Davies, Malcolm. 2019. The Cypria. Hellenic Studies Series 83. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_DaviesM.The_Cypria.2019.
3. Two Retardations: Telephus and Teuthrania; Iphigenia at Aulis
Proclus Chrestomathia: ἔπειτα ἀναχθέντες Τευθρανίαι προσίσχουσι ταύτην ὣς Ἴλιον ἔπορθουν.
Then they put in at Teuthrania and began to ravage it under the impression that it was Troy.
The invasion of Teuthrania may well have originated as a doublet of the invasion of Troy.  As reconstructed from various sources the first shares many features in common with the second (initial repulse of the Greeks, intervention of Greek hero who drives enemy off until he is killed, restoration of Greek fortunes by Achilles’ pursuit of native champion, etc.). On these and further analogies see E. Howald, Der Dichter der Ilias (Zurich 1945) 125–126; Rhys Carpenter, Folk-Tale, Fiction, and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Berkeley 1946) 55–58. See further my article “Euripides Telephus fr. 49 (Austin) and the Folk-Tale Origins of the Teuthranian Expedition,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133 (2000): 7–10, which seeks to derive Telephus himself from the familiar folktale figure of the ambivalent helper. The discovery that the story was known as early as Archilochus (West, “Archilochus and Telephus,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 156 : 11–17 = Hellenica 2.6–16) and thus considerably predates the Cypria, which cannot have invented it, seems to me to strengthen the case for this interpretation.
Proclus Chrestomathia: Τήλεφος δὲ ἐκβοηθήσας Θέρσανδρόν τε τὸν Πολυνείκους κτείνει.
Telephus, sallying forth to defend his land, kills Thersander, the son of Polyneices.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ αὐτὸς [scil. Τηλέφος] ὑπὸ Ἀχιλλέως τιτρώσκεται.
And Telephus himself is wounded by Achilles.
Ernst Howald, Der Dichter der Ilias (Zurich 1946) 125–127 ingeniously argued that the story of Telephus as originally conceived had nothing to do with the Trojan War: Telephus was originally a Greek god, and the tale of his wounding was a variant of the motif of the wounding of the devil (cf. Thompson, Motif–Index G 303 16.19.19). When the tale was coupled with the expedition against Troy, its nature changed and it took the form now familiar from various sources. The form the tale occupied in the Cypria, and especially the connection with Achilles, is a late invention,  like most of the stories to do with Achilles. As Howald observes (p. 127), this is “weil vor Troia in den zehn Jahren des Krieges etwas geschehen musste.”
Proclus Chrestomathia: ἀποπλέουσι δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῆς Μυσίας χειμών ἐπιπίπτει καὶ διασκεδάννυνται. Ἀχιλλεὺς δὲ Σκύρωι προσσχών γαμεῖ τὴν Λυκομήδους θυγατέρα Δηϊδάμειαν.
And as the Greek fleet sails off from Mysia, a storm swoops down on them and their forces are scattered. And Achilles puts in at Scyros and sleeps with Deidameia, daughter of Lycomedes.
The storm that scatters the Greek forces motivates the all-important visit of Achilles to the island where he fathers Neoptolemus upon Deidameia. For the verb γαμεῖν used, as here, of mere “sexual intercourse” rather than formal mar-riage see LSJ s.v. I 2. Cf. M. Fantuzzi, Achilles in Love: Intertextual Studies (Oxford 2012) 21–28.
