The Lost Sophocles 0819140309, 9780819140302

Citation preview

T ....-....... LOST SOPHOCLES t

UNIVERSITY PRE.OF AMERICA

I

•

Copyrlpt

1914by

Ualftl"lityPress~ America,,..Inc .. 4 720 Boston Way Lanham. MD 20706 J,Henrietta Street London WC2E SW England All rights reserved Printed in the Uni,tedS111es of America

LllrarJ ef Coe.,._ Catalopla Ill PablleadanData Sutton, Dana Ferrin. The lost Sophocles. Bibliography: p. 1. Sophocles-Criticism and interpretation. 2. Sophocles-Authorship.. J. Lost literature-Greece. l. Title. PA4417.S% 1984 882'.01 84--11952 ISBN()..8191-4030-9(alk. paper) ISBN0-8191·4031•7(pbk.: alk. paper)

AH University Pressof Americabooksare producedon acid-free paperwhich exceedsthe minimumstandardsset by the National Historical Publicationsand RecordsCommission.

[e]

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction

..................................•....

vii

The Pla.ys:

Aahaeon l loge ••••••••••.•••••.•••.••••••••. 3 .3 Aazeis A.egeus • ................................... ...5 Aja: Loarus •• •7 Aeahmalotides ................................ . • 10 Aethiopes • ................................. • • • 10 Alameon. .11 . ••••• 13 Aleadae • ••••••••••••••••••••• [Al tes]. 15 Al e:z:·andeze • .................................... 16 • • 17 Amphi try on • ••••••••••••••••.••.••••••••••• . . . . .. ...19 [Andromaahe]. . . .. . . . Andromeda •••• .20 Antenoztidae ••••••••••••.••••••••••••••..••• . 21 .23 First Athamas. Second Athamas. .25 Atreus or Nyaenaeae • ........................ • 26 • •••• , ............. •·• 27 [Baaohae] ••••••••••••• Camiaoi • .................................... .• 28 ... 29 [ CPS t B B ] ••• , .... ' •• ' ••••••••••••••• Chztyses • •• • 29 Clytaemnestzta •••••••••••• • 31 Colahide s •••••••••• , ....................... . • 32 33 Czteusa .... ......................................... • ••••••• 35 [Cyanus]. Danae ... .. ••••••• •·••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 35 Dolopes ........... . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • 3 6 37 ................................. Epigonoi ••••••••• , . 42 Erigona •• ...... , . •·, ... , , ............................. , .. 4 4 Eriphyle. . . . .. • • . • . . • . . . . . • • • • • • • • , ......... ..45 Eumelus •• Euztyalus. . .. . . .. . . . . . • . .. .. .... .. . . . .. . . • . . . .. . • . .. • . . 46 , ....4 6 Euztyp1(Z.us• • • ................................... 49 Eurysaaes •••• .. .................................. •·................. 56 Helenes Apaatesis •• • .......... [Helenes Haztpage] • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • .. • ..5 7 .............................. 57 Hermione • .............. • • • • • • • • • .. • • • •. . • • .. • • .. .. • • • • • • • • • .. .. .. 6l Hipponous • 62 Hydztophoroi ..................................................... . ..62 Ibeztes • • 63 Iobates ............ .. .. ................................. 63 Ion ••••• • . .. • . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . ., ....................... . .................. . 64 Iphioles .... .. 1

.

. ... ... ...... ...

ill

ill

••••••••••••

,

...................

ill

.....

iii

••

••••

.

ill

•••

,

.

ill

••••••••••••••

Iphigeneia •••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Laoaenae • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Laoooon • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Larisaeoi ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Lemniae • ••••••••••••••••••••• Nanteis or Me ZeageP • ••••••••••••••••••• Memnon • •••••••• Ninos • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Mousae • ••••••••••••••••••• My soi • •••••••••••• Catap, Zeon • • Nauplius Nauplius Pyracaeus.11 ••• or Plyntraiae. Nausicaa Niobe • ••••• , ••••••• , ••••••••••• Niptra ••• Odysseus Aoanthoplese. Ody B s eus Maenomenus •••••••• Oea Ze s ( ? J •••••• Oenomaus • •••••••••••••• Palamedes ••••••••••••••••••• PeZeus •••••• Phaeaoe s • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Phaedra • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• s ho sn Traoiai • ••••••• Phitoote t and Seoond Phinsus •••••••• Phoeni:c ••••••••••••• Phri:cus • •• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Ph'l'yges11 ••••••••••••••• Phthio s. • • • Poimene s. ly:cena • ••••••••••••••••••••• , •• P'l'iam •••••••••••• II

II

II

••••••••••

II

••

11 •

II

••••••

II

II

II

••

II

••••••

II

•••

II

II

11 •••••••••••••

II

II

••

II

II

II

II

••

II.

11

II

II

II,,

II

11, ••••••••••••••

Pl'OO'l'i

~

II

•

'

•

II

•

II

•••••••

II

•

II

75

75 ,

•

11 •••••••••

,

II

••

II

, 11 ••••••••

•

.,

•••••••••••••

II

•••

II

••••••••••••

II

••••

84

85 88 90 94

11 ••••••••

II

11 11 ••

••••••••

11 ,,

78 78

80 • • • • 82

•••

II

II

•

94 95, 97

••••••••••••

II

II

•••••••

. . .. .. . .. ...

