Tragic Papyri: Aeschylus' ›Theoroi‹, ›Hypsipyle‹, ›Laïos‹, ›Prometheus Pyrkaeus‹ and Sophocles' ›Inachos‹ 9783110796605, 9783110796483, 9783110796698, 2022939845

Citation preview

Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou Tragic Papyri

Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes

Edited by Franco Montanari and Antonios Rengakos Associate Editors Stavros Frangoulidis · Fausto Montana · Lara Pagani Serena Perrone · Evina Sistakou · Christos Tsagalis Scientific Committee Alberto Bernabé · Margarethe Billerbeck Claude Calame · Kathleen Coleman · Jonas Grethlein Philip R. Hardie · Stephen J. Harrison · Stephen Hinds Richard Hunter · Giuseppe Mastromarco Gregory Nagy · Theodore D. Papanghelis Giusto Picone · Alessandro Schiesaro Tim Whitmarsh · Bernhard Zimmermann

Volume 135

Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou

Tragic Papyri

Aeschylus’ Theoroi, Hypsipyle, Laïos, Prometheus Pyrkaeus and Sophocles’ Inachos

ISBN 978-3-11-079648-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-079660-5 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-079669-8 ISSN 1868-4785 Library of Congress Control Number: 2022939845 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Editorial Office: Alessia Ferreccio and Katerina Zianna Logo: Christopher Schneider, Laufen Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Preface Five lost Greek plays, four by Aeschylus and one by Sophocles, relics of which have survived in papyri, are treated in this book. The five chapters it is composed of were initially written separately, sometimes at long time distance from each other and for different destinations, thus being dissimilar in their structure. In order to retain their original conception, but mainly for saving time, I preferred to leave the chapters as they were written. I hope the nonuniformity will not incommode the reader. My scope was not to confine myself to some variant readings or supplements, or even to different joinings and alteration of the fragments’ order, but, aided by these proposals, to approach the plays, so far as possible, in their entirety. Especially, my engagement in Aeschylus’ Theoroi or Isthmiastai was more elaborate and extensive, and this explains the appendixes added at the end. Papyrological studies are unfortunately subject to the charge of tediousness, because of the necessary technical details they unavoidably incorporate. My attempt was to limit the immaterial details and insist on specifics that may assist in gaining an image, as complete as possible, of the play discussed. My aspiration, I do not know to what extent fulfilled, was that the new text of the plays would make up for any annoying technicalities. It is the same wish to satisfy the discerning reader that motivated me to proceed at times beyond the confines of a typical conservative edition and make some bold proposals, yet always indicating that they are made exempli gratia. I have largely profited by discussing, time and again, several problems, mainly of the Aeschylean satyr-play, with G.M. Sifakis and †D. Jakob. G.M. Parássoglou generously gave me the benefit of his advice on several questions of papyrological and palaeographic interest. M. Tiverios and Emm. Voutiras have given me unstintingly of their archaeological knowledge and their time. Sotiris Tselikas has been, as always, an invaluable assistance. He not only checked my oversights by detecting errors and inconsistencies, but also updated and supplemented bibliographic references, compiled the Index, and made numerous additional original suggestions. Finally, my thanks are due to Antonios Rengakos for his unfailing trust in his old colleague’s faculties. To each and all I sincerely wish to express my gratitude. Errors and inconsistencies that have undeniably remained are all my fault. It was to my colleague and friend Nikos Hourmouziades that I had planned to dedicate this book. Apart from the constant help I have drawn from his stimulating, not yet deservedly appreciated, book Σατυρικά, he read my typescript of Aeschylus’ Theoroi and, with his deep stage sensitivity, saved me from many

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-202

VI  Preface blunders. Regrettably, after his demise in October 2013, I can only dedicate it to his memory: ἦ κάρτ᾽ ὀφείλω τῶνδέ σοι. K. Ts. Thessaloniki, 2021

Contents Preface  V List of Figures  IX 

Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai  1 Introduction  1 Text  5 Commentary  13 Appendix  90 Happy ending  90 Dramatic date  91 Tetralogy  93 Dating  96 Drama history  102 P.Oxy. 2250  104 Translation  106



Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  111



Aeschylus’ Laïos  155



Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus  179 The Fragments – Commentary  179 Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  210 Ἀνθεστήρια, Ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια, Ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσιον  211 Topography, Ηieron of Horae, τὰ Ἴκρια  215 Date of the Promethean tetralogy  224



Sophocles’ Inachos  228 Commentary  237 Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  286

Bibliography  311 General Index  327 Greek Index  333

List of Figures Fig. 1: Fig. 2: Fig. 3: Fig. 4: Fig. 5: Fig. 6: Fig. 7: Fig. 8:

Hector putting his armor on, surrounded by Priam and Hecuba. Attic red-figure amphora by Euthymides, ca. 510 BC. Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2307.  58 Warrior putting his armor on. Attic red-figure amphora by Euthymides, ca. 510 BC. Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2308.  59 Achilles and Ajax playing a game. Black-figure amphora by Exekias, ca.540–530. Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco 16757.  59 Warrior. Plaque from the Acropolis related to Euthymides. Athens, Acropolis Coll. 1037.  60 Hera suckling Heracles: Apulian red-figure squat lekythos by the Suckling Painter; British Museum F107, mid 4th century.  118 POxy. 2256 frs. 9 a and 9 b = Aesch. frs. 281a + 281b, lines 31–41.  120 Kabeiros and Pais. Fragment of a skyphos from the Theban Kabeirion. Athens, NM 10426, c. 420 BCE.  129 POxy. 2256 frs. 2, 4, 1, 6, 8 = TrGF III, T 586 + F451v (+ p. 231) + 451s6 + 451n.  178

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-204

 Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai Introduction Our knowledge about Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί, formerly confined to its title in the Mediceus list and four short book fragments, has been considerably expanded in 1941 when E. Lobel published P.Oxy. 2162. The papyrus, dated in the 2nd century of our era, was written by the same hand that is credited with the writing of a number of papyrus fragments attributed, with more or less certainty, also to Aeschylus.1 It consists of four fragments: 78a–d, in the numeration of Stefan Radt, TrGF 3. Each of the two larger pieces, 78a and 78c, contains two columns of text: 78a a complete column and the lower part of the next one, and 78c the upper part of a column and the greatest part of the next one. Lobel remarked that, though it is not suggested by the appearance of the papyrus, he cannot exclude the possibility that the two fragments overlap each other, forming three columns in all, the middle one having its lower part in 78a and its upper part in 78c. Lobel᾽s remark has been adopted by Snell, who was the first to publish the text united in three columns.2 He was followed by Lloyd-Jones with some reserve,3 Steffen,4 Mette,5 Werner,6 and Sommerstein,7 who published the text accordingly. 78b is a small fragment that preserves from one to three syllables per line near the end of ten iambic verses, most probably trimeters. Lobel places it in the right-hand part of col. ii of fr. 78a, in the gap between lines a.36 and a.61. Ferrari, adopting a previous proposal by Mette, placed 78b in the gap between 78c col. i and 78a col. ii, thus forming a single column of 35 lines.8 Fr. 78d is a tiny piece containing no more than ten letters in all, divided in four lines. Lobel believes that it comes from the neighbourhood of 78c. Finally, the writing of fr. 451m 4 (P.Oxy. 2255 fr. 4), which Lobel likened to that of the Theoroi papyrus (“Like 2162 (Theori) but larger”), is really large to suggest any likeness to it.9  1 P.Oxy. 2159–64, 2178–9, 2245–55, P.S.I. 1208–10, 1472 = (not in the same order) fr. 25c–e, 36, 36a–b, 46a–b, 47a–c, 78a–d, 131, 132a–b, 154a, 168, 168a–b, 204a–d, 451c–m, 451x, Ag. 7–17, 20–30, Sept. 155–164. 2 Snell 1956 = Snell 1966. 3 Lloyd-Jones 1957, 541–556. 4 Steffen 1958, 67 ff. 5 Mette 1959, frs. 15–23. 6 Werner 21969, 648–657 (frs. 201–203). 7 Sommerstein 2008, 82 ff. 8 Ferrari 2013. 9 ]τουθο̣[ , probably ]τοῦθ᾽ ὅ[περ ; cf. PV 625. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-001

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai Radt published the fragments in the Aeschylus volume of TrGF in the arrangement of Lobel’s Oxyrhynchus edition, and so did also J. Diggle and C. Collard.10 Lately, however, W.B. Henry and R. Nünlist returned to the overlap theory.11 Concerning the physical state of fr. 78c col. i in relation to 78a col. ii, they assure that “the cross-fibres match perfectly, and the edge of a kollesis is visible on the backs of both pieces (at καΚαιc in 43 Snell [fr. 78c i.7], cιδΗρι in 67 Snell [fr. 78a ii.31], etc.” Without an autopsy, I have no right to dispute their findings, but it must be conceded that matching cross-fibres after a gap of 3–7 cm., as is the case here, especially when one of the matching parts (78c i) is completely ragged, is very risky. The coincident kolleseis, only partly visible in Lobel’s plates, constitute a serious argument, but the fact that both kolleseis appear c. 5 cm. after the left-hand edge of a column — the one existent (78a ii), the other reconstructed (78c i) — does not compel assuming that they belong to the same column. In the meantime, Prof. Nikolaos Gonis, independently and with Dr. R.A. Coles, both of whom I wish to thank heartily, were kind enough to inspect P.Oxy. 2162 on my behalf. I quote from Dr Gonis’s e-mail of 6 June 2003 to my colleague G.M. Parássoglou: “Sheet-joins did eventually become visible on the backs of the two fragments (Revel [Dr Coles] and I discussed this point at length) — their current arrangement in the frame reflects this. Now, whether we have the same sheet-join or two different ones, I can’t tell. The surface is quite damaged, and so far as I can see no argument can be made from the ‘crossfibres’. But the most economical hypothesis is the one put forward by Henry & Nünlist, backed by Coles.” The sheet-joins are now visible, no doubt hardly, even on the front of the fragments, in the excellent photographs of the Oxyrhynchus Online website. I must admit that measurements, in order to be effective, presuppose a certain regularity. However, in papyrus roll fragments, it is not necessary for either the sheets or the columns or the papyrus pieces to be of respectively equal sizes,12 a fact that often leads measurements to a complete chaos. Nevertheless, even in such cases, measurements should not be discouraged. My own detailed calculations will be set forth in the introductory passage to the commentary of fr. 78a, pp. 49–50 below, but, before that, I would wish to remark, that in the

 10 TrGF 1985 (²2009), vol. ΙΙΙ; Diggle 1998, 11–15; C. Collard in O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 266–281. 11 Henry/Nünlist 2000, 14 f. The authors thank R.A. Coles for advice and technical assistance. It is interesting that Coles disputes Lobel’s suggestions regarding the position or the neighbourhood of fr. 78b and 78d. 12 Turner 1980, 5, 173, concerning the size of the sheets.

Introduction  

overlapping arrangement of the fragments, with the two kolleseis placed in alignment, although the first and the third column clearly observe Maas’s law, the second, where the kolleseis are found, does not. Maas’s law is the practically typical phenomenon whereby the scribe, writing towards the bottom of the column, starts every line further to the left, thus producing a slanting left-hand margin. Actually, in the large fragments of our papyrus, the distance from the existent or surely restored left-hand column edge to the sheet-join in the second column is, contrary to Maas’s law, longer by c. 1 mm in the upper part of the column (καΚαιc) than in the lower (cιδΗρι), whereas, in the other two columns, the respective distance from an imaginary perpendicular starting from the first letter of the first line is longer by 5–7 mm in the lower part than the upper. If Maas’s law were to be observed in the second column too, then the kolleseis would not align. In any case, I still believe that internal examination seems to be more secure, at least in this papyrus. Be that as it may, the question whether the two fragments overlap each other or not does not affect the development of the action of the play as set out by Lobel. If it has any effect at all, it is on the length of the gap between the two fragments. Much more serious is the question concerning the order of the two fragments, a question never discussed because of Lobel᾽s emphatic assertion that 78a precedes 78c. Lobel᾽s arguments were not technical or palaeographic. His reasoning depended on the sequence of some events in the action of the play. Therefore, before considering the matter, we should first try a telegraphic summary of the surviving part of the play. The Satyrs, for some unspecified reason, run away from Dionysus, their patron, travel as theoroi to the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia, and prepare to participate in the athletic contest there. They are discovered by characters of Dionysus᾽ entourage, with whom they have angry confrontations, whereas they are friendly approached by another character. During the action they are offered several sets of gifts, other of which they accept and other they decline. One of these sets consists of likenesses of themselves, which they hang in front of the temple of Poseidon. Lobel stated his opinion about the order of the fragments as follows (p. 14): “Since in fr. 1 (a), col. i [= 78a] this character [see below] is outside the temple of Poseidon whereas in fr. 2 (a), col. ii [= 78c], it appears to have taken refuge within it, we must infer that fr. 1 (a) [= 78a] precedes fr. 2 (a) [= 78c].” This is, however, a very weak argument. In fr. 78a a character, in Lobel᾽s view Silenus or, as I believe, the Chorus-leader, really indicates that the Satyrs, whom he addresses, are outside the temple of Poseidon (a.18 σκοπεῖτε δῶμα ποντίου σεισίχθονος). But when, in fr. 78c, in a lyrical part unanimously attributed to the Chorus, the Sa-

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai tyrs declare: c.43–44 ἀλλ᾽ οὔποτ᾽ ἔξειμ᾽ ἐ[γὼ | τοῦ ἱεροῦ, by no means does this mean that the Satyrs have taken refuge within the temple, an act that would anyway be, from a production point of view, both unparalleled and difficult to perform. The Chorus are, most likely throughout the play, in front of the temple of Isthmius Poseidon, which naturally was inside the sanctuary of the god at Isthmia. It is this sanctuary and not the temple that the Satyrs declare they will never leave. Unfortunately, not only has Lobel᾽s argument been accepted incontestably, but has also inspired several supplements and interpretations that entirely neglect the possibilities and conventions of Greek theatre. On the other hand, there are some events in the play which presuppose the opposite order. In fr. 78a a character (in my view, Poseidon) has finished offering some articles to the Satyrs, and exits receiving their thanks. In fr. 78c a character (in my view, the same one as before) starts offering some articles to the Satyrs, which they, with some hesitation at first, accept. Also, in fr. 78a a character (in the view of many scholars, Dionysus), in order to punish the defected Satyrs, commands another character (in my view, Silenus) to withhold the gifts and not give them to the Satyrs. In fr. 78c Silenus offers or, at least, shows to the Satyrs some articles, which they decline telling him ironically to send them as presents to someone else. It is obvious, I believe, that there is a proton hysteron in the sequence of the acts of the several ‘donors’. Furthermore, in fr. 78a Dionysus reproaches the Satyrs for having learnt τρόπους καινούς. In fr. 78c the character, whom I identify as Poseidon, brings the articles to the Satyrs, because they wish τὰ καινὰ ταῦτα μανθάνειν. The only possible inference is that Lobel put the fragments in the wrong order, and that 78c precedes 78a. It is only natural that the new order would shed a different light on the interpretation of several important issues of the play. One of them is the number and the nature of the gifts or rather of the groups of gifts. I shall discuss this point in detail while commenting upon the relevant verses, but it is useful to indicate in advance that (a) the groups of gifts to the Satyrs are two and not three, as believed hitherto, one offered by Silenus and one by Poseidon, and (b) the gifts of Poseidon are shields for competing in the armed race of the Isthmia; the devices painted upon the shields were satyr portraits. Since, apart from reversing the order of the papyrus fragments, I also propose a number of different readings, supplements, and interpretations, I thought it worthwhile to publish the new text with a short apparatus criticus (where I must acknowledge my debt to Radt᾽s edition) and a detailed commentary, and to append some further details concerning general topics of the play, such as the reconstruction of the action in its lost part, especially its end, the date of the play, the tetralogy to which it belongs, the possible allusions to the

Text  

history of the genre and other related issues. For obvious reasons the fragments are published and commented on in the order 78c, 78a, 78b, 78d, 79, 80, and so forth. References to the lines of the papyrus fragments are always made by prefixing the relevant letter: a.18, c.39.

Text Fr. 78c R. Σι. Χο. Σι. Χο. Σι. Χο. Σι. Χο. Σι. Χο. Σι. Χο. Σι. Χο.

σέβειν] ἔ̣̣ν̣ο̣ρκόν ἐστί σο[ι] κα[ὶ σω]φρ̣ονεῖν. κακὸς] κ̣α̣κῶς ὄλοιο, καὶ τρέχ̣ων̣ [κ]ί ̣ε. . . . . .] ̣ ̣ ̣λ̣᾽ ἴηι σοι πρὶν̣ τ̣[.] ̣[ca. 6 litt.] ̣ν̣ ἐᾶ̣ν. . . . . .]ι[.]ον ὄντως· ἦ [̣ δὶς δ]ο̣ῦ̣λον ἢ τρίδουλ[ον ἅν]αξ δίκα[ιος], ὥ[σ]θ᾽ ἓν ἀ[πονε]μ[εῖ] σ̣τέ̣ ̣γο̣ς̣. κακ]ῶι τε κο̣ί[ τ]ωι καὶ κακαῖς δ[υσ]αυ̣λ̣ίαις. ἵξ]ει παλαιοῦ̣ το̣ῦδ̣ ̣᾽ ἐνοικτ{ε}ι ̣ρ̣ε̣[ῖ χορο]ῦ̣. ἐγ]ὼ δὲ π[ά]ν̣[τ]ας πολυπό̣νου̣[ς ἐπόψομα]ι . φ]ε̣ύγων [ἀγῶ]ν̣α̣ τόνδ᾽ [. .] ̣[ π]ότερα παθών τι δε[ινὸν ἢ δράσας φοβεῖ; πο]ῦ πολλὰ δράσας, ὥ[στε καὶ ποινὴν τίνειν; ὢ ε]ἶα θαρσῶν λέξ[ον ὅ τι μέλλεις ποεῖν. ἐν τ]ῶι ἱερῶι μεν[οῦμεν, οὐ φευξούμεθα. ] ̣[ ̣ ̣]cτ[ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ]ν ̣[

col. i

5

10

15

(desunt versus 20)

(Σι.) κοὐδεὶς παλαιῶν οὐδὲ τῶν νεωτέρω[ν ἑκὼν ἄπεστι τῶνδε διστοίχω[ν χορῶν. σὺ δ᾽ ἰσθμιάζεις καὶ πίτυος ἐστ[εμμένος κλάδοισι, κισσοῦ̣ δ᾽ οὐ̣δ[α]μοῦ τιμὴ[ν λέγεις. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν δακρύσεις οὐ κ̣απνῶ[ι γ᾽ ὥσπερ πάρος. παρόντα δ᾽ ἐγγὺς οὐχ ὁρ̣ᾶι̣ ς τἀ[κπώματα; Χο.

ἀλλ᾽ οὔποτ᾽ ἔξειμ᾽ ἐ[γὼ τοῦ ἱεροῦ· καὶ τί μοι  ταῦτ᾽ ἀπειλεῖς ἔχ̣[ων;

col. ii

40

ia ‸ia | 2 ‸ia | 2 ‸ia |

45

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai Ἴσθμιον ἀντε[κκαλῶ Ποσειδᾶν᾽ ὅσο[ν τάχος. σὺ δ᾽ ἄλλοις ταῦτ[α π]έμπε [δῶρα. Πο.

Σι. Πο. Χο. Πο. Χο. Πο. Χο. Πο.

ἐ̣π̣ε̣[ὶ τ]ὰ̣ καινὰ ταῦτα μα̣[νθά]νειν φιλεῖ[ς, ἐγὼ [φέ]ρ̣ω σοι νεοχμὰ [δεῦρ᾽] ἀθύρματα̣ ἀπὸ [σκε]πάρνου κἄκμ[ονος ν]εόκτ[ιτα. τουτ[ὶ τὸ] πρῶτόν ἐστί σοι τ[ῶ]ν παιγ[νίω]ν. ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐχί· τῶν φίλων νεῖμόν τινι. μὴ ἄπειπε μηδ᾽, ὄρνιθος οὕνεκ᾽, εἴργαθε. τί δὴ γανοῦσθαι τοῦτο; καὶ τί χρήσομαι; ἥνπερ μεθεῖλ[ες τὴ]ν τέχνην, ταύτη[ι] πρέπ[ει. τί δ[ρ]ᾶ̣ν; τί ποιεῖν; [τοὐ]πίπλουν μοὐ[χ] ἁνδάν[ει. ξυνισθμιάζειν [ἐστὶν] ἐμμελέστατον. φέρω[ ca. 16 litt. ] ἐμβήσεται; ἐπισ[ ca. 16 litt. ] βάδην ἐλ[ᾶ]ις. ̣ ]̣ ει[ ca. 16 litt. ] [̣ ̣]φέ̣ρων σφυρά ̣ ]̣ cε[

2 ‸ia | ia‸ ia | ia‸ ith |||

50

55

60

(desunt versus 10 usque ad finem col. ii) Works cited in the apparatus criticus: A. Barigazzi, “Sui Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί di Eschilo”, ASNP 23 (1954) 338–343; R. Cantarella, I nuovi frammenti eschilei di Ossirinco, Napoli 1948, 71–99; E. Fraenkel, “Aeschylus: new texts and old problems”, PBA 28 (1942) 237–258; F.C. Görschen, “Zu Aischylos’ Satyrdrama der Theoroi ē Isthmiastai”, Dioniso 17 (1954) 3–21; M. Gronewald, “Zu Aischylos’ Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί,” ZPE 19 (1975) 99–100; W.B. Henry & R. Nünlist, “Aeschylus, Dictyulci (fr. 47a) and Isthmiastae (fr. 78a–d)”, ZPE 129 (2000) 13–16; N.H. Hourmouziades, Σατυρικά, Athens 1974; J.C. Kamerbeek, “Adnotationes ad Aeschyli Isthmiastas (Ox. P. 2162)”, Mnemosyne 8 (1955) 1–13; H. Lloyd-Jones, “Appendix”, in Aeschylus, vol. II, ed. H.W. Smyth, London 1957; E. Lobel, “P.Oxy, 2162”, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 18, London 1941; H.J. Mette, Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos, Berlin 1959; H.J. Mette, Nachtrag zum Supplementum Aeschyleum, Berlin 1949; S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 3, Aeschylus, Göttingen 1985; K. Reinhardt, “Vorschläge zum neuen Aischylos”, Hermes 85 (1957) 1–17; A. Setti, ‘Eschilo satirico II”, ASNP 21 (1952) 205–244 (= Eschilo Satirico ed altri saggi, Roma 1981, 69–123); E. Siegmann, “Die neuen Aischylos-Bruchstücke”, Philologus 97 (1948) 58–124; B. Snell, “Aischylos’ Isthmiastae”, Hermes 84 (1956), 1–11 (= Gesammelte Schriften, Göttingen 1966, 164–175); V. Steffen, Satyrographorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Poznan 1952; V. Steffen, Studia Aeschylea, praecipue ad deperditarum fabularum pertinentia, Wroclaw 1958, 67 ff.; A Tovar, “The Oxyrhynchus Papyri”, Emerita 11 (1943) 435 ff.; Μ. Untersteiner, “La tetralogia eschilea degli ‘Eolidi’. Parte seconda: i Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί”, Dioniso 14 (1951) 19– 45; O. Werner, Aischylos. Tragödien und Fragmente, Tusculum-Bücherei, München 21969; R.P. Winnington-Ingram, “The LOEB Aeschylus”, CR 73 (1959) 239–241.

Text  

c.1–14 Stichomythiam statuit et personis attribuit Ts. 1 σέβειν] (etiam εἴκειν, κλύειν, μένειν, νήφειν possis) Ts. | ἔνορκον post Kamerbeek legit Radt | κα[ὶ σω]φρονεῖν Ts.; κἀ[μοὶ] φρονεῖν post Lobel suppl. Mette (Nachtr.); postea κα[κῶς] φρονεῖν 2 κακὸς] (εἰ γὰρ minus probabile) Ts. | καὶ τ̣ ̣ε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ε Lobel, Radt; τιε vel τρε, postea ιο vel ιc Lobel; καὶ τρέχ̣ων ̣ [κ]ίε Ts. 3 ἐ]ά̣ν̣ [με] Mette | χρῆι leg. Snell, Mette; πότερ]ά̣ μ̣ε̣ χρῆι σοι Henry-Nünlist, ] ̣ ̣ ̣λ̣᾽ ἴηι σοι Ts. | πρὸ̣ς̣ τ̣ά̣δ̣᾽ Henry-Nünlist, πρὶν̣ τ̣[ Ts. | ἔπη leg. Coles ap. Henry-Nünlist, ἐᾶ̣ν Ts. (fort. scriptum ἐᾶ̣ιν) 4 ὄντως Cantarella | ῆ pap.; ἦ certe | ̣[ : π vel τ | ἦ π[ρόφρων φιλεῖ μ᾽ ἄναξ e.g. Ts. 5 δὶς δ]οῦλον vel δίσδ]ουλον Ts.; δίδ]ουλον iam Steffen, δοῦλον ἢ τρίδουλον Cantarella, al. | in fine versus e.g. οὐ στέργει (vel φιλεῖ / ξενοῖ) θεός vel οὐ ξενώσεται 6 ἅν]αξ Ts.; ἄν]αξ iam Kamerbeek | δίκα[ιος] Snell | ]ω[ potius quam ]ο[ | ὥ[σ]θ᾽ ἓν ἀ[πονε]μ[εῖ] στέγος Ts. post Mette (κοὔποτ᾽ ἦσθ᾽ ἄν]αξ δίκα[ιος] ὥ[σ]θ᾽ ἓν ἀ[πονεῖ]μ[αι μόνον) 7 κακ]ῶι Cantarella, σκληρ]ῶι Setti, σπαρν]ῶι Diggle 8 omnia praeter παλαιοῦ τοῦδ᾽ Ts. | τουδ᾽ pap.? | αἰ]εὶ (hoc Snell) παλαίοντ᾽ οὐδὲν οἰκτ{ε}ίρε[ις ἐμ]έ Henry-Nünlist | an ἐνοικτείρ̣ε̣[ι θεό]ς̣? 9 ἐγ]ὼ δὲ Snell | πολυπ[ό]νου[ς HenryNünlist | ἐπόψομα]ι vel ἐσόψ- Ts. 10 [ἀγῶ]να Ts.; cetera Cantarella | τονδ᾽ pap. | ] ̣[: linea verticalis; fort. η 11 π]ότερα Fraenkel, Cantarella | παθών τι Cantarella | δε[ινὸν Fraenkel, Mette | cetera Ts. 12 πο]ῦ Ts., κο]ὐ Snell fort. recte | finem versus e.g. Ts. coll. Soph. Aj. 1325 ὥστε καὶ βλάβην ἔχειν; 13 ὢ vel ἄγ᾽ Ts. | ε]ἶα Kamerbeek (ε]ἷα Radt) | λέξ[ον Kamerbeek | finem versus e.g. Ts. 14 ἐν τ]ῶι Setti, Kamerbeek | μεν[οῦμεν Kamerbeek | finem versus e.g. Ts. 38 finem versus Lobel 39 ἐστ[εμμένος Lobel 40 καλλοιcι pap.; corr. Lobel | λέγεις Ts., alii alia 41 finem versus e.g. Ts.; δεδηγμένος Kamerbeek, Maas ap. Lloyd-Jones, τέγγων (vel δεύων) φάη Kamerbeek, δηχθεὶς μόνον Snell 42 τἀ[κπώματα vel τὰ [τεύχεα vel τὰ [τρύβλια Ts.; possis etiam τὰ [παίγνια vel τὰ [δῶρά σοι; τἀ[θύρματα Steffen, τἄ[ποινα σοῦ Kamerbeek, τὰ [φίλτατα Lloyd-Jones; alii contra τα[ράγματα Fraenkel, τὰ [δεινά σοι vel τὰ [ποίνιμα Kamerbeek, τὰ [δεσμά σοι Reinhardt 43 ἐ[γώ Mette, ἑ[κών Cantarella 45 ἔχ[ων; Kamerbeek 46 ἀντε[κκαλῶ Ts.; ἀντε[σκαλῶ vel ἀντε[πάξω vel ἄντε[σθαι θέλω Kamerbeek; ἀντε[ισέρχομαι Snell 47 ὅσο[ν σθένω (cf. Soph. El. 946, Tr. 927, Ph. 1403) vel (potius?) ὅσο[ν τάχος Ts.; Ποσειδᾶν᾽ ὃς ο[ἰκτιρεῖ vel ὃς ο[ὔ σοί με δώσει vel ὃς ο[ὔ με προδώσει Kamerbeek; Ποσειδᾶνος ο[ἶκον Snell 48 suppl. Snell 49 ἐπε[ὶ τ]ὰ Barigazzi, Snell | μα[νθά]νειν φιλεῖ[ς Setti, Snell 50 φέ]ρω : ]ροι a.c., ]ρω p.c. pap. | [δεῦρ᾽] Kamerbeek, [ταῦτ᾽] Snell, [τῆιδ᾽] vel [κάρτ᾽] Reinhardt, [πόλλ᾽] Steffen 51 θ]εόκτιτα Kamerbeek 52 τουτ[ὶ τὸ] Fraenkel, Siegmann | τ[ῶ]ν παιγ[νίω]ν Siegmann 53 Sileno tribuit Ts. | νιμον pap. 54 ορνειθοc pap. | ὠγαθέ pap.; corr. Ts. 55 δὴ pap. recte; δεῖ Lloyd-Jones 56 μεθεῖλ[ες Lobel, μεθείλ[ου Kamerbeek, μεθεῖλ[ον Steffen | πρέπ[ει Kamerbeek, Page ap. Lloyd-Jones, πρέπ[ε vel πρέπ[ειν Lobel, πρέπ[ων Cantarella 57 τί δ[ρ]ᾶ̣ν, τί ποιεῖν legg. et suppl. Henry & Nünlist; τί δ᾽ ἀ̣ντιποιεῖν Lobel | ]τιπλουν leg. Lobel, [δόν]τι πλοῦν supplens, τί δ᾽ ἀντιποιεῖν [σ᾽ ἀν]τίπλουν μοὐ[φ]ανδάνει; Steffen; ]πιπλουν legg. Henry & Nünlist, [τοὐ]πίπλουν supplentes | μοὐ[φ]ανδάν[ει Lobel, μ᾽ οὐ[χ] (sic) ἁνδάν[ει reiciens, μοὐ[χ] ἁνδάν[ει Kamerbeek, Reinhardt, Mette 58 [ἐστὶν] Cantarella; [πᾶσιν] Snell, [, ἔργον] Lloyd-Jones, [ἅρματ᾽] Reinhardt, [οἷον] Fraenkel, [γ᾽ οἷον] vel [γ᾽ ὑμὶν] Radt 59 φέρω[ν τόδ᾽ ἄχθος πῶς τις ὧδ᾽] ἐμβήσεται; e.g. Ts. (πῶς τις ὧδ᾽ Mette), φέρω[ν τάδ᾽ οὐδεὶς εἰς ἀγῶν᾽] ἐμβήσεται e.g. Snell, φέρ᾽ ὦ [᾽γαθ᾽ εἰπέ· πῶς τις ὧδ᾽] ἐμβήσεται; Mette, φέρ᾽, ὦ [φίλος, τίς τοῖσδ᾽ ἑκὼν] ἐμβήσεται; Werner 60 ἔπισ[χε (hoc iam Barigazzi) δή· δρόμωι γὰρ οὐ] βάδην ἐλ[ᾶ]ις e.g. Ts.; ἐπίσ[χες Setti, ἐπισ[χερὼ σὺ πρῶτα, σὺ δὲ] βάδην ἐλ[ᾶ]ις Reinhardt, ἐπισ[χερὼ μέν· εἰ δὲ μή,] βάδην ἐλ[ᾶ]ις Mette

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai Fr. 78a R. (Πο.)

Χο.

Πο. Χο.

ὁρῶντες εἰκοὺ[ς] οὐ κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους [ὁρᾶν. ὅπηι δ᾽ ἂν ε[ἰ]δῆις, πάντα σοι τάδ᾽ εὐσεβῆ. — ἦ κάρτ᾽ ὀφείλω τῶνδέ σοι· πρόφρων γὰρ εἶ.

col. i

ἄκουε δὴ πᾶς. σῖγα δεῖ θα̣κ̣εῖν ἐ̣[μ]έ̣. ἄθρησον εἴπ[ε]ρ̣ δ̣ο̣κ̣[εῖς] ia ‸ia εἴδωλον εἶναι τοῦτ᾽ ἐμῆι μορφῆι πλέον τὸ Δαιδάλου μ[ί]μημα· φωνῆς δεῖ μόνον. – τάδ[ε] φ ̣έρ᾽ ὤ̣. ‸⏖ia | – ὅρμ̣[α χ]ώ̣ρ̣ε̣ι . 2 ‸ia‸ | – χώρει μά̣λα. ia ||| — εὐκταῖα κόσμον ταῦτ[α] τ̣ῶι θεῶι φέρω, καλλίγραπτον εὐχάν. ith |||

τῆι μητρὶ τἠμῆι πράγματ᾽ ἂν παρασχέθοι· {—} ἰδοῦσα γάρ νιν ἂν σαφῶς 2 ia τρέποιτ᾽ ἂν ἄξι᾽ ἅζοιτό θ᾽ ὡς ia δ (2 ia?) δ̣οκοῦσ᾽ ἔμ᾽ εἶναι, τὸν ἐξia ‸ia έθρεψεν· οὕτως ἐμφερὴς ὅδ᾽ ἐστίν. 2 ia ia‸ ||| εἶα δὴ σκοπεῖτε δῶμα ποντίου σεισίχθο[νος κἀπιπασσάλευ᾽ ἕκαστος τῆς κ[α]λῆς μορφῆς τ̣[ύπον, ἄγγελον, κήρυκ᾽ [ἄ]ναυλον, ἐμπόρων κωλύτορ[α, ὅ[σ]τ̣᾽ ἐπισχήσει κελεύθου τοὺς ξένο[υς] φό[βον πνέων. χαῖρ᾽, ἄναξ, χαῖρ᾽, ὦ Πόσειδον, ἐπίτροπο[ς σ]ὺ φ[ίλτερος.

5

10

15

20

—

ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΣ ἔμελλον εὑρήσειν ἄρ᾽ ὑμᾶς, ὠγαθο[ί. οὐ τοῦτ᾽ ἐρῶ σ᾽· ‘οὐ δῆλος ἦσθ᾽ ὁδοιπο[ρῶν’· αὐ[τὴ] κ̣έλευθος ταὐτά μοι προσεκ̣[βοᾶι· ὡς οὐχ] ὁρῶντα τούσδε πλησιοσφ[ύρους δίδαξέ] μ̣᾽ αὐτὰ καὶ σαφῶς ἡγεῖτό μο[ι. οὐκοῦν ἀλ]ή̣ται[ς] δῶ[ρα] μ̣ὴ̣ ᾽π̣[ι]δῶι πατ̣[ὴρ ὁρῶν μύουρα καὶ βραχέα τὰ̣ μ̣[ήδε]α

25

Text  

ὡς ἐξέτριβες, Ἰσθμιαστικὴν [χάρι]ν. κοὐκ ἠμέλησας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγύμναζ[ες κα]λῶς. εἰ δ᾽ οὖν ἐσώιζου τὴν πάλαι παρο̣[ιμία]ν̣, τοὔρχημα μᾶλλον εἰκὸς ἦν σε τ̣[ημελ]ε̣ῖν. σὺ δ᾽ ἰσθμ̣ιάζεις καὶ τρόπους και[νοὺς μ]α̣θὼν̣ βραχίο̣[ν᾽ ἀ]σ̣κ̣εῖς χρήματα φθείρων ἐμά. κτέα[να σὺ τρῖβ]ε ταῦτ᾽ ἐπι̯̣η̣ράνωι πόνωι 

30

35

col. ii

(desunt versus 24) (Δι.) ] ο ̣ υ[ ]ντο[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ δηδ ̣[ σάκει καλύψας [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]εν[ σπείρεις δὲ μῦθον τ[ό]νδε μ[οχθηρὸν μάλα καὶ ῥῆμ᾽ ἀτίζεις εἰς ἔμ᾽ ἐ̣κ̣τρέ̣π̣[ων κακόν, ὡς οὐδέν εἰμι τὴν σιδηρῖτι[ν τέχνην, γύννις δ᾽ ἄναλκις, οὐδ̣᾽ ἐν εἵμα[σίν γ᾽ ἀνήρ. καὶ νῦν τάδ᾽ ἄλλα καὶ ποταίν[ι᾽ ἐκπονεῖς, ἔχθιστα πάντων τῶ[ν πάροιθ᾽ ὑβρισμάτων, πλύνεις τ᾽ ἔμ᾽ αὐτὸν [τήν τ᾽ ἐμὴν πανήγυριν, ἐφ᾽ ἣν ἀγείρω πλ[ῆθος ἀνθρώπων τόσον ............................

65

70

a.1 suppl. Ts.; alii, cum ἀνθρώπους: [φέρειν Cantarella, [βλέπειν vel [ἰδεῖν Görschen, [φυήν Kamerbeek, [σέθεν Reinhardt, ‘wrought by superhuman skill’, i.e. [ποεῖν Lloyd-Jones; cum ἀνθρώπου: σ[τολήν vel σ[αγήν Kamerbeek, σ[τάσιν vel σ[χέσιν Hourmouziades 2 οπηδ et ε[ ̣]δηc pap. | ἔ[ρ]δηις Lobel, edd. 3 τόνδε Gronewald (utrem vini plenum monstrans, ‘fortasse recte’ Radt) 4 distinxit Setti; δή· Cantarella | σῖγ᾽ ἃ δεῖ Kamerbeek | leg., suppl. et personis attrib. Ts.; δειθακειν.[.]ε pap.; δειθελειδ.[.]. leg. Radt; δεῖ θ᾽ ἑλεῖν [τάδ]ε Mette 5 εἴπ[ε]ρ δοκ[εῖς Ts.; εἴ π[ου] δο[κεῖ Kamerbeek, alii alia 6 εἰδωλον: inter εἰδωλόν et εἴδωλον vacillat Ts. | πνέον? Hourmouziades | in fine versus sine pausa Lobel, notam interrogationis posuit Cantarella, punctum Setti post 6 lacunam statuit Mette e.g. explens ἐρεῖ ποτ᾽ ἢ τῆι Κύπριδι 7 με[ ]μημα, sc. μείμημα, pap. | distinxerunt Fraenkel, Snell 8 τάδ[ε] φέρ᾽ ὤ Ts.; τάδ᾽ ἄθρει Snell, τάδ᾽ ἀθρεῖς Page ap. Lloyd-Jones 9 ὅρμ[α legit Ts.; ὁρα ̣[ Lobel, ὅρα Snell, ὁρᾶς (cum χ]ώρει) Lloyd-Jones | χ]ώρει Barigazzi; χ]ωρεῖ Lobel, θ[ε]ώρει (cum ὅρα) Snell 10 χωρεῖ Lobel, χώρει Fraenkel, χωρει Radt post 12 paragraphum e versu sequenti hic transposuit Lobel 15 ἂν ἄξι᾽ (vel ἀνάξι᾽) ἅζοιτό Ts.; ἂν ἅζοιτό Lobel, ἂν ἀσπάζοιτό Fraenkel, ἂν αἰάζοιτό Page, ἀναγκάζοιτο Gronewald 19 τ[ύπον Setti, Snell; γ[ραφήν Steffen, τ[ορόν e.g. Fraenkel, σ[αφῆ Page ap. LloydJones 20 αναυδον, δ deleto et λ s.l. scripto pap.; ἄναυδον probaverunt edd., ἄναυλον Ts. |

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai εμπορον pap.; corr. Fraenkel, Dodds ap. Lobel; an ἀναύλων ἐμπόρων ‘viatorum vecturam effugientium’? 21 ὅ[σ]τ᾽ Lobel, Fraenkel, ὅ[ς] γ᾽ Lobel, Cantarella | φό[βον πνέων Ts.; φο[βουμένους Cantarella, φό[βον βλέπων Untersteiner, Reinhardt, Lloyd-Jones, φό[βου πλέως vel φο[βήματι vel φό[βωι φρενῶν Kamerbeek 22 σ]ὺ φ[ίλτερος Ts. post Radt (σ]ὺ φ[ίλτατος) 24 legit Lloyd-Jones; οὔτοὐτέρωσ᾽ (sc. οὔτοι ἑτέρωσε), οὔ, Lobel 25 ταὐτά μοι Ts., ταῦτά μοι omnes | προσεκ̣[βοᾶι Ts. (προσεκ̣[βόα impfct. possis); omnes leg. perperam προσ̣εν̣[: προσεν[πεδοῖ Diggle, προσεν[νέπει Lobel, προσέν[νεπεν Kamerbeek, προσεν[διδοῖ Fraenkel 26 ὡς οὐχ] ὁρῶντα Ts. (ὁρῶντα iam Kamerbeek, Mette); ἴχνη θ᾽ Kamerbeek, στίβους θ᾽ Winnington-Ingram, κλόνους Reinhardt, οἴκους θ᾽ Steffen, ἐμὲ γὰρ Setti, στείλασ᾽ Mette | πληcι ̣ὸcφ[ pap. | πλησ[ι]οσφ[ύρους Lloyd-Jones, πλησ[ι]οσφ[ύους Reinhardt, Steffen, πλησ[ί]ον σφ[ Mette, πλησ[ί]ους σφ[έων vel σφ[ίσιν Kamerbeek, πλησ[ί]ους φ[ Page ap. Lloyd-Jones 27 αὐτὰ Lobel, ταῦτα Setti | δίδαξε] μ̣᾽ αὐτὰ Ts. post ἐδίδασκε] ταῦτα Winnington-Ingram, ἤγγελλε]ν αὐτὰ Kamerbeek 28 οὐκοῦν ἀλ]ήταις (κόροις vel παισὶν δ᾽ ἀλ.?) Ts.; ἔγνων (sim.) – μαχ]ητὰ[ς] δ᾽ Mette (postea Reinhardt sequens; v. infra) | μὴ ᾽π[ι]δῶι πατήρ Ts.; μὴ π[έ]δωι πατ[εῖν Cantarella, ὠ[ιό]μην [ὁ]δῶι πατ[ῶν Reinhardt 29 μ[ήδε]α Ts.; φ[αλλί]α Maas ap. Snell, π[όσθι]α Kamerbeek 30 [χάρι]ν vel [πίτυ]ν Ts.; [κόνι]ν Fraenkel, [πάλη]ν Tovar, [τριβή]ν Lloyd-Jones, [μαθώ]ν Kamerbeek, [τέχνη]ν Reinhardt, Steffen 31 ἐγύμναζ[ες Ts., ἐγυμνάζ[ου Lobel 32 εσωζου pap. 33 σε τ[ημελ]εῖν Kamerbeek; σ᾽ ἐπ[ισκοπ]εῖν Snell, σε δ[ιαπον]εῖν Fraenkel, σ᾽ ἐγ[καρτερ]εῖν Cantarella, σ᾽ ἐκ[μανθάν]ειν Görschen 35 βραχειο[ pap. 36 κτέα[να σὺ τρῖβ]ε e.g. Ts.; κτέα[να τιθείς γ]ε vel κτέα[ν᾽ ἀναθείς γ]ε Kamerbeek, κτέα[να φέρων τ]ε Steffen, κτεά[νων δόσιν τ]ε Mette (cum priora coniungentes); κτέα[να δ᾽ ἃ μεῖν]ε Gronewald (sententia nova) | ἐπι̯η̣ράνωι leg. Ts.; ἐπ ̣ρανωι Lobel, Radt | -ωι iota adscriptum super lineam additum | πόνωι vel πόνων Ts.; πόνων Lobel, πονων Radt 65 μ[ certe; e.g. suppl. Ts.; μισητόν, μωμητόν etiam possis; *μοχθηρόστομον?; π[ᾶσαν ἐς πόλιν e.g. Cantarella, δ[υσσεβέστατον vel δ[υσμενέστατον Kamerbeek 66 ῥῆμ᾽ ἀτίζεις Ts., *ῥηματίζεις Lobel | ἐκτρέπ[ων κακόν Ts. (adiectivum cum ῥῆμ(α)); ἐκτρέπ[ων κότον Lloyd-Jones, ἐκτρέπ[ων ψόγους Mette, ἐκτρόπ[ως ἄγαν Cantarella, ἐκτρόπ[ους λόγους vel ψόγους Kamerbeek 67 τέχνην Lobel; μάχην Kamerbeek 68 οὐδ᾽ ἐν εἵμα[σίν γ᾽ ἀνήρ Ts.; οὐδὲν εἰ μ ̣[ Mette, οὐδέν εἰμ᾽ Cantarella (quod ἐ[ν ἀνδράσιν suppl. Reinhardt), οὐδέν, εἰ μα[χητέον Kamerbeek, οὐδ᾽ ἔνειμ᾽ ἐ[ν ἄρσεσιν Lloyd-Jones 69 ποταίν[ι᾽ ἐκπονεῖς e.g. Ts.; ποταίν[ι᾽ ἐγκαλεῖς vel ἐγγελᾶις Fraenkel, ποταίν[ια ψέγων Cantarella, π. ψέγεις Steffen, ποταίν[ι᾽ αὖ πο(ι)ῶν Kamerbeek, ποταίν[ι᾽ ὄργανα Snell, ποταίν[ι᾽ αὖ κακά Mette 70 τῶ[ν Cantarella | πάροιθ᾽ ὑβρισμάτων (πάροιθε δυσφρόνων iam Kamerbeek) e.g. Ts.; ἐμῶν ἐχθημάτων Reinhardt, ἀκουσμάτων ἐμοί Mette, ὅπλων ἕτοιμά σοι e.g. Snell 71 [τήν τ᾽ ἐμὴν πανήγυριν Reinhardt; [τήν τ᾽ ἐμὴν *χορόστασιν Lloyd-Jones, [τὴν πανήγυρίν θ᾽ ὁμοῦ Fraenkel, [καὶ χορείαν τὴν ἐμήν Kamerbeek, [καὶ χοροῦ κατάστασιν (vel ὁμήγυριν?) Snell 72 πλ[ῆθος Kamerbeek; postea ἀνθρώπων τόσον Reinhardt (etiam ἀνθρ. μέγα possis), εὐσεβέστατον Kamerbeek, εὐφρονέστατον Snell, Ἰσθμίας χθονός LloydJones

Text  

Fr. 78b R. ... ] ̣ ̣[ ]τιτοι[ ]ς ἐ̣λευθ̣[ερ – ο]ὐδαμῶς [⏑ – πά]γχυ πως κα̣[ – ]όσσα δὴ μ̣[ ⏑ – ]φ[ρ]α συντ̣ ̣[ ⏑ – ]ς ἄλλος̣[ – το]ῖς φίλ̣[οις ] ̣ουκε[ ]ρωντ ̣[ ]π̣[ ...

5

10

b.1 ]φ ̣[ vel ]ψ [̣ 3 dub. Lobel 4 Lobel 5 Lobel; πά]γχυ πως κα̣[κ/λ–? 6 an ὄσσα δημ[όθρους? Ts. 7 ἐλα]φ[ρ]ὰ (vel ὄ]φ[ρ]α) συντ ̣[ Ts. 8 Lobel 9 το]ῖς φίλ[οις Cantarella; τ]ίς φιλ[εῖ Mette

Fr. 78d R. ... ]δε.[ ]ελφ[ ]τιπ̣[ ]δ.[ ... Fr. 79 R. Ath. 14.629 f: σχήματα δέ ἐστιν ὀρχήσεως ξιφισμός, καλαθίσκος, καλλαβίδες, σκώψ, σκώπευμα. ἦν δὲ ὁ σκὼψ τῶν ἀποσκοπούντων τι σχῆμα ἄκραν τὴν χεῖρα ὑπὲρ τοῦ μετώπου κεκυρτωκότων. μνημονεύει Αἰσχύλος ἐν Θεωροῖς· καὶ μὴν παλαιῶν τῶνδέ σοι σκωπευμάτων. καλαθίσκος Meursius : καλαθισμός A, Epit. Ath. | σκώπευμα : σκωπασμός E Ath., statim in mg. correctum (γρ. σκώπευμα); cf. Eust. Od. 1524.1 | τῶνδέ σοι : τῶνδέ σου? Meineke, τῶνδ᾽ ἅλις? Blaydes; vide commentaria

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai Fr. 80 R. Hsch. α 6654: ἀποστάς· φυγών. Αἰσχύλος Ἰσθμιασταῖς καὶ Ἀλκμήνηι. ἰσθάσταις cod. : corr. Salmasius | de Ἀλκμήνηι vide Radt

Fr. 81 R. Hsch. ι 46: ἰαμβίς· Αἰσχύλος Θεωροῖς ἢ Ἰσθμιασταῖς. τοῖς κιθαρίζουσιν ὁ αὐλὸς συνήιει, καὶ αἱ τοιαῦται κιθαρίσεις ἐλέγοντο παριαμβίδες. συνήιει cod. : συνῆιδε? Blaydes

Fr. 82 R. Phot. Lex. ψό· ἐπὶ τοῦ σαπροῦ καὶ μὴ συναρέσκοντος (fr. 521 R.). ἔστι δὲ ἀπόκομμα Ἀττικοῦ λεξειδίου. ψόθον γὰρ καλοῦσιν. Ἀριστοφάνης (fr. 923 K.-A.) ‘πλέωι γράσου καὶ †ψοθοίου†’ καὶ ‘ῥύπου γε καὶ ψόθου’. Αἰσχύλος Θεωροῖς. add. Erbse | ἀποκομματικοῦ λεξειδίου codd. : corr. Dobree (cf. Su. ε 1838 ἐξωμίς· Ἀττικὸν λεξείδιον), qui etiam ἀποκομματικὸν λεξείδιον | lacunam post καλοῦσιν Kassel/Austin (post Kaibel); sed intelligendum est οἱ Ἀττικοὶ τὸ σαπρὸν καὶ μὴ συναρέσκον | πλέω codd. | ψοθοιοῦ (sic Theognostus) substantivis non convenit | vide commentaria

Fr. 61a R. (Edonoi) Proverb. Cod. Laur. LVIII.24, Vb.16, ed. L. Cohn, Zu den Paroemiographen (Breslauer philologishe Abhandlungen II 2), Breslau 1887 (= CPG Suppl. I), p. 41 τί δ᾽ ἀσπίδι ξύνθημα καὶ καρχησίωι; παρόσον οὐ συμφωνεῖ . Theoris tribuit Ts.; vide commentaria

Commentary  

Commentary Fr. 78c c.1–16. Col. i of fr. 78c is excessively damaged. Several proposals have been made for attributing the verses to particular characters or to the Chorus; for which see Radt’s apparatus. There is no consensus among scholars except for lines c.43–48, unanimously attributed to the Chorus. These lines are obviously lyric and their content clearly indicates the Chorus. It is not the same, however, with lines c.13–16, which are extremely mutilated. Lobel believed that these lines too were iambic trimeters; Snell thought them lyric, whereas Kamerbeek doubtfully and Radt more resolutely considered them trochaic tetrameters. It should be noted, however, that line c.13 can be easily reconstructed as iambic. The question of prosody observed in line c.14 has nothing to do with lyrical verses. And, finally, c.13–14 can be easily aligned to the left as iambic trimeters. As for lines c.15–16 no more letters have survived than two and one respectively. Concerning lines c.1–12, opinions are divided among iambic trimeters and trochaic tetrameters, whereas several scholars consider some of them iambic and some trochaic; see also the apparatus of Radt, who is inclined to regard them as trochaic tetrameters. I believe that lines c.1–14 (nothing can be said about c.15– 16) are all, as Lobel suggested, iambic trimeters, and the supplements proposed prove it, in my view, beyond doubt. The supplements also suggest the stichomythia that I propose. c.1. Radt reads ] ἔ̣ν̣ο̣ρκόν ἐστί σο[ι] κα[. . . ]φρο̣ ν̣εῖν, confirming Kamerbeek’s conjecture ἔνορκον. For the end of the line Lobel had noted that between κα and φρο there is “more than enough room for [τα] or [κο] but too little for [κωc] or [λωc], [μοι] would fit”. He excludes, that is, the readings καταφρονεῖν, κακοφρονεῖν, κακῶς / καλῶς φρονεῖν, but he admits κἀμοὶ φρονεῖν as a possible supplement (the latter accepted by Mette). In spite of Radt’s objections, who does not rule out κακῶς or καλῶς, Lobel was right in his measurements, but not in his conjecture. If κα[ὶ σω]φρονεῖν is accepted, the opening of the line must be filled with a two-syllabled infinitive. Determining its length, or, in other words, determining the position of the left-hand column margin, is made possible by the more or less certain supplements in the openings of lines c.6, 10, 11. Many suggestions can be made: σέβειν, ‘honour, respect’, εἴκειν, ‘yield, give way’ (cf. Soph. Aj. 371 ὕπεικε καὶ φρόνησον εὖ), κλύειν, ‘obey’, μένειν, ‘stay where one belongs to and not run away’ (cf. Soph. Ph. 810 f. ἦ

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai μενεῖς; … οὐ μήν σ᾽ ἔνορκόν γ᾽ ἀξιῶ θέσθαι, τέκνον), νήφειν, ‘be self-controlled’, vel sim. Obviously, the speaker is reminding someone of the oath he has broken. c.2. In the opening of the line κακός is self-evident; cf. Men. Asp. 238 κακὸς κακῶ]ς ἀπόλοιο, P.Oxy. 1238 (= Men. Sic. fr. 11 Sandb.). 5 κακὸς κακῶς ἀπόλ[οιο vel -οιτο. In Eur. Cycl. 268 f. κακῶς οὗτοι κακοὶ οἱ παῖδες ἀπόλοινθ᾽, referred by Silenus to his sons. At 261, Silenus for Odysseus, κακῶς γ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐξόλοι(ο), at 272, the Satyrs for Silenus, ἀπόλοιθ᾽ ὁ πατήρ μου. It is less likely to have εἰ γάρ introducing a wish + optative; cf. Aesch. Sept. 550–2 εἰ γὰρ τύχοιεν ...· ἦ τἂν πανώλεις παγκάκως ὀλοίατο, 566 εἰ θεοὶ ... τούσδ᾽ ὀλέσειαν. In the second half, Lobel and Radt publish καὶ τ̣ ̣ε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ε. Lobel reads τιε or τρε, and, after ε, traces suiting ιο or ιc. The foot of the vertical read ι or ρ is closer to τ than to ε, therefore it should most likely be ρ. The letter following ε may be χ, since one of its obliques is visible, but the sequence, with the exception of the ´̣ε at the verse end, is almost completely worn away. The acute is very close to the ε, which means that the letter underneath must be very thin; ]ÍE is very likely. The slight relics suggest καὶ τρέχ̣ων̣ [κ]ί ̣ε, ‘and run away’. For the imperative of κίω cf. Aesch. Pe. 1069 ἐς δόμους κίε, Su. 852 κί᾽ ἐς δόρυ. The character addressed to in the preceding verse as perjurer is now reacting indignantly. c.3. The line seems desperate. Radt publishes ]α̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ιῃ σοι πρ ̣ ̣ ̣[ca. 6 litt.] ̣ ̣ ̣νε ̣ ̣ν, but several more traces can perhaps yield some sense. Henry and Nünlist (15) proposed: πότερ]α̣ μ̣ε̣ χρῆι σοι πρὸ̣ς̣ τ̣ά̣δ᾽̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ν̣ ἔπ̣η (ἐ]ά̣ν̣ [με] Mette, ἔπη Coles). I read differently, much closer to Lobel’s and Radt’s reading: . . . . .] ̣ ̣ ̣λ̣᾽ ἴηι σοι πρὶν̣ τ̣[.] ̣[ca. 6 litt.] ̣ν̣ ἐᾶ̣(ι̣)ν. It is possible that (ἐὰν) ... ἴηι σοι, opens an ironic advice to the former speaker: ‘if it (ever again) comes into your mind (to use such abusive language), put it away’. It must have been clear by now that the lines here represent a hitherto unnoticed dialogue in stichomythia between the Chorus-leader and an older, patronizing character. Although the latter tries to dissuade the chorus from carry-

Commentary  

ing out their plans, he is more sympathetic towards them in comparison to Dionysus who will appear in fr. 78a. On the other hand, he cannot be Dionysus, since the god discovers the escapees only in a.23. Identifying him with Silenus is self-evident. c.4. This line is even more damaged. Lobel and Radt read: ] ̣[ ]̣ ο̣νοντωcῆ ̣[ The initial trace, the foot of a vertical, can be many things, the simplest being an iota. If ]ι[.]ον, it might be the ending of an imperative ]ι[σ]ον. Cantarella’s ὄντως is, in my view, certain. Following H̑ a high horizontal can belong only to π or τ (Lobel, Radt), a fact that, combined with the circumflex upon η, considerably reduces the number of possible supplements. η has the circumflex in the papyrus, in order, I believe, to indicate that it is the adverb ἦ and not the feminine article or the disjunctive conjunction. One cannot say whether it is used here in its affirmative or its interrogative function, but, in either case, it is very likely that it introduces a new sentence, therefore we have to punctuate before it. If so, given the fact that we are dealing with a stichomythia, the short sentence ending in ὄντως must ironically repeat or imply a word or a sense found in the preceding line: ‘Really, punish me’. As for the second hemistich, its content, but not its wording, can be determined from the content of the following line, i.e., from the reaction of Silenus to the Chorus-leader’s words. c.5. For the sake of the left-hand margin alignment I propose δὶς δ]ο̣ῦ̣λον ἢ τρίδουλ[ον The second hemistich has left no trace, but it is evident that in it Silenus was trying to scare his sons by questioning Poseidon’s intentions towards them: he does not seem at all disposed to offer hospitality to slaves. E.g., δὶς δοῦλον ἢ τρίδουλον οὐ στέργει (or οὐ φιλεῖ / οὐ ξενοῖ) θεός. But, unless the name of Poseidon was mentioned in line 4, θεός here would mean just any god. It is likely, however, that the Satyrs referred there to the god’s affability; e.g., ἦ π[ρόφρων φιλεῖ μ᾽ ἄναξ, i.e. unlike you who are angry at me. With such a second hemistich in line 4 anyone of the above tentative supplements might stand. Or, possibly, δὶς δοῦλον ἢ τρίδουλον οὐ ξενώσεται. Cf. Aesch. Su. 927 οὐ γὰρ ξενοῦμαι τοὺς θεῶν συλήτορας. But, if the god was not mentioned in line 4, one could suggest something like τίς δοῦλον ἢ τρίδουλον εὖ ξενώσεται;, were it not for the peculiar dis-

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai junction δοῦλον ἢ τρίδουλον (Cantarella, Kamerbeek, Lloyd-Jones, Henry - Nünlist). At any rate, δὶς δοῦλος (or δίσδουλος13) ἢ τρίδουλος must mean either ‘a second- or third-hand slave’ or ‘a second- or third-generation slave’. Parallel pejorative terms for a slave were δοῦλος παλίμβολος or παλίμπρατος or τρίπρατος, denoting the slave who passed over from master to master, mainly by sale. This is not the case with the Satyrs of our play, who deserted their former guardian or master for a new one. But, for Silenus, the story of our play is but one episode out of many in his family’s life, episodes which formed the stories of many satyr-plays. In these plays the role of the satyric chorus was, as a rule, that of a group of servants to powerful and mischievous masters. From this point of view, the change of master in each sequel might well describe the Satyrs as ‘twice and thrice slaves’. In any case, the disparaging meaning must remain: ‘a good-fornothing slave’. Cf. Men. Sic. 11, Harp., Phot. s.v. παλίμβολος, Suet. De blasph. p. 63 Taillardat, Eust. 725.38, 1542.49 (Eust. from Suet. cites Hipponax, fr. spurium 147 West (=190 Degani), which actually is Herod. 5.74–75), Poll. 3.125, 6.164, et al. The opposite was ἀδούλευτος οἰκέτης, which is interpreted in Phot. Lex. α 376 ὁ ἑνὶ δεδουλευκὼς καὶ μὴ παλίμπρατος. Theopompus, FGrHist 115 F 253, uses τρίδουλος of a courtesan who was servant to another courtesan who, in turn, had been servant to another servant / courtesan. The other meaning, ‘a second- or third-generation slave’, is found in Soph. OT 1062–3, οὐδ᾽ ἐὰν τρίτης ἐγὼ | μητρὸς φανῶ τρίδουλος. This would denote a slave whose parents and grandparents were also slaves, and, although it would not refer to one’s efficacy as a slave, it would stress his low origin. In this case δὶς δοῦλον ἢ τρίδουλον, would certainly aim at defining the exact parentage of the Satyrs, δίς and τρι- having a numerical significance and not, as in the case of the ΟΤ passage, a merely intensifying function.14 The satyric family, as depicted in our fragmentary evidence, really seems to consist of at least three generations. Silenus, the father, is a stock character in satyr-plays, and Papposilenus, although a shadowy figure appearing by name in Pollux, 4.142, can only be the grandfather. Pollux, as will be later discussed (on a.5–7), mentions four satyric masks distinguished by age (Σάτυρος πολιός, Σάτυρος γενειῶν, Σάτυρος ἀγένειος,

 13 Cf. δισθανής, δισχίλιοι, δισμύριοι; τρισδείλαιος, τρισδύστηνος, τρίσμακαρ, and many more. 14 Lloyd-Jones interprets δοῦλον ἢ τρίδουλον literally ‘a slave or thrice a slave’, Mette 1963, 167, δίδουλον ἢ τρίδουλον ‘den Sklaven, dessen Vater oder Vatersvater schon denselben Dienst getan [hat]’, Italie ²1964, τρίδουλος ‘infimus servus’. In LSJ Suppl. τρίδουλος ‘triply a slave, i.e. a slave through and through’.

Commentary  

Σειληνὸς πάππος).15 There is, however, a straightforward reference to this threefold generation pattern in our play. At c.37–38 Silenus, still scolding the Satyrs, makes a reference to the satyric chorus: κοὐδεὶς παλαιῶν οὐδὲ τῶν νεωτέρω[ν | ἑκὼν ἄπεστι τῶνδε διστοίχω[ν χορῶν. | σὺ δ(ὲ) κτλ.16 Within the framework of the genre referentiality observed in the satyr-play in general and particularly in this play, one may well detect an allusion to older and younger poets or older and younger worshippers. But literally the words refer to older and younger Satyrs, the present ones belonging to the youngest generation. I do not intend to discuss the social status of the satyric chorus and their ancestors. Can their former relation to Dionysus and their new one to Poseidon be called servitude? Things are not so clear, as the only official term used in the surviving part of the play for both gods is (a.22) ἐπίτροπος, ‘trustee, guardian’ rather than ‘master’. See below on a.36 (a.35 χρήματα ... ἐμά, a.36 κτέανα). Some explicit mentions of a master-slave relation between the god and his thiasos are found at Soph. Ichn. 224 (cf. 63, 75) and cannot be easily dismissed.17 If it is the same situation that we find in the Theoroi, perhaps it is not insignificant that the theme of μετάστασις πόνων, i.e., a change in the traditional duties of the Satyrs which follows their departure from Dionysus and his milieu, recurs in both plays.18 In Achaeus fr. 32 Sn.-K., from the satyric Omphale, the situation is reversed: the Satyr is mentioned as εὔδουλος, ‘good towards his servants’; Ath. 6.267 d Ἀχαιὸς δ᾽ ἐν Ὀμφάληι περὶ τοῦ σατύρου λέγων φησίν· ‘ὡς εὔδουλος, ὡς εὔοικος ἦν’, ἰδίως λέγων ὡς χρηστὸς ἐς τοὺς δούλους ἐστὶ καὶ τοὺς οἰκέτας. Possibly, what is implied is the attitude of the Satyrs towards the slave Heracles. c.6. Lobel and Radt waver between ο and ω for the first uncertain traces. Radt specifies: δ̣ικα[ ̣ ̣ ]ω[ ̣] or δ̣ικα[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ο̣[ ̣]. There is no way to choose, because,

 15 The evidence for the Satyric family is penetratingly discussed by Hourmouziades, 1974, 111–114, 226–227. The entire family, consisting of grandfather, father, child, and mother (a Maenas), is illustrated on a calyx-crater in Karlsruhe (Badisches Landesmuseum 208; Villa Giulia Painter, ARV2 618.3). The grandfather is playing the aulos, father and mother are holding a thyrsos and a karchesion (see below on c.49–51) in each hand, and the child is carrying a torch: Brommer ²1959, 40 ff., fig. 35. More than one generations are implied in Aeschylus’ Trophoi, a satyr-play, in which the baby Dionysus miraculously rejuvenates his nurses and their husbands (= Satyrs). If the middle-aged Silenus is added, all three age groups must have appeared in that satyr-play. 16 χορῶν Lobel probabiliter. 17 The Chorus declare at Eur. Cycl. 76 ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὁ σὸς [sc. of Bacchius] πρόπολος, and 709 τὸ λοιπὸν Βακχίωι δουλεύσομεν. Seaford 1984, on 76–77; cf. his Introd. 33–36. 18 Hourmouziades 1974, 78–84, 209–213; n. 38 (p. 213) concerns the Theoroi.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai though the bottom of the surviving right-hand half of a circle is wider than what is usual with ω, there are cases where the second curve of ω is also wide (e.g., a.70 παντων, b.4 ουδαμωc). Be that as it may, I believe that the trace belongs to ω. The first trace, after the gap following θενα, clearly belongs to a μ. For the first word Kamerbeek supplemented ἄν]αξ, and for the second Snell δίκα[ιος. A slight improvement of these supplements would be to write ἅναξ, with a rough spirit. ‘The lord’ is, of course, Poseidon: below a.22, Aesch. Sept. 130, fr. 46a.10 (Diktyoulkoi). δίκαιος has the common meaning of ‘observant of religious and social institutions, righteous, civilized’, here observant of hospitality. Cf., e.g., Od. 6.120 f. οὐδὲ δίκαιοι, ἠὲ φιλόξεινοι, Aesch. Ag. 396–402, where Paris is considered φὼς ἄδικος for dishonouring hospitality; Pind. Ol. 2.6, for Theron, δίκαιον ξένων, Nem. 4.12 δίκαι ξεναρκέι, Isthm. 9.5–6, for the Aiginetans, οὐ θέμιν οὐδὲ δίκαν ξείνων ὑπερβαίνοντες; Eur. Alc. 1147–8 καὶ δίκαιος ὢν τὸ λοιπόν, Ἄδμητ᾽, εὐσέβει περὶ ξένους. In view of the answer of Silenus in the next line, it seems that the Chorusleader declared in the second hemistich of c.6 his belief that Poseidon would offer them lodging. Mette 1963, 167, considering the verse trochaic, reading ω, and combining supplements of Reinhardt, Kamerbeek, Snell, and his own, published: κοὔποτ᾽ ἦσθ᾽ ἄν]αξ δίκα[ιος] ὥ[σ]θ᾽ ἓν ἀ[πονεῖ]μ[αι μόνον, “ als Herrn gerechten Sinns , um dir nur eins zurückzugeben”. The same text as Mette’s is, however, translated by Werner “... gabst uns auch nicht einmal rechten Lohn”. I propose, following Mette, ὥ[σ]θ᾽ ἓν ἀ[πονε]μ[εῖ] σ̣τ̣έ̣γο̣ς̣. I prefer the future to the infinitive, first to demonstrate the certainty of the Chorus-leader about Poseidon’s hospitality, and second to save some room, since ἀ[πονει] would be slightly larger than the space provided. σ̣τέ̣ ̣γο̣ς̣, at the end of the verse, is absolutely tentative, because the area is worn away. The traces suit well τε, possibly even στε, at the right distance, but no more is visible. ἕν (or ἕν᾽, if the final noun is masculine) would be a rare use of the numeral for the indefinite pronoun, though not unparalleled (Aesch. Sept. 543, Soph. OC 1592, Eur. Ba. 917, al.), unless what is implied is “one of the edifices at his disposal”. c.7. Though severely damaged, the line was perfectly well read and supplemented by Lobel, no doubt with the help of the parallel of Aesch. Ag. 555, where δυσαυλίαι recurs. κακ]ῶι in the opening was proposed by Cantarella, whereas Setti’s σκληρ]ῶι or Diggle’s σπαρν]ῶι are distinctly too long. Silenus, while tacitly admitting that Poseidon will not turn the Satyrs out of his sanctuary, insists in trying to discourage them, this time by stressing the uncomfortable conditions they will suffer if they stay there. Nothing is said about the nature of the

Commentary  

στέγος that the Satyrs expect from the god and about whose bad quality Silenus warns them. Perhaps Aeschylus knew better, and the references to the ‘edifice’ are ironic innuendoes suggesting the small man-made caves where the theoroi were supposed to dine and rest. Two of these caves have been excavated, and the archaeologists assure that no more than 27 persons could be served in each.19 See also below, p. 29. Nothing is said about sleep. A cave could be called (σ)τέγος in poetry, naturally followed by a descriptive adjective: Pind. Nem. 3.53–54 λιθίνωι ἔνδον τέγει. c.8. Radt, dismissing Snell’s ἐν οἰκτ{ε}[ίστωι νομῶ]ι, rightly notes “potius formam verbi οἰκτίρω supplendam esse suspicor”. The future of οἰκτ(ε)ίρω is usually recorded as οἰκτιρῶ. But, according to Herodian Π. Ὀρθ. 2.558.33 Lentz, the Attic future is οἰκτερῶ; see Radt on Aesch. fr. 199.6, where this form actually occurs in the Mss of Strabo which transmit that fragment, and Schwyzer GG Ι, 785, who explains the formation as analogical to φθείρω - φθερῶ. In any case, I lean to accepting οἰκτιρῶ, which is rather suggested by the epigraphical data (Threatte 1996, 648). On the other hand, ἐνοικτείρει, the present tense (present of anticipation?), cannot be excluded. The compound with ἐν appears here for the first time. It must normally be constructed with the dative; cf. ἐγγελῶ, ἐγκοτῶ, ἐγχλίω, ἐμπαίζω, ἐνυβρίζω, and other verbs denoting an emotional reaction toward someone or something, all constructed with the dative. Therefore, I believe, that ]ει in the opening of the verse, with only one and a half letter missing (αἰ]εί Snell), must be the dative ending of a noun denoting what Poseidon is expected to feel pity for. I propose ἵξ]ει. The word may have its original sense ‘coming’ (Eur. Tr. 396), but it may also have been used here in any of the nuances recorded in Hesychius’ article ι 710: ἵξις· παρουσία, ἄφιξις, ἱκετεία.20 The only other occurrence of the word in this sense is the compound ἄφιξις also in Aeschylus, Su. 483. In Aeschylus, where ἱκνέομαι is used both for ‘come’ and ‘supplicate’, and numerous derivatives and compounds are found in the second meaning (ἱκταῖος, ἱκτήρ, ἱκτηρία, ἵκτωρ, ἀφίκτωρ, προσικνέομαι, προσίκτωρ, not to mention ἱκέτης and its derivatives or the etymological play with Ἰξίων, Eum. 441), one would expect the meaning ‘supplication’ to overweigh here. Henry - Nünlist attribute the trace of the last letter of the line to the upper arc of ε. But the end of the upper arc of ε is more or less straight-lined, whereas

 19 Gebhard 2002. 20 Not recorded in LSJ, although no other literary evidence occurs attesting at least the last interpretation (ἱκετεία). The word has taken different technical meanings in the medical literature, where it is a common term.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai here we have an intensely curved end. The closest shape seems to be the upper arc of c; therefore, θεό]ς̣, written as sparsely as in a.11 (θεῶι), cannot be excluded. Who would then be παλαιὸς ὅδε, “this old man here”, for whose arrival the god would show pity? The Satyrs are boys, and their Chorus-leader, even if differentiated from the rest as their trainer, must not be much older. It seems that the Chorus-leader does not refer to himself but ironically to his collocutor, Silenus, and his arrival. Actually, he invites Silenus to stand by his sons and try to secure Poseidon’s pity for them. At the same time, the invitation is expressed in an impudent manner, if παλαιός has a disparaging shade of meaning, ‘senile, dotard’, irrespective of whether Ar. Lys. 988, παλαιόρ or παλεόρ, is to be emended to ἀλεός or not. Hsch. π 130 παλαιός· ὁ ταῖς φρεσὶν ἐξεφθαρμένος ἤδη, ἄφρων, ὁ καὶ ἠλίθιος. In any case, some times the end of the right-hand prong of υ is also curved (cf. c.5 τριδοΥλ[), so that the line might well end with a noun in genitive connected with παλαιοῦ τοῦδ(ε). If so, I would have preferred to reconstruct the phrase as παλαιοῦ τοῦδ᾽ … χοροῦ (vel λόχου, sim.), the adjective meaning ‘traditional, time-honoured’. The supplement fits the space exactly. For the genre referential locution see below on c.37–38. c.9. Lobel and Radt read ] ̣δεπ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣]ας π̣ολ̣ υπ̣[ ̣]δ̣ο̣[ ca. 8 litt. ] ̣ .̣ Lobel noted that, if the supplement πολύποδος was correct, it must have been an adjective, since the Attic form of the noun was πουλυ-. In spite of this warning, some fanciful reconstructions were proposed, introducing the octopus in the play.21 Actually, a slight misreading led here to serious misunderstandings. What is read δ̣ consists of a left-hand vertical, a descending oblique and some faint traces of a right-hand vertical, a combination that can only agree with a ν (πολυπόνου[ς; so Henry - Nünlist). Snell’s ἐγ]ὼ δέ (but not the rest of his unacceptable restoration) introduces Silenus’ disagreement to the Chorus-leader’s certainty: “(You may be confident, but I …”. At the end, a threatening verb foreseeing a miserable future is expected; ἐπόψομ]αι or ἐσόψομ]αι are probable; cf. Men. Asp. 231 f. ὄψομαί σ᾽ ἐγὼ | ἄδειπνον. α]ι at the end of the line is practically certain. Henry - Nünlist read ]ας, but I see a clear iota followed by a middle stop. c.10. A more accurate measurement shows, I believe, that the gap is not so large as indicated in the editions (Lobel 5 letters, Radt and Henry - Nünlist 6 letters), especially if one of the letters was ω. It is impossible to guess what was in the second hemistich, but, in combination with the next verse, it seems that the Chorus-leader expressed his fears for what would follow his withdrawal from  21 ἀλλ᾽ ὧδε πέτρας πολύποδος δίκην θιγών e.g. Setti; ἐγὼ δὲ ταύτας πολύποδος δειλὰς τριβάς Snell.

Commentary  

the Isthmian games and his return to Dionysus’ escort, as Silenus insisted. E.g., “If I flee this contest, shall I escape Bacchus’ punishment?” c.11. Fraenkel’s et al. πότερα παθών τι δεινόν makes perfect sense. For the expression δεινὰ πάσχειν cf. Aesch. Eum. 100, Ar. Ach. 323, Ran. 252, Av. 1225, Eccl. 650. πότερα, however, presupposes an alternative question introduced with ἤ. The widely common contrast between πάσχειν and δρᾶν in Greek literature needs no documentation.22 But the presence of δράσας here is also strongly supported by the repetition of the same verb if not the same form in the answer of the Chorusleader in the next verse. As for φοβεῖ, the supplement is vindicated both by the sense relationship with the preceding verse and by 13 θαρσῶν. c.12. Snell proposed κο]ὐ, an attractive proposal, which must, however, be taken in a different sense than what its author gave it.23 Another possibility could be πο]ῦ. Often ποῦ / ποῖ introduce indignant questions of manner looking forward to a negative answer (cf. Modern Greek ἀπὸ ποῦ κι ὣς ποῦ;): Soph. ΟΤ 390 ποῦ σὺ μάντις εἶ σαφής;, Eur. Hcld. 369 ποῦ ταῦτα καλῶς ἂν εἴη ...;, 510 ποῦ τάδ᾽ ἐν χρηστοῖς πρέπει;, Ion 528 ποῦ δέ μοι πατὴρ σύ;. Sometimes the previous character’s words that gave rise to the question are repeated: Ar. Lys. 191 ff. — εἰ λευκόν ποθεν ἵππον λαβοῦσαι τόμιον ἐντεμοίμεθα; — ποῖ λευκὸν ἵππον; 382 f. — μῶν θερμὸν ἦν; — ποῖ θερμόν; What we have here is a direct disjunctive question, the response to which is also a direct question that is introduced with ποῦ, possibly ends with a clause of result, and emphasizes the absurdity of the previous character’s question. Perhaps, the best structural parallel is Aesch. Eum. 426–427, also from a stichomythia: (Ἀθ.) ἀλλ᾽ ἦ ᾽ξ ἀνάγκης ἤ τινος τρέων κότον; | (Χο.) ποῦ γὰρ τοσοῦτο κέντρον ὡς μητροκτονεῖν; Possibly, ποῦ ... δράσας might stand as an elliptic sentence, with the participle repeated from Silenus’ question in the preceding verse. εἰμί need not be necessarily implied, as in the case of the τί δείσας type of sentences, because in such colloquial answers the word or phrase repeated from the question functions as a quotation. Cf., e.g., Eur. Alc. 806–807 (Ἡρ.) … δόμων γὰρ ζῶσι τῶνδε δεσπόται. | (Θε.) τί ζῶσιν; οὐ κάτοισθα τἀν δόμοις κακά;24 It is true that the addition of πολλά, which qualifies the quoted  22 It is tempting, however, to quote Soph. fr. 962 R. εἰ δείν᾽ ἔδρασας, δεινὰ καὶ παθεῖν σε χρή. 23 Snell attributed c.1–2 to Dionysus, c.3–10 to Silenus, and c.11–12 to Dionysus again. It is natural that the meanings proposed are quite dissimilar to those suggested here. 24 Cf. e.g. Men. Sic. 354 ff. – πρόσθες θυγάτριον Ἁλῆθεν ἀπολέσας ἑαυτοῦ τετραετὲς Δρόμωνά τ᾽ οἰκέτην. – ἀπολέσας. – εὖ πάνυ. – ἁρπασθὲν ὑπὸ ληιστῶν. This is Sandbach's punctuation and division of the speakers’ parts. Kassel divides differently (– Δρόμωνά τ᾽ οἰκέτην ἀπολέσας.), which might be closer to the elliptic construction proposed for the Theoroi passage. Though, I

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai word, somewhat weakens this possibility. But the Chorus-leader does not wish to present the Satyrs as docile, well-behaved children. An easy emendation like πόλλ᾽ ἔδρασά σ᾽, though yielding a smoother text, would limit the disobedience of the Satyrs to their behaviour towards Silenus and not towards Dionysus as should have been expected. If πολλὰ δρᾶσά σ(ε), apart from the same defect, we would have an unaugmented epic verb form, which is improbable to be found in a satyric stichomythia. κο]ὐ πολλὰ δράσας is not impossible, the statement being said ironically and impertinently, i.e., “I should have done much more”. If πο]ῦ πολλὰ δράσας, the Chorus-leader would be protesting indignantly to the second part of Silenus’ question, which attributed the fear of the Satyrs to some action they had committed themselves: “Where are the lots I’ve done?”. The coryphaeus leaves the first part of Silenus’ question unanswered, thus tacitly indicating that the cause of his fear is some intolerable treatment he had suffered in Dionysus’ circle. Cf. Soph. OΤ 1327 ὦ δεινὰ δράσας, and Soph. fr. 962 R. cited in note 22. The second hemistich, of which only ω[ has survived, is difficult to reconstruct. E.g., ὦ [κάκιστ᾽ ὀλούμενε; (cf. above line 2 κακὸς] κακῶς ὄλοιο) would square well with Snell’s supplement (κο]ὐ), but not with the mood of the dialogue, which has started being more sympathetic. I much prefer, however, following the parallel of Eum. 426–427, ποῦ at the beginning, therefore a question, and a clause of result at the end. ὥ[στε καὶ βλάβην ἔχειν; (from Soph. Aj. 1325 τί γὰρ σ᾽ ἔδρασεν ὥστε καὶ βλάβην ἔχειν;) or ὥ[στε καὶ ποινὴν τίνειν;, “so that I should be punished”, would fit well. c.13. Lobel and Radt read ] ̣α θαρσῶν λ̣εξ[ (Radt ̣εξ[). The first surviving trace is a completely detached vertical, i.e. an ι. As for the letter following θαρσῶν, it is an obvious λ. No trace of a low horizontal is visible, and the supposedly missing high serif is clearly seen under a magnifying glass. δ is, therefore, absolutely impossible. Kamerbeek already supplemented ε]ἶα θαρσῶν λέξ[ον, which I integrate exempli gratia. ὢ εἶα (and εἶα ὤ) is the hortatory exclamation used in Aristophanes’ Pax in the scene that Eirene is hauled out of the cave (459, 461, 463, 486, 488, 517–9). Also in Lys. 1303 ὢ εἶα is used for exhorting the dancers. ἄγ᾽ ε]ἶα (as in Soph. Ichn. 93, 436, Ar. Ran. 394) is also not impossible, if the size of the letters is equal to that of ΑΓΕΙρω in a.72. ἴθ᾽ ε]ἶα is not attested in extant literature. “Come on! Fear not and tell me what your plans are”.

 would rather punctuate with a question mark: – ἀπολέσας; – εὖ πάνυ. – ἁρπασθὲν ὑπὸ ληιστῶν. “Lost? (Did you say ‘lost’?) – Exactly. – ‘Kidnapped by robbers’ (not ‘lost’)!”

Commentary  

c.14. ἐν τ]ῶι ἱερῶι and μεν[οῦμεν were already proposed by Setti and Kamerbeek. ἐν, at the beginning, fits exactly; I do not understand why Henry finds it spatio longius and proposes εἰ. I would supplement the whole verse with the Chorusleader’s peremptory answer, e.g., οὐ φευξούμεθα. Noteworthy is the synecphonesis τ]ῶι ἱερῶι; also c.44 τοῦ ἱεροῦ. c.37 ff. After a gap of twenty lines, the second column presents no insuperable reading problems. The speaker is still scolding the Satyrs for their desertion, this time, however, in continuous speech. Although he appears to be sterner than in the stichomythia of lines 1–14, he must still be Silenus. It seems as if the decisive refusal of the Chorus-leader in line 14 irritated him. c.37–8. I discussed above the implications of the contrast of the old and the younger with the Satyrs of the Chorus (c.39 σὺ δέ) for clarifying the question of the age groups of the Satyrs. This holds true, however, only for the literal level of interpretation. By supplementing χορῶν at the end of line c.38 (cf. above c.8), no doubt a most certain supplement, Lobel added a new dimension to the understanding of the passage. The breach of the dramatic illusion in the presentation of the Chorus, intensified by the usage of the demonstrative τῶνδε (and τοῦδ᾽ in c.8), is now dragging along the old and the younger participants as well. From the moment when the mythical thiasos of the Satyrs becomes the contemporary Athenian chorus of the satyr-play, the mention of old and younger members of the thiasos must be understood as an Aeschylean reference to old and younger citizens involved in the theatrical performance of satyr-plays; i.e., old and younger spectators, but, mainly, old and younger poets. It is they who do not abstain, at least of their own will, from staging and attending satyr-plays.25 One cannot say if these words hint at a tendency to depreciate the timehonoured theatrical form of satyric drama, a tendency which we first experience with the pro-satyric production of Alcestis by Euripides in 438 BC; which must have not been, however, the first or even an isolated case, if we may judge from the silence of all ancient sources on this violation of the traditional theatrical programme by Euripides, as well as from the number of the surviving titles of his satyr-plays, which is deficient approximately by twelve to the number of his reconstructed or expected trilogies. Possibly, the application of the proverb

 25 A much later case of such an abstention against the poet’s will was the production of 405 BC or a little later, when Euripides’ same-named son produced three tragedies of his lately deceased father (Iphigeneia at Aulis, Alcmeon at Corinth, Bacchae), apparently because no satyr-play was found among his papers.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον was not limited to the prehistory of Attic drama, as is usually believed.26 And I would not be surprised to find that the full tenor of Aeschylus’ Theoroi was precisely an attack against those who wanted either to ban the Satyrs from the Attic stage altogether or to turn them decent by softening their obscenity, e.g. by curtailing their provokingly erect phallus. But the attack may also be directed against a Peloponnesian or Corinthian claim for the legal rights on the satyr-play. See Appendix. Kamerbeek argued that the tragic chorus might be called τρίστοιχος, since, according to the description made by Pollux, 4.108–109, it consisted of fifteen choreuts disposed in five ζυγά and three στοῖχοι. If so, δίστοιχοι χοροί should refer to the satyrs. However, the present verse of the Theoroi is the only evidence that the satyric chorus was arranged in two rows. Actually, Sophocles’ Ichneutai provides evidence for a three-row satyric chorus. The evidence is less strong at Ichn. 100 ff.,27 where the alternation of the speaking parts points to a threegroup division of the chorus, not necessarily for a disposal in three στοῖχοι, but is stronger at line 174, a much discussed passage.28 Silenus is addressing the chorus: 174

ἀλλ᾽ εἶ᾽ [ἐ]φίστω τριζύγης οἵμου βάσιν. ‘Come now, halt the gait of the three-row course.’

ἐφίστω must mean no more than ‘halt’ transitively. The close parallel of Soph. Tr. 339, τοῦ με τήνδ᾽ ἐφίστασαι βάσιν, can only mean ‘why do you stop my walking?’, while intransitive ἐφίσταμαι has also the meaning ‘halt, stop, as in a march’ (LSJ, B.IV). Thus, what Silenus is inciting the Satyrs to do is to put an end to their three-row gait (τριζύγης = gen. sing. fem., with οἵμου), to break ranks and, accordingly, start a new excited dance, which, apparently, could only be performed σποράδην. The dance actually starts at line 176, being the most confused, agitated, and disorderly passage in the entire play, both from a language and a metre point of view. In any case, the designation δίστοιχος must not be related with the division of the chorus in two semi-choruses and the antistrophic structure of the stasima, which are common features of all drama. It must have to do with the tradi 26 Slater 2005; Tsantsanoglou 2020, 279–288. 27 Siegmann 1941, 56; Hourmouziades 1974, 88. 28 I do not intend to discuss at length the numerous proposals for interpreting or emending Ichn. 174; see Radt’s apparatus ad loc., and a most illuminating discussion by Hourmouziades 1974, 94, 216 f., n. 56, who adopts, however, a solution different from the one proposed here.

Commentary  

tional formation of the satyric chorus during the parodos and the exodos, but also when the choreuts were arrayed for their formal dances. And this formation is certainly related, from a symmetry point of view, with the overall number of the choreuts. Arrays of 2×6 or 3×5 seem to be well-proportioned, but a formation of 3×4 is too short, one of 2×7+1 too oblong. Therefore, I believe that the two-row formation of Theoroi and the three-row formation of Ichneutai do not refer specifically to the satyric chorus. They must reflect the theatrical reality of their respective time of composition and performance. Aeschylus’ choruses consisted of 12 choreuts, therefore a two-row formation (2×6) seems reasonable, while a three-row formation (3×5) is in order for the 15-member choruses attributed to Sophocles. The information provided by Pollux, 4.108–109, mentioned above, obviously does not apply to Aeschylus’ production. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the size of the tragic and the satyric choruses was unequal. Actually, the only explicit evidence to this effect consists of the statements of Tzetzes29 that the number of the satyric choreuts was the same as in tragedy, although he incomprehensibly fixes that number to 16.30 If a distinction was really meant by the Aeschylean διστοίχων χορῶν, this must have been with the single-file round dance of the dithyrambs.31 c.39–40. Lobel’s emendation of ΚΑΛΛΟΙCΙ to κλάδοισι is absolutely certain. Branches often served as wreaths. This is only natural in plants like pine and ivy, whose foliage cannot be plaited to form wreaths, and in some representations the branches are ostensively projecting, as, for instance, the ivy crowns of the painter of Athena described below on a.18. I do not see why Radt insists that at c.39 καί can hardly mean ‘etiam’. The fact that a.34 also starts with σὺ δ᾽ ἰσθμιάζεις followed by a connective καί does

 29 Tzetzes, Prolegomena de comoedia Aristophanis 2.89 Koster; Versus de poematum generibus 108 Koster. 30 On the supposed evidence of the Pronomos vase (eleven Satyrs) see Collinge 1958–9, 30 ff., Pickard-Cambridge 21968, 236, Seidensticker 1979, 237, Seaford 1984, 4–5, Seidensticker 1989, 1–2, Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 18, Taplin/Wyles 2010; see also below on a.18–21. 31 Taplin 1977, 203 n. 2, 323 n. 3, depending on a rather unorthodox suggestion of Hammond 1972, 418–419, on Aesch. Ag. 1344–1371, argued that the tragic choruses consisted at all times of fifteen choreuts for the reason that “such a small change [from twelve to fifteen] seems pointless”. Sansone 2016 after collecting all information about the size of the tragic (and satyric) chorus from lexica, ancient scholia, and grammatical works, many of whose references seem to be contradictory, concludes that the chorus consisted of twelve choreuts throughout the fifth century. He argues that the number fifteen comes from the addition of choreuts and actors under the common term τραγωιδοί. He is not concerned with στοῖχοι or ζυγά.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai not preclude the possibility that καί may have a different function here. At any rate, the problem of interpretation, if any, is caused by the second δ(έ), which is not found at a.34 f. In fact, an intensive καί is desperately needed here. Because the ivy crown regularly formed part of the theatrical costume of the Satyrs, as is evident from numerous vase representations. The fact that they now wore pine crowns was by itself infuriating. It was not enough that they participated in the Isthmia, they had even changed their attire and, what is more, their most characteristically Dionysiac emblem. If so, we must punctuate after κλάδοισι, and construct the missing verb not with κλάδοισι κισσοῦ but with κισσοῦ τιμήν. Therefore, I would not adopt any of the numerous proposals recorded in Radt’s apparatus, some of which construct with κλάδοισι κισσοῦ (τιμὴ[ν νέμεις, φέρεις, τίθης), while others construct with κισσοῦ τιμήν but take little account of the idiomatic use of οὐδαμοῦ (τιμὴ[ν σέβεις, ἔχεις, ποθεῖς, ἔχων, σέβων). I would prefer to write τιμὴ[ν λέγεις; “while you set at naught the regard due to the ivy”; cf., e.g., Soph. Ant. 183 τοῦτον οὐδαμοῦ λέγω. The reference to pine crowns has been also related with the substitution of wild celery crowns for the pine ones before 478, when Pindar at Isthm. 8.63–64 mentioned that, at some unspecified time in the past but apparently not long before, Nicocles, the victor’s cousin, Ἰσθμίων ἂν νάπος Δωρίων ἔλαχεν σελίνων. The change took place supposedly in rivalry with the Nemean games, where the wild celery crown was the original one.32 Oscar Broneer, in fact, dated our satyrplay ante 478 on the basis of this reference to the wreath of pine.33 However, there are many other obstacles for dating our satyr-play so early (see Appendix, Dating). Further, if there existed so conspicuous evidence as is the Theoroi case, the change from pine to celery crowns would not be dated in the mythical ages being attributed to Heracles (e.g., Callim. fr. 59 Pf. from Aetia III). Our principal literary source, with mostly rationalizing arguments, is Plutarch’s Quaest. Conviv. 5.3, inscribed: Τίς αἰτία δι᾽ ἣν ἡ πίτυς ἱερὰ Ποσειδῶνος ἐνομίσθη καὶ Διονύσου· καὶ ὅτι τὸ πρῶτον ἐστεφάνουν τῇ πίτυι τοὺς Ἴσθμια νικῶντας, ἔπειτα σελίνῳ, νυνὶ δὲ πάλιν τῇ πίτυι. As for the second change from celery to pine crowns, it was considered much later, since celery is connected in several aitia with historical episodes of the mid-4th (Timoleon; Plut. Tim. 26) and 3rd century (Antigonus; Plut. Quaest. Conviv., 676d).

 32 See references in Blech 1982, 132 n. 109. 33 Broneer 1962. He actually dates, inadvertently, the change from pine to wild celery and, consequently, the Theoroi before 473 BC, the probable date of Pindar’s Nemean 4, where (88) the Corinthian celery is mentioned. But Isthmian 8, to which he also refers, is older.

Commentary  

It is important to remind, however, as the short account of Plutarch underlines, that pine crowns were also sacred to Dionysus. In the famous principally Dionysiac procession performed in Alexandria under the auspices of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus and described by Callixeinos of Rhodes (FGrHist 627 F 2), who is cited in the 5th book of Athenaeus, it is mentioned that παῖδες, παιδίσκαι, and παιδάρια, as well as a Satyriskos, who participated in the procession, were crowned with pine wreaths, either real or golden (Ath. 5.200 a–f).34 The fact is that the Isthmian games, besides being dedicated to Poseidon, were also considered as funeral games to Melikertes / Palaimon, the son of Ino, the maternal aunt of Dionysus, who was forced by Hera to leap into the sea together with her son because she offered shelter and protection to the infant Dionysus.35 Thus it was natural that both cults shared the same crown. It is very likely that a preexisting local funerary hero festival had been consecrated by being attached to the cult of a major god. It is, anyway, certain that the Isthmian festival had a strong Dionysiac flavour. Plutarch (Thes. 25.5–7) reports that the part of the festival dedicated to Melikertes / Palaimon was held during the night, as we know it was done with the worship of Dionysus. He also states that its character was one of a mystic telete, apparently a Bacchic one, rather than of a feast or a spectacle.36 Furthermore, he conveys the important information of Hellanikos (FGrHist 323a F 15) and Andron (FGrHist 10 F 6) that the Athenian theoroi were given special privileges (προεδρία) in the Isthmian games. This means that the Isthmian festival was not only parallel but also competitive to the Athenian festivals of Dionysus, all the more so given the proximity, both locally between Isthmus and Athens, and temporally, between the Isthmia and the City Dionysia (see Appendix). Of course, we do not know when the Isthmian festival obtained this character or when the Athenians earned the privileges. Plutarch claims that both events had originated at the institution of the festival by Theseus. We can only say that they antedate Aeschylus’ Theoroi.

 34 Broneer 1962, 262, tentatively identifies a small marble head now in the Isthmia collection of the Corinth Museum (inv. no. IS 410) as a Satyr head wearing a pine crown and questions its connection with Aeschylus’ Theoroi. He also points out another pine-crowned Satyr in Berlin (K 221 Blümel), but he asserts that the crown has been added by the copyist. 35 Sch. Ap. Rh. 3.1240 (quoting Musaios, Περὶ Ἰσθμίων, FGrHist 455 F 1) and Plut. Thes. 25.5 speak of two sorts of Isthmian games, one dedicated to Poseidon the other to Melikertes / Palaimon, but they do not refer to distinct crowns for each of them. 36 Things are complicated by the fact that celery crowns were considered funerary crowns (Duris, FGrHist 76 F 33) and should normally be attached to the funerary part of the festival, namely the Melikertes / Palaimon cult. See Gebhard/Dickie 1999, 159–165. In any case, the controversy in the Theoroi is between pine and ivy crowns, not pine and wild celery ones.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai Be that as it may, it is obvious that the pine crowns in Theoroi constitute an essential element in the conflict between Poseidon and Dionysus, whereas no celery crowns are mentioned, moreover at a time when celery crowns must have been the prize awarded to the winners in the games. The likeliest conclusion is that the crowns mentioned at c.39–40 are not the regular Isthmian victory crowns, which must have already been of celery, but rather ceremonial wreaths worn by the Isthmiastai or theoroi. The Satyrs have not won in the games; in fact, it is practically certain that eventually they won’t even contest. And it would be absurd if all the participants in the games, not to mention the crowds of the spectators, wore the same crowns as those to be awarded to the victors.37 At any rate, the Dionysiac character of the Isthmian crown together with the close relation of the festival with Athens must have facilitated the transfer of pine wreaths into the festivals of Dionysus in Athens and the supposed disparagement of the ivy wreaths. Aeschylus at least twice more dealt with the consecration of a ritual wreath or headband: fr. 202 R. of Prometheus Lyomenos and fr. 235 R. of the satyric Sphinx. The crowns worn by the participants in the Isthmian festival were apparently called ἰσθμιακά. Ath. 15.677 b preserves Ar. fr. 505 K.-A. from the Tagenistai, where these particular crowns are mentioned as worn by the choruses:38 ἰσθμιακόν· οὕτως τοῦτον καλούμενον στέφανον Ἀριστοφάνης μνήμης ἠξίωσεν ἐν Ταγηνισταῖς λέγων οὕτως· τί οὖν ποιῶμεν; χλανίδ᾽ ἐχρῆν λευκὴν λαβεῖν· εἶτ᾽ ἰσθμιακὰ λαβόντες ὥσπερ οἱ χοροὶ ἄιδωμεν ἐς τὸν δεσπότην ἐγκώμιον. Whereas the white χλανίς could have been worn by others as well,39 regarding the choruses mentioned as wearing this crown one could scarcely imagine other than the Dionysiac ones, considering the place and the time of the reference (Athens, theatre of Dionysus, end of the fifth century). I do not intend to discuss

 37 This view was first propounded by Blech 1982, 133, but on the grounds that “niketeria do not suit the race [of Satyrs], which, though strong in word, avoided the strain of the athletic games”. In a satyr-play nothing can be excluded, even the Satyrs winning the victory. At any rate, the fact is that they may be training, but most probably do not participate in the games. 38 Blanck 1974, 2 ff., proposed that ἴσθμιον, the present offered to Penelope at Od. 18.300 and usually interpreted as a kind of choker (from ἰσθμός, ‘neck’), was actually a crown. The dissertation was not available to me (I owe the reference to Blech 1982, 391 n. 2), but I find the proposal highly improbable. 39 Graf 1885, 75, proposes parasites.

Commentary  

the precise identity of the choruses and whether or not all of them were expected to wear Isthmian crowns and/or sing an encomium. It is true that comic choruses frequently sang encomia.40 But they sang encomia exclusively within their performance, and the attire they wore was the one required by their role, which could only exceptionally need Isthmian crowns. It seems that what Aristophanes refers to is the entire body of the choruses, dithyrambic and dramatic ones, presumably in relation to the formal procession of the Dionysia, more likely in relation to the nocturnal Dionysiac κῶμος, where ἐγκώμια would be in place. Which means that, at least by the late fifth century, when the Tagenistai must have been performed, the Isthmian crowns had already been introduced into the festival of Dionysus. No doubt they had been imported a few decades earlier, as attested in the Theoroi by the protests of Silenus, which, apparently, remained ineffectual. As for the repeated use of σὺ δ᾽ἰσθμιάζεις here and at a.34, it is made, I guess, jocularly, because Aeschylus seems to be punning on the second, apparently colloquial, meaning of ἰσθμιάζειν, ‘have a bad time, suffer’, supposedly because of the unhealthy season of the Isthmian games: Suid. ι 638 Ἴσθμια· ... καὶ παροιμία ἰσθμιάζειν, ἐπὶ τῶν κακῶς βιούντων. ἐπίνοσος γὰρ ὁ τῶν Ἰσθμίων καιρός.41 There can be no doubt that the paroemiographer is here implausibly rationalizing, because early summer, when the Isthmia were conducted, is one of the fairest periods in Greece. On the contrary, it is very likely that this meaning originated in the hardships borne by the worshippers who used to flock to the Isthmian sanctuary during the festival. Because, naturally, the basic sense of ἰσθμιάζω is ‘I am an Ἰσθμιαστής’. It seems that Silenus’ warnings to the Satyrs with regard to the inconvenience they would suffer (c.7 κακῶι τε κοίτωι καὶ κακαῖς δυσαυλίαις, and c.9 ἐγὼ δὲ πάντας πολυπόνους ἐπόψομαι), reflected a real situation, namely the low level of attendance offered to the theoroi by the priesthood and the officials of the sanctuary.42

 40 Macleod 1981 = Collected Essays 1983, 49–51. 41 = Cod. Paris. suppl. gr. 676, ed. Cohn 1887 (= CPG Suppl. I), 78, no. 56 (ἰσθμιάζει); cf. Hsch. ι 923 (ἰσθμιᾶσαι). 42 Gebhard 2002 examines two small caves used for dining at the Isthmia festival. The caves, where the diners crammed, seem to reflect the poor quality of service experienced by the theoroi. It seems also that the Isthmia were considered second rate games because of the cheap prizes. Cf. Plato com. fr. 46.9 f. K.-A., where Heracles, speaking of a kottabos game, where the prizes were the boots of a woman and his drinking cup, exclaims ironically: βαβαιάξ· οὑτοσὶ | μείζων ἀγὼν τῆς Ἰσθμιάδος ἐπέρχεται. The fragment is differently explained by Casaubon.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai c.41. “Therefore, you’ll weep not with smoke”. The supplements proposed, “soaking your eyes” or “(only) stung” (τέγγων / δεύων φάη vel δεδηγμένος (hoc etiam Maas) Kamerbeek, δηχθεὶς μόνον Snell), make satisfactory sense, but do not explain why Silenus chose this strange negative comparison with shedding tears because of the smoke. It seems as if Silenus is reminding the Satyrs of a former experience they had, only stressing that now it will not be so mild as that one.43 But the allusive mention of an old experience, unless it referred to a wellknown detail of the myth, which does not seem to be the case here, can only be a reference to an older satyr-play. It seems that the Satyrs experienced similar situations in Prometheus Pyrkaeus, although both relevant fragments (187a and 207; cf. 288 R.) are conjecturally attributed to that satyr-play. There, the Satyrs are warned to stay clear of the new-acquired fire, in order to protect their mouth, their beard, and, possibly, their life. It is only natural that at some stage the Satyrs complained that the smoke made them weep.44 For a similar crossreference, but between satyr-play and tragedy, cf., e.g., fr. 235 R. referring to fr. 202 R. (Sphinx and Prometheus Lyomenos) and Soph. 269c.21 R. (Inachos) referring to Aesch. PV 941; or Men. Asp. 216–20 with references to common motifs of New Comedy. c.42. The gap appears in the most crucial word. It is clear that the Satyrs could be convinced to return to their first master either by being frightened and threatened or by being treated gently and cajoled. Accordingly, the numerous proposals for supplementing the gap are roughly divided in these two semantically opposite groups: (i) ταράγματα Fraenkel, τὰ δεινά σοι, τὰ ποίνιμα Kamerbeek, τὰ δεσμά σοι Reinhardt, (ii) τἄποινα σοῦ Kamerbeek, τὰ φίλτατα LloydJones, τἀθύρματα Steffen. The first group apparently depends on the angry reaction of the Chorus in lines 44–45: καὶ τί μοι | ταῦτ᾽ ἀπειλεῖς ἔχ[ων; But these words do not mean “Why do you threaten me with these things?”. It is well known that the present participle of ἔχω with verbs in present “adds a notion of duration to that of present action” (LSJ ἔχω, B.IV.2). It is also noteworthy that this expression is very frequently met with in interrogations, especially those introduced  43 Hourmouziades 1974, 54, interprets the line differently. 44 Possibly, Aesch. fr. 336 R. ἄχνη, ‘foam, froth, chaff flying in the wind’, used of smoke, comes from that play. Cf. fr. 187a R., where also strange words are used for everyday experiences: πέμφιξ, ‘blast, lightning, ray, drop’, used, possibly, of a boiling-hot drop of water or a blast of fire, and ἀτμοί, ‘steam, vapour, hot breath’, used of a blow of fire. See below pp. 186–188. The Satyrs are, at this point of the play, inexperienced in the properties of Prometheus’ gift, but they also do not know any term for this yet unknown stuff; so metaphors from areas more familiar to them are used. See also on c.57.

Commentary  

with τί in the sense ‘why’; e.g., Ar. Nub. 509, Eccl. 853, 1151, Thesm. 473, 852. So, τί ... ἀπειλεῖς ἔχων; means “why do you keep threatening?” As for ταῦτα, it is a cognate object of ἀπειλεῖς. Cf. Ar. Thesm. 473 τί ταῦτ᾽ ἔχουσαι ᾽κεῖνον αἰτιώμεθα; As Lloyd-Jones translates: “Why do you keep threatening me so?” Therefore, it seems that there is no relation between lines c.42 and c.44–5. Thus, it is very likely that the first group of supplements in line c.42 should be rejected, and that what is in view of the Satyrs must be some cajoling objects. Actually, line c.48 σὺ δ᾽ ἄλλοις ταῦτ[α π]έμπε [δῶρα, in the brilliant proposal of Snell, indicates that what the Satyrs are declining are coaxing and not threatening articles. To the supplements of Kamerbeek, Lloyd-Jones, and Steffen one may add, e.g., τὰ [παίγνια or τὰ [δῶρά σοι, unless the objects are known to the Satyrs, and so Silenus may use, instead of generic terms, their specific name (see below). One cannot be certain, but it seems that the objects are really known to the Satyrs, since their father is expecting his sons to recognize them. What he asks them is “Don’t you see the x?” and not “Don’t you see what I brought for you?”. It is a different matter if these gifts should be identified with those which the Chorus accepts in the stichomythia of lines c.49–62. However, this is absolutely out of the question. The gifts of lines c.42 and c.48 are offered to the Chorus in order to allure them to withdraw from the Isthmia and return to the company of Dionysus. Instead, the gifts of lines c.49–62 are offered to the Chorus for participating with them in the Isthmian games, as is evident from lines c.56 ff. It seems, therefore, that we have two groups of gifts, each with a different function. As long as the order of the fragments was the one consolidated by Lobel’s edition (i. 78a, ii. 78c), the number of these groups of gifts was believed to be three. The first one consisted of the gifts mentioned in the opening of fr. 78a, i.e. the likenesses. The second one consisted of the gifts which Dionysus angrily orders Silenus to withhold in line a.28 of the same fragment. The latter might be the same gifts as those mentioned by Silenus in the present line. Finally, a third group of gifts was offered to the Satyrs in the scene starting at c.49: it is the group of playthings newly made with adze and anvil. However, three groups of gifts was a rather excessive number. Nor was the number decreased by the order also suggested by Lobel, and applied by Snell, Lloyd-Jones, Mette, Henry - Nünlist, Sommerstein, and Ferrari, who published the two fragments overlapping. It is clear that, so far as the surviving text allows us to see, the opposed parts in the play were two: the part of Dionysus and the part of Poseidon, each one trying to attract the Satyrs to their side. It is natural then to expect two and not three opposing groups of gifts.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai The new order of the fragments that I am proposing (i. 78c, ii. 78a), besides solving a number of problems for understanding the story of the play, responds, I believe, to this expectation too. The first group of gifts is the one that Silenus is showing to the Chorus here. At c.48 the Satyrs scornfully decline the offer. And it must be the same gifts that at a.28 Dionysus will forbid Silenus to give to the Satyrs. The second group makes its appearance at c.49, and it consists of the playthings newly made with adze and anvil. They will reappear at a.1 ff. in the scene of the likenesses. As regards the nature of this first group of gifts, the only thing one is allowed to guess at this moment is that, being the presents of Silenus or, possibly, of Dionysus, they must be of Dionysiac character: fawn- or leopard-skins, thyrsoi, ivy crowns, kantharoi or other drinking cups (see below on c.49–51 about the possible supplements). c.43–48. The dialogue between Silenus and the Chorus-leader ends in line 42, and the scene closes with the decisive answer of the Satyrs, sung in short iambic lyrics, rejecting Silenus’ attempts to dissuade them. c.43–45. The supplements proposed by several scholars are absolutely satisfactory. At c.43 both ἐ[γώ (Mette) and ἑ[κών (Cantarella) make excellent sense. In c.44 καὶ τί μοι  (Lobel) is certain, especially given the vicinity to ἀπειλεῖς. And in c.45 ἔχ̣[ων; (Kamerbeek) agrees with the ink traces and makes perfect sense. I discussed above on c.42 the meaning of τί μοι ταῦτ᾽ ἀπειλεῖς ἔχων. I also argued on p. 4 about the wrong translation of οὔποτ᾽ ἔξειμι τοῦ ἱεροῦ (not “I’ll never come out of the temple”, but “I’ll never go out of the sanctuary”) and its effect in putting the main fragments of the papyrus in the wrong order, a misconception that was, unfortunately, perpetuated. If the words of the Chorus really meant that they had taken refuge within the temple, it would be implied that their role, during at least a part of the action, was performed inside the temple of Poseidon and, since the Chorus-leader cannot be detached from the body of the Chorus, that the scenes in which he was involved were also performed inside the temple. Such an assumption would necessarily entail insuperable difficulties of production, which could not be eliminated even if the eccyclema were used. And surely this is not a case of metastasis, since the part of the Chorus and the Chorus-leader is not interrupted. Nor can we have recourse to possible pre-stage conventions, like, e.g., the case of Pers. 140–141, where the Chorus on the orchestra are supposed to be seated inside an assembly room (τόδ᾽ ἐνεζόμενοι στέγος ἀρχαῖον). In the Theoroi, it is absolutely clear that a stage background

Commentary  

existed, representing the front of the temple of Poseidon, from which the god will come out and on which the Satyrs will hang their likenesses.45 c.46–7. The verses have been variously supplemented by scholars: ἀντε[σκαλῶ or ἀντε[πάξω or ἄντε[σθαι θέλω | Ποσειδᾶν᾽ ὃς ο[ἰκτιρεῖ or ὃς ο[ὔ σοί με δώσει or ὃς ο[ὔ με προδώσει Kamerbeek. Snell’s Ἴσθμιον ἀντε[ισέρχομαι | Ποσειδᾶνος ο[ἶκον, was made popular by its inclusion in the editions of the play by Lloyd-Jones, Mette, and Werner, yet it creates serious problems of production, if the Chorus are supposed to leave the orchestra in a body and enter the temple. Actually, as we shall see, the scene immediately following is between Poseidon and the Satyrs; which means that, if we accept Snell’s proposal, we have also to admit that what so explicitly the Chorus declare is tacitly cancelled only one line later.46 My own proposals, by taking account of the fact that lines c.46–48 are closing a scene and heralding a new one, aim at exploiting the words of the Chorus as a stage direction, viz. as introducing the next character, who would otherwise appear unannounced. ἐκκαλῶ, -οῦμαι is technically used for calling on stage, hence announcing, a character who is offstage, i.e. supposedly indoors: Soph. Phil. 1264, Eur. Bacch. 170, Ar. Ach. 402, Eccl. 34, Lys. 850, 875, Pl. 1103, Thesm. 65, Vesp. 221, 271, Men. Asp. 162, Perik. 1009. ἀντεκκαλῶ, ‘call out instead’, is unattested, but is inspired by another unattested proposal, Kamerbeek’s ἀντεσκαλῶ, ‘call in instead’, which would carry on the misconception that I mentioned above. The Satyrs in response to their father’s threatening pressure call loudly Poseidon (Ποσειδᾶν᾽ ὅσ[ον σθένω), their new guardian, to come out of his Isthmian temple. ἀντεκκαλῶ might also be future. In that case the supplement of the next line might be ὅσο[ν τάχος, which I finally prefer. c.48. I have already expressed my preference to Snell’s proposal, with which the Satyrs decline contemptuously the offer of Silenus. “As for you, send these things as presents to others.” Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1268 ἄλλην τιν᾽ ... ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ πλουτίζετε. The last verse is explicitly addressed to Silenus, who obviously had not exited at c.42, after completing his speech. However, there is also no sign that he exits after c.48. Did he remain in the next scene to watch the newcomer handing the shields to the Chorus? Since there is no time gap for a change of

 45 Taplin 1977, 373, n. 1, noticed that οὔποτ᾽ ἔξειμι τοῦ ἱεροῦ “clearly refers to the whole sanctuary which includes the orchestra, and not just the temple represented by the skene”. But he did not realize the implications of his correct remark on the reconstruction of the action. 46 Taplin 1977, 456 n. 3, finds Ποσειδᾶνος ο[ἶκον attractive, but leaves (p. 421) the preceding verse unsupplemented.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai actor, this newcomer who enters at the next verse must be necessarily played by a second actor. And if Silenus had exited after c.48, then the newcomer would have no other character to confront but the coryphaeus. c.49–51. The supplements proposed for the first three verses of the iambic piece are satisfactory. 49 ἐπεί and 50 δεῦρ᾽ may not be absolutely certain, but the sense of the verses is clear. In line 50 the scribe has erroneously written ΦΕ]ΡΟΙ CΟΙ, which he corrected by cancelling ΟΙ and writing ω super lineam. Lobel claims that “there is no sign that ο as well as ι was cancelled”, but the dot inside the circle of O can only be the typical deleting dot. As regards the identity of the speaker, I have several times already stated my opinion. By transposing the two papyrus fragments there must be no doubt that the speaker of lines a.1–2 and the one who enters at c.49 are one and the same character. Several proposals have already been made concerning the identity of the speakers. Snell suggested Sisyphus, the king of Corinth and founder of the Isthmian games; so also Wessels/Krumeich 1999, 140 n. 40, who discuss further possibilities; Reinhardt agreed only adding as a less likely alternative Theseus, who is also mentioned as founder of the games; Lloyd-Jones discussed Daedalus’ candidacy, but ended up by proposing hesitantly Hephaestus; Sutton proposed Heracles;47 Mette identified the two speakers as Anonymous A. Other scholars, not identifying the two speakers, speak of Νεωκόρος and Bacchus (Setti), Νεωκόρος and Silenus (Terzaghi),48 Chorus and Silenus (Steffen). Recent editors (Sommerstein, Collard, Ferrari) prefer to ascribe the dialogue to Dionysus and the Chorus. He is certainly other than Silenus, the speaker of lines c.37–42, and, if my guess regarding the invocations of lines c.46–47 and a.22 is accepted, he is most probably Poseidon. Later on, we shall discuss further arguments that speak for this identification. Although the invocation of the god by the Chorus in lines c.46–47 serves theatrically as his announcement, he enters without reacting to that summoning. Actually, if we take ἀντεκκαλῶ as future and supplement in the next line ὅσο[ν τάχος, we should no more speak of invocation but of threat, and, in that case, there is no problem whatsoever with the unannounced entrance of Poseidon. Moreover, in the stichomythia that follows, the Chorus do not react as if they were meeting now for the first time their collocutor, but as if continuing a conversation they had with him formerly. The obvious explanation is that a scene with the meeting of the Satyrs with Poseidon has preceded, in which the Chorus-leader expressed their wish to learn a new art, apparently related with  47 Sutton 1980, 32–34; cf. Sutton 1981. 48 Terzaghi 1955, 691–692.

Commentary  

the Isthmia. Poseidon went temporarily offstage in order to fetch the implements of this new art. It seems, therefore, that we are in an already advanced stage of the action. It was necessary for the god to appear in order to distribute the playthings, but it would not serve the plot if he appeared in response to an invocation of the Chorus. This is why, although the audience has been prepared for his entrance, he enters without any proper introduction, like the proverbial “talk of the devil, and he’ll appear”, with the dramatic device appropriately named by Oliver Taplin ‘lupus in fabula’.49 Poseidon must be coming out of his temple. Therefore, the gifts must have been placed inside it. These gifts are newly made with adze and anvil, that is, of wood and metal. We need not discuss Kamerbeek’s far-fetched proposal ἀπὸ [σκε]πάρνου κἄκμ[ονος (= ‘without adze and anvil’) θ]εόκτ[ιτα. They are described as ‘playthings’ (ἀθύρματα, παίγνια), but they certainly are the tools or instruments of the new art which the Satyrs aspire to learn. In the hands of the Satyrs, the παῖδες, they most certainly function as toys. I mentioned above on line c.42 that scholars used to consider these gifts as two different groups of objects. On the one hand, the images that the Satyrs hang upon the front of the temple and, on the other, the playthings made with the adze and the anvil, which could be used in the athletic games. For the first, Lobel suggested statuettes and painted pinakes.50 Fraenkel ap. Lobel, p. 14 n. 1, proposed satyr-masks and claimed that their fixing to the temple alluded to the satyromorphic tile antefixes that covered the ends of the roof. Snell, unaffected by G. Richter’s criticism,51 adopted Fraenkel’s proposal and supported it with further archaeological evidence, especially the impressive satyromorphic antefixes found in Gela from the second quarter of the fifth century, which Aeschylus himself could have seen.52 Ar. fr. 130 K.-A. was also paralleled by the scholars.53 The satyr-mask theory found considerable approval, and Mette proposed that the masks in question were worn above the actors’ regular satyr-masks. Just

 49 Taplin 1977, 137–139. 50 In a thorough study, Krumeich 2000 elaborated his previous (in Wessels/Krumeich 1999, 142–144) support of the pinakes theory. 51 Richter 1955, 17 n. 3: “Antefixes are not ‘nailed down’ [...], whereas votive offerings were regularly hung up on pegs and provided with holes for that purpose.” 52 Orlandini 1954; Holloway 1991, 79–80; Bennett/Paul 2002, 263. 53 Α. τίς ἂν φράσειε ποῦ ᾽στι τὸ Διονύσιον; | Β. ὅπου τὰ μορμολυκεῖα προσκρεμάννυται. This has been compared with a fifth century vase-painting that depicts theatre masks hung on a wall (McCredie 1968, 204 pl. 59C); Webster 1972, 455. Though this is the obvious interpretation, the fragment must also function jokingly with dramatic illusion broken and the actor showing towards the audience; cf. Ar. Nub. 1096–1098, Ran. 274–276, 783.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai for the sake of completeness I must mention the suggestions of Untersteiner (one large statue) and Terzaghi (one large and many small artefacts).54 As for the objects made with adze and anvil, Setti proposed fetters, Snell javelins (supplementing at c.42 οὐχ ὁρᾶις τἀ[κόντια;, though he attributes this line to Dionysus, but identifies the donor as Sisyphus),55 Reinhardt chariots, and Kamerbeek thyrsoi.56 Now that these two groups prove to be one, let us list the properties of the gifts. They are made with adze and anvil, in other words, they are made of wood and metal (c.51); they are suitable for the new art that the Satyrs decided to learn, i.e. athletics (c.55–56); they are used in an athletic event of the Isthmia (c.58), apparently a foot-race (c.60); they are possibly heavy or unwieldy for young boys, and so hinder their running (c.59); they are painted (a.12); they can be hung in front of a temple as votive offerings (a.11–12, a.18–19); they bear upon them terrifying images (a.1, a.21); they may frighten foreign intruders (a.20–21); the images they bear can represent Satyrs (a.5–7, a.13–17, a.19). There is only one object that agrees with all these properties, and it is the shield. It was made with adze and anvil. We know that the defensive weapon of the classical times was made of a substratum of wood with a sheathing of bronze.57 The art which the shield was suitable for is, naturally, the art of war. Certainly, there is no mention whatsoever in the surviving verses that the new art the Satyrs aspire to learn is the art of war. And since the shield was really employed in an athletic event, one might surmise that it is merely athletics that is meant. I believe, however, that things are somewhat more complex. Most athlet-

 54 Untersteiner 1951, 19–45, esp. 24 f., Terzaghi 1955, 688–689. 55 Webster 21967, 142, associated with the Theoroi an Attic red-figured cup (AV 7, p. 46 = ARV2 87.18) of 500 BC in Cervetri, now lost, showing a Satyr with cuirass, spear, and leopard-skin (Brommer ²1959, no. 11, fig. 9), and an Attic red-figured column-crater (AV 52, p. 116 = Para 354.39bis; Add2 207) of 480–70 BC in Sabucina showing Satyrs at Hephaestus’ forge (Brommer ²1959, no. 107). Brommer himself connected with the Theoroi a group of vase-paintings with athletic subjects (nos. 108–115). Hourmouziades 1974, 198 n. 143, refers to two fragments of a kylix in Boston (Brommer ²1959, no. 14a, fig. 8); in the first a female figure is offering a javelin to a Satyr who rejects the offer, in the second a Satyr is using the javelin. Brommer himself believes that the female figure is the goddess usually identified with Pandora emerging from the earth and holding a scepter (not a javelin), and that the Satyr is making a dance figure (not a gesture of rejection). 56 For a list of the proposals with full references: Wessels/Krumeich 1999, 142. 57 See Lammert 1921, 424. ἀσπίδες ἐπίχαλκοι (sometimes ἐπίχρυσοι) and ὑπόξυλοι are frequently mentioned among the ἱερὰ χρήματα τῆς Ἀθηναίας καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν in the inventories of the Parthenon treasures, between c. 390 and 330 BC: IG II2 1380, 4–5; 1421, col. iv 113; 1424a, col. iii 301, 330; 1425, face A, col. iii 260; 1426, 30; 1428, col. ii 212; 1433, 7–8; 1434, 12; 1461, 2–4.

