Testimonia (test. 5)

45

by Suda a 4410 to be a representative of “Middle Comedy” and assigned by
Kassel-Austin on that basis to the 4th century BCE. The lack of any fragments
is surprising, and Augeas may well be a “ghost”. If he was a real person,
however, it is tempting to think that he is either identical with the Augeas
mentioned by Aelian (misdated by the Suda—i. e. by Hesychius—on the basis of
the titles or content of his plays?) or one of that man’s ancestors. In that case,
there may be some connection between Aelian’s story and earlier discussion
of Eupolis’ literary heritage, perhaps including the fate of whatever texts he
left behind when he died.
For Eupolis’ slave Ephialtes (PAA 452918), compare the equally obscure-
and even more dubious—report at Photius Bibl. (190, p. 151a5-14; vol. Ill
pp. 64-5 Henry) from Ptolemy Chennos that “the Hybristodikai of Eupolis
(were found by the head) of Ephialtes”, sc. when he died, with the general
Introduction to Hybristodikai·, and the Cephisophon (PAA 569015) repeatedly
said by Aristophanes to have helped Euripides compose his tragedies (Pa.
944, 1408, 1452-3; fr. 596) and who was taken by the Peripatetic biographer
Satyrus to have been Euripides’ slave. Kaibel 1889. 40-1 associated Aelian’s
Ephialtes with the title-character of Phrynichus’ Epialtes or Ephialtes, arguing
that Phrynichus’ play was an attempt to intervene in the on-going plagia-
rism debate between Eupolis and Aristophanes (for which, see test. 16 with
n.; Introduction Section 8). Kaibel 1907 tacitly withdrew this interpretation
(noting instead the existence of a nightmare-monster with a similar name; see
Biles-Olson 2015 on Ar. V. 1037-8), but continued to maintain that Aelian’s
source must have been a lost comedy that touched on the question of pla-
giarism. What survive for us, at any rate, appear to be traces of inventive,
figurative arguments and slanders (Eupolis’ “good dog” Augeas51 confronts his
“bad, thievish slave” Ephialtes) extracted from the original texts of unknown
comedies by Hellenistic scholars interested in biographical details about poets
from the classical period, and then reworked by later writers. For Storey’s
attempt to connect this testimonium with Aps. Ars. Rhet. 3 to reconstruct the
plot of Autolykos I/II, see the introduction to those plays and Kyriakidi 2007.
141-5.
The tale of the faithful dog goes back to Od. 17.300-27 and doubtless far
before that. But the point of the story as Aelian presents it is etymological,
reminiscent of the explanation of the name Kynos Serna offered at E. Hec.

51 That the dog in Aelian shares the name of the man who gave him to Eupolis is a
particularly odd detail. For seemingly more typical dog-names, see the list at X.
Cyn. 7.5, and the catalogue at Mentz 1933. 104-29, 181-202, 415-25, with synthetic
discussion at 433-42.