11, •••••••••••••

•••••

69 70 73

•••

••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••

10,0 102 102 10,4 104 108 108 109 110 111 113 115 116 117 118

.. . ... ..... .. ... .. . ... .. . . .,•••••••••• . . .... ... 120 • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Scythae • •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Sinon • •••• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••• [Sisyphus] • •••••••••••• Tantalus ••••••• ,•••••••• , •••••• The Te tephsia • •••••• Te!'sus ••••••••••••••••• Teuoe'?' •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Thamy z,as • ••••••• II

II

•••••

II

II

•••••••

••••••••••••••••

,

II

[

II

••••••••••••••••••••

II

B • •••••••••••••

II

II

,,

••••••

II

•••••••••••••

••••••••••

II

Rhisotomoi

•

•••••••••••••••

II

II

•••••••

72

II

•••••

••

••

•

•••••••••

II

II

II

II

II

••

11 •

65 66 68

II.

II

II

II

•••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

seus] ••••••••.••••••..••..•

,11,

••••••••••

•••

124 125 126 126 127 132 139 141

141 First and oond Thyestes ••••••••••••••••••• Thyestes Sioy • • • • • • • • 143 145 ••• Traiptotemus11••····••·•••······•··•·•· 148 Traoi Zus • ••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••• 150 Tympanistae • ••••••••••• , •••••• 151 Tyndaraeus • •••••• II

••••••••••••

II

••••••••

II

••••••••••••••

II

•••••

and Seoond Tyl'o • •••••••••••••••••••••• Xoanephoroi •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••• Appendix I: Fragments of Uncertain Location ••••• Appendix II: To,wards a Chronology of Sophoclean Dram.a. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix III: Pacuvius' Chryse.s ••••••••••.•••••• Pil'Bt

V

152 156 157 175 185

INTRODUCTION Sophocles is reputed to have written one hundred and t.wenty - three plays, of which seven are extant. Whenever one reads studies., of ten written by highly qualified experts who are also intelligent and sensitive readers, that purport to explore the nature of Sophoclean drama, this fact must be kept in mind. For one cannot shake off the suspicion that it is dangerous to base broad. generalizations about the nature of the playwright's art on such a small sampling of his work. To be sure, the preservation of the seven tragedies we possess is by no means coincidental, and one might well doubt whether many of the lost plays attained the towering stature of, say, the three Theban plays. Nevertheless we may suspect that, if another selection of plays had been preserved, the generalizations we tend to make about Sophocles would perforce be rather different. Faced with this difficulty, the classical scholar has at least a partial corrective at his disposal: the preserved fragments and other evidence pertinent to Sophocles' lost plays have been collected, so that he may test his in.sights into Sophocles' surviving plays against what can be ascertained about the lost has body of work. Unfortunately the non - specialist no such recourse. Modern stud.ies of the lost works of Aeschylus and Euripides exist, [l] but no simi.lar book - length survey exists for Sophocles. Clearly., a serious gap exists on the bookshelf, and the appearance of Stefan Radt's new and deeply informative collection of Sophocles' fragments is a powerful stimulus for filling this void. Since I am writing more for the general reader than the specialist, I do not intend to guide the reader through the thicket of scholarship and speculative reconstructio•n that has grown up around these plays. Rather, I propose to go through the preserved fragments of each lost Sophoclean play, together with any other available evidence (the nature O·f such evidence will presently be explained) in order to set forth what can reasonably be ascertained abo,ut its contents. Secon.dary scholarship will be cited when it appears genuinely useful, but my primary aim is to allow the reader to co,nf ront the evidence himself in transla.tion. Then too, for the reader to be able to understand the vii.

purport of such evidence, it is necessary, when possible, to establish the mythological subject dramatized in each play. I also presume that the reader is interested about such information as the date and circumstances of a play'' s production. At all times I shall endeavor to answer what I assume to be the dominant question in the reader's mind: what transpired in this play? During Sophocles' lifetime playwrights were expected to compete with tetra.logies consisting of three tragedies followed by a farcical satyr play. Thus output would twenty - five percent of a tragedian's be satyric. Since I have under normal circumstances elsewhere given an account of Sophocles' satyr plays(2], I feel safe in ignori.ng them here. Hence the following in the present study: plays will not be discussed Aohilleos Eztastae ("The Lovezes of AohiZles"), Admetus., AmphiaPaus, Amyous, Cedalion, CPisis ("The Contest"), Ez,i.s Daedalus., Dionysisous ("The Little Dionysus")., ( "Stztife ")., [3] Epitaena11ii ( ''The Satyrs on Nt. Taensuspect to be the same play arum" whi.ch I now strongly as the HePaoles Satyrious),[4] Helenes Gamos ("The NaPPiage of Belen")., HePaoleisous ( ''The Little Beraoles n), Bybris, Iambe, Iohneutae ("The Tztaokezts"), Kophoi (probably to be translated as "The Inaohus,[S] Obtuse").,. Nomus., Pandozta OP Sphyreokopoi ( "Pandoz-a OP the Hammer - Wielders"), Salmoneus, Syndeipnon ("The Banquet"), and the play about Oen.eus or Schoeneus represented. by Pap. Ozy. 8.1083 fr. l, which is in all probability Sophoclean. The evidence with which we must deal may be divided into two categories, primary and secondary. The primary evidence consists of fragments of lost plays either quoted by ancient writers or found in papyri, together with ancient testimony about the contents of plays, the circumstances of their production, etc. Secondary evi.dence consists of litera.ry or monumental material that appears to reflect the con.tents of lost plays. Such evidence must be deemed secondary because, while it may contain valuable information, i.t is reflected through the creative intelligence of a second artist and so may be modified or distorted. Thus, there exist a number of more or less contemporary vase paintings that at least arguably illustrate But artists felt free scenes from Sophoclean drama. to adapt and modify, and it would be foolhardy to treat vase illustrations as photographically accu.rate representations of dramatic scenes. plays often In precisely the same way, Sophocles' served as the basis for Roman tragedi.es by such poets viii.