As K. Ziegler observes in his article on Neoptolemus in RE (16 : 2440.19–59), Pausanias’ claim that Homer never calls Achilles’ son anything but Neoptolemus should have consequences for the Ilias Parva and the Iliupersis as well as for the Iliad and the Odyssey. If we can trust Pausanias’ implication that he has read the first two as thoroughly as the second pair it is all the more striking that Pyrrhus’ name should be so consistently absent not only from the rest of the early epic tradition (and what epics could afford Achilles’ son more prominence that the Ilias Parva and Iliupersis?) but from all extant poetry prior to Theocritus Idyll XV 140. Quintus of Smyrna and Triphiodorus restrict themselves in true Homeric manner to Neoptolemus; Vergil (see R. G. Austin on Aeneid II 469) and Ovid allow themselves both names; most other Roman poets use only Pyrrhus. For a compendious presentation of the facts see Robert, Heldensage 1219 and n6. The name Πύρρος was generally explained as “fiery-haired” (e.g. Servius on Aeneid II 263 [2.393 ed. Harvard]: a capillorum qualitate), occasionally as connected with Achilles’ female pseudonym Pyrrha: details in Ziegler 2441.48–58. Νεοπτόλεμος was sometimes etymologized as referring to the youth of the name’s holder (so Servius as cited [quia ad bellum ductus est puer]; Σ D Iliad XIX 326: Νεοπτόλεμον κλήθεντα ὅστις τοῖς Ἕλλησι νέος ὢν συνεστρατεύσατο; Cicero De oratore 2.257. The Cypria’s explanation in terms of the youth of the hero’s father when he went to war  is found also in Σ ΑΤ Iliad XIX 326 (4.635 Erbse): ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ὠνόμαστι, ὅτι νέος ὢν ἐπολέμησεν as well as Philostratus Heroicus 199.1–2 ὀνομασθεὶς διὰ νεοτήτα τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως καθ᾽ ἥν ἐς τὸ πολεμεῖν ὥρμησεν. There is no antique justification for Robert’s interpretation of the name as “der Held des neuen Kriegs” (Heldensage 1218).
Proclus Chrestomathia: ἔπειτα Tήλεφος κατὰ μαντείαν παραγενόμενον εἰς Ἄργος ἰάται Ἀχιλλεὺς ὡς ἡγεμόνα γενησόμενον τοῦ ἐπ’ Ἴλιον πλοῦ.
Then Telephus arrives at Argos, following the terms of an oracle, and Achilles heals him, on the understanding that he will guide them to Troy.
Proclus Chrestomathia: καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ἠθροισμένου τοῦ στόλου ἐν Αὐλίδι, Ἀγαμέμνων ἐπὶ θηρῶν  βαλὼν ἔλαφον ὑπερβάλλειν ἔφησε καὶ τὴν Ἄρτεμιν.
And with the expedition gathered a second time at Aulis, Agamemnon, while hunting, hits a deer and says not even Artemis could …
Proclus Chrestomathia: μηνίσασα δὲ ἡ θεὸς ἐπέσχεν αὐτοὺς τοῦ πλοῦ χειμῶνας ἐπιπέμπουσα.
The goddess (Artemis) in anger sent a wind-storm upon them that hinders them from sailing.
μείναντες χειμῶνα πολὺν σὺν λαὸν ἄγειραν
‘Ελλάδος ἐξ ἱερῆς Τροίην ἐς καλλιγύναικα.
According to West ad loc., “Hesiod’s phrase is most naturally taken to mean ‘waiting through the winter’ (differently 674–675 μένειv … χειμῶν’ ἐπιόντα). The version he knew, then, told of a winter passed at Aulis while the army assembled, but not necessarily of any further delay.” Such an explanation, however,  fails to answer Mazon’s question (in his commentary [Paris 1914] ad loc.): why should the Greeks have come to Aulis to spend the winter? With Mazon, we may prefer Goettling’s translation “exspectantes dum desineret tempestas,” which rendering is perfectly compatible with the Cypria’s tradition.
ποινὰς τὰ πολλὰ πνεύματ’ ἔσχ’ ἐν Αὐλίδι.
‘Ελληνικὸν συνήγαγ’ Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ
τὸν καλλίνικον στέφανον Ἰλίου θέλων
λαβεῖν Ἀχαιοῖς, τούς θ’ ὑβρισθέντας γάμους
‘Ελένης μετελθεῖν, Μενέλεωι χάριν φέρων.
δεινῆς τ’ ἀπλοίας πνευμάτων τ’ οὐ τυγχάνων
εἰς ἔμπυρ’ ἦλθε, καὶ λέγει Κάλχας τάδε.
