436

Eupolis

Athenian citizenship, and ύβριστοδίκαι was the term used for ναυτοδίκαι
who failed to fulfil their duties.260 The title—presumably preserving the iden-
tity of the chorus or supposed chorus—thus refers to people who engage in
habitual behavior of a specialized disreputable sort, like Kolakes (“Toadies’)
and perhaps Callias’ Scholazontes (“Men of Leisure, Loungers”) and Ameipsias’
Apokottabizontes (“ Cottabus-players”)·, for another political title, cf. Telecleides’
Prytaneis (“Prytaneis”), although nothing suggests that the chorus of that play
was made up of specifically bad Prytaneis.
Content The only evidence for the existence of this play comes from a passing
reference in Photius’ Library (190, p. 151a5-14; vol. Ill pp. 64-5 Henry) drawn
from Ptolemy son of Hephaestion, i. e. Ptolemaeus Chennos (ca. 100 BCE): ότι
τελευτήσαντος Δημητρίου τού Σκιγψίου τό βιβλίον Τέλλιδος προς τή κεφαλή
αύτοϋ εύρέθη- τάς δε Κολυμβώσας Άλκμάνους προς τή κεφαλή Τυρονίχου
του Χαλκιδέως εύρεθήναί φασι, τούς δ’ Ύβριστοδίκας Εύπόλιδος προς τή
’Εφιάλτου, τούς δέ Εύνείδας Κρατίνου προς τή Αλεξάνδρου του βασιλέως
Μακεδόνων, τά δ’ Έργα καί τάς Ημέρας Ησιόδου προς τή τού Σελεύκου
τού Νικάτορος κεφαλή (“When Demetrius of Scepsis died, Tellis’ book was
found by his head. And they say that the Kolymbdsai of Alcman(?) were found
by the head of Tyronichus of Chalkis, and the Hybristodikai of Eupolis by
the head of Ephialtes, and the Euneidai (test, ii) of Cratinus by the head of

260 Hence the definite article (not “unwilling to prosecute lawsuits” but “unwilling
to prosecute the lawsuits”). Storey 2003. 262 objects that the hybristodikai cannot
be public officials, because “in the fifth century it was the individual citizen (ό
βουλόμενος) who brought people and cases to court”. But (1) Craterus specifically
refers to the nautodikai as “prosecuting cases” (dikas eisagontes); (2) the citizenship
law which Harpocration tells us Craterus was discussing, and thus the procedure
it involved, seems to belong to the second half of the 5th century BCE (Harrison
1971. 23-4); (3) even if the law and thus the inscription belongs later, this has no
implications for the definition of hybristodikai, because the word is tied to the 5th
century, and thus to the specifics of 5th-century legal procedure, only by the title
of Eupolis’ play—which is almost certainly spurious (see Content). What Pollux’
reference to Sicily is supposed to mean is difficult to say; Kock thought that it must
have something to do with the content of the play (the authenticity of which he
did not question), while Edmonds 1957. 406-7 nn. 5 and d suggested writing ίμετά
τά} έν Σικελία (“Rafter the events} in Sicily”, referring to the Sicilian campaign in
415-413 BCE and thus identifying an approximate date for the play. Craterus seems
to have been interested in and to have cited almost exclusively Attic inscriptional
material, but he did occasionally digress (e. g. FGrH342 F 12.2-3). Or perhaps these
words come from some other source altogether.