as Ennius, Pacuvius, and Accius, and fragments of a number of such plays exist. But Roman playwrights were scarcely mere translators, and the possibility always exists that a Roman poet may have "contaminated• his play by adding material from other tragedies, or by making various other alterations. This principle may be illustrated, for example, from the plays of Enof nius. Some of his plays were verbatim translations Greek originals: thus at de Fini.bus 1.2.4 Cicero cites Ennius' Medea as a faithful translation of its Euripidean model. However, the same poet's Eumenides contained material that translates nothing in the text of its Aeschylean exemplar, and although Ennius' IphiIphigeneia at Aul.is he geneia is based on Euripides' has introduced various changes, even giving the chorus of the play a different identity. Thus, while we must certainly pay attention to the Roman material, it must be kept firmly in mind that such evidence can never be put on a par with the actual Greek remains. Often it is useful to spell out the myth dramatizBut Greek mythology belo,nged ed in a given play. first and foremost to the Protean sphere of oral folk tradition, and so many a Greek myth can be shown to, in a multiplicity of forms. By referhave circulated ence to extant tragedy (compare, fo.r instan.ce, the treatment of the Electra myth by the three tragedians) we can see that playwrights were free to pick and choose between variant versions of a myth, alter n.arrative details, invent characters, and -- perhaps most important -- decide where to pick up the tale and where to make an ending. Often two or more tragedians would dramatize the same tale, and when a playwright wrote a play on a subject previously dramatized he would doubtless feel a st.rong compulsion to introduce alterations in order to achieve novelty. Hence in reading Greek tragedy one could make no greater mistake than to think that a playwright was prisoner to the traditional mythological material he was handling. In consequence, when a myth is related here, it is usually given in its best - known form in order to convey to the reader a general idea of the ground covered in a play. In such cases there is no intention to insinuate that Sophocles necessarily followed the particulars of the myth in its quoted form. The alternative, giving a full account of the possible variants he may have followed, would be that the tedious and would still ignore the possibility poet could ha.ve introduced unique or unattested alterations. The reader might care to know a bit about dramatic fragments. Many ancient writers quote words, lines, or ix.

passages of lost plays. Naturally they make their quotations for their own purposes, which are manifold. Many fragments are preserved by grammarians, lexicographers, and hunters after sententious passages ("gnomes"). The great majority of such fragments were selected by writers entirely uninterested in the plays from which they were quoting. Thus it is relatively uncommon for any facts to be preserved about the dramatic contexts in which they were spoken, the identity of the speaker, or similar information of vital importance to us. But at least by inadvertence ancient authorities often pres.erve evidence of genuine interest. Fragments. preserved by the ancients have been supplemented by papyrological material discovered in archaeological investigation of such Egyptian. sites as oxyrhynchus, Tebtunis, and Hibeh. Such papyri tend to be more or lesa mutilated, and by a quirk of fate the richest Sophoclean papyrological evidence pertains to the satyr plays rather than the tragedies. Bu.t at their best papyri are especially instructive because they do not j1ust preserve the sort of evidence found in the book fragments. The fragments are sometimes supplemented by testimonia in which ancient writers discuss various aspects of lost plays in their own words. It has been estimated that approximately ninety percent. of ancient literature has disappeared, and so classical scholarship perforce takes a keen interest in lost literature. The first step in such study the systematic collection of fragments and testimonia. Since new fragments are occasionally identified, and since papyri are sometimes published, new fragment compendia must period.ically be compiled. In the case of Sophocles, the fragments. began to be gathered in the later eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In 1856 August Nauck published the first edition of his TPagiooPum GPaeoorum Pragmenta (second edition, 1889). (6] In 1917 A. c. Pearson brought out hi.a The Fragments of Sophocles in three volumes, with an enormously detailed commentary. Pearson's work is one of the abiding achievements of twentieth century scholarship, and one might have thought that at most an occasional supplementary publication, such as Richard Carden's 1974 book on Sophoclean papyri, would be required to bring Pearson up to d.ate. But in 1977 Radt brought forth an entirely new edition that is a monument of industry and learning that contains well over eleven hundred fragments. In the same way, the secondary evidence has also been compiled. Editions exist of the fragments of the x.