Commentary  

ic events in antiquity had definitely a martial character, the more so when weapons were used in them. Moreover, when the Satyrs spread the rumour that Dionysus is no good in the σιδηρῖτις [τέχνη (a.67), they do it with the arrogance appropriate to novices in a martial art and not in athletics. It is clear by now that the foot-race in which the Satyrs are being prepared to contest with the shields is the ὁπλίτης or ἐνόπλιος δρόμος, an event actually included in the programme of the Isthmia.58 Kamerbeek had already noted that at line a.64, σάκει καλύψας […]εν[, the reference is precisely to this activity of the Satyrs. However, the Dutch scholar did not elaborate his correct remark, which might have solved many of the problems of the play.59 In the long fragment against athletes of Euripides’ Autolykos (fr. 282 Kannicht) there is also a derogatory reference to the hoplitodromes: at 19–21 Nauck and Kannicht published πότερα μαχοῦνται (sc. the athletes) πολεμίοισιν ἐν χεροῖν | δίσκους ἔχοντες ἢ δι᾽ ἀσπίδων χερὶ | θείνοντες ἐκβαλοῦσι πολεμίους πάτρας; The sources (Athenaeus and Galen) are not unanimous: 20 δι᾽ ἀσπίδων Ath., Gal., | χερὶ Ath., ποσὶ Gal. (quod accepit Nauck in editione fragmentorum Euripidis anni 1892) || 21 θείνοντες Ath., θέοντες Gal. Galen’s readings with no emendation whatsoever are much preferable, both here and in the rest of the fragment.60 In the time of Euripides the armed race was performed only with the shield. Naturally, the runners cannot drive away the enemy δι᾽ ἀσπίδων ποσὶ θέοντες, as in the athletic games, and to do so would be silly. As Euripides continues: 22 f. οὐδεὶς σιδήρου ταῦτα μωραίνει πέλας | στάς, ‘nobody makes such silly acts when standing by the iron’, i.e., when in battle. There was no boxing event with one hand holding the shield, and the poet could not ridicule a non-existent game. Further, I do not fully understand what the combined expressions of instrument δι᾽ ἀσπίδων χερί may mean. The armour of the runners originally consisted of shield, helmet, and greaves, but was later, as mentioned by Pausanias, 6.10.4, limited to the shield. This reform is usually dated, on the basis of representations of hoplitodromes on vase-paintings, in the mid-fifth century. We do not know the date of the Theoroi, so that we may reconstruct the exact costume of the Satyrs, although Aes 58 Schneider 1916, 2252. To the evidence adduced by Schneider add Philostratus, Gymn. 7 (138.10 Jüthner). On ὁπλίτης δρόμος see Tiverios 1989, 35–43, with abundant literature. 59 Lately, references to the shields and the armed race have multiplied (Conrad 1997, 73; Wessels/Krumeich 1999, 147 n. 73; Krumeich 2000, 176; O’Sullivan 2000, 365 n. 54), but the traditional order of the papyrus fragments has not allowed full understanding of their part in the play’s plot. 60 Van Looy 1998, 329–340, Pechstein/Krumeich 1999, Collard/Cropp 2008, 278–287, and Collard, in O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 384–391, also prefer the readings of Athenaeus.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai chylus might well have increased or decreased the components of the armour for reasons either of ‘historical’ verisimilitude or of the performance limitations.61 At any rate, there seems to be no hint in the surviving part of the play to any other armour item, whether helmet or greaves or cuirass. The weight of the wooden and bronze shield, not to count the rest of the weapons, if there were any, was heavy enough to hinder running in the games — and, naturally, dancing in the satyr-play.62 Poseidon takes out the shields from the temple, apparently with the help of some technical means, for instance a trolley, and a stagehand. This reminds us of the interesting information offered by Pausanias, 5.12.8, about twenty-five shields he saw at Olympia, inside the temple of Olympian Zeus, τοῖς ὁπλιτεύουσιν εἶναι φορήματα ἐς τὸν δρόμον. It seems that by keeping the shields in the temple they secured the equal weight of load for the competing athletes.63 Cf. also the inscription SIG3 419 of 271 BC from Delphi, commemorating a certain Eudoxus of Argos, who promised to furnish at his own expense the hieromnemones with ten ἀσπίδας ἐπιχάλκους ποικίλας ἐνδρομίδας (lines 9–10) for the gymnastic contest of the Pythia — obviously the ὁπλίτης δρόμος. He is entrusted with the task of shining the shields, ὅπως λαμπραὶ εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα παραφέρωνται (lines 14–15), and the Delphians undertake to provide καὶ θησαυρόν, ὅπου τὰ ὅπλα θήσει (lines 17–18). At this point, I must point out that the terms ‘gifts’ or ‘presents’ that I am using till now regarding the objects brought out by Poseidon are not correct. Poseidon refers to them as ἀθύρματα (c.50) and παίγνια (c.52), but not as ‘gifts’. Because, actually, the shields must belong to the temple. They are given to the Satyrs for their training or, at the level of performance, for performing a dance with them, but, after it is finished, they will have to be returned to the god. The fact that they are not put back inside the temple, but are hung on its front, is an ingeniously inventive stage décor (a.11 κόσμον ταῦ[τ]α τῶι θεῶι φέρω); see also Appendix, Dating. I do not believe that it may be an indication that the shields will be used again for one or more dance performances.  61 In any case, it is very likely that the play was performed in the last decade of Aeschylus’ career. See Taplin 1977, 456, Appendix C. See here Appendix, Dating. 62 E.g., Il. 2.388 ἱδρώσει μέν τευ τελαμὼν ἀμφὶ στήθεσφιν ἀσπίδος ἀμφιβρότης, 3.335 σάκος μέγα τε στιβαρόν τε, 5.795 ἱδρὼς γάρ μιν ἔτειρεν ὑπὸ πλατέος τελαμῶνος ἀσπίδος εὐκύκλου, 16.106 ὁ δ᾽ ἀριστερὸν ὦμον ἔκαμνεν, ἔμπεδον αἰὲν ἔχων σάκος αἴολον. For athletics see, among many, Bengtson 1971, 53. 63 I would doubt that the metal foundry discovered in the precincts of the Isthmian sanctuary has anything to do with the construction of the athletic shields: Sutton 1981, 337, associates it with the supposed javelins.

Commentary  

Fr. 61a R., conjecturally assigned to Aeschylus’ Edonoi, is the proverb τί δ᾽ ἀσπίδι ξύνθημα καὶ καρχησίωι;, which is interpreted by παρόσον οὐ συμφωνεῖ.64 Apparently, it was this verse that was adjusted by Herodicus the Cratetean (18.13 Düring) ap. Ath. 5.215 e, when arguing against Socrates’ celebrated martial efficiency: τί γὰρ ἀσπίδι ξύνθημα καὶ βακτηρίαι; Kaibel (in Ath. loc. cit., not yet knowing the proverb) considered the words of Herodicus a comic variant deriving from Aeschylus’ Lykourgeia. He compared Ar. Thesm. 134 ff. which are adapted, as the Scholia ad loc. assure, from Aeschylus’ Edonoi, the first tragedy of the Lykourgeia (fr. 61 R.). The line closest to fr. 61a in the Aristophanes passage seems to be Thesm. 140 τίς δαὶ κατόπτρου καὶ ξίφους κοινωνία; R. Kassel65 suggested that the comedy in question was Eupolis’ Taxiarchoi, in which Dionysus underwent a military training by the Athenian general Phormion. The interposition of a comedy might have been necessary, in order to account for the non-tragic vocabulary (in the case of Kaibel also for the initial anapaest), but also to account for the shield, which was alien to Dionysus in the Edonoi. But, as I shall try to show (below on a.67–8), the source of Eupolis in this particular comedy was not the Edonoi or the Lykourgeia, but Aeschylus’ Theoroi. Moreover, fr. 61a, if from Aeschylus, as is very likely, need not refer to Dionysus. On the contrary, it might well be spoken by Dionysus — or Silenus — and be addressed to the Satyrs. Then, its likeliest provenance is not the Edonoi but the Theoroi. The non-tragic words, if any, may point to a satyr-play. καρχήσια, drinking cups similar to kantharoi, might perhaps be Silenus’ gifts mentioned in c.42, c.48, a.28. They are an attribute of Dionysus (Cratinus fr. 40 K.-A. from Dionysalexandros, Ath. 5.198 c), but also of the Satyrs, who are described as using them in processions (Ath. 5.198 b). On the other hand, I should rather agree with the suggestion that καρχήσια are used as a generic term for ‘drinking cups’.66 Satyrs are depicted holding karchesia, kantharoi and all kinds of drinking cups in numerous vase-paintings. In the Theoroi the cups were, possibly, to be given to the Satyrs for the procession of the Dionysia in Athens, but they declined them. Therefore, I would end the line c.42 by, e.g., τἀ[κπώματα or τὰ [τεύχεα or similarly. On the other hand, σύνθημα is interpreted in LSJ, but uniquely for this fragment, as ‘communion, connexion’. This interpretation is no doubt correct, but it  64 Proverb. Cod. Laur. LVIII.24, Vb.16, Cohn 1887 (ed.), 41. 65 Kassel 1966, 10–12. 66 Love 1964; cf. Boardman 1979.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai is a synecdochical broadening of the primary sense ‘anything agreed upon, agreement, covenant, = συνθῆκαι’. Therefore, the actual meaning of the verse must be “What agreement can there be between shield and drinking cup?” Could this meaning reflect a combination of the two disparate attributes as result of an agreement between the two opposite sides? And could this agreement be detected in the actual worship of the two gods? I have already discussed some relevant aspects above on c.39–40. But apart from the religious or historical evidence, there is also the dramatic situation which dictates mutual concessions. See Appendix. c.52–3. “The first of the playthings” does not imply that there was a variety of objects. The refusal of the Chorus-leader (ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐχί· τῶν φίλων νεῖμόν τινι) does not seem initially to have any practical reason or effect. Not, until we realize who the Chorus-leader is. Because, his refusal, on which he apparently insisted, in spite of Poseidon’s advice, combined with the reduced number of the shields by one (see below on a.19–21), therefore of the Satyrs holding them, indicates Silenus as the official coryphaeus, while in practice another Satyr is the acting chorus-leader. The issue of Silenus, whether as coryphaeus or as actor, concerns not only the Theoroi, but the satyr-play in general. It has been extensively researched and several debatable views have been proposed. The available evidence does not allow the equation of the features of Silenus in the satyr-play with those of the coryphaeus, as we know them from tragedy. What Silenus has in common with the tragic coryphaeus is that his presence without the Satyr-chorus is unthinkable. But, his independence from the movements, the acts, the speech, and the situations of the group of the choreuts is especially pronounced, characteristics that speak for a separate actor. Coming into conflict with his sons is a stock joke in satyr-plays, where the choreuts, as is natural in drama, are represented during the confrontation by a coryphaeus, obviously other than Silenus. However, while these features would lead to the conclusion that we are dealing with a separate actor, the choreuts, in some countable cases, are not twelve but eleven, which suggests that Silenus is counted as part of the chorus, namely its first member. Instead of reproducing the numerous debates, it is perhaps better to record, as schematically as possible, the existing evidence, meagre as it is. As it seems, in the Dionysia performances of the Aeschylean era, the city was supposed to cover the cost of 2 actors + 1 coryphaeus for each competing poet. The choregus was supposed to cover the cost of 11 choreuts. The numbers did not change in the satyr-play, but, within the plot, the official coryphaeus of the tragic trilogy

Commentary  

was now given the role of Silenus. So, one of the eleven choreuts served as the acting chorus-leader, in order to represent the Satyrs in their confrontation whether with Silenus, their father, or with the other characters of the play. The eleven choreuts are countable in tragedy: in the distichomythia of the consultation scene at Ag. 1346–1371, the coryphaeus poses the problem in tetrameters (1346–1347) and then gives as first his opinion in trimeters (1348–1349), followed in succession by the other eleven. In satyr-play, the eleven Satyrs are countable in Theoroi, as will be shown, first by the refusal of Silenus to accept the shield offered to him by Poseidon and second thanks to the eleven shields hung on Poseidon’s temple. A chorus of eleven Satyrs is depicted on the psykter of Douris in the British Museum (E 768, ARV² 446.262) of c. 480 BCE. The vasepainting does not show Silenus, but ten of the Satyrs are dancing in intricate drunken figures, while the eleventh, stands in the center dressed in a decorated mantle and bearing the attributes of a messenger. He must be the acting chorusleader. In Aesch. Prom. Pyrkaeus, fr. 204d 12, four semi-semichoria each of three choreuts are singing and dancing the ephymnia, apparently with Silenus included in the group. However, in the Pronomos vase (Naples 3240, ARV² 1336.1) of c. 400 BCE, eleven Satyrs are depicted while Silenus seems to hold a special role as a separate actor. The unnamed choreut who is dressed in decorated chiton and himation must be the acting chorus-leader, though a similar role (semichorus-leader?) can be attributed to the Satyr who is depicted first on the left of the painting under the speaking name Εὔνικος exceptionally wearing nonwoolly tights. In the post-Aeschylean era, the number of the actors whose cost was undertaken by the city was increased to three, while the number of the choreuts whose cost was borne by the choregus was raised to fourteen: IG i³ 969 from Varkiza (Anagyrous) of 440–431 BCE commemorates the victory of a choregus quoting the names of fourteen tragic choreuts.67 In practical terms for the rest of this study, it is better to refer to Silenus simply by his name and to the acting chorus-leader by coryphaeus. Dana Ferrin Sutton’s68 ‘sub-coryphaeus’, though correct in its conception, can confuse understanding, especially if Silenus is referred to by ‘coryphaeus’. Sutton’s arguments, were partly based on the two-actor convention. If Silenus was one of the two, this would mean that no more than one character could appear on stage with Silenus and the chorus. Thus the poet would have to face enormous dramaturgical problems, if no two characters could confront each other unless Sile 67 Sansone 2016 interprets the inscription differently: 3 actors (the choregos or the poet included) + 12 choreuts. 68 Sutton 1974b.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai nus was one of the two. The enormity of the problem could be considered an exaggeration, because crude and rudimentary plots couldn’t be excluded for the early years of satyr-play performances. In any case, the available evidence shows that Silenus was subject to an official restriction of being counted as an independent actor, no matter if he was treated by the poets as such. In Sutton’s words, Silenus is “the coryphaeus, strictly speaking”, though with several of the actor’s freedoms, but not exactly an ordinary actor, a tertium quid as others put it. At the same time, however, there is also an acting coryphaeus “in order for the chorus to participate in the dialogue”. In conclusion, at the scene of the delivery of the shields from Poseidon to the Satyrs, Silenus is included in the group of the Satyrs, opening their dialogue with Poseidon, as their official leader, but he denies the shield given to him. So, the remaining Satyrs who accept the shield are eleven. The acting chorus-leader, Sutton’s sub-coryphaeus, is the Satyr who describes his mother’s possible reactions. From a performance point of view, it is surprising that, although the shields have been brought out of the temple all together, possibly, as has been surmised above, in a trolley with the help of a stagehand, and all Satyrs could take them on their own, Poseidon hands them out himself one by one to each of them. The reason, I suppose, is for offering the occasion first to Silenus to decline the offer and then to every member of the Chorus to recite one verse each in the stichomythia that follows. It is a device similar to the well-known consultation scene in Aesch. Ag. 1348–1371, with successive distichs, or the blindman’s-buff scene in Eur. Cycl. 669–689, with fifteen choreuts, though not in a typical stichomythia. If this is true, the stichomythia must last for 12×2 verses in all, with each of the Satyrs asking a question about the use of the shield and Poseidon giving instructions. There is no hint of Silenus exiting after his refusal to accept the shield or of his presence during the dances that will follow. c.54. Although parallels to the expression ὄρνιθος οὕνεκα have been pointed out (Eur. Hcld. 730 ὄρνιθος οὕνεκ᾽, Pl. Menex. 249 b οἰωνοῦ χάριν), the meaning of the verse transmitted (μὴ ἄπειπε μηδ᾽ ὄρνιθος οὕνεκ᾽, ὠγαθέ) continues to be puzzling. The sense expected for ὄρνις is certainly the good omen sought after at the commencement of an undertaking. The Satyrs are about to start learning a new art, and their refusal to accept the instruments of this art would be an ill omen. Therefore, the Satyrs have to accept them ὄρνιθος οὕνεκα, ‘for the good omen’. μηδέ in μηδ᾽ ὄρνιθος οὕνεκα could be only one of two things: either a conjunction connecting a second imperative with μὴ ἄπειπε or an intensive adverb emphasizing ὄρνιθος οὕνεκα. None of the two is, however, possible, because no second imperative exists, whereas the adverbial μηδέ would mean ‘not even for the

Commentary  

good omen’, which is obviously opposite to the sense required. Even if ὄρνις is taken neutrally (e.g., Aesch. fr. 95 ὄρνιθα δ᾽ οὐ ποιῶ σε τῆς ἐμῆς ὁδοῦ; Sept. 838 δύσορνις), ‘not even because of the omen’ (so Sutton69) does not yield the sense expected. Lloyd-Jones’s free translation, “Don’t refuse, my dear fellow! Why, think of the evil omen!”, gives the sense expected, but does not correspond with the Greek. Radt’s aposiopesis (ὠγαθέ, –), apparently implying an imperative connected with μὴ ἄπειπε, would be impossible to be noticed by the audience, since, right because of the aposiopesis, μηδέ would be connected with ὄρνιθος οὕνεκα in the sense ‘not even’. In Werner’s “Selbst wenn’s Vogelflug verbeut”, Poseidon (Werner’s Sisyphus) is urging the Chorus-leader not to refuse even if the omen is evil. But it is impossible for either speaker to consider the acceptance of the shield an ill omen. Wessels & Krumeich70 adopt Radt’s aposiopesis in the text, but ignore it in the translation. Their “doch um Himmels willen” does not follow the Greek. Sommerstein in the new Loeb adopts Radt’s aposiopesis translating “Don’t refuse, my good fellow, just because of an evil omen, to —”. C. Collard71 translates “Don’t refuse it, my good man, don’t ― because of the omen!”, and notes: “ ‘ because of the omen’: the point presumably lies in its threatening nature, probably the mere sight of fetters should bring the satyrs to heel (English pun only! ― but note ‘ankles’ in 61 after ‘at walking pace’ in 60), especially if they aspire to compete at running (cf. n. 17 above). In the Greek the double negative indicates urgent emphasis.” Things are different with the shields. On the other hand, ὠγαθέ sounds also out of tune. Not so much with regard to the servile or animal nature of the Satyrs, who might after all be addressed in this manner in an ironic context (e.g., at a.23 below), as with regard to Poseidon’s solemn character, which allows of no ironic or jocular deviations. It is not the same with Dionysus, whose tone, when addressing the Satyrs, is emphatically indignant and sarcastic, not only at a.23 (ἔμελλον εὑρήσειν ἄρ᾽ ὑμᾶς, ὠγαθοί), but in the whole passage. If so, ΓΑΘΕ might be the corruption of an imperative. I propose εἴργαθε, ‘hinder, prevent’: μὴ ἄπειπε μηδ᾽, ὄρνιθος οὕνεκ᾽, εἴργαθε, “Don’t say no and don’t, for good luck, put obstacles”. εἴργαθε cannot refer to the Chorus-leader’s hindering the others from accepting Poseidon’s offer, since it is he who proposes τῶν φίλων νεῖμόν τινι. As it seems, the Chorus-leader not only refused to accept the shield, but also made a gesture at the god, trying to hinder him. Perhaps, it is the typical frightened gesture, apparently a satyr dance figure, illustrated on, e.g., the Athens lebes NM 13027,  69 Sutton 1980, 30. 70 Wessels/Krumeich 1999, 140. 71 In O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 281.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai ARV2 1180.2, and the fragments of a bell-crater in Bonn 1216.183, ARV2 1180.3, both by the Painter of the Athens Dinos.72 Hindering a god at the consecratory opening of a new operation should naturally be considered an evil omen. Aeschylus combines the two verbs also at Ag. 1333 (τὸ εὖ πράσσειν) οὔτις ἀπειπὼν εἴργει μελάθρων, with ἀπειπών in the sense ‘decline’ or ‘prohibit’. All three tragic poets use the lengthened second aorist of εἴργω: Aesch. Eum. 566 (κατειργαθοῦ), Soph. El. 1271 (εἰργαθεῖν), OC 862 (ἀπειργάθηι), Eur. Ph. 1175 (εἰργαθεῖν). Our scribe’s ω might well result from a misreading of ειρ, written with a curved epsilon and a wide-looped rho. Poseidon’s elevated tone may possibly justify even the use of the epic form ἔργαθε, which is, palaeographically, still closer to ὠγαθέ. c.55. The papyrus gives τί δὴ γανοῦσθαι τοῦτο;, which is, at first sight, impossible. Lobel’s alternative proposals, τί δή; γανοῦσθαι τοῦτο; or τί δ᾽; ἦ γανοῦσθαι τοῦτο;, presuppose either an omission of δεῖ/χρή or a deliberative infinitive, both of which are unparalleled. τί δεῖ γανοῦσθαι τοῦτο; (Lloyd-Jones) seems to restore the syntax both here and in 57 τί δ᾽ ἀντιποιεῖν;, where δεῖ is, supposedly, implied from here. The deliberative subjunctive may be replaced by δεῖ or χρή and the infinitive (K.-G. ii.23); Ag. 598 τί δεῖ σέ μοι λέγειν;, Eum. 826 τί δεῖ λέγειν;, Soph. OT 896 τί δεῖ με χορεύειν; C. Collard (in O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 281) adopts Lloyd-Jones’s view. However, I doubt if the emendation is necessary. What the action presupposes is that Poseidon is giving the shield and the Satyr is taking it. Verbs meaning to give or to take are normally constructed with infinitive of purpose. “–Take it, don’t say ‘no’. –For enjoying it in what way?”. However, καὶ τί χρήσομαι; is a deliberative future (Smyth § 1916); “And what shall I use it for?”. The first hemistich refers to the playful function of the article offered, the second to its practical one.73 Therefore the plaything must combine these two characteristics, at least in the mind of the Satyrs. Possibly, γανοῦσθαι is selected for its jocular ambiguity: its metaphorical sense may be ‘enjoy’, but its literal sense is ‘be polished, be tinned, be bright’. When the verb is employed metaphorically about an object with a metal sheathing like the shield, it is only natural to think of the literal meaning: “Are you giving me this thing for having it polished?” Cf. the inscription SIG3 419 of 271 BC from Delphi, mentioned above on c.49–51, in which the donor of ten shields to be used in the armed race of the Pythia undertakes to shine them before the contests.  72 Brommer ²1959, Abb. 2, 3; cf. also Abb. 4 and 42. 73 Sommerstein 2008 is right in keeping δή (so also Diggle) and translating: “To get what pleasure out of this? And what use will I make of it?”

Commentary  

c.56. The god answers the question posed by the Satyr about the nature, enjoyable or practical, of the plaything. It is necessary, then, that the subject of the principal verb is τοῦτο from line 55, therefore the form of the verb being πρέπ[ει (Page ap. Lloyd-Jones), and not πρέπ[ε, πρέπ[ειν or πρέπ[ων, as others have proposed. The only question concerns the voice of the verb of the relative clause, that is, whether it is active or middle (μεθεῖλες Lobel, -λου Kamerbeek), as its meagre attestation is equally distributed among both possibilities. In the papyrus, after λ and before the break there is enough space where the next letter should have been, normally, visible. ο is usually written partly overlapping with a preceding λ (e.g., c.2 οΛΟιο, c.43 αλΛΟυποτ, c.57 ]πιπΛΟυν), and should, therefore, be visible. ε is, however, written usually at a distance from λ (e.g., c.13 ΛΕξ[, c.45 απειΛΕιc). Therefore, at least palaeographically, μεθεῖλ[ες is preferable. But its meaning must be ‘change over to’ (LSJ Suppl. s.v. μεθαιρέω) and not merely ‘take up’ (Lloyd-Jones). We have clearly the common satyric motif of μετάστασις πόνων (Soph. Ichn. 223), the change of occupation and interests on the part of the Satyrs.74 c.57. τί δ᾽ ἀντιποιεῖν used to be the unanimous reading, but the gap between δ and ν is larger than an α. One might think of scriptio plena τί δ[ὲ] ἀντιπ. or τί δ[ὴ] ἀντιπ., with synecphonesis of a kind common in comedy. Henry - Nünlist also notice the size of the gap, and propose τί δ[ρ]ᾶν; τί ποιεῖν; referring to Pl. Soph. 233d for the seeming redundancy of δρᾶν/ποιεῖν; see also Cho. 553 τοὺς μέν τι ποιεῖν, τοὺς δὲ μή τι δρᾶν λέγων. Cf. Ar. Eccl. 556, Eur. Hel. 1242, and, remarkably Ion 1430, in a stichomythia, τί δρᾶν; τί χρῆσθαι; Though not impossible, it is unlikely that these infinitives depend on an impersonal πρέπει, as Henry - Nünlist also propose, since the latter completes, as a personal verb, the previous sentence. An ambiguous sense — Poseidon using πρέπει personal, the Chorusleader understanding impersonal — might be exploited, if it were to lead to a joke. But there seems to be none here. δ[ρ]ᾶν and ποιεῖν, should depend on the personal πρέπει; cf. Pers. 247, Su. 719. The use is final or consecutive: “This thing is suited to the craft you changed over to. — Suited for doing what? For making what?” The second hemistich and the verses that follow elucidate better the meaning.

 74 It is obvious that μετάστασις here means ‘change’ and not ‘removing, removal’ (LSJ). Naturally, on the performance level, the ‘change of labours’ means no more than a change of dance. See Hourmouziades 1974, 82.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai This has been one of the most discussed verses, since the second hemistich, variously reconstructed, was considered as offering basic hints for solving the problem of the play’s story. Lobel’s proposal was [δόν]τι πλοῦν μοὐ[φ]ανδάν[ει. His reconstruction, accepted by Lloyd-Jones, assumes that the repayment referred to in the infinitive ἀντιποιεῖν will come from the person whom the Chorusleader is talking with, possibly Hephaestus, according to him. “How will you pay me back, if …?” This interpretation, however, presupposes a very awkward use of μοὐ[φ]ανδάν[ει, the verb which the infinitive depends on, according to these views. Namely, that μοι in μοὐφανδάνει is an object of ἀντιποιεῖν, whereas the necessary dative of person required by ἐφανδάνει is an implied σοι: “What would (you) like to do to me in repayment, if I offer (you) πλοῦν?” or in LloydJones’ translation: “But what are you willing to do in return, if I let you sail?” The same syntax was followed by Steffen, who reconstructed the verse as follows: τί δ᾽ ἀντιποιεῖν [σ᾽ ἀν]τίπλουν μοὐ[φ]ανδάν[ει;, “Why do you like to oppose me?”, with a very improbable accusative σ(ε) constructed with ἐφανδάνει and the unattested adjective ἀντίπλους. A further problem is the end of the verse, which can equally well be read μ᾽ οὐ[χ] ἁνδάν[, or rather μοὐ[χ] ἁνδάν[, i.e., μοι οὐχ ἁνδάν[, a reading proposed and accepted by Kamerbeek, Reinhardt, and Mette, who arranged their reconstructions accordingly. Palaeographically, μοὐ[φ]ανδάν[ is highly improbable, because the lower part of the vertical of Φ should be visible, and it is not. Up to this verse, the Satyrs do not seem especially pleased by Poseidon’s offer. Initially, their leader declines it, and then they question the enjoyment it may offer and its utility. There seems to be nothing in between to make them suddenly change their mood and declare their pleasure and their willingness to return the offer. Even in the mutilated lines that follow, they seem to stress how difficult it is to handle the shield. Therefore, I believe that the most suitable restoration would be μοὐ[χ] ἁνδάνει. For the synecphonesis μοι οὐχ see below on a.24. Naturally, this restoration affects also the beginning of the line, where τί δ[ρ]ᾶν; τί ποιεῖν; is now consolidated. The only problem left concerns the subject of ἁνδάνει. Henry and Nünlist have shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that what was hitherto read ]τιπλουν is actually ]πιπλουν. They supplement [τοὐ]πίπλουν and struggle to explain it in the sense ‘fold of the peritoneum, omentum, caul’ (LSJ), “from its use in cookery … and sacrifice …”, ending with the meaning ‘(mere) wrapping, puff’. Things are much simpler. The Satyr is speaking about the article Poseidon has just given him, the shield. He does not know what it is, he does not know how to use it. And what is more, he does not know its name. Necessarily, he has to name it with a generic term. τὸ ἐπίπλουν is such a term, denoting ‘implement, utensil,

Commentary  

gadget, thingummy’. It is usually found in the plural as τὰ ἔπιπλα, rarely in the singular -πλον, but in Hdt. 1.94 it is found in the form ἐπίπλοα (a reading confirmed by Poll. 10.10), as well as in many testaments from Egypt: PMich. 5.350.9, 25 (Tebt.; AD 37), 5.321 ctr 13, 15 (Tebt.; AD 42), SB 12.10882.14 (Sok.Nes.; AD 45), al. Dialectally, τὰ ἐπίπολα occurs in Dodona, and ἐπιπόλαια in Gortyn, always of movable goods. Elsewhere too, Aeschylus’ Satyrs employ strange and unusual generic words to describe items of civilization novel to them. See below under Prometheus Pyrkaeus the words used by the Satyrs for ‘fire’, the Titan’s gift of an unknown stuff, or for related terms (‘smoke’, ‘flame’, etc.). Similar is the rendering by Sommerstein and Collard: “I don’t like the/[this] equipment!” c.58. Poseidon answers that the article he is offering is most suitable (ἐστὶν ἐμμελέστατον) for participating in the Isthmian games. It seems, however, as if the suggestion to the Chorus to participate in the Isthmia is made now for the first time, when already in line c.39 Silenus had reproached the Chorus-leader with the words σὺ δ᾽ ἰσθμιάζεις. One possible explanation may be that ξυνισθμιάζειν expresses a more active participation in the festival than ἰσθμιάζειν; namely, that ἰσθμιάζειν denotes the capacity of the spectators in the festival, that of θεωροί or Ἰσθμιασταί, whereas ξυνισθμιάζειν the capacity of the competitors in the games.75 At any rate, the decision of the Satyrs to participate in the Isthmia has already been taken. The issue right now is whether they will participate with the shields or not. Another possibility might be to supplement the gap with an instrumental dative referring to the shields with which the Satyrs will participate in the games. Cf. τοῖσιν (Aesch. PV 234; Elmsley τοισίδ᾽), τοισίδ᾽ (Ag. 520; τοῖσιν Tr; see Fraenkel and Denniston–Page ad loc.) would also be possible. However, the sense of ἐμμελέστατον should now change to ‘most proper’. Also, the tacit change from singular (τοὐπίπλουν) to plural is disturbing. The relative οἷσιν, proposed by Henry, gives the impression that the Satyrs are advised to select their competing instruments or their rivals: “For joining the Isthmian games with those things / persons with which it is most fitting.” c.59. The gap of ca. 16 letters is too large to venture a certain supplement, but the two surviving words indicate the sense expected. Snell supplemented, e.g., φέρω[ν τάδ᾽ οὐδεὶς (haec iam Barigazzi) εἰς ἀγῶν᾽] ἐμβήσεται. It may be likelier that the sentence is interrogative: πῶς] ἐμβήσεται; Mette: φέρ᾽ ὦ [᾽γαθ᾽ εἰπέ· πῶς τις ὧδ᾽] ἐμβήσεται; (“Doch, Guter, sage: wie kommt jemand hier herauf?”, Der ver 75 Cf. Achaeus trag. fr. 3.1 S. (from the satyr-play Ἆθλα): πότερα θεωροῖς εἴτ᾽ ἀγωνισταῖς λέγεις;

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai lorene Aischylos, 169); Werner: φέρ᾽, ὦ [φίλος, τίς τοῖσδ᾽ ἑκὼν] ἐμβήσεται; (“Laß sehn, Freund! zu den Satyrn: Wer steigt auf dies Ding freiwillig auf?”). Snell’s εἰς ἀγῶν᾽ does not seem necessary. The verb used technically for ‘enter the lists’ is καταβαίνω (LSJ s.v. 3). ἐμβαίνω has, among many others, the meaning ‘go on, go quickly, advance’ (LSJ s.v. I.2). Naturally, one has to supplement with Mette, somewhere in the gap, an indefinite τις and give to the future ἐμβήσεται its potential force. I tentatively propose: φέρω[ν τόδ᾽ ἄχθος πῶς τις ὧδ᾽] ἐμβήσεται;, “How can one move on here carrying this burden?” The Satyrs are willing to participate in the Isthmian games, but, no matter how great their enthusiasm is for their new art, their old one will prevail. As Dionysus notices at a.33, τοὔρχημα μᾶλλον εἰκὸς ἦν σε τ[ημελ]εῖν. There is no doubt whatsoever that the enactment of the athletic game in the orchestra of the theatre would offer the opportunity to the Chorus to make a dancing performance with quick figures. This explains the use of semantically ambiguous words by the poet when referring to the game in which the Satyrs will participate: 58 ἐμμελέστατον = ‘most suitable’ but also ‘most harmonious, melodic, rhythmic’; used for dancing, e.g., in the anonymous Aeolic couplet, inc. auct. 16 Voigt, Κρῆσσαί νύ ποτ᾽ ὦδ᾽ ἐμμελέως πόδεσσιν | ὤρχεντ᾽ ἀπάλοισ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἐρόεντα βῶμον, or Ap. Rh. 1.539 ἐμμελέως κραιπνοῖσι πέδον ῥήσσωσι πόδεσσιν; but primarily in the term ἐμμέλεια, the name of the tragic dance (see below on a.18). We can see the same ambiguity in ἐμβήσεται = ‘will move fast’ but also ‘will make dancing steps’; cf. Ar. Eccl. 478, Ran. 377, ἔμβα in dance contexts; Pl. Alc. I 108 c music is ἡ τέχνη ἧς τὸ κιθαρίζειν καὶ τὸ ἄιδειν καὶ τὸ ἐμβαίνειν ὀρθῶς; Luc. Salt. 10; ibid. also ἔμβασις = ‘dancing step’. c.60. The verse ends with the phrase “you will march on foot” (ἐλᾶις = future). It is strange that the advice given to prospective runners is to walk. Race walking was not among track and field events in antiquity. Nor can there be here a contrast between foot-race and other events such as horse- or chariot-race, since the question that the god answers was πῶς] ἐμβήσεται;. Hence, I would rather suggest οὐ] βάδην ἐλ[ᾶ]ις. At the opening, ἔπισ[χε (Barigazzi) might be employed for warning the Chorus-leader that there are still more things to learn. Cf. PV 697 ἔπισχες ἔστ᾽ ἂν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ προσμάθηις, Eur. El. 758 ἔπισχε, τρανῶς ὡς μάθηις τύχας σέθεν. Then, possibly, ἔπισ[χε δή· δρόμωι γὰρ οὐ] βάδην ἐλ[ᾶ]ις, “Wait a bit! You’ll advance running not walking.” c.61. ]φέρων: Possibly a compound participle; cf. Eur. Tro. 1332 πρόφερε πόδα, Phoen. 1410 ἀμφέρει πόδα. Whatever the expression may mean, it must have something to do with racing and, possibly, dancing. Cf. a.26 πλησιοσφύρους.

Commentary  

Fr. 78a The stichomythia between Poseidon and the Satyrs, and the instructions of the god about the use of the shield are interrupted by the gap between 78c and 78a. This gap should have completed an essential scene of the play, which started at line c.49, with Poseidon entering and delivering the shields, and ended at a.22, with Poseidon᾽s exit. The scene, probably the most cheerful and spectacular scene of the play, should have contained the handing out of the shields, possibly a comic carrying out of the infibulatio, the training of the Satyrs in the use of the shields in armed race, the speech of Poseidon, of which the last two verses have survived, the hanging up of the shields. A large part of the episode must have been performed in lively song and animated mimetic dance. What has survived of it is only c.49–c.62, fourteen verses in all from the beginning of the scene, and a.1–a.22, twenty-two verses from the end of the scene. To these 36 verses we should add 10 more missing from the bottom of the second column of 78c. Be that as it may, all the subject matter described above was absolutely impossible to be compressed in these 46 lines. It would be greatly desirable if we could estimate more or less accurately the size of the gap between the two papyrus pieces. We have already rejected the overlapping arrangement of fragments 78a and 78c as suggested by Lobel and accepted by a number of scholars, because of the violation of Maas’s law in the overlapped middle column. We have also rejected the unanimously adopted succession 78a ➝ 78c, for internal reasons connected with the play’s story line. Maybe it is time now to proceed to some elementary arithmetic in hopes of gaining a general picture of the written text in the papyrus. Admittedly, it was not easy to obtain absolutely accurate measurements beyond millimetre, but the result, I believe, justified the effort. The two completely or nearly so surviving columns (78c, col. i; 78a, col. i) have both a width of ca. 13.80 cm. By ‘column width’ I mean the distance between the beginnings of iambic trimeters in two consecutive columns, the intercolumnar area included. The width is altered in different verses, longer (trochaic tetrameters) or shorter (lyric verses), which begin with indentation to the left or to the right, so the measurements were limited to iambic trimeters. The steady result is a strong evidence for an overall regularity in the size of the columns, as these two come from different papyrus pieces. If, apart from the columns, the sheets or kollemata were also equally sized, we would be able to calculate the distance between the two papyrus pieces by progressively reconstructing the patterns of the sheets and the columns starting from 78c and proceeding till we meet, in the reconstruction process, the precise sheets and

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai columns pattern of 78a. By ‘sheets and columns pattern’ I mean the progressively changing space between the beginning of a column and the beginning of a sheet. Yet, the two surviving sheet-joins or kolleseis are found in different fragments, so that not only the width of a sheet is unknown but also whether or not all sheets were of the same width. However, the left-hand edge of 78a is a straight-line perpendicular, a fact that, in papyrus rolls, indicates that the edge coincides with the kollesis. If so, the separate sheet would be ca. 21.40 cm wide, but ca. 20.70 cm. wide within the roll, to account for the ca. 0.7 cm width of the sheet-joins, i.e., the overlapping and glued together edges of the neighbouring sheets, which should be subtracted. That this is the approximate width of the sheet-joins is evident in both surviving kolleseis, but also in the left-hand edge of 78a, where the non-surviving kollesis has visibly left its traces. Now, by counting ca. 20.70 cm. wide sheets combined with ca. 13.80 cm. wide columns, starting with the pattern of 78c, we meet the sheets and columns pattern of 78a, two sheets or three columns after the col. ii of 78c. In other words, the col. i of 78a is the fourth column after the col. ii of 78c. Between 78c and 78a, two papyrus pieces are missing, most likely with the shapes of the surviving fragments alternatively, i.e., the first with the shape of 78a and the second with the shape of 78c. If, as I believe, this arrangement is correct, and is not due to a conspiracy of coincidences, we can calculate the size of the whole scene. With each column having 36 lines, the scene starting with the entrance of Poseidon and ending with his exit should contain 14 + 10 (missing) in 78c ii + (3 × 36 =) 108 (missing) + 22 in 78a i. They all add up to 154 verses, a normal length for a satyric episode including iambic speeches and orchestic parts. a.1. At line a.3 someone (apparently the Chorus-leader, with Terzaghi and Lloyd-Jones) expresses his thanks ‘for these’, τῶνδε. It seems then that the character who speaks lines 1–2 must have given the Satyrs something, whether objects or advices. Obviously, it is still Poseidon, who is ending in line 2 a speech which started in the preceding lost column. If objects, they must be the same νεοχμὰ ἀθύρματα given to them in c.49 ff., i.e. the shields. If advices, they must be the instructions on how to use the shields. The images (εἰκούς) he is speaking of are no doubt upon the same playthings (c.50 ἀθύρματα, c.52 παίγνια), which, as will be made clear in the following verses, are likenesses of themselves. It is yet uncertain what the subject of ὁρῶντες is, the Satyrs or others, but it will soon be clarified. The supplements proposed for the two syllables missing at the end of the line can be divided into three groups: they refer (a) to the impression made upon those who face the images (οὐ κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους [φέρειν Cantarella, [βλέπειν or [ἰδεῖν Görschen), (b) to the difference of the creatures depicted from

Commentary  

human beings in appearance, attire, or posture (οὐ κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους [φυήν Kamerbeek, οὐ κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπου σ[τολήν or σ[αγήν also Kamerbeek, σ[τάσιν or σ[χέσιν Hourmouziades, σ[τάθμην Ferrari), (c) to the skill of the artist (‘wrought by superhuman skill’ Lloyd-Jones, who does not supplement anything in his Greek text, but οὐ κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους [ποεῖν is self-evident). The Satyrs are supposed to do what Poseidon advises them to do, and since they end by hanging the shields with their images in front of the temple, in order to inspire fear to foreigners (a.20–21), it is probable that the god has advised them to do so, closing his speech by explaining the effect that the hung up images would have on unwelcome intruders. These foreigners, who are expected to be terrified, must then have been the subject of ὁρῶντες, and not the Chorus. And, naturally, one is not necessarily terrified by facing the image of a creature non-human in appearance, attire or posture, much less by facing an admirable work of art. Therefore subdivision (a) seems to be unavoidable. Cantarella’s φέρειν gives perfect sense. Yet, a small tongue of papyrus at the end of the line, where one would expect to find ink traces, is apparently unwritten. Therefore the damaged part of the papyrus where the infinitive would have been written is quite short and could accommodate only ἰδεῖν (Görschen) or ὁρᾶν. The devices shown on the shields very frequently served a frightening purpose.76 Archetypal, from this point of view, was Athena’s aigis, as described in the Iliad, 5.739–742: (αἰγίδα) δεινήν, ἣν περὶ μὲν πάντηι Φόβος ἐστεφάνωται, | ἐν δ᾽ Ἔρις, ἐν δ᾽ Ἀλκή, ἐν δὲ κρυόεσσα Ἰωκή, | ἐν δέ τε Γοργείη κεφαλὴ δεινοῖο πελώρου, | δεινή τε σμερδνή τε, Διὸς τέρας αἰγιόχοιο. Gorgoneia, lions and lion-heads, boars, panthers, serpents, eagles with their prey in claws, Sphinxes, griffins and other mythical monsters, are some of these terrible devices. And the dramatic exploitation of similar menacing representations on the shields of the Argive heroes made by Aeschylus in the scene of the seven pairs of speeches of the Septem is too well known to need any elaboration. a.2–3. Lobel’s ἔ[ρ]δηις was universally accepted, but the meaning of the line was unclear: “And however you do, all these are pious for you” is unintelligible both by itself and in connection to the images of the preceding line.77 But things  76 Chase 1902, 64 n. 3, calls them ‘terrible’ devices; he avoids using the term ‘apotropaion’, as was frequently done, because he considers it too vague. The term “is applied indiscriminately to any device which was intended to protect the bearer, either by frightening the enemy, or by appealing to the protection of a god, or by some magic power inherent in the symbol itself”. 77 “And however you may act, you won’t be guilty of irreverence” (Lloyd-Jones), “Wie du es machst, ist all dies fromm” (Snell), “Doch wie du auch verfährst, dein ganzes Handeln ist dem Gotte wohlgefällig” (Mette), “Doch wie du’s machst: all das geschieht als frommes Werk”

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai change if we consider that the gap between ε and δ of the word supplemented ἔ[ρ]δηις is too small and can accommodate no more than an iota. Lobel had already noted: “The space would appear more suitable to ε[ἰ]δῆις.” We should not hasten to discard this reading. It would be tempting to connect this ‘knowing’ with what is said elsewhere about ‘learning’ on the part of the Chorus (c.49, the proverb implied in a.32, a.34). Thus, it would be the new art the Satyrs are embarking upon that is mentioned here. The clumsy creatures of the Chorus could not have mastered it so soon. Nor could they have learnt how to handle the instrument of their new art, the shield. We have, of course, to take account of the fact that, at least in this scene, there is a contrast of two opposed standpoints. The side of the Chorus is laughable, but the side of Poseidon must be serious. Thus, the clumsiness of the Chorus cannot have passed unnoticed by the god. It must be he who notifies them that, in spite of their goodwill and readiness, they are unfit for taking part in athletic games, and who invites them, instead of returning the shields to the temple, to hang them on its front, in order to scare undesirable intruders. Yet, the god has to raise their morale. “And in whatever way you may know them, all these are reverent for you”, i.e. no matter how well or poorly you know the skills of this art, all the same you discharge through them your religious duty. πάντα ... τάδ᾽ and a.3 τῶνδε must refer to the whole range of the Satyrs’ activity: martial, athletic, and orchestic. What the Chorus are being taught is reverent, in so far as it is connected with Poseidon’s worship. Their degree of skilfulness will not affect this reverence. This approach seems attractive, but a detail in line 3 may, at least partly, overthrow it. The coryphaeus is expressing there the gratitude of the Chorus to Poseidon. ὀφείλω, ‘I owe, I am indebted’ in the sense ‘I am grateful’ is unattested, and so is the genitive of cause with it.78 The genitive τῶνδε with ὀφείλω is paralleled in LSJ Suppl. only by Ar. Nub. 22 φέρ᾽ ἴδω, τί ὀφείλω; δώδεκα μνᾶς Πασίαι. | τοῦ δώδεκα μνᾶς Πασίαι; τί ἐχρησάμην;. Dover ad loc. attempts several intricate explanations, but I believe that, in such a panting everyday speech, τοῦ is a simple case of ellipse for τοῦ ἕνεκεν or τοῦ χάριν (prepositional, ‘for what reason?’). Here, Poseidon and the Chorus-leader in consecutive verses are using two synonymous expressions, χάριν εἰδέναι and χάριν ὀφείλειν, omitting the word χάριν, most likely because it was mentioned before in the dialogue missing because of the lacuna. τῶνδε is a genitive of cause that goes with χάριν, ‘grati-

 (Werner), “However you act, it will all be within the bounds of piety” and note: “i.e. it will not be sacrilegious if the satyrs decide, for example, as in fact they do, to nail the images to the temple” (Sommerstein). 78 Sonnino 2016, 54 n. 57, invokes Terzaghi’s view that the verb is construed like ὀφλισκάνω.

Commentary  

tude for ...’, (e.g., Eur. Or. 244, Xen. Cyr. 1.6.11). For the whole verse, cf. [Eur.] Rh. 476 ἦ κάρτα πολλὴν θεοῖς ἂν εἰδείην χάριν. Then, ε[ἰ]δῆις, in the previous verse, must not refer to the knowledge acquired by the Satyrs, but to the indebtedness acknowledged by them to Poseidon. The Chorus-leader must have stated, somewhere before, the common expression οἶδά σοι χάριν. The god, after rejecting the Satyrs as athletic participants, consoles them by offering them the role of theoroi. Their gratitude holds for both roles (ὅπηι δ᾽ ἂν εἰδῆις, sc. χάριν), and their activities in both capacities are tokens of reverence (πάντα σοι τάδ᾽ εὐσεβῆ). As for πρόφρων, it is very frequently used for describing the favourable disposition of a god towards mortals.79 a.4. The Chorus-leader now shouts at his fellow-dancers to calm down and hear. The punctuation has been contested: δή · Cantarella, or πᾶς · Setti; cf. Ar. Thesm. 372 ἄκουε πᾶς vel πᾶσ᾽ (fem.), but Ach. 238 σῖγα πᾶς and Eur. Hec. 532 σῖγα πᾶς ἔστω λεώς (cf. Soph. fr. 815 R. and Cratin. fr. 315 K.-A. ἄκουε, σίγα, which some scholars publish as ἄκουε σῖγα). Setti’s proposal is likelier, with the exclamation isolated, though a combination of ἄκουε πᾶς and σῖγα πᾶς is also possible, with punctuation only after the adverbial σῖγα. The words form the introduction to the proclamation of the public herald. No doubt the Satyrs had been playing with the shields in great excitement, an action translated into a frantic dance, so that a command to calm them down would be in order. But, though there is no way to prove it, it seems as if the command to the Satyrs is also indirectly addressed to the Athenian audience, who were expected to cheer loudly as they saw the Satyrs preparing for a new dancing show. Reading the second half of line a.4 is more problematic. Following θ, Radt, counter to Lobel, reads confidently enough (‘vix dubitaverim’) ε. However, a high left and a low right trace, the only visible relics of the missing letter, suggest either α or λ. The next letter is very likely κ followed by a certain ει and the top left angle of ν (δ̣ Radt). Three letters follow, of which only the last has left a recognizable low trace most likely suggesting ε (so Radt). I believe, therefore, that we should read δεῖ θα̣κε̣ ῖν ἐ̣[μ]έ̣.80 If the speaker was the Chorus-leader, it seems curious to announce that he must sit down, especially in the middle of an excited dance scene. There may be, however, one more character who must really sit down. The fact that the Chorus-leader is now addressing his fellowdancers having turned away from Poseidon, his previous collocutor, was ex 79 See parallels and literature in West on Hes. Th. 419 and Richardson on Hom. Hymn Dem. 226. 80 Sonnino 2016, 52–53, publishes δ̣εῖθ̣ε̣ δείμ̣[ατο]ς, an impossible, I fear, reading.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai plained as an indication that the god exits after line a.3.81 But, if the identification with Poseidon is accepted, it would seem improper for the thankful Satyrs not to bid the god farewell with some words of salutation. Therefore, I surmise that Poseidon remains in front of the entrance of his temple attending the dance of the Satyrs, which is performed in his honour, till line a.22, where he is actually saluted. Then, the second half of line a.4 may well be spoken by Poseidon, who is announcing his part in the setting. What he adds to our surmise is that he will remain being seated on a throne. Depending on the caesura, σῖγα can be attached to the first or the second hemistich: to the first, in agreement with the public crier’s proclamation (Eur. Hec. 532, Αr. Ach. 238); to the second, completing dramatically the description of Poseidon’s part. I definitely opt for the second possibility, with the god speaking to himself in a sort of aside. Since Poseidon does not address the Satyrs after a.2, ἄκουε δὴ πᾶς cannot be spoken by him. Further, it would be undignified for a major god to address a group of funny creatures with the words of a town crier (= Oyez!). The command is necessarily conjoined with a.5 ἄθρησον, therefore spoken by the Chorusleader. This means that line a.4 is split between two speakers. Antilabe has been noticed in Aeschylus only in PV 980.82 I find a second antilabe in the so-called ‘Dike-Drama’ (see below, p. 149, Aeschylus Hypsipyle?, line 30). Both are cases of elementary division, with the verse split to accommodate a disyllable interjection either in the opening of the verse or in its close. As I am fully convinced about the satyric nature of the Dike-Drama, the present antilabe, which is now the third one found in Aeschylus, is also the second in an Aeschylean satyrplay, but, at the same time, the first full-fledged one. The fact that it is included in a lyric iambic part with full and syncopated metra sometimes divided between speakers possibly mitigates its effect. a.5–7. In line a.5, I improve Kamerbeek’s proposals εἴ π[ου] δο[κεῖ, and read εἴπ[ε]ρ δοκ[εῖς]. The section of the papyrus following the π of εἴπερ has been slightly transposed. With a small shift upwards and to the left we can exploit the existing traces and distinguish the low end of ρ, the bottom stroke of δ, parts, both high and low, of ο, the top tip of the vertical of κ, and, possibly, the end of the high arc of c. εἶναι in the next line depends on δοκεῖς. But understanding is still problematic, due on the one hand to the dative ἐμῆι μορφῆι, where a genitive depending

 81 Taplin 1977, 420–422. 82 One more, in Sept. 217, appears in the MSS, but scholars are absolutely right in rejecting it.

Commentary  

on εἴδωλον should have been expected,83 and on the other to the puzzling πλέον. I shall not record the numerous attempts to interpret or emend the line.84 But, in my opinion, there would be no difficulty whatsoever if εἴδωλον εἶναι were taken as equivalent to εἴδεσθαι, ‘look like, be like’, which would then be normally constructed with the dative. I vacillate between three options on how this could be effected. (a) εἰδωλον can be an unattested but normal formation. It would probably have to be accented εἰδωλόν, like ἁμαρτωλός, φειδωλός, τερπωλός, or the lexicographically attested ἐδωλός (probably ἑδ-), κηδωλός (ἕωλος, where ω is radical, is a different case). With the exception of ἁμαρτωλός, they are all associated with middle verbs (εἴδομαι, φείδομαι, τέρπομαι, ἕζομαι (root ἑδ-), κήδομαι). ἑδωλός has a parallel formation of a concrete neuter noun, ἕδωλον, whereas ἁμαρτωλός, φειδωλός and τερπωλός have parallel formations of abstract feminine nouns: ἁμαρτωλή, φειδωλή and τερπωλή.85 A similar case is ξόανον and ξοανός; Hsch. ξ 85 ξοανῶν προθύρων· ἐξεσμένων. (b) εἴδωλον can be an Aeschylean neologism, coined by analogy with εἴκελον. (c) εἴδωλόν ἐστι can belong to the type ἔργον ἐστί = ἐργῶδές ἐστι, with predicative substantive instead of adjective. Though all options are possible, I strongly lean to the first one (εἰδωλὸν εἶναι). As for πλέον, its meaning becomes clear if we perceive the manner this semilyric passage was performed. The papyrus divides, by means of paragraphoi, the text of lines a.3–22, i.e. the Chorus part, into three sections.86 By this division, lines 3–10 and 13–22 must be delivered by the same choreut, since the argument is obviously continued from the first section to the third. The intervening ceremonial distich 11–12 must be delivered by the entire Chorus. To be sure, were it not for the paragraphoi, we would assign to the coryphaeus only the ‘serious’ verses 3 and 18–22, and distribute to separate choreuts on the one hand the story with the Satyr’s mother (5–7 and 13–17) and on the other the short lyric lines 8–10. However,  83 Degani 1991, 91, proposes for the end of line 5 εἰ π̣[ρο]σ̣ε̣[ίκελον, which would solve this problem, but, apart from disagreeing with the existing traces, it would leave the indirect question without a principal verb. 84 Sommerstein 2008 and Sonnino 2016, 41, 45–46, 57, adopting Fraenkel’s τοῦδ᾽, translate τὸ Δαιδάλου μείμημα not as a specific work of art but in a general sense “Daedalus’ models” or “l’arte di Dedalo”. Ferrari 2013, 202, 209, 212, reading Hourmouziades’ πνέον in the papyrus, translates “il simulacro, questa replica alla maniera di Dedalo, respira della mia figura”. But does the figurative “respira della mia figura” go back to the Greek? Collard 2013, 272–273, translates “this image is more (like) my own (form). It’s a likeness by Daedalus!”, but notes rightly “ ‘(like)’ completes apt sense, but the Greek expression hardly allows such a translation; the text is therefore insecure, but no convincing improvement has been found.” 85 Chantraine 1933, 242 f., Buck/Petersen 1944, 356, 377. 86 The second paragraphos is misplaced after line 13 in the papyrus, but it has been duly transposed after 12 by Lobel.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai following the division of the papyrus, the choreut who utters the first and third sections must obviously be the coryphaeus. (Still, I should tend to assign the short exhortations of lines 8–10 to separate choreuts.)87 He must hold the shield bearing his likeness beside himself and ask his fellow-choreuts: “Look here! don’t you think this resembles me more (than the rest of you)?” This seems to imply that the appearance of the coryphaeus was different from that of the other choreuts. The differentiation does not seem to concern facial traits, but rather differences in age portrayal and/or costume. The only evidence propounded for such a differentiation was the single choreut depicted on the Pronomos vase with a short ornamented chiton and a himation, unlike the other ten who wear the usual satyric tights. Others identify him with the coryphaeus, others with the leader of a semi-chorus.88 As I argued above, adding the example of the Douris psykter in the British Museum (see above on c. 52–53), I would propose that he stands for the coryphaeus, while the choreut who is sitting on the top left of the painting under the ‘speaking’ name Εὔνικος (Stephanis 1988, no. 971) and who is, unlike his fellow-choreuts, wearing nonwoolly short tights, is the leader of a semichorus. However, in the case of the specific scene of Theoroi, the difference must lie in the satyric portrayal rather than in the dress. I discussed above on c.5 the testimony of Pollux, 4.142, about three different satyr masks, classified according to age divisions, the mask of Papposilenus not included (σάτυρος πολιός, γενειῶν, ἀγένειος). It is believed that each of the variations was employed for the entire Chorus of any single play, and this must have been true for the majority of the satyr-plays. It cannot be ruled out, however, that the poet was free to use a different mask or dress in order to distinguish a single member of the Chorus, if the action required such a distinction. This is apparently the meaning of Pollux, loc. cit., when he speaks of variations of the satyric mask according to the names — most likely the personal names of the Satyrs: τἄλλα ὅμοια τὰ πρόσωπα, πλὴν ὅσοις ἐκ τῶν ὀνομάτων αἱ παραλλαγαὶ δηλοῦνται, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ Παπποσείληνος τὴν ἰδέαν ἐστὶ θηριωδέστερος.89 If, for instance, Γράπις (Ichn. 183) means ‘the Wrinkled one’ and Σῖμος (Kretschmer 1994, 63 f.) ‘the Flat-nose one’, it would be  87 Steffen 1958, distributed lines a.4–17 to three Satyrs (‘haud male’ Radt): 4–10, 11–12, 13–17. But the story of 4–7 continues into 13–17, hence it belongs to the same Satyr. 88 Chorus-leader: e.g., Pickard-Cambridge ²1968, 186, 209; leader of a semi-chorus: e.g., Bieber ²1961, 11. It is usually supported that (Pappo)silenus, who is depicted among the actors in the upper middle part of the painting is to be identified with the coryphaeus (hence, Bieber’s proposal about the leader of a semi-chorus); see, e.g., Brommer ²1959, 11, Green/Handley 1995, 22. I have explained the view I am siding with above on c.52–53. 89 For the amusingly descriptive personal names of the Satyrs see Fraenkel 1912.

Commentary  

highly unlikely if no wrinkles or flat nose were distinctly shown on their masks. As for Οὐρίας, who is addressed twice at Ichn. 184, his name cannot allude to his tail, which was a characteristic common to all the Satyrs. The two names of the preceding line of Ichneutae (183) appear in articulated nominatives, ὁ Δράκις, ὁ Γράπις, the usual way to summon a slave or a herd animal (cf. Dover on Ar. Ran. 40). Then Ουρίας may stand for Οὑρίας = ὁ Ἐρίας, i.e. ‘Woolly’, the name alluding to the hairy tights worn by the actor, whether short, as, e.g., those worn by nine choreuts on the Pronomos vase, or full-length ones, as those worn by Silenus on the same vase. For the necessary differentiation of the Chorus-leader in the Theoroi see below on a.28–30. As regards τὸ Δαιδάλου μίμημα, which has given rise to many discussions and has introduced Daedalus as a character into the play, I remind that we meet the genitive Δαιδάλου in two more passages: Pind. Nem. 4.59 τᾶι Δαιδάλου μαχαίραι, for the sword of Peleus, and Eur. HF 471 ξύλον ... Δαιδάλου, for the club of Heracles. In both passages Δαιδάλου was emended: in Pindar already by Didymus (δαιδάλωι), in Euripides by Hermann (δαίδαλον). The making of both the sword and the club was attributed in the myth not to Daedalus but to Hephaestus (Hes. fr. 209 M.-W., Diod. Sic. 4.14.3). It is unnecessary to discuss the suggestion that Δαίδαλος was another name for Hephaestus. The easy way out would be to emend here too into τὸ δαίδαλον μίμημα.90 But, in view of the two parallels, I would prefer, contrariwise, to keep Δαιδάλου also in Pindar (so do Snell and Maehler) and Euripides. The genitive is not one of origin, but denotes a metonymy: “the Daedalus-like imitation”, i.e. “the cunningly wrought image”. At HF 470–471 the emended text (ἀλεξητήριον ξύλον ... δαίδαλον) causes a “clash of two descriptive adjectives” (Bond ad loc.), a construction uncharacteristic of Euripides, which both Wilamowitz and Bond tried to mitigate. But Euripides did use descriptive adjectives together with the metonymic genitive. Cf., e.g., HF 990 ἀγριωπὸν ὄμμα Γοργόνος, for Heracles’ gaze: “a fierce Gorgon-like gaze”, i.e. “a grim look”, Or. 1398 f. ξίφεσιν σιδαρέοισιν Ἅιδα, “with iron Hades-like swords”, i.e. “with deadly swords”. φωνῆς δεῖ μόνον represents, if not an outright violation, at least a loose application of Porson’s law, as is done several times in satyr-plays. We could speak strictly of violation, if δεῖ μό- belonged to one word. At any rate, the fact

 90 Terms formed of the root δαιδαλ- were used for shields: e.g., Il. 18.478–79 σάκος ... πάντοσε δαιδάλλων (sc. Hephaestus), 19.379–380 σάκεος ... δαιδαλέου.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai that the poet does not write δεῖ φωνῆς μόνον shows that the sequence | ‒ ‒ | ‒ | ⏑ ‒ | was felt to be legitimate, at least in the satyric trimeter.91 One of the most usual shield devices was satyr portraits. Chase 1902 classified twenty such devices from vase-paintings: five full-length Satyrs (Chase calls them Sileni), one Satyr with trumpet, three Satyr heads, one Satyr head with two stars, one Satyr head with two serpents, four projecting Satyr heads, three projecting Satyr heads with two balls, one projecting Satyr head with two rosettes, one projecting Satyr head with panther and serpent.92

Fig. 1: Hector putting his armor on, surrounded by Priam and Hecuba. Attic red-figure amphora by Euthymides, ca. 510 BC. Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2307.

 91 West 1982, 84 f. 92 Chase 1902, 121. One more representation can be added: the late sixth century clay plaque from the Acropolis of Athens most probably by Euthymides (Acropolis 1037; ARV2 1598.5) depicting an Athenian warrior (inscribed originally Μεγακλῆς καλός, later the name was changed to Γλαυκύτης); the device on his shield is a full-length Satyr. See Boardman 52016, pl. 113. On the apotropaic character of Satyr figures in general see Hartmann 1927, col. 42.

Commentary  

Fig. 2: Warrior putting his armor on. Attic red-figure amphora by Euthymides, ca. 510 BC. Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2308.

Fig. 3: Achilles and Ajax playing a game. Black-figure amphora by Exekias, ca.540–530. Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco 16757.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai

Fig. 4: Warrior. Plaque from the Acropolis related to Euthymides. Athens, Acropolis Coll. 1037.

Mary Stieber,93 developing and differentiating the approach of previous art historians, mainly G. Sörbom,94 attempted to show that the works of art referred to by Aeschylus do not belong to the Early Classical Period, as claimed before, but to the Late Archaic one. Their arguments are based on the mention that the images are almost animate, which refers to a realistic or naturalistic portrayal, lifelikeness being its main feature, as well as on the characterization τὸ Δαιδάλου μίμημα. Stieber lays more emphasis to the element of likeness, which, in her view, suggests the Late Archaic Period. Naturally, the art historians do not  93 Stieber 1994. 94 Sörbom 1966, 41–53; detailed references in Stieber 1994, 85 n. 2.

Commentary  

associate their opinions with a possible dating of the Theoroi, but with the reception of the one or the other style by the poet. Yet, I would doubt that such an approach can lead to any reliable conclusion. The name of Daedalus is not connected with any artistic style in particular. Every memorable antique work of art used to be attributed to the mythical artist with the ‘speaking’ name, and thus gained respect and honour, just like the numerous icons of Virgin Mary that legend attributes to Saint Luke the Evangelist. Tradition knew the works of Daedalus as animate, moving, and speaking (Eur. Hec. 836 ff., fr. 372 K., Hsch. δ 48, Phot. δ 9, EM 251.1). It was much later that this legend was aetiologically rationalized: Sch. Pl. Men. 97d τῶν πάλαι δημιουργῶν πλαττόντων τὰ ζῷα συμμεμυκότας ἔχοντα τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ οὐ διεστηκότας τοὺς πόδας, ἀλλ᾽ ἑστῶτα σύμποδα, Δαίδαλος ἄριστος ἀγαλματοποιὸς ἐπιγεγονὼς πρῶτος ἀναπετάννυσί τε τὰ τούτων βλέφαρα, ὡς δόξαι βλέπειν αὐτά, καὶ τοὺς πόδας, ὡς νομίσαι βαδίζειν, διίστησι· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δεδέσθαι, ἵνα μὴ φύγοιεν, ὡς δῆθεν ἐμψύχων ἤδη γεγονότων αὐτῶν. Others (Phot. δ 9, Lex. Rhet. in Bekker Anecdota Graeca I p. 240.16) add that Daedalus was the first to detach the arms from the trunk of statues: καὶ τὰς χεῖρας προέτεινε. The rationalizers really refer to the late sixth century developments in sculpture. But in the Theoroi the reference is not to sculpture, and such developments as open eyes, separate legs, and detached arms were much older in painting. On the other hand, it is an obvious fact that lifelikeness, whether in descriptions of ‘living’ works of art (say the description of the shield of Achilles in the Iliad) or in straight references to this concept (e.g., Theocr. 15.82 f., Herod. 4.34, A.P. 9.774, 826, al., Virg. Aen. 6.847, al.), is a topos of popular thought applied to every period or style down to the introduction of non-objective art. Be that as it may, Aeschylus refers to images made specifically to be used as theatrical props for this performance. The device on the shields was traditional, but they were painted not long ago. Whoever the artist was, he must have used the contemporary style. Therefore, the style of the paintings necessarily depends on the dating of the play; see Appendix, Dating. a.8–10. In line 8 Lobel read ΤΑΔ[ . . . ]ΕΙ. , Radt ΤΑΔ [. .] . Ε Ι ̣ . . , the latter noting also the possibility of reading the end of the short line as ΕΙ̣ Ω̣ or ΕΒ̣ Ω̣ . The second possibility is absolutely ruled out, because Β is one of the scribe’s largest letters and does not agree at all with the traces of the letter following Ε. But Ι is also unlikely. It seems to me an almost certain Ρ with a short rightward looking bottom serif, as done occasionally by the scribe (17 εμφεΡης, 19 μοΡφης). I read τάδ[ε] φ ̣ερ̣ω. Φ is extremely uncertain, but the high tip of its long vertical ending at the left of the previous line’s upsilon (-δαλοΥ) and a small part of a top right-hand curve must belong to this letter.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai In line 9 Lobel and Radt read ορα . [.]ωρ . [ ] and ορα . [.] . (.)ρ.[ ] respectively. All attempts to restore the line were based on the assumption that the first word is a form of ὁρῶ: ὅρα Snell, ὁρᾶς Lloyd-Jones. But if the second word was χ]ώρε[ι (Barigazzi, Lloyd-Jones), then a blank space should have been left before it, short if the first word was ὁρᾶς, wide if ὅρα. On the other hand, if it was supplemented θ[ε]ώρε[ι (Snell), the letters would be well accomodated, but a different problem would arise. The next line is clearly read χώρει μάλα.95 But μάλα (or μάλ᾽ αὖθις) is used after interjections or imperatives in order to emphasize a repetition of the same interjection or imperative.96 If, then, χ]ώρε[ι is necessary in line 9, what about the first word? I think that it was only a question of faulty reading. What was read α in the first word does not have the ordinary loop in its bottom left-hand part. I believe that I can discern the left-hand part of a μ. ὅρμα, χώρει is identically found at Ar. Thesm. 953, where a cyclic dance is introduced. But with this series of imperatives in lines 9–10, the sense requires for line 8 either τάδε φέρων or τάδε φέρ᾽ ὤ. The surface of the papyrus has been wiped out in the area of the last letters, but no trace of ink is visible after ω. In any case, τάδ[ε] φέρ᾽ ὤ is possible, as such short interjectional lines tend to be selfcontained. The Chorus address themselves in the imperative as several more times in tragedy and satyr-play, unfortunately almost always suffering from bad transmission: Aesch. Cho. 942 ἐπολολύξατ᾽ ὤ (Seidler; -άτω M), Eur. Cycl. 659 τύφετ᾽ ὤ, καίετ᾽ ὤ (Musgrave; -έτω bis L), Phaeth. 110 εὐφαμεῖτ᾽ ὤ, Ar. Lys. 350 ἔασον ὤ; cf. Eur. Tro. 308 φῶς φέρ᾽ ὤ (Murray coll. Sch. Ar. Av. 1720; φέρω codd.), 335 βοάσαθ᾽ Ὑμέναιον ὤ (Burges; βοάσατε τὸν Ὑμ. ὤ V: β(ο)άσατ᾽ εὖ τὸν Ὑμ. ὤ PQ; βόασον ὑμ. ὤ Diggle), in both places with Cassandra addressing the Chorus.97 As I mentioned above, the short lines 8–10 should preferably be delivered each by a different choreut, a fact that would not only necessitate punctuating at the end of each, but would also account for the hiatus between lines 8/9.

 95 Radt prints χωρει to indicate the possibility of reading χωρεῖ (so Lobel). But the Chorus are advancing to the temple of Poseidon carrying their images, and in such cases of scenes in motion it is commonplace that dancers should urge each other in imperatives to advance, to move, to run, to dance. 96 Cf., e.g., Aesch. Ag. 1343 ὤμοι ~ 1345 ὤμοι μάλ᾽ αὖθις (= Soph. El. 1415 f.), Cho. 653 παῖ παῖ ~ 654 ὦ παῖ παῖ μάλ᾽ αὖθις (ὦ παῖ; παῖ μάλ᾽ αὖ West), 870 ἔα ἔα μάλα, 875 οἴμοι πανοίμοι ~ 876 οἴμοι μάλ᾽ αὖθις, Eum. 254 ὅρα ὅρα μάλ᾽ αὖ, Pers. 1043 ὀτοτοτοτοῖ ~ 1045 οἲ μάλα (West punctuates differently), 1058 ἄπριγδ᾽ ἄπριγδα μάλα (=1064; West punctuates differently); also Ar. Pac. 459 (=486) ὢ εἶα ~ 460 (=487) εἶα μάλα, 461 ὢ εἶα ~ 462 εἶα ἔτι μάλα. 97 See Fraenkel 1950, on Ag. 22, Seaford 1984, on Cycl. 52.

Commentary  

a.11–2. The Chorus comply with the exhortation (φέρ᾽ ὤ → φέρω) and advance in dancing movements carrying the shields that bear their images to the temple of Poseidon, i.e., towards the stage-front. εὐκταῖα functions as a substantive (cf. Aesch. Su. 631) with the demonstrative, ‘these votive offerings’, κόσμον is a predicate, ‘as an ornament’, and καλλίγραπτον εὐχάν, a confirmatory apposition, ‘truly a well-painted offering’. εὐχή was understood as ‘votive offering’: LSJ Suppl., where besides καλλίγραπτον εὐχάν the epigraphic formula εὐχὴν ἀνέθηκεν is adduced. a.13–17. The Chorus stop for a while to hear the speaker of lines a.5–7, in my view the coryphaeus, describe what the reactions of his mother would be, if she happened to see this likeness of his. The bone of contention seems to be ἂν †ἀξιάζοιτό†, as Lobel and Radt publish. Many conjectures are recorded in Radt’s apparatus. For two of them (ἂν ἀσπάζοιτό Fraenkel ap. Lobel and ἀναγκάζοιτό (‘vexetur’) Gronewald) one would be inclined to invoke the old principle of lectio difficilior potior and question how so common verbs as ἀσπάζομαι and ἀναγκάζομαι could be transformed to the reading of the papyrus. Page’s emendation of ἀξιάζοιτο to αἰάζοιτο, although the middle form is unattested, yields satisfactory sense if seen isolated.98 Lloyd-Jones, who adopted the emendation, rendered the passage as follows: “If she could see it, she’d certainly run shrieking off, thinking it was the son she brought up: so like me is this fellow”. This translation, however, conceals skilfully the deficiencies of Page’s emendation. Firstly, the succession of the reactions of the Satyr’s mother is curious, as she first takes to flight and then sighs. Sommerstein and Collard render τρέποιτ(ο) as ‘turn (about)’. Further, the expression πράγματ᾽ ἂν παρασχέθοι of line 13 is not so grave as to justify such a response. The explanation that the hung up images would give the impression of severed heads is, of course, very attractive, but the vocabulary of poetry is rich in much more passionate expressions for the reaction to such a horrible spectacle than ‘put to trouble’. Perhaps things were not so macabre. First, I believe that we should give τρέποιτ(ο) the meaning we find in an Archilochus fragment (266 W.) transmitted by Hesychius: ἔτρεψεν· [...] ἠπάτησεν, παρέτρεψεν. Ἀρχίλοχος. Cf. also Archil. fr. 96.1–2 νό]ον καὶ φρένας τρέψ[ας, and the use of παρατροπέω, παρατρέπω. Then, the Satyr’s mother would no doubt (σαφῶς) be deceived by the likeness. Also,

 98 Page 1957, 191. Page’s emendation is the one preferred by modern editors: Diggle 1998, Sommerstein 2008, Collard 2013, Ferrari 2013. Sonnino 2016 adopts Fraenkel’s ἂν ἀσπάζοιτο.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai she would neither sigh nor shriek; she would merely be meetly (ἄξι᾽)99 struck with awe (ἅζοιτο)100 at the admirable resemblance. As for the metre, line 15 may be an iambic metron followed by a dochmius (cf. 16, ia ‸ia, which is actually an extended dochmius) or an iambic dimeter with consonantalized ι. A few cases of consonantalization in final position are recorded, but, so far as I know, one in elision, as in our case, is all but unique in classical versification. No doubt, the elision should actually facilitate consonantalization, and one or two comic examples with internal elision do exist: Philyll. fr. 10 K.-A. δι ̯αμπερέως; cf. Pl. Com. fr. 183.2–3 K.-A. the play with διηιτώμην and δηιτώμην. This scarcity should not, however, dissuade us from accepting the papyrus reading. It should only make us more tolerant of the liberties in language, style and metre that a satyr-play poet obviously enjoyed. Cf., e.g., the unusual synecphonesis at c.14 τ]ῶι ἱερῶι and c.44 τοῦ ἱεροῦ, and the consonantalization of ι after three consecutive consonants at c.46 Ἴσθμιον ἀντ- (cretic rather than choriamb); cf. the uncertain case of Archil. 29.2 W. Ἀρθμιάδεω.101 At any rate, ia δ is absolutely legitimate here. a.18. The trochaic tetrameters a.18–21, are shouted at the dancing Satyrs by the coryphaeus. εἶα δὴ σκοπεῖτε δῶμα ποντίου σεισίχθο[νος cannot mean that the Chorus see the temple of Poseidon now for the first time. As I discussed above on c.43–45, the Satyrs must be, from the parodos onwards, in the orchestra, in front of a stage background representing the Isthmian temple, and there exists no indication whatsoever of a change of setting in the surviving part of the play. Moreover, εἶα does not mean ἰδού; it is always a hortatory exclamation for an action that is to follow (‘come on!’). Also σκοπεῖτε is not an indicative but an imperative, as is clear from κἀπιπασσάλευ᾽ ἕκαστος in the next verse. Hence, the  99 Hourmouziades 1974, 196, n. 135. Or τρέποιτ᾽ ἀνάξι᾽, “she would be undeservedly deceived”? 100 Suggested by Lobel and adopted by Snell, Mette, and Werner with ἄξι᾽ deleted. Snell translates ‘sich entsetzen’, Werner ‘scheu, erschreckt’, i.e. ‘be frightened, horrified’. Mette’s ‘sich “bekreuzigen” ’ (his quotes), i.e. ‘ “ cross” herself (with amazement)’ seems closer to my interpretation. 101 Though not related with the same prosodical treatment of ἱερ-, I would like, incidentally, to call attention to Eur. Cycl. 265, where Silenus closes a long list of oaths (262 ff.) by sea divinities with an oath by sacred waves and fish (opening of a 3ia). Diggle accepts Franke’s conjecture μὰ θαἰερὰ κύματ᾽ with crasis, substitution of two shorts for one, and split anapaest, for L’s μά θ᾽ ἱερὰ κύματ᾽. The majority of editors prefer Hermann’s τά θ᾽ ἱερὰ κύματ᾽ (other proposals: μὰ διερὰ κύματ᾽ Wecklein, μὰ κῦμα θ᾽ ἱερόν Jackson, μὰ θαἰρὰ κύματ᾽ considered but rejected by Diggle). Seaford too leans toward Hermann’s conjecture, penetratingly justifying the violation of the expected asyndeton as a slightly ridiculous application of the oath formula. But this doubtlessly correct explanation confirms in fact the authenticity of L’s reading.

Commentary  

coryphaeus is not explaining to his fellow-dancers what they see, but is urging them to watch the temple. But why should the Satyrs be urged to watch something they were supposed to have seen already during their first entry into the orchestra and to be seeing all along afterwards? Above, on lines c.37–38, I quoted Soph. Ichn. 174, ἀλλ᾽ εἶ᾽ ἐφίστω τριζύγης οἴμου βάσιν, which I interpreted as an exhortation to the Chorus to turn to a different dance. I believe that the same exhortation is meant here, introduced with the same interjection (εἶα). It must be an oblique reference to the funny mimetic dance gesture σκοπός or σκώπευμα: Phot. Lex. σ 368 Theod. σκοπός· σχῆμα ὀρχηστικόν· οὕτως Εὔπολις (fr. 482 K.-A.), Phot. Lex. σ 400 Theod. σκώπευμα· σχῆμα σατυρικόν, ὡς καὶ ὁ σκωπός (σκοπός Hermann)· οὕτως Αἰσχύλος (see below). The verb used for this gesture was apparently σκωπεύειν as the derivative σκώπευμα shows, and ἀποσκωπεύειν as is shown by Pliny, HN 35.138, who mentions a famous painting of a Satyr in panther skin by Antiphilus, quem aposcopeuonta appellant. But the verb ἀποσκοπεῖν is also used, at least for describing the dance gesture (Ath. 14.629 f, Hsch. σ 1218, υ 739). Actually, the dancer is holding the flat of the hand above his eyes as if inspecting or peering into something distant (ἀποσκοπῶν). Another Aeschylus fragment refers certainly to the same figure: fr. 339 R. from Hsch. υ 739 †ὑποσκεπόν†χερα (sic cod.: ὑπόσκοπον χέρα Musurus)· Αἰσχύλος. ὥσπερ οἱ ἀποσκοποῦντες, οὕτω κελεύει σχηματίσαι τὴν χεῖρα, καθάπερ τοὺς Πᾶνας ποιοῦσι. σχῆμα δέ ἐστιν ὀρχηστικὸν ὁ σκοπός.102 The fact that σκοπεῖτε here has an object shows that the usage is deliberately ambiguous. The poet jocularly presents the new dance gesture as a result of misunderstanding. The joke was perhaps that the coryphaeus’s command may have been simply “Look out at the temple”, to which the Satyrs responded by performing the ‘look-out’ gesture (σκοπός). It is important to note, however, that, apart from fr. 339 (incertae fabulae), this dance was already known to have some part in our satyr-play: in fr. 79 of the Theoroi, from Ath. 14.629 f, there is a direct reference to it: καὶ μὴν παλαιῶν τῶνδέ σοι σκωπευμάτων.103  102 For the dance gesture see Jucker 1956; Herbig 1949, pl. 1; Borthwick 1968, 49 f.; Lissarrague 1993, 219; Stibbe 2009. It is impossible to say whether σκώπευμα or σκοπός are to be identified with the dance σκώψ or σκωπίας (Ath. 9.391a-d, Poll. 4.103, Ael. NA 15.28). When folk etymology is so heavily involved, it is aimless to discuss the old derivations of the dance names whether from σκοπεῖν or from σκώψ, the name of a variety of owl: Meineke 1867, 302; Latte 1913, 19; Lawler 1939. 103 It was suggested (already by Alberti in Hsch. σ 1218 σκωπευμάτων) that Aesch. fr. 339 R. came from the vicinity of fr. 79 R., i.e. from the Theoroi.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai σοι was considered erroneous, and Meineke emended to τῶνδέ σου. Blaydes conjectured τῶνδ᾽ ἅλις, which, as Setti noted,104 seems as if the Satyrs are turning away from their old habitual dances, a surmise supported by Dionysus’ angry reaction at a.33 f., τοὔρχημα μᾶλλον εἰκὸς ἦν σε τ[ημελ]εῖν. | σὺ δ᾽ ἰσθμιάζεις κτλ. But there are more than one ways to explain σοι. Usually, a dative pers. depending on a word denoting ‘dance’ indicates in whose honour the dance is performed; e.g., Eur. Ba. 195 Βακχίωι χορεύσομεν, Ar. Nub. 271 ἱερὸν χορὸν ἵστατε Νύμφαις, IG 12.9.192.11 ἐπάρχεσθαι ... τοὺς χοροὺς χορείας τῶι Διονύσωι. By using παλαιῶν the speaker may refer to ancestral, traditional dances. But he may well refer also to the former recipient of the dances, i.e. Dionysus, who may then be the person addressed (σοι): “of these σκωπεύματα formerly performed in your honour. (But no longer. We are now performing another dance in honour of Poseidon)”. We cannot know, of course, where the genitives depend on. If, however, the Chorus pass from one dance to another, what are the specific dances they successively perform and what is the relation of this passage with the Satyrs’ change of guardian and interests? A particularly laughter-inducing device must have been to present the Chorus performing exactly what they will be accused by Dionysus of having abandoned, i.e. dancing (a.32 ff.). Because it cannot be doubted that the athletic training of the Satyrs was performed in dance. σκοπός, even if obliquely, is mentioned by name, but it is no more than a fleeting dance gesture. What dance were they performing before that? We know from several sources that the satyric dance par excellence was σίκιννις. But the Satyrs dance with the shield is evidently appropriate to the πυρρίχη and not to the satyric dance, to which it seems to be absolutely alien. The armed dance, though not belonging to the variety of dances covered by ἐμμέλεια, the tragic dance, has a serious and dignified style which must bring it much closer to that than to σίκιννις.105 I discussed above on c.59 the ambiguous usage of ἐμμελέστατον and ἐμβήσεται. Since the participation of the Satyrs in the Isthmian games will take place in the form of a dance, Poseidon’s statement “the implement I am giving you is most suitable (ἐστὶν ἐμμελέστατον) for participating in the Isthmian games” amounts to no less than “to dance with the shields is ἐμμελέστατον”. No doubt this is a covert reference to ἐμμέλεια. Possibly, it was a similar Aeschylean scene that Hesychius, ε 2367, refers to: ἐμμέλεια· εἶδος ὀρχήσεως. καὶ Πλάτων (Leg. 7.816b) ἐπαινεῖ τὴν ὄρχησιν, καί φησιν ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ

 104 Setti 1952, 222. 105 Plato, Leg. 7.816b, distinguishes two kinds of καλαὶ ὀρχήσεις: τὸ μὲν πολεμικὸν πυρρίχην, τὸ δὲ εἰρηνικὸν ἐμμέλειαν. Before that, however, he maintains that all dances τῶν εὖ πραττόντων, i.e. of those who were temperate with regard to pleasures, were called ἐμμέλειαι.

Commentary  

μέλους ὠνομάσθαι ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρὸς τὰ μέλη γίνεσθαι. τραγικὴ δὲ ἡ ὄρχησις. †ἀργυρίοις† δὲ Αἰσχύλος (fr. 424a R.) ἀντὶ τῆς σατυρικῆς, ἥ ἐστι σίκιννις. Several proposals have been made for restoring the obelized word: Ἀργείοις Meursius, Ἀργοῖ Hartung (post Dindorf), Ἀργοῖ σατύροις Matthiessen, ἐν Καβείροις Soping, ἀκύρως Bothe. However, (a) I strongly doubt if Ἀργεῖοι, Ἀργώ or Κάβειροι were actually satyr-plays; (b) emending to Θεωροῖς would be too hazardous; (c) the title of a play preceding the name of the poet would be unique for Hesychius. Therefore, I should either adopt Bothe’s proposal (ἀκύρως) or, rather, propose παριείς, ‘disregarding, neglecting’, i.e. the fact that the dance is tragic. On the other hand, Aristoxenus (fr. 103 Wehrli, ap. Ath. 14.630d), a specialist in the field, connects the pyrrhic with the satyric dance: καί ἐστιν ὁμοία ἡ μὲν πυρρίχη τῆι σατυρικῆι, ἀμφότεραι γὰρ διὰ τάχους. πολεμικὴ δὲ δοκεῖ εἶναι ἡ πυρρίχη. ἔνοπλοι γὰρ αὐτὴν παῖδες ὀρχοῦνται. In the Theoroi it is armed boy-Satyrs who dance. Of course, both the πυρρίχη and the ἐμμέλεια are what Poseidon expects from the Chorus to perform. For I have no doubt that what the Satyrs actually perform is a caricature of these dignified dances. It seems that such caricatures led Athenaeus’ source (Aristocles? 2nd century BC) to include πυρρίχη among the ludicrous dances (14.629f). Perhaps the same source describes the later history of pyrrhic: 14.631a ἡ δὲ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς πυρρίχη Διονυσιακή τις εἶναι δοκεῖ, ἐπιεικεστέρα (‘less severe’) οὖσα τῆς ἀρχαίας. ἔχουσι γὰρ οἱ ὀρχούμενοι θύρσους ἀντὶ δοράτων· προΐενται δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλους, καὶ νάρθηκας καὶ λαμπάδας φέρουσιν, ὀρχοῦνταί τε τὰ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον καὶ {τὰ περὶ del. Kaibel} τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς ἔτι τε τὰ περὶ τὸν Πενθέα. But the satyric treatment of the pyrrhic is best illustrated in vase-paintings. The oldest (520–10 BC) representation seems to be on two fragments of a redfigured crater perhaps from the circle of the Nikosthenes painter in Florence (4 B 28) and Louvre (C 11255) showing an aulos-player and a satyr with a pelta.106 Of 520–10 BC is also the red-figured amphora in Berlin (1966.19) signed by Smikros showing a satyr with pelta and spear and a satyr aulos-player. Both satyrs are ithyphallic.107 On a black-figured white lecythus in Athens (NM 18567) by the Athena painter (500–490 BC) two satyrs with peltae and spears face each  106 ARV2 133.10; Beazley 1933, 4 B 28; Poursat 1968 (on Satyr armed dances, 583–586), esp. 583, no. 28; Hedreen 1992, 109–110. 107 Greifenhagen 1967, 10 ff., pl. 7–11; Greifenhagen 1974, pl. 1–2; Para 323.3bis; Add2 156. Remarkable are the ‘speaking names’ of the Satyrs: the aulos-player is named Τέρπαυλος and the armed Satyr Στυσι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ς, possibly Στυσι[κράτη]ς or Στύσι[ππο]ς playing on Στησικράτης or Στήσιππος. As for the inscription νετεναρενετενετο read on the side of the aulos-player, I disagree with Greifenhagen’s proposal. I read (Tsantsanoglou 2010a) νὴ τήν, ἆρ᾽ ἐνετείνετο;, ‘by jingo, did it stand erect?’, with euphemistic aposiopesis of the theonym beside the obscene verb.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai other as in a duel while singing, whereas a satyr aulos-player is between them; the words they sing come out of their mouths in unintelligible letters; the lefthand satyr and the aulos-player are ithyphallic.108 On a black-figured oinochoe in London (B 626) also by the Athena painter (490–480) two satyrs with peltae and spears proceed to the right.109 In both paintings by the Athena painter the satyrs are crowned with long projecting ivy branches. On a black-figured lecythus of c. 480 BC in Athens (NM) three satyrs are dancing bearing round shields, helmets, and spears.110 a.19–21. The Satyrs are, then, told to hang the shields with their images on pegs, apparently in front of the temple, i.e. the stage-front. Some scholars supplement an adjective qualifying ἄγγελον at the end of line 19: τ[ορόν Fraenkel, σ[αφῆ Page (σ is impossible). I cannot see, however, how they construct the preceding genitive. It is very unlikely that ἄγγελος τῆς μορφῆς could mean ‘representative of the form’. It is much likelier that ἄγγελος and κῆρυξ are used as complementary synonyms with a common adjective, ἄναυδον. The conjecture of Setti and Snell τῆς κ[α]λῆς μορφῆς τ[ύπον is very satisfactory (cf. Eur. Ph. 162 μορφῆς τύπωμα for the outline of Polynices’ figure). The likenesses of the Satyrs will act as voiceless heralds who will prevent foreign travellers from passing through: Aesch. Sept. 82–83 κόνις ..., ἄναυδος σαφὴς ἔτυμος ἄγγελος, Su. 180 κόνιν, ἄναυδον ἄγγελον; cf. Theogn. 549 ἄγγελος ἄφθογγος of a beacon. Though the expected function of the images should have been to prevent robbers and brigands from entering the temple or, possibly, the sanctuary of Isthmian Poseidon, what they are actually said to prevent is foreign travellers from passing through, apparently, the Isthmus to Corinth and to Peloponnesus. Could it be that ἔμπορος is used here, not for ‘traveller’ much less for ‘merchant’, but, straight from περᾶν, for ‘trespasser, intruder, invader’? A more neutral ‘traverser’ must do. For the meaning of κέλευθος see below on a.25. See also Appendix, Dating, for a further, now political, joke lurking under the supposedly preventive function of the Satyric images. The scribe corrected, however, super lineam ἄναυδον to ἄναυλον, ‘without an aulos accompaniment’, and, as far as I can see, his corrections are elsewhere not meaningless. Aeschylus is possibly playing with the stock expression ἄναυδος ἄγγελος, since ἄναυδος and ἄναυλος are both used for ‘soundless, silent’,

 108 ABV 522.20, (mentioned as ‘Athens E 1836’); Add2 199; Poursat 1968, 583, no. 27, pl. 34; Karouzou 1972, pl. 21, 22.1, 2. 109 ABV 531.4; Add2 132; Poursat 1968, 586, pl. 35. 110 Poursat 1968, 584–585, no. 29, pl. 36–37.

Commentary  

the first laying stress on the speech sound, the second on the musical sound. The latter is actually more characteristic of the merry and excited dancing creatures. It may, actually, be an indirect command to the aulos-player to conclude his playing, since his duty has ended. Unlike the real Satyrs, who were dancing till now to the sound of the aulos, their images will perform their task without music. The papyrus text reads ἔμπορον κωλύτορα, which Fraenkel and Dodds (ap. Lobel) emended to ἐμπόρων κωλύτορα. If the emendation were extended to ἀναύλων, the phrase might mean ‘hinderer of fare-evading passengers’ in the sense of unlicenced intruders, but would deprive ἄγγελον, κήρυκ(α) of every qualification. The third letter of line 21 may have equally well been τ or γ, since only the right-hand end of a high horizontal survived. But the relative here hardly needs to be stressed with γε (‘who precisely’?), and ὅ[σ]τ᾽ makes good sense. The numerous supplements proposed for the end of line 21 are all related with the fear inspired upon the foreigners by the satyric images. I would propose alternatively, along the same line, φό[βον πνέων. The expression occurs at Ag. 1309, φόβον δόμοι πνέουσιν αἱματοσταγῆ, as transmitted by TFG. But φόβον was corrected to φόνον by Triclinius, a correction universally accepted, but for Verrall. Yet, the MSS might be right, and Verrall might not deserve Fraenkel’s harsh words, ad loc. Cassandra was asked by the Chorus-leader at 1306 τίς σ᾽ ἀποστρέφει φόβος;, “What terror turns you back?”. She may be answering here “Blood-dripping terror is what the house gives off”. The Chorus-leader reassures her: καὶ πῶς; “It is the victims at the hearth that smell like this”. Cassandra continues: “I don’t want to give you the impression that I am scared, but etc.” But here, there may also be a play with the use of πνέω for aulos: “a herald who will breathe no aulos music but fear”. The shields were often dedicated to the gods and exhibited, together with other war spoils, in front of the temples, preferably in Panhellenic sanctuaries, on the one hand in commemoration of the victory from which the spoils came and on the other as a praise, together with a threatening motive, of the martial virtues of the dedicating city. Naturally, the threatening aim was more effective when the devices on the shields happened to be frightening. Of the numerous references to such dedications of shields and other weapons in history, I mention only Alexander the Great’s famous dedication of three hundred Persian shields from the battle of Granikos to the Athenian Acropolis, twenty six of which were affixed to the architrave of Parthenon, as proved by the marks of nails found on it and as reconstructed in handbooks of Greek architecture.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai The custom of exhibiting war spoils in front of a temple is frequently mirrored in literature. In the Iliad, 7.82–83, Hector pledges himself that, if he defeats his opponent, τεύχεα συλήσας οἴσω προτὶ Ἴλιον ἱρὴν | καὶ κρεμόω προτὶ νηὸν Ἀπόλλωνος ἑκάτοιο. Alcaeus (fr. 401B V.) deploring the fate of his weapons: ἔντεα δ(ὲ) ... ἐς Γλαυκώπιον ἶρον ὀνεκρέμασσαν Ἄττικοι.111 It is more frequent in tragedy. At Aesch. Sept. 277–278a, Eteocles is pledging: πολεμίων δ᾽ ἐσθήματα (sc. ‘armours’), | λάφυρα δάιων δουρίπληχθ᾽ ἁγνοῖς δόμοις | στέψω Προνάων, †πολεμίων δ᾽ ἐσθήματα.112 At Ag. 577–579 a quasi-dedicatory inscription enveloped in the Herald’s speech states that the Argives after conquering Troia θεοῖς λάφυρα ταῦτα τοῖς καθ᾽ Ἑλλάδα | δόμοις ἐπασσάλευσαν ἀρχαῖον γάνος. At [Eur.] Rhes. 180 Dolon declines Hector’s offer of a share in the war spoils with the words: θεοῖσιν αὐτὰ πασσάλευε πρὸς δόμοις. Without the verb πασσαλεύειν, which seems to describe fittingly the relevant act, Euripides, El. 6–7, refers to the same custom: ὑψηλῶν δ᾽ ἐπὶ | ναῶν ἔθηκε (sc. Agamemnon) σκῦλα πλεῖστα βαρβάρων. At Phoen. 575–576 Iokaste asks bitterly her son Polyneikes if he could ever write such a dedicatory inscription: Θήβας πυρώσας τάσδε Πολυνείκης θεοῖς | ἀσπίδας ἔθηκε. At Tro. 573–576 Andromache appears as a war spoil together with χαλκέοις Ἕκτορος ὅπλοις | σκύλοις τε Φρυγῶν δοριθηράτοις, | οἷσιν Ἀχιλλέως παῖς Φθιώτας | στέψει ναούς, ἀπὸ Τροίας. The stage background represents the temple of Poseidon at Isthmia. We know that this temple was rebuilt sometime before 460 BC, after the archaic one had been destroyed in a fire in the decade 480–470 BC. We also know that, whereas the archaic temple had a façade of seven columns, the façade of the classical temple had six columns.113 I do not believe that the poet intended, like a modern stage designer, to represent realistically the Isthmian temple. But since we admit that the stage background represented a temple, and since that temple was not an imaginary setting but a tangible structure from which Poseidon brought the shields out and upon which the Satyrs fixed them, we must acknowledge that this structure, no matter how makeshift or conventionally

 111 Tsantsanoglou 2018b = 2019, 204–212. 112 Tsantsanoglou 1980. For the corrupt second hemistich of line 278a, which repeats the end of line 277 (πολεμίων δ᾽ ἐσθήματα), I had suggested, exempli gratia, among other alternatives, ὑστέροισι δείματα or ὑστέροις φοβήματα. I should now prefer something like τοῖς ξένοις φοβήματα or πολεμίοις φοβήματα or rather πολεμίων φοβήματα, with a characteristically Aeshylean repetition; cf. Soph. OC 699 ἐγχέων φόβημα δαΐων. Of course, still more welcome would be πολεμίων δειδήματα, had this word, a normal derivative of δείδω (cf. δειδήμων Il. 3.56), been recorded. 113 Broneer 1971, 53 ff., 101 ff. Broneer, p. 57, believes that the temple of Aeschylus’ Theoroi is the archaic one. See Gebhard 2001.

Commentary  

stylized, gave to the audience the impression of a typical Greek temple front, i.e. six columns, an entablature, and a pediment.114 Now, the shields should normally be fixed on the architrave, and, if symmetrically, as one should expect, in the area above the columns and the intercolumnar spaces or, in other words, under each triglyph.115 But six columns plus five intercolumnar spaces provide space for eleven and not twelve shields. What did Aeschylus do with the twelfth one? There are two ways to account for the missing shield. Either one of the choreuts had no shield all along or one of them did not hang his shield but kept it to the end. The first alternative is, I believe, true. One might conjecture that the Satyr who declines Poseidon’s offer at c.53 (ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐχί· τῶν φίλων νεῖμόν τινι) sticks to his denial and remains the only Satyr without a shield. He cannot be the coryphaeus, since as we have seen, lines a.5–7 and a.13–17, which must have been spoken and sung by the coryphaeus (see below on a.28–30), show clearly that he had a shield. The problem has been discussed and given an answer above on c.52–53. The eleven shields fixed by the Satyrs on Poseidon’s temple indicate the dual status (official coryphaeus - actor) of Silenus as well as the employment of an acting coryphaeus. Further, it is well known that the Satyrs on the Pronomos vase as well as on the psykter of Douris in the British Museum are eleven. It is an amusing detail, of course, to present the Satyrs speaking of their καλὴ μορφή, and, at the same time, admitting that their likenesses would inspire terror to foreigners.116 On the theatrical significance of the display of the shields, actually circular paintings, upon the stage-front see Appendix, Dating. a.22. The Satyrs finish hanging the shields in front of the temple, and there they run into Poseidon who was standing silent since line a.4, when he actually announced that he must sit silently. As I tried to show above on line a.4, even if the verse were to be read differently, which I doubt, there is no indication in the text that the god exits. Actually, under the circumstances, the mere fact that no such indication exists may be considered a proof that the god remained on stage watching the Satyrs dance to his honour and hang their images on his temple. The scene ends with the necessary greeting χαῖρ᾽ ἄναξ, χαῖρ᾽, ὦ Πόσειδον, which functions both as an honorary salutation and a valediction to the god from his

 114 See Appendix, Dating. 115 It is not easy to guess in what way the Satyrs fixed the shields high on the architrave, but a director like Aeschylus had no doubt many artifices up his sleeve. 116 Hourmouziades 1974, 195 n. 129. On the terrifying nature of Satyr figures see above on a.1 and a.5–7.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai new followers, made right on the moment he was ready to exit. And it is only natural that the departure of Poseidon should be synchronized with the entrance of Dionysus, so that the two gods may not yet come upon each other, but the second has time enough to hear the honorary greeting to the antagonistic god by his former attendants and, what is worse, the characterization ἐπίτροπος assigned to him, a role hitherto enjoyed by himself. Radt’s proposal ἐπίτροπο[ς σ]ὺ φ[ίλτατος conforms satisfactorily with the sense expected. Possibly, the necessary comparison with Dionysus, their former guardian, would require the comparative degree, ἐπίτροπο[ς σ]ὺ φ[ίλτερος. The fact that the three surviving scenes of the play require but one actor (Silenus – Coryphaeus, Poseidon – Coryphaeus, Dionysus – Coryphaeus) will be discussed later. But even if this were true for the entire play, the employment of a second actor seems indispensable. A lightning change after a.22 is practically impossible, especially if Dionysus is supposed to have heard, while entering, the words of the coryphaeus greeting Poseidon as a guardian dearer than himself. Silenus does not exit at c.48 before the entrance of Poseidon at the next line, but remains on stage to be offered by the god the first ‘plaything’; whether he stays during the next scenes with the infibulation, the mock training of the Satyrs, their celebratory dances, and the hanging of the shields on Poseidon’s temple, is unknown. a.23–72. This long speech is delivered in trimeters by the person who discovers the fugitive Satyrs and claims their immediate return. I shall try to show below that it must be Dionysus, as proposed already by Murray, Lobel, Snell, LloydJones, Sommerstein, and Ferrari (also, doubtfully Diggle and Collard), and not Silenus, as supported by Terzaghi and Steffen (see references in Radt, p. 195). We do not know, of course, whether Silenus, the acting coryphaeus or the Chorus made any intervention in the long gap between lines 36 and 61,117 or how longer the speech was. At any rate, even if it were uninterrupted and ended a few lines after 72, it should not be regarded as excessively long. Cf. Odysseus’ fifty-five lines speech in Eur. Cycl. 382–436. Yet, I believe that Dionysus’ speech must have been interrupted, because this would justify the change of his tone from ironically angry in the first part of the speech to bitterly irritated in the second. Possibly fr. 79 (καὶ μὴν παλαιῶν τῶνδέ σοι σκωπευμάτων), if the interpretation given above on a.18 is correct, might come from such an interruption.  117 Lines 61–63 preserve no more than three letters and traces each, so that it is impossible to ascribe them to certain speakers, but at least line 63 must belong to the speech of Dionysus, since line 64 starts in the middle of a sentence.

Commentary  

a.23. The apparently gentle address (ὠγαθοί), made by the god to his servile and zoomorphic renegade attendants, is, no doubt, sharply ironic. See above on c.54. The violation of Porson’s law is here unequivocal. The god addresses the Satyrs in the second person plural (ὑμᾶς) only in this line, afterwards turning to their leader, as their collective representative. Yet, while addressing him in the second person singular (σε, σύ), he refers to the group of the Satyrs in the third person plural (τούσδε, κτέανα ταῦτα), as if detaching him from the group. See also on c.60, a.5–7 and a.28–30. This detachment is unusual, but should not be considered a change in the traditional function of the chorus as a collective body with their coryphaeus. It must have to do with the dancing interlude that preceded. The coryphaeus, is also the coryphée of a corps de ballet, whose choreography has a specific plot: a group of young novices is being trained in a certain athletic game by an older and more experienced companion/brother. This trainer, although organically belonging to the choral group, is, at the same time, distinguished, since he is entrusted with different duties and has, ultimately, to dance a different part. But this distinction is confined to the dancing interlude and, naturally, to the references made to this interlude. In the play itself the coryphaeus does not go off the traditional path of the collective representation of the group. Aeschylus’ choreographic excellence is well attested. Ath. 1.21d ff. (test. 103 R.) from Chamaeleon (fr. 41 Wehrli) refers to his inventiveness and to the fact that he did not employ other dancing-masters. He did use, however, virtuoso soloists who designed new dance figures, as, for instance, Telesis or Telestes, renowned also for a memorable performance in the Septem.118 a.24. ΕΡCOY may stand for either ἐρῶ σ(ε)· ῾οὐ, with elision, or ἐρῶ σ(οι)· ῾οὐ, with synecphonesis of οι+ου, as at c.57, where we preferred to read μοὐχ (= μοι οὐχ) ἁνδάνει. As the synecphonesis would be interrupted by punctuation, οὐ τοῦτ᾽ ἐρῶ σ(ε), ‘I shall not say about you these words’, is preferable. K.J. Dover suggested that the quotation may come from one of Archilochus’ beast-fables.119 Actually, the only evidence justifying this view is the fact that the quotation forms an iambic dimeter, and iambic dimeters are one of the constituents of the epodic metre used in one of the beast-fables of Archilochus, the fox and eagle

 118 See Tsantsanoglou 2010b. 119 Lloyd-Jones 1957, 554 n. 1, describes the suggestion as very attractive, but admits that he can find no evidence to substantiate it.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai ainos (frs. 172–181 W.).120 But the quotation is only accidentally an iambic dimeter. If it really came from another poem, the original verse might have been an iambic dimeter, but also a trimeter or a tetrameter. And, in fact, there is nothing to support that the quotation comes from a poem. What we have is a usual litotes (“I wouldn’t say that your walking was invisible”) expressed in a somewhat peculiar direct speech: “I shall not say these words about you: ‘Your walking was invisible’ ” . There are a few parallels of short direct speech utterances inserted into the speaker’s narrative as hypothetical words of the speaker or some other person, which one would normally expect to find in indirect speech. E.g., Aesch. Ag. 1332–1334 δακτυλοδείκτων δ᾽ | οὔτις ἀπειπὼν εἴργει μελάθρων, | ‘μηκέτ᾽ ἐσέλθηις τάδε’ φωνῶν (“ ‘ μηκέτ᾽ ἐσέλθηις’, τάδε φωνῶν” West); Sept. 850–851 τί φῶ; | – τί δ᾽ ἄλλο γ᾽ ἢ ‘πόνοι δόμων ἐφέστιοι’; (also an iambic dimeter); Eur. Cycl. 502 αὐδᾶι δέ· ‘θύραν τίς οἴξει μοι;’ ; Eur. IA 790–793 μυθεῦσαι τάδ᾽ ἐς ἀλλήλας· | ‘τίς ἄρα μ᾽ εὐπλοκάμου κόμας | ῥῦμα δακρυόεν τανύσας | πατρίδος ὀλλυμένας ἀπολωτιεῖ;’; cf. also Alcman fr. 1.73 ff. οὐδ᾽ ἐς Αἰνησιμβρ[ό]τας ἐνθοῖσα φασεῖς· | ‘Ἀσταφίς [τ]έ μοι γένοιτο | καὶ ποτιγλέποι Φίλυλλα | Δαμαρ[έ]τα τ᾽ ἐρατά τε Fιανθεμίς’; cf. Aesch. Sept. 913, Eur. Suppl. 184–185, al. At Eur. Alc. 954 ff. ἐρεῖ δέ μ᾽ ὅστις ἐχθρὸς ὢν κυρεῖ τάδε· | ῾ἰδοῦ τὸν αἰσχρῶς ζῶνθ᾽ ὃς κτλ., with a much longer quotation, is a close parallel of the use of ἐρῶ with the accusative of the personal pronoun, ‘say about you’. Lloyd-Jones’s renders the phrase: “I won’t apply to you the words”.121 The artificial mode of expressing so simple a statement is explained in the next verse. Dionysus won’t apply to the Satyrs these words, because the road itself informed him differently. At first sight, it seems as if the god comments on the evident exhaustion of the Chorus, which was due, however, not so much to the walking from Athens to Isthmia as to the training, i.e. the dance that preceded. The next verses, however, if correctly read, supplemented, and interpreted, show that the comment is on the visible signs of the Chorus’ ὁδοιπορία, i.e. their footprints (see below). a.25. Dionysus goes on to explain his ironic remark that the walking of the Satyrs was not invisible. His statement is given asyndetically.122 προcεν[ was read by Lobel and Radt and was followed by every scholar. Lobel supplemented

 120 Frs. 193–194 also contain iambic dimeters, as well as frs. 196–196a, the then yet unknown Cologne epode, neither of which is a beast-fable. 121 Wessels/Krumeich 1999: “Nicht dies werd’ich dir sagen”; Sommerstein 2008: “I won’t say of you that you travelled incognito”; Collard 2013: “I won’t say this of you: ‘You weren’t obviously travelling’ ”, which he considers a colloquial saying. 122 Denniston 1960, 109 f., illustrates abundantly the phenomenon.

Commentary  

προσεν[νέπει, which Kamerbeek improved to προσέν[νεπεν. Fraenkel was, however, right, when he described the supplement as ‘extremely improbable’.123 προσεννέπω means ‘address (as), greet (as)’ and is always constructed with accusative. Fraenkel’s προσενδιδοῖ would be acceptable if it was accompanied by a suitable object, e.g., ὑποψίαν, ἑρμηνείαν, ἀλήθειαν, and not simply ταῦτα. Diggle’s προσεν[πεδοῖ, ‘confirms besides’, suits better the expected sense; cf. Hsch. π 3730 προσεμπεδοῦντες· ἐπιβεβαιοῦντες. Yet, the absence of assimilation in -νπ-, though common in papyri, is not followed by the present scribe (ἐμφερής, ἐμβήσεται). However, I strongly doubt about the reading of the last letter. What is visible before the gap is a slightly curved vertical from which two rightward looking extensions high and low start, confidently enough the left-hand half of a K. I read προcεκ̣[, and supplement προσεκ̣[βοᾶι, ‘cries out besides’, which is reinforced by αὐτὴ κέλευθος, ‘the road itself cries out in addition’, like, for instance, Ar. Vesp. 921 τὸ πρᾶγμα φανερόν ἐστιν· αὐτὸ γὰρ βοᾶι, or the common expression μονονοὺ βοᾶι. Inanimate objects shouting are common in poetry and Aeschylus in particular. Sometimes, the words shouted are cited verbatim: e.g. Su. 583 ἔνθεν πᾶσα βοᾶι χθών | “φυσιζόου γένος τόδε | Ζηνός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς”. Similar is the case here, only more elaborately formulated. Possibly, reading not ταῦτα but ταὐτά, would give support to the sense of confirmation. What the road cried out to Dionysus was: “δῆλος ἦν ὁδοιπορῶν”. Naturally, an augmentless imperfect, προσεκ̣[βόα, cannot be ruled out. κέλευθος is not just any road. The word, being used twice in a few lines (21, 25), must denote the same road. It must designate, here in particular, the road leading to the Isthmus, what Bacchylides, 18 (Dith. 4).17–8, calls δολιχὰν … Ἰσθμίαν κέλευθον. The use of the term must have to do with the theoric identity of the Chorus. The roads through which theoroi from all over Greece approached the Panhellenic hiera were named θεωρίδες κέλευθοι: Sch. Pl. Phd. 58b ὅθεν καὶ αἱ ὁδοὶ δι᾽ ὧν ἐπορεύοντο (sc. οἱ θεωροί) θεωρίδες κέλευθοι ἐκαλοῦντο. Especially, the road leading to Delphi was called so, and the Athenians, who, according to the tradition, were its constructors were called κελευθοποιοί: Aesch. Eum. 13 κελευθοποιοὶ παῖδες Ἡφαίστου, where the Scholia M explain: οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι (as descendants of Erichthonius, son of Hephaestus). Θησεὺς γὰρ τὴν ὁδὸν ἐκάθηρε τῶν ληιστῶν. καὶ ὅταν πέμπωσιν εἰς Δελφοὺς θεωρίδα, προέρχονταί τινες ἔχοντες πελέκεις ὡς διημερώσοντες τὴν γῆν. a.26–7. There are two verbs in the sentence, of which only the second survived (ἡγεῖτο), but both share the same subject, ‘the road’. The personal object,  123 Fraenkel 1950, ii.172 n. 2, on Aesch. Ag. 323.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai though common (‘me’), is expressed in two ways: one in dative (μο[ι) from ἡγεῖτο and one in accusative from the missing verb, as is shown by the dependent participle ]ορῶντα. No doubt a negative particle is missing before ]ορῶντα, since the road offered its assistance to Dionysus, because the god did not see his attendants in his train. πλησιοσφύρους was suggested by Lloyd-Jones after the lexicographical parallel ὁμόσφυρος, which at Et. M. 625.31 means ‘brother’, at Hsch. ο 810 ‘sister’, but also at ο 809 συνοδοιπόρος (cf. Suid. ο 289 ὁ ἐν ταὐτῶι τὴν πορείαν ποιούμενος) — all three, I believe, poetical usages (cf. ὁμόπτερος, ὁμόστολος et sim. in Aeschylus). With πλησιο- as the first element of the compound, the adjective can only have a meaning similar to the last one, i.e. ‘he who walks beside’. However, ὁρῶντα τούσδε πλησιοσφύρους should not be taken, with Lloyd-Jones, as ‘seeing these companions of yours’, but predicatively ‘seeing these ones accompanying me’. The phrase alludes to the ceremonial procession of the Dionysia and the dancing duties of the Chorus in the festival. It is there that the god realized the absence of the Satyrs.124 As for the expression, cf., e.g., Eur. Bacch. 57 ξυνεμπόρους ἐμοί (Dionysus for his thiasos — and Chorus — of Bacchae), Ar. Ran. 396 τὸν ξυνέμπορον τῆσδε τῆς χορείας (the Chorus for Iacchus). It is somewhat different in Eur. Cycl. 6, where Silenus reminds Dionysus that during the Gigantomachy he was ἐνδέξιος σῶι ποδὶ παρασπιστὴς βεβώς. Cf. also Hipp. 95.9 W. παρεκνημοῦντο, which according to Tzetzes, Exeg. Il. A 17, p. 79.21 Hermann, is used ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπορεύοντο. The only place left for the missing verb is the opening of line a.27. Winnington-Ingram’s proposal ἐδίδασκε] ταῦτα suits the syntax with two accusatives and the meaning expected, but is too long for a left-hand margin alignment. What was read τ is only a “punctum iuxta α, mediis litteris adaequatum” (Radt). It is, actually, the top end of a vertical, free on the left side, so it cannot be τ, and is very short, so it cannot be ι or ν. It may well be the second top point of μ, which often is characteristically short. Cf. a.23 υΜαc or 27 ηγειτοΜο[ι. Therefore ] μ᾽ αὐτά is necessary. The augmentless δίδασκέ] μ᾽ would still be longer than what is needed. δίδαξέ] μ᾽ αὐτά suits both meaning and space. “For, as I could not see these ones accompanying, it gave me this instruction and clearly led me the way”. αὐτά is an internal accusative = διδάγματα, in the sense ‘evidence’. The road obviously showed Dionysus the evidence for the deserters’ route and led him the way clearly enough (σαφῶς) to find the fugitives soon. It is very likely that the road’s instruction and guidance consisted in revealing the footprints of  124 Pickard-Cambridge ²1968, 61–63, for the actual Dionysiac procession and the dances connected with it.

Commentary  

the Satyrs.125 αὐτά, however, not being demonstrative, does not imply that the footprints were shown on the orchestra of the theatre and seen by the audience, something extremely unlikely. a.28–30. Lobel and Radt read in line 28 ] ̣τα ̣δω[ ̣]μ̣η̣ ̣[ ̣]δωι πατ̣[. The line is, no doubt, in bad condition, however not entirely hopeless. Two things should be especially noted here. First, syntactically, this line must contain the subject of the participial sentence of line 29 (ὁρῶν κτλ.). Second, palaeographically, in the area of this line there is a horizontal break, which divides the remnants of the verse between the upper and the lower piece of the papyrus. If this lower piece, however, shifted slightly upwards and to the right (]δω[ belongs to the lower piece), it would cause some minor changes, not so much in the readings as in the size of the gaps. So, I read: ]η̣τα ̣[ ̣]δω[ ̣ ̣ ]μ̣η̣ ̣[ ]̣ δωιπατ̣[. The traces following μ̣η̣ are the low ends of two uprights: π or τρ, according to Lobel, also ν, according to Radt. My supplement in the opening of the verse is, of course, made exempli gratia, but it fits exactly the size of the gap and the meaning (LSJ s.v. οὐκοῦν II.1, ‘with a prohibition’). παισὶν δ᾽ or κόροις δ᾽ ἀλήταις are also suited, but the change to the new subject would come too abruptly. ἀλήτης (and ἀλατεία) is employed in tragedy for wandering exiles: in Aeschylus for Orestes (Ag. 1282, Cho. 1042) and Io (PV 900), and is absolutely to the point with the fugitive Satyrs.126 Moreover, the noun forms an unmistakable scornful word-play with ᾱ̓θληταῖς, the new designation of the Satyrs. ἐπιδίδωμι should not denote simply ‘give freely’, a sense most appropriate when involving gifts, but mainly ‘give besides’, the original sense of the verb, used ironically: “They have abandoned me (ἀλήταις), and on top of that their father is going to reward them with gifts? On no account!” μήπ[ω] δῶι must be ruled out, not only on account of Porson’s law, but also because omega, one of the scribe’s largest letters, cannot be accommodated in the short gap. μὴ ᾽π[ο]δῶι, though not impossible, is less likely than μὴ ᾽π[ι]δῶι both palaeographically and phonetically.127 If ἀποδίδωμι were

 125 ἴχνη and στίβοι have been supplemented by other scholars; in the opening of line 26, Kamerbeek 1955 supplemented ἴχνη θ᾽, Winnington-Ingram 1959 στίβους θ᾽; Reinhardt 1957 supplemented ἴχνη τε in the opening of line 27. 126 From Dionysus’ point of view the escape of his thiasos is a ‘defection’ or ἀπόστασις. Apparently, fr. 80 R. ἀποστάς (Hsch. α 6654 ἀποστάς· φυγών. Αἰσχύλος Ἰσθμιασταῖς καὶ Ἀλκμήνηι) refers to the fugitive Satyrs. 127 West 1982, 13, approves aphaeresis only of ε, other scholars of α as well. For instance, Aesch. Sept. 1075 is published μὴ ᾽νατραπῆναι by Hutchinson, μὴ ἀ ͜ νατραπῆναι by West. An account by Platnauer 1960 shows clearly the rarity of aphaeresis of α, especially in Aeschylus,

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai admitted, it would imply that the gifts had been given to the Satyrs sometime in the past, but then either abandoned by the Satyrs during their desertion or withheld by Silenus for some reason or other, and now Silenus is prohibited from giving them back to his sons. τὰ φ[αλλί]α suggested by Maas in line a.29 has been accepted by most scholars. Kamerbeek suggested instead τὰ π̣[όσθι]α, which has the advantage over Maas’s coinage not only to be transmitted by Aristophanes and Hippocrates, but also to exhibit a more or less innocuous and affectionate tone, as would be appropriate in a satyr-play, and to be used for young boys’ members.128 I am not satisfied, however, with either of these supplements. First, because they are somewhat longer than the lacuna. Second, because the trace of the first letter after τά cannot belong to either φ or to π. The impression that the trace of ink at the top of the line is much higher than the usual top end of regular letters, as is the case with φ whose upright is normally high enough to touch the bottom of the preceding line, is due to the fact that the two parts of the papyrus have not been properly aligned. Actually, the trace is not higher than the top of regular letters. It also cannot belong to the horizontal of π. It is the high end of a rather thick loop, very much like the loops at the top tips of μ; here the second loop.129 Third, because the diminutives, φαλλία or πόσθια, cannot be used for the huge erect members of the Satyrs, especially when the question is of their becoming short and tapered. I propose τὰ μήδεα, which is the epic term, quite decent and fitting for a god to use.130 The reference is to the habit of athletic infibulatio or κυνοδέσμη, a kind of primitive athletic supporter or jockstrap, as had already been ingeniously pointed out by P. Maas.131 Obviously, it should not be confused with the African customary mainly female infibulation. It consisted in placing a clasp through the athlete’s foreskin or tying it with a thin string which was then either fastened to a waist band or, more usually, tied to the base of the penis giving the latter a curling appearance. It helps the athlete by supporting his genitals and by preventing erection during the athletic contest. Thus, it also conduces to a

 but is inconlusive as to its legitimacy. “All we can conclude is that in the case of μὴ ἀπό (ἀπ-, ἀφ-) the choice between synizesis, prodelision, and crasis was felt to be a free one” (p. 142). 128 Henderson ²1991, 40, 109. 129 η and ω would be possible, but, being vowels, are ruled out. Henry/Nünlist 2000, 15 suggest θ. 130 Od. 6.129, 18.67, 87, 22.476, Hes. Th. 180, 188, 200, Emp. 29.2, 134.3 D.-K. On μέζεα, the form used at Hes. Op. 512 and, probably, Archil. 222 W., see West 1966, 85 f. 131 Apud Snell 1956, 5 (= Snell 1966, 168).

