Τηρεύς (fr. 46)

249

youth to be mocked in comedy, but the only real basis for this identification
is that he is the most well-known bearer of the name.
Webster 1970. 40 asserted that the reference was to a somewhat lesser
known man, Πολύευκτος Τιμοκράτους Κριωεύς (PA 11946; PAA 778225; LGPN
II s. v. #34), although he provided no support for the suggestion. Webster pre-
sumably based his deduction on the fact that the family of this Polyeuctus was
wealthy (cf. Davies 1971. 513-14 s. v. Τιμοκράτης II [PA 13772; PAA 888265]),
although he was (slanderously) described as a μισθοφόρος of Meidias at D.
21.139. Again, there is little concrete evidence to support the conclusion,
and this Polyeuctus likewise seems slightly too young to be mocked in
Anaxandrides.
Since approximately twenty-five other known bearers of this name are
possible contemporaries of Anaxandrides, and no obvious connection exists
between any of these men and the description in this fragment, the safest
course is to treat the man mentioned here as a distinct historical figure (thus
PAA 778017; LGPNII s. v. #5).116 A similar controversy has centred round the
eponym of Heniochus’ Πολύευκτος; this man has been identified with the
Polyeuctus here,117 has been viewed as distinct from him, and has been judged
fictitious (cf. Breitenbach 1908. 38-40; Wilamowitz 1925. 145 n. 1; LGPNII s. v.
#6). Even assuming that the eponym of Heniochus’ play is a historical figure,
the dates for Heniochus are too poorly known to make even an educated guess
at a possible identification, so the title of his play offers no help.
Physical descriptions such as ό καλός are frequently used to distinguish
homonyms or to identify an individual precisely, although in comedy there
is often an added point to the choice of adjective. For καλός used this way,
Kassel-Austin note Pl. Prt. 362; Phdr. 278e; X. HG 2.3.56; Antiph. fr. 27.10; for
other adjectives, cf. Ar. Av. 988; Ph. 31-3; Ra. 709.
4 άρρην ύπό θηλειών κατεκόπης The reference is primarily to the
relationship between Tereus and Procne and Philomela, but the imagery sug-
gests a defeated fighting-cock; cf. Ar. Av. 286; Heraclid. Com. fr. 1; Borthwick
1966. 4-5; 1967. 249; Haslam (i. e. Lobel) [ed. pr.] on POxy. XLIV 3151 fr. 1
col. 2.5. The imagery may also echo the apparently popular belief that among
chickens the female can be the dominant sex, resulting in a reversal of normal
roles; cf. Arist. HA 631b8-18; Ael. NA 4.29; 5.5; English ‘hen-pecked’.

116 Coincidentally, and of very doubtful relevance, Polyeuctus also appears as a kalos-
name in the mid-fifth century; cf. ARV2 p. 1607; PA 11921; PAA 778000; LGPNII
s.v. #1.
117 Bergk 1887. IV.169 n. 193 identified these two men with one another but not with
the orator.