Roman tragedians, and of the vase - paintings and other monumental evidence that seems pertinent to lost tragedies. Such is our raw material: incomplete, to be sure, but sometimes highly informative. With this evidence before him, the classicist can attempt to divi.ne the contents of lost plays. What can be achieved is of course dictated by the nature of the evidence for each play. In the worst possible case, all that is availbut often the title alone alabl,e is the play's title, lows us to ascertain a play's subject, probable setting, and at least some of its d:ramatis pel'sonae. In a handful of cases the qua.ntity and quality of the evidence allows impressive insight into a play's contents and places us in the fortunate position of being able to attempt a reconstruction and make pronouncements about such matters as characterizations and dramatic themes. Naturally, it is tempting to indulge in speculation, and at times overoptimistic scholars have persuade.d themselves that flimsy evidence supports very substantial guesswork:. But by a suffi.cient application of patient industry tempered by prudence -- and by the identification of speculation as such -- a picture of the playwright's oeuvrs can be built up that commands a reasonable degree of confidence. for all its incomplete and contingent nature. And of course part of the excitement of this work lies in its fluid nature: because new evidence continues to come to light, here is an area of classical studies where exciting developments are likely to occur. At this point it is well to say a few words about titles. The two commonest forms of title are that consting of an individual and that consisting of a noun in the plura.l. The first type is of course taken from a leading character in the play. When an epithet is added, this is done in order to distinguish two plays The by the same author feat.uring the same protagonist. second type usually describes the chorus of the play, but we shall see that exceptions to this rule exist. This especially true of titles ending with the patronymic -idae, such as Antenoztidae, but is true in a few other cases as well (e. g. Epigonoi., Manteis). A special problem is posed by such titles as t and Seoond Athamas: do these titles d.istinguish two different plays or two editions of a single one? The difficulty is that the Alexandrian editors used such titles to designate both situations. In the case of Sophocles' Athamas plays it is tolerably certain that two distinct plays are meant, but in such cases as Aristophanes' First and Seoond Clouds two editions of xi.

a single play are indicated. In at least one case, the Lemniae, Sophocles appears to have produced two redactIn most cases, however, it seems ions of a drama. safer to postulate two distinct plays. Some titles consist of a combination of both - forms (e. g. Nausioaa OI' Plynt?'iae, title nNausioaa some scholars have o?' the Washe?'Women"). Therefore been fecund in suggesting that some play with a name title is i.n reality the same play as another one with a plural noun - title. Such speculation rarely carries conviction. In the same way, on occasion ancient quoters have fallen into the error of substituting the name of a character, perhaps that of the speaker of the quotation, for the title of the play from which the quotation is drawn. Again, awareness of this kind of error has led to a rash of speculation that a quotation that appears to come from one play actual.ly represents anothe.r. Also, scholars have felt free to speculate that certain plays were satyr plays, or so - called prosatyric plays that, like Euripides' Aloestis, subRegarding all stituted for the normal satyr play. these forms of speculation, it may be said that they are occasionally interesting and worthwhile, but more often tedious and bothersome. Hence such theories are reported here in a selective manner. Another topic for speculation involves the possibility that Sophocles may have written genuine tri'l'elepheia. Merely belogies other than the attested cause he wrote so many tragedies, with sufficient industry and cleverness one may co,njecture any number of possible trilogies. But it is tolerably obvious -especially when one thinks how easy it would be to argue that the three extant Theban. p,lays were produced as a set, if we did not know better -- that the industry of conjuring up hypothetical trilogies is a vain effort, and so such conjectures will not be reported here. Finally, as hinted above, there exist plenty of overoptimistic hypothetical reconstructions of lost Sophoclean plays that go far beyond the evidence. No disservice will be done the reader by passing over such studies in silence. Although there is no need to deluge the reader with a wealth of learned reference, he must at least be given a point of departure for further study. The works of Pearson, Bates, Carden, Radt and others listed in the short bibliographies appended to the di.scussions of the individual plays are not only given for their own sakes, but also bec:ause they provide further bibliographical references (Radt in particular is useful in this respect). xii.

Appended to this study are surveys of Sophocles' fragments that are not attributable to given plays, and of the chronology of the poet's work. One of the major purpos.es of this study is simply to• place at the reader's disposal translations, or so•metimes paraphrases, of the significant fragments of Sophocles' lost work. In his edition of Sophocles' fragments Radt often adopts the technique of leaving fragments unpunctuated so as not to prejudge the question of whether they are complete grammatical constructions or excerpts from larger synt.actical units • This practice is admirable and is followed in the translations. Then too, the Latin evidence is translated from the Latin texts printed by E. H. Warmington, but I have followed Radt's punctuation practice in my translations. Radt's scheme of numbering the fragments is simple and sensible. In order to avoid creating a new numeration, he uses that of Pearson (so that Radt's fr. 100 = Pearson's fr. 100). If new evidence has come to light since Pearson's day, it is inserted at the right po•int as (e. g., hypothetically) fr. 100a. Radt thinks it a good idea to distinguish fragments tbat are definitely Sophoclean but conjecturally ass.igned to a given play by a single asterisk (e. g. fr. *100), and fragments that are conjecturally ascribed to Sophocles by a double asterisk (e •. g. fr. **100). Warmington's system is rather different. Instead of n.umbering fragments sequentially, he sequentially numbers individua.l lines or part - lines. Thus if his firs.t fragment contains four lines it is identified as "fr. l - 4" and the next fragment is identified as "fr. 5." This system is needlessly cumbersome. Thus a fragment consisting of more than one line will here be identified by the number of its first line only (so tha.t, e. g., Warmington's "fr. 1 - 4" would be designated merely as "fr. l," "fr. 5 then bei.ng the next fragmen.t). It will be noticed that Warmington's system creates the wrong impression of a huge number of fragments attributable to individu.al authors and plays. Certain studies. will be cited so regularly that it is convenient to refer to them merely by the name of the author. Here is. a list of these works: 11

