No abstract

The title of Menander's Sikyonioi has long posed major critical challenges. 1 While the earliest sources, the colophon of the Sorbonne papyrus (third century BCE) and a wall painting from Ephesus (second century CE), attest to the masculine plural title Σικυώνιοι, 2 later indirect sources quoting fragments from the play transmit the masculine singular title Σικυώνιος; 3 two indirect sources also testify to the existence of a feminine singular title Σικυωνία. 4 It is now quite widely agreed upon that Σικυώνιοι is the correct title for the play, not least because it is the one used in the earliest testimonia. 5 Still, two important questions remain a matter of contention even in the most recent scholarship. 1 For a detailed discussion see Belardinelli 1994, 56-59 and Blanchard 2009, xxiv-xxxiii. 2 See the text of the colophon in Blanchard 2009, 29 and the reproduction of the Ephesus painting on the front cover of Belardinelli 1994. Two shorthand manuals dating from the third/fourth century CE (P. British Museum 2562, no. 510 [= Men. test. 42 K.-A.] and P. Mons. Roca 1, no. 2339) attest to the plural title, too.3 See Men. Sic. frr. 1, 3-5, and 7-9 Blanchard. To these witnesses we should now add the mosaic with a scene from Sikyonioi (dating from between the late second and early fourth century CE) found in Kissamos (Crete), where the play is given the masculine singular title Σικυώνιος (this mosaic has been published by Markoulaki 2016). 4 See Men. Sic. frr. 2 and 6 Blanchard. 5 All three most recent critical editions of the play opt for Σικυώνιοι (see Belardinelli 1994, Arnott 2000, and Blanchard 2009. Fountoulakis, in his review of Blanchard 2009, takes a different position and commends the masculine singular title Σικυώνιος (see Fountoulakis 2011, 307).

This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the compound ἀφῆλιξ and the comparative ἀφηλικέστερος, discussed in the Atticist lexica Phryn. Ecl. 56, Phryn. PS 1.1–6, Poll. 2.17, Moer. α 153, and [Hdn.] Philet. 168.

This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the words εἶμι and ἐλεύσομαι discussed in the Atticist lexica Phryn. Ecl. 24, Phryn. Ecl. 161, Poll. 5.155, and Moer. α 29.