The Early Chronology of Attic Tragedy

7/29/2019 The Early Chronology of Attic Tragedy

1/5

The Early Chronology of Attic Tragedy

Author(s): M. L. WestReviewed work(s):Source: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 1 (1989), pp. 251-254Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/639257 .

Accessed: 25/11/2012 07:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:44:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/639257?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/639257?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/5

SHORTER NOTES 251THE EARLY CHRONOLOGY OF ATTIC TRAGEDY

Books give three dates earlier than 500:535/3 Thespis' first production523/0 Choerilus' first production511/08 Phrynichus' first victory.Can we trust them?City archives, mined by Aristotle for his Didaskaliai, preserved a reasonablycomplete record of dramatic productions in the fifth century. But how far back didthese archives go? The so-called Fasti, an inscription set up c. 346 and listingdithyrambic,comic and tragicvictors year by year, must have been based on the samearchives, but went back, it is thought, only as far as 502/1.1 Its heading pcj]-rov

KC/LOL 7TUcaLV[tL ALovVU]wjL7tpyWLot'01 [, however supplemented, mplies anintention of going back to the beginning of things, in other words to the beginningof the archival record. This raises serious doubt as to whether that record went backto the alleged date of Thespis' premiere, or indeed to those given for Choerilus' andPhrynichus'.We also note that in the list of victorious tragedians in IG ii2.2325 (TrGF DID A3a) there is space only for about eight poets before Aeschylus, whose name is thefirstpreserved;that is, for eight who won victories before Aeschylus' firstwin in 484.If records reached back to c. 533, eight is a remarkablysmall number. The 112 yearsafter 484, according to the same monument, produced 33 new victors, an average ofone every 3.4 years. Extrapolation from this figurewould put the beginning of the listc. 511. If it had begun in 533, we should expect fourteen or fifteen pre-Aeschyleanvictors by the same reckoning. If there were only eight in 49 years, we should haveto assume that the literary tradition ignores several pre-Aeschylean tragedians whowere on record as having won many victories.Suspicions wax when we inspect the foundations on which those dates for Thespis,Choerilus, and Phrynichus rest. They come from the Suda entries on the respectivepoets. Each is given in terms of an Olympiad, without specification of the year ormention of an archonship. They are equidistant: Thespis comes three Olympiadsbefore Choerilus, Choerilus three Olympiads before Phrynichus; while Phrynichuscomes three Olympiads before Pratinas, who (again according to the Suda)dclVTryWVE-TroAIXV'AuwTEKaLXotp(Awt 7Tt1 )S o" OAv~nrtd3o(= 499/6). This astdate is perhaps soundly based. It certainly falls within the archival period, and theappearance of the three famous names in the same year in the Didaskaliai might wellbe seized upon by a chronographer as a starting-point.2 But the three earlier dateslook very much like a schematic construction designed to place the three knownseniors of Aeschylus and Pratinas in their right order at suitable intervals.

' IG ii2.2318; see E. Capps, Hesperia 12 (1943), 10f.; A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, TheDramatic Festivals of Athens (2nd edn, rev. Gould and Lewis, 1968), pp. 71f., 101ff.; TrGFi2.22-5. If another column is lost at the beginning, and if the dithyrambic victories (both men'sand boys' choruses) began in 509 or 508 (Marm. Par. FGrHist 239 A 46), and if a choregic systemalready existed under the tyrants, there would have been space for tragic victories going backto 522 or 520; or, if the heading rpaywOL8b3as not repeated in each entry in that section, 528or 526.

2 This epoch is also mentioned in Suda s.v. AiT'XaAos= Aesch. T 2 Radt): 7y/ovw'LE-ro... v-r7Lo'(0' codd.) 'OAvt1Td& TJ-rbv'v KE'. The age of twenty-five, in conjunction with the birth-date implied by other ancient reckonings, fixes the year as 01. 70.2 = 498. Eusebius gaveAlXoAorosopaywt807woLoSVWpeL'Trounder 497/6 (Armenian) or 496/5 (Jerome), and againunder 477/6 or 475/4.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:44:25 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