Bates:

William Nickerson Bates, Sop'JwoZea,Poet and Dztama.tist (Philadelphia, 1940, repr. NewYork, 1961)

Carden:

Richard Carden, The PapyPUS Fragments of Sophoctes (Berlin - New York, 1974)

xiii.

Kannicht - Snell:

Richard ICannicht and Bruno Snell, (G8ttingen, 1981) (contains frapaents of unknown authorship)

T'ztagiool'Uffl GrasooFUm Pmgmenta II

Page:

Sir Denys Page, Loeb Classical Library Seteot Lit•l'al'JI Papyn (Cambridge, Maas. - London, 1950)

Pearson: A. c. Pearson, The FMgments of Sop1wcles (three volumes, Cambridge, U. K., 19'17) Rad.t:

Stefan Radt, !'Mgioo:rum GMeooPUmE'l'a.g'mBnta IV (G8ttingen, 1977) (contains fragments of Sophocles)

Ribbeck:

Ott.a Ribbeck, Die 'l'IJmisohsT'ztaglJdieim Zeitaltep de~ Republik (Leipzig, 1875)

Sechan:

Louis Sechan, Btudss BU.P la Tmgedie GNoqu.e BBS Rapports aveo la Ceztami.qw,2(Paris,

dans

1968)

Bruno Snell, !'Mgiooz,um Gmeco:rum Fmgmsnta I (G8ttingen, 1971) (contains didaacalic records and fragments of min.or tragedian.a) Trendall

- Webster: A, D. Trendall and T. B. L. Webof Greek l)?'Qlll(l (London, ster, Illustmtions 1971)

Warmington:

I, B. Warmington, Loeb Classical Library Rtlmainsof OU Latin (four volumes, Cambridge, Mass. - London, 1935 - 40) (vols. 1 and 2 are relevant)

Webster:

Welcker:

T. B, L. Webster, Monuments IZZustNting of the Classical Institute Supplement vol. 20, London, 1967)

T'ztagedyand SatyP PZay2 (Bulletin

F. G. Welcker, Die gneohisohe Troglldien mit Ruckeioht auf den epischtm Cyolus geo?'dnst (three vole.,

Bonn, 1938) (vol. 1 is relevant)

vases are cited by museum and museum in.ventory number. In addition, the following special abbreviations will be employed:

: Inacztiptio,use Graecae (listed

by volume n.umber and inventory number. For a listing of IG umes, • Liddell - Seot t - Jones, A fb:,eek EngZish Le:t:lcon9xix col. i)

RE:

Pauly - Wisaowa, ReaZ - EncycZoplld:tede.1!olaseisohen AltezrtumArissenao1'aft (Stuttgart, 1894) (articles author's

listed by volume and column, with name given in brackets)

Pap. GPBnf.: B. P. Grenfell, An A'Lezand.:z,ian Erotic Pragment and Ofhe?' GHek PapyPi Chiefly Ftotema.ic (Oxford, 1896) (papyri listed by inve.ntory number)

Bibeh: B. P. Grenfell and others, Hibeh ) (papyri cited by volPapyri, (London, 1906 ume number and inventory number)

Lond. Inv. : London papyrus (cited number)

Pap.

by inventory

0:1:y.: B. P. Grenfell and others, '!he 0:1:yl'hync'hus Papyn (London, 1898 - ) (papyri cited by volume

number and index number)

Soc. Itat.: G. Vitelli and others, Pubbticaaioni detla Societa Italiano. pez- la Rioerea dei Papin GNoi e Ia.tini in E{litto (Firenze, 1912 - ) (papyri cited by volume number and inventory number)

All dates are B. c •. includin.g references to, e. g., "the fifth century." e. g., the However, in citing, second century B. c., where a risk. of co•nfusion would otherwise exist, I shall be explicit. Finally, it is once again my pleasure to extend thanks to those who have assisted me in writing and producing this study. In the first place, wisdom of course dictates that the publishers' readers who are the first to see an author's manuscript should remain anonymous; is nonetheless annoying that I am unable to thank by name the anonymous readers who have improvements over what suggested a number of material I originally wrote. In the second place, the writing of this work was speeded by the use of a Hewlett Packard IBYCUScomputer used as a word processor for the early draughts, and I wish to thank my colleague Theodore F. Brunner and the various staff members xv.

of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae project for showing Willme how to use this wonderous machine, especially But above all I wish iam Johnson and David c. Wilson. for to thank Charles .Eberline of the Thesa.urus staff from the Greek and my looking over my translations wife and colleague, !Cathryn A. Sin~ovich, for proofreading this final draught. Errors, however, are exclusively my own fault. I gratefully acknowledge permission to quote from the followi.ng studies: William Nickerson Bates, SOfhocles, Poet and Dramatist, copyright 1940 by the uni..:. versity of Peiinsylvania Press; A. c. Pearson, The copyright 1917 by the cain5'ridge Fragments of Sophocles, Press; university and E. H. Warmington, Loeb Classical Library Remains of Old Latin, copyright 1935 - 1940 by the Harvard Onivirsity Press.

xvL

1. H.J. Mette, De:ztve:r-lo:ztene Aischylos (Berlin, 1963), T. B. L. Webster, 1'he TMgedies of Euzti.pides (London, 1967). 2. D. F. Sutton, 36 - 59.