Commentary  

decent appearance of the naked male and was therefore used in other cases too besides athletics.132 ἐκτρίβω is stronger than a.35 φθείρω, and must have the meaning, not ‘wear out’, as is the case with the latter, which concerns the Satyrs in toto, but ‘destroy’, concerning the Satyrs’ phalli. Most likely, there is a negative allusion to τρίβειν, ‘train, practise’, and παιδοτρίβης, ‘trainer’, but I should seriously doubt that its vicinity to 35 βραχίο[ν᾽ ἀ]σκεῖς makes a playful connotation of masturbation, as Winnington-Ingram suspected.133 Masturbation does not render the members short. And training the arm with the heavy shield while dancing the pyrrhic is a quite distinct activity, which the audience must have already attended; see below on a.34–35. Anyhow, the literal meaning intended can only be “seeing how you destroyed their phalli by rendering them short and tapered like mouse-tails”. Lines a.28–30 are constructed as follows: πατὴρ μὴ ἐπιδῶι δῶρα παισὶν ἀλήταις ὁρῶν ὡς ἐξέτριβες τὰ μήδεα μύουρα καὶ βραχέα. With this syntax and presupposing that a new sentence starts at line a.31, the likeliest way to close the present sentence would be an adverbial expression: Ἰσθμιαστικὴν [χάρι]ν, ‘for the sake of participating in the Isthmia (ἰσθμιάζειν)’, is probable. For the use of χάριν with adjective cf., e.g., Pers. 1046 ἐμὴν χάριν; also Soph. Tr. 485 κείνου τε καὶ σὴν ἐξ ἴσου κοινὴν χάριν, Pind. Pae. 9.37 ὑμετέραν χάριν. Given, however, that the adjective beside the adverbial χάριν is usually possessive, an apposition to the preceding sentence might be preferable; Ἰσθμιαστικὴν χάριν, that is, with the adjective implying the colloquial meaning of ἰσθμιάζειν, ‘have a bad time, suffer’, in other words ‘a distressing, a pestering favour’, would equal the typically Aeschylean oxymoron χάρις ἄχαρις. Yet, I would propose alternatively a curious-looking supplement: ὡς ἐξέτριβες, Ἰσθμιαστικὴν [πίτυ]ν. Croesus’ anecdotal threat against Lampsacus (formerly called Πιτυοῦσσα) πίτυος τρόπον ἐκτρίψειν was proverbial for utter destruction, ‘because the pine, when cut down, never grows again’ (LSJ s.v. πίτυς).134 Pine-trees were closely related with Isthmia and the Isthmian games.  132 Furtwängler/Reichhold, 1904, 246–248 (psykter by Douris), pl. 48; Pfuhl III, 1923, pl. 331, 397; Jüthner 1916, col. 2543 ff.; F. Brommer ²1959, 79, no. 119, pl. 68; Dingwall 1925. The most extensive treatment of the subject is Hodges 2001. 133 Winningston–Ingram 1959, 241. 134 Hdt. 6.37, Diod. Sic. 25.19.41 (= Tzetz. Hist. 1.740), Ael. VH 6.13, fr. 208b Domingo-Forasté (= Suid. δ 1092), Phalar. Ep. 92.11, Diogenian. Paroem. 2.76 (ἐξετρίβη δίκην πίτυος· ἐπὶ τῶν παντελῶς ἀφανισθέντων), Jul. Imp. Or. 2.100d, Sch. Ar. Ran. 966, Eust. Il. 42.38. Cf. also the proverb πεύκης τρόπον, Zen. Paroem. 5.76. Imp. Περὶ τῶν τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος πράξεων 38.28, Sch. Ar. Ran. 966, Eust. Il. 1.69.8.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai First, Ἰσθμικὴ πίτυς was one of the species of pine (Pinus pinea): Plut. 618b; second, the Isthmian sanctuary was covered with these trees: Str. 8.6.22 ἐπὶ δὲ τῶι Ἰσθμῶι καὶ τὸ τοῦ Ἰσθμίου Ποσειδῶνος ἱερὸν ἄλσει πιτυώδει συνηρεφές, ὅπου τὸν ἀγῶνα τῶν Ἰσθμίων Κορίνθιοι συνετέλουν; third, the pine wreath was the official and consecrated emblem of the festival: see on c.39–40. The joke would combine the utter destruction of the phalli, with a pun on the participation in the games: “seeing how you destroyed their phalli by rendering them short and tapered like mouse-tails, an utter destruction like that of a pine, an Isthmiastic pine”. By using Ἰσθμιαστικήν, and not Ἰσθμίαν or Ἰσθμικήν, the speaker is equalling participation in the Isthmian games (ἰσθμιάζειν) to the destruction of the μήδεα. Be that as it may, it must be admitted that Ἰσθμιαστικὴν [χάρι]ν is simpler. To sum up, this period casts definitely light on the problem of the identity of the speaking characters. The speaker advises or orders the father of the Satyrs to withhold the gifts; so, the speaker cannot himself be their father, Silenus, but a character who exerts influence over him, obviously Dionysus. The character addressed (ἐξέτριβες) is also other than their father. He addresses the Chorus, but is also constantly speaking on their behalf, and is always addressed as their representative. He is obviously the Chorus-leader or, in the pattern described above, the coryphaeus, who must have also played in the preceding dance performance the trainer (παιδοτρίβης) of the Satyrs, so that he may be accused by Dionysus as responsible for the condition they are now in. Hence, it is he who is different in appearance from the other choreuts. They are apparently children, but he is grown-up. Therefore, his mask and costume may differ, a fact that allows him to claim that the portrayal on his own shield looks more like him than the other ones. a.31–3. Line a.31 is ironic, just like a.23 ὠγαθοί and the whole line a.24. Since the addressee of Dionysus is the coryphaeus who is presented as the trainer or παιδοτρίβης of the younger Satyrs, it is more reasonable to supplement ἐγύμναζ[ες, not ἐγυμνάζ[ου as Lobel. Apparently, the metaphorical sense of γυμνάζω, ‘wear out, harass’ (Aesch. PV 586, 592, Ag. 540), is also functional, as is clear from 35 βραχίο[ν᾽ ἀ]σκεῖς χρήματα φθείρων ἐμά. As for the next lines, they do not present any difficulties. Lobel had already located the ‘old proverb’ in Ar. Vesp. 1431: ἔρδοι τις ἣν ἕκαστος εἰδείη τέχνην.135 Of the numerous supplements of line 33 recorded by Radt, Kamerbeek’s τ[ημελ]εῖν is in perfect agreement with the meaning (31 κοὐκ ἠμέλησας) and the data of the papyrus. That dance is the  135 See MacDowell 1971, ad loc., about the survival of the proverb in the time of Cicero and its Roman adaptations.

Commentary  

main attribute of the Dionysiac thiasos needs no documentation. The definition given by Aelius Dionysius seems to summarize well the satyric identity: σ 16 Σιληνοί· δαίμονές τινες κομψοὶ τὰ εἰς ὄρχησιν καὶ εἰς Διονύσου τελετάς, οἱ Σάτυροι. Εὔπολις (fr. 479 K.-A.). a.34–35. On the double entendre of σὺ δ᾽ ἰσθμιάζεις see above on c.39–40. The new manners which the Chorus have learnt after abandoning dance, namely athletics, are here specified as brachial training, a designation that alludes to the ὁπλίτης δρόμος. The great weight of the shield requires special training for holding and wielding it. Naturally, there is a further allusion to the representation of this training in the performance, that is to the πυρρίχη. The base of Atarbos, the well-known 4th century bas-relief in the Acropolis Museum, which illustrates a chorus of pyrrhichists (no. 1338), shows well the degree of difficulty in holding the shield horizontally, a position that seems to have been a figure of the dance. Other representations of the dance, especially vase-paintings,136 show that it is not only the left arm which holds the shield horizontally that is being exercised, but the right arm as well, which holds the spear with the elbow bent high to a level with the shoulder. The Theoroi Satyrs, however, do not seem to hold a spear. Dionysus complains that training is wearing out his property, i.e. the Satyrs. It may sound strange to modern ears that gymnastics consume those being trained. But Dionysus is not interested in robust bodies or in the ascetic life style of track athletes. His thiasos must consist of drinking, singing and dancing revellers, whose faculties may well be ruined by gymnastics. The reference here must be to the great corporeal fatigue of the choreuts. See also above on a.18. a.36. It is believed by most scholars that this line, the last of col. i, continues and probably ends the period that starts with line a.34. They usually consider the opening phrase supplementary to χρήματα φθείρων ἐμά, hence they fill the gap with a participle having κτέα[να as object: κτέα[να τιθείς γ]ε or κτέα[ν᾽ ἀναθείς γ]ε (the second with split resolution) Kamerbeek, κτέα[να φέρων τ]ε Steffen. A different approach was made by Mette, who connected the phrase only with χρήματα and punctuated strongly after it: κτεά[νων δόσιν τ]ε; i.e., “wasting my money and my share of the property”. Lloyd-Jones punctuated heavily at the end of line 35, but left 36 unsupplemented. Gronewald 1975 opened a new sentence with 36: κτέα[να δ᾽ ἃ μεῖν]ε, i.e., “As for the property that remained”. Apart  136 E.g., the skyphos of Thasos: Poursat 1968, 554, pl. 1, ARV2 1627; with Satyr pyrrhichists the amphora by Smikros in Berlin and the unregistered (?) lecythus of Athens: above on a.18–21.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai from the strange meaning that these supplements give, it must be noted that the use of a postponed γε or τε in most of them is contrary to the usage of drama.137 κτέανα is synonymous to χρήματα, ‘property, possessions’. Both words refer to the Satyrs and may imply a servile status for them. At least κτήματα (= κτέανα) is used of slaves in, e.g., Eur. Med. 49. But more than this, the words seem to imply the animal nature of the Satyrs. Cf., e.g., Eur. Cycl. 232, 268, 270, Xen. An. 5.2.4 πρόβατα πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα χρήματα, [Theocr.] 25.109 κτεάνων (pace Gow who notes that apart from cattle, the word may “cover the buildings and other property as well”), Pl. Gorg. 484c βοῦς καὶ τἄλλα κτήματα. Cf. also the Modern Greek πρά(γ)ματα or dialectally πράτα, ‘things’, used for πρόβατα, ‘sheep’. Moreover, it is the phonetic and etymological proximity of κτέανα with κτήνη that points to this direction.138 Satyrs are called ‘beasts’ at, e.g., Aesch. fr. 47a (Diktyoulkoi).775 R. τ]οῖσδε κνωδάλοις, Soph. fr. 314 (Ichneutai).147 R. κάκιστα θηρῶν, 153 κάκιστα θηρίων, 221 θῆρες, Eur. Cycl. 624 θῆρες.139 Naturally, Dionysus’ designations for his companions are made abusively, because the god is angry at them and treats them accordingly. When they will be reconciled, no doubt the designations will change. Lobel and Radt read ἐπ ̣ρανωι (the final iota adscript is added supra lineam). Lobel claims that the letter missing looks rather like κ; he excludes η or ικ (sc. ἐπηράνωι or ἐπικράνωι). What is visible is the top of a vertical right after Π and the right-hand bottom of an oblique, whose cant, however, does not agree with the low oblique of Κ. Although greatly damaged, the trace can hardly be anything but IΗ, the remnants being the top of I and the low right-hand part of H with its prominent bottom serif. Uncertain relics of the left-hand vertical of H can perhaps be traced. Henry/Nünlist, 15, read only H. The form ἐπήρανος is attested once or twice (LSJ: “dub. in Orph. A. 823, prob. in Epigr. Gr. 1013.5 (Memnon)”). The usual form is ἐπιήρανος, which, however, never occurs in tragedy. From the wide range of meanings of the adjective, the sense met with in Od. 19.343, ‘pleasing, acceptable’, seems suitable here; cf. ἐπίηρα, ‘acceptable gifts’, in Soph. OΤ 1094. Obviously, consonantalization (ἐπι̯η̣ ̣ ράνωι) is employed here for accommodating a rare epic word. The last word is read πόνων by Lobel, πονων̣ unaccented by Radt for securing the possibility of reading πονῶν. But from the second Ν no more survives than the foot of the first upright, which can very well be the low end of Ι, slightly bent to the left as done several more times (e.g., a.3 οφεΙλω, 11 θεωΙ, 14 Ιδουcα,  137 Denniston, 21954, 146 ff., 515 ff. 138 Cf. Fraenkel 1950, on Ag. 129. 139 Cf. Galen, CMG V 10.2.2, 143.19 ff.; Lesky 31972, 37.

Commentary  

15 αζοΙτο, 25 μοΙ, 28 ᾽π[ι]δωΙ, and many more). Of course, I cannot exclude πονων̣ as a possible reading, since the bottom end of the vertical of both Ι and Ν may occasionally start as low as the upright of the end of line a.36; cf., e.g., a.28 ᾽π[ι]δΙ, a.70 πάντΝ. If then ἐπι̯η̣ράνωι πόνωι means ‘pleasant toil’, it must be reminded that similar expressions are used in poetry for describing the athletic exercise: cf., e.g., Pindar, Ol. 6.11 καλὸν εἴ τι ποναθῆι, Pyth. 9.93 πεποναμένον εὖ, Pae. 2.66 ὁ δὲ καλόν τι πονή[σ]αις, Theocr. 2.80 γυμνασίοιο καλὸν πόνον. But all these references to athletics are notably positive and laudatory. How could Dionysus ever use it for an activity he is so angrily condemning? The question can be answered if, accepting Gronewald’s (1975) proposal, we punctuate at the end of line 35 and start a new sentence at 36. But ]ε must now be the ending of an imperative that Dionysus is addressing to the Chorus-leader. With my exempli gratia supplement the period seems to be incomplete; it was probably followed by an adversative sentence in the next lost verse: “Do wear out (= ‘practise, train to exhaustion’) these possessions of mine with a pleasant toil, (not with this pernicious labour)”, an Aeschylean oxymoron again, opposite to 30 Ἰσθμιαστικὴν χάριν. No doubt, the pleasant toil that Dionysus is commending is the dancing activity, which three lines above he mentioned as the essential attribute of the Satyrs: “If you adhered to the old proverb (sc. ‘Let each one practise the craft he knows best’), it would be more reasonable for you to look after dancing.” Thus, ἐπι̯ήρανος πόνος refers to the dance, just as at, e.g., Pind. Nem. 3.12 χαρίεντα δ᾽ ἕξει πόνον, Aesch. Ag. 354 χάρις γὰρ οὐκ ἄτιμος εἴργασται πόνων, 806 εὔφρων πόνος εὖ τελέσασιν,140 Eur. Bacch. 66–67 Βρομίωι πόνον ἡδὺν | κάματόν τ᾽ εὐκάματον, Soph. fr. 269c (Inachos).24 R. δευτέρους πόνους, fr.314 (Ichneutai).223 R. μετάστασις πόνων, the toil mentioned — pleasant in most passages, punitive in Inachos — has to do with singing and dancing. If πόνων̣ is accepted, the genitive would be partitive, and the plural would refer to all kinds of labours, martial, athletic, or dancing, of which Dionysus approves only the last one as pleasant and as appropriate to the Satyrs’ nature. As I mentioned above, one of the funniest elements of the play, at the level of  140 A much discussed and overemended passage (805–806): νῦν δ᾽ οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἄκρας φρενὸς οὐδ᾽ ἀφίλως εὔφρων πόνος εὖ τελέσασιν. Robert 1912, 552, cogently explained the technical sense of πόνος in many of these passages and demonstrated that no emendation whatsoever was needed in the Agamemnon passage, where the Chorus meant no more than “Deep from my heart and with true love friendly was my toil (i.e. my song and dance) for those (i.e. for you) who have been successful”. The dative from πόνος means ‘in honour of’, as elsewhere with πόνος (Eur. Bacch. 66 Βρομίωι) or with χορός: see above on a.18–21. Unfortunately, Robert’s article remained unnoticed or neglected.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai performance, is that the Satyrs are enacting exactly what they are accused of having abandoned. Because there can be no doubt that their supposed athletic training is performed in dance figures, perhaps original and unusual, but definitely dance figures. a.37–63. We cannot guess the contents of this long gap in the upper part of col. ii of fr. 78a. But, at least from line a.64 onward, it is still Dionysus reproaching the Chorus in the person of the coryphaeus. Only that now the reproach does not seem to be ironic, as it was in col. i. It is quite bitter, as if the god had been irritated by an interruption of the Chorus-leader that had intervened. As I supported above on a.23–72, it is possible that fr. 79 (καὶ μὴν παλαιῶν τῶνδέ σοι σκωπευμάτων), being a reference to “former dances in your (sc. Dionysus’) honour”, may come from such an interruption. a.64. Lines a.61–63 are too mutilated to make any sense. a.63 ἆρα δὴ? a.64 σάκει καλύψας was rightly explained by Kamerbeek 1955 as a reference to the ὁπλίτης δρόμος, the track event of the Isthmian games in which the Satyrs are supposed to participate, but also to the armed dance they were obviously performing. See above on c.49–51. a.65–66. It seems that the Satyrs, while pluming themselves on their new athletic interests, are, at the same time, slandering their former guardian, as his angry protests show. If this is not a reference to extra-dramatic action, the most probable place this slander may have occurred is the long gap between fragments 98c and 98a. At any rate, it is impossible to place this defamation in the verses immediately preceding, as is done by Mette 1959 (and Ferrari 2013), who also placed there ‘versuchsweise’ fr. 78b. The trace of the last surviving letter of line 65 does not agree with either Π (π[ᾶσαν εἰς πόλιν e.g. Cantarella) or Δ (δ[υσσεβέστατον vel δ[υσμενέστατον Kamerbeek), but also neither with a vertical stroke nor with a round letter (Radt). Its height and cant square only with the serif-like stroke starting a Μ; see two words before in δΕΜυθον, with exactly the same pattern. I would tentatively suggest μ[οχθηρόν, μ[ισητόν, or μ[ωμητόν followed by μάλα. Alternatively, I would try a compound form favourite to Aeschylus: *μ[οχθηρόστομον? Cf. Aeschylus σεμνόστομος (μῦθος), δύστομος (λόγος?), αἰολό-, ἐλευθερό-, θρασύ-; cf. also in Aeschylus the verbs εὐστομέω, ἐλευθερο-, θρασυ-, λαβρο-, παλιν-, πολυ-. Other dramatists use it sparingly: Sophocles ἀθυρό-, εὔ-, Euripides κακό-, Aristophanes αὐθαδόστομος (about Aeschylus!). But there are scores of possibilities before we resort to coinages.

Commentary  

In line 66, ῥηματίζεις, suggested by Lobel and unanimously adopted, is found here hapax: “let loose a spate of words” Lloyd-Jones, “verba facere” Italie, “speechify” LSJ Suppl., “schwadronieren” (Wessels/Krumeich), ‘”utter ... [words that are] out of [order (?)]” (Sommerstein). It is, however, in my view, suspect. I prefer to read ῥῆμ᾽ ἀτίζεις adapting accordingly the end of the verse. Aeschylus used ἀτίζω (Sept. 441, Su. 733, Eum. 542, fr. 105 R.), constructing it with accusative. The verb is, however, employed absolutely at Il. 20.166. The last visible word is far from certain. Following M, E and O are equally possible. Ḳ is quite probable: only the right-hand tips of its obliques survive, but though the upper one ends below the horizontal of the following T, as is usual with C (i.e. C̣Tρέ̣φ[ων), the lower end is too straight for a sigma. Following Ρ, E is likelier than Ο, because a slight protrusion in the middle of the outer part of the left-hand curve looks like the relic of the middle bar of E which often projects outward from the circular part of the letter. Of the last visible letter a low oblique survives which seems to turn to upright as it goes upward, a feature common in letters with a left hand vertical like γ, ν, π, less with η, whose lefthand vertical is absolutely straight. Cantarella supplemented ἐκτρόπ[ως ἄγαν, the adverb being only lexicographically attested (Erot. s.v. ἐκπατίως) in the sense ‘out of the common way, extraordinarily’. Kamerbeek proposed ἐκτρόπ[ους λόγους vel ψόγους, the adjective not being witnessed earlier than Gregory of Nyssa 1.264c in the sense, appropriate here, ‘indecent, unseemly’. Lloyd-Jones supplemented ἐκτρέπ[ων κότον (comparing Ag. 1464 μηδ᾽ εἰς Ἑλένην κότον ἐκτρέψηις ὡς ἀνδρολέτειρ᾽, ὡς κτλ.). Mette improving Lloyd-Jones’s proposal wrote ἐκτρέπ[ων ψόγους. But ψόγος = ῥῆμα κακόν. By reading ῥῆμ᾽ ἀτίζεις in the first hemistich, I would tend to conjecture for the end of the line εἰς ἔμ᾽ ἐκτρέπ[ων κακόν; i.e. καὶ ἀτίζεις ἐκτρέπων εἰς ἐμὲ ῥῆμα κακόν: “and you show dishonour by turning an abusive tale on me, that etc.” Or less likely with ἔκτροπον: εἰς ἔμ᾽ ἔκτροπ[ον λέγων: “and you show dishonour by relating an indecent tale about me, that etc.” a.67–68. The abusive or indecent tale appears here. Dionysus has been defamed by the Chorus as no good in the art of iron,141 effeminate and unwarlike, οὐδ̣ενειμ ̣[. The trace right before the crack of the papyrus can hardly be anything but A, already read by Lobel.142 I would propose οὐδ̣᾽ ἐν εἵμα[σίν γ᾽ ἀνήρ,

 141 Lobel’s σιδηρῖτι[ν τέχνην is much preferable to Kamerbeek’s (1955) μάχην, even though both eventually mean the same thing. 142 Alternatively, Ọ Lobel; Ẹ Radt. But the curve surviving is too narrow for either.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai “not even dressed like a man”.143 On Aeschylus’ exploitation of the common topic of Dionysus’ transvestism cf. frs. 59 R. (ὅστις χιτῶνας βασσάρας τε Λυδίας | ἔχει ποδήρεις) and 61 R. (ποδαπὸς ὁ γύννις; τίς πάτρα; τίς ἡ στολή;) from Edonoi, another Dionysiac drama. There can be no doubt that σιδηρῖτις τέχνη is here the art of war and not the smithery. For one should not be ashamed of not knowing the art of the blacksmith. Nor can ignorance of this craft be reconciled with the other pejorative appellations the Satyrs ascribe to him: γύννις ἄναλκις and, possibly, οὐδ᾽ ἐν εἵμα[σίν γ᾽ ἀνήρ. The dilemma over the meaning of the expression seems to have existed already in antiquity. Hsch. σ 596: σιδηρῖτιν τέχνην· τὴν πολεμικήν. ἄλλοι δὲ τὴν Ξανθίου φασίν, ἤγουν τὴν χαλκευτικήν. Poll. 7.106: σιδηρῖτιν δὲ τέχνην ἐν Ταξιάρχοις Εὔπολις (fr. 283 K.-A.) εἴρηκε τὴν Ξανθίου τοῦ σιδηρέως. The expression could not have been independently employed by Eupolis. The comedian must have borrowed it from this particular satyr-play, playing on the possibility of ambiguity that it presents. But, although the dependence of the comic fragment on the satyric expression had already been spotted,144 it was not noticed that the relationship of the two plays was much more extended. As far as the fragmentary condition of both plays allows us to see, the Taxiarchoi present in some way a reversal of the story of the Theoroi. In the comedy it is Dionysus who most probably escapes from Olympus (frs. 274, 277 K.-A.) and takes refuge in Athens.145 Phormion, the Athenian general, takes the god under his guardianship and tries to teach him the art of war. References to the god’s military training can be recognized in frs. 268.25–28, 268.53, possibly in 269. Two fragments (278, 284) may refer to training in gymnastics. The training of the Satyrs in wielding the shield (passim in Theoroi) recurs in fr. 276: οὔκ, ἢν φυλάττηι γ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἔχων τὴν ἀσπίδα. The hardships to be sustained by the Satyrs while reposing (Theoroi c.7) recur in the Taxiarchoi, unfortunately in the corrupt fragment 274 K.-A. ὡς οὐκέτ᾽ ἂν φάγοιμι (Suid.; φύγοιμι Sch. Ar.) †στιβάδας ἐξ ὅτου ᾽φυγον (Suid.; φαγον Sch. Ar.).146 The hard 143 On οὐδὲ ... γε see Denniston ²1954, 156 f.; οὐδ᾽ ἐν εἵμα[σίν τ᾽ is also possible (Denniston, 529). 144 Hourmouziades 1974, 197 n. 140; cf. Lobel, ad loc. 145 It seems highly unlikely that Dionysus escapes from the Athenian army (Kaibel; see Kassel/Austin’s apparatus at fr. 274). The speaker in fr. 277 must be some other god (Hermes?) who discovered the fugitive Dionysus. 146 Instead of the emendations recorded in the apparatus of Kassel/Austin, I would opt for φυγ- both times: ὡς οὐκέτ᾽ ἂν φύγοιμι | στιβάδας ἐξ ὅτου ᾽φυγον. “For, ever since I left (or “I escaped”), I can no longer avoid the rush-mats”; iambic tetrameter catalectic? φαγ- may possibly reflect the perplexity of the emendator before the ambivalent sense of φύγοιμι and ᾽φυγον in the same sentence. At Sch. Ar. Pax 348e (= Suid. φ 604), where the fragment of Eupolis comes

Commentary  

ships generally mentioned in the Theoroi (c.9 πολυπόνους, fr. 82 R. ῥύπου γε καὶ ψόθου = filthiness) are particularly referred to in the comedy: filthiness (270, 272, 280) and short rations (275). The references to Dionysus’ effeminacy and possibly to his female attire (Theoroi a.68) recur in frs. 272 and 273. Not only the god’s unskilfulness in the art of war (Theoroi a.67 σιδηρῖτις τέχνη) reappears, as already mentioned, in fr. 283 of the Taxiarchoi, but also the Satyrs’ clumsiness and their difficulty to learn properly, implied at a.2, recur in frs. 268.48 and 279. Finally, the scattered attempts to intimidate the Satyrs and the threats launched at them (Theoroi c.3) reappear in frs. 281 and 277.147 a.69–72. No doubt “these other unheard of” acts must be the new interests of the Satyrs in athletics and, particularly, the infibulatio. I would suggest, e.g., ποταίν̣[ι᾽ ἐκπονεῖς, so that the sense of athletic practising might be included in the verb. These new acts are most hateful to the god, more than all the former insults he has suffered from his attendants. The fragment ends with the god referring generally to the abuse that he and his festival sustain from the Satyrs. In the last two verses I accept Reinhardt’s supplements.148 It is interesting to note on the one hand the use of the colloquial πλύνεις, ‘heap scorn and insults on’, and on the other, although conjectural, the bold breach of the dramatic illusion, since by speaking of “my festival” and “so large a crowd of people” the god is clearly indicating the Athenian spectators collected in the theatre of Dionysus, in order to attend an event of the Dionysia, in other words, the performance of the present satyr-play. A short paragraphos under the initial E of line 72, at the bottom of the column, seems to signal the end of Dionysus’ rhesis and a change of speaker. Fr. 78b b.2. If Lobel is right in placing fr. 78b in the upper part of col. ii of fr. 78a, in other words in the lacuna between lines a.36 and a.61, it must be a part of the angry rhesis of Dionysus. Then ἄ]τιτοι or ἄν]τιτοι, ‘unavenged/unpunished’ or

 from, it is explicitly stated that the speaker is Dionysus. Obviously, the delicate god must have left Olympus, and is now deploring the fact that he has to endure the hardships of military life enforced on him by Phormion. Rush-mats were a mark of Phormion’s proverbial temperance (cf. Suid. loc. cit. καὶ παροιμία· Φορμίωνος στιβάς, ἐπὶ τῶν εὐτελῶν). Note that another word for ‘rush-mat’ was φορμός; so there can also lurk a comic pun with Phormion’s name. 147 Eupolis remodelled at least one more satyr-play: Euripides’ Autolykos. 148 πλῆθος iam Kamerbeek.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai ‘punished in return’, can both refer to the Satyrs. But there are many more ways to read the remnants, especially if we read ]τι τοι[ separately. b.3. The mention of free or freeing may have to do with the servile status of the Satyrs and their prospect of liberating themselves by changing their patron. b.4–6. The negative expression may imply a refutation of this specific expectation of the Satyrs. Possibly, πάγχυ πως is also preceded by a negative particle connected with οὐδαμῶς, e.g. οὐδὲ πάγχυ πως. It seems that what these negative adverbs qualify are two adjectives, of which only the first syllable of the second one survived: κα̣[; κα̣[κ– or κα̣[λ–. Remarkable is the epic colouring of two words in successive verses: (a) πάγχυ appears in drama only at Sept. 641, as well as in the serious dactylic finale of Ranae (1531), which, as is claimed, presents strong Aeschylean reminiscences (see Dover on 1528–1533); (b) ]όσσα, i.e. ὅσσα, ὁπόσσα or τόσσα, occurs very rarely in drama, only in lyric passages: the dactylic verse Aesch. Pers. 864 (see also Ag. 140) and Soph. Aj. 184, Phil. 509 (?), Eur. Suppl. 58. If οὐδὲ πά]γχυ πως κα̣[κ/λ– is accepted, the fragment must come from the second hemistich of the iambic trimeter, right after the penthemimeral caesura. If the issue is about the public defamation of Dionysus by the Satyrs, possibly ὄσσα δημ[όθρους, ‘a public rumour’ is preferable, even though ὄσσα is not found in drama. b.7. Only the top end of a high upright survives, therefore Φ or Ψ, following which, an Α is visible, thus φα or ψα, according to Lobel and Radt. But there is space for one more narrow letter before Α, apparently a consonant. If so, Ψ is excluded, since it does not admit any consonant after it, and φρ is the likeliest reading. ὄ]φρα would add a third epicism in three successive verses. But ὄφρα, only in its temporal sense, appears three times in tragedy, all in lyric passages: Aesch. Ch. 360, Eum. 338, Soph. El. 225. ἐλαφρά is preferable. The trace after συντ, before the crack, can belong to a circular letter. Possibly, οὐκ ἐλα]φ[ρ]ὰ συντε[λεῖς: “unbearable are (the offences that) you perpetrate”. For οὐκ ἐλαφρά cf. Hdt. 1.118 οὐκ ἐν ἐλαφρῶι ἐποιεύμην, Theocr. 2.92 ἀλλ᾽ ἦς οὐδὲν ἐλαφρόν, ‘not to make light of’. Perhaps ἐλα]φ[ρ]ά goes with 6 ]όσσα. For ἐλαφ'ρ- in tragedy cf. Aesch. PV 263, Eur. Bacch. 851, fr. 530.8 K. Apparently, Dionysus is still the speaker. b.9. Cantarella’s το]ῖς φίλ[οις is likely. Mette’s τ]ίς φιλ[εῖ is impossible, because the right-hand tip of the horizontal of τ should have been visible (see b.2 TITOI).

Commentary  

Fr. 79 R. See on a.18 about the dance gesture σκωπεύματα and the meaning of the fragment. About its placement in the plot see on a.23–72 and a.37–63. Fr. 80 R. Probably, ἀποστάς is used for the coryphaeus as representative of the Chorus, and describes precisely what the Satyrs are accused of: apostasy, defection, rebellion, abandonment of their religious dependence. See on a.28–30, n. 126. Fr. 81 R. About aulos-playing in the Theoroi see on a.19–21. Fr. 82 R. Dobree attributed ψό to Aeschylus (fr. 82 N.2) and the quotation to Aristophanes (fr. 892/3 K.); the other way around did Kaibel. However, the name of Aristophanes comes right after ψόθον γὰρ καλοῦσιν, as evidence for ψόθος, not ψό, and the quotation illustrates the whole word, not the ἀπόκομμα. It is possible, of course, to attribute only ψόθος to Aristophanes and the quotation to Aeschylus, but then both authors would appear as witnesses for ψόθος, while ψο, the headword of the entry, would be left undocumented. Erbse, in a penetrating note,149 attributed ψό to Sophocles, adding 150 after συναρέσκοντος, and bisected the quotation (post Bergk, Nauck, Blaydes) attributing each half to Aristophanes and Aeschylus: Ἀριστοφάνης ‘πλέω γράσου τε καὶ ψόθου’ οἷον (hoc Dobree) καὶ ‘ῥύπου τε καὶ ψόθου ’ Αἰσχύλος Θεωροῖς. If we keep γε καί and not alter it to the facilior τε καί, it is necessary to take ῥύπου as the first word in the parataxis, therefore to distinguish, with Radt, ῥύπου γε καὶ ψόθου as a separate quotation. This would set apart πλέωι γράσου καὶ ψοθοιοῦ, which would form, however, an impossible connection of substantive and adjective. I doubtfully propose πλέωι γράσου καὶ ψόθοιο. There are a few cases of juxtaposition of the epic ending -οιο with the Attic -ου in drama (Eur. Hipp. 560 διγόνοιο Βάκχου, Tro. 538 κλωστοῦ … λίνοιο, Phoen. 820 θηροτρόφου  149 Erbse 1950, 14. 150 Fr. 521 R. from Hdn. Gr. 2.951.25 Lentz, Et. Gen. AB = Et. M. 405.29 (cf. Hdn. Gr. 2.182.11 Lentz); cf. Eust. Il. 855.25, Anecd. Oxon. 1.118.14, 1.343.24 Cramer.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai φοινικολόφοιο δράκοντος, Hyps. Fr. 752f.26 K. τᾶς ἀγχιάλοιο Λήμνου, fr. 727c (Τήλεφος).25 Κann. ἢ Νότ[ου ἢ] Ζεφύροιο; Ar. Lys. 775 ἐξ ἱεροῦ ναοῖο). It is only natural that, in an accumulation of genitives in -ου, the one in -οιο would change to -οίου.151 The proposal is supported by the fact that -οιο occurs almost exclusively in lyrics, and πλέ͜ωι γράσου καὶ ψόθοιο is reminiscent of lyric metres. One could even conjecture a haplology: ‘πλέω ͜ ι γράσου καὶ ψόθοιο (‸ia lec)’ καὶ ‘ῥύπου γε καὶ ψόθου’. If so, the attribution of the first quotation to Aristophanes and of the second to Aeschylus is greatly corroborated. We cannot know, of course, who those full of goatish smell and dirt and filth are in Aristophanes, but filth and dirt in the Theoroi may well belong to the vituperations launched by Silenus against the Isthmian festival for frightening the Satyrs (c.7 κακῶι τε κοίτωι καὶ κακαῖς δυσαυλίαις, c.9 πολυπόνους, c.39 σὺ δ᾽ ἰσθμιάζεις; cf. on a.67–68). If the attribution of the fragments is correct, γράσος, ‘goatish smell’, belonging to Aristophanes, need not refer to the τράγοι, the much discussed designation of the Satyrs. Fr. 61a R. (Edonoi) For the attribution of this proverb to the Theoroi, see on c.49–51.

Appendix Happy ending Can we imagine how the play ended? Though the surviving parts of Silenus and Dionysus seem to consist of a defamation of the Isthmian festival, it would be imprudent to believe that this was the only object of the play. It is likely that the controversy of the two gods reflects a real situation, but the necessary happy ending in the confrontation could not lie in the utter defeat of one of them, namely Poseidon, since the play is Dionysiac. Given that the satyr-play is a selfcontained work which does not look forward to a second or third play for its dénouement, as is the case with the thematic trilogy, the gods must eventually be reconciled. Naturally, Dionysus gains the upper hand, but Poseidon should  151 Of course, this does not mean that the grammatically attested adjective ψοθοιός does not exist; see comic glossary, Austin 1973, fr. 342.25, ψοθοιός· ἀκαθαρσία[ς πλέως, Theognost. 291 (Anecd. Oxon. 2.53.28 Cramer) τὰ διὰ τοῦ οιος ὀξύτονα ὑπὲρ δύο συλλαβὰς διὰ τῆς οι διφθόγγου γράφονται· οἷον κολοιός, ψοθοιὸς ὁ ἀκάθαρτος. Cf. also TrGF fr. ad. 679.15 K.-Sn. πάν[των ψ]οθοιὲ Ἀχαιῶν.

Appendix  

not give way in every respect. They may well share the ritual duties with each other. The Satyrs are convinced to return to Athens and restart dancing the sikinnis. They put on again the short tights with the erect phallus as well as the ivy crown. But they also take with them the Isthmian pine crown to use in some Bacchic activities. Moreover, they leave back some unspecified ritual elements. Because, the settlement of the differences may have been expressed by the fusion of the rituals at the Isthmia, of the predominantly Poseidonian festival with the Bacchic telete of Melikertes-Palaimon. This blending must have also formed the aetiology of the Isthmian cult in Athamas, the third tragedy of the trilogy that dealt with the early adventures of the child Dionysus. Finally, it is likely that a reference was made to the Athenian theoroi, who were offered προεδρία at the Isthmian festival, whether in remembrance of Theseus’ role in the institution of the cult — if Aeschylus introduced or adopted this version of the myth; see above on c.39–40 — or in return for the theoria of the Satyrs.

Dramatic date I have already proposed (above on a.26, πλησιοσφύρους) that it was during the ceremonial πομπή of his festival, when the presence of the Satyrs was absolutely necessary, that Dionysus realized that his dancing companions were absent.152 The earliest time they must have escaped is the evening of the day preceding the action — naturally, the most convenient time for escapes — , so that they might reach Isthmia next day at noon, when the satyr-play performance must have started. I do not know to what extent the poet was constrained within the bounds of verisimilitude, but the time interval (16 hours or so) was exactly sufficient for covering the distance from Athens to Isthmia at a walking pace. At any rate, it is obvious that the Satyrs have just arrived to Poseidon’s sanctuary, since they have not yet slept at their new abode (c.7). At Isthmia they have to train for the games, which obviously have not started yet. As suggested above, the Satyrs must eventually make it up with their master. They must abandon their athletic aspirations, thank Poseidon for his benevolence, and return to Athens ready for participating in the next event, whether it be the next satyr-play performance,

 152 Sommerstein 2008, on a.24–25 notes: “From ὁδοιπορῶν and κέλευθος we can gather that the satyrs’ previous lodgings had been some distance from the Isthmus (perhaps in Corinth city, but quite possibly further afield, e.g. Phleius — home town of the first great satyrdramatist, Pratinas — or even Athens) and that they had then absconded”.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai namely the one of a rival poet, or the festival of the next year, depending, of course, on the order in which the poets competed. Naturally, the whole action must be placed sometime before the Isthmian games. The actual dates of the festivals agree with the rough restoration attempted here. The πομπή of the Dionysia took place on the 10th of Elaphebolion. It suits very well my argument, if it was conducted, wholly or partly, in the evening of this day.153 The performances were conducted on the four following days, from the 11th to the 14th of the same month.154 The Isthmian festival must have been held some time later in the summer. Older calculations considered it a movable feast, celebrated in Hecatombaeon in the first year of the Olympiad, but in Mounichion or Thargelion in the third.155 It has also been suggested that at least one day of the games was the 8th of Mounichion, the month following Elaphebolion.156 Others place the festival a little later, in Skirophorion, i.e. in late June or early July.157 Paul Iversen, a specialist in the field of ancient calendars and one of the decipherers of the Antikythera mechanism, kindly made a thorough review, on my account, of the literary and epigraphical evidence, “all of which strongly suggests” — I quote from his message — “that the Isthmia were held in the month normally coincident with Athenian Mounichion (April/May) or Thargelion (May/June).” Concerning the passage at Thuc. 8.10.1, he noted that “it is clear that in 412 BCE the Isthmia were held shortly after the Dionysia, either in the same lunar month or the next (and in my opinion it makes much more sense if they are in the same month). [...] From what I can tell, it seems your reconstruction of the Theoroi is consistent with the Isthmia being celebrated in the same lunar month as the Dionysia, or the following month. Of course at this early a date it is possible the Athenian calendar was not in its later ‘normal’ alignment, which means we can’t be sure whether Elaphebolion was in the lunar month that occupied March/April, or another month (and the Corinthian calendar could also have been erratic!). At the very least, though, your reconstruction is more evidence that the Isthmia were shortly after the Dionysia, which is what the other evidence suggests.”  153 Robert 1899, 543, argued that the πομπή took place in the evening. If the πομπή was different from the κῶμος, the first could be conducted in the morning, the second in the evening. See Pickard-Cambridge ²1968, 63, with notes 4 and 5. The κῶμος would no doubt be the most appropriate event for the Satyric chorus to participate. 154 Pickard-Cambridge ²1968, 61–67. 155 Corsini 1752, 114 ff. 156 Unger 1877; Schneider 1916, col. 2249. 157 Beloch 21913, Ι.2, 146–147; Gomme/Andrewes/Dover 1981, 23–24, on Thuc. 8.10.1; Hornblower 2008, on Thuc. 8.9.1.

Appendix  

One cannot draw general conclusions concerning the genre from isolated samples, but in this particular satyr-play, with its numerous self-referential remarks and illusion breaches, I would be inclined to accept the conventional rule of comedy, whose dramatic time was the day of the performance. In our case it must have been the first day of the performances, i.e. the 11th of Elaphebolion of a year in the 460s BC (see below).

Tetralogy Hourmouziades is right that it has proved impossible to place the surviving part of the Theoroi unequivocally in any known mythical cycle.158 Nor has the reversal of the order of the fragments proposed here proved of any help in clarifying this problem. However, the Dionysiac element in the Theoroi is much more pronounced than what we should normally expect in a satyr-play. Not only does Dionysus’ presence in person confirm this impression, but also the great number of clearly Dionysiac — and not merely amusing — topics the poet is occupied with, some times even with a breach of the dramatic illusion. It is reasonable, therefore, to investigate the Aeschylean tragedies with Dionysiac subject. Apart from the Lykourgeia (Edonoi, Bassarai, Neaniskoi, Lykourgos), two more trilogies with Dionysiac subjects have been traced among Aeschylus’ fragments.159 The first must describe the love of Zeus for Semele and its deadly side-effects on the descendants of Cadmus. It must have consisted of the Toxotides, Semele or Hydrophoroi, and Athamas. It is likely that the Toxotides dealt with the punishment of Aktaion, whose killing must have been carried out within the limits of the play, since in fragment 241 R. he is mentioned as alive, if not speaking in person, whereas in 244 R. his death is announced. In a version of the myth,160 apparently followed by Aeschylus, Aktaion’s killing by his own dogs was contrived by Artemis, whose companions obviously are the bowwomen of the chorus, because he dared to rival Zeus for the hand of Semele, his maternal aunt. Semele or Hydrophoroi, the next tragedy, must have dealt with Dionysus’ birth. In the play, the title-heroine must have appeared on stage  158 Hourmouziades 1974, 55. 159 A restoration of the Lykourgeia has been proposed by West 1990, 26–50. See also Nikolaïdou-Arabatzi 2010. 160 Hes. fr. 346 M.-W.; P.Oxy. 2509 (= Hes. Cat. Gyn. fr. 162 Most = Hirschberger 2004, fr. 103); Anon. P. Michigan inv. 1447 col. ii.1–6 Renner (= Hes. Cat. Gyn. fr. 161a Most = Solmsen/ Merkelbach/West 31990, fr. 217A); Stesich. PMGF 236 (= Davies/Finglass 2014, fr. 285, 571 ff.), Akousil. FGrHist 2 F 33 (= Fowler 2000, I, Acusilas fr. 33, Fowler 2013, II, 370–371).

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai pregnant. And, since she bore the god in her womb, she also appeared in a state of possession, which was communicated to those who touched her (apparently the women of the chorus). It is not clear whether Aeschylus uses the appellation Θυώνη = ‘possessed’ (cf. θυ(ι)άς et al.) for Semele. It is also uncertain whether he follows the myth about the thigh-bred Dionysus or not. The women watercarriers of the chorus may be standing by Semele during the delivery and carrying water in order to wash up the the new-born god. In fr. 221 R. Zeus is mentioned as responsible for a killing, apparently Aktaion’s, in 222 R. a daimon Ἀμφίδρομος is referred to, possibly related with Ἀμφιδρόμια, the ceremony for naming a new-born baby, and fr. 224 R. consists of an adjective that may describe the thunder of Zeus that killed Semele.161 The third tragedy must have been Athamas. Among its meagre fragments two or three (1–3 R.) refer to the death of Learchos and Melikertes. They were sons of Ino and Athamas. After Semele’s death, we are told, Ino, her sister, agreed with Athamas to accept the infant Dionysus in their home and rear him together with their own sons. But Hera, angry at the protectors of Zeus’ illegitimate offspring, drove them out of their wits and made them kill both their children. Ino with Melikertes in her arms, dead or alive, according to different versions of the myth, plunged into the sea, where the Nereids accepted them graciously, changed their names to Leukothea and Palaimon, and turned them to sea divinities. A dolphin brought the mortal body of Melikertes ashore. Sisyphus, brother of Athamas, found the body, buried it, and instituted the Isthmia as funeral games in honour of Melikertes-Palaimon. Another version of the myth is recorded in the Marmor Parium, ep. 20, according to which Theseus is the founder of the games. If this report goes back to Aeschylus, as seems probable, the poet had many possibilities to introduce Theseus into the plot. The second trilogy must have dealt with the triumphant return of the grown up Dionysus from the Orient and the punishment of those who either had spoken ill of his mother in the past or now rejected his worship. It must have consisted of the tragedies Bakchai, Pentheus, and Xantriai. Both their exact action and their order are uncertain. Of the Bakchai we know virtually no more than its title. But the Bacchants, who obviously formed the chorus, were added to the god’s escort after his return to Greece, so the action must be placed in his mature age. Whether it is placed in Pentheus’ realm, Thebes, or elsewhere we cannot say. The hypothesis of Euripides’ Bakchai informs us that Pentheus related the same story as the Euripidean play. Finally, Xantriai could also be about Pentheus’ killing on Cithaeron or, as others claim, about the punishment of the  161 For the tetralogy, in general, see Gantz 1980, 156 ff.; cf. Gantz 1981, 29 n. 63.

Appendix  

daughters of Minyas who also resisted Dionysus’ rites. The question of the presence of Hera in Xantriai disguised as a wandering priestess (fr. 168 R.) has been widely discussed already from antiquity, but no convincing answer was given about her role. A cognate issue concerns the attribution of P.Oxy. 2164, with Radt arguing in favour of Xantriai and most of the other scholars in favour of Semele.162 As regards the satyr-plays of these two trilogies, two are actually available: Trophoi and Theoroi. The first concerned the nurses of Dionysus and their as well as their husbands’ (= Satyrs) miraculous rejuvenation by the baby god. The second, as we have seen, dealt with the Isthmian games and the opposition between the principal festivals of Dionysus in Athens and of Poseidon in Corinth. Welcker163 had proposed the connection of Athamas and Theoroi based on the fact that both plays were concerned with the institution of the Isthmia. However, it had not occurred to him that the second play was satyric. Also, as we have seen above, Snell suggested that the donor of the images in the Theoroi was Sisyphus, king of Corinth and archetype of the crafty hero in myth. Since he is known to have founded the Isthmian games, Snell thought that this foundation might have been the subject of the Theoroi. Lloyd-Jones objected that “there is no suggestion in the text that this is the first performance of the Isthmian games: if it were, Aeschylus as an Athenian might be thought likely to prefer the legend that made Theseus their founder”.164 The objection was correct, but, be that as it may, one should not expect to find the institution of a cult described in a satyr-play. Though not a law, the proper place for a religious aition in a connected tetralogy would be the third tragedy. And, as we saw, the Isthmian festival was established in honour of Melikertes whose story must have formed the subject of Aeschylus’ Athamas, most likely the third tragedy in its tetralogy. As for Theseus, we also saw that Aeschylus could well have exploited, if not invented, his presence in that tragedy. Yet, these arguments are not compelling acceptance of a connection between Athamas and Theoroi. For if we connected the Theoroi with Toxotides, Semele, Athamas, we should also have to connect the Trophoi with Bakchai, Pentheus, Xantriai. Thus we would attach both satyr-plays to the wrong mythical cycles not only from a thematic point of view but also from a dramatic time one. For just as the Trophoi fittingly follow the trilogy which had to do with the

 162 See Sommerstein 2008, fr. 220a-c, with bibliography; Sommerstein 2010, 202–204. 163 Welcker 1824, 336–341. See also Untersteiner 1950 and 1951; Mette 1959, 4 ff., 260; Mette 1963, 162 ff.; cf. Snell 1956, 11 (= Snell 1966, 175). 164 Page 1942, 546.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai conception, the birth, and the early rearing of Dionysus, so the Theoroi, whose subject was the rejection of the grown up god by his very followers and their consequent punishment and repentance, go well with a trilogy about one or more rejectors of the Dionysiac worship and his or their punishment by the returned from India mature god. It is, of course, very likely that Athamas contained the aition for the institution of the Isthmia, as it is also certain that the Theoroi concern a performance of the Isthmian games. And I would not rule out even the possibility of a reference to the institution of the games in the satyrplay. For instance, the angry Dionysus might well remind the Satyrs that the games were actually established in order to commemorate the failure of Hera’s attempt against himself and to honour his aunt who stood by him defying even her own and her son’s death. If chronology allows, and the story of the institution of the Isthmian games had already constituted the subject of an Aeschylean tragedy, the poet could freely refer to it in other related plays, just as, for instance, the story of Io appears both in the Su. and the PV.

Dating Although there is no way to date the play with any degree of accuracy, all evidence leads to the end of Aeschylus᾽ career.165 An internal chronological clue might be offered by c.41 (ταῦτ᾽ οὖν δακρύσεις οὐ καπνῶ[ι γ᾽ ὥσπερ πάρος), if the verse is a reference to Prometheus Pyrkaeus (see ad loc.). The play is dated in 472 BC, as it is unanimously considered the satyr-play of the Persae production. However, I strongly disagree with this acceptance. I believe that the Prometheus mentioned in the Persae didascalia as fourth play of the production is either the Prometheus Bound known to us or a sort of pre-release version of the same play, which would become, not more than three years later, the initial play of the Prometheus tetralogy, with Pyrkaeus as its satyr-play.166 More reliable is the dating of the Theoroi in the late 460s, that is, after the introduction of a background building in the Athenian theatre. See above on  165 Wessels/Krumeich 1999, 132, n. 10, where Broneer’s (1962) suggestion is referred to; see above on c.39–40. 166 Tsantsanoglou 2020. I believe that the placement of the 472 BC Prometheus in the fourth place of the production, in the position not only of satyr-plays but also of prosatyric plays, accounts to a great extent for any linguistic, metrical, and dramaturgical divergence of Prometheus Bound from Aeschylean practice. Already Hourmouziades 1974, 36–40, argued that the satyric Prometheus might belong to the Prometheus tetralogy, whether as a revival from the 472 BC production or as a new play.

Appendix  

c.43–45, a.19–21. It is remarkable that what the background represents is the temple of Poseidon at Isthmia, a temple that we know was rebuilt ca. 460 BC, the older archaic one having been destroyed in a fire sometime after 480 BC.167 The stage-front is accessible by the Chorus, since they have to hang the shields there, and vice versa the choreuts are accessible by the actors, since Poseidon has to hand them the shields. What is more important, however, is that Aeschylus does not merely use the innovation of a stage-building. He seems to trade upon the presence among his production associates of a talented painter, and constructs his play accordingly, with eleven painted shields forming the centre of the plot. Not only are these portrait-shields highly commended for their artistic quality, but are specifically praised as brand-new, constructed, that is, and painted for the present occasion. They are also hung for the greatest part of the play on the temple architrave as if displayed in a gallery, and, what is more, hung on a temple front which was also a stage painting. I would not at all be surprised if this production was the one commemorated by Vitruvius, 7 praef. 11 (= Aesch. test. 85 R.), in which, Aeschylo docente, the Samian painter Agatharchus for the first time constructed a stage-building, possibly with painted scenery attached to it. It has been suggested that by inserting the objects bearing the likenesses (masks, antefixes, pinakes, statuettes, figurines, and perhaps other objects proposed) into the play’s plot, Aeschylus is exploiting the usual in satyr-plays motif of the amazement and the comic situations these primitive creatures experience when facing a civilization innovation. It is true that many satyr-plays have this motif as centre of their theme.168 Stieber169 accepts the suggestion of Lloyd-Jones 1957, 543, that the art of portraiture was the innovation admired in the Theoroi, as well as the supposed javelins. A distinction, however, should be drawn between the καινά or the τρόποι καινοί, which the Satyrs aspire to learn (c.49, a.34, a.69), and the newly made toys that Poseidon offers them. It is one thing for the Satyrs, being uncivilized and bestial creatures, to be ignorant of  167 Broneer 1971, 53 ff.; Hammond ²1988, pp. 581–583, attributes the fire to the Persians, but apart from the fact that it is questionable whether the Persian army ever reached the Isthmus, the excavation data seem to date the fire of the temple to the decade following Salamis; Gebhard 1993. 168 Hourmouziades 1974, 38 f., 96 ff., 103 f.; Seaford 1976, 217 and n. 72, and Seaford 1984, 36 f.; Ussher 1977–78, 17–19; Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 666 (Register, Motive: Erfindung / Entdeckung / Neuigkeiten). Sutton 1980, 157 n. 455, though admitting the existence of the motif in certain plays, denies that it should be included in the ‘generic stereotypes’ of the satyr-play. 169 Stieber 1994, 90 ff. nn. 11–12.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai and to express curiosity, admiration or fear at particular benefits of civilization, such as fire, wine, music, and another to admire something they already know and praise it for its high quality. What is new for them here is athletics, particularized in the use of the shield in the armed race, as is obvious from the scene of c.49 ff. where Poseidon hands the shields to them. The use of τοὐπίπλουν at c.57 shows that not even the word ἀσπίς was known to them. On the other hand, the paintings are wonderful, but painting does not seem to be unknown to them. One does not speak of (a.7) τὸ Δαιδάλου μίμημα· φωνῆς δεῖ μόνον, if he does not know of Daedalus and his work; and the same applies to expressions like a.12 καλλίγραπτον εὐχάν, a.17 ἐμφερής, a.19 τῆς καλῆς μορφῆς τύπον. The emphasis laid on the high quality of the paintings (lifelikeness, likeness) aims at praising the specific painter and his art, not painting in general. To return to Agatharchus, I believe that the story about him must be somewhat reconsidered. Vitruvius speaks not of a painter and his invention of stage painting but of an architect and the edifice he constructed. He actually places it first in a long list of famous edifices, not all of them temples, about which and their architectural rhythm treatises had been composed by their architects or other theoreticians.170 The edifice about which the treatise in question was written was apparently the skene or stage-building. In fact, Vitruvius says that Agatharchus Athenis, Aeschylo docente, tragoediam ad scaenam fecit et de ea commentarium reliquit; in other words that, in a production of Aeschylus, Agatharchus made tragedy to the stage (i.e., adapted tragedy to a stagebuilding), about which (sc. the stage-building) he left a treatise.171 How can this refer to a late revival of a play by Aeschylus, as A. Rumpf argued, I cannot understand.172 As one would expect, the treatise must have been of architectural  170 Vitr. 7 praef. 11–13. The other authors and their treatises are: Silenus on the proportions of the Doric rhythm, Theodorus on the Heraion of Samus, Chersiphron and Metagenes on the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, Pytheos on the temple of Athena at Priene, Ictinus and Carpion on the Parthenon, Theodorus of Phocaea on the Delphic Tholos, Philon on the proportions of temple architecture and on the neoria at Piraeus, Hermogenes on the temple of Artemis at Magnesia and of Dionysus at Teos, Arcesius on the proportions of the Corinthian rhythm and on the temple of Asclepius at Tralles, Satyrus and Pytheos on the Mausoleum. 171 Conjectures that delete ad, alter fecit to pinxit, and construct by attaching tragoediam to docente, only confuse things. Also primum, at the opening of the sentence, must mean “to start with,”, since the second item (Silenus) begins with postea; it implies, therefore, that Agatharchus was the first to leave an architectural treatise (erroneously, if Theodorus is the wellknown sixth century Samian architect). Of course, this does not mean that Agatharchus was not also the first to design a stage-building. 172 Rumpf 1947; Webster 21970, 13 f.; Taplin 1977, 457 n. 4; contra Hammond 1972, 443, Simon 1972, 61 n. 73. On the other hand, Hor. A.P. 279 Aeschylus et modicis instravit pulpita tignis,

Appendix  

purport, concerning the system of chorometric proportions that provide good visibility of the stage from as many points of the cavea as possible, a topic on which Vitruvius himself devotes a large portion of his own work (it might have also been concerned with theatre acoustics, if the stage-building was designed to function also as a resonator, though the cavea pre-existed). The other treatises in the list are also concerned with the proportions of the architectural styles on the basis of specific edifices. Such a study of geometric optics may lead to a study of perspective, as J. Christensen argues,173 but is still far from it, much more from its application in painting. Actually, according to Vitruvius, Agatharchus’ treatise inspired Democritus and Anaxagoras (in that order) to formulate the laws of perspective and to suggest methods of achieving optical illusions with the scenery: ex eo moniti Democritus et Anaxagoras de eadem re scripserunt, quemadmodum oporteat ad aciem oculorum radiorumque extentionem certo loco centro constituto lineas ratione naturali respondere, uti de certa re certae imagines aedificiorum in scaenarum picturis redderent speciem et, quae in directis planisque frontibus sint figurata, alia abscedentia, alia prominentia esse videantur. A treatise Περὶ ζωγραφίης is attributed to Democritus. But the title of another lost Democritus treatise, Ἀκτινογραφίη, recorded in contiguity with Οὐρανογραφίη, Γεωγραφίη, Πολογραφίη, can hardly mean “The drawing of rays”, as Christensen claims (p. 161 n. 5). Further, the closest I can think of Anaxagoras in reference to the laws of perspective is in discussing about the apparent and the real size of celestial bodies. Christensen, 166, connects the laws of perspective with Anaxagoras’ explanation of solar eclipses. But neither of the philosophers can be imagined as engaged in the stage scenery and writing treatises about the “faithful representation of the appearance of buildings in painted scenery (in scaenarum picturis), so that, though all is drawn on a vertical flat façade, some parts may seem to be withdrawing into the background, and others to be standing out in front” (transl. Morris H. Morgan). The likeliest candidates must, I believe, be the sculptors Anaxagoras and Democritus, mentioned by Antigonus of Karystos.174 Both mentions come from Diogenes Laertius’ lists of homonymes following the chapters on the philosophers: fr. 48 (D. L. 2.15) Γεγόνασι δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι τρεῖς Ἀναξαγόραι, ... ὁ δ᾽ ἀνδριαντοποιός, οὗ μέμνηται Ἀντίγονος; fr. 49 (D. L. 9.49) Γεγόνασι δὲ Δημόκριτοι ἕξ· ... τρίτος ἀνδριαντοποιός, οὗ μέμνηται Ἀντίγονος. The sculptor Anaxagoras is also mentioned in an epigram

 which has been associated with Vitruvius’ report, does not seem to refer to Agatharchus’ innovation. 173 Christensen 1999. 174 Wilamowitz 1881, 10; Dorandi (ed.) 1999, frr. 48, 49.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai of the Anthologia Palatina, inscribed Ἀνακρέοντος (= old Attic): AP 6.139 Πραξαγόρας τάδε δῶρα θεοῖς ἀνέθηκε, Λυκαίου | υἱός· ἐποίησεν δ᾽ ἔργον Ἀναξαγόρας. Sculptors may well have shown interest in perspective, since projective transformation is a matter of sculptural concern, especially in representations on temple friezes or pediments. And they may well have composed treatises on the subject (Vitr.: de eadem re scripserunt), as the insertion of their names most likely in Antigonus’ book on painting shows (Plinius, Nat. Hist. 35.68: Antigonus et Xenocrates qui de pictura scripsere). As for the Samian painter Agatharchus (Harp. s.v. Ἀγάθαρχος), who experienced a nasty incident with Alcibiades in Athens ([And.] 4.17, Dem. 21.147 with Scholia, Plut. Alc. 16), obviously in the late fifth century, we only know that he was self-taught (Plut. fr. 216g.31), and used to paint fast and easily unlike his contemporary Zeuxis (Plut. Per. 13). Nothing about perspective and the like. Yet, there is no need to distinguish the architect from the painter. He may well have designed the stage-building in the late 460s, synchronize with Zeuxis in the late 430s and early 420s, and have experienced the incident with Alcibiades in the early 420s. This makes a span of ca. 35 years, much less than the 60 or so years between the early and the late works of another architect-painter, Michelangelo. Agatharchus might have been 25 or so years old when he constructed the skene and 60 or so when he painted Alcibiades’ house; he might even at this age make eyes at Alcibiades’ pallakis, if this was a true story.175 Naturally, being a painter, he did not have to limit himself to the design of the stage-building; he could well paint at the same time the scenery and the rest of the performance props. Hor. A.P. 279 Aeschylus et modicis instravit pulpita tignis, which has been associated with Vitruvius’ report, does not seem to refer to Agatharchus’ innovation. In fact, Vitruvius speaks of the construction of the stage-building and the employment of stage scenery that exploited perspective, whereas Horace must refer to the pre-Agatharchus employment of ὀκρίβας: “Aeschylus erected pulpits with moderate-sized beams”. Possibly, the next verse, 280, also refers to ὀκρίβας: et docuit magnumque loqui nitique coturno, with the late misinterpretation of ὀκρίβας as ἐμβάτης.176 I am not sure if the arguments set out above corroborate or not the disputed authenticity of the reference read in Aristotle’s Poet. 1449a18 f., where the introduction of σκηνογραφία is attributed to Sophocles. It is true that the Arabic version of the Poetics does not include this piece of information having substituted it by an insignificant commonplace. However, the difference may well be of no  175 Cf. also O’Sullivan 2000, 355–356 and n. 17. 176 Wilkins 1939, ad loc.; Tsantsanoglou 2020, 288–295.

Appendix  

considerable consequence. Aeschylus-Agatharchus may have introduced the stage-building, Sophocles the σκηνογραφία. Who was the first and who the second? To be faithful to both our authorities, we may adopt either of two possibilities: either it was Sophocles who first used painted panels supported with wooden beams, and Agatharchus-Aeschylus later constructed the stagebuilding, to which the panels were attached, or it was Agatharchus-Aeschylus who first constructed the stage-building possibly with its front wall painted, and Sophocles later introduced the removable panels. The second order of events seems more reasonable, but, after all, the two innovations cannot have been more than one or two years’ time distant from each other. On the other hand, the fact that the three surviving scenes of Theoroi require no more than one actor (Silenus – Coryphaeus, Poseidon – Coryphaeus, Dionysus – Coryphaeus) may look like an archaic element. The evidence is, however inconclusive. First, we do not know what took place in the rest of the play. If, for instance, we possessed only fragmentary texts of Persae and Supplices, we might think that one actor was sufficient for these tragedies. An impression that is strengthened by Aeschylus᾽ habit to keep the second actor on stage silent and inactive for long lapses of time. Secondly, we are in no position to support that theatrical conventions were identical between tragic and satyric performances in Aeschylus᾽ time. At any rate, I tried to show above on c.48 and a.22 that a second actor is indispensable. The protagonist must play the part of Dionysus, the deuteragonist of Poseidon. Silenus was officially considered the coryphaeus, but, in fact, one of the remaining eleven choreuts served as the acting chorus-leader. The fact that the athletic attire of the Satyrs seems to be limited to nothing more than the shield also leads us to the end of Aeschylus᾽ career, since we notice this reform from about the mid-fifth century. Unless Aeschylus diminished the components of the armour for theatrical reasons. See above on c.49– 51. The vase-paintings that show Satyrs dancing the pyrrhic date from 520–510 to 480 BC, but they certainly do not reflect this particular Aeschylean satyrplay. First, because the Satyrs are depicted having also other weapons besides the shield, and, second, because the painters do not exploit, as one would expect, the extremely inventive, from an artistic point of view, subject of the Satyrs who carried shields bearing their pictures. If the contrast between the two gods reflects a hostility between Athens and Corinth, it is known that such a hostility did exist in the late 460s, especially after the change of the Athenian policy towards Sparta and her allies in 462 and 461 BC, and the alliance with Argos. The hostilities with Corinth culminated in

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai the battle at Halieis and the sea-battle at Kekryphaleia in 458 BC. On the other hand, the hanging of the satyric images at a.18–21, supposedly in order to “halt strangers from the holy road by inspiring fear”, seems like a caricature of the attempts of the Corinthians and the other Peloponnesians to fortify the Isthmus against foreign invasion — as was really done in 480 BC (Hdt. 8.71) — when all marine approaches were defenseless.177 From this vague period of time, 458 BC, the year of the production of the Oresteia should be excluded, since the satyr-play produced then was Proteus, and possibly 463 BC, if this was the year of the production of the Supplices, whose satyr-play was Amymone — though the actual year could be any one between 466–459 BC —, and the Supplices certainly does not require a background building. To sum up, I would date the production of Bakchai, Pentheus, Xantriai, and Theoroi in a year between the production of the Supplices and 459 BC.

Drama history The story of the play, with its numerous genre-referential echoes, may also contribute to the prehistory of Greek drama. Roughly speaking, the action of the play might be summed up in a period. The Satyrs travel from Athens to Corinth, and after ineffectually trying to establish themselves there by changing their religious dependence, return to Athens to their original place and cult. This summary looks like a reply to the Peloponnesian position on the origin of the satyric performances, as we know it from the article Ἀρίων of Suidas (α 3886): λέγεται καὶ [...] πρῶτος (sc. Ἀρίων) χορὸν στῆσαι [...] καὶ σατύρους εἰσενεγκεῖν ἔμμετρα λέγοντας. If so, according to Aeschylus, who propounds the Attic position, there has been an attempt to introduce satyric performances in Corinth, where Arion᾽s activity was located, but (a) this was an import from Athens, which was their place of origin, and (b) it proved unsuccessful. Admittedly, this allusive reference does not add much to our knowledge nor does it help in clarifying the complicated evidence about Arion᾽s part in the history of drama. It verifies, however, the existence, nearly a century later, of a controversy between Peloponnesians and Athenians over the legal titles for the satyr-play. Solon may have given evidence that Arion was the first to produce τῆς τραγωιδίας δρᾶμα, whatever this may mean, but his reference must have been critical, in the sense that Athenians should avoid introducing such depraved customs from Cor 177 Wiseman 1963.

Appendix  

inth.178 After the genre was, however, cleansed from obscenities and dignified (ἀπεσεμνύνθη), thus gaining Panhellenic prestige, Athenians must have started publicizing drama as their own product. Then, Theoroi may be considered the oldest evidence for this controversy.179 Moreover, it probably connects these satyr performances with the Isthmian festival, possibly with the Bacchic cult of Melikertes-Palaimon. On the other hand, one cannot exclude the possibility that what Aeschylus reacts to is a recent cultural/touristic, rather than religious, innovation of the Corinthian authorities, who attempted to add satyric performances to the programme of the Isthmian festival. The innovation might even be related with the consecration of the new temple of Poseidon at Isthmia sometime about 460 BC.180 But this possibility is by no means incompatible with the first one, since similar innovations are usually justified by reference to inalienable ancestral rights.181 For more genre-referential allusions, especially to possible prudish attempts to abolish the satyric phallus or the satyr-play altogether see the discussion on c.37–38.

 178 Solon fr. 30a W. (= 39 G.-P.²) from Ioan. Diac., Comment. in Hermog. (Rabe 1908, 150). τῆς τραγωιδίας δρᾶμα are the words of Ioannes Diaconus; what Solon’s words were one cannot say. See Noussia-Fantuzzi 2010, 519–520. On Solon’s implication in the early history of drama, his critical attitude towards the new genre (cf. the anecdote in Plut. Sol. 29.6–7, D. L. 1.59), and the controversy between Athenians and Peloponnesians, see Lesky ³1972, 28 ff., with further literature. In 464 BC, Pindar, Ol. 13.18 f., praising a Corinthian victor, attributes the invention of the dithyramb to Corinth. Elsewhere, according to the Sch. ad loc., he ascribes the invention to Naxos (fr. 115) and to Thebes (fr. 71). If we disregard Thebes as a probable localism on the part of Pindar, can we connect the contradiction with a possible rekindling of the Doric-Ionic controversy in the ’60s of the fifth century? 179 Other testimonies are Arist. Poet. 1448a29 ff., [Pl.] Minos 321a. Ioannes Diaconus mentions also, as propounder of the Attic priority, an unknown Δράκων Λαμψακηνός, altered by Wilamowitz to Χάρων Λαμψ., a historian whose testimony may have been somewhat later than Aeschylus’. Patzer may, however, be right when he alters the name to Στράτων Λαμψ., the third century Peripatetic, who is credited, among other titles, with two books on Εὑρημάτων ἔλεγχοι (frr. 144–7 Wehrli). 180 Be that as it may, there was no theatre at Isthmia to accomodate these supposed satyr performances. The existing theatre “was constructed some time in the late fifth or early fourth century BC, probably before 390 BC”: Gebhard 1973, 24–26, 137–139. However, did rudimentary satyr performances require a formal theater? Ikria could be used for the spectators’ seats in the cavea, and the stage-building was a recent innovation in Athens. 181 The small marble head of the Isthmia collection (Corinth Museum, IS 410) identified by Broneer 1962, 262, as a Satyr head wearing a pine crown might be related with such an innovation.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai P.Oxy. 2250 Snell attributed P.Oxy. 2250 (fr. 451g R.) to the Theoroi182 based on the supplement γυμ]νάζομ[ in line 8, which he associated with the athletic training of the Satyr chorus. The papyrus, which is written in the same hand as P.Oxy. 2162 (the Theoroi papyrus), preserves the beginning of an anapaestic greeting that a chorus makes to a king. Snell placed the fragment in the beginning of the play and identified the king as Sisyphus, king of Corinth and founder of the Isthmian games. I reproduce the text of the papyrus from Radt’s edition: TrGF vol. 3, Dubia F **451g (a) Χ̣(Ο.) ἄ]γε δὴ βασιλεῦ [ καὶ ξύμπασαν μ[ τοῦ βαθυπλουτο[ 4 π̣ενίας ναίων κ[ ̣ ̣] ̣ικην σκηπτ ̣[ ]αμε[ ̣ ]̣ φ ̣  ̣[ ]δεπρ ̣[ 8 ]νάζομ[ ] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]c[ ]δ᾽ α[ ] ̣υ[ . . . (b) . . . ]επωιδο[ ]ειανο̣κ̣λε[ ] ̣[ . . .

an

Taplin rejected the attribution claiming that “other words are possible [i.e. instead of γυμνάζομ-], particularly if the metre has by now [i.e. in line 8] changed

 182 Snell 1953, 436 and 1956, 10 f. (= 1966, 173 f.). Snell’s proposal was accepted by Mette 1959, fr. 16, and Werner ²1969, fr. 201.

Appendix  

from anapaestic to iambic”.183 But, in spite of Radt’s agreement, an anapaestic greeting of seven or less lines would be too short. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 783–809 also starting ἄγε δὴ βασιλεῦ. Therefore, if line 8 is anapaestic, Snell’s supplement seems indispensable. Since also the papyrus has the acute above α, I believe there is no way to avoid Snell’s supplement γυμ]νάζομ[εν οὖν. Nevertheless the attribution to the Theoroi is impossible. Not only the tone is too elevated for a satyr-play, but also the identity of the chorus does not square with a Satyr chorus. Line 5 must define this identity, a fact that indicates that the fragment comes from the opening of the parodos. In ] ̣ικὴν σκήπτρ[ the first uncertain letter can only be Ν (so Snell). If so, the only adjective in -νικός that would suit both the metre and the language of Aeschylus is ξενικός. This supplement would identify the choreuts as elderly (they carry sticks) foreigners, possibly travellers and/or suppliants. Cf. Ag. 72 ff., also from the anapaestic parodos: ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἀτίται σαρκὶ παλαιᾶι | τῆς τότ᾽ ἀρωγῆς ὑπολειφθέντες | μίμνομεν ἰσχὺν | ἰσόπαιδα νέμοντες ἐπὶ σκήπτροις; also the opening of the parodos at Eur. HF 108 f. ἀμφὶ βάκτροις ἔρεισμα θέμενος ἐστάλην. The accusative might depend on a verb in the imperative meaning ‘help, protect, receive with hospitality (δέξαι Mette)’ vel sim., which might occur in any of the following verses. A possible candidate could be Athamas. In a version of the myth, Athamas is king of Orchomenos, a city of proverbially great wealth (Il. 9.381, Strab. 9.2.40, Paus. 1.9.3, Dio Chrys. 37.36). In his story with Ino, Athamas must also be king of Thebes (Sch. Il. 7.86 [= Philostephanos, FHG 3.34, fr. 37], Tzetzes in Lyc. 22, Val. Flacc. Arg. 3.69; he is defending Thebes against the Seven; cf. AG 9.216, 253). I print below my tentative reproduction of the text. Most of the supplements are made, of course, exempli gratia, but they indicate more or less well the tenor of the passage. Fr. 451g (a) R. Χ[Ο.] Ἄ]γε δὴ βασιλεῦ, [Θήβας ἐφέπων καὶ ξύμπασαν Μ[ινύων γαῖαν, τοῦ βαθυπλούτο[υ μετέχων ὄλβου, πενίας ναίων κ[αμάτων τ᾽ ἔξω, 5 ξε]ν̣ικὴν σκήπτρ[οις ἐπερειδόμενην κἀλε]υ̣αμέ[νη]ν̣ φό ̣[νον ἴλην νῦν τήν]δε προ[θύμως διάσωιζε.  183 Taplin 1977, 420.

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai γυμ]νάζομ[εν οὖν ⏔ ⏕ ⏔ – ] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣]c ]δ᾽ α[ ] ̣υ [ 1 Ts. e Pers. 38 (ubi de urbe Aegyptiaca); ἐφέπων Kakridis 1955, 91 = 1971, 262 2 Ts. (vel χώραν) 3 Kakr. 4 Kakr. coll. PV 263 f. πημάτων ἔξω πόδα ἔχει 5 Ts. coll. Ar. Eccl. 276 f. βακτηρίαις ἐπερειδόμεναι 6 Ts. coll. Q. S. 7.517 ἀλευόμενοι φόνον αἰπύν | ἴλην “band, troop of men” LSJ 8 Snell

The fact that the chorus stress so much the wealth of the king and the country may imply their own neediness. This is supported by (b) 1–2, which can be partly supplemented Fr. 451g (b) R. ἐν] ἐπωιδο[ῖσιν | ⏔ ⏕ ⏔ – χρ]είαν ὁ κλέ[ων | ⏔ ⏕ ⏔ – ] ̣[ “in songs (charms ?) ... who sings of (our) neediness ...”. Then γυμνάζομεν οὖν may have nothing to do with gymnastics and exercise, but may mean, as often in tragedy (Aesch. Ag. 540, PV 586, 592, Eur. fr. 682 K.; cf. Soph. Tr. 1083), ‘we are wearing out, we are harassing’. The chorus must be wearing out themselves.

Translation Fr. 78c R. SILENUS: You’ve sworn to behave obediently and sensibly. CHORUS: You villain, may you perish ill; and clear off running. SILENUS: ... comes into your mind ... to dismiss (it). CHORUS: ... truly ... really ... SILENUS: Twice or thrice a slave ... 5 CHORUS: The lord is righteous; so he’ll portion out a sheltering roof. SILENUS: With miserable bed and miserable lodgings. CHORUS: The god will show pity at the coming of this time-honoured band. SILENUS: As for myself, I’ll see you all trouble-laden. CHORUS: If I run away from these games ...? 10

Translation  

SILENUS: What are you scared of? Having suffered something frightful or having acted? CHORUS: Where have I done much, so that I should be punished? SILENUS: O come now, fear not and say what you are going to do. CHORUS: We shall stay in the sanctuary, we shall not run away. (Lacuna of 22 verses) (SILENUS )

CHORUS

POSEIDON

SILENUS: POSEIDON: CHORUS: POSEIDON: CHORUS: POSEIDON: CHORUS: POSEIDON:

And no one, whether old or young, keeps away from these two-row choirs of his own will. But you are competing in the Isthmian games, and, what is more, crowned with pine branches, and you are holding in contempt the honour of ivy. 40 Well, you’ll weep for these things, and not by smoke this time as before. But don’t you see the cups near by? (singing and dancing) : O no, I’ll never leave the sanctuary! And why do you keep threatening me like this? 45 Instead, I’m calling out the Isthmian Poseidon as soon as possible. As for you, send these as gifts to others. (coming out of the temple with a stagehand pushing a trolley full of shields): Since you enjoy learning these novelties, I’m bringing here to you these new playthings, 50 freshly made with adze and anvil. (Handing out a shield) This first one of the toys is for you. No, not to me! Give it to one of my dear ones. Don’t say no and, just for good luck, don’t place obstacles. How should one enjoy this? and how should I use it? 55 It fits in well with the craft you’ve changed over to. To do what? To make what? I don’t like this thingummy. It is most suitable for participating in the Isthmia. How can one here move on carrying this burden? Wait a bit! You’ll advance running not walking. 60

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai CHORUS: ... move the ankles POSEIDON: ... (Lacuna of 180 [?] verses) Fr. 78a R. (POSEIDON )

seeing images unendurable for men to see. And no matter for what you express your gratitude, whatever you’ve done is respectful. CHORUS: I’m really much indebted to you for these; you are kind. (Addressing the Satyrs) Now, listen everybody! POSEIDON (aside): I must be seated quietly. CHORUS: Look and say if you think 5 that this resembles more my form, this Daedalus-like imitation; it is only speech it lacks. – Carry these things, ho! – Forward march! – Yes, march! 10 – I bring these votive offerings as an adornment to the god, a well-painted dedication. – It would put my mother to trouble. For if she’d see it, she no doubt would meetly be deceived and struck with awe, 15 thinking that it was me, whom she brought up; so like me is this one. – Come on then! Look out at the house of the Maritime Earth Shaker, and let each of you hang on pegs the image of his lovely form, a messenger, a trumpetless herald, an obstructor of traversers, 20 who will halt strangers from the holy road by inspiring fear. (To Poseidon) Hail, o Lord, hail, o Poseidon, you are a dearer guardian. (Exit Poseidon) DIONYSUS (entering) : It was certain I’d find you, my good friends. I shall not say this about you: “It was not clear if you walked away” .

Translation  

(DIONYSUS)

Fr. 78b R.

The holy road itself cried out in addition the same words to me. 25 For, as I was not seeing these ones accompanying me, it gave me this instruction and clearly led me the way. Surely then, the father should not give gifts to runaways, seeing how tapered like mouse-tails and short their members you ruined, for the sake of participating in the Isthmia. 30 And you were not negligent, but you trained them well. Well then, if you adhered to the old proverb, you’d rather be supposed to care for dancing. But you are participating in the Isthmia, and, having learnt new manners, you are training their arm and wearing out my property. 35 Do train these possessions of mine with a pleasant toil, (Lacuna of 24 verses) ... ... ... having covered with a shield ... and you spread this most wicked story and show disrespect by turning an abusive tale on me, that I am no good in the craft of iron, a feeble sissy, not even dressed like a man. And now you are practising these other unheard of acts, the most detestable of all your former outrages, and you smudge myself and my festival, for which I gather together such a crowd of people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

... (un)punished ... ... free ... ... no way ... ... by no means ... ... as many as ... / public rumour ... unbearable you contrive ... ... other ... ... to the friends ... ... not ...

65

70

5

10

  Aeschylus Theoroi or Isthmiastai Fr. 79R. of these ‘look-out’ dances formerly performed in your honour Fr. 80 R. having defected Fr. 81 R. solo aulos-playing Fr. 82 R. of filth and dirt Fr. 61a R. (Edonoi) What agreement can there be between shield and drinking cup?

 Aeschylus Hypsipyle? TrGF III, F 281 a–b (P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 9 (a)–(b)) 281 a

5

10

15

20

25

30







μακάρων ̣[ αυτη θε̣ων[ ̣]αι ̣᾽ ̣ ̣λ̣ ̣π̣ε ̣δ [̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ν [̣ ἵζει δ᾽ ἐν αὐτ̣ῶι ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ [̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[ ̣] [̣ δίκῃ κρατήσας τῶι ̣δε ̣[ πατὴρ γὰρ ἦρξεν̣, ἀνταμ[ ἐκ τοῦ δέ τοί με Ζεὺς ἐ̣τίμ̣[ησεν ὁτιὴ παθων ημ̣[ ̣ ]̣ [̣ ἵζω Διὸc θρόνοισιν[ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ϊσμέν̣η̣· πέμπει δέ̣ μ᾽ αὐτὸς οἷσι ̣ν̣ εὐμεν[ Ζ[ε]ύ̣ς, ὅσπερ ἐς γῆν τήν̣δ̣᾽ ἔπε̣μψέ μ᾽ ̣ ̣[ ̣[ ̣ ̣]εσθε δ᾽ ὑμεῖς εἴ τι μὴ μά̣[την] λέγω. ̣[ ̣ ̣]οῦ[ ̣ προ]σε̣ν̣ν̣έποντες εὐ ̣[ ] ̣ήσομε̣[ν; Δίκην μ . [. . .]ο̣ν π̣ρ̣εσβο̣ ̣η ̣ε̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ρο̣ ̣[ ποίας δὲ τ[ιμ]ῆς ἀρχ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ειc ̣[ το]ῖ ̣ς μὲν δ[ι]καίοις ἔνδι ̣κ̣ον τειν ̣ ̣ο̣[ ] ̣σα θέ̣[σ]μ̣[ι]ο̣ν̣ τ̣ό̣δ᾽̣ ἐν β̣ρ̣[ο]τ̣ο̣[ῖς. τοῖς δ᾽ αὖ μα]ταίοις ̣[ ]̣ [̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ [̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣φ[ ἐ]πῳδαῖ ̣ς ἢ κατ᾽ ἰσχύος τρόπο̣[ν]; γράφουσα] τ̣ἀ̣π̣λακ̣ήματ᾽ ἐ̣ν δέλτῳ Διό̣[ς. ].ωι ̣ δ̣ὲ̣ πίνακ᾽ ἀναπτύσσει ̣[ς] κακ[ ]ηι σφιν ἡμέρα τὸ κύριον. ]εκτέᾱ στρατῷ ]έχοιτό μ᾽ εὐφρ[όν]ως. ] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ηcᾶτα[ ̣ ]̣ εχω[ ̣] ]ν[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ο ἐπισπέ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] πό]λ̣ις τι ̣ς οὔτε δῆμος οὔτ᾽ ἔτη̣ς ἀνὴρ τ̣οιάνδε μοῖραν π[αρ]ὰ̣ θεῶν καρπουμένη[ τ̣έκ ̣ μαρ δὲ λέξ̣ω τῶι ̣ τόδ᾽ εὐδερ̣κὲ[ς] φερε[ ̣ ̣] [̣ ἔθρε[ψ ̣] παῖδα μάργον ὃν τί ̣κ̣τ̣ει ̣ [ Ἥρα μιγε̣ῖσα Ζηνὶ θυμοιδ[ δ]ύ̣σα̣ρ̣κτ[ο]ν, αἰδὼς δ᾽ οὐκ ἐνῆ[ν] φρ̣[ον]ήματι· ] ̣υκτα τῶν ὁδοιπόρων βέλη

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-002

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? 35

] δ̣ ως ἀγκύλαισιν ἀρταμων· ] ̣ ̃ν ἔχ̣[αι]ρ̣ε κἀγέλα κακὸν ]ν ῎̣ζοι φόνος· ·στάζ̣[οι· ]μ̣ουμένη ] ι̣ πρ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]γον χέρα ]οῦν ἐνδίκως κ̣ικλήσκεται ]νιν ἔνδικ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ος·

40

(. . .)

281 b

5

... ]. .[ ]εαcε ̣[ ]ω τόδ᾽ ἐχθ ̣[ ]̣ ̣[ ]ερρύθμιξα κα[ ]παισα· παι ̣ ̣[ ]ητο παίεσθαί ̣[

The text of P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 9 (a) and 9 (b) is reproduced above from the edition of Stefan Radt in TrGF III (Aeschylus), inc. fab. F 281a and 281b, where the reader is referred to for its comprehensive apparatuses.1 The authorship is established by verse 28 οὔτε δῆμος οὔτ᾽ ἔτης ἀνήρ, which is attributed to Aeschylus in the Homeric Scholia (Il. 6.239; formerly fr. 377 N.²), and which contributed considerably in identifying the whole P.Oxy. 2256 as containing Aeschylean fragments. E. Lobel,2 the first editor, depending on (a) 281a.9 ὁτιή, a colloquial form of causal ὅτι occurring at Eur. Cyc. 643 and several times in comedy but never in extant tragedy, and (b) 281b.4 ]ερρύθμιξα, a Doric aorist form which he considered unlikely to be found in tragic dialogue, suggested that the fragment came from an unknown satyr-play. Other scholars disagreed. Ed. Fraenkel,3 depending on the fact that Dike appears as being sent by Zeus to a certain country, where she is graciously received by the people (the Chorus), concluded that the play is the Aitnaiai or Aitnai, the celebratory play

 1 Add TrGF 4, p. 788 (Addenda et corrigenda in vol. 3). 2 Lobel 1952, 36 ff. 3 Fraenkel 1954, 61–75 = id. 1964, 149–262.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

written and presented by Aeschylus in Sicily on the occasion of the renaming of Catane as Aetna and the settlement of a Dorian population there by Hieron I. Fraenkel’s opinion was also supported (a) by the inclusion among the fragments published by Lobel of a hypothesis of the Aitnaiai,4 and (b) by the assumption that fr. 8 of the same Oxyrhynchus papyrus, where the peace is presented as exalting a city, comes from the same play.5 Whereas H.J. Mette (fr. 530) subscribed to the satyr-play view,6 many scholars adopted Fraenkel’s theory.7 St. Radt returned to Lobel’s proposal (haud male).8 Already F.C. Görschen had admitted the satyric identity, making, however, the impossible ascription to Aeschylus’ Theoroi. A. Wessels follows Mette in accepting a satyr-play and in joining frr. 8 and 6 (in this order) of the papyrus with fr. 9. L. Poli Palladini also recognized a satyr-play, later assigning it to Aeschylus’ Kerykes, though in a different version of Hercules’ myth than the one proposed by other scholars. P.B. Cipolla attempted to reconcile the satyr-play assumption with the assignment to Aitnaiai by referring to Αἰτναῖαι νόθοι, which, as he speculates, might be a satyric treatment of the initial Αἰτναῖαι, which Aeschylus wrote and performed in Sicily after the fall of the tyrants, in order to deride the tyrannical authority. O’Sullivan & Collard also joined frr. 281a–b, 451n, 451s6, 451s10 and produced arguments in favour of the satyric identity of the Dike-play. Recently, both Juan Lopez and Harrison agree that the fragment comes from a satyr-play. Most re-

 4 Not among the 89 fragments of P.Oxy. 2256 (now 90 fragments, if P.Gen. inv. 98 (Funghi/ Martinelli 1996–1997, 7–17) comes from the same hand). P.Oxy. 2257 is written in a different hand (Lobel 1952, 66 ff.) = TrGF 3.126–127 and fr. 451t. No doubt an uncommon hypothesis, because (a) the treatment of the dramatic location in it (its only recognizable part) extends to unusual length, (b) it ends with this treatment, whereas the typical phrase ἡ μὲν σκηνὴ τοῦ δράματος ὑπόκειται ἐν ... is never placed at the end of a hypothesis, (c) unlike the other hypotheses, which are written in the same hand as the poetic text, only occasionally smaller, this one is written in an untypical and heavily abbreviated hand, as is usually done with marginal annotations. Actually, Poli Palladini 2001, 288–289, considers it a hypothesis copied on a margin of the text of the play. 5 TrGF 3, fr. 451n. I believe that this fragment joined with fr. 6 (TrGF 3, fr. 451s6) comes from Aeschylus’ Laïos. See Tsantsanoglou 2016, Tsantsanoglou 2018, and below, pp. 155–178. 6 See also Mette, H.J. 1963, 187. 7 Pohlenz 1954, 198 ff.; Kakridis 1955, 91–92 (= id. 1971, 262–264); Kakridis 1958, 141–153 (= id. 1971, 78–90); Lloyd-Jones 1957, 576–581 (with some reservations); Kakridis 1962, 111–121 (= Hommel 1974, 369–380); Lesky 1972, 152–153; Bremer 1991, 39–60; Corbato 1996, 61–72; Ippolito 1997, 3–12; Patrito 2001, 77–95; Totaro 2011, 149–168. Hourmouziades 1974 does not mention the fragment among the Aeschylean satyr-plays. Smith 2017, though reluctant to accept Aitnaiai, associates the play with Hieron’s course of policy. 8 Sutton 1974, 107–143, includes the play in the list; Sutton 1983, 19–24.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? cently, Seidensticker finds the proposal for a satyr-play very likely.9 Finally, there are some scholars that remain indecisive or wavering between tragedy and satyr-play. A.J. Podlecki concludes that the fragment presents “intriguing puzzles that await convincing solution”, and so does also A.H. Sommerstein.10 In my own investigation of the text one more ὁτιή is surmised at line 41, and an antilabe at line 30, both partly (the second less than the first) supporting the satyric theory. But much more than a few formal peculiarities, it is the tenor of lines 16–23 of the stichomythia that should have led scholars to the undoubted conclusion that we are dealing with a satyr-play. In these lines, the Chorusleader not only does not identify Dike as an individual, a fact that might be justifiable for any character in drama, but is also entirely unaware of the role of justice in society, an ignorance which can only be found in uncivilized and bestial creatures. And these creatures could hardly be other than the Satyrchorus, who elsewhere express their ignorance or wonder or admiration or fear at particular benefits of civilized society, such as the fire, the music, the athletics. Before proceeding to a detailed examination of the text, it would be useful to note the attempts made at identifying the παῖς μάργος. He is mentioned in lines 30–41 by Dike to an unidentified addressee, but clearly the chorus-leader, as evidence of her power. He is a son of Zeus and Hera, whose rearing they entrusted to Dike. He was a violent, irritable, disobedient, and shameless boy. He used to take delight in shooting and killing the passersby with his arrows. The description ends with the etymology of his name, which, however, did not survive. Below, I repeat the text of lines 30–41 as published by Radt. For the time being, I make no attempt to reconstruct it: 30

35

τ̣έ̣κμαρ δὲ λέξ̣ω τῶ̣ι ̣ τόδ᾽ εὐδερ̣κὲ[ς] φερε[ ̣ ̣] [̣ ἔθρε[ψ ̣] παῖδα μάργον ὃν τί ̣κ̣τ̣ει ̣ [ Ἥρα μιγε̣ῖσα Ζηνὶ θυμοιδ[ δ]ύ̣σα̣ρ̣κτ[ο]ν, αἰδὼς δ᾽ οὐκ ἐνῆ[ν] φ̣ρ̣[ον]ήματι· ] ̣υκτα τῶν ὁδοιπόρων βέλη ] δ̣ ως ἀγκύλαισιν ἀρταμων· ] ̣ ̃ν ἔχ̣[αι]ρ̣ε κἀγέλα κακὸν

 9 Görschen 1955; Wessels 1999; Poli Palladini 2001, 313–315; Poli Palladini 2020, 119–120; Cipolla 2010, 141–150; O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 298–305; Juan López 2017; Harrison 2018, 160; Seidensticker 2020, 289. 10 Podlecki 2005, 15–16; Sommerstein 2008, 276–279.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

40

]ν ῎̣ζοι φόνος· ·στάζ̣[οι· ]μ̣ουμένη ] ι̣ πρ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ γον χέρα ]οῦν ἐνδίκως κ̣ικλήσκεται ]νιν ἔνδικ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ος·

The only legitimate male offspring of Zeus and Hera was Ares. Hephaistos was a son of Hera alone, and was certainly quite improbable to have displayed such a violent behaviour. Lobel thought of Ares, but did not find the arrows that are mentioned at line 34 as the most likely description of the god’s weapons. Also the behaviour of the παῖς μάργος did not remind him anything of Ares’ activity. He suspected that a highway robber was in question, someone like Sinis, and he attempted several supplements and emendations of the text with this identification in mind, although he explicitly states that Sinis could not have been the character spoken of, since his parents were not Zeus and Hera but, in most versions of the myth, Poseidon and Sylea. D.S. Robertson11 insisted on Ares reminding the god’s trial before the court of Areopagus for murdering Halirrhothios. Lloyd-Jones12 objected that “in the usual version of this story, Ares was not an aggressor, but was defending the virtue of his daughter Alcippe”. And, certainly, the killing was not made during the god’s boyhood, as the papyrus text clearly indicates. Yet, Lloyd-Jones considers Ares as surely the subject of lines 31 ff. But he associates the story with Cycnus, son of Ares, who persecuted visitors to Delphi and was killed by Heracles. He reminds that, according to Aristophanes, Ra. 963, a Cycnus appeared in an Aeschylean play.13 But, even if we set aside the question whether the Cycnus referred to by Aristophanes was the son of Ares or the king of Kolonai,14 the παῖς μάργος is specifically defined in the text as son, not grandson, of Zeus. F.C. Görschen.15 returned to Sinis, moreover, connecting the story with Aeschylus’ satyr-play Theoroi or Isthmiastai, both the identification of the boy and the ascription to the play being impossible. An entirely different approach to the question of identifying the παῖς μάργος, no doubt the most thorough one, was made by Ph.J. Kakridis.16 His candidate  11 Robertson 1953, 79–80. 12 Lloyd-Jones 1957, 577. 13 First proposed by Welcker 1824; see references at TrGF 3.239, under **ΚΥΚΝΟΣ?. 14 Tenedians are mentioned in fr. 451o53, which Lobel associated with Tenes, son of Cycnus and king of Tenedos, and Mette ascribed to an unattested Aeschylean play Ten(n)es (frr. 388– 390). 15 Görschen 1955, 139–161. 16 Kakridis 1962.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? was Heracles, who, though in conventional genealogies was considered a son of Zeus and Alkmene, in some versions of the myth was referred to as son of Hera. A Theban hymn is quoted by Ptolemaeus Chennus, 3.14, p. 24 Chatzis, describing the hero as Διὸς καὶ Ἥρας υἱός. On several Etruscan mirrors Hera is represented as suckling the baby hero, in one of them in particular an inscription in Etruscan speaks of ‘Heracles, son of Juno’.17 Hera suckling Heracles is also illustrated on an Apulian red-figure squat lekythos of the mid 4th century BC by the Suckling Painter, in the British Museum (F107).18 Heracles is also referred to by Diodorus Siculus, 4.39.2, as Hera’s adopted son. Finally, in a poetic inscription of the second century CE found at Rome (Kaibel, Epigr. Gr. 831), the hero is mentioned as adopted son of Dike. As for the boy’s bloodthirsty feelings, Ph. Kakridis reminds of the story of the mutilation of the heralds of Erginus, as well as of some other appearances of Heracles as a primitive and savage person.19 He therefore supplemented exempli gratia the etymologizing lines 40–41 of our papyrus as follows: [Ἡρακλέης] οὖν ἐνδίκως κικλήσκεται [Ἥρας γὰρ ἔσχεν ἶ]νιν ἔνδικ[ον κλ]έος. The legend about Hera suckling Heracles must go back to the Theban tradition mentioned by Pausanias, 9.25.2 (δείκνυται δέ τι χωρίον ἔνθα Ἥραν Θηβαῖοί φασιν Ἡρακλεῖ παιδὶ ἔτι ἐπισχεῖν γάλα κατὰ δή τινα ἀπάτην ἐκ Διός), that Zeus deceived his wife so as to suckle the newborn baby. It is also narrated by Diodorus Siculus, 4.9.6: Ἀλκμήνη δὲ τεκοῦσα καὶ φοβηθεῖσα τὴν τῆς Ἥρας ζηλοτυπίαν, ἐξέθηκε τὸ βρέφος εἰς τὸν τόπον ὃς νῦν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου καλεῖται πεδίον Ἡράκλειον. καθ᾽ ὃν δὴ χρόνον Ἀθηνᾶ μετὰ τῆς Ἥρας προσιοῦσα, καὶ θαυμάσασα τοῦ παιδίου τὴν φύσιν, συνέπεισε τὴν Ἥραν ὑποσχεῖν τὴν θηλήν. τοῦ δὲ παιδὸς ὑπὲρ τὴν ἡλικίαν βιαιότερον ἐπισπασαμένου τὴν θηλήν, ἡ μὲν Ἥρα διαλγήσασα τὸ βρέφος ἔρριψεν, Ἀθηνᾶ δὲ

 17 See LIMC vol. 5, s.v. Herakles/Hercle, nos. 400–404*; LIMC vol. 8, s.v. Uni, nos. 86*–90. See also de Grummond 2006, 82–84 fig. 5.14–17. 18 Trendall/Cambitoglou 1978, 395 no. 1, pl. 137.1; LIMC vol. 4, s.v. Hera, no. 301; LIMC vol. 5, s.v. Herakles, no. 3344. 19 None of these appearances is, however, placed in the hero’s childhood. One might possibly mention the killing of Linos, Heracles’s teacher of music, by the child hero either with a large stone or the lyre or the plectrum; Apollod. 2.4.9, Aelian VH 3.32, al. The killing is represented on fifth century Attic vases, e.g. the red-figured cup by Douris in Munich (Antikensammlungen 2646; ARV2 437.128, 1653).

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

κομίσασα αὐτὸ πρὸς τὴν μητέρα τρέφειν παρεκελεύσατο.20 The same author relates another legend about Hera’s supposed bearing of Heracles: D.S. 4.39.2 προσθετέον δ᾽ ἡμῖν τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀποθέωσιν αὐτοῦ Ζεὺς Ἥραν μὲν ἔπεισεν υἱοποιήσασθαι τὸν Ἡρακλέα καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν εἰς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον μητρὸς εὔνοιαν παρέχεσθαι, τὴν δὲ τέκνωσιν γενέσθαι φασὶ τοιαύτην · τὴν Ἥραν ἀναβᾶσαν ἐπὶ κλίνην καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέα προσλαβομένην πρὸς τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἐνδυμάτων ἀφεῖναι πρὸς τὴν γῆν, μιμουμένην τὴν ἀληθινὴν γένεσιν· ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ποιεῖν τοὺς βαρβάρους ὅταν θετὸν υἱὸν ποιεῖσθαι βούλωνται. As it seems, the description indicates a newborn child, but it is actually a newborn soul after the hero has met his death and has been deified, and after Hera eventually receded from her earlier wrath. I do not know whether or not the habit is barbaric, as Diodorus claims, or how old the legend is. Had it not been for the exceptional case of Heracles, it might remind of the favourable treatment of the initiated in afterlife: e.g., Pind. fr. 137 ὄλβιος ὅστις ἰδὼν κεῖν᾽ [sc. τὰ ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι μυστήρια] εἶσ᾽ ὑπὸ χθόν᾽· | οἶδε μὲν βίου τελευτάν, | οἶδεν δὲ διόσδοτον ἀρχάν; Pelinna gold lamellae D2 Tzif. νῦν ἔθανες καὶ νῦν ἐγένου. It is true that Ptolemaeus Chennus, Περὶ παραδόξου ἱστορίας or Περὶ καινῆς ἱστορίας, 3.14, p. 24 Chatzis (= Phot. Bibl. cod. 190, 148a.38 Bekker), poses the question τίνος ἐστὶν ὁ ὕμνος ὁ ᾀδόμενος ἐν Θηβαίοις εἰς Ἡρακλέα, ἐν ᾧ λέγει Διὸς καὶ Ἥρας υἱός; Photius’ abridgement does not give the answer, but the Patriarch’s criticism about the author’s reliability (which, combined with the book’s particular contents set out in the Bibliotheca, led to his modern description as ‘fantasist’) is remarkable: 146b.5 ἔχει δὲ πολλὰ καὶ τερατώδη καὶ κακόπλαστα, καὶ τὸ ἀλογώτερον, ὅτι καὶ ἐνίων μυθαρίων αἰτίας, δι᾽ ἃς ὑπέστησαν, ἀποδιδόναι πειρᾶται. ὁ μέντοι τούτων συναγωγεὺς ὑπόκενός τέ (hollow, flabby) ἐστι καὶ πρὸς ἀλαζονείαν (charlatanry, imposture) ἐπτοημένος, καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἀστεῖος τὴν λέξιν. Be that as it may, the Theban hymn with the specific invocation must have existed. The paradox awaited must lie in the author’s omitted answer. It is, however, expected that given the tradition of the hero’s deification and his concurrent solemnized adoption by Hera, he might well be invoked as son of Zeus and Hera. Still, this has nothing to do with the hero’s earthly boyhood.

 20 Davidson 2000, 10–11, refers to Pseudo-Erat. Kataster. 44 Olivieri, Hygin. Astron. 2.43, Anth. Pal. 9.589, as evidence for Hera’s adoption of Heracles through suckling.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle?

Fig. 5: Hera suckling Heracles: Apulian red-figured squat lekythos by the Suckling Painter; British Museum F107, mid 4th century.

Finally, as mentioned above, in a second century CE poetic inscription found in Rome, Heracles appears as given by Zeus to Dike as adopted son: Kaibel, Epigr. Gr. 831.7–8 τῶ σὲ καὶ υἷα Δίκηι Κρονίδης θετὸν ἐγγυάλιξε, | εὖτε μιν ὑβρισταὶ φῶτες ἄτ[ι]μον ἆγον. The difference between nurse of the παῖς μάργος and adoptive mother of the hero is negligible. There is, however, a serious difference between the mythological reports of the inscription and the papyrus. In the latter, Zeus and Hera entrust the rearing of their baby or child son to Dike as a nurse in order to make him docile. In the inscription, however, it is the grown up hero that Zeus offers to Dike as her adopted son, when violent and insolent mortals would not honour her, i.e., when they would not respect moral law. Heracles has already carried out his labours and so has exhibited his devotion to justice. Actu-

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

ally, he is to serve as Dike’s companion and assistant, killing wild beasts, but also (5 f.) ὑπε[ρ]φιάλους ἀδίκους τε | ἄνδρας, thus enforcing justice on men.21 D.F. Sutton,22 developing Kakridis’s findings, but rejecting the ascription to the Aitnaiai, goes on to propose that the Dike fragment came from the Kerykes, an Aeschylean satyr-play, in which Heracles must have had a major part. The play had already been associated by B.A. van Groningen23 with the story of the harsh punishment of the heralds of king Erginus by Heracles. A. Wessels24 considers Sutton’s proposal ‘bloße Spekulation’. Cipolla rejects the Heracles theory preferring the identification of παῖς μάργος with Ares, and so do Sommerstein, O’Sullivan/Collard, and initially Poli Palladini. She changed her mind later proposing Heracles from an untypical approach to the myth of Erginus’ heralds.25 Now, however, I believe that the basic evidence is changed altogether. Fr. 9 (b) of the same papyrus, which Lobel thought to come “apparently from the bottom of the column immediately following that partly preserved in fr. 9 (a)”, i.e., to belong to the right of 9 (a), if placed on the left part of the bottom of the preserved column (pl. 2), restores lines 36–41 to a great extent and yields satisfactory sense. The punishment inflicted upon the boy by Dike is now clear, and the fragment ends with an unexpected etymology. First, I give a diplomatic transcription of the text produced by joining fragments 9a and 9b. Bars indicate the meeting points of the two papyrus fragments.

40

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣|[ ̣ ̣ ] ̣̑νεχ[. .]ρεκᾱγελακακον . . .]ε̣αcεα̣|[ ]νὄ̣ζοιφονοc· ·cταζ̣[ . . .]ωτόδ᾽εχθ ̣[.] ̣|[. . . . . . . . .]μ̣ουμενη . .]ερρύθμιξακα|ιπρ[. . . . .]γονχερα ]παιcα·παιc ̣|ο ̑υνενδικωc̣κικληcκεται ]ητoπαίεcθάι|νινένδικ[. . . .]λ̣οc·

 21 Kaibel mentions the fragmentary epic verse which mentions Heracles as ‘the most righteous slayer’ (δικαιοτάτου δὲ φονῆος). It was attributed to the sixth century BCE epic poet Peisandros of Kamiros who was credited with an Ἡράκλεια (fr. 10 Kinkel). It is now believed to come from the late (third century CE) epic poet Peisandros of Laranda; Keydell 1935, 309 and n. 4 = id. 1982, 361 p. 361; M. Davies 1988 publishes it as ‘Pisandri Camirensis fragmentum spurium’ and Alb. Bernabé 1996 as ‘Pisander’ fr. 10. 22 Sutton 1983. 23 Van Groningen 1930. 24 Wessels 1999, 105–106. 25 Sommerstein 2008, 215 n. 5; Cipolla 2010, 139–141; O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 300–301; Poli Palladini 2001, 314 n. 93; ead. 2020, 119–120 n. 172.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle?

Fig. 6: POxy 2256 frs. 9a and 9b = Aesch. frs. 281a + 281b, lines 31–41.

Finally, I give the reconstructed text of lines 36–41, which ends with the etymology of the παῖς μάργος, though still not with the name itself.

40

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ]ῶν ἔχ[αι]ρε κἀγέλα κακὸν δι̯ώ]σ̣ας ἕλ̣[ωρα σώμαθ᾽, ὧ]ν ὄ̣ζοι φόνος. κἀγ]ὼ τόδ᾽ ἐχθα̣[ί]ρ̣[ουσα καὶ θυ]μ̣ουμένη εὖ] ἐρρύθμιξα καὶ πρ[οσήγα]γον χέρα κἄ]παισα· παῖς δ᾽ οὖν ἐνδίκως κικλήσκεται, ὁτι]ὴ τὸ παίεσθαί νιν ἔνδικ̣[ον τέ]λ̣ος.

·στάζ̣[οι·

“Ηe rejoiced as he watched the spectacle (ὁρ]ῶν, or ‘at his deeds’, δρ]ῶν), and laughed at his evil-doing casting away as prey the corpses, whose gore stank (or rather ‘dripped down’). And I, detesting this and being angry, brought him to order and stretched out my hand and smacked him (κἄπαισα); and so he is justly called child (παῖς), since being smacked (τὸ παίεσθαι) is his just destination.”

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

It is time now to attempt to make the reconstruction of lines 30 ff. we postponed before: 30

(Δι.) (Δι.)

35

40

τ̣έ̣κμαρ δὲ λέξ̣ω τῶ̣ι ̣ τόδ᾽ εὐδερ̣κέ[ς]. (Χο.) φέρε. [ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ἔθρε[ψα] παῖδα μάργον ὃν τί ̣κ̣τ̣εν ̣ [ποτὲ Ἥρα μιγε̣ῖσα Ζηνί, θυμοιδ[ῆ, κακόν, δ]ύ̣σα̣ρ̣κτ[ο]ν, αἰδὼς δ᾽ οὐκ ἐνῆ[ν] φ̣ρ̣[ον]ήματι· τόξευ᾽ ἄφ]ε̣υκτα τῶν ὁδοιπόρων βέλη ἤρτα τ᾽ ἀκ]η̣δῶς ἀγκύλαισιν ἀρτάμων· ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ]ῶν ἔχ[αι]ρε κἀγέλα κακὸν δι̯ώ]σ̣ας ἕλ̣[ωρα σώμαθ᾽, ὧ]ν ὄ̣ζοι φόνος. ·στάζ̣[οι· κἀγ]ὼ τόδ᾽ ἐχθα̣[ί]ρ̣[ουσα καὶ θυ]μ̣ουμένη εὖ] ἐρρύθμιξα καὶ πρ[οσήγα]γον χέρα κἄ]παισα· παῖς δ᾽ οὖν ἐνδίκως κικλήσκεται, ὁτι]ὴ τὸ παίεσθαί νιν ἔνδικ̣[ον τέ]λ̣ος.

Before attempting to exploit the new evidence for identifying the παῖς μάργος, it would be useful to spot the mythical area to which fr. 281a–b may belong. Lloyd-Jones, 577, is no doubt right that it is uncertain whether the narration about the boy relates or not to the main theme of the play, but, on the other hand, it is not impossible that it does relate, and an investigation from this starting-point might lead us to a satisfactory goal. In any case, since it is Dike who makes the reference to the μάργος παῖς, it could prove productive to examine the reference in combination with the presence of the goddess. The appearance of Dike must have had a mythological and dramatic explanation. She was sent by Zeus on a special mission to a certain place and people (12 ἐς γῆν τήνδ᾽), and not vaguely to the earth and the human race. What else can that mission be if not to restore justice in a case in which it had been violated? But the violation does not seem to have been committed by a single hero or a genos, but by a whole people. Whether she is speaking of her prerogatives or her duties or of her reception into the specific place she has been sent to, her references to the citizens are either unspecified expressions or general plurals. On the other hand, combining this impression with Dike’s statement that she comes because Zeus is well-disposed toward these specific people, we may reasonably surmise that Dike is not coming for punishing the people, but perhaps for offering them a chance to redeem. We have seen that the Satyr-chorus, not only are unable to identify Dike but also do not seem to be friendly to her or to law and justice, the principles she stands for, as can be inferred from her threats—to which the narration about the παῖς μάργος must be

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? included. However, these threats are expressly addressed to the στρατός of the country. The word cannot be given the vague sense ‘people, population’, as sometimes in Aeschylus, mainly in the Eumenides, because such a meaning would lead to the conclusion that the people of this country consisted of Satyrs. Yet, in the satyr-plays known to us, Satyrs have always a status auxiliary to gods or to mortals, whether as slaves or hired hands or assistants or followers. An army consisting of Satyrs, serving the local people, would fit their usual role. But which human society might need an army of Satyrs? These observations, surmises, and queries converge to one conclusion: the legend about the Lemnian women. It is a case of collective crime, in which Dike is closely involved. In the first stasimon of Choephoroi, Aeschylus illustrates the enormity of Clytaemnestra’s crime with three mythical cases of female passion. The third and worst of all (631 πρεσβεύεται λόγωι) is the crime of the Lemnian women, who murdered every male on the island, their fathers and husbands, a crime which is synonymous to horror (631–636). The next strophic pair (639– 651) is devoted to Dike, the goddess who, when violated, inflicts heavy penalties on the violators, a statement that is forthwith connected with the revenge of Orestes being plotted at the time. Further, an expression parallel to the proverbial Λήμνιον κακόν or Λήμνια ἔργα (Aesch. Cho. 631, Hdt. 6.138.20–4) was Λημνία δίκη, which Photius (λ 269) and Suidas (λ 448) interpret by ἡ κακίστη. Yet, in spite of the seriousness of the crime, Zeus may be well-disposed toward the women, because the previous behaviour of the men had also been condemnable: they had sexually abandoned their wives in favour of Thracian slave women. If then Dike’s arrival aimed at offering the women a chance for gaining their redemption, that chance appears in the attempt of the Argonauts to disembark at Lemnos, as will be later discussed. Finally, in a society consisting exclusively of women, whom the poet wishes to reserve for a different role, it is reasonable to have an army of bestial creatures. The myth is akin to the one of the Danaids, who also killed their husbands, though for a different reason. They were punished to fill the Danaids’ jar in the underworld, one of the proverbial punishments in Hades together with those of Sisyphus, Tantalus, and Ixion. No punishment is mentioned for the Lemnian women. If the Dike-play comes from this mythical area, the crime must have already been committed. In the myth, the chance given to the women, as mentioned above, had to do with the sojourn of the Argonauts in Lemnos, which was their first stop after their departure from Iolkos. Now, Aeschylus is credited with producing a tetralogy about the Lemnian women, interwoven with the Argonauts’ myth in its early stages. The plays attributed to the tetralogy, with varying order according to different scholars, are

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

alphabetically Ἀργώ, Κάβειροι, Λήμνιαι, Ὑψιπύλη.26 Unfortunately, the evidence, provided solely by book fragments, is scanty. It is plain, however, that the story centers on the Lemnian incident of the Argonautic legend. Reconstructing Aeschylus’ Argonautic tetralogy is another story, to which we shall be able to proceed after we identify the μάργος παῖς. We have then an amusing etymology of the general category to which the boy belongs, but his name is still missing. Narrations of incidents parallel with the main theme of the play are found in drama, but, as far as I know, only in choral parts. Here, since the παῖς incident is presented as evidence of Dike’s power, it is very likely that it sheds light on her role. The story may have been made up by Aeschylus for playing with the παίειν – παῖς pun, but it was concocted about a familiar god, known to the audience, since he was a son of Zeus and Hera. However, it is noteworthy that, while speaking in detail about him for 12 verses, his name remains veiled. His involvement in the satyr-play story, most likely indirect, must be made not with the characteristics of his boyhood, but those he acquired after his disciplining by Dike. On the other hand, the new characteristics cannot be entirely irrelevant to the god’s innate temperament. Otherwise, the detailed description of his boyhood acts would be pointless. It must be left to the viewer to determine whether the god’s old characteristics survive in the new ones, only cloaked under metaphors so as to appear pleasing and attractive. Literarily, since Aeschylus has invented a story about a son of Zeus and Hera, yet he plans to conceal the god’s name, he must have given a clue to the viewers for making the recognition on their own. The clue is found in the opening of Dike’s story: ἔθρεψα παῖδα μάργον. The “mad, rampant, furious, violent boy” appears elsewhere too in Greek literature. Already in Alcman, PMG 58, Ἀφροδίτα μὲν οὐκ ἔστι, μάργος δ᾽ Ἔρως οἷα παίσδει ἄκρ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄνθη καβαίνων, ἃ μή μοι θίγηις, τῶ κυπαιρίσκω he appears, thanks to Bentley’s certain supplement, qualifying Ἔρως, in a charming plainly suggestive erotic song of young girls. In later poetry, μάργος occurs as a typical epithet of Ἔρως: Αp. Rhod. 3.120 μάργος Ἔρως λαιῆς ὑποΐσχανε χειρὸς ἀγοστόν, Nonnus, Dion. 10.337 ἵστατο μάργος Ἔρως, 33.180 καὶ μάργος Ἔρως ἀνεπάλλετο κόλπου μητρὸς ἑῆς, 48.277 μάργος Ἔρως ἐρέθιζεν. Was, however, Eros a son of Zeus and Hera? The parentage of Eros was one of the most complicated questions in antiquity. As W.S. Barrett puts it on Eur.  26 TrGF 3.118, TRI B XII (Argonautae).

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? Hipp. 534, referring to Page, 1955, 269–272, “Eros, being the mere personification of an emotion, had no myth, no cult [ ], and no traditional parentage [ ], and the poets on occasion provide him with parents more or less as the fancy takes them”. Leaving aside the god’s cosmogonic hypostasis, the most familiar version connects him with Aphrodite, whether with no father’s name, or Aphrodite and Ares (Simon. PMG 575, Nonnus Dion. 5.93) or Aphrodite and Ouranos (possibly Hes. Theog. 201, Sapph. 198 b V.) or Aphrodite and Hephaestus (alii, ap. Serv. in Aen. i.664 al.) or Aphrodite and Hermes (Cic. Nat. 3.59) or Aphrodite and Zeus (Verg. Cir. 134) or Artemis and Hermes (Cic. Nat. 3.60) or Gaia and Ouranos (Sapph. 198 a V.) or Iris and Zephyrus (Alc. 327 V.) or Eileithyia (Olen ap. Paus. 9.27.1) or Zeus (Eur. Hipp. 534) or Penia and Poros (Pl. Symp. 178), and possibly even more parentages. Cf. Pl. Symp. 178 b γονῆς γὰρ Ἔρωτος οὔτ᾽ εἰσὶν οὔτε λέγονται; Theocr. Id. 13.1–2 τὸν Ἔρωτα ... ὧιτινι τοῦτο θεῶν ποκα τέκνον ἔγεντο, where the Scholiast notes: ἀμφιβάλλει τίνος υἱὸν εἴπηι τὸν Ἔρωτα. Ἡσίοδος μὲν γὰρ Χάους καὶ Γῆς, Σιμωνίδης Ἄρεος καὶ Ἀφροδίτης, Ἀκουσίλαος Νυκτὸς καὶ Αἰθέρος, Ἀλκαῖος Ἴριδος καὶ Ζεφύρου, Σαπφὼ Γῆς καὶ Οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἄλλοι ἄλλως. Cf. AG 5.177.5 (Meleager) πατρὸς δ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ἔχω φράζειν τίνος, Antagoras (Powell, C.A., Epigr. 1) ὅ τοι γένος ἀμφίσβητον. Zeus is mentioned in Verg. Cir. 134 as father of Eros by Aphrodite, being therefore both pater atque avus idem Iuppiter, but not by Hera. Eur. Hipp. 534, Ἔρως ὁ Διὸς παῖς, was considered as the only mention of Zeus as father of Eros (apart from Virgil Ciris) and an innovation of Euripides. Now, it appears that Aeschylus had preceded, but whether the paternity of Zeus was his innovation or not, one cannot say. Though, I believe that the story about Dike as Eros’ nurse, the account of the boy’s horrible doings, and, naturally, of his punishment are all Aeschylus’ invention. Moreover, the dreadful arrows, with which the μάργος παῖς committed his criminal acts, continued being his main attribute after Dike disciplined him (Eros Archer), inflicting, however, a different sort of injuries to his targets. Now, if we combine the arrival of Dike with the story about her foster son, μάργος Ἔρως, it is possible to conjecture that he may be involved in the communal violation that dictated her coming. However, love affairs are normally individual cases. A collective love affair that ended up in violation of justice requiring Dike’s intervention is a rather rare situation. But as we saw, Aeschylus in the Choephoroi distinguishes Λήμνιον κακόν as the most horrible of love crimes. It will be explained below why I adopt Hourmouziades’s suggestion that Hypsipyle is the satyr-play of the Argonautic tetralogy.27 It is then better to start with determining the order of the other plays of the trilogy.  27 Hourmouziades 1974, 42–43.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

The title Argo most likely suggests the very first beginning of the campaign with the making of the famous pentecontore and the recruitment of the crew of heroes, and so the play must open the tetralogy.28 The Medicean catalogue gives an alternative title Κωπαστής (Κωπευστής in codd. V, Va), both hapax legomena, usually emended into plural for designating the rowing Argonauts. The only cognate words I was able to find is ἐπικωπαστήρ, ‘rowlock thong’, and Mod. Greek κουπαστή, ‘gunwale’, i.e., the part of the boat that is furnished with oars, both as if from a verb *κωπάζω (κωπάω, ‘furnish with oars’, exists). Accordingly, κωπαστής, a nomen agentis, must mean something like ‘oar-fitter’ (the boatbuilder Argos?), but also, especially in the variant κωπευστής, ‘person who propels a ship by oars, rower’ (here either Argonaut or, par excellence, Jason). Apart from the title, the only certain fragment of Argo is 21 Ἶφυς for Τῖφυς, the steersman of Argo, who played a leading role in the ship’s launching. Frs. *20 R. and *20a R. refer to the speaking branch or piece of wood from the holy oak of Dodona attached on Argo’s prow on the advice of Athena. Especially fr. *20 from Philo Jud. Quod omnis probus liber sit 20.143 (vol. 6, 40.14 Cohn/Reiter) refers to the decision of the Argonauts to crew the ship only with freemen, and mentions Aeschylus who transferred the decision to Argo herself, since the ship was supposed to be alive and possess the power of reason. The readings of Philo’s codd. are unfortunately very corrupt, and so many and various restorations of Aeschylus’ verse have been proposed. Radt published ὅθεν καὶ ὁ Αἰσχύλος ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς εἶπε· ‘†ποῦ (an εἶπέ που· ῾?) ἔνεστιν† Ἀργοῦς ἱερὸν αὐδῆεν ξύλον’, which, however, has nothing to do with forbidding to board the ship other than free men, as is required by Philo’s context. In place of αὐδῆεν, Philo’s codd. have δαπὲν°, αὔδασαι, αὔδασε. It is, however, puzzling what the speaking piece of wood has to do with the assertion that no slaves were allowed to board the Argo. Holwerda’s conjecture ὅθεν καὶ ὁ Αἰσχύλος ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς εἶπέ που· ‘ἀνέστεν᾽ Ἀργοῦς ἱερὸν αὐδῆεν ξύλον’, “the holy speaking beam of the Argo groaned aloud (sc. when a slave stepped on board)”, as Sommerstein interprets it,29 suggests the presence of a Satyr-chorus, but the satyr-play did not need to be Argo. Since the specific ship was involved in every play of the Argonautic tetralogy, the Satyr-chorus could be accommodated in every title of the tetralogy. But is groaning a proof that Argo did not allow slaves in her crew? Be that as it may, I cannot propose anything, apart from the remark that Ἀργοῦς ἱερὸν ξύλον need not imply the speaking branch of Dodona’s oak. It must be taken for ‘the holy ship of Argo’, as it used to be interpreted in the past: e.g., LSJ “by poet. periphr., Ἀργοῦς  28 Welcker 1824, 311–318; Mette 1959, 15–18; Mette 1963, 130–132; Deforge 1987, 33–36. 29 Holwerda 1991, 1–7; Sommerstein 2008.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? ξύλον A. Fr. 20”. The same periphrasis is usual with the synonymous δόρυ: Eur. Andr. 793 ἐπ᾽ Ἀργῴου δορός, while Aeschylus very frequently uses δόρυ alone for ‘ship’. That Philo’s reference to a prohibition for slaves to board on Argo can be connected with an attempt by the Satyr-chorus to do so, seems plausible. Then the fragment should be transferred to the satyr-play of the tetralogy, namely to Hypsipyle, something proposed already by Butler 1809, 236. Lemniai is most likely the second tragedy of the tetralogy. The title, recorded as Λήμνιοι in the Medicean catalogue, was changed to feminine already by Ahrens (1842, 205),30 an emendation verified by two one-word fragments from Herodian read by Herbert Hunger in the palimpsest cod. Vind. Hist. 10. It is not clear what the fragments, 123a ἀείζωος and 123b φαυνός, refer to. A possibility might be that they both have to do with Hephaestus’ forge in Lemnos, ἀείζωον qualifying its fire, φαυνός produced as etymology of βαυνός, ‘furnace, forge’, ὅτι φαίνει ἑαυτόν. In any case, it can be considered certain that the tragedy dealt with the notorious Λήμνιον κακόν, though there is no evidence as to whether the entanglement, hostile or amatory, with the Argonauts occurred in this play or not. Kabeiroi must be the last tragedy of the trilogy. Here the evidence for the play’s theme is relatively stronger. It is probable that it dealt with the protracted sojourn of the Argonauts and their revelries in Lemnos, after the resisting women had succumbed to them and to the temptation they stood for, right before their departure. In fr. 95 R. it is most likely Jason who addressing an unknown character refuses to consider him or her as a foreboding of good for his travel; Ath. 9.373d: Αἰσχύλος Καβείροις ‘ὄρνιθα δ᾽ οὐ ποιῶ σε τῆς ἐμῆς ὁδοῦ’. This seems to indicate that the hero is preparing to depart from Lemnos. Two or three fragments referring to wine-drinking and drunken men have led some scholars to the conclusion that Kabeiroi was a satyr-play.31 However, firstly, there exists a clear reference to Kabeiroi as a tragedy: Ath. 10.428f (TrGF 3.214) Αἰσχύλον ἐγὼ φαίην ἂν τοῦτο διαμαρτάνειν· πρῶτος γὰρ ἐκεῖνος – καὶ οὐχ, ὡς ἔνιοί φασιν, Εὐριπίδης – παρήγαγε τὴν τῶν μεθυόντων ὄψιν εἰς τραγωιδίαν. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς Καβείροις  30 Deforge 1987, 42–43, keeps the title Lemnioi and suggests that the play was satyric— “without any positive evidence”, according to Sommerstein 2008, 127. It is quite possible, however, that an Aeschylean Lemnioi also existed dealing with the Philoctetes legend, possibly an alternative title of Philoctetes. See Radt in TrGF 3.233, argument of Λήμνιαι (-οι?). 31 Friebel 1837, 133–134; Bothe 1844, 17; Wagner 1852, 46; Wecklein 1885, vol. I, 519; Wecklein 1891, 382, 384; Mette 1959, 15–18; Mette 1963, 130–132 (where Mette discusses also the possibility that Argo was the satyr-play of the tetralogy). Others consider an Alcestis type tragedy: Wecklein 1909, 12; Schmid/Stählin 1934, 172 n. 1, 443. For Hourmouziades’s 1974 view see below.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

εἰσάγει τοὺς περὶ Ἰάσονα μεθύοντας. Further, the third tragedy is usually the place for the aition of the institution of a new cult, and in all likelihood the play ended with the introduction of the Kabeiric cult into Lemnos. To avert the possible misconception that the plural title of the play comes, as usual, from the name of the chorus, it should be reminded that in the usual version of the myth the Kabeiroi are two, father and son, even though in some versions a number of female members of the family make their appearance. One might possibly object that the Erinyes are also three in the standard myth, but they are multiplied for filling the chorus team in the Eumenides — a vexed question in the study of the tragedy. In any case, both statements, παρήγαγε τὴν τῶν μεθυόντων ὄψιν and εἰσάγει τοὺς περὶ τὸν Ἰάσονα μεθύοντας, employ theatrical technical terms that cannot be easily dismissed. The two Kabeiroi need not occupy two actors, since the young Kabeiros (παῖς Καβείρου) could be played by a mute, the couple acting like Κράτος and Βία in Prometheus Vinctus. Be that as it may, the Kabeiroi must function, like the Erinyes, as instruments of Dike. A trial of the murderesses like that of Orestes is rather unlikely, but the women’s submission to the laws of natural order by mating with the Argonauts and agreeing to engender offsprings was sufficient for absolving them of their crime, so that the acquittal might lead to purgation. Apart from the innovation of introducing the Argonauts drunk on stage, Aeschylus, as we are told, also listed them by name; fr. 97a R.: Sch. BDEGQ Pind. Pyth. 4.303b πάντας Σοφοκλῆς ἐν ταῖς Λημνιάσι τῶι δράματι (fr. 385 R.) καταλέγει τοὺς εἰς τὸ Ἀργῶιον εἰσελθόντας σκάφος, καὶ ὁ Αἰσχύλος ἐν Καβείροις. There can be no doubt that the chorus of Sophocles’ Lemniai consisted of Lemnian women, the names of the Argonauts being given in a list.32 In Aeschylus, however, it is likelier that the Argonauts formed the chorus. A chorus of named heroes or heroines of the myth is by no means unusual. This is the case, for instance, with the Danaids of Supplices and the Danaides, as well as with the Oceanids of Prometheus Vinctus. But in neither is there a list of the heroines’ names given nor are the chorus-members distinguished by name. I admit it is no more than guesswork, but the fact that the information about Aeschylus enumerating the Argonauts is offered supplementarily at the end of the Pindaric scholion as a second thought makes me suspect that what the source of the information καὶ ὁ Αἰσχύλος ἐν Καβείροις meant was merely that the tragedian introduced the Argonauts in his tragedy. In any case, the arrival and installation of the gods in Lemnos is synchronized in the Kabeiroi with the stay of the Argonauts there. The gods’ task was not to punish the women but to purge and purify them from the crime. This was after all the duty of their priests:  32 A relic of the list must have survived in Soph. fr. 386 R.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? Hsch. κ 3230, κοίης· ἱερεὺς Καβείρων, ὁ καθαίρων φονέα. οἱ δὲ κόης. In the myth, the Lemnian women had initially repelled with arms the tempest-tossed heroes and hindered them from putting in at the island, but later succumbed. What part the Kabeiroi played in this change of heart we cannot say, but possibly wine had been a factor. It is very likely that a drunken revelry of the Argonauts with the Lemnian women was implied. The Kabeiroi possess a superhuman power with regard to the proliferation of wine production; fr. *96 R. from Poll. 6.23: καὶ Αἰσχύλος ‘μήποτε κρωσσοὺς | μήτ᾽ οἰνηροὺς μήθ᾽ ὑδατηροὺς | λείπειν33 ἀφνεοῖσι δόμοισι’, combined with Antiatt. υ 5 Valente: ὑδρηροὺς πίθους καὶ οἰνηρούς· Αἰσχύλος Καείροις. They are exercising this power in a playful manner; fr. 97 from Plut. Quaest. conv. 632f: καὶ εἴ τις ἀντιστρέψας αἰτιῶιτο τοὺς Αἰσχύλου Καβείρους ὄξους σπανίζειν δῶμα ποιήσαντας, ὥσπερ αὐτοὶ παίζοντες ἠπείλησαν, i.e., as Radt explains, the Kabeiroi playfully threatened that the wine would be so good that nothing would be left over to turn into vinegar. The jocular reference to wine which goes together with the introduction of the Argonauts drunk on stage has been considered, as mentioned above, an evidence that the play was satyric. But, as suggested above and as Hourmouziades pointed out,34 Athenaeus would be embarrassed not by the introduction of drunk persons in a satyr-drama, where they would be in character, but in tragedy, something the author explicitly mentions (παρήγαγε τὴν τῶν μεθυόντων ὄψιν εἰς τραγωιδίαν). However, one cannot deny that the play definitely seems to have had a Dionysiac character, the title-characters appearing, as it seems, in their Dionysiac identity. But a Dionysiac drama is, of course, not necessarily a satyr-play’.