252 SHORTER NOTESThe immediate ourceof theSudaentrieswas anepitomeof Hesychius f Miletus'

'OvotzaroAoytKOVrHtva 7V Ev 7ratWELtatotzarTwV.hequestionof Hesychius'sources s murky.Oneof themappears o have been some derivative f Callimachus'Pinakes.Thiswill bethesourceof theplay-titleswhich heSudacites forThespisandPhrynichus,and for the numbersgiven for Choerilus'and Pratinas'plays andvictories."Besides hese,the entriescontainexcerpts rom a presumablyPeripateticaccountof theearlytragedians'ndividualnnovations, speciallyn regard o masksandcostumes:

Thespis 7rpWTrov zEv ptCaT"r rrpdoaworovOttzvO/tVWL 7paywtSt-crEv, ELTadvt3pdXvrl-EUKEITaacLEV.../idETaTavTa EtIT7VE7KEKaL T7)TvT"rV TpoaoWITELloVpWI7UtV,V/LOV7rLOodvrLKaTaaCKEvauas.

Choerilus Ka-rdaTLtvaS OLS7rpOW7rELotLSKat 7tL K7)VlVLt1. UKEVL) "TcVUTro,tVEiTEXELP7)v.PhrynichusTrpTroSVvaLKEiOVrpdWrTOVtLU7yayEVv7ElT UK7'V~VL.at EvpETr7/70 rTETpa/E"rpov7E Tro.Pratinas7rpWTroSgypaE ZarTvpovS.This is the sort of history that Aristotle alludes to in Poet. 1449a37ff.:theidentification f those responsibleor eachdevelopmentn the art of tragedy,whoinventedmasks,prologues,pluralactors,etc.The Thespis entry also contains the curious informationthat Thespis was

EKKat8EKaTO O17r TO 7TpTOU EVO/OU7PEYvovov pWL07o0to0rot 'E7rmyE'vov To706 LKVWVL'OVTLtOE"lEvosWsgE rvTwE, "erTEpoSrd'ErylE7TLY`vr'~AAot 8E a'Vo'v 7rpTrovTpaytLKOyElvcaOat baaLv.Whatkindof sourcewas it thatwasableto name ifteenpredecessorsof Thespis,beginningwith Epigenesof Sicyon?I nominate he fancifulHeraclidesPonticus,who in his Zvvaywy(4YV7T v IovUaLKEt SOKL~I7)o'Tdvwv filledout earlyliteraryhistorywithcrowdsof legendary ndsemi-legendary oetsandsingers,'andwho cited as one of his authorities dvaypacq 7 V LKVCVLrTOKELcZ~/E,' Td aE lepELaS iv "ApyEL (atTTOS7TOUr7TSacl TO v oIVULKOVSdVO/ca1E.5hisSicyonian nscriptionwas itself a rather maginative hronicle, et up by somelocaldilettantepresumablyarlier n thefourthcentury.6No doubt t promotedSicyonianclaimsto haveinvented ragedy forwhichthe famousreferencen Herodotus5.67.5provideda handle),namingEpigenesand others n this connection.7But againstHeraclides' ccount of Thespisas the sixteenth ragedian he Suda'ssource et thecontrary iewthat he wasthefirst.So here s anopponentof Heraclideswhodismisses he tzLEv-vdya"prqvaf Sicyonian anityandconcentrates n historicalAttic developments.We find a parallelto this in Suda/Phot.s.v. o8E'v 7rp6~rvTAldvvoov:8 firstexplanation hat connects hesayingwithEpigenesof Sicyon,andthena preferred lternative(fATrLovi o0r7ws)hatconnects t with the (supposed)evolutionof tragedy rom TarvptKd. his is an Aristotelianperspective; ndin thiscase the source is named: Ka'LXaLzatAEwy lv rltWLptEpl rrtiSo "rdrapa7rrA-actalaropEi (fr. 48 Giordano).' Aristophanes' work rrpo TrobVKaAAthLdxov LvaKas may come into question. Cf. Vita

Sophoclis 18 E'XEL6 SpdaTra, cbs 77Lw 'ApLraro dvr1, pA'.Fr. 157 Wehrli (ap. ps.-Plut. De musica 1131f ff.); cf. fr. 159.5 Ps.-Plut. ibid. 6 Jacoby ad FGrHist 550.7 Cf. Arist. Poet. 1448a30-5 ivTL-rotOvraTL r7j r 7paywCLaK Kat 7)S KWcIOtILSa OL/JWPLEiS, T7)S V yap KWKC.LW0CL'aS o MEyQpEiS...Kai T7)Sr TpayWL'aSg EVLOL TWcY El

IEAoITovv77rUwL.8 Cf.Apostol. 3.42. nell nTrGF T 18givesprecedenceothe uller ormntheproverb-collection f Paris.Coisl.177;but see thewarningf W.Biihler, enobiiAthoi roverbia(1987), 278.