'!the Gt-eek SatyP Play (Meisenheim am Glan, 1980)

3. This play is not attested to have been satyric, of its fragments suggest that it was such. 4. D. F. Sutton, "Aeschylus and the Mysteries," (1983) 249 - 251. S. For the argument that

this play was satyric

but the tenor

Hermes 111 cf.

D. F'. Sutton,

Sophooles' Ina.ohus (Meisenheim am Glan, 1979) 25 - 40. 6. Reprinted with an Appendix by Bruno Snell,

xvii.

Hildesheim,

1964.

THE

PLAYS

ACHAEON SYLLOGE ("THE GATHERING OF THE ACHAEANS")

We know less about this play than we once thought we did. The old idea that the A.chaeon Sylloge and the Syndeipnon were alternative titles for a single play seems impossible to maintain, especially since: the latter play was almost surely satyric.[l] It has also recently been demonstrated that the papyrus published at Bel'line:r KZassiksz,te::te 2. 64££. ( = fr. 142 Pea,rson) in fact belongs to Euripides• Pelephus rather than to the present play. This leaves us with a handful of fragments that fail to reveal its subject. Somehow, in all probability, it dealt with the collection of the Greek army for the Trojan War or with its assembly a.t the Troad (or at Aulis?) ·· Fr. 143 describes the Greek shipmasters steering their ships at night. Fr. 144 is: You sit

on the chair holding the inscribed tablet, and mark if a.nybody is not here who swore to come.

Agamemnon is directing this tally of the arFr. 144a., "the hoary head of riving contingents. Nestor," suggests that that individual may also have been a character in the play. · Possibly

REFERENCES: Radt 163 - 26,5 (previous

discussions

are

obsolete).

1. D. F. Sutton, 'J!heGreek Saty?t Play (Meisenheim am Glan, 1980) 56.

ACRISIUS

The existence of this play has been doubted. Some have thought that it was the same play as the La>!isaeoi,, while others have identified it with the Danae. But in of the present play and the face of seventeen citations six each of the Danae and the Lal'isaeoi such conjectures are hard to take seriously. Acrisius was the father of Danae, who received an oracle saying that he would be killed by his daughter's son. Thus he first shut her up in a brazen chamber and, when she became pregnant by Zeus ., cast her and the in-

fant Perseus on the sea in a chest. Nevertheless in later years he was accidentally killed by Perseus durin.g an athletic contest at Larissa. Since the episod.e of the chest was probably dramatized in the Danae a.n.d of Acrisius in the LaPisaei, the killing the common understanding is that the present play dealt with the earlier phases of the legend. Most of the fragments of the AoPisius consist of gnomic statements or items of merely lex.i.cographical interest. Fr. 64 appears to be addressed to Danae. Perhaps Acrisius or some other character, such as a Nurse, is urging her to bear the harsh treatment meted out by her father: Short and seemly speech should be addressed by the prudent to their parents. and begetters. This is esp•ecially so for a young girl Argive - born, for whom silence and few words is an ornament Fr. 67 is also Danae:

addressed

to a young person,

presumably

Oh child, is the sweetest prize of all. For it is not given to us to die twice Possibly this is a veiled threat against her life if she does not comply with Acrisius' wishes. However fr. 65 is add.ressed to a mature woman: courage, woman. Most of the terrors which the night blows at us are softened by the day Ribbeck thought that this might be a reference to a portentious dream of Danae or (as seems likelier) her mother. He points out that such a significant dream appears to be mentioned in Naevius' Danae (fr. ). The dream in question may have belonged to Danae's mother Eurydice: could it have been the portent that caused Acrisius • anxieties.? In any event, fr. 65 may well suggest that Eurydice was a character in the play. Fr. 66, "Nobody loves life like the aging," may allude to Acrisius' earnest intention to cheat the oracle. No other fragment particularly informative. In • 61 the chorus exclaims: somebody is crying out? Hey? Do you hear? or am I crying in vain? For the terrified man everything makes a noise 4.

Fr. fr.