 33 “λείπειν Heath, Blomfield, prob. Conington, Wil. ms., al.: λιπεῖν codd.; λείψειν vel λείψομεν Lobeck, λήγειν? M. Schmidt, λείβειν Conington olim; ‘latet aliud quid’ N.¹” (Radt’s app. cr., with the references omitted). Pind. fr. 104b.4 (= PMG adesp. 997) ἀσκὸς δ᾽ οὔτε τις ἀμφορεὺς ἐλίνυεν δόμοις (ἐλίννυε codd.) is semantically a precise parallel. It would be desirable to accommodate a form of ἐλι ̄νύειν into Aeschylus’ anapaests, but I am unable to achieve it, unless we admit an Aeschylean prosodical anomaly. 34 Welcker 1826, 163–164; Mette 1963, 130; more decisively Hourmouziades 1974, 42, 189 n. 98; Deforge 1987, 39–41; Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 204 n. 7; Sommerstein 2008, 108. Harrison 2018, 143–144, prefers a satyr-play solution.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

Fig. 7: Kabiros and Pais. Fragment of a skyphos from the Theban Kabeirion. Athens, NM 10426, c. 420 BCE.

On a famous vase from the Theban Kabeirion dated c. 420 BCE (see Pl. 3), a young boy under the inscription Παῖς is filling a prochous with wine from a crater, while a male figure of mature age, under the inscription Κάβιρος but in the form of a bearded and ivy-crowned Dionysus, is reclining with a kantharos in his right hand expecting Pais to fill it. The typical decoration on the Kabeiric vases is the Dionysiac plants, ivy and vine. On a marble capital in the palace of Galerius in Thessaloniki (known as Octagon), Kabeiros is depicted in a short chiton and holding a rhyton, the latter apparently suggesting a cultic connexion with Dionysus.35 Cicero, ND 3.58, speaking about the five different identities of Dionysus describes the third one as: tertium Cabiro patre, eumque regem Asiae praefuisse dicunt, cui Sabazia sunt instituta. Joannes Lydos, Mens. 4.51, gives the same information: τρίτος Καβείρου παῖς, ὅστις τῆς ἐβασίλευσεν, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἡ καβειρικὴ τελετή. Mnaseas, a third century BCE geographer, FHG III 155, fr. 36 (= fr.

 35 Tzanavari 2003, 230.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? 32 Cappelletto), seems to agree with the Theban tradition in considering Dionysus father of Sabazios. On the other hand, Nymphis of Herakleia, a contemporary historian, FHG III 14, fr. 11,36 identifies Dionysus and Sabazios, possibly considering him son of Kabeiros as in the Ciceronian version. In another tradition the younger Kabeiros is identified with Dionysus, the older one with Zeus: Sch. L Ap. Rh. 1.917 (78.5 Wendel) οἱ δὲ δύο εἶναι τοὺς Καβείρους φασί, πρεσβύτερον μὲν Δία, νεώτερον δὲ Διόνυσον (= Et. Gen. (AB) s.v. Κάβειροι; Et. Gud. 289.25; Et. Mag. 482.32), perhaps the only testimony that identifies the παῖς Καβείρου as son of Zeus. As for the relation of Lemnos with wine, it is mentioned in the Iliad, 7.467 ff., that Lemnos is the principal provider of wine for the army of the Achaeans— more specifically the Lemnian Euneos, son of Hypsipyle and Jason. At Ar. Pax 1159 ff. the ripening of the Lemnian vines is mentioned among the happy expectations in peace-time: Λήμνιαι ἄμπελοι are a special variety of vines imported to Attica in antiquity and later to the whole of Greece, whose delicious wine is still today known as λημνιό. Photius κ 3 Κάβειροι· δαίμονες ἐκ Λήμνου διὰ τὸ τόλμημα τῶν γυναικῶν μετενεχθέντες seems to provide the aition for the introduction of the Kabeiric cult possibly into Boeotia. But, if the impious act of the women was powerful enough to drive the gods away from Lemnos, why shouldn’t they leave the island on their own? Who might be the agent of μετενεχθέντες? Coraës37 may be right in emending ἐν Λήμνωι (malim εἰς Λῆμνον; ΕIC → ΕK ut saepe), though his adding ἀπὸ Φρυγίας at the end is hazardous. The Photius article is the only piece of evidence, apart from Aeschylus’ Kabeiroi, that connects these gods with the Lemnian women incident, and it is most likely that it derives from this tragedy. If our conjecture is accepted, the Kabeiroi must have been sent to Lemnos by Zeus after the killing of the males and the arrival of the Argonauts, possibly for arranging the truce between the women and the Argonauts, their friendly meeting and eventually their mating with them.38 Then, how is the benevolent promise of first-rate wine production (frr. *96, 97 R.) to be explained? We have already hinted that the play has clear thematic affinities with the Eumenides. If the order Argo – Lemniai – Kabeiroi – Hypsipyle  36 Jacoby publishes the fragment under ‘Amphitheos (?) von Herakleia’ (FGrHist 431 F 1), following the tradition of the source (Harpocration). 37 Coraës 1814, 192. 38 Philostratus, himself coming from Lemnos, Her. 207–208 Kayser = 53.5–7 de Lannoy, mentions that, to atone for the women’s crime, the Lemnians held yearly purification rites lasting nine days, during which they invoked θεοὺς χθονίους καὶ ἀπορρήτους, apparently the Kabeiroi. See especially Burkert 1970, 9–10.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

is accepted, then they are both third plays of their trilogies dealing with purging the heroes from atrocious crimes combined with the introduction of a cult. Evidently, the promise to the Lemnians is made after the dénouement of the tragedy, just like the promises of the Erinyes to the Athenians at the end of the Eumenides. We do not know what other blessings the Kabeiroi may have promised, but the Erinyes make a list of their blessings upon Athens, which I copy from Sommerstein’s (1989, 261) analysis on lines 916–1020: “(a) For sunshine to help the crops (921–926). (b) Against damage to crops by weather or disease (938– 942). (c) For fertility in flock and herd (943–945). (d) For the discovery of rich mineral resources (945–947). (e) That men may not die prematurely (956–957) and that women may not be prevented from marrying (958–967). (f) Against civil strife (976–83) and for civic concord (984–987).” Here too, the first three items are of agricultural/pastoral interest. Finally, I cannot help guessing that in the Kabeiroi, given the past of the women, promises for familial concord and happiness should have been given. I have dilated exceedingly on Kabeiroi in order to show that it is very likely that it is the third tragedy of the tetralogy and not its satyr-play. Hourmouziades’s (1974, 42–43) suggestion that Hypsipyle must be the satyr-play of Aeschylus’ Argonautic tetralogy seems to me absolutely plausible. The evidence is scantier than in Kabeiroi, but is nevertheless quite strong. We have already spoken about fr. 20 which was published as belonging to Argo. Sch. Ρ Ap. Rh. 1.769–73 (2.62 Schaefer; TrGF 3.352): ὅτι δὲ συνεγένοντο ταῖς Λημνίαις οἱ Ἀργοναῦται, ἱστορεῖ καὶ Ἡρόδωρος ἐν τοῖς Ἀργοναυτικοῖς (FGrHist 31 F 6). Αἰσχύλος δὲ ἐν Ὑψιπύληι (ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις cod.) ἐπελθεῖν φησιν αὐτὰς τοῖς Ἀργοναύταις χειμαζομένοις καὶ μὴ ἐᾶν προσχεῖν τῆι νήσωι, μέχρις οὗ ὅρκον ἔλαβον παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἅμα τε ἀποβῆναι αὐτοὺς τῆς νεὼς καὶ συγγενέσθαι αὐταῖς· καὶ οὕτως ἀποβῆναι ἐᾶσαι. Also Sch. L ibid. (68.8 Wendel; TrGF 3.352): ὅτι δὲ ἐμίγησαν οἱ Ἀργοναῦται ταῖς Λημνίαις, Ἡρόδωρος ἱστορεῖ ἐν τοῖς Ἀργοναυτικοῖς. Αἰσχύλος δὲ ἐν Ὑψιπύληι ἐν ὅπλοις φησὶν αὐτὰς ἐπελθούσας χειμαζομένοις ἀπείργειν, μέχρι λαβεῖν ὅρκον παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀποβάντας μιγήσεσθαι αὐταῖς. The piquant erotic story seems in tune with a satyric atmosphere. In Hourmouziades’s words (1974, 42), “Ιf in this domain of sexually undernourished women one placed a group of Satyrs, who are always ready to succour in such circumstances, the distance from the climate of Amymone and Diktyoulkoi is not long”. Of the only two words that constitute the book fragments of Hypsipyle, Hourmouziades points out the form Ὑψώ used for Ὑψιπύλη apparently in this play (fr. *247 R.), a diminutive which is alien to tragic diction; cf. Εἰδώ for Εἰδοθέα in the satyric Proteus (fr. 212 R.). However, the second word-fragment of Hypsipyle (fr. 248 R.) may also be sexually suggestive; Hsch. α 6404 ἀποκορσωσαμέναις· ἀποκει-

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? ραμέναις· κόρσας γὰρ τρίχας. Αἰσχύλος Ὑψιπύληι. The feminine plural subject of the participle can hardly be anything else than the women of Lemnos. And I very much doubt if the Lemnian women had shaved their heads. It is much likelier that the reference is to depilation of the pubic hair or, possibly, of other superfluous hair, e.g. in the armpit, the legs, etc., as so often in comedy. The verb usually employed is παρα- or ἀποτίλλεσθαι: Crat. fr. 276.3–5 K.-A. †μετὰ τῶν† παρατιλτριῶν ... τιλλουσῶν μέλη πονηρά, Ar. Lys. 89 κομψότατα τὴν βληχώ γε παρατετιλμένη, 151 δέλτα παρατετιλμέναι, Ra. 516 ἡβυλλιῶσαι κἄρτι παρατετιλμέναι, Eccl. 724 τὸν χοῖρον ἀποτετιλμένας. Depilation was made by hand or by singeing with a lamp: Pl. com. fr. 188.14–15 K.-A. μύρτων ... χειρὶ παρατετιλμένων· λύχνων γὰρ ὀσμὰς οὐ φιλοῦσι δαίμονες, Ar. Lys. 827–828 ἀπεψιλωμένον (sc. τὸν σάκανδρον) τῶι λύχνωι, Thesm. 236 ff., 590 ἀφηῦσεν αὐτὸν (sc. the disguised as a woman kinsman of Euripides) κἀπέτιλ᾽ Εὐριπίδης, Eccl. 13 λάμπεις (sc. λύχνε) ἀφεύων τὴν ἐπανθοῦσαν τρίχα, painting on a kylix by the Panaitios painter in the University of Mississippi 77.3.112.39 Other means were also used, such as pitch, wax, and honey. Shaving is, however, also mentioned: Pherecr. fr. 113.29 K.-A. ἡβυλλιῶσαι καὶ τὰ ῥόδα κεκαρμέναι, Ar. Eccl. 65 τὸ ξυρὸν δέ γ᾽ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας ἔρριψα πρῶτον, ἵνα δασυνθείην ὅλη καὶ μηδὲν εἴην ἔτι γυναικὶ προσφερής, Ar. fr. 332.1 K.-A. ξυρόν, among the implements of women.40 The Lemnian women are, in all likelihood, presented as cosmetically ready to welcome the heroes to their beds. Similarly, in Aristophanes᾽ Lemniai, a comedy that apparently makes use of the affair between the Lemnian women and the Argonauts, a fragment (376 K.-A.), as interpreted by Bergk and Kaibel, mentions Hypsipyle as taking a bath. It should be reminded that the original cause of the Λήμνιον κακόν was the foul odour of the women, whether because of Medea’s curse (Myrsilus, FGrHist 477 F 1c) or because they failed to honour Aphrodite (Caucalus?, FGrHist 38 F 2). To return now to the story of our satyr-play, we note that it is thematically prior to the one of Kabeiroi, since in Hypsipyle the Argonauts are just arriving at the island, but in Kabeiroi they are preparing to depart. One more element of the story of Kabeiroi may be established by correlating it with the satyr-play. If the title Hypsipyle indicates the key incident of the story, the nuptials between Hypsipyle and Jason, it must be assumed that this marriage preceded the mating of the other Lemnian women with the Argonauts, which must have occurred or been mentioned in the Kabeiroi. The scene between Dike and the chorus-leader contained in the papyrus, given the detailed self-presentation of the goddess in  39 Hauser 1909, 85–88 pl. 51; ARV2 331.20; Para 361; Add2 217. 40 Cf. Euios Lenaiou 1935, 29–32; Kilmer 1982; Bain 1982; Kilmer 1993, 133–146; Lee 2015, 79– 82.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

combination with the complete ignorance of the Satyrs, shows clearly that it belongs to the play’s prologue.41 However, the armed Satyrs, though receiving Dike with suspicion, do not seem to act as in the course of a military operation. This means that they guarded against a possible landing, most likely by the Thracians, as the mythographic tradition goes (e.g., Ap. Rh. 1.632, 636–7), but they meet up with Dike. Accordingly, during the dialogue between Dike and the Satyrs, the Argonauts must have not appeared yet. Then, Dike’s aim was to give the Satyrs notice of the imminent arrival of the Argonauts and advise them of the chance given the women to be purged of their previous crime by restoring natural order. Comparable is the situation in Amymone, the satyr-play of the Danaids’ tetralogy, where the title-heroine, one of Danaus’ daughters who had killed their Egyptian husbands, rejects the rape by a Satyr but accepts the love of Poseidon. Hourmouziades (1974, 28 f.) very plausibly finds in the story of Amymone a synopsis of the fortune of the Danaids, who, after violently transgressing social and family institutions, finally submit to natural law by marrying a group of Argives. It is not easy to define which of the mythical events was included or not and in which play. It is at least certain that the union of Amymone with Poseidon in the satyr-play had preceded the marriage of the rest of the Danaids, just as in our satyr-play the union of Hypsipyle with Jason precedes the marriage of the rest of the Lemnian women with the Argonauts. Thus, the first act for the restoration of ordinary natural law is accomplished in the satyr-play of the tetralogy by means of some kind of consecration, after a failed vulgar attempt of rape by the Satyrs, which possibly existed in our play too. In the version quoted in Apollodorus Bibl. 2.1.5, the crime of the Danaids is purged by Athena and Hermes Διὸς κελεύσαντος. The role of the two gods seems identical with that of Dike and the Kabeiroi, the first of whom has arrived as declared in the papyrus by order of Zeus, and the second have been transferred to Lemnos obviously by Zeus. The restoration of justice is accompanied by a divine donation to the country: in the Danaids’ myth the sources of Lerna are donated by Poseidon to πολυδίψιον Argos, in the myth of the Lemnian women the vine and the wine are donated to Lemnos by the Kabeiroi. Finally, both myths end with an aition on the origin of some Greek tribes: the non-native Danaids through their union with the local Argives procreate the tribe of the Danaans who displaced the Pelasgians, while the non-native Argonauts through their union with the local Lemnian women procreate the tribe of Minyans who are driven out of Lemnos by the Pelasgians; Hdt. 4.145, Str. 8.3.19, 9.2.40, Paus. 7.2.2.  41 Wessels 1999, 104.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? The Kabeiroi and their worship were established in Lemnos throughout the historical period. Consequently, the aetiological aim of Aeschylus is obvious, if it is he who connected the gods with the myth of the Lemnian women. But how is the choice of Dike to be explained? Lobel on 11–2 of our papyrus notes rightly: “I can produce no parallels to Δίκη as an emissary of Zeus”. Why not Athena as in the myth of the Danaids, since she is as close to her father as Dike, moreover being the goddess who usually advises mortals the right? Zeus, in Aeschylus’ myth, knew that the Lemnian women, in addition to their former crime, were also preparing to violate justice again, since they planned to repel with arms the Argonauts and hinder them from disembarking. So he sends the most appropriate goddess to warn them against a second crime. Hospitality was considered an essential attribute of the just person. Cf., e.g., Od. 6.120 f. οὐδὲ δίκαιοι, ἦε φιλόξεινοι; widely evidenced, above p. 18. It seems that the Satyrs are unwilling to accept Dike too, if we judge from her warnings and threats (12 f. εὐ[φρόνως | δ[έχ]εσθε δ᾽ ὑμεῖς, εἴ τι μὴ μά[την] λέγω; 24–26 δ]εκτέα στρατῶι· | (e.g.) εἰ γὰρ λόχος σὸς μὴ δ]έχοιτό μ᾽ εὐφρ[όν]ως, | [ × – ⏑ – × ἐκ Δίκ]ης ἄτα[ς] ἔχο[ι]). Accepting the Argonauts would certainly restore natural order but also justice. Before closing this investigation, it would be useful to examine the case with Nemea, another play that has been assigned to the Argonautic trilogy42 and of which no fragment whatsoever has survived. It may have dealt with the late fortunes of Hypsipyle, after she escaped from Lemnos and was engaged by Nemea as nurse of her newly-born infant Opheltes / Archemoros. The play possibly related the aition for the institution of the cult of Archemoros and of the Nemean games. But if Nemea and not Hypsipyle had, as is obvious, the leading part,43 the play could hardly belong to the Argonautic tetralogy. On the contrary, it could well be the first or the second play of the tetralogy that Radt classifies under the heading “Epigoni”, but which actually deals with the same cycle as the Theban one, only viewed from the Argive standpoint: Nemea, Argeioi/-ai, Eleusinioi, possibly in that order.44 Since, apart from joining fr. 9 (b), I am also proposing a number of new readings, supplements, and interpretations in the papyrus text, I thought it useful to publish the text of P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 9 (a) and 9 (b) as I restore it and add a commentary. However, the data offered in the commentary are by no means

 42 Hermann 1839, vol. 7, 206; Wecklein 1885, vol. 1, 519; Wecklein 1891, 384. 43 Presuming that the title stands for the heroine, and not for the district or for the games (Νέμεα). 44 See references in TrGF 3.116, TRI B X.5–6.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

complete, and it would be advisable for the reader to make use of Radt’s comprehensive apparatus criticus. F 281 (ΔΙΚΗ)

5

10

15

20

Χο. Δι. Χο. Δι. Χο. Δι. Χο. Δι. Χο. Δι.

25

30 Χο. Δι.

μακάρων ̣[ αὐτὴ θε̣ῶν[ ̣]αι ̣᾽ ἀ̣λ̣λ᾽ ἐ̣π̣ει ̣δ ̣[ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]α̣ν κ̣[ ἵζει δ᾽ ἐν αὐτῶι τ[ῶ]ι  ̣[ ̣ ̣]ν̣[ ̣]ι  [ δίκηι κρατήσας, τῶι  δε ̣[ πατὴρ γὰρ ἦρξεν̣, ἀνταμ[ ἐκ τοῦ δέ τοί με Ζεὺς ἐτίμ[ησεν μέγα, ὁτιὴ παθῶν ἤμ̣[ει]ψ[α συμφορὰς κράτους, ἵζω Διὸς θρόνοισιν [ἠγλα]ϊσμένη· πέμπει δέ μ᾽ αὐτὸς οἷσι ̣ν̣ εὐμεν[ὴς πέλει Ζ[ε]ύ̣ς, ὅσπερ ἐς γῆν τήν̣δ᾽ ἔπεμψέ μ᾽· ε̣ὐ̣[φρόνως δ̣[έχ]εσθε δ᾽ ὑμεῖς, εἴ τι μὴ μά[την] λ̣έγω. τ̣[ί σ᾽] οὖ[ν προ]σε̣ν̣ν̣έποντες εὖ κ̣[υρ]ήσομε[ν; Δίκην, μέ̣[γιστ]ο̣ν π̣ρέσβο[ς] ἧς̣, ἐ[ὰ]ν [φ]ρον̣[ῆις. ποίας δὲ τ[έχν]ης ἀρχιτ̣ε̣κ̣τ̣ο̣νεῖς; λ[έγε. το]ῖ ̣ς μὲν δ[ι]καίοις ἔνδικ̣ον τείνω β̣ίο̣[ν, οὐκ ἐνενό]η̣σα θέ̣[σ]μ̣[ι]ο̣ν̣ τ̣ό̣δ᾽̣ ἐ̣ν β̣ρ̣[ο]τ̣ο̣[ῖς. τοῖς δ᾽ αὖ μα]ταίοις ̣[ ]̣ ̣ [ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ φ[ πείθουσ᾽ ἐ]πωιδαῖ ̣ς ἢ κατ᾽ ἰσχύος τρόπο̣[ν]; γράφουσα] τ̣ἀ̣π̣λακ̣ήματ᾽ ἐ̣ν δέλτωι Διό̣[ς. ποίωι χρό]ν̣ωι δ̣ὲ̣ πίνακ᾽ ἀναπτύσσεις κακ[ῶν; ἧι Ζεὺς διδ]ῶι σφιν ἡμέραι  τὸ κύριον. δ]εκτέα στρατῶι· εἰ γὰρ λόχος σὸς μὴ δ]έχοιτό μ᾽ εὐφρ[όν]ως, ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἐκ Δίκ]ης ἄτα[ς] ἔχω[ν.] οὐκ ἂν τις οὖν [ἀρνοῖτ]ο ἐπισπέσ̣θ̣α̣[ι Δίκ]η̣ι ̣, πό]λις τις οὔτε δῆμος οὔτ᾽ ἔτης ἀνήρ, τ̣οιάνδε μοῖραν π[αρ]ὰ̣ θεῶν καρπουμένη[ι. τ̣έκμαρ δὲ λέξ̣ω τ̣ῶι τόδ᾽ εὐδερκέ[ς.] φέρε. [· τῶι· ·εὐδερκές·] ἔθρε[ψα] παῖδα μάργον, ὃν τίκ̣τεν̣ [ποτὲ] Ἥρα μιγε̣ῖσα Ζηνί, θυμοιδ[ῆ, κακόν,] δ]ύ̣σα̣ρ̣κτ[ο]ν, αἰδὼς δ᾽ οὐκ ἐνῆ[ν] φρ̣[ον]ήματι. τόξευ᾽ ἄφ]ε̣υκτα τῶν ὁδοιπόρων βέλη

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? 37 35

40

δι̯ώ]σ̣ας ἕλ̣[ωρα σώμαθ᾽, ὧ]ν ὄ̣ζοι φόνος, ·στάζ̣[οι· ἤρτα τ᾽ ἀκ]η̣δῶς ἀγκύλαισιν ἀρτάμων. ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣[ ̣ ὁρ]ῶν ἔχ[αι]ρε κἀγέλα κακόν. κἀγ]ὼ τόδ᾽ ἐχθα̣[ί]ρ̣[ουσα καὶ θυ]μ̣ουμένη εὖ] ἐρρύθμιξα καὶ πρ[οσήγα]γον χέρα κἄ]παισα· παῖς δ᾽ οὖν ἐνδίκως κικλήσκεται, ὁτι]ὴ τὸ παίεσθαί νιν ἔνδικ̣[ον τέ]λ̣ος.

Works cited in the apparatus criticus: Diggle 1998; Fraenkel 1954; Görschen 1955; Kakridis 1955; Lloyd-Jones 1957; Lobel 1952; Mette 1958; Mette 1959; O’Sullivan/Collard 2013; Page 1957; Radt = TrGF 3; Sommerstein 2008; Sutton 1983; Vysoký 1957. 2 αὐτὴ θεῶν [τις οὖσα Liermann ap. Mette 3 ]α ̣᾽ Lobel, ]αι ̣’ Radt; Γ]αῖ᾽ ? Radt | ΛΕΠΕΝΔ . [ ? Radt, λ̣λε̣π̣ει ̣δ.[ Tsantsanoglou, quia nihil quam Ι inter E et Δ sufficit ; ἀ̣λ̣λ̣᾽ ἐ̣πει ̣δή̣, ἐ̣πεὶ ̣ δ.[, ἐ̣πεῖ ̣δε̣? 4 ] ̣[: Ρ (Lobel) vel Φ (Radt); etiam Y possis (vide 25 YΦΡ) | ] ̣ν ̣[ Radt, ]α̣ν κ̣[ dispexit Tsantsanoglou 5 εζει ante correctionem (primum E in Ϊ̔ ́ correxit et Ϊ iterum subscripsit) pap. | τῶι θρόνωι? 6 τῶι ̣δε Lobel, Radt, τῶι  δ᾽ ἐγ[ὼ παρεστάτουν Mette 7 εν· pap. | ἀνταμ[ύνεται δ᾽ ὅδε (sc. Zeus) Mette, ἀνταμ[είψασθαι pot. quam ἀνταμ[ύνασθαι Görschen 8 τοῦ δέ vel τοῦδε Radt, τοῦδε Diggle | ἐτίμ[ησεν Lobel | μέγα Fraenkel ap. Radt, al. 9 ἤμ[ει]ψ[εν vel ἠμ[εί]ψ[ατο ? Lobel; παθὼν ἠμ[είψατ᾽ οὐκ ἄνευ δίκης Page ap. Lloyd-Jones, παθὼν ἤμ[ειψε σὺν δίκηι κακά Mette, παθῶν ἠμ[είψατ᾽ ἔνδικον κράτος (vel τίσιν) Vysoký, παθῶν ἤμ[ει]ψ[α συμφορὰς κράτους, Tsantsanoglou 10 [ἠγλα]ϊσμένη multi, [ὡρα]ϊσμένη Kakridis 11 εὐμεν[ὴς πέλει vel κυρεῖ Lobel, εὐμεν[ὴc ἂν ἦι Mette 12 ̣[ ̣]υ̣ϲ· pap. | εὔ[φρονα, εὐ[φρόνως, εὖ [φρονῶν Lobel, εὐ[φρόνως, ante quod interpunxit Tsantsanoglou 13 ὄ[ψ]εσθε? Lobel, δ[έξ]εσθε Fraenkel, δ[έχ]εσθε Sommerstein 14 suppl. Lobel 15 μέ[γιστ]ον πρέσβο[ς Lobel | ἧς ἐν οὐρανῶι ‘or something of the sort’ Lobel, ἤ[ν] γε [σωφ]ρον[ῆις Kakridis, ἧς̣, ἐ[ὰ]ν [φ]ρον[ῆις Tsantsanoglou 16 τ[ιμ]ῆς Lobel, τ[έχν]ης Tsantsanoglou | ἀρχιτεκτονεῖς Page; ‘at utique τ prius non scriptum fuit’ Radt; ἀρχιτ̣ε̣κ̣τ̣ο̣νεῖς Tsantsanoglou | λ[έγε Page, λ[άχος Vysoký 17 τῐ́ν-? Lobel; τείνω βίο[ν inepte interpretans reiecit Lobel 18 ]η̣σα leg. Lloyd.-Jones | καλόν γε θ]εῖσα Fraenkel, καλὸν τιθ]εῖσα Vysoký; οὐκ ἐνενό]ησα Tsantsanoglou | cet. omnia leg. et suppl. Lobel 19 τοῖς δ᾽ αὖ μα]ταίοις Lobel | σώφρονας φύω φρένας Lloyd.-Jones, τὰς μάτας (Lobel) ὀρθῶ (Liermann ap. Mette) φρενῶν Μette 20 πότερον ἐ]π. Lobel, πειθοῦς ἐ]π. Pohlenz, Maas ap. Lloyd-Jones, πείθουσ᾽ ἐ]π. Collard | in fine versus ]· 21 γράφουσα Lobel | τᾱπλακήματ᾽ pap., τἀπλακFraenkel 22 ποίωι χρό]νωι Lobel | δ̣ε̣,πίνακ᾽ pap. | κακ[οῖς pot. qu. κακῶν Lobel, κακ]ῶν (sc. hominum) Tsantsanoglou 23 ἧι γ᾽ ἂν διδ]ῶι Mette, ἧι Ζεὺς διδ]ῶι Tsantsanoglou; alii alia post Lobel, qui inepte ]ηι et ἡμέρα leg. 24 ]εκτέᾱ, cτρατωι· pap. 25 καὶ κάρτ᾽ ὄναιτ᾽ ἂν εἰ δ]έχοιτό? Lobel, εἰ γὰρ λόχος σὸς μὴ δ]έχοιτό e.g. Tsantsanoglou 26 ]ηcᾶτα[ leg. Lobel, σᾶτα[ι supplens; ]ηcατα[ et εχο[ leg. Mette; ἀτὰ[ρ δ]έχο[υ Mette, ] ἧς ἄτα[ς] ἔχω[ν vel ἐκ Δίκ]ης ἄτα[ς] ἔχω[ν Tsantsanoglou 27 οὐκ ἄν τις οὖ]ν [ἀρνοῖτ]ο Fraenkel | πόλ]ει Fraenkel, Δίκ]η̣ι  Vysoký 28 ἕ⟦ν⟧της pap. 29 καρπουμένη[ι Fraenkel, -μένη[ς Lloyd-Jones, -μένη Diggle 30 cοι correctum · · in τῶι (cο erasum; .o. punctis notatum); correctio in margine debebat esse, τῶι  Lobel | ε υδὲ ρ pap. | φερε[. .] ̣[ Radt, φέρεις, φέρει (med.), φέρειν? Lobel; φέρε in antilaba Tsantsanoglou 31 ἔθρε[ψα] pot. qu. -[ψε] ut Lobel, -[ψα] Mette, al., -[ψ.] Radt | τί ̣κ̣τε̣ ι  Lobel, τίκ̣τεν̣ pap. | [ποτὲ] Görschen, [ποτ᾽ οὐχ] Merkelbach ap. Sutton 32 θυμοιδ[ὲς βρέφος Görschen, θυμοιδ[ὲς τέκνον

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

Mette, θυμοίδ[η θεόν Lloyd-Jones, θυμοιδ[ὴς πόσει (vel θεά) Merkelbach ap. Sutton, θυμοιδ[ῆ, κακόν e.g. Tsantsanoglou; ‘θυμώδ[ exspectes’ Diggle 33 ματι· pap. 34 τόξευ᾽ Tsantsanoglou | ]ε̣ pot. qu. ]φ, ]ρ̣ Radt recte; ἄ]φυκτα ... βέλη, ἀπ]ευκτὰ vel φο]ρυκτά ... μέλη Lobel, ἄφ]ευκτα scribae in ἄφυκτα emendandum cens. Tsantsanoglou; ἱεὶς δ᾽ ἄ]φυκτα Lloyd-Jones, πολλοῖς δ᾽ ἄ]φυκτα Mette, κἀξηῦρ᾽ ἀπ]ευκτά, τῶν ὁ. μέλη Diggle, ἀμῶν φο]ρ̣υκτὰ τῶν ὁ. μέλη olim Tsantsanoglou | βέλη pap.; de μέλη cogitavit Lobel 35 ἤρτα τ᾽ ἀκ]η̣δῶς Tsantsanoglou, πίτυσιν ἀνα]ιδῶς Lobel Sinim esse cogitans (acc. Diggle, fluctuat Radt), λόγχαις τ᾽ ἀνα]ιδῶς Lloyd-Jones, ἐφεὶς ἀνα]ιδῶς Mette, ἴαπτ᾽ ἀνα]ιδῶς Sommerstein | ων· pap.: sup. ω crus dextrum accentus circumflexi angulati ( ̀ ) , cuius pars sinistra deleta est, ut accentus gravis produceretur, i.e. (ἀγκύλαισιν) ἀρτάμων Tsantsanoglou; ἀρταμῶν Lobel, Diggle, Sommerstein, Collard; ἀρταμων Radt 36–41 P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 9 (b) = fr. 281b R. in parte sinistra huius columnae collocavit Tsantsanoglou, in columna sequenti Lobel; quamobrem coniecturae priores omissae sunt 36 ὁρ]ῶν vel δρ]ῶν Tsantsanoglou 37 ]εαcε ̣[ Lobel, Radt, ]c̣αcελ̣[ Tsantsanoglou; δι̯ώ]σ̣ας ἕλ̣[ωρα σώμαθ᾽, ὧ]ν Tsantsanoglou | ο̣ζ Lobel, α̣ζ Görschen, ο̣ζ vel α̣ζ Radt; ·cτάζ̣[οι· v.l. antiqua marginalis, quam Sommerstein et Collard in textu introduxerunt | οc· pap. | versum post 34 transposuit Tsantsanoglou 38 suppl. Tsantsanoglou 39 μετ]ερρύθμιξα Mette, longius spatio; εὖ ἐρρ. vel ἐπερρ. Tsantsanoglou | πρ[οσήγα]γον Fraenkel 40 suppl. Tsantsanoglou | cα· pap. 41 suppl. Tsantsanoglou | οc· pap.

(DIKE)

5

10

15

20

Cho. Di. Cho. Di. Cho. Di. Cho. Di.

of the blessed gods ... myself of the gods ... Gaia (?), but as ... ... And he sits on the very (throne) ... having prevailed with justice, and to him/it ...; for (his) father began (the hostilities), and he was in a state of defence. Then, from the time that Zeus honoured me (greatly), as I have turned his sufferings (into power), I sit glorified at Zeus’ thrones. And he sends me to those he is favourable with, Zeus himself, who sent me to this country; favourably then admit me, if what I say is not in vain. And by what name if we call you shall we hit the mark? (Call me) Dike, whose esteem is foremost, if you are prudent. And in which craft are you the master. Say! For the just, I prolong their life of justice I didn’t grasp this law among mortals. And for the wicked, I ... Convincing them by spells or by way of force? By writing down their malpractices in the tablet of Zeus.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? Cho. Di. 25

30

37 35 36

40

Cho. Di.

And at what time do you unfold the tablet of the evil men? On the day that Zeus grants them what is appointed. (But ... ) I must be admitted by the army; for if (your group?) wouldn’t admit me favourably, ... with banes from Dike. (Then, no one would refuse) to obey Dike, no city or commoner or gentleman, (Dike) who enjoys such an office from the gods. And I’ll narrate a proof to whomever this is clear to see. Come. I reared a rampant child, whom once bore Hera after lying with Zeus, irascible, evil, hard to control, with no shame in his feelings. (He used to shoot) arrows inescapable by the passersby, thrusting aside as prey the corpses, whose gore/slaughter stank (dripped), (and hung them) uncared for/unburied from butchers’ hooks. (Watching his deeds/acting so, the boy) rejoiced and derided the ill. And I, detesting this and being angry, punished and seized him with my hand and smacked (κἄπαισα) him. So, he is justly called child (παῖς) because his being smacked (τὸ παίεσθαί νιν) is his just destiny.

1–2. Mette published as follows: μακάρων δ᾽ [ἕδρας λιποῦσα δεῦρ᾽ (H. Liermann) ἀφικόμην (Snell), | αὐτὴ θεῶν [τις οὖσα (Liermann), τοῦ Διὸς κόρη (Mette). If, as seems probable, Dike is speaking about Zeus winning the throne of Olympus, her account must have started several verses before, and not, as Mette’s reconstruction seems to postulate, before one verse. In any case, δεῦρ᾽ ἀφικόμην and αὐτὴ θεῶν τις οὖσα seem quite reasonable. 3. ̣]ΑΙ ̣ ᾽ (Γ]αῖ᾽ ?) Radt : Α ̣᾽ Lobel. Following the apostrophe, an ascending oblique can belong only to α, after which the upper part of an oblique is visible, followed by what Lobel and Radt read λ (ΛΕΠΕΝΔ? Radt). Between ε and δ Lobel and Radt read ν, but the space can suffice only for ι. If the reading is Γαῖ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ-, as seems likely, we must postulate a punctuation before ἀλλ᾽, and consequently a strong enjambment with the nominative Γαῖα; cf. 11–12 οἷσι ̣ν̣ εὐμεν[ὴς πέλει | Ζ[ε]ύ̣ς. Theoretically, Μαῖα is also possible, but M, being the scribe’s largest letter, could not stand in the opening of the line. There can be a number of combinations: ἀ̣λ̣λ̣᾽ ἐ̣πειδή̣, ἀ̣λ̣λ̣᾽ ἐ̣πεὶ δ.[, ἀ̣λ̣λ̣᾽ ἐ̣πεῖδε̣.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

If it is really Gaia who lurks under these miserable traces, she must be mentioned with regard to the part she played in the deposition of Kronos and the establishment of the rule of Zeus. See, e.g., Hes. Th. 479–480, 626–628, Aesch. PV 209–221. It is possible that Aeschylus intervened in the Hesiodean concept of the myth concerning Gaia’s role; see Conacher 1980, 38 f. 5 f. ‘ “ He obtained possession of it justly and sits thereon” might be a reference to Zeus’ occupation of the throne of Kronos (ὅπως τάχιστα τὸν πατρῷον ἐς θρόνον καθέζετ᾽ PV 228 seq.)’ (Lobel). The reference is no doubt to the throne of Kronos. αὐτῶι τῶι θρόνωι is possible. It is not necessary to expect in the missing part of line 5 the object of κρατήσας, since the absolute use of κρατέω, ‘prevail, get the upper hand’, is quite common. What Dike wishes to stress is her own role in Zeus’ triumph, through the abstract notion she stands for, δίκηι. 6 f. The reconstruction of the second hemistich of line 6 depends mainly on the interpretation of line 7: (a) who is the father; Kronos or Zeus? (b) what does ἦρξεν mean; ‘began’ or ‘ruled’? (c) what does the γάρ-sentence justify? If the subject is Kronos (i.e., Zeus’ father), ἦρξεν cannot mean ‘ruled’, since he was actually deprived of the rule. If then ἦρξεν means ‘began’, there is only one thing he began, which can also justify why Zeus prevailed with justice (δίκηι κρατήσας), and this is ‘hostilities’ or χειρῶν ἀδίκων. This explains the role of Dike in the fight for the divine succession, since Zeus was supposedly in a state of defence. The above is Mette’s interpretation of the verses. His reconstruction is also ingenious: (See Mette 1958, 568–569) δίκηι κρατήσας, τῶι  δ᾽ ἐγ[ὼ παρεστάτουν· πατὴρ γὰρ ἦρξεν̣, ἀνταμ[ύνεται δ᾽ ὅδε. 8. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 877, Cho. 1056 ἐκ τῶνδέ τοι; both are causal. Here, we need a temporal/causal sense, in order to justify the asyndeton of line 10, which must belong to the period starting in line 8. Therefore, ἐκ τοῦ δέ τοι = ἐξ οὗ δέ τοι, ‘then, it is since that time that I was rewarded by Zeus, for assisting him, that I sit on the throne of Zeus’. Dodds (1973, 43 n. 1) translates temporally: ‘Since that day Zeus has honoured me’, apparently in order to spot a former period when Justice was not in the company of Zeus and to substantiate the notion of a ‘progressive’ Zeus. Page’s μέγα gives perfect sense. 9. On ὁτιή see above p. 112. Radt records three proposals: παθὼν ἠμ[είψατ᾽ οὐκ ἄνευ δίκης Page, παθὼν ἤμ[ειψε σὺν δίκηι κακά Mette, παθῶν ἠμ[είψατ᾽ ἔνδικον κράτος (vel τίσιν) Vysoký. All proposals contain a third-person reference to Dike

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? for explaining the special favour of Zeus. If, however, as we postulated above, line 10 was included in the same period, a first-person reference would be necessary. ὁτιὴ παθῶν ἤμ̣[ει]ψ[α συμφορὰς κράτους, ‘for having changed his sufferings into power’ is a parenthetic explanatory sentence with the usual syntax ἀμείβω τί τινος. Cf. Aesh. Pe. 436 συμφορὰ πάθους. 10. On the concept of Dike having her seat beside or at Zeus’ throne, see Hes. Op. 259 αὐτίκα πὰρ Διὶ πατρὶ καθεζόμενη Κρονίωνι, OTF 33 Bernabé, [Dem.] 25.11, Ὀρφεὺς παρὰ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς θρόνον φησὶ καθημένην, Soph. OC 1381 f. ἡ παλαίφατος Δίκη, ξύνεδρος Ζηνὸς ἀρχαίοις νόμοις, Orph. Hymn. 62.2 ἣ καὶ Ζηνὸς ἄνακτος ἐπὶ θρόνον ἱερὸν ἵζει; Lobeck 1829, 369 f.; Kantorowicz 1953, 65 ff.; LIMC vol. 3 s.v. Dike. Radt notes correctly ‘[ἠγλα]ϊσμένη longius spatio esse (sic Lobel) asseverare dubitaverim’. Yet he prints in the text [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]ϊσμένη. J.Th. Kakridis, misled by Lobel’s assertion, proposed [ὡρα]ϊσμένη in the sense ‘glorians’, which, apart from being shorter, is also semantically ill-matched: it is ἠγλαϊσμένη that means ‘glorified’, whereas ὡραϊσμένη stresses corporal beauty with some nuance of affectation, which does not seem appropriate for a deity who after some verses (line 15) will call herself μέγιστον πρέσβος. 11–12. εὐμεν[ὴς πέλει or κυρεῖ Lobel, ἂν ἦι Mette. All are possible. ‘I can produce no parallels to Δίκη as an emissary of Zeus’ (Lobel). Possibly then we are dealing with an Aeschylean innovation, so that Dike might be presented as a character in the play. Dike is being sent to those whom Zeus favours, but a mission to righteous mortals would be aimless. No doubt they are unjust, but it is the will of Zeus that they should repair their injustice under Dike’s instructions. ἐς γῆν τήνδ᾽: ‘To this country’, not ‘to this earth’. Obviously, this was a circumstantial mission of Dike, having nothing to do with the expected return of the virgin Iustitia back to earth during a new Golden Era, as it appears in the famous verse of Virgil, Ecl. 4.6, iam redit et Virgo. In Hesiod it is Αἰδὼς καὶ Νέμεσις who disappear from the earth in the Iron Era (Op. 197–200), in Ovid it is Virgo Astraea (Met. 1.149 f.) who is, however, identified with Dike in Aratus 96 ff.; cf. Virg. Geo. 2.473 f., Ov. Fast. 1.249, Iuv. 6.19 f. 12–13. μ᾽ εὐ[φρόνως Lobel | δ[έξ]εσθε Fraenkel. Present imperative, δ[έχ]εσθε, Sommerstein, is preferable. It is also necessary to end the previous sentence at ἔπεμψέ μ(ε) and join εὐφρόνωc by enjambment to the next sentence. Since Zeus, in Dike’s words, sends her to those that he is favourable with, it goes without saying that he has the same feeling towards those to whom he is sending her

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

now. Therefore, ὅσπερ ἐς γῆν τήνδ᾽ ἔπεμψέ μ᾽ needs no adverbial supplement. On the other hand, δέχεσθε δ᾽ ὑμεῖς would certainly be deficient. Cf. 25 δέχοιτό μ᾽ εὐφρόνως. Dike can definitely force her acceptance, as her speech in lines 24 ff. intends to show. Therefore she does not ask the Chorus to admit her, but to admit her friendly. Besides, it is only so that the ironic and condescending εἴ τι μὴ μάτην λέγω functions: ‘if what I said till now hasn’t been in vain’. The postponed δέ is acceptable in Aeschylus (see Italie 1964, s.v., IX), the more so since εὐφρόνως δέχεσθαι expresses a single notion, i.e. ‘welcome’. εὐφρόνως ... λέγω forms a perfect trochaic tetrameter. 14. Again with the name of Dike, Cho. 949–951 Διὸς κόρα — Δίκαν δέ νιν προσαγορεύομεν βροτοὶ τυχόντες καλῶς, where, however, τυχόντες καλῶς, unlike εὖ κυρήσομεν, refers to the pertinent etymology from either Διὸς or Διὸς κόρα and not to what the name of the goddess was. 15. Δίκη, μέγιστον πρέσβος, must be the formal greeting the goddess expects from those addressing her (προσεννέποντες). πρέσβος occurs only in Aeschylus and only in formal adresses (Pe. 623, Ag. 855, 1393). Su. 709 Δίκας ... μεγιστοτίμου has already been indicated. Lobel read η . ε ̣ . . . ρ ο̣.[ and proposed, e.g., ἦς ἐν οὐρανῶι. Radt (app.) improved ε̣[.].[.]ρον̣[. J. Th. Kakridis (1955, 92), necessarily based on Lobel’s data, proposed ἤ[ν] γε [σωφ]ρον[ῆις. However, the distances between the letters were not well measured. I propose ἧς̣, ἐ[ὰ]ν [φ]ρον[ῆις: “(Call me) Dike, whose esteem is foremost, if you are prudent.” 16. Again the width of the gap between τ and η was wrongly measured. τ[ιμ]ῆς, proposed by Lobel and adopted by all editors, was too short. τ[έχν]ης fits exactly. One should not be misled to believe that Aeschylus calls the area of a god’s jurisdiction τέχνη. It is only the ignorant Chorus who speak with homely terms from their own experience. For the next word, where both Lobel and Radt expressed serious reservations, the problem of reading is caused by the wide gap between two papyrus pieces after αρχι, and to an unexplained low curve at the left-hand edge of the second piece. If the gap closed considerably, so that the low curve would belong to the first letter after αρχι, the problems would cease to exist. The curve, unlike all curved letters, is unusually low. I believe it is the low end of a T, which rarely but unmistakably has a leftward pointing low end curve; see 18 ]ονΤοδ᾽εν. The area is extremely abraded, but the low ends of τεκ and the top ends of τον are visible. The top trace following τεκτ is no more than a tiny tip, which, however,

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? if completed, might well belong to the small circle of omicron. Therefore, I believe that Page’s ἀρχιτεκτονεῖς is certain. Here again, this is not a lofty Aeschylean metaphor, but a homely, somewhat playful, term, occurring in comedy and satyr-play. The verb is found at Ar. Pax 305, fr. 201 K.-A. from Daidalos, ἀρχιτέκτων in Eur. Cycl. 477, and τεκτόναρχοc (μοῦσα) at Soph. fr. 159 R. from Daidalos, probably a satyr-play. It must be constructed with the genitive, in accordance with the verbs of rule (ἄρχειν, κρατεῖν, δεσπόζειν, ἡγεῖσθαι). Therefore, at the end of the line, I prefer Page’s λ[έγε, which agrees with the Satyrs’ impatient character (cf. 30 φέρε), than Vysoký’s λ[άχος, which has also the disadvantage of belonging to an exalted vocabulary. 17. Radt, following Lobel, published τείν. .ο̣[. Lobel had noticed that ‘some three letter combinations could be accommodated between ν and ο̣’ as well as that τείνω βίον ‘is compatible with the traces’. The usual interpretation is that τείνω stands for τίνω: ‘I reward the good’ (Lobel), ‘As for the just, I reward their life of justice’ (Lloyd-Jones), ‘Ich zahle den Gerechten mit gerechtem Leben’ (Mette), ‘Ich gebe den Gerechten rechten Lebens Lohn’ (Werner). τίνω is normally constructed with accusative of the thing paid. If then ἔνδικον βίον is what Dike repays the just with, it is absurd that she should reward them with something which they already owned and for which exactly they deserved rewarding. This absurd is obvious in Mette’s and Werner’s translations. Lobel observed the same ‘illogicality’ at Su. 403–404 νέμων (sc. Ζεύς) εἰκότως ἄδικα μὲν κακοῖς, ὅσια δ᾽ ἐννόμοις, which he interprets: ‘the bad do not get “an unjust portion”, but “a portion corresponding to their deeds, which are unjust”.’ See below on 22 for the right interpretation of the Supplices verse. The interpretation of Lloyd-Jones takes τίνω absolutely, which is not impossible, but yields a tautological sense. Moreover, τίνω has a short ι in tragedy. Therefore, since here the first syllable is in the anceps position, the spelling with ει does not represent a long ι, as is frequently done in Hellenistic spelling; it must be a scribal error. Lobel also objected to τείνω βίον, in the sense ‘I prolong their life’, on the ground that (a) ‘it is not a Greek notion that the good have long lives and the bad short ones’ and (b) ‘τείνω βίον always appears to mean “I have a long life”, never “I give a long life” to some other person’. (It rather means ‘I lead a life’; cf. Eur. fr. 472.9 f. K. (Kretes) ἁγνὸν δὲ βίον τείνομεν ἐξ οὗ | Διὸς Ἰδαίου μύστης γενόμην.) The second objection is rather weak, since the addition of the dative should normally make the verb transitive and produce the meaning rejected by Lobel. Disregarding Lobel’s objection, Sommerstein interprets: “For the righteous I prolong their righteous life”. But the first objection can also be answered. ‘As regards the just, I prolong their life of justice’ can only refer to afterlife. Δίκαιοι (ἢ Πέρσαι ἢ

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

Σύνθωκοι) is the title of a tragedy by Phrynichus (fr. 4a Sn.), whose chorus is likely to have consisted of the souls of the ancestors, in this particular tragedy the ancestors of the Persians or artavan, who were the equivalent of the Greek ἥρωες (Hsch. α 7472 ἀρτάδες· οἱ δίκαιοι ὑπὸ Μάγων; α 7473 ἀρταῖοι· οἱ ἥρωες παρὰ Πέρσαις). Also Plato, R. 363c–d, discusses about ὅσιοι and δίκαιοι, ἀνόσιοι and ἄδικοι. Concerning these ὅσιοι and δίκαιοι, according to Plato, some theologian poets μακροτέρους ἀποτείνουσι μισθοὺς παρὰ θεῶν; the phrase has been extensively discussed, and some scholars prefer writing ἀποτίνουσι. A funerary inscription from Thebes (IG VII 2543.3) mentions τὸ δίκαιον as the destination of the soul. And in the Christian terminology δίκαιοι are the blessed souls (from the Greek orthodox funeral service: μετὰ πνευμάτων δικαίων; ἔνθα οἱ δίκαιοι ἀναπαύονται; ἐν σκηναῖς δικαίων τάξαι, etc.; cf. the Scottish ‘land of the leal’). 18. καλόν γε θ]εῖσα Fraenkel, καλὸν τιθ]εῖσα Vysoký. Lloyd-Jones is right in reading ]η̣σα after the break. Lobel’s readings in the rest of the verse, though difficult, are absolutely reliable. If my interpretation of the previous verse is correct, it is very unlikely that the bestial chorus would grasp the meaning of Dike’s eschatological notions. Then, possibly οὐκ ἐνενόησα θέσμιον τόδ᾽ ἐν βροτοῖς is a plausible supplement. Also in a stichomythia: Ag. 1088 εἰ σὺ μὴ τόδ᾽ ἐννοεῖς, ἐγὼ λέγω σοι. 19. Instead of attempting to explain her previous words, Dike prefers to complete her two-pronged period. σώφρονας φύω φρένας (Lloyd-Jones); τὰς μάτας (Lobel) ὀρθῶ (Liemann) φρενῶν (Mette). The sense is much better with the second restoration, but the reading is extremely uncertain. I could not find elsewhere the opposition δίκαιοι v. μάταιοι; but cf., e.g., Eur. Hel. 917–8 οὔκουν χρή σε συγγόνωι πλέον νέμειν ματαίωι μᾶλλον ἢ χρηστῶι πατρί; in the verses following, χρηστός changes to δίκαιος: 920–921 τὸ μὲν δίκαιον τοῦ πατρὸς διαφθερεῖς, τῶι δ᾽ οὐ δικαίωι συγγόνωι δώσεις χάριν. The same sense as here appears in Eur. El. 1064, where Helen and Clytaemnestra are described as ἄμφω ματαίω. Those who committed μάταια ἔργα were prosecuted in Hades, as it is explicitly stated by Aeschylus at Su. 228–229 οὐδὲ μὴ ᾽ν Ἅιδου θανὼν φύγηι ματαίων αἰτίας, πράξας τάδε, where ματαίων is neuter and gen. criminis. What follows is interesting: 230–231 κἀκεῖ δικάζει τἀπλακήμαθ᾽, ὡς λόγος, Ζεὺς ἄλλος ἐν καμοῦσιν ὑστάτας δίκας. 20. πειθοῦς ἐπωιδαῖς Pohlenz and Maas from PV 173 πειθοῦς ἐπαοιδαῖσιν, already referred to by Lobel. But the certain supplement γράφουσα in Dike’s reply at 21 seems to presuppose a participle (πείθουσ᾽). Moreover, though contradictions are

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? not unwelcome in jocular texts, the creatures who have never heard of Dike or justice are very unlikely to have heard of Peitho or persuasion. Magic and force are, however, constituents of primitive culture. 21. τἀπλακήματ᾽ was unnecessarily emended to τἀπλακήματ᾽ by Lloyd-Jones, an emendation adopted by Diggle, Sommerstein, and Collard. The form ἀπλακseems to be legitimate in poetry: Su. 230 τἀπλακήμαθ᾽ (ταπλαἐνμαβ- M; em. Turnebus, Victorius; τἀμπλ- Stephanus), Eum. 934 ἀπλακήματά (Pauw; ἀμπλ- M: ἁμαρτήματά FGTE); Soph. OT 472 ἀναπλάκητοι (v.l. ἀναμπλ-), Eur. Alc. 242 ἀπλακών (Wakefield; ἀμπλ- codd.), IA 124 ἀπλακών, Pind. Pae. 18.6 ἀπλακ[. When in these instances ἀπλακ- was not in the tradition, it was restored for metrical reasons. Friis Johansen/Whittle (1980), who discuss the question on Su. 230, consider the form ἀπλ- as occurring only metri gratia and only in lyrics or anapaests. However, our case and Su. 230 are both iambic and, what is more, they do not need a lengthening metri gratia, since the long syllable is secured by the crasis. The derivation of the root is obscure, the connection with βλάξ being rather an apt folk etymology. Therefore, though, on the countings of Friis Johansen/Whittle, the form ἀπλ- is only a small minority in tragedy (25 ἀμπλ- as against 6 ἀπλ-), it may well go back to the original root. Elsewhere in Aeschylus, it is Hades or Ζεὺς ἄλλος who puts down on tablets the sins of men and passes judgement on them: Su. 229 ff. (where αἰτίαι ματαίων are also mentioned; see above on 19), Eum. 273 ff. The idea is rationalistically ridiculed by Euripides in fr. 506 K. from Melanippe (sophe?), who on the one hand stresses the immensity of human sin and on the other criticizes the transfer of the judgement to an afterlife level; see Cropp 1995, 279. It is interesting that from line 17 on, whereas Dike’s answers concerning both the just and the unjust refer to her role in the afterlife destiny of the souls, the Chorus-leader understands her words as references to interventions in affairs of this life. Hence, the misunderstanding: ‘Do you correct the unjust by magic or by force?’ (sc. while living) – ‘No! By writing down their names on the tablet of Zeus’ (sc. to be opened in afterlife). We have seen above in line 18 that the Chorus-leader declared his inability to understand what ἔνδικον τείνω βίον meant. Naturally, the expectation of rewarding by the just and of punishment by the unjust has also an admonitory character which affects the behaviour of living men as well, and this is after all the social role of Dike. 22. -σσει[ς] Lobel, Radt: but everything is clear. ‘I should guess κακοῖς, but κακῶν cannot be ruled out’ (Lobel). It is, however, not so much a question of cases as it is of sense. σφιν in the next verse seems

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

to presuppose κακοί and not κακά. I should prefer πίναξ κακῶν, but in the sense ‘table of evil men’, not ‘tabula scelerum’ (Italie; acc. Sommerstein). Aeschylus uses κακοί as a substantive in this sense at Cho. 959 and Su. 403 f. The second passage, cited above on 17, is remarkable: νέμων (sc. Ζεύς) εἰκότως ἄδικα μὲν κακοῖς, ὅσια δ᾽ ἐννόμοις. Lobel obviously misinterpreted the passage, which has nothing to do with what the good and the bad get from Zeus, but with the acts, righteous or unjust, which Zeus portions respectively on the scales: the unjust ones in the scale of the bad, the righteous ones in the scale of the loyal. See Friis Johansen/Whittle (1980) ad loc. It seems that, in popular faith, the weighing of good and evil acts was made during one’s lifetime. Then the names of the sinners and the virtuous were put down in the tablets, which were opened by Dike on the day they passed away. Zeus and Dike had already passed judgement, and a second one was not necessary. The deltoi need not contain anything more than the names of the men, registered according to the sentence already passed. 23. Lobel’s erroneous readings ]ηι and ἡμέρα were perpetuated in most subsequent editions, giving rise to several ingenious supplements some of which postulated the dative ἡμέραι: εὖτ᾽ ἂν φέρ]ηι or τελ]ῆι σφιν ἡμέρα τὸ κύριον (Lobel), ἐν τῆι γ᾽ ἂν] ἦι σφιν ἡμέρα τὸ κύριον (Fraenkel), ἧιτ᾽ ἂν μόλ]ηι σφιν ἡμέρα τὸ κύριον (Görschen). ]ωι, first noticed by Mette, but not mentioned in Radt’s apparatus, is clear, and the space between -ρα and το is unusually broad preserving some traces that square with ι. If, as seems probable, ]ωι points to (δι)δῶι, we should look for a subject, and Zeus is the most appropriate candidate. Mette supplemented ἧι γ᾽ ἂν διδ]ῶι σφιν ἡμέραι τὸ κύριον, implying Zeus as a subject from line 21, Διός. Perhaps it would be preferable to repeat the name of Zeus. Then, no place is left for ἄν, but Aeschylus often omits the particle in relative clauses (Sept. 257, 818, Eum. 336, 661). Aeschylus uses expressions like κυρίωι [...] ἐν ἡμέραι (Su. 732), τὸ κύριον φάος (Ag. 766; the text is corrupt), κύριον [...] τέλος (Eum. 544), to denote an appointed time; the usage is common in other authors, too, always with with a temporal noun either accompanying the adjective (Hdt. 5.50 ἡ κυρίη ἡμέρη, Eur. Alc. 105 τόδε κύριον ἦμαρ, Pind. O. 6.32 κυρίωι δ᾽ ἐν μηνί) or being implied (Dem. 21.84 ἡ κυρία sc. ἡμέρα). Here, however, ἡμέραι cannot be attached to τὸ κύριον. Lloyd-Jones rendered it ‘what is theirs by right’, which is certainly not to the point. Mette translated correctly ‘das für sie bestimmte Schicksal’, and Werner still better, retaining the temporal sense, ‘rechter Ζeitpunkt’; Sommerstein ‘[When] a day [comes that brings] them their ordained fate’; Collard ‘the day ... that is appointed for them’. This is obviously a euphemistic reference to the divinely appointed day of death. διδόναι is abundantly used of granting or assigning goods or evils on the part of the gods.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? 24. Apparently the stichomythia ends here with Dike continuing her speech on a different subject. She must have started with a particle (ἀλλά?) marking a sudden change of topic. She takes up from line 13 the subject of being admitted in the place. We have seen that στρατός, besides its usual meaning ‘army’, is also used by Aeschylus (as well as Pindar and Sophocles) for a body of people or for the people itself. This is mainly done in the Eumenides (566, 569, 668, 683, 762, 889). All other Aeschylean occurrences of στρατός, which Italie classifies under the meaning ‘multitudo, populus’ may well mean ‘army’. Fr. 47a.766 R. from Diktyoulkoi, παντὶ κηρύσσω στρατῶι, may also address the Satyr-chorus, but also the people of Seriphos, or even, with a breach of the dramatic illusion, the spectators. In the Eumenides passages it is the Athenian public that is thus referred to. It has been extensively discussed what the stage representation of that ‘Athenian public’ should be: a stage-crowd, the jurors, or the audience; see references in Sommerstein 1989 on Eu. 566. The last proposal is very attractive, though, naturally, it is not necessary that there should have been a visual representation, and στρατός may refer in general to the Athenian public that would be expected to attend the trial. Here, there is no doubt that it is the Satyr-chorus that is referred to. At line 13 above, the subject of the imperative δέχεσθε was ὑμεῖς. So here also, στρατός, the agent of δεκτέα, must also refer to the Chorus. Obviously, since we cannot imagine a people consisting of Satyrs, they should represent the army of the land, which must be populated by humans, as we assumed above. Hutchinson 1985, xxii, 41, on 1–77, notices that the Satyrs, though talking on behalf of the whole people, do not actually embody them. He does not discuss the possibility of στρατός meaning ‘army’, suspecting that the Satyrs may be elders. 25. E.g., εἰ γὰρ λόχος σὸς μὴ δ]έχοιτό μ᾽ εὐφρ[όν]ως? A very uncertain supplement that depends on the equally uncertain supplement ἐκ Δίκ]ης ἄτα[ς ἔχω[ν] of the next verse, which postulates a negative conditional sentence. That Dike will be admitted and that justice will be enforced is certain. Just like 12–3 above, what the goddess demands of the Chorus is to be admitted εὐφρόνως. In the supplement, I selected a word like λόχος that denotes both a military unit and the chorus group. 26. Right above next line’s ]ν[, a very low vertical can be seen compatible with ρ, υ, φ, and ψ. Lobel’s reading ]ηcᾶτα[ confused things. ‘If the circumflex is rightly recognized, cᾶται would seem to be indicated’ (Lobel). Radt also read CΑ̑. However, the circumflex is extremely uncertain. Mette ignored it altogether and

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

supplemented the verse as follows: μή νυν γένο]ι ̣[ο δυσχερ]ής, ἀτὰ[ρ δ]έχο[υ. The trace looks rather like a wiped out longum sign. The space between α and ε cannot accommodate two full-sized letters. So, Mette’s proposal (ἀτὰ[ρ δ]έχο[υ) is impossible. One letter is sufficient, and ἄτα[ς] ἔχω[ν is possible. ἆται has the usual sense ‘banes, ruins’. Aeschylus uses ἄτη several times in the plural: Ag. 1283, Cho. 272, 598, Eu. 982, Pe. 1037. Italie distinguishes Ag. 730, Cho. 968, Pe. 653, which he classifies under ‘facta scelerata, temeraria’, but they also mean no more than ‘κακά, ruins, calamities’. The fact that ἆται connotes ‘punishment, penalty’, should not mislead us to discover here the technical sense of the word as found in the Code of Gortyn, i.e. ‘fine, penalty, sum lost in a lawsuit’ (LSJ s.v. III). Therefore, ἧς ἄτα[ς] ἔχω[ν or ἐκ Δίκ]ης ἄτα[ς] ἔχω[ν are possible. Then, the missing first hemistich should contain a verb in optative with ἄν denoting what the Chorus would suffer, if Dike were not admitted friendly. 27. ‘Apparently a scriptio plena’ (Lobel). It seems that the middle optative verb was written in full for averting the inconvenient rhythm caused by the caesura media. οὐκ ἄν τις οὖ]ν [ἀρνοῖτ]ο Fraenkel, accepted by Lloyd-Jones, Mette, and Werner; cf. Soph. fr. 524 R. οὐ γάρ τις ἂν δύναιτο. For the end of the verse Fraenkel proposed ἐπισπέσθα[ι πόλ]ει, ‘to follow, to obey a city’, having in mind the new city, Aetna, in whose praise he believed Dike was speaking. Vysoký improved Fraenkel’s proposal keeping the verb but changing the object to the obvious Δίκ]ηι. 28. οὔτε δῆμος οὔτ᾽ ἔτης ἀνήρ was already known (377 N.2) from a discussion in the Homeric Scholia (Il. 6.239c; 2.173.41 Erbse) on the aspiration of έτης. Alexion supported an aspirated initial, whereas Ptolemaeus of Askalon an unaspirated one. Herodian (2.55.18 Lenz; cf. Eust. Il. 641.57 = 2.311.13 van der Valk), who sides with the latter, adduces the Aeschylean fragment together with a Euripidean one (1014 K.; see below) as a proof of the lack of a rough breathing. It is remarkable that in our papyrus the phrase reads ουτ᾽ ἕ⟦ν⟧τηc, the rough breathing and the acute being added by the corrector who crossed out N. Cf. Radt 1958, 198 f. A generic notion, apparently (οὔ) τις vel sim., is here particularized. Of the three terms, ἔτης, though obsolete in classical Attic, seems to be clear: ‘private man’, i.e. a citizen who does not hold an office. Its meaning becomes more clear when seen together with the terms from which it is usually distinguished. At Su. 247 f. (πότερον ὡς ἔτην λέγω | ἢ τηρὸν ἱερόρραβδον (text insecure) ἢ πόλεως ἀγόν;) the distinction is between private citizen, priest, and city leader; at Eur. fr. 1014 K. (πόλεως μὲν ἀρχῶι, φωτὶ δ᾽ οὐκ ἔτηι πρέπων) between city leader and private

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? citizen; at SIG3 141.11 f. (ἄρχω]ν ἢ ἔτας) between leader and private citizen; at Thuc. 5.79.4 (ταῖς πολίεσσι [...] τὼς δὲ ἔτας) between cities and private citizens; at SIG3 9.8 f. (αἴτε ϝέτας αἴτε τελεστὰ αἴτε δᾶμος) between private citizen, magistrate, and community (translated so in, e.g., Meiggs/Lewis 1969, 32). The last two witnesses, both from dialectal treaties, mention the three terms of our verse. It is only in our verse, however, that a distinction is also made between city and community. Lloyd-Jones translates ‘no city or people’, Mette ‘kein Staat, kein Demos’, Werner ‘nicht Bürgerschaft noch Gau’, Sommerstein ‘neither a [c]ity nor a village’, Collard ‘(no) city or community’. But what would the factual difference between πόλις and δῆμος be, if both, as usually, stood for the citizenbody? The problem had been solved already since our verse was known as fr. 377 N.2 Nauck 1880, 682–683, and Bergk 1883, 515 n. 1, had shown that δῆμος was used here, not of the community, as usually, but of a single person, in the sense ‘commoner’. See LSJ s.v. II.1 (‘rarely of a single person’); Il. 12.212–213 οὐδὲ ἔοικεν δῆμον ἐόντα παρὲξ ἀγορευέμεν. This was the meaning of the term in the treaty of SIG3 9: not ‘community’ but ‘commoner’. The question is then what the difference between δῆμος and ἔτης would be. Bergk, loc. cit., gave a plausible answer: “ἔται, qui proprie sunt gentiles, deinde nobiles dicebantur, qui principem olim inter cives locum obtinebant, quique alias ἀστοί vel πολῖται appellantur”. Our verse should then be translated: ‘neither city nor commoner or gentleman’. As shown by the analogues in the treaties, it appears as if Aeschylus is employing here an official formula. Does this use of the language of administration lend a solemnity to the speech of Dike or does it add to its comical effect? 29. καρπουμένη[ι: If the construction adopted in line 27 is right, the dative, proposed by Fraenkel, is necessary. Lloyd-Jones inexplicably prints καρπουμένη[ς, though leaving line 27 unsupplemented. Diggle implausibly connects the participle with πόλις and not with the last term of the parataxis (ἔτης ἀνήρ), and so proposes καρπουμένη. 30. τωι  : Lobel and Radt. Actually, what was written ante correctionem was COI (λέξω σοι). C was erased but for its top curve. An attempt to change O to ω was left unfinished, ending with a wide U-like letter marked with two dots on each base side (.U.). The I is not written supra lineam, but has possibly its bottom end extended. The dots indicate that the correct τωι was written also flanked by two ·δ · dots in the missing margin. The same holds for ευ ὲ ρκε[c]. Other parallels in Aeschylus have σοι: Ag. 315 τέκμαρ τοιοῦτον σύμβολόν τέ σοι λέγω, Eum. 447 τεκμήριον δὲ τῶνδέ σοι λέξω μέγα, 662 τεκμήριον δὲ τοῦδέ σοι δείξω λόγου.

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

εὐδερκὲς (τέκμαρ) does not mean here ‘acute cernens’ (Italie) or ‘seeing brightly, bright-eyed’ (LSJ). It is passive (‘clearly seen’) and synonymous to Eum. 244 ἐκφανὲς (τέκμαρ) or Cho. 667 ἐμφανὲς (τέκμαρ). LSJ Suppl. corrected to ‘easily seen’. φέρεις or -ρειν Lobel in connection with the reading τῶι, even though ‘seen easily to bear’ is odd. If the three dots following ε in Radt’s edition (φερε[ ̣ ]̣ [̣ ) represent letters, it must be pointed out that Greek has no ending syllables of the type -ρε+3 letters. The tiny trace read ] · [ must be one of the dots that should flank the corrected τωι in the margin. The word, which had already annoyed Fraenkel (“was man eigentlich erwartet ist πρέπει”), must be the exclamatory imperative φέρε, ‘come on’, i.e., φέρε λέξον, spoken, however, by the Chorusleader in antilabe. This is the third antilabe to be found in Aeschylus besides PV 980, and fr. 78a (Theoroi).4; cf. Sept. 217. The Theoroi antilabe is the only fully developed one. The other two are cases of elementary divisions of verses between speakers (only one step beyond the extra metrum employment of interjections) and have nothing to do with the complex device exploited by other dramatists. Merely, one of the speakers cries out a disyllable interjection either in the opening of the verse or in its close. 31. “ἔθρεψε more probable than ἔθρεψα” (Lobel, followed by Lloyd-Jones). Others (Mette, Ph.J. Kakridis, Radt in app., Sommerstein, Collard) prefer the first person. ἔθρεψε is palaeographically impossible, since the upper part of E ought to be visible in the papyrus. Moreover, the information that she reared an unruly boy whom Hera bore to Zeus would be absurd if ‘she’ was also Hera. What Dike says is that she served as a nurse to a son of Zeus and Hera. Görschen’s ποτέ is very appropriate for describing the indefinite time of the divine myth. The historical present τίκτει is possible—the parallel of Eur. Bacch. 2 is adduced: Διόνυσος, ὃν τίκτει ποθ᾽ ἡ Κάδμου κόρη. However, the papyrus reads τίκ̣τεν̣. The top tip of an upright which survived is not necessarily an I. The scribe very often writes ν with the oblique starting a little lower than the top; e.g., 29 καρπουμεΝη[ι, 37 φοΝοc. The oblique’s head is here clearly visible in an enhanced image. 31–2. [ποτ᾽ οὐχ] | Ἥρα μιγεῖσα Ζηνί, θυμοιδ[ὴς πόσει (Merkelbach) may relieve Zeus of this unpleasant fatherhood, but does not offer the name of the supposed father, as one would expect in such a case. Furthermore, οὐχ Ἥρα μιγεῖσα is bad Greek. 32. θυμοιδ[ὲς βρέφος (Görschen) or τέκνον (Mette), θυμοίδ[η θεόν (Lloyd-Jones) are all possible. I would propose alternatively one further characterization after

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? θυμοιδῆ, e.g. κακόν, in the sense ‘base, evil’. But there are many more possibilities. For the meaning of θυμοιδής see Lloyd-Jones 1957, 578–579. I am uncertain whether the adjective is paroxytone or oxytone; dictionaries accentuate πεοίδης, ἰσχιοίδης, γαστρ(ο)οίδης, but, in prepositional compounds, διοιδής, ἐνοιδής, προσῳδής. The scribe, who elsewhere marks the ambiguous accents, did not accentuate here on the first two syllables. If he has done so on the missing last one, he must have written θυμοιδῆ/-ές. παῖς ... θυμοιδής, ‘irascible son’, may be playing with θυμηδής, ‘glad-hearted, dear’; the latter can be joined with παῖς: Le Guen-Pollet 1989, 72 no. 16 (Kaibel, Epigr. Gr. 403.7, Sebastopolis) παῖδας θυμηδέας, οὕς [τέκεν αὐτή]. 34. Given that βέλη closes the verse, ἄ]φυκτα was unanimously adopted, though the reading was not certain. Lobel describes the traces of the first letter as ‘apparently the ends of the overhang and central stroke of ε but the damaged right-hand loop of ρ or φ cannot be ruled out’. Radt notes ‘]Ε pot. qu. ]Φ, ]Ρ̣’, rightly, I believe. However, it is practically certain that Aeschylus wrote ἄφυκτα. It must be the scribe who changed it to ἄφευκτα, the form that prevailed in Hellenistic and still later texts. Lobel’s suspicion that βέλη should be emended to μέλη convinced some scholars, though his supposition of Sinis, the highway bandit killed by Theseus, was unnecessary. I had speculated ἀμῶν φορυκτὰ ... μέλη before, but now I propose a 3rd pers. unaugmented imperfect τόξευ(ε) with βέλη. Though verbs signifying ‘to aim at’ are some times in poetry constructed with the genitive (Il. 4.100 ὀΐστευσον Μενελάου), it is likelier that τῶν ὁδοιπόρων must go with the adjective: ἄφυκτα τῶν ὁδοιπόρων βέλη meaning ‘arrows inescapable by the passersby’, like Soph. Ant. 847 φίλων ἄκλαυτος, Soph. OC 1722 κακῶν δυσάλωτος. 35. Both lines 33 and 35 end with stops; then, it is likelier than not that 34–35 constitute a separate period. ἀνα]ι ̣δῶς, is difficult to read, as noticed by Lobel, since the only visible relic of the supposed ]ι ̣ is part of a horizontal at the middle of the line. It might be an η with its right-hand upright abraded, the left-hand one having been lost in the break. Radt disagrees: ‘]I ̣ legi posse pace Lobel haud negaverim.’ No doubt, ἀναιδῶς is clearly associated with 33 αἰδὼς δ᾽ οὐκ ἐνῆ[ν] φρ̣[ον]ήματι, but ‘shameless’ would be too soft for characterizing an act so atrocious as the one described. Speaking of corpses, ἀκηδῶς, ‘without care, without burying’, is most fitting. An accent is clearly visible above the omega of ἀρταμων, whose shape is, however, unusual. It seems like an upright descending with a slight bent to the left from its top, but hardly similar to a grave. Radt questions: ‘an accentus cir-

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

cumflexus erat, qui in ceteris quidem huius fragmenti locis rotundus, in aliis autem eiusdem papyri fragmentis (cf. F 451r9. 451s32b2. 53,10) angulatus est?’. It is true that both the size and the cant of the stroke match the right-hand leg of the angular circumflex, but with its left-hand leg wiped out, the traces of the wiping being visible. The half circumflex produced stands for a grave, i.e., an unaccented syllable. This means that a participle of ἀρταμέω (ἀρταμῶν) is excluded, and the only possible form left is ἀρτάμων, gen. pl. of ἄρταμος, ‘butcher’. Still, Radt leaves the word unaccented (ἀρταμων), while Diggle, Sommerstein, and Collard adopt Lobel’s ἀρταμῶν. If so, ἀγκύλαισιν, a much debated word (‘bow, missiles, thonged javelins’), becomes clear: ‘on butchers’ hooks’. Then, the verb in the opening of the verse becomes also clear: ‘and he hung, he used to hang’, ἤρτα τ᾽. The whole distich would run τόξευ᾽ ἄφ]ε̣υκτα τῶν ὁδοιπόρων βέλη | ἤρτα τ᾽ ἀκ]η̣δῶς ἀγκύλαισιν ἀρτάμων, ‘he used to shoot with the bow arrows inescapable by the passersby | and to hang them unburied on butchers’ hooks’. Aeschylus shows a predilection for words of the butchers’ vocabulary even in high drama: Pe. 463 παίουσι κρεοκοποῦσι δυστήνων μέλη; Ag. 1277 ἐπίξηνον μένει; PV 1022–3 αἰετὸς λάβρως | διαρταμήσει σώματος μέγα ῥάκος; fr. 193.11 R. (from Prometheus Lyomenos in Cicero’s translation) aduncis lacerans unguibus | Iovis satelles pastu dilaniat (= (δι)αρταμεῖ) fero. 36. At the top of fr. 9 (b) = 281b R. the bottom tip of a thin descending oblique followed after a short distance by the low end of a thicker stroke slightly oblique: the first Α, K or Λ, the second can be many things. ]ῶ̣ν ἔχαιρε κἀγέλα: The boy could rejoice and deride the victims while acting his deeds (δρ]ῶ̣ν) or when watching the spectacle (ὁρ]ῶ̣ν). Cf. Soph. Aj. 961 f. οἱ δ᾽ οὖν γελώντων κἀπιχαιρόντων κακοῖς τοῖς τοῦδε; El. 1300 χαίρειν παρέσται καὶ γελᾶν ἐλευθέρως. Whereas ἔχαιρε is absolute, ‘he rejoiced’, ἐγέλα takes the accusative, ‘he derided the ill’. κακόν may imply both the evil committed by the boy and the disaster suffered by the victims, which actually amount to the same thing. The verse suitably concludes the description of the boy’s deeds; see below on 34–37. 37. δι̯ώ]σ̣ας ἕλ̣[ωρα: ‘Having thrust aside as prey’. Cf. Eur. Heracl. 995 διώσας καὶ κατακτείνας ἐχθρούς, Soph. Aj. 1307 ὠθεῖς ἀθάπτους. The first letter, read as certain ε by Lobel and Radt, is actually a c, with its top part obliquely ascending, instead of the usual downward curving, as done elsewhere too by the scribe: e.g., 19 μα]ταιοιΣ, 20 ισχυοΣ, 22 αναπτυΣσεις. Also, the cant of the last visible stroke suggests α or λ.

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? Lobel read ὄζοι, Görschen ἄζοι, Radt ‘ὄ̣ζ vel ἄ̣ζ’. Görschen’s reading is unlikely, because one would expect the left-hand low oblique of alpha to be visible. Also, ἄζω is transitive, and I cannot see what φόνος, whether gore or corpse or murder, might parch. On the other hand, ὄζω is neutral, used of smell whether pleasant or foul. Therefore, the verb is constructed with a genitive showing the nature of the smell or with a neuter adjective or an adverb showing the quality of the smell. Here, if φόνος meant ‘murder’, ὧ]ν might be the complement of ὄζει, and the sense would be something like ‘their murder smelling like corpses’, an obvious tautology. The marginal correction στάζει would save us of all these problems, with φόνος meaning ‘gore’, since it is natural that the blood of the hung up corpses would drip down. Sommerstein and Collard admit the marginal reading into their text. However, the tautology does not seem to disturb Aeschylus; cf. Ag. 1309 f., which involves both blood dripping and flesh stinking: – φόνον δόμοι πνέουσιν αἱματοσταγῆ. – καὶ πῶς; τόδ᾽ ὄζει θυμάτων ἐφεστίων. See also the next entry. 34–37. Be that as it may, the sequence of the actions described in these verses seems confused. In 34 the boy is described as shooting inescapable arrows at the passersby. In 35 he is described as hanging something from butchers’ hooks, but what this is remains unexpressed; the only substantive that syntactically might serve as object are the βέλη of the previous verse, something obviously absurd. After this logical gap, in 36 the description of the boy’s deeds seems to have ended and he is described as rejoicing at his acts and deriding the suffering of the victims. In 37, however, the boy returns to his horrible deeds, as he thrusts away as prey the corpses that emit their bad smell or whose gore drips down. Therefore, I believe that the verses have been mixed up in the papyrus. More precisely, if verse 37 followed 34, both the logical sequence of the boy’s deeds and the syntax would be reconstructed. 34 37 35 36 38

τόξευ᾽ ἄφ]ε̣υκτα τῶν ὁδοιπόρων βέλη δι̯ώ]σ̣ας ἕλ̣[ωρα σώμαθ᾽, ὧ]ν ὄ̣ζοι φόνος, ἤρτα τ᾽ ἀκ]η̣δῶς ἀγκύλαισιν ἀρτάμων. ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ [̣ ̣ ὁρ]ῶ̣ν ἔχ[αι]ρε κἀγέλα κακόν. κἀγ]ὼ τόδ᾽ ἐχθα̣[ί]ρ̣[ουσα καὶ θυ]μ̣ουμένη κτλ.

·στάζ̣[οι·

Such verse transpositions, if detected, were usually marked by the corrector with a special critical sign, the ancora. Possibly, such a sign is marked under the marginal variant ·στάζ̣[οι· ( ⸔), half worn away now. Yet, I have the impression, which admittedly I cannot substantiate, that the correction στάζοι was

Aeschylus Hypsipyle?  

made on the confused sequence following the hanging of the corpses, and that the correct order requires no more than the stink of the corpses. 38. “Detesting this and being angry”. τόδε is connected only with ἐχθαίρουσα; θυμοῦμαι is normally constructed with dative or περί τινος, ἔς τινα, πρός τινα. Absolutely, like here, at Aesch. Ag. 1069, Eum. 801. 39. μετ]ερρύθμιξα (Mette) is too long. Of the three possible compounds: ἀνερρ-, διερρ-, and ἐπερρύθμιξα, I would have a slight preference for the last one because it seems to fit exactly with the left-hand margin. However, it is the simple ῥυθμίζειν that occurs in the sense ‘bring to order, correct, chasten, punish’: Aesch. PV 240–1 νηλεῶς | ὧδ᾽ ἐρρύθμισμαι, IC I xvi.5.35 (Lato, second cent. BCE) ἐρευνίοντες καὶ ῥυθμίττον[τες used of criminal correction. Cf. Antiph. com. fr. 35.4 K.-A. εὔρυθμος βακτηρία, ‘corrective cane’. Then, εὖ ἐρρύθμιξα? In spite of the Cretan legal occurrence, it seems like a colloquial usage rather than a formal metaphor. Cf. the Modern Greek colloquialisms κανονίζω, διορθώνω, συγυρίζω, σιάζω ‘set to order, adjust, tidy up’, but also ‘rebuke, punish’. Lobel considered the Doric form -ιξα as a sign of satyr-play comparing the Doricisms found in the Diktyoulkoi: μικκός, φίντων, ὀβρίχοισι, θῶσθαι. Fraenkel (1964, vol. 1, 252 n.1; cf. Fraenkel 1950, on Ag. 785) objected comparing Aesch. Su. 38 σφετεριξάμενοι and, possibly, Ag. 785 σεβίξω and Cho. 954–5 ἐπωρθίαξεν. Perhaps a distinction should be made between Doric vocabulary and Doric or quasi-Doric morphology. The first may be used to lend a provincial, possibly rustic, colouring to the text, as is the case in the Diktyoulkoi, the latter merely metri gratia, as with the tragic occurrences. πρ[οσήγα]γον χέρα Fraenkel: ‘I laid my hand (on him), I seized (him)’. Cf. Ar. Lys. 893 = Men. Sam. 582 μὴ πρόσαγε τὴν χεῖρά μοι; elsewhere ἐπιβάλλειν χεῖρά τινι. Dike was actually shown on the Kypselos chest seizing Adikia with one hand and striking her with a stick (Paus. 5.18.12), and so also on a 6th century BCE Attic amphora in Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum 3722; ARV2 11.3, 1618; LIMC vol. 3, s.v. Dike, no. 280). 40–41. I was not able to find elsewhere the jocular etymology of παῖς from παίω, ‘smack, hit’, which may have also been prompted by the colloquial shortened Attic imperative παῖ for παῖε: Xen. Cyn. 6.18 παισάτω πᾶς (παῖς codd.), παῖ δή, παῖ δή. παίειν has not survived in Modern Greek, only παιδεύω in the sense ‘pester’. It is from the latter that a similar folk etymology occurs in a Cretan tag: τὴν παίδαν ἔχουν τὰ παιδιά, γιαῦτος παιδιὰ τὰ λέσι; literally ‘pestering is the property of children, that is why they are called children’. But the real purpose of the joke is to

  Aeschylus Hypsipyle? consecrate caning by attributing its use to a supreme deity and to affirm its fated relevance on child-raising by means of name-magic. Another Modern Greek proverb declares that τὸ ξύλο βγῆκε ἀπ᾽ τὸν παράδεισο. It is used in the sense of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’, but literally it means ‘the rod (= the stick from the tree of knowledge) came out of Eden’. 41. ὁτι]ή: Cf. 9 above, there too at the opening of the line. No other causal conjunction, which is necessary at this place, fits the relics, the space and the metre. Besides this line, the play with the name of Δίκη appears repeatedly in the fragment: 6 δίκηι, 17 ἔνδικον, 40 ἐνδίκως. A spot level with the top of letters, but at such a distance from ο that renders ]λ certain. For τέλος in the sense ‘destination, duty, obligation’ cf. Ag. 908, 1202, Cho. 760, Eum. 743.

 Aeschylus’ Laïos TrGF III, T 58b + F 451v (+ p. 231) + 451s 6 + 451n (P.Oxy. 2256 frs. 2, 4, 1, 6, 8) The publication in 1952 of the hypothesis of one of the plays of Aeschylus’ Theban tetralogy that survived in P.Oxy. 2256 together with numerous other fragments of the tragedian (Lobel 1952, 36 ff.) provoked an exhaustive series of comments that were published thereafter. From the title of the play that should have been found in the papyrus fr. 2 survives only the last letter, a large upsilon between two highlighting horizontal strokes: ]Y̲. The likeliest option is the one proposed the next year after the publication by Bruno Snell (Snell 1953, 438): ΛΑÏΟC] | ΑΙCΧΥΛΟ]Υ. If we could assert that the contents of the papyrus were arranged in groups of tetralogies, then supplementing ΛΑÏΟC would be compulsory, since the didascalia could be found only before the first play of the tetralogy. Such an assertion is, however, completely improbable, and the likeliest proposition is that the Aeschylean plays were presented separately, perhaps under the alphabetical order of their title. Of the four titles of the tetralogy, it was only Λάϊος that had fewer letters than the genitive Αἰσχύλου, something that would explain why no visible traces remained in the left-hand side of the papyrus. The title Σφίγξ is equal-sized, but one should expect Σφὶγξ σάτυροι or σατυρική or rather a shortened σατυ. Of course, Σφὶγξ σατ]υ | Αἰσχύλου] or Αἰσχύλου] | Σφὶγξ σατ]υ are possible, but the satyr-play conjecture is excluded, if the Hypothesis of the papyrus fr. 4 has to be joined with the didascalia. Both above and under the ]Υ, there is sufficient unwritten area for supplementing either [Λάϊος] | [Αἰσχύλο]υ or [Αἰσχύλο]υ | [Λάϊος]. Aesthetically preferable is the first, which is corroborated, I do not know how decisively, by the observation of the fragment ἐκ τῆς Μουσικῆς ἱστορίας (Dionysius of Halicarnassus? Rufus?) that supplements Aeschylus’ Vita: αἱ τῶν δραμάτων ἐπιγραφαὶ προγράφονται τοῦ ποιητοῦ· ‘Νιόβη Αἰσχύλου’, ‘Ὁμήρου’ δὲ ‘Ἰλιάς’ (supplementum (e) Vitae Aeschyli; Herington 1972, 63; TrGF 3, p. 265, introd. to Νιόβη). The claim may theoretically imply that, unlike the other poetic genres, in drama it is the characters that predominate and not the poets, but in practical terms it facilitates the alphabetical edition.

 The present paper was first published in Logeion 6 (2016), 11–29, and 8 (2018), 1–9. My thanks to Professors S. Tsitsiridis and I.M. Konstantakos who, serving as readers of Logeion, saved me from several blunders and offered fruitful advice.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-003

  Aeschylus’ Laïos The papyrus fr. 2 of P.Oxy. 2256 gives the relics of the title and the main body of the didascalia. To its end, Radt (TrGF 3, p. 231, introd. to Λάϊος) adds fr. 1, where the end of the Hypothesis and the beginning of the dramatis personae are included, but at fr. 451v he rejects Mette’s (his fr. 169) proposal that the papyrus fr. 4, where the main part of an unnamed Hypothesis survives, should also be connected with fragments 2 and 1. Radt’s argument against the proposal was that the papyrus fr. 4 ends προλογίζ̣[ω](ν), as Lobel published it, whereas fr. 1 starts with ζων Λάϊ[ος. However, Lobel’s reading of fr. 4 was erroneous. The fragment ends with ΠΡΟΛΟΓΙ and no gap whatsoever, while fr. 1 starts clearly with ΖΩΝ. Simply, what usually occurs in papyri and MSS whose scribes plan their prose text to be flush with the right-hand margin, the scribe, seeing that the complete ΠΡΟΛΟΓΙΖΩΝ would disfigure the alignment, extended the horizontal of Γ almost to the end of the column’s margin, crossed this horizontal with the vertical of the I, and covered the end of the line with a ̑ that serves more as a filler than as a modern hyphen indicating the division of the word at the end of the line. The scribe uses fillers elsewhere too. A slash (/) after the last iota of τ̣[ετρ]αλογίαι marks the end of the didascalia, whereas another filler (7) appears between the hypothesis proper and the dramatis personae. Thus, ΖΩΝ continues normally in the first line of fr. 1. G.O. Hutchinson 1985, xviii, notes that Mette’s joining of P.Oxy. 2256 frs. 2+4+1 is impossible. He does not specify whether his judgment depends on the προλογί|ζων argument or on an examination of the fibres. In any case, fr. 1 is positioned under fr. 4 and to its left, so that no vertical fibres are coincident with the latter. Hutchinson says nothing about the other fragments of the same papyrus. Further, I do not understand why Snell considers the supplement ὑπόκειται ἐν | [Θήβαις] ‘wohl zu lang’. Obviously, he must have counted the missing letters but did not measure the space on the papyrus. In my measurement, ΘΗΒΑΙC has exactly the size needed. The pattern of the cuts of the papyrus, in which the left-hand edge of fr. 4 coincides with the right-hand edge of fr. 1, determines also the size of the supplements in fr. 4: it must be approximately equal to the reading ζωνλα[ of the first line of fr. 1. By reducing the area until the left-hand margin, Snell was obliged to replace the self-evident γε|[ρόντω]ν with the unlikely γε|[ραιῶ]ν. The only point where the letters needed for the supplement are fewer is at line 4 συνέστη|[κεν ἐ]κ. We should, however, take into account the scribe’s habit of divisio verborum in this Hypothesis, of leaving, that is, short or long gaps before some typical words or phrases (ante ὑπόκειται, ante συνέστη|[κεν, ante ὁ προλογί|ζων, and many more in the didascalia of the papyrus fr. 2). It seems then that similarly the scribe left a short gap ante ἐ]κ πολιτῶν.

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

These supplements ensure that the plot of Aeschylus’ Laïos takes place in Thebes and that the title character performs the prologue. I reproduce below the reconstructed text of the Hypothesis. ΛΑΪΟC

]

T 58b R. (P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 2) = DID C 4a Sn.

A Ι C Χ Y Λ Ο] Y̲

5

10

ἐπὶ ἄρχοντ(ος) Θεαγ]ε̣νίδου Ὀλ̣[υ]μ̣πιάδος [ο]η̣[ ́ ἔτει] α[´ ἐνίκα Αἰσχύλ]ος Λαΐωι, Οἰδ̣[ί]ποδι, Ἕπτ̣᾽ ἐπὶ Θήβα`ι ́ς, Σφιγγὶ σατύ(ροις).] δεύτερος ᾽Αριστίας ταῖς τοῦ πατρ(ὸς) Πρατίνο]υ τραγωιδ[ί]αις. τρί[τ]ο̣ς̣ [Πο]λυφράσμων] Λυκουργε̣[ίαι] τ̣[ετρ]αλογίαι. ἡ μὲν] σκηνὴ τοῦ δράματο]ς ὑπόκειται ἐν Θήβαις,] ὁ δὲ χο(ρὸς) συνέστηκεν ἐ]κ πολιτῶν γερόντω]ν. ὁ προλογίζων Λά[ϊος.

451v R. (P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 4)

p. 231 R. (P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 1)

τὰ π[ρ]όσω[πα τοῦ δράματος Λάϊ[ος — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Works cited in the apparatus criticus: Kakridis 1954, Kakridis 1955, Lobel 1952, Mette 1959, Snell 1953, Snell = TrGF 1 DID C 4a, West 1998, Zuntz 1981, Zuntz 1983. 1 sq. Λάϊος] | Αἰσχύλο]υ Snell, [Οἰδίπο]υ[ς Lobel, [ὑπόθεσις | Λαΐο]υ Zuntz 3 ἐπὶ ἄρχοντ(ος) Snell secundum Argum. pap. 2256 fr. 3 (Aesch. Supp.), ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Lobel secundum Argum. cod. M Aesch. Sept. (acc. West 1998) ἔτει] α[ ́ | ἐνίκα Αἰσχ. (quamquam ᾱ[ exspectaveris) sodales seminarii Thessalonicensis (ap. Kakridis 1954; Kakridis 1955), ἐνίκ]α | Lobel 4 Ἕπτ̣᾽ leg. Tsantsanoglou (ΕΠΤ_ΕΠΙ pap., ut in l. 11 ΠΟΛΙΤΩΝ_ΓΕ|) Θήβας pap.ac, Θήβαις pap.pc 6 πα|[τρὸς Πρατίνο]υ Snell, πα|τρº Parsons (ap. Hutchinson 1985, xviii), πα|τρὸς αὐτο]ῦ Lobel 8– 13 coniunxit Mette, omnia ad Laïon referens; contra dix. plerique 10 Θήβαις] Tsantsanoglou post Mette qui perperam ἐν [Θή|βαις dist., ῎Αργει]? Snell (‘Θήβαις wohl zu lang’) 11 sq. γε|[ρόντω]ν Lobel, γε|[ραιῶ]ν Snell 12 sq. ΠΡΟΛΟΓΙ ̑|ΖΩΝ leg. Tsantsanoglou, ΠΡΟΛΟΓΙ̣Ζ[Ω](Ν)| Lobel

  Aeschylus’ Laïos Irrespective of the Hypothesis, there have been many attempts at joining some of the numerous fragments of P.Oxy. 2256 (89 fragments in Lobel’s edition, 90 by adding P.Gen. inv. 98, as proposed by Maria Serena Funghi and Maria Chiara Martinelli 1996–7). Lobel recognized the connection of 2256 fr. 6 = fr. 451s 6 R. with 2256 fr. 8 = fr. 451n R., which he placed in consecutive columns (6 at the bottom and 8 at the top of the respective columns), placing also on palaeographical grounds fr. 7 to the left of 6, fr. 25 under 8, and fr. 24 to the right of 8. Br. Snell 1953, 439, similarly connected fragments 6 and 8, adding 2256 frs. 11 and 12 = fr. 451s 11 and 12 R., but also the large fragment 2256 fr. 9a-b = fr. 281a-b R., i.e., the Dike-fragment, which Lobel was inclined to consider a satyr-play. Ed. Fraenkel 1954 (= id. 1964) ascribed the joined fragments, the Dike-fragment included, to Aeschylus’ Aetnaeae. His proposal was based on the information offered in Aeschylus’ Vita 9 (ἐλθὼν τοίνυν [sc. Aeschylus] εἰς Σικελίαν Ἱέρωνος τότε τὴν Αἴτνην κτίζοντος ἐπεδείξατο τὰς Αἰτναίας οἰωνιζόμενος βίον ἀγαθὸν τοῖς συνοικίζουσι τὴν πόλιν), which, as he believed, tallies well with the dispatch of the goddess of Justice by Zeus to a certain place on earth (P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 9a-b = Dike-fragment) as well as with the references to peace, splendour, and prosperity for a certain city that occur in P.Oxy. 2256 frs. 6, 8. H.J. Mette 1959 (also id. 1963, 187–191) joined even more fragments of P.Oxy. 2256: 11, 13, 9a-b, 12, 7, 6, 8, 24, 25 (= Mette’s frs. 528–537), ascribing them reservedly to a satyr-play, which he names ‘Das Dike-Drama’, following Lobel, who speaks, however, only for the Dike-fragment (9a-b). Henceforth, scholars are divided between these two main directions, both however connecting the Dike-fragment with P.Oxy. 2256 frs. 6, 8 and their appendages. I select, from the subsequent treatments of the subject: (a) satyr-play, e.g., Antje Wessels 1999; (b) Aetnaeae, e.g., P. Totaro 2011. I believe that the Dike-fragment (P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 9a-b = 281a, b R.) is beyond doubt a satyr-play and has nothing to do with the Laïos fragments.1 I shall also propose that the poetic fragments P.Oxy. 2256 frs. 6 and 8 come from Laïos, and must be placed right after the Hypothesis of P.Oxy. 2256 frs. 2+4+1, belonging to the prologue mentioned in the Hypothesis, and so the speaker is Laius. Fr. 6, where the bottom margin is visible, must cover the lower part of the column that contains the Hypothesis, while fr. 8, where the top margin is visible, must belong to the next column. These are of course no more than speculations yet unproved. We shall attempt to attain some proofs through the text printed below and the commentary that will follow. I also joined the smaller fragments proposed by Lobel (frs. 7, 24), which, added to frs. 6 and 8, offer sensible text.  1 See the previous chapter on Aeschylus’ Hypsipyle?

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

First, the restored text: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

10

15

20

].[.]. . ] ] ·πεπραγμένη· ο]υ̣ς ἄγω πόλει ἐπ]ι ̣κλήτους̣ βροτοῖς ] μὲν ἡ πέλας ]ειν[ ν]εμεῖ πόλ[ιν]· κλέος δὲ λαμπρό]τητ̣[ος ἐκπ]έμπειν μέγα ἁγνῆς ἀνάσ]σης ἐ̣σ̣τὶν Εὐκλείας θεοῦ· αὕτη μὲν οὕ]τω· ⟦η̣δ̣[ε]⟧ δῖ ̣α δ̣᾽ ἥδε τιμία Π[αλλὰς βροτο]ὺ̣ς ζ̣ωννῦσα μὴ σπείρειν κακ[ά, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἕκ]α̣σ̣θ̣᾽ ἅ γ᾽ ἐστιν εἰρήνη βροτοῖς. ταῦτ’ οὖν ἐ]π̣αινῶ τήνδε· τιμ̣ᾶι γὰρ πόλιν ἐ̣ν̣ ἡ̣σ̣ύ̣[χοισ]ι πράγμασιν καθημένην. δόμων τ᾽ ἀέξει κάλλος ἐκπαγλού[μ]ενον (5) ἅ]μιλλαν ὥστε γειτόνων ὄλβωι κρατεῖν̣· οἱ] δ᾽ αὖ φυτεύειν ἠδ[ὲ] γῆς ἐπ᾽ ἐμπολὰς θυ]μῶι λέληνται δαΐας πεπαυμέ[νοι σάλ]πιγγος, οὐδὲ φρουρ̣ί[ων] ἐξ̣αι̣ σί̣ ω  ν̣ ὅπλοισι]ν̣ ἐ̣κ̣βα ̣ ίν[ουσιν (10) ̣ ̣ ̣ κά]τ̣θα̣ν᾽· εἰ δὲ̣ [

451s 6+7 R.

451s 24+451n R.

Works cited in the apparatus criticus: Ferrari 1982; Lloyd-Jones 1957; Lobel 1952; Merkelbach 1958; Mette 1959; Radt = TrGF 3; Sutton 1977; Stark 1956; Vysoký 1958. 1 ]γ̣[ο]υ̣ς̣ vel ]τ̣[ο]υ̣ς̣ Mette 3 ·πεπραγμένη·: in margine dextra varia lectio inter puncta 4 Mette; hoc vel ο]υς̣ ἁγὼ, ο]υσ̣α ᾽γὼ? Radt 5 H́ | ἐπ]ι̣κλήτους? Radt, πολ]υ̣κλήτους Snell ap. Mette 6 ] μὲν vel ]μεν | H̔; ἡ vel ἣ 7–10 fr. 7 (451s 7 R.) hic collocavit Tsantsanoglou secutus Lobel 7 ]EMΕ̑ΙΠΟΛ[. .]·; ν]εμεῖ? Radt, γ]εμεῖ Mette, ἠρ]εμεῖ Ferrari 8 Γ̣ vel Τ̣ edd.; certe Γ; κλέος δὲ λαμπρό]τητ[ος ἐκπ]έμπειν μέγα e.g. Tsantsanoglou, π]έμπειν μέγ̣α | σημεῖον ἡμῖν ἐσ]τ̣ι̣ν̣ Mette 9 certe ΤΙ; Ạ potius quam I Lobel | ÉI | ΟΥ· | Εὐκλ. Tsantsanoglou, εὐκλ. omnes | ἁγνῆς ἀνάσ]σης ἐστὶν Εὐκλείας θεοῦ Tsantsanoglou 10 αὕτη μὲν οὕ]τω· valde dub. Tsantsanoglou | ΗΔ[.]: prima littera clare deleta est, fort. etiam duae sequentes | ‘The letters after [primum] δ much rubbed; of the first only a dot level with the tops of the letters, next χ or perhaps λ’ Lobel, δ ̣λ̣ ̣ν Mette, δ ̣ ̣ο̣νδε Radt; ΔΙ̣ΑΔ᾽ΗΔΕ leg. Tsantsanoglou | ΤΙΜÍᾹ 11 π[ fr. 451s 24, quod Lobel hic collocavit; Π[αλλὰς Tsantsanoglou | ] ̣c̣ Lobel, hoc vel ] ̣ε̣ Radt; βροτο]ὺ̣ς suppl. Tsantsanoglou | Ὼ, Υ̑; ζ̣ὼννῦcα Mette, χωννῦcα vel c ̣ὼν Νῦcα vel c ̣cὶν Νῦcα ?? Lobel, Radt, cum Lobel consentiens, ζὼννῦcα scriptum fuisse negat; ad partem superiorem Z fragmen

  Aeschylus’ Laïos chartae parvum male positum est: ζὼννῦσα certe Tsantsanoglou 12 ]ΑC̣Θ’ÁΓ᾽ Tsantsanoglou, ἕκ]α̣σ̣θ̣᾽ ἅ γ᾽ legens; ]ν̣τ̣έ̣τ̣᾽? Lobel, ]ν̣τ̣άγ᾽ Mette, ἅπα]ντά γ᾽ supplens, τότ᾽? Snell ap. Merkelbach, ]ν̣τ̣ ̣́τ̣᾽ Radt 13 ] ̣ ‘a spot level with the tops of the letters’ Lobel; ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἐ]π̣αινῶ Tsantsanoglou, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐ]παινῶ ? Snell ap. Merkelbach, θεὸν δ᾽ ἐ]παινῶ Lloyd-Jones, μάλιστ᾽ (vel τορῶς δ᾽) ἐ]παινῶ vel σεβοῦντα]ς αἰνῶ Vysoký | ΔΕ· | Α̑I 14 initium legit Lobel | ΗΝ· 15 ΓΛÓY 16 ὩC 17 οἱ] δ᾽ αὖ dub. Radt, ἡ] δ᾽ αὖ ? Lobel, ἠ]δ᾽ αὖ Stark, ἠ]δ᾽ εὖ Merkelbach | ἠδ[ὲ] in oἱ δ[ὲ] (H deleto atque ΟΙ superscripto) et hoc fort., Ο deleto, inepte mutavit corrector | punctum ante lectiones superscriptas non est interpunctio | ΕΠΕΜΒΟΛΑC : Π supra Β a correctore scriptum; ἐπ᾽ ἐμβ/π-, ἐπ᾽ ἀμβ/π-, ἐπ᾽ ἐμβολαῖς omnia Lobel, ἐπ᾽ ἀμπολάς? (ἀναπολεῖν ‘arare’) Radt si versus excidit post 17; ἐπεμβολάς Radt in textu 18 θυ]μῶι? Lobel, ὄγ]μωι? Radt | ΛÉ; λέληνται : Dor. λῶ confert Sutton recte, λίπτομαι (coll. Aesch. Sept. 355, 380) confert LloydJones, λέλυνται Lobel, λελίηνται? Radt | ΔΑḮ 19 ]ΠΙΓΓ⟦ΟΥ⟧ΔΕ : supra deletum ΟΥ corrector ΟC̣OY scripsit | Ρ̣I;̣́ φρουρί[ων] Lobel | CỊ́; ἐξαισί[ων? Snell ap. Merkelbach, ἐξ̣α̣ισ̣ίων̣ Tsantsanoglou 20 ] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣]ωιν Lobel, ] ̣ ̣ ̣β̣αιν[ Tsantsanoglou; μεμνη]μ̣[έν]ο̣ι Mette; ὅπλοισι]ν̣ ἐ̣κ̣β̣αίν[ουσιν vel ἐ̣κ̣β̣αίν[οντες Tsantsanoglou 21 ‘τθ suggest κατθα̣ν or τυτθό̣ν’ Lobel, κά]τ̣θα̣ν᾽ leg. Tsantsanoglou

... having been carried out ... (acc. pl.) I lead into the city ... called in as allied to the mortals ... on the one hand, the one (fem.) close by ... will hold sway over the city. (And) it is (the task) of the (chaste la)dy goddess Eucleia to spread out the great (reputation of its splen)dour. (So far about her;) and on the other hand, this worthy daughter of Zeus, P(allas), who girds the mortals, may she not sow disasters, (but) each and all that make up peace for humans. (For these then) I recommend her. For she bestows honour upon a city that sits peacefully; and she exalts admirably the beauty of its buildings so that it prevails in contest of wealth over its neighbours. And the citizens are eagerly engaged in agriculture and the trade of their field products having ceased from the war trumpet; and they do not get out of their magnificent castles (under arms). ... has died; and if 1–3. From the first verse only the low ends of two vertical strokes survive followed by a tiny trace. Mette plausibly supplements ]γ ̣[ο]υ̣ς̣ or ]τ̣[ο]υ̣ς̣. Nothing survives from the next two verses, but in the right margin of the third verse, the word πεπραγμένη is written, flanked by two dots, rather a variant reading than an interpretation. Metrically it covers a full iambic metron, possibly the end of an iambic trimeter. What has been carried out in the past is uncertain, but, since the perfect participle is found in the prologue, it may well refer to the unknown starting point of the tragedy. Might the subject be ‘peace’, ‘restoration of legitimacy’, vel sim.? 4. The first surviving letter looks like ι, but the vertical is much longer than what is usual with iota. It is no doubt Y with its top fork effaced. Combined with

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

]ι ̣κλητους̣ in the next verse, it must be the accusative plural ending of a second declension noun or, less likely, the relative οὕς, if the reference is to a masculine plural object of ἄγω. 5. To Snell’s πολ]υ̣κλήτους I prefer Radt’s ἐπ]ι ̣κλήτους̣, ‘called in as allies’, even though it is rare in poetry (Ar. Pax 1266, Men. Dysc. 608, in the sense ‘invited guest’). ἐπικαλέω/-ομαι is also rare in poetry, but ἐπικέλομαι is predominantly poetic. Obviously those called in are gods. It is interesting that the speaker asserts that he is leading gods to the city as allies of the citizens. How could such a thing ever happen in drama? Or could ἄγω mean simply, just like ἐπάγω (LSJ s.v. I 4), ‘bring in, invite as aiders or allies’? No doubt the issue is about new gods or new hypostases of gods that are being introduced to the city by the speaker. But what would the visual application of this introduction be? Be that as it may, I am henceforth using, instead of ‘lead in’, the equivocal ‘introduce, -ction’. 6–7. ἡ πέλας must refer to one of the gods that are being introduced to the city, a female one, who will hereafter hold sway over or manage the city. It is uncertain whether the speaker indicates the goddess closest to him or refers to her as one who will be standing by, supporting, that is, the city. In the second possibility, H̔ may possibly stand for the relative ἥ. The punctuation at the end of line 7 is in the papyrus. 8. It is uncertain what ‘great’ this goddess is supposed to send. π]έμπειν μέγα | σημεῖον ἡμῖν ἐσ]τ̣ιν̣ Mette. Since, as it seems, the question is about the city’s reputation, I would prefer κλέος. μέγα κλέος is very common starting from Theogn. 867 ἀρετῆς δὲ μέγα κλέος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται. The addition of the small fr. 7 (451s 7), where Lobel loosely suggested (‘Perhaps from the left-hand side of the same column as fr. 6’), helps to conjecture, e.g., κλέος δὲ λαμπρό]τητ[ος ἐκπ]έμπειν μέγα; see next item. Theocr. 22.214–215 καὶ ἡμετέροις κλέος ὕμνοις | ἐσθλὸν ἀεὶ πέμποιτε (sc. Τυνδαρίδαι). ἐκπέμπειν is used by Aeschylus for ‘send forth’: Ag. 281 Ἥφαιστος Ἴδης λαμπρὸν ἐκπέμπων σέλας. 9. The usual interpretation takes εὔκλεια as a common noun: ‘of the god’s (or the goddess’s) glory’. I prefer Εὐκλείας θεοῦ, i.e. of Artemis Eucleia, the goddess in whose honour Boeotians and Locrians used to set up altars and statues in every marketplace (Plut. Arist. 20.6–8). We shall return to this goddess, when speaking specifically about Thebes. However, Eucleia’s worship is expanded in Greece. After the battle of Marathon, an hieron is established in Athens where she is worshipped together with Eunomia. In the second half of the 4th century,

  Aeschylus’ Laïos Eurydice, the mother of Philip II of Macedon, dedicates a statue to Eucleia (SEG 33:556 Εὐρυδίκα Σίρρα Εὐκλείαι); Chrys. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1987. Finally, in a 3rd century BCE Paros inscription (‘Mnesiepes inscription’, SEG 15:517, col. II.6), a Delphic oracle is recorded prescribing the institution of a precinct in honour of Archilochus, and of sacrifices to a number of gods among whom Artemis Eucleia is mentioned. The sentence in verse 8 was left pending, so we must find in this verse whose task it is to spread the reputation of the city’s splendour. It is the goddess Eucleia that personifies the attribute of good fame in Artemis. Since the latter is the genuine goddess, supplementing the typical epithets of Artemis before the name of Eucleia is legitimate: ἁγνῆς ἀνάσ]σης ἐστὶν Εὐκλείας θεοῦ; Ar. Thesm. 971 Ἄρτεμιν, ἄνασσαν ἁγνήν. The syntax follows the common genitive with ἐστὶ + infinitive, denoting the person whose nature, duty, custom it is to do what is set forth in the infinitive: Εὐκλείας ἐστὶ κλέος ἐκπέμπειν. 10. Since δῖα δ̣᾽ ἥδε τιμία obviously starts introducing another goddess, whereas the previous verse ends with punctuation in the papyrus, what remains for the first hemistich of this verse must be a phrase concluding the introduction of Eucleia. αὕτη μὲν οὕτω is given exempli gratia among many similar phrases employed by tragedians and others (Sept. 422 τούτωι μὲν οὕτως ..., Ag. 950 τούτων μὲν οὕτω, Cho. 453 τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὕτως ἔχει, PV 500 τοιαῦτα μὲν δὴ ταῦτα, Soph. El. 696 καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τοιαῦθ᾽, Eur. Andr. 361 ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν τοιοίδε, al.); Fraenkel 1950 on Ag. 950, pp. 431 f. Fr. 7.4 is published as ]τωιδ[, which obviously disproves the proposal αὕτη μὲν οὕτω. However, what is read iota is found at the edge of a gap quite distanced from the next letter. It must be H with its second vertical having left some traces. More important is, however, that the visible vertical is crossed out in the papyrus with an oblique stroke and a deleting dot above it. We cannot be certain whether the scribe did the same thing with the other two letters, since only a tiny part of Δ is visible and the next letter falls in a gap. Possibly, the scribe started the next sentence erroneously with ΗΔΕ (ἠδέ, ἡ δέ, ἥδε?), i.e. with a confusing ΗΔΕΔΙΑΔ᾽ΗΔΕ, which he later corrected by deleting the first ΗΔΕ. At any rate, with respect to size, αὕτη μὲν οὕτω fits precisely. 11. The one-lettered fr. 451s 24, ‘perhaps from the right-hand side of fr. 8’ (Lobel), obviously the first letter of the column, must give the initial of the name of ‘this highly esteemed daughter of Zeus’, no doubt Π[αλλάς. δῖα and Παλλάς are coupled, for instance, in Eur. Phoen. 666/7 δίας ἀμάτορος Παλλάδος. In Sept. 129–131 Athena is invoked as Διογενὲς (= δῖα) φιλόμαχον κράτος ... Παλλάς. In Sept. 501 she is Ὄγκα Παλλάς. After a gap, uncertain traces of the prongs of Y are followed by a clear C. The next letter looks ‘like the bottom left-hand of δ or

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

ζ’ (Lobel), but its upper part is undetectable. Since ΔῺΝΝΥ̑CA makes no sense, it is reasonable to resort to Z, whose upper part may have been scribbled in a flawed manner. However, by enlarging the photograph, I discern that a tiny piece containing the upper part of Z has been chipped off and was then placed slantwise, thus giving the impression of ‘the back of c’, as Lobel likens it. With Mette, Ι read quite certainly ζὼννῦcα, not χὼννῦcα, c.ὼν Νῦcα, c.cὶν Νῦcα as attempted by Lobel. δῖα δ̣᾽ ἥδε τιμία | Π[αλλὰς βροτο]ὺ̣ς ζ̣ωννῦσα. The claims that fr. 451n R. continues the text of fr. 451s6 R. in a new column are strongly verified, since Ζωστηρία was an epithet of Athena. Hsch. ζ 261 Ζώστειρα· Ἀθηνᾶς ἐπίθετον ἐν Βοιωτίᾳ; Lex. Seguer., Glos. Rhet. 261.32 Bekker καὶ Ἀθηνᾶ ζωστῆρα; Steph. Byz. 298 Meineke (s.v. Ζωστήρ = ζ 34 Billerbeck) τιμᾶται καὶ Ζωστηρία Ἀθηνᾶ ἐν Λοκροῖς τοῖς Ἐπικνημιδίοις. Also, a number of inscriptions: Schwyzer, DGE 319.2 (Delph., at the precinct of Athena Pronaia, vi/v BCE) [Ἀθ]άναι Ζο̄στε̄ρίαι; IG I³ 369.92 (Att., 426/5) Ἀθε̄ναίας Ζο̄στε̄ρίας; IG V,1 1116 (Lacon.) [Ἀ]θ̣αν̣αία[ι] [Ζο̄σ]τε̄ρίαι; IG VII 548 (Tanagra) Ἀθάν̣ας Ζω[στε]ι[ρ]ίας. We shall have to return to this goddess later on. ‘Pallas, who girds up the mortals ...’. I am not sure whether the repetition βροτοῖς at 12 sounded awkward to ancient ears, as it would to ours, though it might well be considered a sort of anastrophe. 11–13. μὴ σπείρειν from ζωννῦσα, is an infinitive of wish with a nominative subject (Od. 7.311, 24.376), ‘may she not sow disasters’. μὴ σπείρειν κακά suggests ἀλλά + accus. of an expression denoting the opposite of κακά. ἕκ]α̣σ̣θ̣᾽ ἅ γ᾽ ἐστιν εἰρήνη is difficult to read, but is an apt description of the benefits of peace; ‘each and all that constitute peace’. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἐ]παινῶ τήνδε rather in the usual sense ‘praise’ than ‘recommend, advise’. The two alternatives, sufferings on the one hand and peace on the other, reflect the double capacity of Athena, Πρόμαχος and Ἐργάνη, and the double usage of ζώννυμι, ‘gird up for battle’ (Il. 11.15, and frequently in the Iliad) and ‘gird up for labour’ (Hes. Op. 345). I suppose that the metaphorical use of σπείρειν was chosen precisely for associating the activities of the war goddess with her main function as Ἐργάνη, which was working the soil and farming. 13–16. Being a patron goddess of many a Greek city (πολι(σσ)οῦχος vel sim.), she ensures that the protected citizens enjoy the benefits of peace. At the same time, she exalts admirably the wealth and the beauty of the city, so that it prevails over its neighbours. It is clear by now that the speaker does not speak generally of the cities protected by Athena, but of the particular city to which he is introducing Pallas Athena together with Artemis Eucleia.

