¹ Wifstrand, A., Von Kallimachos zu Nonnos (1933),Google Scholar is primarily concerned with metrical-stylistic questions, while D'Ippolito's Studi Nonniani (1963) seems to me rather disappointing on the aspect treated here. But I. Cazzaniga, ‘Temi Poetici Alessandrini in Nonno Panopolitano’ (in Miscellanea di Studi Alessandrini in memoria di A Rostagni, Turin 1963, 626–46) has some useful material. Also Lloyd-Jones adds to Keydell's parallels in his review (CR 75, 1961, 22–4).

² This article was prompted by reading part of the forthcoming Supplement to Powell's Collectanea Alexandrina, to be edited by Professor Hugh Lloyd-Jones and Mr. P.J. Parsons. I am grateful to both of these for showing me their work, and for comments on some of the ideas here. A number of my Nonnus parallels had not escaped them.

³ Perhaps immediately following fr.259 echoed, incidentally, in Nonnus 15.28

⁴ Taking up (see Lloyd-Jones and Rea, op. cit. 135).

⁵ However Keydell on 30.138, following Wifstrand, quotes from Blemyomachy 43.

⁶ Other Callimachean phrases with which Nonnus was obsessed include (Hymn 4.78) and

⁷ May I repeat that the close resemblance between Ovid, Met. 8.684 ff. and Nonnus 17.46 ff. is most probably caused by common imitation of Callimachus. It is rightly recognized now that many late Greek poets read Latin ones, but still many resemblances must be due to shared models. This is a particularly good example because Nonnus in effect quotes his source. Also in the Byblis legend (discussed below) Ovid and Nonnus probably glance at the same original (?Nicaenetus) for the parallel reference to Zeus and Hera.

⁸ Both cases, the second much more speculative, discussed later.

⁹ For an argument that fr.245 refers to Sciron, see CR 79 (1965), 259–60.

¹⁰ Most recently by George Huxley in GRBS 11 (1970), 251–7, with special reference to Nicaenetus and topographical questions. He gives further bibliography.Google Scholar

¹¹ But Huxley, op.cit., 256 points out that Nicaenetus fr. 1 P does not certainly come from his the lines could belong to a different poem. In any case the passage is clearly lacunose, and perhaps preserves only the outline of Nicaenetus' narrative.

¹² I imagine that he alludes to the ‘secret marriage’ of Zeus and Hera (see Pfeiffer on Callimachus, fr.48).

¹³ See Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams ii. 417.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Omission or corruption in the text of Nonnus has been suspected.

¹⁵ A difficulty: I suspect that scholiasts often give a whole legend, adding e.g. when that poet ma: only have alluded to the myth briefly.

¹⁶ For the text see West, M.L., Maia 20 (1968), 203.Google Scholar

¹⁷ We can now see that this provides a more likely model than the struggle betweer Heracles and Achelous, suggested by W.H.D. Rouse.

¹⁸ Incidentally, of course, the patria of Euphorion.

¹⁹ Euphorion fr.115 P.

²⁰ But the case, at least, is uncertain.

²¹ Nonnus regularly uses as a noui = ‘vine’ (see Lobel's note on the Euphorion passage).

²² Note the proximity to 12.287 twice mentioned above.

²³ So did Barigazzi before him (see Carden for bibliography).

²⁴ Most naturally taken as a command, though it might be a statement, even a corn plaint.

²⁵ Or some compound thereof.

²⁶ He could have added several more parallels e.g. 27.228–9

²⁷ Cf. fr.18 Powell. P.Oxy. 2219 fr.3.19 probably restores to us at least part of the original paraphrased as The imitation at Nonnus 47.668 has long been recognized. Once again note that is a favourite word of Nonnus (also .

²⁸ CQ 37 (1943), 22–32.Google Scholar

²⁹ Presumably distinct from the Comaetho who cuts off her father's magic lock with whom Nonnus was not unacquainted Euphorion, PSI 1390, fr.C, col.ii.16, 21.70 The Loeb note on 2.143 is confused, while that on 40.141 seems oblivious of the earlier passage.

³⁰ For the motif in a different context cf also Lament for Bion 29

³¹ The same phrase of Byblis at 13.560.

³² No doubt at least that Gellius read rather than because he remarks (13.27) on the two changes made by Virgil. Nonnus' epithets and (quoted above) may also support . In Anth. Pal. 6.164.1 (Lucianus) we find where several editors correct to