62 asserts that "No lie 63 is a statement that:

survives

to old a.ge," and

It is clear. A runaway bound in chains, his leg ensna.red, says anything to please A recently published white - ground lekythos by the Achilles Painter seated on (ea. 450) shows Acrisius a tomb upon which is inscribed the name Perseus. The suggestion has been made that the present play may have it, especially as Sophocles represents Danae inspired as shut up in a tomb - like chamber at Antigone 948. It has also been suggested that this vase pro,vides a possible context for fr. 61: the chorus rema.rks on the anguished sounds emanating from the tomb and (in view of the sad or tormented appearance of Acrisius on the vase) their effects on him. Especially since both Sophocles and Euripides wrote Danae plays, Ribbeck's comparison of fr. 65 with Naevius' fr. 15 does not entitle us to conclude that the AoPisius was the Roman poet's model. REFERENCES:Welcker 1,348£., Pearson 1.36 - 46, Bates 16Sf., Radt 13,6 - 140; (for Naevius) Ribbeck 55 (for the vase) Ines Jucker in Studien SUP en Vaeennale.rei (Antike Kunst Beiheft 7, Berne, 1970) - 49 with Taf. 25, 26. LJIh14l'al48 •

• • •whence I saw Nysa, the famed island filled with bacchic revels for the sake of Man, which ox - tending Iacchus considers to be his dearest nurs,e; what bird does not make his music there (fr. 959) Cf. fr.

255 of one of the 1.fq/eet11eplays.

For it

is strange

how the bow slips (fr. 960,)

One thinks of the Odyseeys's Contest from the NiptJta? A

mortal

the Bow:

does not overleap

If you have acted you suffer

terribly,

the god's (fr. 961) terribly (fr.

The womanly men also practised (fr.

be

blow should

962) in speaking 963)

This is the gift of a god. Oh child,, you must never flee whatever the gods giva (fr. 964) Correctly I am called Odysseus. For many enemies have given me anguish Codysanto) (fr. 965) Whenever somebody sings at first it is sluggish,

174.

the Boeotian song, but the,n violent (fr. 966)

APPENDIX II

TOWARDSA CHRONOLOGY

SOPHOCLEANDRAMA

Just how little we know about the chronology of Sophocles' plays can be appreciated by comparing this information with tha.t available for Euripides. In absolute terms, we k.now the dates of no more than three plays (TPiptoZemus, Phi tes, Oedipus Cotoneus). Relatively speaking, the situation is better but still vague. We can say that a number of plays must have been produced before a given date, exact or at least approximate. Usually this date is established by an Aris:tophanic quotation or parody, or by the a.ppearance of vases that seem to take their inspiration from the play in ques.tion. But such information. still leaves a great deal of leeway inasmuch as there are instances in which a significant interval of time can be demonstrated between the production of a play and an of that play in art or literature. Thus, while it may be of some interest to know that a play was produced, say, before 425, there is often no way of telling how long before that date it may have appeared. Although evidence having a bearing on chronology has been examined the course of the text, it is worth collating and briefly swmnarizin.g all such evid.ence in order to build up, to the extent possible, a picture of the relative chronolo,gy of Sophocles• plays. And here, in order to achieve a.s complete a picture as possible, it a good idea to take into account the extant tragedies and also the satyr plays. Such an effort to build up a tentative picture of the chronology of Sophoclean drama is provided a framework by a passage from Plutsort of conceptual arch, Quomo Quis Suos in Virtute Sent t PPofeotus p.79b. [l] Plutarch cites a statement by Sophocles Aeschylus: then, according to which imitated one supposes reaction to this first period, he replaced Aeschylean floridity and bombast with a style of his own, "harsh and artificial"; finally he wrote in a superior manner in which the style was most suitable to the character of the speakers. Although this autobiographical statement appears to concern style predominantly, to some scholars it suggests the wider - ranging possibility that Sophocles' career "perio,ds. • For us the primary fell into distinct value of this pass.age is that plays which display marked Aeschylean traits can be regarded as early with a fair degree of confidence. Attention must be drawn to a previous attempt to investigate the chronology O•f Sophoclean drama, that of T. B. L. Webster. [2] While some of Webster's observa.tions are useful, and will be adopted here, this study is in general vitiated by unsound method. One cannot theorize that certain plays formed a tri177.

logy, and then. conclude that, since they belonged to a trilogy, they are theref'ore early. Obviously this approach smacks of circular reasoning. And yet to a large extent Webster's ideas about Sophoclean chronology are founded on just such dubious lo,gic and so are passed over in silence here. We may first consider the extant tragedies. The Aja: is shown to have been produced earlier than ea. 450 by a recently - published vase. [3] We know that the Phitootetes was produced in 409 and that the Oedlast years, proipus Colone.us was a work of the poet's The Antigone was written duced .. l?Osthumously. prior. to 441 [4J and the Oedipus Tyl'annus about a decade later. was probably written not much before or The Etsctra is considered to be a after 415 and the !'rachinias early play. [ 5] The reader, fairly however, must be warned that these assessmen.ts are by no means assured and that individual scholars have vigorously dissented from several of them. We may now summarize the chronological information for the lost tragedies. Aarisius: a vase of ea. 450 may be inspired by this play (or Danae?)

cf.

Aleadas:

the TelBphsia

below.

Andromeda: evid,ently inspired vases of ea. 450 - 440 and parodied. in a comedy that inspired a vase of 430 - 420. Second Athamas: of 4.23.

before

Chryses:

befo,re Aristophanes' Aristopha.nes•

BiPds

Clouds

of 414.

seems to have inspired a vase of 475 - 450; Webster noted a co,uple of •early• lexical items. [6]

Colchides:

Danae:

cf.