  Aeschylus’ Laïos 17–18. Restoration and understanding are hampered by several errors committed by the scribe. Undoubtedly the opening of the verse must be οἱ] δ᾽ αὖ (Radt interrogatively). ὄλβωι κρατεῖν̣ | ἠ]δ᾽ αὖ φυτεύειν (Stark) would be absurd, if the city was supposed to prevail over its neighbours in wealth and to cultivate plants. After finishing with the goddesses, the speaker, with a construction κατὰ τὸ νοούμενον, passes now on to the mortals (οἱ] δ᾽ αὖ = ‘and the mortals in turn’, i.e. ‘after the goddesses’), the citizens of the city in question. In the middle of the verse, the scribe corrects the originally written ἠδέ to οἱ δέ. I am not sure whether the horizontal stroke in the centre of the superscript o aims at crossing out the letter and introducing ἰδέ (‘and’) or at crossing out the whole correction. Τhere is no doubt that the initial reading (ἠδέ) is the correct one, since a partition οἱ δὲ ... οἱ δέ is unthinkable. The dot in front of the correction (·OI superscriptum) is not a punctuation but a diacritical mark referring to the new reading that would be repeated enclosed between dots in the margin (here torn off); see line 3 above (·πεπραγμένη·) or in fr. 9a.37 of the same papyrus (281a Radt; Hypsipyle ?) ὄ̣·ζοι pointing to the marginal variant ·σταζ̣[οι·. Obviously the juxtaposition of οἱ δέ and ἠδέ confused the scribe, who attempted all possible options. In any case, the citizens are eagerly engaged in agriculture and, as I shall propose, the trade of their field products. επεμβολαc pap.ac, επεμπολαc pap.pc This gave rise to numerous proposals (ἐπ᾽ ἐμβολάς, ἐπ᾽ ἐμπολάς, ἐπ᾽ ἀμβολάς, ἐπ᾽ ἀμπολάς, ἐπ᾽ ἐμβολαῖς), mostly by Lobel. Radt notes: ‘exspectaveris “alii plantare, alii arare cupiunt” [...], sed quomodo hoc e Graecis eliciendum sit non liquet’. He is not more specific, but ‘arare’ refers to ἐπ᾽ ἀμπολάς from ἀναπολεῖν, ‘plough’; cf. his supplement ὄγ]μωι, ‘furrow’. However, I believe that speaking of the general wealth of a city, it is less appropriate to distinguish between agriculture and horticulture as it is to complete the agricultural cycle by adding the revenue from trading the relevant products. Therefore, ἐπ᾽ ἐμπολάς, the corrected reading, is necessary, and γῆς ἐμπολαί is not the business of real estate but the profit made from the commerce of field products. Radt translates λέληνται as ‘cupiunt’. As for the form, it seems that Sutton (1977, 213) is right in proposing ‘a previously unattested middle perfect of λῶ’. Actually, λέληνται (the acute is in the papyrus) is legitimated by Hesychius’ entry λ 616 λελημένοι· λελιημένοι (-ληϊ- cod.). διανοούμενοι. ἐν τούτῳ τὸ λῆμα ἔχοντες. λεληματίσθαι γὰρ τὸ τῇ διανοίᾳ πρὸς πᾶν ὁρμητικῶς ἔχειν. The Hesychius entry, especially with τὸ τῇ διανοίᾳ πρὸς πᾶν ὁρμητικῶς ἔχειν, perhaps suggests less the sense ‘cupiunt’ than ὥρμηνται, ‘were eager for/to’.

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

18–20. The supra lineam supplemented omission of σάλ]π̣ιγγ᾽ οὐδέ clarifies the sense: δαΐας πεπαυμέ[νοι | σάλ]π̣ιγγος̣, οὐδὲ φρουρ̣ί[ων] ἐξ̣α̣ισ̣ίων̣ | κλπ. Mette’s proposal for 20 μεμνη]μ̣[έν]ο̣ι is reasonable, but I cannot make out the writing. Of the first visible letter, a high upright survives, joined in its bottom with traces of an oblique; obviously the right-hand upright of N. The second letter is described by Lobel as “the lower part of an upright with a small hook to right at its foot”; a description that suggests E. The third letter is also the lower part of an upright joined at its middle with a right-hand sloping oblique; possibly a K. The fourth letter is greatly rubbed out, but its faint top looks like B. Then ]ν̣ε̣κ̣β̣αιν[ is possible. The ἐξαίσια φρούρια must recall some specific famous fortresses, while getting out of them may imply offensive warfare, of which the citizens were also relieved. If the opening of line 20 indicates how the citizens would march out if an offensive campaign were to take place, then ὅπλοισι]ν̣, ‘under arms’, seems possible both sense- and sizewise. Depending on whether οὐδέ connects the phrase with λέληνται or πεπαυμένοι, we can write ἐκβαίν[ουσιν or ἐκβαίν[οντες. In any case, peace and success are not merely wished for as gifts of the goddesses, but they appear to be a real fact following a war experienced by the citizens. 21. ‘τθ suggest κατθα̣ν or τυτθο̣ν; neither can be excluded, but α̣ in one case, ο̣ in the other would be rather anomalously made’ (Lobel). However, α, with the ink of its lower part peeled off but still visible, is certain and even might be spared the underdot. Three letters seem to be missing before κα; e.g. νῦν κά]τθαν᾽· εἰ δὲ [? Obviously, the subject of κάτθαν(ε) is hidden in the closing gap of line 20. After having investigated the text, it is now time to examine the validity of the proposal that the two fragments come from Aeschylus’ Laïos, and specifically from its prologue. The Hypothesis (fr. 451v R. + P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 1), as reconstructed above, states ὁ προλογίζων Λάϊος, something verified in the ensuing characters’ list, where Λάϊ[ος holds the first place. If then Laius is the speaking character in the two fragments in question, it is surprising to hear him declaring that he is introducing certain gods to the city, i.e., Thebes. Two goddesses are specifically mentioned: 9 Artemis Eucleia and 10–11 Athena Zosteria. What is more, the two goddesses mentioned seem to be present and visible to the audience, if we read at 6 ἡ πέλας and at 10 ἥδε. Whether there were more of them or not, depends on whether the poetic text followed right after the introductory paratext in the first column of the play. This question can be answered only after an elaborate inspection of the vertical fibres on the back side of the papyrus, an inspection I am unable to make.

  Aeschylus’ Laïos Be that as it may, in order to gain a complete initial column, we should first add, with quite generous spaces at the joints, the height of the separate units that make up this introductory paratext (frs. 2+4+1: title, author name, didascalia, hypothesis proper, dramatis personae). Especially difficult is to calculate the height of the dramatis personae, since, apart from the surviving Λαϊ[, we do not know the number of the other characters. Further, we do not know whether the names were written in one or two columns. However, the paragraphos placed under Λάϊ[ must indicate that the names were written continuously in one line, as is often done in medieval MSS of Aeschylean plays. At any rate, adding the sum of the paratext height to the height of fr. 6, which gives the poetic text in the bottom part of a column, we still have a written column shorter than the only full column of P.Oxy. 2256 surviving, the fr. 9a, i.e., Hypsipyle ? In terms of height, the fr. 9a written column is 20.8 cm. high, whereas the sum total of the Laïos column units is c. 17.8–19.5 cm., depending on the size of the spaces between the units. In terms of text quantity, the verses missing cannot be more than 3 to 6, and they obviously come from the point of meeting of paratext and text, i.e., from the beginning of the tragedy. Could more gods be mentioned in these initial missing verses or in the column of fr. 8, after line 21? Both alternatives seem unlikely, because (a) the missing lines are insufficient while the words 4–5 ο]υς ἄγω πόλει ... ἐπ]ικλήτους βροτοῖς seem to be opening the reference to the gods (the two o-stem adjectives or pronouns, 4 ο]υς, 5 ἐπ]ικλήτους, need not necessarily suggest male gods), and (b) after 17 οἱ] δ᾽ αὖ, the issue seems to have passed from the gods to the citizens. If so, we may have to be content with the two goddesses. With Laius performing the prologue, it is only natural that the city in question is Thebes. We have already supplemented in the Hypothesis ὑπόκειται ἐν | Θήβαις], but the supplement by no means can be considered unequivocal. In any case, at what point of the myth can Laius enter his city introducing two deities who will ensure success and peace, following a war? From a maze of myth versions, what can be made out is that Laius, after the death of Labdacus, his father, remained in Thebes during the regency of Lycus. However, in revenge for the humiliating treatment of Antiope by Lycus, her twin sons Zethus and Amphion fought against and defeated him, conquered the city and killed or incapacitated Lycus, declaring themselves rulers. Finally, they drove out of Thebes Laius who fled to the royal court of Pelops in Pisa. During the rule of Amphion and Zethus, the brothers built in a miraculous way the famous walls of Thebes, obviously the φρούρια ἐξαίσια of line 19. When they perished, both after the violent death of their children, Laius returned to Thebes.

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

I believe that the dramatic time of Laïos is precisely the time point of this return. If 21 νῦν κά]τθαν᾽ is correctly supplemented, the reference must be to the death of the previous king, Amphion or Zethus, whoever of them died last. E.g., Ἀμφίων δ᾽ ἄναξ | νῦν κά]τθαν᾽·; cf. Eur. fr. 223.126 Κ. Ἀμφίων ἄναξ, from Antiope. The Thebans had to fight against Amphion and Zethus when the brothers confronted Lycus, but their succession was made peacefully. However, why is Laius accompanied in his return by gods? The two goddesses are specifically related to Thebes. We already mentioned the testimony of the Boeotian Plutarch about the worship of Artemis Eucleia in Boeotia and Locris (Arist. 20.6–8) βωμὸς γὰρ αὐτῇ καὶ ἄγαλμα κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀγορὰν ἵδρυται, καὶ προθύουσιν αἵ τε γαμούμεναι καὶ οἱ γαμοῦντες. She was a local heroine of Opuntian Locris, daughter of Heracles and niece of Patroclus. Her worship, because of her state of virginity, was syncretized with that of Artemis. So, the festival of Eucleia in Boeotia was coupled with that of Artemis (CID 1.9D.7 κηὔκλεια κἀρταμίτια). We have seen above her late occurrences, but also that already in the early 5th century, thanks to her ‘speaking’ name (= glory), she had been joined with Eunomia (= law and order) – and later with more Eu- personifications. If the proposals made above are probable (8–9 κλέος δὲ λαμπρό]τητ[ος ἐκπ]έμπειν μέγα | ἁγνῆς ἀνάσ]σης ἐστὶν Εὐκλείας θεοῦ), Aeschylus must be making a wordplay with her name. In the 2nd century CE description of Thebes by Pausanias, it is said that in the site of the agora, already deserted when Pausanias travelled there, close to the graves of the Niobids (9.17.1) Ἀρτέμιδος ναός ἐστιν Εὐκλείας, Σκόπα δὲ τὸ ἄγαλμα ἔργον. Scopas’ statue is, of course, posterior, but it may have been set up for replacing or coupling up an archaic statue. The latter is described by Sophocles in OT 158–167, where the Chorus invoke three gods for help: Athena, Artemis and Apollon. The invocation to the second of them (160–162) mentions Artemis Eucleia as positioned in the agora: γαιάοχόν τ᾽ ἀδελφεὰν (sc. of Athena) Ἄρτεμιν, ἃ κυκλόεντ᾽ ἀγορᾶς θρόνον Εὔκλεα θάσσει. The MSS give εὐκλέα or εὐκλεᾶ (Eust. εὐκλεῆ) connecting it with θρόνον, but many editors accept Elmsley’s conjecture Εὔκλεα, which depends on Schol. Soph. ad loc. Εὔκλεια· Ἄρτεμις οὕτω παρὰ Βοιωτοῖς τιμᾶται. No matter whether Sophocles states the name of the goddess verbatim or makes an indirect hint of her, there can be no doubt as to the identity of the goddess. Thus it appears that her ἕδος, her seated statue, was set up in the Theban agora, where Pausanias many centuries later saw her temple. It is questionable what κυκλόεντ᾽ ἀγορᾶς θρόνον means. Jebb (1883) considers it a hypallage for κυκλοέσσης ἀγορᾶς

  Aeschylus’ Laïos θρόνον, but his rendering ‘throne consisting of the round marketplace’ is not convincing. Yet, I believe that no hypallage is necessary, and what is implied is a small round temple in the agora, a sort of tholos, that housed the seated statue of the goddess. It is very important that Artemis Eucleia is also named γαιάοχος, here = πολιοῦχος, fully compatible with 7 ν]εμεῖ πόλ[ιν], ‘will inhabit, possess, manage, support the city’; cf. Aesch. Sept. 271–2 θεοῖς | πεδιονόμοις; Ag. 88 θεῶν τῶν ἀστυνόμων; Pers. 853 πολισσονόμου βιοτᾶς; Cho. 864 ἀρχάς τε πολισσονόμους. The second goddess, Athena, is not specifically characterized in OT 158–159: πρῶτά σε κεκλόμενος, θύγατερ Διός, ἄμβροτ᾽ Ἀθάνα. Pausanias is, however, again elucidating. After the mention of the temple of Artemis Eucleia, in the same paragraph, he adds: 9.17.3 πλησίον δὲ Ἀμφιτρύωνος δύο ἀγάλματα λίθινα λέγουσιν Ἀθηνᾶς ἐπίκλησιν Ζωστηρίας· λαβεῖν γὰρ τὰ ὅπλα αὐτὸν ἐνταῦθα, ἡνίκα Εὐβοεῦσι καὶ Χαλκώδοντι ἔμελλεν ἀντιτάξεσθαι. τὸ δὲ ἐνδῦναι τὰ ὅπλα ἐκάλουν ἄρα οἱ παλαιοὶ ζώσασθαι· καὶ δὴ Ὅμηρον, Ἄρει τὸν Ἀγαμέμνονα ποιήσαντα ἐοικέναι τὴν ζώνην (Il. 2.479), τῶν ὅπλων τὴν σκευήν φασιν εἰκάζειν. Pausanias’ interpretation of the epithet, no doubt reflecting the popular interpretation given by the Thebans, limits the wider sense we attempted to give to Zosteria when commenting on line 12 about its usage in Aeschylus. On the other hand, it is remarkable that, just like Eucleia, she is also mentioned with regard to her local worship in Locris, though not the Opuntian Locris, as Eucleia, but the Epicnemidian: Steph. Byz. 298 Meineke (s.v. Ζωστήρ = ζ 34 Billerbeck) τιμᾶται καὶ Ζωστηρία Ἀθηνᾶ ἐν Λοκροῖς τοῖς Ἐπικνημιδίοις. However, what would the scenic representation be, in other words, how would this introduction of two gods into the city be visually represented? We have seen above that their description is in both cases supplemented with reference to statues set up in the agora of Thebes. It is reasonable then to assume as a fact that the gods’ presence in the drama is symbolized by their statues. In two scenes of Aesch. Septem—significantly the third play of the tetralogy that starts with Laïos—we find relevant references. At 217 f. Eteocles is addressing the panicked Chorus: ἀλλ᾽ οὖν θεοὺς | τοὺς τῆς ἁλούσης πόλεος ἐκλείπειν λόγος. The Scholia ad loc. 217d remark: λέγεται γὰρ ὅτι, ὅταν ἔμελλε πορθηθῆναι ἡ Τροία, ἐφάνησαν οἱ θεοὶ τοῖς Τρωσὶν ἀνελόμενοι ἐκ τῶν ναῶν τὰ ἀγάλματα ἑαυτῶν. At 304 ff. the Chorus are addressing the city gods, apparently represented by their statues: ποῖον δ᾽ ἀμείψεσθε γαίας πέδον | τᾶσδ᾽ ἄρειον, ἐχθροῖς | ἀφέντες τὰν βαθύχθον᾽ αἶαν | ὕδωρ τε Διρκαῖον ...; And the Scholia ad loc. 304a note: εἴρηται δὲ καὶ ἐν Ξοανηφόροις Σοφοκλέους (fr. 452 R.) ὡς οἱ θεοὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰλίου φέρουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων τὰ ἑαυτῶν ξόανα, εἰδότες ὅτι ἁλίσκεται ἡ πόλις. Euripides exploits the theme

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

in the prologue of the Troades, where Poseidon appears abandoning the city: 25 ff. λείπω τὸ κλεινὸν Ἴλιον βωμούς τ᾽ ἐμούς· | ἐρημία γὰρ πόλιν ὅταν λάβηι κακή, | νοσεῖ τὰ τῶν θεῶν οὐδὲ τιμᾶσθαι θέλει. And at 1071 ff., the Chorus are addressing Zeus: φροῦδαί σοι θυσίαι χορῶν τ᾽ | εὔφημοι κέλαδοι κατ᾽ ὄρ|φναν τε παννυχίδες θεῶν, | χρυσέων τε ξοάνων τύποι, where noticeable is the reference to χρυσέων ξοάνων τύποι. The Septem Scholia both times comment on references to the ancient Greek belief that the patron gods of a city abandon it when its conquest by the enemy is imminent. It is, however, noteworthy that the belief is associated with the presence and the removal of the gods’ statues. Anyhow, Thebes is not conquered in the Septem, and the gods need not abandon it. Yet, as we discussed above, Thebes had been conquered in the past by Amphion and Zethus, who drove Laius, the legitimate king, out of the city. Nothing is known about the city gods, whether they abandoned the city or not, with or without their statues. On the contrary, given the relations of the conquerors’ mother Antiope with Zeus and of Amphion’s filial relation with the father of the gods, as well as Antiope’s association with Aphrodite and of the twin brothers with Hermes, I would consider the abandonment of the city by the gods very unlikely. Furthermore, the rule of Amphion and Zethus has by no means been adverse on Thebes. They offered her the famous citadel, built miraculously by Amphion, while Zethus offered her through his wife (Θήβη) the name she will be known thereafter in history. The subsequent contrast with Artemis and Apollon, which led to the extermination of their wives and children, or at least only Amphion’s, and then to the tragic death of both brothers, does not seem to be related with the conquest of Cadmeia by them. Even after their death, they enjoy heroic honours on their graves. Further, though there are many references to the gods abandoning a conquered city, there is none, to my knowledge, to gods returning to a liberated one and to restored kings leading the gods back. Therefore, it is possibly likelier that, with Laius’ return, i.e. with the restoration of the Labdacids to the throne, two new deities were added to the list of the guardian gods of Thebes, deities who will specifically ensure, even with their eloquent names, peace and prosperity for the city. The addition is witnessed through temples and statues in the agora, and symbolically illustrated as entrance into the city through the guidance of Laius. They have entered Thebes, but do not seem to have returned there. After all, the verb used in line 4 is ἄγω not κατάγω. Yet, though the situation is quite different, the conception of the gods entering or leaving the country with their representative image is the same. Only, to save Aeschylus from the crude image of Sophocles’ Ξοανηφόροι, where the gods carry their wooden images on their shoulders, we can surmise that the goddesses are already symbol-

  Aeschylus’ Laïos ized by their statues placed on the acting-space, which represents the acropolis of Cadmeia (Sept. 240–241 τάνδ᾽ ἐς ἀκρόπτολιν, τίμιον ἕδος, ἱκόμαν), which must be the equivalent of Sophocles’ (and Pausanias’) agora of Thebes. Tragically, however, the inception of this new era of euphoria signals also the start of the family tribulation whose thread from generation to generation will be unrolled in the Aeschylean trilogy. What remains stable during the vehement changes in the course of the story is the attendance of the gods, in other words of their statues, that serve as stage props, demonstrably in the first and third dramas, Laïos and Septem, but no doubt in Oidipous too, though nothing survives from it. Combining these elements, it is reasonable to infer that Laïos opened with the title character standing at the acropolis/agora of Cadmeia, right after his return from exile. We can guess that his first words would have been a version of the typical saluting prayer to the patron gods of the city and to the native land of the returning or arriving fighter or traveller or exile. Laius is supposed to have brought along two goddesses, Artemis Eucleia and Athena Zosteria, whose statues in the opening of the play are already set up in the acting-space. We mentioned above Soph. OT 158–167, where the Chorus invoke a triad of guardian gods (164 τρισσοὶ ἀλεξίμοροι), no doubt at the marketplace of Thebes: Athena, is invoked θύγατερ Διός in OT, Artemis, explicitly or by implication identified as Eucleia, and Apollon specified as Φοῖβος ἑκαβόλος, but elsewhere in the same passage as Paean, i.e., healer of the plague that afflicts the Thebans in OT, or Lykeios. If Apollon has to be added here too, the only place I can imagine this could be done is the formal salutation at the opening of Laïos that we mentioned above, in other words, the initial part missing in the reconstruction of the papyrus. Cf. the beginning of the prologue of Choephoroi, with the returning Orestes invoking Hermes and his fatherland: Ἑρμῆ χθόνιε, πατρῶι᾽ ἐποπτεύων κράτη, | ... | ἥκω γὰρ εἰς γῆν τήνδε καὶ κατέρχομαι. It is better, therefore, to take Apollon as already established in Thebes and the two incoming goddesses forming with him the protecting triad that recurs in OT. In Laïos, the two deities that are introduced are represented, as mentioned above, by their statues on the acting-space that represents the acropolis/agora of Thebes. This acting-space must have already been furnished with statues of other guardian gods. The design can be reconstructed from the third play of the trilogy, the surviving Septem contra Thebas. There, the panic-stricken Chorus have recourse to the images of the gods for help (93–99):

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

95

τίς ἄρα ῥύσεται, τίς ἄρ᾽ ἐπαρκέσει θεῶν ἢ θεᾶν; πότερα δῆτ᾽ ἐγὼ ποτιπέσω βρέτη δαιμόνων; ἰὼ μάκαρες εὔεδροι. ἀκμάζει βρετέων ἔχεσθαι· τί μέλλομεν ἀγάστονοι;

In the rest of this introductory melic part and the stasimon that follows, the Chorus supplicate in front of each image: 129–131 Athena (Διογενὲς ... κράτος ... Παλλάς), 131–135 Poseidon, 137–139 Ares, 140–145 Aphrodite (Κύπρις), 146–147 Apollon (Λύκει᾽ ἄναξ), 148–149 Artemis (Λατογένεια κούρα), 151–152 Hera, 153– 154 Artemis again, 159–161 Apollon again, 162–165 Athena again (δῖα ... μάκαιρ᾽ ἄνασσ᾽ Ὄγκα). With regard to the last, καὶ δῖ᾽ ὅθεν was D. Young’s (1972, 20) palmary emendation of the unmetrical καὶ Διόθεν. The positioning of the statues of the gods in the acting-space proposed by Liapis 2019, 96–99, in a circular arrangement (differently Thalmann 1978, 88– 89), is convincing. It is important to add that, in their return course, the chorus invokes fewer gods, with the statues of Hera, Aphrodite, Ares, and Poseidon omitted. The statues left are of the three basic protectors of the city: Artemis, Apollon, and Athena. It is also important that, after the statue of Zeus was rightly subtracted in the count by Liapis, the remaining statues are seven, equal in number with the Theban and the Argive heroes, as well as with the gates of Thebes. The circular arrangement in the orchestra’s circumference would enhance spectacularly the movement of the chorus, but would also semiotically illustrate the besieged city, with the circumference standing for the city’s walls and each statue standing for a gate. In the ‘Sieben Redepaare’ scene (Sept. 375– 676) Aeschylus invests most gates with a patron god, though in an order different from the one followed by the chorus in their invocation song. 1. Proitides→Ares (414), 2. Elektrai→Artemis (449–450), 4. Onkaie→Athena (501), 6. Homoloides→Apollon (618), possibly, 3. Neistai→Poseidon (hippios? 475–476). All other references in the papyrus seem consistent with what we know about Thebes. She no doubt predominated over her neighbours in architectural splendour and prosperity, and her wealth came from agricultural production and commerce. At the same time her seven-gated fortification walls were so prominent that their construction entered the realm of legend. However, there is still more that can be deduced from the evidence offered by the papyrus. It is well known that a new cult could be instituted in antiquity almost exclusively through divine advice. Kings and other leaders only rarely decided to sanction a new worship without prior religious counsel. Whether in

  Aeschylus’ Laïos myth or in history, the typical adviser was an oracle, predominantly the Delphic oracle. Therefore, a prerequisite for the introduction of the two deities was a visit to an oracle prior to the new king’s entrance into the city. And it is a good fortune, both in myth and in drama, that the Delphic oracle was right on the road of Laius’ return to Thebes, by boat via north Peloponnesus. The new king was, of course, ignorant of what the future held in store for him personally, so the advice he sought from Apollo must have concerned solely his kingship. People used to consult an oracle before starting an enterprise (μαντεύεσθαι περὶ σωτηρίας). So, Laius may have asked Apollo the typical question made in similar circumstances: τίνι ἂν θεῶν θύων καὶ εὐχόμενος shall I secure a successful leadership for my citizens, i.e., σώσω πόλιν?2 The oracle must have advised him to establish the cult of Artemis Eucleia and Athena Zosteria, adding them to the divinities already worshipped in Thebes. The whole group of divinities, together with those added by Laius, not only is listed in Septem but was also represented on Aeschylus’ acting-space by their statues (Sept. 220 ἅδε πανάγυρις, 251 ξυντέλεια). Formerly, there was a common agreement among scholars that Laïos ends with the death of the titular character. Despite the individual scenarios or the different arguments, this was actually proposed by the main literature on the point.3 To quote only Timothy Gantz (1993, 491): ‘the drama probably began with Laius setting out from Thebes (for Delphi?) and ended with a messenger speech announcing his demise at a crossroads’.4 It can now be claimed that both Gantz’s beginning and his end are disproved. The beginning is evident from the papyrus. Concerning the end, it would be impossible for a dramatist to manage the dramatic time of a play which would begin with the entrance of a young unmarried character and would end with his murder many years later by his son who had in the meantime grown up to maturity. Nonetheless, both the birth and exposure of Oedipus and the murder of Laius are mentioned in Laïos. The first mention appears in fr. 122 R. (χυτρίζειν): Sch. V Ar. Vesp. 289e (ὃν ὅπως ἐγχυτριεῖς) ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκτιθεμένων παιδίων ἐν χύτραις· διὸ καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἀποκτεῖναι (τὸ ἐκτιθέναι Weil) χυτρίζειν ἔλεγεν ἐν Πριάμωι (fr. 532  2 Cf., e.g., Xen. Anab. 3.1.6 ἐλθὼν δ᾽ ὁ Ξενοφῶν (sc. in Delphi) ἐπήρετο τὸν Ἀπόλλω τίνι ἂν θεῶν θύων καὶ εὐχόμενος κάλλιστα καὶ ἄριστα ἔλθοι τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν ἐπινοεῖ καὶ καλῶς πράξας σωθείη. Also, numerous similar examples in oracular tablets from Dodona: Dakaris/Vokotopoulou/Christidis 2013. 3 Robert 1915, spec. vol. I, 252–283; Stoessl 1937; Lloyd-Jones 1971, 119–123; Podlecki 1975, 8– 14; Hutchinson 1985, xxii f.; Gantz 1993, 490–491. 4 Lloyd-Jones 1971, 119–123, has claimed that the subject of Laïos was the abduction and rape of Chrysippus and the boy’s subsequent suicide, followed by the curse of Pelops.

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

R.) καὶ Αἰσχύλος Λαΐωι (Λάξω V; corr. Dind.) καὶ Φερεκράτης ** (fr. 281 K.-A.); cf. Hsch. χ 851 Hansen/Cunningham. χυτρίζειν· ἐν χύτραι τιθέναι (corr. Kuster); Sch. RVE Ar. Ran. 1190 (ἐξέθεσαν ἐν ὀστράκωι [sc. Oedipum; fort. ad Aesch. tragoediam Laïos spectat]) ἐπεὶ ἐν χύτραις ἐξετίθεσαν τὰ παιδία· διὸ καὶ χυτρίζειν ἔλεγον. It seems that the verb is used in Ar. Vesp. in the meaning ‘to pot’, i.e., to boil up in the pot, a metaphor from cooking, in the general sense ‘have done with’ (so MacDowell 1971 ad loc.; cf. Sommerstein 1983 ad loc.); the Vespae passage by no means could mean ‘Make sure you expose him in a pot’. However, its initial use in Soph. Priamos and Aesch. Laïos has certainly to do with the manner of exposing unwanted children (Alexandros in Sophocles, Oedipus in Aeschylus). The second mention occurs in fr. 122a: Et. Gen. A Lasserre/Livadaras α 970 (ἀπάργματα) 9 ἦν γάρ τι νόμιμον τοῖς δολοφονήσασιν ἀφοσιῶσαι τὸν φόνον διὰ τοῦ δολοφονηθέντος ἀκρωτηριασμοῦ. … 16 ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐγεύοντο τοῦ αἵματος καὶ ἀπέπτυον, Αἰσχύλος ἐν ταῖς Περραιβίσιν (fr. 186a R.; πρὸς λέβισιν A, corr. Reitzenstein) ἱστορεῖ καὶ ἐν τῶι Λαΐωι (fr. 122a R.; περὶ Λαΐῳ Α, περὶ del. Reitzenstein). Hutchinson 1985, p. xix, doubts Reitzenstein’s conjecture on the grounds that the described purification custom “is associated with premeditated murder, not with such homicide as Oedipus perpetrated”. However, in the context of myth and drama, is there any difference between premeditated murder and murder predetermined by the god? As for the intrusion of περί, it is very likely that it passed before Λαΐωι from a super lineam emendation of the manuscript’s πρὸς (λέβισιν) into Περ(ραιβίσιν). Aesch. fr. 354 R. from Plut. De Is. et Os. 20.358e, ἀποπτύσαι δεῖ καὶ καθήρασθαι στόμα, though in a different meaning, reveals the verse whether of Perrhaebides or Laïos. The two mentions consolidated the view that when Laïos began, Oedipus must have already been born. However, how can the papyrus evidence be reconciled with these confusing mentions of Oedipus? The stratagem used in tragedy for bridging the gap between present action and future events is, of course, divination, whether oracular responses from official oracles like Delphi or prophecies from private prophets like Teiresias or both. Apollo’s oracular response has clearly preceded the opening of the play. However, apart from advising Laius to introduce two new cults, the oracle must have also stated that the king would keep the city safe if he stayed childless until his death. This second portion of the oracle, which is obviously the one closely linked with the tragic aspect of the story, is referred to in Septem 749 by the words θνάισκοντα γέννας ἄτερ σώιζειν πόλιν. The oracle is preceded in the Septem by the statement (745–748) Ἀπόλλωνος … τρὶς εἰπόντος ἐν μεσομφάλοις Πυθικοῖς χρηστηρίοις, which some interpret as implying three separate warnings, whether in the same visit or in three succes-

  Aeschylus’ Laïos sive visits to Delphi. The repetition would convey either the god’s forbearance and fatherly interest (‘the god advised him again and again’; Sch. ad loc. (745– 750a) τὸ φιλάνθρωπον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐμφαίνεται διὰ τοῦ ‘τρίς’), or Laius’ growing impatience. I believe that things are simpler. The visit to Delphi can well be the single one made before Laius’ first entrance as a king into Thebes and dramatically posited before the prologue of the play. However, the oracle must have had a triple structure, as was possibly the case with formal oracles given to officeholders such as kings and archons. Τhe triple repetition, as is usual with ritual invocations and prayers, conferred solemnity and irrevocability. Cf., for instance, at Pind. Pyth. 4.61–62, the Delphic oracle to Battus: ἅ (sc. Pythia) σε (sc. Battus) χαίρειν ἐστρὶς αὐδάσαισα πεπρωμένον | βασιλέ᾽ ἄμφανεν Κυράναι. A Delphic oracle surviving in full is the one given to Mnesiepes about the founding of the Archilochus temenos in Paros (Paros, 3rd c. BCE, SEG 15.517, Α, col. II, 1–15). We notice there a triple repetition of the phrase Μνησιέπει ὁ θεὸς ἔχρησε λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον εἶμεν (lines 1, 8, 14), each time followed by Apollo’s advices: (a) Μνησιέπει ὁ θεὸς ἔχρησε λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον εἶμεν ἐν τῶι τεμένει, ὃ κατασκευάζει, ἱδρυσαμένωι βωμὸν καὶ θύοντι ἐπὶ τούτου Μούσαις καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι Μουσαγέται καὶ Μνημοσύνηι· θύειν δὲ καὶ καλλιερεῖν Διὶ Ὑπερδεξίωι, Ἀθάναι Ὑπερδεξίαι, Ποσειδῶνι Ἀσφαλείωι, Ἡρακλεῖ, Ἀρτέμιδι Εὐκλείαι. Πυθῶδε τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι σωτήρια πέμπειν. (b) Μνησιέπει ὁ θεὸς ἔχρησε λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον εἶμεν ἐν τῶι τεμένει, ὃ κατασκευάζει, ἱδρυσαμένωι βωμὸν καὶ θύοντι ἐπὶ τούτου Διονύσωι καὶ Νύμφαις καὶ Ὥραις· θύειν δὲ καὶ καλλιερεῖν Ἀπόλλωνι Προστατηρίωι, Ποσειδῶνι Ἀσφαλείωι, Ἡρακλεῖ. Πυθῶδε τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι σωτήρια πέμπειν. (c) Μνησιέπει ὁ θεὸς ἔχρησε λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον εἶμεν τιμῶντι Ἀρχίλοχον τὸμ ποιητάν, καθ᾽ ἃ ἐπινοεῖ. Note that all the Olympian gods are supplied with a distinctive epithet. Interesting is the inclusion of Artemis Eucleia. Though numerous oracles are found in inscriptions, most of them occur in reported speech, since the officials responsible for setting up the inscription were interested in the oracle’s essence but not in its wording, so that the possible original triple structure is lost. However, a similar triple oracle, also concerning the introduction of worships and sacrifices, survived in an inscription, unfortunately in desperate condition, in a Scythia Minor Greek colony (Kallatis, 2nd c. BCE, IScM III 48.B): (a) ends in line a.3, (b) a.4– b.7, (c) b.8–11, each item being preceded by ὑπὲρ + genitive of the sector the introduced gods were supposed to protect (e.g., b.8 ὑπὲρ τᾶς λε[ιτουργίας πρὸς τοὺς θεούς (?)) and ending in Ἀπόλλωνι σωτήρια πέμπειν. A fourth item (b.12) may be a recapitulatory [ὑ]πὲρ τῶ[νδε (?). A second contemporary Kallatis inscription (IScM III 49) preserves also the same oracle, possibly in triple structure, but its end is truncated.

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

Naturally, the triple structure is not mentioned by Aeschylus in the Septem for enriching the oracle with a historical detail. It is stressed for denouncing Laius, who in spite of the triple repetition was careless about the warning, and acted against the god’s will. Of course, it is a different issue if, in parallel, the τρίς repetition is poetically exploited by Aeschylus for highlighting the third generation which will experience the fulfillment of the oracle, as if each item of the oracle stood for one of the generations. A first remark about the wording of the oracle (θνάισκοντα γέννας ἄτερ σώιζειν πόλιν) is that it is absolutely clear, just as the first portion about the new cults must have also been. As Tucker (1908) ad loc. remarks, without knowing, of course, the first portion of the oracle, Apollo ‘is not the Loxias, the Riddler, in this instance’. Yet, the two fragments of Laïos cited above patently exhibit the characteristics of riddling oracular language: abstruse words (χυτρίζειν for ἐκτιθέναι or ἐκτιθέναι ἐν ὀστράκωι, i.e., killing an unwanted baby by exposing it inside a pot in the wilderness), arcane expressions (ἀποπτύσαι καὶ καθήρασθαι στόμα for ἀφοσιῶσαι τὸν φόνον), obscure but not incomprehensible. As Gilbert Murray notes in another case: obscuritas sermonis prophetam decet.5 Then, it is very likely that these fragments were not included in the original oracle, but in a subsequent prophecy, possibly by Teiresias.6 Laius’ prologue started with a mention of the visit to Delphi, but the oracle itself must not have been directly reported. Following the optimistic prologue and the promising expectations, it is expected that the elders of the chorus, in the first stasimon, should share the king’s good hopes. Possibly, right after that, the king reports the second part of the oracle. However, this second part must have raised questions both to the king himself and the elders, since they would be unable to comprehend how a successful king could preserve the city safe, if he was supposed to cut off the line of the dynasty and thus exterminate the very kingship he was initiating. It is worth noticing that, unlike Eur. Phoen. 18–20: μὴ σπεῖρε τέκνων ἄλοκα δαιμόνων βίαι· εἰ γὰρ τεκνώσεις παῖδ᾽, ἀποκτενεῖ σ᾽ ὁ φύς, καὶ πᾶς σὸς οἶκος βήσεται δι᾽ αἵματος, and the fake oracles that accompany the hypotheses of Soph. OT and Eur. Phoen., the oracle, as is quoted in the Septem does not mention a murder of Laius by his own son.

 5 App. cr. on PV v. 860, in his Aeschylus edition. 6 For Aeschylus’ utilization of oracular language see Tsantsanoglou 2013.

  Aeschylus’ Laïos Then, how could the play close, if we are to expect a length of the dramatic time commensurate with both Aristotle’s descriptions and our observation, at the end of which a περιπέτεια also in Aristotle’s sense would come up, a new unexpected event, that is, that would reverse the course of the play? After excluding the possibility that the play ends with Laius’ murder, the only reversal I can imagine consists in the substantial change of the atmosphere, as it would be reflected in the choral parts, where the initial euphoria would now turn to concerns and anxiety about the future of the royal family. But what could that unexpected event be? Already Carl Robert 1915, vol. I, 278, had noticed that the story narrated in Hyginus fab. 67, in prodigiis ostendebatur mortem ei adesse de nati manu, which is included like foreign body among Sophoclean and Euripidean stuff in the mythographer, could well pass for Aeschylean. However, unaware of the papyrus, Robert connected the portents and their prophetic interpretation with Laius’ last hours. The king rushed to Cithaeron to check whether the exposure in a pot had been accomplished or not (but wasn’t it too late after so many years?), and on the way came across Oedipus. In any case, the new evidence demonstrates that the portents must have shown up right after the king’s initial entrance into Thebes and his first concerns about the meaning of Apollon’s oracle. In the Septem, it is clear that the prime issue of the play is the dilemma between city and genos, and there can be no doubt that the same issue would be prominent also in the second play of the trilogy, Oidipous. In the opening of the first play of the Theban trilogy, the genos does not exist yet, since Laius is unmarried. But the question of his marriage with Jocasta, the sister of Creon, the leading Theban magistrate, must have been raised early in the play. Laius must remain puzzling over the interpretation of the Delphic oracle and concerned about obedience to it or not. He did not have many options. He could either abide by the will of the god and thus stay unmarried or marry and stay childless or violate the oracle altogether. The trilemma must have been discussed between the king and the Chorus, but the schema of the conflict would be completed if there existed a character who would support defying Apollo’s advice on the part of Laius. This character can only be Creon, brother of Jocasta and mediator for her marriage to the king. The elders of the Chorus have already experienced at least one reign, that of the brothers Zethos and Amphion, which had a tragic end with the harsh punishment by Apollo and Artemis of their whole families. However, I believe that the elders would be rather concerned with the repercussions a possible disobedience of the king to the oracle would have for the entire Theban population. Such a process would already constitute a political issue. A temporary resolu-

Aeschylus’ Laïos  

tion may have been reached: that of marrying Jocasta but avoiding begetting children. It must be then that a Messenger brought news about the omen, which in turn called for its interpretation by Teiresias. Whether the plural in prodigiis and the imperfect ostendebatur of Hyginus imply that repeated alarming portents were being observed, one cannot say. Also, the nature of the omen or the omens is unknown. One is reminded of the portent of the eagles and the pregnant hare in the parodos of the Agamemnon (108 ff.) or the one of the eagle and the hawk in Atossa’s speech in the Persai (201 ff.), which were interpreted, the first by Calchas, the κεδνὸς στρατόμαντις of the Trojan war, the second by the leader of the Chorus elders serving as θυμόμαντις. If I am referring only to portents with birds of prey, it is because Teiresias is introduced in the Septem, 24 ff., as οἰωνῶν βοτήρ, ἐν ὠσὶ νωμῶν καὶ φρεσὶν πυρὸς δίχα χρηστηρίους ὄρνιθας ἀψευδεῖ τέχνηι. Here, the interpretation of Teiresias must have specified that there will be a son of the king, who, even if he be exposed in order to die (fr. 122: χυτρίζειν), will survive and come to murder his father (fr. 122a). Whether Teiresias’ speech referred also to the curse of Pelops as the starting point of the dreadful situation that enveloped the whole royal genos of Thebes is unknown, but is distinctly possible. Apparently, Teiresias’ revelation constitutes the denouement of the play. The Theban elders of the chorus must sing the exodos with apprehension about the fate of the royal genos but mainly about the city’s future. I doubt that the play could close with the basic issue left pending because of a possible irresolution of the king. Apollo will reappear after three generations in the Septem (801– 802) Οἰδίπου γένει | κραίνων παλαιὰς Λαΐου δυσβουλίας. The mention of the ‘old ill-counsels of Laius’ is not a mere reference to the myth. The audience must be reminded of the end of the first play’s plot, where these decisions had been taken by the king onstage.

  Aeschylus’ Laïos

Fig. 8: POxy. 2256 frs. 2, 4, 1, 6, 8 = TrGF III, T 586 + F451v (+ p. 231) + 451s6 + 451n.

4 Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus Aeschylus’ satyr-play Prometheus Pyrkaeus (hence Prom. Pyrk.) is known to us from a number of book fragments, most of them conjecturally connected with this play, and P.Oxy. 2245, attributed to Prom. Pyrk. by Ed. Fraenkel 1942, 245–6, already before its publication in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 20, 1952, by E. Lobel. The present article incorporates some additional fragments and proposes several different readings and supplements, which, as I believe, lead to a new interpretation of the play. Also, the fragments are published in a different order than that of St. Radt, TrGF 3, Aeschylus, Göttingen 1985, pp. 321–328. In the edition I am attempting below, all the fragments apart from **204a–**207a (Radt’s Prom. Pyrk. fragments) are mostly my proposals. The last two, **207a and 307, have been ascribed to Prom. Pyrk. by others, erroneously in my view. Of course, I comment only upon those fragments, that I had something different or important to suggest.

The Fragments – Commentary 332a The text is reproduced from TrGF 3 (Aeschylus) Incertarum fabularum fragmenta together with Radt’s apparatus fontium and criticus. τὸ λαμπρὸν [. . . . .] †δοθερμοναθ᾽† ἥλιον θάλποντα κἀκ̣χέ̣ο̣[ν]τα βλαστημὸν θέρος Hdn. Π. καθολ. πρ. cod. Vindob. Hist. gr. 10 fol. 4ᵛ, 42 (ed. Hunger, Jahrb. der Österr. Byzant. Gesellsch. 16, 1967, 6 [fr. 15]. 24, qui meum in usum codicem denuo inspexit; tertias eius curas publicavit Zuntz, PCPhS 207, 1981, 93sq. [≅ Hermes 111, 1983, 265sq.]) ἔστιν τὸ παρ᾽ Αἰσχύλῳ βλαστημὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ βλαστῶ γενόμενον· ‘τὸ — βλαστημὸν θο̣ρ̣οα̣[.]χριοc[. . . . . . ]ε ̣γ ̣ ̣ως οὐκ ἔστιν ὑψ[ 1 τὸ? Zuntz | τὸ λ. ἄστρον, ἰδιόθερμον ἥ.? Hunger, ἀθρῶ τὸ λ. δ᾽ ὄμμα, θερμὸν ἡλίου? G.M. Lee 1977, 145 || 2 κἀκχέο[ν]τα Zuntz : και ε̣κ̣χε̣α[̣ .]τα cod. (teste Hunger ap. Zuntz : Hunger olim και α̣ν̣α̣χεοντα legerat), καὶ χέοντα A.L. Brown (ap. Zuntz 1981, 95 n. 14) | θέρος Zuntz : θο̣ρ̣οα̣ (pro ọ fort. ε̣, pro α̣ fort. c̣) cod. (teste Hunger ap. Zuntz)

 The present chapter was first published in Logeion 11 (2021), 1–58. I am greatly indebted to Professors V. Liapis and S. Tsitsiridis, who, serving as referees, read meticulously my paper and made precise comments that enabled me to put right several errors, thus leading to numerous improvements. It is obvious that whenever I differed from them, I am to blame. I am very sorry that I did not manage to take account of P.B. Cipolla’s 2015 article on Prom. Pyrk.; it was too late when I came across it. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-004

180  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus The fragment comes from Herbert Hunger’s readings of the palimpsest cod. Vind. Hist. gr. 10 (scriptio inferior 10th cent.), fol. 4v,1 with fragments of Herodian’s Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας,2 the specific passage concerning βλαστημος.3 The surviving introductory text of Herodian in the palimpsest is: ἔστιν τὸ παρ᾽ Αἰσχύλωι βλαστημος ἀπὸ τοῦ βλαστῶ γενόμενον. The noun in question, βλαστημός, occurs two more times, exclusively in Aeschylus: Su. 318 in the sense ‘offspring’, and Se. 12 in the sense ‘growth’. Of the principal current Greek lexica, only the Diccionario griego-español (DGE) contains a reference to βλαστημός in fr. 332a, and its interpretation is different. Unlike the other two occurrences, it is qualified as adjective (βλαστημός -ον) in the sense que hace germinar, germinador = ‘germinating, germinator’. However, only three occurrences in Greek poetry, all in Aeschylus, and still each with a different grammatical designation and a different sense, is, I believe, intolerable. It is perhaps better to scrutinize each passage separately. At Su. 318, Μarcianus, the codex unicus, transmits τίν᾽ οὖν ἔτ᾽ ἄλλον τῆσδε βλάστημον λέγεις; It is the King asking the chorus, as believed, about Λιβύη, Io’s granddaughter, and her son Βῆλος. However, the question is about Io’s genealogy, with the previous verses, from 291 on, describing her fate and naming in turn the ancestors of the Danaids, in answer to the King’s inquiry about their γένεθλον σπέρμα τε (290). Only G. Hermann 1852, followed by Zuntz 1983a, interpreted βλάστημον in Su. 318 as adjective, adopting also the antepenultimate accentuation of M.  1 A new edition of the Vienna palimpsest with the aid of digital images resulting from highresolution multispectral photographing is being prepared by K. Alpers, J. Grusková, O. Primavesi, N. Wilson. In the latest report on the project (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Mittelalterforschung [FWF Project 31939-G25: 01.02.2019 – 31.07.2024]), fol. 4v is not included among the folia of the codex that are planned to be examined and published by the research group. So, I proceeded with my investigation based primarily on Herbert Hunger’s initial readings and the subsequent scholarly suggestions. 2 Dickey 2014, 325–345, esp. 334–335, no. 27 Περὶ καθολικῆς προσωιδίας/ De prosodia catholica, “On prosody in general”. Quoting from Dickey (334) “It was chiefly concerned with accentuation and now survives only in fragments and epitomes, from which Lentz has reconstructed the work”: Aug. Lentz, Herodiani Technici reliquiae, in GG 3.1: 1–547 + corrigenda in GG 3.2: 1233– 1240. 3 Hunger’s 1967 edition of the Vienna palimpsest could not of course be included in the text published by Lentz. However, in Book 7 of Herodian’s De prosodia catholica, GG 3.1: 171.12 ff., a concise passage mentions the grammarian’s rules on the accentuation of nouns in -ημος and -ιμος. Neither βλαστημος nor βλαστιμος are mentioned among the examples.

The Fragments – Commentary  181

The rendering of the verse by Hermann is: “Quemnam porro memoras, qui ex hac sit prognatus?”. The majority of editors accepted Lobeck’s reading βλαστημόν, as substantive (= βλάστημα). Ι would favour Hermann’s adjective, neuter of βλαστήμων (Nic. Al. 548), substantivized in the sense = βλάστη or βλάστησις, evoking, on the one hand, Io’s γένεθλον and, on the other, the succeeding lineage after Belus until the Danaids. Aeschylus uses elsewhere βλάστημα for ‘offspring’ (Se. 533), and so does often Euripides. At Se. 12, Marcianus transmits βλάστημον ἀλδαίνοντα σώματος πολύν. Though the verse secures the long second syllable, most other MSS and Scholia write βλάστιμον. The schol. of I¹ is interesting: ζήτει δὲ περὶ τῆς τοῦ βλάστημον γραφῆς εἰδὼς τέως κρεῖττον εἶναι τὴν διὰ τοῦ ι κατὰ παραγωγὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ βλαστῶ. Whether -ημον or -ιμον, the Scholia usually explain it as adjective. Though, by πολύν Marcianus and the majority of the MSS seem to imply a 2nd declension masculine noun βλάστημος, the same neuter of βλαστήμων can well stand with πολύ which is transmitted in a group of MSS (W κ λ), also substantivized in the sense βλάστη or βλάστησις, ‘growth, sprouting’. No doubt, the only certain parallel instance of βλαστήμων is too late, coming from Nicander’s Alexipharmaka. However, identical formations from contracted verbs occur already in the epic (νοήμων, δηλήμων, possibly ζηλήμων), the commonest being τλήμων, or somewhat later (5th century αἰδήμων, personal names Φιλήμων, Ἡγήμων).4 Now, back to our fragment. Herodian must not be concerned with the quantity of the penultimate syllable (-ι ̆μον or -ημον), otherwise he would not choose as an example a verse where this penultimate syllable falls in the anceps position. His interest in the word must lie in the question of its accentuation: βλαστημός or βλάστημος. I haven’t seen the palimpsest text, but the specimen sent by Hunger to Zuntz, as published by the latter (Zuntz 1983a, 265), is completely unaccentuated. On the other hand, Herodian clearly speaks of a 2nd declension noun, ἔστιν τὸ παρ᾽ Αἰσχύλωι βλαστημος, the neuter of βλαστήμων being clearly ruled out. I would suggest a tiny but necessary conjecture in the first verse: ἠ]δὲ for Hunger’s reading ]δο, which led to his odd supplement ἰδιόθερμον ἥλιον. Thus, τὸ λαμπρὸν [ – × ἠ]δὲ θερμόν, ἅθ᾽ ἥλιον  4 Lobeck 1843, 159.

182  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus yields an iambic trimeter, with a long and an anceps missing in the lacuna. A verbal form might be helpful in filling the gap. I would propose εἶδον or ἔγνων or any other first person aorist verb, suitable with respect to size and metre, in the meaning ‘saw, sensed, felt, perceived’. It is important to remark the split anapaest in the fifth foot (θερμόν, | ἅθ᾽ ἥλιον), which undoubtedly indicates a satyrplay: West 1982, 88. The sense of the intelligible part until θάλποντα seems to be: ‘which [I saw] bright and hot, just like the heating sun’. ἅθ᾽ ἥλιον θάλποντα κτλ. is not a causal clause (LSJ s.v. ἅτε ΙΙ causal, inasmuch as, seeing that, with part.), because here ἅτε is not connected with the participle but with the subject of the participle. Therefore, ἅθ᾽ ἥλιον must mean ‘like the sun’ (LSJ s.v. ἅτε Ι) with at least the first participle (θάλποντα) qualifying the sun. The particular simile is poetically established, also with ἅτε: Alcm. 1.63 ἅτε σήριον ἄστρον, Pind. O. 1.2 αἰθόμενον πῦρ ἅτε. The initial τό must not be the article of a missing neuter noun, but a relative or demonstrative pronoun referring to a previously mentioned unknown neuter. Aeschylus employs elsewhere the epic form of the pronoun; e.g. Eu. 263 αἷμα μητρῷον ..., τὸ διερὸν πέδοι χύμενον οἴχεται, Su. 699 τὸ δάμιον, τὸ πτόλιν κρατύνει. The adjectives, λαμπρὸν ἠδὲ θερμόν, are treated as predicates. The employment of the epic τό, the copulative ἠδέ, the comparative ἅτε, and possibly further highbrow words of the fragment (e.g. βλάστημον) must indicate a solemn style mouthed by an official character, such as a chorus-leader, a god, a king. In a satyr-play, as here, the character must be speaking in mock-epic style.5 I suppose ‘fire’ is the expected subject in the opening of the fragment. The statement attests that it was the first time that the speaker saw this unknown stuff, which he can only compare to the sun in brightness and warmth. Yet, the missing noun should not be τὸ πῦρ, because it is unlikely for the speaker to ignore the thing he sensed but know its name. Possibly, a vague figurative reference to it was used in the previous verses. To put it in a nutshell, I believe that the issue is about the unknown substance that gushed out of the hollow stalk of the fennel, the νάρθηξ, where Prometheus had hidden the fire he donated to the mortals, and that the fragment comes from a report of the donation in the opening of an Aeschylean satyr-play, namely Prometheus Pyrkaeus.

 5 The same stratagem occurs in Soph. fr. 269c from Inachos, also a satyric or rather prosatyric play, 16–20, where repeated instances of epic forms appear in the part sung by the king Inachos.

The Fragments – Commentary  183

I accept Zuntz’s κἀκ̣χέ̣ο̣[ν]τα ... θέ̣ρ̣ος̣, though his readings seem to have been wormed out of Hunger, whose original readings were different (καὶ ἀναχέοντα and then και ε̣κχ̣ ε̣α̣[ ]τα, and θο̣ρ̣οα̣). In any case, I am unable to suggest anything more satisfactory. The speaker sensed the gift of Prometheus bright and warm just like the sun that provides warmth and pours down βλαστημὸν θέρος, ‘sprouting summer’. Zuntz’s θέρος was supported by PV 455/6 καρπίμου θέρους. However, I would retain the antepenultimate accentuation of the adjective as in the other two Aeschylean instances, especially since here its adjectival function is clear and we do not need to have recourse to substantivization. Apparently, Herodian parses erroneously Aeschylus’ adjective βλαστήμων -ημον as 2nd declension substantive βλαστημός.6 What follows after the second verse is [ ̣]χριοc[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε ̣γ ̣ ̣ως οὐκ ἔστιν ὑψ ̣[. Its first part, [.]χριοc[, does not seem to scan,7 but the rest fits well in an iambic trimeter, whose opening limit is uncertain: × – ⏑] covered by ]ε ̣γ ̣ ̣? [ἄ]χρι ὅσ[ου is likely, “as far as, to the extent that”; cf. Damascius, Pr. 1.254.12, ἄχρις ὅσου, and the common μέχρι(ς) ὅσου. Apparently, it refers to the key word of the fragment, βλάστημον, justifying its link with θέρος: e.g., [ἄ]χρι ὅσ[ου φύει], “to the extent that it grows plants”. The prose phrase is placed parenthetically inside the verses, as if it was a marginal note (by Herodian or a scholiast?) that was inserted in the text. The rest, × – ⏑] ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ὑψ ̣[× – ⏑ –, obviously scans. I suggest ὑψ ̣[όθεν ῥέον, since the unknown stuff, which the speaker likened in terms of its properties to the sun, is not poured from the sky, but is produced on earth near us. The metaphorical ἐκχέοντα θέρος and possibly ῥέον are apparently reflecting the actual image of the fire that flowed out of Prometheus’ νάρθηξ. In the beginning of the verse, two adjectives fit the sense and the traces: ἔγγειον/ἔγγαιον, ‘earthly’, and ἔγγῑον, ‘nearer’. For reasons of space available, I opt for the latter. Here is then the restoration I propose: τὸ λαμπρὸν [εἶδον ἠ]δὲ θερμόν, ἅθ᾽ ἥλιον θάλποντα κἀκ̣χέ̣ο̣[ν]τα βλάστημον θέ̣ρ̣ος̣ ἔ[γ]γ[ῑον], ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ὑψ ̣[όθεν ῥέoν

 6 A short reference to nouns in -ήμων occurs in Herodian’s De prosodia catholica, GG 3.1: 32.16 ff., without a mention of βλαστήμων, -ημον. 7 Only λέχριος, ‘slanting, crosswise’, occurs in poetry, and its first two letters cannot fit in the one-letter gap.

184  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus 1 τὸ? Zuntz | τὸ λ. ἄστρον, ἰδιόθερμον ἥ.? Hunger, ἀθρῶ τὸ λ. δ᾽ ὄμμα, θερμὸν ἡλίου? G.M. Lee 1977, 145, [εἶδον (vel ἔγνων) ἠ]δὲ Ts. 2 κἀκχέο[ν]τα Zuntz : και ε̣κ̣χε̣α̣[.]τα cod. (teste Hunger ap. Zuntz : Hunger olim και α̣ν̣αχ̣ εοντα legerat), καὶ χέοντα A.L. Brown (ap. Zuntz 1981, 95 n. 14) | θέρος Zuntz, θο̣ρ̣οα̣ (pro ọ fort. ε̣, pro α̣ fort. c̣) cod. (teste Hunger ap. Zuntz) | ut vid., Herodianus vel scholiasta prosaice explicavit βλάστημον cum [.]χριοc[. . . . . .], quod e.g. [ἄ]χρι ὅσ[ου φύει] suppl. Ts. 3 ]ε ̣γ ̣ ̣ως οὐκ ἔστιν ὑψ ̣[, cod. teste Hunger, ἔ[γ]γ[ι ̄ον], ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ὑψ[όθεν ῥέoν suppl. Ts.

“which I sensed bright and hot, just like sun heating and pouring out fertile summer nearer (to us), as it doesn’t flow from above”. Now, can the speaker who ignores both the substance and the name of fire be anyone else than the primitive man who received Prometheus’ gift? In an Aeschylean satyr-play, as the split anapaest shows, he must be a character of Prom. Pyrk. representing the human race. And as the speaker still ignores fire or πῦρ, the fragment must be placed in the very beginning of the story of Prom. Pyrk., before the choral songs of P.Oxy. 2245, where the gift and its beneficial qualities are named (204b, 3–5 πὰρ πυρὸς ἀκάματον αὐγάν ... παρ᾽ ἑστιοῦχον σέλας), and before the specific references to the celebration of Prometheus’ gift (204b, 6–8 (=15–17) Νύμφας δέ τοι πέποιθ᾽ ἐγὼ | στήσειν χοροὺς | Προμηθέως δῶρον ὡς σεβούσας). Since the donation scene with the νάρθηξ and the fire gushing out of it was, of course, difficult to be shown live to the audience, it is narrated to the chorus. But the narrator could well hold a torch lit with Prometheus’ gift and show it from afar to his addressees. Who can the narrator be? It is tempting to propose the chorus-leader who is recounting his experience of the donation scene to the members of the chorus. However, the chorus-leader cannot detach himself from the chorus, and so cannot have experiences separate from the group. The only other character I can imagine is Silenus. If the Satyrs can stand for mankind, under the role of shepherds (fr. 204b, 18–21, from Prom. Pyrk.), a class of humans who benefitted from the sun’s brightness and heat, but lived in want of practically every other human activity that presupposes the existence of fire, Silenus, their father, can well be the receiver of the gift. This is not the place to discuss the disputable issue of whether Silenus appears in satyr-plays in the role of coryphaeus or not. So far as we depend on the available evidence, it is impossible to equate the characteristics of the tragic coryphaeus and Silenus. Though in the plot he always appears in connection to the Satyrs, Silenus has a pronounced independence of action and communication from them. Yet, the number of the choreuts, which in several significant cases was not twelve but eleven, seems to suggest an official restriction οn counting Silenus as a separate actor, irrespective of how he was treated by the

The Fragments – Commentary  185

poets. Thus, in the absence of a regular chorus-leader, one of the eleven acted as the coryphaeus who represented the chorus in the dialogue.8 **207

τράγος γένειον ἆρα πενθήσεις σύ γε

Plut. De cap. ex inim. util. 2, 86E (1, 173.13 Paton - Wegehaupt - Pohlenz) (= Aesop. Fab. Gr. 467 [p. 506] Perry) τοῦ δὲ σατύρου τὸ πῦρ, ὡς πρῶτον ὤφθη, βουλομένου φιλῆσαι καὶ περιβαλεῖν ὁ Προμηθεύς ‘τράγος — σύ γε’· καίει τὸν ἁψάμενον, ἀλλὰ φῶς παρέχει καὶ θερμότητα καὶ τέχνης ἁπάσης ὄργανόν ἐστι τοῖς χρῆσθαι μαθοῦσι.

The fragment has been attributed to Prom. Pyrk. by Welcker 1824, 120. Earlier, it had been assigned to Prometheus Pyrphoros (Stanley ap. Butler 1809, 264, Schütz 1782, 84), but these scholars considered Pyrphoros the same play as Prom. Pyrk. Bates 1934, 170–171, connected the fragment with Sophocles’ Κωφοί, a satyr-play which has to do with fire and its use in forging iron, but at a later stage, certainly not when fire τὸ πρῶτον ὤφθη. Late authors, like Epiphanius (Ancor. 106.2) and Eustathius (Il. 415.6), but also modern scholars, like Schwyzer, GG II 64.4, considered τράγος a nominative instead of vocative, while Wilamowitz 1912, 467 n. 2 (= Wilamowitz 1935, 1.371 n. 2), followed by others, interpreted it as τράγος ὤν, thus supporting the etymology of τραγωιδία from τράγος and an analogous theory on the prehistory of drama. Other scholars claim that τράγος must be taken as comparative, ‘just like a he-goat’, referring to the proverbial inquisitive nature of goats. ‘Just like the he-goat’, referring to an unrecorded myth, must be ruled out, since fire was seen then for the first time, and no myth about fire could have preexisted.9 Now, the papyrus text (fr. 204b.18) shows that the Satyrs in Prom. Pyrk. are presented as shepherds, and so it is unthinkable that Prometheus could have addressed the chief shepherd as he-goat. Furthermore, the comparison with the he-goat, would be more natural in a group of shepherds, as it would come from a familiar domain. Since the donation of the fire has not been performed in view of the audience, but is reported by Silenus to the Chorus (fr. 332a), who hear about fire or, possibly, see it from afar, but have not sensed it yet, the fragment must come from a scene, subsequent to Silenus’ report. The Satyrs have their first close experience of the fire now, their leader wishes to hug and kiss it, but Prometheus prevents him and explains to the Chorus the properties of the unknown  8 The evidence produced by Sutton 1974b can be enlarged. 9 Shorey 1909, 433–436; Kassel 1973, 109–112; Slenders 2007, 136–137; Tsantsanoglou 2015, 1– 40, esp. 16–17.

186  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus substance. ὡς πρῶτον ὤφθη, that is, not by Silenus offstage, but by the Satyrchorus onstage, or more precisely on the orchestra. The text flanking the fragment in Plutarch is clearly putting to prose the previous and the subsequent verses. Otto Crusius already attempted to versify a part of it,10 ‘vix recte’, according to Radt (Dubia fr. **474): τέχνης ἁπάσης ἐστὶν ὄργανον (sc. τὸ πῦρ) ⏑ –. In PV 505–506, Prometheus addressing the Chorus sums up the same claim somewhat differently: βραχεῖ δὲ μύθωι πάντα συλλήβδην μάθε· πᾶσαι τέχναι βροτοῖσιν ἐκ Προμηθέως. 187a = 206 N.² ΠΡΟΜ. (ad Satyrum) ἐξευλαβοῦ δὲ μή σε προσβάληι στόμα πέμφιξ· πικρὰ γάρ, κοὐ διαζώιης ἀτμοῖς Galen. in Hippocr. Epid. libr. VI comm. 1.29 ed. Wenkebach-Pfaff νυνὶ δ᾽ ἀρκέσει τοῖς γραμματικοῖς ἀκολουθήσαντα κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνων διάταξιν εἰπεῖν τι περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν πέμφιγα σημαινομένων. δοκεῖ γὰρ αὐτὴν ἐπὶ μὲν [– – –] ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ῥανίδος ὁ αὐτός (sc. Αἰσχύλος) φησιν ἐν Προμηθεῖ· ‘ἐξευλαβοῦ — ἀτμοί’. 2 καὶ οὐ διὰ ζωῆς ἀτμοί Galenus; obelis notavit Radt, καὶ δίχα ζόης ἀτμ. Herwerden, κοὐδὲν εὐζαεῖς ἀτμ. Headlam, κοὐλία ζόηι vel κοὐλία λαιμῶι Wenkebach, alii alia; κοὐ διαζώιης ἀτμοῖς Tsantsanoglou

Though the fragment is transmitted as coming from Prometheus, without any further determinant of the title, it seems to be connected with the previous one (207). However, since the Satyrs see the fire now for the first time, they are ignorant not only of the thing but also of the words describing it (πῦρ, πυρά, φλόξ, σπινθήρ, καπνός). Therefore, Prometheus refers to these items with vague terms or metaphors from experiences familiar to the Satyrs. πέμφιξ, a ‘poetic word of unstable meaning’, according to Beekes’s Etymological Dictionary, but also according to Galen, above, meaning ‘blowing, blast

 10 Crusius 1893, 108 n. 2.

The Fragments – Commentary  187

of air, cloud, lightning, ray, raindrop, drop’, senses alternating from author to author, sometimes within the same author or the same work. In Soph. fr. 337 from Colchides πέμφιξ is a blowing or blast of air, but in fr. 338 from the same play it is a ray or a flash. In Aeschylus’ Prometheus, always according to Galen, it denotes ‘drop’. Wenkebach 1931 made an attempt as comprehensive as possible to reconcile the various meanings. However, Galen’s text was transmitted in a terrible condition, needing to be emended in nearly every phrase, not always irrefutably. After repeated tries, Wenkebach ends with attributing the fragment to Prometheus Lyomenos from a prophesy of the Titan to Heracles. He also changes the close of the second verse to κοὐλία ζόηι, quite remotely from the transmitted καὶ οὐ διὰ ζωῆς ἀτμοί. Silk 1983, 306 ff., thoughtfully includes πέμφιξ in a group of words with indefinite meanings that emanated from metaphors, but the grammarians distinguished them in different lexical headings depending on their usage each time. I believe that καὶ οὐ διὰ ζωῆς stands for κοὐ διαζώιης, i.e. διαζῶ in pres. opt. 2nd sing., without ἄν (Schwyzer GG II 324–5), equivalent to οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὅπως διαζώιης, a syntax occurring in all three tragedians and Aristophanes. Prometheus continues his address in second person (ἐξευλαβοῦ δὲ μή σε προσβάληι → οὐ διαζώιης). The usual interpretation is ‘be careful not to be struck in the mouth by a boiling hot drop of water, because it is sharp and causes death’. But the supposedly ejected drop could strike harmfully any bare part of the body. Why especially the mouth? Perhaps, things are not so critical. The original sense of πέμφιξ is apparently the medical one: ‘blister, pustule, skin eruption’: πεμφιγώδης Hp. Epid. 6.1.14, al. Can we apply Silk’s approach, and go back to this original meaning discarding the grammarians and Galen? The first sentence can well mean: ‘be careful not to blister in the mouth’. διαζῶ means ‘live one’s life (in a certain condition)’. As for ἀτμός, apart from the basic meaning ‘steam, vapour’, it is also used of ‘odour’, especially the unpleasant one: Aesch. Ag. 1311, Arist. Pr. 908a21. Both meanings are possible. Very hot liquid and steam can scald the mouth. But also, it is a common experience that infected tissues produce blisters with stinking pus. So, the second sentence can mean: ‘for it (the blister) yields sharp pain, and you couldn’t live with the vapour/stench’. Not in the sense ‘you shall die’, but ‘your life will be unlivable’, ‘you couldn’t stand it’.11

 11 From the same Galen passage comes Soph. fr. 538 R. from the satyr-play Salmoneus, where πέμφιξ is also mentioned in connection with foul smell and σε λάβοι (σε Dobree; vel βάλοι Bentley), but in a context of wind, thunder and lightning. Apparently, a funny reference to Sal-

188  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus Why should Prometheus care to speak of blisters in the mouth to the Satyr (Silenus or coryphaeus)? Probably, before that mention, the Titan must have been enumerating the everyday benefits of his gift. One of them must have been food cooking. And, as in fr. 207 the Satyr was warned not to embrace and kiss the fire or he would mourn his beard, here he is warned not to swallow boiling hot food, probably soups (ζωμός, ἔτνος, κυκεών) to account for Galen’s ‘drop’ (ancient Greeks had no spoons), or he would blister his mouth intolerably. A parallel enumeration is found in Epich. 113.241–253, K.–A., from Πύρρα ἢ Προμαθεύς, where the benefits of the fire are listed: baking of bread (241–243), warming oneself (243–244), drying the soaked fleece (244–247), warming water for bathing (252–253), and possibly more. Be that as it may, etymologists cannot explain the short α of ἀτμ- in this fragment, insofar as they produce ἀτμ- from ἀετμ- by contraction; see Hsch. α 1422 ἄετμα· φλόξ; α 1423 ἀετμόν· τὸ πνεῦμα; ΕΜ 20.10 ἄετμα· φλόξ· οἱ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα. “La quantité de l’α- n’est pas connue” according to Boisacq. The etymology published in DGE (Adrados) connects ἀτμός with ἀήρ, Sanscrit ātmán-, ‘soul’, OHG ātum, ‘breath’, ending with “α originariamente breve”, an etymology, however, already rejected by Frisk, Chantraine and Beekes. 288

δέδοικα μῶρον κάρτα πυραύστου μόρον

Aelian. Nat. an. 12.8 (1.297.4 Hercher) ≅ Apostol. 18.18 (CPG 2.721.16) ζῶιόν ἐστιν ὁ πυραύστης, ὅπερ οὖν χαίρει μὲν τῇ λαμπηδόνι τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ προσπέτεται τοῖς λύχνοις ἐνακμαζούσηι τῆι φλογί, ἐμπεσὼν δὲ ὑπὸ ῥύμης εἶτα μέντοι καταπέφλεκται. μέμνηται δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ Αἰσχύλος ὁ τῆς τραγωιδίας ποιητὴς λέγων ‘δέδοικα — μόρον’.

Apart from Aelian, the verse is also transmitted in several paroemiographical sources without any significant variants. It was ascribed to Prom. Pyrk. and connected with fr. 207 by Hermann (1825, 12). μῶρον, ‘stupid, silly, foolish’, was mostly transmitted as μωρόν; the Attic form was restored by Grotius. The jocular paronomasia μῶρον ... μόρον is clearly fit for a satyr-play. There can be no doubt that the connection with frr. 207 and 187a is right. In both of them Prometheus seems to be addressing a Satyr, possibly Silenus or the coryphaeus or both. But who is the speaker in 288 who is afraid of dying stupidly like a moth in the flame? Bothe noted (the quotation in Radt): ‘Commode haec referas ad Prometheum πυρκαέα, ut ita eum respondisse putemus Satyro quaerenti, cur ipse non  moneus breaking wind at Zeus. However, had no scholarly proposals intervened in almost every word, the fragment would remain incomprehensible.

The Fragments – Commentary  189

osculetur ignem’. Τhat Prometheus would declare he is afraid of death and, what is more, of such a death, sounds awkward to me, unless the Titan was joking. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the Satyrs, who see fire for the first time, are already aware of πυραύστης and its manner of dying. However, frs. 207 and 187a show that a rhesis of Prometheus had preceded, explaining the properties of the fire and the dangers from it. Especially, the Plutarch passage that contains fr. 207 indicates the existence of such a rhesis: καίει τὸν ἁψάμενον, ἀλλὰ φῶς παρέχει καὶ θερμότητα καὶ τέχνης ἁπάσης ὄργανόν ἐστι τοῖς χρῆσθαι μαθοῦσι. He could well include in his speech, as an example of those who would not learn how to use it, πυραύστης and his manner of death. The word would be exactly to the point, since etymologically it means ‘fire-kindled’, opposite to πυρκαεύς, ‘fire-kindler’. Then, either Silenus or the coryphaeus can respond: ‘I am extremely afraid of such a stupid death in the fire’. 336

ἄχνη

EM 182.54 ἄχνη· Ὅμηρος τὸ ἐπιπολάζον τῆι θαλάσσηι ἀφρῶδες. Ἱπποκράτης τὸ λεπτὸν ξύσμα τοῦ λίνου. Αἰσχύλος δὲ τὸν καπνόν. καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης οὕτως· ‘ἄχνη ὕπνου’; similia in Hsch. α 8894, Synag. α 2609 Cunningham, Photius Lex. α 3446 Theodoridis, Append. prov. 1.44 (CPG 1, 385.15), Sud. α 4705.

Nauck attributed also πυρός to Aeschylus (ἄχνη πυρός), but, if the word comes from Prom. Pyrk., as I suspect, the Satyrs do not know the word for ‘smoke’, just as they are ignorant of the word for ‘fire’, something they see for the first time after Prometheus’ donation. So, they name it with something similar, familiar to them: ‘foam, froth, chaff flying in the wind’. Analogous is Aesch. fr. 78c.57 (from Theoroi) τοὐπίπλουν, ‘implement, utensil, thingamajig’ for ἀσπίς, ‘shield’, also something the Satyrs see for the first time. Finally, I suspect that Aesch. fr. 78c.41 (from Theoroi), where Silenus threatens the satyr-chorus that they will be punished for having abandoned Dionysus’ suite, with the words ταῦτ᾽ οὖν δακρύσεις οὐ καπνῶ[ι, ‘therefore, you᾽ll weep not with smoke’, must be supplemented δ᾽ ὥσπερ πάρος, with crossreference between satyr-plays. If so, connected with ἄχνη = ‘smoke’, there must be a reference to weeping from smoke inside the scene between Prometheus and the chorus-leader indicated in frs. 207 and 288. πάρος, in Theoroi, if correct, would be a clue for the chronological precedence of Prom. Pyrk.

190  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus

**204a (P.Oxy. 2245 fr. 1, col. I) ] ] φ̣έγγος·

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

] ]ι τότε ]ηριον· ]ς ] ]ν ] ] ̣φλεκτο[ ] ̣[ ] ς̣ τόδε ]παντελε[ ] μόγις ]cocι [̣ ]πων[ ] ̣ ̣φαι[ ] [ ] ̣ι ̣[ ] ̣ν[ . . .

4 vel ]N Radt malim: ὡς τόδε)

10 ] ̣ ‘a tail descending from left to right, e.g. α’ Lobel 19 vel ]Ν ̣[ 20 ]ΟΝ[ vel ]ΩΝ[

12 ]Ọ vel Ω (hoc

**204d 12 (P.Oxy. 2245 fr. 12)

2 4

6

. . . ] ̣α̣[. .] [̣ [—] γλε̣ ̣ῦ̣κ̣[ο]ς̣ δέ τοι τέ̣[θεικ᾽ ἐγὼ πέλας πυρός, ἀ̣ν̣ τ̣ρεῖς μεθυσ̣[θ — ἔ̣στ̣᾽ ἂν Ζε[ὺς] μὲν [.] ̣[ χιὼν δ᾽ ἐ̣ρίστ᾽ ἰπ{π}ο̣[ῖ ⏑ – βεβρεγμένον ὑ]π̣᾽ ὄμβρου κ[ά]ρα, ̣[ . . .

(str. 1)

ia ia |

eph.

ia | ia [ith ||| δ [δ ? ia ia [ia | δ[

ant. 1

The Fragments – Commentary  191

1 ‘A horizontal stroke on the line’ Lobel; equidem nihil quam incertum A atque vestigium litterae rotundae (E, O, C) in fine video (Ts.) 2 .] ̣[. . .] Lobel, Γ̣ΛΕỴḲ[.]C̣ (γλ̣ε̣ῦ̣κ̣[ο]ς̣) leg. Ts. | TP̣[ Lobel, TẸ[ leg. Ts. | τέ̣[θεικ᾽ ἐγώ suppl. Τs. 4 ̣ ̣ ̣PỌIC Lobel; ‘Remains compatible with ]α̣ν̣τ̣ ο̣ might be ε̣’ Lobel | ἀ̣ν̣ τ̣ρεῖς Ts. | ̣[ Lobel, C̣[ leg. Ts. | ἀν τρεῖς μεθυσ̣[θέντας ὡς χορεῦσαι e.g. Ts. 5 ̣ ̣ ̣AΝ Lobel, ̣ ̣AΝ Radt, ẸCṬAΝ (ἔ̣στ̣᾽ ἂν) leg. Ts., ὅ̣[τ]α̣ν Mette | Ζε[ὺς] μὲν̣ [ἐκ τῶν νεφελῶν ὕηι] Mette, ἔ̣στ̣᾽ ἂν Ζε[ὺς] μὲν [ὕ]ω[ν τέγγηι βροτοὺς e.g. Ts. 6 ΑΡΙCTỊΠΠ ̣[ Lobel, ẸPICTỊ̀ΠΠỌ[ leg. Ts. | ἀ̣ριστιππ ̣[ Lobel, ἀρίστιππο[ς Snell teste Mette, ἐ̣ρίστ᾽ ἰπ{π}ο̣[ῖ ⏑ – βεβρεγμένον Ts. 7 ὑ]π̣᾽ ὄμβρου, plura proposuit Radt | κ[ά]ρα· Snell teste Mette

The correspondence of 2–4 with the ephymnia of 204b 6–8, 15–17, that speak of the Nymphs’ dance, was recognized already by Lobel. The action implied dictates that this fragment follows 204a and leads to the large fragment 204b. The ephymnion seems to announce the schedule of the dance that will follow. The papyrus piece has no physical connection through vertical fibres with 204a, as it shows the opening of the column, whereas 204a its end. Also, horizontally, the supplemented ends of 204d 12 do not agree with the visible ends of the last lines of 204a, unless the desperate relics of the first line of 204d 12 (] α ̣ ̣[. .] ̣[) and of the last line of 204a (] ọ ̣ν[) can be connected. 1. The ephymnion of 2–4 presupposes a previous strophe, in which the new wine should have been mentioned. 204a does not help. Its few surviving words have some connection with fire and light (2 ]φέγγος, 10 ] ̣φλεκτο[, 17 ] ̣ ̣φαι[), but not with new wine. 2–3. ΓΛ are very faintly visible but certain, of E the curve is partly effaced, but the mid horizontal is clear, of YK the bottom tips of the uprights and of K the entire low oblique are visible; of C the end of the top curve is clear. Reading γλ̣ε̣ῦκ ̣ ̣[ο]ς̣ has been important, because the word was not recorded in literature before Aristotle. However, γλεῦκος is found in three 5th century BCE inscriptions from Gortyn in Crete (IC IV 77.3, 79.4, 144.4), one from Lyttos also in Crete (SEG 27.631A.12, 15 κλεῦκος, c. 500 BCE), in IG I³ 237.4 (Att., 410–404), IG XII Suppl. 347.1 (Thasos, 4th c. BCE), IG IV 49 personal name Γλευκίτας of a Cypriot Salaminian (found in Aegina, 5th c. BCE); also, the derivative ἀγλευκής is attested in Epich. 168 K.-A, Rhint. 25 K.-A., and Xen. Hier. 1.21. The word has gained linguistic interest after scholars read de-re-u-ko with the ideogram VINUM in the Knossos tablet Uc 160, i.e. *δλεῦκος, which connects the stem γλυκwith the Lat. dulcis. ΤΕ[ can be considered certain. The upper curve of epsilon and its middle horizontal are clearly visible. The Satyrs place the new wine by the fire, so that they might drink seated in warmth, while waiting for their turn to come for

192  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus dancing in the Choes festival (see below). It is less likely that placing the wine by the fire implies that they are simmering it before drinking. 4. ἀν τρεῖς, ‘in groups of three’. Apocope of ἀνά in Aesch. Pe. 566 ἀμ πεδιήρεις, Su. 350 ἀμ πέτραις, not to count the numerous compounds: e.g., Ag. 305 ἀνδαίοντες, Su. 806 ἀμφυγᾶς. If the groups singing the four ephymnia are also four, i.e. four half-semichoruses, this might determine the number of the choreuts to twelve. If the inference is correct, this would possibly be the first express reference to the size of the satyr chorus. The twelve choreuts seem to be reduced by one in Aesch. Theoroi, as well as in the Douris psykter of the British Museum and the Pronomos vase, because Silenus is treated more like an independent actor than a coryphaeus, so that one of the remaining eleven had to play the actual coryphaeus.12 Completely unreliable are the statements of Tzetzes Prolegomena de comoedia Aristophanis 2.85 Koster, πρόσωπα δὲ τοῖς μὲν τραγικοῖς καὶ σατυρικοῖς ἀνὰ δεκαὲξ ἦσαν, and Versus de poematum generibus 108–110 Koster, διαφορὰν μάνθανε τῆς κωμῳδίας, | ἧς εἰκοσιτέσσαρες οἱ χορεργάται, | ἑκκαίδεκα δὲ σατύρων, τραγῳδίας. Be that as it may, the number twelve posits the inclusion of Silenus in the dancing chorus, which is by no means unlikely, since there appears no conflict or other confrontation of the Satyrs with their father in the surviving portion of Prom. Pyrk., but on the contrary all of them, even the Nymphs added, are determined to celebrate Prometheus and his gift. μεθύσ[τερ- would be unmetrical. Possibly, ἀν τρεῖς μεθυσ[θέντας ὡς χορεῦσαι, ‘so that we could dance drunk in groups of three’. 5. Μette (1959, 128) supplemented ὅ̣[τ]α̣ν Ζε[ὺς] μὲν̣ [ἐκ τῶν νεφελῶν ὕηι]. The papyrus reads ἔ̣στ̣᾽ ἄν. Now, Ζε[ὺς] μὲν [ῡ̔ ́]η̣[ι is an easy conjecture, but I cannot confidently suggest anything for the close of the verse. In any case, the sense demands something like ‘soaking the mortals’. E.g., ἔ̣στ̣᾽ ἂν Ζε[ὺς] μὲν [ὕ]ω[ν τέγγηι βροτούς, completes two dochmiacs. 6–7. Where Lobel read ẠPICT ` ̣ ΠΠ ̣[ and Radt published ἀ̣ριστιππ [̣ , describing the last uncertain letter as ‘litt. rotunda’, while Snell, teste Mette, suggested ἀρίστιππο[ς as an attribute of χιών (?), I discern ẸPICTỊ̀ΠΠ O ̣[. Of the first letter, whereas the low left tail of alpha is either straight or looks downward, here the surviving low curve turns upwards as in epsilon. The middle stroke of epsilon is faintly visible, but as it overlaps a horizontal fibre, it escaped the scholars’ notice. ἐρίστ᾽, i.e. adv. ἐριστά, ‘as if in rivalry, competitively’. The only words be 12 See above Theoroi on c.52–53.

The Fragments – Commentary  193

ginning with ιππο- are ἵππος and its numerous compounds and derivatives, which have no place here. I conjecture ἰπόω, ‘press, weigh down’ from ἶπος, ἡ, ‘any weight or press’, which are frequently written in MSS with double pi for obvious reasons.13 Zeus soaks the mortals with the rain, but snow as if rivalling it weighs down their soaked head. χιὼν δ᾽ ἐ̣ρίστ᾽ ἰπ{π}ο̣[ῖ ⏑ – βεβρεγμένον | ὑ]π̣᾽ ὄμβρου κ[ά]ρα makes perfect sense. After ἰποῖ possibly an adverb (βαρ͜έως, λίᾱν?). Three consecutive iambs, each self-contained, without the typical caesuras of the trimeter, appear also in the first two verses of the ephymnia: Νύμφας δέ τοι ' πέποιθ᾽ ἐγὼ ' στήσειν χορούς (×2) / γλεῦκος δέ τοι ' τέθεικ᾽ ἐγὼ ' πέλας πυρός (×2) / χιὼν δ᾽ ἐρίστ᾽ ' ἰποῖ ⏑ – ' βεβρεγμένον.14 Still, the sentence remains pending, as it is only the temporal clause that survived. The main clause, certainly in future expressing a general truth, must have followed after the high stop of line 7, which must be taken as equivalent to our comma. ‘As long as heaven sends rain and snow upon earth, [the gift of Prometheus will defend humans against them]’. Means of defence against winter are described in Hes. Op. 536–563, but fire is neglected. The closest parallel is possibly Epich. 113.241–253, K.–A., from Πύρρα ἢ Προμαθεύς, where the benefits of the fire are enumerated: baking of bread (241–243), warming oneself (243–244), drying the soaked fleece (244– 247), warming water for bathing (252–253). Cf. also Eur. Cyc. 323–331, where Cyclops fights against Zeus’ ὄμβρον and Boreas’ χιόνα. **204b+204d 5 (P.Oxy. 2245 fr. 1, col. II)

2 4

6 8

οὐχ ἑκου-] σία̣ δέ μ᾽ εὐμενὴς χορεύει χάρις, φ[α]ε̣ν̣ν[ὸ]ν [δ᾽ ἐῶ] χιτῶν̣α πὰρ πυρὸς ἀκάματον αὐγάν. κλυοῦσ᾽ ἐμοῦ δὲ Ναΐδων τις παρ᾽ ἑστιοῦχον σέλας πολλὰ διώξεται. — Νύμφας δέ τοι πέποιθ᾽ ἐγὼ στήσει[ν] χ̣οροὺς Προμηθ̣έ̣ως δῶ[ρ]ον ὡς σεβούσας. —

δ δ]

(str. 2)

ka δ | δ| ia ith || ka δ δ δ ||| ia ia |

eph.

ia |

ia ith |||

 13 Pind. Ol. 4.7 ἶπον (ἵππον codd. A ζ), Cratin. fr. 91 ἰποῦμεν · πιέζομεν from Hsch. ι 860 (ἱπποῦμεν cod.), Aesch. PV 365 ἰπούμενος (ἱπ⟦π⟧ού- H¹). 14 The case reminds us of Victor Hugo’s famous revolt against the metrical norms: J’ai disloqué ' ce grand niais ' d’alexandrin.

194  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus

10 12 14

16

18 20 22 24 26

κα̣λ̣[ὸ]ν̣ δ᾽ ὕ̣μνον̣ ἀ̣μφὶ τὸν δόντα μολπάσε̣ιν̣ [ἔ]ολ̣[π᾽ ἐγ]ὼ λεγούσας τόδ᾽ ὡς Προμηθε[ὺς βρο]τ̣οῖς φερέσβιός θ̣᾽ [ἅμα κ]α̣[ὶ] σπευσίδωρ[ος. χορεύσειν δ̣[ὲ δεσπόσ]α̣ντ̣᾽ ἐλπὶς ὡρ]ίου χε̣[ί]ματ[ος πολυθ]ερε̣ῖ π̣[υρ]ᾶ̣ι. —] Νύμφ⌟ας δέ τ̣⌞οι⌟ π̣έπ̣⌞ο⌟ιθ̣᾽ ἐγὼ στήσε⌟ιν χοροὺ̣ς̣ Προμ⌟η⌞θ⌟έως δῶρ̣ον ὡς̣ σ̣εβ̣ούσα⌞ς. —] αὐχῶ] δ̣ὲ̣ [κ]αὶ ποιμέν[α]ς πρέπειν̣ χορο]ῖ[σι] κ[αὶ] τὸ νυκτ̣ίπ  λαγκτον] ὄρχημ᾽ ἀ̣[μό]μ̣φ[οι]σιν ἐπιστε[φεῖς φύλ]λ̣οις ἱ[στάναι συμπεφ]ορη̣μέν[ους ] ̣ο̣υ̣[.]μεν[ ]ν· ]β̣[α]θ̣υξυλο̣[ ]χ ̣ ̣· ].[ . . .

δδ

ant. 2

ka δ | δ| ia ith (?) || δδ δ δ ||| ia ia |

eph.

ia | ia ith ||| ia hδ |

epod.

ia ia δδ| δδ|

1 ἑκου-]σία Terzaghi 1954, 337, 345, οὐχ ἑκου-]σία Ts. 2 [δ᾽ ἐῶ] Gargiulo 1979, 81, 85, Radt post Snell al., qui supplementum lacunam excedere censuerunt 5 punctum (hypodiastole) inter σέλας et πολλά pap. 10 [ἔ]ολ̣[π᾽ ἐγ]ὼ Lobel 12 Τ[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣C Lobel, Τ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[]C Radt; post ΦΕΡΕCΒΙÓC (sic) littera rotunda clare videtur, quam Θ[, i.e. θ᾽ [, leg. Ts.; θ᾽ [ἅμα κ]α[ὶ] suppl. Liapis; sed quaestiones metricae insolutae manent | σπευσίδωρ[ος omnes; an {σ}πευσίδωρος Ts.? 13 Δ[ leg. Ts. | ]NỊ᾽ Lobel, ]NỊ́᾽ Radt, ]ΑΝΤ᾽ leg. Ts. | δ̣[ὲ δεσπόσ]α̣ντ̣᾽ Ts. 14 ]EP ̣ỊX̣[. .]. .· Lobel (de X̣ dub. Radt), ]EPẸIΠ[. .]Α̑Ι·̣ leg. Ts. | πολυθ]ερε̣ῖ (?) π̣[υρ]ᾶ̣ι Ts. 18– 21 fr. 204d 5 hic collocavit Snell post Lobel 18 αὐχῶ] δ̣ὲ̣ [κ]αὶ vel δοκῶ] δ̣ὲ̣ [κ]αὶ Ts., ×× ο]ἴ[ομ]αι Mette 19 χορο]ῖ[σι] κ[αὶ] Mette 20–21 ἀ̣[με]μ̣φ[έσ]σιν Snell, ἀ̣[μό]μ̣φ[οι]σιν Radt | ἐπιστε[φεῖς φύλ]λ̣οις Lobel | ἱ[στάναι Snell | ]OP[.]MEN[ Lobel, ]OPḤMEN[ leg. Ts. | συμπεφ]ορη̣μέν[ους Ts. 22 ] ̣ [̣ . .]ṂEN[ Lobel, ] ̣ΟΥ[.]MEN[ leg. Ts.; Ν super ν[ pap. | ]τ̣οὺ̣ ̣[ς] μὲν[ dub. Ts.

If the pattern I follow is reliable, the first strophe must have ended with line 1 of 204d 12. Its exact size is unknown, but if Radt’s (p. 321) calculation that ‘intervallo ca. 16 versuum sequebatur F204b’ is correct and if the strophe extended to 6 verses, like the surviving second pair of strophe/antistrophe, then 204d 12 should be placed after 204a with a two-line gap between them. There follows in

The Fragments – Commentary  195

lines 2–4 the three-line ephymnion that speaks of the new wine, its placing by the fire, and the drunken dance. The first 3 verses of the first antistrophe survive in lines 5–7 of 204d 12. The verses missing until the end of the antistrophe must be equal to the verses of the strophe we hypothetically calculated above. After that, a three-line ephymnion is also missing as well as the first line of the second strophe. Whether the missing ephymnion was a duplicate of the previous one is unknown, but is very likely, given the paradigm of the surviving identical ephymnia that follow the second strophe and antistrophe. 1. μ(ε) χορεύει causal, ‘stirs me up to dance’. Terzaghi’s supplement ἑκου|]σία of the previous column’s bottom line is necessary, but cannot be reconciled with μ᾽ εὐμενὴς χορεύει χάρις, which presupposes an external interference, in contrast with ἑκουσία. Now, οὐχ ἑκουσία suggests an obligatory, magic dance, as in Sophocles’ Inachos or the Ichneutai, ‘willy-nilly’, however not punitive but εὐμενῆ. Not ἀκουσία, because the initial long ἀ-, contracted for ἀε-, would spoil the metre. By deleting δέ we would be relieved of the kaibelianus and gain a perfect dochmiac. But the kaibelianus responds with a similar verse in 10, and it would be too bold to emend a sentence whose context is unknown. χάρις and Χάρις are a notion and a personification frequently connected with dance. However, the chorus, though stirred up to dance, do not seem to dance yet. Perhaps they are expecting the Nymphs to enter, and then start dancing to the sound of their hymn. 2. Radt, reluctant to fill the short gap following φαεννόν, supplements , believing that the scribe omitted the end of the verse. Τ. Gargiulo enumerates a list of alternative supplements that might fit in the gap. One of them, [δ᾽ ἐῶ], makes perfect sense. The Satyr strips off the chiton, the dress worn next to the skin, and leaves it aside by the burning fire. ἐῶ here means ‘leave aside, abandon’; Il. 4.226 ἵππους μὲν γὰρ ἔασε καὶ ἅρματα ποικίλα χαλκῶι. The chiton is described as φαεννός, ‘shining, radiant’, but it is uncertain whether the description refers to a permanent or an acquired feature, i.e. whether the Satyr’s chiton was radiant from the very beginning or it was brightened by Prometheus’ gift. The second option is much likelier, as the fire has already been donated; the relics of the previous column show this clearly: 204a 2 ]φεγγος, 10 ] ̣φλεκτο[, 17 ] ̣ ̣φαι[, 204d 12.3 πέλας πυρός. Obviously, frs. 332a, 207, 187a, 288, and 336, where the Chorus have not yet acquired full knowledge of the gift’s nature, precede the choral part that celebrates the benefits of the gift. Further, it is clear that the dance takes place in the dark, in any case after sunset, so that Prometheus’ gift lights up the chiton. The joke is that the Satyrs enter in the parodos dressed in a

196  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus chiton, which implies that, prior to Prometheus’ gift, the Satyrs were dressed. Hor. Ars Poetica 220–221 carmine qui tragico uilem certauit ob hircum, | mox etiam agrestes Satyros nudauit. Thus, here the Satyrs assume the regular satyric dress, the loin-girdle, that leaves in view the tail and the phallus. Possibly, Aeschylus presents here a jocular aition for the typical satyric dress. Yet, it seems that the chiton was worn by the Satyrs elsewhere too. The old Satyrs depicted on the so-called Fujita-hydria (Martin von Wagner Museum in Würzburg, ZA 20; LIMC VII (1994) s.v. “Oidipous” nr. 72; LIMC VIII (1997) s.v. “Silenoi” nr. 160, pl. 160) are dressed in long ornamented chitons while attending to Sphinx, seated on klismoi and holding tall canes, an obvious allusion to the beast’s riddle.15 More dressed Satyrs appear on several vase-paintings (Brommer 1959, Abb. 56, 63, 64, 67, 69). Also, the coryphaeus seems to be differentiated by an ornamented chiton from the rest of the Satyrs on the Douris psykter of the British Museum as well as on the Pronomos vase. Among the names of the satyric dresses mentioned by Pollux 4.118, we read καὶ χορταῖος χιτὼν δασύς, ὃν οἱ Σειληνοὶ (= Satyrs) φοροῦσιν. This χορταῖος χιτών, is very likely the dress initially worn by the Satyrs of Prom. Pyrk., if shepherds was the part played by them, as will be argued below; cf. the sense of χόρτοι, ‘places where animals are pastured, pasturage’. Stripped off then, the Satyrs will dance the involuntary but pleasant dance, by means of which the coryphaeus expects to seduce some Naïad; cf. Prat. PMG 708.4 ἀν᾽ ὄρεα σύμενον μετὰ Ναϊάδων. Apparently, until the end of the play, the Chorus remain naked, apart from the usual loin-girdle. 3. Hes. Th. 566 ἀκαμάτοιο πυρὸς ... αὐγήν, referring to Prometheus’ theft of fire; Il. 18.610 θώρηκα φαεινότερον πυρὸς αὐγῆς, Od. 6.305 ἡ δ᾽ ἧσται ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάρηι ἐν πυρὸς αὐγῆι, Aesch. Ag. 9 (of the beacon from Ilion) αὐγὴν πυρός. 4. κλυοῦσ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ‘having heard me’ = ‘after hearing my song’ or ‘after sensing me’? Ναΐδων τις suggests a number of Nymphs of streams, marshes, springs and the like, who apparently constitute the group expected in the ephymnia to set up dances honouring Prometheus for his gift. 5. διώξεται, ‘will pursue me’. Is ‘when she senses me naked’ implied? After σέλας a conspicuous hypodiastole, possibly standing for a pause between the two different forms of dochmiac: ⏑ – – ⏑ – . – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ –. Τhe corresponding verses 13– 14 have also a fourth dochmiac of the type – ⏑] ⏑ – ⏑ –, but it is impossible to say  15 Simon 1981, 21–34; Simon 1982, 141–142.

The Fragments – Commentary  197

whether it is separated or not since the position of a potential hypodiastole falls in a gap. 10. ἔολπ᾽, if read in synecphonesis, would produce a dochmiac instead of kaibelianus; I keep the latter for reasons of responsion and for highlighting the playful alliteration μολπάσειν ἔολπ(α), given that the unaccented cluster ολπ occurs only in these two words and their derivatives and compounds in Greek. 12. The enclisis of φερέσβιός, noted in the papyrus, deceived Lobel and Radt into thinking that the letter following was T (τε or τ᾽). However, after φερέσβιός, traces of a circular letter are clearly visible, no doubt θ᾽. What follows fits exactly space-wise the proposal made by V. Liapis ἅμα καὶ σπ. Τhe first trace visible after Θ[ΑΜΑΚ] looks like a tiny top curve, but it can well be a slice of the top loop of A, which is often quite thick. Radt rightly notes “]. littera rotunda, ut vid., sed etiam ]Ạ possis”. There follows a short gap, which can accommodate an I, and then σπευσίδωρ[ος]·. Still the metrical responsion, which requires an ithyphallic, remains problematic. The hapax σπευσίδωρος has been unanimously accepted, though the compound adjective could equally well mean ‘eagerly bringing gifts’ and ‘eagerly seeking gifts’ (LSJ s.v. σπεύδω Ι.b). In any case, with the copulative ἅμα καί connecting them, one would expect that the two adjectives would describe two different or complementary features of Prometheus, not two practically synonymous. φερέσβιος, ‘life-bringing’, if the reference is to crops and fruit, as believed, and σπευσίδωρος, ‘eager to provide gifts’, have nearly the same meaning, the second being somewhat more vague than the first. Hesitantly, I suggest {σ}πευσίδωρος, also a hapax, which would add a significant characteristic to Prometheus. It certainly does not mean ‘requesting information about the gifts’. It agrees with φερέσβιος formation-wise, since both are verbal objective compounds, the difference being in the position of the verbal parts of the compounds: first in φερέσβιος (φέρω), second in πευσίδωρος (δωρέομαι); Sommerstein 2019 on Su. 12. Similar is the compound ἀλγεσίδωρος, qualifying Eros in Sappho, fr. 172 V., Eris in Oppian, Hal. 2, 668; Schol. ad loc. ἡ δωρουμένη τὰ ἄλγη, λύπας δωρουμένη. Also, the personal name Ὀνασίδωρος / Ὀνησίδωρος, ‘offering profit, advantage’. What Prometheus presents mortals with is the nominal root of πεύθομαι, the Aeschylean πευθώ (Se. 370), ‘tidings, information’ or the later πεῦσις in the meaning ‘information’, not the Stoic theoretical term πεῦσις (= question, inquiry). Sense-wise, this is exactly what Prometheus conferred on mortals: not only βίον, ‘life and crops’, but also πευθώ / πεῦσιν, ‘learning by inquiry, acquiring knowledge’. Clearly, Aeschylus’ Prometheus did not

198  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus endow humans with knowledge once for all, but with the ability to discover and examine the facts, so as to establish the truth. Something clearly expounded in PV 231–236, 442–506. Prometheus was believed to be the maker of men; see L. Eckhart 1957, 696–698 and 722–727. Ar. Av. 686 πλάσματα πηλοῦ about human beings. According to Lucian, Prom. es in verbis 3, Athena cooperated with Prometheus, ἐμπνέουσα τὸν πηλὸν καὶ ἔμψυχα ποιοῦσα εἶναι τὰ πλάσματα. In Prom. Pyrk., frs. 205 and 189a must come from a passage where Prometheus lists the skills acquired by the humans through the process inquiry→investigation→ information→knowledge he presented them with. Be that as it may, I opted to keep πευσίδωρος as a dubitable proposal in the app. crit., since σπευσίδωρος is the certain reading of the papyrus and makes sense, no matter how satisfactory. 13–14. I propose χορεύσειν δ̣[ὲ δεσπόσ]α̣ντ̣᾽ ἐλπὶς ὡ[ρ]ίου χε̣[ί]ματ[ος πολυθ]ερε̣ῖ π̣[υρ]ᾶ̣ι. ‘I hope to dance having prevailed over the season’s cold with the help of the burning-hot fire’. Before the lacuna of line 13, a short bottom horizontal suggests Δ. Then, δ̣[ὲ followed by an acc. aorist participle, not only for filling the now read ]α̣ντ̣᾽, but also for governing ὡρίου χείματος. I supplement πολυθερεῖ, though the word occurs only as a gloss on βουθερεῖ (λειμῶνι) in the Schol. Soph. Trach. 188, where not even its exact meaning is clear; “where cattle graze in summer” (Diggle). Apparently, the scholiast took Sophocles’ βου- for the prefix used colloquially for ‘huge, immense’. Βut did the compound exist before or was it a coinage of the scholiast? More usual is ζαθερής, which is, however, unmetrical; cf. Leonidas AG 6.120, ζαθερεῖ καύματι, and Suid. ζ 8 ζαθερεῖ· ἄγαν θερμῶι, while Zonaras, 951.8 Titt., adds ζαθρές· μεσημβρινὸν καῦμα τὸ δειλινόν. Also from the stem of θέρομαι, εἱληθερής, ‘warmed by the sun’ (verb εἱληθερέω, ‘bask in the sun’) and Hsch. ε 1840 ἐλαθερές· ἡλιοθαλπές. Be that as it may, the reason I prefer πολυθ]ερεῖ is different. The sound consonance between the corresponding distichs 4–5 and 13–14 is remarkable: 4 -ῦσ᾽ ἐ4 δὲ 4 -ν τ5 -ιοῦχ5 -ς πολ5 -αι.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

13 -ύσε13 δὲ 13 -ντ᾽ 14 -ίου χ14 -ς πολ14 -ᾶι.

The Fragments – Commentary  199

18. Lobel noticed that a short papyrus fragment, 204d 5.1–4 in Radt, could be placed in front of 204b.18–21, but he was hesitant to apply the connection, followed by Radt. Snell, whom I follow, applied the attachment. Four letters are missing from the opening of the stanza, no doubt a verb governing the infinitive c. acc. ποιμένας πρέπειν. × –] δ̣ὲ̣ [κ]αὶ fits the scanty traces. See below on 21. 19. νυκτίπλαγκτος is a favourite adjective of Aeschylus, possibly coined by him; Ag. 12, 330, Cho. 524, 751; cf. also αἰγίπλαγκτος Ag. 303, θαλασσόπλαγκτος PV 467, παλίμπλαγκτος PV 838, πολύπλαγκτος Supp. 572, τηλέπλαγκτος PV 576. 20. ἀ̣[με]μ̣φ[έσ]σιν Snell, but the space of the gap that is filled [έσ] is somehow shorter. Therefore, ἀ̣[μό]μ̣φ[οι]σιν, apparently proposed by Radt, though he printed the irregular ἀ̣[μέ]μ̣φ[οι]σιν. ἄμομφος is a form employed by Aeschylus alternatively to ἀμεμφής. 21. Since the shepherds do not constitute an established unit, like the Nymphs who are supposed to dance, συμπεφ]ορημέν[ους, ‘collected together’, may well refer to their forming a group, i.e. the chorus. It is evident that shepherds is the part played by the Satyric chorus. Ποιμένες is a play by Sophocles (TrGF 4, frr. 497–521 Radt), which already G. Hermann (1847, 135 = Hermann 1827–1877, VIII 314) remarked that ex illo genere fuit, quod satyrorum locum tenebat, i.e. like Euripides’ Alcestis, while others maintain that it was a manifest satyr-play. Sophocles’ story comes from the Cypria of the Epic cycle. The question is cogently discussed by A.F. Garvie 1969, 6–7, though the problem of the inclusion of Ποι]μέσιν in the didascalia of Supplices (P.Oxy. 2256, fr. 3) remains still unsolved. In Eur. Cycl., the Satyrs are shepherds tending the sheep of Cyclops. If then the Satyrs are playing the part of the shepherds, αὐχῶ would be a most likely verb (cf. Aesch. PV 338 αὐχῶ γὰρ αὐχῶ τήνδε δωρειὰν ἐμοὶ | δώσειν Δί(α)), with δ̣ὲ̣ [κ]αί highlighting their equality or perhaps rivalry with the Nymphs in dancing aptitude. δοκῶ] δ̣ὲ̣ [κ]αὶ is equally possible, perhaps with a scent of ironic superiority, ‘if I’m not mistaken’. 22. ]τ̣ο̣ὺ̣[ς] μὲν[ is possible. In the interlinear space above the N of μέν, right before the lacuna, a second N is written. Possibly, it is a supralinear correction of the missing noun that follows τοὺς μέν; e.g., τοὺς μὲν ἑούς corrected to τοὺς μὲν `ν´έους; cf. a similar correction in Aesch. Pe. 13 νέον δ᾽ ἄνδρα, where Φγρ notes γρ. καὶ ἑόν.

200  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus 23. ]ν· : Elsewhere in the papyrus, the end of a metrical unit or subunit is noted with a high dot. If this holds here too, the high dot might coincide with the end of a six-line stanza, equal-sized with the str./antistr. 2 and possibly the str./antistr. 1. It is even possible that a high dot existed also after συμπεφ]ορημέν[ους, forming a two-line subunit similarly to the pair of str./antistr. 2. However, see on 24–25. 24–25. βαθυξυλο[ may refer to the thick woodland where the seat of the Nymphs was. The text after line 22 is completely unknown. So, the mention of a stream flowing through the trees cannot be ruled out. Since the Nymphs were supposed to dance, they should leave their forest and join the shepherds in their humid meadow (204c.2 ὦ λειμών). It is unlikely that an ephymnion covered lines 24–26. The iambic ]β̣[α]θ̣υξυλο̣[ agrees with the end of the first line of the ephymnia 6–8, 15–17, which consisted of two iambic metra, but also with the homometric ephymnion 204d 12.2–4. However, the space before ]β̣[α]θ̣υξυλο̣[ seems too long to be filled by only one iambic metron, and, even worse, the relics of the next line, which in the other ephymnia was no more than one iambic metron, here seem to cover a length of ± 20 letters. Obviously, this choral unit does not agree with the previous strophe/ephymnion ~ antistrophe/ephymnion pattern. I name it tentatively epode. **204c (P.Oxy. 2245 fr. 1, col. III) 2

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

θελουσα̣[.] ̣ ̣[ ὦ λειμών̣, ̣ ̣ ̣ [̣ οἷο̣ι χορεύμασι[ν > ἱερὰ δ᾽ ἀκ̣τὶς σελ[. .] ̣̑[ τ]η̣λέγνωτον ν ̣[ ἀ̣[ν]τισέλην̣ο̣ν̣ [ σ̣[ώ]σε̣ι· π̣α̣ ̣` ̣ ̣[ [ [ [ [ ̣[ ὦ π[ ̣[ υ[ ̣[ θ̣[

The Fragments – Commentary  201

18

αν[ κ᾽ ἐ[ ̣ ̣[ ̣[ σκη[ ηδ[ ο̣τι[ κα[ κε[ β ̣[ [

20 22 24 26 28 —

μ̣[ . . .

1 in marg. sinistra punctum | ̣[ Lobel, Α[.] ̣ ̣[ (θελουσα̣[.] ̣ ̣[) leg. Ts. 2 ̣Λ Lobel, ΩΛ leg. Ts. | ΏΝ· Lobel, ΏΝ[.] ̣ ̣ ̣[ Radt, ΏΝ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ (ὦ λειμών̣) leg. Ts. 3 ̣ ̣ Ị Lobel, Radt (qui dub. οἷσι leg., propter spiritus accentusque vestigia), oἷο̣ι leg. Ts. | C[ Lobel, Radt, CỊ[ (χορεύμασι[ν) leg. Ts. 4 fort. σελ[αγ]ο̣̑[υσα 7 ̣[.]C ̣Ι·T ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ Lobel, Radt, C̣[.]CẸI · ΠΑ ̣ `̣ ̣[ (σ̣[ώ]σε̣ι· π̣α̣ ̣` ̣ ̣[) leg. Ts. 8–12 hic 204d 3 inseruit Mette 13 sqq. ἐν ἐκθέσει 3 litterarum 13 ὦ π[οιμένες si iambi erant, ὦ Π[ρομηθεῦ si trochaei 19 fort. καί in elisione

1–3. If Radt’s calculation of ca. 36 lines per column (see above) is trustworthy, the lines from 204b.18 (αὐχῶ] δ̣ὲ̣ [κ]αὶ ποιμέν[α]ς πρέπειν) to the end of the column are 18, and, with 204c.1–3 added, 21 to the end of the choral part (οἷο̣ι χορεύμασι[ν). Such a long lyric piece could not but be divided into smaller units, strophes and antistrophes. 2. λειμών, the well-watered meadow, where the dance is taking place. 3. Not οἷσι. The circle of the third letter is clearly closed. οἶος, ‘alone’, is extremely rare in tragedy (once in Aeschylus, twice in Sophocles). The traces of the accent and breathing above are indistinct, but a curved circumflex linked to an angular rough breathing is possible. χορεύμασιν must be followed by an infinitive governed by οἷοι: ‘οἷος c. inf. implies fitness or ability for a thing’ (LSJ s. οἷος III 1). Clearly, the shepherds must be meant (204b.18–22; cf. 2 ὦ λειμών). 4–7. The diple between 3 and 4 marks the end of the lyric part and the opening of a nine-verse anapaestic system. It seems that the holy ray (ἱερὰ ἀκτίς) belongs to the moon, but σελ[ cannot conceal σελήνης, which is unmetrical. Mette published ἱερὰ δ᾽ ἀκτὶς σέλας ἐκπέμπει | τηλέγνωτον; but one would expect the σέλας

202  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus to send forth rays, not the other way around. The circumflex may suggest a form of σελαγέω, ‘illuminate’. In lines 5–6, the nocturnal dance appears again (204b.19–20 νυκτίπλαγκτον ὄρχημα). τηλέγνωτον, ‘visible from afar (because of the firelight?)’ or ‘widely known’, one way or the other implying a famous nocturnal dance. ἀντισέληνον must mean ‘opposite the moon’ (cf. ἀντήλιος = ‘opposite the sun’), though = ἰσοσέληνον, of the πῦρ, is also possible. Εither way, the adjective indicates that the dance (and possibly the performance) takes place in the dark. The last five verses of the system have fallen out. Mette (1959, 128) inserted 204d 3, a five-verse fragment from the beginning of a column, into this gap. But the paragraphos after the second line of the fragment would suggest that we have a change of speaker for three lines (in what metre?) between the end of the anapaests and the beginning of the episode (see below), something quite improbable. Lobel’s general suggestion about the same fragment ‘Perhaps from fr. 1 Col. III (= fr. 204c)’ is more reasonable, if the fragment came from the bottom end of 204c. From line 13 onward, there follows a set of recitative verses, none of which is surviving in more than 3 letters (22 σκη[, 24 ο̣τι[). Radt remarks that to the trimeters surmise ‘obstat '-κ᾽ v. 19’; actually κ᾽ε[ on the papyrus. Possibly, κεἰς was considered by the scribe a case of elision in contrast to the crasis of κἀς, as is done by most modern critics: Schwyzer, GG I 402 (‘gewöhnlich κ᾽ εἰς mit Elision’), West 1982, 10 (‘καί is elided before a long vowel or diphthong in epic, Ionic, and Attic’). 13. The first of the recitative verses, begins with ωπ[, which, of course, can stand for many things, but in the opening of an episode that follows a long choral song, the speaker can well address the chorus, ὦ π[οιμένες, with iambic trimeters, or inversely the coryphaeus can address the principal character of the play, ὦ Π[ρομηθεῦ, with trochaic tetrameters. Both fr. 187a (=206 N.²) and 207, as well as a number of 440–410 BCE vase paintings (Brommer 1959, 48–49, Abb. 42–46, cat. Nr. 187–199 [p. 83]; Webster 1967, 144), manifest that Prometheus was a character in Prom. Pyrk. The vase paintings can witness with an equal degree of probability either Aeschylus’ Prom. Pyrk. ἀναδεδιδαγμένον or a new play by another poet (Brommer 1959, 49, Snell in TrGF 2 adesp. F 8i).

The Fragments – Commentary  203

**204d 2–3 (P.Oxy. 2245 frr. 2–3) 2

3

. . .

. . .

] ̣υν[ ]ορο[ ]δαν[ ]θε̣ο̣[ ]υ̣κ[ . . .

2 4

2

4

]ι[ χε[ — ἀ̣π[ τλ [̣ γε̣[ . . .

2 1 ]σ̣υν[? 2 ]ω Lobel, Radt, ‘possibly ]ọ’ Lobel, certe ]o Ts. Lobel, Radt, τλ ̣[ Ts. 5 infra Γ linea obliqua in marg.

5 ] ̣ Lobel, Radt, ]υ̣ Ts.

3 4 τ ̣ ̣[

**204d 4 (P.Oxy. 2245 fr. 4) . . .

2 4 6 8

] ̣οιακα̣[ ]ε̣ιτε̣ δ̣ιπ[ χ]ορεύεις̣ [ ] δεσμῶν ̣[ ] ̣ ̣ ̣κλαίεις ον[ ]υ̣ω Ζῆν̣᾽ ὕ̣ψ ̣ι ̣ ̣[ ]υ̣τ ̣ c̣ε̣ ̣[ ] ̣ ̣[ . . .

1 ] ̣ ‘a middle dot’ Lobel | κ̣ω[ Lobel, Radt, κα̣[ Mette | ο̣ἴᾱκα̣[ Mette, an ὁ]μ̣οῖα κα̣[ὶ?; plura possis 2 -εῖτε vel ε̣ἴτε̣; δ̣ιπ[λ vel δ̣ιπ[τ 3 χ]ορεύεις̣ [ Mette 5 ‘Traces consistent with ]προ’ Lobel 6 fort. οὐκ ἰσχ]ύ̣ω | Ỵ́ΨΙ̣ ̣[ (ὕψισ[τον) Ts. 7 fort. τα]ῦ̣τά̣ σ̣ε̣

It seems that Prometheus is addressing the Chorus-leader. The metre is uncertain. 2. If -εῖτε, it must refer to the choreuts. διπ[, whether διπ[λ or δίπ[τυχ, possibly qualifies the dance; cf. Aesch. fr. 78 (Theoroi) c.38 τῶνδε διστοίχω[ν χορῶν. Also, infra 379.2 κύκλωι περίστητ᾽ ἐν λόχωι τ᾽ ἀπείρονι implying the onefold κύκλιος

204  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus χορός. The same sense might be offered by εἴτε; ‘whether double or simple’, e.g., ἀλλ᾽] εἴτε διπ[λοῦς εἴτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ οὖν ἁπλοῦς χορούς | × –] χορεύεις. However, διπ[λ can also indicate a double chorus, i.e. one of Satyrs and one of Nymphs. See infra on 379. 4. Apparently, Prometheus’ bonds. However, since the action of Prom. Pyrk. is in a stage prior to the Titan’s punishment, it is possible that a prophecy by Prometheus has preceded to which the chorus reacted with laments. 5. προκλαίεις, as Lobel suggests, would reinforce the prophecy hypothesis. Possibly, τί δ᾽ αὖ] π̣ρ̣ο̣κλαίεις ὃν [σὺ, ‘Why do you lament beforehand one you ...?’ 6. ]υ̣ω Ζῆν̣᾽ ὕ̣ψ ̣ι ̣ ̣[, possibly οὐκ ἰσχ]ῡ́ω followed by an infinitive? The accent on ÝΨ noted in the papyrus suggests ὕψιστον, which, together with οὐκ ἰσχ]ῡ́ω, disagrees with iambs. οὐκ ἰσχ]ύ̣ω Ζῆν̣᾽ ὕ̣ψι σ  ̣[τον νικᾶν, would produce either an incredible for Aeschylus holospondaic decasyllable (West 1982, 55) or two dochmiacs fully lengthened? Four such dochmiacs occur in Aeschylus; Conomis 1964, 25–6. Are we then dealing, possibly from line 6 on, with a lyric passage, sung by Prometheus? Or is the verse anapaestic? Liapis wonders about a parodos. **204d 5 (P.Oxy. 2245 fr. 5) vid. 204b.18–21 **204d 6 (P.Oxy. 2245 fr. 6) . . .

2 4 6 8

]ρ̣οο̣[ ]ε̣γ κ ̣ ̣ν[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ]ο̣ν̣δ̣ο[ ̣]c̣α[̣ ]δ᾽ ἔμ ̣υ̣ ̣´ ̣ ̣[ ]σχ̣ε̣τε τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ π̣υρ̣[ὸς ]ο̣δουκ̣α̣λ̣λ̣[ ]πιστος ωσπ[ ]ν̣ι· ̣[.] ̣[. .]ε[

1 an ]ρ̣ω ̣[? 2 Γ̣ valde incertum M; an Π?, sc. ἔμπ̣υρ̣όν̣ ̣ [? 6 λ̣[? columnae finis

3 δ̣ου̣c̣α[̣ ? 4 Δ᾽É | ‘fort. MỌỴ’ Radt, sed hasta vert. post οὐκ̣ ἄ̣λ̣λ̣[ vel οὐ κ̣α̣λ̣λ̣[ 7 ὡς π[ vel ὥσπ[ερ 8 fortasse

The Fragments – Commentary  205

5. Not necessarily ἀπόσχετε τοῦ πυρός. Both the speaker and his addressee know the word (πῦρ), so the fragment cannot be placed near 207. **204d 7–11 (P.Oxy. 2245 frr. 7–11) 7 . . . ] ̣[ ]φᾰ́δ[ ] [

8 . . . ] ̣[ ]ει ̣[ ] [ . . .

9 . . . ]α[ . . .

10 . . . ]κ̣κα ̣[ . . .

11 . . . [̣ 2 ọ[ τ̣[ >— 4 ἰω[ ̣[ . . .

7 columnae finis 1 hasta vert., fort. Π | fort. νι]φάδ[ 8 1 hasta vert., fort. P 2 fort. C[ 10 ̣[ hasta vert. 11 1 hasta vert., fort. P 3 Ṭ ἐν ἐκθέσει 1 litterae 5 hasta horiz., fort. T, ἐν ἐκθέσει 2 litterarum

11. After line 3, the diple and the ἔκθεσις denote change of metre. What is puzzling is the ἔκθεσις of line 3, before the diple, and the further ἔκθεσις of line 5, two lines after the diple. 379 (ad feminas)

ὑμεῖς δὲ βωμὸν τόνδε καὶ πυρὸς σέλας κύκλωι περίστητ᾽ ἐν λόχωι τ᾽ ἀπείρονι εὔξασθε

Schol. B Hom. Il. 14.200 (vol. 4, p. 51 Dindorf) = Porphyr. Quaest. Hom. Il. 191.10 Schrader; Schol. DEJ Hom. Od. 1.98d.17 Pontani, ... καὶ Αἰσχύλος τὰς ἐν κύκλῳ ἑστώσας ἐν ἀπείρονι σχήματί φησιν ἵστασθαι· ‘ὑμεῖς — εὔξασθε’· τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἐν τάξει κατὰ κύκλον· ὁ γὰρ λόχος ἐστὶ τάξις, ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ λοχαγὸς ταξίαρχος.

Mette (1959, 127) combined the verses with the papyrus fragment 204a, placing it at the bottom of column I, but was puzzled as to who the speaker is and which play the papyrus comes from. West 1979, 132, assigns it to Prometheus Pyrphoros, suggesting that the chorus represented the tree-nymphs known as Μελίαι. His argument depends on Hesiod, Th. 563–564 οὐκ ἐδίδου (sc. Zeus) μελίηισι πυρὸς μένος ἀκαμάτοιο | θνητοῖς ἀνθρώποις οἳ ἐπὶ χθονὶ ναιετάουσιν, where μελίηισι can mean men, as they descended from ash-trees (A. R. 4.1641 μελιηγενέων ἀνθρώπων), or ash-trees in the general sense ‘trees’, as they were the

206  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus source of the fire that Prometheus donated mankind with, or, finally, Meliai, the tree-nymphs who were the intermediaries who received fire from Prometheus and handed it over to men. West dealt cogently with the same myth in his commentary of Hesiod Th. on 187, 563–4, as well as on Op. 145–146. Prom. Pyrk. is not discussed at all by West, obviously because being a satyrplay it would certainly have a satyric chorus. However, the text surviving in P.Oxy. 2245 provides every single fact for understanding fr. 379 and inserting it into the plot of Prom. Pyrk. Just as fr. 204d 12.2–4, heralds the dance of the Satyrs who represent shepherds, so too the two identical ephymnia (204b 6–8 and 15–17) herald a dance of Nymphs: Νύμφας δέ τοι πέποιθ᾽ ἐγὼ στήσειν χοροὺς Προμηθέως δῶρον ὡς σεβούσας. ‘I am confident that the Nymphs will start (or ‘establish’) dances’ is not a simple expression of the chorus-leader’s belief, but a specific promise proclaiming the dance of the Nymphs. Who are these Nymphs? Most likely, they are the Naiads, the stream- or spring-nymphs, who appear in 204b, 4–5 Ναΐδων τις ... πολλὰ διώξεται, and who are coupled with the Satyrs elsewhere too, with erotic innuendoes: Prat. PMG 708.4 ἀν᾽ ὄρεα σύμενον μετὰ Ναϊάδων. 204b 24 βαθυξυλο[ may suggest the provenance of the Nymphs from the deep woods, but springs and streams are commonly found in woods. In fr. 379 it must be the coryphaeus who arranges the Nymphs in a single circular line around the altar and the fire for singing their hymn of reverence (εὔξασθε) to Prometheus: Προμηθέως δῶρον ὡς σεβούσας. Even the content of their hymn is synopsized in the first period of antistrophe 2 (9–12): καλὸν δ᾽ ὕμνον ἀμφὶ τὸν δόντα μολπάσειν ἔολπ᾽ ἐγὼ λεγούσας τόδ᾽ ὡς Προμηθεὺς βροτοῖς φερέσβιός θ᾽ ἅμα καὶ σπευσίδωρος. The fragment must be placed after the surviving part of 204b, where the Nymphs’ introduction is heralded, but it is impossible to indicate a more precise position. A slight help might be 204c.1 θελουσα̣[.] ̣ ̣[, which could be related with the Nymphs, whether singing in first person or being referred to by the Satyrs. Are we dealing here with a second, this one female, chorus, in the pattern of Supplices, or only with a parachoregema? Though it is difficult to tell the differ-

The Fragments – Commentary  207

ence, I would opt for the latter, as I cannot imagine an action for the Nymphs beyond the performance of their hymn of reverence and the corresponding dance. The role of the direct receivers of Prometheus’ gift, in other words the part of the mortal men or of their intermediaries, is now played by the satyric chorus. We shall see that the intermediate Nymphs are introduced by the poet as a reference to the Dionysiac festival hosting the performance of the play. *189a

ΠΡΟΜ. ἵππων ὄνων τ᾽ ὀχεῖα καὶ ταύρων γονὰς δοὺς (sc. ego) ἀντίδουλα καὶ πόνων ἐκδέκτορα

Ι Plut. De fort. 3.98C νῦν δ᾽ οὐκ ἀπὸ τύχης οὐδ᾽ αὐτομάτως περίεσμεν αὐτῶν καὶ κρατοῦμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Προμηθεύς, τουτέστιν ὁ λογισμός, αἴτιος ‘ἵππων – ἐκδέκτορα’ κατ᾽ Αἰσχύλον | ΙΙ id. De soll. anim. 7.964F οὐ γὰρ ἀδικοῦσιν οἱ τὰ μὲν ἄμικτα καὶ βλαβερὰ κομιδῆι ἀποκτιννύοντες, τὰ δ᾽ ἥμερα καὶ φιλάνθρωπα ποιούμενοι τιθασὰ καὶ συνεργὰ χρείας, πρὸς ἣν ἕκαστον εὖ πέφυκεν, ‘ἵππων – γονάς,’ ὧν ὁ Αἰσχύλου Προμηθεύς ‘δοῦναι’ φησὶν ἡμῖν ‘ἀντίδουλα – ἐκδέκτορα’ | ΙΙΙ Porphyr. De abst. 3.18 ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ὅτι μηδὲν πονεῖν δεομένοις (sc. animalibus) χρώμεθα προκάμνουσι καὶ μοχθοῦσιν, ‘ἵππων – γονάς’, ὡς Αἰσχύλος φησίν, ‘ἀντίδουλα – ἐκδέκτορα’ χειρωσάμενοι καὶ καταζεύξαντες Promethea loquentem esse e II ὁ Αἰσχύλου Προμηθεὺς ... φησίν efficere licet || 1 ὀχεῖα Ι, ὀχείαν ΙΙ, ΙΙΙ inepte | γονάς codd., γένος Wil., γένη Blaydes | 2 ἀντίδουλα ΙΙ, ἀντίδωρα Ι, ἂν δοῦλα ΙΙΙ | ἐκδ. Ι, ΙΙΙ, inter ἐκδ., ἀνδ. et ἐνδ. fluctuant codd. II

Of course, the fragment may come from any Prometheus play other than the Δεσμώτης (Λυόμενος, Πυρφόρος, Πυρκαεύς). However, since fr. 205, where Prometheus also mentions a skill that the humans acquired through the learning he presented them with, is expressly attributed to Prom. Pyrk., 189a might well come from the same rhesis of this play; cf. Fraenkel 1950, 3, 675, n. 1. The knowledge applies to the breeding of horses and asses for producing mules, which together with domesticated bulls serve humans like slaves. Heath (1762, 161) and Wilamowitz (1914a, 74) rejected the sense ὀχεῖα = ‘coitus’, in favour of = ὄχημα, ὄχος. Accordingly, Wilamowitz changed γονάς into γένος. In PV 462–466, Prometheus makes the same claim, possibly corroborating Wilamowitz’s rejection: κἄζευξα πρῶτος ἐν ζυγοῖσι κνώδαλα, ζεύγλησι δουλεύοντα σάγμασίν θ᾽ ὅπως θνητοῖς μεγίστων διάδοχοι μοχθημάτων γένοινθ᾽· ὑφ᾽ ἅρμα τ᾽ ἤγαγον φιληνίους ἵππους, ἄγαλμα τῆς ὑπερπλούτου χλιδῆς.