Against the attempts of the young Housman (“Soph. El. 564 and Eur. IT 15 and 35,” in Classical Review 1 : 240–241 = Classical Papers 1.10–12) to remove the references to the becalmed host from the two passages by emending Sophocles Electra 563–564 to τίνος ποινὰς τὰ πλοῖα πνεύματ’ ἔσχ’ ἐν Αὐλίδι  and Euripides Iphigenia in Tauris 15–16 to νήστει δ’ ἀπλοίαι πνευμάτων τ’ οὐ τυγχάνων | εἰς ἔμπυρ’ ἦλθε, see for the first passage Finglass on 564 and Diggle, “Housman’s Greek,” in Hesperos (M. L. West Festschrift [Oxford 2007]) 147–149 and for the second passage Diggle, 149–150. Housman might have noted besides that since Sophocles proceeds (lines 566–572) to reproduce the Cypria’s explanation of Artemis’ anger against Agamemnon, it is hard to see why he should have departed from the same epic’s account of that anger’s consequences.
τέσσαραϛ has been amended to διαφόρουϛ or δύο. Either conjecture presupposes for manuscripts a use of Greek letters as abbreviations for numbers so frequent and casual that the corruption would pass unnoticed and uncorrected. In fact, this use seems to have been extremely rare: see E. G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Oxford 1971) 18–19, with the review by N. G. Wilson, Classical Review 24 (1974): 92.
The Daughters of Agamemnon
The main problem raised by this rather eccentric list concerns the identity (or otherwise) of Iphianassa and Laodice with respect to the more familiar Iphi-genia and Electra of later writers. Four daughters, with Iphianassa and Iphigenia as two separate entities, are presupposed not merely by the present fragment of the Cypria but by the line of Sophocles upon which it comments: Electra 157 οἵα Χρυσόθεμις ζώει καὶ Ἰφιάνασσα. If Iphianassa is still alive so long after the Trojan War, she cannot have been sacrificed by her father at Aulis. See also from this play 530–532: ἐπεὶ πατὴρ οὗτος σὸς, ὃν θρηνεῖς ἀεί, | τὴν σὴν ὅμαιμον μοῦνος ‘Ελλήνων ἔτλη | θῦσαι θεοῖσιν (Iphigenia is not actually named in the play).  The same naturally applies to the Iliadic Iphianassa, who is still alive and ripe for marriage in the ninth year of the Trojan War.
Proclus Chrestomathia: Κάλχαντος δὲ εἰπόντος τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ μῆνιν … καὶ Ἰφιγένειαν κελεύσαντος θύειν τῆι Ἀρτέμιδι.
Calchas announces the goddess’ anger … and bids the Greeks sacrifice Iphigenia to Artemis.
αἰεί τοι τὰ κάκ᾽ ἐστὶ φίλα φρεσὶ μαντεύεσθαι,
ἐσθλὸν δ’ οὔτε τί πω εἶπας ἐπὸς οὔτ’ ἐτέλεσσας.
So, for instance, Kullmann 1960:198 or (even more emphatically) West in “Where Eagles Dare,” Classical Quarterly 29 (1979): 5 = Hellenica 2.221 (“we may take it as certain that Calchas’ exposition of the cause and cure of Artemis’ anger in that epic … was followed by a speech from Agamemnon similar in tone”). 
Proclus Chrestomathia: ὡς ἐπὶ γάμον αὐτὴν [scil. Ἰφιγένειαν] μεταπεμψάμενοι.
They send for Iphigenia under the pretext of her marriage.
Proclus Chrestomathia: θύειν ἐπιχειροῦσιν Ἀρτεμις δὲ αὐτὴν ἐξαρπάσασα εἰς Tαύρους μετακομίζει καὶ ἀθανατον ποιεῖ, ἔλαφον δὲ ἀντὶ τῆς κόρης παρίστησι τῶι βωμῶι.
They try to sacrifice (Iphigenia), but Artemis snatches her up and conveys her to the Taurians and makes her immortal and sets up a deer in her place on the altar.