4/5

SHORTER NOTES 253Chamaeleon's essay on Thespis was one of several he devoted to drama: 7rEpl

Zar-Vpwv, TrEpt Alax;Aov, 7rEp'Lpaipaas KoKJlWtLaS (this in at least six books) are alsocited. We know of at least one other occasion on which he criticized his fellow-Heracleot Heraclides;9though he was not the only one to assail the latter's ebullientfrauds. 10The bulk of the Suda's information on Thespis, then, may go back to Chamaeleon -author of the only known work 7eptE OE'E7rtoSL - reflecting his polemic againstHeraclides Ponticus. The parallel entries on Choerilus, Phrynichus, and Pratinasperhaps derive from the same original account, if not from other Peripatetic work.The Olympiadic chronology attached to them, however, must be attributed to alater source. It is not only expressed in Olympiads in the Suda but must have beenconceived in Olympiads from the beginning, as the twelve-year intervals betweenpoets do not represent natural units by any other reckoning. Timaeus was the firstwho made use of Olympiads for purposes of universal chronology, and the practiceis foreign to the Peripatetics. In any case Chamaeleon's interest in literary historyseems to have been of a jovial character and unconcerned with dates.The first student of literature who dated by Olympiads - who, indeed, constructeda whole historical chronology expressed on the Olympiadic system - was Era-tosthenes.11His interest in the origins of drama is attested by a well-known fragmentfrom his Erigone.12 He seems to be the first who could have been responsible forspacing Thespis, Choerilus, Phrynichus, and Pratinas/Aeschylus at three-Olympiadintervals, and he is a plausible suspect. If it was not he, it was someone who used hismethod of reckoning.

The date constructed for Thespis by this procedure, 01. 61 = 535/2, was close toother estimates. The Parian Marble, which is earlier than any likely date forEratosthenes' chronological work, and anyway independent of it and still untouchedby Olympiadic reckoning, put Thespis somewhere between 538 and 528.13Eusebiusappears to have synchronized him with Simonides, Phocylides, and Xenophanesunder the year 540/39 or thereabouts.14 The anecdote in Plutarch, Solon 29.6-7 (cf.D. L. 1.59), puts Thespis' inauguration of tragedy in the time of Pisistratus, thoughwith Solon still alive and making tetchy comments on current affairs. It was thegeneral belief, then, from as far back as we can see (i.e. from the time of the ParianMarble, 264/3 B.C.),that Thespis lived under Pisistratus.D. L. 5.92 XatiatAhwv TE {r}a) 7ap' EavTo6v q77ULKAlavwra aT-rO d 7TEpL 'HatLo'0v Kat

'OL7jpov ypdaCat = fr. 57 Giordano.10 Aristoxenus accused Heraclides of forging plays of Thespis (D. L. ibid. = Aristox. fr. 114W., TrGF 1 T 24). Aristoxenus was given to making charges of forgery, cf. Wehrli ad loc." Cf. Jacoby ad FGrHist 241; R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, i (1968), 163f.,169; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972), i.456f.12 Fr. 22 Powell; cf. Pfeiffer, op. cit. 169 n. 2.13 Jacoby, Das Marmor Parium (1904), p. 172; FGrHist 239 A 43; TrGF 1 T 2. There is nojustification for assuming, as is commonly done, that the Parian chronicle placed Thespis in thesame Olympiad as does the Suda. (Sometimes one actually sees it cited as the source for thisdate.) What is preserved of its dating is Er) HHrZ1 ] (sc. years before 264/3). The number ofletter-spaces in the gap is assessed at three, but it must be borne in mind that in these numeralstwo or three unit-signs can fit into one letter-space. Possible restorations are accordingly:

[AAJJ] = (Dionysia) 538 or 537 (the chronicler is inconsistent as to whether he uses inclusive ornon-inclusive reckoning), [lHIII] = 536 or 535, [llJII] = 535 or 534, [zJlI] = 534 or 533,[JHIII] = 531 or 530, [lHII] = 530 or 529, [AHI] = 529 or 528, [AIIII] = 527 or 526. But thearchon-name, ]valov TOo 7TpoE'epov, rules out 527 and 526, as the archons for these years areknown.14Not 541 as in TrGF DID D 3. The tragedian whose name has fallen out cannot be anyonebut Thespis.