208  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus 205

λινᾶ δὲ πεσσὰ κὠμολίνου μακροὶ τόνοι

Poll. 10.64 τῶν δὲ γυμνασίοις προσηκόντων σκευῶν ... ὠμόλινον, οὐ Κρατίνου (fr. 10 K.-A.) μόνον εἰπόντος τὸ ὠμόλινον, ἀλλὰ καὶ Αἰσχύλου ἐν Προμηθεῖ Πυρκαεῖ ‘λίνα δὲ πίσσα – τόνοι’.

The text as transmitted was puzzling: λίνα δὲ πίσσα κὠμολίνου μακροὶ τόνοι, with numerous odd conjectures. Metrical adjustment (λινᾶ δὲ Bentley) and an ingenious emendation (πίσσα → πεσσὰ Wilamowitz) made the verse understandable: ‘linen tampons and long stretched bands of raw flax’ is apparently the means to treat injuries or other bleeding diseases by achieving hemostasis and bandaging up the wounds. Perhaps, menstrual hygiene with tampons and pads is also implied. The fact that the skills mentioned in 189a are in the accusative as objects of δούς, but in 205 in nominative as subjects, is of no account in a long speech consisting of several sentences. The two fragments do not seem to relate to 207 where it is said about fire that τέχνης ἁπάσης ὄργανόν ἐστι τοῖς χρῆσθαι μαθοῦσι. They rather seem better connected with 204b.12 πευσίδωρος, if my proposal ad loc. is correct. Just like what we saw in the previous fragment, in PV 478–483, Prometheus claims about the medical knowledge that he offered to humans: τὸ μὲν μέγιστον, εἴ τις εἰς νόσον πέσοι, οὐκ ἦν ἀλέξημ᾽ οὐδέν, οὔτε βρώσιμον, οὐ χριστὸν οὐδὲ πιστόν, ἀλλὰ φαρμάκων χρείαι κατεσκέλλοντο, πρίν γ᾽ ἐγώ σφισιν ἔδειξα κράσεις ἠπίων ἀκεσμάτων αἷς τὰς ἁπάσας ἐξαμύνονται νόσους. As mentioned, both fragments (*189a, 205) are likely to have come from a list of the arts taught by Prometheus to the mortals, similar to the list found in Prometheus’ long rhesis in PV 436–506. However, it is also likely that the Prom. Pyrk. list was shorter and, possibly, ruder. No asses, whether breeding mules or put to carriages, neither tampons and pads were mentioned in PV. The substitution of two shorts for one in κὠμολίνου used to be the only proof that Prom. Pyrk. was a satyr-play. Though not mentioning the title of the play, fr. 332a also offers now a metrical indication. Mainly, however, the surviving papyrus fragments show a male chorus dancing drunk and naked, competing in dance with Nymphs and chasing or being chased by the Naiads, all too clear characteristics of the Satyr chorus.

The Fragments – Commentary  209

**207a

Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Opera et Dies, 89 (p. 43.9 Pertusi) φησὶν ὅτι Προμηθεὺς τὸν τῶν κακῶν πίθον παρὰ τῶν Σατύρων λαβὼν καὶ παραθέμενος τῶι Ἐπιμηθεῖ παρήγγειλε μὴ δέξασθαί τι παρὰ Διός, ὁ δὲ παρακούσας ἐδέξατο τὴν Πανδώραν.

Schoemann 1857, 281 n. 39, and Dimitrijević 1899, 59, conjectured a lacuna which, in their view, should be filled Αἰσχύλος, with the scholion referring to Prom. Pyrk. The proposal was accepted by several scholars, though it would be unthinkable how the story of Pandora and the jar of ills might fit in Prom. Pyrk. Pearson 1917, 2.136, ascribed the mention of the Sch. Hes. to Sophocles’ satyrplay Πανδώρα ἢ Σφυροκόποι, an ascription I find far more likely. 307

σφύρας δέχεσθαι κἀπιχαλκεύειν μύδρους ὡς ἀστενακτὶ θύννος ὣς ἠνείχετο ἄναυδος

Athen. 7.303C μνημονεύει δὲ τοῦ θύννου καὶ Αἰσχύλος λέγων ‘σφύρας — ἄναυδος’· καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ κτλ. 1 λέγων] ˈ σφύρας Jacobs, ἄκμων] ˈ σφύρας ? Blaydes | -ειν μ. Jacobs, Blomfield; -ει λέγων μ. Athenaei A, -ειν μύδρος Dobree, -ειν ἄκμων Blaydes 2 ὡς Α, ὃς Musurus, ὁ δ᾽ vel ὅ γ᾽ Bothe | ὣς 3 ἄναυδος Musurus, ἂν Toup, ὡς Α | ἠνείχετο Hermann, ἠνιχετο Α, ἠνέσχετο Jacobs, alii alia λυδός Α, ἄναυδος ? Blaydes

It is very likely that the fragment comes from an Aeschylean satyr-play, but, whether Bothe 1844 and West (per litteras to Radt), who suspected that the metaphor refers to Prometheus, accept also the ascription to Prom. Pyrk., is unknown. In any case, the ascription cannot stand, insofar as the tense of ἠνείχετο presupposes a case of dealing with fire prior to Prometheus’ donation of the fire. When did the mass of redhot iron endure hammer beating and forging without sighs and speechless like a tuna, if not after the mortals acquired fire? The metaphor of tough men with the anvil and the work on it is perhaps typical: Antiphanes com. fr. 193.3 K.-A. τύπτεσθαι μύδρος, Ar. Nu. 422 ἐπιχαλκεύειν παρέχοιμ᾽ ἄν, Aristophon com. fr. 5.6 K.-A. ὑπομένειν πληγὰς ἄκμων. Can the subject be Prometheus (reading μύδρος) with reference to the torture he endured uncomplainingly? We suspected such a mention in fr. 204d 4, 4 ]δεσμῶν ̣[, 5 ]π̣ρ̣ο̣κλαίεις ο [̣ , but there, the verb postulated a future act, and so we could assume it was a Promethean prophecy. It is preferable to read μύδρους with Athenaeus’ A and to take as subject some long-suffering yet stoically tolerant hero of Aeschylus. I would also opt for ὅσ’ ἀστ. in place of ὡς ἀστ., which would mitigate the annoying simile inside a metaphor. “(He was tough enough) to

210  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus receive hammer beatings and forge redhot iron masses, insofar as he suffered without groaning, like a tuna, speechless”. However, it is not easy to guess who this tough hero was, something that would identify the relevant play.

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date Could it not be that the unfolding of the satyric plot at the end of the tragic trilogy secures the inscription of the whole tetralogy into Dionysiac celebration? Even if our tradition is too scanty to help us prove that satyric drama generally ended with the institution of ritual acts, there are, none the less, numerous close links between the performance of the chorus of satyrs in the orchestra of the theatre and the cult offered by the spectators to Dionysus the Liberator by their very presence at the tragic and comic contests. Claude Calame16

Let us now attempt to draw some general conclusions from these shreds. As argued above, there can be no doubt that the play is satyric. The choreuts are male, shepherds, who, having doffed their chiton, dance naked and drunk, expecting to compete in dance and to play erotic games with the Naiads. All of these are clear satyric features. The only Prometheus play identified as satyric in the sources is Prom. Pyrk. This is clearly testified by the replacement of a short by two shorts in fr. 205, the unique fragment cited as Αἰσχύλου ἐν Προμηθεῖ Πυρκαεῖ. Fr. 332a offers also a similar metrical testimony, but the title is not indicated. The detailed plot is difficult to reconstruct, but we can assume in the opening an episode with Silenus narrating to the Satyr-chorus the scene of the donation of Prometheus. Then, another episode is probable with Prometheus explaining to the chorus the properties of fire. There follows a hilarious part with songs and dances of the Satyrs, but very probably also of a group of Nymphs. Possibly, in another episode Prometheus enumerates further gifts bestowed on the human race by himself. Being a satyr-play, which trilogy could it complement? The City Dionysia production of 472 BCE presents in its didascalia a Prometheus drama as its fourth play: ἐπὶ Μένωνος τραγωιδῶν Αἰσχύλος ἐνίκα Φινεῖ, Πέρσαις, Γλαύκωι, Προμηθεῖ. The fourth place has been considered already by Casaubon 1605, 170, a strong argument for a satyric Προμηθεύς, a case accepted, so far as I know, unanimously by every critic to the present day. However, the 472 didascalia omits both the necessary designation σατύροις or σατυρικῶι and the epiclesis Πυρκαεῖ. I have argued elsewhere (Tsantsanoglou 2020, 267–296) that the drama

 16 Calame 2010, 65–78, esp. 66.

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  211

in question was Prometheus Desmotes, performed as a fourth-place prosatyric play, comparable to what we would call ‘prerelease’ of the regular production of the Promethean tetralogy, something that can account for the stylistic divergences of the play from the other Aeschylean tragedies.17 Of course, if this proposal is accepted, the necessary link of the tragic trilogy with the Dionysiac celebration, as described by Claude Calame in the introductory precept, would not hold here. However, the 472 production was obviously untypical. The separate tragedies do not make up a trilogy that would anticipate a Dionysiac tetralogy. In an Athens that was still destroyed from the Persian occupation, the warrior-poet hastily presented what was already saved in his drawer. The full Promethean tetralogy must not have been presented much later than 472. Then, there is nothing to prevent Προμηθεὺς Πυρκαεύς from being the satyr-play of the Promethean tetralogy. I shall argue below that there is a more cogent reason why Prom. Pyrk. cannot be the satyr-play of 472 BCE. I follow the view of Westphal (1869, 216 ff.), Wilamowitz (1914b, 129), and others that Aeschylus’ Promethean trilogy consisted of Prometheus Desmotes, Lyomenos, Pyrphoros, in that order, and that the closing tragedy dealt with the restoration of friendly terms between Prometheus and Zeus and the institution of the Attic festival of Προμήθεια. It seems that the epithet Πυρφόρος was applied to the Titan in the context of this festival (Soph. OC 55). However, the tragic trilogy should proceed to the satyric drama in order to make the necessary connection of the production with the Dionysiac festival. And since mythologically the story of Prometheus was completely incompatible with that of Dionysus, the poet deals with the problem by inserting the celebration of the Promethean gift into a Dionysiac celebration, which nevertheless would be simultaneous with the celebration of the festival inside which the dramatic contest took place.

Ἀνθεστήρια, Ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια, Ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσιον Various internal elements locate the action of Prom. Pyrk. in the winter. The chorus hope to dance having prevailed over the ὥριον χεῖμα (204b.13–14), the season’s cold, with the help of the πολυθερὴς πυρά, the scorching fire of Prometheus’ gift. Elsewhere the chorus sing of Zeus who rains upon the mortals’ heads, while the snow freezes their soaked heads (204d 12.5–7). The action can  17 In the same article, the proposal for inauthenticity of PV, which tends to prevail among classicists, is now, as I hope, conclusively disproved through the testimony of a most reliable witness, Sophocles.

212  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus be more accurately located in time thanks to the mention of γλεῦκος (204d 12.2), i.e. the new wine. We know that the opening of the jars with the new wine was celebrated in the Πιθοίγια, the first day of Anthesteria, on the 11th of the month ᾽Ανθεστηριών, about the end of February. On the 12th, the Χόες was considered the official (ἐπίσημος) festival of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις, where the ἀρχαιότερα or ἀρχαιότατα Dionysia were celebrated by the Athenians with choral dances.18 More particulars can be drawn from Thucydides and his Scholia: Thuc. 2.15.3–4 τὸ δὲ πρὸ τοῦ (before Theseus’ ξυνοικισμός) ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἡ νῦν οὖσα πόλις ἦν, καὶ τὸ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον. τεκμήριον δέ· τὰ γὰρ ἱερὰ ἐν αὐτῆι τῆι ἀκροπόλει καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστι (i.e. apart from Athena’s, who is mentioned before) καὶ τὰ ἔξω πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος τῆς πόλεως μᾶλλον ἵδρυται, τό τε τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου καὶ τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὸ τῆς Γῆς καὶ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου, ὧι τὰ ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια τῆι δωδεκάτηι ποιεῖται ἐν μηνὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνι, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων Ἴωνες ἔτι καὶ νῦν νομίζουσιν. Schol. Thuc. 2 in P.Oxy. 853 (ed. Grenfell/Hunt 1908), col. x. 7 ff.: |7 τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσο[υ· Καλλίμαχος |8 μέν φησ[ιν·] εὖ δὲ Διονυ[σ . . . . . . . |9[.]η̣τον[. .]τ᾽ Ἐλευθὴρ ει[. · Λιμναίωι |10 [δὲ χ]οροστάδ̣ας ἦγον ἑ[ορτάς· . . . |11 [. . .]ος δὲ οὕτ[ω]ς φησὶν [καλεῖσθαι |12 [δι]ὰ τὸ ἐκλελ[ι]μνάσθαι [τὸν τόπον. |13 [ἔσ]τι δὲ καὶ ἐν τ̣ῆι Λακωνί[αι ἱερὸν |14 [ὅπ]ου Λιμνᾶτ[ί]ς ἐστιν Ἄρτ[εμις. |15 [ὧι τ]ὰ ἀρχαιότατα Διονύσια τῆι ιβ´ ποι|16[εῖται·] ἐπὶ τρεῖς μέ[ν] ἐσ[τι]ν ἑορτὴ ἡμέ|17[ρας] ια´ ιβ´ ιγ´, ἐπίσ[ημός ἐσ]τι δὲ ἡ ιβ´, |18 [ὡς] καὶ εἶπεν αὐ[τός]. Callimachus’ fr. 305 Pf. from Hecale, quoted by the Scholiast of Thucydides as a testimony of the prehistory of the Dionysus festival ἐν Λίμναις, has been published as a deficient hexameter (Λιμναίωι – ἑορτάς), with the help of Schol. Ar. Ran. 216 and Stephanus Byz. 417.13, where that part of the fragment was also transmitted. Making use of the fragmentary text of Thucydides’ scholion, we can reconstruct the distich as follows: εὖτε Διώνυ[σον πρὶν ἀοί|9κ]η̣τόν [πο]τ᾽ Ἐλευθὴρ εἴ[α, Λιμναίωι |10 δὲ χ]οροστάδ̣ας ἦγον ἑ[ορτάς. 1 ευδε pap., εὖτε Ts. | Διονυ[ pap., Διωνυ[σ Wil. ap. Gr./H. | ̣]η̣ pap. sec. Gr./H. Ts. | [πο]τ᾽ Wil. 2 εἴ[α Ts.

πρὶν ἀοί|κ]η̣τόν

“When in times past Eleuther left Dionysus houseless, and they (the Athenians) held dancing feasts to Dionysus in the Marshes.”

 18 See Hamilton 1992, Robertson 1993.

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  213

A. Hollis (2009), fr. 85, published differently: οὐδὲ Διωνύ[σωι Μελαναί|9γ]ιδ̣ι, τόν [πο]τ᾽ Ἐλευθὴρ εἵ[σατο, Λιμναίωι |10 δὲ χ]οροστάδ̣ας ἦγον ἑορτάς. 1 ευδε pap., οὐδὲ Barrett ap. Hollis | Διονυ[ pap., Διωνυ[σ Wil. ap. Gr./H. | ̣] ̣δ̣ι pap. sec. Barrett ap. Hollis | Διωνύ[σωι Μελαναί|γ]ι̣δι̣  Barrett ap. Hollis (Διώνυ[σον Μελαναίγιδ] iam Kapp 1915, fr. 94) 1-2 τόν [πο]τ᾽ Ἐλευθὴρ | εἵ[σατο Wil. “Τhey celebrated festivals with dancing, not to Dionysus of the Black Goatskin, whose cult Eleuther established , but to Dionysus of the Marshes.”

Hollis follows I. Kapp in introducing Melanaegis into the fragment, then W.S. Barrett in connecting negatively Melanaegis with Limnaeus, and finally Wilamowitz in supplementing a parenthetic relative clause. I preferred to follow Pfeiffer in rejecting Wil.’s relative clause, as it would violate a Callimachean metrical peculiarity (word-break not allowed after a spondaic fourth foot: Naeke’s Law): “potius vocab. in -ητον exspectes”. Hollis points out (2009, 272) that “one might expect the fragment of Call. to be relevant to the greater antiquity of the festivities honouring Dionysus in the Marshes”. However, how could one surmise that one of the two festivities was older than the other based on a distich which states that the Athenians did not have dancing feasts in honour of Dionysus Melanaegis, whom Eleuther instituted some time in the past, but they did have in honour of Dionysus Limnaeus? Two different festivities might well include different events irrespective of their relative antiquity. The problem with the text published by Hollis is also palaeographic. It occurs mainly at the ends of line 9, both left- and right-hand. Supplementing with W.S. Barrett Γ]Ι̣ΔΙ (or ΓΙΔ], as I. Kapp) for what Gr./H. read ̣ ]Ḥ is, I believe, too long, but also, at the right-hand margin, Wilamowitz’s EI[CATOΛΙΜΝΑΙΩΙ for Gr./H.’s EI[ ̣ΛΙΜΝΑΙΩΙ, seems extremely long. I have not seen P.Oxy. 853 (now in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo) apart from its cols. xvi–xvii, whose photographs are published in Grenfell/Hunt 1908, pl. IV. So, I do not know whether ]Ι̣ΔΙ could be read or not. However, I have serious doubts about whether Γ]Ι̣ΔΙ could fit in the space provided. The text published by Grenfell and Hunt shows that the average number of letters per line is 25–27, excepting the lines that open a scholion containing a lemma from Thucydides ἐν ἐκθέσει, which are longer, and the final lines of the scholia, which can be shorter. The scribe is so meticulous in keeping a straight right-hand margin, that when the final word of a regular line is somewhat shorter, he fills the gap to the imaginary right-hand margin with a filler mark. Barrett possibly destroys the alignment with the next verses, but Wilamowitz creates an enormous line of 31 characters (6 iotas), to which Gr./H. strongly objected. Barrett dealt with the problem by extending the ends of the other scholion lines beyond their average length: 10/11 Δί|δυμ]oς Gr./H., Φιλό|χορ]ος Wil., Ἀπολλό|δωρ]ος Barrett, 11 [καλεῖσθαι| Gr./H., [ἐπικαλεῖσθαι| Barrett, 12 [τὸν τόπον| Gr./H., [ποτὲ τὸ ἱερόν| Barrett, 13 Λακωνί[αι ἱερὸν| Gr./H., Λακωνι[κῆι τόπος| Wil., Λακωνί[αι λίμνη τις| Barrett. My proposals for the lines that contain the distich yield

214  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus the following number of letters: 8 → 27 (5 iotas), 9 → 26 (4 iotas), 10 → 26 (1 iota with Φιλό|χορ]ος). Also, line 17 has 26 (6 iotas) letters.

What Thucydides is concerned with is that, before Τheseus’ ξυνοικισμός, the city of Athens was situated to the south of the Acropolis, as is shown by the fact that the old hiera were mostly placed there. Among these hiera was τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου, whose antiquity was evident from the date of its festival which was the same as the one followed by the Ionian colonists who came from Athens (it is understood, under the leadership of Neleus, son of Kodros). The Scholiast of Thucydides produces the distich of Callimachus for reinforcing the antiquity of the festivities in honour of Dionysus Limnaeus. Ιndirectly, the Callimachus fragment emphasizes the precedence of the festivities ἐν Λίμναις over all other Dionysiac feasts in Athens. Eleuther introduced Dionysus’ cult image to Athens from Eleutherae, and the Athenians worshipped the god with outdoor dances ἐν Λίμναις before a temple and other auxiliary structures were constructed, possibly even before a temenos was defined for him. The god was named Λιμναῖος after the venue where the dances took place. Schol. Thuc. 2 in P.Oxy. 853, col. x 7 f. reads: Καλλίμαχος |8 μέν φησ[ιν·] ευδε. The latter was unanimously transcribed as εὖ δέ (apart from Barrett/Hollis, who emended οὐδέ), though it was unknown in what context Callimachus would approve the event (‘it was good that’), as well as whether εὖ δέ was preceded by an εὖ μέν and what that might introduce. What would serve the Scholiast’s argument about the prehistory of the dancing feasts ἐν Λίμναις would be a temporal particle. εὖτε is such a particle, especially favourite to Callimachus. “When at some time in the past Eleuther left Dionysus houseless (sc. the xoanon of the god in the open), and they (the Athenians) held dancing feasts in honour of Dionysus in the Marshes”. The apodosis of the temporal clauses did not survive, apparently, because it did not serve the argument of the Scholiast. However, if my proposal is correct, it is clear that Callimachus refers to an earlier situation (Ἐλευθὴρ πρίν ποτ᾽ εἴα Διώνυσον ἀοίκητον), which, as is well known, changed altogether later. Schol. Ar. Ran. 216 referring to τὸν ἐν Λίμναις Διόνυσον λεγόμενον, notes τόπος ἱερὸς Διονύσου, ἐν ὧι καὶ οἶκος καὶ νεὼς τοῦ θεοῦ. In any case, it can be inferred that, later than the initial situation described by Callimachus, two feasts were held, one in honour of Dionysus Limnaeus, in the winter, and the other in honour of Dionysus Eleuthereus, in the spring. Nonnus, Dionysiaca 27.306–7, makes Zeus prophesy to Athena the victory of the Athenians over the Boeotians:

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  215

οὐ μετὰ δὴν Φρύγα ῥυθμὸν ἀνακρούσουσιν Ἀθῆναι Λιμναῖον μετὰ Βάκχον Ἐλευθερίωι Διονύσωι. Ἐλευθερίωι C.F. Hermann : Ἐλευσινίωι codd. “not long later Athens will perform a Phrygian melody first to Bacchus Limnaeus, then to Dionysus Eleuthereus.”

The oldness of the sanctuary of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις is confirmed in [Dem.] 59 (Against Neaera) 76–77. The sanctuary was not only the oldest and holiest of the god, but also opened once every year on the 12th of Anthesteriōn: καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῶι ἀρχαιοτάτωι ἱερῶι του Διονύσου καὶ ἁγιωτάτωι ἐν Λίμναις ἔστησαν, ἵνα μὴ πολλοὶ εἰδῶσιν τὰ γεγραμμένα· ἅπαξ γὰρ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἑκάστου ἀνοίγεται, τῆι δωδεκάτηι τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος μηνός. Paus. 1.20.3 places the oldest sanctuary of Dionysus close to the theatre: τοῦ Διονύσου δέ ἐστι πρὸς τῶι θεάτρωι τὸ ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν· δύο δέ εἰσιν ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου ναοὶ καὶ Διόνυσοι, ὅ τε Ἐλευθερεὺς καὶ ὃν Ἀλκαμένης ἐποίησεν ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ.

Topography, Ηieron of Horae, τὰ Ἴκρια As is clear from the argument of Thucydides, the hieron of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις was located south of the Acropolis. It must have been close to the river Ilissos, something that explains the presence of marshes in the area. As Thucydides asserts, 2.15.5, Athenians collected water from the spring Καλλιρρόη, which was open, as were all the springs at that time. So, it can be surmised, it was not only the water of Ilissos but also of the open springs, which contributed to the area being named Λίμναι, Marshes. IG I³ 84 (418/7 BCE), a decree concerning the fencing of the sanctuary of Kodros, Neleus, and Basile, and the renting of the temenos of Neleus and Basile, apparently inside the larger sanctuary, presents evidence for a Dionysion adjoining the specific sanctuary. J. Travlos19 connected the sanctuary with a horos stone inscribed ΗΟΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΗΙΕΡΟ found in situ at the junction of Hatzichristou and Singrou streets. A second similar stone was found later, some 40 m. east of the first, at the junction of Singrou and Vourvachi streets. Based on this evidence, Travlos placed the sanctuary of Kodros, Neleus, and Basile inside the city wall close to the Itonian Gates, where, as he cogently argues, Kodros was

 19 Travlos 1971, p. 332–333 fig. 435.

216  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus killed by the Peloponnesians according to the legend. N.W. Slater20 rejected the identification, because Travlos “ignores the ancient evidence that Kodros fell outside the wall”. However, Lycurgus, Leocr. 20.86–87, places the spot where Kodros fell κατὰ τὰς πύλας ... πρὸ τῆς πόλεως. It was expected that the sanctuary, so expanded as the decree attests, with an orchard of more than 200 olive trees, would be founded near the gates, but inside the wall, and not in the narrow space between the walls and the Ilissos bank. The average number of olive trees per hectare is ca. 272. This possibly defines the area of the Neleus and Basile temenos—very likely the main part of the whole sanctuary—, but not its specific boundaries. The adjoining Dionysion is attested to have been inside the city wall,21 bordering the sanctuary of Kodros, Neleus, and Basile on the latter’s west side, as its east side is adjacent to the wall. Ιts dimensions, however, cannot be defined. Following Travlos’s plan, archaeologists believe that the Dionysion ἐν Λίμναις lies in the area adjoining the south side of the new Acropolis Museum. The question is whether the old Dionysion ἐν Λίμναις was expanded northward after the City Dionysia festival was established, reaching the southern slope of the Acropolis, where, in c. 500 BCE, the Dionysus theatre was established. The sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus, which lies exactly to the north of the new Acropolis Museum, and the Dionysion ἐν Λίμναις, which lies right to its south, would possibly constitute in the 5th century a common sanctuary, simply Dionysion, where Dionysus was celebrated in two different festivals, in different dates, under different epithets, and at different events. Yet, the data may have changed from time to time.22 The relationship of the two sanctuaries may be highlighted by Callimachus’ distich from Hecale, which dates the festivity back to the transfer of Dionysus’ statue from the Boeotian Eleutherae to Athens—i.e., as a passage of Pausanias (1.2.5) seems to imply, during the reign of Amphictyon, long before Theseus—, before a temple or other structures were erected, and so the Athenians worshipped the god in a marshy area by outdoor dances.23

 20 Slater 1986, 255–264, esp. 260–261. 21 Isaeus 8.35 Κίρων γὰρ ἐκέκτητο οὐσίαν, ... οἰκίας δ᾽ ἐν ἄστει δύο, τὴν μὲν μίαν μισθοφοροῦσαν, παρὰ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσιον. 22 The mention of a property of Zeus Olympios παρὰ τὸ Διονύσιον in the 343/2 BC inscription published by Walbank 1983, 117–118, 123–124, may imply such a common sanctuary. 23 An extremely useful and documented, yet inconclusive, discussion in Pickard-Cambridge ²1968, 1–25. Marchiandi/Savelli 2011, and Di Cesare 2011, gave a most valuable account of the Kodros, Neleus, and Basile hieron, and the ἐν Λίμναις topographical problems in combination with a report about the Anthesteria festival, thoughtfully updating the conclusions of Travlos.

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  217

The mention of γλεῦκος, i.e. the new wine, in the Prom. Pyrk. (204d 12.2) leads us also to the same hieron ἐν Λίμναις and to the same festival, the Anthesteria, on whose first day, on the 11th of Ἀνθεστηριών, the Πιθοίγια, i.e., the opening of the wine-jars, were celebrated, as noted above. The next day, the 12th, was dedicated to the feast of Χόες, the official festival of Limnaeus Dionysus, what Thucydides names ἀρχαιότερα and his Scholiast ἀρχαιότατα Διονύσια. It was then that, according to Callimachus’ fr. 305, the Athenians held χοροστάδας ἑορτάς. The 4th century BCΕ Atthidographer Phanodemus (FGrHist 325 F 12) connects the opening of the wine-jars with the hieron of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις, where the Athenians brought the γλεῦκος to the god before tasting it themselves and mixed it with water from the sources in the area. This is why the Nymphs of the springs were named Nurses of Dionysus, since the water being mixed causes the wine to grow as it increases its quantity.24 The Athenians, then, enjoyed drinking the mixture, and worshipped Dionysus with songs and dances calling him Εὐάνθης (some conjecture Εὔας), Διθύραμβος, Βακχευτάς and Βρόμιος. In another version of the story, as told by the 3rd century Atthidographer Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F 5b), the god is supposed to have taught king Amphictyon the proper proportions of mixing water with wine. Popular aetiology has it that unmixed wine forced the drinkers to stoop, whereas mixed wine kept them erect. So, the king built an altar of Dionysus Erect inside the hieron of Horae (βωμὸν Ὀρθοῦ Διονύσου ἐν τῶι τῶν Ὡρῶν ἱερῶι); Niafas 2000. Philochorus adds that, adjacent to the altar of Dionysus Erect (apparently, inside the hieron of Horae), Amphictyon built also an altar to the Nymphs, as a reminder of the mixing of water with wine, since the Nymphs are called Διονύσου τροφοί. The interconnection of the three divine entities is not unknown. In the Mnesiepes inscription (SEG 15:517, mid-3rd c. BC) that quotes a Delphic oracle about the institution of an Archilochus temenos in Paros, we read: 8–11 Μνησιέπει ὁ θεὸς ἔχρησε λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον εἶμεν ἐν τῶι τεμένει, ὃ κατασκευάζει, ἱδρυσαμένωι βωμὸν καὶ θύοντι ἐπὶ τούτου Διονύσωι καὶ Νύμφαις καὶ Ὥραις. We do not know the location of the sanctuary of Horae in Athens. Depending on Phanodemus’ evidence, but also on the topography of Athens, since the worship of the spring-Nymphs was to be expected in an area with natural sources, as was primarily the site of Kallirrhoë (later constructed as public fountains under the name Enneakrounos) close to Ilissos, one may connect the Horae sanctuary and the altars in it with the Anthesteria and the ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσια. Pindar’s Dithyramb Ἀθηναίοις B (fr. 75 Sn.-M.), which has also been  24 See below on Aeschylus’ play Τροφοί or Διονύσου Τροφοί.

218  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus brought forward, synchronizes the opening of the chamber of Horae with the coming of the spring: 14–15 φοινικοεάνων ὁπότ᾽ οἰχθέντος Ὡρᾶν θαλάμου | εὔοδμον ἐπάγοισιν ἔαρ φυτὰ νεκτάρεα, “when, with the opening of the chamber of the crimson-robed Horae, nectareous plants bring on the fragrant spring”. Although an indirect reminder of the Horae sanctuary cannot be ruled out, the whole distich is clearly figurative, since one cannot expect a literal opening of the sanctuary’s chamber but an effusion from within of a metaphorical sweet smell of spring flowers. Pindar summons the Olympian gods of the Athenian Agora to join his chorus and to watch the choreuts advance to the god in whose celebration the dithyramb was performed, i.e., Dionysus. And this takes place at the opening of the spring, when, as is well known, the springtime festival of Dionysus was celebrated, i.e., the Great or City Dionysia, not the Dionysia in the Marshes or other festivals. The only tangible evidence for an Athenian shrine of Horae and Nymphs is the undated inscription IG IΙ² 4877, Ὥραις καὶ Νύμφαις ἀνέθηκεν, found some 340 m. east of the Acropolis, in an area that has been proposed as the possible site of the old Agora, quite far away from Ilissos and the sources area. In any case, the inscription was not found in situ, and the absence of Dionysus makes the assumption even more inconclusive.25 Thucydides’ wording in 2.15.4 τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου, ὧι τὰ ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια τῆι δωδεκάτηι ποιεῖται ἐν μηνὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνι, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων Ἴωνες ἔτι καὶ νῦν νομίζουσιν, especially the reference to the Ionians who came from Athens and “still now” customarily use this date, seems to imply that the date of the feast was “now” changed in Athens itself. Hsch. λ 1037 (λιμναγενές· ...) Λίμναι· ἐν Ἀθήναις (conj. Latte; ΑΣ cod.) τόπος ἀνειμένος Διονύσωι, ὅπου τὰ Λαῖα (sic cod., Λήναια Musurus) ἤγετο, confirms the confusion both locally and temporally. Also, a scholion on Ar. Ach. 961 in recounting Orestes’ visit to Athens, which is alluded to as the aition of the ritual of Χόες, states ἦν δὲ ἑορτὴ Διονύσου Ληναίου. Both the Hesychius entry and the Aristophanic scholion are rejected by many scholars, sometimes reading ὅπου τὰ Λαῖα ἤγετο or emending Διονύσου Ληναίου to Διονύσου Λιμναίου. In any case, the location of the Λήναιον is a different problem. Be that as it may, it is very likely that the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια of Thucydides were not limited to χοροστάδες ἑορταί. Though Pickard-Cambridge 21968 rejects this possibility, the festival could well include dramatic contests. The Scholiast of Ar. Ran. 218 quotes the information given by Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F 57): ἤγοντο δὲ ἀγῶνες αὐτόθι οἱ Χύτρινοι καλούμενοι, καθά φησι Φιλόχορος ἐν τῇ ἕκτηι  25 Neer/Kurke 2014, 527–579.

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  219

τῶν Ἀτθίδων. The Scholia on the next verse (Ran. 219) specify where αὐτόθι was: κατ᾽ ἐμὸν τέμενος] ἑαυτῶν τέμενος λέγουσι (sc. the Frogs) τὸ ἐν Λίμναις τοῦ Διονύσου ἱερόν. Of course, ἀγῶνες can refer to all sorts of contests, but the fourth century law of the orator Lycurgus, which reestablished a long-eclipsed dramatic contest in the Chytroi, clarifies the kind of contests; see below. A dramatic contest is, of course, inconceivable without audience, and the hieron τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου did not provide the spectators with sitting facilities. We hear about the ἴκρια, the wooden benches whose collapse was the cause of the construction of the Dionysus theatre. However, Pausanias, the Atticist lexicographer, quotes: ι 3 Erbse, from Eust. 1472.3 = Phot. ι 95 Theodoridis, ἴκρια· τὰ ἐν τῆι ἀγορᾶι, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς Διονυσιακοὺς ἀγῶνας πρὶν ἢ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον. This led many scholars to believe that Athens initiated the theatrical activity in the marketplace and some of them to try to spot where in the Agora this activity could have taken place. However, I confidently believe that Wilamowitz (1886, 598 n. 2 = Wilamowitz 1935, 149 n. 2) was right when he suggested that Pausanias’ statement was no more than one of the usual corruptions produced in lexica by the combination of two different glosses. Pollux 7.125 describes the profession of joiners by ἰκριοποιοὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶν οἱ πηγνύντες τὰ περὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἴκρια, which may well refer to fitting together benches or bleachers of spectators at the several shows in the Agora, but also booths and stalls for the sale of goods in the market. A more accurate location of the ἴκρια was specified in Phot. α 505 αἰγείρου θέα καὶ ἡ παρ᾽ αἴγειρον θέα· Ἀθήνησιν αἴγειρος ἦν, ἧς πλησίον τὰ ἴκρια ἐπήγνυον εἰς τὴν θέαν πρὸ τοῦ τὸ θέατρον γενέσθαι. οὕτως Κρατῖνος (Cratin. fr. 372 K.–A.). Numerous versions are recorded in lexica, some of which offer possibly useful details. E.g., Hsch. π 513 παρ᾽ αἰγείρου θέα, which mentions Eratosthenes (fr. 3 Str.) as the original source of the gloss, or Hsch. α 1695 αἰγείρου θέα, which adds that the αἴγειρος was πλησίον τοῦ ἱεροῦ. If πρὸ τοῦ τὸ θέατρον (n.b. not τὸ λίθινον θέατρον) γενέσθαι, refers to the time when no theatre was founded in the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus, then both the αἴγειρος and the ἴκρια should not be placed on the south slope of the Acropolis, but somewhere else. It is uncertain which hieron is implied by πλησίον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, but the ἐν Λίμναις τοῦ Διονύσου ἱερόν cannot be ruled out. However, a parallel article, Hsch. θ 166 θέα παρ᾽ αἰγείρωι· τόπος αἴγειρον ἔχων, ὅθεν ἐθεώρουν. εὐτελὴς δὲ ἐδόκει ἡ ἐντεῦθεν θεωρία· μακρόθεν γὰρ ἦν καὶ εὐώνου (sc. τιμῆς vel τιμήματος) ὁ τόπος ἐπωλεῖτο (also with numerous versions in other lexica), seems to refute this claim. It must refer to watching the performance from afar, from the last rows of seats or even higher in the theatre of Eleuthereus, what today is called “από τα βραχάκια; from the little rocks”, for watching the modern shows at the Odeum of Herodes Atticus

220  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus adjacent to the theatre of Dionysus. And this meaning accords better with a comic treatment, as is shown by the reference to Cratinus. An even more accurate location is indicated in IG I³ 84, the decree of 418/7 BCE mentioned above, which concerned the fencing off of the hieron of Kodros, Neleus, and Basile, as well as the lease of the temenos of Neleus and Basile. As we saw, the decree shows clearly enough that a Dionysion adjoined from its east side the specific sanctuary, and it is a widely-held belief that the sanctuary is the Dionysion ἐν Λίμναις. The decree states verbatim: 26–28 τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα τόδε, ὅπως ἂν ἦι εἰδέναι τῶ[ι] βουλομένωι, ἀναγράψας ὁ γραμματεὺς ὁ τῆς βουλῆς ἐν στήληι λιθίνηι καταθέτω ἐν τῶι Νηλείωι παρὰ τὰ ἴκρια. Now, ἴκρια, as we saw, may denote several constructions, their common denominator being the joining of pieces of wood. They can be the benches and bleachers for spectators, but also the wooden stalls or the booths or the platforms of the marketplace, the wooden railings, the scaffoldings, the decking of a ship, and, possibly even more constructions. Some times we find τὰ ἴκρια used in a familiar tone for the theatre of Dionysus (Cratin. fr. 360 K.-A., Ar. Thesm. 395), as we today speak of ‘the stalls’ for the ground floor of a theatre, especially, since, as we know, the seats in the koilon of the pre-Lycurgean theatre were mostly wooden. The usual interpretation of the inscription passage is that the secretary of the Council must arrange for the decree to be engraved on a stone stele which should be erected in the Neleion next to the theatre or next to the railings. However, ‘the theatre’ is an inaccurate spot, especially when it is expressed in an everyday term, ‘next to the stalls’. Further, this interpretation would presuppose that the sanctuary of Neleus extended to the north as far as the theatre or, to be more precise, the wooden stalls of the theatre. But wasn’t the place occupied by the sanctuary of Eleuthereus? Even if, as I speculated above, the Dionysion ἐν Λίμναις and the Dionysion of Eleuthereus were possibly unified at some unspecified time, the decree would not refer to the Neleion but to the Dionysion. On the other hand, ‘the railings’ were supposed to enclose the whole hieron of Kodros, Neleus and Basile; how could they define a specific spot? Chiara Lasagni 2018, 350 n. 56, suggests “some sort of barrier placed at the core of the Neleion”. However, all this is extremely vague, whereas the secretary of the Council is ordered to erect the stele at a particular spot, “so that anyone who wishes may be able to know”. And this spot is specified: “in the Neleion next to the Ikria” (I deliberately capitalize), not “next to some ikria”.

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  221

Lately, Christina Papastamati-von Moock26 published the spectacular findings from the excavations conducted at the Dionysus Theatre under her supervision. Among these findings a large number of holes of timber posts was discovered in the koilon area under and between the tiers of seats. Papastamativon Moock argues cogently that the post-holes held the much talked-about ikria. Her ‘surgical’ examination showed that the embedded posts were not forcefully dismantled but were carefully removed leaving their positions undisturbed. She dates the original wooden theatre in the late-archaic era, and the removal of the posts in the age of Pericles, whose plan was to replace the wooden theatre with a marble one, a plan left unfinished.27 There can be no doubt that the posts were part of ἴκρια, the wooden benches on which the spectators sat. Were they, however, the famous ἴκρια, whose collapse led to the erection of the theatre of Dionysus? Αll information we’ve got about the collapse are two Suda articles, incompatible with each other. The first: Sud. αι 357 Αἰσχύλος ... φυγὼν δὲ εἰς Σικελίαν διὰ τὸ πεσεῖν τὰ ἴκρια ἐπιδεικνυμένου αὐτοῦ, χελώνης ἐπιρριφείσης αὐτῶι ὑπὸ ἀετοῦ φέροντος κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς, ἀπώλετο ἐτῶν †νη´ γενόμενος. The article refers to the ikria collapse not as the reason for the construction of the Athens theatre but for driving the tragedian into exile or possibly into seeking refuge in Sicily, where, after two years, he met his death. This could be done only during the production of Oresteia in 458 BCE, when the theatre was already constructed many years ago. The collapsed ikria were undoubtedly in the koilon of the Dionysus theatre. The collapse must have caused Aeschylus’ referral to justice, if he was accused of raising with his production such a commotion among the spectators that led to the collapse of the ikria with potential casualties—something witnessed even today in football matches and musical shows. Apsines, the 3rd century CE rhetor, 2 p. 229.14 Spengel-Hammer, speaking of legal cases ἐξ ἀποβάσεως, which he specifies (p. 227.17) as ὅπου τοῦδέ τινος λεχθέντος ἢ γραφέντος ... ἀπέβη τι δεινόν, mentions παραδείγματος ἕνεκα ... καὶ ὁ Αἰσχύλος ὁ ἐπὶ ταῖς Εὐμενίσι (TrGF 3, T 95). The Vita 9 confirms the event. The report sounds greatly anecdotal, but it can reflect the usual exaggerated accusations we encounter in the Athenian courts: τινὲς δέ φασιν ἐν τῆι ἐπιδείξει τῶν Εὐμενίδων σποράδην εἰσαγαγόντα τὸν χορὸν τοσοῦτον ἐκπλῆξαι τὸν δῆμον ὡς τὰ μὲν νήπια ἐκψῦξαι, τὰ δὲ ἔμβρυα ἐξαμβλωθῆναι. The Vita continues: ἐλθὼν τοίνυν εἰς Σικελίαν, “therefore, having gone to Sicily ...”. After that, however, the Vita proceeds to a confused account, involving Hieron in Aeschylus’ doings in Sicily, though he was already dead  26 Papastamati-von Moock 2020. 27 Papastamati-von Moock 2020, 62–66, fig. 17, 18, 20.

222  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus since 467 BCE.28 I am not certain whether Aristarchus and Apollonius refer to the Oresteia as a trilogy χωρὶς τῶν σατύρων meaning that the satyric Proteus was unconnected with the story of the three tragedies (which is not correct) or implying that the satyr-play was not included in the archives.29 If the latter, one might think that after the collapse of the ikria during the performance of Eumenides, it would not be possible to complete the production with the conclusive satyr-play, a fact, possibly, reflected in the archives. In any case, Aeschylus earned the first prize, but soon was taken to court as accountable for the collapse. The 458 BCE collapse may have prompted Pericles to add to his huge programme of architectural works on the Acropolis the conversion of the wooden theatre into a marble one, a project that was left unfinished. The second article: Sud. π 2230 Πρατίνας ... ἐπιδεικνυμένου δὲ τούτου συνέβη τὰ ἴκρια, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἑστήκεσαν οἱ θεαταί, πεσεῖν, καὶ ἐκ τούτου θέατρον ὠικοδομήθη Ἀθηναίοις. This article seems more relevant, as it clearly names the ikria collapse as the motive for the Athenians to construct the theatre. The Phliasian Pratinas must have settled in Athens since the late 6th century. Ηe competed with Aeschylus and Choerilus in the 70th Olympiad (499/96 BCE). He died ante 467, when Aristias, his son, produced three plays of his father that had survived. Pratinas, famous for his satyr-plays, may well have performed before the construction of the Dionysus theatre. His hyporchema (PMG 708; TrGF vol. I, 4 F 3), a dancing ode to Dionysus sung by a chorus dressed as Satyrs, offers many clues that suggest a performance in the Dionysion ἐν Λίμναις, at the Callimachean χοροστάδες ἑορταί of the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια during the Anthesteria festival. He actually urges the Athenians to turn the celebration from a musical and dancing show into a, so to speak, dramatic event: τί τάδε τὰ χορεύματα; ... τὰν ἀοιδὰν κατέστασε Πιερὶς βασίλειαν· ὁ δ᾽ αὐλὸς ὕστερον χορευέτω. The Athenian public that attended initially the dances and later the drama performances must have been offered sitting facilities, apparently in the same place, which, as argued above, bordered the Neleion. Then, on the one hand, the frenzy of the intoxicated entertaining spectators and, on the other, the statically unsafe ground of the marshes area may have conspired to bring about the collapse of the ikria. So, the Athenians must have decided to reconstruct the ikria on solid

 28 Wilamowitz 1914b, 249, rejected the event, even Pickard-Cambridge who describes it as “absurd in itself”, but the collapse of the ikria and Aeschylus’ φυγή to Sicily after the Oresteia performance cannot be refuted. Cf. Newiger 1976, 82, and Lefkowitz 1981, 71 f. 29 Schol. Ar. Ran. 1124 (Aesch. T 65c R.) τετραλογίαν φέρουσι τὴν Ὀρέστειαν αἱ διδασκαλίαι· Ἀγαμέμνονα, Χοηφόρους, Εὐμενίδας, Πρωτέα σατυρικόν. Ἀρίσταρχος καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος τριλογίαν λέγουσι χωρὶς τῶν σατύρων.

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  223

ground, in the neighbouring sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus. By building the wooden theatre on the slope of the Acropolis, they benefitted greatly not only from the stable ground, but also from the height difference, which offered the spectators a better view without requiring tall “multi-storey” wooden constructions, but only the extension of the ikria to a horizontal level.30 A third relevant lexicographical article does not enlighten us as to the collapse, but it places the initial ikria outside the Dionysus theatre: Hsch. ι 501 ἴκρια· ... ἢ τὰ ἐπὶ ξύλοις κατασκευαζόμενα θεωρεῖα. ... καὶ τὰ ξύλινα οὕτως ἐλέγοντο Ἀθήνησιν, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἐθεῶντο, πρὸ τοῦ τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον γενέσθαι. I suppose, therefore, that the decree of 418/7 refers to τὰ Ἴκρια as a wellknown place in Athens, a significant site recognizable by everybody. We can infer that the historical location of the first Attic theatre and the event of its collapse were somehow commemorated, as was almost every notable event in Athens (by a memorial?), at a site named simply τὰ Ἴκρια. The specific site would be accurately located, if the στήλη λιθίνη found in 1884 “at the northeast corner of the intersection of Makriyanni and Chatzichristou Sts” (Travlos 1971, 332), i.e. ca. 100 m. southeast of the new Acropolis Museum, was discovered in situ, and not reused in a later wall, as it was actually done. Archaeologists believe, however, that thanks to the size of the inscription (ca. 1.50 x 0.60 m.) it must not have been removed far from its original position. Lately, a trench opened near the location where the inscription was found (Makriyanni St. 35) revealed the rests of a classical monumental construction with blocks held together with metal dowels; Kokkaliou 1996 [2001], 50. Can it be the memorial of the historical ikria? Of course, the ikria must have preexisted the defined and fenced off temenos of Neleus as well as the whole Κodros, Neleus and Basile hieron that must have been established later than the collapse. Though similar ἴκρια have been constructed elsewhere too, so that the Athenians might watch the events in various feasts, it is reasonable to conclude that the ikria that once collapsed during a Dionysiac festival, before a theatre was founded, were related to the initially dance (χοροστάδες ἑορταί) and later drama shows of the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια that were held at the ἐν Λίμναις ἱερόν of Dionysus.

 30 See Slater 1986, 256, 263. However, I avoid discussing about the Λήναιον and the Lenaean performances in the sanctuary of Dionysus Limnaeus and, what is more, until the archonship of Lycurgus. Schnurr 1995, deals with the location of the Λήναιον, denies any connection with the sanctuary of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις, and locates it in the old Agora.

224  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus Date of the Promethean tetralogy So much about the place where the contests were possibly conducted. As for the date, the name of the contests (Χύτρινοι ἀγῶνες) denotes that they were held οn the last day of the festival of Anthesteria, in the Χύτροι, i.e. on the 13th of Anthesteriōn, in the night of which there was a full moon. At some unspecified time, the contests of the Anthesteria festival were discontinued. A jostling of the Dionysiac contests after the institution of the City Dionysia in the late 6th century and the financial costs involved can explain the stoppage. The suspension of the contests is confirmed thanks to the information about their revival: [Plutarch], Vit. X Orat. 841f εἰσήνεγκεν δὲ καὶ νόμους (sc. Lycurgus), τὸν μὲν περὶ τῶν κωμωιδῶν, ἀγῶνα τοῖς Χύτροις ἐπιτελεῖν ἐφάμιλλον ἐν τῶι θεάτρωι καὶ τὸν νικήσαντα εἰς ἄστυ καταλέγεσθαι, πρότερον οὐκ ἐξόν, ἀναλαμβάνων τὸν ἀγῶνα ἐκλελοιπότα. The revival of the theatrical agon by Lycurgus in the third quarter of the fourth century BCE concerned comedy.31 However, it is unknown whether the ἐκλελοιπὼς ἀγών was restricted only to comedy or could have also hosted a tragic contest. No doubt, it could not be compared with the later City Dionysia, whether in time span or in number of entries. Could the Prometheus tetralogy have been produced in the Xύτρινοι ἀγῶνες? We do not know when this Dionysiac dramatic contest was eclipsed, but there can be no doubt that Thucydides is trustworthy when he speaks of the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια, which the Scholiast changes to ἀρχαιότατα. And, certainly, time considerations do not prevent Aeschylus from participating in the Anthesteria contest. The specific characteristics of this festival could be summarized as follows: winter time, night rituals, choral dances, drunken revelry. Now, all these features are prominent in Prom. Pyrk. Winter time (ὡρίου χείματοc; χιών; ὄμβρου), night rituals (φέγγος; νυκτίπλαγκτον ὄρχημα; ἀντισέληνον), drunken revelry (γλεῦκος; ἀν τρεῖς μεθυσθέντας), choral dances (passim). It goes without saying that choral dances (χοροστάδες ἑορταί) are the dominant element in the surviving text of Prom. Pyrk. The marshy meadow of the Λίμναι is also present (204c.2 ὦ λειμών). In Ar. Ach. 1000–1002 the Herald proclaims: Ἀκούετε λεώι· κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τοὺς Χοᾶς | πίνειν ὑπὸ τῆς σάλπιγγος· ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἐκπίηι | πρώτιστος, ἀσκὸν Κτησιφῶντος λήψεται. As described in the Scholia ad loc., ἐν ταῖς Χοαῖς ἀγὼν ἦν περὶ τοῦ ἐκπιεῖν τινὰ πρῶτον χοᾶ, καὶ ὁ πιὼν ἐστέφετο φυλλίνωι στεφάνωι καὶ ἀσκὸν  31 Why only a contest of comic actors, as Pickard-Cambridge 21968, 15–16, claims, and not a contest of comedy, I cannot understand.

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  225

οἴνου ἐλάμβανεν. In Prom. Pyrk. 204d 12.2–4, γλεῦκ[ο]ς δέ τοι τέ[θεικ᾽ ἐγὼ] | πέλας πυρός, | ἀν τρεῖς μεθυσ[θέντας ὡς ⏑ – –, we miss the final infinitive, which would specify the action of the chorus. χορεῦσαι is very likely, contrasting with the next two ephymnia, where the chorus express their conviction that the Nymphs will stage a dance in honour of Prometheus’ gift. Choes is the day, or rather the night, before, and it is presupposed that the chorus have participated in the agon mentioned in Ar. Ach., have got drunk (μεθυσ[θέντας), have won the leather-flask of γλεῦκος which they place next to the fire, and have been crowned with a wreath of leaves (204b+204d 5.20–21 ἀ[μό]μφ[οι]σιν ἐπιστε[φεῖς | [φύλ]λοις). Also, the song of the Frogs suggests a drunken revelry (ἡνίχ᾽ ὁ κραιπαλόκωμος τοῖς ἱεροῖσι Χύτροισιν ἐχώρει κατ᾽ ἐμὸν τέμενος λαῶν ὄχλος). Above, on fr. 379, in discussing West’s view about the presence of treenymphs, possibly Μελίαι, in Aeschylus’ Promethean trilogy, we claimed that the Nymphs of Prom. Pyrk. are the Naiads, i.e. the spring- and stream-nymphs mentioned in 204b.4. As we saw above, the Atthidographer Phanodemus (FGrHist 325 F 12), speaking about the opening of the wine-jars, connected the occasion with the hieron of Dionysus ἐν Λίμναις, where the Athenians offered the new wine to the god mixed with water from the springs of the area and worshipped him with songs and dances. He adds: διόπερ ὀνομασθῆναι τὰς πηγὰς Νύμφας καὶ τιθήνας τοῦ Διονύσου, ὅτι τὸν οἶνον αὐξάνει τὸ ὕδωρ κιρνάμενον; similarly Philochorus (FGrHist 328 FF 5a, 5b). We do not know whether the female dancers of Prom. Pyrk., whom we identified as nymphs of springs and streams, were presented as nurses of Dionysus. But we know that another satyr-play of Aeschylus dealt with the story of the nurses of Dionysus, Τροφοί or Διονύσου Τροφοί (frs. 246a–d R.). It must have been the satyr-play of the trilogy Τοξότιδες, Σεμέλη, Ἀθάμας.32 Here, the nurses of Dionysus are Nymphs on the mountain of Nysa, daughters of Oceanus (Hygin. Fab. 182.2). They seem to feed the baby god not on water, as the Athenian aetiological myth implies, but on pap (fr. 246b). They must be grown-up and are married to old Satyrs. The baby Dionysus summons Medea in order to rejuvenate his nurses and their husbands miraculously by boiling them as she had done with Aeson (fr. 246a). A remarkable similarity between Prom. Pyrk. and Τροφοί is the double chorus of Satyrs and Nymphs. In Schol. Ar. Ach. 1076–1077 it is asserted that ἐν μιᾶι ἡμέραι ἄγονται οἵ τε Χύτροι καὶ οἱ Χόες ἐν Ἀθήναις. This can indicate that the events of the two days were telescoped into one. The shortening could be achieved by exploiting a part of the night between the 12th and the 13th of Anthesteriōn, with some events taking place after sunset, a feature of the worship of Dionysus established from  32 See above Theoroi or Isthmiastai, Appendix, Tetralogy; see also Gantz 1980, 154–158.

226  Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus numerous sources. It is well known that Greek calendar dates began in the evening with the setting of the sun, and not at midnight or at sunrise. This telescoping could be reflected in the plot of the satyr-play, where, as we saw above, the events of the night of the Choes are presupposed. Could the play be actually performed in the dark? An evening staging of a play about fire with a hearth or altar lit (ἑστιοῦχον σέλας) would be really impressive. The performance of the tragedies could have started early in the afternoon, the satyr-play being presented well after sunset. As a matter of fact, in fr. 204c, after the invocation to the meadow at line 2 (ὦ λειμών), in all likelihood the marshy meadow of the dances, and the end of the dances at line 3, the Chorus start an anapaestic part, where the moonlight is mentioned (4 ἱερὰ δ᾽ ἀκτὶς σελ[. .]. ̑[; σελαγοῦσα vel sim.; not Σελήνης), while something, most likely the fire, appears opposite to the moon or is, possibly, likened to the moon (5 ἀντισέληνον). It is difficult not to connect the references with the Πάνδια, the full-moon festival, which was celebrated on the last day (or night?) of the City Dionysia, in 423 BCE (Thuc. 4.118.12) presumably dated on the 14th of Elapheboliōn, while in 346 BCE (Dem. 21.9) possibly one or two days later. However, by placing the Prom. Pyrk. performance at the spring festival of the City Dionysia, we seem to ignore the overstressed winter context. As for the late evening performance and the references to the moon, nothing would change whether at the Anthesteria or at the City Dionysia. There was a full-moon dividing every month in two, so that the evening of the 13/14th whether of Anthesteriōn or of Elapheboliōn would be lit by a full-moon. Be that as it may, if the close interconnection of the ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια (Anthesteria, ἐν Λίμναις, Χύτροι) with the action of Prom. Pyrk. is valid, then Prom. Pyrk. could not have been performed at the City Dionysia in company with Persae and the other tragedies of the 472 production. Consequently, the Προμηθεύς of that production was either a different satyr-play—yet no other Promethean satyr-play is known to exist—, or, as I have argued, it was a fourthplace prosatyric tragedy, the Prometheus Desmotes, performed as a prerelease version. Then, the Promethean tetralogy (Prometheus Desmotes, Lyomenos, Pyrphoros, Pyrkaeus) must have been staged later than 472 and most likely before 468, when the 28-years-old Sophocles participated victoriously in the City Dionysia with Triptolemos, a play greatly influenced by Prometheus Desmotes as argued, among many scholars, by G. Zuntz,33 in spite of M.L. West’s objections,

 33 Zuntz 1983b; also, with more cogent arguments, Zuntz 1993.

Tetralogy, Inclusion in the Dionysiac Ritual, Production Date  227

who agrees on the similarities but inverts the dependency course.34 A reasonable date for the performance of the whole Promethean tetralogy can be 469 BCE, since the likeliest date for Aeschylus’ visit to Hieron in Sicily seems to be 470. It is known that he restaged Persae there. It is very likely that together with Persae he also reperformed Prometheus Desmotes from the same 472 City Dionysia production, as can be inferred from the insertion of a conspicuous graft of Sicilian myth (PV 351–372). Of course, Sophocles could equally be influenced by the 472 or by the later performance of the full tetralogy. But if the 472 performance of Prometheus was, as I suppose, of a ‘prerelease’ nature, merely for the poet to supplement a non-thematic trilogy with something still in the works, I doubt that he would have waited more than a year to present his comprehensive production; unless he was absent. And to determine the period of Aeschylus’ absence from the dramatic contests of Athens, one should take account of the fact that voyages to and from Sicily could be made only after the spring—and to make rehearsals while sailing would be preposterous. On the other hand, the reason why Aeschylus participated in this supposedly secondary contest is disprovable. Possibly, the fact that one play of this tetralogy had already been victorious at the City Dionysia could be a legal obstacle posed by the eponymous archon, whereas participation in the Anthesteria contest was in the archon basileus’s jurisdiction (Arist. Ath. Pol. 57.1). To sum up, a possible order of the productions discussed is: 472 BC (City Dionysia) Φινεύς, Πέρσαι, Γλαῦκος, Προμηθεύς (Δεσμώτης) 471 BC (no participation) 470 BC (Sicily) Πέρσαι, Προμηθεὺς Δεσμώτης, (more plays?) 469 BC (Anthesteria) Προμηθεὺς Δεσμώτης, Προμηθεὺς Λυόμενος, Προμηθεὺς Πυρφόρος, Προμηθεὺς Πυρκαεύς. Finally, the fact that Prometheus Desmotes, though transmitted in the Byzantine triad, supplied with hypothesis and copious scholia, lacks a didascalia, unlike the other two plays of the triad (Persae, Septem contra Thebas), possibly shows that no data of its production had reached the Hellenistic grammarians. It cannot be excluded that even in antiquity the Older Dionysia were not archived.

 34 West 1990, 51–52.

 Sophocles’ Inachos Two important papyri added considerably to our knowledge about Sophocles’ Inachos, which was limited to a number of book fragments. P.Tebt. 692, now in the Library of the University of California at Berkeley (UC 1508), was the first. It was published by A.S. Hunt and J.G. Smyly in The Tebtunis Papyri, vol. 3, pt. 1 (London 1933), 3–12. The first editors proposed that the fragmentary text comes from Sophocles’ Inachos. They were preceded by Grenfell 1917, 8. A second edition was made by R. Pfeiffer 1938, 23–62, and a third by Page 1942, vol. I, 22–27. The second papyrus was P.Oxy. 2369, now in the Papyrology Rooms, Sackler Library, at Oxford. It was published by E. Lobel in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 23 (London 1956), 55–59. This edition was also followed by a new one by Pfeiffer 1958. After important contributions by other scholars, both papyri were published by R. Carden, in The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles (Berlin/New York 1974), 52–93. They were included in TrGF 4, ed. St. Radt (Göttingen 1977, 21999), F 269a–e, and were also published, with an introduction and commentary to the whole play, by D.F. Sutton, Sophocles’ Inachus, Meisenheim an Glan 1979). There followed the editions of Lloyd-Jones 1996, 112–135, and Diggle 1998, 41– 44. Christina Heynen and R. Krumeich included it in the volume Krumeich/ Pechstein/Seidensticker (eds.), Das griechische Satyrspiel, (Darmstadt 1999), 313–343. Finally, Inachos was included in O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 314–335. Concerning P.Oxy. 2369, I have used the photograph published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri volume, pl. III, and the one shown on the Oxyrhynchus Online website. As for P.Tebt. 692, I have greatly profited by the excellent photograph at the Advanced Papyrological Information System (APIS) website, which altered many readings established since the editio princeps. In many places, however, older photographs of different resolution and contrast were also helpful, if only for comparative reasons. There has been a long discussion as to the nature of the play, tragedy, that is, or satyr-play; see Radt’s introductory notes to the fragments of Inachos, pp. 247–248. I do not intend to discuss this point here in detail or adduce arguments for or against the satyric case. I believe that the text itself shows to a great extent its character. Therefore, it would be premature to draw conclusions before we complete investigating the text. Still, a short account of the research background given in advance might be useful for the reader. The satyric theory has been argued initially by Hemsterhuis 1744, 248 n. 33. His view was adopted by the majority of scholars, especially after the publication of the papyri. Here is a short list of them: Pfeiffer 1938, 59–62, Pfeiffer 1958, 4–9, Pavese 1967, Sutton 1974, 134–135, Sutton 1979, Seaford 1980, Lloyd-Jones 2003, 113. A small minorihttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-005

Sophocles’ Inachos  

ty argued in favour of a tragic identity: Calder 1958 and Collinge 1958/9, 32–35. Before the publication of the papyri, Wilamowitz 1889, vol. I, 88–89 n. 53, claimed that the play belongs to the category of Euripides’ Alcestis, what we now name ‘prosatyric’. It is this view that I finally side with.1 My views will be hinted at in various places of the commentary, and partly set out while discussing frr. 270–*271. Here, I propose to make some observations on the two papyri and the numerous book fragments, a number of different readings and interpretations, which, I believe, contribute to a better understanding of the play. **269a, b (P.Oxy. 2369) col. I

]α

10

15

20

25

Χο. Ιν. Χο. Ιν. Χο. Ιν. Χο. Ιν. Χο. Ιν. Χο.

] ] ] ] ] ] ] υ̣ μα· ] ] ] ] ] ̣ ̣ π̣νευ̣[ ] ̣ ̣ [ συθε] ὶ ̣ς ἔχ᾽ αὐτόν, ὢ ἰοὺ ἰοὺ [⏑ ‒ ] ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ὅσ̣᾽ ἦ̣ ᾽νθάδε. ]τε τὸν θ̣ε̣οστυγῆ. οὔπω τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν] ξ̣ένον νοῶ τίς ἦν. ] θ̣υρ̣ῶν τ̣ὸ πᾶν μύσος. οὐ πρόσθε δράσας πόλ]λ᾽ ἐπηινέθη καλά; ἕωσπερ οὗτος δρῶν ἐ]φηυρέθη κακά. ] ̣ ἐξ ἐ[ν]ωπίων. ] φηλώσας ἐμέ. ἀλλ᾽ οἴχεται μὴν κ̣ἄστι ̣ ν̣[ῦν ἀνειμένος

(275)

(280)

(19 sq. = fr. **269b) (285)

(290)

col. II

 1 Brief accounts of previous research can be found in: Heynen/Krumeich 1999, 313–314, Lämmle 2011, 647 n. 221, O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 314–315. On Sophocles’ satyr-plays in general, see Seidensticker 2012.

  Sophocles’ Inachos 30

35

40

45

τ̣ὰ σὰ σκοτώσας ὄμμ̣[αθ᾽· οἷα δ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἔδρα τ̣αῦτ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ἴδρις εἰμ[ὶ] δείν̣᾽ [εἴπερ πέλει. — Ιν. εἰ δεινά; πῶς γὰρ οὔχ; ὃς̣ α̣ὐ̣τ̣[ὸν ἑστιῶν σεμνὰς τραπέζας ἐν δόμοι[σι προὐτίθην, ὁ̣ δ᾽ ἀμφὶ χεῖρα παρθέν̣[ωι βαλὼν ἐμῆι Ἰοῖ δι᾽ οἴκων οἴχεται σιγῆ̣[ι περῶν. κόρης δὲ μυκτὴρ κρᾶ̣τ᾽ ἀ̣[ϊστώσας καλόν ἐκβουτυποῦται καὶ ̣ [στόλοκρα πόρτιος φύει κάρα τ̣αυρ̣ῶ[π]ι  ̣ [ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ αὐχὴν ἐπ᾽ ὤμο[ι ς ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ ποδῶν δὲ χηλ[αὶ ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ κροτοῦσι θράν̣[ους ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ γυνὴ λέαινα πῶ[ς ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ ἧς τ᾽ αἴλιν᾽ ὀ̣ργ[ῇ ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ τοιαῦτα δ̣ῆ̣[ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ ὁ ξεῖνος αὐ̣τ̣[ὸς ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ — Χο. ἄφθογγός εἰ ̣μ̣[ι ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒

(295)

300

(305)

(310)

[θε]ρ

50

55

έ̣[ι] ̑ ̣ ̣ ̣ ´̣̆ε̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ κω[ ] ̣ ̣[ ὁ ξεῖνος οὐ θυγα̣τ̣[ρ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ ⟦—⟧ ἄ̣π̣ιστα τοὐ̣μ̣ὸ̣ν̣ ̣ [ ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ >– Χο. ἰώ, Γᾶ, θεῶν ⌞μᾶτερ πότνια, ἀξύνετ ´̣ ̣ ` ̣ [ ὁ πολυφάρμ̣[ακος – κάρβανος αἰθὸς ἤ̣ρ̣[αρεν διπλοῦς τρόπους· ὁ μὲν ε . [ – ὁ δ᾽ αἰολωπὸν αν̣[ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒

(315)

(320)

Works cited in apparatus criticus on frr. 269a–e: Calder 1958; Carden 1974; Diggle 1998; ed. pr. = Hunt/Smyly 1933; Fritsch 1936; Kakridis 1960; Kamerbeek 1975; Kamerbeek 1984; Körte 1935; Lobel 1956; Lloyd-Jones 1958; Lloyd-Jones 1965; Lloyd-Jones 1996; Page 1942; Pavese 1967; Pfeiffer 1938; Pfeiffer 1958; Radt = TGrF 4; Steffen 1952; West 1984. 14 μα· pap. 18 vestigia adnotationis litteris minusculis in margine (] α ̣ ̣φ ̣η̣ι ̣ρ̣εθ̣η̣) 19–28 stichomythiam Ts., 20–28 dub. Pfeiffer 19 sq. fr. 269b hic inseruit Dicker teste Lobel | πνευ[ dub. Lobel 20 -ε]ὶς (partic. pass.) et συθε] ὶ ̣ς e.g. Ts. | έχ pap. | ώϊουϊου pap.; fort. [κ]α̣κ̣ά̣ Ts. 21 ] ̣ ο Carden, ]ν̣ο Lobel | ὅσ᾽ ἦ ᾽νθάδε Ts., ̣ ος ἢ ᾽νθάδε Pfeiffer, ο̣ ς ἠνθάδε Carden | δε· pap.

Sophocles’ Inachos  

22 λαβέ]τε sim. Lobel; ἔχε]τε Diggle; an subj. λάβη]τε sim.? | ῠγη̑ pap. 23 e.g. suppl. Ts. | ω̑τίcη̑ν pap. 24 διὰ] e.g. Lobel, ἐκ] Pfeiffer | πα̑ν pap. 25 ]δ vel ]λ Lobel, ]δ Carden, λ Ts. | ηινεcθη pap. | λά e κά correctum pap. | πρόσθεν (πράξας Snell ap. Radt) μὲν οὗτος πόλ]λ᾽ ἐπηινέθη καλά e.g. Pfeiffer, πρόσθεν γὰρ ἔρξας πόλ]λ᾽ ἐπηινέθη καλά Lloyd-Jones, οὐ πρόσθε δράσας πόλ]λ᾽ ἐπηινέθη καλά; e.g. Ts. 26 ευρ pap., corr. Pfeiffer | τὰ νῦν δὲ δρῶν με (δράσας Snell ap. Radt) πάντ᾽ ἐ]φηυρέθη κακά e.g. Pfeiffer, ἕωσπερ οὗτος δρῶν ἐ]φηυρέθη κακά e.g. Ts. 27 ]γ vel ]τ Lobel | καὶ νῦν πέφευγε· φροῦδο]ς (inepte, quia ]γ vel ]τ est) ἐξ ἐνωπίων Lloyd-Jones; ᾤχε]τ᾽ ἐξ ἐν. Ts. 28 φύλακας λαθὼν βέβηκε], φηλώσας ἐμέ Lloyd-Jones 29–31 Choro attribuit Lobel recte 29 μὴνκᾱ pap. | post τ, ι ̣ν̣ Ts., o vel ε rell. | κἄστο[μος βέβηκ᾽ ἄφαρ e.g. Pfeiffer, κἄστ᾽ ἐ[λεύθερος πάλιν Lloyd-Jones, κἄστι ν[ῦν ἀνειμένος e.g. Ts. 30 cὰcκοτώcᾱc pap. | ὄμμ[αθ᾽· οἷα δ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἔδρα aptissime Pfeiffer; ὄμμ[αθ᾽. ὧν δ᾽ ἧκεν χάριν Lloyd-Jones, ὄμμ[αθ᾽. ὧν δὲ πυνθάνῃ Kakridis, ὄμμ[αθ’· ἃ δέ σε δείν’ ἔδρα Diggle 31 ταυτ᾽ pap. | ὲιμ pap. | δείν᾽ [εἴπερ πέλει Ts., δείν᾽ [εἴ μοι κλύειν e.g. Pfeiffer, δειν[ὰ δ᾽ ἐστί που Lloyd-Jones, δείν’ [εἰ χρὴ καλεῖν Diggle 32–45 Inacho attribuit Lobel, Nuntio Calder, Sileno Pavese 32 εἰ] ἦ Lobel | δὲινάπω̑c pap. | post δεινά interrogationem Kakridis | ουχιὁ in pap., certe vitiosum, leg. Ts., ουχ . ὁ ( ‘post Χ interstitium, ut vid.’) Radt | post ὁ, c dispexit Ts. (‘a rounded letter’ Carden); rell. dub. suppl. Ts.; ὃς ἂν τολμᾷ e.g. Lobel, οὐχ ὅ[δ’ ἄξιος θανεῖν Lloyd-Jones, ὅ[ταν ξυνέστιος e.g. Pfeiffer, ὃς̣ α̣ἰ̣σ̣[χύνειν ἔτλη Diggle 33 δόμοι[σι προὐτίθην Ts., δόμοι[ς ἀτιμάσαι Lobel, δόμοι[ς ἀτιμάσῃ Pfeiffer, δόμοι[ς ἀτιμάσας; Lloyd-Jones, δόμοι[ς φιλοξένοις Diggle 34 χεῖ pap. | θέ pap. | βαλὼν ἐμῇ e.g. Pfeiffer, βαλὼν μόνον Lloyd-Jones 35 ἲοῖ pap. | όικ pap. | σ̣π̣[ουδῆι περῶν Pfeiffer, σ̣π̣[εύσας δρόμωι Lloyd-Jones, σπ[άσας κόμης vel ἄπο Kamerbeek; c̣ι[, c̣κ̣[ vel c̣π̣[ Carden; cι firmat Ts., post quod hastam verticalem vid., i.e. cιγῆ[̣ ι; supplendum περῶν ut Pfeiffer 36 α̑ pap. | ‘a bit of a horizontal rather higher than crosspiece of τ’ Carden; apostrophon (i.e., κρα̑τ᾽) vid. Ts. | ἀ̣[ϊστώσας καλόν e.g. Ts. | in margine nota stichometrica Γ̲̅ 37 πο̑υτᾰι pap. | στόλοκρα πόρτιος suppl. Ts. post Kakridis, qui στόλοκρον suppl. e fr. 295a 38 ρᾱτὰυρω̑ pap. | ̣ ̆ Pfeiffer; litteram breviatam ι esse coniecit Ts. 39 e.g., αὐχὴν ἐπ᾽ ὤμοι[ς σχετλίως τραχύνεται (vel παχύνεται) Ts. 40 πὸ pap. | in margine × 41 τοῦ pap. | ρα pap. | θράν[ους Lobel, θράνου Dale 42 γυνὴ ᾽λέαιν᾽ απ . [ St. West | ̣ [ Lobel, Carden, litteram rotundam videntes | πω[, fort. πω̑ [ , Ts., πῶ[ς supplens 43 ἡ̑ pap. | ἧσται Lobel | λὶν .̀ pap.; littera incerta ε vel ο; λὶνὲ̣ργ ̣[ leg. Lobel, quod λινεργ[ός vel λινεργ[οῦσ᾽ suppl. Lobel, λινεργ[ής Pfeiffer; λὶνὸ̣ργ[ Ts., ἧς τ᾽ αἴλιν᾽ ὀργ[ῇ περιβρέμει μυκήματα vel βρυχήματα e.g. supplens 44 τοὶα̑υ pap. | ̣ [ Lobel (δ vel λ), ̣ ̑ ̣ [ Carden (prima littera triangularis), δ̣η̣̑[ vel λ̣η̣̑[ Ts., e.g., δ̣ῆ̣[λα πᾶσιν ἐξώιμωξ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οἷς supplens 45 α ̣ ̣ [ Lobel, αυ̣τ̣[ vel αμ̣φ ̣[ Carden, αὐτ[ός suppl. Ts. 46 sqq. de choreutarum partibus v. in commentario 46 ά pap. | sub Χ̊, ρ legit Lobel σατύ]ρ(ων) supplens, γε]ρ(όντων) Calder, θε]ρ(απόντων) Ts. 47 έ̣[ι] ̑ ̣ dispexit Ts., έ ̣ [ Lobel, Carden | ante ε secundum vestigia incerta 4 litterarum | ´̣̆ε̣ , ̣ ̆ ´ Lobel, Carden | sub ε initiale paragraphum dispexit Carden, deinde recantavit 48 ̣ κ ̣ Lobel, Carden, οκω potius quam cκω Ts. 49 post γ, ατ infimae partes | sub oξ paragraphus deleta 50 απιcτ`ᾰ pap. | τοι ̣μ̣ο̣ ̣ ̣ Lobel; post το incertae correctiones; fort. τοὐ̣μ̣ὸ̣ν̣ ̣[ Ts. | μο̆ pap. 51–3 versus toti Choro dant paragraphus diple infra initium versus 50, nota Χ̊ et versus ἐν εἰσθέσει scripti 51 γᾱ pap. | ω̑ν pap. | e Philod. De piet. P.Herc. 248 fr. 2.2–4, (p. 23 Gomperz, p. 109 Schober: καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἐ[ν Ἰνά]χωι τὴν Γῆν μ[ητέ]ρα τῶν θεῶν φη[σιν]) suppl. Lobel | in fine versus Ὀλυμπίων suppl. Pfeiffer, πότνια probabiliter Ph.J. Kakridis (ap. J.Th. Kakridis) 52 ᾰξύ pap. | ό̣ pap., post quod hasta verticalis, et postea accentus gravis; ᾰξύνετόν̣ [γ’ ἐμοί Ts. 53 φά pap. 54 nota Χ̊ in margine | κάρβᾱ pap. | ᾰὶ pap. | post αἰθός, ̣ ́ ̣ [ edd., vestigia ad ήρ quadrant | ἤ̣ρ̣[αρεν (vel ἥ̣ρ̣[μοσεν) διπλοῦς τρόπους· e.g. Ts. 55 versus ἐν εἰσθέσει scriptus | εμ[ Lobel, ε . [ Carden (‘ν or μ’), ἐν[ malim (ὁ μὲν ἐν[αίσιμος?)

  Sophocles’ Inachos 56 nota Χ̊ in margine | ὸδὰιὸλὼ pap. | α ̣ [ Lobel (‘κ οr ν’), unde ἄν[δρα Pfeiffer, αι  [ Carden; αν̣[ certum

**269c (P.Tebt. 692, fr. 1)

]

col. I

] ] ]αν ]. απαξ ] ] σ̣ύριγγ̣ ο̣ ̣ [ς ἡδ]έ̣α̣ κ̣λύω σ]ταθ̣μου[ ̣ ̣ ] ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ς ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ κ̣η̣ [στά]σιν βο̣ῶ̣[ν ]ε̣ ] ] ] ]πα̣ίζεται ] ̣ ̣ ερ̣ω̣ ]α̣ι ̣

5

10

15

[5]

[10]

[15]

desunt versus xi, quorum x trimetri iambici (potius quam tetrametri trochaici), ultimus dochmius

(Ιν.)

20

Ιώ Χο. Ερ.

25

Χο.

πολὺ πο̣λυϊδρίδας ὅτις ὅδε προτέρ̣ων ὄνομ᾽ ἐΰ σ᾽ ἐθρόει, τὸν Ἀϊδοκυνέας σκότον ἀροτὸν ὑπαί ̣, < τὸν Διὸς μὲν οὖν ἐρώτων ἄ[γγ]ελον, μέγαν τρόχιν. — εἰ ̣[κ]άσαι πάρεστιν Ἑρμῆν π[ρὸ]ς τὰ σὰ ψοφήματα. —̣ ἰε̣͜ῦ· τ̣ί̣ δ̣᾽ εἶπ̣ας αὐτόν̣, ὅ̣ς̣ μ̣ο̣ι δεῦρ᾽ ἀνέστρεψεν πόδα; — δευτέρους πόνους ἔοικας πρὶν μύσαι κενοὺς ἐλᾶν. ⟦—⟧ –< ὠή̣. ἐσορᾶις; εἶπον ἀ̣πὸ πόδ᾽ ἔχειν.

col. II [30]

[35]

Sophocles’ Inachos  

30

μανία τάδε κλύειν· σὺ γὰρ οὖν, Ζεῦ, λόγω̣ν̣ κακὸς ἐς̣ π̣ίστ̣ιν ε[ἶ.

ἦ̣ ἀχὼ θέορτο̣[ς ἦν, [ > Ερ. πρὸς τ̣ί ̣ [χ]ρ̣ὴ̣ ᾽ς φόνον βλέπ[ειν σε ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ ; > Χο. μὴ̣͜ ἁρπ̣[ά]λ̣ιμ[α δ]ί ̣ωκ᾽ ἀγῶνος̣ [‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ >– Ερ. μ̣ὴ̣ λέγ᾽ ἀλι ̣τ[ώ]ν̣· ἐκκορ{υ}οίην̣ [‒ ⏑ ‒ × ‒ ⏑ ‒ >–̣ Χο. Ερ.

ἐ̣κ δ᾽ ἐ̣λᾶις̣ ὑλάγ[μα]σ̣ί ̣ν̣ τ̣ε̣ κ̣ἀριμ[ύκοισιν βοαῖς; — ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣[

col. III [57]

[60]

[65]

[70]

  Sophocles’ Inachos 5 ]. Carden (fortasse c), ]c̣ ed. pr. | ]ς ἅπαξ vel εἰ]σάπαξ ed. pr., ]σα πάξ ? Pfeiffer 7 σ̣ύρι ̣γγο[̣ ς] δ̣ὲ̣ κ̣λ̣ύω edd.; spatium inter σύριγγο[ς et κλύω longius esse et ante κλ non δε sed lineam obliquam ut in α scriptam esse dispexit Ts. [ἡδ]έ̣α̣ supplens 9 ] ̣ ̣ τ̣η̣ν̣[ ̣ ̣ ] σιν βο̣ω[ omnes, [βά]σιν βοῶ[ν ed. pr., [στά]σιν βοῶ[ν dub. Pfeiffer (quod Carden reiecit ut longius spatio); ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ κ̣η̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]σινβο̣ω[ legit Ts., quod εὐτυκῆ (?) στάσιν βοῶν supplet 10 ] ̣ omnes, ]ε̣ Ts. 12–12a inter versus 9 et 13, spatium 4, non 3, versuum 13 ]μ̣πο̣διζεται (sc. ἐ]μποδίζεται) ed. pr., Pfeiffer, ]πο̣δ̣ίζετ̣αι Carden, Radt, ]πα̣ιζεται Ts. 14 ]ε̣ρ̣ω vel ]ερ̣ω edd., ] ̣ ̣ ερ̣ω Ts. 15 ]ν̣ ed. pr., ]ν̣ vel ]α̣ι ̣ Carden 16–20 versus ἐν εἰσθέσει scripti 16 πολυ,πολυϊδριδαc pap., ubi incertum utrum υϊ an υ·ι | πολὺ ἰδρίδας Carden 17 προτερῶν Körte 18 ε · υ pap.; ἐΰ Diggle, εὖ ed. pr. | σ᾽ ἐθρόει Lloyd-Jones, σε θροεῖ ed. pr., Pfeiffer, alii 20 ἄροτον Fritsch, acceperunt omnes (‘ἄβρ- Fritsch: αβ- Π’ per errorem Diggle; erratum repetitum in O’Sullivan/Collard); ἀροτόν, i.e. ‘conceptum’, Ts.; | ὑπαί, Ts., ὑπαί. edd. 21 paragraphum huic versui superscriptam dispicere sibi visus est Carden; negat Ts., qui vestigium diples sub v. 20 dispexit; paragraphus subscripta exstat 22 paragraphi huic versui subscriptae vestigium exiguum exstat 23 paragraphus subscripta | ε̣ἶ ̣π̣ας Carden (post Turner), ὄ̣ντα σ᾽ ed. pr., Pfeiffer; totum versum ἰε̣͜ῦ · τί δ᾽ εἶπας αὐτὸν ὅς μοι δεῦρ᾽ ἀνέστρεψεν πόδα; leg. et distinxit Ts. | μοι Pfeiffer, μου ed. pr. 24 diple subscripta post paragraphum deletam, deinde signum compositum e paragrapho et diple disp. Ts.; chori nota Pfeiffer 25–30 versus ἐν εἰσθέσει scripti | Argus pot. qu. chorus Diggle 25 ωη Pfeiffer, ων ed. pr. | spatium post ὠή vicem personarum indicat | εσορᾶις Pfeiffer; sed ὠή cum η trisemo et ἐσορᾶις dochmium constituerent 26 ειcτοκατα ed. pr., ει ̣c̣τονα̣τ̣ο̣ Pfeiffer, ει ̣c̣τ̣ον̣α̣ ̣ ̣ Carden, Radt, ειπονα̣πο Ts., α ex υ (?) correctum | εἶπον ἀπὸ Snell (ap. Radt), κρεῖσσον ἀπὸ Page, alii alia 27 ίᾱ notavit corrector; μ᾽ ἀνιᾶ Pavese | κλυνιν 28 λογων ed. pr., λογωι vel λογο[ι]c Turner (ap. Carden) 29 ειπιcτεωc cum vel sine pap.ac punctis ed. pr., Carden; εc̣πι̣ cτ̣͡ινε[ dispexit (litteris ultimis super lituram scriptis) Ts. | εἶ πίστεως edd., ἐς̣ π̣ίστ̣ιν ε[ἶ Ts. 30 δ̣ι ̣αχη̣θε̣οβ̣λ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ed. pr., ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ θεοβ ̣ ̣ [ Carden, Radt, η̣αχωθεορτο̣[ Ts.; αχω postea in αχη mutatum, i.e. ἀχώ in ἠχή = ἀχά | δι᾽ ἄχη θεοβλαβ[ῆ ed. pr., τ]ί; ἄχη θεοβ[λαβῆ Kamerbeek, ἦ ἀχὼ θέορτο[ς ἦν Ts. | infra versum diplen supplendum 31 ]c̣ουβ̣ο[̣ ed. pr., ] ̣ ουβ ̣ [ Carden (‘more like η than ọ’), Radt, ]cουβη[ Ts. (post Carden) | πορπαφοροc ed. pr., ἡ γυν]ὴ πορπαφόρος Pfeiffer, πορτιοφόροc (e -τιφορ- correctum) Ts. | καὶ νεμεῖ] σοῦ βή[ματ᾽ αἰέν, ὦ κόρ]η πορτιοφόρος e.g. suppl. Ts. 32 versus exigue ἐν εἰσθέσει scriptus; in margine nota ɔ · , quae versum transpositum esse significare possit, i.e. alterum hemistichium tetrametri trochaici esse, cuius primum hemistichium in priore columna scriptum erat | ψι ̣τ̣υ̣ legerunt omnes, τιτ̣υ̣ Ts. | ψιθυρᾶν … αἰολᾶ[ν (gen. pl.) ed. pr., fort. ψε- Pfeiffer, ψιθυραν … αἰολα[ν (gen. pl. vel acc. sing.) Carden, Radt, τιτυρᾶν (infin.) … αἰόλα Ts. | paragraphus subscripta 33 ὥσ[θ᾽ ἃ βούλεται τελεῖν e.g. Pearson (ap. ed. pr.), ὡς [τὸ Σισύφου (vel ὥσ[τε καὶ πρᾶξαι,) γένος (vel τέκνον) e.g. Pfeiffer, ὡς [ἀλωπὸν ὄν, γένος (vel τέκος) e.g. Ts., Soph. fr. 293 ex Inacho usus 34–39 versus ἐν εἰσθέσει scripti | 34–38 singulos choreutas loqui apparet; 36–38 Pfeiffer, Radt; negat Maas (ap. Radt); 34–38 Io loqui censuit Körte; 34–39 Argus pot. qu. chorus? Diggle 34 diple versui praefixa : Χ(ορός) interpretavit Pfeiffer | αυ · pap.; inter α et υ lacuna maior propter collesin | in fine versus notam interrogationis ed. pr., comma Pfeiffer, Radt, colon Carden 35 θεός in λέγ᾽ ὅς correctum dispexit Ts.; Διός omnes | in fine versus (cum Διός) punctum ed. pr., notam interrogationis Pfeiffer, Radt, colon Carden; si θεός praeferendum sit, nota interrogationis aptior esset 36 ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ ed. pr. | νεμεῖ? ed. pr. 37 versum omissum per similitudinem (με πόδα νέμει in 36 et 37) scriba supplevit inter 36 et 38; supplementum esse dubitavit Körte, deleverunt post Maas (ap. Radt) edd. 38 αμαχερα in εμεχερα correctum pap. | κλονεῖ : νονιει initio pap.; primum ν in κλ correxit scriba, deinde primum ι delevit; κομ̣ιει ed. pr., κονιει Pfeiffer, κ̣ονι ̣ει vel κ̣οντ̣ει Carden | ἔμ᾽ ἔ· χέρα κλονεῖ Ts., ἐμὲ χέρα κομιεῖ ed. pr., ἐμὲ χερ

Sophocles’ Inachos  

κονιεῖ vel κονέει Pfeiffer, ἐμὲ χερὶ κομιεῖ Steffen, ἐμὲ χέρα κονίει Pavese, ἐ̣μ̣ὲ χέρα κονιει Carden, μάχαιραν ἀκονᾶι dub. Lloyd-Jones, ἐ̣μὲ̣ †χερακ̣ονι ̣ει† Radt | diple in paragraphum correcta subscripta 39 versus ἐν εἰσθέσει duo litterarum plus quam 34–38 scriptus | α̣μ̣α̣χ̣α dispexit Ts., μ̣ε̣γα omnes | ἄμαχα δὲ (scriptio plena) ὅσ᾽ Ts., μέγα δέος omnes | diple subscripta 40 τ̣ωνε̣ναν̣τ̣ιων ed. pr., τωνεν̣αντ̣ι ̣ων Carden, Radt, τωνε̣ ̣αν̣ ̣ τ̣ ων Pfeiffer | τῶν ἐναντίων ed. pr., Carden, Radt | τὸ τάρβ[ος ζωπυρῶν ὑπερφυῶς e.g. suppl. Ts. | paragraphus subscripta 41 των̣κ̣ατ̣ω ed. pr., τ̣ο̣υ̣κ̣α̣τ̣ω dub. Pfeiffer, Radt, litterae incertae Carden, κ̣υντ̣ατω Ts. | τῶν κάτω ed. pr., τοῦ κάτω dub. Pfeiffer, κύντατ᾽ ὦ Ts. | φαλάγγ[ων ed. pr., φαλαγγ ̣[ Pfeiffer, φαλάγγε̣[λ᾽ Ts. | paragraphus subscripta 42 (ἀ)πελᾶι[ς ed. pr., Carden, (ἀ)πελᾶι[ Pfeiffer, Radt, ἀπελᾶι[ Diggle, O’Sullivan/Collard, {ἀ}πελᾶι τ̣[ις Ts. | paragraphus subscripta 43 duae diplai subscriptae 44 πρ̣ο̣c̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ωc ed. pr., Pfeiffer, προcτ̣ι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣c̣ Carden, Radt, πρὸς τ̣ί ̣ [χ]ρ̣ὴ̣ ᾽ς Ts. | βλέπ[ειν σε Ts. | diple subscripta 45 μητ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ωκ ed. pr., μη̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ωκ̣ Carden, Radt | μὴ τ[ύχην δί]ωκ᾽ e.g. Pfeiffer, μὴ̣ ἁρπ̣[ά]λ̣ιμ[α δ]ί ̣ωκ᾽ ἀγῶνος̣ [ dub. Ts. | diple cum paragrapho subscripta 46 μηλε̣γα ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ] ed. pr., μηλεγα ̣ ̣ ̣ Carden, μ̣ηλ̣ εγαλι ̣τ[. . ] Ts. | μὴ λέγ᾽ ἀλιτ[ών Τs. | ἐκ κορύνης οmnes, quamquam vestigia οι pro ν indicant Carden, κορυοι- pot. qu. κορυν-? Diggle, ἐκκορ{υ}οίην leg. Ts. | diple cum paragrapho, ut videtur, subscripta 47 ο̣ι ̣ζ̣ομαιλα ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ο ̣ ̣ ριμ[ ed. pr., ‘ο̣ι ̣ζ̣ο vel ο̣ι ̣ξ̣ο, non ο̣ι ̣χ̣ο’ Pfeiffer, ο̣ι ̣ζ̣(vel ο̣ιξ̣ vel ο̣ιχ̣)ομαιλα ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ριμ[ Carden, ο̣ἴ ̣ζ̣- vel ο̣ἴξ-̣ vel ο̣ἴχ̣- Diggle | οἴζομαι et rell. incerta omnes, ε̣γδε̣λαcυλαγ[ ̣ ̣ ]c̣ ̣ν̣τ̣ε̣κ̣αριμ[ leg. Ts., quod supplevit ἐ̣κ δ᾽ ἐ̣λᾶις̣ ὑλάγ[μα]σ̣ί ̣ν̣ τ̣ε̣ κ̣ἀριμ[ύκοισιν βοαῖς; | paragraphus subscripta 48 vestigia incerta

**269d (P.Tebt. 692, fr. 2)

5

Αρ. Ερ. Αρ. Ερ. Αρ.

10

15

20

Ερ. Αρ. Ερ. Αρ. Ερ. Αρ.

τα]υ̣ρ̣ώπιδι. κ]ἀ̣ν̣α̣δ̣ὺ̣ς̣ π̣α̣ρ̣ῆ̣ν̣. οὐκ] ἀ̣πώμ̣οσ’ ἄ̣[ν. ] ̣ ̣ων̣ λ̣ι ̣τουργι ̣ῶν. ]ί ̣ω[σ]ά̣ σ̣᾽ · ε̣ἴ ̣θ̣᾽ ὑ̣πε̣κ̣δύ̣ης. ] ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ]̣ α̣μ̣᾽ ἑ̣ο̣ρ̣τ̣[ ]ε̣ι ̣λ̣ε̣γμ̣ε̣[ ] ̣δο̣[ ]̣ ̣υ̣ν̣ π̣ε̣ ̣[ ] ] ] ] ἠ̣ριστε̣[υ]ο̣̣ι ̣. ] ἄ̣ρισ̣[τ]α̣ δ᾽ ο̣ὔ̣. [× ‒ ⏑ ‒ ]ς̣ · ἐξηῦρεν ὠμότητά τ[ις. [× ‒ ⏑ ἐκ]πυήσομ᾽ ἧ̣ι  ᾽κ̣π̣υ̯ήσ[ω] δ̣άκη. [× ‒ ⏑ ‒ ]ον δ᾽ ὄντ̣᾽ ἀ̣λεύσομεν θε̣[οί. [× ‒ ⏑ ‒ ] κ̣αὶ χρή σ᾽ ἔθ᾽ ἅζειν ἢ θ̣α̣νε̣[ῖν]; [× ‒ ⏑ ‒ ] ̣ αρ οὖν ἂν ἡ φύσασα Γῆ. [× ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ]ον τι πεύ̣θεσθαι καλῶς.

  Sophocles’ Inachos Ερ. Ιν.

25

[× ‒ ⏑ ‒ × ] ταῦτα· μὴ λέξηις πλέω. [ὃν παῖδες εἶ]πον, Ζηνὸς αἰάξαι λάτρι[ν, [τόνδ᾽ οὐ θροεῖν] πάρεστιν Ἰνάχωι λόγ[ον. ] ὀλίγον ἰσχύε̣ι ̣ς̣ ὅμ̣[ως ]ν πο̣λ̣ὺν̣ ̣ τ̣ο̣cο̣[ ]ως ἀνδρ̣[ ] ̣π ̣[

1–27 initio (certe 1–21) stichomythiam Mercurii et Argi, post 22 partem Inachi esse coniecit Ts.; 15–24 stichomythiam Mercurii et Inachi Pfeiffer 1 ] ̣ ̣ ται ποδὶ edd. (= Hunt/Smyly, quos omnes secuti sunt), τα]υ̣ρ̣ώπιδι Ts. 2 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ωι ̣ ̣ ̣ ρωι edd., ] ἀ̣ν̣α̣δ̣ὺ̣ς̣ π̣α̣ρ̣ῆ̣ν̣ Ts. 3 ]ν̣οι̣ ̣π̣ο̣τ̣[ edd., ]α̣πωμο̣ cα̣[ Ts., quod οὐκ] ἀ̣πώμ̣οσ’ ἄ̣[ν integravit 4 ] ̣ ̣ ̣δ̣ετους ρ̣ ̣ ̣ edd., ] ̣ ̣ων̣ λ̣ι ̣τουργι ̣ῶν Ts. 5 ] ̣υ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣τεπι ̣ατ̣ ̣ηc (‘ἐπιστάτης looks likely ... But δυηc could be read in place of ατηc’ Hunt/Smyly) edd., ]ι ̣ω[ ̣]α̣c̣ε̣ι ̣θ̣υ̣πε̣κ̣δυ̣ηc (mutatum in -εγδυηc) pap.; ]ί ̣ω[σ]ά̣ σ̣᾽ · ε̣ἴ ̣θ̣᾽ ὑ̣πε̣κ̣δύ̣ης Ts., e.g. τιμῆς ἀπηξ]ίωσά σ(ε) Ts. 6 ] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ο̣ ̣[ edd., ] ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣]α̣μ̣ε̣ο̣ρ̣τ[̣ (-α μ᾽ ἑορτάσαι?) Ts. 7 ] ̣ ̣ ̣τα [̣ edd., ]ε̣ι ̣λε̣ ̣γμε̣ ̣[ Ts. 8 ] ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ν̣υ̣ν π̣ε̣τ̣[ edd., ] ̣δο̣[.] υ̣ ̣ν̣ π̣ε̣ ̣[ Ts. 9–11 duo aut tres versus vel non legibiles vel non scripti; Pfeiffer duo versus 12 ]αριστε̣[ edd., ] ἠ̣ριστε̣[υ- Ts. 13 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ edd., ]ο̣̣ι ̣ Ts. 15 ]c ̣ · ε̣ξ̣ευρ- pap., ἐ̣ξ̣ηῦρο̣ν Pfeiffer, ἐ̣ξ̣ηῦρε̣ν Ts. | τ[ε suppl. edd., τ[ις suppl. Ts. 16 ]π̣η̣σομ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣κ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣τ̣ ̣[ edd., σ᾽ ἐκ]πυήσομ᾽ ἧ̣ι  ᾽κ̣πυ̣ ̯ήσ[ω] δ̣άκη Ts. 17 δοντ᾽αλ. pap.; e.g. δοῦλον στόμαργ]ον δ᾽ ὄντ᾽ | θ̣ο̣[ edd., θε̣[οί Ts. 18 ] ̣α̣ι χ̣ρη̣σ̣ε̣ ̣ ̣ζ̣εc̣ ̣ ̣ ̣κ̣ ̣[ edd., ] κ̣αὶ χρή σ᾽ ἔθ᾽ ἅζειν ἢ θ̣α̣νε̣[ῖν]; Ts. 19 ]αρε̣υ̣ν̣ ̣ ̣ edd., ] ̣ αρ οὖν ἂν Ts. | γῆ edd., Γῆ Ts. post Pfeiffer 20 ]οντι πείθεσθαι edd., πείθεσθαι c. καλῶς Pfeiffer, λέγ]οντι vel εἰπ]όντι c. καλῶς dub. Radt, ]ον τι πεύ̣θεσθαι Ts., quod e.g. πλέον γέ μοι λέξ]ον τι πεύθεσθαι καλῶς suppl. Ts. 21 νῦν ἀρκέσει σοι] ταῦτα suppl. e.g. Ts. 22 ff. post stichomythiam versus Inacho attr. Ts. 22 εἶ]πον pr. pers. τὸ καὶ πρὶν εἶ]πον ? Pfeiffer, ἀλλ᾽ αὖθις εἶ]πον Page, tert. pers. plur. τὸν παῖδες εἶ]πον, sc. choreutae, e.g. Ts. 23 λόγ[ος ed. pr. | [τόνδ᾽ οὐ θροεῖν] π. Ἰ. λόγ[ον Ts. post Pfeiffer ([τόνδ᾽ οὐ λέγειν] π. Ἰ. λόγ[ον), δὶς οὗτος οὐ] π. Ἰ. λόγ[ος Page, τρὶς αὑτὸς οὐ] π. Ἰ. λόγ[ος Lloyd-Jones 24 καίπερ Διὸς παῖς] vel καίπερ τι κομπῶν] Pfeiffer, Διὸς πεφυκὼς Page; καίπερ πρὸς Ἄργον] ὀλίγον ἰσχύεις ὅμ̣[ως dub. Ts. 25 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ δ̣υν̣το̣ ̣c̣τ̣[ edd., ]ν πο̣λ̣ὺ̣ν̣ τ̣ο̣cο̣[ Ts. 26 ] ̣ε̣c̣ανδρ̣[ edd., ]ωcανδρ[ Ts., οὕτ]ως ἀνδρ[ικῶς? (Ephippus fr. 8.5 K.-A.) proponens 27 ]τ̣ο̣ ̣ [̣ edd., ] ̣π ̣[ Ts.

**269e (P.Tebt. 692, fr. 3)

4

] ̣ ̣ ε̣ρ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τ̣ο̣ι ̣ς ] η̣ ̣ ν̣ε̣ ̣ ι ̣τ̣η̣ν̣ ] ̣ ̣ καλ̣ῶς ] ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ]̣ ̣

‘Line 1 ... was either the first or second of a column, unless the preceding lines were appreciably shorter; but the breadth of the blank space to the right indicates that they were themselves short lines, or at any rate not tetrameters’ ed. pr. 1–3 ‘wohl 3 Trimeterschlüsse’ Körte 1 ] ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ τ̣α̣ς edd., ] ̣ ̣ ε̣ρ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τ̣ο̣ι ̣ς Ts. 2 ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ λ̣άτρ̣ι ̣ν̣ edd., ] η̣ ̣ ν̣ε̣ ̣ ι ̣τ̣η̣ν̣ Ts. 3 vel καλ̣οῖ̣ ς Ts. 4 infra κ littera angulata: Α, Δ, Λ | inter 3 et 4 ad latus dextrum litteris maioribus ̣α̣μπ ̣ ̣η̣ι ̣c̣

Commentary  

Commentary **269a, b P.Oxy. 2369 is part of a roll dated to the late first century BCE/early first century CE. It bears numerous lectional signs, accents, breathings, and metrical signs. Many of them appear to be written by a different hand, especially those written with faded ink. The text is diligently written with very few errors, but the whole impression is more like a good student’s homework, that does not seem to be intended for the hands of a scholar. The presence of a student is indicated by the often unnecessary lectional signs. 46 άφθογγοc could be read in only one way, whereas the breves on 37 εκβουτυπο̑υτᾰι (even if for justifying the circumflex on the penult), 52 ᾰξύνετο ̣, 55 ᾰὶθοc, are puzzling. 14. The punctuation at the end of ] . υμα· rules out the possibility that fr. 287, ἐπίκρουμα χθονὸς Ἀργείας, might come from here. This is the reason why Pfeiffer (1958, 12 n. 1) altered the word order of the fragment (χθονὸς Ἀργείας ἐπίκρουμα·), though he considered it “eine entfernte (sehr entfernte) Möglichkeit”. Also, if the point at issue was the herdsman Argus (see on fr. 287), a reference to him in the play before the narration of Io’s metamorphosis should be premature. 18. The lines between 8 and 18 that do not leave any visible traces, must not be trimeters. 14 ] . υμα· is also unlikely to be iambic, unless παρώνῠμα or similar compounds are supplemented. The only clue as to what happened before 8 is the ]α of line 7, which is aligned with the end of the iambic lines visible in 19 ff. Lobel noted some uncertain traces in the intercolumnar area beside line 18, which he attributed to a marginal annotation. See below. A conspicuous trace looks like a X right before the opening of line 45 of col. II, perhaps erroneously written (for the X ̊ of the next line?) and afterwards struck out and possibly wiped off. 19–20 (=269b). “veri simillimum est hoc frustulum fragmenti 1 col. I versus 19 sq. (= F 269a 19 sq.) continere” Radt. Lobel notes that in an old rough copy made 27 years before the edition, the fragment was placed immediately before col. I 21. “I cannot now replace it in such a way as to account for the traces below the second ου, since the letters at the end of fr. 1 [= 269a] I 21 appear to be complete” Lobel. Obviously, Lobel expected the ends of 269b.2 and 269a.21 to coincide, at the same time taking for granted that fr. 269b contains the complete end of verse 20. A large part of this verse presents, however, a peculiarity. Containing only vowels and diphthongs (ὢ ἰοὺ ἰού), it covers five metrical positions with only seven letters, two of which are iotas, thus impeding regular measuring of the

  Sophocles’ Inachos verse’s size. That the frustulum would anyway protrude from the left-hand edge of the papyrus is inevitable. The traces below the second ου, two small arcs coming from the top of two curved letters, which puzzled Lobel as he believed that they should stand above 21 ηνθαδε, agree with the missing tops of OCηνθαδε. Also, since other traces of letters are visible above ηνθαδε, it follows that 20 did not end with ὢ ἰοὺ ἰού, but a disyllabic word was missing after it. The traces of the first line of 269b above ἰοὺ ἰού read ] ̣ ̣ π̣νε̣υ̣[, as proposed by Lobel (“Before ν the feet of the uprights of η or π, after it the base of a circular letter; πνευ[ is one possibility”). The uncertain letters to the right of 19 are smaller than the normal letters of the poetic text, and must belong to a marginal note. I read, certainly enough, ] ̣αφ ̣ η̣ι ̣ρεθη. As the word is metrically convenient for closing an iambic trimeter, it may well be a marginal correction of an unknown word. Then, if the reading is correct, the subject must have being deprived of something. 20. The shouts ὢ ἰοὺ ἰού do not presuppose a funny character or group, such as the Silenus or the Satyrs. The exclamations are attested on an equal footing in satyr-play, tragedy, and comedy. Further, in satyr-play, any character, whether funny or serious, finding himself in a similar situation might mouth such words. Here, it is evident that the speaker is Inachus, the father of Io. It will also become clear that, down to line 28, we have a stichomythia (Pfeiffer) between Inachus and the Chorus-leader. At the beginning, ]η̣ς or ]ι ̣ς was read by Lobel. The verse, addressed to the Chorus-leader, possibly opened with an aorist participle: -(θ)ε]ίς. E.g., συθε]ὶς ἔχ᾽ αὐτόν. Since we deal with a stichomythia, the missing word at the end must conclude the sentence. ὢ ἰοὺ ἰοὺ [κ]α̣κ̣ά̣ seems to agree with the traces and the sense; cf. Aesch. Ag. 1214 ἰοὺ ἰοὺ ὢ ὢ κακά. Pfeiffer started the stichomythia from line 20. If, however, line 19 is an iambic trimeter, as the traces indicate, the stichomythia must have started from there. In that case, either Inachus was the first speaker, starting with a distich, or 19 belongs to the coryphaeus, who started unsuspecting of what was going on just to hear the desperate cries of Inachus. If ἀφηιρέθη is correct, we could guess that the coryphaeus wonders why his master behaves as if he was robbed of something. 21. Lobel printed ηνθαδε, which Pfeiffer improved to ἢ ᾽νθάδε (acc. Radt; Carden, with crasis, ἠνθάδε). I would prefer ὅσ᾽ ἦ ᾽νθάδε, “as long as I was here”. Probably, “I did not see anything wrong, as long as I was here”.

Commentary  

22. “I should guess an imperative such as λαβέτε” Lobel. A subjunctive would also be possible: “Hurry up to catch this god-detested”; e.g., ὁρμᾶθ᾽ (vel ὁρμᾶσθ᾽) ὅπως λάβητε τὸν θεοστυγῆ. 23. “There may have been a negative in the first part of the line or τίς may be for ποιός, ‘I see the true character of the visitor’” Lobel. The first alternative is much preferable. E.g., οὔπω τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ξένον νοῶ τίς ἦν, “I do not understand yet who this foreigner was”. 24. διὰ] Lobel, ἐκ] Pfeiffer; “(he escaped) from the house”. τὸ πᾶν μύσος, “he who is nothing but abomination”; the idiom is used by Sophocles: El. 301, Ph. 622 ἡ πᾶσα βλάβη, Ph. 927 πᾶν δεῖμα. 25. ]. ἐπηιν. Radt, δ or λ Lobel; δ᾽ Carden; λ seems certain. Ιnterrogatively formulated, e.g.: οὐ πρόσθε δράσας πόλ]λ᾽ ἐπηινέθη καλά;, “(Wasn’t he formerly) praised (for having done) many good deeds?”. 26. ] . ΕΥΡΕΘΗ pap., ] . ηυρέθη Pfeiffer (acc. omnes). E.g., ἕωσπερ οὗτος δρῶν ἐ]φηυρέθη κακά, “Yes, till his deeds were found to be evil”; cf. Soph. OC 938 δρῶν δ᾽ ἐφευρίσκηι (second sing.) κακά. Yet, augmentless εὑρίσκω is quite common in the MSS. 27. ἐξ ἐ[ν]ωπίων: Without entering the discussion on the precise meaning of ἐνώπια— for which see Friis Johansen & Whittle (1980) on Aesch. Su. 146—, the best sense, I believe, is given here by ‘entrance’, ‘front door’. “But he left (like a gentleman) from the front door” or sim., in the sense “he did not leave furtively, by the back door”; cf. 24 ?ἐκ] θυρῶν, 35 δι᾽ οἴκων. I propose ὤιχε]τ᾽ ἐξ ἐνωπίων. 28. Something like “No, he disappeared after cheating me”. Lloyd-Jones supplemented 27–28 καὶ νῦν πέφευγε· φροῦδο]ς ἐξ ἐνωπίων | φύλακας λαθὼν βέβηκε], φηλώσας ἐμέ, assigning both verses to Inachos. φροῦδο]ς is impossible, because the missing word ends in Γ or Τ. 29. The stichomythia ended in the previous line at the bottom of col. I. ἀλλ᾽ οἴχεται μήν: The Chorus-leader wishes to calm Inachus down. “In any case! He has gone away”. Following ΚᾹCΤ, the tiny oblique stroke that is visible level with the bottom of the letters does not belong to a circular letter but is rather the bottom serif of an iota, whose traces, after the ink peeled off, are discernible. Another serif, very close to the preceding, may belong to the first upright of Ν.

  Sophocles’ Inachos Then, read κἄστι ̣ν̣ or κἄστι ̣ ν̣[ῦν. Exempli gratia, κἄστι ̣ ν̣[ῦν ἀνειμένος, “and is now at large”. 30. Of the conjectures made for supplementing this line, I believe that Pfeiffer’s agrees best with the situation: τ̣ὰ σὰ σκοτώσας ὄμμ̣[αθ᾽· οἷα δ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἔδρα. 31. τ̣αῦτ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ἴδρις εἰμ[ὶ] δείν̣[᾽ εἴπερ πέλει. The fact that the stranger left the palace by darkening Inachus’ vision is not a sufficient explanation for the latter’s anger and irritation. οὐκέτ᾽ ἴδρις εἰμ[ί] actually leads to the narration of Io’s metamorphosis in the verses that follow. 32–33. Inachus repeats, resentfully and ironically, the last words of the Chorusleader. Therefore, print at 32 εἰ δεινά;, with a question-mark (Kakridis 1960, 106, 108). Instead of Radt’s ουχ followed by an interspace, I clearly read ουχ followed by a vertical (not I, which is always serifed); a question-mark? The rest may be supplemented exempli gratia: ὃς̣ α̣ὐ̣τ̣[ὸν ἑστιῶν | σεμνὰς τραπέζας ἐν δόμοι[σι προὐτίθην, | ὁ̣ δ᾽ ... For the peculiar use of the relative (ὅς = ὅτι ἐγώ) after δεινά, cf., e.g., Aj. 1298–1299 τοιοῦτος ὢν τοιῷδ᾽ ὀνειδίζεις σποράν; | ὃς ἐκ πατρὸς μέν εἰμι Τελαμῶνος γεγώς, ..., Phil. 1029–1030 καὶ νῦν τί μ᾽ ἄγετε; τί μ᾽ ἀπάγεσθε; τοῦ χάριν; | ὃς οὐδέν εἰμι καὶ τέθνηχ᾽ ὑμῖν πάλαι. ‘ “ If dreadful?” Of course they were. I who received him as a guest offering him noble dinner in my house, and he …’. Cf. Eur. Alc. 765–766 ἐν δόμοισιν ἑστιῶ | ξένον. 34–35. Pfeiffer proposed ὁ̣ δ᾽ἀμφὶ χεῖρα παρθέν̣[ωι βαλὼν ἐμῆι | Ἰοῖ δι᾽ οἴκων οἴχεται σ̣π̣[ουδῆι περῶν. For the end, Lloyd-Jones (1958, 19) proposed σπ[εύσας δρόμωι and Kamerbeek (1984, 128 n. 2) σπ[άσας κόμης vel ἄπο. Pfeiffer’s supplement is generally satisfactory. At the end of 35, Lobel saw “an upright with foot serifed to the left”, which he printed as π̣. Carden saw “a vertical, compatible with iota, and then further traces which may (or may not) represent a separate next letter”. In any case, he does not exclude π̣ or κ̣. I believe I can confirm Carden’s iota, since the top of the upright is visibly free. Its bottom is serifed to the left, like the first vertical of π, but the iota is serifed unstably, though more often emphatically to the right. In any case, the free top is distinctive for iota. There follows the lower part of another vertical rather unserifed and shorter than the iota. It may well belong to a γ. Some uncertain traces follow, possibly of a further vertical. I would read and supplement, partly following Pfeiffer, σιγῆ̣[ι περῶν.

Commentary  

36. I read ΚΡΑ̑Τ’ ̣ [. The transformation starts from the nose which turns into a cow’s muzzle possibly marring the lovely head. I propose, e.g., κρᾶτ᾽ ἀϊστώσας καλόν. 37. Nothing but a low serif (much like the serif of iota) and some uncertain vestiges are visible after κα. Lobel’s καὶ  . [ is likely. See the next item for the supplement. 38. κάρᾱ should be the subject of φύει, since it could not be said that Io grows a head. 37–38 may well run like ‘and heifer horns | her head grows’; καὶ κέρᾱτα πόρτιος | φύει κάρα is possible. With κάρα qualified, καὶ στόλοκρον αὐτίκα | φύει κάρα (Kakridis 1960, 106, 109–110), or, e.g., καὶ στολοκρατὲς τάχα | φύει κάρα (cf. fr. 295a R.), ‘and soon grows a horny head’, the sense would seem satisfactory, but the subject would not be Io, but ‘the girl’s muzzle’. στόλοκρος, adjectival ‘with knobs instead of horns’ and substantival ‘the knob or young horn’ (LSJ) is effectively proposed, since στολοκρατές is straightly connected with Io: Hsch. σ 1906 Hansen στολοκρατές· τὸ τῆς Ἰοῦς μέτωπον, διὰ τὰ κέρατα. (See Radt’s app. cr. in fr. **295a.) On the other hand, one might conjecture καὶ μέτωπον εὐπρεπὲς | φύει κέρᾱ. Since, however, Io does not seem to have grown full horns from the first moment, but, as frr. *279 and **295a suggest, small excrescences such as young heifers have, it would be better to supplement καὶ στόλοκρα πόρτιος. The breve at ΤΑΥΡΩ̑[ . ] . ̆ is so small that it must have been placed upon an especially narrow letter, obviously an iota. The circumflex prescribes nominative, accusative or vocative. Since the latter is ruled out in this context, I waver between ταυρῶπις and ταυρῶπιν. E.g., ταυρῶπιν ὄψιν ἐκλαβόν, or, less likely, with a strong punctuation after κάρα, an exclamatory sentence: ταυρῶπίς ἐστ᾽ ἐμὴ κόρη. See also 269d.1 τα]υ̣ρ̣ώπιδι. 39. Τhough the iota is very uncertain, ωμοι ̣[ς is unquestionable. The transformation in the neck may have something to do with the κόλλοψ, the thick and hard skin on the upper part of the neck of oxen. E.g., αὐχὴν ἐπ᾽ ὤμοι ̣[ς σχετλίως τραχύνεται. Or more simply παχύνεται? 41. Certainly κροτοῦσι θράν̣[ους. The view that θρᾶνοι must here refer to the wooden benches and stools, against which the hoofs of the transformed Io were bumping, seems strained. It would be more natural for the hoofs to knock on the floor of the palace. Θρᾶνος has several technical meanings, one of which is ‘wooden beam’ or ‘board’. The fact that inscriptionally the term is employed, among other usages, for ‘joist, beam supporting the floor’ (IG II2 1668.81 θράνους

  Sophocles’ Inachos ἐπιθήσει διανεκεῖς […] καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων ἐπιθήσει πίνακας συνκολλήσας) does not preclude the possibility that here it is used for ‘floorboard’, a sense that has passed into the LSJ Suppl. ‘Floorboard’ is the sense adopted by most interpreters, but Dale 1960 preferred ‘benches, forms’. 42–43. γυνὴ λέαινα has been considered a copulative expression resembling the nowadays fashionable ‘wolf child’, ‘frogman’, ‘Batman’, ‘Catwoman’, and sim. A woman-lioness would certainly suggest a Sphinx, but what would a Sphinx have to do in the scene of Io’s transformation? With ἧσται λινεργ[ός or λινεργ[οῦσ᾽ in the next verse, as he had read it, Lobel wondered about the relevance of a compound creature working flax, whereas, with ἧσται λινεργ[ής, Pfeiffer (1958, 24–26) thought of a seated Sphinx wrought in flax, woven, that is, or embroidered on cloth or carpet. For stage reasons, Io was transformed only partly, as seen in 36–41: her face, her head down to her neck, and her feet. These changes could be shown on stage by means of the mask and special footgear. Thus she could well be described as a compound monster. But Io was transformed into a heifer, not a lioness. Dale (1960), who adopts Lobel’s image of Io sitting and spinning, claims that λέαινα could be used generally for ‘beast’, so the expression would mean ‘beast-woman’. St. West (1984, 300) decisively got rid of the lioness and, reading (ἐ)λέαιν᾽, imagined Io as grinding something with pestle and mortar for preparing φάρμακα. None of these approaches is satisfactory. I believe that the verse contains a simile for the desperate state of mind the transformed girl is in. γυνή cannot refer to Io, who was a maiden (34 παρθένος, 36 κόρη). It accompanies λέαινα, in the sense ‘adult’, elsewhere qualified as ‘mother lioness’, τοκὰς λέαινα. It should be reminded that lions live in social units or families, called ‘prides’, usually consisting of one to three males and five to ten females and their cubs. γυνὴ λέαινα is one of these adult mother lionesses. At the end of line 42, Π is followed by a circular vowel, in all likelihood ω. A tiny speck over the left-hand tip of omega can belong to a circumflex. Then, probably, πῶς introducing in question form the simile of the lioness: ‘How does an adult lioness ...? So did Ιο …’. Eur. Med. 187–188 is possibly a parallel image. The talk is about the appearance of infuriated Medea: τοκάδος δέργμα λεαίνης ἀποταυροῦται, the verb, ‘turns into a bull’, being used for ‘becomes furious’. Obviously, expressions of the type Eur. Med. 1342 λέαιναν, οὐ γυναῖκα, ib. 1358, 1407, or Men. Mon. 374 Jäkel ἴση λεαίνης καὶ γυναικὸς ὠμότης, have nothing to do with the present situation. I acknowledge that I was unable to find a parallel of a simile introduced interrogatively, but I believe that a simile of the type ὡς / τοῖος would gain in liveliness if its prothesis was expressed as question. Linguistically, there does not seem to

Commentary  

be any problem. In other languages, Lat. quomodo, Fr. comme, Sp. como, It. come, Germ. wie, are at the same time interrogative and comparative. The mystery of the seated female who is working flax is easier to solve through the readings of the papyrus. H̔̑CTAIΛÌN, instead of ἧσται λιν-, may well be transcribed as ἧς τ᾽ αἴλιν᾽ starting a relative clause about the lioness with a neuter plural adjective denoting ‘mournful, plaintive’ and deriving from αἴλινος, ‘cry of anguish, dirge’. After that, Lobel read ÈΡΓ before the break, but the epsilon was by no means certain. Only a low left-hand arc survives before the papyrus break, which, since a vowel is necessary here, can be only ϵ , Ο or ω. A long mid horizontal starting from the curve and extending out of the edge of the papyrus tear looks like the middle stroke of an epsilon, but the impression is completely misleading, because the mid horizontal of epsilon in the scribe’s hand is a short wavy stroke quite distanced from the curve (C~). Obviously, the horizontal of the papyrus is no more than a fibre. Naturally, ϵ is still possible, since the place where the short wavy stroke should have been is torn, but the options are now more. The distance between the first two letters seems to rule out ωρ, but ορ and ερ are both legitimate readings. With ορ, a possible restoration might be ὀργ[ῆι, used adverbially as often, with αἴλιν(α) qualifying a plural noun that denotes the roars of the lioness. E.g., ἧς τ᾽ αἴλιν᾽ ὀ̣ργ[ῆι περιβρομεῖ βρυχήματα (vel μυκήματα), ‘and whose mournful roars resound all around with passion’. Then, lines 42–44 might be exempli gratia restored: γυνὴ λέαινα πῶ[ς ἑὸν πόσιν στένει, | ἧς τ᾽ αἴλιν᾽ ὀ̣ργ[ῆι περιβρομεῖ βρυχήματα (vel μυκήματα), | τοιαῦτα ..., ‘How does an adult lioness lament her mate, and her mournful roars resound all around with passion, such …’. Not only Eur. Med. 187–188 τοκάδος δέργμα λεαίνης, but also Theocr. 26.21 ὅσσον περ τοκάδος τελέθει μύκημα λεαίνας might be paralleled, the first focussing on the infuriated look of the lioness, the second on her mournful roars. Io’s cries were renowned: Aesch. PV 588 κλύεις φθέγμα τᾶς βούκερω παρθένου; Ovid is more detailed: Met. 1.637–638 conatoque queri mugitus edidit ore, | pertimuitque sonos propriaque exterrita voce est. Also, in elegiac distich, Her. 91–92 conatoque queri mugitus edidit ore | territaque est forma, territa voce sua. Since the roars of the lioness are αἴλινα, mournful, she must have lost either her young or her mate. And since she is named γυνή, wife, and not τοκάς, μήτηρ vel sim., the second option is likelier. Sophocles uses the image of the lioness who is bereft of her mate elsewhere too: Aj. 986–987 μή τις ὡς κενῆς | σκύμνον λεαίνης δυσμενῶν ἀναρπάσηι, ‘lest some enemy kidnap him (sc. Eurysaces, Aias’ son) like the whelp of a widowed lioness’. 44. After τοιαῦτα, a triangular letter, Δ or Λ, is visible, followed by the left-hand vertical of a letter, which, as Carden noticed, is covered with a circumflex. It

  Sophocles’ Inachos must be an H, therefore either δῆτα οr δῆλ-. E.g., τοιαῦτα δ̣ῆ̣[λα πᾶσιν ἐξώιμωξ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οἷς, ‘in such a way manifest to all did she wail for these that …’. It is noteworthy that both times this verb is used by Sophocles, it is combined with a comparison between the wailing character and an animal: Aj. 317 ὁ δ᾽ εὐθὺς (sc. Aias) ἐξώιμωξεν οἰμωγὰς λυγράς, […] 322 ὑπεστέναζε ταῦρος ὣς βρυχώμενος; especially an animal bereft of its dearest ones, children or mate, Ant. 423–427 ἡ παῖς (sc. Antigone) ὁρᾶται κἀνακωκύει πικρᾶς (-ῶς Bothe) | ὄρνιθος ὀξὺν φθόγγον, ὡς ὅταν κενῆς | εὐνῆς νεοσσῶν ὀρφανὸν βλέψηι λέχος · | οὕτω δὲ χαὕτη, ψιλὸν ὡς ὁρᾶι νέκυν, | γόοισιν ἐξώιμωξεν. 45. αὐ̣τ̣[ (Carden) is practically certain. ὁ ξεῖνος αὐ̣τ̣[ός, ‘the stranger in person’, may be the subject of a relative clause that started in the previous line: ‘in such a way did she wail for the misfortune that the stranger himself brought to her’. 46–56. Τhe note X ̊ of line 46, being placed at the outer margin, seems to refer to the whole group of verses 46–56. Carden discerned below line 47 a ‘short horizontal stroke below and a little to right of ε—conceivably a paragraphos’. Later, in his commentary, p. 69, he changes his mind. Actually, it is the low arc of an ϵ́ followed by a short gap, where only an iota could be accommodated, and a circumflex, with the vowel below it having been abraded. The note X ̊ is placed three more times before every verse where there is change from the speaking coryphaeus who recites iambic trimeters to the whole group who sing dochmiacs. So, the note is found at lines 46 (coryphaeus, 3ia), 51 (Chorus, δ), 54 (coryphaeus, 3ia), 56 (coryphaeus, 3ia). 55 is left without note, but evidently the verse being a dochmiac must belong to the whole Chorus. The ]Ρ seen by Lobel under the chorus note at line 46 is certain. He explained it as σατύ]ρ (ων), but given the fact that no Satyrs appear anywhere in the surviving play, but only servants in the palace, I would prefer to supplement θε]ρ(απόντων). Further, if the missing letters were CATY], at least the C should have been visible in the surviving part of the papyrus. If the Chorus-members had exhibited old-age properties, Calder’s (1958, 141) γε]ρ(όντων) would also be possible, but, on the contrary, the king’s commands in lines 20, 22 and mainly the brisk and vigorous dance in 269c attest to the opposite. In any case, it is uncertain why the scribe adds the description of the Chorus in an advanced point of the play (line 310), when they must have shown up earlier too. Soph. fr. 1130.6 R. (P.Oxy. 1083+2453), suggested by Pfeiffer, is a parallel, but here things are complicated by the repeated use of the note X ̊ . 46. The coryphaeus seems to apologize for his former disbelief. Cf. 50 ἄπιστα.

