32

Eupolis

ciated with the chorus enter the scene for the first time. No other fragments
more or less certainly from the parodos section of the plays survive.35
- Fr. 13 (anapestic tetrameter catalectic; from Aiges) is a substantial section
of choral self-presentation “in character” reminiscent of Ar. V. 1071-90,
1102-21. Fr. 172 (comic dicola; from Kolakes) is similar. Frr. 42.1-2 (comic
dicola; from Astrateutoi), 316 (comic dicola; from Chrysoun genos) and
392 (trochaic tetrameter catalectic; from an unidentified play) are direct
address of the audience in the Theater and are likewise presumaby drawn
from the parabasis. The same must also be true of fr. 205 (anapaestic te-
trameter catalectic; from Marikas), which does not address the audience
directly but references it. Fr. 89 (Eupolideans; from Baptai), spoken in
the person of the poet, is a defense of his art via an attack on his rival
Aristophanes. Other possible parabasis material is preserved at frr. 174
(Eupolideans(?); from Kolakes)·, 175 (Pherecrateans; from Kolakes)·, 176
(Aristophaneans; from Kolakes)·, 192.156—7/192hh—ii (anapaestic; from
Marikas)·, 206 (anapaestic tetrameter catalectic; from Marikas); 259 (a prose
summary?; from Prospaltioi); 395 (comic dicola; from an unidentified play);
396 (Eupolidean?; from an unidentified play).36 37
- Fr. 173 (paeano-cretic; from Kolakes) is generally taken to be part of a
second parabasis.
- Frr. 12 (from Aiges); 129 (from Demoi); 192a-gg and 203-4 (from Marikas);
384-5 and 387-90 (from unidentified plays) all appear on the basis of
the iambic tetrameter catalectic meter and their content to be drawn
from agones. Frr. 85 (from Baptai); 171 (from Kolakes); 268.16/268e = 281,
268.18—20/268f (from Taxiarchoi) may also come from agones?'1
Although scholars have often tried to assign individual iambic trimeter frag-
ments to prologues in particular (e. g. fr. 48, from Autolykos I or II)38 or to
construct various other scenes out of them, such efforts remain purely hypo-
thetical, and no further arguments should be based on them; see Section 4. For
uncertain reasons, very few fragments of Eupolis’ non-parabatic choral songs
survive (e. g. frr. 16; 280; 314). This cannot necessarily be taken as evidence that
such material was less important in his comedies than it is in Aristophanes’,
although this might conceivably be the case.

35 For discussion, see Storey 2003. 352-4 with a list of possible candidates (none
overly convincing).
36 More extensive discussion in Storey 2003. 356-62.
37 For further discussion, see Gelzer 1960. 277-80; Storey 2003. 353-6.
38 See Storey 2003. 349-50 for a full list of his candidates.