5/5

254 SHORTER NOTESEratosthenes - or whoever it was - may have made himself a more exact dating byreckoningback one 33-yeargeneration (a unit presupposedelsewherein Eratosthenes'system) from the appearance of Pratinas and Aeschylus in 01. 70, using the

conversion-formula '33 years before = the ninth Olympiad before'.15 This putThespis a comfortable five years or so before the death of Pisistratus in 01. 63.1. Thenine-Olympiad period could be conveniently trisected to obtain starting-up dates forChoerilus and Phrynichus.If the grounds for this analysis are judged reasonable, we should cease to treat thedates 535/2, 523/0, and 511/08 as fixedpoints in the early history of tragedy, howevercomforting it is to have such. We can accept that Phrynichus was somewhat olderthan Aeschylus, and Choerilus probably older still.16 As for Thespis, we can do nomore than acquiesce in the ancient belief that his activity began under Pisistratus. Itis sometimes conjectured, even asserted, that it began in connection with areorganization of the City Dionysia by the tyrant. Obviously the Dionysia grew inmagnificence in the second half of the sixth century; they continued to do so in thefifth. It is not implausible that Pisistratus should have assisted the process by someparticular initiative of his own. But it should be remembered that this is a mereassumption. Books which refer to a reorganization in 533 are retailing speculationpegged to a date for Thespis which is itself unreliable.Royal Holloway and BedfordNew College, London M. L. WEST

15 A strictreckoning rom01. 70.2, however,wouldonly have reachedback to 01. 62.1(= 531).It is not certainwhetherEratosthenesubdividedOlympiads.Possibly531,arrived tby a parallel butnon-Olympiadic)alculation rom498,wasthe dateon the ParianMarble.16 Thefigureof 160 dramasattributed o him in theSudawouldpresuppose longcareer;butit is scarcely redible. t contrastsviolentlywith thefigures f fourforThespisandnineforPhrynichuseventhoughthe nine listedrepresent nlya fractionof an alphabeticist).Andifthe Didaskaliaibeganin 502/1, theresimplycannot have been room for so manytitlesofChoerilus.

AESCHYLUS, AGAMEMNON 72-5/EiSS' 6' c-r-raLuapKt' raAatd 72

T79 jr' & wyi UITOAELq06E'VTESL/PLVOP/EVXVVlad0TaLt3aVEILOVTESTITl KJ'7TTpOLt.In the first of his three magisterial articles on the AgamemnonH. L. Ahrens showedthat all the evidence then available best fitted the conclusion that d-rt'at derived from-rtvw and not from 7-;w.' Subsequently Ed. Fraenkel in his own note on the wordreviewed and supplemented the evidence gathered by Ahrens, and expressedthe viewthat Ahrens' 'discussion, details apart, is final'; and there seems to be widespreadagreement that on the linguistic side at least Ahrens' argumentcannot be refuted.2Ifthis means anything, it means that the sense of the word cannot be 'unhonoured' or

'dishonoured'. Yet Denniston-Page in their commentary say that "'unhonoured"1 'StudienzumAgamemnondes Aeschylus.ErsterArtikel',Philologus, upplbd.1 (1860),248-9.2 Seethe remarks f H. Lloyd-Jones,Agamemnonea',HSCP73 (1969),97 and thoseof J.Bollack,Agamemnon,premiere artie Lille,n.d.),p. 84. One can also reasonablynferfromthe translations f H. WeirSmyth,P. Mazon,W.Headlam(both proseand verse),and L.MacNeice, that they all agree with Ahrens' derivation of 'rlr~ from -tvw. EvenDenniston-Pagedo not challenge heplausibility f Ahrens'positionon the linguistic ide.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:44:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Early Chronology of Attic Tragedy

Documents

Transcript of The Early Chronology of Attic Tragedy