Epigonoi: 425. Eurypylus:

the Aar-isius possibly cf.

above.

inspired

the Tetepheia

vases

of 450 -

below.

Manteis: conceivably inspired a vase of 475 - 450 (more likely to be a,ssociated with Aeschylus).

178.

Nausicaa: inspired a vase of 450 - 440; sin.ce Sophocles acted in it, it may have been earlier. Riobe:

a possible reference to this play Wasps would set the at Aristo•phanes, date prio•r to 422, but cf. Radt 363.

Niptra: inspired a vase of 450 - 425; non - Attic monumental evidence may set the date earlier to 460 - 450. Odysseus AcanthopZe:e: use of trochaic tetrameters may indicate lateness (first used by Euripides in the Troades of 415). OecZes:

before

Aristophanes'

Knights

of 424.

Oenomaus: the onstage chariot and lexical features noted in the text suggest the early "A.eschylean" period, al though vases inspired by this play commence distinctly later. Pe.Zeus:

before

Phineus: vases one of the istae but iated with Poimenes:

Aristophanes'

Knights

of 424.

of 470 - 450 could reflect Phineus plays or the Tympanmore likely ought to be assocAeschylus.

before

456.

Polyzena: the visual spectacle of the ghost's apparition perhaps suggests an early date. Prooris:

inspired

a vase

Tereus: inspired vases duced in any event Birds of 414.

produced of 423.

Teuoer:

before

of 450 - 425.

430 - 420; probefore Aristophanes'

of

Aristophanes•

Clouds

The Telepheia (Ateadae., Eui-ypyZus., Nyaoi): one would probably expect a Sophoclean trilogy to be early, quite likely belonging to the "Aeschylean" period. 179.

This susp1c1on receives at least partial confirmation. Webster finds "early" lexical items in the A'teadae [7] an.d Eu:Pypylus [8] and also thinks the long, florid lamentations in the Eul'ypylus suggestive of that period. Thamyras: inspired vases commencing 450 440; since Sophocles acted in i.t, it was presumably early. Tri._ptolemus: Tyz-o:

evidently

produced

in 468.

the Second ~y,.-o was produced before Aristophanes' Bi'l'ds of 414; there is also an allusion to one of these plays in the LysistPata of 411.

In the same· way,. we may consider

the satyr

plays.

Dion.ysiscus: two vases by the Villa Giulia Painter of 460 - 450 are the earliest to reflect this play: the calyx krater in the Moscow Historical Museum (Beazley, Attic Red - PiguPsd Vasss 2 618, 4) and the bell krater London E 492 (ib. 619, 16). Iambs:

the volute krater Ferrara T 579 (ea. 450) listed by Webster 150 was very likely inspired by this play. [9]

Ichneutas: on the basis o,f internal indicati.~ ...ons.. i.t h.as been a.rgued tha. t thi···s elay was produced in the mid - 440's. [l0J

although vases reflecting this play commence only later in the fifth century, numerous Aeschylean vocabulary items, florid imagery, and the general thrust of the play strongly sug9est.· the early "Aeschylean" period. Lll]

Inachus:

inscriptional evidence discussed in connection with the [Bacchae] shows that this play was produced prior to 456.

Kophoi:

PandoPa op Sphyrokopoi: 180.

the krater

Oxford

G (V) 525 of ea. 450 illustrates this play. Other vases of the mid - fifth century listed by Webster 151 illustrate ei.ther this play or the Iambs.

The results of these investigations can be summarized in chronological order. Extant plays are given in capital letters and satyr plays are indicated by (s).

468:

PPiptotemus

"Aeschylean"

period:

Probably

early:

By 456:

Kophoi (?) Poimenss

By ea.

450:

(s) Oenomaus PhPyges (?) The Tetspheia: Ateadae Euztypytus Mysoi Inaohus

Nausicaa Polyzena Thamyras

Acrisius (or Danae?) AJAX Colohides (s) Dionysiseus Iambe (s), Manteis (?) Niptl'a

( ?)

or Tympani.stae (?) Pandoz-a oz- Sphyrokopoi (s) A. Phineus

By 450 - 440:

By 450 - 425:

AndPomeda ANTIGONE Ichneutae (s) (Nausioaa~ ThamyPas if

Epigonoi (Niptra if not earlier) OEDIPUS TYRANNUS Pl'ocris

181.

not earlierj

Tersus

By 430 - 420:

By 424:

OeoZea Petsus

By 423:

Ssoond Athamas feuoer

By 422:

Riobe

By 414:

Chryses Tyro

(?)

(Minos in same set?)

in this area) (Odysseus Acanthopts~ in this

(ELECTRA

409:

PHILOC'l'ETES

Posthumous:

OEDIPUS'COLONEUS

182.

area?)

L To the references, pertinent to this p,assage given by A. A. Long, Language and f!hought in Sophocles (London, 1968) 4

n.11 must be added Wilamowitz' observation at Hemes 40 (1905) 150f. The most important study is Sir Maurice Bowra, "Sophocles on his own Development," Amenoan Jou:mat of Philology 61 (1940) 385 - 401 • Fztoblems in GNek Poetry (Oxford, 1953) Ch. VII. 2. An Introduotian

(London, 1936) 172 - 178 •

to Sop1tooles

.3. By I