Commentary  

48. ̣κ̣ ̣[ Lobel; ‘on either side of κ, rounded letters’ Carden. ἑ̣κώ ̣ [ν is rather excluded, but οκω[ or σκω[ (from σκώπτω) are possible. The first is likelier: e.g., ὁ κῶλ᾽ ἐπείγων, ‘he who sped up his legs’, describing the stranger who escaped in haste. 49. Not only θυγ is certain, but also the traces following may well belong to the right-hand foot of α and the bottom serif of τ. Pfeiffer οὐ θυγατ[ρ. If the speaker was Inachus, θυγα̣τ̣[ρ would mean ‘my daughter’, but see next item. Ε.g., ὁ ξεῖνος οὐ θύγα̣τ̣[ρα σὴν ὤικτιρέ τι (vel ἐφείσατο). Τhe paragraphos under the first two letters of ὁ ξεῖνος, at the opening of the verse, must have been erroneously placed there—therefore afterward deleted—instead of under line 45, which also starts with ὁ ξεῖνος. Τhe error suggests that some notes, paragraphoi and the like, are placed by the scribe after he has completed the writing of the column at least. 50. τοι ̣μ̣ο̣. . [ Lobel. A series of unclear alterations seems to have occurred. The result is probably ἄ̣π̣ιστα τοὐ̣μ̣ὸν̣ ̣ ̣[, ‘incredible, as far as I am concerned’, a statement that could not be spoken by Inachus, who was an eyewitness of his daughter’s transformation. Two lines later, at 52, in their lyric part, the Chorus will name the same situation ἀξύνετον, ‘incomprehensible’. 51. Formerly fr. 290 Pearson (268 N.2), from Philodem. De piet. P.Herc. 248 fr. 2.2–4 (p. 23 Gomperz; p. 109 Schober; cf. Henrichs 1975, 18): καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἐ[ν Ἰνά]χωι τὴν Γῆν μ[ητέ]ρα τῶν θεῶν φη[σιν]. To complete the two dochmiacs, Pfeiffer proposed Ὀλυμπίων, Ph.J. Kakridis, likelier, πότνια, coll. Soph. Phil. 395 (Γᾶ) μᾶτερ πότνι(α). 52. By reading ό followed by a vertical, at the end of the text surviving, we may supplement ἀξύνετÓN or ἀξύνετÓI. Ιt is possible to restore, completing a dochmiac, ἀξύνετόν γ᾽ ἐμοί, ‘Ι cannot make sense’. However, there is also a clear grave accent falling upon a vowel right after the vertical. The grave may fall on the consonant preceding the accented vowel, when the vowel has another mark above it; e.g., 50 ΑΠΙCΤ̀Ᾰ. 53. Apparently, the word does not mean ‘knowing many drugs’ but ‘knowing many magic tricks’. 54–56. After αἰθός, ή̣ρ[̣ is very likely. ‘There is some ink unaccounted for over the accent’ (Lobel), sc. ´̣ ̣[, as Lobel published, or ή̣ρ[̣ , as I read. The unaccounted

  Sophocles’ Inachos for ink is the large bottom serif of the ρ in πολυφαρμ̣[. At 55 εν̣[ or εμ̣[ Carden. At 56 αν̣[: κ or ν Lobel, ι  Carden. ν̣ is certain; ἄν[δρα Pfeiffer. The opposition ὁ μέν ~ ὁ δέ is puzzling. Which are the two persons compared? The ‘stranger’ who carried out the metamorphosis was, according to the principal myth, Zeus (Apollod. 2.1.3; cf. Hes. fr. 124 M.-W.). In the play he appears, as it seems, in the disguise of a black foreigner (54 κάρβᾱνος αἰθός). The Chorus must have seen him before, as well as Inachus, who received and treated him hospitably, but none did realize his true identity. Inachus experienced the terrific transformation of his daughter, after the stranger embraced the girl, but the Chorus, who had no access to the interior of the palace, were left with their original impression of a laudable visitor: 25 ?ἤθη τοῦ]δ̣᾽ ἐπηινέθη καλά. This may then be the meaning of ὁ μέν ~ ὁ δέ. Not two individuals, but two personalities, two different characters displayed by the same person. The lost second hemistich of line 54 must have referred to these two different τρόποι of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. κάρβᾱνος αἰθὸς ἤ̣ρ̣[αρεν (vel ἥ̣ρ̣[μοσεν) διπλοῦς τρόπους?, ‘the black foreigner joined together, combined two characters’. The next two verses must specify the particulars of the τρόποι. The first righteous (ὁ μὲν ἐν̣[αίσιμος?, forming a dochmiac), the second, on the contrary, turning the bearer to a shifty and tricky nature (e.g., ὁ δ᾽ αἰολωπὸν ἀν̣[τίον τιθεὶς φύσιν). On the other hand, the proposal of Lloyd-Jones 1960, 26, that the κάρβανος αἰθός may be not Zeus but Hermes acting on behalf of Zeus, has caused much debate. Not only αἰολωπόν, no matter what noun is attached to it, is an adjective well describing Hermes, but even his appearance as ‘black stranger’ fits Callimachus’ reference to the god as a bogeyman, Hymn. 3.68–71: ὁ δὲ δώματος ἐκ μυχάτοιο | ἔρχεται Ἑρμείης σποδιῆι κεχριμένος αἰθῆι· | αὐτίκα τὴν κούρην μορμύσσεται, ἡ δὲ τεκούσης | δύνει ἔσω κόλπους θεμένη ἐπὶ φάεσι χεῖρας. Though the κούρη is not Io, but just any naughty daughter frightened by her parents, the similarity is remarkable. Before Lloyd-Jones, Calder 1958, 142–150, had argued in favour of Hermes, believing, however, that the play is a tragedy. Lloyd-Jones later changed his mind arguing in favour of Zeus, whereas Calder 1975, 410, assented to the satyric identity of the play, only detaching it from Sophocles’ Inachos, which he continued to consider a tragedy. Sutton 1979, 65 n. 54, and 1980, 50– 51, supported the identity of Hermes. Seaford 1980, 23–29, argued that the Black Zeus is the Chthonian Zeus, i.e. Hades-Pluton, who is often identified with Plutus.2 Already since Lobel 1956, ad 53–54, the κάρβανος αἰθός has been connected  2 I agree with Seaford’s conclusions about the identity of the κάρβανος αἰθός as well as about the playful (yet, not satyric) nature of the play. However, I disagree with most of his premises. In the P. Tebt. text, nobody gives Zeus the name Ἅιδης nor etymologizes this name, nor lends

Commentary  

with Zeus, whom Sophocles presented black, in order to reconcile his image with the complexion of the son that Io would beget, the dark-coloured Epaphus. This seems to be the prevailing view about the identity of the black stranger. There may have been an onstage appearance of the black Zeus right before the scene of fr. 269a, but certainly the scene of Io’s metamorphosis was only reported by Inachus to the Chorus. Despite the disguise, the mysterious guest must have been a serious character. It is not so much that a funny Zeus would be inappropriate in a Sophoclean play, but, from a dramatic point of view, it would be uneconomical in a play to have two characters with the same features, Zeus and Hermes, both gods, cunning, playful, and mischievous, yet both standing on the same side of the conflict.3 269c P.Tebt. 692 is part of a roll dated to the second century BCE. The hand seems to be that of an experienced professional scribe, and, though several copying errors have crept into the text, most of them are corrected even if in a clumsy way. Yet, there are many details that attest to the scribe’s and the owner’s scholarly competence. Col. I. Lines 1–3 and 6 were so short that they left no traces at all, and 4–5 only a few letters from the right-hand end of the verses. This means that the verses must have been lyrical. The same holds also true for lines 10–12a (see below). In between, lines 7–9, of whose text a considerable part has survived, were partly considered also lyrical (7 certainly, 8 probably). 7. ]c̣υριγγο̣[c . . ] ̣ ̣κ̣λυω can be read. The edd. publish ]σ̣ύριγγο̣[ς] δ̣ὲ̣ κ̣λ̣ύω. The gap before κλυω must widen a bit, since the papyrus above it is very wrinkled, and flattening it would add to the space of the gap. The kappa has a chi-like form, a personal feature of the scribe, as we shall see at line 41. Before kappa, part of a leftward bending oblique is visible, obviously an alpha, and before it part of a left-hand curve compatible with epsilon. I propose [ἡδ]έ̣α̣, which might depend on a preceding, e.g., ψοφήμαθ᾽ ὡς.

 the cap of Hades to Hermes; there is no spider of the god below; γυνὴ λέαινα has nothing to do with the Sphinx, and Io is not said to be dressed in linen decorated with Sphinxes. 3 Enlightening overviews of the subject are given by Seidensticker 2012, 215–217, and O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 317.

  Sophocles’ Inachos 8–9. ]ταθ̣μου[ is visible. At line 9 ] ̣ ̣ τ̣η̣ν̣ [ . . ] cιν βο̣ω[, the first editors had proposed [βά]σιν, and Pfeiffer dubitanter [στά]σιν, comparing Aesch. PV 653, βουστάσεις τε πρὸς πατρός, i.e. Inachus’ ox-stalls. Carden dismissed Pfeiffer’s proposal as longer than the space provided. But it is clear that, if the fibres and the written lines were to run on straightly, the gap should open somewhat, allowing for an extra letter; hence, στάσιν βοῶν, ‘ox-stall’, and the parallel from PV are convenient. I would hesitantly read the whole line ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ κ̣η̣[ . . . ] cιν βο̣ω[, possibly εὐτυκῆ στάσιν βοῶν, ‘a well-built ox-stall’. It is also uncertain who the speaker is. Who is hearing the sound of the syrinx? Is it Io, listening to Hermes, who is playing the syrinx, as the scene of the next two columns will show? Or is it Argus, listening to the lulling sounds of Hermes’ syrinx? The latter would be most likely, if, as proposed by Hartung, fr. 774 comes from Inachos: μύω τε καὶ δέδορκα κἀξανίσταμαι, πλέον φυλάσσων αὐτὸς ἢ φυλάσσομαι. The fragment is attested at Dion. Hal. De compos. verb. 9 (34,15 Us.-Rad.) introduced by τὰ Σοφόκλεια ταυτί. 10–15. The number of lines between 9 and 13 are four and not three, as published. Therefore, an extra line (12a) should be added. In line 10, I read an epsilon. The stroke above it that looks like a paragraphos (Pfeiffer) is rather a peeled off fibre. At line 13, instead of ]πο̣δίζεται, I read ]πα̣ίζεται, with an oblique fold or tearing between π and α. παίζω is used of playing on a musical instrument, here apparently the syrinx. And the passive voice can indicate that the player is not seen. At line 15 Carden read Ν or ΑΙ ̣. The second is preferable. Col. II. The short verses written ἐν εἰσθέσει all three times (16–20, 25–30, and 34–39) are no doubt dochmiac stanzas. 16. Carden 1974, 82, considers πολὺ πολὺ ἰδρίδας, which cannot be excluded. The papyrus has, however, by first hand a hypodiastole after the first πολύ (not a serif of Y), but not after the second. A diaeresis between υ and ι is very likely, but a wear at the place impedes absolute certainty as to how it was noted: with a double dot (ΥÏ) or with an apostrophe as at 18 below (Y·I). 18. Here, as also in the stanza 34–39, the dochmiacs are of the type ⏑ ⏖ ⏖ ⏑ ⏕. This form seems to be disregarded in 18, which was published as ὄνομ᾽ εὖ σ’ ἐθρόει. Pfeiffer 1938, 41, took the verse as anapaestic. One might also consider a substitution of double short for the initial short (as in 27–29 below) and length-

Commentary  

ening of ε in ἐθρόει, though infrequent (West 1982, 110–1). All this, however, would be opposite to the prosodic practice of the poet in this stanza. It is best, I believe, to write ὄνομ᾽ ἐΰ σ᾽ ἐθρόει (prop. Diggle), which is a unique use of the epic form in drama, though so is also ὅτις in 17; rare is also the uncontracted form in line 19 -κυνέας instead of -κυνῆς; even 20 ὑπαί is extremely rare (not found in Aeschylus, three more times in Sophocles, once in Euripides). But it has not been noticed that the scribe or a corrector wrote E·Υ with an apostrophe (almost like a high dot) to mark the diaeresis. I cannot rule out that, apart from the apostrophe, there is also a low dot, a hypodiastole, between Ε and Υ. For this use of the apostrophe, see Turner 1987, 11 and n. 47. 20. σκότον αροτον was emended to σκότον ἄροτον by Fritsch 1936 and Pfeiffer 1938, 33, on the parallel of the unique νὺξ ἀβρότη, Il. 14.78, and the common νὺξ ἀμβροσία and νὺξ ἄμβροτος, and translated ‘divine’ or ‘uncanny darkness’. The first editors had published ἄροτον taking it ‘as an adjectival attribute of σκότον, equivalent to ὑπόγαιον’ and had translated ‘infernal’. Though ἄροτον gives a satisfactory sense, I feel reluctant to accept it. I would propose, with no emendation whatsoever, ἀροτόν from ἀρόω, ‘ploughed, sown’, in the metaphorical sense ‘conceived’; cf. Soph. OT 1485 ἔνθεν αὐτὸς ἠρόθην. Only, it is not epithetically connected to σκότον, but appositionally to 18 σ(ε), in a passive sense: σὲ τὸν ἀροτὸν ὑπαὶ σκότον Ἀϊδοκυνέας, ‘you who have been conceived under the darkness of the cap of Hades’. This is obviously a straight reference to the way Hermes was conceived, as it is described in the proem of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, 5–9: μακάρων δὲ θεῶν ἠλεύαθ᾽ (sc. Μαῖα) ὅμιλον ἄντρον ἔσω ναίουσα παλίσκιον, ἔνθα Κρονίων νύμφηι ἐϋπλοκάμωι μισγέσκετο νυκτὸς ἀμολγῶι, ὄφρα κατὰ γλυκὺς ὕπνος ἔχοι λευκώλενον Ἥρην, λήθων ἀθανάτους τε θεοὺς θνητούς τ᾽ ἀνθρώπους. Even the baby god, after his birth, knows how to render himself invisible (147): αὔρηι ὀπωρινῆι ἐναλίγκιος, ἠΰτ᾽ ὀμίχλη. When Apollo finds out his trick, he scolds him (290–291): μελαίνης νυκτὸς ἑταῖρε. τοῦτο γὰρ οὖν καὶ ἔπειτα μετ᾽ ἀθανάτοις γέρας ἕξεις.

  Sophocles’ Inachos Αctually, Ἄϊδος κυνῆ was often used, not of a particular magical cap as, for instance, in the myth of Perseus, but, with emphasis on the popular etymology of Ἀΐδης, either as a figurative expression for ‘invisibility’ attained through some supernatural contrivance or specifically as a divine cloud employed by gods to conceal themselves from sight. CPG I, Diogen. 1.39 Ἄϊδος κυνῆ: ἐπὶ τῶν κρυπτόντων ἑαυτοὺς διά τινος μηχανῆς; similarly CPG II, Diogen. 1.16; Hsch. α 1756 Ἄϊδος κυνέη· {τῆς ὀάις} ἀθάνατόν τι νέφος, ὃ περιβάλλονται οἱ θεοί, ὅταν θέλωσιν ἀλλήλοις μὴ γινώσκεσθαι. νεφέλη ἀφανής, ἣν ὑποδυσάμενοι οἱ ἀθεώρητοι γίνονται ἀλλήλοις = Photius α 548. Thus, here ‘the cap of Hades’ is not used exclusively of the present invisibility of Hermes, but in reference to an incident of the past, which, however, suggests one who makes use of this sort of trickery hereditarily since babyhood. At any rate, it is clear that the singer of the Inachos stanza is addressing Hermes. 16–21. Lloyd-Jones 1965, 241–243, had suspected that the stanza 16–20 deals with a name etymology. As he claims, the name does not appear in the text, but must have been Ἀΐδης (Hades), ‘the invisible one’: ‘those of old were very cunning to name the Cap of Invisibility after you’. However, in line 21, according to Lloyd-Jones (p. 243), ‘the statement is corrected; μὲν οὖν bears its common sense of “immo vero”, and the speaker is saying, “No, it is not Hades, it is Hermes” ’ . But ὄνομ᾽ ... σ᾽ ἐθρόει is clearly a poetic equivalent of the common expression ὄνομα καλεῖν τινα. This expression requires always a predicate, which should necessarily be or point to a name or an appellation. It would also be strange if in line 21 not only the statement was corrected (‘not Hades, but Hermes’), but also the etymology was discarded (‘forget the etymology; it is Hermes’). Further, when the etymology of a name is rejected in favour of another name, one expects this other name to be expressly stated. Instead of ‘Hermes’, however, we find, in an independent nominal sentence, a pejorative ‘messenger of Zeus’ amours’ and an incoherent ‘great runner’, both expressed in accusative, as if still belonging to the etymologizing sentence. I agree with Lloyd-Jones that the singer here is making an etymology, as well as that μὲν οὖν has its corrective force ‘immo vero’, but I believe that the function both of the etymology and the corrective particles is different. The problem of understanding was caused by the full stop placed by the editors at the end of the previous stanza. If we change the punctuation after ὑπαί to comma, the meaning becomes clear: ‘Very wise was he of the elders who fitly named you, you who have been conceived under the darkness of the cap of Hades, or rather the messenger of Zeus’ amours, a great τρόχις.’

Commentary  

There is a faint trace under and to the left of the σ of σκότον, which might be considered the relic of a diple, like the one that appears between 39 and 40—if there had been one also between 30 and 31, it is lost in a tear of the papyrus. But certainly there is no paragraphos between lines 20 and 21, as Carden erroneously notes in his diplomatic edition. The somewhat darker area above τὸν Διός is certainly not a paragraphos; it may well be the spot left from wiping out something. The paragraphos should indicate change of the speaking character, while the diple change of metre; Heph. De sign. 75 Consbruch. Here, the period is one, and, obviously, the singer is one. The etymologized word, placed at the end of a long and complex period, as in the neat parallel adduced by Lloyd-Jones from Aesch. Ag. 681–7 (τίς ποτ᾽ ὠνόμαζεν ... Ἑλέναν;), is neither the name of Ἀΐδης nor of ῾Ερμῆς, but a fit appellation given to Hermes by one of the ‘elders’. Also, μὲν οὖν does not correct an etymologized name, but the description of the god, with a pun based on sound similarity: ‘τὸν ἀροτόν or rather τὸν ἐρώτων ἄγγελον’. As we noticed above, the other dochmiac stanzas, 25–30 and 34–39, have six verses each. Therefore, it is most likely that, at the opening of this stanza, we miss a dochmiac, which should have been written in the lost bottom of column I. This dochmiac must have been somewhat like ἦ σοφὸς ἐγένετ᾽ ἢ or rather ἦ σοφὸς ἔπλετο καί. The reconstructed verse seems to disregard the prosodical pattern of the dochmiacs of this stanza (⏑ ⏖ ⏖ ⏑ ⏕), but a longum opening the stanza is regular. The pattern of 34–39 is identical with that of the stanza 25–30, and it also starts with ἦ. The speculative supplement is deliberately modelled on Aesch. PV 887 ff., significantly also starting a choral song: ἦ σοφὸς ἦ σοφὸς ἦν ὃς πρῶτος ἐν γνώμαι τόδ᾽ ἐβάστασε καὶ γλώσσαι διεμυθολόγησεν, ὡς κτλ. Τhere is an obvious relation of the text of Inachos, at least in the section that survived in P. Tebt. 692, and especially in this period, with Prometheus Vinctus. The Chorus of PV refer to that unnamed ‘wise’ man, who first formulated into a maxim the idea of compatibility between the two parts in a marriage, occasioned by Io’s distress because of her unequal relation with Zeus. The idea is set

  Sophocles’ Inachos out following Io’s pathetic anapaests of 877–886. The wise man implied was Pittacus of Mytilene and the maxim τὴν κατὰ σαυτὸν ἔλα. See Callim. Epigr. 1, D.L. 1.80, Sch. Aesch. PV 887. The maxim is alternatively attributed to Cleobulus of Lindos, D.L. 1.92 (γάμει ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων). Both Pittacus and Cleobulus were among the seven sages (σοφοί), a fact that accounts for ἦ σοφὸς ἦ σοφὸς ἦν. Sutton 1979, 79, proposed that ‘the one of our forefathers’ must be Aeschylus, but he surmised that the adjective the Chorus had in mind must be ἄσκοπος from Cho. 816–817 ἄσκοπον δέ πως λέγω· | νυκτὸς προὐμμάτων σκότον φέρει, one of the most puzzling passages in Aeschylus. He paraphrases “some one of our forefathers was clever to call you [ἄσκοπος] because you go skulking around hidden under the Cap of Hades.” Already Körte 1935, 253 had recognized in the text a parody of Prometheus Vinctus. Evidently, the singer of Inachos refers to that unnamed wise man of the elders, who very aptly called Hermes a τρόχις. The man was fictionally Prometheus mocking Hermes at PV 941, ἀλλ᾽ εἰσορῶ γὰρ τόνδε τὸν Διὸς τρόχιν, ‘Zeus’s courier’, but the coiner of the word is no doubt the poet of PV. The word occurs only in PV 941 and Inachos. Opp. Hal. 2.634, ἱερὸν τρόχιν Ἐννοσιγαίου, for the dolphin, seems to be borrowed straightly from PV 941, τὸν Διὸς τρόχιν, unless the v.l. τρόφιν is to be preferred: “Poseidon’s sacred nursling”. A collateral conclusion of the interpretation, especially of lines 16–21, is obviously connected with the question of the authorship of PV. The passage does not contain a verbal parallel or an echo, but a straight reference to the coiner of the specific term, in other words to the poet of PV. Of course, the mention does not force us to identify this poet with Aeschylus, and if ὅτις ὅδε were interpreted ‘whoever here’, it would add to the uncertainty about PV’s authorship. However, it is προτέρων that indicates a predecessor of Sophocles, with the weight of evidence in favour of Aeschylean authorship. If P. Tebt. 692 contains Sophocles’ Inachos, which is practically certain, I cannot imagine Sophocles calling “wise elder”, whether in earnest or in play, an obscure tragedian and not Aeschylus. And if, to this clear-cut fifth-century testimony we add the unanimous acceptance of Aeschylus’ authorship by every ancient authority and the absence of any suspicion to the opposite, it is natural to think that whichever demonstrable divergence from Aeschylean practice in the PV pointed out by modern critics must be explained differently. It would be greatly advantageous if we could date Inachos. The earliest certain date is ante 421 BCE, the year of the Peace of Nicias and of Aristophanes’ Peace. In line 531 of the comedy, among the benefits accepted from peace we read Σοφοκλέους μελῶν, which the Scholia ad loc. particularize as referring to fr. 278 of Inachos, part of a song about happiness in the proverbial Cronus golden

Commentary  

age. Wilamowitz 1889, vol. 1, 88–89 n. 53, dated Inachos in 421 BCE “denn seitdem ist es eines seiner [sc. Sophocles’] populärsten Stücke”. However, what the Scholia actually specify is a date ante 421 BCE, since the peace would enable Athenians to enjoy Sophocles’ songs, which were written earlier. How much earlier, however, one cannot say. On the other hand Pfeiffer, depending on Ar. Ach. 390 σκοτοδασυπυκνότριχά τιν’ Ἄιδος κυνῆν which he compares with Inachos 269c.19–20 τὸν Ἀϊδοκυνέας σκότον … ὑπαί, dated the Sophoclean play ante 425 BCE, the date of Ar. Acharnenses. Still, how much earlier is quite uncertain. If the missing first verse of the stanza 16–21 was, as we speculated, ἦ σοφὸς ἔπλετο καί, ‘he was truly a wise man and’, the remark seems to suggest a dead person. If so, the terminus post quem can be fixed to 456 BCE—a too wide margin, to tell the truth. One could also seek whether Aeschylus was designated ‘wise’ in his time, thus Sophocles referring to a real precedent. Quite a few references to Aeschylus’ sagacity survive, but a passage from Aristophanes’ Frogs is perhaps most relevant. In the comic agon of the two tragedians, Euripides quotes a supposedly redundant verse of Aeschylus remarking: 1154 δὶς ταὐτὸν ἡμῖν εἶπεν ὁ σοφὸς Αἰσχύλος. There is no prior mention of Aeschylus as being wise in the Frogs, which might explain the shrewd irony as an esoteric allegation within the context of the play. We may then surmise that Euripides mischievously refers to a popular appellation, “the famous ‘wise Aeschylus’”; see also 1413 (Dionysus speaking) τὸν μὲν γὰρ ἡγοῦμαι σοφόν, τῷ δ᾽ ἥδομαι. No doubt, the Frogs references are much later than Inachos, coming from a period when Athenians were desperately seeking a wise man to advise them, what prompted not only Aristophanes to revive Aeschylus, but also Chaerephon of Sphettos to ask the Delphic oracle if there existed any man wiser than Socrates. The oracle replied that there was none, but, if the surviving distich response is genuine,4 it is interesting that the men compared to Socrates were none other than the then living tragedians: σοφὸς Σοφοκλῆς, σοφώτερος δ᾽ Εὐριπίδης, ἀνδρῶν δὲ πάντων Σωκράτης σοφώτατος. On the other hand, if the missing dochmiac was ἦ σοφὸς ἐγένετ᾽ ἤ, ‘He became truly a σοφός or’, this would mean that the poet of the past was added to the

 4 Certain metrical peculiarities in the first verse (substitution of two shorts for one in the name Σοφοκλῆς, lack of caesura) point to a comic treatment, as Apollonius Molon suspected: Sch. Ar. Nub. 144c.

  Sophocles’ Inachos number of Seven Sages, especially since the original idea in PV was expressed by one of them, whether Pittacus or Cleobulus. However, the second dochmiac tones down the gravity of the designation ‘sage’ by a more familiar and playful πολὺ πολυϊδρίδας, ‘much much-knowing’. If this designation was presented as a disjunction, ‘Truly, he became one of the Sages or a much much-knowing’ would be absurd. This change in the mood of the second verse definitely suggests an opening verse like ἦ σοφὸς ἔπλετο καί, without reference to the Seven Sages.5 A further reason for preferring the copula ἔπλετο, is the very high frequency of the form in the epic vocabulary and its complete absence from drama (though πέλω occurs), something we also noticed in ἐΰ, ὅτις, and partly in -κυνέας and ὑπαί. It seems that the character singing the stanza (Inachus, in my opinion) ought to appear invested, at least verbally, with epic grandeur, strongly at odds with the comic involuntary dance he was engaged in. As mentioned above, Pfeiffer (1938, 34) associated Ar. Ach. 389–390 λαβὲ ... παρ᾽ Ἱερωνύμου | σκοτοδασυπυκνότριχά τιν᾽ Ἄϊδος κυνῆν with lines 19–20 of the papyrus. Accordingly, Radt dated Inachos ante 425 BCE, the date of Acharnenses. Aristophanes associates Ἄϊδος κυνῆν with a certain Hieronymus, who, according to the Scholia ad loc., μελῶν ἐστι ποιητὴς καὶ τραγωιδοποιὸς ἀνώμαλος καὶ ἀνοικονόμητος διὰ τὸ ἄγαν ἐμπαθεῖς γράφειν ὑποθέσεις καὶ φοβεροῖς προσωπείοις χρῆσθαι. ἐδόκει δὲ κροτεῖσθαι. ἐκωμωιδεῖτο δὲ ὡς πάνυ κομῶν. διόπερ Ἄϊδος κυνῆν ἔφη αὐτὸν παίξας κωμικῶς ὡς κουριῶντα. Dicaeopolis in Ach. seeks to find and put on a mask, that would disguise himself and make him unrecognizable to Cleon. The Chorus advise him to take from Hieronymus σκοτοδασυπυκνότριχά τιν᾽ Ἄϊδος κυνῆν. Whether this suggestion is related with the masks used by Hieronymus in his performances (Sch. Ar. Ach. 388a φοβεροῖς προσωπείοις χρῆσθαι) or with his own looks (ib. πάνυ κομῶν – Nub. 348–349 κομήτην | ἄγριόν τινα τῶν λασίων τούτων, οἷόνπερ τὸν Ξενοφάντου, i.e. Hieronymus) we cannot know. Snell, TrGF I, 31 test. 1, surmises that in the Ach. passage Aristophanes, by using a series of dochmiacs, some of which are fully resolved, even in the last position (362~389), mimics Hieronymus’ style. However, σκοτοδασυπυκνότριχά τιν᾽ Ἄϊδος κυνῆν (⏑ ⏖ ⏖ ⏑ ⏖ | ⏑ ⏖ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ) strongly recalls the Inachos passage as regards both content and metre. We also observe enjambment in mid sentence from dochmiacs into iambic trimeter (390–391, as published by Coulon/van Daele 1964), in the same way as in Inachos. A reflection of Sophocles on Aristophanes should not be excluded. In practical terms, if the interrelation was  5 I also doubt that πολὺ πολυϊδρίδας could be a mischievous allegation to the poet of the past: ‘a know-all’. After all, Aeschylus wrote fr. 390 R. ὁ χρήσιμ᾽ εἰδώς, οὐχ ὁ πόλλ᾽ εἰδὼς σοφός. On anecdotal criticisms of Aeschylus by Sophocles see TrGF 4, T 52, 100.

Commentary  

proven, the comic passage might offer clues not only about Inachos’ date, but also about the appearance of Hermes’ mask in this particular scene: a dark, hairy, shaggy mask with no personal traits at all. The god is not invisible to the audience, in the sense that he is not heard ἔνδοθεν, since, as will be shown, he will engage in dialogue with some other characters and will also make a solo dance display. Yet both the particular mask and the plot entail a supposed invisibility. Hermes, being a messenger, was certainly a runner, and this was the meaning of Prometheus’ mockery, but why does the singer in Inachos find the naming so apt to the situation the Chorus and the other characters are in as to call the coiner of the word ‘very wise’? τρόχις is obviously derived from τρέχω, here, however, it is as if the verb is causal, ‘set someone running’, i.e. ‘a person that forces others to run’. In the level of performance, the god plays a magic pipe, whose sound forces the members of the Chorus and some characters to dance: 7 ‘I hear sweet sounds as of syrinx’ (see ad loc.), 22 πρὸς τὰ σὰ ψοφήματα (‘sounds, noises’, not ‘bombast’, as in LSJ); Kaimio 2001, 49 and n. 54. Their dance is furious and in running pace and, what is more, to a metre called τροχαῖος (Pl. Rep. 400b) or χορεῖος. It is interesting that ancient metricians (Georg. Choerob. in Hephaest. Enchir. 217.5 Consbruch) derive τροχαῖος from Soph. fr. 240 R. (Thamyras): πρόποδα μέλεα τάδε σε κλέομεν | τρόχιμα βάσιμα χέρεσι πόδεσι. The fragment not only contains the word τρόχιμα, but is also trochaic and, obviously, invigorated by the total resolution, accompanies a brisk dance. Add the derivation of Arist. Rhet. 1408b36 ὁ δὲ τροχαῖος κορδακικώτερος · δηλοῖ δὲ τὰ τετράμετρα · ἔστι γὰρ τροχερὸς ῥυθμὸς τὰ τετράμετρα. Hermes appears invisible also in Ichneutai and terrifies the chorus with the sound of the lyre. The Satyrs dance in disarray as they track Apollon’s oxen, but, no doubt, also driven by the strange sounds. An instance of feigned involuntary dance is found in Ar. Pax 316 ff., where the chorus pretend that out of joy they cannot check their legs. Hsch. μ 13, μαγέταν αὐλόν· τὸν μαγεύοντα τοὺς ἀκροωμένους,6 may refer to such a motif, but the provenance of Hesychius’ article is unknown. Soph. fr. 828f R., παπαῖ, χορευτὴς αὐλὸς οὐκέτι ψοφεῖ, from Phot. α 3180 (αὐλὸς χορευτής) Theod., is possible to come from Inachos, but Thamyras could also lay claim on it. Aesch. fr. 204b from Prometheus Pyrkaeus possibly contains an involuntary dance of the satyr-chorus, not punishing but friendly and kindly (1 οὐχ ἑκου]σία δέ μ᾽ εὐμενὴς χορεύει χάρις; ἑκου]|σία Terzaghi, οὐχ ἑκου]|σία Ts.). I do not know if the motif of the magic pipe that causes an invol 6 Editors prefer the conjecture of S. Sorber μαγεύταν; why not μαγευτάν? μαγευτήν D.C. 52.36; cf. LSJ Suppl.

  Sophocles’ Inachos untary dance has been used elsewhere. Incidentally, in Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte it is Papageno’s magic chimes that set the brutal Moor, Monostatos, and his slaves dancing, whereas the power of Tamino’s magic flute is to help Tamino and Pamina undergo their trials by changing sorrow into joy. In Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Ariel, the invisible ‘tricksy spirit’, torments Caliban and his roguish fellows by setting them dancing to the sound of his tambour. Both πολυϊδρίδας and τρόχις are comic formations. πολύϊδρις is well attested, but πολυϊδρίδας appears only here. It belongs to a group of comic patronymiclike mostly compounds found in Greek literature from Archilochus to Gregory of Nazianzos: συκοτραγίδης (Archil. fr. 250 W., Hippon. fr. 167 W. [= fr. 177 Degani]), ζοφοδορπίδας (Alc. fr. 4296 Voigt), ἑρμοκοπίδης (Ar. Lys. 1094), Κωμαρχίδης (Ar. Pax 1142), μισθαρχίδης (Ar. Ach. 597), σπουδαρχίδης (Ar. Ach. 595), λοπαδαρπαγίδης (Epigr. ap. Hegesand. 2 = Ath. 4.162a; FHG IV 413, fr. 2), σταφυλοκλοπίδας (AP 9.348, Leon. Alex.), φιλογαστορίδης (AP 8.169.2, Greg. Naz.), and many more; see Meyer 1923, 140 ff. As for τρόχις, not only is it confessedly a poetic coinage (ὄνομ᾽ ἐΰ σ᾽ ἐθρόει), but it was also formed in accordance with a group of comic diminutive-like formations: Δόρκις, Δρόμις, Πόδις, names of Satyrs in vase paintings; cf. Fraenkel 1912, 11, 23; Δράκις, Γράπις, names of Satyrs at Soph. Ichn. (fr. 314 R.) 183, also Τρέ[χις 194; γάστρις (Ar. Av. 1604, al.), δίφρις (Hsch. δ 1999), ἕδρις (Hsch. ε 525), κόπις (Heracl. fr. 81 D.-K. [= fr. 18 Marcovich], al.), πτάκις (Com. adesp. fr. 774 K.-A.),7 στρόφις (Ar. Nu. 450). The enjambment from the sung (and danced) dochmiacs to the recited trochaic tetrameter no doubt adds to the excitement. As I claimed before, the tetrameter of line 21 syntactically belongs to the same period as the preceding dochmiacs, and so it must be the same character who sings the dochmiacs of 16–20 and recites the tetrameter of 21. One cannot say how he continued dancing in line 21; perhaps with some sort of quick pace or marking time, to account for τρόχις and τροχαῖος. Enjambment in lyrics, with a sentence overlapping into a new stanza, is not uncommon in choral poetry, and is found occasionally in drama. Fraenkel (1950, 2.135–136) on Ag. 238 f. and Denniston/Page (1957, 228) on the same passage discuss its occurrence in tragedy. See also Kranz 1933, 153 f., 175 ff. (esp. 178), 302. It is rarer when the enjambment is from lyrics to recited verses or vice versa. In Ar. Vesp. Philocleon sings the passionate aeolics of 317– 323 and passes in mid sentence to the anapaests of 324–333. The same thing occurs at the end of the agon, where the chorus-leader passes, also in mid sentence, from the anapaestic tetrameters of 725–728 to the lyric stanzas of 729–735 ~  7 In LSJ we read: “πτάκ-ις [ᾰ], ιδος, ἡ, pecul. fem. of πτάξ.” In Com. adesp. fr. 774 K.-A., the editors restore the correct masculine gender.

Commentary  

743–749. It is interesting to note that the tetrameters start with 725 ἦ που σοφὸς ἦν ὅστις ἔφασκεν κτλ. In the Ichneutai (fr. 314 R.) 176 ff., the chorus are in a similar situation as ours and are singing in excited metres. They conclude their song, when the alarming sound of the lyre, τὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτ᾽ ἤκουσεν βροτῶν, is heard again, with two spoken iambic trimeters (203–204), but not in a continuous sentence. In Soph. Aj. 364 ff., Aias sings three dochmiac dimeters (or six dochmiacs). He goes on to a spoken iambic trimeter (367) before proceeding to a short dialogue with Tecmessa and the chorus. Aias’ trimeter is syntactically detached from his dochmiacs. But, in the antistrophe (379 ff.), Aias passes from his dochmiacs to the trimeter in mid sentence. I print the text of Ajax here as simple dochmiacs, in order to highlight the identicalness with the Inachos passage.

380

Αι. ἰὼ πάνθ᾽ ὁρῶν, ἅπαντ᾽ ἀίων, κακῶν ὄργανον, τέκνον Λαρτίου, κακοπινέστατόν τ᾽ ἄλημα στρατοῦ, ἦ που πολὺν γέλωθ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἡδονῆς ἄγεις.

Hermes does play a magic pipe in the myth, especially since he combines the capacities of trickster (Hom. Hymn. Merc. 436 μηχανιώτης) and inventor of syrinx (ib. 511). But in the legend of Io, he appears playing the pipe in connexion with the murder of Argus. It was the pipe that lulled Argus, before the god slayed him; Ov. Met. 1.687–688, 713–721, Val. Fl. Arg. 4.384–390. At Aesch. PV 574– 575, ὑπὸ δὲ κηρόπλαστος ὀτοβεῖ δόναξ | ἀχέτας ὑπνοδόταν νόμον (ὑπνοδέταν Q, Plut. codd. plerique; unde ὑπνολέταν Hartung; ὑπνοδόταν rell., Schol.), the reed music is included among the sufferings of the wandering Io. Hermes is not named, and the playing is usually connected with the dead cowherd’s pastoral pipe that still haunts Io. The wandering girl, however, in a state of derangement because of the attacks of the gadfly, relives her dreadful experiences, one of which is the slaying of Argus lulled through the soporific effect of Hermes’ pipe, as described by the Roman poets. Those who prefer Hartung’s ὑπνολέταν, based on the reading ὑπνοδέταν of a part of Plutarch’s transmission, must not have read Plutarch (De cohib. ira 456a), who quotes the PV verses in the context of a discussion about the soothing impact of the sound of a small pipe (συρίγγιον) on a fierce and vehement orator. We do not know if Sophocles was the first to exploit playfully the magic pipe motif. Only that here the pipe’s nature is not somniferous but, on the con-

  Sophocles’ Inachos trary, stirring up. No doubt, right before the murder, the pipe must have exerted its somniferous influence upon Argus. In practice, two different melodies might lead to opposite results: a berceuse would be somniferous, a frantic song would stir up. Two vase-paintings have been associated with Sophocles’ Inachos. A Boeotian skyphos, Athens NM 4295, c. 430 BCE (Brommer 1959, Abb. 13; LIMC V (1990) s.v. Io I, no. 28), presents the story telescoped, as it shows Hermes killing the two-faced Argus, while a Satyr is dancing to the sound of a double aulos played by a young herdsman. A young herdsman is also playing the double aulos and a Satyr is dancing on an Attic neck amphora, Berlin F 4052, c. 460 BCE (Brommer 1959, Abb. 14; ARV2 649.2), but no Hermes and Argus are shown. Whether these two paintings have immediate relationship with Sophocles’ play or not will be discussed later; see below on frr. 270, *271. How the actor playing Hermes managed to play the aulos while wearing the mask can be seen in the so-called “Bari Pipers” painting (Apulia calyx-crater, c. 370–360 BCE, in the Malaguzzi-Valeri collection at Bari, no. 52; Trendall/Cambitoglou 1978, 400, 15/28, pl. 140.5a-b), where two masked comic figures simulate playing the aulos, while an unmasked young figure sitting hidden behind a tree plays actually the aulos. See the chapter ‘The Official Aulos-Player and Actors Playing at Playing the Aulos’ of Taplin 1993, 70 ff., pl. 14.11a–b. Is there a contradiction between the indefinite relative ὅτις (προτέρων) and the deictic ὅδε? Lloyd-Jones 1965, 141–142, suggests that ὅδε ‘may be applied to an absent person who is present to the speaker’s thoughts’ and adduces examples to this effect. His suggestion is right, but the usage postulates, as the examples show, that this absent person is present not only to the speaker’s but also to the listeners’ thoughts, whether they are other characters on stage or the audience. In other words, an absent person can be referred to with ὅδε when the discussion is about him. And, so far as one can see, there is no discussion whatsoever, in this scene of Inachos, about Prometheus, much less about the poet of PV. If then the deictic presupposes that this poet who is older than Sophocles is present, and, since a poet other than the poet of the play that is being performed cannot be shown on stage, and, what is more, cannot be shown qua poet, there is no other place for him to be shown than among the audience in the auditorium. But such a violent breach of the verisimilitude as showing someone in the audience and speaking about him is unparalleled even in satyr-plays. Yet, the deictic has another use too, which, though not obliterating the breach of the illusion, considerably mitigates it. ὅδε frequently has a more or less local adverbial sense, indistinguishable from ὧδε, ‘here’, and so can be combined with ὅ(σ)τις. E.g., Il. 5.174–175 ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε τῶιδ᾽ ἔφες ἀνδρὶ βέλος, ... | ὅς τις

Commentary  

ὅδε κρατέει. The deictic τῶιδ(ε) sufficiently indicates the man (Diomedes), and a second deictic would be redundant; the meaning is ‘whoever holds sway here’. It is used ‘freq[uently] in Trag[edy], esp[ecially] to indicate the entrance of a person on the stage, [Eur. Phoe. 443–444] καὶ μὴν Ἐτεοκλῆς ... ὅδε | χωρεῖ, here comes ...’ (LSJ s.v. ὅδε I.2). A combination of deictic pronouns with indefinite τις is not uncommon. It indicates that the person pointed out is visible but unknown, whether truly or feignedly; Soph. OC 111–112 πορεύονται γὰρ οἵδε δή τινες | χρόνωι παλαιοί, Ar. Av. 1121 ἀλλ᾽ οὑτοσὶ τρέχει τις Ἀλφειὸν πνέων, Men. Dysc. 167–8 πάλιν τις οὑτοσὶ πρὸς ταῖς θύραις | ἕστηκεν ἡμῶν; ‘here is one who ...’. I believe that this sense suits our passage: ‘whoever here of the elders named you fitly τρόχις’. ὅδε, functioning locally, must be attached to ἐθρόει, alluding to the theatre. The reference to the poet of PV is unquestionable, only less straightforward than pointing out the poet himself. 22–24. Pfeiffer added a paragraphos under line 22, which Carden confirmed observing that the paragraphos did exist in the papyrus. Turner (ap. Carden) is doubtful, but I think Carden is right. The surface of the papyrus is damaged exactly where we would expect the paragraphos to be, but a tiny trace of ink above the area between the first two letters of 23 can only belong to the righthand tip of a paragraphos. In any case, the words of line 23 dictate a different speaker, and so the paragraphos is necessary. While τὰ σά must refer to Hermes, εἶπας must refer to the speaker of line 22. It was Turner who read εἶπας for the first editors’ ὄντα σ᾽, and he was followed by Carden and the subsequent editors. In their understanding, αὐτόν, at the beginning of the verse, repeated for emphasis after εἶπας, would confirm the identification made in the previous verse, that the character responsible for the torturing dance was Hermes. This should mean that the tricky god had been recognized not only by the speakers of 16–21 and 22, but also by the speaker of 23, who will soon appear to be the coryphaeus. Later, however, the chorus will declare their ignorance. Though the first αὐτόν is very difficult to read, it was unquestionably accepted by the editors. I read quite differently, ΙΕΥΤΙΔ: ἰε̣͜ῦ · τί δ᾽ εἶπας αὐτὸν ὅς μοι δεῦρ᾽ ἀνέστρεψεν πόδα; ‘Eh? What did you call him who turned here my feet upside down?’ This reading answers also the question posed above about the chorus’ awareness. They either did not hear the name of Hermes or rather did not believe what they heard. Cf. Aesch. Sept. 806 τίνες; τί δ᾽ εἶπας; παραφρονῶ φόβωι λόγου, or with acc. pers., as in our case, Ar. Ach. 580 τί δ᾽ εἶπας ἡμᾶς;

  Sophocles’ Inachos Line 24 is no doubt spoken by Hermes threateningly. If the δεύτεροι πόνοι are to be suffered πρὶν μύσαι, ‘in a wink’, in other words, in the stanza coming immediately after 24, this means that the first labours were suffered in the previous stanza, which then must have been the first one. For πόνος characterizing ‘song and dance’ see Aesch. fr. 78a R. (Theoroi).36, where ἐπ(ι)ήρανος πόνος refers to the dance, as also at, e.g., Pind. Nem. 3.12 χαρίεντα δ᾽ ἕξει πόνον, Aesch. Ag. 354 χάρις γὰρ οὐκ ἄτιμος εἴργασται πόνων, 806 εὔφρων πόνος εὖ τελέσασιν (see Robert 1912, 552, for both Agamemnon passages), Soph. fr. 314 R. (Ichneutai).223 μετάστασις πόνων; Eur. Bacch. 66–67 Βρομίωι πόνον ἡδὺν | κάματόν τ᾽ εὐκάματον; also the synonym κόπος at Ar. Pl. 321. In all these cases, the labour mentioned— pleasant in most passages, punitive in Inachos—has to do with singing and dancing. Why are the labours κενοί? Apparently, because obligatory dancing and singing will not bring them anything pleasant or useful. In Callim. fr. 303 Pf., κενεὸν πόνον ὀτλήσοντες, it is not certain what the vain or useless toil refers to. πρὶν μύσαι, ‘in (less than) a wink’, ‘before you finish winking’. Cf., e.g., Philostr. Her. 144 Kayser (= 11.9 de Lannoy) θᾶττον ἢ καταμύσαι, Eur. Bacch. 746–747 θᾶσσον ... | ἤ σε ξυνάψαι βλέφαρα βασιλείοις κόραις. Usual was also πρὶν πτύσαι: Men. Perik. 392, Theocr. 29.27 πρὶν ἀπύπτυσαι, Epicrat. fr. 3.16 K.-A. ἰδεῖν μὲν αὐτὴν ῥᾶιόν ἐστιν ἢ πτύσαι. Under line 24 there is a sign which the first editors considered a paragraphos, Pfeiffer the notice of the Chorus, and Carden ‘a kind of elaborated double paragraphos—presumably to mark the end of this section’. It looks like a paragraphos linked with a diple, a combination used, according to Hephaestion in drama for distinguishing from each other composite stanzas consisting of both lyrical and dialogue parts, as is the case here. Heph. De signis 75 Consbruch ἐὰν μέντοι ἡ στροφὴ ἐξ ἀμοιβαίων τυγχάνηι συγκειμένη, οὐκ ἐξαρκεῖ πρὸς τὸ δηλῶσαι, ὅτι πεπλήρωται ἡ στροφή, ἡ παράγραφος ἐπιφερομένης ἄλλης στροφῆς, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐφ’ ἑκάστου κώλου οὐδὲν ἧττον τίθεται· ἀλλὰ κεῖται καὶ ἡ ἔσω νενευκυῖα διπλῆ. Cf. Turner 1987, 12 n. 58. Here, it seems that the scribe placed a separate paragraphos and, under it, a diple. Since P.Tebt. 692 is quite older than Hephaestion (pap. 2nd c. BCΕ, Heph. 2nd c. CE), it seems that the instructions we read in his treatise had long been established. However, the scribe realized that instead of the two signs he could use the composite sign of paragraphos+diple (––), and 46 also by a diple ἔξω νενευκυῖα joined with a paragraphos, the latter having been wiped out. Only the one following 47 seems to be a clear paragraphos.

Commentary  

The first editors, followed by Sbordone, proposed that the stichomythia was between Silenus and Hermes, Körte between Argus and Hermes, Pfeiffer between Argus and Silenus, von Blumenthal between Io and Argus, Conrad between Chorus-leader and Argus, Pavese and Carden between Silenus and Chorus-leader, Sutton wavers between the proposal of the first editors (Silenus and Hermes) and the one of Pavese and Carden (Silenus and Chorus-leader), Hourmouziades between Hermes and Chorus-leader (1974, 106; he is doubtful in p. 222 n. 84). Since Hermes is present in the whole scene of the involuntary dance, having come for killing Argus who is guarding the transformed Io, one would expect the characters holding the altercation to be Io, Hermes, and Argus. However, if the readings and the supplements proposed in the verses 41–47 are correct, the issue is not the fight between Hermes and Argus, but the watching of the fight. If so, the likeliest spectators of the fight are the members of the Chorus, represented in the stichomythia by their leader, as Hourmouziades argued. Argus, though a certain character of the play (frs. 281, 281a), does not seem to be present in the scene. His absence can be accounted for mythologically by Ovid’s description of the killing of Argus; Met. 1.668–723. Hermes, equipped with his virga somnifera approached the watchful shepherd, and telling him the story of the nymph Syrinx who was transformed in the hands of Pan into panpipes, lulled him to sleep. In Sophocles’ play, in the greatly defaced col. I of fr. 269c, right before the involuntary dance scene, we read about sweet sounds of syrinx (7 σ̣ύριγγο ̣[ς ἡδ]έ̣α̣ κ̣λύω) played (14 πα̣ίζεται) at an ox-stall (8 σ]ταθ̣μου[, 9 [στά]σιν βο̣ῶ[ν). Obviously, Argus was absent from the dance scene and the ensuing stichomythia simply because he was asleep. As noted above on 8–9, Sophocles’ fr. 774, where a watchman describes his drowsy task, would be possibly suited here. 40. ἐναντίων, which was disputed by Pfeiffer (Ẹ . Ạ Ṇ .TΩN), is, I believe, certain. The end of the word is certainly ΙΩΝ preceded by a high horizontal, which can only belong to Γ or T. Only the gap between N and T should become a bit narrower. Those fearing are no doubt the choreuts. Most interpreters take the genitive as objective, but who might the ἐναντίοι be, of whom Io is afraid? If ἀραβεῖ is, as I claimed above, transitive, with Hermes as its subject, it is very likely that the genitive is subjective and those fearing are ἐναντίοι to Hermes. It is indisputable that the Chorus and Io opposed Hermes, and the messenger of Zeus forced them to dance in order to frighten them, but ἐναντίοι might generally refer to anyone who facing Hermes listens to his music. The poet repeats the device of lines 20–21 and 30–31 above, in other words, the singer of the last dochmiac in line 39 passes on to the first tetrameter of line 40. E.g.,

  Sophocles’ Inachos ἄ̣μ̣α̣χ̣α δ᾽ ὅσ᾽ ἀραβεῖ, τῶν ἐν̣αντ̣ί ̣ων τὸ τάρβ[ος ζωπυρῶν ὑπερφυῶς, ‘And irresistible are the sounds he is letting out, exceedingly kindling the fear of those facing him’; Aesch. Sept. 289 μέριμναι ζωπυροῦσι τάρβος. We have already seen that the paragraphos after line 38 suggests that 39, the last verse of the dochmiac stanza, was sung by a character and not an anonymous member of the Chorus. As we noted above, the diple under line 39 denotes not a change of speaker but the end of a metrical unit. The transition, within the same sentence, from the frantic song and dance of the dochmiacs to the calmer but still quick recitation and pace of the trochaic tetrameters must involve an individual display of singing and dancing skill. In 20–21 the display is given by the same character who sings the entire stanza. He is by no means unrefined, as one should expect from a chorus of servants. Not only does he recognize Hermes, regardless if he does not name him, but he also makes learned puns on words of a tragedy performed in the theatre of Dionysus. Of the possible characters who might possess these characteristics, I can only imagine Inachus, the title character of the play. 30–31 must be sung by Hermes, who has also exchanges in the song with Io, if the supplements proposed are correct. In 39–40 the character singing continues the words of the choreuts (δέ) only more calmly and collectedly. The likeliest character in my opinion is Io. She cannot be the character who holds the altercation with Hermes in the stichomythia of 41 ff., since the first verse (41), does not match up with lines 39–40 either in syntax or in tone. Concerning the missing verses [53]–[54], which would constitute the last verse of the third dochmiac stanza and the ensuing tetrameter, we cannot know to whom they might have been given, but the only character left in this scene, is the Chorus-leader. See below the schematic restoration of the scene, as well as the notes on fr. 285, for a possible text restoration. Zeus, Argus and Iris, who are also among the characters of the play, must not have a part in this scene. West 1982, 109, observes that the third position of a dochmiac is never resolved at strophe-end. The only exceptions he offers are lines 20 and 39 of this play. The reason is obviously the fact that the dochmiac strophe-end runs on to the next tetrameter forming with it not only a syntactical but also a metrical unity. And the grammarian who established the text of our papyrus seems to take the six dochmiacs in conjunction with the four trochaic tetrameters as one unity; see above on 22–24. 41. The line was published by the first editors as τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ κ̣άτω Διὸς φαλαγγ[, by Pfeiffer as το̣ῦ̣ κ̣άτ̣ω κτλ. Carden considers both possible. Naturally, κάτω Ζεύς was identified with Hades and associated with the cap of Hades supposedly

Commentary  

worn by Hermes. As for φαλαγγ[, it was considered either as ‘battle ranks’ (τῶν κάτω Διὸς φαλάγγ[ων) or ‘venomous spiders’ (τοῦ κάτω Διὸς φαλαγγ[); LSJ s.v. φάλαγξ V, φαλάγγιον (cf. Modern Greek σφαλάγγι, ‘venomous spider’). The latter was proposed by Pfeiffer and accepted by Carden and Sutton (1979, 67). Pfeiffer compared with Aesch. Su. 887 ἄραχνος ὥς, where it was used also for a herald who tormented the chorus. But what do heralds and spiders have in common? In Supplices the Herald has grasped the chorus like a spider (but also, in the same scene, like a ‘two-legged snake’, a ‘viper’, a ‘ravenous beast’) and leads them to the sea. There is nothing similar in the behaviour of Hermes, who is only forcing the Chorus to dance. To connect the supposed spider with tarantula, whose bite is believed to cause a hysterical dance traditionally associated with tarantella, would be far-fetched indeed, though at least one reference (Apollonius, Hist. mirab. 40 Giannini) seems to locate the belief back to antiquity. Since the first six letters are either illegible or incomprehensible, we can start from ω Διὸς φαλαγγ[, which strongly recalls the address ὦ Διὸς ... ἄγγελε. In line 21 the characterization of Hermes was τὸν Διὸς ἐρώτων ἄγγελον. Could it then here be a more explicit and blasphemous address: ὦ Διὸς φαλάγγ[ελ(ε)? The first component must have been not φαλλός but φάλης/-ῆς, -ητος. The formation is legitimate. Hipponax fr. 21 W. (= fr. 34 Degani) declines τοῦ φάλεω, as a firstdeclension noun. And, in any case, the behaviour of third-declension consonant-stem nouns in composition is unstable; cf. αἱματοσταγής ~ αἱμοσταγής, γαλακτοπότης ~ γαλαθηνός, παντόμορφος ~ πάντεχνος. The compound is possibly designed to recall jokingly the worship of Hermes Φαλάνθειος in Athens (IG II2 4855). Hermes’ phallic properties are well-known. He was worshipped in the form of a phallos in Kyllene, possibly of Elis (Paus. 6.26.5, Artem. 1.43 Hercher (= 1.45 Pack), Philostr. VA 6.20, Hippol. Haer. 5.7.29 Marcovich), where he bore the appellation Φάλης (Luc. JTr. 42), as well as in Arcadia (Rhomaios 1911) and Imbros (ithyphallic Hermes-Imbramos). Finally, it is well known that the Hermaic stelae were usually equipped with a phallos. The traces preceding ὦ Διὸς φαλάγγ[ελ᾽ are, as I said before, hard to decipher. Yet, I believe that I can make out ḲΥΝΤΑΤ. The first letter gives the impression of Χ, but this is a special trait of our scribe, observed mostly in initial kappas: cf. 7 Κλυω, 29 Κακοc, 45 δ̣ι ̣ωK, and, most plainly, 269d.20 and 269e.3 Καλωc. ΥΝΤ are less problematic. κύντατ(ε) is self-evident. The superlative scornful adjective is attested in masculine used of a person: Timo Phliasius fr. 51 Diels = fr. 825 SH (for Epicurus) ὕστατος αὖ φυσικῶν καὶ κύντατος, Ap. Rh. 3.192 ὅτις μάλα κύντατος ἀνδρῶν, and 4.1433 (of Heracles) ὁ κύντατος. The word order of the address is not irregular: Il. 4.189 φίλος ὦ Μενέλαε. Naturally, κύντατε travesties the common address φίλτατε.

  Sophocles’ Inachos κ̣ύντ̣ατ᾽ ὦ Διὸς φαλάγγ[ελ᾽ ... ‘Oh you most currish messenger of Zeus’ cock …’ is the most irreverent reference to Hermes and Zeus so far. That the character addressed is Hermes is beyond doubt. And the character speaking must be the Chorus-leader, who was still in the last stanza wondering who the god might be, but who had heard Inachus calling him Διὸς ... ἐρώτων ἄγγελον, an address repeated in a vulgar vocabulary. 42. Apparently, at the lost second hemistich of 41, the Chorus-leader must have asked Hermes if he would ever end this tormenting punishment. Hermes answers δωμάτων γ᾽ εἰ μὴ ἀπελᾶι τ̣[ις …, “If no one tries to drive me away of the house”. The last letter of the line is T, with the left-hand tip of the horizontal and the low part of the upright visible. There must be a reference to the killing of Argus in the second hemistich; e.g., Ἄργον ὥστ᾽ ἀποκτενεῖν. Τhe verb, ἀπελᾶι, is usually published with prodelision, μὴ ᾽πελᾶι; it is better, however, to publish it in scriptio plena, in order to avoid confusion with ἐπελαύνω. Hermes warns the coryphaeus that, unless they stay away from the structure he is about to enter, he won’t stop maltreating them. If so, the appropriate verb would be πελᾶι, poetic form of πελάζει, ‘approaches’. πελάζω/πελάω is usually constructed with dative, but the syntax with the genitive seems to be a Sophoclean characteristic: Aj. 709–710 πελάσαι … θοᾶν ὠκυάλων νεῶν, Phil. 1407 πελάζειν σῆς πάτρας. Apparently, the reading ΕΙΜΗΠΕΛΑΙΤΙC οf the original was thought to stand for εἰ μὴ ᾽πελᾶι τις, which was then erroneously integrated to εἰ μὴ ἀπελᾶι τις. 43–44. When Hermes is asked where the Chorus should stand, apparently to have a nice view of the spectacle, ποῦ δὲ χρ̣ὴ̣ πόδα στατίζε[ιν ...;, he answers in 44 πρὸς τ̣ί ̣ … φόνον βλέπ[ειν σε ... ;, “Why ... you watch the killing?”. πρὸς τί χρή is self-evident (cf., e.g., Eur. Andr. 404 πρὸς τί χρὴ βλέπειν;). The first editors read ΠΡ̣ΟC̣. . . ΩC, Carden ΠΡΟCΤΙ ̣. . . C̣. Concerning the last letter, Carden wavers between ̣C̣ and Ω. I

Commentary  

believe I can read ΠΡΟCΤΙ̣ ̣Ρ̣ΗC. Following ΤΙ̣ only a blur is visible, of Ρ̣ only the lower part of the upright survived, while ΗC is more or less certain. Read πρὸς τ̣ί  [χ]ρ̣ὴ̣ ᾽ς φόνον βλέπ[ειν σε …; It seems that the dispute about whether the chorus should be allowed to watch the murder of Argus or not is a preliminary indication that the killing will take place offstage. At the same time, πόδα στατίζειν must imply the end of the fourfold amoebaeon and of the frantic dance. The verb, a hapax in its transitive use, but used intransitively in Eur. El. 316 (δμωαὶ στατίζουσι) and passively in Eur. Alc. 90 (οὐδέ τις ἀμφιπόλων | στατίζεται), in both cases used of servants, suggests stability: in Alc. they stand sentinel at the palace’s gate, in El. they stand in honour by the enthroned Clytemnestra; in Inachos they stand stationary for watching a spectacle. 45. The line has been published μη̣… . . . . . ωκ̣᾽ ἀγῶνο[ς. The first editors had read a Τ after μη. Instead I read ẠP̣Π followed by a one letter gap, then ΛΙΜ. I suggest: μὴ̣͜ ἁρπ̣[ά]λ̣ιμ[α δ]ί ̣ωκ᾽ ἀγῶνος̣ […, ἁρπάλιμα occurs hapax in Hsch. α 7393 ἁρπάλιμα· ἁρπακτά. προσφιλῆ. Making use of Hes. Op. 320, 684, where the gains made in fraudulent or hazardous ways are qualified as ἁρπακτά, I believe the sense here is “Don’t seek to snatch something in the contest …”. In other words, to Hermes’ question “What do you need to watch the murder for?” the Chorus-leader replies “Don’t try to cheat in the fight”. This remark accounts for Hermes’ reaction in the next verse. Carden noticed that the kappa (-ΩΚ) looks like a chi, but this is, as we have seen (above on 41), a usual habit of the scribe. 46. The line is very puzzling. It was published μὴ λέγ᾽ α . . . ἐ̣κ̣ κορύν̣ης̣ [ Though the first letter seems to have been badly tampered with, I take it as a Μ, which possibly was what the scribe originally intended. Following it, ΗΛΕΓΑ are more or less certain. Then, a Λ is clearly visible. After a short effaced space, where only an iota could be accomodated, perhaps leaving some traces, a clear top horizontal is visible, no doubt a Τ. I read, that is, before the gap ΜΗΛΕΓΑΛΙ̣Τ[. After a gap, which must be somewhat widened, I read ΕΚΚΟΡΥΟΙΗ ̣[. Of the last letter,

  Sophocles’ Inachos after Η, what is visible is a thick middle horizontal flanked by two parallel verticals like the verticals of Π and Ν. Carden had already noticed that what was read Ν by the first editors (κορύΝης̣) was actually an ΟΙ. I propose μ̣ὴ̣ λέγ᾽ ἀλιτ[ώ]ν̣· ἐκκορ{υ}οίην̣ [ ... ‘Do not speak sinfully! I’d sweep you away …’. ἀλιταίνω, sec. aor. ἤλῐτον, is used for ‘sin, offend’ especially against a god, as is the case here with the Chorusleader. λέγω ἀλιτών is equivalent to ἀλιταίνω λόγοις: Aesch. PV 533 μηδ᾽ ἀλίτοιμι λόγοις. The identical pronunciation of υ and οι caused the error in the next word, which, originally, must have been written ἐκκορύην. No C is visible at the end of the word after the originally written εκκορυην, to account for the editors’ reading ἐκ κορύνης. But if there was one, it should belong to the second person personal pronoun, σ(ε). The everyday and comic ἐκκορέω is very appropriate here in the sense ‘sweep away, drive away’. The optative probably lacks an ἄν, which might have stood in the second hemistich ([ἄν σε κτλ.). 47. This line is even more puzzling. Radt follows Carden: ο̣ἴζ̣ομα̣ι λα.......ριμ[. Here too, very little of the text published is recognizable on the papyrus. It would be futile to describe every single letter. I propose confidently enough: ἐ̣γ δ᾽ ἐ̣λᾷς̣ ὑλάγ[μα]σ̣ίν ̣ τ̣ε̣ κ̣ἀριμ[ύκοισιν βοαῖς; ‘And will you drive us away with yelps and loud-bellowing sounds?’ We find the same consonant assimilation in 269d.5 (ὑπεγδύης = ὑπεκδύης). ἐρίμῡκος is used to describe oxen, but also sounds: ὀλολυγά AP 6.219.17 (Antipater). In a stichomythia, where one expects questions and answers to follow each other, it would be strange to find a statement introduced with a continuative δέ. Therefore, I believe we have a question here (Denniston 1954, 177). Apparently, in the previous verse, after ‘I’d sweep you away’, Hermes added the manner he would do so: for instance, ‘with my syrinx’. The coryphaeus then asks: ‘And (do you believe that) you will drive us away, with howls and loud-bellowing sounds?’ Obviously, the Chorus-leader is not expecting to watch Argus’ murder as a spectacle he wishes to enjoy. He is simply confident that the invincible son of Gaia will defeat Hermes. After the paragraphos following line 47, traces of the tops of the letters of the next line are visible, none of them recognizable.

Commentary  

To sum up, I believe that a schematic restoration of the structure of the scene contained in the Tebtunis papyrus (fr. 269c) would be helpful. Here is then a diagram of our fragment, with its completely lost verses in dashed lines:

In col. I, lines 1–6 and 10–12a are certainly lyrical verses, but 7–9 are probably iambic trimeters. As I mentioned above, the number of lines between 9 and 13 are four, not three. From 13 to the end of the column, the lines are fourteen, the last of which must be a dochmiac. I do not know whether the thirteen verses preceding were long or short, but the ends of the first three of them survive and they are long. Besides, it would be reasonable to have, before the formal quadruple amoebaeon, a scene delivered in stichic verse. As we have seen, the tetrametric stichomythia that starts at line 40 partly overlaps the end of the amoebaeon at line 44 (the tetrameters 40–43 belong both to the amoebaeon and the stichomythia). The fourfold amoebaeon must have started one line before

  Sophocles’ Inachos 16, at the lost bottom of col. I. It is noteworthy that both P.Oxy. 2369 (= fr. 269 a, b) and P. Tebt. 692 (= fr. 269 c, d, e) have 28 lines per column. If Soph. fr. 828f, παπαῖ, χορευτὴς αὐλὸς οὐκέτι ψοφεῖ, really came from Inachos, as was proposed above, its place must be some section after the end of the involuntary dance, but also after the trochaic tetrameters of the stichomythia following the last dochmiac stanza. But, as I have indicated, the fragment may have come from Thamyras or some satyr-play with a similar comic dance. 269d The text of the papyrus fragment is almost completely effaced, especially in its first half (1–14). All previous editors (Pfeiffer, Carden, Radt, Sutton, Heynen/ Krumeich) follow the first edition of Hunt/Smyly. I have managed to detect here a surprisingly large number of new readings, naturally not all irrefutable. The legible part consists of iambic trimeters: 1–5, 15–26. The metre of 6–8, 12–14 is uncertain, though it is very likely that we are dealing with trimeters here too. Lines 9–11 are blank, which has been interpreted as an indication that they contained short lyric verses, while Pfeiffer added 12–14 to the latter. If, however, lines 1–5 and 15–21 constitute a stichomythia, something that can be proven only for lines 15 ff., it would be strange if the stichomythia were interrupted by short lyrical verses. The story described shows beyond reasonable doubt that the fragment is to be placed after 269c, but there is no firm evidence for considering it col. iv, as Hunt/Smyly propose. 1. ]. . τ̣α̣ι  ποδί ed. pr. I confidently read ]υ̣ρ̣ωπιδι (for the acute-angled rho see, e.g., 269c.21 εΡωτων), no doubt ταυρώπιδι. The feminine adjective is employed for Io also in 269a.38, and elsewhere in Nonn. Dion. 32.69 οὐ τόσον Ἰοῦς | φοιτάδος Ἰναχίης ταυρώπιδος. At the same time, we cannot exclude a phrase like ταυρώπιδι | μορφῆι, which might refer to Zeus: Νonn. Dion. 1.344 Κρονίδης δὲ λιπὼν ταυρώπιδα μορφήν (after he abducted Europa). Zeus’ erotic visits to Io were made in the guise of a bull (Aesch. Su. 299–303). 2. Very difficult reading. Fifth foot anapaest is admitted in satyric drama, though κ]ἀναδύς is preferable. Perhaps a reference to Zeus, after his furtive visits to Io? κἀναδὺς παρῆν makes sense, but the details are obscure. Possibly, ἀναδύς means here ‘having abandoned, given up, discontinued’, the object being the bullform disguise. In Nonnus’ description, Zeus, having given up the bullform disguise (λιπὼν ταυρώπιδα μορφήν), assumed the form of a youth (εἴκελος ἠϊθέωι) for approaching Europa. In Aeschylus, it is not mentioned when the god gave up his disguise. παρῆν is regularly 3rd person in drama, and though 1st person ἦ

Commentary  

or -ῆ is usually altered to ἦν or -ῆν in MSS, it is difficult to admit a stichomythia with Zeus. And if it is not Zeus, he can be Hermes reporting about Zeus. 3. The editors’ ]ν̣ο̣ι ̣π̣ο̣τ̣[ is erroneous. Ι read ἀ̣πώμ̣οσ̣α̣[ (the low end of an oblique clinging to the bottom of c obviously belongs to α), sc. ἀπώμοσα, ἀπώμοσας or ἀπώμοσαν. However, given that the character who ‘swore falsely that he will not do something’ or ‘denied falsely on oath’ is Zeus, whom we considered in the previous entry as improbable collocutor in a stichomythia, then both 1st and 2nd person are ruled out, whereas 3rd person plural would be incomprehensible. Since the verse is the answer to the god, the reference to Zeus must be in 3rd person singular. The only possibility I can guess is ἀπώμοσ᾽ ἄν, probably in an unreal condition: εἰ ... οὐκ ἀπώμοσ᾽ ἄν. ‘If he ... he wouldn’t have forsworn himself’. The speaker reminds Hermes of Zeus’ broken oaths to Io. 4. Certainly not ] ̣ ̣ ̣δ̣ε̣τ̣ουc̣ ρ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ (edd. pr.). I discern ] ̣ ̣ων̣λ̣ι ̣τουργι ̣ων; neither λειτ- (or ληιτ-) nor αὐτ-. The abstract noun is not recorded. According to Didymus apud Ammon. Diff. 300 Nickau, λιτουργεῖν means κακὰ λέγειν; also, according to Hsch. λ 1150, λιτουργός means κακοῦργος. It is uncertain who is speaking ill and of whom, but if Zeus is involved, the expected target must be the god himself. 5. The first editors read τεπι ̣. α̣τ̣ηc and discuss the remote possibility of τ᾽ ἐπιστάτης, but also note that ‘δυης could be read in place of ατης’. Reading is very difficult and the result extremely uncertain: ]ι ̣ω ̣α̣c̣ε̣ι ̣θ̣υ̣πε̣κ̣δυ̣ηc. Α large γ is written upon κ, apparently noting the same assimilation as in 269c.47 (ἐγ δ᾽ ἐλᾶις). ὑπεξέδυν occurs in Eur. Cycl. 347 in the sense ‘escape’, ὑπεκδύς in Hdt. 1.10 and ὑπεκδέδυκα in Men. Epit. 904 in the sense ‘slip out’. ]ίω[σ]α̣ σ̣᾽· ε̣ἴθ̣᾽ ὑ̣πε̣κ̣δύ̣ης. The quantity of -δυ- is occasionally short (Hes. Op. 728). ὑπεκδύης must be aor. optative; it matches well with the uncertain εἴθ(ε): ‘I wish you vanished’. The verb of the previous sentence, rather ἀπηξίωσα, requires a disyllable genitive at the opening of the verse denoting from where or what the speaker disowned or denounced the addressee; τιμῆς? cf. Aesch. Eu. 367 λέσχας ἇς. 1–5. It is possible that the lines 1–5 come from a stichomythia. At least these verses seem to come from an altercation between Hermes and a character either possessing some authority or being exceedingly wrathful so as to treat the supreme of gods with irreverence. Inachus can be a likely candidate. 1 Inachus: ‘in

  Sophocles’ Inachos bovine form’, 2 Hermes: ‘No! He appeared after giving up his disguise’, 3 Inachus: ‘If he ... he wouldn’t forswear himself’, 4 Hermes: ‘You are criminally blasphemous’, 5 Inachus: ‘I denounced you from ... . I wish you vanished’. However, if the alternating dialogue is continued in the stichomythia detected by Pfeiffer in lines 15 ff., as is most likely, the stichomythia here must be between Hermes and Argus, as shown by line 19. If the stichomythia had been regularly arranged, all odd verses should be given to Argus and all even ones to Hermes. Yet, in lines 15–21, it is the other way around: odd verses are spoken by a god, even ones by Argus. I very much doubt that some anomaly (e.g., one distich inserted) had disrupted the regularity of the stichomythia or that three lyrical verses (9–11, as proposed) were interpolated, thus changing the orderly sequence of the stichomythia verses. It is very likely that the unwritten area between 8 and 12 contained three verses as originally proposed and not two, as Pfeiffer calculates (I suppose not ‘per errorem’, as Radt notes). I suspect, however, that lines 12 and 14 written in the large hand noticed by Hunt/Smyly contained one verse. Alternatively, lines 9–11 might be merely unwritten, because the problem with the rough and uneven surface of the papyrus seems to have been already ancient. Be that as it may, I do not change the numeration of the verses. 6–14. As just mentioned, Hunt/Smyly noticed that 12 and 14 are written in a different hand, much larger than the one of the rest of the papyrus. If trimeters, they could not be contained in a single line. At 6, I read ]α̣μ̣᾽ ἑ̣ο̣ρ̣τ̣[; both the articulation of the first two letters and the specification of the holiday in question are unknown. ]α μ᾽ ἑορτάσαι? At line 7, I read ]ε̣ιλ̣ε̣γμ̣ε̣[. At 8, I read ] ̣δο̣[ ̣] ̣υ̣ν̣ π̣ε̣ ̣[. After two or three verses unread or unwritten, at 12, the editors read ]αριcτε[. However, ]ἠ̣ριστε̣̣[υ- is likelier. Who ‘was the best’ is unknown, unless the fight between Hermes and Argus is described as a contest. The surface of the papyrus is peeled off at this point, having lost its upper layer. It is remarkable that the second scribe has written his text on the inner layer. Apparently, the damage was made in antiquity, and the second scribe restored the destroyed text upon the surface of the inner layer. I take 13 ]ο̣̣ι ̣ to be the end of the verse that started at 12. At 14, the most I can make out is nothing better than the first editors’ ] ἄ̣ρισ̣[τ]α̣ δ᾽ ο̣ὔ̣. 15. Following c, a high spot, apparently punctuation. εξευρ- pap., corr. Pfeiffer. The unaugmented ευρ- is found in both papyri of Inachos. The same reading and the same conjecture by Pfeiffer in 269a.26 ἐ]φευρέθη. Ιt is a well known tendency in later times to substitute ευρ- for the classical ηυρ-. I read -ρε̣ν, not -ρο̣ν. τις is

Commentary  

ironically said by the god for his collocutor. The statement is marked by mocking malice: ‘Someone has discovered cruelty’. Cf. Ar. Vesp. 1327 κλαύσεταί τις. The tone is altered in relation to the first verses, having become now more abusive. Apparently, the speaker is Hermes before the fight against Argus, with the fighters exchanging threats. 16. In the beginning of the verse, Hunt/Smyly published ]πησ though ]πυησ was crystal clear. A strangely negligent speech appears in this verse together with an unexpected vocabulary. Elision of the final -αι (here ]πυήσομ᾽) is believed to occur in epic, lyric poetry, Pindar, and comedy, but not in tragedy, with the exception of very few sporadical cases in late Attic plays (Agathon fr. 29; Eur. IT 679, IA 407, fr. [1113b.2] K.); West 1982, 10, discussed in Hose 1994. Consonantalization of υ is also very rare. Here, the verb is used twice in the same sentence, but the phenomenon appears only in the second case. Possibly, the somehow careless speech must be imputed to the boorish character of Argus. ἐκπυέω, ‘suppurate, putrefy’ is strangely used here in a context of conflict, where a transitive verb in the general sense ‘annihilate, liquidate’ is expected. Perhaps, it is employed like ‘beat someone to a pulp’, what in Mod. Greek is σαπίζω κάποιον στο ξύλο, lit. ‘beat someone to a rot’, meaning ‘beat someone severely’. The expression may be added to Argus’ slangy style. However, I suspect that Sophocles chose the unexpected ‘suppurate’ in order to agree with the belief about ἰχώρ, the fluid running in the veins of gods and Giants instead of blood, a term used by Aeschylus, Ag. 1480, for ‘pus’. Remarkable is the legend described in [Arist.] Mir. 838a29 and Str. 6.3.5 about the country of Iapyges in SE Italy, where the water flowing from a spring stank, because of the putrefied ἰχώρ of the Giants who were killed by Heracles at this place. Since the comparison is made with an object in the plural (δάκη), the missing object of the main verb is likely to be also in the plural. So, the verse can open: ὑμᾶς δέ γ᾽ ἐκ]πυήσομ᾽. The plural is confirmed in Hermes’ reaction: ἀλεύσομεν θε[οί. As it appears, Argus, vulgarly boasting, is threatening the gods collectively. Thus here, ‘I’ll beat you all to a pulp like beasts’. 17. δοντ̣ ᾽α̣ pap. to prevent reading λεύσομεν. δόντ(α) and δ᾽ ὄντ(α) are both possible. E.g., δοῦλον στόμαργ]ον δ᾽ ὄντ᾽. The strongly adversative δέ is a particular Sophoclean characteristic; Denniston ²1950, 166–167. Since the speaker is a god, the plural ἀλεύσομεν suggests θε[οί. ‘We gods will shun …’ scornfully responds to Argus’ threat. Soph. fr. 993 R. (Synag. 383.4 Bekker = α 969 (versio B) Cunningham) ἀλεύσω· ἀντὶ τοῦ φυλάξω. Σοφοκλῆς, was associated by von Blumenthal 1938, 127, with the present verse.

  Sophocles’ Inachos 18. The active ἅζω occurs only in Soph. OC 134 (ἅζοντα), ‘stand in awe of’. After ἤ, a circular letter of which only the left-hand half is visible (θ, c) followed by a triangular letter, apparently α. There follow a clear ν and traces of the left-hand part of ε. ] κ̣αὶ χρή σ᾽ ἔθ᾽ ἅζειν ἢ θ̣α̣νε̣[ῖν];, ‘… and should I hereafter venerate you or else die?’ The almost linked top serifs of I and X in ]κ̣αιχρη should not deceive us in reading κἄγ χρή, which would after all require χρῆι. Porson’s Law is violated; also a mark of careless speech? 19. The right-hand tip of a high stroke may belong to γ, c or τ. Though metrically admissible, ἆρ᾽ οὖν cannot stand, because the sentence is not a question. γὰρ οὖν is quite common in tragedy, but ἄρ᾽ οὖν occurs at Soph. Phil. 345. The son of Ge is obviously Argus. Different parentages are mentioned, but in Aeschylus he is repeatedly referred to as son of Ge: Su. 305 παῖδα Γῆς, PV 567 γηγενοῦς, 677 γηγενής; also Bacchyl. 19.31, if the supplements are correct, [Γᾶς τέκος αἰνόν] … Ἄργον (Γᾶς suppl. Jebb, τέκος αἰνόν Snell), Acus. FGrHist 2 F 27 γηγενῆ, Serv. on Verg. Aen. 7.790 Argum … Terrae filium. E.g., καταστένοι σ᾽ ἄρ᾽ οὖν ἂν ἡ φύσασα Γῆ, ‘for (if you didn’t venerate me) Ge who begot you would lament over you’. 20. λέγ]οντι (vel εἰπ]όντι sim.) with καλῶς Radt, whereas Pfeiffer καλῶς with πείθεσθαι. πεύθεσθαι is certain, though the υ has an unusual shape; no ι or ρ can be read. It must be an infinitive of purpose. E.g., πλέον γέ μοι λέξ]ον τι, ‘Tell me a bit more, so that I may be well informed’, obviously said ironically. 21. The high stop after ταῦτα is in the papyrus. λέξηις edd. is certain. The extended upper stroke of ξ with its left-hand serif (cf. the serif of ζ in line 22) gives the impression of a gamma between ε and ξ, in other words ᾽λέγξηις, but this is a faulty impression. Hermes breaks off the conversation abruptly. Possibly, νῦν ἀρκέσει σοι] ταῦτα. If the words refer to his own part, we should not expect Hermes to continue talking in the stichomythia. And if μὴ λέξηις πλέω refers to the questions addressed to the god by Argus, we should not expect Argus to continue questioning in the stichomythia. This means that the stichomythia ends with line 21. 22–23. The editors, by taking εἶπον as first person singular and by continuing the stichomythia beyond line 21, assign necessarily line 23 to Hermes, who forbids Inachus to utter the irreverent words Ζηνὸς αἰάξαι λάτριν: Pfeiffer τὸ καὶ πρὶν εἶ]πον, Page ἀλλ᾽ αὖθις εἶ]πον. But this would make Inachus the collocutor of Hermes in the stichomythia, and Inachus is not a son of Ge, as required by line 19. I believe that Inachus enters the talk at line 22, after the end of the sticho-

Commentary  

mythia between Hermes and Argus. The first editors consider this line a reference to 269c.35, where the designation λάτρις was used for Hermes. However, that line was not sung by Inachus but by the Chorus. It seems therefore that εἶπον is third person plural, the subject being the choreuts, possibly referred to as παῖδες. It seems that the abusive αἰάξαι occurred somewhere after 269c.47, pronounced by the Chorus-leader, who must be the collocutor of Hermes in the stichomythia of 269c.40 ff. Inachus repeats their words, Ζηνὸς αἰάξαι λάτριν, in apposition, while he states that such words are not decent for him to use. It is a usual rhetorical device, whereby the speaker declares that he shall not speak of the opponent’s vices and misdeeds, when in fact he is speaking of them, a device that is used in comedy, especially with indecent words or obscene actions performed onstage, while the character performing declares he will avoid them out of morality and decency. A typical instance is the opening scene of Aristophanes’ Frogs. At 23, I choose Pfeiffer’s supplement ([τόνδ᾽ οὐ λέγειν] πάρεστιν Ἰνάχωι λόγ[ον), only changing λέγειν to a verb not constructed with a personal object, in order to avoid the confusing λέγειν Ἰνάχωι. 24. Pfeiffer’s καίπερ Διὸς παῖς or καίπερ τι κομπῶν, or Page’s Διὸς πεφυκώς are all attractive. -ε̣ι ̣ς̣ ὅμ̣[ως is not easy to recognize, but is perhaps inevitable. The idea of the fight being described as a contest (above 12, 14), but also as a spectacle (269c.44 ff.), reappears. In any case, if ἰσχύεις is correct, it indicates that Hermes stays onstage after the stichomythia. The gist of Inachus’ speech, apart from any funny situations that it might give rise to, may be to draw information as to the impending killing of Argus by Hermes, of a powerful giant, that is, by a weak (ὀλίγον ἰσχύει ς) hireling (λάτρις). 25. ] . . . δ̣υν̣τ̣ο̣c̣τ̣[ edd. 26. οὕτ]ως ἀνδρ[ικῶς? (Ephippus fr. 8.5 K.-A.) 269e The papyrus fragment has been placed upside down in the glass frame. The letters are extremely faint, and I cannot verify them all. Its place in the sequence of the text cannot be determined, but it cannot be much distanced from 269d. 2. The first editors thought that λάτριν recurred here too (269c.35, 269d.22), but, though extremely uncertain, the reading is different.

  Sophocles’ Inachos 3. καλῶς recurs at the end of the verse (269d.20), though καλοῖς is also possible. Next to it and a little lower, with quite larger letters, something like ̣αμ ̣ ̣π̣η̣ι ̣c̣.

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos 270

ΧΟ.

Ἴναχε νᾶτορ, παῖ τοῦ κρηνῶν πατρὸς Ὠκεανοῦ, μέγα πρεσβεύων Ἄργους τε γύαις Ἥρας τε πάγοις καὶ Τυρσηνοῖσι Πελασγοῖς

Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.25.4 (de communi nominatione Tyrrhenorum et Pelasgorum) Σοφοκλεῖ δ᾽ ἐν Ἰνάχῳ δράματι ἀνάπαιστον ὑπὸ τοῦ χοροῦ λεγόμενον πεποίηται ὧδε· ῾Ἴναχε – Πελασγοῖς᾽. Schol. (L) Ap. Rh. 1.580b (50.14 Wendel) ὅτι δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ Ἀργεῖοι ἐκαλοῦντο Πελασγοί, Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Ἰνάχῳ φησί ῾καὶ Τυρσηνοῖσι Πελασγοῖς᾽ (‘si non plura, certe verba μέγα – πάγοις [ante καὶ Τυρσηνοῖσι Πελασγοῖς] excidisse censuit Wendel’ Radt) 1 νᾶτορ Meineke : νάτορ Bac, γεννάτορ ΑΒpc; cf. Hsch. ν 110 νάτωρ· ῥέων, πολύρρους (νατταρέον· πολύρρουν cod., corr. Meineke in Dion. Hal. loc. cit., coll. ν 9 ναέτωρ· ῥέων, πολύρρους) | κρινῶν Β 4 καί] κἀν Lloyd-Jones | Τυρσηνοῖσι Scholiorum codd. : Τυρρηνοῖς Dionysii codd.

*271

ῥεῖ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἄκρας Πίνδου Λάκμου τ᾽ ἀπὸ Περραιβῶν εἰς Ἀμφιλόχους καὶ Ἀκαρνᾶνας, μίσγει δ᾽ ὕδασιν τοῖς Ἀχελώιου *** ἔνθεν ἐς Ἄργος διὰ κῦμα τεμὼν ἵκου δῆμον τὸν Λυρκείου

Strab. 6.2.4 (de fluviis sub terram fluentibus) … ἀδύνατα καὶ τῷ περὶ τοῦ Ἰνάχου μύθῳ παραπλήσια· ῾ῥεῖ – Πίνδου᾽ φησὶν ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ῾Λάκμου τ᾽ – Ἀχελώιου᾽ καὶ ὑποβὰς ῾ἐνθένδε – Λυρκείου᾽. Hsch. λ 1432 Λυρκείου δῆμον· τὸ Ἄργος, ἀπὸ Λύρκου τοῦ Λυγκέως. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὄρος καὶ πόλις. 5 ἔνθεν Erfurdt, Blomfield : ἐνθένδε codd. | ἔνθεν δέ γ᾽ ἁλός v. Blumenthal 6 ἵκου δῆμον A, (τεμων)ικοῦ δημονίκου δῆμον CAthv, ἥκει δημονίκου δῆμον B; ἥκει δῆμον Tyrwhitt : ἵκει δῆμον Niese : | Λυρκείου Tyrwhitt : Λυρκίου Strabonis codd.

Both anapaestic fragments seem to speak of Inachus, 270 of the river-god, *271 of the river. Both convey an unusually solemn tone. Yet, they cannot belong to the same anapaestic piece, at least in the manner they used to be published. Fr. 270 is the opening of a hymnic address to the river-god (Ἴναχε νᾶτορ), whereas

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

*271 is a cataloguizing description in third person of the course of the river (ῥεῖ … μίσγει, sc. ὁ Ἴναχος). Fr. *271 mentions Sophocles, but not explicitly the play it comes from, only the myth about Inachus. There can be no doubt, however, that the ascription to Inachos by Blomfield (1814, 144–145) is correct. In a version of the myth, “Inachus, son of Oceanus, after Io, his daughter, was raped by Zeus, followed the god reviling him with blasphemous insults. The god, indignant at this abuse, sent against him Tisiphone, one of the Erinyes. Inachus, driven to madness by her, threw himself into the river Haliacmon, which was named after him Inachus” ([Plut.] De fluv. 18; Agathon Sam., FHG 4. 291, fr. 4). *271 describes the river’s (formerly Haliacmon, then Inachus) course. It issues from Mount Lacmus of the Pindus range on the border with Thessalian Perrhaeboi, then, near the Amphilochian Argos in Acarnania, it flows into Achelous River. Hammond, 1967, 458–459, argues that Sophocles derives this geographic information from Hecataeus. In the second part of *271, uncertain if coming immediately after the first or following after a gap, the river cutting through the waves emerges in the Argos district. Obviously, there is no such river. It is not only the fanciful river course through the sea, which Strabo rejects, but also the fact that no river issuing from Mount Lacmus flows into Achelous. It is another Inachus, issuing from Southern Pindus, that flows into Achelous River near the Amphilochian Argos (Hecat. FGrHist 1 F 102a). Together with Inachus, Hecataeus refers to Aias River (= Aous) which truly issues from Mount Lacmus (or Lacmon according to Herodian, 1.32.5 Lentz = Steph. Byz. λ 23), more northerly on the range of Pindus. Apparently, the legend followed by Sophocles depends greatly on the homonymous place names (Αmphilochian Inachus ~ Argolic Inachus, Amphilochian Argos ~ Argolic Argos). Even the similarity between Λάκμων and Ἁλιάκμων, in spite of the aition related in De fluviis, seems suspect. Understanding was complicated by the unanimously adopted conjecture ἥκει δῆμον, which cut off the two fragments, 270 and *271, from each other. By adopting ἵκου δῆμον, which is actually the reading of the best MSS, with the initial ἵ- augmented, it becomes evident that Inachus is here too addressed in second person. It seems that the incident occurred somewhere outside Argos, where Inachus was being persecuted by Tisiphone. He threw himself into Haliacmon, which was the river supposedly issuing from Mount Lacmus or Lacmon on the border with Thessalian Perrhaeboi, but actually more southerly. His body emerged with the river’s waters in Argolis. So, in the first part of *271 the subject is river Haliacmon, while in the second it is ‘you, Inachus’, whether drowned king or river; Seaford 1980, 26. In content, form, and style both fragments are too serious to belong to a satyr-chorus. If they come from a formal procession, it is impossible for a chorus

  Sophocles’ Inachos of satyrs to enter or exit in ordered array reciting a solemn hymn to a river-god. This has been one of the arguments against the satyric status of the Chorus and the play by many scholars, both before and after the papyri were published. Before discussing this matter, it is better to consider whether this anapaestic piece comes from the parodos or from the exodos of the play. Sophocles is known to prefer lyrical chorus-entrances. Only in Ajax the Chorus of sailors enter reciting an anapaestic piece addressed to the title-character very much like fr. 270 (Τελαμώνιε παῖ κτλ.). The words of the Chorus in Ajax are clearly introductory to the plot. Here, however, the address is not to Inachus as king of Argos, father of Io, and hero of the play, but to the river-god Inachos. Fr. *271 describes an incident that took place after the main dramatic plot, namely after the metamorphosis of Io and the killing of Argus, in fact even after Inachus’ death and the naming of a river after him. This fact transposes the anapaestic fragments from the beginning of the play, where the editors place them, to the end. The formal exodos of the Chorus contains a number of aetiological elements, possibly related with a recompense awarded by Zeus to make up for the sufferings of the royal family. Adding two more anapaestic fragments to the two discussed here, we may specify these elements: with regard to Inachus, the naming of the river and the special honours paid to it (fr. 270), with regard to Argus, the naming of Argos after him (fr. 287 ἐπίκρουμα χθονὸς Ἀργείας), with regard to the city of Argos, the prosperity enjoyed by its citizens (fr. 286 πάντα δ᾽ ἐρίθων ἀραχνᾶν βρίθει). We do not know if the subsequent deification of Io as Isis (?) was also included in the anapaestic exodos. An iambic fragment (fr. 284 πατὴρ δὲ ποταμὸς Ἴναχος | τὸν ἀντίπλαστον χεῖ νόμον κεκμηκότων; see ad loc.) also presupposes the deaths of both Argus and Inachus, but Inachus’ transformation to river as well. It may come from a messenger speech announcing the fate of the king and his son (see below fr. 284) sometime before the exodos. It is not only the fact that none of the nearly thirty book fragments refers to the play as satyric (Wilamowitz 1889, vol. I, 88–89 n. 53), but also the fact that nowhere in the surviving play, papyri included, is there any indication of the zoomorphic creatures.8 The funny content and tone of a few of the fragments would certainly assign them to what we know as satyric genre (e.g., fr. 272); and certainly the papyrus fragments 269c, d + fr. 285). On the other hand, some fragments by no means could belong to a satyr-play, at least to what we have been accustomed to recognize as such (frr. 270, *271, 284). Can the chorus be at times funny, at times serious? Can they be amusing, even vulgar, but not satyr 8 On the history of the question whether Inachos was a satyr-play or a tragedy, see: Heynen/ Krumeich 1999, 313–314; Lämmle 2011, 647 n. 221; O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 314–315.

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

ic? It must be admitted that the myth of the transformation of Io and the killing of Argus may contain some jocular elements, but at the same time its characters find themselves in a highly tragic situation. Wilamowitz’s view that the play was of the sort of Euripides’ Alcestis is worth considering. However, the vasepaintings show clearly one satyr dancing. To be sure, it is only the Boeotian skyphos of c. 430 BCE (Brommer 1959, Abb. 13) that can be associated with a satyric treatment of the myth of Io, since it shows Hermes killing a two-faced Argus, and a Satyr dancing to the sound of a double aulos played by a young herdsman. In a version of the myth, Hermes appears to Argus as a shepherd (Ov. Met. 1.676 ff.). Is it possible that the painting shows successive scenes of the same myth, with Hermes in the same picture first as a shepherd and then as Argeiphontes? The Attic neck amphora of c. 460 BCE (Brommer 1959, Abb. 14) shows no more than a young shepherd playing the double aulos and a Satyr dancing, a theme that might belong to numerous satyric myths. The only other known play possibly with the same or a similar theme to that of Inachos, is the fourth century Io of Chaeremon. But I cannot believe that the myth of Io and the killing of Argus had not been treated satyrically by other fifth century poets. Perhaps to one of them is the painting on the Boeotian cup related and not to Sophocles’ Inachos. Yet, there is one more element that dissociates the Boeotian cup painting from the play of Sophocles. The piper to whose sound the Satyr dances is clearly a shepherd. This fact, together with the references to the sound of syrinx and oxsheds in 269c.7–9, led to the surmise that the Satyrs are presented by Sophocles as cattlemen watching Inachus’ herds. The chorus of Inachos consists, however, as far as the surviving fragments allow us to see, of servants in the palace of Inachus.9 In an interesting paper, Marshall 2000, associates the prosatyric case of Alcestis with the decree forbidding κωμωιδεῖν (not ὀνομαστὶ κωμωιδεῖν) that passed in the archonship of Morychides (440/39) and whose force lasted till 437/6, the year after the performance of Alcestis; see Shaw 2014, 94–105. This is not the place to discuss Marshall’s arguments for connecting κωμωιδεῖν with the κῶμος element in satyr-play or his claim that Alcestis “represents a unique variation, written for the particular circumstances of that year”. Generally speaking, the 440/39 decree, together with the other three, less well documented, references

 9 Calder 1975, 410, also argued about a different 5th cent. play about Io. Whereas in 1958 he had claimed that the papyri come from Sophocles’ Inachos, which is, however, a tragedy, in 1975, he argued that P.Oxy. 2369 may be the Inachus of Sophocles but not satyric, PTebt. 692 satyric but from a different play about Io, which he unconvincingly proposed to be Achaeus’ Ἶρις σάτυροι (frr. 19–23 Sn.).

  Sophocles’ Inachos to decrees or laws against ὀνομαστὶ κωμωιδεῖν (426/5, mid-420s, 415/4), attest to the existence in Athens—as expected in every civilized society—of influential circles, politically conservative and morally prudish, who would not tolerate unrestricted intellectual freedom of expression. Lots of similar incidents may be added, from the charges against Aeschylus for disclosing the mysteries to the trials of Anaxagoras and Socrates. In Aeschylus’ Theoroi, there is an attack apparently against those who attempted to soften the Satyrs’ indecency, if not to ban the Satyrs altogether from the theater of Dionysus (see above on Theoroi 78c.37–38). Both Alcestis and Inachos are dated much later (see on fr. 272 for Inachos) than Theoroi. But the tendency towards modesty and decency in the presentation of satyr-plays must have been constant, counterbalanced, it seems, with a trend to preserve them as a time-honoured institution. Poets must have responded to these tendencies variously. In Ichneutai the Satyrs are funny, but they behave decently. The only offensive word found is in line 151 φάλητες, which, however, characterizes the Satyrs, not in the present play but in their usual appearance (in other satyr-plays?).10 Possibly, along with the funny and indecent Satyric chorus, comes the funny but decent Satyric chorus (Ichneutai), then an occasionally funny non-Satyric chorus (Inachos), and finally a serious non-Satyric chorus (Alcestis). Of course, this process does not imply a chronological succession and may vary according to the poet and the circumstances. Other plays have also been proposed as taking the place of satyr-plays. Sutton 1972 refers to Euripides’ Iphigeneia in Tauris and Helena. There is also the case of Sophocles’ Achaiōn syllogos or Syndeipnoi: tragedy, satyr-play or prosatyric? Sommerstein, though having previously (2003, 368–370) argued in favour of a normal tragedy, later (2006, 100–103, 124–127) assented to a prosatyric identity. Fr. 565 R. from Syndeipnoi is straightly related to Aeschylus’ fr. *180 from Ostologoi, a play whose identity has also been doubted; Hourmouziades 1974, 188 n. 98. Lately, I ventured to suggest that Aesch. Prometheus Vinctus should also be included in the prosatyric group, though in a completely different context, as a fourth-place play; Tsantsanoglou 2020, 281–283.

 10 The proposal of Wilamowitz (1912, 458 n. 4 = 1935, 360 n. 1) that line 128 ἀποθυμαίνεις (τινί) = ἀποπέρδηι, though ingenious, cannot be correct. It does not mean ‘you vent your anger (on someone)’, but, on the contrary, ‘you cushion, you soften your energy on someone’. When the building of the dome of Saint Sophia at Constantinople finished, the builders dismounted the scaffolding by throughing down the planks, but only after flooding the church with a thick layer of water, so that the planks ἀπεθύμαινον εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ without damaging the floor; LBG s.v. ἀποθυμαίνω, die Wucht verlieren, sanft fallen, HagSoph (Πάτρια Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ed. 1986) 467.11.

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

272

(Ἑρμ.) γυνὴ τίς ἥδ᾽ εἶ; ληνάς; Ἀρκάδος κυνῆ.

Schol. (RVEΓ) Ar. Av. 1203 (Πισθέταιρος (ad Irim): ὄνομα δέ σοι τί ἐστι; πλοῖον ἢ κυνῆ;) πλοῖον μέν, καθὸ ἐπτέρωται καὶ ἐξωγκωμένον ἔχει τὸν χιτῶνα, καὶ τὰ πτερὰ διαπέπταται ὡς κῶπαι. κυνῆ δέ, ὅτι ἔχει περικεφαλαίαν τὸν πέτασον· ὡς ὁ Ἑρμῆς ἄγγελος ὢν παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἐν Ἰνάχωι ἐπὶ τῆς Ἴριδος· ῾γυνή – κυνῆ᾽. Hsch. α 7273 Ἀρκὰς κυνῆ· Ἀρκαδικὸς πῖλος (Musurus : πινός cod.). Σοφοκλῆς Ἰνάχωι. Eust. Il. 302.27 (= 1.468.23 van der Valk) ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἐν τοῖς Παυσανίου (Paus. Att. α 152 Erbse) φέρεται ὅτι τε Ἀρκὰς κυνῆ ἐλέγετό τις ἤτοι Ἀρκαδικὸς πῖλος διὰ τὸ ἔχειν ὡς εἰκός τι διάφορον πρὸς τὰ ὁμοειδῆ. ἥδε codd., ἥδ᾽ εἶ Ts. (post τίς εἶ Rutherford) | συληνας R, συληνάς V, κυλῆνας Ε, κυληνᾶς Ald, κεχηλναῦς Γ, ληνάς v. Blumenthal | virorum doctorum coniecturas vide infra in commentario

Pfeiffer’s (1938, 35) proposal, γυνὴ τίς ἥδε, συλὰς Ἀρκάδος κυνῆς; (accepted by Radt) is clever: Ἀρκὰς κυνῆ must have been, according to Pfeiffer, Hermes’ hat, since he was an Arcadian, so, when he sees a woman with this hat, asks ‘who is this woman, thief of an Arcadian hat?’. On the ‘Arcadian hat’ (Ἀρκαδικὸν πῖλον) and its relation to Hermes, see the late epigram of Ammianus, AP 11.150. συλάς is coined by Pfeiffer, feminine of an alleged συλεύς. However, the joke in Ar. Av. 1203 (‘and what is your name? ship or hat?’), which must obviously be derived from the Inachos fragment, seems to be closer to the reading of fr. 272: ‘who is this woman? … Arcadian hat (nom.)’. And a phrase as regular as συλὰς Ἀρκάδος κυνῆς, ‘thief of an Arcadian hat’, would never give rise to πλοῖον ἢ κυνῆ, ‘ship or hat’. It is obvious that Sophocles’ verse must be susceptible of being misunderstood, and so permit Aristophanes’ satire. The satirical relationship of the two verses has not been given, I believe, the proper attention. To start with CΥΛΗΝΑC, the reading that has suffered most both from tradition (see above the variants in Aristophanes’ scholia) and from conjecture (Κυλλήνης Heath, Κυλληνίς Bothe, Ellis, Ph.I. Kakridis, κυκλάς Toup, γυμνάς Nauck, οὐχ Ἑλλάς F.W. Schmidt, στεγανός Blaydes, ληνίς Rutherford, σὺ μαινάς Steffen, συλάς Pfeiffer). Though the verse as transmitted offers a satisfactory sense (v. Blumenthal retains the reading of RV adjusting the punctuation: γυνὴ τίς ἥδε σύ; ληνάς; Ἀρκάδος κυνῆ), its form must necessarily be improved. Anapaests are occasionally admitted in the first five feet of satyric trimeter (West 1982, 88), the only surviving instance of a third-foot anapaest being Eur. Cycl. 234 τούς τ᾽ ἄρνας ἐξεφοροῦντο · δήσαντες δὲ σέ (see Seaford’s (1984) comment ad loc.). Split anapaest is also rarely admitted in satyr-play, but here it would coincide with the penthemimeral caesura (taking, of course, ἥδε σύ as a wordgroup), though the verse has a normal hephthemimeral. In any case, two exceptional metrical phenomena concurring with each other in a verse coming from a play not purely satyric should put one to suspicion. Any solution proposed

  Sophocles’ Inachos should not be remote from the MSS readings, but should also account for the variants. I propose that the original form of the verse was γυνὴ τίς ἥδ᾽ εἶ; ληνάς; Ἀρκάδος κυνῆ. In its majuscule form, ΓΥΝΗΤΙCΗΔΕΙΛΗΝΑC, a clarification of the ambivalent EI was necessary for showing that it was the second person of εἰμί and not the conditional particle εἰ. Hence, an explanatory CY was added super lineam, eventually passing into the text. The new form, ΤΙCΗΔΕΙCYΛΗΝΑC, was ‘corrected’ in some MSS to ΤΙCΗΔΕCYΛΗΝΑC, and in others misread ΤΙCΗΔΕKΥΛΗΝΑC, with the common visual error IC > K. To put it in a stemma: ΤΙCΗΔΕΙΛΗΝΑC | C Y ΤΙCΗΔE I ΛΗΝΑC | ΤΙCΗΔΕΙCYΛΗΝΑC / ΤΙCΗΔΕCYΛΗΝΑC (RV)

\ ΤΙCΗΔΕΙCΥΛΗΝΑC | TICHΔΕΚΥΛΗΝΑC (E Ald)

τίς connected with the demonstrative pronoun is normal (LSJ s. ὅδε I.4), here, however, it is also necessary, as it indicates that the person implied by the pronoun is present in front of the speaker, in drama usually a character who has just entered. Otherwise, γυνὴ τίς εἶ σύ; would be sufficient. ‘What woman are you who showed up?’, ‘What woman are you here?’. The second person verb brings the verse still closer to Aristophanes’ ὄνομα δέ σοι τί ἐστι; For the demonstrative with a second person verb cf., e.g., Soph. OC 222 σὺ γὰρ ὅδ᾽ εἶ; I am not certain if it is at all necessary to take τίς in qualitative sense, as often (‘What sort of woman are you here?’), but the difference would be immaterial. ληνάς (= βάκχη) is the unrecorded feminine of ληνεύς = βάκχος (LSCG 96.24, Myconos, c. 200 BCE; Nonn. D. 10.400, 407, 427, al.) or possibly formed straight from λήνη after the synonymous μαινάς or analogically to the synonymous doublet θυῖα ~ θυιάς. It is interesting that λῆναι was the Arcadian word for ‘bacchantes’: Hsch. λ

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

880 λῆναι· βάκχαι· Ἀρκάδες. If then, by using the term ληνάς, Hermes means an Arcadian βάκχη, then Ἀρκάδος κυνῆ might be not a question meaning ‘(are you) an Arcadian hat?’ but, as some scholars have observed, a remark or a comment: ‘(I see,) your hat is that of an Arcadian’. But what is important is that the fragmented verse is susceptible, as mentioned above, of being misunderstood, especially in its second hemistich. The first alternative in Aristophanes’ disjunction (πλοῖον) is believed to be ‘provoked by the sight of Iris flying about with rhythmical wingbeats and fluttering dress’ (Dunbar 1995 on Av. 1203–1204), as described in the Scholia ad loc.: καθὸ ἐπτέρωται καὶ ἐξωγκωμένον ἔχει τὸν χιτῶνα, καὶ τὰ πτερὰ διαπέπταται ὡς κῶπαι. Yet, though the description seems to suggest a bird—what is more, in the Birds— rather than a ship, the image of a woman looking like a ship might incite one to ask ‘are you a ship?’, but not ‘is your name ‘ship’?’. Robert 1898, 576–577, confronted the problem but ended up with making extensive transpositions. It is likely that a ship-name is involved in the joke, but which? This would change the question into ‘is your name the name of a ship?’. Iris answers to Pisthetaerus’ question by Ἶρις ταχεῖα, to which Pisthetaerus reacts Πάραλος ἢ Σαλαμινία; An Athenian fighting-ship was actually named Ἶρις (written Εἶρις: IG II2 1611.123, 137; 357/356 BCE). It might be objected that this interpretation implies that Pisthetaerus knows the name of the goddess and identifies it with the shipname already before asking it. However, applying so strictly the rules of logic in a comic situation is improperly pedantic. Still, it would be greatly welcome if a ship named Ληνάς, Λήνη vel sim. was attested. This is not unlikely, since ships with names exactly or closely synonymous to Ληνάς do exist: Βάκχη IG II2 1604.71, 1609.97; Εὐία 1624.61 (Εὔιος = Βάκχος); Μύστις 1604.72, 1609.114 (βάκχοις, λήναις, μύσταις, Heraclit. 14 D.-K. [87 Marcovich]). Αlso Σόβη 1607.71, 1608.16, 1611.91, 1612.187, 1615.133, which in this case is not ‘the horsehair plume of a helmet’ (LSJ), but is akin to σοβάς (cf. λήνη - ληνάς), which is used ‘of bacchanals and courtesans’ (LSJ), and to σοβαρός (σοβέω), ‘rushing, violent’; cf. Schol. Dem. 21.158 (541 Dilts) ἔνθεν καὶ σόβους τοὺς σατύρους παρὰ τὸ σοβεῖν· κινητικώτατον γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς ζώιοις· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τοὺς σατύρους αὐτοὺς σόβας ἔχοντας γράφουσιν. Βάκχη vel sim. is a fit name for a trireme, given the supernatural swiftness of bacchantes; see Eur. Ba. 1090–1093 with the note of Dodds. The date of the inscriptions, which often extends to the mid-fourth century, is of no matter, since many of these ships are old and may well date from the late fifth century. Iris must then appear in the play as a frenzied woman and hear Hermes, her fellow-god and fellow-messenger, address her in a despising and mocking tone. This is expected, since they are representing respectively the opposing interests

  Sophocles’ Inachos of Hera and Zeus. We do not know what the Arcadian cap looked like, but it must have been quite distinct, if the goddess was to be identified through this attribute. The claim of the Scholia that her helmet was like Hermes’ petasos is not convincing, since it should provoke a different reaction from Hermes, what gave rise to Pfeiffer’s συλάς. Still, accepting Pfeiffer’s conjecture, Hermes would not remark “thief of an Arcadian hat”, but “thief of my hat”. Further, we do not know whether or not Hermes’ petasos was a typical Arcadian hat. The fact that Hermes was born in Arcadia is surely not sufficient evidence. At Soph. OC 313– 4, Ismene’s hat, usually described as petasos, is referred to as κυνῆ Θεσσαλίς, at Callim. fr. 304 Pf., a similar hat is Αἱμονίηθεν (sc. from Thessaly) πίλημα, while Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. 4.8.7, likens the flat leaves of beans to πετάσωι Θετταλικῆι. On the other hand, Schol. Ar. Av. 1203 clarifies the passage under discussion here by φασὶ δὲ καὶ κυνέαν τὸν πέτασον λέγεσθαι ἐν Πελοποννήσωι, and Bacchyl. 18.50 speaks of κυνέαν Λάκαιναν no doubt for a petasos type of hat. However, in the numerous representations of Iris on vase-paintings, never is the goddess wearing a petasos. She is depicted either with a simple band or a sakkos or a diadem. Sometimes, she is depicted with an unusual unbrimmed hat leaving a tuft of hair on the forehead and another on the back of the head, as on the 5th century BCE Attic lekythos attributed to the Brygos painter at the Rhode Island School of Design in Providence (RISD 35.707; ARV2 384.206; LIMC V (1990) s.v. Iris I, no. 61, pl. 489). Can this be the Arcadian κυνῆ? Yet, it seems that the headwear is not unrelated with the rest of the clothing. Together with all the head covers mentioned, Iris is wearing a formal dress, a himation and a usually ornate tunic reaching to the feet. There are a few cases, however, where Iris appears wearing a chitoniskos, often above the knee, and either boots or winged sandals. In these cases, the goddess’s hair is frizzy and tied up on the top of the head with no head cover whatsoever. She is depicted in this appearance already on the c. 580 BCE dinos of Sophilos in the British Museum (1971.1101.1); on the c. 500 BCE Attic amphora in the Munich Antikensammlung (J405; ARV2 220.1; LIMC V (1990) s.v. Iris I, no. 42, pl. 487); together with Hermes on the 495–480 BCE white lekythos attributed to the Diosphos Painter in the University of Mississippi collection (77.3.82); on the c. 380–360 BCE Faliscan calyx krater of the Nazzano painter in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (1970.487); on the c. 360–350 BCE Apulian lekythos attributed to the Suckling painter in the British Museum (F107; Trendall/Cambitoglou 1978, 395 no. 1, pl. 137.1; LIMC V (1990) s.v. Iris I, no. 152); and most probably in the mutilated sculpture of the Parthenon Iris metope (North metope 31; Acr. 20705).

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

The chitoniskos fits well fr. 291 ἀναιδείας φάρος, ‘loincloth, short tunic covering the genitals’, while the hairstyle fully agrees with fr. 292 ἀελλόθριξ, ‘with dishevelled, storm-tossed hair’, but as explained in Hesychius, α 1353 ἀελλόθριξ, ‘held together and dense, thick’, playing on Iris’ typical epithet ἀελλόπος; see ad locc. Both disparaging designations must come from Hermes and refer to Iris, and both must be connected with the present fragment. Finally, the comparison with a bacchante (ληνάς) may be associated not only with the swiftness of Iris, but also with her slovenly appearance. As for the hat, the bacchantes were usually bareheaded—sometimes crowned with ivy branches—and their hair was dishevelled. Be that as it may, without any evidence about Arcadian bacchantes and Arcadian hats this is certainly a non liquet case. But the question is in what role a frenzied Iris could appear in the play. Being a messenger of Hera, sent after Hermes killed Argus, I would guess that her task was to torment Io, what in the myth is assigned to the gadfly sent by Hera. κυνάμυια is abusively employed for shameless individuals, mainly for females: in the Iliad Ares applies it to Athena (Il. 21.394), Hera to Aphrodite (Il. 21.421). Sophocles may have exploited the Homeric epithet for transferring the gadfly to a shameless (ἀναιδείας φάρος) goddess. 273

Πλούτωνος δ᾽ ἐπείσοδος

Schol. (E) Ar. Plut. 727 τὸν Πλοῦτον Πλούτωνα εἶπε παίζων (sc. Ἀριστοφάνης)· ἢ ὅτι καὶ Πλούτωνα αὐτὸν ὑποκοριστικῶς ἐκάλουν, ὡς Σοφοκλῆς Ἰνάχωι ῾Πλ. – ἐπείσ.᾽ καὶ πάλιν (fr. 283) ῾τοιόνδ᾽ – χάριν᾽. δ᾽ : ἥδ᾽ Porson, ἔστ᾽ Blaydes | Πλούτωνος ἥδ᾽ ἔστ᾽ εἴσοδος vel Πλούτωνι τῆιδ᾽ ἔστ᾽ εἴσοδος Blaydes

Radt, ad loc., reacts naturally against Blaydes’s successive conjectures that are made gratis in so short a fragment, referring to Pfeiffer 1958, 36 n. 1. On the other hand, Porson’s attempt to make the fragment iambic cannot be unrelated to the fact that a word like ἐπείσοδος could hardly conform with lyrical diction. It is found once in drama (Soph. OC 730) in an iambic scene and in a more or less theatrically technical usage, denoting a character’s entrance. After all, the fragment could be accommodated in an iambic trimeter with caesura media: × – ⏑] Πλούτωνος δ᾽ | ἐπείσοδος [⏑ –, possibly denoting a concluding entrance. It is surprising that fr. 283, also speaking about Πλούτων, presents a caesura media. To sum up, I believe that the issue is not about the affluence of wealth, but about the entrance of the god Pluton/Plutus into the land and, accordingly, of the character onstage, an entrance that brings about the affluence of wealth. As mentioned above, following Lobel 1956, ad 53–54, Seaford 1980 argued plausi-

  Sophocles’ Inachos bly about the sameness of the black stranger with the black Zeus, Hades, Pluton, and Plutus. See fr. 283. 274

πάνδοκος ξενόστασις

Poll. 9.50 μέρη δὲ πόλεως καὶ πανδοκεῖον καὶ ξενὼν καὶ ὡς ἐν Ἰνάχωι Σοφοκλῆς ‘πάνδοκος ξενόστασις’.

ξενόστασις (also in Soph. OC 90) seems to be formed on the analogy of βούστασις, a term involved in the story of Io; cf. fr. 269c.9 and Aesch. PV 653 with Io speaking. Translate: “pen of guests”. Then, the jocular derivative may come from the Chorus. If one may trust Pollux, the word does not refer to a city, namely Argos, but to a part of the city. Possibly, it describes the hospitable palace. And, since the only guest to the palace mentioned so far was the disguised Zeus (see on 269a.54–56), one might guess that the fragment comes from the opening of the play, where there must have been talk about the lodging the god found for the night. O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 329, “perhaps referring to a special part of Inachus’ palace”. Lloyd-Jones 1996, 129, “This must mean Hades”, probably within the context of Seaford’s theory of black Zeus = Chthonian Zeus/ Hades/Pluton/Plutus. 275

ἡ μὲν σιπύη μεστή ᾽στι λευκῶν ἀλφίτων οἱ δ᾽ ἀμφορῆς οἴνου μέλανος ἀνθοσμίου

Ar. Plut. 806–807, ubi Schol. (RE) σιπύη ἡ ἀρτοθήκη. ταῦτα δὲ παρὰ τὰ ἐν Ἰνάχωι Σοφοκλέους, ὅτε τοῦ Διὸς εἰσελθόντος (vel fort. ἐθέλοντος Sutton) πάντα μεστὰ ἀγαθῶν ἐγίνοντο (ἐγέν- Ε). προύχει δὲ τὰ λευκὰ τῶν ἀλφίτων.

