Ύβριστοδίκαι (Introduction)

437

Alexander the king of Macedon261, and the Works and Days of Hesiod by the
head of Seleucus Nikator”). Schmid compared test. 35 σκώπτειν ... δικαστάς
τούς κακώς δικάζοντας (“to mock ... jurors who reached bad decisions”), but
this is a different sort of judicial misbehavior and is not said specifically in
regard to Eupolis in any case. The complete absence of fragments of the play
is suspicious; Tellis and Tyronichus262 of Chalkis are otherwise unknown, as
are the Kolymbosai (“Female Divers”) of Aleman263, and no obvious candidate
presents himself for the Ephialtes associated with Eupolis,264 undermining
any confidence one might otherwise be tempted to put in Ptolemy’s account.
Schmid and Kaibel were thus probably right to maintain that Eupolis did
not actually write a play entitled Hybristodikai and that the title was sheer
invention on Ptolemy’s part.

261 Storey 2003. 261 omits τού βασιλέως Μακεδόνων from the Greek and then express-
es puzzlement about who this Alexander might be. Storey 2011. 222-3 includes
τού βασιλέως Μακεδόνων in his Greek text, but once again omits it from his
translation.
262 Storey 2003. 261 and 2011. 222-3 prints and translates Meineke’s Τυννίχου. But
Tynnichos of Chalkis was the author of an allegedly well-known but today obscure
paean cited at Pl. Ion 534d (= PMG 707), whereas the other individuals described
as having died with a poet’s work by their head all appear to be political leaders,
making the emendation unappealing.
263 Or whoever Photius’ Άλκμάνους is supposed to refer to; the genitive of “Aleman”
ought to be Άλκμάνος. See Meineke 1839 1.101.
264 Edmonds 1957. 407 n. c notes that the name is borne by the slave mentioned in
test. 5 (n.) who supposedly tried to steal some of Eupolis’ plays and was baffled by
his dog Augeas. That text too is obscure, but it is not impossible that some—now
untraceable—connection existed between the two traditions.