tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post6272189339508000620..comments2023-04-05T08:04:07.514-04:00Comments on Bryn Mawr Classical Review: 2017.08.14Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-62180094503427646962017-08-11T13:56:25.121-04:002017-08-11T13:56:25.121-04:00There are serious reasons to question the entrench...There are serious reasons to question the entrenched assumption that the parodos of Aristophanes’ Wealth (lines 290-322) includes a parody of Philoxenus’ Cyclops. While the echoes of the Odyssey are more than evident, there are no clues in Aristophanes’ text that unequivocally target (what we know of) Philoxenus’ dithyramb. Contrary to common belief, the shepherd’s bag and damp wild herbs mentioned in line 298 have nothing to do with a hypothetical vegetarian Cyclops in the alleged hypotext, but are to be interpreted as sexual metaphors referring to the scrotum and the pubic hair of the ogre. The intertextual relationship of the two texts is likely to have been dreamed up by Aristophanes' scholiasts. See J. Méndez Dosuna, “El zurrón y las hierbas salvajes del Cíclope y un presunto hipotexto de Aristófanes, Pluto 290–301”, Dionysus ex Machina 6, 2015, 30‒52.<br />J. Méndez Dosunahttps://usal.academia.edu/Juli%C3%A1nV%C3%ADctorM%C3%A9ndezDosunanoreply@blogger.com