As Radt notes, it is uncertain whether the mention of Inachos in the Scholia to Plutus refers to lines 806–807 (possibly only to 806) or to the whole passage (806–818) where Cario describes the affluence of wealth in his master’s house. The statement in the Scholia that the inflow of wealth into the palace and the country occurred τοῦ Διὸς εἰσελθόντος is important. If the disguised god of the opening of the play was Zeus, this must be the second entrance of Zeus, when, accompanied by Pluton/Plutus at the end of the play, he restored justice by rewarding Inachus, Io, Argus, and, naturally, the city and the land of Argos. It is worth noticing that the words in Plutus are spoken by the slave Cario, who also speaks of “us servants” (816–817 στατῆρσι δ᾽ οἱ θεράποντες ἀρτιάζομεν χρυσοῖς, ‘and we the servants play odds and evens with gold staters’), which may imply that the speaker in the source of the verses spoke also in the name of the servants, that he was, in other words, the leader of a chorus of servants. Further, all

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

the benefits described in the scene of the wealth inflow (Pl. 806–818) have to do with household goods and not with stockbreeding, something that we should expect if the Chorus were assistants to the herdsman Argus. See Seaford 1980, 25–26. 276

σιροὶ κριθῶν

Schol. (F2) Dem. 8.45 (8.61b Dilts) (σιροῖς) τὰ κατάγεια. Θεόπομπος (FGrHist 115 F 349) καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Ἰνάχωι ‘σιροὶ κριθῶν’. οἶμαι δὲ λέγειν αὐτὸν φοσσία.

Apparently, from the vicinity of fr. 275. The late φοσσία (Lat. fossa), ‘pits, cellars’, not recorded in LSJ, are qualified in Schol. Dem. (Yvp; 8.61a Dilts) ἃ νῦν φοσσία ἰδιωτικῶς. 277

ξανθὰ δ᾽ Ἀφροδισία λάταξ πᾶσιν ἐπεκτύπει δόμοις

– cho ia | cho ia |

Ath. 15.668 A τοῦτο δὲ ‘λέγοντες’ (sc. ὦ κάλλιστον Ἡρακλεί λάταξ, quod Satyri dicunt ap. Achaei fr. 26 Sn.) παρ᾽ ὅσον τῶν ἐρωμένων ἐμέμνηντο, ἀφιέντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς τοὺς λεγομένους κοσσάβους. διὸ καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Ἰνάχῳ Ἀφροδισίαν εἴρηκε τὴν λάταγα· ‘ξανθὴ – δόμοις’. 1 ξανθά Radt : -θή cod. | λάταξ Musurus : αλάταξ cod. ἐπεκτύπει Nauck : ἐπεκύπτει cod., ἐπικτυπεῖ Meineke

2 πᾶσιν Meineke : παισίν cod. |

An image of great felicity and prosperity in the land, since every house resounded to the splashes of the blond erotic drops, the sound, that is, of the game of kottabos, which suggests sympotic and erotic activity. ἐπεκτύπει (ἐπεκύπτει cod.) or ἐπικτυπεῖ? Meineke (1863, 145) proposed the present tense in order to connect the fragment with 286 (πάντα δ᾽ ἐρίθων ἀραχνᾶν βρίθει). Both fragments would then symbolize the welfare of Argos, since πάντα, implying every arms rack, would be covered with spiderwebs, a common literary motif describing peace (see Radt’s app. cr. ad loc.). Wilamowitz (1889, vol. I, 88–89 n. 53) also connected the two fragments but in an antithetic sense: “Every house was then happy, but now everything is covered by spiderwebs”. I do not know which of the two proposals to opt for, but, technically, Nauck’s ἐπεκτύπει not only is closer to Athenaeus’ ἐπεκύπτει than Meineke’s ἐπικτυπεῖ but it also matches well fr. 278. The two fragments then connected and not only 278 might refer to the ἐπὶ Κρόνου βίος. The men of the Golden Age, who τέρποντ᾽ ἐν θαλίηισι never getting old (Hes. Op. 114–115), could well spend their time playing the kottabos with their beloved ones. And the Chorus possibly see the situation in Argos, after the entrance of Zeus with Pluton and the inflow of wealth, comparable to the Gold-

  Sophocles’ Inachos en Age. On the other hand, fr. 286 is more likely anapaestic than lyric; see ad loc. O’Sullivan/Collard 2013, 331, speculate, with no evidence whatsoever, that the black stranger interrupted a game of kottabos. 278

εὐδαίμονες οἱ τότε γέννας ἀφθίτου λαχόντες θείας

×D–| ith || ×–

Schol. (V) Ar. Pax 531 (ταύτης δ᾽ [sc. Εἰρήνης ὄζει] ὀπώρας, ὑποδοχῆς, Διονυσίων, αὐλῶν, τραγωιδῶν, Σοφοκλέους μελῶν, κιχλῶν κτλ.) ὅτι ἡδέα τὰ μέλη Σοφοκλέους. περιέργως δέ τινες εἰς τὰ ἐν τῶι ᾽Ινάχωι περὶ τοῦ ἀρχαίου βίου καὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας· ‘εὐδαίμονες – θείας’. Philodem. De piet. P.Herc. 1609 col. IV.8 (p. 51 Gomperz = B 6798 Obbink) κα[ὶ τῆς ἐπ]ὶ Κρόνου ζω[ῆς εὐ]δαιμονεστά[της οὔσ]ης, ὡς ἔγραψ[αν … καὶ] Σοφοκλῆς · ⌊‘εὐδαίμο⌋νες οἱ τότε [ ]’ εἰπών. 1 γενεᾶς Schol.; γέννας Bergk; δὴ γενεᾶς Luppe Bergk), θείου edd. priores

3 θείας legit Holwerda in V (iam coniecerat

See on fr. 277. Bergk’s transposition of θείας, in order to attain a trochaic dimeter (ἀφθίτου θείας λαχόντες), is unnecessary. The metre is the well-known ‘asynartete’ of Archilochus’ epodes (frr. 168–171 W.), called also ‘archilochean’, found in drama as well. Certainly, fr. 277 must be placed after 278 and both at the end of the play. In Ar. Wasps (422 BCE) a series of archilocheans concludes the play. Can there be a connection of the comedy with Inachos? *279

τραχὺς ὡσ χελώνης κέρχνος ἐξανίσταται

Erotian. κ 8 Nachmanson κερχνώδεα· … ἔστι δὲ τὰ τραχείας ἐπαναστάσεις ἔχοντα. καὶ παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς κερχνώδη ἀγγεῖα λέγεται τὰ τραχείας ἀνωμαλίας ἔχοντα, ὡς καὶ Σοφοκλῆς περὶ τῆς ἀποταυρουμένης φησὶν Ἰοῦς (Elmsley : ἰχθῦς codd.)· ‘τραχὺς – ἐξαν.’ ὡς D (“scriba vel corrector … (teste Klein)” Radt) : ὧι rell.; ὧι del. Elmsley, ὤ Pfeiffer, qui ὡς mavult, ὡσ Ts. | κέρχνος χελώνης Lloyd-Jones

Whatever the use of κερχνώδεα in Hippocrates or in Galen might be (‘sore throat’ or ‘rough breathing’), we should not disregard the fact that the Sophocles fragment appears in Erotianus as an illustration of surfaces that have rough excrescences (τραχείας ἐπαναστάσεις ~ τραχὺς … ἐξανίσταται). And, concerning Io being transformed to a heifer (ἀποταυρουμένης), these excrescences, which are likened to the κέρχνος of a tortoise must be the horns. One might also think of the hooves or the κόλλοψ, the thick skin on the upper part of the neck of oxen, but I doubt if ἐξανίσταται would be the right verb to describe such changes. And if κερχνώδη ἀγγεῖα really denoted in Attic the embossed cups, the only similarity

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

between the cups and Io’s appearance would be the swelling up of the newly arising horns. The same objection applies to the view of Carden who argued that what is meant is the cloven hooves of Io after her metamorphosis. Neither Sophocles nor Erotianus would have used ἐξανίσταται or ἐπαναστάσεις for such a transformation. And I do not understand what the “spirals of shining tortoiseshell” that decorated the hooves of the Trojan horse in Triphiodorus 88 (μαρμαρέης δ’ ἑλίκεσσι κατεσφήκωντο χελώνης) have to do with Io’s hooves, as argued by Livrea 1983. Luppe’s 1976 daring proposal, that Sophocles’ words have been omitted and what is taken as verse is actually Erotianus’ reference to a rough fish, is not convincing. Luppe 1984 changed his former view making a new daring text conjecture: (ποὺς τραχύς), ὧι χηλιώδης κέρχνος ἐξανίσταται, with the bracketed words outside of metre implied before the relative sentence. St. West 1984 disconnects ἀποταυρουμένης from the description of the transformation and interprets it as ‘infuriated’. Thus, she connects the swellings in Io’s skin to the gadfly’s stings. The question has also been connected with the metrical form of the fragment. Elmsley’s deletion of ὧι, produced a perfect trimeter, and was therefore adopted by most scholars. However, after the edition of P.Oxy. 2369 (fr. 269a), it was noticed that the iambic description of Io’s transformation was made by Inachus in the trimeter lines 34 ff., where Elmsley’s trimeter could not be accomodated. Pfeiffer (1958, 34–37) retained ὡς claiming that the fragment comes from a lyrical piece: hypodochmius + 2 ia or ith + lk. Radt accepted Pfeiffer’s proposal following his second metrical option: cr ba | cr ia. Be that as it may, the fragment’s diction could hardly belong to a lyrical song. Lloyd-Jones (1960, 26) transposed κέρχνος before χελώνης, in order to obtain a trochaic tetrameter lacking its last two syllables. However, Lloyd-Jones 1996 keeps the original wordorder, again for obtaining a trochaic tetrameter, with the lacking two syllables opening the verse. The same goal could be achieved, perhaps more easily, by supplementing ὡσ. If so, it would seem that at some other point in the play there was a second reference to the transformation, not necessarily a full description, whether in iambic trimeter (with deletion of ὧι) or in trochaic tetrameter (with ὡσ). 280

βοῦ

Antiatt. 84.18 Bekker (= β 10 Valente) βοῦ· ἀντὶ τοῦ βοός. Σοφοκλῆς Ἰνάχωι. Georg. Choerob. in Theodos. Canon. 1.234.36 Hilgard (= Hdn. 2.704.39 Lentz) ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι εὑρέθη τοῦ βοῦς ἡ γενικὴ οὐ μόνον βοός, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ βοῦ παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἐν Ἰνάχωι καὶ παρὰ τῶι Αἰσχύλωι (fr. 421 R.). Cf. Youtie, H.C. (1979), “P.Cornell inv. I 66: βοῦς, βοῦ”, in: ZPE 30, 193–194.

  Sophocles’ Inachos Radt refers to Schwyzer 1938, I.192, 557, where it is described as a formation analogical to πλοῦς, πλοῦ. Is it a specimen of colloquial speech, characteristic of a certain character? Who can this character be? Argus? The Chorus-leader? Or is it a grammarian’s fiction for explaining a formation like βού-στασις? 281

80

ἐπιτήδειος γ᾽ ἂν ἦν τὴν τοῦ Πανόπτου διφθέραν ἐνημμένος εἴπερ τις ἄλλος βουκολεῖν τὸ δήμιον.

Ar. Eccl. 79–81. Schol. (Γ) ad 80 Πανόπτου: τοῦ τὴν (τὸν cod.) Ἰὼ φυλάττοντος. αἰνίττεται δὲ ὡς ὄντος αὐτοῦ δεσμοφύλακος. ἀναφέρει δὲ τοῦτον ἐπὶ τὸν παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἐν Ἰνάχωι Ἄργον. Schol. (R) ad 81 ὡς τὴν Ἰὼ ὁ Ἄργος ἐν Ἰνάχωι (ϊακχω cod.) Σοφοκλέους. 81 τὸν δημήμιον R, τὸ δήμιον Bothe

Woman A in Ecclesiazusae recounts how she, while her husband Lamius was sleeping, took his stick and slipped out of the house. Praxagora comments ironically that he must have been a great guard: if he put on the hide worn by Argus, he would be most competent in watching over the herd of citizens. In the myth, Argus does not βουκολεῖ any public executioner, say Hermes Argeiphontes, but only Io. I cannot follow Sommerstein’s (1998) reasoning that βουκολεῖν τὸν δήμιον implies that Lamius “will soon be providing (becoming) a day’s work for the executioner”. The fragment does not add anything to our knowledge about Inachos. Argus may have been called πανόπτης in the play and may have been dressed with a hide, but Eccl. 80 cannot be considered as giving evidence for this. I fully agree with Ussher’s (1973, ad loc.) rejective view on the extravagant proposals of Taillardat and Rau. But his own commendation of von Velsen’s τὴν Δημιώ is inexplicable. Incidentally, concerning Eccl. 78, I believe that the joke of Aristophanes has not been understood. The solutions proposed were too drastic (τοῦτ’ ἔστ’ ἐκεῖν’ ὧι περδεται Holzinger, τοῦτ’ ἔστ’ ἐκείνων ὧν πέρδεται Coulon), whereas Wilson 2007 daggers the whole verse (app. cr. ‘locus nondum sanatus’). I believe that the tradition (τοῦτ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἐκείνων τῶν σκυτάλων ὧν πέρδεται) should remain unchanged, but the articulation must be altered. Of the variants (ἐκείνων Suidas, ἐκεῖνο codd.) Suidas’s is best. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἐκείνων τῶν σκυτάλων ὧνπερ δεταί, “This is one of those sticks of which torches are made up.” δεταί were sticks bound together to form a torch; Vesp. 1361. ὧνπερ is a genitive of material in predicate use. The joke is of the type of Διὸς καταιβάτου (Pax 42). Woman B see-

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

ing the stick of Lamius remarks ‘innocently’ that it looks like the sticks used for making torches. I do not know if the remark hides any further innuendo, but the listener would readily be reminded of the notorious Lamia who σκυτάλην ἔχουσ᾽ ἐπέρδετο (Crates fr. 20 K.-A., Ar. Vesp. 1177; cf. Hsch. λ 248, Phot. λ 62). 281a

Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Ἰνάχωι καὶ ἄιδοντα αὐτὸν (sc. Ἄργον) εἰσάγει.

Schol. (M) Aesch. PV 574a Herington (1972, 61).

καὶ ἄιδοντα, i.e. not only playing the pipe, as his ghost appears to be doing in PV 574, but also singing, i.e. in a lyric part. In the surviving portion of the play, Argus engages in the stichomythia with Hermes at 269d, but it does not seem likely that he participates in the forced dance scene at 269c, as proposed by Diggle 1998. 282

ἐπήινεσ᾽· ἴσθι δ᾽, ὥσπερ ἡ παροιμία, ἐκ κάρτα βαιῶν γνωτὸς ἂν γένοιτ᾽ ἀνήρ

Stob. 4.5.9 (4.199.6 Hense) Σοφοκλέους ἐν Ἰνάχωι· ‘ἐπήινεσ᾽ – ἀνήρ’. v. 2 in Apostol. 6.88a (CPG ΙΙ, 388.19), ubi notatur ἡ παροιμία σαφής.

The recognition hinted at by the proverb must be of a character either hidden or disguised. In both cases, it was either invisible Hermes or Zeus disguised as a black foreigner. A similar interpretation by St. West 1984, 297 n. 28, who places the fragment in Inachus’ initial dialogue with the black stranger. Differently, Pearson (The fragments of Sophocles, fr. 282), Calder 1958, 142 n. 20, and LloydJones 1996, 133. 283

τοιόνδ᾽ ἐμὸν Πλούτων᾽ ἀμεμφείας χάριν

Schol. (E) Ar. Plut. 727: vide ad fr. 273 τοιάνδ᾽ ἐμοί Hemsterhuis, τοιόνδ᾽ ἔχω Fritzsche, τοίαν νέμει Conington | πλούτωνα cod.; (τοιάνδ᾽ ἐμοὶ) Πλούτων Bergk

The speaker of fr. 283 must be Zeus, who enters (fr. 275 Διὸς εἰσελθόντος) followed by his Pluton (fr. 273 Πλούτωνος δ᾽ ἐπείσοδος). Πλούτων(α) is said ὑποκοριστικῶς, ‘endearingly’, like. e.g., Πλάτων, by Zeus for his subordinate god (ἐμόν). That Pluton is a personification of πλοῦτος is beyond doubt, but both ἐπείσοδος and ἐμόν suggest, I believe, an entrance in person, as in Aristophanes’ Plutus, and not a symbolic reference to an inflow of wealth. He may well sing

  Sophocles’ Inachos fragments 277 and 278 about the Golden Age men. ἀμεμφείας χάριν, ‘for avoidance of censure’ (LSJ), or rather ‘so that nobody can blame me’, since the offer of wealth to Argos is made in recompense for the sufferings that Argos had endured because of Zeus’ love affair, and in answer to Inachus’ and Io’s complaints and accusations. The fragment then must be placed at the end of the play, before fragments 278 and 277 (in this order). Whether the same character sang also these fragments about the Golden Age I cannot say. That he is not a separate character but an essential hypostasis of Zeus/Hades/Pluton/Plutus was argued by Seaford 1980. The attempt to alter τοιόνδ᾽ ἐμόν to τοιάνδ᾽ ἐμοί for connecting it with a non-prepositional χάριν (Hemsterhuis, Bergk) is implausible. There is no problem whatsoever with the caesura media. 284

× ‒ ⏑ ‒ πατὴρ δὲ ποταμὸς Ἴναχος τὸν ἀντίπλαστον χεῖ νόμον κεκμηκότων

Hsch. α 5460 ἀντίπλαστον· Σοφοκλῆς Ἰνάχωι ῾πατὴρ – κεκμηκότων᾽, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἰσόπλαστον, ὅμοιον. 2 ἔχει νόμον cod. : χεῖ νόμον Ts., νόμον ἔχει Porson, νομὸν ἔχει Ellendt, νοῦν ἔχει Campbell; τόδ᾽ ἀντίπλαστον ὄνομ᾽ ἔχει Tucker

“And father Inachos river pours the equivalent customary rites to the dead”. In other words, the river offers funeral libations (χεῖ χοάς) to the dead in the same manner as humans do. If there is reference to a particular dead, the only dead in the story, other than Inachus, is Argus. It seems that a mention of the dead Argus had preceded, followed (δέ) by the libations of Inachus. I would guess that the mention is of Argus’ tomb to which Inachus pours the libations. πατὴρ δὲ ποταμὸς Ἴναχος can be interpreted in various ways, but the most natural would be “Inachus river, his father”. Argus’ parentage appears complicated in various sources, there is, however, one that mentions Inachus as his father: Apollod. Bibl. 2.1.3 refers to Pherecydes who mentions Inachus as Argus’ father: Ἄργον τὸν πανόπτην … Ἀσκληπιάδης (FGrHist 12 F 16) μὲν Ἀρέστορος λέγει, Φερεκύδης (FGrHist 3 F 67) δὲ Ἰνάχου. This testimony does not contradict 269d.19 ἡ φύσασα Γῆ. Apparently, in Sophocles’ play, Argus is the son of Gaia by the river-god Inachus. On the other hand, a reference to Pherecydes in the Schol. to Eur. Ph. 1116 (FGrHist 3 F 66), where Argus appears as son of Arestor, gave rise to a reversal of the parentage in the text of Apollodorus by most of the mythographer’s editors. In any case, I doubt whether Inachos could be here anything else than Argus’ father. It looks as if the fragment comes from the end of the play, where the benefits offered to the city of Argos by Zeus are described (see previous item), to-

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

gether with the fate of the protagonists: Io deified as Isis, Inachus giving his name and thus transformed to a river, Argus buried near Inachus river and recipient of honours. I would not exclude the possibility of a confusion with the otherwise known tomb and grove of Argus that were close to the city (Hdt. 6.78 ff., Pausan. 2.22.5), only that, according to these sources, that Argus was not the πανόπτης guard of Io, but the son of Zeus and founder of the city of Argos. Also, since Io is in the play daughter of Inachus, and not of Iasus, a later king of Argos, as in other versions of the myth, it should not be ruled out that the two Arguses are conflated, and that the πανόπτης is considered the hero after whom Argos was named; see below on fr. 287. See also Seaford 1980, 26. 285

καὶ σὰς χυτ'ρίνων λᾱροὺς ἐκροὰς ἐπώμασ᾽ ἀνήρ

δ| δ| δ|

Hdn. Π. μον. λέξ. 35.9 Dindorf (2.940.21 Lentz) τὰ γὰρ εἰς ρ̅ο̅ς̅ δισύλλαβα τῶι ᾱ παραληγόμενα ὀξυνόμενα μὲν ἔχει ἐκτεινόμενον τὸ ᾱ· ψαρός, λαρός· ἔνθεν θηλυκὸν παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἐν Ἰνάχωι ῾καὶ σὰς – ἀνήρ᾽· … · βαρυνόμενα δέ, εἰ καὶ ἀρσενικὰ ὑπάρχοι ἢ θηλυκά, συστέλλειν θέλει τὸ ᾱ· ῾λάρωι ὄρνιθι ἐοικώς᾽ (Od. 5.51). 1 καὶ σασχυτρύνων λάρος εὔτατ᾽ ἐπὶ κῦμα ἐκ ῥοὰς ἐπώμασα λάρος ἀνήρ sic Herodiani cod. | dochmios restituit Ts. 2 λαρός prius in λαρούς vert. Headlam | εὔτατ᾽ ἐπὶ κῦμα, correctum in σεύατ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπὶ κῦμα, ante λάρωι ὄρνιθι ἐοικώς transposuit Stadtmüller ut versus Od. 5.51 integraretur (σεύατ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπὶ κῦμα λάρωι ὄρνιθι ἐοικώς), quia, cum sola altera parte versus, quantitas brevis in λάρωι non apparuisset 3 ἐπώμασ Stadtmüller | λάρος alterum del. Ts.

Since ‘the κ of ἐκ is never treated as belonging to the following syllable’ (West 1982, 17 n. 30), ἐκροάς shows that the metre must be dochmiac and not anapaestic. Hsch. χ 852 χυτρῖνοι· τὰ κοῖλα τῆς γῆς, δι᾽ ὧν αἱ πηγαὶ ἀνίενται. So was also called ‘a hot spring or geyser in Cos’ (LSJ), Antig. Car. Mir. 160 (from Callim. fr. 407 XXXII Pf.). χύτρῐνος, ὁ, the substantivized adjective means no more than χύτρα. It would seem that, from the sense point of view, χυτρῖνος fits better. But, though ‘drag-out’ dochmiacs (⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ) are absolutely legitimate, it would be preferable to have a short in the fourth position. Actually, χύτρῐνος, ὁ, means also an artificial construction (waterspout, conduit) from which water springs or flows: Hsch. λ 1004 λίθων χοαί· αἱ διὰ λίθων ἐκχύσεις. καὶ χύτρινοι. χοὰς δὲ ἐκ λίθων ὑπονόμους καὶ χυτρίνους, οὓς καὶ διώρυγας. Even the Coan spring is transmitted in Antigonus’ MS as χύτρινος, but has been altered to Χυτρῖνος by Pfeiffer. Τhe reading χυτρYνων of Herodian’s cod. is possibly caused by Ĭ. The verb attested was πωμάζω, not πωμάω, but ἐπώμᾱσ᾽ is possible, if *πωμάω was parallel to πωμάζω, like ἀντιάω~-άζω, βιάω~-άζω, πελάω~-άζω, σχάω~-άζω, al.

  Sophocles’ Inachos The meaning of the verses is obscene: “and a man plugged the delicious outlets of your channels.” The first impression is that the speaker is vilifying a female character by abusive name-calling. But within the satyric frame of the play, irrespective if the Chorus consisted of Satyrs or not, we may interpret the words differently. The female person who has been raped in the myth is no doubt Io: Apollod. 2.1.3 ταύτην ἱερωσύνην τῆς Ἥρας ἔχουσαν Ζεὺς ἔφθειρε. The character addressing her describes what she had undergone in a mixture of roundabout formality and coarse vulgarity. And he makes this description singing a song in a most lively rhythm. The words must belong to the Chorus, possibly from an orchestic scene in which Io may have also participated. And the comic effect would be enhanced if the innocent maiden had not realized what she experienced, and the Chorus were supposed to clarify it to her. However, what part of the play does the fragment come from? The three consecutive dochmiacs are suggestive. I confidently believe that it comes from the missing dochmiac piece in the lower part of 269c col. II. Ιο must have participated in the previous dochmiac stanza, which ended with a dochmiac continued into a trochaic tetrameter, sung by the same character, and addressing her (ὦ κόρ]η πορτιοφόρος). We also surmised that the last verse of the missing dochmiac stanza and the ensuing enjambed tetrameter, i.e. [53]–[54], must be attributed to the Chorus-leader. If so, I would speculate that fr. 285 covered lines [51]–[53], from a longer piece of five lines ([50]–[54]) sung by the Chorus-leader, with the first two dochmiac verses ([48]–[49]) sung by Io. 286

πάντα δ᾽ ἐρίθων ἀραχνᾶν βρίθει

an

Suid. α 3750 (cf. Synag. 442.1 Bekker, α 2083 (versio B) Cunningham) ἀράχνη· θηλυκῶς τὸ ὕφασμα, ἀράχνης δὲ ἀρσενικῶς τὸ ζωΰφιον … εἴρηται δὲ ἀράχνης καὶ παρ᾽ Ἡσιόδωι (Op. 777) καὶ παρὰ Πινδάρωι (fr. 296 Sn.-M.) καὶ παρὰ Καλλίαι (Suid.; παρὰ καλλίοις Synag., παρ᾽ ἄλλοις Nauck, παρ᾽ Ἀττικοῖς Ellendt). λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ἀράχνηκα … Καλλίας Κύκλωψιν (fr. 5 K.-A.) … θηλυκῶς δὲ Σοφοκλῆς Ἰνάχωι· ‘πάντα – βρίθει’. πάντα : πέλτα Meineke | ἀραχνῶν? Dindorf | βρύει Blaydes

The verse has already been discussed apropos of fr. 277; see ad loc. Does the image of the spiderwebs portray a general stagnation and impoverishment in social and economic life or, exactly the opposite, a standstill of war activities and a consequent prosperity and felicity? Radt, app. cr. on 286, refers to several literary texts that use the motif of arms covered with spiderwebs or mould to indicate a period of peace: Bacchyl. fr. 4+22.69 ff., Eur. fr. 369.1 K. (Erechtheus), Theocr. 16.96 f., Tib. 1.10.49 f., Plut. Vit. Nic. 9, Eust. Od. 1793.40. K.F. Smith (1913) on Tib. l.l. cites parallels from the English literature. Meineke proposed a

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

present tense (ἐπικτυπεῖ) in fr. 277, in order to facilitate its connection with 286, both fragments stressing the welfare of Argos. Wilamowitz also connected the two fragments, but preserving the imperfect ἐπεκτύπει in 277 assumed an antithetic relationship between them, prosperity, that is, in the past, misery now. Radt, add. et corr. adds references to Afran. 410–411 Ribbeck³ and Catull. 13.7–8 that support Wil.’s view. I believe that the two fragments should be, to some extent, dissociated. 278 and 277 taken together come from a lyrical piece at the end of the play that extolls the conditions of the Golden Age, possibly in connection with the entrance of Zeus accompanied by Pluton/Plutos and the inflow of wealth in Argos. But 286, perhaps 287 too, may come from an anapaestic piece towards the end of the play describing the conditions in Argos after Zeus compensated for the distress he caused to the royal family of the city. The anapaestic piece may be connected with those of fr. 271 and 270. 287

ἐπίκρουμα χθονὸς Ἀργείας

an?

Hsch. ε 4904 ἐπίκρουμα· ἐπίπληγμα ἢ ἐπιχάραγμα, διὰ τὸ παρωνομάσθαι τῶι Ἄργωι (Toup; ἔργωι cod., quod acc. Ellendt, ἀργῶι Tucker, Ἄργει Latte). ῾ἐπίκρουμα – Ἀργείας᾽ Σοφοκλῆς Ἰνάχωι (de transpositione versus ante διὰ τὸ κτλ. deliberat Bergk). χθονὸς Ἀργείας ἐπίκρουμα (paroem.) dubitanter Pfeiffer, ut ad 269a.14 (] . υμα·) accommodaret, ἐπικρούματ᾽ Ἀργ. χθ. Brunck (iamb. trim.), ἐπίκρουμ᾽ Ἄργον χθ. Ἀργ. Bergk (anapaest.)

In the Hesychius entry, Ellendt’s support of the Ms’s ἔργωι (sc. τῶι ἐπικρούειν) ends up in a truistic meaning, since all verbal derivatives, naturally, derive from the relevant verb. διὰ τὸ παρωνομάσθαι recalls fr. 291 and the παρωνυμία or παρονομασία mentioned there (see below) and suggests a word-play possibly between Ἄργος, τό (Ἀργείας) and Ἄργος, ὁ, as seen already by Toup. “(? Being) the imprint of the land of Argos”. Depending on whether χθονὸς Ἀργείας is an objective or a subjective genitive, either the city of Argos must be thought to be named after Io’s guard or, the other way around, Argus after Argos. The prevalent view in mythology was that the city and its land were named after an older Argus, son of Zeus and Niobe, but, since Io’s story is placed further back in the age of Inachus, I would not rule out the possibility, as I mentioned above (on fr. 284), that the two Arguses are identified and the city of Argos was considered in the play to be named after Io’s guard. Latte’s conjecture, διὰ τὸ παρωνομάσθαι τῶι Ἄργει (sc. τὸν Ἄργον), presupposes the second alternative. In either option, Sophocles’ quotation in the Hesychius entry must be transposed before διὰ τὸ παρωνομάσθαι κτλ., as noted by Bergk, who ascribed, however, the confusion to Hesychius’ carelessness. ‘Knocking on the earth with a stick’ (Abresch) and ‘dancing’ (Ellendt) are excluded because the sense of παρονομασία would be

  Sophocles’ Inachos ignored. Ellendt connected his dancing Argus with fr. 281a, where Argus is referred to as singing. The metre is most likely anapaestic. If the verse comes from the vicinity of the anapaestic fr. 286, they may both come from the exodos of the Chorus, describing the situation after the denouement of the play. The dead Argus is honoured by giving his name to the city, which enjoys the advantages of peace. 288

κυαμοβόλον δικαστήν

Hsch. κ 4343 κυάμωι πατρίωι· Σοφοκλῆς Μελεάγρωι (fr. 404 R.), ὡς καὶ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν τὰς ἀρχὰς κυαμευόντων. διεκλήρουν δὲ αὐτὰς κυάμωι, καὶ ὁ τὸν (Musurus : ὅταν cod.) λευκὸν λαβὼν ἐλάγχανεν. ἀνάγει δὲ τοὺς χρόνους, ὡς καὶ ἐν Ἰνάχωι ‘κυαμ. δικ.’ κυαμοβόλον cod. teste Latte, De Stefani, -βόλως teste Schow : κυαμόβολον Brunck, -βόλωι δικαστῆι Schow, κυαμοβολῶ σε δικαστήν ? Nauck

Brunck’s κυαμόβολον δικαστήν, and his interpretation, “juror chosen by lot”, prevailed (acc. Radt). I would, however, prefer the accentuation of Hesychius’ manuscript. I believe that, unlike the election of magistrates by lot, as is the case in Meleager, here it is the judge’s decisions that are determined by vote: “judge casting his vote”. Hesychius’ article does not contradict this interpretation. In respect of formation κυαμο-βόλος is the judge who casts his bean, but κυαμό-βολος should be the judge who is pelted with beans, not the one who is chosen by beans. Naturally, κυαμοβόλος δικαστής is one out of many judges casting votes. That such a procedure was referred to in the play is clear from fr. 295 κημός or rather σχοίνινος ἠθμός or χώνη, i.e. ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ καδίσκου, εἰς ὃν τὰς ψήφους (i.e. τοὺς κυάμους) καθίεσαν ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις (Schol. Ar. Eq. 1150a II) or τὸ ἐπιτιθέμενον τῆι τῶν δικαστῶν ὑδρίαι πεπλεγμένον πῶμα, παρόμοιον χώνηι (Hsch. κ 2514). But what can this procedure be in Inachos? Lloyd-Jones 1996, 116–117, attempts an unlikely conjecture: “We know that Argos came on ‘singing’ (fr. 281a). I suspect that Hermes challenged him to a musical competition. One can imagine this as being punctuated by the ludicrous comments of the satyrs, whose assistance would have been of little use to Argos. Did they form the jury, as the allusions to voting in frr. 289 and 295 might suggest?” 289

× ‒ ⏑ ‒ χειμῶνι σὺν παλινσκίωι.

Harpocr. 232.7 Dindorf (π 4 Keaney) παλίνσκιον· … καὶ Σοφοκλῆς Ἰνάχωι ‘χειμ. σ. παλ.’, ἀντὶ τοῦ ζοφερῶι. λειμῶνι Naber | σύν om. Harpocrationis epitome

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

What is the meaning of σύν? Is it connecting ‘gloomy winter’ with, e.g., ‘scorching summer’, describing Io’s future wanderings? Rather, χειμών is used metaphorically. Cf. Aesch. PV 643–644 (Io speaking) θεόσσυτον χειμῶνα καὶ διαφθορὰν | μορφῆς; 1015–1016 οἷός σε χειμὼν καὶ κακῶν τρικυμία | ἔπεισι. So, here, e.g., κακῶν | τρικυμία] χειμῶνι σὺν παλινσκίωι. 290 Pearson = 269a.51 291

ἀναιδείας φάρος

Hsch. α 4321 ἀναιδείας φάρος· παρωνόμασε (πίων cod. : corr. Ts.; sc. π/ων) Σοφοκλῆς Ἰνάχωι παρὰ τὸ ‘χλαῖνάν τ᾽ ἠδὲ χιτῶνα τά τ᾽ αἰδῶ ἀμφικαλύπτει’ (Il. 2.262).

I read π(αρ)ων(όμασε), i.e. π/ων, for the manuscript’s πίων, which has been emended to χιτών Junius, ποιόν Salmasius, παίζων Schmidt, παρὰ Ἴωνι Schmidt, πῖον Janowski, ποιῶν Steffen, Perger, Vossius, περίζωμα Latte. For the corruption of the abbreviation cf. Hsch. ε 2425, where the incomprehensible ἀντίον τοῦ κτλ. ον must be read ἀντονομασία (i.e. ἀντ/ ) τοῦ κτλ. The παρωνυμία or παρονομασία lies in the use of ‘cloth of shamelessness’ for either the circumlocutory ‘dress covering the genitals’ or the direct χιτών. But I cannot rule out Wilamowitz’s view that the meaning is exactly the opposite, a dress, that is, that can reveal the private parts. ‘Loincloth’ or ‘short tunic’ might be a plausible description. Janowski’s proposal, that the expression is metaphorical as in Il. 1.149 ἀναιδείην ἐπιειμένε, is opposed to Hesychius’ interpretation, as noted by Radt. Which character wears this specific dress is unknown. I would opt for Iris comparing her description as ληνάς in fr. 272, where another piece of theatrical costume is mentioned (Ἀρκάδος κυνῆ), and as ἀελλόθριξ in 292. Iris appears in a short tunic (and boots) on several vase-paintings: see on fr. 272 above. 292

ἀελλόθριξ

Hsch. α 1353 ἀελλόθριξ· ποικιλόθριξ. ἢ παρηόρους (Palmerius [qui etiam παρεώρους ut Scaliger, quod eiecit Valckenaer; ὑπερεώρους vel ὑπεραιωρητούς (!) Medaglia] : πυρεωρούς cod.; πυρρούς vel πυκνούς Guyet) καὶ συνεχεῖς ( συνεχεῖς v. Herwerden) ἔχουσα τὰς τρίχας, παρὰ τὴν ἄελλαν. Σοφοκλῆς Ἰνάχωι.

Palmer’s παρηόρους, ‘outstretched’, as well as the manuscript’s συνεχεῖς, ‘dense, thick’, used for hair, make good sense. The character whose hair was dishevelled and storm-tossed can only be Iris, who is also characterized ληνάς in 272. No doubt ἀελλόθριξ plays on ἀελλόπος, the typical epithet of Iris in the Iliad, 8.409 al. The reference to detailed characteristics, here and in frr. 272, 291, must

  Sophocles’ Inachos be related with a specific mask and costume. Could then παρηόρους καὶ συνεχεῖς mean ‘hung beside and hold together’, just as Iris’ hair appears on the late archaic (495–480 BCE) Attic white lekythos attributed to the Diosphos Painter in the University of Mississippi collection or the 4th cent. Faliscan RF calyx krater in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston (see above, fr. 272), i.e. ponytailed on the top of her head? But I doubt that such an image might be described as ἀελλόθριξ. 293

ἀλωπός

See on 269c.33. 294

ἄναντα

Phot. α 1568 Theodoridis (~ Hsch. α 4464, usque ad πτίσσειν) ἄναντα· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνωφερῆ, ὑψηλά. τινὲς τὰ μὴ βεβρεγμένα. Σοφοκλῆς δὲ Ἰνάχωι τὰ μὴ ἐκκεκομμένα παρὰ τὸ αἵνειν, ὅ ἐστι κατακόπτοντα πτίσσειν. Ἀρίσταρχος δὲ ἐνταῦθα γράφει ἑνικῶς ἄνατα (ἑνὶ ν̄ ἄνατα Wilamowitz, ἑνικῶς ἀνάτᾱ Radt, ἐπιρρηματικῶς ἄνατα Theodoridis, ἐνικῶς ἄνατα Tsantsanoglou), ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄνευ βλάβης.

Grain is mentioned twice more in the play: 275 wheat, 276 barley. Why the grain, apparently threshed, remains unwinnowed, one cannot say. Ἀρίσταρχος δὲ ἐνταῦθα γράφει may refer not to Il. 23.116, πολλὰ δ᾽ ἄναντα κάταντα πάραντά τε δόχμιά τ᾽ ἧλθον (i.e. ἀνωφερῆ, ὑψηλά), but to Aristarchus’ scholion on that verse, where the grammarian may have referred to Sophocles’ word, writing it (γράφει) ἄνατα, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄνευ βλάβης, obviously as in Aesch. Su. 410 ὅπως ἄνᾱτα ταῦτα. But what about ἑνικῶς? Radt’s ἀνᾱ́τᾱ, as it seems lyric singular feminine, would hardly give rise to τὰ μὴ ἐκκεκομμένα. Theodoridis’s drastic ἐπιρρηματικῶς is not so much an issue of γράφειν. Wilamowitz’s ἑνὶ ν̄ is a clever solution. However, I would prefer ἐνικῶς, ‘dialectally, un-Attically’, i.e. not in common use, as ἄναντα would be. In other words, Sophocles used in Inachos either ἄναντα, neuter plural ‘unwinnowed’, or, according to Aristarchus, ἄνᾱτα, in the sense ἄνευ βλάβης. What did the two senses have in common so that the two words might be interchangeable? ‘Unwinnowed’ means also ‘unflailed’ or ‘unbrayed (in a mortar)’, and this may be easily used for ‘unharmed’, not ‘harmless’, which must be the sense of ἄνευ βλάβης here. 295

κημός? σχοίνινος ἠθμός? χώνη?

Schol. (VΘ) Ar. Εq. 1150a (II) κημὸς ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ καδίσκου, εἰς ὃν τὰς ψήφους καθίεσαν ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις. Κρατῖνος δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν Νόμοις (fr. 140 K.-A.) σχοίνινον ἠθμὸν καλεῖ. τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἐγίγνετο καὶ ἦν παρόμοιος χώνηι, ὡς καὶ Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Ἰνάχωι.

Observations on the book fragments of Inachos  

See also Hsch. κ 2514 κημός · … δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐπιτιθέμενον τῆι τῶν δικαστῶν ὑδρίαι πεπλεγμένον πῶμα, παρόμοιον χώνηι. The fragment is published as κημός, but the phrasing of the Scholia allows us to conjecture that Sophocles may have also used σχοίνινος ἠθμός, as in Cratinus, or possibly χώνη. The use of this implement for the voting of judges in courthouses connects closely this fragment with 288, where there is question of voting judges; see ad loc. **295a

στολοκρατές

Hsch. σ 1906 στολοκρατές· τὸ τῆς Ἰοῦς μέτωπον, διὰ τὰ κέρατα.

Though Hesychius’ article mentions neither author nor play, it is most likely that the fragment comes from Sophocles’ Inachos, to which Nauck assigned it (adesp. 598 N.2). I.Th. Kakridis (1960, 109–110 = 1971, 99–100) supplemented 269a.37 with this adjective; see ad loc., whereas Pfeiffer connected it with fr. 279. Naturally, a reference to Io’s horny forehead could be found anywhere in the play after the maiden’s metamorphosis. The adjective has been considered corrupt, but, in Hesychius’ article, it seems to fit very well with τὸ … μέτωπον. The first component is στόλοκρον, the excrescence of the not yet emerged horns, ἡ ἔσωθεν τῶν κεράτων ἔκφυσις according to Photius σ 580; cf. fr. 279. Though it is uncertain whether the second component comes from κρατέω, κάρα or κράς (κρατός), or κραῖρα (= κέρας), it must constitute an instance of haplology from στολοκροκρατές (μέτωπον). Still, all the vase-paintings that illustrate Io’s myth show her with full-grown horns. Cf. Sophocles’ fr. 875 (inc. fab.) ὀρθόκερως φρίκη, if it can be related to Io’s transformation, as Mekler proposed (‘fort. recte’ Radt).

Bibliography ABV = Beazley, J.D. (1956), Attic Black-figure Vase-painters, Oxford. Add2 = Carpenter, T.H./Mannack, T./Mendonca, M. (21989), Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV2 & Paralipomena, 2nd ed., Oxford. Ahrens, E.A.J. (1842), Aeschyli tragoediae septem et perditarum fragmenta, Paris. ARV2 = Beazley, J.D. (21963), Attic Red-figure Vase-painters, 2nd ed., Oxford. Austin CGFPR = Austin, C. (1973), Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta in Papyris Reperta, Berlin/ New York. AV = Beazley, J.D. (1918), Attic Red-figured Vases in American Museums, Cambridge, MA. Bain, D.M. (1982), “κατωνάκην τὸν χοῖρον ἀποτετιλμένας (Aristophanes, Ekklesiazousai 724)”, in: LCM 7.1, 7–10 and LCM 7.8, 111. Barigazzi, A. (1954), “Sui Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί di Eschilo”, in: ASNP 23, 338–343. Barrett, W.S. (ed.) (1964), Euripides: Hippolytus, Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Bastianini, G./Casanova, A. (eds.), I papiri di Eschilo e di Sofocle, Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Firenze 14–15 giugno 2012, Firenze. Bates, W.N. (1934), “The ΚΩΦΟΙ of Sophocles”, in: AJPh 55, 167–174. Beazley, J.D. (1933), Campana Fragments in Florence, Oxford. Beazley, J.D. (1955), “Hydria-Fragments in Corinth”, in: Hesperia 24, 305–319. Beekes, R. (2010), Etymological Dictionary of Greek, I–II, Leiden/Boston. Beloch GG = Beloch, K.J. (21912–27), Griechische Geschichte, I–IV, 2nd ed., Strassburg (repr. 1967). Bengtson, H. (1971), Die Olympischen Spiele in der Antike, Zürich. Bennett, M./Paul, A.J. (eds.) (2002), Magna Graecia: Greek Art from South Italy and Sicily, Cleveland, OH. Bergk, T. (1883), “Philologische Paralipomena IV: De libello Περὶ Ἀθηναίων πολιτείας”, in: Hermes 18, 514–517. Bernabé, A. (ed.) (21996), Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum Testimonia et Fragmenta, vol. I, 2nd ed., Stuttgart/Leipzig. Bieber, M. (21961), The History of the Greek and Roman Theater, 2nd ed., Princeton. Blanck, I. (1974), Studien zum griechischen Halsschmuck der archaischen und klassischen Zeit, Diss. Mainz. Blech, M. (1982), Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 38, Berlin/New York. Blomfield, C.J. (1814), “Animadversiones quaedam in Fragmentorum Sophocleorum Syllogen Brunckianam”, in: Museum Criticum 1, 141–149. Blumenthal, A. von (1938), “Sophokles: Bericht über das Schrifttum der Jahre 1931–35”, in: JAW 259, 67–139. Blumenthal, A. von (1942), “Sophokles: Bericht über das Schrifttum der Jahre 1936–38”, in: JAW 277, 1–72. Boardman, J. (1979), “The karchesion of Herakles”, in: JHS 99, 149–151. Boardman, J. (52016), Greek Art, 5th ed., London. Borthwick, E.K. (1968), “The Dances of Philocleon and the Sons of Carcinus in Aristophanes’ Wasps”, in: CQ n.s. 18, 44–51. Bothe, F.H. (1844), Aeschyli dramatum fragmenta, Leipzig. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-006

  Bibliography Bremer, J.M. (1991), “Poets and their Patrons”, in: Hofmann/Harder 1991, 39–60. Brommer, F. (21959), Satyrspiele: Bilder griechischer Vasen, 2nd ed., Berlin. Broneer, O. (1962), “The Isthmian Victory Crown”, in: AJA 66, 259–263. Broneer, O. (1971), Isthmia, vol. I: Temple of Poseidon, Princeton. Buck, C.D./Petersen, W. (1944), A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives, Chicago. Burkert, W. (1970), “Jason, Hypsipyle, and New Fire at Lemnos: A Study in Myth and Ritual”, in: CQ n.s. 20, 1–16. Butler, S. (1809), Aeschyli tragoediae quae supersunt, deperditarum fragmenta et scholia graeca ex editione Thomae Stanleii …, vol. I, Cambridge. Calame, C. (2010), “Aetiological Performance and Consecration in the Sanctuary of Dionysos”, in: Taplin/Wyles 2010, 65–78. Calder III, W.M. (1958), “The Dramaturgy of Sophocles’ Inachus”, in: GRBS 1, 137–155. Calder III, W.M. (1975), “Review of R. Carden, The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles, Berlin/New York, 1974”, in: AJPh 96, 409–412. Cantarella, R. (1948), I nuovi frammenti eschilei di Ossirinco, Napoli. Carden, R. (1974), The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles: An Edition with Prolegomena and Commentary, Texte und Kommentare 7, Berlin/New York. Casaubon, I. (1605), De satyrica Graecorum poesi & Romanorum satira libri duo, Paris. Chantraine, P. (1933), La formation des noms en grec ancien, Paris. Chantraine, P. (1968–1980), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots, Paris. Chase, G.H. (1902), “The Shield Devices of the Greeks”, in: HSPh 13, 61–127 = id. (1902), The Shield Devices of the Greeks in Art and Literature, Cambridge, MA. (repr. Chicago 1979). Christensen, J. (1999), “Vindicating Vitruvius on the Subject of Perspective”, in: JHS 119, 161– 166 CID = Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes, I–IV, Paris, 1977–2002. Cipolla, P.B. (2010), “Il ‘Frammento di Dike’ (Aesch. F 281a R.): uno ‘status quaestionis’ sui problemi testuali ed esegetici”, in: Lexis 28, 133–154. Cipolla, P.B. (2015), “Il Prometeo satiresco di Eschilo: Pyrkaeus o Pyrphoros?”, in: Aevum antiquum n.s. 12–13, 83–112. CMG = Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, Leipzig/Berlin, 1907–. Cohn, L. (1887), Zu den Paroemiographen, Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen II 2, Breslau (= CPG Suppl. I). Collard, C./Cropp, M. (eds.) (2008), Euripides, vol. 7: Fragments: Aegeus–Meleager, The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA. Collinge, N.E. (1958-9) “Some Reflections on Satyr-Plays”, in: PCPhS n.s. 5, 28–35., Conacher, D.J. (1980), Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound: A Literary Commentary, Toronto. Conomis, N.C. (1964), “The Dochmiacs of Greek Drama”, in: Hermes 92, 23–50. Conrad, G. (1997), Der Silen: Wandlungen einer Gestalt des griechischen Satyrspiels, Trier. Coraës, A. (ed.) (1814), Ξενοκράτους καὶ Γαληνοῦ Περὶ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνύδρων τροφῆς, Paris. Corbato, C. (1996), “Le Etnee di Eschilo”, in: Gentili, B. (ed.), Catania antica. Atti del Convegno della S.I.S.A.C., Catania 23–24 maggio 1992, Pisa/Roma, 61–72. Corsini, E. (1752), Dissertationes IV Agonisticae, Leipzig. Coulon, V./Van Daele, H. (eds./trans.) (81964), Aristophane, vol. I: Les Acharniens, Les Cavaliers, Les Nuées, 8th corrected ed., Paris. CPG = Leutsch, E.L. von/Schneidewin, F.G. (eds.) (1839–51), Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, I–II, Göttingen (repr. Hildesheim 1965).

Bibliography  

CPG Suppl. = Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, Supplementum, Hildesheim 1961. Cropp, M.J. (1995), “Wise Melanippe and Captive Melanippe”, in: Collard, C./Cropp, M. J./Lee, K.H. (eds.), Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays, vol. I, reprint 2009 with corrections and additions, Oxford, 240–280. Crusius, O. (1893), “Sphinx und Silen”, in: Festschrift für Johannes Overbeck. Aufsätze seiner Schüler zur Feier seines 40 Jährigen professoren-jubiläums Dargebracht, Leipzig, 102– 108. Dakaris, S./Vokotopoulou, I./Christidis, A.-Ph. (eds.) (2013), Τα χρηστήρια ελάσματα της Δωδώνης των ανασκαφών Δ. Ευαγγελίδη, I–II, ed. S. Tselikas, Athens. Dale, A.M. (1960), “The Transformation of Io, Ox. Pap. XXIII. 2369”, in: CR n.s. 10, 194–195. Dale, A.M. (21968), The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama, 2nd ed., Cambridge. Davidson, J. (2000), “Alkmene: Mother of a Child Prodigy”, in: Scholia: Studies in Classical Antiquity 9, 2–11. Davies, M. (ed.) (1988), Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Göttingen. Davies, M./Finglass, P.J. (eds.) (2014), Stesichorus: The Poems, Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Cambridge. Deforge, B. (1987), “Eschyle et la légende des Argonautes”, in: REG 100, 30–44. Degani, E. (1991), “Note critico-testuali a frammenti tragici greci”, in: Eikasmos 2, 91–104. Denniston, J.D. (21950), The Greek Particles, 2nd ed., Oxford. Denniston, J.D. (1960), Greek Prose Style, Oxford. Denniston, J.D./Page, D.L. (eds.) (1957), Aeschylus: Agamemnon, Oxford. Descroix, J. (1931), Le trimètre iambique des iambographes à la comédie nouvelle, Mâcon. Dettori, E. (2016), I Diktyoulkoi di Eschilo. Testo e commento. Contributo a lingua e stile del dramma satiresco, Roma. DGE = Adrados, F.R. (1980–), Diccionario griego-español, Madrid. Di Cesare, R. (2011), “Il Santuario di Dionysos en Limnais”, in: Greco 2011, 423–424. Dickey, E. (2014), “A Catalogue of Works Attributed to the Grammarian Herodian”, in: CPh 109, 2014, 325–345. Dimitrijević, M.R. (1899), Studia Hesiodea, Leipzig. Diggle, J. (ed.) (1984), Euripidis Fabulae, vol. I: Cyclops, Alcestis, Medea, Heraclidae, Hippolytus, Andromacha, Hecuba, Oxford. Diggle, J. (ed.) (1998), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Selecta, Oxford. Dingwall, E.J. (1925), Male Infibulation, London. D.-K. = Diels, H./Kranz, W. (eds.) (61952), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, I–III, 6th ed., Berlin. Dodds, E.R. (ed.) (21960), Euripides: Bacchae, Edited with Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed., Oxford. Dodds, E.R. (1973), The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief, Oxford. Dorandi, T. (ed.) (1999), Antigone de Caryste: Fragments, Paris. Dover, K. (ed.) (1993), Aristophanes Frogs, Oxford. Dunbar, N. (ed.) (1995), Aristophanes: Birds, Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Eckhart, L. (1957), “Prometheus”, in: RE XXIII.1, 653–730. Erbse, H. (1950), Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika, Berlin. Euios Lenaiou (= Ch. Ch. Charitonides) (1935), Ἀπόρρητα, Thessaloniki. Ferrari, F. (2013), “Oggetti non identificati: Riflessioni sui Theoroi di Eschilo”, in: Bastianini, G./ Casanova, A. (eds.), I papiri di Eschilo e di Sofocle, Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Firenze 14–15 giugno 2012, Firenze, 199–215.

  Bibliography Ferrari, L. (21982), I drammi perduti di Eschilo, 2nd ed., Palermo. FGrHist = Jacoby, F. (ed.) (1923–58), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin/Leiden. FHG = Müller, K. (ed.) (1841–73), Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, I–V, Paris. Flintoff, E. (1983), “Aristophanes and the Prometheus Bound”, in: CQ n.s. 33, 1–5. Fowler, R.L. (ed.) (2000), Early Greek Mythography, vol. I: Texts, Oxford. Fowler, R.L. (ed.) (2013), Early Greek Mythography, vol. II: Commentary, Oxford. Fraenkel, Ch. (1912), Satyr- und Bacchennamen auf Vasenbildern, Halle. Fraenkel, E. (1942), “Aeschylus: New Texts and Old Problems (Aisch. Diktyulkoi, Isthmiastai, Prometheus)”, in: PBA 28, 237–258. Fraenkel, E. (ed.) (1950), Aeschylus: Agamemnon, Edited with a Commentary, I–III, corrected repr. 1962, Oxford. Fraenkel, E. (1954), “Vermutungen zum Aetna-Festspiel des Aischylos”, in: Eranos 52, 61–75 = Fraenkel 1964, vol. I, 259–262. Fraenkel, E. (1964), Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, I–II, Rome. Friebel, C. (1837), Graecorum satyrographorum fragmenta exceptis iis quae sunt Aeschyli, Sophoclis, Euripidis, Berlin. Friis Johansen, F./Whittle, E.W. (eds.) (1980), Aeschylus: The Suppliants, I–III. Copenhagen. Frisk, H. (1960–1972), Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg. Fritsch, C.-E. (1936), Neue Fragmente des Aischylos und Sophokles, Diss., Hamburg. Funghi, M.S./Martinelli, M.C. (1996–7), “P.Gen. inv. 98: Eschilo?”, in: Analecta Papyrologica 8–9, 7–17. Furtwängler, A./Reichhold, K. (1904), Griechische Vasenmalerei, vol. I, Munich. Gantz, T. (1980), “The Aeschylean Tetralogy: Attested and Conjectured Groups”, in: AJPh 101, 133–164 = Lloyd 2007, 40–70. Gantz, T. (1981), “Divine Guilt in Aischylos”, in: CQ n.s. 31, 18–32. Gantz, T. (1993), Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore. Gargiulo, T. (1979), “Il ‘Prometeo’ eschileo di Ossirinco: P. Oxy 2245”, in: BollClass n.s. 27, 79– 103. Garvie, A.F. (1969), Aeschylus’ Supplices: Play and Trilogy, Cambridge. Gebhard, E.R. (1973), The Theater at Isthmia, Chicago/London. Gebhard, E.R. (1993), “The Evolution of a Pan-Hellenic Sanctuary: From Archaeology towards History at Isthmia”, in: Marinatos, N./Hägg, R. (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, London, 154–177. Gebhard, E.R. (2001), “The Archaic Temple at Isthmia: Techniques of Construction”, in: Bietak, M. (ed.), Archaische Griechische Tempel und Altägypten, Vienna, 41–61. Gebhard, E.R. (2002), “Caves and Cults at the Isthmian Sanctuary of Poseidon”, in: Hägg, R. (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11–13 June 1994, Stockholm, 63–74. Gebhard, E.R./Dickie, M.W. (1999), “Melikertes-Palaimon: Hero of the Isthmian Games”, in: Hägg, R. (ed.), Ancient Greek hero cult. Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Göteborg University 21–23 April 1995, Stockholm, 159–165. GG 3 = Grammatici Graeci, Pars 3: A. Lentz, Herodiani Technici reliquiae, I-II, Leipzig, 1867–70. Gomme, A.W./Andrewes, A./Dover, K.J. (1981), A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. V: Book VIII, Oxford. Görschen, F.C. (1954), “Zu Aischylos’ Satyrdrama der Theoroi e Isthmiastai (POxy 2162)”, in: Dioniso 17, 3–21.

Bibliography  

Görschen, F.C. (1955), “Zum sogenannten Dike-Fragment des Aischylos”, in: Dioniso 18, 139– 161. Gow, A.S.F. (ed.) (21952), Theocritus, Edited with a Translation and Commentary, I–II, 2nd ed., Cambridge. G.-P. = Gentili, B./Prato, C. (eds.) (21988–2002), Poetae Elegiaci: Testimonia et Fragmenta, I–II, 2nd ed., Leipzig/Munich. Graf, H.E. (1885), Ad aureae aetatis fabulam symbola, Leipzig. Greco, E. (ed.) (2011), Topografia di Atene: Sviluppo urbano e monumenti dalle origini al III secolo d.C., vol. 2: Colline sud-occidentali – Valle dell’Ilisso, SATAA 1, Athens/Paestum. Green, J.R. (1994), Theater in Ancient Greek Society, London. Green, J.R./Handley, E. (1995), Images of the Greek Theater, London. Greifenhagen, A. (1967), “Smikros. Lieblingsinschrift und Malersignatur. Zwei attische Vasen in Berlin”, in: JBerlM 9, 5–25. Greifenhagen, A. (1974), “Die Silene der Smikros-Amphora Berlin 1966.19”, in: AA 1974, 238– 240. Grenfell, B.P. (1917), “The Future of Graeco-Roman Work in Egypt”, in: JEA 4, 4–10. Grenfell, B.P./Hunt, A. S. (1908), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part VI, London. Gronewald, M. (1975), “Zu Aischylos’ Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί (fr. 17 Mette; fr. 276 Lloyd-Jones)”, in: ZPE 19, 99–100. Groningen, B.A. van (1930), “Ad Aeschyli Κήρυκας”, in: Mnemosyne n.s. 58, 134. Grummond, N.T. de (2006), Etruscan Myth, Sacred History and Legend, Philadelphia. Hamilton, R. (1992), Choes and Anthesteria, Ann Arbor. Hammond, N.G.L. (1967) Epirus, Oxford. Hammond, N.G.L. (1972), “The Conditions of Dramatic Production to the Death of Aeschylus”, in: GRBS 13, 387–450. Hammond, N.G.L. (21988), “The expedition of Xerxes”, in: Boardman, J./Hammond, N.G.L./ Lewis, D.M./Ostwald, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. IV: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C., 2nd ed., Cambridge, 518–590. Harrison, G.W.M. (ed.) (2005), Satyr Drama: Tragedy at Play, Swansea. Harrison, G.W.M. (2018), “Aeschylus in the Roman Empire”, in: Kennedy 2018, 129–178. Hartmann, A. (1927), “Silenos und Satyros”, in: RE IIIA.1, 35–53. Hauser, F. (1909), “Aristophanes und Vasenbilder”, in: JÖAI 12, 80–100. Heath, B. (1762), Notae sive lectiones ad tragicorum Graecorum veterum Aeschyli Sophoclis Euripidis quae supersunt dramata deperditorumque reliquias, Oxford. Hedreen, G.M. (1992), Silens in Attic Black-figure Vase-painting: Myth and Performance, Ann Arbor. Hemsterhuis, T. (1744), ΑΡΙΣΤΟΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΠΛΟΥΤΟΣ. Aristophanis comoedia Plutus, Harlingen. Henderson, J. (21991), The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, 2nd ed., New Haven. Henrichs, A. (1975), “Philodems De pietate als mythographische Quelle”, in: CronErc 5, 5–38. Henry, W.B./Nünlist, R. (2000), “Aeschylus, Dictyulci (fr. 47a) and Isthmiastae (fr. 78a–d)”, in: ZPE 129, 13–16. Herbig, R. (1949), Pan: Der griechische Bocksgott, Frankfurt. Herington, C.J. (1972), The Older Scholia on the Prometheus Bound, Leiden. Hermann, G. (1825), “Review of F.G. Welcker, Die aeschylische Trilogie Prometheus und die Kabirenweihe zu Lemnos nebst Winken über die Trilogie des Aeschylus überhaupt, 1824”, in: Leipziger Literatur-Zeitung 1925, 1–21.

  Bibliography Hermann, G. (1827–77), Opuscula, I–VIII, Leipzig. Hermann, G. (1847), “Coniectanea critica”, in: Philologus 2, 131–135 = Hermann 1827–77, VIII 309–314. Hermann, G. (1852), Aeschyli Tragoediae, Lipsiae et Berolini. Heynen, C./Krumeich, R. (1999), “Inachos”, in: Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 313– 343. Hirschberger, Μ. (2004), Gynaikōn Katalogos und Megalai Ēhoiai: Ein Kommentar zu den Fragmenten zweier hesiodeischer Epen, Beitrage zur Altertumskunde 198, Munich/ Leipzig. Hodges, F.M. (2001), “The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme”, in: BHM 75, 375–405. Hofmann, H./Harder, A. (eds.) (1991), Fragmenta Dramatica, Göttingen. Hollis, A. (ed.) (22009), Callimachus: Hecale, 2nd ed., Oxford. Holloway, R. (1991), The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily, London/New York. Holwerda, D. (1991), “Zur Interpretation und Emendation zweier Aischylos-Fragmente”, in: Hofmann/Harder 1991, 1–7. Hommel, H. (ed.) (1974), Wege zu Aischylos, vol. II, Wege der Forschung 465, Darmstadt. Hornblower, S. (2008), A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. III: Books 5.25–8.109, Oxford. Hose, M. (1994), “Zur Elision des ai im Tragödienvers”, in: Hermes 122, 32–43. Hourmouziades, N.Ch. (1974), Σατυρικά, Athens. Hunger, H. (1967), “Palimpsest–Fragmentum aus Herodians Καθολικὴ προσῳδία, Buch 5–7”, in: JÖBG 16, 1–33. Hunt, A.S./Smyly, J.G. (eds.) (1933), The Tebtunis Papyri, vol. III, pt. 1, London. Hutchinson, G.O. (ed.) (1985), Aeschylus: Septem contra Thebes, Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. IC = Guarducci, M. (ed.) (1935–50), Inscriptiones Creticae, I–IV, Rome. IG = Inscriptiones Graecae, 1877–, Berlin. Ippolito, A. (1997), “De Aeschyli deperdita fabula quae Αἰτναῖαι inscribitur”, in: Latinitas 45, 3– 12. IScM III = Alexandru, A. (ed.) (2000), Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae, vol. III: Callatis et territorium, Bucharest. Italie, G. (21964), Index Aeschyleus, 2nd ed. revised by S.L. Radt, Leiden. Jebb, R.C. (ed.) (1883), Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, vol. I: The Oedipus Tyrannus, Cambridge. Jouan, F./Van Looy, H. (eds.) (1998), Euripide, vol. 8, Fragments 1: Aigeus-Autolykos, Paris. Juan López, J.B. (2017), “El Fragmento Dike (TrGF 281a‐b)”, in: Guzmán, A./Velázquez, I. (eds.), De Falsa et Vera Historia, vol. I, Madrid, 215–227. Jucker, I. (1956), Der Gestus des Aposkopein. Ein Beitrag zur Gebärdensprache in der antiken Kunst, Zürich. Jüthner, J. (1916), “Infibulatio”, in: RE IX.2, 2543–2548. K. = Kannicht, R. (2004), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF), vol. V, Göttingen. K.-A. = Kassel, R./Austin, C. (1983–), Poetae Comici Graeci, I–VIII, Berlin/New York. Kaibel, Epigr. Gr. = Kaibel, G. (ed.) (1878), Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta, Berlin. Kakridis, J.Th. (1954), “Πρατίνας - Αριστίας”, in: Ελληνικά 13, 170–171 = Kakridis 1971, 261–262. Kakridis, J.Th. (1955), “Aeschylea”, in: Acme 8, 91–92 = Kakridis 1971, 262–264.

Bibliography  

Kakridis, J.Th. (1958), “Classical Tragedy in the Light of New Texts”, in: Acta Congressus Madvigiani Hafniae 1954. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Classical Studies, vol. 1, Copenhagen, 141–153 = Kakridis 1971, 78–90. Kakridis, J.Th. (1960), “Ο Ίναχος του Σοφοκλή”, in: EEThess(philos) 8, 101–111 = Kakridis 1971, 91–101. Kakridis, J.Th. (1971), Μελέτες και Άρθρα, Thessaloniki. Kakridis, Ph.J. (1962), “Der παῖς μάργος im Dike-Fragment des Aischylos (Pap. Ox. 2256, fr. 9a)”, in: Eranos 60, 111–121 = Hommel 1974, 369–380. Kamerbeek, J.C. (1955), “Adnotationes ad Aeschyli Isthmiastas (Ox. P. 2162)”, in: Mnemosyne 8, 1–13. Kamerbeek, J.C. (1975), “Sophoclea VII: Some Notes on Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles”, in: Mnemosyne 28, 113–118. Kamerbeek, J.C. (1984), The Plays of Sophocles: Commentaries, VII: The Oedipus Coloneus, Leiden. Kantorowicz, E.H. (1953), “Σύνθρονος Δίκη”, in: AJA 57, 65–70. Kapp, I. (1915), Callimachi Hecalae Fragmenta, Berlin. Karouzou, S. (1972), “Σάτυροι Πυρριχιστές”, in: Κέρνος: Festschrift G. Bakalakis, Thessaloniki 58–71. Kassel, R. (1966), “Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten II”, in: RhM 109, 1–12. Kassel, R. (1973), “Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten IV”, in: RhM 116, 97–112. Kennedy, R.F. (ed.) (2018), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aeschylus, Leiden. Keydell, R. (1935), “Die Dichter mit Namen Peisandros”, in: Hermes 70, 301–311 = id. (1982), Kleine Schriften zur hellenistischen und spätgriechischen Dichtung, Leipzig, 353–363. Kilmer, M.F. (1982), “Genital Phobia and Depilation”, in: JHS 102, 104–112. Kilmer, M.F. (1993), Greek Erotica on Attic Red-Figure Vases, London. Kokkaliou, A. (1996 [2001]), “Οδός Φαλήρου (σκάμμα αποχέτευσης)”, in: AD 51.B1, 49–50. Körte, A. (1935), “Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der Christlichen: 804. Sophokles(?), Inachos”, in: APF 11, 252–257. Kranz, W. (1933), Stasimon, Berlin. Kretschmer, P. (1894), Die Griechischen Vaseninschriften, Gütersloh. Krumeich, R. (2000), “Die Weihgeschenke der Satyrn in Aischylos’ Theoroi oder Isthmiastai”, in: Philologus 144, 176–192. Krumeich, R./Pechstein, N./Seidensticker, B. (eds.) (1999), Das griechische Satyrspiel, Texte zur Forschung 72, Darmstadt. K.-Sn. = Kannicht, R./Snell, Br. (1981), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF), vol. II, Göttingen. Kühner/Gerth = Kühner, R./Gerth, B. (31898–1904), Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Part II revised by B. Gerth: Satzlehre, I-II, 3rd ed., Hannover/Leipzig. Lammert, E. (1921), “Schild 1”, in: RE IIA.1, 420–427. Lämmle, R. (2011), “Das Satyrspiel”, in: Zimmermann, B. (ed.), Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike, vol. I: Die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit, Munich, 611–663. Lasagni, C. (2018), “«For anyone who wishes to read up close…». A few thoughts revolving around the formula σκοπεῖν τῶι βουλομένωι in Attic inscriptions”, in: RFIC 146, 334–380. Latte, K. (1913), De saltationibus Graecorum capita quinque, Giessen. Lawler, L.B. (1939), “The Dance of the Owl and its Significance in the History of Greek Religion and the Drama”, in: TAPhA 70, 482–502.

  Bibliography LBG = Trapp, E. (ed.) (1994–2017), Lexikon zur Byzantinischen Gräzität, besonders des 9.–12. Jahrhunderts, Vienna. Lee, G.M. (1997), “An Aeschylean fragment”, in: StudClas 17, 145. Lee, M.M. (2015), Body, Dress, and Identity in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Lefkowitz, M. (1981), The Lives of the Greek Poets, Baltimore. Le Guen-Pollet, B. (1989), “Sébastopolis du Pont”, in: EA 13, 51–90. Lesky, A. (31972), Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, 3rd ed., Göttingen. Liapis, V. (2019), “Σκηνικός και δραματικός χώρος στους Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας”, in: Logeion 9, 80– 102. LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, I-VIII, Zurich, 1981–1999. Lissarrague, F. (1993), “On the Wildness of Satyrs”, in: Carpenter, T.H./Faraone, C. (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca, NY, 207–220. Livrea, E. (1983), “La metamorfosi di Io”, in: ZPE 42, 40–42. Lloyd, M. (ed.) (2007), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Aeschylus, Oxford. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1957), “Appendix”, in: Smyth, H.W. (ed.), Aeschylus, vol. II, The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA/London, 526–603. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1958), “Review of E. Lobel, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. XXIII, London 1956”, in: CR n.s. 8, 16–22. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1960), “The Inachos Fragment”, in: CR n.s. 10, 25–26. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1965), “A Problem in the Tebtunis Inachus-Fragment”, in: CR n.s. 15, 241–243 = id. (1990), Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy, The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Oxford, 397–400. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1971), The Justice of Zeus, 2nd ed. 1983, Berkeley/Los Angeles. Lloyd-Jones, H. (ed.) (1996), Sophocles, vol. III: Fragments, reprint with corrections and addenda 2003, The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA/London. Lobeck, C.A. (1829), Aglaophamus sive de theologia mystica Graecorum causis libri tres, I–II, Königsberg. Lobel, E. (ed.) (1941), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. XVIII, London. Lobel, E. (ed.) (1952), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. XX, London. Lobel, E. (ed.) (1956), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. XXIII, London. Love, I.C. (1964), “Kantharos or Karchesion? A Samothracian Contribution”, in: Sandler, L.F. (ed.), Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann, New York, 204–222. LSCG = Sokolowski, F. (ed.) (1969), Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris. LSJ = Liddell, H.G./Scott, R./Jones, H.S. (1996), A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. with a revised supplement, Oxford. Luppe, W. (1976), “Die Verwandlung der Io in einem Sophoklesverweis bei Erotian (fr. 279 P.)”, in: Philologus 120, 296–299. Luppe, W. (1984), “Nochmals zu Ios Verwandlung. Sophokles Fr. 279 Radt”, in: Philologus 128, 303–304. Luppe, W. (1986), “Sophokles F 278 Radt bei Philodem”, in: ZPE 61, 6–8. Luppe, W. (1987), “Review of S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 3: Aeschylus, Göttingen 1985”, in: GGA 239, 24–38. MacDowell, D.M. (ed.) (1971), Aristophanes: Wasps, Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Macleod, C.W. (1981), “The Comic Encomium and Aristophanes Clouds 1201–1211”, in: Phoenix 35, 142–144 = id. (1983), Collected Essays, Oxford, 49–51.

Bibliography  

Marchiandi, D./Savelli, S. (2011), “Il Santuario degli Horoi di leof. Syngrou: lo hieron di Kodros, Neleus e Basile?”, in: Greco 2011, 421–423. Marshall, C.W. (2000), “Alcestis and the Problem of Prosatyric Drama”, in: CJ 95, 229–238. McCredie, J.R. (1968), “Samothrace: Preliminary Report on the Campaigns of 1965–1967”, in: Hesperia 37, 200–234. Medaglia, S.M. (1980), “Note testuale ed esegetiche (frgt. 291, 292, 330, 331 Radt)”, in: BollClass ser. 3a, 1, 55–62. Meiggs, R./ Lewis, D.M. (1969), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford. Meineke, A. (1863), “Zu den Fragmenten des Sophokles”, in: Philologus 19, 144–145. Meineke, A. (1867), Analecta critica ad Athenaei Deipnosophistas, Leipzig. Merkelbach, R. (1958), “Literarische Texte unter Ausschluss der Christlichen: Nr. 1076. P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 8 und 9; Tafel 5 und 6”, in: APF 16, 101–102. Mette, H.J. (1949), Nachtrag zum Supplementum Aeschyleum, Berlin. Mette, H.J. (1958), “Review of H. Lloyd-Jones, Appendix zu Aeschylus”, in: Gnomon 30, 566– 570. Mette, H.J. (ed.), (1959), Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos, Berlin. Mette, H.J. (1963), Der verlorene Aischylos, Berlin. M.-W. = Merkelbach, R./West, M.L. (eds.) (1967), Fragmenta Hesiodea, Oxford. Meyer, G. (1923), Die stilistische Verwendung der Nominalkomposition im Griechischen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der διπλᾶ ὀνόματα (Philologus, Supplementband 16.3), Leipzig. Nauck, A. (1880), “Kritische Bemerkungen VIII”, in: Mélanges gréco-romains, tirés du Bulletin de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg 4, 579–730. Neer, R.T./Kurke, L. (2014), “Pindar Fr. 75 SM and the Politics of Athenian Space”, in: GRBS 54, 527–579. Newiger, H.-J. (1976), “Zwei Bemerkugen zur Spielstätte des attischen Dramas im 5. Jh. v. Chr.”, Wiener Studien 10, 80–91. Niafas, K. (2000), “Athenaeus and the Cult of Dionysus Orthos”, in: Braund, D./Wilkins, J. (eds.), Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 466–475. Nikolaïdou-Arabatzi, S. (2010), Η Λυκούργεια τετραλογία του Αισχύλου. Δοκιμή ανασύνθεσης, Athens. Noussia-Fantuzzi, M. (2010), Solon the Athenian: The Poetic Fragments, Leiden/Boston. OF = Kern, O. (ed.) (1922), Orphicorum fragmenta, Berlin. Orlandini, P. (1954), “Le nuove antefisse sileniche di Gela e il loro contributo all conoscenza della coroplastica siceliota”, in: ArchClass 6, 251–266. O’Sullivan, P. (2000), “Satyr and Image in Aeschylus’ Theoroi”, in: CQ n.s. 50, 353–366. O’Sullivan, P./Collard, C. (eds.) (2013), Euripides: Cyclops and Major Fragments of Greek Satyric Drama, Oxford. OTF = Bernabé, A. (ed.) (2004–5), Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta, fasc. I–II, Munich/Leipzig. Page, D.L. (ed.) (1942), Greek Literary Papyri, I–II, The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA/ London. Page, D.L. (1955), Sappho and Alcaeus, Oxford. Page, D.L. (1957), “P.Oxy 2331 and Others”, in: CR n.s. 7, 189–192. Papastamati-von Moock, Chr. (2020), “«Το θέατρο των μεγάλων τραγικών»: Αρχαιολογικά δεδομένα και λειτουργικά ζητήματα”, in: Λογεῖον 10, 1–124.

  Bibliography Para = Beazley, J.D. (1971), Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-figure Vase-painters and to Attic Red-figure Vase-painters, Oxford. Patrito, P. (2001), “Sul ‘Frammento di Dike’ (Aesch. frr. 281a–b Radt)”, in: Quaderni del Dipartimento di filologia linguistica e tradizione classica “A. Rostagni” 17, 77–95. Pavese, C. (1967), “L’Inaco di Sofocle”, in: QUCC 3, 31–50. PCG = Kassel, R./Austin, C. (1983–2001), Poetae Comici Graeci, Berlin/New York. Pearson, A.C. (1917), The Fragments of Sophocles, I–III, Cambridge. Pechstein, N./Krumeich, R. (1999), “Autolykos”, in: Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 403–412. Pf. = Pfeiffer, R. (ed.) (1949), Callimachus, vol. I: Fragmenta, Oxford. Pfeiffer, R. (1938), “Die Netzfischer des Aischylos und der Inachos des Sophokles. Zwei Satyrspiel-Funde”, in: SBAW 1938, Heft 2, 1–62. Pfeiffer, R. (1958), “Ein neues Inachos-Fragment des Sophokles”, in: SBAW 1958, Heft 6, 1–43. Pfuhl, E. (1923), Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, I–III, Munich. Pickard-Cambridge, A.W. (21968), The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd ed. revised by J. Gould and D.M. Lewis, Oxford. Platnauer, M. (1960), “Prodelision in Greek Drama”, in: CQ n.s. 10, 140–144. PMG = Page, D.L. (ed.) (1962), Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford. PMGF = Davies, M. (ed.) (1991), Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. I: Alcman, Stesichorus, Ibycus. Oxford. Podlecki, A.J. (1975), “Reconstructing an Aeschylean Trilogy”, in: BICS 22, 1–19. Podlecki, A.J. (2005), “Aiskhylos Satyrikos” in: Harrison 2005, 1–19. Pohlenz, M. (21954), Die griechische Tragödie, 2nd ed., Göttingen. Poli Palladini, L. (2001), “Some Reflections on Aeschylus’ ‘Aetnae(ae)’”, in: RhM 144, 287–325. Poli Palladini, L. (2020), “Aeschylus’ Satyr-play Heralds: Reconstruction, Political Context, and Tetralogy”, in: Lexis 38, 85– 126. Poursat, J.-Cl. (1968), “Les représentations de danse armée dans la céramique attique”, in: BCH 92, 550–615. Powell, J.U. (ed.) (1925), Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford. R. = TrGF, vols. III and IV. Rabe, H. (1908), “Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften: 5. Des Diaconen und Logotheten Johannes Kommentar zu Hermogenes’ Περὶ Μεθόδου δεινότητος”, in: RhM 63, 127–151. Radt, S. (1958), Pindars zweiter und sechster Paian, Diss., Amsterdam. RE = Pauly, A.F./Wissowa, G./Kroll, W. et al. (eds.) (1893–1980), Pauly’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart. Reinhardt, K. (1957), “Vorschläge zum neuen Aischylos”, in: Hermes 85, 1–17. Rhomaios, Κ.A. (1911), “Ἀρκαδικοὶ ἑρμαῖ”, in: AE 1911, 149–159. Richardson, N.J. (ed.) (1974), The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford. Richter, G. (1955), Greek Portraits: A Study in their Development, Berchem/Brussels. Robert, C. (1898), “Aphoristische Bemerkungen zu Aristophanes Vögeln”, in: Hermes 33, 566– 590. Robert, C. (1899), “Review of Mommsen, A., Feste der Stadt Athen im Altertum, Leipzig, 1898. Svoronos, J.N., Der athenische Volkskalender, Athen, 1899”, in: GGA 161.2, 523–549. Robert, C. (1912), “Aphoristische Bemerkungen zu Sophokles Ἰχνευταί”, in: Hermes 47, 536– 561. Robert, C. (1915), Oidipus: Geschichte eines poetischen Stoffs im griechischen Altertum, I–II, Berlin.

Bibliography  

Robertson, D.S. (1953), “Dike and Ares”, in: CR n.s. 3, 79–80. Robertson, N. (1993). “Athens’ Festival of the New Wine”, in: HSCPh 95, 197–250. Rumpf, A. (1947), “Classical and Post-Classical Greek Painting”, in: JHS 67, 10–21. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C. (1987), “Εὐρυδίκα Σίρρα Εὐκλείαι”, in: Αμητός. Τιµητικός τόµος για τον καθηγητή Μανόλη Ανδρόνικο, Thessaloniki, 733–744. Sansone, D. (2016), “The Size of the Tragic Chorus”, in: Phoenix 70, 233–254. Sbordone, F. (1937), “L’Inaco di Sofocle”, in: Annuario del R. Liceo-Ginnasio Vittorio Emanuele II, 128–141 = id. (1971), Scritti di varia filologia, Naples, 195–223. Schmid, W./Stählin, O. (1934), Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Teil I: Die klassische Periode der griechischen Literatur, Band II: Die griechische Literatur zur Zeit der attischen Hegemonie vor dem Eingreifen der Sophistik, Munich. Schmidt, M. (ed.) (1858–68), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, I–V, Halle. Schneider, K. (1916), “Isthmia”, in: RE IX.2, 2248–2255. Schnurr, Ch. (1995), “Zur Topographie der Theaterstätten und der Tripodenstraße in Athen”, in: ZPE 105, 139–153. Schoemann, G.F. (1857), Opuscula academica, vol. 2: Mythologica et Hesiodea, Berlin. Schütz, C.G. (1782), In Aeschyli tragoedias quae supersunt ac deperditarum fragmenta commentarius, vol. I: In Prometheum Vinctum et Septem adversus Thebas, Halle. Schwyzer, DGE = Schwyzer, Ed. (ed.) (1923), Dialectorum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora, Leipzig. Schwyzer GG I = Schwyzer, Ed. (1939), Griechische Grammatik, vol. 1: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion, Munich. Schwyzer GG II = Schwyzer, Ed. (1950), Griechische Grammatik, vol. 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik, Munich. Seaford, R. (1976), “On the Origins of Satyric Drama”, in: Maia 28, 209–221. Seaford, R. (1980), “Black Zeus in Sophocles’ Inachos”, in: CQ n.s. 30, 23–29. Seaford, R. (ed.) (1984), Euripides: Cyclops, Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Seeck, G.A. (ed.) (1979), Das griechische Drama: Grundriß der Literaturgeschichten nach Gattungen, Darmstadt. SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden, 1923–. Seidensticker, B. (1979), “Das Satyrspiel”, in: Seeck 1979, 204–257. Seidensticker, B. (ed.) (1989), Satyrspiel, Wege der Forschung 579, Darmstadt. Seidensticker, B. (2012), “The Satyr Plays of Sophocles”, in: Markantonatos, A. (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Sophocles, Leiden/Boston, 211–241 = id. (2020), Studien zu Homer, zur Tragödie und zum Satyrspiel, ed. B. Zimmermann, Baden-Baden, 325–356. Setti, A. (1952), “Eschilo satirico II: I frammenti dei Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί (Pap. Ox. XVIII 2162)”, in: ASNP s. II, 21, 205–244 = id. (1981), Eschilo Satirico ed altri saggi, Roma, 69–123. SH = Lloyd-Jones, H./Parsons, P. (eds.) (1983), Supplementum Hellenisticum, Texte und Kommentare 11, Berlin/New York. Shaw, C. (2014), Satyric Play: The Evolution of Greek Comedy and Satyr Drama, Oxford. Shorey, P. (1909), “Aeschylus Fr. 207 and the Satyr Chorus”, in: CPh 4, 433–436. Siegmann, E. (1941), Untersuchungen zu Sophokles’ Ichneutai, Hamburg. Siegmann, E. (1948), “Die neuen Aischylos-Bruchstücke”, in: Philologus 97, 58–124. SIG3 = Dittenberger, W. (ed.) (1915–24), Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, I–IV, 3rd ed., Leipzig. Silk, M.S. (1983), “LSJ and the Problem of Poetic Archaism: From Meanings to Iconyms”, in: CQ n.s. 33, 303–330. Simon, E. (1972), Das antike Theater, Heidelberg.

  Bibliography Simon, E. (1981), Das Satyrspiel Sphinx des Aischylos, Heidelberg. Simon, E. (1982), “Satyr Plays on Vases in the Time of Aeschylus”, in: Kurtz, D.C./ Sparkes, B.A. (eds.) The Eye of Greece: Studies in the Art of Athens, Cambridge, 123–48. Slater, N.W. (1986), “The Lenaean Theater”, in: ZPE 66, 255–264. Slater, N.W. (2005), “Nothing to do with satyrs? Alcestis and the concept of prosatyric drama”, in: G. Harrison (ed.), Satyr Drama: Tragedy at Play, Swansea, 83–101. Slenders, W.L.G.M. (2007), Τραγῳδία παίζουσα. Dissertatio Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Smith, K.F. (1913), The Elegies of Albius Tibullus, New York. Sn. = TrGF, vol. I. Snell, B. (1953), “Review of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 20. Edited with notes by E. Lobel, E.P. Wegener, C.H. Roberts”, in: Gnomon 25, 433–440. Snell, B. (1956), “Aischylos’ Isthmiastai”, in: Hermes 84, 1–11. = id. (1966), Gesammelte Schriften, Göttingen, 164–175. Sn.-M. = Snell, B./Maehler, H. (eds.) (61980), Pindarus, I-II, 6th ed, Leipzig. Solmsen, F./Merkelbach, R./West, M.L. (eds.) (31990), Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum – Fragmenta selecta, 3rd ed., Oxford. Sommerstein, A.H. (ed.) (1989), Aeschylus: Eumenides, Cambridge. Sommerstein, A.H. (2003), “The Anger of Achilles, Mark One: Sophocles’ Syndeipnoi”, in: Sommerstein, A.H. (ed.), Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments, Bari, 355–371. Sommerstein, A.H. (2006), “Syndeipnoi (The Diners) or Achaiôn Syllogos (The Gathering of the Achaeans)”, in: Sommerstein, A.H./Fitzpatrick, D./Tolboy, T. (eds.), Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays, vol. I, Oxford, 84–140. Sommerstein, A.H. (ed.) (2008), Aeschylus, vol. III: Fragments, The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA/London. Sommerstein, A.H. (2010), “Notes on Aeschylean Fragments”, in: Prometheus 36, 193–212. Sonnino, M. (2016), “Rifugiarsi nel santuario di Poseidone: Note ai Theoroi di Eschilo (P.Oxy. 2162, fr. Ia. col. i.1–22 = Aesch. fr. 78a, vv. 1–22 R.)”, in: ZPE 200, 39–60. Sörbom, G. (1966), Mimesis and Art: Studies in the Origin and Early Development of an Aesthetic Vocabulary, Stockholm. Stark, R. (1956), “Osservazioni su due drammi di Eschilo perduti”, in: Maia n.s. 8, 83–91. Steffen, V. (1952), Satyrographorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Poznań. Steffen, V. (1958), Studia Aeschylea, praecipue ad deperditarum fabularum pertinentia, Wroclaw. Stephanis, I.E. (1988), Διονυσιακοί Τεχνίται: Συμβολές στην προσωπογραφία του θεάτρου και της μουσικής των αρχαίων Ελλήνων, Heraklion. Stibbe, C.M. (2009), “A Silenus and a Maenad: Some Bronze Statuettes from the British Excavations at Sparta Reconsidered”, in: Cavanagh, W.G./Gallou, C./Georgiadis, M. (eds.), Sparta and Laconia from Prehistory to Pre-Modern, British School at Athens Studies 16, London, 143–158. Stieber, M. (1994), “Aeschylus’ Theoroi and Realism in Greek Art”, in: TAPhA 124, 85–119. Stoessl, F. (1937), Die Trilogie des Aischylos. Formgesetze und Wege der Rekonstruktion, Baden bei Wien. Sutton, D.F. (1972), “Satyric Qualities in Euripides’ Iphigineia at Tauris and Helen”, in: Rivista di Studi Classici 20, 321–30. Sutton, D.F. (1974a), “A Handlist of Satyr Plays”, in: HSPh 78, 107–143. Sutton, D.F. (1974b), “Father Silenus: Actor or Coryphaeus?”, CQ 24 (1974), 19–23.

Bibliography  

Sutton, D.F. (1977), “New Words from Satyric Fragments”, in: Glotta 55, 212–214. Sutton, D.F. (1979), Sophocles’ Inachus, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 97, Meisenheim an Glan. Sutton, D.F. (1980), The Greek Satyr Play, Meisenheim am Glan. Sutton, D.F. (1981), “Aeschylus’ Theoroi or Isthmiastae: A Reconsideration”, in: GRBS 22, 335– 338. Sutton, D.F. (1983), “A Possible Subject for Aeschylus’ ‘Dike Play’”, in: ΖPE 51, 19–24. Taplin, O. (1977), The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy, Oxford. Taplin, O. (1993), Comic Angels and other Approaches to Greek Drama through Vase-Painting, Oxford. Taplin, O./Wyles, R. (eds.) (2010), The Pronomos Vase and its Context, Oxford. Terzaghi, N. (1954), “Il Prometeo di Oxyrhynchos”, in: RFIC n.s. 32, 337–352. Terzaghi, N. (1955), “Sui Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί di Eschilo”, in: Studi in onore di Ugo Enrico Paoli, Firenze, 685–693. Thalmann, W.G. (1978), Dramatic Art in Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes, New Haven. Threatte, L. (1996), The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, vol. II: Morphology, Berlin/New York. Tiverios, M.A. (1989), Περίκλεια Παναθήναια, Thessaloniki. Totaro, P. (2011), “La fondazione di Etna e le reliquiae delle Etnee”, in: Beltrametti, A. (ed.), La storia sulla scena, Roma, 149–168. Tovar, A. (1943), “The Oxyrhynchus Papyri”, in: Emerita 11, 435–441. Travlos, J. (1971), Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London. Trendall, A.D. (1989), Red Figure Vases of South Italy and Sicily, London. Trendall, A.D./Cambitoglou, A. (1978), The Red-Figured Vases of Apulia, vol. I: Early and Middle Apulian, Oxford. TrGF = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. I: Snell, B. (ed.) (21986), Didascaliae Tragicae, Catalogi Tragicorum et Tragoediarum, Testimonia et Fragmenta Tragicorum Minorum, revised by R. Kannicht; vol. II: Kannicht, R./ Snell, B. (eds.) (22007), Fragmenta Adespota; vol. III: Radt, S. (ed.) (22009), Aeschylus; vol. IV: Radt, S. (ed.) (21999), Sophocles; vol. V.1– 2: Kannicht, R. (ed.) (2004), Euripides, Göttingen. Tsantsanoglou, K. (1980), “The Vows of Eteocles (Aesch. ScT 271–278a)”, in: EEThess(philos) 19, 329–349. Tsantsanoglou, K. (2010a), “Two Obscene Vase-Inscriptions”, in: ZPE 173, 32–34. Tsantsanoglou, K. (2010b) “The Lament of Seven against Thebes and the Role of Telestes”, in: Tsitsiridis, S. (ed.), Παραχορήγημα: Μελετήματα προς τιμήν του καθηγητή Γρηγόρη Μ. Σηφάκη, Heraklion, 31–56. Tsantsanoglou, K. (2012), Of Golden Manes and Silvery Faces, Berlin/Boston. Tsantsanoglou, K. (2013), “Oracles and Etymologies or When Aeschylus Goes to Extremes”, in: Trends in Classics 5, 49–73. Tsantsanoglou, K. (2015), “ΤΡΑΓΩΙΔΙΑ – ΚΩΜΩΙΔΙΑ: From Private Feast to Public Festival”, in: Logeion 5, 1–40. Tsantsanoglou, K. (2016), “Aeschylus’ Laïos. TrGF III, T 58b + F 451v (+ p. 231) + 451s 6 + 451n (P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 2, 4, 1, 6, 8)”, in: Logeion 6, 11–29. Tsantsanoglou, K. (2018a), “Paraleipomena to the Reconstruction of Aeschylus’ Laïos”, in: Logeion 8, 1–9. Tsantsanoglou, K. (2018b), “Who was Onymacles the Athenaean?”, in: Trends in Classics 10, 275–284 = id. (2019), Studies in Sappho and Alcaeus, Berlin/Boston, 204–212.

  Bibliography Tsantsanoglou, K. (2020), “Prometheus Bound and Sophocles’ Inachos: New Perspectives”, in: Trends in Classics 12, 267–296. Tucker, T.G. (ed.) (1908), The Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylus, Cambridge. Turner, E.G. (1980), Greek Papyri: An Introduction, Oxford. Turner, E.G. (21987), Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 2nd ed. revised by P.J. Parsons, London. Tzanavari, K. (2003), “Η λατρεία των θεών και των ηρώων στη Θεσσαλονίκη”, in: Grammenos, D.B. (ed.), Ρωμαϊκή Θεσσαλονίκη, Thessaloniki, 177–262. Unger, G.F. (1877), “Der Isthmientag und die Hyakinthien”, in: Philologus 37, 1–42. Untersteiner, M. (1950), “La tetralogia eschilea degli ‘Eolidi’. Parte prima: l’Atamante e gli Epigoni”, in: Dioniso 13, 145–163. Untersteiner, M. (1951), “La tetralogia eschilea degli ‘Eolidi’. Parte seconda: i Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί”, in: Dioniso 14, 19–45. Ussher, R.G. (ed.) (1973), Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae, Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Ussher, R.G. (1977–78), “The Other Aeschylus”, in: Maia 29–30, 13–25 = id. (1977), “The Other Aeschylus: A Study of the Fragments of Aeschylean Satyr Plays”, in: Phoenix 31, 287–299. V. = Voigt, E.-M. (ed.) (1971), Sappho et Alcaeus: Fragmenta, Amsterdam. Van Looy, F.J. & H. (eds.) (1998), Euripide, editions Budé, vol. 8.1, Paris. Vysoký, Z.K. (1957), “Příspěvky к výkladu a určení některých nových zlomků Aischylových”, in: LF 80, 164–173. Vysoký, Z.K. (1958), “Příspěvky к výkladu a určení některých nových zlomků Aischylových (Pap.Oxyrh. 2256 zl. 8 a 9)”, in: LF 81, 7–26. W. = West, M.L. (ed.) (21989–92), Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, I–II, 2nd ed., Oxford. Wagner, F.W. (1852), Poetarum tragicorum graecorum fragmenta, vol. I: Aeschyli et Sophoclis perditarum fabularum fragmenta, Bratislava. Walbank, M.B. (1983), “Leases of Sacred Properties I”, in: Hesperia 52, 100–135. Webster, T.B.L. (21967), Monuments Illustrating Tragedy and Satyr Play, BICS Suppl. 20, 2nd ed., London. Webster, T.B.L. (21970), Greek Theatre Production, London. Webster, T.B.L. (1972), “Scenic Notes II”, in: Hauslik, R./Lesky, A./Schwabl, H. (eds.), Antidosis: Festschrift für Walther Kraus zum 70 Geburtstag, Vienna, 454–457. Wecklein, N. (ed.) (1885), Aeschyli fabulae, I–II, Berlin. Wecklein, N. (1891), “Über eine Trilogie des Aeschylos und über die Trilogie überhaupt”, in: SBAW 1891, 327–385. Wecklein, N. (1909), “Über die dramatische Behandlung des Telephosmythos und über die Dramen Ὀστολόγοι, Κάβιροι, Σύνδειπνοι”, in: SBAW 1909, Abh. 1, 1–22. Welcker, F.G. (1824), Die aeschylische Trilogie Prometheus und die Kabirenweihe zu Lemnos nebst Winken über die Trilogie des Aeschylus überhaupt, Darmstadt. Wenkebach, E. (1931), “ΠΕΜΦΙΞ. Glossographische Verszitate in neuer Gestalt”, in: Philologus 86, 300–331. Werner, Ο. (21969), Aischylos: Tragödien und Fragmente, 2nd ed., Tusculum-Bücherei, Munich. Wessels, A. (1999), “Dike-Drama”, in: Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 98–106. Wessels, A./Krumeich, R. (1999), “Isthmiastai oder Theoroi”, in: Krumeich/Pechstein/ Seidensticker 1999, 131–148. West, M.L. (ed.) (1966), Hesiod: Theogony, Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, Oxford.

Bibliography  

West, M.L. (ed.) (1978), Hesiod: Works and Days, Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, Oxford. West, M.L. (1979), “The Prometheus Trilogy”, in: JHS 99, 130–148. West, M.L. (1982), Greek Metre, Oxford. West, M.L. (1990), Studies in Aeschylus, Stuttgart. West, M.L. (ed.) (21998), Aeschyli tragoediae cum incerti poetae Prometheo, 2nd corrected ed., Stuttgart/Leipzig. West, St. (1984), “Io and the Dark Stranger (Sophocles, Inachus F 269a)”, in: CQ n.s. 34: 292– 302. Westphal, R. (1869), Prolegomena zu Aeschylus Tragödien, Leipzig. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1881), Antigonos von Karystos, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1886), “Die Bühne des Aischylos”, in: Hermes 21, 597–622 = Wilamowitz 1935, 148–172. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (ed.) (1889), Euripides: Herakles, I–II, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1912), “Die Spürhunde des Sophokles”, in: Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum 29, 449–476 = Wilamowitz 1935, 347–383. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (ed.) (1914a), Aeschyli tragoediae, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1914b), Aischylos: Interpretationen, Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1935), Kleine Schriften, vol. I, ed. P. Maas, Berlin. Wilkins, A.S. (ed.) (1939), The Ars poetica of Horace, London. Wilson, N.G. (2007), Aristophanis Fabulae, I–II, Oxford. Winnington-Ingram, R.P. (1959), “The Loeb Aeschylus”, in: CR n.s. 73, 239–241. Wiseman, J.R. (1963), “A Trans-Isthmian Fortification Wall”, in: Hesperia 32, 248–275. Young, D. (1972), “Readings in Aeschylus’ Byzantine Triad”, in: GRBS 13, 5–38. Youtie, H.C./Youtie, L.C./Kneale, W. (1973), “P. Mich. inv. 2906, A Fragment of Logic”, in: ZPE 10, 175–185. Zieliński, Th. (1925), Tragodoumenon libri tres, Cracow. Zuntz, G. (1981), “Notes on Some Passages in Aeschylus’ Septem”, in: PCPhS n.s. 27, 81–95. Zuntz, G. (1983a), “Textkritische Anmerkungen zu Aischylos’ Hepta”, in: Hermes 111, 259–281. Zuntz, G. (1983b), “Αἰσχύλου Προμηθεύς”, in: Hermes 111, 498–499. Zuntz, G. (1993), “Aeschyli Prometheus”, in: HSCP 95, 107–111.

General Index accent and breathing marks in papyri 15, 146, 150–1, 201, 202, 237, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 261 Achaeus –Ἆθλα 47 –Ἶρις σάτυροι 289 –Omphale 17 Aeschylus (see also Hypsipyle, Laïos, Prometheus Pyrkaeus, Theoroi) –Agamemnon 1, 18, 25, 33, 41, 42, 44, 47, 62, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77, 80, 82, 83, 85, 88, 105, 106, 139, 141, 143, 145, 147, 148, 151, 152, 153, 154, 161, 162, 168, 177, 187, 192, 196, 199, 234, 251, 256, 260, 283 –Aitnaiai/Aitnai 112–4, 119, 158 –Amymone 102, 131, 133 –Argo 67, 123, 125–6 –Athamas 91, 93–6, 105, 225 –Bakchai, Pentheus, Xantriai 94–5, 102 –Choephoroi 45, 62, 77, 88, 122, 124, 139, 141, 145, 147, 149, 153, 154, 162, 168, 199, 170, 252 –Diktyoulkoi 131, 146, 153 –Edonoi 12, 39–40, 86, 90, 93 –Eumenides 19, 21, 22, 44, 62, 75, 85, 88, 122, 127, 130, 131, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 153, 154, 182, 222, 281 –Kabeiroi 67, 123, 126–33 –Kerykes 113, 119 –Lemniai 123, 126, 130 –Lykourgeia 39, 93 –Nemea, Argeioi/-ai, Eleusinioi 134 –Oidipous 170, 176 –Oresteia 221–2 –Ostologoi 290 –Perrhaebides 173 –Persae 14, 32, 45, 62, 79, 88, 96, 140, 141, 147, 151, 168, 192, 199, 226–7, 262 –Philoctetes 126 –Prometheus Bound 1, 30, 47, 48, 54, 77, 80, 88, 96, 106, 127, 139, 143, 149, 151, 153, 162, 175, 183, 186, 193, 198, 199, 207, 208, 211, 224–7, 243, 248, 251–2,

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-007

254, 257–9, 262, 264, 265–6, 268, 269, 278, 284, 290, 296, 301, 307 –Prometheus Lyomenos 28, 30, 151, 187, 207, 211, 224–7 –Prometheus Pyrphoros 185, 205, 207, 211, 224–7 –Proteus 102, 131, 222 –Semele or Hydrophoroi 93–6, 225 –Septem contra Thebas 1, 14, 18, 43, 51, 54, 68, 70, 73, 74, 77, 85, 88, 145, 149, 162, 168–71, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 197, 227, 259, 274, –Sphinx 28, 30, 155 –Supplices 14, 15, 19, 45, 63, 68, 75, 85, 96, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 153, 180–1, 182, 192, 197, 199, 206–7, 239, 275, 280, 284, 308 –Ten(n)es 115 –Toxotides 93–6, 225 –Trophoi 17, 95–6, 217, 225 Agatharchus painter 97–101 Agathon 283 aition 95, 96, 127, 130, 133, 134, 196, 218, 287 amoebaeon 277, 279–80 Amphion 166–7, 169, 176 Anaxagoras sculptor 99–100 ancora 152–3 announcement of character 33, 34, 295 antilabe 54, 114, 149 Anthesteria 211–4, 217–9, 222–3, 224–7 –Χύτρινοι ἀγῶνες 218–9, 224–5 Antiphanes com. 153, 209 antisigma dotted (ἀντίσιγμα περιεστιγμένον) 267–8 apocope 192 aposiopesis 43, 67 aposkopein (dance gesture) 65 apostrophe in papyrus 138, 248, 249 apposition 63, 79, 285 Archilochus’ beast-fables 73–4 Aristophanes –Acharnenses 21, 33, 218, 224–5, 253–4, 256, 259

  General Index –Aves 21, 62, 198, 256, 259, 292–5 –Daidalos 142 –Ecclesiazusae 21, 33, 45, 48, 132, 300 –Equites 306, 308–9 –Lemniai 132 –Lysistrata 20, 21, 33, 62, 90, 132, 153, 256 –Nubes 31, 35, 52, 66, 209, 254, 256 –Pax (Peace) 22, 62, 86, 130, 142, 161, 252–3, 255–6, 278, 298, 300 –Plutus 33, 260, 295, 296, 301–2 –Ranae (Frogs) 21, 22, 35, 48, 57, 76, 79, 173, 212, 214, 218–9, 225, 253–4 –Tagenistai 28–9 –Thesmophoriazusae 31, 33, 39, 53, 62, 162, 220 –Vespae (Wasps) 33, 75, 80, 172, 173, 256, 283, 298, 301 Aristophon com. 209, 267 Artemis Eucleia see Eucleia assimilation 75, 278, 281 asyndeton 65, 74, 139 Athena Zosteria 163, 165, 168, 170, 172 “Bari Pipers” vase 258 caesura 54, 88, 147, 253, 291, 295, 302 Callimachus’ Hecale fr. 305 Pf. 202–5 celery crowns (Isthmia) 26–8 consonantalization 64, 82, 283 crasis 64, 78, 144, 202, 238 Crates 301 Cratinus 39, 53, 132, 193, 208, 219, 220, 308–9 deleting dot 34, 164 deliberative future 44 deliberative subjunctive 44 Democritus sculptor 99–100 diaeresis 248, 249 Dike-play see Hypsipyle Dionysia 27, 29, 39, 40, 76, 87, 92, 210, 212, 216, 218, 224, 226–7 Dionysion in the Marshes (Διονύσιον ἐν Λίμναις) 211–23 Dionysus’ effeminacy 87–7 Dionysus Eleuthereus 214–5, 216, 219– 20, 223 Dionysus Orthos 217

diple 201, 205, 251, 260, 267, 269, 272, 274 dithyramb 25, 29, 103, 217–8 Doric forms 112, 153 dots marking alternative readings 148–9, 160, 164 Douris psykter 41, 56, 71, 79, 192, 196 eisthesis 248, 266, 271 ekthesis 205, 213 elision 64, 73, 202, 283 encomium 29 Ephippus com. 285 ephymnion 41, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 200, 206, 225 epic forms & words 22, 44, 78, 82, 88, 89, 182, 249, 254 Epicharmus 191 –Πύρρα ἢ Προμαθεύς 188, 193 Epicrates com. 260 etymology 19, 65, 82, 114, 116, 119–20, 123, 126, 141, 144, 153, 185, 188, 189, 250–1 Eucleia 161–2, 163, 165, 167–8, 170, 172, 174 Eupolis 65, 81 –Taxiarchoi 39, 86–7 Euripides –Alcestis 18, 21, 74, 126, 144, 145, 199, 229, 240, 277, 289–90 –Andromacha 126, 162, 276 –Antiope 167 –Autolykos 37, 87 –Bacchae 18, 33, 66, 76, 83, 88, 94, 149, 260, 293 –Cyclops 14, 17, 42, 62, 64, 72, 74, 76, 82, 112, 142, 193, 199, 261, 281, 291 –Electra 48, 70, 143, 277 –Erechtheus 304 –Helena 45, 143, 290 –Hecuba 53, 54, 61 –Heracles 57, 105 –Heraclidae 21, 42, 151 –Hippolytus 89, 124, 262 –Hypsipyle 90 –Ion 21, 45, 269 –Iphigenia in Aulis 74, 144, 283 –Iphigeneia in Tauris 283, 290

General Index  

–Kretes 142 –Medea 82, 242, 243 –Melanippe 144 –Orestes 53, 57 –Phaethon 62 –Phoenissae 44, 48, 68, 70, 89, 162, 175, 259, 302 –Rhesus 53, 70 –Supplices 74, 88 –Telephus 90 –Troades 19, 48, 62, 70, 89, 169, 263 haplography 270 haplology 90, 309 Hermes κριοφόρος 264 Hermes Φαλάνθειος 275 Hermes Φάλης 275 Hermes Ψιθυριστής 266 Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women (fr. 124 M.-W.) 246, 263 hieron of Horae 217–8 high dot in the end of a metrical unit 200 homoeoteleuton 270 hoplitodromia / ὁπλίτης or ἐνόπλιος δρόμος 37–8, 81, 84 hortatory exclamation 22, 64, 149 hypodiastole 196–7, 248, 249 genitive of material 300 genitive -οιο in drama 89–90 genitivus criminis 143 Hypsipyle? (= Dike-play, Aeschylus) –as satyr-play of the Argonautic tetralogy 114, 124, 126, 130–4 –Eros as παῖς μάργος 123–4 –Heracles as Hera’s son 116–9 –identity of παῖς μάργος 114–24 –myth 121–3 –role of Dike 121–4 ikria 219–23 Inachos (Sophocles) –altercation between Argus and Hermes 281–5 –Argus’ parentage 54, 74 –aulos-playing 255, 257–8, 265, 267, 289, 301 –black foreigner/ black Zeus 246–7, 295–6, 298, 301, 304–5 –breach of the dramatic illusion 258–9

–Chorus-members 244, 287–90 –dating 252–5 –frs. 270 & *271 258, 286–90, 305 –fr. 272 288, 291–5, 307–8 –fr. 273 295–6 –fr. 274 296 –fr. 275 296–7, 301, 308 –fr. 276 297, 308 –fr. 277 297–8, 302, 304–5 –fr. 278 252, 298, 302, 305 –fr. 279 241, 265, 298–9, 309 –fr. 280 299–300 –fr. 281 273, 300–1 –fr. 281a 273, 301, 306 –fr. 282 301 –fr. 283 295, 301–2 –fr. 284 288, 302–3, 305 –fr. 285 274, 288 303–4 –fr. 286 288, 297–8, 304–5, 306 –fr. 287 237, 288, 303, 305–6 –fr. 288 306, 309 –fr. 289 306–7 –fr. 291 295, 305, 307 –fr. 292 295, 307–8 –fr. 293 268, 308 –fr. 294 308 –fr. 295 306, 308–9 –fr. **295a 241, 265, 309 –fr. 774 248, 273 –fr. 828f 255, 280 –fr. 875 309 –fr. 993 283 –Hermes’ invisibility 249–50, 254–6, 269, 301 –involuntary dance 254–7, 259–60, 262, 265, 269, 270–1, 273–4, 275, 277, 280, 301 –Io’s transformation 241–4, 245, 265, 298–9, 309 –Iris 274, 293–5, 307–8 –magic pipe motif 255–6, 257 –murder of Argus 257–8, 273, 276–7, 278, 285, 288–9 –nature of the play (tragedy, satyr-play, prosatyric) 228–9, 246–7, 287–90 –Pluton/Plutus 246, 295–6, 297, 301–2, 305

  General Index –relation to Acharnenses 253–4 –relation to Aves 291–4 –relation to Peace 252–3, 255 –relation to Prometheus Bound 251–2, 258, 269 –vase-paintings 258, 271, 289, 294, 307, 309 –wise Aeschylus 251–4 –Zeus’ love oaths to Io 262–3, 281 Inachus as river-god 286–8, 302–3 infibulatio 49, 72, 78–9, 87 infinitive of purpose 44, 284 infinitive of wish 163 internal accusative 76 interrogations with τί 30–1 Isthmian festival 26–9, 34, 37, 47, 79– 80, 84, 90–2, 94–6, 103, 104 –theoroi from Athens 27, 91 Isthmian temple of Poseidon 3–4, 32–33, 38, 64, 68, 70–1, 97 –caves 19, 29 ivy crowns (Isthmia) 25–8, 91 Kabeiroi 127–30 karchesion 17, 39 Laïos (Aeschylus) –close of the play 176–7 –Delphic oracle 172–7 –didascalia 155–7 –dramatic time 166–7, 172, 176 –frs. 122 & 122a 172–3, 177 –hypothesis 156–7 –scenic representation 167–71 –title 155 lifelikeness in art 60–1, 97–8 lupus in fabula 35 Maas’s law 3, 49 Melikertes/Palaimon 27, 91, 94, 95, 103 Menander –Aspis 14, 20, 30, 33 –Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 242 –Dyscolus 161, 259 –Epitrepontes 281 –Periciromene 33, 260 –Samia 153 –Sicyonius 14, 16, 21 metastasis 32 metonymic genitive 57

metre –anapaests 39, 64, 104, 105, 28, 144, 182, 184, 201, 202, 204, 226, 248, 252, 256, 261, 280, 286, 288, 291, 298, 303, 305, 306 –archilochean 298 –dochmiacs 64, 192, 195, 196, 197, 204, 244, 245, 246, 248, 251, 253–4, 256–7, 261, 266, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273–4, 279–80, 303, 304 –hiatus 62, 269, 272 –holospondaic decasyllable 204 –iambic dimeter 32, 64, 73–4 –iambic trimeter 13–4, 41, 49, 72, 74, 88, 160, 182, 183, 193, 202, 237, 238, 244, 254, 257, 279, 280, 282, 291, 295, 299 –kaibelianus 195, 197 –lekythion 267 –split anapaest 64, 182, 184, 291 –substitution of two shorts for one 64, 208, 210, 253 –triseme 261 –trochaic dimeter 255, 298 –trochaic tetrameter 13, 18, 49, 64, 141, 202, 256, 264, 266, 267, 269, 272, 274, 280, 299, 304 Mnesiepes inscription 162, 174, 217 Naeke’s Law 213 numeral in the place of the indefinite pronoun 18 oxymoron 79, 83 Papposilenus 16, 56 paragraphos 55, 87, 166, 202, 244, 245, 248, 251, 259, 260, 266, 268, 269, 271– 2, 274, 278 paronomasia 188, 305, 307 P.Gen. inv. 98 113, 158 Pherecrates 132, 173 Phrynichus’ Dikaioi 142–3 pine crowns (Isthmia) 25–8, 79–80, 91, 103 Plato com. 29, 64, 132 Porson’s law 57, 73, 77, 284 P.Oxy. 853 (Sch. in Thuc.) 212–4 P.Oxy. 2162 (Theoroi) –order of the frs. 78a & 78c 1–4, 31–2

General Index  

–size of the gap between frs. 78c & 78a 49–50 P.Oxy. 2164 95 P.Oxy. 2245 (Prom. Pyrk.) 179 P.Oxy. 2250 (fr. 451g R.) 104–6 P.Oxy. 2255 (fr. 4 R.) 1 P.Oxy. 2256 frs. 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 24 (Laios) 155–8, 165, 166 P.Oxy. 2256 fr. 9a–b (Dike-play) 112, 119– 20, 134 P.Oxy. 2257 113 P.Oxy. 2369 (Inachos) 228, 237, 280, 289 Pratinas 91, 196, 206, 222 prodelision 78, 276 Προμήθεια (Attic festival) 211 Prometheus Pyrkaeus (Aeschylus) 30, 41, 47, 96, 255 –aition for the satyric dress 195–6 –chorus of shepherds 184, 185, 196, 199, 206, 210 –date of the Promethean tetralogy 224–7 –double chorus 204, 206–7, 210, 225 –dramatic time 211–2 –fr. 187a 30, 186–8, 189, 195, 202 –fr. *189a 198, 207, 208 –fr. 205 198, 207, 208, 210 –fr. **207 30, 185–6, 188–9, 195, 202, 205, 208 –fr. **207a 209 –fr. 288 188–9, 195 –fr. 307 209–10 –fr. 332a 179–85, 195, 208, 210 –fr. 336 30, 189, 195 –fr. 379 203, 205–7, 225 –nocturnal dance 202 –Nymphs 196, 199, 200, 205–7, 210, 217–8, 225 –obligatory dance 195 –parachoregema 206 –plot 210 –Silenus 184, 185–6, 188, 189, 192, 210 –tetralogy 210–1 Pronomos vase 25, 41, 56–7, 71, 192, 196 P.Tebt. 692 (Inachos) 228, 247, 251, 252, 260, 279–80

punctuation in papyri 150, 161, 162, 164, 237, 269, 282 sanctuary of Kodros, Neleus, and Basile 215–6, 220 satyr drama –Doricisms 112, 153 –function of coryphaeus 40–2, 56, 71, 73, 101, 184–5, 192, 196 –motif of amazement 97, 114, 186, 189 –number of choreuts 24–5, 40–1, 71, 184–5, 192 –prosatyric drama 23, 96, 182, 199, 211, 226, 229, 288–90 –satyric dresses 196 –two- and three-row formation of satyric chorus 24–5, 203 Satyrs –as servants in satyr drama 16–7, 82, 88 –differences in age/satyric family 16–7, 23, 56, 80 –μετάστασις πόνων/departure from Dionysus 17, 45, 77–8, 83, 89, 91 –names of Satyrs 56–7, 256 –obscenity 24 –painted upon shields 4, 58 scriptio plena 45, 147, 271, 276 shields –dedication of shields 69–71 –frightening devices 51 –in ὁπλίτης δρόμος 36–8 –satyr portraits 4, 58 scholia to Thucydides 212–5 Silenus –as coryphaeus or actor 40–2, 71, 101, 184, 192 Sophocles (see also Inachos) –Achaiōn syllogos or Syndeipnoi 290 –Ajax 13, 22, 88, 151, 240, 243, 244, 257, 268, 276, 288 –Antigone 26, 150, 244 –Colchides 187 –Daidalos 142 –Electra 44, 62, 88, 151, 162, 239 –Ichneutai 17, 24, 25, 45, 57, 65, 82, 83, 195, 255, 256, 257, 260, 290 –Kophoi 185 –Lemniai 127 –Meleager 306

  General Index –Oedipus Coloneus 18, 44, 70, 140, 150, 211, 239, 259, 261, 284, 292, 294, 295, 296 –Oedipus Tyrannus 16, 21, 22, 44, 82, 144, 167–8, 170, 175, 249 –Πανδώρα ἢ Σφυροκόποι 209 –Philoctetes 13, 33, 88, 239, 240, 245, 276, 284 –Poimenes 12, 89, 199 –Priamos 172–3 –Salmoneus 187 –Thamyras 255, 280 –Thyestes 268 –Trachiniae 24, 79, 106, 198, 268, 270 –Triptolemos 226 –Xoanephoroi 168, 169 synecphonesis 23, 45, 46, 64, 73, 197, 263, 264 synizesis 78 tautology 152 Theoroi (Aeschylus) –allusions to drama history 23–4, 102–3 –aulos-playing 67–9 –comparison with Eupolis’ Taxiarchoi 39, 86–7 –breach of the dramatic illusion 23, 87, 93

–dances 64–8, 73, 80–1, 83–4 –dating 26–7, 60–1, 96–102 –Dionysiac elements 93 –dramatic date 91–3 –end 90–1 –fr. 79 65–6, 72, 84, 89 –fr. 80 77, 83 –fr. 81 89 –fr. 82 87, 89–90 –groups of gifts to Satyrs 4, 31–2, 35–40 –number of actors 72, 101 –number of choreuts 24–5, 40–1, 71 –relation to Prometheus Pyrkaeus 30, 41, 47, 96, 189 –role of Poseidon 34–5, 50–1 –stage background 32–3, 64, 68–71, 96–101 –tetralogy 93–6, 102 Theseus 27, 34, 91, 94, 95, 150, 212, 216 tmesis 261, 270 verse transposition 152 wordplay 167 Zethus 166–7, 169

Greek Index ἄγω 161 ἀδούλευτος οἰκέτης 16 ἀελλόθριξ 295, 307–8 ἅζω 152, 284 αἰάζοιτο 63 Ἀϊδοκυνέας 249–50, 253, 254 ἀλήτης 77 ἀλωπός 268 ἄμομφος 199 ἄν (omitted) 145 ἄναυδος 68–9, 209–10 ἄναυλος 68–9 ἀντεκκαλῶ 33–4 ἀντισέληνον 202, 226 ἀποθυμαίνω 290 ἀποκορσωσαμέναις 131–2 ἀποσκοπεῖν 65 ἀποσκωπεύειν 65 ἀποστάς 77, 89 ἄροτον/ἀροτόν 249 ἁρπάλιμα 277 ἀρχιτεκτονεῖς 142 ἆται 147 ἀτίζω 85 ἀτμός 30, 187–8 ἀφροδίσιος ὅρκος 262–3 ἄχνη 30, 189 βλάστημον 180–3 βουθερής 198 γανοῦσθαι 44 γλεῦκος 191–2, 212, 217, 225 γυνὴ λέαινα 242–3 Δαιδάλου μίμημα 55, 57–61 δέ (postponed) 141 δεῖ or χρή + infin. 44 δεινὰ πάσχειν 21 δῆμος 147–8 δίκαιος 18 δὶς δοῦλος 15–7 δίστοιχος 24–5, 203–4 εἰ γάρ + opt. 14 εἶα 22, 64–5 εἴδωλον/εἰδωλόν 55 εἴργαθε 43–4

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796605-008

ἐκ τοῦ δέ τοι 139 ἐκκαλῶ 33 ἐκκορέω 278 ἐκπυέω 283 ἐκτρίβω 79 ἐλαφρά 88 ἐμβήσεται 47–8, 66 ἐμμέλεια 48, 66–7 ἐμμελέστατον 47–8, 66–7 ἔμπορος 68 ἐνώπια 239 ἐπείσοδος 295–6 ἐπιήρανος 82–3 ἐπικλήτους 161 ἐπίπλουν 46–7 ἐρρύθμιξα 112, 153 ἐρῶ + acc. of pers. pron. 73–4 ἔτης 147–8 ἐΰ 248–9, 254 εὐδερκές 149 εὐχή 63 ἐφίσταμαι 24 ἔχω with verbs in present 30–1 ἠγλαϊσμένη 140 θεωρίδες κέλευθοι 75 θρᾶνος 241–2 θυμοιδής 149–50 θυμοῦμαι 153 ἰπόω 193 ἵξις 19 ἰσθμιάζω 29, 47, 79–80, 81 ἰσθμιακόν 28 κελευθοποιοί 75 κέλευθος 68, 75, 91 κέρχνος 298–9 κίε 14 κροιός 264 κτέανα 17, 82 κυαμοβόλος 306 κυνοδέσμη 78–9 κύντατος 275–6 κύριον 145 κωπαστής 125 λέληνται 164

  Greek Index Λημνία δίκη 122 Λήμνιον κακόν 122, 126, 132 ληνάς 292–3, 295, 307 λιτουργιῶν 281 μάταιος 143 μηδέ 42–3 νυκτίπλαγκτος 199 ὅδε 252, 258–9 ὄζει 152 οἰκτιρῶ 19 οἶος 201 ὀκρίβας 100 ὅς 240 ὁτιή 112, 114, 139, 154 ὅτις 249, 252, 254, 258 ὀφείλω 52 παλαιός 20 παλίμβολος 16 παλίμπρατος 16 πελάζω/πελάω 276 πέμφιξ 30, 186–7 *πευσίδωρος 197–8, 208 πλησιοσφύρους 48, 76, 91 πλύνεις 87 πολυθερής 198 πολυϊδρίδας 254, 256 πολυφάρμακος 245 πόνος 83, 260 πορτιοφόρος 264–5 πόσθιον 78 ποῦ/ποῖ (in indignant questions) 21 πρέπει 45 πρέσβος 141 πυρρίχη 66–7, 81, 101 πωμάζω/*πωμάω 303

ῥηματίζω 85 σιδηρῖτις τέχνη 37, 86–7 σίκιννις 66–7 σκοπός 65–6 σκώπευμα 65–6 σπευσίδωρος 197–8 στατίζω 277 στέγος 19 στολοκρατές 241, 309 στόλοκρος 241, 309 στρατός 122, 146 σύνθημα 39–40 τἀπλακήματα 144 ταυρῶπις 241, 280 τείνω βίον 142–3 *τιτυράω 266–7 τίτυρος 267 τό (relative/demonstrative) 182 τρέποιτο 63–4 τρίδουλος 15–7 τρίπρατος 16 τρόχις 252, 255–6 ὑπαί 249, 254 e22 φαεννός 195 φαλάγγελος 275–6 φαλλίον 78 φαυνός 126 χάριν with adjective 79 χορταῖος χιτών 196 χυτρῖνος/χύτρινος 303 ψιθυραν 266 ψοφήματα 255 ὢ εἶα 22 ὠή 261, 265 ὡραϊσμένη 140