v.) or to consider the expression equivalent to πρ⋯ς χ⋯ριν ⋯αυταῖς with Lloyd-Jones, p. 449. Rather recall the use of καταλ⋯γειν for ‘mention, cite, include’ in the scholiastic tradition (Erbse, H., Sch. Gr. in Horn. Il. vi. 378Google Scholar), particularly suited then to the discussion of Heracles’ genealogy. But here I would like to suggest also another possibility, [ῥ⋯παλον ῥιφθ⋯ν]…ὑ|π⋯ ‘Aμφι[τρ]⋯ωνος ⋯ν[⋯ τ⋯ν|καταλογ⋯ν ⋯αυταῖς [… …| κτεῖναι scilicet'IIλεκτρ⋯ωνα, comparing, for the roundup of the cattle, Apollodorus 2.4.6 ⋯πολαμβ⋯νοντος δ⋯ αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ς β⋯ας, μι⋯ς ⋯κθορο⋯σης 'Aμφιτρ⋯ων ⋯π’|αὺτ⋯ν ⋯φ⋯κεν ὅ μετ⋯ χεῖρας εἷχε ῥ⋯παλον, τ⋯ δ⋯ ⋯ποκρουσθ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ν κερ⋯των εἰς τ⋯ν ᾽λεκτρ⋯ωνος κεφαλ⋯ν ⋯λθ⋯ν ⋯π⋯κτεινεν αὐτ⋯ν.

¹⁸ In recalling that the Tαναγραῖοι οὐκ ⋯στρ⋯τευσαν, schol. b ad Hom. Il. 2.498 (i. 293.2–4 Erbse) cites a verse of Euphorion, ο⋯ πλ⋯ον ἠρν⋯σαντο κα⋯ ⋯ρκιον Aἰγιαλ⋯ων (fr. 59 Powell = 64 van Groningen), for which one would like to know the context, which certainly offered an explanation of the famous refusal by the Tanagrans to take part in the Trojan War. In Oropos und die Graer (Kl. Schr. v. 1, p. 16), Wilamowitz suggested an appropriation of Graia by the Tanagrans, eager at any cost to get into the ‘Catalogue of Ships’. This hypothesis seems now to be confirmed by the allusive play of Callimachus, , who in SH 257.2Google Scholar and 14 writes Tαναγρ[/ σκ⋯λος clearly echoing Il. 2.497–8 Σκ⋯λ⋯ν τε…Γραῖ⋯ν τε. The Homeric scholion recalls Graia as the mother of Leucippus, who was called son of Poimander both in P. Oxy. 2463 and in Paus. 9.20.1, , Plut.Q. Gr. 37Google Scholar.

¹⁹ For a description of this sumptuous Callimachean codex in Coptic uncials, see Turner, E. G., Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Oxford, 1971), p. 67Google Scholar n. 47. The scholia at the foot of the page may refer to a text much higher up, in our case up to 46 lines before SH 259.4. Calculating that SH 257 contains the remnants of about 40 lines (the last can be scholia), one can infer that the scholia of P. Oxy. 2258 B fr. 2^v pertain to a section of Callimachean text between the end of SH 256 (wholly absent from P. Lille 76 col. I, where only some letters survive at the end of the line) and the beginning of SH 257. That in this section Heracles tells of his own genealogy and episodes of his family history is confirmed by a comparison with the Hecale: see, for instance, the tale of the sword of Aegeus told by Theseus in frr. 235–6 Pf.

²⁰ Krevans, N., ‘p.Oxy. 2258 B fr. 2: a Scholion to Callimachus’ Victoria Berenices', ZPE 65 (1986), 37–8Google Scholar, who does not, however, seek to reconstruct the beginning of SH 257, which she styles. ‘unclear’.

²¹ Hollis, A. S., “The Composition of Callimachus' Aetia in the Light of P. Oxy. 2258’, CQ 36 (1986), 467–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His entire ingenious reconstruction has been undone by the fact that [⋯ν]θρ[ι]⋯ντα, suggested by Lobel, for P. Oxy. 2258 B fr. 2^V. 10–11Google Scholar, appears only as one among the possible supplements (see already Parsons, mentioned in Krevans, , art. cit. p. 37²Google Scholar), and by the fact that mentions of statues are rather frequent in Callimachus and do not therefore imply a reference to the Euthycles, aition (e.g. frr. 99, 114, 384.44ffGoogle Scholar. etc.: for other contexts, see Thomas, R. F., ‘Callimachus, the Victoria Berenices and Roman Poetry’, CQ 33 [1983], 96–7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² In all likelihood the author of the hypomnema will have been Theon, discussed by Pfeiffer ii.xxvii. That Theon did write a commentary on the Victoria Berenices is known in any case from Etym. Gen. A s.v.⋯ρμοῖ, cf. Pfeiffer on fr. 383.4.

²³ This parallel was suggested to me by the Editors.